Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

Softpanorama Media Skeptic Bulletin, 2016

 Main page 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001

Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Dec 21, 2019] Needed Now a Peace Movement Against the Clinton Wars to Come by Andrew Levine

Notable quotes:
"... As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror" into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East. He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice. ..."
Oct 08, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org
Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize -- for not being George W. Bush. This seemed unseemly at the time, but not outrageous. Seven years later, it seems grotesque.

As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror" into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East. He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice.

More

ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

[Dec 04, 2019] The Anti-Trust Election

This is from 2016 election cycle but still relevant. Money quote: "Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse. "
Despicable neoliberal MSM do not like to discuss real issue that facing people in 220 elections. They like to discuss personalities. Propagandists of Vichy left like Madcow spend hours discussing Ukrainegate instead of real issues facing the nation.
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump has promised to make deregulation one of the focal points of his presidency. If Trump is elected, the trend toward rising market concentration and all of the problems that come with it are likely to continue. ..."
"... If Clinton is elected, it's unlikely that her administration would be active enough in antitrust enforcement for my taste. But at least she acknowledges that something needs to be done about this growing problem, and any movement toward more aggressive enforcement of antitrust regulation would be more than welcome. ..."
"... Once again we have a stark 'choice' in this election...one party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them. Like flipping a coin: heads, the predator class wins; tails, we lose. ..."
"... "Vote third party to register your disgust..." and waste the opportunity, at least in a few states, to affect the national outcome (in many states the outcome is not in doubt, so, thanks to our stupid electoral college system, millions of voters could equally well stay home, vote third party, or write in their dog). ..."
"... But then it dawned on me: antitrust enforcement is largely up to the president and his picked advisers. If Democrats really think it is so damned important, why has Clinton's old boss Barack Obama done so very, very little with it? ..."
"... Josh Mason thinks a Clinton administration may push on corporate short-termism if not on anti-trust. We'll see, but seeing as the Obama administration didn't do much I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary doesn't either. ..."
"... They ignored the housing bubble, don't seem to understand the connection between manufacturing and wealth (close your eyes and imagine your life with no manufactured goods, because they are all imported and your economy only produces a few low value-added raw materials such as timber or exotic animals) then you will see that allowing the US to deindustrialize was a really, world-historic mistake. ..."
"... Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse. ..."
Oct 08, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Economist's View
I have a new column:

The Anti-Trust Election of 2016 :

... ... ...

Donald Trump has promised to make deregulation one of the focal points of his presidency. If Trump is elected, the trend toward rising market concentration and all of the problems that come with it are likely to continue.

We'll hear the usual arguments about ineffective government and the magic of markets to justify ignoring the problem.

If Clinton is elected, it's unlikely that her administration would be active enough in antitrust enforcement for my taste. But at least she acknowledges that something needs to be done about this growing problem, and any movement toward more aggressive enforcement of antitrust regulation would be more than welcome.

JohnH : October 07, 2016 at 09:10 AM , October 07, 2016 at 09:10 AM
"We'll hear the usual arguments about ineffective government" which has been amply demonstrated during the last 7 years by negligible enforcement of anti-trust laws.

Once again we have a stark 'choice' in this election...one party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them. Like flipping a coin: heads, the predator class wins; tails, we lose.

Vote third party to register your disgust and to open the process to people who don't just represent the predator class.

supersaurus -> JohnH... October 07, 2016 at 10:05 AM , October 07, 2016 at 10:05 AM
"Vote third party to register your disgust..." and waste the opportunity, at least in a few states, to affect the national outcome (in many states the outcome is not in doubt, so, thanks to our stupid electoral college system, millions of voters could equally well stay home, vote third party, or write in their dog).
JohnH -> JohnH... , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 04:32 PM
Thomas Frank: "I was pleased to learn, for example, that this year's Democratic platform includes strong language on antitrust enforcement, and that Hillary Clinton has hinted she intends to take the matter up as president. Hooray! Taking on too-powerful corporations would be healthy, I thought when I first learned that, and also enormously popular. But then it dawned on me: antitrust enforcement is largely up to the president and his picked advisers. If Democrats really think it is so damned important, why has Clinton's old boss Barack Obama done so very, very little with it?"
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/10/07/some-clintons-pledges-sound-great-until-you-remember-whos-president

One party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them...a distinction without a difference.

Who do you prefer to have guarding the chicken house...a fox or a coyote? Sane people would say, 'neither.'

Peter K. -> DrDick... , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 01:13 PM
Yes and Clinton supporters attacked Sanders over this during the primaries.

Josh Mason thinks a Clinton administration may push on corporate short-termism if not on anti-trust. We'll see, but seeing as the Obama administration didn't do much I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary doesn't either.

http://jwmason.org/slackwire/links-for-october-6/

"At Vox,* Rachelle Sampson has a piece on corporate short-termism. Supports my sense that this is an area where there may be space to move left in a Clinton administration."

* http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/3/13141852/short-term-capitalism-clinton-economics

Henry Carey's ghost : , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 09:35 PM
Economists have said for thirty years that free trade will benefit the US. Increasingly the country looks like a poor non-industrialized third world country. Why should anyone trust US economists?

They ignored the housing bubble, don't seem to understand the connection between manufacturing and wealth (close your eyes and imagine your life with no manufactured goods, because they are all imported and your economy only produces a few low value-added raw materials such as timber or exotic animals) then you will see that allowing the US to deindustrialize was a really, world-historic mistake.

Trust in experts is what has transformed the US from a world leader in 1969 with the moon landing to a country with no high speed rail, no modern infrastructure, incapable of producing a computer or ipad or ship.

Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse.

>

[Mar 29, 2019] America is a banana republic! FBI chief agrees with CIA on Russia alleged election help for Trump

Comey was a part of the coup -- a color revolution against Trump with Bremmen (possibly assigned by Obama) pulling the strings. That's right. This is a banana republic with nukes.
Notable quotes:
"... "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it. ..."
"... Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election ..."
www.sott.net
Reprinted from RT

FBI and National Intelligence chiefs both agree with the CIA assessment that Russia interfered with the 2016 US presidential elections partly in an effort to help Donald Trump win the White House, US media report.

FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper are both convinced that Russia was behind cyberattacks that targeted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman, John Podesta, The Washington Post and reported Friday, citing a message sent by CIA Director John Brennan to his employees.

"Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it.

"The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI," it continued.

Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election to help Trump win, calling info "fuzzy and ambiguous"

... ... ...

[Mar 14, 2019] The Fog of Politics

Nov 19, 2016 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage. Intellectual myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason. But the privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they may seem to others, are a solemn, basic, God-given right. The sensitivity of the poor to injustice is a trivial thing compared with that of the rich."

John Kenneth Galbraith

The sugar high of the Trump election seems to be wearing a bit thin on Wall Street. I had said at the time that I thought they would just execute the trading plans they had in place in their supposition that Hillary was going to win. And this is what I think they did, and have been doing.

And so when the thrill is gone, and dull reality starts sinking in, I suspect we are going to be in for quite a correction.

However, I am tuning out the hysteria from the Wall Street Democrats, especially the pitiful whining emanating from organizations like MSNBC, CNN, and the NY Times, because they have discredited themselves as reliable, unbiased sources. They really have.

They may just be joining their right-leaning peers in this, but they still do not realize it, and think of themselves as exceptional, and morally superior. And the same can be said of many pundits, and insiders, and very serious people with important podiums in the academy and the press.

Hillary was to be their meal ticket. And their anguish at being denied a payday for their faithful service is remarkable.

We are being treated to rumours that Trump is going to appoint this or that despicable person to some key position. I am waiting for him to show his hand with some actual decisions and appointments.

This is not to say that I am optimistic, not in the least. I am not, and I most certainly did not vote for him (or her for that matter). But the silliness of the courtiers in the media is just too much, too much whining from those who had their candy of power and money by association expectations taken away.

I am therefore very interested in seeing who the DNC will choose as chairperson. Liz Warren came out today and endorsed Ellison, which I believe Bernie Sanders has done as well. He is no insider like Wasserman-Schulz, Brazile, or Dean.

The Democratic party is at a crossroads, in a split between taking policy positions along lines of 'class' or 'identity.'

By class is meant working class of the broader public versus the moneyed interests of financiers and tech monopolists. Identity implies the working with various minority groups who certainly may deserve redress for real suppression of their rights and other financial abuses, but in a 'splintering' manner that breaks them down into special interest groups rather than a broader movement of the disadvantaged.

Why has this been the establishment approach of the heart of the Democratic power circles?

I think the reason for this Democratic strategy has been purely practical. There was no way the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party could make policy along lines of the middle class and the poor, and keep a straight face, while gorging themselves in a frenzy of massive soft corruption and enormous donations from the wealthiest few who they were thereby expected to represent and to serve.

And so they lost politically, and badly.

The average American, of whatever identity, finally became sick of them, and rejected the balkanization of their interests into special identity groups that could be more easily managed and messaged, and controlled.

This was a huge difference that we saw in the Sanders campaign, almost to a fault. Not because he was wrong necessarily, but because it was so unaccustomed, and insufficiently articulated. Sanders had his heart in the right place, perhaps, but he lacked the charisma and outspokenness of an FDR. Not to mention that his own party powers were dead set against him, because they wanted to keep the status quo that had rewarded them so well in place.

It is not at all obvious that the Democrats can find themselves again. Perhaps Mr. Trump, while doing some things well, will take economic policy matters to an excess, and like the Democrats ignore the insecurity and discontent of the working class. And the people will find a voice, eventually, in either the Democratic party, or something entirely new.

This is not just an American phenomenon. This has happened with Labour and Brexit in the UK, and is happening in the rest of the developed nations in Europe. One thing that the ruling elite of the West have had in common is a devotion to corporate globalisation and inequality.

And that system is not going to 'cohere' as economist Robert Johnson had put it so well.

With all this change and volatility and insecurity, it appears that people will be reaching for some sort of safe haven for themselves and their resources. So far the Dollar index has benefited from this, not because of its virtues, but from the weakness and foundering of the others.

I am afraid that the confidence in the Dollar as a safe haven is misplaced, especially if things go as I expect that they will with the US economy under a Trump administration. But that is still largely in his hand,s to be decided and written. We have yet to see if he has the will and mind to oppose the vested interests of his own party and the corporate, moneyed interests.

That is an enormous, history-making task, requiring an almost historic moral compass. And so I am not optimistic.

Have a pleasant evening.

[Mar 02, 2019] Ron Paul to Trump: Dont Listen to Neocons! by Adam Dick

Ron Paul was right in 2016 to express reservations about Trump forign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... Paul started off the interview saying that he is keeping his "fingers crossed" regarding Trump's potential foreign policy actions. ..."
"... Trump has presented "vague" foreign policy positions overall. Paul also comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice. ..."
"... Regarding Trump's foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview reason for concern. Paul states: "Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don't think that is a good sign." ..."
"... Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched "deep state" that favors foreign intervention and war, special interests that have "sinister motivation for these wars," and media propaganda that "builds up the war fever" can ..."
Nov 11, 2016 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Ron Paul, known for his promotion of the United States following a noninterventionist foreign policy, presented Thursday his take on the prospects of Donald Trump's foreign policy as president. Paul set out his analysis in an extensive interview with host Peter Lavelle at RT.

Paul started off the interview saying that he is keeping his "fingers crossed" regarding Trump's potential foreign policy actions. Paul says he views favorably Trump's comments in the presidential election about "being less confrontational with Russia" and criticizing some of the US wars in the Middle East. Paul, though, notes that Trump has presented "vague" foreign policy positions overall. Paul also comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice.

Regarding Trump's foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview reason for concern. Paul states: "Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don't think that is a good sign."

Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched "deep state" that favors foreign intervention and war, special interests that have "sinister motivation for these wars," and media propaganda that "builds up the war fever" can

[Jul 24, 2018] The attack of think tanks

Oct 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
anne -> anne... , October 29, 2016 at 05:34 AM
http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober-2016/the-myth-of-the-powell-memo/

September, 2016

The Myth of the Powell Memo
A secret note from a future Supreme Court justice did not give rise to today's conservative infrastructure. Something more insidious did.
By Mark Schmitt

At one end of a block of Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C., sometimes known as "Think Tank Row"-the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Brookings Institution are neighbors-a monument to intellectual victory has been under reconstruction for a year. It will soon be the home of the American Enterprise Institute, a 60,000-square-foot Beaux-Arts masterpiece where Andrew Mellon lived when he was treasury secretary during the 1920s. AEI purchased the building with a $20 million donation from one of the founders of the Carlyle Group, a private-equity firm.

Right Moves
The Conservative Think Tank in American Political Culture Since 1945
By Jason Stahl

In the story of the rise of the political right in America since the late 1970s, think tanks, and sometimes the glorious edifices in which they are housed, have played an iconic role. The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the libertarian Cato Institute, along with their dozens of smaller but well-funded cousins, have seemed central to the "war of ideas" that drove American policy in the 1980s, in the backlash of 1994, in the George W. Bush era, and again after 2010.

For the center left, these institutions have become role models. While Brookings or the Urban Institute once eschewed ideology in favor of mild policy analysis or dispassionate technical assessment of social programs, AEI and Heritage seemed to build virtual war rooms for conservative ideas, investing more in public relations than in scholarship or credibility, and nurturing young talent (or, more often, the glib but not-very-talented). Their strategy seemed savvier. Conservative think tanks nurtured supply-side economics, neoconservative foreign policy, and the entire agenda of the Reagan administration, which took the form of a twenty-volume tome produced by Heritage in 1980 called Mandate for Leadership.

In the last decade or so, much of the intellectual architecture of the conservative think tanks has been credited to a single document known as the Powell Memo. This 1971 note from future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell to a Virginia neighbor who worked at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged business to do more to respond to the rising "New Left," countering forces such as Ralph Nader's nascent consumer movement in the courts, in media, and in academia....

DeDude -> anne... , -1
The part where the neo-con-men get the scientific process wrong is where they begin with the conclusion, before they even collect any facts. And then they whine that Universities are full of Liberals. No they are full of scientists - and they are supposed to be.
ken melvin -> anne... , October 29, 2016 at 07:11 AM
I think that the biggest denial of all is to the effect all this crap has had on the economy. Today we see cites rotting away because there is not enough income to support business and infrastructure, yet we hear such as Ryan proposing more of the same as a solution. The scope of the damage is huge, yet both parties are in denial. The whole of the implementation of conservative philosophy has been a colossal failure for the nation.

[Jul 24, 2018] Where Conservative Ideas Come From by Timothy Shenk

Notable quotes:
"... Stahl's chief object of inquiry is the American Enterprise Institute, or AEI. Founded in 1938 by a group of businessmen devoted to unwinding the New Deal, its true history began five years later, when its headquarters moved from New York to Washington. Inside the Beltway, AEI staffers portrayed themselves as nonpartisan scholars eager to assist lawmakers from both parties. That stance became increasingly difficult to maintain as the conservative movement grew in strength, and in the 1970s AEI was reborn as a champion of the right in the battle for ideas. ..."
"... Success bred imitators, and AEI soon found itself outflanked by an upstart known as the Heritage Foundation. More concerned with passing legislation than posing as researchers, Heritage became the dominant think tank in Reagan's Washington. These nimble practitioners of war-by-briefing-books made AEI seem musty and academic by comparison. AEI revived itself by shifting toward the middle, but it never regained its former centrality. It had changed too much, and so had conservatism. ..."
"... Think tanks like Heritage, he writes, have redefined what it means to be on the right and persuaded countless Americans to join their cause, managing to "forever alter American political culture in a more conservative direction." ..."
"... National Review, ..."
Jun 26, 2016 | The Chronicle of Higher Education
... ... ...

...What began in the 1990s with a trickle of articles lamenting the absence of studies on American conservatism grew in the 2000s to a flood of monographs on the activists, intellectuals, and politicians who bent history's arc to the right. Lisa McGirr's trailblazing study of Orange County's suburban warriors, Bethany Moreton's exploration of the politics of Wal-Mart, and Angus Burgin's meticulous reconstruction of the winding path from Friedrich Hayek to Milton Friedman were just a few of the highlights in a booming field.

As Buckley would have preferred, the representative figure in this scholarship was not George Wallace but Ronald Reagan. The 40th president stood for a coalition of prosperous, forward-looking voters motivated by sincere ideological commitments and assisted by an emerging conservative establishment filled with adept manipulators of Washington's bureaucracy. The populism and racism that fueled Wallace's career were not forgotten, but too great an emphasis on these subjects did not fit with the grudging respect these generally liberal historians evinced for the subjects of their research.

Jason Stahl's Right Moves is a characteristic product of this approach. Stahl, a historian at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, describes his book as an examination of conservative think tanks, those curious institutions that, although little known to the wider public, play a decisive a role in shaping policy. Several fine studies of these organizations already exist, but they are chiefly the work of journalists, and a historical appraisal is long overdue.

Stahl's chief object of inquiry is the American Enterprise Institute, or AEI. Founded in 1938 by a group of businessmen devoted to unwinding the New Deal, its true history began five years later, when its headquarters moved from New York to Washington. Inside the Beltway, AEI staffers portrayed themselves as nonpartisan scholars eager to assist lawmakers from both parties. That stance became increasingly difficult to maintain as the conservative movement grew in strength, and in the 1970s AEI was reborn as a champion of the right in the battle for ideas.

Success bred imitators, and AEI soon found itself outflanked by an upstart known as the Heritage Foundation. More concerned with passing legislation than posing as researchers, Heritage became the dominant think tank in Reagan's Washington. These nimble practitioners of war-by-briefing-books made AEI seem musty and academic by comparison. AEI revived itself by shifting toward the middle, but it never regained its former centrality. It had changed too much, and so had conservatism.

Stahl narrates this history with subtlety, neither condescending to his subjects nor shielding them from embarrassment; they are at once dexterous navigators of the political scene and authors of a harebrained Heritage report holding that an increase in the number of working mothers could lead to a rise in dwarfism. His grasp of the dynamics at work in the shifting fortunes of AEI and Heritage - a relationship bound up with both sweeping political change and the intricacies of fund-raising - flows from his mastery of this milieu.

Yet Right Moves becomes less steady as it moves toward the present. Braving the risks of contemporary history, Stahl loses access to the archives that give his earlier chapters their depth and nuance. He concludes with an uncharacteristically blunt assessment of current politics. Think tanks like Heritage, he writes, have redefined what it means to be on the right and persuaded countless Americans to join their cause, managing to "forever alter American political culture in a more conservative direction."

That was a powerful argument when this book went to press, and it would have gained even more force if conservatives were about to deliver the Republican Party's presidential nomination to Ted Cruz. Or Marco Rubio. Or Jeb Bush. Or any of the 13 other major candidates for the position except Donald Trump. In the words of Buckley's National Review, Trump is "a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones." But as Trump has more recently observed, "this is called the Republican Party. It's not called the Conservative Party." And Republicans have capitulated to a candidate opposed by the assembled forces of the conservative establishment - an establishment that is clearly as detached from the constituents it claims to represent as any of the liberal elites it has pilloried for decades, and whose isolation from its supposed base made Trump's nomination possible.

Republicans are now wrestling with the implications of this turn; historians will move at a slower pace, but they also have a reckoning ahead. A generation ago, explaining the power of the American right seemed an essential task for anyone seeking to understand the headlines. Recent events suggest that scholars should adopt a more skeptical attitude toward the image presented by the self-appointed gatekeepers of True Conservatism. The gap between policy makers and the grassroots is larger than students of the right have allowed, the opportunities for ideological crosscutting more prevalent. Histories written from this perspective would be less willing to take Buckley at his word, and they would have more room for Wallace.

Though reeling at the moment, however, Buckley's political descendants should not be counted out. Just a few months ago, a meeting off the coast of Georgia brought together figures ranging from Tim Cook to Karl Rove in a two-day session dedicated to mapping out a plan to stop Trump. They lost this round, but the fight will continue in the years to come, and support from organizations like the host of this conclave will be invaluable. What form this campaign will take is still a mystery. Attendance in Georgia was invitation only, as is the custom at the "American Enterprise Institute World Forum."

Timothy Shenk, a Mellon postdoctoral fellow at Washington University in St. Louis, is the author of Maurice Dobb: Political Economist (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).

[Dec 18, 2017] Can The Deep State Be Cured

Notable quotes:
"... The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the disease, as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak perspective (truly, we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your pick or get a combo, it's all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It can and should be cured. ..."
"... The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state. ..."
"... Because inflated salaries , inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business. ..."
"... Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media. Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command. ..."
"... Watch an old program like"Yes, Minister" to understand how it works. Politicians come and go, but the permanent state apparatchiks doesn't. ..."
"... The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences. The social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally susceptible to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on Wall St; pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. ..."
www.zerohedge.com

Submitted by Karen Kwiatkowski via LewRockwell.com,

So, after getting up late, groggy, and feeling overworked even before I started, I read this article . Just after, I had to feed a dozen cats and dogs, each dog in a separate room out of respect for their territorialism and aggressive desire to consume more than they should (hmm, where have I seen this before), and in the process, forgot where I put my coffee cup. Retracing steps, I finally find it and sit back down to my 19-inch window on the ugly (and perhaps remote) world of the state, and the endless pinpricks of the independent media on its vast overwhelmingly evil existence. I suspect I share this distractibility and daily estrangement from the actions of our government with most Americans .

We are newly bombing Libya and still messing with the Middle East? I thought that the wars the deep state wanted and started were now limited and constrained! What happened to lack of funds, lack of popular support, public transparency that revealed the stupidity and abject failure of these wars?

Deep state. Something systemic, difficult to detect, hard to remove, hidden. It is a spirit as much as nerves and organ. How do your starve it, excise it, or just make it go away? We want to know. I think this explains the popularity of infotainment about haunted houses, ghosts and alien beings among us. They live and we are curious and scared.

The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the disease, as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak perspective (truly, we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your pick or get a combo, it's all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It can and should be cured.

My summary of the long Jeffrey Goldberg piece is basically that Obama has become more fatalistic (did he mean to say fatal?) since he won that Nobel Peace Prize back in 2009 . By the way, the "Nobel prize" article contains this gem, sure to get a chuckle:

"Obama's drone program is regularly criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability, especially considering incomplete intelligence means officials are often unsure about who will die. "

[M]ost individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names," Micah Zenko, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations told the New York Times."

This is about all the fun I can handle in one day. But back to what I was trying to say.

The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state.

Because inflated salaries , inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business.

Can a lack of public support reduce the deep state, or impact it? Well, it would seem that this is a non-factor, except for the strange history we have had and are witnessing again today, with the odd successful popular and populist-leaning politician and their related movements. In my lifetime, only popular figures and their movements get assassinated mysteriously, with odd polka dot dresses, MKULTRA suggestions, threats against their family by their competitors (I'm thinking Perot, but one mustn't be limited to that case), and always with concordant pressures on the sociopolitical seams in the country, i.e riots and police/military activations. The bad dealings toward, and genuine fear of, Bernie Sanders within the Democratic Party's wing of the deep state is matched or exceeded only by the genuine terror of Trump among the Republican deep state wing. This reaction to something or some person that so many in the country find engaging and appealing - an outsider who speaks to the growing political and economic dissatisfaction of a poorer, more indebted, and more regulated population – is heart-warming, to be sure. It is a sign that whether or not we do, the deep state thinks things might change. Thank you, Bernie and especially Donald, for revealing this much! And the "republicanization" of the Libertarian Party is also a bright indicator blinking out the potential of deep state movement and compromise in the pursuit of "stability."

Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media. Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command.

Maybe we will one day soon be able to debate how deep the deep state really is, or whether it was all just a dressed up, meth'ed up, and eff'ed up a sector of society that deserves a bit of jail time, some counseling, and a new start . Maybe some job training that goes beyond the printing of license plates. But given the destruction and mass murder committed daily in the name of this state, and the environmental disasters it has created around the world for the future generations, perhaps we will be no more merciful to these proprietors of the American empire as they have been to their victims. The ruling class deeply fears our judgment, and in this dynamic lies the cure.

Jim in MN Tallest Skil Aug 20, 2016 8:22 PM

I made a list of steps that could be taken to disrupt the Beast. It's all I can offer but I offer it freely.

https://www.scribd.com/document/67758041/List-of-Demands-October-6-2011

4:00 AM October 6, 2011

Kitchen Table, USA

LIST OF DEMANDS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM FINANCIAL CATASTROPHE

I.CURB CORRUPTION AND EXCESSIVE POWER IN THE FINANCIAL ARMS OF THE US GOVERNMENT

A. FEDERAL RESERVE

1. Benjaman Bernanke to be removed as Chairman immediately

2. New York Federal Reserve Bank and all New York City offices of the Federal Reserve system will be closed for at least 3 years

3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation

4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels

5. Interest rate manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years

6. Balance sheet manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years

7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years

B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT

1. Timothy Geithner to be removed as Secretary immediately

2. All New York City offices of the Department will be closed for at least 3 years

3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation

4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels

5. Market manipulation/intervention to be prohibited for at least five years

7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years

II. END THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF GIANT BANKS AND PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FURTHER EXPOSURE TO THEIR COLLAPSE

A. END CORRUPT INFLUENCE

1. Lifetime ban on government employment for TARP recipient employees and corporate officers, specifically including Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase

2. Ten year ban on government work for consulting firms, law firms, and individual consultants and lawyers who have accepted cash from these entities

3. All contacts by any method with federal agencies and employees prohibited for at least five years, with civil and criminal penalties for violation

B. PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM FURTHER HARM AT THE HANDS OF GIANT BANKS

1. No financial institution with assets of more than $10billion will receive federal assistance or any 'arm's-length' bailouts

2. TARP recipients are prohibited from purchasing other TARP recipient corporate units, or merging with other TARP recipients

3. No foreign interest shall be allowed to acquire any portion of TARP recipients in the US or abroad

III. PREVENT CORPORATE ACCOUNTING AND PENSION FUND ABUSES RELATED TO THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS

A. CORPORATE ACCOUNTING

1. Immediately implement mark-to-market accounting rules which were improperly suspended, allowing six months for implementation.

2. Companies must reserve against impaired assets under mark-to-market rules

3. Any health or life insurance company with more than$100 million in assets must report on their holdings and risk factors, specifically including exposure to real estate, mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, and other exotic financial instruments. These reports will be to state insurance commissions and the federal government, and will also be made available to the public on the Internet.

B. PENSION FUNDS

1. All private and public pension funds must disclose their funding status and establish a plan to fully fund accounts under the assumption that net real returns across all asset classes remain at zero for at least ten years.

Winston Churchill -> Sam Clemons Aug 20, 2016 7:26 PM

Watch an old program like"Yes, Minister" to understand how it works. Politicians come and go, but the permanent state apparatchiks doesn't.

sinbad2 -> Winston Churchill Aug 20, 2016 7:58 PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby: You know what happens when politicians get into Number 10; they want to take their place on the world stage.

Sir Richard Wharton: People on stages are called actors. All they are required to do is look plausible, stay sober, and say the lines they're given in the right order.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Some of them try to make up their own lines.

Sir Richard Wharton: They don't last long.

rlouis Aug 20, 2016 7:47 PM

The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences. The social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally susceptible to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on Wall St; pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

The failed coup in Turkey is a significant indication of institutional weakness and also vulnerability. The inability to exercise force of will in Syria is another. The list of failures is getting too long.

[Dec 01, 2017] Elite needs a kill switch for their front men and women

marknesop.wordpress.com
Patient Observer , July 23, 2016 at 7:07 pm
An interesting article on John McCain. I disagree with the contention that McCain hid knowledge that many American POWs were left behind (undoubtedly some voluntarily choose to remain behind but not hundreds ). However, the article touched on some ideas that rang true:

Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.

An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky.

One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.

The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women).

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-tokyo-rose-ran-for-president/

Cortes , July 24, 2016 at 11:16 am

Seems to be a series of pieces dealing with Vietnam POWs: the following linked item was interesting and provided a plausible explanation: that the US failed to pay up agreed on reparations…

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-relying-upon-maoist-professors-of-cultural-studies/

marknesop , July 24, 2016 at 12:29 pm
Remarkable and shocking. Wheels within wheels – this is the first time I have ever seen McCain's father connected with the infamous Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights.
Cortes , July 25, 2016 at 9:08 am
Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. The conclusion regarding aspiring untenured historians is quite downbeat:

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-will-there-be-a-spotlight-sequel-to-the-killing-fields/

marknesop , July 25, 2016 at 10:40 am
Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the Cover-Up.

yalensis , July 25, 2016 at 3:40 pm

So, McCain was Hanoi Jack broadcasting from the Hanoi Hilton?

[Sep 19, 2017] Neoliberalism: the deep story that lies beneath Donald Trumps triumph: How a ruthless network of super-rich ideologues killed choice and destroyed people s faith in politics by George Monbiot

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The book was The Constitution of Liberty by Frederick Hayek . Its publication, in 1960, marked the transition from an honest, if extreme, philosophy to an outright racket. The philosophy was called neoliberalism . It saw competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. The market would discover a natural hierarchy of winners and losers, creating a more efficient system than could ever be devised through planning or by design. Anything that impeded this process, such as significant tax, regulation, trade union activity or state provision, was counter-productive. Unrestricted entrepreneurs would create the wealth that would trickle down to everyone. ..."
"... But by the time Hayek came to write The Constitution of Liberty, the network of lobbyists and thinkers he had founded was being lavishly funded by multimillionaires who saw the doctrine as a means of defending themselves against democracy. Not every aspect of the neoliberal programme advanced their interests. Hayek, it seems, set out to close the gap. ..."
"... He begins the book by advancing the narrowest possible conception of liberty: an absence of coercion. He rejects such notions as political freedom, universal rights, human equality and the distribution of wealth, all of which, by restricting the behaviour of the wealthy and powerful, intrude on the absolute freedom from coercion he demands. ..."
"... The general thrust is about the gradual hollowing out of the middle class (or more affluent working class, depending on the analytical terms being used), about insecurity, stress, casualisation, rising wage inequality. ..."
"... So Hayek, I feel, is like many theoreticians, in that he seems to want a pure world that will function according to a simple and universal law. The world never was, and never will be that simple, and current economics simply continues to have a blindspot for externalities that overwhelm the logic of an unfettered so-called free market. ..."
"... J.K. Galbraith viewed the rightwing mind as predominantly concerned with figuring out a way to justify the shift of wealth from the immense majority to an elite at the top. I for one regret acutely that he did not (as far as I know) write a volume on his belief in progressive taxation. ..."
"... The system that Clinton developed was an inheritance from George H.W. Bush, Reagan (to a large degree), Carter, with another large assist from Nixon and the Powell Memo. ..."
"... What's changed is the distribution of the gains in GDP growth -- that is in no small part a direct consequence of changes in policy since the 1970s. It isn't some "market place magic". We have made major changes to tax laws since that time. We have weakened collective bargaining, which obviously has a negative impact on wages. We have shifted the economy towards financial services, which has the tendency of increasing inequality. ..."
"... Wages aren't stagnating because people are working less. Wages have stagnated because of dumb policy choices that have tended to incentives looting by those at the top of the income distribution from workers in the lower parts of the economy. ..."
"... "Neoliberalism" is entirely compatible with "growth of the state". Reagan greatly enlarged the state. He privatized several functions and it actually had the effect of increasing spending. ..."
"... When it comes to social safety net programs, e.g. in health care and education -- those programs almost always tend to be more expensive and more complicated when privatized. If the goal was to actually save taxpayer money, in the U.S. at least, it would have made a lot more sense to have a universal Medicare system, rather than a massive patch-work like the ACA and our hybrid market. ..."
"... As for the rest, it's the usual practice of gathering every positive metric available and somehow attributing it to neoliberalism, no matter how tenuous the threads, and as always with zero rigour. Supposedly capitalism alone doubled life expectancy, supports billions of extra lives, invented the railways, and provides the drugs and equipment that keep us alive. As though public education, vaccines, antibiotics, and massive availability of energy has nothing to do with those things. ..."
"... I think the damage was done when the liberal left co-opted neo-liberalism. What happened under Bill Clinton was the development of crony capitalism where for example the US banks were told to lower their credit standards to lend to people who couldn't really afford to service the loans. ..."
Nov 16, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

The events that led to Donald Trump's election started in England in 1975. At a meeting a few months after Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Conservative party, one of her colleagues, or so the story goes, was explaining what he saw as the core beliefs of conservatism. She snapped open her handbag, pulled out a dog-eared book, and slammed it on the table . "This is what we believe," she said. A political revolution that would sweep the world had begun.

The book was The Constitution of Liberty by Frederick Hayek . Its publication, in 1960, marked the transition from an honest, if extreme, philosophy to an outright racket. The philosophy was called neoliberalism . It saw competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. The market would discover a natural hierarchy of winners and losers, creating a more efficient system than could ever be devised through planning or by design. Anything that impeded this process, such as significant tax, regulation, trade union activity or state provision, was counter-productive. Unrestricted entrepreneurs would create the wealth that would trickle down to everyone.

This, at any rate, is how it was originally conceived. But by the time Hayek came to write The Constitution of Liberty, the network of lobbyists and thinkers he had founded was being lavishly funded by multimillionaires who saw the doctrine as a means of defending themselves against democracy. Not every aspect of the neoliberal programme advanced their interests. Hayek, it seems, set out to close the gap.

He begins the book by advancing the narrowest possible conception of liberty: an absence of coercion. He rejects such notions as political freedom, universal rights, human equality and the distribution of wealth, all of which, by restricting the behaviour of the wealthy and powerful, intrude on the absolute freedom from coercion he demands.

Democracy, by contrast, "is not an ultimate or absolute value". In fact, liberty depends on preventing the majority from exercising choice over the direction that politics and society might take.

He justifies this position by creating a heroic narrative of extreme wealth. He conflates the economic elite, spending their money in new ways, with philosophical and scientific pioneers. Just as the political philosopher should be free to think the unthinkable, so the very rich should be free to do the undoable, without constraint by public interest or public opinion.

The ultra rich are "scouts", "experimenting with new styles of living", who blaze the trails that the rest of society will follow. The progress of society depends on the liberty of these "independents" to gain as much money as they want and spend it how they wish. All that is good and useful, therefore, arises from inequality. There should be no connection between merit and reward, no distinction made between earned and unearned income, and no limit to the rents they can charge.

Inherited wealth is more socially useful than earned wealth: "the idle rich", who don't have to work for their money, can devote themselves to influencing "fields of thought and opinion, of tastes and beliefs". Even when they seem to be spending money on nothing but "aimless display", they are in fact acting as society's vanguard.

Hayek softened his opposition to monopolies and hardened his opposition to trade unions. He lambasted progressive taxation and attempts by the state to raise the general welfare of citizens. He insisted that there is "an overwhelming case against a free health service for all" and dismissed the conservation of natural resources. It should come as no surprise to those who follow such matters that he was awarded the Nobel prize for economics .

By the time Thatcher slammed his book on the table, a lively network of thinktanks, lobbyists and academics promoting Hayek's doctrines had been established on both sides of the Atlantic, abundantly financed by some of the world's richest people and businesses , including DuPont, General Electric, the Coors brewing company, Charles Koch, Richard Mellon Scaife, Lawrence Fertig, the William Volker Fund and the Earhart Foundation. Using psychology and linguistics to brilliant effect, the thinkers these people sponsored found the words and arguments required to turn Hayek's anthem to the elite into a plausible political programme.

Thatcherism and Reaganism were not ideologies in their own right: they were just two faces of neoliberalism. Their massive tax cuts for the rich, crushing of trade unions, reduction in public housing, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services were all proposed by Hayek and his disciples. But the real triumph of this network was not its capture of the right, but its colonisation of parties that once stood for everything Hayek detested.

Bill Clinton and Tony Blair did not possess a narrative of their own. Rather than develop a new political story, they thought it was sufficient to triangulate . In other words, they extracted a few elements of what their parties had once believed, mixed them with elements of what their opponents believed, and developed from this unlikely combination a "third way".

It was inevitable that the blazing, insurrectionary confidence of neoliberalism would exert a stronger gravitational pull than the dying star of social democracy. Hayek's triumph could be witnessed everywhere from Blair's expansion of the private finance initiative to Clinton's repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act , which had regulated the financial sector. For all his grace and touch, Barack Obama, who didn't possess a narrative either (except "hope"), was slowly reeled in by those who owned the means of persuasion.

As I warned in April, the result is first disempowerment then disenfranchisement. If the dominant ideology stops governments from changing social outcomes, they can no longer respond to the needs of the electorate. Politics becomes irrelevant to people's lives; debate is reduced to the jabber of a remote elite. The disenfranchised turn instead to a virulent anti-politics in which facts and arguments are replaced by slogans, symbols and sensation. The man who sank Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency was not Donald Trump. It was her husband.

The paradoxical result is that the backlash against neoliberalism's crushing of political choice has elevated just the kind of man that Hayek worshipped. Trump, who has no coherent politics, is not a classic neoliberal. But he is the perfect representation of Hayek's "independent"; the beneficiary of inherited wealth, unconstrained by common morality, whose gross predilections strike a new path that others may follow. The neoliberal thinktankers are now swarming round this hollow man, this empty vessel waiting to be filled by those who know what they want. The likely result is the demolition of our remaining decencies, beginning with the agreement to limit global warming .

Those who tell the stories run the world. Politics has failed through a lack of competing narratives. The key task now is to tell a new story of what it is to be a human in the 21st century. It must be as appealing to some who have voted for Trump and Ukip as it is to the supporters of Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn.

A few of us have been working on this, and can discern what may be the beginning of a story. It's too early to say much yet, but at its core is the recognition that – as modern psychology and neuroscience make abundantly clear – human beings, by comparison with any other animals, are both remarkably social and remarkably unselfish . The atomisation and self-interested behaviour neoliberalism promotes run counter to much of what comprises human nature.

Hayek told us who we are, and he was wrong. Our first step is to reclaim our humanity.

justamug -> Skytree 16 Nov 2016 18:17

Thanks for the chuckle. On a more serious note - defining neoliberalism is not that easy since it is not a laid out philosophy like liberalism, or socialism, or communism or facism. Since 2008 the use of the word neoliberalism has increased in frequency and has come to mean different things to different people.

A common theme appears to be the negative effects of the market on the human condition.

Having read David Harvey's book, and Phillip Mirowski's book (both had a go at defining neoliberalism and tracing its history) it is clear that neoliberalism is not really coherent set of ideas.

ianfraser3 16 Nov 2016 17:54

EF Schumacher quoted "seek first the kingdom of God" in his epilogue of "Small Is Beautiful: a study of economics as if people mattered". This was written in the early 1970s before the neoliberal project bit in the USA and the UK. The book is laced with warnings about the effects of the imposition of neoliberalism on society, people and the planet. The predictions have largely come true. New politics and economics needed, by leaders who place at the heart of their approach the premise, and fact, that humans are "by comparison with any other animals, are both remarkably social and remarkably unselfish". It is about reclaiming our humanity from a project that treats people as just another commodity.


Filipio -> YouDidntBuildThat 16 Nov 2016 17:42

Whoa there, slow down.

Your last post was questioning the reality of neoliberalism as a general policy direction that had become hegemonic across many governments (and most in the west) over recent decades. Now you seem to be agreeing that the notion does have salience, but that neoliberalism delivered positive rather than negative consequences.

Well, its an ill wind that blows nobody any good, huh?

Doubtless there were some positive outcomes for particular groups. But recall that the context for this thread is not whether, on balance, more people benefited from neoliberal policies than were harmed -- an argument that would be most powerful only in very utilitarian style frameworks of thought (most good for the many, or most harm for only the few). The thread is about the significance of the impacts of neoliberalism in the rise of Trump. And in specific relation to privatisation (just one dimension of neoliberalism) one key impact was downsizing (or 'rightsizing'; restructuring). There is a plethora of material, including sociological and psychological, on the harm caused by shrinking and restructured work-forces as a consequence of privatisation. Books have been written, even in the business management sector, about how poorly such 'change' was handled and the multiple deleterious outcomes experienced by employees.

And we're still only talking about one dimension of neoliberalism! Havn't even touched on deregulation yet (notably, labour market and financial sector).

The general thrust is about the gradual hollowing out of the middle class (or more affluent working class, depending on the analytical terms being used), about insecurity, stress, casualisation, rising wage inequality.

You want evidence? I'm not doing your research for you. The internet can be a great resource, or merely an echo chamber. The problem with so many of the alt-right (and this applies on the extreme left as well) is that they only look to confirm their views, not read widely. Open your eyes, and use your search engine of choice. There is plenty out there. Be open to having your preconceptions challenged.

RichardErskine -> LECKJ3000 16 Nov 2016 15:38

LECKJ3000 - I am not an economist, but surely the theoretical idealised mechanisms of the market are never realised in practice. US subsidizing their farmers, in EU too, etc. And for problems that are not only externalities but transnational ones, the idea that some Hayek mechanism will protect thr ozone layer or limit carbon emissions, without some regulation or tax.

Lord Stern called global warming the greatest market failure in history, but no market, however sophisticated, can deal with it without some price put on the effluent of product (the excessive CO2 we put into the atmosphere).

As with Montreal and subsequent agreements, there is a way to maintain a level playing field; to promote different substances for use as refrigerants; and to address the hole in ozone layer; without abandoning the market altogether. Simple is good, because it avoids over-engineering the interventions (and the unintended consequences you mention).

The same could/ should be true of global warming, but we have left it so late we cannot wait for the (inevitable) fall of fossil fuels and supremacy of renewables. We need a price on carbon, which is a graduated and fast rising tax essentially on its production and/or consumption, which has already started to happen ( http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/SDN/background-note_carbon-tax.pdf ), albeit not deep / fast / extensive enough, or international in character, but that will come, if not before the impacts really bite then soon after.

So Hayek, I feel, is like many theoreticians, in that he seems to want a pure world that will function according to a simple and universal law. The world never was, and never will be that simple, and current economics simply continues to have a blindspot for externalities that overwhelm the logic of an unfettered so-called free market.

LionelKent -> greven 16 Nov 2016 14:59

And persistent. J.K. Galbraith viewed the rightwing mind as predominantly concerned with figuring out a way to justify the shift of wealth from the immense majority to an elite at the top. I for one regret acutely that he did not (as far as I know) write a volume on his belief in progressive taxation.

RandomLibertarian -> JVRTRL 16 Nov 2016 09:19

Not bad points.

When it comes to social safety net programs, e.g. in health care and education -- those programs almost always tend to be more expensive and more complicated when privatized. If the goal was to actually save taxpayer money, in the U.S. at least, it would have made a lot more sense to have a universal Medicare system, rather than a massive patch-work like the ACA and our hybrid market.

Do not forget that the USG, in WW2, took the deliberate step of allowing employers to provide health insurance as a tax-free benefit - which it still is, being free even from SS and Medicare taxes. In the post-war boom years this resulted in the development of a system with private rooms, almost on-demand access to specialists, and competitive pay for all involved (while the NHS, by contrast, increasingly drew on immigrant populations for nurses and below). Next, the large sums of money in the system and a generous court system empowered a vast malpractice industry. So to call our system in any way a consequence of a free market is a misnomer.

Entirely state controlled health care systems tend to be even more cost-effective.

Read Megan McArdle's work in this area. The US has had similar cost growth since the 1970s to the rest of the world. The problem was that it started from a higher base.

Part of the issue is that privatization tends to create feedback mechanism that increase the size of spending in programs. Even Eisenhower's noted "military industrial complex" is an illustration of what happens when privatization really takes hold.

When government becomes involved in business, business gets involved in government!

Todd Smekens 16 Nov 2016 08:40

Albert Einstein said, "capitalism is evil" in his famous dictum called, "Why Socialism" in 1949. He also called communism, "evil", so don't jump to conclusions, comrades. ;)

His reasoning was it distorts a human beings longing for the social aspect. I believe George references this in his statement about people being "unselfish". This is noted by both science and philosophy.

Einstein noted that historically, the conqueror would establish the new order, and since 1949, Western Imperialism has continued on with the predatory phase of acquiring and implementing democracy/capitalism. This needs to end. As we've learned rapidly, capitalism isn't sustainable. We are literally overheating the earth which sustains us. Very unwise.

Einstein wrote, "Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society."

Personally, I'm glad George and others are working on a new economic and social construct for us "human beings". It's time we leave the predatory phase of "us versus them", and construct a new society which works for the good of our now, global society.

zavaell -> LECKJ3000 16 Nov 2016 06:28

The problem is that both you and Monbiot fail to mention that your "the spontaneous order of the market" does not recognize externalities and climate change is outside Hayek's thinking - he never wrote about sustainability or the limits on resources, let alone the consequences of burning fossil fuels. There is no beauty in what he wrote - it was a cold, mechanical model that assumed certain human behaviour but not others. Look at today's money-makers - they are nearly all climate change deniers and we have to have government to reign them in.

aLERNO 16 Nov 2016 04:52

Good, short and concise article. But the FIRST NEOLIBERAL MILESTONE WAS THE 1973 COUP D'ETAT IN CHILE, which not surprisingly also deposed the first democratically-elected socialist government.

accipiter15 16 Nov 2016 02:34

A great article and explanation of the influence of Hayek on Thatcher. Unfortunately this country is still suffering the consequences of her tenure and Osborne was also a proponent of her policies and look where we are as a consequence. The referendum gave the people the opportunity to vent their anger and if we had PR I suspect we would have a greater turn-out and nearly always have some sort of coalition where nothing gets done that is too hurtful to the population. As for Trump, again his election is an expression of anger and desperation. However, the American voting system is as unfair as our own - again this has probably been the cause of the low turn-out. Why should people vote when they do not get fair representation - it is a waste of time and not democratic. I doubt that Trump is Keynsian I suspect he doesn't have an economic theory at all. I just hope that the current economic thinking prevailing currently in this country, which is still overshadowed by Thatcher and the free market, with no controls over the city casino soon collapses and we can start from a fairer and more inclusive base!

JVRTRL -> Keypointist 16 Nov 2016 02:15

The system that Clinton developed was an inheritance from George H.W. Bush, Reagan (to a large degree), Carter, with another large assist from Nixon and the Powell Memo.

Bill Clinton didn't do it by himself. The GOP did it with him hand-in-hand, with the only resistance coming from a minority within the Democratic party.

Trump's victory was due to many factors. A large part of it was Hillary Clinton's campaign and the candidate. Part of it was the effectiveness of the GOP massive resistance strategy during the Obama years, wherein they pursued a course of obstruction in an effort to slow the rate of the economic recovery (e.g. as evidence of the bad faith, they are resurrecting a $1 trillion infrastructure bill that Obama originally proposed in 2012, and now that they have full control, all the talk about "deficits" goes out the window).

Obama and the Democratic party also bear responsibility for not recognizing the full scope of the financial collapse in 2008-2009, passing a stimulus package that was about $1 trillion short of spending needed to accelerate the recovery by the 2010 mid-terms, combined with a weak financial regulation law (which the GOP is going to destroy), an overly complicated health care law -- classic technocratic, neoliberal incremental policy -- and the failure of the Obama administration to hold Wall Street accountable for criminal misconduct relating to the financial crisis. Obama's decision to push unpopular trade agreements didn't help either. As part of the post-mortem, the decision to continuing pushing the TPP may have cost Clinton in the rust belt states that went for Trump. The agreement was unpopular, and her shift on the policy didn't come across as credible. People noticed as well that Obama was trying to pass the measure through the lame-duck session of Congress post-election. With Trump's election, the TPP is done too.

JVRTRL daltonknox67 16 Nov 2016 02:00

There is no iron law that says a country has to run large trade deficits. The existence of large trade deficits is usually a result of policy choices.

Growth also hasn't gone into the tank. What's changed is the distribution of the gains in GDP growth -- that is in no small part a direct consequence of changes in policy since the 1970s. It isn't some "market place magic". We have made major changes to tax laws since that time. We have weakened collective bargaining, which obviously has a negative impact on wages. We have shifted the economy towards financial services, which has the tendency of increasing inequality.

The idea too that people will be "poorer" than in the 1920s and 1930s is just plain ignorant. It has no basis in any of the data. Wages in the bottom quartile have actually decreased slightly since the 1970s in real terms, but those wages in the 1970s were still exponentially higher than wages in the 1920s in real terms.

Wages aren't stagnating because people are working less. Wages have stagnated because of dumb policy choices that have tended to incentives looting by those at the top of the income distribution from workers in the lower parts of the economy. The 2008 bailouts were a clear illustration of this reality. People in industries rigged rules to benefit themselves. They misallocated resources. Then they went to representatives and taxpayers and asked for a large no-strings attached handout that was effectively worth trillions of dollars (e.g. hundreds of billions through TARP, trillions more through other programs). As these players become wealthier, they have an easier time buying politicians to rig rules further to their advantage.

JVRTRL -> RandomLibertarian 16 Nov 2016 01:44

"The tyranny of the 51 per cent is the oldest and most solid argument against a pure democracy."

"Tyranny of the majority" is always a little bizarre, given that the dynamics of majority rule are unlike the governmental structures of an actual tyranny. Even in the context of the U.S. we had minority rule due to voting restrictions for well over a century that was effectively a tyranny for anyone who was denied the ability to participation in the elections process. Pure majorities can go out of control, especially in a country with massive wealth disparities and with weak civic institutions.

On the other hand, this is part of the reason to construct a system of checks and balances. It's also part of the argument for representative democracy.

"Neoliberalism" is entirely compatible with "growth of the state". Reagan greatly enlarged the state. He privatized several functions and it actually had the effect of increasing spending.

When it comes to social safety net programs, e.g. in health care and education -- those programs almost always tend to be more expensive and more complicated when privatized. If the goal was to actually save taxpayer money, in the U.S. at least, it would have made a lot more sense to have a universal Medicare system, rather than a massive patch-work like the ACA and our hybrid market.

Entirely state controlled health care systems tend to be even more cost-effective. Part of the issue is that privatization tends to create feedback mechanism that increase the size of spending in programs. Even Eisenhower's noted "military industrial complex" is an illustration of what happens when privatization really takes hold.

daltonknox67 15 Nov 2016 21:46

After WWII most of the industrialised world had been bombed or fought over with destruction of infrastructure and manufacturing. The US alone was undamaged. It enjoyed a manufacturing boom that lasted until the 70's when competition from Germany and Japan, and later Taiwan, Korea and China finally brought it to an end.

As a result Americans born after 1950 will be poorer than the generation born in the 20's and 30's.

This is not a conspiracy or government malfunction. It is a quirk of history. Get over it and try working.

Arma Geddon 15 Nov 2016 21:11

Another nasty neoliberal policy of Reagan and Thatcher, was to close all the mental hospitals, and to sweeten the pill to sell to the voters, they called it Care in the Community, except by the time those hospitals closed and the people who had to relay on those institutions, they found out and are still finding out that there is very little care in the community left any more, thanks to Thatcher's disintegration of the ethos community spirit.

In their neoliberal mantra of thinking, you are on your own now, tough, move on, because you are hopeless and non productive, hence you are a burden to taxpayers.

Its been that way of thinking for over thirty years, and now the latest group targeted, are the sick and disabled, victims of the neoliberal made banking crash and its neoliberal inspired austerity, imposed of those least able to fight back or defend themselves i.e. vulnerable people again!

AlfredHerring GimmeHendrix 15 Nov 2016 20:23

It was in reference to Maggie slapping a copy of Hayek's Constitution of Liberty on the table and saying this is what we believe. As soon as you introduce the concept of belief you're talking about religion hence completeness while Hayek was writing about economics which demands consistency. i.e. St. Maggie was just as bad as any Stalinist: economics and religion must be kept separate or you get a bunch of dead peasants for no reason other than your own vanity.

Ok, religion based on a sky god who made us all is problematic but at least there's always the possibility of supplication and miracles. Base a religion on economic theory and you're just making sausage of your neighbors kids.

TanTan -> crystaltips2 15 Nov 2016 20:10

If you claim that the only benefit of private enterprise is its taxability, as you did, then why not cut out the middle man and argue for full state-directed capitalism?

Because it is plainly obvious that private enterprise is not directed toward the public good (and by definition). As we have both agreed, it needs to have the right regulations and framework to give it some direction in that regard. What "the radical left" are pointing out is that the idea of private enterprise is now completely out of control, to the point where voters are disenfranchised because private enterprise has more say over what the government does than the people. Which is clearly a problem.

As for the rest, it's the usual practice of gathering every positive metric available and somehow attributing it to neoliberalism, no matter how tenuous the threads, and as always with zero rigour. Supposedly capitalism alone doubled life expectancy, supports billions of extra lives, invented the railways, and provides the drugs and equipment that keep us alive. As though public education, vaccines, antibiotics, and massive availability of energy has nothing to do with those things.

As for this computer being the invention of capitalism, who knows, but I suppose if one were to believe that everything was invented and created by capitalism and monetary motives then one might believe that. Energy allotments referred to the limit of our usage of readily available fossil fuels which you remain blissfully unaware of.

Children have already been educated to agree with you, in no small part due to a fear of the communist regimes at the time, but at the expense of critical thinking. Questioning the system even when it has plainly been undermined to its core is quickly labelled "radical" regardless of the normalcy of the query. I don't know what you could possibly think left-wing motives could be, but your own motives are plain to see when you immediately lump people who care about the planet in with communist idealogues. If rampant capitalism was going to solve our problems I'm all for it, but it will take a miracle to reverse the damage it has already done, and only a fool would trust it any further.

YouDidntBuildThat -> Filipio 15 Nov 2016 20:06

Filipo

You argue that a great many government functions have been privatized. I agree. Yet strangely you present zero evidence of any downsides of that happening. Most of the academic research shows a net benefit, not just on budgets but on employee and customer satisfaction. See for example.

And despite these privitazation cost savings and alleged neoliberal "austerity" government keeps taking a larger share of our money, like a malignant cancer. No worries....We're from the government, and we're here to help.

Keypointist 15 Nov 2016 20:04

I think the damage was done when the liberal left co-opted neo-liberalism. What happened under Bill Clinton was the development of crony capitalism where for example the US banks were told to lower their credit standards to lend to people who couldn't really afford to service the loans.

It was this that created too big to fail and the financial crisis of 2008. Conservative neo-liberals believe passionately in competition and hate monopolies. The liberal left removed was was productive about neo-liberalism and replaced it with a kind of soft state capitalism where big business was protected by the state and the tax payer was called on to bail out these businesses. THIS more than anything else led to Trump's victory.

[Jul 28, 2017] Reply

Jul 28, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

cartman , July 23, 2017 at 11:38 am

G7 Ambassadors Support Cutting of Pensions in the Ukraine
marknesop , July 23, 2017 at 12:13 pm
So when you cut through all the steam and the boilerplate, how do they plan to do it so it's fairer to poor Ukrainians, but the state spends less?

Ah. They plan to raise the age at which you qualify for a pension , doubtless among other money-savers. If the state plays its cards right, the target demographic wil work all its adult life and then die before reaching pensionable age. But as usual, we must be subjected to the usual western sermonizing about how the whole initiative is all about helping people and doing good.

This is borne out in one of the other 'critical reforms' the IMF insisted upon before releasing its next tranche of 'aid' – a land reform act which would allow Ukraine to sell off its agricultural land in the interests of 'creating a market'. Sure: as if. Land-hungry western agricultural giants like Monsanto are drooling at the thought of getting their hands on Ukraine's rich black earth plus a chink in Europe's armor against GMO crops. Another possible weapon to use against Russia would be the growing of huge volumes of GMO grain so as to weaken the market for Russian grains.

Cortes , July 23, 2017 at 4:18 pm
And pollution of areas of Russian soil from blown in GMO seeds. Creating facts on the ground.
Patient Observer , July 24, 2017 at 4:18 am
Another element of the plan to reduce pension obligations is the dismantling of whatever health care system that remain in the Ukraine. That is a twofer – save money on providing medical services and shortening the life span. This would be another optimization of wealth generation for the oligarchs and for those holding Ukraine debt.
Jen , July 24, 2017 at 5:03 am
I can just see Ukrainian health authorities giving away free cigarettes to patients and their families next!

That remark was partly facetious and partly serious: life these days in the Ukraine sounds so surreal that I wouldn't put it past the Ministry of Healthcare of Ukraine to come up with the most hare-brained "reform" initiatives.

yalensis , July 24, 2017 at 2:30 pm
Nine out of ten doctors recommend Camels.
The other one doctor is a woman, who smokes Virginia Slims.

Patient Observer , July 24, 2017 at 6:09 pm
I recall a news story about the adverse effects of a reduction in smoking on the US Social Security Trust Fund. Those actuaries make those calculations for a living. The trouble with shortening life spans via cancer is that end-of-life treatment tends to be very expensive unless people do not have or have very basic health insurance, then there is a likely net gain. Alcohol, murder and suicides are generally much more efficient economically. I just depressed myself.
kirill , July 24, 2017 at 8:09 pm
Something does not add up. Any government expenditure is an economic stimulus. The only potentially negative aspect is taxation. Since taxation is not excessive and in fact too small on key layers (e.g. companies and the rich), there is no negative aspect to government spending on pensions. So we have here narrow-definition accounting BS.
Jen , July 25, 2017 at 4:56 am
Agree that in a world where the people, represented by their governments, are in charge of money creation and governments ran their financial systems independently of Wall Street and Washington, any government spending would be welcomed as stimulating economic production and development. The money later recirculates back to the government when the people who have jobs created by government spending pay the money back through purchases of various other government goods and services or through their taxes.

But in capitalist societies where increasingly banks are becoming the sole creators and suppliers of money, government spending incurs debts that have to be paid back with interest. In the past governments also raised money for major public projects by issuing treasury bonds and securities but that doesn't seem to happen much these days.

Unfortunately also Ukraine is surviving mainly on IMF loans and the IMF certainly doesn't want the money to go towards social welfare spending.

marknesop , July 25, 2017 at 9:18 am
In fact, the IMF specifically intervenes to prevent spending loan money on social welfare, as a condition of extending the loan. That might have been true since time out of mind for all I know, but it certainly was true after the first Greek bailout, when leaders blew the whole wad on pensions and social spending so as to ensure their re-election. They then went sheepishly back to the IMF for a second bailout. So there are good and substantial reasons for insisting the loan money not be wasted in this fashion, as that kind of spending customarily does not generate any meaningful follow-on spending by the recipients, and is usually absorbed by the cost of living.

But as we are all aware, such IMF interventions have a definite political agenda as well. In Ukraine's case, the IMF with all its political inveigling is matched against a crafty oligarch who will lift the whole lot if he is not watched. Alternatively, he might well blow it all on social spending to ensure his re-election, thus presenting the IMF with a dilemma in which it must either continue to support him, or cause him to fall.

Patient Observer , July 25, 2017 at 7:07 pm
In an economy based on looting, it makes perfect sense. Money flows only one way until its all gone.

[May 02, 2017] An Obituary of The New York Times by

Notable quotes:
"... And this is where The New York Times has lost it. By dropping its veneer and abandoning its self acclaimed standards of journalism, it has sentenced itself into irrelevance. ..."
"... I also suspect that much like the heads of the Soviet newspapers quickly adapted to the new rules and new rulers of the game while regular journalists were sentenced to life of unemployment, so will Sulzberger and Keller adapt to whatever will come while the staff of The New York Times will be sentenced to their very own "Hall of Shame", much like already happened to their colleague Judith Miller when her services on propagating for war with Iraq was no longer required. ..."
"... I enclose as a small eulogy the following email exchange with a couple of editors from The New York Times . The emails are significant if only as examples of how the newspaper stopped living up to the most basic elements of journalism towards the end of its life. In them editors Bruce Headlam and Isvett Verde explain that The New York Times does not correct mistakes, does not grant the right of reply, and does not, as a matter of policy, publish material about its own censorship. ..."
Sep 14, 2016 | www.unz.com
126 Comments

... during the current election cycle in the United States, The New York Times has so clearly abandoned all rudimentary standards of journalism and alienated its readership so badly, that it has sentenced itself to wither away into irrelevance. Remembered only in history books as a relic of the Cold War, much like its sister newspaper Pravda of the Soviet Union.

As a Swedish reader of The New York Times , I may be surprised that the paper has ignored election rigging in the governing party of the United States serious enough to cause its top five officials to resign. But it doesn't really matter, since I can read the source material on it via WikiLeaks. As a foreign journalist I may be surprised that the paper has chosen to downplay the political bribes of the Clinton Foundation, but it makes little difference because the Associated Press has made the investigation available for me to report on. As a citizen of a western democracy I may be surprised that The New York Times so clearly campaigns against Trump and for Clinton, rather than reports on the policy issues of the candidates, but I can ignore this since I can read and listen to what they say themselves, while I can get a variety of more enlightened and entertaining campaigns all over the blogosphere. If I were a US citizen however, I would be more than just surprised.

And this is where The New York Times has lost it. By dropping its veneer and abandoning its self acclaimed standards of journalism, it has sentenced itself into irrelevance. Because even if the newspaper has steadily been outflanked by many blogs when it comes to audience size, it was until recently considered to be an important platform from which the US elites formed their world-view. But a newspaper with such a small reach, that is no longer taken seriously even by the main presidential candidates of its own country, a newspaper that doesn't abide by the most fundamental journalistic standards, namely publishing rather than hiding newsworthy, correct information, has very little to offer either any powerful people or its own readers. Because even propaganda has to be good, for it to have any value.

The only question that now remains, is how history will remember the journalists of The New York Times . Will they be judged leniently as people that just did their jobs, not knowing what they were doing? Or will they suffer the same fate as the thousands of Soviet journalists who lost their jobs when the charade at their communist mouthpieces ended? I much suspect that it will be the latter. But I also suspect that much like the heads of the Soviet newspapers quickly adapted to the new rules and new rulers of the game while regular journalists were sentenced to life of unemployment, so will Sulzberger and Keller adapt to whatever will come while the staff of The New York Times will be sentenced to their very own "Hall of Shame", much like already happened to their colleague Judith Miller when her services on propagating for war with Iraq was no longer required.

I enclose as a small eulogy the following email exchange with a couple of editors from The New York Times . The emails are significant if only as examples of how the newspaper stopped living up to the most basic elements of journalism towards the end of its life. In them editors Bruce Headlam and Isvett Verde explain that The New York Times does not correct mistakes, does not grant the right of reply, and does not, as a matter of policy, publish material about its own censorship.

If you have any other documents pertaining to the demise of The New York Times , please email them to me or send them to WikiLeaks. One of these days I will collect them for a proper obituary.

Johannes Wahlström Award-winning investigative journalist and filmmaker can be reached on [email protected]

[Apr 04, 2017] Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say Fox News

Notable quotes:
"... This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas' television interview last month in which the former Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: "I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration." ..."
Apr 04, 2017 | www.foxnews.com
Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance.

The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.

The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office.

It was not clear how Rice knew to ask for the names to be unmasked, but the question was being posed by the sources late Monday.

... ... ...

This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas' television interview last month in which the former Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: "I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration."

... ... ...

As the Obama administration left office, it also approved new rules that gave the NSA much broader powers by relaxing the rules about sharing intercepted personal communications and the ability to share those with 16 other intelligence agencies.

... ... ...

Rice is no stranger to controversy. As the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, she appeared on several Sunday news shows to defend the adminstration's later debunked claim that the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Libya was triggered by an Internet video.

[Mar 11, 2017] Needed Now a Peace Movement Against the Clinton Wars to Come by Andrew Levine

Mar 11, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize -- for not being George W. Bush. This seemed unseemly at the time, but not outrageous. Seven years later, it seems grotesque.

As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror" into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East.

He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice.

More

[Dec 31, 2016] Trump praises Putin over US sanctions – a move that puts him at odds with GOP by Lauren Gambino and Ben Jacobs in Washington

Notable quotes:
"... Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit on the Bush's claims to have made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social security... ..."
"... All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone that it wasn't Russians who manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre by Obama with no trouble. ..."
"... Sanctions = token gestures that will soon fade into the distance. Much like you know who. Obama is salty because of Kilary getting whupped and Putin out-playing him in Syria. Never thought I would see the day when I sided with Trump over Obama. Interesting times. ..."
"... Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem is that they have been found out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders" and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat, but the core of their policies was Corporatism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama. ..."
"... The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what they mean, loud and apparently clear. People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long time and they are fed up. That is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's "Liberalism" any more. ..."
"... Obama acting like a petulant child that has to leave the game and go home now, so he's kicking the game board and forcing everyone else to clean up his mess. Irresponsible. ..."
"... Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area. You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office. ..."
"... So the person awarded a Nobel Peace Prize uses his last weeks in office to sour relations between the only 2 superpowers on Earth for - what ? ..."
Dec 30, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

The president-elect has been consistently -> skeptical about the US intelligence -> consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the 2016 election in his favor – the reason for Obama's new sanctions. At one point, he suggested the culprit might have been China, another state or even a 400lb man in his bedroom .

On taking office in January, Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. And as president, he could do so; presidential orders can simply be repealed by the executive branch.

But the situation is not that simple. If Trump did choose to remove the sanctions, he would find himself at odds with his own party. Senior Republicans in Congress responded to the Obama sanctions by identifying Russia as a major geopolitical foe and criticizing the new measures only as a case of too little too late. Some promised a push for further measures in Congress.

Trump may therefore choose not to reverse the new sanctions. If so, he will find himself at odds with the man he so constantly praises.

On Friday, the Kremlin responded to the moves, including the expulsion of 35 suspected intelligence operatives and the closing of two Russian facilities in the US, with a shrug . Putin, it seems, is willing simply to wait until Trump moves into the Oval Office. Trump's tweet suggested he is too.

But such provocative words could not distract the media and public from another domestic concern for Trump – the growing perception that his predecessor has acted to his disadvantage .

"The sanctions were clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to throw a wrench into – or [to] box in – the next administration's relationship with Russia,"

vgnych, 30 Dec 2016 18:56
All Obama does with his clumsy movements is just attempting to blame Russians for Democrat's loss of elections. Also he is obscuring peaceful power transition while at it.

All what Trump needs to do is to just call the looser a loser a move on.

Max South , 30 Dec 2016 18:56
White House/StateDep press release on sanctions is ORWELLIAN: corruption within the DNC/Clinton's manager Podesta undermines the democracy, not its exposure as claimed (let alone the fact that there is still no evidence that the Russian government has anything to do with the hacks).

The press release also talks about how the security of the USA and its interests were compromised, so Obama in effects says that national security interest of the country is to have corrupt political system, which is insane.

This argumentation means that even if Russian government has done the hacking, it was a good deed, there is nothing to sanction Russia for even in such case.

CDNBobOrr , 30 Dec 2016 18:58
'Fraid both Putin and Trump are a lot smarter than Barry. Putin's move in not retaliating and inviting US kids to the Kremlin New Year party was an astute judo throw. And Barry is sitting on his backside wondering how it happened.
antobojar , 30 Dec 2016 19:00
.. Probably Obama's "exceptionalism" made him so clumsy on international affairs stage..

.. just recently.. snubbed by Fidel.. he refused to meet him..
.. humiliated by Raul Castro, he declined to hug president of USA..
.. Duterte described.. hmm.. his provenance..
.. Bibi told him off in most vulgar way.. several times..
.. and now this..
..pathetic..

P.S.
You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination."
Charles de Gaulle.

ukc ltd , 30 Dec 2016 19:07
Sanctions = token gestures that will soon fade into the distance. Much like you know who.

Obama is salty because of Kilary getting whupped and Putin out-playing him in Syria.

Never thought I would see the day when I sided with Trump over Obama. Interesting times. Share Facebook Twitter

foolisholdman -> ukc ltd , 30 Dec 2016 20:01
Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem is that they have been found out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders" and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat, but the core of their policies was Corpratism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama.

The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what they mean, loud and apparently clear. People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long time and they are fed up. That is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's "Liberalism" any more.

bready , 30 Dec 2016 19:22
"US intelligence consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the 2016 election in his favor "

Are your mentors still thinking that people will swallow that fable? The same mentors who understated Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania?

foolisholdman -> bready , 30 Dec 2016 19:36
bready

"US intelligence consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the 2016 election in his favor "

These people either think that an ex-British Ambassador is not an important witness or they don't want to hear anything that contradicts the narrative they have been told to spin. It has to be one or the other.

rocjoc43rd -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:45
Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be slient, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area. You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office.
cosmith , 30 Dec 2016 19:27
So the person awarded a Nobel Peace Prize uses his last weeks in office to sour relations between the only 2 superpowers on Earth for - what ?

American party politics /
Spite ?
Ideological hatred ?

For those of you who are too young to remember, look up "Cold War" and look for references
to Hawks and Doves.

Who are the Hawks now - and who are the Doves ?

The Left/Liberal paradigm is so drastically in need of updating that it is becoming downright dangerous.

Hell hath on fury like a self defined "liberal" scorned.

Haigin88 , 30 Dec 2016 19:30
R.E.M.: 'Exhuming McCarthy'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMedTmZKo38
gottliebvera , 30 Dec 2016 19:34
I think Obama is behaving in a most petulant and non-presidential manner. Lack of decorum as parting shot. Good going.
philo41z , 30 Dec 2016 19:37
We watched trump defeat republican favourites to get the nomination. He has not really needed them as much as they have felt they need him. Then he has big oil in his transition team, tillerson if I am not mistaken, connected to exxon which has oil interests in Russia....

rocjoc43rd , 30 Dec 2016 19:38
I also think this is Obama's move to direct attention away from the cease fire in Syria. There the US has been supporting all these groups, flying air missions and dropping special forces in Syria for years now, and the US has no seat at the table of the cease fire negotiations. That should be very embarrassing for the US, but it apparently is not, because all the media wants to talk about are these sanctions, which seem pretty trivial to me. The Obama/media machine scores another hollow victory. Can't wait until this guy is out of office.
stormsinteacups , 30 Dec 2016 19:38
Still no proof of any meddling by the Russians. Only a last gasp attempt by a weak president in what is starting to look like a boys against men tussle with Putin. Add the Syria ceasefire brokered by Turkey and Putin to this to show how Obama is being outmanouvered at every turn.
Sad to see what a far cry from Obama the candidate Obama the president has turned out to be.
gandalfsunderpants , 30 Dec 2016 19:41
Action makes propaganda's effect irreversible. He who acts in obedience to propaganda can never go back. He is now obliged to believe in that propaganda because of his past action. He is obliged to receive from it his justification and authority, without which his action will seem to him absurd or unjust, which would be intolerable. He is obliged to continue to advance in the direction indicated by propaganda, for action demands more action.
Jacques Ellul:
Friday Night Beers , 30 Dec 2016 19:43
Obama just got dissed big time by Putin. What an inglorious end to an inglorious eight years.
DogsLivesMatter -> Friday Night Beers , 30 Dec 2016 20:05
The Obama administration should be thanking Russian efforts to end the war in Syria. We know the MIC wanted this civil war to go on for another decade.
MacCosham , 30 Dec 2016 19:44
Oh for christ's sake, once again:

There were no hacks, the emails were LEAKED!

Probably by Democrats disgusted by the way Bernie was treated.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

PS once you are there, read everything else Craig Murray has written there. This is the ambassador HM government fired for daring to speak out against the Uzbek government's human rights abuses.

PanopticonPlanet , 30 Dec 2016 19:45
All Americans should be alarmed that their country is now losing its edge in terms of the manipulation of other countries' electoral processes. This is "unpresidented". Where previously we had implemented such actions ourselves without fear of reciprocation we should be concerned that we are no longer immune to such machinations by other states. These events may represent a turning point as regards our accepted global hegemony. Share
Tribal War -> PanopticonPlanet , 30 Dec 2016 19:52
USA hacks
USA spies
USA interferes with foreign regimes
USA is number 1 bully and hypocrite

The damn cheek of Russian hack spies interfering with US election and setting them up with an idiot

brianboru1014 , 30 Dec 2016 19:47
Obama has been anti-Russia long before Trump came into the picture.
This article is more of a wish list than anything else.
We are told by 'experts' that 'There is now a public record of what Russia did'

Where is it? I would love to see this.
I do know that the 2 countries that carry out most cyber attacks in the world are the US and it's main ally in the Middle East. Just ask the Iranians what they did.

Leucocephalus , 30 Dec 2016 19:48
Obama complaining about Russian influence in American elections.

Last time I've checked it was Mr. Obama that warned British people against Brexit, wasn't? What about the deposition of an ELECTED president in Ukraine with their support of Obama and EU? Let's talk also about regime changes in Syria, Lybia and Egypt undertaken under Obama's administration? Perhaps we could also remember that Obama's agencies spied 3 million of Spanyards, Merkel, Dilma Rousseff (Brazilian President) and so on... WHAT A HIPOCRISY, OBAMA!!!!

mtkass -> Leucocephalus , 30 Dec 2016 20:07
You have hit the nail on the head on all your points. But America and especially the American military needs a boogy man to justify the trillions of dollars of American tax payer money they request to keep their military empire going. Imagine if there was no boogy man and the conclusion was to half the American military to a size only equal to the next 6 largest militarys instead of the present 13. Incidentally, most of the next largest militarys are allies of the United States.
This whole kerfuffle about Russian hacking has the stink of shooting the messenger. What about concentrating on what was in the leaked e-mails. They showed a high level of deep corruption in the DNC. That is the importance of the hacked e-mails. Whoever hacked and released them to the American public has done the America public a great favor. If Wasserman Shultz in cohoots with Hillary had not swung the primaries in favor of Hillary and if Obama had remembered that the constitution says the government is for the people and by the people (the peoples choice was by a huge margin for Bernie) and come out for Bernie, we wouldn't be in the CF we are in right now. I thought Obama is a constitutional lawyer. So much for the constitution. The only statesman in this mess is Putin. Thank heaven for his level headedness. The American pronouncements have the stink of the build up to another false flag operation (the CIA revelations themselves are probably a false flag operation). I hope Putin can keep his 'cool' in the face of American provocation.
Huddsblue , 30 Dec 2016 20:03
Well what a spiteful, petty man this Obama has turned out to be! This is the first time his side hasn't 'won' and he can't take it so throws his toys out the pram and risks further souring relationships with the East. Thank goodness Putin rose above it.
ID1516963 -> Huddsblue , 30 Dec 2016 20:10
Ha! Obama has obviously nothing to lose and decided to make hay in the limited time he has. More mischief making. Love it. Let's face it the master spiteful petty man is the one about to occupy the white house.

voice__of__reason

, 30 Dec 2016 20:13
This just shows the real character of Obama. Queering the pitch for Trump and the incoming administration. But well done Putin for sidestepping. Clever. Much smarter than Obama. In the end lawyers make bad Presidents and bad Prime Ministers.
TheChillZone , 30 Dec 2016 20:15
Bit of a pot-kettle interface going on here. America leads the way in the hacking of public servers around the world and spying on friend and enemy alike. Not long ago the CIA tapped into Angela Merkel's mobile phone and I don't remember the same level of public outcry. Seems like America is affronted that Russia and others are now doing what the US has done for years. And if it is in fact the Russians - proof not yet forthcoming - this wasn't a hack into the electoral system at all; it was a simple phishing email that the US officials were silly enough to click onto the link.
And finally - what eventually was released was the truth. Clinton was favoured by the DNC, she did say those things to Goldman Sachs, a CNN reporter did provide her with the questions before the presidential debates. The truth is that the US elections were corrupted, but not by the Russians - the culprits lie a little closer to home.
Kano59 , 30 Dec 2016 20:18
With Putin declaring he'll wait to see what Trump's policies are, then it seems he has at least that in common with the US electorate.
Harry Bhai , 30 Dec 2016 20:22
Obama tried to corner Russia, and almost all GOP lawmakers applauded Obama's action. Called it was well overdue. But our smart president-elect comforted crying Putin right away by calling him a smart man for not taking any actions. It is becoming more and more clear that Trump and Putin are made for each other. I think Trump is keeping Putin on his side to take air out of overinflated Chinese balloon. May be he was advised by his team. No one knows his game plan.
flabbotamus , 30 Dec 2016 20:32
Nearly 40 years ago , at the height of the cold war when I joined up to serve my country, never did i dream the day would come when I had more respect for the leader of Russia than a president of the USA and that I would have more faith in the Russian media than our own fake media.

That's what 40 years of liberalism does i guess. Share Facebook Twitter

TyroneBHorneigh -> flabbotamus , 30 Dec 2016 20:38
40 years of Neo-liberalism.
Sparky Patriot , 30 Dec 2016 20:37
Not content with merely stealing the silverware, BO is intent on causing as much mischief as possible before being booted out of the White House, but the Russians are not falling for it. They will be dealing with Donald Trump in a few weeks, and there is no need to respond to Barry's diaper baby antics.
I'm sure the Russians are hacking our internet systems, but the DNC emails that went to WikiLeaks did not come from them. The content, outlining Podesta's plan to discredit Bernie supporters by falsely tying them to violent acts, would indicate that a disgruntled and disgusted DNC employee was more likely the source.
rocjoc43rd , 30 Dec 2016 20:38
The liberal media, I can't wait until they claim that Trump has few paths to victory from this trick bag he is in. We are living in the dying days of the Obama administration. Things will be very different January 20, 2017. Things that appear difficult or impossible now will suddenly be taken care of with the stroke of a pen. It will be exciting to see. Just a few months ago, Trumps path to victory was so small that he shouldn't even bother trying, then it was the electors will do something about Trump. It was all nonsense. This to about Obama limiting Trump is nonsense. Obama's lines in the sand are completely without effect.
HollyOldDog -> asiancelt , 30 Dec 2016 21:37
It is of course impossible as the USA has the most and claimed most advanced spying network on the planet. It totally surrounds both friends and foes alike - with such technical ability the only country who could spy and influence (e.g. arm twisting Merkal is a prime example) on any country at will is the 'exceptional ' US Government.

furiouspurpose

, 30 Dec 2016 20:54
If there was genuine evidence that Russia had somehow swayed the election, Hilary Clinton - who desires power above all other things - would now be bringing a legal case to overturn the result and get a re-election.

But there is no evidence - only lies and cynicism. A few weeks ago I was convinced that US politics had hit a nadir and that it couldn't smell any worse or get any more ridiculous. How wrong I was.

ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 20:55
The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring. [...]

In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of "partisan electoral interventions" to be only about a 3% increase in vote share. ( Source )

I understand why some may find outside interference objectionable, but I reckon many of those who think so fail to recognise America's far-from-faultless behaviour. Curses are like chickens; they always come home to roost.

Of course had the DNC leadership and the Clinton camp behaved ethically in the primary by not conspiring to tip the scale in Clinton's favour, the hack would have found nothing. What we have now is Obama forced to divert the public attention because of yet another messy scandal Hillary finds herself involved in. Clinton must be one of the most blessed people on earth; everyone bends over backwards to accommodate her ambitions.

europeangrayling -> ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 21:23
Also the CIA-Belgian assassination of Lamumba in 61, Congo's first democratically elected president, for the same 'geopolitical' aka 'big business' reasons as the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 53, who wanted the nationalize Iranian oil for their people, and Lumumba had similar 'socialist' ideas for all the vast Congolese resources. To cut out the western business interests. And think how well the Congo has fared since, one of the worst, saddest places, chaos, civil war, more dead than in Rwanda or anywhere I think. They have not recovered from that.

And Iran, they were democratic, secular, elected a guy like Mossadegh, they were 'European', but the the US and Britain overthrew him on behest of British-US oil interests, installed the Shah, their puppet dictator, and the blow-back was the Iranian religious right-wing revolution and dictatorship some 20 years later. And now the Iranian people and our 'foreign policy' are suffering.

And all these US and CIA 'activities' the government had admitted and declassified, like the Gulf of Tonkin lie and false flag in Vietnam, because it was so long ago nobody cares, so it's no 'conspiracy' here, just history. But now these Clinton Democrats they really love and trust anything the CIA says, of course, they are big patriots now, and call people unpatriotic and foreign agents if they question the so honorable CIA, because they are on Hillary's side now.
And the CIA in cahoots with Bush and Cheney also told us how there were these big, scary WMDs in Iraq, and mushroom clouds, and how Saddam had links with Al Qaida, all obvious lies, that any amateur who knew basic world history could tell you even then.

And speaking of 'meddling', and overthrowing democratic governments, the US did the same under Obama and Hillary in Honduras just a few years ago, backed the violent coup of a democratic leftist government there, and they still refuse to call it a coup, and have legitimized the new corrupt and violent regime, are training their army, etc. Even though the EU and the US ambassador to Honduras called it a coup at the time.

And for the same reasons, that leftist government didn't want to play ball with big US and western 'business interests', energy companies, didn't want to sell them their rivers and resources like the new 'good' regime now. And since that coup, 100s of indigenous activists and environmentalists have been killed, like Berta Caceres, and the violence and corruption has gone up big time under the new regime, with 1000s more killed 'in general'. Yet Obama is so concerned about 'the integrity of democracy' and elections and freedom and all that, what a nice guy.

fanUS , 30 Dec 2016 20:58
The real question that Americans should be asking why Barack Obummer failed again to provide security in case of hacking Democrat's emails?

Clinton did not deny that emails published by WikiLeaks were genuine.
That is called freedom of press.
What's wrong with public finding the truth about Clinton? Share Facebook Twitter

RadLadd -> fanUS , 30 Dec 2016 21:00
As soon as you post "Obummer" you show yourself to be immature. Share Facebook Twitter
an opinion -> RadLadd , 30 Dec 2016 21:09
He is Obummer. Share Facebook Twitter
Paull01 -> fanUS , 30 Dec 2016 21:13
They are private servers, why would the government have any involvement whatsoever in the servers of political parties during an election?

The whole point is interference in the election process not who they interfered with. Share Facebook Twitter

roman vega , 30 Dec 2016 20:59
Send Obama to therapist ... urgent.. Share Report
roman vega -> J.K. Stevens , 30 Dec 2016 21:07
Haven't you noticed that whole of the West has already moved that way? I do not mean pro-Putin, I mean priority of national interests at home and some isolationism.
HollyOldDog -> MtnClimber , 30 Dec 2016 21:30
Obama is leaving office with the record of saving American troops lives by the process of using drones which on dodgy information mainly target wedding parties. Share Facebook Twitter
geofffrey , 30 Dec 2016 20:42
Appears suspiciously likely that Obama is just bitter that his legacy is about to be dumped in the nearest skip on Jan 20, and wants to make trouble for Trump during his last 3 weeks in office.

Hard to see how Putin could have engineered Hillary Clinton's defeat, given she won the popular vote by 3 million.

Also Obama is extremely hypocritical as the CIA has repeatedly interfered in the affairs of other countries over the past 60 years.

I hope Trump and Putin become buddies. Share

Burnaby1000 -> geofffrey , 30 Dec 2016 20:45
The CIA never released emails of any country's people. It's simply bad tradecraft, meaning that it can't be used when one really needs it. Share Facebook Twitter
geofffrey -> Burnaby1000 , 30 Dec 2016 20:51
Didn't Wikileaks release those emails.. Share Facebook Twitter
melodrama1 -> geofffrey , 30 Dec 2016 20:56
The story is that they were 'leaked' to Wikileaks and that only stuff that helps Trump was leaked. There are loads of Republican/Trump mails that remain secret (presumably). Sounds plausible to me but the how the hell would I know? Share Facebook Twitter
tomspen , 30 Dec 2016 20:42
Putin outmaneuvers Obama, again. Share Facebook Twitter
pragmata -> tomspen , 30 Dec 2016 20:47
Obama outmanoevres Trump. Share Facebook Twitter
J.K. Stevens -> tomspen , 30 Dec 2016 20:47
Putin goes rogue. You're putin me on. Share Facebook Twitter
tomspen -> pragmata , 30 Dec 2016 20:48
Not really. Democrats lost the election, through their own fault, and now Putin is waiting till Trump comes in office. All will go swimmingly and we can look forward to better relations between the USA-Russia. Win win. Share Facebook Twitter
furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 20:42

On Thursday, the Arizona senator John McCain and South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham said in a joint statement: "The retaliatory measures announced by the Obama administration today are long overdue.

That's all I needed to know. If lunatic war monger John McCain wants to ratchet up the tension with a nuclear power - then it is very wise to do the opposite. Share

Burnaby1000 -> furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 20:44
But he has 48 Dems who support him, and most Republicans. Share Facebook Twitter
MtnClimber -> furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 20:45
Sure. Let's let Putin control our democracy. He and his BFF, Trump, will keep our democracy safe /s Share Facebook Twitter
J.K. Stevens -> furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 20:45
Putin is/has been the provocateur. Keep up. Share Facebook Twitter
Burnaby1000 , 30 Dec 2016 20:43
Wouldn't it be hilarious if a revolution broke out next year in Russia, over the downward spiralling Russian economy, just when Putin thinks he has victory in sight?

But wait--didn't that happen in 1917?

Yep, think it did... Share Facebook Twitter

pawsfurthought -> Burnaby1000 , 30 Dec 2016 20:51
Parallels with the public mood in Russia leading up to 1917? Zero. Share Facebook Twitter
Burnaby1000 -> pawsfurthought , 30 Dec 2016 20:58
"Peace, Land, Bread!!!!!"

Parallels -- 100% Share Facebook Twitter

HollyOldDog -> Burnaby1000 , 30 Dec 2016 21:21
Ah! The evident effects of sipping too much Death Wish Coffee 64 fl.oz - 3,472 mg of caffeine it could do serious damage to your brain. Share Facebook Twitter
osprey1957 , 30 Dec 2016 20:44
Wow, the Trump/kremlin brigade zoomed in on this comments section faster than greased lightening! Good to know that some people just love them some fascism! Share Facebook Twitter
Burnaby1000 -> osprey1957 , 30 Dec 2016 20:50
They HAVE been doing this for quite some time. Share Facebook Twitter
furiouspurpose -> osprey1957 , 30 Dec 2016 21:10
Red baiting won't close down the debate. There's still no evidence of Russian hacking of the US election.

And fascism is shouting people down who ask for evidence and don't just follow the President because he is attacking the outsiders. Share Facebook Twitter

TheControlLeft -> osprey1957 , 30 Dec 2016 21:12
It's preferable to the Obama brigades sponsorship of Islamic terrorism Share Facebook Twitter
EmperorWearsNoCloths , 30 Dec 2016 20:45
Good move by Obama. Trump will soon have to clarify where he stands in regards to Putin. Share Facebook Twitter
HollyOldDog -> EmperorWearsNoCloths , 30 Dec 2016 21:12
I don't usually follow American elections but is this the usual way to hand over to a new president is to try to kick him in the teeth? Share Facebook Twitter
Burnaby1000 , 30 Dec 2016 20:47
As always, it is the US Senate that brings forth the best in the US inuncertain times.

It was Republican senators who were very critical of Bush that eventually got him to do the surge.

Similarly, it will be the Senate that applies pressure in the right place to keep Trump in check.

Who knows, he may even come up with one or two good ideas. Share Facebook Twitter

grodhagen -> Burnaby1000 , 30 Dec 2016 21:10
It were GOP senators leading the huzzas for invading Iraq too. But Ted Cruz? James Inhoffe? Half of the GOP senators are just hirelings for big business. Share Facebook Twitter
Putzik , 30 Dec 2016 20:48
It's not too late fir Obama to cluster bomb Russian troops in Syria and Ukraine.

Now that would certainly constipate the Golden Domed donald. Share Facebook Twitter

HollyOldDog -> Putzik , 30 Dec 2016 21:09
Such a move - did you manage to think this one up by yourself? Or is it just recient history repeating itself - you have only a one tracked mind, a bit like your icon. Share Facebook Twitter
Putzik -> HollyOldDog , 30 Dec 2016 22:37
I am not aware that the US has yet bombed the Russian fascist hordes.

Never too late though, eh? Share Facebook Twitter

dddxxx , 30 Dec 2016 20:49
The fact that the Russian sanctions makes things difficult for blowhard Trump is not the issue nor the intent. President Obama was acting in response to Russia's interference with our diplomats and cyber attacks. This needed to be done. As to Trump, that's tough. Share Facebook Twitter
furiouspurpose -> dddxxx , 30 Dec 2016 21:06
No - he was reacting to Russia "hacking the elections". What specifically did they do? What evidence exists of this? Share Facebook Twitter
WillKnotTell -> furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 21:16
The lack of evidence is the evidence. Ask any Trumpeteer and believer of Peter Schweizer. Share Facebook Twitter
monsieur_flaneur , 30 Dec 2016 20:49
Obama, envisioning a spot on Mt Rushmore, exits a laughing stock. Ah well

Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 30 Dec 2016 20:59
Why would Russia be happy that Clinton lost? Why would any foreign power be happy that Clinton lost?...
How many years did HRC, in her arrogance-fuelled denial, provide foreign intelligences with literally tonnes of free info??!
furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 21:03

Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. .... But if he did choose to do so, he would find himself at odds with his own party.

Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit on the Bush's claims to have made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social security...

All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone that it wasn't Russians who manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre by Obama with no trouble.

an opinion -> hawkchurch , 30 Dec 2016 21:07
Putin is playing obama like a fiddle and make him irrelevant!
diddoit , 30 Dec 2016 21:04
Make America and Russia ... Great Again.

Intelligence sharing, to tackle terror, is only the start of what's likely to become a strong partnership.

I bet Intel agents can hardly wait ..lol

Munchausen007
Simple solution, publish the commenter geolocation and ban proxy, clean the comment section from putinbots. Putin like ASBO's must stop to do more harm against democracy.
Down2dirt -> Munchausen007 , 30 Dec 2016 19:17
What a foolish comment.
Ilurktostudyyouall -> Munchausen007 , 30 Dec 2016 19:39
And what happens when you begin to realise many are not putinbots?
Not4TheFaintOfHeart -> Ilurktostudyyouall , 30 Dec 2016 19:58
I'm sure they'll find some excuse to get around that... 'It's elephants all the way down', don't forget
Julian Beach , 30 Dec 2016 19:06
...an attempt rendered utterly futile by Putin refusing to carry out tit-for-tat expulsions.

Premier League trolling. Again.

fivefeetfour -> Jonathan Stromberg , 30 Dec 2016 22:47
There's still no evidence regarding the origin of the cyber attack. I've seen you posting a link to the report. The first line in it is a disclaimer: "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within". Which is very wise from them.
ukc ltd , 30 Dec 2016 19:07
Sanctions = token gestures that will soon fade into the distance. Much like you know who. Obama is salty because of Kilary getting whupped and Putin out-playing him in Syria. Never thought I would see the day when I sided with Trump over Obama. Interesting times.
foolisholdman -> ukc ltd , 30 Dec 2016 20:01
Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem is that they have been found out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders" and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat, but the core of their policies was Corporatism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama.

The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what they mean, loud and apparently clear. People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long time and they are fed up. That is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's "Liberalism" any more.

Potyka Kalman , 30 Dec 2016 19:09
Oh the War Party. Trump rally should point them out as such. So the light shines in those dark spots.

You Russians have a strange sense of humour.

AveAtqueCave , 30 Dec 2016 19:13
Ben, I found Glenn Greenwald's take on you quite interesting. Have you responded? And, yes, I know, my polite and pertinent question will violate the terms here.
Ilurktostudyyouall -> AveAtqueCave , 30 Dec 2016 19:42
Cheers for that. False news angle now in total tatters
furiouspurpose -> AveAtqueCave , 30 Dec 2016 21:36
What does Glenn Greenwald know? With his crappy little "Pulitzer Prize".
John Blenkins -> AveAtqueCave , 30 Dec 2016 23:17
Good to see someone with the bollox to call a spade a spade.
More importantly it helps lift the eyelids of those who think our msm tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
AveAtqueCave -> Tercole , 30 Dec 2016 19:22
The American system is based on open legal proceedings.

Have you seen the evidence Russia perpetrated the leaks?

Please provide.

Terry Phillips , 30 Dec 2016 19:19
You just know these people, like Johnny boy, who are pointing fingers at Russia are doing so based upon long laid plans to bind up Trump from building a healthy relationship with Russia which would put an end to terrorism and likely all of these petty little wars that are tearing the world to pieces. These people want war because division keeps them in power and war makes them lots of money. I hope that Trump and Putin can work together and build a trust and foundation as allies in that together we can stamp out terrorism and stabilize the worlds conflicts. Everything these people do in the next 20 days has a single agenda and that is to cause instability and roadblocks for Trump and his team. Hope is just around the corner people so let's help usher it in.
Ilurktostudyyouall -> 79pentland , 30 Dec 2016 19:54
Don't trust anyone until you know them. Been married and watched it turn to shit? You can't really trust anyone. The same can be said for any country member.
bready , 30 Dec 2016 19:22
"US intelligence consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the 2016 election in his favor "

Are your mentors still thinking that people will swallow that fable? The same mentors who understated Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania?

foolisholdman -> bready , 30 Dec 2016 19:36
bready

"US intelligence consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the 2016 election in his favor "

These people either think that an ex-British Ambassador is not an important witness or they don't want to hear anything that contradicts the narrative they have been told to spin. It has to be one or the other. Share

bready -> foolisholdman , 30 Dec 2016 19:54
Some people don't need to hear narratives to discern the cheap tricks of politics.
86753oh9 , 30 Dec 2016 19:24
First... let's see some actual evidence/proof. Oh, that's right, none has been offered up.
Second... everyone is upset that the DNC turd was exposed, but no one upset about the existence of the turd. ?

Obama acting like a petulant child that has to leave the game and go home now, so he's kicking the game board and forcing everyone else to clean up his mess. Irresponsible.

TheWindsOfFreedom -> 86753oh9 , 30 Dec 2016 19:33
Hundred times repeated lie will become the truth... that's the US officials policy for decades now. In 8 years, they did nothing, so they are trying to do "something" in the last minute. For someone, who's using his own brain is all of this just laughable. United States are not united I guess. Guess, that Merkel is the next on the list...
Fulhamred , 30 Dec 2016 19:26
Hopefully now this will enable senate and congress republicans to prevent these crazy ideas of Russian appeasement take hold and pursue a hardline against Russia, Hamas, Iran and Cuba.
Down2dirt -> Fulhamred , 30 Dec 2016 19:31
They'll probably do that. Business as usual. To pursue a hard line against Isis enablers like Saudi and Qatar, now that would be a surprise.
Individualist -> Down2dirt , 30 Dec 2016 19:35
Actually the biggest ISIS enabler was Cheney.
Down2dirt -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:42
Well you're probably right about that.
Waaarrrggghhh , 30 Dec 2016 19:27
Not really. Obama is just making himself look like an idiot.
rocjoc43rd -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:45
Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area. You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office.
cosmith , 30 Dec 2016 19:27
So the person awarded a Nobel Peace Prize uses his last weeks in office to sour relations between the only 2 superpowers on Earth for - what ?

American party politics /
Spite ?
Ideological hatred ?

For those of you who are too young to remember, look up "Cold War" and look for references
to Hawks and Doves.

Who are the Hawks now - and who are the Doves ?

The Left/Liberal paradigm is so drastically in need of updating that it is becoming downright dangerous.

Hell hath on fury like a self defined "liberal" scorned. Share

Individualist -> cosmith , 30 Dec 2016 19:33
So you are blaming the President (the current one) for addressing the fact that a foreign power attempted to mess with a US election?
rocjoc43rd -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:42
I think you can blame Obama for underestimating Putin. Remember when he told Putin before the 2012 election off mike that he would have more leeway after the election. Remember when Romney in 2012 warned us that Russia was a big threat and Obama thought that was silly. Obama has been outclassed by Putin at every turn. Whatever else you may say about Trump, he recognizes that Putin is worthy adversary not one to be marginalized. Putin has manage to marginalize the US in Syria despite all the money and effort we have dumped into it.
Banker1 -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:48
The foreign power did the American people a favor when it exposed the corruption within the Democratic Party; something the establishment media was apparently unable or unwilling to do. Rather than sanctioning Putin, Americans should be thanking him!
Haigin88 , 30 Dec 2016 19:30
R.E.M.: 'Exhuming McCarthy'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMedTmZKo38
Mick Readdin , 30 Dec 2016 19:31
Whatever the outcome, the winner is.... Putin!

His recent announcement (no tit-for-tat) was masterful politicking. Should Trump refuse to do anything, Putin knows he can wrap Trump around his finger, with the added bonus of both US houses kicking off.

If Trump does do something, relations will sour and Putin can blame the US.

gottliebvera , 30 Dec 2016 19:34
I think Obama is behaving in a most petulant and non-presidential manner. Lack of decorum as parting shot. Good going.
UnitedundertheSun -> Jonathan Stromberg , 30 Dec 2016 23:10
Attack Russia with a wet lettuce? Oh the pain! And gives Putin the high moral ground. Brilliant politics from Obama.

All to hamfistedly conceal what a rotten dysfunctional political organisation he heads.

Obama plays snakes and ladders while Putin is playing chess.

VultureTX -> Pitthewelder , 30 Dec 2016 21:50
" and decides not to accept it he will have to make it public,"

Solely a presumption on your part, a simple statement by the new agency heads saying that the info is inconclusive and the method of the investigation will not be revealed cancels your whole argument. Sure the press will howl, but Trumps using Twitter to talk to the people and unless someone leaks you got nothing.

chelsea55 , 30 Dec 2016 19:35
Seems a no brainer, reverse Obama's ridiculous posturing gesture. As if the US doesn't have a long track record of interfering in the affairs of other countries.
chelsea55 -> LithophaneFurcifera , 30 Dec 2016 21:57
Personally I think the US should do as it wishes but it's extremely hypocritical to act shocked when the same meddling is returned by others. Obama is acting foolishly as if the final weeks of his presidency have any genuine traction on future events.
philo41z , 30 Dec 2016 19:37
We watched trump defeat republican favourites to get the nomination. He has not really needed them as much as they have felt they need him. Then he has big oil in his transition team, tillerson if I am not mistaken, connected to exxon which has oil interests in Russia....if trump removed big oil from his team maybe he can get out of this without escalating the issue or appearing to be a putin puppet...

[Dec 31, 2016] Like Iraq WMD Fiasco, Russia Story Does Not Add Up

If such attempts were really registered, the question is were those attempts to hack US sites from Russian IP space a false flag operation, probably with participation of Ukrainian secret services? '
As one commenter noted: "The Ukrainian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage."
If so what is the agenda outside obvious attempt to poison Us-Russian relations just before Trump assumes presidency. Neocon in Washington are really afraid losing this plush positions. And there is the whole colony of such "national security professionals" in Washington DC. For example Robert Kagan can't do anything useful outside his favorite Russophobic agenda and would be an unemployed along with his wife, who brought us Ukrainian disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote. ..."
"... The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up. ..."
"... Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration. ..."
"... Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. ..."
"... Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here. ..."
"... We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across. ..."
"... The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location. ..."
"... "If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack." ..."
"... I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time? ..."
"... A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians! ..."
"... It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!" ..."
"... And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE. ..."
"... NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort. ..."
"... Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored." ..."
"... We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate. ..."
"... I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something. ..."
"... This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous. ..."
"... Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." ..."
"... WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools." ..."
"... The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere. ..."
"... Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe. ..."
"... McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward. ..."
"... McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples. ..."
"... After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma. ..."
"... Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world. ..."
"... If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine. ..."
"... So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't. ..."
"... Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior? ..."
Dec 30, 2016 | mishtalk.com

Yesterday, President Obama expelled 35 Russian "Operatives" from the Russian Embassy .

Is there any evidence those expelled are "intelligence operatives"? Any hard evidence Russia was behind the Hillary hacks? Any credible evidence that Putin himself is to blame?

The answers are No, No, and No. Yet, once again the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment.

... ... ....

Something Stinks

The Rolling Stone comments Something About This Russia Story Stinks

In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.

The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.

If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now.

Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is " insufficient " as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."

The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser.

Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia hacked the election."

This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it hasn't always been great evidence ), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states (a far more outlandish tale backed by no credible evidence ).

As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.

And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who has birthed some real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted was a baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have attempted to argue that Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the Russians because they either visited Russia or appeared on the RT network. Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely on unnamed security sources.

Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration.

Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind.

Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here.

We just don't know, which is the problem.

We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across.

Where the Hell is the Evidence?

'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians'

John McAfee, founder of the security firm McAfee Associates, says 'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians' .

The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location.

McAfee argues that the report is a "fallacy," explaining that hackers can fake their location, their language, and any markers that could lead back to them. Any hacker who had the skills to hack into the DNC would also be able to hide their tracks, he said

"If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack."

Question of Patriotism

It's not patriotic to accept accusations as facts, given US history of lies, deceit, meddling, and wars.

Related

keepitsimple , December 30, 2016 1:41:03 at 1:41 PM
The gullibility and ignorance of the typical media lapdog is appalling, and whores like McCain and Graham will use them shamelessly to promote their twisted, warmongering agenda. The same old story, over and over again.
Bobdough , December 30, 2016 10:51:52 at 10:51 PM
Not gullibilty, but complicity
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:07:19 at 2:07 PM
I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time?

No problem if they deliver proof.

James Greenberg , December 30, 2016 6:30:47 at 6:30 PM
Read 1984. It will explain EVERYTHING.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 7:05:07 at 7:05 PM
Net control very likely in Europe soon with public administration of the web/content. Might at least help reduce the unemployment rate. Looked over the 2016 Bilderberg attendees too. MSM attendees interesting vs political bias they exhibit.

Whoever thinks there aren't people behind the scenes with a plan is naive and woe betide anyone upsetting that plan.

Crysangle , December 30, 2016 8:56:05 at 8:56 PM
Unemployment rate read last refuge from the official economy. Not the alt. web that takes away motivation, it is a pressure valve for people who find the official direction nothing short of insulting. The majority of social media users won't be distracted.

Noticed zh on Italy for you if you had not picked it up

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-30/italy-urges-europe-begin-censoring-free-speech-internet

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:53:11 at 9:53 AM
A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians!

Over ten million get running water for 12 hrs a week, while in Israel (borders move every day as the world says nothing) there are no water restrictions zero! So, while Palestinians struggle to live in hot barren desert conditions (food and medicine is also denied children die of treatable cancer often as medication is blocked), a 5 min drive away millions of gallons are used to create a green, lush paradise for the Jewish Masters!

Did you know US laws were changed in 1968 to allow "Dual Citizens" to be elected and appointed to government positions and today many of the top posts are citizens of Israel and America WTF?

Trump needs to make a daily dose of Red Pills the law

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:58:31 at 9:58 AM
Oops the 10M fig is a bit high but it's at least double the Jewish population, yet they get 97% this is slow moving genocide yet it's never even acknowledged
Greg , December 30, 2016 2:07:48 at 2:07 PM
Syria is about gas pipelines. Corporations want to profit from the gas pipeline through the region and wr the people are supposed to send our children to war over it and pay taxes tpbsupport the effort. Rissia wants pipelines from their country under the Black sea and Irans pipelines to the north. The US is supporting Qatar pipeline and LNG from our own shores to the EU.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:09:55 at 2:09 PM
Some rumours Obama to be considered for UN role and Cameron NATO.
Germ , December 30, 2016 2:13:34 at 2:13 PM
It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!"
Winston , December 30, 2016 3:43:28 at 3:43 PM
"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," (Obama) wrote.

And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE.

Note he avoided the phrase, "slam dunk"

Winston , December 30, 2016 3:52:29 at 3:52 PM
NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort.

Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored."

fingerhole , December 30, 2016 5:24:36 at 5:24 PM
Any government that claims a right to secrecy over its affairs is going to use lying as a policy.
Steven milgrom , December 30, 2016 4:17:51 at 4:17 PM
Snowden says that it is auite easy to trace the source of the hackers.
madashellowell , December 30, 2016 4:21:48 at 4:21 PM
We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate.

I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:25:43 at 1:25 PM
Well, it is an established and accepted fact that Richard Nixon was a very intelligent guy. None of Nixon's detractors ever claimed he was stupid, and Nixon won reelection easily.

Tricky Dick was just a tad "honesty challenged", and so is Obama. They were/are both neo-keynesians, both took their sweet time ending stupid wars started by their predecessors even after it was clear the wars were pointless.

Then again, I doubt Obozo is as smart as Nixon. Soros is clearly the puppeteer controlling what Obama does. Soros is now freaking out that his fascist agenda has been exposed.

vooch , December 30, 2016 5:18:15 at 5:18 PM
This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous.
Winston , December 30, 2016 5:24:35 at 5:24 PM
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/

Excerpt:

"While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks.

Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups."

WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools."

The_Fish , December 30, 2016 5:54:31 at 5:54 PM
2015 Bilderberg. Looking down the attendees and subjects covered. Interesting some of the main anti-Brexit groups had representatives there, suggests HC picked for 2016 US election, Cyber-security and etc. Look at the key topics. How they all helped define 2016. So many current intertwined themes.

Little people upset the apple-cart? http://www.globalresearch.ca/bilderberg-chooses-hillary-clinton-for-2016/5454829

wootendw , December 30, 2016 6:01:33 at 6:01 PM
"We just don't know "

The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:09:50 at 9:09 PM
One of the leakers is dead, we know that.
joelg5 , December 30, 2016 6:35:45 at 6:35 PM
Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe.

McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward.

The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view, so Trump will need the USA Marines on his side. McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples.

After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma.

Perhaps the Clinton Foundation and nascent Obama foundation feel it in their financial interests to nurture the misma.

Cha-ching, cha-ching. Money to be made in demonizing Russia.

Ron J , December 31, 2016 12:32:19 at 12:32 PM
"The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view "

All the circumstantial evidence pointed to Oswald. No one has ever proven otherwise, in over 50 years.

After 50 years of being propagandized by conspiracy book writers, it isn't surprising that anything is widely believed at this point. The former curator of the 6th Floor Museum, Gary Mack, believed there was a conspiracy, but over time came to realize that it was Oswald, alone.

CJ , December 30, 2016 8:15:54 at 8:15 PM
When liberal Rolling Stone questions the Obama/DNC propaganda, you know for certain that they have lost even their base supporters (the ones that can still think). The BS has just gotten too stupid.
Truth seeker , December 30, 2016 9:32:32 at 9:32 PM
Why is the WSJ strongly supporting Obama here but also saying he waited way to long to make this move? I don't always agree with them nor do I with you.

Ok I haven't read the comments but would only say that when Vladimir Putin the once leader of the KGB becomes a preacher and starts criticizing the West for abandoning its Christian roots, it's moral dignity, that for me doesn't just stink, it raises red flags all over the place. I think Trump and some of the rest of u r being set up here-like lambs to the slaughter. Mish your naďveté here surprises me!

Bobdough , December 30, 2016 11:00:12 at 11:00 PM
The Russians are coming!

Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:52:15 at 9:52 PM
Germany takes back its gold from US. Finally, after the Fed Res refused an audit request. http://www.pravdareport.com/business/finance/27-12-2016/136521-gold-0/
Simon Hodges , December 31, 2016 7:57:09 at 7:57 AM
If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine.

The Ukranian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage. If I was Trump then when I took office I would want an extremely thorough investigation into the activities of the CIA by a third reliable party.

Seenitallbefore , December 31, 2016 9:48:10 at 9:48 AM
Don't be stupid. The Russians did it. CNN reported it, so it must be true.
Winston , December 31, 2016 10:22:42 at 10:22 AM
Supporting -EXACTLY- the points I've previously made here: Russian Hackers Said To "Penetrate US Electricity Grid" Using Outdated Ukrainian Malware

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-31/russian-hackers-said-penetrate-us-electricity-grid-using-outdated-ukrainian-malware

Excerpt: But was it really Russian meddling? After all, how does one prove not only intent but source in a world of cyberespionage, where planting false flag clues and other Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) meant to frame a specific entity, is as important as the actual hack.

Robert M. Lee, CEO and founder of cybersecurity company Dragos, which specializes in threats facing critical infrastructure, also noted that the IOCs included "commodity malware," or hacking tools that are widely available for purchase.

He said:

1. No they did not penetrate the grid.
2. The IOCs contained *commodity malware* – can't attribute based off that alone.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:09:53 at 1:09 PM
So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't.

Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior?

And as "proportional retaliation" for this Russian whistle blowing, Obozo is evicting 35 entertainment staff from the Russian embassy summer camp?

I doubt Hollywood or San Francisco has the integrity to admit they backed the wrong loser when they supported Obozo but they should think about their own credibility after January 20th. Anyone who is still backing Obozo is just too stupid to tie their own shoes much less vote

[Dec 31, 2016] Milton Friedman was intellectual prostitute of financial oligarchy most of his long life, starting from his days in Mont Pelerin Society

Dec 31, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
JohnH : December 31, 2016 at 04:38 PM
Ironic isn't it? "Why didn't ... exhibit the same restraint in his role as a public intellectual?

The answer, I suspect, is that he got caught up in an essentially political role. Milton Friedman the great economist could and did acknowledge ambiguity. But Milton Friedman the great champion of free markets was expected to preach the true faith, not give voice to doubts. And he ended up playing the role his followers expected. As a result, over time the refreshing iconoclasm of his early career hardened into a rigid defense of what had become the new orthodoxy."

Krugman should have stuck to economics...

likbez -> JohnH...
Yes, this is pretty nasty verdict for Krugman too.

But, in reality, Milton Friedman was an intellectual prostitute of financial oligarchy most of his long life, starting from his days in Mont Pelerin Society ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society) , where he was one of the founders.

So, if the period when he was a good econometrician exists it is limited to pre-war and war years. As he was born in 1912, he was just 33 in 1945. His "A Theory of the Consumption Function" was published in 1957. And "A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960" in 1963, when he was already completely crooked.

Mont Pelerin Society was founded in 1947 with the explicit political goal of being hatching place for neoliberal ideology as alternative to communist ideology. He served as a President of this Society from 1970 to 1972.

Capitalism and Freedom that many consider to be neoliberal manifesto similar to Marx and Engels "Manifesto of the Communist Party" was published in 1962.

So what Krugnam is saying is a myth. And he is not an impartial observer. He is a neoliberal himself. I still remember Krugman despicable attacks on John Kenneth Galbraith and his unhealthy fascination with the usage of differential equations in economic modeling, the epitome of mathiness.

[Dec 31, 2016] Problems with Krugman as an economist is that he, as a neoliberal, believes that profit motive is superior to the mutual benefit motive all the time.

Notable quotes:
"... My criticism of Krugman is far more fundamental. I do not believe the profit motive is superior to the mutual benefit motive when it comes to organizing economies. ..."
Dec 31, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Paul Mathis -> anne... , December 31, 2016 at 06:48 PM
I have two problems with Prof. K:

1. His refusal to acknowledge the central role of consumption in our economy. As Keynes said, ""Consumption - to repeat the obvious - is the sole end and object of all economic activity." The General Theory, p. 104.

And Adam Smith agreed: "Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production." The Wealth of Nations, Book IV Chapter VIII, v. ii, p. 660, para. 49.

2. Krugman's refusal to endorse fiscal stimulus unless the economy is at ZLB. That is not only anti-Keynesian, it plays directly into the hands of the debt fear mongers. (Krugman is also worried about the debt.)

yuan -> Paul Mathis... , December 31, 2016 at 06:56 PM
"Krugman's refusal to endorse fiscal stimulus unless the economy is at ZLB."

That is a strawman, and a bad one.

PS: My criticism of Krugman is far more fundamental. I do not believe the profit motive is superior to the mutual benefit motive when it comes to organizing economies.

anne -> Paul Mathis... , December 31, 2016 at 06:57 PM
Important criticisms.
anne -> Paul Mathis... , December 31, 2016 at 07:00 PM
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book04/ch08.htm

1776

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations
By Adam Smith

On Systems of Political Economy

Conclusion of the Mercantile System

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.

anne -> Paul Mathis... , December 31, 2016 at 07:07 PM
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch08.htm

1935

The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
By John Maynard Keynes

The Propensity to Consume: The Objective Factors

Consumption - to repeat the obvious - is the sole end and object of all economic activity. Opportunities for employment are necessarily limited by the extent of aggregate demand. Aggregate demand can be derived only from present consumption or from present provision for future consumption. The consumption for which we can profitably provide in advance cannot be pushed indefinitely into the future. We cannot, as a community, provide for future consumption by financial expedients but only by current physical output. In so far as our social and business organisation separates financial provision for the future from physical provision for the future so that efforts to secure the former do not necessarily carry the latter with them, financial prudence will be liable to diminish aggregate demand and thus impair well-being, as there are many examples to testify. The greater, moreover, the consumption for which we have provided in advance, the more difficult it is to find something further to provide for in advance, and the greater our dependence on present consumption as a source of demand. Yet the larger our incomes, the greater, unfortunately, is the margin between our incomes and our consumption. So, failing some novel expedient, there is, as we shall see, no answer to the riddle, except that there must be sufficient unemployment to keep us so poor that our consumption falls short of our income by no more than the equivalent of the physical provision for future consumption which it pays to produce to-day.

anne -> Paul Mathis... , -1
Krugman's refusal to endorse fiscal stimulus unless the economy is at zero lower bound. That is not only anti-Keynesian, it plays directly into the hands of the debt fear mongers. (Krugman is also worried about the debt.)

[ Only correct to a degree, economic weakness is recognized. ]

[Dec 31, 2016] Economists View 2007 Krugman on Milton Friedman

Dec 31, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Mathew Kahn:
2007 Krugman on Milton Friedman : As you read this direct Paul Krugman quote, do y ou hear this song in the background.

"What's odd about Friedman's absolutism on the virtues of markets and the vices of government is that in his work as an economist's economist he was actually a model of restraint. As I pointed out earlier, he made great contributions to economic theory by emphasizing the role of individual rationality-but unlike some of his colleagues, he knew where to stop. Why didn't he exhibit the same restraint in his role as a public intellectual?

The answer, I suspect, is that he got caught up in an essentially political role. Milton Friedman the great economist could and did acknowledge ambiguity. But Milton Friedman the great champion of free markets was expected to preach the true faith, not give voice to doubts. And he ended up playing the role his followers expected. As a result, over time the refreshing iconoclasm of his early career hardened into a rigid defense of what had become the new orthodoxy.

In the long run, great men are remembered for their strengths, not their weaknesses, and Milton Friedman was a very great man indeed-a man of intellectual courage who was one of the most important economic thinkers of all time, and possibly the most brilliant communicator of economic ideas to the general public that ever lived. But there's a good case for arguing that Friedmanism, in the end, went too far, both as a doctrine and in its practical applications. When Friedman was beginning his career as a public intellectual, the times were ripe for a counterreformation against Keynesianism and all that went with it. But what the world needs now, I'd argue, is a counter-counterreformation."

Paul Mathis : , December 31, 2016 at 02:26 PM

Counter-reformation? Not exactly.

In an interview with Public Broadcasting System on Oct. 1, 2000, Dr. Milton Friedman said, "Let me emphasize [that] I think Keynes was a great economist. I think his particular theory in The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money is a fascinating theory. It's a right kind of a theory. It's one which says a lot by using only a little. So it's a theory that has great potentiality."

Brilliant economist? Not exactly. For monetarists who believe as Dr. Friedman did that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon," the nearly $4 trillion added to the money supply by the Fed since 2008 should have produced raging hyper-inflation. For Friedman, the answer was not debatable: "A steady rate of monetary growth at a moderate level can provide a framework under which a country can have little inflation and much growth." The Counter-Revolution in Monetary Theory (1970).

Dan Berg -> Paul Mathis... , December 31, 2016 at 02:38 PM
$4 T was not "added to the money supply"

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=2VX3

For Krugman, this is called being hoisted by one's own petard.

anne -> Dan Berg ... , December 31, 2016 at 03:35 PM
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=2VX3 :

this graph, which should have been labelled but was not, depicts the monetary base from October 2012 to December 2015 for reasons that are a mystery to me.

anne -> Paul Mathis... , December 31, 2016 at 02:44 PM
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cfmn

January 15, 2016

Adjusted Monetary Base, 2000-2016


https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cfmq

January 15, 2016

Adjusted Monetary Base, 2008-2016

anne -> anne... , December 31, 2016 at 02:47 PM
About $3 trillion was added to the monetary base between 2008 and the beginning of 2015.
Dan Berg -> anne... , December 31, 2016 at 05:05 PM
so why are you depicting the monetary base if they are such a mystery; and without labels?
anne -> anne... , December 31, 2016 at 05:18 PM
Perfectly described and drawn graphs depicting more than a $3 trillion increase in the monetary base between 2008 and 2015. Nice and simple as that:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cfmn

January 15, 2016

Adjusted Monetary Base, 2000-2016

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cfmq

January 15, 2016

Adjusted Monetary Base, 2008-2016

Tra la, tra la.

anne -> Paul Mathis... , December 31, 2016 at 03:44 PM
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/milton-friedman-unperson/

August 8, 2013

Milton Friedman, Unperson
By Paul Krugman

So Friedman has vanished from the policy scene - so much so that I suspect that a few decades from now, historians of economic thought will regard him as little more than an extended footnote.

anne -> Paul Mathis... , December 31, 2016 at 05:26 PM
Do write further on this matter when possible.
anne : , December 31, 2016 at 02:39 PM
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19857

February 15, 2007

Who Was Milton Friedman?
By Paul Krugman - New York Review of Books

1.

The history of economic thought in the twentieth century is a bit like the history of Christianity in the sixteenth century. Until John Maynard Keynes published The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money in 1936, economics-at least in the English-speaking world-was completely dominated by free-market orthodoxy. Heresies would occasionally pop up, but they were always suppressed. Classical economics, wrote Keynes in 1936, "conquered England as completely as the Holy Inquisition conquered Spain." And classical economics said that the answer to almost all problems was to let the forces of supply and demand do their job.

But classical economics offered neither explanations nor solutions for the Great Depression. By the middle of the 1930s, the challenges to orthodoxy could no longer be contained. Keynes played the role of Martin Luther, providing the intellectual rigor needed to make heresy respectable. Although Keynes was by no means a leftist-he came to save capitalism, not to bury it-his theory said that free markets could not be counted on to provide full employment, creating a new rationale for large-scale government intervention in the economy.

Keynesianism was a great reformation of economic thought. It was followed, inevitably, by a counter-reformation. A number of economists played important roles in the great revival of classical economics between 1950 and 2000, but none was as influential as Milton Friedman. If Keynes was Luther, Friedman was Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits. And like the Jesuits, Friedman's followers have acted as a sort of disciplined army of the faithful, spearheading a broad, but incomplete, rollback of Keynesian heresy. By the century's end, classical economics had regained much though by no means all of its former dominion, and Friedman deserves much of the credit.

I don't want to push the religious analogy too far. Economic theory at least aspires to be science, not theology; it is concerned with earth, not heaven. Keynesian theory initially prevailed because it did a far better job than classical orthodoxy of making sense of the world around us, and Friedman's critique of Keynes became so influential largely because he correctly identified Keynesianism's weak points. And just to be clear: although this essay argues that Friedman was wrong on some issues, and sometimes seemed less than honest with his readers, I regard him as a great economist and a great man....

anne -> anne... , December 31, 2016 at 03:00 PM
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/friedman-and-schwartz-were-wrong/

March 2, 2009

Friedman and Schwartz Were Wrong
By Paul Krugman

It's one of Ben Bernanke's most memorable quotes: at a conference honoring Milton Friedman on his 90th birthday, he said: *

"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."

He was referring to the Friedman-Schwartz argument that the Fed could have prevented the Great Depression if only it has been more aggressive in countering the fall in the money supply. This argument later mutated into the claim that the Fed caused the Depression, but its original version still packed a strong punch. Basically, it implied that no fundamental reforms of the economy were necessary; all it takes to avoid depressions is for central banks to do their job.

But can we say that recent events appear to disprove that claim? (So did Japan's experience in the 1990s, but that lesson failed to sink in.) What we have now is a Fed that is determined not to "do it again." It has been very aggressive about monetary expansion. Here's one measure of that aggressiveness, banks' excess reserves:

[Bank excess reserves, 1990-2009]

And yet the world economy is still falling off a cliff.

Preventing depressions, it turns out, is a lot harder than we were taught.

* http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/default.htm

anne -> anne... , December 31, 2016 at 03:17 PM
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cfmx

January 30, 2016

Excess Reserves of Depository Institutions, 1990-2009

[Dec 31, 2016] Greed Springs Eternal

Notable quotes:
"... You can't go all Ayn Rand/Gordon Gekko on the importance of greed as a motivator while claiming that wealth insulates ... from temptation. ... ..."
"... And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and always was a sham. It was never about the incentives; it was just another excuse to make the rich richer. ..."
"... "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." ..."
"... choosing a cabinet of billionaires, because rich men are incorruptible"...kind of like showering ZIRP on the Wall Street banking cartel and letting them how to ration credit to the rest of economy...mostly their wealthy clientele, who use it for stock buy-backs and asset speculation. ..."
"... Of course, 'liberal' economists see nothing wrong with trickle down, supply side economics, as long as it's the Wall Street banking cartel who's in charge of it... ..."
"... Stiglitz: "I've always said that current monetary policy is not going to work because quantitative easing is based on a variant of trickle-down economics. The lower interest rates have led to a stock-market bubble – to increases in stock-market prices and huge increases in wealth. But relatively little of that's been translated into increased and broad consumer spending." ..."
"... But pgl and many other '[neo[liberal' economists just can't get enough of the trickle down monetary policy...all the while they vehemently condemn trickle down tax policy. ..."
"... You all think Trump can do worse than the sitting cabal adding $660B from Sep 2015 to the federal debt quietly keeping the economy going for the incumbent party? ..."
"... The losers think the winners are as crooked as they! ..."
Dec 31, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

To belabor what should be obvious: either the wealthy care about having more money or they don't. If lower marginal tax rates are an incentive to produce more, the prospect of personal gain is an incentive to engage in corrupt practices. You can't go all Ayn Rand/Gordon Gekko on the importance of greed as a motivator while claiming that wealth insulates ... from temptation. ...

And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and always was a sham. It was never about the incentives; it was just another excuse to make the rich richer.

Anomalous Cowherd : December 29, 2016 at 11:35 AM
In one sentence, you still can't beat John Kenneth Galbraith's assessment: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth. -- Nero Wolfe

DrDick -> Anomalous Cowherd... , December 29, 2016 at 12:31 PM
You need to know nothing else to understand the entirety of the conservative edifice.
JohnH :
"choosing a cabinet of billionaires, because rich men are incorruptible"...kind of like showering ZIRP on the Wall Street banking cartel and letting them how to ration credit to the rest of economy...mostly their wealthy clientele, who use it for stock buy-backs and asset speculation.

Of course, 'liberal' economists see nothing wrong with trickle down, supply side economics, as long as it's the Wall Street banking cartel who's in charge of it...

Gibbon1 : , December 29, 2016 at 12:29 PM
Why do we need Krugman to tell us this?
DrDick -> Gibbon1... , -1
*We* do not, but our pandering press does and I think that is Krugman's intended target.
JohnH -> pgl...
Stiglitz: "I've always said that current monetary policy is not going to work because quantitative easing is based on a variant of trickle-down economics. The lower interest rates have led to a stock-market bubble – to increases in stock-market prices and huge increases in wealth. But relatively little of that's been translated into increased and broad consumer spending."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/munk-debates/joseph-stiglitz-current-monetary-policy-is-not-going-to-work/article24346548/

But pgl and many other '[neo[liberal' economists just can't get enough of the trickle down monetary policy...all the while they vehemently condemn trickle down tax policy.

yuan -> JohnH...
and few liberal economists have been more skeptical of QE's economic impact than Krugman.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/krugman-meh-is-grade-fed-gets-on-qe-2015-11-09

PS: bernie, please save me from your bros.

ilsm :
You all think Trump can do worse than the sitting cabal adding $660B from Sep 2015 to the federal debt quietly keeping the economy going for the incumbent party?

The losers think the winners are as crooked as they!

yuan -> ilsm...
when we can borrow over the long-term at 3% and have truly massive infrastructure and clean energy needs we should be borrowing like military Keynesian republicans...

[Dec 31, 2016] Like Iraq WMD Fiasco, Russia Story Does Not Add Up

If such attempts were really registered, the question is were those attempts to hack US sites from Russian IP space a false flag operation, probably with participation of Ukrainian secret services? '
As one commenter noted: "The Ukrainian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage."
If so what is the agenda outside obvious attempt to poison Us-Russian relations just before Trump assumes presidency. Neocon in Washington are really afraid losing this plush positions. And there is the whole colony of such "national security professionals" in Washington DC. For example Robert Kagan can't do anything useful outside his favorite Russophobic agenda and would be an unemployed along with his wife, who brought us Ukrainian disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote. ..."
"... The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up. ..."
"... Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration. ..."
"... Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. ..."
"... Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here. ..."
"... We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across. ..."
"... The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location. ..."
"... "If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack." ..."
"... I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time? ..."
"... A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians! ..."
"... It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!" ..."
"... And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE. ..."
"... NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort. ..."
"... Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored." ..."
"... We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate. ..."
"... I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something. ..."
"... This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous. ..."
"... Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." ..."
"... WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools." ..."
"... The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere. ..."
"... Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe. ..."
"... McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward. ..."
"... McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples. ..."
"... After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma. ..."
"... Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world. ..."
"... If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine. ..."
"... So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't. ..."
"... Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior? ..."
Dec 30, 2016 | mishtalk.com

Yesterday, President Obama expelled 35 Russian "Operatives" from the Russian Embassy .

Is there any evidence those expelled are "intelligence operatives"? Any hard evidence Russia was behind the Hillary hacks? Any credible evidence that Putin himself is to blame?

The answers are No, No, and No. Yet, once again the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment.

... ... ....

Something Stinks

The Rolling Stone comments Something About This Russia Story Stinks

In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.

The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.

If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now.

Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is " insufficient " as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."

The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser.

Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia hacked the election."

This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it hasn't always been great evidence ), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states (a far more outlandish tale backed by no credible evidence ).

As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.

And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who has birthed some real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted was a baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have attempted to argue that Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the Russians because they either visited Russia or appeared on the RT network. Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely on unnamed security sources.

Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration.

Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind.

Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here.

We just don't know, which is the problem.

We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across.

Where the Hell is the Evidence?

'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians'

John McAfee, founder of the security firm McAfee Associates, says 'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians' .

The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location.

McAfee argues that the report is a "fallacy," explaining that hackers can fake their location, their language, and any markers that could lead back to them. Any hacker who had the skills to hack into the DNC would also be able to hide their tracks, he said

"If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack."

Question of Patriotism

It's not patriotic to accept accusations as facts, given US history of lies, deceit, meddling, and wars.

Related

keepitsimple , December 30, 2016 1:41:03 at 1:41 PM
The gullibility and ignorance of the typical media lapdog is appalling, and whores like McCain and Graham will use them shamelessly to promote their twisted, warmongering agenda. The same old story, over and over again.
Bobdough , December 30, 2016 10:51:52 at 10:51 PM
Not gullibilty, but complicity
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:07:19 at 2:07 PM
I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time?

No problem if they deliver proof.

James Greenberg , December 30, 2016 6:30:47 at 6:30 PM
Read 1984. It will explain EVERYTHING.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 7:05:07 at 7:05 PM
Net control very likely in Europe soon with public administration of the web/content. Might at least help reduce the unemployment rate. Looked over the 2016 Bilderberg attendees too. MSM attendees interesting vs political bias they exhibit.

Whoever thinks there aren't people behind the scenes with a plan is naive and woe betide anyone upsetting that plan.

Crysangle , December 30, 2016 8:56:05 at 8:56 PM
Unemployment rate read last refuge from the official economy. Not the alt. web that takes away motivation, it is a pressure valve for people who find the official direction nothing short of insulting. The majority of social media users won't be distracted.

Noticed zh on Italy for you if you had not picked it up

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-30/italy-urges-europe-begin-censoring-free-speech-internet

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:53:11 at 9:53 AM
A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians!

Over ten million get running water for 12 hrs a week, while in Israel (borders move every day as the world says nothing) there are no water restrictions zero! So, while Palestinians struggle to live in hot barren desert conditions (food and medicine is also denied children die of treatable cancer often as medication is blocked), a 5 min drive away millions of gallons are used to create a green, lush paradise for the Jewish Masters!

Did you know US laws were changed in 1968 to allow "Dual Citizens" to be elected and appointed to government positions and today many of the top posts are citizens of Israel and America WTF?

Trump needs to make a daily dose of Red Pills the law

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:58:31 at 9:58 AM
Oops the 10M fig is a bit high but it's at least double the Jewish population, yet they get 97% this is slow moving genocide yet it's never even acknowledged
Greg , December 30, 2016 2:07:48 at 2:07 PM
Syria is about gas pipelines. Corporations want to profit from the gas pipeline through the region and wr the people are supposed to send our children to war over it and pay taxes tpbsupport the effort. Rissia wants pipelines from their country under the Black sea and Irans pipelines to the north. The US is supporting Qatar pipeline and LNG from our own shores to the EU.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:09:55 at 2:09 PM
Some rumours Obama to be considered for UN role and Cameron NATO.
Germ , December 30, 2016 2:13:34 at 2:13 PM
It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!"
Winston , December 30, 2016 3:43:28 at 3:43 PM
"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," (Obama) wrote.

And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE.

Note he avoided the phrase, "slam dunk"

Winston , December 30, 2016 3:52:29 at 3:52 PM
NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort.

Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored."

fingerhole , December 30, 2016 5:24:36 at 5:24 PM
Any government that claims a right to secrecy over its affairs is going to use lying as a policy.
Steven milgrom , December 30, 2016 4:17:51 at 4:17 PM
Snowden says that it is auite easy to trace the source of the hackers.
madashellowell , December 30, 2016 4:21:48 at 4:21 PM
We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate.

I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:25:43 at 1:25 PM
Well, it is an established and accepted fact that Richard Nixon was a very intelligent guy. None of Nixon's detractors ever claimed he was stupid, and Nixon won reelection easily.

Tricky Dick was just a tad "honesty challenged", and so is Obama. They were/are both neo-keynesians, both took their sweet time ending stupid wars started by their predecessors even after it was clear the wars were pointless.

Then again, I doubt Obozo is as smart as Nixon. Soros is clearly the puppeteer controlling what Obama does. Soros is now freaking out that his fascist agenda has been exposed.

vooch , December 30, 2016 5:18:15 at 5:18 PM
This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous.
Winston , December 30, 2016 5:24:35 at 5:24 PM
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/

Excerpt:

"While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks.

Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups."

WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools."

The_Fish , December 30, 2016 5:54:31 at 5:54 PM
2015 Bilderberg. Looking down the attendees and subjects covered. Interesting some of the main anti-Brexit groups had representatives there, suggests HC picked for 2016 US election, Cyber-security and etc. Look at the key topics. How they all helped define 2016. So many current intertwined themes.

Little people upset the apple-cart? http://www.globalresearch.ca/bilderberg-chooses-hillary-clinton-for-2016/5454829

wootendw , December 30, 2016 6:01:33 at 6:01 PM
"We just don't know "

The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:09:50 at 9:09 PM
One of the leakers is dead, we know that.
joelg5 , December 30, 2016 6:35:45 at 6:35 PM
Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe.

McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward.

The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view, so Trump will need the USA Marines on his side. McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples.

After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma.

Perhaps the Clinton Foundation and nascent Obama foundation feel it in their financial interests to nurture the misma.

Cha-ching, cha-ching. Money to be made in demonizing Russia.

Ron J , December 31, 2016 12:32:19 at 12:32 PM
"The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view "

All the circumstantial evidence pointed to Oswald. No one has ever proven otherwise, in over 50 years.

After 50 years of being propagandized by conspiracy book writers, it isn't surprising that anything is widely believed at this point. The former curator of the 6th Floor Museum, Gary Mack, believed there was a conspiracy, but over time came to realize that it was Oswald, alone.

CJ , December 30, 2016 8:15:54 at 8:15 PM
When liberal Rolling Stone questions the Obama/DNC propaganda, you know for certain that they have lost even their base supporters (the ones that can still think). The BS has just gotten too stupid.
Truth seeker , December 30, 2016 9:32:32 at 9:32 PM
Why is the WSJ strongly supporting Obama here but also saying he waited way to long to make this move? I don't always agree with them nor do I with you.

Ok I haven't read the comments but would only say that when Vladimir Putin the once leader of the KGB becomes a preacher and starts criticizing the West for abandoning its Christian roots, it's moral dignity, that for me doesn't just stink, it raises red flags all over the place. I think Trump and some of the rest of u r being set up here-like lambs to the slaughter. Mish your naďveté here surprises me!

Bobdough , December 30, 2016 11:00:12 at 11:00 PM
The Russians are coming!

Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:52:15 at 9:52 PM
Germany takes back its gold from US. Finally, after the Fed Res refused an audit request. http://www.pravdareport.com/business/finance/27-12-2016/136521-gold-0/
Simon Hodges , December 31, 2016 7:57:09 at 7:57 AM
If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine.

The Ukranian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage. If I was Trump then when I took office I would want an extremely thorough investigation into the activities of the CIA by a third reliable party.

Seenitallbefore , December 31, 2016 9:48:10 at 9:48 AM
Don't be stupid. The Russians did it. CNN reported it, so it must be true.
Winston , December 31, 2016 10:22:42 at 10:22 AM
Supporting -EXACTLY- the points I've previously made here: Russian Hackers Said To "Penetrate US Electricity Grid" Using Outdated Ukrainian Malware

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-31/russian-hackers-said-penetrate-us-electricity-grid-using-outdated-ukrainian-malware

Excerpt: But was it really Russian meddling? After all, how does one prove not only intent but source in a world of cyberespionage, where planting false flag clues and other Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) meant to frame a specific entity, is as important as the actual hack.

Robert M. Lee, CEO and founder of cybersecurity company Dragos, which specializes in threats facing critical infrastructure, also noted that the IOCs included "commodity malware," or hacking tools that are widely available for purchase.

He said:

1. No they did not penetrate the grid.
2. The IOCs contained *commodity malware* – can't attribute based off that alone.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:09:53 at 1:09 PM
So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't.

Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior?

And as "proportional retaliation" for this Russian whistle blowing, Obozo is evicting 35 entertainment staff from the Russian embassy summer camp?

I doubt Hollywood or San Francisco has the integrity to admit they backed the wrong loser when they supported Obozo but they should think about their own credibility after January 20th. Anyone who is still backing Obozo is just too stupid to tie their own shoes much less vote

[Dec 31, 2016] The last hissy fit of neocon Obama is probably connected with the loss of Alepo and being sidelined in Syria

Notable quotes:
"... I also think this is Obama's move to divert attention away from the cease fire in Syria. ..."
"... The Obama/media machine scores another hollow victory. Can't wait until this guy is out of office. ..."
"... The Obama administration should be thanking Russian efforts to end the war in Syria. We know the MIC wanted this civil war to go on for another decade. ..."
"... Oh for christ's sake, once again: There were no hacks, the emails were LEAKED! Probably by Democrats disgusted by the way Bernie was treated. ..."
"... All Americans should be alarmed that their country is now losing its edge in terms of the manipulation of other countries' electoral processes. This is "unprecedented". ..."
"... Red baiting won't close down the debate. There's still no evidence of Russian hacking of the US election. And fascism is shouting people down who ask for evidence and don't just follow the President because he is attacking the outsiders. Share Facebook Twitter TheControlLeft -> osprey1957 , 30 Dec 2016 21:12 It's preferable to the Obama brigades sponsorship of Islamic terrorism Share Facebook Twitter monsieur_flaneur , 30 Dec 2016 20:49 Obama, envisioning a spot on Mt Rushmore, exits a laughing stock. Ah well Share Janjii , 30 Dec 2016 20:54 Russia defeated the US in the Ukraine and recently it received an even harder blow Syria. Next think you know the US 'administration' makes a fool of itself by expelling 35 RF officials, who would have though that! Sad to see this beautiful continent is being compromised by someone's puppets in the white house. Nato is crumbling now that Turkey t-he gateway to the Balkans, the Caspian, to the Stannies- rethinks its ties with US/NATO and moves towards Russia. It is crumbling beacuse the world begins to understand that the rationale behind 'operation gladio' /strategy of tension is still ruling the US admin. We could do without NATO, and could use a US government supporting peace rather than an administration creating war. Even Germany starts to realize that, because of the abundance of US military bases in this country, Germany is in fact 'occupied territory', a US colony if you will. The USA has underestimated people on this planet who, as opposed to US politicians, were able to put current politics in a historical perspective. US policymakers took a part of Heidegger, Locke, Freud, Descartes and others without knowing their interpretations were at least incomplete. It results from the way in which US universities teach the discretized model of two extremes with the requirement of choosing one of these without putting both in one perspective: 'Descartes or Pascal' (not both as the French do); 'black or white'; 'with or against us'. The result Americans aimed for was a stable socio-political model, same with 'Neue Sozialismus'. What they obtained was a polarized world, because, a rigid stable model can only be governed by suppression (which the Military industrial Complex is currently doing) and we do not want that. Trump may lack political experience, he may be supported by a group of ideosyncratic wealthy people attracting bad press from 'regulated media'. Equal chance of Trump having a positive or negative effect on US internal and external policy-making, and on the relationship with RF. But, Trump has one advantage: the more the Obama 'administration' barks, the more support Trump will receive to change what Bush-Clinton-Obama have ruined for their electorates; the more to celebrate for the Russians on January 13. LMichelle -> Janjii , 30 Dec 2016 20:57 Bingo. This is not about the integrity of US elections. It's about being punked in Syria this week. The problems with the electoral process in the US were massive before 2016 and never received this many Presidential press conferences. Share ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 20:55 The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University. That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring. [...] In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of "partisan electoral interventions" to be only about a 3% increase in vote share. ( Source ) I understand why some may find outside interference objectionable, but I reckon many of those who think so fail to recognise America's far-from-faultless behaviour. Curses are like chickens; they always come home to roost. Of course had the DNC leadership and the Clinton camp behaved ethically in the primary by not conspiring to tip the scale in Clinton's favour, the hack would have found nothing. What we have now is Obama forced to divert the public attention because of yet another messy scandal Hillary finds herself involved in. Clinton must be one of the most blessed people on earth; everyone bends over backwards to accommodate her ambitions. Paull01 -> ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 21:18 Please provide an example of a political party behaving ethically during an election campaign? You reckon the republicans weren't trying to tip the scales away from Donny? Also, Clinton lost despite getting way more votes so Donny will be president and it is pointless to continue to indulge in bashing Hillary, she is now just another elderly lady enjoying her golden years. Share Facebook Twitter europeangrayling -> ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 21:23 Also the CIA-Belgian assassination of Lamumba in 61, Congo's first democratically elected president, for the same 'geopolitical' aka 'big business' reasons as the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 53, who wanted the nationalize Iranian oil for their people, and Lumumba had similar 'socialist' ideas for all the vast Congolese resources. To cut out the western business interests. And think how well the Congo has fared since, one of the worst, saddest places, chaos, civil war, more dead than in Rwanda or anywhere I think. They have not recovered from that. And Iran, they were democratic, secular, elected a guy like Mossadegh, they were 'European', but the the US and Britain overthrew him on behest of British-US oil interests, installed the Shah, their puppet dictator, and the blow-back was the Iranian religious right-wing revolution and dictatorship some 20 years later. And now the Iranian people and our 'foreign policy' are suffering. And all these US and CIA 'activities' the government had admitted and declassified, like the Gulf of Tonkin lie and false flag in Vietnam, because it was so long ago nobody cares, so it's no 'conspiracy' here, just history. But now these Clinton Democrats they really love and trust anything the CIA says, of course, they are big patriots now, and call people unpatriotic and foreign agents if they question the so honorable CIA, because they are on Hillary's side now. And the CIA in cahoots with Bush and Cheney also told us how there were these big, scary WMDs in Iraq, and mushroom clouds, and how Saddam had links with Al Qaida, all obvious lies, that any amateur who knew basic world history could tell you even then. And speaking of 'meddling', and overthrowing democratic governments, the US did the same under Obama and Hillary in Honduras just a few years ago, backed the violent coup of a democratic leftist government there, and they still refuse to call it a coup, and have legitimized the new corrupt and violent regime, are training their army, etc. Even though the EU and the US ambassador to Honduras called it a coup at the time. And for the same reasons, that leftist government didn't want to play ball with big US and western 'business interests', energy companies, didn't want to sell them their rivers and resources like the new 'good' regime now. And since that coup, 100s of indigenous activists and environmentalists have been killed, like Berta Caceres, and the violence and corruption has gone up big time under the new regime, with 1000s more killed 'in general'. Yet Obama is so concerned about 'the integrity of democracy' and elections and freedom and all that, what a nice guy. fanUS , 30 Dec 2016 20:58 The real question that Americans should be asking why Barack Obummer failed again to provide security in case of hacking Democrat's emails? Clinton did not deny that emails published by WikiLeaks were genuine. That is called freedom of press. What's wrong with public finding the truth about Clinton? Share Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 30 Dec 2016 20:59 Why would Russia be happy that Clinton lost? Why would any foreign power be happy that Clinton lost?... How many years did HRC, in her arrogance-fuelled denial, provide foreign intelligences with literally tonnes of free info??! Share furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 21:03 Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. .... But if he did choose to do so, he would find himself at odds with his own party. Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit on the Bush's claims to have made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social security... ..."
"... All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone that it wasn't Russians who manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre by Obama with no trouble. ..."
Dec 31, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
On Friday, the Kremlin responded to the moves, including the expulsion of 35 suspected intelligence operatives and the closing of two Russian facilities in the US, with a shrug. Putin, it seems, is willing simply to wait until Trump moves into the Oval Office. Trump's tweet suggested he is too.

But such provocative words could not distract the media and public from another domestic concern for Trump – the growing perception that his predecessor has acted to his disadvantage .

"The sanctions were clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to throw a wrench into – or [to] box in – the next administration's relationship with Russia," said Boris Zilberman, a Russia expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

"Putin, in part, saw through that and sidestepped it by playing good cop to [Russian foreign minister Sergey] Lavrov and the [state] Duma, who were calling for a reciprocal response."

rocjoc43rd, 30 Dec 2016 19:38

I also think this is Obama's move to divert attention away from the cease fire in Syria. There the US has been supporting all these groups, flying air missions and dropping special forces in Syria for years now, and the US has no seat at the table of the cease fire negotiations.

That should be very embarrassing for the US, but it apparently is not, because all the media wants to talk about are these sanctions, which seem pretty trivial to me.

The Obama/media machine scores another hollow victory. Can't wait until this guy is out of office.

stormsinteacups , 30 Dec 2016 19:38
Still no proof of any meddling by the Russians. Only a last gasp attempt by a weak president in what is starting to look like a boys against men tussle with Putin. Add the Syria ceasefire brokered by Turkey and Putin to this to show how Obama is being outmaneuvered at every turn.
Sad to see what a far cry from Obama the candidate Obama the president has turned out to be.
gandalfsunderpants , 30 Dec 2016 19:41
Action makes propaganda's effect irreversible. He who acts in obedience to propaganda can never go back. He is now obliged to believe in that propaganda because of his past action. He is obliged to receive from it his justification and authority, without which his action will seem to him absurd or unjust, which would be intolerable. He is obliged to continue to advance in the direction indicated by propaganda, for action demands more action.
Jacques Ellul:
Friday Night Beers , 30 Dec 2016 19:43
Obama just got dissed big time by Putin. What an inglorious end to an inglorious eight years.
jamie smith -> Friday Night Beers , 30 Dec 2016 19:47
An inglorious bastarde!
DogsLivesMatter -> Friday Night Beers , 30 Dec 2016 20:05
The Obama administration should be thanking Russian efforts to end the war in Syria. We know the MIC wanted this civil war to go on for another decade.
MacCosham , 30 Dec 2016 19:44
Oh for christ's sake, once again: There were no hacks, the emails were LEAKED! Probably by Democrats disgusted by the way Bernie was treated.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

PS once you are there, read everything else Craig Murray has written there. This is the ambassador HM government fired for daring to speak out against the Uzbek government's human rights abuses. Share

Yer Man -> MacCosham , 30 Dec 2016 19:57
No, no, you see you just put the word "consensus" before a pathetically transparent lie and then apparently it magically becomes evidence based and well sourced...
PanopticonPlanet , 30 Dec 2016 19:45
All Americans should be alarmed that their country is now losing its edge in terms of the manipulation of other countries' electoral processes. This is "unprecedented".

Where previously we had implemented such actions ourselves without fear of reciprocation we should be concerned that we are no longer immune to such machinations by other states. These events may represent a turning point as regards our accepted global hegemony.

Tribal War -> PanopticonPlanet , 30 Dec 2016 19:52
USA hacks
USA spies
USA interferes with foreign regimes
USA is number 1 bully and hypocrite

The damn cheek of Russian hack spies interfering with US election and setting them up with an idiot Share Facebook Twitter

brianboru1014 , 30 Dec 2016 19:47
Obama has been anti-Russia long before Trump came into the picture.
This article is more of a wish list than anything else.
We are told by 'experts' that 'There is now a public record of what Russia did'

Where is it? I would love to see this.
I do know that the 2 countries that carry out most cyber attacks in the world are the US and it's main ally in the Middle East. Just ask the Iranians what they did. Share

Think Clear -> brianboru1014 , 30 Dec 2016 20:00
I think all American presidents are anti Russian. Sounds like you was born 2005 or you just doing your British citizenship. You don't know much so read this Life in the uk test Share Facebook Twitter
MaryLeone Sullivan -> brianboru1014 , 30 Dec 2016 20:02
Ask Britain for their MI6 files on Russia. See how far you get with that. Share Facebook Twitter
UralMan -> brianboru1014 , 30 Dec 2016 20:13

We are told by 'experts' that 'There is now a public record of what Russia did'

Where is it? I would love to see this.

Whaaat!? You don't believe the most democratic democrats on their word? Share Facebook Twitter

Leucocephalus , 30 Dec 2016 19:48
Obama complaining about Russian influence in American elections.

Last time I've checked it was Mr. Obama that warned British people against Brexit, wasn't? What about the deposition of an ELECTED president in Ukraine with their support of Obama and EU? Let's talk also about regime changes in Syria, Lybia and Egypt undertaken under Obama's administration? Perhaps we could also remember that Obama's agencies spied 3 million of Spanyards, Merkel, Dilma Rousseff (Brazilian President) and so on... WHAT A HIPOCRISY, OBAMA!!!! Share

mtkass -> Leucocephalus , 30 Dec 2016 20:07
You have hit the nail on the head on all your points. But America and especially the American military needs a boogy man to justify the trillions of dollars of American tax payer money they request to keep their military empire going. Imagine if there was no boogy man and the conclusion was to half the American military to a size only equal to the next 6 largest militarys instead of the present 13. Incidentally, most of the next largest militarys are allies of the United States.

This whole kerfuffle about Russian hacking has the stink of shooting the messenger. What about concentrating on what was in the leaked e-mails. They showed a high level of deep corruption in the DNC. That is the importance of the hacked e-mails. Whoever hacked and released them to the American public has done the America public a great favor. If Wasserman Shultz in cohoots with Hillary had not swung the primaries in favor of Hillary and if Obama had remembered that the constitution says the government is for the people and by the people (the peoples choice was by a huge margin for Bernie) and come out for Bernie, we wouldn't be in the CF we are in right now. I thought Obama is a constitutional lawyer. So much for the constitution. The only statesman in this mess is Putin. Thank heaven for his level headedness. The American pronouncements have the stink of the build up to another false flag operation (the CIA revelations themselves are probably a false flag operation). I hope Putin can keep his 'cool' in the face of American provocation.

DogsLivesMatter -> Deeptank , 30 Dec 2016 20:03
May he take John McCain, Mitch McConnell and Lindsey "I do declare" Graham with him.....please? Share Facebook Twitter
Georwell , 30 Dec 2016 19:51
Obama:

Check , haha --

Putin - Check&Mate --

HoHo, and Happy New Year little duck -- Share Facebook Twitter

vgnych , 30 Dec 2016 19:57
It starts to look as if Putin and Trump wipe their shoes on Obama at this point, and it is Obama who asked for it. Embarrassing. Share Facebook Twitter
SallyWa , 30 Dec 2016 20:00
I've read Guardian's article on Russia's response to Obama's tantrum. Yep, it's clear why Obama lost to Russians and can't cope with it. Now use your own advice, Barry. Go to the back of the queue. Share Facebook Twitter
DogsLivesMatter , 30 Dec 2016 20:02
They were gossipy emails ffs. If that was all it took for H. Clinton to lose to Trump, then the Democrats really need to do an autopsy on itself. Or, here's a thought, VISIT the states where you need the support to win. This is becoming soooooo boring! Share Facebook Twitter
Huddsblue , 30 Dec 2016 20:03
Well what a spiteful, petty like man this Obama has turned out to be! This is the first time his side hasn't 'won' and he can't take it so throws his toys out the pram and risks further souring relationships with the East. Thank goodness Putin rose above it. Share Facebook Twitter
ID1516963 -> Huddsblue , 30 Dec 2016 20:10
Ha! Obama has obviously nothing to lose and decided to make hay in the limited time he has. More mischief making. Love it. Share Facebook Twitter
irenka_irina , 30 Dec 2016 20:06
Few words left.....the future presidency and its administration is an absolute farce....a 'free for all' for Trump and his cronies. Watch the rich get even richer and the poor get screwed. America chose....they have to deal with it.
Unfortunately for those of us who aren't are going to be screwed as well. Lack of tact and ignorance of diplomacy could ignite a power keg. Share Facebook Twitter
Huddsblue -> irenka_irina , 30 Dec 2016 20:07
That was the Obama administration you've just described in a nutshell. Share Facebook Twitter
SeekAndYouShallFind -> dutchcanadian , 30 Dec 2016 20:40
The problem is no one trusts the agencies you mentioned anymore based on their past record....

As regards the FBI being no friend of the democrats, didn't they just let her off for storing thousands of classified emails on a private server?
Besides, the whole world knows that the US have been sponsoring changes of Govs around the world so it comes across as completely hypocritical.

This appears to be a smokescreen for numerous embarrassing issues relating to the election & foreign policy.

For the record, I'm not a putin bot or fan if DT. So tired of the same old hackie responses to anyone who questions the narrative. It's getting really boring. Share

BG Davis , 30 Dec 2016 20:12
"Obama's Russia sanctions: an attempt to tie Donald Trump in knots ".... Facebook Twitter
voice__of__reason , 30 Dec 2016 20:13
This just shows the real character of Obama. Queering the pitch for Trump and the incoming administration. But well done Putin for sidestepping. Clever. Much smarter than Obama. In the end lawyers make bad Presidents and bad Prime Ministers. Share
TheChillZone , 30 Dec 2016 20:15
Bit of a pot-kettle interface going on here. America leads the way in the hacking of public servers around the world and spying on friend and enemy alike. Not long ago the CIA tapped into Angela Merkel's mobile phone and I don't remember the same level of public outcry. Seems like America is affronted that Russia and others are now doing what the US has done for years. And if it is in fact the Russians - proof not yet forthcoming - this wasn't a hack into the electoral system at all; it was a simple phishing email that the US officials were silly enough to click onto the link.
And finally - what eventually was released was the truth. Clinton was favoured by the DNC, she did say those things to Goldman Sachs, a CNN reporter did provide her with the questions before the presidential debates. The truth is that the US elections were corrupted, but not by the Russians - the culprits lie a little closer to home.
Harry Bhai , 30 Dec 2016 20:22
Obama tried to corner Russia, and almost all GOP lawmakers applauded Obama's action. Called it was well overdue. But our smart president-elect comforted crying Putin right away by calling him a smart man for not taking any actions. It is becoming more and more clear that Trump and Putin are made for each other. I think Trump is keeping Putin on his side to take air out of overinflated Chinese balloon. May be he was advised by his team. No one knows his game plan. Share
Burnaby1000 , 30 Dec 2016 20:28
This shows Putin's strengths and weaknesses.

He is a great tactician. It certainly makes Obama look less threatening.

But he is a horrible strategist. A good strategy doesn't surprise. It makes plain to one's opponent that things will only get worse--and one had better accommodate sooner rather than later. It was at the heart of Reagan's strategy, which destroyed the SU.

And this is exactly the situation that Putin faces with or without sanctions. The renewed fracking is going to keep oil and gas at lows not seen since the 90s. What was interesting was that even Putin's stooge in the UK, Krassnov, said that Russia faced a very dire economic future. Whatever Trump does, few Republicans are going to be accommodating after:

1) Crimea and Donbass
2) Blasting Aleppo to smithereens
3) Trying to throw the US election

The latter is an existential threat to every lawmaker, and they are hopping mad at the thought that it could happen again.

Ironically, Putin is proving ever more clearly that Obama should have used air power in 2013, as Putin has done in 2016.

It is a lesson that will not be lost on a Republican Congress.

That hates Putin's guts.

SeekAndYouShallFind -> Burnaby1000 , 30 Dec 2016 20:59
1) situation caused by US Newland causing havoc in Ukraine by spending millions on regime change.
2) caused by US arming terrorists
3) lol - no serious person believes the Reds had any influence. It was the candidate. (If interference in someone else's election was an international crime, the US would be in the dock every 6 months!)

The fool trump cannot do any worse than what's been occurring the last 15 years! Wars, invasions, terrorist support and dossiers on mythical WMDs! It's been a disaster. US foreign policy is heavily influenced by the CFR. He won't have a say in it. They will continue in the same diabolical fashion.

Happy New Year!

flabbotamus , 30 Dec 2016 20:32
Nearly 40 years ago , at the h
flabbotamus , 30 Dec 2016 20:32
Nearly 40 years ago , at the height of the cold war when I joined up to serve my country, never did i dream the day would come when I had more respect for the leader of Russia than a president of the USA and that I would have more faith in the Russian media than our own fake media.

That's what 40 years of liberalism does i guess. Share Facebook Twitter

TyroneBHorneigh -> flabbotamus , 30 Dec 2016 20:38
40 years of Neo-liberalism. Share Facebook Twitter
Sparky Patriot , 30 Dec 2016 20:37
Not content with merely stealing the silverware, BO is intent on causing as much mischief as possible before being booted out of the White House, but the Russians are not falling for it. They will be dealing with Donald Trump in a few weeks, and there is no need to respond to Barry's diaper baby antics.
I'm sure the Russians are hacking our internet systems, but the DNC emails that went to WikiLeaks did not come from them. The content, outlining Podesta's plan to discredit Bernie supporters by falsely tying them to violent acts, would indicate that a disgruntled and disgusted DNC employee was more likely the source. Share
Nick Richardson , 30 Dec 2016 20:40
Of course everyone on here decrying Obama's actions knows far more and understands the cyber-attacks/election interference issue far better than the combined resources and considered judgement of the US intelligence community.
Of course you do. Goes without saying, all you have to do is cite an example of incompetence or malfeasance by US intelligence agencies in the past and you rest your case.
Or maybe it's like parents who can't accept their child has been a bully or a general shit at school. If you are a fan of the Trump-Putin axis you'll go through any self-deceiving contortions necessary to avoid accepting reality.
Stop defending the indefensible. It happened, Obama acted (albeit slowly) and now Trump quite properly will be expected to justify any softening of position.
Yer Man -> Nick Richardson , 30 Dec 2016 21:29
They've told us nothing. They are known repeat liars.
Only question is, why do you take them at their word and nothing further? Share Facebook Twitter
raharu -> Nick Richardson , 30 Dec 2016 21:34
Talking about self-deceiving contortions while performing your own mental gymnastics. It's quite a show.
You say "stop defending the indefensible", while waving away any past instances of malfeasance by US intelligence agencies in the past. To be explicit: yes, that includes meddling in other countries' political affairs. Share Facebook Twitter
HollyOldDog -> asiancelt , 30 Dec 2016 21:37
It is of course impossible as the USA has the most and claimed most advanced spying network on the planet. It totally surrounds both friends and foes alike - with such technical ability the only country who could spy and influence (e.g. arm twisting Merkal is a prime example) on any country at will is the 'exceptional ' US Government.
geofffrey , 30 Dec 2016 20:42
Appears suspiciously likely that Obama is just bitter that his legacy is about to be dumped in the nearest skip on Jan 20, and wants to make trouble for Trump during his last 3 weeks in office.

Hard to see how Putin could have engineered Hillary Clinton's defeat, given she won the popular vote by 3 million.

Also Obama is extremely hypocritical as the CIA has repeatedly interfered in the affairs of other countries over the past 60 years.

I hope Trump and Putin become buddies. Share

furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 20:42

On Thursday, the Arizona senator John McCain and South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham said in a joint statement: "The retaliatory measures announced by the Obama administration today are long overdue.

That's all I needed to know. If lunatic war monger John McCain wants to ratchet up the tension with a nuclear power - then it is very wise to do the opposite. Share

furiouspurpose -> osprey1957 , 30 Dec 2016 21:10
Red baiting won't close down the debate. There's still no evidence of Russian hacking of the US election.

And fascism is shouting people down who ask for evidence and don't just follow the President because he is attacking the outsiders. Share Facebook Twitter

TheControlLeft -> osprey1957 , 30 Dec 2016 21:12
It's preferable to the Obama brigades sponsorship of Islamic terrorism Share Facebook Twitter
monsieur_flaneur , 30 Dec 2016 20:49
Obama, envisioning a spot on Mt Rushmore, exits a laughing stock. Ah well Share
Janjii , 30 Dec 2016 20:54
Russia defeated the US in the Ukraine and recently it received an even harder blow Syria. Next think you know the US 'administration' makes a fool of itself by expelling 35 RF officials, who would have though that!

Sad to see this beautiful continent is being compromised by someone's puppets in the white house. Nato is crumbling now that Turkey t-he gateway to the Balkans, the Caspian, to the Stannies- rethinks its ties with US/NATO and moves towards Russia. It is crumbling beacuse the world begins to understand that the rationale behind 'operation gladio' /strategy of tension is still ruling the US admin. We could do without NATO, and could use a US government supporting peace rather than an administration creating war. Even Germany starts to realize that, because of the abundance of US military bases in this country, Germany is in fact 'occupied territory', a US colony if you will.

The USA has underestimated people on this planet who, as opposed to US politicians, were able to put current politics in a historical perspective. US policymakers took a part of Heidegger, Locke, Freud, Descartes and others without knowing their interpretations were at least incomplete. It results from the way in which US universities teach the discretized model of two extremes with the requirement of choosing one of these without putting both in one perspective: 'Descartes or Pascal' (not both as the French do); 'black or white'; 'with or against us'. The result Americans aimed for was a stable socio-political model, same with 'Neue Sozialismus'. What they obtained was a polarized world, because, a rigid stable model can only be governed by suppression (which the Military industrial Complex is currently doing) and we do not want that.

Trump may lack political experience, he may be supported by a group of ideosyncratic wealthy people attracting bad press from 'regulated media'. Equal chance of Trump having a positive or negative effect on US internal and external policy-making, and on the relationship with RF. But, Trump has one advantage: the more the Obama 'administration' barks, the more support Trump will receive to change what Bush-Clinton-Obama have ruined for their electorates; the more to celebrate for the Russians on January 13.

LMichelle -> Janjii , 30 Dec 2016 20:57
Bingo. This is not about the integrity of US elections. It's about being punked in Syria this week.
The problems with the electoral process in the US were massive before 2016 and never received this many Presidential press conferences. Share
ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 20:55
The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring. [...]

In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of "partisan electoral interventions" to be only about a 3% increase in vote share. ( Source )

I understand why some may find outside interference objectionable, but I reckon many of those who think so fail to recognise America's far-from-faultless behaviour. Curses are like chickens; they always come home to roost.

Of course had the DNC leadership and the Clinton camp behaved ethically in the primary by not conspiring to tip the scale in Clinton's favour, the hack would have found nothing. What we have now is Obama forced to divert the public attention because of yet another messy scandal Hillary finds herself involved in. Clinton must be one of the most blessed people on earth; everyone bends over backwards to accommodate her ambitions.

Paull01 -> ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 21:18
Please provide an example of a political party behaving ethically during an election campaign? You reckon the republicans weren't trying to tip the scales away from Donny?

Also, Clinton lost despite getting way more votes so Donny will be president and it is pointless to continue to indulge in bashing Hillary, she is now just another elderly lady enjoying her golden years. Share Facebook Twitter

europeangrayling -> ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 21:23
Also the CIA-Belgian assassination of Lamumba in 61, Congo's first democratically elected president, for the same 'geopolitical' aka 'big business' reasons as the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 53, who wanted the nationalize Iranian oil for their people, and Lumumba had similar 'socialist' ideas for all the vast Congolese resources. To cut out the western business interests. And think how well the Congo has fared since, one of the worst, saddest places, chaos, civil war, more dead than in Rwanda or anywhere I think. They have not recovered from that.

And Iran, they were democratic, secular, elected a guy like Mossadegh, they were 'European', but the the US and Britain overthrew him on behest of British-US oil interests, installed the Shah, their puppet dictator, and the blow-back was the Iranian religious right-wing revolution and dictatorship some 20 years later. And now the Iranian people and our 'foreign policy' are suffering.

And all these US and CIA 'activities' the government had admitted and declassified, like the Gulf of Tonkin lie and false flag in Vietnam, because it was so long ago nobody cares, so it's no 'conspiracy' here, just history. But now these Clinton Democrats they really love and trust anything the CIA says, of course, they are big patriots now, and call people unpatriotic and foreign agents if they question the so honorable CIA, because they are on Hillary's side now.
And the CIA in cahoots with Bush and Cheney also told us how there were these big, scary WMDs in Iraq, and mushroom clouds, and how Saddam had links with Al Qaida, all obvious lies, that any amateur who knew basic world history could tell you even then.

And speaking of 'meddling', and overthrowing democratic governments, the US did the same under Obama and Hillary in Honduras just a few years ago, backed the violent coup of a democratic leftist government there, and they still refuse to call it a coup, and have legitimized the new corrupt and violent regime, are training their army, etc. Even though the EU and the US ambassador to Honduras called it a coup at the time.

And for the same reasons, that leftist government didn't want to play ball with big US and western 'business interests', energy companies, didn't want to sell them their rivers and resources like the new 'good' regime now. And since that coup, 100s of indigenous activists and environmentalists have been killed, like Berta Caceres, and the violence and corruption has gone up big time under the new regime, with 1000s more killed 'in general'. Yet Obama is so concerned about 'the integrity of democracy' and elections and freedom and all that, what a nice guy.

fanUS , 30 Dec 2016 20:58
The real question that Americans should be asking why Barack Obummer failed again to provide security in case of hacking Democrat's emails?

Clinton did not deny that emails published by WikiLeaks were genuine.
That is called freedom of press.
What's wrong with public finding the truth about Clinton? Share

Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 30 Dec 2016 20:59
Why would Russia be happy that Clinton lost? Why would any foreign power be happy that Clinton lost?...
How many years did HRC, in her arrogance-fuelled denial, provide foreign intelligences with literally tonnes of free info??! Share
furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 21:03

Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. .... But if he did choose to do so, he would find himself at odds with his own party.

Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit on the Bush's claims to have made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social security...

All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone that it wasn't Russians who manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre by Obama with no trouble.

[Dec 30, 2016] The Coup against Trump and His Military

Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.
Notable quotes:
"... In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife' for these 'regime changes'. ..."
"... Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly. ..."
"... In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists. ..."
"... The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'. ..."
"... The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'. ..."
"... Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia. ..."
"... Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. ..."
"... Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future. ..."
"... If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables'). ..."
"... He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him. ..."
"... It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
"... What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra! ..."
"... I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else. ..."
"... Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand! ..."
"... What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia. ..."
"... Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

Introduction

A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from taking office and fulfilling his campaign promise to improve US-Russia relations. This 'palace coup' is not a secret conspiracy, but an open, loud attack on the election.

The coup involves important US elites, who openly intervene on many levels from the street to the current President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire financiers out to the more marginal 'leftist' shills of the Democratic Party.

The build-up for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate normal constitutional and democratic constraints. This essay describes the brazen, overt coup and the public operatives, mostly members of the outgoing Obama regime.

The second section describes the Trump's cabinet appointments and the political measures that the President-Elect has adopted to counter the coup. We conclude with an evaluation of the potential political consequences of the attempted coup and Trump's moves to defend his electoral victory and legitimacy.

The Coup as 'Process'

In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife' for these 'regime changes'.

Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups, in which the elected Presidents were ousted through a series of political interventions orchestrated by economic elites and their political allies in Congress and the Judiciary.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were deeply involved in these operations as part of their established foreign policy of 'regime change'. Indeed, the 'success' of the Latin American coups has encouraged sectors of the US elite to attempt to prevent President-elect Trump from taking office in January.

While similarities abound, the on-going coup against Trump in the United States occurs within a very different power configuration of proponents and antagonists.

Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.

Coup-makers depend on the 'Big Lie' as their point of departure – accusing President-Elect Trump of

  1. being a Kremlin stooge, attributing his electoral victory to Russian intervention against his Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Clinton and
  2. blatant voter fraud in which the Republican Party prevented minority voters from casting their ballot for Secretary Clinton.

The first operatives to emerge in the early stages of the coup included the marginal-left Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who won less than 1% of the vote, as well as the mass media.

In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!

The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'.

Like the Billionaire Soros-funded 'Color Revolutions', from Ukraine, to Georgia and Yugoslavia, the 'Rainbow Revolt' against Trump, featured grass-roots NGO activists and 'serious leftists', like Jill Stein.

The more polished political operatives from the upscale media used their editorial pages to question Trump's illegitimacy. This established the ground work for even higher level political intervention: The current US Administration, including President Obama, members of the US Congress from both parties, and current and former heads of the CIA jumped into the fray. As the vote recount ploy flopped, they all decided that 'Vladimir Putin swung the US election!' It wasn't just lunatic neo-conservative warmongers who sought to oust Trump and impose Hillary Clinton on the American people, liberals and social democrats were screaming 'Russian Plot!' They demanded a formal Congressional investigation of the 'Russian cyber hacking' of Hillary's personal e-mails (where she plotted to cheat her rival 'Bernie Sanders' in the primaries). They demanded even tighter economic sanctions against Russia and increased military provocations. The outgoing Democratic Senator and Minority Leader 'Harry' Reid wildly accused the FBI of acting as 'Russian agents' and hinted at a purge.

ORDER IT NOW

The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'.

President Obama solemnly declared the Trump-Putin conspiracy was a grave threat to American democracy and Western security and freedom. He darkly promised to retaliate against Russia, " at a time and place of our choosing".

Obama also pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and increase arms shipments to the jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as the Gulf State and Saudi 'allies'. Coincidentally, the Syrian Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed terrorists out of Aleppo – and defeat Obama's campaign of 'regime change' in Syria.

Trump Strikes Back: The Wall Street-Military Alliance

Meanwhile, President-Elect Donald Trump did not crumple under the Clintonite-coup in progress. He prepared a diverse counter-attack to defend his election, relying on elite allies and mass supporters.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He appointed three retired generals to key Defense and Security positions – indicating a power struggle between the highly politicized CIA and the military. Active and retired members of the US Armed Forces have been key Trump supporters. He announced that he would bring his own security teams and integrate them with the Presidential Secret Service during his administration.

Although Clinton-Obama had the major mass media and a sector of the financial elite who supported the coup, Trump countered by appointing several key Wall Street and corporate billionaires into his cabinet who had their own allied business associations.

One propaganda line for the coup, which relied on certain Zionist organizations and leaders (ADL, George Soros et al), was the bizarre claim that Trump and his supporters were 'anti-Semites'. This was were countered by Trump's appointment of powerful Wall Street Zionists like Steven Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn (both of Goldman Sachs) to head the National Economic Council. Faced with the Obama-CIA plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent for Vladimir Putin, the President-Elect named security hardliners including past and present military leaders and FBI officials, to key security and intelligence positions.

The Coup: Can it succeed?

In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to 'complete its investigation' on the Russian plot and manipulation of the US Presidential election in six weeks – right up to the very day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017! A concoction of pre-cooked 'findings' is already oozing out of secret clandestine CIA archives with the President's approval. Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. Will Trump succumb? The legitimacy of his election and his freedom to make policy will depend on overcoming the Clinton-Obama-neo-con-leftist coup with his own bloc of US military and the powerful Wall Street allies, as well as his mass support among the 'angry' American electorate. Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future.

If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables').

He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him.

(Reprinted from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)

Kirt December 28, 2016 at 3:19 pm GMT

A very insightful analysis. The golpistas will not be able to prevent Trump from taking power. But will they make the country ungovernable to the extent of bringing down not just Trump but the whole system?

John Gruskos , December 28, 2016 at 4:16 pm GMT

If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.

Robert Magill , December 28, 2016 at 5:30 pm GMT

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations

The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids?

Replies: @Skeptikal I expect Obama loves his kids.

Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first=level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"

I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.

I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.

Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department). , @animalogic Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.

What a god-awful president.

An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.

The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words -- & not one shred of supporting evidence.... ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity --

If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.

Brás Cubas , December 28, 2016 at 6:17 pm GMT

Excellent analysis! Mr. Petras, you delved right into the crux of the matter of the balance of forces in the U.S.A. at this very unusual political moment. I have only a very minor correction to make, and it is only a language-related one: you don't really want to say that Trump's "illegitimacy" is being questioned, but rather his legitimacy, right?

Another thing, but this time of a perhaps idiosyncratic nature: I am a teeny-weeny bit more optimistic than you about the events to come in your country. (Too bad I cannot say this about my own poor country Brazil, which is going faster and faster down the drain.)

Happy new year!

schmenz , December 28, 2016 at 9:05 pm GMT
@John Gruskos If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.

Exactly...

Svigor , December 28, 2016 at 9:28 pm GMT

The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.

On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.

And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American forces' legitimacy.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!

This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.

The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.

This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.

Replies: @Seamus Padraig

The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.

So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about Russia.

Lieutenant Morrisseau , December 28, 2016 at 11:27 pm GMT

MAN PAD LETTER – DM 24 DEC 2016

I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.

Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.

Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft .such as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers .such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still–that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the UN.

Given this I think we are all in very great danger today–now– AND I think we have to press hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.

This truly is an emergency.

TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]

IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]–a felony under existing laws. –Quite possibly an impeachable offense.

"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.

If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things in the far fuzzy future–or NOT.

Respectfully,

Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
–FOR TRUMP–
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
[email protected]
802 645 9727

• Replies: @Bruce Marshall The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

Bruce Marshall , December 29, 2016 at 6:05 am GMT • 100 Words @Lieutenant Morrisseau MAN PAD LETTER - DM 24 DEC 2016


I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.

Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.

Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft ....such as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers....such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still--that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the UN.

Given this......I think we are all in very great danger today--now-- AND I think we have to press hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.

This truly is an emergency.

TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]

IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]--a felony under existing laws. --Quite possibly an impeachable offense.

"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.

If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things in the far fuzzy future--or NOT.

Respectfully,

Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--FOR TRUMP--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
[email protected]
802 645 9727

The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

• Replies: @El Dato Hmmm.... If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).

What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.

Oh my. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Mark Green says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment December 29, 2016 at 6:39 am GMT • 600 Words

This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump–not Obama–that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump–out of fear and necessity–run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?–Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?–Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

• Replies:

@Authenticjazzman

Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.

Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist. ,

@Seamus Padraig

In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications, though:

Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead foreever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") - Caligula ,

@Rurik

Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.

For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that Trump is their man.

Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naďve.

It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own game. , @map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained.

How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors. ,

@RobinG "

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "

THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile...
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election

Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.

@Tomster

Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.

Pirouette , December 29, 2016 at 7:08 am GMT

The real issue at stake is that Presidential control of the system is non existent, and although Trump understands this and has intimated he is going to deal with it, it is clear his hands will now be tied by all the traitors that run the US.

You need a Nuremburg type show trial to deal with all the (((usual suspects))) that have usurped the constitution. (((They))) arrived with the Pilgrim Fathers and established the slave trade buying slaves from their age old Muslim accomplices, and selling them by auction to the goyim.

(((They))) established absolute influence by having the Fed issue your currency in 1913 and forcing the US in to three wars: WWI, WWII and Vietnam from which (((they))) made enormous profits.

You have to decide whether you want these (((professional parasitical traitors))) in your country or not. It is probably too late to just ask them to leave, thus you are faced with the ultimate reality: are you willing to fight a civil war to free your nation from (((their))) oppression of you?

This is the elephant in the room that none of you will address. All the rest of this subject matter is just window dressing. Do you wish to remain economic slaves to (((these people))) or do you want to be free [like the Syrians] and live without (((these traitor's))) usurious, inflationary and dishonest policies based upon hate of Christ and Christianity?

Max Havelaar , December 29, 2016 at 10:45 am GMT

My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo loss!

The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.

Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.

Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

• Replies: @annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
Karl , December 29, 2016 at 11:20 am GMT

the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before Dr Stein's recount circuses.

They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches – it wouldn't fly.

Nothing else they try will fly.

Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

@Seamus Padraig
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally--you know, a kosher nostra!

mp , December 29, 2016 at 11:23 am GMT

In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups

The US is not at the stage of these countries yet. To compare them to us, politically, is moronic. In another several generations it likely will be different. But by then there won't be any "need" for a coup.

If things keep up, the US "electorate" will be majority Third World. Then, these people will just vote as a bloc for whomever promises them the most gibs me dat. That candidate will of course be from the oligarchical elite. Trump is likely the last white man (or white man with even marginally white interests at heart) to be President. Unless things drastically change, demographically.

El Dato , December 29, 2016 at 11:39 am GMT
@Bruce Marshall The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

Hmmm . If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).

What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.

Oh my.

Authenticjazzman , December 29, 2016 at 1:00 pm GMT
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.

Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

Agent76 , December 29, 2016 at 1:59 pm GMT

D.C. has passed their propaganda bill so I am not shocked.

Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)

It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984.

Skeptikal , December 29, 2016 at 3:00 pm GMT
@Robert Magill
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

I expect Obama loves his kids.

Great analysis from Petras.

So many people have reacted with "first level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"

I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.

I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.

Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department).

animalogic , December 29, 2016 at 3:01 pm GMT • 100 Words

@Robert Magill

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president.
An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity --
If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.

Seamus Padraig says: • Website

@Svigor

The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.

The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.

This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.

The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.

So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about Russia.

Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:25 pm GMT • 1

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications, though:

Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.

Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

It's been dead for ever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all the Zios.

They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") – Caligula

Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:28 pm GMT

@Karl the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before Dr Stein's recount circuses.

They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches - it wouldn't fly.

Nothing else they try will fly.

Correct me if I am wrong.... plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

It seems you may be on to something:

RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra!

annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 4:36 pm GMT

@Max Havelaar My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo loss!

The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.

Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.

Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK2FZGKAd0

The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.

• Agree: Kiza • Replies: @Anonymous
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

So, what to do? , @Max Havelaar A serial killer, paid by US taxpayers. By universal human rights laws he would hang.

Maybe the Russian FSB an get to him.

Durruti , December 29, 2016 at 4:57 pm GMT

Nice well written article by James Petras.

I agree with some, mostly the pro-Constitutionalist and moral spirit of the essay, but differ as to when the Coup D'etat is going to – or has already taken place .

The coup D'etat that destroyed our American Republic, and its last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, took place 53 years ago on November 22, 1963. The coup was consolidated at the cost of 2 million Vietnamese and 1 million Indonesians (1965). The assassinations of JF Kennedy's brother, Robert Kennedy, R. Kennedy's ally, Martin L. King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, John Lennon, and many others, followed.

Mr. Petras, the Coup D'etat has already happened.

Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor.

I enclose a copy of our Flier, our Declaration, For The Restoration of the Republic below, for your perusal. We (of the Anarchist Collective), have distributed it as best we can.

Respect All! Bow to None!

Merry Christmas!

God Bless!

[MORE]
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "

The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence , written by Thomas Jefferson.

We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

In 1965 , the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.

In the 1970s , the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion . This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

The nation's media is controlled , and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

The United States is No longer Sovereign

The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.

The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

For Love of Country

The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"

"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."

Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "

Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty
[email protected]

Anonymous , December 29, 2016 at 5:02 pm GMT

@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.

The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.

It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

So, what to do?

• Replies: @Bill Jones The corruption is endemic from top to bottom.

My previous residence was in Hamilton Township in Monroe County, PA . Population about 8,000.
The 3 Township Supervisors appointed themselves to township jobs- Road master, Zoning officer etc and pay themselves twice the going rate with the occupant of the job under review abstaining while his two palls vote him the money. Anybody challenging this is met with a shit-storm of propaganda and a mysterious explosion in voter turn-out: guess who runs the local polls?

The chief of the local volunteer fire company has to sign off on the sprinkler systems before any occupation certificate can be issued for a commercial building. Conveniently he runs a plumbing business. Guess who gets the lion's share of plumbing jobs for new commercial buildings?

As they climb the greasy pole, it only gets worse.

Meanwhile the routine business of looting continues:

My local rag (an organ of the Murdoch crime family) had a little piece last year about the new 3 year contract for the local county prison guards. I went back to the two previous two contracts and discovered that by 2018 they will have had 33% increases over nine years. Between 2008 and 2013 (the latest years I could find data for) median household income in the county decreased by 13%.

At some point some rogue politician will start fighting this battle.

Miro23 , December 29, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT

If the US is split between Trump and Clinton supporters, then the staffs of the CIA and FBI are probably split the same way.

The CIA and FBI leadership may take one position or another, but many CIA and FBI employees joined these agencies in the first place to serve their country – not to assist Neo-con MENA Imperial projects, and they know a lot more than the general public about what is really going on.

Employees can really mess things up if they have a different political orientation to their employers.

Rurik , December 29, 2016 at 5:42 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.

For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that Trump is their man.

Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naďve.

It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own game.

Art , December 29, 2016 at 7:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

Peace - Art

• Agree: Seamus Padraig • Replies: @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.

Francis Boyle writes:

"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP.

Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

Svigor , December 29, 2016 at 9:52 pm GMT

That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it.

True.

alexander , December 29, 2016 at 10:08 pm GMT • 200 Words

Dear Mr. Petras,

It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary.

Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow.

What for ?

It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?

They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration.

Perhaps something "else "is being planned ..Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

• Replies: @annamaria

"They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration."

The subtitles are quite direct in presenting the US deciders as criminal bullies: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/12/russia-obama-was-most-evil-president.html

@Tomster What does Russian intelligence know? Err ... perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? - but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

RobinG , December 29, 2016 at 10:25 pm GMT

@Art I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

Peace --- Art

"If we get past the inauguration ."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) – doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act – providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
" I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

• Replies: @Art Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really - how pissed off can they be?

Peace --- Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

map , December 29, 2016 at 10:41 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

• Replies: @joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

Joe Webb , @RobinG "A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Realist , December 29, 2016 at 11:05 pm GMT • 100 Words

"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

joe webb , December 29, 2016 at 11:35 pm GMT • 200 Words

@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but

Joe Webb

• Replies: @map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

Stebbing Heuer says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 11:36 pm GMT

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else.

annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 11:50 pm GMT

@Realist "The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies – the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

• Replies: @Realist Great observations. Thanks. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Art , December 30, 2016 at 1:06 am GMT • 100 Words @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing – in a NYT's article today – they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 – they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart – not the DNC – it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really – how pissed off can they be?

Peace - Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

• Replies: @RobinG Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

Svigor , December 30, 2016 at 2:20 am GMT • 100 Words

Looks like I spoke too soon:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hacking

The feds have now released their reports, detailing how the dastardly Russians darkly influenced the 2016 presidential election by releasing Democrats' emails, and giving the American public a peek inside the Democrat machine.

Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand!

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT

@Art Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really - how pissed off can they be?

Peace --- Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

• Replies: @Art
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG --- Agree 100% - some times I get things crossed up --- Peace Art
anon , December 30, 2016 at 6:33 am GMT

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is a very underwhelming document.

I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' - does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

From WikiLeaks:

"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

Note the Disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp .

• Replies: @Seamus Padraig
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC


Realist , December 30, 2016 at 8:17 am GMT

@annamaria The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html

"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists... The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb ... the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."

Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies - the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

Great observations. Thanks.

map , December 30, 2016 at 9:16 am GMT

@joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

Joe Webb

The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

• Replies: @Tomster "treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs - who have done virtually nothing for them. , @joe webb good points. Yet, Palestinians ..."They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much...even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.

Joe Webb

Seamus Padraig says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment December 30, 2016 at 2:05 pm GMT

@anon https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is a very underwhelming document.

I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' -- does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

From WikiLeaks:

"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

Note the Disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

• Replies: @geokat62
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
"Was" is the operative word:

Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/ , @alexander Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today ....combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years...

Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment...

.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor...who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine...that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss ... who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently...."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party)......probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back.....four times...

And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks..... demanding faux accountability... culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp.......all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.

But hey, that's life in the USA....Right, Seamus ?

Skeptikal , December 30, 2016 at 2:38 pm GMT • 100 Words

"what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. "

The longer Israel persists in its "facts-on-the-ground" thievery, the less moral standing it has for its white country. And it is a racist state also within its own "borders."

A pathetic excuse for a country. Without the USA it wouldn't exist. A black mark on both countries' report cards.

geokat62 , December 30, 2016 at 2:52 pm GMT @Seamus Padraig
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

"Was" is the operative word:

Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/


RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:02 pm GMT

@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by?

The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole.

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:32 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

"As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "

THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election

Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.

Art , December 30, 2016 at 4:49 pm GMT

@RobinG Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

RobinG - Agree 100% – some times I get things crossed up - Peace Art

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:03 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:14 pm GMT @alexander

Dear Mr. Petras,

It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary.

Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow.

What for ?

It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff.....like 9-11 ?

Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?

They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration.

Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

What does Russian intelligence know? Err perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? – but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:16 pm GMT

@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs – who have done virtually nothing for them.

alexander , December 30, 2016 at 5:28 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today .combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years

Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment

.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently ."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party) probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back ..four times

And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks .. demanding faux accountability culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp .all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.

But hey, that's life in the USA .Right, Seamus ?

joe webb , December 30, 2016 at 6:15 pm GMT

@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

good points. Yet, Palestinians "They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway. Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
Joe Webb

Realist , December 30, 2016 at 6:57 pm GMT • 100 Words

Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him.

January 2017 will be a bad month for this country and the rest of 2017 much worse.

lavoisier says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment December 31, 2016 at 1:38 am GMT • 100 Words

@joe webb

Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb.

I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions to Western Civilization is sheer blindness.

[Dec 30, 2016] The Coup against Trump and His Military

Notable quotes:
"... In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists. ..."
"... The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'. ..."
"... The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'. ..."
"... Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia. ..."
"... Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. ..."
"... Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future. ..."
"... If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables'). ..."
"... He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him. ..."
"... It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
"... What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra! ..."
"... I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else. ..."
"... Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand! ..."
"... What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia. ..."
"... Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

Introduction

A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from taking office and fulfilling his campaign promise to improve US-Russia relations. This 'palace coup' is not a secret conspiracy, but an open, loud attack on the election.

The coup involves important US elites, who openly intervene on many levels from the street to the current President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire financiers out to the more marginal 'leftist' shills of the Democratic Party.

The build-up for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate normal constitutional and democratic constraints. This essay describes the brazen, overt coup and the public operatives, mostly members of the outgoing Obama regime.

The second section describes the Trump's cabinet appointments and the political measures that the President-Elect has adopted to counter the coup. We conclude with an evaluation of the potential political consequences of the attempted coup and Trump's moves to defend his electoral victory and legitimacy.

The Coup as 'Process'

In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife' for these 'regime changes'.

Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups, in which the elected Presidents were ousted through a series of political interventions orchestrated by economic elites and their political allies in Congress and the Judiciary.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were deeply involved in these operations as part of their established foreign policy of 'regime change'. Indeed, the 'success' of the Latin American coups has encouraged sectors of the US elite to attempt to prevent President-elect Trump from taking office in January.

While similarities abound, the on-going coup against Trump in the United States occurs within a very different power configuration of proponents and antagonists.

Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.

Coup-makers depend on the 'Big Lie' as their point of departure – accusing President-Elect Trump of

  1. being a Kremlin stooge, attributing his electoral victory to Russian intervention against his Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Clinton and
  2. blatant voter fraud in which the Republican Party prevented minority voters from casting their ballot for Secretary Clinton.

The first operatives to emerge in the early stages of the coup included the marginal-left Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who won less than 1% of the vote, as well as the mass media.

In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!

The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'.

Like the Billionaire Soros-funded 'Color Revolutions', from Ukraine, to Georgia and Yugoslavia, the 'Rainbow Revolt' against Trump, featured grass-roots NGO activists and 'serious leftists', like Jill Stein.

The more polished political operatives from the upscale media used their editorial pages to question Trump's illegitimacy. This established the ground work for even higher level political intervention: The current US Administration, including President Obama, members of the US Congress from both parties, and current and former heads of the CIA jumped into the fray. As the vote recount ploy flopped, they all decided that 'Vladimir Putin swung the US election!' It wasn't just lunatic neo-conservative warmongers who sought to oust Trump and impose Hillary Clinton on the American people, liberals and social democrats were screaming 'Russian Plot!' They demanded a formal Congressional investigation of the 'Russian cyber hacking' of Hillary's personal e-mails (where she plotted to cheat her rival 'Bernie Sanders' in the primaries). They demanded even tighter economic sanctions against Russia and increased military provocations. The outgoing Democratic Senator and Minority Leader 'Harry' Reid wildly accused the FBI of acting as 'Russian agents' and hinted at a purge.

ORDER IT NOW

The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'.

President Obama solemnly declared the Trump-Putin conspiracy was a grave threat to American democracy and Western security and freedom. He darkly promised to retaliate against Russia, " at a time and place of our choosing".

Obama also pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and increase arms shipments to the jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as the Gulf State and Saudi 'allies'. Coincidentally, the Syrian Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed terrorists out of Aleppo – and defeat Obama's campaign of 'regime change' in Syria.

Trump Strikes Back: The Wall Street-Military Alliance

Meanwhile, President-Elect Donald Trump did not crumple under the Clintonite-coup in progress. He prepared a diverse counter-attack to defend his election, relying on elite allies and mass supporters.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He appointed three retired generals to key Defense and Security positions – indicating a power struggle between the highly politicized CIA and the military. Active and retired members of the US Armed Forces have been key Trump supporters. He announced that he would bring his own security teams and integrate them with the Presidential Secret Service during his administration.

Although Clinton-Obama had the major mass media and a sector of the financial elite who supported the coup, Trump countered by appointing several key Wall Street and corporate billionaires into his cabinet who had their own allied business associations.

One propaganda line for the coup, which relied on certain Zionist organizations and leaders (ADL, George Soros et al), was the bizarre claim that Trump and his supporters were 'anti-Semites'. This was were countered by Trump's appointment of powerful Wall Street Zionists like Steven Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn (both of Goldman Sachs) to head the National Economic Council. Faced with the Obama-CIA plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent for Vladimir Putin, the President-Elect named security hardliners including past and present military leaders and FBI officials, to key security and intelligence positions.

The Coup: Can it succeed?

In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to 'complete its investigation' on the Russian plot and manipulation of the US Presidential election in six weeks – right up to the very day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017! A concoction of pre-cooked 'findings' is already oozing out of secret clandestine CIA archives with the President's approval. Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. Will Trump succumb? The legitimacy of his election and his freedom to make policy will depend on overcoming the Clinton-Obama-neo-con-leftist coup with his own bloc of US military and the powerful Wall Street allies, as well as his mass support among the 'angry' American electorate. Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future.

If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables').

He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him.

(Reprinted from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)

Kirt December 28, 2016 at 3:19 pm GMT

A very insightful analysis. The golpistas will not be able to prevent Trump from taking power. But will they make the country ungovernable to the extent of bringing down not just Trump but the whole system?

John Gruskos , December 28, 2016 at 4:16 pm GMT

If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.

Robert Magill , December 28, 2016 at 5:30 pm GMT

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations

The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids?

Replies: @Skeptikal I expect Obama loves his kids.

Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first=level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"

I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.

I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.

Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department). , @animalogic Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.

What a god-awful president.

An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.

The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words -- & not one shred of supporting evidence.... ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity --

If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.

Brás Cubas , December 28, 2016 at 6:17 pm GMT

Excellent analysis! Mr. Petras, you delved right into the crux of the matter of the balance of forces in the U.S.A. at this very unusual political moment. I have only a very minor correction to make, and it is only a language-related one: you don't really want to say that Trump's "illegitimacy" is being questioned, but rather his legitimacy, right?

Another thing, but this time of a perhaps idiosyncratic nature: I am a teeny-weeny bit more optimistic than you about the events to come in your country. (Too bad I cannot say this about my own poor country Brazil, which is going faster and faster down the drain.)

Happy new year!

schmenz , December 28, 2016 at 9:05 pm GMT
@John Gruskos If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.

Exactly...

Svigor , December 28, 2016 at 9:28 pm GMT

The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.

On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.

And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American forces' legitimacy.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!

This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.

The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.

This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.

Replies: @Seamus Padraig

The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.

So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about Russia.

Lieutenant Morrisseau , December 28, 2016 at 11:27 pm GMT

MAN PAD LETTER – DM 24 DEC 2016

I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.

Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.

Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft .such as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers .such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still–that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the UN.

Given this I think we are all in very great danger today–now– AND I think we have to press hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.

This truly is an emergency.

TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]

IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]–a felony under existing laws. –Quite possibly an impeachable offense.

"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.

If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things in the far fuzzy future–or NOT.

Respectfully,

Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
–FOR TRUMP–
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
[email protected]
802 645 9727

• Replies: @Bruce Marshall The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

Bruce Marshall , December 29, 2016 at 6:05 am GMT • 100 Words @Lieutenant Morrisseau MAN PAD LETTER - DM 24 DEC 2016


I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.

Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.

Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft ....such as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers....such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still--that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the UN.

Given this......I think we are all in very great danger today--now-- AND I think we have to press hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.

This truly is an emergency.

TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]

IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]--a felony under existing laws. --Quite possibly an impeachable offense.

"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.

If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things in the far fuzzy future--or NOT.

Respectfully,

Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--FOR TRUMP--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
[email protected]
802 645 9727

The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

• Replies: @El Dato Hmmm.... If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).

What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.

Oh my. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Mark Green says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment December 29, 2016 at 6:39 am GMT • 600 Words

This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump–not Obama–that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump–out of fear and necessity–run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?–Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?–Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

• Replies:

@Authenticjazzman

Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.

Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist. ,

@Seamus Padraig

In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications, though:

Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead foreever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") - Caligula ,

@Rurik

Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.

For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that Trump is their man.

Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naďve.

It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own game. , @map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained.

How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors. ,

@RobinG "

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "

THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile...
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election

Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.

@Tomster

Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.

Pirouette , December 29, 2016 at 7:08 am GMT

The real issue at stake is that Presidential control of the system is non existent, and although Trump understands this and has intimated he is going to deal with it, it is clear his hands will now be tied by all the traitors that run the US.

You need a Nuremburg type show trial to deal with all the (((usual suspects))) that have usurped the constitution. (((They))) arrived with the Pilgrim Fathers and established the slave trade buying slaves from their age old Muslim accomplices, and selling them by auction to the goyim.

(((They))) established absolute influence by having the Fed issue your currency in 1913 and forcing the US in to three wars: WWI, WWII and Vietnam from which (((they))) made enormous profits.

You have to decide whether you want these (((professional parasitical traitors))) in your country or not. It is probably too late to just ask them to leave, thus you are faced with the ultimate reality: are you willing to fight a civil war to free your nation from (((their))) oppression of you?

This is the elephant in the room that none of you will address. All the rest of this subject matter is just window dressing. Do you wish to remain economic slaves to (((these people))) or do you want to be free [like the Syrians] and live without (((these traitor's))) usurious, inflationary and dishonest policies based upon hate of Christ and Christianity?

Max Havelaar , December 29, 2016 at 10:45 am GMT

My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo loss!

The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.

Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.

Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

• Replies: @annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
Karl , December 29, 2016 at 11:20 am GMT

the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before Dr Stein's recount circuses.

They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches – it wouldn't fly.

Nothing else they try will fly.

Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

@Seamus Padraig
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally--you know, a kosher nostra!

mp , December 29, 2016 at 11:23 am GMT

In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups

The US is not at the stage of these countries yet. To compare them to us, politically, is moronic. In another several generations it likely will be different. But by then there won't be any "need" for a coup.

If things keep up, the US "electorate" will be majority Third World. Then, these people will just vote as a bloc for whomever promises them the most gibs me dat. That candidate will of course be from the oligarchical elite. Trump is likely the last white man (or white man with even marginally white interests at heart) to be President. Unless things drastically change, demographically.

El Dato , December 29, 2016 at 11:39 am GMT
@Bruce Marshall The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

Hmmm . If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).

What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.

Oh my.

Authenticjazzman , December 29, 2016 at 1:00 pm GMT
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.

Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

Agent76 , December 29, 2016 at 1:59 pm GMT

D.C. has passed their propaganda bill so I am not shocked.

Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)

It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984.

Skeptikal , December 29, 2016 at 3:00 pm GMT
@Robert Magill
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

I expect Obama loves his kids.

Great analysis from Petras.

So many people have reacted with "first level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"

I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.

I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.

Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department).

animalogic , December 29, 2016 at 3:01 pm GMT • 100 Words

@Robert Magill

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president.
An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity --
If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.

Seamus Padraig says: • Website

@Svigor

The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.

The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.

This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.

The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.

So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about Russia.

Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:25 pm GMT • 1

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications, though:

Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.

Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

It's been dead for ever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all the Zios.

They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") – Caligula

Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:28 pm GMT

@Karl the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before Dr Stein's recount circuses.

They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches - it wouldn't fly.

Nothing else they try will fly.

Correct me if I am wrong.... plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

It seems you may be on to something:

RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra!

annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 4:36 pm GMT

@Max Havelaar My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo loss!

The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.

Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.

Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK2FZGKAd0

The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.

• Agree: Kiza • Replies: @Anonymous
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

So, what to do? , @Max Havelaar A serial killer, paid by US taxpayers. By universal human rights laws he would hang.

Maybe the Russian FSB an get to him.

Durruti , December 29, 2016 at 4:57 pm GMT

Nice well written article by James Petras.

I agree with some, mostly the pro-Constitutionalist and moral spirit of the essay, but differ as to when the Coup D'etat is going to – or has already taken place .

The coup D'etat that destroyed our American Republic, and its last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, took place 53 years ago on November 22, 1963. The coup was consolidated at the cost of 2 million Vietnamese and 1 million Indonesians (1965). The assassinations of JF Kennedy's brother, Robert Kennedy, R. Kennedy's ally, Martin L. King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, John Lennon, and many others, followed.

Mr. Petras, the Coup D'etat has already happened.

Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor.

I enclose a copy of our Flier, our Declaration, For The Restoration of the Republic below, for your perusal. We (of the Anarchist Collective), have distributed it as best we can.

Respect All! Bow to None!

Merry Christmas!

God Bless!

[MORE]
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "

The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence , written by Thomas Jefferson.

We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

In 1965 , the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.

In the 1970s , the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion . This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

The nation's media is controlled , and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

The United States is No longer Sovereign

The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.

The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

For Love of Country

The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"

"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."

Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "

Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty
[email protected]

Anonymous , December 29, 2016 at 5:02 pm GMT

@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.

The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.

It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

So, what to do?

• Replies: @Bill Jones The corruption is endemic from top to bottom.

My previous residence was in Hamilton Township in Monroe County, PA . Population about 8,000.
The 3 Township Supervisors appointed themselves to township jobs- Road master, Zoning officer etc and pay themselves twice the going rate with the occupant of the job under review abstaining while his two palls vote him the money. Anybody challenging this is met with a shit-storm of propaganda and a mysterious explosion in voter turn-out: guess who runs the local polls?

The chief of the local volunteer fire company has to sign off on the sprinkler systems before any occupation certificate can be issued for a commercial building. Conveniently he runs a plumbing business. Guess who gets the lion's share of plumbing jobs for new commercial buildings?

As they climb the greasy pole, it only gets worse.

Meanwhile the routine business of looting continues:

My local rag (an organ of the Murdoch crime family) had a little piece last year about the new 3 year contract for the local county prison guards. I went back to the two previous two contracts and discovered that by 2018 they will have had 33% increases over nine years. Between 2008 and 2013 (the latest years I could find data for) median household income in the county decreased by 13%.

At some point some rogue politician will start fighting this battle.

Miro23 , December 29, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT

If the US is split between Trump and Clinton supporters, then the staffs of the CIA and FBI are probably split the same way.

The CIA and FBI leadership may take one position or another, but many CIA and FBI employees joined these agencies in the first place to serve their country – not to assist Neo-con MENA Imperial projects, and they know a lot more than the general public about what is really going on.

Employees can really mess things up if they have a different political orientation to their employers.

Rurik , December 29, 2016 at 5:42 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.

For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that Trump is their man.

Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naďve.

It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own game.

Art , December 29, 2016 at 7:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

Peace - Art

• Agree: Seamus Padraig • Replies: @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.

Francis Boyle writes:

"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP.

Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

Svigor , December 29, 2016 at 9:52 pm GMT

That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it.

True.

alexander , December 29, 2016 at 10:08 pm GMT • 200 Words

Dear Mr. Petras,

It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary.

Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow.

What for ?

It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?

They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration.

Perhaps something "else "is being planned ..Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

• Replies: @annamaria

"They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration."

The subtitles are quite direct in presenting the US deciders as criminal bullies: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/12/russia-obama-was-most-evil-president.html

@Tomster What does Russian intelligence know? Err ... perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? - but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

RobinG , December 29, 2016 at 10:25 pm GMT

@Art I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

Peace --- Art

"If we get past the inauguration ."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) – doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act – providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
" I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

• Replies: @Art Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really - how pissed off can they be?

Peace --- Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

map , December 29, 2016 at 10:41 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

• Replies: @joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

Joe Webb , @RobinG "A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Realist , December 29, 2016 at 11:05 pm GMT • 100 Words

"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

joe webb , December 29, 2016 at 11:35 pm GMT • 200 Words

@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but

Joe Webb

• Replies: @map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

Stebbing Heuer says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 11:36 pm GMT

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else.

annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 11:50 pm GMT

@Realist "The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies – the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

• Replies: @Realist Great observations. Thanks. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Art , December 30, 2016 at 1:06 am GMT • 100 Words @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing – in a NYT's article today – they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 – they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart – not the DNC – it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really – how pissed off can they be?

Peace - Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

• Replies: @RobinG Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

Svigor , December 30, 2016 at 2:20 am GMT • 100 Words

Looks like I spoke too soon:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hacking

The feds have now released their reports, detailing how the dastardly Russians darkly influenced the 2016 presidential election by releasing Democrats' emails, and giving the American public a peek inside the Democrat machine.

Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand!

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT

@Art Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really - how pissed off can they be?

Peace --- Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

• Replies: @Art
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG --- Agree 100% - some times I get things crossed up --- Peace Art
anon , December 30, 2016 at 6:33 am GMT

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is a very underwhelming document.

I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' - does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

From WikiLeaks:

"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

Note the Disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp .

• Replies: @Seamus Padraig
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC


Realist , December 30, 2016 at 8:17 am GMT

@annamaria The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html

"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists... The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb ... the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."

Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies - the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

Great observations. Thanks.

map , December 30, 2016 at 9:16 am GMT

@joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

Joe Webb

The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

• Replies: @Tomster "treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs - who have done virtually nothing for them. , @joe webb good points. Yet, Palestinians ..."They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much...even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.

Joe Webb

Seamus Padraig says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment December 30, 2016 at 2:05 pm GMT

@anon https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is a very underwhelming document.

I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' -- does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

From WikiLeaks:

"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

Note the Disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

• Replies: @geokat62
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
"Was" is the operative word:

Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/ , @alexander Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today ....combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years...

Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment...

.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor...who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine...that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss ... who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently...."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party)......probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back.....four times...

And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks..... demanding faux accountability... culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp.......all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.

But hey, that's life in the USA....Right, Seamus ?

Skeptikal , December 30, 2016 at 2:38 pm GMT • 100 Words

"what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. "

The longer Israel persists in its "facts-on-the-ground" thievery, the less moral standing it has for its white country. And it is a racist state also within its own "borders."

A pathetic excuse for a country. Without the USA it wouldn't exist. A black mark on both countries' report cards.

geokat62 , December 30, 2016 at 2:52 pm GMT @Seamus Padraig
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

"Was" is the operative word:

Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/


RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:02 pm GMT

@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by?

The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole.

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:32 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

"As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "

THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election

Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.

Art , December 30, 2016 at 4:49 pm GMT

@RobinG Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

RobinG - Agree 100% – some times I get things crossed up - Peace Art

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:03 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:14 pm GMT @alexander

Dear Mr. Petras,

It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary.

Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow.

What for ?

It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff.....like 9-11 ?

Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?

They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration.

Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

What does Russian intelligence know? Err perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? – but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:16 pm GMT

@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs – who have done virtually nothing for them.

alexander , December 30, 2016 at 5:28 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today .combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years

Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment

.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently ."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party) probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back ..four times

And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks .. demanding faux accountability culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp .all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.

But hey, that's life in the USA .Right, Seamus ?

joe webb , December 30, 2016 at 6:15 pm GMT

@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

good points. Yet, Palestinians "They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway. Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
Joe Webb

Realist , December 30, 2016 at 6:57 pm GMT • 100 Words

Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him.

January 2017 will be a bad month for this country and the rest of 2017 much worse.

lavoisier says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment December 31, 2016 at 1:38 am GMT • 100 Words

@joe webb

Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb.

I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions to Western Civilization is sheer blindness.

[Dec 29, 2016] Cell phones can track their location, hoover up their personal info, record their conversations but that doesn't stop most people from owning one anyway. The populace has been convinced that owning the device that constantly spies on them is a necessity

Notable quotes:
"... I'd wager that most people know that cell phones can track their location, hoover up their personal info, record their conversations, etc, etc but that doesn't stop most people from owning one anyway. The populace has been convinced that owning the device that constantly spies on them is a necessity. ..."
"... I've often wondered whether the relatively high difficulty in buying a smartphone with less than two cameras has something to do with the SIGINT Enabling Project. ..."
Dec 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
PQS , December 28, 2016 at 11:30 am

I was paranoid about the Roomba and I'm pretty sure it doesn't have any connectivity, nor does it record anything.
Personal assistant connected to both the 'net and Large Corp? No. Way.

lyman alpha blob , December 28, 2016 at 1:01 pm

I'd wager that most people know that cell phones can track their location, hoover up their personal info, record their conversations, etc, etc but that doesn't stop most people from owning one anyway. The populace has been convinced that owning the device that constantly spies on them is a necessity.

Don't think learning that Echo is doing the same thing would deter most people from using it. 'Convenience' and all

cocomaan , December 28, 2016 at 5:40 pm

Fortunately, I can barely hear the person I'm talking to through my smartphone, so I am not optimistic that it can actually hear me from someplace else in the house, especially compared to someone's Echo I have experience with. But point taken.

hunkerdown , December 28, 2016 at 6:20 pm

The microphoneS (often there is an extra mic to cancel ambient noise) in a phone are exquisitely sensitive. The losses you're hearing are those from crushing that comparatively high-fidelity signal into a few thousand bits per second for transmission to/from the base station.

I've often wondered whether the relatively high difficulty in buying a smartphone with less than two cameras has something to do with the SIGINT Enabling Project. (Not that I'm foily )

carycat , December 28, 2016 at 3:17 pm

Wonder if Mr. B gave Mr. T and all the other attendees an Echo at Mr. T's tech summit. ATT and all the other big telcom players all said, scout's honor, they don't listen in on their customer's phone calls, so no worries because Fortune 500 companies are such ethical people. That may even be technically true because the 3 letter agencies and their minions (human or otherwise) are doing the actual listening. So if you are too lazy to go to Amazon.com to delete your idle chit chat, I can sell you a cloth to wipe it with (maybe I'll even list it on Amazon's marketplace).

Daryl , December 28, 2016 at 8:09 pm

It should be fairly simple to determine whether it's sending everything home by analyzing network traffic.

Of course, just because it doesn't right now, doesn't mean that Amazon or your local three letter agency cannot alter it to do so in the future

[Dec 29, 2016] Cell phones can track their location, hoover up their personal info, record their conversations but that doesn't stop most people from owning one anyway. The populace has been convinced that owning the device that constantly spies on them is a necessity

Notable quotes:
"... I'd wager that most people know that cell phones can track their location, hoover up their personal info, record their conversations, etc, etc but that doesn't stop most people from owning one anyway. The populace has been convinced that owning the device that constantly spies on them is a necessity. ..."
"... I've often wondered whether the relatively high difficulty in buying a smartphone with less than two cameras has something to do with the SIGINT Enabling Project. ..."
Dec 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
PQS , December 28, 2016 at 11:30 am

I was paranoid about the Roomba and I'm pretty sure it doesn't have any connectivity, nor does it record anything.
Personal assistant connected to both the 'net and Large Corp? No. Way.

lyman alpha blob , December 28, 2016 at 1:01 pm

I'd wager that most people know that cell phones can track their location, hoover up their personal info, record their conversations, etc, etc but that doesn't stop most people from owning one anyway. The populace has been convinced that owning the device that constantly spies on them is a necessity.

Don't think learning that Echo is doing the same thing would deter most people from using it. 'Convenience' and all

cocomaan , December 28, 2016 at 5:40 pm

Fortunately, I can barely hear the person I'm talking to through my smartphone, so I am not optimistic that it can actually hear me from someplace else in the house, especially compared to someone's Echo I have experience with. But point taken.

hunkerdown , December 28, 2016 at 6:20 pm

The microphoneS (often there is an extra mic to cancel ambient noise) in a phone are exquisitely sensitive. The losses you're hearing are those from crushing that comparatively high-fidelity signal into a few thousand bits per second for transmission to/from the base station.

I've often wondered whether the relatively high difficulty in buying a smartphone with less than two cameras has something to do with the SIGINT Enabling Project. (Not that I'm foily )

carycat , December 28, 2016 at 3:17 pm

Wonder if Mr. B gave Mr. T and all the other attendees an Echo at Mr. T's tech summit. ATT and all the other big telcom players all said, scout's honor, they don't listen in on their customer's phone calls, so no worries because Fortune 500 companies are such ethical people. That may even be technically true because the 3 letter agencies and their minions (human or otherwise) are doing the actual listening. So if you are too lazy to go to Amazon.com to delete your idle chit chat, I can sell you a cloth to wipe it with (maybe I'll even list it on Amazon's marketplace).

Daryl , December 28, 2016 at 8:09 pm

It should be fairly simple to determine whether it's sending everything home by analyzing network traffic.

Of course, just because it doesn't right now, doesn't mean that Amazon or your local three letter agency cannot alter it to do so in the future

[Dec 29, 2016] Krugman was clearly a neoliberal propagandist on payroll. His columns are clearly partisan.

Dec 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Peter K. :

All of the Democratic primary voters somehow believed Hillary Clinton would make a better candidate against Trump than Sanders would.

And now we're stuck with Trump for at least 4 years.

Good job.

As Saul Bellow once said, "a great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is strong". Reply Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 07:09 PM Peter K. -> Peter K.... , December 28, 2016 at 07:11 PM

Seriously why should we ever believe these neoliberal centrist Democrats again?

Why when they were so very, very wrong!

Krugman ASSURED us Clinton was a great candidate who would easily win.

likbez -> Peter K.... , December 28, 2016 at 10:09 PM
Krugman was clearly a neoliberal propagandist on payroll. He should not be even discussed in this context because his columns were so clearly partisan.

As for "Centrist Democrats" (aka Clinton wing of the party) their power is that you have nowhere to go: they rule the Democratic Party and the two party system guarantees that any third party will be either squashed or assimilated.

In no way they need that you believe them: being nowhere to go is enough.

Remember what happened with Sanders supporters during the convention? They were silenced. And then eliminated. That's how this system works.

Cal -> likbez... , -1
Krugman is a polarizing agent here in RiverCity...to our collective loss IMHO...as you know I don't have the Nobel.
But you might be giving him some hope with that "was"? Clearly he does not need $.

He is writing for our....yes, American, maybe even Global citizenship, which he thinks is in peril. It is. Otherwise I'd be out fishing.

And you? What's in it for you? Are you familiar with the history of political party systems that transition in and out of 2 parties? Is this little forum an example of the 2 party system: pro/con Krugman?

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke : , -1
Americans believe crazy things, yet they are outdone by economists
Comment on Catherine Rampell on 'Americans - especially but not exclusively Trump voters - believe crazy, wrong things'#1

Americans are NOT special. Since more than 5000 years people believe things JUST BECAUSE they are absurd - in accordance with Tertullian's famous dictum "credo quia absurdum".#2

As a matter of principle, almost everybody has the right to his own opinion no matter how stupid, crazy, wrong, or absurd; the only exception are scientists. The ancient Greeks started science with the distinction between doxa (= opinion) and episteme (= knowledge). Scientific knowledge is well-defined by material and formal consistency. Knowledge is established by proof, belief or opinion counts for nothing.

Opinion is the currency in the political sphere, knowledge is the currency is the scientific sphere. It is extremely important to keep both spheres separate. Since the founding fathers, though, economists have not emancipated themselves from politics. They claim to do science but they have never risen above the level of opinion, belief, wish-wash, storytelling, soap box propaganda, and sitcom gossip.

The orthodox majority still believes in these Walrasian hard core absurdities: "HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states." (Weintraub)

To be clear: HC2, HC4, HC5 are NONENTITIES like angels, Spiderman, or the Easter Bunny.

The heterodox minority still believes in these ill-defined Keynesian relationships: "Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income - consumption. Therefore saving = investment."

Until this day, Walrasians, Keynesians, Marxians, Austrians hold to their provable false beliefs and claim to do science. This is absurdity on stilts but it is swallowed hook, line and sinker by every new generation of economics students. Compared to the representative economist the average political sucker is a genius.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/12/28/americans-especially-but-not-exclusively-trump-voters-believe-crazy-wrong-things/?utm_term=.3b8eabe9eb3d
#2 Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum

[Dec 29, 2016] MSM has a nerve to critize ordinary American for believing in wrong things.

Did not William Casey (CIA Director) say, "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."?
Notable quotes:
"... The media should certainly shoulder some blame for parroting militarist propaganda but ordinary USAnians who continue to reward these scoundrels with their votes. And with Trump ordinary USAnians appear to have elected someone even more willing to shamelessly lie and loot than his predecessors. ..."
Dec 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

Catherine Rampell:

American Believe Crazy, Wrong Things : Many Americans believe a lot of dumb, crazy, destructive, provably wrong stuff.

JohnH, December 28, 2016 at 03:23 PM

Americans are also led to believe a lot of crazy, wrong things, such as Saddam had WMDs, or Iran had a nuclear weapons program, to cite only the most outrageous lies dutifully propagated by the mainstream media.

Before Catherine Rampell criticizes ordinary Americans, she should have the Washington Post engage in a little serious introspection and self-criticism...

yuan -> JohnH... , December 28, 2016 at 03:50 PM
The media should certainly shoulder some blame for parroting militarist propaganda but ordinary USAnians who continue to reward these scoundrels with their votes. And with Trump ordinary USAnians appear to have elected someone even more willing to shamelessly lie and loot than his predecessors.

It is time for ordinary USAnians to engage in a lot of serious introspection and self-criticism. I doubt this will happen until it's too late. (Very thankful that I am not tied to this nation!)

Chris G -> yuan... , -1
>It is time for ordinary USAnians to engage in a lot of serious introspection and self-criticism.

Don't hold your breath. Introspection and self-criticism aren't our strong suits. They run counter to that whole "American exceptionalism" thing.

> I doubt this will happen until it's too late.

I doubt that it will ever happen but, if it does, I have no doubt that it will happen until after its too late to salvage what currently passes for civilization in these parts.

"There's a big difference between the task of trying to sustain "civilisation" in its current form... and the task of holding open a space for the things which make life worth living. I'd suggest that it's this second task, in its many forms, which remains, after we've given up on false hopes." ( http://dark-mountain.net/blog/what-do-you-do-after-you-stop-pretending/)

Time to let go of false hopes.

[Dec 29, 2016] One thing lost in all the hullabaloo about Russian hacks is that the Obama administration's record on cyber security has been terrible.

Dec 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Reply ↓ cocomaan , December 28, 2016 at 9:29 am

One thing lost in all the hullabaloo about Russian hacks is that the Obama administration's record on cyber security has been terrible. Off the top of my head I can think of several compromising cases:

* Anything having to do with HRC's bathroom server, of course
* The Sony hack that Obama said was North Korea, but other experts say was probably just Trump's 400 lb fat guy on a bed.
* The alleged Chinese hacking of OPM
* And undoubtedly the "CYBER 911!!" of the alleged Russian interference in the election.

I don't see anyone talking about the fact that cyber infrastructure looks like it's been hit by birdshot. All the while, Obama's intelligence teams are mining information on Americans as extralegally as possible.

[Dec 29, 2016] The neoliberal MSM narrative that it is a well established fact that Russia influenced US election is nonsense.

Dec 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
sanjait -> DeDude... , December 28, 2016 at 06:26 PM
"Russia tampered with vote tallies to help Donald Trump"

Yeah, that seems like a clear statement, but when you consider that the vast majority of people do not habitually read closely and interpret things literally, I can see how this would easily be misinterpreted.

Russia tampered with the election to help Donald Trump. That's a fairly well established fact. It's not the same as "tampered with vote tallies" but an inattentive poll respondent might assume the question was about the former. And most people are inattentive.

likbez -> sanjait... December 28, 2016 at 09:40 PM , 2016 at 09:40 PM
Sanjait,

"Russia tampered with the election to help Donald Trump. That's a fairly well established fact."

You are funny. Especially with your "well established fact" nonsense.

In such cases the only source of well established facts is a court of law or International observers of the elections. All other agencies have their own interest in distorting the truth. For example, to get additional funding.

And that list includes President Obama himself, as a player, because he clearly was a Hillary supporter and as such can not be considered an impartial player and can politically benefit from shifting the blame for fiasco to Russia.

Also historically, he never was very truthful with American people, was he? As in case of his
"Change we can believe in!" bait and switch trick.

There were several other important foreign players in the US elections: for example KAS and Israel. Were their actions investigated? Especially in the area of financial support of candidates.

And then FYI there is a documented history of US tampering in Russian Presidential election of 2011-2012 such as meetings of the US ambassador with the opposition leaders, financing of opposition via NGO, putting pressure by publishing election pools produced by US financed non-profits, and so on and so forth. All in the name of democracy, of course. Which cost Ambassador McFaul his position; NED was kicked out of the country.

As far as I remember nobody went to jail in the USA for those activities. There was no investigation. So it looks like the USA authorities considered this to be a pretty legal activity. Then why they complain now?

And then there is the whole rich history of CIA subverting elections in Latin America.

So is not this a case of "the pot calling the kettle black"?

I don't know. But I would avoid your simplistic position. The case is too complex for this.

At least more complex that the narrative the neoliberal MSMs try to present us with. It might be Russian influence was a factor, but it might be that it was negligible and other factors were in play. There is also a pre-history and there are other suspects.

You probably need to see a wider context of the event.

[Dec 28, 2016] Neoliberalism consists of several eclectic parts such as neoclassic economics, mixture of Nietzscheanism (often in the form of Ann Rand philosophy; with the replacement of concept of Ubermench with creative class concept)) with corporatism.

Notable quotes:
"... But there are other flavors too. For example Trump introduced another flavor which I called "bastard neoliberalism". Which is the neoliberalism without neoliberal globalization and without "Permanent revolution" mantra -- efforts for enlargement of the US led global neoliberal empire. Somewhat similar to Eduard Bernstein "revisionism" in Marxism. Or Putinism - which is also a flavor of neoliberalism with added "strong state" part and "resource nationalism" bent, which upset so much the US neoliberal establishment, as it complicates looting of the country by transnational corporations. ..."
"... Neoliberalism also can be viewed as a modern mutation of corporatism, favoring multinationals (under disguise of "free trade"), privatization of state assets, minimal government intervention in business (with financial oligarchy being like Soviet nomenklatura above the law), reduced public expenditures on social services, and decimation of New Deal, strong anti trade unionism stance and attempt to atomize work force (perma temps as preferred mode of employment giving employers "maximum flexibility") , neocolonialism and militarism in foreign relations (might makes right). ..."
"... The word "elite" in the context of neoliberalism has the same meaning as the Russian word nomenklatura. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura, -- the political establishment holding or controlling both public and private power centers such as media, finance, academia, culture, trade, industry, state and international institutions. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
sanjait -> Peter K.... December 28, 2016 at 05:02 PM , 2016 at 05:02 PM
At this point, when I hear people use the words "neoliberal," "elites" and "the media" in unspecified or highly generalized terms to make broad characterizations ... I know I'm dealing with an unserious person.

sanjait -> sanjait... , December 28, 2016 at 05:05 PM
It's a lot like when someone says "structural reform" without specification in an economic discussion: An almost perfect indicator of vacuity.
likbez -> sanjait... , -1
Let's define the terms.

Neoliberals are those who adhere to the doctrine of Neoliberalism (the "prohibited" word you should not ever see in the US MSM ;-)

In this sense the term is very similar to Marxists (with the replacement of the slogan of "proletarians of all nations unite" with the "financial oligarchy of all countries unite"). Or more correctly they are the "latter day Trotskyites".

Neoliberalism consists of several eclectic parts such as neoclassic economics, mixture of Nietzscheanism (often in the form of Ann Rand philosophy; with the replacement of concept of Ubermench with "creative class" concept)) with corporatism. Like with Marxism there are different flavors of neoliberalism and different factions like "soft neoliberalism" (Clinton third way) which is the modern Democratic Party doctrine, and hard neoliberalism (Republican party version), often hostile to each other.

But there are other flavors too. For example Trump introduced another flavor which I called "bastard neoliberalism". Which is the neoliberalism without neoliberal globalization and without "Permanent revolution" mantra -- efforts for enlargement of the US led global neoliberal empire. Somewhat similar to Eduard Bernstein "revisionism" in Marxism. Or Putinism - which is also a flavor of neoliberalism with added "strong state" part and "resource nationalism" bent, which upset so much the US neoliberal establishment, as it complicates looting of the country by transnational corporations.

Neoliberalism also can be viewed as a modern mutation of corporatism, favoring multinationals (under disguise of "free trade"), privatization of state assets, minimal government intervention in business (with financial oligarchy being like Soviet nomenklatura above the law), reduced public expenditures on social services, and decimation of New Deal, strong anti trade unionism stance and attempt to atomize work force (perma temps as preferred mode of employment giving employers "maximum flexibility") , neocolonialism and militarism in foreign relations (might makes right).

Like for any corporatist thinkers the real goals are often hidden under thick smoke screen of propaganda.

The word "elite" in the context of neoliberalism has the same meaning as the Russian word nomenklatura. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura, -- the political establishment holding or controlling both public and private power centers such as media, finance, academia, culture, trade, industry, state and international institutions.

[Dec 28, 2016] Free trade is a delicate instrument, much like tennis racket.

Dec 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Economists believe crazy things: December 28, 2016 at 06:05 PM

[As if] protectionist Japan is now backward and poverty stricken; free trade Africa is soaring on the wings of giant trade deficits :

Economists lead the way in silly beliefs that defy empirical reality and common sense. The most glaring example of this is the view that free trade is beneficial. All evidence points in the opposite direction, but no matter - our fake economists are happy to say/believe whatever so long as their foreign government paymasters and banks write the ten thousand dollar checks for "consulting" and "academic reports".

likbez -> Economists believe crazy things.. December 28, 2016 at 07:31 PM

You are probably wrong. Free trade is a delicate instrument, much like tennis racket. If you hold it too tightly you can't play well. If you hold it too loose you can't play well either.

Neoliberals promote "free trade" (note "free" not "fair") as the universal cure for all nations problems in all circumstances. This is a typical neoliberal Three-card Monte.

The real effect in many cases is opening market for transnationals who dictate nations the rules of the game and loot the country.

But isolationism has its own perils. So some middle ground should be fought against excessive demands of neoliberal institutions like IMF and World Bank. For example, any country that take loans from them (usually on pretty harsh conditions; with string attached), has a great danger that money will be looted via local fifth column. And will return in no time back into Western Banks leaving the country in the role of the debt slave.

The latter is the preferred role neoliberals want to see each and every third world country (and not only third world countries -- see Greece and Cyprus). Essentially in their "secret" book this is the role those counties should be driven into.

Recent looting of Ukraine is the textbook example of this process. The majority of population now will live on less then $2 a day for many, many years.

At the same time, balancing free trade and isolationism is tricky process also. Because at some point, the subversion starts and three letter agencies come into the play. You risk getting color revolution as a free present for your refusal to play the game.

Neoliberals usually do not take NO for the answer.

That's when the word "neoliberal" becomes yet another dirty word.

[Dec 28, 2016] Americans Want Foreign-Policy Restraint

Dec 28, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
The poll found that, when asked whether increasing or decreasing America's military presence abroad would make the country safer, 45 percent of respondents chose a reduction in military activity, while 31 percent favored increasing it (while 24 percent didn't know). Asked if there should be more U.S. democracy promotion abroad or less, 40 percent said less, while 31 said more (with 29 percent not sure).

The poll overall seemed to suggest Americans favor a smaller U.S. footprint abroad than we have seen in recent years. Fully 55 percent of respondents opposed deployment of U.S. troops to Syria, compared to 23 percent who favored it (and 23 percent who weren't sure). A plurality of 35 percent opposed the idea of a greater U.S. military presence in the Middle East, while 22 percent favored it and 29 percent favored no change.

But the poll also indicated the American people don't want to retreat from the world into any kind of isolationism. A plurality of 40 percent favored increased military spending compared to 32 percent who wanted to keep it constant and 17 percent who favored reductions.

And the poll suggested Americans view China with a certain wariness. Asked if China should be viewed as a U.S. ally, 93 percent said no. But a like number-89 percent-said China should not be viewed as an enemy either. Some 42 percent favored the term competitor.

[Dec 28, 2016] MSm pressutute has a nerve to critize ordinary American for beleaving in wrong things.

Dec 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Did William Casey (CIA Director) really say, "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."?

Catherine Rampell:

American Believe Crazy, Wrong Things : Many Americans believe a lot of dumb, crazy, destructive, provably wrong stuff.

JohnH : , December 28, 2016 at 03:23 PM

Americans are also led to believe a lot of crazy, wrong things, such as Saddam had WMDs, or Iran had a nuclear weapons program, to cite only the most outrageous lies dutifully propagated by the mainstream media.

Before Catherine Rampell criticizes ordinary Americans, she should have the Washington Post engage in a little serious introspection and self-criticism...

yuan -> JohnH... , December 28, 2016 at 03:50 PM
The media should certainly shoulder some blame for parroting militarist propaganda but ordinary USAnians who continue to reward these scoundrels with their votes. And with Trump ordinary USAnians appear to have elected someone even more willing to shamelessly lie and loot than his predecessors.

It is time for ordinary USAnians to engage in a lot of serious introspection and self-criticism. I doubt this will happen until it's too late. (Very thankful that I am not tied to this nation!)

yuan -> yuan... , December 28, 2016 at 03:50 PM
"but it is ordinary"

[Dec 28, 2016] The Empire Strikes Back The MSMs 3-Point Plan To Recapture The Narrative

Notable quotes:
"... Secondly , a meme has been invented about so-called "Fake News," which will be used to shut down dissident media outlets. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com
Some perspective: For most of human history, power was rooted in possession of land. After the Industrial Revolution , power lay in controlling in the means of production. But today, the main source of power is control of information.

Having the power to control information (what Steve Sailer calls The Megaphone ) gives you the ability to determine what issues will be discussed, what viewpoints are considered legitimate, and who is allowed to participate in polite society. It ultimately allows you to push an entire code of morality on others. And morality is, ultimately, a weapon more terrible than can be found in any arsenal [ Weaponized Morality , by Gregory Hood, Radix, October 12, 2016].

The 2016 election was ultimately a battle between the commanding heights of media (newspapers, networks, and web portals) and what we could call the guerillas of media (/pol, forums, hackers, right wing trolls , and independent media outlets like us). The latter lacked power on their own, but they united behind Donald Trump, a man whose brand was so well-established that the Establishment couldn't ignore him. It was Fourth Generation Warfare –this time over information.

And just as guerillas have been frustrating established armies all around the world on real-world battlefields, so did the online commandos frustrate and eventually overcome the seemingly invincible Fourth Estate.

But this victory wasn't inevitable. From day one, the MSM tried to destroy Donald Trump , including his business empire, because of his stated views on immigration.

Since that failed, they have started turning on his supporters with three tactics.

Soon after the election, the Leftist Think Progress blog announced that the Alt Right should only be called "white nationalist" or "white supremacist". [ Think Progress will no longer describe racists as "alt-right" , November 22, 2016] The AP dutifully echoed this pronouncement days later, warning journalists not to use the term and instead to stick to pejoratives. [ AP issues guidelines for using the term 'alt-right,' by Brent Griffiths, Politico, November 28, 2016]

This is a literally Orwellian attempt to eliminate Crimethink through linguistic control . Of course, no such guidelines will apply to non-white Identitarian groups such as the National Council of La Raza, which will continue to be called an "advocacy" or "progressive grass-roots immigration-reform organization" [ NCLR head: Obama 'deporter-in-chief, ' by Reid Epstein, Politico, March 4, 2016].

Needless to say, most the rationale for this is not just fake, but comically, obviously, wrong. Thus the Washington Post reported that VDARE.com (and many other sites) was a "Russian propaganda effort" based on no evidence at all. We ask: where is our vodka?

Rolling Stone, which pushed one of the most disgusting hoaxes in modern journalism at the University of Virginia, is having meetings with President Obama to discuss "fake news." The Guardian fell for what appears to be a hoax decrying "online hate" precisely because it is impossible to tell the difference today between the latest virtue signaling craze and satire.

But algorithms are already being introduced to distinguish between "verified" and "non-verified" news sources. It can be assumed only Leftist sites will receive verification on social media. [ Fake news on Facebook is a real problem. These college students came up with a fix in 36 hours , By Colby Itkowitz, Washington Post, November 18, 2016]

There is "fake news" and it is annoying, to be sure. There were plenty of cringey stories about non-existent celebrity endorsements of Trump i n the last cycle. But most "verified" or "mainstream" sources today don't actually report but simply "point and sputter" or actually conceal real news. For example, even after the journalists got what they wanted out of the latest NPI conference , the MSM still couldn't restrain themselves from simply making things out of whole cloth .

Actual attacks on Trump supporters are not covered, while unsourced, unverified claims of a wave of "hate crimes," which mostly consists of handwritten notes most likely written by the supposed "victims" or incidents so trivial normal people wouldn't even notice , dominate the headlines.

This is a far more insidious form of "fake news" than anything "the Russians" are promoting. And what about the lie of " hands up, don't shoot ?"

Another example: supposedly mainstream outlets are comfortable leveling wild charges Steve Bannon is somehow a "white nationalist." Bannon on the evidence is actually a civic nationalist who has specifically denounced racism and, if anything, is showing troubling signs of moving towards the "DemsRRealRacist"- style talking points which led Conservatism Inc. to disaster. There are absolutely no statements by Bannon actually calling for, say, a white ethnostate.

In contrast, Rep. Keith Ellison, candidate to head the DNC, actually has c alled for a black ethnostate. [ Keith Ellison once proposed making a separate country for blacks , by Justin Caruso, Daily Caller, November 26, 2016]. However, this has not prevented him from being "normalized" and celebrated by the "mainstream" media.

The logical conclusion of all of this:

Or, as VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow told the NPI conference: "What we are going to see in the next few years is an intensified Reign Of Terror."

For example, Buzzfeed's latest masterpiece of journalism: the shocking revelation that reality stars Chip and Joanna Gaines attend a church that disagrees with homosexual marriage [ Chip and Joanna Gaines' Church Is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage , by Kate Aurthur, Buzzfeed, November 29, 2016]. You know–like every Christian church for about 2000 years. The obvious agenda: to get the show canceled or the Gaines to disavow their own pastor.

This is the goal of most "journalism" today–to get someone fired or to get someone to disavow someone. The Southern Poverty Law Center ( $PLC to VDARE.com) makes a lucrative income from policing speech . ( Right, a graph of their endowment fund.)And journalists today are no different than the $PLC. They do not report, they do not provide information, and rather than ensuring freedom they are the willing tools of repression.

And this repression only goes one way.

If you wouldn't invite some communist demonstrator into your meeting, why would you invite an MSM journalist? They have the same beliefs, the same motivations, and increasingly, they rely on the same tactics. Aside from the occasional throwing of feces (as Richard Spencer learned at NPI), the preferred tactic of "Antifa" consists of pearl-clutching blog posts.

The repression is accelerating. Reddit is now moving to censor pro-Trump content on its site [ Breaking: Unethical @reddit CEO vows to crack down on "toxic users" as right wing subreddit protests censorship , by Charles Johnson, Got News, November 30, 2016]. Having been purged from Twitter, many free speech supporters are moving to GAB, so The New York Times is trying to get that shut down too [ The Far Right Has a New Digital Safe Space , by Amanda Hess, November 30, 2016]. And Kellogg pulled its ads from Breitbart, after Trump's election, because it said it did not "align with its values as a company". [ Breitbart at 'war' with Kellogg's over advertising snub , BBC, December 1, 2016].

Since the election, journalists have been paying tribute to their own courage, promising to hold Trump accountable. But there is no greater enemy to free speech than reporters. Shutting down the networks and shuttering the newspapers would be a boon to independence of thought, not an obstacle.

For his own sake, to defend his own Administration, Trump has to delegitimize the MSM, just as he did during the campaign. He should continue to use his Twitter account and speak straight to the people. He should not hold press conferences with national MSM and speak only to local reporters before holding rallies. If Twitter bans him, as Leftists are urging, he should nationalize it as a utility and make it a free speech zone.[ Twitter has become a utility , by Alan Kohler, The Australian, October 17, 2016]

And Trump's supporters need to act the same way. Stop giving reporters access. Stop pretending you can play the MSM for your own benefit. Stop acting like these people are anything other than hostile political activists whose only interest in life is to make yours worse.

Stop giving them what they want.

Your career, family, and entire life may depend on it. And so does the life of the nation.

James Kirkpatrick [ Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.

[Dec 28, 2016] The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these maniacs from doing everything they can to keep neoliberals in power

Notable quotes:
"... "The lockstep zombies for the sleaze and global mayhem of the Clinton Machine and Dem Party gangsters are on the march. These liberals for US Empire are showing their reverence and fanboy love for the CIA and FBI and McCarthyism. ..."
"... They either cheered or shrugged when the Clinton thugs stole the primary from Bernie (with his obsequious assent) or snored when Obama/Clinton staged coups and installed fascists in Honduras and Ukraine but oh how they bellow and shake their fists at the *alleged* hacking by Russia that amounts to providing info on just how sleazy the Democratic Party is. ..."
"... THAT form of fake news is not only acceptable it is to be embraced and taught to our fucking children. If the NYT or WaPo tells us all bad things come from Putin these shock troops for the Democratic Party click their heels and salute. ..."
"... The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these fucking maniacs from doing all they can to keep their team in power. Meanwhile their leaders want to "work with" Trump and "give him a chance." Who are the fascists in this shit show?? Such a clusterfuck of incoherence. ..."
"... If it's true the "Russians" (who be that by the way?) did what the professional liars in the intelligence agencies say they did it doesn't even amount to a parking violation compared to the billions and billions of dollars spent by the US over the last 70 years rigging and crushing democracy (literally with murder) across the globe. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

Anon December 12, 2016 at 9:33 pm GMT

This post by Leftie on facebook offers glimpse into chasm on the other side.

It's Progs vs Globs. ProGlob is coming apart.

"The lockstep zombies for the sleaze and global mayhem of the Clinton Machine and Dem Party gangsters are on the march. These liberals for US Empire are showing their reverence and fanboy love for the CIA and FBI and McCarthyism.

They either cheered or shrugged when the Clinton thugs stole the primary from Bernie (with his obsequious assent) or snored when Obama/Clinton staged coups and installed fascists in Honduras and Ukraine but oh how they bellow and shake their fists at the *alleged* hacking by Russia that amounts to providing info on just how sleazy the Democratic Party is.

The "fake news" (it's called free speech you fucking assholes) that the Rooskies pumped into our helpless and confused brains is a threat to the Republic but "capitalism means freedom and democracy", WMD's, yellow cake, mobile weapons labs, babies torn from incubators, the international monolithic communist conspiracy, Gaddafi supplying viagra to his troops, the headchoppers Obama gives arms and sends into Syria to destroy yet another nation are "moderates", KONY 2012, the filthy Hun is coming to kill us all in 1917, "Duck and cover!!" Gulf of Tonkin, Ho Chi Min's soldiers are going to spring from their canoes on the beaches of Malibu to rape your wife and make you wear pajamas, "superpredators" and on and on etc etc etc

THAT form of fake news is not only acceptable it is to be embraced and taught to our fucking children. If the NYT or WaPo tells us all bad things come from Putin these shock troops for the Democratic Party click their heels and salute.

The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these fucking maniacs from doing all they can to keep their team in power. Meanwhile their leaders want to "work with" Trump and "give him a chance." Who are the fascists in this shit show?? Such a clusterfuck of incoherence.

If it's true the "Russians" (who be that by the way?) did what the professional liars in the intelligence agencies say they did it doesn't even amount to a parking violation compared to the billions and billions of dollars spent by the US over the last 70 years rigging and crushing democracy (literally with murder) across the globe.

And the whole obscene carnival engulfing the nation is of course to be blamed on the racist knuckle-dragging "basket of deplorables.""

[Dec 28, 2016] How NOT to hack an election Russian Hack EXPOSED as Hoax Zero Hedge

Dec 28, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
For those who missed it among the deluge of propaganda, the Russian 'hack' of the election has been exposed as a huge hoax:

A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.

'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. ' The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'

His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.

For those who have read our book Splitting Pennies - this comes as no surprise. As we explain in the book, the world is manipulated by several large global "Banks" which are also owners of big news outlets that control the flow of information around the world (i.e. Thompson Reuters). The surprise here is that the disinformation campaign goes so deep, it has even fooled senators into voting for a bill to stop Russian propaganda; which - on the surface, every flag waving US senator should agree with. No one wants foreign spies or foreign propaganda influencing the domestic population. But how big is the 'threat' of 'Russian' propaganda and how has it been overplayed, in a final 'hail mary' attempt to disrupt the legitimate political process. The motto, the modus operandi of the Illuminati controlled CIA "Order from Chaos" is explained on their 'think tank' website here.

Americans steeped in a culture of 'politics' are again being fooled, this election wasn't about party or state lines, "Republicans" didn't win over "Democrats" - this election was about a wild card, a non-politician, non-Establishment candidate winning by a landslide if going by the polls (Trump was given 5% chance of winning up until the night of election).

How to Hack an Election

Interestingly, Bloomberg (although biased Bloomberg is still one of the only mainstream news sources that still produces real, investigative journalism globally) in April published an extremely well researched composition "How to Hack an Election" detailing the life of a real election hacker, Andres Sepulveda and his US political 'analyst' partner, Juan Jose Rendon. To understand how foolish the claim about Russians hacking the election, readers can study the story of Sepulveda who successfully hacked multiple elections in Latin America and was paid millions for his efforts:

When Peńa Nieto won, Sepúlveda began destroying evidence. He drilled holes in flash drives, hard drives, and cell phones, fried their circuits in a microwave, then broke them to shards with a hammer. He shredded documents and flushed them down the toilet and erased servers in Russia and Ukraine rented anonymously with Bitcoins. He was dismantling what he says was a secret history of one of the dirtiest Latin American campaigns in recent memory.

For eight years, Sepúlveda, now 31, says he traveled the continent rigging major political campaigns. With a budget of $600,000, the Peńa Nieto job was by far his most complex. He led a team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices, all to help Peńa Nieto, a right-of-center candidate, eke out a victory. On that July night, he cracked bottle after bottle of Colón Negra beer in celebration. As usual on election night, he was alone.

Sepúlveda's career began in 2005, and his first jobs were small-mostly defacing campaign websites and breaking into opponents' donor databases. Within a few years he was assembling teams that spied, stole, and smeared on behalf of presidential campaigns across Latin America. He wasn't cheap, but his services were extensive. For $12,000 a month, a customer hired a crew that could hack smartphones, spoof and clone Web pages, and send mass e-mails and texts. The premium package, at $20,000 a month, also included a full range of digital interception, attack, decryption, and defense. The jobs were carefully laundered through layers of middlemen and consultants. Sepúlveda says many of the candidates he helped might not even have known about his role; he says he met only a few.

His teams worked on presidential elections in Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela. Campaigns mentioned in this story were contacted through former and current spokespeople; none but Mexico's PRI and the campaign of Guatemala's National Advancement Party would comment.

The point here, well there are several points. One, Sepulveda is not the only guy in the world doing this. The CIA even has a team of social media trolls and the NSA has a department that only develops robots to do the same thing Sepulveda was doing and better. The age of 'spies' has transformed into an electronic, digital, online version - much like the internet has transformed life and business it has also changed the way the intelligence establishment deals with controlling the population. Oh how the FBI has evolved since the days of Hoffman and Cointelpro!

Many of Sepúlveda's efforts were unsuccessful, but he has enough wins that he might be able to claim as much influence over the political direction of modern Latin America as anyone in the 21st century. "My job was to do actions of dirty war and psychological operations, black propaganda, rumors-the whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see," he says in Spanish, while sitting at a small plastic table in an outdoor courtyard deep within the heavily fortified offices of Colombia's attorney general's office. He's serving 10 years in prison for charges including use of malicious software, conspiracy to commit crime, violation of personal data, and espionage, related to hacking during Colombia's 2014 presidential election. He has agreed to tell his full story for the first time, hoping to convince the public that he's rehabilitated-and gather support for a reduced sentence.

Usually, he says, he was on the payroll of Juan José Rendón, a Miami-based political consultant who's been called the Karl Rove of Latin America. Rendón denies using Sepúlveda for anything illegal, and categorically disputes the account Sepúlveda gave Bloomberg Businessweek of their relationship, but admits knowing him and using him to do website design. "If I talked to him maybe once or twice, it was in a group session about that, about the Web," he says. "I don't do illegal stuff at all. There is negative campaigning. They don't like it-OK. But if it's legal, I'm gonna do it. I'm not a saint, but I'm not a criminal." While Sepúlveda's policy was to destroy all data at the completion of a job, he left some documents with members of his hacking teams and other trusted third parties as a secret "insurance policy."

We don't need a degree in cybersecurity to see how this was going on against Trump all throughout the campaign. Not only did they hire thugs to start riots at Trump rallies and protest, a massive online campaign was staged against Trump.

Rendón, says Sepúlveda, saw that hackers could be completely integrated into a modern political operation, running attack ads, researching the opposition, and finding ways to suppress a foe's turnout. As for Sepúlveda, his insight was to understand that voters trusted what they thought were spontaneous expressions of real people on social media more than they did experts on television and in newspapers. He knew that accounts could be faked and social media trends fabricated, all relatively cheaply. He wrote a software program, now called Social Media Predator, to manage and direct a virtual army of fake Twitter accounts. The software let him quickly change names, profile pictures, and biographies to fit any need. Eventually, he discovered, he could manipulate the public debate as easily as moving pieces on a chessboard-or, as he puts it, "When I realized that people believe what the Internet says more than reality, I discovered that I had the power to make people believe almost anything."

Sepúlveda managed thousands of such fake profiles and used the accounts to shape discussion around topics such as Peńa Nieto's plan to end drug violence, priming the social media pump with views that real users would mimic. For less nuanced work, he had a larger army of 30,000 Twitter bots, automatic posters that could create trends. One conversation he started stoked fear that the more López Obrador rose in the polls, the lower the peso would sink. Sepúlveda knew the currency issue was a major vulnerability; he'd read it in the candidate's own internal staff memos.

While there's no evidence that Rendon or Sepulveda were involved in the 2016 election, there is also no evidence that Russian hackers were involved in the 2016 election. There's not even false evidence. There isn't a hint of it. There isn't a witness, there isn't a document, there's nothing - it's a conspiracy theory! And a very poor one.

By the way, if you want to disguise your IP address as if you are living in Russia, there's a service that will do this for about $10/month - millions of people use this service. You can sign up for it too, and choose what country you want to be 'from' - Canada, Brazil, Russia - take your pick.

Russian hackers would have had the same or better (probably much better) tools, strategies, and resources than Sepulveda. But none of this shows up anywhere. If anything, this is an example of how NOT to hack an election.

To learn more about the way the world works, checkout Splitting Pennies. To gain some Alpha in your portfolio for QEP / ECP investors checkout Alpha Z Advisors.

Further reading about 'truth' and 'alternative reality'

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution .

Armand Hammer: The Untold Story

A People's History of the United States

Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich

Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets .
Mike Masr , Dec 28, 2016 8:06 AM

This truth will be swept under the rug and regarded as "fake news" because it doesn't fit the official Obama narrative that Russia did it!
mary mary Kefeer , Dec 27, 2016 6:55 PM
Thanks. Right. Hillary's official electronic communications is more correct than Hillary's emails.

(And the "wipe them, you mean like with a rag?" from Hillary, after having been in government all her adult life and after having presented herself as a modern Secretary of State who knew all about how government and modern technology worked would have been a funny joke if it hadn't obviously been intended to cover up enormous crimes.)

Grandad Grumps , Dec 27, 2016 2:58 PM
Whoever is running the world with all of this fake stuff and all of the monitoring of people and petty false propganda, they pretty much suck at it. it is as if they are claiming to be running the world using "training wheels". As a substitute for God they stink! Grade D-!
Fathead Slim , Dec 27, 2016 2:25 PM
The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it, it only has to be presented by the only sources these imbeciles are willing to use: their fucking TV sets. Most people are so deluded by their main source of entertainment and information that they wouldn't give a shit if incontrovertible evidence that their TV information source was lying was presented to them.

Most people I know don't want to know anything that can't be spoonfed to them on a TV screen.

Dick Buttkiss Fathead Slim , Dec 27, 2016 2:42 PM
"The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it..."

Like the tale that the only steel highrise buildings to ever collapse due to fires (turning into dust at near freefall speed) ocurred on a single day 15 years ago, orchestrated, along with everything else on that fateful day, by a man in a cave half a world away.

Fathead Slim Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 6:57 PM
Yep, a prime example. TV addicts are also convinced that they've seen news broadcasts that announced the finding of WMDs in Iraq.
Kefeer Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 4:49 PM
You left out that the man was also on dialysis.
jeff montanye Kefeer , Dec 27, 2016 6:51 PM
and that after every airport was closed and every single commercial plane was grounded, that man's entire extended family resident in the u.s., some two dozen individuals, was given fbi protection, rented cars and chartered planes, and flown out of the country without ever being interviewed, at all, by any law enforcement branch of the government of the united states which, needless to say, had absolutely no involvement with the deadliest foreign attack on u.s. soil since the war of 1812, killing nearly 600 more than died at pearl harbor. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bin-laden-family-evacuated/

this was known at the time it happened. what took longer to discover was that the source of the foreign attack was not a cave in afghanistan or even saudi arabia or the muslim world generally.

all along it was our trusted ally, brave little israel.

  • http://www.whale.to/b/israel_did_911.html
  • https://sites.google.com/site/onedemocraticstatesite/archives/-solving-9...
  • http://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586
  • http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticl... .
  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/everything-rich-man-trick/
  • https://smile.amazon.com/dp/098213150X/sr=1-1/qid=1467687982/ref=olp_pro...
  • http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
  • Twodogs jeff montanye , Dec 28, 2016 8:33 AM
    Anti-semitism enables one to ignore the elephant in the room, namely the Saudis who have been spending billions promoting Wahhabism and terrorism, to blame a tiny little country for everything, without ever having to bother about evidence. Seek help.
    BSHJ Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 3:06 PM
    Well, he was probably always watching HGTV and knew all the right tricks to make his man-cave as efficient as possible.
    mary mary BSHJ , Dec 27, 2016 6:58 PM
    So easy (with a little help from Bush and Cheney) that even a cave-man could do it. ....

    [Dec 27, 2016] Wielding Claims of Fake News, Conservatives Take Aim at Mainstream Media

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together." ..."
    "... "What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy," ..."
    "... The market in these divided times is undeniably ripe. "We now live in this fragmented media world where you can block people you disagree with. You can only be exposed to stories that make you feel good about what you want to believe," Mr. Ziegler, the radio host, said. "Unfortunately, the truth is unpopular a lot. And a good fairy tale beats a harsh truth every time." ..."
    Dec 25, 2016 | www.nytimes.com
    ... ... ...

    Rush Limbaugh has diagnosed a more fundamental problem . "The fake news is the everyday news" in the mainstream media, he said on his radio show recently. "They just make it up."

    .... As reporters were walking out of a Trump rally this month in Orlando, Fla., a man heckled them with shouts of "Fake news!"

    Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are meant to spread virally online. But conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans and even Mr. Trump himself, incredulous about suggestions that fake stories may have helped swing the election, have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to their agenda.

    In defining "fake news" so broadly and seeking to dilute its meaning, they are capitalizing on the declining credibility of all purveyors of information, one product of the country's increasing political polarization. And conservatives, seeing an opening to undermine the mainstream media, a longtime foe, are more than happy to dig the hole deeper.

    "Over the years, we've effectively brainwashed the core of our audience to distrust anything that they disagree with. And now it's gone too far," said John Ziegler, a conservative radio host, who has been critical of what he sees as excessive partisanship by pundits. "Because the gatekeepers have lost all credibility in the minds of consumers, I don't see how you reverse it."

    Journalists who work to separate fact from fiction see a dangerous conflation of stories that turn out to be wrong because of a legitimate misunderstanding with those whose clear intention is to deceive. A report, shared more than a million times on social media, that the pope had endorsed Mr. Trump was undeniably false. But was it "fake news" to report on data models that showed Hillary Clinton with overwhelming odds of winning the presidency? Are opinion articles fake if they cherry-pick facts to draw disputable conclusions?

    "Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together."

    The right's labeling of "fake news" evokes one of the most successful efforts by conservatives to reorient how Americans think about news media objectivity: the move by Fox News to brand its conservative-slanted coverage as "fair and balanced." Traditionally, mainstream media outlets had thought of their own approach in those terms, viewing their coverage as strictly down the middle. Republicans often found that laughable. As with Fox's ubiquitous promotion of its slogan, conservatives' appropriation of the "fake news" label is an effort to further erode the mainstream media's claim to be a reliable and accurate source.

    "What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy," said Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, a liberal group that polices the news media for bias. "Therefore, by applying that term to credible outlets, it becomes much more believable."

    .... ... ...

    Mr. Trump has used the term to deny news reports, as he did on Twitter recently after various outlets said he would stay on as the executive producer of "The New Celebrity Apprentice" after taking office in January. "Ridiculous & untrue - FAKE NEWS!" he wrote. (He will be credited as executive producer, a spokesman for the show's creator, Mark Burnett, has said. But it is unclear what work, if any, he will do on the show.)

    Many conservatives are pushing back at the outrage over fake news because they believe that liberals, unwilling to accept Mr. Trump's victory, are attributing his triumph to nefarious external factors.

    "The left refuses to admit that the fundamental problem isn't the Russians or Jim Comey or 'fake news' or the Electoral College," said Laura Ingraham, the author and radio host. "'Fake news' is just another fake excuse for their failed agenda."

    Others see a larger effort to slander the basic journalistic function of fact-checking. Nonpartisan websites like Snopes and Factcheck.org have found themselves maligned when they have disproved stories that had been flattering to conservatives.

    When Snopes wrote about a State Farm insurance agent in Louisiana who had posted a sign outside his office that likened taxpayers who voted for President Obama to chickens supporting Colonel Sanders, Mr. Mikkelson, the site's founder, was smeared as a partisan Democrat who had never bothered to reach out to the agent for comment. Neither is true.

    "They're trying to float anything they can find out there to discredit fact-checking," he said.

    There are already efforts by highly partisan conservatives to claim that their fact-checking efforts are the same as those of independent outlets like Snopes, which employ research teams to dig into seemingly dubious claims.

    Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, has aired "fact-checking" segments on his program. Michelle Malkin, the conservative columnist, has a web program, "Michelle Malkin Investigates," in which she conducts her own investigative reporting.

    The market in these divided times is undeniably ripe. "We now live in this fragmented media world where you can block people you disagree with. You can only be exposed to stories that make you feel good about what you want to believe," Mr. Ziegler, the radio host, said. "Unfortunately, the truth is unpopular a lot. And a good fairy tale beats a harsh truth every time."

    [Dec 27, 2016] The fake news is the everyday news in MSM. They just make it up.

    Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs : December 27, 2016 at 05:06 AM , 2016 at 05:06 AM
    (Does this have something to do
    with Jon Stewart's retirement &
    Stephen Colbert 'going legit'?)

    Wielding Claims of 'Fake News,' Conservatives

    Take Aim at Mainstream Media http://nyti.ms/2iuFxRx
    NYT - JEREMY W. PETERS - December 25, 2016

    WASHINGTON - The CIA, the F.B.I. and the White House may all agree that Russia was behind the hacking that interfered with the election. But that was of no import to the website Breitbart News, which dismissed reports on the intelligence assessment as "left-wing fake news."

    Rush Limbaugh has diagnosed a more fundamental problem. "The fake news is the everyday news" in the mainstream media, he said on his radio show recently. "They just make it up."

    Some supporters of President-elect Donald J. Trump have also taken up the call. As reporters were walking out of a Trump rally this month in Orlando, Fla., a man heckled them with shouts of "Fake news!"

    Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are meant to spread virally online. But conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans and even Mr. Trump himself, incredulous about suggestions that fake stories may have helped swing the election, have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to their agenda.

    In defining "fake news" so broadly and seeking to dilute its meaning, they are capitalizing on the declining credibility of all purveyors of information, one product of the country's increasing political polarization. And conservatives, seeing an opening to undermine the mainstream media, a longtime foe, are more than happy to dig the hole deeper.

    "Over the years, we've effectively brainwashed the core of our audience to distrust anything that they disagree with. And now it's gone too far," said John Ziegler, a conservative radio host, who has been critical of what he sees as excessive partisanship by pundits. "Because the gatekeepers have lost all credibility in the minds of consumers, I don't see how you reverse it."

    Journalists who work to separate fact from fiction see a dangerous conflation of stories that turn out to be wrong because of a legitimate misunderstanding with those whose clear intention is to deceive. A report, shared more than a million times on social media, that the pope had endorsed Mr. Trump was undeniably false. But was it "fake news" to report on data models that showed Hillary Clinton with overwhelming odds of winning the presidency? Are opinion articles fake if they cherry-pick facts to draw disputable conclusions?

    "Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together."

    The right's labeling of "fake news" evokes one of the most successful efforts by conservatives to reorient how Americans think about news media objectivity: the move by Fox News to brand its conservative-slanted coverage as "fair and balanced." Traditionally, mainstream media outlets had thought of their own approach in those terms, viewing their coverage as strictly down the middle. Republicans often found that laughable.

    As with Fox's ubiquitous promotion of its slogan, conservatives' appropriation of the "fake news" label is an effort to further erode the mainstream media's claim to be a reliable and accurate source. ...

    [Dec 27, 2016] Income inequality has increased in many developed countries over the last several decades.

    Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne :

    http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/PSZ2016.pdf

    December, 2016

    Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States
    By Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman

    Abstract

    This paper combines tax, survey, and national accounts data to estimate the distribution of national income in the United States since 1913. Our distributional national accounts capture 100% of national income, allowing us to compute growth rates for each quantile of the income distribution consistent with macroeconomic growth. We estimate the distribution of both pre-tax and post-tax income, making it possible to provide a comprehensive view of how government redistribution affects inequality.

    The government has offset only a small fraction of the increase in inequality. The reduction of the gender gap in earnings has mitigated the increase in inequality among adults. The share of women, however, falls steeply as one moves up the labor income distribution, and is only 11% in the top 0.1% today.

    Reply Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 01:09 PM anne -> anne... , December 27, 2016 at 01:13 PM
    http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/PSZ2016.pdf

    December, 2016

    Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States
    By Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman

    Introduction Income inequality has increased in many developed countries over the last several decades. This trend has attracted considerable interest among academics, policy-makers, and the general public. In recent years, following up on Kuznets' (1953) pioneering attempt, a number of authors have used administrative tax records to construct long-run series of top income shares (Alvaredo et al., 2011-2016). Yet despite this endeavor, we still face three important limitations when measuring income inequality. First and most important, there is a large gap between national accounts-which focus on macro totals and growth-and inequality studies-which focus on distributions using survey and tax data, usually without trying to be fully consistent with macro totals. This gap makes it hard to address questions such as: What fraction of economic growth accrues to the bottom 50%, the middle 40%, and the top 10% of the distribution? How much of the rise in income inequality owes to changes in the share of labor and capital in national income, and how much to changes in the dispersion of labor earnings, capital ownership, and returns to capital? Second, about a third of U.S. national income is redistributed through taxes, transfers, and public good spending. Yet we do not have a good measure of how the distribution of pre-tax income differs from the distribution of post-tax income, making it hard to assess how government redistribution affects inequality. Third, existing income inequality statistics use the tax unit or the household as unit of observation, adding up the income of men and women. As a result, we do not have a clear view of how long-run trends in income concentration are shaped by the major changes in women labor force participation-and gender inequality generally-that have occurred over the last century.

    This paper attempts to compute inequality statistics for the United States that overcome the limits of existing series by creating distributional national accounts. We combine tax, survey, and national accounts data to build new series on the distribution of national income since 1913. In contrast to previous attempts that capture less than 60% of US national income- such as Census bureau estimates (US Census Bureau 2016) and top income shares (Piketty and Saez, 2003)-our estimates capture 100% of the national income recorded in the national accounts. This enables us to provide decompositions of growth by income groups consistent with macroeconomic growth. We compute the distribution of both pre-tax and post-tax income. Post-tax series deduct all taxes and add back all transfers and public spending, so that both pre-tax and post-tax incomes add up to national income. This allows us to provide the first comprehensive view of how government redistribution affects inequality. Our benchmark series uses the adult individual as the unit of observation and splits income equally among spouses. We also report series in which each spouse is assigned her or his own labor income, enabling us to study how long-run changes in gender inequality shape the distribution of income.

    Distributional national accounts provide information on the dynamic of income across the entire spectrum-from the bottom decile to the top 0.001%-that, we believe, is more accurate than existing inequality data. Our estimates capture employee fringe benefits, a growing source of income for the middle-class that is overlooked by both Census bureau estimates and tax data. They capture all capital income, which is large-about 30% of total national income- and concentrated, yet is very imperfectly covered by surveys-due to small sample and top coding issues-and by tax data-as a large fraction of capital income goes to pension funds and is retained in corporations. They make it possible to produce long-run inequality statistics that control for socio-demographic changes-such as the rise in the fraction of retired individuals and the decline in household size-contrary to the currently available tax-based series.

    Methodologically, our contribution is to construct micro-files of pre-tax and post-tax income consistent with macro aggregates. These micro-files contain all the variables of the national accounts and synthetic individual observations that we obtain by statistically matching tax and survey data and making explicit assumptions about the distribution of income categories for which there is no directly available source of information. By construction, the totals in these micro-files add up to the national accounts totals, while the distributions are consistent with those seen in tax and survey data. These files can be used to compute a wide array of distributional statistics-labor and capital income earned, taxes paid, transfers received, wealth owned, etc.-by age groups, gender, and marital status. Our objective, in the years ahead, is to construct similar micro-files in as many countries as possible in order to better compare inequality across countries. Just like we use GDP or national income to compare the macroeconomic performances of countries today, so could distributional national accounts be used to compare inequality across countries tomorrow.

    We stress at the outset that there are numerous data issues involved in distributing national income, discussed in the text and the online appendix. First, we take the national accounts as a given starting point, although we are well aware that the national accounts themselves are imperfect (e.g., Zucman 2013). They are, however, the most reasonable starting point, because they aggregate all the available information from surveys, tax data, corporate income statements, and balance sheets, etc., in an standardized, internationally-agreed-upon and regularly improved upon accounting framework. Second, imputing all national income, taxes, transfers, and public goods spending requires making assumptions on a number of complex issues, such as the economic incidence of taxes and who benefits from government spending. Our goal is not to provide definitive answers to these questions, but rather to be comprehensive, consistent, and explicit about what assumptions we are making and why. We view our paper as attempting to construct prototype distributional national accounts, a prototype that could be improved upon as more data become available, new knowledge emerges on who pays taxes and benefits from government spending, and refined estimation techniques are developed-just as today's national accounts are regularly improved....

    [Dec 27, 2016] Low oil prices and an increasingly costly war in Yemen have torn a yawning hole in the Saudi budget

    Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    December 27, 2016 at 04:40 AM

    Low oil prices and an increasingly costly war in Yemen have torn a yawning hole in the Saudi budget and created a crisis that has led to cuts in public spending, reductions in take-home pay and benefits for government workers and a host of new fees and fines. Huge subsidies for fuel, water and electricity that encourage overconsumption are being curtailed. ...

    [Dec 27, 2016] Welcome to Greater Israel!

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    Dec 27, 2016 | www.unz.com
    While the presidential campaign was still in progress it was possible to think that there might be some positive change in America's broken foreign policy. Hillary Clinton was clearly the candidate of Washington Establishment hawkishness, while Donald Trump was declaring his disinclination for democracy and nation building overseas as well as promoting détente with Russia. Those of us who considered the foreign policy debacle to be the most dangerous issue confronting the country, particularly as it was also fueling domestic tyranny, tended to vote on the basis of that one issue in favor of Trump.

    On December 1 st in Cincinnati, president-elect Donald Trump made some interesting comments about his post-electoral foreign policy plans. There were a lot of good things in it, including his citing of $6 trillion "wasted" in Mideast fights when "our goal is stability not chaos." And as for dealing with real enemies, he promised to "partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism " He called it a "new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past" adding that "We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments, folks."

    Regarding the apparent inability of governments to thoroughly check out new immigrants prior to letting them inside the country, demonstrated most recently in Nice, Ohio and Berlin, Trump described how "People are pouring in from regions of the Middle East - we have no idea who they are, where they come from what they are thinking and we are going to stop that dead cold. These are stupid refugee programs created by stupid politicians." Exaggerated? For sure, but he has a point, and it all is part and parcel of a foreign policy that serves no actual interest for people who already live in the United States.

    But, as so often with Trump, there was also the flip side. On the looney fringe of the foreign and national security policy agenda, the president-elect oddly believes that "The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes." So to reduce the number of nukes we have to create more of them and put them in more places. Pouring gasoline on a raging fire would be an appropriate analogy and it certainly leads to questions regarding who is advising The Donald with this kind of nonsense.

    Trump has promised to "put America first," but there is inevitably a spanner in the works. Now, with the New Year only six days away and the presidential inauguration coming less than three weeks after that, it is possible to discern that the new foreign policy will, more than under Barack Obama and George W. Bush, be driven in significant part by Israeli interests.

    At least Obama had the good sense to despise Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but that will not be true of the White House after January 20 th . Trump's very first telephone conversation with a foreign head of government after being elected was with Netanyahu and during the campaign, he promised to invite Bibi to the White House immediately after the inauguration. The new president's first naming of an Ambassador-designate to a foreign nation was of his good friend and bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman to Israel. Friedman had headed Trump's Israel Advisory Committee and is a notable hard liner who supports the Israeli settler movement, an extreme right-wing political entity that is nominally opposed by existing U.S. government policy as both illegal and damaging to Washington's interests. Beyond that, Friedman rejects creation of a Palestinian state and supports Israel's actual annexation of the West Bank.

    U.S. Ambassadors are supposed to support American interests but Friedman would actually be representing and endorsing a particularly noxious version of Israeli fascism as the new normal in the relationship with Washington. Friedman describes Jerusalem as "the holy capital of the Jewish people and only the Jewish people." Trump is already taking steps to move the U.S. Embassy there, making the American government unique in having its chief diplomatic mission in the legally disputed city. The move will also serve as a recruiting poster for groups like ISIS and will inflame opinion against the U.S. among friendly Arab states in the region. There is no possible gain and much to lose for the United States and for American citizens in making the move, but it satisfies Israeli hardliners and zealots like Friedman.

    The Trump team's animosity towards Iran is also part of the broader Israeli agenda. Iran does not threaten the United States and is a military midget compared either to nuclear armed Israel or the U.S. Yet is has been singled out as the enemy du jour in the Middle East even though it has invaded no one since the seventeenth century. Israel would like to have the United States do the heavy lifting to destroy Iran as a regional power. If Washington were to attempt to do so it would be a catastrophe for all parties involved but that has not stopped hardliners from demanding unrelenting military pressure on Tehran.

    Donald Trump is not even president yet but he advised Barack Obama to exercise the U.S. veto for the resolution condemning Israeli settlements that was voted on at the United Nations Security Council on Friday, explaining that "As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis."

    This is a straight Israeli line that might even have been written by Netanyahu himself. Or by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which fumed "AIPAC is deeply disturbed by the failure of the Obama Administration to exercise its veto to prevent a destructive, one-sided, anti-Israel resolution from being enacted by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). In the past, this administration and past administrations have rejected this type of biased resolution since it undermines prospects for peace. It is particularly regrettable, in his last month in office, that the president has taken an action at odds with the bipartisan consensus in Congress and America's long history of standing with Israel at the United Nations."

    Ah yes, the fabled negotiations for a two state solution, regularly employed to enable Israelis to do nothing while expanding their theft of Arab land and one wonders how Trump would define what is "fair to the Palestinians?" So we are already well into Trump's adoption of the "always the victim argument" that the Israelis have so cleverly exploited with U.S. politicians and the media.

    Not content with advising Obama, Trump also reportedly took the Palestinian issue one step further by directly pressuring the sponsoring Egyptians to postpone any submission of the resolution. Expecting to have a friendly president in the White House after January 20 th , Egypt's president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi complied on Thursday but the motion was reintroduced by New Zealand, Venezuela, Senegal and Malaysia on the following day. The resolution passed with 14 yes votes and a courageous U.S. abstention after Obama finally, after eight long years, developed a backbone. But unfortunately, Trump's interventions suggest that nothing critical of Israel will be allowed to emerge from the U.N. during his term of office. Referring to the U.N. vote, he said that "things will be different after January 20 th ."

    The United Nations resolution produced an immediate reaction from Israeli Firsters in Congress and the media, led by Senator Chuck Schumer and the Washington Post . The Post featured a lead editorial entitled The Obama Administration fires a dangerous parting shot and an op-ed The United States just made Middle East peace harder by no less a redoubtable American hero than Eliot Abrams. Look in vain for any suggestion of what might be construed as an actual U.S. interest in either piece. It is all about Israel, as it always is.

    The problem with Israel and its friends is that they are never satisfied and never leave the rest of us Americans alone, pushing constantly at what is essentially an open door. They have treated the United States like a doormat, spying on us more than any ostensibly friendly nation while pocketing our $38 billion donation to their expanding state without so much as a thank you. They are shameless. Israel's ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer has been all over American television sputtering his rage over the United Nations settlements vote. On CNN he revealed that Israel has "clear evidence" that President Obama was "behind" the resolution and he announced his intention to share the information with Donald Trump. Every American should be outraged by Israel's contempt for us and our institutions. One has to wonder if the mainstream media will take a rest from their pillorying of Russia to cover the story.

    For many years now, Israel has sought to make the American people complicit in its own crimes while also encouraging our country's feckless and corrupt leadership to provide their government with political cover and even go to war on its behalf. This has got to stop and, for a moment, it looked like Trump might be the man to end it when he promised to be even-handed in negotiating between the Arabs and Israelis. That was before he promised to be the best friend Israel would ever have.

    Israel's quarrels don't stay in Israel and they are not limited to the foreign policy realm. I have already discussed the pending Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, a bipartisan effort by Congress to penalize and even potentially criminalize any criticism of Israel by equating it to anti-Semitism. Whether Israel itself wants to consider itself a democracy is up to Netanyahu and Israeli voters but the denial of basic free speech rights to Americans in deference to Israeli perceptions should be considered to be completely outrageous.

    And there's more. Israel's government funded lawfare organization Shurat HaDin has long been using American courts to punish Palestinians and Iranians, obtaining punitive damages linked to allegations regarding terrorist incidents that have taken place in Israel. Now Shurat HaDin is using our courts to go after American companies that do business with countries like Iran.

    Last year's nuclear agreement with Iran included an end to restraints on the Islamic Republic's ability to engage in normal banking and commercial activity. As a high priority, Iran has sought to replace some of its aging infrastructure, to include its passenger aircraft fleet. Seattle based Boeing has sought to sell to Iran Air 80 airplanes at a cost of more than $16 billion and has worked with the U.S. government to meet all licensing and technology transfer requirements. The civilian-use planes are not in any way configurable for military purposes, but Shurat HaDin on December 16 th sought to block the sale at a federal court in Illinois, demanding a lien against Boeing for the monies alleged to be due to the claimed victims of Iranian sponsored terrorism. Boeing, meanwhile, has stated that the Iran Air order "support(s) tens of thousands of U.S. jobs."

    So an agency of the Israeli government is taking steps to stop an American company from doing something that is perfectly legal under U.S. law even though it will cost thousands of jobs here at home. It is a prime example of how much Israel truly cares about the United States and its people. And even more pathetic, the Israel Lobby owned U.S. Congress has predictably bowed down and kissed Netanyahu's ring on the issue, passing a bill in November that seeks to block Treasury Department licenses to permit the financing of the airplane deal.

    The New Year and the arrival of an administration with fresh ideas would provide a great opportunity for the United States to finally distance itself from a toxic Israel, but, unfortunately, it seems that everything is actually moving in the opposite direction. Don't be too surprised if we see a shooting war with Iran before the year is out as well as a shiny new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem (to be built on land stolen from Palestinians , incidentally). Trump might think he is ushering in a new era of American policy based on American interests but it is beginning to look a lot like same-old same-old but even worse, and Benjamin Netanyahu will be very much in the driver's seat.

    [Dec 27, 2016] Is Trump just another globalists shill?

    Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    John San Vant... Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 08:07 AM , December 27, 2016 at 08:07 AM
    John,

    I wonder what facts you have to label Trump's team "globalist shills".

    Robert W. Merry in his National Interest article disagrees with you
    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/trump-vs-hillary-nationalism-vs-globalism-2016-16041
    === start of the quote ===
    Globalists captured much of American society long ago by capturing the bulk of the nation's elite institutions -- the media, academia, big corporations, big finance, Hollywood, think tanks, NGOs, charitable foundations. So powerful are these institutions -- in themselves and, even more so, collectively -- that the elites running them thought that their political victories were complete and final. That's why we have witnessed in recent years a quantum expansion of social and political arrogance on the part of these high-flyers.

    Then along comes Donald Trump and upends the whole thing. Just about every major issue that this super-rich political neophyte has thrown at the elites turns out to be anti-globalist and pro-nationalist. And that is the single most significant factor in his unprecedented and totally unanticipated rise. Consider some examples:

    Immigration: Nationalists believe that any true nation must have clearly delineated and protected borders, otherwise it isn't really a nation. They also believe that their nation's cultural heritage is sacred and needs to be protected, whereas mass immigration from far-flung lands could undermine the national commitment to that heritage.

    Globalists don't care about borders. They believe the nation-state is obsolete, a relic of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which codified the recognition of co-existing nation states.

    Globalists reject Westphalia in favor of an integrated world with information, money, goods and people traversing the globe at accelerating speeds without much regard to traditional concepts of nationhood or borders.
    === end of the quote ===

    I wonder how "globalist shills" mantra correlates with the following Trump's statements:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/28/donald-trump-globalization-trade-pennsylvania-ohio/86431376/

    === start of quote ===
    "Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy ... but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache," Trump told supporters during a prepared speech targeting free trade in a nearly-shuttered former steel town in Pennsylvania.

    In a speech devoted to what he called "How To Make America Wealthy Again," Trump offered a series of familiar plans designed to deal with what he called [Obama] "failed trade policies" - including rejection of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Pacific Rim nations and re-negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, withdrawing from it if necessary.

    The presumptive Republican presidential nominee also said he would pursue bilateral trade agreements rather than multi-national deals like TPP and NAFTA.

    In addition to appointing better trade negotiators and stepping up punishment of countries that violate trade rules, Trump's plans would also target one specific economic competitor: China. He vowed to label China a currency manipulator, bring it before the World Trade Organization and consider slapping tariffs on Chinese imports coming into the U.S.

    [Dec 27, 2016] Suicide rates rise after jobs move overseas, study finds

    Notable quotes:
    "... In Bristol County, which includes Fall River, New Bedford, and Taunton, manufacturing employed nearly a quarter of the workforce in 2000; now it provides jobs for only one in 10 workers. ..."
    "... Most of the manufacturing jobs lost since 2000 are unlikely to return, economists said. Automation has made manufacturing much more specialized, requiring more education and fewer workers, leaving parts of the country struggling to figure out how to reinvent their economies. ..."
    "... "We will probably never have as many manufacturing jobs as we had in 1960," Dunn said. "The question is how do we train workers and provide them opportunities to feel productive. What's clear from the election is an increasing number of people don't have those opportunities or don't feel that those opportunities will be available." ..."
    "... Characteristics of people dying by suicide after job loss, financial difficulties and other economic stressors during a period of recession (2010–2011): A review of coroners׳ records ..."
    Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs : December 27, 2016 at 03:37 AM

    Suicide rates rise after jobs move overseas, study finds
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/12/26/suicide-rates-rise-after-jobs-move-overseas-new-study-funds/yVhFkZOslgnODKEjTfcDTK/story.html?event=event25
    via @BostonGlobe - Deirdre Fernandes - December 27, 2016

    FALL RIVER - In this struggling industrial city, changes in trade policy are being measured not only in jobs lost, but also in lives lost - to suicide.

    The jobs went first, the result of trade deals that sent them overseas. Once-humming factories that dressed office workers and soldiers, and made goods to furnish their homes, stand abandoned, overtaken by weeds and graffiti.

    And now there is research on how the US job exodus parallels an increase in suicides. A one percentage point increase in unemployment correlated with an 11 percent increase in suicides, according to Peter Schott, a Yale University economist who coauthored the report with Justin Pierce, a researcher at the Federal Reserve Board.

    The research doesn't prove a definitive link between lost jobs and suicide; it simply notes that as jobs left, suicides rose. Workers who lost their jobs may have been pushed over the edge and turned to suicide or drug addiction, lacking financial resources or community connections to get help, the authors suggest.

    The research contributes to a growing body of work that shows the dark side of global trade: the dislocation, anger, and despair in some parts of the country that came with the United States' easing of trade with China in 2000. The impact of job losses was greatest in places such as Fall River and other cities in Bristol County, along with rural manufacturing counties in New Hampshire and Maine, vast stretches of the South, and portions of the Rust Belt.

    "There are winners and losers in trade," Schott said. "If you go to these communities, you can see the disruptions."

    The unemployment rate in Fall River remains persistently high and at 5.5 percent in September was a good two points above the Massachusetts average. Nearly one in three households gets some sort of public assistance.

    Opposition to global trade policies became a rallying cry in Donald Trump's campaign, propelling him into the White House with strategic wins in the industrial Midwest and the South. Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on Chinese goods and has bashed recent US trade pacts. ...

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 27, 2016 at 03:41 AM

    ... Previous trade deals, including the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, chipped away at US manufacturing towns. But economists say the decision to normalize relations with China was far more disruptive. Some economists have estimated the United States may have lost at least 1 million manufacturing jobs from 2000 to 2007 due to freer trade with China.

    In Bristol County, which includes Fall River, New Bedford, and Taunton, manufacturing employed nearly a quarter of the workforce in 2000; now it provides jobs for only one in 10 workers.

    Most of the manufacturing jobs lost since 2000 are unlikely to return, economists said. Automation has made manufacturing much more specialized, requiring more education and fewer workers, leaving parts of the country struggling to figure out how to reinvent their economies.

    "We will probably never have as many manufacturing jobs as we had in 1960," Dunn said. "The question is how do we train workers and provide them opportunities to feel productive. What's clear from the election is an increasing number of people don't have those opportunities or don't feel that those opportunities will be available."

    Officials in Fall River and Bristol County said they are trying to provide appropriate training, including computer programming, a prerequisite for many manufacturing jobs.

    They also point out there have been recent victories.

    Mayor Tom Hoye said Taunton has also been more active in recent years, holding community meetings and expanding social services for residents facing distress and drug addiction.

    Despite the hits the city and its residents have taken, there is reason to be optimistic about the future, he said.

    Jobs are returning, and the county's suicide rate dropped from 13 per 100,000 people in 2014 to 12 per 100,000 in 2015.

    "We're reinventing ourselves," Hoye said on a recent morning as he sat in an old elementary school classroom that has served as the temporary mayor's office for several years.

    "It's tough to lift yourself out of the hole sometimes. But we're much better off than we were 10 years ago."

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 27, 2016 at 03:55 AM
    'The research doesn't prove a definitive
    link between lost jobs and suicide; it
    simply notes that as jobs left,
    suicides rose.'

    Pierce, Justin R., and Peter K. Schott (2016). "Trade Liberalization and Mortality:
    Evidence from U.S. Counties," Finance and Economics Discussion Series
    2016-094. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

    https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2016/files/2016094pap.pdf

    http://faculty.som.yale.edu/peterschott/files/research/papers/pierce_schott_pntr_20150301.pdf

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 27, 2016 at 04:00 AM
    (Note: The 2nd link is to a
    different paper, same authors.)

    'The Surprisingly Swift Decline
    of US Manufacturing Employment'

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 27, 2016 at 04:27 AM
    Understanding vulnerability to self-
    harm in times of economic hardship
    and austerity: a qualitative study
    M C Barnes, et al.

    'This is the first UK study of self-harm
    among people experiencing economic or
    austerity-related difficulties.'

    December 2015

    http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/2/e010131.full.pdf

    ---

    Characteristics of people dying by suicide after job loss, financial difficulties and other economic stressors during a period of recession (2010–2011): A review of coroners׳ records
    Caroline Coope, et al

    Journal of Affective Disorders
    Volume 183, 1 - September 2015

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032715002694/pdfft?md5=bebc4ce035acbeeee6cb0b9bd586a5e3&pid=1-s2.0-S0165032715002694-main.pdf

    Chris G -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Suicide rates rise after jobs move overseas, study finds

    That's consistent with the GOP's notion of how to most effectively cover health problems: shoveled dirt.

    [Dec 27, 2016] Guriev mising on the Russian economy and President Putin

    Economist was always adamantly anti-Russian and, especially, anti-Putin. The use of people like Sergey Guriev (recent emigrant to Paris, who excape to avoid the danger of criminal procecution for skolkovao machinations) is just an icing on the cake.
    Notable quotes:
    "... During the 2015-16 recession, GDP. fell by more than 4 percent and real incomes declined by 10 percent. That is significant, but much less serious than, say, the 40 percent drop in GDP that Russia experienced during the first half of the 1990s. Despite a dramatic decline in oil prices and the burden of sanctions imposed by Western governments after the Crimea crisis, the Putin administration has managed to avert economic disaster by pursuing competent macroeconomic policies. ..."
    "... As the sanctions cut off Russia's access to global financial markets, the government set out to cover the budget deficit by undertaking major austerity measures and tapping its substantial sovereign funds. In early 2014, the Reserve Fund (created to mitigate fiscal shocks caused by drops in oil prices) and the National Welfare Fund (set up to address shortfalls in the pension system) together held the equivalent of 8 percent of GDP. ..."
    Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs :

    In Russia, It's Not the Economy,
    Stupid http://nyti.ms/2hlLRNx
    NYT - SERGEI GURIEV - Dec 25

    LONDON - The Russian economy is in trouble - "in tatters," President Obama has said - so why aren't Russians more upset with their leaders? The country underwent a major recession recently. The ruble lost half of its value. And yet, according to a leading independent pollster in Russia, President Vladimir V. Putin's approval ratings have consistently exceeded 80 percent during the past couple of years.

    One reason is that while the Russian economy is struggling, it is not falling apart, and many Russians remember times when it was in a much worse state. Another, perhaps more important, explanation is that Mr. Putin has convinced them that it's not the economy, stupid, anymore.

    Thanks largely to the government's extensive control over information, Mr. Putin has rewritten the social contract in Russia. Long based on economic performance, it is now about geopolitical status. If economic pain is the price Russians have to pay so that Russia can stand up to the West, so be it.

    It wasn't like this in the 1990s and 2000s. Back then the approval ratings of Russian leaders were closely correlated with economic performance, as the political scientist Daniel Treisman has demonstrated. When the economy began to recover from the 1998 financial crisis, Mr. Putin's popularity increased. It dipped when growth stalled. It climbed again in 2005, after the global price of oil - Russia' main export commodity - rose, foreign investment flowed in and domestic consumption boomed. And it fell substantially after growth rates slowed in 2012-13.

    Russia's intervention in Crimea in early 2014 changed everything. Within two months, Mr. Putin's popularity jumped back to more than 80 percent, where it has stayed until now, despite the recession.

    One might argue that these figures are misleading: Given the pressures faced by the Kremlin's political opponents, aren't respondents in polls too afraid to answer questions honestly? Hardly, according to a recent study co-written by the political scientist Tim Frye, based on an innovative method known as "list experiments." It found that, even after adjusting for respondents' reluctance to openly acknowledge any misgivings about specific leaders, Mr. Putin's popularity really is very high: around 70 percent.

    During the 2015-16 recession, GDP. fell by more than 4 percent and real incomes declined by 10 percent. That is significant, but much less serious than, say, the 40 percent drop in GDP that Russia experienced during the first half of the 1990s. Despite a dramatic decline in oil prices and the burden of sanctions imposed by Western governments after the Crimea crisis, the Putin administration has managed to avert economic disaster by pursuing competent macroeconomic policies.

    As the sanctions cut off Russia's access to global financial markets, the government set out to cover the budget deficit by undertaking major austerity measures and tapping its substantial sovereign funds. In early 2014, the Reserve Fund (created to mitigate fiscal shocks caused by drops in oil prices) and the National Welfare Fund (set up to address shortfalls in the pension system) together held the equivalent of 8 percent of GDP.

    The government also adopted sound monetary policy, including the decision to fully float the ruble in 2014. Because of the decline in oil prices and large net capital outflows - caused by the need to repay external corporate debt and limited foreign investment in Russia - the currency depreciated by 50 percent within a year. Although a weaker ruble hurt the living standards of ordinary Russians, it boosted the competitiveness of Russia's companies. The Russian economy is now beginning to grow again, if very modestly - at a projected 1 to 1.5 percent per year over the next few years.

    This performance comes nowhere near meeting Mr. Putin's election-campaign promises of 2012, when he projected GDP. growth at 6 percent per year for 2011-18. But it isn't catastrophic either, and the government has managed to explain it away.

    Thanks partly to its near-complete control of the press, television and the internet, the government has developed a grand narrative about Russia's role in the world - essentially promoting the view that Russians may need to tighten their belts for the good of the nation. The story has several subplots. Russian speakers in Ukraine need to be defended against neo-Nazis. Russia supports President Bashar al-Assad of Syria because he is a rampart against the Islamic State, and it has helped liberate Aleppo from terrorists. Why would the Kremlin hack the Democratic Party in the United States? And who believes what the CIA says anyway?

    The Russian people seem to accept much of this or not to care one way or the other. This should come as no surprise. In a recent paper based on data for 128 countries over 10 years, Professor Treisman and I developed an econometric model to assess which factors affect a government's approval ratings and by how much. We concluded that fully removing internet controls in a country like Russia today would cause the government's popularity ratings to drop by about 35 percentage points. ...

    What Makes Governments Popular
    Sergei M. Guriev (CEPR), Daniel Treisman (UCLA)
    November 11, 2016
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2882915

    [Dec 27, 2016] The technocrats lied about how globalization would be great for everyone. Peoples actual experience in their lives has been different.

    Notable quotes:
    "... We have a dollar democracy that protects the economic interest of the elite class while more than willing to let working class families lose their homes and jobs on the back end of wide scale mortgage fraud. Then the fraud was perpetuated in the mortgage default process just to add insult to injury. ..."
    "... One thing that Trump certainly got wrong that no one ever points out is that there is a lot more murder than rape crossing the Mexican-American border in the drug cartel operations ..."
    "... The technocrats lied about how globalization would be great for everyone. People's actual experience in their lives has been different. ..."
    "... Centrist Democrat partisans with their increasinly ineffectual defenses of the establishment say it's only about racism and xenophobia, but it's more than that. ..."
    Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron
    RE: Democracy Is Dying as Technocrats Watch - William Easterly

    Assaults on democracy are working because our current political elites have no idea how to defend it.

    [There are certainly good points to this article, but the basic assumption that our electorally representative form of republican government is the ideal incarnation of the democratic value set is obviously incorrect. We have a dollar democracy that protects the economic interest of the elite class while more than willing to let working class families lose their homes and jobs on the back end of wide scale mortgage fraud. Then the fraud was perpetuated in the mortgage default process just to add insult to injury.

    One thing that Trump certainly got wrong that no one ever points out is that there is a lot more murder than rape crossing the Mexican-American border in the drug cartel operations:<) ]

    Peter K. -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... December 27, 2016 at 06:39 AM

    The author fails to mention the Sanders campaign. An elderly socialist Jew from Brooklyn was able to win 23 primaries and caucuses and approximately 43% of pledged delegates to Clinton's 55%.

    This despite a nasty, hostile campaign against him and his supporters by the Clinton campaign and corporate media.

    There's also Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. Podemos, Syriza, etc.

    Italy's 5 Star movement demonstrates a hostility to technocrats as well.

    The author doesn't really focus on how the technocrats have failed.

    The technocrats lied about how globalization would be great for everyone. People's actual experience in their lives has been different.

    Trump scapegoated immigrants and trade, as did Brexit, but what he really did was channel hostility and hatred at the elites and technocrats running the country.

    Centrist Democrat partisans with their increasinly ineffectual defenses of the establishment say it's only about racism and xenophobia, but it's more than that.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Peter K.... , -1
    Yes sir.

    [Dec 27, 2016] Donald Trump targets globalization and free trade as job-killers

    Dec 27, 2016 | www.usatoday.com

    "Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy ... but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache," Trump told supporters during a prepared speech targeting free trade in a nearly-shuttered former steel town in Pennsylvania.

    In a speech devoted to what he called "How To Make America Wealthy Again," Trump offered a series of familiar plans designed to deal with what he called "failed trade policies" - including rejection of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Pacific Rim nations and re-negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, withdrawing from it if necessary.

    The presumptive Republican presidential nominee also said he would pursue bilateral trade agreements rather than multi-national deals like TPP and NAFTA.

    In addition to appointing better trade negotiators and stepping up punishment of countries that violate trade rules, Trump's plans would also target one specific economic competitor: China. He vowed to label China a currency manipulator, bring it before the World Trade Organization and consider slapping tariffs on Chinese imports coming into the U.S.

    [Dec 27, 2016] On Krugman And The Working Class - Tim Duys Fed Watch

    Notable quotes:
    "... Excellent critique. Establishment Democrats are tone-deaf right now; the state of denial they live in is stunning. I'd like to think they can learn after the shock of defeat is over, but identity politics for non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual is what the Democratic party is about today and has been the last decade or so. ..."
    "... That's the effect of incessant Dem propaganda pitting races and sexes against each other. ..."
    "... And Democrats' labeling of every Republican president/candidate as a Nazi - including Trump - is desensitizing the public to the real danger created by discriminatory policies that punish [white] children and young adults, particularly boys. ..."
    "... So, to make up for the alleged screw job that women and minorities have supposedly received, the plan will be screwing white/hetro/males for the forseeable future. My former employer is doing this very plan, as we speak. Passed over 100 plus males, who have been turning wrenches on airplanes for years, and installed a female shop manager who doesn't know jack-$##t about fixing airplanes. No experience, no certificate......but she has a management degree. But I guess you don't know how to do the job to manage it. ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders was that standard bearer, but Krugman and the Neoliberal establishment Democrats (ie. Super Delegates) decided that they wanted to coronate Clinton. ..."
    "... Evolution of political parties happens organically, through evolution (punctuated equilibrium - like species and technology - parties have periods of stability with some sudden jumps in differentiation). ..."
    "... If Nancy Pelosi is re-elected (highly likely), it will be the best thing to happen to Republicans since Lincoln. They will lose even more seats. ..."
    "... The Coastal Pelosi/Schumer wing is still in power, and it will take decimation at the ballot box to change the party. The same way the "Tea Party" revolution decimated the Republicans and led to Trump. Natural selection at work. ..."
    "... The central fact of the election is that Hillary has always been extraordinarily unlikable, and it turned out that she was Nixonianly corrupt ..."
    "... I'm from Dallas. Three of my closest friends growing up (and to this day), as well as my brother in law, are hispanic. They, and their families, all vote Republican, even for Trump. Generally speaking, the longer hispanics are in the US, the more likely they tend to vote Republican. ..."
    "... The Democratic Establishment and their acolytes are caught in a credibility trap. ..."
    "... I also think many Trump voters know they are voting against their own economic interest. The New York Times interviewed a number who acknowledge that they rely on insurance subsidies from Obamacare and that Trump has vowed to repeal it. I know one such person myself. She doesn't know what she will do if Obamacare is repealed but is quite happy with her vote. ..."
    "... Krugman won his Nobel for arcane economic theory. So it isn't terribly surprising that he spectacularly fails whenever he applies his brain to anything remotely dealing with mainstream thought. He is the poster boy for condescending, smarter by half, elite liberals. In other words, he is an over educated, political hack who has yet to learn to keep his overtly bias opinions to himself. ..."
    "... Funny how there's all this concern for the people whose jobs and security and money have vanished, leaving them at the mercy of faceless banks and turning to drugs and crime. Sad. Well, let's bash some more on those lazy, shiftless urban poors who lack moral strength and good, Protestant work ethic, shall we? ..."
    "... Clinton slammed half the Trump supporters as deplorables, not half the public. She was correct; about half of them are various sorts of supremacists. The other half (she said this, too) made common cause with the deplorables for economic reasons even though it was a devil's bargain. ..."
    "... I have never commented here but I will now because of the number of absurd statements. I happen to work with black and Hispanic youth and have also worked with undocumented immigrants. To pretend that trump and the Republican Party has their interest in mind is completely absurd. As for the white working class, please tell me what programs either trump or the republican have put forward to benefit them? I have lost a lot of respect for Duy ..."
    "... The keys of the election were race, immigration and trade. Trump won on these points. What dems can do is to de-emphasize multiculturalism, racial equality, political correctness etc. Instead, emphasize economic equality and security, for all working class. ..."
    "... Krugman more or less blames media, FBI, Russia entirely for Hillary's loss, which I think is wrong. As Tim said, Dems have long ceased to be the party of the working class, at least in public opinion, for legitimate reasons. ..."
    "... All Mr. Krugman and the Democratic establishment need to do is to listen, with open ears and mind, to what Thomas Frank has been saying, and they will know where they went wrong and most likely what to do about it, if they can release themselves from their fatal embrace with Big Money covered up by identity politics. ..."
    "... Pretty sad commentary by neoliberal left screaming at neoliberal right and vice versa. ..."
    "... The neoliberals with their multi-culti/love them all front men have had it good for a while, now there's a reaction. Deal with it. ..."
    Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Jason Nordsell : , November 27, 2016 at 08:02 AM
    Excellent critique. Establishment Democrats are tone-deaf right now; the state of denial they live in is stunning. I'd like to think they can learn after the shock of defeat is over, but identity politics for non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual is what the Democratic party is about today and has been the last decade or so.

    The only way Dems can make any headway by the midterms is if Trump really screws up, which is a tall order even for him. He will pick the low-hanging fruit (e.g., tax reform, Obamacare reform, etc), the economy will continue to recover (which will be attributed to Trump), and Dems will lose even more seats in Congress. And why? Because they refuse to recognize that whites from the middle-class and below are just as disadvantaged as minorities from the same social class.

    If white privilege exists at all (its about as silly as the "Jews control the banks and media" conspiracy theories), it exists for the upper classes. Poor whites need help too. And young men in/out of college today are being displaced by women - not because the women have superior academic qualification, but because they are women. I've seen it multiple times firsthand in some of the country's largest companies and universities (as a lawyer, when an investigation or litigation takes place, I get to see everyone's emails, all the way to CEO/board). There is a concerted effort to hire only women and minorities, especially for executive/managerial positions. That's not equality.

    That's the effect of incessant Dem propaganda pitting races and sexes against each other. This election exposed the media's role, but its not over. Fortunately, Krugman et al. are showing the Dems are too dumb to figure out why they lost. Hopefully they keep up their stupidity so identity politics can fade into history and we can get back to pursuing equality.

    bob -> Jason Nordsell... , November 28, 2016 at 03:02 PM
    "There is a concerted effort to hire only women and minorities, especially for executive/managerial positions."

    Goooooolllllllllllllly, gee. Now why would that be? I hope you're not saying there shouldn't be such an effort. This is a good thing. It exactly and precisely IS equality. It may be a bit harsh, but if certain folks continually find ways to crap of women and minorities, then public policies would seem warranted.

    Are you seriously telling us that pursuing public policies to curb racial and sexual discrimination are a waste of time?

    How, exactly, does your vision of "pursuit of equality" ameliorate the historical fact of discrimination?

    Jason Nordsell -> bob... , November 29, 2016 at 10:17 AM
    You don't make up for past discrimination with discrimination. You make up for it by equal application of the law. Today's young white men are not the cause of discrimination of the 20th century, or of slavery. If you discriminate against them because of the harm caused by other people, you're sowing the seeds of a REAL white nationalist movement. And Democrats' labeling of every Republican president/candidate as a Nazi - including Trump - is desensitizing the public to the real danger created by discriminatory policies that punish [white] children and young adults, particularly boys.

    Displacement of white men by lesser-qualified women and minorities is NOT equality.

    Paid Minion -> bob... , December 26, 2016 at 01:29 PM
    So, to make up for the alleged screw job that women and minorities have supposedly received, the plan will be screwing white/hetro/males for the forseeable future. My former employer is doing this very plan, as we speak. Passed over 100 plus males, who have been turning wrenches on airplanes for years, and installed a female shop manager who doesn't know jack-$##t about fixing airplanes. No experience, no certificate......but she has a management degree. But I guess you don't know how to do the job to manage it.

    God forbid somebody have to "pay some dues" before setting them loose as suit trash.

    This will not end well.

    Richard -> Jason Nordsell... , November 30, 2016 at 03:45 PM
    You had me nodding until the last part.

    Back when cultural conservatives ruled the roost (not that long ago), they didn't pursue equality either. Rather, they favored (hetero Christian) white men. So hoping for Dem stupidity isn't going to lead to equality. Most likely it would go back to favoring hetero Christian white men.

    Todd : , November 27, 2016 at 08:46 AM
    "...should they find a new standard bearer that can win the Sunbelt states and bridge the divide with the white working class? I tend to think the latter strategy has the higher likelihood of success."

    Easy to say. What would that standard bearer or that strategy look like?

    Bill -> Todd... , November 27, 2016 at 08:59 AM
    Bernie Sanders was that standard bearer, but Krugman and the Neoliberal establishment Democrats (ie. Super Delegates) decided that they wanted to coronate Clinton. Big mistake that we are now paying for...
    Bob Salsa -> Bill... , November 28, 2016 at 12:56 PM
    Basic political math - Sanders would have been eaten alive with his tax proposals by the GOP anti-tax propaganda machine on Trump steroids.

    His call to raise the payroll tax to send more White working class hard-earn money to Washington would have made election night completely different - Trump would have still won, it just wouldn't have been a surprise but rather a known certainty weeks ahead.

    dwb : , November 27, 2016 at 10:47 AM
    Evolution of political parties happens organically, through evolution (punctuated equilibrium - like species and technology - parties have periods of stability with some sudden jumps in differentiation).

    Old politicians are defeated, new ones take over. The old guard, having been successful in the past in their own niche rarely change.

    If Nancy Pelosi is re-elected (highly likely), it will be the best thing to happen to Republicans since Lincoln. They will lose even more seats.

    The Coastal Pelosi/Schumer wing is still in power, and it will take decimation at the ballot box to change the party. The same way the "Tea Party" revolution decimated the Republicans and led to Trump. Natural selection at work.

    In 1991, Republicans thought they would always win, Democrats thought the country was relegated to Republican Presidents forever. Then along came a new genotype- Clinton. In 2012, Democrats thought that they would always win, and Republicans were thought to be locked out of the electoral college. Then along came a new genotype, Trump.

    A new genotype of Democrat will have to emerge, but it will start with someone who can win in flyover country and Texas. Hint: They will have to drop their hubris, disdain and lecturing, some of their anti-growth energy policies, hate for the 2nd amendment, and become more fiscally conservative. They have to realize that *no one* will vote for an increase in the labor supply (aka immigration) when wages are stagnant and growth is anemic. And they also have to appreciate people would rather be free to choose than have decisions made for them. Freedom means nothing unless you are free to make mistakes.

    But it won't happen until coastal elites like Krugman and Pelosi have retired.


    swampwiz -> dwb... , November 28, 2016 at 12:59 AM
    My vote for the Democratic Tiktaalik is the extraordinarily Honorable John Bel Edwards, governor of Louisiana. The central fact of the election is that Hillary has always been extraordinarily unlikable, and it turned out that she was Nixonianly corrupt (i.e., deleted E-mails on her illegal private server) as well - and she still only lost by 1% in the tipping point state (i.e., according to the current count, which could very well change).
    bob -> dwb... , November 28, 2016 at 03:09 PM
    You know what will win Texas? Demographic change. Economic growth. And it is looking pretty inevitable on both counts.

    I'm also pretty damned tired of being dismissed as "elitist", "smug" and condescending. I grew up in a red state. I know their hate. I know their condescension (they're going to heaven, libruls are not).

    It cuts both ways. The Dems are going into a fetal crouch about this defeat. Did the GOP do that after 2008? Nope. They dug in deeper.

    Could be a lesson there for us.

    Smugly your,

    dwb -> bob... , November 28, 2016 at 06:27 PM
    Ahh yes, all Texas needs is demographic change, because all [Hispanics, Blacks, insert minority here] will always and forever vote Democrat. Even though the Democrats take their votes for granted and Chicago/Baltimore etc. are crappy places to live with no school choice, high taxes, fleeing jobs, and crime. Even though Trump outperformed Romney among minorities.

    Clinton was supposed to be swept up in the winds of demographics and the Democrats were supposed to win the White House until 2083.

    Funny things happen when you take votes for granted. Many urban areas are being crushed by structural deficits and need some Detroit type relief. I predict that some time in the next 30 years, poles reverse, and urban areas are run by Republicans.

    If you are tired of being dismissed as "elitist", "smug" and condescending, don't be those things. Don't assume people will vote for your party because they have always voted that way, or they are a certain color. Respect the voters and work to earn it.

    Jason Nordsell -> bob... , November 29, 2016 at 10:27 AM
    The notion that hispanic=democrat that liberals like bob have is hopelessly ignorrant.

    I'm from Dallas. Three of my closest friends growing up (and to this day), as well as my brother in law, are hispanic. They, and their families, all vote Republican, even for Trump. Generally speaking, the longer hispanics are in the US, the more likely they tend to vote Republican.

    The Democratic Party's plan to wait out the Republicans and let demographics take over is ignorant, racist and shortsighted, cooked up by coastal liberals that haven't got a clue, and will ultimately fail.

    In addition to losing hispanics, Democrats will also start losing the African American vote they've been taking for granted the last several decades. Good riddance to the Democratic party, they are simply unwilling to listen to what the people want.

    RJ -> bob... , December 06, 2016 at 11:20 PM
    You might be tired of it, but clearly you are elitist, smug, and condescending.

    Own it. Fly your freak flag proudly,

    Tom : , November 27, 2016 at 11:42 AM
    This is a really shoddy piece that repeats the medias pulling of Clintons quote out of context. She also said "that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

    Now maybe it is okay to make gnore this part of the quote because you think calling racism "deplorable" is patently offensive. But when the ignored context makes the same points that Duy says she should have been making, that is shoddy.

    dwb -> Tom... , November 27, 2016 at 12:07 PM
    There are zero electoral college votes in the State of Denial. Hopefully you understand a)the difference between calling people deplorable and calling *behavior* deplorable; b) Godwin's Law: when you resort to comparing people to Hitler you've lost the argument. Trump supporters were not racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or any other phobic. As a moderate, educated, female Trump supporter counseled: He was an a-hole, but I liked his policies.

    Even my uber liberal friends cannot tell me what Clinton's economic plan was. Only that they are anti-Trump.

    Trump flanked Clinton on the most popular policies (the left used to be the anti-trade party of union Democrats): Lower regulation, lower taxes, pro-2nd amendment, trade deals more weighted in favor of US workers, and lower foreign labor supply. Turn's out, those policies are sufficiently popular that people will vote for them, even when packaged into an a-hole. Trump's anti-trade platform was preached for decades by rust belt unions.

    The coastal Democrats have become hostages to pro-big-government municipal unions crushing cities under structural deficits, high taxes, poorly run schools, and overbearing regulations. The best thing that can happen for the Democrats is for the Republicans to push for reforms of public pensions, school choice, and break municipal unions. Many areas see the disaster in Chicago and Baltimore, run by Democrats for decades, and say no thank you. Freed of the need to cater to urban municipal unions, Democrats may be able to appeal to people elsewhere.

    Nick : , November 27, 2016 at 01:16 PM
    Where can you move to for a job when wages are so low compared to rents?
    The young generations are not happy with house prices or rents as well.
    Giant_galveston -> Tim C.... , December 05, 2016 at 08:43 PM
    Tim, I believe you've missed the point: by straightforward measures, Democratic voters in USA are substantially under-represented. The problem is likely to get much worse, as the party whose policies abet minority rule now controls all three branches of the federal government and a substantial majority of state governments.
    Tim C. : , November 27, 2016 at 02:50 PM
    This is an outstanding takedown on what has been a never-ending series of garbage from Krugman.

    I used to hang on every post he'd made for years after the 2008 crisis hit. But once the Clinton coronation arose this year, the arrogant, condescending screed hit 11 - and has not slowed down since. Threads of circular and illogical arguments have woven together pathetic - and often non-liberal - editorials that have driven me away permanently.

    Since he's chosen to ride it all on political commentary, Krugman's credibility is right there with luminaries such as Nial Ferguson and Greg Mankiw.

    Seems that everyone who chooses to hitch their wagon to the Clintons ends up covered in bilge..... funny thing about that persistent coincidence...

    dazed and confused : , November 27, 2016 at 02:58 PM
    "And it is an especially difficult pill given that the decline was forced upon the white working class.... The tsunami of globalization washed over them....in many ways it was inevitable, just as was the march of technology that had been eating away at manufacturing jobs for decades. But the damage was intensified by trade deals.... Then came the housing crash and the ensuing humiliation of the foreclosure crisis."

    All the more amazing then that Trump pulled out such a squeaker of an election beating Clinton by less than 2% in swing states and losing the popular vote overall. In the shine of Duy's lights above, I would have imagined a true landslide for Trump... Just amazing.

    Jesse : , November 27, 2016 at 04:29 PM

    The Democratic Establishment and their acolytes are caught in a credibility trap.

    dimknight : , November 27, 2016 at 11:48 PM
    "I don't know that the white working class voted against their economic interest".

    I think you're pushing too hard here. Democrats have been for, and Republicans against many policies that benefit the white working class: expansionary monetary policy, Obamacare, housing refinance, higher minimum wage, tighter worker safety regulation, stricter tax collection, and a host of others.

    I also think many Trump voters know they are voting against their own economic interest. The New York Times interviewed a number who acknowledge that they rely on insurance subsidies from Obamacare and that Trump has vowed to repeal it. I know one such person myself. She doesn't know what she will do if Obamacare is repealed but is quite happy with her vote.

    Doug Rife : , November 28, 2016 at 07:17 AM
    There is zero evidence for this theory. It ignores the fact that Trump lied his way to the White House with the help of a media unwilling to confront and expose his mendacity. And there was the media's obsession with Clinton's Emails and the WikiLeaks daily release of stolen DNC documents. And finally the Comey letter which came in the middle of early voting keeping the nation in suspense for 11 days and which was probably a violation of the hatch act. Comey was advised against his unjustified action by higher up DOJ officials but did it anyway. All of these factors loomed much larger than the deplorables comment. Besides, the strong dollar fostered by the FOMC's obsession with "normalization" helped Trump win because the strong dollar hurts exporters like farmers who make up much of the rural vote as well as hurting US manufacturing located in the midwest states. The FOMC was objectively pro Trump.
    Nate F : , November 28, 2016 at 07:57 AM
    I was surrounded by Trump voters this past election. Trust me, an awful lot of them are deplorable. My father is extremely anti semetic and once warned me not to go to Minneapolis because of there being "too many Muslims." One of our neighbors thinks all Muslims are terrorists and want to do horrible things to all Christians.

    I know, its not a scientific study. But I've had enough one on one conversations with Trump supporters (not just GOP voters, Trump supporters) to say that yes, as a group they have some pretty horrible views.

    Giant_galveston -> Nate F... , December 05, 2016 at 08:38 PM
    Yep. I've got plenty of stories myself. From the fact that there are snooty liberals it does NOT follow that the resentment fueling Trump's support is justified.
    Denis Drew : , November 28, 2016 at 08:41 AM
    One should note that the "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic - you name it ... " voted for Obama last time around.

    When the blue collar voter (for lack of a better class) figures out that the Republicans (Trump) are not going to help them anymore than the Dems did -- it will be time for them to understand they can only rely on themselves, namely: through rebuilding labor union density, which can be done AT THE STATE BY PROGRESSIVE STATE LEVEL.

    To keep it simple states may add to federal protections like the minimum wage or safety regs -- just not subtract. At present the NLRB has zero (no) enforcement power to prevent union busting (see Trump in Vegas) -- so illegal labor market muscling, firing of organizers and union joiners go completely undeterred and unrecoursed.

    Recourse, once we get Congress back might include mandating certification elections on finding of union busting. Nothing too alien: Wisconsin, for instance, mandates RE-certification of all public employee unions annually.

    Progressive states first step should be making union busting a felony -- taking the power playing in our most important and politically impacting market as seriously as taking a movie in the movies (get you a couple of winters). For a more expansive look (including a look at the First Amendment and the fed cannot preempt something with nothing, click here):
    http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2016/11/first-100-days-progressive-states-agenda.html

    Labor unions -- returned to high density -- can act as the economic cop on every corner -- our everywhere advocates squelching such a variety of unhealthy practices as financialization, big pharam gouging, for profit college fraud (Trump U. -- that's where we came into this movie). 6% private union density is like 20/10 bp; it starves every other healthy process (listening blue collar?).

    Don't panic if today's Repub Congress passes national right-to-work legislation. Germany, which has the platinum standard labor institutions, does not have one majority union (mostly freeloaders!), but is almost universally union or covered by union contracts (centralized bargaining -- look it up) and that's what counts.

    Gary Anderson : , November 28, 2016 at 09:47 AM
    Trump took both sides of every issue. He wants high and low interest rates. He wants a depression first, (Bannonomics) and inflation first, (Trumponomics), he wants people to make more and make less. He is nasty and so he projected that his opponent was nasty.

    Now he has to act instead of just talk out of both sides of his mouth. That should not be as easy to do.

    C Jones : , November 28, 2016 at 10:31 AM
    Hi Tim, nice post, and I particularly liked your last paragraph. The relevant question today if you have accepted where we are is effectively: 'What would you prefer - a Trump victory now? Or a Trump type election victory in a decade or so? (with todays corresponding social/economic/political trends continuing).
    I'm a Brit so I was just an observer to the US election but the same point is relevant here in the UK - Would I rather leave the EU now with a (half sensible) Tory government? Or would I rather leave later on with many more years of upheaval and a (probably by then quite nutty) UKIP government?
    I know which one I prefer - recognise the protest vote sooner, rather than later.
    Bob Salsa : , November 28, 2016 at 12:48 PM
    Sure they're angry, and their plight makes that anger valid.

    However, not so much their belief as to who and what caused their plight, and more importantly, who can and how their plight would be successfully reversed.

    Most people have had enough personal experiences to know that it is when we are most angry that we do the stupidest of things.

    Lars : , November 28, 2016 at 05:58 PM
    Krugman won his Nobel for arcane economic theory. So it isn't terribly surprising that he spectacularly fails whenever he applies his brain to anything remotely dealing with mainstream thought. He is the poster boy for condescending, smarter by half, elite liberals. In other words, he is an over educated, political hack who has yet to learn to keep his overtly bias opinions to himself.
    Douglas P Anthony : , November 29, 2016 at 08:16 AM
    Tim's narrative felt like a cold shower. I was apprehensive that I found it too agreeable on one level but were the building blocks stable and accurate?

    Somewhat like finding a meal that is satisfying, but wondering later about the ingredients.

    But, like Tim's posts on the Fed, they prompt that I move forward to ponder the presentation and offer it to others for their comment. At this time, five-stars on a 1-5 system for bringing a fresh approach to the discussion. Thanks, Professor Duy. This to me is Piketty-level pushing us onto new ground.

    JohnR : , November 29, 2016 at 12:07 PM
    Funny how there's all this concern for the people whose jobs and security and money have vanished, leaving them at the mercy of faceless banks and turning to drugs and crime. Sad. Well, let's bash some more on those lazy, shiftless urban poors who lack moral strength and good, Protestant work ethic, shall we?
    Raven Onthill : , November 29, 2016 at 04:12 PM
    Clinton slammed half the Trump supporters as deplorables, not half the public. She was correct; about half of them are various sorts of supremacists. The other half (she said this, too) made common cause with the deplorables for economic reasons even though it was a devil's bargain.

    Now, there's a problem with maternalism here; it's embarrassing to find out that the leader of your political opponents knows you better than you know yourself, like your mother catching you out in a lie. It was impolitic for Clinton to have said this But above all remember that when push came to shove, the other basket made common cause with the Nazis, the Klan, and so on and voted for a rapey fascist.

    Rick McGahey : , November 30, 2016 at 02:44 PM
    "Economic development" isn't (and can't) be the same thing as bringing back lost manufacturing (or mining) jobs. We have had 30 years of shifting power between labor and capital. Restoring labor market institutions (both unions and government regulation) and raising the floor through higher minimum wages, single payer health care, fair wages for women and more support for child and elder care, trade policies that care about working families, better safe retirement plans and strengthened Social Security, etc. is key here, along with running a real full employment economy, with a significant green component. See Bob Polllin's excellent program in https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/back-full-employment

    That program runs up against racism, sexism, division, and fear of government and taxation, and those are powerful forces. But we don't need all Trump supporters. We do need a real, positive economic program that can attract those who care about the economics more than the cultural stuff.

    Sandra Williams : , December 01, 2016 at 12:20 AM
    How about people of color drop the democrats and their hand wringing about white people when they do nothing about voter suppression!! White fragility is nauseating and I'm planning to arm myself and tell all the people of color I know to do the same. I expect nothing from the democrats going forward.
    Robert Hurley : , December 01, 2016 at 11:04 AM
    I have never commented here but I will now because of the number of absurd statements. I happen to work with black and Hispanic youth and have also worked with undocumented immigrants. To pretend that trump and the Republican Party has their interest in mind is completely absurd. As for the white working class, please tell me what programs either trump or the republican have put forward to benefit them? I have lost a lot of respect for Duy
    Giant_galveston -> Robert Hurley... , December 05, 2016 at 08:32 PM
    Couldn't agree more.
    RJ -> Robert Hurley... , December 06, 2016 at 11:26 PM
    No one should advocate illegal immigration. If you care about being a nation of laws.
    [email protected] : , December 01, 2016 at 06:13 PM
    I think much of appeal of DJT was in his political incorrectness. PC marginalises. Very. Of white working class specifically. it tells one, one cannot rely on one's ideas any more. In no uncertain terms. My brother, who voted for Trump, lost his job to PC without offending on purpose, but the woman in question felt free to accuse him of violating her, with no regard to his fate. He was never close enough to do that. Is that not some kind of McCarthyism?
    Eclectic Observer : , December 05, 2016 at 10:55 AM
    Just to be correct. Clinton was saying that half (and that was a terrible error-should have said "some") were people that were unreachable, but that they had to communicate effectively with the other part of his support. People who echo the media dumb-ing down of complex statements are part of the problem.

    Still, I believe that if enough younger people and african-americans had come out in the numbers they did for Obama in some of those states, Clinton would have won. Certainly, the media managed to paint her in more negative light than she objectively deserved-- even if she deserved some negatives.

    I am in no way a fan of HRC. Still, the nature of the choice was blurred to an egregious degree.

    Procopius : , December 05, 2016 at 08:40 PM
    "The tough reality of economic development is that it will always be easier to move people to jobs than the jobs to people."

    This is indisputable, but I have never seen any discussion of the point that moving is not cost-free. Back in the '90s I had a discussion with a very smart person, a systems analyst, who insisted that poor people moved to wherever the welfare benefits were highest.

    I tried to point out that moving from one town to another costs more than a bus ticket. You have to pay to have your possessions transported. You have to have enough cash to pay at least two months' rent and maybe an additional security deposit.

    You have to have enough cash to pay for food for at least one month or however long it takes for your first paycheck or welfare check to come in. There may be other costs like relocating your kids to a new school system and maybe changing your health insurance provider.

    There probably are other costs I'm not aware of, and the emotional cost of leaving your family and your roots. The fact that some people succeed in moving is a great achievement. I'm amazed it works at all in Europe where you also have the different languages to cope with.

    Kim Kaufman : , December 07, 2016 at 10:03 PM
    I'm not sure the Hillary non-voters - which also include poor black neighborhoods - were voting against their economic interests. Under Obama, they didn't do well. Many of them were foreclosed on while Obama was giving the money to the banks. Jobs haven't improved, unless you want to work at an Amazon warehouse or for Uber and still be broke. Obama tried to cut social security. He made permanent Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Wars and more wars. Health premiums went up - right before the election. The most Obama could say in campaigning for Hillary was "if you care about my legacy, vote for Hillary." He's the only one that cares about his legacy. I don't know that it's about resentment but about just having some hope for economic improvement - which Trump offered (no matter how shallow and deceptive) and Hillary offered nothing but "Trump's an idiot and I'm not."

    I believe Bernie would have beat Trump's ass if 1) the DNC hadn't put their fingers on the scale for Hillary and 2) same with the media for Hillary and Trump. The Dems need more than some better campaign slogans. They really need a plan for serious economic equality. And the unions need to get their shit together and stop thinking that supporting corrupt corporate Dems is working. Or perhaps the rank and file need to get their shit together and get rid of union bosses.

    IHiddenDragon : , December 10, 2016 at 09:01 AM
    The keys of the election were race, immigration and trade. Trump won on these points. What dems can do is to de-emphasize multiculturalism, racial equality, political correctness etc. Instead, emphasize economic equality and security, for all working class.

    Lincoln billed the civil war as a war to preserve the union, to gain wide support, instead of war to free slaves. Of course, the slaves were freed when the union won the war. Dems can benefit from a similar strategy

    IHiddenDragon : , December 10, 2016 at 09:05 AM
    Krugman more or less blames media, FBI, Russia entirely for Hillary's loss, which I think is wrong. As Tim said, Dems have long ceased to be the party of the working class, at least in public opinion, for legitimate reasons.

    Besides, a lot voters are tired of stale faces and stale ideas. They yearn something new, especially the voters in deep economic trouble.

    Maybe it's time to try some old fashioned mercantilism, protectionism? America first is an appealing idea, in this age of mindless globalization.

    Jesse : , December 26, 2016 at 11:08 AM
    All Mr. Krugman and the Democratic establishment need to do is to listen, with open ears and mind, to what Thomas Frank has been saying, and they will know where they went wrong and most likely what to do about it, if they can release themselves from their fatal embrace with Big Money covered up by identity politics.

    But they cannot bring themselves to admit their error, and to give up their very personally profitable current arrangement. And so they are caught up in a credibility trap which is painfully obvious to the objective observer.

    c1ue : , December 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM
    Pretty sad commentary by neoliberal left screaming at neoliberal right and vice versa.

    It seems quite clear that the vast majority of commenters live as much in the ivory tower/bubble as is claimed for their ideological opponent.

    It is also quite interesting that most of these same commenters don't seem to get that the voting public gets what the majority of it wants - not what every single group within the overall population wants.

    The neoliberals with their multi-culti/love them all front men have had it good for a while, now there's a reaction. Deal with it.

    [Dec 27, 2016] The Narrative, Neoliberalism, and Identity Politics naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yes. I see editorials in WaPo and NYT where the writer claims they've "woken up in another country", they "don't know what happened to the real America", they "didn't realize the country was so full of awful people". They seem mighty disoriented by the neoliberal narrative, as given for the last 40 years, losing this election. ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... The Republicans are the party of the rich; the Democrats are the party of the rich and poor. Those in between have no place. ..."
    Dec 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Identity Politics

    So that's the story, or one story. But stories have morals. What moral does identity politics offer? Adolph Reed on identity politics[2]:

    [I]t is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature. An integral element of that moral economy is displacement of the critique of the invidious outcomes produced by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized categories of ascriptive identity that sort us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially are rather than what we do. As I have argued, following Walter Michaels and others, within that moral economy a society in which 1% of the population controlled 90% of the resources could be just, provided that roughly 12% of the 1% were black, 12% were Latino, 50% were women, and whatever the appropriate proportions were LGBT people. It would be tough to imagine a normative ideal that expresses more unambiguously the social position of people who consider themselves candidates for inclusion in, or at least significant staff positions in service to, the ruling class.

    This perspective may help explain why, the more aggressively and openly capitalist class power destroys and marketizes every shred of social protection working people of all races, genders, and sexual orientations have fought for and won over the last century, the louder and more insistent are the demands from the identitarian left that we focus our attention on statistical disparities and episodic outrages that "prove" that the crucial injustices in the society should be understood in the language of ascriptive identity.

    So, if we ask an identitarian[3] whether shipping the Rust Belt's jobs off to China was fair - the moral of the story - the answer we get is: "That depends. If the private equity firms that did it were 12% black, 12% Latino, and half women, then yes." And that really is the answer that the Clintonites give. And, to this day, they believe it's a winning one[4].

    flora , December 26, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    Yes. I see editorials in WaPo and NYT where the writer claims they've "woken up in another country", they "don't know what happened to the real America", they "didn't realize the country was so full of awful people". They seem mighty disoriented by the neoliberal narrative, as given for the last 40 years, losing this election.

    Montanamaven , December 26, 2016 at 6:43 pm

    That's funny. Okay, I was soooo naive. I woke up finally in 2004 to the realization that the "awful " people were the 01% including good friends. The Rest are trying to survive with dignity. They are not awful.

    clarky90 , December 26, 2016 at 7:59 pm

    The Hateful New York Times has been pushing the "Party Line" (narrative) since at least the 1920s, and has "artfully" facilitated the deaths (murder) of millions of deplorables – and the subsequent cover-up of the crimes.

    The New York Times and the Great Famine

    by Marco Carynnyk

    http://web.archive.org/web/20051106213446/http://ukrweekly.com/Archive/1983/378320.shtml

    "My editor was dubious. I had been explaining that 50 years ago, in the spring and summer of 1933, Ukraine, the country of my forebears, had suffered a horrendous catastrophe. In a fertile, populous country famed as the granary of Europe, a great famine had mowed down a sixth, a fifth and in some regions even a fourth of the inhabitants. Natural forces – drought, flood, blight – have been at least contributory causes of most famines. This one had been entirely man-made, entirely the result of a dictator's genocidal policies. Its consequences, I said, are still being felt.

    Erudite, polyglot, herself a refugee from tyranny, the editor remained skeptical. "But isn't all this ," she leaned back in her chair and smiled brightly, "isn't all this a bit recondite?"

    My face must have flushed. Recondite? Suddenly I knew the impotent anger Jews and Armenians have felt. Millions of my countrymen had been murdered, and their deaths were being dismissed as obscure and little known.

    Later I realized that the editor had said more than she had intended. The famine of 1933 was rationalized and concealed when it was taking its toll, and it is still hidden away and trivialized today. George Orwell need not have limited his observation to British intellectuals when he remarked that "huge events like the Ukraine famine of 1933, involving the deaths of millions of people, have actually escaped the attention of the majority of English Russophiles."_1_

    Still later, after I had set about uncovering the whole story by delving into newspaper files and archives and talking to people who had witnessed the events of 1933, I came to understand how Walter Duranty and The New York Times helped Stalin make the famine recondite.

    Walter Duranty worked for The New York Times for 21 years "

    clarky90 , December 26, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    I wish Joyous Christmas and New Year merriment to all of the NC commentariate!

    Everyday Stalinism
    Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times
    Soviet Russia in the 1930s
    Sheila Fitzpatrick p 31

    http://www.masterandmargarita.eu/estore/pdf/eren015_everydaystalinism.pdf

    " The combination of ambiguous policy signals and the cult of secrecy could produce absurd results , as when certain categories of officials could not be informed of relevant instructions because the instructions were secret. In one blatant example, the theater censorship and the Ministry of Enlightenment, headed by A. V. Lunacharsky, spent weeks arguing at cross purposes about Mikhail Bulgakov's controversial play Days of the Turbins, despite the fact that the Politburo had instructed the Ministry that the play could be staged, because "this decree was secret, known to only key officials in the administration of art, and Lunacharsky was not at liberty to divulge it." [42]

    A few years later, after Stalin had expressed strong views on cultural policy in a private letter that had circulated widely, if unofficially, on the grapevine, Lunacharsky begged him to allow publication of the letter so that people would know what the party line on art actually was.

    Some of Stalin's cultural signals were even more minimalist, involving telephone calls to writers or other cultural figures whose content was then instantly broadcast on the Moscow and Leningrad intelligentsia grapevine. A case in point was his unexpected telephone call to Bulgakov in 1930 in response to Bulgakov's letter complaining of mistreatment by theater and censorship officials. The overt message of the call was one of encouragement to Bulgakov. By extension, the "signal" to the non-Communist intelligentsia was that it was not Stalin who harrassed them but only lower-level officials and militants who did not understand Stalin's policy.

    This case is particularly interesting because the security police (GPU, at this date) monitored the effectiveness of the signal. In his report on the impact of Stalin's call, a GPU agent noted that the literary and artistic intelligentsia had been enormously impressed. "It's as if a dam had burst and everyone around saw the true face of comrade Stalin. "People speak of Stalin's simplicity and accessibility. They "talk of him warmly and with love, retelling in various versions the legendary history with Bulgakov's letter." They say that Stalin is not to blame for the bad things that happen: He follows the right line, but around him are scoundrels. These scoundrels persecuted Bulgakov, one of the most talented Soviet writers. Various literary rascals were making a career out of persecution of Bulgakov, and now Stalin has given them a slap in the face. [44]

    The signals with Stalin's personal signature usually pointed in the direction of greater relaxation and tolerance, not increased repression. This was surely not because Stalin inclined to the "soft line," but rather because he preferred to avoid too close an association with hard-line policies that were likely to be
    unpopular with domestic and foreign opinion. His signals often involved a "good Tsar" message: "the Tsar is benevolent; it is the wicked boyars (a member of the old aristocracy) who are responsible for all the injustice." Sometimes this ploy seems to have worked, but in other cases the message evoked popular skepticism.

    When Stalin deplored the excesses of local officials during collectivization in a letter, "Dizzy with success," published in Pravda in 1930, the initial response in the villages was often favorable. After the famine, however, Stalin's "good Tsar" ploy no longer worked in the countryside, and was even mocked by its intended audience

    Charles Myers , December 26, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    Clinton and Obama's record were one and the same.

    She couldn't take that message to fly over country.

    My God they voted for Trump.

    Talk about ready for change.

    WheresOurTeddy , December 26, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    People chose the devil they don't know over the absolute-slam-dunk-warmongering-elitist devil who's been running for President since 2000 and fixed the (D) primary against the Roosevelt Democrat who would have beaten Trump by 10+ points.

    Don't blame me. I voted Sanders. Hindsight is 2020.

    Lambert Strether Post author , December 27, 2016 at 3:32 am

    At least for Trump voters at the lower end of the income scale:

    Desperate people rolled the dice.

    ambrit , December 27, 2016 at 4:53 am

    Yep. When the dominant financial venue is blatantly a "casino," why not resort to chance?
    As the mood out in the hustings grows ever bleaker, the "kick the table over" strategy gains legitimacy among a wider and wider circle of people.

    Rob Levine , December 26, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    Was thinking that the identitarian part has a second component: That the misery visited on the 99% should also be apportioned equally by identity.

    Benedict@Large , December 26, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    The problem with identity politics is that unless everyone has an identity, identity politics is a politics of exclusion. Something is carved out for those who have been "identified" (as worthy), while the rest stay where they are, or get left behind.

    Benedict@Large , December 26, 2016 at 6:59 pm

    But note that this is only because we insist on operating under the zero sum economics of monetarism. Once this restriction is removed; once we acknowledge the power of the sovereign fiat, the zero sum is left behind, and the either-or choices forced upon us by identity politics are no longer necessary.

    Rhondda , December 26, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    MMT for Identitarians?

    Lambert Strether Post author , December 27, 2016 at 3:26 am

    Yes, with liberal means-testers and gate-keepers making sure those who deserve it, get it.

    ambrit , December 27, 2016 at 5:49 am

    Clientelism and "Walking Around Money." "Honest Graft" is next.

    Foppe , December 26, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Fascinating to learn that it is at least in some cases not only a problem of reporters being blind to problems because of their worldview, and that the frames they pick aren't 'just' due to their education. In a way, it's hopeful, because it means that even here, alternatives are/must be restricted in order to allow the world to be categorized into tiny little boxes, via Procrustes doing his thing.

    ambrit , December 26, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    An early sign was the Procrustean "embedment" of journos in with the Army during the Gulf Wars. The suspension of disbelief required of the reader to accept the resultant "narrative" was, by any measure, a "stretch."

    Foppe , December 26, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Yes, well. We must all do our bid to perpetuate the State - even those of us who are too weak-kneed to serve as cannon fodder (no disrespect intended, of course - just observing). After all, it's only thanks to liberal "democracy" that our betters were able to create this best/least-worst of all possible worlds in the first place. Being bothered by those few remaining necessary egg-shells just goes to show I'm in the right place.

    ambrit , December 27, 2016 at 5:05 am

    Oh, good sir, those "necessary egg shells" are needed to settle the grounds of the strong coffee required to energize the masses to continue the work designed to bring on the Dawn of the Neoliberal dispensation!
    You are in the "right place."
    As for States; some years ago, Louisiana had a motto on their automobile license plates that read; "Louisiana: A Dream State." Truth in advertising. That motto didn't last long.

    cnchal , December 26, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper's daily Page One meeting: "We set the agenda for the country in that room."

    They believe their own fake news. Now they can't believe their lying eyes.

    Chauncey Gardiner , December 26, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    Difficult for me to believe the NYT originates "The Narrative" any more than Pravda or Izvestia did so in the USSR. I am more receptive to the idea that its senior editors coordinate with upstream sources to assure news coverage and opinion pieces are consistent with policies favored by the administration and other senior government officials, as well as other selected constituencies.

    Also of interest to me is what is occurring at the Washington Post in this regard.

    Another Anon , December 26, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    CG,

    There may well be truth to that idea. I recall
    reading a blog post by a Swedish journalist who
    did an article on the NY Times. He writes that they
    have a building that none of their journalists are allowed
    to enter as it is sometimes visited by important dignitaries
    who negotiate how they will be covered. He gave
    Gaddafi of Libya as an example. I suppose this is possible if
    you fixing the narrative.

    Lambert Strether Post author , December 27, 2016 at 3:22 am

    The process you describe is in fact what the quoted article and the post describe.

    RudyM , December 26, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    The Michael Cieply story reminds me of this (from 9/14/2016):

    This off-limits part of the building was not only where the president would sit in on editorial board meetings, it was also the place where Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was received when he successfully negotiated to be removed from "The Axis of Evil" list after 9/11. At that point in time The New York Times was still considered perhaps the most important publication in the world, and what it wrote was thought to have a direct impact on the life and death of nations. Because of this, many powerful people would put a lot of effort and money into gaining preferable coverage from The New York Times. These floors, Bill Keller told me, was where the proprietor and the editors of the newspaper would meet with and negotiate deals with powerful visitors. In retrospect, whatever "deal" that Gaddafi struck with The New York Times, the exonerating article penned by Judith Miller didn't save his life, nor did it save his nation from the might of the US air force.

    Despite the brutal fate that Gaddafi came to face, the assumption that The New York Times was capable of making meaningful deals with governments was not entirely unfounded. Bill Keller spoke of how he successfully negotiated to freeze the NSA warrantless wiretapping-story uncovered by Eric Lichtblau for two years until after the re-election of George W Bush. This top-floor was also where the Iraq WMD evidence was concocted with the help of the Pentagon and handed to reporter Judith Miller to pen, later letting her hang when the wind changed. This, Keller also told me, was where the CIA and State Department officials were invited to take part in daily editorial meetings when State Department Cables were published by WikiLeaks. I would personally witness how this was the place where Sulzberger himself oversaw the re-election coverage of president Obama. And this was much later where the main tax-evaders of the US would make their cases so that the Panama Papers on their tax records would never reach the public eye (which at the time of writing, they have yet to be).

    http://www.unz.com/article/an-obituary-of-the-new-york-times/

    Yves Smith , December 26, 2016 at 8:13 pm

    Just an FYI, the reason that hardly any Americans featured in the Panama Papers was that Panama was not a favored destination for US tax evaders. So the Times had nothing to protect.

    John Merryman , December 26, 2016 at 6:39 pm

    I still think the story is evolutionary. In the sense that just as the central nervous system of society, government, started as a privatized function and eventually evolved into a public utility, for basic reasons of efficiency and scale, the financial system, as the medium and circulation system of society, is going through a similar evolutionary process. The premise of vast notional wealth, which is necessarily backed by debt, is insupportable, at its current levels, simply because the debt is unsustainable. So collapse is inevitable and the only question is how well and quickly we develop a viable alternative.

    gonzomarx , December 26, 2016 at 7:56 pm

    just finished watching a film based on an LGBT group's support for the Miners during the 1984 strike, seems apt.

    Pride
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_(2014_film)

    Trailer
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsFY0wHpR5o

    Kim Kaufman , December 27, 2016 at 1:56 am

    From The Devil's Chessboard: Allan Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government by David Talbot, which I am still reading. Regarding the overthrow of Arbenz of Guatemala:

    "The U.S. press coverage of the Guatemala coup offered a sanitized account, one that smacked of CIA manipulation. The leading newspapers treated the overthrow of Arbenz's government as a topical adventure, an " opera bouffe ," in the words of Hanson Baldwin, one of Dulles's trusted friends at The New York Times . Nonetheless, reported Baldwin, the operation had "global importance." This is precisely how Dulles liked his overseas exploits to be chronicled – as entertaining espionage capers, with serious consequences for the Cold War struggle. New York Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger was extremely accommodating to Dulles throughout the covert operation, agreeing to keep foreign correspondent Sydney Gruson, whom Dulles considered insufficiently compliant, out of Guatemala and even assuring the CIA director that Gruson's future articles would be screened "with a great deal more care than usual."

    Cry Shop , December 27, 2016 at 5:06 am

    The Republicans are the party of the rich; the Democrats are the party of the rich and poor. Those in between have no place.

    The Republicans and the Democrats are parties of the rich who use the poor. Both use the poor as a lever to extract wealth from the shrinking resource known as middle class. There is only a superficial difference in how they use them, and in both cases a real democracy has no place in their governance.

    Cry Shop , December 27, 2016 at 5:23 am

    Democracy, hell. 45 states in USA are pretty much the one party state of ALEC.

    Jabawocky , December 27, 2016 at 5:36 am

    For anyone interested in the inner workings of the print media I highly recommend 'Flat Earth News' by Nick Davies. It is a little uk centric but Davies, the guy that broke Murdoch's phone hacking conspiracy, is authoritative.
    The chapter on the role of the security services in the press is quite interesting and gives important context for understanding the current attempts to centralise control of the internet news narrative.

    [Dec 27, 2016] The culture of Narrative enforcement in NYT

    Notable quotes:
    "... For starters, it's important to accept that the New York Times has always - or at least for many decades - been a far more editor-driven, and self-conscious, publication than many of those with which it competes. Historically, the Los Angeles Times, where I worked twice, for instance, was a reporter-driven, bottom-up newspaper. Most editors wanted to know, every day, before the first morning meeting: "What are you hearing? What have you got?" ..."
    "... It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper's movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called "the narrative." We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line." ..."
    "... Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: "My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?"" ..."
    "... The Hateful New York Times has been pushing the "Party Line" (narrative) since at least the 1920s, and has "artfully" facilitated the deaths (murder) of millions of deplorables – and the subsequent cover-up of the crimes. ..."
    "... Clinton and Obama's record were one and the same. ..."
    "... People chose the devil they don't know over the absolute-slam-dunk-warmongering-elitist devil who's been running for President since 2000 and fixed the (D) primary against the Roosevelt Democrat who would have beaten Trump by 10+ points. ..."
    "... Yep. When the dominant financial venue is blatantly a "casino," why not resort to chance? As the mood out in the hustings grows ever bleaker, the "kick the table over" strategy gains legitimacy among a wider and wider circle of people. ..."
    "... The problem with identity politics is that unless everyone has an identity, identity politics is a politics of exclusion. Something is carved out for those who have been "identified" (as worthy), while the rest stay where they are, or get left behind. ..."
    "... Fascinating to learn that it is at least in some cases not only a problem of reporters being blind to problems because of their worldview, and that the frames they pick aren't 'just' due to their education. In a way, it's hopeful, because it means that even here, alternatives are/must be restricted in order to allow the world to be categorized into tiny little boxes, via Procrustes doing his thing. ..."
    "... An early sign was the Procrustean "embedment" of journos in with the Army during the Gulf Wars. The suspension of disbelief required of the reader to accept the resultant "narrative" was, by any measure, a "stretch." ..."
    "... From The Devil's Chessboard: Allan Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government by David Talbot, which I am still reading. Regarding the overthrow of Arbenz of Guatemala: ..."
    "... The U.S. press coverage of the Guatemala coup offered a sanitized account, one that smacked of CIA manipulation. The leading newspapers treated the overthrow of Arbenz's government as a topical adventure, an " opera bouffe ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... The Republicans are the party of the rich; the Democrats are the party of the rich and poor. Those in between have no place. ..."
    "... The Republicans and the Democrats are parties of the rich who use the poor. Both use the poor as a lever to extract wealth from the shrinking resource known as middle class. There is only a superficial difference in how they use them, and in both cases a real democracy has no place in their governance. ..."
    "... For anyone interested in the inner workings of the print media I highly recommend 'Flat Earth News' by Nick Davies. It is a little uk centric but Davies, the guy that broke Murdoch's phone hacking conspiracy, is authoritative. ..."
    "... The chapter on the role of the security services in the press is quite interesting and gives important context for understanding the current attempts to centralize control of the internet news narrative. ..."
    Dec 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ... ... ...

    "The Narrative"

    I know I linked to this already this morning, but I've been turning it over in my mind as a jumping off point (and in any case, I forgot to say, as I should have said: "Please distribute widely"!) From "Stunned By Trump, The New York Times Finds Time For Some Soul-Searching," in the Hollywood Reporter :

    For starters, it's important to accept that the New York Times has always - or at least for many decades - been a far more editor-driven, and self-conscious, publication than many of those with which it competes. Historically, the Los Angeles Times, where I worked twice, for instance, was a reporter-driven, bottom-up newspaper. Most editors wanted to know, every day, before the first morning meeting: "What are you hearing? What have you got?"

    It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper's movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called "the narrative." We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line."

    Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: "My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?""

    The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper's daily Page One meeting: "We set the agenda for the country in that room."

    So, if you think about what narrative the Times signed onto in early 2015, it would be the inevitability of Clinton's victory, would it not? Certainly there was no place for Sanders coverage in any "pre-designated line," since Sanders came out of nowhere. So, the Sanders campaign (and, to be fair, the Trump campaign) both charged ahead to the sound of smashing rice bowls: Not only is "the narrative" a commitment by subordinates to management (and by management to various power players), the episodes from which it is composed are the creation of the stenographer reporter and the sources to which the reporter has access, and that involves any amount of backscratching, favors exchanged, and careerist maneuvering, all of which the reporter will consider assets. News - "newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent or important events" - puts the narrative in jeopardy. So we have another reason that the Times suppressed coverage of the Sanders campaign, beyond simple class hatred; class interest.

    flora , December 26, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    Yes. I see editorials in WaPo and NYT where the writer claims they've "woken up in another country", they "don't know what happened to the real America", they "didn't realize the country was so full of awful people". They seem mighty disoriented by the neoliberal narrative, as given for the last 40 years, losing this election.

    Montanamaven , December 26, 2016 at 6:43 pm

    That's funny. Okay, I was soooo naive. I woke up finally in 2004 to the realization that the "awful " people were the 01% including good friends. The Rest are trying to survive with dignity. They are not awful.

    clarky90 , December 26, 2016 at 7:59 pm

    The Hateful New York Times has been pushing the "Party Line" (narrative) since at least the 1920s, and has "artfully" facilitated the deaths (murder) of millions of deplorables – and the subsequent cover-up of the crimes.

    The New York Times and the Great Famine

    by Marco Carynnyk

    http://web.archive.org/web/20051106213446/http://ukrweekly.com/Archive/1983/378320.shtml

    "My editor was dubious. I had been explaining that 50 years ago, in the spring and summer of 1933, Ukraine, the country of my forebears, had suffered a horrendous catastrophe. In a fertile, populous country famed as the granary of Europe, a great famine had mowed down a sixth, a fifth and in some regions even a fourth of the inhabitants. Natural forces – drought, flood, blight – have been at least contributory causes of most famines. This one had been entirely man-made, entirely the result of a dictator's genocidal policies. Its consequences, I said, are still being felt.

    Erudite, polyglot, herself a refugee from tyranny, the editor remained skeptical. "But isn't all this ," she leaned back in her chair and smiled brightly, "isn't all this a bit recondite?"

    My face must have flushed. Recondite? Suddenly I knew the impotent anger Jews and Armenians have felt. Millions of my countrymen had been murdered, and their deaths were being dismissed as obscure and little known.

    Later I realized that the editor had said more than she had intended. The famine of 1933 was rationalized and concealed when it was taking its toll, and it is still hidden away and trivialized today. George Orwell need not have limited his observation to British intellectuals when he remarked that "huge events like the Ukraine famine of 1933, involving the deaths of millions of people, have actually escaped the attention of the majority of English Russophiles."_1_

    Still later, after I had set about uncovering the whole story by delving into newspaper files and archives and talking to people who had witnessed the events of 1933, I came to understand how Walter Duranty and The New York Times helped Stalin make the famine recondite.

    Walter Duranty worked for The New York Times for 21 years "

    clarky90 , December 26, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    I wish Joyous Christmas and New Year merriment to all of the NC commentariate!

    Everyday Stalinism
    Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times
    Soviet Russia in the 1930s
    Sheila Fitzpatrick p 31

    http://www.masterandmargarita.eu/estore/pdf/eren015_everydaystalinism.pdf

    " The combination of ambiguous policy signals and the cult of secrecy could produce absurd results , as when certain categories of officials could not be informed of relevant instructions because the instructions were secret. In one blatant example, the theater censorship and the Ministry of Enlightenment, headed by A. V. Lunacharsky, spent weeks arguing at cross purposes about Mikhail Bulgakov's controversial play Days of the Turbins, despite the fact that the Politburo had instructed the Ministry that the play could be staged, because "this decree was secret, known to only key officials in the administration of art, and Lunacharsky was not at liberty to divulge it." [42]

    A few years later, after Stalin had expressed strong views on cultural policy in a private letter that had circulated widely, if unofficially, on the grapevine, Lunacharsky begged him to allow publication of the letter so that people would know what the party line on art actually was.

    Some of Stalin's cultural signals were even more minimalist, involving telephone calls to writers or other cultural figures whose content was then instantly broadcast on the Moscow and Leningrad intelligentsia grapevine. A case in point was his unexpected telephone call to Bulgakov in 1930 in response to Bulgakov's letter complaining of mistreatment by theater and censorship officials. The overt message of the call was one of encouragement to Bulgakov. By extension, the "signal" to the non-Communist intelligentsia was that it was not Stalin who harrassed them but only lower-level officials and militants who did not understand Stalin's policy.

    This case is particularly interesting because the security police (GPU, at this date) monitored the effectiveness of the signal. In his report on the impact of Stalin's call, a GPU agent noted that the literary and artistic intelligentsia had been enormously impressed. "It's as if a dam had burst and everyone around saw the true face of comrade Stalin. "People speak of Stalin's simplicity and accessibility. They "talk of him warmly and with love, retelling in various versions the legendary history with Bulgakov's letter." They say that Stalin is not to blame for the bad things that happen: He follows the right line, but around him are scoundrels. These scoundrels persecuted Bulgakov, one of the most talented Soviet writers. Various literary rascals were making a career out of persecution of Bulgakov, and now Stalin has given them a slap in the face. [44]

    The signals with Stalin's personal signature usually pointed in the direction of greater relaxation and tolerance, not increased repression. This was surely not because Stalin inclined to the "soft line," but rather because he preferred to avoid too close an association with hard-line policies that were likely to be
    unpopular with domestic and foreign opinion. His signals often involved a "good Tsar" message: "the Tsar is benevolent; it is the wicked boyars (a member of the old aristocracy) who are responsible for all the injustice." Sometimes this ploy seems to have worked, but in other cases the message evoked popular skepticism.

    When Stalin deplored the excesses of local officials during collectivization in a letter, "Dizzy with success," published in Pravda in 1930, the initial response in the villages was often favorable. After the famine, however, Stalin's "good Tsar" ploy no longer worked in the countryside, and was even mocked by its intended audience

    Charles Myers , December 26, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    Clinton and Obama's record were one and the same. She couldn't take that message to fly over country.

    My God they voted for Trump. Talk about ready for change.

    WheresOurTeddy , December 26, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    People chose the devil they don't know over the absolute-slam-dunk-warmongering-elitist devil who's been running for President since 2000 and fixed the (D) primary against the Roosevelt Democrat who would have beaten Trump by 10+ points.

    Don't blame me. I voted Sanders. Hindsight is 2020.

    Lambert Strether Post author , December 27, 2016 at 3:32 am

    At least for Trump voters at the lower end of the income scale:

    Desperate people rolled the dice.

    ambrit , December 27, 2016 at 4:53 am

    Yep. When the dominant financial venue is blatantly a "casino," why not resort to chance? As the mood out in the hustings grows ever bleaker, the "kick the table over" strategy gains legitimacy among a wider and wider circle of people.

    Rob Levine , December 26, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    Was thinking that the identitarian part has a second component: That the misery visited on the 99% should also be apportioned equally by identity.

    Benedict@Large , December 26, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    The problem with identity politics is that unless everyone has an identity, identity politics is a politics of exclusion. Something is carved out for those who have been "identified" (as worthy), while the rest stay where they are, or get left behind.

    Benedict@Large , December 26, 2016 at 6:59 pm

    But note that this is only because we insist on operating under the zero sum economics of monetarism. Once this restriction is removed; once we acknowledge the power of the sovereign fiat, the zero sum is left behind, and the either-or choices forced upon us by identity politics are no longer necessary.

    Rhondda , December 26, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    MMT for Identitarians?

    Lambert Strether Post author , December 27, 2016 at 3:26 am

    Yes, with liberal means-testers and gate-keepers making sure those who deserve it, get it.

    ambrit , December 27, 2016 at 5:49 am

    Clientelism and "Walking Around Money." "Honest Graft" is next.

    Foppe , December 26, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Fascinating to learn that it is at least in some cases not only a problem of reporters being blind to problems because of their worldview, and that the frames they pick aren't 'just' due to their education. In a way, it's hopeful, because it means that even here, alternatives are/must be restricted in order to allow the world to be categorized into tiny little boxes, via Procrustes doing his thing.

    ambrit , December 26, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    An early sign was the Procrustean "embedment" of journos in with the Army during the Gulf Wars. The suspension of disbelief required of the reader to accept the resultant "narrative" was, by any measure, a "stretch."

    Foppe , December 26, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Yes, well. We must all do our bid to perpetuate the State - even those of us who are too weak-kneed to serve as cannon fodder (no disrespect intended, of course - just observing). After all, it's only thanks to liberal "democracy" that our betters were able to create this best/least-worst of all possible worlds in the first place. Being bothered by those few remaining necessary egg-shells just goes to show I'm in the right place.

    ambrit , December 27, 2016 at 5:05 am

    Oh, good sir, those "necessary egg shells" are needed to settle the grounds of the strong coffee required to energize the masses to continue the work designed to bring on the Dawn of the Neoliberal dispensation!
    You are in the "right place."
    As for States; some years ago, Louisiana had a motto on their automobile license plates that read; "Louisiana: A Dream State." Truth in advertising. That motto didn't last long.

    cnchal , December 26, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper's daily Page One meeting: "We set the agenda for the country in that room."

    They believe their own fake news. Now they can't believe their lying eyes.

    Chauncey Gardiner , December 26, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    Difficult for me to believe the NYT originates "The Narrative" any more than Pravda or Izvestia did so in the USSR. I am more receptive to the idea that its senior editors coordinate with upstream sources to assure news coverage and opinion pieces are consistent with policies favored by the administration and other senior government officials, as well as other selected constituencies.

    Also of interest to me is what is occurring at the Washington Post in this regard.

    Another Anon , December 26, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    CG,

    There may well be truth to that idea. I recall
    reading a blog post by a Swedish journalist who
    did an article on the NY Times. He writes that they
    have a building that none of their journalists are allowed
    to enter as it is sometimes visited by important dignitaries
    who negotiate how they will be covered. He gave
    Gaddafi of Libya as an example. I suppose this is possible if
    you fixing the narrative.

    Lambert Strether Post author , December 27, 2016 at 3:22 am

    The process you describe is in fact what the quoted article and the post describe.

    RudyM , December 26, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    The Michael Cieply story reminds me of this (from 9/14/2016):

    This off-limits part of the building was not only where the president would sit in on editorial board meetings, it was also the place where Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was received when he successfully negotiated to be removed from "The Axis of Evil" list after 9/11. At that point in time The New York Times was still considered perhaps the most important publication in the world, and what it wrote was thought to have a direct impact on the life and death of nations. Because of this, many powerful people would put a lot of effort and money into gaining preferable coverage from The New York Times. These floors, Bill Keller told me, was where the proprietor and the editors of the newspaper would meet with and negotiate deals with powerful visitors. In retrospect, whatever "deal" that Gaddafi struck with The New York Times, the exonerating article penned by Judith Miller didn't save his life, nor did it save his nation from the might of the US air force.

    Despite the brutal fate that Gaddafi came to face, the assumption that The New York Times was capable of making meaningful deals with governments was not entirely unfounded. Bill Keller spoke of how he successfully negotiated to freeze the NSA warrantless wiretapping-story uncovered by Eric Lichtblau for two years until after the re-election of George W Bush. This top-floor was also where the Iraq WMD evidence was concocted with the help of the Pentagon and handed to reporter Judith Miller to pen, later letting her hang when the wind changed. This, Keller also told me, was where the CIA and State Department officials were invited to take part in daily editorial meetings when State Department Cables were published by WikiLeaks. I would personally witness how this was the place where Sulzberger himself oversaw the re-election coverage of president Obama. And this was much later where the main tax-evaders of the US would make their cases so that the Panama Papers on their tax records would never reach the public eye (which at the time of writing, they have yet to be).

    http://www.unz.com/article/an-obituary-of-the-new-york-times/

    Yves Smith , December 26, 2016 at 8:13 pm

    Just an FYI, the reason that hardly any Americans featured in the Panama Papers was that Panama was not a favored destination for US tax evaders. So the Times had nothing to protect.

    John Merryman , December 26, 2016 at 6:39 pm

    I still think the story is evolutionary. In the sense that just as the central nervous system of society, government, started as a privatized function and eventually evolved into a public utility, for basic reasons of efficiency and scale, the financial system, as the medium and circulation system of society, is going through a similar evolutionary process. The premise of vast notional wealth, which is necessarily backed by debt, is insupportable, at its current levels, simply because the debt is unsustainable. So collapse is inevitable and the only question is how well and quickly we develop a viable alternative.

    gonzomarx , December 26, 2016 at 7:56 pm

    just finished watching a film based on an LGBT group's support for the Miners during the 1984 strike, seems apt.

    Pride
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_(2014_film)

    Trailer
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsFY0wHpR5o

    Kim Kaufman , December 27, 2016 at 1:56 am

    From The Devil's Chessboard: Allan Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government by David Talbot, which I am still reading. Regarding the overthrow of Arbenz of Guatemala:

    "The U.S. press coverage of the Guatemala coup offered a sanitized account, one that smacked of CIA manipulation. The leading newspapers treated the overthrow of Arbenz's government as a topical adventure, an " opera bouffe ," in the words of Hanson Baldwin, one of Dulles's trusted friends at The New York Times . Nonetheless, reported Baldwin, the operation had "global importance."

    This is precisely how Dulles liked his overseas exploits to be chronicled – as entertaining espionage capers, with serious consequences for the Cold War struggle.

    New York Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger was extremely accommodating to Dulles throughout the covert operation, agreeing to keep foreign correspondent Sydney Gruson, whom Dulles considered insufficiently compliant, out of Guatemala and even assuring the CIA director that Gruson's future articles would be screened "with a great deal more care than usual."

    Cry Shop , December 27, 2016 at 5:06 am

    The Republicans are the party of the rich; the Democrats are the party of the rich and poor. Those in between have no place.

    The Republicans and the Democrats are parties of the rich who use the poor. Both use the poor as a lever to extract wealth from the shrinking resource known as middle class. There is only a superficial difference in how they use them, and in both cases a real democracy has no place in their governance.

    Cry Shop , December 27, 2016 at 5:23 am

    Democracy, hell. 45 states in USA are pretty much the one party state of ALEC.

    Jabawocky , December 27, 2016 at 5:36 am

    For anyone interested in the inner workings of the print media I highly recommend 'Flat Earth News' by Nick Davies. It is a little uk centric but Davies, the guy that broke Murdoch's phone hacking conspiracy, is authoritative.

    The chapter on the role of the security services in the press is quite interesting and gives important context for understanding the current attempts to centralize control of the internet news narrative.

    [Dec 27, 2016] This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context.

    Notable quotes:
    "... This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context. ..."
    "... Voting machines are public and for Federal elections then tampering with them is elevated to a Federal crime. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron : , December 18, 2016 at 07:18 AM

    This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context.

    Cyber security is a serious risk management operation that firms and governments spend outrageous sums of money on because hacking attempts, especially from sources in China and Russia, occur in vast numbers against every remotely desirable target corporate or government each and every day. At my former employer, the State of Virginia, the data center repelled over two million hacking attempts from sources in China each day. Northrop Grumman, the infrastructure management outsourcer for the State of Virginia's IT infrastructure, has had no known intrusions into any Commonwealth of Virginia servers that had been migrated to their standard security infrastructure thus far since the inception of their contract in July 2006. That is almost the one good thing that I have to say about NG. Some state servers, notably the Virginia Department of Health Professions, not under protection of the NG standard network security were hacked and had private information such as client SSNs stolen. Retail store servers are hacked almost routinely, but large banks and similarly well protected corporations are not. Security costs and it costs a lot.

    Even working in a data center with an excellent intrusion protection program as part of that program I had to take an annual "securing the human" computer based training class. Despite all of the technical precautions we were retrained each year to among other things NEVER put anything in an E-Mail that we did not want to be available for everyone to read; i.e., to never assume privacy is protected in an E-Mail. Embarrassing E-Mails need a source. We should assume that there will always be a hacker to take advantage of our mistakes.

    RGC -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 07:57 AM
    Can you spell "diversion"?

    Sanders: "Break up the banks!"

    Trump: "The elites are screwing you over!"

    Supporters of the status quo:

    "It's racism"

    "It's Russian hackers"

    Whatever it takes to change the subject.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RGC... , December 18, 2016 at 08:09 AM
    Maybe it is diversion, but it is definitely uninformed if not just plain stupid.
    sglover -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 06:11 PM
    Absolutely. What does that suggest about Team Dem?
    DrDick -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 08:34 AM
    The reality is that all the major world powers (and some minor ones), including us, do this routinely and always have. While it is entirely appropriate to be outraged that it may have materially determined the election (which I think is impossible to know, though it did have some impact), we should not be shocked or surprised by this.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 09:55 AM
    "...I would suggest attacks on Putin's personal business holdings all over the world..."

    [My guess is that has been being done a long time ago considering the direction of US/Russian foreign relations over NATO expansion, the Ukraine, and Syria.

    Long before TCP/IP the best way to prevent dirty secrets from getting out was not to have dirty secrets. It still works.

    The jabbering heads will not have much effect on the political opinions of ordinary citizens because 40 million or more US adults had their credit information compromised by the Target hackers three years ago. Target had been saving credit card numbers instead of deleting them as soon as they obtained authorizations for transfers, so that the 40 million were certainly exposed while more than twice that were probably exposed. Establishment politicians having their embarrassing E-mails hacked is more like good fun family entertainment than something to get all riled up about.]

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/10/news/companies/target-hacking/

    Target: Hacking hit up to 110 million customers

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:22 AM
    Voting machines are public and for Federal elections then tampering with them is elevated to a Federal crime. Political parties are private. The Federal government did not protect Target or Northrop Grumman's managed infrastructure for the Commonwealth of Virginia although either one can take forensic information to the FBI that will obtain warrants for prosecution. Foreign criminal operations go beyond the immediate domestic reach of the FBI. Not even Interpol interdicts foreign leaders unless they are guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

    The Federal government can do what it will as there are not hard guidelines for such clandestine operations and responses. Moreover, there are none to realistically enforce against them, which inevitably leads to war given sufficient cycles of escalation. Certainly our own government has done worse (political assassinations and supporting coups with money and guns) with impunity merely because of its size, reach, and power.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:43 AM
    BTW, "the burglar that just ransacked your house" can be arrested and prosecuted by a established regulated legal system with absolutely zero concerns of escalating into a nuclear war, trade war, or any other global hostility. So, not the same thing at all. Odds are good though that the burglar will get away without any of that because when he does finally get caught it will be an accident and probably only after dozen if not hundreds of B&E's.

    There is a line. The US has crossed that line, but always in less developed countries that had no recourse against us. Putin knows where the line is with the US. He will dance around it and lean over it, but not cross it. We have him outgunned and he knows it. Putin did not tamper with an election, a government function. Putin tampered with private data exposing incriminating information against a political party, which is a private entity rather than government entity. Whatever we do should probably stay within the rule of law as it gets messy fast once outside those boundaries.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 11:01 AM
    As far as burglars go I live in a particular working class zip code that has very few burglaries. It is a bad risk/reward deal unless you are just out to steal guns and then you better make sure that no one is home. Most people with children still living at home also have a gun safe. Most people have dogs.

    There are plenty burglaries in a lower income zip code nearby and lots more in higher income zip codes further away, the former being targets of opportunity with less security and possible drug stashes, which has a faster turnover than fencing big screen TV's. High income neighborhoods are natural targets with jewelry, cash, credit cards, and high end electronics, but far better security systems. I don't know much about their actual crime stats because they are on the opposite side of the City of Richmond VA from me, but I used to know a couple of burglars when I lived in the inner city. They liked the upscale homes near the University of Richmond on River Road.

    Peter K. -> DrDick... , December 18, 2016 at 09:21 AM
    Putin was mad b/c Clinton interfered in Russia's election using the bully-pulpit.

    She may have been complete correct in what she was saying, but it's not surprising she pissed Putin off.

    The Democratic establishment would rather discuss this than do a post-mortem on Hillary's campaign.

    They kept telling us the e-mail didn't reveal anything and now they say the e-mail determined the election.

    DeDude -> Peter K.... , December 18, 2016 at 09:43 AM
    "They kept telling us the e-mail didn't reveal anything and now they say the e-mail determined the election"

    And those two statement are not in conflict unless you are a brain dead Fox bot. Big nothing-burgers like Bhengazi or trivial emails can easily be blown up and affect a few hundred thousand voters. When the heck are you going to grow up and get past your 5 stages of Sanders grief?

    Peter K. -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:54 AM
    "Big nothing-burgers like Bhengazi or trivial emails can easily be blown up and affect a few hundred thousand voters. "

    There is already an audience for those faux scandals, the Fox viewers.

    They don't create new Voters.

    You're nothing but a brainwashed partisan Democrat, a mirror-image of these brainwashed Fox viewers.

    You're told what you're supposed to think by the Party leadership and you eat it up.

    No critical thinking skills.

    EMichael -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:55 AM
    He's barely over Nader.
    DeDude -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:07 AM
    I know - and there used to be some signs of a functional brain. Now it is all "they are all the same" ism and Hillary derangement syndrome on steroids. Someone who cares need to do an intervention before it becomes he get gobbled up by "ilsm" ism.
    Peter K. -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 01:08 PM
    Nader's critique was correct.

    The Democrats moved to the right and created more Trump voters.

    im1dc -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 08:56 AM
    ABC video interview by Martha Raddatz of Donna Brazile 2:43

    Adding the following FACTS, not opinion, to the Russian Hacking debate at the DNC

    Russian hacks of the DNC began at least as early as April, the FBI informed the DNC in May of the hacks, NO ONE in the FedGovt offered to HELP the DNC at anytime (allowed it to continue), and Russia's Putin DID NOT stop after President Obama told Putin in September to "Cut it Out", despite Obama's belief otherwise

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dnc-chair-says-committee-was-attacked-by-russian-hackers-through-election-day_us_5856acb6e4b08debb78992e4

    "DNC Chair Says Russian Hackers Attacked The Committee Through Election Day"

    'That goes against Obama's statement that the attacks ended after he spoke to Putin in September'

    by Dave Jamieson Labor Reporter...The Huffington Post...12/18/2016...10:59 am ET

    "The chair of the Democratic National Committee said Sunday that the DNC was under constant cyber attack by Russian hackers right through the election in November. Her claim contradicts President Barack Obama's statement Friday that the attacks ended in September after he issued a personal warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    "No, they did not stop," Donna Brazile told Martha Raddatz on ABC's "This Week." "They came after us absolutely every day until the end of the election. They tried to hack into our system repeatedly. We put up the very best cyber security but they constantly [attacked]."

    Brazile said the DNC was outgunned in its efforts to fend off the hacks, and suggested the committee received insufficient protection from U.S. intelligence agencies. The CIA and FBI have reportedly concluded that Russians carried out the attacks in an effort to help Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.

    "I think the Obama administration ― the FBI, the various other federal agencies ― they informed us, they told us what was happening. We knew as of May," Brazile said. "But in terms of helping us to fight, we were fighting a foreign adversary in the cyberspace. The Democratic National Committee, we were not a match. And yet we fought constantly."

    In a surprising analogy, Brazile compared the FBI's help to the DNC to that of the Geek Squad, the tech service provided at retailer Best Buy ― which is to say well-meaning, but limited.

    "They reached out ― it's like going to Best Buy," Brazile said. "You get the Geek Squad, and they're great people, by the way. They reached out to our IT vendors. But they reached us, meaning senior Democratic officials, by then it was, you know, the Russians had been involved for a long time."..."

    im1dc -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 08:59 AM
    This new perspective and set of facts is more than distressing it details a clear pattern of Executive Branch incompetence, malfeasance, and ineptitude (perhaps worse if you are conspiratorially inclined)
    im1dc -> im1dc... , -1
    The information above puts in bold relief President Obama's denial of an Electoral College briefing on the Russian Hacks

    There is now no reason not to brief the Electors to the extent and degree of Putin's help for demagogue Donald

    [Dec 27, 2016] Neopopulism

    Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Peter K.... December 26, 2016 at 07:15 AM neopopulism: A cultural and political movement, mainly in Latin American countries, distinct from twentieth-century populism in radically combining classically opposed left-wing and right-wing attitudes and using electronic media as a means of dissemination. (Wiktionary)

    [Dec 26, 2016] Russian Hacker Conspiracy Theory is Weak, But the Case For Paper Ballots is Strong

    Dec 26, 2016 | politics.slashdot.org
    (facebook.com) 286 Posted by msmash on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:01PM from the stranger-things dept. On Wednesday, J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan's Center for Computer Security & Society and a respected voice in computer science and information society, said that the Clinton Campaign should ask for a recount of the vote for the U.S. Presidential election . Later he wrote, "Were this year's deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked. But I don't believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other." The Outline, a new publication by a dozen of respected journalists, has published a post (on Facebook for now, since their website is still in the works), in which former Motherboard's reporter Adrianne Jeffries makes it clear that we still don't have concrete evidence that the vote was tampered with, but why still the case for paper ballots is strong . From the article: Halderman also repeats the erroneous claim that federal agencies have publicly said that senior officials in Russia commissioned attacks on voter registration databases in Arizona and Illinois. In October, federal agencies attributed the Democratic National Committee email hack to Russia, but specifically said they could not attribute the state hacks. Claims to the contrary seem to have spread due to anonymous sourcing and the conflation of Russian hackers with Russian state-sponsored hackers. Unfortunately, the Russia-hacked-us meme is spreading fast on social media and among disaffected Clinton voters. "It's just ignorance," said the cybersecurity consultant Jeffrey Carr, who published his own response to Halderman on Medium. "It's fear and ignorance that's fueling that." The urgency comes from deadlines for recount petitions, which start kicking in on Friday in Wisconsin, Monday in Pennsylvania, and the following Wednesday in Michigan. There is disagreement about how likely it is that the Russian government interfered with election results. There is little disagreement, however, that our voting system could be more robust -- namely, by requiring paper ballot backups for electronic voting and mandating that all results be audited, as they already are in some states including California. Despite the 150,000 signatures collected on a Change.org petition, what happens next really comes down to the Clinton team's decision.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Crowdsourced Volunteers Search For Solutions To Fake News

    Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
    (wired.co.uk) 270 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday November 27, 2016 @03:34AM from the help-me-hive-mind dept. Upworthy co-founder Eli Pariser is leading a group of online volunteers hunting for ways to respond to the spread of fake news. An anonymous reader quotes Wired UK: Inside a Google Doc, volunteers are gathering ideas and approaches to get a grip on the untruthful news stories. It is part analysis, part brainstorming, with those involved being encouraged to read widely around the topic before contributing. "This is a massive endeavour but well worth it," they say...

    At present, the group is coming up with a list of potential solutions and approaches . Possible methods the group is looking at include: more human editors, fingerprinting viral stories then training algorithms on confirmed fakes, domain checking, the blockchain, a reliability algorithm, sentiment analysis, a Wikipedia for news sources, and more.

    The article also suggests this effort may one day spawn fake news-fighting tech startups.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Someone needs to buy Paul Krugman a one way ticket to Camden and have him hang around the devastated post-industrial hell scape his policies helped create.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Someone needs to buy Paul Krugman a one way ticket to Camden and have him hang around the devastated post-industrial hell scape his policies helped create. ..."
    "... Krugman should be temporarily barred from public discourse until he apologizes for pushing NAFTA and all the rest. Hundreds of millions of people were thrust into dire poverty because of the horrible free trade policies he and 99.9% of US economists pushed. ..."
    "... Extremes meet: extreme protectionism is close to extreme neoliberal globalization in the level of devastation, that can occur. ..."
    "... But please do not forget that Krugman is a neoliberal stooge and this is much worse then being protectionist. This is close to betrayal of the nation you live it, people you live with, if you ask me. ..."
    "... To me academic neoliberals after 2008 are real "deplorables". And should be treated as such, despite his intellect. There not much honor in being an intellectual prostitute of financial oligarchy that rules the country. ..."
    Dec 26, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Lincoln / McKinley tariffs...
    Economists are still oblivious to the devastation created by 40 years of free trade.

    Someone needs to buy Paul Krugman a one way ticket to Camden and have him hang around the devastated post-industrial hell scape his policies helped create.

    Krugman should be temporarily barred from public discourse until he apologizes for pushing NAFTA and all the rest. Hundreds of millions of people were thrust into dire poverty because of the horrible free trade policies he and 99.9% of US economists pushed.

    They have learned nothing and they have forgotten much.

    pgl -> Lincoln / McKinley tariffs ... , December 26, 2016 at 11:25 AM
    Oh yea - bring on the tariffs which will lead to a massive appreciation of the dollar. Which in turn will lead to massive reductions in US exports. I guess our new troll is short selling Boeing.
    likbez -> pgl, -1
    I tend to agree with you. Extremes meet: extreme protectionism is close to extreme neoliberal globalization in the level of devastation, that can occur.

    But please do not forget that Krugman is a neoliberal stooge and this is much worse then being protectionist. This is close to betrayal of the nation you live it, people you live with, if you ask me.

    To me academic neoliberals after 2008 are real "deplorables". And should be treated as such, despite his intellect. There not much honor in being an intellectual prostitute of financial oligarchy that rules the country.

    [Dec 26, 2016] The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with fair and equal play for all. This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with "fair and equal play for all". This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington consensus no less then Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus ..."
    "... If you read the key postulates it is clear that that they essentially behaved like an occupier in this country. In this sense "Occupy Wall street" movement should actually be called "Liberation from Wall Street occupation" movement. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton realized that he can betray working class with impunity as "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrat anyway. In this sense Bill Clinton is a godfather of the right wing nationalism in the USA. He sowed the "Teeth's of Dragon" and now we have, what we have. ..."
    Dec 26, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    EMichael : December 26, 2016 at 12:47 PM , 2016 at 12:47 PM
    You guys should wake up and smell what country you live in. Here is a good place to start.

    "Campaigning for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan told stories of Cadillac-driving "welfare queens" and "strapping young bucks" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps. In trumpeting these tales of welfare run amok, Reagan never needed to mention race, because he was blowing a dog whistle: sending a message about racial minorities inaudible on one level, but clearly heard on another. In doing so, he tapped into a long political tradition that started with George Wallace and Richard Nixon, and is more relevant than ever in the age of the Tea Party and the first black president.

    In Dog Whistle Politics, Ian Haney L?pez offers a sweeping account of how politicians and plutocrats deploy veiled racial appeals to persuade white voters to support policies that favor the extremely rich yet threaten their own interests. Dog whistle appeals generate middle-class enthusiasm for political candidates who promise to crack down on crime, curb undocumented immigration, and protect the heartland against Islamic infiltration, but ultimately vote to slash taxes for the rich, give corporations regulatory control over industry and financial markets, and aggressively curtail social services. White voters, convinced by powerful interests that minorities are their true enemies, fail to see the connection between the political agendas they support and the surging wealth inequality that takes an increasing toll on their lives. The tactic continues at full force, with the Republican Party using racial provocations to drum up enthusiasm for weakening unions and public pensions, defunding public schools, and opposing health care reform.

    Rejecting any simple story of malevolent and obvious racism, Haney L?pez links as never before the two central themes that dominate American politics today: the decline of the middle class and the Republican Party's increasing reliance on white voters. Dog Whistle Politics will generate a lively and much-needed debate about how racial politics has destabilized the American middle class -- white and nonwhite members alike."

    https://www.amazon.com/Dog-Whistle-Politics-Appeals-Reinvented-ebook/dp/B00GHJNSMU

    im1dc : , December 26, 2016 at 01:51 PM
    Reading the above posts I am reminded that in November there was ONE Election with TWO Results:

    Electoral Vote for Donald Trump by the margin of 3 formerly Democratic Voting states Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania

    Popular Vote for Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 Million

    The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral States that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal play for all.

    And, in the 3 States that turned the Electoral Vote in Trump's favor and against Hillary, all that is needed are 125,000 or more votes, probably fewer, and the DEMS win the Electoral vote big too.

    It is not any more complex than that.

    So how does the Democratic Party get more votes in those States?

    PANDER to their voters by delivering on KISS, not talking about it.

    That is create living wage jobs and not taking them away as the Republican Party of 'Free Trade' and the Clinton Democratic Party 'Free Trade' Elites did.

    Understand this: It is not the responsibility of the USA, or in its best interests, to create jobs in other nations (Mexico, Japan, China, Canada, Israel, etc.) that do not create jobs in the USA equivalently, especially if the gain is offset by costly overseas confrontations and involvements that would not otherwise exist.

    likbez : December 26, 2016 at 02:49 PM , 2016 at 02:49 PM
    You are dreaming:

    "The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral States that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal play for all. "

    The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with "fair and equal play for all". This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington consensus no less then Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus

    If you read the key postulates it is clear that that they essentially behaved like an occupier in this country. In this sense "Occupy Wall street" movement should actually be called "Liberation from Wall Street occupation" movement.

    Bill Clinton realized that he can betray working class with impunity as "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrat anyway. In this sense Bill Clinton is a godfather of the right wing nationalism in the USA. He sowed the "Teeth's of Dragon" and now we have, what we have.

    [Dec 26, 2016] How could the US exist with no neoliberals and neocons pandering corporate war for Wall Street?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Do you think Trump will shutter those star wars bases in Poland and Rumania? ..."
    Dec 26, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> A Boy Named Sue... , December 26, 2016 at 05:20 AM
    Dreadful!

    How could the US exist with no neoliberal, neocons pandering corporate war for wall st?

    Do you think Trump will shutter those star wars bases in Poland and Rumania?

    [Dec 26, 2016] Neoliberals as closet Trotskyites are adamant neo-McCarthyists eager to supress any dissent, as soon as they feel it starts to influence public opinion

    "You control the message, and the facts do not matter. "
    Notable quotes:
    "... That's funny. Neoliberals are closet Trotskyites and they will let you talk only is specially designated reservations, which are irrelevant (or, more correctly, as long as they are irrelevant) for swaying the public opinion. ..."
    "... If you think they are for freedom of the press, you are simply delusional. They are for freedom of the press for those who own it. ..."
    "... Try to get dissenting views to MSM or academic magazines. Yes, they will not send you to GULAG, but the problem is that ostracism works no less effectively. That the essence of "inverted totalitarism" (another nickname for neoliberalism). You can substitute physical repression used in classic totalitarism with indirect suppression of dissenting opinions with the same, or even better results. Note that even the term "neoliberalism" is effectively censored and not used by MSM. ..."
    "... And the resulting level of suppressing of opposition (which is the essence of censorship) is on the level that would make the USSR censors blush. And if EconomistView gets too close to anti-neoliberal platform it will instantly find itself in the lists like PropOrNot ..."
    Dec 26, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    likbez -> EMichael... December 26, 2016 at 04:20 PM
    "Then of course, it is easy to attack the neoliberals, they'll actually let you talk."

    That's funny. Neoliberals are closet Trotskyites and they will let you talk only is specially designated reservations, which are irrelevant (or, more correctly, as long as they are irrelevant) for swaying the public opinion.

    They are all adamant neo-McCarthyists, if you wish and will label you Putin stooge in no time [, if you try to escape the reservation].

    If you think they are for freedom of the press, you are simply delusional. They are for freedom of the press for those who own it.

    Try to get dissenting views to MSM or academic magazines. Yes, they will not send you to GULAG, but the problem is that ostracism works no less effectively. That the essence of "inverted totalitarism" (another nickname for neoliberalism). You can substitute physical repression used in classic totalitarism with indirect suppression of dissenting opinions with the same, or even better results. Note that even the term "neoliberalism" is effectively censored and not used by MSM.

    See Sheldon Wolin writings about this.

    And the resulting level of suppressing of opposition (which is the essence of censorship) is on the level that would make the USSR censors blush. And if EconomistView gets too close to anti-neoliberal platform it will instantly find itself in the lists like PropOrNot

    http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html

    [Dec 26, 2016] HP Shutting Down Default FTP, Telnet Access To Network Printers

    Dec 26, 2016 | hardware.slashdot.org
    (pcworld.com) 83 Posted by msmash on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @11:00AM from the business-as-usual dept. Security experts consider the aging FTP and Telnet protocols unsafe, and HP has decided to clamp down on access to networked printers through the remote-access tools . From a report on PCWorld: Some of HP's new business printers will, by default, be closed to remote access via protocols like FTP and Telnet. However, customers can activate remote printing access through those protocols if needed. "HP has started the process of closing older, less-maintained interfaces including ports, protocols and cipher suites" identified by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology as less than secure, the company said in a statement. In addition, HP also announced firmware updates to existing business printers with improved password and encryption settings, so hackers can't easily break into the devices.

    [Dec 26, 2016] New Stegano Exploit Kit Hides Malvertising Code In Banner Pixels

    Dec 26, 2016 | it.slashdot.org
    (bleepingcomputer.com) 207 Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @08:25PM from the hidden-in-plain-sight dept. An anonymous reader quotes a report from BleepingComputer: For the past two months, a new exploit kit has been serving malicious code hidden in the pixels of banner ads via a malvertising campaign that has been active on several high profile websites. Discovered by security researchers from ESET , this new exploit kit is named Stegano, from the word steganography , which is a technique of hiding content inside other files. In this particular scenario, malvertising campaign operators hid malicious code inside PNG images used for banner ads. The crooks took a PNG image and altered the transparency value of several pixels. They then packed the modified image as an ad, for which they bought ad displays on several high-profile websites. Since a large number of advertising networks allow advertisers to deliver JavaScript code with their ads, the crooks also included JS code that would parse the image, extract the pixel transparency values, and using a mathematical formula, convert those values into a character. Since images have millions of pixels, crooks had all the space they needed to pack malicious code inside a PNG photo. When extracted, this malicious code would redirect the user to an intermediary ULR, called gate, where the host server would filter users. This server would only accept connections from Internet Explorer users. The reason is that the gate would exploit the CVE-2016-0162 vulnerability that allowed the crooks to determine if the connection came from a real user or a reverse analysis system employed by security researchers. Additionally, this IE exploit also allowed the gate server to detect the presence of antivirus software. In this case, the server would drop the connection just to avoid exposing its infrastructure and trigger a warning that would alert both the user and the security firm. If the gate server deemed the target valuable, then it would redirect the user to the final stage, which was the exploit kit itself, hosted on another URL. The Stegano exploit kit would use three Adobe Flash vulnerabilities (CVE-2015-8651, CVE-2016-1019 or CVE-2016-4117) to attack the user's PC, and forcibly download and launch into execution various strains of malware.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Backdoor Accounts Found in 80 Sony IP Security Camera Models

    Dec 26, 2016 | yro.slashdot.org
    (pcworld.com) 55 Posted by msmash on Wednesday December 07, 2016 @12:20PM from the security-woes dept. Many network security cameras made by Sony could be taken over by hackers and infected with botnet malware if their firmware is not updated to the latest version. Researchers from SEC Consult have found two backdoor accounts that exist in 80 models of professional Sony security cameras , mainly used by companies and government agencies given their high price, PCWorld reports. From the article: One set of hard-coded credentials is in the Web interface and allows a remote attacker to send requests that would enable the Telnet service on the camera, the SEC Consult researchers said in an advisory Tuesday. The second hard-coded password is for the root account that could be used to take full control of the camera over Telnet. The researchers established that the password is static based on its cryptographic hash and, while they haven't actually cracked it, they believe it's only a matter of time until someone does. Sony released a patch to the affected camera models last week.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Yahoo Fixes Flaw Allowing an Attacker To Read Any User's Emails

    Dec 26, 2016 | tech.slashdot.org
    (zdnet.com) 30 Posted by msmash on Thursday December 08, 2016 @11:45AM from the security-woes-and-fixes dept. Yahoo says it has fixed a severe security vulnerability in its email service that allowed an attacker to read a victim's email inbox . From a report on ZDNet: The cross-site scripting (XSS) attack only required a victim to view an email in Yahoo Mail. The internet giant paid out $10,000 to security researcher Jouko Pynnonen for privately disclosing the flaw through the HackerOne bug bounty, In a write-up, Pynnonen said that the flaw was similar to last year's Yahoo Mail bug, which similarly let an attacker compromise a user's account. Yahoo filters HTML messages to ensure that malicious code won't make it through into the user's browser, but the researcher found that the filters didn't catch all of the malicious data attributes.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Zeus Variant 'Floki Bot' Targets PoS Data

    Dec 26, 2016 | it.slashdot.org
    (onthewire.io) 25 Posted by BeauHD on Friday December 09, 2016 @05:00AM from the out-of-the-woodwork dept. Trailrunner7 quotes a report from On the Wire: Malware gangs, like sad wedding bands bands, love to play the hits. And one of the hits they keep running back over and over is the Zeus banking Trojan, which has been in use for many years in a number of different forms. Researchers have unearthed a new piece of malware called Floki Bot that is based on the venerable Zeus source code and is being used to infect point-of-sale systems, among other targets. Flashpoint conducted the analysis of Floki Bot with Cisco's Talos research team, and the two organizations said that the author behind the bot maintains a presence on a number of different underground forums, some of which are in Russian or other non-native languages for him. Kremez said that attackers sometimes will participate in foreign language forums as a way to expand their knowledge. Along with its PoS infection capability, Floki Bot also has a feature that allows it to use the Tor network to communicate. "During our analysis of Floki Bot, Talos identified modifications that had been made to the dropper mechanism present in the leaked Zeus source code in an attempt to make Floki Bot more difficult to detect. Talos also observed the introduction of new code that allows Floki Bot to make use of the Tor network. However, this functionality does not appear to be active for the time being," Cisco's Talos team said in its analysis .

    [Dec 26, 2016] 5-Year-Old Critical Linux Vulnerability Patched

    Dec 26, 2016 | linux.slashdot.org
    (threatpost.com) 68 Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday December 10, 2016 @12:34PM from the local-Linux-attacks dept. msm1267 quotes Kaspersky Lab's ThreatPost: A critical, local code-execution vulnerability in the Linux kernel was patched more than a week ago, continuing a run of serious security issues in the operating system, most of which have been hiding in the code for years. Details on the vulnerability were published Tuesday by researcher Philip Pettersson , who said the vulnerable code was introd in August 2011.

    A patch was pushed to the mainline Linux kernel December 2, four days after it was privately disclosed. Pettersson has developed a proof-of-concept exploit specifically for Ubuntu distributions, but told Threatpost his attack could be ported to other distros with some changes. The vulnerability is a race condition that was discovered in the af_packet implementation in the Linux kernel, and Pettersson said that a local attacker could exploit the bug to gain kernel code execution from unprivileged processes. He said the bug cannot be exploited remotely.
    "Basically it's a bait-and-switch," the researcher told Threatpost. "The bug allows you to trick the kernel into thinking it is working with one kind of object, while you actually switched it to another kind of object before it could react."

    [Dec 26, 2016] Vulnerability Prompts Warning: Stop Using Netgear WiFi Routers

    Dec 26, 2016 | mobile.slashdot.org
    (securityledger.com) 147 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday December 11, 2016 @01:34PM from the nixing-the-network dept. "By convincing a user to visit a specially crafted web site, a remote attacker may execute arbitrary commands with root privileges on affected routers," warns a new vulnerability notice from Carnegie Mellon University's CERT. Slashdot reader chicksdaddy quotes Security Ledger's story about certain models of Netgear's routers: Firmware version 1.0.7.2_1.1.93 (and possibly earlier) for the R7000 and version 1.0.1.6_1.0.4 (and possibly earlier) for the R6400 are known to contain the arbitrary command injection vulnerability . CERT cited "community reports" that indicate the R8000, firmware version 1.0.3.4_1.1.2, is also vulnerable... The flaw was found in new firmware that runs the Netgear R7000 and R6400 routers. Other models and firmware versions may also be affected, including the R8000 router, CMU CERT warned.

    With no work around to the flaw, CERT recommended that Netgear customers disable their wifi router until a software patch from the company that addressed the hole was available... A search of the public internet using the Shodan search engine finds around 8,000 R6450 and R7000 devices that can be reached directly from the Internet and that would be vulnerable to takeover attacks. The vast majority of those are located in the United States.
    Proof-of-concept exploit code was released by a Twitter user who, according to the article, said "he informed Netgear of the flaw more than four months ago, but did not hear back from the company since then."

    [Dec 26, 2016] Malvertising Campaign Infects Your Router Instead of Your Browser

    Dec 26, 2016 | it.slashdot.org
    (bleepingcomputer.com) 137 Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @07:45PM from the connected-devices dept. An anonymous reader quotes a report from BleepingComputer: Malicious ads are serving exploit code to infect routers , instead of browsers, in order to insert ads in every site users are visiting. Unlike previous malvertising campaigns that targeted users of old Flash or Internet Explorer versions, this campaign focused on Chrome users, on both desktop and mobile devices. The malicious ads included in this malvertising campaign contain exploit code for 166 router models, which allow attackers to take over the device and insert ads on websites that didn't feature ads, or replace original ads with the attackers' own. Researchers haven't yet managed to determine an exact list of affected router models , but some of the brands targeted by the attackers include Linksys, Netgear, D-Link, Comtrend, Pirelli, and Zyxel. Because the attack is carried out via the user's browser, using strong router passwords or disabling the administration interface is not enough. The only way users can stay safe is if they update their router's firmware to the most recent versions, which most likely includes protection against the vulnerabilities used by this campaign. The "campaign" is called DNSChanger EK and works when attackers buy ads on legitimate websites and insert malicious JavaScript in these ads, "which use a WebRTC request to a Mozilla STUN server to determine the user's local IP address," according to BleepingComputer. "Based on this local IP address, the malicious code can determine if the user is on a local network managed by a small home router, and continue the attack. If this check fails, the attackers just show a random legitimate ad and move on. For the victims the crooks deem valuable, the attack chain continues. These users receive a tainted ad which redirects them to the DNSChanger EK home, where the actual exploitation begins. The next step is for the attackers to send an image file to the user's browser, which contains an AES (encryption algorithm) key embedded inside the photo using the technique of steganography. The malicious ad uses this AES key to decrypt further traffic it receives from the DNSChanger exploit kit. Crooks encrypt their operations to avoid the prying eyes of security researchers."

    [Dec 26, 2016] Newly Uncovered Site Suggests NSA Exploits For Direct Sale

    Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
    (vice.com) 33 Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @08:25PM from the buy-one-get-one dept. An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: The Shadow Brokers -- a hacker or group of hackers that stole computer exploits from the National Security Agency -- has been quiet for some time. After their auction and crowd-funded approach for selling the exploits met a lukewarm reception, the group seemingly stopped posting new messages in October. But a newly uncovered website, which includes a file apparently signed with The Shadow Brokers' cryptographic key, suggests the group is trying to sell hacking tools directly to buyers one by one , and a cache of files appears to include more information on specific exploits. On Wednesday, someone calling themselves Boceffus Cleetus published a Medium post called "Are the Shadow Brokers selling NSA tools on ZeroNet?" Cleetus, who has an American flag with swastikas as their profile picture, also tweeted the post from a Twitter account created this month. The site includes a long list of supposed items for sale, with names like ENVOYTOMATO, EGGBASKET, and YELLOWSPIRIT. Each is sorted into a type, such as "implant," "trojan," and "exploit," and comes with a price tag between 1 and 100 bitcoins ($780 -- $78,000). Customers can purchase the whole lot for 1000 bitcoins ($780,000). The site also lets visitors download a selection of screenshots and files related to each item. Along with those is a file signed with a PGP key with an identical fingerprint to that linked to the original Shadow Brokers dump of exploits from August. This newly uncovered file was apparently signed on 1 September; a different date to any of The Shadow Brokers' previously signed messages .

    [Dec 26, 2016] Netgear Releases 'Beta' Patches For Additional Routers Found With Root Vulnerability

    Dec 26, 2016 | it.slashdot.org
    (netgear.com) 26 Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday December 17, 2016 @10:34AM from the but-they-might-not-work dept. The Department of Homeland Security's CERT issued a warning last week that users should "strongly consider" not using some models of NetGear routers, and the list expanded this week to include 11 different models. Netgear's now updated their web page, announcing eight "beta" fixes, along with three more "production" fixes. chicksdaddy writes: The company said the new [beta] firmware has not been fully tested and " might not work for all users ." The company offered it as a "temporary solution" to address the security hole. "Netgear is working on a production firmware version that fixes this command injection vulnerability and will release it as quickly as possible," the company said in a post to its online knowledgebase early Tuesday.

    The move follows publication of a warning from experts at Carnegie Mellon on December 9 detailing a serious "arbitrary command injection" vulnerability in the latest version of firmware used by a number of Netgear wireless routers. The security hole could allow a remote attacker to take control of the router by convincing a user to visit a malicious web site... The vulnerability was discovered by an individual...who says he contacted Netgear about the flaw four months ago , and went public with information on it after the company failed to address the issue on its own.

    [Dec 26, 2016] McAfee Takes Six Months To Patch Remote Code Exploit In Linux VirusScan Enterprise

    Dec 26, 2016 | linux.slashdot.org
    Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday December 17, 2016 @05:34PM from the jeopardized-in-June dept. mask.of.sanity writes: A researcher has reported 10 vulnerabilities in McAfee's VirusScan Enterprise for Linux that when chained together result in root remote code execution. McAfee took six months to fix the bugs issuing a patch December 9th.
    Citing the security note , CSO adds that "one of the issues affects Virus Scan Enterprise for Windows version 8.7i through at least 8.8 ." The vulnerability was reported by Andrew Fasano at MIT's federally-funded security lab, who said he targeted McAfee's client because "it runs as root, it claims to make your machine more secure, it's not particularly popular, and it looks like it hasn't been updated in a long time."

    [Dec 26, 2016] Massive Mirai Botnet Hides Its Control Servers On Tor

    Dec 26, 2016 | it.slashdot.org
    Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday December 17, 2016 @06:34PM from the catch-me-if-you-can dept. "Following a failed takedown attempt, changes made to the Mirai malware variant responsible for building one of today's biggest botnets of IoT devices will make it incredibly harder for authorities and security firms to shut it down," reports Bleeping Computer. An anonymous reader writes: Level3 and others" have been very close to taking down one of the biggest Mirai botnets around, the same one that attempted to knock the Internet offline in Liberia , and also hijacked 900,000 routers from German ISP Deutsche Telekom .The botnet narrowly escaped due to the fact that its maintainer, a hacker known as BestBuy, had implemented a domain-generation algorithm to generate random domain names where he hosted his servers.

    Currently, to avoid further takedown attempts from similar security firms, BestBuy has started moving the botnet's command and control servers to Tor . "It's all good now. We don't need to pay thousands to ISPs and hosting. All we need is one strong server," the hacker said. "Try to shut down .onion 'domains' over Tor," he boasted, knowing that nobody can.

    [Dec 26, 2016] LinkedIn Warns 9.5 Million Lynda Users About Database Breach

    Dec 26, 2016 | yro.slashdot.org
    (neowin.net) 35 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday December 18, 2016 @02:34PM from the profile-views dept. Less than four weeks after Microsoft formally acquired LinkedIn for $26 billion , there's been a database breach. An anonymous reader writes: LinkedIn is sending emails to 9.5 million users of Lynda.com, its online learning subsidiary, warning the users of a database breach by "an unauthorized third party" . The affected database included contact information for at least some of the users. An email to customers says "while we have no evidence that your specific account was accessed or that any data has been made publicly available, we wanted to notify you as a precautionary measure." Ironically, the breach comes less than a month after Russia blocked access to LinkedIn over privacy concerns .
    LinkedIn has also reset the passwords for 55,000 Lynda.com accounts (though apparently many of its users don't have accounts with passwords).

    [Dec 26, 2016] The FBI Is Arresting People Who Rent DDoS Botnets

    Dec 26, 2016 | yro.slashdot.org
    (bleepingcomputer.com) 211 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday December 18, 2016 @04:44PM from the denial-of-liberty-counterattack dept. This week the FBI arrested a 26-year-old southern California man for launching a DDoS attack against online chat service Chatango at the end of 2014 and in early 2015 -- part of a new crackdown on the customers of "DDoS-for-hire" services. An anonymous reader writes: Sean Krishanmakoto Sharma, a computer science graduate student at USC, is now facing up to 10 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $250,000. Court documents describe a service called Xtreme Stresser as "basically a Linux botnet DDoS tool," and allege that Sharma rented it for an attack on Chatango, an online chat service. "Sharma is now free on a $100,000 bail," reports Bleeping Computer, adding "As part of his bail release agreement, Sharma is banned from accessing certain sites such as HackForums and tools such as VPNs..."

    "Sharma's arrest is part of a bigger operation against DDoS-for-Hire services, called Operation Tarpit ," the article points out. "Coordinated by Europol, Operation Tarpit took place between December 5 and December 9, and concluded with the arrest of 34 users of DDoS-for-hire services across the globe, in countries such as Australia, Belgium, France, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States." It grew out of an earlier investigation into a U.K.-based DDoS-for-hire service which had 400 customers who ultimately launched 603,499 DDoS attacks on 224,548 targets.
    Most of the other suspects arrested were under the age of 20.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Russians Used Malware On Android Devices To Track and Target Ukraine Artillery, Says Report

    Dec 26, 2016 | yro.slashdot.org
    (reuters.com) 101 Posted by BeauHD on Thursday December 22, 2016 @06:25PM from the come-out-come-out-wherever-you-are dept. schwit1 quotes a report from Reuters: A hacking group linked to the Russian government and high-profile cyber attacks against Democrats during the U.S. presidential election likely used a malware implant on Android devices to track and target Ukrainian artillery units from late 2014 through 2016, according to a new report released Thursday. The malware was able to retrieve communications and some locational data from infected devices, intelligence that would have likely been used to strike against the artillery in support of pro-Russian separatists fighting in eastern Ukraine, the report from cyber security firm CrowdStrike found. The hacking group, known commonly as Fancy Bear or APT 28, is believed by U.S. intelligence officials to work primarily on behalf of the GRU, Russia's military intelligence agency. The implant leveraged a legitimate Android application developed by a Ukrainian artillery officer to process targeting data more quickly, CrowdStrike said. Its deployment "extends Russian cyber capabilities to the front lines of the battlefield," the report said, and "could have facilitated anticipatory awareness of Ukrainian artillery force troop movement, thus providing Russian forces with useful strategic planning information."

    [Dec 26, 2016] Security Researchers Can Turn Headphones Into Microphones

    Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
    (techcrunch.com) 122 Posted by BeauHD on Thursday November 24, 2016 @08:00AM from the proof-of-concept dept. As if we don't already have enough devices that can listen in on our conversations, security researchers at Israel's Ben Gurion University have created malware that will turn your headphones into microphones that can slyly record your conversations. TechCrunch reports: The proof-of-concept, called " Speake(a)r ," first turned headphones connected to a PC into microphones and then tested the quality of sound recorded by a microphone vs. headphones on a target PC. In short, the headphones were nearly as good as an unpowered microphone at picking up audio in a room. It essentially "retasks" the RealTek audio codec chip output found in many desktop computers into an input channel. This means you can plug your headphones into a seemingly output-only jack and hackers can still listen in. This isn't a driver fix, either. The embedded chip does not allow users to properly prevent this hack which means your earbuds or nice cans could start picking up conversations instantly. In fact, even if you disable your microphone, a computer with a RealTek chip could still be hacked and exploited without your knowledge. The sound quality, as shown by this chart, is pretty much the same for a dedicated microphone and headphones. The researchers have published a video on YouTube demonstrating how this malware works.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Personal Data For More Than 130,000 Sailors Hacked: U.S. Navy

    Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
    (reuters.com) 57 Posted by msmash on Thursday November 24, 2016 @10:04AM from the security-woes dept. Hackers gained access to sensitive information, including Social Security numbers, for 134,386 current and former U.S. sailors, the U.S. Navy has said . According to Reuters: It said a laptop used by a Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services employee working on a U.S. Navy contract was hacked. Hewlett Packard informed the Navy of the breach on Oct. 27 and the affected sailors will be notified in the coming weeks, the Navy said. "The Navy takes this incident extremely seriously - this is a matter of trust for our sailors," Chief of Naval Personnel Vice Admiral Robert Burke said in a statement.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Muni System Hacker Hit Others By Scanning For Year-Old Java Vulnerability

    Dec 26, 2016 | developers.slashdot.org
    (arstechnica.com) 30 Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday November 29, 2016 @09:05PM from the thank-God-for-backups dept. An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The attacker who infected servers and desktop computers at the San Francisco Metropolitan Transit Agency (SFMTA) with ransomware on November 25 apparently gained access to the agency's network by way of a known vulnerability in an Oracle WebLogic server . That vulnerability is similar to the one used to hack a Maryland hospital network's systems in April and infect multiple hospitals with crypto-ransomware. And evidence suggests that SFMTA wasn't specifically targeted by the attackers; the agency just came up as a target of opportunity through a vulnerability scan. In an e-mail to Ars, SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said that on November 25, "we became aware of a potential security issue with our computer systems, including e-mail." The ransomware "encrypted some systems mainly affecting computer workstations," he said, "as well as access to various systems. However, the SFMTA network was not breached from the outside, nor did hackers gain entry through our firewalls. Muni operations and safety were not affected. Our customer payment systems were not hacked. Also, despite media reports, no data was accessed from any of our servers." That description of the ransomware attack is not consistent with some of the evidence of previous ransomware attacks by those behind the SFMTA incident -- which Rose said primarily affected about 900 desktop computers throughout the agency. Based on communications uncovered from the ransomware operator behind the Muni attack published by security reporter Brian Krebs , an SFMTA Web-facing server was likely compromised by what is referred to as a "deserialization" attack after it was identified by a vulnerability scan. A security researcher told Krebs that he had been able to gain access to the mailbox used in the malware attack on the Russian e-mail and search provider Yandex by guessing its owner's security question, and he provided details from the mailbox and another linked mailbox on Yandex. Based on details found in e-mails for the accounts, the attacker ran a server loaded with open source vulnerability scanning tools to identify and compromise servers to use in spreading the ransomware, known as HDDCryptor and Mamba , within multiple organizations' networks.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Russia Says Foreign Spies Plan Cyber Attack On Banking System

    Dec 26, 2016 | it.slashdot.org
    (reuters.com) 88 Posted by msmash on Friday December 02, 2016 @12:20PM from the hmmm dept. Russia said on Friday it had uncovered a plot by foreign spy agencies to sow chaos in Russia's banking system via a coordinated wave of cyber attacks and fake social media reports about banks going bust . From a report on Reuters: Russia's domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service (FSB), said that the servers to be used in the alleged cyber attack were located in the Netherlands and registered to a Ukrainian web hosting company called BlazingFast. The attack, which was to target major national and provincial banks in several Russian cities, was meant to start on Dec. 5, the FSB said in a statement. "It was planned that the cyber attack would be accompanied by a mass send-out of SMS messages and publications in social media of a provocative nature regarding a crisis in the Russian banking system, bankruptcies and license withdrawals," it said. "The FSB is carrying out the necessary measures to neutralize threats to Russia's economic and information security."

    [Dec 26, 2016] Is Trump's Foreign Policy the New Mainstream

    Dec 26, 2016 | nationalinterest.org
    TNI Staff

    December 22, 2016

    With the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, the American public opted for change. A new poll from the Charles Koch Institute and Center for the National Interest on America and foreign affairs indicates that the desire for a fresh start may be particularly pronounced in the foreign policy sphere. In many areas the responses align with what Donald Trump was saying during the presidential campaign-and in other areas, there are a number of Americans who don't have strong views. There may be a real opportunity for Trump to redefine the foreign policy debate. He may have a ready-made base of support and find that other Americans are persuadable.

    Two key questions centering on whether U.S. foreign policy has made Americans more or less safe and whether U.S. foreign policy has made the rest of the world more or less safe show that a majority of the public is convinced that-in both cases-the answer is that it has not. 51.9 percent say that American foreign policy has not enhanced our security; 51.1 percent say that it has also had a deleterious effect abroad. The responses indicate that the successive wars in the Middle East, ranging from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya, have not promoted but, rather, undermined a sense of security among Americans.

    The poll results indicate that this sentiment has translated into nearly 35 percent of respondents wanted a decreased military footprint in the Middle East, with about 30 percent simply wanting to keep things where they stand. When it comes to America's key relationship with Saudi Arabia, 23.2 percent indicate that they would favor weaker military ties, while 24 percent say they are simply unsure. Over half of Americans do not want to deploy ground troops to Syria. Overall, 45.4 percent say that they believe that it would enhance American security to reduce our military presence abroad, while 30.9 percent say that it should be increased.

    That Americans are adopting a more equivocal approach overall towards other countries seems clear. When provided with a list of adjectives to describe relationship, very few Americans were prepared to choose the extremes of friend or foe. The most popular term was the fairly neutral term "competitor." The mood appears to be similarly ambivalent about NATO. When asked whether the U.S. should automatically defend Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia in a military conflict with Russia, 26.1 percent say that they neither agree nor disagree. 22 percent say that they disagree and a mere 16.8 percent say that they agree. Similarly, when queried about whether the inclusion of Montenegro makes America safer, no less than 63.6 percent say that they don't know or are not sure. About Russia itself, 37.8 percent indicate they see it as both an adversary and a potential partner. That they still see it as a potential partner is remarkable given the tenor of the current media climate.

    The poll results underscore that Americans are uneasy with the status quo. U.S. foreign policy in particular is perceived as a failure and Americans want to see a change, endorsing views and stands that might previously have been seen as existing on the fringe of debate about America's proper role abroad. Instead of militarism and adventurism, Americans are more keen on a cooperative world, in which trade and diplomacy are the principal means of engaging other nations. 49 percent of the respondents indicate that they would prioritize diplomacy over military power, while 26.3 percent argue for the reverse. 54 percent argue that the U.S. should work more through the United Nations to improve its security. Moreover, a clear majority of those polled stated that they believed that increasing trade would help to make the United States safer. In a year that has been anything but normal, perhaps Trump is onto something with his talk of burden sharing and a more critical look at the regnant establishment foreign policy that has prevailed until now.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Are We Seeing Propaganda About Russian Propaganda?

    Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
    (rollingstone.com) 335 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday December 04, 2016 @12:39PM from the ghosts-of-Joseph-McCarthy dept. MyFirstNameIsPaul was one of several readers who spotted this disturbing instance of fake news about fake news. An anonymous reader writes: Last week the Washington Post described "independent researchers" who'd identified "more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda " that they estimated were viewed more than 200 million times on Facebook. But the researchers insisted on remaining anonymous "to avoid being targeted by Russia's legions of skilled hackers," and when criticized on Twitter, responded "Awww, wook at all the angwy Putinists, trying to change the subject -- they're so vewwy angwy!!"

    The group "seems to have been in existence for just a few months," writes Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi , calling the Post's article an "astonishingly lazy report". (Chris Hedges, who once worked on a Pulitzer Prize-winning team at the New York Times, even found his site Truthdig on the group's dubious list of over 200 " sites that reliably echo Russian propaganda ," along with other long-standing sites like Zero Hedge , Naked Capitalism , and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.) "By overplaying the influence of Russia's disinformation campaign, the report also plays directly into the hands of the Russian propagandists that it hopes to combat," complains Adrian Chen, who in 2015 documented real Russian propaganda efforts which he traced to "a building in St. Petersburg where hundreds of young Russians worked to churn out propaganda ."
    The Post's article was picked up by other major news outlets ( including USA Today ), and included an ominous warning that "The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on 'fake news'."

    [Dec 25, 2016] Is Obama A Russian Agent

    Dec 25, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Dmitry Orlov,

    Sometimes a case looks weak because there is no "smoking gun"-no obvious, direct evidence of conspiracy, malfeasance or evil intent-but once you tally up all the evidence it forms a coherent and damning picture. And so it is with the Obama administration vis ŕ vis Russia: by feigning hostile intent it did everything possible to further Russia's agenda. And although it is always possible to claim that all of Obama's failures stem from mere incompetence, at some point this claim begins to ring hollow; how can he possibly be so utterly competent at being incompetent? Perhaps he just used incompetence as a veil to cover his true intent, which was always to bolster Russia while rendering the US maximally irrelevant in world affairs. Let's examine Obama's major foreign policy initiatives from this angle.

    Perhaps the greatest achievement of his eight years has been the destruction of Libya. Under the false pretense of a humanitarian intervention what was once the most prosperous and stable country in the entire North Africa has been reduced to a rubble-strewn haven for Islamic terrorists and a transit point for economic migrants streaming into the European Union. This had the effect of pushing Russia and China together, prompting them to start voting against the US together as a block in the UN Security Council. In a single blow, Obama assured an important element of his legacy as a Russian agent: no longer will the US be able to further its agenda through this very important international body.

    Next, Obama presided over the violent overthrow of the constitutional government in the Ukraine and the installation of an American puppet regime there. When Crimea then voted to rejoin Russia, Obama imposed sanctions on the Russian Federation. These moves may seem like they were designed to hurt Russia, but let's look at the results instead of the intentions.

    In effect, Russia reaped all the benefits from the Ukrainian stalemate, while the US gained an unsavory, embarrassing dependent.

    Obama's next "achievement" was in carefully shepherding the Syrian conflict into a cul de sac. (Some insist on calling it a civil war, although virtually all of the fighting there has between the entire Syrian nation and foreign-funded outside mercenaries). To this end, Obama deployed an array of tactics. He simultaneously supported, armed, trained and fought various terrorist groups, making a joke of the usual US technique of using "terrorism by proxy." He made ridiculous claims that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against its own people, which immediately reminded everyone of similarly hollow claims about Saddam's WMDs while offering Russia a legitimate role to play in resolving the Syrian conflict. He made endless promises to separate "moderate opposition" from dyed-in-the-wool terrorists, but repeatedly failed to do so, thus giving the Russians ample scope to take care of the situation as they saw fit. He negotiated several cease fires, then violated them.

    There have been other achievements as well. By constantly talking up the nonexistent "Russian threat" and scaremongering about "Russian aggression" and "Russian invasion" (of which no evidence existed), and by holding futile military exercises in Eastern Europe and especially in the geopolitically irrelevant Baltics, Obama managed to deprive NATO of any residual legitimacy it once might have had, turning it into a sad joke.

    But perhaps Obama's most significant service on behalf of the Russian nation was in throwing the election to Donald Trump. This he did by throwing his support behind the ridiculously inept and corrupt Hillary Clinton. She outspent Trump by a factor of two, but apparently no amount of money could buy her the presidency. As a result of Obama's steadfast efforts, the US will now have a Russia-friendly president who is eager to make deals with Russia, but will have to do so from a significantly weakened negotiating position.

    As I have been arguing for the last decade, it is a foregone conclusion that the United States is going to slide from its position of global dominance. But it was certainly helpful to have Obama grease the skids, and now it's up to Donald Trump to finish the job. And since Obama's contribution was especially helpful to Russia, I propose that he be awarded the Russian Federation's Order of Friendship, to go with his Nobel Peace Prize.

    [Dec 25, 2016] Is Obama A Russian Agent

    Dec 25, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Dmitry Orlov,

    Sometimes a case looks weak because there is no "smoking gun"-no obvious, direct evidence of conspiracy, malfeasance or evil intent-but once you tally up all the evidence it forms a coherent and damning picture. And so it is with the Obama administration vis ŕ vis Russia: by feigning hostile intent it did everything possible to further Russia's agenda. And although it is always possible to claim that all of Obama's failures stem from mere incompetence, at some point this claim begins to ring hollow; how can he possibly be so utterly competent at being incompetent? Perhaps he just used incompetence as a veil to cover his true intent, which was always to bolster Russia while rendering the US maximally irrelevant in world affairs. Let's examine Obama's major foreign policy initiatives from this angle.

    Perhaps the greatest achievement of his eight years has been the destruction of Libya. Under the false pretense of a humanitarian intervention what was once the most prosperous and stable country in the entire North Africa has been reduced to a rubble-strewn haven for Islamic terrorists and a transit point for economic migrants streaming into the European Union. This had the effect of pushing Russia and China together, prompting them to start voting against the US together as a block in the UN Security Council. In a single blow, Obama assured an important element of his legacy as a Russian agent: no longer will the US be able to further its agenda through this very important international body.

    Next, Obama presided over the violent overthrow of the constitutional government in the Ukraine and the installation of an American puppet regime there. When Crimea then voted to rejoin Russia, Obama imposed sanctions on the Russian Federation. These moves may seem like they were designed to hurt Russia, but let's look at the results instead of the intentions.

    In effect, Russia reaped all the benefits from the Ukrainian stalemate, while the US gained an unsavory, embarrassing dependent.

    Obama's next "achievement" was in carefully shepherding the Syrian conflict into a cul de sac. (Some insist on calling it a civil war, although virtually all of the fighting there has between the entire Syrian nation and foreign-funded outside mercenaries). To this end, Obama deployed an array of tactics. He simultaneously supported, armed, trained and fought various terrorist groups, making a joke of the usual US technique of using "terrorism by proxy." He made ridiculous claims that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against its own people, which immediately reminded everyone of similarly hollow claims about Saddam's WMDs while offering Russia a legitimate role to play in resolving the Syrian conflict. He made endless promises to separate "moderate opposition" from dyed-in-the-wool terrorists, but repeatedly failed to do so, thus giving the Russians ample scope to take care of the situation as they saw fit. He negotiated several cease fires, then violated them.

    There have been other achievements as well. By constantly talking up the nonexistent "Russian threat" and scaremongering about "Russian aggression" and "Russian invasion" (of which no evidence existed), and by holding futile military exercises in Eastern Europe and especially in the geopolitically irrelevant Baltics, Obama managed to deprive NATO of any residual legitimacy it once might have had, turning it into a sad joke.

    But perhaps Obama's most significant service on behalf of the Russian nation was in throwing the election to Donald Trump. This he did by throwing his support behind the ridiculously inept and corrupt Hillary Clinton. She outspent Trump by a factor of two, but apparently no amount of money could buy her the presidency. As a result of Obama's steadfast efforts, the US will now have a Russia-friendly president who is eager to make deals with Russia, but will have to do so from a significantly weakened negotiating position.

    As I have been arguing for the last decade, it is a foregone conclusion that the United States is going to slide from its position of global dominance. But it was certainly helpful to have Obama grease the skids, and now it's up to Donald Trump to finish the job. And since Obama's contribution was especially helpful to Russia, I propose that he be awarded the Russian Federation's Order of Friendship, to go with his Nobel Peace Prize.

    [Dec 25, 2016] Debt is about power as it affect social relationships, alter social norms, and affect relationships among individuals

    Notable quotes:
    "... That 'political pressure' turned out to be the bait and switch for a system that shifted power via debt creation. ..."
    "... What we have not yet come to terms with are the implications of David Graeber's anthropological insights: how does debt affect social relationships, alter social norms, and affect relationships among individuals? ..."
    "... Debt is a form of power, but by failing to factor this into their equations, the Central Bankers are missing the social, political, and cultural consequences of the profound shifts in 'credit market architecture'. In many respects, this is not about 'money'; it's about power. ..."
    "... The Central Bankers' models can include all the parameters they can dream up, but until someone starts thinking more clearly about the role and function of money, and the way that 'different kinds of money' create 'different kinds of social relationships', we are all in a world of hurt. ..."
    "... At this point, Central Bankers should also ask themselves what happens - socially, personally - when 'debt' (i.e., financialization) shifts from productivity to predation. That shift accelerated from the 1970s, through the 1990s, into the 2000s. ..."
    "... Now, maybe it is just a coincidence, but it is hard for me not to notice that the explosion in consumer credit matches up nicely with the rise in inequality. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    readerOfTeaLeaves , December 24, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Of the structural changes, the evolution and revolution of credit market architecture was the single most important . In the US, credit card ownership and instalment credit spread between the 1960s and the 2000s; the government-sponsored enterprises – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – were recast in the 1970s to underwrite mortgages; interest rate ceilings were lifted in the early 1980s; and falling IT costs transformed payment and credit screening systems in the 1980s and 1990s. More revolutionary was the expansion of sub-prime mortgages in the 2000s, driven by rise of private label securitisation backed by credit default obligations (CDOs) and swaps. The 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) made derivatives enforceable throughout the US with priority ahead of claims by others (e.g. workers) in bankruptcy. This permitted derivative enhancements for private label mortgage-backed securities (PMBS) so that they could be sold on as highly rated investment grade securities. A second regulatory change was the deregulation of banks and investment banks . Similar measures to lower required capital on investment grade PMBS increased leverage at commercial banks. These changes occurred in the political context of pressure to extend credit to poor.

    That 'political pressure' turned out to be the bait and switch for a system that shifted power via debt creation.

    What we have not yet come to terms with are the implications of David Graeber's anthropological insights: how does debt affect social relationships, alter social norms, and affect relationships among individuals?

    Debt is a form of power, but by failing to factor this into their equations, the Central Bankers are missing the social, political, and cultural consequences of the profound shifts in 'credit market architecture'. In many respects, this is not about 'money'; it's about power.

    After Brexit, Trump, and the emerging upheaval in the EU, it's no longer enough to just 'build better economic models'.

    The Central Bankers' models can include all the parameters they can dream up, but until someone starts thinking more clearly about the role and function of money, and the way that 'different kinds of money' create 'different kinds of social relationships', we are all in a world of hurt.

    At this point, Central Bankers should also ask themselves what happens - socially, personally - when 'debt' (i.e., financialization) shifts from productivity to predation. That shift accelerated from the 1970s, through the 1990s, into the 2000s.

    Allowing anyone to charge interest that is usurious is the modern equivalent of turning a blind eye to slavery.

    By enabling outrageous interest, any government hands their hard working taxpayers over to what is essentially unending servitude.

    This destroys the political power of any government that engages in such blind stupidity.

    Frankly, I'm astonished that it has taken so long for taxpayers to show signs of outrage and revolt.

    fresno dan , December 24, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    readerOfTeaLeaves

    December 24, 2016 at 11:14 am

    I think you have come up with a good insight – I very much agree its about power and not money.

    Now, maybe it is just a coincidence, but it is hard for me not to notice that the explosion in consumer credit matches up nicely with the rise in inequality.

    And one other thing I would point out – it doesn't take usurious interest rates. If squillionaires have access to unlimited, essentially cost free money in which the distributors of money are guaranteed a profit, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY HAVE LOST, while the debts on non-squillionaires are collected with fees, penalties, and to the last dime, than it doesn't matter if interest rates are essentially zero.

    Who gets bailed out is not due to logic or accounting that says that the banks' losses have to be made whole, but not home owners – that is an ideology called economics .

    [Dec 24, 2016] If the 2018 elections will not be converted to verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing of all close elections, then it is clear that the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies

    Notable quotes:
    "... Another thing: it will be clear how serious they take the allegations of Russian hacking, by how they address the problem of auditing electronic voting machines. ..."
    "... If the 2018 elections aren't all with voter verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing and auditing all close elections, we know the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies. ..."
    Dec 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    John M -> John M ... December 23, 2016 at 07:17 PM

    Another thing: it will be clear how serious they take the allegations of Russian hacking, by how they address the problem of auditing electronic voting machines.

    If the 2018 elections aren't all with voter verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing and auditing all close elections, we know the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies.

    [Dec 23, 2016] Has The CIA Been Politicized

    Notable quotes:
    "... The use of the term, however, rather naďvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed. ..."
    "... Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers. ..."
    "... Does the organization depend on taxpayer funding for a substantial amount of its budget? ..."
    "... Does the organization engage in what would be illegal activities were it not for protective government legislation? ..."
    Dec 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    Anonymous leakers at the CIA continue to make claims about Russia and the 2016 election. In response to demands to provide evidence, the CIA has declined to offer any, refusing to meet with Congressional intelligence committees, and refusing to issue any documents offering evidence. Instead, the CIA, communicating via leaks, simply says the equivalent of "trust us."

    Not troubled by the lack of evidence, many in the media and in the Democratic party have been repeating unsubstantiated CIA claims as fact.

    Of course, as I've noted before , the history of CIA intelligence is largely a history of missing the forest for the trees. Sometimes, the failures have been spectacular.

    One of the questions that immediately arises in the media in situations like these, however, is " has the CIA been politicized ?"

    When used in this way, the term "politicized" means that the CIA is involved in helping or hurting specific political factions (e,g., specific ideological groups, pressure groups, or presidential administrations) in order to strengthen the CIA's financial or political standing.

    All Government Agencies Are Politicized

    The use of the term, however, rather naďvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed.

    Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers.

    This idea might seem plausible to school children in junior-high-school civics classes, but not to anyone who lives in the real world.

    In fact, if we wish to ascertain whether or not an institution or organization is "politicized" we can simply ask ourselves a few questions:

    If the answer to any of these questions is "yes" then you are probably dealing with a politicized organization. If the answer to all of these questions is "yes" - as is the case with the CIA - then you're definitely dealing with a very politicized organization. (Other "non-political" organizations that fall well within this criteria as well include so-called "private" organizations such as the Federal Reserve System and Fannie Mae.)

    So, it has always been foolish to ask ourselves if the CIA is "politicized" since the answer is obviously "yes" for anyone who is paying attention.

    Nevertheless, the myth that the CIA and agencies like it can be non-political continues to endure, although in many cases, the charge has produced numerous helpful historical analysis of just how politicized the CIA has been in practice.

    Recent Narratives on CIA Politicization

    Stories of CIA politicization take at least two forms: One type consists of anti-CIA writers attempting to illustrate how the CIA acts to manipulate political actors to achieve its own political ends. The other type consists of pro-CIA writers attempting to cast the CIA as an innocent victim of manipulation by senior Washington officials.

    Of course, it doesn't matter whether the provenance of CIA politicking comes from within the agency or outside it. In both cases, the fact remains that the Agency is a tool for political actors to deceive, manipulate, and attack political enemies.

    With CIA leaks apparently attempting to call the integrity of the 2016 election into question, the CIA is once again being accused of politicization. Consequently, articles in the Washington Times , the Daily Caller , and The Intercept all question the CIA's motivation and present numerous examples of the Agency's history of deception.

    The current controversy is hardly the first time the Agency has been accused of being political, and during the build up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, for example, the CIA worked with the Bush Administration to essentially manufacture "intelligence."

    In his book Failure of Intelligence , Melvin Allan Goodman writes:

    Three years after the invasion of Iraq, a senior CIA analyst, Paul Pillar, documented the efforts of the Bush administration to politicize the intelligence of the CIA on Iraqi WMD and so-called links between Iraq and al Qaeda. Pillar accused the Bush administration of using policy to drive intelligence production, which was the same argument offered by the chief of British intelligence in the Downing Street memorandum prior to the war, and aggressively using intelligence to win public support for the decision to go to war....Pillar does not explain why no senior CIA official protested, let alone resigned in the wake of the president's misuse of intelligence on Iraq's so-called efforts to obtain uranium ore in Africa. Pillar falsely claimed "for the most part, the intelligence community's own substantive judgments do not appear to have been compromised," when it was clear that the CIA wa wrong on every conclusion and had to politicize the intelligence to be so egregiously wrong."

    Since then, CIA officials have attempted to rehabilitate the agency by claiming the agency was the hapless victim of the Administration. But, as Goodman notes, we heard no protests from the Agency when such protests would have actually mattered, and the fact is the Agency was easily used for political ends. Whether or not some agents wanted to participate in assisting the Bush administration with trumping up evidence against Iraq remains irrelevant. The fact remains the CIA did it.

    Moreover, according to documents compiled by John Prados at the George Washington University , "The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported" and that "Under the circumstances, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the CIA and other intelligence agencies defended themselves against the dangers of attack from the Bush administration through a process of self-censorship. That is the very essence of politicization in intelligence."

    In other words, to protect its own budgets and privileges, the CIA reacted quickly to shape its intelligence to meet the political goals of others.

    Journalist Robert Parry has also attempted to go the CIA-as-victim route in his own writings. In an article written before the Iraq War debacle, Parry looks at how the Agency was used by both Reagan and Clinton, and claims that what is arguably of the CIA's biggest analytical errors - repeatedly overstating the economic strength of the Soviet Union - was the result of pressure applied to the Agency by the Reagan administration. (Parry may be mistaken here, as the CIA was wrong about the Soviet economy long before the Reagan Administration .)

    While attempting to defend the CIA, however, Parry is merely providing a list of the many ways in which the CIA serves to manufacture false information that are useful for political officials.

    In this essay for the Center for International Policy, Goodman further lists many examples of politicization and concludes "Throughout the CIA's 60-year history, there have been many efforts to slant analytical conclusions, skew estimates, and repress evidence that challenged a particular policy or point of view. As a result, the agency must recognize the impact of politicization and introduce barriers to protect analysts from political pressures. Unfortunately, the CIA has largely ignored the problem."

    It is difficult to ascertain whether past intelligence failures were due to pressure form the administration or whether they originated from within the Agency itself. Nevertheless, the intelligence failures are numerous, including:

    The fact that politicization occurs might help explain some of these failures, but simply claiming "politicization" doesn't erase the legacy of failure, and it hardly serves as an argument in favor of allowing the CIA to continue to command huge budgets and essentially function unsupervised. Regardless of fanciful claims of non-political professionalism, it is undeniable that, as an agency of the US government, the CIA is a political institution.

    The only type of organization that is not politicized is a private-sector organization under a relatively laissez-faire regime. Heavily regulated private industries and all government agencies are politicized by nature because they depend heavily on active assistance from political actors to sustain themselves.

    It should be assumed that politicized organizations seek to influence policymakers, and thus all the actions and claims of these organization should be treated with skepticism and a recognition that these organizations benefit from further taxation and expanded government powers inflicted on ordinary taxpayers and other productive members of society outside the privileged circles of Washington, DC.

    Perimetr -> Chupacabra-322 •Dec 23, 2016 11:34 AM
    Is the CIA politicized?

    ...Is the pope catholic?

    How many more presidents does the CIA have to kill to answer your question?

    Oldwood -> DownWithYogaPants •Dec 23, 2016 11:26 AM
    How could the CIA NOT be politicized? They collect "intelligence" and use it to influence policy makers without ANY accountability and no real proof. The CIA operates on CONJECTURE that is completely subjective to bias and agenda. Is that ANYTHING BUT political?
    TeaClipper's picture -> TeaClipper •Dec 23, 2016 11:24 AM
    The CIA was not wrong about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, it lied about them. That is a very big distinction.
    Old Poor Richard •Dec 23, 2016 12:13 PM
    The question is whether the CIA is puppeteer and not the puppet.

    The Snowden report, jam packed with provably false scurrilous accusations, demonstrates that not only is the US intelligence community entirely lacking in credibility, but that they believe themselves so powerful that they can indefinitely get away with baldfaced lies.

    The thing is, the deep state can only keep up the charade when they completely control the narrative, the way China does. Hence the attacks on the first amendment that are accelerating as fast as the attacks on the second amendment. Majority of Americans don't believe the Russian hacking hoax and it make the CIA increasingly hysterical.

    DarthVaderMentor •Dec 23, 2016 12:33 PM
    The CIA has been politicized. In fact, all the way down to the COS level, and in concert with the State Department. Brennan and Moran are nothing but Clinton surrogates.

    In one embassy in a country where IEDs keep blowing up, there were millions of taxpayer dollars spent and continue to be spent in "safe spaces" and "comfort food and liquor" inside an embassy (taking away space from the US Marine Giuards for it) to let "Democrat snowflakes" in senior embassy and CIA positions recover from the Trump elections.

    The real reaon for the loss of the Phillipines as an ally may eventually come out that a gay senior embassy official made a pass at the President of the country. Just like it happened with the gay ambassador in the Dominican Republic.

    That Libral You Hate •Dec 23, 2016 12:41 PM
    I would say the simple answer to the question asked in the headline of this article is "yes" but it is important to actually understand the nuance of the langer answer.

    The critical nuance is that: politics didn't conquor the CIA, but rather the CIA injected itself into politics. I.e. the CIA aren't political stooges, but act political because they have injected political stooges into politics and they have to act political to protect them to protect their interests. Thus while the answer is "yes" the question is phrased wrong as: "Has the CIA Been Politicized," the appropriate question is "Has politics been co-opted by the CIA"

    insanelysane •Dec 23, 2016 12:50 PM
    The first post is spot on except the CIA was in Southeast Asia stirring stuff up to get us into a war. War is big business.

    The entire reason for Vietnam was "If Vietnam falls the commies will be marching down Main Street USA afterwards."

    Well we fucking lost Vietnam and the commies still aren't marching down Main Street and yet the assessment is still being peddled by the Corporation.

    Kennedy was killed because, even though he was fucking totally drugged up, he still saw Vietnam for what it was.

    The Corporation gave Johnson and offer he couldn't refuse, take the keys to the kingdom, just keep "fighting" in Vietnam. I say fighting because we were just fucking around there. No one in charge wanted to risk winning the war.

    And here we are today, 23rd, December, 2016, "fighting" in the Middle East and the Corporation not willing to risk winning the war. Just need to keep it hot enough for the weapons and ammunition to be used in a nice steady pace to keep business going.

    [Dec 23, 2016] CIA Director John Brennan may face investigation for leaking Russian hacker story to the Washington Post

    theduran.com
    Fox Business News discusses a potential investigation involving CIA Director John Brennan over whether he leaked information about the Russian hacking investigation to the media

    John Brennan takes his cues directly from Barack Obama, which means the entire CIA, Russian hack investigation, was initiated and conducted under Obama's direct order.

    The Russian hack, media spin, has been and remains a political play. National security has very little to do with it.

    [Dec 23, 2016] This is the time for stronger, more interventionist in internal policy state and the suppression of financial oligarchy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Democratic party under Bill Clinton became yet another neoliberal party (soft neoliberals) and betrayed both organized labour and middle class in favour of financial oligarchy. ..."
    "... The cynical calculation was that "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrats anyway. And that was true up to and including election of "change we can believe in" guy. After this attempt of yet another Clinton-style "bait and switch" trick failed. ..."
    "... Now it is clear that far right picked up large part of those votes. So in a way Bill Clinton is the godfather of the US far right renaissances. The same is true for Hillary: her "kick the can down the road" stance made victory of Trump possible (although it surprised me; I expected that neoliberals were still strong enough to push their candidate down the US people throat) ..."
    "... Under "democrat" Obama the USA pursued imperial policy of creating global neoliberal empire. The foreign policy remained essentially unchanged. Neocons were partially replaced with "liberal interventionists" which is the same staff in a different bottle. This policy costs the US tremendous amount of money and it is probable that the US is going the way British empire went -- overextending itself. ..."
    "... Regional currency blocks are now a reality and arrangements bypass the usage of US dollar if international trade are common. They are now in place between several large countries such as Russia and China and absolutely nothing can reverse this trend. So dollar became virtualized -- a kind of "conversion gauge" but without profits for real conversion national currency to dollars for major TBTF banks. ..."
    Dec 23, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fed C. Dobbs : , December 23, 2016 at 02:16 PM
    (So, how long will the
    post-inaugural honeymoon last?
    I'd give it no more than a month.
    Then what? I dunno, but nothing good.)

    Reality TV Populism
    http://nyti.ms/2i72Rol
    NYT - Paul Krugman - Dec 23

    This Washington Post article on Poland - where a right-wing, anti-intellectual, nativist party now rules, and has garnered a lot of public support - is chilling for those of us who worry that Trump_vs_deep_state may really be the end of the road for US democracy. The supporters of Law and Justice clearly looked a lot like Trump's white working class enthusiasts; so are we headed down the same path?

    (In Poland, a window on what happens when
    populists come to power http://wpo.st/aHJO2
    Washington Post - Anthony Faiola - December 18)

    Well, there's an important difference - a bit of American exceptionalism, if you like. Europe's populist parties are actually populist; they pursue policies that really do help workers, as long as those workers are the right color and ethnicity. As someone put it, they're selling a herrenvolk welfare state. Law and Justice has raised minimum wages and reduced the retirement age; France's National Front advocates the same things.

    Trump, however, is different. He said lots of things on the campaign trail, but his personnel choices indicate that in practice he's going to be a standard hard-line economic-right Republican. His Congressional allies are revving up to dismantle Obamacare, privatize Medicare, and raise the retirement age. His pick for Labor Secretary is a fast-food tycoon who loathes minimum wage hikes. And his pick for top economic advisor is the king of trickle-down.

    So in what sense is Trump a populist? Basically, he plays one on TV - he claims to stand for the common man, disparages elites, trashes political correctness; but it's all for show. When it comes to substance, he's pro-elite all the way.

    It's infuriating and dismaying that he managed to get away with this in the election. But that was all big talk. What happens when reality begins to hit? Repealing Obamacare will inflict huge harm on precisely the people who were most enthusiastic Trump supporters - people who somehow believed that their benefits would be left intact. What happens when they realize their mistake?

    I wish I were confident in a coming moment of truth. I'm not. Given history, what we can count on is a massive effort to spin the coming working-class devastation as somehow being the fault of liberals, and for all I know it might work. (Think of how Britain's Tories managed to shift blame for austerity onto Labour's mythical fiscal irresponsibility.) But there is certainly an opportunity for Democrats coming.

    And the indicated political strategy is clear: make Trump and company own all the hardship they're about to inflict. No cooperation in devising an Obamacare replacement; no votes for Medicare privatization and increasing the retirement age. No bipartisan cover for the end of the TV illusion and the coming of plain old, ugly reality.

    anne -> Fed C. Dobbs... , December 23, 2016 at 02:23 PM
    Correcting the date:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/reality-tv-populism/

    December 19, 2016

    Reality TV Populism
    By Paul Krugman

    likbez : , -1
    Two points:

    Point 1:

    Democratic party under Bill Clinton became yet another neoliberal party (soft neoliberals) and betrayed both organized labour and middle class in favour of financial oligarchy.

    The cynical calculation was that "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrats anyway. And that was true up to and including election of "change we can believe in" guy. After this attempt of yet another Clinton-style "bait and switch" trick failed.

    Now it is clear that far right picked up large part of those votes. So in a way Bill Clinton is the godfather of the US far right renaissances. The same is true for Hillary: her "kick the can down the road" stance made victory of Trump possible (although it surprised me; I expected that neoliberals were still strong enough to push their candidate down the US people throat)

    Point 2:

    Under "democrat" Obama the USA pursued imperial policy of creating global neoliberal empire. The foreign policy remained essentially unchanged. Neocons were partially replaced with "liberal interventionists" which is the same staff in a different bottle. This policy costs the US tremendous amount of money and it is probable that the US is going the way British empire went -- overextending itself.

    Regional currency blocks are now a reality and arrangements bypass the usage of US dollar if international trade are common. They are now in place between several large countries such as Russia and China and absolutely nothing can reverse this trend. So dollar became virtualized -- a kind of "conversion gauge" but without profits for real conversion national currency to dollars for major TBTF banks.

    So if we think about Iraq war as the way to prevent to use euro as alternative to dollar in oil sales that goal was not achieved and all blood and treasure were wasted.

    In this sense it would be difficult to Trump to continue with "bastard neoliberalism" both in foreign policy and domestically and betray his election promises because they reflected real problems facing the USA and are the cornerstone of his political support.

    Also in this case neocons establishment will simply get rid of him one way or the other. I hope that he understand this danger and will avoid trimming Social Security.

    Returning to Democratic Party betrayal of interests of labour, Krugman hissy fit signifies that he does not understand the current political situation. Neoliberal wing of Democratic Party is now bankrupt both morally and politically. Trump election was the last nail into Bill Clinton political legacy coffin.

    Now we returned to essentially the same political process that took place after the Great Depression, with much weaker political leaders, this time. So this is the time for stronger, more interventionist in internal policy state and the suppression of financial oligarchy. If Trump does not understand this he is probably doomed and will not last long.

    That's why I think Trump inspired far right renaissance will continue and the political role of military might dramatically increase. And politically Trump is the hostage of this renaissance. Flint appointment in this sense is just the first swallow of increased role of military leaders in government.

    [Dec 23, 2016] The Case for Protecting Infant Industries

    Notable quotes:
    "... The fact remains, however, that every single developed country got there by using protectionist policies to nurture the develop local industries. Protectionism in developed countries does have strongly negative consequences, but it is beneficial for developing economies. ..."
    "... You are exactly right about Japan and I lived through that period. Please name one advanced economy which did not rely on protectionist laws to support domestic industries. All of the European industrial countries did it. The US did it. Japan and Korea did it. China is currently doing it and India has done it. ..."
    "... Nobody cared about US labor or about hollowing out the US economy. Krugman frequently noted that the benefits to investors and 'strategic' considerations for free trade were more important that job losses. ..."
    "... This extra demand for dollars as a commodity is what drives the price of the dollar higher, leading to the strategic benefits and economic hollowing out that I noted above. ..."
    "... There really is no "post-industrialization era", no matter what fantasies the FIRE sector wants to sell. To the extent there is, the existing global trade agreements (including the WTO, World Bank, IMF, and related organization) accomplish that as well by privileging the position of first world capital. ..."
    "... "Over the long haul, clearly automation's been much more important - it's not even close," said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard who studies labor and technological change. No candidate talked much about automation on the campaign trail. Technology is not as convenient a villain as China or Mexico, there is no clear way to stop it, and many of the technology companies are in the United States and benefit the country in many ways. ..."
    "... Globalization is clearly responsible for some of the job losses, particularly trade with China during the 2000s, which led to the rapid loss of 2 million to 2.4 million net jobs, according to research by economists including Daron Acemoglu and David Autor of M.I.T. ..."
    "... People who work in parts of the country most affected by imports generally have greater unemployment and reduced income for the rest of their lives, Mr. Autor found in a paper published in January. Still, over time, automation has had a far bigger effect than globalization, and would have eventually eliminated those jobs anyway, he said in an interview. "Some of it is globalization, but a lot of it is we require many fewer workers to do the same amount of work," he said. "Workers are basically supervisors of machines." ..."
    "... Clarification of 3: that is, infant industry protection as traditionally done, i.e. "picking winners", won't help. What would help is structural changes that make things relatively easier for small enterprises and relatively harder for large ones. ..."
    "... Making direct lobbying of state and federal politicians by industry groups and companies a crime punishable by 110% taxation of net income on all the participants would be a start. ..."
    "... "Over time, automation has generally had a happy ending: As it has displaced jobs, it has created new ones. But some experts are beginning to worry that this time could be different. Even as the economy has improved, jobs and wages for a large segment of workers - particularly men without college degrees doing manual labor - have not recovered." ..."
    "... So why have manufacturing jobs plummeted since 2000? One answer is that the current account deficit is the wrong figure, since it also includes our surplus in trade in services. If you just look at goods, the deficit is closer to 4.2% of GDP. ..."
    "... trade interacts with automation. Not only do we lose jobs in manufacturing to automation, but trade leads us to re-orient our production toward goods that use relatively less labor (tech, aircraft, chemicals, farm produces, etc.), while we import goods like clothing, furniture and autos. ..."
    "... There are industries that are closely connected with the sovereignty of the country. That's what neoliberals tend to ignore as they, being closet Trotskyites ("Financial oligarchy of all countries unite!" instead of "Proletarian of all countries unite!" ;-) do not value sovereignty and are hell bent on the Permanent Neoliberal Revolution to bring other countries into neoliberal fold (in the form of color revolutions, or for smaller countries, direct invasions like in Iraq and Libya ). ..."
    "... Neoliberal commenters here demonstrate complete detachment from the fact that like war is an extension of politics, while politics is an extension of economics. For example, denying imports can and is often used for political pressure. ..."
    "... Now Trump want to play this game selectively designating China as "evil empire" and providing a carrot for Russia. Will it works, or Russia can be wiser then donkeys, I do not know. ..."
    "... The US propagandists usually call counties on which they impose sanction authoritarian dictatorships to make such actions more politically correct, but the fact remains: The USA as a global hegemon enjoys using economic pressure to crush dissidents and put vassals in line. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism as a social system is past it pinnacle and that creates some problems for the USA as the central player in the neoliberal world. The triumphal march of neoliberalism over the globe ended almost a decade ago. ..."
    Dec 23, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Noah Smith:
    The Case for Protecting Infant Industries : I must say, it's been almost breathtaking to see how fast the acceptable terms of debate have shifted on the subject of trade. Thanks partly to President-elect Donald Trump's populism and partly to academic research showing that the costs of free trade could be higher than anyone predicted, economics commentators are now happy to lambast the entire idea of trade. I don't want to do that -- I think a nuanced middle ground is best. But I do think it's worth reevaluating one idea that the era of economic dogmatism had seemingly consigned to the junk pile -- the notion of infant-industry protectionism. ...
    DrDick -> pgl...

    The fact remains, however, that every single developed country got there by using protectionist policies to nurture the develop local industries. Protectionism in developed countries does have strongly negative consequences, but it is beneficial for developing economies.

    DrDick -> sanjait... , December 22, 2016 at 04:52 PM
    You are exactly right about Japan and I lived through that period. Please name one advanced economy which did not rely on protectionist laws to support domestic industries. All of the European industrial countries did it. The US did it. Japan and Korea did it. China is currently doing it and India has done it.
    JohnH -> pgl... , -1
    Japan and other developed countries took advantage of the strong dollar/reserve currency, which provided their industries de facto protection from US exports along with a price umbrella that allowed them export by undercutting prices on US domestic products. The strong dollar was viewed as a strategic benefit to the US, since it allowed former rivals to develop their economies while making them dependent on the US consumer market, the largest in the world. The strong dollar also allowed the US to establish bases and fight foreign wars on the cheap, while allowing Wall Street to buy foreign economies' crown jewels on the cheap.

    Nobody cared about US labor or about hollowing out the US economy. Krugman frequently noted that the benefits to investors and 'strategic' considerations for free trade were more important that job losses.

    JohnH -> anne... , December 22, 2016 at 05:06 PM
    Even pgl's guy, Milton Friedman, recognized that "overseas demand for dollars allows the United States to maintain persistent trade deficits without causing the value of the currency to depreciate or the flow of trade to re-adjust."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_use_of_the_U.S._dollar

    This extra demand for dollars as a commodity is what drives the price of the dollar higher, leading to the strategic benefits and economic hollowing out that I noted above.

    John San Vant -> JohnH... , -1
    That is because you get a persistent trade surplus in services, which offsets the "Goods" trade deficit. The currency depreciated in the 2000's because said surplus in services began to decline creating a real trade deficit.
    DrDick -> Mike Sparrow... , December 22, 2016 at 04:57 PM
    "What about the post-industrialization era?"

    There really is no "post-industrialization era", no matter what fantasies the FIRE sector wants to sell. To the extent there is, the existing global trade agreements (including the WTO, World Bank, IMF, and related organization) accomplish that as well by privileging the position of first world capital.

    anne -> DrDick... , -1
    There really is no "post-industrialization era", no matter what fantasies the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sectors want to sell....

    [ Interesting assertion. Do develop this further. ]

    Greg : , -1
    The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China. It's Automation.
    ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs-killer-is-not-china-its-automation.html?ref=economy&_r=0 )

    1. I'm moderately surprised that this piece hasn't shown up in Links.

    2. The Lump of Labor Fallacy is exposed as a fallacy - Sandwichman has been right all along.

    3. Infant industry protection won't help in this environment

    anne -> Greg... , December 22, 2016 at 01:08 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs-killer-is-not-china-its-automation.html

    December 21, 2016

    The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China. It's Automation.

    By Claire Cain Miller

    The first job that Sherry Johnson, 56, lost to automation was at the local newspaper in Marietta, Ga., where she fed paper into the printing machines and laid out pages. Later, she watched machines learn to do her jobs on a factory floor making breathing machines, and in inventory and filing.

    "It actually kind of ticked me off because it's like, How are we supposed to make a living?" she said. She took a computer class at Goodwill, but it was too little too late. "The 20- and 30-year-olds are more up to date on that stuff than we are because we didn't have that when we were growing up," said Ms. Johnson, who is now on disability and lives in a housing project in Jefferson City, Tenn.

    Donald J. Trump told workers like Ms. Johnson that he would bring back their jobs by clamping down on trade, offshoring and immigration. But economists say the bigger threat to their jobs has been something else: automation.

    "Over the long haul, clearly automation's been much more important - it's not even close," said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard who studies labor and technological change. No candidate talked much about automation on the campaign trail. Technology is not as convenient a villain as China or Mexico, there is no clear way to stop it, and many of the technology companies are in the United States and benefit the country in many ways.

    Mr. Trump told a group of tech company leaders last Wednesday: "We want you to keep going with the incredible innovation. Anything we can do to help this go along, we're going to be there for you."

    Andrew F. Puzder, Mr. Trump's pick for labor secretary and chief executive of CKE Restaurants, extolled the virtues of robot employees over the human kind in an interview with Business Insider in March. "They're always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there's never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex or race discrimination case," he said.

    Globalization is clearly responsible for some of the job losses, particularly trade with China during the 2000s, which led to the rapid loss of 2 million to 2.4 million net jobs, according to research by economists including Daron Acemoglu and David Autor of M.I.T.

    People who work in parts of the country most affected by imports generally have greater unemployment and reduced income for the rest of their lives, Mr. Autor found in a paper published in January. Still, over time, automation has had a far bigger effect than globalization, and would have eventually eliminated those jobs anyway, he said in an interview. "Some of it is globalization, but a lot of it is we require many fewer workers to do the same amount of work," he said. "Workers are basically supervisors of machines."

    When Greg Hayes, the chief executive of United Technologies, agreed to invest $16 million in one of its Carrier factories as part of a Trump deal to keep some jobs in Indiana instead of moving them to Mexico, he said the money would go toward automation.

    "What that ultimately means is there will be fewer jobs," he said on CNBC....

    Greg -> Greg... , December 22, 2016 at 01:08 PM
    Clarification of 3: that is, infant industry protection as traditionally done, i.e. "picking winners", won't help. What would help is structural changes that make things relatively easier for small enterprises and relatively harder for large ones.

    Making direct lobbying of state and federal politicians by industry groups and companies a crime punishable by 110% taxation of net income on all the participants would be a start.

    anne -> Greg... , December 22, 2016 at 01:09 PM
    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/what-s-different-about-stagnating-wages-for-workers-without-college-degrees

    December 21, 2016

    What's Different About Stagnating Wages for Workers Without College Degrees

    There seems to be a great effort to convince people that the displacement due to the trade deficit over the last fifteen years didn't really happen. The New York Times contributed to this effort with a piece * telling readers that over the long-run job loss has been primarily due to automation not trade.

    While the impact of automation over a long enough period of time certainly swamps the impact of trade, over the last 20 years there is little doubt that the impact of the exploding trade deficit has had more of an impact on employment. To make this one as simple as possible, we currently have a trade deficit of roughly $460 billion (@ 2.6 percent of GDP). Suppose we had balanced trade instead, making up this gap with increased manufacturing output.

    Does the NYT want to tell us that we could increase our output of manufactured goods by $460 billion, or just under 30 percent, without employing more workers in manufacturing? That would be pretty impressive. We currently employ more than 12 million workers in manufacturing, if moving to balanced trade increase employment by just 15 percent we would be talking about 1.8 million jobs. That is not trivial.

    But this is not the only part of the story that is strange. We are getting hyped up fears over automation even at a time when productivity growth (i.e. automation) has slowed to a crawl, averaging just 1.0 percent annually over the last decade. The NYT tells readers:

    "Over time, automation has generally had a happy ending: As it has displaced jobs, it has created new ones. But some experts are beginning to worry that this time could be different. Even as the economy has improved, jobs and wages for a large segment of workers - particularly men without college degrees doing manual labor - have not recovered."

    Hmmm, this time could be different? How so? The average hourly wage of men with just a high school degree was 13 percent less in 2000 than in 1973. ** For workers with some college it was down by more than 2.0 percent. In fact, stagnating wages for men without college degrees is not something new and different, it has been going on for more than forty years. Hasn't this news gotten to the NYT yet?

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs-killer-is-not-china-its-automation.html

    ** http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-table-4-15-hourly-wages-men-education/

    -- Dean Baker

    Peter K. : , -1
    http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/inequality-technology-globalization-and-the-false-assumptions-that-sustain-current-inequities/

    Inequality, technology, globalization, and the false assumptions that sustain current inequities

    by Jared Bernstein

    December 22nd, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    Here's a great interview* with inequality scholar Branko Milanovic wherein he brings a much-needed historical and international perspective to the debate (h/t: C. Marr). Many of Branko's points are familiar to my readers: yes, increased trade has upsides, for both advanced and emerging economies. But it's not hard to find significant swaths hurt by globalization, particularly workers in rich economies who've been placed into competition with those in poorer countries. The fact that little has been done to help them is one reason for president-elect Trump.

    As Milanovic puts it:

    "The problems with globalization arise from the fact that gains from it are not (and can never be) evenly distributed. There would be always those who gain less than some others, or those who lose even in absolute terms. But to whom can they "appeal" for redress? Only to their national governments because this is how the world is politically organized. Thus national governments have to engage in "mop up" operations to fix the negative effects of globalization. And this they have not done well, led as they were by the belief that the trickle-down economics will take care of it. We know it did not."

    But I'd like to focus on a related point from Branko's interview, one that gets less attention: the question of whether it was really exposure to global trade or to labor-saving technology that is most responsible for displacing workers. What's the real problem here: is it the trade deficit or the robots?

    Branko cogently argues that "both technological change and economic polices responded to globalization. The nature of recent technological progress would have been different if you could not employ labor 10,000 miles away from your home base." Their interaction makes their relative contributions hard to pull apart.

    I'd argue that the rise of trade with China, from the 1990s to the 2007 crash, played a significant role in moving US manufacturing employment from its steady average of around 17 million factory jobs from around 1970 to 2000, to an average today that's about 5 million less (see figure below; of course, manufacturing employment was falling as a share of total jobs over this entire period).

    ....

    * https://newrepublic.com/article/139432/understand-2016s-politics-look-winners-losers-globalization

    Peter K. : , -1
    market monetarist Scott Sumner makes a good point about the post-war years.

    http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=32214

    Do current account deficits cost jobs

    Over at Econlog I have a post that suggests the answer is no, CA deficits do not cost jobs.

    But suppose I'm wrong, and suppose they do cost jobs. In that case, trade has been a major net contributor to American jobs during the 21st century, as our deficit was about 4% of GDP during the 2000 tech boom, and as large as 6% of GDP during the 2006 housing boom. Today it is only 2.6% of GDP. So if you really believe that rising trade deficits cost jobs, you'd be forced to believe that the shrinking deficits since 2000 have created jobs.

    So why have manufacturing jobs plummeted since 2000? One answer is that the current account deficit is the wrong figure, since it also includes our surplus in trade in services. If you just look at goods, the deficit is closer to 4.2% of GDP.

    But even that doesn't really explain very much, because it's slightly lower than the 4.35% of GDP trade deficit in goods back in 2000. So again, the big loss of manufacturing jobs is something of a mystery. Yes, we import more goods than we used to, but exports of goods have risen at about the same rate since 2000. So why does it seem like trade has devastated our manufacturing sector?

    Perhaps because trade interacts with automation. Not only do we lose jobs in manufacturing to automation, but trade leads us to re-orient our production toward goods that use relatively less labor (tech, aircraft, chemicals, farm produces, etc.), while we import goods like clothing, furniture and autos.

    So trade and automation are both parts of a bigger trend, Schumpeterian creative destruction, which is transforming big areas of our economy. It's especially painful as during the earlier period of automation (say 1950-2000) the physical output of goods was still rising fast. So the blow of automation was partly cushioned by a rise in output. (Although not in the coal and steel industries!) Since 2000, however, we've seen slower growth in physical output for a number of reasons, including slower workforce growth, a shift to a service economy, and a home building recession (which normally absorbs manufactured goods like home appliances, carpet, etc.) We are producing more goods than ever, but with dramatically fewer workers.

    Update: Steve Cicala sent me a very interesting piece on coal that he had published in Forbes. Ironically, environmental regulations actually helped West Virginia miners, by forcing utilities to install scrubbers that cleaned up emissions from the dirtier West Virginia coal. (Wyoming coal has less sulfur.) He also discusses the issue of competition from natural gas.

    If Economists hadn't ignored US and World Economic History they would have had a clue : , December 22, 2016 at 07:53 PM
    The historical record is totally unambiguous. Protectionism always leads to wealth and industrial development. Free trade leads you to the third world. This was true four hundred years ago with mercantilist England and the navigation acts; it was true with Lincoln's tariffs in the 1860's, it was true of East Asia post 1945.

    Economists better abandon silly free trade if they want to have any credibility and not be seen as quacks.

    Peter K. : , -1
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-tariffs/

    Trump team floats a 10% tariff on imports

    By John King and Jeremy Diamond, CNN

    Updated 3:57 PM ET, Thu December 22, 2016

    Washington (CNN)President-elect Donald Trump's transition team is discussing a proposal to impose tariffs as high as 10% on imports, according to multiple sources.

    A senior Trump transition official said Thursday the team is mulling up to a 10% tariff aimed at spurring US manufacturing, which could be implemented via executive action or as part of a sweeping tax reform package they would push through Congress.

    Incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus floated a 5% tariff on imports in meetings with key Washington players last week, according to two sources who represent business interests in Washington. But the senior transition official who spoke to CNN Thursday on the condition of anonymity said the higher figure is now in play.

    Such a move would deliver on Trump's "America First" campaign theme, but risks drawing the US into a trade war with other countries and driving up the cost of consumer goods in the US. And it's causing alarm among business interests and the pro-trade Republican establishment.

    The senior transition official said the transition team is beginning to find "common ground" with House Speaker Paul Ryan and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, pointing in particular to the border adjustment tax measure included in House Republicans' "Better Way" tax reform proposal, which would disincentivize imports through tax policy.

    Aides to Ryan and Brady declined to say they had "common ground" with Trump, but acknowledged they are in deep discussions with transition staffers on the issue.

    Curbing free trade was a central element of Trump's campaign. He promised to rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada. He also vowed to take a tougher line against other international trading partners, almost always speaking harshly of China but often including traditional US allies such as Japan in his complaint that American workers get the short end of the stick under current trade practices.

    Gulf with GOP establishment

    It is an area where there is a huge gulf between Trump's stated positions and traditional GOP orthodoxy. Business groups and GOP establishment figures -- including Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- have been hoping the transition from the campaign to governing would bring a different approach.

    Ryan did signal in a CNBC interview earlier this month that Trump's goals of spurring US manufacturing could be accomplished through "comprehensive tax reform."

    "I'll tell him what I've been saying all along, which is we can get at what he's trying to get at better through comprehensive tax reform," Ryan said.

    The pro-business GOP establishment says the new Trump administration could make clear it would withdraw from NAFTA unless Canada and Mexico entered new talks to modernize the agreement to reflect today's economy. That would allow Trump to say he kept a promise to make the agreement fairer to American workers without starting a trade war and exacerbating tensions with America's neighbors and vital economic partners.

    But there remain establishment jitters that Trump, who views his tough trade message as critical to his election victory, will look for ways to make an early statement that he is serious about reshaping the trade playing field.

    And when Priebus told key Washington players that the transition is mulling a 5% tariff on imports, the reaction was one of fierce opposition, according to two sources who represent business interests in Washington and spoke on condition of anonymity because the conversations with the Trump team were confidential.

    Priebus, the sources said, was warned such a move could start trade wars, anger allies, and also hurt the new administration's effort to boost the rate of economic growth right out of the gate.

    Role of Wilbur Ross

    One of the sources said he viewed the idea as a trial balloon when first raised, and considered it dead on arrival given the strong reaction in the business community -- and the known opposition to such protectionist ideas among the GOP congressional leadership.

    But this source voiced new alarm Tuesday after being told by allies within the Trump transition that defending new tariffs was part of the confirmation "murder board" practice of Wilbur Ross, the President-elect's choice for commerce secretary.

    At least one business community organization is worried enough about the prospect of the tariff it already has prepared talking points, obtained by CNN Wednesday night.

    "This $100 billion tax on American consumers and industry would impose heavy costs on the US economy, particularly for the manufacturing sector and American workers, with highly negative political repercussions," according to the talking points. "Rather than using a trade policy sledgehammer that would inflict serious collateral damage, the Trump administration should use the scalpel of US trade remedy law to achieve its goals."

    The talking points also claim the tariffs would lead to American job loss and result in a tax to consumers, both of which would harm the US economy.

    Trump aides have signaled that Ross is likely to be a more influential player in trade negotiations than recent Commerce secretaries. Given that, the aides know his confirmation hearings are likely to include tough questioning -- from both Democrats and Republicans -- about Trump's trade-related campaign promises.

    "The way it was cast to me was that (Trump) and Ross are all over it," said one source. "It is serious."

    The second source was less certain about whether the tariff idea was serious or just part of a vigorous debate about policy options. But this source said the unpredictability of Trump and his team had the business interests nervous.

    The business lobbying community is confident the GOP leadership would push back on any legislative effort to impose tariffs, which organizations like the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufactures and others, including groups representing farmers, believe would lead to retaliation against US industries heavily dependent on exports.

    But the sources aligned with those interests told CNN the conversation within the Trump transition includes using executive authority allowed under existing trade laws. Different trade laws enacted over the course of the past century allow the president to impose tariffs if he issues a determination the United States is being subjected to unfair trade practices or faces an economic or national security threat because of trade practices.

    likbez : , December 23, 2016 at 08:25 AM
    There are industries that are closely connected with the sovereignty of the country. That's what neoliberals tend to ignore as they, being closet Trotskyites ("Financial oligarchy of all countries unite!" instead of "Proletarian of all countries unite!" ;-) do not value sovereignty and are hell bent on the Permanent Neoliberal Revolution to bring other countries into neoliberal fold (in the form of color revolutions, or for smaller countries, direct invasions like in Iraq and Libya ).

    For example, if you depends of chips produced outside the country for your military or space exploration, then sabotage is possible (or just pure fraud -- selling regular ships instead of special tolerant to cosmic radiation or harsh conditions variant; actually can be done with the support of internal neoliberal fifth column).

    The same is probably true for cars and auto engines. If you do not produce domestically a variety at least some domestic brans of cars and trucks, your military trucks and engines will be foreign and that will cost you tremendous amount of money and you might depend for spare parts on you future adversary. Also such goods are overprices to the heaven. KAS is a clear example of this as they burn their money in the war with Yemen as there is no tomorrow making the US MIC really happy.

    So large countries with say over 100 million people probably need to think twice before jumping into neoliberal globalization bandwagon and relying in imports for strategically important industries.

    Neoliberal commenters here demonstrate complete detachment from the fact that like war is an extension of politics, while politics is an extension of economics. For example, denying imports can and is often used for political pressure.

    That was one of factors that doomed the USSR. Not that the system has any chance -- it was doomed after 1945 as did not provide for higher productivity then advanced capitalist economies.

    But this just demonstrates the power of the US sanctions mechanism. Economic sanctions works and works really well. The target country is essentially put against the ropes and if you unprepared you can be knocked down.

    For example now there are sanctions against Russia that deny them advanced oil exploration equipment. And oil is an important source of Russia export revenue. So the effect of those narrow prohibitions multiples by factor of ten by denying Russia export revenue.

    That's how an alliance between Russia and China was forged by Obama administration. because China does produce some of this equipment now. And Russia paid dearly for that signing huge multi-year deals with China on favorable for China terms.

    Now Trump want to play this game selectively designating China as "evil empire" and providing a carrot for Russia. Will it works, or Russia can be wiser then donkeys, I do not know.

    And look what countries are on the USA economic sanctions list: many entries are countries that are somewhat less excited about the creation of the global neoliberal empire led by the USA. KAS and Gulf monarchies are not on the list. So much about "spreading democracy".

    The US propagandists usually call counties on which they impose sanction authoritarian dictatorships to make such actions more politically correct, but the fact remains: The USA as a global hegemon enjoys using economic pressure to crush dissidents and put vassals in line.

    The problem with tariffs on China is an interesting reversion of the trend: manufacturing is already in China and to reverse this process now is an expensive proposition. So alienating Chinese theoretically means that some of USA imports might became endangered, despite huge geopolitical weight of the USA. They denied export of rare metals to Japan in the past. They can do this for Apple and without batteries Apple can just fold.

    Also it is very easy to prohibit Apple sales in China of national security grounds (any US manufacturer by definition needs to cooperate with NSA and other agencies). I think some countries already prohibit the use of the USA companies produced cell phones for government officials.

    So if Trump administration does something really damaging, for Chinese there are multiple ways to skin the cat. Neoliberalism as a social system is past it pinnacle and that creates some problems for the USA as the central player in the neoliberal world. The triumphal march of neoliberalism over the globe ended almost a decade ago.

    [Dec 23, 2016] What would be Trump's biggest mistake

    Notable quotes:
    "... the newly elected US president, Donald Trump, is a big question mark, especially concerning the US foreign policy. First of all, we must not forget that Trump is part of the US plutocracy, therefore, he will seek to defend the interests of his class, no matter how much the Right-Wing fanatics want to present him as an 'anti-establishment' figure. ..."
    "... The only hope we have, is that Trump will reject the neocon policy and try to build a different relation with the oncoming rival economic alliance of BRICS, based on mutual benefits for both the developing countries and the West. ..."
    "... We have to assume, of course, a very ideal situation in which Trump will be capable to surpass the pressure of the warmongering neocons and the deep state who run the US empire for decades, in contrast with Hillary Clinton, who would be more than willing to apply their agenda. ..."
    "... The US is using the dollar superiority to retain its vast military expenses, conduct wars and secure oil reserves. It feels that it must confront the Chinese economic expansionism, otherwise dollar monopoly will break and a vicious circle will start in which the US declining empire will be finding more and more difficult to be the number one global power. ..."
    "... Well, it seems that Donald is following such an approach! He appears to be conciliatory concerning Putin, but continuously provokes the Chinese! ..."
    Dec 23, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
    As John Pilger describes in his new documentary The Coming War on China , the "threat of China" is becoming big news. The media is beating the drums of war, as the world is being primed to regard China as the new enemy. What is not news, is that China itself is under threat. A quick look at the map of the American military bases in Asia-Pacific, is adequate for someone to understand that they form a giant noose, encircling China with missiles, bombers, warships.
    It is quite clear that the Western plutocracy is changing the agenda because it sees that the Sino-Russian alliance is trying to build an independent block which could become a serious threat against the dollar domination, and therefore, the neoliberal model, through which the elites are hoping to establish their global supremacy.
    Many support that the newly elected US president, Donald Trump, is a big question mark, especially concerning the US foreign policy. First of all, we must not forget that Trump is part of the US plutocracy, therefore, he will seek to defend the interests of his class, no matter how much the Right-Wing fanatics want to present him as an 'anti-establishment' figure.
    You don't need to go too far on this. Just take a look at those who has appointed in key positions to run the economy and you will understand that Trump will not only do 'business as usual', but indeed, he will seek to secure the domination of the plutocracy, by expanding the destructive neoliberal agenda against the interests of the US working class.
    The only hope we have, is that Trump will reject the neocon policy and try to build a different relation with the oncoming rival economic alliance of BRICS, based on mutual benefits for both the developing countries and the West.

    We have to assume, of course, a very ideal situation in which Trump will be capable to surpass the pressure of the warmongering neocons and the deep state who run the US empire for decades, in contrast with Hillary Clinton, who would be more than willing to apply their agenda.
    While it seems that, he does want a smooth re-approach with Russia, the signals he sends concerning China, long before he get elected, are not to be taken as a conciliatory approach, without doubt.
    The US is using the dollar superiority to retain its vast military expenses, conduct wars and secure oil reserves. It feels that it must confront the Chinese economic expansionism, otherwise dollar monopoly will break and a vicious circle will start in which the US declining empire will be finding more and more difficult to be the number one global power.
    What would be the 'right approach' for the neocons who are running out of time in this brutal race? It would be, probably, to focus primarily on China, which is indeed the biggest economic threat, but doesn't have the military power (like Russia) to confront the US. A scenario would be that the US starts a war that ends quickly, changes the regime in China, put its puppet, and probably, break China (as they want to do with Russia), using disputed provinces as a pretext (e.g. Tibet, Xinjiang). Having also encircled Russia from Europe, the US will bet on the fact that the Russians will not react, as they will be occupied to maintain forces on their Western borders.
    Well, it seems that Donald is following such an approach! He appears to be conciliatory concerning Putin, but continuously provokes the Chinese! Everything shows that Trump is determined to continue the Obama 'Pivot to Asia' anti-China legacy, but this would be also his biggest mistake.
    Forget for a moment that the Chinese continuously upgrade their military forces, as well as, their nuclear arsenal, partly because of the stupid neocon policy, adopted by Obama, that makes them feel directly threatened and quite nervous. Forget that in the area there is a North Korea that no one knows what it can do and how far it will go with its nukes, if only would "smell" a coalition of US-led forces that are about to operate close to its territory.
    If Trump thinks that Putin will sit back and watch this happening, he is completely mistaken. Apart from the fact that Russia and China are committed by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which is expanding on security and defence issues , Putin knows that, if China falls, Russia will be next. Therefore, it would be a major mistake for Trump to obey to the lunatic neocon plans because the gates of hell towards WWIII will be opened for good.

    [Dec 23, 2016] Russian Hacking The CIA Never Lies Information Clearing House - ICH

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    There certainly are experts in the field who should know about the alleged hacking, but they are not allowed to disrupt mainstream media's Russophobe frenzy. Bet you never saw William Binney on mainstream media. Who is Binney? He is the guy who put together the NSA's elaborate worldwide surveillance system. He has publicly stated on alternative news sites, that if something was "hacked", the NSA would instantly know who, when, and whether the info was passed on to another party. He designed the system. He argues, there was no hacking for that very reason. Binney insists the e-mails had to have been leaked by an "insider" who had access to the data. Never heard him on mainstream media huh? Next comes Craig Murray a former US Ambassador who claims he knows who leaked the e-mails, because he met with the individual in Washington D.C. Never heard him on mainstream media either huh? Finally, Julian Assange, the man who released the e-mails. He insisted all along he never got the e-mails from Russia. Another no show on mainstream media. Whatever happened to the journalistic adage of going to the source? Assange is the source, but no mainstream media journalist, and I use the term very loosely, has ventured to speak with him. The accusation has been repeated countless times, without any evidence, or consulting with any of the above three experts.

    Because the big lie has been repeated so many times by corporate media, about half of the US public, according to a recent poll, believes Russia interfered, even though there is not a bit of evidence to support it. Once again they take the bait; hook, line, and sinker.

    For believers of Russian hacking, I offer the following analogy. It might, but I doubt it will help, because you cannot undo the effect of propaganda. You are put on trial for murder that you did not commit. The prosecutor and judge simply say they have reached a "consensus view", the phrase offered by intelligence agencies, that you committed the murder and are guilty. You ask for proof. They offer none. They just keep repeating that you did it. You challenge and ask how do you know I did it? Answer: we have anonymous sources, but we cannot tell you who they are, nor can we show you proof.

    Just as in the fake run-up to the Iraq war, the expert voices of the opposition are not tolerated on mainstream media. Do these folks really want a war with Russia? Are they so upset with Trump's pronouncement that he wanted better relations with Russia? What sane person would not? Hmmm.

    It appears there is a war already raging between the Russophobes, who do not want better relations with Russia, and are doing their best to smear and demonize Putin, and those who do. This is the same tactic used with Manuel Noriega of Panama, Muarmar Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein, before they made war on all three. Demonize, then make war.

    Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Shame on those who buy into propaganda without any proof.

    Think about it and use a little logic.

    jim james · 1 day ago
    The oddity of the above author's first paragraph is that the CIA was not lying in 2001-03. The CIA said Iraq/Saddam had no wmds.

    In fact, if you lived through it then perhaps you recall the words cherry-picking and stove-piped intel. Now, I understand he's CIA so there's no reason to believe them, but ask Larry Johnson (I know, great name for CIA).

    Fitzhenrymac 125p · 22 hours ago
    Actually he didn't mention the CIA in the first paragraph. However in late 2002 CIA director George Tenet and United States Secretary of State Colin Powell both cited attempts by Hussein to obtain uranium from Niger in their September testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee using intelligence Italy, Britain, and France.

    Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced serious doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the UN Security Council, judging them counterfeit but the CIA while having suspicions, largely kept them to themselves.

    guest01 · 18 hours ago
    The author of the above article, Joe Clifford is referring to what CIA Chief George Tenet who represented US intelligence, said: it was "Slam Dunk" Iraq had WMD. Tenet was quoted over and over again by Bush-Dick regime to justify US war against Iraq. After Tenet said those words, CIA neither contradicted him nor corrected him which meant that they went along with the "Slam Dunk" Iraq had WMD. Tenet, representing US intelligence, even sat quietly behind Powell at the UNSC when Powell was spewing his lies about Iraq's nonexistent WMD.
    tictac · 23 hours ago
    Not only to officials repeat false assertions over and over, but those who hear the falsities, themselves start repeating them. The more outrageous, the more they are repeated.
    Rampart · 21 hours ago
    Fool me once, shame on you,. Fool me twice, .....we won't get fooled agin.
    GW
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    Yeah right, in the CIA's (very bad) dreams maybe, the people will not be fooled. But this isn't a CIA nightmare, on the contrary.
    fantelius 67p · 19 hours ago
    Even Trump doesn't believe in or trust the CIA Why should anyone else?
    See: Presidential Proof of Governmental Distrust https://systemhumanity.com/2016/12/23/presidentia...
    OSIKA · 19 hours ago
    You forgot former Yugoslavia.There they "sharpened "their tools.They "demonized" that country,demonized their President,trained and financed those local soldiers and then destroyed that country while "peace making".Filthy BASTARDS.And you people call USA a decent country?They lied when they created that country and still their mouths and deeds are full of lies,murder and plunder.And their Churches are cheer leaders in that endeavour yet they will proclaim even this Christmas "Peace to the world" while they will plot more of the same.They preach one thing but their actions are totally opposite.They leave wrecked countries behind them and those people end up feeding from containers.I hope that they choke on that stolen turkey.
    romanaorfred · 17 hours ago
    I would still plead with our grassroots hero Tom Feely to discontinue the sensationalistic, emotonal pandering photos on the front page of ICH.

    I much prefer the old text styled front page of ICH -sans pictures - leave the focus on quality content - not hype.

    We could do without the bad memory of Hillary and Obama pics.

    uphill · 11 hours ago
    ditto
    Schlüter 84p · 17 hours ago
    „Media, Independent and Mainstream: Fake News and Fake Narratives": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/media-i...
    &
    „US Allegations Against Russia: Hold the Thief! (in addition to the previous post)": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/us-alle...
    ignasi orobitg gene · 15 hours ago
    Truth is the first love of Freedom.
    Truth answers all questions.
    No dream of freedom is possible by listening to lies
    coldish1 42p · 14 hours ago
    Craig Murray was not a US ambassador. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004.
    Fired Up · 11 hours ago
    The counter tactic for the "big lie" is the "big truth." Ordinary people have access to e-mail, social media and website comments. No secret organization is needed. Just make counter-bullturdism part of your personal routine.
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    This takes time. Most people invest little thought into the news they digest. Quite often, news (or "news") is not even digested at all, just internalised. They know this. The CIA, th eDNC, all of them. They rely on public apathy to survive.
    FrankZ · 8 hours ago
    This the the lie the liberals love just like Iraq's wmd was the lie so dear to the conservatives. It's sickening the way these partisan idiots are so easily manipulated.
    LRE · 6 hours ago
    It doesn't matter who hacked the emails one bit! That right there is the point the powers that be want us to argue about endlessly, because it draws attention away from what actually matters: What matters is that the emails revealed the truth about the democratic party, and that they rigged their primaries. What matters is that the press did not reveal this and since the reveal, they have been trying to distract people from the truth. It is the press and the Democratic party that were influencing the 2016 election by lying and cheating, not the Russians or whoever hacked the email.
    chrisgoodwin 60p · 4 hours ago
    The e-mails were not hacked: they were leaked. Every time anyone refers to the "hacked" e-mails, it raises the question "Who dunnit ?" This is a wild goose chase. The e-mails were leaked by a disgusted insider.
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    The contents of the leaks/hacks were almost never claimed to be false. Even the very faint cries of "the e-mails were doctored" eventually died out. Nobody has stepped in to claim that the information was false since. This means that all Wikileaks revealed was true. Whoever was responsible for providing this information has done a very valuable public service. Yes, even if it (somehow) was the Russians. To deny that the leak/hack was beneficial to the public is insane.

    Not that we didn't know beforehand that the CIA are quite crazy, but still. I would at least have expected them to welcome this 4th detente. I mean, they have thus far shown that their intelligence gathering efforts in Russia are laughably bad. Do they not want some respite form the humiliation? It would at least be good PR.

    [Dec 23, 2016] Has The CIA Been Politicized

    Notable quotes:
    "... The use of the term, however, rather naďvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed. ..."
    "... Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers. ..."
    "... Does the organization depend on taxpayer funding for a substantial amount of its budget? ..."
    "... Does the organization engage in what would be illegal activities were it not for protective government legislation? ..."
    Dec 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    Anonymous leakers at the CIA continue to make claims about Russia and the 2016 election. In response to demands to provide evidence, the CIA has declined to offer any, refusing to meet with Congressional intelligence committees, and refusing to issue any documents offering evidence. Instead, the CIA, communicating via leaks, simply says the equivalent of "trust us."

    Not troubled by the lack of evidence, many in the media and in the Democratic party have been repeating unsubstantiated CIA claims as fact.

    Of course, as I've noted before , the history of CIA intelligence is largely a history of missing the forest for the trees. Sometimes, the failures have been spectacular.

    One of the questions that immediately arises in the media in situations like these, however, is " has the CIA been politicized ?"

    When used in this way, the term "politicized" means that the CIA is involved in helping or hurting specific political factions (e,g., specific ideological groups, pressure groups, or presidential administrations) in order to strengthen the CIA's financial or political standing.

    All Government Agencies Are Politicized

    The use of the term, however, rather naďvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed.

    Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers.

    This idea might seem plausible to school children in junior-high-school civics classes, but not to anyone who lives in the real world.

    In fact, if we wish to ascertain whether or not an institution or organization is "politicized" we can simply ask ourselves a few questions:

    If the answer to any of these questions is "yes" then you are probably dealing with a politicized organization. If the answer to all of these questions is "yes" - as is the case with the CIA - then you're definitely dealing with a very politicized organization. (Other "non-political" organizations that fall well within this criteria as well include so-called "private" organizations such as the Federal Reserve System and Fannie Mae.)

    So, it has always been foolish to ask ourselves if the CIA is "politicized" since the answer is obviously "yes" for anyone who is paying attention.

    Nevertheless, the myth that the CIA and agencies like it can be non-political continues to endure, although in many cases, the charge has produced numerous helpful historical analysis of just how politicized the CIA has been in practice.

    Recent Narratives on CIA Politicization

    Stories of CIA politicization take at least two forms: One type consists of anti-CIA writers attempting to illustrate how the CIA acts to manipulate political actors to achieve its own political ends. The other type consists of pro-CIA writers attempting to cast the CIA as an innocent victim of manipulation by senior Washington officials.

    Of course, it doesn't matter whether the provenance of CIA politicking comes from within the agency or outside it. In both cases, the fact remains that the Agency is a tool for political actors to deceive, manipulate, and attack political enemies.

    With CIA leaks apparently attempting to call the integrity of the 2016 election into question, the CIA is once again being accused of politicization. Consequently, articles in the Washington Times , the Daily Caller , and The Intercept all question the CIA's motivation and present numerous examples of the Agency's history of deception.

    The current controversy is hardly the first time the Agency has been accused of being political, and during the build up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, for example, the CIA worked with the Bush Administration to essentially manufacture "intelligence."

    In his book Failure of Intelligence , Melvin Allan Goodman writes:

    Three years after the invasion of Iraq, a senior CIA analyst, Paul Pillar, documented the efforts of the Bush administration to politicize the intelligence of the CIA on Iraqi WMD and so-called links between Iraq and al Qaeda. Pillar accused the Bush administration of using policy to drive intelligence production, which was the same argument offered by the chief of British intelligence in the Downing Street memorandum prior to the war, and aggressively using intelligence to win public support for the decision to go to war....Pillar does not explain why no senior CIA official protested, let alone resigned in the wake of the president's misuse of intelligence on Iraq's so-called efforts to obtain uranium ore in Africa. Pillar falsely claimed "for the most part, the intelligence community's own substantive judgments do not appear to have been compromised," when it was clear that the CIA wa wrong on every conclusion and had to politicize the intelligence to be so egregiously wrong."

    Since then, CIA officials have attempted to rehabilitate the agency by claiming the agency was the hapless victim of the Administration. But, as Goodman notes, we heard no protests from the Agency when such protests would have actually mattered, and the fact is the Agency was easily used for political ends. Whether or not some agents wanted to participate in assisting the Bush administration with trumping up evidence against Iraq remains irrelevant. The fact remains the CIA did it.

    Moreover, according to documents compiled by John Prados at the George Washington University , "The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported" and that "Under the circumstances, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the CIA and other intelligence agencies defended themselves against the dangers of attack from the Bush administration through a process of self-censorship. That is the very essence of politicization in intelligence."

    In other words, to protect its own budgets and privileges, the CIA reacted quickly to shape its intelligence to meet the political goals of others.

    Journalist Robert Parry has also attempted to go the CIA-as-victim route in his own writings. In an article written before the Iraq War debacle, Parry looks at how the Agency was used by both Reagan and Clinton, and claims that what is arguably of the CIA's biggest analytical errors - repeatedly overstating the economic strength of the Soviet Union - was the result of pressure applied to the Agency by the Reagan administration. (Parry may be mistaken here, as the CIA was wrong about the Soviet economy long before the Reagan Administration .)

    While attempting to defend the CIA, however, Parry is merely providing a list of the many ways in which the CIA serves to manufacture false information that are useful for political officials.

    In this essay for the Center for International Policy, Goodman further lists many examples of politicization and concludes "Throughout the CIA's 60-year history, there have been many efforts to slant analytical conclusions, skew estimates, and repress evidence that challenged a particular policy or point of view. As a result, the agency must recognize the impact of politicization and introduce barriers to protect analysts from political pressures. Unfortunately, the CIA has largely ignored the problem."

    It is difficult to ascertain whether past intelligence failures were due to pressure form the administration or whether they originated from within the Agency itself. Nevertheless, the intelligence failures are numerous, including:

    The fact that politicization occurs might help explain some of these failures, but simply claiming "politicization" doesn't erase the legacy of failure, and it hardly serves as an argument in favor of allowing the CIA to continue to command huge budgets and essentially function unsupervised. Regardless of fanciful claims of non-political professionalism, it is undeniable that, as an agency of the US government, the CIA is a political institution.

    The only type of organization that is not politicized is a private-sector organization under a relatively laissez-faire regime. Heavily regulated private industries and all government agencies are politicized by nature because they depend heavily on active assistance from political actors to sustain themselves.

    It should be assumed that politicized organizations seek to influence policymakers, and thus all the actions and claims of these organization should be treated with skepticism and a recognition that these organizations benefit from further taxation and expanded government powers inflicted on ordinary taxpayers and other productive members of society outside the privileged circles of Washington, DC.

    Perimetr -> Chupacabra-322 •Dec 23, 2016 11:34 AM
    Is the CIA politicized?

    ...Is the pope catholic?

    How many more presidents does the CIA have to kill to answer your question?

    Oldwood -> DownWithYogaPants •Dec 23, 2016 11:26 AM
    How could the CIA NOT be politicized? They collect "intelligence" and use it to influence policy makers without ANY accountability and no real proof. The CIA operates on CONJECTURE that is completely subjective to bias and agenda. Is that ANYTHING BUT political?
    TeaClipper's picture -> TeaClipper •Dec 23, 2016 11:24 AM
    The CIA was not wrong about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, it lied about them. That is a very big distinction.
    Old Poor Richard •Dec 23, 2016 12:13 PM
    The question is whether the CIA is puppeteer and not the puppet.

    The Snowden report, jam packed with provably false scurrilous accusations, demonstrates that not only is the US intelligence community entirely lacking in credibility, but that they believe themselves so powerful that they can indefinitely get away with baldfaced lies.

    The thing is, the deep state can only keep up the charade when they completely control the narrative, the way China does. Hence the attacks on the first amendment that are accelerating as fast as the attacks on the second amendment. Majority of Americans don't believe the Russian hacking hoax and it make the CIA increasingly hysterical.

    DarthVaderMentor •Dec 23, 2016 12:33 PM
    The CIA has been politicized. In fact, all the way down to the COS level, and in concert with the State Department. Brennan and Moran are nothing but Clinton surrogates.

    In one embassy in a country where IEDs keep blowing up, there were millions of taxpayer dollars spent and continue to be spent in "safe spaces" and "comfort food and liquor" inside an embassy (taking away space from the US Marine Giuards for it) to let "Democrat snowflakes" in senior embassy and CIA positions recover from the Trump elections.

    The real reaon for the loss of the Phillipines as an ally may eventually come out that a gay senior embassy official made a pass at the President of the country. Just like it happened with the gay ambassador in the Dominican Republic.

    That Libral You Hate •Dec 23, 2016 12:41 PM
    I would say the simple answer to the question asked in the headline of this article is "yes" but it is important to actually understand the nuance of the langer answer.

    The critical nuance is that: politics didn't conquor the CIA, but rather the CIA injected itself into politics. I.e. the CIA aren't political stooges, but act political because they have injected political stooges into politics and they have to act political to protect them to protect their interests. Thus while the answer is "yes" the question is phrased wrong as: "Has the CIA Been Politicized," the appropriate question is "Has politics been co-opted by the CIA"

    insanelysane •Dec 23, 2016 12:50 PM
    The first post is spot on except the CIA was in Southeast Asia stirring stuff up to get us into a war. War is big business.

    The entire reason for Vietnam was "If Vietnam falls the commies will be marching down Main Street USA afterwards."

    Well we fucking lost Vietnam and the commies still aren't marching down Main Street and yet the assessment is still being peddled by the Corporation.

    Kennedy was killed because, even though he was fucking totally drugged up, he still saw Vietnam for what it was.

    The Corporation gave Johnson and offer he couldn't refuse, take the keys to the kingdom, just keep "fighting" in Vietnam. I say fighting because we were just fucking around there. No one in charge wanted to risk winning the war.

    And here we are today, 23rd, December, 2016, "fighting" in the Middle East and the Corporation not willing to risk winning the war. Just need to keep it hot enough for the weapons and ammunition to be used in a nice steady pace to keep business going.

    [Dec 23, 2016] NSA Whistleblower US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia Zero Hedge

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    During the third and last presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, debate moderator Chris Wallace pulled a quote from a speech Clinton had given to Brazilian bankers, noting the information had been made available to the public via WikiLeaks.

    Instead of answering the question, Clinton blamed the Russian government for the leaks , alleging " [t]he Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans ," hacking " American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election ."

    Following the claim, Clinton criticized Trump for saying " [Clinton] has no idea whether it's Russia, China, or anybody else ," repeating her assertion that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had determined the Russian government had been behind the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hack.

    Despite her claim, reality couldn't be more different.

    Instead of 17 agencies, only the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have offered the public any input on this matter, claiming the DNC attacks " are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts ."

    Without offering any evidence, these two - not 17 - agencies hinted that the Kremlin could be behind the cyber attack. But saying they believe the hacks come from the Russians is far short of saying they know the Russians were behind them.

    During an interview on Aaron Klein's Sunday radio program , former high-ranking NSA intelligence official-turned-whistleblower, William Binney , discussed the alleged Russian involvement in our elections, suggesting the cyber attack against the DNC may not have originated from the Russian government. Instead, Binney says, a " disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker " is likely behind the breach.

    https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/nsa-whistleblower-tells-aaron-klein-agency-has-all-of-hillarys-emails

    Speaking as an analyst, Binney added that a testimony by the former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert S. Mueller from March 2011 shows the FBI has access to a series of databases that helps them " to track down known and suspected terrorists ."

    According to Binney, what Mueller meant is that the FBI has access to the NSA database and that it's accessed without any oversight, meaning the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), as well as the FBI, have open access to anything the NSA has access to. " So if the FBI really wanted [Clinton's and the DNC emails] they can go into that database and get them right now ," Binney told Klein.

    Asked if he believed the NSA had copies of all Clinton's emails, " including the deleted correspondence ," Binney said:

    " Yes. That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there ."

    While Binney seems to be the only intelligence insider who has come forward with this type of analysis, a young man from Russia whose servers were implicated in the recent hacking of the DNC sites says he has information that will lead to the hacker - yet the FBI won't knock on his door.

    In a conversation with the New York Times , Vladimir M. Fomenko said his server rental company, King Servers, is oftentimes used by hackers. Fomenko added that the hackers behind the attack against computerized election systems in Arizona and Illinois - which, like the DNC hack, were also linked to the Russian government by the FBI - had used his servers.

    According to the 26-year-old entrepreneur, "[w]e have the information. If the F.B.I. asks, we are ready to supply the I.P. addresses, the logs, but nobody contacted us."

    " It's like nobody wants to sort this out, " he added .

    After learning that two renters using the nicknames Robin Good and Dick Robin had used his servers to hack the Arizona and Illinois voting systems, Fomenko released a statement saying he learned about the problem through the news and shut down the two users down shortly after.

    While he told the New York Times he doesn't know who the hackers are, he used his statement to report that the hackers are not Russian security agents.

    " The analysis of the internal data allows King Servers to confidently refute any conclusions about the involvement of the Russian special services in this attack ," he said on September 15, the New York Times reported.

    According to Fomenko, he found a trail left by the hackers through their contact with King Servers' billing page, which leads to the next step in the chain " to bring investigators in the United States closer to the hackers ."

    The clients used about 60 I.P. addresses to contact Fomenko, including addresses belonging to server companies in Finland, France, Italy, Norway, Britain, and Sweden. With these addresses in hand, authorities could track the hackers down.

    But while this information is somewhat recent, few news organizations found it necessary to report on the King Servers link. In the past, however, at least one major news network mentioned Binney.

    In August 2016, Judge Andrew Napolitano commented on the DNC hack.

    On "Judge Napolitano Chambers," the Judge said that while the DNC, government officials, and the Clinton campaign all accuse the Russians of hacking into the DNC servers, " the Russians had nothing to do with it. "

    [Dec 23, 2016] NSA Whistleblower Destroys CIA Narrative – "Hard Evidence Points To Inside Leak, Not Russia Hack

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.activistpost.com

    Originally from: NSA Whistleblower US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia Zero Hedge

    December 21, 2016

    By Vin Armani

    "A group of retired senior intelligence officials, including the NSA whistleblower William Binney (former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA), have posted an open letter on consortiumnews.com that destroys the Obama administration's "Russian hacking" narrative.

    Within the letter, Binney argues that, thanks to the NSA's "extensive domestic data-collection network," any data removed remotely from Hillary Clinton or DNC servers would have passed over fiber networks and therefore would have been captured by the NSA who could have then analyzed packet data to determine the origination point and destination address of those packets. As Binney further notes, the only way the leaks could have avoided NSA detection is if they were never passed over fiber networks but rather downloaded to a thumb drive by someone with internal access to servers."

    [Dec 23, 2016] Paul Krugman: Populism, Real and Phony

    Dec 23, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    "Trump_vs_deep_state ... is anything but populist":
    Populism, Real and Phony, by Paul Krugman, NY Times : Authoritarians with an animus against ethnic minorities are on the march across the Western world. ... But what should we call these groups? Many reporters are using the term "populist," which seems both inadequate and misleading..., are the other shared features of this movement - addiction to conspiracy theories, indifference to the rule of law, a penchant for punishing critics - really captured by the "populist" label?

    Still, the European members of this emerging alliance - an axis of evil? - have offered some real benefits to workers. ... Trump_vs_deep_state is, however, different..., the emerging policy agenda is anything but populist.

    All indications are that we're looking at huge windfalls for billionaires combined with savage cuts in programs that serve not just the poor but also the middle class. And the white working class, which provided much of the 46 percent Trump vote share, is shaping up as the biggest loser. ...

    Both his pick as budget director and his choice to head Health and Human Services want to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and privatize Medicare. His choice as labor secretary is a fast-food tycoon who has been a vociferous opponent both of Obamacare and of minimum wage hikes. And House Republicans have already submitted plans for drastic cuts in Social Security, including a sharp rise in the retirement age. ...

    In other words..., European populism is at least partly real, while Trumpist populism is turning out to be entirely fake, a scam sold to working-class voters who are in for a rude awakening. Will the new regime pay a political price?

    Well, don't count on it..., you know that there will be huge efforts to shift the blame. These will include claims that the collapse of health care is really President Obama's fault; claims that the failure of alternatives is somehow the fault of recalcitrant Democrats; and an endless series of attempts to distract the public.

    Expect more Carrier-style stunts that don't actually help workers but dominate a news cycle. Expect lots of fulmination against minorities. And it's worth remembering what authoritarian regimes traditionally do to shift attention from failing policies, namely, find some foreigners to confront. Maybe it will be a trade war with China, maybe something worse.

    Opponents need to do all they can to defeat such strategies of distraction. Above all, they shouldn't let themselves be sucked into cooperation that leaves them sharing part of the blame. The perpetrators of this scam should be forced to own it.

    ilsm : , December 23, 2016 at 10:45 AM
    The Clinton brand of nato-neocon-neolib is way ahead of the populist nativist in tilting toward Armageddon.

    Own the world for the banksters.

    poor pk

    DeDude -> Gibbon1... , December 23, 2016 at 02:33 PM
    It really depend on how the two sides play it out. You don't need to move the diehard sexists and racists for things to change. But the Democrats need to have a Warren/Sanders attack team ready on every single GOP "favor the rich and screw the rest" proposal. It would be rather easy to get the press to pay attention to those two if they went to war with Trump/GOP. Their following is sufficiently large to be a media market - so their comments would not be ignored. We also know that at least Warren knows how to bait Trump into saying something stupid so you can get the kind of firework that commercial media cannot ignore. The Dems need to learn how to bait the media at least as effectively as Trump does.
    Tim Cahill : , -1
    When can we please start tuning Krugman down here? He aided and abetted the election disaster by being one of the most prominent Very Serious People leading the offensive against Sanders and promoting a fatally flawed candidate that was beaten resoundingly in 2008 and with irredeemable, self-inflicted, negative baggage.

    He may make good points here after-the-fact, but they're all "duh!" level bits of analysis at this stage. And the last thing I want to hear from any of the VSPs who piloted the train over the cliff during this election season is b*tching about the mess at the bottom of the cliff.

    Aren't there ANY other voices with some remaining shred of political credibility that can be quoted here instead of the unabashed VSPs who helped elect trump?

    Tim Cahill -> pgl... , December 23, 2016 at 11:17 AM
    Since I am only noting objection to one blogger who invested much of his personal credibility into promoting a horrible leader, I don't see the relevance of your comment at all. I enjoy pretty much every other blogger to which Thoma links.

    My issue is with highlighting a crank whose writing has cratered over the last year. If a Trump ripping is due (and it usually is), then I'm fine with it being a feature so long as it's written by someone who isn't channeling Niall Ferguson and with the same degree of credibility as a political "wonk".

    yuan -> sanjait... , December 23, 2016 at 12:03 PM
    I think a certain amount of self-criticism and introspection is warranted at this point, no? And, I think, there is little question that the long-term coziness of the democratic party with high finance and the PMIC played a major role in negative perceptions of HRC.

    Although I did not vote for Clinton, if I had lived in a remotely competitive state I would have certainly voted for her. To put this in perspective, my vote for Sanders was a very reluctant vote and Clinton is the POTUS I despise the most (Trump will change this).

    ilsm -> sanjait... , December 23, 2016 at 01:04 PM
    As Lincoln may have observed: you* can fool too many of the democrats all the time.

    one Obama, two Clintons .........

    Vapid talking points, like fast and loose with felonies.

    She had no convictions bc justice was ordered to do the job of juries.

    yuan -> Tim Cahill ... , December 23, 2016 at 11:57 AM
    "beaten resoundingly in 2008 and with irredeemable, self-inflicted, negative baggage."

    Characterizing Clinton's electoral college defeat as being beaten resoundingly is exactly the kind of irrational "bro" rhetoric that Krugman rightly criticized.

    And I write this as someone who voted for Sanders and then Stein.

    Peter K. -> Tim Cahill ... , December 23, 2016 at 01:08 PM
    As you can tell there a few people here who agreed with Krugman during the primary and agree with him now.

    I agree with you in general, but am going to try to ignore the insulters and haters and link to good thinkers.

    Tim Cahill -> Peter K.... , December 23, 2016 at 01:46 PM
    They're an angry lot.... and they, like the conservative "affinity fraudsters" that Krugman has lambasted over the years, refuse to accept reality. Instead, they hunker down, shut out facts, and surround themselves only with people and information that agrees with their flawed opinions.
    Denis Drew : , December 23, 2016 at 11:03 AM
    All I hear from Paul -- and others -- sounds like ducking and weaving and back peddling -- in a phrase: retreat-in-good-order to avoid defeat-in-detail.

    How about a little aggression? Would it be too much to expect these top brains the potential to rebuild labor union density (THE ONLY POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC TISSUE OF THE AVERAGE PERSON) at state by progressive state level.

    NEVER HEAR OF IT -- NO OTHER PATH (and it looks to be multi-multi-path once you start looking through all the angles.

    So I wont be accused of hi-jacking the thread with a very long unionization entreaty you can look up my entreaty here:
    Wet backs and narrow backs (Irish immigrants' native born kiddies)
    http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2016/12/wet-backs-and-narrow-backs-irish.html

    I'm only beginning to sort all this out -- like the angle that any group disallowed of employee status by the Trump NLRB (student teaching and research assistants?) immediately become eligible for full state supported conduction of NLRB-like certification process. No preemption problem.

    Preemption on closer exam may not be the barrier folks think. So, so much more federal preemption/supremacy (not the same thing!) stuff to sort through -- another reason to put off posting the full comment. Few weeks maybe.

    Denis Drew -> anne... , December 23, 2016 at 01:07 PM
    Where I come from, the Bronx of the 50s-70s, everybody was different, so nobody was different, so we had more fun with your differences.

    We didn't have diversity; we had assimilation; everyone was the same.

    Typical 60s high school chatter: How's an Italian like a crashing airplane? Guinea, Guinea, Guinea: Whop!
    How's an Irishman like a submarine under attack? Down the hatch; down the hatch; down the hatch!

    In the movie The Wanderers, portraying the 1979 Bronx with more people of color, the high school teasing is all: nigger, spic, kike! Too much for your non-real-melting pot ears.

    :-)-
    ********************
    Be more impressed by your (plural) interest in minority dignity if it obsessed on getting everyone one the same ECONOMIC (!) level.

    Click here -- for early thoughts (still sorting) on how to actually do just that -- if you really want to really help:
    http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2016/12/wet-backs-and-narrow-backs-irish.html

    You rebuild union density or you do nothing! You do it at the state by progressive state level or you do nothing! Are you academic progressives the slightest bit interested in doing just that? How come you are not obsessed with re-unionization?

    [Dec 22, 2016] Arming Ukraine Is a Bad Idea The American Conservative

    Dec 22, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    The first several months of a new administration are inevitably seen as an opening for those who hope to influence the White House over the next four years. The Senate Ukraine Caucus-a bipartisan group of senior lawmakers who have lobbied intensively for a closer U.S.-Ukraine relationship-hopes to take advantage of this sensitive period, in which the new president will order policy reviews, modifications in existing programs, or even a clean break from the past.

    In a letter to President-elect Trump, the caucus writes that it is absolutely critical for the United States to enhance its support to Kiev at a time when Vladimir Putin's Russia continues to support a separatist movement on Ukrainian soil. "Quite simply," the group claims , "Russia has launched a military land-grab in Ukraine that is unprecedented in modern European history. These actions in Crimea and other areas of eastern Ukraine dangerously upend well-established diplomatic, legal, and security norms that the United States and its NATO allies painstakingly built over decades."

    On this score, the senators are correct. Russia's stealth invasion, occupation, and annexation of the Crimean Peninsula was for all intents and purposes a land-grab denounced not only by the United States but by the United Nations as a violation of state sovereignty and self-determination.

    But let's not kid ourselves; this isn't the first time a stronger power will attempt to change the borders of a weaker neighbor, nor will it be the last. The Russians saw an opportunity to immediately exploit the confusion of Ukraine's post-Viktor Yanukovych period. Moscow's signing of the Minsk accords, an agreement that was designed to de-escalate the violence in Eastern Ukraine through mutual demobilization of heavy weapons along the conflict line and a transfer of border control from separatist forces back to the Ukrainian government, has been stalled to the point of irrelevance.

    It is incontrovertible that, were it not for Russia's military support and intervention in the summer of 2014, the Ukrainian army would likely have been able to defeat the separatist units that were carving out autonomous "peoples' republics" in the east-or at the very least, degrade rebel capabilities to such an extent that Kiev would be able to win more concessions at the negotiating table.

    Yet while we should acknowledge Russia's violations of international law and the U.N. Charter, U.S. and European policymakers also need to recognize that Ukraine is far more important for Moscow's geopolitical position than Washington's.

    There is a reason why Vladimir Putin made the fateful decision in 2014 to plunge Russian forces into Ukraine, and it wasn't because he was itching for a war of preemption. He deployed Russian forces across the Ukrainian border-despite the whirlwind of international condemnation and the Western financial sanctions that were likely to accompany such a decision-because preserving a pro-Russia bent in the Ukraine body politic was just too important for Moscow's regional position.

    Grasping this reality in no way excuses Moscow's behavior. It merely explains why the Russian government acted the way it did, and why further U.S. military assistance to the Ukrainian security forces would be ill-advised. In fact, one could make a convincing case that providing hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance to the Ukrainian government wouldn't help the situation at all, and might lead Kiev to delude itself into thinking that Washington will come to its immediate military aid in order to stabilize the battlefield.

    Since 2015, the United States Congress has authorized $750 million to improve the defensive capabilities of the Ukrainian military and security forces. Congress has followed up those funds with an additional $650 million earmarked for the Ukrainians over the next two years, a hefty sum that the next administration would probably use as a message to the Russians that further territorial encroachment on Ukrainian territory would produce more casualties in their ranks.

    What the next administration needs to ask itself, however, is whether more money thrown at the Ukraine problem will be more or less likely to cause further violence in the country and turmoil for Ukraine's elected government. Russia has demonstrated consistently that it will simply not permit a pro-Western democratic government from emerging along its western border-and that if a pro-Western government is formed in Kiev, Moscow will do its best to preserve a pro-Russian bent in Ukraine's eastern provinces. Hundreds of millions of dollars in appropriations haven't forced Russia to change that calculation so far; it's not likely that hundreds of millions more will be any more successful. Indeed, every time Washington has escalated its rhetoric or authorized money for Ukraine's military, the Russians have responded in equal terms.

    The political crisis in Ukraine is far from resolved, in large measure because of Russia's own actions on the ground and its nonexistent implementation of the Minsk peace agreement. But the situation in the east, while not fully peaceful by any means, is far less violent than it was at the war's peak in 2015. Sometimes, not weighing in can be just as smart for the U.S. national interest as getting involved-a reflex that is has been the forte of Washington's foreign policy establishment since the end of the Cold War.

    Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.

    [Dec 22, 2016] Kremlin Warns Of Response To Latest US Sanctions, Says Almost All Communication With US Is Frozen Zero Hedge

    Dec 22, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    In response to the latest imposition of US sanctions on Russia, the Kremlin said on Wednesday that the new sanctions would further damage relations between the two countries and that Moscow would respond with its own measures. "We regret that Washington is continuing on this destructive path," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call.

    As a reminder, on Tuesday the United States widened sanctions against Russian businessmen and companies adopted after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the conflict in Ukraine.

    "We believe this damages bilateral relations ... Russia will take commensurate measures."

    Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov

    Then again, it is difficult to see how sanctions between the two administration could be any more "damaged": also on Wednesday, the Kremlin said it did not expect the incoming U.S. administration to reject NATO enlargement overnight and that almost all communications channels between Russia and the United States were frozen, the RIA news agency reported.

    " Almost every level of dialogue with the United States is frozen. We don't communicate with one another, or (if we do) we do so minimally ," Peskov said.

    Additionally, RIA said that according to Peskov "he did not know whether President Vladimir Putin would seek re-election in 2018."

    "Everyone's heads are aching because of work and with projects and nobody is thinking or talking about elections," Peskov said.

    Then again, the sanctions may soon be history. According to a Bloomberg report , the U.S. will start easing its penalties, imposed over the showdown in Ukraine in 2014, during the next 12 months, according to 55 percent of respondents in a Bloomberg survey, up from 10 percent in an October poll. Without the restrictions, Russia's economic growth would get a boost equivalent to 0.2 percentage point of gross domestic product next year and 0.5 percentage point in 2018, according to the median estimates in the poll.

    "It's still a toss-up whether the U.S. will ease sanctions quickly, with the EU lagging, but the direction of travel is toward easier sanctions or less enforcement, which could reduce financing costs," said Rachel Ziemba, the New York-based head of emerging markets at 4CAST-RGE. "We think the macro impact would be greater in the medium term than short term as it facilitates a rate easing trend that is already on course. In the longer term, it gives more choice of investment."

    Trump, who's called President Vladimir Putin a better leader than Barack Obama, has said he may consider recognizing Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine and lifting the curbs. While dogged by concerns that Russia intervened to tip this year's elections in the Republican candidate's favor, Trump has already showed his hand by planning to stack his administration with officials supportive of closer cooperation with the Kremlin, from Michael Flynn, the president-elect's national security adviser, to Exxon Mobil Corp. chief Rex Tillerson, a candidate for secretary of state.

    An equally important consequence of any policy change by Trump would be its affect on the EU's own penalties on Russia, with more economists saying the bloc will follow suit. Forty percent of respondents said in the Dec. 16-19 survey that the EU will begin easing sanctions in the next 12 months, compared with 33 percent in October.

    "If the U.S. eases sanctions, it won't be possible to achieve a consensus among EU member states to keep their sanctions regime in place as currently formulated," said Charles Movit, an economist at IHS Markit in Washington.

    The Count , Dec 21, 2016 10:42 AM
    And yet another fantastic foreign policy blunder from Obummer. He's trying real hard to start WWIII before he leaves office.

    That a guy with a shady past and forged documents could be come president shows how powerful the Zionists +Deep State are.

    Boris Alatovkrap The Count , Dec 21, 2016 10:43 AM
    Boris is somewhat look forward to post-Obama Amerika, where Russia can negotiate with adult.
    carbonmutant Boris Alatovkrap , Dec 21, 2016 10:45 AM
    We all are... :)
    hedgeless_horseman carbonmutant , Dec 21, 2016 10:51 AM
    • The USA invaded and occupied Afghanistan, for 14 years, which is very near Russia.
    • The USA invaded Syria, which is a long-time ally of Russia.
    • The USA staged a coup in Ukraine, which borders Russia.

    And we sanction them?

    Boris Alatovkrap hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 10:51 AM
    Only 14 year?! Is feel like lifetime since Russia is learn painful lesson to avoid land war in Asia.
    chunga Pinto Currency , Dec 21, 2016 11:38 AM
    Is Obama a Russian Agent?

    http://cluborlov.com/

    And although it is always possible to claim that all of Obama's failures stem from mere incompetence, at some point this claim begins to ring hollow; how can he possibly be so utterly competent at being incompetent?

    BarkingCat chunga , Dec 21, 2016 12:06 PM
    Obama is not a Russian agent but could very well be a Soviet agent.

    Being a dumb fuck whose only skill is reading a teleprompter, he has no idea how to resolve the change in the world since the Soviet Union disintegrated.

    chunga BarkingCat , Dec 21, 2016 12:53 PM
    Orlov was being sarcastic.
    BullyBearish chunga , Dec 21, 2016 3:17 PM
    It could be worse:

    In an interview with Wolf Blitzer on March 26, 2012, Mr. Romney said that Russia is "without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe."

    Oracle 911 chunga , Dec 21, 2016 3:32 PM
    The agent part is true, not so much the Russian part.

    So, whose agent he is? I don't know for sure, but he ruined the US and made it unable to wage the 3rd WW with weapons or profiting from it.

    hedgeless_horseman Boris Alatovkrap , Dec 21, 2016 10:58 AM

    Why is the USA and Europe sanctioning Russia?

    • I hear all these politicians talking, but none ever say why Russia is being sacntioned.
    • Is it because they are stealing land from the Palestinians? No. That is Israel.
    • Is it because they have nuclear weapons, but do not participate in the Non Proliferation Treaties? No. That is Israel.
    • Is it because they had special forces filming and celebrating the 9/11 attacks on NYC? No. That is Israel.
    • Is it because they bribe our politicians with millions of dllars each election cycle? No. That is Israel.
    7thGenMO Pinto Currency , Dec 21, 2016 1:54 PM
    A Russian in Crimea told me of a recent past winter near disaster when Ukraine shut off the power (and water) - somewhat covered here on ZH. Only a truly heroic effort by Russia to bring in generators kept them from living in dangerous conditions. Crimea is more solidly pro-Russian than it was before the vote to secede.

    All Ukrainians should understand that the NWO (controlled by the elite and their Western banks) will subjugate the Ukraine. Evidence for this is abundant, but the most striking example is the willingness to accept millions of non-European refugees, while few Ukrainians are allowed into Western countries.

    Yes, there is genuine reason for resentment (Holodomar), but this terror was executed by the Bolshevik Lazar Kaganovich (which means son of Kagan - as in Ron Kagan - husband of Nudelman - understand the connection?). More Russians died under this same type of Bolshevik terror than any other ethnicity in the USSR.

    Russia is no longer the USSR, and seeks to return to a society of Christian values. Ukrainians should seek peace with their Russian brothers. It would be to the benefit of all Western countries, which is why the NWO is trying everything to prevent it.

    X_in_Sweden CuttingEdge , Dec 21, 2016 12:57 PM
    "The Zionists invented terrorism in 1948. Read some fucking history."

    That's right

    CuttingEdge

    The UN Mediator for Palestine, "The U.S. appointed Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden" was assassinated in 1948 in Jerusalam by the likudnik-future izraeli Prime Ministers Begin & Shamir....

    FACT:

    "Folke Bernadotte , Count of Wisborg ( Swedish : Greve af Wisborg ; 2 January 1895 – 17 September 1948) was a Swedish diplomat and nobleman. During World War II he negotiated the release of about 31,000 prisoners from German concentration camps including 450 Danish Jews from the Theresienstadt camp. They were released on 14 April 1945. [1] [2] [3] In 1945, he received a German surrender offer from Heinrich Himmler , though the offer was ultimately rejected.

    After the war, Bernadotte was unanimously chosen to be the United Nations Security Council mediator in the Arab–Israeli conflict of 1947–1948. He was assassinated in Jerusalem in 1948 by the militant Zionist group Lehi while pursuing his official duties. Upon his death, Ralph Bunche took up his work at the UN, but was removed from the post around six months after Bernadotte was assassinated, at the critical period of recognition of the fledgling state. ....."

    Likudniks like present-day murderer & chief Benny-Boy Nutandyahoo!!!

    It's 100% bonefide fuckin' TERRORISTS that are the leaders of the rothschild colony & real estate project in the eastern Mediterranean.

    SOURCES:

    TheQuay X_in_Sweden , Dec 21, 2016 4:09 PM
    Wow! Those are some stringent sources! Wikipedia, where you can edit the text to read however you wish before citing it, ...great source! ( Seriously? A wiki cite ends the discussion for me every single time. Dead. (Kind of like interviewing an architect who says Fisher-Price is his inspiration). Next up is the legendary duckduckgo. Move over Library of Congress! And of course WhatReallyHappened is the next up on the hit parade. Jeeze, I spent a cargoload of time and money earning a masters in history. I wish I had had wiki. It would have been so much easier, AND I would be as smart as this guy telling us all about how stupid we all are. LOL!. X_in_Sweden, go to Wiki and look up "Useful Idiot" while standing in front of a mirror.
    Fractal Parasite TheQuay , Dec 21, 2016 4:32 PM
    Wikipedia a.k.a. the info-police ...
    HowdyDoody CuttingEdge , Dec 21, 2016 4:38 PM
    Zionists are also behind the use of Saudi wahabbists. It's a twofer. It clears land that Israel covets and is part of the plan to get Christians to fight Muslims, wipping each other out.
    Luc X. Ifer chumbawamba , Dec 21, 2016 1:04 PM
    Well Mr Chumbawamba let me congratulate you on joining the big club of anti-jewish fascism, you share a honorable position together with Nazism and Islamic Fascism. Fuck off paranoid religitard.
    Pliskin Luc X. Ifer , Dec 21, 2016 12:41 PM
    I don't see you post here very often Luc X. Ifer, the shekels must be drying up?
    Manthong hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 11:32 AM

    I have done business with Israelis Most of them think that they are in a crunch existential mess.

    The reality is that the tech and arms business is pretty cushy and they are reluctant to give it up.

    If they get a decent guarantee of their space (and maybe a couple more settlements) they might scale down a tad.

    They can do an up-front deal with the head choppers in Riyadh any time they want because the princes do not want to live on a sea of radioactive glass.

    For me, I just want the Basilica at Sophia back.

    two hoots hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 1:20 PM
    Obama and the current congress already locked this in until 2026 (see below) which takes us past 2 terms of Trump. Doubt Trump could change/drain this if he wanted (?) as current congress not only did the deal but added $500M per year to the previous Bush 10 year deal which was set to expire in 2018. Dem/Rep... it is going to happen no matter.

    "The United States has finalized a $38 billion package of military aid for Israel over the next 10 years, the largest of its kind ever, and the two allies plan to sign the agreement on Wednesday, American and Israeli officials said". NY Times Sept 2016,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/world/middleeast/israel-benjamin-netan...

    Davy Crockett two hoots , Dec 21, 2016 2:06 PM
    When I was a kid, we had a pump to fill the water trough for the animals. There was a coffee can near it, that you used to take some of the water that was left in the water trough and pour it into the pump. This was known as "priming the pump". You had to do this to allow the pump to pump more water into the trough from the well.

    America is a money-well for Israel. They take a little bit of the money that we flood them with, and they donate to enough politicians campaign to insure that those politicians will vote to turn on the money spigot, filling up Israels trough with money. Don't worry, they'll save a coffee can or two of it to prime the pump again next time.

    I really don't care if Israel lives or dies. If they live and prosper, that's just fine with me. But what pisses me off is this system that allows them to pump money from us, just by using a tiny portion of it to bribe our politicians with campaign contributions. This bribing results in not just lost treasure, but also lost blood, as we fight wars to weaken Israels neighbors, again, only because our politicians are being bribed with foreign donations.

    I would prefer we find ways to jail any politician that gets money from foreign countries. I would also prefer we put an end to Super PACs, since the foreign money will simply migrate to those. It is bullshit that our system is set up so that the honest politicians that refuse to sell out are promptly voted out of office because their competitor, who is willing to sell out, is flooded with campaign money. This ends up giving us representatives who do not represent our interests at all.

    general ambivalent hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 11:50 AM
    My greatest fear in Trump being a plant is that he is supposed to calm relations with Russia, which will open up the opportunity for the big event. This gives them more time on the surface while the deep state continues spreading chaos along Russia's borders.

    I suspect Russia would be aware of this possibility however.

    Mustafa Kemal hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 12:26 PM
    hh, with David Friedman as ambassador, it looks like they may move Israels capitol to Jerusalem. Lots of fun then.
    Justin Case hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 3:24 PM
    Trump is going to keep allowing Israelis to bribe American politicians.

    Aid money goes full circle. The tax payers are the losers as usual. Trump needs to look into the dual citizanship of congress stoolies. Drain that swamp first to put that coin into merican infrastructure renewal/upgrades.=.jobs.

    dizzyfingers Manthong , Dec 21, 2016 4:19 PM
    DEVELOPING -- Federal Judge Orders Release of Search Warrant from Clinton Email Case http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2016/developing-federal-judge-orders-release-of-search-warrant-from-clinton-email-case?mc_cid=a6207925cf&mc_eid=18ffccb24c

    EXPOSED: Michelle SCREWED Taxpayers, Illegally Giving Our Cash To Daughters http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2016/exposed-michelle-screwed-taxpayers-illegally-giving-our-cash-to-daughters?mc_cid=a6207925cf&mc_eid=18ffccb24c

    ParkAveFlasher Boris Alatovkrap , Dec 21, 2016 10:53 AM
    Biden's son in Ukraine couldn't help things much. How cool was the "invasion" of Crimea? I thought it was cool. I was kind of wishing Texas would pull something like that, maybe with NJ.
    Manthong ParkAveFlasher , Dec 21, 2016 11:20 AM
    I think that the coke-head Navy reject's gig is going to be gone pretty soon.
    reload ParkAveFlasher , Dec 21, 2016 12:23 PM
    I know you have "invasion" written in a way that shows you know it was NOT an invasion. The speed a decisiveness was certainly impressive, shame the Donbass has been relegated to the roll of dead buffer zone though. I understand the strategic benefit of letting the Ukrainian `Army` bog down there and bleed resources, but a lot of Ethnic Russians are dying and suffering as a result.
    HowdyDoody reload , Dec 21, 2016 5:28 PM
    The Ukro-Nazis have just tried to re-run the attack on Debaltsevo, where there were put through the meat grinder last winter. Guess what, they ended up in the grinder again, even though the Novorossians are following Minsk rules on sending heavy armor away from the front. The Ukrops lost up to 100 dead, a large number just left on the ground as the survivors fled. The wounded were airlifted to Kharkov military hospital.

    One Ukrop unit reported 25 dead in 3 hours of fighting.

    http://novorossia.today/154366-2/

    Airlift landing in Kharkov

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-efMU3Cl1o

    Meanwhile in west Ukraine, far away from the fighting, there have been around 400 desertions from the Ukraine military.

    https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/colonelcassad.livejournal.com/31...

    The Ukrops are still shelling civilian areas of Novorssia for sport.

    Luc X. Ifer hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 10:52 AM
    Obama's main task now is to damage to the max possible the relations with Russia to make it impossible to be amended later by Trump.

    [Dec 22, 2016] Regulatory Capture 101

    It's not regulation per se is deficient, it is regulation under neoliberal regime, were government is captured by financial oligarchy ;-). But that understanding is foreign to WSJ with its neoliberal agenda :-(.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Impressionable journalists finally meet George Stigler. ..."
    "... The secret recordings were made by Carmen Segarra, who went to work as an examiner at the New York Fed in 2011 but was fired less than seven months later in 2012. She has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the regulator and says Fed officials sought to bury her claim that Goldman had no firm-wide policy on conflicts-of-interest. Goldman says it has had such policies for years, though on the same day Ms. Segarra's revelations were broadcast, the firm added new restrictions on employees trading for their own accounts. ..."
    "... On the recordings, regulators can be heard doing what regulators do-revealing the limits of their knowledge and demonstrating their reluctance to challenge the firms they regulate. At one point Fed officials suspect a Goldman deal with Banco Santander may have been "legal but shady" in the words of one regulator, and should have required Fed approval. But the regulators basically accept Goldman's explanations without a fight. ..."
    "... The journalists have also found evidence in Ms. Segarra's recordings that even after the financial crisis and the supposed reforms of the Dodd-Frank law, the New York Fed remained a bureaucratic agency resistant to new ideas and hostile to strong-willed, independent-minded employees. In government? ..."
    "... "as a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefit." ..."
    "... Once one understands the inevitability of regulatory capture, the logical policy response is to enact simple laws that can't be gamed by the biggest firms and their captive bureaucrats. ..."
    "... And it means considering economist Charles Calomiris's plan to automatically convert a portion of a bank's debt into equity if the bank's market value falls below a healthy level. ..."
    Oct 05, 2014 | Casino Capitalism and Crapshoot Politics
    Regulatory Capture 101

    Impressionable journalists finally meet George Stigler.

    The financial scandal du jour involves leaked audio recordings that purport to show that regulators at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York were soft on Goldman Sachs . Say it ain't so.

    ... ... ...

    The secret recordings were made by Carmen Segarra, who went to work as an examiner at the New York Fed in 2011 but was fired less than seven months later in 2012. She has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the regulator and says Fed officials sought to bury her claim that Goldman had no firm-wide policy on conflicts-of-interest. Goldman says it has had such policies for years, though on the same day Ms. Segarra's revelations were broadcast, the firm added new restrictions on employees trading for their own accounts.

    The New York Fed won against Ms. Segarra in district court, though the case is on appeal. The regulator also notes that Ms. Segarra "demanded $7 million to settle her complaint." And last week New York Fed President William Dudley said, "We are going to keep striving to improve, but I don't think anyone should question our motives or what we are trying to accomplish."

    On the recordings, regulators can be heard doing what regulators do-revealing the limits of their knowledge and demonstrating their reluctance to challenge the firms they regulate. At one point Fed officials suspect a Goldman deal with Banco Santander may have been "legal but shady" in the words of one regulator, and should have required Fed approval. But the regulators basically accept Goldman's explanations without a fight.

    The sleuths at the ProPublica website, working with a crack team of investigators from public radio, also seem to think they have another smoking gun in one of Ms. Segarra's conversations that was not recorded but was confirmed by another regulator. Ms. Seest means. For example, a company offering securities is exempt from some registration requirements if it is only selling to accredited investors, such as people with more than $1 million in net worth, excluding the value of primary residences.

    The journalists have also found evidence in Ms. Segarra's recordings that even after the financial crisis and the supposed reforms of the Dodd-Frank law, the New York Fed remained a bureaucratic agency resistant to new ideas and hostile to strong-willed, independent-minded employees. In government?

    ***

    Enter George Stigler, who published his famous essay "The Theory of Economic Regulation" in the spring 1971 issue of the Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science. The University of Chicago economist reported empirical data from various markets and concluded that "as a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefit."

    Stigler knew he was fighting an uphill battle trying to persuade his fellow academics. "The idealistic view of public regulation is deeply imbedded in professional economic thought," he wrote. But thanks to Stigler, who would go on to win a Nobel prize, many economists have studied the operation and effects of regulation and found similar results.

    A classic example was the New York Fed's decision to let Citigroup stash $1.2 trillion of assets-including more than $600 billion of mortgage-related securities-in off-balance-sheet vehicles before the financial crisis. That's when Tim Geithner ran the New York Fed and Jack Lew was at Citigroup.

    Once one understands the inevitability of regulatory capture, the logical policy response is to enact simple laws that can't be gamed by the biggest firms and their captive bureaucrats. This means repealing most of Dodd-Frank and the so-called Basel rules and replacing them with a simple requirement for more bank capital-an equity-to-asset ratio of perhaps 15%. It means bringing back bankruptcy for giant firms instead of resolution at the discretion of political appointees. And it means considering economist Charles Calomiris's plan to automatically convert a portion of a bank's debt into equity if the bank's market value falls below a healthy level.

    GS4

    [Dec 22, 2016] Leaked Memo Reveals List Of Trump's Top Defense Priorities

    Dec 22, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    A leaked communication between the Trump transition team's Undersecretary of Defense for policy Brian McKeon, and the Pentagon, has revealed the four biggest defense priorities for the president-elect. Among the top four items listed in the memo from are: 1) developing a strategy to defeat/destroy ISIS; 2) build a strong defense by eliminating budget caps/the sequester, 3) develop a comprehensive cyber strategy, and 4) eliminate wasteful spending by finding greater efficiencies.

    The list was communicated to McKeon by Mira Ricardel, one of the leaders of Trump's Pentagon transition team, according to the memo obtained by Foreign Policy magazine and published Tuesday.

    your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
    Pinto Currency , Dec 21, 2016 1:41 PM
    A very good sign - Trump not on the banker war wagon.
    Let the bankers explain their creation of the economic collapse.
    gatorengineer Pinto Currency , Dec 21, 2016 1:55 PM
    You couldnt have possibly read the email.....

    1) Defeat Isis, there isnt a military solution here or necessary (step 1, stop funding them, step 2, isolate countries that do (turkey, Saudi, etc))

    2) Increase force size, yeah that doesnt help the bankers war machine

    froze25 gatorengineer , Dec 21, 2016 2:01 PM
    Very comprehensive article on where Putin came from and how he got to where he is. My guess is this is the information of why Trump may have a soft spot for him. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/02/how-the-1980s-e...
    Joe Davola gatorengineer , Dec 21, 2016 2:02 PM
    One can only hope, based on the crumpled appearance of the leaked memo, that it was smuggled out by this year's Fawn Hall stuffed in her unmentionables.
    Chris Dakota Joe Davola , Dec 21, 2016 2:07 PM
    Russia not listed a threat because Russia is not a threat.

    This liberal warmongers make me puke.

    [Dec 22, 2016] Deep State Desperation

    Notable quotes:
    "... Only John F. Kennedy directly challenged it, firing CIA Director Allen Dulles after the Bay of Pigs disaster. He was assassinated, and whether or not CIA involvement is ever conclusively proven, the allegations have been useful to the agency, keeping politicians in line. The Deep State also co-opted the media, keeping it in line with a combination of fear and favor. ..."
    "... Why has the US been involved in long, costly, bloody, and inconclusive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? ..."
    "... Why should the US get involved in similar conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and other Middle Eastern and Northern African hotspots? ..."
    "... Isn't such involvement responsible for blowback terrorism and refugee flows in both Europe and the US? ..."
    "... Have "free trade" agreements and porous borders been a net benefit or detriment to the US? Why is the banking industry set up for periodic crises that inevitably require government bail-outs? ..."
    "... How has encouraging debt and speculation at the expense of savings and investment helped the US economy? ..."
    "... The shenanigans in the US after Trump's election-violent protests, hysterical outbursts, the vote recount effort, the proof-free Russian hacking allegations, "fake news," and the attempt to sway electoral college electors-are the desperate screams of those trapped inside. ..."
    "... Regrettably, the building analogy is imperfect, because it implies that those inside are helpless and that the collapse will only harm them. In its desperation, incompetence, and corrupt nihilism, the Deep State can wreak all sorts of havoc, up to and including the destruction of humanity. Trump represents an opportunity to strike a blow against the Deep State, but the chances it will be lethal are minimal and the dangers obvious. ..."
    "... "War on Terror" + "Refugee Humanitarian Crisis" =European Clusterfuck ..."
    "... "War on Drugs" + "Afghan Opium/Nicaraguan Cocaine" =Police State America ..."
    Dec 22, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Robert Gore via StraightLineLogic.com,

    The pathetic attempts to undo Donald Trump's victory are signs of desperation, not strength, in the Deep State.

    The post World War II consensus held that the USSR's long-term goal was world domination. That assessment solidified after the Soviets detonated an atomic bomb in 1949. A nuclear arms race, a space race, maintenance of a globe-spanning military, political, and economic confederation, and a huge expansion of the size and power of the military and intelligence complex were justified by the Soviet, and later, the Red Chinese threats. Countering those threats led the US to use many of the same amoral tactics that it deplored when used by its enemies: espionage, subversion, bribery, repression, assassination, regime change, and direct and proxy warfare.

    Scorning principles of limited government, non-intervention in other nations' affairs, and individual rights, the Deep State embraced the anti-freedom mindset of its purported enemies, not just towards those enemies, but toward allies and the American people. The Deep State gradually assumed control of the government and elected officials were expected to adhere to its policies and promote its propaganda. Only John F. Kennedy directly challenged it, firing CIA Director Allen Dulles after the Bay of Pigs disaster. He was assassinated, and whether or not CIA involvement is ever conclusively proven, the allegations have been useful to the agency, keeping politicians in line. The Deep State also co-opted the media, keeping it in line with a combination of fear and favor.

    Since its ascension in the 1950s, the biggest threat to the Deep State has not been its many and manifest failures, but rather what the naive would regard as its biggest success: the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Much of the military-industrial complex was suddenly deprived of its reason for existence-the threat was gone. However, a more subtle point was lost.

    The Soviet Union has been the largest of statism's many failures to date. Because of the Deep State's philosophical blinders, that outcome was generally unforeseen. The command and control philosophy at the heart of Soviet communism was merely a variant on the same philosophy espoused and practiced by the Deep State. Like the commissars, its members believe that "ordinary" people are unable to handle freedom, and that their generalized superiority entitles them to wield the coercive power of government.

    With "irresponsible" elements talking of peace dividends and scaling back the military and the intelligence agencies, the complex was sorely in need of a new enemy . Islam suffers the same critical flaw as communism-command and control-and has numerous other deficiencies, including intolerance, repression, and the legal subjugation of half its adherents. The Deep State had to focus on the world conquest ideology of some Muslims to even conjure Islam as a plausible foe. However, unlike the USSR, they couldn't claim that sect and faction-ridden Islam posed a monolithic threat, that the Islamic nations were an empire or a federation united towards a common goal, or that their armaments (there are under thirty nuclear weapons in the one Islamic nation, Pakistan, that has them) could destroy the US or the entire planet.

    There was too much money and power at stake for the complex to shrink. While on paper Islam appeared far weaker than communism, the complex had one factor in their favor: terrorism is terrifying. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Americans surrendered liberties and gave the Deep State carte blanche to fight a war on terrorism that would span the globe, target all those whom the government identified as terrorists, and never be conclusively won or lost. Funding for the complex ballooned, the military was deployed on multiple fronts, and the surveillance state blossomed. Most of those who might have objected were bought off with expanded welfare state funding and programs (e.g. George W. Bush's prescription drug benefit, Obamacare).

    What would prove to be the biggest challenge to the centralization and the power of the Deep State came, unheralded, with the invention of the microchip in the late 1950s. The Deep State could not have exercised the power it has without a powerful grip on information flow and popular perception. The microchip led to widespread distribution of cheap computing power and dissemination of information over the decentralized Internet. This dynamic, organically adaptive decentralization has been the antithesis of the command-and-control Deep State, which now realizes the gravity of the threat. Fortunately, countering these technologies has been like trying to eradicate hordes of locusts.

    The gravest threat, however, to the Deep State is self-imposed: it's own incompetence. Even the technologically illiterate can ask questions for which it has no answers.

    1. Why has the US been involved in long, costly, bloody, and inconclusive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
    2. Why should the US get involved in similar conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and other Middle Eastern and Northern African hotspots?
    3. Isn't such involvement responsible for blowback terrorism and refugee flows in both Europe and the US?
    4. Have "free trade" agreements and porous borders been a net benefit or detriment to the US? Why is the banking industry set up for periodic crises that inevitably require government bail-outs? (SLL claims no special insight into the nexus between the banking-financial sector and the Deep State, other than to note that there is one.) Why does every debt crisis result in more debt?
    5. How has encouraging debt and speculation at the expense of savings and investment helped the US economy?

    The Deep State can't answer or even acknowledge these questions because they all touch on its failures.

    Brexit, Donald Trump, other populist, nationalist movements catching fire, and the rise of the alternative media are wrecking balls aimed at an already structurally unsound and teetering building that would eventually collapse on its own. The shenanigans in the US after Trump's election-violent protests, hysterical outbursts, the vote recount effort, the proof-free Russian hacking allegations, "fake news," and the attempt to sway electoral college electors-are the desperate screams of those trapped inside.

    Regrettably, the building analogy is imperfect, because it implies that those inside are helpless and that the collapse will only harm them. In its desperation, incompetence, and corrupt nihilism, the Deep State can wreak all sorts of havoc, up to and including the destruction of humanity. Trump represents an opportunity to strike a blow against the Deep State, but the chances it will be lethal are minimal and the dangers obvious.

    The euphoria over his victory cannot obscure a potential consequence: it may hasten and amplify the destruction and resultant chaos when the Deep State finally topples . Anyone who thinks Trump's victory sounds an all clear is allowing hope to triumph over experience and what should have been hard-won wisdom.

    Cheka_Mate -> unrulian •Dec 22, 2016 8:52 PM

    Deep State Playback:

    Hegelian Dialectics: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis

    Example

    "War on Terror" + "Refugee Humanitarian Crisis" =European Clusterfuck

    Or

    "War on Drugs" + "Afghan Opium/Nicaraguan Cocaine" =Police State America

    Both hands (Left/Right) to crush Liberty

    Mano-A-Mano -> Cheka_Mate •Dec 22, 2016 8:54 PM

    The DEEP STATE pretends they hate Trump, gets him in office, hoodwinks the sheeple into believing they voted for him, while they still retain control.

    Voila!

    TeamDepends -> unrulian •Dec 22, 2016 8:55 PM

    Remember the Maine! Remember the Lusitania! Remember the USS Liberty! Remember the Gulf of Tonkin! Never forget.

    Withdrawn Sanction •Dec 22, 2016 8:52 PM

    "In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Americans surrendered liberties and gave the Deep State carte blanche..."

    What a load of crap. The Deep State CAUSED 9/11 and then STOLE Americans' liberties.

    StraightLineLogic: Linear thinker, indeed.

    WTFUD •Dec 22, 2016 8:56 PM

    Shakespeare would have had a field-day with this Material; Comic Tragedy!

    BadDog •Dec 22, 2016 9:00 PM

    Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.

    red1chief •Dec 22, 2016 9:09 PM

    Funny how a guy loading up his administration with Vampire Squids is thought to be disliked by the Deep State. Deep State psy ops never ceases to amaze.

    [Dec 21, 2016] The widespread belief of neoliberals that they are entitled to a good hand in the market economy casino. This is reflected in the more or less universal belief of the affluent that

    Krugman is a neoliberal stooge. Since when Social Security is an entitlement program. If you start contributing at 25 and retire at 67 (40 years of monthly contributions), you actually get less then you contribute, unless you live more then 80 years. It just protects you from "free market casino".
    Notable quotes:
    "... A "contribution" theory of what a proper distribution of income might be can only be made coherent if there are constant returns to scale in the scarce, priced, owned factors of production. Only then can you divide the pile of resources by giving to each the marginal societal product of their work and of the resources that they own. ..."
    "... n a world--like the one we live in--of mammoth increasing returns to unowned knowledge and to networks, no individual and no community is especially valuable. Those who receive good livings are those who are lucky -- as Carrier's workers in Indiana have been lucky in living near Carrier's initial location. It's not that their contribution to society is large or that their luck is replicable: if it were, they would not care (much) about the departure of Carrier because there would be another productive network that they could fit into a slot in. ..."
    "... If not about people, what is an economy about? ..."
    "... I hadn't realized that Democrats now view Social Security and Medicare as "government handouts". ..."
    "... Some Democrats like Krugman are Social Darwinists. ..."
    "... PK is an ignorant vicious SOB. Many of those "dependent hillbillies" PK despises paid SS and Medicare taxes for many decades, most I know have never been on foos stamps, and if they are on disability it is because they did honest hard work, something PK knows nothing about. What an ignorant jerk. ..."
    "... What is a very highly subsidized industry that benefits Delong and Krugman? Higher education. Damn welfare queens! :) ..."
    "... No Krugman is echoing the tribalism of Johnny Bakho. These people won't move or educate themselves or "skill up" so they deserve what they get. Social darwinism. ..."
    "... People like Bakho are probably anti-union as well. They're seen as relics of an earlier age and economically "uncompetitve." See Fred Dobbs below. That's the dog whistle about the "rust belt." ..."
    "... Paul Krugman's reputation, formerly that of a a noted economic, succumbed after a brief struggle to Trump Derangement Syndrome. Friends said Mr Krugman's condition had been further aggravated by cognitive dissonance from a severely challenged worldview. ..."
    "... He is survived by the New York Times, also said to be in failing health. ..."
    "... For a long time DeLong was mocking the notion of "economic anxiety" amongst the voters. Does this blog post mean he's rethinking that idea? ..."
    "... The GOP has a long history of benefitting from the disconnect where a lot of their voters are convinced that when government money goes to others (sometimes even within their own white congregations), then it is not deserved. ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne : December 18, 2016 at 05:13 AM , 2016 at 05:13 AM

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/what-do-trump-voters-want/

    December 17, 2016

    What Do Trump Voters Want?
    By Paul Krugman

    Brad DeLong has an interesting meditation * on markets and political demands - inspired by a note from Noah Smith ** - that offers food for thought. I wonder, however, if Brad's discussion is too abstract; and I also wonder whether it fully recognizes the disconnect between what Trump voters think they want and reality. So, an entry of my own.

    What Brad is getting at is the widespread belief by, well, almost everyone that they are entitled to - have earned - whatever good hand they have been dealt by the market economy. This is reflected in the more or less universal belief of the affluent that they deserve what they have; you could see this in the rage of rentiers at low interest rates, because it's the Federal Reserve's job to reward savers, right? In this terrible political year, the story was in part one of people in Appalachia angrily demanding a return of the good jobs they used to have mining coal - even though the world doesn't want more coal given fracking, and it can get the coal it still wants from strip mines and mountaintop removal, which don't employ many people.

    And what Brad is saying, I think, is that what those longing for the return to coal want is those jobs they deserve, where they earn their money - not government handouts, no sir.

    A fact-constrained candidate wouldn't have been able to promise such people what they want; Trump, of course, had no problem.

    But is that really all there is? Working-class Trump voters do, in fact, receive a lot of government handouts - they're almost totally dependent on Social Security for retirement, Medicare for health care when old, are quite dependent on food stamps, and many have recently received coverage from Obamacare. Quite a few receive disability payments too. They don't want those benefits to go away. But they managed to convince themselves (with a lot of help from Fox News etc) that they aren't really beneficiaries of government programs, or that they're not getting the "good welfare", which only goes to Those People.

    And you can really see this in the regional patterns. California is an affluent state, a heavy net contributor to the federal budget; it went 2-1 Clinton. West Virginia is poor and a huge net recipient of federal aid; it went 2 1/2-1 Trump.

    I don't think any kind of economic analysis can explain this. It has to be about culture and, as always, race.

    * http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/12/is-the-problem-one-of-insufficient-market-wages-inadequate-social-insurance-polanyian-disruption-of-patterns-of-life-.html

    ** https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-16/four-ways-to-help-the-midwest

    anne -> anne... , December 18, 2016 at 05:18 AM
    http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/12/is-the-problem-one-of-insufficient-market-wages-inadequate-social-insurance-polanyian-disruption-of-patterns-of-life-.html

    December 17, 2016

    Regional Policy and Distributional Policy in a World Where People Want to Ignore the Value and Contribution of Knowledge- and Network-Based Increasing Returns

    Pascal Lamy: "When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger..."

    Perhaps in the end the problem is that people want to pretend that they are filling a valuable role in the societal division of labor, and are receiving no more than they earn--than they contribute.

    But that is not the case. The value--the societal dividend--is in the accumulated knowledge of humanity and in the painfully constructed networks that make up our value chains.

    A "contribution" theory of what a proper distribution of income might be can only be made coherent if there are constant returns to scale in the scarce, priced, owned factors of production. Only then can you divide the pile of resources by giving to each the marginal societal product of their work and of the resources that they own.

    That, however, is not the world we live in.

    In a world--like the one we live in--of mammoth increasing returns to unowned knowledge and to networks, no individual and no community is especially valuable. Those who receive good livings are those who are lucky -- as Carrier's workers in Indiana have been lucky in living near Carrier's initial location. It's not that their contribution to society is large or that their luck is replicable: if it were, they would not care (much) about the departure of Carrier because there would be another productive network that they could fit into a slot in.

    All of this "what you deserve" language is tied up with some vague idea that you deserve what you contribute--that what your work adds to the pool of society's resources is what you deserve.

    This illusion is punctured by any recognition that there is a large societal dividend to be distributed, and that the government can distribute it by supplementing (inadequate) market wages determined by your (low) societal marginal product, or by explicitly providing income support or services unconnected with work via social insurance. Instead, the government is supposed to, somehow, via clever redistribution, rearrange the pattern of market power in the economy so that the increasing-returns knowledge- and network-based societal dividend is predistributed in a relatively egalitarian way so that everybody can pretend that their income is just "to each according to his work", and that they are not heirs and heiresses coupon clipping off of the societal capital of our predecessors' accumulated knowledge and networks.

    On top of this we add: Polanyian disruption of patterns of life--local communities, income levels, industrial specialization--that you believed you had a right to obtain or maintain, and a right to believe that you deserve. But in a market capitalist society, nobody has a right to the preservation of their local communities, to their income levels, or to an occupation in their industrial specialization. In a market capitalist society, those survive only if they pass a market profitability test. And so the only rights that matter are those property rights that at the moment carry with them market power--the combination of the (almost inevitably low) marginal societal products of your skills and the resources you own, plus the (sometimes high) market power that those resources grant to you.

    This wish to believe that you are not a moocher is what keeps people from seeing issues of distribution and allocation clearly--and generates hostility to social insurance and to wage supplement policies, for they rip the veil off of the idea that you deserve to be highly paid because you are worth it. You aren't.

    And this ties itself up with regional issues: regional decline can come very quickly whenever a region finds that its key industries have, for whatever reason, lost the market power that diverted its previously substantial share of the knowledge- and network-based societal dividend into the coffers of its firms. The resources cannot be simply redeployed in other industries unless those two have market power to control the direction of a share of the knowledge- and network-based societal dividend. And so communities decline and die. And the social contract--which was supposed to have given you a right to a healthy community--is broken.

    As I have said before, humans are, at a very deep and basic level, gift-exchange animals. We create and reinforce our social bonds by establishing patterns of "owing" other people and by "being owed". We want to enter into reciprocal gift-exchange relationships. We create and reinforce social bonds by giving each other presents. We like to give. We like to receive. We like neither to feel like cheaters nor to feel cheated. We like, instead, to feel embedded in networks of mutual reciprocal obligation. We don't like being too much on the downside of the gift exchange: to have received much more than we have given in return makes us feel very small. We don't like being too much on the upside of the gift exchange either: to give and give and give and never receive makes us feel like suckers.

    We want to be neither cheaters nor saps....

    ken melvin -> anne... , December 18, 2016 at 05:32 AM
    If not about people, what is an economy about?
    Observer -> anne... , December 18, 2016 at 05:59 AM
    I hadn't realized that Democrats now view Social Security and Medicare as "government handouts".
    Peter K. -> Observer... , December 18, 2016 at 09:25 AM
    Some Democrats like Krugman are Social Darwinists. They're the "center-left" versus Bernie Sanders's leftwing supporters.
    Tom aka Rusty -> anne... , December 18, 2016 at 06:06 AM
    PK is an ignorant vicious SOB. Many of those "dependent hillbillies" PK despises paid SS and Medicare taxes for many decades, most I know have never been on foos stamps, and if they are on disability it is because they did honest hard work, something PK knows nothing about. What an ignorant jerk.
    Tom aka Rusty -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 18, 2016 at 06:31 AM
    What is a very highly subsidized industry that benefits Delong and Krugman? Higher education. Damn welfare queens! :)
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 18, 2016 at 06:37 AM
    Not LOL worthy, but still a good solid :<)
    anne -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 18, 2016 at 06:53 AM

    Education from elementary through college and professional levels is of course publicly supported in every reasonably advanced country in the world.

    EMichael -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 18, 2016 at 07:18 AM
    What is a very highly subsidized industry that benefits Rusty?

    Healthcare.

    Damn welfare queen!

    Peter K. -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 09:33 AM
    Or Krugman's textbook industry.
    BenIsNotYoda -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM
    PK's rhetoric, together with shills like pgl and emichael, has deteriorated quite a bit. Nicely done Rusty.
    anne -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 18, 2016 at 06:34 AM
    "dependent hillbillies"

    [ This is a false quote. A writer should never be falsely quoted. There is no such expression used in this or any other essay by Paul Krugman. ]

    pgl -> anne... , December 18, 2016 at 09:34 AM
    It must be really cold where Rusty lives and he woke up in one foul mood.
    DeDude -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 18, 2016 at 08:58 AM
    Exactly the same could be said about many of those inner city minorities that the "dependent hillbillies" look down on as "welfare queens". That may be one of the reasons they take special issues with "food stamps", because in contrast to the hillbillies, inner city poor people cannot grow their own food. What Krugman is pointing out is the hypocrisy of their tribalism - and also the idiocy, because the dismantling of society would ultimately hurt the morons that voted GOP into power this round.
    Peter K. -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:31 AM
    "What Krugman is pointing out is the hypocrisy of their tribalism "

    No Krugman is echoing the tribalism of Johnny Bakho. These people won't move or educate themselves or "skill up" so they deserve what they get. Social darwinism.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , December 18, 2016 at 09:58 AM
    People like Bakho are probably anti-union as well. They're seen as relics of an earlier age and economically "uncompetitve." See Fred Dobbs below. That's the dog whistle about the "rust belt."
    Julio -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 18, 2016 at 10:53 AM
    His tone is supercilious and offensive. But your argument is that they are not "dependent" because they earned every benefit they get from the government. I think his point is that "dependent" is not offensive -- the term jus reflects how we all depend on government services. DeLong makes the point much better in the article quoted by anne above.
    Observer -> anne... , December 18, 2016 at 06:07 AM
    In Memorium

    Paul Krugman's reputation, formerly that of a a noted economic, succumbed after a brief struggle to Trump Derangement Syndrome. Friends said Mr Krugman's condition had been further aggravated by cognitive dissonance from a severely challenged worldview.

    He is survived by the New York Times, also said to be in failing health.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Observer... , December 18, 2016 at 06:38 AM
    :<)
    kthomas -> anne... , December 18, 2016 at 06:52 AM
    Judith Miller. Dowd. Doh!at. Broder. Brooks.

    BS

    anne -> anne... , December 18, 2016 at 06:55 AM
    The New York Times is easily the finest newspaper in the world, is broadly recognized as such and is of course flourishing. Such an institution will always have sections or editors and writers of relative strength but these relative strengths change over time as the newspaper continually changes.
    Observer -> anne... , December 18, 2016 at 07:36 AM
    Flourishing?

    NYT Co. to revamp HQ, vacate eight floors in consolidation

    "In an SEC filing, New York Times Co. discloses a staff communication it provided today to employees about a revamp of its headquarters -- including consolidating floors.

    The company will vacate at least eight floors, consolidating workspaces and allowing for "significant" rental income, the memo says."

    http://seekingalpha.com/news/3231232-nyt-co-revamp-hq-vacate-eight-floors-consolidation

    anne -> Dan Kervick... , December 18, 2016 at 07:17 AM
    Brad DeLong's piece was thoughtful.

    [ Importantly so, worth a couple of close readings. ]

    Peter K. -> Dan Kervick... , December 18, 2016 at 09:30 AM
    For a long time DeLong was mocking the notion of "economic anxiety" amongst the voters. Does this blog post mean he's rethinking that idea?
    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , December 18, 2016 at 09:57 AM
    Technocratic Democrats like DeLong and Krugman (or neoliberal centrists) are notoriously against economic democracy and unions and the like.

    Maybe that's a factor here.

    Dan Kervick -> Peter K.... , December 18, 2016 at 01:13 PM
    I think he and others have finally reached a point where denial is not an option.
    DeDude -> anne... , December 18, 2016 at 08:37 AM
    The GOP has a long history of benefitting from the disconnect where a lot of their voters are convinced that when government money goes to others (sometimes even within their own white congregations), then it is not deserved. But if that same government money goes to themselves (or their real close relatives), then it is a hard earned and well-deserved payback for their sacrifices and tax payments. So the GOP leadership has always called it "saving social security" and "cracking down on fraud" rather than admitting to their attempts to dismantle those programs. The Dems better be on the ball and call it what it is. If you want to save those programs you just have to prevent rich people from wiggling out of paying for them (don't repeal the Obamacare medicare taxes on the rich).
    rjs -> anne... , December 18, 2016 at 10:12 AM
    What Do Trump Voters Want? for starters, they'd probably want people like Krugman to stop looking down their noses at them like they're lepers..
    DeDude -> rjs ... , December 18, 2016 at 01:49 PM
    Can we at least call those with the pointy white hats, despicable?
    rjs -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 02:29 PM

    depends on how many of those people who voted for Obama in 2012 you figure to have joined the pointy white hat club since...


    http://peakwatch.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452403c69e201bb0960723f970d-pi

    DeDude -> rjs ... , December 18, 2016 at 03:45 PM
    Would they not be despicable regardless of what kind of wood they previously enjoyed burning?
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron : , December 18, 2016 at 06:15 AM
    Excellent post election commentary from Bloom County (comic).

    http://www.gocomics.com/bloom-county/2016/11/27

    David : , December 18, 2016 at 07:16 AM
    On the Pk piece. I think it is really about human dignity, and the need for it. There were a lot of factors in this horrific election, but just as urban blacks need to be spared police brutality, rural whites need a dignified path in their lives. Everyone, united, deserves such a path.

    This is a real challenge for economists; how do we rebuild the rust belt (which applies to areas beyond the literal rust belt).

    If we do not, we risk Trump 2.0, which could be very scary indeed.

    EMichael -> David... , December 18, 2016 at 07:36 AM
    I agree to a point, but what the piece is about is that in search of a solution to the problems of the rustbelt (whatever the definition is),people voted for Trump who had absolutely no plan to solve such a problem, other than going back to the future and redoing Nafta and getting rid of regulations.

    Meanwhile, that vote also meant that the safety net that helps all Americans in trouble was being placed in severe risk.

    Those voters were fixed on his rhetoric and right arm extended while his left hand was grabbing them by the (in deference to Anne I will not say the words, but Trump himself has said one of them and the other is the male version).

    Peter K. -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 08:48 AM
    "I agree to a point,"

    Really? You didn't seem to before. You'd say what Duy or Noah Smith or DeLong were mulling about was off-limits. You'd ban them from the comment section if you could. "This is a real challenge for economists; how do we rebuild the rust belt (which applies to areas beyond the literal rust belt).

    If we do not, we risk Trump 2.0, which could be very scary indeed." I don't see why this is such a controversial point for centrist like Krugman. How do we appeal to the white working class without contradicting our principles?

    By promoting policies that raise living standards. By delivering, which mean left-wing policies not centrist tinkering. It's the Clinton vs. Sanders primary. Hillary could have nominated Elizabeth Warren as her VP candidate but her corporate masters wouldn't let her.

    sglover -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 06:08 PM
    "Meanwhile, that vote also meant that the safety net that helps all Americans in trouble was being placed in severe risk."

    That safety net is an improvement over 1930. But it's been fraying so badly over the last 20-30 years that it's almost lost all meaning. It's something people turn to before total destitution, but for rebuilding a life? A sick joke, filled with petty hassles and frustrations.

    And the fraying has been a solidly bipartisan project. Who can forget welfare "reform"?

    So maybe the yokels you're blaming for the 10,000-th time might not buy your logic or your intentions.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> David... , December 18, 2016 at 08:07 AM
    In the rustbelt, Dems are accustomed to
    dealing with their supporters who are
    union members. (Why the auto industry
    was bailed out, dontchaknow.)

    That obviously doesn't work so well
    any more. In that region, recovery
    was 'less than robust', no?

    In New England, where unions are much
    less of a factor, recovery has been
    relatively successful. Dems remain
    pretty strong here.

    Why can't the rustbelt be more
    like the northeast?

    The ongoing new industrial revolution
    would seem to have much to do
    with such matters.

    Peter K. -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 18, 2016 at 08:49 AM
    "In New England, where unions are much less of a factor, recovery has been relatively successful. Dems remain pretty strong here."

    Is that accurate?

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Peter K.... , December 18, 2016 at 09:30 AM
    unions don't have much to celebrate (in MA) http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/08/29/labor-day-but-there-little-for-labor-celebrate/e4MOhMsc5lf6rJkZdCPbKM/story.html?event=event25
    via @BostonGlobe - August 2014

    ... At the height of their influence in the 1950s, labor unions could claim to represent about 1 of every 3 American workers. Today, it's 1 in 9 - and falling.

    Some have seen the shrinking size and waning influence of labor unions as a sign that the US economy is growing more flexible and dynamic, but there's mounting evidence that it is also contributing to slow wage growth and the rise in inequality. ...


    (Union membership) NY 24.7%, MA 12.4%, SC 2.1%

    ... Are unions faring any better here in Massachusetts?

    While Massachusetts's unions are stronger than average, it's not among the most heavily unionized states. That honor goes to New York, where 1 in every 4 workers belongs to a union. After New York, there are 11 other states with higher union membership rates then Massachusetts.

    Here too, though, the decline in union membership over time has been steep.

    (From 1983 to 2013) US -42%, MA -44%

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Peter K.... , December 18, 2016 at 09:44 AM
    Union Members Summary - BLS - Jan 2016 https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

    ... In 2015, 30 states and the District of Columbia had union membership rates below
    that of the U.S. average, 11.1 percent, and 20 states had rates above it. All states
    in the East South Central and West South Central divisions had union membership rates
    below the national average, and all states in the Middle Atlantic and Pacific divisions
    had rates above it. Union membership rates increased over the year in 24 states and
    the District of Columbia, declined in 23 states, and were unchanged in 3 states.
    (See table 5.)

    Five states had union membership rates below 5.0 percent in 2015: South Carolina
    (2.1 percent), North Carolina (3.0 percent), Utah (3.9 percent), Georgia (4.0 percent),
    and Texas (4.5 percent).

    Two states had union membership rates over 20.0 percent in
    2015: New York (24.7 percent) and Hawaii (20.4 percent).

    State union membership levels depend on both the employment level and the union
    membership rate. The largest numbers of union members lived in California (2.5 million)
    and New York (2.0 million).

    Roughly half of the 14.8 million union members in the
    U.S. lived in just seven states (California, 2.5 million; New York, 2.0 million;
    Illinois, 0.8 million; Pennsylvania, 0.7 million; and Michigan, Ohio, and New Jersey,
    0.6 million each), though these states accounted for only about one-third of wage and
    salary employment nationally.

    (It appears that New England union participation
    lags in the northeast, and also in the rest of
    the US not in the Red Zone.)

    Table 5. Union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by state https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t05.htm

    Peter K. -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 18, 2016 at 09:56 AM
    "In New England, where unions are much
    less of a factor, recovery has been
    relatively successful. Dems remain
    pretty strong here."

    I'm questionning the causation. B/c New England has fewer unions, they're doing better?

    My bet is that most of these centrists like Krugman don't like unions and think they're ancient relics which hurt the economies "competitiveness."

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Peter K.... , December 18, 2016 at 10:12 AM
    I have noted before that New England
    is doing better 'than average' (IMO)
    because of high-tech industry & education.

    Not necessarily because of a lack of
    unionization, which is prevalent here
    in public education & among service
    workers. Note that in higher ed,
    much here is private.

    Private industry here traditionally
    is not heavily unionized, although
    that is probably not the case
    among defense corps.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Peter K.... , December 18, 2016 at 10:21 AM
    As to causation, I think the
    implication is that 'Dems dealing
    with unions' has not been working
    all that well, recovery-wise,
    particularly in the rust belt.

    That must have as much to do with
    industrial management as it does
    with labor, and the ubiquitous
    on-going industrial revolution.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 18, 2016 at 10:24 AM
    It may well be that in the
    rust belt, corps are doing
    reasonably well, but not as
    much with labor. That is an
    industrial revolution problem.
    sglover -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 18, 2016 at 06:10 PM
    "In the rustbelt, Dems are accustomed to dealing with their supporters who are union members. (Why the auto industry was bailed out, dontchaknow.)"

    Uh huh. Sure.

    Know how many times HRC visited UAW groups during her "campaign" in Michigan?

    Zero.

    Those autoworkers are real ingrates.

    DeDude -> David... , December 18, 2016 at 09:35 AM
    Everybody needs, and desperately crave, self-confidence and dignity. In white rural culture that has always been connected to the old settler mentality and values of personal "freedom" and "independence". It is unfortunate that this freedom/independence mythology has been what attracted all the immigrants from Europe over here. So it is as strongly engrained (both in culture and individual values) as it is outdated and counterproductive in the world of the future. I am not sure that society can help a community where people find themselves humiliated by being helped (especially by bad government). Maybe somehow try to get them to think of the government help as an earned benefit?
    Fred C. Dobbs -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 10:22 AM
    Ok, that seems very quaint.

    [Dec 21, 2016] M of A - How The Military Excluded The White House From International Syria Negotiations

    Dec 21, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    How The Military Excluded The White House From International Syria Negotiations

    The NYT laments today that international negotiations about the situation in Syria now continue without any U.S. participation: Russia, Iran and Turkey Meet for Syria Talks, Excluding U.S.

    Russia, Iran and Turkey met in Moscow on Tuesday to work toward a political accord to end Syria's nearly six-year war, leaving the United States on the sidelines as the countries sought to drive the conflict in ways that serve their interests.

    Secretary of State John Kerry was not invited. Nor was the United Nations consulted.

    With pro-government forces having made critical gains on the ground, ...

    (Note: The last sentence originally and correctly said "pro-Syrian forces ...", not "pro-government forces ...". It was altered after I noted the "pro-Syrian" change of tone on Twitter.)

    Russia kicked the U.S. out of any further talks about Syria after the U.S. blew a deal which, after long delaying negotiations, Kerry had made with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.

    In a recent interview Kerry admits that it was opposition from the Pentagon, not Moscow or Damascus, that had blown up his agreement with Russia over Syria:

    More recently, he has clashed inside the administration with Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. Kerry negotiated an agreement with Russia to share joint military operations, but it fell apart.

    "Unfortunately we had divisions within our own ranks that made the implementation of that extremely hard to accomplish ," Kerry said. "But I believe in it, I think it can work, could have worked."

    Kerry's agreement with Russia did not just "fell apart". The Pentagon actively sabotaged it by intentionally and perfidiously attacking the Syrian army.

    The deal with Russia was made in June. It envisioned coordinated attacks on ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria, both designated as terrorist under two UN Security Council resolutions which call upon all countries to eradicate them. For months the U.S. failed to separate its CIA and Pentagon trained, supplied and paid "moderate rebel" from al-Qaeda, thereby blocking the deal. In September the deal was modified and finally ready to be implemented.

    The Pentagon still did not like it but had been overruled by the White House:

    The agreement that Secretary of State John Kerry announced with Russia to reduce the killing in Syria has widened an increasingly public divide between Mr. Kerry and Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, who has deep reservations about the plan for American and Russian forces to jointly target terrorist groups.
    Mr. Carter was among the administration officials who pushed against the agreement on a conference call with the White House last week as Mr. Kerry, joining the argument from a secure facility in Geneva, grew increasingly frustrated. Although President Obama ultimately approved the effort after hours of debate, Pentagon officials remain unconvinced.
    ...
    "I'm not saying yes or no," Lt. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, commander of the United States Air Forces Central Command , told reporters on a video conference call. "It would be premature to say that we're going to jump right into it."

    The CentCom general threatened to not follow the decision his Commander of Chief had taken. He would not have done so without cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

    Three days later U.S. CentCom Air Forces and allied Danish airplanes attack Syrian army positions near the ISIS besieged city of Deir Ezzor. During 37 air attacks within one hour between 62 and 100 Syrian Arab Army soldiers were killed and many more wounded. They had held a defensive positions on hills overlooking the Deir Ezzor airport. Shortly after the U.S. air attack ISIS forces stormed the hills and have held them since. Resupply for the 100,000+ civilians and soldiers in Deir Ezzor is now endangered if not impossible. The CentCom attack enabled ISIS to eventually conquer Deir Ezzor and to establish the envisioned "Salafist principality" in east Syria.

    During the U.S. attack the Syrian-Russian operations center had immediately tried to contact the designated coordination officer at U.S. Central Command to stop the attack. But that officer could not be reached and those at CentCom taking the Russian calls just hanged up:

    By time the Russian officer found his designated contact - who was away from his desk - and explained that the coalition was actually hitting a Syrian army unit, "a good amount of strikes" had already taken place, U.S. Central Command spokesman Col. John Thomas told reporters at the Pentagon Tuesday.

    Until the attack the Syrian and Russian side had, as agreed with Kerry, kept to a ceasefire to allow the separation of the "marbled" CIA and al-Qaeda forces. After the CentCom air attack the Kerry-Lavrov deal was off :

    On the sidelines of an emergency UN Security Council meeting called on the matter, tempers were high. Russia's permanent UN representative, Vitaly Churkin, questioned the timing of the strikes, two days before Russian-American coordination in the fight against terror groups in Syria was to begin.
    "I have never seen such an extraordinary display of American heavy-handedness," he said, after abruptly leaving the meeting.

    The Pentagon launched one of its usual whitewash investigations and a heavily redacted summary report (pdf) was released in late November.

    Gareth Porter still found some usable bits in it:

    The report, released by US Central Command on 29 November, shows that senior US Air Force officers at the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) at al-Udeid Airbase in Qatar, who were responsible for the decision to carry out the September airstrike at Deir Ezzor:
    • misled the Russians about where the US intended to strike so Russia could not warn that it was targeting Syrian troops
    • ignored information and intelligence analysis warning that the positions to be struck were Syrian government rather than Islamic State
    • shifted abruptly from a deliberate targeting process to an immediate strike in violation of normal Air Force procedures

    The investigation was led by a Brigade General. He was too low in rank to investigate or challenge the responsible CentCom air-commander Lt. Gen. Harrington. The name of a co-investigator was redacted in the report and marked as "foreign government information". That officer was likely from Denmark.

    Four days after the investigation report was officially released the Danish government, without giving any public reason, pulled back its air contingent from any further operations under U.S. command in Iraq and Syria.

    With the attack on Deir Ezzor the Pentagon has:

    It is clear that the responsible U.S. officer for the attack and its consequences is one Lt. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian who had earlier publicly spoken out against a deal that his Commander in Chief had agreed to. He likely had cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

    The White House did not react to this public military insubordination and undermining of its diplomacy.

    Emptywheel notes that, though on a different issue, the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the President's decisions:

    [I]t alarms me that someone decided it was a good idea to go leak criticisms of a [presidential] Red Phone exchange. It would seem that such an instrument depends on some foundation of trust that, no matter how bad things have gotten, two leaders of nuclear armed states can speak frankly and directly.

    Posted by b at 01:34 PM | Comments (38) AntiSpin | Dec 21, 2016 2:10:11 PM | 3

    SmoothieX12 | Dec 21, 2016 3:03:26 PM | 4
    though on a different issue, the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the President's decisions:

    It merely confirms or reinforces what was known now for quite some, rather long, time--Obama is a shallow and cowardly amateur who basically abandoned the duty of governing the nation to all kinds of neocon adventurists and psychopaths. So, nothing new here. Results are everywhere on display for everyone to see.

    pubumwei | Dec 21, 2016 3:07:43 PM | 5
    WW3 is obviously just around the corner.

    cantmossadtheassad | Dec 21, 2016 3:25:46 PM | 6
    https://twitter.com/BilalKareem/status/811216051656658944
    Here's Bilal (American CIA agent) pointing out another terrorist scumbag has an explosive belt to avoid getting captured. Notice his face is covered and he appears western? Likely the American David Scott Winner or Israeli aDavid Shlomo Aram. They're going to explode their way out of Aleppo. SAA should have just exterminated the rats rather than let them leave, Bilal included

    likklemore | Dec 21, 2016 3:27:27 PM | 7
    Well b, after multiple revelations of US treachery, the water basket can take only so much.

    Bilateral relationship is at bare minimum. Communication is said to be Frozen - I posted on the previous Open Thread the link below
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-21/kremlin-warns-response-latest-us-sanctions-says-almost-all-communication-us-frozen

    Then again, it is difficult to see how sanctions between the two administration could be any more "damaged": also on Wednesday, the Kremlin said it did not expect the incoming U.S. administration to reject NATO enlargement overnight and that almost all communications channels between Russia and the United States were frozen, the RIA news agency reported.

    "Almost every level of dialogue with the United States is frozen. We don't communicate with one another, or (if we do) we do so minimally," Peskov said.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    FWIW, The State Department 's full transcript of Presser on the Threesome talks – Kerry out of the loop, Snubbed but briefed - http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/12/265846.htm

    Link includes denial US had a role in the assignation of Russia's Ambassador.
    The Denial, https://www.rt.com/news/371097-us-reject-claims-russian-ambassador/ because some have noted the curious timing and connected dots:-

    ((I have a pen Obama and I can dial the red phone.))


    On Friday, 17 December Obama threatened Russia and maintained the no evidence hacking of the US Elections to favor Trump.
    He is quoted as saying:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-18/obama-plans-retaliation-against-russian-hacking-problem-emerges

    The only thing worse than not using a weapon is using it ineffectively. And if he does choose to retaliate, he has insisted on maintaining what is known as "escalation dominance," the ability to ensure you can end a conflict on your terms.

    Mr. Obama hinted as much at his news conference on Friday, as he was set to leave for his annual Hawaii vacation, his last as president.

    "Our goal continues to be to send a clear message to Russia or others not to do this to us because we can do stuff to you," he said. "But it is also important to us to do that in a thoughtful, methodical way. Some of it, we will do publicly. Some of it we will do in a way that they know, but not everybody will."

    On Monday 19 December, there was a hit captured on video and played worldwide. It was not by droning.

    plantman | Dec 21, 2016 3:36:48 PM | 8
    This post confirms that neocon Ash Carter was at the heart of the attack on Deir Ezzor and that the pro-Israel faction at the Pentagon will defy the chief executive if it achieves their political objectives.

    I don't know how anyone can review the details of this incident and not conclude that the split in the US government is nearing a climax-point where the removal of an obstinate president is a real possibility.

    Steve | Dec 21, 2016 3:37:44 PM | 9
    "deceived a European NATO ally..." Denmark is run by bastards, so they need not be deceived to participate in the criminal act. Same as Australia.

    james | Dec 21, 2016 3:43:25 PM | 10
    excellent coverage b.. thank you..

    the fact this division in power is happening in the usa today is indeed scary... why is this fucker ash carter still in any position of power, let alone the dipshit Jeffrey L. Harrigian? both these military folks might be serving israels interests very well, not to mention saudi arabia and gcc's but they sure ain't representing the usa's... or is the usa still a country with a leadership command? doesn't look like it..

    rg the lg | Dec 21, 2016 3:48:28 PM | 11
    Curiouser and curiouser.

    The trolls of the empire are feeding on each other. And this is a good thing ... why?

    Because on their own the sheople of the US are incapable of a revolt no matter how righteous their cause. The oligarchs and their minions thrive on discord and chaos. Thus we have the beginnings of a major breakdown (at long last) as some states (California in the lead) contemplate an exit by trying to establish embassies.

    My, my!

    We've never had a revolution in this country. Once upon a time we had a revolt by one group of oligarchs against the other (called a civil war, and its predecessor called the revolution). But a real bloody, kill off the oligarchs (as per France and Russia) revolt? No way Jose!

    No ... we stupidly accept the tripe/trope of being too damned good ... recently called exceptionalism.

    Implosion! The rest of the world (like me) can't wait!

    Wwinsti | Dec 21, 2016 3:51:50 PM | 12
    So that's it? Deir Ezzor is just a write off? Putin is publicly talking about "wrapping up" the Russian mission in Syria, Iran wants to turn the military focus westward, towards Idlib. At least this is what they say in public.

    PavewayIV | Dec 21, 2016 3:57:59 PM | 13
    I think the Deir EzZor attack was more of a dying gasp from the CIA/CENTCOM than anything of immense strategic value. A last shot at prepping their east Syrian head-chopper partition, but a futile one at that. Palmyra and the attack on the Syrian oil/gas hub give that same impression, too. Neither was very well though out and both efforts are proving to be failures.

    All this while the Obama administration is pushing for the SF 'cleaners' to erase any left-over intel and al Qaeda/al Nusra leaders as the head-choppers flee Aleppo. The CIA/CENTCOM are obviously in on this, while they still fancy some safe place for their spies and collaborators to escape and continue the fight.

    Russia's Turkish ambassador? Maybe he was an unfortunate part of the U.S. clean-up operation. He would have certainly been privy to a lot of damaging info on U.S. involvement. Obama announced the clean-up operation in mid-November - recall the unexpected 'targeting key ISIS and al Nusra leaders' spiel, followed by the dispatch of U.S. SF (and U.K. SAS) kill-teams.

    The ugly part of U.S. CIA/CENTCOM support for head-choppers is that they must control them. If they can't corral them in an east Syrian Pipelanistan, then they have to kill them and eliminate evidence of U.S. (and cronies') involvement. All at a time when a lame-duck U.S. administration is packing their belongings and cleaning out their offices.

    The current CIA leaders and current neocon CENTCOM lackeys are pretty much out of business in the Middle East when Trump gets in. If they can't eliminate Trump, he will eliminate them. Current CENTCOM commanders will be purged and replaced with fresh Israeli-firsters for the war with Iran. Trump's stated plans to pour more money into 'strengthening' the U.S. military means plenty of jobs for the departing generals.

    MacDill AFB (CENTCOM's home) must be crawling with defense industry executive recruiters looking for some fresh meat. The Pentagram is probably going to get an enema as well. Pretty soon, there will be unshaven, dirty generals standing near freeway on-ramps in Arlington begging for change, holding crudely-lettered cardboard signs that say, "Unemployed. Will wage war for sheckels. God bless you!" [I'll have my baseball bat ready...]

    SmoothieX12 | Dec 21, 2016 4:07:02 PM | 14
    Russia's Turkish ambassador? Maybe he was an unfortunate part of the U.S. clean-up operation. He would have certainly been privy to a lot of damaging info on U.S. involvement.

    If he was privy, so were, simultaneously, all intelligence people working under cover and, as a consequence, Russia's military-political top. There are some really strong indications of Karlov's assassination being a "parting gift" by US neocon mafia who, especially after Trump's victory and liberation of Aleppo, is the main loser (not that they ever won anything realistically) in a major geopolitical shift which is taking place as I type this.

    Copeland | Dec 21, 2016 4:07:14 PM | 15
    One of your best posts ever, b. Certainly, it shows what a terrible mess has been created by the deceptive, infamous lot, who have added fuel to the fire in this war in Syria.

    Jen | Dec 21, 2016 4:24:55 PM | 16
    AntiSpin @ 3:

    I should imagine that if you Google Bethania Palma's name (she's also known as Bethania Palma Markus), you will find that as a freelance writer she will have social media accounts (Facebook, Twitter, possibly LinkedIn) and you and others can try to contact her through those.

    Palma has also written rubbish pieces on the Syrian White Helmets and former UK ambassador Craig Murray's claims that the DNC emails leaks were the work of a Washington insider.

    The more she writes such pieces for Snopes.com, laying out the details of the issue and then blithely dismissing them as having no credibility, the more the website's reputation for objective investigation will fall anyway. Palma will be her own worst enemy. So perhaps we need not bother trying to argue with her.

    Danny801 | Dec 21, 2016 4:54:22 PM | 17
    I have never before seen a US President as weak as Obama to the point where his own military disregards his command. the fact that anyone at the Pentagon would still have a job after openly defying the commander in chief shows you the pathetic state of affairs in a crumbling US.

    psychohistorian | Dec 21, 2016 5:14:47 PM | 18
    Thank you b for a splendid piece of journalism.

    While it speaks to a serious changing of the guard in the US military with Trump I hold little hope that it in anyway signals a lessening of the goals of empire.....just a change in approach.

    Those owning private finance are still leading our "parade" into extinction, IMO It sure looks to me like the acolytes of Trump have primary fealty to the God of Mammon.

    AntiSpin | Dec 21, 2016 5:16:43 PM | 19
    @Jen 16

    Thanks for your comments. Here's some fresh info (well, fresh to me, anyway.)

    Journalist Eva Bartlett DESTROYS Mainstream Journalist Over Syria, Aleppo
    http://www.activistpost.com/2016/12/journalist-eva-bartlett-destroys-mainstream-journalist-syria-aleppo.html

    Then, about 35 or so comments down, an excellent and rather devastating analysis of the Snopes attack, by one "sleepd." In it he discusses the background of the Snopes "report's" author:

    "Let's look at the background of Bethania Palmer, the author of the Snopes piece. It claims she worked as a "journalist" for the Los Angeles Newspaper Group, which is a media company that has been purchased by a holding company called Digital First (previously Media News Group) that was run by a private equity company managed by a hedge funder. They are known for purchasing local run small newspapers and cutting staff and consolidating content into corporate-friendly ad sales positions. She also claims work for LAist, a local style and events blog in Los Angeles, and the OC Weekly, a somewhat conservative-leaning local weekly that survives on advertising. Nothing in her background that speaks towards expertise in the Middle East, or even awareness of differences in populations there. Considering that, we have to rate her credibility as below Barlett's when it comes to reporting on Middle Eastern affairs."

    lysias | Dec 21, 2016 5:19:19 PM | 20
    If the Pentagon can defy the president on such an important matter, I've gotta ask: Who controls the U.S.'s nukes?

    lysias | Dec 21, 2016 5:21:00 PM | 21
    If Trump's acolytes owe primary allegiance to Mammon, could that mean that they do not owe allegiance to Mars?

    blues | Dec 21, 2016 5:48:18 PM | 22
    Dear President Barack Obama:

    Please fire Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter. I'm too old to get many other Christmas gifts this year.

    Thank you for your kind attention,

    blues

    lysias | Dec 21, 2016 5:54:50 PM | 23
    Obama had the Secretary of Defense he wanted, Chuck Hagel, in the office for a while. But for some reason he was unable to resist the pressure that was put on him to replace Hagel with Carter.

    ALberto | Dec 21, 2016 6:30:28 PM | 24
    b,

    Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that in this day and age where everyone has a phone camera there exists not one picture of the alleged gore that occurred in France and German truck attacks???

    Also possessing identification documents, leaving them at the scene, appears to be a special talent required of all pseudo terr'ists.

    lysias | Dec 21, 2016 7:08:01 PM | 25
    I even saw a report in Tagesspiegel yesterday that said the authorities did not have a video. Pretty hard to believe. The place was packed with tourists. Just about everybody has a cellphone these days.

    I commented on it on a site yesterday, but I don't remember which one. Might have been here.

    Nobody | Dec 21, 2016 7:15:30 PM | 26
    Check out George Webb he's on to it. He should collaborate with b https://youtu.be/3-BYdDRbug0

    WorldBLee | Dec 21, 2016 7:27:10 PM | 27
    Good stuff, b. As much as I dislike Obama, I imagine he has to feel relieved his presidency is coming to an end so he doesn't have to deal with idiots like Ash Carter every day.

    William Mcdonald | Dec 21, 2016 7:37:16 PM | 28
    The General should have been publicly fired by the Secretary immediately after that video conference. It didn't happen so the CIC should have fired the SOD and found someone to fire the General. Defying the CIC, what a message to the world!

    jfl | Dec 21, 2016 7:38:09 PM | 29
    b,
    The CentCom general threatened to not follow the decision his Commander of Chief had taken. He would not have done so without cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.
    Ash Carter is certainly a neo-con, an insubordinate traitor, and is likely a CIA mole in the Pentagon. He has 29 days of monkey-wrenching left at the Pentagon.

    Beneath your heading 'With the attack on Deir Ezzor the Pentagon has:' add effected a coup against the POTUS.

    I agree with @12 wwinsti and @13 paveway ... at least i wanna believe that Ash 'CIA' Carter has managed to throw in his monkey-wrenches but that 'the Deir EzZor attack was more of a dying gasp from the CIA/CENTCOM than anything of immense strategic value'.

    @17 danny801

    Reagan was the same ... just that he was non compos mentis from the start, so didn't know he was just the cardboard cutout that he was. Obama knew, took the job anyway.

    @20 lysias

    i don't know who controls us nukes ... but it ain't Barack Obama. he'll just do as he's told.

    @22 blues

    agree with your wish ... unfortunately Ash 'CIA' Carter has already fired Barack Obama. we get coal in our stockings ... or we get turned into radioactive coal by AC, CIA

    ben | Dec 21, 2016 7:42:34 PM | 30
    psycho @ 18 said " IMO It sure looks to me like the acolytes of Trump have primary fealty to the God of Mammon.

    IMO, you're right.

    Trump will not be the second coming. Just another corporate lackie.

    Thanks again b, for the therapy....

    james | Dec 21, 2016 7:43:56 PM | 31
    todays daily press briefing, lol.. no mention of ash carter...

    "QUESTION: Okay. All right. I wanted to go back for a second to an interview that Secretary Kerry gave to The Globe, The Boston Globe, in which he admitted that the deal with the Russians over Syria was basically killed here because of the divisions within the Administration. Who was that – what was the agency that killed the deal? Was it the Pentagon?

    MR KIRBY: I don't think that that's what the Secretary said. I think the Secretary acknowledged what we've long acknowledged; there was nothing new in this interview. He's been very open and candid that even amongst the interagency here in the United States we haven't all agreed on the way forward in Syria. I'm also not sure why that should be shocking to anybody. Every federal agency has a different view --

    jfl | Dec 21, 2016 7:46:59 PM | 32
    on the new peace negotiation team ..

    Iran, Russia, Turkey start bid to solve Syria crisis diplomatically: Zarif


    Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says Iran, Russia and Turkey have started the process of finding a political solution to the Syria crisis.

    Turkish Army, rebels suffer 50+ casualties in failed Al-Bab assault: Al-Amaq


    According to the Islamic State's official media wing, their forces foiled the massive Turkish Army led assault, killing and wounding more than 50 military personnel in the process.

    The primary cause of these high casualties was a suicide attack that was initiated by an Islamic State terrorist west of the Al-Farouq Hospital.

    For nearly a month now, the Turkish Army has attempted to enter the key city of Al-Bab; however, they have been repeatedly repelled by the terrorist forces each time.

    Turkish-backed rebels torture, execute civilian in northern Aleppo


    Local sources said that Mahmud Akhtarini was arrested by a group of Zenki militants at midnight on charges of being a member of the ISIS terror organization. Four hours later, Mahmud was reported dead after being brutally tortured.

    The sources confirmed that the victim was mentally retarded.

    The Turkish backed group is notorious for beheading a 12 year-old boy in Aleppo city, for allegedly being a fighter of the Palestinian Liwaa Al Quds (Al-Quds Brigade).


    ... has Erdogan finally been taught the facts of life? or have all the other Turks in Turkey, and will they soon put the sultan on his magic carpet in a real, made in Turkey, coup? Terrorism at home, and abroad - with nothing to show for it - must be getting old for ordinary Turks.

    Jackrabbit | Dec 21, 2016 9:15:46 PM | 33
    Reading this, I am confused.

    What happened to CIA vs. FBI & Pentagon?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't military 'assets' operating covertly in a country that that is 'hostile' to US interests be under the command of the CIA?

    rhw007 | Dec 21, 2016 9:47:01 PM | 34
    We have been using "False Flag" operations to expand land since we were colonies and used white slaves kidnapped from European countries to work for the Elite 1% land owners in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19, 20th, and continuing in the 21st Century when the 911 False Flag Operation to further erode the everyday people and further enrich the elite 1% and Masonic and Zionist ideologies. https://mycommonsenseparty.com

    chipnik | Dec 21, 2016 10:44:52 PM | 35
    "The Dow's initial move down in January of 2017 was very sharp and within a month, it was off 1900 points or almost 10%. As it is apparent from the chart, the Dow's slide was extremely volatile with big losing streaks often followed by sharp rallies. In the meantime, the Russiagate scandal was beginning to grow, as top Trump aides resigned at the end of April amid charges of obstruction of justice. The Dow's fall continued until late August when it finally bottomed at 16,357 to complete a seven month loss of almost 3600 points (over 18%). From this point, the Dow surged ahead so rapidly that the Fools were likely lulled by Wall Street traitors into believing that a new leg up was occurring. Amid October's renewed Ukraine-Syria War, Vice President Pence's forced resignation for incompetence, and an Arab oil glut sending WTI to the mid-$30s, the Dow closed at 19,387 near the end of that month for a gain of 15% off of its summer lows. The huge, two month rally left the Dow just 6% below its all time high of 20,247 set back in January, but the NYSE's advance/decline line was still in shambles. In addition, higher Fed interest rates were taking their toll on the US economy which officially re-entered a recession in November. The divergence between the large-cap stocks and smaller-cap stocks was resolved over the next five weeks as the markets experienced a brutal pounding and the Dow plunged 4000 points or over 20%. The Dow bottomed at 15,788 in early December of 2017 when NATO units were routed in Crimea by superior Russian forces, and Trump was finally forced to resign in early 2018 for corporate malfeasance of office, but this did not bring any relief to the Dow which continued to trade near the 15,000 level through most of the 2018 Recession."

    Play by play, verbatim, from the last time a Republican President joined at the hip with Tel Aviv, back in 1972. It's a' comin'!

    Outraged | Dec 21, 2016 10:48:52 PM | 36
    Steve | Dec 21, 2016 3:37:44 PM | 9

    "deceived a European NATO ally..." Denmark is run by bastards , so they need not be deceived to participate in the criminal act. Same as Australia .

    Duplicitous, deceitful, disingenuous, subservient vassal governments of Bastards ... indeed.

    Jackrabbit | Dec 21, 2016 10:52:59 PM | 37
    I think b is being very subtle here, as these two statements are not consistent:
    The White House did not react to this public military insubordination and undermining of its diplomacy.

    Emptywheel notes that ... the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the President's decisions

    This might be hard to decipher for those who have not been paying attention. Suffice it to say that skepticism that Obama/Kerry ever really wanted any deal is more than warranted. Was this bungled deal just a delaying action?

    Obama apologists have been making excuses this empty suit for years: 11-dimensional chess, elite factions undermining him, his focus on his "legacy", etc. Yet Obama/Kerry really don't seem too upset by the "failures" that have occurred on their watch. They don't really attempt to recover from/rectify these failures. At some point one must ask: are those "failures" intentional?

    Outraged | Dec 21, 2016 11:00:50 PM | 38
    @ Danny801 | Dec 21, 2016 4:54:22 PM | 17

    How about Harry Truman and Doug Macarthur ?

    Um, no, actually, Truman publicly knifed Doug ... hm, so yes, Obama, the Greatest Presidential sock-puppet ever ?

    [Dec 21, 2016] Globalization and Sovietization of America by Vladimir Brovkin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Democracy is inevitably going to clash with the demands of Globalization as they are opposite. Globalization requires entrepreneurs to search cheaper means of production worldwide. ..."
    "... In practice, this means moving capital out of the USA. ..."
    "... To put it in Marxist terms the interests of American society to survive and prosper came into contradiction with the interests of capitalism as a system of production and with the capitalists as a class who has no homeland, and for whom homeland is where it is easier to make money. ..."
    "... American capitalism from its very beginning was based on the assumption that what was good for business was good for America. Until 1929 it more or less worked. The robber barons were robbing other entrepreneurs and workers but at least they reinvested their ill gained profits in America. The crash of 1929 showed that the interests of Big Banks clashed with the interest of American society with devastating results. ..."
    "... The decades after WWII have seen a slow and steady erosion of American superiority in technology and productivity and slow and steady flight of capital from the USA. Globalization has been undermining America. From the point of view of Global prosperity if it is cheaper to produce in China, production should relocate to China. From the point of view of American worker, this is treason, a policy destroying the United States as an industrial power, as a nation, and as a community of citizens. Donald Trump is the first top ranking politician who has realized this simple fact. The vote for Donald Trump has been a protest against Globalization, immigration, open borders, capital flight, multiculturalism, liberalism and all the values American Liberal establishment has been preaching for 60 years that are killing the USA. ..."
    "... Donald Trump wants to arrest the assault of Globalization on America. He promised to reduce taxes, and to attract business back to the USA. However, reduced taxes are only one ingredient in incentives. For businesses to stay or come back to the US, companies must have educated labor force, steady supply of talented, well-educated young people, excellent schools, and safe neighborhoods, among other things. As of now most of these preconditions are missing. ..."
    "... Dr. Brovkin is a historian, formerly a Harvard Professor of History. He has published several books and numerous articles on Russian History and Politics. Currently, Dr. Brovkin works and lives in Marrakech, Morocco. ..."
    "... This is an interesting question: is it possible to contain neoliberal globalization by building walls, rejecting 'trade' agreement, and so on. I get the feeling that a direct attack may not work. Water will find a way, as they say. With a direct attack against globalization, what you're likely to face is major capital flight. ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | www.unz.com
    In his election campaign Donald Trump has identified several key themes that defined American malaise. He pointed to capital flight, bad trade deals, illegal immigration, and corruption of the government and of the press. What is missing in Trump's diagnosis though is an explanation of this crisis. What are the causes of American decline or as Ross Pero used to say: Let's look under the hood.

    Most of the challenges America faces today have to do with two processes we call Globalization and Sovietization. By Globalization we mean a process of externalizing American business thanks to the doctrine of Free trade which has been up to now the Gospel of the establishment. By Sovietization we mean a process of slow expansion of the role of the government in economy, education, business, military, press, virtually any and every aspect of politics and society.

    Let us start with Globalization.

    Dani Rodrick ( The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy) has argued that it is impossible to have democracy and globalization at the same time. Democracy is inevitably going to clash with the demands of Globalization as they are opposite. Globalization requires entrepreneurs to search cheaper means of production worldwide.

    In practice, this means moving capital out of the USA. For fifty years economists have been preaching Free trade, meaning that free unimpeded, no tariffs trade is good for America. And it was in the 1950s, 60s and 1970s that American products were cheaper or better than those overseas. Beginning with the 1970s, the process reversed. Globalization enriched the capitalists and impoverished the rest of Americans. To put it in Marxist terms the interests of American society to survive and prosper came into contradiction with the interests of capitalism as a system of production and with the capitalists as a class who has no homeland, and for whom homeland is where it is easier to make money.

    American capitalism from its very beginning was based on the assumption that what was good for business was good for America. Until 1929 it more or less worked. The robber barons were robbing other entrepreneurs and workers but at least they reinvested their ill gained profits in America. The crash of 1929 showed that the interests of Big Banks clashed with the interest of American society with devastating results.

    The decades after WWII have seen a slow and steady erosion of American superiority in technology and productivity and slow and steady flight of capital from the USA. Globalization has been undermining America. From the point of view of Global prosperity if it is cheaper to produce in China, production should relocate to China. From the point of view of American worker, this is treason, a policy destroying the United States as an industrial power, as a nation, and as a community of citizens. Donald Trump is the first top ranking politician who has realized this simple fact. The vote for Donald Trump has been a protest against Globalization, immigration, open borders, capital flight, multiculturalism, liberalism and all the values American Liberal establishment has been preaching for 60 years that are killing the USA.

    Donald Trump wants to arrest the assault of Globalization on America. He promised to reduce taxes, and to attract business back to the USA. However, reduced taxes are only one ingredient in incentives. For businesses to stay or come back to the US, companies must have educated labor force, steady supply of talented, well-educated young people, excellent schools, and safe neighborhoods, among other things. As of now most of these preconditions are missing.

    To fight Globalization Donald Trump announced in his agenda to drop or renegotiate NAFTA and TPP. That is a step in the right direction. However, this will not be easy. There are powerful vested interests in making money overseas that will put up great resistance to America first policy. They have powerful lobbies and votes in the Congress and it is by far not certain if Trump will succeed in overcoming their opposition.

    Another step along these lines of fighting Globalization is the proposed building of the Wall on Mexican border. That too may or may not work. Powerful agricultural interests in California have a vested interest in easy and cheap labor force made up of illegal migrants. If their supply is cut off they are going to hike up the prices on agricultural goods that may lead to inflation or higher consumer prices for the American workers.

    ... ... ...

    The Military: Americans are told they have a best military in the world. In fact, it is not the best but the most expensive one in the world. According to the National priorities Project, in fiscal 2015 the military spending amounted to 54% of the discretionary spending in the amount of 598.5 billion dollars . Of those almost 200 billion dollars goes for operations and maintenance, 135 billion for military personnel and 90 billion for procurement (see Here is How the US Military Spends its Billions )

    American military industrial complex spends more that the next seven runners up combined. It is a Sovietized, bureaucratic structure that exists and thrives on internal deals behind closed doors, procurement process closed to public scrutiny, wasted funds on consultants, kickbacks, and outrageous prices for military hardware. Specific investigations of fraud do not surface too often. Yet for example, DoD Inspector General reported:

    material internal control weakness that affect the safeguarding of assets, proper use of funds, and impair the prevention of and identification of fraud, waste and abuse. Source: "FY 2010 DoD Agencywide Agency Financial Report (vid. p.32)" (PDF). US Department of Defense. Retrieved 7 January 2011, cited in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#cite_note-20

    Why is it that an F35 fighter jet should cost 135 million apiece and the Russian SU 35 that can do similar things is sold for 35 million dollars and produced for 15 million? The answer is that the Congress operates on a principle that any price the military asks is good enough. The entire system of military procurement has to be scrapped. It is a source of billions of stolen and wasted dollars. The Pentagon budget of half a trillion a year is a drain on the economy that is unsustainable, and what you get is not worth the money. The military industrial complex in America does not deliver the best equipment or security it is supposed to.(on this see: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/cutting-waste-isnt-enough-curb-pentagon-spending-18640 )

    Donald Trump was the first to his credit who raised the issue: Do we need all these bases overseas? Do they really enhance American security? Or are they a waste of money for the benefit of other countries who take America for a free ride. Why indeed should the US pay for the defense of Japan? Is Japan a poor country that cannot afford to defend itself? Defense commitments like those expose America to unnecessary confrontations and risk of war over issues that have nothing to do with America's interests. Is it worth it to fight China over some uninhabitable islands that Japan claims? (See discussion: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/should-the-us-continue-guarantee-the-security-wealthy-states-17720 )

    Similarly, Trump is the first one to raise the question: What is the purpose of NATO? ( see discussion of NATO utility: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/will-president-trump-renegotiate-the-nato-treaty-18647 ) Yes the Liberal pro-Clinton media answer is: to defend Europe from Russian aggression. But really what aggression? If the Russians wanted to they could have taken Kiev in a day two years ago. Instead, they put up with the most virulently hostile regime in Kiev. Let us ask ourselves would we have put up with a virulently anti-American regime in Mexico, a regime that would have announced its intention to conclude a military alliance with China or Russia? Were we not ready to go to nuclear war over Soviet missiles in Cuba? If we would not have accepted such a regime in Mexico, why do we complain that the Russians took action against the new regime in Ukraine. Oh yes, they took Crimea. But the population there is Russian, and until 1954 it was Russian territory and after Ukrainian independence the Russians did not raise the issue of Crimea as Ukrainian territory and paid rent for their naval base there The Russians took it over only when a hostile regime clamoring for NATO membership settled in Kiev. Does that constitute Russian aggression or actually Russian limited response to a hostile act? (see on this Steven Cohen: http://eastwestaccord.com/podcast-stephen-f-cohen-talks-russia-israel-middle-east-diplomacy-steele-unger/ ) As I have argued elsewhere Putin has been under tremendous pressure to act more decisively against the neo-Nazis in Kiev. (see Vlad Brovkin: On Russian Assertiveness in Foreign Policy. ( http://eastwestaccord.com/?s=brovkin&submit=Search )

    With a little bit of patience and good will a compromise is possible on Ukraine through Minsk accords. Moreover, Ukraine is not in NATO and as long as it is not admitted to NATO, a deal with the Russians on Ukraine is feasible. Just like so many other pro-American governments, Ukraine wants to milk Uncle Sam for what it is worth. They expect to be paid for being anti/Russian. (See discussion on need of enemy: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/does-america-need-enemy-18106 ) Would it not be a better policy to let Ukraine know that they are on their own: no more subsidies, no more payments? Mend your relations with Russia yourselves. Then peace would immediately prevail.

    If we admit that there is no Russian aggression and that this myth was propagated by the Neo/Cons with the specific purpose to return to the paradigm of the cold war, i.e. more money for the military industrial complex, if we start thinking boldly as Trump has begun, we should say to the Europeans: go ahead, build your own European army to allay your fears of the Russians. Europe is strong enough, rich enough and united enough to take care of its defense without American assistance. (See discussion of Trumps agenda: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/course-correction-18062 )

    So, if Trump restructures procurement mess, reduces the number of military bases overseas, and invests in high tech research and development for the military on the basis of real competition, hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved and the defense capability of the country would increase.

    ... ... ...

    Dr. Brovkin is a historian, formerly a Harvard Professor of History. He has published several books and numerous articles on Russian History and Politics. Currently, Dr. Brovkin works and lives in Marrakech, Morocco.

    Mao Cheng Ji says: December 21, 2016 at 8:43 am GMT • 200 Words

    This is a bit too much, Volodya. Maybe you should've taken one subject – globalization, for example – and stop there.

    This is an interesting question: is it possible to contain neoliberal globalization by building walls, rejecting 'trade' agreement, and so on. I get the feeling that a direct attack may not work. Water will find a way, as they say. With a direct attack against globalization, what you're likely to face is major capital flight.

    You might be able to make neoliberal globalization work for you (for your population, that is), like Germany and the Scandinavians do, but that's a struggle, constant struggle. And it's a competition; it will have to be done at the expense of other nations (see Greece, Portugal, Central (eastern) Europe). And having an anti-neoliberal president is not enough; this would require a major change, almost a U turn, in the whole governing philosophy. Forget the sanctity of 'free market', start worshiping the new god: national interest

    animalogic says: December 21, 2016 at 10:14 am GMT • 400 Words

    What an INTERESTING article -- So much that is right, so much that is wrong. An article you can get your teeth into.
    On globalisation: pretty spot-on (although I believe he exaggerates the US weakness in what he calls "preconditions": there are still many well educated Americans, still good neighborhoods (yes, sure it could be a lot better). He's against NAFTA & other neoliberal Trade self indulgences.
    But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but I find the concept incoherent & suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.

    Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they have been slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"

    This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical laws ?)

    Of course, the author is correct on the US military-industrial complex: it is a sump of crime & corruption. Yet he seems not to grasp that the problem is regulative capture. How is the Fiasco of the F35 & MacDonald Douglas merely an issue for the Legislature alone & how does this circus resemble the Soviet Union, beyond the fact that BOTH systems (like most systems) are capable of gross negligence & corruption ?

    I like what the author says about NATO, Japan, bases etc. Although he's a little naive if he thinks NATO for instance is about "protecting" Europe. Yes, that's a part of it: but primarily NATO etc exist as a tool/mask behind which the US can exert it's imperial ambitions against friend & for alike.

    The author does go off against welfare well that's to be expected: sadly I don't think he quite gets the connection between globalisation & welfare .He also legitimately goes after tertiary education, but seems to be (again) confused as to cause & effect.

    The author is completely spot on with his sovietization analogy when he comes to the US security state. Only difference between the Soviets & the US on security totalitarianism ? The US is much better at it (of course the US has technological advantages unimaginable to the Soviets)

    • Replies: @Randal I agree with you that it's a fascinating piece, and I also agree with many of the points you agree with.
    But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but I find the concept incoherent & suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.

    Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they have been slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"

    This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical laws ?)

    I think part of the problem here might be a mistaken focus on "the government" as an independent actor, when in reality it is just a mechanism whereby the rulers (whether they are a dictator, a political party or an oligarchy or whatever), and those with sufficient clout to influence them, get things done the way they want to see them done.

    As such there is really not much difference between the government directly employing the people who do things (state socialism), and the government paying money to companies to get the same things done. Either way, those who use the government to get things done, get to say what gets done and how. There are differences of nuance, in terms of organizational strengths and weaknesses, degrees of corruption and of efficiency, but fundamentally it's all big government.

    A more interesting question might be - how really different are these big government variants from the small government systems, in which the rulers pay people directly to get things done the way they want them to be done?

    Miro23 says: December 21, 2016 at 11:06 am GMT • 300 Words

    An excellent article. The points that resonated the most were:

    For businesses to stay or come back to the US, companies must have educated labor force, steady supply of talented, well-educated young people, excellent schools, and safe neighborhoods, among other things. As of now most of these preconditions are missing.

    This is an enormously difficult problem that will take years to resolve, and it will need a rethink of education from the ground up + the political will to fight the heart of Cultural Bolshevism and the inevitable 24/7 Media assault.

    Drain the swamp in Washington: ban the lobbyists, make it a crime to lobby for private interest in a public place, restructure procurement, introduce real competition, restore capitalism, phase out any government subsidies to Universities, force them to compete for students, force hospitals to compete for patients. Cut cut cut expenditure everywhere possible, including welfare.

    Banning lobbyists should be possible but draining the rest of the swamp looks really complicated. Each area would need to be examined from the ground up from a value for money – efficiency viewpoint. It doesn't matter which philosophy each one is run on – good value healthcare is desirable whichever system produces it.

    Could we have ever imagined in our worst dreams that a system of mass surveillance would be created and perfected in the USA. (see discussion on this in: Surveillance State, in http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/surveillance-state

    This one should be easy. The Constitution guarantees a right to privacy so just shut down the NSA. Also shut down the vast CIA mafia (it didn't exist prior to 1947) and the expensive and useless FED (controlling the money supply isn't the business of a group of private banks – an office in the Treasury could easily match the money supply to economic activity).

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    This one should be easy. The Constitution guarantees a right to privacy so just shut down the NSA. Also shut down the vast CIA mafia (it didn't exist prior to 1947) and the expensive and useless FED (controlling the money supply isn't the business of a group of private banks – an office in the Treasury could easily match the money supply to economic activity).

    From Unz, I have learned that the US actually has a four-part government: the "Deep State" part which has no clear oversight from any of the other three branches.

    anonymous says: December 21, 2016 at 5:22 pm GMT • 300 Words

    To put it in Marxist terms the interests of American society to survive and prosper came into contradiction with the interests of capitalism as a system of production and with the capitalists as a class who has no homeland, and for whom homeland is where it is easier to make money.

    Another add-on contradiction, comrade, is that the selfsame capitalist class expect their host nation to defend their interests whenever threatened abroad. This entails using the resources derived from the masses to enforce this protection including using the little people as cannon fodder when deemed useful.

    Donald Trump is the first top ranking politician who has realized this simple fact.

    Come now, do you really believe that all these politicians who have gone to these world-class schools don't know this? They simply don't care. They're working on behalf of the .1% who are their benefactors and who will make them rich. They did not go into politics to take vows of poverty. They just realize the need to placate the masses with speeches written by professional speechwriters, that's all.

    Insofar as Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid goes, those are the most democratic institutions of all. It's money spent on ourselves, internally, with money being cycled in and out at the grassroots level. Doctors, nurses, home-care providers, etc etc, all local people get a piece of the action unlike military spending which siphons money upwards to the upper classes.

    I'd rather be employed in a government job than unemployed in the private sector. That's not the kind of "freedom" I'm searching for comrade.

    Randal says: December 21, 2016 at 6:29 pm GMT • 300 Words

    @animalogic What an INTERESTING article -- So much that is right, so much that is wrong. An article you can get your teeth into.

    On globalisation: pretty spot-on (although I believe he exaggerates the US weakness in what he calls "preconditions": there are still many well educated Americans, still good neighborhoods (yes, sure it could be a lot better). He's against NAFTA & other neoliberal Trade self indulgences.
    But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but I find the concept... incoherent...& suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.

    Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they have been slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"

    This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical laws ?)

    Of course, the author is correct on the US military-industrial complex: it is a sump of crime & corruption. Yet he seems not to grasp that the problem is regulative capture. How is the Fiasco of the F35 & MacDonald Douglas merely an issue for the Legislature alone...& how does this circus resemble the Soviet Union, beyond the fact that BOTH systems (like most systems) are capable of gross negligence & corruption ?

    I like what the author says about NATO, Japan, bases etc. Although he's a little naive if he thinks NATO for instance is about "protecting" Europe. Yes, that's a part of it: but primarily NATO etc exist as a tool/mask behind which the US can exert it's imperial ambitions ...against friend & for alike.
    The author does go off against welfare...well that's to be expected: sadly I don't think he quite gets the connection between globalisation & welfare....He also legitimately goes after tertiary education, but seems to be (again) confused as to cause & effect.

    The author is completely spot on with his sovietization analogy when he comes to the US security state. Only difference between the Soviets & the US on security totalitarianism ? The US is much better at it (of course the US has technological advantages unimaginable to the Soviets)

    I agree with you that it's a fascinating piece, and I also agree with many of the points you agree with.

    But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but I find the concept incoherent & suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.
    Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they have been slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"
    This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical laws ?)

    I think part of the problem here might be a mistaken focus on "the government" as an independent actor, when in reality it is just a mechanism whereby the rulers (whether they are a dictator, a political party or an oligarchy or whatever), and those with sufficient clout to influence them, get things done the way they want to see them done.

    As such there is really not much difference between the government directly employing the people who do things (state socialism), and the government paying money to companies to get the same things done. Either way, those who use the government to get things done, get to say what gets done and how. There are differences of nuance, in terms of organisational strengths and weaknesses, degrees of corruption and of efficiency, but fundamentally it's all big government.

    A more interesting question might be – how really different are these big government variants from the small government systems, in which the rulers pay people directly to get things done the way they want them to be done?

    [Dec 21, 2016] The essence of voting the lesser of two evils: To comfortable centrists like pgl, the Democrats should be graded on a curve. As long as theyre better than the awful Republicans, then theyre good enough and beyond criticism.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The essence of voting the lesser of two evils: "To comfortable centrists like pgl, the Democrats should be graded on a curve. As long as they're better than the awful Republicans, then they're good enough and beyond criticism." ..."
    "... These Wall Street Democrats can rest assured that Democrats will surely get their turn in power in 4-8 years...after Trump thoroughly screws things up. And then Democrats will proceed to screw things up themselves...as we learned from Obama and Hillary's love of austerity and total disinterest in the economic welfare of the vast majority. ..."
    "... In case you didn't notice, Democrats did nothing about the minimum wage 2009-2010. ..."
    "... Many Democratic candidates won't even endorse minimum wage increase in states where increases win via initiative. They preferred to lose elections to standing up for minimum wage increases. ..."
    Dec 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    December 20, 2016 at 07:59 AM

    Peter K.... The essence of voting the lesser of two evils: "To comfortable centrists like pgl, the Democrats should be graded on a curve. As long as they're better than the awful Republicans, then they're good enough and beyond criticism."

    These Wall Street Democrats can rest assured that Democrats will surely get their turn in power in 4-8 years...after Trump thoroughly screws things up. And then Democrats will proceed to screw things up themselves...as we learned from Obama and Hillary's love of austerity and total disinterest in the economic welfare of the vast majority.

    To pgl and his ilk, Obama was great as long as he said the right things...regardless of what he actually did. Hillary didn't even have to say the right things...she only had to be a Wall Street Democrat for pgl to be enthusiastic about her.

    JohnH -> jonny bakho... , December 20, 2016 at 12:39 PM
    In case you didn't notice, Democrats did nothing about the minimum wage 2009-2010. At a minimum, they could have taken their dominance then to enact increases for 2010-2016 or to index increases to inflation. Instead, Pelosi, Reid and Obama preferred to do nothing.

    Many Democratic candidates won't even endorse minimum wage increase in states where increases win via initiative. They preferred to lose elections to standing up for minimum wage increases.

    [Dec 21, 2016] The Real Saboteurs of a Trump Foreign Policy - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... Allegations aren't evidence but the media is treating them as such. And even if they Russia did hack Hillary's e-mails I haven't heard anyone claim the e-mails released by Wikileaks are untrue or fabrications. ..."
    "... At minimum (((Carl Gershman))) should be questioned along with rogue CIA agents in their role in the anti-Putin demonstrations of 2011. ..."
    "... Obama has ordered an investigation. The result will be the Russians did it. Then the lie will be official truth. You can't argue with official truth. It's official. ..."
    "... I suspect John McBloodstain and Lindsey and Chucky are in denial, and haven't quite come to terms with the idea that Trump is going to be the man in power. With his hands on the levers and the bully pulpit at his fingertips. I hope they learn to regret their treasonous hubris, in presuming to undermine Trump as he takes the reins and then fastens the bit tightly on McCain's angry face. And then jerks them for effect. ..."
    "... The era of neocon Eternal Wars is over. America is no longer going to be Israel's obedient, dutiful golem. ..."
    "... Some say that objectively reality doesn't even exist, that is all just a matter of perception. Well Americans must be really lucky people, because they have government + MSM who are so vastly intellectually superior to any mere mortal, that they are able to interpret the reality to the ordinary Americans so it won't confuse them any longer. ..."
    "... Actually, according to Karl Rove, the neocon intelligentsia (I know, a contradiction in terms) of whom he is a proud member, claims to possess even higher powers – they are able to create reality now, because why bother with only interpreting reality, when thanks to your superior intellect you can create it. Hillary is also one of those neocons possessing (or possessed by) higher power and proud owner of those magical abilities. ..."
    "... One of those neocon moments when they were able to create reality out of thin air, occurred when they "discovered" the Russian hacking of the election process in USA. Some people will call that "creation" of reality for what it actually is – creation of propaganda, but those are just mean unpatriotic Americans or other nationals who don't have America's best interests at heart. ..."
    "... Some who are even more critical of America's reality "creation" abilities, would call those realities nightmares – like the realities created in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine even, but as they say, maybe those are only interpretations of reality and according to US – wrong interpretations of reality. ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | www.unz.com

    exiled off mainstreet says:

    December 20, 2016 at 7:42 am GMT

    I think Trump is likely to follow this advice, which is excellent, and I don't think he'll give way easily to the power structure. He knows he'll be neutered if he follows their dictates and the demands of the lamestream media.

    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    anon says: December 20, 2016 at 10:56 am GMT • 400 Words

    The Obama Presidency began with predetermined success. After all, they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize.

    And we know how long that lasted.

    Trump is the Republican's 'come to Jesus' moment. They have to get beyond their fetish for 'losing on principle' to winning.

    The Russian Hacking was big news because it was the last gasp for a rationale to gum up the Electoral College vote today. Russian hacking is a purely partisan, Democratic ploy. So lets have big Congressional hearings on insecure computer servers and hacked emails of who was that? Hillary Clinton. This will disappear in a New York minute as soon as anyone starts digging into the Democrat's junk. Sample questions: Were Podesta's emails altered or faked? Or were they his actual emails? Are we sure? How sure? He couldn't have actually said that, no? He REALLY said that? And on and on.

    The mere use of 'Hillary Clinton' and 'Email' in the same sentence will create a pavlovian response and the next word is what? Even Nancy Pelosi will hear the word JAIL in some crevice of her demented mind.

    This isn't going anywhere.

    Meanwhile, there is a taxcut to fight over. There won't be time to even consider it given the rush to the trough for the various interests.

    And anyway - Trump isn't going to cut military budgets. But he will gladly - along with congressional whores of all parties - put more money into anti-terror cyber stuff. It's way more profitable than building an airplane. Profit margins higher. And its impossible to determine if it works or it doesn't work. An airplane has to fly, no? Cyber intelligence? I dunno - it can never be proven one way or the other unless there is a massive failure, and then it can never be proven who actually screwed up.

    Trump isn't the sort to 'take one for the team' and will instinctively blame Obama and Bush and Hillary and search for something that looks less like guaranteed failure. There is nothing left in the Middle East to do that doesn't have failure written all over it.

    And the last thing he will tolerate is Paul Ryan and Company trying to cram a big Russian sanctions package down his throat. Plus - get real - anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the US plus Russia vs China.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Plus - get real - anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the US plus Russia vs China.
    Yes! This is exactly the smart play. It is essential.

    Let's have a little triangular diplomacy in the other direction this time. We've paid a big price for Nixon/Kissenger's three-way ploy. It's time to rotate their triangle. China is our enemy. It is the enemy they birthed and our capital created. , @boogerbently " Plus - get real - anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the US plus Russia vs China."

    Jeane Dixon predicted that back in the 60's.

    KenH says: December 20, 2016 at 11:47 am GMT • 100 Words

    Russia didn't "hack" the election and anyone who believes they did is a low information American searching for reasons to oppose Trump and rationalize Hillary's electoral loss.

    After all Hildabeast won the popular vote (thanks to mass third world immigration) but was rejected in key battleground states owing to Obamanomics and her treasonous call for admitting hundreds of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees as well as her support for amnesty. This was too much for flyover country to stomach.

    Allegations aren't evidence but the media is treating them as such. And even if they Russia did hack Hillary's e-mails I haven't heard anyone claim the e-mails released by Wikileaks are untrue or fabrications.

    At minimum (((Carl Gershman))) should be questioned along with rogue CIA agents in their role in the anti-Putin demonstrations of 2011. I think waterboarding would be a fitting form of interrogation in this case.

    Buzz Mohawk says: December 20, 2016 at 12:59 pm GMT • 100 Words

    @anon The Obama Presidency began with predetermined success. After all, they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize.

    And we know how long that lasted.

    Trump is the Republican's 'come to Jesus' moment. They have to get beyond their fetish for 'losing on principle' to winning.

    The Russian Hacking was big news because it was the last gasp for a rationale to gum up the Electoral College vote today. Russian hacking is a purely partisan, Democratic ploy. So lets have big Congressional hearings on insecure computer servers and hacked emails of ... who was that? Hillary Clinton. This will disappear in a New York minute as soon as anyone starts digging into the Democrat's junk. Sample questions: Were Podesta's emails altered or faked? Or were they his actual emails? Are we sure? How sure? He couldn't have actually said that, no? He REALLY said that? And on and on.

    The mere use of 'Hillary Clinton' and 'Email' in the same sentence will create a pavlovian response and the next word is what? Even Nancy Pelosi will hear the word JAIL in some crevice of her demented mind.

    This isn't going anywhere.

    Meanwhile, there is a taxcut to fight over. There won't be time to even consider it given the rush to the trough for the various interests.

    And anyway -- Trump isn't going to cut military budgets. But he will gladly -- along with congressional whores of all parties -- put more money into anti-terror cyber stuff. It's way more profitable than building an airplane. Profit margins higher. And its impossible to determine if it works or it doesn't work. An airplane has to fly, no? Cyber intelligence? I dunno -- it can never be proven one way or the other unless there is a massive failure, and then it can never be proven who actually screwed up.

    Trump isn't the sort to 'take one for the team' and will instinctively blame Obama and Bush and Hillary and search for something that looks less like guaranteed failure. There is nothing left in the Middle East to do that doesn't have failure written all over it.

    And the last thing he will tolerate is Paul Ryan and Company trying to cram a big Russian sanctions package down his throat. Plus -- get real -- anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the US plus Russia vs China.

    Plus - get real - anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the US plus Russia vs China.

    Yes! This is exactly the smart play. It is essential.

    Let's have a little triangular diplomacy in the other direction this time. We've paid a big price for Nixon/Kissenger's three-way ploy. It's time to rotate their triangle. China is our enemy. It is the enemy they birthed and our capital created.

    WorkingClass says: December 20, 2016 at 1:09 pm GMT

    Obama has ordered an investigation. The result will be the Russians did it. Then the lie will be official truth. You can't argue with official truth. It's official.

    Marcus says: December 20, 2016 at 2:31 pm GMT

    He should also investigate which legislators leaked CIA "report" to press and have them held accountable. Investigate why other agencies didn't push against the CIA's attempted coup. Ideally the CIA would be abolished, but it will probably be hard to find enough support for that.

    • Replies: @Avery {Ideally the CIA would be abolished, but it will probably be hard to find enough support for that.}

    Abolishing CIA not a good idea, because some level of intelligence gathering (humint) on _foreign_ enemies/adversaries of US is needed. But Trump definitely can abolish entire departments that are not purely humint intelligence related. And those who meddled in the presidential election should be brought up on charges, if they can be identified.

    Also, if Trump tries to completely abolish CIA, a massive terrorist attack might be organized and Trump will be blamed for taking away US ability to detect it by abolishing CIA Frightened American public will acquiesce to even more enslavement, just like after 9/11. US spooks who meddle in American politics are evil and are experts at that sort of thing. And will do anything to survive. Trump has to be very careful. Maybe have the Pentagon neuter them in a roundabout way.

    But you are right: Trump can't let what CIA did slide. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Rurik says: December 20, 2016 at 3:42 pm GMT • 300 Words

    But if there is to be an investigation of clandestine interference in the politics and elections of foreign nations, let's get it all out onto the table.

    yes, let's please do! as Hillary and the neocons and msm have all been demanding that "Assad must go".. out of the other side of their lizard faces they're howling that 'Russia is trying to meddle in our politics!!' How dare they?!'

    $5 billion in the Ukraine for a putsch to undermine that democratically elected government, and then get caught deciding on the phone who's going to be the next president in Kiev -- all while screeching about the impropriety of Russia leaking the phone call. The hypocrisy is mind-numbing. The only thing exceptional is the unilateral arrogance on steroids.

    President-elect Trump should call in his new director of the CIA, Rep. Mike Pompeo, and tell him to run down and remove, for criminal misconduct, any CIA agents or operatives leaking secrets to discredit his election.

    I suspect John McBloodstain and Lindsey and Chucky are in denial, and haven't quite come to terms with the idea that Trump is going to be the man in power. With his hands on the levers and the bully pulpit at his fingertips. I hope they learn to regret their treasonous hubris, in presuming to undermine Trump as he takes the reins and then fastens the bit tightly on McCain's angry face. And then jerks them for effect.

    The era of neocon Eternal Wars is over. America is no longer going to be Israel's obedient, dutiful golem. Spilling its blood and treasure to assuage the insatiable lust for death and misery of the Zio-scum.

    'America first!' is now the mantra, and little Chucky and the Stain and Lindsey are all just traitorous little war pigs from the old order. Soon to join Mitt Romney in publically humiliated repudiation.

    • Replies: @FLgeezer Keep them coming Rurik. Your posts are priceless.
    Avery says: December 20, 2016 at 4:34 pm GMT • 200 Words @Marcus He should also investigate which legislators leaked CIA "report" to press and have them held accountable. Investigate why other agencies didn't push against the CIA's attempted coup. Ideally the CIA would be abolished, but it will probably be hard to find enough support for that.

    {Ideally the CIA would be abolished, but it will probably be hard to find enough support for that.}

    Abolishing CIA not a good idea, because some level of intelligence gathering (humint) on _foreign_ enemies/adversaries of US is needed. But Trump definitely can abolish entire departments that are not purely humint intelligence related. And those who meddled in the presidential election should be brought up on charges, if they can be identified.

    Also, if Trump tries to completely abolish CIA, a massive terrorist attack might be organized and Trump will be blamed for taking away US ability to detect it by abolishing CIA Frightened American public will acquiesce to even more enslavement, just like after 9/11. US spooks who meddle in American politics are evil and are experts at that sort of thing. And will do anything to survive. Trump has to be very careful. Maybe have the Pentagon neuter them in a roundabout way.

    But you are right: Trump can't let what CIA did slide.

    • Replies: @Marcus It can be replaced by something better, anyway it has been largely obsolete since a) collapse of USSR and b) internet revolution. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Marcus says: December 20, 2016 at 5:09 pm GMT @Avery {Ideally the CIA would be abolished, but it will probably be hard to find enough support for that.}

    Abolishing CIA not a good idea, because some level of intelligence gathering (humint) on _foreign_ enemies/adversaries of US is needed. But Trump definitely can abolish entire departments that are not purely humint intelligence related. And those who meddled in the presidential election should be brought up on charges, if they can be identified.

    Also, if Trump tries to completely abolish CIA, a massive terrorist attack might be organized and Trump will be blamed for taking away US ability to detect it by abolishing CIA Frightened American public will acquiesce to even more enslavement, just like after 9/11. US spooks who meddle in American politics are evil and are experts at that sort of thing. And will do anything to survive. Trump has to be very careful. Maybe have the Pentagon neuter them in a roundabout way.

    But you are right: Trump can't let what CIA did slide.

    It can be replaced by something better, anyway it has been largely obsolete since a) collapse of USSR and b) internet revolution.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke Agreed. It should be totally broken up and an absolutely new agency created. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    SolontoCroesus says: December 20, 2016 at 6:07 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Another perspective: in a secular era of declining industry, the next new technology is expected to be cybersecurity. Companies like Palantir are clearing that path; others will follow. (Palantir got its major boost thru CIA contracts; the company, created in Silicon Valley, established a presence next door to the US anti-terrorism center in N Virginia - closer to the teat.) Money men want US gov and other governments as well to put government funding behind these ventures.

    Creating a scare to herd the flock this way or that is as old as Torah. Similarly, creating a scapegoat - an unblemished ram caught in the thicket - is an age-old tactic.

    Alex Karp, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and a few other innovator/entrepreneurs are not the folks who are behind the Russkie scare, but the investors or would-be investors in the emerging industries those folks created, and the politicians they depend on to ensure government support for their investment/enterprise, are in it up to their third wive's plastic surgery bills, not to mention the pool boy.

    Follow the money.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Cyrano says: December 20, 2016 at 6:46 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Some say that objectively reality doesn't even exist, that is all just a matter of perception. Well Americans must be really lucky people, because they have government + MSM who are so vastly intellectually superior to any mere mortal, that they are able to interpret the reality to the ordinary Americans so it won't confuse them any longer.

    Actually, according to Karl Rove, the neocon intelligentsia (I know, a contradiction in terms) of whom he is a proud member, claims to possess even higher powers – they are able to create reality now, because why bother with only interpreting reality, when thanks to your superior intellect you can create it. Hillary is also one of those neocons possessing (or possessed by) higher power and proud owner of those magical abilities.

    One of those neocon moments when they were able to create reality out of thin air, occurred when they "discovered" the Russian hacking of the election process in USA. Some people will call that "creation" of reality for what it actually is – creation of propaganda, but those are just mean unpatriotic Americans or other nationals who don't have America's best interests at heart.

    Some who are even more critical of America's reality "creation" abilities, would call those realities nightmares – like the realities created in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine even, but as they say, maybe those are only interpretations of reality and according to US – wrong interpretations of reality.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Mr Curious says: December 20, 2016 at 8:51 pm GMT

    RT shows MSM as ISIS supporting, anti-White, anti-Christian terrorist-supporters.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke RT does a pretty good job of demonstrating the fake against the real. It's not perfect at all, but any American taking the time to watch it would have a much clearer awareness of the degree to which they're being misled and lied to by establishment media. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Anon says: December 20, 2016 at 10:11 pm GMT

    Lie detectors? Now that Trump is on the hot seat and torture is on the books, these squealers had better watch out.

    Cortes says: December 20, 2016 at 10:25 pm GMT

    There's probably more likelihood of Dmitry Orlov 's whimsical (?) take on Obama being true:

    http://cluborlov.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/is-obama-russian-agent.html

    NoseytheDuke says: December 20, 2016 at 10:59 pm GMT

    @Marcus It can be replaced by something better, anyway it has been largely obsolete since a) collapse of USSR and b) internet revolution.

    Agreed. It should be totally broken up and an absolutely new agency created.

    nsa says: December 21, 2016 at 1:31 am GMT • 100 Words

    The propaganda broadcasts on behalf of the North Vietnamese by Tokyo Rose McCain are readily available on the internet. It is well known in Wash DC that Dame Lindsey Graham is a closet case overcompensating with campy militarism. The rest of the neocons .we all know who and what they are, by now.

    Bill Jones says: December 21, 2016 at 9:34 pm GMT @Buzz Mohawk
    Plus - get real - anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the US plus Russia vs China.
    Yes! This is exactly the smart play. It is essential.

    Let's have a little triangular diplomacy in the other direction this time. We've paid a big price for Nixon/Kissenger's three-way ploy. It's time to rotate their triangle. China is our enemy. It is the enemy they birthed and our capital created.

    "China is our enemy. "

    Bollocks.

    China is not my enemy.

    My enemies are located in Washington DC and Sodom on Hudson.

    Kyle McKenna says: December 22, 2016 at 1:05 am GMT

    Article needs More Mossad.

    "SPOTTED: Mossad Chief Briefs Trump Staff at Trump Tower"

    http://www.onlysimchas.com/news/44035/spotted-mossad-chief-briefs-trump-staff-at-trump-tower

    [Dec 21, 2016] The reason Trump won the GOP nomination was exactly because he claimed to reject traditional GOP policies and approaches

    Notable quotes:
    "... At some point the GOP has to decide how much of Trump's populist agenda they can stuff in the toilet without inducing an uncontrollable backlash. ..."
    "... The reason Trump won the GOP nomination was exactly because he claimed to reject traditional GOP policies and approaches. ..."
    "... If the GOP just go ahead with a traditional "rule for the rich" policy (because they won) there could be serious fireworks ahead - provided the Dems can pull out a populist alternative policy by the the next election. ..."
    "... I have no idea what's going to happen, but my guess is that Trump and the Republicans are going to completely sell out the "Trump voters." ..."
    "... But they still tried to push through Social Security privatization even though everyone is against it. ..."
    "... If recent history is any guide, incumbents get a second term regardless of how bad the economy is. Clinton, Bush, and Obama were all reelected despite a lousy economy. The only exception in recent memory was Bush 41. ..."
    "... Upper class tax cuts were central to his policies. Anybody who believed he was anything other than an standard issue Republican would buy shares in Arizona swampland. ..."
    "... trump did indeed state that he would give bigger tax cuts to the rich, repeatedly. the genius of trump's performance is that by never having a clear position his gullible followers were able to fill in the gaps using their own hopes and desires. ..."
    "... That is correct, but also the weakness in his support. They will almost certainly be disappointed as the exact interpretations and choices between incompatible promises turns out to be different from the individuals hopes and desires. ..."
    "... And consider how dysfunction from laissez faire healthcare policy readoption leads to rising prices/costs above current trend to limit disposable income even more, it will be amazing if we do not have stagnation and worse for the bulk of society. ..."
    "... Bush implemented and expanded a community health clinic system, that reallnwoukd be a nice infrastructure play for the US, but this Congress is more likely to disinvest here. They certainly don't want these do-gooder nonprofits competing against the doctor establishment. ..."
    "... The question is first of all whether Trump can bully the Fed away from their current and traditional course (which would not allow much of a stimulus, before they cancelled it out with rate hikes). ..."
    "... Second whether the Fed itself having been traditionally prone to support GOP presidents (see inconsistencies in Greenspan's policies during Clinton vs. Bush) will change its policies and allow higher inflation and wage growth than they have under any Dem president. ..."
    "... The little people go to the credit channels to help finance the purchase of durables and higher education too. The Fed's actions themselves will see these credit prices ratchet, so nit good fir basic demand. Veblen goods will see more price rises as the buyers will have lots of rentier/lobbying gathered money to burn. ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    DeDude -> jonny bakho... December 20, 2016 at 07:40 AM
    At some point the GOP has to decide how much of Trump's populist agenda they can stuff in the toilet without inducing an uncontrollable backlash.

    The reason Trump won the GOP nomination was exactly because he claimed to reject traditional GOP policies and approaches. It was the old tea-partiers insisting that their anti-rich/Anti-Wall street sentiments be inserted into the GOP.

    If the GOP just go ahead with a traditional "rule for the rich" policy (because they won) there could be serious fireworks ahead - provided the Dems can pull out a populist alternative policy by the the next election.

    Peter K. -> DeDude... , December 20, 2016 at 07:56 AM

    hey, a good comment!

    I have no idea what's going to happen, but my guess is that Trump and the Republicans are going to completely sell out the "Trump voters."

    George W. Bush wasn't completely horrible (besides Iraq, John Roberts, tax cuts for the rich, the Patriot act and the surveillance state, Katrina, etc. etc. etc.). He was good on immigration, world AIDS prevention, expensive Medicare drug expansion, etc.

    But they still tried to push through Social Security privatization even though everyone is against it.

    To some extent Bush demoralized the Republican base and they didn't turn out in 2008.

    JohnH -> DeDude... , December 20, 2016 at 08:04 AM
    If recent history is any guide, incumbents get a second term regardless of how bad the economy is. Clinton, Bush, and Obama were all reelected despite a lousy economy. The only exception in recent memory was Bush 41.

    About the only thing that can derail Trump is a big recession in 2019.

    DrDick -> DeDude... , December 20, 2016 at 08:18 AM
    "The reason Trump won the GOP nomination was exactly because he claimed to reject traditional GOP policies and approaches."

    While generally enthusiastically embracing them. Upper class tax cuts were central to his policies. Anybody who believed he was anything other than an standard issue Republican would buy shares in Arizona swampland.

    DeDude -> DrDick... , December 20, 2016 at 08:35 AM
    He never came out directly saying or tweeting that he would give bigger tax cuts to the rich than anybody else - he said he would give bigger tax cuts. It is true that people with a college education had an easy time figuring him out even before the election. But the populist messages he campaigned on were anti-establishment including suggesting that the "hedge-fund guys" were making a killing by being taxed at a lower rate.
    yuan -> DeDude... , December 20, 2016 at 10:00 AM
    trump did indeed state that he would give bigger tax cuts to the rich, repeatedly. the genius of trump's performance is that by never having a clear position his gullible followers were able to fill in the gaps using their own hopes and desires.
    DeDude -> yuan... , December 20, 2016 at 11:19 AM
    "his gullible followers were able to fill in the gaps using their own hopes and desires"

    That is correct, but also the weakness in his support. They will almost certainly be disappointed as the exact interpretations and choices between incompatible promises turns out to be different from the individuals hopes and desires. The reason Trump was able to beat even a Tea party darling, was the backlash against big money having taken over the Tea party. The backlash against Trump_vs_deep_state being "taken over by big money" interest will be interesting to observe, especially if the Dems find the right way to play it.

    yuan -> DeDude... , December 20, 2016 at 11:36 AM
    i hope you are right! however, history shows that a political movement can remain irrational longer than your government can remain democratic.
    DrDick -> jonny bakho... , December 20, 2016 at 08:14 AM
    And that is the least of the damage they will inflict.
    New Deal democrat said in reply to pgl... , December 20, 2016 at 05:10 AM
    Following up on Johnny Bakho's comment below, let's assume that average wage growth YoY for nonsupervisory workers never reaches 3% before the next recession hits. Wage growth rates always decline in recessions, usually by over 2%.

    If in the next recession, we see actual slight nominal wage decreases, is a debt-deflationary wage-price spiral inevitable? Or could there be a small decline of less than -1% without triggering such a spiral.

    Got any opinion? Is there any research on this?

    pgl -> New Deal democrat... , December 20, 2016 at 06:04 AM
    "is a debt-deflationary wage-price spiral inevitable?"

    Good question. It all depends on the response of policy makers. If we continue with the stupid fiscal austerity that began in 2011, it may be inevitable. Which is why doing public infrastructure investment is a very good idea.

    New Deal democrat said in reply to pgl... , December 20, 2016 at 06:28 AM
    We're doomed.
    DrDick -> New Deal democrat... , December 20, 2016 at 08:19 AM
    I knew that immediately after the election.
    JF -> DrDick... , December 20, 2016 at 01:07 PM
    And consider how dysfunction from laissez faire healthcare policy readoption leads to rising prices/costs above current trend to limit disposable income even more, it will be amazing if we do not have stagnation and worse for the bulk of society.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , December 20, 2016 at 07:08 AM
    "Which is why doing public infrastructure investment is a very good idea."

    If Hillary Clinton was so progressive according to people like you and Krugman, then why was her infrastructure plan so meager?

    Alan Blinder said it would be small small that it wouldn't effect the Fed's thinking on its rate hike schedule.

    JF -> Peter K.... , December 20, 2016 at 01:10 PM
    Bush implemented and expanded a community health clinic system, that reallnwoukd be a nice infrastructure play for the US, but this Congress is more likely to disinvest here. They certainly don't want these do-gooder nonprofits competing against the doctor establishment.
    ilsm -> Peter K.... , December 20, 2016 at 03:52 PM
    EMike said it about Bernie..... no soup for you!

    For Clinton dems, the ones the wiki revealed are con artists, doing for the peeps [like Bernie stood for] is too far ideologically for the faux centrists.

    They are neoliberals market monetarists who keep the bankers green and everyone else takes the back seats.

    DeDude -> pgl... , December 20, 2016 at 07:49 AM
    At this point in time pretty much anything the policy makers do will be countered by the Fed. The question is first of all whether Trump can bully the Fed away from their current and traditional course (which would not allow much of a stimulus, before they cancelled it out with rate hikes).

    Second whether the Fed itself having been traditionally prone to support GOP presidents (see inconsistencies in Greenspan's policies during Clinton vs. Bush) will change its policies and allow higher inflation and wage growth than they have under any Dem president.

    pgl -> DeDude... , December 20, 2016 at 07:55 AM
    As long as the FED thinks the natural rate of the employment to population ratio is only 60% - you'd be right. But then the FED is not thinking clearly.
    yuan -> Peter K.... , December 20, 2016 at 10:59 AM
    like many of my fellow socialists, i fulminated about bernanke's coddling of banks and asset holders. i was somewhat wrong. bernanke was a evidently a strong voice for banking regulation and an end to the moral hazard of TBTF. it is a pity that obama did not listen to him.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2016/05/13/ending-too-big-to-fail-whats-the-right-approach/

    JF -> yuan... , -1
    The little people go to the credit channels to help finance the purchase of durables and higher education too. The Fed's actions themselves will see these credit prices ratchet, so nit good fir basic demand. Veblen goods will see more price rises as the buyers will have lots of rentier/lobbying gathered money to burn.

    Will the Fed use rulemaking to control bubbling in the financial asset marketplaces as they wont want to rause rates too much. I hope they are paying attention

    [Dec 21, 2016] Egyptian police arrest five people for using children to stage fake Aleppo footage

    Dec 21, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    james | Dec 20, 2016 4:14:22 PM | 10

    @7 nmb.. thanks.. " is that the little banu girl?

    "Egyptian police arrest five people for using children to stage fake 'Aleppo' footage

    Amateurish photos and video taken at demolition site show little girl with red stains on a white dress and bandages being interviewed about life in the war-torn Syrian city"

    chipnik | Dec 20, 2016 4:17:30 PM | 11
    You just have to bluster through it, b, and shout "Yellow Cake! Yellow Cake! Yellow Cake!!"

    Bush Jrs administration was much more experienced than Trump's, yet brought on the greatest defeat in US history, 'let's rolled' two failed $4T oil wars, killed millions of innocents in the greatest war crimes holocaust in the 21stC, turned the whole world against 'the shining beacon (sic) of FreedomTM (sicker), and allowed the greatest economic crisis in US history to wipe out everyone's 401Ks and home equity, then loaned it all back to us QEn, with interest-only payments, forever, stolen our of our SS/MC TRUST FUND. That's an incredible record for two multi-$M war criminals, who are still walking around, free as jay-birds.

    And in exactly ONE MONTH, it will all be on Trump and the Republicans, 100%. Nobody left to blame, as the Goldmanauts crush our 401ks and all our life savings, and their Pretorianims launch the Final Crusade of Moloch. "I can't tell you where all the money went!" Benhamin

    Jack Smith | Dec 20, 2016 4:21:31 PM | 12
    " Bush Jrs administration was much more experienced than.....

    Obomo even better and [more] experienced [in propaganda] than Bush and all past presidents combined .....

    [Dec 21, 2016] The Perfect Weapon How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S by ERIC LIPTON , DAVID E. SANGER and SCOTT SHANE

    the article contain at least one blatant lie which discredits its connect: the assertion the Sony attack was from North Korea. No mentioning of Flame and Stixnet. Another proof that NYT is a part of Clinton campaign and became a neocons mouthpiece...
    Notable quotes:
    "... How many of us have signed petitions to exonerate Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning for letting us know what our govt was doing? Didn't they do us all, and democracy, a great service? ..."
    "... I'm happy to know how the DNC operated, the astounding and unprecedented conflation of a national party committee with one candidate's campaign organization. ..."
    "... What they were doing to Bernie Sanders, and the use they were making of national media was just wrong. ..."
    "... Clinton herself was involved (via her neocon undersecretary, formerly Cheney's chief foreign policy aide) in overthrowing the elected president of Ukraine, a friend of Russia, and installing a US-capitalist friendly fellow in his stead. ..."
    "... What goes around comes around. If we wanted to stop all this cyber warfare, the time to do it was by treaty BEFORE we risked Iranian lives with the Stuxnet virus. ..."
    "... The release of e-mails was embarrassing for Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party, but I don't think it tipped the election. How many longtime Democratic voters stayed home on November 9th because of the release of these e-mails? How many working class voters switched their vote because of the release of these e-mails? ..."
    "... If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned. ..."
    "... The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent. ..."
    "... The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it. ..."
    "... That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you. ..."
    "... I suppose Hillary's email server could have been hacked like this too. Could this be the reason for Comey's stern reprimand of her? It is a little ironic, isn't it, that the DNC, while down playing Hillary's issues with her private server and criticizing Comey for his handling of the investigation, should itself suffer a damaging security breach of its own servers at the hands of a foreign power, which was exactly Comey's concern. Not to mention the fact that the NYT, which told us enough was enough with Hillary's email, is now up in arms about exactly that issue with the shoe on the other foot ..."
    "... I am struggling with how to react to this, just as i do with the Edward Snowden disclosures. On the one hand Russian meddling in a US election is certainly a concern, and should be investigated. On the other hand the disclosures laid bare things many people had suspected, let the sunlight in, so to speak. ..."
    "... Would Hillary even have had the nomination were it not for the favoritism shown by the DNC to her campaign at the expense of the Sanders campaign? What was more meddlesome, the Russian hack and release or the DNC's unfair treatment of Bernie? There is no suggestion that the leaked documents were altered. The effect of the hack was to reveal the truth. Is that the Russian goal, to delegitimize the election process by revealing the truth? ..."
    "... I suppose we finally got a taste of our own medicine -- countless governments overthrown and elections influenced at the hand of the United States. Not fun is it? Perhaps we can learn a lesson from this. ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | www.nytimes.com
    Sandy Garossino Vancouver, British Columbia December 13, 2016

    An aspect that truly surprises me is the hopeless ineptitude of the DNC response (which could easily have parallels in the RNC).

    Irrespective of who the cyber-attacker is, it's astounding in this day and age that sensitive organizations do not pre-arm themselves with the highest security, and treat every sign of interference (eg, an actual FBI WARNING PHONE CALL) as a major alarm.

    Sadly, that this response is probably replicated all over the place underscores a theory I've held for some time: Technology will kill democracy. Maybe it already has.

    Martha Dryden, NY December 13, 2016

    I'm surprised at what's missing here. How many of us have signed petitions to exonerate Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning for letting us know what our govt was doing? Didn't they do us all, and democracy, a great service?

    I'm happy to know how the DNC operated, the astounding and unprecedented conflation of a national party committee with one candidate's campaign organization.

    What they were doing to Bernie Sanders, and the use they were making of national media was just wrong.

    Assange and Putin (if he was involved) revealed the truth. And since Clinton took no care to guard her private emails, mixed with public communications, how much sympathy is she owed?

    Clinton herself was involved (via her neocon undersecretary, formerly Cheney's chief foreign policy aide) in overthrowing the elected president of Ukraine, a friend of Russia, and installing a US-capitalist friendly fellow in his stead. We do this sort of thing all the time, so if the Russians "interfere" in our electoral process by revealing true stuff (far short of fomenting a coup like we did in Ukraine), isn't that just tit for tat? We even hacked into the communications of European leaders and international organizations. We were the first to use cyber warfare (Stuxnet, v. Iran), so how can we play holier than thou? What goes around comes around. If we wanted to stop all this cyber warfare, the time to do it was by treaty BEFORE we risked Iranian lives with the Stuxnet virus.

    Classicist New York, NY December 13, 2016

    The release of e-mails was embarrassing for Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party, but I don't think it tipped the election. How many longtime Democratic voters stayed home on November 9th because of the release of these e-mails? How many working class voters switched their vote because of the release of these e-mails?

    The bigger issue for me is that because we are now politicizing this hacking (i.e. making the argument that the hacking helped Republicans), many Republicans are opposed to investigating it.

    That is crazy to me.

    Southern Boy The Volunteer State December 13, 2016

    If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned.

    The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent.

    The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it.

    That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you.

    GBC , Canada December 13, 2016

    I suppose Hillary's email server could have been hacked like this too. Could this be the reason for Comey's stern reprimand of her? It is a little ironic, isn't it, that the DNC, while down playing Hillary's issues with her private server and criticizing Comey for his handling of the investigation, should itself suffer a damaging security breach of its own servers at the hands of a foreign power, which was exactly Comey's concern. Not to mention the fact that the NYT, which told us enough was enough with Hillary's email, is now up in arms about exactly that issue with the shoe on the other foot

    I am struggling with how to react to this, just as i do with the Edward Snowden disclosures. On the one hand Russian meddling in a US election is certainly a concern, and should be investigated. On the other hand the disclosures laid bare things many people had suspected, let the sunlight in, so to speak.

    Would Hillary even have had the nomination were it not for the favoritism shown by the DNC to her campaign at the expense of the Sanders campaign? What was more meddlesome, the Russian hack and release or the DNC's unfair treatment of Bernie? There is no suggestion that the leaked documents were altered. The effect of the hack was to reveal the truth. Is that the Russian goal, to delegitimize the election process by revealing the truth?

    Mark Bratanov FL December 13, 2016

    I suppose we finally got a taste of our own medicine -- countless governments overthrown and elections influenced at the hand of the United States. Not fun is it? Perhaps we can learn a lesson from this.

    Eric Lipton is an NYTimes reporter Reporter December 13, 2016

    The agent could have walked over to the DNC headquarters and shown the DNC IT consultant his badge. Or he could have invited the DNC IT consultant to his office--confirming his true identity. Instead, the two communicated for several months just by phone, and as a result, the DNC IT consultant did not fully believe he was speaking to an FBI agent, and so he did not act as aggressively to search for the possible cyber intrusion.

    GC carrboro, nc December 13, 2016

    She lost, get over it. Yes the Electoral College is obsolete. Yes some voting machines can be hacked, but no-one is claiming that in states with tight results. Let's see what the official investigation says, and who says it.

    For better or worse Mr. Trump will be our next President because he won the election. Personally I'm delighted that he may damp down the over-the-top Russophobia that is swirling around DC, "defense" contractor Congressional shills, & the offices of the NYT but nowhere else in the country.

    It's time for progressives to emerge from Obama-daze and convince the rest of the country that they have a better vision for this country's future than that offered by conservatives/reactionaries. One that doesn't involve bombing hapless foreigners. Articulate your policies as best you can, learn from your defeats and from your victories. Onward!

    Southern Boy The Volunteer State December 13, 2016

    If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned. The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent. The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it. That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you.

    Louisa is a trusted commenter New York December 13, 2016

    The police call and tell you to be sure to lock your doors and windows--there have been people seen lurking around your house.

    You hang up on them. And do nothing about your doors or windows.

    The police call repeatedly. You ignore all their calls.

    The police advise you to install an alarm system. You, making millions a year, say you can't afford it.

    You receive a notice in the mail telling you you've received 6 months worth of free storage. A van will arrive to pick up your stuff.

    You let the movers take your stuff away. You did not supervise what they took.

    You are the DNC, in terms of how they acted during this mess.

    [Dec 21, 2016] Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider? ..."
    "... Yes, of course, Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda. ..."
    "... Or in good McCarthyism tradition, they are under each bed. This evil autocrat Putin (who actually looks like yet another corrupt neoliberal ruler, who got Russia into WTO mousetrap and invests state money in the USA debt) manages to get everywhere, control everything and at the same time (German elections, Ukraine, Syria, world oil prices, Chechnya Islamic insurgence, US Presidential election, US stock market, you name it.) Amazing fit for a man over 60. ..."
    "... And citing NYT article as for Russian hacks is probably not so much different from citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support anti-Semitic propaganda. NYT was and still is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Hillary campaign. Hardly a neutral observer. ..."
    "... This level of anti-Russian hysteria that several people here are demonstrating is absolutely disgusting. Do you really want a military confrontation with Russia in Syria as most neocons badly want (but would prefer that other fought for them in the trenches) ? ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    likbez -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 07:15 PM

    Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider?

    One DNC staffer, 27-year-old Seth Rich, the DNC's director of voter expansion, was killed around this time in pretty strange circumstances. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/12/democratic-national-committee-staffer-shot-and-killed-in-washington.html

    Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian.

    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-wikileaks-figure-says-insider-russia-hack/

    Or it can come from a dissident within the US agency that did have access to all emails.

    Do you remember such a person as Edward Snowden ?

    It might be very educational for you to read his opinion about this case:

    While he is highly critical of Wikileaks, he suggests that without NSA coming forward with hard data obtained via special program that uncover multiple levels of indirection, those charges are just propaganda and insinuations.

    And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party.

    As in any complex case you should not jump to conclusions so easily.

    DeDude -> likbez... , December 18, 2016 at 08:05 PM
    Or you can explain why you believe strange Faux news conspiracy stories with absolutely no evidence that this person was in a position to hack the computers? Or why do you believe the obvious hugely conflicted statements from Wikileaks operatives, who would never want to admit that they were played by the Russians? Or a guy like Snowden who's life depend on Putins charity? Why would those sources make anybody question the clear evidence already presented?

    The fact that NSA is not going to publish all its evidence, is not a surprise. No need to tell the Russians and other hackers how they can avoid detection. But it is not just the government that conclude Russian involvement. Private company experts have reached the same conclusion. The case for a Russian government hack is about as good as it can get.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0

    likbez -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:48 PM
    Yes, of course, Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda.

    Or in good McCarthyism tradition, they are under each bed. This evil autocrat Putin (who actually looks like yet another corrupt neoliberal ruler, who got Russia into WTO mousetrap and invests state money in the USA debt) manages to get everywhere, control everything and at the same time (German elections, Ukraine, Syria, world oil prices, Chechnya Islamic insurgence, US Presidential election, US stock market, you name it.) Amazing fit for a man over 60.

    And citing NYT article as for Russian hacks is probably not so much different from citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support anti-Semitic propaganda. NYT was and still is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Hillary campaign. Hardly a neutral observer.

    This level of anti-Russian hysteria that several people here are demonstrating is absolutely disgusting. Do you really want a military confrontation with Russia in Syria as most neocons badly want (but would prefer that other fought for them in the trenches) ?

    That's what this hysteria is now about, I think.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> likbez... , -1
    The NSA is very good at finding the source of intrusion attempts because they happen all the time every day from China, Russia, North Korea and just little island backwaters in the Pacific.

    Doing something to stop or punish the perpetrators is what is hard. Individual US installation instances must each be protected by their own firewalls and then still monitored for unusual variations in traffic patterns through firewalls to detect IP spoofing.

    [Dec 20, 2016] The Real Saboteurs Of A Trump Foreign Policy

    Dec 20, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

    The never-Trumpers are never going to surrender the myth that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the hacking of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee to defeat Clinton and elect Donald Trump.

    Their investment in the myth is just too huge.

    For Clinton and her campaign, it is the only way to explain how they booted away a presidential election even Trump thought he had lost in November. To the mainstream media, this is the smoking gun in their Acela Corridor conspiracy to delegitimize Trump's presidency.

    Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sees Russian hacking as a way to put a cloud over the administration before it begins. But it is the uber-hawks hereabouts who are after the really big game.

    They seek to demonize Putin as the saboteur of democracy - someone who corrupted an American presidential election to bring about victory for a "useful idiot" whom Clinton called Putin's "puppet."

    If the War Party can convert this "fake story" into the real story of 2016, then they can scuttle any Trump effort to attain the rapprochement with Russia that Trump promised to try to achieve.

    If they can stigmatize Trump as "Putin's president" and Putin as America's implacable enemy, then the Russophobes are back in business.

    Nor is the War Party disguising its goal.

    Over the weekend, Sen. John McCain called for a congressional select committee to investigate Russian hacking into the Clinton campaign. The purpose of the investigations, said Sen. Lindsey Graham, "is to put on President Trump's desk crippling sanctions against Russia."

    "They need to pay a price," Graham chortled on Twitter.

    "Crippling sanctions" would abort any modus vivendi, any deal with Russia, before Trump could negotiate one. Trump would have to refuse to impose them - and face the firestorm to follow. The War Party is out to dynamite any detente with Russia before it begins.

    Among the reasons Trump won is that he promised to end U.S. involvement in the costly, bloody and interminable wars in the Middle East the Bushites and President Barack Obama brought us - and the neocons relish - and to reach a new understanding with Russia and Putin.

    But to some in Washington, beating up on Russia is a conditioned reflex dating to the Cold War. For others in the media and the front groups called think tanks, Russophobia is in their DNA.

    Though Julian Assange says WikiLeaks did not get the emails from Russia, this has to be investigated. Did Russia hack the DNC's email system and John Podesta's email account? Did Putin direct that the emails be provided to WikiLeaks to disrupt democracy or defeat Clinton?

    Clinton says Putin has had it in for her because he believes she was behind the anti-Putin demonstrations in Moscow in 2011.

    But if there is to be an investigation of clandestine interference in the politics and elections of foreign nations, let's get it all out onto the table.

    The CIA director and his deputies should be made to testify under oath, not only as to what they know about Russia's role in the WikiLeaks email dumps but also about who inside the agency is behind the leaks to The Washington Post designed to put a cloud over the Trump presidency before it begins.

    Agents and operatives of the CIA should be subjected to lie detector tests to learn who is leaking to the anti-Trump press.

    Before any congressional investigation, President-elect Trump should call in his new director of the CIA, Rep. Mike Pompeo, and tell him to run down and remove, for criminal misconduct, any CIA agents or operatives leaking secrets to discredit his election.

    Putin, after all, is not an American. The CIA saboteurs of the Trump presidency are. Will the media investigate the leakers? Not likely, for they are the beneficiaries of the leaks and co-conspirators of the leakers.

    The top officials of the CIA and Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy, should be called to testify under oath. Were they behind anti-Putin demonstrations during the Russian elections of 2011?

    Did the CIA or NED have a role in the "color-coded" revolutions to dump over pro-Russian governments in Moscow's "near abroad"?

    If Russia did intrude in our election, was it payback for our intrusions to bring about regime change in its neighborhood?

    What role did the CIA, the NED and John McCain play in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine in 2014? McCain was seen cheering on the crowds in Independence Square in Kiev.

    Trump has promised a more hopeful foreign policy than that of the Republicans he denounced and is succeeding. No more wars where vital interests are not imperiled. No more U.S. troops arriving as first responders for freeloading allies.

    The real saboteurs of his new foreign policy may not be inside the Ring Road in Moscow; rather, they may be inside the Beltway around D.C.

    The real danger may be that a new Trump foreign policy could be hijacked or scuttled by anti-Trump Republicans, not only on Capitol Hill but inside the executive branch itself.

    [Dec 20, 2016] Is the slide toward military dictatorship the poarth the the USA will take due to collapse of neoliberlaism

    Notable quotes:
    "... But "bastard neoliberalism" that Trump represents in his internal economic policy probably is not a solution for the nations problems. It is too early to say what will be the level of his deviation from election promises, but judging for his appointments it probably will be considerable -- up to a complete reverse on certain promises. ..."
    "... So I view his election as the next logical step (after the first two by Bush II and Obama) toward military dictatorship. Previous forms of "Inverted totalitarism" -- a neoliberal version of Bolshevism (or, more correctly, Trotskyism -- many neocons were actually former Trotskyites ) seems to stop working. Neoliberal ideology was discredited in 2008. All three: Bolshevism, Trotskyism and neoliberalism might also be viewed as just different flavors of Corporatism. ..."
    "... After 2008 crisis, neoliberalism in the USA continues to exist in zombie state: as a non-dead dead, so it will be inevitably replaced by something else. Much like Bolshevism after 1945. How soon it will happen and what will be the actual trigger (the next oil crisis which turns into another round of Great Recession?) and what will be the successor is anybody guess. Bolshevism in the USSR lasted till 1991 or 46 years. The victory on neoliberalism in the Cold War was in 1991 so if we add 50 years then 2041 might be the date. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    likbez, December 19, 2016 at 09:18 PM

    I think the shift from New Deal Capitalism to neoliberalism proved to be fatal for the form of democracy that used to exist in the USA (never perfect, and never for the plebs).

    Neoliberalism as a strange combination of socialism for the rich and feudalism for the poor is anathema for democracy even for the narrow strata of the US society who used to have a say in the political process. Like Bolshevism was dictatorship of nomenklatura under the slogan of "Proletarians of all countries, unite!", neoliberalism is more like dictatorship of financial oligarchy under the slogan "The financial elite of all countries, unite!")

    In this sense Trump is just the logical end of the process that started in 1980 with Reagan, or even earlier with Carter.

    And at the same time [he is] the symptom of the crisis of the system, as large swats of population this time voted against status quo and that created the revolutionary situation when the elite was unable to govern in the old fashion. That's why, I think, Hillary lost and Trump won.

    But "bastard neoliberalism" that Trump represents in his internal economic policy probably is not a solution for the nations problems. It is too early to say what will be the level of his deviation from election promises, but judging for his appointments it probably will be considerable -- up to a complete reverse on certain promises.

    So I view his election as the next logical step (after the first two by Bush II and Obama) toward military dictatorship. Previous forms of "Inverted totalitarism" -- a neoliberal version of Bolshevism (or, more correctly, Trotskyism -- many neocons were actually former Trotskyites ) seems to stop working. Neoliberal ideology was discredited in 2008. All three: Bolshevism, Trotskyism and neoliberalism might also be viewed as just different flavors of Corporatism.

    After 2008 crisis, neoliberalism in the USA continues to exist in zombie state: as a non-dead dead, so it will be inevitably replaced by something else. Much like Bolshevism after 1945. How soon it will happen and what will be the actual trigger (the next oil crisis which turns into another round of Great Recession?) and what will be the successor is anybody guess. Bolshevism in the USSR lasted till 1991 or 46 years. The victory on neoliberalism in the Cold War was in 1991 so if we add 50 years then 2041 might be the date.

    And the slide toward military dictatorship does not necessary need to take a form of junta, which takes power via coup d'état. The control of the government by three letter agencies ("national security state") seems to be sufficient, can be accomplished by stealth, and might well be viewed as a form of military dictatorship too. So it can be a gradual slide: phase I, II, III, etc.

    The problem here as with Brezhnev socialism in the USSR is the growing level of degeneration of elite and the growth of influence of deep state, which includes at its core three letter agencies. As Michail Gorbachev famously said about neoliberal revolution in the USSR "the process already started in full force". He just did not understand at this point that he already completely lost control over neoliberal "Perestroika" of the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika

    In a way, the US Presidents are now more and more ceremonial figures that help to maintain the illusion of the legitimacy of the system. Obama is probably the current pinnacle of this process (which is reflected in one of his nicknames -- "teleprompter" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/obama-photo-caption-contest-teleprompter_n_1821154.html) .

    You probably could elect a dog instead of Trump and the US foreign policy will stay exactly the same. This hissy fits about Russians that deep state gave Trump before December 19, might be viewed as a warning as for any potential changes in foreign policy.

    As we saw with foreign policy none of recent presidents really fully control it. They still are important players, but the question is whether they are still dominant players. My impression is that it is already by-and-large defined and implemented by the deep state. Sometimes dragging the President forcefully into the desirable course of actions.

    [Dec 20, 2016] Its official the US is funding Middle-East jihadists!

    Dec 20, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
    It's official: the US is funding Middle-East jihadists!

    globinfo freexchange

    We should not expect the truth from the corrupted establishment who fiercely fought Bernie Sanders, for example. We should expect it from someone who supported him. Indeed, the Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who resigned as DNC vice-chair on February 28, 2016, in order to endorse Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination, and actually was the first female US Representative to endorse Sanders, 'dared' to introduce bill so that the US to stop arming terrorists!

    Her words left no doubt of who is behind the dirty war in Syria and the chaos in the Middle East:

    Mr. speaker, under US law, it is illegal for you, or me, or any American, to provide any type of assistance to Al-Qaeda, ISIS, or other terrorist groups. If we broke this law, we'll be thrown in jail.

    Yet the US government has been violating this law for years, directly and indirectly supporting allies and partners of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, with money, weapons, intelligence and other support in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government .

    A recent NY Times article, confirmed that rebel groups supported by the US 'have entered into battlefield alliances with the affiliate of al-Qaeda in Syria, formerly known as al Nusra.' The Wall Street Journal reports that rebel groups are 'doubling down on their alliance with al-Qaeda'. This alliance has rendered the phrase 'moderate rebels' meaningless .

    We must stop this madness.We must stop arming terrorists .

    I'm introducing the Stop Arming Terrorists act today, to prohibit taxpayer dollars for being used to support terrorists.

    Speaking on CNN , Gabbard specifically named CIA as the agency that supports terrorist groups in the Middle East:

    The US government has been providing money, weapons, intel. assistance and other types of support through the CIA, directly to these groups that are working with and are affiliated with Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    Also, Gabbard specifically named the allies through which the US assist these terrorist groups:

    We've also been providing that support through countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar ...

    Speaking on NPR , Gabbard explained that she was working on the issue of the US interventionist, regime-change wars for years since she has been in Congress. Therefore, her position coincides with that of Donald Trump who repeatedly declared his opposition to these wars. This was also the main reason for which she endorsed Bernie Sanders:

    SIMON: You and President-elect Trump are obviously of different parties. But don't you kind of have the same position on Syria?

    GABBARD: I have heard him talk about his opposition to continuing interventionist, regime-change wars. I want to be clear, though, that this is an issue that I have been working on for years since I have been in Congress. And it's one...

    SIMON: It's why you endorsed Senator Sanders, isn't it?

    GABBARD: It's - correct. It was a clear difference between Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton. I am hopeful that this new administration coming in will change these policies so that we don't continue making these destructive decisions, as have been made in the past.

    This is really a unique moment, showing the absolute failure of the US obsolete, dirty policies and the degree of degeneration of the 'idealistic' picture of the Unites States as the number one global power. We can't remember any moment in the past in which a congressman was seeking to pass a bill to prohibit the US government funding terrorists, or, a newly elected president who, in his campaigns, was stating clearly that the previous administration created many terrorist groups.

    [Dec 20, 2016] ClubOrlov The Power of Nyet

    Notable quotes:
    "... What we ordinary folk think of as "American" interests are those interests as expressed by an entrenched foreign policy establishment to which the price of admission isn't only graduate studies in an expensive university. No, you have to walk within the lines. There's nothing as old under the sun as "group-think". ..."
    "... he served a purpose when he diverged from long established consensus and said that maybe, just maybe, getting on with the Russians might not be that hard. Or that NATO is an out-dated, dead-weight non-alliance of the unwilling. Or that border-less trade ruined heartland America. ..."
    July 26. 2016 | cluborlov.blogspot.com
    [ O poder do "năo" ]
    [ Het vermogen van "njet" ]
    [ Síla „Nět" ]
    [ Le pouvoir du " Niet " ]

    The way things are supposed to work on this planet is like this: in the United States, the power structures (public and private) decide what they want the rest of the world to do. They communicate their wishes through official and unofficial channels, expecting automatic cooperation. If cooperation is not immediately forthcoming, they apply political, financial and economic pressure. If that still doesn't produce the intended effect, they attempt regime change through a color revolution or a military coup, or organize and finance an insurgency leading to terrorist attacks and civil war in the recalcitrant nation. If that still doesn't work, they bomb the country back to the stone age. This is the way it worked in the 1990s and the 2000s, but as of late a new dynamic has emerged.

    In the beginning it was centered on Russia, but the phenomenon has since spread around the world and is about to engulf the United States itself. It works like this: the United States decides what it wants Russia to do and communicates its wishes, expecting automatic cooperation. Russia says "Nyet." The United States then runs through all of the above steps up to but not including the bombing campaign, from which it is deterred by Russia's nuclear deterrent. The answer remains "Nyet." One could perhaps imagine that some smart person within the US power structure would pipe up and say: "Based on the evidence before us, dictating our terms to Russia doesn't work; let's try negotiating with Russia in good faith as equals." And then everybody else would slap their heads and say, "Wow! That's brilliant! Why didn't we think of that?" But instead that person would be fired that very same day because, you see, American global hegemony is nonnegotiable. And so what happens instead is that the Americans act baffled, regroup and try again, making for quite an amusing spectacle.

    The whole Edward Snowden imbroglio was particularly fun to watch. The US demanded his extradition. The Russians said: "Nyet, our constitution forbids it." And then, hilariously, some voices in the West demanded in response that Russia change its constitution! The response, requiring no translation, was "Xa-xa-xa-xa-xa!" Less funny is the impasse over Syria: the Americans have been continuously demanding that Russia go along with their plan to overthrow Bashar Assad. The unchanging Russian response has been: "Nyet, the Syrians get to decide on their leadership, not Russia, and not the US." Each time they hear it, the Americans scratch their heads and try again. John Kerry was just recently in Moscow, holding a marathon "negotiating session" with Putin and Lavrov. Above is a photo of Kerry talking to Putin and Lavrov in Moscow a week or so ago and their facial expressions are hard to misread. There's Kerry, with his back to the camera, babbling away as per usual. Lavrov's face says: "I can't believe I have to sit here and listen to this nonsense again." Putin's face says: "Oh the poor idiot, he can't bring himself to understand that we're just going to say 'nyet' again." Kerry flew home with yet another "nyet."

    What's worse, other countries are now getting into the act. The Americans told the Brits exactly how to vote, and yet the Brits said "nyet" and voted for Brexit. The Americans told the Europeans to accept the horrendous corporate power grab that is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and the French said "nyet, it shall not pass." The US organized yet another military coup in Turkey to replace Erdoǧan with somebody who won't try to play nice with Russia, and the Turks said "nyet" to that too. And now, horror of horrors, there is Donald Trump saying "nyet" to all sorts of things-NATO, offshoring American jobs, letting in a flood of migrants, globalization, weapons for Ukrainian Nazis, free trade

    The corrosive psychological effect of "nyet" on the American hegemonic psyche cannot be underestimated. If you are supposed to think and act like a hegemon, but only the thinking part still works, then the result is cognitive dissonance. If your job is to bully nations around, and the nations can no longer be bullied, then your job becomes a joke, and you turn into a mental patient. The resulting madness has recently produced quite an interesting symptom: some number of US State Department staffers signed a letter, which was promptly leaked, calling for a bombing campaign against Syria in order to overthrow Bashar Assad. These are diplomats. Diplomacy is the art of avoiding war by talking. Diplomats who call for war are not being exactly diplomatic. You could say that they are incompetent diplomats, but that wouldn't go far enough (most of the competent diplomats left the service during the second Bush administration, many of them in disgust over having to lie about the rationale for the Iraq war). The truth is, they are sick, deranged non-diplomatic warmongers. Such is the power of this one simple Russian word that they have quite literally lost their minds.

    But it would be unfair to single out the State Department. It is as if the entire American body politic has been infected by a putrid miasma. It permeates all things and makes life miserable. In spite of the mounting problems, most other things in the US are still somewhat manageable, but this one thing-the draining away of the ability to bully the whole world-ruins everything. It's mid-summer, the nation is at the beach. The beach blanket is moth-eaten and threadbare, the beach umbrella has holes in it, the soft drinks in the cooler are laced with nasty chemicals and the summer reading is boring and then there is a dead whale decomposing nearby, whose name is "Nyet." It just ruins the whole ambiance!

    The media chattering heads and the establishment politicos are at this point painfully aware of this problem, and their predictable reaction is to blame it on what they perceive as its ultimate source: Russia, conveniently personified by Putin. "If you aren't voting for Clinton, you are voting for Putin" is one recently minted political trope. Another is that Trump is Putin's agent. Any public figure that declines to take a pro-establishment stance is automatically labeled "Putin's useful idiot." Taken at face value, such claims are preposterous. But there is a deeper explanation for them: what ties them all together is the power of "nyet." A vote for Sanders is a "nyet" vote: the Democratic establishment produced a candidate and told people to vote for her, and most of the young people said "nyet." Same thing with Trump: the Republican establishment trotted out its Seven Dwarfs and told people to vote for any one of them, and yet most of the disenfranchised working-class white people said "nyet" and voted for Snow White the outsider.

    It is a hopeful sign that people throughout the Washington-dominated world are discovering the power of "nyet." The establishment may still look spiffy on the outside, but under the shiny new paint there hides a rotten hull, with water coming in though every open seam. A sufficiently resounding "nyet" will probably be enough to cause it to founder, suddenly making room for some very necessary changes. When that happens, please remember to thank Russia or, if you insist, Putin.

    NowhereMan said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:13:00 AM EDT

    Beautiful! I'm going to start using that word in conversation now just to gauge people's reactions. Nyet!!! I have one particularly stuffy friend who's just baffled by the Trump phenomenon. He's an old school GOP conservative at heart who's chagrined that he's had to abandon the grand old party in favor of HRC and can't understand for the life of him why the "dirt people" are so enamored with Trump and Sanders. I just laugh and tell him that they're abandoning the Dems for the same reasons that he's embracing them.

    The rich and the near rich (which seems to include just about everybody these days, if only in their imaginations) here in the US all suffer from fundamental attribution bias - the idea that their own exceptionalism is why they are doing well - rather than realizing that it's all mostly just the luck of the draw - or even worse - their own willingness to carry corporate water like the good little Nazi's they are that has allowed them to temporarily advance their station in life.

    Fortunately for us all, the sun is setting on America's empire as we speak, and fevered dreams of US hegemony for the rest of time will be short lived indeed, although homo sapiens' time might be limited as well. If history keeps recording in the aftermath, US nuclear enabled hegemony will be but a brief blip on the historical radar, and like the legend of Atlantis before us, we'll be remembered chiefly as a society gone mad with our technologies, who aspired to reach out and touch the face of god, but instead settled for embracing our many inner devils. We won't be missed.

    Happy Unicorn said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:26:00 AM EDT

    A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin? Wouldn't THAT be nice!

    Dave Stockton said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:36:00 AM EDT

    This whole, "a vote against Hillary is a vote for Putin", is the best thing that could have happened this election. The US population will now have a debate and get to vote on whether we truly want to start World War Three. Hopefully the powers that be will be surprised by the response... NYET!

    Unknown said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:23:00 PM EDT

    Nice...

    Putin recently made fun of Lavrov, that he is becoming like Gromyko....
    ...and Gromyko was called Mr. NYET. :-)

    http://sevendaynews.com/2016/06/17/putin-has-lavrov-compared-with-gromyko/

    Vyse Legendaire said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:37:00 PM EDT

    I hope someone would volunteer to design a 'Nyet!' T-shirt on teepublic for advocates to show their unity to the cause.

    Shawn Sincoski said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 4:44:00 PM EDT

    I really hope that the next time the TBTF banks need a handout, somebody, somewhere reacts with a 'NFW' that resonates with the other plebes. Such a powerful word. But I am doubtful that such an event will occur. With all that is going on with Hillary the house should be on fire by now, but it is not (I am not advocating Trump by disparaging HRC). I suspect that the coming American experience will be unique and (dis)proportionate to their apathy.

    Cortes said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:01:00 PM EDT

    Herbert Marcuse: The first word of freedom is "No"

    Irene Parousis said... Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 6:58:00 AM EDT

    BRILLIANT!!!

    Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:12:00 AM EDT

    d94c074a-53e8-11e6-947a-073bf9f943f9 said...
    Excellent.
    There is a minor twist: "The corrosive psychological effect of "nyet" on the American hegemonic psyche cannot be underestimated". Probably GWB's "misunderestimated" left some local linguistic traume in your brain popping up in your otherwise perfect comment. I guess you meant "cannot be overestimated". Nevermind, you message is clear and convincing anyway :-)

    Mister Roboto said... Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:07:00 AM EDT

    This sums up why all the usual poppycock and folderol about why I need to vote for Hillary that always succeeded in getting under my intellectual skin in the past is now just the mere noise of screeching cats outside the window to me: There just comes a point where, if you have any integrity at all, you have to say, "Nyet!"

    Mark said... Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 5:42:00 AM EDT

    At some point, voting for a major party candidate is just throwing away your vote.

    Roger said... Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 7:11:00 AM EDT

    I always enjoy Dmitry's blogs and the fact that he pushes the Russian perspective, as a relief from the Russophobic drivel put out by the mainstream. However, a word of caution to the wise. Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Trump et al. are, in fact, extremely unfunny. Charlie Chaplin lampooned the funny little man with the moustache in the Great Dictator, xa! xa! xa! The truth came out later. Do not be afraid of Neocon America, but please remember these are dangerous people. Be vigilant always.

    Bruno said... Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:55:00 AM EDT

    Loved.

    And sad because Brasil didn't say NYET to the coup planted here by USA.

    Unknown said... Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 1:02:00 PM EDT

    "Putin recently made fun of Lavrov, that he is becoming like Gromyko....
    ...and Gromyko was called Mr. NYET. :-)"

    Even better, Lavrov was subsequently quoted in the press as saying "don't make me say the four letter word".

    What a tag team!

    Marty said... Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:20:00 AM EDT

    I really believe that you have hit the crux of the issue, the Neocon psychopaths are besides themselves over the Nyets, and they find themselves to be a once powerful now toothless lion, the are being laughed at, even by the American people.

    I hope so because the worst of the bunch is Mrs. Clinton, she is just a crazy and stupid enough to burn it all down, perhaps the only thing that would prevent her from doing so is that this would interfere with her Diabolical Narcissistic need to be seen as the Kleptocrat she is and to get away with being the biggest grifter in American history.

    Turkey shows that they can't even organize a proper coup any more, even when they have a major base in the country of the government to be compromised. The NeoCons must be so disappointed.

    This failed coup was probably also was a big disappointment to those Fed Banksters who were counting on looting the Bank if Turkey's 500 or so Tonnes of gold, as they did with Ukraine.

    Roger said... Friday, July 29, 2016 at 12:53:00 PM EDT

    Leon Panetta sez "we know how to do this" despite an exuberant flourishing of evidence to the contrary. But there's a glimmer of hope, even if it comes from a way down the ranks, because there's a Col Bacevitch who begs to differ and sez "with all due respect, we DON'T know how to do this."

    You ask, know how to do WHAT exactly? Well, the topic at issue in a PBS panel discussion was destroying the Islamic State. But knowing how to do it or NOT knowing how to do it could refer equally to a series of monumental American foreign policy muffs. How could it be, that America with all its military force, screws up so mightily and predictably? Because it's as Mr Orlov asserts, there's a lot of NYETS out there and the American foreign policy establishment can't fathom it.

    But what they most crucially can't fathom is that those damn furriners have their own interests at heart just like the Americans have their own interests. Americans from the street level to the highest echelons view the world through Americentric lens resulting in ludicrously distorted fun-house views of the world.

    For example, why doesn't the Iranian see things the way Americans want him to? Why is it always "nyet" coming out of Teheran? Why are Iranians so belligerent? Americans seemingly can't comprehend that Iran is an ancient imperial power whose roots go back millennia, right to the origins of civilization. But could it possibly be that Iranian concerns have got more to do with goings-on in their geographic locale and pretty much nothing to do with the United States? And that the Iranian is highly irritated that Americans stick their noses into matters that concern Americans only tangentially or not at all? Could it be that the Iranian has his own life pathways in age-old places that Americans know nothing about? Could it be that an Iranian is educated in his own traditions in ancient academies that far pre-date anything on American soil? You can replace the words "Iranian" and "Iran" with "Chinese" and "China" or "Japanese" and "Japan" or dozens of other places and societies including "Russian" and "Russia". American incomprehension goes deep.

    Maybe some of the world is Washington-dominated. But maybe some this domination is more apparent than real. Maybe it only seems Washington-dominated because in many of these places there's a concordance of interests with the United States. But in most of the globe the interests of Americans are not the same as those of the locals. And America has not got the will nor the reach to make it otherwise.

    Happy Unicorn said...

    Roger: "But in most of the globe the interests of Americans are not the same as those of the locals."

    Most of the globe, including America itself! The interests of the Americans you're talking about are usually not the same as mine or anyone's that I know ("the locals" in America). I suspect the people of the USA who aren't brainwashed would have a lot in common with everybody else in the world, because the first colony of any would-be empire (colony 0, let's say) is always the country it originated from. More and more of us are saying nyet too, though the utterance usually takes the less exotic form also enumerated by Dmitry awhile back: "No, because we hate you."
    Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:03:00 PM EDT

    flops said... Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 7:22:00 AM EDT

    In good wronglish:

    There's America, Americans, USA.

    And, in some point of our decolonized memory, there's Pacha Mama, our Mother Earth, the name given to our land by the older people.

    Not by chance, the unique country in Pacha Mama continents that have a pre-colonial language as its official - Paraguay's Guarani - was the initial focus of this antidemocratic wave attacking our countries.

    We, the united states of...? What?

    "Pacha Mama" is our best nyet!

    Not anymore south and central americas, south and central "americans". Pacha Mama is our real continents' name! We are The United States of Pacha Mama!
    When mentioning people from brazil, angentine, chile, bolivia, peru paraguay colombiavenezuelahaiti,surinamepanamacubamexico and so, please call us Pachamamists. That' what we are.

    Roger said... Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 11:27:00 AM EDT

    HappyUnicorn, of course you're right.

    What we ordinary folk think of as "American" interests are those interests as expressed by an entrenched foreign policy establishment to which the price of admission isn't only graduate studies in an expensive university. No, you have to walk within the lines. There's nothing as old under the sun as "group-think".

    The lines are long established. Just think of it: globalization, off-shoring millions of jobs, on-shoring millions of dirt-poor immigrants, legal and otherwise. Nothing warms the cockles of the oligarch's heart like a desperate underclass.

    I know Trump is a buffoon. But he served a purpose when he diverged from long established consensus and said that maybe, just maybe, getting on with the Russians might not be that hard. Or that NATO is an out-dated, dead-weight non-alliance of the unwilling. Or that border-less trade ruined heartland America.

    You saw the venomous reaction. A lot of people staked a career on the status-quo. Is the best-before expired as Trump suggested? I'll bet that if it hadn't been a blustering clown that raised it, many more people on the street would agree.

    Some regional interests are historic and easily visible for example, along the Mason-Dixon line. But even on either side of that old divide I think that the disparity is more an artifact of opposing elites determined to not get along. Why don't they get along? Well, there's a country to loot. You need distractions and diversions while pension funds and treasuries are emptied.

    And so we're off chasing our tails on burning problems like gender neutral washrooms. Brilliant, don't you think? Kudos to the Obama regime for that one. And so it's God fearin', gun packin' "conservative" versus enlightened, high-minded "progressive". What a joke, what a con. Yet, predictably, we fell for it. You name it, school prayer, abortion, evolution, and now washrooms, we fall for it, we always do.

    Robert T. said... Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:52:00 PM EDT

    It would be very nice if someone could write a piece on what life in Russia, in all its levels, is really like nowadays. I suspect that it is not just "nyet" that terrifies the Empire, but rather what Russia herself is now increasingly coming to represent.

    A lot of people, myself included, had been brought up thinking that Russia, while indeed a superpower, isn't and cannot be on the same page as the US. But now here are reports saying that a good and strong leader has pulled Russia out of the rut, and made things better. What's more, this leader did it in a manner that seems antithetical to the Empire. And what's even better is that this new Russia can't be easily rocked, like how the other countries had been rocked and thrown into chaos. The Empire therefore is at its wit's end. If people from other parts of the Earth, especially in those many places where democracy has failed miserably, begin to see that there is indeed an alternative to the empirical system, won't they then start to follow Russia's footsteps?

    Headsails said... Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 2:07:00 AM EDT

    Just like a spoiled rotten child that needs to learn some manners. It needs to learn the meaning of no. But in this case, instead of a spankng they would be chain ganged for life.

    [Dec 20, 2016] ClubOrlov Brain Parasite Gonna Eatcha!

    Dec 16, 2016 | cluborlov.blogspot.com
    Brain Parasite Gonna Eatcha! I've been experiencing some difficulties with commenting on the current political situation in the US, because it's been a little too funny, whereas this is a very serious blog. But I have decided that I must try my best. Now, these are serious matters, so as you read this, please refrain from any and all levity and mirth.

    You may have heard by now that the Russians stole the US presidential election; if it wasn't for them, Hillary Clinton would have been president-elect, but because of their meddling we are now stuck with Donald Trump and his 1001 oligarchs running the federal government for the next four years.

    There are two ways to approach this question. One is to take the accusation of Russian hacking of the US elections at face value, and we will certainly do that. But first let's try another way, because it's quicker. Let's consider the accusation itself as a symptom of some unrelated disorder. This is often the best way forward. Suppose a person walks into a doctor's office, and says, "Doctor, I believe I have schizophrenium poisoning." Should the doctor summon the hazmat team, or check for schizophrenia first?

    And so let's first consider that this "Russians did it" refrain we keep hearing is a symptom of something else, of which Russians are not the cause. My working hypothesis is that this behavior is being caused by a brain parasite. Yes, this may seem outlandish at first, but as we'll see later the theory that the Russians stole the election is no less outlandish.

    Brain parasites are known to alter the behavior of the organisms they infest in a variety of subtle ways. For instance, Toxicoplasma gondii alters the behavior of rodents, causing them to lose fear of cats and to become attracted to the smell of cat urine, making it easy for the cats to catch them. It also alters the behavior of humans, causing them to lavish excessive affection on cats and to compulsively download photographs of cute kittens playing with yarn.

    My hypothesis is that this particular brain parasite was specifically bioengineered by the US to make those it infects hate Russia. I suspect that the neurological trigger it uses is Putin's face, which the parasite somehow wires into the visual cortex. This virus was first unleashed on the unsuspecting Ukrainians, where its effect was plain to see. This historically Russian, majority Russian-speaking, culturally Russian and religiously Russian Orthodox region suddenly erupted in an epidemic of Russophobia. The Ukraine cut economic ties with Russia, sending its economy into a tailspin, and started a war with its eastern regions, which were quite recently part of Russia and wish to become part of Russia again.

    So far so good: the American bioengineers who created this virus achieved the effect they wanted, turning a Russian region into an anti-Russian region. But as happens so often with biological agents, it turned out to be hard to keep under control. Its next victims turned out to be NATO and the Pentagon, whose leadership started compulsively uttering the phrase "Russian aggression" in a manner suggestive of Tourette's Syndrome, entirely undeterred by the complete absence of evidence of any such aggression that they could present for objective analysis. They, along with the by now fit-to-be-tied Ukrainians, kept prattling on about "Russian invasion," waving about decades-old pictures of Russian tanks they downloaded from their friends on Facebook.

    From there the brain parasite spread to the White House, the Clinton presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and its attendant press corps, who are now all chattering away about "Russian hacking." The few knowledgeable voices who point out that there is absolutely no hard evidence of any such "Russian hacking" are being drowned out by the Bedlam din of the rest.

    This, to me, seems like the simplest explanation that fits the facts. But to be fair and balanced, let us also examine the other perspective: that claims of "Russian hacking" should be taken at face value. The first difficulty we encounter is that what is being termed "Russian hacking" is not hacks but leaks. Hacks occur where some unauthorized party breaks into a server and steals data. Leaks occur where an insider-a "whistleblower"-violates rules of secrecy and/or confidentiality in order to release into the public domain evidence of wrongdoing. In this case, evidence of leaking is prima facie: Was the data in question evidence of wrongdoing? Yes. Was it released into the public domain? Yes. Has the identity of said leaker or leakers remained secret? Yes, with good reason.

    But this does not rule out hacking, because what a leaker can do, a hacker can also do, although with difficulty. Leakers have it easy: you see evidence of wrongdoing, take umbrage at it, copy it onto a thumb drive, smuggle it off premises, and upload it to Wikileaks through a public wifi hotspot from an old laptop you bought off Craislist and then smashed. But what's a poor hacker to do? You hack into server after server, running the risk of getting caught each time, only to find that the servers contain minutes of public meetings, old press releases, backups of public web sites and-incriminating evidence!-a mother lode of pictures of fluffy kittens playing with yarn downloaded by a secretary afflicted with Toxicoplasma gondii .

    The solution, of course, is to create something that's worth hacking, or leaking, but this is a much harder problem. What the Russians had to do, then, was take the incorruptible, squeaky-clean goody-two-shoes faithful public servant Hillary Clinton, infiltrate the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and somehow manipulate them all into doing things that, when leaked (or hacked) would reliably turn the electorate against Clinton. Yes Sir, Tovarishch Putin!

    Those Russians sure are clever! They managed to turn the DNC into an anti-Bernie Sanders operation, depriving him of electoral votes through a variety of underhanded practices while appealing to anti-Semitic sentiments in certain parts of the country. They managed to manipulate Donna Brazile into handing presidential debate questions to the Clinton campaign. They even managed to convince certain Ukrainian oligarchs and Saudi princes to bestow millions upon the Clinton foundation in exchange for certain future foreign policy concessions. The list of these leak-worthy Russian subterfuges goes on and on But who can stop them?

    And so clearly the Russians had to first corrupt the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, just in order to render them hackworthy. But here we have a problem. You see, if you can hack into a server, so can everyone else. Suppose you leave your front door unlocked and swinging in the breeze, and long thereafter stuff goes missing. Of course you can blame the neighbor you happen to like least, but then why would anyone believe you? Anybody could have walked through that door and taken your shit. And so it is hard to do anything beyond lobbing empty accusations at Russia as far as hacking is concerned; but the charge of corrupting the incorruptible Hillary Clinton is another matter entirely.

    Because here the ultimate Russian achievement was in getting Hillary Clinton to refer to over half of her electorate as "a basket of deplorables," and this was no mean feat. It takes a superpower to orchestrate a political blunder of this magnitude. This she did in front of an LGBT audience in New York. Now, Hillary is no spring chicken when it comes to national politics: she's been through quite a few federal elections, and she has enough experience to know that pissing off over half of your electorate in one fell swoop is not a particularly smart thing to do. Obviously, she was somehow hypnotized into uttering these words no doubt by a hyperintelligent space-based Russian operative.

    The Russian covert operation into subverting American democracy started with the Russians sending an agent into the hitherto unexplored hinter regions of America, to see what they are like. Hunched over his desk, Putin whipped out a map of the US and a crayon, and lightly shaded in an area south of the Mason-Dixon line, west of New York and Pennsylvania, and east of the Rockies.

    Let me come clean. I have split loyalties. I have spent most of my life hobnobbing with transnational elites on the East Coast, but I have also spent quite a few years working for a very large midwestern agricultural equipment company, and a very large midwestern printing company, so I know the culture of the land quite well. I am sure that what this Russian agent reported back is that the land is thickly settled with white people of Anglo-Irish, Scottish, German and Slavic extraction, that they are macho, that their women (for it is quite a male-centric culture) tend to vote same way as the men for the sake of domestic tranquility, that they don't much like dark-skinned people or gays, and that plenty of them view the East Coast and California as dens of iniquity and corruption, if not modern-day Sodoms and Gomorras.

    And what if Vladimir Putin read this report, and issued this order: "Get Clinton to piss them all off." And so it was done: unbeknownst to her, using nefarious means, Hillary was programmed, under hypnosis, to utter the phrase "a basket of deplorables." A Russian operative hiding in the audience of LGBT activists flashed a sign triggering the program in Hillary's overworked brain, and the rest is history. If that's what actually happened, then Putin should be pronounced Special Ops Officer of the Year, while all the other "world leaders" should quietly sneak out the back entrance, sit down on the ground in the garden and eat some dirt, then puke it up into their hands and rub it into their eyes while wailing, because how on earth can they possibly ever hope to beat that?

    Or we can just go back to my brain parasite theory. Doesn't it seem a whole lot more sane now? Not only is it much simpler and more believable, but it also has certain predictive merits that the "Russian hacking" theory lacks. You see, when there is parasitism involved, there is rarely just one symptom. Usually, there is a whole cluster of symptoms. And so, just for the sake of comparison, let's look at what has happened to the Ukraine since it was infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite, and compare that to what is happening to the US now that the parasite has spread here too.

    1. The Ukraine is ruled by an oligarch-Petro Poroshenko, the "candy king"-along with a clique of other oligarchs who have been handed regional governorships and government ministries. And now the US is about to be ruled by an oligarch-Trump, the "casino king"-along with a clique of other oligarchs, from ExxonMobile to Goldman Sachs.

    2. The Ukraine has repudiated its trade agreements with Russia, sending its economy into free-fall. And now Trump is promising to repudiate, and perhaps renegotiate, a variety of trade agreements. For a country that has run huge structural trade deficits for decades and pays for them by constantly issuing debt this is not going to be easy or safe.

    3. The Ukraine has been subjected to not one but two Color Revolutions, promoted by none other than that odious oligarch George Soros. The US is now facing its own Color Revolution-the Purple Revolution-paid for by that same Soros, with the goal of overturning the results of the presidential election and derailing the inauguration of Donald Trump through a variety of increasingly desperate ploys including paid-for demonstrations, vote recounts and attempts to manipulate the Electoral College.

    4. For a couple of years now the Ukraine has been mired in a bloody and futile civil war. To this day the Ukrainian troops (with NATO support) are lobbing missiles into civilian districts in the east of the country, and getting decimated in return. So far, Trump's victory seems to have appeased the "deplorables," but should the Purple Revolution succeed, the US may also see major social unrest, possibly escalating into a civil war.

    The Ukrainian Brain Parasite has devastated the Ukraine. It is by now too far gone for much of anything to be done about it. All of the best people have left, mostly for Russia, and all that's left is a rotten, hollow shell. But does it have to end this way for the US? I hope not!

    There are, as I see it, two possibilities. One is to view those who are pushing the "Russian hacking" or "Russian aggression" story as political adversaries. Another is to view them as temporarily mentally ill. Yes, their brains are infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite, but that just means that their opinions are to be disregarded-until they feel better. And since this particular brain parasite specifically influences social behavior, if we refuse to reward that behavior with positive reinforcement-by acknowledging it-we will suppress its most debilitating symptoms, eventually forcing the parasite to evolve toward a more benign form. As with many infectious diseases, the fight against them starts with improved hygiene-in this case, mental hygiene. And so that is my prescription: when you see someone going on about "Russian hacking" or "Russian aggression" be merciful and charitable toward them as individuals, because they are temporarily incapacitated, but do not acknowledge their mad ranting, and instead try to coax them into learning to control it.

    [Dec 19, 2016] Michigan unemployment agency made 20,000 false fraud accusations – report

    Notable quotes:
    "... One bankruptcy attorney told the Detroit Metro Times he had as many as 30 cases in 2015 tied to debt from the UIA; before the automated system was implemented, he said he would typically have at most one per year with such claims. The newspaper also found claimants who were charged with fraud despite never having received a single dollar in unemployment insurance benefits. ..."
    "... A pair of lawsuits were filed in 2015 against the UIA over Midas. According to a pending federal case, in which the state revealed it had discontinued using Midas for fraud determinations, the system "resulted in countless unemployment insurance claimants being accused of fraud even though they did nothing wrong". ..."
    "... Blanchard told the Guardian in February that many unemployment applicants may not have realized they were even eligible to appeal against the fraud charge, due to the setup of Midas. Attorneys representing claimants have said that many refuse to ever apply for unemployment benefits again. ..."
    "... Levin, who represents part of metropolitan Detroit, said in his statement that Michigan officials had to fully account for the money that has flowed into the unemployment agency's contingent fund. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Michigan government agency wrongly accused individuals in at least 20,000 cases of fraudulently seeking unemployment payments, according to a review by the state.

    The review released this week found that an automated system had erroneously accused claimants in 93% of cases – a rate that stunned even lawyers suing the state over the computer system and faulty fraud claims.

    "It's literally balancing the books on the backs of Michigan's poorest and jobless," attorney David Blanchard, who is pursuing a class action in federal court on behalf of several claimants, told the Guardian on Friday.

    The Michigan unemployment insurance agency (UIA) reviewed 22,427 cases in which an automated computer system determined a claimant had committed insurance fraud, after federal officials, including the Michigan congressman Sander Levin, raised concerns with the system.

    The review found that the overwhelming majority of claims over a two-year period between October 2013 and August 2015 were in error. In 2015, the state revised its policy and required fraud determinations to be reviewed and issued by employees. But the new data is the first indication of just how widespread the improper accusations were during that period .

    The people accused lost access to unemployment payments, and reported facing fines as high as $100,000. Those who appealed against the fines fought the claims in lengthy administrative hearings. And some had their federal and state taxes garnished. Kevin Grifka, an electrician who lives in metro Detroit, had his entire federal income tax garnished by the UIA, after it accused him of fraudulently collecting $12,000 in unemployment benefits.

    The notice came just weeks before Christmas in 2014.

    "To be honest with you, it was really hard to see your wife in tears around Christmas time, when all of this went on for me," Grifka said.

    The computer system claimed that he had failed to accurately represent his income over a 13-week period. But the system was wrong: Grifka, 39, had not committed insurance fraud.

    In a statement issued on Friday, Levin called on state officials to review the remaining fraud cases that were generated by the system before the policy revision.

    "While I'm pleased that a small subset of the cases has been reviewed, the state has a responsibility to look at the additional 30,000 fraud determinations made during this same time period," he said.

    Figures released by the state show 2,571 individuals have been repaid a total of $5.4m. It's unclear if multiple cases were filed against the same claimants.

    The findings come as Michigan's Republican-led legislature passed a bill this week to use $10m from the unemployment agency's contingent fund – which is composed mostly of fines generated by fraud claims – to balance the state's budget. Since 2011, the balance of the contingent fund has jumped from $3.1m to $155m, according to a report from a Michigan house agency.

    The system, known as the Michigan Integrated Data Automated System (Midas), caused an immediate spike in claims of fraud when it was implemented in October 2013 under the state's Republican governor, Rick Snyder, at a cost of $47m.

    In the run-up to a scathing report on the system issued last year by Michigan's auditor general, the UIA began requiring employees to review the fraud determinations before they were issued.

    The fraud accusations can carry an emotional burden for claimants.

    "These accusations [have] a pretty big burden on people," Grifka said. While he said the new findings were validating and his own case had been resolved, he called for state accountability.

    "There's no recourse from the state on what they're doing to people's lives. That's my biggest problem with all of this."

    Steve Gray, director of the University of Michigan law school's unemployment insurance clinic, told the Guardian earlier this year that he routinely came across claimants facing a significant emotional toll. As a result, he said, the clinic added the number for a suicide hotline to a referral resource page on the program's website.

    "We had just a number of clients who were so desperate, saying that they were going to lose their house they've never been unemployed before, they didn't know," said Gray, who filed a complaint with the US labor department in 2015 about the Midas system.

    The fines can be enormous. Residents interviewed by local news outlets have highlighted fraud penalties from the UIA upwards of $100,000 . Bankruptcy petitions filed as a result of unemployment insurance fraud also increased during the timeframe when Midas was in use.

    One bankruptcy attorney told the Detroit Metro Times he had as many as 30 cases in 2015 tied to debt from the UIA; before the automated system was implemented, he said he would typically have at most one per year with such claims. The newspaper also found claimants who were charged with fraud despite never having received a single dollar in unemployment insurance benefits.

    A pair of lawsuits were filed in 2015 against the UIA over Midas. According to a pending federal case, in which the state revealed it had discontinued using Midas for fraud determinations, the system "resulted in countless unemployment insurance claimants being accused of fraud even though they did nothing wrong".

    Blanchard told the Guardian in February that many unemployment applicants may not have realized they were even eligible to appeal against the fraud charge, due to the setup of Midas. Attorneys representing claimants have said that many refuse to ever apply for unemployment benefits again.

    A spokesman for the unemployment insurance agency, Dave Murray, said it appreciated Levin's work on the issue and said it was continuing "to study fraud determinations".

    The agency had already made changes to the fraud determination process, he said, and "we appreciate that the state legislature this week approved a bill that codifies the reforms we've set in place".

    Levin, who represents part of metropolitan Detroit, said in his statement that Michigan officials had to fully account for the money that has flowed into the unemployment agency's contingent fund.

    "While I am pleased that $5m has been repaid, it strikes me as small compared to the amount of money that was collected at the time," he said. "Only a full audit will ensure the public that the problem has been fully rectified."

    ManuSHeloma 12 Feb 2016 9:02

    Another failure of Gov Snyder's administration: first Flint water, now this. What can the people of Michigan expect next? The recall of Snyder should be automated.
    stuinmichigan pepspotbib 12 Feb 2016 10:02
    It's not just Snyder and his lackies. You should see the radically gerrymanderd Michigan legislature, run by rightist extremists, directed by the Koch Brothers, the DeVos family and others, via the ALEC program that provides them with the radical right legislation they have passed and continue to pass. Snyder ran saying that sort of stuff was not really on his agenda, but continues to sign it. He's either a liar, an unprincipled idiot, or both. It's bad here. And it's getting worse.
    DarthPutinbot 12 Feb 2016 9:09
    What the f*ck is wrong in Michigan? Split it up among the surrounding states and call it good. Michigan destroyed Detroit and cutoff their water. Michigan deliberately poisoned the residents of Flint. Too many Michigan lawyers are crooks or basically inept. The court system screws over parents in divorce cases. And now, Michigan is wrongly trying to collect money from people on trumped up fraud charges. Stop it. The federal government needs to take over the state or bust it up.
    Non de Plume 12 Feb 2016 9:23
    Hell, when the system *works* it's ridiculous. Watching my Dad - who had worked continuously since 14 years old save a few months in the early 90s - sitting on hold for hours... At least once a week, to 'prove' he still deserved money from a system he paid into. Hours is not an exaggeration.

    And now this. Goddammit Lansing! How many other ways can you try to save/take money from the poor and end up costing us so much more?!?

    Bailey Wilkins stuinmichigan 12 Feb 2016 21:56
    Nothing against The Guardian's reporting, but if you follow the links, you'll see FOX 17 has been covering the story locally since last May. It's their investigation that got the attention of all the other publications (including Detroit Metro Times.) Local papers could have done a better job though, agreed on that.
    talenttruth 12 Feb 2016 12:48
    Leering, Entitled Republican bastards like Governor Snyder simply HATE poor people. And THAT is because all such bullies are cowards, through-and-through, always selecting as their "victims" those who can't fight back. And, since such Puritan Cretins as Snyder "Believe" that they are rich because of their superior merit, it stands to reason (doesn't it) that "poor people" (actually, all us Little Folk) have NO merit, because we didn't inherit a Trust Fund, Daddy's Business or other anciently stolen wealth. These people deserve stunningly BAD Karma. Unfortunately, Karma has its own timeline and doesn't do what seems just, on a timely basis (usually).
    Jim Uicker 12 Feb 2016 13:29
    With today's sophisticated algorithms, computers are used to flag insurance claims all the time. The hit rate is usually much better than 8%. But how can they even consider automating the adjudication of fraud? Fraud is a crime; there should be a presumption of innocence and a right to due process. Without telling people they had a right to appeal, didn't this system violate the constitutional rights of Michigan's most vulnerable citizens: those with no job and therefore no money to defend themselves?

    And what about the employers who paid unemployment insurance premiums month after month, expecting the system to protect their employees from business conditions that would necessitate layoffs? Michigan has defrauded them as well, by collecting premiums and not paying claims.

    Jim Uicker 12 Feb 2016 13:51
    Even if the problem with Midas can be entirely blamed on the tech workers who built and tested the software, there is no excuse for the behavior of the Snyder administration when they became aware of the problem. Just like the cases of legionnaires disease, where the state failed to alert the public about the outbreak and four more people died, the Snyder administration is again trying to sweep its mistakes under the rug.

    Before taking Midas offline, the UIA refused to comment on the Metro Times investigation, and Snyder himself artfully avoided reporters' questions after being made aware of the result of an investigation by a local television station. Now the state only revealed that it shut down Midas to a pending lawsuit.

    The state spent $47 million dollars on a computer system and then took it offline because it didn't work. The flaws in the system are now costing the state many millions more. This level of secrecy is evidence of bad government. The state is supposed to be accountable to taxpayers for that money! Even if the Snyder administration isn't responsible for all of these tragedies, it is definitely responsible for covering them up.

    Jefferson78759 12 Feb 2016 13:55
    This is the GOP "governing"; treat the average person like a criminal, "save" money on essential infrastructure like water treatment, regardless of the consequences.

    I get why the 1% votes GOP but if you're an average person you're putting your financial and physical well being on the line if you do. Crazy.

    MaryLee Sutton Henry 12 Feb 2016 22:30
    I was forced to plead guilty by a public defender to the UIA fraud charge & thrown in jail for 4 days without my Diabetic meds or diet in Allegan county. As it stands right now the State of Michigan keeps sending me bills that are almost $1000 more then what the county says I own. I have done community service, and between witholding tax refunds and payments I have paid over $1200 on a $4300 total bill. I have literally spend hours on the phone with UIA and faxing judgements trying to straighten this out, yet still get bills for the higher amount from UIA. Its a nightmare, I have a misdominer, until its paid and refuse to pay no more then $50 per month until they straighten this out. Maybe joining the class action law suit would help. Does anyone have any better ideas??
    Teri Roy 13 Feb 2016 13:27
    My son and I both got hit, I was able to dispute mine but he has autism and they would not dismiss his, so at 24 yrs old he's paying back 20 grand in pentailies and interest. Just not right
    Outragously Flawless 14 Feb 2016 9:42
    I also received a letter stating I owe and hadn't file taxes since 2007. I had to find all of my taxes from 2007 to 2013 my question is why did they wait over 5yrs to contact me, or is that the set up H&R block does my taxes and they didn't have records that far back.#sneakyass government

    [Dec 18, 2016] Tancredo Would Republican Establishment Use Impeachment to Block Trump Agenda

    Notable quotes:
    "... Republican leaders in Congress are already sending Trump a subtle but clear warning: accept our business-as-usual Chamber of Commerce agenda or we will join Democrats to impeach you. ..."
    "... Impeachment has been the goal of Democrats since the day after Trump won the election, and the Republican establishment will use the veiled threat as leverage to win concession after concession from the Trump White House. ..."
    "... There are at least four Trump campaign promises which, if not dropped or severely compromised, could generate Republican support for impeachment: Trump's Supreme Court appointments, abandoning the Trans Pacific Partnership, radical rollback of Obama regulatory projects, and real enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. ..."
    "... On regulatory rollback, Congress can legitimately insist on negotiating the details with Trump. But on the other three, immigration, the TPP, and Supreme Court nominees, Trump's campaign promises were so specific - and so popular - that he need not accept congressional foot-dragging. ..."
    "... Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced this week he will oppose Trump's tax reforms. Senator Lindsey Graham is joining Democrats in sponsoring new legislation to protect the "Dreamers" from deportation after their unlawfully granted legal status and work permits expire. Senator Susan Collins will oppose any restrictions on Muslim refugees, no matter how weak and inadequate the vetting to weed out jihadists. Senator Lamar Alexander aims to protect major parts of Obamacare, despite five years of voluminous Republican promises to "repeal and replace" it if they ever had the power to do so. ..."
    "... on the House side, we have the naysayer-in-chief, Speaker Paul Ryan, who refused to campaign with Donald Trump in Wisconsin, and who has vowed to obstruct Trump's most important and most popular campaign promise - an end to open borders and vigorous immigration law enforcement. ..."
    "... Donald Trump won a electoral mandate to change direction and put American interests first, beginning with border security. If the congressional Republican establishment chooses to block the implementation of that electoral mandate, it would destroy not only Trump's agenda, it would destroy the Republican Party. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Several months ago I was asked what advice I would give to the Trump campaign.

    I said, only half joking, that he had better pick a vice presidential candidate the establishment hates more than it hates him. That would be his only insurance against impeachment. Those drums have already begun to beat, be it ever so subtly.

    Is anyone surprised how quickly the establishment that Donald Trump campaigned against has announced opposition to much of his policy agenda? No. But few understand that the passionate opposition includes a willingness to impeach and remove President Trump if he does not come to heel on his America First goals.

    Ferocious opposition to Trump from the left was expected and thus surprises nobody. From the comical demands for vote recounts to street protests by roving bands of leftist hate-mongers and condescending satire on late-night television, hysterical leftist opposition to Trump is now part of the cultural landscape.

    But those are amusing sideshows to the main event, the Republican establishment's intransigent opposition to key pillars of the Republican president's agenda.

    Republican leaders in Congress are already sending Trump a subtle but clear warning: accept our business-as-usual Chamber of Commerce agenda or we will join Democrats to impeach you.

    If you think talk of impeachment is insane when the man has not even been sworn into office yet, you have not been paying attention. Impeachment has been the goal of Democrats since the day after Trump won the election, and the Republican establishment will use the veiled threat as leverage to win concession after concession from the Trump White House.

    What are the key policy differences that motivate congressional opposition to the Trump agenda? There are at least four Trump campaign promises which, if not dropped or severely compromised, could generate Republican support for impeachment: Trump's Supreme Court appointments, abandoning the Trans Pacific Partnership, radical rollback of Obama regulatory projects, and real enforcement of our nation's immigration laws.

    On regulatory rollback, Congress can legitimately insist on negotiating the details with Trump. But on the other three, immigration, the TPP, and Supreme Court nominees, Trump's campaign promises were so specific - and so popular - that he need not accept congressional foot-dragging.

    Yet, while the President-elect 's transition teams at the EPA, State Department and Education Department are busy mapping ambitious changes in direction, Congress's Republican leadership is busy doubling down on dissonance and disloyalty.

    Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced this week he will oppose Trump's tax reforms. Senator Lindsey Graham is joining Democrats in sponsoring new legislation to protect the "Dreamers" from deportation after their unlawfully granted legal status and work permits expire. Senator Susan Collins will oppose any restrictions on Muslim refugees, no matter how weak and inadequate the vetting to weed out jihadists. Senator Lamar Alexander aims to protect major parts of Obamacare, despite five years of voluminous Republican promises to "repeal and replace" it if they ever had the power to do so.

    And then, on the House side, we have the naysayer-in-chief, Speaker Paul Ryan, who refused to campaign with Donald Trump in Wisconsin, and who has vowed to obstruct Trump's most important and most popular campaign promise - an end to open borders and vigorous immigration law enforcement.

    It is no exaggeration to say that Trump's success or failure in overcoming the opposition to immigration enforcement will determine the success or failure of his presidency. If he cannot deliver on his most prominent and most popular campaign promise, nothing else will matter very much.

    So, the bad news for President Trump is this: If he keeps faith with his campaign promises on immigration, for example to limit Muslim immigration from terrorism afflicted regions, which is within his legitimate constitutional powers as President, he will risk impeachment. However, his congressional critics will face one enormous hurdle in bringing impeachment charges related to immigration enforcement: about 90 percent of what Trump plans to do is within current law and would require no new legislation in Congress. Obama disregarded immigration laws he did not like, so all Trump has to do is enforce those laws.

    Now, if you think talk of impeachment is ridiculous because Republicans control Congress, you are underestimating the depth of Establishment Republican support for open borders.

    The first effort in the 21st century at a general amnesty for all 20 million illegal aliens came in January 2005 from newly re-elected President George Bush. The "Gang of Eight" amnesty bill passed by the US Senate in 2013 did not have the support of the majority of Republican senators, and now they are faced with a Republican president pledged to the exact opposite agenda, immigration enforcement. And yet, do not doubt the establishment will sacrifice a Republican president to protect the globalist, open borders status quo.

    The leader and spokesman for that establishment open borders agenda is not some obscure backbencher, it is the Republican Speaker of the House. Because the Speaker controls the rules and the legislative calendar, if he chooses to play hardball against Trump on immigration he can block any of Trump's other policy initiatives until Trump abandons his immigration enforcement goals.

    What all this points to is a bloody civil war within the Republican Party fought on the battlefield of congressional committee votes.

    Donald Trump won a electoral mandate to change direction and put American interests first, beginning with border security. If the congressional Republican establishment chooses to block the implementation of that electoral mandate, it would destroy not only Trump's agenda, it would destroy the Republican Party.

    [Dec 18, 2016] Nickolas Kristof again demonstrates the level of neocons panic and his MIC lobbyist credentials

    What a despicable MIC stooge...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The CIA says it has "high confidence" that Russia was trying to get Trump elected, and, according to The Washington Post, the directors of the F.B.I. and national intelligence agree with that conclusion. ..."
    "... Now we come to the most reckless step of all: This Russian poodle is acting in character by giving important government posts to friends of Moscow, in effect rewarding it for its attack on the United States. ..."
    "... Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee for secretary of state, is a smart and capable manager. Yet it's notable that he is particularly close to Putin, who had decorated Tillerson with Russia's "Order of Friendship." ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    From Donald Trump The Russian Poodle - The New York Times

    In 1972, President Richard Nixon's White House dispatched burglars to bug Democratic Party offices. That Watergate burglary and related "dirty tricks," such as releasing mice at a Democratic press conference and paying a woman to strip naked and shout her love for a Democratic candidate, nauseated Americans - and impelled some of us kids at the time to pursue journalism.

    Now in 2016 we have a political scandal that in some respects is even more staggering. Russian agents apparently broke into the Democrats' digital offices and tried to change the election outcome. President Obama on Friday suggested that this was probably directed by Russia's president, saying, "Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin."

    In Watergate, the break-in didn't affect the outcome of the election. In 2016, we don't know for sure. There were other factors, but it's possible that Russia's theft and release of the emails provided the margin for Donald Trump's victory.

    The CIA says it has "high confidence" that Russia was trying to get Trump elected, and, according to The Washington Post, the directors of the F.B.I. and national intelligence agree with that conclusion.

    Both Nixon and Trump responded badly to the revelations, Nixon by ordering a cover-up and Trump by denouncing the CIA and, incredibly, defending Russia from the charges that it tried to subvert our election. I never thought I would see a dispute between America's intelligence community and a murderous foreign dictator in which an American leader sided with the dictator.

    Let's be clear: This was an attack on America, less lethal than a missile but still profoundly damaging to our system. It's not that Trump and Putin were colluding to steal an election. But if the CIA is right, Russia apparently was trying to elect a president who would be not a puppet exactly but perhaps something of a lap dog - a Russian poodle.

    In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair was widely (and unfairly) mocked as President George W. Bush's poodle, following him loyally into the Iraq war. The fear is that this time Putin may have interfered to acquire an ally who likewise will roll over for him.

    Frankly, it's mystifying that Trump continues to defend Russia and Putin, even as he excoriates everyone else, from CIA officials to a local union leader in Indiana.

    Now we come to the most reckless step of all: This Russian poodle is acting in character by giving important government posts to friends of Moscow, in effect rewarding it for its attack on the United States.

    Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee for secretary of state, is a smart and capable manager. Yet it's notable that he is particularly close to Putin, who had decorated Tillerson with Russia's "Order of Friendship."

    Whatever our personal politics, how can we possibly want to respond to Russia's interference in our election by putting American foreign policy in the hands of a Putin friend?

    Tillerson's closeness to Putin is especially troubling because of Trump's other Russia links. The incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn, accepted Russian money to attend a dinner in Moscow and sat near Putin. A ledger shows $12.7 million in secret payments by a pro-Russia party in Ukraine to Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort. And the Trump family itself has business connections with Russia.

    [Dec 18, 2016] America is a banana republic! FBI chief agrees with CIA on Russias alleged election help for Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it. ..."
    "... Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election ..."
    www.sott.net
    Reprinted from RT

    FBI and National Intelligence chiefs both agree with the CIA assessment that Russia interfered with the 2016 US presidential elections partly in an effort to help Donald Trump win the White House, US media report.

    FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper are both convinced that Russia was behind cyberattacks that targeted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman, John Podesta, The Washington Post and reported Friday, citing a message sent by CIA Director John Brennan to his employees.

    "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it.

    "The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI," it continued.

    Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election to help Trump win, calling info "fuzzy and ambiguous"

    ... ... ...

    [Dec 18, 2016] US companies are addicted to stock buybacks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Harvard Business Review ..."
    "... Buyback Quarterly ..."
    "... Brother Feltner is right. Corporations are moving offshore to cut their wage bills. But they are not using that money to reinvest in their companies to improve the product and train the workforce. Instead, they are offshoring to gain cash flow to finance their fix. They want more stock buybacks which in turn enrich top executives and Wall Street investors. Automation and technology have nothing to do with this perilous addiction. ..."
    "... emissions ..."
    "... "The Anti-Corn Law League was a successful political movement in Great Britain aimed at the abolition of the unpopular Corn Laws, which protected landowners' interests by levying taxes on imported wheat, thus raising the price of bread at a time when factory-owners were trying to cut wages to be internationally competitive." ..."
    "... Our backwards free fall from stable middle class growth and access and attainment to higher education has been precipitated and pushed by a broadcasting system and cyber platforms that have excluded the VOICE OF WORKERS ever since the first newspaper carried a BUSINESS section with no ..."
    "... from being forced to compete against cheaper off-shore or south-of-the-border slave labor that formed the same COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE now taken for granted when a subsidized start-up like NIKE decides to pursue a business model that relentlessly exploits North American running shoe and sports wear market needs by cheaply manufacturing such products off-shore via contracting agents exploiting captive Indonesian (substitute other Latin American, African or Asian ENTERPRISE aka FREE TRADE ZONES) slave laborers. ..."
    "... If we aren't worth hiring at a sustainable SOCIALLY CONTRACTED WAGE aimed at developing our national resources, we should reject buying from such nationally suicidal business models and corporate LLC fictions even if they can pay-2-play legislation that removes the PROTECTIONS. We vow to never sacrifice NATIONAL SECURITY, so why have we allowed the PRIVATIZATION of our NATIONAL SECURITY STATE by corporate legal fictions? A revealing if not all-encompassing historical answer to that question is another corporate-captured and regulatory-captured Mass Media Taboo discussed one time to my knowledge on the PEOPLE'S AIRWAVES. Search Bill Moyers panel discussing the LEWIS POWELL MEMO TO THE NATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE and the Nixon appointment of LEWIS POWELL to the Supreme Court, despite his total lack of judicial experience. ..."
    "... {Creative Commons Copyright} Mitch Ritter Paradigm Shifters Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa Media Discussion List ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    American manufacturers have chosen a different path. Their CEOs grow wealthy by financially strip-mining their own companies, aided and abetted by elite financiers who have only one goal: extracting as much wealth as possible from the company while putting back as little as possible into production and workers.

    The heroin driving their addiction is stock buybacks-a company using its own profits (or borrowed money) to buy back the company's own shares. This directly adds more wealth to the super-rich because stock buybacks inevitably increase the value of the shares owned by top executives and rich investors. Since top executives receive the vast majority of their income (often up to 95%) through stock incentives, stock buybacks are pure gold. The stock price goes up and the CEOs get richer. In this they are in harmony with top Wall Street private equity/hedge fund investors who incessantly clamor for more stock buybacks, impatient for their next fix.

    For the few, this addiction is the path to vast riches. It also is the path to annihilating the manufacturing sector. (For a definitive yet accessible account see " Profits without Prosperity " by William Lazonick in the Harvard Business Review .)

    Wait, wait, isn't this stock manipulation? Well, before the Reagan administration deregulated them in 1982, stock buybacks indeed were considered stock manipulation and one of the causes of the 1929 crash. Now they are so ubiquitous that upwards of 75% of all corporate profits go to stock buybacks. Over the last year, 37 companies in the S&P 500 actually spent more on buybacks than they generated in profits, according to Buyback Quarterly .

    Little wonder that stock buybacks are a major driver of runaway inequality . In 1980 before the stock buyback era, the ratio of compensation between the top 100 CEOs and the average worker was 45 to 1. Today it is a whopping 844 to 1. (The German CEO gap is closer to 150 to 1.)

    Germany holds down its wage gap, in part, by discouraging stock buybacks. Through its system of co-determination, workers and their unions have seats on the boards of directors and make sure profits are used to invest in productive employment. As a result, in Germany stock buybacks account for a much smaller percentage of corporate profits.

    Between 2000 and 2015, 419 U.S. companies (on the S&P 500 index) spent a total of $4.7 trillion on stock buybacks (annual average of $701 million per firm). During the same period, only 33 German firms in the S&P350 Europe index conducted buybacks for a total of $111 billion (annual average of $211 million per firm). (Many thanks to Mustafa Erdem Sakinç from the Academic-Industry Research Network for providing this excellent data.)

    Let's do the math: U.S. firms as a whole spent 42 times more on stock buybacks than German firms!

    Little wonder that our manufacturing sector is a withering appendage of Wall Street, while German manufacturing leads the global economy.

    So why does the media consistently use automation/technology to explain the loss of well-paying manufacturing jobs?

    To be fair, Poppy is not alone. Virtually every elite broadcaster, journalist, pundit and columnist claims that the loss of good-paying, blue-collar jobs is somehow connected to new technologies. How can they ignore the fact that in Germany advanced technologies and good-paying jobs go hand in hand?

    Part of the answer is that it is reassuring for elites to believe that job loss stems from complex "forces of production" that are far removed from human control. The inevitability of broad economic trends makes a pundit sound more sophisticated than the unschooled factory worker who thinks the company is moving to Mexico just because labor costs one-tenth as much.

    Technological inevitability also fits neatly into the idea that runaway inequality in our economy is akin to an act of God, that globalization and technology move forward and no one can stop the process from anointing winners and losers. The winners-the richest of the rich-are those who have the skills needed to succeed in the international technological race. The losers-most of the rest of us without the new skills-see our jobs vaporized by technology and automation.

    Too bad. Nothing to be done about it. Stop whining. Move on.

    In other words, rising inequality can't be fundamentally altered.

    Sinclair's Law of Human Nature

    Or maybe there's another explanation suggested by Upton Sinclair's famous adage: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

    The newscasters, the pundits, the top columnists and recidivist TV commentators-nearly all of them are doing very well. They may not be billionaires, but they live in a rarefied world far removed form the worries felt by Mr. Feltner and his brothers and sisters at Rexnord. From their elite vantage point, the status quo may have problems, but it is treating them remarkably well. So quite naturally they are drawn to narratives that justify their elite positions; that altering runaway inequality and its privileges would be futile at best and even harmful to society as a whole. How convenient.

    Then again, American media firms are no strangers to stock buybacks. Time Warner, which owns CNN, Poppy's employer, instituted a $5 billion stock buyback in 2016. That's $5 billion that, for example, didn't go to news investigations about the perils of stock buybacks. We don't know if Poppy Harlow receives stock incentives, but her top bosses certainly do.

    What about NBC/MSNBC? Comcast is the parent company which also instituted a $5 billion stock buyback in 2016.

    Brother Feltner is right. Corporations are moving offshore to cut their wage bills. But they are not using that money to reinvest in their companies to improve the product and train the workforce. Instead, they are offshoring to gain cash flow to finance their fix. They want more stock buybacks which in turn enrich top executives and Wall Street investors. Automation and technology have nothing to do with this perilous addiction.

    So, I'll stop yelling at Poppy, once she starts covering stock buybacks.

    Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration 24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com View all posts by Lambert Strether → John , December 18, 2016 at 6:33 am

    Now I understand. Companies off-shore their manufacturing because Mexico, as an example, has the latest in automation and the highest of high technology. Another example of the "Move alone. Nothing to see here." mantra.

    Minnie Mouse , December 18, 2016 at 10:14 am

    Yes, does moving to Mexico, or China, somehow enable more automation? If you are going to automate, why not automate in place and forget unnecessary long supply chains.

    Dave , December 18, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    There's an endless supply of Mexicans that can work cheap, can be trained and who cost far less than complicated machinery. They also have another utilitarian value: driving down wages in America.

    frosty zoom , December 18, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    an "endless supply", huh?

    sheesh.

    fresno dan , December 18, 2016 at 7:10 am

    I'm glad I'm not the only one yelling at the TV ..
    ;)

    "HARLOW: But you agree it won't save all of them, because of automation, because of technology."

    SO .does it occur to this reported to ask how many jobs are moving from the US to Mexico? If so many jobs are lost to automation at this factory, why is it worthwhile to move to Mexico. HOW MANY jobs lost in the US and HOW MANY jobs gained in Mexico from this plant??? I wouldn't be surprised that there is a gain in Mexico beyond the number directly moved from Carrier .(extra maintenance, etc.)

    And its a bizarre thing – 99% of "news" is in fact "analysis" – and they are remarkably wrong – yet NONE of them are ever fired

    Cry Shop , December 18, 2016 at 7:18 am

    What Mexico offers for some segments of the steel industry is the ability to bypass emissions controls. This, much more than labour, is a primary attraction for process industries like steel/petrochemical, where the goods are all most never touched by human hand.

    While it also offers proximity to market that building a similar, high emissions plant further south into Central/South America (or further west into Asia) can't compete, even with labour cheaper than Mexico's. Because NAFTA does not require economic impact equivalents, industries with high costs of compliance will go where there is nothing to comply too.

    rd , December 18, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    Environmental regulations in general are lower in the off-shore areas. Those countries are where we were 50 years ago with polluted air, water, and land. However, as the citizens have better and more stable lives. they will insist on improved conditions. We are already seeing some of that start in China and other countries. We had to invent many of the technologies in the 70s-90s, so those countries will be able to improve their lot much faster if they want to because they will be able to buy off the shelf technologies.

    Countries like China are moving forward with renewable energy, as much because it means clean air and water, as it does reduced reliance on the cantankerous Middle East and greenhouse gas emissions. It will be interesting to see what happens when US voters figure out that the goal of the current Republican party is to return the US environmental condition to a Third World country. Keep in mind that nearly all of the major environmental laws were signed by Republican presidents.

    Cry Shop , December 18, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    +1

    and NAFTA pretty much is associated with a Democratic President.

    Dwayne , December 18, 2016 at 7:28 am

    Every buyback returns cash to the investor – who then has to re-invest in something else to continue getting returns, so to some extent equity buybacks of one company result in new investment in some other company. To the extent that a company's growth prospects are dim, there are many many situations in which buybacks make complete sense – as that company simply needs less and less capital for a shrinking industry. So why should they be heavily capitalized with low growth prospects?

    Jim Thomson , December 18, 2016 at 10:27 am

    It is still stock manipulation, plain and simple. And the decision to do it is made by the executives who benefit the most from it. And it was illegal for a good reason, and it was made legal for another good reason.

    If the executives have so much retained earnings that they do not know how to invest them properly then they are incompetent in their jobs and should be replaced. They should not be allowed to use corporate funds to manipulate the stock price up to their own benefit.
    Even worse, in some cases the company borrows money, at today's low interest rates, to buy back stock.
    When this occurs pervasively, as it has been for some time now in the US, it is a sign of stagnation of the corporate sector.

    Charles Fasola , December 18, 2016 at 11:40 am

    @ dwayne, In which class were you "accidentally" born into. Not hard to make a guess is it. Don't bother with your already anticipated tesponse. Since I know fairwell the answer. The child of a poor substistance farmer who was made to walk five miles in knee deep snow to learn all that you now do.

    Benedict@Large , December 18, 2016 at 11:43 am

    Buy backs are not manipulation any more than increasing the dividend is. In both cases, the corporation is saying it has more money than it needs, and that that money should be returned to the company's stockholders, allowing them to choose how that money will be invested instead of having corporate management do it for them.

    The concern over stock buy backs is simply people focusing on part of a larger transaction instead of seeing the whole thing. It is the difference between micro thinking and macro thinking, otherwise known as failing to see the bigger picture.

    Paid Minion , December 18, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    Of course, none of this excess money is EVER returned to the company's employees, who generated the money to begin with.

    Signed,

    Former employee, who listened to this BS from the suits about keeping the cost of labor "competitive" to justify no raises or COLAs.

    Code Name D , December 18, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    Because markets

    Dwayne , December 18, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    Benedict – you are spot on. Sounds like a lot of the other responders are either bitter shorts that have been burned by buybacks just generally shallow thinkers. They will be giving their same economically baseless arguments for the rest of their lives unless they learn to open their minds.

    Those who are arguing for a dividend instead of a buyback are making a foolish argument – as if a significant dividend increase wouldn't see a significant rise in the stock and hence a similar effect as a buyback. Of course a dividend increase would see a significant rise in the stock price just like the buyback.

    As to those whining about workers at-risk and executives with pay tied to the stock price – they mention nothing about the fact that workers risked no capital and can head for the door whenever they like, and that executives risked having part of their pay go to $0 in the event of an industry or economic downturn, and locked them into staying at that company for a period of time (if they leave, their options get taken away). The risk profile of a salaried worker and an executive are far different – and hence their economic outcomes are rightfully different depending on the financial performance of a company.

    cnchal , December 18, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    . . . Of course a dividend increase would see a significant rise in the stock price just like the buyback.

    Why is that almost never the option taken?

    As to those whining about workers at-risk and executives with pay tied to the stock price – they mention nothing about the fact that workers risked no capital and can head for the door whenever they like, and that executives risked having part of their pay go to $0 in the event of an industry or economic downturn . . .

    In the event of an industry or economic downturn those workers risk all of their pay going to $0

    Your argument reminds me that a rich person has just as much right to sleep under the bridge on a freezing night as the poor person.

    Executives of publicly traded companies are not the owners, but act with impunity as if they are, and they risked no capital either.

    a different chris , December 18, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    Do you guys live in the real world? The company hires (from among their friends) a CEO, COO, whatever. These people are "granted stock options" ok, those stocks don't even exist so basically they just dilute the holdings of everybody who was working there. After a few years they "cash out" where money comes from basically the worker's pockets.

    How's that for "shallow thinking"?

    > that executives risked having part of their pay go to $0 in the event of an industry or economic downturn, and locked them into staying at that company for a period of time (if they leave, their options get taken away).

    Sigh. How many links can NakCap readers come up with that shows that this is exactly what *doesn't* happen. Lemme guess, Dwayne, economic major?

    John Wright , December 18, 2016 at 10:28 am

    Why do share buy backs if growth prospects are dim?

    Why not return the money as a special dividend or pay down debt?

    I'd like to see share buyback proposal prefaced with a statement such as:

    "We scoured the world looking for a suitable investment for our excess cash, there was no additional business enhancing technology we could justify purchasing, no additional R&D into product development we could justify, no additional investment in plant or equipment upgrades we could justify, no additional training for our employees we could justify, no prepayment of debt we could justify, no funding of university research we could justify."

    "We don't see a way to use our excess cash to grow/improve our business".

    "Surprisingly, from the global list of corporate securities we could find no financial security that is at a more attractive price level than our own stock."

    "So we are buying back our company's stock."

    "Take our word for it, it will be a great investment for the future."

    "Note: our senior executives will be exercising options but not holding onto their option purchased stock."

    "Personal financial diversification is important to them."

    Chris , December 18, 2016 at 11:43 am

    Excuse me, but isn't one of the main factors driving the buybacks contractual executive bonus payouts?

    As in, if the stock price increases by X%, the CEO gets a maximum bonus Y. The people in the finance wing of these companies are simply solving for how many stocks they need to buyback in order to achieve X. Because they can spend other people's money to meet that goal, there is no technical or legal barrier to them doing this.

    So, since we can't mandate more ethical and longer term thinking people become CEO's, can't we put a rule into place that no one in the organization performing the buyback is allowed to benefit from a buyback directly? That would make a buyback more like an option of last resort. Which is what it should be, given how corrosive it is to future development of a company.

    Jim Haygood , December 18, 2016 at 11:08 am

    " Stock buybacks inevitably increase the value of the shares owned by top executives and rich investors. "

    While this is true as far as it goes, buybacks increase the value of ALL shares - including the roughly one quarter of outstanding shares owned by pension plans.

    Pension plans are an important asset of the middle class. Cut their investment returns, and real people take a hit.

    Charles Fasola , December 18, 2016 at 11:44 am

    Because so many workers have defined pension plans today; correct? C'mon.

    Propertius , December 18, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    Jim's argument also applies to 401k and other defined-contribution plans, of course. You do still have a point, though – a lot of people who are eligible for such plans can't contribute to them because they don't have any surplus income to stash away – which is, of course, because wages are too low .

    John Wright , December 18, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    So if Company A does a share buyback, Company B, which does not buyback their own stock, sees Company B's share price increase anyway?

    This is a great deal for company B as they can keep their cash while benefiting from company A's buyback.

    JTMcPhee , December 18, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    It's called "talking one's book," and working whenever possible to keep the flow of discourse going in the direction that supports one's wealth and interests

    Mike G , December 18, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    Goosing investment returns in the short term with buybacks to benefit stock-option insiders, at the expense of underinvestment in productive measures like R&D and training, eventually leads to corporate decline which does no favors for the few middle class people who still have pensions.

    Vatch , December 18, 2016 at 7:05 pm

    Buybacks increase the price of shares of stock, not the value. If a pension plan owns stock which has been inflated by buy-backs, the dividends paid to the pension plan won't increase. The only way that the pension plan can benefit is by selling the stock. Then the pension plan will need to use the proceeds of the sale to buy something else. But if most companies are inflating the price of their stocks with buy-backs, how does the pension plan find an appropriate stock to buy? If they buy another inflated stock, the value of the pension plan is in the same place as it was before it sold the previous stock.

    It seems to me that buy-backs just cause a bubble. Short term "investors" such as executives can benefit from the bubble, but long term investors such as pension plans aren't able to benefit in that way.

    Altandmain , December 18, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    Executives often cash in their stock options around the time of stock buybacks.

    http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-buybacks-pay/

    It's a huge problem of principle agent. The other is that every dollar used to buy back for the company is then one less available for capital costs, R&D, employee training, etc.

    The overwhelming majority of the gains to investors will go to the wealthy as well. Workers get nothing and often worse than nothing when their job security is under attack.

    Sound of the Suburbs , December 18, 2016 at 8:02 am

    Things were a lot more straight forward in the 18th and 19th centuries and there was far less complication to obscure the reality. In 18th and 19th century they had small state, raw capitalism when there was little Government interference to cloud the issue.

    The Corn Laws and Laissez-Faire, the requirements of free trade, a historical lesson:

    "The Anti-Corn Law League was a successful political movement in Great Britain aimed at the abolition of the unpopular Corn Laws, which protected landowners' interests by levying taxes on imported wheat, thus raising the price of bread at a time when factory-owners were trying to cut wages to be internationally competitive."

    The landowners wanted to maintain their profit, charging a high price for corn, but this posed a barrier to international free trade in making UK wage labour uncompetitive raising the cost of living for workers and as a consequence, wages.

    The anti-corn law league had to fight the vested interests of the landowners to get the UK in a position where it could engage in free trade. They had to get the cost of living down to a point where they could pay their workers internationally competitive wages.

    Opposing national interests, productive industry and landowner rentiers.

    It's always been that way, we just forgot.

    Workers have been priced out of international markets by the high cost of living in the West and now we try and tell them that is their fault. It is the elite who do not understand the first thing about free trade unlike their 19th century predecessors.

    The US has probably been the most successful in making its labour force internationally uncompetitive with soaring costs of housing, healthcare and student loan repayments. These all have to be covered by wages and US businesses are now squealing about the high minimum wage.

    US investors and companies have little interest in investing in the US due to its high labour costs caused by its own national rentier interests. There are opposing national interests within the US just as there were in the UK in the 19th Century.

    Most of the UK now dreams of giving up work and living off the "unearned" income from a BTL portfolio, extracting the "earned" income of generation rent. The UK dream is to be like the idle rich, rentier, living off "unearned" income and doing nothing productive.

    The UK is itself atrocious and has encouraged rentier interests which oppose the interests of those who want free trade. The UK is now ramping up student loans to make things worse. High housing costs and student loan repayments will have to be covered by wages pricing UK labour out of international markets.

    Things were a lot more straight forward in the 18th and 19th centuries and there was far less complication to obscure the reality. In 18th and 19th century they had small state, raw capitalism when there was little Government interference to cloud the issue.

    The Classical Economists observed the situation which was a lot more clear cut in those days. The Classical Economists thought the cost of living must be kept low with free or subsidised housing, education and healthcare funded through taxes on "unearned" income. "Earned" income shouldn't be taxed as this raises the cost of doing business, real productive business that earns real wealth.

    Imaginary wealth can be produced by inflating the value of a nations housing stock until the bubble bursts and all the imaginary wealth disappears (e.g. US 2008, Japan 1989, Ireland, Spain, etc ..).

    Ditto all other financial assets.

    The Classical Economists realised capitalism has two sides, the productive side where "earned" income is generated the unproductive, parasitic side where "unearned" income is generated. The vested interests of the two sides are opposed to each other.

    If you forget you can made fundamental mistakes, like today's ideas on free trade.

    The UK and US have revelled in their ignorance.

    Sound of the Suburbs , December 18, 2016 at 8:06 am

    Wealth – real and imaginary.

    Central Banks and the wealth effect.

    Real wealth comes from the real economy where real products and services are traded. This involves hard work which is something the financial sector is not interested in.

    The financial sector is interested in imaginary wealth – the wealth effect.

    They look for some existing asset they can inflate the price of, like the national housing stock. They then pour money into this asset to create imaginary wealth, the bubble bursts and all the imaginary wealth disappears.

    1929 – US (margin lending into US stocks)
    1989 – Japan (real estate)
    2008 – US (real estate bubble leveraged up with derivatives for global contagion)
    2010 – Ireland (real estate)
    2012 – Spain (real estate)
    2015 – China (margin lending into Chinese stocks)

    Central Banks have now got in on the act with QE and have gone for an "inflate all financial asset prices" strategy to generate a wealth effect (imaginary wealth). The bubble bursts and all the imaginary wealth disappears.

    The wealth effect – it's like real wealth but it's only temporary.

    The markets are high but there is a lot of imaginary wealth there after all that QE. Get ready for when the imaginary wealth starts to evaporate, its only temporary. Refer to the "fundamentals" to gauge the imaginary wealth in the markets; it's what "fundamentals" are for.

    Canadian, Australian, Swedish and Norwegian housing markets are full of imaginary wealth. Get ready for when the imaginary wealth starts to evaporate, its only temporary. Refer to the "fundamentals" to gauge the imaginary wealth in these housing markets; it's what "fundamentals" are for.

    Remember when we were panicking about the Chinese stock markets falling last year?

    Have a look at it on any web-site with the scale set to max. you can see the ridiculous bubble as clear as day.

    The Chinese stock markets were artificially inflated creating imaginary wealth in Chinese stocks, it was only temporary and it evaporated.

    It's what happens.

    Charles Fasola , December 18, 2016 at 11:46 am

    Hoorah!

    JTMcPhee , December 18, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    Did the Chinese who used the "money" they got from inflation of stock prices to buy real estate and other tangible assets, with that "money," continue to have legal ownership of said assets after the market collapsed?

    If they did, it's amazing how "wealth" gets created

    Outis Philalithopoulos , December 18, 2016 at 9:22 am

    FYI, Sound of the Suburbs, your comment contains a duplicated paragraph. This sort of thing tends to get flagged by the computer as spam.

    johnnygl , December 18, 2016 at 8:04 am

    Great headline, good article. It's hard to watch CNN and avoid yelling at it.

    Arizona Slim , December 18, 2016 at 8:18 am

    Welcome to the fellowship of TV yellers!

    Marie Parham , December 18, 2016 at 8:38 am

    The good news is that my son tells me only a few old people get their news from cable news shows.

    linda amick , December 18, 2016 at 9:24 am

    I gave up TV 6 years ago and I am old. TV is awful for so many reasons. One of them is the fact that it dictates lifestyle and values. I hate it for children.

    hidflect , December 18, 2016 at 8:43 am

    Harlow is just using what I call the 3-legged stool approach which is to blunt any argument by introducing rotating facets. You see it in arguments about the West Bank. If you mention Zionist, they rebut with Israeli. If you say Israeli, they introduce Jewish. Round and round you go until the point is lost.

    Aside: I'd pay money to see Lambert yelling at a TV. The way he carves some people up on this site makes my toes curl. No matter how much they deserve it, I feel really sorry for them.

    ambrit , December 18, 2016 at 8:45 am

    Silver lining time. Without TV to emote to, my blood pressure is lower overall. This trade off is very beneficial to me.
    Also germane is that a hundred years ago, the cheap labour was pouring into America from offshore. Now that population has stabilized, the labour is no longer as cheap, (it is still too cheap, but,) in America. Companies are generally about the "bottom line." Socially conscious corporate management is feted and lionized for a reason; it's rare.
    Regulation and enforcement is the key. Buy local, shop local, govern local.

    a different chris , December 18, 2016 at 7:44 pm

    >Buy local, shop local, govern local.

    Yup. Unfortunately that can't be applied to the environment, where everybody is downstream and downwind of everybody else. I don't believe in God, but if you do then you can claim that's why he made planets spherical. :)

    Carolinian , December 18, 2016 at 8:49 am

    While I do have a tv I don't get CNN. Thank gawd. In fact the indignity of paying for CNN with its inane announcers and endless commercial interruptions was a big motivator for "cutting the cord."

    Carl , December 18, 2016 at 9:13 am

    Count me as another who doesn't have tv. The Jimmy Dore Show and various online videos make up our viewing. In fact, it's difficult to read NC and other sites and then see the drivel that passes for tv news. But just keep it up, guys (MSM); you're one of the main reasons we have a huge alienated population of have-nots, and the unwashed masses are becoming restive.

    Arizona Slim , December 18, 2016 at 12:23 pm

    I second the Jimmy Dore nomination.

    Aumua , December 18, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    Jimmy Dore makes me want to yell at his stupid face. But I'm weird, so..

    John Wright , December 18, 2016 at 9:40 am

    The automation=job loss meme has been picked up in other places.

    On the Saturday before the election, I visited the local Democratic headquarters in my Northern California town to get a Clinton-Kaine bumper sticker for my collection.

    As they wanted $1, I wanted to get some entertainment value from the purchase, so I asked one of the elderly women "What has Hillary ever done?".

    She responded with "Financial reform", apparently confusing HRC with Elizabeth Warren.

    I mentioned that Hillary supported the TPP, until well into her campaign, and that trade bills had cost jobs.

    Her immediate response was "More jobs have been lost to automation than trade bills".

    I was surprised she had this explanation at the ready, perhaps it was given to HRC campaign workers as a talking point in case someone questioned HRC's commitment to stopping the TPP.

    cnchal , December 18, 2016 at 9:51 am

    There is a meme being told from the people at the top, to the peasants.

    Part of the answer is that it is reassuring for elites to believe that job loss stems from complex "forces of production" that are far removed from human control. The inevitability of broad economic trends makes a pundit sound more sophisticated than the unschooled factory worker who thinks the company is moving to Mexico just because labor costs one-tenth as much.

    The other day someone left a link to an article by an economist named Scott Sumner, where at the end of his article the same meme is put forth, with a twist.

    Automation Destroyed 20 Million Manufacturing Jobs

    So what's all this really about? Perhaps the "feminization" of America. When farm work was wiped out by automation, uneducated farmers generally found factory jobs in the city. Now factory workers are being asked to transition to service sector jobs that have been traditionally seen as "women's work". Even worse, the culture is pushing back against a lot of traditionally masculine character traits (especially on campuses). The alt-right is overtly anti-feminist, and Trump ran a consciously macho themed campaign. This all may seem to be about trade , but it's actually about automation and low-skilled men who feel emasculated .

    Unschooled and low skilled are code words for stupid, and the meme is, men that make stuff are stupid.

    Within his article is an interview of the CEO of United Technologies by Jim Cramer in Business Insider that he quotes as confirming his reasoning that automation is solely responsible for all the job loss and that offshoring and globalization caused zero manufacturing jobs to be lost in the US.

    The result of keeping the plant in Indiana open is a $16 million investment to drive down the cost of production, so as to reduce the cost gap with operating in Mexico.

    What does that mean? Automation. What does that mean? Fewer jobs, Hayes acknowledged.

    From the transcript (emphasis added):

    GREG HAYES: Right. Well, and again, if you think about what we talked about last week, we're going to make a $16 million investment in that factory in Indianapolis to automate to drive the cost down so that we can continue to be competitive. Now is it as cheap as moving to Mexico with lower cost of labor? No. But we will make that plant competitive just because we'll make the capital investments there.

    JIM CRAMER: Right.

    GREG HAYES: But what that ultimately means is there will be fewer jobs .

    The general theme here is something we've been writing about a lot at Business Insider. Yes, low-skilled jobs are being lost to other countries, but they're also being lost to technology.

    Everyone from liberal, Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman to Republican Sen. Ben Sasse has noted that technological developments are a bigger threat to American workers than trade. Viktor Shvets, a strategist at Macquarie, has called it the "third industrial revolution."

    Economists can't add. $16 million in investment, of real goods to improve productivity to the point where air conditioner production in Indianapolis can compete with Mexican production cost using existing technologies that are ripped off the shop floor and trucked to Mexico, itself creates jobs, and the improved more highly automated plant still retains jobs here, along with the technology.

    That $16 million investment happened only because Donald Trump either threatened or promised something for United Technologies, but the number of jobs lost now are not solely due to moving all production to Mexico, which would have been what happened had he not used his power of persuasion to pry some money for investment out of the United Technologies bank account.

    I wonder what Scott Sumner and the rest of the economists think of the women that work in manufacturing? Are they stupid too?

    Propertius , December 18, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    "Uneducated farmers", huh?

    How far we have apparently fallen from Jefferson's day, when American farmers apparently were in the habit of reading Homer in Greek! ( http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl51.php ).

    If only they were as edumacated as economists or talking heads on the teevee!

    Dana , December 18, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    I wonder when was the last time Sumner visited a farm. Or even the ag campus of his local university.

    diptherio , December 18, 2016 at 10:00 am

    In 1980 before the stock buyback era, the ratio of compensation between the top 100 CEOs and the average worker was 45 to 1. Today it is a whopping 844 to 1. (The German CEO gap is closer to 150 to 1.)

    45 to 1, 150 to 1, 844 to 1 .it's all ridiculous. Just because you wear a suit and have your own office to work in does not somehow entitle you to make as much in a year (or a month or a week) as much as someone else does in a lifetime.

    Paul Tioxon , December 18, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Stock buybacks are a problem of such proportions, that it is a subject all by itself. To connect it to Germany's Industrial policy is a perfect example of ahistorical, faulty, unempirical analysis at its worst leading to the politics of simpletons. The stock buybacks reference here are recent, 21st Century. The de-industrialization of the US goes back to the immediate post WWII policies of corporate America as well as the US Government.

    Germany's industrial policy has complex contributing factors which has a more important contributing factor in its military expenditures. This of course is directly related to Germany's history. It lost WWII and was an occupied territory, eventually split into an East And West Germany. For many years, even as a NATO member, West Germany spent almost ZERO on military expenditures. This comes with being an occupied nation that lost a war. Even today, the US Marine Corps alone has a budget that exceeds all of the re-united Germany's military budget. Germany, for obvious historical reasons has been deliberately suppressed as a military power, even in meager self defense, back when a Soviet doppleganger was on its border. Of course, when the US Government stations on your soil, almost 100,000 or more military personnel, armored tank divisions and US Air Force bases for decades, you can avoid the cost of national defense.

    ----------

    "German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Saturday that Europe's largest economy would significantly boost defense spending in the coming years to move towards the NATO target for member states to spend 2 percent of their economic output on defense.

    But Merkel, addressing a conference of the youth wing of her conservatives, did not specify by how much defense spending would rise.

    Merkel said U.S. President Barack Obama had told her it could no longer be the case that the U.S. spends 3.4 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on security while Germany – its close NATO ally – only spends 1.2 percent of GDP on that.

    "To get from 1.2 percent to 2 percent, we need to increase it by a huge amount," Merkel said.

    In 2016 Germany's budget for defense spending stands at 34.3 billion euros so it would need to be increased by more than 20 billion euros to reach the 2 percent target."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-merkel-defence-idUSKBN12F0JU?il=0

    -----------------

    And for decades, avoid the burden of military expenses it did, to the direct contribution to its industrial manufacturing center. Chalmers Johnson reviews this critical aspect of America's Hegemony since WWII in the course of several books. He was a CIA analyst as well academic economist expert on Japan and China. The US economy suffered disinvestment in its tool and die and metal working sector to the tune of over $7Trillion while building up the Pentagon into the Global Military Hegemon that it is today. The platform of the manufacturing center dependent on tool and die to make the parts of the machinery of factories and weapons of wars was in decline and overtaken by the Japanese and the Germans. We outspent the Soviet Union and now the rest of the world by staggering margins. But, to make and maintain the machinery of war, the Great American Killing Machine, global bases and global industrial skills and equipment replaced the domestic. The US Naval bases from Boston, Brooklyn, Philadelphia-founding locale of the US Navy and US Marine Corps, Baltimore, and on and on, all gone. Replacing the base closures, Guam, Okinawa, Rota, Spain, Naples, Italy Ramstein, Germany, and on and on. And Germany and Japan, played their roles to keep up American military might in exchange for our nuclear umbrella and military protection. This to the detriment of jobs in the US.

    --------------------------
    "After World War II, the US reduced defense spending to 7.2 percent of GDP by 1948, boosting it to nearly 15 percent during the Korean War. During the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union US defense spending fluctuated at around 10 percent of GDP.
    At the height of the Vietnam War in 1968 defense spending was 10 percent of GDP. But then it began a rapid decline to 6 percent of GDP in the mid 1970s and hit a low of 5.5 percent of GDP in 1979 before beginning a large increase to 6.8 percent in 1986.
    Starting in 1986 defense spending resumed its decline, bottoming out at 3.5 percent of GDP in 2001. After 2001, the US increased defense spending to a peak of 5.7 percent of GDP in 2010. It is expected to reduce to 4.5 percent of GDP in 2015 and 3.8 percent by 2020."

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending

    --------------------------–

    For 20 years from the end of WWII, military expenses soaked up about 10% of the annual GNP. Those amounts dwarf stock buy backs. As you can see from the excerpt above, the military bill to the US is enormous and as a global military, much of this money is spent outside of the US, employing people outside of the US, many who are not US citizens. As bad and as large as financialized capitalism is, the jobs are lost more to wasteful military "Keynesianism". The 10s of $Trillions$ for most of the 2nd half of the 20th Century explains more than stock buybacks, which of course are more than statistically significant, just not in the same league as Imperial America.

    Automation, deindustrialization and run away factories together formed the basis for weakening organized labor and reducing the amount of good paying working class jobs with their good benefits and security. Job security comes in the form of unemployment benefits due to the boom/bust business cycle that has factories operating on 2 or more shifts and then cut back due to saturation and or slack demand. Mexicans thrown out of work are easier to deal with than unemployed Americans, not only due to costs but also political fallout. Unemployed Americans can still vote congressmen out of office every 24 months if they are that unhappy with the economy. You don't need a job to vote. But alas, that is also another large scale problem, all by itself that deserves focused analysis and comments.

    Ted , December 18, 2016 at 11:44 am

    Soooo it's back to blame the gub'ment and give Capital a pass, eh? I see what you did there nice work. I particularly enjoyed your fantasy that unhappy workers can vote their congressperson out every two years ' cause that's empirically true of the US political system.

    TG , December 18, 2016 at 10:39 am

    Triple kudos! Well said!

    All this stuff about 'automation' killing jobs is just a distraction. It's not happening, not overall. That's why productivity figures are going down – they should be skyrocketing if automation was to blame. The number of janitors and maids that have lost their jobs to a Roomba robotic vacuum cleaner is zero. The number of truck drivers that have lost their jobs to robotic trucks is zero. Shrimp are still flown to Malaysia, peeled by hand using slave labor, and then flown back, because it's cheaper than developing and building and maintaining automated shrimp peeling machines. And so on.

    Why are the elites still so set on moving jobs to low wage countries? Why are they still so set on an open-borders immigration policy? Because they know what they aren't telling us: right now general robotics is still in its infancy, it's all about cheap labor.

    So many otherwise rational and skeptical people have been distracted by the false 'robots are now making human workers obsolete' meme. Congrats again on such a clearly reasoned piece.

    Brad , December 18, 2016 at 11:58 am

    The difference between German and US industrial manufacturing is social, not technological. It only demonstrates that in the face of the displacement of labor with machines, social measures are required to address the fact that a smaller percentage of total available labor is required to produce the necessities of life. One way Germany has addressed this is by targeting high value-added manufactures. In addition, historically manufacturing exports have always played a more important part for Germany than for the US, never a big manufacturing exporter unlike (in the 19th C) Britain, Germany, Japan and now China. US manufacturing was always primarily oriented towards the home market, beginning with the Midwestern farmers and their McCormick reapers and Montgomery Wards catalogs in the 19th C. The US has always been a primary products (oil, agri, timber, minerals) exporter. Plus weapons. Kinda like Russia. Its two biggest trading partners are its continental neighbors, Mexico and Canada.

    The debate over whether job loss is due to automation or offshoring tends to be short on facts. One almost never see a statistical breakdown that might tell us how much job losses are due to one factor or another. That includes John Smith's "Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century: Globalization, Super-exploitation and Capitalism's Final Crisis" (2016), quite big on off-shoring, but never giving a concrete measure of the relative importance of one or the other.

    However I put up a BLS-based chart that shows the decline in manufacturing jobs in the US in a pretty diagonal straight line down beginning well before off-shoring became a thing, well before NAFTA. Basically the manufacturing workforce peaked in the 50's. So there is always some pressure through competition to displace labor with automation. Offshoring is merely a dependent alternative to automation – reduce the labor bill with cheaper labor, not displacement. It's not "one or the other".

    Technological determinism aside, a fetish is made of automation in the media because they know there is no answer that doesn't conclude with the elimination of capitalism, and that answer is out of bounds. Hence it is deployed literally as a deus ex machina that ends social debate. But clearly the question of a living income has become separated from that of productive labor.

    Paid Minion , December 18, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    One might say that manufacturing employment started declining, when we allowed non-reciprocal "free-trade"; access to our markets, in order to enable some other geopolitical goal.

    Going something like : "Sure, go ahead and let the Japanese and Germans export their cars to our market. It will help their economies, and we'll never notice the difference. Besides, even if they didn't have various ways of restricting our exports, the size of their markets aren't worth exporting to "

    Then in the 70-80s, it was "Sure, lets help all of our Allies develop an aerospace industry, and build their own F-16s. "Offsets"? No problem. No sacrifice by US workers is too much in order to fight the "Red Menace", and promote "Free Markets" "Democracy", and improve the standard of living over there.."

    Johnnu lunch Box , December 18, 2016 at 1:10 pm

    Millions of jobs go to Mexico and millions of Mexicans come to usa and send their millions in wages home to support their families. Meanwhile Politicians continue with Rectal Crainial Inversion while drawing huge salaries. When will the revolution begin?

    Sluggeaux , December 18, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    Class-hatred has been simmering in the U.S. throughout its entire history, and it manifests itself today in the anti-Americanism of our greedy elites, who would prefer to profit from the exploitation of foreign labor over living in a just and equitable society. Germany and Japan benefitted from losing the War, from Cold War trade policies that allowed them to rebuild on exports to the U.S. (subsidized in many cases, such as by container ships returning from Vietnam via Yokohama), and the creation of a manufacturing culture that continued to value workers even as their wages rose. Americans in the credentialed classes became obsessed with rock-star lifestyles, epitomized by Slick Willie bragging that his first date with Hill in 1971 involved crossing a union picket line to scab at the Yale Art Museum in order to gaze at a bunch of vacuous Rothkos. But watch out - class-hatred is a two-way street

    Chicken and egg, Lambert. Stock manipulation increases the power of the 1%. I also yell at the TV "news" - probably because I didn't have one either between the critical developmental ages of 18 and 23 - so "news" broadcasts are not allowed in my house.

    TheMog , December 18, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    It's not all roses and unicorns either in Germany. There is outsourcing going on as well – for example both BMW and VW manufacture cars for the US market in the Southeastern US (IIRC both in Spartanburg, SC).

    Yes, Germany does have a better education system for apprentices etc plus it is still socially acceptable to become an apprentice in a trade and not go to college. BMW is trying to establish something similar around Spartanburg, but apparently with mixed success. Dan Rather did a segment on this effort a few years back and interviewed a bunch of parents who said something along the lines of "nice idea, but it's for other people's kids – ours have to go to college".

    Another thing to keep in mind is that large German manufacturing companies still tend to have pretty strong union representation, which of course is sorely missing in the US.

    Mitch Ritter , December 18, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    Two words missing from Union Reps and Wage Slaves ourselves as we flail away while falling backwards, "SOCIAL CONTRACT." Our backwards free fall from stable middle class growth and access and attainment to higher education has been precipitated and pushed by a broadcasting system and cyber platforms that have excluded the VOICE OF WORKERS ever since the first newspaper carried a BUSINESS section with no LABOR section.

    Through the various historical attempts to insulate some small sliver of broadcast spectrum from advertiser pressures and market forces. Those various historical attempts now the strictest taboo on content, even stricter than sexual predation and violent aberration which comprise much of the broadcast content. Yet when or where can we find a broadcaster in the U.S. addressing issues of structural media reform to insulate some national resources from the POLITICAL E-CON-o-my that grants them to the the highest bidder.

    As media scholars Robert McChesney and John Nichols have pointed out in a number of their book-length studies on this taboo U.S. history of mass media: One of the first national radio networks was designated for LABOR, there were multiple EDUCATIONAL networks and this has nothing to do with IDENTITY LABELS used to divide U.S. like Conservative or Liberal, however these shifty terms are defined. A well-rounded human has both aspects and more within them depending on circumstance, context and situation being addressed.

    Another designated non-commercial broadcaster was the CATHOLIC CHURCH whose leaders were actively concerned with the use of public airwaves by Advertising Agencies using sales tactics to habituate dangerous past-times (like alcohol and tobacco) and were driven by seasonal fashions rather than values and verities such as the bible and catechism's preponderant calls to address the needs of society's most disadvantaged. Or to beat weapons into plowshares and sit under a fig tree and reason together (Isaiah) rather than to use fear to keep subsidizing the worlds largest distributor of weapons and its stealthy and steely profiteers.

    Sad day when the few token representatives of U.S. Wage Slaves cannot even be counted on to voice a DEMAND much less to insert the concept of SOCIAL CONTRACT that extended humane and practical DEMAND-DRIVEN\SUPPLY LINE insights into our materialistic society's wealthiest distributors of hate and divisiveness such as Henry Ford, who while stoking anti-Semitism and disparaging independently organized labor for his MASS PRODUCTION facilities, eventually realized that if his impoverished work-force was ever to constitute the potential internal markets that became the Post WW II envy of the world, those workers would have to be paid more than slave wages, be granted access to long-term capital to purchase big-ticket items and our growing internal markets within the lower 48 states would require careful regulation and controls like tariffs and capital-flight restrictions that would protect our enviable internal markets. Nowadays whenever PROTECTIONISM is demonized by both Fair & Balanced Journalists and their Golden Rolodex of E-CON and Bid-Net experts there is nobody to note how our own late-developing working middle classes grew from the Age of the Robber Barons in which the U.S. was as feudal a society as Europe's with simple substitution of the Captains of Industry for the monopolistic and conservative royal Anglo and Euro monarchs whose crown-chartered legal anti-trust fictions dba EAST INDIA TRADING COMPANY or HUDSON BAY TRADING CORPORATION.

    Our founders rebelled against these Conservative Royal Feudal Monarchs and their Royally Chartered monopolistic Corporate Legal Fictions by dumping such product into every available cartel-controlled mercantile harbor. PROTECTIONISM was what allowed our states to form that most enviable of internal national markets and prevented our SOCIALLY CONTRACTED WORK FORCE from being forced to compete against cheaper off-shore or south-of-the-border slave labor that formed the same COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE now taken for granted when a subsidized start-up like NIKE decides to pursue a business model that relentlessly exploits North American running shoe and sports wear market needs by cheaply manufacturing such products off-shore via contracting agents exploiting captive Indonesian (substitute other Latin American, African or Asian ENTERPRISE aka FREE TRADE ZONES) slave laborers.

    If we aren't worth hiring at a sustainable SOCIALLY CONTRACTED WAGE aimed at developing our national resources, we should reject buying from such nationally suicidal business models and corporate LLC fictions even if they can pay-2-play legislation that removes the PROTECTIONS. We vow to never sacrifice NATIONAL SECURITY, so why have we allowed the PRIVATIZATION of our NATIONAL SECURITY STATE by corporate legal fictions? A revealing if not all-encompassing historical answer to that question is another corporate-captured and regulatory-captured Mass Media Taboo discussed one time to my knowledge on the PEOPLE'S AIRWAVES. Search Bill Moyers panel discussing the LEWIS POWELL MEMO TO THE NATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE and the Nixon appointment of LEWIS POWELL to the Supreme Court, despite his total lack of judicial experience.

    {Creative Commons Copyright}
    Mitch Ritter Paradigm Shifters
    Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa
    Media Discussion List

    herkie1 , December 18, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    FELTNER: These companies are leaving to exploit cheap labor. That's plain and simple. If he can change those trade policies to keep those jobs here in America, that's what we need. We need American jobs, not just union jobs.

    And thus we circle back to finding a way to keep manufacturing jobs in the USA. The comment by Feltner is correct, but the solution of keep jobs in the USA using more expensive labor simply means more expensive products. That is fine if you are in the top 10% and can pay anything for your purchases, but I am on a fixed income and cannot afford to pay more for anything without a 1:1 drop in my living standards.

    The real macroeconomic problem is all, I repeat – ALL – new income after inflation generated by the macro economy since Bush II took office has gone to the top 10% of households by wealth. Why does NOBODY else seem to understand that you cannot run an economy without money? And the Main Street economy is strapped with 10's of millions having fallen out of the middle class even as their paper assets like home equity were stolen by the financialization of the USA and the stockholders that own the Wall Street economy.

    The data coming out of the government/fed is a work of total fiction, inflation has been galloping (at least here in Oregon) at double digits since Jan 2014, rents alone are up 75% since then. Food at least 40%, both auto and healthcare insurance at least 40%, just to name three items, even a sandwich at a fast food join is nearly 100% higher than start of 2014 here. Del Taco raised it's menu prices in July by over 100%. Companies do not do that in disinflationary eras such as we are assured have existed since 2010. My veteran's disability/SS had it's first COLA increase in a while for 2017, social security disability went up $3, that is not a typo, my rent has gone up from 725 in December 2013 to $1,250 in Jan 2017 while my benefit has risen for next year by THREE dollars.

    I considered myself middle class, just barely but above working class/poor, as recently as 2014. Now I am leaving for Australia on a one way ticket in 3 weeks, if I had not been invited there by a friend I would have had to give notice at this place anyway in order to live in my vehicle. Inflation is so wildly out of control that anyone taking home less than 40k a year here now needs a roommate. Is this metro Portland? No, it is far southern semi rural Jackson county hundreds of miles from the nearest major hub.

    So any analysis of economic conditions in the USA have got to start with recognition that the cost of living has risen OVERALL by as much as 40-50% just in the last very few years.

    WHY DO YOU THINK POPULISM RAISED IT'S VIRULENT HEAD THIS ELECTION CYCLE?

    People are angry, they are broke, living paycheck to paycheck, using payday loans to feed their kids, and the entire media and government refuse to recognize price increases because those increases do not fit the Feds or government's economic models that allowed for negative real interest rates and the historic borrowing by the congress. Inflation is as bad as it ever was in the 1970's but we are told there is no inflation and so if we are not making ends meet it simply has to be a personal failing, bad habits, or profligate spending when I know for my part I have cut back on absolutely every thing I can including heat. It is not a personal failing, it is being lied to by the powers that be.

    Seriously, until the contributors at Naked Capitalism finally recognize the house on fire inflation for every item you must purchase (except gasoline and flat screens) there really is nothing here worth reading.

    hunkerdown , December 18, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    Drive-by herkie1, do you actually read sites befpre pasting diatribes against them, or are you a bourgeois liberal?

    Altandmain , December 18, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    The answer is that the very rich are waging class warfare and are looking for anything to absolve them of responsibility.

    If automation were responsible for unemployment, then productivity figures would be soaring. Dean Baker notes that productivity has been rising at half the rate over the past decade at just 1.5% per year, compared to 3% between 1947 and 1973.
    http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/the-job-killing-robot-myth

    People need a restitution for the outright looting of society from the rich. That's about it.

    Spencer , December 18, 2016 at 6:42 pm

    Kudos. Uncommon, common sense.

    Pete Prunskunas , December 18, 2016 at 9:13 pm

    "Ever Hear of Germany?"

    You missed some. German companies, but also those of other European countries, generally have a seat on the board for unions. The adversarial model of management versus unions is not so common.

    China has stolen a great deal of technology from Germany because it has (had?) the most advanced industrial technology in the world. Read the below articles from Der Spiegel and you will understand. Essentially, Germany is what the U.S. was in the 1980s before the various presidents, both left and right, starting with Nixon, sold us down the river.
    – "Product Piracy Goes High-Tech: Nabbing Know-How in China"
    – "Harmony and Ambition: China's Cut-Throat Railway Revolution"
    – "Beijing's High-Tech Ambitions: The Dangers of Germany's Dependence on China"

    And the following is from CNN/Money, "How to save U.S. manufacturing jobs": "High wages can't be the culprit, because wages in U.S. manufacturing are not especially high by international standards. As of 2009, 12 European countries plus Australia had higher average manufacturing wages than the United States. Norway topped the list with an average manufacturing wage of $53.89 per hour, 60 percent above the U.S. average of $33.53 Moreover, the United States lost manufacturing jobs at a faster rate since 2000 than several countries that paid manufacturing workers even more. Among the 10 countries for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks manufacturing employment, Australia, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden both had higher manufacturing wages and lost smaller shares of their manufacturing employment than the United States between 2000 and 2010."

    Not to mention Germany's apprentice system, which works really well.

    Takara Kane , December 18, 2016 at 9:49 pm

    What next in the technology field? Read it and weep or if a Technology CEO – get excited

    https://futurism.com/80-of-it-jobs-can-be-replaced-by-automation-and-its-exciting/

    [Dec 18, 2016] DNC did not take even elementary steps to protect its infrastructure, steps described in NIST guidelines, it operated like a non profit and did not even have 24 x7 monitoring of its servers to say nothing about firewalls and proxy infrastructure corresponding to the level of sensitivity of information they handle. In other words they were suckers and pays for their machinations, greed and incompetence

    Notable quotes:
    "... To whom do US intelligence agencies owe protection against hackers? The DNC was informed that the Russians or someone pretending to be the Russians was on them. To put your political dirty tricks or your apprehensions about the possible discovery of apparent pay-to-play games in your client's foundation in your emails after being warned was just plain foolish. ..."
    "... The Clintons' venality has been an open secret for 30 years, though Dem-leaning pundits prefer to ignore it or attribute it to the evil right wing conspiracy. From the Arkansas arrangements permitting the purchase of influence by engaging as attorney the wife of the AG or the Governor, the miraculous commodity investment, the Marc Rich and other pardons all stunk. ..."
    "... That the Clinton Foundation and its generous support for Clinton political operators might be a pay-to-play operation was not a surprise to longtime observers. I thought it was admirably bold and clever myself. Nobody else has been able to organize a tax-exempt political slush fund under personal control except even in Illinois where we have a lot of smart lawyers in politics. I suspect we will see a lot more political slush funds disguised as foundations in the future. ..."
    "... We also need to think about what political parties actually are. Then are not government agencies or acting on behalf of government agencies or the people at large. Political parties are large private lobbying firms for a set of loosely affiliated private interests that promote an agenda and communications expressly triangulated to satisfy both their donor class and voting majority constituencies. They are more like corporations with owners, employees, and clients than any public entity. ..."
    "... Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian. ..."
    "... And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 10:06 AM
    It was only after listening to the Donna Brazile interview that I decided to comment on the hacking because of how wrong that Donna Brazile was in so many ways. What responsibility do you think that the Federal government should have for protecting the data of a private political operation? What legal or regulatory responsibility do you think that the Federal government has towards the protection of data for private civilian entities? The second question is rhetorical only to put the first question in perspective since they are materially exactly the same thing according to law. How difficult do you think it is to avoid exposure of incriminating or covert E-mails simply by not having such things?
    sglover -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 06:19 PM
    I just can't get past imagining that Donna Brazile is an honest, competent observer at all, and particularly this episode.
    mrrunangun said in reply to im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 11:13 AM
    To whom do US intelligence agencies owe protection against hackers? The DNC was informed that the Russians or someone pretending to be the Russians was on them. To put your political dirty tricks or your apprehensions about the possible discovery of apparent pay-to-play games in your client's foundation in your emails after being warned was just plain foolish.

    The Clintons' venality has been an open secret for 30 years, though Dem-leaning pundits prefer to ignore it or attribute it to the evil right wing conspiracy. From the Arkansas arrangements permitting the purchase of influence by engaging as attorney the wife of the AG or the Governor, the miraculous commodity investment, the Marc Rich and other pardons all stunk.

    HRC was elected senator from NY despite that. That the Clinton Foundation and its generous support for Clinton political operators might be a pay-to-play operation was not a surprise to longtime observers. I thought it was admirably bold and clever myself. Nobody else has been able to organize a tax-exempt political slush fund under personal control except even in Illinois where we have a lot of smart lawyers in politics. I suspect we will see a lot more political slush funds disguised as foundations in the future.

    DeDude -> mrrunangun... , December 18, 2016 at 12:14 PM
    If it wasn't that none of what you write has any connection to the fact; it sounds good. What right wing website did you copy-paste it from?
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to mrrunangun... , December 18, 2016 at 11:52 AM
    THANKS! We better get used to Republicans, at least until they "d'oh" their way out of political power just like the Democrats did. Democrats will never get it back on their own.

    DeDude -> im1dc..., December 18, 2016 at 11:52 AM

    I think there was a serious lack of IT competence in the DNC playing a big role. One being with the obvious incompetence of their cyber-security contractor and another the lack of supervision or procedures set for this person:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0

    I agree that the procedures and rules at the FBI could have been much better. Why the FBI agent didn't (or maybe (s)he did) send the information up higher in the chain (all the way to the President) is a bit of a mystery. Hacking of one of our two major parties should have been Presidential level info, or at least cabinet level.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    How about the possibility of not even having any E-mails incriminating Democrats of political corruption? Would that have been to hard? I am not saying that they should not be corrupt, just don't put it in an E-mail for Christ's sake.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:37 PM
    [Interesting that Putin is the bad guy here for exposing the behavior of the DNC. Why so much talk of Russians and so little talk of what was in those Emails?]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

    2016 Democratic National Committee email leak

    The 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak is a collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails leaked to and subsequently published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016. This collection included 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the DNC, the governing body of the United States' Democratic Party.[1] The leak includes emails from seven key DNC staff members, and date from January 2015 to May 2016.[2] The leak prompted the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz before the Democratic National Convention.[3] After the convention, DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda also resigned in the wake of the controversy.[4]

    WikiLeaks did not reveal its source; a self-styled hacker going by the moniker Guccifer 2.0 claimed responsibility for the attack. On July 25, 2016, the FBI announced that it would investigate the hack[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] The same day, the DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters, stating, "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," and that the emails did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process."[12] On November 6, 2016, WikiLeaks released a second batch of DNC emails, adding 8,263 emails to its collection.[13]

    On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency.[14] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee...

    ...Bernie Sanders' campaign

    In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign.[45] The Washington Post reported: "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically, all of these examples came late in the primary-after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory-but they belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage."[46]

    In a May 2016 email chain, the DNC chief financial officer (CFO) Brad Marshall told the DNC chief executive officer, Amy Dacy, that they should have someone from the media ask Sanders if he is an atheist prior to the West Virginia primary.[46][47] In another email, Wasserman Schultz said of Bernie Sanders, "He isn't going to be president."[45]

    On May 21, 2016, DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach sent an email to DNC Spokesman Luis Miranda mentioning a controversy that ensued in December 2015 when the National Data Director of the Sanders campaign and three subordinate staffers accessed the Clinton campaign's voter information on the NGP VAN database.[48] (The party accused Sanders' campaign of impropriety and briefly limited their access to the database. The Sanders campaign filed suit for breach of contract against the DNC; they dropped the suit on April 29, 2016.)[47][49][50] Paustenbach suggested that the incident could be used to promote a "narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never had his act together, that his campaign was a mess." (The suggestion was rejected by the DNC.) [46][47] The Washington Post wrote: "Paustenbach's suggestion, in that way, could be read as a defense of the committee rather than pushing negative information about Sanders. But this is still the committee pushing negative information about one of its candidates."...

    ...Financial and donor information

    The New York Times wrote that the cache included "thousands of emails exchanged by Democratic officials and party fund-raisers, revealing in rarely seen detail the elaborate, ingratiating and often bluntly transactional exchanges necessary to harvest hundreds of millions of dollars from the party's wealthy donor class. The emails capture a world where seating charts are arranged with dollar totals in mind, where a White House celebration of gay pride is a thinly disguised occasion for rewarding wealthy donors and where physical proximity to the president is the most precious of currencies."[60] As is common in national politics, large party donors "were the subject of entire dossiers, as fund-raisers tried to gauge their interests, annoyances and passions."[60]

    In a series of email exchanges in April and May 2016, DNC fundraising staff discussed and compiled a list of people (mainly donors) who might be appointed to federal boards and commissions.[61] Center for Responsive Politics senior fellow Bob Biersack noted that this is a longstanding practice in the United States: "Big donors have always risen to the top of lists for appointment to plum ambassadorships and other boards and commissions around the federal landscape."[61] The White House denied that financial support for the party was connected to board appointments, saying: "Being a donor does not get you a role in this administration, nor does it preclude you from getting one. We've said this for many years now and there's nothing in the emails that have been released that contradicts that."...

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:41 PM
    That does not make Putin a good guy. I was not a fan of Snowden's either. But it is easier for me to avoid incriminating myself in Emails than it is to get a foreign leader half way around the world to not expose my self-incrimination if it is in his self-interest to do so and he has the resources to do so.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:52 PM
    We also need to think about what political parties actually are. Then are not government agencies or acting on behalf of government agencies or the people at large. Political parties are large private lobbying firms for a set of loosely affiliated private interests that promote an agenda and communications expressly triangulated to satisfy both their donor class and voting majority constituencies. They are more like corporations with owners, employees, and clients than any public entity.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:53 PM
    I probably should have said investors instead of owners to be more precise.
    DeDude -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 01:20 PM
    So a bunch of nothing burgers about how the sausage is made. You don't say that there is actually people in the DNC that have their own personal favorite among the primary candidates - shocking??? And campaign donations in exchange for the ability to gain influence -- almost half a chocking as the K-Street project - and a quarter as shocking as the revelation that donating to the Clinton foundation could NOT give the donors what they wanted from the State Department (what an absurdly incompetent scheme of corruption - how could we let her run the gobinment).

    I am sure that the Russian governments hack of the GOP didn't find anything like that - and that's the reason they didn't make those emails public.

    The general advice that you should not send anything by email that you don't want the public to know should have been headed by all involved. Maybe the DNC could learn from Hillary - who had > 30K emails examined and not a single one where she had said anything not good for public consumption.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 02:38 PM
    "...Maybe the DNC could learn from Hillary - who had > 30K emails examined and not a single one where she had said anything not good for public consumption."

    [Now you are starting to come around.

    NO, I did not find anything in the Emails shocking. None of it was a surprise at all to me. However, it was enough for a lot of other people to be influenced in their voting (likely to stay home and maybe it helped the Green Party get a few more votes), otherwise no one would care that they were hacked.

    Observer's comment just down thread shows that he got it. Now he was not a Hillary supporter and more likely than not a Libertarian of sorts, but the principle here is universal, simple risk management where there was nothing to be gained and everything to lose.

    Also, going to war over the hacked Emails of any political party is probably off the table:<) Where Hillary made a mistake was making an enemy that had one of the worlds most aggressive state sponsored internet hacking programs (China and the US being the only ones that are more capable, but still less aggressive and more covert).]

    im1dc -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 05:18 PM
    You have exhaustively proven that there was no crime or wrong doing committed by the DNC or Hillary. Thanks. You have provided evidence that politics is politics and like sausage making you don't want to actually see it up close and personal.

    Nothing here, nothing at all.

    Except for Marshall McLuhan's observation that the media is the message. In this case the Russian leaked emails to Assange lead Wikileaks calculated to dribble out over the months and weeks before the November election to suggest there were illegalities and criminal behavior being covered up by Hillary and the DNC at EXACTLY the same time Donald Trump is jetting around the country telling everybody who listened that the election was rigged, Hillary is a crook, and the MSM was out to get him.

    Wow, how did you miss that and the implications derived from it?

    likbez -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 05:41 PM
    Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider?

    One DNC staffer, 27-year-old Seth Rich, the DNC's director of voter expansion, was killed around this time in pretty strange circumstances. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/12/democratic-national-committee-staffer-shot-and-killed-in-washington.html

    Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian.

    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-wikileaks-figure-says-insider-russia-hack/

    Or it can come from a dissident within the US agency that did have access to all emails.

    Do you remember such a person as Edward Snowden ? It might be very educational for you to read his opinion about this case:

    While he is highly critical of Wikileaks, he suggests that without NSA coming forward with hard data obtained via special program that uncover multiple levels of indirection, those charges are just propaganda and insinuations.

    And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party.

    As in any complex case you should not jump to conclusions so easily.

    ilsm -> im1dc... , -1
    Nothing Ron says is clearing. The e-mail thing is about safeguarding and preserving public records. The content of mishandled records is not an issue.

    The public demanded to know what government does. Congress passed the federal records act. The crime has nothing to do with content.

    That is one felony Comey could complain about justice whitewashing. The elements of friendly information released must never be discussed, that would make the breeches worse. Except in closed, secure rooms with no electronic bugging devices.

    Clinton would have been impeached!

    [Dec 18, 2016] Syrian Rebels Attack, Burn Aleppo Evacuation Buses Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moderate: one who carries guns and heavy weapons, terrifies and kills in pursuit of US/NATO/Gulf States/Israeli policy. ..."
    "... Of course this was the action of moderates. Radical islam would have burned them when they were full of people going the other direction. I have to wonder where they get the "volunteers" to drive them. ..."
    "... "Rebels" are by definition "moderates", and therefore friends of Obama, Hillary, McCain, and Lindsey Graham, and therefore DO NOT burn people. "Rebels" use fire to drive the devils out of people , which frees the people's souls up to where Jehovah can get a good look at them and ask them why they were in a bus in Aleppo instead of in a limo pulling up to CometPizza. Freeing, not burning. Big difference. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    While the UN condemns Syrian and Russian "atrocities" in the battle over East Aleppo, which as noted previously was a key victory for the Assad regime in the past week, one which will end the stalemate and sway the balance of power in the ongoing war between regime forces and US-coalition armed rebels, little attention had been paid to the subversive tactics employed by such "moderate rebels" as the al Qaeda linked al-Nusra front.

    That may change after five buses en route to evacuate the sick and injured from two government-held villages in Syria's Idlib province were attacked and burned by rebels.

    PHOTOS: Reports coming in that an "unknown rebel group" has attacked buses going to evacuate civilians from Kafraya and Fuah - @Ald_Aba pic.twitter.com/7xMPhumeu5

    - Conflict News (@Conflicts) December 18, 2016

    MORE: According to reports, civilians had not yet gotten on the buses. They were on their way to pick them up when the attack happened.

    - Conflict News (@Conflicts) December 18, 2016

    Five buses were attacked and burned by "armed terrorists" while en route to militant-held villages after an evacuation deal was struck between the Syrian government and rebels, Syrian state television has reported. According to Reuters, the deal was reached earlier on Sunday, citing al-Ikhbariya TV news. It will see the remaining militants and their families evacuated from east Aleppo in return for the evacuation of people in militant-held villages in Idlib province, al-Foua and Kafraya.

    Syrian state television has reported that five buses were attacked and burned by "armed terrorists" while en route to al-Foua and Kefraya. However, most of them, as well as Red Crescent vehicles, reached the entrance to the villages, the report said.

    Syrian state news agency SANA reported earlier that evacuation buses had entered the last militant-held district of eastern Aleppo, Ramousah, under the supervision of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Syrian Arab Red Cross. State television showed live footage of buses and a van bearing a Syrian Arab Red Crescent flag parked next to a highway intersection in Ramousah . Several large white cars marked with Red Crescent and Red Cross symbols also appeared in the footage.

    As BBC adds, the convoy was traveling to Foah and Kefraya, besieged by rebel fighters. Pro-government forces have been demanding that people be allowed to leave the mainly Shia villages in order for the evacuation of east Aleppo to restart, with thousands of people waiting to leave in desperate conditions, reports say.

    VIDEO: Footage shows JFS (al-Nusra) members attacking evacuation buses - @24Aleppo

    pic.twitter.com/8IiRcbZJmk

    - Conflict News (@Conflicts) December 18, 2016

    The initial plan to evacuate eastern Aleppo collapsed on Friday, leaving civilians stranded at various points along the route out without access to food or shelter.

    PHOTOS: Other buses have however arrived in Kafraya and Fuah - @sayed_ridha

    pic.twitter.com/MzxstFX7DR

    - Conflict News (@Conflicts) December 18, 2016

    Despite delays caused by disagreements over the new evacuation plan, convoys were said to be traveling to both eastern Aleppo and the government-held villages in Idlib province on Sunday. However, UK-based monitoring group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said six buses were attacked and torched on the way to Foah and Kefraya.

    Jaish Fateh militants have set fire to several buses that were going towards Fuah-Kafraya in Idlib countryside pic.twitter.com/wud4CNQp1u

    - Hassan Ridha (@sayed_ridha) December 18, 2016

    It had reported earlier that the "moderate rebel" group Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, formerly known as the Nusra Front, was preventing buses entering the villages.

    As a reminder, earlier in the year, Jabhat Al-Nusra, rebranded itself Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham, a cosmetic change which was apparently sufficient to convince the US government to brand them "moderates" and send them arms and equipment, equipment which today may have been used against innocent Syrian citizens.

    Syrian state media said "armed terrorists" attacked five buses, burned and destroyed them.

    More pics of the buses which were burned by militants near Sarmin south of Binnish, Idlib pic.twitter.com/by7g7wf5tP

    - Hassan Ridha (@sayed_ridha) December 18, 2016

    Rebel groups have not yet commented on the attack. Subsequent to the attack, it was reported that more buses have been sent to Fuah-Kafraya to replace those that were burnt, although it was unclear if the "rebels" would allow them passage.

    Meanwhile, later on Sunday, the United Nations Security Council is set to vote on a French-drafted resolution aimed at ensuring that UN officials can monitor the evacuations from Aleppo and the safety of the remaining civilians. Reuters reported that those evacuated on Thursday and Friday morning had been taken to rebel-held districts in the countryside west of Aleppo. As RT notes , a draft of the resolution "emphasizes that the evacuations of civilians must be voluntary and to final destinations of their choice, and protection must be provided to all civilians who choose or who have been forced to be evacuated and those who opt to remain in their homes."

    It was not immediately clear how Russia will vote. "If it is a sensible initiative and we see it on paper, why not entertain this initiative?" Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin said on Friday.

    SoDamnMad , Dec 18, 2016 9:26 AM
    Where is this on the MSM? Oh... sorry... good guys did it. Shhhhhhh
    GUS100CORRINA SoDamnMad , Dec 18, 2016 9:36 AM
    i HAVE TO ASK A QUESTION: Didn't the US back the rebels and how deep is the US ( under the Pervert in the WH ) involved and is the US (CIA) responsible?

    JUST MAKES ME SICK ... AS THOMAS JEFFERSON ONCE SAID:

    "I TREMBLE FOR MY NATION WHEN I KNOW THAT GOD IS JUST AND HIS JUSTICE CANNOT SLEEP FOREVER."

    TeamDepends GUS100CORRINA , Dec 18, 2016 9:37 AM
    They will blame Trump in 3 2 1...
    nmewn TeamDepends , Dec 18, 2016 9:39 AM
    ...in a joint statement from Kerry, Hillary, Obama, McCain and Lindsey...lol.
    froze25 nmewn , Dec 18, 2016 9:42 AM
    Isn't McCain in pictures shaking hands with the Jihadist, excuse me "moderates"?
    beemasters froze25 , Dec 18, 2016 9:49 AM
    While the rebels may well be connected to terrorist group, this incident does sound odd.

    "State television showed live footage of buses and a van bearing a Syrian Arab Red Crescent flag parked next to a highway intersection in Ramousah. Several large white cars marked with Red Crescent and Red Cross symbols also appeared in the footage."

    No rebel approached or attacked the state television crew? Hidden camera? Invisibility cloak?

    BaBaBouy beemasters , Dec 18, 2016 9:51 AM
    SOMEHOW Putin did It ... Blame it on the Ruskies ...
    Whoa Dammit BaBaBouy , Dec 18, 2016 9:56 AM
    "Moderate" Rebels. Your tax dollars at work. I hope Trump gets rid of all of the sick fucks in our government who are behind all of this shit in the Middle East.
    HowdyDoody Whoa Dammit , Dec 18, 2016 10:36 AM
    These carefully vetted moderate rebels get such bad press. They are just regular guys, having fun with kids

    https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/808782789785112577

    nmewn NoPension , Dec 18, 2016 10:31 AM
    Meh, empires rise and fall...the Romans at Palmyra, more recently the Ottomans, "we" really don't have a dog in the fight, from a western perspective, it was a French Mandate after the Ottomans crashed & burned so maybe Hollande should nuke it...lol...joking of course.

    Make no mistake, to me Assad Jr is the same as his daddy before him but its not our fight, the imposed borders mean nothing to the people who actually live there, the lines are just lines on a map and bunch of sand & rock isn't worth a war with Russia over, no matter what the west might think of an Assad (and my opinion is clear on him) there was some structure (or order)...for better or worse.

    No one ever said "order & structure" is always angelic, its just order & structure, as opposed to the lack of and they know that more than anyone ;-)

    HowdyDoody nmewn , Dec 18, 2016 10:38 AM
    "we really don't have a dog in this fight"

    I think it is more of an (((elephant))) than a dog.

    smacker SoDamnMad , Dec 18, 2016 9:55 AM
    The BBC have finally run out of excuses to ignore such news .
    Ignatius SpanishGoop , Dec 18, 2016 10:04 AM
    Moderate: one who carries guns and heavy weapons, terrifies and kills in pursuit of US/NATO/Gulf States/Israeli policy.

    See also: John McCain, Samantha Powers, Lindsey Graham, Bibi Netanyahu, Barrack Obama

    Unusual: "moderate" seen as an insider's joke

    opport.knocks slithering , Dec 18, 2016 10:17 AM
    Of course this was the action of moderates. Radical islam would have burned them when they were full of people going the other direction. I have to wonder where they get the "volunteers" to drive them.
    mary mary buzzsaw99 , Dec 18, 2016 9:59 AM
    "Rebels" are by definition "moderates", and therefore friends of Obama, Hillary, McCain, and Lindsey Graham, and therefore DO NOT burn people. "Rebels" use fire to drive the devils out of people , which frees the people's souls up to where Jehovah can get a good look at them and ask them why they were in a bus in Aleppo instead of in a limo pulling up to CometPizza. Freeing, not burning. Big difference.

    [Dec 18, 2016] The US medias neo-McCarthyite campaign for war against Russia by Andre Damon

    Notable quotes:
    "... These allegations were followed Wednesday by a press briefing in which White House spokesman Josh Earnest declared that media outfits in the US, in reporting on the Democratic Party emails released by WikiLeaks, "essentially became the arms of Russian intelligence." ..."
    "... Later that day, President Obama threatened to retaliate against Russia, telling National Public Radio, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections, that we need to take action and we will." ..."
    "... The Times followed up its inflammatory article with an editorial Thursday all but accusing the president-elect of acting as a Russian agent. ..."
    "... There are bitter and raging conflicts within the state, and a faction of the military-intelligence apparatus is determined that there be no retreat from an aggressive confrontation with Russia. This is connected to anger over the debacle of the CIA-led regime-change operation in Syria. ..."
    "... Bound up with this internecine conflict within the ruling class, there is a concerted effort to politically bludgeon the American people into supporting further military escalation, both in the Middle East and against Russia itself. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press

    The American population is being subjected to a furious barrage of propaganda by the media and political establishment aimed at paving the way to war.

    The campaign was sharply escalated this week, beginning with Wednesday's publication of a lead article in the New York Times . Based entirely on unnamed sources and flimsy and concocted evidence, it was presented as definitive proof of Russia's hacking of Democratic Party emails and waging of "cyberwar" against the United States.

    These allegations were followed Wednesday by a press briefing in which White House spokesman Josh Earnest declared that media outfits in the US, in reporting on the Democratic Party emails released by WikiLeaks, "essentially became the arms of Russian intelligence."

    On Thursday, Earnest declared that president-elect Trump had encouraged "Russia to hack his opponent because he believed it would help his campaign." Later that day, President Obama threatened to retaliate against Russia, telling National Public Radio, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections, that we need to take action and we will."

    These warmongering comments by the Obama administration were accompanied by editorials in leading US and international newspapers denouncing Trump's accommodative stance toward Russia and clamoring for a more aggressive response to the alleged hacking. News reports, based on unnamed intelligence officials, breathlessly proclaim that Russian President Vladimir Putin directly ordered and oversaw the hacking.

    The Times followed up its inflammatory article with an editorial Thursday all but accusing the president-elect of acting as a Russian agent. "There could be no more 'useful idiot,' to use Lenin's term of art, than an American president who doesn't know he's being played by a wily foreign power," the Times declared. The editorial further defined Russia as "one of our oldest, most determined foreign adversaries," adding, "Kremlin meddling in the 2016 election" justifies "retaliatory measures."

    The declarations by the Times and other media outlets combine all of the noxious elements of 1950s McCarthyism, with capitalist Russia replacing the Soviet Union: hysterical denunciation of "wily" Russia, shameless lying and attacks on domestic opponents as spies, traitors and agents of foreign governments.

    There are bitter and raging conflicts within the state, and a faction of the military-intelligence apparatus is determined that there be no retreat from an aggressive confrontation with Russia. This is connected to anger over the debacle of the CIA-led regime-change operation in Syria. Trump has packed his cabinet with generals and is planning a massive escalation of war, but he has also indicated a preference for greater accommodation with Russia.

    Bound up with this internecine conflict within the ruling class, there is a concerted effort to politically bludgeon the American people into supporting further military escalation, both in the Middle East and against Russia itself.

    The propaganda campaign alleging Russian interference in the US election parallels a related media blitzkrieg claiming that Syrian government troops, backed by Russia, are carrying out massacres as they retake the Syrian city of Aleppo.

    The Times ' lead editorial on Thursday, titled "Aleppo's Destroyers: Assad, Putin, Iran," declares: "After calling on Mr. Assad to 'step aside' in 2011, Mr. Obama was never able to make it happen, and it may never have been in his power to make it happen, at least at a cost acceptable to the American people." The front-page lead of Thursday's Times bemoans the fact that efforts to whip up public support for US military intervention in Syria have "not resonated" as much as previous propaganda campaigns.

    The international press has joined in the hysteria. An op-ed in Germany's Der Spiegel bitterly complains that "Obama sought a diplomatic, not a military solution" to the crisis in Syria. It "made him popular, both in the United States and here [in Germany]," the piece states, but adds that such "self-righteousness is wrong."

    Such media propaganda campaigns are not new. Without exception, they have preceded every bloody military adventure: the attempts to blame Afghanistan for the September 11 terrorist attacks in the run-up to that country's invasion in 2001; the lying claims about "weapons of mass destruction" before the 2003 invasion of Iraq; and the reports of an imminent massacre of civilians in Benghazi that preceded the US bombing and destruction of Libya in 2011.

    The difference now, however, is that this campaign is directed not at a virtually defenseless and impoverished former colony, but at Russia, the world's second-ranked nuclear power. None of the figures carrying out this campaign care to explain how a war against Russia should be fought, how many people will die, and how such a war could avoid a nuclear exchange leading to the destruction of human civilization.

    Behind the banner headlines and vituperative editorials, real steps are being taken to prepare for warfare on a scale not seen for 60 years. Earlier this year, US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley told the Association of the United States Army that the military must prepare for wars against great powers, which will be "very highly lethal, unlike anything our Army has experienced since World War II."

    The campaign that has developed over the past two weeks makes clear what the policy of a Clinton administration would have been. The Democratic Party and its allied media outlets have rooted their opposition to Trump not on the basis of his losing the popular vote by nearly three million ballots, or that he is appointing a cabinet dominated by right-wing, reactionary billionaires, bankers, business executives and generals, but on the charge that he is "soft" on Russia. That is, the Democratic Party has managed to attack Trump from the right.

    Whatever the outcome of the conflict within the state, the American ruling class is preparing for war. The dissolution of the USSR 25 years ago was greeted with enraptured declarations of an era of perpetual peace, in which a world under the unrivaled hegemony of the United States would be free of the wars that plagued mankind in the 20th century. Now, after a quarter century of bloody regional conflicts, the blood-curdling declarations of the press make it clear that a new world war is in the making.

    Among broad sections of workers and young people, there is deep skepticism toward government lies and hostility to war. However, this opposition can find no reflection within any faction of the political establishment. The building of a new anti-war movement, based on the international unity of the working class in opposition to capitalism and all the political parties of the ruling class, is the urgent task.

    Andre Damon

    [Dec 18, 2016] Two more states confirm election hacks traced to US government

    "Oh dear. How are they going to keep their 'Putin did it' story straight if they keep shooting themselves in the foot like this?"
    www.sott.net

    Last week we reported that the State of Georgia had traced an attempted break-in to its voter registration database to none other than the famous Russian government agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

    Now it has been revealed that Kentucky and West Virginia "have confirmed suspected cyberattacks linked to the same U.S. Department of Homeland Security IP address as last month's massive attack in Georgia". There must be some way to blame Moscow:

    While there could be an "innocent" explanation for such attacks (testing network security, for example), the Department of Homeland Security did not inform any of these states - before or after the attacks - that they had been conducted, for security-checking purposes or otherwise. In other words: These states still don't know why DHS targeted, and they're still waiting for an answer:

    In the past week, the Georgia Secretary of State's Office has confirmed 10 separate cyberattacks on its network over the past 10 months that were traced back to DHS addresses.

    "We're being told something that they think they have it figured out, yet nobody's really showed us how this happened," Kemp said. "We need to know."

    He says the new information from the two other states presents even more reason to be concerned.

    "So now this just raises more questions that haven't been answered about this and continues to raise the alarms and concern that I have," Kemp said.
    Georgia's Secretary of State says he has already sent an appeal to the incoming Trump administration, asking for assistance in resolving this bizarre string of cyber attacks.

    Stay tuned.

    [Dec 18, 2016] Revealed! Putin personally hacked DNC from surveillance aircraft with bear on board

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance writer, journalist and media analyst. She has lived and traveled extensively in the US, Germany, Russia and Hungary. Her byline has appeared at RT, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, The BRICS Post, New Eastern Outlook, Global Independent Analytics and many others. She also works on copywriting and editing projects. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook or at her website www.danielleryan.net. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Danielle Ryan
    RT
    Sat, 17 Dec 2016 21:42 UTC Map © Alexey Nikolsky / Reuters Shocking revelations earlier this week as US intelligence officials confirmed with "high confidence" that Russian President Vladimir Putin was "personally involved" in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee.

    According to the anonymous sources inside the anonymous US intelligence agency, Putin's objectives were multifaceted, but the whole thing began as a "vendetta" against Hillary Clinton because she said some mean things about him a few times. Putin is also an "immature 12 year-old child," a former US official with links to the defense industry, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed (with high confidence).

    The high level, anonymous and completely trustworthy sources also told a major US news agency that Putin himself had piloted a specially-designed Russian spy plane across the Atlantic to personally direct the still-ongoing hacking operations from the air.

    via GIPHY
    Satellite images seen by a separate anonymous NASA whistleblower are believed to show Putin in the cockpit of the spy plane alongside his co-pilot Boris, a lifelike robotic bear which has been under secret development in the depths of Siberia and has been programmed to attack Putin's enemies on command using a variety of lethal methods.

    The NASA whistleblower did not provide journalists with photographic evidence, but the editors had a chat about it in their morning meeting and concluded that it's probably still true.

    In fact, the American news agency could not verify any of the claims from the officials who commented for the story, but given that their sources used the term "high confidence" they took this to mean the evidence must be "nearly incontrovertible" and relayed the information to the public with this implication. An understandable decision, since, as we all know, only 100 percent factual information is ever released by anonymous intelligence officials.

    Okay, let's rewind. Obviously that bit about the bear and the plane was fake news. And maybe a few other bits, too. But it all demonstrates a point. I've provided you with about the same amount of evidence as NBC has in its story this week claiming Putin personally rigged the US election: I made some allegations, I cited anonymous sources and then I conveyed it to you readers as "nearly incontrovertible" and suggested no further digging or investigation, or even a bit of healthy skepticism, was necessary.

    Journalism is dying

    There was a time when journalists needed more than 'maybes' and 'probablys' before deciding what their sources told them was "incontrovertible" and delivering half-baked conspiracy theories to the public. That time has apparently long gone.

    Imagine for a moment that RT published a story about, oh, let's say Barack Obama personally hacking into Putin's computer. Now imagine the only evidence RT provided was "anonymous FSB officials" and told its readers the story was therefore practically indisputable because these anonymous sources were "confident" in the legitimacy of their secret evidence. Imagine the laughs that would get from sneering Western journalists. Well, that's pretty much exactly what NBC did. And they're not alone. The Washington Post has been at it too, reporting on a "secret" CIA assessment that Russia worked to get Donald Trump elected, quoting anonymous "top officials" and like NBC, providing no evidence.

    Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but for something to be presented to the public as indisputable fact, there must be evidence made available to back it up. Neither the CIA or the FBI have provided any such evidence to the public.

    Perhaps the saddest thing though is having to acknowledge that all our debates over fake news and real news really don't matter because the very people we are told to trust are the people who will most adeptly use the public's concerns over fake news to manipulate them. The CIA, for example, is hardly known for its long history of telling the truth. Its employees are literally trained in the art of deception and disinformation. They are hardly averse to creating a bit of fake news or making up 'evidence' where needed. Anything they say or do can be forgiven once someone utters the words "national security".

    NBC's story claimed Putin not only wanted to embarrass Clinton with the DNC leaks, but to highlight corruption in the American political system; the emails showing, for example, how the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign to ensure Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, would be the Democratic nominee.

    Now, what better way to encourage people to ignore the corruption in the system than to focus their attention on the idea that Putin is the one who told them about it? Are people really reading these stories and convincing themselves that the CIA is the most credible source of public information on what the Russians are doing?

    Clinton's long-shot

    We've been hearing about Russian hacking for months, long before the election results in November, so why the sudden confidence in all this new and secret evidence? Why the new assertions that Putin himself directed the hacking? Look at your calendar. The Electoral College votes on Monday and it may be Clinton's last hope. It's a long shot, but in true Clinton character, she won't go down without a fight to the last gasp. Her best hope is to convince the Electoral College that Trump's win was influenced by a foreign power, is therefore illegitimate and that national security will be at stake if he takes office.

    Amazingly, in the midst of all this, while Clinton's camp is still trying to get her elected through back-door tactics, Obama has pretty much called the election results legitimate .

    Members of the Electoral College are expected to vote the way their states voted, but they are not required to. If Clinton can get enough members to flip their votes, Trump is deprived of the 270 votes he needs to become president. That's what this is really all about - and the media is serving as Clinton's willing accomplice.

    Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance writer, journalist and media analyst. She has lived and traveled extensively in the US, Germany, Russia and Hungary. Her byline has appeared at RT, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, The BRICS Post, New Eastern Outlook, Global Independent Analytics and many others. She also works on copywriting and editing projects. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook or at her website www.danielleryan.net.

    [Dec 17, 2016] Responsibility for the current decline of middle class in the USA rests on neoliberals

    Dec 17, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Tim Duy:

    Responsibility : I have been puzzling over this from Paul Krugman :

    Donald Trump won the electoral college at least in part by promising to bring coal jobs back to Appalachia and manufacturing jobs back to the Rust Belt. Neither promise can be honored – for the most part we're talking about jobs lost, not to unfair foreign competition, but to technological change. But a funny thing happens when people like me try to point that out: we get enraged responses from economists who feel an affinity for the working people of the afflicted regions – responses that assume that trying to do the numbers must reflect contempt for regional cultures, or something.

    Is this the right narrative? I am no longer comfortable with this line:

    for the most part we're talking about jobs lost, not to unfair foreign competition, but to technological change.

    Try to place that line in context with this from Noah Smith:

    Then, in the 1990s and 2000s, the U.S opened its markets to Chinese goods, first with Most Favored Nation trading status, and then by supporting China's accession to the WTO. The resulting competition from cheap Chinese goods contributed to vast inequality in the United States, reversing many of the employment gains of the 1990s and holding down U.S. wages. But this sacrifice on the part of 90% of the American populace enabled China to lift its enormous population out of abject poverty and become a middle-income country.

    Was this "fair" trade? I think not. Let me suggest this narrative: Sometime during the Clinton Administration, it was decided that an economically strong China was good for both the globe and the U.S. Fair enough. To enable that outcome, U.S. policy deliberately sacrificed manufacturing workers on the theory that a.) the marginal global benefit from the job gain to a Chinese worker exceeded the marginal global cost from a lost US manufacturing job, b.) the U.S. was shifting toward a service sector economy anyway and needed to reposition its workforce accordingly and c.) the transition costs of shifting workers across sectors in the U.S. were minimal.

    As a consequence – and through a succession of administrations – the US tolerated implicit subsidies of Chinese industries, including national industrial policy designed to strip production from the US.

    And then there was the currency manipulation. I am always shocked when international economists claim "fair trade," pretending that the financial side of the international accounts is irrelevant. As if that wasn't a big, fat thumb on the scale. Sure, "currency manipulation" is running the other way these days. After, of course, a portion of manufacturing was absorbed overseas. After the damage is done.

    Yes, technological change is happening. But the impact, and the costs, were certainly accelerated by U.S. policy.

    It was a great plan. On paper, at least. And I would argue that in fact points a and b above were correct.

    But point c. Point c was a bad call. Point c was a disastrous call. Point c helped deliver Donald Trump to the Oval Office. To be sure, the FBI played its role, as did the Russians. But even allowing for the poor choice of Hilary Clinton as the Democratic nominee (the lack of contact with rural and semi-rural voters blinded the Democrats to the deep animosity toward their candidate), it should never have come to this.

    The transition costs were not minimal.

    Consider this from the New York Times :

    As the opioid epidemic sweeps through rural America, an ever-greater number of drug-dependent newborns are straining hospital neonatal units and draining precious medical resources.

    The problem has grown more quickly than realized and shows no signs of abating, researchers reported on Monday. Their study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, concludes for the first time that the increase in drug-dependent newborns has been disproportionately larger in rural areas.

    The latest causalities in the opioid epidemic are newborns.

    The transition costs were not minimal.

    My take is that "fair trade" as practiced since the late 1990s created another disenfranchised class of citizens. As if we hadn't done enough of that already. Then we weaponized those newly disenfranchised citizens with the rhetoric of identity politics. That's coming back to bite us. We didn't really need a white nationalist movement, did we?

    Now comes the big challenge: What can we do to make amends? Can we change the narrative? And here is where I agree with Paul Krugman:

    Now, if we want to have a discussion of regional policies – an argument to the effect that my pessimism is unwarranted – fine. As someone who is generally a supporter of government activism, I'd actually like to be convinced that a judicious program of subsidies, relocating government departments, whatever, really can sustain communities whose traditional industry has eroded.

    The damage done is largely irreversible. In medium-size regions, lower relative housing costs may help attract overflow from the east and west coast urban areas. And maybe a program of guaranteed jobs for small- to medium-size regions combined with relocation subsidies for very small-size regions could help. But it won't happen overnight, if ever. And even if you could reverse the patterns of trade – which wouldn't be easy given the intertwining of global supply chains – the winners wouldn't be the same current losers. Tough nut to crack.

    Bottom Line: I don't know how to fix this either. But I don't absolve the policy community from their role in this disaster. I think you can easily tell a story that this was one big policy experiment gone terribly wrong.

    [Dec 17, 2016] You think Putin personally supervised the Yahoo hacking? This could make many people patriotic in a hurry.

    Notable quotes:
    "... this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p", which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified. ..."
    "... [Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never really expressed it before. ..."
    "... Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content can just be handed over to the fuzz. ..."
    "... It's a good thing for Obama that torturing logic and evasive droning are not criminal acts. ..."
    "... "Relations with Russia have declined over the past several years" I reflexively did a Google search. Yep, Victoria Nuland is still employed. ..."
    "... With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press? ..."
    "... I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire. ..."
    "... The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then nothing happened. ..."
    Dec 17, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    pretzelattack , December 16, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p", which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified.

    HBE , December 16, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    [Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never really expressed it before.

    B1whois , December 16, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    The great sucking pit of need that keeps on giving. when will it abate?

    different clue , December 16, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    They are only hurt at the loss of their beloved Clintron, and are seizing on the Puttin Diddit excuse.

    polecat , December 16, 2016 at 7:45 pm

    Did they happen to offer you some Guyana Kool-Aid with that order of vitriol ?

    Brad , December 16, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    Unfortunately the whole "grief cycle" will get a reboot after next Monday's "Election II".

    The rest of us are to be pissed off that the CIA and Clinton clique have continued to agiprop this.

    Knot Galt , December 16, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    Since the ex-Correct The Record key jockeys are out of a job they have to practice their craft somewhere.

    hunkerdown , December 16, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content can just be handed over to the fuzz.

    auntienene , December 16, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    I don't think I've looked at my yahoo account in 8-10 years and I didn't use their email; just had an address. I don't remember my user name or password. I did get an email from them (to my not-yahoo address) advising of the breach.

    Do I need to do anything at all?

    hunkerdown , December 16, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    auntienene, probably not, but as a general principle it's better to close accounts down properly than to abandon them.

    Tvc15 , December 16, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    I was amazed as I watched a local am news show in Pittsburgh recommend adding your cell phone number in addition to changing your password. Yeah, that's a great idea, maybe my ss# would provide even more security.

    Jeremy Grimm , December 16, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    I use yahoo email. Why should I move? As I understood the breach it was primarily a breach of the personal information used to establish the account. I've already changed my password - did it a couple of days after the breach was reported. I had a security clearance with DoD which requires disclosure of a lot more personal information than yahoo had. The DoD data has been breached twice from two separate servers.

    As far as reading my emails - they may prove useful for phishing but that's about all. I'm not sure what might be needed for phishing beyond a name and email address - easily obtained from many sources I have no control over.

    So - what am I vulnerable to by remaining at yahoo that I'm not already exposed to on a more secure server?

    polecat , December 16, 2016 at 7:53 pm

    You are vulnerable to the knowledge that Marissa Mayer is STILL employed as a high-level corporate twit --

    Lee , December 16, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    It's a good thing for Obama that torturing logic and evasive droning are not criminal acts.

    Ranger Rick , December 16, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    "Relations with Russia have declined over the past several years" I reflexively did a Google search. Yep, Victoria Nuland is still employed.

    Pat , December 16, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    Yeah, it isn't like Mr. 'We go high' is going to admit our relationship has declined because we have underhandedly tried to isolate and knee cap them for pretty much his entire administration.

    Jeremy Grimm , December 16, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    Are you referring to Obama's press conference? If so, I am glad he didn't make a big deal out of the Russian hacking allegations - as in it didn't sound like he planned a retaliation for the fictional event and its fictional consequences. He rose slightly in stature in my eyes - he's almost as tall as a short flea.

    With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press?

    Why is a lameduck messing with the Chinese in the South China sea? What is the point of all the "fake" news hogwash? Is it related to Obama's expression of concern about the safety of the Internet? I can't shake the feeling that something is going on below the surface of these murky waters.

    Susan C , December 16, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire.

    He did respond at one point to a reporter that the hacks from Russia were to the DNC and Podesta but funny how he didn't say HRC emails. Be it as it may, I think what was behind it was HRC really trying to impress all her contributors that Russia really did do her in, see Obama said so, since she must be in hot water over all the money she has collected from foreign governments for pay to play and her donors.

    The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then nothing happened.

    Pat , December 16, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    Unfortunately the nightly news is focusing on Obama says Russia hacked the DNC and had it in for Clinton!!! He warned them to stay out of the vote! There will be consequences! Russia demands the evidence and then a story about the evidence. (This one might have a few smarter people going "huh, that's it?!?!")

    I do like the some private some public on that consequences and retaliation thing. You either have to laugh or throw up about the faux I've got this and the real self-righteousness. Especially since it is supposedly to remind people we can do it to you. Is there anyone left outside of America who doesn't think they already do do it to anyone Uncle Sam doesn't want in office and even some they do? Mind you I'm not sure how many harried people watching the news are actually going to laugh at that one because they don't know how how much we meddle.

    Knot Galt , December 16, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    Obamameter. ty L. Scofield ;-)

    [Dec 17, 2016] Paul Krugman Useful Idiots Galore

    Notable quotes:
    "... Shorter Paul Krugman: nobody acted more irresponsibly in the last election than the New York Times. ..."
    "... Looks like Putin recruited the NYT, the FBI and the DNC. ..."
    "... Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which is a big shame. ..."
    "... It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in the future. ..."
    "... Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism. ..."
    "... Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs, etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture. ..."
    "... It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want. That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce optimal results. ..."
    "... All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice -- incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people, "We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small 'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves. ..."
    "... Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments today!?! ..."
    "... Unless the Russians or someone else hacked the ballot box machines, it is our own damn fault. ..."
    "... The ship of neo-liberal trade sailed in the mid-2000's. That you don't get that is sad. You can only milk that so far the cow had been milked. ..."
    "... The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.) ..."
    "... The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned, and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until he had no real chance. ..."
    "... The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic elite and their apologists. ..."
    "... The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought. For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion. ..."
    "... Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats last spring that "FBI investigation" and "party Presidential nominee" was bound to be an ugly combination. Some did; right here as I recall. Or his part in the official "don't vote for third party" week in the Clinton media machine....thanks, hundreds of thousands of Trump votes got the message. ..."
    "... It's too rich to complain about Russia and Wikileaks as if those elements in anyway justified Clinton becoming President. Leaks mess with our democracy? Then for darn sure do not vote for a former Sec. of State willing to use a home server for her official business. Russia is menacing? Just who has been managing US-Russia relations the past 8 years? I voted for her anyway, but the heck if I think some tragic fate has befell the nation here. Republicans picked a better candidate to win this thing than we Democrats did. ..."
    "... The truth of the matter is that Clinton was a very weak candidate with nothing to offer but narcissism ("I'm with her"). It's notable that Clinton has still not accepted responsibility for her campaign, preferring to throw the blame for the loss anywhere but herself. Sociopathy much? ..."
    Dec 17, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Monetas Tuas Requiro -> kthomas... , December 16, 2016 at 05:10 PM
    The secret story of how American advisers helped Yeltsin win

    http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html

    JohnH -> Dan Kervick... , December 16, 2016 at 11:46 AM
    PK seems to be a bitter old man...
    anne -> sanjait... , December 16, 2016 at 03:08 PM
    Nothing to see here, say the useful idiots.

    [ I find it terrifying, simply terrifying, to refer to people as "useful idiots" after all the personal destruction that has followed when the expression was specifically used in the past.

    To me, using such an expression is an honored economist intent on becoming Joseph McCarthy. ]

    anne -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 03:15 PM
    To demean a person as though the person were a communist or a fool of communists or the like, with all the personal harm that has historically brought in this country, is cruel beyond my understanding or imagining.

    "Useful Idiots Galore," terrifying.

    Necesito Dinero Tuyo -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 05:25 PM
    Dale : , December 16, 2016 at 10:51 AM
    trouble is that his mind reflects an accurate perception of our common reality.
    Procopius -> Dale... , December 17, 2016 at 02:37 AM
    Well, not really. For example he referred to "the close relationship between Wikileaks and Russian intelligence." But Wikileaks is a channel. They don't seek out material. They rely on people to bring material to them. They supposedly make an effort to verify that the material is not a forgery, but aside from that what they release is what people bring to them. Incidentally, like so many people you seem to not care whether the material is accurate or not -- Podesta and the DNC have not claimed that any of the emails are different from what they sent.
    Tom aka Rusty : , December 16, 2016 at 11:06 AM
    PK's head explodes!

    One thought....

    When politicians and business executives and economists cuddle up to the totalitarian Chinese it is viewed as an act of enlightment and progress.

    When someone cuddles up to the authoritarian thug Putin it is an act of evil.

    Seems a bit of a double standard.

    We are going to have to do "business" with both the Chinese and the Russians, whoever is president.

    Ben Groves -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 16, 2016 at 11:07 AM
    Your head should explode considering Trump's deal with the "establishment" in July was brokered by foreign agents.
    ilsm -> Ben Groves... , December 16, 2016 at 04:11 PM
    curiouser and curiouser! while Obama and administration arm jihadis and call its support for jihadis funded by al Qaeda a side in a civil war.

    the looking glass you all went through.

    Trump has more convictions than any democrat

    ... ... ...

    Tom aka Rusty -> kthomas... , December 16, 2016 at 01:36 PM
    In a theatre of the absurd sort of way.
    dilbert dogbert -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 16, 2016 at 12:11 PM
    One thought:
    Only Nixon can go to China.
    anne -> sanjait... , December 16, 2016 at 03:22 PM
    Putin is a murderous thug...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/david-brooks-snap-out-of-it.html

    September 22, 2014

    Snap Out of It
    By David Brooks

    President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a lone thug sitting atop a failing regime....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/thomas-friedman-putin-and-the-pope.html

    October 21, 2014

    Putin and the Pope
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    One keeps surprising us with his capacity for empathy, the other by how much he has become a first-class jerk and thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-whos-playing-marbles-now.html

    December 20, 2014

    Who's Playing Marbles Now?
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    Let us not mince words: Vladimir Putin is a delusional thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html

    December 21, 2014

    Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion
    By Paul Krugman

    Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/thomas-friedman-czar-putins-next-moves.html

    January 27, 2015

    Czar Putin's Next Moves
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be in danger....

    anne -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 03:23 PM
    Putin is a murderous thug...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/world/middleeast/white-house-split-on-opening-talks-with-putin.html

    September 15, 2015

    Obama Weighing Talks With Putin on Syrian Crisis
    By PETER BAKER and ANDREW E. KRAMER

    WASHINGTON - Mr. Obama views Mr. Putin as a thug, according to advisers and analysts....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/opinion/mr-putins-mixed-messages-on-syria.html

    September 20, 2015

    Mr. Putin's Mixed Messages on Syria

    Mr. Obama considers Mr. Putin a thug, his advisers say....

    Gibbon1 -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 07:15 PM
    > By David Brooks
    > By Thomas L. Friedman
    > By Paul Krugman
    > By Peter Baker and Andrew E. Kramer

    I feel these authors have intentionally attempted to mislead in the past. They also studiously ignore the United States thuggish foreign policy.

    Sandwichman : , December 16, 2016 at 11:06 AM
    "...not acting as if this was a normal election..." The problem is that it WAS a "normal" U.S. election.
    Ben Groves -> Sandwichman ... , December 16, 2016 at 11:09 AM
    Yup, like the other elections, the bases stayed solvent and current events factored into the turnout and voting patterns which spurred the independent vote.
    Gibbon1 -> Ben Groves... , December 16, 2016 at 11:57 AM
    When people were claiming Clinton was going to win big, I thought no Republican and Democratic voters are going to pull the lever like a trained monkey as usual. Only difference in this election was Hillary's huge negatives due entirely by her and Bill Clinton's support for moving manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China in the 90s.
    dilbert dogbert -> Sandwichman ... , December 16, 2016 at 12:13 PM
    I would have thought in a "normal" murika and election, the drumpf would have gotten at most 10 million votes.
    Sandwichman -> dilbert dogbert... , December 16, 2016 at 01:54 PM
    The trouble with normal is it always gets worse.
    Fred C. Dobbs : , December 16, 2016 at 11:08 AM
    To Understand Trump, Learn Russian http://nyti.ms/2hLcrB1
    NYT - Andrew Rosenthal - December 15

    The Russian language has two words for truth - a linguistic quirk that seems relevant to our current political climate, especially because of all the disturbing ties between the newly elected president and the Kremlin.

    The word for truth in Russian that most Americans know is "pravda" - the truth that seems evident on the surface. It's subjective and infinitely malleable, which is why the Soviet Communists called their party newspaper "Pravda." Despots, autocrats and other cynical politicians are adept at manipulating pravda to their own ends.

    But the real truth, the underlying, cosmic, unshakable truth of things is called "istina" in Russian. You can fiddle with the pravda all you want, but you can't change the istina.

    For the Trump team, the pravda of the 2016 election is that not all Trump voters are explicitly racist. But the istina of the 2016 campaign is that Trump's base was heavily dependent on racists and xenophobes, Trump basked in and stoked their anger and hatred, and all those who voted for him cast a ballot for a man they knew to be a racist, sexist xenophobe. That was an act of racism.

    Trump's team took to Twitter with lightning speed recently to sneer at the conclusion by all 17 intelligence agencies that the Kremlin hacked Democratic Party emails for the specific purpose of helping Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton. Trump said the intelligence agencies got it wrong about Iraq, and that someone else could have been responsible for the hack and that the Democrats were just finding another excuse for losing.

    The istina of this mess is that powerful evidence suggests that the Russians set out to interfere in American politics, and that Trump, with his rejection of Western European alliances and embrace of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, was their chosen candidate.

    The pravda of Trump's selection of Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon Mobil, as secretary of state is that by choosing an oil baron who has made billions for his company by collaborating with Russia, Trump will make American foreign policy beholden to American corporate interests.

    That's bad enough, but the istina is far worse. For one thing, American foreign policy has been in thrall to American corporate interests since, well, since there were American corporations. Just look at the mess this country created in Latin America, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia and the Middle East to serve American companies.

    Yes, Tillerson has ignored American interests repeatedly, including in Russia and Iraq, and has been trying to remove sanctions imposed after Russia's seizure of Crimea because they interfered with one of his many business deals. But take him out of the equation in the Trump cabinet and nothing changes. Trump has made it plain, with every action he takes, that he is going to put every facet of policy, domestic and foreign, at the service of corporate America. The istina here is that Tillerson is just a symptom of a much bigger problem.

    The pravda is that Trump was right in saying that the intelligence agencies got it wrong about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction.

    But the istina is that Trump's contempt for the intelligence services is profound and dangerous. He's not getting daily intelligence briefings anymore, apparently because they are just too dull to hold his attention.

    And now we know that Condoleezza Rice was instrumental in bringing Tillerson to Trump's attention. As national security adviser and then secretary of state for president George W. Bush, Rice was not just wrong about Iraq, she helped fabricate the story that Hussein had nuclear weapons.

    Trump and Tillerson clearly think they are a match for the wily and infinitely dangerous Putin, but as they move foward with their plan to collaborate with Russia instead of opposing its imperialist tendencies, they might keep in mind another Russian saying, this one from Lenin.

    "There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience," he wrote. "A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel."

    Putin has that philosophy hard-wired into his political soul. When it comes to using scoundrels to get what he wants, he is a professional, and Trump is only an amateur. That is the istina of the matter.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 11:25 AM
    If nothing else, Russia - with a notably un-free press - has shrewdly used our own 'free press' against US.

    RUSSIA'S UNFREE PRESS

    The Boston Globe - Marshall Goldman - January 29, 2001

    AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DEBATES ITS POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS SHOULD BE ONE OF ITS MAJOR CONCERNS. UNDER PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN THE PRESS IS FREE ONLY AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT CRITICIZE PUTIN OR HIS POLICIES. WHEN NTV, THE TELEVISION NETWORK OF THE MEDIA GIANT MEDIA MOST, REFUSED TO PULL ITS PUNCHES, MEDIA MOST'S OWNER, VLADIMIR GUSINSKY, FOUND HIMSELF IN JAIL, AND GAZPROM, A COMPANY DOMINATED BY THE STATE, BEGAN TO CALL IN LOANS TO MEDIA MOST. Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people. They crave a strong and forceful leader; his KGB past and conditioned KGB responses are just what they seem to want after what many regard as the social, political, and economic chaos of the last decade.

    But what to the Russians is law and order (the "dictatorship of the law," as Putin has so accurately put it) looks more and more like an old Soviet clampdown to many Western observers.

    There is no complaint about Putin's promises. He tells everyone he wants freedom of the press. But in the context of his KGB heritage, his notion of freedom of the press is something very different. In an interview with the Toronto Globe and Mail, he said that that press freedom excludes the "hooliganism" or "uncivilized" reporting he has to deal with in Moscow. By that he means criticism, especially of his conduct of the war in Chechnya, his belated response to the sinking of the Kursk, and the heavy-handed way in which he has pushed aside candidates for governor in regional elections if they are not to Putin's liking.

    He does not take well to criticism. When asked by the relatives of those lost in the Kursk why he seemed so unresponsive, Putin tried to shift the blame for the disaster onto the media barons, or at least those who had criticized him. They were the ones, he insisted, who had pressed for reduced funding for the Navy while they were building villas in Spain and France. As for their criticism of his behavior, They lie! They lie! They lie!

    Our Western press has provided good coverage of the dogged way Putin and his aides have tried to muscle Gusinsky out of the Media Most press conglomerate he created. But those on the Putin enemies list now include even Boris Berezovsky, originally one of Putin's most enthusiastic promoters who after the sinking of the Kursk also became a critic and thus an opponent.

    Gusinsky would have a hard time winning a merit badge for trustworthiness (Berezovsky shouldn't even apply), but in the late Yeltsin and Putin years, Gusinsky has earned enormous credit for his consistently objective news coverage, including a spotlight on malfeasance at the very top. More than that, he has supported his programmers when they have subjected Yeltsin and now Putin to bitter satire on Kukly, his Sunday evening prime-time puppet show.

    What we hear less of, though, is what is happening to individual reporters, especially those engaged in investigative work. Almost monthly now there are cases of violence and intimidation. Among those brutalized since Putin assumed power are a reporter for Radio Liberty who dared to write negative reports about the Russian Army's role in Chechnia and four reporters for Novaya Gazeta. Two of them were investigating misdeeds by the FSB (today's equivalent of the KGB), including the possibility that it rather than Chechins had blown up a series of apartment buildings. Another was pursuing reports of money-laundering by Yeltsin family members and senior staff in Switzerland. Although these journalists were very much in the public eye, they were all physically assaulted.

    Those working for provincial papers labor under even more pressure with less visibility. There are numerous instances where regional bosses such as the governor of Vladivostok operate as little dictators, and as a growing number of journalists have discovered, challenges are met with threats, physical intimidation, and, if need be, murder.

    True, freedom of the press in Russia is still less than 15 years old, and not all the country's journalists or their bosses have always used that freedom responsibly. During the 1996 election campaign, for example, the media owners, including Gusinsky conspired to denigrate or ignore every viable candidate other than Yeltsin. But attempts to muffle if not silence criticism have multiplied since Putin and his fellow KGB veterans have come to power. Criticism from any source, be it an individual journalist or a corporate entity, invites retaliation.

    When Media Most persisted in its criticism, Putin sat by approvingly as his subordinates sent in masked and armed tax police and prosecutors. When that didn't work, they jailed Gusinsky on charges that were later dropped, although they are seeking to extradite and jail him again. along with his treasurer, on a new set of charges. Yesterday the prosecutor general summoned Tatyana Mitkova, the anchor of NTV's evening news program, for questioning. Putin's aides are also doing all they can to prevent Gusinsky from refinancing his debt-ridden operation with Ted Turner or anyone else in or outside of the country.

    According to one report, Putin told one official, You deal with the shares, debts, and management and I will deal with the journalists. His goal simply is to end to independent TV coverage in Russia. ...

    (No link; from their archives.)

    DeDude -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 11:33 AM
    "Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people"

    Exactly; the majority of people are so stupid and/or lazy that they cannot be bothered understanding what is going on; and how their hard won democracy is being subjugated. But thank God that is in Russia not here in the US - right?

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 11:45 AM
    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2001-02-07/html/CREC-2001-02-07-pt1-PgE133-4.htm

    February 7, 2001

    Russia's Unfree Press
    By Marshall I. Goldman

    Watermelonpunch -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 04:55 PM
    "Infinitely dangerous" As in the event horizon of a black hole, for pity's sake?

    Odd choice of words. Should there have been a "more" in between there? Was it a typo?

    cm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 17, 2016 at 03:42 PM
    "Pravda" is etymologically derived from "prav-" which means "right" (as opposed to "left", other connotations are "proper", "correct", "rightful", also legal right). It designates the social-construct aspect of "righteousness/truthfulness/correctness" as opposed to "objective reality" (conceptually independent of social standards, in reality anything but). In formal logic, "istina" is used to designate truth. Logical falsity is designated a "lie".

    It is a feature common to most European languages that rightfulness, righteousness, correctness, and legal rights are identified with the designation for the right side. "Sinister" is Latin for "left".

    Ben Groves : , December 16, 2016 at 11:18 AM
    If you believe 911 was a Zionist conspiracy, so where the Paris attacks of November 2015, when Trump was failing in the polls as the race was moving toward as you would expect, toward other candidates. After the Paris attacks, his numbers reaccelerated.

    If "ZOG" created the "false flag" of the Paris attacks to start a anti-Muslim fervor, they succeeded, much like 911. Bastille day attacks were likewise, a false flag. This is not new, this goes back to when the aristocracy merged with the merchant caste, creating the "bourgeois". They have been running a parallel government in the shadows to effect what is seen.

    cm -> sanjait... , December 17, 2016 at 03:46 PM
    There used to be something called Usenet News, where at the protocol level reader software could fetch meta data (headers containing author, (stated) origin, title, etc.) independently from comment bodies. This was largely owed to limited download bandwidth. Basically all readers had "kill files" i.e. filters where one could configure that comments with certain header parameters should not be downloaded, or even hidden.
    cm -> cm... , December 17, 2016 at 03:48 PM
    The main application was that the reader would download comments in the background when headers were already shown, or on demand when you open a comment.

    Now you get the whole thing (or in units of 100) by the megabyte.

    tew : , December 16, 2016 at 11:19 AM
    A major problem is signal extraction out of the massive amounts of noise generated by the media, social media, parties, and pundits.

    It's easy enough to highlight this thread of information here, but in real time people are being bombarded by so many other stories.

    In particular, the Clinton Foundation was also regularly being highlighted for its questionable ties to foreign influence. And HRC's extravagant ties to Wall St. And so much more.

    And there is outrage fatigue.

    Ben Groves -> DeDude... , December 16, 2016 at 11:34 AM
    The media's job was to sell Trump and denounce Clinton. The mistake a lot of people make is thinking the global elite are the "status quo". They are not. They are generally the ones that break the status quo more often than not.

    The bulk of them wanted Trump/Republican President and made damn sure it was President. Buffering the campaign against criticism while overly focusing on Clinton's "crap". It took away from the issues which of course would have low key'd the election.

    cm -> DeDude... , December 17, 2016 at 03:55 PM
    Not much bullying has to be applied when there are "economic incentives". The media attention economy and ratings system thrive on controversy and emotional engagement. This was known a century ago as "only bad news is good news". As long as I have lived, the non-commercial media not subject (or not as much) to these dynamics have always been perceived as dry and boring.

    I heard from a number of people that they followed the campaign "coverage" (in particular Trump) as gossip/entertainment, and those were people who had no sympathies for him. And even media coverage by outlets generally critical of Trump's unbelievable scandals and outrageous performances catered to this sentiment.

    Jim Harrison : , December 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM
    Shorter Paul Krugman: nobody acted more irresponsibly in the last election than the New York Times.
    Sandwichman -> Jim Harrison ... , December 16, 2016 at 11:53 AM
    Looks like Putin recruited the NYT, the FBI and the DNC.
    DrDick -> Sandwichman ... , December 16, 2016 at 11:57 AM
    Nah, Wall Street and the GOP recruited them to the effort.
    Sandwichman -> DrDick... , December 16, 2016 at 01:57 PM
    GOP included in FBI. Wall Street included in DNC, GOP. It's all just one big FBIDNCGOPCNNWSNYT.
    sanjait -> Jim Harrison ... , December 16, 2016 at 03:06 PM
    He can't say it out loud but you know he's including the NYT on his list of UIs.
    tew : , December 16, 2016 at 11:26 AM
    Let me also add some levelheaded thoughts:

    First, let me disclose that I detest TRUMP and that the Russian meddling has me deeply concerned. Yet...

    We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence. We do not know whether it likely had *material* influence that could have reasonably led to a swing state(s) going to TRUMP that otherwise would have gone to HRC.

    Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which is a big shame.

    It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in the future.

    DrDick -> tew... , December 16, 2016 at 11:56 AM
    It is quite clear that the Russians intervened on Trump's behalf and that this intervention had an impact. The problem is that we cannot actually quantify that impact.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?pushid=breaking-news_1481916265&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.25d35c017908

    Sandwichman -> tew... , December 16, 2016 at 01:17 PM
    "We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence."

    Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism.

    Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs, etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture.

    cm -> Sandwichman ... , December 17, 2016 at 04:00 PM
    But this is how influence is exerted - by using the dynamics of the adversary's/targets organization as an amplifier. Hierarchical organizations are approached through their management or oversight bodies, social networks through key influencers, etc.
    David : , December 16, 2016 at 11:58 AM
    I see this so much and it's so right wing cheap: I hate Trump, but assertions that Russia intervened are unproven.

    First, Trump openly invited Russia to hack DNC emails. That is on its face treason and sedition. It's freaking on video. If HRC did that there would be calls of the right for her execution.

    Second, a NYT story showed that the FBI knew about the hacking but did not alert the DNC properly - they didn't even show up, they sent a note to a help desk.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-probe-dnc-hacked-emails_us_57a19f22e4b08a8e8b601259

    This was a serious national security breach that was not addressed properly. This is criminal negligence.

    This was a hacked election by collusion of the FBI and the Russian hackers and it totally discredits the FBI as it throwed out chum and then denied at the last minute. Now the CIA comes in and says PUTIN, Trump's bff, was directly involved in manipulating the timetable that the hacked emails were released in drip drip form to cater to the media - creating story after story about emails.

    It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway.

    sglover -> David... , December 16, 2016 at 02:50 PM
    "It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway."

    It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want. That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce optimal results.

    All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice -- incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people, "We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small 'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves.

    Trump and his gang will be deeply grateful if the left follows Krugman's "wisdom", and clings to his ever-changing excuses. (I thought it was the evil Greens who deprived Clinton of her due?)

    100panthers : , December 16, 2016 at 02:17 PM
    Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments today!?!
    ilsm -> 100panthers... , December 16, 2016 at 04:29 PM
    Obama and the Clintons are angered; Russia keeping US from giving Syria to al Qaeda. Like Clinton gave them Libya.
    Jerry Brown -> sanjait... , December 16, 2016 at 04:46 PM
    I agree. Unless the Russians or someone else hacked the ballot box machines, it is our own damn fault.
    ilsm : , December 16, 2016 at 04:27 PM
    the US media is angered putin is killing US' jihadis in Syria
    Mr. Bill : , December 16, 2016 at 08:27 PM
    "On Wednesday an editorial in The Times described Donald Trump as a "useful idiot" serving Russian interests." I think that is beyond the pale. Yes, I realize that Adolph Hitler was democratically elected. I agree that Trump seems like a scary monster under the bed. That doesn't mean we have too pee our pants, Paul. He's a bully, tough guy, maybe, the kind of kid that tortured you before you kicked the shit out of them with your brilliance. That's not what is needed now.
    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 16, 2016 at 08:39 PM
    What really is needed, is a watchdog, like Dean Baker, that alerts we dolts of pending bills and their ramifications. The ship of neo-liberal trade bullshit has sailed. Hell, you don't believe it yourself, you've said as much. Be gracious, and tell the truth. We can handle it.
    Ben Groves -> Mr. Bill... , December 16, 2016 at 09:51 PM
    The ship of neo-liberal trade sailed in the mid-2000's. That you don't get that is sad. You can only milk that so far the cow had been milked.

    Trump was a coo, he was not supported by the voters. But by the global elite.

    Mr. Bill : , December 16, 2016 at 10:28 PM
    Hillary Clinton lost because she is truly an ugly aristocrat.
    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 16, 2016 at 11:49 PM
    The experience of voting for the Hill was painful, vs Donald Trump.

    The Hill seemed like the least likely aristocrat, given two choices, to finish off all government focus on the folks that actually built this society. Two Titans of Hubris, Hillary vs Donald, each ridiculous in the concept of representing the interests of the common man.

    At the end of the day. the American people decided that the struggle with the unknown monster Donald was worth deposing the great deplorable, Clinton.

    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 17, 2016 at 12:11 AM
    The real argument is whether the correct plan of action is the way of FDR, or the way of the industrialists, the Waltons, the Kochs, the Trumps, the Bushes and the outright cowards like the Cheneys and the Clintons, people that never spent a day defending this country in combat. What do they call it, the Commander in Chief.
    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 17, 2016 at 12:29 AM
    My father was awarded a silver and a bronze star for his efforts in battle during WW2. He was shot in the face while driving a tank destroyer by a German sniper in a place called Schmitten Germany.

    He told me once, that he looked over at the guy next to him on the plane to the hospital in England, and his intestines were splayed on his chest. It was awful.

    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 17, 2016 at 12:55 AM
    What was he fighting for ? Freedom, America. Then the Republicans, Ronald Reagan, who spent the war stateside began the real war, garnering the wealth of the nation to the entitled like him. Ronald Reagan was a life guard.
    btg : , December 16, 2016 at 11:09 PM
    Other idiots...

    Anthony Weiner
    Podesta
    Biden (for not running)
    Tim Kaine (for accepting the nomination instead of deferring to a latino)
    CNN and other TV news media (for giving trump so much coverage- even an empty podium)
    Donna Brazile
    etc.

    greg : , December 16, 2016 at 11:57 PM
    The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.)

    The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned, and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until he had no real chance.

    The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic elite and their apologists.

    The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought. For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion.

    The wealthy brought this on. For 230 years they have, essentially run this country. They are too stupid to be satisfied with enough, but always want more.

    The economics profession brought this on, by excusing treasonous behavior as efficient, and failing to understand the underlying principles of their profession, and the limits of their understanding. (They don't even know what money is, or how a trade deficit destroys productive capacity, and thus the very ability of a nation to pay back the debts it incurs.)

    The people brought this on, by neglecting their duty to be informed, to be educated, and to be thoughtful.

    Anybody else care for their share of blame? I myself deserve some, but for reasons I cannot say.

    What amazes me now is, the bird having shown its feathers, there is no howl of outrage from the people who voted for him. Do they imagine that the Plutocrats who will soon monopolize the White House will take their interests to heart?

    As far as I can tell, not one person of 'the people' has been appointed to his cabinet. Not one. But the oppressed masses who turned to Mr Trump seem to be OK with this.
    I can only wonder, how much crap will have to be rubbed in their faces, before they awaken to the taste of what it is?

    Eric377 : , -1
    Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats last spring that "FBI investigation" and "party Presidential nominee" was bound to be an ugly combination. Some did; right here as I recall. Or his part in the official "don't vote for third party" week in the Clinton media machine....thanks, hundreds of thousands of Trump votes got the message.

    It's too rich to complain about Russia and Wikileaks as if those elements in anyway justified Clinton becoming President. Leaks mess with our democracy? Then for darn sure do not vote for a former Sec. of State willing to use a home server for her official business. Russia is menacing? Just who has been managing US-Russia relations the past 8 years? I voted for her anyway, but the heck if I think some tragic fate has befell the nation here. Republicans picked a better candidate to win this thing than we Democrats did.

    Greg -> Eric377... , December 17, 2016 at 12:11 PM
    Well said, Eric377.

    The truth of the matter is that Clinton was a very weak candidate with nothing to offer but narcissism ("I'm with her"). It's notable that Clinton has still not accepted responsibility for her campaign, preferring to throw the blame for the loss anywhere but herself. Sociopathy much?

    This has made me cynical. I used to think that at least *some* members of the US political elite had the best interests of ordinary households in mind, but now I see that it's just ego vs. ego, whatever the party.

    As for democracy being on the edge: I believe Adam Smith over Krugman: "there is a lot of ruin in a nation". It takes more than this to overturn an entrenched institution.

    I think American democracy will survive a decade of authoritarianism, and if it does not, then H. L. Mencken said it best: "The American people know what they want, and they deserve to get it -- good and hard."

    [Dec 17, 2016] Yahoo's Hack Could Force Paying $145 Million Verizon Break-up Fee - Breitbart

    Notable quotes:
    "... potential material adverse event ..."
    "... exploring a price cut or possible exit ..."
    "... Net Neutrality . ..."
    "... These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services ..."
    "... communicated with a total of 51 parties to evaluate their interest in a potential transaction ..."
    "... 32 parties signed confidentiality agreements with Yahoo ..."
    "... Payment card data and bank account information are not stored in the system the company believes was affected ..."
    Dec 17, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Given that the Donald Trump victory already made Yahoo less attractive for Verizon, the latest billion-account-hack at Yahoo could let Verizon dump their buy-out and still collect a $145 million break-up fee .

    Yahoo's stock plunged over 6 percent after the company admitted its customer data had been hacked again, with at least 1 billion accounts exposed in 2014. The horribly bad news for Yahoo followed an equally bad news report in September that 500 million e-mail account were hacked in 2013. Yahoo unfortunately now has the distinction of suffering both of the history's largest client hacks.

    SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

    Verizon's top lawyer told reporters after the first Yahoo hack that the disclosure constituted a " potential material adverse event " that would allow for the mobile powerhouse to pull out of the $4.83 billion deal they announced on July 25, 2016.

    Less than 24 hours after Yahoo disclosed the even larger hack of client accounts by a "state-sponsored actor," Bloomberg reported that Verizon is " exploring a price cut or possible exit " from its proposed Yahoo acquisition.

    Breitbart reported that Google and other Silicon Valley companies were huge corporate winners when Chairman Tom Wheeler and the other two Democrat political appointees on the FCC voted on a party-line vote in mid-February 2015 for a new regulatory structure called ' Net Neutrality . ' Although Wheeler claimed, " These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services ," they were a huge economic disaster for Verizon's high-speed broadband business model.

    Verizon responded last year by paying $4.4 billion to buy AOL in order to pick up popular news sites, large advertising business, and more than 2 million Internet dial-up subscribers. Buying Yahoo was expected to give the former telephone company to achieve "scale" by controlling a second web content pioneer.

    After President and CEO Marissa Mayer began organizing an auction in March, Yahoo stock doubled from $26 a share to $51 by September. But she announced on Wednesday the new hack, Yahoo's stock has been plunging to $38.40 in after-market trading.

    The buyer normally has to pay a break-up fee if an acquisition fails. But Yahoo chose to run its own auction that " communicated with a total of 51 parties to evaluate their interest in a potential transaction ." Then between February and April 2016, a "short list" of " 32 parties signed confidentiality agreements with Yahoo ," including 10 strategic parties and 22 financial sponsors.

    Yahoo's 13D proxy statement filed with the SEC was mostly boilerplate disclosure, but it seemed that something must have been a potential problem at Yahoo for the company to offer a $145 million termination fee to Verizon if the deal did not close.

    Yahoo on Wednesday issued a statement saying personal information from more than a billion user accounts was stolen in 2014. The news followed the company's announcement in September that hackers had stolen personal data from at least half a billion accounts in 2013. Yahoo said it believes the two thefts were by different parties.

    Yahoo admitted that both hacks were so extensive that they included users' names, email addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, scrambled passwords and security questions and answers. But Yahoo stated, " Payment card data and bank account information are not stored in the system the company believes was affected ."

    Yahoo said they have invalidated unencrypted security questions and answers in user accounts. They are in the process of notifying potentially affected users and is requiring them to change their passwords.

    Yahoo was already facing nearly two dozen class-action lawsuits over the first breach and the company's failure to report it on a timely basis. A federal 3 judge panel last week consolidated 5 of the suits into a mass tort in the San Jose U.S. District Court.

    Undoubtedly, there will be a huge number of user lawsuits filed against Yahoo in the next few weeks.

    [Dec 17, 2016] Wake Up America, We Are Being Distracted From the Real Issues by MSM Lackeys

    Dec 17, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    by Phoenix Capital...

    Oct 3, 2012

    It's time to wake up, America. The mainstream media is attempting once again to draw the public's opinion towards issues that are ultimately fringe issues that impact a small percentage of us in order to ignore the large-scale major issues that affect all of us.

    When I saw mainstream media, I am referring to any major media outlet, including satirical quasi-political shows such as the Daily Show. All of these shows, op-eds, media appearances are in fact one colossal game meant to draw our attention away from what matters to items that don't really matter all that much.

    Now, before you get angry at me, let's try and work our way rationally through how things actually work in the US.

    For starters, ask yourself the following:

    1. Which affects you more, the fact a particular candidate voted for a particular bill in the past, or the fact that our entire monetary system is run by a man who none of us voted for and who has systemically worked to debase the value of the currency in our pockets while raising the cost of living?
    2. What matters more to the US, whether or not homosexuals can get married or the fact that all of us are married to a financial system in which all of us shoulder the debts of Wall Street and the banks, thereby insuring that our country will eventually face a debt crisis resulting is most if not all of us losing a major percentage of our wealth?
    3. Which is more important for our well-being, whether or a certain candidate paid his taxes or the fact that we are all of us being taxed by inflation which decreases our purchasing power, making all of us much poorer?

    My point with all of this is that politics in this country is in fact a grand distraction to draw our attention away from those who actually call the shots in the US (the Fed and banking elites) by hitting our "emotional" buttons and getting us worked up about peripheral issues so we don't wake up and realize that we're being robbed every single day of our lives by individuals who we never even voted for.

    "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws"

    ~Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

    The reason the media shies away from these topics is because the talking heads have all gotten rich by doing so. John Stewart, hilarious champion of the left made $15 million last year. His net worth is close to $80 million. His arch nemesis, Bill O'Reilly, made $20 million and is worth somewhere in the ballpark of $50 million.

    Wake up people, these folks don't represent you. You won't make as much money as they make in one year in your entire lifetime . You have absolutely nothing in common with them.

    Why? Because they're muppets who appeal to our vanity by espousing opinions similar to our own. The end result is that we watch them and feel they're on "our side," when in reality they're just lackeys who have gotten rich by distracting the masses from the real power structure: the Fed and the Primary Dealer banking system.

    "The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class."

    ~Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

    ... ... ...

    Graham Summers

    [Dec 17, 2016] Obama, The Divider in Chief, Invokes Reagan 'Rolling Over in His Grave' in Attempt to Shame Republicans into Hating Putin

    Dec 17, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    The agitprop out of the White House isn't working these days, thanks to the advent of fake news of course. Following weeks of hysteria, following Donald J. Trump's triumphant victory of Hillary Clinton and Obama's legacy, Obama took to the podium for one last time to divide Americans -- this time invoking the revered late President Ronald Reagan -- saying he'd be 'rolling over in his grave' now had he known that over a third of republicans approve of Putin in some random poll.

    If Obama truly wants to know why Americans are willing to accept the words of Putin, undoubtedly a strong man leader, over his -- he should take a look in the mirror and then gander over to his computer to re-read all of the Wikileaks from John Podesta's email that Putin so graciously made available to us all. They speak volumes about the corruptness and the rot permeating in our capitol. Even without the emails, we see the neocon strategy of persistent war and deceit hollowing out this nation -- devouring its resources, emptying its treasury, and there is nothing redeeming about it.

    During the press conference, Obama provided his media with incontrovertible evidence that Russia was behind the WikiLeaks, saying 'not much happens in Russia without Putin's approval.'

    Russia has a land mass of 6,592,800 sq miles and Putin controls every single inch of it. This is retard level thinking.

    Moreover, Obama says he told Putin to 'cut it out' when he last saw him in China, warning him of serious consequences. Luckily for us, Putin got scared and ceased all further hackings. However, the damage had already been done and the Wikileaks released.

    I suppose this type of lazy thinking appeals to a certain subset of America, else why would he make such infantile statements?

    The Divider in Chief, one last time reminding himself and the press that XENOPHOBIA against Russians is good. The Russians are a useless sort, who produce nothing of interest, a very small and weak country, only capable of wiping out the entirety of America 10x over via very large nuclear detonations. Oh, and you pesky republicans love Putin because you're sooo political.

    This is what some might call 'idiotic diplomacy', mocking and deriding a rival nation to the point of war, a war that could exterminate life on planet earth for at least a millennia. Genius.

    Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

    [Dec 17, 2016] Top 11 Russian-Hack Questions the Rogue-Electors Should Ask the CIA The Daily Sheeple

    Notable quotes:
    "... (To read about Jon's mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix , click here .) ..."
    Dec 17, 2016 | www.thedailysheeple.com
    Assuming these "rogue-Electors" from the Electoral College get a briefing on the "Russian election-hack" from the CIA , and assuming the Electors have a few working brain cells, and assuming they care, here are the top 11 questions they should ask the CIA presenter.

    Questions One through Three (repeated with enthusiasm and fervor): Are you just going to feed us generalities and tell us you can't detail specifics because that would compromise your methods and personnel? We can read the generalities in the Washington Post, whose owner, Jeff Bezos, chief honcho at Amazon, has a $600 million contract with the CIA to provide cloud computing services, so he and the Post and the CIA are in bed together.

    Question Four: We need a precise distinction here. How did "Russia hacked the DNC, Hillary, Podesta, and Weiner emails and fed the emails to WikiLeaks who released them" suddenly morph into "Russia hacked the election vote"?

    Question Five: The security systems that protected the DNC, Hillary, Podesta, and Weiner emails were so feeble a child could have gotten past them in a few minutes. Why should we assume high-level Russian agents were involved?

    Question Six: Not only does the CIA have a history of lying to the American people, lying is part of your job description. Why should we believe you? Take your time. We can have food brought in.

    Question Seven: We're getting the feeling you're talking down to us as if we're the peasants and you're the feudal barons. Why is that? Do you work for us, or do we work for you? Once upon a time, before you went to work for the Agency, were you like us, or were you always arrogant and dismissive?

    Question Eight: Let's put aside for a moment the question of who leaked all those emails. What about the substance and content of the emails? Was all that forged or was it real? If you claim there was forgery, prove it. Put a dozen emails up on that big screen and take us through them, piece by piece, and show us where and how the forgery occurred. By the way, why didn't you allow us to bring several former NSA analysts into this briefing? Are we living in the US or the USSR?

    Question Nine: Are you personally a computer expert, sir? Or are you merely relaying what someone else at the CIA told you? Would you spell your name for us again? What is your job description at the Agency? Do you work in public information? Are you tasked with "being convincing"?

    Question Ten: Do you think we're completely stupid?

    Question Eleven: Let's all let our hair down, okay? Forget facts and specifics. Of course we want to overthrow the election and install Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office. So do you. We're on the same team. But we need you to give us something, anything. So far, this briefing is embarrassing. Once we get out of here, we want to tell a few persuasive lies. Give us a Russian name, any name. Or a location in Russia we can use. The brand name of a Russian vodka. Caviar. Something that sounds Russian. Make up a code with letters and numbers. Help us out. How about the name of an American who who's actually a Russian spy? You could shoot him later today in a "gun battle at a shopping mall." That would work.

    Good luck.

    (To read about Jon's mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix , click here .)

    Related Reads

    Someone Just Officially Called the CIA's Bluff over Russia

    National Intelligence Office: 'We Won't Say the CIA Is Wrong, But They Can't Prove Russian Intent to Tamper with the Election'

    Wow: Now US Officials and Mainstream Media Claim Putin PERSONALLY Involved in Election Hacks

    Russian Narrative Falls Apart – Wikileaks Operative Claims Clinton Emails Handed Over By "Disgusted" Democrat Whistleblowers

    "Sorry, I Meant Russia": Watch WH Press Secretary Josh Earnest "Accidentally" Accuse China of Hacking Our Elections

    Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

    We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos ( Click for details ).

    Contributed by Jon Rappoport of No More Fake News .

    The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED , Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

    [Dec 16, 2016] Questions for the Electors on Russian Hacking by Andrew Cockburn

    Podesta essentially gave up his email due to committed by him blunder: sending his password to the attacker. As such it was far from high-end hacking, which can be attributed to intelligence agencies. It is more like a regular, primitive phishing expedition which became successful due to Podesta blunder. So this is not hacking but phishing expedition... That makes big difference.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The DNC hackers inserted the name of the founder of Russian intelligence, in Russian, in the metadata of the hacked documents. Why would the G.R.U., Russian military intelligence do that? ..."
    "... If the hackers were indeed part of Russian intelligence, why did they use a free Russian email account, or, in the hack of the state election systems, a Russian-owned server? Does Russian intelligence normally display such poor tradecraft? ..."
    "... Why would Russian intelligence, for the purposes of hacking the election systems of Arizona and Illinois, book space on a Russian-owned server and then use only English, as documents furnished by Vladimir Fomenko, proprietor of Kings Servers, the company that owned the server in question, clearly indicate? ..."
    "... Numerous reports ascribe the hacks to hacking groups known as APT 28 or "Fancy Bear" and APT 29 or "Cozy Bear." But these groups had already been accused of nefarious actions on behalf of Russian intelligence prior to the hacks under discussion. Why would the Kremlin and its intelligence agencies select well-known groups to conduct a regime-change operation on the most powerful country on earth? ..."
    "... The joint statement issued by the DNI and DHS on October 7 2016 confirmed that US intelligence had no evidence of official Russian involvement in the leak of hacked documents to Wikileaks, etc, saying only that the leaks were " consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts." Has the US acquired any evidence whatsoever since that time regarding Russian involvement in the leaks? ..."
    Dec 14, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org

    It is being reported that John Podesta, Chairman of the defeated $1.2 billion Clinton presidential campaign, is supporting the call by various officials, including at least forty Electors, that the members of the Electoral College be given a classified intelligence briefing on the alleged Russian hacking before the College votes on December 19.

    In the event such a briefing comes to pass, it might be helpful if the Electors had some informed questions to ask the CIA

    1. The DNC hackers inserted the name of the founder of Russian intelligence, in Russian, in the metadata of the hacked documents. Why would the G.R.U., Russian military intelligence do that?
    2. If the hackers were indeed part of Russian intelligence, why did they use a free Russian email account, or, in the hack of the state election systems, a Russian-owned server? Does Russian intelligence normally display such poor tradecraft?
    3. Why would Russian intelligence, for the purposes of hacking the election systems of Arizona and Illinois, book space on a Russian-owned server and then use only English, as documents furnished by Vladimir Fomenko, proprietor of Kings Servers, the company that owned the server in question, clearly indicate?
    4. Numerous reports ascribe the hacks to hacking groups known as APT 28 or "Fancy Bear" and APT 29 or "Cozy Bear." But these groups had already been accused of nefarious actions on behalf of Russian intelligence prior to the hacks under discussion. Why would the Kremlin and its intelligence agencies select well-known groups to conduct a regime-change operation on the most powerful country on earth?
    5. It has been reported in the New York Times , without attribution, that U.S. intelligence has identified specific G.R.U. officials who directed the hacking. Is this true, and if so, please provide details (Witness should be sworn)
    6. The joint statement issued by the DNI and DHS on October 7 2016 confirmed that US intelligence had no evidence of official Russian involvement in the leak of hacked documents to Wikileaks, etc, saying only that the leaks were " consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts." Has the US acquired any evidence whatsoever since that time regarding Russian involvement in the leaks?
    7. Since the most effective initiative in tipping the election to Donald Trump was the intervention of FBI Director Comey, are you investigating any possible connections he might have to Russian intelligence and Vladimir Putin?

    [Dec 16, 2016] The Cold War, Continued: Post-Election Russophobia

    Dec 16, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org
    by Gary Leupp Mainstream TV news anchors including MSNBC's Chris Hayes are reporting as fact---with fuming indignation---that Russia (and specifically Vladimir Putin) not only sought to influence the U.S. election (and---gosh!---promote "doubt" about the whole legitimacy of the U.S. electoral system) but to throw the vote to Donald Trump.

    The main accusation is that the DNC and Podesta emails leaked through Wikileaks were provided by state-backed Russian hackers (while they did not leak material hacked from the Republicans). I have my doubts on this. Former U.S. ambassador to Uzbekistan and torture whistle-blower Craig Murray, a friend of Julian Assange, has stated that the DNC emails were leaked by a DNC insider whose identity he knows. The person, Murray contends, handed the material over to him, in a D.C. park. I have met Murray, admire and am inclined to believe him. (I just heard now that John Bolton, of all people, has also opined this was an inside job.)

    [Dec 16, 2016] Putin Lashes Out At Obama Show Some Proof Or Shut Up Zero Hedge

    Dec 16, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Putin Lashes Out At Obama: "Show Some Proof Or Shut Up" Tyler Durden Dec 16, 2016 9:09 AM 0 SHARES Putin has had enough of the relentless barrage of US accusations that he, personally, "hacked the US presidential election."

    The Russian president's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said on Friday that the US must either stop accusing Russia of meddling in its elections or prove it. Peskov said it was "indecent" of the United States to "groundlessly" accuse Russia of intervention in its elections.

    "You need to either stop talking about it, or finally show some kind of proof. Otherwise it just looks very indecent ", Peskov told Reporters in Tokyo where Putin is meeting with Japan PM Abe, responding to the latest accusations that Russia was responsible for hacker attacks.

    Peskov also warned that Obama's threat to "retaliate" to the alleged Russian hack is "against both American and international law", hinting at open-ended escalation should Obama take the podium today at 2:15pm to officially launch cyberwar against Russia.

    Previously, on Thursday, Peskov told the AP the report was " laughable nonsense ", while Russian foreign ministry spox Maria Zakharova accused "Western media" of being a "shill" and a "mouthpiece of various power groups", and added that "it's not the general public who's being manipulated," Zakharova said. "the general public nowadays can distinguish the truth. It's the mass media that is manipulating themselves."

    Meanwhile, on Friday Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister told state television network, Russia 24, he was "dumbstruck" by the NBC report which alleges that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in an election hack.

    The report cited U.S. intelligence officials that now believe with a "high level of confidence" that Putin became personally involved in a secret campaign to influence the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. "I think this is just silly, and the futility of the attempt to convince somebody of this is absolutely obvious," Lavrov added, according to the news outlet.

    As a reminder, last night Obama vowed retaliatory action against Russia for its meddling in the US presidential election last month. "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections that we need to take action and we will at a time and place of our own choosing," Obama told National Public Radio.

    US intelligence agencies in October pinned blame on Russia for election-related hacking. At the time, the White House vowed a "proportional response" to the cyberactivity, though declined to preview what that response might entail. Meanwhile, both President-elect Donald Trump, the FBI, and the ODNI have dismissed the CIA's intelligence community's assessment, for the the same reason Putin finally lashed out at Obama: there is no proof.

    That, however, has never stopped the US from escalating a geopolitical conflict to the point of war, or beyond, so pay close attention to what Obama says this afternoon.

    According to an NBC report , a team of analysts at Eurasia Group said in a note on Friday that they believe the outgoing administration is likely to take action which could result in a significant barrier for Trump's team once he takes office in January .

    "It is unlikely that U.S. intelligence reports will change Trump's intention to initiate a rapprochement with Moscow, but the congressional response following its own investigations could obstruct the new administration's effort ," Eurasia Group analysts added.

    At the same time, Wikileaks offered its "validation" services, tweeting that " Obama should submit any Putin documents to WikiLeaks to be authenticated to our standards if he wants them to be seen as credible. "

    Obama should submit any Putin documents to WikiLeaks to be authenticated to our standards if he wants them to be seen as credible.

    - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) December 16, 2016

    We doubt Obama would take the whistleblower organization on its offer, even if he did have any Putin documents to authenticate.

    Luc X. Ifer Ignatius , Dec 16, 2016 9:21 AM
    No joke anymore today USSA declares war to Russia just for keeping Obama the 1st on the trone. 'Election hacking called the new 9/11' officially

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/16/elijah-cummings-russia-hac...

    Ignatius Luc X. Ifer , Dec 16, 2016 9:27 AM
    If it's "another 9/11," doesn't that mean it's another phony, constructed event (that killed 3,000 people)?
    Luc X. Ifer Ignatius , Dec 16, 2016 9:36 AM
    Correct but this time they will not engage a tin can dictator but an equivalent nuclear power lead by the best strategy trained minds in the world
    ThanksChump Luc X. Ifer , Dec 16, 2016 10:39 AM
    And they would do so over what, apparently, was a typo by Podesta's aide:

    http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/12/15/report-podesta-email-hack-due-t...

    TeamDepends Ignatius , Dec 16, 2016 9:38 AM
    And orchestrated by Mossad/CIA Millions upon millions of ordinary folks just got up and voted to take out the trash, and by God their will be done. If we don't remove the cancerous tumors now, they will regrow and regroup and in our weakened state it will be GAME OVER.
    Ignatius TeamDepends , Dec 16, 2016 9:43 AM
    One of the slickest, most corrupt urban renewal projects in history, or at least in NYC history.

    Don't ask me, ask "Lucky Larry."

    http://www.ae911truth.org/news.html

    Crash Overide Luc X. Ifer , Dec 16, 2016 10:04 AM
    The sad part is they are spinning this as election tampering when in fact there was none, some decent human beings found out the truth of how corrupt, evil, and treasonous these people are and wanted the American public to know.

    You can tell they are desperate now, I just hope the law enforcement community is ready to uphold their oath.

    MFL5591 IridiumRebel , Dec 16, 2016 10:14 AM
    False testimony to Congress on NSA surveillance programs [ edit ]

    Excerpt of James Clapper's testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

    On March 12, 2013, during a United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing, Senator Ron Wyden quoted the keynote speech at the 2012 DEF CON by the director of the NSA, Keith B. Alexander . Alexander had stated that "Our job is foreign intelligence" and that "Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense." Senator Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly." [30]

    When Edward Snowden was asked during his January 26, 2014 TV interview in Moscow what the decisive moment was or why he blew the whistle, he replied: "Sort of the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back." [31]

    This is the man reponsible for the newest lie to the American people. Are you serious?

    Mr Pink asteroids , Dec 16, 2016 9:21 AM
    When lying could end up costing hundreds of billions of dollars and many human lives it is called fraud
    JRobby Mr Pink , Dec 16, 2016 9:32 AM
    A new definition of war crimes has presented itself for several years now.

    Day 53 - Where is Eric Braverman?

    Mike Masr , Dec 16, 2016 9:39 AM
    This asshole jack off obozo wants to start WW3 with Russia for Soros and all his globalist neocon pals BEFORE he leaves office. His pals shoveled out way too much money to get that dirty corrupt, crooked pig Hillary elected. The anti-Trump street protests, riots, burning, pillaging and looting didn't work. The recount directed by the Hillary stooge Jill Stein actually got Trump more votes so this didn't work. So now we go with "fake news" accusations against Russia and Putin. The assholes in our goverment pushing this theme are the dirty fucking crooks we voted against by voting for Donald Trump. They won't go down without a fight. So today at 2:15PM ET Obozo will do his best to get the actual war with Russia on deck!!!

    The war mongering neocons won't stop until we have literally minutes to live. Russia has underground facilitities for 70% of the citizens in the Russian Federation. In the US only the so-called elites have some underground place to hide. Like that would save them anyway as it would be delayed death from Cobalt bombs. We peons and serfs will simply be vaporized immediately into non-existance. Obozo and his minions and handlers know this and don't give a fuck.

    Obozo and those around him are insane and believe that a nuclear war with Russia is winnable. The truth is that the world will not even be fit for human life after a full scale nuclear, chemical and biological exchange. Who thinks it stops at nuclear? Russia inherited the WMD arsenal of the Soviet Union. There are enough chemical and biological weapons in the Russian Federation to kill everyone on earth twenty times.

    DirtySanchez , Dec 16, 2016 9:31 AM
    During the days of the Cold War, I generally respected and believed the American press and many of our politicains.

    For the past 25 years, I don't respect or believe the American press or any politician.

    I honestly believe the Russian government and press is more credible and responsible than anything in this country.

    Donald Trump literally gave me my country back.

    Gadfly , Dec 16, 2016 9:43 AM
    This is real simple. Obama and Hillary got their asses kicked by Putin in the Ukraine, Crimea, and Syria because Putin was honest and acted out of integrity and real concern for his people, and Obama and Hillary were evil and pathological liars and up to no good, and acted out of a lust for power, control over others, and stealing their resources. And now the two pathetic losers want revenge. And this is their vile attempt at trying to get it. We're laughing at you Hillary and Obama. You are a disgrace to your country and the human race.
    BitchezGonnaBitch Gadfly , Dec 16, 2016 10:18 AM
    You must remember something here - we laid it on for Vlad / Serg. Our governments made it so easy for them to play the white knights, they didn't even need to try. Russian administration is just like any other - the machine - but we fucked up so tragically bad in our foreign policy conduct that just going against the unilateral actions of US / NATO / UN has won Russians major support in Western societies, sick to the back teeth of the media game BS.

    Our elites came to believe that the world is theirs. That they can take what they want. Citizenry hasn't been best pleased due to cognitive dissonance ("shining house on the hill" =/= 500k dead Iraqis "worth it"). Enter the Russians: central admin personnel = expert level 120, conservative social values, non-interventionist foreign policy, always stressing legality / due process. They showed us up. Simple as. They were the first to dare point at our naked emperors.

    They also have guns. Lots of guns, and big ones too. We will never really fight them head on - we wouldn't stand a chance. Not with their society coalescing around the govt, and ours hating the guts out of our elites. We'd get stomped.

    Phillyguy , Dec 16, 2016 9:39 AM

    To quote Joseph Goebbels "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." There are several things going on. MSM and deep state were counting on a Hillary Clinton victory and continued US bellicose posturing against Russia. The deep state is also apoplectic about the military debacle in Syria. The ministry of propaganda- corporate media (owned by 6 large corporations; Link: www.wakingtimes.com/2015/08/28/the-illusion-of-choice-90-of-american-media-controlled-by-6-corporations ) has been saturating the airwaves and social media with ongoing stories about Russian "hacking" which are probably nonsense. A far more likely scenario is this "hacking" was carried out by people with intimate knowledge of Hillary Clinton's background, her email correspondence and location of servers where this information was stored/archived, such as people in the FBI, CIA, DHS or State Dept. These hacked messages were then forwarded to Judicial Watch, WikiLeaks or contacts in Russia or China to cover their tracks.
    This might be of interest-
    Former NSA Officer – CIA Lying About Russians Hacking DNC By Jim W. Dean Dec 14, 2016; Link: www.veteranstoday.com/2016/12/14/former-nsa-officer-cia-lying-about-russians-hacking-dnc

    Bottom line is that fierce battles are going on between completing economic factions who run the US. Both groups are pursuing increasingly reckless and bellicose foreign policies which are likely to lead to direct military confrontations with Russia and China.

    See:

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/12/16/pers-d16.html ; www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-foreign-policy-and-the-electoral-college-vote-...

    az_patriot , Dec 16, 2016 9:49 AM
    I'm a cyber security professional with over 30 years experience and several certifications. Hackers with apparent Russian ties (not necessarily the Russian government) have been involved in global hacking efforts for many years. So have the Chinese. So has everyone else, including the US.

    None of this may be true at all, because hackers that know what they're doing never leave a trail behind. EVER. And if they do leave a trail, it's almost always a false flag -- which means that what you think you see is not actually where it came from. It's highly unlikely that sophisticated hackers connected with the Russian government would be stupid enough to leave anything behind that identified who they were or where they operated from.

    I'm calling BS on this whole thing, for two reasons. One -- the "election" wasn't hacked, the DNC was -- and their extremely dirty laundry aired. We now know for certain that the Democrats are a bunch of liars, thieves, and hooligans that could care less about the country. And two -- the politicization of this by Obama is nauseating. The likelihood that anyone knows for certain that the Russian government was behind it is about zero or less.

    Jack Offelday , Dec 16, 2016 9:44 AM
    Yesterday, Julian Assange emphatically stated on Sean Hannity's radio show that the Russians had absolutely no involvement in the Wikileaks hacks. I'll believe Assange before the Obama administration or US media shills. Assange has never been proven wrong.
    dexter_morgan , Dec 16, 2016 9:57 AM
    is the fake news (MSM) covering this at all, or just the propaganda from CIA?
    mary mary dexter_morgan , Dec 16, 2016 10:56 AM
    The Associated Press and the New York Times are repeating, word for word, whatever CIA and CIA-in-Chief says, and then all Vatican-controlled newspapers are printing the AP and NYT articles. Big dose of CIA in my local newspaper today, and yesterday, and every day since, at least, Merrimack College pointed the way toward The One True Propaganda, with its junior-professor-of-how-Hollywood-and-TV-portray-overweight-people's omniscient and omnipotent list of "Fake News Sites". Still waiting for the Pope to endorse this list: maybe when Rome Freezes Over.
    Braindonor1 , Dec 16, 2016 9:59 AM
    The article nails an important point. The purpose of this exercise is to sabotage any Trump attempts for a rapprochement with Russia. Peace with major powers is bad for business and Obama's Zionist masters need war to advance their one world government plans.

    Obama knows no moral compass and will do anything, say anything, to get the treats from his masters that a faithful lap dog believes it deserves.

    Dilluminati , Dec 16, 2016 10:02 AM
    Some of the racist quotes here I can't uptick, that said it was classic Obama from the trump speech telling EVERYONE in advance what he was going to do military wise. That is disapointing. Lets assume that China, Russia, and many other capable state actors did hack Hillary's server? Lets go the route of occums razor and assume that as a truth. That does not excuse the behavior and sheer stupidity of:

    Setting up an illegal server anyway, AFTER hillary requested and was denied a phone like the POTUS.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-show-nsa-rejected-hillary-clinton-req...

    Emails show NSA rejected Hillary Clinton's request for secure smartphone

    So let us start here! Keep in mind she lost numerous devices, the stupid cunt kept loosing her phones and misplacing them.

    Then Hillary hell bent on having her own private communication system circumvents the DOS and sets up her own! At the point where that decision was made there was no longer any attack against the United States of America but instead an attack against a politician leaking state level data on a non-secure media. If anyone should be held accountable it should be Hillary despite INTENT, yes Hillary.

    But it gets better folks!

    Then we have the DNC and Weiner hacks, and the DNC and the RNC are not actual offices of government, There is no fucking .gov address behind the DNC or GOP. The nice lady who runs the local GOP isn't a vetted government employee and used some poor habits in her handling of data, she was ignorant of a BCC and the security of doing so. (to her credit she learned quickly) *** side note

    And then finally there was Weiners emails. These emails were on a non-government device/computer and seemed to have been traversed by yahoo. So you have these stupid fucking people doing the following: Using Yahoo, DNC, and Gov systems utilizing the same passwords. BUT IT GETS BETTER

    Yahoo is using a MD5 hash for it's security! https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/12/15/yahoo-breach-ive-closed-my-a...

    So now a phishing attack at one account podesta becomes a swiss cheese attack as numerous vectors are exploited, did the Russians hack weiner and put the emails on his device? It is with password complexity, password expiration, and non-passowrd reuse that government can ensure that you don't use the same password on Yahoo that you use at .gov sites. It is by using multi-factor authentication and geo location that a .gov account can be authenticated and authorized.

    But what we have is a bunch of assholes who mishandled the peoples data or governmnet data and it was never their personal data! It was either the data of the united states in which case Hillary should be fucking charged or it was not and she is a stupid fucking victim like the other billion or so yahoo hacks.

    So now we got Obama just like Trump said, telling the world what we are going to do before we do it for optimal results.. lets tell russia in advance.. we will attack at noon...for what has been characterized as yoga emails on non-government systems by the attorney general.

    This is why I hate the elites, this is why I never needed Russia to do anything to votes against these incompetent and ridiculous assholes.

    As Obama leaves offce remember that this observation is concise and made from an educated and unbiased persepctive of handling government data.

    The echo cjhamber that Obama lives in has become as insular as that of Hillary. And damn these people for their confusion of conviction with fact. And finally.. we beat the democrats in PA the good old fashioned way.. we were grassroots and not astro-turf.

    ***** The local GOP website was being cyber-squated when I volunteered, an email of so from me on blacklisting it and there ads would not have shut them down, but it would have hit them in the pocket and caused monetary disruption, they released the expired domain and stopped squatting, the local head of the GOP, defintly not .gov but "GOP" was being blocked by email systems because she would send out GOP emails to an email list with 100 or so recipients and the spam filters thought it was spam or a virus. So I explained to her how to use BCC tools, and our communication improved. I didn't want my email shared with everyone anyway! But the DNC and GOP ain't fucking government.. at best these people are like televangelists which is like hollywood for ugly people.

    I can say this, I have an ENORMOUS respect for the local GOP, I have come to like many of them. I don't agree with them on everything but never has so few, worked so hard, to empower so many more to volunteer and win an election. And to their credit shown the right way changed, they didn't piss and moan.

    Resistance Is Hope Dilluminati , Dec 16, 2016 10:44 AM
    Good observations, sir. People like you are the reason ZH is so useful for enlightenment.

    I should add that if Hillary was claiming to lose her phone, then Hillary probably wasn't losing her phone all the time. She was probably periodically destroying it to destroy evidence. Burn phones or burners are a common technique among criminals to minimize the evidence available if/when they get caught.

    smacker , Dec 16, 2016 10:04 AM
    Looks to me like Obola and his cabal are trying to cause as much friction as possible with Russia before he leaves office.

    This garbage allegation about Putin being personally involved in hacking the US election, the recent announcement of supplying more weapons to terrorists in Syria, recent wild allegations of Russian genocide in Syria (whilst ignoring Syrian people waving and cheering when the SAA arrived in Allepo) and threats to begin a cyberwar are all designed to do this.

    Obola has become a dangerous liability.

    MrBoompi , Dec 16, 2016 10:31 AM
    Obama has acted like a CIA employee for 8 years. He lied to get into office and he's lied ever since, just like the CIA teaches its employees to do. The CIA is not bound by US or international law and they could give a shit about our Constitution, our laws, or our elections, as long as their preferred candidate gets in of course. Are we currently any better than the Nazis? Conquering other countries is the same regardless if you do it covertly or not, regardless of how many lies you say or not. These people must be stopped. Unfortunately it might take mass civil unrest to bring the changes we need. Stealing the election from Trump and handing it to a criminal like Clinton may be the spark. Let's hope there are enough people left with integrity and intelligence in DC to do the right thing.
    dltff-ya , Dec 16, 2016 10:32 AM
    There is no concept of a open courtroom to decide contentious technical issues like. This . Cozy bear, whatever bear
    'more than i can' bear. A jury of fair minded people can decide when a good adversarial courtroom encounter occurs.
    I would like to see Trey Gowdy defending Putin against whatever CIA stooge they send up. Obama has a lot of gall to complain about hacking when Hillary, Podesta, and the run DNC gang was so careless that a very amateur hacking/phishing effort would be sufficient to do this break in. Then there is the assertion that some disgruntled democratic people leaked the whole works- from the inside- being mad at Hillary over Bernie I guess.

    If the US wants as gentlemen agreement not to read each others mail, maybe we could pursue that but hacking Putin and sending NGO's to undermine him, the numerous color revolutions from George Soros in Ukraine, Georgia, ... make it seem to me that Putin is the aggrieved party here, now being threatened by Obama personally. Everybody snoops on everybody. Israel, Russia, US and the five eyes, China, ... but when it gets personal like this Putin Obama threat thing, we could cross a line, like an obscure assassination of the Austrian Archduke by some Serbian did. Putin is a serious fellow and not somebody to threaten without consequences. We may think he sees it as just posturing, and we better hope it stops right there. If the Clinton mob can't win, they may decide to bring the house down on everybody.

    your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
    dltff-ya , Dec 16, 2016 10:41 AM
    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/questions-electors-russian-hacking...

    Interesting points about the alleged hacking.

    dexter_morgan , Dec 16, 2016 10:44 AM
    cia

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/16/senate-homeland-chair-cia-denied-m...

    mary mary , Dec 16, 2016 11:05 AM
    Obama: "I am, of course, not speaking about the real, live Vladimir Putin. I am speaking about our CIA cardboard-cutout caricature of Vladimir Putin. We ALWAYS have a number of cardboard-cutouts in stock, of various people, to blame for whatever goes wrong next.
    Handful of Dust , Dec 16, 2016 11:07 AM
    Assange on WikiLeaks: 'Our Source Is Not the Russian Government'

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/bea2e062-22ac-3d8b-85d4-d8514d5d4efc/assang...

    Yes We Can. But... , Dec 16, 2016 11:09 AM
    "....while Russian foreign ministry spox Maria Zakharova accused "Western media" of being a "shill" and a "mouthpiece of various power groups ", and added that "it's not the general public who's being manipulated," Zakharova said. " the general public nowadays can distinguish the truth . It's the mass media that is manipulating themselves .""

    Can you effin believe such a statement made by the Russian gubmint - and that it is true ?

    az_patriot , Dec 16, 2016 11:35 AM
    This whole affair screams one thing and one thing only: politics. And dirty, childish, Democrat politics at that. COULD the Russian government have hacked the DNC? Sure, anything is possible. Is it likely? NO. Government-sponsored hackers don't leave telltale signs as to who they are, they leave false flags and a trail of breadcrumbs that lead nowhere or to places they want you to think the hack came from. Anyone smart enough to hack the DNC isn't going to do anything to reveal who they are. Not even accidentally.
    dlfield , Dec 16, 2016 11:32 AM
    A) Just why the hell would U.S. "Intelligence" be briefing NBC news?

    B) Next, we will be blaming space aliens for "hacking" the election.

    The horse has spoken. ;-)

    [Dec 15, 2016] Georgia asks Trump to investigate DHS cyberattacks

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Pavlo Svolochenko , December 14, 2016 at 2:43 pm
    Georgia asks Trump to investigate DHS 'cyberattacks'

    If you want to know what Washington is doing at any given time, just look at what they're accusing the competition of.

    yalensis , December 14, 2016 at 5:05 pm
    As the Worm Turns!
    For all those Amurican rubes out there who beleived that Homeland Security was protecting them against foreign terrorists – ha hahahahahaha!

    [Dec 15, 2016] Making apparently pro-Russia, anti-China choices it looks like a divide and rule strategy.

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al , December 13, 2016 at 6:34 am
    So Tillerson, ex-Oil cheese & apparently 'pro-Russian', is nominated USDoS honcho by Trump.

    On the other hand we have Trump trolling China over Taiwan. In this case, it to me looks more like asymmetric diplomacy or 'hybrid warfare' as others may call it, as the US cannot take on China financially, Trump's strategy is to threaten to unpick all those things that China holds dear, such as the 'One China' policy to push Beijing out of its comfort zone and try and destabilize its decision making. An interesting strategy that won't work.

    But, by making apparently pro-Russia, anti-China choices it looks like a divide and rule strategy. The US cannot take on both Russian and China, and it has been China that has been backing Russia solidly politically and economically against the West's threats. By offering sanctions relief, Washington would expect something in return maybe distancing itself from China The thing is, not only have the sanctions done quite a bit of damage, but how is lifting them actually that useful any more now that (yet again) a threat from the outside has made Russia carry out fundamental changes it should have already made before (developing domestic produce industry etc.) and even sabotaging those nascent industries for western imports? In short, if it is Trump's strategy, too little too late.

    I think though that a strategy of opportunistic disruption would continue. What I would like to see from Trump is a rolling back of NATO and removing US nukes from Europe permanently in return for a new nuclear arms agreement and a de-escalation on the continent. What exactly does Washington get from a riled up EU and its constant squealing for US support but without pay up? None as far as I can see. Hopefully this is NATO's last hurrah.

    marknesop , December 13, 2016 at 8:39 pm
    Washington cannot offer sanctions relief without coming out into the open as the EU's puppetmaster. Although we know that to be true, not everyone does, or not everyone will stipulate to it, and the sanctions imposed by Washington as purely American are harmless. It is the EU's sanctions which cause trade damage, and as you accurately point out, many of those markets will never again reach their former potential. I imagine there would be a prompt return to trade with Europe if EU sanctions were lifted, but quite a few people have lost their taste for European products considering what false friends the Europeans have turned out to be, and Russia likely fears their spinelessness would bring new sanctions at Washington's bidding. I don't think European sales to Russia will return to their previous levels, perhaps ever, and Russia will always have a backup plan in future so that loss of European products will not hurt it.
    Chinese American , December 14, 2016 at 8:33 am
    Many people in China feel that Trump trolling China over Taiwan is not a bad thing. At least, maybe it will finally knock away the illusions about America that many in the government still have. (There are plenty of those illusions, in part because the generation of Chinese currently between 40 and 65, overall, are probably the most shall we say "psychologically disadvantaged" toward the West.

    [Dec 15, 2016] Anti Russia stance as EU institutions official policy

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al, December 13, 2016 at 6:39 am
    Meanwhile, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said Moscow was fed up of calls from the US to halt the fighting. "We are tired of hearing this whining from our American colleagues in the current administration," he told journalists.
    Moscow Exile , December 13, 2016 at 8:42 am
    Lavrov also voiced his displeasure with the EU yesterday: Lavrov notes Moscow is aware of EU's guide on statements concerning Russia

    "I think it is secret to no one if I say that we know about written instructions in the European Union as to how each country, including candidates to join it, should speak publicly at any mention of Russia," the diplomat said.

    "It is written there that it is an absolute must for all these countries to pronounce as mantra the terms 'annexation of Crimea', 'occupation of Donbass' and so on," he said. "It seems that this instruction is binding," he added.

    The kreakl with whom I have to work told me yesterday in all seriousness that Lavrov is only foreign minister because he does everything Putin tells him to do.

    He must think that a minister of state should act independently of and contrary to the wishes of the chief executive of the administration of the state.

    That's what he must think they do in the Golden West.

    [Dec 15, 2016] French forgot how mercilessly they bombed cilians in Lybi and who created ISIS

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Patient Observer , December 13, 2016 at 9:36 am

    We live in a sea of lies. Per NPR this morning – French officials are demanding that Russia stop the intense bombing of the huge masses of civilians seeking shelter in the last remaining rebel areas in Aleppo. They demand that a humanitarian corridor 5 kilometers wide be created for their escape [where to, I wonder] protected by NATO/EU troops. The barbarity of the Russians and Syrians are is simply impossible to describe per the report.

    NPR and other MSM channels have adopted a relatively clever strategy – they simply pass along reports from important sounding organizations like the Observatory for Human Rights while ignoring any alternative information sources. They sort of learned their lesson from the WMD fiasco – don't manufacture the lie, let someone else do it. So the MSM is simply a component in the supply chain of lies.

    et Al , December 13, 2016 at 12:13 pm
    Moon of Alabama: MSM Create #Fakenews Storm As Rebel Aleppo Vanishes
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/12/-msm-create-fakenews-storm-as-rebel-aleppo-vanishes.html

    I have not ever experienced a #fakenews onslaught as today. Every mainstream media and agency seems to have lost all inhibitions and is reporting any rumor claim regarding east-Aleppo as fact.

    Consider this BBC headline and opener:

    Aleppo battle: UN says 82 civilians shot on the spot

    Syrian pro-government forces have been entering homes in eastern Aleppo and killing those inside, including women and children, the UN says.

    The UN's human rights office said it had reliable evidence that in four areas 82 civilians were shot on sight.

    1. A UN human rights office does not exists. What the BBC means is the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR). That commissioner is the Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, a Hashemite educated in the UK and U.S. and a relative of the Jordanian dictator king. That is relevant to note as Jordan is heavily involved in the supporting the "rebels" against the Syrian government.

    2. The office has not "said" that "82 civilians were shot" or other such gruesome stuff. It said that there were "sources" that have "reports" that such happened. From its press statement today:

    Multiple sources have reports that tens of civilians were shot dead yesterday in al-Ahrar Square in al-Kallaseh neighbourhood, and also in Bustan al-Qasr, by Government forces and their allies, including allegedly the Iraqi al-Nujabaa armed group .
    ####

    More at the link.

    #FFakeNews! #FMSM!

    et Al, December 13, 2016 at 1:02 pm
    Groaning Man: International concern over claims of chemical weapon attack in Syria
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/13/international-concern-over-claims-of-chemical-weapon-attack-in-syria?google_editors_picks=true

    At least 93 reportedly killed and hundreds injured near Palmyra, with witnesses saying many child victims suffocated

    The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is seriously concerned about claims that at least 93 people were killed by a gas attack in central Syria when airstrikes hit a cluster of five villages.

    Up to 300 people were also reported to have been injured in the strikes on Monday morning around 130 miles west of the city of Palmyra, which was retaken from Syrian forces by the Islamic State group. Witnesses to the attacks say that none of those who died had blast injuries

    The high death toll is not consistent with the spate of chlorine gas attacks across Syria in recent years, which have killed scores of people in total but have not caused mass casualties at this scale.

    Photographs purportedly taken after the attacks show rows of children lying on the ground. All appear to be dead and foam is apparent near the nose of one young boy.

    The images resemble those taken in the aftermath of an attack that killed more than 1,300 people in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013, which the United Nations said was 'indisputably' caused by sarin gas. On that occasion the US, UK and France blamed the Assad regime. The UN said the sarin used had probably come from regime stockpiles
    ####

    So it didn't take so long after all. ISIS/ISIL/DAESH/Whatever can kill as creatively as they wish and the Pork Pie News Networks will consistently report is as being done 'by Assad'. ISIS forced them in to cellars then gassed them, only to have 'sources' present it as an

    [Dec 15, 2016] Russia must remain alert

    "These libertarians, isolationists and realists see an opportunity to pull back America's commitments around the world, spend less money on foreign aid and "nation-building," curtail expensive military campaigns and troop deployments and intervene militarily only to protect American interests."( The Hill ) But will they prevail?
    Notable quotes:
    "... First of all, I don't think that President Putin is foolish enough to believe the rhetoric. He is a serious political person and has been through too many lies and deceptions from Washington in many different forms to be naive about some nice sunny words, even if the Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg starts purveying friendly sounds about Russia after Trump's election. ..."
    "... But I think it is very important that Russian leaders have in mind the ultimate agenda of this patriarchy in the United States that is one of war, and Donald Trump's mission is to prepare United States for that war and to win. And that is no nice prospect. Russia should not in the slightest instant forget that threat. ..."
    "... Thus, take the advantage that you can from this deception, but do not be deceived that Donald Trump's America is in any sense a true friend of Russia. People in Washington still care about the interests of the American hegemony and that's it. ..."
    Dec 15, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press

    First of all, I don't think that President Putin is foolish enough to believe the rhetoric. He is a serious political person and has been through too many lies and deceptions from Washington in many different forms to be naive about some nice sunny words, even if the Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg starts purveying friendly sounds about Russia after Trump's election.

    Of course, it is intelligent for Russia to gain as much advantage from this apparently friendly period of Trump's presidency as possible. Perhaps it is reasonable to ask for taking US and NATO troops away from the borders of Russia and Belarus. They will do that, I have no doubt.

    But I think it is very important that Russian leaders have in mind the ultimate agenda of this patriarchy in the United States that is one of war, and Donald Trump's mission is to prepare United States for that war and to win. And that is no nice prospect. Russia should not in the slightest instant forget that threat.

    Take advantage of this time, build the Russian economy as you have been doing, show the door to the neoliberal economists, take them out of the ministries, and put genuine Russians who want to do good for the Russian economy in those positions.

    The Central Bank of Russia needs to be renationalized. That's an urgent priority for Russia's economy. The reason I think it hasn't been done so far is that the political power of those American-linked oligarchs up until now has been strong enough to make it very difficult for Russia to clean up house. I think we are already going in that direction.

    The development of indigenous Russian non-GMO agriculture needs to go forward regardless of what the EU does with their sanctions. Russia needs to prohibit the import of food from the European Union.

    Also, Russia should leave the World Trade Organization. This organization was created by Washington in the interests of American and European multinationalism and not in the interests of free and fair trade.

    Russia should free itself from undesirable NGOs as it has been doing – and watch the anger of Washington who use those NGOs to do so-called "democracy projects".

    Thus, take the advantage that you can from this deception, but do not be deceived that Donald Trump's America is in any sense a true friend of Russia. People in Washington still care about the interests of the American hegemony and that's it.

    [Dec 15, 2016] December 13, 2016 at 6:34 am

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    So Tillerson, ex-Oil cheese & apparently 'pro-Russian', is nominated USDoS honcho by Trump.

    On the other hand we have Trump trolling China over Taiwan. In this case, it to me looks more like asymmetric diplomacy or 'hybrid warfare' as others may call it, as the US cannot take on China financially, Trump's strategy is to threaten to unpick all those things that China holds dear, such as the 'One China' policy to push Beijing out of its comfort zone and try and destabilize its decision making. An interesting strategy that won't work.

    But, by making apparently pro-Russia, anti-China choices it looks like a divide and rule strategy. The US cannot take on both Russian and China, and it has been China that has been backing Russia solidly politically and economically against the West's threats. By offering sanctions relief, Washington would expect something in return maybe distancing itself from China The thing is, not only have the sanctions done quite a bit of damage, but how is lifting them actually that useful any more now that (yet again) a threat from the outside has made Russia carry out fundamental changes it should have already made before (developing domestic produce industry etc.) and even sabotaging those nascent industries for western imports? In short, if it is Trump's strategy, too little too late.

    I think though that a strategy of opportunistic disruption would continue. What I would like to see from Trump is a rolling back of NATO and removing US nukes from Europe permanently in return for a new nuclear arms agreement and a de-escalation on the continent. What exactly does Washington get from a riled up EU and its constant squealing for US support but without pay up? None as far as I can see. Hopefully this is NATO's last hurrah.

    marknesop , December 13, 2016 at 8:39 pm
    Washington cannot offer sanctions relief without coming out into the open as the EU's puppetmaster. Although we know that to be true, not everyone does, or not everyone will stipulate to it, and the sanctions imposed by Washington as purely American are harmless. It is the EU's sanctions which cause trade damage, and as you accurately point out, many of those markets will never again reach their former potential. I imagine there would be a prompt return to trade with Europe if EU sanctions were lifted, but quite a few people have lost their taste for European products considering what false friends the Europeans have turned out to be, and Russia likely fears their spinelessness would bring new sanctions at Washington's bidding. I don't think European sales to Russia will return to their previous levels, perhaps ever, and Russia will always have a backup plan in future so that loss of European products will not hurt it.
    Chinese American , December 14, 2016 at 8:33 am
    Many people in China feel that Trump trolling China over Taiwan is not a bad thing. At least, maybe it will finally knock away the illusions about America that many in the government still have. (There are plenty of those illusions, in part because the generation of Chinese currently between 40 and 65, overall, are probably the most shall we say "psychologically disadvantaged" toward the West.

    [Dec 15, 2016] Exclusive: Top US spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking – sources

    Dec 15, 2016 | uk.reuters.com

    The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

    While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named .

    An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

    "ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis – a deductive assessment of the available intelligence – for the same reason, the three officials said


    marknesop says: December 13, 2016 at 6:17 am
    But all of them, without exception, accept that the Democrats' server was hacked by Russia, and that it was Russia who leaked the information through Wikileaks, and that Russia also hacked the Republicans but declined to release incriminating or influential material it had in its possession. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence of this, either.

    [Dec 15, 2016] Russia must remain alert

    "These libertarians, isolationists and realists see an opportunity to pull back America's commitments around the world, spend less money on foreign aid and "nation-building," curtail expensive military campaigns and troop deployments and intervene militarily only to protect American interests."( The Hill ) But will they prevail?
    Notable quotes:
    "... First of all, I don't think that President Putin is foolish enough to believe the rhetoric. He is a serious political person and has been through too many lies and deceptions from Washington in many different forms to be naive about some nice sunny words, even if the Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg starts purveying friendly sounds about Russia after Trump's election. ..."
    "... But I think it is very important that Russian leaders have in mind the ultimate agenda of this patriarchy in the United States that is one of war, and Donald Trump's mission is to prepare United States for that war and to win. And that is no nice prospect. Russia should not in the slightest instant forget that threat. ..."
    "... Thus, take the advantage that you can from this deception, but do not be deceived that Donald Trump's America is in any sense a true friend of Russia. People in Washington still care about the interests of the American hegemony and that's it. ..."
    Dec 15, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press

    First of all, I don't think that President Putin is foolish enough to believe the rhetoric. He is a serious political person and has been through too many lies and deceptions from Washington in many different forms to be naive about some nice sunny words, even if the Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg starts purveying friendly sounds about Russia after Trump's election.

    Of course, it is intelligent for Russia to gain as much advantage from this apparently friendly period of Trump's presidency as possible. Perhaps it is reasonable to ask for taking US and NATO troops away from the borders of Russia and Belarus. They will do that, I have no doubt.

    But I think it is very important that Russian leaders have in mind the ultimate agenda of this patriarchy in the United States that is one of war, and Donald Trump's mission is to prepare United States for that war and to win. And that is no nice prospect. Russia should not in the slightest instant forget that threat.

    Take advantage of this time, build the Russian economy as you have been doing, show the door to the neoliberal economists, take them out of the ministries, and put genuine Russians who want to do good for the Russian economy in those positions.

    The Central Bank of Russia needs to be renationalized. That's an urgent priority for Russia's economy. The reason I think it hasn't been done so far is that the political power of those American-linked oligarchs up until now has been strong enough to make it very difficult for Russia to clean up house. I think we are already going in that direction.

    The development of indigenous Russian non-GMO agriculture needs to go forward regardless of what the EU does with their sanctions. Russia needs to prohibit the import of food from the European Union.

    Also, Russia should leave the World Trade Organization. This organization was created by Washington in the interests of American and European multinationalism and not in the interests of free and fair trade.

    Russia should free itself from undesirable NGOs as it has been doing – and watch the anger of Washington who use those NGOs to do so-called "democracy projects".

    Thus, take the advantage that you can from this deception, but do not be deceived that Donald Trump's America is in any sense a true friend of Russia. People in Washington still care about the interests of the American hegemony and that's it.

    [Dec 15, 2016] December 13, 2016 at 6:34 am

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    So Tillerson, ex-Oil cheese & apparently 'pro-Russian', is nominated USDoS honcho by Trump.

    On the other hand we have Trump trolling China over Taiwan. In this case, it to me looks more like asymmetric diplomacy or 'hybrid warfare' as others may call it, as the US cannot take on China financially, Trump's strategy is to threaten to unpick all those things that China holds dear, such as the 'One China' policy to push Beijing out of its comfort zone and try and destabilize its decision making. An interesting strategy that won't work.

    But, by making apparently pro-Russia, anti-China choices it looks like a divide and rule strategy. The US cannot take on both Russian and China, and it has been China that has been backing Russia solidly politically and economically against the West's threats. By offering sanctions relief, Washington would expect something in return maybe distancing itself from China The thing is, not only have the sanctions done quite a bit of damage, but how is lifting them actually that useful any more now that (yet again) a threat from the outside has made Russia carry out fundamental changes it should have already made before (developing domestic produce industry etc.) and even sabotaging those nascent industries for western imports? In short, if it is Trump's strategy, too little too late.

    I think though that a strategy of opportunistic disruption would continue. What I would like to see from Trump is a rolling back of NATO and removing US nukes from Europe permanently in return for a new nuclear arms agreement and a de-escalation on the continent. What exactly does Washington get from a riled up EU and its constant squealing for US support but without pay up? None as far as I can see. Hopefully this is NATO's last hurrah.

    marknesop , December 13, 2016 at 8:39 pm
    Washington cannot offer sanctions relief without coming out into the open as the EU's puppetmaster. Although we know that to be true, not everyone does, or not everyone will stipulate to it, and the sanctions imposed by Washington as purely American are harmless. It is the EU's sanctions which cause trade damage, and as you accurately point out, many of those markets will never again reach their former potential. I imagine there would be a prompt return to trade with Europe if EU sanctions were lifted, but quite a few people have lost their taste for European products considering what false friends the Europeans have turned out to be, and Russia likely fears their spinelessness would bring new sanctions at Washington's bidding. I don't think European sales to Russia will return to their previous levels, perhaps ever, and Russia will always have a backup plan in future so that loss of European products will not hurt it.
    Chinese American , December 14, 2016 at 8:33 am
    Many people in China feel that Trump trolling China over Taiwan is not a bad thing. At least, maybe it will finally knock away the illusions about America that many in the government still have. (There are plenty of those illusions, in part because the generation of Chinese currently between 40 and 65, overall, are probably the most shall we say "psychologically disadvantaged" toward the West.

    [Dec 15, 2016] Anti Russia stance as EU institutions official policy

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al, December 13, 2016 at 6:39 am
    Meanwhile, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said Moscow was fed up of calls from the US to halt the fighting. "We are tired of hearing this whining from our American colleagues in the current administration," he told journalists.
    Moscow Exile , December 13, 2016 at 8:42 am
    Lavrov also voiced his displeasure with the EU yesterday: Lavrov notes Moscow is aware of EU's guide on statements concerning Russia

    "I think it is secret to no one if I say that we know about written instructions in the European Union as to how each country, including candidates to join it, should speak publicly at any mention of Russia," the diplomat said.

    "It is written there that it is an absolute must for all these countries to pronounce as mantra the terms 'annexation of Crimea', 'occupation of Donbass' and so on," he said. "It seems that this instruction is binding," he added.

    The kreakl with whom I have to work told me yesterday in all seriousness that Lavrov is only foreign minister because he does everything Putin tells him to do.

    He must think that a minister of state should act independently of and contrary to the wishes of the chief executive of the administration of the state.

    That's what he must think they do in the Golden West.

    [Dec 15, 2016] Georgia asks Trump to investigate DHS cyberattacks

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Pavlo Svolochenko , December 14, 2016 at 2:43 pm
    Georgia asks Trump to investigate DHS 'cyberattacks'

    If you want to know what Washington is doing at any given time, just look at what they're accusing the competition of.

    yalensis , December 14, 2016 at 5:05 pm
    As the Worm Turns!
    For all those Amurican rubes out there who beleived that Homeland Security was protecting them against foreign terrorists – ha hahahahahaha!

    [Dec 15, 2016] Putin Valday 2016 speeech

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Vladimir Putin's Valdai Speech at the XIII Meeting (Final Plenary Session) of the Valdai International Discussion Club (Sochi, 27 October 2016)

    As is his usual custom, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech at the final session of the annual Valdai International Discussion Club's 13th meeting, held this year in Sochi, before an audience that included the President of Finland Tarja Halonen and former President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki. The theme for the 2016 meeting and its discussion forums was "The Future in Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow" which as Putin noted was very topical and relevant to current developments and trends in global politics, economic and social affairs.

    Putin noted that the previous year's Valdai Club discussions centred on global problems and crises, in particular the ongoing wars in the Middle East; this fact gave him the opportunity to summarise global political developments over the past half-century, beginning with the United States' presumption of having won the Cold War and subsequently reshaping the international political, economic and social order to conform to its expectations based on neoliberal capitalist assumptions. To that end, the US and its allies across western Europe, North America and the western Pacific have co-operated in pressing economic and political restructuring including regime change in many parts of the world: in eastern Europe and the Balkans, in western Asia (particularly Afghanistan and Iraq) and in northern Africa (Libya). In achieving these goals, the West has either ignored at best or at worst exploited international political, military and economic structures, agencies and alliances to the detriment of these institutions' reputations and credibility around the world. The West also has not hesitated to dredge and drum up imaginary threats to the security of the world, most notably the threat of Russian aggression and desire to recreate the Soviet Union on former Soviet territories and beyond, the supposed Russian meddling in the US Presidential elections, and apparent Russian hacking and leaking of emails related to failed US Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's conduct as US Secretary of State from 2008 to 2012.

    After his observation of current world trends as they have developed since 1991, Putin queries what kind of future we face if political elites in Washington and elsewhere focus on non-existent problems and threats, or on problems of their own making, and ignore the very real issues and problems affecting ordinary people everywhere: issues of stability, security and sustainable economic development. The US alone has problems of police violence against minority groups, high levels of public and private debt measured in trillions of dollars, failing transport infrastructure across most states, massive unemployment that either goes undocumented or is deliberately under-reported, high prison incarceration rates and other problems and issues indicative of a highly dysfunctional society. In societies that are ostensibly liberal democracies where the public enjoys political freedoms, there is an ever-growing and vast gap between what people perceive as major problems needing solutions and the political establishment's perceptions of what the problems are, and all too often the public view and the elite view are at polar opposites. The result is that when referenda and elections are held, predictions and assurances of victory one way or another are smashed by actual results showing public preference for the other way, and polling organisations, corporate media with their self-styled "pundits" and "analysts" and governments are caught scrambling to make sense of what just happened.

    Putin points out that the only way forward is for all countries to acknowledge and work together on the problems that challenge all humans today, the resolution of which should make the world more stable, more secure and more sustaining of human existence. Globalisation should not just benefit a small plutocratic elite but should be demonstrated in concrete ways to benefit all. Only by adhering to international law and legal arrangements, through the charter of the United Nations and its agencies, can all countries hope to achieve security and stability and achieve a better future for their peoples.

    To this end, the sovereignty of Middle Eastern countries like Iraq, Syria and Yemen should be respected and the wars in those countries should be brought to an end, replaced by long-term plans and programs of economic and social reconstruction and development. Global economic development and progress that will reduce disparities between First World and Third World countries, eliminate notions of "winning" and "losing", and end grinding poverty and the problems that go with it should be a major priority. Economic co-operation should be mutually beneficial for all parties that engage in it.

    Putin also briefly mentioned in passing the development of human potential and creativity, environmental protection and climate change, and global healthcare as important goals that all countries should strive for.

    While there's not much in Putin's speech that he hasn't said before, what he says is typical of his worldview, the breadth and depth of his understanding of current world events (which very, very few Western politicians can match), and his preferred approach of nations working together on common problems and coming to solutions that benefit all and which don't advantage one party's interests to the detriment of others and their needs. Putin's approach is a typically pragmatic and cautious one, neutral with regards to political or economic ideology, but one focused on goals and results, and the best way and methods to achieve those goals.

    One interesting aspect of Putin's speech comes near the end where he says that only a world with opportunities for everyone, with access to knowledge to all and many ways to realise creative potential, can be considered truly free. Putin's understanding of freedom would appear to be very different from what the West (and Americans in particular) understand to be "freedom", that is, being free of restraints on one's behaviour. Putin's understanding of freedom would be closer to what 20th-century Russian-born British philosopher Isaiah Berlin would consider to be "positive freedom", the freedom that comes with self-mastery, being able to think and behave freely and being able to choose the government of the society in which one lives.

    The most outstanding point in Putin's speech, which unfortunately he does not elaborate on further, given the context of the venue, is the disconnect between the political establishment and the public in most developed countries, the role of the mass media industry in reducing or widening it, and the dangers that this disconnect poses to societies if it continues. If elites continue to pursue their own fantasies and lies, and neglect the needs of the public on whom they rely for support (yet abuse by diminishing their security through offshoring jobs, weakening and eliminating worker protection, privatising education, health and energy, and encouraging housing and other debt bubbles), the invisible bonds of society – what might collectively be called "the social contract" between the ruler and the ruled – will disintegrate and people may turn to violence or other extreme activities to get what they want.

    An English-language transcript of the speech can be found at this link .

    [Dec 15, 2016] The US along with many of its allies had a hand in all of the examples of irredeemable evil Powers named

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The weirdest speech to me was the one by the US representative which built her statement as if she is Mother Theresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember the track record of your country." ..."
    "... "I shouldn't want to remind this Western trio [France, US, UK] , which has called for today's meeting and carried it out in a raised voice, about your role in the creation of ISIS as a result of US and UK intervention in Iraq", Churkin said. ..."
    "... "I don't want to remind these three countries about their role in unwinding the Syrian crisis, which led to such difficult consequences, and let terrorists spread in Syria and Iraq. ..."
    "... Russia's public positions are getting progressively less 'diplomatic' and more direct. The west has been inviting Russia to take a swing with deliberately insulting language for a long time, but Russia is beginning to answer in kind. I smell a lifelong enemies situation, and that's unfortunate because Russia cannot be said to have not tried repeatedly to keep things civil. ..."
    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile , December 14, 2016 at 5:27 am
    What a fucking slag!

    (ad hominem fully intended!)

    In response, Vitaly Churkin advised his colleague from the United States to remember the actions of her own country.

    "The weirdest speech to me was the one by the US representative which built her statement as if she is Mother Theresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember the track record of your country."

    "I shouldn't want to remind this Western trio [France, US, UK] , which has called for today's meeting and carried it out in a raised voice, about your role in the creation of ISIS as a result of US and UK intervention in Iraq", Churkin said.

    "I don't want to remind these three countries about their role in unwinding the Syrian crisis, which led to such difficult consequences, and let terrorists spread in Syria and Iraq.

    Moscow Exile , December 14, 2016 at 5:36 am
    The above translated Churkin quotes are from CNN.

    Churkin's actual words re the Mother Theresa wannabe, namely "Outraged" Powers:

    "Особенно странным мне показалось выступление представителя Соединенных Штатов, которая построила свое выступление, как будто она мать Тереза", - заявил он.

    Especially strange to me appeared the speech by the representative of the United States, who constructed her statement as though she were Mother Theresa", he stated.

    [You see, Denis Denisovich uses the subjunctive mood, unlike those CNN dickheads! :-)]

    marknesop , December 14, 2016 at 6:17 am
    Russia's public positions are getting progressively less 'diplomatic' and more direct. The west has been inviting Russia to take a swing with deliberately insulting language for a long time, but Russia is beginning to answer in kind. I smell a lifelong enemies situation, and that's unfortunate because Russia cannot be said to have not tried repeatedly to keep things civil.
    Lyttenburgh , December 14, 2016 at 10:06 am

    Mother Samantha – the patron saint of the moderate jihadis

    Fern , December 14, 2016 at 10:28 am
    Classic, Lyttenburgh, very droll. I hope Churkin was able to negotiate a pay increase or some sort of bonus for himself for having to sit through and reply to Samantha Power's rants. For a professional diplomat it must be beyond painful to try and work with her and her ilk.
    Moscow Exile , December 14, 2016 at 10:43 am
    I wonder if she prays for the souls of those innocents, about whose estimated half-a-million lives, sacrificed as a result of US sanctions imposed by the USA on Iran, were infamously considered by her fellow countrywoman as a "price well worth it" as regards the furtherance of the the policies of the "Exceptional Nation"?
    Fern , December 14, 2016 at 10:57 am
    Moscow Exile, yes, it's interesting what examples she picks as the epitome of evil that stains consciences – Halabja, Rwanda, Srebrenica etc. All of them non-western. How about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Agent Orange (the gift that's still giving today), the saturation bombing of Cambodia, the extraordinary destruction wrecked on North Korea, the genocides of South and Central America carried out by those trained and shielded by the US and so on and so on – is she unaware of the history of her own country?
    Northern Star , December 14, 2016 at 11:32 am
    Halabja, ****Rwanda,*** Srebrenica etc. All of them non-western.

    Ummmm but the USA through the machinations of susan rice ..the corrupt whore/lackey of Bubba had a hand in Rwanda

    and let's not forget the French connection:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-38152791

    Fern , December 14, 2016 at 3:00 pm
    Indeed, Northern Star, the US along with many of its allies had a hand in all of the examples of 'irredeemable evil' Powers named. My point was that she chose examples where the immediate perpetrators were not western actors.
    Jen , December 14, 2016 at 1:18 pm
    Not to mention of course that 7-year-old boy her motorcade knocked over and killed while she was racing to a photo-shoot in Cameroon. The child's family did get compensation but you wonder how much guilt Samantha Power feels over an incident that would never have occurred had she not been so eager to meet and be photographed with former Boko Haram victims just so she could have bragging rights among the Washington social set.

    [Dec 15, 2016] MSM fight agains new media is somewhat similar to papacy fight with Reformation

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    On watching the "Keiser Report " on the imperial blowback against independent media, it strikes me that the MSM are as to the Papacy as the new media are to Martin Luther:

    https://www.rt.com/shows/keiser-report/370114-episode-max-keiser-1005/

    [Dec 14, 2016] Yahoo discovers hack affecting 1 billion users, breaking its own world record

    www.dailynews.com
    Yahoo has discovered a 3-year-old security breach that enabled a hacker to compromise more than 1 billion user accounts, breaking the company's own humiliating record for the biggest security breach in history.

    The digital heist disclosed Wednesday occurred in August 2013, more than a year before a separate hack that Yahoo announced nearly three months ago . That breach affected at least 500 million users, which had been the most far-reaching hack until the latest revelation.

    Yahoo has more than a billion monthly active users, although some have multiple accounts and others have none at all. An unknown number of accounts were affected by both hacks.

    In both attacks, the stolen information included names, email addresses, phone numbers, birthdates and security questions and answers. The company says it believes bank-account information and payment-card data were not affected.

    [Dec 14, 2016] Opinion Putin didnt win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did

    Notable quotes:
    "... That those scheming Russians were clever enough to hack into voting machines, but not clever enough to cover their tracks? ..."
    "... It's strangely reminiscent of the days of the Red scare, minus the Reds. ..."
    "... The displaced machinists in the industrial midwest, whose votes helped put Trump in the White House, believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. ..."
    "... was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance. ..."
    "... They were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial states in favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican. They hoped they would be so revolted by Trump that they would vote for her, but they didn't. ..."
    "... It's panic over loss of control. They aren't pondering ways to make things better for the American people. Not in the Beltaway. Not the duoploy. The handwringing is strictly about control and pasification of the population. ..."
    "... The long, long list of dodgy-donors to The Clinton Foundation told large numbers of Democrat voters everything they needed to know about a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. This, and the 'knifing' of Bernie, sealed her fate. ..."
    "... America will never, and should never, forgive Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. ..."
    "... At last! Someone on this newspaper talking common sense. ..."
    "... Absurd! She was a rich white hawkish neolib who has no one but herself and the Democratic Pary to blame for the terrible loss which will seal the supreme court for years. Face facts!! She couldn't even beat Trump and was widely viewed as a fraud. ..."
    "... The person who lost the Presidential Election in USA is Hillary Clinton. She, like Blair is a war monger. I, if I had a vote, would not have voted for her. ..."
    "... If she had been elected we would have had bigger and better wars in the Middle East. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan never ended despite Obama calling the Iraq war a "strategic mistake". One that continued for another eight years. To those two we have added Syria and Lybia. ..."
    "... " ...reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is. " The rest of the world has known that for decades. ..."
    "... I don't understand how accurate reporting by Wikileaks of politicians' emails is considered 'interference' with the US elections. To me, it seems helpful. If a US newspaper made the report, they would probably get a prize. If a foreign organization made the report, so what? People abroad are free (I hope) to comment on US matters, and people in the US are free to read it or not. ..."
    "... Perhaps they mean the Guardian's politics. Identity politics has been thoroughly rejected and instead of learning from the experience, Guardian has been electing to throw more of the same tactics, except louder ..."
    "... Americans across the political spectrum are happy to use Putin to distract them from reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is. ..."
    "... You're absolutely right. Putin is the boogeyman for every ill, real or purported, of his own society, and when the American political system and its institutions prove to be broken, Putin gets to be the boogeyman for that, too. What a powerful man! He must be pleased. ..."
    "... This is an ultimate truth because it explains why Merkel will not be elected. These days Putin is in full control of the world and is responsible for everything. ..."
    "... Let's thank Hillary for that. There is a very good news: on the 20th January we'll cut all Saudi supply channels to the IS and kill all the bastards within 2 months. ..."
    "... In the modern world it is enough to do nothing to be a good man, eg if Bush, Blair, Obama and Clinton didn't create ISIS, the world would be a much better place. You do not even need to be smart to understand this. ..."
    "... It's crazy. Even if the Russian hacking claims are legitimate, the leaks still revealed things about the Democrats that were true. It's like telling your friend that their spouse is cheating on them, and then the spouse blaming you for ruining the marriage. ..."
    "... The Clinton campaign spent like drunken sailors, on media. This is a new role for the media giants that took care of Clinton's every need, including providing motivational research and other consultants. ..."
    "... The ongoing scenario that now spins around Putin as a central figure is a product of "after shock media". ..."
    "... To weave fictional reality in real time for a mass audience is a magnum leap from internet fake news. This drama is concocted to keep DNC from going into seclusion until the inauguration. ..."
    "... Doug Henwood is absolutely correct. This obsession with the supposed foreign interference is baseless. All the real culprits operate within our own system. ..."
    "... Trump's embrace of Russia and decision to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change skewer two of the corporate establishment's cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in the Middle East initiated by the corporate cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup of armaments on Russia's borders." ..."
    "... I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, and I note that already Trump's campaign has put down TWO odious political dynasties, AND the TPP -- all very healthy developments. ..."
    "... The only thing that kept the contest somehow close was the unprecedented all-media fear campaign against Trump. ..."
    "... It was always Hillary's election to lose and she lost it simply because she was not to be trusted. Her very public endorsement by gangster capitalist Jay-Z told you all you needed to know about who she represented. ..."
    "... I was dubious before, but I'm now actively concerned. This crop of Democrats and their deep state cohorts are unhinged and dangerous. They see me and my families' lives as an externality in their eventual war with Russia. As Phyrric a victory as there could possibly be. They are psychotic; not only waging countless coups and intelligence operations abroad, but now in plain sight on American soil. The mainstream media seems to invoke the spirit of Goebbels more vividly with each passing day. Their disdain and manipulation of the general populace is chilling. They see us not as people to be won-over, but as things to be manipulated, tricked and coerced. Nothing new for politicians (particularity the opposition) - but the levels here are staggering. ..."
    "... January couldn't come soon enough - and I say that as strong critic of Trump. ..."
    "... A good article to counterbalance the reams of rubbish we are hearing in the US election post-mortem. Anyone who had neural activity should have known that when you steal the candidacy, you certainly won't get the votes. Clinton effectively handed the election to Trump by not having the humility, humanity and honesty to admit defeat by Benie Sanders. ..."
    "... There's always the possibility of course, that the US establishment realised Clinton's blatant warmongering wasn't 'good for business'. ..."
    "... So maybe, they thought, we can get the Russkies 'on side', deal with China (ie. reduce it to a 'client state'/ turn it into an ashtray) - and then move on Russia and grab all those lovely resources freed up by global warming.... ..."
    "... Only her campaign volunteers knew, her message to the public was "dont vote for Trump" which translates to, I could lose to him, vote for me! ..."
    "... The Podesta emails confirmed what many people already suspected and knew of Hillary and her campaign. Those who were interested in reading them had to actually look for them, since MSM was not reporting on them. It's not as if an avid MSNBC or CNN watcher was going to be exposed. ..."
    "... It's hilarious how the major Left outlets (Washington Post) are now telling it's readers how Russia is to blame for people voting against Hillary due to the Podesta emails, when they didn't even report on the emails in the first place. ..."
    "... EVERYTHING about the system all halfway decent people detest, is summed up in the figure of Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... Like Donald said, she had 'experience', but it was all BAD 'experience'. ..."
    "... she is a frail, withered old woman who needs to retire - def the wrong democrat choice, crazy -- Berni.S would have won if for them - he is far more sincere ..."
    "... "The displaced machinists... believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. But that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance." ..."
    "... This argument is as asinine as the one the author opposes. It was a collusion of events that led to this result, including the failure of both parties to adapt to an evolving economic and social climate over decades. The right wing hailing the collapse of liberalism as a result of decades of liberal mismanagement conveniently forget their own parties have held the reins for half that time, and failed just as miserably as the left.... ..."
    "... It's quite bizarre to see "progressives" openly side with the military industrial complex, which is threatened by a president elect weary of more warfare. ..."
    "... It's to be expected from career politicians like McCain who is kicking and screaming, but it's shameful to see supposed liberally-minded people help spread the Red Scare storyline. ..."
    "... Obama has behaved dreadfully, first he or his office gets one of its poodles namely MI6 to point the finger at Putin re cyberwar, which was swiftly followed by the International Olympic Committee looking at Russia for 2012 Olympic games, the elections in the US and the Democrats CIA coming out with unsubstantiated nonsense (funny how they never like, providing collaborative evidence - on this or anything that supposedly Russia has done) then there is Syria, and Obama and the Democrats were the cheerleader for regime change, because they have been out manoeuvred in that sphere. All of it in less than a week. ..."
    "... If Obama, the administration, and the CIA were smart they would have realised that a concerted effort to blame Putin / Russia would be seen for what it is - a liar and one of trying to discredit both the outcome of the US elections, the dislike of HRC, and her association with Wall St. - she raised more money for her campaign than Trump and Sanders put together (if the Democrats had chosen Sanders, then they would have stood a chance) and that their hawk would not be in a position to create WW111 - thank goodness. The Democrats deserved what they got. ..."
    "... This organ of the liberal media (no scare quotes required - it is socially liberal and economically neoliberal), along with many others, dogmatically supported Clinton against Sanders to the point of printing daily and ridiculous dishonesty, even going so far as to make out as if anyone who supports any form of wealth redistribution is a racist, sexist, whitesplaining dude-bro. ..."
    "... The Wikileaks emails proved the votes were rigged against Sanders, it why Debbie W Shulz had to resign ..."
    "... The election was close, and if one less thing had gone wrong for Hillary she would have won. However I think an important thing that lost her the election was identity politics. She patronized Afro-Americans and Hispanics, by tell them that because they are Trump-threatened minorities, they should vote for her. In the same vein, gays and women were supposed to vote for her. But what she was really telling these groups was that they should revel in their supposed victimhood, which was not a great message. ..."
    "... Completely agreed! The onus for defeat belongs to the Democrat party leadership as well. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both understood where the momentum of the election was headed before anyone else did. The election was won and lost in the white blue collar Midwest. A place that decided that diet corporatism is decidedly worse than a populist right wing extremist. ..."
    "... No one here believed the ridiculous about-face Hillary pulled on the question of the TPP. I guarantee you Bernie would have cleaned Trump's clock in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and perhaps Ohio and Iowa. ..."
    "... "Our self-image as the world's greatest democracy...." Well, speaking for myself and plenty of other Americans, I never said anything like that about us. In fact, like a lot of people I wish we would stick to our own business, quit trying to be the world's cop, and cease meddling in other countries' affairs. ..."
    "... Assuming that it really was the Russians who done it, I guess they had a better game plan than the Saudis. ..."
    "... Her 'deplorables' comment was every bit as telling as Mitt Romney's '47%'. We really needed to know about her 'public versus private positions', even if it only confirmed what everybody already knew. I am not 100% sure the system made the worst choice in raising up Donald Trump. ..."
    "... The American voters heard a steady stream of these arguments. Some may have simply ignored them. Others took them into consideration, but concluded that they wanted drastic change enough to put them aside. White women decided that Trump's comments, while distasteful, were things they'd heard before. ..."
    "... Reliance on the sanctity of racial and gender pieties was a mistake. Not everyone treats these subjects as the holiest of holies. The people who would be most swayed by those arguments never would have voted for Trump anyways. ..."
    "... Colin Powell said Clinton destroys everything she touches with hubris. Seeing as how she destroyed the democrat "blue wall" and also had low turnout which hurt democrats down the ticket I agree. ..."
    "... All this hysteria about the USA and Russia finally working together than apart doesn't help either for it appears that the [neoliberal] lefties want a perpetual war rather than peace. ..."
    "... The CIA being outraged about a foreign state intervening in an election is quite funny. They have intervened so many times, especially in Latin America, to install puppet regimes. ..."
    "... As for hacking... does anybody believe the CIA has never hacked anybody? ..."
    Dec 13, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Hillary Clinton was the symbol of neoliberal globalization and contept of neoliberal for common poeple (aka deplorable). That's why she lost. this is more of the first defeat of neoliberal candidate in the USA then personal defeat of Hillary. She was just a symbol, or puppet, if you wish.

    ... ... ...

    And what exactly are the claims made by these Putin-did-it stories? That were it not for Russian chicanery, Hillary Clinton would have won the popular vote by five million and not almost three million? That displaced machinists on the banks of Lake Erie were so incensed by the Podesta emails that they voted for Trump instead of Clinton? That Putin was pulling FBI director James Comey's strings in his investigation of the Clinton emails? That those scheming Russians were clever enough to hack into voting machines, but not clever enough to cover their tracks?

    It's strangely reminiscent of the days of the Red scare, minus the Reds.

    ... ... ...

    The displaced machinists in the industrial midwest, whose votes helped put Trump in the White House, believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. But that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance.

    They were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial states in favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican. They hoped they would be so revolted by Trump that they would vote for her, but they didn't.

    ... ... ...

    Of course there are questions about our voting machines. The American balloting system is a chaotic mess, with an array of state and local authorities conducting elections under a vast variety of rules using technologies ranging from old-fashioned paper ballots to sleek touch-screen devices.

    The former take forever to count, and the latter are unauditable – we can have no idea whether the counts are accurate. The whole system is a perfect example of a quote attributed (probably falsely) to Joseph Stalin: "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." It's not a system that inspires trust, but we barely discuss that.

    LMichelle , 14 Dec 2016 03:07

    It's panic over loss of control. They aren't pondering ways to make things better for the American people. Not in the Beltaway. Not the duoploy. The handwringing is strictly about control and pasification of the population.

    And you're shocked? I'm shocked you expected more.

    cvneuves , 14 Dec 2016 02:49
    The really amazing story about the presidential elections 2016 was actually not Clinton or Trump. It was how close the US actually got to get its first socialist, or factually rather social-democratic president. Americans are craving for more justice and equality.

    And no, Clinton does not stand for any "left values". Therefore the media favored her.

    Pu2u2skeete -> dphaynes , 14 Dec 2016 02:43
    The long, long list of dodgy-donors to The Clinton Foundation told large numbers of Democrat voters everything they needed to know about a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. This, and the 'knifing' of Bernie, sealed her fate. A reincarnated Tricky Dicky would have trounced her, too.
    poikloik098 -> Mansplain , 14 Dec 2016 03:05
    Weird in your mind only. A letter just before the election suggesting that Clinton might be indicted? And was she? Of course not. Match the letter's release with the polls at the time to see it's influence.

    Clinton's problems such as her email server were nothing compared to all the baggage that Trump carries, yet Trump's problems were blithely ignored by many because they thought Trump would make a difference.

    AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 02:19
    America will never, and should never, forgive Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
    jmac55 , 14 Dec 2016 02:18
    At last! Someone on this newspaper talking common sense.

    For the last twenty years, (way before we even knew Putin's name) the Republican Party have promoted, fomented and instigated the most ludicrous lies and calumnies about the Democratic Party and particularly Hilary Clinton, who they quite rightly recognised as a future Democratic Presidential candidate.

    They have politicised: education, defense, Federal Parks, water, race, religion and even the air we breath in their efforts to ensure victory and to this end, they bought and paid for populist uprisings against Democratic politicians, like the now abandoned Tea Party.

    The problem was that even when Republicans were elected, they obviously couldn't keep their own nonsensical promises to their now rabid audience who no longer trusted their own elected Government.

    When Trump, a disestablishment, anti-Government candidate came along, the electorate (naively) saw a possibility of the change they have been promised.

    Of course the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton, since they can see the destruction he can cause their geopolitical adversary and Putin would say as much as he can to support Trump...errr....even though it would be counter-productive with conservative voters...but it is unlikely that he bears anywhere near the blame that the Republican Party does, who foolishly allowed their own 'attack dog' to bite them on the arse.

    I'm sorry to say that the Republican Party (and the US) has to suck this one up and admit...(to mix my hackneyed metaphors) that they've blown themselves up with their own petard!

    joanne Ward , 14 Dec 2016 02:17
    I think with hindsight Bernie Sanders is going to be blamed for dividing the Democratic Party and bolstering the Republican propaganda against the Clintons. If only we had stuck together with Clinton we wouldn't be facing the Trump disaster now. Hillary Clinton is not evil and she was very highly qualified--to paraphrase Brando, we could have had progress instead of a disaster, which is what we have now.
    sand2016 -> joanne Ward , 14 Dec 2016 02:25
    Absurd! She was a rich white hawkish neolib who has no one but herself and the Democratic Pary to blame for the terrible loss which will seal the supreme court for years. Face facts!! She couldn't even beat Trump and was widely viewed as a fraud.
    FriendlyEmpiricist -> Fred1 , 14 Dec 2016 02:28
    You fool, the Libertarian party is the largest third party in the US and they mostly take votes from the Republicans. Stop blaming third parties when their existence demonstrably helps the Democrats. Or perhaps you dream of a world where conservatives still support their third party just as much as they ever did but lefties all move in perfect lockstep? If so, it's time for a reality check.
    pacificist , 14 Dec 2016 02:14
    Up jumped Hilary Benn with the theory that Jeremy Corbyn had caused the Brexit vote. His resignation and the denunciation of 172 Labour MP's based on an "indisputable fact" that nobody believes to be true today. The person who lost the Presidential Election in USA is Hillary Clinton. She, like Blair is a war monger. I, if I had a vote, would not have voted for her.

    If she had been elected we would have had bigger and better wars in the Middle East. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan never ended despite Obama calling the Iraq war a "strategic mistake". One that continued for another eight years. To those two we have added Syria and Lybia. The west, like Russia, is dabbling in other people's wars. They have been made one hundred times worse.

    What Hillary would not have dabbled in is the industrial decline in the "Rust Belt" states. She is proposing to do nothing. So they had the prospect of no rectification at home with yet more wars abroad. No wonder they stayed at home. Hillary and Nu Labour are the same: belligerancy in the Middle East coupled with tame pussy cat against failing capitalism at home. The middle east has got total destruction from the west and total nothingness but austerity (ie more failure) as the action plan for capitalism. They are on the "same page" then!

    Jympton , 14 Dec 2016 01:48
    " ...reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is. " The rest of the world has known that for decades.
    helenus , 14 Dec 2016 01:48
    I don't understand how accurate reporting by Wikileaks of politicians' emails is considered 'interference' with the US elections. To me, it seems helpful. If a US newspaper made the report, they would probably get a prize. If a foreign organization made the report, so what? People abroad are free (I hope) to comment on US matters, and people in the US are free to read it or not. It could be argued that only reporting democratic emails is distorting the truth: I'd say its a step towards the whole truth. I welcome all disclosures that are pertinent to a good decision by US voters.
    PostTrotskyite -> helenus , 14 Dec 2016 01:53
    When did hacking become legal?
    helenus -> PostTrotskyite , 14 Dec 2016 02:57
    ask Snowden
    DMontaigne -> 14122016 , 14 Dec 2016 02:26
    The Guardian helped Trump? How many Americans actually read the Guardian?
    Mansplain -> DMontaigne , 14 Dec 2016 02:46
    Perhaps they mean the Guardian's politics. Identity politics has been thoroughly rejected and instead of learning from the experience, Guardian has been electing to throw more of the same tactics, except louder
    Pu2u2skeete , 14 Dec 2016 01:42
    Citizens of the UK are by far the most heavily surveilled in the western world. This has been the case since long before the ubiquitous introduction of CCTV cameras.
    HomoSapienSapiens , 14 Dec 2016 01:35

    Americans across the political spectrum are happy to use Putin to distract them from reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is.

    You're absolutely right. Putin is the boogeyman for every ill, real or purported, of his own society, and when the American political system and its institutions prove to be broken, Putin gets to be the boogeyman for that, too. What a powerful man! He must be pleased.

    Only, the thing is, the American political system and its institutions - American democracy - weren't undermined overnight. It took several decades and it was done by Americans who weren't so keen on democracy. Can't fob that off on Putin, try as they might.

    If American power takes a big fat fall like Humpty Dumpty, don't look to Vladimir Putin, look in a fucking mirror. That's where you'll find the culprit.

    PreziDonald -> PostTrotskyite , 14 Dec 2016 01:28
    This is an ultimate truth because it explains why Merkel will not be elected. These days Putin is in full control of the world and is responsible for everything.
    PreziDonald , 14 Dec 2016 01:23
    Let's thank Hillary for that. There is a very good news: on the 20th January we'll cut all Saudi supply channels to the IS and kill all the bastards within 2 months.
    PreziDonald -> shampacanada , 14 Dec 2016 01:43
    In the modern world it is enough to do nothing to be a good man, eg if Bush, Blair, Obama and Clinton didn't create ISIS, the world would be a much better place. You do not even need to be smart to understand this.
    Your Donald.
    From where you'd rather be.
    With love.
    Lafeyette , 14 Dec 2016 01:13
    It's crazy. Even if the Russian hacking claims are legitimate, the leaks still revealed things about the Democrats that were true. It's like telling your friend that their spouse is cheating on them, and then the spouse blaming you for ruining the marriage.
    Althnaharra , 14 Dec 2016 01:05
    The Clinton campaign spent like drunken sailors, on media. This is a new role for the media giants that took care of Clinton's every need, including providing motivational research and other consultants.

    The ongoing scenario that now spins around Putin as a central figure is a product of "after shock media". Broadcast media bounced America back and forth from sit-com to gun violence for decades, giving fiction paramount value. To weave fictional reality in real time for a mass audience is a magnum leap from internet fake news. This drama is concocted to keep DNC from going into seclusion until the inauguration.

    judyblue , 14 Dec 2016 01:04
    Doug Henwood is absolutely correct. This obsession with the supposed foreign interference is baseless. All the real culprits operate within our own system.
    Chukcha Rybak , 14 Dec 2016 01:04
    What happened to Guardian today ? A reasonable story. Unreal feel
    AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 00:51
    Maybe, in four years, Trump's administration can oversee a secure election. Unlike the Obama folks, who seem to make a calamity out of any project bigger than making a sandwich.
    Pu2u2skeete -> AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 00:59
    Obama still has access to lethal drones, watch your back.
    TheMediaSux , 14 Dec 2016 00:49
    This hullabaloo really highlights the disdain the establishment has for the American voter. They thought they had it tied up. They thought they had pulled one over on the American people. They are not interested in what the voter actually wants.

    And this raises questions about why our servicemen and women are making sacrifices. The establishment story-line talks about our brave soldiers dying so we can have free elections. Or something like that. The establishment does not care about free and fair elections. In fact, this hullabaloo should have demonstrated to everybody that the establishment does not respect or accepts the results of elections that don't go their way.

    AveAtqueCave -> TheMediaSux , 14 Dec 2016 00:53
    Look at WikiLeaks. They died so Hillary could present her ever-so-clever "tick-tock on Libya" and make fools think she's a constructive foreign policy force.
    AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 00:48
    Trump blows, but I'm relieved incompetent Hillary Clinton and her gang of bloodthirsty bunglers aren't going to be in the white house.

    Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should have shown more respect to her party's membership.

    Pu2u2skeete -> AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 00:55
    H. Clinton would have started a war against Russia in Syria come January; and war against Russia in The Ukraine shortly after. Trump could yet end civilization as we know it: thereagain the CIA might 'JFK' him early doors before he's able to.
    DogsLivesMatter -> Pu2u2skeete , 14 Dec 2016 01:25
    Trump might start a war with Iran. He will have the backing of Saudi Arabia, Israel and Jordon. That frightens me just as much if not worse.
    Pu2u2skeete -> DogsLivesMatter , 14 Dec 2016 01:30
    Fully agree with you. Trump's victory is certain to have incalculable consequences for life on earth. I believe he will give Netenyahu the green light to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. I am no fan of Trump.
    Pu2u2skeete , 14 Dec 2016 00:43
    American 'exceptionalism;' The World's Policeman; The greatest country on earth. Descriptions believed and espoused by the USA. So Exceptional is America that it claims a God-given right to interfere with or sabotage political parties, foriegn governments (democratically-elected or not) and sovereign states anywhere it chooses. Now we have the hilarious spectacle of a historically blood-drenched CIA (Fake News Central) squawking and squealing completely fabricated nonsense about Kremlin interference in Trump's election victory. Tell that to the tens of millions slaughtered in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the many other nations and people's around the globe who have had first hand experience of American Exceptionalism. You could not make it up..
    Fred Lunau -> Pu2u2skeete , 14 Dec 2016 01:43
    Well said. Sad but true.

    cvneuves , 14 Dec 2016 00:41
    Arguably, Clinton and the DNC themselves showed very little respect for democracy, as we know from leaks. And now they are whining because of a democratic outcome they don't like.

    We should discuss two things:

    - the content of the mails
    - and the ethical question: did the hacker, whoever it is, did democracy rather a service than a disservice? From when on is a piece of information so valuable that its origins don't matter anymore?

    Media, at least in times when msm still had some moral clout, often relied in their investigative journalism on source which by themselves were not necessarily ethically bona fide - but the public interest, the common good benefited by the information.

    Had Clinton won the election and we only found out now about the trickery that aided in her success we would have a major dilemma. We would have to have endless discussions now about her legitimacy.

    LibertineUSA , 14 Dec 2016 00:26
    I am one who firmly believes that Clinton lost this election because of Clinton's and the DNC's ineptitude and hubris.

    But that doesn't mean the Russians weren't running a psy-ops campaign of fake news stories and misinformation about Clinton and this election on Facebook.

    Which was more responsible for Clinton's loss? Most probably Clinton's ineptitude but the fake news campaigns on Facebook had some effect. It needs to be addressed...

    diddoit -> LibertineUSA , 14 Dec 2016 00:35
    But hadn't Hillary made it personal by saying Trump was Putin's puppet etc?
    She even refused to state whether she'd seek to impose a no-fly zone over Syria; this despite leading Generals telling her it would mean going to war with Russia and Syria.

    Given all that, it's hardly surprising the Russian Duma broke into spontaneous applause upon the confirmation of her defeat. She'd very much cast herself as the enemy of Russia in the campaign.

    LibertineUSA -> diddoit , 14 Dec 2016 01:12
    With the naming of Rex Tillerson, a close business, and personal, friend of Putin, to be Secy. of State I am not sure the argument can be made that she was wrong in her assessment.
    Mizzentop , 14 Dec 2016 00:21
    This article is absolutely right. Trump was not a good candidate and for him to beat Clinton should be setting alarm bells ringing in Democrat HQ. The left though does have an entrenched culture of deluding itself and convincing itself that its a victim of things beyond its control. That lack of self awareness and inability to be brutally honest with itself is a major reason why the left wins many fewer elections than the left. It is also why there are never shock wins for the Democrats or Labour because they always assume too much. The Tories and Republicans are very good at understanding their weaknesses and mitigating them to win elections.
    Aaron Aarons -> Mizzentop , 14 Dec 2016 00:41
    It's absurd to consider Clinton and the mainstream Democrats as part of "the Left". Even the best of the Democrats are generally more on the Right than on the Left, in that they are pro-capitalist and defend the national interests of U.S. imperialism. Add to that their almost unanimous support for the settler colony called "Israel" and there's very little leftism to be found among them.
    JamesHeartfield -> ID8701745 , 14 Dec 2016 00:31
    Cunning of Putin to go back in time and persuade the framers of the US constitution to institute an electoral college, so that he could put his own candidate in place all those hundreds of years later.
    No. Both candidates fought an election under the same rules. In the run up to the vote, Hillary's spokesmen often argued that even if the vote was close, they had the electoral college sewn up. She has nobody to blame but herself.
    ID5073867 , 14 Dec 2016 00:11
    There are plenty of villains who contributed to the electoral downfall of HRC, mostly, though, it's HRC who is primarily responsible, with a big assist from an arrogant & politically inept DNC. Hillary won a bare majority of women, plus the average income of Trump voters exceeded that of Hillies' supporters. Then all the groundwork for the deplorables was laid by Bill, who got rid of Glass-Steagell. Too much is being made of the machinist from Erie & the deplorables generally & if the Dems don't take a serious look at themselves we'll have Agent Orange for 8 rather than 4 deplorable years.
    freeandfair -> S , 14 Dec 2016 01:52
    For goodness sake, it is not foreign governments , it is information. With advance of social media and internet it became so much harder to control the information that gets out.
    That is where we are in a post-propaganda world. You are not only receiving your government approved daily portion of brainwashing but propaganda and brainwashing and information from various sources, all with their various interests. It is your job a s an individual to decide what to believe. You can't put the jinni back in the box.
    cvneuves , 14 Dec 2016 00:10
    It is all about a narrative to suit the agenda. Had Trump outspent Clinton 2:1 he would now be reviled as the candidate of arms industry, pharmaceuticals and big banks. Had Clinton defeated him it would be celebrated as a successful setback for the aforementioned industries; the intelligence of the voters would have been praised. But then supposedly, Clinton was more supported by disadvantaged groups, albeit they then also would be disadvantaged with regards to their education.

    It will always end up in absurdity. However, the notion that "Putin" (never with first name, or Mr, preferably pronounced "Poot'n") decided the US presidency is, interesting.

    Usually the issue simply is, crap candidate, crap result.

    diddoit , 14 Dec 2016 00:09
    Had Sanders been the candidate and had he lost to Trump, I doubt very much he'd have started all this blaming the Russians nonsense.

    Ultimately, Hilary had terrible trustworthiness ratings from nearly 25 years in frontline politics; every shortcoming ruthlessly exploited along the way by her and her husband's political opponents. Ignoring all that historic baggage(dating back to the early '90s) as irrelevant and blaming defeat on the Russians makes everyone supporting that theory look equally absurd.

    MayorHoberMallow , 14 Dec 2016 00:08
    In the 2016 Presidential election, in the 49 States other than California, Trump won the popular vote and enough electoral votes to win the election.
    In California, the most populous State in America, the popular vote was so overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary Clinton that she ended up winning the overall popular vote.
    The electoral college is working exactly as the Founding Fathers intended.
    cvneuves -> ID8701745 , 14 Dec 2016 01:08

    No he didn't. Check your facts and try again.

    He did, in fact Trump is 600,000 votes ahead of Clinton without California.

    Trump 62,916,237 - California 3,916,209 = 59,000,028
    Clinton 65,758,070 - California 7,362,490 = 58,395,580

    Amazing, the difference a fact check can make, isn't it? Thanks for alerting me to a fact check.

    Zacky Olumba , 13 Dec 2016 23:58
    In Shakespeare's book "Julius Caesar" the dictator was told not to go to the Capitol where he will be murdered. His wife warned him, the soothsayer warned him but he ignored it. Caesar's wisdom was consumed in confidence...confidence that he will be crowned king, confidence that all Romans (most stupid people then) loved him, and confidence that those who surround him are his 'friends.' He adamantly went to the Capitol and was murdered.

    Clinton ignored most rural areas and I totally agree with the writer along this line "They were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial states in favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican." Clinton and her team paid dearly for it just like Caesar did. Blaming Russian for the loss is like "You made me do it."

    Simon Speed , 13 Dec 2016 23:53
    In the UK, Rupert Murdoch accesses a Prime Minister as readily as any government minister and wields at least as much influence. At least he is open and honest about this. Similar oligarchs exert their power more discretely. Murdoch's an Australian born US citizen (for business reasons) with a truly global empire.

    A country's big rich have always ruled it's politics. Imperial powers have intervened in their spheres of influence . But now the big rich are international and, it seems, 1st world electorates are getting a taste of what 3rd world people have become used to.

    What strikes me is the reluctance of the US political elite (including Obama) to intervene, even when there's a suspicion of vote rigging. The right of the rich and powerful to control the electoral process (as they have long done) trumps the national-interest (US v. rival powers) side of politics.

    It's a confusing globalized world.

    LastNameOnTheShelf , 13 Dec 2016 23:41
    Hilary Clinton won the popular vote. More people voted for her. What is the deal with the electoral college? How is it possible to have such a huge discrepancy between the two. What is the point of blaming the candidate when they can lose while winning?

    And what is the point of blaming the candidate for their campaign when large numbers of Americans are prepared to believe the most random bullshit? What did you want her to do, lie more often? Because apparently, that's what it takes.

    86753oh9 -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 13 Dec 2016 23:52
    this does a good job of explaining how the electoral college system works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0 ->
    MayorHoberMallow -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 14 Dec 2016 00:09
    From my comment above... "In the 2016 Presidential election, in the 49 States other than California, Trump won the popular vote and enough electoral votes to win the election.
    In California, the most populous State in America, the popular vote was so overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary Clinton that she ended up winning the overall popular vote.
    The electoral college is working exactly as the Founding Fathers intended."
    Keith Schoose -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 14 Dec 2016 00:20
    The election is decided by Electoral Votes. Everyone including Hillary knew that. Complaining that she won the popular vote while losing in the Electoral College would be similar to the loser of a soccer match complaining they lost 1-nil even though they outshot the victor by a 6-1 margin. Whine all you want about the popular vote, it is irrelevant.

    Hillary Clinton visited Arizona in the last week of the election, while visiting Wisconsin ZERO times in the general election campaign. The trip to Arizona was a waste of time.

    She lost because she was a horrible candidate with terrible strategy. All these people bleating about "Putin" and or the "popular vote" make me laugh.

    Afterthoughtbtw -> RobertAussie , 14 Dec 2016 00:10
    With respect, you're going to have to back up some of those claims in the second paragraph and how they could apply to Russia.

    As for the first paragraph, a few things come to mind.

    Firstly, it's a huge simplification - there are things like public interest laws to be borne in mind when talking about the press having to obey the law. I don't think there is much doubt that this was in the public interest. I mean what Clinton did with the email server was actually illegal. If someone hacked into a mob boss' computer, got evidence of his/her crimes, and leaked them to the press, would you criticise the hacker or the mob boss?

    Secondly, how on earth was this selectively released to favour one side? How do you favour one side over the other when you only have information on one side. You are literally saying that you shouldn't report on one side's wrongdoings if you can't find anything wrong about the other's! If these are genuine - which absolutely no-one to do with Clinton has denied - then that is all there is to it. Reality isn't partisan.

    Or are you talking about how it was released? You mean dumped en masse onto Wikileaks? How was that showing bias in any way? I just don't understand what you are trying to claim here.

    Finally this comment makes me suspect you don't appreciate the American political climate:

    But, given the result, the section of the press that would investigate hasn't got the money or power to do so. You can be assured the Fox network would have devoted billions to the investigation had HRC won though.

    Fox News aren't the only people with money - indeed, Clinton vastly outspent Trump in the election... by roughly half a billion(!) dollars.

    JamesHeartfield -> fairviewsue , 14 Dec 2016 01:24
    O -- The Director of the CIA says it, then it must be true? Forgive me, but isn't this an organisation created to spread disinformation around the world, overthrow foreign governments, and subvert democracy? Which elections in the world has the CIA not tried to influence? Time Magazine openly boasts that the US government and agencies had a direct role in securing the election of President Yeltsin (who sold off a significant share of the country's assets under US advice, and plunged Russia into the worst recession since the 1930s). Hillary Clinton openly supported the management of the elections for the Palestine National Authority in 2006. Bill Clinton openly agitated for the overthrow of President Aristide.
    Now that the CIA's most assiduous supporters have lost office, up pops the CIA, blaming the Russians, like we were in some bad 1950s Cold War pastiche. Get real. Take responsibility for your own failures, Democrats. Time to cleanse the stables.
    hashtagthat , 13 Dec 2016 23:21
    The CIA: the organisation that brought us WMD, a Gulf war, 100,000s of deaths and the birth of ISIS. The original fake news masters.

    Highly credible.

    Mark222 , 13 Dec 2016 23:12
    Where is even the proof of Russian propaganda? It all seems to come from an "Anonymous source", without verfication I don't see how this is any more legitimate than the rest of the post truth fake news out there that people believe just because it confirms their biases.
    LastNameOnTheShelf -> Mark222 , 13 Dec 2016 23:45
    The CIA claim to know that Russian hackers leaked the Clinton campaign emails to Assange. You can, of course, disbelieve them, but they're not a random anonymous source exactly.
    Rosie423956 -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 14 Dec 2016 00:17
    Except the sources within the CIA are anonymous. The same CIA who has wrought wars, coups, interfered with elections. That CIA Anonymous source.

    This would be funny, except...oh hell, it's still funny.

    JamesHeartfield -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 14 Dec 2016 00:56
    The CIA -- Trustworthy source --
    cvneuves -> Sappho53 , 13 Dec 2016 23:17
    Putin extremely powerful man. Make regime change in Amerika without needing invasion or rebels. Soon regime change also in many Europan countries by sending copies of emails to small room in embassy of little country in London.

    You know how powerful Putin? Last week even show finger to Chuck Norris! Chuck Norris now call Putin "sir".

    James Harris -> Sappho53 , 14 Dec 2016 01:43
    Uterus or bust went bust a good while back. Give it up
    Michronics42 , 13 Dec 2016 22:50
    Thank you, Doug Henwood for pointing out what the wholly-owned corporate "pundits" choose not to divulge to coincide with their own agendas.

    Hillary was a disastrous choice for the "Democratic" party, but the vast majority of Democratic politicians were just too feckless to support Bernie Sanders, so now we have an equally terrible choice in Donald Trump.

    That Clinton and Trump even competed for the presidency is in itself an indication of just how disconnected and undemocratic U.S. politics has become.

    Moreover, as Henwood (a frequent and unsparing critic of Clinton, Inc. over the years) has pointed out both Democrats and Republicans are supporting the Russia conspiracy theory in a cowardly attempt to distract the U.S. public from the real and far more dire crisis, which is Washington's enormous political dysfunction not Russia's complicity. (Read Henwood's essay: Stop Hillary! Vote no to a Clinton Dynasty in Harper's Magazine, November 2014 - one article a month is free for reading).

    Yes, the electoral college is a ridiculous throwback to slavery which should be abolished, but its dissolution is just one of many things I'd like to see eradicated from a governing body that has long stopped representing the interests of working class Americans; unless, of course you have the influence and money for such access.

    The non-violent and powerful Black Lives Matter, Moral Mondays in North Carolina and Standing Rock protesters (reinforced by U.S. veterans and other supporters) have demonstrated that change is possible if we're carefully focused on uprooting and replacing government corruption.

    Francisco Carvajal , 13 Dec 2016 22:49
    A silly binary-it's not either Putin or Clinton but a complex conjecture. Can't we raise our intellectual level closer to the complexity of our world?
    SubjectiveSubject , 13 Dec 2016 22:46
    The West support for regimes like Israel and Saudi Arabia makes it hard to present a credible case against Putin on any issues but, rigging the election is just absurd. These days people are more clued up and know Hillary lost because she was not trusted, carried baggage and was funded by big banks. It is rather worrying that we've gone backward and Nazi propaganda tactics are the norm again.
    skiloypet , 13 Dec 2016 22:42
    There was a 50/50 chance the Democrats would take the fall from grace; both parties are out of touch with mainstream, middle-class America, it's just coincidence Trump manifested himself when he did. Neither party had a good message or a good messenger; the dark phenomenon of Trump could have come from either party, the nation was so desperate for change. Yet the GOP really maneuvered for Jeb Bush to begin with; the Democrats, with a significantly smaller field, laid their bet on Clinton. The public's rejection of both Bush and Clinton left the door open for a GOP interloper, Trump; and Clinton was pushed on the Democrats rather than Sanders.

    Even the GOP will have buyers remorse if/when they cannot temper Trump.

    Patrick Moore , 13 Dec 2016 22:34
    As someone who wanted Hilary to win, it is difficult to disagree with any of this.

    If she couldn't beat Trump - who about three times a day said something idiotic or repugnant, then she really was the wrong candidate

    Since he won Trump has actually sounded miles more sensible. I can't help feel that if he had adopted his current tone before the election that he would have won by a landslide

    samuel glover -> Herr_Settembrini , 13 Dec 2016 22:55
    "This was the strategy not because Clinton was was incompetent; it was the strategy because all available data pointed to the fact that it was working."

    What a joke.

    She had a billion dollars in her campaign fund. The money she spent on "data" was just money flushed down the sewer. (No doubt various Clinton hangers-on got very nice "consulting" fees.) She was a Democrat who publicly bragged about her devotion to **Henry Kissinger**.

    She lost to **Donald Trump**. I think even Martin O'Malley could've beaten Trump; I'm certain Sanders could. Only Hillary Clinton had the "magic" necessary to lose to a casino and real estate huckster.

    She was always a lousy candidate, and she's an incompetent politician as well. Dems can face that, face reality, or keep going as they are, in which case there won't **be** a Democratic Party before long.

    MountainMan23 , 13 Dec 2016 22:24
    Agreed. HRC, DNC and the Clintonistas are the only ones responsible for her loss. But there's more to their post-election pushback than just shifting the blame, a lot more.

    Demonizing Russia isn't just about seeking a scapegoat. Trump's embrace of Russia and decision to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change skewer two of the corporate establishment's cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in the Middle East initiated by the corporate cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup of armaments on Russia's borders.

    That's a lot of anticipated arms sales and a lot of every bit as anticipated political "donations" from the corporate establishment.

    amuel glover -> MountainMan23 , 13 Dec 2016 23:00
    " Trump's embrace of Russia and decision to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change skewer two of the corporate establishment's cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in the Middle East initiated by the corporate cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup of armaments on Russia's borders."

    That's a mighty optimistic forecast, but it's not impossible. I think Trump is likely to be a disaster, and even if he isn't, an unleashed Republican gang is a horrible thing to imagine. Still, I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, and I note that already Trump's campaign has put down TWO odious political dynasties, AND the TPP -- all very healthy developments.

    cvneuves , 13 Dec 2016 22:23
    Hillary Clinton lost because the majority of the voters were nauseated by her by her fake perma- smile which might as well have been installed by cosmetic surgery. The well rehearsed, worn-out, hollow on-message crap she spouted had zilch credibility and as much resonance. She had nothing to say to the electorate.

    That the Clinton spent about twice as much as the Trump camp in this case did not work to her favour: every appearance on tv made her lose voters.

    The only thing that kept the contest somehow close was the unprecedented all-media fear campaign against Trump.

    I have never had any doubt that that Trump would get the job. What surprised me though, is that only one in 200 eligible voters bothered with the Green's Jill Stein: they are supposedly relatively highly committed to their causes.

    Another mistake of the Clinton campaign, btw. was to focus on scandal. My experience of 45 years of campaigning tells me "scandal" does not win any campaigns.

    cvneuves -> Walter Masterson , 13 Dec 2016 22:45

    99% of the weapons in the Trump arsenal were Trumped up Hillary "scandals"

    They did not decide it. Neither did the new "sexual victim" paraded every couple of days by the Clinton camp. Scandal and counter-scandal are part of every campaign and ignored by non-committed voters.

    What did it for Trump was, that he spoke unscripted, thus came across a somewhat more genuine, and at least acknowledged the victims of de-industrialisation, for which he could not be blamed, but Clinton could. Clinton did not have anything she could present apart from "better equipped because of experience" - with an undistinguished actual record. The name Clinton can be blamed for the plight of the "rust-belt".

    Juillette , 13 Dec 2016 22:19
    Americans have paid a heavy price because of free trade deals and they want a different direction. In the last 15 years there is a noticeable difference in opportunity and wages and most of our politicians don't care. Hillary lost this because she supported most free trade and outsourcing jobs to India and China. They DNC has a chance to reform but they choose not to. I hope Bernie starts a new party and leaves the neo liberals behind. Who knows where Trump will take us but if he adds to the swamp he will be a one term president. Right now it looks like he is repaying his Wall Street fundraisers and big oil super pacs. Our politicians deserve the embarrassment for ignoring our citizens struggles.
    PennyCarter -> Juillette , 13 Dec 2016 22:25
    I mostly see your argument and respect it. However I was not aware that trump was subject to enormous support from super-pacs or Wall Street?
    Juillette -> PennyCarter , 13 Dec 2016 22:58
    Steven Mnuchin with ties to Wall Street stepped in when no one else would and fund raised for Trump. Mnuchin is picked as secretary of treasury. Big oil supported Cruz and moved to Trump with a few superpacs that Kellyanne Conway managed. Both Wall Street and energy will be deregulated. Also tax reform for corporations. He will have to follow through on new trade deals, tax on imports and immigration or he will only help the 1%. We will see if he follows through...
    samuel glover -> PennyCarter , 13 Dec 2016 23:02
    His appointments aren't those of a guy intent on keeping Wall Street at arm's length. **Three** cabinet posts to Goldman Sachs alums?!?!? C'mon.....
    Solomon Black , 13 Dec 2016 22:18
    But didn't Obama dismiss Romney's warning that Russia was a threat to America in 2012. Democrats double standard.
    Walter Masterson -> Solomon Black , 13 Dec 2016 22:31
    Short answer: no.

    Keith Schoose -> Solomon Black , 14 Dec 2016 00:57
    Short answer: Yes.

    Mauryan , 13 Dec 2016 22:18
    CIA? The one which came up with the truth about WMDs in Iraq?

    Who can trust an intelligence agency that has become a legalized criminal organization?

    I think Aliens changed the course of the election and not Putin :-)

    Patrick Moore -> Mauryan , 13 Dec 2016 22:41
    Exactly. So Goldman Sachs as well as the CIA are supporting Hilary. What's not to love about that.

    Difficult to even think of a more toxic endorsement

    MarinaAs , 13 Dec 2016 22:14
    You sir are simply, wrong! read:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/12/1609989/-It-s-the-Russian-arctic-shelf-stupid
    kritter , 13 Dec 2016 22:14
    The only person the democrats are helping with this is Putin.

    diddoit -> kritter , 13 Dec 2016 22:25
    Indeed,

    I bet in Moscow they're quite enjoying this notion Putin can simply dismiss any govt on earth by simply letting loose a few hackers and propagandists. And probably thinking if only.

    The west looks like its collectively losing its marbles. Political systems, like tastes and fashion change naturally over time. Our two party systems struggle to cope with any change, thus the bewildered politicians within these parties lash out.

    PennyCarter -> diddoit , 13 Dec 2016 22:33
    It seems the Arab spring has finally reached America
    MOTCO , 13 Dec 2016 22:11
    The US have been obsessed with the commies for so long they can't see where the new threats are coming from.
    SteveTory , 13 Dec 2016 22:09
    On November 25, 2016, the Obama administration said the results from November 8, "accurately reflect the will of the American people." The following day, the White House released another statement saying, "the federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day."
    Herr_Settembrini -> SteveTory , 13 Dec 2016 22:38
    And? Does anybody claim that any foreign power hacked the voting machines themselves?

    The claim is that Russian directed operatives hacked the DNC, etc. in an attempt to find embarrassing material that would damage Clinton's candidacy. They succeeded.

    mismeasure -> Herr_Settembrini , 13 Dec 2016 23:49
    We know about the claims. What about the evidence?
    suddenoakdeath , 13 Dec 2016 22:04
    Doug Henwood trying to beat the Bernie Sanders drum. What I heard from Bernie Sanders Townhall in Wisconsin is that people blamed illegal immigrants for their situation. Deep down inside they have been Trump supporters for a while. That is why Trump won Wisconsin.
    Wiseaftertheevent , 13 Dec 2016 22:02
    A Labour MP is claiming that Putin also fixed the Brexit vote - which also shows how people will blame anyone but themselves for losing a vote. There is not one Clinton supporter who would have complained about the result had she won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote.

    That is not to say that the system should not be changed but Democrats and/or Clintonites should not try to change it retrospectively. That would mean chaos.

    ATLcitizen7 , 13 Dec 2016 22:02
    Totally agree with this article by Mr. Henwood. If Democrats, and Republicans for that matter, want to go on a wild goose chase to blame Russians for the election outcome, with basically no hard evidence to back their claim, rather than look at the real reasons why they lost (disaffected angry citizens and not being able to compete with Trump because they chose lousy candidates) then they deserve to continue losing their future elections. So be it.
    Mystik Al , 13 Dec 2016 22:01
    If she had not spent so much time calling Trump a Misogynist while taking money from Saudi Arabia then maybe , just maybe she would have not come across as the most deceitful and toxic candidate the US has ever seen.
    NancyVolle , 13 Dec 2016 21:58
    Hillary Clinton lost Pennsylvania, Michigan & Wisconsin solely because of NAFTA & TPP. Bill & Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA. Hillary Clinton had a history of supporting TPP & Obama was actively pushing it. When Hillary Clinton changed her position on TPP people in the old industrial heartland were not convinced that was sincere. The Russians were not responsible for Hillary, Bill & Obama's history of support for trade deals that facilitate moving jobs to low wage countries that suppress unions, allow unsafe working conditions & don't have meaningful environmental regulations.
    seho90 , 13 Dec 2016 21:56

    Julian Assange denies that the Russian government was the source of the hacked emails to and from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta that WikiLeaks published. Of course, there's no way of knowing if he's telling the truth – but regardless of their source, how much influence did they have on the election outcome?

    oh, right

    so when the Wikileaks reveals evilness of the conservatives, it's good, but when the liberals get revealed, he's not telling the truth?

    give me a break.

    Wikileaks is a neutral source, not a conservative or a liberal one.

    PennyCarter -> seho90 , 13 Dec 2016 22:04
    I agree with you. However may I add that the point is not whether Assange is of good character or whether Wikileaks is left or right. The point is has any Wikileaks releases been proven false in the last 10 years or so?
    Herr_Settembrini -> seho90 , 13 Dec 2016 22:32

    Wikileaks is a neutral source, not a conservative or a liberal one.

    Bull. Assange dripped, dripped, dripped the leaks so that it would do maximum damage to Clinton. Whether he has conservative or liberal leanings is irrelevant. What in incontrovertible, however, is that he has an anti-Clinton bias.

    What the leaks revealed is exactly the kind of internal policy debates, calibration of message, and gossipy venting that occurs in any political campaign. Only out of context did they appear damaging.

    calderonparalapaz , 13 Dec 2016 21:43
    Is Guardian running cold war propaganda?

    "Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA's Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence"- Glen Greenwald

    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence /

    ewmbrsfca , 13 Dec 2016 21:41
    The other big elephant in the room is that nearly half of those eligible to vote did not. Instead, the hysterical US media engage the gullible populace in yet another game of mass distraction, and soon Putin will be forgotten and all will salivate over the Oscar nominations. Thus the United States of Amnesia will settle into its usual addictive habit of running after any "news" that holds the promise of distractive entertainment. Never mind the nation's democracy... "We amuse ourselves to death" (Neil Postman).
    Mike Kiepe , 13 Dec 2016 21:37
    This article is spot on. Tulsi Gabbard 2020
    PennyCarter , 13 Dec 2016 21:34
    Otto Bismarck once said: "laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made"

    To paraphrase, I guess you could also say the same about elections. Leaks revealing behind the curtains shenanigans of any election would turn most stomachs. After seeing this election I may become a vegetarian.

    Huddsblue , 13 Dec 2016 21:32
    Too right. It was always Hillary's election to lose and she lost it simply because she was not to be trusted. Her very public endorsement by gangster capitalist Jay-Z told you all you needed to know about who she represented.
    chris200 , 13 Dec 2016 21:12
    I used to work for an American oil company. Clinton was the one thing that united Democrats and Republicans over lunch time chats. She was unsuitable, and unfit for office. People voted not necessarily for Trump, but against Clinton. Don't blame Trump for this result. Blame the democrats and their poor candidates. So far I like his choice of cabinet members. Except for the banker they are men that create wealth by providing work for talented people. Not something the Guardian understands.
    merrykoala -> LDWWDL , 13 Dec 2016 21:27
    So your prime character witness for Hillary Clinton is.....Bill Clinton.

    Good luck with that.

    FYI mishandling protectively marked documents is wrongdoing, which James Comey testified that she had. Had it been ANYBODY other than a presidential candidate their feet wouldn't have touched the floor.

    Justin Chudgar , 13 Dec 2016 21:09
    What the author fails to emphasize is the degree to which Dem. party 'insiders' like DWSchulz and DBrazile and so on sabotaged their own nomination process by biasing the pre-primary and primary contests in favor of Clinton in subtle and stupidly obvious ways.

    Had this been a contest between Trump and B. Sanders, M. O'Malley, J. Biden, E. Warren, etc. there would have been no Podesta emails to care hack, no home server to investigate, etc. By tipping the scales in favor of Clinton early, parts of the Dem. party caused the current outcome.

    piouspish , 13 Dec 2016 20:58
    I was dubious before, but I'm now actively concerned. This crop of Democrats and their deep state cohorts are unhinged and dangerous. They see me and my families' lives as an externality in their eventual war with Russia. As Phyrric a victory as there could possibly be. They are psychotic; not only waging countless coups and intelligence operations abroad, but now in plain sight on American soil. The mainstream media seems to invoke the spirit of Goebbels more vividly with each passing day. Their disdain and manipulation of the general populace is chilling. They see us not as people to be won-over, but as things to be manipulated, tricked and coerced. Nothing new for politicians (particularity the opposition) - but the levels here are staggering.

    January couldn't come soon enough - and I say that as strong critic of Trump.

    erewhon888 , 13 Dec 2016 20:39
    There is an update to yesterday's Guardian article. Update: David Swanson interviewed Murray today, and obtained additional information. Specifically, Murray told Swanson that: (1) there were two American leakers ... one for the emails of the Democratic National Committee and one for the emails of top Clinton aide John Podesta; (2) Murray met one of those leakers; and (3) both leakers are American insiders with the NSA and/or the DNC, with no known connections to Russia.
    michaelmichael , 13 Dec 2016 20:38
    "Putin didn't win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did"

    Nailed it. If the Democrats had fielded someone who actually represented the people (and who spoke the truth) instead of a corporate shill, the outcome would have been very different.

    They had the ideal candidate in Sanders and they fucked him out of it. But have they learned anything? I seriously doubt it.

    Patrick Perroud , 13 Dec 2016 20:37
    Mrs Clinton is not blaming others. She never did. It's the CIA - backed by the 17 US intelligence agencies - that's saying Russia interfered with the election process in the USA.

    In UK as well, the MI6 said something similar a few weeks ago. Germany is also concerned about the next elections in France and Germany. If any of this was true then it would be a serious threat against democracy in Western countries.

    So who's blaming who? Deep cheaters or bad loosers? The CIA could be wrong but is probably correct this time. Trying to bury this unanimous call from western secret services under contempt is significant by itself.

    Thatoneguyyouknow -> Patrick Perroud , 13 Dec 2016 21:06
    " It's the CIA - backed by the 17 US intelligence agencies - that's saying Russia interfered with the election process in the USA. "

    Way to parrot FAKE NEWS.

    That is a COMPLETE LIE. Unless you honestly believe that agencies like the DEA and NASA's "intelligence" conclusively found "proof" that does not exist. That TALKING POINT was a lie when CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN originated it, and it is STILL a lie.

    But hey, it's only wrong when the "bad guys" on the "other team" spread fake news and engage in intellectual dishonesty, right? When it's the "good guys" it's just a case of the "ends justify the means" and perfectly acceptable, right?

    samuel glover -> Patrick Perroud , 13 Dec 2016 23:43
    "Mrs Clinton is not blaming others. She never did."

    Bullshit. Just last week she resurfaced (can't she grasp the idea of the graceful exit?) to yammer on about the menace of "fake news". Because of course we all know that before 2016, all American elections have been exercises in fair-mindedness and scrupulous devotion to truth.

    stellendar , 13 Dec 2016 20:37
    It's funny how media simply refuses to admit that Trump did it.
    Russians, Hilary, polar bears - none of them had anything to do with it - HE WON.
    Live with it.
    Hmeckardt , 13 Dec 2016 20:36
    The clickbait headline is frustrating. No serious person is accusing Russia of having caused Clinton's loss. Instead, serious people (including, thankfully, leading Republicans) are demanding that we take a thoughtful and comprehensive look at the evidence that Russia intended to influence the election. That's a necessary step for protecting our democracy and it's irresponsible to ascribe political motives to that task.
    Bauhaus -> Hmeckardt , 13 Dec 2016 20:42
    What about the $20 million given to Clinton from Saudi Arabia, did that influence the election or don't we talk about that?
    James Harris -> Bauhaus , 13 Dec 2016 20:44
    Sssshhh don't mention facts that don't support the agenda
    HeeeresJohnny , 13 Dec 2016 20:34
    There was a good article in The Intercept the other regarding the CIA's unsubstantiated (and subserviently published by the media) claims of Russian interference - how it has essentially become a willy-waving contest between the CIA and the FBI in the wake of the elections; how the CIA is an inherently untrustworthy organisation and the media allowing "senior officials" to dictate the news with empty leaks and no evidence (while shouting the loudest about fake news) is folly.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence /

    Eric Hurley -> HeeeresJohnny , 13 Dec 2016 20:53
    The CIA is untrustworthy? what about the FBI?

    HeeeresJohnny -> Eric Hurley , 13 Dec 2016 21:05
    As far as I know, the FBI isn't currently leaking unsubstantiated "news" with the potential of provoking dangerously poor relations with Russia.
    Thatoneguyyouknow -> Eric Hurley , 13 Dec 2016 21:12
    "The CIA is untrustworthy?"

    Have you ZERO knowledge of history? WHAT in their ENTIRE EXISTENCE has given you a ONE SINGLE BIT of faith in their credibility?

    michaelmichael -> Dzomba , 13 Dec 2016 20:40
    "but using covert methods to manipulate the flow of information in the public debate to undermine a candidate is totally unacceptable"

    the US prefers to engineer military coups

    finnja , 13 Dec 2016 20:32
    Very true. It takes an abysmal candidate to lose against (quoting Jimmy Dore here:) Donny Tinyhands.
    It takes a special brand of dense to run
    - for Wall Street (against reinstatement of Glass Steagall)
    - for a direct military confrontation with nuclear power Russia (wich Clinton's pet-project of no-fly zones in Syria would have signified)
    - for trade deals (nobody bought Clinton was suddenly against that)
    and expect the DEMOCRATIC base to turn out.
    Jesus Christ, Donny ran to the left of Hillary on all three issues. Not that anyone trusts him to keep any promise, but at least he didn't outright spit in the face of the people who want less war, less neoliberalism and less Wall Street cronyism while running for election.
    No Democratic candidate worth his/her name would have lost against Trump, not even if the Axis of Evil (whoever that currently is) had hacked all their emails, photobooks and private porn-flicks, in which they starred, and had them all run nonstop 24/7 on every screen on Earth.
    2fingersup2tories , 13 Dec 2016 20:23
    I'm shocked!!! Aren't the Russians to blame for everything???
    My t.v breaking, the rain outside, brexit, Donald trump, the Iraq war, the death of Jesus, those damn Russians, nothing is safe around those monsters.
    Hilarious
    enodesign , 13 Dec 2016 20:19
    Thanks for this article .

    You are so correct .

    I am so sick and tired of hearing those whining elite democrats gone incessantly about white males , the FBI , Putin , Russia , stupid red state citizens , etc., etc ..

    I want say ' Shut the fuck up -- ..... and look in the bloody mirror ' .

    I am a classic liberal .... always have been ..... always will be ...... and I don't know what you would like to call these corrupt , elitist , contemporary democrats but you certainly can not call them real liberals .

    I call them designer democrats . They care only for their particular pet issues and they ongoing pursuit of notions of their own superiority . They routinely generalize in highly sexist and racist fashions and through the use of political correctness seek to silence all of their critics .

    I , simply , loath them .

    They sabotaged Bernie Sanders campaign . Bernie Sanders ..... the nicest , most caring man to come along in American politics in the past 50 years . Not since , FDR , John and Robert Kennedy have we seen such hope for average people .

    But oh , no ..... Bernie was an outsider ..... not part of their corrupt , elite club . He was a threat to their ongoing party . He had to go .

    They didn't give a shit about what was good for the people . They only cared about themselves and their exploitation of the Democratic Party and it's traditional status ..... and their vulgar corruption of genuine liberalism for their own purposes .

    The Democratic Party establishment will now undergo a long , long overdue cleansing . The Clintons are the first to go as they should be . Two total career political scoundrels , if ever there were any . Lies and secrecy were all that you ever got from them aside form the horrific repeal of the 'Glass-Steggall Act ' and the Stock Trade Modernization Bill which lead to the licensing of the financial elite to plunder the economy , ruin the lives of countless average Americans and turn the economy into a complete casino .

    Elitist to the core , they were .

    Imagine an elite , spoon fed , self-interested urbanite like Hillary Clinton telling some poor white male schmuck living in some small town , who for economic reasons has never had a good full time time and works 3 temporary part-time jobs to pay the bills that he is privileged .

    Bloody ridiculous --

    Talk about overt sexism . Talk about overt racism .

    It's these kinds of behaviours that doomed Hillary Clinton .

    She only has herself to blame .

    If she really had cared about average people she would have not sabotaged Bernie Sanders and she would have stepped aside back in June when every poll indicated the she could not beat Trump and that Bernie could beat him by 10 to 15 points .

    Now , we the people are stuck with a Trump presidency ..... something which you can pretty much be assured is going to be un mitigated disaster in ways that we can't even begin to imagine yet .

    Lord help us .

    Good-bye Democratic Party elites ..... don't let the fucking door hit on the way out .

    I wish I could say that it was nice knowing you but it wasn't .

    Go off to your designer lives and pontificate about what is good for people ..... a subject that you know little about and really don't give a damn .

    Go back to Davos and party with the financial global elite for they are really your people .... your kind . Certainly , average hardworking , genuinely liberal people are not .

    Liberalism exists for all people not just the self-anointed few .

    Treflesg , 13 Dec 2016 20:14
    Have you noticed how recently the 'we are not racist and you are' left have started to use the Chinese and Russians as convenient foreign bogeymen to scare the people with?

    Awkward economic figures, blame the Chinese.
    Awkward diplomatic issues or you lost a vote, blame the Russians.

    The problem with this is that our media then amplifies these attacks on China and Russia, they hear them, and they start to resent it and respond. And our future relations with two major world powers are made worse than they needed to be.

    sarkany , 13 Dec 2016 20:13
    A good article to counterbalance the reams of rubbish we are hearing in the US election post-mortem. Anyone who had neural activity should have known that when you steal the candidacy, you certainly won't get the votes. Clinton effectively handed the election to Trump by not having the humility, humanity and honesty to admit defeat by Benie Sanders.

    He was not a perfect choice, but he could have been a candidate who was everything that Trump wasn't - uncorrupted, honest, and with a clearly thought out and principled agenda.

    All Trump was facing was someone as entitled and establishment as he was,. but with less of what passes for 'the human touch' across the pond.

    There's always the possibility of course, that the US establishment realised Clinton's blatant warmongering wasn't 'good for business'.

    The Russians are no doubt aware that the US has to try and cut the Gordian knot - Washington cannot face down China and Russia at the same time; and the two countries are mutually supportive in the UN and are developing many economic projects together.

    So maybe, they thought, we can get the Russkies 'on side', deal with China (ie. reduce it to a 'client state'/ turn it into an ashtray) - and then move on Russia and grab all those lovely resources freed up by global warming....

    yohoot , 13 Dec 2016 20:12
    Seems to me like the Clinton agenda of big oil, big banks and alot of lies won the WH. Hillary's big corporate donors are on Trumps transition team. Surely they didnt want her to win, since she adopted Sanders regulatory, tax the wealthy platform, hence Clinton was duped with marketing strategy which turned voters off, she was reduced to name calling over promotong policy...what did she represent? Only her campaign volunteers knew, her message to the public was "dont vote for Trump" which translates to, I could lose to him, vote for me!
    Benjohn6379 , 13 Dec 2016 19:58
    The Podesta emails confirmed what many people already suspected and knew of Hillary and her campaign. Those who were interested in reading them had to actually look for them, since MSM was not reporting on them. It's not as if an avid MSNBC or CNN watcher was going to be exposed.

    So, if you were seeking them out, A: you probably already suspected those things and B: you weren't going to vote for Hillary to begin with.

    It's hilarious how the major Left outlets (Washington Post) are now telling it's readers how Russia is to blame for people voting against Hillary due to the Podesta emails, when they didn't even report on the emails in the first place.

    theshining , 13 Dec 2016 19:57
    FINALLY sanity intrudes. For one article and one day. But hey , progress is progress. Trump will NOT be what you think him to be. He will be far better. He will still do things you don't like, but not REALLY bad things. :-)

    There was no reason to vote for Clinton as the article says. She offered nothing except the entitlement of HER. It wasn't enough. Thank The Gods. EVERYTHING about the system all halfway decent people detest, is summed up in the figure of Hillary Clinton. And evidently (and I stand to be corrected) she didn't even have the stones not to melt down on election night and Podesta had to go out there and be a complete buffoon.

    Trump might be an unknown but Clinton and her used up party were a complete known. Like Donald said, she had 'experience', but it was all BAD 'experience'. Trump might not fix the problems but at least he's going to try. Clinton didn't even see the problems.

    Raleighchopper , 13 Dec 2016 19:48
    -> Neoliberalism turned our world into a business. And there are two big winners
    Fearmongering Donald Trump and optimistic Silicon Valley seem to epitomize opposing ideologies. But the two have far more in common than you think

    Steady now Graun, 2 sensible articles in 1 day.

    quasar9uk , 13 Dec 2016 19:48
    it did her a really big favour because she was and still is in poor health and the stress of high office would have been fatal for her probably
    quasar9uk -> kronfeld , 13 Dec 2016 22:20
    she is a frail, withered old woman who needs to retire - def the wrong democrat choice, crazy -- Berni.S would have won if for them - he is far more sincere
    Ken Kutner , 13 Dec 2016 19:48
    Here is the key paragraph: "The displaced machinists... believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. But that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance." Funny the author fails to notice that that describes to a T Trump's campaign, and actually his whole life. That description applies to Trump several orders of magnitude moreso than it applies to Hillary Clinton's life. If you think Trump is really interested in bringing jobs, especially good paying jobs back, you are willfully blind.
    Prydain , 13 Dec 2016 19:43
    "Putin didn't win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did"

    Trump won, he played the game brilliantly to the rules (including the electoral college system), Clinton lost (you can't win it for the opposition, you can just lose, and the Democrats didn't put out their best hope) and Putin was irrelevant in terms of any interference (although maybe Trump voters would rather the US develop a better relationship with Russia, but that's down to Trump in playing that card).

    SwansonDinner , 13 Dec 2016 19:39
    This argument is as asinine as the one the author opposes. It was a collusion of events that led to this result, including the failure of both parties to adapt to an evolving economic and social climate over decades. The right wing hailing the collapse of liberalism as a result of decades of liberal mismanagement conveniently forget their own parties have held the reins for half that time, and failed just as miserably as the left....
    HellisEmpty , 13 Dec 2016 19:38
    It's quite bizarre to see "progressives" openly side with the military industrial complex, which is threatened by a president elect weary of more warfare.

    It's to be expected from career politicians like McCain who is kicking and screaming, but it's shameful to see supposed liberally-minded people help spread the Red Scare storyline.

    Aquarius9 , 13 Dec 2016 19:27
    A good article Henwood.

    The Democrats are in full blown tantrum mode, throwing teddies out of their pram and spitting dummies across the room, because their warmonger and deceitful candidate HRC, didn't win, that's why there has been all this bad news nonsense about Putin and/or Russia since last week.

    Obama has behaved dreadfully, first he or his office gets one of its poodles namely MI6 to point the finger at Putin re cyberwar, which was swiftly followed by the International Olympic Committee looking at Russia for 2012 Olympic games, the elections in the US and the Democrats CIA coming out with unsubstantiated nonsense (funny how they never like, providing collaborative evidence - on this or anything that supposedly Russia has done) then there is Syria, and Obama and the Democrats were the cheerleader for regime change, because they have been out manoeuvred in that sphere. All of it in less than a week.

    If Obama, the administration, and the CIA were smart they would have realised that a concerted effort to blame Putin / Russia would be seen for what it is - a liar and one of trying to discredit both the outcome of the US elections, the dislike of HRC, and her association with Wall St. - she raised more money for her campaign than Trump and Sanders put together (if the Democrats had chosen Sanders, then they would have stood a chance) and that their hawk would not be in a position to create WW111 - thank goodness. The Democrats deserved what they got.

    ohforgoodnesssake -> PanYanPickle , 13 Dec 2016 19:35
    This organ of the liberal media (no scare quotes required - it is socially liberal and economically neoliberal), along with many others, dogmatically supported Clinton against Sanders to the point of printing daily and ridiculous dishonesty, even going so far as to make out as if anyone who supports any form of wealth redistribution is a racist, sexist, whitesplaining dude-bro.
    WitoldLutoslawski -> zootsuitbeatnick , 13 Dec 2016 19:14
    The Wikileaks emails proved the votes were rigged against Sanders, it why Debbie W Shulz had to resign
    Raleighchopper , 13 Dec 2016 18:59
    Or more precisely the Superdelegates and the Democratic National Committee did. Her Goldman/Morgan Stanley speechs were in 2013 ffs, they all knew she had form and was 'viewed as an insider' as Obama put it in The New Yorker interview.
    danubemonster , 13 Dec 2016 18:58
    The election was close, and if one less thing had gone wrong for Hillary she would have won. However I think an important thing that lost her the election was identity politics. She patronized Afro-Americans and Hispanics, by tell them that because they are Trump-threatened minorities, they should vote for her. In the same vein, gays and women were supposed to vote for her. But what she was really telling these groups was that they should revel in their supposed victimhood, which was not a great message.
    Stetson Meyers , 13 Dec 2016 18:45
    Completely agreed! The onus for defeat belongs to the Democrat party leadership as well. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both understood where the momentum of the election was headed before anyone else did. The election was won and lost in the white blue collar Midwest. A place that decided that diet corporatism is decidedly worse than a populist right wing extremist.

    No one here believed the ridiculous about-face Hillary pulled on the question of the TPP. I guarantee you Bernie would have cleaned Trump's clock in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and perhaps Ohio and Iowa.

    ojeemabalzitch , 13 Dec 2016 18:36
    "Our self-image as the world's greatest democracy...." Well, speaking for myself and plenty of other Americans, I never said anything like that about us. In fact, like a lot of people I wish we would stick to our own business, quit trying to be the world's cop, and cease meddling in other countries' affairs.

    If we do that, then I could care less about our image or what the rest of the world thinks. Let some other country be the "leader of the Free World." Who died and left the US in charge, anyway? Not one war we have fought since WWII has been worth the price of one drop of American blood.

    Steve Gustafson , 13 Dec 2016 18:31
    Assuming that it really was the Russians who done it, I guess they had a better game plan than the Saudis. I consider the Russians to have done us a favor of sorts by exposing Hillary's secret Wall Street speeches and the machinations of the DNC. Her 'deplorables' comment was every bit as telling as Mitt Romney's '47%'. We really needed to know about her 'public versus private positions', even if it only confirmed what everybody already knew. I am not 100% sure the system made the worst choice in raising up Donald Trump.

    And even so, if it takes four years of Trump to remove the people who thought Hillary was a good candidate from power in the Democratic Party, it may work out for the best in the long run. And if it takes four years of Trump to show the people who voted for Trump that Republican ideologues can only make their problems worse, so be it. It's mostly the hubris that amuses me at this point. They thought they were the pros. They had the money. They had the ground game. All they did wrong was to preselect and preordain a candidate nobody wanted.

    Steve Gustafson -> Kevin Watson , 14 Dec 2016 04:13

    abuses women, advances the cause of racism, attacks women's rights, is xenophobic

    The American voters heard a steady stream of these arguments. Some may have simply ignored them. Others took them into consideration, but concluded that they wanted drastic change enough to put them aside. White women decided that Trump's comments, while distasteful, were things they'd heard before.

    Reliance on the sanctity of racial and gender pieties was a mistake. Not everyone treats these subjects as the holiest of holies. The people who would be most swayed by those arguments never would have voted for Trump anyways.

    Bronxite -> Kevin Watson , 14 Dec 2016 02:21
    Colin Powell did not advise Clinton to do that, and even if he did she was a fool to take his advice when her boss Obama explicitly told her not to keep a private server. Colin Powell said Clinton destroys everything she touches with hubris. Seeing as how she destroyed the democrat "blue wall" and also had low turnout which hurt democrats down the ticket I agree.
    Max von Berg , 13 Dec 2016 18:09
    Zero evidence other than "he said, she said" regarding any involvement of Russian espionage agencies in the U.S. elections but the left, incredulous once the result didn't go their way, are now clinging to anything to divert attention from the issues that HRC ignored and Trump embraced.

    All this hysteria about the USA and Russia finally working together than apart doesn't help either for it appears that the [neoliberal] lefties want a perpetual war rather than peace.

    noteasilyfooled , 13 Dec 2016 18:01
    The CIA being outraged about a foreign state intervening in an election is quite funny. They have intervened so many times, especially in Latin America, to install puppet regimes.

    As for hacking... does anybody believe the CIA has never hacked anybody?

    Anyway, had the emails not existed, there would have been nothing with which to help Trump. The Democrats have only themselves to blame. Bernie Sanders or ANY other candidate without the Clintons baggage could have done a better job f beating Trump. They wanted Hillary at all cost; they lost!

    GuardianFodder -> noteasilyfooled , 13 Dec 2016 18:55
    Christmas cracker joke for you;

    Q: Why has there never been a coup in the US?

    A: Because Washington doesn't have an American embassy....

    [Dec 14, 2016] Ron Paul The War On Fake News Is A War On Free Speech Zero Hedge

    Dec 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

    A major threat to liberty is the assault on the right to discuss political issues, seek out alternative information sources, and promote dissenting ideas and causes such as non-interventionism in foreign and domestic affairs. If this ongoing assault on free speech succeeds, then all of our liberties are endangered.

    One of the most common assaults on the First Amendment is the attempt to force public policy organizations to disclose their donors. Regardless of the intent of these laws, the effect is to subject supporters of controversial causes to harassment, or worse. This harassment makes other potential donors afraid to support organizations opposing a popular war or defending the rights of an unpopular group.

    Many free speech opponents support laws and regulations forbidding activist or educational organizations from distributing factual information regarding a candidate's positions for several months before an election. The ban would apply to communications that do not endorse or oppose any candidate. These laws would result in the only sources of information on the candidate's views being the campaigns and the media.

    Recently the Federal Election Commission (FEC) rejected a proposal to add language exempting books, movies, and streaming videos from its regulations. The majority of FEC commissioners apparently believe they should have the power, for example, to ban Oliver Stone's biography of Edward Snowden, since it was released two months before the election and features clips of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump discussing Snowden.

    The latest, and potentially most dangerous, threat to the First Amendment is the war on "fake news." Those leading the war are using a few "viral" Internet hoaxes to justify increased government regulation - and even outright censorship - of Internet news sites. Some popular websites, such as Facebook, are not waiting for the government to force them to crack down on fake news.

    Those calling for bans on "fake news" are not just trying to censor easily-disproved Internet hoaxes. They are working to create a government-sanctioned "gatekeeper" (to use Hillary Clinton's infamous phrase) with the power to censor any news or opinion displeasing to the political establishment. None of those wringing their hands over fake news have expressed any concern over the fake news stories that helped lead to the Iraq War. Those fake news stories led to the destabilizing of the Middle East, the rise of ISIS, and the deaths of millions.

    The war on "fake news" has taken a chilling turn with efforts to label news and opinion sites of alternative news sources as peddlers of Russian propaganda. The main targets are critics of US interventionist foreign policy, proponents of a gold standard, critics of the US government's skyrocketing debt, and even those working to end police militarization. All have been smeared as anti-American agents of Russia.

    Just last week, Congress passed legislation creating a special committee, composed of key federal agencies, to counter foreign interference in US elections. There have also been calls for congressional investigations into Russian influence on the elections. Can anyone doubt that the goal of this is to discredit and silence those who question the mainstream media's pro-welfare/warfare state propaganda?

    The attempts to ban "fake news;" smear antiwar, anti-Federal Reserve, and other pro-liberty movements as Russian agents; and stop independent organizations from discussing a politician's record before an election are all parts of an ongoing war on the First Amendment. All Americans, no matter their political persuasion, have a stake in defeating these efforts to limit free speech. dirtscratcher Snípéir_Ag_Obair , Dec 13, 2016 11:45 AM

    For the MSM to declare war on 'fake news' they would have to shoot themselves in the head (instead of the foot). A delightful idea, now that I think about it.
    Nemontel , Dec 13, 2016 11:34 AM
    Leftists just don't like loosing power.

    Ignatius Nemontel , Dec 13, 2016 11:48 AM
    That's the faux left .

    Traditional left is equal protection under the law, against imperial war and, most importantly, pro-justice for the working and middle classes (i.e., against off-shoring mfg, etc.).

    All this nonsense PC and identity politics is designed to divide the left (the working class) on the core issues.

    Killdo Nemontel , Dec 13, 2016 12:12 PM
    from my Easter European point of view (after a decade spent in the USSA) - Democrats seem much more Stalininst and totalitarian than Republicans. $hitlery really reminds me of former prez Milosevic's ugly wife (she was also politically involved and as totalitarian as $hitlery)
    koaj , Dec 13, 2016 11:44 AM
    Anyone with a brain could see this was their underhanded attempt at State approved news. They are getting desperate
    Grandad Grumps , Dec 13, 2016 11:48 AM
    Foreign interference in elections? How about some drill down into Hillary Clinton's donors.

    Foreign influence goes Waaayyy beyond conspiracy theories of hacking.

    whatamaroon , Dec 13, 2016 12:18 PM
    If only the Ron Paulers and the Libertarians weren't for open borders I would support them.
    jfb whatamaroon , Dec 13, 2016 12:55 PM
    They are not "pro-immigration", they are against an intrusive police state that use illegal immigration as an excuse to adopt artificial measures. Do you find logic that in many states you have in parallel

    1) Welfare for refugees & illegal immigrants

    2) Other government services as well

    3) Money use to crack down on business with spot checks to see if they hire illegal immigrants

    4) Money use to increase the patrols along the border or even build a wall

    5) Naturalization of illegal immigrants after a few years of residence

    Usually when the media organize a debate it's always rigged

    On one side you will have the guy/woman who say that Westerners are selfish because they need to offer more to those who arrive and adapt themselves to the new migrants

    On the other side the guy/woman who will say that we are at war with Islam, that they have wage a war on us with this invasion and that some asses need to be kick out overthere, Assad, Ghadafi, Iran, you can name them, martial law is necessary to defend ourself by bombing them.

    Rigged debate between to bogus 'solutions'

    DuneCreature , Dec 13, 2016 12:58 PM
    The fake news accusation is possible to counter. ... Let them call you a 'Fake News' website all they want. ..

    Post and publish well researched and truthful news and then let MSM do your advertising for you. ... Call yourself "Fake News - 'Something'" and let the MSM lying fuckers send you traffic. When they say fake news said this, that or something else and people search you out to hear all your 'fake news' and discover your reports are more on the mark than all the fictional gibberish MSM is trying to feed them, MSM loses it's audience even more.

    Truth has a way of bubbling to the top. ..... Just look at the story of ZeroHedge.

    Send in the lawyers if you have to.

    Live Hard, Sue The Deep Pockets Of MSM When They Lie, Die Free

    ~ DC v4.0

    [Dec 13, 2016] Theres A Psy-Op, All Right; But It Isnt The Russians Zero Hedge

    Dec 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Via DaisyLuther.com,

    Enough with "the Russians" already. This "Russian Disinformation" and "Russian Hacking" stuff is getting more ridiculous by the day.

    First, don't let the irony escape you that most, if not all, of the pundits breathlessly blaming the Russians for "fake news" and "election interference" are the very ones who were saying that Hillary Clinton was a shoe-in for president. They're the ones who were providing her campaign with questions in advance, and allowing her people to approve/disapprove of articles.

    Secondly, many of the entities blamed for spreading "Russian propaganda" were the ones with the audacity to tell the truth about the Clinton crime family and spread knowledge of the information released by Wikileaks. Obviously, I'm not including those Macedonian college kids in this, but keep in mind that they weren't doing it for the Russians – they were doing it to make money.

    This isn't about the Russians at all, which anyone with half a brain realizes is absolutely ridiculous.

    Here's what this really is.

    This is a war on the Trump presidency. It's an attempted coup.

    Maybe it's even another effort to outright steal the presidency from Trump. Maybe there's someone with a lot of money to throw into this "OMG THE RUSSIANS" rhetoric who really hates Russia and who really wanted Hillary Clinton to be the President. Maybe his name rhymes with "Doros." I don't know this for sure, but it's at least a more likely story than "The Russians" hacking our election and deliberately spreading propaganda.

    And it's working. Ten of the Electoral College delegates have asked to be briefed on the Russian "interference" before they cast their votes on the 19th.

    But that isn't all. This is a two-for-one deal.

    It's important to note that the MSM lost every single bit of their remaining credibility during the last election and they're desperate to get it back. It reminds me of a high school kid who gets caught doing something she shouldn't, who then makes up stories about another group of kids to get people talking about them instead of her. The MSM can't accept the fact that Hillary Clinton lost, despite their dishonest but enthusiastic efforts to steal the election for her. They'll collude with whoever they have to in order to become relevant again.

    Do you really have any doubt that they'll collude with whoever they have to in order to become relevant again?

    About "The Russians"

    The whole plotline about "the Russians" really took off when the Washington Post published an article listing a couple hundred websites as Russian "fake news" sites. (I know the owners of quite a few of these sites personally -as in, we've shared meals and wine together – and I can tell you, they're as American as apple pie." The Washington Post later backtracked on the accusations but did not retract the article.

    And today, the New York Times was at it with an article entitled, " CIA Judgment on Russia Built on Swell of Evidence ."

    Except that when you consider that evidence by definition is definitive and the NYT admits everything they have is circumstantial, then, doesn't that completely negates the headline? The article is sheer speculation, just like the WaPo article that named the "fake news" sites.

    What's more, the FBI completely disagrees with the CIA, and they've been very public about it. They don't believe that there is well, evidence . I'll quote from WaPo here .

    The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior.

    "The FBI briefers think in terms of criminal standards - can we prove this in court," one of the officials said. "The CIA briefers weigh the preponderance of intelligence and then make judgment calls to help policymakers make informed decisions. High confidence for them means 'we're pretty damn sure.' It doesn't mean they can prove it in court."

    Give me a break. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should never, ever believe anything the Washington Post refers to as investigative journalism. They have no idea what proof or evidence even means.

    There's a psy-op, all right, but it isn't "the Russians" perpetrating it.

    It's the CIA (keep in mind that psyops is part of their job) working hand in hand with the MSM.

    You just have to laugh at some of these headlines and quotes.

    For your entertainment, enjoy the following round-up of headlines promoting the "Blame Russia" sentiment.

  • Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House ( source )
  • House passes intelligence bill enhancing efforts against Russia ( source )
  • Where's the outrage over Russia's hack of the US election?" ( CNN )
  • Fake News, Russians, and Election Reversal ( Town Hall )
  • A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories ( NY Times )
  • DID RUSSIAN AGENTS INFLUENCE THE U.S. ELECTION WITH FAKE NEWS? ( Vanity Fair)
  • Experts Say Russian Propaganda Helped Spread Fake News During Election ( NPR )
  • Media Wakes Up To Russia's 'Fake News' Only After It Is Applied Against Hillary ( Forbes )
  • And then, have an eyeroll at some very silly quotes

    From an interview on NPR:

    "But let's remember, this was a very close vote where just, you know, a few tens of thousands of votes in a few states ended up making the difference. So I don't know, if you believe that the kind of information that crashes through all of our social media accounts affects how we think and potentially how we vote, I think you would conclude that this kind of stuff does matter." ( source )

    From the NY Times:

    "RT [Russia Today] often seems obsessed with the United States, portraying life there as hellish. On the day President Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention , for example, it emphasized scattered demonstrations rather than the speeches. It defends the Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, as an underdog maligned by the established news media." ( source )

    From a secret mystery source on CNN:

    "There was no way that any one could have walked out of there with that the evidence and conclude that the Russian government was not behind this." ( source )

    From CBS:

    Responding to intelligence officials' report that Russia tried to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of President-elect Donald Trump, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Arizona) on Sunday said he doesn't know what to make of Mr. Trump's dismissal of the issue.

    "I don't know what to make of it because it's clear the Russians interfered," he told CBS' "Face the Nation." "Whether they intended to interfere to the degree that they were trying to elect a certain candidate, I think that's a subject of investigation. But facts are stubborn things. They did hack into this campaign." ( source )

    Politico reported:

    "Donald Trump's insult-laced dismissal of reports that the CIA believes Russia hacked the 2016 election to help him is rattling a spy community already puzzled over how to gain the ear and trust of the incoming president." ( source )

    While some of the efforts are laughable, the end result could be incredibly serious.

    And by serious, I mean devastating. It could result in civil war. It could result in World War III.

    Despite the inadvertent hilarity, this is a blatant effort to keep President-Elect Trump out of the White House and to silence the opposition.

    When all dissenting voices are silenced, you're only getting one part of the story. You're only getting the part that those in power want you to hear. If we learned nothing else from Wikileaks, we learned that there are dark secrets about the evils of money, power, and manipulation. We learned how many conspiracy theories about the Clintons were actually facts , and we learned some things we can't unlearn about the proclivities of some of the most powerful people in Washington .

    We learned that some people will do anything to remain in power.

    We're watching them do anything right now.

    Never has an election been so vehemently contested. Never has our country been so divided. If the election results are cast aside, what do you really think will happen? Do you think Trump supporters will just sigh and accept it?

    And what about Russia?

    Just a few months ago, we were on the verge of war with them . By scapegoating "The Russians," if this psy-op is successful, and Trump is kept out of office, what do you think is going to happen with tensions between the two countries?

    Enough with "the Russians" already. The real conspiracy is happening right here in America.

    [Dec 13, 2016] Not Just America: Germany and Other Countries Blame Russia for Losses By Status Quo

    Dec 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Glenn Greenwald notes that – in the face of Trump and Brexit (which were primarily caused by economic policies which have created massive inequality ) – the Democratic National committee is trying to blame everybody and everything but their own status quo policies and candidates which rig the system for the fatcats and hurt the little guy:

    The indisputable fact is that prevailing institutions of authority in the West, for decades, have relentlessly and with complete indifference stomped on the economic welfare and social security of hundreds of millions of people. While elite circles gorged themselves on globalism, free trade, Wall Street casino gambling, and endless wars (wars that enriched the perpetrators and sent the poorest and most marginalized to bear all their burdens), they completely ignored the victims of their gluttony, except when those victims piped up a bit too much - when they caused a ruckus - and were then scornfully condemned as troglodytes who were the deserved losers in the glorious, global game of meritocracy.

    ***

    A short, incredibly insightful, and now more relevant than ever post-Brexit Facebook note by the Los Angeles Times's Vincent Bevins wrote that "both Brexit and Trump_vs_deep_state are the very, very wrong answers to legitimate questions that urban elites have refused to ask for 30 years." Bevins went on: "Since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are watching in horror as voters revolt."

    For those who tried to remove themselves from the self-affirming, vehemently pro-Clinton elite echo chamber of 2016, the warning signs that Brexit screechingly announced were not hard to see. Two short passages from a Slate interview I gave in July summarized those grave dangers: that opinion-making elites were so clustered, so incestuous, so far removed from the people who would decide this election - so contemptuous of them - that they were not only incapable of seeing the trends toward Trump but were unwittingly accelerating those trends with their own condescending, self-glorifying behavior.

    ***

    The warning lights were flashing in neon for a long time, but they were in seedy places that elites studiously avoid. The few people who purposely went to those places and listened, such as Chris Arnade , saw and heard them loud and clear. The ongoing failure to take heed of this intense but invisible resentment and suffering guarantees that it will fester and strengthen. This was the last paragraph of my July article on the Brexit fallout:

    Instead of acknowledging and addressing the fundamental flaws within themselves, [elites] are devoting their energies to demonizing the victims of their corruption, all in order to delegitimize those grievances and thus relieve themselves of responsibility to meaningfully address them. That reaction only serves to bolster, if not vindicate, the animating perceptions that these elite institutions are hopelessly self-interested, toxic, and destructive and thus cannot be reformed but rather must be destroyed. That, in turn, only ensures there will be many more Brexits, and Trumps, in our collective future.

    ***

    Democrats have already begun flailing around trying to blame anyone and everyone they can find - everyone except themselves - for last night's crushing defeat of their party.

    You know the drearily predictable list of their scapegoats: Russia, WikiLeaks, James Comey, Jill Stein, Bernie Bros, The Media, news outlets (including, perhaps especially, The Intercept) that sinned by reporting negatively on Hillary Clinton. Anyone who thinks that what happened last night in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Michigan can be blamed on any of that is drowning in self-protective ignorance so deep that it's impossible to express in words.

    ***

    Put simply, Democrats knowingly chose to nominate a deeply unpopular, extremely vulnerable, scandal-plagued candidate, who - for very good reason - was widely perceived to be a protector and beneficiary of all the worst components of status quo elite corruption. It's astonishing that those of us who tried frantically to warn Democrats that nominating Hillary Clinton was a huge and scary gamble - that all empirical evidence showed that she could lose to anyone and Bernie Sanders would be a much stronger candidate, especially in this climate - are now the ones being blamed: by the very same people who insisted on ignoring all that data and nominating her anyway.

    But that's just basic blame shifting and self-preservation. Far more significant is what this shows about the mentality of the Democratic Party. Just think about who they nominated: someone who - when she wasn't dining with Saudi monarchs and being feted in Davos by tyrants who gave million-dollar checks - spent the last several years piggishly running around to Wall Street banks and major corporations cashing in with $250,000 fees for 45-minute secret speeches even though she had already become unimaginably rich with book advances while her husband already made tens of millions playing these same games. She did all that without the slightest apparent concern for how that would feed into all the perceptions and resentments of her and the Democratic Party as corrupt, status quo-protecting, aristocratic tools of the rich and powerful: exactly the worst possible behavior for this post-2008-economic-crisis era of globalism and destroyed industries.

    ***

    Trump vowed to destroy the system that elites love (for good reason) and the masses hate (for equally good reason), while Clinton vowed to manage it more efficiently. That, as Matt Stoller's indispensable article in The Atlantic three weeks ago documented, is the conniving choice the Democratic Party made decades ago: to abandon populism and become the party of technocratically proficient, mildly benevolent managers of elite power. Those are the cynical, self-interested seeds they planted, and now the crop has sprouted.

    Indeed, the Dems re-elected Mrs. Status Quo – Nancy Pelosi – as minority leader. And Pelosi claims :

    I don't think people want a new direction.

    Similarly, outgoing Senate minority leader Harry Reid says :

    I don't think the Democratic Party is in that big of trouble.

    I mean, if Comey kept his mouth shut, we would have picked up a couple more Senate seats and we probably would have elected Hillary.

    Of course, the whole claim that Russia hacked the U.S. election is baseless as is the whole hysterical claim that Russian propaganda swung the election.

    But it's not just America

    After Brexit and Italexit – with a potential Frexit looming on the horizon – the status quo in Europe is also trying to shift attention (look, squirrel!) from their failed policies to boogeymen.

    For example, European leaders are also claiming that Russian propaganda is interfering with European values.

    And Germany's incredibly unpopular Social Democratic party is claiming that Russia might hack its election.

    A former British cabinet member alleges that Russian hackers "probably" swayed the Brexit vote.

    And Washington Post national security reporter at Adam Entous told BBC this week that a CIA official claims that Russia hacked the Brexit vote, and the vote in Ukraine (starting around 1:09:58).

    What's next the status quo starts blaming their electoral losses on little green men?

    [Dec 13, 2016] If you boil down what Clinton and the Clintonites are saying, Putin stole the election from her, and Trump is a Russian agent of influence.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Where is Steiner?!?!?!? ..."
    "... What is ALREADY going on with Trump, Dems, Russia is fascinating – and he is NOT EVEN SWORN in yet!!! WOW! The war mongers are REALLY panicking . Anti commie – its the new politically correct viewpoint . ..."
    "... adding: "a party of buck-passing juveniles that have no vision for the future " ..."
    "... Republicans have an agenda. It's terrible but they have one. Democrats represent rule by the professional class, including bankers. That's it. Publicly, they're for rainbows, good things and bringing people together. ..."
    "... Several of my Democratic friends are simultaneously convinced that Trump is a Russian stooge and outraged that he won't listen to his daily national security briefings. ..."
    "... No. First, access was granted by .. Hillary and Podesta and their own idiocy ( her with the server, him with the pas*word) . IMO we are entitled to know what was in the emails. It certainly did not change my vote nor did it change the vote of anyone I know. ..."
    "... I think both Clinton and Trump would be terrible presidents but it has been obvious since she lost that Hillary is unable to accept this to the point of mental illness. First she tried to have her proxies do some damage and when that did not work, she counters with this. ..."
    "... The anti-Trump tapes . And the one with former Miss Universe – is she an American now? Do you call that 'foreign' intervention? "Former Miss Universe tries to steal election for HIllary!!!" ..."
    Dec 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Hillary: " Where is Steiner?!?!?!? " I don't envy whoever's gonna have to take her aside and tell her it's really over. Poor Bill

    If you boil down what Clinton and the Clintonites are saying, Putin stole the election from her, and Trump is a Russian agent of influence. The first is a casus belli , and the second is treason. The first demands a response at the very least of recalling our Ambassador from Moscow. That hasn't happened, which tells you that the people responsible for such things (Obama) don't take Clinton's casus belli seriously. The second calls for a solution "by any means necessary" (exactly as Clinton's previous claim, that Trump is a fascist, does).

    "By any means necessary" would include anything from a von Stauffenberg solution (no doubt the CIA has a wet team) all the way up to a coup. (This last is hard to imagine, since a coup demands occupying physical space with armed force. Who could Clinton call on?)

    So what the Clintonites have settled on is trying get the Electoral College to reverse the election. I can't imagine this coming to anything, since the majority of the electors - since Trump won the election - are Republicans

    Ian Welsh lays out the logic if the Clinton dog actually catches the car :

    If I were a Trump voter, and a bunch of electors, on data that is this uncertain, and which even if it is true amounts to "telling the truth about Hillary and Democrats" were to give the election to Clinton I would be furious.

    I would consider it a violation of democratic norms: an overturning of a valid election result because elites didn't like the result.

    And while I'm not saying they should, or I would (nor that I wouldn't), many will feel that if the ballot box is not respected, then violence is the only solution.

    If faithless electors give the election to Clinton, there will be a LOT of violence as a result, and there might even be a civil war.

    Ian is Canadian; then again, installing Clinton in office by retroactively changing the election rules is a "cross the Rubicon" moment. At least in Maine, I wouldn't picture a Civil War, but I would picture shattered windows in every Democrat headquarters in the state, and then we'd go on from there. Welsh concludes:

    This is where Nazi/Fascist/Hitler/Camps rhetoric leaves you. Nothing is off the table.

    Either decide you mean it, or calm down and take shit off the table that is going to get a lot of people dead if you pull it off.

    Exactly.

    "CIA admits it broke into Senate computers; senators call for spy chief's ouster" [ McClatchy (Re Silc)]. Fooled ya! From 2013. I'm so old I remember when anonymous CIA soruces weren't always revered as truth-tellers.

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    What is ALREADY going on with Trump, Dems, Russia is fascinating – and he is NOT EVEN SWORN in yet!!! WOW! The war mongers are REALLY panicking . Anti commie – its the new politically correct viewpoint .

    timbers , December 12, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    Yes, there is something weird going on with these stories that the CIA appears to be spreading. MOA is saying the MSN is falsely reporting China is flying nukes it doesn't have in planes all over the place. Just a guess but bet this too comes from CIA

    China threatening us with nukes and Russia stealing our elections. The fake news B.S. quotient is off the richter scale. Makes you yearn for the good old days when all we had to worry about was WMD in Iraq.

    ProNewerDeal , December 12, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    except Putin & his dominant party in the Russian gov are not Commie, Putin is a right-wing authoritarian. I suppose Putin, Trump, & HClinton could each be labeled within the right-wing authoritarian category.

    politicalcompass certaintly categorized HClinton & Trump as right-wing authoritarian, & HClinton was closer to Trump on the graph, than she was to Sanders (left-wing libertarian)

    Carolinian , December 12, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Hillary: "Where is Steiner?!?!?!?"

    Droll! How long before a Downfall video featuring Hillary's loss?

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    Carolinian
    December 12, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNVu7cCoVlg

    Such videos actually go back to 2015, but I thought you would enjoy the one where the H guy is talking about the actual election results .

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D026asX0oMo

    and the subtitles are much easier too read on this one .

    flora , December 12, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    re: the new McCarthyism.

    I'd expect this 'reds under the bed' fear mongering from Fox News, not from WaPo. Guess the Wapo is to the Dems what Fox News is to the GOP. Clarifying election, indeed.

    flora , December 12, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    adding: "a party of buck-passing juveniles that have no vision for the future "

    Yep. Pretty much.

    ChrisAtRU , December 12, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    #Concur – A marvelous turn of phrase

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    Really? Check out where Saints Jack and Bobby were during the red scare craze of the 50's. Freedom of speech wasn't their pet project. I know but "Dallas 1963", but there whereabouts in the 1950's aren't the product of conspiracy theory. For the fetishists, their red hunter status has to be ignored. Bobby was a full fledged inquisitor for McCarthy.

    The Dems are throwing on the golden oldies in an attempt to relive the glory of the past.

    dcblogger , December 12, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    what drives me crazy about the Russian hacking conspiracy theory is that there actually WAS a conspiracy to steal the 2016 election, as carefully documented by Greg Palast and Brad Friedman. It consisted of the crosscheck purge of the voting rolls, voter suppression and vapour voting machines. That no Democrat is talking about this tells me that the party is done for.

    Michael , December 12, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    +1

    RUKidding , December 12, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    Good points, and yes, that ticks me off as well. The D Party continues to sit on their thumbs and do bupkiss about real voting issues while issuing Red Scare Menace 3.0.

    Why bother voting Democratic? They're not going to do one blasted thing for the proles. They haven't for years and years.

    Steve C , December 12, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    Republicans have an agenda. It's terrible but they have one. Democrats represent rule by the professional class, including bankers. That's it. Publicly, they're for rainbows, good things and bringing people together.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 12, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    The tin foil hat theory is the CIA is currently stealing the election.

    Waldenpond , December 12, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    The CIA is sterotypically attempting to ouster the President elect for someone farther to the right? So, the same ol' same ol'.

    Anonymous , December 12, 2016 at 8:04 pm

    Yes, the tin foil hat theory is that this all stems from the situation in Syria The CIA's aka HRC"s Syria regime change is a failure. The CIA had high hopes, now dashed. The only chance for war with Russia is to get HRC installed. The recount failed. So, Plan B.

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2016/12/making-predictions-is-tough.html

    For those of us who think too much schadenfreude is ..wonderful

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    The goal is to keep local and state operators and donors from asking questions about the conduct of the Clintonistas and other elected Dems.

    There is a politico article from the wake of the 2014 disaster where elite Dems promised Hillary would save them. An incredible amount of money, time, and reputations was put behind a loser, not just a loser but a person who lost to Donald Trump. Anyone who donated any thing to the Clinton effort should be crazy about Clinton Inc's conduct, so Clinton Inc needs to blame everyone but themselves.

    Roquentin , December 12, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    Let's just say for the sake of argument that the CIA and the Democrats have massively overplayed their hand in these accusations against Russia. I suspect it wouldn't take all that much to bring it all down like a house of cards, with a major scandal ensuing in its wake. Let's say that the anonymous CIA source, assuming it was legit, has badly misrepresented what evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, is there. They're "all-in" on this now. People will have to resign or get fired within these organizations after Trump takes over because of this, wouldn't they? If their careers are on the line, who knows what they'll resort to in order to save their own skins? Maybe this play at flipping the Electoral College was the game all along.

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    The Clintons were abysmal candidates before emails were uttered. Hillary significantly under performed Gore in 2000 in New York by a significant margin despite a candidate too extreme for Peter King.

    Every doubt about Hillary's electability was based in fact and OBVIOUS to anyone who spent more than half a second taking the election seriously. Every Hillary primary voter who isn't a already spectacular crook failed as citizens by putting forth a clown such a Hillary. There are no ways around this.

    Hillary just lost to Donald Trump because "liberals" are too childish to take politics seriously, even her centrist supporters should have seen she is a clod. Of course, most centrists would stop being centrists if they possessed critical thinking skills.

    This is no less than trying to latch onto something that excuses their failures as citizens and human beings.

    Tom Allen , December 12, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    Several of my Democratic friends are simultaneously convinced that Trump is a Russian stooge and outraged that he won't listen to his daily national security briefings.

    lyman alpha blob , December 12, 2016 at 4:36 pm

    In light of the risible 'fake news' meme and NC's invocation of media related laws, here's a reminder of another law you may find useful – Sturgeon's Law .

    Sci fi writer Theodore Sturgeon was told by a critic that 90% of scifi was crap and he retorted that 90% of everything was crap. You just need to know how to find the good stuff.

    Caveat lector.

    Chromex , December 12, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Except he was wrong about crap. 100% of crap is crap. And that's what this latest CIA fake news. influence the electors stuff is-100% crap,

    Aumua , December 12, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    Seems like this fake 'fake news' news (c) 2016 is primed to blow up right in the face of entities like The Times, as more and more people see that half of what they purvey as news is as likely to be B.S. as anything coming from an alternative, or even fringe website.

    What's more is that they are driving the point home that their news stories can't be trusted, with the very same 'fake news' story they are trying to use to emphasize how comparatively real their news is. The irony levels are off the scale. It's uncharted territory.

    Chromex , December 12, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    In order to accept this is any kind of deal ( I do not support Trump nor did I vote for him) there are so many hidden premises you have to accept it is laughable
    First let's assume that Putin himself donned a Mr Robot Hoodie and hacked the server and printed the emails and gave them to Assange who was sitting next to him.
    SO WHAT?

    Is the American public so gullible? Was that somehow unfair?

    No. First, access was granted by .. Hillary and Podesta and their own idiocy ( her with the server, him with the pas*word) . IMO we are entitled to know what was in the emails. It certainly did not change my vote nor did it change the vote of anyone I know.

    It's not like all the anti-Trump tapes etc were not strategically timed to influence the election. IS it OK if Americans do it?

    Second, all they could do with Trump was run past business stuff. He did not have a public policy record to reveal the man was not in government service.. she was. My view is that if the public was so influenced by the emails, which had some absolutely appalling details, none of which were forged, then they were entitled to be ,even if Hitler himself had done the hacking.

    It is disheartening that , less than a month after the NYT said maybe we were biased and we promise to be more careful they are again acting as propagandists and not pointing out all the absurd hidden premises that must be accepted to manufacture an issue. I am still waiting for the Times report on her "fake news" that she was under fire- obviously a story designed to influence primary voters.

    I think both Clinton and Trump would be terrible presidents but it has been obvious since she lost that Hillary is unable to accept this to the point of mental illness. First she tried to have her proxies do some damage and when that did not work, she counters with this.

    I never recall anyone saying that the Democratic party has an absolute right to control the flow of information in the world. AS much as i despise Trump and his stone age cabinet, I am starting to think he is less pathological about this than her. Perhaps if this latest gambit fails she will go the way of Lady Macbeth,

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 12, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    The anti-Trump tapes . And the one with former Miss Universe – is she an American now? Do you call that 'foreign' intervention? "Former Miss Universe tries to steal election for HIllary!!!"

    [Dec 12, 2016] Why CIA is involved in DNC computers hacking probe?

    Dec 12, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
    likbez, December 11, 2016 11:46 pm

    Beverly,
    === quote ===
    Just the fact that Trump has now said he thinks the CIA's cyber forensics team is the same group that tries to determine the nuclear capacity of other countries is itself scary–and revealing. He doesn't recognize and obvious distinctions even about incredibly important things, doesn't understand the concept of expertise, and can't distinguish between important and unimportant things.
    === end of quote ===
    Two points:

    1. After Iraq WMD false claim CIA as agency had lost a large part of its credibility, because it is clear that it had succumbed to political pressure and became just a pocket tool in the dirty neocon political games. At this time the pressure was from neocons in Bush administration. Don't you think that it is possible that this is the case now too ?

    2. It's not the job of CIA to determine who and how hacked DNC computers or any other computers in the USA. CIA mandate is limited to foreign intelligence and intelligence aggregation and analysis. It is job of FBI and NSA, especially the latter, as only NSA has technical means to trace from where really the attack had come, if it was an attack.

    So any CIA involvement here is slightly suspect and might point to some internal conflicts within Obama administration. It is unclear why Obama had chosen CIA Also as CIA and State Department are closely linked as CIA operatives usually use diplomatic cover that request looks a little bit disingenuous as Hillary used to work for State Department. In this case one of the explanation might be that it can be attributed to the desire to create a smoke screen and shield Clintons from pressure by rank-and-file Hillary supporter (and donors) to explain the devastating defeat in electoral college votes against rather weak, really amateur opponent.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence

    Notable quotes:
    "... Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence. Intelligence insiders said no one in the Agency or in the FBI, who is running at least one parallel inquiry, has ruled out a possible internal leak within the Democratic National Committee from actor(s) inside the United States who funneled private DNC emails to WikiLeaks. ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    ALberto | Dec 12, 2016 4:37:31 PM | 9

    Apparently CIA has finally figured out that their asses are toast. CIA has fed a constant stream of half truths and outright rabrications to US MSM and are now turning on WaPo. CIA also has killer drones and military powers they have no right to exercise. Apparently the rats are turning on each other. Let the trials and subsequent executions begin.

    LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC

    However, the FBI reported they did not find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Russian Government did such a thing. The POST reported that a secret CIA report had been presented to lawmakers on Capitol Hill allegedly saying there was information linking Russia to the election hackings in favor of President-elect Trump.

    Now, the CIA is saying the POST got it wrong in fact, they allegedly lied. At this point I think the whole thing is a mess, and I don't see how the American people can decipher the "real" news from the "fake" news.

    Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence. Intelligence insiders said no one in the Agency or in the FBI, who is running at least one parallel inquiry, has ruled out a possible internal leak within the Democratic National Committee from actor(s) inside the United States who funneled private DNC emails to WikiLeaks.

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-cia-says-they-did-not-tell-the-washington-post-that-russia-hacked-election-in-favor-of-trump/

    [Dec 12, 2016] US Insiders Not Russia Leaked Clinton Emails

    Dec 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Posted by: jfl | Dec 12, 2016 2:22:05 AM | 75

    Greenwald documents the fake news produced and disseminated by 'actual, real journalists' at MSNBC, the Atlantic, and Newsweek ...

    A Clinton Fan Manufactured Fake News That MSNBC Personalities Spread to Discredit WikiLeaks Docs

    ... to counteract 'Russian propaganda', no doubt. bs.

    William Binney says US Insiders – Not Russia – Leaked Clinton Emails , and Craig Murray says he knows who leaked them ...

    We're in the midst of an attempted coup by the neo-cons and the cia. On or about 21 January we'll see what happens.

    Krollchem | Dec 12, 2016 9:21:27 AM | 91
    jfl@ 35

    For more information on the WaPo, CIA, Ukraine neo-nazi's and PropOrNot see:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/09/the-anonymous-blacklist-promoted-by-the-washington-post-has-apparent-ties-to-ukrainian-fascism-and-cia-spying/

    Worth noting that Ukrainian associations have been deeply embedded in most large US cities since the early 1950s. Not unlike the AIPAC propaganda wing that pulls the strings in the US government.

    dahoit | Dec 12, 2016 10:54:07 AM | 94
    @22;We are not at war with Russia, so that article has no bearing on Trump.

    The only people at war with them are the ziomonsters and the CIA, and the divide and conquer MSM.

    Why would the CIA f*ck with an incoming POTUS? Because they are scared shiteless he will expose their 9-11 treason?

    ... ... ...


    [Dec 12, 2016] Paul Joseph Watson Dismantles Fabricated Russian Narrative Zero Hedge

    Dec 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    nmewn knukles , Dec 12, 2016 7:11 PM
    And having a KNOWN perjurer (James Clapper) presiding over this farce of an "investigation" is just the icing on the cake.

    "Senator Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

    Then it was revealed by Edward Snowden that, why yes, in fact the NSA does collect data on HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HERE IN AMERICA (probably all) and not "unwittlingly"...on fucking purpose...snaring both Obama and Clapper in their fabricated stories otherwise known as lies.

    Clapper perjured himself before Congress, a felony.

    Period.

    End of story.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Joseph R. McCarthy - Cold War - HISTORY.com

    Dec 12, 2016 | www.history.com
    The next month, a Senate subcommittee launched an investigation and found no proof of any subversive activity. Moreover, many of McCarthy's Democratic and Republican colleagues, including President Dwight Eisenhower, disapproved of his tactics ("I will not get into the gutter with this guy," the president told his aides). Still, the senator continued his so-called Red-baiting campaign. In 1953, at the beginning of his second term as senator, McCarthy was put in charge of the Committee on Government Operations, which allowed him to launch even more expansive investigations of the alleged communist infiltration of the federal government. In hearing after hearing, he aggressively interrogated witnesses in what many came to perceive as a blatant violation of their civil rights. Despite a lack of any proof of subversion, more than 2,000 government employees lost their jobs as a result of McCarthy's investigations. "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" In April 1954, Senator McCarthy turned his attention to "exposing" the supposed communist infiltration of the armed services. Many people had been willing to overlook their discomfort with McCarthyism during the senator's campaign against government employees and others they saw as "elites"; now, however, their support began to wane. Almost at once, the aura of invulnerability that had surrounded McCarthy for nearly five years began to disappear. First, the Army undermined the senator's credibility by showing evidence that he had tried to win preferential treatment for his aides when they were drafted. Then came the fatal blow: the decision to broadcast the "Army-McCarthy" hearings on national television. The American people watched as McCarthy intimidated witnesses and offered evasive responses when questioned. When he attacked a young Army lawyer, the Army's chief counsel thundered, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" The Army-McCarthy hearings struck many observers as a shameful moment in American politics. The Fall of Joseph McCarthy By the time the hearings were over, McCarthy had lost most of his allies. The Senate voted to condemn him for his "inexcusable," "reprehensible," "vulgar and insulting" conduct "unbecoming a senator." He kept his job but lost his power, and died in 1957 at the age of 48.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Clinton Campaign, Top Democrats Call For Intel Briefing, Commission Ahead Of Electoral College Vote

    Notable quotes:
    "... The authenticity of the content of the hacked/leaked emails were never in doubt. Several DNC lackeys, including the chair of the democratic national committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, were fired on the grounds of bias, fraud and even conspiracy to commit criminal acts. ..."
    "... Their desperation makes them very dangerous, especially while still ostensibly in charge of many elements of gov't and, of course, the entrenched MSM. ..."
    "... So can we now accept that the Russians hacked Hillarys server? Seems before the election, the Demorats kept trying to deny it happened. ..."
    "... What about the DHS trying to Hack the Georgia Election Computer System? ..."
    "... Not just gossip, an un-named official (not an official statement by the department head) stating with "confidence" (not evidence), off the record but reported in every major fish-wrap, that Russian hackers were interfered in our elections, AND inferring that they knew the motives/intentions behind this conjured crime. ..."
    "... If there were ANY evidence, the Dems would have paraded it out in front of us loudly and proudly the second they found it. Instead, they prefer making jacka$$es out of themselves (and our country) with innuendo-based trial balloons, as everyone in the world capable of critical thinking laughs at them (us). ..."
    "... So we are still "shooting the messenger"? Nobody wants to discuss the content of the Podesta emails, even though they have not been discredited in any way. ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | Zero Hedge
    monad, Dec 12, 2016 8:46 AM

    Russians did not affect my votes against HRC. HRC did: Whitewater. Mena. Foster. Waco. OKC. Ruby Ridge. Her continuing career and liberty is proof of a Conspiracy.

    oncemore , Dec 12, 2016 8:13 AM

    What hacking?

    Gucifer said, that it was open. The sysadmin said, that it was unmodified Windows business suite server.

    Who needs more to get in, as a standard MS product? I am convinced every intelligence agency on this earth (yes, Zimbabwian agency as well), has a copy of all emails there.

    Andre , Dec 11, 2016 10:10 PM
    Doesn't anybody remember O was going to put our cybr-defenses on full alert to defend the election?

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/us-bolsters-cyber-defense-for-election-f...

    (also posted to the nosebleed section of the main article).

    Ya know, if cyber defenses were increased, this should never have gotten this far.

    mary mary , Dec 11, 2016 8:45 PM
    Anthony Weiner is Russian? When will they indict Crooked Hillary?
    YHC-FTSE -> Handful of Dust , Dec 11, 2016 8:34 PM
    It looks like never doesn't it?

    The authenticity of the content of the hacked/leaked emails were never in doubt. Several DNC lackeys, including the chair of the democratic national committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, were fired on the grounds of bias, fraud and even conspiracy to commit criminal acts.

    Hillary Clinton herself can be indicted on lying under oath to Congress, conspiracy to commit criminal acts (Paying agitators to assault the supporters of her opponents), election fraud (See Veritas), contravening the Federal Records Act, Improper handling of classified documents, and I won't even go into Pizzagate, Saudi funding and the Clinton Foundation, or I'll be here typing all night.

    Where it gets interesting (actually vomit-inducing disgusting), just as Julian Assange alluded, is inside the Podesta emails that colludes with Huma Abedin's dirty laundry on her/Weiner's laptop. The missing (deleted) emails, the references to paedophile activities and snippets of pay-for-play inside the Clinton Foundation. These are not just embarrassing or technicalities that can be woven into excuses, but information that could bring hanging back as the ultimate form of justice for the perpetrators.

    So, these cretins are doing what they glanced at in The Art of War: That the best defense is offence. They are going all out full retard to save their lives using every asset they have in the msm, intelligence, politics and oligarchy.

    Look how fast they moved with H.R.6393 to criminalize alternative news. To discredit the leaked information, to discredit the source, to attack anyone who publishes or mentions them. They will not stop because they cannot stop. This isn't a subsidy for the failing msm, that's a bonus, this is a fight for their existence because they have committed crimes that not a single decent person in the world can abide. It is so horrific, I still have trouble with believing it, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

    Where this will lead is obvious -- a distraction first from the content of the leaks, false accusations and attacks on Russia and anyone who talks about it, leading to the biggest false accusation of all: Trump as a (willing or unwilling) foreign agent which amounts to treason and therefore unfit to be president. Bring the hammer down on the stock market at the same time and we have a conflagration erupting from the already boiling cauldron of American society. Too much conjecture? Maybe.

    francis_the_won... YHC-FTSE , Dec 11, 2016 10:51 PM
    "Too much conjecture? Maybe."

    No, you articulated what I was alluding to a few posts above (I posted before reading yours). Their desperation makes them very dangerous, especially while still ostensibly in charge of many elements of gov't and, of course, the entrenched MSM.

    They'll create the crisis they vow to not let go to waste. Any excuse to seize ultimate power.

    foxmuldar , Dec 11, 2016 5:03 PM
    So can we now accept that the Russians hacked Hillarys server? Seems before the election, the Demorats kept trying to deny it happened.

    What about the DHS trying to Hack the Georgia Election Computer System? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/9/georgia-election-official...

    mary mary foxmuldar , Dec 11, 2016 8:41 PM
    No, I can't accept that the Russian's hacked Hillary's server. Not until I see some evidence. Just repeating the same gossip a million times is not providing evidence.
    francis_the_won... mary mary , Dec 11, 2016 10:46 PM
    Not just gossip, an un-named official (not an official statement by the department head) stating with "confidence" (not evidence), off the record but reported in every major fish-wrap, that Russian hackers were interfered in our elections, AND inferring that they knew the motives/intentions behind this conjured crime.

    If there were ANY evidence, the Dems would have paraded it out in front of us loudly and proudly the second they found it. Instead, they prefer making jacka$$es out of themselves (and our country) with innuendo-based trial balloons, as everyone in the world capable of critical thinking laughs at them (us).

    This tactic is so brutally transparent that I really fear what they are really up to......or maybe they are this stupid?

    philipat Keyser , Dec 12, 2016 7:41 AM
    So we are still "shooting the messenger"? Nobody wants to discuss the content of the Podesta emails, even though they have not been discredited in any way. Classic divert and deflect tactics which a Libtard MSM enjoys being a part of.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Now German Politicians Worried About Striking Increase In Russian Propaganda And Fake News

    Notable quotes:
    "... CIA-controlled BND tells its journalists to follow with the program. ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    They probably forgot about Snowden revelation way too soon...

    Either Russian intelligence officials have suddenly become extremely efficient at disrupting national elections in the world's largest democracies or the establishment leaders of those democracies have intentionally launched a coordinated, baseless witch hunt as a way to distract voters from their failed policies. We have our suspicions on which is more likely closer to the truth...

    Either way, per Reuters , Germany's domestic intelligence agency is reporting a "striking increase" in Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns aimed at destabilizing German society, and targeted cyber attacks against political parties.

    "We see aggressive and increased cyber spying and cyber operations that could potentially endanger German government officials, members of parliament and employees of democratic parties," Hans-Georg Maassen, head of the BfV spy agency, said in statement.

    Maassen, who raised similar concerns about Russian efforts to interfere in German elections last month, cited what he called increasing evidence about such efforts and said further cyber attacks were expected.

    The agency said it had seen a wide variety of Russian propaganda tools and "enormous use of financial resources" to carry out "disinformation" campaigns aimed at the Russian-speaking community in Germany, political movements, parties and other decision makers.

    The goal was to spread uncertainty, strengthen extremist groups and parties, complicate the work of the federal government and "weaken or destabilise the Federal Republic of Germany".

    Like accusations made by Hillary and Obama in the U.S., German politicians, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, have asserted that Russian intelligence agents and media outlets have attempted to spread "fake news" in an effort to "fan popular angst over issues like the migrant crisis." Of course, it can't simply be that voters disagree with Merkel's "open border" policies which have resulted in a massive influx of migrants that have been linked to increasing crime, terrorist attacks and sexual assaults on German citizens...that would just be silly and racist and xenophobic.

    German officials have accused Moscow of trying to manipulate German media to fan popular angst over issues like the migrant crisis , weaken voter trust and breed dissent within the European Union so that it drops sanctions against Moscow.

    But intelligence officials have stepped up their warnings in recent weeks, alarmed about the number of attacks.

    Last month, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she could not rule out Russia interfering in Germany's 2017 election through Internet attacks and misinformation campaigns.

    Estonian Foreign Minister Sven Mikser on Thursday said he expected Russia to continue a campaign of "psychological warfare" and spreading false information after the cyber attacks launched during the U.S. election.

    "It's a pretty safe bet that they will try to do it again," he told Reuters in Hamburg at a meeting of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. "They will try to surprise us. That's something that we should be very careful to look at and try to protect ourselves from."

    While we have absolutely no doubt in Merkel and Obama's assertions that Russia has been able to successfully sabotage national elections, it is curious that, in the U.S., Russian efforts were only successful in certain states where voters had been disproportionately hurt by past Clinton policies (e.g. WI, MI, PA, OH) but not in other swing states like Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.

    Mediocritas, Dec 12, 2016 3:05 AM ,
    Pot calling the kettle black...again.

    CuttingEdge Mediocritas, Dec 12, 2016 3:17 AM ,

    Is this seriously the best these globalist craven cunts have got as a strategy?

    It really worked out well for them pre-election, didn't it?

    Question is, can they sustain this for eight fucking years without having anything to show for it (and no audience with an IQ over 75) at the end?

    Soros will need to dig deep to keep this shitshow on life-support.

    Captain Chlamydia CuttingEdge, Dec 12, 2016 3:31 AM ,
    Exactly. The whole Putin did it narrative in the MSM is government propaganda. Nato bullshit Deep State military industrial complex trying very hard to get the Sheeple to believe in their leaders.....
    HedgeJunkie Captain Chlamydia, Dec 12, 2016 3:45 AM ,
    Our War Criminal Government is why I'm embarrassed to call myself 'American'.

    I'm not too far from Mexico, I already have two cousins the emmigrated there. I like Mexians and Mexico.

    But I can't throw awasy what I already have.

    I expect a Yuge increase on the cost of renewing our passports,

    Sandmann HedgeJunkie, Dec 12, 2016 3:57 AM ,
    Mitt Romney's family fled to Mexico - you should read the story
    jaap Sandmann, Dec 12, 2016 4:18 AM ,
    Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?
    Troy Ounce jaap, Dec 12, 2016 4:38 AM ,

    The biggest defeat for globalists would be that Europe will start looking east, towards Russia, instead of West. Follow the money for these German politicians: bet the "Open Society Foundation" from George Soros will be mentioned regularly.

    CuttingEdge Troy Ounce, Dec 12, 2016 5:15 AM ,
    Introducing Fake News, as faithfully supplied by that bastion of journalistic integrity (not ) - Der Spiegel :

    More pesky Russian fake news, Frau Merkel? Fearmongering propaganda, Mutti?

    ... ... ...

    HowdyDoody -> Troy Ounce, Dec 12, 2016 5:35 AM ,
    CIA-controlled BND tells its journalists to follow with the program.
    CuttingEdge -> Nobodys Home, Dec 12, 2016 3:18 AM ,
    Same puppetmasters.
    Nobodys Home -> CuttingEdge, Dec 12, 2016 3:22 AM ,
    Shudder! I just got a visual of ugly old Sore Os behind a puppet stage with innocent little kids watching the show.
    Kina, Dec 12, 2016 3:16 AM ,
    The world would be a better place if Russia actualy did all the things they have been accused of instead of the CIA and Germany making all this shit up.

    One thing is for certain the NWO was working on Russia at the time of the election, which Clinton was meant to be a guaranteed winner - expcept the Soros-Neocon-Clinton-DNC cabal totally fucked up their rigging, not realising how popular Trump actually was.

    NOW they are in total fucking panic trying to think of ways to get Trump out.

    These neocon fucktard New World Order proponents were trying to corner Russia, remove Putin and make Russia kow tow to the NWO and accept their new overlords. EXCEPT it was and is a total fucking stupid idea because the result would have been nuclear war - Russia would never ever bend to the USA and the NWO - they were totally dreaming if they believed that. And the result would have been a military alliance between China and Russia - with Europe and the USA and Russia in ashes.

  • The world dodge a nuclear bullet when Trump won. So now, having failed to overturn the election through Stein recounts and rigging (the judges wouldn't play along) they have to go the whole demonise Russia thing, as was their original plan. And they want to push it fast before the EU breaks up, as the sheeple wake the fuck up to these neocon Oligarch overlords.
  • My bet is a major False Flag attack somewhere outrageous blamed on Russia.

    These fucking neocons like Soros, Israel, Germany, Clintons and all their backers and cabal either are totally stupid or just don't give a fuck, knowing that nuclear war is a real possibility - AND that the USA CANNOT defend itself against nuclear attack , despite all the wankery about their defense systems.

    So these people know there is a chance of laying waste to the USA - and they don't care, it is worth it for their NWO.

  • Gavrikon -> Kina, Dec 12, 2016 3:30 AM ,
    Considering that the Russians are Hollywood's favorite general purpose villains (as opposed to the practitioners of the religion of peace, or Mexican criminals), this is hardly unexpected, dontcha think?
    dogismycopilot, Dec 12, 2016 3:16 AM ,
    The Russians ate my homework.

    Grumbleduke, Dec 12, 2016 3:19 AM ,
    last week I read that the german government was aware of the NSA spying at least since 2001. No outrage here. Outrage only occurs if you don't have any evidence, and it's the russians. Do you know how most of german elections are held? Paper ballots, ID-cards and lists of citizens who are elligible to vote. There's definitely some hacking possible... Hate your politicians, often!
    Joe A -> Grumbleduke, Dec 12, 2016 3:45 AM ,
    Not only did they know that the NSA spied on the German government -including Merkel's mobile- the German BND along with the NSA spied on the rest of Europe: policitians, EU officials and European businesses.
    Sandmann -> Grumbleduke, Dec 12, 2016 3:56 AM ,
    BND operates as an arm of NSA which funds their operation in Bad Aibling
    TruthBeforeAll -> Grumbleduke, Dec 12, 2016 5:54 AM ,
    "Outrage only occurs if you don't have any evidence..." Way less risk that way.
    DuneCreature -> rmopf2010, Dec 12, 2016 6:06 AM ,
    Well, you could be right about Snowden. .....

    While I will agree that if you knew where to look, in a basic fashion, everything he brought to light was already known or knowable, at least.

    The thing Snowden did was brought all the pieces together, stole the graphics (great visualizing tools), program names and working details and evidence that these things are all possible and on-line. ..... He brought the story together and made it very public. .........

    Not something that Boos Hamilton, the CIA or the NSA would have wanted. ..

    ... ... ...

    Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 3:51 AM ,
    well, whatever you might think about Russian influence in the US...

    ... Russian influence on and in Germany (and all other european countries) is a quite different affair. one little factoid: the so called "Russlands-Deutsche"( * ), i.e. "Russian-Germans" number somewhere between two and three million , in Germany. we are talking here about at least one million that speaks Russian better then German, and reads/watches Russian News

    here, on this continent, we are btw somewhat used to external influences, be them Russian or US ones

    I forecasted to "Haus" some years ago that eventually the German political "status-quo" would start to point out the Russian influence on "Alternative für Deutschland". That moment is nearly there

    again: US Americans might be somewhat confused about foreign influences on their political matters

    here , it has been a reality during the whole of the Cold War and after, from both the US and Russia

    just some examples:

    the reports over the last years about the German parliament being spied upon and hacked by both the CIA and the Russian intelligence services are completely plausible. Merkel was holding up her phone... and alleged that the CIA was spying on her. again, very plausible

    the EU org in Brussels was hacked/spied upon by the British intelligence services, too. again, very plausible. indeed, now that the Brexit talks begin in a confrontational manner... there are even more reasons for the British GCHQ to spy on Brussels

    -------

    (*) wiki article about them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germans_in_Russia,_Ukraine_and_...

    Sandmann -> Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 3:55 AM ,
    They are caled "Spaetaussiedler" Ghordius. There are about the same number of Turks in Germany. It is true the prison population of Germany is largely Serbs, Turks, Spaetaussiedler and New Arrivals.

    I hear Russian but after having millions of Russian soldiers in Germany since 1945 and huge Russian influence back into the 18th Century that is not unusual. You can get Tax Forms in Russian but not English.

    Berlin always was the capital of the East never of the West which Adenauer cleverly placed on the Rhine rather than the Spree. Berlin has always had to consider Russia because ONLY in the years 1919-1939 and 1990-2016 has Germany NOT shared a border with Russia in the past 250 years.

    It is German Aggression that twice brought Russian troops to Berlin

    Ghordius -> Sandmann, Dec 12, 2016 4:07 AM ,
    Sandmann, as often, you try to "soften the blow" of my message with some tidbits that are often completely irrelevant

    they don't call themselves "Spätaussiedler". They call themselves Russlands-Deutsche, i.e. Russian-Germans

    their prison population is irrelevant, here. their right to vote in the German election is

    they read Russian News, they watch RT in Russian, they hold up signs like "Putin save us", and they are quite confused, to boot, and pawns in this "game"

    some Germans, when they arrived, made jokes that some of those Russian-Germans hardly qualified to "Germanness", up to saying things like "all families that in the 19th Century had once a German Shephard as pet". but this is too, irrelevant

    fact is that their numbers are substantial. fact is that they are influenced by their media consumption from Russia. fact is that they were used to see Putin and Merkel as good friends... until they weren't anymore, and since then they are bombarded with news how Merkel is the source of all evils, in Europe

    fact is also that the political establishments in Germany were, up to now, not that fond to tell them anything that would make them too confused because... they are voters, too. and in a political setup like Germany's, you don't tell hard truths to voters, and you don't insult them as dupes

    nevertheless, fact is that Russian (and US, note) influence on Germany's politics is substantial, including that on the Russlands-Deutsche in Germany

    samjam7 -> Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 3:58 AM ,
    I don't think anyone is denying the fact that Germany has become a playball of foreign powers ever since it lost WW1, yes the first, not the second one was already desicive in that.

    Now, no matter how many German-Russians there are in Germany they are still citizens of your country, else they would not have been allowed to come back. The question for Germany needs to be looking ahead into the future, become aware that it is dependent or even controlled by other greater powers, a status it lost, one century ago. Its citizens should start to raise the question which side is better for us, should we work more closely with continental Russia, with all its ressources and land? Or should we work closer with martim ZATO? What has that relationship really done for us, what have we truly benefitted from it?

    Once there is a serious discussion going on about it, Germans will surely never support an atlantcist such as Merkel. For the time being, I'm glad there are German-Russians at least one branch of German society that is keenly aware of the dire situation your country is in.

    Ghordius -> samjam7, Dec 12, 2016 4:15 AM ,
    " no matter how many German-Russians there are in Germany they are still citizens of your country, else they would not have been allowed to come back "

    do you live in some alternate reality planet? check yourself on this your assumption

    we are talking about Russian citizens that were granted German citizenship when arriving in Germany because of their German ancestry

    the "Return of the Russian-Germans" to Germany has gone on since before and after WWI, and the only thing that stopped it for a while was the Iron Curtain

    nevertheless, it was a German policy to grant them citizenship on arrival

    and no, your "Merkel the Atlanticist" is a tad... extreme. it's not about Russia or "ZATO", here

    samjam7 -> Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 4:53 AM ,
    Right, else they would not have been granted citizenship, I don't see why we should disagree on that subject.

    Regarding Merkel is not an Atlanticist, I would like a bit more of an argument just calling it extreme but not providing information as to why is not making your argument very strong. I have plenty of reasons to believe she is: "Allowing nuclear weaopns to be stationed in Germany against the will of the Bundestag, not being the slightest bit affected by the NSA spying scandal, supporting sanctions to Russia that hurt German business much more than British or American...the list goes on and on."

    Ghordius -> samjam7, Dec 12, 2016 5:11 AM ,
    samjam7, do you ever check on what you believe ? let's take only this: " (Merkel) allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed in Germany against the will of the Bundestag "

    just googled it. already in the second hit I get this:

    " The Bundestag decided in March 2010 by a large majority, that the federal government should 'press for the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Germany.' Even the coalition agreement between the CDU and FDP, the German government in 2009 had promised the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Büchel. "

    that's the German Bundestag pressing/instructing the German executive to "do something" in that direction, yes

    that's not the German Bundestag doing a law , which is the very thing it could do, being a lawgiver

    saying "the will of the Bundestag" in this is just that: propaganda. and you fell for it

    the true will of the Bundestag is expressed in law. the rest is "please, try to...", so that your "Merkel is going against the will of..." is just... stretching the truth

    in the same way, there is a substantial difference between welcoming citizens of other countries because of their ancestry and granting them citizenship versus: "they already had that German citizenship"

    samjam7 -> Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 5:29 AM ,
    Where in the above statement did I talk of law? You Germans always need everything 'schwarz auf weiss' or its wrong....

    I spoke of will and to be honest even your quote that you thankfully looked up, proofs without any doubt that the parliament had a will, namely not to station more nuclear weapons in Büchel. Now that the Bundestag doesn't fight with Merkel over it 'i.e. pass a law' is related to the political system of Germany and that its major parties are co-opted and prefer to nod off Merkel's politics than resist it. Also it is highly questionable whether the German Parliament has the authority to decide on these matters, as it delves into the grey area of who actually decides what kind of troops are stationed in Germany, Merkel or the US/UK?

    To call that Propaganda though is unwarranted and rather weak, or how more clearly can a Parliament demonstrate its will?

    [Dec 12, 2016] Former UK Ambassador Blasts CIAs Blatant Lies, Shows A Little Simple Logic Destroys Their Claims

    Notable quotes:
    "... William Casey (CIA Director), "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."? ..."
    "... if an organization has lost trust of national security affairs it should be DISBANDED ..."
    "... ...so why did Debbie Wassername-Schultz resign if the hacks were untrue about her non-neutrality toward Bernie Marx in favor of Hillary Crony? Is this not a usurpation of the peoples will and an affront to "democracy" everywhere? ..."
    "... How is it that a "charity" is only a "charity" as long as the people running this "charity" remain in power? Everyone suddenly becomes "less charitable" because she lost? Why is that? Can't they say cronyism and be done with it? ..."
    "... The entire story is based on a leak from Senate Staff on SSCI alleging what they were told in a briefing by CIMC. What SSCI was told is that there is no evidence of who was the hacker. Because Russia is one of many possibilities, somebody on SSCI who leaked to WaPo concluded for himself that the hacker was Russia. That is not what they were told. The vitriol should be directed toward WaPo and their Senate SSCI source. ..."
    "... As the Obama Administration falls apart, expect the various players to begin to look out for themselves. ..."
    "... Obama is hanging everyone out to dry in the futile attempt to save his own 'legacy'. ..."
    "... Truman signed its charter. The original intent was to assemble and study Information, period. Truman later remarked he would never have done so had he known it would go amok. Instead, it became a weapon of the Deep State. It is now a direct threat to the American Republic. ..."
    "... Ah, yes. The CIA The folks who claimed that Sony was hacked by North Korea, when a private security firm was able to directly finger the disgruntled ex-employees responsible. ..."
    "... The CIA is run by neocons, who are upset that their stooge Hillary lost the election and Trump, the elected President-to-be, is making a direct pivot towards accomodation with their arch-enemy Vladimir Putin. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, the receivers of the DNC leaks know who they got the information from, and swear publicly that that also was an inside leak. But if it were an inside leak, then it couldn't call the results of the election into question. Only interference by a Foreign Power can do that. ..."
    "... Same for the Nameless One. Does she want to admit that her own bureaucracy prefers that she not sit on the throne, or does she like the idea of blaming a sinister foreign entity for her loss? ..."
    "... If the Russians did it, is Obama twisting the knife in the Clinton's back? The email leaks were a false flag attack against the Clintons perpetrated by Obama to remove them from the power matrix, and install himself as head of the Democrat party, free from their influence, and free to move that party in the direction he wants as it's defacto leader. ..."
    "... John Swinton, Chief editorial writer of the New York Times from 1860 to 1870: "There is no such thing as a free press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinions. The business of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell himself, his country, and his race, for his daily bread. We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks; they pull the strings, we dance; our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes." ..."
    "... Clinton's is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing the CIA because they don't know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform. Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked. ..."
    "... The CIA's response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern.(Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church's fight against the Scientific Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA's criminal behavior were harassed and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners. ..."
    "... Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants. ..."
    "... Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: " Which American interests?" The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country's cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama. ..."
    "... The other begged question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples' human rights?" The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity. ..."
    "... Craig Murray: "[...] the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. " I wasn't aware of this CIA allegation against the FBI, it's quite astonishing. ..."
    "... Craig Murray: "[...] this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. " No one should be surprised that The Guardian is up to its neck in publishing ... garbage ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    A little simple logic demolishes the CIA's claims. The CIA claim they "know the individuals" involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks.

    The anonymous source claims of "We know who it was, it was the Russians" are beneath contempt.

    Urban Redneck -> Chris Dakota, Dec 11, 2016 6:07 PM
    The CIA has lots of evidence (both collected and manufactured) which is then misconstrued through politiczed analysis and dissemination to serve their own and their primary customer's personal interests.

    Back during the Reagan administration, someone casually told me "We spend more on disinformaion than we do on information" - I doubt things have changed that much since then.

    manofthenorth -> Urban Redneck, Dec 11, 2016 6:15 PM
    Also during the Reagan years;

    William Casey (CIA Director), "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."?

    Overdrawn -> Laddie, Dec 11, 2016 8:15 PM
    It wasn't a hack, it was a leak. It says so in the article.

    on 19th October CNN said the 2016 Election couldn't be hacked.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cnn+2016+presidential+election+cannot+be+hacke...

    Badsamm -> bigdumbnugly, Dec 11, 2016 7:30 PM
    Correct me if Im wrong; but i thought the law prohibits the CIA from operations and investigations on home soil. That is the job for the FBI. Why is the CIA commenting on computer systems that were hacked in the US of A? There are at least a dozen other agencies (just as worthless) that this would fall under their jurisdiction.
    _mike123_ -> bigdumbnugly, Dec 12, 2016 12:02 AM

    If the Russians had anything to do with the hacked emails, which are only accusations, they did the American people a great service by exposing the evil of the DNC, HRottenC and their MSM minions, none of whom could care less about their ethics violations. They are only upset because they were caught. Their supporters have been had by their own kind and their leaders are now redirecting their exposure onto the Russians and Trump to keep their sheep misdirected from the real problems, HRC and Obama.

    post turtle saver -> bigdumbnugly, Dec 12, 2016 12:31 AM
    we all know what happened to the boy who cried "wolf" when none were there... by the time there actually _were_ wolves, no one believed him...

    the CIA has lost the plot and cried "wolf" too many times for anyone to believe them anymore... if an organization has lost trust of national security affairs it should be DISBANDED

    nmewn -> Billy the Poet, Dec 11, 2016 7:24 PM
    Well it is a wide open "bear trap"...lol...(to use a metaphor) sitting there out in the open un-camouflaged for everyone with two brain cells left in their heads to see...and at some point someone is going to ask...

    ...so why did Debbie Wassername-Schultz resign if the hacks were untrue about her non-neutrality toward Bernie Marx in favor of Hillary Crony? Is this not a usurpation of the peoples will and an affront to "democracy" everywhere?

    How is it that a "charity" is only a "charity" as long as the people running this "charity" remain in power? Everyone suddenly becomes "less charitable" because she lost? Why is that? Can't they say cronyism and be done with it?

    Yezzz, let the progressive tears flow, they taste wonderful ;-)

    chindit13, Dec 11, 2016 6:54 PM
    The Brit Ambassador has the wrong target, because he was caught by Fake News.

    The entire story is based on a leak from Senate Staff on SSCI alleging what they were told in a briefing by CIMC. What SSCI was told is that there is no evidence of who was the hacker. Because Russia is one of many possibilities, somebody on SSCI who leaked to WaPo concluded for himself that the hacker was Russia. That is not what they were told. The vitriol should be directed toward WaPo and their Senate SSCI source.

    As the Obama Administration falls apart, expect the various players to begin to look out for themselves. Do not be surprised if in the next few days, Brennan or someone else at the agency sets the record straight and throws some 'shade' on WaPo and Obama.

    Obama is hanging everyone out to dry in the futile attempt to save his own 'legacy'. Whoever might have been a loyal soldier and who fell on his sword if requested to do so is not going to do it anymore. Obama is a child who cannot accept that he has been an abject failure, so he is getting desperate to create some false historical record.

    imprehensibli , Dec 11, 2016 7:15 PM
    Canadian Journalist Eva Bartlett DESTROYS MSM FAKE NEWS ON SYRIA (please watch - important): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebE3GJfGhfA
    Stemmer -> imprehensibli, Dec 11, 2016 10:09 PM
    I remember Zerohedge reporting on a meeting last year with US Senator McCain and Arab terrorists that included photos . These terrorists were on the US most wanted list. Too bad that Canadian reporter did not mention that.
    SgtShaftoe, Dec 11, 2016 7:23 PM
    I'd say this entire campaign is far too clunky and clumsy to be executed by the CIA The CIA has done some incredibly evil shit in the past so I wouldn't put something like this past them, however they are far more professional generally than this from my limited exposure and what I've researched about activities of the agency.
    lakecity55, Dec 11, 2016 8:30 PM
    The "CIA" has outlived its usefulness. It needs to be broken up and disbanded. Truman signed its charter. The original intent was to assemble and study Information, period. Truman later remarked he would never have done so had he known it would go amok. Instead, it became a weapon of the Deep State. It is now a direct threat to the American Republic.
    kuwa mzuri, Dec 11, 2016 8:36 PM
    Our spy and security apparatus didn't defeat the Soviet Union's "evil empire" so much as it emulated it, using Orwell and Huxley as roadmaps, rather than warnings.
    Fathead Slim -> kuwa mzuri, Dec 11, 2016 11:12 PM
    True, the fall of the Soviet Union came as a complete surprise to US Intelligence agencies.
    fearnot, Dec 11, 2016 10:06 PM
    Maybe it wasn't the Russians. Who else could it possibly be? Not the CIA! Not in good ol USA. Maybe it was Aliens! After all the UK Mail thought as much with Kennedy. Or maybe Bush and his clan are the Aliens. All I can say is Trump better never let the CIA instead of Secret Service guard him and his motorcade!

    The CIA Kennedy assassination theory is a prominent John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. The CIA's potential involvement was frequently mentioned during the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was involved in plots to assassinate foreign leaders, particularly Fidel Castro.[1][2] According to author James Douglass, Kennedy was assassinated because he was turning away from the Cold War and seeking a negotiated peace with the Soviet Union.[3][4] Accusations and confessions of and by alleged conspirators, as well as official government reports citing the CIA as uncooperative in investigations, have at times renewed interest in these conspiracy theories.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theory

    joego1, Dec 11, 2016 10:24 PM
    The DNC leaks came from Seth Rich who was Arkansided; https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4v3bpg/dnc_leaker_silenced_...

    Other leaks came from patriot U.S. intell; https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=steve+pieczenik+leaks+cam+f...

    Case closed; Fire the CIA

    Faeriedust, Dec 11, 2016 10:34 PM
    Ah, yes. The CIA The folks who claimed that Sony was hacked by North Korea, when a private security firm was able to directly finger the disgruntled ex-employees responsible.

    Let's break this down some more. The CIA is run by neocons, who are upset that their stooge Hillary lost the election and Trump, the elected President-to-be, is making a direct pivot towards accomodation with their arch-enemy Vladimir Putin.

    Meanwhile, the FBI is stacked with political employees and their career hirees installed under GW Bush, and leans strongly against the Democrats, to the point of deliberately leaking damaging evidence against the Democratic candidate the week before the election . . . granted that there wouldn't have been any information to leak, if Hillary had followed the laws and policies of her federal position.

    Meanwhile, the receivers of the DNC leaks know who they got the information from, and swear publicly that that also was an inside leak. But if it were an inside leak, then it couldn't call the results of the election into question. Only interference by a Foreign Power can do that.

    But to the extent that the Russians DID lobby against Hillary, they did so completely openly. If you read an article in Russia Today in favor of Trump or against Hillary, you can hardly claim to be deceived.

    The Russians are allowed to have an opinion; we can't stop that. What they aren't allowed to do is to vote, or to contribute money to the candidates' campaigns (here we will lightly skip over the millions donated to Hillary's campaign by Israeli dual citizens, the Saudis, the Australians, Nigeria, VietNam, India, Haiti . . .).

    tarabel, Dec 11, 2016 10:37 PM
    What did you expect them to say? "Uh, yes, Mr. President, it was us, actually." Of course they are going to point the finger elsewhere. Especially to someplace that cannot be pressured. You would too, if placed in the same position. Same for the Nameless One. Does she want to admit that her own bureaucracy prefers that she not sit on the throne, or does she like the idea of blaming a sinister foreign entity for her loss?

    And even if Russia did it, it's not like they made anything up. Come on, people. Realpolitik.

    gregga777, Dec 11, 2016 10:49 PM
    The CIA (Central Insanity Agency) IS the United States government. It controls all of the other so-called independent intelligence agencies. Would the CIA lie to overturn the 2016 Presidential elections? Well, the CIA are the very same people who: <
    • for decades have had hundreds of nationally and internationally prominent so-called journalists on the CIA payroll and controlled the stories reported by Western Mainstream Conporate News Media;
    • assassinated President John F. Kennedy because they were furious about the failure of their insane Bay of Pigs fiasco, the peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc., etc., etc.;
    • faked the Gulf of Tonkin intelligence to get the United States Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution giving the bloodthirsty Generals and Admirals and President Lyndon B. Johnson the false flag incident to drastically escalate the Vietnam War–closely located to the Golden Triangle's highly coveted rich heroin supplies–and all of the attendant decades of lying about that war;
    • destabilized Afghanistan to encourage invasion by the Soviet Union;
    • created, supported and armed the Sunni Mujahideen, which morphed into Al Qaeda following the Gulf War, to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan;
    • encouraged President Jimmy Carter to admit the Shah of Iran to create the pretext for decades of enmity between Iran and the United States and destroy Jimmy Carter's Presidency;
    • encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait to give President George H. W. Bush the pretext to declare war on Iraq;
    • were behind the 9/11/2001 false flag attacks on the World Trade Center towers, and their destruction with controlled explosives demolitions charges, and the Pentagon and then lied that it was all an Al Qaeda plot;
    • lied about Al Qaeda's role in 9/11/2001 to justify the invasion of Afghanistan with its highly coveted, rich poppy fields for heroin production;
    • lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify President George W. Bush's war of aggression against Iraq;
    • created, finances, arms and supports ISIS;
    • plans and carries out false flag operations to influence public opinion;
    • lie about whatever whenever it suits their agenda;
    • controls the 'narratives' in the Feral gangster government's organs of state propaganda (mainstream & social media and entertainment oligopoly);

    And far, far more. But, I got tired of typing and I don't want to bore the readers. The point being that they are ALL professional liars and the love of truth and the American Republic is not in them.

    Yes, of course the CIA would lie to overturn the 2016 Presidential elections.

    Crassius, Dec 11, 2016 11:02 PM
    If the Russians did it, is Obama twisting the knife in the Clinton's back? The email leaks were a false flag attack against the Clintons perpetrated by Obama to remove them from the power matrix, and install himself as head of the Democrat party, free from their influence, and free to move that party in the direction he wants as it's defacto leader.

    Blaming the leaks on the Russians gains obfuscation of Obama's chief foreign policy failure as President.... drawing a red line, then failing to act when it was crossed, which signaled to the world that he was an impudent little bitch that could be ignored in a world that understands only one thiing..... strength.

    holdbuysell, Dec 11, 2016 11:02 PM

    John Swinton, Chief editorial writer of the New York Times from 1860 to 1870: "There is no such thing as a free press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinions. The business of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell himself, his country, and his race, for his daily bread. We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks; they pull the strings, we dance; our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

    obelix, Dec 12, 2016 3:52 AM
    Clinton's is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing the CIA because they don't know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform. Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked.

    Furthermore, Clinton's statement is simply untrue. The history of the agency is growing painfully clear, especially with the declassification of historical CIA documents. We may not know the details of specific operations, but we do know, quite well, the general behavior of the CIA These facts began emerging nearly two decades ago at an ever-quickening pace. Today we have a remarkably accurate and consistent picture, repeated in country after country, and verified from countless different directions.

    The CIA's response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern.(Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church's fight against the Scientific Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA's criminal behavior were harassed and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners.

    However, over the last two decades the tide of evidence has become overwhelming, and the CIA has found that it does not have enough fingers to plug every hole in the dike. This is especially true in the age of the Internet, where information flows freely among millions of people. Since censorship is impossible, the Agency must now defend itself with apologetics. Clinton's "Americans will never know" defense is a prime example.

    obelix, Dec 12, 2016 3:54 AM
    Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants.

    The CIA had moral options available to them, but did not take them.

    Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: " Which American interests?" The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country's cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama.

    The other begged question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples' human rights?" The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity.

    Our intelligence community should be rebuilt from the ground up, with the goal of collecting and analyzing information. As for covert action, there are two moral options.

    The first one is to eliminate covert action completely. But this gives jitters to people worried about the Adolf Hitlers of the world. So a second option is that we can place covert action under extensive and true democratic oversight. For example, a bipartisan Congressional Committee of 40 members could review and veto all aspects of CIA operations upon a majority or super-majority vote.

    Which of these two options is best may be the subject of debate, but one thing is clear: like dictatorship, like monarchy, unaccountable covert operations should die like the dinosaurs they are.

    smacker, Dec 12, 2016 4:27 AM
    Craig Murray: "[...] the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. " I wasn't aware of this CIA allegation against the FBI, it's quite astonishing.

    The FBI and CIA are both utterly corrupt, as is every other faction of the Obola Administration including the Marxist slimeball himself at the very top, but what we see here are factions throwing allegations against each other.

    smacker, Dec 12, 2016 4:39 AM
    Craig Murray: "[...] this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. " No one should be surprised that The Guardian is up to its neck in publishing ... garbage written by Jonathen Freedland. After all it's been "the progressive Left's" house newspaper for years and is known as " The Grauniad " by dissenters.

    What is truly bad is that the BBC are coming out of the closet and once again revealing their own Left-wing Establishment bias by running fake news stories on its TV news channel.

    The Fing News, Dec 12, 2016 4:50 AM
    This is the same CIA that talked about WMD's in Iraq! They will continue being the good Clinton stooges they are. More lies from CIA!

    [Dec 12, 2016] Trump Claims of Russian interference in 2016 race ridiculous, Dems making excuses

    Notable quotes:
    "... President-elect Donald Trump, in an exclusive interview with " Fox News Sunday ," decried as "ridiculous" the CIA's reported assessment that Russia intervened in the election to boost his candidacy – describing the claim as another "excuse" pushed by Democrats to explain his upset victory. ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.foxnews.com
    President-elect Donald Trump, in an exclusive interview with " Fox News Sunday ," decried as "ridiculous" the CIA's reported assessment that Russia intervened in the election to boost his candidacy – describing the claim as another "excuse" pushed by Democrats to explain his upset victory.

    "It's just another excuse. I don't believe it," Trump said. " Every week it's another excuse. We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the Electoral College."

    Trump spoke with Fox News' Chris Wallace in the president-elect's first Sunday show interview since winning the election.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Why CIA is involved in DNC computers hacking probe?

    Dec 12, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
    likbez, December 11, 2016 11:46 pm

    Beverly,
    === quote ===
    Just the fact that Trump has now said he thinks the CIA's cyber forensics team is the same group that tries to determine the nuclear capacity of other countries is itself scary–and revealing. He doesn't recognize and obvious distinctions even about incredibly important things, doesn't understand the concept of expertise, and can't distinguish between important and unimportant things.
    === end of quote ===
    Two points:

    1. After Iraq WMD false claim CIA as agency had lost a large part of its credibility, because it is clear that it had succumbed to political pressure and became just a pocket tool in the dirty neocon political games. At this time the pressure was from neocons in Bush administration. Don't you think that it is possible that this is the case now too ?

    2. It's not the job of CIA to determine who and how hacked DNC computers or any other computers in the USA. CIA mandate is limited to foreign intelligence and intelligence aggregation and analysis. It is job of FBI and NSA, especially the latter, as only NSA has technical means to trace from where really the attack had come, if it was an attack.

    So any CIA involvement here is slightly suspect and might point to some internal conflicts within Obama administration. It is unclear why Obama had chosen CIA Also as CIA and State Department are closely linked as CIA operatives usually use diplomatic cover that request looks a little bit disingenuous as Hillary used to work for State Department. In this case one of the explanation might be that it can be attributed to the desire to create a smoke screen and shield Clintons from pressure by rank-and-file Hillary supporter (and donors) to explain the devastating defeat in electoral college votes against rather weak, really amateur opponent.

    [Dec 12, 2016] If You Are For Peace You Are A Russian Agent by Paul Craig Roberts

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the CIA is actually stupid enough to believe this, the US is without a competent intelligence agency. Of course, the CIA didn't say and doesn't believe any such thing. The fake news stories in the presstitute media are all sourced to unnamed officials. Former British ambassador Craig Murray described the reports accurately: "bullshit." ..."
    "... Fake news is the presstitute's product. Throughout the presidential primaries and presidential campaign it was completely clear that the mainstream print and TV media were producing endless fake news designed to damage Trump and to boost Hillary. We all saw it. We all lived through it. What is this pretense that Russia is the source of fake news? ..."
    "... We have had nothing but fake news from the presstitutes since the Klingon regime. Fake news was used against Yugoslavia and Serbia in order to cloak the Clinton's war crimes. ..."
    "... Ironic, isn't it, that it is those who purport to be liberal and progressive who are responsible for the revival of McCarthyism in America. Moreover, the liberal progressives are institutionalizing McCarthyism in the US government. There is clearly a concerted effort being made to define truth as fake news and to define lies as truth. ..."
    www.unz.com

    Speaking of fake news, the latest issue of the National Enquirer at the supermarket checkout is giving the mainstream presstitute media a run for the money: "Castro's Deathbed Confession: I Killed JFK. How I framed Oswald."

    That's almost as good as the fake news going around the presstitute media, such as the TV stations, the Washington Post, New York Times, and Guardian-yes, even the former leftwing British newspaper has joined the ranks of the press prostitutes-that the CIA has concluded that "Russian operatives covertly interfered in the election campaign in an attempt to ensure the Republican candidate's victory."

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report

    If the CIA is actually stupid enough to believe this, the US is without a competent intelligence agency. Of course, the CIA didn't say and doesn't believe any such thing. The fake news stories in the presstitute media are all sourced to unnamed officials. Former British ambassador Craig Murray described the reports accurately: "bullshit."

    So who is making the stories up, another anonymous group tied to Hillary such as PropOrNot, the secret, hidden organization that released a list of 200 websites that are Russian agents?

    Fake news is the presstitute's product. Throughout the presidential primaries and presidential campaign it was completely clear that the mainstream print and TV media were producing endless fake news designed to damage Trump and to boost Hillary. We all saw it. We all lived through it. What is this pretense that Russia is the source of fake news?

    We have had nothing but fake news from the presstitutes since the Klingon regime. Fake news was used against Yugoslavia and Serbia in order to cloak the Clinton's war crimes.

    Fake news was used against Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia in order to cloak the Bush regime's war crimes.

    Fake news was used against Libya and Syria in order to cloak the Obama regime's war crimes.

    Without fake news these three blood-drenched presidencies would have been hauled before the War Crimes Commission, tried, and convicted.

    Can anyone produce any truthful statement from the presstitute media about anything of importance? MH-17? Crimea? Ukraine?

    Ironic, isn't it, that it is those who purport to be liberal and progressive who are responsible for the revival of McCarthyism in America. Moreover, the liberal progressives are institutionalizing McCarthyism in the US government. There is clearly a concerted effort being made to define truth as fake news and to define lies as truth.

    (Reprinted from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)

    [Dec 12, 2016] McCarthyism Is Breaking Out All Over by Paul Craig Roberts

    Notable quotes:
    "... As Pam Martens reports, another imbecile has now composed a list of 200 suspect professors who also dissent from the official bullshit fed to the American people. ..."
    "... In an effort to regain control over Americans' minds, they are attempting to define dissenters and truth-tellers as "Russian agents." Why "Russian agents"? Because they hope that their fake news portrait of Russia as America's deadly enemy has taken hold and will result in the public turning away from those of us labeled "Russian agents." ..."
    Dec 02, 2016 | www.paulcraigroberts.org

    As Pam Martens reports, another imbecile has now composed a list of 200 suspect professors who also dissent from the official bullshit fed to the American people.

    http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/12/u-s-journalists-and-professors-appearing-on-rt-america-get-blacklisted/

    The official government purveyors of fake news in the US and their presstitute agents are concerned that they are losing control over the explanations given to the American people.

    In an effort to regain control over Americans' minds, they are attempting to define dissenters and truth-tellers as "Russian agents." Why "Russian agents"? Because they hope that their fake news portrait of Russia as America's deadly enemy has taken hold and will result in the public turning away from those of us labeled "Russian agents."

    I don't think it is working.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Fake News Versus No News

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the present moment, it is practically obligatory to slam Russia and Putin at every opportunity even though Moscow is too militarily weak and poor to fancy itself a global adversary of the U.S. ..."
    "... Candidate Donald Trump appeared to recognize that fact before he began listening to Michael Flynn, who has a rather different view. Hopefully the old Trump will prevail. ..."
    "... Blaming Russia, which has good reasons to be suspicious of Washington's intentions, is particularly convenient for those many diverse inside the Beltway interests that require a significant enemy to keep the cash flowing out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the bank accounts of the useless grifters who inhabit K-Street and Capitol Hill. ..."
    Dec 06, 2016 | www.unz.com

    ... ... ...

    ...Does the name Judith Miller ring any bells? And the squeaks of rage coming from the U.S. Congress over being lied to is also something to behold as the federal government has been acting in collusion with the media to dish up falsehoods designed to start wars since the time of the Spanish-American conflict in 1898, if not before.

    The fake news saga is intended to discredit Donald Trump, whom the media hates mostly because they failed to understand either him or the Americans who voted for him in the recent election. You have to blame somebody when you are wrong so you invent "fake news" as the game changer that explains your failure to comprehend simple truths. To accomplish that, the clearly observable evidence that the media was piling on Donald Trump at every opportunity has somehow been deliberately morphed into a narrative that it is Trump who was attacking the media, suggesting that it was all self-defense on the part of the Rachel Maddows of this world, but anyone who viewed even a small portion of the farrago surely will have noted that it was the Republican candidate who was continuously coming under attack from both the right and left of the political-media spectrum.

    There are also some secondary narratives being promoted, including a pervasive argument that Hillary Clinton was somehow the victim of the news reporting due specifically to fake stories emanating largely from Moscow in an attempt to not only influence the election but also to subvert America's democratic institutions. I have observed that if such a truly ridiculous objective were President Vladimir Putin's desired goal he might as well relax. Our own Democratic and Republican duopoly has already been doing a fine job at subverting democracy by assiduously separating the American people from the elite Establishment that theoretically represents and serves them.

    Another side of the mainstream media lament that has been relatively unexplored is what the media chooses not to report. At the present moment, it is practically obligatory to slam Russia and Putin at every opportunity even though Moscow is too militarily weak and poor to fancy itself a global adversary of the U.S.

    Instead of seeking a new Cold War, Washington should instead focus on working with Russia to make sure that disagreements over policies in relatively unimportant parts of the world do not escalate into nuclear exchanges. Russian actions on its own doorstep in Eastern Europe do not in fact threaten the United States or any actual vital interest. Nor does Moscow threaten the U.S. through its intervention on behalf of the Syrian government in the Middle East. That Russia is described incessantly as a threat in those areas is largely a contrivance arranged by the media, the Democratic and Republican National Committees and by the White House.

    Candidate Donald Trump appeared to recognize that fact before he began listening to Michael Flynn, who has a rather different view. Hopefully the old Trump will prevail.

    Blaming Russia, which has good reasons to be suspicious of Washington's intentions, is particularly convenient for those many diverse inside the Beltway interests that require a significant enemy to keep the cash flowing out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the bank accounts of the useless grifters who inhabit K-Street and Capitol Hill.

    Neoconservatives are frequently described as ideologues, but the truth is that they are more interested in gaining increased access to money and power than they are in promulgating their own brand of global regime change.

    ... ... ...

    Greasy William

    Russophobia/Putinophobia is as big as it is because it is a rare issue where the mainstream right, the left and the political class all agree, albeit for different reasons. The mainstream right is anti Russia because of the Cold War and Russia's support for Iran, Venezuela and Cuba. The left hates Russia because of Pussy Riot, humiliating Obama and Merkel in the Ukraine, Snowden, supporting anti immigrant politicians like Le Pen and Wilders, jailing/killing pro Western Russian politicians, the gay stuff and especially for Trump. The political class hates Russia simply because it is a rival to US power in Europe and the Middle East. Put all three together, and you get a political consensus for Russophobia.

    At the end of the day, however, Russophobia or even Putinophobia is a minority position in the US; or else Trump wouldn't have been elected. And a huge chunk of the people who voted for Hillary are blacks and hispanics, who don't give a rat's ass about Russia and probably couldn't even find it on a map.

    Before Pussy Riot/Ukraine/Snowden/Gays/Trump there was even a lot of sympathy in the US media for victims of Chechen terrorism, especially after the Beslan school thing. As late as the 2012 election, Obama was mocking Mitt Romney's Russophobia.

    [Dec 11, 2016] The U.S.-Russia Relationship Trump Cant Fix It, but He Cant Break It, Either - Foreign Policy Research Institute

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia's Foreign Policy: Change and Continuity in National Identity ..."
    "... The Decision Point: Six Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy Decision-Making ..."
    "... American Foreign Policy: Past, Present and Future, 10 th Edition, ..."
    "... American Foreign Policy ..."
    "... National Security Strategy ..."
    "... National Security Strategy ..."
    "... Presidential Power; The Politics of Leadership ..."
    "... The President: Office and Powers 1787-1948 ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.fpri.org

    The views expressed are the author's own and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Army War College, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

    Over the past several months, much has been made of President-elect Donald Trump's attitude toward and connections with Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin. Some observers have charged that Trump is naďve about Putin's real objectives and have implied that a Trump administration is likely to subvert core U.S. security interests in a misguided attempt to repair the U.S.-Russia relationship. Others claim to have detected a genuine affinity between Trump and Putin and have wondered whether the two leaders – both known as pragmatic dealmakers – might be able to set the bilateral relationship on a more sustainable footing by ending the hostility and mistrust that have characterized it over the last several years. Neither is likely to happen: a President Trump will not abandon core U.S. security interests on the altar of cooperation with Russia, nor will he be able to cut a series of deals with Putin that repair the bilateral relationship.

    The influence of the U.S. and Russian presidents on the bilateral relationship is significantly more limited than is commonly assumed. Despite our penchant for personalizing the actions of the Russian government – for example, by charging that "Putin is in Ukraine" or wondering whether "Putin is likely to attack the Baltics" – Putin is neither in Ukraine nor likely to attack the Baltics. Elements of his government are certainly in Ukraine, but the process that got them there is far more complex than many Western observers assume. He is not the only figure that matters in that process although he does wield outsized power in comparison to the U.S. president. [1] Governmental decision-making, even in autocracies, is rarely a simple or straightforward process. Rather than reflecting a sober analysis of costs and benefits or the preferences of the top political leadership of a state, national security decision-making processes often produce policy choices that reflect the idiosyncrasies of a decision-making group or the "pulling and hauling" among government bureaucracies. [2] Additionally, foreign policy decision-makers, regardless of regime-type, must remain sensitive to public opinion in making their decisions.

    Thus, even if Trump and Putin decide to cooperate on the basis of what they both agree are interests shared between the U.S. and Russia, each will have to convince the rest of his government to go along, and each will have to push policies based upon this new vision of cooperation through his government's bureaucracy. This task will be far from simple since there are powerful elements within both governments that believe a rapprochement is not in the national interest. This is not to say a period of pragmatic cooperation is impossible. The Obama administration's 2009 "reset" with Russia is an example. Pursuant to the reset, the U.S. and Russia were able to agree on a new strategic nuclear arms treaty, on enhanced sanctions against Iran, and on the use of Russian territory as a resupply route for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, among other things. But within three years, the reset had largely run its course, and U.S.-Russian relations began to deteriorate. This deterioration began with the 2011-2012 anti-government protests in Russia (which the Kremlin suspected were supported by the U.S.), accelerated in the aftermath of the fall of the Gadhafi regime in Libya (which Russia saw as another instance of U.S.-sponsored regime change), and culminated in the fall of the Yanukovych regime (which Russia also blamed in the U.S.) and the Russian intervention in Ukraine. The failure of the Obama reset to put the bilateral relationship on a sustainable footing illustrates the reason a Trump reset will also fail in the long run. Namely, the issues in the U.S.-Russia relationship are largely structural, which gives the relationship a cyclical nature that defies control by leaders in either capital.

    As Kier Giles of the UK's Conflict Studies Research Centre has noted, there are predictable stages to Russia's relations with the West: euphoria, realism, disillusionment, crisis, and reset. A review of U.S.-Russian relations since the end of the Cold War bears this out and reveals three cycles of these stages. The first stage began in the early 1990s with the West proclaiming the courage and asserting the democratic credentials of Russian President Boris Yeltsin and with Russia proclaiming its desire to fully integrate into the Western political and economic system. Yeltsin's violent 1993 showdown with the Russian parliament and the 1994 Russian military intervention in Chechnya tempered the early euphoria in the West; the difficult economic conditions along with the perceived lack of economic support for Russia from the West tempered the early euphoria in Russia. Realism had descended into disillusionment on both sides by the late 1990s, spurred by the impacts of the Asian financial crisis, which spread to Russia in 1998, forcing the government to devalue the ruble and default on both domestic and foreign debt. A crisis in relations erupted over NATO's 1999 war in Kosovo and the resumption of Russia's war in Chechnya that same year.

    The first reset came in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. when Russia offered cooperation with the U.S. against terrorism and agreed to U.S. use of bases in the Central Asian States to support its campaign in Afghanistan. This reset was typified by the comment of then-President George W. Bush, who after meeting Putin, claimed to have looked him in the eye and gotten "a sense of his soul." Realism set in within a few years when the U.S. and Russia realized they defined the threat from terrorism and the legitimacy of measures to combat it very differently. This realism gave way to disillusionment over NATO's 2004 enlargement, which included the post-Soviet Baltic states and the "Color Revolutions" in Georgia in 2004 and Ukraine in 2004, which Moscow suspected were carried out with the assistance of the U.S. intelligence agencies. Russia's disillusionment was expressed publicly and bluntly in Putin's now notorious 2007 speech at the annual international security conference in Munich, Germany, where he accused the U.S. of threatening international security by developing ballistic missile defenses, undermining international institutions, destabilizing the Middle East, expanding NATO, and attempting to overthrow governments in the former Soviet bloc, among other things. The crisis in relations that ended this phase of the U.S.-Russia relationship was Russia's August 2008 invasion of Georgia. The third phase in bilateral relations began with the 2009 Obama administration's reset and ended, as noted previously, with the crisis in relations over the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    The reason relations between the U.S. and Russia tend to be cyclical is that many of the factors that influence them are structural, or "built-in" to the patterns of interaction between the two countries. Like any two countries, Russia and the U.S. have some interests in common and some interests that clash. What makes the U.S.-Russia relationship unstable and prone to crisis is not the periodic clash of interests, but a lack of other factors that can act as "shock absorbers" when interests do clash. In some bilateral relationships – the U.S.-China relationship is a prime example here – a robust economic relationship can provide that shock absorber. Despite periodic complaints from both sides about elements of the relationship that displease them, the fact is that a major disruption in the U.S.-China economic relationship would be potentially catastrophic for both sides. China's export-dependent economy would lose access to its largest and most lucrative market, and the U.S. would lose a major foreign purchaser of its sovereign debt. Thus, when the U.S. and China find themselves in a situation where their interests clash, there are powerful incentives for both sides to contain the disagreement, lest it impact the bilateral economic relationship. No such economic shock absorber exists in the U.S.-Russia relationship : U.S. exports to Russia in 2013 totaled just $11 billion, or less than 0.1% of U.S. GDP, and U.S. imports from Russia totaled just $27 billion, under 0.2% of U.S. GDP. Compare these numbers with China, which, despite consistent U.S. complaints about the bilateral trade imbalance, constitutes a $300 billion market for U.S. exports. [3]

    Even where there are no economic interests to act as a shock absorber in a bilateral relationship, a shared ideology, worldview, or value set can play that role, but this is also lacking between the U.S. and Russia. In fact, the two countries have largely incompatible worldviews, and this fact tends to magnify the impact of any clash in interests rather than minimize it. Glenn P. Hastedt argues that American foreign policy is guided by, among other factors, moral pragmatism and legalism. Moral pragmatism holds that "state behavior can be judged by moral standards" and that "American morality provides the universal standard for making those judgments." [4] Legalism rejects power politics as a means of settling disputes and assumes that people are rational beings who abhor war. Therefore, the legalist tradition inclines American policy-makers to believe that a central task of U.S. foreign policy should be to "create a global system of institutions and rules that will allow states to settle their disputes without recourse to war." [5]

    A review of the four enduring U.S. national interests articulated in the 2015 U.S. National Security Strategy bears out Hastedt's claim. The first two of these interests are fairly standard, revolving around "the security of the U.S., its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners," and "A strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity." [6] These interests, focusing on the physical security and economic prosperity of the state, are widely shared, including by Russia. But the other two of the four enduring U.S. interests bring the clash in worldview between the U.S. and Russia into sharp focus. These are "respect for universal values at home and around the world," and "an international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges." [7] This focus on promotion of values and a (U.S.-led) rules-based international order is so strong in the U.S. foreign policy tradition that even presidents largely seen as realists and pragmatists, such as Nixon and Obama, have been unable to set these factors aside and focus exclusively on core U.S. security and economic interests.

    Russia's view of the world, unsurprisingly, is different. Conditioned by its history to view the world as a threatening place and to believe that a country as vast and diverse as Russia can only be ruled by a strong center, Russian political thought places little value on post-modern ideas about individual rights and is supremely skeptical of the idea that a global set of institutions and rules can prevent war. Instead, it holds a strong state to be the supreme guarantor of domestic tranquility and a stable military balance among Great Powers to be the best guarantor of international security. Furthermore, many Russians believe the U.S. is not truly committed to the promotion of what it deems universal values or the preservation of a set of global institutions as a means of enabling international cooperation. Instead, they tend to believe that the U.S. cynically uses concepts such as values and institutions to advance its own security interests and damage those of Russia. This incompatibility in worldviews often leads to misperception and miscommunication in Russian-American relations.

    A review of some of the main issues in the bilateral relationship since the end of the Cold War bears this assertion out. In Kosovo, for example, where the U.S. saw ongoing ethnic cleansing as justification for military intervention under the emerging doctrine of "responsibility to protect," Russia saw a military operation designed to destabilize and dismember Serbia, Russia's main ally in the Balkans. However implausible it may seem to those in the West, some Russians also saw the Kosovo operation as a dress rehearsal for a NATO-led intervention in Chechnya. NATO's enlargement also presents a case of fundamentally different interpretations of the same issue. Where the U.S. and the West see the enlargement of NATO as a way to ensure security, stability, and prosperity in as much of the Euro-Atlantic zone as possible, Russia sees encroachment on its borders by a potentially hostile military alliance. Enlargement of the European Union, while not seen as a military threat by Moscow, is however seen as an attempt to isolate and weaken Russia.

    A final example of how Russia and the West can observe the same phenomenon and come to fundamentally different conclusions concerns the so-called "color revolutions" in the former Soviet Union. Many in the West saw these popular uprisings, which peacefully ousted authoritarian governments in Georgia in 2003 (the "Rose Revolution"), in Ukraine in 2004 (the "Orange Revolution"), in Kyrgyzstan in 2005 (the "Tulip Revolution"), and again in Ukraine in 2014 (the "Maidan Revolution") as evidence that the peoples of the former Soviet Union wanted no more than peoples everywhere: to be governed justly and democratically. The Kremlin, however, claimed to see the hand of Western intelligence services in these political transformations and suspected the West was intentionally destabilizing pro-Russian governments in Russia's neighbors with the ultimate goal of bringing down the Russian government itself.

    Disagreement over the last two of these issues – the enlargement of Western institutions and popular revolution in Russia's neighbors – came together to cause war in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. In Georgia, the war started in August 2008, four months after NATO stated that Georgia and Ukraine would become members of the Alliance and after a long period of hostility between Georgia's pro-Western government headed by Mikhail Saakashvili and the Putin regime. In Ukraine, the catalyst for war was the overthrow of the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych, which had used violence against protesters angered by Yanukovych's rejection of an association agreement with the European Union. In both cases, fundamentally incompatible worldviews were the underlying cause of the conflict. The U.S. and the West espouse a liberal internationalist worldview that sees international institutions as focal points for cooperation, individual rights as sacrosanct, and democratic governments as inherently more legitimate and predictable – and therefore less threatening – than autocratic ones. Russia adheres to a more realist worldview, where military power is the currency that buys security, where stability is only maintained by a military balance among great powers, and where human rights and international law are seen as either irrelevant or as tools to be used – often cynically and instrumentally – by great powers to advance their security interests.

    A President Trump will be unable to change the fundamental characteristics of this relationship because the powers of the American president are much more constrained than those of most corporate CEOs. Presidential historian Richard Neustadt has observed that U.S. presidential powers really amount to the "power to persuade." Neustadt quotes Truman, who when contemplating an Eisenhower presidency in 1952, remarked, "He'll sit here and he'll say 'Do this! Do That!' And nothing will happen. Poor Ike – it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating." [8] The reason for this is that even inside his own administration, the president has to persuade a large and sometimes recalcitrant community of national security and foreign policy professionals to implement his vision.

    And even if a president is able to get the executive branch moving in one direction with dispatch and purpose, he still has to deal with the Congress, which has more powers in foreign policy-making than is often assumed. As Edward Corwin has correctly observed, the U.S. Constitution is "an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy." [9] The Congress a Trump administration will have to deal with – despite the Republican majorities in both houses – will be far from compliant on national security issues, especially where Russia is concerned. First, the Democratic minorities in the Senate and the House, already skeptical of Russia due to its autocratic form of government and documented human rights abuses, will be even more unwilling to acquiesce to major deals with Russia due to its interference in the U.S. presidential election, which some Democrats believe was intended to prevent the election of Hillary Clinton. On the Republican side, there is a group of national security hawks, led by John McCain in the Senate, who are strongly opposed to any cooperation with Russia, seeing it as the biggest single threat to America's interests. And although the president is less constrained in foreign policy than he is in domestic policy, Congress still has the power to deny him the achievement of his objectives in many areas. For example, Congress sets the levels of military aid for foreign partners, so even if a Trump administration were to request no aid for Ukraine and Georgia in an attempt to signal to Russia that the U.S. was not willing to contest their geopolitical affiliation, Congress could – and very likely would – reinstate robust military aid packages for both.

    In short, a President Trump will neither be duped into subverting core American security interests on the altar of cooperation with Russia, nor will he be able to build a sustainable partnership with Russia on the basis of deal-making with Putin. Despite his inexperience in foreign policy, the natural aversion of the executive branch national security and foreign policy community to radically change, along with a skeptical Congress, will prevent the former; the fundamentally incompatible worldviews of the U.S. and Russia will prevent the latter. Sustainable partnership between the U.S. and Russia would require a fundamental change in the worldviews of one or both. Either the U.S. would need to begin seeing the world in realist, power politics terms, something anathema to most Americans, or Russia would need to abandon its great power politics view of the world and become a post-modern state. No matter how much Putin and Trump may want to make cooperation work, neither of these is likely to happen over the short term. There may indeed be a Trump reset – in the same way there was an Obama reset and a Bush reset – that results in deals over issues not involving critical U.S. or Russian national security interests. But over time, the structural factors impeding long-term cooperation will reassert themselves, and the relationship will proceed through its familiar stages of realism, disillusionment, and crisis. Trump's main task – like those of Clinton, Bush, and Obama before him – will be to ensure that the as the relationship erodes, miscalculation and misperception do not allow it to escalate to open war. His predecessors managed to succeed in this; we should all wish President Trump similar success.


    [1] Although Putin's influence on Russian foreign policy is more pronounced than is that of the American president, the point here is that he is not unconstrained. Putin – and any Russian president – has to consider both the preferences of the Russian people and those of the Russian elite when making foreign policy decisions. In his 2016 book Russia's Foreign Policy: Change and Continuity in National Identity , Andrei Tsygankov locates Putin's foreign policy in Russia's Statist tradition, arguing that it has deep historical roots that Putin appeals to but did not create. Similarly, in their 2015 paper "Russian Foreign Policy in Historical and Current Context: A Reassessment," Olga Oliker and her co-authors note that while Putin's leadership style and viewpoints are important factors in Russian foreign policy decision-making, the process also reflects deeply-held, underlying Russian attitudes about Russia's place in the world and that these attitudes will drive Russian foreign policy decision-making after Putin is gone. Oliker and her co-authors also note that the Russian government is "deeply fearful of elite and public opposition to its actions," which also influences its foreign policy decisions.

    [2] David Patrick Houghton, The Decision Point: Six Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy Decision-Making (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 10.

    [3] "U.S.-Russian trade relationship? There really isn't one", Fortune, March 18, 2014, internet resource at: http://fortune.com/2014/03/18/u-s-russian-trade-relationship-there-really-isnt-one/ , accessed November 16, 2016.

    [4] Glenn P. Hastedt, American Foreign Policy: Past, Present and Future, 10 th Edition, (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2015), p. 65.

    [5] Hastedt, American Foreign Policy , p. 67.

    [6] Barack Obama, National Security Strategy (Washington, D.C.: White House, February 2015), p. 2.

    [7] Obama, National Security Strategy , p. 2.

    [8] Richard E. Neustadt, Presidential Power; The Politics of Leadership (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960), p. 9.

    [9] Edward S. Corwin, The President: Office and Powers 1787-1948 (New York: New York University Press, 1948)

    [Dec 11, 2016] You do know that the big news in the (International) Sports section is the report on widespread and systematic Olympic team wide Russian doping?

    Dec 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Fiery Hunt , December 10, 2016 at 5:50 pm

    You do know that the big news in the (International) Sports section is the report on widespread and systematic Olympic team wide Russian doping?

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/09/more-than-1000-russian-athletes-benefitted-from-state-sponsored-doping

    Try to keep up with the Bear baiting

    America Letting loose the Dogs of War is what we do!

    [Dec 11, 2016] Trump chooses Exxon CEO Tillerson as Secretary of State

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is a big unknown. I think Paul Craig Roberts said it best - give Trump 6 months and then form an opinion. ..."
    "... For the moment, I think Tillerson is a far far better pick than Guilliani, Romney or Bolton. ..."
    "... "Tillerson might be the worst secretary of state contender on Trump's list" says Wapo. So, he's the best, no doubt!! ..."
    "... Almost all professional anti-Russia "Senior Fellows" are dependent on State Department to fund their lobbying. Tillerson a disaster for them ..."
    "... Deepening Ties Between Exxon and Russia Run Counter to U.S. Efforts to Punish Putin ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    aaaa | Dec 10, 2016 11:11:04 PM | 94
    @35 Trump is a big unknown. I think Paul Craig Roberts said it best - give Trump 6 months and then form an opinion. I'm not too optimistic however; Trump's policies could flop and the hawks could weasel their warmongering in (IRAN + CHINA + ????)

    For the moment, I think Tillerson is a far far better pick than Guilliani, Romney or Bolton. I hope that he will acquire the position. He seems to be smart, but also seems to have good character (considering.)

    Of course, the inauguration is a few weeks off, so the concern about a soft coup are real ones, especially when the CIA is throwing out the Russia claims.

    smuks | Dec 10, 2016 2:36:33 PM | 16

    OT (sorry, but I really don't care about so-called 'leaks' and 'hacks'):

    Trump chooses Exxon CEO Tillerson as Secretary of State.

    Kind of makes me wonder...what if we see the emergence of a new confrontation, between a 'fossil fuel' block comprising the US, Russia and OPEC, and a 'renewables' block of China, the EU and pretty much everyone else? Yep, I admit that's a very long shot.

    From The Hague | Dec 10, 2016 2:53:49 PM | 21
    #16 Yes! Yeah!
    Wonderful

    "Tillerson might be the worst secretary of state contender on Trump's list" says Wapo. So, he's the best, no doubt!!
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/12/07/tillerson-might-be-the-worst-one-on-trumps-list/?utm_term=.066b74221ede

    Almost all professional anti-Russia "Senior Fellows" are dependent on State Department to fund their lobbying. Tillerson a disaster for them
    https://twitter.com/27khv/status/807666659896987648

    Deepening Ties Between Exxon and Russia Run Counter to U.S. Efforts to Punish Putin
    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140827/deepening-ties-between-exxon-and-russia-run-counter-us-efforts-punish-putin

    Russian President Vladimir Putin is seen here awarding ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson with the Order of Friendship last year.

    chipnik | Dec 10, 2016 3:59:06 PM | 39
    @29

    ... ... ...

    John Bolton, dutifully reading from the CIA's Yellow Cake playbook

    "I'm obviously aware that people are quite focused on the economy rather than foreign policy issues, but that is something that should and can be altered as people see the nature of the grave threats around the world that we face. We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material -- it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year."

    MIC IS NOW IN CONTROL OF DEFENSE, NSA, CIA AND STATE, AND GOLDMAN IS IN CONTROL OF TREASURY, COMMERCE, OMB, NEC AND FED. THIS IS THE NEO-CON END-GAME: THE 1998-2001 SOFT COUP-HARD COUP, THAT TOOK AMERICA DOWN.

    All we need is Ari Fleischer in the role of Bolton's spox to the media, lol. "Mr. Fleischer, please come to the red phone service desk, you have a call waiting." It's all monkey-brain now!

    Circe | Dec 11, 2016 12:38:16 AM | 103
    There's something very fishy about the choices of Rex Tillerson and John Bolton for SoS and Deputy SoS respectively.

    Tillerson has major potential conflicts of interest that the Senate will scrutinize including the award he received from Putin. I'm seriously questioning how Tillerson will get Senate approval. On the other hand, John Bolton, is very popular with most Republicans and hawkish Democrats and will have no problem whatsoever.

    I believe this strange combination is a red flag that perfectly illustrates Trump's strategy, which is one of the following:

    1. Either Trump deliberately chose someone with close ties to Russia and Putin because he knows he won't be approved by the Senate, and his first choice from the start, John Bolton, will pass with flying colors;

    2. Or William Engdahl is right that the Neocon strategy is pivoting and adapting to present circumstances:

    His job will be to reposition the United States for them to reverse the trend to disintegration of American global hegemony, to, as the Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz Project for the New American Century put it in their September, 2000 report, "rebuild America's defenses."

    To do that preparation, a deception strategy that will fatally weaken the developing deep bonds between Russia and China will be priority. It's already begun. We have a friendly phone call from The Donald to Vladimir the Fearsome in Moscow. Russian media is euphoric about a new era in US-Russia relations after Obama. Then suddenly we hear the war-mongering NATO head, Stoltenberg, suddenly purr soothing words to Russia. Float the idea that California Congressman and Putin acquaintance, Dana Rohrabacher, is leaked as a possible Secretary of State. It's classic Kissinger Balance of Power geopolitics–seem to ally with the weaker of two mortal enemies, Russia, to isolate the stronger, China. Presumably Vladimir Putin is not so naďve or stupid as to fall for it, but that is the plot of Trump's handlers. Such a strategy of preventing the growing Russia-China cooperation was urged by Zbigniew Brzezinski in a statement this past summer.

    http://journal-neo.org/2016/11/25/the-dangerous-deception-called-the-trump-presidency/

    Let's not forget that the first time Trump was asked during the campaign who he gets foreign policy advice from; the first name that popped up was JOHN BOLTON, and he praised him as being tough. John Bolton was strongly allied with Dick Cheney. Steve Yates, another Neocon, was Cheney's China advisor and is Trump's as well. After reading Engdahl's article, I wrote my own opinion of the Neocon strategy based on Engdahl's and you can read it on the Saker's site here: http://thesaker.is/his-own-man-or-someones-puppet/

    But if you find it difficult to read without paragraphs: scroll down through the comments on the Saker's own opinion of Engdahl's piece as that's where my original comment appeared with paragraphs.

    http://thesaker.is/is-donald-trump-really-only-a-showman-who-will-prepare-the-usa-for-war/

    Something stinks about this Tillerson/Bolton combination. You can read my theory on why Neocons are pivoting to a new strategy of divide and conquer as Engdahl believes, and it has to do with the growing economic bond between China and Iran as well and killing two birds with one stone; invading Iran to contain China and sabotage OBOR.

    Note as well, that in courting Russia to isolate China and weaken the growing cooperation between China and Russia, as Engdahl puts it, Russia will ultimately lose its own influence, unless of course Netanyahu has made Putin an offer he can't refuse, since Netanyahu has been courting Putin for quite some time already; and this is very bizarre, since Putin frustrated Netanyahu's plan for Syria.

    http://en.europe-israel.org/2016/12/09/russian-diplomat-moscow-jerusalem-friendship-at-highest-point-ever/

    Something's very wrong with this picture.

    smuks | Dec 11, 2016 1:01:21 PM | 148
    So Bolton will be Tillerson's vice-SoS. How much more Neocon can you get? And you seriously believe Trump will 'clean the Augean Stables', 'drain the swamp' and 'open a new book' in foreign policy, esp. relations with Russia? Dream on.

    [Dec 11, 2016] Unraveling the Russian Hack Conspiracy Propaganda

    " BARACK OBAMA, WITH THE COOPERATION OF SOME IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT TRUMP BEFORE THE ELECTION"
    Notable quotes:
    "... The whole "blame Russia" movement to account for Hillary's unexpected failure to win the Presidency got a new shot in the arm with today's announcement that Obama ordered: ..."
    "... The stupidity of this is profound. If this review leads to the "discovery" that Russia is carrying out espionage activities in the United States then we have passed the threshold of learning that there is gambling in a casino. ..."
    "... The real irony in all of this is that Wikileaks, thanks to the hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails, exposed the reality of Democrats working surreptitiously to tamper with and manipulate the election. Here are the highlights from that leak: ..."
    "... Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria. ..."
    "... Blaming Russia for Hillary's flame out is absurd. The Russians did not create and lie about Hillary's server. They did not force her to back the multilateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA and TPP. They didn't set up the Clinton Foundation as a cash cow for the Clinton family. They did not force her to advocate imposing a No Fly Zone in Syria and having been a cheerleader for past wars, including Iraq and Libya. Vladimir Putin did not slip her a mickey and cause her to pass out at the 9-11 memorial, which fueled concerns about her health. And they did not infect her lungs and cause her to have extended coughing jags. They did not cause her to call Americans deplorables. They did not make her say that the coal industry should be shutdown. With that kind of record, coupled with her shrieking, screechy voice, why are folks surprised that she did not win? ..."
    "... So now Democrats and several Republicans are in a lather over the Russians stealing the election for Trump. The list of conspiracy theorists pushing this nonsense include John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Angus King of Maine, Brent Budowsky and Adam Schiff. I defy anyone, to explain to me how Russian meddling gave Trump the win. ..."
    "... The realities are this. First, as noted in the Budowsky email, the Clinton campaign came up with the idea of accusing Trump of being a stooge of Russia. They thought they'd get political bang out of that. They didn't. ..."
    "... Second, the hack of the DNC emails confirmed that the suspicions of many that the DNC and Hillary were collaborating to screw over Bernie and rig the election. That was not fake news. Cold, unwelcomed truth. That's when this drum beat about the big, bad Russians started meddling in our election started. Why? To distract attention away from the ugly reality that the DNC and Hillary were cheating. ..."
    "... The subsequent Wikileaks avalanche of Podesta emails reinforced as fact the existing suspicion that the media was in the bag for Hillary. ..."
    "... I would recommend you assemble a short reading list of everything surrounding President Kennedy's full acceptance of responsibility after the Bay of Pigs, beginning with the substance and tone of his unequivocal taking of responsibility and ending with his huge rise in the polls, to nearly 90% favorable ratings, after he did this. ..."
    "... And then I would suggest she plan the equivalent and take full, absolute and unequivocal responsibility for making a mistake with the private emails and give an honest, direct, explanation of the reasons I believe she used those private emails. . . . ..."
    "... Give Budowsky credit for one thing, if Hillary had followed his advice she might have won the election. But she was too busy exploiting the rules of a rigged game and trying to smear Trump as a Russian agent while failing to exercise genuine, sincere personal responsibility. ..."
    "... Barack Obama appears to be actively working to discredit the Trump election and has enlisted the intelligence community in the effort. How else to explain this disconnect? Yesterday, as noted above, Obama directed the intelligence community to: ..."
    "... I heard from a knowledgeable friend in September that Hillary's campaign was pressing the Obama White House to lean on the intel community and put something out blaming her woes on the Russians. That led to the October statement. And now we have the CIA via a SECRET report (that is leaked to the public) insisting that Trump's victory came because of the Russians. ..."
    "... This is a damn lie. The CIA is now allowing itself to be used once again for blatant political purposes. The politicization became a real problem under Bush. Let's not forget that these are the same cats who insisted it was a slam dunk that were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The same group who missed the rise of ISIS. ..."
    "... Also worth reminding ourselves that the head of the ironically titled "Intelligence Community" is a proven liar. Jim Clapper lied to the Senate about the NSA spying on Americans three years ago (December 2013) : ..."
    "... "Congressional oversight depends on truthful testimony – witnesses cannot be allowed to lie to Congress," wrote representatives James Sensenbrenner, Darrell Issa, Trent Franks, Raul Labrador, Ted Poe, Trey Gowdy and Blake Farenthold, citing "Director Clapper's willful lie under oath." ..."
    "... There is a consistent pattern in the Obama Administration of lying to the American people, especially when it comes to National Security matters. The NSA is not an isolated case. We also have Benghazi, Syria and Libya as other examples of not telling the truth and misrepresenting facts. ..."
    "... In my lifetime, going on 60 years, I have never seen such a display of incompetence as is being manifested by Barack Obama and mental midgets that surround him. ..."
    "... What they can say for sure is that the DNC and Podesta emails were hacked. Those hacked emails were passed to WIKILEAKS. Those emails were then released to the public. What the intel community will be hard pressed to prove is that the Russian Government conceived of and directed such a campaign. This is the true information operation to meddle in the U.S. election, but that isn't Russia. That's Obama. ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.noquarterusa.net

    UPDATE–PLEASE SEE BELOW. BOTTOMLINE, BARACK OBAMA, WITH THE COOPERATION OF SOME IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT TRUMP BEFORE THE ELECTION.

    Let me stipulate up front that both the United States and Russia engage in covert and clandestine information operations. It is called espionage. It is but one aspect of the broader intelligence activity also known as spying. Time for all you snowflakes in America to grow up and get a grip and deal with with reality. If the respective intelligence organizations in either country are not doing this they are guilty of malpractice and should be dismantled.

    There are two basic types of espionage activity–Covert refers to an operation that is undetected while in progress, but the outcome may be easily observed. Killing Bin Laden is a prime example of a "covert" operation. A Clandestine Operation is something that is supposed to be undetected while in progress and after completion. For example, if the U.S. or Russia had a mole at the top of the National Security bureaucracy of their respective adversary, communicating with that mole and the mole's very existence would be clandestine.

    So, the alleged Russian meddling in our election–was it covert or clandestine?

    The whole "blame Russia" movement to account for Hillary's unexpected failure to win the Presidency got a new shot in the arm with today's announcement that Obama ordered:

    a full review into hacking by the Russians designed to influence the 2016 election, White House Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Adviser Lisa Monaco said Friday.

    The stupidity of this is profound. If this review leads to the "discovery" that Russia is carrying out espionage activities in the United States then we have passed the threshold of learning that there is gambling in a casino.

    The real irony in all of this is that Wikileaks, thanks to the hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails, exposed the reality of Democrats working surreptitiously to tamper with and manipulate the election. Here are the highlights from that leak:

    DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Calls Sanders Campaign Manager Jeff Weaver an "A–" and a "Liar"

    In May the Nevada Democratic State Convention became rowdy and got out of hand in a fight over delegate allocation. When Weaver went on CNN and denied any claims violence had happened, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, once she was notified of the exchange, wrote "Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he never acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred."

    Highlighting Sanders' Faith

    One email shows that a DNC official contemplated highlighting Sanders' alleged atheism - even though he has said he is not an atheist - during the primaries as a possibility to undermine support among voters.

    "It may make no difference but for KY and WA can we get someone to ask his belief," Brad Marshall, CFO of the DNC, wrote in an email on May 5, 2016. "He had skated on having a Jewish heritage. I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."

    Building a Narrative Against Sanders

    "Wondering if there's a good Bernie narrative for a story which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess," DNC National Secretary Mark Paustenbach wrote in an email to National Communications Director Luis Miranda on May 21. After detailing ways in which the Sanders camp was disorganized, Paustenbach concludes, "It's not a DNC conspiracy it's because they never had their act together."

    The London Observer noted that :

    The release provides further evidence the DNC broke its own charter violations by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast.

    It was the Clinton spokesman, Robbie Mook, who launched the claim on July 24, 2016 that these leaks were done by the Russians in order to help Trump:

    The source of the leak has not been revealed, though Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook, said on ABC News' "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday that he believes the Russians were instrumental in it.

    "Experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, took all these emails and now are leaking them out through these websites," Mook said Sunday. "It's troubling that some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."

    The Clinton campaign started planning to smear Trump as a Putin stooge as early as December 2015. The Podesta emails showed clearly that the Clinton campaign decided early on to clobber Trump for his "bromance" with Putin. It was Brent Buwdosky almost one year ago (December 21, 2015) who proposed going after Trump with the Russian card in an email to Podesta:

    Putin did not agree to anything about removing Assad and continues to bomb the people we support. We pushed the same position in 2012 (Geneva 1, which HRC knows all about) and Geneva 2 in 2014. Odds that Putin agrees to remove Assad are only slightly better than the odds the College of Cardinals chooses me to someday succeed Pope Francis. Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria.

    Going after Trump as a Russian stooge was in the Clinton playbook long before Trump won a primary. One the wedge issues for Clinton with respect to Trump was Syria. Trump took a strong stand (which many thought would hurt him with Republicans) in declaring we should not be trying to get rid of Assad and that America should cooperate with the Russians in fighting the Islamists. Clinton, by contrast, called for imposing a No Fly Zone that would have risked a direct confrontation with Russia.

    Blaming Russia for Hillary's flame out is absurd. The Russians did not create and lie about Hillary's server. They did not force her to back the multilateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA and TPP. They didn't set up the Clinton Foundation as a cash cow for the Clinton family. They did not force her to advocate imposing a No Fly Zone in Syria and having been a cheerleader for past wars, including Iraq and Libya. Vladimir Putin did not slip her a mickey and cause her to pass out at the 9-11 memorial, which fueled concerns about her health. And they did not infect her lungs and cause her to have extended coughing jags. They did not cause her to call Americans deplorables. They did not make her say that the coal industry should be shutdown. With that kind of record, coupled with her shrieking, screechy voice, why are folks surprised that she did not win?

    So now Democrats and several Republicans are in a lather over the Russians stealing the election for Trump. The list of conspiracy theorists pushing this nonsense include John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Angus King of Maine, Brent Budowsky and Adam Schiff. I defy anyone, to explain to me how Russian meddling gave Trump the win.

    The realities are this. First, as noted in the Budowsky email, the Clinton campaign came up with the idea of accusing Trump of being a stooge of Russia. They thought they'd get political bang out of that. They didn't.

    Second, the hack of the DNC emails confirmed that the suspicions of many that the DNC and Hillary were collaborating to screw over Bernie and rig the election. That was not fake news. Cold, unwelcomed truth. That's when this drum beat about the big, bad Russians started meddling in our election started. Why? To distract attention away from the ugly reality that the DNC and Hillary were cheating.

    The subsequent Wikileaks avalanche of Podesta emails reinforced as fact the existing suspicion that the media was in the bag for Hillary. But no amount of media help and foreign money could transform Hillary into a likeable candidate. She was dreadful on the campaign trail and terrible at talking to the average American. Even her boy, Brent Budowsky, reluctantly acknowledged this in an email to John Podesta on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 :

    While I have been warning for some time about the dangers facing the Clinton campaign, aggressively in privately, tactfully in columns, during this latest stage I have been publicly defending her with no-holds barred, and here is my advice based on the reaction I have been receiving and the dangers I see coming to fruition.

    I would recommend you assemble a short reading list of everything surrounding President Kennedy's full acceptance of responsibility after the Bay of Pigs, beginning with the substance and tone of his unequivocal taking of responsibility and ending with his huge rise in the polls, to nearly 90% favorable ratings, after he did this.

    And then I would suggest she plan the equivalent and take full, absolute and unequivocal responsibility for making a mistake with the private emails and give an honest, direct, explanation of the reasons I believe she used those private emails. . . .

    She could say she was right anticipating this, but wrong in overreacting by trying to shield her private emails, and she takes full responsibility for this, and apologizes to her supporters and everyone else, and now she has turned over all information, it will ultimately be seen that there no egregious wrongs committed.

    She needs to stop talking like a lawyer parsing legalistic words and a potential defendant expecting a future indictment, which is how she often looks and sounds to many voters today. Instead, she should take full responsibility for a mistake with no equivocation, and segue into the role of a populist prosecutor against a corrupted politics that Americans already detest ..and make a direct attack against the Donald Trump politics of daily insults and defamations and intolerance against whichever individuals and groups he tries to bully on a given day, and while defending some Republican candidates against his attacks, she should deplore their being intimidated by his insults and offering pastel versions of the intolerance he peddles.

    In other words, she should stop acting like a front-runner who cautiously tries to exploit the rules of a rigged game to her advantage, and start acting like a fighting underdog who will fight on behalf of Americans who want a higher standard of living for themselves, a higher standard of politics for the nation, and a higher level of economic opportunity and social justice for everyone.

    Like JFK after the Bay of Pigs, the more responsibility she takes now the more she will succeed going forward.

    Give Budowsky credit for one thing, if Hillary had followed his advice she might have won the election. But she was too busy exploiting the rules of a rigged game and trying to smear Trump as a Russian agent while failing to exercise genuine, sincere personal responsibility.

    UPDATE –This is an extremely dangerous time now. Barack Obama appears to be actively working to discredit the Trump election and has enlisted the intelligence community in the effort. How else to explain this disconnect? Yesterday, as noted above, Obama directed the intelligence community to:

    "conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process. It is to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders," she said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters. "This is consistent with the work that we did over the summer to engage Congress on the threats that we were seeing."

    Then comes news last night that :

    The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

    Why do you order a review if the CIA has already made a factual determination? In fact, we were told in October that the whole damn intelligence community determined the Russians did it. USA Today reported this in October :

    The fact-checking website Politifact says Hillary Clinton is correct when she says 17 federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia is behind the hacking.

    "We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing," Clinton said during Wednesday's presidential debate in Las Vegas .

    Trump pushed back, saying that Clinton and the United States had "no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else."

    But Clinton is correct. On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies , in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

    I heard from a knowledgeable friend in September that Hillary's campaign was pressing the Obama White House to lean on the intel community and put something out blaming her woes on the Russians. That led to the October statement. And now we have the CIA via a SECRET report (that is leaked to the public) insisting that Trump's victory came because of the Russians.

    This is a damn lie. The CIA is now allowing itself to be used once again for blatant political purposes. The politicization became a real problem under Bush. Let's not forget that these are the same cats who insisted it was a slam dunk that were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The same group who missed the rise of ISIS.

    Barack Obama told CNN' Van Jones the following the other night :

    "The ability of ISIL to not just mass inside of Syria, but then to initiate major land offensives that took Mosul, for example, that was not on my intelligence radar screen," Obama told Zakaria, using the administration's term for the Islamic State terror group.

    Also worth reminding ourselves that the head of the ironically titled "Intelligence Community" is a proven liar. Jim Clapper lied to the Senate about the NSA spying on Americans three years ago (December 2013) :

    In a letter issued the day after a White House surveillance review placed new political pressure on the National Security Agency, the seven members of the House judiciary committee said that James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, ought to face consequences for untruthfully telling the Senate that the NSA was "not wittingly" collecting data on Americans.

    "Congressional oversight depends on truthful testimony – witnesses cannot be allowed to lie to Congress," wrote representatives James Sensenbrenner, Darrell Issa, Trent Franks, Raul Labrador, Ted Poe, Trey Gowdy and Blake Farenthold, citing "Director Clapper's willful lie under oath."

    There is a consistent pattern in the Obama Administration of lying to the American people, especially when it comes to National Security matters. The NSA is not an isolated case. We also have Benghazi, Syria and Libya as other examples of not telling the truth and misrepresenting facts.

    In my lifetime, going on 60 years, I have never seen such a display of incompetence as is being manifested by Barack Obama and mental midgets that surround him.

    What they can say for sure is that the DNC and Podesta emails were hacked. Those hacked emails were passed to WIKILEAKS. Those emails were then released to the public. What the intel community will be hard pressed to prove is that the Russian Government conceived of and directed such a campaign. This is the true information operation to meddle in the U.S. election, but that isn't Russia. That's Obama.

    Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.

    [Dec 11, 2016] The CIA's Absence of Conviction by Craig Murray

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yet this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also. ..."
    craigmurray.org.uk

    I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it.

    There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yet this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

    [Dec 11, 2016] There are two ways to read Trump position on the Iran deal,

    www.moonofalabama.org
    Circe | Dec 11, 2016 7:20:51 PM | 152
    @140 nonsensefact

    First of all; that Boeing deal was a condition of the Iran deal! Trump wants to tear up the deal; it was one of his promises. Second, Republicans wanted more than that funding for Israel. I never denied Obama was not a Zionist enabler -- can't you read??? Third, if Obama's an enabler; Trump is in bed with Netanyahu and Zionists since he promised to tear up the Iran deal and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem... whooooo does that??? Who promises sht like that? Only someone who's even crazier than Nut job yahu!

    nonsensefactory | Dec 11, 2016 7:55:20 PM | 153
    @152 Circe

    There are two ways to read Trump's position on the Iran deal, but I think this is the right way to look at it:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/11/trump-iran-jcpoa-obama-tehran/508211/

    "But he has also complained that American companies are shut out of post-deal economic opportunities in Iran, and suggested that Washington will need to cooperate with Iran as well as Russia in dealing with the Syrian civil war."

    Here's what I predict short-term for the Middle East: The situation will settle down into something like the Pakistan-India situation, with Iran and Syria on one side, and Saudi Arabia and Israel on the other. That's just short-term, however. Israel and Saudi Arabia are not very viable long-term. Eventually, I'm guessing the Gulf Arab monarchies will be replaced by parliamentary democracies, as happened with the Shah of Iran, and Israel will have to accept a one-state solution in which all Palestinians and Arabs get the same rights as Jewish citizens of Israel - which means, yes, separation of church and state, something any American vassal/client state should be willing to accept. IAEA inspections of the nuclear arsenal are also inevitable. But this will not "wipe Israel off the map" any more than it resulted in genocide for white South Afrikaaners.

    [Dec 11, 2016] How To INSTANTLY Tell If Russia Hacked the Election

    This is the first intelligent description of technical issues involved, that I read...
    Notable quotes:
    "... child's play ..."
    "... six thousand ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.washingtonsblog.com
    December 10, 2016 by WashingtonsBlog Anonymous CIA officials claim that Russia hacked the U.S. election by accessing emails from top Democratic officials and then leaking them to Wikileaks.

    But the Washington Post notes :

    Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) voiced doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, according to officials present.

    ***

    A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency's assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.

    For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin "directing" the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks .

    ***

    Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said in a television interview that the "Russian government is not the source." [The former intelligence analyst, British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, and chancellor of the University of Dundee (Craig Murray) – who is close friends with Wikileaks' Assange – said he knows with 100% certainty that the Russians aren't behind the leaks.]

    ***

    "I'll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there's clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence - even now," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team . "There's a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it."

    Indeed, some cybersecurity consultants claim that it's impossible to ever know for sure who is behind hacks of this nature.

    But that's wrong

    In reality, it would be child's play to determine whether or not the Russians really hacked the Dem emails and shared them with Wikileaks.

    Specifically, Edward Snowden says the NSA could easily determine who hacked the Democratic National Committee's emails:

    But don't trust Snowden

    The NSA executive who created the agency's mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a "legend" within the agency and the NSA's best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened ("in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union's command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons") – confirmed to Washington's Blog that the NSA would definitely know who the hacker was.

    Binney told Washington's Blog in July:

    Snowden is right and the MSM is clueless.

    ***

    Do they have evidence that the Russians downloaded and later forwarded those emails to wikileaks? Seems to me that they need to answer those questions to be sure that their assertion is correct.

    ***

    You can tell from the network log who is going into a site. I used that on networks that I had. I looked to see who came into my LAN, where they went, how long they stayed and what they did while in my network.

    Further, if you needed to, you could trace back approaches through other servers etc. Trace Route and Trace Watch are good examples of monitoring software that help do these things. Others of course exist probably the best are in NSA/GCHQ and the other Five Eyes countries. But, these countries have no monopoly on smart people that could do similar detection software.

    In October, Binney told us:

    If the idiots in the intelligence community expect us to believe them after all the crap they have told us (like WMD's in Iraq and "no we don't collect data on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans") then they need to give clear proof of what they say. So far, they have failed to prove anything.

    Which suggests they don't have proof and just want to war monger the US public into a second cold war with the Russians.

    After all, there's lots and lots of money in that for the military-industrial-intelligence-governmental complex of incestuous relationships.

    ***

    If you recall, a few years ago they pointed to a specific building in China that was where hacks on the US were originating. So, let's see the same from the Russians. They don't have it. That's why they don't show it. They want to swindle us again and again and again. You can not trust these intelligence agencies period.

    That same month, Binney told Newsweek:

    U.S. officials "know how many people [beyond the Russians] could have done this but they aren't telling us anything. All they're doing is promoting another cold war."

    Binney compared allegations about Russian hacks to previous U.S. fabrications of intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the bombing of North Vietnam in 1964.

    "This is a big mistake, another WMD or Tonkin Gulf affair that's being created until they have absolute proof" of Russian complicity in the DNC hacks, he charged during a Newsweek interview. He noted that after the Kremlin denied complicity in the downing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1983, the U.S. "exposed the conversations where [Russian pilots] were ordered to shoot it down." Obama officials "have the evidence now" of who hacked the DNC, he charged. "So let's see it, guys."

    Last month, Binney explained :

    If it were the Russians, NSA would have a trace route to them and not equivocate on who did it. It's like using "Trace Route" to map the path of all the packets on the network. In the program Treasuremap NSA has hundreds of trace route programs embedded in switches in Europe and hundreds more around the world. So, this set-up should have detected where the packets went and when they went there.

    In other words, there's no need to speculate on whether the Russians were the hackers. The NSA could easily determine who was behind the hacks.

    Of course, in an era where challenging officials to provide evidence may get one labeled as a Russian propagandist, the question is how many people will stand up for the all-American value of questioning the proclamations of those in power:

    [Dec 11, 2016] Is Putin still a pro-globalization and maintains neoliberal views on major economic issues?

    Notable quotes:
    "... "We propose the creation of a harmonious economic community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok," Putin writes. "In the future, we could even consider a free trade zone or even more advanced forms of economic integration. The result would be a unified continental market with a capacity worth trillions of euros." ..."
    "... "The proposal comes as Putin travels to Germany on Thursday for a two-day visit, including a Friday meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. On Wednesday, Russia and the EU reached an important agreement on the elimination of tariffs on raw materials such as wood. The deal was an important prerequisite for the EU dropping its opposition to Russian membership in the World Trade Organization. Moscow is hoping to become a member in 2011." http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/from-lisbon-to-vladivostok-putin-envisions-a-russia-eu-free-trade-zone-a-731109.html ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Penelope | Dec 10, 2016 9:41:45 PM | 81

    Why bother w the unconvincing "Russia hacked?"
    • Causes more polarization, between those who believe it & those who don't.
    • More importantly, it's in support of "fake news" (censorship) which is a serious move.
    • Also, the reason for such an unconvincing accusation is in Russia & Putin:

    November of 2010, Putin wrote an editorial for Suddeutsche Zeitung. He urged No more tariffs. No more visas. Vastly more economic cooperation between Russia and the European Union.

    "We propose the creation of a harmonious economic community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok," Putin writes. "In the future, we could even consider a free trade zone or even more advanced forms of economic integration. The result would be a unified continental market with a capacity worth trillions of euros."

    "The proposal comes as Putin travels to Germany on Thursday for a two-day visit, including a Friday meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. On Wednesday, Russia and the EU reached an important agreement on the elimination of tariffs on raw materials such as wood. The deal was an important prerequisite for the EU dropping its opposition to Russian membership in the World Trade Organization. Moscow is hoping to become a member in 2011." http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/from-lisbon-to-vladivostok-putin-envisions-a-russia-eu-free-trade-zone-a-731109.html

    While we applaud the breakup of the EU, recognizing it as a force which eats the liberty and economic prosperity of Europeans, Putin wants Russia to join it., and NATO as well.

    Putin at Valdai in 2015

    "I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a "greenfield," especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.

    "We need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It's not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody's complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonising positions"

    Putin supports the Rule of Law-- thru the Rockefeller-controlled UN. He's for national sovereignty but never speaks of the desirability for nations to regain trade sovereignty, let alone economic, immigration or currency sovereignty.

    An opposition must have an opposing vision. Otherwise, what is it opposing? Is it enough that it opposes US aggression as a means to bring about the shared vision of a regionally-administered global oligarchy? Is it enough that Russia's 1% have to fight the West's 1% to keep 74% of the wealth of Russia?

    The hacking accusation is not meant to persuade us that it's true-- but only to reinforce our feeling that there is opposition between Russia and the West: That Russia opposes the global tyranny which is progressing to completion. That we need do nothing but have faith in our minds in Putin and Russia.

    I hope I'm wrong guys. Can anybody find any words of Putin's which speak of the desirability of reversing any part of global governance?

    [Dec 11, 2016] Syrian Arab Army pulled out of Palmyra

    Notable quotes:
    "... ALBerto I agree. It is also clear the cease fire agreements between the army and the Russians in Syria were deliberately sabotaged on at least two occasions. This supports the view that there is a split between the CIA and the army. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Grieved | Dec 11, 2016 11:36:59 AM | 142

    @139 - Palmyra and sorry for OT

    From The Syrian Arab Army's "more official than any other" Facebook page:

    "...the city of Palmyra after the Syrian Arab Army units managed to regroup and counterattack; the counter attack was aimed to prevent ISIS from entering the city before the majority if not all civilians, what needs to be evacuated is evacuated.

    In the morning, an organized withdrawal order was given to the troops, even after the bulk of ISIS attack was repelled.

    As we mentioned the night ended with ISIS pushed over 7km form the city itself; and as we mentioned yesterday don't take any news as definitive.

    Yesterday, reinforcement from the Syrian Arab Army were sent led by one of the greatest SAA Generals, and everything changed afterwards.

    As for now, the Syrian Arab Army pulled out of Palmyra; we don't know the second step yet and we will update the page when we have information that we can share.

    In its latest post some 45 minutes ago, the page author explains: "...the Syrian command have to make hard choices to minimize SAA loses over any area on the map; because the control map can be changed either with huge casualties or with minimal casualties, but those who are lost cannot be revived."

    Joaquin Flores at Fort Russ puts this story together here: BREAKING: Syrian Army repels ISIS attack on Palmyra - Ready the Horses!

    It's a familiar story. We see armies advance and withdraw, advance and withdraw. What matters is how many civilians die or can be protected and how many soldiers are left, and to which side, which then rules the ground. Russian and Syrian gunships are inflicting massive damage on these terrorists. Civilians are being evacuated from the battle zones. At this moment SAA either controls the city or will control the city. But SAA controls the battle.

    From The Hague | Dec 11, 2016 3:41:29 AM | 111
    #108 @Kalen ISIS Blames 'Russian Interference' for Failed Attack on Palmyra
    http://russia-insider.com/en/russian-bombers-interfere-isis-attack-palmyra-dozens-moderate-rebels-killed/ri18128
    Ike | Dec 10, 2016 4:36:31 PM | 48
    ALBerto I agree. It is also clear the cease fire agreements between the army and the Russians in Syria were deliberately sabotaged on at least two occasions. This supports the view that there is a split between the CIA and the army. Good luck to trump and his friends. He is not someone I would normally support but it does appear that he is an outsider to both the Republicans and Democrats and may indeed be intent on draining the swamp. A very difficult road ahead as the corruption amongst the powerful in the USA is widespread. Karma is the word that comes to mind if one looks at what the USA has done to other countries around the world.
    ProPeace | Dec 10, 2016 5:49:11 PM | 60
    Nihil novi sub sole: new_york_times_headline_1974

    Also interesting Israeli mafia trafficking Syrian children's body organs

    harrylaw | Dec 10, 2016 7:38:08 PM | 68
    Robert McMaster@66 Tillerson's nomination could face intense scrutiny in the Senate, considering his years of work in Russia and the Middle East on behalf of the multinational petroleum company. Already, two leading Republican hawks, Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), have voiced concerns about Tillerson's serving as the nation's top diplomat because of his ties to Putin.

    I can hear McCains first question "Have you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party.

    [Dec 11, 2016] The CIA's Absence of Conviction by Craig Murray

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yet this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also. ..."
    craigmurray.org.uk

    I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it.

    There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yet this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

    [Dec 11, 2016] What Are The Hearsay Leaks About Russian Election Hacking Attempting To Achieve

    Is this an attempt of CIA neocons and associated forces in State Department, Hillary campaign, and elsewhere to extract some revenge for Syria regime change fiasco? They don't have any proofs and just want to war monger the US public into a Cold War II.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray also strongly disagrees with the CIA claims: ..."
    "... Murray claims to know the leaker, an insider person, and asks why the CIA and FBI, who claim to know the person related to Russia who leaked the papers, have then not arrested him or her. ..."
    "... Even if neither 1 nor 2 can be achieved the propaganda effect of these leaks will be to dampen any movement of a Trump administration towards more friendly relations with Russia. ..."
    "... In response to the leaks Trump pointed out that the CIA lied about WMDs in Iraq. That is a decisive point. Indeed the CIA lied about lots of stuff over the years and one must assume that anything that is following a "the CIA says" introduction is a lie or at least an obfuscation. ..."
    "... Wonder how Oath Keepers and Flynn oriented officers would react to a soft coup.. ..."
    "... I surely doubt that point no 2 is the motivation. US electoral and political system is a sham. No transition of any power happens ever in 2-4 years periods at all. It is all a political theater for American sheeple while the same Anglo-American oligarchic regime continues and thrives for over 227 years now and the ruling elites do not want to mess up a good thing going for them. ..."
    "... In fact there are so many chicks on this political play that makes it impossible to rock the boat, namely there is no way that Dems will be able to coronate Hillary with both senate and congress are against her and rules would likely put Paul Ryan as chief executive by blocking Hillary electoral college vote. ..."
    "... There is no time for more details but Hillary POTUS is almost impossible and hence what utterances we hear is just representation of deep division in security apparatus in the US unhappy with Obama rule and his affinity to Islamic terrorists, yes affinity shows by him arming them, and to the GCC despots who finance them. ..."
    "... it is all rumour mill and conjecture, but what isn't conjecture is the ongoing attempt to ostracize russia... ..."
    "... i agree with @7 kalen in that i doubt the reason is #2... i read the transcript yesterday from the us state dept daily briefly found here and where the superficial justification for the special "waiver that it is in U.S. national security interest to provide weapons to Syrian rebels".. apparently syria is designated a 'state sponsor of terrorism' and that is all that is needed to green light more war, murder and mayhem from the war party nation.. can anyone tell me how they arrive at this bs? ..."
    "... If nothing else you have to be impressed by the effectiveness of the deceit makers. ..."
    "... IMO the continuing effort to install Hillary ("Fake News", "Russia hacked the election", "Not my President", etc.) is primarily due to the Syrian conflict. Realists see that the war is lost, neocons and their sponsors want to double-down. ..."
    "... B asked: "what-are-the-hearsay-leaks-about-russian-election-hacking-attempting-to-achieve" A: Obfuscation of the "drain-the-swamp" meme as both "sides" are in support of the elite maintaining control in the US and world wide. ..."
    "... nothing better to unite a divided country than fear of an enemy, while the arms/militarization lobby - and add to that now the security lobby - rakes in the dough while steering foreign policy in a circuitous route leading back to the banks... has been standard operating procedure throughout history - e.g., the committee for the present danger v1 & v2.0 Jackrabbit | Dec 10, 2016 3:14:58 PM | 25 US Sends 200 More Troops To Syria Days After Obama Lifts Ban On Arms Supplies To Rebels IpsoFacto | Dec 10, 2016 3:21:35 PM | 26 W/ respect to B's Point #2, this just in from the Guardian: "[John] Dean called for the intelligence report on Russia's role to be made available to the 538 members of the electoral college before 19 December, when they formally vote to elect the next president. " /snip/ Chas. Schumer: "The silence from WikiLeaks and others since election day has been deafening. That any country could be meddling in our elections should shake both political parties to their core." Ha, ha, ha . . . Israel-firster Schumer bitching about other countries screwing around with US political system. Get the joke? ..."
    "... Why is the focus on the Russians? What about other countries that unduly influence US elections? With hacking or money or sympathizers in key roles? ..."
    "... It is my belief that we are witnessing a war between CIA and client NGO's and the US military. I have never heard a Presidential candidate assert that he is running at the behest of retired Generals and Admirals. Evidence of a soft military coup is everywhere but in the MSM (Mainstream Melodrama.) ..."
    "... Witness Congressional Representative & US Army Major Tulsi Gabbard's bill to forbid the use of taxpayer funds to fund various terrorist groups ..."
    "... These leaks have nothing to do with the Electoral College or any chance of swinging the 'election'. Rather, they are yet one more childish lashing out by the American empire that has been defeated in Syria. ..."
    "... In my opinion this is an inside war between the ousted ruling elites of which the Clinton and Bush dynasties are part of the same group along with ALL of their employees on the payroll (lobbyists, academics, Medias etc) that have been in power and ruled and thieved for over 25 years. ..."
    "... These people do NOT want to lose their ownership of the US ship of state as it has ginormous perks. Obviously they are willing to fight to the death. ..."
    "... Did the US military and the Russian military covertly 'under the table' make a deal to attack the US WarParty and its various foreign backers? ..."
    "... To this old IT pro it is obvious that they have zero evidence. The intelligence agency jackals are doing what they always do: making it up as they go. Their agenda with the Killary was more death and destruction. Now they are trying to redirect fear and hatred of Trump against Russia. ..."
    "... The good news is the Clintonite neocon regime is in panic. Their usual double-down approach to everything. ..."
    "... If Tillerson is SecState a lot of people are going to lose their jobs. ..."
    "... all the vile tricks of the cia coming home to be utilized against Americans themselves. far too few will recognize the fact. ..."
    "... I don't believe the election will be overturned by the Electoral College. That's nonsense; it's never gonna happen; period. I do believe that the CIA is a dangerous organization that fabricates intelligence when it suits it. The CIA is like a rogue junta. ..."
    "... JFK mistrusted the CIA and was absolutely right to do so. JFK also mistrusted the Israelis with very good reason and was smart to do so; albeit, it turned out badly for him to try to act against both. ..."
    "... America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in our way...We're benefiting from one thing and that is the attack on the twin towers and Pentagon and the American struggle in Iraq. These events swung American public opinion in our favor. ..."
    "... Israel can do cyber false flag better than anyone. They could have killed two birds with one stone; first getting rid of Hillary who would never tear up the Iran deal, and then pinning the hack on Russia as revenge for interfering in Syria. Who had access to the DNC and knew there was something questionable there that could swing public opinion? Zionists exist in both parties. ..."
    "... If Hillary won, Netanyahu would be stuck with the Iran deal for 8 years! Whenever Israelis face a threat or pivotal impasse of some kind they have no scruples about acting extra judicially to neutralize the threat or force an issue critical to their interests and would not hesitate to do so. ..."
    "... So, in fact, if the Israelis did this, there would be three victims, and three gains for Israel here: 1. Hillary, who would never undo a difficult deal negotiated by a fellow Democrat who helped her campaign tirelessly, would be out; 2.Putin who messed with the Zionist plan for Syria would get all the blame, and most importantly, 3. Trump who promised to make Jerusalem the Zionist capital and tear up the Iran deal, must therefore win, and Netanyahu will ensure he keeps his promises and knows who he's indebted to most. ..."
    "... The Zionist media are up in arms that a foreign entity might have tipped the election to one side. However, if it that foreign entity were ISRAEL, would they be as vocal and outraged? Only because this is pinned squarely on Russia are they harping on this point. ..."
    "... The ideal outcome for Zionists happened: the Iran deal will over, the Zionist capital in Israel will be Jerusalem, Putin is the villain who meddled in the election (and Syria)and Trump is in Israel's debt. What could be better for Zionism? ..."
    "... Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things. As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened. The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of "Russia", while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/#respond ..."
    "... Trump has put 'hard men', men likely harder than himself in charge of Defence, Homeland Security and now the State. These are not the kind of men impressed with puny Israel. ..."
    "... As numerous commentators have noted, winning the popular vote in a country with an Electoral College is essentially meaningless. In the US, the Dems start off with the enormous advantage of California and New York State already in the bag. ..."
    "... Trump played the ground game well in the battleground states where he had to flip a few hundred thousand votes. He won fair and square by the rules of the game. ..."
    "... I like the meme "DRAIN THE SWAMP". ..."
    "... Trump is a big unknown. I think Paul Craig Roberts said it best - give Trump 6 months and then form an opinion. ..."
    "... For the moment, I think Tillerson is a far far better pick than Guilliani, Romney or Bolton. ..."
    "... Senate Quietly Passes The "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act" . . .the Act will i) greenlight the government to crack down with impunity against any media property it deems "propaganda", and ii) provide substantial amounts of money fund an army of "local journalist" counterpropaganda, to make sure the government's own fake news drowns that of the still free "fringes." ..."
    "... So while packaged politely in a veneer of "countering disinformation and propaganda", the bill, once signed by Obama, will effectively give the government a full mandate to punish, shut down or otherwise prosecute, any website it deems offensive and a source of "foreign government propaganda from Russia, China or other nations." ..."
    "... "I call it "Ukrainization" of America, where the hand of dual-citizen Israelis is everywhere, all the time." ..."
    "... One would assume that if Trump becomes President he would use this new power to shit down "Fake News" to shut down the likes of Fake News outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, Huffington Post etc. ..."
    "... The mere fact that they're passing this legislation just before Donald Trump is supposed to be elected President (by the electoral college) and then inaugurated a month later does make me wonder just why they would have this sort of power to a new President who sends to oppose much of what these traitors stand for? ..."
    "... The whole US constitution is undemocratic, not just the EC. The question is not whether the CIA "backs" Clinton. It is the irrefutable fact that the liberals and Clinton *back the CIA*. And what they are backing is a *political intervention* by the CIA An agency with a long and infamous history of political interventions worldwide. That is why the Clinton liberals are insane to support this intervention. So let's not hide this intervention behind bureaucratic technicalities. ..."
    "... Trumps views on Iran are about the only cloud I can see in his Middle-East policy. To be fair it was the Iranians who played a major role in destabilizing the Iraqi South, costing the Americans and British many of their good men. ..."
    "... The establishment and it's corporate media wing look extra retarded here - they've simply doubled down on the 'Russia hacked the election' narrative... fantastical stuff. No one was buying before the election, yet still they're attempting to bludgeon this one through the skull... A retarded, primitive, but it might but be enough to push some nasty legislation along with it. Legislation to protect the US and it's citizens from the big bad world out there. ..."
    "... The Don should not have taken the pressure off Hell Bitch once he demolished her, the banshee is still a mouthful of venom. She ought to be pulling here f**king head in. ..."
    "... CIA should not have a role as designated to foreign countries not the US - it is FBI turf. ..."
    "... I think it is an inner Democratic Party fight. The party establishment lost and was revealed by the leaks. There is now a huge discussion going on on the role of donors. ..."
    "... Support for Obama's agenda, by donor status Obama's role in this is to appease the party's left, but serve the party's establishment - not to fight for his stated agenda. ..."
    "... I think the Yanks have interfered in just about every single election ever, all over my planet. ..."
    "... JFK thought the CIA should be stopped from foreign military interventions, and he was killed as a result. ..."
    "... PS. It looks like the Russians are being backed into a corner and demonized. It looks like a push to war with Russia as many have suggested with the first casualty being truth and the second action being to portray the enemy as the ultimate evil. ..."
    "... They want to brand RT a foreign agent but not AIPAC? ..."
    "... Curtis, Yeah or not to mention the whole EU/media/parties/elites sphere that supported Hillary in every single way! ..."
    "... Imho, the "Russian Hacking of US Election" is as pointed out above by b and others total BS. It is an attempt to cast blame on 'outside' forces, and Russia as traditional bogey-man provides a kind of scapegoat. It is ridiculous nonsense, but seems to work, in part. ..."
    "... The 'Russian hackers / influence / domination' is tightly tied to the 'Fake News' meme. Now, the 'Fake news' has no particular cited origin, nobody is directly accused except in vague, shoddy terms - alt-right, conspiracy theorists, dodgy lists of pro-Russia sites - , all that remains opaque (direct accusations can lead to libel, slander and other lawsuits), it is just in the air. ..."
    "... Imho, "Russia manipulating the election" is just a last-ditch move by the Dems to keep their sheeples on board. ..."
    "... All 'fake', nothing to see here, move along, but not only that: If YOU consider 'fake new' or examine it, you are wandering off the path of the True American Citizen who loves his/her country and other peoples of all kinds, hues, who are on the right side of history yada yada. The implicit threat has become overt, which negates the previous 'smooth and subtle' propaganda efforts, and forces one section (neo-libs) of the PTB to overtly switch to negating free speech, tolerance, supposed 'shared values' and 'harmony', etc. Doomed to fail, but then what? ..."
    "... This could all be about internal Democratic Party politics. The Clinton Democrats trying to hold onto their positions of power in the Democratic Party, at the DNC and in the House and Senate. They're desperately trying to blame their massive failure in the past election on anything other than their own corruption and dishonesty, in order to block the Bernie Sanders Democrats who are trying to take over leadership of the party. ..."
    "... The CIA is worried about exposure of their covert activities in Libya and Syria under a Trump Administration, and so are trying to get their talking points in first. ..."
    "... Yes, Israel supported and approved of those operations, as ex-Israeli defense minister Ya'alon admitted when he said he'd rather see ISIS overrun Syria, but Israel is a vassal client state of the U.S. The relationship is a lot like that between China and North Korea, really. ..."
    "... the us government is breaking down now, in terms of an institution looking out for america's interests. the scene now is one of a mob riot, with every wolf pack out for itself, and in that context israel is right up there, pack-wise. ..."
    "... According to the bill, any defense cooperation with Moscow will be limited until the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, "provides a certification" that Russia stopped "to illegally occupy Crimea, to foster instability in Ukraine, and to maintain an aggressive posture towards its regional neighbors." In addition, US lawmakers insist on full implementation of the Minsk accords and a ceasefire agreement for southeastern Ukraine. ..."
    "... "Bilateral military-to-military cooperation is unwarranted so long as Russia continues its aggressive and intimidating behavior towards U.S. partners and allies in Europe," the bill reads. ..."
    "... The bill also contains a clause that blocks the allocation of $10 million for the Executive Office of the President of the United States until the Defense Secretary reports to the Congress about counter-measures that Washington had taken against alleged violation by Russia of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty). ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    FBI and CIA give differing accounts to lawmakers on Russia's motives in 2016 hacks
    The FBI official's remarks to the lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee were, in comparison, "fuzzy" and "ambiguous," suggesting to those in the room that the bureau and the [Central Intelligence A]gency weren't on the same page, the official said.

    WaPo still asserts that it was a "Russian hack" from which the election relevant emails and other papers leaked. No evidence, none at all, has been presented to support that claim. Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray also strongly disagrees with the CIA claims:

    As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two.

    Murray claims to know the leaker, an insider person, and asks why the CIA and FBI, who claim to know the person related to Russia who leaked the papers, have then not arrested him or her.

    ... ... ...

    Glenn Greenwald and Mary Wheeler have written good pieces on these leaks from the CIA: Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA's Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence and Unpacking the New CIA Leak: Don't Ignore the Aluminum Tube Footnote . I have little to add to their writing. They note that the CIA and its former and current leaders are known to be very much on the Clinton side while the FBI is more neutral if not even Trump orientated.

    ... ... ...

    It was the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that tried to hack the election systems of the state of Georgia. How do we know it was not them hacking and leaking the DNC papers?

    ... ... ...

    But one can think of three bigger reasons why these leaks about the CIA assessment are now happening:
    1. To preempt the results of the official investigation Obama has now ordered. Any diversion of the official results from the alleged CIA assessment results will need extensive public explanation.
    2. To swing the electoral college to vote for Clinton instead of Trump. This would be unprecedented and a coup contradicting the will of the voters. It would lead to political chaos and more. But many Clinton partisans are pressing in that direction and such a dirty business would not be out of character for Hillary Clinton.
    3. Even if neither 1 nor 2 can be achieved the propaganda effect of these leaks will be to dampen any movement of a Trump administration towards more friendly relations with Russia. Any such move by Trump will be responded with a chorus "but Russia hacked our election" even though there has been zero evidence or proof produced that such was indeed the case.

    In response to the leaks Trump pointed out that the CIA lied about WMDs in Iraq. That is a decisive point. Indeed the CIA lied about lots of stuff over the years and one must assume that anything that is following a "the CIA says" introduction is a lie or at least an obfuscation.

    harrylaw | Dec 10, 2016 1:40:19 PM | 3

    Nobody knows, but Donald Trump -- who has been accused of cozying up to Russia -- said that "no one knows" who committed the attacks. He said they could even have been done by "someone who weighs 400 pounds who is sitting on a bed."
    Wonder how Oath Keepers and Flynn oriented officers would react to a soft coup..
    Kalen | Dec 10, 2016 1:54:48 PM | 7
    I surely doubt that point no 2 is the motivation. US electoral and political system is a sham. No transition of any power happens ever in 2-4 years periods at all. It is all a political theater for American sheeple while the same Anglo-American oligarchic regime continues and thrives for over 227 years now and the ruling elites do not want to mess up a good thing going for them.

    It is an empire of illusion hence the illusion of rules or principles must be maintained so electoral college as much as it is deeply undemocratic must be maintained to maintain this illusion of American republic.

    In fact there are so many chicks on this political play that makes it impossible to rock the boat, namely there is no way that Dems will be able to coronate Hillary with both senate and congress are against her and rules would likely put Paul Ryan as chief executive by blocking Hillary electoral college vote.

    There is no time for more details but Hillary POTUS is almost impossible and hence what utterances we hear is just representation of deep division in security apparatus in the US unhappy with Obama rule and his affinity to Islamic terrorists, yes affinity shows by him arming them, and to the GCC despots who finance them.

    james | Dec 10, 2016 2:31:39 PM | 14
    thanks b...

    it is all rumour mill and conjecture, but what isn't conjecture is the ongoing attempt to ostracize russia... now whether trump is a friend of Russia's remains to be seen, but clearly the cia are known for lying, as you point out..

    i agree with @7 kalen in that i doubt the reason is #2... i read the transcript yesterday from the us state dept daily briefly found here and where the superficial justification for the special "waiver that it is in U.S. national security interest to provide weapons to Syrian rebels".. apparently syria is designated a 'state sponsor of terrorism' and that is all that is needed to green light more war, murder and mayhem from the war party nation.. can anyone tell me how they arrive at this bs? is this what those shekels are supposed to pay for? all countries surrounding israel will be designated a certain way so that the little nation that steers the big nation can continue with this bs 24/7? sure looks like it.

    i go with option #4 which you haven't posted - continued and ongoing demon-ization of all things russian until the trump character gets in office, assuming he makes it that far..

    psychohistorian | Dec 10, 2016 2:34:03 PM | 15
    It has evolved to the point where you can't really name the American sides anymore except to say that it is NOT top/bottom....that is we are not openly in agreement that the global plutocratic families and their tools of private finance are the problem.

    Let them eat propaganda!!!! The bus Americans are being thrown under is Edward Bernay's like brainwashed hate for others but not the elite behind the curtain of deceit. If nothing else you have to be impressed by the effectiveness of the deceit makers.

    Jackrabbit | Dec 10, 2016 2:44:14 PM | 17
    IMO the continuing effort to install Hillary ("Fake News", "Russia hacked the election", "Not my President", etc.) is primarily due to the Syrian conflict. Realists see that the war is lost, neocons and their sponsors want to double-down.

    Those that want to double-down have declared war on the rest of us.

    It's time for Trump to be more vocal about US and US-ally's support for extremists.

    psychohistorian | Dec 10, 2016 2:55:52 PM | 22
    B asked: "what-are-the-hearsay-leaks-about-russian-election-hacking-attempting-to-achieve" A: Obfuscation of the "drain-the-swamp" meme as both "sides" are in support of the elite maintaining control in the US and world wide.
    b real | Dec 10, 2016 2:59:23 PM | 23
    nothing better to unite a divided country than fear of an enemy, while the arms/militarization lobby - and add to that now the security lobby - rakes in the dough while steering foreign policy in a circuitous route leading back to the banks...

    has been standard operating procedure throughout history - e.g., the committee for the present danger v1 & v2.0

    Jackrabbit | Dec 10, 2016 3:14:58 PM | 25
    US Sends 200 More Troops To Syria Days After Obama Lifts Ban On Arms Supplies To Rebels
    IpsoFacto | Dec 10, 2016 3:21:35 PM | 26
    W/ respect to B's Point #2, this just in from the Guardian:
    "[John] Dean called for the intelligence report on Russia's role to be made available to the 538 members of the electoral college before 19 December, when they formally vote to elect the next president. "

    /snip/

    Chas. Schumer:

    "The silence from WikiLeaks and others since election day has been deafening. That any country could be meddling in our elections should shake both political parties to their core."

    Ha, ha, ha . . . Israel-firster Schumer bitching about other countries screwing around with US political system. Get the joke?

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/fbi-russia-trump-election-harry-reid-james-comey-wikileaks

    Jackrabbit | Dec 10, 2016 3:22:46 PM | 27
    Tucker Congressman Adam Schiff Accuses Tucker Carlson (a well-known TV Newshow Host) of being a Russian Sympathizer

    Don't miss the last two minutes where Carlson challenges Schiff to say that the Russians were behind the Podesta hack and Schiff will not do so.

    Jackrabbit | Dec 10, 2016 3:24:49 PM | 28
    Why is the focus on the Russians? What about other countries that unduly influence US elections? With hacking or money or sympathizers in key roles?
    ALberto | Dec 10, 2016 3:25:50 PM | 29
    It is my belief that we are witnessing a war between CIA and client NGO's and the US military. I have never heard a Presidential candidate assert that he is running at the behest of retired Generals and Admirals. Evidence of a soft military coup is everywhere but in the MSM (Mainstream Melodrama.)

    Witness Congressional Representative & US Army Major Tulsi Gabbard's bill to forbid the use of taxpayer funds to fund various terrorist groups ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKV1sTw8zOc

    Here is the oath that Tulsi Gabbard took when she was commissioned

    "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

    (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

    Major Gabbard obviously takes her oath seriously! Also President elect Trump has appointed several retired Generals to cabinet level posts, just my opinion

    Rapid | Dec 10, 2016 3:35:21 PM | 33
    And of course there will be no report released, its just lies, otherwhise the reports would be out everywhere. Clinton camp is just bummed out that they lost the election and must come up with MANUFACTURED reasons of why.
    WorldBLee | Dec 10, 2016 4:00:11 PM | 42
    These leaks have nothing to do with the Electoral College or any chance of swinging the 'election'. Rather, they are yet one more childish lashing out by the American empire that has been defeated in Syria. Hence UN grandstanding to force Russia to veto ridiculous bills, approving more weapons deliveries to the losing terrorists to try to stave off victory for the Syrian people during Obama's end of term, more WADA accusations against Russia, etc. In sum, they add up to, "wah wah wah wah." Perhaps the true exceptionalism is the exceptional ability to pout and cry when events don't go the empire's way.
    linda amick | Dec 10, 2016 4:15:45 PM | 43
    In my opinion this is an inside war between the ousted ruling elites of which the Clinton and Bush dynasties are part of the same group along with ALL of their employees on the payroll (lobbyists, academics, Medias etc) that have been in power and ruled and thieved for over 25 years.

    These people do NOT want to lose their ownership of the US ship of state as it has ginormous perks. Obviously they are willing to fight to the death.

    Trump seeks to bring in another set of oligarchs. There is no telling what will happens but either way, the citizenry loses.

    ALberto | Dec 10, 2016 4:21:59 PM | 45
    Did the US military and the Russian military covertly 'under the table' make a deal to attack the US WarParty and its various foreign backers?

    Since at least 2003 under the Bu$h II dynasty oil has been appropriated in Iraq and Syria, piped and trucked through Turkey and sold at below wholesale for pennies on the dollar, to the City of the District Columbia, City of London (which includes Tel Aviv,) City of Rome, France and other NATO parasitic Euro Colonials.

    Could the continuing trumpeting (pun not intended) of the primacy of Russian armaments just be a justification for non US intervention or is it a smokescreen intended to give the US military, not to be confused with the US Military Industrial Complex, a tactical reason to not directly attack Russian Forces on the ground?

    There are several instances in Syria where the US Air Forces have bombed targets on the ground in Syria without any reaction by Russian forces. Is there an agreement that exists between us and them?

    These unsubstantiated attacks on Russia like the election hacking scheme are beyond laughable. It seems that CIA/NGOs tantrum is all they are capable of. They have lost their war against the Constitution. And lost it badly. Jut me opinion

    AriusArmenian | Dec 10, 2016 4:50:11 PM | 50
    To this old IT pro it is obvious that they have zero evidence. The intelligence agency jackals are doing what they always do: making it up as they go. Their agenda with the Killary was more death and destruction. Now they are trying to redirect fear and hatred of Trump against Russia.
    jo6pac | Dec 10, 2016 5:55:26 PM | 61
    Russians and hacking. I'm still down with this idea.

    http://theduran.com/nsa-whistleblower-says-dnc-hack-not-done-russia-us-intelligence/

    jfl | Dec 10, 2016 6:22:55 PM | 62
    @42 wbl, 'Perhaps the true exceptionalism is the exceptional ability to pout and cry when events don't go the empire's way.'

    make that the cia for the empire above and i agree completely. trump is as much the empire's man as anyone, the problem is that he doesn't know that the potus works for the cia, the 'wisemen' who've been pulling the strings since 1947 - pulling the pins and tossing the grenades is probably more like it.

    this is the cia's attempt to make the new adminstration acknowledge the lay of the land. the cis is wedded to its plans for regime changes / death, devastation, and destgruction in general to achieve its aims - and to maintain its power and control over us policy, foreign and domestic, and its going to do what it takes to accomplish just that.

    the evil cia does a lot more than pout and cry when it doesn't get its way, though. if this doesn't work the next move will be assassination. just like jfk. and they'll blame the russians, of course, their traditional enemy. just like last time.

    the rump needs to pull the plug at langley ... the sound we all need desperately to hear right now is ' daisy, daisy, give me your answer do, i'm half crazy, all for the love of you ...'

    the monstrous cia has been a cancer in the governing apparatus of the usa since 26 july 1947 and it looks to me like its now or never for it to be excised forever from the body politic. the rump needs give the rogue machine its answer.

    the rump can kill it with his fountain pin - and must, it'll be a matter of life-and-death, both his and ours or its - on 21 january 2017. kill the rogue before it kills all of us.

    Robert McMaster | Dec 10, 2016 6:46:24 PM | 66
    The good news is the Clintonite neocon regime is in panic. Their usual double-down approach to everything. It appears Trump - for his own security - aims to clean out the Augean Stables. If Tillerson is SecState a lot of people are going to lose their jobs.
    psychohistorian | Dec 10, 2016 8:05:34 PM | 72
    Here is the latest from the US government, courtesy of ZH, on why the need for fear mongering

    The link: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-10/senate-quietly-passes-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act

    How long until Americans cannot view or participate in the MoA community? 6 months? Will ZH get shut down also?

    jfl | Dec 10, 2016 8:15:53 PM | 75
    @67 telescope, 'I call it "ukrainization" of America, where the hand of Moscow is everywhere, all the time.'

    absolutely. all the vile tricks of the cia coming home to be utilized against Americans themselves. far too few will recognize the fact.

    Circe | Dec 10, 2016 8:40:08 PM | 78
    I don't believe the election will be overturned by the Electoral College. That's nonsense; it's never gonna happen; period. I do believe that the CIA is a dangerous organization that fabricates intelligence when it suits it. The CIA is like a rogue junta.

    JFK mistrusted the CIA and was absolutely right to do so. JFK also mistrusted the Israelis with very good reason and was smart to do so; albeit, it turned out badly for him to try to act against both.

    The media is bellowing that it's wrong for a President to question the CIA - BULLSHIT. A President should always be skeptical of agencies and mind you, foreign Lobbies, with too much power! Similarly, in the case of Israel, a President should question why a puny triangle in the Negev desert exerts so much influence over the largest military power in the world? But since JFK, none do.

    The difference between JFK and Trump is staaaagering! Trump only criticizes and mistrusts the messenger when he doesn't like what he hears. If the CIA said that there was no Russian hacking and the election result is beyond reproach; he'd be sending them chocolates and flowers!

    Here's what one of the most dangerous men on the planet has to say about Trump: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/12/09/netanyahu-trump-support-israel-clear-feels-warmly-jewish-state-people/

    Who had more to gain from a Trump presidency?

    Who stated?: America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in our way...We're benefiting from one thing and that is the attack on the twin towers and Pentagon and the American struggle in Iraq. These events swung American public opinion in our favor.

    If Wikileaks got the emails; someone had to do the job? Now, you have to ask yourselves: who had the most to gain with a Trump victory? Which is the most tech-saavy country; inventor of Stuxnet? Israel knew 9/11 was going to happen before anyone, because it had two Telecom companies spying inside the U.S., and the depth of their involvement still remains a lingering question. One thing is clear though: Israel couldn't have been more pleased with the change that 9/11 produced in the American psyche and Netanyahu bragged about that.

    Israel can do cyber false flag better than anyone. They could have killed two birds with one stone; first getting rid of Hillary who would never tear up the Iran deal, and then pinning the hack on Russia as revenge for interfering in Syria. Who had access to the DNC and knew there was something questionable there that could swing public opinion? Zionists exist in both parties.

    If Hillary won, Netanyahu would be stuck with the Iran deal for 8 years! Whenever Israelis face a threat or pivotal impasse of some kind they have no scruples about acting extra judicially to neutralize the threat or force an issue critical to their interests and would not hesitate to do so.

    So, in fact, if the Israelis did this, there would be three victims, and three gains for Israel here: 1. Hillary, who would never undo a difficult deal negotiated by a fellow Democrat who helped her campaign tirelessly, would be out; 2.Putin who messed with the Zionist plan for Syria would get all the blame, and most importantly, 3. Trump who promised to make Jerusalem the Zionist capital and tear up the Iran deal, must therefore win, and Netanyahu will ensure he keeps his promises and knows who he's indebted to most.

    Now, maybe you think - outrageous. Really? Again, who had the most to gain, who had access to the DNC, and wouldn't think twice of doing what's necessary to rescue and advance Zionism?

    Of course the media will never look in that direction; and the CIA are no where as smart as Israel's spy network to get the facts.

    I know, it's only a theory, but when you have three important goals to accomplish, that's what I call the party with the most to gain.

    The Zionist media are up in arms that a foreign entity might have tipped the election to one side. However, if it that foreign entity were ISRAEL, would they be as vocal and outraged? Only because this is pinned squarely on Russia are they harping on this point.

    The ideal outcome for Zionists happened: the Iran deal will over, the Zionist capital in Israel will be Jerusalem, Putin is the villain who meddled in the election (and Syria)and Trump is in Israel's debt. What could be better for Zionism?

    Think. America can be easily moved these events swung American public opinion in our favor. And so it is; once again.

    V. Arnold | Dec 10, 2016 9:55:36 PM | 82
    An excellent piece in Russia Insider;
    http://russia-insider.com/en/veteran-war-reporter-spills-beans-un-press-conference-agenda-corporate-media-regime-change-syria

    Eva Bartlett speaks truth to power, thereby busting the western media wide open. I would term this a must listen/watch.

    mauisurfer | Dec 10, 2016 10:25:50 PM | 83
    Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

    As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.

    The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of "Russia", while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/#respond

    Ivan | Dec 10, 2016 10:29:30 PM | 84
    These accusations of Russia meddling in American affairs have the Zionist fingerprints all over it. Although it is argued that Trump is a good friend of Netanyahu and thus the Israelis have that angle covered, they would much prefer a President beholden to them as Obama was.

    Trump has put 'hard men', men likely harder than himself in charge of Defence, Homeland Security and now the State. These are not the kind of men impressed with puny Israel. Add to that, one only has to look at the ethnic background of those leading the charge, that the Jews have as usual let their hatred for the Russians get ahead of them.

    Circe | Dec 10, 2016 10:34:54 PM | 87
    @84

    Although it is argued that Trump is a good friend of Netanyahu and thus the Israelis have that angle covered, they would much prefer a President beholden to them as Obama was.

    Wrong. Netanyahu never liked Obama while Trump said he would tear up the Iran deal on day one and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem; therefore acknowledging it as the Zionist capital of Israel.

    Ivan | Dec 10, 2016 10:38:56 PM | 88
    As numerous commentators have noted, winning the popular vote in a country with an Electoral College is essentially meaningless. In the US, the Dems start off with the enormous advantage of California and New York State already in the bag. Republican voters in California would not feel motivated to vote against an insurmountable head start. That alone should have cost Republicans about a million votes. Trump played the ground game well in the battleground states where he had to flip a few hundred thousand votes. He won fair and square by the rules of the game.

    psychohistorian | Dec 10, 2016 11:08:05 PM | 91
    @ rualito who assures me that ZH is safe in the coming propaganda wars.....thanks, I think Maybe the name stays the same but the "more" than Naked Capitalism provides will be reigned in a bit.

    I like the meme "DRAIN THE SWAMP". I think it is a bit of language poetry that can evolve to connect many disaffected parts of our species. It provides some focus to build from. Us pond scum have to use the little media they haven't taken away to bring people together around concepts to move forward with...

    aaaa | Dec 10, 2016 11:11:04 PM | 94
    @35 Trump is a big unknown. I think Paul Craig Roberts said it best - give Trump 6 months and then form an opinion. I'm not too optimistic however; Trump's policies could flop and the hawks could weasel their warmongering in (IRAN + CHINA + ????)

    For the moment, I think Tillerson is a far far better pick than Guilliani, Romney or Bolton. I hope that he will acquire the position. He seems to be smart, but also seems to have good character (considering.)

    Of course, the inauguration is a few weeks off, so the concern about a soft coup are real ones, especially when the CIA is throwing out the Russia claims.

    Perimetr | Dec 11, 2016 12:04:48 AM | 98
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-10/senate-quietly-passes-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act

    Senate Quietly Passes The "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act" . . .the Act will i) greenlight the government to crack down with impunity against any media property it deems "propaganda", and ii) provide substantial amounts of money fund an army of "local journalist" counterpropaganda, to make sure the government's own fake news drowns that of the still free "fringes."

    So while packaged politely in a veneer of "countering disinformation and propaganda", the bill, once signed by Obama, will effectively give the government a full mandate to punish, shut down or otherwise prosecute, any website it deems offensive and a source of "foreign government propaganda from Russia, China or other nations."

    And since there is no formal way of proving whether or not there is indeed a foreign propaganda sponsor, all that will be sufficient to eliminate any "dissenting" website, will be the government's word against that of the website. One can be confident that the US government will almost certainly prevail in every single time.

    chipnik | Dec 11, 2016 12:41:11 AM | 104
    @67

    "I call it "Ukrainization" of America, where the hand of dual-citizen Israelis is everywhere, all the time."

    There, fixed it for you. The Israel junta coup in Kiev has looted the Ukranian Treasury of all its gold bullion, sent off to NYC banks, and then issued junk bonds, already defaulting but backstopped with USA taxpayer bailout funds by crypto-Zionist Kerry, in defiance of the Constitution, that privatized Ukraine heavy industries and best farmlands for the Zionists.

    Don't ever forget that history lesson.

    The One Party of Mil.Gov exists for two purposes, neither of which have anything to do with party politics, which is a puerile pastime of the plebs, or serving the citizens themselves. One is to defend their own Mil.Gov salaries and full pensions for life. Second is to funnel $3,400,000,000,000 in tax revenues, after personnel expenses, from the public Treasury, to the private offshore bank accounts of think tanks and mercenaries and shell company 'Green' industries, government grant swindles, private colleges, and through tax credits, to MIC, Big Oil and Big Pharma et al. That's all Mil.Gov is, the greatest grift pipeline on Earth.

    Don't ever forget that history lesson.

    Take Clinton and Benghazi, for example. CIA doesn't 'hate' Clinton. CIA was joined at the hip to State during Reagan. Clinton became the focal point over Benghazi, so McCain played the Inquisitor, and in the end, really, what difference did it make? Nada. McCain went on to meet with Al Nusra / The Caliph and become the new chief money / arms funneler. Just look at the Podesta and Weiner affair. Nobody is going to investigate. Never happen. It was all the Russian hackers, and you better not kneel during the Pledge of Allegiance to the Bombs and Red Glare, or they'll tattoo 9363 on your inner lip, and 0 all the 1s on your credit cards.

    That's all they're saying: You are all kulaks now.

    • 1998 Soft Coup...does anyone left on Earth still doubt that? Gramm-Leich-Bliley takeover.
    • 2001 Hard Coup...two planes bring down four buildings, and destroy all evidence of Dot.Con and the missing $2,600,000,000,000 at the Pentagon. Can you possibly doubt that was a coup?
    • 2008 Take Down...with a narrative, as McKee's 'The Story' said, a nice linear story of this Lehman and that Goldman and a bunch of other Zio names ... still they 'pulled it'. Period.
    • 2011 Double Down...did anyone in their wildest imagination ever dream of a group of bankers bankrupting the most powerful nation on earth in broad daylight, with smiles on their faces?
    • 2016 Lock Down...look at who is being put into power: Goldman Bankers and the MIC NeoCons, exact same people who executed the power plays of the last 20 years, are locking US down.

    USAryans with the means can still escape, expatriate, even live well-off in a world dying under the dominance of US$ hegemony, ...but the moment cracks show, and ripple-down begins, those expats will be hunted down: "No, soy tu padre, por favor, soy tu hermano, perdóname!"

    A friend of mine in SEAsia send me a video from a friend who took a USAryan into his home and fed him, some lost expat, scraggly gray beard, ragged shirt, snaggle-tooth, eating cold rice with both hands, looking dazed and confused. That's the future for USAryan kulaks. They don't need you anymore. At all. At all. At all. You can be outsourced in a NYC nanosecond.

    Game of Thrones Season 8 begins January 20th.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 11, 2016 1:20:51 AM | 105
    ...
    "Wrong. Netanyahu never liked Obama while Trump said he would tear up the Iran deal on day one and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem; therefore acknowledging it as the Zionist capital of Israel."
    Posted by: Circe | Dec 10, 2016 10:34:54 PM | 87

    That remark is rendered even more foolish than it superficially seems by your decision to fling it into a thread about political Theatre, and given that "Netanyahu never liked Obama" was so OBVIOUSLY ... Pure Theatre. When Bibi (discourteously) addressed Congress (to applause of unprecedented duration) after side-stepping the Traditional Introduction By The President, to the Congress, of a Foreign Leader, it was Proof that Obama was on board with the scheme to elevate Bibi's status and influence. I find it impossible to accept that any sentient being could believe some of the irritating drivel which you claim to believe, 'Circe'.

    Julian | Dec 11, 2016 2:04:47 AM | 106
    Re: Posted by: Perimetr | Dec 11, 2016 12:04:48 AM | 98

    One would assume that if Trump becomes President he would use this new power to shit down "Fake News" to shut down the likes of Fake News outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, Huffington Post etc.

    Would anyone here really think if outlets like that were shut down it would really be a bad thing?

    The mere fact that they're passing this legislation just before Donald Trump is supposed to be elected President (by the electoral college) and then inaugurated a month later does make me wonder just why they would have this sort of power to a new President who sends to oppose much of what these traitors stand for?

    Unless of course they know of a plan to make sure he never steps in the White House as President?

    Matt | Dec 11, 2016 2:46:40 AM | 108
    s @18: Some facts: The whole US constitution is undemocratic, not just the EC. The question is not whether the CIA "backs" Clinton. It is the irrefutable fact that the liberals and Clinton *back the CIA*. And what they are backing is a *political intervention* by the CIA An agency with a long and infamous history of political interventions worldwide. That is why the Clinton liberals are insane to support this intervention. So let's not hide this intervention behind bureaucratic technicalities.

    That *political intervention* began *before* the election with the Clapper omnibus announcement. Clinton ran with it in the last debate with Trump. She beat him over the head with Clapper with the only passion she ever showed for an issue. You have the Clinton - CIA causation backwards.

    Ivan | Dec 11, 2016 3:07:28 AM | 110
    Circe @87. Trumps views on Iran are about the only cloud I can see in his Middle-East policy. To be fair it was the Iranians who played a major role in destabilizing the Iraqi South, costing the Americans and British many of their good men.

    Realistically there is no hope of a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Having recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, the best deal is a one state solution. If the Palestinians play their cards well - not a likely prospect, given their innate stupidity - it will work out to everyone's good

    MadMax2 | Dec 11, 2016 5:35:37 AM | 114
    The establishment and it's corporate media wing look extra retarded here - they've simply doubled down on the 'Russia hacked the election' narrative... fantastical stuff. No one was buying before the election, yet still they're attempting to bludgeon this one through the skull... A retarded, primitive, but it might but be enough to push some nasty legislation along with it. Legislation to protect the US and it's citizens from the big bad world out there.

    The Don should not have taken the pressure off Hell Bitch once he demolished her, the banshee is still a mouthful of venom. She ought to be pulling here f**king head in. We can only hope The Don manages the downfall without bloodshed. One could accept a conflict an interest if it only meant a chain of hotels dropped on foreign soil instead of a thousand cruise missiles. That's where we're at.

    somebody | Dec 11, 2016 5:41:30 AM | 115
    CIA should not have a role as designated to foreign countries not the US - it is FBI turf. FBI disagrees. I think it is an inner Democratic Party fight. The party establishment lost and was revealed by the leaks. There is now a huge discussion going on on the role of donors.

    If anybody using the leaks in the discussion can be made to look as a foreign agent ... Whose voice whose choice - the distorting influence of the political donor class

    Support for Obama's agenda, by donor status Obama's role in this is to appease the party's left, but serve the party's establishment - not to fight for his stated agenda.

    Formerly T-Bear | Dec 11, 2016 6:03:24 AM | 116
    @ 113 Addendum

    And the US Senate slithered in with a 'quietly' passed "Countering Disinformation and TERRORISM Propaganda Act". Does that match the Act passed by the House? If so, it should be on Obama's desk for Christmas, in time enough Obama cannot use his pocket veto. Surprises for New Years Eve; a hangover for the New Year.

    CHRISTINNE RADU | Dec 11, 2016 6:16:02 AM | 117
    http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/12/10/exclusive-president-raed-salehs-terrorist-connections-within-white-helmet-leadership/
    laserlurk | Dec 11, 2016 6:20:18 AM | 118
    It all is really only one subject - Russians, Syria, elections, ISIS, Clinton, Trump, Ukraine, EU attacks in Paris, Bruxelles, fake news, whataboutism reloaded, psyops worldwide, Wikileaks, very recent bombings in Cairo and Istanbul etc.

    So what is happening here? Intelligence communities and all the levels of current administration are fighting each other without a mercy, while there is obvious power vacuum and "state sponsored everything" just falls apart right before our eyes. Scary is that all US sponsored terrorist sleeping cells, as it seems, are going berserk all around Mid East while feeling abandoned by their main sponsors and its control and coordination seems is lost. For any future administration that comes to the power in the US next, it will take at least until next winter to try regain some sort of control over such rogue covert field units.

    Mark Stoval | Dec 11, 2016 6:57:57 AM | 122
    "Trump lost the election. When the electoral college votes him in, is when the will of the people is trampled. If those electors were decent people, they'd vote for the true winner of the election as president."

    The total ignorance of that statement is overwhelming. I get it that there are many socialists here at the bar, but we don't need to be totally delusional about how the system works. We have had protection of the small states from the large states via the Senate and the electoral college from the beginning of the republic.

    The fact that California votes millions of non-citizens and dead people does not mean the rest of the country needs to bow to the crazies out there. Let California succeed from the nation --- I would cheer their leaving.

    The people of the US gave the Republicans the majority nationwide from the local county, to the state level, to the national level. The national government is Republican in both houses of congress as well as the presidency. SC to follow. The people have spoken.

    Besides, let Germany host all the Muslim rape gangs and enjoy child marriage. Angela Merkel must be very popular in Germany. No?

    dan | Dec 11, 2016 7:07:30 AM | 123
    Shit, I think the Yanks have interfered in just about every single election ever, all over my planet. Theres a teaspoon of cement out back, to be swallowed with a glass of water to harden the fuck up.

    Your government are only tools, there is nothing cool about their version of patriotism, Americans. Stop fucking with the rest of us and create a truly independent foreign policy, or quit wining about the shocking state of affairs that is your current DC sociopathic nightmare.

    There is no saving that train smash, it has already hit terminal velocity, and the ground is a generation away. Something tells me that learning how to grow potatoes would probably do you more good right now than opining on the intricacies of a morbidly fascinating, yet ultimately doomed cesspool of fuckwits who are jacking you off with one hand while smothering you with a pillow in the other.

    From The Hague | Dec 11, 2016 7:08:55 AM | 124
    Constitutional Crisis, Movement to Undermine President-elect Donald Trump's Accession to the White House? America is gearing towards a Constitutional Crisis. Author's note: This article does not constitute an endorsement of Donald Trump. Quite the opposite. The focus is on an unfolding constitutional crisis. http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-carefully-planned-operation-to-prevent-president-elect-donald-trumps-accession-to-the-white-house/5560301

    somebody | Dec 11, 2016 8:01:34 AM | 128
    Posted by: Circe | Dec 10, 2016 10:34:54 PM | 87

    Israel would have prefered Clinton heading the Republican Party.

    Perimetr | Dec 11, 2016 8:58:25 AM | 129
    re: @somebody 115

    "CIA should not have a role as designated to foreign countries not the US - it is FBI turf. FBI disagrees. I think it is an inner Democratic Party fight."

    JFK thought the CIA should be stopped from foreign military interventions, and he was killed as a result. It's not just an inner Democratic party fight. CIA runs the trillion-dollar-a-year heroin industry in Afghanistan. The proceeds are laundered by the too-big-to-jail banksters, and used to run foreign wars, buy politicians, whatever is necessary for the deep state to maintain control.

    Paulo | Dec 11, 2016 9:24:53 AM | 130
    JEsus Christ, US turning to a dictatorship with its info war and censorship. Ex-US envoy to Russia calls for branding RT 'foreign agent' over 'involvement' in elections https://www.rt.com/news/369937-mcfaul-russia-involvement-us/
    Curtis | Dec 11, 2016 9:33:05 AM | 131
    The DEMs and their backers are throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. (more divide and conquer)

    1. It's the Russians. But don't look at what is revealed and the corruption present. Don't look at the fact that important things are connected to the internet that are not and cannot be protected.

    2. It's the uneducated whites. But don't look to see if that's true just use insulting language and imply that everyone would have voted for Hillary if they were educated. (brainwashed) But don't look at the team-sport oriented quality to our elections. And don't look at Hillary's corruption as most have done.

    3. It's the electoral college and popular vote. But don't look at the electoral college as preventing two states and several large cities from controlling the country. Don't look at the presidency becoming more authoritarian and that the president should not have so much power that the office becomes all important. And don't think about the fact that Trump won the popular vote in each state he won.

    Curtis | Dec 11, 2016 9:36:23 AM | 132
    PS. It looks like the Russians are being backed into a corner and demonized. It looks like a push to war with Russia as many have suggested with the first casualty being truth and the second action being to portray the enemy as the ultimate evil.
    Curtis | Dec 11, 2016 9:37:39 AM | 133
    @ Paulo 130. They want to brand RT a foreign agent but not AIPAC?
    Paulo | Dec 11, 2016 10:01:01 AM | 134
    Curtis, Yeah or not to mention the whole EU/media/parties/elites sphere that supported Hillary in every single way!
    Geoff | Dec 11, 2016 10:28:24 AM | 135
    I wonder if the censoring of "fake news" and such applies to the magazine rack at the local supermarkets? It is thus where I pick up most of the scandals about the Clintons, whether we truly made it to the moon, assasination theories, and everything else. And judging by my fellow American beer drinking patrons in line, I'm sure I'm not alone in my outrage!

    If they plan to shut down information on the internet, in order to brainwash us more effectively, certainly cleaning up the magazine racks would be a great service that I for one look forward to in the coming administrations!

    pantaraxia | Dec 11, 2016 10:31:21 AM | 136
    @98 Perimetr

    Senate Quietly Passes The "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-10/senate-quietly-passes-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act

    " will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government. To support these efforts, the bill also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work. This will better leverage existing expertise and empower local communities to defend themselves from foreign manipulation."

    Once this interagency center is established expect the following:

    • a dual-citizen/Israeli-firster will be appointed to at least one key position in this center.
    • the center's mandate will be expanded to include "counter-propaganda" against criticism of Israel and related topics, including criticism of tribalist's inordinate influence in the U.S. gov't, media, finance, etc.
    • a significant portion of the grant program will be siphoned off by Israeli-firsters and their organizations.
    • a concerted effort (in conjunction with Facebook and Google) will include isolating and shutting down blogs which have been vocally critical of Israel and 'zionist occupied territory' aka the U.S. gov't. (This means you MOA)
    Noirette | Dec 11, 2016 10:46:05 AM | 138
    Imho, the "Russian Hacking of US Election" is as pointed out above by b and others total BS. It is an attempt to cast blame on 'outside' forces, and Russia as traditional bogey-man provides a kind of scapegoat. It is ridiculous nonsense, but seems to work, in part. It would be interesting in fact to read how the Russians managed this, sadly but unsurprisingly no methods / facts / putative credible scenarios are detailed, all is 'insinuations', 'speculations' etc.

    Of course the Russians know much more than they are letting on, that is another topic entirely.

    The 'Russian hackers / influence / domination' is tightly tied to the 'Fake News' meme. Now, the 'Fake news' has no particular cited origin, nobody is directly accused except in vague, shoddy terms - alt-right, conspiracy theorists, dodgy lists of pro-Russia sites - , all that remains opaque (direct accusations can lead to libel, slander and other lawsuits), it is just in the air.

    The general impression your lambda Killary supporter is that Russia stole the election for Trump (apparently believing this is a sort of regular natural occurrence, i.e that a foreign power can manipulate the greatest democracy is just 'normal' and 'comprehensible') and there are shadowy, obscure enemies out there, somewhere, creating 'Fake News', how nobody really knows. (Schizo thinking, violent hateful people, criminals, something.)

    Imho, "Russia manipulating the election" is just a last-ditch move by the Dems to keep their sheeples on board. The scary thing is that probably many believe it themselves, as they cannot fathom the bubble they live in or what the 'real world' is all about. They cannot understand why they 'lost', how could that possibly be?, there must be some evil 'force' that engineered it, no other explanation will do.

    The 'Fake News' narrative is clearly put out there as a last-ditch move to suppress news about Pizza-Gate, the Podesta / other e-mails, the Clinton Foundation, pedophilia rings in the world, Benghazi, and more.

    All 'fake', nothing to see here, move along, but not only that: If YOU consider 'fake new' or examine it, you are wandering off the path of the True American Citizen who loves his/her country and other peoples of all kinds, hues, who are on the right side of history yada yada. The implicit threat has become overt, which negates the previous 'smooth and subtle' propaganda efforts, and forces one section (neo-libs) of the PTB to overtly switch to negating free speech, tolerance, supposed 'shared values' and 'harmony', etc. Doomed to fail, but then what?

    nonsensefactory | Dec 11, 2016 11:31:42 AM | 140
    Here are a couple factors I don't see mentioned in the thread:

    1) This could all be about internal Democratic Party politics. The Clinton Democrats trying to hold onto their positions of power in the Democratic Party, at the DNC and in the House and Senate. They're desperately trying to blame their massive failure in the past election on anything other than their own corruption and dishonesty, in order to block the Bernie Sanders Democrats who are trying to take over leadership of the party. Part of that strategy to preserve power is to blame their debacle on Putin, but only the brainwashed would buy that.
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/scramble-for-control-of-the-democratic-party-rages-231242

    2) The CIA is worried about exposure of their covert activities in Libya and Syria under a Trump Administration, and so are trying to get their talking points in first. There's the issue of Libyan weapons being transferred to Islamic terror groups in Syria, likely including sarin chemical weapons that could have been used in the infamous 2013 chemical weapons attacks that were supposed to result in a causus belli for a NATO assault on Syria. There's the issue of training camps run by the CIA in Jordan and Turkey that fed fighters and weapons to Al Qaeda and ISIS forces. There's the issue of how CIA-trained and supported forces ended up fighting Pentagon-backed Kurdish forces:
    (1) http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
    (2) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-rebels-usa-idUSBRE9290FI20130310
    (3) http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html

    That's just some of the shady behavior the CIA got up to under Obama; under GW Bush they helped cook up lies about Iraqi WMDs, ran torture programs in 2002 aimed at forcing captured Al Qaeda terrorists to invent links to Saddam, and later transferred their torture program to Iraq as part of the effort to crush the anti-occupation insurgency.

    One fact that supports this narrative is the leading role being played by pro-Clinton Democrats on the House and Senate Intelligence committees in boosting the "Russia did it narrative"; they also have close relationships with CIA lobbyists, who have their own reasons for undermining the Trump Administration and preventing exposure of their activities in Syria. I'd say that's the real agenda behind this propaganda blitz.

    P.S. Those going on about how Israeli Zionists run the world and/or how Trump is out to invade Iran are living in the past, not up to speed on the new realities. Take the massive deal Iran and Boeing just signed, as one example of these new world realities:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-boeing-idUSKBN1400CR
    The Israelis and the Saudis lobbied long and hard against that, they want sanctions against Iran and all such deals blocked - it's not going to happen. And yes, Obama was the biggest Israel supporter ever:
    "The Obama administration is upping aid to Israel as part of the largest pledge of military assistance in US history ($38 billion). - Sep 13 2016"

    Circe | Dec 11, 2016 11:32:43 AM | 141
    @128 somebody 110 Ivan 105 Hoarsewhisperer

    Your responses lead me to believe that all three of you are Zionist enablers, while my comment @78 proves that I'm vehemently opposed to Zionism since I'm offering the theory that Zionists might have been behind the DNC hack and leak to Wikileaks because Israel had everything to gain with Trump who promised to tear up the Iran deal and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Those promises are not small potatoes for Israel! I imagine they'd do just about anything to facilitate them.

    @105 writes:

    When Bibi (discourteously) addressed Congress (to applause of unprecedented duration) after side-stepping the Traditional Introduction By The President, to the Congress, of a Foreign Leader, it was Proof that Obama was on board with the scheme to elevate Bibi's status and influence.

    I find it impossible to accept that any sentient being could believe some of the irritating drivel which you claim to believe, 'Circe'..

    First of all, no one is going to buy that Obama was on board with Bibi upstaging him and the office of the President with that speech to Congress in which he severely criticized the Iran deal...that's pure baloney on your part. Further, I have no reason to defend Obama; I can't stand Obama and my comment history proves this. Obama is a Zionist enabler; but Trump will be much worse and his promises and defense of the radical nut job Netanyahu prove this! As a matter of fact, Trump himself, criticized Obama's treatment of Netanyahu and Israel, and his snub of Netanyahu when the latter addressed Congress. So you're argument is a total fail.

    Secondly, my comments may irritate you, and I'm glad they do, they should bother all Zionist enablers, and you seem really hot and bothered, but if you notice, the Saker chose one of my comments to lead a discussion on his site, so they're not so much drivel as you'd like to pretend they are.

    jfl | Dec 11, 2016 11:50:46 AM | 143
    @138 noirette, 'The 'Russian hackers / influence / domination' is tightly tied to the 'Fake News' meme.' you said it! i've been looking at ProPornOT's actual 'document' and that jump's out of their introduction .

    more on their Following a Specific Story: The Tale of the Painted Jets later. Thanks for the link to cryptome's rebuilding america's defenses on the other thread. i like to read html much more than i like pdf's. i'll make one myself. might have one somewhere already. it's good to have a copy of the 'original' though, as you say it's getting harder to find. everyone ought to have one.

    nonsensefactory | Dec 11, 2016 12:18:05 PM | 145
    @141

    Yes, Circe, Obama was so upset with Netanyahu that he promoted the largest military aid package in U.S. history for Israel, a whopping $38 billion. I'd guess, however, that this was really a gift package for the 9 out of 10 major U.S. arms manufacturers who were backing Hillary Clinton, as most of that Israeli aid money will be recycled back to them in the form of weapons purchases.

    The whole "Russia hacked the U.S. election" line has nothing to do with Israel, other than that they think their interests are better served by someone like Hillary Clinton who relies on the likes of Haim Saban for campaign donations, than by someone like Trump, who doesn't. This gets back to the issue of the internal struggle within the Democratic Party for control, the Clinton Democrats vs. the Sanders Democrats; if the Clintonites can blame their failure on Putin, they stand a better chance of holding onto party leadership positions. And the CIA is onboard because they're worried about exposure of their covert pro-ISIS pro-Al Qaeda operations in Turkey and Jordan.

    Yes, Israel supported and approved of those operations, as ex-Israeli defense minister Ya'alon admitted when he said he'd rather see ISIS overrun Syria, but Israel is a vassal client state of the U.S. The relationship is a lot like that between China and North Korea, really. They're both troublesome rogue nuclear states with long-term relationships to their big brothers.

    Now one smart move for Trump would be to cut a deal with China, in which North Korea and Israel would both be pressured to accept IAEA inspections of their nuclear arsenals or face the loss of aid from China and the U.S., respectively.

    jfl | Dec 11, 2016 12:42:07 PM | 147
    @145 nonsense, 'Israel is a vassal client state of the U.S'

    you make a lot of sense, i especially like your comparison of north korea and israel vis a vis china and the us ... and the opening for trump to do just as you 'recommend' ... but the us government is breaking down now, in terms of an institution looking out for america's interests. the scene now is one of a mob riot, with every wolf pack out for itself, and in that context israel is right up there, pack-wise.

    there's nothing left in ac/dc but a collection of mobs, each fighting for its own interest exclusively ... witness the pentagon/cia each contesting the direction of the war ... not only in syria. trump is just another mobster ... and a capo, really, in terms of power. he'll have to pull a coup of his own to become the godfather. and israel is just one of the mobs he's going to have to make his personal vassals.

    that's what seems to be the lay of the land in the usa. duel among the financiers, the fusiliers, the fossil-fuelers, israel, and trump himself for the dictatorship. the cia's been in the catbird seat the past 8 years. remains to be seen if tee-rump is up to it.

    ProPeace | Dec 11, 2016 3:20:02 PM | 150
    US Senate prohibits defense cooperation with Russia December 8.
    The US Senate passed the bill on the Pentagon's 2017 budget Thursday, which prohibits military cooperation with Russia and allocates funds to support Washington's allies in Europe.

    Kremlin does not expect quick restoration of Russia-US ties. The overall US military budget for the next year will stand at almost $619 billion. The bill is yet to be signed into law by outgoing US President Barack Obama.

    White House request

    Members of Congress committees on defense and military issues earlier said they had granted the Obama administration's request to allocate $3.4 billion to strengthen the defense of its NATO allies in Europe. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said the measure was to "aggressive actions by Russia." The document also cites terrorist threat and the inflow of refuges from the Middle East as reasons for allotting the money.

    According to the bill, any defense cooperation with Moscow will be limited until the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, "provides a certification" that Russia stopped "to illegally occupy Crimea, to foster instability in Ukraine, and to maintain an aggressive posture towards its regional neighbors." In addition, US lawmakers insist on full implementation of the Minsk accords and a ceasefire agreement for southeastern Ukraine.

    "Bilateral military-to-military cooperation is unwarranted so long as Russia continues its aggressive and intimidating behavior towards U.S. partners and allies in Europe," the bill reads.

    Arms control

    The bill also contains a clause that blocks the allocation of $10 million for the Executive Office of the President of the United States until the Defense Secretary reports to the Congress about counter-measures that Washington had taken against alleged violation by Russia of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty).

    In addition, the bill imposes a direct ban on financing further implementation of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) until the administration makes a number of reports to the Congress, including on Russia's nuclear doctrine and on the treaty's influence on the US nuclear arsenal.

    Open Skies

    The Congress also banned any expenditures concerning Russia's observation flights under the Treaty on Open Skies until the Department of State and the Pentagon convince lawmakers that Moscow fully complies with the treaty and permits aerial surveillance of some of its territories, including Kaliningrad, Moscow, Chenchya and areas that border the former Georgian republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

    White House stance

    The White House administration has not yet expressed its attitude towards the document. Last year, a similar text was vetoed by US President Barack Obama. At the same time, according to the Miltiary Times portal, the Democrats previously expressed their support for the draft bill.

    [Dec 11, 2016] Russia Rigged Election, Killed JFK And Hid Saddams WMDs, Confirms CIA

    waterfordwhispersnews.com
    craazyboy December 10, 2016 at 10:10 am

    hahaha. Tho I think they made a spelling error- s/b Osamaovitch Boris Ladenofsky.

    Baby Gerald December 10, 2016 at 10:15 am

    Thanks for this– a much-needed Onion-esque satirical dig at the Globe/Post/NYT trifecta of garbage. To base a headline on information gleaned from anonymous sources and unnamed officials in secret meetings with unpublished agendas seems the most dangerous type of fake news there is. The death of irony was greatly exaggerated, if you ask me.

    Aumua December 10, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Next up: Russia influenced the Superbowl. You thought the Cubs' actually winning was a little strange? Well, have we got a shocker for you..

    [Dec 11, 2016] Are Saudis behind CIA "report" on Russian influence on elections?

    Dec 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Stormcrow , December 11, 2016 at 7:38 am

    What's behind the Russian Hack Propaganda? Two articles worth a read. I apologize if they've been posted before.

    What Are The Hearsay Leaks About "Russian Election Hacking" Attempting To Achieve?
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/12/what-are-the-hearsay-leaks-about-russian-election-hacking-attempting-to-achieve.html

    BEHIND CIA"S "REPORT" ON ELECTION: THE SAUDIS
    https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/09/unpacking-new-cia-leak-dont-ignore-aluminum-tube-footnote/

    UserFriendly , December 11, 2016 at 7:47 am

    Well, At least Tillerson believes in Climate change and is in favor of a carbon tax
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/06/30/exxon-yes-exxon-backs-a-carbon-tax/#1fbb193e4aea

    Jim Haygood , December 11, 2016 at 9:00 am

    Are we seeing a pattern here? Tillerson - a Putin counterpart and recipient of Russia's Order of Friendship - to Moscow; Gov Branstad - farmin' buddy of Premier Xi since the 1980s - to Beijing. And so forth.

    Inside-the-Beltway folk are upset at the overturning of the established order, in which diplomatic posts go to the biggest bundlers, regardless of country knowledge. Lacking titles of nobility here in the Homeland, we need an outlet for the well-connected to purchase a prestigious sinecure and a black diplomatic passport. Otherwise a frightening Revolt of the Affluent could roil our streets.

    Still angling for the Court of St James myself - got any witticisms I could share with the Queen?

    Katniss Everdeen , December 11, 2016 at 10:15 am

    Like it or not, Tillerson as secretary of "state" makes a fair amount of sense.

    His appointment would acknowledge, pretty overtly, that american foreign "policy" is, always and everywhere, about energy.

    We ignore human rights abuses in saudi arabia and overthrow Gadhafi when he proposes demanding payment for oil in a gold-backed currency. Iraq. Assad must "go" because of a pipeline. A biden boy gets a seat on the board of a Ukranian energy company after a u. s. backed coup. The clinton foundation in Nigeria.

    And that's just the last decade or so of wars and "threats to american interests." Maybe it's time we just got honest about it.

    Carolinian , December 11, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Honesty would be a refreshing change.

    Jomo , December 11, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Don't say it's about "energy" 'cause it's about "oil."

    [Dec 11, 2016] Unraveling the Russian Hack Conspiracy Propaganda

    " BARACK OBAMA, WITH THE COOPERATION OF SOME IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT TRUMP BEFORE THE ELECTION"
    Notable quotes:
    "... The whole "blame Russia" movement to account for Hillary's unexpected failure to win the Presidency got a new shot in the arm with today's announcement that Obama ordered: ..."
    "... The stupidity of this is profound. If this review leads to the "discovery" that Russia is carrying out espionage activities in the United States then we have passed the threshold of learning that there is gambling in a casino. ..."
    "... The real irony in all of this is that Wikileaks, thanks to the hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails, exposed the reality of Democrats working surreptitiously to tamper with and manipulate the election. Here are the highlights from that leak: ..."
    "... Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria. ..."
    "... Blaming Russia for Hillary's flame out is absurd. The Russians did not create and lie about Hillary's server. They did not force her to back the multilateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA and TPP. They didn't set up the Clinton Foundation as a cash cow for the Clinton family. They did not force her to advocate imposing a No Fly Zone in Syria and having been a cheerleader for past wars, including Iraq and Libya. Vladimir Putin did not slip her a mickey and cause her to pass out at the 9-11 memorial, which fueled concerns about her health. And they did not infect her lungs and cause her to have extended coughing jags. They did not cause her to call Americans deplorables. They did not make her say that the coal industry should be shutdown. With that kind of record, coupled with her shrieking, screechy voice, why are folks surprised that she did not win? ..."
    "... So now Democrats and several Republicans are in a lather over the Russians stealing the election for Trump. The list of conspiracy theorists pushing this nonsense include John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Angus King of Maine, Brent Budowsky and Adam Schiff. I defy anyone, to explain to me how Russian meddling gave Trump the win. ..."
    "... The realities are this. First, as noted in the Budowsky email, the Clinton campaign came up with the idea of accusing Trump of being a stooge of Russia. They thought they'd get political bang out of that. They didn't. ..."
    "... Second, the hack of the DNC emails confirmed that the suspicions of many that the DNC and Hillary were collaborating to screw over Bernie and rig the election. That was not fake news. Cold, unwelcomed truth. That's when this drum beat about the big, bad Russians started meddling in our election started. Why? To distract attention away from the ugly reality that the DNC and Hillary were cheating. ..."
    "... The subsequent Wikileaks avalanche of Podesta emails reinforced as fact the existing suspicion that the media was in the bag for Hillary. ..."
    "... I would recommend you assemble a short reading list of everything surrounding President Kennedy's full acceptance of responsibility after the Bay of Pigs, beginning with the substance and tone of his unequivocal taking of responsibility and ending with his huge rise in the polls, to nearly 90% favorable ratings, after he did this. ..."
    "... And then I would suggest she plan the equivalent and take full, absolute and unequivocal responsibility for making a mistake with the private emails and give an honest, direct, explanation of the reasons I believe she used those private emails. . . . ..."
    "... Give Budowsky credit for one thing, if Hillary had followed his advice she might have won the election. But she was too busy exploiting the rules of a rigged game and trying to smear Trump as a Russian agent while failing to exercise genuine, sincere personal responsibility. ..."
    "... Barack Obama appears to be actively working to discredit the Trump election and has enlisted the intelligence community in the effort. How else to explain this disconnect? Yesterday, as noted above, Obama directed the intelligence community to: ..."
    "... I heard from a knowledgeable friend in September that Hillary's campaign was pressing the Obama White House to lean on the intel community and put something out blaming her woes on the Russians. That led to the October statement. And now we have the CIA via a SECRET report (that is leaked to the public) insisting that Trump's victory came because of the Russians. ..."
    "... This is a damn lie. The CIA is now allowing itself to be used once again for blatant political purposes. The politicization became a real problem under Bush. Let's not forget that these are the same cats who insisted it was a slam dunk that were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The same group who missed the rise of ISIS. ..."
    "... Also worth reminding ourselves that the head of the ironically titled "Intelligence Community" is a proven liar. Jim Clapper lied to the Senate about the NSA spying on Americans three years ago (December 2013) : ..."
    "... "Congressional oversight depends on truthful testimony – witnesses cannot be allowed to lie to Congress," wrote representatives James Sensenbrenner, Darrell Issa, Trent Franks, Raul Labrador, Ted Poe, Trey Gowdy and Blake Farenthold, citing "Director Clapper's willful lie under oath." ..."
    "... There is a consistent pattern in the Obama Administration of lying to the American people, especially when it comes to National Security matters. The NSA is not an isolated case. We also have Benghazi, Syria and Libya as other examples of not telling the truth and misrepresenting facts. ..."
    "... In my lifetime, going on 60 years, I have never seen such a display of incompetence as is being manifested by Barack Obama and mental midgets that surround him. ..."
    "... What they can say for sure is that the DNC and Podesta emails were hacked. Those hacked emails were passed to WIKILEAKS. Those emails were then released to the public. What the intel community will be hard pressed to prove is that the Russian Government conceived of and directed such a campaign. This is the true information operation to meddle in the U.S. election, but that isn't Russia. That's Obama. ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.noquarterusa.net

    UPDATE–PLEASE SEE BELOW. BOTTOMLINE, BARACK OBAMA, WITH THE COOPERATION OF SOME IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT TRUMP BEFORE THE ELECTION.

    Let me stipulate up front that both the United States and Russia engage in covert and clandestine information operations. It is called espionage. It is but one aspect of the broader intelligence activity also known as spying. Time for all you snowflakes in America to grow up and get a grip and deal with with reality. If the respective intelligence organizations in either country are not doing this they are guilty of malpractice and should be dismantled.

    There are two basic types of espionage activity–Covert refers to an operation that is undetected while in progress, but the outcome may be easily observed. Killing Bin Laden is a prime example of a "covert" operation. A Clandestine Operation is something that is supposed to be undetected while in progress and after completion. For example, if the U.S. or Russia had a mole at the top of the National Security bureaucracy of their respective adversary, communicating with that mole and the mole's very existence would be clandestine.

    So, the alleged Russian meddling in our election–was it covert or clandestine?

    The whole "blame Russia" movement to account for Hillary's unexpected failure to win the Presidency got a new shot in the arm with today's announcement that Obama ordered:

    a full review into hacking by the Russians designed to influence the 2016 election, White House Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Adviser Lisa Monaco said Friday.

    The stupidity of this is profound. If this review leads to the "discovery" that Russia is carrying out espionage activities in the United States then we have passed the threshold of learning that there is gambling in a casino.

    The real irony in all of this is that Wikileaks, thanks to the hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails, exposed the reality of Democrats working surreptitiously to tamper with and manipulate the election. Here are the highlights from that leak:

    DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Calls Sanders Campaign Manager Jeff Weaver an "A–" and a "Liar"

    In May the Nevada Democratic State Convention became rowdy and got out of hand in a fight over delegate allocation. When Weaver went on CNN and denied any claims violence had happened, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, once she was notified of the exchange, wrote "Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he never acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred."

    Highlighting Sanders' Faith

    One email shows that a DNC official contemplated highlighting Sanders' alleged atheism - even though he has said he is not an atheist - during the primaries as a possibility to undermine support among voters.

    "It may make no difference but for KY and WA can we get someone to ask his belief," Brad Marshall, CFO of the DNC, wrote in an email on May 5, 2016. "He had skated on having a Jewish heritage. I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."

    Building a Narrative Against Sanders

    "Wondering if there's a good Bernie narrative for a story which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess," DNC National Secretary Mark Paustenbach wrote in an email to National Communications Director Luis Miranda on May 21. After detailing ways in which the Sanders camp was disorganized, Paustenbach concludes, "It's not a DNC conspiracy it's because they never had their act together."

    The London Observer noted that :

    The release provides further evidence the DNC broke its own charter violations by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast.

    It was the Clinton spokesman, Robbie Mook, who launched the claim on July 24, 2016 that these leaks were done by the Russians in order to help Trump:

    The source of the leak has not been revealed, though Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook, said on ABC News' "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday that he believes the Russians were instrumental in it.

    "Experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, took all these emails and now are leaking them out through these websites," Mook said Sunday. "It's troubling that some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."

    The Clinton campaign started planning to smear Trump as a Putin stooge as early as December 2015. The Podesta emails showed clearly that the Clinton campaign decided early on to clobber Trump for his "bromance" with Putin. It was Brent Buwdosky almost one year ago (December 21, 2015) who proposed going after Trump with the Russian card in an email to Podesta:

    Putin did not agree to anything about removing Assad and continues to bomb the people we support. We pushed the same position in 2012 (Geneva 1, which HRC knows all about) and Geneva 2 in 2014. Odds that Putin agrees to remove Assad are only slightly better than the odds the College of Cardinals chooses me to someday succeed Pope Francis. Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria.

    Going after Trump as a Russian stooge was in the Clinton playbook long before Trump won a primary. One the wedge issues for Clinton with respect to Trump was Syria. Trump took a strong stand (which many thought would hurt him with Republicans) in declaring we should not be trying to get rid of Assad and that America should cooperate with the Russians in fighting the Islamists. Clinton, by contrast, called for imposing a No Fly Zone that would have risked a direct confrontation with Russia.

    Blaming Russia for Hillary's flame out is absurd. The Russians did not create and lie about Hillary's server. They did not force her to back the multilateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA and TPP. They didn't set up the Clinton Foundation as a cash cow for the Clinton family. They did not force her to advocate imposing a No Fly Zone in Syria and having been a cheerleader for past wars, including Iraq and Libya. Vladimir Putin did not slip her a mickey and cause her to pass out at the 9-11 memorial, which fueled concerns about her health. And they did not infect her lungs and cause her to have extended coughing jags. They did not cause her to call Americans deplorables. They did not make her say that the coal industry should be shutdown. With that kind of record, coupled with her shrieking, screechy voice, why are folks surprised that she did not win?

    So now Democrats and several Republicans are in a lather over the Russians stealing the election for Trump. The list of conspiracy theorists pushing this nonsense include John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Angus King of Maine, Brent Budowsky and Adam Schiff. I defy anyone, to explain to me how Russian meddling gave Trump the win.

    The realities are this. First, as noted in the Budowsky email, the Clinton campaign came up with the idea of accusing Trump of being a stooge of Russia. They thought they'd get political bang out of that. They didn't.

    Second, the hack of the DNC emails confirmed that the suspicions of many that the DNC and Hillary were collaborating to screw over Bernie and rig the election. That was not fake news. Cold, unwelcomed truth. That's when this drum beat about the big, bad Russians started meddling in our election started. Why? To distract attention away from the ugly reality that the DNC and Hillary were cheating.

    The subsequent Wikileaks avalanche of Podesta emails reinforced as fact the existing suspicion that the media was in the bag for Hillary. But no amount of media help and foreign money could transform Hillary into a likeable candidate. She was dreadful on the campaign trail and terrible at talking to the average American. Even her boy, Brent Budowsky, reluctantly acknowledged this in an email to John Podesta on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 :

    While I have been warning for some time about the dangers facing the Clinton campaign, aggressively in privately, tactfully in columns, during this latest stage I have been publicly defending her with no-holds barred, and here is my advice based on the reaction I have been receiving and the dangers I see coming to fruition.

    I would recommend you assemble a short reading list of everything surrounding President Kennedy's full acceptance of responsibility after the Bay of Pigs, beginning with the substance and tone of his unequivocal taking of responsibility and ending with his huge rise in the polls, to nearly 90% favorable ratings, after he did this.

    And then I would suggest she plan the equivalent and take full, absolute and unequivocal responsibility for making a mistake with the private emails and give an honest, direct, explanation of the reasons I believe she used those private emails. . . .

    She could say she was right anticipating this, but wrong in overreacting by trying to shield her private emails, and she takes full responsibility for this, and apologizes to her supporters and everyone else, and now she has turned over all information, it will ultimately be seen that there no egregious wrongs committed.

    She needs to stop talking like a lawyer parsing legalistic words and a potential defendant expecting a future indictment, which is how she often looks and sounds to many voters today. Instead, she should take full responsibility for a mistake with no equivocation, and segue into the role of a populist prosecutor against a corrupted politics that Americans already detest ..and make a direct attack against the Donald Trump politics of daily insults and defamations and intolerance against whichever individuals and groups he tries to bully on a given day, and while defending some Republican candidates against his attacks, she should deplore their being intimidated by his insults and offering pastel versions of the intolerance he peddles.

    In other words, she should stop acting like a front-runner who cautiously tries to exploit the rules of a rigged game to her advantage, and start acting like a fighting underdog who will fight on behalf of Americans who want a higher standard of living for themselves, a higher standard of politics for the nation, and a higher level of economic opportunity and social justice for everyone.

    Like JFK after the Bay of Pigs, the more responsibility she takes now the more she will succeed going forward.

    Give Budowsky credit for one thing, if Hillary had followed his advice she might have won the election. But she was too busy exploiting the rules of a rigged game and trying to smear Trump as a Russian agent while failing to exercise genuine, sincere personal responsibility.

    UPDATE –This is an extremely dangerous time now. Barack Obama appears to be actively working to discredit the Trump election and has enlisted the intelligence community in the effort. How else to explain this disconnect? Yesterday, as noted above, Obama directed the intelligence community to:

    "conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process. It is to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders," she said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters. "This is consistent with the work that we did over the summer to engage Congress on the threats that we were seeing."

    Then comes news last night that :

    The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

    Why do you order a review if the CIA has already made a factual determination? In fact, we were told in October that the whole damn intelligence community determined the Russians did it. USA Today reported this in October :

    The fact-checking website Politifact says Hillary Clinton is correct when she says 17 federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia is behind the hacking.

    "We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing," Clinton said during Wednesday's presidential debate in Las Vegas .

    Trump pushed back, saying that Clinton and the United States had "no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else."

    But Clinton is correct. On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies , in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

    I heard from a knowledgeable friend in September that Hillary's campaign was pressing the Obama White House to lean on the intel community and put something out blaming her woes on the Russians. That led to the October statement. And now we have the CIA via a SECRET report (that is leaked to the public) insisting that Trump's victory came because of the Russians.

    This is a damn lie. The CIA is now allowing itself to be used once again for blatant political purposes. The politicization became a real problem under Bush. Let's not forget that these are the same cats who insisted it was a slam dunk that were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The same group who missed the rise of ISIS.

    Barack Obama told CNN' Van Jones the following the other night :

    "The ability of ISIL to not just mass inside of Syria, but then to initiate major land offensives that took Mosul, for example, that was not on my intelligence radar screen," Obama told Zakaria, using the administration's term for the Islamic State terror group.

    Also worth reminding ourselves that the head of the ironically titled "Intelligence Community" is a proven liar. Jim Clapper lied to the Senate about the NSA spying on Americans three years ago (December 2013) :

    In a letter issued the day after a White House surveillance review placed new political pressure on the National Security Agency, the seven members of the House judiciary committee said that James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, ought to face consequences for untruthfully telling the Senate that the NSA was "not wittingly" collecting data on Americans.

    "Congressional oversight depends on truthful testimony – witnesses cannot be allowed to lie to Congress," wrote representatives James Sensenbrenner, Darrell Issa, Trent Franks, Raul Labrador, Ted Poe, Trey Gowdy and Blake Farenthold, citing "Director Clapper's willful lie under oath."

    There is a consistent pattern in the Obama Administration of lying to the American people, especially when it comes to National Security matters. The NSA is not an isolated case. We also have Benghazi, Syria and Libya as other examples of not telling the truth and misrepresenting facts.

    In my lifetime, going on 60 years, I have never seen such a display of incompetence as is being manifested by Barack Obama and mental midgets that surround him.

    What they can say for sure is that the DNC and Podesta emails were hacked. Those hacked emails were passed to WIKILEAKS. Those emails were then released to the public. What the intel community will be hard pressed to prove is that the Russian Government conceived of and directed such a campaign. This is the true information operation to meddle in the U.S. election, but that isn't Russia. That's Obama.

    Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.

    [Dec 11, 2016] Something fishy about President Obama decision to investigate Russian influence of the recent Presidential elections

    Notable quotes:
    "... My perspective from across the ocean has always been that the McCarthy philosophy was the least admirable episode in recent US history. ..."
    "... It's almost as if the West, or at least Western Elite circles who have strived to saturate the airways with Russia-the-bogey-man material since the year dot, can they, on the back of this one-sided propaganda machine, wheel-out blame directed towards Russia for .... well almost anything they desire. ..."
    "... If only Barack Hussain Obama had not taken it upon his self to interfere in our referendum with his clear 'Back of the queue' threat, it may have been possible to not think he is a hypocrite. ..."
    "... I suspect this is one last roll of the dice by the 'democrats' to keep Trump out of office. ..."
    "... Obama is foolishly upping the ante, not on Putin, but on Trump. Trump's instinct will be to put a 10x hurt on Obama for this. Don't punk Trump. ..."
    "... They are desperate to discredit the winner. It is as ineffective as any of his failed policies ..."
    "... In other words, Obama admits he hasn't kept America secure versus 21st-century threats. ..."
    "... Obama has said the intelligence agencies had the proof that Russia interfered with the election. With all their proof why order a review? Can't wait until Obama leaves office. ..."
    "... what, is the USA the new Latin America, and Russia the new CIA ? forever meddling surreptitiously to undermine and overthrow other sovereign nation states democratic processes ? that's just so unfair ..."
    "... It is a funny joke, but on the essence I would advise to read investigative report "The New Red Scare" in Harpers. The evidence of Russian government having anything to do with any hacks is literally non-existing. ..."
    "... The US, heckler of the world for decades, stirring trouble wherever the dart falls, and yet Russian hackers and North Korean hookers are to blame for 99.9% of the worlds problems. Reality is, if the US didn't move past its own borders for 10 years the world would be already a much, much better place. ..."
    "... The Guardian probably shouldn't go along in helping build the new McCarthyist, Cold War narrative, especially when it's just a bunch of US politicians and media figures repeating politically expedient, but factually unsupported claims. The Western media is trying to be Hearst Newspapers in the Spanish-American war. ..."
    "... This is explicitly bad because it allows the suppression of dissent, of creating blacklists, the military industrial complex to further consolidate power, and to blame all sorts of domestic failures on shadowing foreign influence. ..."
    "... But when Judith Miller, the NYT, George Bush and Hillary Clinton used fake news to kill hundreds of thousands, Obama told us to get over it, to "look forward and not backward." ..."
    "... The United States has attempted to push its democratic ideologies on countries all over the world, using means much more direct than hacking. Yet they cannot take a fraction of what they dish out. If Russia is indeed intervening to aid nationalists around the world, then Russia is a friend and should be welcomed with open arms. Trump should do the same, and used the powers of the United States to undermine [neoliberal] leftists around the globe. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | , discussion.theguardian.com
    Mauryan , 9 Dec 2016 18:29
    Interesting - Obama never ordered an independent probe into 9/11 or invasion of Iraq or on the Wall Street Collapse. Somehow Russian hacking seems to be more draconian than all the above.

    And Russians somehow got into the brains of the disgruntled white population, and controlled Trump's brain so that he would be voted to power. Then they still control Trump's brain so much that he is wanting to let NATO countries pay for their security, make Japan, South Korea and everyone else where US maintains its bases to pay for themselves.

    And then suddenly there is a news of a thousand Russian athletes doing well in 2012 London Olympics due to enhanced drugs. Until now, no one knew about this or heard about it.

    It is not that I am supporting Russia all of a sudden. It is just that I am not supporting the attempt to create enemies out of thin air and make them monstrous as needed, while covering even more sinister schemes that need public attention.

    Obama is part of the same system too that runs everything from behind the curtains. He still is a good man. But he has only some much room to function within and survive.

    Karahashianders -> Mauryan , 9 Dec 2016 18:48
    A good man is not capable of bombing 7 countries in 8 years' time. People are too naive to believe that someone could look as nice and sound as nice as Obama and push to advance the agenda of some of the most evil and power-hungry megalomaniacs on the planet.
    Woodenarrow123 , 9 Dec 2016 18:28
    It was Wikileaks that did it.

    I don't know if the Russians provided Wikileaks with the actual emails or not but Wikileaks like so many news organisations before them released info obtained illegally that they thought the public had a right to know.

    Now Assange has effectively been imprisoned in an Embassy in London for around 5 years on bogus charges and his reputation was damaged by the same charges - Obviously Obama does not want to give any credit to Assange and he knows he has played a part in this outrageous persecution.

    This would also a could time to remind fellow commentators here about the Nuland - Pyatt conversation that was recorded by Russia and released. This conversation showed the the involvement of two high ranking US Politicians in the armed coup in Ukraine where an elected albeit corrupt leader was forced to flee the country.

    200gnomes -> Woodenarrow123 , 9 Dec 2016 18:39
    wikileaks did it because the MSM refuses to do it.
    joeblow9999 , 9 Dec 2016 18:28
    NOTHING in the DNC or Hilly campaign emails has been refuted by anyone. The corrupt DNC and Hilly got caught.

    This is literally like a pedophile complaining to the police because someone stole their illegal porn. Absolutely shameful.

    neighbor65003 , 9 Dec 2016 18:23
    US intelligence? is this the same intelligent agency that gave us Iraq WMD report? They have no credibility
    DaveCP , 9 Dec 2016 18:22
    After reading the first two pages of comments here, it is tempting to believe the bear contributes to these forums on quite an organised scale.

    I fail to see what possible fear anyone could have from whatever evidence exists being seen by, at least, those with a vested interest.

    diddoit -> DaveCP , 9 Dec 2016 18:27

    The period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression against supposed communists, as well as a campaign spreading fear of their influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents.

    The third Red Scare? *clutches teddy bear*

    Only one slight problem ...there aren't any reds in charge in Russia anymore.

    diddoit -> DaveCP , 9 Dec 2016 18:38
    My point being, there is no great ideological clash anymore. Assange volunteered the fact the email data didn't come from the Russians. And whether Trump is better than Hillary is open to debate.
    DaveCP -> diddoit , 9 Dec 2016 18:42
    My perspective from across the ocean has always been that the McCarthy philosophy was the least admirable episode in recent US history. I doubt many people want to return to that but surely, demonstrable evidence in either direction is the only antidote to accusations and conspiracy theories, and is needed now more than ever in this supposed 'post truth' era. Reply Share
    thinkandleap1234 , 9 Dec 2016 18:22
    I assume that Obama is being told to do this, and probably by the same people who backed the Clinton individual for POTUS. The American people must be exceedingly dumb if they fall for this rubbish.
    jamese07uk , 9 Dec 2016 18:18
    It's almost as if the West, or at least Western Elite circles who have strived to saturate the airways with Russia-the-bogey-man material since the year dot, can they, on the back of this one-sided propaganda machine, wheel-out blame directed towards Russia for .... well almost anything they desire.

    Problem is, are the public still eating out of their hands!?

    Brext and the Trump victory is suggesting - not all of us by a long way.

    Boris66 , 9 Dec 2016 18:15
    If only Barack Hussain Obama had not taken it upon his self to interfere in our referendum with his clear 'Back of the queue' threat, it may have been possible to not think he is a hypocrite.
    john D , 9 Dec 2016 18:14
    I was more worried about Soros and democracy NGOs then i was of russian hackers this election.
    wtfbollos , 9 Dec 2016 18:13
    what a joke, america has been 'interfering' (i.e. bombing and destroying) how many countries since 1945?? incredible hypocrisy and sickening double-standards.
    IronBorn , 9 Dec 2016 18:13
    War propoganda. Will the White Helmets be saving Russian civilians too? I suspect this is one last roll of the dice by the 'democrats' to keep Trump out of office.
    sejong , 9 Dec 2016 18:09
    Obama is foolishly upping the ante, not on Putin, but on Trump. Trump's instinct will be to put a 10x hurt on Obama for this. Don't punk Trump.
    timolin , 9 Dec 2016 18:06
    They are desperate to discredit the winner. It is as ineffective as any of his failed policies. He is completely useless.
    AveAtqueCave , 9 Dec 2016 18:04
    In other words, Obama admits he hasn't kept America secure versus 21st-century threats.
    WoodenNickel , 9 Dec 2016 18:04
    Obama has said the intelligence agencies had the proof that Russia interfered with the election. With all their proof why order a review? Can't wait until Obama leaves office.
    Clotsworth , 9 Dec 2016 17:59
    what, is the USA the new Latin America, and Russia the new CIA ? forever meddling surreptitiously to undermine and overthrow other sovereign nation states democratic processes ? that's just so unfair
    smellycat , 9 Dec 2016 17:57
    Oh dear. Russia causes regime change in America. What a laugh. What goes around comes around.
    Max South -> smellycat , 9 Dec 2016 21:10
    It is a funny joke, but on the essence I would advise to read investigative report "The New Red Scare" in Harpers. The evidence of Russian government having anything to do with any hacks is literally non-existing.
    FMinus , 9 Dec 2016 17:57
    The US, heckler of the world for decades, stirring trouble wherever the dart falls, and yet Russian hackers and North Korean hookers are to blame for 99.9% of the worlds problems. Reality is, if the US didn't move past its own borders for 10 years the world would be already a much, much better place.
    IanB52 , 9 Dec 2016 17:57
    The Guardian probably shouldn't go along in helping build the new McCarthyist, Cold War narrative, especially when it's just a bunch of US politicians and media figures repeating politically expedient, but factually unsupported claims. The Western media is trying to be Hearst Newspapers in the Spanish-American war.

    This is explicitly bad because it allows the suppression of dissent, of creating blacklists, the military industrial complex to further consolidate power, and to blame all sorts of domestic failures on shadowing foreign influence. This is exactly what countries like Iran and North Korea do. Bravo guys, for keep this story going for almost half a year with no substantial proof whatsoever.

    AveAtqueCave , 9 Dec 2016 17:55
    But when Judith Miller, the NYT, George Bush and Hillary Clinton used fake news to kill hundreds of thousands, Obama told us to get over it, to "look forward and not backward." What a waste of 8 years.
    Ginen , 9 Dec 2016 17:54
    Obama's last exercise in futility.
    hadeze242 -> Ginen , 9 Dec 2016 18:04
    he suddenly discovered, 2-3 wks ago, that he was enthusiastic about space technology and exploration. He (that is his ghost writers) published a 1 p. article about his love of space. Fact is, first thing great-mind Obama did 8yrs ago is gut NASA's budget. He never mentioned space once in 8 yrs. Suddenly, he is a fan. Creepy ... how does he deal with his hypocritical self every morning?
    ShoppingKingLouie , , 9 Dec 2016 17:53
    Political theatre. He will be out of office before anyone will even be asked to take office.

    Its hilarious that The Guardian tries to frame US Intelligence as a single cohesive unit. Its a splintered multi-headed hydra that will never act on this. Once again Obama brings righteous powerful leadership to the act of being ineffective.

    Benjohn6379 , 9 Dec 2016 17:51
    "Cold War 2: Tear Down This Firewall"

    Starring:
    Shirtless Putin
    Legacy Obama
    Hillary "I'm Not Trump" Clinton
    Donald "OG Troll" Trump
    Super Elite Genius Ninja Russian Hackers
    The Poor Defenseless Victim DNC
    John "Let's All Just Laugh at The Risotto Recipe and Not Pay Attention to any of my Other Emails" Podesta
    80's synth "rock" and really bright neon clothing

    And featuring: Lou Diamond Phillips as.....Guccifer 2.0

    worryingmother -> Benjohn6379 , 9 Dec 2016 18:14
    Like Rocky Horror, but more psycho. Where has Lou Diamond Phillips been, anyway.
    calderonparalapaz , , 9 Dec 2016 17:45
    News Media Reports of governments hacking foreign govts and private Companies:

    CNN
    http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/16/technology/nsa-hacking-tools-snowden /

    Bloomberg News
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-23/how-the-u-dot-s-dot-government-hacks-the-world

    Washington Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/powerful-nsa-hacking-tools-have-been-revealed-online/2016/08/16/bce4f974-63c7-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html?utm_term=.2ea1198b2a8b

    The Intercept: The NSA would know about Russian Hacking
    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/26/russian-intelligence-hack-dnc-nsa-know-snowden-says /

    UK Gauardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-brazil-oil-petrobras

    RT News
    https://www.rt.com/usa/us-hacking-exploits-millions-104 /

    UK Mirror: hacking German Govt
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/angela-merkels-phone-hacked-american-2485433

    Ryan Wei , 9 Dec 2016 17:45
    The United States has attempted to push its democratic ideologies on countries all over the world, using means much more direct than hacking. Yet they cannot take a fraction of what they dish out. If Russia is indeed intervening to aid nationalists around the world, then Russia is a friend and should be welcomed with open arms. Trump should do the same, and used the powers of the United States to undermine [neoliberal] leftists around the globe.
    John malkovich -> CrankyMac , 9 Dec 2016 19:49
    No its by the letter actually. Libya, Yemen backed by US, Pakistan, Tunisia had some financial and military backing. Obama is the drone king. And Ukraine well have you heard of Victoria nuland before? Regime change in Ukraine cost the taxpayer 5 billion dollars

    [Dec 11, 2016] Russia has always been the convenient whipping boy for the United States

    Notable quotes:
    "... Outrageous how the Russians interfered with the Koch brothers and Soros's electoral process... ..."
    "... No one, not the government agencies, not those ominous private security firms, no one presented even a shred of evidence for any involvement of the Russian government. Not even some lackluster ambiguous data, it was all anecdotal stuff, 'confidence' and fluffy rhetoric. ..."
    "... The McCarthy-esque paranoia spread by the Clinton campaign to deflect from the content of those emails took foothold it seems. ..."
    "... If the evidence were to hand, actually existed, it would have been all over the front pages of the WaPo, NYT and other major news outlets, not just in the US but everywhere else too. Investigating this 'evidence' is, to borrow William Gibson's simile, "Like planning to assassinate a figure out of myth and legend". The usual 'national security considerations' which have been and will continue to be adduced, as reasons for not publishing the evidence is pure triple-distilled BS and pretty much everyone knows that it's BS. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    kropotkinsf , 9 Dec 2016 18:44
    Russia has always been the convenient whipping boy for the United States. We manufactured the cold war because we needed an enemy to prop up our war economy. We built the Soviet Union into this monolithic bogey man, spoiling to crush the west, enemies of "freedom," in order to keep the west scared and pliant and in our pocket. After so-called communism collapsed, we found new enemies in the middle east but they lacked the staying power. So now it's back to Russia. Maybe the Russians did hack into the DNC. If so, they merely exposed the damning material. They didn't write it.
    discreto , 9 Dec 2016 18:44
    Oh boy the knives are out against Russia, first I read about the 2012 Olympics which even if it is true I would hold the British Olympic Committee responsible for the failure to find out about the doping at the time of the Games and not 4 years later. I have just read US, Obama is now pointing the finger at Russia for the outcome of the US Elections oh dear they are really scraping the barrell to look for someone to blame instead of finding out why their own people decided to vote for Trump. This is all typical American hyperbole and nonsense and a concerted effort on America's efforts to orchestrate the next War.
    America is so way behind with any modern services, they apparently do not have their bank cards with pin or contactless as yet.
    DogsLivesMatter -> discreto , 9 Dec 2016 18:49
    Have you seen this documentary?
    https://www.rt.com/shows/documentary/369619-drugs-sport-doping-scandal /
    ShoppingKingLouie -> discreto , 9 Dec 2016 18:50
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia
    Puro , 9 Dec 2016 18:43
    Unlucky failed mainstream media lost all confidence of its readership and are now broke. What will they do next? ask for money saying that they're helping others whilst keeping most of it?
    bishoppeter4 , 9 Dec 2016 18:41
    The Russians are coming -- = The sky is falling -- It's the 1950s again.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 18:40
    Yet The Guardian spews anti Trump hatred and propaganda everyday to a US audience and no one is investigating the UK for meddling.

    Seems fishy.

    MasonInNY -> ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 18:46
    Why would the UK wish to meddle in a US election? Or France, Germany, Finland, or Italy? Russia, though... :)
    ShoppingKingLouie -> MasonInNY , 9 Dec 2016 18:48
    Why did the NSA spy on those very same countries?
    Logicon , 9 Dec 2016 18:39
    Outrageous how the Russians interfered with the Koch brothers and Soros's electoral process...
    dongerdo , 9 Dec 2016 18:38
    No one, not the government agencies, not those ominous private security firms, no one presented even a shred of evidence for any involvement of the Russian government. Not even some lackluster ambiguous data, it was all anecdotal stuff, 'confidence' and fluffy rhetoric.

    But if it makes them happy....

    The McCarthy-esque paranoia spread by the Clinton campaign to deflect from the content of those emails took foothold it seems.

    mike muse , 9 Dec 2016 18:36
    If the evidence were to hand, actually existed, it would have been all over the front pages of the WaPo, NYT and other major news outlets, not just in the US but everywhere else too. Investigating this 'evidence' is, to borrow William Gibson's simile, "Like planning to assassinate a figure out of myth and legend". The usual 'national security considerations' which have been and will continue to be adduced, as reasons for not publishing the evidence is pure triple-distilled BS and pretty much everyone knows that it's BS.
    Jim Chaypull -> mike muse , 9 Dec 2016 19:32
    Yeah sure, just like how it was 'all over the front pages' about what really happened on 9/11, who was really involved etc.

    And don't give me any of that conspiracy theory, tin-foil hat bs either...unless you are able to be honest about this conspiracy: 19 or 20 strip-club lovin, don't-need-no-takeoff/landing-lessons jihadists used box-cutters to overpower jet air planes and with the-luck-of-the-century HIT NOT ONE....BUT TWO skyscrapers at the EXACT SPOT where the 47 concrete -steel inner columns were weak enough to cause 'pancaking' of the undamaged 60-90 UNDAMAGED FLOORS. Collapsing (and pulverizing concrete into dust) the building into itself.

    And then weirdly enough a small cabal of PNAC signees who in writing had expressed that pax-americana was going to be 'difficult unless a pearl harbor like event happens' had almost as much Luck-of-the-century as the jihadists when......WA LA....into their lap.....a new pearl harbor.

    suzie009 , 9 Dec 2016 18:36
    Is it possible that if Bernie Sanders had been up against Trump he may have won??

    That's the real question that needs addressing - together with why wasn't he chosen!

    JuliusSqueezer -> suzie009 , 9 Dec 2016 18:41
    He definitely would have won.
    jmac55 , 9 Dec 2016 18:35
    Nonsense!

    Trying to blame one of the most flawed and undemocratic election process's in the Western hemisphere on the Russians is laughable to the point of hysteria.

    The dumb-ed down bigoted electorate is a direct result of decades of a two party political system, backed up by a compliant media, that fosters mindless patriotism and ignorance rather than enlightenment and intelligent discussion on the problems facing the country.

    Never have I seen a better example of your own dog biting you on the arse!

    But Clinton lost the election because the Republicans realised she was certain to be the Democratic Presidential candidate fifteen years ago and they began their smear campaign against her right there and then, and a lot of it stuck.

    When you add to that tens of thousands on the left like me who voted for her...but would not campaign for her because we didn't agree with her disastrous blunder in helping to overthrow Qaddafi in Libya ( a country that is now a feudal backwater) and her stated goals of regime change in Syria and all the while she had a domestic policy was cosying up to the bankers and Wall Street elites, whilst ignoring blue collar Americans without jobs and prospects for their future...the almost inevitable result is Trump as President of the United States.

    'Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out!'

    The US will get what it deserves...and it deserves Trump I'm afraid.

    [Dec 11, 2016] That supposed Russian interference

    Notable quotes:
    "... Greenwald's take down is another hammer meets nail piece. The CIA are systemic liars. In fact, that's their job to move around in the shadows and deceive. They literally lie about everything. They lied about Iran/Contra, torture programs, their propensity for drug smuggling and dealing, infesting the media with agents, imaginary WMDs that launch war and massacre, mass surveillance of citizens, just to name a few. ..."
    "... This is the agency who are in secret and anonymity, with no verifiable evidence, whispering rumors in the WaPoo and NYTimes' ears that the Russians made Hillary lose. What moron would take the CIA at its word anymore? Much less a major newspaper? Did I miss something, is it 1950 again? Methinks I've picked up the scent of fake news ..."
    "... Apparently, all the morons who are still screaming about Trump, as if he alone will be in charge of the government and not his GOP handlers. Please keep in mind that the ardent Clinton supporters quite clearly reveal cult behavior, and anything that allows them to continue embracing their belief in their righteousness will be embraced without question or qualm. ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... The upside of these overtly political battles among intelligence agencies is that we are eroding away the idea that these are non-partisan institutions without overt political agendas. ..."
    "... What Stengel and various mainstream media outlets appear to be arguing for is the creation of a "Ministry of Truth" managed by mainstream U.S. media outlets and enforced by Google, Facebook and other technology platforms. ..."
    "... In other words, once these supposedly responsible outlets decide what the "truth" is, then questioning that narrative will earn you "virtual" expulsion from the marketplace of ideas, possibly eliminated via algorithms of major search engines or marked with a special app to warn readers not to believe what you say, a sort of yellow Star of David for the Internet age. ..."
    "... The NC lawsuit against WaPo, like the lawsuit of Hedges et al. against provisions of the NDAA, marks a watershed moment for defending free speech in our country! I hope that my oft-expressed belief -- that we will soon need to revive samizdat ..."
    "... According to a recent posting on Wolf Street, according to records, the Treasury has borrowed 4 trillion more between 2004-15, than can actually be accounted for in spending. This is because it is the borrowing and thus public obligations, which really matter to the powers that be. The generals just get their toys and wars as icing on the cake. It doesn't matter if they win, because there would be less war to spend it on. Eventually they will use "public/private partnerships" to take their piles of public obligations and trade for the rest of the Commons. ..."
    "... Money needs to be understand as a public utility, like roads. We no more own it than we own the section of road we are using. It is like blood, not fat. ..."
    "... The CIA whinging about a right wing president being installed by a foreign power might just be the greatest self-awareness fail ever! ..."
    "... LOL at that! You'd think they were afraid trump might turn out to be the next Hugo Chavez! They must really, really love their program to help al Qaeda in Syria. ..."
    "... The CIA lies as a matter of course, and now they're being propped up as the paragons of honesty, simply out of political expediency. Crazy days. ..."
    "... Modern Democrats simply aren't a political party but fanatics of a professional sports club. If it wasn't the Russians, it would be referees or Bill Belichick at fault. I'm surprised they aren't mentioning "Comrade Nader" at all times. ..."
    "... In fact, Trump's coalition looks remarkably similar to the one that Scott Walker put together in 2014. ..."
    "... Obama in Spartanburg, SC in 2007: And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner. ..."
    "... And the Dems wonder why the working class feel betrayed. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    2016 Post Mortem

    Trump Transition

    The Evidence to Prove the Russian Hack emptywheel. The headline is a bit off, since the post's subject is really the evidence required to prove the Russian hack. Some of which does exist. That said, this is an excellent summary of the state of play. I take issue with one point:

    Crowdstrike reported that GRU also hacked the DNC. As it explains, GRU does this by sending someone something that looks like an email password update, but which instead is a fake site designed to get someone to hand over their password. The reason this claim is strong is because people at the DNC say this happened to them.

    First, CrowdStrike is a private security firm, so there's a high likelihood they're talking their book, Beltway IT being what it is. Second, a result (DNC got phished) isn't "strong" proof of a claim (GRU did the phishing). We live in a world where 12-year-olds know how to do email phishing, and a world where professional phishing operations can camouflage themselves as whoever they like. So color me skeptical absent some unpacking on this point. A second post from emptywheel, Unpacking the New CIA Leak: Don't Ignore the Aluminum Tube Footnote , is also well worth a read.

    Chief Bromden December 11, 2016 at 7:51 am

    Greenwald's take down is another hammer meets nail piece. The CIA are systemic liars. In fact, that's their job to move around in the shadows and deceive. They literally lie about everything. They lied about Iran/Contra, torture programs, their propensity for drug smuggling and dealing, infesting the media with agents, imaginary WMDs that launch war and massacre, mass surveillance of citizens, just to name a few.

    They murder, torture, train hired mercenary proxies (who they are often pretending to oppose), stage coups of democratically elected govt.'s, interfere with elections, topple regimes, install ruthless puppet dictators, and generally enslave other nations to western corporate pirates. They are a rogue band of pirates themselves.

    This is the agency who are in secret and anonymity, with no verifiable evidence, whispering rumors in the WaPoo and NYTimes' ears that the Russians made Hillary lose. What moron would take the CIA at its word anymore? Much less a major newspaper? Did I miss something, is it 1950 again? Methinks I've picked up the scent of fake news

    Conclusion: It isn't the Russians that are interfering with U.S. kangaroo elections, it's the professionals over at the CIA

    Brett December 11, 2016 at 11:29 am

    +1000

    Elizabeth Burton December 11, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    Apparently, all the morons who are still screaming about Trump, as if he alone will be in charge of the government and not his GOP handlers. Please keep in mind that the ardent Clinton supporters quite clearly reveal cult behavior, and anything that allows them to continue embracing their belief in their righteousness will be embraced without question or qualm.

    voteforno6 December 11, 2016 at 8:10 am

    Re: That supposed Russian interference

    I've tried to point out on other blogs just how shaky that story in the Washington Post is, and the response I get is something along the lines of, well, other outlets are also reporting it, so it must be true. It does me no good to point out that this is the same tactic used by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war. People will believe what they want to believe.

    johnnygl December 11, 2016 at 8:35 am

    It may help to point to the history of CIA influence at WaPoo. Counterpunch had a short piece reminding everyone of Operation Mockingbird (going from memory on that name) where CIA had reporters on staff at the paper directly taking orders and simultaneously on CIA payroll.

    If questioned about CIA's motivation for hating trump, my best guess is that it is because trump is undermining their project to overthrow assad in syria using nusra rebels. And also because trump wants to be nice to russia.

    I think there's some people in the cia that think they played a major role in winning the cold war through their support for mujahadeen rebels in afghanistan. I suspect they think they can beat putin in syria the same way. This is absolutely nutty.

    JohnnyGL December 11, 2016 at 11:51 am

    The upside of these overtly political battles among intelligence agencies is that we are eroding away the idea that these are non-partisan institutions without overt political agendas.

    There's a large number of people that will see through the facade. Right now, Trump supporters are getting a lesson in how much resistance there can be within the establishment. I'm no Trump supporter, but I think seeing what these institutions are capable of is a useful exercise for all involved.

    begob December 11, 2016 at 9:07 am

    There's a running battle at the wikipedia article on Fake News Website, where propornot is now considered debunked.

    Ulysses December 11, 2016 at 11:30 am

    Apologies if this analysis by Robert Parry has already been shared here:

    "What Stengel and various mainstream media outlets appear to be arguing for is the creation of a "Ministry of Truth" managed by mainstream U.S. media outlets and enforced by Google, Facebook and other technology platforms.

    In other words, once these supposedly responsible outlets decide what the "truth" is, then questioning that narrative will earn you "virtual" expulsion from the marketplace of ideas, possibly eliminated via algorithms of major search engines or marked with a special app to warn readers not to believe what you say, a sort of yellow Star of David for the Internet age.

    And then there's the possibility of more direct (and old-fashioned) government enforcement by launching FBI investigations into media outlets that won't toe the official line. (All of these "solutions" have been advocated in recent weeks.)

    On the other hand, if you do toe the official line that comes from Stengel's public diplomacy shop, you stand to get rewarded with government financial support. Stengel disclosed in his interview with Ignatius that his office funds "investigative" journalism projects.

    "How should citizens who want a fact-based world combat this assault on truth?" Ignatius asks, adding: "Stengel has approved State Department programs that teach investigative reporting and empower truth-tellers."

    The NC lawsuit against WaPo, like the lawsuit of Hedges et al. against provisions of the NDAA, marks a watershed moment for defending free speech in our country! I hope that my oft-expressed belief -- that we will soon need to revive samizdat techniques to preserve truth– may turn ou to be overly pessimistic.

    Ulysses December 11, 2016 at 11:36 am

    Sorry, I forgot the link!

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-orwellian-war-on-skepticism-battling-fake-news/5559949

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 11, 2016 at 11:57 am

    It's like that quote: When the Clinton tide goes out, you discover who's been swimming naked.

    Jim Haygood December 11, 2016 at 9:11 am

    America's military empire is an enormous convection cycle, as money falls in while arms sales and global disorder radiate out.

    Mr Milk Mustache (John Bolton) as assistant Sec State will help perpetuate and accelerate the grand convective cycle.

    John Merryman December 11, 2016 at 9:47 am

    Jim,

    Keep in mind the basis of this capitalist economy is Federal debt. They have to spend it on something. The government doesn't even budget, which is to list priorities and spend according to need/ability. They put together these enormous bills, add enough to get the votes, which don't come cheap and then the prez can only pass or veto.

    If they wanted to actually budget, taking the old line item veto as a template, they could break these bills into all their various items, have each legislator assign a percentage value to each one, put them back together in order of preference and the prez would draw the line. "The buck stops here."

    That would keep powers separate, with congress prioritizing and the prez individually responsible for deficit spending. It would also totally crash our current "Capitalist" system.

    According to a recent posting on Wolf Street, according to records, the Treasury has borrowed 4 trillion more between 2004-15, than can actually be accounted for in spending. This is because it is the borrowing and thus public obligations, which really matter to the powers that be. The generals just get their toys and wars as icing on the cake. It doesn't matter if they win, because there would be less war to spend it on. Eventually they will use "public/private partnerships" to take their piles of public obligations and trade for the rest of the Commons.

    Money needs to be understand as a public utility, like roads. We no more own it than we own the section of road we are using. It is like blood, not fat.

    The Trumpening December 11, 2016 at 8:15 am

    The CIA whinging about a right wing president being installed by a foreign power might just be the greatest self-awareness fail ever!

    johnnygl December 11, 2016 at 10:12 am

    LOL at that! You'd think they were afraid trump might turn out to be the next Hugo Chavez! They must really, really love their program to help al Qaeda in Syria.

    Uahsenaa December 11, 2016 at 10:24 am

    There are so many eye-rolling ironies in all this I think my eyeballs might just pop out of their sockets. And the liberals going out of their way to tout the virtues of the CIA the very same organization that never shied from assassinating or overthrowing a leftwing president/prime minister it galls. The CIA lies as a matter of course, and now they're being propped up as the paragons of honesty, simply out of political expediency. Crazy days.

    NotTimothyGeithner December 11, 2016 at 11:21 am

    Modern Democrats simply aren't a political party but fanatics of a professional sports club. If it wasn't the Russians, it would be referees or Bill Belichick at fault. I'm surprised they aren't mentioning "Comrade Nader" at all times.

    My guess is donors are annoyed after the 2014 debacle and are having a hard time rationalizing a loss to a reality TV show host with a cameo in Home Alone 2.

    allan December 11, 2016 at 8:25 am

    From the Amy Walter post mortem on the race in WI:

    In fact, Trump's coalition looks remarkably similar to the one that Scott Walker put together in 2014.

    It's really a shame that Obama didn't put on those walking shoes lift a finger to help the public service unions fight Walker.

    Uahsenaa December 11, 2016 at 10:27 am

    Obama in Spartanburg, SC in 2007:

    And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner.

    And the Dems wonder why the working class feel betrayed.

    Maybe he just couldn't find a pair of comfy shoes

    polecat December 11, 2016 at 11:37 am

    Hol(e)y Shoes .

    they glide on water funky bilge water --

    Tertium Squid December 11, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Here's what the "russki hacks" narrative reminds me of.

    ambrit December 11, 2016 at 9:43 am

    I'd extend that to include the entire DNC "Apologia pro Sancta Hillaria."

    UserFriendly December 11, 2016 at 9:33 am

    That ProPublica piece ( Suspected of Corruption at Home, Powerful Foreigners Find Refuge in the U.S. Pro Publica) is brutal. Not only do we have to be the shittest corrupt country in the world but we have to be a safe haven for ever other corrupt politician in the world as long as they have $$. Can someone just make it all end? Please. There needs to be a maximum wealth where anything you earn past it just gets automatically redistributed to the poor.

    aliteralmind December 11, 2016 at 9:43 am

    Truth in journalism just got a little bit more difficult:

    http://www.johnlaurits.com/2016/12/10/disinformation-bill-propaganda/

    tgs December 11, 2016 at 10:32 am

    Thanks for the link – really important and scary things are going in congress concerning 'fake news' and Russian propaganda and HR 6393 is particularly bad. The EU is also taking steps to counter 'fake news' as well. Obama claimed that some form of curation is required – and it is happening quickly. People are suggesting that propornot has been debunked. That does not matter anymore. The Obama regime and the MSM don't care – that have gotten the message out.

    And the people behind this are really deranged – check out Adam Schiff calling Tucker Carlson a Kremlin stooge for even suggesting that there is no certainty that Russia leaked the emails to Wikileaks.

    After all, the media went all in for Hillary and spent huge amounts of time explaining why Trump is unfit. But they lost.

    And now our efforts on behalf of al Queada are failing in Syria and more hysteria ensues. See for example:

    Allies Warn Trump Against Cooperating With Russia Over Syria .

    Some commentators believe that there is a well-organized large scale effort to normalize the suppression of free speech.

    temporal December 11, 2016 at 11:50 am

    The email saga lost a provable set of sources a long time ago. Before the files were given to Wikileaks it was already too late to determine which people did it. So-called forensic evidence of these computers only tell us that investigators either found evidence of a past compromise or that people want us to believe they did. Since the compromise was determined after the fact, the people with access could have done anything to the computers, including leave a false trail.

    The core problem is that since security for all of these machines, including the DNC's email server and most likely many of those from Team R, was nearly non-existent nearly nothing useful can be determined. The time to learn something about a remote attacker, when it's possible at all, is while the machine is being attacked – assuming it has never been compromised before. If the attacker's machine has also been compromised then you know pretty much nothing unless you can get access to it.

    As far as physical access protection goes. If the machine has been left on and unattended or is not completely encrypted then the only thing that might help is a 24 hour surveillance camera pointed at the machine.

    Forensic evidence in compromised computers is significantly less reliable than DNA and hair samples. It's much too easy for investigators to frame another party by twiddling some bits. Anyone that thinks that even well intentioned physical crime investigators have never gotten convictions with bad or manipulated evidence has been watching and believing way too many crime oriented mysteries. "Blindspot" is not a documentary.

    As for projecting behaviors on a country by calling it a "state action", Russia or otherwise, implying that there is no difference between independent and government sponsored actions, that is just silly.

    [Dec 11, 2016] This hysteria over Russia is getting downright dangerous as it looks like forces which are pushing that story stop at nothing to delegitimize the election results.

    Apt observation from Gareth: "I believe the CIA is attempting to delegitimize Trump's election so as to force him into a defensive position in which he will temper his dual goals of normalizing relations with Russia and destroying the CIA's proxy armies of jihadists. We will see if Trump has the guts to make some heads roll in the CIA He will remember that the last President who even threatened to take on the CIA received a massive dose of flying lead poisoning. "
    Essentially after WaPo scandal it is prudent to view all US MSM as yellow press.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The Post and the like are terrified over their loss of credibility just as the internet has destroyed their advertising. Interesting that their response to competition isn't to outdo the competition but to smother the competition with a lie. Their own fake news. ..."
    "... As a moral American and supporter of free speech, I am going to make a list of online or print WaPo advertisers. Then I will communicate to them that I will never buy another thing from them as long as they advertise in the Washington Post. ..."
    "... Open their ads in Firefox ad blocker. Then add them to the script and spam blacklist. ..."
    "... The story serves many purposes. One is firing a shot across TrumpCo's bow: 'Submit to us or we'll delegitimate your election.' ..."
    "... Another is excusing the Democratic Party establishment for losing the election, and thus diverting the wrath of the rank and file. ..."
    "... About all we can do at the moment is remember to remember the names of the people who purveyed and supported the story, just as we should remember to remember the names of those who purveyed WMD stories. ..."
    "... Job #1 always is suppressing the Sanders faction. Not beating Trump or the Republicans. They want control of their little pond. ..."
    "... Personally, after what we did in Ukraine (essentially funding a revolution) I refuse to get the vapors because Russia apparently "helped" elect Trump by exposing (not forcing her to be a liar or cheat) Hillary. ..."
    "... All of this crap about Russia, or the electoral college system is a distraction from the real issues at hand about our political system, which is a two party one oligarchy (ALEC) anti-democratic system. The rot runs from national presidential elections to the comptroller of the smaller city governments. ..."
    "... If any candidate was capable of speaking to the working and middle class, then either Russia nor the the 0.01% who compose the oligarchy could control who wins in popular elections. What is really needed is to eliminate either the two party system, or democratize their methods of selecting candidates. ..."
    "... Think Hillary played an unfair hand to Sanders? That was nothing compared to the shenanigans that get played at local level, state level, and Congress level to filter out populist candidates and replace them with machine / oligarchy pets. ..."
    "... the idea that Saudi (or other Middle Eastern states) also intervened (with money), is not more credible? ..."
    "... Yes, the NYT piece on Russian hacking is complete evidence free tripe. Not once do they say what evidence they base these accusations on, beyond the Cyrillic keyboard. The code for Cyrillic keyboard is, "fuzzy bear" et al. as the original reporting on the DNC hack and the company that ran security made clear that this was the one and only piece of concrete evidence the attacks by "fuzzy bear" et al. were perpetrated by the Russians. ..."
    "... So based on a Cyrillic keyboard and the below quote, unnamed "American intelligence agencies know it was the Russians, really? ..."
    "... Based on this it appears the NYTs definition of fake reporting is anything that isn't fed directly to it by unnamed experts or the USG and uncritically reported. ..."
    "... I think these unnamed agencies are not going to have a very good working relationship with the orange overlord if they keep this up. They might not even be getting that new war they wanted for Christmas. ..."
    "... It's as though the NYT and WaPo had these vast pools of accumulated credibility and they could go out on a limb here Oh wait - their credibility has been destroyed countless times over the past decade or so. One would think they'd realise: If you're in a ditch, the first thing to do is stop digging. ..."
    "... The world is flat . Note: This is not me awarding a Thomas L. Friedman prize. In this case, I am simply sharing the article because I think it is hilarious. ..."
    "... Nowhere, in any of this, is it mentioned that Clinton's illegal private email server (that got hacked) played any factor whatsoever. It just stinks so bad, I wonder how they can not smell what they are sitting in.. ..."
    "... Summarizing a very plausible theory, NeoCon Coup Attempt: As Syria's Assad (with Russian help) is close to crushing HRC's jihadi Queda & Nusra rebels in Aleppo, the NeoCons are freaking out on both sides of the Atlantic. ..."
    "... What to do? Jill's recount is floundering. So, last resort: Concoct Russia hacking myth to either delay Dec 19 EC vote or create more faithless electors. Result: A NeoCon like HRC or a NeoCon sympathizer is installed. ..."
    "... Two biggest war hawks, McCain and Graham, are leading the Senate charges against Russia. All of this within days of Obama sending 200 MORE US troops to Syria and lifting the ban on more arms to the Syrian rebels, including anti-aircraft MANPADS. ..."
    "... The recount farce makes me angry, and has made me resolve to never give Stein my vote again. ..."
    "... That implies the NeoCon establishment views DJT and cabinet as a threat in any way, which is an extremely dubious premise. Occam's razor: Clinton and the media establishment that gifted the country DJT will do anything they can to cast the blame elsewhere. ..."
    "... I'm not sure if that is a simpler explanation. I offer this: It's simpler to see that they are engaging in a struggle for now and the future – that means the neocons vs Trump. ..."
    "... "The story reveals that a CIA assessment detailing this conclusion had been presented to President Obama and top congressional leaders last week." You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are, but its the f#ckin CIA, dude. ..."
    "... The problem is we are expected to just trust the NYT and CIA without evidence??? Anybody remember WMD in Iraq?? The complete loss of credibility by the NYT and CIA over the last decade means I have to see credible evidence before I believe anything they say. ..."
    "... Seems coordinated to me -- Globe/Times/WaPo. Double down for WaPoo who are now reporting from area 51 where they found Bigfoot sitting on a stockpile of Sadam's WMDs. Reading this article is surreal. The CIA, a terrorist outfit which our own former reporter (Bernstein) showed to be infesting our own newsroom, whispered in our ear that the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate with or without the establishment coronation queen. ..."
    "... "Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House" The link on WaPoo's site actually says a different headline so I am just sharing the headline itself. Not another secret assessment . no more passing notes in class, students. ..."
    "... Robert Reich has posted the news that the Russians helped to secure the election for Trump on his FB page, to it seems much acclaim – perhaps I was foolish for having expected better from him. ..."
    "... WaPo seems allied with the CIA-FIRE sector Clintonian group, while T may be more inclusive of the classic MICC-Pentagon sector which was asserting itself in Syria. ..."
    "... Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things. ..."
    "... Although I'm convinced that the Republicans are, on average, noticeably worse than the Democrats, I agree with you. It is useful that there is no doubt about where Trump and the Congressional Republicans stand, which is on the side of the billionaires and the giant corporations. We've had 8 years of Obama's obeisance to the oligarchs, and millions of Americans still don't understand that this was happening. ..."
    "... rhetoric that is beginning conspicuously to resemble the celebration by capitalist elites during the interwar years of German and Italian fascism (and even Stalinist communism) for their apparently superior economic governance. [12] ..."
    "... I always knew Trump would be a disaster. However, Trump is a survivable disaster–with Hillary that would have been the end. ..."
    "... If Trump has many Goldman guys, is it a case of 'keeping your enemies close?' ..."
    "... First of all, the Democrats would use Clinton to suppress the left and to insist that Clinton was more electable. That would lead to a validation of the idea that the left has nowhere to go and set a precedent for decades with a 3 point formula: ..."
    "... Suppress the left ..."
    "... Accept money from Wall Street and move to the right with each election ..."
    "... Use identity politics as a distraction. ..."
    "... There were other dangers. Clinton wanted war with Russia. That could easily escalate into a nuclear conflict. With Trump, the risk is reduced, although given his ego, I will concede that anything is possible. We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies. ..."
    "... The reality is that the US was screwed the moment Sanders was out of the picture. With Trump, at least it is more naked and more obvious. The real challenge is that the left has a 2 front war, first with the corporate Democrats, then the GOP. On the GOP side, Trump's supporters are going to wake up at some point to an Obama like betrayal, which is exactly what I expect will happen. ..."
    "... There are elements of the Trump fan base already calling him out for the people he has appointed, which is a very encouraging sign. Trump's economic performance is what will make or break him. He has sold himself on his business acumen. Needless to say, I expect it will break him because he won't even try to do anything for his base. ..."
    "... I like a lot of your analysis. "We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies." We could still yet under Trump, given the cabinet nominees. ..."
    "... By dangerous and delegitimizing I assume you mean the results of the election will be reversed sometime in the next six weeks while the current establishment still has martial authority. ..."
    "... Both sides now fear the other side will lock them up or, at the very least, remove them from power permanently. Why do I think this is not over? ..."
    "... I am certainly not ready to rule out Moore's gut feeling. Capitalist Party + MSM + Clinton + Nuland + CIA has shown to be an equation that ends in color revolution ..or at least an attempted color revolution ..."
    "... At the same time that the media hysteria over "fake news" has reached a fever pitch, yesterday the Senate passed the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" , colloquially known as the Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill, as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. ..."
    "... " establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." Our very own Ministry of Truth! ..."
    "... Under Ukrainian law journalists that disagree with Kiev's policies are collaborators. They are subject to any mechanism Kiev can devise to stop them. In the case of RT Ruptly or the Guardian this means developing a strategy to ruin their reputations. The Interpreter was developed to that end. Kiev has gone so far as to petition the UK government to censure the Guardian for its coverage of events in Ukraine hoping to bully the publication into line. US broadcasters (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) have put RT on the same list as ISIS. ..."
    "... This plan to censor opposing viewpoints in the US was intended to be executed during a Clinton presidency, and would've been almost impossible to stop under those circumstances. There is now a window of opportunity to fight back and ruin these clowns once and for all. ..."
    "... These rallies are Trump's means of maintaining contact with his base, and making sure that he knows what they want. And a means of showing that he is trying to get it for them. If Hillary had bothered to do anything of the sort she would have been elected. Sanders did it and it was much appreciated. Trump's ego is huge but the rallies are much more than an ego-trip. ..."
    "... Re: WP's response to Truthdig's retraction request. It seems as if they are doubling down on the "not our responsibility to verify the validity theme". My first reaction is that the WP is now the equivalent of the National Enquirer. What's next, a headline " I gave birth to Trump's Love Child". ..."
    "... Panem et circenses. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Gareth December 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    I believe the CIA is attempting to delegitimize Trump's election so as to force him into a defensive position in which he will temper his dual goals of normalizing relations with Russia and destroying the CIA's proxy armies of jihadists. We will see if Trump has the guts to make some heads roll in the CIA He will remember that the last President who even threatened to take on the CIA received a massive dose of flying lead poisoning.

    voteforno6 December 10, 2016 at 7:21 am

    This hysteria over Russia is getting downright dangerous. The people pushing that story will seemingly stop at nothing to delegitimize the election results.

    Steve C December 10, 2016 at 8:04 am

    The Post's Marc Fisher was on the PBS Newshour last night. He talked about Alex Jones. They probably didn't expect the pushback from Yves, Truthdig, etc. The Establishment often underestimates dissenters.

    Real fake news, like Jones, benefits from the fake news charge. Their readers hate the MSM. I wonder if the same ethic can develop on the left.

    The Post and the like are terrified over their loss of credibility just as the internet has destroyed their advertising. Interesting that their response to competition isn't to outdo the competition but to smother the competition with a lie. Their own fake news.

    Isolato December 10, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    I heard Stephen Colbert lump Alex Jones together w/Wikileaks as if they were the same "fake news". I have also repeatedly heard Samantha Bee refer to Julian Assange as a rapist. Sigh. Both of those comments are "fake news". The allegations against JA are tissue thin and Wikileaks has NEVER been challenged about the truth of their releases. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Rhondda December 10, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/07/how-the-swedes-set-up-julian-assange/

    It's snarky, but then so is your comment. The 'charges' against Assange have a nasty political stink on them.

    Dave December 10, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    "just as the internet has destroyed their advertising." Shouldn't that be "destroyed their ability to sell advertising?"

    As a moral American and supporter of free speech, I am going to make a list of online or print WaPo advertisers. Then I will communicate to them that I will never buy another thing from them as long as they advertise in the Washington Post.

    Open their ads in Firefox ad blocker. Then add them to the script and spam blacklist.

    The Wapo's trying to steal Craigslist business with online job listings. Looks like an opportunity to have some fun for creatives.

    https://jobs.washingtonpost.com/

    different clue December 10, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    Boss WaPo OwnerMan Bezos is very rich. He bought WaPo as a propaganda outlet. He is prepared to lose a lot of money keeping it "open for propaganda." Naming and shaming and boycotting every advertiser WaPo has could certainly embarass WaPo and perhaps diminish its credibility-patina for Bezoganda purposes. It is certainly worth trying.

    The WaPo brand also owns a lot of other moneymaking entities like Kaplan testing and test-prepping I believe. It would be a lot harder to boycott those because millions of people find them to be important. But perhaps a boycott against them until WaPo sells them off to non Bezos ownership would be worth trying.

    Perhaps a savage boycott against Amazon until Bezos fires everyone at WaPo involved in this McCarthy-list and related articles . . . and humiliates them into unhireability anywhere else ever again?

    Brindle December 10, 2016 at 9:16 am

    The Dem Liberals (Joan Walsh etc). on the twitter are going full throttle with this, it's a twofer as Joan is using this to attack Sanders supporters for not being on the front lines of Russia Fear.

    Anarcissie December 10, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    The story serves many purposes. One is firing a shot across TrumpCo's bow: 'Submit to us or we'll delegitimate your election.' (Apparently TrumpCo has not delivered a convincing submission yet.)

    Another is excusing the Democratic Party establishment for losing the election, and thus diverting the wrath of the rank and file. Evidently it's also going to be used against the Sanders faction of the Democrats. About all we can do at the moment is remember to remember the names of the people who purveyed and supported the story, just as we should remember to remember the names of those who purveyed WMD stories.

    Steve C December 10, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    Job #1 always is suppressing the Sanders faction. Not beating Trump or the Republicans. They want control of their little pond.

    cwaltz December 10, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    Personally, after what we did in Ukraine (essentially funding a revolution) I refuse to get the vapors because Russia apparently "helped" elect Trump by exposing (not forcing her to be a liar or cheat) Hillary.

    Perhaps they should consider that it could be worse, a foreign nation could be arming people and encouraging them to topple the government we have like what we're doing in Syria. It isn't like the very sharp divisions elsewhere haven't resulted in civil war.

    Cry Shop December 10, 2016 at 9:37 am

    All of this crap about Russia, or the electoral college system is a distraction from the real issues at hand about our political system, which is a two party one oligarchy (ALEC) anti-democratic system. The rot runs from national presidential elections to the comptroller of the smaller city governments.

    If any candidate was capable of speaking to the working and middle class, then either Russia nor the the 0.01% who compose the oligarchy could control who wins in popular elections. What is really needed is to eliminate either the two party system, or democratize their methods of selecting candidates.

    Think Hillary played an unfair hand to Sanders? That was nothing compared to the shenanigans that get played at local level, state level, and Congress level to filter out populist candidates and replace them with machine / oligarchy pets.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Flimsy distractions.

    • The popular vs. electoral vote – look up the rules next time you play.
    • Recount – to investigate without much evidence is something senator McCarthy would do.
    • Russia – and the idea that Saudi (or other Middle Eastern states) also intervened (with money), is not more credible?

    Coincidentally, all these urgent initiatives will lead to replacing Trump with Hillary as president. "I will tear down the very building just to achieve my Pyrrhic victory."

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL December 10, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    Thank you, sorry Dems, Boris Badunov did not swing the election. If you want *hard* evidence (not fake news) of a foreign government influencing the election you might have a look at the beheading, gay-killing, women-supressing tyrannical monarchy known as The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and ask whether it made sense for them to be the *#1* contributor to your candidate.

    HBE December 10, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Yes, the NYT piece on Russian hacking is complete evidence free tripe. Not once do they say what evidence they base these accusations on, beyond the Cyrillic keyboard. The code for Cyrillic keyboard is, "fuzzy bear" et al. as the original reporting on the DNC hack and the company that ran security made clear that this was the one and only piece of concrete evidence the attacks by "fuzzy bear" et al. were perpetrated by the Russians.

    So based on a Cyrillic keyboard and the below quote, unnamed "American intelligence agencies know it was the Russians, really?

    "They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding - which they say was also reached with high confidence - that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee's computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks."

    Based on this it appears the NYTs definition of fake reporting is anything that isn't fed directly to it by unnamed experts or the USG and uncritically reported.

    I think these unnamed agencies are not going to have a very good working relationship with the orange overlord if they keep this up. They might not even be getting that new war they wanted for Christmas.

    Pavel December 10, 2016 at 11:00 am

    It's as though the NYT and WaPo had these vast pools of accumulated credibility and they could go out on a limb here Oh wait - their credibility has been destroyed countless times over the past decade or so. One would think they'd realise: If you're in a ditch, the first thing to do is stop digging.

    Especially when dealing with a President Trump. He's already made his distaste for the WaPo clear. We are entering a new, crazy, dangerous era of press-presidential relations. All the more reason for the newspapers to behave responsibly - is that too much to ask?

    integer December 10, 2016 at 7:32 pm

    The world is flat . Note: This is not me awarding a Thomas L. Friedman prize. In this case, I am simply sharing the article because I think it is hilarious.

    integer December 10, 2016 at 8:38 pm

    Also, Bradford deLong should be included with Krugman and Friedman, though the length and width of deLong's connections don't seem to have the same acceleration, energy, or viscosity, as the other two. There are also olfactory and temporal differences.

    integer December 11, 2016 at 1:32 am

    Come to think of it, I also don't think Krugman Turdman or Friedman Flathead would have to grovel to Neera "I'm a loyal soldier" Tanden and John "Done, so think about something else" Podesta to get a family member a "meritocratic" job.

    YassirYouBetcha December 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    Multiple languages use the Cyrillic alphabet, including Bulgarian and, notably, Ukrainian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_script

    local to oakland December 10, 2016 at 11:52 am

    See also this. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/chuck-schumer-russia-senate-election-inquiry-232464

    TK421 December 10, 2016 at 11:57 am

    If Russia is so dangerous, then anyone who mishandles classified information (say, by storing it on a personal server) should be prosecuted, shouldn't they?

    Aumua December 10, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    Nowhere, in any of this, is it mentioned that Clinton's illegal private email server (that got hacked) played any factor whatsoever. It just stinks so bad, I wonder how they can not smell what they are sitting in.. I also wonder just where the line is between those who actually buy into this hysteria, and those who simply feel justified in using whatever means they can to discredit Trump and overturn the election. I think there's a lot of overlap and grey area there in many people's minds.

    Anonymous December 10, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    Summarizing a very plausible theory, NeoCon Coup Attempt: As Syria's Assad (with Russian help) is close to crushing HRC's jihadi Queda & Nusra rebels in Aleppo, the NeoCons are freaking out on both sides of the Atlantic.

    What to do? Jill's recount is floundering. So, last resort: Concoct Russia hacking myth to either delay Dec 19 EC vote or create more faithless electors. Result: A NeoCon like HRC or a NeoCon sympathizer is installed.

    Two biggest war hawks, McCain and Graham, are leading the Senate charges against Russia. All of this within days of Obama sending 200 MORE US troops to Syria and lifting the ban on more arms to the Syrian rebels, including anti-aircraft MANPADS.

    Plenue December 10, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    The recount farce makes me angry, and has made me resolve to never give Stein my vote again. Apparently she's in opposition to much of her party leadership on this, so if they ditch her in the future and get someone better I may consider voting for them again. The reality of Trump as president is going to be bad enough, attempting to sabotage the transition isn't doing anyone any favors. I don't like Obama at all, but he wants a clean, peaceful transfer of power, and on that issue at least he's correct.

    R McCoy December 10, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    That implies the NeoCon establishment views DJT and cabinet as a threat in any way, which is an extremely dubious premise. Occam's razor: Clinton and the media establishment that gifted the country DJT will do anything they can to cast the blame elsewhere.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    I'm not sure if that is a simpler explanation. I offer this: It's simpler to see that they are engaging in a struggle for now and the future – that means the neocons vs Trump.

    Hillary vs Trump, invoking Russia now, is about fighting the last war. That one was over more than a month ago. It's more convoluted to say one team still desires to continue the fight.

    Chief Bromden December 10, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    You may be on to something http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/russian-interference-could-give-courts-legal-authority_us_584be136e4b0151082221b9c

    "The story reveals that a CIA assessment detailing this conclusion had been presented to President Obama and top congressional leaders last week." You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are, but its the f#ckin CIA, dude.

    Jagger December 10, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are, but its the f#ckin CIA, dude.

    I just read the NYT article covering the same topic, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=0 ,

    The problem is we are expected to just trust the NYT and CIA without evidence??? Anybody remember WMD in Iraq?? The complete loss of credibility by the NYT and CIA over the last decade means I have to see credible evidence before I believe anything they say. But that is just me. From reading the NYT comments on the OBama Russia election hack article, the NYT commenters have en mass swallowed the story hook, line and sinker. They apparently don't need evidence and have completely loss any sort of functioning long term memory.

    Benedict@Large December 10, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    And it's pretty clear that Clinton is right in with it. The woman has literally lost her marbles

    cwaltz December 10, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    Based on the fact that she was hidden more than actually performing on the campaign trail, that is a possibility. She may have very well been our own puppet government member that some were ready to install here just like we tend to do over in other nations. No real marbles needed since she wouldn't actually be running things. It's come to my attention that we seem to be inching closer and closer to third world here and those places rarely have vibrant democracies.

    Chief Bromden December 10, 2016 at 8:04 am

    Seems coordinated to me -- Globe/Times/WaPo. Double down for WaPoo who are now reporting from area 51 where they found Bigfoot sitting on a stockpile of Sadam's WMDs. Reading this article is surreal. The CIA, a terrorist outfit which our own former reporter (Bernstein) showed to be infesting our own newsroom, whispered in our ear that the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate with or without the establishment coronation queen.

    "Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House" The link on WaPoo's site actually says a different headline so I am just sharing the headline itself. Not another secret assessment . no more passing notes in class, students.

    Eustache de Saint Pierre December 10, 2016 at 8:49 am

    Robert Reich has posted the news that the Russians helped to secure the election for Trump on his FB page, to it seems much acclaim – perhaps I was foolish for having expected better from him.

    Steve H. December 10, 2016 at 9:31 am

    Sifting the election through a Peter Turchin filter, Sanders' run was a response to 'popular immiseration' while the choice-of-billionaires was 'intra-elite competition'. WaPo seems allied with the CIA-FIRE sector Clintonian group, while T may be more inclusive of the classic MICC-Pentagon sector which was asserting itself in Syria.

    I needed Jalen & Jacoby to sooth me to sleep last night, after seeing the last chart (Fig. 14.4) from Turchin's latest book. You can see it by hitting Ctrl-End from this pdf . If he's correct, this election was just the warm-up for 2020. Crikey.

    subgenius December 10, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

    witters December 10, 2016 at 11:08 pm

    The link to CM – and further disgracefulness from the now worthless Guardian: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

    Vatch December 10, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    Although I'm convinced that the Republicans are, on average, noticeably worse than the Democrats, I agree with you. It is useful that there is no doubt about where Trump and the Congressional Republicans stand, which is on the side of the billionaires and the giant corporations. We've had 8 years of Obama's obeisance to the oligarchs, and millions of Americans still don't understand that this was happening.

    I hope people will vigorously lobby their Representatives and Senators, and pay attention to who the genuine progressives are in the 2018 primaries.

    Invy December 10, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    Like ordinary citizens, although for the opposite reasons, elites are losing faith in democratic government and its suitability for reshaping societies in line with market imperatives. Public Choice's disparaging view of democratic politics as a corruption of market justice, in the service of opportunistic politicians and their clientele, has become common sense among elite publics-as has the belief that market capitalism cleansed of democratic politics will not only be more efficient but also virtuous and responsible. [11]

    Countries like China are complimented for their authoritarian political systems being so much better equipped than majoritarian democracy, with its egalitarian bent, to deal with what are claimed to be the challenges of 'globalization' -- a rhetoric that is beginning conspicuously to resemble the celebration by capitalist elites during the interwar years of German and Italian fascism (and even Stalinist communism) for their apparently superior economic governance. [12]

    How will capitalism end – New Left Review

    jgordon December 10, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    Right, the euphemisms have been done away with. I always knew Trump would be a disaster. However, Trump is a survivable disaster–with Hillary that would have been the end.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    If Trump has many Goldman guys, is it a case of 'keeping your enemies close?'

    Altandmain December 10, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    In the long run, a Clinton presidency would be far more damaging.

    First of all, the Democrats would use Clinton to suppress the left and to insist that Clinton was more electable. That would lead to a validation of the idea that the left has nowhere to go and set a precedent for decades with a 3 point formula:

    1. Suppress the left
    2. Accept money from Wall Street and move to the right with each election
    3. Use identity politics as a distraction.

    A Trump victory forces questions on the conventional wisdom (not really wisdom), and forces changes. At best, they can hope to shove another Obama that is attractive on the outside, but will betray people, but even that will be harder because people now are more watchful. Not to mention, the mainstream media has lost its power.

    There were other dangers. Clinton wanted war with Russia. That could easily escalate into a nuclear conflict. With Trump, the risk is reduced, although given his ego, I will concede that anything is possible. We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies.

    The reality is that the US was screwed the moment Sanders was out of the picture. With Trump, at least it is more naked and more obvious. The real challenge is that the left has a 2 front war, first with the corporate Democrats, then the GOP. On the GOP side, Trump's supporters are going to wake up at some point to an Obama like betrayal, which is exactly what I expect will happen.

    There are elements of the Trump fan base already calling him out for the people he has appointed, which is a very encouraging sign. Trump's economic performance is what will make or break him. He has sold himself on his business acumen. Needless to say, I expect it will break him because he won't even try to do anything for his base.

    relstprof, December 10, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    I like a lot of your analysis. "We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies." We could still yet under Trump, given the cabinet nominees.

    The left must be vigilant and smart. There is opportunity here, but sidetracking on fake news, pop vote, etc. doesn't gain much in terms of opposition.

    Michael, December 10, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    I think you're possibly right, and I just couldn't pull the lever to vote for Trump. Sometimes we just have to be true to ourselves and hope it works out.

    RenoDino December 10, 2016 at 8:26 am

    By dangerous and delegitimizing I assume you mean the results of the election will be reversed sometime in the next six weeks while the current establishment still has martial authority.

    All the intelligent agencies are now in lock step over Russian intervention. How do they let this result stand? Trump obviously realizes his win is now in play and has gone after those same agencies pointing out their gross incompetence.

    Both sides now fear the other side will lock them up or, at the very least, remove them from power permanently. Why do I think this is not over?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Michael Moore agrees with you – something is, or might be (more accurate description of what he is said to have said, I think), brewing, according to him, or rather, his intuition .

    John Parks December 10, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    I am certainly not ready to rule out Moore's gut feeling. Capitalist Party + MSM + Clinton + Nuland + CIA has shown to be an equation that ends in color revolution ..or at least an attempted color revolution What the State Department and MSM have pleasantly referred to in the past as a bloodless coup. See Ukraine, Brazil, Argentina et al

    Sammy Maudlin December 10, 2016 at 8:26 am

    At the same time that the media hysteria over "fake news" has reached a fever pitch, yesterday the Senate passed the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" , colloquially known as the Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill, as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.

    According to Senator Portman's press release, the Bill "will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." The bill also creates a "grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work."

    While the passage of this bill seems very coincidentally timed given recent events, it was actually introduced in March. Not sure whether it simply followed a normal legislative track, or was brought back from the dead recently, etc.

    Of note is the fact that, according to Steve Sestanovich, a Senior Counsel at the Council on Foreign Relations , "a lot of what the bill wants done is actually being done," noting that a range of agencies are already focused on the disinformation problem, and that traditional foreign policy tools still have a major role to play.

    Eclair December 10, 2016 at 10:46 am

    " establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." Our very own Ministry of Truth!

    grizziz December 10, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    It is important to find work for our newly minted graduates of marketing, psychology and sociology as well as those graduates of the communication school and the arts. The need of our post-industrial information age is to make things up as opposed to just making things. Our liberal nation has promised our children that after they have enslaved themselves through student debt they will find work. The work they find is likely to be meaningful only to the creditors who wish to be repaid.

    The graduates will find idealistic rationales like patriotism or making "'Merica Grate Again" to soothe their corrupted souls while keeping the fake news as fresh as a steamy load.

    integer December 10, 2016 at 11:04 am

    US Psychological Warfare in Ukraine: Targeting Online Independent Media Coverage

    Under Ukrainian law journalists that disagree with Kiev's policies are collaborators. They are subject to any mechanism Kiev can devise to stop them. In the case of RT Ruptly or the Guardian this means developing a strategy to ruin their reputations. The Interpreter was developed to that end. Kiev has gone so far as to petition the UK government to censure the Guardian for its coverage of events in Ukraine hoping to bully the publication into line. US broadcasters (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) have put RT on the same list as ISIS.

    From yesterday's links but seems appropriate. This plan to censor opposing viewpoints in the US was intended to be executed during a Clinton presidency, and would've been almost impossible to stop under those circumstances. There is now a window of opportunity to fight back and ruin these clowns once and for all.

    local to oakland December 10, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    But these memes are now in play differently by Trump appointees. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/betsy-devos-claim-media-fake-news-232459

    Government messing with the First Amendment is dangerous. I feel like an electrician watching someone reach for the wrong wire.

    integer December 10, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    That may be but what we are seeing now is just an echo of the Clinton/Soros plan, and not even close to the disaster that would result from having Soros et al at the helm. My guess is that the CIA are now simply using gullible Republicans (yes, there is certainly some redundancy there) as useful idiots, but this dynamic significantly weakens the original plan.

    shinola December 10, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    "I feel like an electrician watching someone reach for the wrong wire." I'm definitely stealing that one – thanks!

    cnchal December 10, 2016 at 8:28 am

    Trump, the Man in the Crowd

    Amy Davidson ends her article with this paragraph.

    And that is why the rallies are likely to endure: to serve as calibrators of or infomercials for what Trump believes that "the public" wants. One can waste a lot of time delving into the question of Trump's psychological need for affirmation . What is politically more important is how he might use the set piece of a cheering crowd to brush aside other considerations, particularly those involving the checks on the Presidency, and the willingness of those in other areas of the government, or in the White House itself, to exercise them. Should courts worry about "a lot of angry people"? One important point not to let go of is that a crowd that the President assembles and the broader public are two very different things, no matter how big the arena, or how filled it is with love . A better opportunity to hear that public voice will come in two years, at the midterm elections. Maybe those will surprise Trump.

    News flash for Amy. When a narcissist uses the word "love" it doesn't mean what you think it does. Those rallies are about training people to react emotionally in a way that is fulfilling to Donald. Nothing more, nothing less.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 11:55 am

    A better opportunity to hear that public voice will come in two years, at the midterm elections. Maybe those will surprise Trump.

    We remind ourselves that no one can help us but us. We empower ourselves.

    So, it goes for today, as it did in 2008. Such moderation!!! A better opportunity will come in two years!!!! I said that to myself 8 years ago, but I didn't hear much of it from the media then. And we (not just I) say that now.

    As for crowds reacting and it being fulfilling for the one being looked up on – again, it's the same human psychology, whether the guy on stage is a rock star, Lenin, Roosevelt, Pol Pot, the next savior or Idi Amin. How much love is there for anyone in any long term relationship, except to affirm and be affirmed by 'love' everyday, in small acts or otherwise, much less some politicians you interact through abstractions, like, through the media or stories told to us.

    kareninca December 10, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    "Those rallies are about training people to react emotionally in a way that is fulfilling to Donald. Nothing more, nothing less."

    These rallies are Trump's means of maintaining contact with his base, and making sure that he knows what they want. And a means of showing that he is trying to get it for them. If Hillary had bothered to do anything of the sort she would have been elected. Sanders did it and it was much appreciated. Trump's ego is huge but the rallies are much more than an ego-trip.

    Jhallc December 10, 2016 at 8:51 am

    Re: WP's response to Truthdig's retraction request. It seems as if they are doubling down on the "not our responsibility to verify the validity theme". My first reaction is that the WP is now the equivalent of the National Enquirer. What's next, a headline " I gave birth to Trump's Love Child".

    Steve H. December 10, 2016 at 9:15 am

    : The right has its own version of political correctness. It's just as stifling.

    It looks like this perspective is snapping into place. From a letter in our (paywalled) local paper, from Dec. 3:

    telling everyone else not to be so sensitive or PC (ditto; theirs is a "conservative" PC). [Kenneth D. Pimple]

    Steeeve December 10, 2016 at 2:06 pm

    Patriotic Correctness is a useful term and concept. Otherwise, the article was extremely long-winded and boring. Editor to writer: "I need you to fill 3,000 words worth of space with this 50-word idea "

    Steve H. December 10, 2016 at 10:59 am

    Panem et circenses.

    But then I think of the old Chicago prayer:

    Where's my bread, Daley?

    fosforos December 10, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    Long, long ago I learned that the only really trustworthy stories in the "Press" were on the sports pages. Now I'm scarcely sure of even that

    cwaltz December 10, 2016 at 10:38 pm

    I don't consider Trump a compromise candidate and that's largely because I don't see him actually moving the country forward in the right direction. Sanders, for me, would have been a compromise from the point of view of he probably wouldn't have moved us far enough fast enough for me but he would have set us leftward instead of ever rightward and that IS an improvement.

    The Trumpening December 10, 2016 at 10:06 am

    The mainstream media is doubling down on imagined pro-Russian heresies in a fashion not seen since the Reformation. Back then the Catholic Church held a monopoly on ideology. They lost it to an unruly bunch of rebellious Protestants who were assisted by the new technology of the printing press.

    Nowadays various non-conformist internet sites, with the help of the new technology of the internet, are challenging the MSM's monopoly on the means of persuasion. To show how much things have changed, back in the 60's, dissidents such as the John Birch Society were limited to issuing pamphlets to expound on their theories of Russians taking over America. In a very ironic role-reversal, today it is the increasingly desperate Washington Post that more closely matches the paranoia of the John Birch Society as it accuses non-conformist media heretics – who are threatening the MSM's monopoly on the means of persuasion - of allowing Russians to take over America.

    But let's spare a thought for poor Jeff Bezos. He basically thought he was purchasing the medieval equivalent of a Bishopry when he bought the WaPo. But now after running six anti-Trump editorials each and every day for the past 18 months, in which his establishment clergy engaged in an ever increasing hysteria-spiral trying to outdo each other in turning Trump into Hitler, it ends up Bezos' side lost the election anyway. It's like he bought a Blockbuster store in 2008 and never even thought about Netflix!

    And so now the MSM is literally launching an Establishment Inquisition by issuing "indexes" of prohibited heretical websites.

    Where will this lead? The grossly paranoiac reading is the Establishment's Counter Reformation is laying the ideological groundwork for a sort of coup d'etat to be followed by the rule of a goodthink junta. In this case we have to start calculating how many divisions are loyal to Trump's gang of generals versus how many are loyal to Obama's generals. A more moderate reading is that with these anti-Russian headlines, the Establishment is attempting to pressure Trump to stay the Establishment course on foreign policy and to appoint a SecState who is hostile to Russia. And in the best case these crazy MSM ramblings are just the last gasps of soon to be extinct media mammoths.

    fosforos December 10, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    Or is it CIA preparation for an Electoral College coup and an H of Reps "election" of–Lindsy Graham?

    The Trumpening December 10, 2016 at 2:07 pm

    One thing you can say about Trump is that he is most certainly not a wuss. In the face of this firestorm about Russian influence sources say Trump is going to nominate Rex Tillerson, who is very pro-Putin, as Secretary of State!

    Lindsie Graham is going to be apoplectic!

    tgs December 10, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    Do you think Tillerson will be confirmed?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    I wonder what happens when they don't confirm any of his nominees? Is this a case of 'I will nominee so many you don't like, you will be forced to confirm at least a few?'

    The Trumpening December 10, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    Yes I do because Trump is reportedly naming NeoCon John Bolton as undersecretary. That's going to be a package deal; if they reject Tillerson then Bolton is gone as well. The NeoCons are desperate to get Bolton into the Administration.

    Bolton's job will be to go on talk shows and defend Trump's policies. If he doesn't do it then he gets fired.

    And so from the rest of the world's point of view, Tillerson is the carrot but Bolton remains in the background as the stick in case anyone starts thinking Trump is too soft and decides to test him.

    Baby Gerald December 10, 2016 at 10:58 am

    Glenn Greenwald dissects the fake news spewing about Russian involvement with aplomb:

    Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA's Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence

    [Dec 11, 2016] It 1984 all over again with the redefinition by the MSM of notion of propaganda. In old days propaganda was the injection of falsehoods into a discussion to disrupt the flow of truth. Current propaganda hysteria is directed toward the supression of injection of truth to disrupt the flow of falsehood

    Notable quotes:
    "... I'm surprised how little discussion I'm seeing of the none too subtle redefinition by the MSM of propaganda itself. It used to be that propaganda was the injection of falsehoods into a discussion to disrupt the flow of truth. Currently, however, the propaganda hysteria is about the injection of truth to disrupt the flow of falsehood. It's quite different. ..."
    "... I am surprised that no one has even defined 'fake news'. According to what I can find online, 'fake news' is defined as a spoof of traditional news, as with the Onion. The way it is being used now is that even legitimate news sources such as Wikileaks are purveyors of fake news even if what they leak is true. ..."
    "... You can kind of relate to the Democrats' desperate efforts to distract people from what's in the emails with Russia Russia Russia. You haven't lived till you've curled up with those emails. Degradation has never been so entertaining. The Clinton Foundation emails read like Lump Snopes selling tickets to watch Ike fuck cows. No regime can survive that level of comedy. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    TedWa December 10, 2016 at 12:16 pm

    Lets face it, the rich control the main stream media and they want this agenda pushed. I just Smerconish getting angry with a member of the RNC over "Russia" hacking them. This is just ridiculous. Provide proof or shut up

    Roger Smith December 10, 2016 at 6:12 pm

    In the age of digital information their signals is no longer getting through. Now they want to undercut the competition.

    JeffC December 10, 2016 at 11:27 am

    I'm surprised how little discussion I'm seeing of the none too subtle redefinition by the MSM of propaganda itself. It used to be that propaganda was the injection of falsehoods into a discussion to disrupt the flow of truth. Currently, however, the propaganda hysteria is about the injection of truth to disrupt the flow of falsehood. It's quite different.

    I'm also quite surprised at the absence of any review whatever of the long history of foreign interference in other nations' electoral processes. I'm no expert, but I don't believe the Weevil Rooskibots are the historically most guilty party. Maybe ganders desiring noninterference should consider leaving the geese unmolested.

    tgs December 10, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    I am surprised that no one has even defined 'fake news'. According to what I can find online, 'fake news' is defined as a spoof of traditional news, as with the Onion. The way it is being used now is that even legitimate news sources such as Wikileaks are purveyors of fake news even if what they leak is true.

    John Parks December 10, 2016 at 7:29 pm

    Ambrose Bierce explained the foundations of "fake news" as being inherent in politics. (Devil's Dictionary)

    POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

    John Wright December 10, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    Perhaps this is a good time to mention HRC's "hand on the scale" recorded suggestion that the USA needs to influence foreign elections for the USA's purposes.

    http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/

    "Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result, which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats)."

    "I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake," said Sen. Clinton. "And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."

    "(Eli) Chomsky recalls being taken aback that "anyone could support the idea-offered by a national political leader, no less-that the U.S. should be in the business of fixing foreign elections.""

    Clinton should respect the Russians for doing something to influence the US election their way, as she suggested the USA should have done in the Palestinian territories.

    One could argue the USA's access to friendly media around the world gives the USA far more propaganda power to influence elections than the Russians.

    The USA's TPTB, who are alleging the Russians influenced the election, should be embarrassed to be suggesting the Russians did so well in "propaganda" game with far fewer resources.

    That political/government officials are pushing this story, effectively Russian leaks of the truth helped elect Trump, on the USA's population may give a good indication of the depth of contempt the political elite really have of the "hoi polloi",.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    Is this a case of 'I have done it so often, only I – but not you, the non-expert – know what the Russians did?' Is it also, 'If I tell you how they did it, I will betray and expose myself?' Perhaps the wolf-crier did it himself/herself?

    Portia December 10, 2016 at 12:11 pm

    Democrats do fight bitterly–they put down the grassroots Progs like the Puritans went after witches

    olga December 10, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    Glad you posted 'Neo-McCarthyism and the New Cold War Nation, John Batchelor Show.' True that his show is a bit of a mish-mash; tried to listen to shows on Philippines and China, with folks who seemed like standard-issue, imperialist bots But I do try to catch his weekly broadcast with Stephen Cohen; these are always excellent. Been reading Cohen since the early 80s, when he seemed to be the only US academician who did not knee-jerky hate Russia, but actually tried to understand the country (although he was critical of USSR). His knowledge, insights, and the willingness to give the other side equal respect are highly informative (and commendable).

    Grebo December 10, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    Edit didn't save last line should be:

    The former (raising prosperity and security for the population) will require a new political economy and therefore some kind of defeat of the current elite.

    That would also help with changing our technological focus.

    east December 10, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    Somebody has gathered evidence about why people from countries which are not at war are being trafficked currently into Italy by the thousands:

    youtube.com/watch?v=eDBNyEplPOk

    youtube.com/watch?v=TbIc1LZqIAw

    Oregoncharles December 10, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win presidency Boston Globe:
    "The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources."

    Trump is right: these are the same guys that said Saddam Hussein had WMDs. It's still an unsupported claim; they don't name the supposed "known characters," nor do they offer the slightest textual evidence.

    A further point: if they did try to help Trump, they had strong reason: Hillary has been doing her best to provoke a nuclear war, and Trump said he wouldn't. They acted in the interest of all of us not glowing in the dark.

    Oregoncharles December 10, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    "Repealing Obamacare to be first on Senate agenda in 2017 Reuters (EM)"
    If they were really smart, they'd repeal JUST the Mandate, then see what happens. It's purely theoretical that it's essential, but if the theory is correct, the system would crash and burn even faster than it already is. In any case, the Mandate is the most unpopular element, for good reason.

    different clue December 10, 2016 at 11:28 pm

    The Mandate is the ONE item which the Repuglans and the Catfood Democrats will make the MOST sure to preSERVE. It is the anchor and tentpeg of Heritage Care. It is the most key crucial feature which the OverClass's faithful servant on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts , made SURer than SURE to upHOLD.

    After the Catfood Democrats worked so hard to get the Mandate passed and upheld, they aren't about to let anyone repeal it. And neither are the Heritage Care Republicans.

    susan the other December 10, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    thanks for the link to Sweden's recycling dilemma. nice that they are so efficient that they now import their recycling. the argument that it is better to reuse, reduce and share is interesting in that Sweden needs this refuse to keep their homes warm in winter and they use lots of it, whereas the southern countries do not need much if any heat in winter and so can export recyclables to Sweden, much of which is burned and not reused. So Sweden might not be decreasing much CO2 in the atmosphere – but on a European scale it is certainly reducing landfill waste (perhaps even methane) and on a global scale it is reducing dumping in the Oceans. I still think we should be subsidized to migrate south in winter and north in summer but nobody else does.

    tgs December 10, 2016 at 4:06 pm

    Speaking of 'fake news', the the role of fake news in reporting on Syria in the western media has gotten a fair amount of attention. Here's a link to an excellent recent piece at Alternet.

    British Govt-Funded Outlet Offered Journalist $17,000 a Month to Produce Propaganda for Syrian Rebels

    beth December 10, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    If one listens to the BBC's reports/drivel from Syria, the only hard part is to be in a war zone. But I doubt the reporter is in the war zone itself, but rather s/he just gave phones to those who are. Little skirmishes are reported each night on the broadcast I hear.

    ewmayer December 10, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    o "Elephant keeper who punched a kangaroo to save his beloved pet dog will keep his job as a zookeeper at Taronga Zoo Daily Mail (Li). Footage of 'roo boxing." - Sugar Roo Roobinson circles to his left, looking to avoid Keeper's jab and down goes Roobinson! Keeper slipped a wicked right hook to the ribs under Roo's guard! Team Marsupial is stunned as the ref ends it!

    o "Mad Men: Trump May Be the Perfect Vehicle for Kissinger's Philosophy | Nation" - Riiiight, because Hammerin' Hank K., unindicted war criminal extraordinaire, invented the notion of "keep 'em guessing." HK has cultivated quite the little cabal of hagiographers at the Nation, it seems.

    o "Democrats Should Fight All of Trump's Nominees. Yes, All of Them. Nation (resilc). Democrats? Fight? How quaint." - Yes, the heroic laboring-class-defender Dems should fight Trump's picks for being too corporate! Yeah, that's the ticket especially if Trump tries to nominate some Republican corporatist to the SCOTUS. Oh wait, that was Obama.

    o "Russia Hacked Republican Committee but Kept Data, U.S. Concludes | New York Times" - Clearly the NYT has contacts deep inside evil-Rooskie-hackerz-circles – just like they had inside Saddam's WMD program – because they would never advance such a startling allegation without reams of really solid evidence, would they? and equating DNC = U.S. in the headline is OK, because who better represents the interest of everyday 'Mericans than the DNC?

    o "The Blind Spots of Liberalism Jacobin. Margarita: "On a county that voted both for Trump and Kamala Harris by wide margins." - Actually, ISTR several notable examples in post-election articles documenting similar cross-party-line voting in 'unexpected' places like the Rust Belt.

    o "The right has its own version of political correctness. It's just as stifling. | CraPo" - Lemme guess, "striving for accuracy in journalism" is part of that "stifling PC-ness"?

    Chelsea baby Moo for me December 10, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    You can kind of relate to the Democrats' desperate efforts to distract people from what's in the emails with Russia Russia Russia. You haven't lived till you've curled up with those emails. Degradation has never been so entertaining. The Clinton Foundation emails read like Lump Snopes selling tickets to watch Ike fuck cows. No regime can survive that level of comedy.

    [Dec 11, 2016] Glencore stuns the oil-trading business with a deal to take a big stake in Rosneft

    Dec 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    mrpukpuk, 9 Dec 2016 22:24
    In the meanwhile: Glencore stuns the oil-trading business with a deal to take a big stake in Rosneft

    http://www.economist.com/news/business/21711503-sanctions-are-not-impediment-they-were-expected-be-glencore-stuns-oil-trading

    [Dec 10, 2016] A Soft Coup Attempt Furious Trump Slams Secret CIA Report Russia Helped Him Win

    Praetorian Guard Redux. Any nation that embraces secret police will find itself ruled by them in short order.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Yes, the CIA's sterling reputation around the world for truth-telling and integrity might be sullied if someone doubts their claims... https://t.co/2uyQXvFdOK - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016 ..."
    "... When is it hardest to get people not to blindly accept anonymous, evidence-free CIA claims? When it's very pleasing to believe them. - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016 ..."
    "... "...there is no clear evidence - even now," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. "There's a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it." ..."
    "... "...Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by [PROVEN LIAR] James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said." ..."
    "... Aside from its instigation of coups and alliances with right-wing juntas, Washington sought to more subtly influence elections in all corners of the world. And so did Moscow. Political scientist Dov Levin calculates that the "two powers intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946 to 2000 - an average of once in every nine competitive elections. ..."
    "... In the late 1940s, the newly established CIA cut its teeth in Western Europe, pushing back against some of the continent's most influential leftist parties and labor unions. In 1948, the United States propped up Italy's centrist Christian Democrats and helped ensure their electoral victory against a leftist coalition, anchored by one of the most powerful communist parties in Europe. CIA operatives gave millions of dollars to their Italian allies and helped orchestrate what was then an unprecedented, clandestine propaganda campaign : This included forging documents to besmirch communist leaders via fabricated sex scandals, starting a mass letter-writing campaign from Italian Americans to their compatriots, and spreading hysteria about a Russian takeover and the undermining of the Catholic Church. ..."
    "... "We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their political expenses, their campaign expenses, for posters, for pamphlets," recounted F. Mark Wyatt , the CIA officer who handled the mission and later participated in more than 2˝ decades of direct support to the Christian Democrats. ..."
    "... This template spread everywhere : CIA operative Edward G. Lansdale, notorious for his efforts to bring down the North Vietnamese government, is said to have run the successful 1953 campaign of Philippines President Ramon Magsaysay. Japan's center-right Liberal Democratic Party was backed with secret American funds through the 1950s and the 1960s. The U.S. government and American oil corporations helped Christian parties in Lebanon win crucial elections in 1957 with briefcases full of cash. ..."
    "... In Chile, the United States prevented Allende from winning an election in 1964. "A total of nearly four million dollars was spent on some fifteen covert action projects, ranging from organizing slum dwellers to passing funds to political parties," detailed a Senate inquiry in the mid-1970s that started to expose the role of the CIA in overseas elections. When it couldn't defeat Allende at the ballot box in 1970, Washington decided to remove him anyway. ..."
    "... Obama & The Presstitutes: Legalized DOMESTIC Propaganda to American Citizens The National Defense Authorization Act of July 2013 (NDAA) included an amendment that legalized the use of propaganda on the American public. The amendment - originally proposed by Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and passed – nullified the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 allowed U.S. propaganda intended to influence foreign audiences to be used on the domestic population. ..."
    "... This Russia CIA Program aimed at US Citizens is part of the OBAMA FRAUD to cover the crimes of Clinton et al. The MSM and especially the NYT is the epi-center of "Fake News" ..."
    "... Hillary was a big threat to Russia security. Trump was willing to work with Russia. Does anyone really believe Russia has absolutely no part to play in Trump's win? Think again. ..."
    "... Thinking is one thing. Proving it is another. And what do you "think" about the CIA and Victoria Nuland's role in toppling the elected government in the Ukraine? ..."
    "... After a year of MSM propaganda and lies, you are now obsessed with "fake news" ironically the kind that totally obliterated your propaganda for the lies that they were. ..."
    "... Go back to the 1960s. Phillp Graham and his wife rans Wa Post. Phillip got a young girl friend and started going off the reservation saying WaPo was becoming a mouthpiece for the See Eye Ah. He was going to divorce his wife. He then was commited to an insane asylum, released and then killed himself with a shotgun. ..."
    "... There have to be good, patriotic Americans within CIA These intelligence reports are obvious fictions: The agitprop of a neocon/zionist Deep State that fully intends to expand the wars, target Iran and Russia, while sending American blood and treasure to pay their bill. ..."
    "... Kennedy knew that the CIA was nothing but a group of Useless, Meddling, Lying Assholes, and made it known Publicly. Unfortunately for him, things didn't turn out all that well. "Wetwork" is never in shortage with that crew. ..."
    "... Praetorian Guard Redux. Any nation that embraces secret police will find itself ruled by them in short order. ..."
    "... Most CIA directors are/were members of the Rockefeller/CFR including: Morell, Petraeus, Hayden, Tenet, Deutch, Woolsey, Gates, Webster, Casey, Turner, Bush, Colby, Schlesinger, Helms, McCone and Allen Dulles. Also every Fed chairman since WW2. See member lists at cfr dot org. ..."
    "... The domestic policies of both CFR wings are the same: the maintenance of the American Empire... There is no possibility of [outsiders] capturing power at the top of either party... ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Overnight the media propaganda wars escalated after the late Friday release of an article by the Washington Post (which last week admitted to using unverified, or fake, news in an attempt to smear other so-called "fake news" sites) according to which a secret CIA assessment found that Russia sought to tip last month's U.S. presidential election in Donald Trump's favor, a conclusion presented without any actual evidence, and which drew an extraordinary, and angry rebuke from the president-elect's camp.

    "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," Trump's transition team said, launching a broadside against the spy agency. "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It's now time to move on and 'Make America Great Again.' "

    The Washington Post report comes after outgoing President Barack Obama ordered a review of all cyberattacks that took place during the 2016 election cycle , amid growing calls from Congress for more information on the extent of Russian interference in the campaign. The newspaper cited officials briefed on the matter as saying that individuals with connections to Moscow provided WikiLeaks with email hacked from the Democratic National Committee, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign chief and others.

    Without a shred of evidence provided, and despite Wikileaks' own on the record denial that the source of the emails was Russian, the WaPo attack piece claims the email messages were steadily leaked out via WikiLeaks in the months before the election, damaging Clinton's White House run. Essentially, according to the WaPo, the Russians' aim was to help Donald Trump win and not just undermine the U.S. electoral process, hinting at a counter-Hillary intent on the side of Putin.

    "It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia's goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected," the newspaper quoted a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation last week to key senators as saying. " That's the consensus view."

    CIA agents told the lawmakers it was "quite clear" - although it was not reported exactly what made it "clear" - that electing Trump was Russia's goal, according to officials who spoke to the Post, citing growing evidence from multiple sources.

    And yet, key questions remain unanswered, and the CIA's report fell short of being a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies the newspaper said, for two reasons. As we reported in November " The "Fact" That 17 Intelligence Agencies Confirmed Russia is Behind the Email Hacks Isn't Actually A "Fact ", and then also because aside from so-called "consensus", there is - once again - no evidence, otherwise the appropriate agencies would have long since released it, and this is nothing more than another propaganda attempt to build tension with Russia. In fact, the WaPo admits as much in the following text, which effectively destroys the article's entire argument :

    The CIA presentation to senators about Russia's intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency's assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.

    For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin "directing" the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were "one step" removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

    * * *

    "I'll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there's clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence - even now," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. "There's a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it."

    And since even the WaPo is forced to admit that intelligence agents don't have the proof that Russian officials directed the identified individuals to supply WikiLeaks with the hacked Democratic emails, the best it can do is speculate based on circumstantial inferences, especially since, as noted above, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has denied links with Russia's government , putting the burden of proof on the side of those who challenge the Wikileaks narrative. So far that proof has not been provided.

    Nonetheless, at the White House, Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Obama called for the cyberattacks review earlier this week to ensure "the integrity of our elections."

    "This report will dig into this pattern of malicious cyberactivity timed to our elections, take stock of our defensive capabilities and capture lessons learned to make sure that we brief members of Congress and stakeholders as appropriate," Schultz said.

    Taking the absurdity to a whole new level, Obama wants the report completed before his term ends on January 20, by none other than a proven and confirmed liar : " The review will be led by James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said. " In other words, the report that the Kremlin stole the election should be prepared by the time Trump is expected to be sworn in.

    "We are going to make public as much as we can," the spokesman added. "This is a major priority for the president."

    The move comes after Democrats in Congress pressed the White House to reveal details, to Congress or to the public, of Russian hacking and disinformation in the election.

    On Oct. 7, one month before the election, the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence announced that "the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations." "These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process," they said.

    Trump dismissed those findings in an interview published Wednesday by Time magazine for its "Person of the Year" award. Asked if the intelligence was politicized, Trump answered: "I think so."

    "I don't believe they interfered," he said. "It could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey."

    Worried that Trump will sweep the issue under the rug after his inauguration, seven Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee called on Nov. 29 for the White House to declassify what it knows about Russian interference. The seven have already been briefed on the classified details, suggesting they believe there is more information the public should know. On Tuesday this week, leading House Democrats called on Obama to give members of the entire Congress a classified briefing on Russian interference, from hacking to the spreading of fake news stories to mislead U.S. voters.

    Republicans in Congress have also promised hearings into Russian activities once the new administration comes in.

    Obama's homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said the cyberinterference goes back to the 2008 presidential race, when both the Obama and John McCain campaigns were hit by malicious computer intrusions.

    * * *

    An interesting aside to emerge from last night's hit piece and the Trump team response is that there is now a full blown turf war between Trump and the CIA, as NBC's Chuck Todd observed in a series of late Friday tweets:

    The implication in the Trump transition statement is that he doesn't believe a single thing from the CIA

    - Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

    Is the next Commander-in-Chief is signaling that the CIA won't be a major player in his national security team?

    - Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

    So stunned by the Trump transition statement on the Post-CIA-Russia story that I half expect a walk back by tomorrow

    - Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

    How helpful is it for the CIA's reputation around the world if the next US questions their findings so publicly? Good luck Mike Pompeo

    - Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

    To which Glenn Greenwald provided the best counterargument:

    Yes, the CIA's sterling reputation around the world for truth-telling and integrity might be sullied if someone doubts their claims...https://t.co/2uyQXvFdOK - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016

    When is it hardest to get people not to blindly accept anonymous, evidence-free CIA claims? When it's very pleasing to believe them. - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016

    However, of the mini Tweetstorm, this was the most important aspect: the veiled suggestion that in addition to Russia, both the FBI and the Obama presidency prevented Hillary from becoming the next US president...

    While Obama's FBI director smeared Hillary, Obama sat on evidence of Russian efforts to elect Trump that had basis in evidence.

    - Franklin Foer (@FranklinFoer) December 10, 2016

    ... which in light of these stunning new unproven and baseless allegations, she may very well have renewed aspirations toward.

    * * *

    So while there is no "there" there following the WaPo's latest attempt to fan the rarging fires of evidence-free propaganda, or as the WaPo itself would say "fake news", here is why the story has dramatic implications. First, the only two quotes which matter:

    "...there is no clear evidence - even now," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. "There's a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it."

    * * *

    "...Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by [PROVEN LIAR] James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said."

    And then the summary:

    1. Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
    2. Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
    3. Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
    4. Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.
    5. Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.

    Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College vote, similar to the 1960s novel " Seven Days in May ."

    Nemontel Dec 10, 2016 9:13 AM ,

    Trump is the first more or less independent candidate in decades. Most of our politicians are chosen by the Oligarchy.

    http://www.truthjustice.net/politics/chosen-leaders-proven-failures/

    Keyser -> TeamDepends Dec 10, 2016 9:22 AM ,
    Once again it's a case of "watch the shiny object"... The "secret CIA report" seems to focus on who leaked the documents to Wikileaks and not the content of those documents... The left have not refuted that the emails are real, just who leaked them to Assange... Fuck 'em, if they keep Trump from the white house there will be revolution...
    manofthenorth -> Manthong Dec 10, 2016 10:55 AM ,
    And the song remains the same; From none other than the Washington Post, oh the irony.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-hi...

    "Aside from its instigation of coups and alliances with right-wing juntas, Washington sought to more subtly influence elections in all corners of the world. And so did Moscow. Political scientist Dov Levin calculates that the "two powers intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946 to 2000 - an average of once in every nine competitive elections."

    In the late 1940s, the newly established CIA cut its teeth in Western Europe, pushing back against some of the continent's most influential leftist parties and labor unions. In 1948, the United States propped up Italy's centrist Christian Democrats and helped ensure their electoral victory against a leftist coalition, anchored by one of the most powerful communist parties in Europe. CIA operatives gave millions of dollars to their Italian allies and helped orchestrate what was then an unprecedented, clandestine propaganda campaign : This included forging documents to besmirch communist leaders via fabricated sex scandals, starting a mass letter-writing campaign from Italian Americans to their compatriots, and spreading hysteria about a Russian takeover and the undermining of the Catholic Church.

    "We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their political expenses, their campaign expenses, for posters, for pamphlets," recounted F. Mark Wyatt , the CIA officer who handled the mission and later participated in more than 2˝ decades of direct support to the Christian Democrats.

    This template spread everywhere : CIA operative Edward G. Lansdale, notorious for his efforts to bring down the North Vietnamese government, is said to have run the successful 1953 campaign of Philippines President Ramon Magsaysay. Japan's center-right Liberal Democratic Party was backed with secret American funds through the 1950s and the 1960s. The U.S. government and American oil corporations helped Christian parties in Lebanon win crucial elections in 1957 with briefcases full of cash.

    In Chile, the United States prevented Allende from winning an election in 1964. "A total of nearly four million dollars was spent on some fifteen covert action projects, ranging from organizing slum dwellers to passing funds to political parties," detailed a Senate inquiry in the mid-1970s that started to expose the role of the CIA in overseas elections. When it couldn't defeat Allende at the ballot box in 1970, Washington decided to remove him anyway."

    Manthong -> ThaBigPerm Dec 10, 2016 12:16 PM ,

    This is in the UK Express. So it has to be true.

    A US Official has claimed the Russians are out to get Merkel in a cyber campaign.

    A CIA probe confirms Moscow helped Trump win the election.

    "In both cases, said the official, Mr. Putin's campaigns in both Europe and the US are intended to disrupt and discredit the Western concept of democracy by promoting extremist candidates, parties, and political figures."

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/741960/russia-angela-merkel-germany-election-cyber-attack-plot-us-official-cia

    Isn't it grand that we get all this great, comprehensive information from the modern MSM?

    The Express and WaPo are in a class unto themselves.

    Creative_Destruct -> TruthHunter Dec 10, 2016 1:02 PM ,
    Both WAPO , & C.TODD would NOT be missed. Per Todd: "How helpful is it for the CIA's reputation around the world if the next US questions their findings so publicly?"

    Todd is concerned about The CIA's "Reputation" ?????? AS IF its current rep is wonderful??? - TODD: There is no "reputation" to damage!!! Lame brain !!

    zhandax -> Creative_Destruct Dec 10, 2016 3:08 PM ,
    17 intelligence agencies? Is this some dystopian record?

    "There's a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it."

    So these 'intelligence' agencies are in the same boat as the pizzgate crowd. The main difference is after failing to produce any actionable evidence the pizzagate crowd will loose interest and move on. We still have to give the bureaucrats at these intelligence agencies a paycheck next month.

    There needs to be one yuge housecleaning.

    Kidbuck -> Pinto Currency Dec 10, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    Russians are training the illegals in secret camps in the Sierra Madre mountains before they are released into the US. I was there and saw it. Bigfoot was guarding the entrance.
    Jim in MN -> cossack55 Dec 10, 2016 12:15 PM ,
    The only WMDs around here are on WEINER'S LAPTOP. That laptop is the real 'shiny object'. Eyes on the prize, folks.
    Omen IV -> manofthenorth Dec 10, 2016 1:16 PM ,
    Obama & The Presstitutes: Legalized DOMESTIC Propaganda to American Citizens The National Defense Authorization Act of July 2013 (NDAA) included an amendment that legalized the use of propaganda on the American public. The amendment - originally proposed by Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and passed – nullified the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 allowed U.S. propaganda intended to influence foreign audiences to be used on the domestic population.

    Signed by .. Obama. This Act formalized systems in place covertly or ad hoc for some time.

    This Russia CIA Program aimed at US Citizens is part of the OBAMA FRAUD to cover the crimes of Clinton et al. The MSM and especially the NYT is the epi-center of "Fake News" The Smith-Mundt Modernization Bill was incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (H.R.4310) . The Smith-Mundt provisions weren't part of the bill when it was originally introduced, but were added on May 18, 2012. included in amendment 1140 , which was approved by roll call vote 288 . http://foreignpolicy.com/channel/the-cable/ http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5

    beemasters -> Manthong Dec 10, 2016 11:18 AM ,
    Hillary was a big threat to Russia security. Trump was willing to work with Russia. Does anyone really believe Russia has absolutely no part to play in Trump's win? Think again. They should and I think they did! Whether it was an illegal intervention would be another question.
    Bay of Pigs -> beemasters Dec 10, 2016 11:36 AM ,
    Thinking is one thing. Proving it is another. And what do you "think" about the CIA and Victoria Nuland's role in toppling the elected government in the Ukraine? How about NATO expansion for decades under Clinton, Bush and Obama? Aren't these DIRECT THREATS against Putin and Russia? Yes, they most certainly are. Fuck the CIA They do far more harm than good for the people in the USA.
    Krungle -> beemasters Dec 10, 2016 12:53 PM ,
    Hillary was a threat to life on Earth. She made it clear her intent was to wage war against Russia (and probably China). Obviously the US has been conducting cyberwarfare, psyops and propaganda against Russia, as this has been documented in the past. Russia's response may merely have been presenting authentic information via RT/Sputnik/etc. and putting clips of Putin online where he sounds like a rational human being. In other words, they may be guilty of nothing more than providing Americans with the truth, much as America did with the Soviets.
    mccvilb -> Greyhat Dec 10, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    That was exactly what this brought to mind for me - a John F Kennedy moment, but not his assassination. I was thinking of an earlier time well before this., ie, Nikita Krushev banging the table at the UN with his shoe. The state of the nation - people were in a panic because Russia let it be known it was about to bring nuclear missiles into Cuba. It was a ploy by the Russians and Krushev to de-escalate the tensions between the two countries over our attempt to take out Castro and the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

    Fade to today. Why would the Russians care who won the presidency? Hillary the war monger or the Donald, the negotiator? Ahh, maybe because we just brought into Turkey then consequently moved fifty nuclear missiles into position along Russia's border? Who authorized and ordered that? Would that be any cause for worry by Russia or its citizenry? Is that or is it not total insanity? Total fuckery? Obama and Hillary have put us four minutes away from a worldwide nuclear holocaust and now they are trying to make Trump look like he was in bed with Putin. I don't know what Trump is but I do know he and Putin are the only two people on the same wavelength right now, thank the electoral college.

    Kayman -> nmewn Dec 10, 2016 10:08 AM ,
    Bay of Pigs, Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. The CIA will fabricate any truth you would like. The Deep State has shit its' pants.
    Smiddywesson -> Eirik Magnus Larssen Dec 10, 2016 10:51 AM ,
    You are delusional, dishonest, ignrorant, and proud of it. Fortunately, YOU LOST.

    After a year of MSM propaganda and lies, you are now obsessed with "fake news" ironically the kind that totally obliterated your propaganda for the lies that they were.

    After a year of cackling laughter when every two bit dictator and NWO globalist bad mouthed Trump, like a child, you are OUTRAGED that Russia might have not wanted Hillary to take power and make war against it. At least Russia didn't PUBLICALLY attempt to influence an American election LIKE HILLARY'S NWO GOONS DID FROM THEIR EXECUTIVE OFFICES.

    The popular vote: Ignoring fraud, which was proven in the Michigan recount, Hillary supporters are trying to make hay out of her garnering 2.6 million more votes than Trump. Besides the fact that this is irrelevant in a campaign for the electoral college, 2.6 million votes is only somewhere @0.7% of the US population. That's hardly a mandate, especially when we consider she only had that dubious edge over Trump, not the entire playing field. There were other candidate you know.

    I'm sorry, I forgot, YOU LOST, and you think you can spoil our good time with the assertion that the better candidate was Hillary. LOL, losers.

    Chris Dakota -> Eirik Magnus Larssen Dec 10, 2016 11:41 AM ,
    Trump is a wildcard, we all knew that when we voted for him.

    Hillary is a witchcard and we all knew what she would do.

    Bernie wasn't even a choice, Hillary had him as a straw man opponent.

    Rand Paul to me was the best choice but establishment didn't want him, Gay media wanted Trump because they thought Hillary could beat him and many of the Ron Paulers still butthurt over him endorsing Romney. Never mind Ron Paul didn't even put up a fight when they robbed him of the nomination he won.

    Trump is a fighter, something we felt we needed.

    Freddie -> Moe Hamhead Dec 10, 2016 10:40 AM ,
    Go back to the 1960s. Phillp Graham and his wife rans Wa Post. Phillip got a young girl friend and started going off the reservation saying WaPo was becoming a mouthpiece for the See Eye Ah. He was going to divorce his wife. He then was commited to an insane asylum, released and then killed himself with a shotgun.

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/2935-philip-graham/&p...

    Phil's wife was the daughter of Eugene Meyer who ran The Fed.

    Watergate was not what you were told. Nixon wanted tariffs and the Rockefellers (who myguess started the CIA - David was an OSS officer in WW2) got mad at their boy Nixon. Nixon hated George Bush and did not trust him. All the info the Wa Post got on Nixon was C**IIA info to Ben Bradley, editor of Wa Post, probably from George Bush. All of Nixons,relatively minor, dirt was passed from See EYE Ah to Wa Post. Woodward and Bernstein just typed it up.

    Bradley was brther in law to Cord Meyer (operation mockingbird). Cord's wife (Mary Pinchot-Meyer) had an ongoing affair with JFK. After he was killed, she was gonna spill the beans like Marilyn Monroe. She was killed taking a walk. Ben BRadley and the See EYE Ah rush to her apartment to get her diary.

    War Machine -> Chupacabra-322 Dec 10, 2016 2:51 PM ,
    the CIA has been arming Al Qaeda and (likely) 'ISIS'.

    It is very probable US forces will be killed by these weapons.

    Add to that the small issue of the hundreds of thousands of people, Christian and non-Salafist/non-Wahhabi Muslims murdered by the Islamopsycho and Acadami etc. private western mercs.

    There have to be good, patriotic Americans within CIA These intelligence reports are obvious fictions: The agitprop of a neocon/zionist Deep State that fully intends to expand the wars, target Iran and Russia, while sending American blood and treasure to pay their bill.

    And now they are going to try to overturn an election in which Clinton not only lost by the rules of our system, but in which Clinton's 'popular vote' win was the product of illegal immigrant and other fraudulent voting.

    all of which means they are also willing to risk civil war.

    Vatican_cameo -> Keyser Dec 10, 2016 9:27 AM

    Kennedy knew that the CIA was nothing but a group of Useless, Meddling, Lying Assholes, and made it known Publicly. Unfortunately for him, things didn't turn out all that well. "Wetwork" is never in shortage with that crew.

    MilwaukeeMark -> Vatican_cameo Dec 10, 2016 9:44 AM ,
    I have developed a begrudging admiration for Stalin. He knew how to decapitate the hydra and keep it under his control.
    tmosley -> Vatican_cameo Dec 10, 2016 9:44 AM ,
    Praetorian Guard Redux. Any nation that embraces secret police will find itself ruled by them in short order.
    Uzda Farce -> Vatican_cameo Dec 10, 2016 11:32 AM ,
    Most CIA directors are/were members of the Rockefeller/CFR including: Morell, Petraeus, Hayden, Tenet, Deutch, Woolsey, Gates, Webster, Casey, Turner, Bush, Colby, Schlesinger, Helms, McCone and Allen Dulles. Also every Fed chairman since WW2. See member lists at cfr dot org.

    "I have discussed Council on Foreign Relations Team A vs. Team B for 35 years. I have seen two anti-CFR people get through the [presidential] screening... The domestic policies of both CFR wings are the same: the maintenance of the American Empire... There is no possibility of [outsiders] capturing power at the top of either party..."

    http://archive.lewrockwell.com/north/north1193.html

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-cfr-the-cia-and-the-banks/

    [Dec 10, 2016] Why the US elite loves so much to demonise Russia

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this. ..."
    "... In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in. ..."
    "... Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran. ..."
    "... Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts ..."
    "... Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege ..."
    "... I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves ..."
    "... "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. ..."
    "... New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail. ..."
    "... No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken. ..."
    "... The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda. ..."
    "... So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical! ..."
    "... Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote. ..."
    "... So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me. ..."
    "... "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul ..."
    "... At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg ..."
    "... President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ..."
    "... The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power. The fight goes on. ..."
    "... Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis. ..."
    "... Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it! ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    From: Barack Obama orders 'full review' of possible Russian hacking in US election Spncer Ackerman in New York and David Smith in Washington

    Geoff Smythe , 24m ago

    Well, if Rupert Mudroach, an American citizen, can influence the Australian elections, who gives a stuff about anyone else's involvement in US politics?

    The US loves demonising Russia, even supporting ISIS to fight against them.

    The United States of Amnesia just can't understand that they are run by the military machine.

    As Frank Zappa once correctly stated: The US government is just the entertainment unit of the Military.

    Nataliefreeman, 11 Dec 2016

    Altogether the only thing people are accusing the Russians of is the WikiLeaks scandal. And in hindsight of the enormous media bias toward Trump it really comes of as little more than leveling the playing field. Hardly the sort of democratic subversion that is being suggested.

    And of course there is another problem and that is in principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The US even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    HollyOldDog -> Nataliefreeman, 11 Dec 2016 01:4
    Don't know about Russians, but in the early 2000's the Ukrainian hackers had some nasty viruses embedded in email attachments that could fuckup ARM based computers.
    smellycat -> waltercarl67, 11 Dec 2016 00:0
    Time to stop attempting regime change in other countries then, if you condemn it in your own. What goes around comes around.
    caveOfShadows , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    European governments tried to elect Hillary Clinton. Latin American and Asian allies of the US tried to elect Clinton.

    Top leaders of France, the UK, Germany, all leaked to US newspapers, with dire warnings of how Trump's election would lead to bad outcomes.

    Many countries made as clear as possible, without coming out officially for a candidate, that they were for the election of Clinton.

    Mexico tried to get Clinton elected. Believe me, they did. Not officially, of course, but almost.

    But all we hear about is Russia.

    Wonder why???

    uyCybershy -> caveOfShadows , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran.
    imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:0
    Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts, as the last battle in their support to jidaists fighting the Syrian Army. This is the dark pit where our so called free press has fallen into.
    Flugler -> imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Yep had a chat with an army mate yesterday asked him what the fcuk the supposed head of MI6 was on about regarding Russian support for Syrian govt suggesting Russian actions made terrorism more likely here in UK. He shrugged his shoulders and said he hoped Putin wiped the terrorists out...
    smellycat -> imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:4
    Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege

    Of course no news on the danger to the civilians of W,Aleppo, who have been bombarded indiscriminately for months by the 'moderates' in the east of the city or the danger to the civilians of Palmyra, Mosul or al Bab.

    Geoff Smythe -> smellycat , 11 Dec 2016 01:3
    Or the 50,000 that have been evacuated out of Aleppo by the Russian military. https://www.rt.com/news/369869-syria-evacuation-civilians-aleppo /
    Merseysidefella , 10 Dec 2016 21:5
    I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves. I´ll still look for the Guardian articles on football which are excellent.
    Cheers!
    GuyCybershy -> confettifoot , 10 Dec 2016 21:0
    The Sanders movement inside the Democratic party did offer some hope but this was snuffed out by the DNC and the Clinton campaign in collusion with the media. This is what likely caused her defeat in November and not some Kremlin intrigue.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality," Karl Rove.
    caveOfShadows -> dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Don't use quotes when you are doing a fake attribution.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:4
    New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail.
    joinupthedots , 10 Dec 2016 20:4
    Fake news....No news.....None sense news?

    Uncle Sam has been doing it for years and the degree of incestuousness between MSM and the "Agencies" is all right here (just one example)

    http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmeyerM.htm

    smellycat -> joinupthedots , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    That's some serious shit
    '"The same sons of bitches," he hissed, "that killed John F. Kennedy."
    stoneshepherd , 10 Dec 2016 20:2
    No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken.

    Hmmm....

    Flugler -> stoneshepherd , 10 Dec 2016 20:3
    Distract the masses with bullsh*t , nothing new... Trump needs to double up on his personal security, he has doubled down on the CIA tonight bringing upmtheir bullsh*t on WMD. Thing are getting interesting...
    Liesandstats , 10 Dec 2016 19:2
    Meanwhile the good guys with their Smart bombs indulge in a spot of collateral damage. (Or war crimes as it's described when Russians do it).

    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-90-iraqi-soldiers-killed-in-mosul-from-us-airstrikes/

    This article is jiberish, as are the ones trying to say that the Russians caused Brexit.

    GuyCybershy -> sunflowerxyz , 10 Dec 2016 19:3
    The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda.
    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 19:1
    Spreading lies about the very real Podesta emails and their importance seems to be a fake news stock in trade. Since Hillary was responsible I'm not sure where Putin comes into the picture.
    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs /
    GuyCybershy , 10 Dec 2016 19:0
    So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical!
    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 18:3
    "If we can revert to the truth, then a great deal of one's suffering can be erased, because a great deal of one's suffering is based on sheer lies. "
    R. D. Laing
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    US politicians and the MSM depend on sheer lies.....
    Powerspike -> KassandraTroy , 10 Dec 2016 18:5
    They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.
    R. D. Laing
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I'm sick of jumping through their hoops - how about you?
    James7 , 10 Dec 2016 17:2
    "Tin Foil Hat" Hillary--
    "This is not about politics or partisanship," she went on. "Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It is a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly."

    We fail to see how Russian propaganda has put people's lives directly at risk. Unless, of course, Hillary is suggesting that the increasingly-bizarre #Pizzagate swarm journalism campaign (which apparently caused a man to shoot up a floor tile in a D.C. pizza shop) was conjured up by a bunch of Russian trolls.

    And this is about as absurd as saying Russian trolls were why Trump got elected.

    "It needs to be said," former counterintelligence agent John R. Schindler (who, by the way, believes Assange and Snowden are both Russian plants), writes in the Observer, "that nearly all of the liberals eagerly pontificating about how Putin put Trump in office know nothing about 21st century espionage, much less Russia's unique spy model and how it works. Indeed, some of the most ardent advocates of this Kremlin-did-it conspiracy theory were big fans of Snowden and Wikileaks -- right until clandestine Russian shenanigans started to hurt Democrats. Now, they're panicking."

    (Nonetheless, #Pizzagate and Trump, IMHO, are manifestations of a population which deeply deeply distrusts the handlers and gatekeepers of the status quo. Justified or not. And with or without Putin's shadowy fingers strumming its magic hypno-harp across the Land of the Free. This runs deeper than just Putin.)

    Fake news has always been around, from the fake news which led Americans to believe the Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise and completely unprovoked .

    To the fake news campaigns put out by Edward Bernays tricking women into believing cigarettes were empowering little phallics of feminism. (AKA "Torches of Freedom.")

    This War on Fake News has more to do with the elites finally realizing how little control they have over the minds of the unwashed masses. Rather, this is a war on the freaks, geeks and weirdos who've formed a decentralized and massively-influential media right under their noses.

    Laissez Faire Today

    James7 -> fedback , 10 Dec 2016 17:3
    and there may be some truth to that. An article says has delved into financial matters in Russia.

    Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
    Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.

    Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.

    Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.

    As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.

    chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."

    BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me.

    So let me be the first to thank Russia for providing us with their research.

    Instead of assassination, coup or invasion, they simply showed us our leaders' own words when written behind the public's backs.

    I'm no fan of Putin, but this was a useful bit of intelligence you've shared with us.
    Happy Christmas, Vlad.

    Next time why not provide us with the email of all our banks and fossil fuel companies; you can help us clean up both political parties with one fell swoop that way.

    GuyCybershy -> BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul
    greyford14 -> GuyCybershy , 10 Dec 2016 17:1
    Be careful there, Ron Paul is an FSB agent of Putin, according to the Washington Post.
    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg
    GuyCybershy -> elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 17:1
    Dems are so out to lunch that they make FOX pundits seem sane. I would say the Democratic party is beyond hope of saving.
    sblejo , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    The U.S. is getting what it deserves, IF Russia was even dumb enough to meddle. The government in this country has been meddling in other countries' affairs sixty years, in the Middle East, in South America and other places we don't even know about. The result is mayhem, all in the 'interests' of the U.S., as it is described.
    Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    Note that most supporters of the Russian hacks never (and cannot) present rational arguments, just dubious talking points--AKA Fake News.

    But it is fun to spot the gaps in their logic, and the holes in their stories.

    Great sport--rather like hunting hares.

    GuyCybershy -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    We need to trust the CIA, they'd never fix evidence to manipulate the American public.
    BaronVonAmericano -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:5
    Where's the gap in this logic:
    A) The American public has been offered ZERO proof of hacking by the Russian government to alter our election.
    B) Even if true, no one has disputed the authenticity of the emails hacked.
    C) Therefore, the WORST Russia could have done is show us who are own leader are when they don't think we're listening.
    D) Taken together, this article is pretty close to fake news, and gives us nothing that should outrage us much at this time -- unless we are trying to foment war with Russia or call for a military coup against the baboon about to take the oath of office.
    foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    Hacking by unnamed individuals. No direct involvement of the Russian government, only implied, alleged, etc. Seems to me that if Hillary had obeyed the law and not schemed behind the scenes to sabotage Bernie S. there would have been nothing to leak! Really this is all about being caught with fer fingers in the cookie jar. Does it matter who leaked it? Did the US public not have a right to know what the people they were voting for had been up to? It's a bit like the governor of a province being filmed burgling someone's house and then complaining that someone had leaked the film to the media, just when he was trying to get re-elected!
    GuyCybershy -> foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    The US public has a right to know what CNN, New York Times and the Washington Post want them to know.
    sblejo -> foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    It is called passing the buck, and because of the underhanded undermining of Bernie Sanders, who was winning, we have Trump. Thank you Democratic party.
    aidanfahey , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    I am disappointed that the Guardian gives so much prominence to such speculation which is almost totally irrelevant. Why would we necessarily (a) believe what the superspies tell us and (b) even if it is true why should we care?

    I am also very disappointed at the Guardians attitude to Putin, the elected leader of Russia, who was so badly treated by the US from the moment he took over from Yeltsin. I was in Russia as a visitor around that time and it was obvious that Putin restored some dignity to the Russian people after the disastrous Yeltsin term of office. If the US had been willing to deal with him with respect the world could be a much better place today. Instead the US insisted in trying to subvert his rule with the support of its supine NATO allies in order to satisfy its corporate rulers.

    GuyCybershy -> aidanfahey , 10 Dec 2016 16:5
    They expected Russia to fall apart like the USSR and then they could march in and pick up the pieces. Putin prevented this and this why they hate him.
    NickinHalifaxNS , 10 Dec 2016 16:2
    If this is true, the US can hardly complain. After all, the US has a long record of interfering in other countries' elections--including CIA overthrow of elected governments and their replacement with murderous, oppressive, right-wing dictatorships.

    If the worst that Russia did was reveal the truth about what Democratic Party figures were saying behind closed doors, I'd say it helped correct the unbalanced media focus on preventing Trump from becoming President. Call it the globalization of elections.

    BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 15:5
    First, the government has yet to present any persuasive evidence that Russia hacked the DNC or anyone else. All we have is that there is Russian code (meaningless according to cyber-security experts) and seemingly baseless "conclusions" by "intelligence" officials. In other words, fake news at this point.

    Second, even if true, the allegation amounts to an argument that Russia presented us with facts that we shouldn't have seen. Think about that for a while. We are seeing demands that we self-censor ourselves from facts that seem unfair. What utter idiocy.

    This is particularly outrageous given that the U.S. directly intervenes in the governance of any number of nations all the time. We can support coups, arm insurgencies, or directly invade, but god forbid that someone present us with unsettling facts about our ruling class.

    This nation has jumped the shark. The fact that Trump is our president is merely confirmation of this long evident fact. That fighting REAL NEWS of emails whose content has not been disputed is part of our war on "fake news," and the top priority for some so-called liberals, promises only worse to come.

    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 14:5
    >> Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Russia had "succeeded" in "sow[ing] discord" in the election, and urged as much public disclosure as is possible.

    What utter bullshit. The DNC's own dirty tricks did that. Donna Brasille stealing debate questions and handing them to Hillary so that she could cheat did that. The FBIs investigation into Hillary did that. Podesta's emails did that. The totally one-sided press coverage (apart from Fox) of the election did that. But it seems the american people were smart enough to see through the BS and voted for trump. Good for them.

    And we're gonna need a lot more than the word of a few politicised so-called intelligence agencies to believe this russo-hacking story. These are the same people who lied about Iraqi WMDs so they are proven fakers/liars. These are also the same people who hack EVERYONE else so I, quite frankly, have no sympathy even of the story turns out to be true.

    MrIncredlous , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Obama is a disgrace to his office.

    Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
    Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
    Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
    Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.
    Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.
    Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."

    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    When the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security release a joint statement it is not without very careful consideration to the wording.
    Therefore, to understand what is known by the US intelligence services one must analyse the language used.

    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

    This is very telling:
    "The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."

    Alleged:
    adjective [attributive]
    said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality

    Consistent:
    adjective
    acting or done in the same way over time

    Method:
    noun
    a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something

    Motivation:
    noun
    a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way

    So, what exactly is known by the US intelligence services?

    Well what we can tell is:
    the alleged (without proof) hacks were consistent (done in the same way) with the methods (using a particular procedure) and motivations (and having reason for doing so) with Russian State actions.

    There is absolutely no certainty about this whatsoever.

    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Thank God Obama will be out of office soon. He is the biggest disappointment ever. He has ordered the death of THOUSANDS via drone strikes in other people's countries and most of the deaths were innocent bystanders. If President Xi of China or Putin were to do that we would all be calling them tyrannical dictators and accusing them of a back door invasions. But somehow people are brainwashed into thinking its ok of the US president to do such things. Truly sickening.
    Flugler , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Says the CIA the organisation set up to destabilise governments all over the world. Lol.....
    Congratulations for keeping a straight face I hope Trump makes urgently needed personnel changes in the alphabet soup agencies working against humanity for very many years.
    Susanna246 , 10 Dec 2016 13:1
    Beware --

    This is an extremely dangerous game that Obama and the political elites are playing.

    The American political elites - including senetors, bankers, investors, multinationals et al, can feel power and control slipping away from them.

    This makes them very dangerous people indeed - as self-preservation and holding onto power is their number one priority.

    What they're aiming to do ( a child can see what's coming ), is to call into question the validity of Trump's victory and blame the Russians for it.

    The elites are looking to create chaos and insurrection, to have the result nullified and to vilify Putin and Russia.

    American and Russian troops are already lined up and facing each other along the Eastern European borders and all it takes is one small incident from either side.

    And all because those that have ruled the roost for so many decades ( in the White house, the 2 houses of Congress and Wall St ), simply cannot face losing their positions of power, wealth and political influence.

    They're out to get Trump, the populists and President Putin.

    God help us all.

    MacTavi5h , 10 Dec 2016 12:5
    This is starting to feel like an attempt to make the Trump presidency appear illegitimate. The problem is that it could actually make the democrats look like sore losers instead. We've had the recount, now it's foreign interference. This might harm them in 2020.

    I don't like that Trump won, but he did. The electoral college system is clearly in the constitution and all sides understood and agreed to it at the campaign commencement. Also some, by no means all, of commenters saying that the popular vote should win have also been on referendum BTL saying the result isn't a legitimate leave vote, make your minds up!

    I don't want Trump and I wanted to remain but, by the rules, my sides lost.

    alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 12:5
    Yet in August, Snowden warned that the recent hack of NSA tied cyber spies was not designed to expose Hillary Clinton, but rather a display of strength by the hackers, showing they could eventually unmask the NSA's own international cyber espionage and prove the U.S. meddles in elections around the world.

    http://yournewswire.com/snowden-claims-russia-can-expose-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections /

    nishville , 10 Dec 2016 12:3
    A reader's comment from the Independent:

    Will the CIA be providing evidence to support these allegations or is it a case of "just trust us guys"? In any event, hypocrisy is a national sport for the Yanks. According to a Reuters article 9 August 2016 "NSA operations have, for example, recently delved into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential candidates, Enrique Peńa Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peńa won that election and is now Mexico's president.

    The NSA identified Peńa's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.

    The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.

    Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."

    At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America."

    zulugroove -> nishville , 10 Dec 2016 13:4
    Fake news!! ...That would be a Clinton / Obama , reply!!
    CTG2016 , 10 Dec 2016 12:0
    Breaking news! CIA admits people in USA aren't smart enough to vote for the person right person. Why blame Russians now?
    Come on. Let's move on and enjoy the mess Trump will start. This is going to be worse than GWB.
    We should all just enjoy the political comedy programs.
    Gallicdweller , 10 Dec 2016 11:1
    The CIA accusing a foreign power of interfering in the election of a showman for president - it would take me all day top cite the times that this evil criminal organisation has interfered in the affairs of other countries, ordered assassinations, coups etc. etc. etc
    Dave Harries , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    Yes like the "help" the CIA gave to the Taliban, Bin Laden and Co. when the Russians were in Afghanistan.
    Then these dimwits from the CIA who taught Bin Laden and Co guerrilla warfare totally "missed" 9/11 and Twin Towers with all their billions of funding.
    So basically this is a total load of crap and if you think we are going to believe any reports vs. Russia these fools at the CIA are going to publish then think again.
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    During the election our media was exposed as in essence a propaganda tool for the Democrat campaign and they continue the unholy alliance after the election
    Liesandstats , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    Instead of trying to blame the Russians how about reflecting on why the Democrats picked such a dreadful candidate.
    ana ruiz , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    Pathetic move from an organisation that created ISIS and is single handling every single conflict in the world. Here we have a muppet president that for once wants to look after USA affairs internally and here we have a so alleged independent organisation that wants to keep bombing and destabilising the world. Didn't Trump said he wanted to shake the FBI and CIA ? Who is going to stop this machine of treachery ? : south America, middle east ...Asia ... they put their fingers on to create a problem- solution caveat wereas is to create weapons contracts /farma or construction and sovereign debt . But it never tricles down to the layperson ..
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    "We are Not calling into question the election results"
    next White House sentence - "Just the integrity.. " WTF

    What more do you need to know - Bullshit Fake News.. propaganda, spoken by the youngest possible puppet boy White House Rep. who almost managed to have his tie done up..

    I am bookmarking this guy, for a laugh! White House Fake Newscaster ..:)

    Worth watching the sides of his mouth onto his attempt to engage you with the eyes, but blinking way too much before, during and after the word "Integrity".. FAKE!

    His hand signals.. lmfao, so measured, how sweet.. now sack the sycophants --

    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    People should know that these Breaking News stories we see in Western media on BBC, Guardian etc, about Russian interference are in fact from Wash Post and NY Times quoting mysterious sources within the CIA
    Of course we know that Wash Post and NY Times were completely objective during the election and didn't favor any party
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:0
    Russia made Hillary run the most expensive campaign ever, spending 1.2 billion dollars.
    Russia stole Hillary's message to the working people and gave her lousy slogans
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    My real comment is below, but work with me, for a moment.
    So, since 2008, eh? Barack has thought carefully, with a legal mind.

    Can't we somehow blame the Russians for the whole Economic collapse.. coming soon, Wall Street Cyber Crash, screwed up sKewed up systems of Ponzi virus spiraling out of control..

    blame the Russians , logic, the KGB held the FED at gunpoint and said "create $16.2 Trillion in 5 working days"
    jeez, blame anything and anybody except peace prize guy Obama, the Pope, Bankers & Israel..

    Now can we discuss the Security of the Pound against Cyber Attack.. what was it 6% in 2 minutes, early on Sunday morning, just over month ago.. whoosh!

    It seems more important than discussing an election where the result was always OBVIOUS!

    And we called it, just like Kellyanne Conway..

    Who is Huma Abedin? I wish to know and hear her talking to Kellyanne Conway, graciously in defeat.. is that so unreasonable?
    ********
    Obama wishes to distract from exceedingly poor judgement, at the very minimum....
    after his Greek Affair with Goldman Sachs.. surely.

    As for his other Foreign Policy: Eternal Shame, founded on Fake News!
    Obama the Fake News Founder to flounder over the Russians, who can prove that he, Obama supports & supported Terrorism!

    Thus this article exists, to create doubt over the veracity of evidence to be presented over NATO's involvement in SYRIA! Obama continues to resist, or loose face completely..

    Just ask Can Dundar.... what he knows now and ask Obama to secure the release of Can Dundar's wife's passport, held for no legitimate reason in Turkey! This outrageous stand off, from Erdogan & Obama to address their failures and arrogant disrespect of Woman and her Legal Human Rights is Criminal.. & a Sickness of Mind that promotes Dictatorship!

    Mainstream Media - Fake News.. for quite some time!
    & Obama is guilty!

    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 09:4
    President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/09/trump-team-same-people-who-say-russia-meddled-in-election-said-iraq-had-wmds/#ixzz4SQWsDXpZ
    alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 09:1
    It's getting funny as Biden promised cyber attack on Russia weeks before Trump was elected .. due to Russian hackers?
    uptonogoode -> alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    Link?
    alexfoxy28 -> uptonogoode , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/721851/russia-joe-biden-obama-cyber-attack-war-clinton-putin-US-moscow

    or just google about it.

    ArtherOhm , 10 Dec 2016 08:5
    Is the USA, as author of windows software, really unable to prevent foreign hacking?

    Do the CIA never do anything like this?

    Do we actually have any evidence rather than just a lot of allegations?

    Shotcricket -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 09:0
    'Russia like to surprise' ?

    The one certainty of the US/EU led drive to remove an elected leader just in their 2nd year after an election that saw them gain 47% of the popular vote was the Russki response, its borders were immediately at open 'threat' from any alliance. NATO or otherwise, the deep sea ports of eastern Ukraine which had always been accessed by the Russki fleets would lose guaranteed access etc....to believe the West was surprised by this action, would be to assume the US Generals were as stupid as the US administration, they knew exactly the response of the Russkis & would have made no difference if their leader had been named Putin or Uncle Tom Cobbly.

    In some ways the Russkis partitioning of the East of Ukraine could well minimise the possibility of a world conflict as the perceived threat is neutralised by the buffer.

    The Russkis cyber doodah is no different to our own the US etc, they're all 'at it' & all attempt to inveigle the others in terms of making life difficult.....not too sure Putin will be quite as comfortable with the Pres Elects 3 Trumpeteers though as the new Pressie looks likely to open channels of communications but those negotiations might well see a far tougher stance......still, in truth, all is never fair in love or war

    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 08:4
    .....that the CIA is not only suddenly involved, but suddenly at the forefront, may well reflect President-elect Trump's stated policy intentions being far removed from those that the CIA has endorsed, and might be done with an eye toward undermining Trump's position in those upcoming policy battles.
    At the center of those Trump vs. CIA battles is Syria, as the CIA has for years pushed to move away from the ISIS war and toward imposing regime change in Syria. Trump, by contrast, has said he intends to end the CIA-Saudi program arming the Syrian rebels, and focus on fighting ISIS. Trump was even said to be seeking to coordinate anti-ISIS operations with Russia.
    The CIA allegations could easily imperil that plan, as so long as the allegations remain part of the public discourse, evidence or not, anything Trump does with respect to Russia is going to have a black cloud hanging over it.
    http://news.antiwar.com/2016/12/09/cia-claims-russia-intervened-to-get-trump-elected /
    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 08:3
    Oh dear Obama trolls? Food for your starved thoughts:

    Your degree of understanding IT is disturbing, especially given how dependent we are on it.

    This is all very simple. The process by which you find out if and how a machine was hacked was clearly documented in the Russian "Internet Audit", run by a group of Grey Hats.

    Grey Hats: People concerned about security who perform unauthorized hacks for relatively benign purposes, often just notifying people of how their system is flawed. IT staff have mixed reactions(!), the illegality is not disputed but the benefit of not being hit by a Black Hat first can be considerable at times. Differentiation is rare, especially as some hacktivist groups belong here, causing no damage beyond reputational by flagging activity that is not acceptable to the hacktivists.

    Black Hats: These are the guys to worry about. These include actually destructive hacktivists. These are the ones who steal data for malicious purposes, disrupt for malicious purposes and just generally act maliciously.

    Nothing in reports indicates if the DNC hack was Grey Hat or Black Hat, but it should be obvious that there is a difference.

    IP addresses and hangouts - worthless as evidence. Anyone can spoof the former, happens all the time (NMap used to provide the option, probably still does), Grey Hats and Black Hats alike have the latter and may break into other people's. It's all about knowing vulnerabilities.

    That voting machines were even on the Internet is disturbing. That they and the DNC server were improperly configured for such an environment is frightening - and possibly illegal.

    The standard sequence of events is thus:

    Network intrusion detector system identifies crafted packet attacking known vulnerability.
    In a good system, the firewall is set to block the attack at that instant.

    If the attacker scans the network, the only machine responding to such knocks should be a virtual machine running a honeypot on attractive-looking port numbers. The other machines in the zone should technically violate the RFCs by not responding to ICMP or generating recognized error codes on unused/blocked ports.

    The system logger picks up an event that creates a process that shouldn't be happening.
    In a good system, this either can't happen because the combination of permissions needed doesn't exist, or it doesn't matter because the process is root jailed and hasn't the privileges to actually do any harm.

    The file alteration logger (possibly Tripwire, though the Linux kernel can do this itself) detects that a process with escalated privileges is trying to create, delete or alter a file that it isn't supposed to be able to change.
    In a good system with mandatory access controls, this really is impossible. In a good system with logging file systems, it doesn't matter as you can instruct the filesystem to revert those specific alterations. Even in adequate but feeble systems, checkpoints will exist. No use in a voting system, but perfectly adequate for a campaign server. In all cases, the system logs will document what got damaged.

    The correct IT manager response is thus:
    Find out why the firewall wasn't defaulting to deny for all unknown sources and for unnecessary ports.
    Find out why the public-facing system wasn't isolated in the firewall's DMZ.
    Find out why NIDS didn't stop the attack.
    Non-public user mobility should be via IPSec using certificates. That deals with connecting from unknown IP addresses without exposing the innards of the system.
    Lock down misconfigured network systems.
    Backup files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt for forensic purposes.
    Revert files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt to last good version.
    Close permission loopholes. Everything should run with the fewest privileges necessary, OS included. On Linux, kernel permissions are controlled via capabilities.
    Establish from the logs if the intruder came through a public-facing application, an essential LAN service or a non-essential service.
    If it's a LAN service, block access to that service outside the LAN on the host firewall.
    Run network and host vulnerability scanners to detect potential attack vectors.
    Update any essential software that is detected as flawed, then rerun the scanners. Repeat until fixed.
    Now the system is locked down against general attacks, you examine the logs to find out exactly what failed and how. If that line of attack got fixed, good. If it didn't, then fix it.
    Password policy should prevent rainbow attacks, not users. Edit as necessary, lock accounts that aren't secure and set the password control system to ban bad passwords.

    It is impossible from system logs to track where an intruder came from, unsecured routers are common and that means a skilled attacker can divert packets to anywhere. You can't trust brags, in security nobody is honest. The sensible thing is to not allow such events in the first place, but when (not if) they happen, learn from them.

    GraemeHarrison , 10 Dec 2016 08:2
    If the USA is to investigate the effect of foreign governments 'corrupting' the free decisions of the American people in elections, perhaps they could look into the fact that for the past three decades every Republican candidate for president, after they have won the nomination of their party, has gone to just one foreign country to pledge their firm commitment/allegiance to that foreign power, for the purpose of shoring up large blocks of donors prior to the actual presidential election. The effect is probably more 'corrupting' than any leak of emails!
    SamSamson , 10 Dec 2016 08:2
    Obama should confess to creating ISIS, sustaining ISIS & utilising ISIS as a proxy army to have them do things that he knew US soldiers could never be caught doing!!!

    They then spoon fed you bullshit propaganda about who the bad guys were, without ever being to properly explain why the US armed forces were prevented from taking any hostile action against ISIS, until they were FORCED TO, that is, when Putin let the the cat out of the bag!!!

    LordTomnoddy , 10 Dec 2016 08:1
    Hilarious. One would've thought Obama of all presidents would be reluctant to delve too deeply into this particular midden. As the author of the weakest and most incompetent American foreign policy agenda since Carter's, it's much the likeliest that if China or Russia have been hacking US elections, then by far the biggest beneficiary will have been himself.
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 08:1
    Just another attempt to distract from realities, like:-

    From:[email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected] Date: 2015-05-28 12:12 Subject: Fwd: POLITICO Playbook

    cdm Begin forwarded message: > From: Lynn Forester de Rothschild <[email protected]> > Date: May 28, 2015 at 9:44:12 AM EDT > To: Nick Merrill <[email protected]>, "Cheryl Mills ([email protected])" <[email protected]> > Subject: FW: POLITICO Playbook > > Morning, > I am sure you are working on this, but clearly, the opposition is trying to undercut Hillary's reputation for honesty (the number one characteristic people look for in a President according to most polls) ..and also to benefit from an attack on wealth that Dems did the most to start I am sure we need to fight back against both of these attacks. > Xoxo > Lynn > > By Mike Allen (@mikeallen; [email protected]), and Daniel Lippman (@dlippman; [email protected]) > > > > QUINNIPIAC POLL, out at 6 a.m., "Rubio, Paul are only Republicans even close to Clinton": "In a general election, ... Clinton gets 46 percent of American voters to 42 percent for Paul and 45 percent of voters to 41 percent for Rubio." Clinton leads Christie 46-37 ... Huckabee 47-40 ... Jeb 47-37 ... Walker 46-38 ... Cruz 48-37 ... Trump 50-32. > > --"[V]oters say 53-39 percent that Clinton is NOT honest and trustworthy, but say 60-37 ... that she has strong leadership qualities. Voters are divided 48-47 ... over whether Clinton cares about their needs and problems." > > --RNC's new chart - "'Dead Broke' Clintons vs. Everyday Americans": "Check out the chart below to see how many households in each state it would take to equal the 'Dead Broke' Clintons." http://bit.ly/1Avg8iE

    Blind leading the Blind.. & Obama knows that very well after it was clear that Clinton was NEVER trusted by the Voters, which makes Debbie and the DNC look like a complete bunch of..

    Idiots?!?! STILL BLAMING The RUSSIANS.... instead of themselves!

    She was and always will be unelectable due to exceedingly poor judgement, across the board.

    Can we move on?

    Polly123456 , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Who is in charge of Internet security in the US government? Because it seems full of holes. Last time it was the Chinese and this time it's the Russians, yet not one piece of evidence to say where hacks have come from. How much are these world class Internet security people paid? And why do they still have a job? People sitting in their bedrooms on a pc from stores like staples have hacked their security regularly.
    AlexPeace , 10 Dec 2016 08:0

    In 2016, he said, the government did not detect any increased cyber activity on election day itself but the FBI made public specific acts in the summer and fall, tied to the highest levels of the Russian government. "This is going to put that activity in a greater context ... dating all the way back to 2008."

    Extremely vague. Seems like there is no evidence at all to suggest any Russian involvement, but they need to pretend otherwise. Blah, blah, blah, Weapons of mass destruction... Apollo mission, etc
    FMinus , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Ole, Russians exposed the DNC emails, we knew about that. I though this should investigate Russians vote rigging, but I guess not. I for once welcome anyone who hacks my government and exposes their skeletons, so I can see what kind of dirty garbage I had leading or potentially leading my country.

    Maybe the DNC should play fair and not dirty next time and put a candidate forward without skeletons that still reek of rotting flesh.

    Robert Stokes -> FMinus , 10 Dec 2016 08:3
    You rig electronic voting machines by reflashing the firmware or switching out the sd cards. Can't be done remotely.
    Baldrick Daacat , 10 Dec 2016 07:5
    And the CIA has never intervened in a foreign election?
    VibePit -> Baldrick Daacat , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Oh heaven forbid!! The Shah of Iran was democratically elected but of course. . .
    HeathCardwell , 10 Dec 2016 07:2
    Don't believe any of this at all.
    American has been thee most corrupt and disgusting western nation for decades, run by people who are now being shown for who they really are and they're shitting themselves big time. The stakes don't get higher than this.
    theonetruepainter , 10 Dec 2016 07:1
    What's the point of this?

    The American people don't want Clinton because she is a liar and a dangerous psychopath who also ignored the working people.

    If you want to change that, get her treatment. Don't try to undermine the election result.

    theonetruepainter , 10 Dec 2016 07:0
    How can you not respect Putin?

    He's spent the last few years making fools out of Clinton, Kerry and the obomber.

    If you didn't want him to let Crimea rejoin Russia, then you shouldn't have initiated the coup that broke up Ukraine.

    Peter Turner , 10 Dec 2016 07:0
    What a total load of double talk. There is zero integrity in anything CIA says or does since the weapons of mass destruction deal or before that it was the Iran Contra deal and before that it was the Bay of Pigs. Now we have this rigging os the election results based on zero evidence. The whole thing is just idiocy. What is Obama trying to achieve?The end game will be for Obama to go down in history as ... let's just say he is not the smartest tool in the shed when it comes to being a so called world leader. Well done Obama you have now completely trashed what is left of your legacy.
    LondonLungs , 10 Dec 2016 06:5

    "CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election – report "

    You might as well ask accountants to do a study on wether it's worthwhile to use an accountant. Part of the CIAs job is to influence elections around the world to get US-Corporation friendly gov'ts in to power. So yes of course they are going to say that a gov't can influence elections, if they said otherwise then they'd be admitting they're wasting money.

    Ted Reading Reading 10 Dec 2016 06:3
    So, it was the Russians! I knew it must've been them, they're so sneaky. All HFC had was the total backing of the entire establishment, including prominent Republican figures, the total fawning support of the entire main-stream media machine which carefully controlled the "she's got a comfortable 3 point lead maybe even double-digit lead" narrative and the "boo and hiss" pantomime slagging of her opponent. Plus the endless funds from the crooked foundation and murderous fanatics from the compliant Gulf states, and lost. But hey, do keep this going please, it'll help the Trumpster get a second term! Trump/Nugent 2020.
    righteousfist01 , 10 Dec 2016 06:2
    It's possible the Russians hacked and released the documents. However the report is not saying the Russians created them.

    So whatever was so deplorable about them was all Democrat

    Nataliefreeman -> righteousfist01 , 10 Dec 2016 06:3
    Good point. Add that the whole election was dogged is the most glaring media bias and suddenly Russia comes off as simply leveling the playing field a bit
    12inchPianist , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    CIA finds Russia had covertly influenced election. CIA finds FBI had overtly influenced election. Fancy that!
    ashleigh2 , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    The 'secret' enquiry reported to Congress that the CIA concludes etc, etc, etc. Then yet more revelations from 'anonymous sources' are quoted in the Washington Post and The New York Times reaching the same conclusions.....talk about paranoia, or are the Democrats guilty of news fakery of the highest order to deny the US voters....
    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 05:5
    Ooh Obama...there's a little snag about this investigation.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S. even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    Bosula , 10 Dec 2016 05:5
    How about a Presidential review covering US interference in the elections of countries around the world?
    Paulare -> Bosula , 10 Dec 2016 06:2
    But where to start?

    UK, Australia, Chile, Nicoragua, Cuba, Philippines, Malaysia, Germany...?

    such choice..

    Bosula -> Paulare , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Yes. Maybe do it on a regional basis across the globe.
    Anarchy4theUK , 10 Dec 2016 05:4
    Of course the Americans would never interfere in other people's elections would they?...........I imagine the Russians wanted to avoid a nuclear war with war monger Hilary & who can blame them?
    Nataliefreeman -> Anarchy4theUK , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    Y'know really all they seem to be looking possibly guilty of is the wikileaks scandal. Compare that to the enormous media bias regarding Trump and suddenly the Russians at worst come off as evening the playing field so as to help an election be less biased...
    Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 05:4
    When certain members of the public would believe one man over those who have more intelligence in a follicle than he will ever have floating in his cranium is when you realise that a place like Guantanamo should exist, exclusively for them.
    http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/surprise-cost-of-ammo-for-us-navy-destroyers-new-guns-800000-a-shot-161114?news=859762
    Newmacfan , 10 Dec 2016 05:3
    Paranoia about Russia has arrived at the laughable, almost like the fable of the boy who cried wolf! Even the way the CIA statement is worded makes you smile. "silk purse sows ear"? Everyone is clutching at straws rather than looking down the barrel at the truth......that folks is what is missing from Western Politics......"The Truth" --
    StephenO , 10 Dec 2016 04:3

    Obama expected the review to be completed before he leaves office...

    Really?? Obama wants a "deep review" of internet activities surrounding the elections of 2008, 2012, and 2016; and he wants this done in less than 40 days? And it encompasses voting stations throughout the 50 states? That's the definition of political shenanigans.

    Dom Michaels -> pureist , 10 Dec 2016 04:3
    Seeing as how the CIA interfered with Ukraine before and during the overthrow of Yanukovich, and with Moscow protests a few years ago...... seems like everyone is always trying to interfere with each-other. Hypocrisy abounds
    MarkThomason , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    This is not really a fight against Trump. That is lost. This is an intramural fight among Democrats.

    This is desperate efforts by the corporate Democrats to hang on to power after Hillary (again) lost.

    Excuses. Allegations without sources given, anonymous.

    Remember that the same people used the same media contacts to spread fake news that the Podesta leaks were faked, and tried to shift attention from what was revealed to who revealed it.

    GuyCybershy -> MarkThomason , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Agreed. Another reason why the Democratic party is not worth saving. 13 million voted for Sanders in the primary, that is enough to start a new party.
    Fabr1s , 10 Dec 2016 03:4
    if the Ruskies did it, there's something funny: they did it on Obama's watch and her protege, Hillary, lost it. The system is a real mess in this case.

    Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 03:4
    Read and research further...
    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national
    GeoffP -> Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Interesting link. It raises a particularly salient question: assuming the Russians did indeed do it - and after the whole CIA yellow cake thing in Iraq, no one could possibly doubt national intelligence agencies any more - does it particularly matter?

    Did the Russians write the emails? The betrayal of Sanders, the poor protection on classified materials, the cynical, vicious nonsense spewed out by the HRC campaign, the media collusion with the DNC and HRC: did the Russians do these things too? Or was that Clinton and the DNC? Silly question, I'm sure.

    sejong -> jcadams , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    Russia's competence with computer hacking and cyber espionage is a given

    So what? What about Chinese or Israeli competence in these areas?

    This is Fake News that exists only because Clinton lost.

    The real news is about in competence by HRC, DWS, and the DNC in foisting a sure loser on American voters.

    naomh -> sejong , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    Thank you for speaking the truth!!!!
    GeoffP -> jcadams , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Well, chief, the Wisconsin recount is in and the results are staggering: after the recount, Clinton has gained on Trump by 3 votes... and Trump gained on Clinton by a heady six votes. One begins to wonder at the 'Manchurian candidate' claim.
    third_eye , 10 Dec 2016 03:3
    It is precisely charades like this that millions in the US and around the world have given up on the establishment. Business as usual or rather lying as usual will only alienate more not-so-stupid citizens. It speaks volumes about their desperation that they're are actually employing such obviously infantile tactics on the Russia even as they continue to paper over Hillary's tattered past. The result of the investigation is totally predictable..................Yes, the Russians were involved in hacking the elections, but..........for reasons of national security, details of the investigative process and evidence cannot be revealed.
    Longleveler , 10 Dec 2016 03:2
    If the Russians really wanted Trump to win that means they helped Hillary win the Democratic primaries because Bernie would have beat Trump.. There was a mess of hanky-panky going on to defeat Bernie, and deflecting the blame to a foreign actor should keep the demonstrators off the streets.
    If someone is gullible enough to believe the Russians did it they'd also believe that Elvis made Bigfoot hack the DNC. That's even more plausible since bigfoot is just a guy who spends so much time sitting at his computer he lost all interest in personal hygiene.
    Will D , 10 Dec 2016 03:1
    The Democrats are really desperate to find anything they can use to challenge the results of the election.

    Either way they look foolish - openly investigating the possibility of Russian hacking which acknowledges that their electoral systems aren't well secured, OR look really foolish if they find anything (whether real or faked).

    The big question now is if, and how much, they will fake the findings of the investigation so that they can declare the election results wrong, and put Clinton into the White House.

    Clearly, it is a case of desperate times calling for desperate measures. It is incredible that one man can make the largest Western nation look so ridiculous in the eyes of the world.

    madeiranlotuseater , 10 Dec 2016 02:4
    Pot calling the kettle black. Reveal fully what the CIA get up to all over the planet. The phoney intel America has used to go to war causing countries to implode. The selective way they release information to project the picture they want. I am not convinced that Russia is any better or any worse than the USA.
    onofabeach , 10 Dec 2016 02:3
    I can understand the Russians wanting Obama in 2008 and 2012 because he is a weak leader and totally incompetent.

    I can also understand Putin preferring DJT to HRC.

    It's about time the planet settled down a little bit, Trump and Putin will do more for world peace in the next year than Obama achieved in his 8 wasted years in charge.

    The Democrats have yet to realise the reason for their demise was not the racists, the homophobes, the KKK, the Deplorables, the misogynists, the xenophobes etc etc etc.

    It was Hillary Clinton.

    Get over it, move on, stop whining, get out of your safe room, put the puppy down, throw the play dough away, stop protesting, behave like an adult.

    As much as I am enjoying the monumental meltdown of the left, it is getting sad now and I am starting to feel very sorry for you.

    BoBiel , 10 Dec 2016 02:2
    Georgia Says Someone in U.S. Government Tried to Hack State's Computers Housing Voter Data

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/georgia-reports-attempt-to-hack-states-election-database-via-ip-address-linked-to-homeland-security-1481229960

    http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-12-08/georgia-accuses-us-of-trying-to-hack-its-election-systems

    123Akava , 10 Dec 2016 02:1
    What a sad bunch of clowns. But the time is ripe. You and your sort are done Obama, Hillary Clinton, Juncker, Merkel, Hollande, Mogherini, Kerry, Tusk, Nuland, Albright, Breedlove, SaManThe Power and the rest of the reptiles. With all respect - mwuahahaha! - you will soon sink into the darkness of the darkest places of history, but you won't be forgotten, no you won't!
    poppetmaster , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    The Democrats still don't understand that the problem in American politics is everything that happened BEFORE election day.

    How can you worry about the ballot boxes when the entire process from beginning to end is utterly corrupt.

    CarlHansen , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    As for the Podesta email. John Podesta was so stupid that he gave out his password in a simple email scam that any 8 year old kid could have conducted. I wouldn't be surprised if Assange did it himself. Assange will be celebrating at the demise of Hillary.
    phobeophobe , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    Guys! Your side lost the election. Get over it & stop looking for excuses.

    I don't think it was the Russians, it was just a lot of people got sick of being told what to think & how to behave by your side of politics.

    It is because people who disagree with you are either ignored, shut-down or called names with weaponised words such as "racist, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, islamophobe, you name it. You go out onto the streets chanting mindless slogans aimed at shutting down debate. You have infiltrated academia and no journalism graduate comes out of a western univerity without a 60 degree lean to the left. People of alternative views to what is now the dominant social paradigm are not permitted to speak at universities. Once they were the vanguard of dangerous ideas. Now they are just sheep pens.

    You have infiltrated the mainstream media so of course people need to go to Info Wars, Breitbart & Project Veritas to get the other side to your one-sided argument.

    Your side of politics has regulated the very words we speak so that we can't even express a thought anymore without being chanted down, or shut down, prosecuted or sued.

    There was once a time when it was the left who spoke up for freedom of speech. It was the left who demanded that a man be judged by the content of his character & not the color of his skin & it was once the right who used to be worried about the Russians taking over our institutions.

    Have a look at yourselves. Look at what you've become. You've stopped being the guardians of freedom & now you have become the very anti-freedom totalitarians you thought you were campaigning against.

    Bleating about the "popular vote" doesn't cut it either. That's like saying, the other side scored more goals than us but we had possession of the ball more times. It is sad for you but it is irrelevant.

    Trump won the election! Get over it!

    Let's see what sort of job he does before deciding what to do next.

    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 01:5
    News flash for all the obamabots:

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S. even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 01:3
    Joe Biden unwittingly gave the game up when he spoke to the press with indignation of the Russian hacks. The US would respond in kind with a covert cyber operation run by the CIA First of all it would be the NSA, not the CIA Secondly, it's not covert when you tell the press! Oh Joe, you really let the Obama administration down with that gaffe! Who would believe them now? A lot of people it would seem. Mainly those still reeling from an election they were so vested in
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 01:2
    Unfortunately our media has lost all credibility.
    For years we were told it was necessary to remove the dictator Assad in Syria. The result, a country destroyed, migrant crisis that fuelled Brexit and brought EU to its knees.
    Now they are going to sell the 'foreign entities decided the US election'.
    It's just a sad situation
    GuyCybershy -> fedback , 10 Dec 2016 01:2
    Syria has been destroyed because Western client states in the Middle East wanted this to happen. Assad had a reasonably successful secular government and our medieval gulf state allies felt. threatened by his regime. there was the little business of a pipeline, but of course that would be called a "conspiracy theory".
    SomersetApples , 10 Dec 2016 01:1
    If Obama has resources to spend on investigations, he should be investigating why the US is providing guided missiles to the terrorist in Syria. We had such great hopes for him, and he has proved to be totally useless as a president. Rather than giving us leadership and guidance he is looking under his bed for spooks. Just another example of his incompetence at a time when we needed leadership.

    Looking for proof of espionage will be like trying to prove a negative and only result in a possible or at best a likely type of result for no purpose. It would just be another case of an unsupported accusation being thrown about.

    Facing up to the question of who is supplying weapons to terrorist would require the courage to take on the Military Industrial Complex and he hasn't got it. Trump will be different.

    ID3053875 , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    If the russians did interfere in the USA elections perhaps is a bit of poetic justice.
    The USA has interfere in Latin America for over hundred years and they have given us Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, Noriega, Pinochet, Duvaliers , military juntas in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Streener in Paraguay to name a few. They all were narcissists, racists and insecure. The american people love this type of leader now they got him in the white house may be from Russia with love. Empires get destroyed from within, look at Little Britain now, maybe the same will happen soon in the USA.
    Viva China , is far from Latin America
    nbk46zh , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    So if the US managed to somehow get rid of Russia and China, what would they do then? How would it justify hundreds of billions in defense spending? Just remember, the US military industry desperately needs an external enemy to exist. Without it, there is no industry.
    ID5151903 , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    No I disagree. I don't think it was a conpriscy. It was just decades of misinformation, lies, usually perpertrated by our esteemed foreign minister. The man is a buffoon , liar and incompetent. It is quite amusing to see how inept, Incompotent and totally unsuited this man child is to public office.
    PullingTheStrings , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    Good to see alot of Americans on here back into Mccarthyism/Paranoia/scapegoating/Witch hunting/Propaganda.
    smellycat , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    Clinton's 'Russia did it' cop-out
    https://off-guardian.org/2016/12/09/clintons-russia-did-it-cop-out /
    prairdog , 10 Dec 2016 00:4
    Why should we trust US intelligence which is essentially US propaganda?
    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 00:3
    Another red herring that smacks of desperation. The final death throes of a failed administration. These carefully chosen words reveal a lot. The email leaks were "consistent with the methods and motivations" of Russian hackers. In layman's terms its the equivalent of saying "we haven't got a clue who it was but it's the kind of thing they would probably do". Don't expect a smoking gun because it doesn't exist, otherwise we would have known about it by now.
    PostTrotskyite -> DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 00:3
    It's not just the US who has accused Putin of meddling in their domestic affairs. Germany and the UK have made the same allegations. Are they wrong too?
    DanielDee -> PostTrotskyite , 10 Dec 2016 00:5
    I think anyone with reasonable intelligence would take each accusation on a case by case basis. There is no doubt that Russia conducts cyber operations, as the US and UK and Germany does. There is also little doubt that significant Russophobia exists, particularly since the failed foreign attempt of regime change in Syria that was thwarted by Russia. On that last point many citizens of the West are coming to the realisation that a secular government in Syria is preferable to one run by jihadists installing crude sharia law (Libya was certainly a lesson). Furthermore, if Hillary Clinton had succeeded one dreads to think of the consequences of her no-fly-zone plans. Thankfully she didn't succeed, no doubt in part to wikileaks revelations, who for the record stated that did not result from Russian hacks
    sejong , 10 Dec 2016 00:2
    Fake News is mass gaslighting, removing any sense of what is real. Biggest psy-op ever.
    gondwanaboy , 10 Dec 2016 00:1
    Barack Obama orders 'full review' of possible Russian hacking in US election


    FAKE NEWS ALERT

    JCDavis -> gondwanaboy , 10 Dec 2016 00:2
    They already stated their conclusions, now they have to find evidence.
    Yodasyodel , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Hows the election recount going? You know the one this paper kept going on about a few weeks ago in Wisconsin that was supposed to be motivated by "Russian Hacking" in the election? Not very well but you have gone quiet. Also I see the Washington Post has been forced to backtrack for implying news outlets like Breitbart are Russian controlled on the advice of their own lawyers....after all calling someone a Russian agent without a shred of evidence is seriously libellous and they know it. Russian agents to blame yeah ok Obama no doubt the Easter Bunny will be next in your sights you fraud.
    Wilderloo , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Look no further than Hillarys private server. Classified information sent and received and Obam was part of it. Obama is a liar and a fraud who is now blaming the Russians for crooked Hillarys loss.
    SUNLITE , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Feed the flames of the war mongers that want Russia and Putin to be our bogeyman.Feed the military industrial complex more billions.The U.S. Defense budget is already 10 times that of Russia ,feed NATO already on Russia's boarder with tanks ,troops and heavy weapons.i did expect more from this pres,... The lies ,mis information and propaganda has worked so well since the end of WW2,upon a public who has been fed those lies {and is to busy with sports ,gadgets,games, alcohol and other drugs }for 70 yrs by a compliant,for profit lap dog media more interested in producing infotainment and profits than supplying information..If you don't think the "public" isn't very poorly informed and will believe anything ,..just look at who the next prez will be..
    GuyCybershy -> SUNLITE , 10 Dec 2016 00:0
    I don't think it's true that Trump voters were less informed than Clinton voters. The public knows that they all lie, they simply choose the one who's lies most appeal to them.
    Alexander Bach , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Did he also order to investigate the Clinton's deeds revealed by the 'hackers'?
    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    Unfortunately Obama is not leaving office with dignity.
    This action is another attempt to delegitimize the election of Trump. We already have the recount farce going on.
    If Republicans had tried to delegitimize the election of Obama we know what the reaction from media would have been. An outcry against antidemocratic and racist behaviour
    USApatriot12 , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    The corporate media is so predictable at this point. The news cranks up the anti-Russia hysteria while the guys over in entertainment roll out a slick fantasy about anti-Nazi resistance. It all adds up to a big steaming pile of crap but you hope it will push enough buttons to keep the citizens chained to their their desks for another quarter. Don't bet on it. As a great American said at another time of upheaval, you can't fool everyone forever...
    GuyCybershy -> USApatriot12 , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    We're supposed to condemn "white nationalism" in The US and UK while supporting it in Ukraine.
    GeeDeeSea -> GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 23:4
    That's not all. We in US and UK are supposed to condemn jihadists in Iraq while supporting them Syria.
    James7 -> Eddy Cannella , 9 Dec 2016 23:2
    Hillary? Although I would lean to more "Grey."

    Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
    Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.

    Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.

    Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.

    As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
    chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."

    raymondffoulkes , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    So it's anti-Russia propaganda today again, all over the Guardian as well as everywhere else.

    I daresay they have a few things (perhaps a tad more important than football and athletics) to say about us as well..

    smellycat -> raymondffoulkes , 9 Dec 2016 23:2
    Sour grapes at the liberation of Aleppo and their loss of face.
    I'm surprised they haven't started asking about the missing 250K civilians,who must even now be languishing in Assad's dungeons.
    Keeping that one for tomorrow probably.
    nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    When Cheney used the terror alert levels to keep the US population in the constant state of fear, the Democrats denounced it as fear mongering. Now they're embracing the same tactics in the constant demonization of Russia. Look, it's raining today! Russia must be trying to control the weather in the US! Get them! Utterly ridiculous.
    stegordon21 , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    The US has been the most bloodthirsty, aggressive nation in my lifetime. Where the US goes we obediently follow. Yet as Obama (7 countries he's bombed in his presidency, not bad for a Nobel Prize Winner) continues to circle Russia with NATO on their borders. We're continually spun headline news that Russia is the aggressor and is continually meddling in foreign affairs. We are the aggressors, we are the danger to ourselves and it's we who are run by megalomaniac elites who pump us full of fear and propaganda.
    nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    Malicious cyberactivity... has no place in international community... No? When West does it, then it's for democratic purposes? But invading countries on a humanitarian pretense does? So Democrats are still looking to blame Russia for everything not going their way I see. This rhetoric didn't work for Clinton in the election and it won't now. Stop with this nonsense
    GuyCybershy -> nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    There wasn't a lot of outrage about the use of the "stuxnet" virus against Iran. You see, when we do it is always for a good cause.

    Paulare , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    Take the long view folks.

    The Egyptian Empire lasted millenum,
    The Greek and Roman Empires a thousand years, give or take.
    The Holy Roman Empire centuries.
    The British and French circa 200 years.
    The USSR about 70, the USA 70 and counting

    This is just the cyclical death throes of empires played out at ever increasing speed before our very eyes.

    DexDex , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    5 articles abut Russia, again. This is the Russia interference in the Guardian. Putin must be stopped.
    Earl_Grey -> DexDex , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    NATO has bought a subscription to the Guardian
    TonyBlunt , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    Is all this hoohaa the BBC and the Guardian trying to get some revenge for the Russian liberating East Aleppo?
    TheIPAResistance , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    This is exactly why we should never move to electronic voting. Can you imagine the lengths the IPA would go to ensure their men security the power they need to roll out their neoliberal agenda? As a tax-free right wing think tank composed of rich like Rinehart, Murdoch, Forrest, et al. the sky's the limit.
    Anthony1152 , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    The five stages of dealing with psychological trauma: Anger, Denial, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Hillary and the Democrats are still at stage one and two. Obama is only beginning stage one as events dawn on him.
    TheCharacteristicEquation 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    I really do feel the established media and its elite hierarchy are vexed by both the Trump victory and Brexit here in the UK. Now the media attention turns to a report on another of its perpetual campaigns, namely Russia, and corruption in sport.

    I'm not going to doubt the 'findings', but I know humans are corrupt ALL over the world, but it does strike me that no Western outlet, ever prints anything positive about Russia. I mean - nothing, zero!

    dallasdunlap , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    If, indeed, the Russian government gathered the DNC and Podesta info released by Wikileaks, the Russians did the American people a favor by pulling back the curtain on behind the scenes scheming by Clinton campaign potentates.
    Of course, I don't believe the Democratic claim that Clinton lost the election because of the Russians and the FBI.
    GuyCybershy -> dallasdunlap , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    Podesta's password was "p@ssword". Inexcusable carelessness.
    smellycat , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Nothing wrong with a bit of regime change now and then, so we've been told. No good crying when the Russians do it to you.
    sammy3110 , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    It's instructive to see the Guardian drag up Reagan's "Evil Empire" spiel, but only after Hillary lost.
    GeeDeeSea , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    US backed a coup, or set up a coup, to overthrow the democratically elected government in Ukraine which led to war. Putin's payback seems fully justified.
    theenko -> GeeDeeSea , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    sweet fucking jesus

    Yanukovych is a disgrace to Ukrainian's everywhere and a traitor to his country. Fucking Putin puppet should be in jail.

    GeeDeeSea -> theenko , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    sweet fucking jesus

    Porshenko is a disgrace to Ukrainian's everywhere and a traitor to his country. Fucking Obama puppet should be in jail.

    Earl_Grey , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Oh my, a foreign country may have had a tiny influence on a US Election.

    How about investigating the overthrow of the Democratically elected Govt in Ukraine, or the influence the US has had on the Syrian Govt, or even in Australia, where the Chinese Govt donates massive amounts of money to Political Parties (note, there's no link of course between Chinese Govt donations and Chinese Companies being able to buy most of Australia and employ Chinese Nationals in Australia on Chinese conditions and 500,000 Chinese Nationals being able to buy Real Estate in Sydney alone... none whatsoever).

    bcnteacher , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Good call! Something is fishy about the US electoral system.
    COReilly , 9 Dec 2016 22:2
    I'm not a policy or think tank wonk, but isn't Russia just a euphemism for China. Aren't their geopolitical interests linked. You just say Russia because China has us by the financial balls (I'm sure the Guardian would prefer to NOT be censored on the mainland) right? Package it that way and I'm on board. My love of Dostoevsky goes out the window. Albeit I still think Demons one of the best novels ever written. Woke me up.
    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    Survivor of Bosnian sniper fire Hillary Clinton decries fake news in speech yesterday
    Aaron Aarons , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    I'm all in favor of delegitimizing the incoming semi-fascist Trump/Pence regime, and find Obama's talk of a smooth transition disgusting. However, I reject the appeal to Russophobia or other Xenophobia.

    BTW, Obama and his collaborators like Diane Feinstein have done a lot to prepare the legal basis for fascistic repression under the new POtuS.

    Sund Fornuft , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    I already know what the comission will find. They will find evidences that Iraq holds vast ammonúnt of weapons of mass destruction! Oh wait, that was already used.
    kalander , 9 Dec 2016 22:0
    Obama has been as useless as his predecessor young Bush. His policies generally are in tatters and the US neo cons evil fantasy of full spectrum dominance has met its death in Syria. Bravo.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 22:0
    The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power.

    The fight goes on.

    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    After an election cycle with proven collusion between the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign and our media, our media has the nerve to come up with the term 'fake news'.
    Hypocrisy at its finest
    John Urquhart , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Nobody does paranoia like the yanks. To the rest of the world, the unedifying spectacle of the world's biggest bullies, snoops, warmongers, liars and hypocrites complaining about how unfair life is, is pretty nauseating. Most of America's problems are home-grown.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Why fake the news when you can just strong the media companies into muzzling their criticism?

    http://nypost.com/2016/12/09/mika-brzezinski-says-clinton-camp-tried-to-pull-her-off-the-air /

    mjp3470 , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    And the final report will conclude with something along the lines of:
    'After a thorough, exhaustive investigation of all relevant evidence concerning the potential of foreign interference in the United States electoral process, the results of the investigation have shown that, although there remain troubling questions about the integrity of U.S. cyber-security which should prompt immediate Congressional review, there has been uncovered no conclusive evidence to support the conjecture that cyber attacks originating with any foreign actor, state or individual had any significant effect on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election, and that there is no cause or justification for the American People to question the fairness of or lose faith in the electoral process and laid out by and carried out according to the Constitution.'
    I do Holiday cards too.
    garenmel -> mjp3470 , 9 Dec 2016 22:2
    My hat off to you sir/madam. This was great!
    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Georgia's Secretary of State is accusing someone at the Department of Homeland Security of illegally trying to hack its computer network, including the voter registration database.
    In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, copied to the full Georgia congressional delegation, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp alleges that a computer with a DHS internet address attempted to breach its systems.
    http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/309530-state-of-georgia-allegedly-accusing-homeland-security-of-attempted-hack

    Wake up and smell the BS, the hacking is being done by people a lot nearer home.....

    feliciafarrel , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Oh dear, the GOP seem to have forgotten what they were saying about Putin and the Kremlin a short while back:

    The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.

    https://www.gop.com/platform/american-exceptionalism/

    Are they going to conveniently forget all decency and morality? Is the white supremacist agenda in the GOP finally in the ascendant?

    Russian Troll (Number 254) 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    I as a Russian Troll do not like this investigation and will do or say anything in order to change your mind. Putin is not a problem, the EU is.
    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    ..... prohibiting "fake" or "false" news would be a cure worse than the disease, i.e., censorship by other means. The government cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because it has ulterior motives. News the government dislikes would be conflated with fakery, and news the government approved would be conflated with truthfulness. Private businesses like Facebook cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because its overriding mission is to make money and to win popularity, not to spread truth. It would suppress news that risked injury to its reputation or profits but leave news that did the opposite undisturbed.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/5/reflections-fake-news /
    GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    "The Anonymous Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying".

    http://www.alternet.org/media/anonymous-blacklist-promoted-washington-post-has-shocking-roots-ukrainian-fascism-eugenics-and

    GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    Clinton lost even though she outspent Trump two to one. She was just a lousy candidate who ran a terrible campaign.
    fimbulvinter -> GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Uh excuse me but that sort of introspection doesn't fly. She was flawless and the blame rests solely on Russia/alt-right/Sanders/Third Parties/Racism/Misogyny/Alignment of the stars/etc/etc
    emilyadam , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I thnk the idea that russia has world domination is quite laughable, what else they gonna be blamed for next, reduction of giraffe population!Lol
    I think a teeny wee paranoia is setting in, or outright deliberate propaganda, too obvious
    Jim Moodie , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around.

    The CIA hacks have been destabalisuping Government for a at least seventy years.

    One thing is pretty obvious paper ballots and a different ballot for each is much harder to rig.

    It is ironic it takes a despot life key Trump to bring the issue to a head AFTER unexpectedly won.

    freeandfair -> Jim Moodie , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    "Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around."

    The CIA were caught hacking into the US Congressional computers just 6 or so months ago. Nothing came out of it.

    guest88888 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3

    possible Russian hacking in US election

    Based on the fact that the US 2000 (and possibly 2004) election was outright stolen by George Bush Jr., perhaps the propagandists in the White House and media ought to be looking for a "Russian connection" in regards to our illustrious former president.

    Texas_Sotol , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I'm shocked--shocked--to hear that our close Russian allies have done anything to influence and undermine the stability of other countries. Preposterous accusation! And to try to become huge winners in the Western Hemisphere, by cheating? Vitriolic nonsense!

    Many posters here actually believe that Good Old Russia should just stick with what they do best. That's poison!

    Fencewalker -> Bluebird101 , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Rather like the Litvenenko inquiry...full of maybe's and possibilities, with not a shred of hard, factual proof shown - demonstrating that the order came from the Kremlin.
    It's just a total accident that Putin's most vocal opponents keep getting shot in the head, gunned down on bridges, suffering 'accidents' or strange miscarriages of (sometimes post-mortem) 'justice' and fall victim to radiological state-enacted terrorism in foreign countries. No pattern there, whatsoever.
    Informed17 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I am at a loss. On the one hand, I hear about Russian economy in tatters, gas station posing as a country, deep crisis, economy the size of Italy, rusty old military toys, aircraft carrier smoking out the whole Northern hemisphere, etc. On the other hand, I hear about Russian threat all the time, which must be countered by massive build up of the US and EU military, Russia successfully interfering in the elections in the beacon of democracy, the US, with 20 times greater economy, with powerful allies, the best armed forces in the world, etc. Are we talking about two different Russias, or is this schizophrenia, pure and simple?
    jamese07uk -> Informed17 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    It's always easy to find reasons to fear something, added to that the psychology of the unknown, and we have the makings of very powerful propaganda. Whatever Russia's level of corruption, and general society, I feel I cannot trust the Western media anymore 100%. There seems to be a equally sinister hidden agenda deep within Western Elites - accessing Russia's land, political and potential wealthly resources must surely be one of them!? The longterm Western agenda/mission?
    spiridonovich , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    The Democratic Party's problem is Russia, which the President is rightly putting front and center. All Russians are the summit of eviality, and must be endlessly scapegoated in order for Democrats to regain power for the nation's greater good.

    Democrats' problems have nothing to do with corruption, glaring conflicts of interest, favoritism, ass-licking editors, crappy data, lacking enthusiasm, and horribly poor judgement.

    None of these issues need to be publicly addressed, being of no consequence to independent voters, and the President, Guardian, et al. must continue their silent -- and "independent" -- vigil on such silly topics, if Democrats are to have any hope of cultivating enough mindless, enraged, and abandoned sheep to bring them future victories.

    ImmortalTao , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    I admire Trump, Putin & Farage. Don't agree with them but I have admiration for them. They show all the cunning, calculating, resourcefulness that put the European race on top. Liberals don't like that and want to see the own people fall to the bottom. Thankfuly the neoliberal elite are finishedm
    MJMaguire , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    Absurd nonsense - the third anti-Russian story of the day. Very little of this has much traction because of the sheer volume of misinformation coming out about Russia. there are very good cogent reasons why the Democrats lost the US election - none of them have anything to do with Russia.
    slats7 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    another pathetic attempt to delegitimize Trump. wanna know why he won? look in the mirror, Barry.
    oldsunshine -> slats7 , 9 Dec 2016 21:2
    Will Obama see Clinton if he looks in the mirror??
    Bluejil , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    I can't see a thing wrong with reviewing the last three election cycles, if there is any doubt at all and to put speculation to bed, it should be done.
    CurtBrown -> Bluejil , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    Why stop at the last three?
    Karl Marks -> CurtBrown , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Because the US is more concerned about money than democratic integrity.
    dicksonator , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    So the US intelligence servies aren't doing similar operations?

    If they werent, heads would roll as they have a considerable budget. Did we learn nothing from Edward Snowden? Are Russia just better at this? I doubt it.

    I think both sides conduct themselves in a despicable manner so please dont call me a Putin apologist. Well, feel free actually, I could'nt care less.

    gray2016 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0

    Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election


    US interference:

    COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Comments
    VIETNAM l960-75 Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
    CUBA l961 CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
    GERMANY l961 Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
    LAOS 1962 Military buildup during guerrilla war.
    142 more rows

    Shall I go on with anoter 142? US lying scumbags

    yeCarumba -> gray2016 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    the vietnam fiasco alone is enough to disqualify america from any criticism about interference in internal affairs
    they practically destroyed the country
    KitKnightly , 9 Dec 2016 20:5
    The pathetic way the media are pushing this big-bad-Russians meme is a little depressing.

    This "hack" is totally fictional, the wikileaks e-mails were almost certainly that...leaks. As most o their output has been over the years. For 95% of the Wikileaks existence there have been absolutely zero connections with "the Kremlin", in fact they have leaked stuff damaging to Russia before now.

    The Russian's did not hack the DNC, or rig the election, this is yet another example of the political establishment hysterically pointing fingers and making up lies when their chosen side loses an election.

    freeandfair -> KitKnightly , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I remember how North Korea was blamed for Sony hack. I think they were even cut from the internet for a day and there was all this talk of punishing them. And then later it came out that very likely wasn't North Korea. Only the news cycle already moved on and nobody cared.
    mismeasure , 9 Dec 2016 20:5
    Traditionally, the best Cold Warriors have been right-wing liberals. In the absence of policies that concretely benefit the people they engage in threat inflation and demagoguery.
    SergeyL , 9 Dec 2016 20:4
    In 90s US set all figures in Russia - from president to news program anchor. Elections of 96 were ripped by American "advisors" so that Eltsyn with 3% rating "won" them. It's payback time.
    Shaemus Gruagain , 9 Dec 2016 20:4
    Oh how wonderful it is to watch them smart and the bonus? no more Obamas.
    uest88888 -> PeteCW , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    And yet the so-called "Russian trolls" (which is apparently anyone who exercise a modicum of skepticism) seem to be winning here at CiF based on the number of likes per comment, which is likely why the NSA sponsored propagandists and clueless dopes are getting so increasingly shrill.
    Mattster101 , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    If you take a wider view, this is all really about keeping the Dems in the game, trying to undo the Trump validity and give them another go in 4 or so years. Really, seems quite desperate that a man that allowed 270000 wild horses to be sold for horsemeat this year across the border to Mexico, brought HC in to his own cabinet having said 'she will say anything and do nothing', knowing what a nightmare that would make, and is going to watch his healthcare get ripped to shreds, needs more accomplishments in his last year, aka Obama, ergo, let's investigate the evil russians and their female athletes with male DNA ( you would think I am making this stuff up, but I am not ) ... Come on Grandma, where are you when we need you most
    nolongersilent , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    we must somehow, subvert the despicable populace that elected trump. we must erase from history the conceding of president elect clinton - newpeak from the ministry of truth. we'll get her into the white house if it takes more cash, lies, and corruption. after all, who needs democracy in the democratic party when we have big brother. democracy just confuses the members. we'll send the despicables through the ministry of love to re-educate them, of course, this IS 1984 after all....we will vote for you, the intelligentsia of the left knows what is best for you.
    eldudeabides , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    Should Hillary have been disqualified (and prosecuted) for having access to debate questions beforehand?
    Nete75 , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    "Malicious cyber activity, specifically malicious cyber activity tied to our elections , has no place in the international community. Unfortunately this activity is not new to Moscow. We've seen them do this for years ... The president has made it clear to President Putin that this is unacceptable."

    Note how carefully it specifies that it is cyber activity tied to the american elections that is inappropriate. I presume that is simply to avoid openly saying that mass-surveillance by the US government of everyone's private email, and social network accounts doesn't come under that "no place in the international community" phrase. You know, one does wonder how these people's faces don't come off in shame when whinning about potential interference by foreign governemnts after a full 8 years or so of constant revelations of permanent spying and mass-surveillance by the US government of international leaders and ordinary citizens worldwide.

    Boghaunter , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    So the DNC was hacked - so what. Hacking is so common these days as to be expected. A quick perusal of the internet provides some SIGNIFICANT hacks that deserved some consternation:

    9/4/07 The Chinese government hacked a noncritical Defense Department computer system in June, a Pentagon source told FOX News on Tuesday.

    Spring 2011 Foreign hackers broke into the Pentagon computer system this spring and stole 24,000 files - one of the biggest cyber-attacks ever on the U.S. military,

    On the 12th of July 2011, Booz Allen Hamilton the largest U.S. military defence contractor admitted that they had just suffered a very serious security breach, at the hands of hacktivist group AntiSec.

    5/28/13 The confidential version of a Defense Science Board report compiled earlier this year reportedly says Chinese hackers accessed designs for more than two dozen of the U.S. military's most important and expensive weapon systems.

    June 2014 The UK's National Crime Agency has arrested an unnamed young man over allegations that he breached the Department of Defense's network last June.


    1/12/15 The Twitter account for U.S. Central Command was suspended Monday after it was hacked by ISIS sympathizers (OK twitter accounts shouldn't be a big deal. Why does US CentCom even HAVE a twitter account???)

    5/6/15 OPM hack: China blamed for massive breach of US government data

    Omoikani , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    And so the neocon propaganda machine trundles on, churning out this interesting material day after day. The elephant in the room is that if you get hacked you have no knowledge of this until your private stuff is all over the internet, and the chances of finding out who did it are zilch. Everyone in IT security knows this.
    johhnybgood , 9 Dec 2016 20:1
    Another "fake news" story. Does anybody with a pulse really believe that Russia hacked the DNC? The US Security Services admitted that it was NOT Russia; the likelihood is that the leaks were provided to Wikileaks by insiders within the US Administration - they wanted to ensure that Hillary did not win. None of the actual revelations were covered by the MSM, and "the Russians did it" was a convenient distraction.
    Omoikani -> johhnybgood , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    All people that on earth do dwell have no clue who hacked the DNC to the amusing end that Podesta's e-mails ended up on the internet, but it suits a dangerous political narrative to demonise Russia until it becomes plain logical to attack them.
    peterward881 , 9 Dec 2016 20:0
    YES YES let attack Russia, YES YES YES, Russia Russia we should carry on attacking Russia. We the journalists are well paid by the man from Australia. YES YES we must to carry on attacking Russia and forget the shit happening in other countries. YES YES it is our duty.
    guest88888 , 9 Dec 2016 20:0

    Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference

    And I guess Obama has also ordered the Guardian to do a full court press of anti-Russian propaganda, just judging by the articles pumped out on today's rag alone.

    The US government is seemingly attempting the "Big Lie" tactic of Joseph Goebbels and instigating support in the public for war against Russia. By repeating the completely unsubstantiated allegations that Russia has somehow "interfered with the election" they hope, without any genuine basis, to strong arm the public into accepting a further ramping of tensions and starting yet another illegal war for profit.

    Chirographer , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    There's nothing wrong with conducting the investigation, but shouldn't it have been done before accusing Russia?

    And aren't all the people cited in the article political appointees, Democrats or avowed Trump enemies, and then there's closing, " A spokesman for the director of national intelligence declined to comment."

    Karega , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Surely of all the Orders Obama might issue during his last weeks in office, why does he choose to give a stupid Order that effectively makes US some sort of Banana Republic? This man was/is more hype than real! At a stroke of a pen he seriously undermines the integrity of the US Electoral System. Whatever credibility was left has now been eroded by these constant and silly claims that somehow Russians installed Trump as President. Doesn't that make Trump some sort of Russian Agent?
    Meanwhile MSM keeps on streaming some fake news and theories and then Obama Orders US intelligence to dig deeper. This is lunacy!
    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Obama certainly understands that Russia is not the reason why Trump was elected. However, he wants to create new obstacles on the way of normalization of relations between the US and Russia and make it more difficult for Trump.

    However, Trump is not a weak man, not a skinny worm; and he can hit these opponents back so hard that international court for them (for invasions into sovereign countries) will lead to their life sentences.

    Ginen , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Only two weeks ago the Obama Administration publicly stated there was no evidence of cybersecurity breaches affecting the electoral process, as reported in the NYT :

    The administration, in its statement, confirmed reports from the Department of Homeland Security and intelligence officials that they did not see "any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day."

    The administration said it remained "confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was borne out." It added: "As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective."

    Was Obama lying then or is he lying now?
    imperfetto , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Is there any limit to the ridicolous, Mr. Obama? what is this? a tragicomic play of the inept?
    Here we are with the most childish fabrication that it must be the Russians' fault if Trump won the election. I'll be laughing for an entire cosmic era! And all this after US publically announced that they were going to launch a devastating acher attack against the badies: the Russians, which of course didn't work out. Come on, this is more comedy that a serious play.

    What probably is going on, the readers can gather by having a look at the numberless articles that are being published by maistream media against the Russians.
    Why this histeric insurgence of Russofobia? Couldn't it be that it is intolerable for the US and their allies to see the Russians winning in Aleppo, and most of all restoring peace and tollerance among the population returning to their abbandoned homes.

    brothersgrimm , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    I think Hillary, in part, lost the election due to all the fake news being pumped out by the mainstream corporate media, doing her bidding. People are tired of it, along with all the corruption and lies that came to the surface through the likes of Wikileaks.
    Trump is a terrible alternative, but the only alternative people were given, so many went with it.
    Now we see fake news making out the Russians to be the bad guys again, pumping out story after story, trying to propagandize the population into sucking up these new memes. Russia has its problems, and will always act in its own self-interest, but it's nothing compared to the tactics the US uses, bullying countries around the world to pander to its own will, desperately trying to maintain its Empire.
    RoachAmerican , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    Examine something real, Nuclear Hillary. It must be time for Spring Planting??
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html?_r=0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syEjkPyqRew
    Minutes 20 to 25
    Uranium One Wyoming
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    http://www.npr.org/2015/04/23/401781313/clinton-foundation-linked-to-russian-effort-to-buy-uranium-company
    https://youtu.be/jkfE10g8xbc
    at 25 minutes et seq
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkfE10g8xbc&feature=youtu.be


    Below, first paragraphs are the most important
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company

    The 1 2 3 Step of Acquisition of Uranium One
    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-clintons-putin-and-uranium-2015-4

    Going Private Part Public Company Disappears
    http://www.wise-uranium.org/ucscr.html

    http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/economics/22-01-2013/123551-russia_nuclear_energy-0 /
    Coward Comey needs to go.

    Joelbanks , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    The scripture tells us those who live by the sword will perish by it.

    America was in the interference of other countries' elections before its ugly 2016 presidential election. Remember Ukraine and Secretary Hillary Clinton's employee Victoria F****the EU Nuland in Ukraine. Now we have the makings of some kind of conflict with Russia over its alleged meddling in America's elections. More global tension= More cash flowing into the US equity market, money printing by another means.

    hardlyeverclever , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    I'd be surprised if the Russians weren't trying to affect the outcome of the election. The Brits had a debate in Parliament on Trump, Obama made threats to the UK on the Brexit vote, so who knows what we're all doing in each others elections behind closed doors while we are clear to do so publically.

    The MSM's absolute refusal to address the leaks in a meaningful way (other than the stuff about recipes) suggests to be no one felt it a big deal at the time.

    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    Obama could realise that Hillary's viewes on Putin and Russia did not help her at all. People are not that stupid, they see well, use own brains and not so easily impressed by whatever CNN says to them.
    Alun Jones , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    John McAfee said that any organization sophisticated enough to do these hacks is also sophisticated enough to make it look as though any country they want did it. So it could have been anyone.
    palindrome , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    Obama earlier this year: Russia is not a world power, only a regional power.

    Obama now: Russia has the power to manipulate the USA election.

    Which one is it then?

    Of course it's all bull...Obama is another establishment puppet who cannot accept that people have figured out their modus operandi.

    diddoit , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    It's reported today on Ars Technica : ThyssenKrupp suffered a "professional attack"

    The steelmaker, which makes military subs, says it was targeted from south-east Asia.

    ..the design of its plants were penetrated by a "massive," coordinated attack which made off with an unknown amount of "technological know-how and research."

    The internet and precious information...

    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    Neoliberals are just desperately losing ideological competition at home and abroad. They cannot convince people that they are right because it's not what's going on.

    It does not matter what some others say, it's what really goes on matters.

    alexfoxy28 -> imipak , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    But there is innate, basic self-interest in all people (that does not depend on education, ethnicity, race) and people know it instinctively well. They will not go against it even if all around will tell otherwise.
    alexfoxy28 -> alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 21:1 0 1
    simulacra27 , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    The fake news channel brought to you by Obama and co.
    p.s. I mean that people cannot be manipulated by others at this basic level when some higher level manipulative tools are used.
    Kasem3000 , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    I love how this has now become solid fact. No confirmation, nothing official but it is no common fact that the Russians interfered. How many reports do we hear about US interference with foreign countries infastructure through covert means.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia

    Meh. Seems like tampering happens all the time. How many elections in South America did the USA fix? How many in the middle east and Africa? I think this "russian's did it" rhetoric is counterproductive as it is stopping Democrats from doing the introspective needed to really understand why HRC lost the election.

    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    How can you on the one hand crusade against "fake news" and on the other promote this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/dec/08/artist-alison-jackson-self-publishes-spoof-trump-photos-despite-fear-of-being-sued#comments

    Sutir Comed , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and there was credible evidence that the Russians had rigged the election in favor of the Democrat. The right-wing echo chamber would be having seizures! These people are UTTER HYPOCRITES. And they would obviously rather win with the help of a hostile foreign power than try to preserve the integrity of our elections.
    MayorHoberMallow , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Russia may or may not have hacked the DNC. I'd like to find out. I hope the DNC aren't enough of doofusses to assume this wouldn't be in the realm of possibility.
    I presume that the U.S. has its own group of hackers doing the same Worldwide. This is not a criticism; I would expect the U.S. intelligence community to learn what our rivals, and even some of our friends, are up to.
    Timothy Everton , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    This is getting to be pretty lame. I have doubts that "Russia" could interfere to any great extent with our elections any more than we could with theirs. Sure, individuals or organizations, and more than likely in THIS country, could do so. And they have, as we saw with the DNC and Sanders campaign (and vice versa). Let's not go into an almost inevitable nuclear war over what is quite possibly "fake news".
    dreylon , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Russia did this, Russia did that
    its getting very boring now, you have lost all credibility
    you have cried wolf to many times
    stop trying to manipulate us
    Johnny Kent , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    When will the Democrats get it? It wasn't the Russians, who are blamed for everything, including the weather, by desperate Western failed leaders, but an unsuitable candidate in Clinton, which lost them the Election. Bernie Sanders would have walked it.
    Catonaboat , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Well Guardian I do believe you hit a nerve, I don't think I've ever seen a more one sided BTL. Me thinks some people do protest too much.
    Iaorana , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Regarding the notorious "fuck the EU " on the part of the US "diplomat" Victoria Nuland "the State Department and the White House suggested that an assistant to the deputy prime minister of Russia Dmitry Rogozin was the source of the leak, which he denied " Wiki

    Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis.

    Lafcadio1944 , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Boy, oh boy, fake news is everywhere just read this headline!

    Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference

    Which states as fact there was interference by Russia and that the investigation is to determine how bad it was. NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER has been offered by anyone that Russia interfered in any way. FAKE NEWS!!

    Mike5000 , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Voting machine hacking is a very serious problem but you generally need physical access to a voting machine to hack it. Anyone notice thousands of Russians hanging around in Detriot, Los Angeles, etc election HQs? How about Clinton drones?

    If the DNC hadn't rigged the primary we'd be celebrating president-elect Bernie. If they hadn't rigged the general Hillary would have lost by a landslide.

    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    We never investigated this tho did we Former President Obama?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia

    Time to put on your big girl pants, accept defeat and leave gracefully.

    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    1000 Russian athletes were doping in the 2012 Olympics - but it's taken until now to realise it?!
    Russia influenced the 2016 US election?!
    Russia is presently "influencing" the German elections?!
    Russia is killing civilians and destroying hospitals with impunity in Syria?!
    etc
    Wow! Russia is taking over the world, it must be stopped, can anyone save us? Obama? Trump? NATO?
    Look out! Russian armies are massing on the border ready to sweep into Europe.......arrhhh!

    I love the smell of gibberish in the morning!

    geofffrey , 9 Dec 2016 18:4
    ***Newsflash***

    Reads:

    "..ex-prime minister Anthony Charles Lynton Blair of the United Kingdom, and Hillary Rodham Clinton of the United States of America, have formally announced a new transatlantic political party to be named: The Neoliberal Elite Party for bitter anti-Brexiters and sore anti-Trumpettes.

    dahsab , 9 Dec 2016 18:4
    Rather rich coming from my country which has interfered in elections around the world for decades. I suppose it's only cheating if the other team does it.

    Not that they'll find any evidence. Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it!

    [Dec 10, 2016] McCarthys Smiling Ghost Democrats Point the Finger at Russia by Norman Solomon

    Notable quotes:
    "... Joe McCarthy rose to corrosive prominence at the midpoint of the 20th century by riding hysteria and spurring it on. The demagoguery was fueled not only by opportunistic politicians but also by media outlets all too eager to damage the First Amendment and other civil liberties in the name of Americanism and anti-communism. ..."
    "... Most Democratic leaders, for their part, seem determined to implicitly - or even explicitly - scapegoat the Russian government for the presidential election results. Rather than clearly assess the impacts of Hillary Clinton 's coziness with Wall Street, or even the role of the FBI director just before the election, the Democratic line seems bent on playing an anti-Russia card. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    This country went through protracted witch hunts during the McCarthy era. A lot of citizens - including many government workers - had their lives damaged or even destroyed. The chill on the First Amendment became frosty, then icy. Democracy was on the ropes.

    Joe McCarthy rose to corrosive prominence at the midpoint of the 20th century by riding hysteria and spurring it on. The demagoguery was fueled not only by opportunistic politicians but also by media outlets all too eager to damage the First Amendment and other civil liberties in the name of Americanism and anti-communism.

    Today, congressional leaders of both parties seem glad to pretend that Section 501 of the Intelligence Authorization Act is just fine, rather than an odious and dangerous threat to precious constitutional freedoms. On automatic pilot, many senators will vote aye without a second thought.

    Yet by rights, with growing grassroots opposition , this terrible provision should be blocked by legislators in both parties, whether calling themselves progressives, liberals, libertarians, Tea Partyers or whatever, who don't want to chip away at cornerstones of the Bill of Rights.

    Most Democratic leaders, for their part, seem determined to implicitly - or even explicitly - scapegoat the Russian government for the presidential election results. Rather than clearly assess the impacts of Hillary Clinton 's coziness with Wall Street, or even the role of the FBI director just before the election, the Democratic line seems bent on playing an anti-Russia card.

    Perhaps in the mistaken belief that they can gain some kind of competitive advantage over the GOP by charging Russian intervention for Donald Trump 's victory, the Democrats are playing with fire. The likely burn victims are the First Amendment and other precious freedoms.

    [Dec 10, 2016] Whos Behind PropOrNots Blacklist of News Websites

    From Wikipedia article Communist propaganda. "....the term "propaganda" broadly refers to any publication or campaign aimed at promoting a cause and is/was used for official purposes by most communist-oriented governments. Rooted in Marxist thought, the propaganda of communism is viewed by its proponents as the vehicle for spreading the enlightenment of working class people and pulling them away from the propaganda of their oppressors that reinforces their exploitation, such as religion or consumerism. A Bolshevik theoretician, Nikolai Bukharin, in his The ABC of Communism wrote:[1] The State propaganda of communism becomes in the long run a means for the eradication of the last traces of bourgeois propaganda dating from the old régime; and it is a powerful instrument for the creation of a new ideology, of new modes of thought, of a new outlook on the world.
    Similarly neoliberal propaganda is the vehicle of spreading neoliberal ideas and "neoliberal rationality" inside the country and all over the world the reinforces key postulated of neoliberalism -- unlimited "free market" for transnational corporations, deregulation, suppression of wages via "free movement of labor" and outsourcing and offshoring, decimation of labor unions and organized labor in general (atomization of working force"), "greed is good" memo, etc.
    Like Communist propaganda during Brezhnev rule, neoliberal propaganda after 2008 is in crisis, and it is natural to expect that neoliberal propagandists will resort to heavy handed tactic of McCarthyism in a vain attempt to restore its influence.
    wallstreetonparade.com
    Wall Street On Parade closely examined the report issued by PropOrNot, its related Twitter page, and its registration as a business in New Mexico, looking for "tells" as to the individual(s) behind it. We learned quite a number of interesting facts.

    As part of its McCarthyite tactics, PropOrNot has developed a plugin to help readers censor material from the websites it has blacklisted. It calls that its YYYCampaignYYY. In that effort, it lists an official address of 530-B Harkle Road, Suite 100, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. That's one of those agent addresses that serve as a virtual address for the creation of limited liability corporations that want to keep their actual principals secret. The address has dozens of businesses associated with it. There should also be a corresponding business listed in the online archives of the business registry at the Secretary of State of New Mexico. However, no business with the words Propaganda or PropOrNot or YYY exist in the New Mexico business registry, suggesting PropOrNot is using a double cloaking device to shield its identity by registering under a completely different name.

    PropOrNot's Twitter page provides a "tell" that its report may simply be a hodgepodge compilation of other people's research that was used to arrive at its dangerous assertion that critical thinkers across America are a clandestine network of Russian propaganda experts. Its Tweet on November 7 indicates that the research of Peter Pomerantsev, a Senior Fellow at the Legatum Institute in London, who has also been cooperating on research with the Information Warfare Project of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) in Washington, D.C, inspired its efforts.

    According to SourceWatch, the Legatum Institute "is a right-wing think tank promoting 'free markets, free minds, and free peoples.' " SourceWatch adds that the Legatum Institute "is a project founded and funded by the Legatum Group, a private investment group based in Dubai." According to the Internet Archive known as the Wayback Machine, the Center for European Policy Analysis previously indicated it was an affiliate of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). We can see why they might want to remove that affiliation now that the Koch brothers have been exposed as funders of a very real network of interrelated websites and nonprofits. According to Desmog, NCPA has received millions of dollars in funding from right wing billionaires like the Koch brothers and their related trusts along with the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation (heir to the Mellon fortune) along with corporations like ExxonMobil.

    CEPA's InfoWar Project is currently listed as a "Related Project" at PropOrNot's website. Indeed, there are numerous references within the report issued by PropOrNot that sound a familiar refrain to Pomerantsev and/or CEPA. Both think the U.S. Congress is in denial on the rising dangers of Russian propaganda and want it to take more direct counter measures. Pages 31 and 32 of the PropOrNot report urge the American people to demand answers from the U.S. government about how much it knows about Russian propaganda. The report provides a detailed list of specific questions that should be asked.

    In the August 2016 report released by CEPA (the same month the PropOrNot Twitter account was established) Pomerantsev and his co-author, Edward Lucas, recommend the establishment of "An international commission under the auspices of the Council of Europe on the lines of the Venice Commission" to "act as a broadcasting badge of quality. If an official body cannot be created, then an NGO could play a similar advisory role."

    On its website, PropOrNot recommends a much stronger censorship of independent media websites, writing:

    "We call on the American public to Obtain news from actual reporters, who report to an editor and are professionally accountable for mistakes. We suggest NPR, the BBC, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Buzzfeed News, VICE, etc, and especially your local papers and local TV news channels. Support them by subscribing, if you can!"

    It has been the experience of Wall Street On Parade that the editors of the New York Times are more than willing to ignore brazen misreporting of critical facts, even when the errors are repeatedly brought to their attention; even when those erroneous facts are then repeated by the President of the United States. (See our report: President Obama Repeats the Falsehoods of the New York Times and Andrew Ross Sorkin on Restoring the Glass-Steagall Act.)

    CounterPunch was quick to point out that the Washington Post's former publisher, Philip Graham, supervised a disinformation network for the CIA during the Cold War, known as Mockingbird. Graham was reported to have died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound at his farm in 1963.

    CEPA's website indicates that on May 10 it hosted Senators Chris Murphy and Rob Portman to discuss "Russia's sophisticated disinformation campaign." CEPA's President, A. Wess Mitchell is quoted as saying: "What's missing is a significant effort on the part of the U.S. government. Not nearly enough has been done."

    Six days after Washington Post reporter Craig Timberg ran his first PropOrNot story, he published another article indicating that "Congressional negotiators on Wednesday approved an initiative to track and combat foreign propaganda amid growing concerns that Russian efforts to spread 'fake news' and disinformation threaten U.S. national security." Quoted in the story was none other than the very Senator who had met with CEPA in May on that very topic, Senator Rob Portman.

    Portman is quoted as follows: "This propaganda and disinformation threat is real, it's growing, and right now the U.S. government is asleep at the wheel." Among Portman's top three donors to his 2016 Senate race were Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, two Wall Street behemoths that would very much like to pivot the national debate to anything other than Wall Street power and corruption.

    [Dec 10, 2016] NBCs Fake News King Brian Williams Launches Crusade Against Fake News

    Notable quotes:
    "... Fake News, the new barrel bombs meme ..."
    "... Sorry, Brian, but you and your ilk sold your credibility for a full investment position in Hillary and Globalism. Your only recourse now is to attack and try to delegitamize those who call you out. ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Now this is rich. Brian Williams, the disgraced ex-NBC journalist who was literally fired for falsely reporting that he was in a helicopter during the Iraq war that took on combatant fire, is now going on a crusade against "fake news." On his MSNBC show last night, Williams decided to attack retired General Flynn and Donald Trump for spreading "fake news" via their twitter accounts.

    ... ... ...

    nuubee •Dec 9, 2016 11:42 AM

    I'm going to start reading The Onion and taking it seriously now.

    nope-1004 -> Pladizow •Dec 9, 2016 11:48 AM

    At least he wasn't in real harms way, like Hillary, when she landed under sniper fire.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMpqImAjel4

    NoDebt -> Life of Illusion •Dec 9, 2016 12:02 PM

    It's like [neo]Liberals are genetically compelled or something to accuse others of what they themselves are actually doing. I've never seen anything this universally true for an entire group of people suffering the same mental illness ([neo]liberalism).

    nmewn -> MillionDollarBonus_ Dec 9, 2016 1:24 PM ,
    Accredit this you fucking bozo...

    The Iraq RPG Helicopter Hit

    - "A terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of Iraq when the helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG." - NBC Nightly News, January 30, 2015

    - "It was no more than 120 seconds later that the helicopter in front of us was hit." - Brian Williams to Tim Russert on CNBC, March 2005

    - "I was instead following the aircraft" [that was struck by the RPG]. - NBC Nightly News, Wednesday February 5, 2015

    - Williams' original [March 26, 2003, NBC News] report indicated that a helicopter in front of his was hit. - PolitiFact

    - NBC publishes a book [in 2003], "Operation Iraqi Freedom," in which they describe Williams' experience, implying that his helicopter sustained fire. - PolitiFact

    - May 2008: Williams writes another [NBC News] blog, responding to a note from a soldier who he met in Iraq. In this post, Williams indicates that he was in a helicopter that took fire. - PolitiFact

    - "I've done some ridiculously stupid things under that banner, like being in a helicopter I had no business being in Iraq with rounds coming into the airframe," he said [to Alec Baldwin in March 2014] - PolitiFact

    - "We were in some helicopters. What we didn't know was, we were north of the invasion. We were the northernmost Americans in Iraq. We were going to drop some bridge portions across the Euphrates so the Third Infantry could cross on them. Two of the four helicopters were hit, by ground fire, including the one I was in, RPG and AK-47. - Williams to Letterman on March 26, 2013 - PolitiFact.

    - In the initial NBC broadcast where he described his 2003 Iraq reporting mission, embattled NBC anchor Brian Williams falsely claimed that "we saw the guy . . . [who] put a round through the back of a chopper," which he further and incorrectly claimed was "the Chinook [helicopter] in front of us." - Breitbart

    - "We flew over a bridge. He waved to the lead pilot very kindly. With that someone else removed the tarp, stood up, and put a round through the back of a chopper missing the rear rotor by four or five feet." - To Tom Brokaw on March 26, 2003 - Breitbart

    - "[Y]ou go back to Iraq, and I looked down the tube of an RPG that had been fired at us and it hit the chopper in front of ours." - Williams to Fairfield University in 2007 - Ace of Spades

    SEAL Team 6 Tale

    - "We have some idea which of our special operations teams carried this out," Williams said on "The Late Show With David Letterman" the day after the raid [May 2, 2011]. "It happens to be a team I flew into Baghdad with, on the condition that I would never speak of what I saw on the aircraft, what aircraft we were on, what we were carrying, or who we were after." - Huffington Post

    - "Now, people might be hearing about SEAL Team 6," Williams said the next night, May 3, 2011, on "Nightly News." "I happen to have the great honor of flying into Baghdad with them at the start of the war." - Huffington Post

    - "I flew into Baghdad, invasion plus three days, on a blackout mission at night with elements of SEAL Team 6, and I was told not to make any eye contact with them or initiate any conversation," Williams said. (Three days after the U.S. invasion would have been March 22, 2003, not April 9, 2003, which was the day Williams broadcasted from the Baghdad airport.) - To David Letterman in May of 2012 - Huffinton Post

    - In the 2012 "Late Show" appearance, Williams also recalled carrying a box of Wheat Thins, which he said a hungry special operator dug into with a "hand the size of a canned ham." They got to talking, and Williams told the commando how much he admired his knife. "Darned if that knife didn't show up at my office a couple weeks later," Williams told Letterman. - Huffington Post

    - "About six weeks after the Bin Laden raid, I got a white envelope and in it was a thank-you note, unsigned," Williams said on "Letterman" in January 2013. "And in it was a piece of the fuselage of the blown-up Black Hawk in that courtyard. Sent to me by one of my friends." - Huffington Post

    - In February 2014, Williams elaborated on the helicopter gift in another media appearance, this time on the sports talk show hosted by Dan Patrick. "It's one of the toughest things to get," he said, "and the president has a piece of it as well It's made of a material most people haven't seen or held in their hands." - Huffington Post

    Fall of the Berlin Wall

    - "I've been so fortunate," he said during a 2008 forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. "I was at the Brandenburg Gate the night the wall came down." - CNN

    - "Here's a fact: 25 years ago tonight, Tom Brokaw and I were at the Berlin Wall," Williams said at a gala held on November 8, 2014. - CNN

    The Pope

    - "I was there during the visit of the pope," Williams said [in 2002]. - CNN

    - While delivering the commencement address at Catholic University that year [2004], Williams said the "highlight" of his time at the school "was in this very doorway, shaking hands with the Holy Father during his visit to this campus." - CNN

    Katyusha Rocket Fire

    - "There were Katyusha rockets passing just beneath the helicopter I was riding in," he told a student interviewer from Fairfield (Conn.) University that year [2007]. - Washington Post

    Katrina

    - "All of us watched [in the Superdome] as one man committed suicide." - Williams to Tom Brokaw, at Columbia University in 2013 .

    –. My week, two weeks there was not helped by the fact that I accidentally ingested some of the floodwater. I became very sick with dysentery." - Williams to Tom Brokaw at Columbia University in 2013.

    - "Our hotel was overrun with gangs. I was rescued in the stairwell of a five-star hotel in New Orleans by a young police officer – we are friends to this day." - Williams to Tom Brokaw at Columbia University in 2013.

    - "When you look out of your hotel window in the French Quarter and watch a man float by face down, when you see bodies that you last saw in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, and swore to yourself that you would never see in your country," Williams told Eisner [in 2006], who suggested in the interview that Williams emerged from former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw's shadow with his Katrina coverage. - USA Today

    - In Williams's telling, the pathos of the scene extended to his crew's access to food. "We were desperate for food and drink. But not like the people we were seeing in the streets," he said in the documentary "In His Own Words: Brian Williams on Hurricane Katrina." - Washington Post

    Puppy Rescue

    - "I remember one such house fire - the structure was fully involved with flames and smoke. I was wearing a breathing apparatus, conducting a search on my hands and knees, when I felt something warm, squishy and furry on the floor of a closet. I instinctively tucked it in my coat." - October 2011, USA Today

    - "All I ever did as a volunteer fireman was once save two puppies." - January 2007, Esquire

    Christmas Tree Robbery

    In a 2005 interview with Esquire magazine, Williams said a thief drew on him in the 1970s - leaving him "looking up at a thug's snub-nosed .38 while selling Christmas trees out of the back of a truck." – NY Post

    Quitting College

    - "One day, I'm at the copy machine in the White House and Walter Mondale comes up behind me and clears his throat. A classic throat-clearing. I thought people only did that in movies, but it turns out vice-presidents do it, too. Anyway, it makes for an exceptionally good morning, and I run from the White House to the GW campus for class. I'm still wearing my West Wing hard pass on a chain, and when my professor sees it, he admits that he's only been to the White House on the public tour. And I thought to myself, This is costing me money that I don't have, and I'm a young man in too much of a hurry. So I left school." - Brian Williams to Esquire , 2005

    - But then a friend invited him to drive to Washington, D.C., for a weekend, and everything changed. Smitten with the city and its youthful energy, Williams decided to move there. He transferred what credits he could from Brookdale to Catholic University and took a job in the public relations department to help pay his expenses. He landed an internship at the White House, and when that ended, he answered an ad for a clerking job at a broadcasting association. - 2009, New Jersey-Star Ledger

    Ms No nmewn Dec 9, 2016 10:08 PM ,
    It's just amazing what a shameless loser this guy has always been. I was surprised that they even fired him for contriving this story, that is after all, what they do. The whole idea behind embedding journalists was to make them part of the team, which prevents subjective journalism (not that there was a risk of that happening with him) and turning the war into a fictionalized patriotic orgy of bullshit reality TV. This was a huge shame to the profession of journalism before you factor in the lies and perpetual fabrication.

    The only reason he was fired was due to the fact that we were in the throws of a giant national masturbation frenzy over military aggression and the military and it's endeavors became untouchable overnight. When they got pissed off during that time frame it definitely mattered, not so much now. Now they are just screwing them and everybody else. These news anchors are absolutely disgusting, just about every one of them. They all look like pumpkins and hookers. They need to lay off the hairspray and man-makeup before throwing themselves into 170 degree acidic geyser (you don't want it too hot).

    Perimetr Ms No Dec 9, 2016 10:44 PM
    These ratfuck pressitutes haven't noticed Clinton lost the election because we stopped buying the MSM lies nothing there that's worthwhile to read based on his stupidity here.
    The Saint NewHugh Dec 9, 2016 10:11 PM ,
    Similar to Brian Williams, here is a short documentary on what makes George Soros such an evil person.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aETpLQ7WcM

    Paul E. Math NoDebt Dec 9, 2016 9:21 PM ,
    Brian Willians has been discredited and should either retire or find another job. But also, and I'm serious about this, Pizzagate is a ridiculous made-up bullshit story that is distracting everyone from the real issues and the way that the Dems have fucked our whole civilization for real, not just a few kids that likely never even happened.

    Even if pizzagate is real it is far less important than the many real ways in which the elites have fucked us all.

    Uzda Farce AllTimeWhys Dec 9, 2016 12:10 PM ,
    Brian Williams is a member of the Rockefeller/CFR along with Mika Brzezinski and Charles "Joe" Scarborough. See member lists at cfr dot org.

    "The fact that we will not reestablish [another] Walter Cronkite, because of technology... does not mean we can't have people who are trusted. Brian Williams is sitting here , Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric..."

    -- CFR media control roundtable , sponsored by Time-Warner, 2009-09

    J S Bach Uzda Farce Dec 9, 2016 12:18 PM ,
    Hubris and hypocrisy... the two things the MSM is best at.
    NotApplicable J S Bach Dec 9, 2016 1:02 PM ,
    With over a century of government schooling to dumb down the population, I'd say their lack of tact is fairly well warranted, given the average length of attention span can likely be measured in hours.
    TeamDepends Uzda Farce Dec 9, 2016 12:20 PM ,
    All we can do is tell the unawake to turn off the idiot box, stop ingesting Kellogg's etc etc. Every day we win a few more battles, and one day come to realize the enemy are all lying on the ground, motionless.
    Bam_Man NoDebt Dec 9, 2016 1:05 PM ,
    It's called PROJECTION.

    A very common symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

    Other symptoms include:

  • Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
  • Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
  • Exaggerating your achievements and talents
  • Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
  • Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people
  • Requiring constant admiration
  • Having a sense of entitlement
  • Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
  • Taking advantage of others to get what you want
  • Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
  • Being envious of others and believing others envy you
  • Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner
  • Dimwit Life of Illusion Dec 9, 2016 1:00 PM ,
    EVIDENTLY NOT,

    Obama orders review of cyber attacks on 2016 election – adviser

    President Barack Obama directed US intelligence agencies to conduct a full review of cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office, homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said on Friday. Monaco told reporters the results of the report would be shared with lawmakers and others. Obama leaves office on January 20. (Reuters)

    EscapeKey LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD Dec 9, 2016 11:54 AM ,
    here's some more fake news from nbc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgm3_jzcNm4

    Whalley World EscapeKey Dec 9, 2016 12:34 PM ,
    Fake News, the new barrel bombs meme
    Antifaschistische LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD Dec 9, 2016 11:58 AM ,
    remember, this has nothing to do with fake news. This has everything to do with competition. THe MSM is getting too much competition from independent bloggers and opinions that don't follow their narrative. Their goal now......figure out some way to shut them down.
    mary mary Antifaschistische Dec 9, 2016 12:06 PM ,
    Amazing! People find truth more interesting than the MSM pablum of misdirection and misinformation.
    LyLo Antifaschistische Dec 9, 2016 12:29 PM ,
    And that's the entirety of the issue: if McCain had won in 2008, we'd have been hearing about fake news then. It really is just that we had the audacity to disagree with the legacy media--who for the first time in my memory broke every rule they had for themselves in appearing to cover all sides--to try to corral the US public into voting for their candidate of choice. Even Fox News was anti-Trump, for fuck's sake: did they not realize that gave away the game?!

    Ironically, I feel if the media hadn't been so in-the-bag for Clinton from the start, I wouldn't be surprised if she had won. The media lost her A LOT of votes by making it look like, whether true or not, they had been bought off. (Yeah, I know they were. But they aren't supposed to APPEAR it; Clinton should ask for a refund, in my opinion.)

    So yeah; look forward to media licensing being floated, and somehow requiring credentials for journalists (which will end with needing to be 'certified,' which will inevitably require an expensive several year trip to your university daycare of choice.)

    Will it work? Actually, for once, I have hope: I don't think it will. In fact, I suspect fairly soon, someone is going to notice that Thomas Payne was probably the first purveyor of "fake news" in this country, and that's a fucked up thing to be against as an American.

    MANvsMACHINE LyLo Dec 9, 2016 1:03 PM ,
    Fox News was anti-Trump?
    equity_momo LyLo Dec 9, 2016 8:53 PM ,
    BS. If McCain won in 2008 we'd already be in an actual fucking hot war with Russia. 2008 was a wet-dream for Soros and his boys. They got to win big or win FUCKING BIG.
    flaminratzazz LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD Dec 9, 2016 12:06 PM ,
    This is all a distraction from the tribes FULL COURT PRESS

    again, just like I said yesterday about recognizing evil look at their eyes

    The eyes

    equity_momo LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD Dec 9, 2016 8:48 PM ,
    Heres an idea. How about we play the "Fake News Game"

    I say something that could be true or false , you reply with your answer and then its your turn.

    "Hillary Clinton has only been on the Lolita Express 6 times" True or False ?

    equity_momo equity_momo Dec 9, 2016 9:04 PM ,
    Its TRUE!

    The FBI found State Dept emails showing that Hillary Clinton went to "Orgy Island" at least 6 times - and at least once in the company of convicted pedo Jeffrey Epstein. (Bill Clinton went there "at least 20 times" - those pesky progressives!)

    El Oregonian nope-1004 Dec 9, 2016 11:50 AM ,
    Oh yeah, him and pope poopagolio are the "Real" ones... PLEASE! (FLAKE NEWS!: as in snowflakes)
    Chupacabra-322 El Oregonian Dec 9, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    Brian,

    You are the epitome of and exactly exactly the type of vile, disgusting, reprehensible Scum at the bottom of the Swap. A bottom feeder at best.

    The Presstitute Centrailized Media has been exposed for the farce that it is. The obvious denial of it simply exposes the Sociopathic / Psychopathic Nature of you vile Scum Fucks.

    Accept it. The Public has lost all respect for the Centrailzed Industrial Complex Presstitiute Media.

    Son of Loki El Oregonian Dec 9, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    The Libtards are desperate to attack Russia and start WW III, bailout Wall Street again and keep the Swamp parasites in power in DC to keep the gravy train flowing.

    MSM and Dem lies get Yuuuger every day...it's almost laughable but they are actually very dangerous people and thus, we need to protect the 2nd to protect us from them if they get to desperate.

    Miss Expectations nope-1004 Dec 9, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    Part of me is sorry that our military didn't drop Hillary and Chelsea off in Tuzla, Bosnia amid snipper fire.
    sgt_doom Pladizow Dec 9, 2016 1:27 PM ,
    False assumption, my friend!

    There has never been an actual media in America to begin with --- just go back and check out the trash that the Pulitzer fellow wrote, and then realize why that prize is awarded to the riff-raff who usually receive it.

    Yup, I remember Brian . . .

    https://memegenerator.net/instance/59167575

    What a piece of crapola.

    RU4Au Pladizow Dec 9, 2016 1:29 PM ,
    Suicide, indeed!

    Sorry, Brian, but you and your ilk sold your credibility for a full investment position in Hillary and Globalism. Your only recourse now is to attack and try to delegitamize those who call you out.

    EAT ROCKS, PRICK!

    chubbar Pladizow Dec 9, 2016 8:55 PM ,
    The gig is up for these MSM pantywaists and they know it. The only way they maintain viewership is if the gov't shuts down the internet, which it may. These little fucktards like williams are some of the biggest purveyors of bullshit in the history of mankind and they know we are on to their game. No one is going back to believing anything these assholes say except for the most partisan, retarded, misinformed of the US population.
    stocker84 nuubee Dec 9, 2016 11:50 AM ,
    Wait, the onion is not a real news souce?

    Get outta here!

    This is real isn't it?

    http://www.theonion.com/article/cia-realizes-its-been-using-black-highli...

    trumpala Dec 9, 2016 11:43 AM ,
    McCarthyism 2.0 against the independent information
    Rebel yell Dec 9, 2016 12:10 PM ,
    Main Stream news - earning the respect and trust of 6% of Americans!
    Dangerous Fake News Epidemic!
    Yes We Can. But... Dec 9, 2016 12:20 PM ,
    MSM = MainStream Media

    It died and is being reincarnated as:

    FNM - The Fake News Media

    Heretofore, please refer to the former MSM as the FNM. Thank you.

    Squidbilly Dec 9, 2016 12:37 PM ,
    the news organizations are all propped up to keep the global culture industry operational. If they were to be displaced by conscious consumers of worth while real news, like the kind that's now starting to make it's way through the alternative media, they would only exist for viewers who were being groomed for social unrest. Oh wait, that's what their doing now isn't it?
    2muchtax Dec 9, 2016 12:38 PM ,
    This is the opportunity to wake people up that you care about. If nothing else you can show that the news is all coordinated. There is no possibility that in a free competitive market every org would repeat the same message from the same perspective.

    I have taken advantage of the oligarchs sloppiness. People who thought I was crazy two years ago are now acknowledging I was right. I have delivered news to people and two weeks later it was a breaking story. Take the opportunity and bring a few more people over.

    Robert Trip Dec 9, 2016 12:41 PM ,
    Not only has Williams got hot combat experience but he's also rescued countless folks right here at home form car wrecks and burning buildings.

    And this guy is a regular Batman for thwarting armed robberies and terrorist attacks.

    Let's cut the guy some slack on this.

    He sure has the street cred.

    Atomizer Dec 9, 2016 12:48 PM ,
    Brian,

    Ever hear about NYT vs Sullivan? 1964, before I was born.

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commonlaw.htm

    Then you have the 1998 telecommunications Act signed by Bill Clinton. Next,

    Shh! Don't criticize the government or they will send you to the Gulag! HR 6393

    Text of H.R. 6393 : Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Received by the Senate version) - GovTrack.us

    Highlights of H.R. 6393 ,

    Driving your own into the Media coffin. Do you honestly think we will be forced to watch your shit? I think not...

    CIA FAKE NEWS Propaganda!! Full Documentary 2015 - YouTube

    Mike Masr Dec 9, 2016 1:51 PM ,
    The only truly fake news is the US MSM. This bullshit that is called "news" is filled with omissions, distortions, half truths, bald faced lies and fabrications. This is the "official narrative" the Kool Aid that we are all supposed to drink. Remember how the MSM colluded with the Bush Administration's neocons to sell the bullshit Iraq WMD story that was presented to the UN by Colin Powell? Total bullshit. How can anyone believe anything that is fed to us from the MSM.

    Ironic but the guy I'm going to tell you about was featured on 60 minutes. You know what I love is when the US State Department or the MSM quotes the UK Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. This is a little old man in a dingy apartment in a slum Arab neighborhood in London. This old fucking guy claims to know whats going on in Syria. Actually this is a neocon propaganda mill for the CIA It's comments, suggestions and conclusions are solely based upon an official narrative created by the CIA and sold to us through the MSM.

    Look at the pre-election coverage and non-stop polling data talked about by all the MSM boneheads including this Brian Williams jack off. Donald Trump was continously slammed, over and over again by *all of them.*The exception was Sean Hannity. Now look at the partial list of donors to crooked Hillary's campaign.

    The list of donors to the Clinton campaign included many of the most powerful media institutions in the country - among the donors: Comcast (which owns NBC, and its cable sister channels, such as MSNBC); James Murdoch of News Corporation (owner of Fox News and its sister stations, among many other media holdings); Time Warner (CNN, HBO, scores of other channels); Bloomberg; Reuters; Viacom; Howard Stringer (of CBS News); AOL (owner of Huffington Post); Google; Twitter; The Washington Post Company; George Stephanopoulos (host of ABC News' flagship Sunday show); PBS; PRI; the Hearst Corporation and others ( http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37451-the-clinton-foundation-and-the-... ).

    Trump is correct when he says the US media is crooked. It's all fucking fake news!!

    Post election- I now watch local news for traffic and weather in the morning. But fuck them I will not listen to the MSM talking heads or anything else on the crooked MSM. To know whats going on in the world I now watch RT which presents an objective and honest perspective of what's really going on in the world. Of course they call RT fake news, or Russian propaganda. All I can say is they can go fuck themselves! I am sick and tired of the lies and bullshit which is the official US narrative as presented by our 100% crooked MSM!

    The real fake news is presented by the liars in our MSM!

    SirBarksAlot Dec 9, 2016 1:47 PM ,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EZezBEeRHw

    Spoof on Brian Williams.

    HeyThere Dec 9, 2016 3:21 PM ,
    Brian Williams (known liar) warns against Fake News?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EZezBEeRHw
    GreatUncle Dec 9, 2016 3:31 PM ,
    Lol makes no difference now ... I left the MSM, never read it anymore.

    I am no longer misinformed by them - that's a bonus.

    I now prefer news from other nations because domestically it is all the fucking same from the libtards and progressives of more people murdered because of some shit they created. Still get drug addicts committing crime just like all them illegal immigrants because with no money you have to commit a crime to exist. We all know that domestically your bankers are robbing you and that the politicians are lying pieces of shit.

    So why would I want to read what I already know? Nope don't need it.

    Bye, bye NBC and the rest of you I can predict what the stories you will run with tomorrow because they are the same fucking lies like the past 30 years.

    StreetObserver Dec 9, 2016 9:04 PM ,
    Attack the MSM by attacking their ability to sell advertising.

    "That newspaper you are advertising in has been wrong on everything, from going into Iraq to recommending that loser Hillary Clinton to the final election results. If you are advertising in that dishonest discredited rag, your product or service is being tarnished by association. "

    "Just watch President Elect Trump's Thank You Tour speech. Tens of thousands of people loudly booed the press and the media that were there. You really want to spend your money buying ads from those discredited losers?"

    847328_3527 Dec 9, 2016 9:16 PM ,
    The neocons and fascist Democrat factions are joining forces looks like and as desperate as can be. They've lied since day one, bombed RNC offices, beat innocent people up at Trump rallys, published non-stop fake news, and now pull the "Russian agent" theory out of their closet.

    Most Americans laugh at these nuts but I think they are very scary and serious since they have alot of money invested in Queeb Hillary and war with Russia.

    Rebel yell Dec 9, 2016 10:01 PM ,
    The Washington Post ( fake news organization) is reporting that the CIA secretly informed the senate last week that there was Russian interference in our election and that it was Russia's goal to ensure the election of Donald Trump. Apparently the house was informed in September and was questioned if this should be made public and the Republicams said no, according to the Washington Post - the source identified himself as " DNC in deep shit" . /Sarc.

    Rachel Maddow was gleefully reporting on this tonight, as if it somehow vindicated her and her morally bankrupt colleagues from the fact that they should have been reporting on this rather than the Russians, since it is an American election and it is their job to investigate and report the news.

    Of course Obama has decided to keep this information secret, although, 7 "Democratic " senators were requesting that the Obama administration released PARTS of the findings of the investigation which can only lead one to question which PARTS they would prefer to keep from the American public and why. It also is a concern of national security that national secrets are ending up on the Washington Post- maybe they received this information from Russia.

    Mitch McConell was reported to have been dismissive of the allegations as a result of the lack of agreement over the evidence among the 17 security agencies involved, the lack of any source directly linking the Russian government to releasing DNC hacked emails to the Wikileaks
    This also begs to question Rachel Maddow on her lack of outrage of the behavior of the DNC in colluding with the press and rigging the primary. As if to say, since Russia revealed the information and the wrong doing of the DNC, it is not a question of if the behavior of the DNC was just or unjust.

    Nor does it vindicate any Hillary supporter, it does not legitimize what the DNC, the press, or Hillary Clinton did.

    Leave it to the incompetent Washington Post and MSNBC and Rachel Maddow to completely miss the ball again.

    Is it surprising to anyone that Russia did not wish for world war 3?

    Thanks comrades!

    Kina Dec 9, 2016 10:07 PM ,
    Washington Post CNN Madow DNC credibility approaching zero plus they already did the 'Russians did it' thing.

    The probs them Dems has that THEY were in power when whatever happened ..happened.

    Rjoins Dec 9, 2016 10:19 PM ,
    We don't have to be too concerned about fake news pumped out by Russia and other evil doers. That job is being well handled already by NBC, CNN, the New York Times, and others.

    In this post-truth world, these openly left-biased media organizations can rival Pravada of the old Soviet Union in their laughable news reports, lack of integrity, and willingness to suppress news they don't want known while publishing outright propaganda.

    In a democracy where citizens must make informed decisions about governments, politicians and issues, it seems to me that the people behind these corrupt media outlets are just debasing their country; I imagine they at least get well paid for their treachery.

    Curious how, having destroyed their own credibility and lost so many viewers and readers, these organizations are now attacking their new, smaller divergent rivals on the internet.

    amenlight Riquin Dec 9, 2016 10:56 PM ,
    The Liberal Leftist and the MSM created the terms Alt-Right and Fake News to distort real news and make them fit into their political agenda! They use this to discredit Conservatives in an effort to shut down Alternative and Conservatist News Media, especially on the Internet and Talk Radio to end competition! They want Free Speech for the Left and Censorship for the Right! The truth is that people discovered their plot and it backfired!!!
    Mainstream media lost all credibility with We the People!!!

    [Dec 10, 2016] Site Behind Washington Posts McCarthyite Blacklist Appears To Be Linked to Ukrainian Fascists and CIA Spies

    Notable quotes:
    "... All of the "The Russians are Coming" nonsense is coming from Democrat party organs and mouthpieces. Not Trump and his media allies. ..."
    "... An excellent article from Mark. This Alexandra Chalupa sounds like a real piece of work. These Cold Warriors seem to have red-colored glasses and see commies everywhere they look. ..."
    "... Of course, there was that old experiment ( Kohler et al ) where they had people wearing different colored goggles for some time, then asked participants to take them off. And what happened? The participants continued to see in those hues. ..."
    "... Wait a second, so there was ..."
    "... CIA has been whipping ethnic Ukies into a patriotic frenzy for decades with social clubs that seep revanchist propaganda. ..."
    "... HR 6393: "(Sec. 501) This title establishes an executive branch interagency committee to counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence over peoples and governments (with the role of the Russian Federation hidden or not acknowledged publicly) through front groups, covert broadcasting, media manipulation, disinformation or forgeries, funding agents of influence, incitement, offensive counterintelligence, assassinations, or terrorist acts. The committee shall expose falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism, and assassinations carried out by the security services or political elites of the Russian Federation or their proxies." ..."
    "... Plus, that will add $160 million, IIRC, to The Deficit. ..."
    "... Two things this article curiously doesn't seem to mention. The first is Victoria Nuland, who must be a close Hillary confidante, and architect of the coup in Ukraine ..."
    "... So your food for thought is that the Russian state behaves rationally in the face of an aggressive military power? Of course, they are hacking everything. If they weren't before the NSA revelations (where the U.S. vacuums up everything and then has no safeguards on what they grab; Congress has had testimony about NSA employees using their power to stalk people), they were afterwards. ..."
    "... Here's some food for thought. John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton all tried to make a country of 145 million or so people with numerous internal problems a major campaign platform. Not one of them is President. Could there be a connection? ..."
    "... As one of the people who consistently calls bull hockey about the claims that the wikileaks releases of the DNC and Podesta emails are the results of Russian government hackers, I will hereby agree with the idea that Russia is hacking everything they can get their hands on. Mind you I believe that every major government from the US to China to Germany to India are hacking everything they can get their hands on. And that every government knows that about all the rest. As far as I am concerned anyone who doesn't believe that is beyond naive. ..."
    "... But thinking that every major government had access to Clinton's emails, Boeing's files, and knows what internet videos Obama/May/Merkel/Putin/Castro have accessed more than once is not the same thing as thinking they are stupid enough or have decent strategic reasons to make that public knowledge by releasing damaging but not destroying emails concerning the massive stupidity and arrogance of one candidate for President and her core people. ..."
    "... There is only one reason that the meme about Fake News is being pushed now – the people who have been pushing fake news for awhile to promote their agendas have lost the control they thought they had over the public and now worry about them rebelling. If fake news were important Judith Miller wouldn't have a job or a book deal and the opportunity to promote that book. Hell Murdoch wouldn't have a media empire. ..."
    "... I don't know why so many so-called movers and shakers want war with Russia, but it is clear that anyone getting in the way of that goal is now in the cross hairs. ProporNOT may be more about Ukrainian support, but the people who promoted them are about the reasons it was being used in the first place. ..."
    "... Eastern European fascists running propaganda web sites for the Whappo, indeed. ..."
    "... If you read Matt Stoller's excellent piece from The Atlantic ..."
    "... I don't see "Banana Republican" Trump as a fascist - he is in many ways an exemplar of Caudillismo , a charismatic, populist, but authoritarian oligarch. ..."
    "... Nance used fake news about Clinton speeches to propagate the fake news that the Podesta emails were fake. ..."
    "... Was amused to see that naturalnews (one of the sites listed in propornot – it looks like I guess a right wing alternative medicine type site) is offering a $10k reward for unmasking propornot but I don't think anyone's ever going to be able to collect. ..."
    "... Why? Because they take the site seriously on its claim of being composed of 30 members and will only pay out for the identities of at least ten. I think it's just one, maybe two guys. ..."
    "... There are dots to connect – the WP article, Congressional Section 501 activity, Senators McCain/Graham "leadership"; and most recently, Hillary's comments. Suspect coordination. Connect the dots. And then search for a motive. ..."
    "... The national security state is concerned that Trump will seek mutually beneficial agreements with Russia. For evidence of the power of the national "security" state a tour of the Pentagon is not necessary. Tour Tyson Corner, Virginia, instead, for starters. ..."
    "... And once Trump has established these agreements there will then be no stopping several Eastern European countries + Germany (of course) realizing where their economic interests really lie. Does anyone really believe that Germany is going to let itself be turned into an irradiated wasteland just to please a bunch of neocon paranoids ? ..."
    "... That's what the neocons, the MIC, and all their shills, and enablers truly fear. Paradoxically this ludicrous attempt to revive McCarthyism may well end up actually ending the Cold War for good & all 25 years after it should have ended. ..."
    "... From the article: "It's now been a few days, and the shock and disgust is turning to questions about how to fight back-and who we should be fighting against." ..."
    "... How many people, world-wide, are involved and invested in the whole "taking over everything" machinery of "state security" and espionage and corporate hegemony? And who is this "we" who should be fighting? ..."
    "... This book provides a detailed account of the ways in which the CIA penetrated and influenced a vast array of cultural organizations, through its front groups and via friendly philanthropic organizations like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. The author, Frances Stonor Saunders, details how and why the CIA ran cultural congresses, mounted exhibits, and organized concerts. The CIA also published and translated well-known authors who toed the Washington line, sponsored abstract art to counteract art with any social content and, throughout the world, subsidized journals that criticized Marxism, communism, and revolutionary politics and apologized for, or ignored, violent and destructive imperialist U.S. policies. ..."
    "... The CIA was able to harness some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom in the West in service of these policies, to the extent that some intellectuals were directly on the CIA payroll. Many were knowingly involved with CIA "projects," and others drifted in and out of its orbit, claiming ignorance of the CIA connection after their CIA sponsors were publicly exposed during the late 1960s and the Vietnam war, after the turn of the political tide to the left. ..."
    "... U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the "Democratic Left" and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell. The CIA, under the prodding of Sidney Hook and Melvin Lasky, was instrumental in funding the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a kind of cultural NATO that grouped together all sorts of "anti-Stalinist" leftists and rightists. They were completely free to defend Western cultural and political values, attack "Stalinist totalitarianism" and to tiptoe gently around U.S. racism and imperialism. Occasionally, a piece marginally critical of U.S. mass society was printed in the CIA-subsidized journals. What was particularly bizarre about this collection of CIA-funded intellectuals was not only their political partisanship, but their pretense that they were disinterested seekers of truth, iconoclastic humanists, freespirited intellectuals, or artists for art's sake, who counterposed themselves to the corrupted "committed" house "hacks" of the Stalinist apparatus. ..."
    "... It is impossible to believe their claims of ignorance of CIA ties. How could they ignore the absence in the journals of any basic criticism of the numerous lynchings throughout the southern United States during the whole period? How could they ignore the absence, during their cultural congresses, of criticism of U.S. imperialist intervention in Guatemala, Iran, Greece, and Korea that led to millions of deaths? How could they ignore the gross apologies of every imperialist crime of their day in the journals in which they wrote? They were all soldiers: some glib, vitriolic, crude, and polemical, like Hook and Lasky; others elegant essayists like Stephen Spender or self-righteous informers like George Orwell. Saunders portrays the WASP Ivy League elite at the CIA holding the strings, and the vitriolic Jewish ex-leftists snarling at leftist dissidents. When the truth came out in the late 1960s and New York, Paris, and London "intellectuals" feigned indignation at having been used, the CIA retaliated. Tom Braden, who directed the International Organizations Branch of the CIA, blew their cover by detailing how they all had to have known who paid their salaries and stipends (397-404). ..."
    "... I have no answers for "what is to be done." ..."
    "... It seems inevitable that perversion and corruption and greed will always eventually "trump" decency and comity, once a certain size and composition of a human population has been reached. ..."
    "... One may hope that the general principle of eventual incompetence that seems to apply to even the Deep State activities might become more immanent. ..."
    "... Dems didn't lose this elections because of "fake news". Dems lost because they did not prosecute the bankers who caused the 2008 financial crash, who fraudulently foreclosed on homes and are still engaged in fraud (see: Wells Fargo). imo. ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    financial matters December 9, 2016 at 7:00 am

    Great article but I'm unsure about the conclusion. ""This is the world the Washington Post is bringing back to its front pages. And the timing is incredible-as if Bezos' rag has taken upon itself to soften up the American media before Trump moves in for the kill. And it's all being done in the name of fighting "fake news" and fascism.""

    I was much more worried about this happening with Hillary at the helm. She seems more in line with Soros and the Ukrainian extremists. Trump still seems to be interested in working with Putin on things of mutual interest although he will probably find resistance in both US parties.

    craazyboy December 9, 2016 at 9:11 am

    Yup. I'm still thinking "Make Ukraine Great Again" is not on Trump's agenda. But I'm just taking things day by day. Still digesting Soros found some Nazis he likes. [Facebook "Like" gots it covered. No new tweaking of social media required.]

    However, I think it would be interesting if Trump investigated whether treason against Ukraine is punishable by firing squad under US Treason Law. Since they've made it kinda personal.

    Ted December 9, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Yeah, the piece is a bit uneven and the last bit a bit revealing of the author's own biases. All of the "The Russians are Coming" nonsense is coming from Democrat party organs and mouthpieces. Not Trump and his media allies.

    The most effective neo-fascism that we see emerging everywhere is pretty consistently on the erstwhile voices of the "left" affiliated with the Democrat Party which is double speak for the New American Right. Indeed, by going back to the height of the cold war to make connections to these shady organizations rather than modern day plutocrats (Amazonia and Googlie are low hanging fruit), the author is employing misdirection. So, I will take this with a few grains of salt.

    Romancing The Loan December 9, 2016 at 10:49 am

    Yeah. Didn't propornot even mention Trump himself as one of those scurrilously Russian-influenced? That's certainly been a major D talking point.

    cocomaan December 9, 2016 at 7:07 am

    An excellent article from Mark. This Alexandra Chalupa sounds like a real piece of work. These Cold Warriors seem to have red-colored glasses and see commies everywhere they look.

    Of course, there was that old experiment ( Kohler et al ) where they had people wearing different colored goggles for some time, then asked participants to take them off. And what happened? The participants continued to see in those hues.

    Roger Smith December 9, 2016 at 8:11 am

    Wait a second, so there was foreign intervention in this election and there were nefarious racists and eugenicists involved, but they weren't behind Trump, but Clinton!?

    /heavy sarcasm

    Thank you very much for sharing this JLS! What a fasc inating read! The historical context Ames provides is very intriguing and convincing.

    Katharine December 9, 2016 at 10:33 am

    "Convincing" is too strong. I would say rather suggestive, possibly persuasive. There is not enough evidence to convince. More investigation is needed, and this might be a productive line of inquiry, but it is too soon to talk about conclusions.

    Claudia Riche December 9, 2016 at 8:17 am

    I am a huge fan of your website and donate as regularly as i can. I am appalled at what the Washington Post did and its implications for free speech in the US going forward.

    That said, I find this article defamatory in purpose, rather than informative. I do not believe it meets the usual standards of Naked Capitalism: it is not fairly reasoned, nor based only on relevant fact to the issue at hand. In my opinion, it is designed to smear and thus undermines the considerable, unusual credibility of your website. I find it disturbing that it has been amplified by its inclusion as a link. It does damage to the cause, rather than further it.

    Roger Smith December 9, 2016 at 8:44 am

    How so? First off, we know very little and Ames acknowledges that, but he uses historical context to expand on that and build a case behind the PropOrNot / FPRI claims and their potential motives. He fully admits he is working with that we've got. Maybe all these illustrations do just happen to line up well and new information will change perception, but Ames discussion hits a lot of typical looking benchmarks.

    Eureka Springs December 9, 2016 at 9:11 am

    How is Mr Ames experience and the very place in which Chalupa works, what she says, as well as the history of our countries actions upon others around the world and within not reasonable to consider?

    I'm sorry if incorrect but you seem like a troll without explaining yourself in specificity further.

    Kogut December 9, 2016 at 8:33 am

    Disturbed voter, batshit Springtime-for-Hitler Ukies long predate Biden's involvement. CIA has been whipping ethnic Ukies into a patriotic frenzy for decades with social clubs that seep revanchist propaganda. The hapless Ukies were meant to be cannon fodder for hot war on the USSR. When Russia molted and shed the USSR, Ukraine continued its Soviet degeneration but the associations had a life of their own. That's how CIA clowns wound up proud owners of the Exclusion Zone.

    Sluggeaux December 9, 2016 at 9:12 am

    The DNC should have dropped the Chalupa. (I can't help myself this morning )

    MED December 9, 2016 at 9:20 am

    HR 6393: "(Sec. 501) This title establishes an executive branch interagency committee to counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence over peoples and governments (with the role of the Russian Federation hidden or not acknowledged publicly) through front groups, covert broadcasting, media manipulation, disinformation or forgeries, funding agents of influence, incitement, offensive counterintelligence, assassinations, or terrorist acts. The committee shall expose falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism, and assassinations carried out by the security services or political elites of the Russian Federation or their proxies."

    craazyboy December 9, 2016 at 9:30 am

    Plus, that will add $160 million, IIRC, to The Deficit.

    Jay December 9, 2016 at 9:38 am

    Two things this article curiously doesn't seem to mention. The first is Victoria Nuland, who must be a close Hillary confidante, and architect of the coup in Ukraine .

    The second thing is not so curious per se, but a common feature of articles about Russian hacking accusations–they gloss over the fact that there is good evidence that the Russians are hacking everything they can get their hands on. To assume otherwise is naive. Much of this evidence is available in a recently-published book, The Plot to Hack America by Malcolm Nance.

    He doesn't identify American news sources of being Russian stooges, but does describe how the hacks on the DNC have FSB (the new KGB) fingerprints all over them. He also describes Trump's ties to the Kremlin, as well as his advisors' business interests there. Food for thought.

    NotTimothyGeithner December 9, 2016 at 10:06 am

    So your food for thought is that the Russian state behaves rationally in the face of an aggressive military power? Of course, they are hacking everything. If they weren't before the NSA revelations (where the U.S. vacuums up everything and then has no safeguards on what they grab; Congress has had testimony about NSA employees using their power to stalk people), they were afterwards.

    Here's some food for thought. John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton all tried to make a country of 145 million or so people with numerous internal problems a major campaign platform. Not one of them is President. Could there be a connection?

    Pat December 9, 2016 at 10:08 am

    As one of the people who consistently calls bull hockey about the claims that the wikileaks releases of the DNC and Podesta emails are the results of Russian government hackers, I will hereby agree with the idea that Russia is hacking everything they can get their hands on. Mind you I believe that every major government from the US to China to Germany to India are hacking everything they can get their hands on. And that every government knows that about all the rest. As far as I am concerned anyone who doesn't believe that is beyond naive.

    But thinking that every major government had access to Clinton's emails, Boeing's files, and knows what internet videos Obama/May/Merkel/Putin/Castro have accessed more than once is not the same thing as thinking they are stupid enough or have decent strategic reasons to make that public knowledge by releasing damaging but not destroying emails concerning the massive stupidity and arrogance of one candidate for President and her core people.

    There is only one reason that the meme about Fake News is being pushed now – the people who have been pushing fake news for awhile to promote their agendas have lost the control they thought they had over the public and now worry about them rebelling. If fake news were important Judith Miller wouldn't have a job or a book deal and the opportunity to promote that book. Hell Murdoch wouldn't have a media empire.

    I don't know why so many so-called movers and shakers want war with Russia, but it is clear that anyone getting in the way of that goal is now in the cross hairs. ProporNOT may be more about Ukrainian support, but the people who promoted them are about the reasons it was being used in the first place.

    susan the other December 9, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    Because big picture. Eurasia is inevitably coming together and it is the end of an era. Why we thought we could prevent this from happening must be based on pure hubris. Everything has changed so much in one century that even language makes no sense. Eastern European fascists running propaganda web sites for the Whappo, indeed.

    Hillary Clinton taking up the cause against fake news. Jesus. As Liz Warren said, personnel is policy. You hire fascist nut cases, you create fascism. Hillary, you're so very patriotic.

    Sluggeaux December 9, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    If you read Matt Stoller's excellent piece from The Atlantic , "How the Democrats Killed their Populist Soul" you'll see that Clintonism matches the corporatist model of fascism as derided by Franklin Roosevelt in the late '30's, before mass-murder became associated with the brand and when people like Charles Lindbergh were touting it as the "modern" way forward. If you understand Clintonism as corporatist fascism, the DNC's affinity for Ukraine becomes more and more logical.

    I don't see "Banana Republican" Trump as a fascist - he is in many ways an exemplar of Caudillismo , a charismatic, populist, but authoritarian oligarch.

    marym December 9, 2016 at 10:38 am

    Nance used fake news about Clinton speeches to propagate the fake news that the Podesta emails were fake.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs/

    Jay December 9, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    I read that. I don't believe Nance said the Podesta emails were fake, just that there was a possibility that those supplying the documents to Wikileaks could adulterate the documents or introduce fabricated documents into the pipeline. Quite easy to do when leaking, what was it, fifty thousand emails? And I still haven't heard a single persuasive argument to disprove that the Russians hacked the DNC. Quite the contrary. The hacks originated from IP addresses known to originate in the FSA (Fancy Bear) who have led a prodigious list of pro-Russian exploits against targets throughout eastern Europe, including the Baltic states, Ukraine, and the German Bundestag. Real-time adjustments from those IPs also occurred from the Moscow time zone, and some used cyrillic keyboards.

    Don't get me wrong: I disagree with the WaPo piece, and have read, commented, and financially supported Naked Capitalism for quite a while now. And there's no faker news than that Iraq had WMDs, a fact that the press has never quite overcome in the eyes of the public. But just because spooky Intelligence Community people say that Russia hacked the DNC, doesn't make it not so. There are way too many people on the left going off half-cocked. Have you noticed how since the "fake news" imbroglio flamed up, MSM criticism of Trump's swampland cabinet picks have been quite muted?

    marym December 9, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    The Intercept post has a link to the Nance tweet, which is still out there, saying

    Malcolm Nance Retweeted KA Semenova

    Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done.

    He, Podesta, and the correspondents in the leaked emails never provided a single example and/or proof that any email was forged. Also, I don't understand the technicality, but there is some type of hash value associated with an email such that WL was able provide confirmation of those emails where the hash value was intact. Instructions on how to replicate that confirmation process were published at the time.

    Romancing The Loan December 9, 2016 at 9:40 am

    Was amused to see that naturalnews (one of the sites listed in propornot – it looks like I guess a right wing alternative medicine type site) is offering a $10k reward for unmasking propornot but I don't think anyone's ever going to be able to collect.

    Why? Because they take the site seriously on its claim of being composed of 30 members and will only pay out for the identities of at least ten. I think it's just one, maybe two guys.

    Outis Philalithopoulos December 9, 2016 at 10:28 am

    That's really funny.

    Carolinian December 9, 2016 at 10:48 am

    Or as Trump would say one 400 lb guy in his bedroom.

    Yalt December 9, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    Would Josh Frank's article today at Counterpunch on the BSDetector plugin be a good place to start, or is that unrelated BS?

    Deep Throat December 9, 2016 at 10:57 am

    There are dots to connect – the WP article, Congressional Section 501 activity, Senators McCain/Graham "leadership"; and most recently, Hillary's comments. Suspect coordination. Connect the dots. And then search for a motive.

    The national security state is concerned that Trump will seek mutually beneficial agreements with Russia. For evidence of the power of the national "security" state a tour of the Pentagon is not necessary. Tour Tyson Corner, Virginia, instead, for starters.

    JustAnObserver December 9, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    And once Trump has established these agreements there will then be no stopping several Eastern European countries + Germany (of course) realizing where their economic interests really lie. Does anyone really believe that Germany is going to let itself be turned into an irradiated wasteland just to please a bunch of neocon paranoids ?

    Goodbye sanctions and then, shortly after, its bye, bye NATO bye bye.

    That's what the neocons, the MIC, and all their shills, and enablers truly fear. Paradoxically this ludicrous attempt to revive McCarthyism may well end up actually ending the Cold War for good & all 25 years after it should have ended.

    Grizziz December 9, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    Good article. Great comment thread! Thanks to everyone.

    JTMcPhee December 9, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    From the article: "It's now been a few days, and the shock and disgust is turning to questions about how to fight back-and who we should be fighting against."

    How many people, world-wide, are involved and invested in the whole "taking over everything" machinery of "state security" and espionage and corporate hegemony? And who is this "we" who should be fighting?

    Fundamentals: The human siege of the planet is (it seems sort of clear) driving the biosphere toward collapse as a sustainer of most human life. Ever more of the extractable entities of the planet (mineral and living resources, "money" whatever that is, the day labor of most of us, on and on) are being used, and used up, in service to what? a relatively few masters of manipulation who are playing a game that most of the rest of us, were we able to focus and figure it out, would recognize as murder and attempted murder as part of a war "we" did not enlist (most of us) to participate in. The manipulators, both the ones sitting on extreme piles of wealth and the power it provides, and the senior effectives in the various "agencies" that play out the game, what the heck do they "want?" Other than "MORE"?

    What motivates a Coors or Koch or Bezos or Brock or the various political figures and their handlers and minions and "advisors?" This one little episode shows how completely it appears that the whole species is screwed: "Who do we fight, and how?" Are "we" is the readers of NC? Some few of whom are stooges and operatives for the Ministries of Truth who are tracking and recording what transpires here and no doubt subtly injecting "influencers" into the discourse. Some are just ordinary people, of varying degrees of insight and ability to influence the collective net vector of human activity (for good or ill). Some are hoping to just find some awareness of and comprehension of what-all is shaking on the Big Game Board of Life. In this moment, "we" depend, in this one tiny instance among the great flood of chaos-induction and interest-seeking, on the responses and pressures "our" hosts can bring to bear - threatening letters to the propagators like WaPo and Craig Timberg, just one tumor in the vast cancer that afflicts the species, attempts to link up with other parts of the too-small "good will, comity and deceny" population that is fractioned and atomized and constantly seduced or frightened into going along with the larger trend line, grabbing URLs and stuff I'm not smart enough to understand, all that. But the Big People, the Deep State that "we" are subtly taught NOT to believe exists by various bits of sophistry, is a lot better armed and equipped and always active - its operatives are paid, usually pretty well, to be on the job all the time, operating their various and manifold, multifarious, often ingenious, always disingenous operations, and always thinking up new ways to screw over and loot and debase and oppress and enserf the rest of us.

    Here's just one explication of how the Deep State operates:

    This book provides a detailed account of the ways in which the CIA penetrated and influenced a vast array of cultural organizations, through its front groups and via friendly philanthropic organizations like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. The author, Frances Stonor Saunders, details how and why the CIA ran cultural congresses, mounted exhibits, and organized concerts. The CIA also published and translated well-known authors who toed the Washington line, sponsored abstract art to counteract art with any social content and, throughout the world, subsidized journals that criticized Marxism, communism, and revolutionary politics and apologized for, or ignored, violent and destructive imperialist U.S. policies.

    The CIA was able to harness some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom in the West in service of these policies, to the extent that some intellectuals were directly on the CIA payroll. Many were knowingly involved with CIA "projects," and others drifted in and out of its orbit, claiming ignorance of the CIA connection after their CIA sponsors were publicly exposed during the late 1960s and the Vietnam war, after the turn of the political tide to the left.

    U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the "Democratic Left" and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell.

    The CIA, under the prodding of Sidney Hook and Melvin Lasky, was instrumental in funding the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a kind of cultural NATO that grouped together all sorts of "anti-Stalinist" leftists and rightists. They were completely free to defend Western cultural and political values, attack "Stalinist totalitarianism" and to tiptoe gently around U.S. racism and imperialism. Occasionally, a piece marginally critical of U.S. mass society was printed in the CIA-subsidized journals.

    What was particularly bizarre about this collection of CIA-funded intellectuals was not only their political partisanship, but their pretense that they were disinterested seekers of truth, iconoclastic humanists, freespirited intellectuals, or artists for art's sake, who counterposed themselves to the corrupted "committed" house "hacks" of the Stalinist apparatus.

    It is impossible to believe their claims of ignorance of CIA ties. How could they ignore the absence in the journals of any basic criticism of the numerous lynchings throughout the southern United States during the whole period? How could they ignore the absence, during their cultural congresses, of criticism of U.S. imperialist intervention in Guatemala, Iran, Greece, and Korea that led to millions of deaths? How could they ignore the gross apologies of every imperialist crime of their day in the journals in which they wrote? They were all soldiers: some glib, vitriolic, crude, and polemical, like Hook and Lasky; others elegant essayists like Stephen Spender or self-righteous informers like George Orwell. Saunders portrays the WASP Ivy League elite at the CIA holding the strings, and the vitriolic Jewish ex-leftists snarling at leftist dissidents. When the truth came out in the late 1960s and New York, Paris, and London "intellectuals" feigned indignation at having been used, the CIA retaliated. Tom Braden, who directed the International Organizations Branch of the CIA, blew their cover by detailing how they all had to have known who paid their salaries and stipends (397-404). http://monthlyreview.org/1999/11/01/the-cia-and-the-cultural-cold-war-revisited/

    And that is just one part of the "operations" put in motion by just "our" national rulers by ONE of the "seventeen national security agencies" that apparently appear in the organization chart of the US empire.

    These mostly faceless people, from "wet workers" to "economic hit men" to analysts and office workers and Station Chiefs and functionaries at DIA and NIA and NSA and the rest of the acronymists of "state security," are "just doing their jobs," with more or less personal malevolence (William Casey, Dick Cheney, the Dulleses, Kermit Roosevelt, on and on), seem to be working from a central organizing principle: Control of minds and resources, in service to imperial and corporate and personal dominion. What tools and actions and thought processes do ordinary people have, to fight back or even resist against this kind of onslaught? "We" are told we are becoming responsible to do our daily best, in among fulfilling our and our families' basic needs, and to minimize our environmental impacts to at least slow the destruction, and also somehow to become aware, in a world of dis- and dysinformation, of what is being done to us and our children and communities, and "resist." And "fight back." Against who, and against what, and by what means, when you have the "Googolverment," and all those millions of employees and managers and executives thereof, on call and on task 24/7 looking for ever more subtle ways to data mine and monetize and manipulate "us"? And in a feedback loop that has been ongoing since no doubt the earliest of "civilization" cities and tribes and nations, the "arms race" both in straight military terms and in the sneaky-pete realm of espionage and state security and "statecraft," "the Russians" and the Pakistanis and Chinese and Israelites, and probably Brazilians and Zoroastrians, are all growing their own machinery of consumption and dominance and destruction.

    What's the model "we" are supposed to be working from? Some people here are looking for "investment opportunities" to take advantage of the chaos and destruction, and there are many for those who can see the patterns and buy in. But what would a "just and decent world" (at least the human population) even look like, and is there anything in our DNA that moves enough of us toward that inchoate model to even have a prayer of suppressing those darker and deadlier impulses and motivations and goals?

    I have no answers for "what is to be done." It seems inevitable that perversion and corruption and greed will always eventually "trump" decency and comity, once a certain size and composition of a human population has been reached. One may hope that the general principle of eventual incompetence that seems to apply to even the Deep State activities might become more immanent. And try to build little communities that don't depend on killable cyber connections for their interconnectedness. And work on an "organizing principle" of their/our own, that has a chance of surviving the crushing mass of energetic but negative energy that infects the species.

    And thanks to our hosts, for doing their bit to face down the fokkers that would take us all down if they could. It's a constant struggle, and no doubt they are more aware than even a Futilitarian like myself of all the parasites and malignancies that are so increasingly active and invested in looting what's left of "antidotes."

    dk December 9, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    I have no answers for "what is to be done."

    Yes you do, the part about little communities and ad-hoc organizing principles is spot-on; that stuff works, it just grows slowly at first. It is also self-limiting, a valuable feature, given the manifest evidence of how badly things can go wrong when communities are pushed to grow beyond their capacities.

    It seems inevitable that perversion and corruption and greed will always eventually "trump" decency and comity, once a certain size and composition of a human population has been reached.

    Decency and comity have their little flaws, too; both can obscure incidents of gross folly. But yeah, population factors are just ferocious.

    One may hope that the general principle of eventual incompetence that seems to apply to even the Deep State activities might become more immanent.

    Not to worry. Incompetence is on it! Any second now wait for it wait for it excuse me, my timepiece seems to have frozen hmm. Well, it appears that "peak incompetence" has already arrived and done the bulk of its work, we just haven't noticed all of the results yet. We are now in that phase between the giant's stumble and their final impact on the ground.

    All this is normal, predictable, and as it should be (even the unfortunate parts); it's entropy. It would be wiser to abandon bivalent moralities and just evaluate each circumstance on its merits, and do our best.

    Yalt December 9, 2016 at 1:12 pm

    That Ukrainian nationalists are behind propornot seems clear; that they're from the Nazified wing seems implausible. Would the Bandera crowd be likely to think of putting a USS Liberty veterans' website on a list of Russian propaganda outlets?

    integer December 9, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Ukrainian nationalists = Nazified Ukrainians. Israel is also involved so yes it makes a lot of sense that the USS Liberty veterans' website on "the list". Might be time for Israel (and Genie energy) to kiss the Golan Heights goodbye.

    integer December 9, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    (((Israel))) was almost certainly the "brains" behind YYYpropornotYYY
    Not as clever as they think they are. Free Palestine!

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    Yats and Porky are Jewish, so are some oligarchs who sponsor various neo-Nazi military formations. Ihor Kolomoyskyi, for example, sponsors the Aidar Battalion. The bottom line is, the neo-Nazis need to please their US government and Ukie oligarch sponsors in order to keep the dough flowing, so Russians are the new Jews in Ukraine. Geopolitics makes for strange bedfellows.

    grizziz December 9, 2016 at 9:11 pm

    Wikipedia has Yats being a member of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic and Porky belonging to the Ukrainian Orthodox church. Not vouching for Wikipedia and knowing that history can produce some interesting heritage, I thought I would point that out. Kolomoyskyi has dual citizenship with Israel and of course infamous Clinton Foundation donor and Maidan supporter Victor Pinchuk was raised by Jewish parents before sacking his own country.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 9:39 pm

    The Forward certainly counts Porky as a Jew, and many Jewish organizations have attacked Yats for concealing his Jewish roots. Given the rampant anti-antisemitism in Ukraine, can't really blame them for concealing their identity. It was shortly before the Maidan that Mila Kunis went back to her native Ukraine to promote her flick, and got called very unsavory names by some rabid anti-Semites in Kiev.

    Kim Kaufman December 9, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Fake News: How a Partying Macedonian Teen Earns Thousands Publishing Lies

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/fake-news-how-partying-macedonian-teen-earns-thousands-publishing-lies-n692451

    " Dimitri - who asked NBC News not to use his real name - is one of dozens of teenagers in the Macedonian town of Veles who got rich during the U.S. presidential election producing fake news for millions on social media. "

    flora December 9, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    heh. Dems didn't lose this elections because of "fake news". Dems lost because they did not prosecute the bankers who caused the 2008 financial crash, who fraudulently foreclosed on homes and are still engaged in fraud (see: Wells Fargo). imo.

    Pat December 9, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    Well that and passed a regressive health insurance bailout that required people to purchase expensive and largely useless insurance; and showed their complete and utter contempt for working Americans by ignoring the real state of the under and unemployment, and continued that contempt by passing several job killing trade bills and attempting three other mega steroid versions of same.

    There are many reasons why the Democrats lost, but mostly it is because they stopped doing little more than barely pretending to represent the interests of anyone outside of the wealthy and corporate 'persons' who fund their campaigns and retirements. Protecting the banks and bankers being only the clearest example.

    Pat December 9, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    Dimitri works cheap. Although I'm sure Brock wasn't paying much more to his minions.

    John Medcalf December 9, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    I still don't see any of my favorite bloggers going after Bezos. I didn't even see him mentioned until today. We are looking pretty timid so far in the face of Trump and Bezos (Trump from another direction). No possibility of winning without fighting the war where it's taking place.

    Kim Kaufman December 9, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    Style
    Mainstream media puts out the call for pro-Trump columnists

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/mainstream-media-puts-out-the-call-for-pro-trump-columnists/2016/12/09/2153fdd2-bca7-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?postshare=9161481311692262&tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.4161c7dfadd3

    Comments are pretty funny:

    For Hire: Established corporation seeking experienced individuals in need of a challenge. Applicants should have –

    *at least 3 Yrs. experience of having their head head firmly up their backsides.
    * a certificate from a licensed physician confirming applicants
    mental impairment
    * an ability to to obfuscate combined with no understanding of the terms 'cognitive dissonance' 'false moral equivalence' and 'logical fallacy'

    Applicant must be at least 13 years old and show the capacity to convince 45% of America that he or she is 30.

    If this is you contact 1-800-DON TRUMP

    ginnie nyc December 9, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    Earlier in this thread there was a comment from Claudia Riche claiming the Ames article is, essentially, a smear job. I feel compelled to respond as I have direct personal knowledge of one of his two main points, specifically re: the extreme right-wing tenor of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, or FPRI in Philadelphia.

    I worked at FPRI (yes, me the Marxist) in the mid-to-late 1970's, and was in contact with people there through the early 1980's. I can testify that Ames's description of Strausz-Hupe and his ideas are entirely accurate. I didn't know much about S-H when I first started working there, but I figured out his age and original location probably made him a 3-way spook, at the least. I could cite chapter and verse of the various associates and leading personalities that went through there (including Alexander Haig) but I don't have the energy today.

    Ames mentions that FPRI was driven off the Penn campus – well, only in the technical sense. If you spit out the window you'd hit a university building, and many principals there were professors at Penn, including Strausz-Hupe. Also, many Penn grad students passed through there, and undergrads (like me).

    For laughs, here is an interesting, if airbrushed, synopsis of the influence of FPRI by my old friend Alan Luxenberg:

    http://www.fpri.org/news/2013/11/the-impact-of-the-foreign-policy-research-institute/

    So, no Ms. Riche, there is no smearing going on in Mark Ames detailed account in this regard.

    Outis Philalithopoulos December 9, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    Here it is – sorry it didn't post immediately. BTW stuff not posting immediately doesn't necessarily mean either (1) there is anything wrong with your comment, or (2) it got permanently eaten by Skynet. Sometimes the algorithm for finding spam gets false positives for reasons that are not entirely clear.

    ginnie nyc December 9, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    Outis, my comment on FPRI seems to have disappeared. Could you see if it can be extracted from Skynet? Thanks.

    JOHN bougearel December 9, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    that was alot of investigative digging jerri-lynn -- so nice To see u surprise me twice in a week. tremendous effort -thank you a post worth cross posting if it hasn't been already

    Jerri-Lynn Scofield Post author December 9, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    John–

    This is indeed a great post, but I'm not the author. Mark Ames is the author. I just cross-posted his fine work, which was originally published by AlterNet.

    RBHoughton December 9, 2016 at 9:14 pm

    The CIA's apparent involvement reveals the immense danger and probable failure of expecting a few managers to keep the sty clean.

    Its not just in spookery that standards have collapsed. The world of professionals – doctors, lawyers, accountants – has followed the same downward trajectory and it started in 1970 with demonetization and the subsequent expansion of honorable greed.

    It was in early 1970s that creative accounting and its penchant for creating wealth out of nothing appeared.Then we saw these dodgy scorers appearing in court and swearing to the truth of their new view. That infected the legal profession. The prosecutors were still willing to present all their evidence for and against conviction to the Judge but the defense increasingly cheated, led by the lawyer who tells his customers 'we never plead guilty,' and starts the creation of a case beyond a reasonable doubt in place of the defendant's actual evidence.

    It may be that doctors have so far escaped the moral collapse although on a recent visit to hospital I saw the elevator lobbies infested with the army of capitalism in the shape of suited drug salesmen trying to create obligations on the part of doctors.

    We seem to have lost our way and for the time being its the man who cares only for the bottom line who is winning the war of the world. He's the man who owns the newspaper that tells you every bad thing is because of foreigners.

    [Dec 10, 2016] Possible connection between Ukraian Diaspora in the USA and

    Typically Diaspora is more nationalistic the "mainland" population. This is very true about Ukrainian Diaspora, which partially is represented by those who fought on the side of Germany in the WWII. They are adamantly anti-Russian.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Here it also bears mentioning that it has been established that Yanukovych's Party of Regions transferred $200,000 to the far right Svoboda party and about $30,000 to the nationalist UNA-UNSO. This is serious money in Ukraine. ..."
    "... Firstly, most Ukrainians don't give a shit about Bandera and the OUN. So if they're not speaking out against people using those symbols or slogans it's not because they support them, but because they're more concerned with issues of pure survival. ..."
    "... And then these same fascists were whitewashed as noble freedom fighters by Western MSM simply because their interests happen to allign with the interests of the US, for the moment. ..."
    "... Uh, no. I haven't noticed anyone here thinking that Russia is some sort of fighter for social and economic justice. Rather, we as a group are sick of noxious propaganda driven by American Exceptionalism. ..."
    "... And speaking for myself, I find the rise of Russia to be potentially a very good thing for the US itself, if it manages to curtail the MIC-driven hegemonic drive, weakens its relative power, and forces it to focus its money and energies on pressing domestic issues. ..."
    "... The idea of considering Putin to be anticapitalist is risible. Putin represents a limit on a US hegemonized economic order and the greater likelihood that some portion ..."
    "... This is some insidious strawman and dishonest argumentation, speaking of "BS." Nowhere does this article state that the entire Maidan revolution was a "fascist coup"-that's you putting words in the author's mouth to make his article appear to be Russian propaganda. The author specifies names of top figures in power today with seriously disturbing neo-Nazi backgrounds-the speaker of Ukraine's parliament, its Interior Minister, and head of National Police. He never once calls it a "fascist coup". Using strawman to avoid having to answer these specific allegations is bad faith commenting. ..."
    "... The false analogy to Occupy shows how dishonest your comment is. No one disputes that neo-Nazi leader Parubiy was in charge of Maidan's "self-defense"; and that neo-Nazi Right Sektor played a lead role in the confrontations with the Yanukovych authorities. ..."
    "... I suspect that Mr. Kovpak is a member of the Ukrainian diaspora that first infested this country starting around 1945, and has since been trying to justify the belief that the wrong side won WWII. ..."
    "... "The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko " ..."
    "... Paruiby (Neo Fascist) was in charge before and after the Maidan for security – the trajectory of the bullets came from his peoples positions that shot the cops – analyzed over and over ..."
    "... The Nazi Asov Battalion among other organizations supporting the Regime in Kiev has Nazi symbols, objectives and is one of the main forces armed and trained by American Military. ..."
    "... The entire corrupt Kiev administration is Nazi and now it appears the Clinton Campaign has direct ties well beyond the $13 million she received in her Slush Fund from the Oligarchs in 2013. The driving force behind this entire Fake News Initiative and support for Hillary is becoming more visible each day. ..."
    "... Not to mention the Ukrainian Nazis penchant for shelling civilians. Or will Kovpak (Ukrainian school perhaps? Did his grandfather emigrate with the other Ukrainian SS?) will repeat the canard that unbeknownst to the locals, the rebels are shelling themselves, using artillery shells that can 180 mid-flight? ..."
    "... What is the liberals' talking point these days? "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker. End of story." Hillary's SoS-designate Nuland and Barry 0 decided that Ukie nazism wasn't a deal breaker. End of story. ..."
    "... Ukrainian neo-fascists were an integral part of the Maidan (trained in Poland, US, and Canada). ..."
    "... Yes, ordinary Ukrainians protested against corruption – but every U. government since 1991 has been corrupt. Yanukovich was no exception – but he was also not the worst one (do some research on J. Timoshenko). ..."
    "... There is enough actual footage from Maidan that shows the presence of neo-nazi members on the square from the beginning. They were also the one who completed the violent overthrow of the government that happened on 2/21-22/14 – after a deal had been signed calling for early elections. The burning of 48 people in Odessa was probably done by angels, according to your likely analysis. ..."
    "... So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points ..."
    "... I was going to say something about how the CIA made Ukraine's Social Nationalist party change its name to Svoboda (freedom), to obscure the obvious Nazi connection, but instead I will just laugh at you. ..."
    "... What a shocker that Jim Kovpak, the commenter who tries smearing this article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points" -- works for CIA-founded Voice of America and is a regular with Ukraine's "StopFake.org" which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy , the CIA's color revolution "soft" arm - in other words, PropOrNot's folks. Can't make this stuff up. ..."
    "... Wait, so in Kovpak's case our tax dollars are used to fund and disseminate propaganda to America's public, too? I am not shocked or anything, but rather amused that the vaunted American democracy and famously free media is beginning to resemble communist Bulgaria. ..."
    "... Okay, but isn't it the case that many far-right leaders have migrated to parties closer to the center, such as People's Front? Svoboda's leaders have done this. Andriy Parubiy, Tetiana Chornovol, and Oleksandr Turchynov, for example, hold high positions in People's Front, but started out as members or Svoboda. If I'm not mistaken, People's Front also has strong connections to the far-right Volunteer Battalions. I believe People's Front has its own paramilitary branch too. ..."
    "... What this tells me is that much of Ukraine's far-right may be masquerading as right-center. That's kind of like a political Trojan Horse operation. This way the fascists avoid standing out as far-right, but at the same time, move closer to the mechanisms of power within Ukraine's government. ..."
    "... Here's an article by Lev Golinkin commenting on the far-right's strong and dangerous influence on Ukraine today. A fascist presence like this could easily be a powerful element in Ukrainian elections, very suddenly and unpredictably too. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-ukrainian-far-right-and-the-danger-it-poses/ ..."
    "... This is getting darker and darker. As much as I dislike Trump I feel happier that Clinton didn't make it. The TINA party is the most reactionary thing by far! ..."
    "... Sanders might have had a hard time driving as far left on FP as he did on domestic issues. I'm his constituent, and I have a letter from him from mid-'15 reiterating all the mainstream lies about Russia and Ukraine. ..."
    "... and/or incontinence ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jim Kovpak December 9, 2016 at 3:45 am

    Hello, I'm the blogger of Russia Without BS, a site you cited once in the stories about PropOrNot. As I have recently written on my blog , I believe PropOrNot is most likely one person who is not linked to any real organization group or intelligence agency. The individual is most likely what I call a cheerleader, which is basically a person with no reasonable connection to some conflict, yet who takes a side and sort of lives vicariously through their imagined "struggle."

    That being said, you're probably not going to do yourself any favors claiming that Maidan was a fascist coup and that fascists are in charge in Ukraine. Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers (quite the opposite, actually), and they were not the majority of people there. Basically you condemning Maidan is like someone condemning Occupy just because of the presence of neo-Nazis and racists who were sometimes involved in certain Occupy chapters (this is well documented).

    Without actually bothering to look at the issues involved, you are basically telling millions of Ukrainians that they should have tolerated a corrupt, increasingly authoritarian government that was literally stealing their future all because some right-wingers happened to latch on to that cause too. Here it also bears mentioning that it has been established that Yanukovych's Party of Regions transferred $200,000 to the far right Svoboda party and about $30,000 to the nationalist UNA-UNSO. This is serious money in Ukraine.

    As for the slogan, yes, Slava Ukraini, Heroiam Slava! has its origins in the OUN, but there are some important things to consider when discussing Ukrainian history.

    Firstly, most Ukrainians don't give a shit about Bandera and the OUN. So if they're not speaking out against people using those symbols or slogans it's not because they support them, but because they're more concerned with issues of pure survival. Look at the average salary in Ukraine and look into some of the instances of corruption (some of which continue to this day), and you'll understand why a lot of people aren't going to get up in arms about someone waving the red and black flag. Most people have become very cynical and see the nationalists as provocateurs or clowns, and thus they don't take them seriously enough.

    ... ... ...

    olga December 9, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Before you call this good points, please familiarize yourself with the (accurate) history of the Maidan, Ukraine, neo-nazi presence in that country, and Russian history. Please Kovpak seems to be an embodiment of what Ames tries to convey.

    dk December 9, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    "You're a poseur!"
    "No, you're poser!"

    The more experienced observer listens to all sides; and all sides lie at least a little, if only for their own comfort. Beyond that, subjectivity is inescapable, and any pair of subjectives will inevitably diverge. This is not a malign intent, it's existential circumstance, the burden of identity, of individual life.

    My own (admittedly cursory) analysis happens to coincide with Jim Kovpak's first para (PropOrNot being primarily a lone "cheerleader"). And I can see merit, and the call for dispassionate assessment, in some of his other points. This does not mean I endorse Kovpak over Ames, or Ames over Kovpak; both contribute to the searching discussion with cogent observation (and the inevitable measure of subjective evaluation).

    I thank both for their remarks, and also thank our gracious hosts ;).

    hemeantwell December 9, 2016 at 9:23 am

    Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers

    No, but it was hijacked by fascists. It is sad that more democratic/progressive forces lost out, but that's what happened. You seem to be trying to avoid recognizing this fact by affirming the rightfulness of those who began the revolt. Their agency was removed not by Naked Capitalism or Mark Ames, but by fascists who out maneuvered, spent, and gunned them. It's time to mourn, not to defend a parasitic Frankenstein that is trying to develop a European fascist movement. Goons from that movement assaulted and injured May Day demonstrators in Sweden this year and then fled back to the Ukraine. They are dangerous and should not be protected with illusions.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Their agency was removed not by Naked Capitalism or Mark Ames, but by fascists who out maneuvered, spent, and gunned them

    And then these same fascists were whitewashed as noble freedom fighters by Western MSM simply because their interests happen to allign with the interests of the US, for the moment. Thus we have the ridiculous situation where supposedly reputable media like NYT and WaPoo cheer on the Azov battalion and its brethren, and deny the very symbolism of the various Nazi insignia and regalia featured on their uniforms. Jim makes some very good points, but he fell way short in ignoring the role of the US MSM in this travesty.

    And just in case someone tries to claim that we all make mistakes at times and that the MSM made an honest mistake in regards to these neo-Nazi formations, the same thing has been happening in Syria, where the US and its Gulf allies have armed extremists and have whitewashed their extremism by claiming even Al Qaeda and its offshoots are noble freedom fighters.

    hemeantwell December 9, 2016 at 12:05 pm

    Good on the parallel with Syria. The evolution, or distortion, of revolutionary movements as they struggle to gain support and offensive power and then either are modified or jacked by "supporting" external powers is not a cheering subject. The tendency to ignore that this has happened takes two forms. One is what we are here discussing. The other is its opposite, as seen in, for example, the way some writers try to maintain that there never was a significant democratic/progressive/humane etc. element to the Syrian opposition.

    flora December 9, 2016 at 9:57 am

    Ukraine, as I understand it, is not monolith but has roughly 2 interest areas – western and eastern – divided by the River Dnieper. The Western half is more pro-European and EU, the Eastern half is more pro-Russia. The word "fascist" in Ukraine means something slightly different than in means in the US and the EU. So I take your comment with a grain of salt, even though it is interesting.

    Ukraine's geographical location as the land "highway" between Europe and Asia has created a long and embattled history there.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 10:17 am

    So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points because you mistakenly think Russia is somehow opposed to US capitalism,

    Uh, no. I haven't noticed anyone here thinking that Russia is some sort of fighter for social and economic justice. Rather, we as a group are sick of noxious propaganda driven by American Exceptionalism.

    And speaking for myself, I find the rise of Russia to be potentially a very good thing for the US itself, if it manages to curtail the MIC-driven hegemonic drive, weakens its relative power, and forces it to focus its money and energies on pressing domestic issues.

    Soulipsis December 9, 2016 at 11:48 am

    Seconded.

    hemeantwell December 9, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    Thirded. The idea of considering Putin to be anticapitalist is risible. Putin represents a limit on a US hegemonized economic order and the greater likelihood that some portion of the fruits of the Russian oligarchic capitalist effort will benefit Russians, not elites tied to the US, because of his self-interested nationalism. Not much to cheer about but better than where things were headed when Yeltsin was in power.

    KRB December 9, 2016 at 10:49 am

    This is some insidious strawman and dishonest argumentation, speaking of "BS." Nowhere does this article state that the entire Maidan revolution was a "fascist coup"-that's you putting words in the author's mouth to make his article appear to be Russian propaganda. The author specifies names of top figures in power today with seriously disturbing neo-Nazi backgrounds-the speaker of Ukraine's parliament, its Interior Minister, and head of National Police. He never once calls it a "fascist coup". Using strawman to avoid having to answer these specific allegations is bad faith commenting.

    The false analogy to Occupy shows how dishonest your comment is. No one disputes that neo-Nazi leader Parubiy was in charge of Maidan's "self-defense"; and that neo-Nazi Right Sektor played a lead role in the confrontations with the Yanukovych authorities. There is absolutely no equivalent to this with Occupy at all. Where does this false analogy even come from? No where does the author state that Maidan was ONLY fascists, that is again your strawman response. Maidan had a lot of support from pro-western, pro-european, pro-liberal forces. But to deny the key and often lead roles played by neo-fascists in the actual organization, "self defense" and violent confrontations with the Yanukovych goons is gross whitewashing.

    Much worse is the way you rationalize the fascist OUN salute by arguing that it means something else now, or it's become normalized, etc. These are all the same bullshit arguments made by defenders of the Confederate flag. "It means something different now." "it's about heritage/being a rebel!/individualism!" There is no "but" to this, and anyone who claims so is an asshole of the first order. The salute descends directly from collaborators in the Holocaust and mass-murder of Jews and Poles and collaboration with Nazis. If people claim they don't understand its origins, then educate them on why it's so fucked up, don't make excuses for them. Really disgusting that you'd try to rationalize this away. There is no "but" and no excuse, period.

    "Russia Without BS" is one hell of an ironic name for someone bs-ing like this. Your failure to actually engage the article, setting up and knocking down strawmen instead, and evading, using false analogies-reveal your own intellectual pathologies. Try responding to the actual text here, and maybe you'll be taken seriously.

    Martin Finnucane December 9, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    +1

    My thought was that this post was an example of the strawman fallacy. Yet certainly Mr. Kovpak wasn't just shooting from the hip. That is, he thought about this thing, wrote it, looked it over, and said "well enough" and posted it. Poor logic, or bad faith?

    I think the tell was his characterization of the article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points." What the hell is a "Russian talking point"? How do Ames' contentions follow said talking points? Are he saying, perhaps, that Ames is another one of those Kremlin agents we've been hearing about, or perhaps another "useful idiot"? Perhaps Ames – of all people – is a dupe for Putin, right?

    Hasbara, Ukrainian style. Bringing this junk onto NS, either this guy is alot of dumber than he gives himself credit for, or he actually has no familiarity with NS, outside of the now- and rightly-notorious WP/ProporNot blacklist. Probably the latter, since it looks like his comment was a pre-masticated one-and-done.

    sid_finster December 9, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    I suspect that Mr. Kovpak is a member of the Ukrainian diaspora that first infested this country starting around 1945, and has since been trying to justify the belief that the wrong side won WWII.

    AD December 9, 2016 at 10:55 am

    I'm glad Jim Kovpak provided this background. I was very troubled to see Ames breezily smear the Ukrainian uprising as "fascist," essentially writing off the protesters as U.S. proxies and dismissing their grievances as either non-existent or irrelevant. Something similar has happened in Syria, of course. Yes, the U.S. ruling blocs try to advance their interests in such places, but if you ignore the people on the ground or dismiss them as irrelevant, you're just playing into the hands of other tyrannical interests (in Syria: Assad, Putin, Hezbollah, etc.).

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    $5 billion spent over the past 25 years by the US in Ukraine (per Nuland). Yeah, they ain't US proxies. Gla that you straightened that out for us.

    The grievances in Ukraine are many and are legitimate. But that the people's anger was hijacked by US-financed proxies is a fact. Nuland was caught dictating that Yats would be the new PM, and darned if he didn't become just that. The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko, and the country was plunged into a civil war. But Yats and Porky are freedom-loving democrats! The old saying remains true: "They may be corrupt SOBs, but they are our corrupt SOBs!"

    Heck, for all the crocodile tears shed by the West about corruption and democracy, it has nurtured corruption in Eastern Europe and looked the other way as democracy has been trampled. Including in my native Bulgaria, where millions of dollars spent by the US and allied NGOs on promoting and financing "free press" have seen Bulgaria's freedom of media ranking slip to third world levels. But Bulgaria is a "democracy" because it is a member of the EU and NATO, and as such its elites have done the bidding of its Western masters at the expense of Bulgaria's national interests and the interests of its people. Ukraine is headed down that road, and all I can say to regular Ukrainians is that they are in for an even bigger screwing down the road, cheer-led by the Western "democracies" and "free" media.

    Meddling by US hyperpower in the internal affairs and the replacement of one set of bastahds with another set of bastahds that is beholden to the US is not progress, which is why we call it out. After all the spilled blood and destruction sponsored by the US, can you honestly say that Ukraine and Syria and Libya and Iraq are now better off, and that their futures are bright? I can't, and I can't say that for my native country either. That's because this new version of neocolonialism is the most destructive and virulent yet. And it is particularly insidious because it fools well-meaning people, like yourself, into believing that it actually helps improve the lives of the natives. It does not.

    lyman alpha blob December 9, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    "The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko "

    That pretty much sums it up. Jim Kovpak does make some excellent points which help to understand what the Ukranians are thinking. The discussion regarding the poor education system and potential lack of knowledge of what certain symbolism refers to was really good. Sort of reminds me of the Southerners in the US who still claim that the Stars and Bars is just about Southern heritage and pride without bothering to consider the other ramifications and what the symbol means for those who were persecuted at one time (and continuing to today). But yeah, I'm sure there are those who think that that flag was just something the Duke boys used on the General Lee when trying to outrun Roscoe.

    All that being said, I don't believe anybody here thinks that Yanukovich was some paragon of virtue ruling a modern utopia. The problem is that the new boss looks surprisingly familiar to the old boss with the main difference being that the fruits of corruption are being funneled to different parties with the people likely still getting the shaft.

    If your a(just as many in the US are), it's quite possible they are also unaware of the current US influence in their country, just as most US citizens are unaware of what the US has done in other countries.

    I'd be very interested in Jim Kovpak's thoughts on this.

    RMcHewn December 9, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    $5 billion spent over the past 25 years by the US in Ukraine (per Nuland). Yeah, they ain't US proxies. Gla[d] that you straightened that out for us.

    Yes, it doesn't get any more blatant than that, and if anyone believes otherwise they are obviously hooked on the officially sanctioned fake news, aka the MSM.

    Damian December 9, 2016 at 10:56 am

    "Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers / Ukraine certainly does not have more right-wingers than other Eastern European nations" silly at best!

    Paruiby (Neo Fascist) was in charge before and after the Maidan for security – the trajectory of the bullets came from his peoples positions that shot the cops – analyzed over and over

    The Nazi Asov Battalion among other organizations supporting the Regime in Kiev has Nazi symbols, objectives and is one of the main forces armed and trained by American Military.

    The entire corrupt Kiev administration is Nazi and now it appears the Clinton Campaign has direct ties well beyond the $13 million she received in her Slush Fund from the Oligarchs in 2013. The driving force behind this entire Fake News Initiative and support for Hillary is becoming more visible each day.

    Your statements are pure propaganda and I would assume you work indirectly for Alexandra Chalupa!

    sid_finster December 9, 2016 at 11:35 am

    Not to mention the Ukrainian Nazis penchant for shelling civilians. Or will Kovpak (Ukrainian school perhaps? Did his grandfather emigrate with the other Ukrainian SS?) will repeat the canard that unbeknownst to the locals, the rebels are shelling themselves, using artillery shells that can 180 mid-flight?

    Young Ex-Pat December 9, 2016 at 11:28 am

    "Basically you condemning Maidan is like someone condemning Occupy just because of the presence of neo-Nazis and racists who were sometimes involved in certain Occupy chapters (this is well documented)."

    You must be kidding. Where to begin? Can we start with the simple fact that the Russian Foreign Ministry wasn't handing out baked goods to Occupy protesters in NYC, egging them on as they tossed molotov cocktails at police, who, strangely enough, refrained from shooting protesters until right after a peaceful political settlement was reached? Coincidence or fate? Or maybe there is strong evidence that right wing fanatics were the ones who started the shooting on that fateful day? http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31359021

    And sorry, no matter how much Kovpak denies it, the muscle behind the "glorious revolution" was a bunch of far-right thugs that make our American alt-right look like girl scouts. Andrei Biletsky, leader of Azov Battalion and head of Ukraine's creatively named Social-National Assembly, says he's committed to "punishing severely sexual perversions and any interracial contacts that lead to the extinction of the white man." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28329329 - Just like those hippies at Zuccotti Park, right?! Oh,and this guy received a medal from Poroshenko.

    I can keep going, but your "Maidan was just like Occupy!" argument pretty much speaks for itself. Glory to the heroes indeed.

    p.s. "Russia Without the BS" is awful.

    sid_finster December 9, 2016 at 11:30 am

    As someone who lived many years in Ukraine, speaks Ukrainian and Russian and knows personally many of the people involved, yes, Ukrainians know full well the origin of the Nazi slogans that the local Nazis spout.

    That doesn't mean that the average frustrated euromaidan supporter is a Nazi, but Nazis bussed in from Galicia did eventually provide the muscle, as it were, and the rest of the country were willing to get in bed with them, appoint them to run ministries, and let them have independent military units.

    Those Nazis are perfectly happy to call themselves Nazis.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 12:11 pm

    What is the liberals' talking point these days? "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker. End of story." Hillary's SoS-designate Nuland and Barry 0 decided that Ukie nazism wasn't a deal breaker. End of story.

    Foppe December 9, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    To be fair, there is a fairly wide gap between 'racist' and 'violent racist of the KKK/Nazi variety'.

    Also (yes, partly preaching to the choir, but with a purpose), liberals are perfectly happy to stay quiet about enormous income/prosecution/incarceration/kill rate differences, so long as those targeted/affected can (bureau-/meritocratically) be described as 'druggies/criminals/"extremists"/uneducated-thus- undeserving '. And to ignore drone bombing of brown people. Etc. So all the pearl-clutching/virtue-signaling concerning racism is pretty easy to shrug off as concerning little more than a plea to express one's support for racist policy in a PC fashion.

    (Highly recommend The New Jim Crow , which I've only recently started reading, for no good reason. Bizarre to realize that all of the stuff that's being reported on a little bit now has been going on for 30 years now (30y of silence / wir-haben-es-nicht-gewusst wrt the structural nature; note that any/all reporting that im/explicitly describes these issues as "scandals"/"excesses" is part of the problem.)

    Gareth December 9, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    The whole Fake News world is a house of mirrors:

    http://www.stopfake.org/en/stopfakenews-98-eng-with-jim-kovpak/

    olga December 9, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    WOW I guess we have democracy, so your comment got through. In a way, your post confirms the existence of rabidly anti-Russian entities – the very point that Mark Ames makes. But you know, there are people who know a thing or two about Russia and Ukraine, and can easily refute much of your diatribe. (1) Ukrainian neo-fascists were an integral part of the Maidan (trained in Poland, US, and Canada).

    Yes, ordinary Ukrainians protested against corruption – but every U. government since 1991 has been corrupt. Yanukovich was no exception – but he was also not the worst one (do some research on J. Timoshenko).

    Corruption persists in U. today – and based on the now-required property disclosures by U. politicians – may be even worse. It is likely correct that most U. don't give a damn about Bandera – but most U. also do not have any power to do anything about the neo-nazis, as they are (at least in the western part of the country) numerous, vocal, and prone to violence.

    There is enough actual footage from Maidan that shows the presence of neo-nazi members on the square from the beginning. They were also the one who completed the violent overthrow of the government that happened on 2/21-22/14 – after a deal had been signed calling for early elections. The burning of 48 people in Odessa was probably done by angels, according to your likely analysis.

    (2) But it is your comments about the U. neo-nazi participation in the war that seem to clarify who you really represent. This participation was not much discussed during the soviet times – I only found out that they continued to fight against the soviet state long after the war ended recently – from family members who witnessed it (in Belorussia, west. Ukr., and eastern Czechoslovakia). Some of them witnessed the unspeakable cruelty of these Ukr. "troops" against villagers and any partisans they could find. White-washing this period (or smearing soviet educational system) will not help – there is plenty of historical evidence for those who are interested in the subject.

    (3) What you say about the Russian state promoting this or that is just a scurrilous attack, with no proof. Not even worth exploring. On the other hand, there are plenty of documented murders of Ukr. journalists (google Buzina – a highly intelligent and eloquent Ukr. journalist, who was gunned down in front of his home; there are quite a few others).

    Ukr. in 2014 may have been protesting inept government, but what they ended up with is far worse – by any measure, Ukr. standard of living has gone way down. But now, the industrial base of the country has been destroyed, and the neo-nazi genie will not go back into the bottle any time soon. Ukr. as a unified place did not exist until after WWI, and the great divisions – brought starkly into contrast by the 2014 destruction of the state – cannot be papered over anytime soon.

    lyman alpha blob December 9, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    Appreciate the points you bring up but if the Ukranians truly want an end to an exploitative system, they probably are not going to get it by allying themselves with Uncle Sugar. The US provided billions of dollars to foment the coup and our oligarchs expect a return on that investment – they aren't going to suddenly start trust funds for all Ukranians out of the goodness of their hearts. You are aware of that aren't you?

    integer December 9, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points

    I was going to say something about how the CIA made Ukraine's Social Nationalist party change its name to Svoboda (freedom), to obscure the obvious Nazi connection, but instead I will just laugh at you.
    Hahahahahaha!

    Reply
    KRB December 9, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    What a shocker that Jim Kovpak, the commenter who tries smearing this article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points" -- works for CIA-founded Voice of America and is a regular with Ukraine's "StopFake.org" which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy , the CIA's color revolution "soft" arm - in other words, PropOrNot's folks. Can't make this stuff up.

    Rhondda December 9, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    It was patently obvious from his comment that he's a pro shill but very good to have the proof. Thanks, KRB.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 5:54 pm

    Wait, so in Kovpak's case our tax dollars are used to fund and disseminate propaganda to America's public, too? I am not shocked or anything, but rather amused that the vaunted American democracy and famously free media is beginning to resemble communist Bulgaria. The good news is that by the 80's nobody believed the state and its propagandists, even on the rare occasion they were telling the truth, and America's people seem to be a bit ahead of the curve already, which may explain the "fake news" hysteria from the creators and disseminators of fake news.

    Eddie Anderson December 9, 2016 at 8:34 pm

    Ukraine certainly does not have more right-wingers than other Eastern European nations, but if you look at their polls and elections you see that the far-right in Ukraine does far worse than it does in other Eastern and even Western European countries

    Okay, but isn't it the case that many far-right leaders have migrated to parties closer to the center, such as People's Front? Svoboda's leaders have done this. Andriy Parubiy, Tetiana Chornovol, and Oleksandr Turchynov, for example, hold high positions in People's Front, but started out as members or Svoboda. If I'm not mistaken, People's Front also has strong connections to the far-right Volunteer Battalions. I believe People's Front has its own paramilitary branch too.

    What this tells me is that much of Ukraine's far-right may be masquerading as right-center. That's kind of like a political Trojan Horse operation. This way the fascists avoid standing out as far-right, but at the same time, move closer to the mechanisms of power within Ukraine's government.

    Here in America we saw something like that in the early 1990s, when KKK leader David Duke migrated to the political mainstream by running for office as a Republican in Louisiana. Of course Duke never changed his views, he just learned to dissemble himself in the way he sold his politics to the public.

    Here's an article by Lev Golinkin commenting on the far-right's strong and dangerous influence on Ukraine today. A fascist presence like this could easily be a powerful element in Ukrainian elections, very suddenly and unpredictably too. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-ukrainian-far-right-and-the-danger-it-poses/

    Ignacio December 9, 2016 at 4:22 am

    This is getting darker and darker. As much as I dislike Trump I feel happier that Clinton didn't make it. The TINA party is the most reactionary thing by far!

    Benedict@Large December 9, 2016 at 7:32 am

    Yes, these are dangerous people, as are most "true believers". I'm also becoming even more disappointed at Ms, Clinton. For a while, she seemed to be keeping a little distance from her dead-enders, but now that her and Bill are out back on the money trail (How much is enough?), it doesn't look good.

    Selling fear? Really? Isn't there a shelf life on that?

    notabanker December 9, 2016 at 7:56 am

    Ahhh, but it's not money they accumulate, its power. And time is their only constraint. This is what they do.

    Jim Haygood December 9, 2016 at 8:03 am

    William Banzai7 on "Prop or Nuts." Hillary's "Childen of the Rainbow" button (look carefully) is to die for.

    https://c8.staticflickr.com/1/601/30710973103_365b8e0b4d_b.jpg

    Clive December 9, 2016 at 9:00 am

    There's a crock of something at the end of that rainbow, but I doubt very much that it contains any gold.

    ambrit December 9, 2016 at 11:07 am

    I'm not certain about the contents of that crock, good sir. We now live in a "culture" where s–t IS gold. Otherwise, why are we now enduring a "popular press" full of "wardrobe malfunctions," new amazing bikini bodies, salacious gossip, and equally salacious "news?" (The Page Three was shut down really because there was too much competition.)

    Oh tempura, oh s'mores! (Latinate for "We're crisped!")

    Carolinian December 9, 2016 at 9:30 am

    Indeed. The above article is great, great stuff and shows why some of us found Hillary more disturbing than Trump. Therefore Ames' final assumption

    And the timing is incredible-as if Bezos' rag has taken upon itself to soften up the American media before Trump moves in for the kill.

    seems a bit off. It's certainly true that Trump said news organizations should face greater exposure to libel laws but one suspects this has more to do with his personal peevishness and inability to take criticism than the Deep State-y motives described above. Clearly the "public versus private" Hillary–Nixon in a pant suit–would have been just the person to embrace this sort of censorship by smear and her connection with various shadowy exiles and in her own campaign no less shows why Sanders' failure to make FP the center of his opposition was, if not a political mistake, at least evidence of his limited point of view.

    It's unlikely that anyone running this time would be able to change our domestic trajectory but this fascism from abroad is a real danger IMO. In Reagan times some of us thought that Reagan supported reactionary governments abroad because that's what he and his rogue's gallery including Casey and North wished they could do here. The people getting hysterical over Trump while pining for Hillary don't seem to know fascism when it's right in front of them. Or perhaps it's just a matter of whose ox is going to be gored.

    Soulipsis December 9, 2016 at 11:59 am

    Sanders might have had a hard time driving as far left on FP as he did on domestic issues. I'm his constituent, and I have a letter from him from mid-'15 reiterating all the mainstream lies about Russia and Ukraine.

    Disturbed Voter December 9, 2016 at 6:45 am

    No surprise, ever since the US, and Biden, got involved in Ukraine. And it is even probable, that people like that were behind the Kennedy assassination, that the US has admitted was a conspiracy, that is still protected from "journalistic sunshine" under lock and key by the US government.

    integer December 9, 2016 at 6:49 am

    Thanks for giving this article its own post, and thanks to dcblogger for providing the link in yesterday's Water Cooler.

    Seems to me that this little bout of D-party/CIA incompetence, and/or incontinence, will finally sound the death knell for the Operation Paperclip gang's plan. Good riddance.

    integer December 9, 2016 at 7:01 am

    and/or incontinence

    I'm looking at you, Soros!

    [Dec 10, 2016] We Demand That PropOrNot Remove Its Blacklist, Report, and Browser Tool Defaming Naked Capitalism and Issue an Apology naked

    Notable quotes:
    "... merely reporting what PropOrNot said ..."
    "... the first in a series ..."
    "... The MSM has lost control of the narrative. The big dailies continue to hemorrhage ad revenue, month in and month out, year in and year out. Their existence going forward will be even more dependent on government assistance. Fake News is the pathetic death rattle of the neoliberal order. ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    As the Columbia Journalism Review stated (emphasis original):

    More importantly, the editor's note vaults into verbal gymnastics in an attempt to simultaneously rationalize and distance itself from an obviously flawed primary source. Any data analysis is only as good as the sum of its parts, and it's clear that PropOrNot's methodology was lacking.

    The Post, of course, was merely reporting what PropOrNot said . Yet it used declarative language throughout, sans caveat, lending credence to a largely unknown organization that lumps together independent left-wing publications and legitimately Russian-backed news services. The Post diminished its credibility at a time when media credibility is in short supply, and the non-apologetic editor's note doesn't help.

    And from FAIR (emphasis original):

    Almost two weeks after its article ran, the Post ran a sort of correction in the form of an editorial comment in italics pasted on top of the online edition of Timberg's November 24 piece (where only those looking for the by then old original story would find it). In that note, the editors say that the paper

    did not name any of the sites [on PropOrNot's blacklist], does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of the Post 's story, PropOrNot has removed some of those sites from its list.

    Of course, the damage was already done, as the original article achieved widespread circulation via the Post 's wire service; it would be up to all those news organizations that bought and ran the story, or reported their own versions of it, to make any correction.

    Meanwhile, the facile dodge of "we didn't name the sites" ignores the reality that the Post had prominently showcased PropOrNot and let its name vouch for the heretofore unknown group's credibility. The paper didn't have to run the list; anyone with a smartphone could do a Google search, find PropOrNot's website as the first listing, go to the homepage and find a link button headed "The List."

    And apparently plenty of readers did that. While thanks to the Post 's grant of anonymity, PropOrNot's hidden principals remained safe from inquiring reporters and Russian hackers alike, editors of sites named on its McCarthyite hit list quickly found themselves deluged with venomous calls and emails. As Jeffrey St. Clair, a co-founder and editor of CounterPunch.org , another site listed prominently as a propaganda tool, recalls, "The morning after the Post published its article, I found 1,000 emails in my inbox, mostly hate mail and death threats."

    readerOfTeaLeaves December 10, 2016 at 2:40 am

    Expert media commentators criticized the Post's handwave in the form of an editor's note that it placed at the top of a story that is now history, as opposed to news. The mild concession is likely to be read only by fans of the 199 sites that were defamed by the Post, and journalists who've taken interest in the row and not the vast public that read the story through the post and other major outlets, like USA Today, that re-reported or syndicated Timberg's piece.

    It all depends upon who you follow on Twitter, but from my check-in's today, the WaPo is not coming off well.

    This whole 'fake news' mess is downright weird.
    I have trouble understanding how anyone can govern, given the growing legitimacy problems.

    It seems as if there are (very well greased) wheels within (extravagantly funded) wheels moving behind the scenes.
    Meanwhile, apparently Obama has formally requested that the Intel Community develop a 'consensus report' about the role of the Russians in this most recent election (per Emptywheel). "Senior officials' in Congress have already been briefed, and some are apparently leaking: this much smoke signals a battle royale behind the scenes.

    The worst possible outcome, IMVHO, is failing to investigate and come clean.

    Every time our government is too gutless to deal with reality - whether WMD, or the Financial Crisis - the legitimacy of government is further eroded. It would be helpful if Hillary renounced the Presidency, and agreed that even if the election should be overturned, that she would defer to some other person. The investigation should not be used as a recount, nor as a re-do. It should function only to restore credibility to the US federal government, and for no other reason.

    Unfortunately for Trump, if he blocks this kind of investigation, it will only diminish his credibility, and weaken the very power he seeks to hold.
    Life is full of paradoxes and mysteries; this one takes the cake.

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 3:16 am

    I agree with your comment re Twitter, but Twitter is heavy with journalists who love the story of a media fight. This is catnip to them.

    The Washington Post story was tweeted far more heavily when it first ran than the follow-on criticism was. The story proper got 14,800 comments. It was picked up by USA Today, CNN, and I haven't even begun to track how many different other publishers. The original reach was at least an order of magnitude, and probably two orders of magnitude, bigger than the discussion of the itty bitty walkback.

    Presumptuous Insect December 10, 2016 at 6:16 am

    Yves,

    Do you have a website set up for donations, like GoFundMe or Paypal? If you do, I am sure lots of us can help you to get the word out on twitter, etc.

    PI

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 6:19 am

    Thanks so much!

    Please see our Tip Jar in the right column. It tells you how to donate using a debit or credit card, or send a check.

    We had a recent emergency fundraiser, and some of that has already been allocated to extra site coverage (to have others do more site-minding and content generation so as to free me up to spend time on this stuff) and the other part (a bit more than half the total) is to fund expenses for litigation.

    Generalfeldmarschall Von Hindenburg December 10, 2016 at 3:05 am

    Is this episode really Bezos carrying water for a faction of the deep state? They had to have known that if you malign the entirety of the alt media-left and right that they'd show their teeny little teeth.
    I bet they feed this chump Timberg to the crocodiles ultimately. Meanwhile Mark Ames will ferret out the weird nexus of Ukrainian Nazi types. But since the WaPo will take the heat and the public will lose interest, nobody will care. But in the end the 4 or 5 folks who came up with this scheme will have achieved their goals:

    *Throw mud on non corporate news reportage.
    *Fire a warning shot over Trumps bow
    *Plant seeds with the population for the future when some ginned up provocation will again put Russia in the crosshairs of a black propaganda campaign.

    These archonic m_fers are relentless. Russia represents an independent power which absolutely cannot be permitted by Empire. This is part of a long term strategy to box Russia in. They are seen as the weaker of the Sino Russian partnership and are being targeted first.

    rusti December 10, 2016 at 6:13 am

    Not having witnessed anything like this before I'm having trouble understanding the strategy here. What potential end game is there in dealing directly with PropOrNot? Jim Moody's time is valuable, Yves' time is valuable, but they seem likely to be a few nobodies who no one would have paid any attention to if the Washington Post hadn't amplified the reach of their amateurish operation by factor of a million.

    Clive December 10, 2016 at 6:24 am

    I think you said it all there without maybe realizing it - PropOrNot may seem like harmless nobodies and, left to their own devices and not given the oxygen of publicity that is what they'd have remained.

    But there are no accidents in life. The Washington Post (and do keep in mind its owner) picked up on their output and played their tune on the Mighty Media Wurlitzer thereby amplifying it. That alone is suggestive that PropOrNot may not be the two guys working out of their Mom's basement which it is easy to think they might be.

    Add in the fact that - worldwide now, I can tell you that even outside the U.S. this whole "fake news" meme is still getting lots of airtime, the BBC in England is running 'Russia Hacked the U.S. Election' stories right now as I watch and the Japanese language media has similar too - what the Washington Post is seeking to do looks very well orchestrated and coordinated it means that you must not take anything at face value here.

    allan December 10, 2016 at 6:47 am

    The MSM is all in. Last night the PBS Newshour ran the first in a series of stories on FakeNews™, with favorably framed clips of Clinton and Sheryl Sandberg, and an extended
    interview with Marc Fisher of the WaPo. Oddly, no mention of the PropOrNot fiasco.

    craazyboy December 10, 2016 at 8:08 am

    It doesn't take a tin foil hat to believe the globalist-neocon-neolib-blob_thing feels it necessary to delegitimize Trump and Trump's election in order to reassure its merry band of practitioners that it's still biz as usual in the One World.

    And tho it may seem a challenge to re-paint "Lying Hillary" as the beacon of truth, challenges are what keep one motivated and ever stronger. No pain no gain.

    P.S. Irony Of The Year Award goes to Russia for hacking and releasing real news. If we are giving them the credit for DNC hacks and Hillary's secret private server discovery.

    barefoot charley December 10, 2016 at 10:24 am

    All in: (Yes, the Russians did it and no, we don't have to prove it)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.3de053262ddc

    lyman alpha blob December 10, 2016 at 9:42 am

    I went to a fundraiser last night where the very politically involved crowd was largely liberal and one of the award presenters brought up 'fake news' during her speech. If I'm not mistaken a member of this woman's family was one of Clinton's superdelegates. This 'fake news' meme is definitely being spread far and wide.

    Nuke it from orbit.

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 6:33 am

    We need to pursue the source of the defamation. See the BuzzFeed story yesterday, which is generally very sympathetic to our position. Yet even that reporter says, Why have you gone after the Post and not ProOrNot too?

    I think this is at the very most six guys and probably more like two or three, for reasons not worth taking the time to explain. And do not forget that the New Yorker said not only they but other major pubs were shown the story and passed on it.

    So the question is more: why did the Post pick up on obvious rubbish and treat it as newsworthy? This may have less to do with grand conspiracy as much as a bad intersection of events, such as: the Post under Bezos explicitly placing much more pressure on reporters to churn out stories quickly, which means less fact checking; hysteria over Russia and fake news; and individual reporters and editors seeing it as to their advantage to be in front of a hot area, no matter at what risk. Recall the Post has run such nutty stories as one saying that Hillary's 9/11 collapse was due to Putin poisoning her.

    Jack December 10, 2016 at 9:07 am

    I think WAPO picked it up because they were obviously all in for Clinton during the election. Whether Bezos was the hand behind this or not, WAPO has certainly focused on Trump. They even admitted they were doing it as Bob Woodward disclosed in a Zero Hedge article. And of course, WAPO assisted Clinton against Sanders with their coverage which has been documented many times. Now Clinton is on the bandwagon of the fake news fiasco. She just gave a speech about it Thursday.

    rusti December 10, 2016 at 9:14 am

    Thanks Yves (and Clive) for the responses. My concern is that if a shoddy three-man operation, paired with a useful idiot MSM amplifier, can provoke a response that puts sites like NC on the defensive and takes time from original reporting, it could be a template for quick-and-dirty future attacks against independent media outlets. It seems like the amplifier is the only part of the chain that can't just change domain names and set up shop somewhere else.

    But I can see how ignoring them entirely isn't an optimal solution either. I'll keep throwing my change in the tip jar and seeing how it all unfolds.

    craazyboy December 10, 2016 at 8:47 am

    The PorN site is a dark site. We don't know who the principals are or where its funding comes from. YYYYvesYYY also said NC needs to know what jurisdiction to file in in order to pursue PorN, but that is not even known at this point. But in the Wapo response to TruthDig, Wapo stated they did have "numerous" discussions with some persons at PorN before running the story.

    So you got to shake the tree by the branches you can grab. The ball is now in Wapo's court to state, "Journalistic integrity demands we do not reveal our sources in order to protect their safety."

    Meanwhile PorN is calling upon the entire USG security apparatus to investigate 200 websites for Treason, but we are unsure about which country[government] Treason is being committed against in One World. This doesn't sound like a very safe situation for simple minded provincial US citizen homebodies.

    Mike December 10, 2016 at 6:25 am

    Hello,

    I have been browsing your links for many years now – I find them well balanced, genuine, thought provoking, and usually quite deep. And it is not just me – your quality is well recognized among financial online community and punditry.

    It is important you treat this thing with the right kind of attention. This is not mccarthian. If it would be, you would be locked down in some hole in a secret location. This is somebody claiming you have silicone tits and an extramarital affair with Michael Moore. Nobody gives a shit about this, or their software, or WaPo and thir article – even if it gets 10 million retweets. Twitter attention span is 1 minute.

    Sure, sue everybody. But never give them an aureola of some dark sinister power. Ridicule them every way of the step. Ridicule "newspapers of record". Ridicule retweets. Have fun with it. Find new cases of such crap, where you personally are not affected. Help Melania Trump in her great fight against online violence :-)

    Just never concede to this as a "media fight" or "two versions of reality". This has nothing to do with news or reality. Do not give them that ground. This is some insignificant ass claiming you have fake tits, and it was picked up by an obsolete marketing tool called WaPo. A claim of an extramarital affair with Michael Moore would probably get even more coverage and more retweets and I bet some cable news discussions about public health consequences of missionary position with such a voluptuous man.

    Make the most out of this opportunity.

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 6:44 am

    We are fighting a legal battle and a political battle. The need to do both somewhat restricts our degrees of freedom. The political battle is ultimately the far more important one, since the "fake news" scare is part of a major push to restrict content on the web, by de facto rather than de jure means.

    tegnost December 10, 2016 at 10:22 am

    you're kidding yourself, every time lately that I look at mainstream headlines the fake news story is there near the top, can no longer stomach the news hour but another commenter says they're doing a series think about all those proper folks demanding their kids not read alternative views? The only consolation I can think of is that hillary lost because clearly this story was put out in advance of her losing and would still be amplified had she won, .the outcome looks bleak either way from here might as well fight it

    Hoi Polloi December 10, 2016 at 7:04 am

    I can tell you these fake news websites articles were heavily promoted here in Europe, so the consequences are wide spread world wide.

    I tried to explain the reasons and people behind ProporNot, but my comments were censored on 3 of the biggest digital newspapers in The Netherlands, some of them are in close contact with Soros.

    We have national elections in March 2017 and I can tell you the majority of the people are mad as hell and they know the news presented to them in the MSM are/were heavily biased towards Clinton. The MSM are sh*t scared what will happen in March 2017, an earthquake in the political landscape. All the liberal political leaders are now suddenly promoting political stuff that was unimaginable 2 years ago.

    I have followed your website on and off the last 5 years and the idea that you are guided by the Ruskies is absolutely preposterous even insane.

    I just wonder, was Wapo so blinded by the total unexpected loss of Clinton that they keep on publicing this nonsense or is it the trench war by Trump through his tweets. Wapo must have been aware of the amateurish drivel from Propornot and took a big risk of being exposed as havily biased and unprofessional with a heavy backlash.

    Anyways, I would like to donate to you in this battle, do you accept Paypal as well.

    I wish you and your team lots of success, Yves in this battle for truth.

    Cheers
    Fred from Holland

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 7:37 am

    Thanks for the intel and your willingness to help. Yes, we accept PayPal. Please visit our Tip Jar (the snow leopards in the right column).

    Itamar Turner-Trauring December 10, 2016 at 7:54 am

    It's not clear who own the domain since they use a Whois privacy provider ( https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=propornot.com ).

    However, if PropOrNot doesn't respond you might be able to get their Whois privacy provider to get you the real owner's details – click on "File a Claim" at https://www.domainsbyproxy.com/default.aspx to see their process.

    Peter December 10, 2016 at 9:37 am

    Check this: http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/12/whos-behind-propornots-blacklist-of-news-websites/

    And follow the money. Always.

    FluffytheObeseCat December 10, 2016 at 7:58 am

    I realize that there were a number of right wing news outlets included in this de facto censorship effort. But, they seem to be in a much stronger position than the left wing ones. Wider distribution, less choosy about what they'll run, favored by the incoming power elite, etc. Except, perhaps for a few paleocons-turned-libertarian-contrarians like Paul Craig Roberts. The Drudge Report types seem less vulnerable.

    I haven't been paying as much attention as I should to post a comment. But, first order, it looks like this imbalance may pertain to targeting. No one could expect to dull the impact of the Drudge Report by including it in an app of this kind. It is simply too prominent. Therefore, dampening the influence of the Drudge Report (and similar sites) was not the point of this little exercise.

    Slurring the actual targets by including Drudge & company in the app seems . more the point.

    Carolinian December 10, 2016 at 8:32 am

    Last night the PBS Newshour did a segment on "fake news." They are also participating in the current PBS pledge drive. Perhaps they are hoping that George Soros will send them a big check.

    One had hoped that the show would improve now that the election is over. One was wrong.

    Local8 December 10, 2016 at 9:34 am

    The MSM has lost control of the narrative. The big dailies continue to hemorrhage ad revenue, month in and month out, year in and year out. Their existence going forward will be even more dependent on government assistance. Fake News is the pathetic death rattle of the neoliberal order.

    [Dec 10, 2016] Shiny object distruction from the real issues

    Short-termism is a real problem for the US politicians. It is only now the "teeth of dragon" sowed during domination of neoliberalism since 80th start to show up in unexpected places. And reaction is pretty predictable. As one commenter said: "Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'. ..."
    "... Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle hard. ..."
    "... i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a two-fer for the globalist statists) ..."
    "... Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected to the internet. ..."
    "... The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there? ..."
    "... Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us ..."
    "... The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers all over this election and elections all over the planet. ..."
    "... The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or millions. ..."
    "... What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines, good lord! ..."
    "... As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration, of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim with with neocon cadres. ..."
    "... Out of the 3,153 counties in this country, Hillary Clinton won only 480. A dismal and pathetic 15% of this country. The worst showing EVER for a presidential candidate. ..."
    "... The much vaunted 2 million vote lead in the popular vote can be attributed to exactly 4 boroughs in NYC; Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, & Brooklyn ..."
    "... 96 MILLION Americans were either too disgusted, too lazy, or too apathetic to even bother to go out and cast a vote for ANYONE in this election. ..."
    "... Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA. ..."
    "... Clapper sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever about lying to Congress. ..."
    "... There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia. The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies and others. ..."
    "... And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. ..."
    "... Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. ..."
    "... I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity: "The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming (no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor. ..."
    "... The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling ..."
    "... Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying. ..."
    "... This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's play. ..."
    "... At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show. ..."
    "... Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over the years into the CIA ..."
    "... Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration with open arms. ..."
    "... I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing his cabinet. ..."
    "... In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface, maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter. ..."
    "... after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing? ..."
    "... The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate all sorts of irrational BS. ..."
    "... 'CIA Team B' ..."
    "... 'Committee on the Present Danger' ..."
    "... 'Office of Special Plans' ..."
    "... Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. ..."
    "... It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. ..."
    "... He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in power. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    MEFOBILLS -> Keyser , Dec 10, 2016 1:01 PM

    It is worse than "shiny object." Human brains have a latency issue - the first time they hear something, it sticks. To unstick something, takes a lot of counter evidence.

    So, a Goebbels-like big lie, or shiny object can be told, and then it can take on a life of its own. False flags operate under this premise. There is an action (false flag), and then false narrative is issued into press mouthpieces immediately. This then plants a shiny object in sheeple brains. It then takes too much mental effort for average sheeple to undo this narrative, so "crowds" can be herded.

    Six million dead is a good example of this technique.

    Fortunately, with the internet, "supposed fake news sites like ZH" are spreading truth so fast - that shiny stories issued by our Oligarch overlords are being shot down quickly.

    Bezo's, who owns Washington Post, is taking rents by avoiding sales taxes; not that I'm a fan of sales taxes. But, ultimately, Bezos is taking rental thefts, and he is afraid of Trump - who may change the law, hence collapse the profit scheme of Amazon.

    Cognitive Dissonance -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM

    Oldwood. I have a great deal of respect for you and your intelligent opinions.

    My only concern is our constant and directed attention towards the 'liberals' and 'progressives'. When we do so we are thinking it is 'them' that are the problem.

    In fact it is the force behind 'them' that is the problem. If we oppose 'them', we are wasting our energy upon ghosts and boogeymen.

    Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'.

    chunga -> Cognitive Dissonance •Dec 10, 2016 11:33 AM

    I've been reading what the blue-teamers are saying over on the "Democratic Underground" site and for a while they've been expressing it's their "duty" to disrupt this thing. They are now calling Trump a "Puppet Regime".

    Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle hard. Also watch for moar of the Suprun elector frauds pop out of the woodwork. The Russian people must be absolutely galvanized by what's happening, USSA...torn into many opposing directions.

    dark pools of soros -> chunga •Dec 10, 2016 1:38 PM
    First tell them to change their name to the Progressive Party of Globalists. Then remind them that many democrats left them and voted for Trump.. Remind them again and again that if they really want to see blue states again, they have to actually act like democrats again

    I assure you that you'll be banned within an hour from any of their sites

    American Gorbachev -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:12 AM

    not an argument to the contrary, but one of elongating the timing

    i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a two-fer for the globalist statists)

    with a political timetable operative as well, whereby some (pardon the pun :) trumped up excuse for impeachment investigations/proceedings can consume the daily news during the run-up to the mid-term elections (with the intent of flipping the Senate and possibly House)

    these are very powerful, patient, and deliberate bastards (globalist statists) who may very well have engineered Trump's election for the very purpose of marginalizing, near the point of eliminating, the rural, christian, middle-class, nationalist voices from subsequent public debate

    Oldwood -> American Gorbachev •Dec 10, 2016 10:21 AM

    The problem is that once Trump becomes president, he will have much more power to direct the message as well as the many factions of government agencies that would otherwise be used to substantiate so called Trump failures. This is a calculated risk scenario for them, but to deny Trump the presidency by far produces more positives for them than any other.

    They will have control of the message and will likely shut down much of alternate media news. It is imperative that Trump be stopped BEFORE taking the presidency.

    sleigher -> overbet •Dec 10, 2016 10:00 AM

    "I read one morons comment that the IP address was traced back to a Russian IP. Are people really that dumb? I can post this comment from dozens of country IPs right now."

    Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected to the internet. IP addresses from Russia mean nothing.

    kellys_eye -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

    The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there?

    Paul Kersey -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

    "Most of our politicians are chosen by the Oligarchy."

    And most of our politicians choose the Oligarchy. Trump's choices:

    • Anthony Scaramucci, Goldman Sachs
    • Gary Cohn, Goldman Sachs
    • Steven Mnuchin. Goldman Sachs
    • Steve Bannon, Goldman Sachs
    • Jared Kushner, Goldman Sachs

    Wilbur Ross, Rothschild, Inc

    The working man's choices.....very limited.

    Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey •Dec 10, 2016 10:27 AM

    "Barack Obama received more money from Goldman Sachs employees than any other corporation. Tim Geithner, Obama's first treasury secretary, was the protege of one-time Goldman CEO Robert Rubin. "

    "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

    Nameshavebeench... -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 11:53 AM

    If Trump gets hit, the 'official story' of who did it will be a lie.

    There needs to be a lot of online discussion about this ahead of time in preparation. If/when the incident happens, there needs to be a successful counter-offensive that puts an end to the Deep State. (take from that what you will)

    We've seen the MO many times now;

    • Pearl Harbor
    • Iran in the 50's
    • Congo
    • Vietnam
    • Most of Latin America many times over
    • JFK
    • 911
    • Sandy Hook
    • Boston Marathon 'Bombings'
    • Numerous 'mass shootings'

    The patterns are well established & if Trump gets hit it should be no surprise, now the 'jackals' need to be exterminated.

    Also, keep in mind that everything we're hearing in all media just might be psyops/counter-intel/planted 'news' etc.

    sgt_doom -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 1:25 PM

    Although I have little hope for this happening, ideally Trump should initiate full forensic audits of the CIA, NSA, DIA and FBI. The last time a sitting president undertook an actual audit of the CIA, he had his brains blown out (President John F. Kennedy) and the Fake News (CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.) reported that a fellow who couldn't even qualify as marksman, the lowest category (he was pencilled in) was the sniper.

    Then, on the 50th anniversary of that horrible coup d'etat, another Fake News show (NPR) claimed that a woman in the military who worked at the rifle range at Atsuga saw Oswald practicing weekly - - absurd on the fact of it, since women weren't allowed at military rifle ranges until the late 1970s or 1980s (and I doublechecked and there was never a woman assigned there in the late 1950s).

    Just be sure he has trustworthy bodyguards, unlike the last batch of phony Secret Service agents (and never employ anyone named Elmer Moore).

    2rigged2fail -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 4:04 PM

    Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us

    Arnold -> Arnold •Dec 10, 2016 9:15 AM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

    jmack -> boattrash •Dec 10, 2016 11:08 AM

    All these Russian interference claims require one to believe that the MSM and democrat machine got out played and out cheated by a bunch of ruskies. This is the level of desperation the democrats have fallen too. To pretend to be so incompetent that the Russians outplayed and overpowered their machine. But I guess they have to fall on that narrative vs the fact that a "crazy" real estate billionaire with a twitter account whipped their asses.

    Democrats, you are morally and credulously bankrupt. all your schemes, agenda's and machinations cannot put humpty dumpty back together again. So now it is another period of scorched earth. The Federal Bureaucracy will fight Trump tooth and nail, joined by the democrats in the judiciary, and probably not a few rino's too.

    It is going to get ugly, like a machete fight. W. got a taste of it with his Plame affair, the brouhaha over the AGA firings, the regime of Porter Goss as DCI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Goss

    DuneCreature -> cherry picker •Dec 10, 2016 10:30 AM

    The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers all over this election and elections all over the planet.

    The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or millions.

    You said a mouth full, cherry picker. ..... Until the US Intel community goes 'bye bye' the world will HATE the US. ... People aren't stupid. They know who is behind the evil shit.

    ... ... ..

    G-R-U-N-T •Dec 10, 2016 9:39 AM

    What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines, good lord!

    Colborne •Dec 10, 2016 9:37 AM

    As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration, of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim with with neocon cadres. So, that's the lay of the terrain there now, that's who's running the place. And they aren't going without a fight apparently.

    Interesting times , more and more so.

    66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

    For those of us who still have a grip on reality, here are the facts of this election:

    • Out of the 3,153 counties in this country, Hillary Clinton won only 480. A dismal and pathetic 15% of this country. The worst showing EVER for a presidential candidate. Are they really trying to blame the Russians and "fake" news for THAT?? Really??
    • The much vaunted 2 million vote lead in the popular vote can be attributed to exactly 4 boroughs in NYC; Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, & Brooklyn, where Hillary racked up 2 million more votes than Trump. Should we give credit to the Russians and "fake" news for that, too?
    • 96 MILLION Americans were either too disgusted, too lazy, or too apathetic to even bother to go out and cast a vote for ANYONE in this election. On average 100 Million Americans don't bother to vote.The Russians and "fake" news surely aren't responsible for THAT!

    But given this is a story from WaPo, I think will just give a few days until it is thoroughly discredited.

    max2205 -> 66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 11:04 AM

    And she won CA by 4 million. She hates she only gets a limited amount of electoral votes.. tough shit rules are rules bitch. Suck it

    HalEPeno •Dec 10, 2016 9:43 AM

    Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA.

    Clara Tardis •Dec 10, 2016 9:45 AM

    This is a vid from the 1950's, "How to spot a Communist" all you have to do is swap out commie for: liberal, neocon, SJW and democrat and figure out they've about won....

    https://youtu.be/w86QhV7whjs

    dogismycopilot •Dec 10, 2016 9:51 AM

    This is the same CIA that let Pakistan build up the Taliban in Afganistan during the 1990s and gave Pakistan ISI (Pakistan spy agency) hundreds of millions of USD which the ISI channeled to the Taliban and Arab freedom fighters including a very charming chap named Usama Bin Laden.

    The CIA is as worthless as HRC.

    Fuck them and their failed intelligence. I hope Trump guts the CIA like a fish. They need a reboot.

    Yes We Can. But... -> venturen •Dec 10, 2016 10:08 AM

    Why might the Russians want Trump? If there is anything to the stuff I've been reading about the Clintons, they are like cornered animals. Putin just may think the world is a safer, more stable place w/o the Clintons in power.

    TRM -> atthelake •Dec 10, 2016 10:44 AM

    If it is "on" then those doing the "collections" should be aware that a lot of people they will be "collecting" have read Solzhenitsyn.

    "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"

    Those doing the "collections" will have to choose and choose wisely the side they are on. How much easier would it be for them to report back "Sorry, couldn't find them" than to face the wrath of a well armed population?

    Abaco •Dec 10, 2016 9:53 AM

    The clowns running the intelligence agencies for the US have ZERO credibility. Clapper sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever about lying to Congress. He was not fired or reprimanded in any way. He retired with a generous pension. He is a treasonous basrtard who should be swinging from a lamppost. These people serve their political masters - not the people - and deserve nothing but mockery and and a noose.

    mendigo •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM

    As reported on infowars:
    On Dec 9 0bomber issued executive order providing exemption to Arms Export Control Act to permit supplying weapons (ie sams etc) to rebel groups in Syria as a matter "essential to national security "interests"".

    Be careful in viewing this report as is posted from RT - perhaps best to wait for corraboaration on front page of rededicated nyt to be sure and avoid fratrenizing with Vlad.

    Separately Gabard has introduced bill : Stop Arming Terrorists Act.

    David Wooten •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM

    There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia. The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia.

    Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies and others. All of these institutions should be registered as foriegn agents and any cleared US citizen should have his or her clearance revoked if they do any work for these organizations, either as a contractor or employee. And these Gulf states have all been donating oil money to UK and US universities so lets include the foreign studies branches of universities in the registry of foreign agents, too.

    And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. Arms companies who sell deadly weapons to the Gulf States, in turn, donate money to Congressmen and now own politicians such as Senators Graham and McCain. It's no wonder Graham wants to help his pals - er owners. So what we have here ('our' government) is institutionalized influence, if not outright control, of US foreign policy by some of the most vicious states on the planet,
    especially Saudi Arabia - whose religious police have been known to beat school girls fleeing from burning buildings because they didn't have their headscarves on.

    As Hillary's 2014 emails have revealed, Qatar and Saudi Arabia support ISIS and were doing so about the same time as ISIS was sweeping through Syria and Iraq, cutting off the heads of Christians, non-Sunnis and just about anyone else they thought was in the way. The Saudi/Gulf States are the driving force to get rid of Assad and that is dangerous as nuclear-armed Russia protects him. If something isn't done about this, the Gulf oil states may get US into a nuclear war with Russia - and won't care in the least.

    Richard Whitney •Dec 10, 2016 10:10 AM

    So...somehow, Putin was able to affect the election one way, and the endorsements for HRC and the slander of Trump by and from Washington Post, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, practically every big-city newspaper, practically every newspaper in Europe, every EU mandarin, B Streisand, Keith Olberman, Comedy Central, MSNBC, CNN, Lady Gaga, Lena Dunham and a wad of other media outlets and PR-driven-celebs couldn't affect that election the other way.

    Sounds unlikely on the face of it, but hats off to Vlad. U.S. print and broadcast media, Hollywood, Europe...you lost.

    seataka •Dec 10, 2016 10:11 AM

    The Reverse Blockade

    "Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. " page 104, Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski more

    just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:51 AM

    that car ride for the WH to the capital is going to be fun.

    Arnold -> just the tip •Dec 10, 2016 12:12 PM

    Your comment ticked one of my remaining Brain Cells.

    The final scene of "The Gauntlet".

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076070/

    Pigeon •Dec 10, 2016 10:29 AM

    I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity: "The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming (no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor.

    The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling. 50% of the Federal govt needs to go.....now.

    What is BEYOND my comprehension is how anyone would think that in Putin's mind, Trump would be preferable to Hillary. She and her cronies are so corrupt, he would either be able to blackmail or destroy her (through espionage and REAL leaks) any time he wanted to during her presidency.

    Do TPTB think we are this fucking stupid?

    madashellron •Dec 10, 2016 10:31 AM

    Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46006.htm

    jfb •Dec 10, 2016 10:31 AM

    I love this. Trump is not eager to "drain the swamp" and to collide with the establishment, anyway he has no viable economic plan and promised way too much. However if they want to lead a coup for Hilary with the full backing of most republican and democrat politicians just to get their war against Russia, something tells me that the swamp will be drained for real when the country falls apart in chaos.

    northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:36 AM

    Fuckin' Obama interfered in the Canadian election last year by sending advisers up north to corrupt our laws. He has a lot of nerve pointing fingers at the Russians.

    I notice liberals love to point fingers at others, when they are the guilty ones. It must be in the Alinsky handbook.

    Pigeon -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:38 AM

    Called "projection". Everything they accuse others of doing badly, illegally, immorally, etc. - means that is EXACTLY what they are up to.

    just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:35 AM

    It is in the Alinsky handbook.

    Arnold -> just the tip •Dec 10, 2016 4:41 PM

    http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/04/13/12_ways_to_use_sau...

    jerry_theking_lawler •Dec 10, 2016 10:45 AM

    CIA = Deep State.

    Trump should not only 'defund' them but should end all other 'programs' that are providing funds to them. Drug trade, bribery, embezzelment, etc. End the CIA terror organization.

    Skiprrrdog •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM

    Putin for Secretary of State... :-)

    brianshell •Dec 10, 2016 10:50 AM

    Section 8, The congress shall have the power to...declare war...raise armies...navies...militia.
    The National Security Act charged the CIA with coordinating the nation's intelligence activities and correlating, evaluating and disseminating intelligence affecting national security.

    Rogue members of the executive branch have overstepped their authority by ordering the CIA to make war without congressional approval or oversight.

    A good deal of the problems created by the United States, including repercussions such as terrorism have been initiated by the CIA

    Under "make America great", include demanding congress assume their responsibility regarding war.

    Rein in the executive and the CIA

    DarthVaderMentor •Dec 10, 2016 10:59 AM

    This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's play.

    At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show.

    Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over the years into the CIA

    The fact that's forgotten about this is that if the story was even slightly true, it shows how incompetent the Democrats are in running a country, how Barak Obama was an intentional incompetent trying to drive the country into the ground and hurting its people, how even with top technologies, coerced corrupted vendors and trillions in funding the NSA, CIA and FBI they were outflanked by the FSB and others and why Hillary's server was more incompetent and dangerous a decision than we think.

    Maybe Hillary and Bill had their server not to hide information from the people, but maybe to actually promote the Russian hacking?

    Why should Trump believe the CIA? What kind of record and leadership do they have that anyone other than a fool should listen to them?

    small axe •Dec 10, 2016 10:55 AM

    At some point Americans will need to wake up to the fact that the CIA has and does interfere in domestic affairs, just as it has long sought to counter "subversion" overseas. The agency is very likely completely outside the control of any administration at this point and is probably best seen as the enforcement arm of the Deep State.

    As the US loses its empire and gains Third World status, it is (sadly) fitting that the CIA war to maintain docile populations becomes more apparent domestically.

    Welcome to Zimbabwe USA.

    marcusfenix •Dec 10, 2016 11:10 AM

    what I don't understand is why the CIA is even getting tangled up in this three ring circus freak show.

    Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration with open arms.

    I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing his cabinet. All these stars are not exactly going to support their president going belly up to the bar with Putin. and since Trump has no military or civilian leadership experience (which is why I believe he has loaded up on so much brass in the first place, to compensate) I have no doubt they will have tremendous influence on policy.

    In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface, maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter. perhaps some have grown so large and so powerful that they have their own agendas? it's not as if our federal government has ever really been one big happy family there have been many times when the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. and congress is week so oversight of this monolithic military and intelligence entities may not be as extensive as we would like to think.

    after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing?

    and is this really all just a small glimpse of some secret war within, which every once in a while bubbles up to the surface?

    CheapBastard •Dec 10, 2016 11:34 AM

    The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate all sorts of irrational BS.

    However, there is no doubt the Russians stole my TV remote last week.

    Kagemusho Dec 10, 2016 11:38 AM

    The Intel agencies have been politicized since the late 1970's; look up 'CIA Team B' and the 'Committee on the Present Danger' and their BS 'minority report' used by the original NeoCons to sway public opinion in favor of Ronald Reagan and the arms buildup of the 1980's, which led to the first sky-high deficits. It also led to a confrontational stance against the Soviet Union which almost led to nuclear war in 1983: The 1983 War Scare Declassified and For Real http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb533-The-Able-Archer-War-Scare-Decl...

    The honest spook analysts were forced out, then as now, in favor of NeoCons with political agendas that were dangerously myopic to say the least. The 'Office of Special Plans' in the Pentagon cherry-picked or outright fabricated intel in order to justify the NeoCon/Israeli wet-dream of total control of oil and the 'Securing the (Israeli) Realm' courtesy of invading parts of the Middle East and destabilizing the rest, with the present mess as the wholly predictable outcome. The honest analysts told them it would happen, and now they're gone.

    This kind of organizational warping caused by agency politicization is producing the piss-poor intel leading to asinine decisions creating untold tragedy; that the WaPo is depending upon this intel from historically-proven tainted sources is just one more example of the incestuous nature of the relations between Traditional Media and its handlers in the intel community.

    YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 11:54 AM

    This isn't a "Soft Coup". It's the groundwork necessary for a rock hard, go-for-broke, above the barricade, tanks in the street coup d'etat. You do not get such a blatant accusation from the CIA and establishment echo vendor, unless they are ready to back it up to the hilt with action. The accusations are serious - treason and election fraud.

    Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. His natural "Mistake" is seeking people at his level of business acumen - his version of real, ordinary people - when billionaires/multimillionaires are actually Type A personalities, usually predatory and addicted to money. In his world, and in America in general, money equates to good social standing more than any other facet of personal achievements. It is natural for an American to equate "Good" with money. I'm a Brit and foreigners like me (I have American cousins I've visited since I was a kid) who visit the States are often surprised by the shallow materialism that equates to culture.

    So we have a bunch of dubious Alpha types addicted to money in transition to take charge of government who know little or nothing about the principle of public service. Put them in a room together and without projects they can focus on, they are going to turn on each other for supremacy. I would not be surprised if Trump's own cabinet destroys him or uses leverage from their own power bases to manipulate him.

    Mike Pompeo, for example, is the most fucked up pick as CIA director I could have envisaged. He is establishment to his core, a neocon torture advocate who will defend the worst excesses of the intelligence arm of the MIC no matter what. One word from his mouth could have stopped this bullshit about Russia helping Trump win the election. Nobody in the CIA was going to argue with the new boss. Yet here we are, on the cusp of another attack on mulitple fronts. This is how you manipulate an incumbent president to dial up his paranoia to the max and failing that, launch a coup d'etat.

    It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. I think he was his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of him and he chose his cabinet from the establishment swamp dwellers to best protect him from his enemies. Wrong choices, granted, but understandable.

    He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in power.

    flaminratzazz ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:03 PM
    I think he was his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of him,,
    +1 I think he was just dickin around with throwin his hat in the ring, was going to go have fun calling everyone names with outlandish attacks and lo and behold he won.. NOW he is shitting himself on the enormity of his GREATEST fvkup in his life.
    jomama ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:16 PM
    Unless you can show how Trump's close ties to Wall St. (owes banks there around 350M currently
    YHC-FTSE ->jomama •Dec 10, 2016 12:59 PM
    My post is conjecture, obviously. The basis of my musings, as stated above, is the fact that the establishment has tried to destroy Trump from the outset using all of their assets in his own party, the msm, Hollyweird, intelligence and politics. A full retard attack is being perpetrated against him as I type.

    There is some merit to dividing the establishment, the Deep State, into two opposing sides. One that lost power, priestige and funds backing Hillary and one that did not, which would make Trump an alternative establishment candidate. But there is no proof that any establishment (MIC+Banking) entity even likes Trump, let alone supports him. As for Israel, Hillary was their candidate of choice, but their MO is they will always infiltrate and back both sides to ensure compliance.

    blindfaith ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:36 PM
    Do not underestimate Trump. I will grant that some of these picks are concerning. However, think in terms of business, AND government is a business from top to bottom. It has been run as a dog and pony show for years and look where we are. To me, I think his picks are strating to look like a very efficient team to get the government efficient again. That alone must make D.C. shake in thier boots.
    YHC-FTSE ->blindfaith •Dec 10, 2016 1:08 PM
    Underestimating Trump is the last thing I would do. I'm just trying to understand his motives in my own clumsy way. Besides, he promised to "Drain the swamp", not run the swamp more efficiently.
    ducksinarow •Dec 10, 2016 12:04 PM
    From a non political angle, this is a divorce in the making. Then democrats have been rejected in totallity but instead of blaming themselves for not being good enough, they are blaming a third party which is the Russians. They are now engaging the Republican Party in a custody battle for the "children". There are lies flying around and the older children know exactly what is going on and sadly the younger children are confused, bewildered, angry and getting angrier by the minute. Soon Papa(Obama) will be leaving which is symbolic of the male father figure in the African American community. The new Papa is a white guy who is going to change the narrative, the rules of engagement and the financial picture. The ones who were the heroes in the Obama narrative are not going to be heroes anymore. New heroes will be formed and revered and during this process some will die for their beliefs.

    Back to reality, Trump needs to cleanse the CIA of the ones who would sell our nation to the highest bidder. If the CIA is not on the side of America the CIA should be abolished. In a world where mercenaries are employed all over the world, bringing together a culturally mixed agency does not make for a very honest agency. It makes for a bunch of self involved countries trying to influence the power of individuals. The reason Castro was never taken down is because it was not in the interest of the CIA to do so. That is why there were some pretty hilarious non-attempts on Castro's life over the years. It is not in the best interest of the CIA that Trump be president. It is in the best interest of America that Trump is our President.

    brane pilot •Dec 10, 2016 12:22 PM

    Even the idea that people would rely on foreign governments for critical information during an election indicates the bankruptcy of the corrupt US media establishment. So now they resort to open sedition and defamation in the absence of factual information. The mainstream media in the USA has become a Fifth Column against America, no different than the so-called 'social science' departments on college campuses. Trump was America's last chance and we took it and no one is going to take it away.

    [Dec 10, 2016] On Missing Minsky

    Notable quotes:
    "... existing official models do not sufficiently explain the Minsky period, the runup, how things got so fragile that they could collapse so badly. ..."
    "... in effect Minsky provided a model and discussion of all three stages, although his model of the Keynes stage is not really all that distinctive and is really just Keynes. ..."
    "... he probably did a better job of discussing the Bagehot stage than did Bagehot, and more detailed, if less formal, than Diamond and Dybvig. ..."
    "... But the essentials of what go on in a panic and crash were well understood and discussed prior to 1873, with Minsky, and Kindlegerger drawing on Minsky in his 1978 Manias, Panics, and Crashes, quoting in particular a completely modern discussion from 1848 by John Stuart Mill ..."
    "... Keep in mind, there are an infinite number of models that fit the data. Science requires more that a fit. It requires that the model correspond with reality in a way that it can fill in observable data before it is observed. ..."
    "... Here's a theory (not a model): the true and revolutionary insights of Veblen, Keynes, and Minsky have all failed to significantly alter the trajectory of economic thought because the discipline expects "the truth" to do the impossible. ..."
    Jun 02, 2015 | econospeak.blogspot.com

    Yes, we miss the late Hy Minsky, especially those of us who knew him, although I cannot claim to be one who knew him very well. But I knew him well enough to have experienced his wry wit and unique perspective. Quite aside from that, it would have been great to have had him around these last few years to comment on what has gone on, with so many invoking his name, even as they have in the end largely ended up studiously ignoring him and relegating him back into an intellectual dustbin of history, or tried to.

    So, Paul Krugman has a post entitled "The Case of the Missing Minsky," which in turn comments on comments by Mark Thoma on comments by Gavyn Davis on discussions at a recent IMF conference on macroeconomic policy in light of the events of recent years, with Mark link http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2015/06/the-case-of-the-missing-minsky.htmling to Krugman's post.

    He notes that there seem to be three periods of note:

    Krugman argues that, despite a lot of floundering by the IMF economists, we supposedly understand the second two, with his preferred neo-ISLM approach properly explaining the final Keynes period of insufficiently strong recovery due to insufficiently strong aggregate demand stimulus, especially relying on fiscal policy (and while I do not fully buy his neo-ISLM approach, I think he is mostly right about the policy bottom line on this, as would the missing Minsky, I think).

    He also says that looking at 1960s Diamond-Dybvig models of bank panics sufficiently explain the Bagehot period, and they probably do, given the application to the shadow banking system. However, he grants that existing official models do not sufficiently explain the Minsky period, the runup, how things got so fragile that they could collapse so badly.

    Now I do not strongly disagree with most of this, but I shall make a few further points. The first is that in effect Minsky provided a model and discussion of all three stages, although his model of the Keynes stage is not really all that distinctive and is really just Keynes.

    But he probably did a better job of discussing the Bagehot stage than did Bagehot, and more detailed, if less formal, than Diamond and Dybvig. I suspect that Bagehot got dragged in by the IMF people because he is so respectable and influential regarding central bank policymaking, given his important 1873 Lombard Street, and I am certainly not going to dismiss the importance of that work.

    But the essentials of what go on in a panic and crash were well understood and discussed prior to 1873, with Minsky, and Kindlegerger drawing on Minsky in his 1978 Manias, Panics, and Crashes, quoting in particular a completely modern discussion from 1848 by John Stuart Mill (I am tempted to produce the quotation here, but it is rather long; I do so on p. 59 of my 1991 From Catastrophe to Chaos: A General Theory of Economic Discontinuities), which clearly delineates the mechanics and patterns of the crash, using the colorful language of "panic" and "revulsion" along the way. Others preceding Bagehot include the inimitable MacKay in 1852 in his Madness of Crowds book and Marx in Vol. III of Capital, although admittedly that was not published until well after Bagehot's book.

    One can even find such discussions in Cantillon early in the 1700s discussing what went on in the Mississippi and South Sea bubbles, from which he made a lot of money, and then, good old Adam Smith in 1776 in WoN (pp. 703-704), who in regard to the South Sea bubble and the managers of the South Sea company declared, "They had an immense capital dividend among an immense number of proprietors. It was naturally to be expected, therefore, that folly, negligence, and profusion should prevail in the whole management of their affairs. The knavery and extravagance of their stock-jobbing operations are sufficiently known [as are] the negligence, profusion and malversation of the servants of the company."

    It must be admitted that this quote from Smith does not have the sort of detailed analysis of the crash itself that one finds in Mill or Bagehot, much less Minsky or Diamond and Dybvig. But there is another reason of interest now to note these inflammatory remarks by Smith. David Warsh in his Economic Principals has posted in the last few days on "Just before the lights went up," also linked to by the inimitable Mark Thoma. Warsh discusses recent work on Smith's role in the bailout of the Ayr Bank of Scotland, whose crash in 1772 created macroeconomic instability and layoffs, with Smith apparently playing a role in getting the British parliament to bail out the bank, with its main owners, Lord Buccleuch and the Duke of Queensbury, paying Smith off with a job as Commissioner of Customs afterwards. I had always thought that it was ironic that free trader Smith ended his career in this position, but had not previously known how he got it. As it is, Warsh points out that the debate over bubbles and what the role of government should be in dealing with them was a difference between Smith and his fellow Scottish rival, Sir James Steuart, whose earlier book provided an alternative overview of political economy, now largely forgotten by most (An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Oeconomy, 1767).

    I conclude this by noting that part of the problem for Krugman and also the IMF crowd with Minsky is that it is indeed hard to fit his view into a nice formal model, with various folks (including Mark Thoma) wishing it were to be done and noting that it probably involves invoking the dread behavioral economics that does not provide nice neat models. I also suspect that some of these folks, including Krugman, do not like some of the purveyors of formal models based on Minsky, notably Steve Keen, who has been very noisy in his criticism of these folks, leading even such observers as Noah Smith, who might be open to such things, to denounce Keen for his general naughtiness and to dismiss his work while slapping his hands. But, aside from what Keen has done, I note that there are other ways to model the missing Minsky more formally, including using agent-based models, if one really wants to, these do not involve putting financial frictions into DSGE models, which indeed do not successfully model the missing Minsky.

    Barkley Rosser

    Update: Correction from comments is that the Ayr Bank was not bailed out. It failed. However, the two dukes who were its main owners were effectively bailed out, see comments or the original Warsh piece for details. It remains the case that Adam Smith helped out with that and was rewarded with the post of Commissioner of Customs in Scotland.

    Thornton Hall said... June 2, 2015 at 6:21 PM

    What, exactly, is the value added of formal (or even informal) "models" in all this? That is to say, if a historian were to describe the events and responses outlined above, what would he leave out that an economist would put in?

    Keep in mind, there are an infinite number of models that fit the data. Science requires more that a fit. It requires that the model correspond with reality in a way that it can fill in observable data before it is observed.

    Meanwhile, Simon Wren-Lewis dismisses the policy-maker who listens to the historian as using mere "intelligent guess work", strongly suggesting that economists clearly do better. But if trying to figure out whether the current moments is Minsky, Keynes or even Keen, isn't "guesswork" then I don't know what is. Put "intelligent guess work" policy next to model guided policy in your history above. Where's the value added from modeling? It has to be useful AND the policy maker must have a scientific reason for knowing it will be useful IN REAL TIME.

    Krugman frequently defends "textbook" modeling with a "nobody else has come up with anything better" response. But that's a classic "when did you stop beating your wife".

    What if the economy can't be modeled? Claiming to do the impossible is deluded, even if you can correctly say: "no one has ever improved upon my method of doing the impossible."

    "But we have learned so much!" People say that, but what, exactly, are they talking about?

    Thornton Hall said... June 2, 2015 at 6:42 PM

    Here's a theory (not a model): the true and revolutionary insights of Veblen, Keynes, and Minsky have all failed to significantly alter the trajectory of economic thought because the discipline expects "the truth" to do the impossible.

    Newton faced this when his theory of universal Gravity was criticized for failing to explain the distance of the planets from the sun. The Aristotelian tradition said that a proper theory of the heavens would do this.

    And so Keynes has his Aristotelian interpreter Hicks and Minsky has his Keen. Requiring the revolution to succeed in doing the impossible means that the truth gets misinterpreted or ignored. Either way, no revolution despite every generation producing a revolutionary that sees the truth.

    What is the value of this theory? If true, it explains how economics can be filled with smart people seeking the truth and yet make zero progress in more than a century.

    chrismealy June 2, 2015 at 8:27 PM

    I get the impression that mainstream economists are generally resistant to any kind of boom-and-bust models (at least while getting a BA in econ I was never taught any). Is this the case? It's too bad, because models like Lotka–Volterra are not that hard. Just from messing around with agent-based models it seems like anything with a lag or learning generates cycles. Is it because economists are fixated on optimization and equilibrium? Are they worried about models that are too sensitive to initial conditions?

    [email protected] said... June 2, 2015 at 11:24 PM

    Thornton,

    Maybe they should not be, but the discussion among IMF economists, Davis, Thoma, and Krugman has involved models, and in particular, conventional models. So, Krugman declares that there are conventional models as noted above to cover two of the stages, the latter two, but not the first one identified with Minsky. I think there are better models for all this, but they are not the conventional ones.

    chrismealy,

    The DSGE and other conventional models are able to model booms and busts, although they generally do not use the Lotka-Volterra models that such people as the late Richard Goodwin (and even Paul Samuelson) have used for modeling business cycle dynamics. The big difference is that the conventional models involve exogenous shocks to set off their busts, with cyclical reverberations that decay then following the exogenous shock, with some of the lag mechanisms operating for that.

    It is not really surprising that this sort of thing does not model Minsky or the Minsky moment, which involve endogenous dynamics, the very success of the boom as during the Great Moderation itself undermining the stability and even resilience of the system as essentially endogenous psychological (and hence behavioral) factors operate to loosen requirements for lending and to use Minksy language, lending and borrowing increasingly involves highly leveraged Ponzi schemes (and I note that some more conventional economists have emphasized leverage cycles, notably John Geanakoplis, although avoiding Minsky per se in doing so).

    New Deal democrat said... June 3, 2015 at 10:52 AM

    This is a good post and discussion so far. So here's my $.02:

    1. Maybe the behaviorists like Thaler have already explored this, but it seems to me that economists still need to learn learning theory from psychologists. Most importantly, "bservational learning," { http://psychology.about.com/od/oindex/fl/What-Is-Observational-Learning.htm ), or more simply "monkey see, monkey do." We constantly learn by observing behavior in others: our parents, our older siblings, the cool kids at school, our favorite pop icons, our professors, our business mentors, and so on. As to which,

    2. Some people are better at learning than others (duh!). Some learn right away, some more slowly, some never at all. And further,

    3. Some people are more persceptive than others, recognizing the importance of something earlier or later. If you recognized how important the trend change was when Volcker broke the back of inflation in the early 1980s, and simply bought 30 year treasuries and held them to maturity, you made a killing. If you discovered that in the early 1990s, you made less. And so on.

    All we need, to pick up on chrismealy's comment, are time periods and learning. Incorporate variations in skill and persceptiveness into the population, and you can get a nice boom and bust model. As more and more people, with various levels of skill, learn an economic behavior (flipping houses, using leverage), they will "push the edge of the envelope" more and more -- does 2x leverage work? Yes, then how about 4x? Yes, then how about 20x? -- until the system is overwhelmed.

    4. But if you don't want to incorporate imitative learning models from psychology, how about just using appraisals of short term vs. long term risk and reward. Suppose it is the 1980s, and I think treasury yields are on a securlar downtrend. But this book called "Bankruptcy 1995" just came out, based on a blue ribbon panel Reagan created to look at budget deficits. That best selling book forecasts a "hockey stick" of exploding interest rates by the mid-1990s due to ever increasing US debt. So let's say I am 50% sure of my belief that treasury yields will continue to decline for another 20 years, and I can make 10% a year if I am right. But if I am wrong .....

    Meanwhile, I calculate that there is an 80% chance I can make 10% a year for the next few years by investing in this new publicly traded company named "Microsoft."

    Even leaving aside behavioral finance theories about loss aversion, it's pretty clear that most investors will plump for Microsoft over treasuries, given their relative confidence in short term outcomes.

    Historically, once interest rates went close to zero at the outset of the Great Depression, they stayed there for 20 years, and then gradually rose for another 30. How confident are investors that the same scenario will play out this time?

    Either or both of the learning theory or the short term-long term risk reward scenario are good explanations for why backwards induction ad absurdum isn't an accurate description of behavior.

    ----

    BTW, a nice example of a failed "backwards induction" is the "taper tantrum" of 2013. Since investors knew that the Fed was going to be raising interest rates sooner or later, they piled on and raised interest rates immediately -- and made a nice intermediate term top at 3%.

    reason said... June 3, 2015 at 11:19 AM

    Barkley,

    I think New Deal Democrat has it here. This surely, can be covered with a simple model of asynchronous adaptive expectations with stochastic (Taleb type - big tail) risks. I wouldn't think you would even need a sophisticated agent based model. There must be plenty of ratchet type models out there to chose from.

    Sandwichman said... June 3, 2015 at 11:47 AM

    Thornton,

    "...the true and revolutionary insights of Veblen, Keynes, and Minsky have all failed to significantly alter the trajectory of economic thought because the discipline..." sacrifices to the God, Equilibrium.

    New Deal Democrat,

    WRT "monkey see, monkey do" see Andred Orlean's The Empire of Value which articulates his mimetic theory of value.

    [email protected] said... June 3, 2015 at 2:14 PM

    To New Deal Dem and reason,

    Sorry, I am not on board with this at all. Sure, I am all for incorporating learning and lags. No problem. This is good old adaptive expectations, which I have no problem with.

    The problem is back to what I said earlier, that Minsky's apparatus operates endogenously without any need for exogenous shocks, although it can certainly operate within those, as his quoting of Mill shows, although I did not provide that quote, but Mill starts his story of how bubbles happen with some exogenous initial supply/demand shock in a market.

    Why is what you guys talk about an exogenous shock model? Look at the example: Volcker does something and then different people figure it out at different rates. But Volcker is the exogenous shocker. If he does nothing, nothing happens.

    In Minsky world, there does not need to be an exogenous shock. The system may be in a total anf full equilibrium,, but that equilibrium will disequilibrate itself as psychological attitudes and expectations endogenously change due to it. This is what the standard modelers have sush a problem with and do not like. They have no problem wiht adaptive expectations models. This is all old hat stuff for them, with only the fact that one does not know for sure what all those lags are being the problem, and what opened the door to the victory of ratex because it said there are no lags and thus no problem. Agents now what will be on average.

    csissoko said... June 3, 2015 at 3:14 PM

    Warsh's history of the Ayr Bank has errors. The Bank of England offered it a "bailout" in 1772 but required the personal guarantees of the two Dukes which were not forthcoming. The Ayr Bank struggled on without lender of last resort support until August 1773, when it closed for good. (This is all in Clapham's history of the Bank of England.)

    What Warsh is calling a "bailout" was not a bailout of the bank, but of its proprietors who had unlimited liability and were facing the possibility of putting their estates on the market (which would have affected land prices in Scotland).

    As I understand Warsh's description, Parliament granted the two Dukes a charter for a limited liability company that would sell annuities. It is entirely possible that contemporary sources would describe such an action as "indemnifying" the promoters of the company. But what is meant by this use of the term is only that Parliament authorized the formation of corporation. The actual indemnity is provided in the event the corporation fails by the members of the public who are creditors of the corporation.

    In short, it is an error to claim that there was a "bailout" of the Ayr Bank.

    [email protected] said... June 3, 2015 at 3:30 PM

    Point taken, csissoko. I accept your corrected version. Parliament bailed out the dukes, not the Ayr Bank, which indeed failed.

    Thornton Hall said... June 3, 2015 at 4:42 PM

    I still don't understand what information is added by "models". Krugman has a job he has created for himself where everything he does is with an eye toward policy.

    So I'm a policy maker. Explain why I need a model. in the 1930s austerity caused recessions and WWII ended the Depression. A little history of Japan's lost decade and some thinking about the implications of fiat currency, and, voilia, Krugman's policy suggestions, with no models and therefore no need to listen to economists like Mankiw or the Germans currently destroying Europe (third times a charm).

    Thornton Hall said... June 3, 2015 at 4:51 PM

    By the by, I have thought this thru. The head of Duke's Philosophy Department agrees: Krugman's method for using models is empty hand-waving. However he comes to his conclusions, it is not logically possible that ISLM, or any other model, has anything to do with it.
    http://thorntonhalldesign.com/philosophy/2014/7/1/credentialed-person-repeats-my-critique-of-krugman

    AXEC / E.K-H said... June 3, 2015 at 5:04 PM

    Sitcom economics

    Comment on 'On Missing Minsky'

    Since Adam Smith economists have told rather enthralling stories about speculations, manias, follies, frauds, and breakdowns. The audience likes this kind of stuff. However, when it comes to how all this fits into economic theory things become a bit awkward. Of course, we have some modls -- Minsky, Diamond-Dybvig, Keynes come to mind -- but we could also think of other modls -- more agent-based or equilibrium with friction perhaps. On closer inspection, though, economists have no clue at all.

    Keynes messed up the basics of macro with this faulty syllogism: "Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income - consumption. Therefore saving = investment." (1973, p. 63)

    From I=S all variants of IS-LM models are derived including Krugman's neo-ISLM which allegedly explains the post-crash Keynes period. Let there be no ambiguity, all these models have always been conceptually and formally defective (2011).

    Minsky built upon Keynes but not on I=S.

    "The simple equation 'profit equals investment' is the fundamental relation for a macroeconomics that aims to determine the behavior through time of a capitalist economy with a sophisticated, complex financial structure." (Minsky, 2008, p. 161)

    Here profit comes in but neither Minsky, nor Keynes, nor Krugmann, nor Keen, nor the rest of the profession can tell the fundamental difference between income and profit (2014).

    The fact of the matter is that the representative economist fails to capture the essence of the market economy. This does not matter much as long as he has models and stories about crashing Ponzi schemes and bank panics. Yes, eventually we will miss them all -- these inimitable proto-scientific storytellers.

    To have any number of incoherent models is not such a good thing as most economists tend to think. What is needed is the true theory.

    "In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means, the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common sense or his personal opinion." (Stigum, 1991, p. 30)

    The true theory of financial crises presupposes the correct profit theory which is missing since Adam Smith. After this disqualifying performance nobody should expect that some Walrasian or Keynesian bearer of hope will come up with the correct modl any time soon.

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    References

    • Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011). Why Post Keynesianism is Not Yet a Science. SSRN Working Paper Series, 1966438: 1–20. URL http://ssrn.com/abstract=1966438.
    • Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2014). The Three Fatal Mistakes of Yesterday Economics: Profit, I=S, Employment. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2489792: 1–13. URL http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2489792.
    • Keynes, J. M. (1973). The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money. The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes Vol. VII. London, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
    • Minsky, H. P. (2008). Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. New York, NY, Chicago, IL, San Francisco, CA: McGraw Hill, 2nd edition.
    • Stigum, B. P. (1991). Toward a Formal Science of Economics: The Axiomatic Method in Economics and Econometrics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    New Deal democrat said... June 3, 2015 at 5:28 PM

    Prof. Rosser:

    In addition to my hypo re Volcker and interest rates, I also mention flipping houses and leverage.

    Person A flips a house, makes $100k. Person B learns of it, figures s/he can do just as well, and flips a house. Eventually enough people are doing it that news stories are written about it. By now 1000s of people are figuring, "if they can do it, I can do it.":

    So long as the trend continues, the person using financial leverage to flip houses makes even more profit. Person B uses more leverage, and so on. And since 2x leverage worked, why not 4x leverage. And if that works, why not 10x leverage?

    Both the number of people engaging in the behavior, and the financial leveraging of the behavior, are endogenous, unless you are going to hang your hat on existing trend (note, not necessarily a shock - of rising house prices0.

    All you need is more and more people of various skill sets at various entry points of time engaging in the behavior, and testing increasing leverage the more the behavior works.

    Secondly, as to stability breeding instability, stability itself is the existing trend. Increasingly over time, more and more leverage will be used to profit off the existing trend. All it takes is learning + risk-takers successfully testing the existing limits. The more stable the system, the more risk-takers can apply leverage without rupturing it -- for a while.

    New Deal democrat said... June 3, 2015 at 5:59 PM,

    Let me try to express my position as a series of axioms:
    1. Assume that no system, no matter how stable, can withstand infinite leverage.
    2. Assume that there is a certain non-zero percentage of risk-taking individuals.
    3. Assume that risk-takers will use some amount of leverage to attempt to profit within a stable system.
    4. Assume that risk-takers will use increasing leverage once any given lesser percentage of leverage succeeds in rendering a profit, in order to increase profits.
    5. Assume that others will learn, over various time periods, at varying levels of skill, to imitate the successful behavior of risk-takers.

    Under those circumstances, it is certain that any system, no matter how stable, will ultimately succumb to leverage. And the more stable, the more leverage will have been applied to reach that breaking point. I.e., stability breeds instability.

    Bruce Wilder said... June 3, 2015 at 6:50 PM

    Even using history as an analogy is implicitly introducing a model. You're saying, here's my model of this history and I crank my little model to show the behavior of the model simulates the historical record, then I adapt the model to present circumstances, and crank again arguing, again by analogy.

    What I would object to is the reliance on "analytic models" as opposed to operational models of the actual institutions. Economists love their analytic models, particularly axiomatic deductive "nomological machines", DSGE being the current orthodox approach. Not that there is anything wrong about analysis. My objection would be to basing policy advice on a study of analytic models to the exclusion of all else -- Krugman's approach -- rather than an empirical study of institutions in operation (which would still involve models, because that's how people think, but they might be, for example, simulation models calibrated to observed operational mechanisms).

    There are reasons why economists prefer analytic models, but few of those reasons are sound. In the end, it is a matter of bad judgment fostered by a defective education and corruption or weakmindedness. Among other things, reliance on analytic models give economics an esoteric quality that privileges its elite practitioners. Ordinary people can barely understand what Krugman is talking about in the referenced piece, and that's by design. He does his bit to protect the reputations of folks like Bernanke and Blanchard, obscuring their viewpoints and the consequences of their policies.

    I am not sure what can be done about it. Economists like Krugman are as arrogant as they are ignorant -- there's not enough intellectual integrity to even acknowledge fundamental errors, and that lack of integrity keeps the "orthodoxy" going in the face of manifest failures. For the conservatives on some payroll, the problem is even worse.

    I am not confident that shooing economists from the policy room and encouraging politicians to discuss these matters among themselves improves the situation. In doubt, people fall back on a moral fundamentalism of the kind that gets us to "austerity" and "sacrifice" and blames the victims -- pretty much what we have now.

    Re-doing Minsky as an analytic model is an impossible task almost by definition. Minsky's approach was fundamentally about abstracting from careful observation of what financial firms did, operationally. It made him a hero with many financial sector denizens, who recognized themselves in his narratives, even when he cast them in the role of bad guys. (No one is ever going to recognize himself as a representative agent in a DSGE model.)

    Perhaps the hardest thing to digest from Minsky is the insight that business cycles can not be entirely mastered. The economy is fundamentally a set of disequilibrium phenomena, the instability built-in (endogenous, as they say). The New Keynesian idea is that the economy is fundamentally an equilibrium phenomenon, that occasionally needs a helping hand to recover from exogenous disturbance. These are antagonistic world views, which cannot be reconciled with each other, and the New Keynesian view can be reconciled only minimally with the observable facts of the world, by a lot of ad hoc fuzzy thinking ("frictions").

    It's very ugly.

    Thornton Hall said... June 3, 2015 at 7:35 PM
    Bruce, I disagree with your view of politicians. The current GOP crop are essentially following the moral philosophy that, in the end, is the only content generated by economics. But it was not always thus.

    I once watched Senator Kit Bond of Missouri (very-R) try to round up a quorum in the Small Business Committee. It was quite clear that the man enjoyed people. He liked the company of just about everybody. Without the strong interference from economists, that's who ends up in politics. People like that are pragmatic. They try things. They aren't there for the purpose (contra Ted Cruz) of breaking things.

    You're right, my problem really is with analytic "models" which aren't really models but rather metaphors or analogies. But I don't think that's the only way reasoning from history can work.

    There are lots of areas of policy, some of which continue to resist conversion to economic religion. In education policy we try interventions and see what happens. It's inductive and mostly correlation, but thru trial and error we do progress toward better policy (although schools of education are only slowly moving away from their notoriously anti-scientific past).

    Politicians don't have to think about the budget like a household and tighten belts. They know that business borrow money all the time. It's actually the language of the academy that leads to "tightening belts" instead of investing in the future. Economics is the science of claiming that if you need something, and you can afford that something, you still must consider "multipliers" or "the philosophers stone" or some other nonsense before you can decide to buy what you need.

    Thornton Hall said... June 3, 2015 at 7:36 PM

    Mark Buchanan's book "Forecast" describes just this process.

    Thornton Hall said... June 3, 2015 at 7:44 PM

    What I mean to say about history: don't confuse theories with models. I have a theory about what caused what in the Great Depression. But I don't model the economy.

    reason said... June 4, 2015 at 9:36 AM

    Barkley,

    I think I should clarify, I think endogenous and exogenous are a little bit besides the point here. I think the exact trigger that starts a "state change" in the system has a stochastic component. But the increasing vulnerability of the system is endogenous, in a very Minsky sense. What I am saying is that increasing vulnerability could be modelled without using agent based modelling (a bit like modelling landslides or earthquakes if you like). I'm not saying that the model is just being driven by exogenous shocks.

    Bruce,

    I think there is a bit of tendency to mischaracterise what Paul Krugman is saying. He is the last person you should be accusing of mistaking the map for the territory. He is saying that EVEN relatively simple models can make sensible suggestions about policy in some circumstances.

    Yes, though I tend to agree with you that general equilibrium is the original sin in macro-economic modelling and that the system is in fact a disequilibrium system. But that doesn't imply to me at all that you can't use analytical approaches.

    Thornton Hall said... June 4, 2015 at 1:57 PM

    Krugman has no map. My link above demonstrates this quite conclusively.

    [Dec 10, 2016] Primer on the Alawites in Syria - Foreign Policy Research Institute

    Notable quotes:
    "... Alawites in Syria: French Mandate and Sectarian Tensions ..."
    "... "Baath nationalism was different from Sunni Arab nationalism in that [Baathists] wanted a united secular Arab society." ..."
    "... Founded in Syria in 1940 by Orthodox Christian Michel Aflaq and Sunni Salah al-Din Bitar, the Baathist movement was influenced by secular and pan-Arab ideas, championing freedom from foreign powers, Arab unity, and socialism. ..."
    "... Alawites in Syria: Assad Regime and Sectarian Tensions ..."
    www.fpri.org

    December 1, 2016 | www.fpri.org

    PDF Version Devin Trivedi is currently a senior at Moorestown High School. Read More

    ... .. ...

    History of Alawites in Syria
    Alawites in Syria: French Mandate and Sectarian Tensions
    The role of the Alawites in Syria first became apparent after World War I with the division of the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France. The division resulted in the assignment of Palestine to Britain and Syria and Lebanon to France. France, fearing potential independence movements and Arab nationalism which threatened its control over the region, intentionally inflamed sectarian separations during its mandate from 1920-1946 . Minorities, such as the Druze and Alawites, also feared the nationalist movements that were mostly dominated by Sunnis. With France fearing movements threatening its power and minorities fearing similar movements for more religious reasons, France pragmatically granted autonomy to areas where these minorities were heavily populated. On July 1, 1922, "the state of Latakia" was established for the Alawites, and by September 15, 1922, a court decision granted the Alawites legal autonomy. Not only did such autonomy strengthen the weaker minorities, but it also allowed for distinctions between religions and sects to be created thus preventing a unification of all Arabs and ensuring the preservation of France's power . Until 1942, and except for a three-year period from 1936 to 1939, the Alawites and Druze remained separate from the rest of unified Syria. To ensure sectarian divisions and to prevent any takeover by Arab nationalists, France deliberately ignored developing a ruling elite, coupling such a decision by having each institution represented by a different religious or ethnic group. Any former amicable relationship between the minority and Sunni majority and any possibility of growth in the nationalist movement in Syria deteriorated significantly because of France's "divide and rule" policy .

    This new relationship between groups in Syria continued after Syria's independence in April 1946 , stymieing any attempts for Arab unification and fostering greater attention towards local ambitions. Before independence from France, Syrians were united under one party and the common goal of achieving independence. After independence, a Sunni elite became in charge of the government, and integration of the minorities into Syrian society was necessary for a more nationalist approach. To eliminate regionalism and the domination of the minorities in parliament (due to their close relationship with France under its mandate), the Sunnis attempted to limit the representation of the concentrated minority groups in parliament. The Sunni elite eradicated the Alawite state, parliamentary seats, and certain minority jurisdictional rights.

    The abolition of jurisdictional rights in order to establish a centralized rule in Damascus ignited confrontation among the minorities . . . The Alawites became reconciled to common Syrian citizenship and gave up the dream of a separate Alawite state. This change of outlook, which seemed to be of minor importance at the time, actually led to a new era in Syrian politics: the political rise of the Alawites.

    The basis for sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Alawites is evident when one considers the change from Alawite autonomy to subordination under the Sunnis.

    Formed in 1921, the Troupes Spéciales du Levant was a local military used by the French that eventually evolved into the Lebanese and Syrian military. Similar to France's "divide and rule" approach, the integration of the Troupes Spéciales du Levant was done in a way so that it was difficult for any group to attain enough power to threaten French rule. Given the threatening nature of the Sunnis at the time, many of whom supported Arab nationalist movements, the military gained a large minority presence , and "military recruitment involved weakening the forces of nationalism that Arab Sunnis used to challenge the French over the future of Syria." Sectarian tensions were further developed with the creation of the Troupes Spéciales du Levant, given that the minority-dominated military frequently suppressed Sunni movements .

    Minorities frequently found themselves joining the military because it provided a source of income and potential for social mobility. Unlike the Sunni elites-who refused to send their children into the military under the pretense that it was furthering France's imperial desires and used their money to become exempt from military service-the Alawites and other minorities took advantage of the potential opportunity the military provided. By 1949 (the year of the first military coup in Syria), the Alawites had gained a political presence. By 1955, about 65% of the non-commissioned officers were Alawites. Before 1963, the Alawites did not outnumber the Sunnis in the officer corps, but they did dominate the lower positions of the military. Nevertheless , the trend towards higher ranking positions began after Syrian independence from France. After Syria's independence, the number of schools in Syria expanded greatly. [1] This expansion gave lower class citizens more educational opportunities, and they became more qualified for military academies, such as the Military Academy at Homs. [2] Sunni leaders believed that dominating the higher positions in the military was enough to ensure Sunni command of the military. This notion proved to be a key factor in the Sunni elite's demise.

    As the Alawites continued to dominate the lower ranks and ascend towards higher positions, the higher-ranking Sunnis failed to remain unified. The Sunnis led three military coups from 1949 to 1954. With the formation and establishment of the Syrian-Egyptian Union from 1954 to 1958, the officer corps failed to remain unified and split into factions. Even after the Sunni officer-led "union pledge" in January 1958, a coup led by Sunni officers in September 1961 resulted in Syria's separation from the union . The lack of unity between Sunni officers, specifically after Syria's break from the union, [3] "greatly weakened Sunni representation in the officer corps and strengthened the minorities, mainly the Alawite officer corps. 'As Sunni officers eliminated each other , Alawites inherited their positions and became increasingly senior; as one [Alawite] rose through the ranks, he brought his kinsmen along.'"

    Along with the military, the Baathist movement in Syria fostered greater Alawite power and furthered sectarian tensions. Unlike pan-Arabism, which, "aimed at the political resurrection of the Arabs as one nation" and had a strong association with Sunni Islam , "Baath nationalism was different from Sunni Arab nationalism in that [Baathists] wanted a united secular Arab society."

    Pan-Arab nationalists attempted to incorporate Islam into the pan-Arab movement for they believed that the religion played an integral role in both Arab history and culture. Even though the pan-Arab movement was considered to be spearheaded by Sunnis from the perspective of the minorities, many Sunnis disapproved of pan-Arabism because Islam did not play a sufficient role in its doctrine. While many Sunnis believed in a doctrine more heavily influenced by Islam , "the religious minorities supported the Baath's nationalistic ideology, in which all Arabs were equal, whether Sunni Muslims, Alawites or members of other heterodox Muslim communities or Christians."

    Founded in Syria in 1940 by Orthodox Christian Michel Aflaq and Sunni Salah al-Din Bitar, the Baathist movement was influenced by secular and pan-Arab ideas, championing freedom from foreign powers, Arab unity, and socialism. By April 1947, the Baath Congress gathered in Damascus, and another party, comprised mainly of Alawites, emerged with similar ideas. While the group supported Baathist ideas such as Arab independence and unity, the members followed Alawite scholar Zaki Arsuzi (follower of Alawite socialist, Dr. Wahib al-Ghanim), who placed priority on social justice. Ghanim insisted that particular socialist ideas be adopted into the Baathist constitution . While Aflaq rejected such adamancy, Bitar consented to uniting the Baath and Arab Socialist Party, which advocated for the same issues as Ghanim. Akram al-Hawrani, the leader of the Arab Socialist Party, received the support of many rural Alawites and young Alawite officers. With the merger of the two parties into the Arab Baath Socialist Party in September 1953, the Baathist movement gained strong support from officers (presumably minority officers) and the Alawite community, given the fact that the party's advocacy for social justice would inherently bolster the Alawites against the repressive Sunni s.

    While the Syrian-Egyptian Union resulted in the disbandment of all political parties, the Baathist ideology remained with organized Alawite groups that had a sizeable amount of control over the Latakian region. Thus, after Syria seceded from the union in 1961 , the Alawites "were the strongest and most organized force in the much-weakened national organization." During the Syrian-Egyptian Union, a military faction within the Baath Party developed, and a secret organization among Baathist-supporting officers in Egypt was created in 1959. Dr. Ayse Tekdal Fildis writes :

    The goal of the organization was to restore the Syrian army to Syrian control. The members of this secret military organization, eventually known as the military committee, were not involved in the Baath's traditional leadership or party structure. They operated as one of several politically active groups of officers involved in the dissolution of the union in 1961 and in the fight for political control of Syria during the subsequent year and a half.

    Following Syria's separation from the union, the Baath Party gained political potency swiftly. The Baath Party itself became a national ruling party only after the Baathist military faction's coup on March 8, 1963, which overthrew the " separatist regime " (responsible for Syria's secession from the Syrian-Egyptian Union and was undergoing infighting among Sunni leaders).

    With the rise of the Baath Party came the rise of and partiality towards the Alawites given the group's dominance in the Baath Party and its representation in the Baathist military faction (specifically the Military Committee). After this coup, the minority representation in the officer corps, especially that of the Alawites, increased greatly as Baathist military leaders ( five out of the fourteen members of the Military Committee were Alawites ) attempted to consolidate their power. [4] "The climax of the [Baathists'] power [monopolization] came on [ July 18, 1963 ], when a group of predominantly Sunni Nasserist officers, led by Colonel Jasim 'Alwan, staged an abortive coup. Most of the officers who suppressed this coup, not without bloodshed, were of minoritarian backgrounds, and among them [Alawites] played a prominent role." [5] Discrimination between Sunnis and the minorities became prevalent and more apparent in the years following 1963. In order to strategically preserve Baathist and minority power, army units were filled with "trusted" officers and stationed in tactical areas such as Damascus. [6] Units filled with non-minority members were more likely to be stationed in areas farther from the Baathist stronghold. These moves allowed for the military coup on February 23, 1966, which resulted in Alawite control of Damascus , to take place.

    Even as the Military Committee came into power following 1963, the leaders began to split and gain the support of those regionally and ideologically tied with them to bolster their individual powers. While leaders frequently strengthened themselves with people of the same sectarian background, alliances amongst the Military Committee leaders were not always along sectarian lines, and many times were merely for practical reasons to pursue their interests. [7] In 1970, both Alawite rivalries and Syria's series of coups "were put to rest with a bloodless military coup led by then-air force commander and Defense Minister Gen. Hafiz [al-Assad] (now deceased) against his Alawite rival, Salah Jadid. [Al-Assad] was the first Alawite leader capable of dominating the fractious Alawite sect."

    Alawites in Syria: Assad Regime and Sectarian Tensions

    Following the coup in 1970, which effectively marked the beginning of the Assad regime that exists today, Hafez al-Assad consolidated his power among trusted Alawites and prominent Sunnis in order to strategically thwart potential revolts by the Sunni majority. Specifically, he " stacked the security apparatus with loyal clansmen while taking care to build patronage networks with Druze and Christian minorities that facilitated the [al-Assad] rise." Additionally , to mollify Sunni dissatisfaction , the Assad "leadership co-opted key Sunni military and business elites, relying on notables like former Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass to contain dissent within the military and Alawite big-business families like the Makhloufs to buy loyalty, or at least tolerance, among a Sunni merchant class that had seen most of its assets seized and redistributed by the state." Such actions facilitated resentment from Sunnis, especially Sunnis extremists. Hafez al-Assad further engendered tensions between the Alawites and outspoken Sunni Islamists by constraining their abilities to spread the Sunni religious doctrine. The regime took over religious funding and discharged leaders of Friday prayers. Along with consolidating power through sectarian means, Hafez al-Assad politically established himself. In the period from 1971-1973 , Assad bolstered himself through a nominated Baath legislature, confirmed himself as President for a seven-year term through a national referendum, and established a new constitution that declared Syria a secular socialist state with Islam being the majority religion.

    With the Assad regime stabilized and consolidated through the support of Alawites, minority groups, and key Sunnis, any attempts to overthrow the regime were suppressed and only added to the sectarian tensions that already existed at the beginning of Hafez al-Assad's leadership. Such suppression peaked in the regime's crackdown on Sunni insurgents led by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, who were protesting Assad's new constitution. The constitution had established a secular state and allowed a non-Muslim to be president ( this was later amended ). The uprising, intended to overthrow the heretical Assad regime, began in 1976 and became the most violent in 1982, in Hama. In this Sunni-populated town, Assad and his Alawite constituency killed up to 20,000 residents . Since the incident at Hama, the Alawites continued to consolidate power and control over Syria . The Assad regime also preserved its power by overcoming various potential destabilizers: events that if handled improperly could have undermined the whole Assad regime. An attempted coup by Hafez al-Assad's brother, the death of Hafez al-Assad's apparent heir, Syria's frequent feuds with Israel, and Syria's involvement in Lebanon, all had the potential to destabilize the Assad regime . Rather, Assad dealt with these events in ways that either preserved Assad's rule or further strengthened the regime's power.

    Following the death of Hafez al-Assad on June 10, 2000, the Syrian parliament reduced the minimum age for presidential eligibility from 40 to 34 allowing Hafez al-Assad's son, Bashar al-Assad, to run for president and maintain the regime. Bashar al-Assad's regime preserved its ruling authority by imprisoning activists who advocated for democratic elections in August 2001 .

    It is important to note that while an apparent bias towards Alawites existed under the Assad regime, both Assads claimed that Syria was a non-sectarian state. For this reason, many Alawites still remain poor, and the Syrian education system promotes the majority orthodox faith in Syria, Sunni Islam . Moreover, dissent amongst Alawites exists in Syria, and Alawite dissenters have sometimes experienced harsher punishments than non-Alawites . Additionally, the Alawite regime did not completely repress the Sunni majority and promote Alawi Islam. Rather, the Alawite regime under Hafez al-Assad attempted to gain approval from the Sunni population as well as create a new relationship and distinction between government and Islam. According to Joshua Landis , director of the Center for Middle East Studies,

    When [Hafez al-Assad] came to power in 1970, one of his primary goals was to establish a new balance between the government and Islam. One of the central planks of his "Corrective Movement" was to abandon the radical secularism and socialism of the Jadid regime that preceded him. Although he reached out to Sunni clerics, giving them greater leeway in society, he strictly limited their influence in politics. At the same time, he encouraged Alawites to embrace mainstream Islam. He declared the Alawites to be nothing but Twelver [Shias], forbade Alawite Shaykhs to venerate Ali excessively, and set the example for his people by adhering to Sunni practice. He built mosques in Alawite towns, prayed publicly and fasted and encouraged his people to do the same. In short he tried to turn Alawites into "good" (read Sunnified) Muslims in exchange for preserving a modicum of secularism and tolerance in society To police this understanding, he squashed any semblance of democracy in Syrian political life, forbidding elections even within professional organizations and trade unions. As a result, civil society was crushed, ministries became havens for mafia groups, and any political life outside the secretive factions in the regime came to a standstill.

    Besides obtaining support from outside nations and groups such as Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah, Assad's regime initially received support from the Alawite community. The Alawites supported Assad for various reasons. While some backed the regime out of pure loyalty, other Alawites understood their fate if Assad's Alawite regime were to fall .

    For the latter group, the downfall of Assad would inevitably result in another Sunni rule, allowing the Sunni elite to once again oppress the Alawites . More importantly, given the acts of the Assad regime (including the killing in Hama), many Alawites understood their grim fate if Sunnis regained power and exacted their revenge for the loss of thousands of innocent Sunnis. For the most part, "the Assad regime has played on Alawite fears to help it stay in power ." Nevertheless, "the wholehearted loyalty that Hafez enjoyed in his early stage of rule has switched to another type of connection for Bashar based on sectarian insecurity ."

    ... ... ...

    [Dec 10, 2016] The head of the worlds largest private surveillance operation, billionaire Eric Schmidt

    Notable quotes:
    "... the world's largest private surveillance operation ..."
    "... Ha! I wish I'd thought of that line! I just laughed out loud on the train and my fellow commuter drones are shuffling and wondering to themselves if I'm on day release from an institution. ..."
    "... Of course, the joke's on us, because that's exactly what they (Google) are with all the right friends in high places to boot ..."
    "... Something that has been occurring lately with Chrome makes me think that Google is truly watching. A lot of sites (RT et al) are having the https// crossed out in red implying that the connection is no longer secure. ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Clive December 9, 2016 at 2:42 am

    " the head of the world's largest private surveillance operation , billionaire Eric Schmidt "

    Ha! I wish I'd thought of that line! I just laughed out loud on the train and my fellow commuter drones are shuffling and wondering to themselves if I'm on day release from an institution.

    Of course, the joke's on us, because that's exactly what they (Google) are with all the right friends in high places to boot .

    heresy101 December 9, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Something that has been occurring lately with Chrome makes me think that Google is truly watching. A lot of sites (RT et al) are having the https// crossed out in red implying that the connection is no longer secure.

    For instance, the "true" link in the article above has the https// in red when using Chrome, but Firefox does not make it unsecure (at least it isn't showing it). https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/maxim-eristavi/terror-against-ukraine-s-journalists-is-fueled-by-political-elites Does this have something to do with certificates or is something more sinister going on?

    Chrome puts each tab in a new process versus Firefox creating one big file that becomes unstable if you open too many tabs.

    There was a comment on ZH recently that referenced a secure browser but now I can't find the link. Does anyone have a suggestion?

    Clive December 9, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    Probably TOR but I would caution this is far from foolproof and may even incur The Panopticon's more intrusive surveillance attention.

    I value my privacy as much as anyone but I don't use TOR or similar simply because if they are not a guaranteed solution, what's the point? And besides, why should I have to? It's just another tax on my time and resources.

    Dopey Panda December 9, 2016 at 7:08 pm

    The opendemocracy link you gave shows up as having issues in firefox also. It looks like they have some insecure images on the page, which is probably what chrome is complaining about.

    [Dec 09, 2016] Washington Post Refuses to Retract Article Defaming Naked Capitalism and Other Sites naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... It appears that the globalists are scared of anything that resembles the truth that counters their incessant propaganda If there was ever a discovery process in a lawsuit against WAPO, I would imagine that all roads would lead to a Contelpro section of the CIA It's interesting that Wall Street on Parade has noted that Propornot has a double blind registration in New Mexico. ..."
    "... Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. ..."
    "... More and more it seems like USA, like the roman empire, needs barbarians at the gates to distract the plebs from internal structural problems. ..."
    "... As long as Yeltsin allowed Wall Street to loot Russia of former soviet holdings, Russia was not "barbaric". Now that Putin has put a solid halt on said looting, Russia is again "barbarians" ..."
    "... And by refusing to address the emails, other than to scream "Russian hackers," the corporate media were able to convince the Clinton cultists and other Third-Way believers that the information they contained was just another right-wing attack on The Anointed because (other than leftist, Russian-loving "fake news" sites), the right-wing media were the only ones paying it any attention. ..."
    "... I am old enough to remember seeing in the news reel at my local theater in 1950 Joseph McCarthy holding up a piece of paper to the cameras and intoning in his inimitable droning voice, "I have here in my hand a list of 205 known members of the Communist Party who are working and shaping policy in the State Department." ..."
    "... People's livelihoods and reputations were thereby smeared for life. Never did McCarthy back his claims with evidence, nor did he retract his scurrilous accusation. Now, tell me how what Jeff Bezos and co. are doing in this instance is in any significant way different from what McCarthy did to these people back in 1956. What finally put it squarely before the American public and finally earned McCarthy Congressional censure was when Boston attorney Joseph Welch asked McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" ..."
    "... Here's the thing. Yes, RT is funded by the Russian government, and thus anything posted thereon needs to be considered with that in mind. Nevertheless, it is also where stories the corporates prefer to ignore are given attention. In other words, there is an irony that the Russians may, indeed, be trying to influence us, but if so, they appear to be doing it by subtly undermining the reliability of the corporate media. ..."
    "... To put it another way, dismissing RT solely because of its funding source is no better than dismissing NC et al. as propaganda sites, and doing so is actually feeding the propaganda machine. After all, we don't know what percentage of the US media currently receives "grants" from US intelligence agencies, now, do we. ..."
    "... In studying communications, there's a distinction between 'white' and 'black' propaganda. White propaganda is publishing truth that supports your cause. Black propaganda is, of course, slanderous lies. RT is white propaganda, so use it for the value it brings. ..."
    "... Exactly. I'm a grown-up. I have a lot of practice reading critically and I'm quite capable of questioning sources and filtering bias. I don't need Jeff Bezos to protect me from Russkie BadThink. ..."
    "... "does not itself vouch " You have to bear in mind this is not the Post talking, this is CIA CIA has blatantly used the Post as a their sockpuppet since they put Woodward in there to oust Nixon, and now they've got Bezos by the contractual balls. CIA has impunity in municipal statute and secret red tape so any answer you get from them means No fuck You. ..."
    "... The NDAA legalized domestic propaganda in 2013 so when the public repudiated their chosen president Hillary Clinton, CIA immediately got to work work attacking Article 19. ..."
    "... [M]aybe we should just lump them [WaPo] in with Breitbart and company. ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    cocomaan December 8, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Right on. When Yves says:

    This is tantamount to an admission that not only did the Washington Post do no fact-checking, but also that it does not consider fact-checking to be part of its job.

    Another way to put it is to say that WaPoo is not in the business of investigation but instead is in the business of regurgitation . WaPoo seems to think that reporting equals repeating.

    We don't need people who repeat other people's words. We need reporters who are digging.

    Eduardo Quince December 8, 2016 at 7:30 am

    Not enough! They need to apologise. They should also fire Timberg.

    Was this mimicry of a Trump tweet intentional or subconscious?

    john bougearel December 8, 2016 at 7:46 am

    "This minimalist walk-back does not remedy the considerable damage [already] done to NC and other sites." No, it certainly does not. Once the "defamatory cat" is out of the bag, you can't exactly stuff the cat back in.

    Proceed, young lady with your case. But as you move forward, do take measures to keep these vampires from stealing your adaptive energies and health.

    p.s. You know, this diminiishes WaPo to a mere "blog aggregator" when allows its "reporters" such as Craig Timberg to merely "scrape and publish" posts from anonymous blogsites (not even scraping from the laughable "gold standard" of truth on the internet: Wiki). These reporters aren't writing, they are scraping. What a bunch of lazy fucks at WaPo!

    And you know what I'd really like to do: kick this Craig Timberg character a new ass in a dark alley. Yves, when you are done shredding WaPo and Timberg, I sincerely hope they won't be able to sit down for a whole year.

    p.s.s. that post (yd) about Wiki becoming the "gold standard" of 'fact-finding" and "truth" on the internet was particularly disturbing. Even citations from academic journals (such as JAMA) posted in Wiki are laden with flawed research suffering from poor design and methodology, draw the wrong conclusions, reveal biases and conflicts of interest, show a lack of references etc. Decades ago, there was a shift in much of the medical literature – a shift from "evidence-based" to "consensus-based." The internet appears to be moving in the same direction, using various tools and methodologies that allow "consensus-based" opinions (valued by the certain parties that be) to be shaped as "facts" and "truth." When in fact, those opinions are anything but a truth.

    Alex December 8, 2016 at 8:53 am

    I suppose they're applying the Amazon retail aggregation model to the WaPo?

    flora December 8, 2016 at 10:11 am

    . a shift from "evidence-based" to "consensus-based."

    Yes. That's what I see as behind the browser flagging extensions, as if facts are subject to majority vote, which would make them opinions, not facts. If wapoo prints an editorial opinion on the editorial page, that's one thing. If wapoo prints editorial opinion masquerading as fact on the front page, that is a different matter.

    Wapoo's arrogant reply, in the form of an editor's note, to NC's letter isn't a surprising first move for them. I trust NC's atty has already thought many, many steps ahead.

    Sally December 8, 2016 at 7:47 am

    "The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so."

    You couldn't get a more weassely response. They admit they didn't fact check their sources, they cowadly now hide behind the defence of not actully naming any of the sites, and then finally try to play the "nothing to see here" defence of pretending the article didn't mean what it quite clearly did mean when it was published.

    Increasingly, challenging western govt output is seen as a form of rebellion. As Orwell said . telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    dk December 8, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    " nor did the article purport to do so."

    Shouldn't that be "nor does"? Since they didn't take it down

    Jim Haygood December 8, 2016 at 7:48 am

    One day I was listening to Bloomberg News on the car radio, when they aired a critical story on a company where I had worked. The criticism was from a third party group. And then the next news story began.

    Stunned, I phoned the reporter and asked, "Where was the company's rebuttal, or refusal to comment?"

    He replied, "It was there, you just didn't hear it."

    But I had listened with full attention, and it wasn't there. Maybe an editor had removed it to shorten the clip.

    This has been my experience with the MSM. They are always right. They make no mistakes. You should believe them, not your lying eyes and ears.

    Ulysses December 8, 2016 at 8:47 am

    "This has been my experience with the MSM. They are always right. They make no mistakes. You should believe them, not your lying eyes and ears."

    We have always been at war with Eurasia.

    The Ministry of Truth hasn't, yet, been given the power to completely silence those of us who don't stay within the confines of The Narrative. So their tactic is to portray us all as dangerous disinformators like Emmanuel Goldstein.

    Andrew December 8, 2016 at 7:52 am

    Accuracy is not part of the job when producing and publishing fake news – Washington Post

    Insta-epic classic

    William Young December 8, 2016 at 7:57 am

    In 1975, I went to the Soviet Union with a group of American tourists. At the time, I was working as a volunteer for Ralph Nader. A few times, some of the people in our group had a chance to talk to Soviet people in our hotels. The other Americans would give civics book explanations about how the US government worked. Some of the Soviet people would question these explanations, saying that they had heard from their government that the American government worked in a way that sounded to me much more accurate and in line with the way Nader portrayed the US. Undemocratic regimes are often fairly accurate in describing the faults of other governments, especially those of their perceived enemies, while ignoring their own failings. I do not know exactly what Russian propaganda the Washington Post is referring to, but I would not be surprised if various Russian sources simply repeat the common criticisms of the toxic activities of the neoliberal establishment – an establishment of which the Washington Post has been a long-time supporter. Why go through all of the trouble of fabricating stories when the reality is as damning as anything you could make up? So rather than the US sources in question spouting Russian propaganda, the Russians might simply be repeating the criticisms they are hearing from the US.

    Arizona Slim December 8, 2016 at 8:07 am

    All right. That did it. I'm sending another check to NC.

    FedUpPleb December 8, 2016 at 8:08 am

    This is tantamount to an admission that not only did the Washington Post do no fact-checking, but that it does not consider fact-checking to be part of its job.

    Ah, the Ratings Agencies "opinions" defense. Blithely ignorant of their own legally and historically protected positions. I suspect this is exactly the defense the WP will run with. Effectively they will assert their constitutional right as propagandists, to broadcast whatever they please in the national interest.

    is a new, private sector-led initiative

    I would say not entirely. True, large private corporations are behind a lot of this, but what is at stake is their authority to speak for, and their connections to, the state and Deep State.

    On a more emotional level, what is at stake is status. Because really that is all the big newspapers have anymore. Social status. Do not underestimate this currency. It is probably the most precious form of capital there is and the Post, et al, will fight with their fingernails to avoid losing it. Things could get pretty nasty. Good luck and give the bastards hell.

    HotFlash December 8, 2016 at 9:19 am

    Long, long time, b/c of their policies. I figure my opinion doesn't count, my vote doesn't count, but by golly, I will make every dollar I spend count. I buy locally when possible (ideally both locally made/grown and locally-owned retail, although there is at least one local company I will not patronize, for policy reasons) and have found alternate sources for things I can't get around here, eg. Powell's for books and Lehman's for tools and kitchen stuff. As a last resort I will comparison shop on Amazon and then ask my local supplier to order the thing in for me (as I did with my water heater). Not one nickel of mine will go to WaPo or Amazon. And I have told rellies, pls no Amazon gifts for our household.

    Vatch December 8, 2016 at 10:37 am

    Long before the current series of events happened, there were excellent reasons to avoid buying from Amazon.com. The horrific working conditions in Amazon.com warehouses should be enough to prevent any person from buying from the company. I suppose many people still aren't aware of how bad it is, so here's an example article:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-in-amazons-massive-warehouses-fulfillment-centers-2014-11/

    Elizabeth Burton December 8, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    As much as I would love to "boycott Amazon," it's not possible for several reasons. First, being old and crippled, I can't run out to the nearest Target to buy stuff, and I definitely don't have time or physical capacity to hop all over town trying to find some specialty item that doesn't sell enough for most bricks-and-mortar retailers to carry. I do buy direct when it's possible, but the fact of life is there's stuff you can only find on Amazon.

    Second, I own and operate a small digitally-based book publishing company, and Amazon is our major source of revenue. For me, boycotting Amazon would mean pulling my authors' work from distribution there, which isn't an option. Likewise, consider Kindle owners with extensive libraries.

    Frankly, I consider these calls to boycott some huge corporation the kind of symbolic action that allows people to feel good about themselves while avoiding doing anything actually effective. Like writing/emailing/phoning the editorial board of the local news media should they be broadcasting/publishing this rubbish-preferably all three and multiple times. Given that many are connected to the same major corporations as the Big Media, that strikes me as what really needs to be done.

    After all, WaPo isn't doing this in an echo chamber. Their fiction was picked up by all the major players and more than a few of the minor. The only way to counter public discourse is publicly.

    On another subject-Yves and Lambert, if you'd like someone to run over your articles pre-publication for a quick copyedit, you know where to find me. It's one of the non-monetary things I can donate.

    Spring Texan December 8, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    Agree on symbolic action. I do buy from Amazon and either go to antiwar.com first (a mixed site, but one I want to see endure) and click so they get a commission or go to smile.amazon.com so my favorite small charity gets it.

    Buying is NOT voting. I'm a citizen and not mainly just a consumer. Not buying from amazon would hurt me more than them (especially as I like buying obscure second-hand books). There are much better things I can do to be politically effective, including letters to the editor and contributions.

    I do buy by preference from a third-party that doesn't distribute from Amazon warehouses if the price is close. And there are many things I do choose to get locally or from others. But I buy a heck of a lot from them especially books.

    JamesG December 8, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    Walmart has recently upgraded its on-line shopping site and its performance.

    You may not like WM but they don't own the Post and they're big enuff to hurt amazon.

    aliteralmind December 8, 2016 at 8:23 am

    There should be a union of sorts, among those defamed. Join forces with some other reputable smallish websites and create a consortium that pools resources to fight this sort of thing going forward.

    millicent December 8, 2016 at 8:24 am

    I think you should take the strongest, most aggressive stance possible given the huge number of very important issues at stake. I will continue to support naked capitalism any way that I can.

    kokuanani December 8, 2016 at 8:35 am

    Yves, have you contacted Bill Moyers? He initially referred to the Post article without adequate critical comment. He could and should remedy this. His voice would carry weight with the book bag-toting NPR folks, who will be among the last to "doubt" the Post.

    Lupemax December 8, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Excellent suggestion. I found NC when Bill Moyers recommended it on his old tv show when he interviewed Yves and it has continued to open my eyes big time and I haven't been the same since. Whenever I encounter a NYTimesbot or a BostonGlobebot or a Wapoobot or NPRbot (Blindly quoting believers) I tell them I don't have time for MSM anymore after Bill Moyers recommended this incredibly informative site and I tell them all about NC. I am so grateful for NC and Yves and Lambert and all the other contributors for what you all do. I would be devastated if this horror damages you (us) all. And Net Neutrality in general – Trump will go after it. WaPoo (love that) should be taken way out to the woodshed, shamed, and publicized for how awful they (and so many others in the MSM) have become. I will help in any way I can. And please stay well Yves and Lambert.

    savedbyirony December 8, 2016 at 11:58 am

    I found NC through Bill Moyers as well. Since he retired, i rarely look at the website and never the FC page anymore since the content significantly decreased in quality and originality imo after he retired. i know his name is still attached to the website and he still occasionally submits articles, but i wonder how much oversight and content involvement he has with the operation these days.

    savedbyirony December 8, 2016 at 1:04 pm

    That should read, "since he retired from the tv show Moyers & Co and it went off the air". The website still lists Bill Moyers as the managing editor. But the quality of the website noticeably changed after the show left PBS in i think 2015.

    andyb December 8, 2016 at 8:36 am

    It appears that the globalists are scared of anything that resembles the truth that counters their incessant propaganda If there was ever a discovery process in a lawsuit against WAPO, I would imagine that all roads would lead to a Contelpro section of the CIA It's interesting that Wall Street on Parade has noted that Propornot has a double blind registration in New Mexico.

    susan the other December 8, 2016 at 1:13 pm

    A propaganda holding company! This is allowed by the Whappo? It's a felony masquerading as a farce and they can't get out of this like little Judy Miller pretending to be dumb. Judy Miller is very sophisticated and so is the Whappo. Journalism isn't journalism if it does this sleazy stuff. Since when does a newspaper "disclaim" its own news? It's totally outrageous. And the nerve to say that PropOrNot insists on being anonymous. PropOrNot might as well be the Whappo itself. Only sleazy purveyors of crap disclaim it. This is just asking for satire. Whappo deserves to be ridiculed into oblivion.

    susan the other December 8, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    just a quick check on the net produced a a site: dab-oracl.com and an atty named Donald Burleson – stating that New Mexico is one of 17 states that enforce criminal libel and that you can file to lift the veil on anonymity for defamation and have the perp arrested cool

    susan the other December 8, 2016 at 1:51 pm

    that's dba-oracle.com for Burleson

    craazyboy December 8, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    craazyman may know these people!

    It's in Santa Fe and the U of Magonia has a channeling portal there. The channeling portal connects to alternate universes and higher order dimensions and all sorts of weird and unusual stuff passes thru the portal. It's where craazyman finds out about lots of stuff and he may have bumped(if that's right word) into these other channelers?

    larry December 8, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    Cointelpro was a section of the FBI, not the CIA

    johnnygl December 8, 2016 at 8:38 am

    If they can't vouch for the validity of their sources and stories, what value are they adding as an organization?

    If we want, we can go direct to prnewswire and govt issued press releases.

    seabos84 December 8, 2016 at 8:49 am

    I'm 56, I was a 9 buck an hour cook in Boston in 1988 when Dukakis came out of Labor Day with a 17 point lead.

    The campaign wizards of Bush Senior came up some kind of 'Dukakis hates America ' baloney, because of some other baloney about The Flag!! or The Pledge!!! For days, GWB Sr. came out in front of a bunch of flags & said the Pledge, and the craven, sycophantic, grovelling media of the day dutifully reported –

    "In order to show '__Dukakis hates America___' Vice President Bush said the pledge of allegiance."

    Anyone from that era remember all the liberal cloak rending and finger waving and furrowed brows? Anyone remember that Fairness Doctrine thing??? Seriously – having some contract mouth piece of the WAPO question NC is a badge of honor.

    rmm.

    But then I sigh; and, with a piece of scripture,
    Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:
    And thus I clothe my naked villany
    With old odd ends stolen out of holy writ;
    And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.

    Northeaster December 8, 2016 at 9:03 am

    Dukakis infamy was due to the rape question in regard to the death penalty. It also didn't help posing in a tank.

    FluffytheObeseCat December 8, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Dukakis' loss was due to his weak response to a racist smear campaign that assigned him personal responsibility for every poor decision made by the Massachusetts penal system.

    His sin was failing to fight back with sufficient vigor. It's a good choice of anecdote for this comments thread however. An object lesson if you will.

    Science Officer Smirnoff December 8, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    Willie Horton, Swift Boats, . . ., "Fake News" but that's just political campaign agitprop.

    Official or establishment agitprop is far more potent.

    Any submissions for the sweepstakes?

    AnonymousCounselor December 8, 2016 at 8:54 am

    The Washington Post has responded, from the perspective of their own interests, in literally the worst way possible.

    They have essentially gone on record as admitting that publish articles that are defamatory per se in a reckless manner, using a reckless (or non-existent) fact-checking and vetting process.

    It's really unbelievable, and many of us in the legal community are scratching our heads, now, wondering from whom The Washington Post is soliciting legal advice.

    sid_finster December 8, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    I don't think it matters, when you're the WaPo and acting as a mouthpiece for the establishment.

    I expect dismissal or summary judgment.

    Yves Smith Post author December 8, 2016 at 9:27 pm

    They wouldn't have deigned to respond at all if they weren't nervous about our attorney. But I agree, this response is incredibly lame and not helpful to them from a legal or reputational standpoint. They seem to think if they make a minimal gesture, NC and the other wronged sites won't proceed. Bad assumption.

    OIFVet December 8, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    My grandfather was a political refugee. He escaped Bulgaria after being jailed one too many times for having the audacity to disagree with the communist elites and its media organs, and to do so in public. What I see happening here in the US, with dissent on the verge of being suppressed or even criminalized, deeply concerns me because it reminds me of those bad old times. I respect you guys and your willingness to stand up to power, in ways I can not adequately express. Thank you.

    John Wright December 8, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Craig Timberg may be another example of the "son of more successful father" phenomenon who in attempting to exceed their fathers, do great damage to others (other examples: G.W. Bush, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, John McCain ).

    Timberg's father, Baltimore Sun political reporter Bob Timberg, is described at http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-bob-timberg-20140821-story.html

    " He was nearly 30 years old, borderline ancient for a beginning daily newspaper reporter. Unlike other Capital staffers, he was a Naval Academy graduate with a master's degree in journalism, and he was a Vietnam war combat veteran. And he could not type."

    "I first noticed Bob's reporting talents from his incisive articles on a legal challenge to compulsory chapel attendance at the U.S. service academies, filed by six Annapolis midshipmen and a West Point cadet."

    "The highlight of Bob's reporting was an interview with celebrated evangelist Billy Graham, who shockingly characterized the students' lawsuit as a being "part of a planned attack against all chaplains, to force them completely out of all services," and further suggested that the young men were Communist dupes. Though Bob knew now that he had a good story, he still pressed on, asking Graham if an atheist can become a good naval officer. "I can't comment on that," the preacher answered."

    So Timberg's father questioned a prominent person who was alleging "Communist dupes" against military chaplains.

    But his son does little vetting of the shadowy group PropOrNot as he goes for HIS story alleging "Russian propagandists".

    It may be too late for the son to learn from the father's example.

    Kurt Sperry December 8, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    Good story. The son as a pale shadow of the father is, as you say, not an uncommon thing. Craig, in this current example, doesn't seem to understand even the most basic, fundamental principles of journalistic ethics or professional conduct. It's strange someone in the profession that long could survive lacking that. Or maybe once you get on with a big name paper with a billionaire owner, sucking up to the establishment is a get out of jail free card when it comes to ethics and professional accountability.

    linda amick December 8, 2016 at 9:10 am

    I stopped ordering from Amazon two years ago after reading the stories about labor conditions for warehouse employees. It is nothing more than brutal slave labor.
    I used to at least read the headlines in the NYT and WaPo. Now I can not even stomach them.

    Sluggeaux December 8, 2016 at 9:18 am

    So, the WaPo now admits that "journalism" is dead and stenography is the only purpose their "platform" exists for.

    The quaint institution of "journalism" existed to sort "fact" from "opinion" and made the important distinction between the two. Opinions are like belly-buttons and assholes, everybody has one. Facts are more difficult to discern, but are immutable and objective. As attributed to the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. "

    This is the death of the First Amendment - The ScAmazon model of purporting to be a "marketplace" but refusing to vouch for the quality, safety, or authenticity of anything that they loudly and slickly shill to profit from the work of others. It is disgusting, hollow, and amoral. It must be brought to heel.

    JTFaraday December 8, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    And the Amazon warehouse of stenography too apparently. (Link from the original post):

    http://www.cjr.org/q_and_a/washington_post_bezos_amazon_revolution.php

    Carolinian December 8, 2016 at 9:20 am

    I suspect the MSM have always seen their ability to shape elections as their true "ring of power." As you say this has been going on for a long time–certainly pre-internet. The fact that Trump won despite their best efforts has likely shaken big media to the core. Which doesn't mean Trump's election was a good thing or a bad thing but simply that they didn't get to pick.

    Television will always be the most important medium when it comes to politics but the print media now see their role as "influencers" under threat from the web. And given their financial problems this may be the final existential threat. It's likely the Post editors knew perfectly well what they were doing and how shoddy that story was. It was a shot across the bow.

    Carolinian December 8, 2016 at 9:25 am

    Reply to seabos84

    Alejandro December 8, 2016 at 10:00 am

    From a sausage factory of "manufacturing consent" to a sausage factory of stifling dissent.

    DJG December 8, 2016 at 9:26 am

    Yves: What is going on here is deeply ingrained. We live in a country in which everyone's opinions are now canonical, as we see with wonder about the candidate for the head of the EPA. Pruitt's opinion counteracts years of research, because lawyers know all about science.

    I was reminded of how ingrained these "narratives" are when I read the lead in the Talk of the Town in the most recent New Yorker: Jeffrey Toobin on voting. He did a drive-by diagnosis of Jill Stein as a narcissist. (But, but, but the New Yorker already declared Trump a narcissist.) Then, in a couple of very curious sentences, he tries to accuse the Russians of tampering with the U.S. election campaign while admitting it unlikely that foreigners hacked the vote count. So you have two or three or four fake-news pieces strung together so as to assert power. That's the long and the short of it. Just as Pruitt is an ignoramus about science, so Toobin as an ignoramus about psychology. As Lambert often writes: Agnotology. I'd add: Agnotology to maintain the structures of power.

    We have been in this intellectual winter for a while: Liberals in denial, peddling psychobabble. Rightwingers in denial, peddling resentment.

    Keep talking to your lawyer.

    olga December 8, 2016 at 10:09 am

    At the end of the 70s, we came to the US, believing western media to be the epitome of honesty and truth (the belief itself based on plentiful pro-western propaganda, which we consumed unquestioningly). The highly misleading anti-Soviet propaganda in the US at that time was a bit of a shock. Not so much its existence, but its vicious nature. And the lies about "Russians are coming." Nothing much has changed – the west still dislikes Russia, and will do all it can to discredit the country (just watch out for the starting effort to ruin the 2018 futbal (soccer) games in Russia – anti-Sochi hysteria was just a preview). The wapoo stunt may be crude, but it is not a demonstration of incompetence. It does seem to be a part of concerted efforts to limit the free flow of information on the Internet. As the "narrative" has gotten away from powers that be, a new way to censor information is needed. Even Merkel said she'd want to address "fake news." Has everybodu forgotten operation Mockingbird ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird )? Nothing new under the sun – but the stakes are much higher now, as the west runs out of options to maintain supremacy.

    tgs December 8, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    Yes, I find it hard to believe that, given the current hysteria, Russia is going to be allowed to host the World Cup in 2018.

    sid_finster December 8, 2016 at 9:01 pm

    Apparently HRC has also jumped on the censorship bandwagon.

    digi_owl December 8, 2016 at 9:54 am

    More and more it seems like USA, like the roman empire, needs barbarians at the gates to distract the plebs from internal structural problems.

    As long as Yeltsin allowed Wall Street to loot Russia of former soviet holdings, Russia was not "barbaric". Now that Putin has put a solid halt on said looting, Russia is again "barbarians"

    Elizabeth Burton December 8, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    Want to have some fun? Next time someone starts ranting about "the Russians hacked our election," try tossing out "Well, we messed with theirs, so it seems only fair."

    Lord Koos December 8, 2016 at 3:08 pm

    It's fitting, since the USA sees no problem in rigging other countries' elections, whether it be the middle East or Latin America.

    LA Mike December 8, 2016 at 10:07 am

    They basically pulled a trump:

    "I'm not saying it's true, but I've heard other people say it's true."

    jake December 8, 2016 at 10:09 am

    Post editorial/management probably doesn't have strong opinions - or any opinions - of the sites impugned by PropOrNot, including Naked Capitalism, since it's unlikely these corporate drones possess enough intellectual curiosity to actually look at them.

    The problem is confirmation bias (in this case, offering an acceptable explanation for why WaPo's Chosen Liberal lost the election, without having to look in the mirror) and shoddy careerist journalism generally, which works so well for so many, and which can't be litigated away.

    Banish Timberg, and you might as well put WaPO out of business.

    craazyboy December 8, 2016 at 10:09 am

    I recall seeing somewhere in the initial flurry of tweets and comments on the subject that someone had contacted Wapo and received a response from the editor or some such stating that "multiple contacts" were made to PorNot for some sort of purpose, perhaps verification, fact checking, or what ever it is newspapers do before breathlessly getting out the bold typeface and running a "story". Wish I could find it again. But now it seems that was fake news.

    The timing and placement of the "clarification" is rich. 14 days later slip in an "editor's comment" buried in the old news pile. Your pet parrot wouldn't even notice.

    drb48 December 8, 2016 at 10:11 am

    Timburg is obviously another tool – like Judith Miller. His "editors" knew full well the story was bullshit – "can't vouch for the validity" (because we can't be bothered to check our sources) – and ran it anyway. So there was/is an agenda. And the media wonder why they are in such low regard.

    Lord Koos December 8, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    I wonder how hands-on Bezos is with the WaPoo?

    amouise December 8, 2016 at 10:57 am

    Yves, in your apology post with your attorney's letter, you stated this

    I also hope, particularly for those of you who don't regularly visit Naked Capitalism, that you'll check out our related pieces that give more color to how the fact the Washington Post was taken for a ride by inept propagandists

    My first reaction to this was "presumes facts not in evidence"

    I don't believe the Post was taken in by anyone. They wanted to have a particular piece written and they did. Why in the world would they back down now?

    You're going to need more fundraisers because I'm guessing they'll be dragging this out. If they can't beat you with fake news then they will drain your resources with a long-drawn out legal process. Yes, I'm very cynical. Watched one of the bloggers I follow spend around $150,000 defending themselves from a defamation case that never went to trail. The blogger was also a lawyer so could help with her defense, had discounted legal assistance from an first amendment expert and an additional attorney. They had a year of depositions with constant delays. $150,000 is not petty cash.

    I know the circumstances are not the same but the Post has deep pockets. If they want to drain NC and other independent news sources, they have the resources to go the distance.

    Also please stop giving the newspapers excuses. The entire industry is pretty much consolidated. I don't think they very much care about whether or not a newspaper makes money after they've leveraged it with so much debt in order to purchase it in the first place. Or used their billions to simply buy it. Either way that would seem to indicate that's about the write-off and controlling the "narrative."

    As an added bonus get rid of your workers due to "costs." Further narrowing the acceptable narrative within the newsroom. Pretty soon, the entire industry is gutted just like other industries in this country. (I'd argue that's most of the way done except for independent media.) That's quite purposeful and just like other industries, it never had to be that way, even with the rise of the Internet and "things" like Google ads and Facebook.

    Stop giving them so much of the benefit of the doubt. They are engaged in a class war.

    Even if somewhere down the line they were to apologize and give you a prominent byline, the damage is already done with a good portion of their readership. Which was entirely the point.

    flora December 8, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    " I don't believe the Post was taken in by anyone. "

    I may wholeheartedly agree with you but there are good reasons for NC to be circumspect and initially offer Wapoo the option of backing away and retracting gracefully; or as gracefully as possible in this situation.

    Yes, I'm in for the long haul wrt donations. Bernie's campaign showed the power of small donations.

    scraping_by December 8, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    You've put your finger on the "stupid, crazy, or evil" question.

    Our esteemed hostess has chosen stupid, for reasons that seem good and sufficient. Crazy would be apparent from past behavior, and we of the tinfoil hat legions can make a good case for evil from the interests of the actors. But if nothing else, stupid is easily proved.

    PlutoniumKun December 8, 2016 at 1:44 pm

    I think the main reason many here are giving the benefit of the doubt to WaPo is that it was done so ineptly. The article reeks of carelessness and non-existent fact-checking and poor (or non-existent) editorial overview. If it was part of a deliberate plot to smear it should have been better written and they would have done a better job in covering themselves legally. Most recent high profile libel claims – such as the Rolling Stones college rape hoax story – originated from a mix of confirmation bias and incompetence, not (so far as we know) from a deliberate malign plot.

    Having said that, their refusal to come straight out and apologise when presented with the facts is just digging themselves a deeper hole. I've no doubt the NC crew will go all the way with this, I hope it proves deeply embarrassing for the WaPo, they are destroying their own reputation and its entirely their fault.

    RUKidding December 8, 2016 at 11:01 am

    I guess, on one level, it's intersting that the PTB saw the websites on the list as having that much power and influence to sway the election to Trump due to telling the truth, frankly. The truth clearly has no place in the US conversation anymore.

    At any rate, most of here saw our main, favored websites on that McCarthyite witch hunt list and thought: WOW. So we told the truth about Clinton and various other issues with this election, and now we must be silenced.

    Of course, it's pretty odd given the DNC hacked emails were really very revealing of many shady (to say the least) things, and I've seen those emails quoted quite a bit by many rightwing sources. And that info was, in fact, disseminated broadly to conservative voters. And I feel that those emails, possibly along with Comey's last minute "reveal," probably swayed some still-on-the-fence voters to either not vote for POTUS at all or to vote for Trump.

    Frankly, it's risable in the extreme that this country has been drowning in rightwingnut propaganda for the past 40+ years (or longer), and that's really what the rise of Trump is all about. As opposed to others here, I frankly despise Trump and all he stands for, but I give him props where due. He's kind of stupid but has this certain rat cunning about reading the moment and grabbing it for his purposes. He saw that those who had lost the most in this country were ripe for the plucking, and he went about using them for his own greedy means accordingly.

    Railing against a handful of truth-telling lefty-ish blogs is amazing on one level. I doubt that, even in the aggragate, many voters were swayed by the information provided. I think most who read these blogs are already determined what we'll do, but we come to these sites for a breath of fresh air, as it were.

    That, for me, is what makes this attack so chilling. The last few small voices of reason and sanity? And they have to be silenced? Brrrrrr . that's bitterly cold.

    Keep up the good fight, Yves and friends. This is gonna be tough row to hoe, but I'm in it to win it.

    Elizabeth Burton December 8, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    And by refusing to address the emails, other than to scream "Russian hackers," the corporate media were able to convince the Clinton cultists and other Third-Way believers that the information they contained was just another right-wing attack on The Anointed because (other than leftist, Russian-loving "fake news" sites), the right-wing media were the only ones paying it any attention.

    You have to give credit where it's due-they have had decades to perfect their method, and it is very hard to counter it.

    aletheia33 December 8, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    ckimball,

    after my own heart, thanks

    silicon valley does not know the meaning of trust. they have extracted it from every situation they can, destroying everything they touch, without realizing what they have unleashed. this will eventually be learned by all, the hard way.

    Ralph Johansen December 8, 2016 at 11:31 am

    I am old enough to remember seeing in the news reel at my local theater in 1950 Joseph McCarthy holding up a piece of paper to the cameras and intoning in his inimitable droning voice, "I have here in my hand a list of 205 known members of the Communist Party who are working and shaping policy in the State Department."

    People's livelihoods and reputations were thereby smeared for life. Never did McCarthy back his claims with evidence, nor did he retract his scurrilous accusation. Now, tell me how what Jeff Bezos and co. are doing in this instance is in any significant way different from what McCarthy did to these people back in 1956. What finally put it squarely before the American public and finally earned McCarthy Congressional censure was when Boston attorney Joseph Welch asked McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

    PQS December 8, 2016 at 11:38 am

    Yikes,Yves! What a lame response from them. We all need to keep up the pressure, by any means. This is one of those MSM errors that they hope will just go away, as evidenced by their hand waving dismissal. We can't let it! I think letters to the editor-an avalanche- might do a world of good.

    paul Tioxon December 8, 2016 at 11:48 am

    https://twitter.com/MazMHussain

    Murtaza HussainVerified account Dec 5
    ‏@MazMHussain
    2003: Rifle-toting Americans barge into Iraq after reading viral Fake News story about weapons of mass destruction.
    ------------------------------
    This fake news story ranks up there with the rifle toting Americans that barge into Viet Nam after the Fake News story about a US Navy warship that was attacked by the North Viet Namese Naval forces in the Gulf of Tonkin.

    Peter VE December 8, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    PolitiFact is running a poll for "Lie of the Year" here . There's a line for write in votes. I wrote in the Post's "Russian Propaganda " story. I suggest you can do the same.

    Propertius December 8, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Done. Tossing another $50 in for the legal fund, since today is payday.

    Brad December 8, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    A true fake news refusal to retract. Extraordinary that WaPo's editors also claim "not to vouch" for the veracity of whether or not RT.com is a "conduit for Russian propaganda". Really? RT is sponsored by the Russian state, how could it not be such a "conduit"? WaPo has all but admitted that it will print all the fake news it chooses to print. This reply is actually worse than the original offense. Pure confection of arrogance and cowardice as only libertarians can produce.

    But of course it doesn't matter if every last one of the news sources mentioned in the WaPo article were in fact such conduits. The issue is the neo-Cold war, neo-McCarthyite campaign launched over the last 2 years whose center of gravity lies clearly in the Clinton liberal Democrat camp.

    We can only imagine how the campaign would conduct itself if Clinton had won the Presidency. It was predictable they would come after the Left, only now they come on with less swag, but with a pathetic sore loser grudge. A perusal of the Liberal sphere on HuffnPuff, Alternet, Salon and such shows these still lost in a self-induced hysterical psychosis.

    Right NOW is the time to for leftists and progressives to draw a clear line, and distance, from American Liberalism and its blame the victim rhetoric.

    Elizabeth Burton December 8, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    Here's the thing. Yes, RT is funded by the Russian government, and thus anything posted thereon needs to be considered with that in mind. Nevertheless, it is also where stories the corporates prefer to ignore are given attention. In other words, there is an irony that the Russians may, indeed, be trying to influence us, but if so, they appear to be doing it by subtly undermining the reliability of the corporate media.

    To put it another way, dismissing RT solely because of its funding source is no better than dismissing NC et al. as propaganda sites, and doing so is actually feeding the propaganda machine. After all, we don't know what percentage of the US media currently receives "grants" from US intelligence agencies, now, do we.

    scraping_by December 8, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    In studying communications, there's a distinction between 'white' and 'black' propaganda. White propaganda is publishing truth that supports your cause. Black propaganda is, of course, slanderous lies. RT is white propaganda, so use it for the value it brings.

    Propertius December 8, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Exactly. I'm a grown-up. I have a lot of practice reading critically and I'm quite capable of questioning sources and filtering bias. I don't need Jeff Bezos to protect me from Russkie BadThink.

    Yalt December 8, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    There's a sense in which that's true, of course. But it is a useful characterization? Is there even any point to such a broad statement about a media outlet, other than to discredit work that can't be discredited on more direct grounds?

    State sponsorship of media organizations is not all that unusual. The BBC is primarily funded by a tax levied on any British household that uses a television to receive a broadcast signal, for example. Is the WaPo in the habit of describing the BBC as a "conduit for British propaganda"? Am I acting as a useful idiot for the UK government every time I rehash an old Monty Python joke?

    Child Insemination Action December 8, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    "does not itself vouch " You have to bear in mind this is not the Post talking, this is CIA CIA has blatantly used the Post as a their sockpuppet since they put Woodward in there to oust Nixon, and now they've got Bezos by the contractual balls. CIA has impunity in municipal statute and secret red tape so any answer you get from them means No fuck You.

    The NDAA legalized domestic propaganda in 2013 so when the public repudiated their chosen president Hillary Clinton, CIA immediately got to work work attacking Article 19. CIA is panicking because Hillary was going to get them the war they need to preserve CIA impunity for the crime against humanity of systematic and widespread torture and murder in their global gulag of secret death camps.

    The ICC's investigation of US crimes against humanity has reached the critical point of referral to the pre-trial chamber . The ICC is under intense pressure from Russia and the global south to prove it's not afraid of US criminals. Italian courts have got torturer Sabrina de Souza, and they're going to use her to roll up the command chain. One way or another it's going to be open season on CIA torture cowards, in universal jurisdiction with no statute of limitations. This is a far graver threat to CIA than the family jewels. The international community is investigating CIA crimes, not avuncular Jim Schlesinger or some gelded congressional committee. Like Francis Boyle says, the US government is a criminal enterprise. And since COG was imposed it's got one branch, CIA

    That's the background here. You're the Op in Red Harvest. Poisonville's the USA.

    B1whois December 8, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    May I suggest that this site no longer link to The Wapoo for stories that are available elsewhere. I personally would prefer to not go to their site at all, but they seem to make up a lot of the links here.
    I understand that sometimes this will be unavoidable, as the Wapoo is the only one doing a particular story, but in cases where the story is carried at other sites, can you please link to those other sites instead?

    Epistrophy December 8, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    Yves:

    #FreePressDefenseFund

    And as a number of other commenters on this and other blogs have recently suggested:

    #BoycottBezos
    #BoycottAmazon
    #BoycottWaPo

    Mike December 8, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    I live in New Zealand and start every day with NC because WaPo and it's like runs an agenda. We all know that. I feel for you Yves but the site's strength is bringing together all those speaking truth to power. The courts won't care about that and that route can drain you personally and financially. Stay strong and play to your strengths. You have lots of support – perhaps more than you know.

    Kim Kaufman December 8, 2016 at 2:10 pm

    The Second Phase of the Propaganda Fake News War: Economic Strangulation. What Comes Next?
    by BAR editor and columnist Dr. Marsha Adebayo

    "The public has determined that the corporate media is actually the purveyor of "fake news" and turned to media organizations, such as BAR, Truthout and other outlets for information."

    http://blackagendareport.com/propaganda_fake_news_war

    McCarthy's ghost smiles as Dems point the finger at Russia

    By Norman Solomon, contributor – 12/07/16 07:00 PM EST

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/309249-mccarthys-ghost-smiles-as-dems-point-the-finger-at-russia#.WEi4Q_2C5g0.facebook

    R. Post December 8, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    So, since the W.P. won't bear responsibility for what they publish, maybe we should just lump them in with Breitbart and company. Just out of curiosity, did W.P. contact N.C. for comment before they tried to smear your (and, by extension, our) reputation?

    Outis Philalithopoulos December 8, 2016 at 2:36 pm

    No, they did not. Apparently, they did not contact anyone on the List .

    Propertius December 8, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    [M]aybe we should just lump them [WaPo] in with Breitbart and company.

    I already did. Now I lump them in with Alex Jones.

    Jim Haygood December 8, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    William Banzai7 ups the ante in his Visual Combat with the WaPoo (© cocomaan):

    https://c7.staticflickr.com/1/735/31469075126_eb5fa257d4_b.jpg

    marblex December 8, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    It's libel per se and an avalanche of lawsuits directed at PropOrNot and WaPo should be pretty effective. Because WaPo did not retract there is no defense.

    ChrisAtRU December 8, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    From a legal point of view, I wonder how the Executive Editor's (Marty Baron) tweeting of the article plays against the assertion that "The Post does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings". Is that a case where he was speaking (tweeting) his own opinion, and not necessarily that of his employer?

    #DisclaimersBeDamned

    ChrisPacific December 8, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    So if the WaPo doesn't consider validity checking of sources to be part of its job, then that raises the obvious question in this case: WHY the (insert expletive of your choice) did they take this site with anonymous authors, sweeping allegations and no evidence of any kind, and choose to make a featured story out of it? There are hundreds or thousands of other sites just like it out there. Why PropOrNot, and not any of the others?

    In other words, if (as they claim) the story boils down to "some anonymous people on the Internet made some unsubstantiated claims which may or may not be accurate", why did they decide it was newsworthy at all, let alone worthy of the kind of prominence they gave it?

    Read while you can December 8, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    As bad as the article about propornot is, it will get worse. Wapo is a partner of this dangerous group of "fake-news fighters".

    https://firstdraftnews.com/about/

    What is the purpose of a company like Dataminr to participate in this network financed by google?

    Expect NC and other sites be buried on google page 2 and deeper. Not trending on twitter etc.

    https://firstdraftnews.com/latest/
    Funny enough not a single word about the wapo propornot article.

    Please tell me i am overstating the importance of this network.

    3.14e-9 December 8, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    More evidence of WaPo's distorted idea of "fair and impartial."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/wp/2016/12/08/the-washington-post-honors-david-fahrenthold-with-inaugural-ben-bradlee-prize/

    They might actually get off the hook for libel on the grounds that the lack of fairness and impartiality wasn't malicious intent but part of their core values.

    MED December 8, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    might look over HR 6393

    "http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-02/house-quietly-passes-bill-targeting-russian-propaganda-websites"

    Fiver December 8, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    Yves/Lambert,

    Am I the only one who remembered an "Andrew Watts" commenting on NC? And wasn't Aug 21 the date ProporCrap started? And isn't the exchange between 'Andrew Watts' and 'timbers' of interest given the WaPo reporter's name is Timberg?

    Check out the comments from Aug 21 on NC:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/08/links-82116.html

    I also wonder if 'Andrew Watts' could be this guy:

    http://andrewwattsauthor.com/

    How hard would it be, really, for two or three people with some know-how to engage in discussion, get replies from comments, trace/track those people. Even one person hacked (and I'm virtually certain I was this summer) could provide a large number of sites visited or 'linked'.

    And it seems to me as well I sent a story to Lambert (and I wrote to Lambert something like "You mean this isn't real?") that I took to be a real WaPo story re a major wrinkle in the Clinton scandals that was part of a story link I got from Global Research, a story which also had a paragraph referenced from Breibart which I didn't notice until my comment wasn't posted, so I went back and looked. I assumed the comment was rejected due to the Breibart (sp?) reference. But what if WaPo/Watts were fishing at NC and saw my follow-up comment to Lambert with only the WaPo link and my question (assuming it was posted, which I do not remember)?

    Anyway, I hope this might prove useful somehow.

    kareninca December 8, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    I wonder if Snopes has asked to be removed from PropOrNot's list of "related projects."

    I contacted them to find out if they were going to ask themselves to be removed from that list, but I have not heard back from them. I guess we'll find out something about their reputability.

    limani December 8, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    NC deserves a huge Wapo-logy to help compensate for your losses, pain & suffering, and exemplary damages, of course.

    [Dec 09, 2016] Why Trade Deficits Matter

    Dec 09, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker:
    Why Trade Deficits Matter, The Atlantic : However one feels about Donald Trump, it's fair to say he has usefully elevated a long-simmering issue in American political economy: the hardship faced by the families and communities who have lost out as jobs have shifted overseas. For decades, many politicians from both parties ignored the plight of these workers, offering them bromides about the benefits of free trade and yet another trade deal, this time with some "adjustment assistance."
    One of Trump's economic goals is to lower the U.S.'s trade deficit-which is to say, shrink the discrepancy between the value of the country's imports and the value of its exports. Right now, the U.S. currently imports $460 billion more than it exports, meaning it has a trade deficit that works out to about 2.5 percent of GDP. Given that the job market is still not back to full strength and the U.S. has been losing manufacturing jobs-there are 60,000 fewer now than at the beginning of this year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics -economists would be wise to question their assumption that such a deficit is harmless. ...
    Is the U.S. trade deficit a problem whose solution would help American workers? ...

    anne -> sanjait... , December 08, 2016 at 06:10 PM
    Looks to me like "global power" comes from a lot more than military spending, and if its jobs we want, then military spending is a decent short run stimulus but long run waste in terms of productive expenditure.

    [ Very important argument. ]

    anne -> anne... , December 08, 2016 at 06:38 PM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

    The Great Illusion is a book by Norman Angell, first published in the United Kingdom in 1909 under the title Europe's Optical Illusion and republished in 1910 and subsequently in various enlarged and revised editions under the title The Great Illusion.

    Angell argued that war between industrial countries was futile because conquest did not pay. J.D.B. Miller writes: "The 'Great Illusion' was that nations gained by armed confrontation, militarism, war, or conquest." The economic interdependence between industrial countries meant that war would be economically harmful to all the countries involved. Moreover, if a conquering power confiscated property in the territory it seized, "the incentive to produce [of the local population] would be sapped and the conquered area be rendered worthless. Thus, the conquering power had to leave property in the hands of the local population while incurring the costs of conquest and occupation."

    Angell said that arms build-up, for example the naval race that was happening as he wrote the book in the early 1910s, was not going to secure peace. Instead, it would lead to increased insecurity and thus increase the likelihood of war. Only respect for international law, a world court, in which issues would be dealt with logically and peaceably would be the route for peace.

    A new edition of The Great Illusion was published in 1933; it added "the theme of collective defence." Angell was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1933. He added his belief that if France, Britain, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. had bound themselves together to oppose all military aggression, including that of Hitler's, and to appeal to world justice for solution to countries' grievances, then the great mass of reasonable Germans would have stepped up and stopped Hitler from leading their country into an unwinnable war, and World War II would have been avoided.

    New Deal democrat -> sanjait... , December 08, 2016 at 06:11 PM
    Really, go screw yourself.

    In 1909 a book was published saying that free trade would make the world prosperous forever. In the U.S. It was called "the Grand Illusion." Unfortunately Kaiser Wilhelm appeared not to get the message.

    If China didn't have those $$$$trillions, they wouldn't feel empowered to change boundary lines by force. We wouldn't be worried about a new arms race.

    As for solutions, a trade weighted tariff that kicked in after a certain period/percentage would work just fine, probably similar to the wage equalization tariff I suggested the other day. A VAT might accomplish a similar result.

    But seriously, you and everyone who thinks like you can go screw yourselves. Your myopic elitism has gotten us here. I wish you nothing but pain.

    DrDick -> sanjait... , December 08, 2016 at 07:06 PM
    "then military spending is a decent short run stimulus"

    No it is not. It is very ineffective and wasteful. You would get much better return on your investment by spending on repairing and upgrading civic infrastructure.

    DrDick -> sanjait... , December 08, 2016 at 07:02 PM
    Bull. What we need is enforceable labor and environmental standards and protections so that the corporate greed heads will have less incentive to outsource their production to places lacking any of those things. This is all about maximizing rents by ruthlessly exploiting vulnerable labor in the developing world and by being able to poison and devastate their countries at will.
    Victory Lap Dancer : , December 08, 2016 at 05:27 PM

    U.S. currently imports $460 billion more than it exports, meaning
    "
    ~J B & D B~~

    ... meaning that We the People print up t-bonds valued at $460 then trade these bonds for Federal Reserve Notes printed up by FG-s worth $460 then use same notes to buy same amount of running shoes, shot glasses, etc.

    We print up genuine t-bonds for their counterfeit products that look like the real thing. Huh! The question is :

    How can we do more of this without those foreigner suckers catching on, getting wise to the scam?

    For one, we can make sure that we don't print up more of our genuine paper than their demand for it. Get it? So long as their demand continues to be great enough to raise the price of our tiny slips of paper, we are cool.

    When we are printing too much, the price of our paper falls, buys less, has less buying power. Less buying power is what we call inflation. More buying power is what we call deflation. Got it?

    Print less thus keep popularity of our printed numbers up. Tell me something!

    What happens when our workers lose jobs to foreigner suckers who dig our printed numbers?

    Job loss to foreigners slows down the domestic development of robotics, artificial intelligence, and the singularity that will inevitably detonate all jobs globally. What will that detonation do to our life style of excessive overpopulation.

    Don't ask, but don't
    tell --

    Donald A. Coffin : , -1
    The usual response to a trade deficit is that the country running the deficit sees its currency decline in value. This lowers the effective price of its exports and raises the effective price of its imports. Assuming nothing peculiar about the price elasticities of demand for exports and import, this should lead to a shrinking trade deficit. From 1973 to 1998, the dollar appreciated steadily, and the (nominal) trade deficit expanded only slightly. From 1998 to 2005, the dollar continued to appreciate--but the (nominal) trade deficit exploded, increasing by a factor of (roughly) 10 by 2006. Then, as the dollar began depreciating (in 2002), the trade deficit began to shrink. Since about 2008, the dollar has been appreciating again.

    What needs most to be explained is the explosion of the trade deficit between 1998 and 2006; about half of the increase in the trade deficit was between 1998 and 2002; the other half between 2002 and 2006.

    [Dec 09, 2016] Understanding Evil From Globalism To Pizzagate Zero Hedge

    Dec 09, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    I have spent the better part of the last 10 years working diligently to investigate and relate information on economics and geopolitical discourse for the liberty movement. However, long before I delved into these subjects my primary interests of study were the human mind and the human "soul" (yes, I'm using a spiritual term).

    My fascination with economics and sociopolitical events has always been rooted in the human element. That is to say, while economics is often treated as a mathematical and statistical field, it is also driven by psychology. To know the behavior of man is to know the future of all his endeavors, good or evil.

    Evil is what we are specifically here to discuss. I have touched on the issue in various articles in the past including Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood , but with extreme tensions taking shape this year in light of the U.S. election as well as the exploding online community investigation of "Pizzagate," I am compelled to examine it once again.

    I will not be grappling with this issue from a particularly religious perspective. Evil applies to everyone regardless of their belief system, or even their lack of belief. Evil is secular in its influence.

    The first and most important thing to understand is this - evil is NOT simply a social or religious construct, it is an inherent element of the human psyche. Carl Gustav Jung was one of the few psychologists in history to dare write extensively on the issue of evil from a scientific perspective as well as a metaphysical perspective. I highly recommend a book of his collected works on this subject titled 'Jung On Evil', edited by Murray Stein, for those who are interested in a deeper view.

    To summarize, Jung found that much of the foundations of human behavior are rooted in inborn psychological contents or "archetypes." Contrary to the position of Sigmund Freud, Jung argued that while our environment may affect our behavior to a certain extent, it does not make us who we are. Rather, we are born with our own individual personality and grow into our inherent characteristics over time. Jung also found that there are universally present elements of human psychology. That is to say, almost every human being on the planet shares certain truths and certain natural predilections.

    The concepts of good and evil, moral and immoral, are present in us from birth and are mostly the same regardless of where we are born, what time in history we are born and to what culture we are born. Good and evil are shared subjective experiences. It is this observable psychological fact (among others) that leads me to believe in the idea of a creative design - a god. Again, though, elaborating on god is beyond the scope of this article.

    To me, this should be rather comforting to people, even atheists. For if there is observable evidence of creative design, then it would follow that there may every well be a reason for all the trials and horrors that we experience as a species. Our lives, our failures and our accomplishments are not random and meaningless. We are striving toward something, whether we recognize it or not. It may be beyond our comprehension at this time, but it is there.

    Evil does not exist in a vacuum; with evil there is always good, if one looks for it in the right places.

    Most people are readily equipped to recognize evil when they see it directly. What they are not equipped for and must learn from environment is how to recognize evil disguised as righteousness. The most heinous acts in history are almost always presented as a moral obligation - a path towards some "greater good." Inherent conscience, though, IS the greater good, and any ideology that steps away from the boundaries of conscience will inevitably lead to disaster.

    The concept of globalism is one of these ideologies that crosses the line of conscience and pontificates to us about a "superior method" of living. It relies on taboo, rather than moral compass, and there is a big difference between the two.

    When we pursue a "greater good" as individuals or as a society, the means are just as vital as the ends. The ends NEVER justify the means. Never. For if we abandon our core principles and commit atrocities in the name of "peace," safety or survival, then we have forsaken the very things which make us worthy of peace and safety and survival. A monster that devours in the name of peace is still a monster.

    Globalism tells us that the collective is more important than the individual, that the individual owes society a debt and that fealty to society in every respect is the payment for that debt. But inherent archetypes and conscience tell us differently. They tell us that society is only ever as healthy as the individuals within it, that society is only as free and vibrant as the participants. As the individual is demeaned and enslaved, the collective crumbles into mediocrity.

    Globalism also tells us that humanity's greatest potential cannot be reached without collectivism and centralization. The assertion is that the more single-minded a society is in its pursuits the more likely it is to effectively achieve its goals. To this end, globalism seeks to erase all sovereignty. For now its proponents claim they only wish to remove nations and borders from the social equation, but such collectivism never stops there. Eventually, they will tell us that individualism represents another nefarious "border" that prevents the group from becoming fully realized.

    At the heart of collectivism is the idea that human beings are "blank slates;" that we are born empty and are completely dependent on our environment in order to learn what is right and wrong and how to be good people or good citizens. The environment becomes the arbiter of decency, rather than conscience, and whoever controls the environment, by extension, becomes god.

    If the masses are convinced of this narrative then moral relativity is only a short step away. It is the abandonment of inborn conscience that ultimately results in evil. In my view, this is exactly why the so called "elites" are pressing for globalism in the first place. Their end game is not just centralization of all power into a one world edifice, but the suppression and eradication of conscience, and thus, all that is good.

    To see where this leads we must look at the behaviors of the elites themselves, which brings us to "Pizzagate."

    The exposure by Wikileaks during the election cycle of what appear to be coded emails sent between John Podesta and friends has created a burning undercurrent in the alternative media. The emails consistently use odd and out of context "pizza" references, and independent investigations have discovered a wide array connections between political elites like Hillary Clinton and John Podesta to James Alefantis, the owner of a pizza parlor in Washington D.C. called Comet Ping Pong. Alefantis, for reasons that make little sense to me, is listed as number 49 on GQ's Most Powerful People In Washington list .

    The assertion according to circumstantial evidence including the disturbing child and cannibalism artwork collections of the Podestas has been that Comet Ping Pong is somehow at the center of a child pedophilia network serving the politically connected. Both Comet Ping Pong and a pizza establishment two doors down called Besta Pizza use symbols in their logos and menus that are listed on the FBI's unclassified documentation on pedophilia symbolism , which does not help matters.

    Some of the best documentation of the Pizzagate scandal that I have seen so far has been done by David Seaman, a former mainstream journalist gone rogue. Here is his YouTube page .

    I do recommend everyone at least look at the evidence he and others present. I went into the issue rather skeptical, but was surprised by the sheer amount of weirdness and evidence regarding Comet Pizza. There is a problem with Pizzagate that is difficult to overcome, however; namely the fact that to my knowledge no victims have come forward. This is not to say there has been no crime, but anyone hoping to convince the general public of wrong-doing in this kind of scenario is going to have a very hard time without a victim to reference.

    The problem is doubly difficult now that an armed man was arrested on the premises of Comet Ping Pong while "researching" the claims of child trafficking. Undoubtedly, the mainstream media will declare the very investigation "dangerous conspiracy theory." Whether this will persuade the public to ignore it, or compel them to look into it, remains to be seen.

    I fully realize the amount of confusion surrounding Pizzagate and the assertions by some that it is a "pysop" designed to undermine the alternative media. This is a foolish notion, in my view. The mainstream media is dying, this is unavoidable. The alternative media is a network of sources based on the power of choice and cemented in the concept of investigative research. The reader participates in the alternative media by learning all available information and positions and deciding for himself what is the most valid conclusion, if there is any conclusion to be had. The mainstream media simply tells its readers what to think and feel based on cherry picked data.

    The elites will never be able to deconstruct that kind of movement with something like a faked "pizzagate"; rather, they would be more inclined to try to co-opt and direct the alternative media as they do most institutions. And, if elitists are using Pizzagate as fodder to trick the alternative media into looking ridiculous, then why allow elitist run social media outlets like Facebook and Reddit to shut down discussion on the issue?

    The reason I am more convinced than skeptical at this stage is because this has happened before; and in past scandals of pedophilia in Washington and other political hotbeds, some victims DID come forward.

    I would first reference the events of the Franklin Scandal between 1988 and 1991. The Discovery Channel even produced a documentary on it complete with interviews of alleged child victims peddled to Washington elites for the purpose of favors and blackmail. Meant to air in 1994, the documentary was quashed before it was ever shown to the public. The only reason it can now be found is because an original copy was released without permission by parties unknown.

    I would also reference the highly evidenced Westminster Pedophile Ring in the U.K. , in which the U.K. government lost or destroyed at least 114 related files related to the investigation.

    Finally, it is disconcerting to me that the criminal enterprises of former Bear Sterns financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his "Lolita Express" are mainstream knowledge, yet the public remains largely oblivious. Bill Clinton is shown on flight logs to have flown on Epstein's private jet at least a 26 times; the same jet that he used to procure child victims as young as 12 to entertain celebrities and billionaires on his 72 acre island called "Little Saint James". The fact that Donald Trump was also close friends with Epstein should raise some eyebrows - funny how the mainstream media attacked Trump on every cosmetic issue under the sun but for some reason backed away from pursuing the Epstein angle.

    Where is the vast federal investigation into the people who frequented Epstein's wretched parties? There is none, and Epstein, though convicted of molesting a 14 year old girl and selling her into prostitution, was only slapped on the wrist with a 13 month sentence.

    Accusations of pedophilia seem to follow the globalists and elitist politicians wherever they go. This does not surprise me. They often exhibit characteristics of narcissism and psychopathy, but their ideology of moral relativity is what would lead to such horrible crimes.

    Evil often stems from people who are empty. When one abandons conscience, one also in many respects abandons empathy and love. Without these elements of our psyche there is no happiness. Without them, there is nothing left but desire and gluttony.

    Narcissists in particular are prone to use other people as forms of entertainment and fulfillment without concern for their humanity. They can be vicious in nature, and when taken to the level of psychopathy, they are prone to target and abuse the most helpless of victims in order to generate a feeling of personal power.

    Add in sexual addiction and aggression and narcissists become predatory in the extreme. Nothing ever truly satisfies them. When they grow tired of the normal, they quickly turn to the abnormal and eventually the criminal. I would say that pedophilia is a natural progression of the elitist mindset; for children are the easiest and most innocent victim source, not to mention the most aberrant and forbidden, and thus the most desirable for a psychopathic deviant embracing evil impulses.

    Beyond this is the even more disturbing prospect of cultism. It is not that the globalists are simply evil as individuals; if that were the case then they would present far less of a threat. The greater terror is that they are also organized. When one confronts the problem of evil head on, one quickly realizes that evil is within us all. There will always be an internal battle in every individual. Organized evil, though, is in fact the ultimate danger, and it is organized evil that must be eradicated.

    For organized evil to be defeated, there must be organized good. I believe the liberty movement in particular is that good; existing in early stages, not yet complete, but good none the less. Our championing of the non-aggression principle and individual liberty is conducive to respect for privacy, property and life. Conscience is a core tenet of the liberty ideal, and the exact counter to organized elitism based on moral relativity.

    Recognize and take solace that though we live in dark times, and evil men roam free, we are also here. We are the proper response to evil, and we have been placed here at this time for a reason. Call it fate, call it destiny, call it coincidence, call it god, call it whatever you want, but the answer to evil is us.

  • None
  • Donald Trump
  • Private Jet
  • FBI
  • Washington D.C.
  • Printer-friendly version
  • Dec 8, 2016 10:15 PM
  • 35
  • Comment viewing options Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
    AtATrESICI Dec 8, 2016 10:18 PM ,
    Wow
    eforce AtATrESICI Dec 8, 2016 10:24 PM ,
    "Out of the temporary evil we are now compelled to commit will emerge the good of an unshakable rule, which will restore the regular course of the machinery of the national life, brought to naught by liberalism. The result justifies the means. Let us, however, in our plans, direct our attention not so much to what is good and moral as to what is necessary and useful."

    --The Protocols.

    peddling-fiction eforce Dec 8, 2016 10:29 PM ,
    This rabbit hole requires a little spiritual know-how but is very blunt and direct.

    It is about EVIL this time around here in our terrarium.

    Almost Solvent peddling-fiction Dec 8, 2016 10:30 PM ,
    Only one question matters.

    Is there a basement or not?

    peddling-fiction Almost Solvent Dec 8, 2016 10:40 PM ,
    and what are chicken lovers?

    For a laugh read some real fake encyclopedia entries here-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_ (conspiracy_theory)

    eforce peddling-fiction Dec 8, 2016 10:42 PM ,
    I should also point out those alledgedly behind The Protocols are not the people the article is referring ie: those people are typically found in any liberal establishment.
    Fed Supporter eforce Dec 8, 2016 10:55 PM ,
    #PizzaGate New Info 12/8/16: Pizzagate SHOOTER & BROTHER Exposed Via their INSTAGRAM

    CHAOS MAYHEM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHTsMWUGVeE NO KIDDING THE #PizzaGate Shooter's (KID BROTHER) HAS AN INSTAGRAM ... WTF FUBAR
    the Internet has located the Shooter's younger Transgendered BROTHER the artist from COMET ping Pong Band Nights..
    Squid-puppets a... peddling-fiction Dec 8, 2016 10:44 PM ,
    A good article, but it fails to deliver on these key aspects of the matter:

    Everyone knows from the Godfather and its genre that there is a connection between loyalty, criminality and power: Once you witness someone engaging in a criminal act, you have leverage over them and that ensures their loyalty. But what follows from that - which healthy sane minds have trouble contemplating - is that the greater the criminality the greater the leverage, and that because murderous paedophilia places a person utterly beyond any prospect of redemption in decent society, there in NO GREATER LOYALTY than those desperate to avoid being outed. These must be the three corners of the triangle - Power:Loyalty:Depravity through which the evil eys views the world.

    I always beleived in an Illuminati of sorts, however they care to self identify. Until Pizzagate, I never understood that murderous paedophilia, luciferian in style to accentuate their own depravity, is THE KEY TO RULING THE EARTH

    And another thing. If pizzagate is 'fake news' then it it inconceivably elaborate - they'd have had to fake Epstein 2008, Silsby 2010, Breitbart 2011, the 2013 portugese release of podestaesque mccann suspects, as well as the current run of wikileaks and Alefantis' instagram account - which had an avatar photo of the 13 yr old lover of a roman emperor.

    Is that much fake news a possibility? Or has this smoke been blowing for years and we've all been too distracted to stop and look for fire?

    JacksNight eforce Dec 8, 2016 10:43 PM ,
    Happy Advent everyone! "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests."

    Matthew 5:43-48

    PizzaGate/TwitterGate/RedditGate repost:

    PizzaGate Infographic:

    http://sli.mg/lwgIgH

    Archived reddit thread to fellow journalists which led to the banning of r/pizzagate:

    https://archive.fo/MrsGu

    Andrew Breitbart tweets before death adds fuel to online speculation of D.C. sex-trafficking ring:

    https://i.sli.mg/C9U1nQ.jpg

    The Pedophocracy by David McGowan – Bibliography included:

    http://www.whale.to/b/pedophocracy.html

    FBI Special Agent Ted Gunderson outlines satanic pedophile elements in the United States:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BplUD6kQYuU

    Evidence regarding international pedophile rings being protected by police and intelligence agencies:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1cm0t3/original_research_the_mountain_of_evidence_for_a/

    // //
    Draybin Defferc... eforce Dec 8, 2016 10:30 PM ,
    What floors me about the whole pizzagate thing is the evil staring us right in the face. And then to realize that the libtards don't even believe in evil at all, only "mental illness"!
    Umh Dec 8, 2016 10:22 PM ,
    Lesson #1: Do not waste your time figuring some things out. Things like evil people are probably beyond a decent persons ability to understand and let's be honest I don't want to feel any sympathy for them anyway.
    peddling-fiction Umh Dec 8, 2016 10:30 PM ,
    Invest some time if you want to understand what is going on> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/hiddenevil/hiddenevil.htm
    Uwantsun Dec 8, 2016 10:22 PM ,
    PIZZAGATE IS REAL. All else is intrigue.
    peddling-fiction Uwantsun Dec 8, 2016 10:34 PM ,
    PIZZAGATE

    Why does this artist paint this-> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyS0-oIUQAAJ7e8.jpg

    freddymercury Dec 8, 2016 10:22 PM ,
    The 'devil' is in the details
    Armadillo Bandit freddymercury Dec 8, 2016 10:33 PM ,
    Good subject to show your wit on.
    conraddobler Dec 8, 2016 10:35 PM ,
    True liberty does not exist and will never exist if the oxygen in the room is owned and rented back to you.

    Soul Glow Dec 8, 2016 10:33 PM ,
    The best thing about Pizzagate is that it vindicates Breitbart's tweets before he died about Podesta being a pedophile.

    https://i.sli.mg/C9U1nQ.jpg

    peddling-fiction Soul Glow Dec 8, 2016 10:38 PM ,
    May he rest in peace. No fear.
    JTimchenko Dec 8, 2016 10:39 PM ,
    Lots of evil going on... but people ought not to be nuts enough to go into some pizza joint with a gun firing just because rumors are flying.
    Soul Glow JTimchenko Dec 8, 2016 10:43 PM ,
    I'm all for gold manipulation. Leaves more time for me to buy it!

    ;)

    Neighbour Dec 8, 2016 10:37 PM ,
    Man knows Good and Evil, which is the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Man does not know God-Yet!

    When we are brought low, then we will know God, inwhich he will offer to us The Tree of Life.

    Keep your eyes open and ears tuned...our world is spinning faster and more violently then ever.

    cherry picker Neighbour Dec 8, 2016 10:54 PM ,
    The deeds of humans bring this out.

    This recent election illustrates how evil works.

    Read a book years ago by Dr. Karl Menninger, a psychiatrist, titled 'Whatever happened to Sin?'

    In it he talks of murder and that it is not a natural thing for man to do,. However, when the burden of guilt is spread over many shoulders and government condones the action, it becomes easier to bear.

    When observing the results, such as soldiers returning from war, unstable mentally, it is evident that evil has occured. It has been decades since I read the book, so the words I wrote may not be verbatim.

    dark pools of soros Dec 8, 2016 10:37 PM ,
    Good article.. must be fake

    ebworthen Dec 8, 2016 10:39 PM ,
    Wall Street, Washington, the FED, and the Kleptoligarchy are evil; Satanic.

    Was there a question in there somewhere?

    quax Dec 8, 2016 10:41 PM ,
    Unlike victimless Pizzagate a victim aledged to have been raped by Trump at the age of 13 did come forward, but this has been all but ignored here.
    kuwa mzuri quax Dec 8, 2016 10:50 PM ,
    You're saying raped, tortured, snuffed and maybe eaten child victims haven't come forward?

    You've got a point, then.

    stant Dec 8, 2016 10:41 PM ,
    Peak evil is hear , forget peak oil , peak debt etc
    Armadillo Bandit Dec 8, 2016 10:42 PM ,
    Lurked ZH for years, just started reading the comments. This is worse than Reddit's echo chamber. Bible quotes? 3 guys 1 hammer on liveleak has more productive comments. Why not mention methods you've used to help people reach their own conclusion about Pizzagate?
    Handful of Dust Dec 8, 2016 10:43 PM ,
    I had two slices of pizza for dinner. I had to try not to think of the poor children walking innocently about the store who may at any moment fall victim to a pedo. My gf said pizza places all over now need to keep a keen eye out for the Posdesta Brothers and their Gang after all the stuff that has come out from WikiLeaks and other sources about them.

    I notice the Podesta Brothers are now in hiding.

    Shameful.

    flaminratzazz Dec 8, 2016 10:51 PM ,
    The bible says God created evil and loosed it on us. The correct reading of Genesis 4;1 is from the dead sea scrolls stating :

    "And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael [Satan] , and she conceived and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of the Lord."

    So in Isaiah 45:7 we have this:

    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things .

    So my research shows evil was "grafted" into humans through the unholy alliance and 2 seedline of people resulted.

    US and THEM

    you can see it in their eyes

    kuwa mzuri Dec 8, 2016 10:54 PM ,
    Good article but an exception: evil doesn't reside in all of us, sin does. Evil is the expression of wanton and intentional deception, injury, degradation, and destruction and rarely self-recognizes or admits to God as supreme. It may be DNA encoded. Sociopathy certainly is.

    But you're so right about the organized nature of it all, and for thousands of years. The newly formed EU didn't advertise itself as the New Babylonia for nothing on publicty posters, heralding the coming age of one tongue out of many and fashioning its parliament building after the Tower of Bablyon:

    http://nteb-mudflowermedia.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/eur...

    Secret societies are cannibalizing us, and themselves, but members won't know till it's too late that they'll also be eaten fairly early on. Of all "people", they should know those in the pyramid capstone won't have enough elbow room if they let in every Tom, Dick and Harry Mason.

    HRH Feant Dec 8, 2016 10:47 PM ,
    I am sympatico with Brandon. I have always had similar interests, about the soul, about ethics, about human behavior.

    The reality is that evil is extant in other human beings. The thought that your property manager is going to piss in your OJ or fuck their BFF in your bed is abhorrent to most people, but not all. There was an article this week about a married couple that had concerns about their rental unit manager. And what did they find? He was fucking his BFF (yes, of course it was another dude) in their bed. The good news is they got it on video and moved. The bad news? This kind of attitude is rampant. People don't give a shit about other people. They think the rules don't apply to them. That they are special. The result is renting from some asshat that fucks in your bed or pisses in your OJ. Or parents that wonder why little Johnny or little Janie never move out of the house and are stoned and play video games all day.

    Evil exists, in varying forms. Sadly too many people continue to make excuses for not only bad behavior but evil behavior. I don't think that way and I don't live my life that way but I am fully aware of all the morons stumbling through the world that do.

    Ms No Dec 8, 2016 10:50 PM ,
    I think people are misunderstanding the setup theory. Nobody believes, at least I hope not, that all of this art and bizarre behavior on the part of these freaks was staged for the purposes of taking down the last of our free media, but rather, they just took advantage of a situation where they knew people were making accusations that couldn't be sufficiently backed up or even prosecuted, and yet caused proven or contrived damages to people. If this is the case, their intention, with the help of intelligence agencies , is to frame alt-media for starting vigilante violence and the destruction of innocent people's lives through promoting defamation against others.

    I have no doubt that our entire system is riddled with pedophilia and likely much worse. They have also been getting away with this forever, so when we go for the takedown we better have our ducks in a row. To do otherwise will just give these sickos complete immunity and more decades will pass with them continuing to prey on our children. Not only is this at stake but the fate of all the children of this nation is at stake if we lose our media. We are in very dangerous and treacherous times. When you go toe to toe with the professional trade crafters you have to play smart or they will have you every time.

    Once people have had enough exposure to NPDs or psychopaths you will vibe them after a while. I imagine this is likely the case for anyone who has worked as a trader, finance, politics, big commodity booms are bad, etc. We have all encountered them somewhere. People should pay attention to how they feel (yeah I know, people hate that word) when they are around people. I have to pretend that I don't notice them because it is so apparent to me and immediately.

    The last time I picked one out at work, a few months later the creepy bastard walked past me at night during a -20 blizzard, with next to no visibility, knowing that I had an hour drive, and told me in super spooky whisper.. "Don't hit a deer on your way home now." I found out later that a bunch of horses had mysteriously died in his care and a bunch of other things that confirmed my suspicions. I had a long battle with him so I eventually got to understand him pretty well. I didn't have to hear the guy state a single sentence or watch any body language, I just knew immediately because I could feel his malevolence and threat in my stomach where we have a large nerve cluster. Pay attention and you will know. Also their eye contact is all wrong and too intense.

    Aussiekiwi Dec 8, 2016 10:55 PM ,
    Globalism, is designed to make you poorer slowly over decades by allowing wages and conditions to be for ever slowly reduced under the guise of free market competition to funnel wealth ever upwards to the 1%.

    [Dec 08, 2016] Washington Post Appends Russian Propaganda Fake News Story, Admits It May Be Fake

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the sites PropOrNot cited as Russian-influenced was the Drudge Report. ..."
    "... The piece's description of some sharers of bogus news as "useful idiots" could " theoretically include anyone on any social-media platform who shares news based on a click-bait headline ," Mathew Ingram wrote for Fortune. ..."
    "... But the biggest issue was PropOrNot itself. As Adrian Chen wrote for the New Yorker , its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda - ostensibly with Ukrainian origins - and verification of its work was nearly impossible. Chen wrote "the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labeled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier." ..."
    "... Now, at least, the "national newspaper" has taken some responsibility, however the key question remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted "work" smeared hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the "fake news" it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost the elections? ..."
    Dec 07, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    In the latest example why the "mainstream media" is facing a historic crisis of confidence among its readership, facing unprecedented blowback following Craig Timberg November 24 Washington Post story " Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say ", on Wednesday a lengthy editor's note appeared on top of the original article in which the editor not only distances the WaPo from the "experts" quoted in the original article whose "work" served as the basis for the entire article (and which became the most read WaPo story the day it was published) but also admits the Post could not " vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's finding regarding any individual media outlet", in effect admitting the entire story may have been, drumroll "fake news" and conceding the Bezos-owned publication may have engaged in defamation by smearing numerous websites - Zero Hedge included - with patently false and unsubstantiated allegations.

    It was the closest the Washington Post would come to formally retracting the story, which has now been thoroughly discredited not only by outside commentators, but by its own editor.

    The apended note in question:

    Editor's Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot's list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group's methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post's story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.

    As The Washingtonian notes , the implicit concession follows intense and rising criticism of the article over the past two weeks. It was " rife with obviously reckless and unproven allegations, " Intercept reporters Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton wrote, noting that PropOrNot, one of the groups whose research was cited in Timberg's piece, "anonymous cowards." One of the sites PropOrNot cited as Russian-influenced was the Drudge Report.

    The piece's description of some sharers of bogus news as "useful idiots" could " theoretically include anyone on any social-media platform who shares news based on a click-bait headline ," Mathew Ingram wrote for Fortune.

    But the biggest issue was PropOrNot itself. As Adrian Chen wrote for the New Yorker , its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda - ostensibly with Ukrainian origins - and verification of its work was nearly impossible. Chen wrote "the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labeled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier."

    Criticism culminated this week when the " Naked capitalism" blog threatened to sue the Washington Post, demanding a retraction.

    Now, at least, the "national newspaper" has taken some responsibility, however the key question remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted "work" smeared hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the "fake news" it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost the elections?

    [Dec 07, 2016] The Propaganda About Russian Propaganda

    Notable quotes:
    "... These criteria, of course, could include not only Russian state-controlled media organizations, such as Russia Today, but nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post ..."
    "... To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labelled a Russian propagandist. ..."
    "... In a scathing takedown on The Intercept , Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton wrote that PropOrNot "embodies the toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy, but without the courage to attach individual names to the blacklist." ..."
    "... Yet, when pressed on the technical patterns that led PropOrNot to label the Drudge Report a Russian propaganda outlet, he could point only to a general perception of bias in its content. "They act as a repeater to a significant extent, in that they refer audiences to sort of Russian stuff," he said. "There's no a-priori reason, stepping back, that a conservative news site would rely on so many Russian news sources. What is up with that?" ..."
    "... I asked to see the raw data PropOrNot used to determine that the Drudge Report was a Russian-propaganda outlet. The spokesman said that the group would release it to the public eventually, but could not share it at the moment ..."
    "... The Russian journalist Alexey Kovalev, who debunks Kremlin propaganda on his site, Noodleremover, floated the possibility that PropOrNot was Ukrainians waging a disinformation campaign against Russia. ..."
    "... The PropOrNot spokesman would speak to me only on the condition of anonymity and revealed only bare biographical details on background. "Are you familiar with the assassination of Jo Cox?" he asked, when I asked why his group remained in the shadows, referring to the British M.P. murdered by a right-wing extremist. "Well, that is a big thing for us. Basically, Russia uses crazy people to kill its enemies." ..."
    "... "One thing we're all in agreement about is that Russia should not be able to fuck with the American people. That is not cool." The spokesman said that the group began with fewer than a dozen members, who came together while following Russia's invasion of eastern Ukraine. The crisis was accompanied by a flood of disinformation designed to confuse Ukraine and its allies. "That was a big wake-up call to us. It's like, wait a minute, Russia is creating this very effective fake-news propaganda in conjunction with their military operation on the ground," the spokesman said. "My God, if they can do that there, why can't they do it here?" ..."
    "... PropOrNot has said that the group includes Ukrainian-Americans, though the spokesman laughed at the suggestion that they were Ukrainian agents. ..."
    "... This week, Wyden and six other senators sent a letter to the White House asking it to declassify information "concerning the Russian Government and the U.S. election." ..."
    "... The story of PropOrNot should serve as a cautionary tale to those who fixate on malignant digital influences as a primary explanation for Trump's stunning election. ..."
    Dec 01, 2016 | www.newyorker.com

    ... ... ...

    ...Last week, the Post published a story based in part on PropOrNot's research. Headlined "Russian Propaganda Effort Helped Spread 'Fake News' During Election, Experts Say," the report claimed that a number of researchers had uncovered a "sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign" that spread fake-news articles across the Internet with the aim of hurting Hillary Clinton and helping Donald Trump. It prominently cited the PropOrNot research. The story topped the Post's most-read list, and was shared widely by prominent journalists and politicians on Twitter. The former White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer tweeted , "Why isn't this the biggest story in the world right now?"

    Vladimir Putin and the Russian state's affinity for Trump has been well-reported. During the campaign, countless stories speculated on connections between Trump and Putin and alleged that Russia contributed to Trump's election using propaganda and subterfuge. Clinton made it a major line of attack. But the Post's story had the force of revelation, thanks in large part to the apparent scientific authority of PropOrNot's work: the group released a thirty-two-page report detailing its methodology, and named names with its list of two hundred suspect news outlets. The organization's anonymity, which a spokesperson maintained was due to fear of Russian hackers, added a cybersexy mystique.

    ... ... ...

    The most striking issue is the overly broad criteria used to identify which outlets spread propaganda. According to PropOrNot's recounting of its methodology, the third step it uses is to check if a site has a history of "generally echoing the Russian propaganda 'line'," which includes praise for Putin, Trump, Bashar al-Assad, Syria, Iran, China, and "radical political parties in the US and Europe." When not praising, Russian propaganda includes criticism of the United States, Barack Obama, Clinton, the European Union, Angela Merkel, NATO , Ukraine, "Jewish people," U.S. allies, the mainstream media, Democrats, and "the center-right or center-left, and moderates of all stripes."

    These criteria, of course, could include not only Russian state-controlled media organizations, such as Russia Today, but nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post itself. Yet PropOrNot claims to be uninterested in differentiating between organizations that are explicit tools of the Russian state and so-called "useful idiots," which echo Russian propaganda out of sincerely held beliefs. "We focus on behavior, not motivation," they write.

    To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labelled a Russian propagandist. Indeed, the list of "propaganda outlets" has included respected left-leaning publications like CounterPunch and Truthdig, as well as the right-wing behemoth Drudge Report. The list is so broad that it can reveal absolutely nothing about the structure or pervasiveness of Russian propaganda. "It's so incredibly scattershot," Higgins told me. "If you've ever posted a pro-Russian post on your site, ever, you're Russian propaganda." In a scathing takedown on The Intercept , Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton wrote that PropOrNot "embodies the toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy, but without the courage to attach individual names to the blacklist."

    ... ... ...

    In a phone interview, a spokesman for PropOrNot brushed off the criticism. "If there's a pattern of activity over time, especially combined with underlying technical tells, then, yeah, we're going to highlight it," he said. He argued that Russian disinformation is an enormous problem that requires direct confrontation. "It's been clear for a while that Russia is a little braver, more aggressive, more willing to push the boundaries of what was previously acceptable." He said that, to avoid painting outlets with too broad a brush, the group employs a sophisticated analysis that relies on no single criterion in isolation.

    Yet, when pressed on the technical patterns that led PropOrNot to label the Drudge Report a Russian propaganda outlet, he could point only to a general perception of bias in its content. "They act as a repeater to a significant extent, in that they refer audiences to sort of Russian stuff," he said. "There's no a-priori reason, stepping back, that a conservative news site would rely on so many Russian news sources. What is up with that?"

    I asked to see the raw data PropOrNot used to determine that the Drudge Report was a Russian-propaganda outlet. The spokesman said that the group would release it to the public eventually, but could not share it at the moment: "That takes a lot of work, and we're an all-volunteer crew." Instead, he urged me to read the Drudge Report myself, suggesting that its nature would be apparent.

    ... ... ...

    Another major issue with PropOrNot is that its members insist on anonymity. If one aims to cut through a disinformation campaign, transparency is paramount. Otherwise you just stoke further paranoia. The Russian journalist Alexey Kovalev, who debunks Kremlin propaganda on his site, Noodleremover, floated the possibility that PropOrNot was Ukrainians waging a disinformation campaign against Russia.

    The PropOrNot spokesman would speak to me only on the condition of anonymity and revealed only bare biographical details on background. "Are you familiar with the assassination of Jo Cox?" he asked, when I asked why his group remained in the shadows, referring to the British M.P. murdered by a right-wing extremist. "Well, that is a big thing for us. Basically, Russia uses crazy people to kill its enemies."

    I can report that the spokesman was an American man, probably in his thirties or forties, who was well versed in Internet culture and swore enthusiastically. He said that the group numbered about forty people. "I can say we have people who work for major tech companies and people who have worked for the government in different regards, but we're all acting in a private capacity," he said. "One thing we're all in agreement about is that Russia should not be able to fuck with the American people. That is not cool." The spokesman said that the group began with fewer than a dozen members, who came together while following Russia's invasion of eastern Ukraine. The crisis was accompanied by a flood of disinformation designed to confuse Ukraine and its allies. "That was a big wake-up call to us. It's like, wait a minute, Russia is creating this very effective fake-news propaganda in conjunction with their military operation on the ground," the spokesman said. "My God, if they can do that there, why can't they do it here?"

    PropOrNot has said that the group includes Ukrainian-Americans, though the spokesman laughed at the suggestion that they were Ukrainian agents. PropOrNot has claimed total financial and editorial independence.

    Given PropOrNot's shadowy nature and the shoddiness of its work, I was puzzled by the group's claim to have worked with Senator Ron Wyden's office. In an e-mail, Keith Chu, a spokesman for Wyden, told me that the PropOrNot team reached out to the office in late October. Two of the group's members, an ex-State Department employee and an I.T. researcher, described their research. "It sounded interesting, and tracked with reporting on Russian propaganda efforts," Chu wrote. After a few phone calls with the members, it became clear that Wyden's office could not validate the group's findings. Chu advised the group on press strategy and suggested some reporters that it might reach out to. "I told them that if they had findings, some kind of document that they could share with reporters, that would be helpful," he told me. Chu said that Wyden's office played no role in creating the report and didn't endorse the findings. Nonetheless, he added, "There has been bipartisan interest in these kind of Russian efforts, including interference in elections, for some time now, including from Senator Wyden." This week, Wyden and six other senators sent a letter to the White House asking it to declassify information "concerning the Russian Government and the U.S. election."

    The story of PropOrNot should serve as a cautionary tale to those who fixate on malignant digital influences as a primary explanation for Trump's stunning election.

    ... ... ...

    [Dec 07, 2016] Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group

    The authors seems to miss the key observation: this is a sign of the crisis of neoliberal propaganda model, which gave rise to Internet rumor mill. Rumor s (aka improvised news) became a prominent news source if and only if official channels of information are not viewed as trustworthy. And blacklisting alternative news sites does not help to return the trust. When it is gone it is gone. The same situation in the past happened in Brezhnev's USSR. People just stopped to trust official newspapers and turned to propaganda sites of Western =government such as BBC and voice of America for news. Soviet authorities tried to jam them, but this did not stop Soviet people from trying to listen to then at nights, trying to find frequencies that were not jammed.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Basically, everyone who isn't comfortably within the centrist Hillary Clinton/Jeb Bush spectrum is guilty. On its Twitter account, the group announced a new "plugin" that automatically alerts the user that a visited website has been designated by the group to be a Russian propaganda outlet. ..."
    "... The group commits outright defamation by slandering obviously legitimate news sites as propaganda tools of the Kremlin. ..."
    "... a big part of the group's definition for "Russian propaganda outlet" is criticizing U.S. foreign policy ..."
    "... In sum: They're not McCarthyite; perish the thought. They just want multiple U.S. media outlets investigated by the FBI for espionage on behalf of Russia. ..."
    "... PropOrNot is by no means a neutral observer. It actively calls on Congress and the White House to work "with our European allies to disconnect Russia from the SWIFT financial transaction system, effective immediately and lasting for at least one year, as an appropriate response to Russian manipulation of the election." ..."
    "... In other words, this blacklisting group of anonymous cowards - putative experts in the pages of the Washington Post - is actively pushing for Western governments to take punitive measures against the Russian government and is speaking and smearing from an extreme ideological framework that the Post concealed from its readers. ..."
    "... The Post itself - now posing as a warrior against "fake news" - published an article in September that treated with great seriousness the claim that Hillary Clinton collapsed on 9/11 Day because she was poisoned by Putin. ..."
    "... Indeed, what happened here is the essence of fake news. The Post story served the agendas of many factions: those who want to believe Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton; those who want to believe that the internet and social media are a grave menace that needs to be controlled, in contrast to the objective truth that reliable old media outlets once issued; those who want a resurrection of the Cold War. ..."
    "... So those who saw tweets and Facebook posts promoting this Post story instantly clicked and shared and promoted the story without an iota of critical thought or examination of whether the claims were true, because they wanted the claims to be true. That behavior included countless journalists. ..."
    Dec 05, 2016 | theintercept.com

    ... ... ...

    One of the core functions of PropOrNot appears to be its compilation of a lengthy blacklist of news and political websites that it smears as peddlers of "Russian propaganda." Included on this blacklist of supposed propaganda outlets are prominent independent left-wing news sites such as Truthout, Naked Capitalism, Black Agenda Report, Consortium News, and Truthdig.

    Also included are popular libertarian hubs such as Zero Hedge, Antiwar.com, and the Ron Paul Institute, along with the hugely influential right-wing website the Drudge Report and the publishing site WikiLeaks. Far-right, virulently anti-Muslim blogs such as Bare Naked Islam are likewise dubbed Kremlin mouthpieces. Basically, everyone who isn't comfortably within the centrist Hillary Clinton/Jeb Bush spectrum is guilty. On its Twitter account, the group announced a new "plugin" that automatically alerts the user that a visited website has been designated by the group to be a Russian propaganda outlet.

    ... ... ...

    The group commits outright defamation by slandering obviously legitimate news sites as propaganda tools of the Kremlin.

    One of the most egregious examples is the group's inclusion of Naked Capitalism, the widely respected left-wing site run by Wall Street critic Yves Smith. That site was named by Time magazine as one of the best 25 Best Financial Blogs in 2011 and by Wired magazine as a crucial site to follow for finance, and Smith has been featured as a guest on programs such as PBS's Bill Moyers Show. Yet this cowardly group of anonymous smear artists, promoted by the Washington Post, has now placed them on a blacklist of Russian disinformation.

    The group eschews alternative media outlets like these and instead recommends that readers rely solely on establishment-friendly publications like NPR, the BBC, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, and VICE. That is because a big part of the group's definition for "Russian propaganda outlet" is criticizing U.S. foreign policy.

    ... ... ...

    While blacklisting left-wing and libertarian journalists, PropOrNot also denies being McCarthyite. Yet it simultaneously calls for the U.S. government to use the FBI and DOJ to carry out "formal investigations" of these accused websites, "because the kind of folks who make propaganda for brutal authoritarian oligarchies are often involved in a wide range of bad business." The shadowy group even goes so far as to claim that people involved in the blacklisted websites may "have violated the Espionage Act, the Foreign Agent Registration Act, and other related laws."

    In sum: They're not McCarthyite; perish the thought. They just want multiple U.S. media outlets investigated by the FBI for espionage on behalf of Russia.

    ... ... ...

    PropOrNot is by no means a neutral observer. It actively calls on Congress and the White House to work "with our European allies to disconnect Russia from the SWIFT financial transaction system, effective immediately and lasting for at least one year, as an appropriate response to Russian manipulation of the election."

    In other words, this blacklisting group of anonymous cowards - putative experts in the pages of the Washington Post - is actively pushing for Western governments to take punitive measures against the Russian government and is speaking and smearing from an extreme ideological framework that the Post concealed from its readers.

    ... ... ...

    The Post itself - now posing as a warrior against "fake news" - published an article in September that treated with great seriousness the claim that Hillary Clinton collapsed on 9/11 Day because she was poisoned by Putin. And that's to say nothing of the paper's disgraceful history of convincing Americans that Saddam was building non-existent nuclear weapons and had cultivated a vibrant alliance with al Qaeda. As is so often the case, those who mostly loudly warn of "fake news" from others are themselves the most aggressive disseminators of it.

    Indeed, what happened here is the essence of fake news. The Post story served the agendas of many factions: those who want to believe Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton; those who want to believe that the internet and social media are a grave menace that needs to be controlled, in contrast to the objective truth that reliable old media outlets once issued; those who want a resurrection of the Cold War.

    So those who saw tweets and Facebook posts promoting this Post story instantly clicked and shared and promoted the story without an iota of critical thought or examination of whether the claims were true, because they wanted the claims to be true. That behavior included countless journalists.

    [Dec 07, 2016] McCarthyism 2.0 against the independent information

    Notable quotes:
    "... When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship. ..."
    "... Many still wonder if the planet indeed slips towards a new Cold War. Despite that there is plenty of evidence that this is, unfortunately, already a fact, another incident came to verify this situation. ..."
    "... The Western neoliberal establishment is exposed, revealing its real agenda: to challenge the alternative bloc driven by the Sino-Russian alliance. The 'democratic' Europe proceeded in a similar, unprecedented move recently. As reported by RT: "In a completely bonkers move this week, the EU Parliament approved a resolution to counter "Russian propaganda" and the "intrusion of Russian media" into the EU. The resolution was adopted with 304 MEPs voting in favor, 179 MEPs voting against it and 208 abstaining. The most bizarre part, however, is that the resolution lumped Russian media in with Islamist propaganda of the kind spread by terror groups like the so-called Islamic State. Thus Russian media is put on the same level with videos of ISIS beheadings and incitements to mass murder." ..."
    "... In Cold War 2.0, the Western neoliberal establishment is forced to create the respective McCarthyism. Therefore, the new dogma has changed accordingly. It doesn't matter if an alternative medium provides a different view, away from the mainstream media propaganda. It doesn't matter if the Whistleblowers are telling the truth about the US dirty wars and mass surveillance of ordinary citizens. As long as the US empire and its allies are exposed by all these elements outside their Matrix control, these elements help Russia, therefore, they are doing 'Russian propaganda'. It's as simple as that. ..."
    "... When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship. ..."
    Dec 07, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
    Key insight: When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship.

    the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens

    When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship.

    Many still wonder if the planet indeed slips towards a new Cold War. Despite that there is plenty of evidence that this is, unfortunately, already a fact, another incident came to verify this situation.

    The blacklist created by PropOrNot and provided to Washington Post, containing more than 200 websites that are supposedly doing 'Russian propaganda', marks the start of a new McCarthyism era and verifies beyond doubt the fact that we have indeed entered the Cold War 2.0.

    Seeing that it's losing the battle of information, the establishment simply proceeded in one more clumsy move that will only accelerate developments against it.

    It really sounds like a joke to accuse anyone who opposes the US dirty wars and interventions that brought so much chaos and distraction, for doing 'Russian propaganda', when you are the one who supported and justified these wars through the most offensive propaganda, for decades.

    Someone has to tell the mainstream media parrots that their dirty tricks don't work anymore. According to a Gallup latest report, "Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year."

    The mainstream mouthpieces are extremely predictable. They will rush to blame internet and alternative media that flourished over the last fifteen years, for this unprecedented situation. Of course they will. They don't want any alternative to their propaganda monopoly which was extremely effective in guiding the sheeple during the past decades.

    The Western neoliberal establishment is exposed, revealing its real agenda: to challenge the alternative bloc driven by the Sino-Russian alliance. The 'democratic' Europe proceeded in a similar, unprecedented move recently. As reported by RT: "In a completely bonkers move this week, the EU Parliament approved a resolution to counter "Russian propaganda" and the "intrusion of Russian media" into the EU. The resolution was adopted with 304 MEPs voting in favor, 179 MEPs voting against it and 208 abstaining. The most bizarre part, however, is that the resolution lumped Russian media in with Islamist propaganda of the kind spread by terror groups like the so-called Islamic State. Thus Russian media is put on the same level with videos of ISIS beheadings and incitements to mass murder."

    It has been mentioned in previous article that "While the EU and US were occupied with the war against terrorism as well as with the dead-end wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas of the planet, Putin had all the time to build his own mechanism against Western propaganda. Being himself a man who had come to power with the help of media, he built his own media network which includes, for example, the TV network Russia Today, according to the Western standards, and "invaded" in millions of homes in the Western countries using the English language, promoting however the Russian positions as counterweight to the Western propaganda monopoly."

    In Cold War 2.0, the Western neoliberal establishment is forced to create the respective McCarthyism. Therefore, the new dogma has changed accordingly. It doesn't matter if an alternative medium provides a different view, away from the mainstream media propaganda. It doesn't matter if the Whistleblowers are telling the truth about the US dirty wars and mass surveillance of ordinary citizens. As long as the US empire and its allies are exposed by all these elements outside their Matrix control, these elements help Russia, therefore, they are doing 'Russian propaganda'. It's as simple as that.

    This latest desperate move of the establishment should alarm us all. Because it shows that the establishment is in panic and therefore, more dangerous than ever. When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship.

    [Dec 07, 2016] In view of listing on PropOrNot should

    Notable quotes:
    "... I was thinking Natasha Fatale .. ..."
    "... it's truly amazing. many of these people have denounced joe mccarthy all their lives. ..."
    "... I was thinking Katyusha. Besides being a very pretty diminutive name for Katherine, the sound of the Katyusha rockets made the forces of evil's collective sphincter tighten up. ..."
    "... Just like the sound of the truth spoken to power here at NC is apparently tightening up some establishment sphincters :) ..."
    "... Oh OIFVet, do you know where this line of snark is leading? Next, the NC will be "mischaracterized" as Stalin's News Organ! ..."
    Dec 07, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    charles leseau November 26, 2016 at 5:36 am

    So are you changing your name to Eva Smithova any time soon? Or maybe change the page header to Голый Капитализм for a bit?

    a different chris November 26, 2016 at 10:37 am

    Oh, I don't ask for much but please, please consider that! :) :) :)

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Re: charles leseau, November 26, 2016 at 5:36 am

    I was thinking Natasha Fatale ..

    petal November 26, 2016 at 1:02 pm

    ... Anyway, concerned by number of supposedly educated friends(Clinton supporters) being taken in by this fake news/Russian ties thing. They've lost their heads and there's no discussing it with them, they are convinced. Where does it end? Na zdorovie!

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    it's truly amazing. many of these people have denounced joe mccarthy all their lives. somebody referred to invasion of the body snatchers on nc the other day, that's the only logical explanation.

    OIFVet November 26, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    I was thinking Katyusha. Besides being a very pretty diminutive name for Katherine, the sound of the Katyusha rockets made the forces of evil's collective sphincter tighten up.

    Just like the sound of the truth spoken to power here at NC is apparently tightening up some establishment sphincters :)

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    Oh OIFVet, do you know where this line of snark is leading? Next, the NC will be "mischaracterized" as Stalin's News Organ!

    [Dec 07, 2016] What rankles me is the implication that tribalism is more or less synonymous with the rights reliance on racism as a primary rally cry, while the lefts anti-racist stance exempts the lefts identity politics from being a species of tribalism as well.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I am among those who think tribalism as a organizing pattern for partisan mobilization is extending neoliberalism's reign rather than displacing it. ..."
    "... What rankles me is the implication that "tribalism" is more or less synonymous with the right's reliance on racism as a primary rally cry, while the left's anti-racist stance exempts the left's identity politics from being a species of tribalism as well. ..."
    "... It seems to me that the emergence of "tribalism" in organizing and motivating partisan identity is driven by forces of partisan reaction in the context of increasing social atomization and the decline of social affiliation in all areas of life. ..."
    "... The "tribalism" of left identity politics has been very real and has contributed mightily in organizing a reactionary right "tribalism" around resentment and repulsion at being the left's outgroup, the poorly educated flyover people. ..."
    "... The division over Brexit demonstrated the extent to which social membership in actual social organizations like clubs, unions, churches no longer matters as much as personal worldview, as the authoritarians divided from the cosmopolitans. ..."
    "... One reason "tribalism" seems appropriate to characterize the eruption on right is that there is no coherent policy program corresponding to the resentments or grievances. It is voting on the basis of something personal, an emotional identification cum perception of sorts. ..."
    Dec 07, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 12.02.16 at 5:05 pm 103

    I do not object to the word, tribalism, though I am among those who think tribalism as a organizing pattern for partisan mobilization is extending neoliberalism's reign rather than displacing it.

    What rankles me is the implication that "tribalism" is more or less synonymous with the right's reliance on racism as a primary rally cry, while the left's anti-racist stance exempts the left's identity politics from being a species of tribalism as well.

    It seems to me that the emergence of "tribalism" in organizing and motivating partisan identity is driven by forces of partisan reaction in the context of increasing social atomization and the decline of social affiliation in all areas of life.

    In an American context, a long-standing theme of right-wing televised and on-line propaganda has aimed at motivating people on the basis of their resentments against the supposed contempt the hated libruls have for "God and guns" and the self-regarding moral superiority of those driving a Prius and listening to National Public Radio.

    I would not want to be understood as saying that tribalism is symmetric between right and left; I do think what has been happening on the right has been driven by social reaction to what has been happening on the left, and the interpretation the left has of the right is just as driven by motivated reasoning, even if the motivations are different. The left's sometime focus on language, micro aggression and personal experience cum personal justification thru enlightened attitudes is a manifestation of the decline of social affiliation, so there is an irony in naming the pseudo in-group conformity that results, "tribalism". The "tribalism" of left identity politics has been very real and has contributed mightily in organizing a reactionary right "tribalism" around resentment and repulsion at being the left's outgroup, the poorly educated flyover people.

    The division over Brexit demonstrated the extent to which social membership in actual social organizations like clubs, unions, churches no longer matters as much as personal worldview, as the authoritarians divided from the cosmopolitans. The angry, uncomprehending reaction to the vote from cosmopolitans reinforced the "tribalism" of both, but to see that requires a modicum of detachment from the angry accusation that racism and lies was the whole case and denies the legitimacy of economic grievance.

    One reason "tribalism" seems appropriate to characterize the eruption on right is that there is no coherent policy program corresponding to the resentments or grievances. It is voting on the basis of something personal, an emotional identification cum perception of sorts.

    I am not so certain that the left, as it has sunk into a denial laden defense of the status quo, has not also been shedding its attachment to a policy program, Hillary's proverbial website notwithstanding. Democrats associated with the party establishment especially in the 2016 campaign talked policy futility and never acted as if a concerted effort to, say, capture the Senate with an eye on opening a policy agenda mattered to them. And, many ordinary supporters of the Democrats seemed to be blithely unaware or apathetic about the policy record of war, economic predation, et cetera.

    Without a policy agenda, the tribes cannot be proper constituencies demanding delivery on promises, which fits a continuation of neoliberal policy agenda just fine, but foretells, it seems to me, disillusion, apathy, violence and loss of legitimacy becoming acute. If mobilizing the tribes substitutes for a politics of coherent policy, it is hard to imagine any but ineffectual albeit authoritarian governance.

    [Dec 06, 2016] Clinton: we are engaged in an information war .

    Notable quotes:
    "... Walter [Issacson] is working hard with his Board to try to transform the broadcasting efforts. Because most people still get their news from TV and radio. So even though we're pushing online, we can't forget TV and radio. And so I look - I would look very much towards your cooperation, to try to figure out how we get back in the game on this. Because I hate ceding what we are most expert in to anybody else . ..."
    "... The BBG was formed in 1999 and runs on a $721 million annual budget. It reports directly to Secretary of State John Kerry and operates like a holding company for a host of Cold War-era CIA spinoffs and old school "psychological warfare" projects: Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Radio Martí, Voice of America, Radio Liberation from Bolshevism (since renamed "Radio Liberty") and a dozen other government-funded radio stations and media outlets pumping out pro-American propaganda across the globe. ..."
    Dec 06, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    knowbuddhau December 5, 2016 at 7:37 am

    Skip Intro gets it. "Young techno-experts" FTW!

    CLINTON: Well, [Senator Lugar], I want to thank you for the report that you did on the [B]roadcasting [B]oard of [G]overnors and all of the problems that it has experienced. I agree with you. Walter Isaacson is an excellent choice. The board is a very invigorated group of Republicans and Democrats. They understand. We are engaged in an information war . During the Cold War, we did a great job in getting America's message out. After the Berlin Wall fell we said, okay, fine, enough of that. We've done it. We're done. And unfortunately, we are paying a big price for it.

    And our private media cannot fill that gap. In fact, our private media, particularly cultural programming, often works at counterpurposes to what we truly are as Americans and what our values are. [Cue "Collateral Murder"?]

    I remember having an Afghan general tell me that the only thing he thought about Americans is that all the men wrestled and the women walked around in bikinis. Because the only TV he ever saw was Baywatch and World Wide Wrestling. So we are in an information war. And we are losing that war. I'll be very blunt in my assessment. Al-Jazeera is winning.

    The Chinese have opened up a global English-language and multi-language television network. The Russians have opened up an English-language network. I've seen it in a few countries, and it's quite instructive. We are cutting back. The BBC is cutting back.

    So here's what we are trying to do. In the State Department, we have pushed very hard on new media. So we have an Arabic Twitter feed. We have a Farsi Twitter feed. I have this group of young techno-experts who are out there engaging on websites and we're putting all of our young Arabic-speaking diplomats out, so that they are talking about our values.

    Walter [Issacson] is working hard with his Board to try to transform the broadcasting efforts. Because most people still get their news from TV and radio. So even though we're pushing online, we can't forget TV and radio. And so I look - I would look very much towards your cooperation, to try to figure out how we get back in the game on this. Because I hate ceding what we are most expert in to anybody else . http://freemediaonline.org/freemediaonlineblog/2011/05/04/secretary-clinton-u-s-is-losing-the-information-war/

    In case some aren't familiar with the BBG:

    The BBG was formed in 1999 and runs on a $721 million annual budget. It reports directly to Secretary of State John Kerry and operates like a holding company for a host of Cold War-era CIA spinoffs and old school "psychological warfare" projects: Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Radio Martí, Voice of America, Radio Liberation from Bolshevism (since renamed "Radio Liberty") and a dozen other government-funded radio stations and media outlets pumping out pro-American propaganda across the globe. https://pando.com/2015/03/01/internet-privacy-funded-by-spooks-a-brief-history-of-the-bbg/

    [Dec 06, 2016] WPost woulds not Retract McCarthyistic Smear by Norman Solomon

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Smearing is not reporting," the RootsAction petition says. "The Washington Post 's recent descent into McCarthyism - promoting anonymous and shoddy claims that a vast range of some 200 websites are all accomplices or tools of the Russian government - violates basic journalistic standards and does real harm to democratic discourse in our country. We urge the Washington Post to prominently retract the article and apologize for publishing it." ..."
    "... For one thing, PropOrNot wasn't just another source for the Post 's story. As The New Yorker noted in a devastating article on Dec. 1, the story "prominently cited the PropOrNot research." The Post 's account "had the force of revelation, thanks in large part to the apparent scientific authority of PropOrNot's work: the group released a 32-page report detailing its methodology, and named names with its list of 200 suspect news outlets . But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess." ..."
    "... As The New Yorker pointed out, PropOrNot's criteria for incriminating content were broad enough to include "nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post itself." Yet "The List" is not a random list by any means - it's a targeted mish-mash, naming websites that are not within shouting distance of the U.S. corporate and foreign policy establishment. ..."
    "... As The New Yorker 's writer Adrian Chen put it: "To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labeled a Russian propagandist." And he concluded: "Despite the impressive-looking diagrams and figures in its report, PropOrNot's findings rest largely on innuendo and conspiracy thinking." ..."
    "... As much as the Post news management might want to weasel out of the comparison, the parallels to the advent of the McCarthy Era are chilling. For instance, the Red Channels list, with 151 names on it, was successful as a weapon against dissent and free speech in large part because, early on, so many media outlets of the day actively aided and abetted blacklisting, as the Post has done for "The List." ..."
    "... Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wisconsin, who led the "Red Scare" hearings of the 1950s. ..."
    "... So far The New Yorker has been the largest media outlet to directly confront the Post 's egregious story. Cogent assessments can also be found at The Intercept , Consortium News , Common Dreams , AlterNet , Rolling Stone , Fortune , CounterPunch , The Nation and numerous other sites. ..."
    "... But many mainline journalists and outlets jumped at the chance to amplify the Post 's piece of work. A sampling of the cheers from prominent journalists and liberal partisans was published by FAIR.org under the apt headline " Why Are Media Outlets Still Citing Discredited 'Fake News' Blacklist? " ..."
    "... When liberals have green-lighted a witch-hunt, right wingers have been pleased to run with it. President Harry Truman issued an executive order in March 1947 to establish "loyalty" investigations in every agency of the federal government. Joe McCarthy and the era named after him were soon to follow. ..."
    Dec 05, 2016 | consortiumnews.com
    WPost Won't Retract McCarthyistic Smear

    After publishing a McCarthyistic "black list" that smears some 200 Web sites as "Russian propagandists," The Washington Post refuses to apologize - and other mainstream media outlets pile on, writes Norman Solomon.

    We still don't have any sort of apology or retraction from the Washington Post for promoting "The List" - the highly dangerous blacklist that got a huge boost from the newspaper's fawning coverage on Nov. 24. The project of smearing 200 websites with one broad brush wouldn't have gotten far without the avid complicity of high-profile media outlets, starting with the Post .

    On Thursday - a week after the Post published its front-page news article hyping the blacklist that was put out by a group of unidentified people called PropOrNot - I sent a petition statement to the newspaper's executive editor Martin Baron.

    The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington Post)

    "Smearing is not reporting," the RootsAction petition says. "The Washington Post 's recent descent into McCarthyism - promoting anonymous and shoddy claims that a vast range of some 200 websites are all accomplices or tools of the Russian government - violates basic journalistic standards and does real harm to democratic discourse in our country. We urge the Washington Post to prominently retract the article and apologize for publishing it."

    After mentioning that 6,000 people had signed the petition (the number has doubled since then), my email to Baron added: "If you skim through the comments that many of the signers added to the petition online, I think you might find them to be of interest. I wonder if you see a basis for dialogue on the issues raised by critics of the Post piece in question."

    The reply came from the newspaper's vice president for public relations, Kristine Coratti Kelly, who thanked me "for reaching out to us" before presenting the Post 's response, quoted here in full:

    "The Post reported on the work of four separate sets of researchers, as well as independent experts, who have examined Russian attempts to influence American democracy. PropOrNot was one. The Post did not name any of the sites on PropOrNot's list of organizations that it said had - wittingly or unwittingly - published or echoed Russian propaganda. The Post reviewed PropOrNot's findings and our questions about them were answered satisfactorily during the course of multiple interviews."

    Full of Holes

    But that damage-control response was as full of holes as the news story it tried to defend.

    For one thing, PropOrNot wasn't just another source for the Post 's story. As The New Yorker noted in a devastating article on Dec. 1, the story "prominently cited the PropOrNot research." The Post 's account "had the force of revelation, thanks in large part to the apparent scientific authority of PropOrNot's work: the group released a 32-page report detailing its methodology, and named names with its list of 200 suspect news outlets . But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess."

    Contrary to the PR message from the Post vice president, PropOrNot did not merely say that the sites on its list had "published or echoed Russian propaganda." Without a word of the slightest doubt or skepticism in the entire story, the Post summarized PropOrNot's characterization of all the websites on its list as falling into two categories: "Some players in this online echo chamber were knowingly part of the propaganda campaign, the researchers concluded, while others were 'useful idiots' - a term born of the Cold War to describe people or institutions that unknowingly assisted Soviet Union propaganda efforts."

    As The New Yorker pointed out, PropOrNot's criteria for incriminating content were broad enough to include "nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post itself." Yet "The List" is not a random list by any means - it's a targeted mish-mash, naming websites that are not within shouting distance of the U.S. corporate and foreign policy establishment.

    And so the list includes a few overtly Russian-funded outlets; some other sites generally aligned with Kremlin outlooks; many pro-Trump sites, often unacquainted with what it means to be factual and sometimes overtly racist; and other websites that are quite different - solid, factual, reasonable - but too progressive or too anti-capitalist or too libertarian or too right-wing or just plain too independent-minded for the evident tastes of whoever is behind PropOrNot.

    As The New Yorker 's writer Adrian Chen put it: "To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labeled a Russian propagandist." And he concluded: "Despite the impressive-looking diagrams and figures in its report, PropOrNot's findings rest largely on innuendo and conspiracy thinking."

    As for the Post vice president's defensive phrasing that "the Post did not name any of the sites on PropOrNot's list," the fact is that the Post unequivocally promoted PropOrNot, driving web traffic to its site and adding a hotlink to the anonymous group's 32-page report soon after the newspaper's story first appeared. As I mentioned in my reply to her: "Unfortunately, it's kind of like a newspaper saying that it didn't name any of the people on the Red Channels blacklist in 1950 while promoting it in news coverage, so no problem."

    Pushing McCarthyism

    As much as the Post news management might want to weasel out of the comparison, the parallels to the advent of the McCarthy Era are chilling. For instance, the Red Channels list, with 151 names on it, was successful as a weapon against dissent and free speech in large part because, early on, so many media outlets of the day actively aided and abetted blacklisting, as the Post has done for "The List."

    Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wisconsin, who led the "Red Scare" hearings of the 1950s.

    Consider how the Post story described the personnel of PropOrNot in favorable terms even while hiding all of their identities and thus shielding them from any scrutiny - calling them "a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds."

    So far The New Yorker has been the largest media outlet to directly confront the Post 's egregious story. Cogent assessments can also be found at The Intercept , Consortium News , Common Dreams , AlterNet , Rolling Stone , Fortune , CounterPunch , The Nation and numerous other sites.

    But many mainline journalists and outlets jumped at the chance to amplify the Post 's piece of work. A sampling of the cheers from prominent journalists and liberal partisans was published by FAIR.org under the apt headline " Why Are Media Outlets Still Citing Discredited 'Fake News' Blacklist? "

    FAIR's media analyst Adam Johnson cited enthusiastic responses to the bogus story from journalists like Bloomberg's Sahil Kupar and MSNBC's Joy Reid - and such outlets as USA Today , Gizmodo , the PBS NewsHour , The Daily Beast , Slate , AP , The Verge and NPR , which "all uncritically wrote up the Post 's most incendiary claims with little or minimal pushback." On the MSNBC site, the Rachel Maddow Show's blog "added another breathless write-up hours later, repeating the catchy talking point that 'it was like Russia was running a super PAC for Trump's campaign.'"

    With so many people understandably upset about Trump's victory, there's an evident attraction to blaming the Kremlin, a convenient scapegoat for Hillary Clinton's loss. But the Post 's blacklisting story and the media's amplification of it - and the overall political environment that it helps to create - are all building blocks for a reactionary order, threatening the First Amendment and a range of civil liberties.

    When liberals have green-lighted a witch-hunt, right wingers have been pleased to run with it. President Harry Truman issued an executive order in March 1947 to establish "loyalty" investigations in every agency of the federal government. Joe McCarthy and the era named after him were soon to follow.

    In media and government, the journalists and officials who enable blacklisting are cravenly siding with conformity instead of democracy.

    Norman Solomon is co-founder of the online activist group RootsAction.org. His books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He is the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

    [Dec 06, 2016] The Western War On Truth by Paul Craig Roberts

    This idea of casting dissidents as Russian Agent is directly from McCarthy play book. And paradoxically resembles the practive of the USSR in which dissdents were demonized as "Agent of the Western powers." The trick is a immanent part of any war propaganda efforts. So it is clear the Cold War II had started...
    Notable quotes:
    "... As George Orwell predicted, telling the truth is now regarded by Western "democratic" governments as a hostile act. A brand new website, propornot.com, has just made its appearance condemning a list of 200 Internet websites that provide news and views at variance with the presstitute media that serves the governments' agendas . Does propornot.com's funding come from the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, or George Soros? ..."
    "... In the West those who disagree with the murderous and reckless policies of public officials are demonized as "Russian agents." ..."
    "... The presstitute Washington Post played its assigned role in the claim promoted by Washington that the alternative media consists of Russian agents. Craig Timberg, who appears devoid of integrity or intelligence, and perhaps both, is the WaPo stooge who reported the fake news that "two teams of independent researchers" - none of whom are identified - found that the Russians exploited my gullibility, that of CounterPunch, Professor Michel Chossudosky of Global Researh, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and that of 194 other websites to help "an insurgent candidate" (Trump) "claim the White House." ..."
    "... Note the term applied to Trump - "insurgent candidate." That tells you all you need to know. ..."
    "... Western governments are running out of excuses. Since the Clinton regime, the accumulation of war crimes committed by Western governments exceed those of Nazi Germany. Millions of Muslims have been slaughtered, dislocated, and dispossessed in seven countries. Not a single Western war criminal has been held accountable. ..."
    "... The despicable Washington Post is a prime apologist for these war criminals. The entire Western print and TV media is so heavily implicated in the worst war crimes in human history that, if justice ever happens, the presstitutes will stand in the dock with the Clintons, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Obama and their neocon operatives or handlers as the case may be. ..."
    Dec 06, 2016 | www.paulcraigroberts.org

    The "war on terror" has simultaneously been a war on truth. For fifteen years-from 9/11 to Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" and "al Qaeda connections," "Iranian nukes," "Assad's use of chemical weapons," endless lies about Gadaffi, "Russian invasion of Ukraine"-the governments of the so-called Western democracies have found it essential to align themselves firmly with lies in order to pursue their agendas. Now these Western governments are attempting to discredit the truthtellers who challenge their lies.

    Russian news services are under attack from the EU and Western presstitutes as purveyors of "fake news" . Abiding by its Washington master's orders, the EU actually passed a resolution against Russian media for not following Washington's line. Russian President Putin said that the resolution is a "visible sign of degradation of Western society's idea of democracy."

    As George Orwell predicted, telling the truth is now regarded by Western "democratic" governments as a hostile act. A brand new website, propornot.com, has just made its appearance condemning a list of 200 Internet websites that provide news and views at variance with the presstitute media that serves the governments' agendas . Does propornot.com's funding come from the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, or George Soros?

    I am proud to say that paulcraigroberts.org is on the list.

    What we see here is the West adopting Zionist Israel's way of dealing with critics. Anyone who objects to Israel's cruel and inhuman treatment of Palestinians is demonized as "anti-semitic." In the West those who disagree with the murderous and reckless policies of public officials are demonized as "Russian agents." The president-elect of the United States himself has been designated a "Russian agent."

    This scheme to redefine truthtellers as propagandists has backfired. The effort to discredit truthtellers has instead produced a catalogue of websites where reliable information can be found, and readers are flocking to the sites on the list. Moreover, the effort to discredit truthtellers shows that Western governments and their presstitutes are intolerant of truth and diverse opinion and are committed to forcing people to accept self-serving government lies as truth.

    Clearly, Western governments and Western media have no respect for truth, so how can the West possibly be democratic?

    The presstitute Washington Post played its assigned role in the claim promoted by Washington that the alternative media consists of Russian agents. Craig Timberg, who appears devoid of integrity or intelligence, and perhaps both, is the WaPo stooge who reported the fake news that "two teams of independent researchers" - none of whom are identified - found that the Russians exploited my gullibility, that of CounterPunch, Professor Michel Chossudosky of Global Researh, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and that of 194 other websites to help "an insurgent candidate" (Trump) "claim the White House."

    Note the term applied to Trump - "insurgent candidate." That tells you all you need to know.

    You can read here what passes as "reliable reporting" in the presstitute Washington Post .

    See also .

    Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, which somehow escaped inclusion in The 200, unloads on Timberg and the Washington Post here .

    Western governments are running out of excuses. Since the Clinton regime, the accumulation of war crimes committed by Western governments exceed those of Nazi Germany. Millions of Muslims have been slaughtered, dislocated, and dispossessed in seven countries. Not a single Western war criminal has been held accountable.

    The despicable Washington Post is a prime apologist for these war criminals. The entire Western print and TV media is so heavily implicated in the worst war crimes in human history that, if justice ever happens, the presstitutes will stand in the dock with the Clintons, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Obama and their neocon operatives or handlers as the case may be.

    paulcraigroberts.org

    [Dec 06, 2016] Which purveys more fake news

    www.moonofalabama.org
    micawber | Dec 4, 2016 12:30:10 PM | 78
    Which purveys more "fake news" - RT.com on the one hand, or Fox News, MSNBC and CNN on the other? I asked that question on reddit and my post was deleted.

    [Dec 06, 2016] Mattis on Our Way of War

    Dec 06, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    General Mattis reportedly spoke of his concerns during discussions over attacking Iran and thus fell afoul of the Washington establishment, so President Obama hastened his retirement. Foreign Policy 's Thomas Ricks reported :

    Why the hurry? Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way-not because he went all "mad dog," which is his public image, and the view at the White House, but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran. Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable. Like, what do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf? He kept saying, "And then what?"

    Washington did have a "strategy" when it attacked Iraq, the neoconservative one. This was to intimidate the Muslim world with massive bombing, "Shock and Awe" we called it, so all Muslims would be afraid of us and then do what we ordered. Then we planted giant, billion-dollar American air bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. These would, they thought, give us hegemony over Central Asia, intimidate Russia and Iran, while Iraq would turn into a friendly, modern democracy dependent upon Washington. Other Muslim nations would then follow with democratic regimes which would co-operate and obey Washington's plans.

    With the neocons discredited, no other strategy has replaced theirs except to "win" and come home. This is not unusual in our history. In past wars American "strategy" has usually been to return to the status quo ante, the prewar situation. Washington violates nearly all of Sun Tzu's dictums for success. Endless wars for little purpose and with no end strategy are thus likely to continue. They are, however, profitable or beneficial for many Washington interests.

    [Dec 06, 2016] Complex political intrigue around Syria

    Dec 06, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    virgile | Dec 3, 2016 6:20:04 PM | 34

    While Bashar al Assad has not created ISIS whose roots are in humiliated Saddam Hossein Sunni generals and soldiers, it is obvious that he did not prevent them from infiltrating the 'rebels'. He wanted a clash between the 'rebels' mostly inspired by the Moslem Brotherhood (who has "succeeded" in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia) and with other Sunni Islamists who had a more extreme ideology.

    The 'rebels' ( later taken over by Al Nusra) were funded by Qatar and Turkey ( fans of the MB) while the Salafists ( later ISIS) originated in Iraq, Pakistan and other countries were funded by Saudi Arabia.

    Bashar al Assad threw them face to face in order to weaken them. Its quite possible that he managed to keep their dissension alive by sometime executing one side to get a violent response of the other. That was a very smart strategy. He helped transforming the 'moderate' rebels into violent fighters motivated by money and revenge that soon were labelled terrorists by the Western world.

    The war was had threefold: Salafists against Moslem Brotherhood, and both against the Syrian army. As the funds and support the Islamist were getting from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey were unlimited, the Syrian army found itself in a dire situation, despite the help from Arab Shia militias. The intervention of Russia changed the whole picture. Later the Kurdish factor has weakened Turkey further and the failed Yemen war made Saudi Arabia less generous with the 'rebels'. Only Qatar has continued to fund them.

    Thus Bashar al Assad may have benefited from the emergence of ISIS in the beginning but he was about to be overrun without Russia and Iran's support.
    For Russia and Iran, the fall of Bashar al Assad meant the massacre of the Shia, Alawites and Christians and violent struggle between the two extremist Islamist factions ( MB and Salafists) with incompatible ideology.

    It was clear that Bashar al Assad should not be allowed to be toppled and they acted accordingly independently of the civilian casualties.

    jfl | Dec 3, 2016 6:53:29 PM | 36
    Aleppo has sent the West into Panic Overdrive

    The delirious state of the ruling European elites has been displayed on public when the Guardian published their last demand:

    'European leaders, notably the French, are privately warning Vladimir Putin that if he permits Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, to turn an expected capture of Aleppo into a military victory across most of the country, it will be up to Russia to foot the bill for reconstruction.'

    It looks that those in power in London, Paris, Berlin are completely brain dead, since they seem to be unable to recall who destroyed Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and a number of other countries.

    The United States, with the avid support provided by the EU, have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, while destroying the homes and the infrastructure that supported those that they spared, which resulted in a veritable exodus of migrants from the Middle East and Africa to Europe.

    So, maybe they should be paying the bills instead of forcing smaller European countries to provide shelter for the refugees they created in the first place.

    And what about Washington's responsibility?


    Let's see ...

    - If the US hires the Israelis to build a wall on the Mexican border, and the Mexicans should pay for it, and
    - If the US uses NATO to surround Russia and to start a war with that country, and the Europeans should pay for it - and fight it
    - Then Europeans should welcome the refugees from the USraeli/USaudi wars in the Middle East and USropean wars in NA as well, right?

    Trumpian logic 101.

    I don't think Trump's counterparts in Europe are going to see it that way, once they're elected as he was, out the revulsion of the population with USropean policies that have left them financially devastated, bankrupts themselves.

    Maybe China should pay? Right.

    Maybe the Saudis and the GCC should pay ... they paid to destroy the ME, might they not be compelled to pay to put it back together again? Seems like a Trumpian solution to me. I imagine he can get his up and coming counterparts in Europe to go along with that.

    [Dec 06, 2016] What price the new democracy Goldman Sachs conquers Europe

    Dec 06, 2016 | independent.co.uk
    &Stephen Foley

    November 17, 2011 | The Independent

    While ordinary people fret about austerity and jobs, the eurozone's corridors of power have been undergoing a remarkable transformation

    The ascension of Mario Monti to the Italian prime ministership is remarkable for more reasons than it is possible to count. By replacing the scandal-surfing Silvio Berlusconi, Italy has dislodged the undislodgeable. By imposing rule by unelected technocrats, it has suspended the normal rules of democracy, and maybe democracy itself. And by putting a senior adviser at Goldman Sachs in charge of a Western nation, it has taken to new heights the political power of an investment bank that you might have thought was prohibitively politically toxic.

    This is the most remarkable thing of all: a giant leap forward for, or perhaps even the successful culmination of, the Goldman Sachs Project.

    It is not just Mr Monti. The European Central Bank, another crucial player in the sovereign debt drama, is under ex-Goldman management, and the investment bank's alumni hold sway in the corridors of power in almost every European nation, as they have done in the US throughout the financial crisis. Until Wednesday, the International Monetary Fund's European division was also run by a Goldman man, Antonio Borges, who just resigned for personal reasons.

    Even before the upheaval in Italy, there was no sign of Goldman Sachs living down its nickname as "the Vampire Squid", and now that its tentacles reach to the top of the eurozone, sceptical voices are raising questions over its influence. The political decisions taken in the coming weeks will determine if the eurozone can and will pay its debts – and Goldman's interests are intricately tied up with the answer to that question.

    Simon Johnson, the former International Monetary Fund economist, in his book 13 Bankers, argued that Goldman Sachs and the other large banks had become so close to government in the run-up to the financial crisis that the US was effectively an oligarchy. At least European politicians aren't "bought and paid for" by corporations, as in the US, he says. "Instead what you have in Europe is a shared world-view among the policy elite and the bankers, a shared set of goals and mutual reinforcement of illusions."

    This is The Goldman Sachs Project. Put simply, it is to hug governments close. Every business wants to advance its interests with the regulators that can stymie them and the politicians who can give them a tax break, but this is no mere lobbying effort. Goldman is there to provide advice for governments and to provide financing, to send its people into public service and to dangle lucrative jobs in front of people coming out of government. The Project is to create such a deep exchange of people and ideas and money that it is impossible to tell the difference between the public interest and the Goldman Sachs interest.

    Mr Monti is one of Italy's most eminent economists, and he spent most of his career in academia and thinktankery, but it was when Mr Berlusconi appointed him to the European Commission in 1995 that Goldman Sachs started to get interested in him. First as commissioner for the internal market, and then especially as commissioner for competition, he has made decisions that could make or break the takeover and merger deals that Goldman's bankers were working on or providing the funding for. Mr Monti also later chaired the Italian Treasury's committee on the banking and financial system, which set the country's financial policies.

    With these connections, it was natural for Goldman to invite him to join its board of international advisers. The bank's two dozen-strong international advisers act as informal lobbyists for its interests with the politicians that regulate its work. Other advisers include Otmar Issing who, as a board member of the German Bundesbank and then the European Central Bank, was one of the architects of the euro.

    Perhaps the most prominent ex-politician inside the bank is Peter Sutherland, Attorney General of Ireland in the 1980s and another former EU Competition Commissioner. He is now non-executive chairman of Goldman's UK-based broker-dealer arm, Goldman Sachs International, and until its collapse and nationalisation he was also a non-executive director of Royal Bank of Scotland. He has been a prominent voice within Ireland on its bailout by the EU, arguing that the terms of emergency loans should be eased, so as not to exacerbate the country's financial woes. The EU agreed to cut Ireland's interest rate this summer.

    Picking up well-connected policymakers on their way out of government is only one half of the Project, sending Goldman alumni into government is the other half. Like Mr Monti, Mario Draghi, who took over as President of the ECB on 1 November, has been in and out of government and in and out of Goldman. He was a member of the World Bank and managing director of the Italian Treasury before spending three years as managing director of Goldman Sachs International between 2002 and 2005 – only to return to government as president of the Italian central bank.

    Mr Draghi has been dogged by controversy over the accounting tricks conducted by Italy and other nations on the eurozone periphery as they tried to squeeze into the single currency a decade ago. By using complex derivatives, Italy and Greece were able to slim down the apparent size of their government debt, which euro rules mandated shouldn't be above 60 per cent of the size of the economy. And the brains behind several of those derivatives were the men and women of Goldman Sachs.

    The bank's traders created a number of financial deals that allowed Greece to raise money to cut its budget deficit immediately, in return for repayments over time. In one deal, Goldman channelled $1bn of funding to the Greek government in 2002 in a transaction called a cross-currency swap. On the other side of the deal, working in the National Bank of Greece, was Petros Christodoulou, who had begun his career at Goldman, and who has been promoted now to head the office managing government Greek debt. Lucas Papademos, now installed as Prime Minister in Greece's unity government, was a technocrat running the Central Bank of Greece at the time.

    Goldman says that the debt reduction achieved by the swaps was negligible in relation to euro rules, but it expressed some regrets over the deals. Gerald Corrigan, a Goldman partner who came to the bank after running the New York branch of the US Federal Reserve, told a UK parliamentary hearing last year: "It is clear with hindsight that the standards of transparency could have been and probably should have been higher."

    When the issue was raised at confirmation hearings in the European Parliament for his job at the ECB, Mr Draghi says he wasn't involved in the swaps deals either at the Treasury or at Goldman.

    It has proved impossible to hold the line on Greece, which under the latest EU proposals is effectively going to default on its debt by asking creditors to take a "voluntary" haircut of 50 per cent on its bonds, but the current consensus in the eurozone is that the creditors of bigger nations like Italy and Spain must be paid in full. These creditors, of course, are the continent's big banks, and it is their health that is the primary concern of policymakers. The combination of austerity measures imposed by the new technocratic governments in Athens and Rome and the leaders of other eurozone countries, such as Ireland, and rescue funds from the IMF and the largely German-backed European Financial Stability Facility, can all be traced to this consensus.

    "My former colleagues at the IMF are running around trying to justify bailouts of €1.5trn-€4trn, but what does that mean?" says Simon Johnson. "It means bailing out the creditors 100 per cent. It is another bank bailout, like in 2008: The mechanism is different, in that this is happening at the sovereign level not the bank level, but the rationale is the same."

    So certain is the financial elite that the banks will be bailed out, that some are placing bet-the-company wagers on just such an outcome. Jon Corzine, a former chief executive of Goldman Sachs, returned to Wall Street last year after almost a decade in politics and took control of a historic firm called MF Global. He placed a $6bn bet with the firm's money that Italian government bonds will not default.

    When the bet was revealed last month, clients and trading partners decided it was too risky to do business with MF Global and the firm collapsed within days. It was one of the ten biggest bankruptcies in US history.

    The grave danger is that, if Italy stops paying its debts, creditor banks could be made insolvent. Goldman Sachs, which has written over $2trn of insurance, including an undisclosed amount on eurozone countries' debt, would not escape unharmed, especially if some of the $2trn of insurance it has purchased on that insurance turns out to be with a bank that has gone under. No bank – and especially not the Vampire Squid – can easily untangle its tentacles from the tentacles of its peers. This is the rationale for the bailouts and the austerity, the reason we are getting more Goldman, not less. The alternative is a second financial crisis, a second economic collapse.

    Shared illusions, perhaps? Who would dare test it?

    [Dec 06, 2016] Challenges for Western civilization

    Dec 06, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    psychohistorian | Dec 3, 2016 8:02:21 PM | 46

    Here is link to an interview with Stephen Hawking that I will pull some quotes from

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/01/stephen-hawking-dangerous-time-planet-inequality

    The quotes:
    "
    So the recent apparent rejection of the elites in both America and Britain is surely aimed at me, as much as anyone. Whatever we might think about the decision by the British electorate to reject membership of the European Union and by the American public to embrace Donald Trump as their next president, there is no doubt in the minds of commentators that this was a cry of anger by people who felt they had been abandoned by their leaders.
    "
    "
    What matters now, far more than the choices made by these two electorates, is how the elites react. Should we, in turn, reject these votes as outpourings of crude populism that fail to take account of the facts, and attempt to circumvent or circumscribe the choices that they represent? I would argue that this would be a terrible mistake.

    The concerns underlying these votes about the economic consequences of globalisation and accelerating technological change are absolutely understandable. The automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining.

    This in turn will accelerate the already widening economic inequality around the world. The internet and the platforms that it makes possible allow very small groups of individuals to make enormous profits while employing very few people. This is inevitable, it is progress, but it is also socially destructive.

    We need to put this alongside the financial crash, which brought home to people that a very few individuals working in the financial sector can accrue huge rewards and that the rest of us underwrite that success and pick up the bill when their greed leads us astray. So taken together we are living in a world of widening, not diminishing, financial inequality, in which many people can see not just their standard of living, but their ability to earn a living at all, disappearing. It is no wonder then that they are searching for a new deal, which Trump and Brexit might have appeared to represent.
    "
    "
    For me, the really concerning aspect of this is that now, more than at any time in our history, our species needs to work together. We face awesome environmental challenges: climate change, food production, overpopulation, the decimation of other species, epidemic disease, acidification of the oceans.

    Together, they are a reminder that we are at the most dangerous moment in the development of humanity. We now have the technology to destroy the planet on which we live, but have not yet developed the ability to escape it. Perhaps in a few hundred years, we will have established human colonies amid the stars, but right now we only have one planet, and we need to work together to protect it.

    To do that, we need to break down, not build up, barriers within and between nations. If we are to stand a chance of doing that, the world's leaders need to acknowledge that they have failed and are failing the many. With resources increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, we are going to have to learn to share far more than at present.

    With not only jobs but entire industries disappearing, we must help people to retrain for a new world and support them financially while they do so. If communities and economies cannot cope with current levels of migration, we must do more to encourage global development, as that is the only way that the migratory millions will be persuaded to seek their future at home.

    We can do this, I am an enormous optimist for my species; but it will require the elites, from London to Harvard, from Cambridge to Hollywood, to learn the lessons of the past year. To learn above all a measure of humility.
    "

    [Dec 05, 2016] Capitalism Requires World War by Cathal Haughian via TheSaker.ie,

    www.zerohedge.com

    It has been our undertaking, since 2010, to chronicle our understanding of capitalism via our book The Philosophy of Capitalism . We were curious as to the underlying nature of the system which endows us, the owners of capital, with so many favours. The Saker has asked me to explain our somewhat crude statement 'Capitalism Requires World War'.

    The present showdown between West, Russia and China is the culmination of a long running saga that began with World War One. Prior to which, Capitalism was governed by the gold standard system which was international, very solid, with clear rules and had brought great prosperity: for banking Capital was scarce and so allocated carefully. World War One required debt-capitalism of the FIAT kind, a bankrupt Britain began to pass the Imperial baton to the US, which had profited by financing the war and selling munitions.

    The Weimar Republic, suffering a continuation of hostilities via economic means, tried to inflate away its debts in 1919-1923 with disastrous results-hyperinflation. Then, the reintroduction of the gold standard into a world poisoned by war, reparation and debt was fated to fail and ended with a deflationary bust in the early 1930's and WW2.

    The US government gained a lot of credibility after WW2 by outlawing offensive war and funding many construction projects that helped transfer private debt to the public book. The US government's debt exploded during the war, but it also shifted the power game away from creditors to a big debtor that had a lot of political capital. The US used her power to define the new rules of the monetary system at Bretton Woods in 1944 and to keep physical hold of gold owned by other nations.

    The US jacked up tax rates on the wealthy and had a period of elevated inflation in the late 40s and into the 1950s – all of which wiped out creditors, but also ushered in a unique middle class era in the West. The US also reformed extraction centric institutions in Europe and Japan to make sure an extractive-creditor class did not hobble growth, which was easy to do because the war had wiped them out (same as in Korea).

    Capital destruction in WW2 reversed the Marxist rule that the rate of profit always falls. Take any given market – say jeans. At first, all the companies make these jeans using a great deal of human labour so all the jeans are priced around the average of total social labour time required for production (some companies will charge more, some companies less).

    One company then introduces a machine (costed at $n) that makes jeans using a lot less labour time. Each of these robot assisted workers is paid the same hourly rate but the production process is now far more productive. This company, ignoring the capital outlay in the machinery, will now have a much higher profit rate than the others. This will attract capital, as capital is always on the lookout for higher rates of profit. The result will be a generalisation of this new mode of production. The robot or machine will be adopted by all the other companies, as it is a more efficient way of producing jeans.

    As a consequence the price of the jeans will fall, as there is an increased margin within which each market actor can undercut his fellows. One company will lower prices so as to increase market share. This new price-point will become generalised as competing companies cut their prices to defend their market share. A further n$ was invested but per unit profit margin is put under constant downward pressure, so the rate of return in productive assets tends to fall over time in a competitive market place.

    Interest rates have been falling for decades in the West because interest rates must always be below the rate of return on productive investments. If interest rates are higher than the risk adjusted rate of return then the capitalist might as well keep his money in a savings account. If there is real deflation his purchasing power increases for free and if there is inflation he will park his money (plus debt) in an unproductive asset that's price inflating, E.G. Housing. Sound familiar? Sure, there has been plenty of profit generated since 2008 but it has not been recovered from productive investments in a competitive free market place. All that profit came from bubbles in asset classes and financial schemes abetted by money printing and zero interest rates.

    Thus, we know that the underlying rate of return is near zero in the West. The rate of return falls naturally, due to capital accumulation and market competition. The system is called capitalism because capital accumulates: high income economies are those with the greatest accumulation of capital per worker. The robot assisted worker enjoys a higher income as he is highly productive, partly because the robotics made some of the workers redundant and there are fewer workers to share the profit. All the high income economies have had near zero interest rates for seven years. Interest rates in Europe are even negative. How has the system remained stable for so long?

    All economic growth depends on energy gain. It takes energy (drilling the oil well) to gain energy. Unlike our everyday experience whereby energy acquisition and energy expenditure can be balanced, capitalism requires an absolute net energy gain. That gain, by way of energy exchange, takes the form of tools and machines that permit an increase in productivity per work hour. Thus GDP increases, living standards improve and the debts can be repaid. Thus, oil is a strategic capitalistic resource.

    US net energy gain production peaked in 1974, to be replaced by production from Saudi Arabia, which made the USA a net importer of oil for the first time. US dependence on foreign oil rose from 26% to 47% between 1985 and 1989 to hit a peak of 60% in 2006. And, tellingly, real wages peaked in 1974, levelled-off and then began to fall for most US workers. Wages have never recovered. (The decline is more severe if you don't believe government reported inflation figures that don't count the costof housing.)

    What was the economic and political result of this decline? During the 20 years 1965-85, there were 4 recessions, 2 energy crises and wage and price controls. These were unprecedented in peacetime and The Gulf of Tonkin event led to the Vietnam War which finally required Nixon to move away from the Gold-Exchange Standard in 1971, opening the next degenerate chapter of FIAT finance up until 2008. Cutting this link to gold was cutting the external anchor impeding war and deficit spending. The promise of gold for dollars was revoked.

    GDP in the US increased after 1974 but a portion of end use buying power was transferred to Saudi Arabia. They were supplying the net energy gain that was powering the US GDP increase. The working class in the US began to experience a slow real decline in living standards, as 'their share' of the economic pie was squeezed by the ever increasing transfer of buying power to Saudi Arabia.

    The US banking and government elite responded by creating and cutting back legal and behavioral rules of a fiat based monetary system. The Chinese appreciated the long term opportunity that this presented and agreed to play ball. The USA over-produced credit money and China over-produced manufactured goods which cushioned the real decline in the buying power of America's working class. Power relations between China and the US began to change: The Communist Party transferred value to the American consumer whilst Wall Street transferred most of the US industrial base to China. They didn't ship the military industrial complex.

    Large scale leverage meant that US consumers and businesses had the means to purchase increasingly with debt so the class war was deferred. This is how over production occurs: more is produced that is paid for not with money that represents actual realized labour time, but from future wealth, to be realised from future labour time. The Chinese labour force was producing more than it consumed.

    The system has never differed from the limits laid down by the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Real economy system can never over-produce per se. The limit of production is absolute net energy gain. What is produced can be consumed. How did the Chinese produce such a super massive excess and for so long? Economic slavery can achieve radical improvements in living standards for those that benefit from ownership. Slaves don't depreciate as they are rented and are not repaired for they replicate for free. Hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants limited their way of life and controlled their consumption in order to benefit their children. And their exploited life raised the rate of profit!

    They began their long march to modern prosperity making toys, shoes, and textiles cheaper than poor women could in South Carolina or Honduras. Such factories are cheap to build and deferential, obedient and industrious peasant staff were a perfect match for work that was not dissimilar to tossing fruit into a bucket. Their legacy is the initial capital formation of modern China and one of the greatest accomplishments in human history. The Chinese didn't use net energy gain from oil to power their super massive and sustained increase in production. They used economic slavery powered by caloric energy, exchanged from solar energy. The Chinese labour force picked the World's low hanging fruit that didn't need many tools or machines. Slaves don't need tools for they are the tool.

    Without a gold standard and capital ratios our form of over-production has grown enormously. The dotcom bubble was reflated through a housing bubble, which has been pumped up again by sovereign debt, printing press (QE) and central bank insolvency. The US working and middle classes have over-consumed relative to their share of the global economic pie for decades. The correction to prices (the destruction of credit money & accumulated capital) is still yet to happen. This is what has been happening since 1971 because of the growth of financialisation or monetisation.

    The application of all these economic methods was justified by the political ideology of neo-Liberalism. Neo-Liberalism entails no or few capital controls, the destruction of trade unions, plundering state and public assets, importing peasants as domesticated help, and entrusting society's value added production to The Communist Party of The People's Republic of China.

    The Chinese have many motives but their first motivation is power. Power is more important than money. If you're rich and weak you get robbed. Russia provides illustrating stories of such: Gorbachev had received a promise from George HW Bush that the US would pay Russia approximately $400 billion over10 years as a "peace dividend" and as a tool to be utilized in the conversion of their state run to a market based economic system. The Russians believe the head of the CIA at the time, George Tenet, essentially killed the deal based on the idea that "letting the country fall apart will destroy Russia as a future military threat". The country fell apart in 1992. Its natural assets were plundered which raised the rate of profit in the 90's until President Putin put a stop to the robbery.

    In the last analysis, the current framework of Capitalism results in labour redundancy, a falling rate of profit and ingrained trading imbalances caused by excess capacity. Under our current monopoly state capitalism a number of temporary preventive measures have evolved, including the expansion of university, military, and prison systems to warehouse new generations of labour.

    Our problem is how to retain the "expected return rate" for us, the dominant class. Ultimately, there are only two large-scale solutions, which are intertwined .

    One is expansion of state debt to keep "the markets" moving and transfer wealth from future generations of labour to the present dominant class.

    The other is war, the consumer of last resort. Wars can burn up excess capacity, shift global markets, generate monopoly rents, and return future labour to a state of helplessness and reduced expectations. The Spanish flu killed 50-100 million people in 1918. As if this was not enough, it also took two World Wars across the 20th century and some 96 million dead to reduce unemployment and stabilize the "labour problem."

    Capitalism requires World War because Capitalism requires profit and cannot afford the unemployed . The point is capitalism could afford social democracy after the rate of profit was restored thanks to the depression of the 1930's and the physical destruction of capital during WW2. Capitalism only produces for profit and social democracy was funded by taxing profits after WW2.

    Post WW2 growth in labour productivity, due to automation, itself due to oil & gas replacing coal, meant workers could be better off. As the economic pie was growing, workers could receive the same %, and still receive a bigger slice. Wages as a % of US GDP actually increased in the period, 1945-1970. There was an increase in government spending which was being redirected in the form of redistributed incomes. Inequality will only worsen, because to make profits now we have to continually cut the cost of inputs, i.e. wages & benefits. Have we not already reached the point where large numbers of the working class can neither feed themselves nor afford a roof over their heads?13% of the UK working age population is out of work and receiving out of work benefits. A huge fraction is receiving in work benefits because low skill work now pays so little.

    The underlying nature of Capitalism is cyclical. Here is how the political aspect of the cycle ends:

    If Capitalism could speak, she would ask her older brother, Imperialism, this: "Can you solve the problem?" We are not reliving the 1930's, the economy is now an integrated whole that encompasses the entire World. Capital has been accumulating since 1945, so under- and unemployment is a plague everywhere. How big is the problem? Official data tells us nothing, but the 47 million Americans on food aid are suggestive. That's 1 in 7 Americans and total World population is 7 billion.

    The scale of the solution is dangerous. Our probing for weakness in the South China Sea, Ukraine and Syria has awakened them to their danger.The Chinese and Russian leadershave reacted by integrating their payment systems and real economies, trading energy for manufactured goods for advanced weapon systems. As they are central players in the Shanghai Group we can assume their aim is the monetary system which is the bedrock of our Imperial power. What's worse, they can avoid overt enemy action and simply choose to undermine "confidence" in the FIAT.

    Though given the calibre of their nuclear arsenal, how can they be fought let alone defeated? Appetite preceded Reason, so Lust is hard to Reason with. But beware brother. Your Lust for Power began this saga, perhaps it's time to Reason.

    Uncle Sugar

    Seriously - Having a Central Bank with a debt based monetary system requires permanent wars. True market based capitalism does not.

    Father Thyme

    Your logical fallacy is no true scotsman
    http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 23:21 | 7264475 Seek_Truth

    Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

    If wealth were measured by creating strawmen- you would be a Rothschild.

    gwiss

    That's because they don't understand the word "capitalism."

    Capitalism simply means economic freedom. And economic freedom, just like freedom to breed, must be exposed to the pruning action of cause and effect, otherwise it outgrows its container and becomes unstable and explodes. As long as it is continually exposed to the grinding wheel of causality, it continues to hold a fine edge, as the dross is scraped away and the fine steel stays. Reality is full of dualities, and those dualities cannot be separated without creating broken symmetry and therefore terminal instability. Freedom and responsibility, for example. One without the other is unstable. Voting and taxation in direct proportion to each other is another example.

    Fiat currency is an attempt to create an artificial reality, one without the necessary symmetry and balance of a real system. However, reality can not be gamed, because it will produce its own symmetry if you try to deny it. Thus the symmetry of fiat currency is boom and bust, a sine wave that still manages to produce equilibrium, however at a huge bubbling splattering boil rather than a fine simmer.

    The folks that wrote this do not have a large enough world view. Capitalism does not require world wars because freedom does not require world wars. Freedom tends to bleed imbalances out when they are small. On the other hand, empire does require world war, which is why we are going to have one.

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 23:27 | 7264485 GRDguy

    Capitalism becomes imperialism when financial sociopaths steal profits from both sides of the trade. What you're seeing is an Imperialism of Capital, as explained very nicely in the 1889 book "The Great Red Dragon."

    AchtungAffen

    Really? I thought that was the re-prints of Mises Canada, Kunstler or Brandon Smith. In comparison, this article is sublime.

    Caviar Emptor

    Wrong. Capitalism needs prolonged directionless wars without clear winners and contained destruction that utilize massive amounts of raw materials and endless orders for weapons and logistical support. That's what makes some guys rich.

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 22:56 | 7264423 Jack's Raging B...

    That's was a very long-winded and deliberately obtuse way of explaining how DEBT AS MONEY and The State's usurpation of sound money destroyed efficient markets. The author then goes to call this system Capitalism.

    So yeah, the deliberate destruction of capital, in all its forms, is somehow capitalism. Brilliant observation. Fuck you. There are better terms for things like this. Perhaps....central banking? The State? Fiat debt creation? Evil? Naw, let's just contort and abuse language instead. That's the ticket.

    My Days Are Get...

    From Russia News Feed:

    Cathal Haughian Bio :

    I've spent my adult life in 51 countries. This was financed by correctly anticipating the Great Financial Crisis in 2008. I was studying Marx at that time. I'm presently an employee of the Chinese State. I educate the children of China's best families. I am the author, alongside a large international team of capitalists, of Before The Collapse : The Philosophy of Capitalism.

    I also have my own business; I live with my girlfriend and was born and grew up in Ireland.

    ===============

    Why would anyone waste time to read this drivel, buttressed by the author's credentials.

    The unstated thesis is that wars involve millions of actors, who produce an end-result of many hundreds of millions killed.

    Absent coercion ("the Draft"), how is any government going to man hundreds of divisions of foot soldiers. That concept is passé.

    Distribute some aerosol poisons via drones and kill as many people as deemed necessary. How in the hell will that action stimulate the world economy.

    Weapons of mass-destruction are smaller, cheaper and easier to deploy. War as a progenitor of growth - forget it.

    The good news is that this guy is educating the children of elite in China. Possibly the Pentagon could clone him 10,000 times and send those cyborgs to China - cripple China for another generation or two.

    slimycorporated...

    Capitalism requires banks that made shitty loans to fail

    Ms No

    The term cyclical doesn't quite cover what we have being experiencing. It's more like a ragdoll being shaken by a white shark. The euphoria of bubble is more like complete unhinged unicorn mania anymore and the lows are complete grapes of wrath. It's probably always been that way to some extent because corruption has remained unchallenged for a great deal of time. The boom phases are scarier than the downturns anymore, especially the last oil boom and housing boom. Complete Alfred Hitchcock stuff.

    I don't think it's capitalism and that term comes across as an explanation that legitimizes this completely contrived pattern that benefits a few and screws everybody else. Markets should not be behaving in such a violent fashion. Money should probably be made steady and slow. And downturns shouldn't turn a country into Zimbabwe. I could be wrong but there is really no way to know with the corruption we have.

    Good times.

    o r c k

    And War requires that an enemy be created. According to American General Breedlove-head of NATO's European Command-speaking to the US Armed Services Committee 2 days ago, "Russia and Assad are deliberately weaponizing migration to break European resolve". "The only reason to use non-precision weapons like barrel bombs is to keep refugees on the move". "These refugees bring criminality, foreign fighters and terrorism", and "are being used to overwhelm European structures". "Russia has chosen to be an adversary and is a real threat." "Russia is irresponsible with nuclear weapons-always threatening to use them." And strangely, "In the past week alone, Russia has made 450 attacks along the front lines in E. Ukraine".

    Even with insanity overflowing the West, I found these comments to be the most bizarrely threatening propaganda yet. After reading them for the first time, I had to prove to myself that I wasn't hallucinating it.

    [Dec 05, 2016] New Class War

    This is a very weak article from a prominent paleoconservative, but it is instructive what a mess he has in his head as for the nature of Trump phenomenon. We should probably consider the tern "New Class" that neocons invented as synonym for "neoliberals". If so, why the author is afraid to use the term? Does he really so poorly educated not to understand the nature of this neoliberal revolution and its implications? Looks like he never read "Quite coup"
    That probably reflects the crisis of pealeoconservatism itself.
    Notable quotes:
    "... What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. ..."
    "... the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus. ..."
    "... The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country? ..."
    "... The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists. ..."
    "... The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined. ..."
    "... Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction. ..."
    "... concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." ..."
    "... It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on. ..."
    "... I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom? ..."
    "... Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation. ..."
    "... Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class. ..."
    "... Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles ..."
    "... The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service. ..."
    "... America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November. ..."
    "... The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. ..."
    "... Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. ..."
    "... [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets. ..."
    "... "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite. ..."
    "... Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide. ..."
    "... Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism. ..."
    "... The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense. ..."
    "... The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters." ..."
    "... The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA. ..."
    "... . And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends. ..."
    "... Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector. ..."
    "... The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization. ..."
    "... The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America ..."
    "... . Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires ..."
    "... There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain. ..."
    "... State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those. ..."
    "... People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards. ..."
    "... People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions. ..."
    "... I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
    "... Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
    "... The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period. ..."
    "... A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers. ..."
    "... It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya ..."
    "... Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled. ..."
    "... The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now," ..."
    "... That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same. ..."
    "... "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests." This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived. ..."
    "... The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused. ..."
    Sep 07, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Since the Cold War ended, U.S. politics has seen a series of insurgent candidacies. Pat Buchanan prefigured Trump in the Republican contests of 1992 and 1996. Ralph Nader challenged the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party from the outside in 2000. Ron Paul vexed establishment Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012. And this year, Trump was not the only candidate to confound his party's elite: Bernie Sanders harried Hillary Clinton right up to the Democratic convention.

    What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. (The libertarian Paul favors unilateral free trade: by his lights, treaties like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not free trade at all but international regulatory pacts.) And while no one would mistake Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's views on immigration for Pat Buchanan's or Donald Trump's, Nader and Paul have registered their own dissents from the approach to immigration that prevails in Washington.

    Sanders has been more in line with his party's orthodoxy on that issue. But that didn't save him from being attacked by Clinton backers for having an insufficiently nonwhite base of support. Once again, what might have appeared to be a class conflict-in this case between a democratic socialist and an elite liberal with ties to high finance-could be explained away as really about race.

    Race, like religion, is a real factor in how people vote. Its relevance to elite politics, however, is less clear. Something else has to account for why the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus.

    The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country?

    Some critics on the right have identified it with the "managerial" class described by James Burnham in his 1941 book The Managerial Revolution . But it bears a stronger resemblance to what what others have called "the New Class." In fact, the interests of this New Class of college-educated "verbalists" are antithetical to those of the industrial managers that Burnham described. Understanding the relationship between these two often conflated concepts provides insight into politics today, which can be seen as a clash between managerial and New Class elites.

    ♦♦♦

    The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists.

    Over the next century, however, history did not follow the script. By 1992, the Soviet Union was gone, Communist China had embarked on market reforms, and Western Europe was turning away from democratic socialism. There was no need to predict the future; mankind had achieved its destiny, a universal order of [neo]liberal democracy. Marx had it backwards: capitalism was the end of history.

    But was the truth as simple as that? Long before the collapse of the USSR, many former communists -- some of whom remained socialists, while others joined the right-thought not. The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined.

    Among the first to advance this argument was James Burnham, a professor of philosophy at New York University who became a leading Trotskyist thinker. As he broke with Trotsky and began moving toward the right, Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction.

    Burnham called this the "managerial revolution." The managers of industry and technically trained government officials did not own the means of production, like the capitalists of old. But they did control the means of production, thanks to their expertise and administrative prowess.

    The rise of this managerial class would have far-reaching consequences, he predicted. Burnham wrote in his 1943 book, The Machiavellians : "that the managers may function, the economic and political structure must be modified, as it is now being modified, so as to rest no longer on private ownership and small-scale nationalist sovereignty, but primarily upon state control of the economy, and continental or vast regional world political organization." Burnham pointed to Nazi Germany, imperial Japan-which became a "continental" power by annexing Korea and Manchuria-and the Soviet Union as examples.

    The defeat of the Axis powers did not halt the progress of the managerial revolution. Far from it: not only did the Soviets retain their form of managerialism, but the West increasingly adopted a managerial corporatism of its own, marked by cooperation between big business and big government: high-tech industrial crony capitalism, of the sort that characterizes the military-industrial complex to this day. (Not for nothing was Burnham a great advocate of America's developing a supersonic transport of its own to compete with the French-British Concorde.)

    America's managerial class was personified by Robert S. McNamara, the former Ford Motor Company executive who was secretary of defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. In a 1966 story for National Review , "Why Do They Hate Robert Strange McNamara?" Burnham answered the question in class terms: "McNamara is attacked by the Left because the Left has a blanket hatred of the system of business enterprise; he is criticized by the Right because the Right harks back, in nostalgia if not in practice, to outmoded forms of business enterprise."

    McNamara the managerial technocrat was too business-oriented for a left that still dreamed of bringing the workers to power. But the modern form of industrial organization he represented was not traditionally capitalist enough for conservatives who were at heart 19th-century classical liberals.

    National Review readers responded to Burnham's paean to McNamara with a mixture of incomprehension and indignation. It was a sign that even readers familiar with Burnham-he appeared in every issue of the magazine-did not always follow what he was saying. The popular right wanted concepts that were helpful in labeling enemies, and Burnham was confusing matters by talking about changes in the organization of government and industry that did not line up with anyone's value judgements.

    More polemically useful was a different concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." "This 'new class' is not easily defined but may be vaguely described," Irving Kristol wrote in a 1975 essay for the Wall Street Journal :

    It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on.

    "Members of the new class do not 'control' the media," he continued, "they are the media-just as they are our educational system, our public health and welfare system, and much else."

    Burnham, writing in National Review in 1978, drew a sharp contrast between this concept and his own ideas:

    I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom?

    Burnham suffered a stroke later that year. Although he lived until 1987, his career as a writer was over. His last years coincided with another great transformation of business and government. It began in the Carter administration, with moves to deregulate transportation and telecommunications. This partial unwinding of the managerial revolution accelerated under Ronald Reagan. Regulatory and welfare-state reforms, even privatization of formerly nationalized industries, also took off in the UK and Western Europe. All this did not, however, amount to a restoration of the old capitalism or anything resembling laissez-faire.

    The "[neo]liberal democracy" that triumphed at "the end of history"-to use Francis Fukuyama's words-was not the managerial capitalism of the mid-20th century, either. It was instead the New Class's form of capitalism, one that could be embraced by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as readily as by any Republican or Thatcherite.

    Irving Kristol had already noted in the 1970s that "this new class is not merely liberal but truly 'libertarian' in its approach to all areas of life-except economics. It celebrates individual liberty of speech and expression and action to an unprecedented degree, so that at times it seems almost anarchistic in its conception of the good life."

    He was right about the New Class's "anything goes" mentality, but he was only partly correct about its attitude toward economics. The young elite tended to scorn the bourgeois character of the old capitalism, and to them managerial figures like McNamara were evil incarnate. But they had to get by-and they aspired to rule.

    Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation.

    Part of the tale can be told in a favorable light. New Left activists like Carl Oglesby fought the spiritual aridity and murderous militarism of what they called "corporate liberalism"-Burnham's managerialism-while sincere young libertarians attacked the regulatory state and seeded technological entrepreneurship. Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class.

    Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles. On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests. The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service.

    The alliance between finance and the New Class accounts for the disposition of power in America today. The New Class has also enlisted another invaluable ally: the managerial classes of East Asia. Trade with China-the modern managerial state par excellence-helps keep American industry weak relative to finance and the service economy's verbalist-dominated sectors. America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites.

    The New Class plays a priestly role in its alliance with finance, absolving Wall Street for the sin of making money in exchange for plenty of that money to keep the New Class in power. In command of foreign policy, the New Class gets to pursue humanitarian ideological projects-to experiment on the world. It gets to evangelize by the sword. And with trade policy, it gets to suppress its class rival, the managerial elite, at home. Through trade pacts and mass immigration the financial elite, meanwhile, gets to maximize its returns without regard for borders or citizenship. The erosion of other nations' sovereignty that accompanies American hegemony helps toward that end too-though our wars are more ideological than interest-driven.

    ♦♦♦

    So we come to an historic moment. Instead of an election pitting another Bush against another Clinton, we have a race that poses stark alternatives: a choice not only between candidates but between classes-not only between administrations but between regimes.

    Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November.

    The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. For the center-left establishment, minority voters supply the electoral muscle. Religion and the culture war have served the same purpose for the establishment's center-right faction. Trump showed that at least one of these sides could be beaten on its own turf-and it seems conceivable that if Bernie Sanders had been black, he might have similarly beaten Clinton, without having to make concessions to New Class tastes.

    The New Class establishment of both parties may be seriously misjudging what is happening here. Far from being the last gasp of the demographically doomed-old, racially isolated white people, as Gallup's analysis says-Trump's insurgency may be the prototype of an aggressive new politics, of either left or right, that could restore the managerial elite to power.

    This is not something that conservatives-or libertarians who admire the old capitalism rather than New Class's simulacrum-might welcome. But the only way that some entrenched policies may change is with a change of the class in power.

    Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative .

    Johann , says: September 7, 2016 at 10:02 am
    The New Class is parasitic and will drive the country to its final third world resting place, or worse.
    Dan Phillips , says: September 7, 2016 at 11:32 am
    Excellent analysis. What is important about the Trump phenomenon is not every individual issue, it's the potentially revolutionary nature of the phenomenon. The opposition gets this. That's why they are hysterical about Trump. The conservative box checkers do not.
    g , says: September 7, 2016 at 11:51 am
    "Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November."

    My question is, if Trump is not himself of the managerial class, in fact, could be considered one of the original new class members, how would he govern? What explains his conversion from the new class to the managerial class; is he merely taking advantage of an opportunity or is there some other explanation?

    Richard Terrace , says: September 7, 2016 at 12:09 pm
    I'm genuinely confused by the role you ascribe to the 'managerial class' here. Going back to Berle and Means ('The Modern Corporation and Private Property') the managerial class emerged when management was split from ownership in mid C20th capitalism. Managers focused on growth, not profits for shareholders. The Shareholder revolution of the 1980s destroyed the managerial class, and destroyed their unwieldy corporations.
    You seem to be identifying the managerial class with a kind of cultural opposition to the values of [neo]liberal capitalism. And instead of identifying the 'new class' with the new owner-managers of shareholder-driven firms, you identify them by their superficial cultural effects.

    This raises a deeper problem in how you talk about class in this piece. Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. Does the 'new class' of journalists, academics, etc. actually own anything? If not, what is the point of ascribing to them immense economic power?
    I would agree that there is a new class of capitalists in America. But they are well known people like Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs, Linda McMahon, the Waltons, Rick Scott the pharmaceutical entrepreneur, Mitt Romney, Mark Zuckerberg, and many many hedge fund gazillionaires. These people represent the resurgence of a family-based, dynastic capitalism that is utterly different from the managerial variety that prevailed in mid-century.

    If there is a current competitor to international corporate capitalism, it is old-fashioned dynastic family capitalism. Not Managerialism.

    JonF , says: September 7, 2016 at 1:13 pm
    There is no "new class". That's simply a derogatory trope of the Right. The [neo]liberal elite– educated, cosmopolitan and possessed of sufficient wealth to be influential in political affairs and claims to power grounded in moral stances– have a long pedigree in both Western and non-Western lands. They were the Scribal Class in the ancient world, the Mandarins of China, and the Clergy in the Middle Ages. This class for a time was eclipsed in the early modern period as first royal authority became dominant, followed by the power of the Capitalist class (the latter has never really faded of course). But their reemergence in the late 20th century is not a new or unique phenomenon.
    Kurt Gayle , says: September 7, 2016 at 2:03 pm
    In a year in which "trash Trump" and "trash Trump's supporters" are tricks-to-be-turned for more than 90% of mainstream journalists and other media hacks, it's good to see Daniel McCarthy buck the "trash trend" and write a serious, honest analysis of the class forces that are colliding during this election cycle.

    Two thumbs way up for McCarthy, although his fine effort cannot save the reputation of those establishment whores who call themselves journalists. Nothing can save them. They have earned the universality with which Americans hold them in contempt.

    In 1976 when Gallup began asking about "the honesty and ethical standards" of various professions only 33% of Americans rated journalists "very high or high."

    By last December that "high or very high" rating for journalists had fallen to just 27%.

    It is certain that by Election Day 2016 the American public's opinion of journalists will have fallen even further.

    lee , says: September 7, 2016 at 2:37 pm
    An article on the ruling elite that neglects to mention this ? . . . https://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Elites-Betrayal-Democracy/dp/0393313719
    david helveticka , says: September 7, 2016 at 3:24 pm
    Most of your argument is confusing. The change I see is from a production economy to a finance economy. Wall Street rules, really. Basically the stock market used to be a place where working folk invested their money for retirement, mostly through pensions from unions and corporations. Now it's become a gambling casino, with the "house"-or the big banks-putting it's finger on the roulette wheel. They changed the compensation package of CEO's, so they can rake in huge executive compensation–mostly through stock options-to basically close down everything from manufacturing to customer service, and ship it off to contract manufacturers and outside services in oligarchical countries like mainland China and India.

    I don't know what exactly you mean about the "new class", basically its the finance industry against everyone else.

    One thing you right-wingers always get wrong, is on Karl Marx he was really attacking the money-changers, the finance speculators, the banks. Back in the day, so-called "capitalists" like Henry Ford or George Eastman or Thomas Edison always complained about the access to financing through the big money finance capitalists.

    Sheree , says: September 7, 2016 at 6:16 pm
    Don't overlook the economic value of intellectual property rights (patents, in particular) in the economic equation.

    A big chunk of the 21st century economy is generated due to the intellectual property developed and owned by the New Class and its business enterprises.

    The economic value of ideas and intellectual property rights is somewhat implied in McCarthy's explanation of the New Class, but I didn't see an explicit mention (perhaps I overlooked it).

    I think the consideration of intellectual property rights and the value generated by IP might help to clarify the economic power of the New Class for those who feel the analysis isn't quite complete or on target.

    I'm not saying that IP only provides value to the New Class. We can find examples of IP throughout the economy, at all levels. It's just that the tech and financial sectors seem to focus more on (and benefit from) IP ownership, licensing, and the information captured through use of digital technology.

    Commenter Man , says: September 7, 2016 at 10:19 pm
    "What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy."

    But today we have this: Trump pledges big US military expansion . Trump doesn't appear to have any coherent policy, he just says whatever seems to be useful at that particular moment.

    Wayne Lusvardi , says: September 7, 2016 at 10:37 pm
    [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets.
    jack , says: September 7, 2016 at 11:13 pm
    "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite.

    maybe Trump could use that

    Wayne Lusvardi , says: September 7, 2016 at 11:33 pm
    Being white is not the defining characteristic of Trumpers because it if was then how come there are many white working class voters for Hillary? The divide in the working class comes from being a member of a union or a member of the private non-unionized working class.

    Where the real class divide shows up is in those who are members of the Knowledge Class that made their living based on the old Virtuous Economy where the elderly saved money in banks and the banks, in turn, lent that money out to young families to buy houses, cars, and start businesses. The Virtuous Economy has been replaced by the Global Economy based on diverting money to the stock market to fund global enterprises and prop up government pension funds.

    The local bankers, realtors, private contractors, small savers and small business persons and others that depended on the Virtuous Economy lost out to the global bankers, stock investors, pension fund managers, union contractors and intellectuals that propounded rationales for the global economy as superior to the Virtuous Economy.

    Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide.

    Mitzy Moon , says: September 8, 2016 at 12:32 am
    Beginning in the 50's and 60's, baby boomers were warned in school and cultural media that "a college diploma would become what a high school diploma is today." An extraordinary cohort of Americans took this advice seriously, creating the smartest and most successful generation in history. But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who – knowing that college educated people vote largely Democrat – launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what you see now: millions of people unprepared for modern employment; meanwhile we have to import millions of college-educated Asians and Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do.
    Joe , says: September 8, 2016 at 1:25 am
    Have to say, this seems like an attempt to put things into boxes that don't quite fit.

    Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism.

    The core of it is that the government no longer serves the people. In the United States, that is kind of a bad thing, you know? Like the EU in the UK, the people, who fought very hard for self-government, are seeing it undermined by the erosion of the nation state in favor of international beaurocracy run by elites and the well connected.

    Emil Mottola , says: September 8, 2016 at 2:15 am
    Both this article and many comments on it show considerable confusion, and ideological opinion all over the map. What is happening I think is that the world is changing –due to globalism, technology, and the sheer huge numbers of people on the planet. As a result some of the rigid trenches of thought as well as class alignments are breaking down.

    In America we no longer have capitalism, of either the 19th century industrial or 20th century managerial varieties. Money and big money is still important of course, but it is increasingly both aligned with and in turn controlled by the government. The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense.

    The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters."

    The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA.

    EliteCommInc. , says: September 8, 2016 at 3:29 am
    I have one condition about which, Mr. Trump would lose my support - if he flinches on immigration, I will have to bow out.

    I just don't buy the contentions about color here. He has made definitive moves to ensure that he intends to fight for US citizens regardless of color. This nonsense about white racism, more bigotry in reality, doesn't pan out. The Republican party has been comprised of mostly whites since forever and nearly all white sine the late 1960's. Anyone attempting to make hay out of what has been the reality for than 40 years is really making the reverse pander. Of course most of those who have issues with blacks and tend to be more expressive about it, are in the Republican party. But so what. Black Republicans would look at you askance, should you attempt this FYI.

    It's a so what. The reason you joining a party is not because the people in it like you, that is really beside the point. Both Sec Rice and General Powell, are keenly aware of who's what it and that is the supposed educated elite. They are not members of the party because it is composed of some pure untainted membership. But because they and many blacks align themselves with the ideas of the party, or what the party used to believe, anyway.

    It's the issues not their skin color that matters. And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends.

    I remain convinced that if blacks wanted progress all they need do is swamp the Republican party as constituents and confront whatever they thought was nonsense as constituents as they move on policy issues. Goodness democrats have embraced the lighter tones despite having most black support. That is why the democrats are importing so many from other state run countries. They could ignore blacks altogether. Sen Barbara Jordan and her deep voiced rebuke would do them all some good.

    Let's face it - we are not going to remove the deeply rooted impact of skin color, once part of the legal frame of the country for a quarter of the nations populous. What Republicans should stop doing is pretending, that everything concerning skin color is the figment of black imagination. I am not budging an inch on the Daughters of the American Revolution, a perfect example of the kind of peculiar treatment of the majority, even to those who fought for Independence and their descendants.
    ________________

    I think that there are thousands and thousands of educated (degreed)people who now realize what a mess the educational and social services system has become because of our immigration policy. The impact on social services here in Ca is no joke. In the face of mounting deficits, the laxity of Ca has now come back to haunt them. The pressure to increase taxes weighed against the loss of manual or hard labor to immigrants legal and otherwise is unmistakable here. There's debate about rsstroom etiquette in the midst of serious financial issues - that's a joke. So this idea of dismissing people with degrees as being opposed to Mr. Trump is deeply overplayed and misunderstood. If there is a class war, it's not because of Mr. Trump, those decks were stacked in his favor long before the election cycle.
    --------

    "But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who–knowing that college educated people vote largely Democrat–launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what . . . employment; meanwhile we have to import millions of college-educated Asians and Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do."

    Hmmmm,

    Nope. Republicans are notorious for pushing education on everything and everybody. It's a signature of hard work, self reliance, self motivation and responsibility. The shift that has been tragic is that conservatives and Republicans either by a shove or by choice abandoned the fields by which we turn out most future generations - elementary, HS and college education. Especially in HS, millions of students are fed a daily diet of liberal though unchecked by any opposing ideas. And that is become the staple for college education - as it cannot be stated just how tragic this has become for the nation. There are lots of issues to moan about concerning the Us, but there is far more to embrace or at the very least keep the moaning in its proper context. No, conservatives and Republicans did engage in discouraging an education.

    And there will always be a need for more people without degrees than with them. even people with degrees are now getting hit even in the elite walls of WS finance. I think I posted an article by John Maulden about the growing tensions resulting fro the shift in the way trading is conducting. I can build a computer from scratch, that's a technical skill, but the days of building computers by hand went as fast it came. The accusation that the population should all be trained accountants, book keepers, managers, data processors, programmers etc. Is nice, but hardly very realistic (despite my taking liberties with your exact phrasing). A degree is not going to stop a company from selling and moving its production to China, Mexico or Vietnam - would that were true. In fact, even high end degree positions are being outsourced, medicine, law, data processing, programming . . .

    How about the changes in economy that have forced businesses to completely disappear. We will never know how many businesses were lost in the 2007/2008 financial mess. Recovery doesn't exist until the country's growth is robust enough to put people back to work full time in a manner that enables them to sustain themselves and family.

    That income gap is real and its telling.
    ___________________

    even if I bought the Karl Marx assessment. His solutions were anything but a limited assault on financial sector oligarchs and wizards. And in practice it has been an unmitigated disaster with virtually not a single long term national benefit. It's very nature has been destructive, not only to infrastructure, but literally the lifeblood of the people it was intended to rescue.

    Wayne Lusvardi , says: September 8, 2016 at 5:36 am
    Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector.

    There are two middle classes in the US: the old Business Class and the New Knowledge Class. A manager would be in the Business Class and a Bureaucrat in the New Class.

    The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization.

    The New Class were those in the mostly government and nonprofit sectors that depended on knowledge for their livelihood without it being coupled to any physical labor: teachers, intellectuals, social workers and psychiatrists, lawyers, media types, hedge fund managers, real estate appraisers, financial advisors, architects, engineers, etc. The New Knowledge Class has only risen since the New Deal created a permanent white collar, non-business class.

    The Working Class are those who are employed for wages in manual work in an industry producing something tangible (houses, cars, computers, etc.). The Working Class can also have managers, sometimes called supervisors. And the Working Class is comprised mainly of two groups: unionized workers and private sector non-unionized workers. When we talk about the Working Class we typically are referring to the latter.

    The Trumpsters should not be distinguished as being a racial group or class (white) because there are many white people who support Clinton. About 95% of Blacks vote Democratic in the US. Nowhere near that ratio of Whites are supporting Trump. So Trumps' support should not be stereotyped as White.

    The number one concern to Trumpsters is that they reflect the previous intergenerational economy where the elderly lent money to the young to buy homes, cars and start small businesses. The Global bankers have shifted money into the stock market because 0.25% per year interest rates in a bank isn't making any money at all when money inflation runs at 1% to 2% (theft). This has been replaced by a Global Economy that depends on financial bubbles and arbitraging of funds.

    William Burns , says: September 8, 2016 at 5:45 am
    How are the elites supporting Trump different from the elites supporting financier par excellence Mitt Romney?
    EliteCommInc. , says: September 8, 2016 at 6:23 am
    "The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense."

    Why other couching this. Ten years ago if some Hollywood exec had said, no same sex marriage, no production company in your town, the town would have shrugged. Today before shrugging, the city clerk is checking the account balance. When the governors of Michigan, and Arizona bent down in me culpa's on related issue, because business interests piped in, it was an indication that the game had seriously changed. Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires.

    Same sex weddings in US military chapels - the concept still turns my stomach. Advocates control the megaphones, I don't think they control the minds of the public, despite having convinced a good many people that those who have chosen this expression are under some manner of assault – that demands a legal change - intelligent well educated, supposedly astute minded people actually believe it. Even the Republican nominee believes it.

    I love Barbara Streisand, but if the election means she moves to Canada, well, so be it. Take your "drag queens" impersonators wit you. I enjoy Mr. and Mrs Pitt, I think have a social moral core but really? with millions of kids future at stake, endorsing a terminal dynamic as if it will save society's ills - Hollywood doesn't even pretend to behave royally much less embody the sensitivities of the same.

    There is a lot to challenge about supporting Mr. Trump. He did support killing children in the womb and that is tragic. Unless he has stood before his maker and made this right, he will have to answer for that. But no more than a trove of Republicans who supported killing children in the womb and then came to their senses. I guess of there is one thing he and I agree on, it's not drinking.

    As for big budget military, it seems a waste, but if we are going to waste money, better it be for our own citizens. His Achilles heel here is his intentions as to ISIS/ISIL. I think it's the big drain getting ready to suck him into the abyss of intervention creep.

    Missile defense just doesn't work. The tests are rigged and as Israel discovered, it's a hit and miss game with low probability of success, but it makes for great propaganda.

    I am supposed to be outraged by a football player stance on abusive government. While the democratic nominee is turning over every deck chair she find, leaving hundreds of thousands of children homeless - let me guess, on the bright side, George Clooney cheers the prospect of more democratic voters.

    If Mr. Trumps only achievements are building a wall, over hauling immigration policy and expanding the size of the military. He will be well on his way to getting ranked one of the US most successful presidents.

    Joe F , says: September 8, 2016 at 11:11 am
    I never understood why an analysis needs to lard in every conceivable historical reference and simply assume its relevance, when there are so many non constant facts and circumstances. There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain.
    JonF , says: September 8, 2016 at 1:32 pm
    EliteCommInc,

    State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those.

    The split on Trump is first by race (obviously), then be gender (also somewhat obviously), and then by education. Even among self-declared conservatives it's the college educated who tend to oppose him. This is a lot broader than simply losing some "new" Knowledge Class, unless all college educated people are put in that grouping. In fact he is on track to lose among college educated whites, something no GOP candidate has suffered since the days of FDR and WWII.

    Fabian , says: September 8, 2016 at 3:35 pm
    People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards.

    People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions.

    Gilly.El , says: September 8, 2016 at 3:36 pm
    I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American.
    Richard Wagner , says: September 8, 2016 at 5:04 pm
    EliteComic beat me to the punch. I was disappointed that Ross Perot, who won over 20% of the popular vote twice, and was briefly in the lead in early 1992, wasn't mentioned in this article.
    JonF , says: September 8, 2016 at 5:07 pm
    Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American.

    The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period.

    David Helveticka , says: September 8, 2016 at 6:12 pm
    A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers.

    Who really cares about the federal debt. REally? We can print dollars, exchange these worthless dollars with China for hard goods, and then China lends the dollars back to us, to pay for our government. Get it?

    It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya

    Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled.

    And damn the utopianism of you "libertarians" you're worse then Marxists when it comes to ideology over reality.

    Jim Houghton , says: September 8, 2016 at 6:56 pm
    Ronald Reagan confounded the GOP party elite, too. They - rightly - considered him an intellectual lightweight.
    EliteCommInc. , says: September 8, 2016 at 9:20 pm
    "State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those."

    Ah, not it's policy on some measure able effect. The seatbelt law was debate across the country. The data indicated that it did in fact save lives. And it's impact was universal applicable to every man women or child that got into a vehicle.

    That was not a private bedroom issue. Of course businesses have advocated policy. K street is not a K-street minus that reality. But GM did not demand having relations in parked cars be legalized or else.

    You are taking my apples and and calling them seatbelts - false comparison on multiple levels, all to get me to acknowledge that businesses have influence. It what they have chosen to have influence on -

    That is another matter.

    cecelia , says: September 9, 2016 at 1:34 am
    I do not think the issue of class is relevant here – whether it be new classes or old classes. There are essentially two classes – those who win given whatever the current economic arrangements are or those who lose given those same arrangements. People who think they are losing support Trump versus people who think they are winning support Clinton. The polls demonstrates this – Trump supporters feel a great deal more anxiety about the future and are more inclined to think everything is falling apart whereas Clinton supporters tend to see things as being okay and are optimistic about the future. The Vox work also shows this pervasive sense that life will not be good for their children and grandchildren as a characteristic of Trump supporters.

    The real shift I think is in the actual coalitions that are political parties. Both the GOP and the Dems have been coalitions – political parties usually are. Primary areas of agreement with secondary areas of disagreement. Those coalitions no longer work. The Dems can be seen as a coalition of the liberal knowledge types – who are winners in this economy and the worker types who are often losers now in this economy. The GOP also is a coalition of globalist corporatist business types (winners) with workers (losers) who they attracted in part because of culture wars and the Dixiecrats becoming GOPers. The needs of these two groups in both parties no longer overlap. The crisis is more apparent in the GOP because well – Trump. If Sanders had won the nomination for the Dems (and he got close) then their same crisis would be more apparent. The Dems can hold their creaky coalition together because Trump went into the fevered swamps of the alt. right.

    I think this is even more obvious in the UK where you have a Labor Party that allegedly represents the interests of working people but includes the cosmopolitan knowledge types. The cosmopolitans are big on the usual identity politics, unlimited immigration and staying in the EU. They benefit from the current economic arrangement. But the workers in the Labor party have been hammered by the current economic arrangements and voted in droves to get out of the EU and limit immigration. It seems pretty obvious that there is no longer a coalition to sustain the Labor Party. Same with Tories – some in the party love the EU,immigration, globalization while others voted out of the EU, want immigration restricted and support localism. The crisis is about the inability of either party to sustain its coalitions. Those in the Tory party who are leavers should be in a political party with the old Labor working class while the Tory cosmopolitans should be in a party with the Labor cosmopolitans. The current coalitions not being in synch is the political problem – not new classes etc.

    Here in the US the southern Dixiecrats who went to the GOP and are losers in this economy might find a better coalition with the black, Latino and white workers who are still in the Dem party. But as in the UK ideological culture wars have become more prominent and hence the coalitions are no longer economically based. If people recognized that politics can only address the economic issues and they aligned themselves accordingly – the membership of the parties would radically change.

    So forget about class and think coalitions.

    Clint , says: September 9, 2016 at 5:47 pm
    The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now,"
    someguy , says: September 10, 2016 at 9:25 pm
    Collin, this is straight ridiculous.

    "Trump's voters were most strongly characterized by their "racial isolation": they live in places with little ethnic diversity. "

    During the primaries whites in more diverse areas voted Trump. The only real exception was West Virginia. Utah, Wyoming, Iowa? All voted for Cruz and "muh values".

    In white enclaves like Paul Ryans district, which is 91%, whites are able to signal against white identity without having to face the consequences.

    Rick , says: September 12, 2016 at 3:05 pm
    Collin said:

    "All three major African, Hispanic, & Asian-American overwhelming support HRC in the election."

    That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same.

    Craig , says: September 13, 2016 at 10:11 am
    "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests."

    This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived.

    The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Capitalism Requires World War by Cathal Haughian via TheSaker.ie,

    www.zerohedge.com

    It has been our undertaking, since 2010, to chronicle our understanding of capitalism via our book The Philosophy of Capitalism . We were curious as to the underlying nature of the system which endows us, the owners of capital, with so many favours. The Saker has asked me to explain our somewhat crude statement 'Capitalism Requires World War'.

    The present showdown between West, Russia and China is the culmination of a long running saga that began with World War One. Prior to which, Capitalism was governed by the gold standard system which was international, very solid, with clear rules and had brought great prosperity: for banking Capital was scarce and so allocated carefully. World War One required debt-capitalism of the FIAT kind, a bankrupt Britain began to pass the Imperial baton to the US, which had profited by financing the war and selling munitions.

    The Weimar Republic, suffering a continuation of hostilities via economic means, tried to inflate away its debts in 1919-1923 with disastrous results-hyperinflation. Then, the reintroduction of the gold standard into a world poisoned by war, reparation and debt was fated to fail and ended with a deflationary bust in the early 1930's and WW2.

    The US government gained a lot of credibility after WW2 by outlawing offensive war and funding many construction projects that helped transfer private debt to the public book. The US government's debt exploded during the war, but it also shifted the power game away from creditors to a big debtor that had a lot of political capital. The US used her power to define the new rules of the monetary system at Bretton Woods in 1944 and to keep physical hold of gold owned by other nations.

    The US jacked up tax rates on the wealthy and had a period of elevated inflation in the late 40s and into the 1950s – all of which wiped out creditors, but also ushered in a unique middle class era in the West. The US also reformed extraction centric institutions in Europe and Japan to make sure an extractive-creditor class did not hobble growth, which was easy to do because the war had wiped them out (same as in Korea).

    Capital destruction in WW2 reversed the Marxist rule that the rate of profit always falls. Take any given market – say jeans. At first, all the companies make these jeans using a great deal of human labour so all the jeans are priced around the average of total social labour time required for production (some companies will charge more, some companies less).

    One company then introduces a machine (costed at $n) that makes jeans using a lot less labour time. Each of these robot assisted workers is paid the same hourly rate but the production process is now far more productive. This company, ignoring the capital outlay in the machinery, will now have a much higher profit rate than the others. This will attract capital, as capital is always on the lookout for higher rates of profit. The result will be a generalisation of this new mode of production. The robot or machine will be adopted by all the other companies, as it is a more efficient way of producing jeans.

    As a consequence the price of the jeans will fall, as there is an increased margin within which each market actor can undercut his fellows. One company will lower prices so as to increase market share. This new price-point will become generalised as competing companies cut their prices to defend their market share. A further n$ was invested but per unit profit margin is put under constant downward pressure, so the rate of return in productive assets tends to fall over time in a competitive market place.

    Interest rates have been falling for decades in the West because interest rates must always be below the rate of return on productive investments. If interest rates are higher than the risk adjusted rate of return then the capitalist might as well keep his money in a savings account. If there is real deflation his purchasing power increases for free and if there is inflation he will park his money (plus debt) in an unproductive asset that's price inflating, E.G. Housing. Sound familiar? Sure, there has been plenty of profit generated since 2008 but it has not been recovered from productive investments in a competitive free market place. All that profit came from bubbles in asset classes and financial schemes abetted by money printing and zero interest rates.

    Thus, we know that the underlying rate of return is near zero in the West. The rate of return falls naturally, due to capital accumulation and market competition. The system is called capitalism because capital accumulates: high income economies are those with the greatest accumulation of capital per worker. The robot assisted worker enjoys a higher income as he is highly productive, partly because the robotics made some of the workers redundant and there are fewer workers to share the profit. All the high income economies have had near zero interest rates for seven years. Interest rates in Europe are even negative. How has the system remained stable for so long?

    All economic growth depends on energy gain. It takes energy (drilling the oil well) to gain energy. Unlike our everyday experience whereby energy acquisition and energy expenditure can be balanced, capitalism requires an absolute net energy gain. That gain, by way of energy exchange, takes the form of tools and machines that permit an increase in productivity per work hour. Thus GDP increases, living standards improve and the debts can be repaid. Thus, oil is a strategic capitalistic resource.

    US net energy gain production peaked in 1974, to be replaced by production from Saudi Arabia, which made the USA a net importer of oil for the first time. US dependence on foreign oil rose from 26% to 47% between 1985 and 1989 to hit a peak of 60% in 2006. And, tellingly, real wages peaked in 1974, levelled-off and then began to fall for most US workers. Wages have never recovered. (The decline is more severe if you don't believe government reported inflation figures that don't count the costof housing.)

    What was the economic and political result of this decline? During the 20 years 1965-85, there were 4 recessions, 2 energy crises and wage and price controls. These were unprecedented in peacetime and The Gulf of Tonkin event led to the Vietnam War which finally required Nixon to move away from the Gold-Exchange Standard in 1971, opening the next degenerate chapter of FIAT finance up until 2008. Cutting this link to gold was cutting the external anchor impeding war and deficit spending. The promise of gold for dollars was revoked.

    GDP in the US increased after 1974 but a portion of end use buying power was transferred to Saudi Arabia. They were supplying the net energy gain that was powering the US GDP increase. The working class in the US began to experience a slow real decline in living standards, as 'their share' of the economic pie was squeezed by the ever increasing transfer of buying power to Saudi Arabia.

    The US banking and government elite responded by creating and cutting back legal and behavioral rules of a fiat based monetary system. The Chinese appreciated the long term opportunity that this presented and agreed to play ball. The USA over-produced credit money and China over-produced manufactured goods which cushioned the real decline in the buying power of America's working class. Power relations between China and the US began to change: The Communist Party transferred value to the American consumer whilst Wall Street transferred most of the US industrial base to China. They didn't ship the military industrial complex.

    Large scale leverage meant that US consumers and businesses had the means to purchase increasingly with debt so the class war was deferred. This is how over production occurs: more is produced that is paid for not with money that represents actual realized labour time, but from future wealth, to be realised from future labour time. The Chinese labour force was producing more than it consumed.

    The system has never differed from the limits laid down by the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Real economy system can never over-produce per se. The limit of production is absolute net energy gain. What is produced can be consumed. How did the Chinese produce such a super massive excess and for so long? Economic slavery can achieve radical improvements in living standards for those that benefit from ownership. Slaves don't depreciate as they are rented and are not repaired for they replicate for free. Hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants limited their way of life and controlled their consumption in order to benefit their children. And their exploited life raised the rate of profit!

    They began their long march to modern prosperity making toys, shoes, and textiles cheaper than poor women could in South Carolina or Honduras. Such factories are cheap to build and deferential, obedient and industrious peasant staff were a perfect match for work that was not dissimilar to tossing fruit into a bucket. Their legacy is the initial capital formation of modern China and one of the greatest accomplishments in human history. The Chinese didn't use net energy gain from oil to power their super massive and sustained increase in production. They used economic slavery powered by caloric energy, exchanged from solar energy. The Chinese labour force picked the World's low hanging fruit that didn't need many tools or machines. Slaves don't need tools for they are the tool.

    Without a gold standard and capital ratios our form of over-production has grown enormously. The dotcom bubble was reflated through a housing bubble, which has been pumped up again by sovereign debt, printing press (QE) and central bank insolvency. The US working and middle classes have over-consumed relative to their share of the global economic pie for decades. The correction to prices (the destruction of credit money & accumulated capital) is still yet to happen. This is what has been happening since 1971 because of the growth of financialisation or monetisation.

    The application of all these economic methods was justified by the political ideology of neo-Liberalism. Neo-Liberalism entails no or few capital controls, the destruction of trade unions, plundering state and public assets, importing peasants as domesticated help, and entrusting society's value added production to The Communist Party of The People's Republic of China.

    The Chinese have many motives but their first motivation is power. Power is more important than money. If you're rich and weak you get robbed. Russia provides illustrating stories of such: Gorbachev had received a promise from George HW Bush that the US would pay Russia approximately $400 billion over10 years as a "peace dividend" and as a tool to be utilized in the conversion of their state run to a market based economic system. The Russians believe the head of the CIA at the time, George Tenet, essentially killed the deal based on the idea that "letting the country fall apart will destroy Russia as a future military threat". The country fell apart in 1992. Its natural assets were plundered which raised the rate of profit in the 90's until President Putin put a stop to the robbery.

    In the last analysis, the current framework of Capitalism results in labour redundancy, a falling rate of profit and ingrained trading imbalances caused by excess capacity. Under our current monopoly state capitalism a number of temporary preventive measures have evolved, including the expansion of university, military, and prison systems to warehouse new generations of labour.

    Our problem is how to retain the "expected return rate" for us, the dominant class. Ultimately, there are only two large-scale solutions, which are intertwined .

    One is expansion of state debt to keep "the markets" moving and transfer wealth from future generations of labour to the present dominant class.

    The other is war, the consumer of last resort. Wars can burn up excess capacity, shift global markets, generate monopoly rents, and return future labour to a state of helplessness and reduced expectations. The Spanish flu killed 50-100 million people in 1918. As if this was not enough, it also took two World Wars across the 20th century and some 96 million dead to reduce unemployment and stabilize the "labour problem."

    Capitalism requires World War because Capitalism requires profit and cannot afford the unemployed . The point is capitalism could afford social democracy after the rate of profit was restored thanks to the depression of the 1930's and the physical destruction of capital during WW2. Capitalism only produces for profit and social democracy was funded by taxing profits after WW2.

    Post WW2 growth in labour productivity, due to automation, itself due to oil & gas replacing coal, meant workers could be better off. As the economic pie was growing, workers could receive the same %, and still receive a bigger slice. Wages as a % of US GDP actually increased in the period, 1945-1970. There was an increase in government spending which was being redirected in the form of redistributed incomes. Inequality will only worsen, because to make profits now we have to continually cut the cost of inputs, i.e. wages & benefits. Have we not already reached the point where large numbers of the working class can neither feed themselves nor afford a roof over their heads?13% of the UK working age population is out of work and receiving out of work benefits. A huge fraction is receiving in work benefits because low skill work now pays so little.

    The underlying nature of Capitalism is cyclical. Here is how the political aspect of the cycle ends:

    If Capitalism could speak, she would ask her older brother, Imperialism, this: "Can you solve the problem?" We are not reliving the 1930's, the economy is now an integrated whole that encompasses the entire World. Capital has been accumulating since 1945, so under- and unemployment is a plague everywhere. How big is the problem? Official data tells us nothing, but the 47 million Americans on food aid are suggestive. That's 1 in 7 Americans and total World population is 7 billion.

    The scale of the solution is dangerous. Our probing for weakness in the South China Sea, Ukraine and Syria has awakened them to their danger.The Chinese and Russian leadershave reacted by integrating their payment systems and real economies, trading energy for manufactured goods for advanced weapon systems. As they are central players in the Shanghai Group we can assume their aim is the monetary system which is the bedrock of our Imperial power. What's worse, they can avoid overt enemy action and simply choose to undermine "confidence" in the FIAT.

    Though given the calibre of their nuclear arsenal, how can they be fought let alone defeated? Appetite preceded Reason, so Lust is hard to Reason with. But beware brother. Your Lust for Power began this saga, perhaps it's time to Reason.

    Uncle Sugar

    Seriously - Having a Central Bank with a debt based monetary system requires permanent wars. True market based capitalism does not.

    Father Thyme

    Your logical fallacy is no true scotsman
    http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 23:21 | 7264475 Seek_Truth

    Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

    If wealth were measured by creating strawmen- you would be a Rothschild.

    gwiss

    That's because they don't understand the word "capitalism."

    Capitalism simply means economic freedom. And economic freedom, just like freedom to breed, must be exposed to the pruning action of cause and effect, otherwise it outgrows its container and becomes unstable and explodes. As long as it is continually exposed to the grinding wheel of causality, it continues to hold a fine edge, as the dross is scraped away and the fine steel stays. Reality is full of dualities, and those dualities cannot be separated without creating broken symmetry and therefore terminal instability. Freedom and responsibility, for example. One without the other is unstable. Voting and taxation in direct proportion to each other is another example.

    Fiat currency is an attempt to create an artificial reality, one without the necessary symmetry and balance of a real system. However, reality can not be gamed, because it will produce its own symmetry if you try to deny it. Thus the symmetry of fiat currency is boom and bust, a sine wave that still manages to produce equilibrium, however at a huge bubbling splattering boil rather than a fine simmer.

    The folks that wrote this do not have a large enough world view. Capitalism does not require world wars because freedom does not require world wars. Freedom tends to bleed imbalances out when they are small. On the other hand, empire does require world war, which is why we are going to have one.

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 23:27 | 7264485 GRDguy

    Capitalism becomes imperialism when financial sociopaths steal profits from both sides of the trade. What you're seeing is an Imperialism of Capital, as explained very nicely in the 1889 book "The Great Red Dragon."

    AchtungAffen

    Really? I thought that was the re-prints of Mises Canada, Kunstler or Brandon Smith. In comparison, this article is sublime.

    Caviar Emptor

    Wrong. Capitalism needs prolonged directionless wars without clear winners and contained destruction that utilize massive amounts of raw materials and endless orders for weapons and logistical support. That's what makes some guys rich.

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 22:56 | 7264423 Jack's Raging B...

    That's was a very long-winded and deliberately obtuse way of explaining how DEBT AS MONEY and The State's usurpation of sound money destroyed efficient markets. The author then goes to call this system Capitalism.

    So yeah, the deliberate destruction of capital, in all its forms, is somehow capitalism. Brilliant observation. Fuck you. There are better terms for things like this. Perhaps....central banking? The State? Fiat debt creation? Evil? Naw, let's just contort and abuse language instead. That's the ticket.

    My Days Are Get...

    From Russia News Feed:

    Cathal Haughian Bio :

    I've spent my adult life in 51 countries. This was financed by correctly anticipating the Great Financial Crisis in 2008. I was studying Marx at that time. I'm presently an employee of the Chinese State. I educate the children of China's best families. I am the author, alongside a large international team of capitalists, of Before The Collapse : The Philosophy of Capitalism.

    I also have my own business; I live with my girlfriend and was born and grew up in Ireland.

    ===============

    Why would anyone waste time to read this drivel, buttressed by the author's credentials.

    The unstated thesis is that wars involve millions of actors, who produce an end-result of many hundreds of millions killed.

    Absent coercion ("the Draft"), how is any government going to man hundreds of divisions of foot soldiers. That concept is passé.

    Distribute some aerosol poisons via drones and kill as many people as deemed necessary. How in the hell will that action stimulate the world economy.

    Weapons of mass-destruction are smaller, cheaper and easier to deploy. War as a progenitor of growth - forget it.

    The good news is that this guy is educating the children of elite in China. Possibly the Pentagon could clone him 10,000 times and send those cyborgs to China - cripple China for another generation or two.

    slimycorporated...

    Capitalism requires banks that made shitty loans to fail

    Ms No

    The term cyclical doesn't quite cover what we have being experiencing. It's more like a ragdoll being shaken by a white shark. The euphoria of bubble is more like complete unhinged unicorn mania anymore and the lows are complete grapes of wrath. It's probably always been that way to some extent because corruption has remained unchallenged for a great deal of time. The boom phases are scarier than the downturns anymore, especially the last oil boom and housing boom. Complete Alfred Hitchcock stuff.

    I don't think it's capitalism and that term comes across as an explanation that legitimizes this completely contrived pattern that benefits a few and screws everybody else. Markets should not be behaving in such a violent fashion. Money should probably be made steady and slow. And downturns shouldn't turn a country into Zimbabwe. I could be wrong but there is really no way to know with the corruption we have.

    Good times.

    o r c k

    And War requires that an enemy be created. According to American General Breedlove-head of NATO's European Command-speaking to the US Armed Services Committee 2 days ago, "Russia and Assad are deliberately weaponizing migration to break European resolve". "The only reason to use non-precision weapons like barrel bombs is to keep refugees on the move". "These refugees bring criminality, foreign fighters and terrorism", and "are being used to overwhelm European structures". "Russia has chosen to be an adversary and is a real threat." "Russia is irresponsible with nuclear weapons-always threatening to use them." And strangely, "In the past week alone, Russia has made 450 attacks along the front lines in E. Ukraine".

    Even with insanity overflowing the West, I found these comments to be the most bizarrely threatening propaganda yet. After reading them for the first time, I had to prove to myself that I wasn't hallucinating it.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Spanish civil war nostalgics join fight alongside Ukrainian rebels by Kazbek Basayev

    Notable quotes:
    "... That star and a ribbon around Munez's wrist hint at the Spaniards' motivation for joining a war thousands of miles from home. The ribbon's red, yellow and purple are the colors of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, a conflict in the 1930s where thousands of foreigners joined the leftists against right-wing foes who eventually prevailed. ..."
    "... More than 1,100 people have been killed in the fighting in Ukraine since mid-April, according to the United Nations, in a civil conflict that has dragged ties between Russia and the West to their lowest since the Cold War. ..."
    "... Davilla-Rivas blamed the West - which has imposed sanctions on Moscow, accusing it of backing the rebels - for stoking the war. "The United States is trying to provoke a third (world war) against Russia here with your people," he said. "Ordinary people are suffering because they are caught in between three imperial powers - the Russian Federation, the European Union and, certainly, the United States, which is putting money into all this." ..."
    "... Civil war in Ukraine is going more then 4 months. 30 000 Ukrainians was killed, and 1 million expelled from their homes. ..."
    "... Volunteers, revolutionaries, zealots, idealist, mercenaries are all drawn to conflicts all over the globe. ..."
    Aug 08, 2014 | Yahoo/Reuters

    Angel Davilla-Rivas, a Spaniard who came to east Ukraine to fight alongside pro-Russian rebels, proudly shows off two big monochrome portraits of Soviet leaders Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, tattooed on the right and left side of his torso.

    Davilla-Rivas and his comrade Rafa Munez, both in their mid-twenties, traveled by train from Madrid to eastern Ukraine where they joined the Vostok battalion, the most prominent and heavily armed unit fighting Ukrainian troops.

    "I am the only son, and it hurts my mother and father and my family a lot that I am putting myself at risk. But ... I can't sleep in my bed knowing what's going on here," said Davilla-Rivas, sporting a cap with the Soviet red star pinned to it.

    That star and a ribbon around Munez's wrist hint at the Spaniards' motivation for joining a war thousands of miles from home. The ribbon's red, yellow and purple are the colors of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, a conflict in the 1930s where thousands of foreigners joined the leftists against right-wing foes who eventually prevailed.

    Angel said he wanted to return the favor after the Soviet Union, under Stalin, supported the Republican side in Spain.

    More than 1,100 people have been killed in the fighting in Ukraine since mid-April, according to the United Nations, in a civil conflict that has dragged ties between Russia and the West to their lowest since the Cold War.

    The Spaniards are not the first foreigners to enter the fight.

    Men from Russia, its former rebel republic of Chechnya and the Caucasus region of North Ossetia have fought on the rebel side along with volunteers from a Russian-backed separatist enclave of Georgia and natives of Serbia.

    Russians have also taken top positions among the rebels, though a local took over at the helm of the self-proclaimed "Donetsk Peoples' Republic" on Thursday, in a move aimed at blunting Western accusations the rebellion is run by Moscow.

    Moscow said last month there were reports that citizens from Sweden, Finland, France and the former Soviet Baltic states had joined pro-Kiev volunteer battalions in the east as "mercenaries".

    Davilla-Rivas blamed the West - which has imposed sanctions on Moscow, accusing it of backing the rebels - for stoking the war. "The United States is trying to provoke a third (world war) against Russia here with your people," he said. "Ordinary people are suffering because they are caught in between three imperial powers - the Russian Federation, the European Union and, certainly, the United States, which is putting money into all this."

    A Vostok fighter said he was happy to have the Spaniards. "We need support now, we need fighters. An additional automatic gun will do no harm, to support, to cover one's back," said the young, brown-haired man who did not give his name. The Spanish embassy in Moscow was not immediately available for comment.

    (Writing by Gabriela Baczynska; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)

    blazo 6 months ago

    Civil war in Ukraine is going more then 4 months. 30 000 Ukrainians was killed, and 1 million expelled from their homes. Not too bad for only 4 months. But it could be better.

    Commander in chief of glorious Kiev army, Mr Porkoshenko, and his sponsor in killings and expulsions, Mr Obama are not satisfied. For money spent, much higher pace of killing should be #$%$ured. What is their reference? In Babin Yar during WW 2, 1200 Ukrainian #$%$, with help of 300 Germans, managed to kill 60 000 Ukrainians for only two days. So Mr Porkoshenko ask from Chef of all Ukrainian security forces, Mr Paruby to explain discrepancy in efficiency in Babin Yar, and in Donbas killings. Mr Paruby said: In Babin Yar Ukrainians to be killed were civilized and unarmed. They even smiled for photographs during killing. But in Donbas they are barbaric armed people, they don t allow us to kill them in peace. They turned arms on us, and killed 10 000 of our brave soldiers. They burned our tanks, APCs, and shot down our jet bombers. And as a extreme barbarism, they captured from us multiple rocket launchers, and fired on us, killing our 25th, 72nd, 79th motorized brigades. Mr Porkoshenko said: You are fired, and kicked him with foot to his #$%$.

    The great strategist and visionary, Mr Porkoshenko said on 25th of May: It is not a question of days, weeks, or months, when rebellion in East Ukraine will be defeated. It is the question of hours.... .

    Ricardo 6 months ago

    Volunteers, revolutionaries, zealots, idealist, mercenaries are all drawn to conflicts all over the globe. Muslims are headed to Syria and Iraq from Europe and North Africa to fight either Assad or along side ISIS, now those that believe the days of the old USSR are returning are headed to eastern Ukraine to fight. If you look at some of the countries mentioned in this article it will not surprise anyone that they are all from Soviet/Russian supported countries that even after the collapse of the USSR still follow the Russians, no matter the consequences to their country.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Backlash Against Trade Deals: The End of US Led Economic Globalisation?

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Originally published at The Frontline ..."
    "... President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US. ..."
    "... The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values. ..."
    "... But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. ..."
    "... But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them. ..."
    "... Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions ..."
    "... All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-ŕ-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations ..."
    "... So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals. ..."
    "... The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself. ..."
    "... Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg ..."
    "... While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.) ..."
    "... Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" - this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it. Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes. ..."
    "... Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way. ..."
    "... We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply. The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our own products. ..."
    "... the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of a "Buy America" clause in the future! ..."
    "... The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade. the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder. ..."
    "... Here's Obama's actual speech at the Nike headquarters (not factory). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamatradenike.htm ..."
    "... It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio. ..."
    "... The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes. http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/ "US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike." ..."
    "... So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now? ..."
    "... Perhaps they still need to show loyalty to their corporate owners and to the principle of "free trade". ..."
    "... Obama: "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy." ..."
    "... Thank you, Mr. President, for resolving any doubts that the American project is an imperialist project! ..."
    "... Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning them into good consumerist slaves. ..."
    "... Funny how little things change over the centuries. ..."
    "... The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall. Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans. ..."
    "... "How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu. ..."
    "... The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China". ..."
    "... Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China". ..."
    "... Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them. ..."
    "... Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret. ..."
    "... Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects. ..."
    "... It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country. ..."
    "... I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations ..."
    "... Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St. ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Originally published at The Frontline

    There is much angst in the Northern financial media about how the era of globalisation led actively by the United States may well be coming to an end. This is said to be exemplified in the changed political attitudes to mega regional trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) that was signed (but has not yet been ratified) by the US and 11 other countries in Latin America, Asia and Oceania; and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP) still being negotiated by the US and the European Union.

    President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US.

    However, the changing political currents in the US are making that ever more unlikely. Hardly anyone who is a candidate in the coming elections, whether for the Presidency, the Senate or the House of Representatives, is willing to stick their necks out to back the deal.

    Both Presidential candidates in the US (Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) have openly come out against the TPP. In Clinton's case this is a complete reversal of her earlier position when she had referred to the TPP as "the gold standard of trade deals" – and it has clearly been forced upon her by the insurgent movement in the Democratic Party led by Bernie Sanders. She is already being pushed by her rival candidate for not coming out more clearly in terms of a complete rejection of this deal. Given the significant trust deficit that she still has to deal with across a large swathe of US voters, it will be hard if not impossible for her to backtrack on this once again (as her husband did earlier with NAFTA) even if she does achieve the Presidency.

    The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values.

    But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. Even the only US government study of the TPP's likely impacts, by the International Trade Commission, could project at best only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032. A study by Jeronim Capaldo and Alex Izurieta with Jomo Kwame Sundaram ("Trading down: Unemployment, inequality and other risks of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement", Working Paper 16-01, Global Development and Environment Institute, January 2016) was even less optimistic, even for the US. It found that the benefits to exports and economic growth were likely to be relatively small for all member countries, and would be negative in the US and Japan because of losses to employment and increases in inequality. Wage shares of national income would decline in all the member countries.

    But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them.

    Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying:

    1. the intellectual property provisions,
    2. the restrictions on regulatory practices
    3. the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.
    Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.

    All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-ŕ-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations

    For example, the TPP (and the TTIP) require more stringent enforcement requirements of intellectual property rights: reducing exemptions (e.g. allowing compulsory licensing only for emergencies); preventing parallel imports; extending IPRs to areas like life forms, counterfeiting and piracy; extending exclusive rights to test data (e.g. in pharmaceuticals); making IPR provisions more detailed and prescriptive. The scope of drug patents is extended to include minor changes to existing medications (a practice commonly employed by drug companies, known as "evergreening"). Patent linkages would make it more difficult for many generic drugs to enter markets.

    This would strengthen, lengthen and broaden pharmaceutical monopolies on cancer, heart disease and HIV/AIDS drugs, and in general make even life-saving drugs more expensive and inaccessible in all the member countries. It would require further transformation of countries' laws on patents and medical test data. It would reduce the scope of exemption in use of medical formulations through public procurement for public purposes. All this is likely to lead to reductions in access to drugs and medical procedures because of rising prices, and also impede innovation rather than encouraging it, across member countries.

    There are also very restrictive copyright protection rules, that would also affect internet usage as Internet Service Providers are to be forced to adhere to them. There are further restrictions on branding that would reinforce the market power of established players.

    The TPP and TTIP also contain restrictions on regulatory practices that greatly increase the power of corporations relative to states and can even prevent states from engaging in countercyclical measures designed to boost domestic demand. It has been pointed out by consumer groups in the USA that the powers of the Food and Drug Administration to regulate products that affect health of citizens could be constrained and curtailed by this agreement. Similarly, macroeconomic stimulus packages that focus on boosting domestic demand for local production would be explicitly prohibited by such agreements.

    All these are matters for concern because these agreements enable corporations to litigate against governments that are perceived to be flouting these provisions because of their own policy goals or to protect the rights of their citizens. The Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism enabled by these agreements is seen to be one of their most deadly features. Such litigation is then subject to supranational tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but which have no human rights safeguards and which do not see the rights of citizen as in any way superior to the "rights" of corporations to their profits. These courts can conduct closed and secret hearings with secret evidence. They do not just interpret the rules but contribute to them through case law because of the relatively vague wording of the text, which can then be subject to different interpretations, and therefore are settled by case law. The experience thus far with such tribunals has been problematic. Since they are legally based on "equal" treatment of legal persons with no primacy for human rights, they have become known for their pro-investor bias, partly due to the incentive structure for arbitrators, and partly because the system is designed to provide supplementary guarantees to investors, rather than making them respect host countries laws and regulations.

    If all these features of the TPP and the TTIP were more widely known, it is likely that there would be even greater public resistance to them in the US and in other countries. Even as it is, there is growing antagonism to the trade liberalisation that is seen to bring benefits to corporations rather than to workers, at a period in history when secure employment is seen to be the biggest prize of all.

    So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals.

    human , September 22, 2016 at 10:14 am

    his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US.

    "just _after_ the November Presidential election"

    Uahsenaa , September 22, 2016 at 10:42 am

    I was watching a speech Premier Li gave at the Economic Club of NY last night, and it was interesting to see how all his (vetted, pre-selected) questions revolved around anxieties having to do with resistance to global trade deals. Li made a few pandering comments about how much the Chinese love American beef (stop it! you're killing me! har har) meant to diffuse those anxieties, but it became clear that the fear among TPTB of people's dissatisfaction with the current economic is palpable. Let's keep it up!

    allan , September 22, 2016 at 11:30 am

    On a related note:

    U.S. Court Throws Out Price-Fixing Judgment Against Chinese Vitamin C Makers [WSJ]

    A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out a $147 million civil price fixing judgment against Chinese manufacturers of vitamin C, ruling the companies weren't liable in U.S. courts because they were acting under the direction of Chinese authorities.

    The case raised thorny questions of how courts should treat foreign companies accused of violating U.S. antitrust law when they are following mandates of a foreign government.

    "I was only following orders" might not have worked in Nuremberg, but it's a-ok in international trade.

    different clue , September 22, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself.

    Wellstone's Ghost , September 22, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Trump has already back peddaled on his TPP stance. He now says he wants to renegotiate the TTP and other trade deals. Whatever that means. Besides, Trump is a distraction, its Mike Pence you should be keeping your eye on. He's American Taliban pure and simple.

    RPDC , September 22, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    This is simply false. Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg

    Hillary wants to start a war with Russia and pass the trade trifecta of TPP/TTIP/TiSA.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.)

    Trump was run to make Hillary look good, but that has turned out to be Mission Real Impossible!

    We are seeing the absolute specious political theater at its worst, attempting to differentiate between Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Trumpster – – – the only major difference is that Clinton has far more real blood on her and Bill's hands.

    Nope, there is no lesser of evils this time around . . .

    Quanka , September 23, 2016 at 8:25 am

    Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" - this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it. Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes.

    different clue , September 24, 2016 at 1:00 am

    Really? Well . . . might as well vote for Clinton then.

    First Woman President!
    Feminism!
    Liberation!

    TedWa , September 22, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way.

    a different chris , September 22, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    >only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032.

    At that point American's wages will have dropped near enough to Chinese levels that we can compete in selling to First World countries . assuming there are any left.

    oh , September 22, 2016 at 4:19 pm

    We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply. The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our own products.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Naaah, never been about competition, since nobody is actually vetted when they offshore those jobs or replace American workers with foreign visa workers.

    But to sum it up as succinctly as possible: the TPP is about the destruction of workers' rights; the destruction of local and small businesses; and the loss of sovereignty. Few Americans are cognizant of just how many businesses are foreign owned today in America; their local energy utility or state energy utility, their traffic enforcement company which was privatized, their insurance company (GEICO, etc.).

    I remember when a political action group back in the '00s thought they had stumbled on a big deal when someone had hacked into the system of the Bretton Woods Committee (the lobbyist group for the international super-rich which ONLY communicates with the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, and who shares the same lobbyist and D.C. office space as the Group of Thirty, the lobbyist group for the central bankers [Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Mario Draghi, Ernesto Zedillo, Bill Dudley, etc., etc.]) and placed online their demand of the senate and the congress to kill the "Buy America" clause in the federal stimulus program of a few years back (it was watered down greatly, and many exemptions were signed by then Commerce Secretary Gary Locke), but such information went completely unnoticed or ignored, and of course, the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of a "Buy America" clause in the future!

    http://www.brettonwoods.org
    http://www.group30.org

    Arthur J , September 22, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade. the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder.

    Carla , September 22, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    In June 2016, "[TransCanada] filed an arbitration claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) over President Obama's rejection of the pipeline, making good on its January threat to take legal action against the US decision.

    According to the official request for arbitration, the $15 billion tab is supposed to help the company recover costs and damages that it suffered "as a result of the US administration's breach of its NAFTA obligations." NAFTA is a comprehensive trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico that went into effect in January 1, 1994. Under the agreement, businesses can challenge governments over investment disputes.

    In addition, the company filed a suit in US Federal Court in Houston, Texas in January asserting that the Obama Administration exceeded the power granted by the US Constitution in denying the project."

    http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/transcanada_complains_nafta_sues_us_15_bn_keystone_xl_rejection/

    Six states have since joined that federal law suit.

    Kris Alman , September 22, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    Here's Obama's actual speech at the Nike headquarters (not factory). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamatradenike.htm

    It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio.

    Obama's rhetoric May 5, 2015 at the Nike campus was all about how small businesses would prosper. Congresswoman Bonamici clings to this rationale in her refusal to tell angry constituents at town halls whether she supports the TPP.

    The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes. http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/
    "US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike."

    That appeals to the other big athletic corporations that cluster in the Portland metro: Columbia Sportswear and Under Armour.

    A plot twist!

    Vietnam will not include ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on the agenda for its next parliament session. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/1087705/vietnam-delays-tpp-vote So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now?

    Vatch , September 22, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now?

    Perhaps they still need to show loyalty to their corporate owners and to the principle of "free trade".

    hemeantwell , September 22, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    Obama: "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy."

    Thank you, Mr. President, for resolving any doubts that the American project is an imperialist project!

    ChrisFromGeorgia , September 22, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning them into good consumerist slaves.

    Funny how little things change over the centuries.

    Brad , September 22, 2016 at 9:39 pm

    The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall. Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans.

    "How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu.

    Minnie Mouse , September 22, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    When America writes the rules of the global economy the global economy destroys America.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 22, 2016 at 7:44 pm

    The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China".

    Would be nice if they had even a passing thought for those people in a certain North American region located in between Canada and Mexico.

    different clue , September 23, 2016 at 1:40 am

    Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China".

    Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them.

    different clue , September 22, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    If calling the International Free Trade Conspiracy "American" is enough to get it killed and destroyed, then I don't mind having a bunch of foreigners calling the Free Trade Conspiracy "American". Just as long as they are really against it, and can really get Free Trade killed and destroyed.

    Chauncey Gardiner , September 22, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    Excellent post. Thank you. Should these so called "trade agreements" be approved, perhaps Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS arbitration) futures can be created by Wall Street and made the next speculative "Play-of-the-day" so that everyone has a chance to participate in the looting. Btw, can you loot your own house?

    KYrocky , September 22, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret.

    At the time he made that statement Warren could go to an offsite location to read the TPP in the presence of a member of the Trade Commission, could not have staff with her, could not take notes, and could not discuss anything she read with anyone else after she left. Or face criminal charges.

    Yeah. Nothing secret about that.

    Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    And add to that everything from David Dayen's book (" Chain of Title ") on Covington & Burling and Eric Holder and President Obama, and Thomas Frank's book ("Listen, Liberals") and people will have the full picture!

    Spencer , September 22, 2016 at 9:50 pm

    It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country.

    So, there's a financial incentive (to maximize profits), not to repatriate foreign income (pushes up our exchange rate, currency conversion costs, if domestic re-investment alternatives are considered more circumscribed, plus taxes, etc.).

    In spite of the surfeit of $s, and E-$ credits, and unlike the days in which world-trade required a Marshall Plan jump start, trade surpluses increasingly depend on the Asian Tiger's convertibility issues.

    Praedor , September 23, 2016 at 10:30 am

    I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations or even (potential) unfriendlies like China (who can easily put trojan spyware hard code or other vulnerabilities into critical microchips the way WE were told the US could/would when it was leading on this tech when I was serving in the 90s). We already know that US-written rules is simply a way for mega corporations to extend patents into the ever-more-distant future, a set of rules that hands more control of arts over to the MPAA, rules that gut environmental laws, etc. Who needs the US-written agreements when this is the result?

    Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St.

    [Dec 05, 2016] New Class War

    This is a very weak article from a prominent paleoconservative, but it is instructive what a mess he has in his head as for the nature of Trump phenomenon. We should probably consider the tern "New Class" that neocons invented as synonym for "neoliberals". If so, why the author is afraid to use the term? Does he really so poorly educated not to understand the nature of this neoliberal revolution and its implications? Looks like he never read "Quite coup"
    That probably reflects the crisis of pealeoconservatism itself.
    Notable quotes:
    "... What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. ..."
    "... the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus. ..."
    "... The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country? ..."
    "... The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists. ..."
    "... The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined. ..."
    "... Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction. ..."
    "... concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." ..."
    "... It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on. ..."
    "... I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom? ..."
    "... Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation. ..."
    "... Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class. ..."
    "... Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles ..."
    "... The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service. ..."
    "... America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November. ..."
    "... The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. ..."
    "... Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. ..."
    "... [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets. ..."
    "... "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite. ..."
    "... Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide. ..."
    "... Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism. ..."
    "... The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense. ..."
    "... The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters." ..."
    "... The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA. ..."
    "... . And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends. ..."
    "... Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector. ..."
    "... The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization. ..."
    "... The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America ..."
    "... . Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires ..."
    "... There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain. ..."
    "... State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those. ..."
    "... People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards. ..."
    "... People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions. ..."
    "... I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
    "... Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
    "... The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period. ..."
    "... A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers. ..."
    "... It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya ..."
    "... Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled. ..."
    "... The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now," ..."
    "... That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same. ..."
    "... "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests." This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived. ..."
    "... The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused. ..."
    Sep 07, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Since the Cold War ended, U.S. politics has seen a series of insurgent candidacies. Pat Buchanan prefigured Trump in the Republican contests of 1992 and 1996. Ralph Nader challenged the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party from the outside in 2000. Ron Paul vexed establishment Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012. And this year, Trump was not the only candidate to confound his party's elite: Bernie Sanders harried Hillary Clinton right up to the Democratic convention.

    What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. (The libertarian Paul favors unilateral free trade: by his lights, treaties like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not free trade at all but international regulatory pacts.) And while no one would mistake Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's views on immigration for Pat Buchanan's or Donald Trump's, Nader and Paul have registered their own dissents from the approach to immigration that prevails in Washington.

    Sanders has been more in line with his party's orthodoxy on that issue. But that didn't save him from being attacked by Clinton backers for having an insufficiently nonwhite base of support. Once again, what might have appeared to be a class conflict-in this case between a democratic socialist and an elite liberal with ties to high finance-could be explained away as really about race.

    Race, like religion, is a real factor in how people vote. Its relevance to elite politics, however, is less clear. Something else has to account for why the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus.

    The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country?

    Some critics on the right have identified it with the "managerial" class described by James Burnham in his 1941 book The Managerial Revolution . But it bears a stronger resemblance to what what others have called "the New Class." In fact, the interests of this New Class of college-educated "verbalists" are antithetical to those of the industrial managers that Burnham described. Understanding the relationship between these two often conflated concepts provides insight into politics today, which can be seen as a clash between managerial and New Class elites.

    ♦♦♦

    The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists.

    Over the next century, however, history did not follow the script. By 1992, the Soviet Union was gone, Communist China had embarked on market reforms, and Western Europe was turning away from democratic socialism. There was no need to predict the future; mankind had achieved its destiny, a universal order of [neo]liberal democracy. Marx had it backwards: capitalism was the end of history.

    But was the truth as simple as that? Long before the collapse of the USSR, many former communists -- some of whom remained socialists, while others joined the right-thought not. The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined.

    Among the first to advance this argument was James Burnham, a professor of philosophy at New York University who became a leading Trotskyist thinker. As he broke with Trotsky and began moving toward the right, Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction.

    Burnham called this the "managerial revolution." The managers of industry and technically trained government officials did not own the means of production, like the capitalists of old. But they did control the means of production, thanks to their expertise and administrative prowess.

    The rise of this managerial class would have far-reaching consequences, he predicted. Burnham wrote in his 1943 book, The Machiavellians : "that the managers may function, the economic and political structure must be modified, as it is now being modified, so as to rest no longer on private ownership and small-scale nationalist sovereignty, but primarily upon state control of the economy, and continental or vast regional world political organization." Burnham pointed to Nazi Germany, imperial Japan-which became a "continental" power by annexing Korea and Manchuria-and the Soviet Union as examples.

    The defeat of the Axis powers did not halt the progress of the managerial revolution. Far from it: not only did the Soviets retain their form of managerialism, but the West increasingly adopted a managerial corporatism of its own, marked by cooperation between big business and big government: high-tech industrial crony capitalism, of the sort that characterizes the military-industrial complex to this day. (Not for nothing was Burnham a great advocate of America's developing a supersonic transport of its own to compete with the French-British Concorde.)

    America's managerial class was personified by Robert S. McNamara, the former Ford Motor Company executive who was secretary of defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. In a 1966 story for National Review , "Why Do They Hate Robert Strange McNamara?" Burnham answered the question in class terms: "McNamara is attacked by the Left because the Left has a blanket hatred of the system of business enterprise; he is criticized by the Right because the Right harks back, in nostalgia if not in practice, to outmoded forms of business enterprise."

    McNamara the managerial technocrat was too business-oriented for a left that still dreamed of bringing the workers to power. But the modern form of industrial organization he represented was not traditionally capitalist enough for conservatives who were at heart 19th-century classical liberals.

    National Review readers responded to Burnham's paean to McNamara with a mixture of incomprehension and indignation. It was a sign that even readers familiar with Burnham-he appeared in every issue of the magazine-did not always follow what he was saying. The popular right wanted concepts that were helpful in labeling enemies, and Burnham was confusing matters by talking about changes in the organization of government and industry that did not line up with anyone's value judgements.

    More polemically useful was a different concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." "This 'new class' is not easily defined but may be vaguely described," Irving Kristol wrote in a 1975 essay for the Wall Street Journal :

    It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on.

    "Members of the new class do not 'control' the media," he continued, "they are the media-just as they are our educational system, our public health and welfare system, and much else."

    Burnham, writing in National Review in 1978, drew a sharp contrast between this concept and his own ideas:

    I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom?

    Burnham suffered a stroke later that year. Although he lived until 1987, his career as a writer was over. His last years coincided with another great transformation of business and government. It began in the Carter administration, with moves to deregulate transportation and telecommunications. This partial unwinding of the managerial revolution accelerated under Ronald Reagan. Regulatory and welfare-state reforms, even privatization of formerly nationalized industries, also took off in the UK and Western Europe. All this did not, however, amount to a restoration of the old capitalism or anything resembling laissez-faire.

    The "[neo]liberal democracy" that triumphed at "the end of history"-to use Francis Fukuyama's words-was not the managerial capitalism of the mid-20th century, either. It was instead the New Class's form of capitalism, one that could be embraced by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as readily as by any Republican or Thatcherite.

    Irving Kristol had already noted in the 1970s that "this new class is not merely liberal but truly 'libertarian' in its approach to all areas of life-except economics. It celebrates individual liberty of speech and expression and action to an unprecedented degree, so that at times it seems almost anarchistic in its conception of the good life."

    He was right about the New Class's "anything goes" mentality, but he was only partly correct about its attitude toward economics. The young elite tended to scorn the bourgeois character of the old capitalism, and to them managerial figures like McNamara were evil incarnate. But they had to get by-and they aspired to rule.

    Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation.

    Part of the tale can be told in a favorable light. New Left activists like Carl Oglesby fought the spiritual aridity and murderous militarism of what they called "corporate liberalism"-Burnham's managerialism-while sincere young libertarians attacked the regulatory state and seeded technological entrepreneurship. Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class.

    Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles. On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests. The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service.

    The alliance between finance and the New Class accounts for the disposition of power in America today. The New Class has also enlisted another invaluable ally: the managerial classes of East Asia. Trade with China-the modern managerial state par excellence-helps keep American industry weak relative to finance and the service economy's verbalist-dominated sectors. America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites.

    The New Class plays a priestly role in its alliance with finance, absolving Wall Street for the sin of making money in exchange for plenty of that money to keep the New Class in power. In command of foreign policy, the New Class gets to pursue humanitarian ideological projects-to experiment on the world. It gets to evangelize by the sword. And with trade policy, it gets to suppress its class rival, the managerial elite, at home. Through trade pacts and mass immigration the financial elite, meanwhile, gets to maximize its returns without regard for borders or citizenship. The erosion of other nations' sovereignty that accompanies American hegemony helps toward that end too-though our wars are more ideological than interest-driven.

    ♦♦♦

    So we come to an historic moment. Instead of an election pitting another Bush against another Clinton, we have a race that poses stark alternatives: a choice not only between candidates but between classes-not only between administrations but between regimes.

    Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November.

    The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. For the center-left establishment, minority voters supply the electoral muscle. Religion and the culture war have served the same purpose for the establishment's center-right faction. Trump showed that at least one of these sides could be beaten on its own turf-and it seems conceivable that if Bernie Sanders had been black, he might have similarly beaten Clinton, without having to make concessions to New Class tastes.

    The New Class establishment of both parties may be seriously misjudging what is happening here. Far from being the last gasp of the demographically doomed-old, racially isolated white people, as Gallup's analysis says-Trump's insurgency may be the prototype of an aggressive new politics, of either left or right, that could restore the managerial elite to power.

    This is not something that conservatives-or libertarians who admire the old capitalism rather than New Class's simulacrum-might welcome. But the only way that some entrenched policies may change is with a change of the class in power.

    Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative .

    Johann , says: September 7, 2016 at 10:02 am
    The New Class is parasitic and will drive the country to its final third world resting place, or worse.
    Dan Phillips , says: September 7, 2016 at 11:32 am
    Excellent analysis. What is important about the Trump phenomenon is not every individual issue, it's the potentially revolutionary nature of the phenomenon. The opposition gets this. That's why they are hysterical about Trump. The conservative box checkers do not.
    g , says: September 7, 2016 at 11:51 am
    "Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November."

    My question is, if Trump is not himself of the managerial class, in fact, could be considered one of the original new class members, how would he govern? What explains his conversion from the new class to the managerial class; is he merely taking advantage of an opportunity or is there some other explanation?

    Richard Terrace , says: September 7, 2016 at 12:09 pm
    I'm genuinely confused by the role you ascribe to the 'managerial class' here. Going back to Berle and Means ('The Modern Corporation and Private Property') the managerial class emerged when management was split from ownership in mid C20th capitalism. Managers focused on growth, not profits for shareholders. The Shareholder revolution of the 1980s destroyed the managerial class, and destroyed their unwieldy corporations.
    You seem to be identifying the managerial class with a kind of cultural opposition to the values of [neo]liberal capitalism. And instead of identifying the 'new class' with the new owner-managers of shareholder-driven firms, you identify them by their superficial cultural effects.

    This raises a deeper problem in how you talk about class in this piece. Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. Does the 'new class' of journalists, academics, etc. actually own anything? If not, what is the point of ascribing to them immense economic power?
    I would agree that there is a new class of capitalists in America. But they are well known people like Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs, Linda McMahon, the Waltons, Rick Scott the pharmaceutical entrepreneur, Mitt Romney, Mark Zuckerberg, and many many hedge fund gazillionaires. These people represent the resurgence of a family-based, dynastic capitalism that is utterly different from the managerial variety that prevailed in mid-century.

    If there is a current competitor to international corporate capitalism, it is old-fashioned dynastic family capitalism. Not Managerialism.

    JonF , says: September 7, 2016 at 1:13 pm
    There is no "new class". That's simply a derogatory trope of the Right. The [neo]liberal elite– educated, cosmopolitan and possessed of sufficient wealth to be influential in political affairs and claims to power grounded in moral stances– have a long pedigree in both Western and non-Western lands. They were the Scribal Class in the ancient world, the Mandarins of China, and the Clergy in the Middle Ages. This class for a time was eclipsed in the early modern period as first royal authority became dominant, followed by the power of the Capitalist class (the latter has never really faded of course). But their reemergence in the late 20th century is not a new or unique phenomenon.
    Kurt Gayle , says: September 7, 2016 at 2:03 pm
    In a year in which "trash Trump" and "trash Trump's supporters" are tricks-to-be-turned for more than 90% of mainstream journalists and other media hacks, it's good to see Daniel McCarthy buck the "trash trend" and write a serious, honest analysis of the class forces that are colliding during this election cycle.

    Two thumbs way up for McCarthy, although his fine effort cannot save the reputation of those establishment whores who call themselves journalists. Nothing can save them. They have earned the universality with which Americans hold them in contempt.

    In 1976 when Gallup began asking about "the honesty and ethical standards" of various professions only 33% of Americans rated journalists "very high or high."

    By last December that "high or very high" rating for journalists had fallen to just 27%.

    It is certain that by Election Day 2016 the American public's opinion of journalists will have fallen even further.

    lee , says: September 7, 2016 at 2:37 pm
    An article on the ruling elite that neglects to mention this ? . . . https://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Elites-Betrayal-Democracy/dp/0393313719
    david helveticka , says: September 7, 2016 at 3:24 pm
    Most of your argument is confusing. The change I see is from a production economy to a finance economy. Wall Street rules, really. Basically the stock market used to be a place where working folk invested their money for retirement, mostly through pensions from unions and corporations. Now it's become a gambling casino, with the "house"-or the big banks-putting it's finger on the roulette wheel. They changed the compensation package of CEO's, so they can rake in huge executive compensation–mostly through stock options-to basically close down everything from manufacturing to customer service, and ship it off to contract manufacturers and outside services in oligarchical countries like mainland China and India.

    I don't know what exactly you mean about the "new class", basically its the finance industry against everyone else.

    One thing you right-wingers always get wrong, is on Karl Marx he was really attacking the money-changers, the finance speculators, the banks. Back in the day, so-called "capitalists" like Henry Ford or George Eastman or Thomas Edison always complained about the access to financing through the big money finance capitalists.

    Sheree , says: September 7, 2016 at 6:16 pm
    Don't overlook the economic value of intellectual property rights (patents, in particular) in the economic equation.

    A big chunk of the 21st century economy is generated due to the intellectual property developed and owned by the New Class and its business enterprises.

    The economic value of ideas and intellectual property rights is somewhat implied in McCarthy's explanation of the New Class, but I didn't see an explicit mention (perhaps I overlooked it).

    I think the consideration of intellectual property rights and the value generated by IP might help to clarify the economic power of the New Class for those who feel the analysis isn't quite complete or on target.

    I'm not saying that IP only provides value to the New Class. We can find examples of IP throughout the economy, at all levels. It's just that the tech and financial sectors seem to focus more on (and benefit from) IP ownership, licensing, and the information captured through use of digital technology.

    Commenter Man , says: September 7, 2016 at 10:19 pm
    "What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy."

    But today we have this: Trump pledges big US military expansion . Trump doesn't appear to have any coherent policy, he just says whatever seems to be useful at that particular moment.

    Wayne Lusvardi , says: September 7, 2016 at 10:37 pm
    [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets.
    jack , says: September 7, 2016 at 11:13 pm
    "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite.

    maybe Trump could use that

    Wayne Lusvardi , says: September 7, 2016 at 11:33 pm
    Being white is not the defining characteristic of Trumpers because it if was then how come there are many white working class voters for Hillary? The divide in the working class comes from being a member of a union or a member of the private non-unionized working class.

    Where the real class divide shows up is in those who are members of the Knowledge Class that made their living based on the old Virtuous Economy where the elderly saved money in banks and the banks, in turn, lent that money out to young families to buy houses, cars, and start businesses. The Virtuous Economy has been replaced by the Global Economy based on diverting money to the stock market to fund global enterprises and prop up government pension funds.

    The local bankers, realtors, private contractors, small savers and small business persons and others that depended on the Virtuous Economy lost out to the global bankers, stock investors, pension fund managers, union contractors and intellectuals that propounded rationales for the global economy as superior to the Virtuous Economy.

    Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide.

    Mitzy Moon , says: September 8, 2016 at 12:32 am
    Beginning in the 50's and 60's, baby boomers were warned in school and cultural media that "a college diploma would become what a high school diploma is today." An extraordinary cohort of Americans took this advice seriously, creating the smartest and most successful generation in history. But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who – knowing that college educated people vote largely Democrat – launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what you see now: millions of people unprepared for modern employment; meanwhile we have to import millions of college-educated Asians and Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do.
    Joe , says: September 8, 2016 at 1:25 am
    Have to say, this seems like an attempt to put things into boxes that don't quite fit.

    Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism.

    The core of it is that the government no longer serves the people. In the United States, that is kind of a bad thing, you know? Like the EU in the UK, the people, who fought very hard for self-government, are seeing it undermined by the erosion of the nation state in favor of international beaurocracy run by elites and the well connected.

    Emil Mottola , says: September 8, 2016 at 2:15 am
    Both this article and many comments on it show considerable confusion, and ideological opinion all over the map. What is happening I think is that the world is changing –due to globalism, technology, and the sheer huge numbers of people on the planet. As a result some of the rigid trenches of thought as well as class alignments are breaking down.

    In America we no longer have capitalism, of either the 19th century industrial or 20th century managerial varieties. Money and big money is still important of course, but it is increasingly both aligned with and in turn controlled by the government. The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense.

    The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters."

    The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA.

    EliteCommInc. , says: September 8, 2016 at 3:29 am
    I have one condition about which, Mr. Trump would lose my support - if he flinches on immigration, I will have to bow out.

    I just don't buy the contentions about color here. He has made definitive moves to ensure that he intends to fight for US citizens regardless of color. This nonsense about white racism, more bigotry in reality, doesn't pan out. The Republican party has been comprised of mostly whites since forever and nearly all white sine the late 1960's. Anyone attempting to make hay out of what has been the reality for than 40 years is really making the reverse pander. Of course most of those who have issues with blacks and tend to be more expressive about it, are in the Republican party. But so what. Black Republicans would look at you askance, should you attempt this FYI.

    It's a so what. The reason you joining a party is not because the people in it like you, that is really beside the point. Both Sec Rice and General Powell, are keenly aware of who's what it and that is the supposed educated elite. They are not members of the party because it is composed of some pure untainted membership. But because they and many blacks align themselves with the ideas of the party, or what the party used to believe, anyway.

    It's the issues not their skin color that matters. And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends.

    I remain convinced that if blacks wanted progress all they need do is swamp the Republican party as constituents and confront whatever they thought was nonsense as constituents as they move on policy issues. Goodness democrats have embraced the lighter tones despite having most black support. That is why the democrats are importing so many from other state run countries. They could ignore blacks altogether. Sen Barbara Jordan and her deep voiced rebuke would do them all some good.

    Let's face it - we are not going to remove the deeply rooted impact of skin color, once part of the legal frame of the country for a quarter of the nations populous. What Republicans should stop doing is pretending, that everything concerning skin color is the figment of black imagination. I am not budging an inch on the Daughters of the American Revolution, a perfect example of the kind of peculiar treatment of the majority, even to those who fought for Independence and their descendants.
    ________________

    I think that there are thousands and thousands of educated (degreed)people who now realize what a mess the educational and social services system has become because of our immigration policy. The impact on social services here in Ca is no joke. In the face of mounting deficits, the laxity of Ca has now come back to haunt them. The pressure to increase taxes weighed against the loss of manual or hard labor to immigrants legal and otherwise is unmistakable here. There's debate about rsstroom etiquette in the midst of serious financial issues - that's a joke. So this idea of dismissing people with degrees as being opposed to Mr. Trump is deeply overplayed and misunderstood. If there is a class war, it's not because of Mr. Trump, those decks were stacked in his favor long before the election cycle.
    --------

    "But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who–knowing that college educated people vote largely Democrat–launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what . . . employment; meanwhile we have to import millions of college-educated Asians and Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do."

    Hmmmm,

    Nope. Republicans are notorious for pushing education on everything and everybody. It's a signature of hard work, self reliance, self motivation and responsibility. The shift that has been tragic is that conservatives and Republicans either by a shove or by choice abandoned the fields by which we turn out most future generations - elementary, HS and college education. Especially in HS, millions of students are fed a daily diet of liberal though unchecked by any opposing ideas. And that is become the staple for college education - as it cannot be stated just how tragic this has become for the nation. There are lots of issues to moan about concerning the Us, but there is far more to embrace or at the very least keep the moaning in its proper context. No, conservatives and Republicans did engage in discouraging an education.

    And there will always be a need for more people without degrees than with them. even people with degrees are now getting hit even in the elite walls of WS finance. I think I posted an article by John Maulden about the growing tensions resulting fro the shift in the way trading is conducting. I can build a computer from scratch, that's a technical skill, but the days of building computers by hand went as fast it came. The accusation that the population should all be trained accountants, book keepers, managers, data processors, programmers etc. Is nice, but hardly very realistic (despite my taking liberties with your exact phrasing). A degree is not going to stop a company from selling and moving its production to China, Mexico or Vietnam - would that were true. In fact, even high end degree positions are being outsourced, medicine, law, data processing, programming . . .

    How about the changes in economy that have forced businesses to completely disappear. We will never know how many businesses were lost in the 2007/2008 financial mess. Recovery doesn't exist until the country's growth is robust enough to put people back to work full time in a manner that enables them to sustain themselves and family.

    That income gap is real and its telling.
    ___________________

    even if I bought the Karl Marx assessment. His solutions were anything but a limited assault on financial sector oligarchs and wizards. And in practice it has been an unmitigated disaster with virtually not a single long term national benefit. It's very nature has been destructive, not only to infrastructure, but literally the lifeblood of the people it was intended to rescue.

    Wayne Lusvardi , says: September 8, 2016 at 5:36 am
    Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector.

    There are two middle classes in the US: the old Business Class and the New Knowledge Class. A manager would be in the Business Class and a Bureaucrat in the New Class.

    The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization.

    The New Class were those in the mostly government and nonprofit sectors that depended on knowledge for their livelihood without it being coupled to any physical labor: teachers, intellectuals, social workers and psychiatrists, lawyers, media types, hedge fund managers, real estate appraisers, financial advisors, architects, engineers, etc. The New Knowledge Class has only risen since the New Deal created a permanent white collar, non-business class.

    The Working Class are those who are employed for wages in manual work in an industry producing something tangible (houses, cars, computers, etc.). The Working Class can also have managers, sometimes called supervisors. And the Working Class is comprised mainly of two groups: unionized workers and private sector non-unionized workers. When we talk about the Working Class we typically are referring to the latter.

    The Trumpsters should not be distinguished as being a racial group or class (white) because there are many white people who support Clinton. About 95% of Blacks vote Democratic in the US. Nowhere near that ratio of Whites are supporting Trump. So Trumps' support should not be stereotyped as White.

    The number one concern to Trumpsters is that they reflect the previous intergenerational economy where the elderly lent money to the young to buy homes, cars and start small businesses. The Global bankers have shifted money into the stock market because 0.25% per year interest rates in a bank isn't making any money at all when money inflation runs at 1% to 2% (theft). This has been replaced by a Global Economy that depends on financial bubbles and arbitraging of funds.

    William Burns , says: September 8, 2016 at 5:45 am
    How are the elites supporting Trump different from the elites supporting financier par excellence Mitt Romney?
    EliteCommInc. , says: September 8, 2016 at 6:23 am
    "The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense."

    Why other couching this. Ten years ago if some Hollywood exec had said, no same sex marriage, no production company in your town, the town would have shrugged. Today before shrugging, the city clerk is checking the account balance. When the governors of Michigan, and Arizona bent down in me culpa's on related issue, because business interests piped in, it was an indication that the game had seriously changed. Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires.

    Same sex weddings in US military chapels - the concept still turns my stomach. Advocates control the megaphones, I don't think they control the minds of the public, despite having convinced a good many people that those who have chosen this expression are under some manner of assault – that demands a legal change - intelligent well educated, supposedly astute minded people actually believe it. Even the Republican nominee believes it.

    I love Barbara Streisand, but if the election means she moves to Canada, well, so be it. Take your "drag queens" impersonators wit you. I enjoy Mr. and Mrs Pitt, I think have a social moral core but really? with millions of kids future at stake, endorsing a terminal dynamic as if it will save society's ills - Hollywood doesn't even pretend to behave royally much less embody the sensitivities of the same.

    There is a lot to challenge about supporting Mr. Trump. He did support killing children in the womb and that is tragic. Unless he has stood before his maker and made this right, he will have to answer for that. But no more than a trove of Republicans who supported killing children in the womb and then came to their senses. I guess of there is one thing he and I agree on, it's not drinking.

    As for big budget military, it seems a waste, but if we are going to waste money, better it be for our own citizens. His Achilles heel here is his intentions as to ISIS/ISIL. I think it's the big drain getting ready to suck him into the abyss of intervention creep.

    Missile defense just doesn't work. The tests are rigged and as Israel discovered, it's a hit and miss game with low probability of success, but it makes for great propaganda.

    I am supposed to be outraged by a football player stance on abusive government. While the democratic nominee is turning over every deck chair she find, leaving hundreds of thousands of children homeless - let me guess, on the bright side, George Clooney cheers the prospect of more democratic voters.

    If Mr. Trumps only achievements are building a wall, over hauling immigration policy and expanding the size of the military. He will be well on his way to getting ranked one of the US most successful presidents.

    Joe F , says: September 8, 2016 at 11:11 am
    I never understood why an analysis needs to lard in every conceivable historical reference and simply assume its relevance, when there are so many non constant facts and circumstances. There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain.
    JonF , says: September 8, 2016 at 1:32 pm
    EliteCommInc,

    State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those.

    The split on Trump is first by race (obviously), then be gender (also somewhat obviously), and then by education. Even among self-declared conservatives it's the college educated who tend to oppose him. This is a lot broader than simply losing some "new" Knowledge Class, unless all college educated people are put in that grouping. In fact he is on track to lose among college educated whites, something no GOP candidate has suffered since the days of FDR and WWII.

    Fabian , says: September 8, 2016 at 3:35 pm
    People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards.

    People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions.

    Gilly.El , says: September 8, 2016 at 3:36 pm
    I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American.
    Richard Wagner , says: September 8, 2016 at 5:04 pm
    EliteComic beat me to the punch. I was disappointed that Ross Perot, who won over 20% of the popular vote twice, and was briefly in the lead in early 1992, wasn't mentioned in this article.
    JonF , says: September 8, 2016 at 5:07 pm
    Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American.

    The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period.

    David Helveticka , says: September 8, 2016 at 6:12 pm
    A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers.

    Who really cares about the federal debt. REally? We can print dollars, exchange these worthless dollars with China for hard goods, and then China lends the dollars back to us, to pay for our government. Get it?

    It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya

    Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled.

    And damn the utopianism of you "libertarians" you're worse then Marxists when it comes to ideology over reality.

    Jim Houghton , says: September 8, 2016 at 6:56 pm
    Ronald Reagan confounded the GOP party elite, too. They - rightly - considered him an intellectual lightweight.
    EliteCommInc. , says: September 8, 2016 at 9:20 pm
    "State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those."

    Ah, not it's policy on some measure able effect. The seatbelt law was debate across the country. The data indicated that it did in fact save lives. And it's impact was universal applicable to every man women or child that got into a vehicle.

    That was not a private bedroom issue. Of course businesses have advocated policy. K street is not a K-street minus that reality. But GM did not demand having relations in parked cars be legalized or else.

    You are taking my apples and and calling them seatbelts - false comparison on multiple levels, all to get me to acknowledge that businesses have influence. It what they have chosen to have influence on -

    That is another matter.

    cecelia , says: September 9, 2016 at 1:34 am
    I do not think the issue of class is relevant here – whether it be new classes or old classes. There are essentially two classes – those who win given whatever the current economic arrangements are or those who lose given those same arrangements. People who think they are losing support Trump versus people who think they are winning support Clinton. The polls demonstrates this – Trump supporters feel a great deal more anxiety about the future and are more inclined to think everything is falling apart whereas Clinton supporters tend to see things as being okay and are optimistic about the future. The Vox work also shows this pervasive sense that life will not be good for their children and grandchildren as a characteristic of Trump supporters.

    The real shift I think is in the actual coalitions that are political parties. Both the GOP and the Dems have been coalitions – political parties usually are. Primary areas of agreement with secondary areas of disagreement. Those coalitions no longer work. The Dems can be seen as a coalition of the liberal knowledge types – who are winners in this economy and the worker types who are often losers now in this economy. The GOP also is a coalition of globalist corporatist business types (winners) with workers (losers) who they attracted in part because of culture wars and the Dixiecrats becoming GOPers. The needs of these two groups in both parties no longer overlap. The crisis is more apparent in the GOP because well – Trump. If Sanders had won the nomination for the Dems (and he got close) then their same crisis would be more apparent. The Dems can hold their creaky coalition together because Trump went into the fevered swamps of the alt. right.

    I think this is even more obvious in the UK where you have a Labor Party that allegedly represents the interests of working people but includes the cosmopolitan knowledge types. The cosmopolitans are big on the usual identity politics, unlimited immigration and staying in the EU. They benefit from the current economic arrangement. But the workers in the Labor party have been hammered by the current economic arrangements and voted in droves to get out of the EU and limit immigration. It seems pretty obvious that there is no longer a coalition to sustain the Labor Party. Same with Tories – some in the party love the EU,immigration, globalization while others voted out of the EU, want immigration restricted and support localism. The crisis is about the inability of either party to sustain its coalitions. Those in the Tory party who are leavers should be in a political party with the old Labor working class while the Tory cosmopolitans should be in a party with the Labor cosmopolitans. The current coalitions not being in synch is the political problem – not new classes etc.

    Here in the US the southern Dixiecrats who went to the GOP and are losers in this economy might find a better coalition with the black, Latino and white workers who are still in the Dem party. But as in the UK ideological culture wars have become more prominent and hence the coalitions are no longer economically based. If people recognized that politics can only address the economic issues and they aligned themselves accordingly – the membership of the parties would radically change.

    So forget about class and think coalitions.

    Clint , says: September 9, 2016 at 5:47 pm
    The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now,"
    someguy , says: September 10, 2016 at 9:25 pm
    Collin, this is straight ridiculous.

    "Trump's voters were most strongly characterized by their "racial isolation": they live in places with little ethnic diversity. "

    During the primaries whites in more diverse areas voted Trump. The only real exception was West Virginia. Utah, Wyoming, Iowa? All voted for Cruz and "muh values".

    In white enclaves like Paul Ryans district, which is 91%, whites are able to signal against white identity without having to face the consequences.

    Rick , says: September 12, 2016 at 3:05 pm
    Collin said:

    "All three major African, Hispanic, & Asian-American overwhelming support HRC in the election."

    That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same.

    Craig , says: September 13, 2016 at 10:11 am
    "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests."

    This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived.

    The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused.

    [Dec 05, 2016] We Demand That The Washington Post Retract Its Propaganda Story Defaming Naked Capitalism and Other Sites and Issue an Apology

    Notable quotes:
    "... The motive is there (discredit competition), the evidence is there per the above, the legal standing is explicit, the only thing that is technically unquantifiable is the damage done. ..."
    "... Both Firefox and Chrome have added the option to open in a "private" or "incognito" window or tab, which also gets you around the monthly limit. ..."
    "... What NYT/WaPo lose in people not paying to read, they apparently can make up from people willing to pay to have things published. ..."
    "... 'The man' who shot one round into the floor* at Comet Pizza may be an actor, Edgar Maddison Welch, who has done various jobs in media, including playing a "raver/victim". ..."
    "... Yves, I would very much question your description of The Washington Post being " taken for a ride." over this story. ..."
    "... It's worth pointing out that the newspapers owner Jeff Bezos was hired by the Secretary of Defense to a rather sinister sounding organisation called the " Defense Innovation Advisory Board " in July. The Boards mission statement is to .."focus on new technologies and organizational behavior and culture." Also, in addition "identify innovative private-sector practices, and technological solutions that the DoD could employ in the future." ..."
    "... In short, Bezos, and his companies are now part of the MIC. I believe Googles CEO is also on the same board. ..."
    "... Am I supposed to accept then that the Washington Post really thinks that the work of PropOrNot is honestly and objectively carried out? I can't. ..."
    "... Dan Rather was put in an impossible position by supporters of GW Bush, despite the accuracy of the accusation. In this case, instead, the Post intentionally credits accusations for which it can offer no support (or at least declines to do so). I'll conclude that the Post acted maliciously and spitefully, as in slander, until it gives me reason to think otherwise. No person or media outlet can disseminate such shocking and potentially damaging accusations without our demanding accountability. ..."
    "... If you read section 501 of this year's intelligence authorization bill, it directs the President to set up an interagency committee to 'counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence over peoples and governments.' So that shows you that senators from both parties are clearly concerned about Russian covert influence efforts. ..."
    "... "Never assume malice when incompetence will explain the behavior." unless a lengthy history of errors having the same bias suggests otherwise. ..."
    "... I've been a lifelong journalist, 10 years on a daily newspaper, 20 years freelancing for magazines. The Wapo story so blatantly violated fundamental journalistic standards I cannot believe any experienced editor would not have realized that. My only possible conclusion is that irresistible pressure was placed on editors to publish the story. ..."
    "... You fake a document that contains the truth. When you discredit the document, you discredit the truth. Maneuvers like that show why Karl Rove really was (in his own special way) a genius. ..."
    "... I followed the Bush Texas Air National Guard story in detail at the time, and the Rather story in particular, and posted on it a good deal. So far as I know, nobody ever claimed the $10,000 reward that Gary Trudeau offered for anybody who would come forward as an eye witness to Bush performing his TANG duties. ..."
    "... Your comment is heavy on speculation including the notion that Bezos is directly controlling what goes into the Post. I'd say the tight little club that is mainstream journalism doesn't require government subversion in order to represent a MIC point of view. As Gore Vidal said re the deep state: they don't need to conspire since they all think alike anyway. ..."
    "... With all due respect it isn't speculation that Bezos has been hired by the secretary of defence to the Defence innovation advisory board. I think you have to be very naive if you think he has little input into the editorial running of the paper. Why else buy a newspaper these days? They hardly make much money. ..."
    "... The British Guardian for example has been running articles and pushing a campaign of "The Internet we want." Which seems to consist of all critiscms of what it believes being censored. ..."
    "... As to Yves point about the amateur nature of this list, and the attack on sites like NC in the article, Yves shouldn't assume that all these people are geniuses. It won't be the first or the last time that powerful people who run businesses make complete fools of themselves. ..."
    "... And Bezos is too busy to have much/any input into editorial decisions. Newscycles are far too rapid. Bezos might make clear what the general priorities and tone are, but he's not going to be involved in individual stories save on a very exceptional basis, and news of that would get out to reporters and make the journalism rumor mill in a bad way. Marty Peretz, who unlike Bezos was the publisher and editor in chief of the magazine he bought (the vastly smaller The New Republic) had pet priorities (Israel) and preferences (falling in love with smart young male senior editors and then becoming disenchanted with them in a couple of years and driving them out) that were widely known. ..."
    "... These guys are so ludicrous that folks like Bellingcat are denouncing them. ..."
    "... Carl Bernstein has done some pretty deep reporting on decades of links bw CIA and media: http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php ..."
    "... Even he says there are not really any links bw CIA and WaPo as propaganda channel. As much as it'd be fun to fantasize about Bezos being an evil operator for the MIC, I am inclined toward Yves' narrative of incompetence, and an (unhealthy) dose of confirmation bias-seeking. ..."
    "... Much as I would believe anything about Bezos/WP, the article is so amateurish its very hard to believe it is part of an active top-down conspiracy. I'd be more inclined to think that it 'became known' among WP staff that certain Very Important People believe in the Russian propaganda conspiracy and that any articles highlighting this are more likely to be published than others. ..."
    "... Off the top of my head, some of the worst examples of journalistic libel recently have primarily been driven not by malice or conspiracies, but because of active confirmation bias. The journalist and editor strongly believes X to be true, therefore when a source comes up to provide a potentially juicy story confirming the reality and evil of X, then they leap on the source without any professional scepticism. The Rolling Stone college rape hoax comes to mind, as does a notorious case in Ireland which nearly destroyed investigative journalism in the main TV company. ..."
    "... In this exclusive report, distinguished research psychologist Robert Epstein explains the new study and reviews evidence that Google's search suggestions are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. He estimates that biased search suggestions might be able to shift as many as 3 million votes in the upcoming presidential election in the US. ..."
    "... Zerohedge was listed as a "fake news" site but, as I'm sure many here know, they do great, hard hitting economic analysis and have had their projections and theories confirmed many times with a far better track record than the mainstream sites covering the same subject. ..."
    "... I'm not sure the guys behind all this mind losing the discussion in the end. As often, even if the smeared news sites, including NC, win the debate, they'll still lose the communication war. ..."
    "... The background to all this, the attempt by the Clintonites to draw on Cold War stink reserves (a National Ideological Reserve, sorta like the National Petroleum Reserve) and, if not its complete failure, than its failure to be decisively effective, makes me think we are witnessing signs of a decisive weakening in elite communication control. PropOrNot advances the process. ..."
    "... We fully endorse Yves Smith's efforts. ..."
    "... Additionally, we note that the only reason we haven't followed up with a similar action is because i) the allegations were beyond laughable – we have rejected all of them on the record, and ii) there are simply too much other events taking place in what should otherwise be a quiet end to the year taking place to focus on what may be a lenghty, if gratifying, legal process. ..."
    Dec 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    PWC, Raleigh December 5, 2016 at 4:59 pm

    +1 as well.

    The thing with raising money is you have to ask, ask, ask a lot, lot, lot.

    So when you need more money to continue this fight, just publish an updated case-statement with an ask, and the lot of us will turn over our digits to support the fight. Many hands make light work, as my mother always says.

    It's refreshing to have something to support that is worthwhile in both principle and actuality. Plus, the Post is a nasty piece of work. Same for the Times . Disgraceful and distasteful. They are only fun to peruse for the self-parody.

    Just Wondering December 5, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    Class action lawsuit? Would perhaps smoke out any truly fake news alt media sites.

    Tim December 5, 2016 at 2:14 pm

    Class Action libel suit against WaPo and the propornot website seems reasonable. The motive is there (discredit competition), the evidence is there per the above, the legal standing is explicit, the only thing that is technically unquantifiable is the damage done.

    If the damages can be determined by some reasonable methodology then perhaps there is enough to make it worth bringing a suit.

    lyman alpha blob December 5, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    Regarding paying for the news in general, I'm assuming there aren't too many readers who who actually want to pay WaPo or the NYT for anything at this point.

    Those sites and others in recent years have imposed a monthly free article limit and I find that sometimes after clicking on stories linked to from here I run up against the limit.

    I'm sure most people here are already aware of this, but just so you are never tempted to subscribe to their crappy organizations, all you need to do to get around the limit is use a different browser to open the link.

    Peter VE December 5, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    Both Firefox and Chrome have added the option to open in a "private" or "incognito" window or tab, which also gets you around the monthly limit.

    Skip Intro December 5, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    What NYT/WaPo lose in people not paying to read, they apparently can make up from people willing to pay to have things published.

    choung December 5, 2016 at 3:13 am

    My name is Choung, I'm Korean(south Korea).
    Korean have experienced this kind of things many many times under the military dictatorship,
    and now we were suffering from new blacklist.
    Our president is daughter of the past infamous dictator.

    I have visited your site and linked many good pieces. Sometimes translated them.

    Korean mainstream media don't handle this story,
    So, l wrote some pieces about it in public site.

    I strongly express solidarity with you on behalf of many progressive Koreans.

    ambrit December 5, 2016 at 4:12 am

    Of tangential interest is the "news" report, if Yahoo can be so described, of the man charged with various and sundry for threatening the pizzaria "implicated" in the pedophilia allegations swirling around in the overheated miasma that passes for "common wisdom" today.

    Of importance is the framing of the "story." The man is alleged to have gone off on his "adventure" as the result of "fake news site" reporting. The assault on journalism is now switching from a pure smear to a flanking maneuver. Whether real or manufactured, this act will probably be spun to support further crackdowns on dissenting points of view. Guilt by (manufactured) association can hurt just as badly as real guilt. All this plays out in the court of public opinion, a notoriously rickety edifice in the best of times. \

    See: https://www.yahoo.com/news/gunman-charged-threatening-dc-restaurant-hit-fake-news-030914425.html

    Congratulations for adopting the "best defense is a strong offense" strategy.

    Just Wondering December 5, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    'The man' who shot one round into the floor* at Comet Pizza may be an actor, Edgar Maddison Welch, who has done various jobs in media, including playing a "raver/victim". Look him up on IMDB. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2625901/bio

    * http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/04/politics/gun-incident-fake-news/

    ambrit December 5, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    Ah ha! Putting on my "tinfoil hat" I'm tempted to say "False Flag Action."

    Sally December 5, 2016 at 4:27 am

    Yves, I would very much question your description of The Washington Post being " taken for a ride." over this story.

    It's worth pointing out that the newspapers owner Jeff Bezos was hired by the Secretary of Defense to a rather sinister sounding organisation called the " Defense Innovation Advisory Board " in July. The Boards mission statement is to .."focus on new technologies and organizational behavior and culture." Also, in addition "identify innovative private-sector practices, and technological solutions that the DoD could employ in the future."

    In short, Bezos, and his companies are now part of the MIC. I believe Googles CEO is also on the same board. These so called private corporations are now part of the US govt that works in the field of black ops. Remember also that Amazon has major contracts with the govt to provide cloud computing storage. This is fascism in all but name. It remains to be seen how long the new President Mr Trump will want to trust these people as they did so much to try to defeat him.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 6:19 am

    I beg to differ. No one would want to damage their credibility above all in undermining a narrative (in Beltway-speak) that they are tying to promote.

    Remember the Dan Rather scandal? Unlike this case, the underlying fact set about George Bush was accurate, but Dan Rather falling for bogus evidence not only forced Rather to resign, but

    1. diverted attention from what should have been a scandal if properly reported and
    2. confused any attempts to discuss it (as in the Rather evidence being bad made casual observers think the dirt on Bush was untrue).
    Quentin December 5, 2016 at 6:57 am

    I was also struck by the statement that the Post was 'taken for a ride'. Am I supposed to accept then that the Washington Post really thinks that the work of PropOrNot is honestly and objectively carried out? I can't.

    Dan Rather was put in an impossible position by supporters of GW Bush, despite the accuracy of the accusation. In this case, instead, the Post intentionally credits accusations for which it can offer no support (or at least declines to do so). I'll conclude that the Post acted maliciously and spitefully, as in slander, until it gives me reason to think otherwise. No person or media outlet can disseminate such shocking and potentially damaging accusations without our demanding accountability.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 7:57 am

    Fact checking at the Washington Post is a joke:

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/12/httpswwwwashingtonpostcomopinionsglobal-opinionsthe-pros-and-cons-of-a-generals-general20161203f8d6e72c-b8b7-11e6.html

    And if you look at the what the Post said to Consortium News (hat tip UserFriendly), it apparently considers just chatting with a source for a bit an adequate basis for validating a smear against 200 publications. They effectively admit they did no independent verification:

    The reply came from the newspaper's vice president for public relations, Kristine Coratti Kelly, who thanked me "for reaching out to us" before presenting the Post's response, quoted here in full:

    "The Post reported on the work of four separate sets of researchers, as well as independent experts, who have examined Russian attempts to influence American democracy. PropOrNot was one. The Post did not name any of the sites on PropOrNot's list of organizations that it said had - wittingly or unwittingly - published or echoed Russian propaganda. The Post reviewed PropOrNot's findings and our questions about them were answered satisfactorily during the course of multiple interviews."

    Sally December 5, 2016 at 8:50 am

    Yves, just to be clear ..I am in complete support for you, and your site and other sites from these outrageous and slanderous attacks.

    I was just surprised at your generous description of them being "taken for a ride." I think that is way to charitable.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 9:24 am

    Never assume malice, when incompetence will explain the behavior.

    Gary Headlock December 5, 2016 at 9:56 am

    Speaking of, do you think your inclusion on the initial "PropOrNot" list is an example of malice or incompetence? Could it be some half-assed algorithm scanned the web for sites linking to RT (which I can remember at least one instance popping up in Water Cooler/Links), and called it a day? That seems the most plausible to me, but it also seems plausible that there are many organizations which would want to discredit NC.

    Samuel Conner December 5, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    I haven't seen "The List", but am confident that sites like Moon of Alabama and The Saker are on it. Saker is explicitly pro-Russia (this is not a criticism per se; I found his pieces on the Ukraine/Donbas crisis in 2014-15 to be more illuminating than most of the very little that one could find in the US MSM, for example) and MoA is typically skeptical of US international military adventures.

    Pieces from both of these sites have been, from time to time, linked at the NC daily news links page. Not sure, but there may be a few links over the past couple of years to items at Russia Insider as well. It may be that 2nd order associations were enough to "merit" NC's inclusion on "The List."

    Katharine December 5, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    But last week Timberg was still touting his "independent experts" in an article on a proposed new committee mandated in the 2017 intelligence authorization bill. He quoted Wyden:

    If you read section 501 of this year's intelligence authorization bill, it directs the President to set up an interagency committee to 'counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence over peoples and governments.' So that shows you that senators from both parties are clearly concerned about Russian covert influence efforts.

    Linking his earlier story with this information may be self-important stupidity on Timberg's part, but stupidity does not actually preclude malice.

    In any case, if senators are treating Russian influence as fact when we have yet to be shown any proof of its existence that is a sign this article, be it folly or malice, needs further discrediting, so thanks and more power to you!

    davidly December 5, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    That's an awful aphorism. Never discount one just because the other is a potential explanation, especially if the pattern indicates they'll abdicate their core responsibilities for access and relish going after those they resent for calling them out on it.

    Having said that, one can see how you personally wouldn't want to risk libel, but I will make no such assumptions about the likes of the beltway press.

    DarkMatters December 5, 2016 at 1:54 pm

    "Never assume malice when incompetence will explain the behavior." unless a lengthy history of errors having the same bias suggests otherwise.

    Best wishes, and success.

    Keith Warren December 5, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    indeed, incompetence and a deep hunger for confirmation bias fodder. Deadly combination.

    Lyle James December 5, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    I've been a lifelong journalist, 10 years on a daily newspaper, 20 years freelancing for magazines. The Wapo story so blatantly violated fundamental journalistic standards I cannot believe any experienced editor would not have realized that. My only possible conclusion is that irresistible pressure was placed on editors to publish the story.

    David Addams December 5, 2016 at 1:55 pm

    "Dan Rather was put in an impossible position by supporters of GW Bush, despite the accuracy of the accusation."

    Excuse me.

    Rather (and CBS) had to admit that the documents used to make those accusations were fake. How do you have "accurate accusations" when those accusations are based on faked documents?

    Rather was not put in a bad positions by supporters of GW Bush.

    He was put in a bad position by Dan Rather.

    BTW, the Rather incident is a perfect illustration on how fake news gets reported. The underlying accusation so matched Rather's world view that he decided to run with them without doing any sort of fact checking. Or checking the reliability of the one source for the story.

    Doing so would have prevented Rather from reporting that story and having to resign in disgrace.

    This is why fact checking and verifying stories via multiple sources is so important when reporting news.

    It prevents reporting fake news.

    The reason we have so much "fake news" is that too many reporters have abandoned basic journalistic practices.

    On both sides of the aisle.

    Lambert Strether December 5, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    > How do you have "accurate accusations" when those accusations are based on faked documents?

    You fake a document that contains the truth. When you discredit the document, you discredit the truth. Maneuvers like that show why Karl Rove really was (in his own special way) a genius.

    I followed the Bush Texas Air National Guard story in detail at the time, and the Rather story in particular, and posted on it a good deal. So far as I know, nobody ever claimed the $10,000 reward that Gary Trudeau offered for anybody who would come forward as an eye witness to Bush performing his TANG duties.

    PWC, Raleigh December 5, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Exactly. +1,000

    And bingo, bango: the very strange truth becomes fiction.

    Carolinian December 5, 2016 at 7:45 am

    Your comment is heavy on speculation including the notion that Bezos is directly controlling what goes into the Post. I'd say the tight little club that is mainstream journalism doesn't require government subversion in order to represent a MIC point of view. As Gore Vidal said re the deep state: they don't need to conspire since they all think alike anyway.

    More likely the Post article is an example of journo dinosaurs striking out at websites they now regard as their rivals. Print journalism has been brought low, financially, by the internet and television.

    The people who work at the Post don't dare attack television because they all want to be on it. However the web is likely regarded as an easy target and I've long been under the impression that mainstream journalists know practically nothing about the internet other than Twitter and a few favored sites like Politico.

    While it's potentially the greatest communication medium ever devised, of course people visiting the internet have to bring their own truth filter. Which is why some of us have landed here. NC seems serious about getting to the truth, and if you don't like what's written you get to say so. What the MSM really resents is people thinking for themselves.

    Sally December 5, 2016 at 8:43 am

    With all due respect it isn't speculation that Bezos has been hired by the secretary of defence to the Defence innovation advisory board. I think you have to be very naive if you think he has little input into the editorial running of the paper. Why else buy a newspaper these days? They hardly make much money.

    I suspect that this outfit PropOrNot was set up before the election of Trump. They assumed Clinton was going to win and this was the The begining of an onslaught against the so called alternative media that was going to be waged once Hilary was safely inside the White House. Full regulation of the Internet is their aim. This agenda has been pushed in other so called liberal newspapers. The British Guardian for example has been running articles and pushing a campaign of "The Internet we want." Which seems to consist of all critiscms of what it believes being censored.

    As to Yves point about the amateur nature of this list, and the attack on sites like NC in the article, Yves shouldn't assume that all these people are geniuses. It won't be the first or the last time that powerful people who run businesses make complete fools of themselves.

    I doubt they thought they were going to be called out on it, and if Clinton won the election it didn't really matter because they would have the power to come after the alternative media. Trumps election has put a spanner in the works .for now. It remains to be seen if he will try to censor the Internet under pressure from elites.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 9:33 am

    No it wasn't. They bought the URL only in late August. The first tweet was November 5. The site appears to have been published at the earliest as of November 9, but from what I can tell, it was November 18.

    And Bezos is too busy to have much/any input into editorial decisions. Newscycles are far too rapid. Bezos might make clear what the general priorities and tone are, but he's not going to be involved in individual stories save on a very exceptional basis, and news of that would get out to reporters and make the journalism rumor mill in a bad way. Marty Peretz, who unlike Bezos was the publisher and editor in chief of the magazine he bought (the vastly smaller The New Republic) had pet priorities (Israel) and preferences (falling in love with smart young male senior editors and then becoming disenchanted with them in a couple of years and driving them out) that were widely known.

    andyb December 5, 2016 at 10:09 am

    Agree that Bezos is an unlikely instigator of this farce. More likely, from what we know about the CIA/Mockingbird history, the person responsible is most likely a CIA plant at the senior editor level.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 10:15 am

    I have to beg to differ re CIA plant. These guys are so ludicrous that folks like Bellingcat are denouncing them. I won't link even here to the original site since that helps them in Google, but just go look at the FAQ on the baddie's site or their Twitter feed. No one who was a pro in any field would see them as serious. I have no idea what the reporter was smoking. But the article reads as if they never did the most basic verification, like a web search. They didn't recognize that the "report" which was The List, was already up and they either double down on or try to cover for their mistake by "updating" the article saying the "report" went up Saturday November 26, when it had been up since at least November 18.

    Keith Warren December 5, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    Carl Bernstein has done some pretty deep reporting on decades of links bw CIA and media: http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

    Even he says there are not really any links bw CIA and WaPo as propaganda channel. As much as it'd be fun to fantasize about Bezos being an evil operator for the MIC, I am inclined toward Yves' narrative of incompetence, and an (unhealthy) dose of confirmation bias-seeking.

    PlutoniumKun December 5, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    Much as I would believe anything about Bezos/WP, the article is so amateurish its very hard to believe it is part of an active top-down conspiracy. I'd be more inclined to think that it 'became known' among WP staff that certain Very Important People believe in the Russian propaganda conspiracy and that any articles highlighting this are more likely to be published than others.

    Off the top of my head, some of the worst examples of journalistic libel recently have primarily been driven not by malice or conspiracies, but because of active confirmation bias. The journalist and editor strongly believes X to be true, therefore when a source comes up to provide a potentially juicy story confirming the reality and evil of X, then they leap on the source without any professional scepticism. The Rolling Stone college rape hoax comes to mind, as does a notorious case in Ireland which nearly destroyed investigative journalism in the main TV company.

    Having said that, I think it is strongly likely that certain elements in the establishment (probably the Clinton part of it) was actively pushing the Putin is Goebbels line for several months – but I doubt there is any structured conspiracy – these things tend to just become part of received wisdom, and there are plenty of bottom feeding journalists ready to join the parade.

    Ralph Johansen December 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Well, there's negligence, and then there's wanton, feckless, scurrilous, criminal negligence. Recompense accordingly.

    They certainly know or ought to know that, with the entire left field virtually empty, the Bill of Rights in the round hole, and because they've foreclosed global working class solidarity with walls, laws and red tape, (if that's too much of a stretch you don't belong), all they have to do is squirm at us and we crash.

    Ralph Johansen December 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Well, there's negligence, and then there's wanton, feckless, scurrilous, criminal negligence. Recompense accordingly.

    They certainly know or ought to know that, with the entire left field virtually empty, the Bill of Rights in the round hole, and because they've foreclosed global working class solidarity with walls, laws and red tape, (if that's too much of a stretch you don't belong), all they have to do is squirm at us and we crash.

    Winston December 5, 2016 at 10:54 am

    "What the MSM really resents is people thinking for themselves."

    Here are other examples of undoubtedly top-down suppression of anything other than the "kingmaker" and corrupt status quo maintainer narratives owned by the six mega-corporations that control 90% of what we see and hear.

    The stealthy, Eric Schmidt-backed startup that's working to put Hillary Clinton in the White House – October 09, 2015

    http://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/

    An under-the-radar startup funded by billionaire Eric Schmidt has become a major technology vendor for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, underscoring the bonds between Silicon Valley and Democratic politics.

    The Groundwork, according to Democratic campaign operatives and technologists, is part of efforts by Schmidt -- the executive chairman of Google parent-company Alphabet -- to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election. And it is one of a series of quiet investments by Schmidt that recognize how modern political campaigns are run, with data analytics and digital outreach as vital ingredients that allow candidates to find, court, and turn out critical voter blocs.

    Research Proves Google Manipulates Autocomplete Suggestions to Favor Clinton – 12 Sep 2016

    In this exclusive report, distinguished research psychologist Robert Epstein explains the new study and reviews evidence that Google's search suggestions are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. He estimates that biased search suggestions might be able to shift as many as 3 million votes in the upcoming presidential election in the US.

    https://sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-clinton-manipulation-election.html

    Ironically, Sputnick News IS, I believe, a Russian supported site, but just on a hunch and noticing search autocompletion suggestion disparities myself, I had INDEPENDENTLY confirmed what Epstein proved a month before the topic hit the on-line news.

    I even emailed a few web sites about it, but they didn't run with it AS THEY SHOULD HAVE as they would have scooped Sputnick News. It was easy to prove, BTW. Google Trends data which is what is normally used to create autocomplete suggestions on Google did not match the suggestions made, but the search autocomplete suggestions on every other search engine DID.

    YouTube and Facebook censorship against political conservative video bloggers (Google owns YouTube)

    https://youtu.be/B6PtMcMsqVg?t=50m32s

    Wikileaks Reveals Google's "Strategic Plan" To Help Democrats Win The Election, Track Voters

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-01/wikileaks-reveals-googles-strategic-plan-help-democrats-win-election

    Zerohedge was listed as a "fake news" site but, as I'm sure many here know, they do great, hard hitting economic analysis and have had their projections and theories confirmed many times with a far better track record than the mainstream sites covering the same subject.

    James Miller December 5, 2016 at 5:21 am

    My heartfelt support (and contribution) will be with you as you take on one of the most egregiously insulting to its' readers and rot-riddled collection of hacks and mouthpieces. Now a propaganda outlet but once at least a flaky effort at journalism, today,s Washington Post has earned an encounter of the costly kind with a good lawyer or two, many times over.

    .Illegitemi non carborundum! (Don't let the bastards wear you down!).

    Jim Haygood December 5, 2016 at 8:45 am

    We should start calling it the Whoppo for its absurd fake news. Truth be told, I only ever go there for the "graphic news":

    http://comics.washingtonpost.com/featurepages/11_comics_andy-capp.html

    polecat December 5, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    I prefer the Traitor's Post

    Kokuanani December 5, 2016 at 6:54 am

    As I noted here this weekend, I have cancelled my subscription to the WaPo and will be sending a check to NC in the amount of what I would have paid for it.

    I am embarrassed that it took me so long to do so, but having been a subscriber since 1979 [except for when I lived elsewhere], the Post was rather a habit.

    I specifically mentioned the Timberg story as the reason for my cancellation, and hope this information will work its way up the Post food chain.

    Also, Amazon is as dead to me as Walmart. I refuse to buy from either of them.

    Arizona Slim December 5, 2016 at 8:50 am

    Keep the money in your economy. Shop at local businesses.

    Tom Stone December 5, 2016 at 7:29 am

    The "Fake News" story was vetted by editors at the WaPo before it was published. That they published an article that no reputable High School paper would have touched with a 10 foot pole speaks volumes. Hubris?.

    Did they think that because it was published by the WaPo that no one would question it?

    It was certainly a bold thing to do ( And stupid) unless the person or persons who decided to publish this trash thought they had the kind of powerful backing that would protect them from the consequences.

    I expect the WaPo to try to weasel their way out of this embarassment and urge you not to back down or compromise on your demands, if they don't get their noses rubbed in it they will crap on you again.

    When the National Enquirer has become more respectable than the WaPo ( And it is!) we are living in strange times indeed.

    Reify99 December 5, 2016 at 8:40 am

    Yep. The Wapo story is right up there with the grocery aisle headline,
    "Metal Eating Cockroaches Destroy Car"!

    Reify99 December 5, 2016 at 8:58 am

    If this effort begins to build a stronger alliance between truth telling internet sites -- thus promoting change from the ground up -- perhaps it will lead to quicker consequences for Wapo and others who pull this kind of stunt. If it becomes obvious that, not only will your bogus story increase the traffic to these sites at the very time they are pointing out what an idiot you are, but you also reliably get sued, maybe it won't be as much fun anymore.

    Inode_buddha December 5, 2016 at 10:05 am

    I only read the National Enquirer for the articles. {/rimshot}

    OldLion December 5, 2016 at 7:29 am

    I'm not sure the guys behind all this mind losing the discussion in the end. As often, even if the smeared news sites, including NC, win the debate, they'll still lose the communication war.

    The original revelation is buzzing around, and everybody loves it. If there is a rebuttal, it will be a boring article nobody will comment. What people will remember is : "the russians helped Trump win, and some fake news site like NC were their mouthpieces. I distinctly remember the articles, even if the MSM now tries to hide the truth"

    Not sure how to fight that, except with an even better message like : "There is a conspiracy by the WP to smear independent reporting."

    Sadly, I'm not sure it is possible to do that in all honestly. My opinion is that stupidity and ignorance are at work here (and everywhere), not some well organised effort. And the thoughtful voice is just boring.

    hemeantwell December 5, 2016 at 9:56 am

    I'm not so sure. This scandal might be something of a test of your argument, which predicts that, similar to the horrible fate of Gary Webb, the named sites will forever have a residue of doubt to deal with. Webb's story went the way it did because it was semiforgotten, drifting off into the collective preconscious, vaguely malodorous. Surely that can be avoided here. Opportunities for reminding readers of the farce and the revealed intentions of its promoters are abundant. One thing to consider might be to put the WaPo under steady critical scrutiny. For example, as above, the WaPo Whopper of the week.

    The background to all this, the attempt by the Clintonites to draw on Cold War stink reserves (a National Ideological Reserve, sorta like the National Petroleum Reserve) and, if not its complete failure, than its failure to be decisively effective, makes me think we are witnessing signs of a decisive weakening in elite communication control. PropOrNot advances the process.

    Katharine December 5, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Keep needling outlets that picked up the Post story and demanding a prominent apology for irresponsible reporting. Send them the FAIR link, send them this one. Ask why they haven't reaffirmed their commitment (sic) to basic journalistic principles . Be a damn nuisance. (I've often thought what a pity it is that "public nuisance" has a prior signification.)

    AnonymousCounsel December 5, 2016 at 9:07 am

    I'm relieved to know that James Moody will be representing Naked Capitalism in its authentic quest to right an egregious (and either reckless or intentional, in my opinion) wrong committed by a major newspaper of record that purports to represent the Fourth Estate.

    Mr. Moody is technically competent, deeply experienced and highly ethical.

    It's critical that the establishment-driven & coordinated assault on many credible alternative media outlets be halted if free speech and free criticism (which mainstream media sources have not only failed in protecting, but have willingly attempted to suppress views contrary to establishment-approved concepts) is to survive in the United States and elsewhere.

    There is a coordinated attempt by long-standing establishment media sources and government to discredit and de-legitimize very authentic, well-intentioned and thought-provoking non-mainstream media sources, which, if successful, would amount to nothing less than basic censorship and a wholesale de-democratization of news reporting and editorializing.

    That the Washington Post allowed for and even assisted a highly questionable and anonymous source to cast a wide net of aspersions over so many clearly legitimate alternative media sources (such as Naked Capitalism) is nothing short of shameful McCarthy-era attempts to stifle free political expression of substance, and must be challengers if there's any hope in preserving the very system of a free exchange of ideas and speech.

    Romancing The Loan December 5, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    They've come a long way from Watergate. Would really like to see discovery on how Propornot came to the WaPo's attention.

    craazyboy December 5, 2016 at 9:21 am

    I can't believe the unfairness of this allegation made by this propaganda watchdog website. I mean, if I were a Hillary supporter, I would be in tears over this. But as a Bernie supporter, I have learned to get over my butthurt.

    "You identified and thus denigrated Naked Capitalism, one of the sites targeted in the "study" as one of the "right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia."

    "shadowy cabal of global financiers" ???? We always use the stock symbols GS and JPM here. WTF is shadowy about that?????????????? You can look the symbols up in Bloomberg!

    Well, I guess maybe some fake news got posted here in the comments section, but I distinctly recall discussing real news, like when Hillary compared Putin to Hitler, or the Cookie Monster thing in Kiev. Or NATO scattering nukes around Eastern Europe. Or Soros and the CIA funding a long term propaganda war in Eastern Europe. Even Fox News would call that fair and balanced fake news. But at any rate, Russia shouldn't view any of this as hostile. That would just be childish.

    Jim Haygood December 5, 2016 at 9:23 am

    Confirming the impression that the Z site monitors NC closely for useful content, Tyler Durden now has a post up titled "Fake News" Site Threatens Washington Post With Defamation Suit, Demands Retraction .

    The post includes the Scribd document of Moody's letter.

    Since the Z site reportedly generates a six-figure annual profit, you'd think this deep-pocketed site would join the suit (should litigation regrettably become necessary). Whaddya say, Tyler(s)?

    frosty zoom December 5, 2016 at 9:45 am

    "moodyjim"*

    yeah!

    *@aol.com?!? ms. yves, may i suggest carrier pigeons?

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 10:25 am

    He's actually quite technically expert (as in he can take apart and analyze software) which is why I don't get the aol.com either. Although he may have been an early aol.com user, and I am told it is a nuisance to extract your contacts from aol.com, and he may have decided it was not worth the fuss.

    Jim Haygood December 5, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Now the post is "gray boxed" (pinned) on the Z site, making it one of two lead articles that apparently are expected to generate a high level of interest and comments.

    Which will send traffic this way. Welcome ZHers.

    MDBill December 5, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    It's not monetary support, however, the story now ends thus,

    We fully endorse Yves Smith's efforts.

    Additionally, we note that the only reason we haven't followed up with a similar action is because i) the allegations were beyond laughable – we have rejected all of them on the record, and ii) there are simply too much other events taking place in what should otherwise be a quiet end to the year taking place to focus on what may be a lenghty, if gratifying, legal process.

    Sluggeaux December 5, 2016 at 9:28 am

    Pass the popcorn! Mr. Moody is a terrific lawyer. I just hope that if Aurora Advisors winds up owning ScAmazon, the workers and suppliers start getting treated decently!

    craazyboy December 5, 2016 at 9:37 am

    It would really be cool if Mr. Moody was doing this "pro bono" – as in give 'em a royal hosing just for the fun of it.

    Jim December 5, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Good for you Yves. Just the dying gasps of an outdated system (MSM news). Anyone with half a brain knows alt news is the place to go these days.

    tiger December 5, 2016 at 10:33 am

    You're too nice to WaPo Yves, maybe this was incompetence but Bezos and WaPo are terrible and they did too many hit pieces on Trump which included false information, so this is not a coincidence. They are the fake news, and that's terrifying. Good luck and may you destroy them.

    RUKidding December 5, 2016 at 11:10 am

    Good luck. I agree with your demands and hope that they are satisfied.

    I gave up a long time ago on either the tv or mainstream print media as a source of credible or factual news. There are some print publications out there that do a rather decent job at reporting the news more accurately, but the ones I know of are mostly smaller local newspapers with very limited budgets.

    All the Bigs are propaganda pure and simple. I gave up reading the NYT and the WaPoo a long long time ago. It would embarress a parrot to have either on the bottom of their cage to catch their sh*t.

    dcblogger December 5, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    RJ Eskow video The Rise of MSNBC McCarthyism

    John Medcalf December 5, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    Where's Bezos? I'm still speculating this is Bezos' answer to Trump's birthing. Annoy the press like hell. Let them whine and sue. Then save the country.

    susan the other December 5, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    Addressing the Whappo's "incompetence" is genius bec. it cannot shake the label. It will stick with them now, whereas if you had gone for the throat with an accusation of malice the Whappo could have escaped all that disgust and resentment because to prove malice you have to prove intent. Like fraud. It's hard to do.

    Be Prepared December 5, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    It has been a difficult to watch these past 8 years under the continued conversion of whatever was left of MSM being turned to merely a propaganda arm for the Executive branch. It is absolutely hilarious that they had the audacity to write the article in the first place since MSM is the only "real" fake news outlet. I do believe it will be a difficult road to achieve a full retraction or even an acknowledgement because they will hide behind the concepts of editorial content. Nothing they write is vetted or researched because they merely conjure articles to fit their preconceptions. If nothing else, pushing back is still the right thing to do . just remember to not let it consume you to the detriment of your continued good work on this site.

    Isolato December 5, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    Just threw some money in the tip jar. Rip their lungs out.

    Kurt Sperry December 5, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    Does the threat of civil litigation even matter to an organization with Bezos' endless resources to draw on? They would probably love the idea of a war of monetary attrition–they can't lose that game. It seems to me the weak link might be the creators of the website itself. Unlike a hardened target like the WaPo, they are unlikely to have such bottomless resources. The first step may be to use investigation or litigation to strip away the anonymity of the publishers of the site, probably by going after the hosting company, then to attack them directly. And if it turns out that filing website whois papers via a proxy privacy service is 100% surefire, ironclad protection from any legal accountability, then there really is no longer anything like accountability for web publishing. If that is the case then there is nothing stopping you from retaliating in kind, creating an anonymous website accusing Bezos of being a child pornographer or whatever and imploring that he and his lawyers negotiate with you to have the accusations retracted at your pleasure. Either filing whois papers for a domain using a privacy proxy is an unbreakable defense against litigation, or it isn't.

    Jess December 5, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    Immediately linked to this post on my FB page. Hope it helps.

    Jess December 5, 2016 at 4:58 pm

    A friend then shared my link on the FB section for former FDL commenters.

    Doly Garcia December 5, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    My experience with journalists (as an organiser of non-profit activities) has convinced me that nowadays they do little to no fact-checking. In one particular case I know of, mainstream UK media including the Independent and the BBC publicized a man that, if they had simply bothered doing a Google search on his name, they'd immediately realize he had zero credibility on the field he was claiming expertise on.

    This should hardly be a surprise to anyone who has followed the story of climate change, with dozens of so-called "climate change" experts being allowed to write opinion pieces on mainstream media, in spite of having no credentials, and sometimes having long credentials of having lobbied for every dubious cause known to mankind, from the health safety of tobacco to the lack of issues with pesticides.

    The real issue is that it's getting damned near impossible for anyone to find out the truth about any controversial issue without spending a long time researching the subject. And most people don't have the time for this, and don't even know that they should regard the news on any controversial issue, from any source, with great suspicion.

    Brad December 5, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    If one is serious about pursuit of a retraction and apology from Wapo, support for NC's cautious approach is in order. It will not help the case being advanced to overstate with inferences about WaPo's motives. Sticking to the already known objective facts will be enough to produce the desired result, public discredit of WaPo by its own hand.

    That's said with full sympathy for the feelings on WaPo, a publication that now ranks with W. R. Hearst's in sheer depths of vileness. And that in general is rightfully laid at the door of its libertardian owner Jeff Bezos, a man whose enterprises mark all that is most evil about US capitalism today. But none of this belongs in the retraction / apology effort. As I see it, the effort is designed to produce a specific effect from specific cause. That effort is best supported by not second-guessing it at this point and over-loading it with meanings that can't be demonstrated within the context of the effort. Let's give it a chance to run and review / critique the result afterward.

    Finally and for the record, this is said as someone with no sympathy for the Putin regime, one that no leftist should have any truck with, "conscious or unconscious", especially from an "anti-imperialist" POV. The Putin regime is right wing, capitalist, neo-nationalist, revanchist, and neo-imperialist (and not at all "wannabe"). It supports with armed force a regime in Damascus that has destroyed "its own country" to save itself. It IS a regime ideologically congruent with Donald Trump's tendencies. IOW Putin's Russia is a lot like the United States in political coloration right now.

    Nevertheless, residents of the USA must first and foremost act against repression conducted by their own government and its political agents such as WaPo. We can agree to disagree on Putin while showing solidarity against domestic repression, especially of this poisonous neo-McCarthyite type. That is only common sense. Our main opponent is always at home.

    stockbrokher December 5, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    This, 100%.

    Claudia December 5, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    After more than a few decades of educational decline and loss of expertise, we have arrived at the Age of Incompetence. That the WaPo would hire such nitwits is all the proof one needs.

    Fiery Hunt December 5, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Crapification is the Way!

    Thanks, WaPoo!

    DarkMatters December 5, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    The most reasonable hypothesis I can see is that the PropOrNot effort is a response by the MSM to reassert information control, having lost it so spectacularly during the election. The alternative media's counterstory has proven to be more faithful to reality than the picture presented by elite journalists. Elite journalists themselves have been compromised by the Wikileaks revelations. The MSM's reputation is in tatters and SOMETHING MUST BE DONE, at least until enough time has gone by for the public to forget how truly dismally deceptive was their coverage.

    A consistently suspicious pattern of MSM behavior is their incuriousness, and in the present situation, one of the many of the herd of interrogatory elephants in the room is, why isn't the MSM investigating the people who make up PropOrNot? (Or asking any of the questions NS has posed). Would that not be newsworthy?

    Keith Warren December 5, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    I agree with this assessment wholeheartedly. I am afraid that the strategy of the dem establishment and their elite media allies over the next 4 years will be to regain narrative control via censorship, rather than make any attempts at governing like small-d democrats.

    Kim Kaufman December 5, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    The red baiting is popping out from all sides. Last week Amy Goodman interviewed Bernie – the first (she basically ignored him through the primary). She started off with "you were considered a fringe candidate " and he politely reminded her he has been in congress for 25 years. Then she said that he had been red-baited during the primary by Clinton over Castro and the Sandinistas and "could he speak some about Castro and Latin America?" And at every opportunity she reminded the audience he was an independent, not a Democrat, "a socialist."

    I have been told that Sarah Palin blew her chance to be Sec. of Interior, or VA, or whatever it was because she criticized Trump for "crony capitalism" over the Carrier deal.

    I'm totally confused about who our friends are these days.

    Greg Taylor December 5, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    How has "Beall's List" of so-called "predatory" open-access academic research publishers escaped a similar lawsuit? Some of these publishers were shut down as a direct result of being named so the list has undeniably done damage since being published in 2013. There seem to be strong parallels between "Fake News" and "Fake Science" censorship efforts.

    Kim Kaufman December 5, 2016 at 2:39 pm

    I might have called the spoof site: "PoopOrNot." :)

    Daniel December 5, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    I am surprised your attorney has not gone after PropOrNot. I most surely would have

    craazyman December 5, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    It's not unreasonable the Washington Post would confuse Naked Capitalism with a Porn site. But not a Russian porn site, that's just not credible since Naked Capitalism is English.

    They should just admit it they made up fake news. They probably never read anything on the site - or even looked at the pictures of naked animals. Naked pussys. Lots of those. With garish flash photography. It's enough to embarrass anybody with refined aesthetic sensibilities.

    But it isn't Porn and it's not Russian. I've never seen a Russian pussy here. Usually they're American or maybe from England. Sometimes they're even guys. That's kind of confusing, but a cat is a cat to most people. I'm not a veterinarian anyway.

    Fake news is the scourge of the internet. Fake news has been around a long time, as long as there were newspapers in fact. It started in the 1700s and it kept going. Before that it was fake but it was only passed by word of mouth.

    Now there's fake pictures. Fake news with fake pictures can sometimes be art - but only if you see it in the movies, where some drug addled lunatic pretends they're somebody else, then they go into rehab after the movie is made and sometimes before. News should be real, in theory, but in reality it isn't. Somebody makes it up but you don't always know who. That's why jourmalism is so important, because you want the person making it up to be accurate! You don't want them making up Porn and publishing that. Why pay for that? People make that up themselves evidently and don't even need a newspaper.

    So if they fell for the fake Porn angle here - thinking that Naked meant Porn, and from Russia of all places! - that must mean they're either making it up or they don't know what real news is from anywhere. Since it could be from other places besides Russia. If they went to a museum they'd see naked things but not Porn. There's a museum of things but it's not news or porn, it's just whatever. I'm just being honest. It doesn't have to be confusing, even for somebody who writes and takes pictures.

    templar555510 December 5, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    The tendency towards consensus has been apparent in the mainstream media for forty plus years , long before the internet came along and upset things. What has caused mass hysteria in those circles is the sound of these other uncontrolled and uncontrollable voices . Years ago the only comment section of a national newspaper was ' Letters to the Editor ' which the editor had the veto over, never mind editorial responsibility for, and he / she took their job seriously ( in my first hand experience ) . Those days are long gone . Imagine you are a young, or even a seasoned journalist on one of these papers and you think you have the ear of the editor , the temptation to bring forth a story ( ' scoop ' in old – fashioned newspaper speak ) that gives umpteen internet sites a good kicking must be hard to resist. Trouble is the story was trashed before it hit the ground . And so another nail goes in the coffin of the mainstream press .

    SpongeBobSaget December 5, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    The Daily Caller story about this has a survey asking readers if Naked Capitalism is a fake news site or not.

    On my browser it's not possible to check "No: I Never Found A Fake News Story On That Site" Only Yes it's fake can be selected.

    Vichy Chicago December 5, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    Here's a great example of the BBC conducting an unvetted interview.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw4utg42yCI

    /sarc

    [Dec 05, 2016] The Democratic Party Presidential Platform of 1996 – On Immigration

    Blast from the past. Bill Clinton position on illegal immegtation.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. ..."
    "... President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported. ..."
    "... However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong, and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime. ..."
    Nov 30, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    What follows is from Today's Democratic Party: Meeting America's Challenges, Protecting America's Values , a.k.a., the 1996 Democratic Party Platform. This is the section on immigration. I took the liberty of bolding pieces I found interesting.

    Democrats remember that we are a nation of immigrants. We recognize the extraordinary contribution of immigrants to America throughout our history. We welcome legal immigrants to America. We support a legal immigration policy that is pro-family, pro-work, pro-responsibility, and pro-citizenship , and we deplore those who blame immigrants for economic and social problems.

    We know that citizenship is the cornerstone of full participation in American life. We are proud that the President launched Citizenship USA to help eligible immigrants become United States citizens. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is streamlining procedures, cutting red tape, and using new technology to make it easier for legal immigrants to accept the responsibilities of citizenship and truly call America their home.

    Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again.

    President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported.

    However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong, and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime.

    Democrats want to protect American jobs by increasing criminal and civil sanctions against employers who hire illegal workers , but Republicans continue to favor inflammatory rhetoric over real action. We will continue to enforce labor standards to protect workers in vulnerable industries. We continue to firmly oppose welfare benefits for illegal immigrants. We believe family members who sponsor immigrants into this country should take financial responsibility for them, and be held legally responsible for supporting them.

    [Dec 05, 2016] The Real Story of How America Became an Economic Superpower

    Notable quotes:
    "... Rather than join the struggle of imperial rivalries, the United States could use its emerging power to suppress those rivalries altogether. ..."
    "... "a power unlike any other. It had emerged, quite suddenly, as a novel kind of 'super-state,' exercising a veto over the financial and security concerns of the other major states of the world." ..."
    "... Peter Heather, the great British historian of Late Antiquity, explains human catastrophes with a saying of his father's, a mining engineer: "If man accumulates enough combustible material, God will provide the spark." So it happened in 1929. The Deluge that had inundated the rest of the developed world roared back upon the United States. ..."
    "... "The originality of National Socialism was that, rather than meekly accepting a place for Germany within a global economic order dominated by the affluent English-speaking countries, Hitler sought to mobilize the pent-up frustrations of his population to mount an epic challenge to this order." ..."
    "... He could not accept subordination to the United States because, according to his lurid paranoia, "this would result in enslavement to the world Jewish conspiracy, and ultimately race death." ..."
    "... By 1944, foreigners constituted 20 percent of the German workforce and 33 percent of armaments workers (less than 9 percent of the population of today's liberal and multicultural Germany is foreign-born). ..."
    "... The Hitlerian vision of a united German-led Eurasia equaling the Anglo-American bloc proved a crazed and genocidal fantasy. ..."
    www.theatlantic.com

    The United States might claim a broader democracy than those that prevailed in Europe. On the other hand, European states mobilized their populations with an efficiency that dazzled some Americans (notably Theodore Roosevelt) and appalled others (notably Wilson). The magazine founded by pro-war intellectuals in 1914, The New Republic, took its title precisely because its editors regarded the existing American republic as anything but the hope of tomorrow.

    Yet as World War I entered its third year-and the first year of Tooze's story-the balance of power was visibly tilting from Europe to America. The belligerents could no longer sustain the costs of offensive war. Cut off from world trade, Germany hunkered into a defensive siege, concentrating its attacks on weak enemies like Romania. The Western allies, and especially Britain, outfitted their forces by placing larger and larger war orders with the United States. In 1916, Britain bought more than a quarter of the engines for its new air fleet, more than half of its shell casings, more than two-thirds of its grain, and nearly all of its oil from foreign suppliers, with the United States heading the list. Britain and France paid for these purchases by floating larger and larger bond issues to American buyers-denominated in dollars, not pounds or francs. "By the end of 1916, American investors had wagered two billion dollars on an Entente victory," computes Tooze (relative to America's estimated GDP of $50 billion in 1916, the equivalent of $560 billion in today's money).

    That staggering quantity of Allied purchases called forth something like a war mobilization in the United States. American factories switched from civilian to military production; American farmers planted food and fiber to feed and clothe the combatants of Europe. But unlike in 1940-41, the decision to commit so much to one side's victory in a European war was not a political decision by the U.S. government. Quite the contrary: President Wilson wished to stay out of the war entirely. He famously preferred a "peace without victory." The trouble was that by 1916, the U.S. commitment to Britain and France had grown-to borrow a phrase from the future-too big to fail.

    Tooze's portrait of Woodrow Wilson is one of the most arresting novelties of his book. His Wilson is no dreamy idealist. The president's animating idea was an American exceptionalism of a now-familiar but then-startling kind. His Republican opponents-men like Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and Elihu Root-wished to see America take its place among the powers of the earth. They wanted a navy, an army, a central bank, and all the other instrumentalities of power possessed by Britain, France, and Germany. These political rivals are commonly derided as "isolationists" because they mistrusted the Wilson's League of Nations project. That's a big mistake. They doubted the League because they feared it would encroach on American sovereignty. It was Wilson who wished to remain aloof from the Entente, who feared that too close an association with Britain and France would limit American options. This aloofness enraged Theodore Roosevelt, who complained that the Wilson-led United States was "sitting idle, uttering cheap platitudes, and picking up [European] trade, whilst they had poured out their blood like water in support of ideals in which, with all their hearts and souls, they believe."

    Wilson was guided by a different vision: Rather than join the struggle of imperial rivalries, the United States could use its emerging power to suppress those rivalries altogether. Wilson was the first American statesman to perceive that the United States had grown, in Tooze's words, into "a power unlike any other. It had emerged, quite suddenly, as a novel kind of 'super-state,' exercising a veto over the financial and security concerns of the other major states of the world."

    Wilson hoped to deploy this emerging super-power to enforce an enduring peace. His own mistakes and those of his successors doomed the project, setting in motion the disastrous events that would lead to the Great Depression, the rise of fascism, and a second and even more awful world war.

    What went wrong? "When all is said and done," Tooze writes, "the answer must be sought in the failure of the United States to cooperate with the efforts of the French, British, Germans and the Japanese [leaders of the early 1920s] to stabilize a viable world economy and to establish new institutions of collective security. Given the violence they had already experienced and the risk of even greater future devastation, France, Germany, Japan, and Britain could all see this. But what was no less obvious was that only the US could anchor such a new order." And that was what Americans of the 1920s and 1930s declined to do-because doing so implied too much change at home for them: "At the hub of the rapidly evolving, American-centered world system there was a polity wedded to a conservative vision of its own future."

    Widen the view, however, and the "forgotten depression" takes on a broader meaning as one of the most ominous milestones on the world's way to the Second World War. After World War II, Europe recovered largely as a result of American aid; the nation that had suffered least from the war contributed most to reconstruction. But after World War I, the money flowed the other way.

    Take the case of France, which suffered more in material terms than any World War I belligerent except Belgium. Northeastern France, the country's most industrialized region in 1914, had been ravaged by war and German occupation. Millions of men in their prime were dead or crippled. On top of everything, the country was deeply in debt, owing billions to the United States and billions more to Britain. France had been a lender during the conflict too, but most of its credits had been extended to Russia, which repudiated all its foreign debts after the Revolution of 1917. The French solution was to exact reparations from Germany.

    Britain was willing to relax its demands on France. But it owed the United States even more than France did. Unless it collected from France-and from Italy and all the other smaller combatants as well-it could not hope to pay its American debts.

    Americans, meanwhile, were preoccupied with the problem of German recovery. How could Germany achieve political stability if it had to pay so much to France and Belgium? The Americans pressed the French to relent when it came to Germany, but insisted that their own claims be paid in full by both France and Britain.

    Germany, for its part, could only pay if it could export, and especially to the world's biggest and richest consumer market, the United States. The depression of 1920 killed those export hopes. Most immediately, the economic crisis sliced American consumer demand precisely when Europe needed it most. True, World War I was not nearly as positive an experience for working Americans as World War II would be; between 1914 and 1918, for example, wages lagged behind prices. Still, millions of Americans had bought billions of dollars of small-denomination Liberty bonds. They had accumulated savings that could have been spent on imported products. Instead, many used their savings for food, rent, and mortgage interest during the hard times of 1920-21.

    But the gravest harm done by the depression to postwar recovery lasted long past 1921. To appreciate that, you have to understand the reasons why U.S. monetary authorities plunged the country into depression in 1920.

    Grant rightly points out that wars are usually followed by economic downturns. Such a downturn occurred in late 1918-early 1919. "Within four weeks of the Armistice, the [U.S.] War Department had canceled $2.5 billion of its then outstanding $6 billion in contracts; for perspective, $2.5 billion represented 3.3 percent of the 1918 gross national product," he observes. Even this understates the shock, because it counts only Army contracts, not Navy ones. The postwar recession checked wartime inflation, and by March 1919, the U.S. economy was growing again.

    As the economy revived, workers scrambled for wage increases to offset the price inflation they'd experienced during the war. Monetary authorities, worried that inflation would revive and accelerate, made the fateful decision to slam the credit brakes, hard. Unlike the 1918 recession, that of 1920 was deliberately engineered. There was nothing invisible about it. Nor did the depression "cure itself." U.S. officials cut interest rates and relaxed credit, and the economy predictably recovered-just as it did after the similarly inflation-crushing recessions of 1974-75 and 1981-82.

    But 1920-21 was an inflation-stopper with a difference. In post-World War II America, anti-inflationists have been content to stop prices from rising. In 1920-21, monetary authorities actually sought to drive prices back to their pre-war levels. They did not wholly succeed, but they succeeded well enough. One price especially concerned them: In 1913, a dollar bought a little less than one-twentieth of an ounce of gold; by 1922, it comfortably did so again.

    ... ... ...

    The American depression of 1920 made that decision all the more difficult. The war had vaulted the United States to a new status as the world's leading creditor, the world's largest owner of gold, and, by extension, the effective custodian of the international gold standard. When the U.S. opted for massive deflation, it thrust upon every country that wished to return to the gold standard (and what respectable country would not?) an agonizing dilemma. Return to gold at 1913 values, and you would have to match U.S. deflation with an even steeper deflation of your own, accepting increased unemployment along the way. Alternatively, you could re-peg your currency to gold at a diminished rate. But that amounted to an admission that your money had permanently lost value-and that your own people, who had trusted their government with loans in local money, would receive a weaker return on their bonds than American creditors who had lent in dollars.

    Britain chose the former course; pretty much everybody else chose the latter.

    The consequences of these choices fill much of the second half of The Deluge. For Europeans, they were uniformly grim, and worse. But one important effect ultimately rebounded on Americans. America's determination to restore a dollar "as good as gold" not only imposed terrible hardship on war-ravaged Europe, it also threatened to flood American markets with low-cost European imports. The flip side of the Lost Generation enjoying cheap European travel with their strong dollars was German steelmakers and shipyards underpricing their American competitors with weak marks.

    Such a situation also prevailed after World War II, when the U.S. acquiesced in the undervaluation of the Deutsche mark and yen to aid German and Japanese recovery. But American leaders of the 1920s weren't willing to accept this outcome. In 1921 and 1923, they raised tariffs, terminating a brief experiment with freer trade undertaken after the election of 1912. The world owed the United States billions of dollars, but the world was going to have to find another way of earning that money than selling goods to the United States.

    That way was found: more debt, especially more German debt. The 1923 hyper-inflation that wiped out Germany's savers also tidied up the country's balance sheet. Post-inflation Germany looked like a very creditworthy borrower. Between 1924 and 1930, world financial flows could be simplified into a daisy chain of debt. Germans borrowed from Americans, and used the proceeds to pay reparations to the Belgians and French. The French and Belgians, in turn, repaid war debts to the British and Americans. The British then used their French and Italian debt payments to repay the United States, who set the whole crazy contraption in motion again. Everybody could see the system was crazy. Only the United States could fix it. It never did.

    Peter Heather, the great British historian of Late Antiquity, explains human catastrophes with a saying of his father's, a mining engineer: "If man accumulates enough combustible material, God will provide the spark." So it happened in 1929. The Deluge that had inundated the rest of the developed world roared back upon the United States.

    ... ... ...

    "The United States has the Earth, and Germany wants it." Thus might Hitler's war aims have been summed up by a latter-day Woodrow Wilson. From the start, the United States was Hitler's ultimate target. "In seeking to explain the urgency of Hitler's aggression, historians have underestimated his acute awareness of the threat posed to Germany, along with the rest of the European powers, by the emergence of the United States as the dominant global superpower," Tooze writes.

    "The originality of National Socialism was that, rather than meekly accepting a place for Germany within a global economic order dominated by the affluent English-speaking countries, Hitler sought to mobilize the pent-up frustrations of his population to mount an epic challenge to this order." Of course, Hitler was not engaged in rational calculation. He could not accept subordination to the United States because, according to his lurid paranoia, "this would result in enslavement to the world Jewish conspiracy, and ultimately race death." He dreamed of conquering Poland, Ukraine, and Russia as a means of gaining the resources to match those of the United States.

    The vast landscape in between Berlin and Moscow would become Germany's equivalent of the American west, filled with German homesteaders living comfortably on land and labor appropriated from conquered peoples-a nightmare parody of the American experience with which to challenge American power.

    Could this vision have ever been realized? Tooze argues in The Wages of Destruction that Germany had already missed its chance. "In 1870, at the time of German national unification, the population of the United States and Germany was roughly equal and the total output of America, despite its enormous abundance of land and resources, was only one-third larger than that of Germany," he writes. "Just before the outbreak of World War I the American economy had expanded to roughly twice the size of that of Imperial Germany. By 1943, before the aerial bombardment had hit top gear, total American output was almost four times that of the Third Reich."

    Germany was a weaker and poorer country in 1939 than it had been in 1914. Compared with Britain, let alone the United States, it lacked the basic elements of modernity: There were just 486,000 automobiles in Germany in 1932, and one-quarter of all Germans still worked as farmers as of 1925. Yet this backward land, with an income per capita comparable to contemporary "South Africa, Iran and Tunisia," wagered on a second world war even more audacious than the first.

    The reckless desperation of Hitler's war provides context for the horrific crimes of his regime. Hitler's empire could not feed itself, so his invasion plan for the Soviet Union contemplated the death by starvation of 20 to 30 million Soviet urban dwellers after the invaders stole all foodstuffs for their own use. Germany lacked workers, so it plundered the labor of its conquered peoples. By 1944, foreigners constituted 20 percent of the German workforce and 33 percent of armaments workers (less than 9 percent of the population of today's liberal and multicultural Germany is foreign-born).

    On paper, the Nazi empire of 1942 represented a substantial economic bloc. But pillage and slavery are not workable bases for an industrial economy. Under German rule, the output of conquered Europe collapsed. The Hitlerian vision of a united German-led Eurasia equaling the Anglo-American bloc proved a crazed and genocidal fantasy.

    How the Great War Shaped the World

    [Dec 05, 2016] Peggy Noonan What We Lose if We Give Up Privacy by Peggy Noonan

    Notable quotes:
    "... A loss of the expectation of privacy in communications is a loss of something personal and intimate, and it will have broader implications. ..."
    "... Mr. Hentoff sees the surveillance state as a threat to free speech, too ..."
    "... An entrenched surveillance state will change and distort the balance that allows free government to function successfully. ..."
    "... "When you have this amount of privacy invasion put into these huge data banks, who knows what will come out?" ..."
    "... Asked about those attempts, he mentions the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Red Scare of the 1920s and the McCarthy era. Those times and incidents, he says, were more than specific scandals or news stories, they were attempts to change our nature as a people. ..."
    "... What of those who say they don't care what the federal government does as long as it keeps us safe? The threat of terrorism is real, Mr. Hentoff acknowledges. Al Qaeda is still here, its networks are growing. But you have to be careful about who's running U.S. intelligence and U.S. security, and they have to be fully versed in and obey constitutional guarantees. ..."
    "... Mr. Hentoff notes that J. Edgar Hoover didn't have all this technology. "He would be so envious of what NSA can do." ..."
    Aug 16, 2013 | WSJ

    ...Among the pertinent definitions of privacy from the Oxford English Dictionary: "freedom from disturbance or intrusion," "intended only for the use of a particular person or persons," belonging to "the property of a particular person." Also: "confidential, not to be disclosed to others." Among others, the OED quotes the playwright Arthur Miller, describing the McCarthy era: "Conscience was no longer a private matter but one of state administration."

    Privacy is connected to personhood. It has to do with intimate things-the innards of your head and heart, the workings of your mind-and the boundary between those things and the world outside.

    A loss of the expectation of privacy in communications is a loss of something personal and intimate, and it will have broader implications. That is the view of Nat Hentoff, the great journalist and civil libertarian. He is 88 now and on fire on the issue of privacy. "The media has awakened," he told me. "Congress has awakened, to some extent." Both are beginning to realize "that there are particular constitutional liberty rights that [Americans] have that distinguish them from all other people, and one of them is privacy."

    Mr. Hentoff sees excessive government surveillance as violative of the Fourth Amendment, which protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires that warrants be issued only "upon probable cause . . . particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    But Mr. Hentoff sees the surveillance state as a threat to free speech, too. About a year ago he went up to Harvard to speak to a class. He asked, he recalled: "How many of you realize the connection between what's happening with the Fourth Amendment with the First Amendment?" He told the students that if citizens don't have basic privacies-firm protections against the search and seizure of your private communications, for instance-they will be left feeling "threatened." This will make citizens increasingly concerned "about what they say, and they do, and they think." It will have the effect of constricting freedom of expression. Americans will become careful about what they say that can be misunderstood or misinterpreted, and then too careful about what they say that can be understood. The inevitable end of surveillance is self-censorship.

    All of a sudden, the room became quiet. "These were bright kids, interested, concerned, but they hadn't made an obvious connection about who we are as a people." We are "free citizens in a self-governing republic."

    Mr. Hentoff once asked Justice William Brennan "a schoolboy's question": What is the most important amendment to the Constitution? "Brennan said the First Amendment, because all the other ones come from that. If you don't have free speech you have to be afraid, you lack a vital part of what it is to be a human being who is free to be who you want to be." Your own growth as a person will in time be constricted, because we come to know ourselves by our thoughts.

    He wonders if Americans know who they are compared to what the Constitution says they are.

    Mr. Hentoff's second point: An entrenched surveillance state will change and distort the balance that allows free government to function successfully. Broad and intrusive surveillance will, definitively, put government in charge. But a republic only works, Mr. Hentoff notes, if public officials know that they-and the government itself-answer to the citizens. It doesn't work, and is distorted, if the citizens must answer to the government. And that will happen more and more if the government knows-and you know-that the government has something, or some things, on you. "The bad thing is you no longer have the one thing we're supposed to have as Americans living in a self-governing republic," Mr. Hentoff said. "The people we elect are not your bosses, they are responsible to us." They must answer to us. But if they increasingly control our privacy, "suddenly they're in charge if they know what you're thinking."

    This is a shift in the democratic dynamic. "If we don't have free speech then what can we do if the people who govern us have no respect for us, may indeed make life difficult for us, and in fact belittle us?"

    If massive surveillance continues and grows, could it change the national character? "Yes, because it will change free speech."

    What of those who say, "I have nothing to fear, I don't do anything wrong"? Mr. Hentoff suggests that's a false sense of security.

    "When you have this amount of privacy invasion put into these huge data banks, who knows what will come out?"

    Or can be made to come out through misunderstanding the data, or finagling, or mischief of one sort or another.

    "People say, 'Well I've done nothing wrong so why should I worry?' But that's too easy a way to get out of what is in our history-constant attempts to try to change who we are as Americans."

    Asked about those attempts, he mentions the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Red Scare of the 1920s and the McCarthy era. Those times and incidents, he says, were more than specific scandals or news stories, they were attempts to change our nature as a people.

    What of those who say they don't care what the federal government does as long as it keeps us safe? The threat of terrorism is real, Mr. Hentoff acknowledges. Al Qaeda is still here, its networks are growing. But you have to be careful about who's running U.S. intelligence and U.S. security, and they have to be fully versed in and obey constitutional guarantees.

    "There has to be somebody supervising them who knows what's right. . . . Terrorism is not going to go away. But we need someone in charge of the whole apparatus who has read the Constitution."

    Advances in technology constantly up the ability of what government can do. Its technological expertise will only become deeper and broader.

    "They think they're getting to how you think. The technology is such that with the masses of databases, then privacy will get even weaker."

    Mr. Hentoff notes that J. Edgar Hoover didn't have all this technology. "He would be so envious of what NSA can do."

    [Dec 05, 2016] The internet is at risk of transforming from an open platform to myriad national networks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Far from being seen as the guardian of a free and open online medium, the US has been painted as an oppressor, cynically using its privileged position to spy on foreign nationals. The result, warn analysts, could well be an acceleration of a process that has been under way for some time as other countries ringfence their networks to protect their citizens' data and limit the flow of information. ..."
    "... At the most obvious level, the secret data-collection efforts being conducted by the US National Security Agency threaten to give would-be censors of the internet in authoritarian countries rhetorical cover as they put their own stamp on their local networks. ..."
    "... But the distrust of the US that the disclosures are generating in the democratic world, including in Europe , are also likely to have an impact. From the operation of a nation's telecoms infrastructure to the regulation of the emerging cloud computing industry, changes in the architecture of networks as countries seek more control look set to cause a sea change in the broader internet. ..."
    www.ft.com

    Revelations about US surveillance of the global internet – and the part played by some of the biggest American internet companies in facilitating it – have stirred angst around the world.

    Far from being seen as the guardian of a free and open online medium, the US has been painted as an oppressor, cynically using its privileged position to spy on foreign nationals. The result, warn analysts, could well be an acceleration of a process that has been under way for some time as other countries ringfence their networks to protect their citizens' data and limit the flow of information.

    "It is difficult to imagine the internet not becoming more compartmentalised and Balkanised," says Rebecca MacKinnon, an expert on online censorship. "Ten years from now, we will look back on the free and open internet" with nostalgia, she adds.

    At the most obvious level, the secret data-collection efforts being conducted by the US National Security Agency threaten to give would-be censors of the internet in authoritarian countries rhetorical cover as they put their own stamp on their local networks.

    But the distrust of the US that the disclosures are generating in the democratic world, including in Europe, are also likely to have an impact. From the operation of a nation's telecoms infrastructure to the regulation of the emerging cloud computing industry, changes in the architecture of networks as countries seek more control look set to cause a sea change in the broader internet.

    [Dec 05, 2016] The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value - the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years. ..."
    "... IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as much reason to be afraid of China ..."
    "... It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony -- similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with the knife. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    Dante5 1d ago
    The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.

    It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value - the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.

    IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army.

    If the US patched things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China -- with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty in conducted a sustained conflict.

    It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony -- similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with the knife.

    [Dec 05, 2016] BuzzFeed Exposes Corporate Super Courts That Can Overrule Government

    Corporations are "one-dollar-one-vote" top-down systems. They consider "one-person-one-vote" democracy illegitimate
    Notable quotes:
    "... Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special " corporate courts " in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings. ..."
    "... Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). ..."
    "... International corporations that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat. ..."
    "... ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands, however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | Back to (our) Future

    BuzzFeed is running a very important investigative series called "Secrets of a Global Super Court." It describes what they call "a parallel legal universe, open only to corporations and largely invisible to everyone else."

    Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special "corporate courts" in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings.

    The 2014 post "Corporate Courts - A Big Red Flag On "Trade" Agreements" explained the origin and rationale for these corporate courts:

    Picture a poor "banana republic" country ruled by a dictator and his cronies. A company might want to invest in a factory or railroad - things that would help the people of that country as well as deliver a return to the company. But the company worries that the dictator might decide to just seize the factory and give it to his brother-in-law. Agreements to protect investors, and allowing a tribunal not based in such countries (courts where the judges are cronies of the dictator), make sense in such situations.

    Here's the thing: Corporate investors see themselves as legitimate "makers" and see citizens and voters and their governments - always demanding taxes and fair pay and public safety - to be illegitimate "takers." Corporations are all about "one-dollar-one-vote" top-down systems of governance. They consider "one-person-one-vote" democracy to be an illegitimate, non-functional system that meddles with their more-important profit interests. They consider any governmental legal or regulatory system to be "burdensome." They consider taxes as "theft" of the money they have "earned."

    To them, any government anywhere is just another "banana republic" from which they need special protection.

    "Trade" Deals Bypass Borders

    Investors and their corporations have set up a way to get around the borders of these meddling governments, called "trade" deals. The trade deals elevate global corporate interests above any national interest. When a country signs a "trade" deal, that country is agreeing not to do things that protect the country's own national interest - like impose tariffs to protect key industries or national strategies, or pass laws and regulations - when those things interfere with the larger, more important global corporate "trade" interests.

    Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

    Secrets of a Global Super Court

    BuzzFeed's series on these corporate courts, "Secrets of a Global Super Court," explains the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in the "trade" deals that have come to dominate the world economy. These provisions set up "corporate courts" that place corporate profits above the interests of governments and set up a court system that sits above the court systems of the countries in the "trade" deals.

    Part One, "Inside The Global "Club" That Helps Executives Escape Their Crimes," describes, "A parallel legal universe, open only to corporations and largely invisible to everyone else, helps executives convicted of crimes escape punishment."

    In a little-noticed 2014 dissent, US Chief Justice John Roberts warned that ISDS arbitration panels hold the alarming power to review a nation's laws and "effectively annul the authoritative acts of its legislature, executive, and judiciary." ISDS arbitrators, he continued, "can meet literally anywhere in the world" and "sit in judgment" on a nation's "sovereign acts."

    [. . .]

    Reviewing publicly available information for about 300 claims filed during the past five years, BuzzFeed News found more than 35 cases in which the company or executive seeking protection in ISDS was accused of criminal activity, including money laundering, embezzlement, stock manipulation, bribery, war profiteering, and fraud.

    Among them: a bank in Cyprus that the US government accused of financing terrorism and organized crime, an oil company executive accused of embezzling millions from the impoverished African nation of Burundi, and the Russian oligarch known as "the Kremlin's banker."

    One lawyer who regularly represents governments said he's seen evidence of corporate criminality that he "couldn't believe." Speaking on the condition that he not be named because he's currently handling ISDS cases, he said, "You have a lot of scuzzy sort-of thieves for whom this is a way to hit the jackpot."

    Part Two, "The Billion-Dollar Ultimatum," looks at how "International corporations that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat."

    Of all the ways in which ISDS is used, the most deeply hidden are the threats, uttered in private meetings or ominous letters, that invoke those courts. The threats are so powerful they often eliminate the need to actually bring a lawsuit. Just the knowledge that it could happen is enough.

    [. . .] ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands, however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. Especially for nations struggling to emerge from corrupt dictatorships or to lift their people from decades of poverty, the mere threat of an ISDS claim triggers alarm. A single decision by a panel of three unaccountable, private lawyers, meeting in a conference room on some other continent, could gut national budgets and shake economies to the core.

    Part Three, "To Bankers, It's Not Just A Court System, It's A Gold Mine," exposes how "Financial companies have figured out how to turn a controversial global legal system to their own very profitable advantage."

    Indeed, financiers and ISDS lawyers have created a whole new business: prowling for ways to sue nations in ISDS and make their taxpayers fork over huge sums, sometimes in retribution for enforcing basic laws or regulations.

    The financial industry is pushing novel ISDS claims that countries never could have anticipated - claims that, in some instances, would be barred in US courts and those of other developed nations, or that strike at emergency decisions nations make to cope with crises.

    ISDS gives particular leverage to traders and speculators who chase outsize profits in the developing world. They can buy into local disputes that they have no connection to, then turn the disputes into costly international showdowns. Standard Chartered, for example, bought the debt of a Tanzanian company that was in dire financial straits and racked by scandal; now, the bank has filed an ISDS claim demanding that the nation's taxpayers hand over the full amount that the private company owed - more than $100 million. Asked to comment, Standard Chartered said its claim is "valid."

    David Dayen explains this last point, in "The Big Problem With The Trans-Pacific Partnership's Super Court That We're Not Talking About": "Financiers will use it to bet on lawsuits, while taxpayers foot the bill."

    But instead of helping companies resolve legitimate disputes over seized assets, ISDS has increasingly become a way for rich investors to make money by speculating on lawsuits, winning huge awards and forcing taxpayers to foot the bill.

    Here's how it works: Wealthy financiers with idle cash have purchased companies that are well placed to bring an ISDS claim, seemingly for the sole purpose of using that claim to make a buck. Sometimes, they set up shell corporations to create the plaintiffs to bring ISDS cases. And some hedge funds and private equity firms bankroll ISDS cases as third parties - just like billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan in his lawsuit against Gawker Media.

    Part Four of the great BuzzFeed series, "Secrets of a Global Super Court," is expected to be published later this week.

    PCCC Statement

    The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) released this statement on the ISDS provisions in TPP:

    "Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Wall Street would be allowed to sue the government in extrajudicial, corporate-run tribunals over any regulation and American taxpayers would be on the hook for damages. This is an outrage. We need more accountability and fairness in our economy – not less. And we need to preserve our ability to make our own rules.

    "It's time for Obama to take notice of the widespread, bipartisan opposition to the TPP and take this agreement off the table before he causes lasting political harm to Democrats with voters."

    [Dec 05, 2016] Trump campaign is a similar to Brexit crusade by grassroots activists against big banks and global political insiders . by those who feel disaffected and disenfranchised

    Notable quotes:
    "... Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out and fight" against Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... "I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved it." ..."
    "... It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    ...the British politician, who was invited by Mississippi governor Phil Bryant, will draw parallels between what he sees as the inspirational story of Brexit and Trump's campaign. Farage will describe the Republican's campaign as a similar crusade by grassroots activists against "big banks and global political insiders" and how those who feel disaffected and disenfranchised can become involved in populist, rightwing politics. With Trump lagging in the polls, just as Brexit did prior to the vote on the referendum, Farage will also hearten supporters by insisting that they can prove pundits and oddsmakers wrong as well.

    This message resonates with the Trump campaign's efforts to reach out to blue collar voters who have become disillusioned with American politics, while also adding a unique flair to Trump's never staid campaign rallies.

    The event will mark the first meeting between Farage and Trump.

    Arron Banks, the businessman who backed Leave.EU, the Brexit campaign group associated with the UK Independence party (Ukip), tweeted that he would be meeting Trump over dinner and was looking forward to Farage's speech.

    The appointment last week of Stephen Bannon, former chairman of the Breitbart website, as "CEO" of Trump's campaign has seen the example of the Brexit vote, which Breitbart enthusiastically advocated, rise to the fore in Trump's campaign narrative.

    Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out and fight" against Hillary Clinton.

    "I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved it."

    "I am being careful," he added when asked if he supported the controversial Republican nominee. "It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom."

    [Dec 05, 2016] Failure of Globalization and the Fourth Estate

    Notable quotes:
    "... As Mr. Buffet so keenly said it, There is a war going on, and we are winning. ..."
    "... Just type `TPP editorial' into news.google.com and watch a toxic sludge of straw men, misdirection, and historical revisionism flow across your screen. And the `objective' straight news reporting is no better. ..."
    "... "Why is it afraid of us?" Because we the people are perceived to be the enemy of America the Corporation. Whistleblowers have already stated that the NSA info is used to blackmail politicians and military leaders, provide corporate espionage to the highest payers and more devious machinations than the mind can grasp from behind a single computer. 9/11 was a coup – I say that because looking around the results tell me that. ..."
    "... The fourth estate (the media) has been purchased outright by the second estate (the nobility). I guess you could call this an 'estate sale'. All power to the markets! ..."
    naked capitalism
    Free Trade," the banner of Globalization, has not only wrecked the world's economy, it has left Western Democracy in shambles. Europe edges ever closer to deflation. The Fed dare not increase interest rates, now poised at barely above zero. As China's stock market threatened collapse, China poured billions to prop it up. It's export machine is collapsing. Not once, but twice, it recently manipulated its currency to makes its goods cheaper on the world market. What is happening?

    The following two graphs tell most of the story. First, an overview of Free Trade.

    Deficit4-1024x420

    Capital fled from developed countries to undeveloped countries with slave-cheap labor, countries with no environmental standards, countries with no support for collective bargaining. Corporations, like Apple, set up shop in China and other undeveloped countries. Some, like China, manipulated its currency to make exported goods to the West even cheaper. Some, like China, gave preferential tax treatment to Western firm over indigenous firms. Economists cheered as corporate efficiency unsurprisingly rose. U.S. citizens became mere consumers.

    Thanks to Bill Clinton and the Financial Modernization Act, banks, now unconstrained, could peddle rigged financial services, offer insurance on its own investment products–in short, banks were free to play with everyone's money–and simply too big to fail. Credit was easy and breezy. If nasty Arabs bombed the Trade Center, why the solution was simple: Go to the shopping mall–and buy. That remarkable piece of advice is just what freedom has been all about.

    Next: China's export machine sputters.

    CAIXEN-1024x527

    China's problem is that there are not enough orders to keep the export machine going. There comes a time when industrialized nations simply run out of cash–I mean the little people run out of cash. CEOs and those just below them–along with slick Wall Street gauchos–made bundles on Free Trade, corporate capital that could set up shop in any impoverished nation in the world.. No worries about labor–dirt cheap–or environmental regulations–just bring your gas masks. At some point the Western consumer well was bound to run dry. Credit was exhausted; the little guy could not buy anymore. Free trade was on its last legs.

    So what did China do then? As its markets crashed, it tried to revive its export model, a model based on foreign firms exporting cheap goods to the West. China lowered its exchange rates, not once but twice. Then China tried to rescue the markets with cash infusion of billions. Still its market continued to crash. Manufacturing plants had closed–thousands of them. Free Trade and Globalization had run its course.

    And what has the Fed been doing? Why quantitative easy–increase the money supply and lower short term interest rates. Like China's latest currency manipulation, both were merely stop-gap measures. No one, least of all Obama and his corporate advisors, was ready to address corporate outsourcing that has cost millions of jobs. Prime the pump a little, but never address the real problem.

    The WTO sets the groundwork for trade among its member states. That groundwork is deeply flawed. Trade between impoverished third world countries and sophisticated first world economies is not merely a matter of regulating "dumping"-not allowing one country to flood the market with cheap goods-nor is it a matter of insuring that the each country does not favor its indigenous firms over foreign firms. Comparable labor and environmental standards are necessary. Does anyone think that a first world worker can compete with virtual slave labor? Does anyone think that a first world nation with excellent environmental regulations can compete with a third world nation that refuses to protect its environment?

    Only lately has Apple even mentioned that it might clean up its mess in China. The Apple miracle has been on the backs of the Chinese poor and abysmal environmental wreckage that is China.

    The WTO allows three forms of inequities-all of which encourage outsourcing: labor arbitrage, tax arbitrage, and environmental arbitrage. For a fuller explanation of these inequities and the "race to the bottom," see here.

    Of course now we have the mother of all Free Trade deals –the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)– carefully wrapped in a black box so that none of us can see what finally is in store for us. Nothing is ever "Free"–even trade. I suspect that China is becoming a bit too noxious and poisonous. It simply has to deal with its massive environmental problems. Time to move the game to less despoiled and maybe more impoverished countries. Meanwhile, newscasters are always careful to tout TPP.

    Fast Tracking is a con man's game. Do it so fast that the marks never have a chance to watch their wallets. In hiding negotiations from prying, public eyes, Obama, has given the con men a bigger edge: A screen to hide the corporations making deals. Their interest is in profits, not in public good.

    Consider the media. Our only defense is a strong independent media. At one time, newsrooms were not required to be profitable. Reporting the news was considered a community service. Corporate ownership provided the necessary funding for its newsrooms–and did not interfere.

    But the 70′s and 80′s corporate ownership required its newsrooms to be profitable. Slowly but surely, newsrooms focused on personality, entertainment, and wedge issues–always careful not to rock the corporate boat, always careful not to tread on governmental policy. Whoever thought that one major news service–Fox–would become a breeding ground for one particular party.

    But consider CNN: It organizes endless GOP debates; then spends hours dissecting them. Create the news; then sell it–and be sure to spin it in the direction you want.

    Are matters of substance ever discussed? When has a serious foreign policy debate ever been allowed occurred–without editorial interference from the media itself. When has trade and outsourcing been seriously discussed–other than by peripheral news media?

    Meanwhile, news media becomes more and more centralized. Murdoch now owns National Geographic!

    Now, thanks to Bush and Obama, we have the chilling effect of the NSA. Just whom does the NSA serve when it collects all of our digital information? Is it being used to ferret out the plans of those exercising their right of dissent? Is it being used to increase the profits of favored corporations? Why does it need all of your and my personal information–from bank accounts, to credit cards, to travel plans, to friends with whom we chat .Why is it afraid of us?


    jefemt, October 23, 2015 at 9:43 am

    As Mr. Buffet so keenly said it, There is a war going on, and we are winning.

    If 'they' are failing, I'd hate to see success!

    Isn't it the un-collective WE who are failing?

    failing to organize,
    failing to come up with plausible, 90 degrees off present Lemming-to-Brink path alternative plans and policies,
    failing to agree on any of many plausible alternatives that might work

    Divided- for now- hopefully not conquered ..

    I gotta scoot and get back to Dancing with the Master Chefs

    allan, October 23, 2015 at 10:03 am

    Just type `TPP editorial' into news.google.com and watch a toxic sludge of straw men, misdirection, and historical revisionism flow across your screen. And the `objective' straight news reporting is no better.

    Vatch, October 23, 2015 at 10:36 am

    Don't just watch the toxic sludge; respond to it with a letter to the editor (LTE) of the offending publication! For some of those toxic editorials, and contact information for LTEs, see:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/200pm-water-cooler-10162015.html#comment-2503316

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/trading-away-land-rights-tpp-investment-agreements-and-the-governance-of-land.html#comment-2502833

    A few of the editorials may now be obscured by paywalls or registration requirements, but most should still be visible. Let them know that we see through their nonsense!

    TedWa, October 23, 2015 at 10:38 am

    "Why is it afraid of us?" Because we the people are perceived to be the enemy of America the Corporation. Whistleblowers have already stated that the NSA info is used to blackmail politicians and military leaders, provide corporate espionage to the highest payers and more devious machinations than the mind can grasp from behind a single computer. 9/11 was a coup – I say that because looking around the results tell me that.

    TG, October 23, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    The fourth estate (the media) has been purchased outright by the second estate (the nobility). I guess you could call this an 'estate sale'. All power to the markets!

    Pelham, October 23, 2015 at 8:32 pm

    Even when newsrooms were more independent they probably would not, in general, have reported on free trade with any degree of skepticism. The recent disappearance of the old firewall between the news and corporate sides has made things worse, but at least since the "professionalization" of newsrooms that began to really take hold in the '60s, journalists have tended to identify far more with their sources in power than with their readers.

    There have, of course, been notable exceptions. But even these sometimes serve more to obscure the real day-to-day nature of journalism's fealty to the corporate world than to bring about any significant change.

    [Dec 05, 2016] The Great Ponzi Scheme of the Global Economy

    www.counterpunch.org
    March 25, 2016

    CHRIS HEDGES: We're going to be discussing a great Ponzi scheme that not only defines not only the U.S. but the global economy, how we got there and where we're going. And with me to discuss this issue is the economist Michael Hudson, author of Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy. A professor of economics who worked for many years on Wall Street, where you don't succeed if you don't grasp Marx's dictum that capitalism is about exploitation. And he is also, I should mention, the godson of Leon Trotsky.

    I want to open this discussion by reading a passage from your book, which I admire very much, which I think gets to the core of what you discuss. You write,

    "Adam Smith long ago remarked that profits often are highest in nations going fastest to ruin. There are many ways to create economic suicide on a national level. The major way through history has been through indebting the economy. Debt always expands to reach a point where it cannot be paid by a large swathe of the economy. This is the point where austerity is imposed and ownership of wealth polarizes between the One Percent and the 99 Percent. Today is not the first time this has occurred in history. But it is the first time that running into debt has occurred deliberately." Applauded. "As if most debtors can get rich by borrowing, not reduced to a condition of debt peonage."

    So let's start with the classical economists, who certainly understood this. They were reacting of course to feudalism. And what happened to the study of economics so that it became gamed by ideologues?

    HUDSON: The essence of classical economics was to reform industrial capitalism, to streamline it, and to free the European economies from the legacy of feudalism. The legacy of feudalism was landlords extracting land-rent, and living as a class that took income without producing anything. Also, banks that were not funding industry. The leading industrialists from James Watt, with his steam engine, to the railroads

    HEDGES: From your book you make the point that banks almost never funded industry.

    HUDSON: That's the point: They never have. By the time you got to Marx later in the 19th century, you had a discussion, largely in Germany, over how to make banks do something they did not do under feudalism. Right now we're having the economic surplus being drained not by the landlords but also by banks and bondholders.

    Adam Smith was very much against colonialism because that lead to wars, and wars led to public debt. He said the solution to prevent this financial class of bondholders burdening the economy by imposing more and more taxes on consumer goods every time they went to war was to finance wars on a pay-as-you-go basis. Instead of borrowing, you'd tax the people. Then, he thought, if everybody felt the burden of war in the form of paying taxes, they'd be against it. Well, it took all of the 19th century to fight for democracy and to extend the vote so that instead of landlords controlling Parliament and its law-making and tax system through the House of Lords, you'd extend the vote to labor, to women and everybody. The theory was that society as a whole would vote in its self-interest. It would vote for the 99 Percent, not for the One Percent.

    By the time Marx wrote in the 1870s, he could see what was happening in Germany. German banks were trying to make money in conjunction with the government, by lending to heavy industry, largely to the military-industrial complex.

    HEDGES: This was Bismarck's kind of social – I don't know what we'd call it. It was a form of capitalist socialism

    HUDSON: They called it State Capitalism. There was a long discussion by Engels, saying, wait a minute. We're for Socialism. State Capitalism isn't what we mean by socialism. There are two kinds of state-oriented–.

    HEDGES: I'm going to interject that there was a kind of brilliance behind Bismarck's policy because he created state pensions, he provided health benefits, and he directed banking toward industry, toward the industrialization of Germany which, as you point out, was very different in Britain and the United States.

    HUDSON: German banking was so successful that by the time World War I broke out, there were discussions in English economic journals worrying that Germany and the Axis powers were going to win because their banks were more suited to fund industry. Without industry you can't have really a military. But British banks only lent for foreign trade and for speculation. Their stock market was a hit-and-run operation. They wanted quick in-and-out profits, while German banks didn't insist that their clients pay as much in dividends. German banks owned stocks as well as bonds, and there was much more of a mutual partnership.

    That's what most of the 19th century imagined was going to happen – that the world was on the way to socializing banking. And toward moving capitalism beyond the feudal level, getting rid of the landlord class, getting rid of the rent, getting rid of interest. It was going to be labor and capital, profits and wages, with profits being reinvested in more capital. You'd have an expansion of technology. By the early twentieth century most futurists imagined that we'd be living in a leisure economy by now.

    HEDGES: Including Karl Marx.

    HUDSON: That's right. A ten-hour workweek. To Marx, socialism was to be an outgrowth of the reformed state of capitalism, as seemed likely at the time – if labor organized in its self-interest.

    HEDGES: Isn't what happened in large part because of the defeat of Germany in World War I? But also, because we took the understanding of economists like Adam Smith and maybe Keynes. I don't know who you would blame for this, whether Ricardo or others, but we created a fictitious economic theory to praise a rentier or rent-derived, interest-derived capitalism that countered productive forces within the economy. Perhaps you can address that.

    HUDSON: Here's what happened. Marx traumatized classical economics by taking the concepts of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill and others, and pushing them to their logical conclusion. 2KillingTheHost_Cover_ruleProgressive capitalist advocates – Ricardian socialists such as John Stuart Mill – wanted to tax away the land or nationalize it. Marx wanted governments to take over heavy industry and build infrastructure to provide low-cost and ultimately free basic services. This was traumatizing the landlord class and the One Percent. And they fought back. They wanted to make everything part of "the market," which functioned on credit supplied by them and paid rent to them.

    None of the classical economists imagined how the feudal interests – these great vested interests that had all the land and money – actually would fight back and succeed. They thought that the future was going to belong to capital and labor. But by the late 19th century, certainly in America, people like John Bates Clark came out with a completely different theory, rejecting the classical economics of Adam Smith, the Physiocrats and John Stuart Mill.

    HEDGES: Physiocrats are, you've tried to explain, the enlightened French economists.

    HUDSON: The common denominator among all these classical economists was the distinction between earned income and unearned income. Unearned income was rent and interest. Earned incomes were wages and profits. But John Bates Clark came and said that there's no such thing as unearned income. He said that the landlord actually earns his rent by taking the effort to provide a house and land to renters, while banks provide credit to earn their interest. Every kind of income is thus "earned," and everybody earns their income. So everybody who accumulates wealth, by definition, according to his formulas, get rich by adding to what is now called Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

    HEDGES: One of the points you make in Killing the Host which I liked was that in almost all cases, those who had the capacity to make money parasitically off interest and rent had either – if you go back to the origins – looted and seized the land by force, or inherited it.

    HUDSON: That's correct. In other words, their income is unearned. The result of this anti-classical revolution you had just before World War I was that today, almost all the economic growth in the last decade has gone to the One Percent. It's gone to Wall Street, to real estate

    HEDGES: But you blame this on what you call Junk Economics.

    HUDSON: Junk Economics is the anti-classical reaction.

    HEDGES: Explain a little bit how, in essence, it's a fictitious form of measuring the economy.

    HUDSON: Well, some time ago I went to a bank, a block away from here – a Chase Manhattan bank – and I took out money from the teller. As I turned around and took a few steps, there were two pickpockets. One pushed me over and the other grabbed the money and ran out. The guard stood there and saw it. So I asked for the money back. I said, look, I was robbed in your bank, right inside. And they said, "Well, we don't arm our guards because if they shot someone, the thief could sue us and we don't want that." They gave me an equivalent amount of money back.

    Well, imagine if you count all this crime, all the money that's taken, as an addition to GDP. Because now the crook has provided the service of not stabbing me. Or suppose somebody's held up at an ATM machine and the robber says, "Your money or your life." You say, "Okay, here's my money." The crook has given you the choice of your life. In a way that's how the Gross National Product accounts are put up. It's not so different from how Wall Street extracts money from the economy. Then also you have landlords extracting

    HEDGES: Let's go back. They're extracting money from the economy by debt peonage. By raising

    HUDSON: By not playing a productive role, basically.

    HEDGES: Right. So it's credit card interest, mortgage interest, car loans, student loans. That's how they make their funds.

    HUDSON: That's right. Money is not a factor of production. But in order to have access to credit, in order to get money, in order to get an education, you have to pay the banks. At New York University here, for instance, they have Citibank. I think Citibank people were on the board of directors at NYU. You get the students, when they come here, to start at the local bank. And once you are in a bank and have monthly funds taken out of your account for electric utilities, or whatever, it's very cumbersome to change.

    So basically you have what the classical economists called the rentier class. The class that lives on economic rents. Landlords, monopolists charging more, and the banks. If you have a pharmaceutical company that raises the price of a drug from $12 a shot to $200 all of a sudden, their profits go up. Their increased price for the drug is counted in the national income accounts as if the economy is producing more. So all this presumed economic growth that has all been taken by the One Percent in the last ten years, and people say the economy is growing. But the economy isn't growing

    HEDGES: Because it's not reinvested.

    HUDSON: That's right. It's not production, it's not consumption. The wealth of the One Percent is obtained essentially by lending money to the 99 Percent and then charging interest on it, and recycling this interest at an exponentially growing rate.

    HEDGES: And why is it important, as I think you point out in your book, that economic theory counts this rentier income as productive income? Explain why that's important.

    HUDSON: If you're a rentier, you want to say that you earned your income by

    HEDGES: We're talking about Goldman Sachs, by the way.

    HUDSON: Yes, Goldman Sachs. The head of Goldman Sachs came out and said that Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive in the world. That's why they're paid what they are. The concept of productivity in America is income divided by labor. So if you're Goldman Sachs and you pay yourself $20 million a year in salary and bonuses, you're considered to have added $20 million to GDP, and that's enormously productive. So we're talking in a tautology. We're talking with circular reasoning here.

    So the issue is whether Goldman Sachs, Wall Street and predatory pharmaceutical firms, actually add "product" or whether they're just exploiting other people. That's why I used the word parasitism in my book's title. People think of a parasite as simply taking money, taking blood out of a host or taking money out of the economy. But in nature it's much more complicated. The parasite can't simply come in and take something. First of all, it needs to numb the host. It has an enzyme so that the host doesn't realize the parasite's there. And then the parasites have another enzyme that takes over the host's brain. It makes the host imagine that the parasite is part of its own body, actually part of itself and hence to be protected.

    That's basically what Wall Street has done. It depicts itself as part of the economy. Not as a wrapping around it, not as external to it, but actually the part that's helping the body grow, and that actually is responsible for most of the growth. But in fact it's the parasite that is taking over the growth.

    The result is an inversion of classical economics. It turns Adam Smith upside down. It says what the classical economists said was unproductive – parasitism – actually is the real economy. And that the parasites are labor and industry that get in the way of what the parasite wants – which is to reproduce itself, not help the host, that is, labor and capital.

    HEDGES: And then the classical economists like Adam Smith were quite clear that unless that rentier income, you know, the money made by things like hedge funds, was heavily taxed and put back into the economy, the economy would ultimately go into a kind of tailspin. And I think the example of that, which you point out in your book, is what's happened in terms of large corporations with stock dividends and buybacks. And maybe you can explain that.

    HUDSON: There's an idea in superficial textbooks and the public media that if companies make a large profit, they make it by being productive. And with

    HEDGES: Which is still in textbooks, isn't it?

    HUDSON: Yes. And also that if a stock price goes up, you're just capitalizing the profits – and the stock price reflects the productive role of the company. But that's not what's been happening in the last ten years. Just in the last two years, 92 percent of corporate profits in America have been spent either on buying back their own stock, or paid out as dividends to raise the price of the stock.

    HEDGES: Explain why they do this.

    HUDSON: About 15 years ago at Harvard, Professor Jensen said that the way to ensure that corporations are run most efficiently is to make the managers increase the price of the stock. So if you give the managers stock options, and you pay them not according to how much they're producing or making the company bigger, or expanding production, but the price of the stock, then you'll have the corporation run efficiently, financial style.

    So the corporate managers find there are two ways that they can increase the price of the stock. The first thing is to cut back long-term investment, and use the money instead to buy back their own stock. But when you buy your own stock, that means you're not putting the money into capital formation. You're not building new factories. You're not hiring more labor. You can actually increase the stock price by firing labor.

    HEDGES: That strategy only works temporarily.

    HUDSON: Temporarily. By using the income from past investments just to buy back stock, fire the labor force if you can, and work it more intensively. Pay it out as dividends. That basically is the corporate raider's model. You use the money to pay off the junk bond holders at high interest. And of course, this gets the company in trouble after a while, because there is no new investment.

    So markets shrink. You then go to the labor unions and say, gee, this company's near bankruptcy, and we don't want to have to fire you. The way that you can keep your job is if we downgrade your pensions. Instead of giving you what we promised, the defined benefit pension, we'll turn it into a defined contribution plan. You know what you pay every month, but you don't know what's going to come out. Or, you wipe out the pension fund, push it on to the government's Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, and use the money that you were going to pay for pensions to pay stock dividends. By then the whole economy is turning down. It's hollowed out. It shrinks and collapses. But by that time the managers will have left the company. They will have taken their bonuses and salaries and run.

    HEDGES: I want to read this quote from your book, written by David Harvey, in A Brief History of Neoliberalism, and have you comment on it.

    "The main substantive achievement of neoliberalism has been to redistribute rather than to generate wealth and income. [By] 'accumulation by dispossession' I mean the commodification and privatization of land, and the forceful expulsion of peasant populations; conversion of various forms of property rights (common collective state, etc.) into exclusive private property rights; suppression of rights to the commons; colonial, neocolonial, and the imperial processes of appropriation of assets (including natural resources); and usury, the national debt and, most devastating at all, the use of the credit system as a radical means of accumulation by dispossession. To this list of mechanisms, we may now add a raft of techniques such as the extraction of rents from patents, and intellectual property rights (such as the diminution or erasure of various forms of common property rights, such as state pensions, paid vacations, and access to education, health care) one through a generation or more of class struggle. The proposal to privatize all state pension rights, pioneered in Chile under the dictatorship is, for example, one of the cherished objectives of the Republicans in the US."

    This explains the denouement. The final end result you speak about in your book is, in essence, allowing what you call the rentier or the speculative class to cannibalize the entire society until it collapses.

    HUDSON: A property right is not a factor of production. Look at what happened in Chicago, the city where I grew up. Chicago didn't want to raise taxes on real estate, especially on its expensive commercial real estate. So its budget ran a deficit. They needed money to pay the bondholders, so they sold off the parking rights to have meters – you know, along the curbs. The result is that they sold to Goldman Sachs 75 years of the right to put up parking meters. So now the cost of living and doing business in Chicago is raised by having to pay the parking meters. If Chicago is going to have a parade and block off traffic, it has to pay Goldman Sachs what the firm would have made if the streets wouldn't have been closed off for a parade. All of a sudden it's much more expensive to live in Chicago because of this.

    But this added expense of having to pay parking rights to Goldman Sachs – to pay out interest to its bondholders – is counted as an increase in GDP, because you've created more product simply by charging more. If you sell off a road, a government or local road, and you put up a toll booth and make it into a toll road, all of a sudden GDP goes up.

    If you go to war abroad, and you spend more money on the military-industrial complex, all this is counted as increased production. None of this is really part of the production system of the capital and labor building more factories and producing more things that people need to live and do business. All of this is overhead. But there's no distinction between wealth and overhead.

    Failing to draw that distinction means that the host doesn't realize that there is a parasite there. The host economy, the industrial economy, doesn't realize what the industrialists realized in the 19th century: If you want to be an efficient economy and be low-priced and under-sell competitors, you have to cut your prices by having the public sector provide roads freely. Medical care freely. Education freely.

    If you charge for all of these, you get to the point that the U.S. economy is in today. What if American factory workers were to get all of their consumer goods for nothing. All their food, transportation, clothing, furniture, everything for nothing. They still couldn't compete with Asians or other producers, because they have to pay up to 43% of their income for rent or mortgage interest, 10% or more of their income for student loans, credit card debt. 15% of their paycheck is automatic withholding to pay Social Security, to cut taxes on the rich or to pay for medical care.

    So Americans built into the economy all this overhead. There's no distinction between growth and overhead. It's all made America so high-priced that we're priced out of the market, regardless of what trade policy we have.

    HEDGES: We should add that under this predatory form of economics, you game the system. So you privatize pension funds, you force them into the stock market, an overinflated stock market. But because of the way companies go public, it's the hedge fund managers who profit. And it's those citizens whose retirement savings are tied to the stock market who lose. Maybe we can just conclude by talking about how the system is fixed, not only in terms of burdening the citizen with debt peonage, but by forcing them into the market to fleece them again.

    HUDSON: Well, we talk about an innovation economy as if that makes money. Suppose you have an innovation and a company goes public. They go to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street investment banks to underwrite the stock to issue it at $40 a share. What's considered a successful float is when, immediately, Goldman and the others will go to their insiders and tell them to buy this stock and make a quick killing. A "successful" flotation doubles the price in one day, so that at the end of the day the stock's selling for $80.

    HEDGES: They have the option to buy it before anyone else, knowing that by the end of the day it'll be inflated, and then they sell it off.

    HUDSON: That's exactly right.

    HEDGES: So the pension funds come in and buy it at an inflated price, and then it goes back down.

    HUDSON: It may go back down, or it may be that the company just was shortchanged from the very beginning. The important thing is that the Wall Street underwriting firm, and the speculators it rounds up, get more in a single day than all the years it took to put the company together. The company gets $40. And the banks and their crony speculators also get $40.

    So basically you have the financial sector ending up with much more of the gains. The name of the game if you're on Wall Street isn't profits. It's capital gains. And that's something that wasn't even part of classical economics. They didn't anticipate that the price of assets would go up for any other reason than earning more money and capitalizing on income. But what you have had in the last 50 years – really since World War II – has been asset-price inflation. Most middle-class families have gotten the wealth that they've got since 1945 not really by saving what they've earned by working, but by the price of their house going up. They've benefited by the price of the house. And they think that that's made them rich and the whole economy rich.

    The reason the price of housing has gone up is that a house is worth whatever a bank is going to lend against it. If banks made easier and easier credit, lower down payments, then you're going to have a financial bubble. And now, you have real estate having gone up as high as it can. I don't think it can take more than 43% of somebody's income to buy it. But now, imagine if you're joining the labor force. You're not going to be able to buy a house at today's prices, putting down a little bit of your money, and then somehow end up getting rich just on the house investment. All of this money you pay the bank is now going to be subtracted from the amount of money that you have available to spend on goods and services.

    So we've turned the post-war economy that made America prosperous and rich inside out. Somehow most people believed they could get rich by going into debt to borrow assets that were going to rise in price. But you can't get rich, ultimately, by going into debt. In the end the creditors always win. That's why every society since Sumer and Babylonia have had to either cancel the debts, or you come to a society like Rome that didn't cancel the debts, and then you have a dark age. Everything collapses.

    [Dec 05, 2016] A Protectionist Moment?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes , the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins - but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other. ..."
    Sep 12, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Paul Krugman:
    A Protectionist Moment? : ... if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. ...

    But it's also true that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics ( protectionism causes depressions !), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection, hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict. I hope, by the way, that I haven't done any of that...

    Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes , the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins - but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.

    So the elite case for ever-freer trade is largely a scam, which voters probably sense even if they don't know exactly what form it's taking.

    Ripping up the trade agreements we already have would, again, be a mess, and I would say that Sanders is engaged in a bit of a scam himself in even hinting that he could do such a thing. Trump might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.

    But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements - including TPP, which hasn't happened yet - is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.

    cawley : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 03:47 AM
    Again, just because automation has been a major factor in job loss doesn't mean "off shoring" (using the term broadly and perhaps somewhat inaccurately) is not a factor.

    The "free" trade deals suck. They are correctly diagnosed as part of the problem.

    What would you propose to fix the problems caused by automation?

    jonny bakho -> cawley... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:25 AM
    Automation frees labor to do more productive and less onerous tasks. We should expand our solar production and our mass transit. We need to start re-engineering our urban areas. This will not bring back the number of jobs it would take to make cities like Flint thrive once again.

    Flint and Detroit have severe economic problems because they were mismanaged by road building and suburbanization in the 1950s and 1960s. Money that should have been spent on maintaining and improving urban infrastructure was instead plowed into suburban development that is not dense enough to sustain the infrastructure required to support it. People moved to the suburbs, abandoned the built infrastructure of the cities and kissed them goodbye.

    Big roads polluted the cities with lead, noise, diesel particles and ozone and smog. Stroads created pedestrian kill zones making urban areas, unwalkable, unpleasant- an urban blights to drive through rather than destinations to drive to.

    Government subsidized the white flight to the suburbs that has left both the suburbs and the urban cores with too low revenue to infrastructure ratio. The inner suburbs have aged into net losers, their infrastructure must be subsidized. Big Roads were built on the Big Idea that people would drive to the city to work and play and then drive home. That Big idea has a big problem. Urban areas are only sustainable when they have a high resident density. The future of cities like Flint and Detroit will be tearing out the roads and replacing them with streets and houses and renewing the housing stock that has been abandoned. It needs to be done by infill, revitalizing inner neighborhoods and working outward. Cities like Portland have managed to protect much of their core, but even they are challenged by demands for suburban sprawl.

    Slash and burn development, creating new suburbs and abandoning the old is not a sustainable model. Not only should we put people to work replacing the Flint lead pipes, but much of the city should be rebuilt from the inside out. Flint is the leading edge of this problem that requires fundamental changes in our built environment to fix. I recommend studying Flint as an object lesson of what bad development policy could do to all of our cities.

    http://www.flintexpats.com

    jonny bakho -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:29 AM
    An Interview with Frank Popper about Shrinking Cities, Buffalo Commons, and the Future of Flint

    How does America's approach shrinking cities compare to the rest of the world?

    I think the American way is to do nothing until it's too late, then throw everything at it and improvise and hope everything works. And somehow, insofar as the country's still here, it has worked. But the European or the Japanese way would involve much more thought, much more foresight, much more central planning, and much less improvising. They would implement a more, shall we say, sustained effort. The American way is different. Europeans have wondered for years and years why cities like Detroit or Cleveland are left to rot on the vine. There's a lot of this French hauteur when they ask "How'd you let this happen?"

    Do shrinking cities have any advantages over agricultural regions as they face declining populations?

    The urban areas have this huge advantage over all these larger American regions that are going through this. They have actual governments with real jurisdiction. Corrupt as Detroit or Philadelphia or Camden may be, they have actual governments that are supposed to be in charge of them. Who's in charge of western Kansas? Who's in charge of the Great Plains? Who is in charge of the lower Mississippi Delta or central Appalachia? All they've got are these distant federal agencies whose past performance is not exactly encouraging.

    Why wasn't there a greater outcry as the agricultural economy and the industrial economy collapsed?

    One reason for the rest of the country not to care is that there's no shortage of the consumer goods that these places once produced. All this decline of agriculture doesn't mean we're running out of food. We've got food coming out of our ears. Likewise, Flint has suffered through all this, but it's not like it's hard to buy a car in this country. It's not as if Flint can behave like a child and say "I'm going to hold my nose and stop you from getting cars until you do the right thing." Flint died and you can get zero A.P.R. financing. Western Kansas is on its last legs and, gee, cereal is cheaper than ever.

    In some sense that's the genius of capitalism - it's heartless. But if you look at the local results and the cultural results and the environmental results you shake your head. But I don't see America getting away from what I would call a little sarcastically the "wisdom" of the market. I don't think it's going to change.

    So is there any large-scale economic fallout from these monumental changes?

    Probably not, and it hurts to say so. And the only way I can feel good about saying that is to immediately point to the non-economic losses, the cultural losses. The losses of ways of life. The notion of the factory worker working for his or her children. The notion of the farmer working to build up the country and supply the rest of the world with food. We're losing distinctive ways of life. When we lose that we lose something important, but it's not like The Wall Street Journal cares. And I feel uncomfortable saying that. From a purely economic point of view, it's just the price of getting more efficient. It's a classic example of Schumpeter's theory of creative destruction, which is no fun if you're on the destruction end.

    Does the decline of cities like Flint mirror the death of the middle class in the United States?

    I think it's more the decline of the lower-middle class in the United States. Even when those jobs in the auto factories paid very high wages they were still for socially lower-middle-class people. I think there was always the notion in immigrant families and working-class families who worked in those situations that the current generation would work hard so that the children could go off and not have to do those kind of jobs. And when those jobs paid well that was a perfectly reasonable ambition. It's the cutting off of that ambition that really hurts now. The same thing has been true on farms and ranches in rural parts of the united states.

    http://www.flintexpats.com/2010/05/interview-with-frank-popper-about.html

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:45 AM
    It is a much different thing to be small minded about trade than it is to be large minded about everything else. The short story that it is all about automation and not trade will always get a bad reception because it is small minded. When you add in the large minded story about everything else then it becomes something entirely different from the short story. We all agree with you about everything else. You are wrong about globalization though. Both financialization and globalization suck and even if we paper over them with tax and transfer then they will still suck. One must forget what it is to be a created equal human to miss that. Have you never felt the job of accomplishment? Does not pride and self-confidence matter in your life?
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:11 AM
    "Have you never felt the joY of accomplishment?"

    [Apparently I have "jobs" on the mind even though I no longer have one nor need one in the least.]

    ken melvin -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:49 AM
    America's first course of action is denial; then, we pretend that things are different than the seem a lot.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to ken melvin... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:39 AM
    Priceless!
    DrDick -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:52 AM
    While automation is part of the story, offshoring is just as important. Even when there is not net loss in the numbers of jobs in aggregate, there is significant loss in better paying jobs in manufacturing. It is important to look at the distributional effects within countries, as well as between them

    http://www.statisticbrain.com/outsourcing-statistics-by-country/

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0ahUKEwjj9OK1xrbLAhUG92MKHbveBAgQFghhMAs&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wto.org%2Fenglish%2Fres_e%2Fbooksp_e%2Fglob_soc_sus_e_chap1_e.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHRBtLPlhJsKMg5PfxSlUIgOsFuwA&cad=rja

    https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2014/07/30/94864/offshoring-work-is-taking-a-toll-on-the-u-s-economy/

    Julio -> cawley... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:24 AM
    "off shoring"

    [The trending term is "tossing it over the Wall".]

    Chris G : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 03:58 AM
    Legislatively, what would it take to withdraw from the WTO? NAFTA? Other trade agreements?
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Chris G ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:52 AM
    It would probably be cheaper and easier to just fix them. We don't need to withdraw from trade. We just need to fix the terms of trade that cause large trade deficits and cross border capital flows and also fix the FOREX system rigging.
    JohnH -> Chris G ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:10 AM
    What would it take to ignore trade agreements? They shouldn't be any more difficult to ignore than the Geneva Conventions, which the US routinely flaunts.
    Richard A. : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:30 AM
    In order to import we must export and in order to export we must import. The two are tied together. Suppressing imports means we export less.

    What free trade does is lower the price level relative to wages. It doesn't uniformly lower the price level but rather lowers the cost of goods that are capable of being traded internationally. It lowers the price on those goods that are disproportionately purchased by those with low incomes.

    Free trade causes a progressive decline in the price level while protectionism causes a regressive increase in the price level.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Richard A.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:56 AM
    Are you saying that free trade lowers the cost of rice in India and China and raises the cost of cell phones and autos in the US?
    pgl -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:48 AM
    Funny rebuttal! Bhagwati probably has a model that says the opposite! But then he grew up in India and should one day get a Nobel Prize for his contributions to international economics.
    pgl -> Richard A.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:47 AM
    "What free trade does is lower the price level relative to wages."

    Which price? Whose wages? Look up Stopler-Samuelson ... a 1941 classic which I suspect Greg Mankiw has never bothered to learn.

    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to Richard A.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:54 AM
    People don't need good wages, they can buy cheap Chinese stuff at WalMart.
    JohnH -> Richard A.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:14 AM
    "In order to import we must export and in order to export we must import." One would think. However, experience shows that that's not the case.

    Capital flows from overseas investments help balance the books. When that doesn't work, the US simply prints money to be held by foreign CBs.

    ken melvin : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:53 AM
    Our media needs to copy France 24, ... and have real debates about real issues. What we get is along the lines of ignoring the problem then attacking any effort to correct. for example, the media stayed away from the healthcare crisis, too complicated, but damn they are good at criticizing.
    JohnH -> ken melvin... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:16 AM
    France 24 promotes neocon-style jingoism...even worse than Big Media in America.

    I hope they're better on domestic social policy.

    Tom Palley : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:08 AM
    A seriously shameful article. Krugman has been a booster of trade & globalization for 30 years: marginally more nuanced than the establishment, but still a booster.

    Now, the establishment has what it wanted and the effects have been disastrous for those not in the top 20 percent of the income distribution.

    At this stage, comes insult to injury. Establishment economists (like Mr. Krugman) can reinvent themselves with "brilliant new studies" showing the costs and damage of globalization. They pay no professional costs for the grievous injuries inflicted; there is no mention of the fact that critical outsider economists have been predicting and writing about these injuries and were right; and they blithely say we must stay the course because we are locked-in and have few options.

    Forgive me while I puke.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Tom Palley ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:44 AM
    Bless you my son.

    I don't think that they think that we weebles have memories.

    Peter K. -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:13 AM
    "I don't think that they think that we weebles have memories."

    They insult our intelligence and wonder why people get mad.

    pgl -> Tom Palley ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:51 AM
    Krugman is not Greg Mankiw. Most people who actually get international economics (Mankiw does not) are not of the free trade benefits all types. Paul Samuelson certainly does not buy into Mankiw's spin. Funny thing - Mankiw recently cited an excellent piece from Samuelson only to dishonestly suggest Samuelson did not believe in what he wrote.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:12 AM
    Why are we talking about Mankiw? You can't move the goalposts.
    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:40 AM
    Why are you mischaracterizing what Krugman has written? That's my point. Oh wait - you misrepresent what people write so you can "win" a "debate". Never mind. Please proceed with the serial dishonesty.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:55 AM
    "The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn't and can't."

    As Dean Baker says, we need to confront Walmart and Goldman Sachs at home, who like these policies, more than the Chinese.

    The Chinese want access to our consumer market. They'd also like if we did't invade countries like Iraq.

    "so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn't"

    And what is that? Tear up trade deals? It is Krugman who is engaging in straw man arguments.

    DrDick -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:02 AM
    Krugman does indeed misrepresent Sanders' positions on trade. Sander is not against trade, he merely insists on *Fair Trade*, which incorporates human rights and environmental protections. His opposition is to the kinds of deals, like NAFTA and TPP, which effectively gut those (a central element in Kruman's own critique of the latter).
    DrDick -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:56 AM
    Krugman has definitely backed off his (much) earlier boosterism and publicly said so. This is an excellent piece by him, though it does rather downplay his earlier stances a bit. This is one of the things I especially like about him.
    Dan Kervick -> Tom Palley ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:11 AM
    I can get the idea that some people win, some people lose from liberalized trade. But what really bugs me about the neoliberal trade agenda is that it has been part of a larger set of economically conservative, laissez faire policies that have exacerbated the damages from trade rather than offsetting them.

    At the same time they were exposing US workers to greater competition from abroad and destroying and offshoring working class jobs via both trade and liberalized capital flows, the neoliberals were also doing things like "reinventing government" - that is, shrinking structural government spending and public investment - and ending welfare. They have done nothing serious about steering capital and job development efforts toward the communities devastated by the liberalization.

    The neoliberal position has seem to come down to "We can't make bourgeois progress without breaking a few working class eggs."

    pgl -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:41 AM
    I guess I'm not a neoliberal. Neither is Dani Rodrik. Nor is Paul Krugman.
    Dan Kervick -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:50 AM
    What does Dani Rodrik have to do with the above comments?
    pgl -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:51 AM
    Read his 1997 book. Excellent stuff.
    Julio -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:38 AM
    Great points, and a good line too.
    JohnH -> Tom Palley ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:22 AM
    Agreed! "Krugman has been a booster of trade & globalization for 30 years: marginally more nuanced than the establishment, but still a booster.'

    Now he claims that he saw the light all along! "much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions!), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection, hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict. I hope, by the way, that I haven't done any of that..."

    You would be hard pressed to find any Krugman clips that cited any of those problems in the past. Far from being an impartial economist, he was always an avid booster of free trade, overlooking those very downsides that he suddenly decides to confess.

    Dan Kervick : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:11 AM
    As far as I know, Sanders has not proposed ripping up the existing trade deals. His information page on trade emphasizes (i) his opposition to these deals when they were first negotiated and enacted, and (ii) the principles he will apply to the consideration of future trade deals. Much of his argumentation concerning past deals is put forward to motivate his present opposition to TPP.

    http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-trade/

    So Krugman's point about how difficult it would be diplomatically to "rip up" the existing trade deals seems like a red herring.

    Dan Kervick -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:29 AM
    Note also that Sanders connects his discussion of the harms of past trade policy to the Rebuild America Act. That is, his approach is forward facing. We can't undo most of the past damage by recreating the old working class economy we wrecked, but we can be aggressive about using government-directed national investment programs to create new, high-paying jobs in the US.
    jonny bakho -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:16 AM
    You could have said the same about the 1920s
    We can't undo most of the past damage by recreating the old agrarian class economy we wrecked, but we can be aggressive about using government-directed national investment programs to create new, high-paying jobs in the US.

    The march of progress:
    Mechanization of agriculture with displacement of large numbers of Ag workers.
    The rise of factory work and large numbers employed in manufacturing.
    Automation of Manufacturing with large displacement of workers engaged in manufacturing.
    What do we want our workers to do? This question must be answered at the highest level of society and requires much government facilitation. The absence of government facilitation is THE problem.

    Dan Kervick -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:23 AM
    Completely agree. Countries need economic strategies that go beyond, "let the markets sort it all out."
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:47 AM
    "...So Krugman's point about how difficult it would be diplomatically to "rip up" the existing trade deals seems like a red herring."

    [Win one for the kipper.]

    pgl -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:52 AM
    Memo to Paul Krugman - lead with the economics and stay with the economics. His need to get into the dirty business of politics dilutes what he ends up sensibly writes later on.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:56 AM
    ""The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn't and can't."
    Chatham -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:36 AM
    Yeah, it's pretty dishonest for Krugman to pretend that Sanders' position is "ripping up the trade agreements we already have" and then say Sanders is "engaged in a bit of a scam" because he can't do that. Sanders actual position (trying to stop new trade deals like the TPP) is something the president has a lot of influence over (they can veto the deal). Hard to tell what Krugman is doing here other than deliberately spreading misinformation.

    Also worth noting that he decides to compare Sanders' opposition to trade deals with Trump, and ignore the fact that Clinton has come out against the TPP as well .

    anne : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:26 AM
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/a-protectionist-moment/

    March 9, 2016

    A Protectionist Moment?
    By Paul Krugman

    Busy with real life, but yes, I know what happened in the primaries yesterday. Triumph for Trump, and big upset for Sanders - although it's still very hard to see how he can catch Clinton. Anyway, a few thoughts, not about the horserace but about some deeper currents.

    The Sanders win defied all the polls, and nobody really knows why. But a widespread guess is that his attacks on trade agreements resonated with a broader audience than his attacks on Wall Street; and this message was especially powerful in Michigan, the former auto superpower. And while I hate attempts to claim symmetry between the parties - Trump is trying to become America's Mussolini, Sanders at worst America's Michael Foot * - Trump has been tilling some of the same ground. So here's the question: is the backlash against globalization finally getting real political traction?

    You do want to be careful about announcing a political moment, given how many such proclamations turn out to be ludicrous. Remember the libertarian moment? The reformocon moment? Still, a protectionist backlash, like an immigration backlash, is one of those things where the puzzle has been how long it was in coming. And maybe the time is now.

    The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn't and can't.

    But it's also true that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions! ** ), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection, hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict. I hope, by the way, that I haven't done any of that; I think I've always been clear that the gains from globalization aren't all that (here's a back-of-the-envelope on the gains from hyperglobalization *** - only part of which can be attributed to policy - that is less than 5 percent of world GDP over a generation); and I think I've never assumed away the income distribution effects.

    Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes, **** the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins - but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.

    So the elite case for ever-freer trade is largely a scam, which voters probably sense even if they don't know exactly what form it's taking.

    Ripping up the trade agreements we already have would, again, be a mess, and I would say that Sanders is engaged in a bit of a scam himself in even hinting that he could do such a thing. Trump might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.

    But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements - including Trans-Pacific Partnership, which hasn't happened yet - is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot

    ** http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/the-mitt-hawley-fallacy/

    *** http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/the-gains-from-hyperglobalization-wonkish/

    **** http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2016/03/trade_trump_and_downward_class059814.php

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:26 AM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot

    Michael Mackintosh Foot (1913 – 2010) was a British Labour Party politician and man of letters who was a Member of Parliament (MP) from 1945 to 1955 and from 1960 until 1992. He was Deputy Leader of the Labour Party from 1976 to 1980, and later the Leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition from 1980 to 1983.

    Associated with the left of the Labour Party for most of his career, Foot was an ardent supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and British withdrawal from the European Economic Community. He was appointed to the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Employment under Harold Wilson in 1974, and he later served as Leader of the House of Commons under James Callaghan. A passionate orator, he led Labour through the 1983 general election, when the party obtained its lowest share of the vote at a general election since 1918 and the fewest parliamentary seats it had had at any time since before 1945.

    pgl -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:53 AM
    Foot sounds like he was a good leader of the Labour Party.
    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:27 AM
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/the-mitt-hawley-fallacy/

    March 4, 2016

    The Mitt-Hawley Fallacy
    By Paul Krugman

    There was so much wrong with Mitt Romney's Trump-is-a-disaster-whom-I-will-support-in-the-general * speech that it may seem odd to call him out for bad international macroeconomics. But this is a pet peeve of mine, in an area where I really, truly know what I'm talking about. So here goes.

    In warning about Trumponomics, Romney declared:

    "If Donald Trump's plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into prolonged recession. A few examples. His proposed 35 percent tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war and that would raise prices for consumers, kill our export jobs and lead entrepreneurs and businesses of all stripes to flee America."

    After all, doesn't everyone know that protectionism causes recessions? Actually, no. There are reasons to be against protectionism, but that's not one of them.

    Think about the arithmetic (which has a well-known liberal bias). Total final spending on domestically produced goods and services is

    Total domestic spending + Exports – Imports = GDP

    Now suppose we have a trade war. This will cut exports, which other things equal depresses the economy. But it will also cut imports, which other things equal is expansionary. For the world as a whole, the cuts in exports and imports will by definition be equal, so as far as world demand is concerned, trade wars are a wash.

    OK, I'm sure some people will start shouting "Krugman says protectionism does no harm." But no: protectionism in general should reduce efficiency, and hence the economy's potential output. But that's not at all the same as saying that it causes recessions.

    But didn't the Smoot-Hawley tariff cause the Great Depression? No. There's no evidence at all that it did. Yes, trade fell a lot between 1929 and 1933, but that was almost entirely a consequence of the Depression, not a cause. (Trade actually fell faster ** during the early stages of the 2008 Great Recession than it did after 1929.) And while trade barriers were higher in the 1930s than before, this was partly a response to the Depression, partly a consequence of deflation, which made specific tariffs (i.e. tariffs that are stated in dollars per unit, not as a percentage of value) loom larger.

    Again, not the thing most people will remember about Romney's speech. But, you know, protectionism was the only reason he gave for believing that Trump would cause a recession, which I think is kind of telling: the GOP's supposedly well-informed, responsible adult, trying to save the party, can't get basic economics right at the one place where economics is central to his argument.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/mitt-romney-speech.html

    ** http://www.voxeu.org/article/tale-two-depressions-what-do-new-data-tell-us-february-2010-update

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:28 AM
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/the-gains-from-hyperglobalization-wonkish/

    October 1, 2013

    The Gains From Hyperglobalization (Wonkish)
    By Paul Krugman

    Still taking kind of an emotional vacation from current political madness. Following up on my skeptical post on worries about slowing trade growth, * I wondered what a state-of-the-art model would say.

    The natural model to use, at least for me, is Eaton-Kortum, ** which is a very ingenious approach to thinking about multilateral trade flows. The basic model is Ricardian - wine and cloth and labor productivity and all that - except that there are many goods and many countries, transportation costs, and countries are assumed to gain productivity in any particular industry through a random process. They make some funny assumptions about distributions - hey, that's kind of the price of entry for this kind of work - and in return get a tractable model that yields gravity-type equations for international trade flows. This is a good thing, because gravity models *** of trade - purely empirical exercises, with no real theory behind them - are known to work pretty well.

    Their model also yields a simple expression for the welfare gains from trade:

    Real income = A*(1-import share)^(-1/theta)

    where A is national productivity and theta is a parameter of their assumed random process (don't ask); they suggest that theta=4 provides the best match to available data.

    Now, what I wanted to do was apply this to the rapid growth of trade that has taken place since around 1990, what Subramanian **** calls "hyperglobalization". According to Subramanian's estimates, overall trade in goods and services has risen from about 19 percent of world GDP in the early 1990s to 33 percent now, bringing us to a level of integration that really is historically unprecedented.

    There are some conceptual difficulties with using this rise directly in the Eaton-Kortum framework, because much of it has taken the form of trade in intermediate goods, and the framework isn't designed to handle that. Still, let me ignore that, and plug Subramanian's numbers into the equation above; I get a 4.9 percent rise in real incomes due to increased globalization.

    That's by no means small change, but it's only a fairly small fraction of global growth. The Maddison database ***** gives us a 45 percent rise in global GDP per capita over the same period, so this calculation suggests that rising trade was responsible for around 10 percent of overall global growth. My guess is that most people who imagine themselves well-informed would give a bigger number.

    By the way, for those critical of globalization, let me hasten to concede that by its nature the Eaton-Kortum model doesn't let us talk about income distribution, and it also makes no room for the possible role of globalization in causing secular stagnation. ******

    Still, I thought this was an interesting calculation to make - which may show more about my warped sense of what's interesting than it does about anything else.

    * http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/should-slowing-trade-growth-worry-us/

    ** http://www.nber.org/papers/w11764

    *** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade

    **** http://www.gcf.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/GCF_Subramanian-working-paper-3_-6.17.13.pdf

    ***** http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/home.htm

    ****** http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/trade-and-secular-stagnation/

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:46 AM
    http://www.nber.org/papers/w11764

    November, 2005

    General Equilibrium Analysis of the Eaton-Kortum Model of International Trade
    By Fernando Alvarez and Robert E. Lucas

    We study a variation of the Eaton-Kortum model, a competitive, constant-returns-to-scale multicountry Ricardian model of trade. We establish existence and uniqueness of an equilibrium with balanced trade where each country imposes an import tariff. We analyze the determinants of the cross-country distribution of trade volumes, such as size, tariffs and distance, and compare a calibrated version of the model with data for the largest 60 economies. We use the calibrated model to estimate the gains of a world-wide trade elimination of tariffs, using the theory to explain the magnitude of the gains as well as the differential effect arising from cross-country differences in pre-liberalization of tariffs levels and country size.

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:46 AM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade

    The gravity model of international trade in international economics, similar to other gravity models in social science, predicts bilateral trade flows based on the economic sizes (often using GDP measurements) and distance between two units. The model was first used by Jan Tinbergen in 1962.

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:47 AM
    http://www.gcf.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/GCF_Subramanian-working-paper-3_-6.17.13.pdf

    June, 2013

    The Hyperglobalization of Trade and Its Future
    By Arvind Subramanian and Martin Kessler

    Abstract

    The open, rules-based trading system has delivered immense benefits-for the world, for individual countries, and for average citizens in these countries. It can continue to do so, helping today's low-income countries make the transition to middle-income status. Three challenges must be met to preserve this system. Rich countries must sustain the social consensus in favor of open markets and globalization at a time of considerable economic uncertainty and weakness; China and other middle-income countries must remain open; and mega-regionalism must be prevented from leading to discrimination and trade conflicts. Collective action should help strengthen the institutional underpinnings of globalization. The world should move beyond the Doha Round dead to more meaningful multilateral negotiations to address emerging challenges, including possible threats from new mega-regional agreements. The rising powers, especially China, will have a key role to play in resuscitating multilateralism.

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:56 AM
    Real income = A*(1-import share)^(-1/theta)

    [ Help! What does this mean in words? ]

    Peter K. : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:37 AM
    "Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes, the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins"

    That was never the conventional case for trade. Plus it's kind of odd that you have to add "plus have the government redistribute" to the case your making.

    Tom Pally above is correct. Krugman has been on the wrong side of this issue. He's gotten better, but the timing is he's gotten better as the Democratic Party has moved to the left and pushed back against corporate trade deals. Even Hillary came out late against Obama's TPP.

    Sanders has nothing about ripping up trade deals. He has said he won't do any more.

    As cawley predicted, once Sanders won Michigan, Krugman started hitting him again at his blog. With cheap shots I might add. He's ruining his brand.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:41 AM
    'A Protectionist Moment?'

    So for Krugman, no doing corporate trade deals means you're "protectionist?"

    It's a fair trade moment. As Dean Baker points out, corporate trade deals are protectionist:

    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/tell-morning-edition-it-s-not-free-trade-folks

    Tell Morning Edition: It's Not "Free Trade" Folks
    by Dean Baker
    Published: 10 March 2016

    Hey, can an experienced doctor from Germany show up and start practicing in New York next week? Since the answer is no, we can say that we don't have free trade. It's not an immigration issue, if the doctor wants to work in a restaurant kitchen, she would probably get away with it. We have protectionist measures that limit the number of foreign doctors in order to keep their pay high. These protectionist measures have actually been strengthened in the last two decades.

    We also have strengthened patent and copyright protections, making drugs and other affected items far more expensive. These protections are also forms of protectionism.

    This is why Morning Edition seriously misled its listeners in an interview with ice cream barons Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield over their support of Senator Bernie Sanders. The interviewer repeatedly referred to "free trade" agreements and Sanders' opposition to them. While these deals are all called "free trade" deals to make them sound more palatable ("selective protectionism to redistribute income upward" doesn't sound very appealing), that doesn't mean they are actually about free trade. Morning Edition should not have used the term employed by promoters to push their trade agenda.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:57 AM
    This has been Dean Baker's excellent theme for a very long time. And if you actually paid attention to what Krugman said about TPP - he agreed with Dean's excellent points. But do continue to set up straw man arguments so you can dishonestly attack Krugman.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:06 AM
    Some of us have memories. Like Tom Palley up above.
    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:42 AM
    Memories of things Krugman never wrote. In other words, very faulty memories.
    Julio -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:07 AM
    No. That is not a sign of a faulty memory, quite the contrary.

    Krugman writes column after column praising trade pacts and criticizing (rightly, I might add) the yahoos who object for the wrong reasons.
    But he omits a few salient facts like
    - the gains are small,
    - the government MUST intervene with redistribution for this to work socially,
    - there are no (or minimal) provisions for that requirement in the pacts.

    I would say his omissions speak volumes and are worth remembering.

    Syaloch -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:51 AM
    Krugman initially wrote a confused column about the TPP, treating it as a simple free trade deal which he said would have little impact because tariffs were already so low. But he did eventually look into the matter further and wound up agreeing with Baker's take.
    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:56 AM
    "That was never the conventional case for trade". Actually it was. Of course Greg Mankiw never got the memo so his free trade benefits all BS confuses a lot of people. Mankiw sucks at international trade.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:11 AM
    Actually it wasn't. I remember what Krugman and others wrote at the time about NAFTA and the WTO.

    https://uneasymoney com/2016/03/06/krugman-suffers-a-memory-lapse/

    David Glasner attacks Krugman from the right, but he doesn't whitewash the past as you do. He remembers Gore versus Perot:

    "Indeed, Romney didn't even mention the Smoot-Hawley tariff, but Krugman evidently forgot the classic exchange between Al Gore and the previous incarnation of protectionist populist outrage in an anti-establishment billionaire candidate for President:

    GORE I've heard Mr. Perot say in the past that, as the carpenters says, measure twice and cut once. We've measured twice on this. We have had a test of our theory and we've had a test of his theory. Over the last five years, Mexico's tariffs have begun to come down because they've made a unilateral decision to bring them down some, and as a result there has been a surge of exports from the United States into Mexico, creating an additional 400,000 jobs, and we can create hundreds of thousands of more if we continue this trend. We know this works. If it doesn't work, you know, we give six months notice and we're out of it. But we've also had a test of his theory.

    PEROT When?

    GORE In 1930, when the proposal by Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley was to raise tariffs across the board to protect our workers. And I brought some pictures, too.

    [Larry] KING You're saying Ross is a protectionist?

    GORE This is, this is a picture of Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley. They look like pretty good fellows. They sounded reasonable at the time; a lot of people believed them. The Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Protection Bill. He wants to raise tariffs on Mexico. They raised tariffs, and it was one of the principal causes, many economists say the principal cause, of the Great Depression in this country and around the world. Now, I framed this so you can put it on your wall if you want to.

    You can watch it here*

    * https://uneasymoney com/2016/02/17/competitive-devaluation-plus-monetary-expansion-does-create-a-free-lunch/

    jonny bakho -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:26 AM
    You obviously have not read Krugman. Here is from his 1997 Slate piece:

    But putting Greenspan (or his successor) into the picture restores much of the classical vision of the macroeconomy. Instead of an invisible hand pushing the economy toward full employment in some unspecified long run, we have the visible hand of the Fed pushing us toward its estimate of the noninflationary unemployment rate over the course of two or three years. To accomplish this, the board must raise or lower interest rates to bring savings and investment at that target unemployment rate in line with each other.

    And so all the paradoxes of thrift, widow's cruses, and so on become irrelevant. In particular, an increase in the savings rate will translate into higher investment after all, because the Fed will make sure that it does.

    To me, at least, the idea that changes in demand will normally be offset by Fed policy--so that they will, on average, have no effect on employment--seems both simple and entirely reasonable. Yet it is clear that very few people outside the world of academic economics think about things that way. For example, the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement was conducted almost entirely in terms of supposed job creation or destruction. The obvious (to me) point that the average unemployment rate over the next 10 years will be what the Fed wants it to be, regardless of the U.S.-Mexico trade balance, never made it into the public consciousness. (In fact, when I made that argument at one panel discussion in 1993, a fellow panelist--a NAFTA advocate, as it happens--exploded in rage: "It's remarks like that that make people hate economists!")

    http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1996/10/economic_culture_wars.html

    pgl -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:44 AM
    Yes. But please do not interrupt PeterK with reality. He has important work do with his bash all things Krugman agenda. BTW - it is a riot that he cites Ross Perot on NAFTA. Perot has a self centered agenda there which Gore exposed. Never trust a corrupt business person whether it is Perot or Trump.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:42 AM
    Did you read what Al Gore said? He said nothing about the government redistributing the gains from NAFTA?
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:44 AM
    "But please do not interrupt PeterK with reality."

    We are talking about the reality of Krugman's past support for free trade agreements.

    You can't rewrite the past.

    jonny bakho -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:47 AM
    Yes the model PeterK is using is unclear. He doesn't seem to have a grasp on the economics of the issues. He seems to think that Sanders is a font of economic wisdom who is not to be questioned. I would hate to see the left try to make a flawed candidate into the larger than life icon that the GOP has made out of Reagan.
    Peter K. -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:15 AM
    "Yes the model PeterK is using is unclear. He doesn't seem to have a grasp on the economics of the issues."

    Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein. Like you I want full employment and rising wages. And like Krugman I am very much an internationalist. I want us to deal fairly with the rest of the world. We need to cooperate especially in the face of global warming.

    1. My first, best solution would be fiscal action. Like everyone else. I prefer Sanders's unicorn plan of $1 trillion over five years rather than Hillary's plan which is one quarter of the size. Her plan puts more pressure on the Fed and monetary policy.

    a. My preference would be to pay for it with Pigouvian taxes on the rich, corporations, and the financial sector.

    b. if not a, then deficit spending like Trudeau in Canada

    C. if the deficit hawks block that, then monetary-financing would be the way around them.

    2. close the trade deficit. Dean Baker and Bernstein have written about this a lot. Write currency agreements into trade deals. If we close the trade deficit and are at full employment, then we can import more from the rest of the world.

    3. If powerful interests block 1. and 2. then lean on monetary policy. Reduce the price of credit to boost demand. It works as a last resort.

    "I would hate to see the left try to make a flawed candidate into the larger than life icon that the GOP has made out of Reagan.'

    I haven't seen any evidence of this. It would be funny if the left made an old Jewish codger from Brooklyn into an icon. Feel the Bern!!!

    Sanders regularly points out it's not about him as President fixing everything, it's about creating a movement. It's about getting people involved. He can't do it by himself. Obama would say this too. Elizabeth Warren become popular by saying the same things Sanders is saying.

    Syaloch -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:19 PM
    The Compensation Principle certainly is part of standard Heckscher-Ohlin trade model, you can find it in any textbook:

    http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch60/T60-13.php

    However to say that the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the Compensation Principle isn't quite accurate. The conventional case has traditionally relied on the assertion that "we" are better off with trade since we could *theoretically* distribute the gains. However, free trade boosters never seem to get around to worrying about distributing the gains *in practice*. In practice, free trade is typically justified simply by the net aggregate gain, regardless of how these gains are distributed or who is hurt in the process.

    To my mind, before considering some trade liberalization deal we should FIRST agree to and implement the redistribution mechanisms and only then reduce barriers. Implementing trade deals in a backward, half-assed way as has typically been the case often makes "us" worse off than autarky.

    Peter K. -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:43 AM
    From Krugman's wikipedia article:

    "Krugman has at times advocated free markets in contexts where they are often viewed as controversial. He has ... likened the opposition against free trade and globalization to the opposition against evolution via natural selection (1996),[167]

    167 167 http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm

    "Ricardo's difficult idea". Web.mit.edu. 1996. Retrieved 2011-10-04.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:48 AM
    Wikipedia. Now there is an unimpeachable source!
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:17 AM
    what's your alternative?
    Julio -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:10 AM
    (In fact, when I made that argument at one panel discussion in 1993, a fellow panelist--a NAFTA advocate, as it happens--exploded in rage: "It's remarks like that that make people hate economists!")

    [Thanks to electoral politics, we're all fellow panelists now.]

    Peter K. -> Julio ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:20 AM
    "To me, at least, the idea that changes in demand will normally be offset by Fed policy--so that they will, on average, have no effect on employment--seems both simple and entirely reasonable. Yet it is clear that very few people outside the world of academic economics think about things that way."

    As we've seen the Fed is overly fearful of inflation, so the Fed doesn't offset the trade deficit as quickly as it should. Instead we suffer hysteresis and reduction of potential output.

    Peter K. : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:04 AM
    "The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious."

    Here Krugman is more honest. We're basically buying off the Chinese, etc. The cost for stopping this would be less cooperation from the Chinese, etc.

    This is new. He never used to say this kind of thing. Instead he'd go after "protectionists" as luddites.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:09 AM
    "This is new. He never used to say this kind of thing. Instead he'd go after "protectionists" as luddites."

    You have Krugman confused with Greg Mankiw. Most real international economics (Mankiw is not one) recognize the distributional consequences of free trade v. protectionism. Then again - putting forth the Mankiw uninformed spin is a prerequisite for being on Team Republican. Of course Republicans will go protectionist whenever it is politically expedient as in that temporary set of steel tariffs. Helped Bush-Cheney in 2004 and right after that - no tariffs. Funny how that worked.

    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:20 AM
    "Most real international economics (Mankiw is not one) recognize the distributional consequences of free trade v. protectionism."

    Obama and others don't defend the TPP that way. Krugman and Hillary don't support the TPP but only because the politics has shifted since the 1990s.

    If Krugman wrote today as he did in the 1990s, he'd completely ruin his brand as liberal economist.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:22 AM
    Where is the "redistribution from government" in the TPP. There isn't any.

    Even the NAFTA side agreements on labor and the environment are toothless. The point of these corporate trade deals is to profit from the lower labor and environmental standards of poorer countries.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:46 AM
    And where did I say TPP was a good thing? I have slammed TPP. And I never said NAFTA included this compensation thing. Nor did Mark Kleiman.

    But do continue to misrepresent what I and others have said. It is what you do.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:12 AM
    Hat tip to my Econospeak colleague Sandwichman for noting this from Krugman:

    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2013/06/paul-krugmans-sympathy-for-luddites.html

    Mark Thoma also noted this sympathy for the Luddites. But the professional Krugman haters have to deny he would write such things.

    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:17 AM
    The fact that you resort to calling me a professional Krugman hater means you're not interested in an actual debate about actual ideas. You've lost the debate and I'm not participating.

    One is not allowed to criticize Krugman lest one be labeled a professional Krugman hater?

    Your resort to name calling just weakens the case you're making.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:47 AM
    You of late have wasted so much space misrepresenting what Krugman has said. Maybe you don't hate him - maybe you just want to get his attention. For a date maybe. Lord - the troll in you is truly out of control.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:29 AM
    I have not misrepresented what Krugman has said.
    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:49 AM
    Who wrote?

    "This is new. He never used to say this kind of thing. Instead he'd go after "protectionists" as luddites."

    Did you even bother to read that link to what the Sandwichman posted? Didn't think so.

    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:23 AM
    Sandwichman's quote is from 2013. I'm talking about before that and especially in the 1990s.

    Sandwichman says the quote is notable because Krugman has changed his views. That proves my point.

    Did you read it?

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:34 AM
    Sandwichman may think Krugman changed his views but if one actually read what he has written over the years (as opposed to your cherry picking quotes), you might have noticed otherwise. But of course you want Krugman to look bad. It is what you do.
    Syaloch -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:31 PM
    Krugman's views have evolved quite a bit over the years. Can you envision today's Krugman singing the praises of cheap labor?

    http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/smokey.htm

    In Praise of Cheap Labor (1997)

    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:25 AM
    Only recently he has begun to say that trade deals are part of diplomacy, like we're giving these countries something in order for them to cooperate.

    If we didn't do these trade deals, these countries would cooperate less.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , -1
    It's a legitimate point.

    [Dec 05, 2016] The conditions that produced and enabled Trump are the Democratic Party betrayal or working classes, especially its transformation into another wing of neoliberal party of the USA under Clinton. People now view a vote for Hillary as a vote for more of the same - increasing disparity in wealth and income.

    Sizeable numbers of Americans have seen wages decline in real terms for nearly 20 years. Many/most parents in many communities do not see a better future before them, or for their children.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Democracy demands that ballot access rules be selected by referendum, not by the very legacy parties that maintain legislative control by effectively denying ballot access to parties that will pose a challenge to their continued rule. ..."
    "... I think the U.S. Party system, in the political science sense, shifted to a new state during George W Bush's administration as, in Kevin Phillip's terms the Republican Party was taken over by Theocrats and Bad Money. ..."
    "... My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income. ..."
    "... Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying hierarchy like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with ersatz status. ..."
    "... For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations. ..."
    "... Watching Clinton scoop up bankster money, welcome Republicans neocons to the ranks of her supporters does not fill me with hope. ..."
    Aug 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Glenn 08.02.16 at 5:01 pm

    @William Meyer 08.02.16 at 4:41 pm

    Legislators affiliated with the duopoly parties should not write the rules governing the ballot access of third parties. This exclusionary rule making amounts to preserving a self-dealing duopoly. Elections are the interest of the people who vote and those elected should not be able to subvert the democratic process by acting as a cartel.

    Democracy demands that ballot access rules be selected by referendum, not by the very legacy parties that maintain legislative control by effectively denying ballot access to parties that will pose a challenge to their continued rule.

    Of course any meaningful change would require a voluntary diminishment of power of the duopoly that now has dictatorial control over ballot access, and who will prevent any Constitutional Amendment that would enhance the democratic nature of the process.

    bruce wilder 08.02.16 at 8:02 pm

    I think the U.S. Party system, in the political science sense, shifted to a new state during George W Bush's administration as, in Kevin Phillip's terms the Republican Party was taken over by Theocrats and Bad Money.

    Ronan(rf) 08.04.16 at 10:35 pm

    "I generally don't give a shit about polls so I have no "data" to evidence this claim, but my guess is the majority of Trump's support comes from this broad middle"

    My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income.

    This would make some sense as they are generally in economically unstable jobs, they tend to be hostile to both big govt (regulations, freeloaders) and big business (unfair competition), and while they (rhetorically at least) tend to value personal autonomy and self sufficiency , they generally sell into smaller, local markets, and so are particularly affected by local demographic and cultural change , and decline. That's my speculation anyway.

    bruce wilder 08.06.16 at 4:28 pm

    I am somewhat suspicious of leaving dominating elites out of these stories of racism as an organizing principle for political economy or (cultural) community.

    Racism served the purposes of a slaveholding elite that organized political communities to serve their own interests. (Or, vis a vis the Indians a land-grab or genocide.)

    Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying hierarchy like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with ersatz status. The ugly prejudices and resentful arrogance of working class whites is thus a component of how racism works to organize a political community to serve a hegemonic master class. The business end of racism, though, is the autarkic poverty imposed on the working communities: slaves, sharecroppers, poor blacks, poor whites - bad schools, bad roads, politically disabled communities, predatory institutions and authoritarian governments.

    For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations.

    bruce wilder 08.06.16 at 4:31 pm

    Watching Clinton scoop up bankster money, welcome Republicans neocons to the ranks of her supporters does not fill me with hope.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Trump and the Transformation of Politics

    Notable quotes:
    "... Journal of Democracy ..."
    "... John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | fpif.org
    Trump and the other illiberal populists have been benefiting from three overlapping backlashes.

    The first is cultural. Movements for civil liberties have been remarkably successful over the last 40 years. Women, ethnic and religious minorities, and the LGBTQ community have secured important gains at a legal and cultural level. It is remarkable, for instance, how quickly same-sex marriage has become legal in more than 20 countries when no country recognized it before 2001.

    Resistance has always existed to these movements to expand the realm of civil liberties. But this backlash increasingly has a political face. Thus the rise of parties that challenge multiculturalism and immigration in Europe, the movements throughout Africa and Asia that support the majority over the minorities, and the Trump/Tea Party takeover of the Republican Party with their appeals to primarily white men.

    The second backlash is economic. The globalization of the economy has created a class of enormously wealthy individuals (in the financial, technology, and communications sectors). But globalization has left behind huge numbers of low-wage workers and those who have watched their jobs relocate to other countries.

    Illiberal populists have directed all that anger on the part of people left behind by the world economy at a series of targets: bankers who make billions, corporations that are constantly looking for even lower-wage workers, immigrants who "take away our jobs," and sometimes ethnic minorities who function as convenient scapegoats. The targets, in other words, include both the very powerful and the very weak.

    The third backlash, and perhaps the most consequential, is political. It's not just that people living in democracies are disgusted with their leaders and the parties they represent. Rather, as political scientists Roberto Stefan Foa and Yascha Mounk write in the Journal of Democracy , "they have also become more cynical about the value of democracy as a political system, less hopeful that anything they do might influence public policy, and more willing to express support for authoritarian alternatives."

    Foa and Mounk are using 20 years of data collected from surveys of citizens in Western Europe and North America – the democracies with the greatest longevity. And they have found that support for illiberal alternatives is greater among the younger generation than the older one. In other countries outside Europe and North America, the disillusionment with democratic institutions often takes the form of a preference for a powerful leader who can break the rules if necessary to preserve order and stability – like Putin in Russia or Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt or Prayuth Chan-ocha in Thailand.

    These three backlashes – cultural, economic, political – are also anti-internationalist because international institutions have become associated with the promotion of civil liberties and human rights, the greater globalization of the economy, and the constraint of the sovereignty of nations (for instance, through the European Union or the UN's "responsibility to protect" doctrine).

    ... ... ....

    The current political order is coming apart. If we don't come up with a fair, Green, and internationalist alternative, the illiberal populists will keep winning. John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.

    [Dec 05, 2016] The most powerful force in Presidential election 2016 is the sense of betrayal pervading our politics, especially among Democratic electorate

    Notable quotes:
    "... if neo-liberalism is partly defined by the free flow of goods, labor and capital - and that has been the Republican agenda since at least Reagan - how is Trump a continuation of the same tradition?" ..."
    "... Trump is a conservative (or right populist, or whatever), and draws on that tradition. He's not a neoliberal. ..."
    "... Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view. He's consistent w/the trade and immigration views but (assuming you can actually figure him out) wrong on banks, taxes, etc. ..."
    "... But the next populists we see might be more full bore. When that happens, you'll see much more overlap w/Sanders economic plans for the middle class. ..."
    "... There's always tension along the lead running between the politician and his constituents. The thing that seems most salient to me at the present moment is the sense of betrayal pervading our politics. At least since the GFC of 2008, it has been hard to deny that the two Parties worked together to set up an economic betrayal. And, the long-running saga of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also speak to elite failure, as well as betrayal. ..."
    "... Trump is a novelty act. He represents a chance for people who feel resentful without knowing much of anything about anything to cast a middle-finger vote. They wouldn't be willing to do that, if times were really bad, instead of just disappointing and distressing. ..."
    "... There's also the fact Reagan tapped a fair number of Nixon people, as did W years later. Reagan went after Nixon in the sense of running against him, and taking the party in a much more hard-right direction, sure. But he was repudiated largely because he got caught doing dirty tricks with his pants down. ..."
    "... From what I can tell - the 1972 election gave the centrists in the democratic party power to discredit and marginalize the anti-war left, and with it, the left in general. ..."
    "... Ready even now to whine that she's a victim and that the whole community is at fault and that people are picking on her because she's a woman, rather than because she has a habit of making accusations like this every time she comments. ..."
    "... That is a perfect example of predatory "solidarity". Val is looking for dupes to support her ..."
    Aug 12, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    Rich Puchalsky 08.12.16 at 4:15 pm 683
    "Once again, if neo-liberalism is partly defined by the free flow of goods, labor and capital - and that has been the Republican agenda since at least Reagan - how is Trump a continuation of the same tradition?"

    You have to be willing to see neoliberalism as something different from conservatism to have the answer make any sense. John Quiggin has written a good deal here about a model of U.S. politics as being divided into left, neoliberal, and conservative. Trump is a conservative (or right populist, or whatever), and draws on that tradition. He's not a neoliberal.

    ... ... ...

    T 08.12.16 at 5:52 pm

    RP @683

    That's a bit of my point. I think Corey has defined the Republican tradition solely in response to the Southern Strategy that sees a line from Nixon (or Goldwater) to Trump. But that gets the economics wrong and the foreign policy too - the repub foreign policy view has not been consistent across administrations and Trump's economic pans (to the extent he has a plan) are antithetical to the Nixon – W tradition. I have viewed post-80 Dem administrations as neoliberals w/transfers and Repub as neoliberals w/o transfers.

    Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view. He's consistent w/the trade and immigration views but (assuming you can actually figure him out) wrong on banks, taxes, etc.

    But the next populists we see might be more full bore. When that happens, you'll see much more overlap w/Sanders economic plans for the middle class. Populists have nothing against gov't programs like SS and Medicare and were always for things like the TVA and infrastructure spending. Policies aimed at the poor and minorities not so much.

    bruce wilder 08.12.16 at 7:47 pm 689

    T @ 685: Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view.

    There's always tension along the lead running between the politician and his constituents. The thing that seems most salient to me at the present moment is the sense of betrayal pervading our politics. At least since the GFC of 2008, it has been hard to deny that the two Parties worked together to set up an economic betrayal. And, the long-running saga of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also speak to elite failure, as well as betrayal.

    These are the two most unpopular candidates in living memory. That is different.

    I am not a believer in "the fire next time". Trump is a novelty act. He represents a chance for people who feel resentful without knowing much of anything about anything to cast a middle-finger vote. They wouldn't be willing to do that, if times were really bad, instead of just disappointing and distressing.

    Nor will Sanders be back. His was a last New Deal coda. There may be second acts in American life, but there aren't 7th acts.

    If there's a populist politics in our future, it will have to have a much sharper edge. It can talk about growth, but it has to mean smashing the rich and taking their stuff. There's very rapidly going to come a point where there's no other option, other than just accepting cramdown by the authoritarian surveillance state built by the neoliberals. that's a much taller order than Sanders or Trump have been offering.<

    Michael Sullivan 08.12.16 at 8:06 pm 690

    Corey, you write: "It's not just that the Dems went after Nixon, it's also that Nixon had so few allies. People on the right were furious with him because they felt after this huge ratification that the country had moved to the right, Nixon was still governing as if the New Deal were the consensus. So when the time came, he had very few defenders, except for loyalists like Leonard Garment and G. Gordon Liddy. And Al Haig, God bless him."

    You've studied this more than I have, but this is at least somewhat at odds with my memory. I recall some prominent attackers of Nixon from the Republican party that were moderates, at least one of whom was essentially kicked out of the party for being too liberal in later years. There's also the fact Reagan tapped a fair number of Nixon people, as did W years later. Reagan went after Nixon in the sense of running against him, and taking the party in a much more hard-right direction, sure. But he was repudiated largely because he got caught doing dirty tricks with his pants down.

    To think that something similar would happen to Clinton (watergate like scandal) that would actually have a large portion of the left in support of impeachment, she would have to be as dirty as Nixon was, *and* the evidence to really put the screws to her would have to be out, as it was against Nixon during watergate.

    OTOH, my actual *hope* would be that a similar left-liberal sea change comparable to 1980 from the right would be plausible. I don't think a 1976-like interlude is plausible though, that would require the existence of a moderate republican with enough support within their own party to win the nomination. I suppose its possible that such a beast could come to exist if Trump loses a landslide, but most of the plausible candidates have already left or been kicked out of the party.

    From what I can tell - the 1972 election gave the centrists in the democratic party power to discredit and marginalize the anti-war left, and with it, the left in general. A comparable election from the other side would give republican centrists/moderates the ability to discredit and marginalize the right wing base. But unlike Democrats in 1972, there aren't any moderates left in the Republican party by my lights. I'm much more concerned that this will simply re-empower the hard-core conservatives with plausbly-deniable dog-whistle racism who are now the "moderates", and enable them to whitewash their history.

    Unfortunately, unlike you, I'm not convinced that a landslide is possible without an appeal to Reagan/Bush republicans. I don't think we're going to see a meaningful turn toward a real left until Democrats can win a majority of statehouses and clean up the ridiculous gerrymandering.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.12.16 at 9:18 pm

    Val: "Similarly with your comments on "identity politics" where you could almost be seen by MRAs and white supremacists as an ally, from the tone of your rhetoric."

    That is 100% perfect Val. Insinuates that BW is a sort-of-ally of white supremacists - an infuriating insinuation. Does this insinuation based on a misreading of what he wrote. Completely resistant to any sort of suggestion that what she dishes out so expansively to others had better be something she should be willing to accept herself, or that she shouldn't do it. Ready even now to whine that she's a victim and that the whole community is at fault and that people are picking on her because she's a woman, rather than because she has a habit of making accusations like this every time she comments.

    That is a perfect example of predatory "solidarity". Val is looking for dupes to support her - for people to jump in saying "Why are you being hostile to women?" in response to people's response to her comment.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Yes, the System Is Rigged

    Notable quotes:
    "... More than a dozen Republican rivals, described as the strongest GOP field since 1980, were sent packing. This was the year Americans rose up to pull down the establishment in a peaceful storming of the American Bastille. ..."
    "... If 2016 taught us anything, it is that if the establishment's hegemony is imperiled, it will come together in ferocious solidarity - for the preservation of their perks, privileges and power. All the elements of that establishment - corporate, cultural, political, media - are today issuing an ultimatum to Middle America: Trump is unacceptable. Instructions are going out to Republican leaders that either they dump Trump, or they will cease to be seen as morally fit partners in power. ..."
    "... Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all beaver away for "regime change" in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect "regime change" here at home? ..."
    "... Donald Trump's success, despite the near-universal hostility of the media, even much of the conservative media, was due in large part to the public's response to the issues he raised. ..."
    Aug 12, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    "I'm afraid the election is going to be rigged," Donald Trump told voters in Ohio and Sean Hannity on Fox News. And that hit a nerve.

    "Dangerous," "toxic," came the recoil from the media.

    Trump is threatening to "delegitimize" the election results of 2016.

    Well, if that is what Trump is trying to do, he has no small point. For consider what 2016 promised and what it appears about to deliver.

    This longest of election cycles has rightly been called the Year of the Outsider. It was a year that saw a mighty surge of economic populism and patriotism, a year when a 74-year-old Socialist senator set primaries ablaze with mammoth crowds that dwarfed those of Hillary Clinton.

    It was the year that a non-politician, Donald Trump, swept Republican primaries in an historic turnout, with his nearest rival an ostracized maverick in his own Republican caucus, Senator Ted Cruz.

    More than a dozen Republican rivals, described as the strongest GOP field since 1980, were sent packing. This was the year Americans rose up to pull down the establishment in a peaceful storming of the American Bastille.

    But if it ends with a Clintonite restoration and a ratification of the same old Beltway policies, would that not suggest there is something fraudulent about American democracy, something rotten in the state?

    If 2016 taught us anything, it is that if the establishment's hegemony is imperiled, it will come together in ferocious solidarity - for the preservation of their perks, privileges and power. All the elements of that establishment - corporate, cultural, political, media - are today issuing an ultimatum to Middle America: Trump is unacceptable. Instructions are going out to Republican leaders that either they dump Trump, or they will cease to be seen as morally fit partners in power.

    It testifies to the character of Republican elites that some are seeking ways to carry out these instructions, though this would mean invalidating and aborting the democratic process that produced Trump.

    But what is a repudiated establishment doing issuing orders to anyone?

    Why is it not Middle America issuing the demands, rather than the other way around?

    Specifically, the Republican electorate should tell its discredited and rejected ruling class: If we cannot get rid of you at the ballot box, then tell us how, peacefully and democratically, we can be rid of you?

    You want Trump out? How do we get you out? The Czechs had their Prague Spring. The Tunisians and Egyptians their Arab Spring. When do we have our American Spring? The Brits had their "Brexit," and declared independence of an arrogant superstate in Brussels. How do we liberate ourselves from a Beltway superstate that is more powerful and resistant to democratic change?

    Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all beaver away for "regime change" in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect "regime change" here at home?

    Donald Trump's success, despite the near-universal hostility of the media, even much of the conservative media, was due in large part to the public's response to the issues he raised.

    By campaign's end, he had won the argument on trade, as Hillary Clinton was agreeing on TPP and confessing to second thoughts on NAFTA.

    But if TPP is revived at the insistence of the oligarchs of Wall Street, the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - backed by conscript editorial writers for newspapers that rely on ad dollars - what do elections really mean anymore?

    And if, as the polls show we might, we get Clinton - and TPP, and amnesty, and endless migrations of Third World peoples who consume more tax dollars than they generate, and who will soon swamp the Republicans' coalition - what was 2016 all about?

    Would this really be what a majority of Americans voted for in this most exciting of presidential races?

    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," said John F. Kennedy.

    The 1960s and early 1970s were a time of social revolution in America, and President Nixon, by ending the draft and ending the Vietnam war, presided over what one columnist called the "cooling of America."

    But if Hillary Clinton takes power, and continues America on her present course, which a majority of Americans rejected in the primaries, there is going to be a bad moon rising.

    And the new protesters in the streets will not be overprivileged children from Ivy League campuses.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .

    [Dec 05, 2016] Neoliberalism has only exacerbated falling living standards

    Notable quotes:
    "... the capitalist economy is more and more an asset driven one. This article does not even begin to address the issue of asset valuations, the explicit CB support for asset inflation and the effect on inequality, and especially generational plunder. ..."
    "... the problem of living standards is obviously a Malthusian one. despite all the progress of social media tricks, we cannot fool nature. the rate of ecological degradation is alarming, and now irreversible. "the market" is now moving rapidly to real assets. This will eventually lead to war as all war is eventually for resources. ..."
    Aug 07, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Sally Snyder , August 5, 2016 at 11:57 am

    Here is an article that explains the key reason why economic growth will be slow for the foreseeable future:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/08/the-baby-bust-and-its-impact-on.html

    No matter what central banks do, their actions will not be able to create the same level of economic growth that we have become used to over the past seven decades.

    JEHR , August 5, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    Economic growth does not come from the central banks; if government sought to provide the basics for all its citizens, including health care, education, a home, and proper food and all the infrastructure needed to give people the basics, then you could have something akin to "growth" while at the same time making life more pleasant for the less fortunate. There seems to be no definition of economic growth that includes everyone.

    David , August 5, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    This seems a very elaborate way of stating a simple problem, that can be summarised in three points.

      The living standards of most people have fallen over the last thirty years or so because of the impact of neoliberal economic policies. Conventional politicians are promising only more of the same. Therefore people are increasingly voting for non-conventional politicians.

    And that's about it.

    jgordon , August 5, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    Neoliberalism has only exacerbated falling living standards. Living standards would be falling even without it, albeit more gradually.

    Neoliberalism itself may even be nothing more than a standard type response of species that have expanded beyond the capacity of their environment to support them. What we see as an evil ideology is only the expression of a mechanism that apportions declining resources to the elites, like shutting shutting down the periphery so the core can survive as in hypothermia.

    I Lost at Jeopardy , August 5, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    I really don't have problem with this. Let the financial sector run the world into the ground and get it over with.

    In defference to a great many knowledgable commentors here that work in the FIRE sector, I don't want to create a damning screed on the cost of servicing money, but at some point even the most considered opinions have to acknowledge that that finance is flooded with *talent* which creates a number of problems; one being a waste of intellect and education in a field that doesn't offer much of a return when viewed in an egalitarian sense, secondly; as the field grows due to, the technical advances, the rise in globilization, and the security a financial occuptaion offers in an advanced first world country nowadays, it requires substantially more income to be devoted to it's function.

    This income has to be derived somewhere, and the required sacrifices on every facet of a global economy to bolster positions and maintain asset prices has precipitated this decline in the well being of peoples not plugged-in to the consumer capitalist regime and dogma.

    Something has to give here, and I honestly couldn't care about your 401k or home resale value, you did this to yourself as much as those day-traders who got clobbered in the dot-com crash.

    nothing but the truth , August 6, 2016 at 11:46 am

    the capitalist economy is more and more an asset driven one. This article does not even begin to address the issue of asset valuations, the explicit CB support for asset inflation and the effect on inequality, and especially generational plunder.

    the problem of living standards is obviously a Malthusian one. despite all the progress of social media tricks, we cannot fool nature. the rate of ecological degradation is alarming, and now irreversible. "the market" is now moving rapidly to real assets. This will eventually lead to war as all war is eventually for resources.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Nuclear war our likely future as Russia China would not accept US hegemony, Reagan official warns

    Notable quotes:
    "... "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests." ..."
    "... "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda." ..."
    "... "How America Was Lost" ..."
    "... "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance." ..."
    "... "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." ..."
    "... "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony." ..."
    "... "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," ..."
    "... "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future." ..."
    "... "historical turning point," ..."
    "... "the Chinese were there in their place," ..."
    "... "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," ..."
    "... "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht." ..."
    "... "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'" ..."
    "... "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'" ..."
    "... "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," ..."
    "... "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," ..."
    May 13, 2015 | RT News
    The White House is determined to block the rise of the key nuclear-armed nations, Russia and China, neither of whom will join the "world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony," says head of the Institute for Political Economy, Paul Craig Roberts.

    The former US assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, has written on his blog that Beijing is currently "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests."

    Roberts writes that Washington's commitment to contain Russia is the reason "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda."

    The author of several books, "How America Was Lost" among the latest titles, says that US "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance."

    Dr Roberts believes that neither Russia, nor China will meanwhile accept the so-called "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." According to the political analyst, the "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony."

    "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," Roberts writes.

    He gives a gloomy political forecast in his column saying that "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future."

    Russia's far-reaching May 9 Victory Day celebration was meanwhile a "historical turning point," according to Roberts who says that while Western politicians chose to boycott the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, "the Chinese were there in their place," China's president sitting next to President Putin during the military parade on Red Square in Moscow.

    A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents – 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.

    "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," Roberts points out, adding that "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht."

    The head of the presidential administration, Sergey Ivanov, told RT earlier this month that attempts to diminish the role played by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany through rewriting history by some Western countries are part of the ongoing campaign to isolate and alienate Russia.

    Dr Roberts has also stated in his column that while the US president only mentioned US forces in his remarks on the 70th anniversary of the victory, President Putin in contrast "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'"

    The political analyst notes that America along with its allies "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'"

    While Moscow and Beijing have "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," Washington "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," according to Dr Roberts.

    Read more Perverted history: Europeans think US army liberated continent during WW2

    Read more US mulls sending military ships, aircraft near South China Sea disputed islands – report

    [Dec 04, 2016] Nuclear war our likely future as Russia China would not accept US hegemony, Reagan official warns

    Notable quotes:
    "... "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests." ..."
    "... "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda." ..."
    "... "How America Was Lost" ..."
    "... "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance." ..."
    "... "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." ..."
    "... "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony." ..."
    "... "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," ..."
    "... "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future." ..."
    "... "historical turning point," ..."
    "... "the Chinese were there in their place," ..."
    "... "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," ..."
    "... "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht." ..."
    "... "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'" ..."
    "... "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'" ..."
    "... "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," ..."
    "... "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," ..."
    May 13, 2015 | RT News
    The White House is determined to block the rise of the key nuclear-armed nations, Russia and China, neither of whom will join the "world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony," says head of the Institute for Political Economy, Paul Craig Roberts.

    The former US assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, has written on his blog that Beijing is currently "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests."

    Roberts writes that Washington's commitment to contain Russia is the reason "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda."

    The author of several books, "How America Was Lost" among the latest titles, says that US "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance."

    Dr Roberts believes that neither Russia, nor China will meanwhile accept the so-called "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." According to the political analyst, the "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony."

    "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," Roberts writes.

    He gives a gloomy political forecast in his column saying that "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future."

    Russia's far-reaching May 9 Victory Day celebration was meanwhile a "historical turning point," according to Roberts who says that while Western politicians chose to boycott the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, "the Chinese were there in their place," China's president sitting next to President Putin during the military parade on Red Square in Moscow.

    A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents – 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.

    "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," Roberts points out, adding that "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht."

    The head of the presidential administration, Sergey Ivanov, told RT earlier this month that attempts to diminish the role played by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany through rewriting history by some Western countries are part of the ongoing campaign to isolate and alienate Russia.

    Dr Roberts has also stated in his column that while the US president only mentioned US forces in his remarks on the 70th anniversary of the victory, President Putin in contrast "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'"

    The political analyst notes that America along with its allies "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'"

    While Moscow and Beijing have "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," Washington "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," according to Dr Roberts.

    Read more Perverted history: Europeans think US army liberated continent during WW2

    Read more US mulls sending military ships, aircraft near South China Sea disputed islands – report

    [Dec 04, 2016] Chilcot: Intelligence reports confirm Iraq war created ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... " It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations. " ..."
    "... A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). " ..."
    "... " They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. " ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Intelligence reports examined and now released by the Chilcot inquiry appear to confirm Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) was created by the Iraq war, a view now apparently backed by Britain's Tory Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. The reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), which were previously classified, tell the story of the security services' increasing concern that the war and occupation was fuelling ever more extremism in Iraq.

    The evidence also appears to debunk repeated claims by former PM Tony Blair that IS began in the Syrian civil war and not Iraq, positioning the brutal group's rise clearly within Iraq's borders.

    The Chilcot findings were backed up Thursday by serving Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond. He told The Foreign Affairs Committee " many of the problems we see in Iraq today stem from that disastrous decision to dismantle the Iraqi army and embark on a program of de-Baathification ."

    " That was the big mistake of post-conflict planning. If we had gone a different way afterwards we might have been able to see a different outcome, " he said.

    Hammond conceded that many members of Saddam's armed forces today filled top roles in IS.

    " It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations. "

    The documents show that by 2006 – three years into the occupation – UK intelligence chiefs were increasingly concerned about the rise of Sunni jihadist resistance to the Western-backed regime of Shia President Nouri Al-Maliki.

    A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). "

    Many leading Al-Qaeda figures had been pro-regime Baathists and members of the former Iraqi Army disbanded by the occupation. They are broadly accepted to have later formed the basis for IS.

    The report describes AQ-I as being " in the vanguard. "

    " Its strategic main effort is the prosecution of a sectarian campaign designed to drag Iraq into civil war " at the head of a number of other Sunni militia groups.

    " We judge its campaign has been the most effective of any insurgent group, having significant impact in the past year, and poses the greatest immediate threat to stability in Iraq. The tempo of mass-casualty attacks on predominantly Shia targets has been relentless, " the spies argue.

    Chillingly, an earlier report from 2006 appears to echo some of the realizations made late in the Vietnam War that there were also strong elements of nationalism driving the insurgency.

    " They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. "

    The reports appear to suggest that the conditions also somewhat echo the Afghanistan war, which by that time was already underway, in that the anti-coalition forces displayed a mix of ideological and economic drivers to resist the occupation.

    " Their motivation is mixed: some are Islamist extremists inspired by the AQ agenda, others are simply hired hands attracted by the money, " the spies warn.

    The religious sectarianism involved, however, was distinctly Iraqi and reflected the power battle between the deposed Sunni forces and the US-installed Shia regime which replaced it.

    They also appeared to believe that AQ-I was composed of local and not, as was claimed at the time, foreign fighters.

    " We judge Al-Qaida in Iraq is the largest single insurgent network and although its leadership retains a strong foreign element, a large majority of its fighters are Iraqi.

    " Some are drawn in by the opportunity to take on Shia militias: the jihadists' media effort stresses their role as defenders of the Sunni ," the report concludes.

    Prophetically, even before IS began to germinate in Iraq, one now-declassified Foreign Office memo from January 2003 warned "all the evidence from the region suggests that coalition forces will not be seen as liberators for long, if at all. Our motives are regarded with huge suspicion. "

    AHHA -> Blue Car 7 Jul

    No there was a documentary on the rise of IS months ago on Dutch television coming to the same conclusion. Kicking all Baath party members (all Sunni people) out of the army, leaving only Shiite in created IS. Baath militairy specialists did it out of revenge. One former high Baath militairy officer even went up to the room of the American leadership on Irak to tell him that if they would kick Baath people out he would have no other option than to start fighting America. Because what would all those people have to live of. And they did not just kick them out of the army but out of all government posts. But the Americans and making one group less equal to another by treating them different, does that ring any bells. ?
    AHHA -> Blue Car 8 Jul
    It was not Fox, I loath them. It was a well built Dutch documentary not praising the Americans for a change but being real True, together with Bush and the rest of their accomplices, of the most horrific mass killings based on lies (more than a million innocent people have perished because of their deceitful actions)! We should all demand Justice for the sake of humanity, and also because it is the only way to deter feature self-righteous leaders like them from leading our world to more blood sheds and catastrophic destructions! No one should be above the law!
    Blue Scissors -> Red Snow 7 Jul
    No, Bush and Cheney are the biggest terrorist. Blair just followed behind them, like a sheep.
    Linx 7 Jul
    Its clear that the U.S. government was the instigator of the war in Iraq based on 911and WMD. Blair in his ambition to reached the top lied to his parliament because there is noway they did not have the intelligence there not WMDs. In a stunning but little-known speech from 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark claims America underwent a "policy coup" at the time of the 9/11 attacks. In this video, he reveals that, right after 9/11, he was privy to information contained in a classified memo: US plans to attack and remove governments in seven countries over five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. He was told: "We learned that we can use our military without being challenged . We've got about five years to clean up the Soviet client regimes before another superpower comes along and challenges us." "This was a policy coup these people took control of policy in the United States. The interview is still available in the internet.
    Orange Tag 7 Jul
    What I want to be informed about is the ICC court date set for Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the generals ordering the killings of innocent people in Iraq. It's time for the west to wake up and provide all and every help that Syrian legitimate government needs, and for west to stop the support of Saudis, Qatari and others alike regimes whom are the providers and are state sponsors of terrorism as Isis and others a like called " "moderates terrorist". Look you fly the Emirates you pay for the costs of their terrorism in Middle East.
    keghamminas 7 Jul Edited
    Very true about the blind destructive policy of the US-Nato that should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq .The same faults are committed now against Syria and it's legal government ; the total destruction of this country will lead to more anarchy and new terrorist movements as what's happenning in Iraq. All the puppets ,like the UK are guilty by their criminal participation.
    Malcolm stark 7 Jul
    Yet another problem caused by Washington and Co and yet their are still people even here who say Russia, Russia, Russia. And will make excuses for the problems caused without blaming their own government.
    CyanDog 7 Jul
    Sexton: What a surprise. An investigation designed to whitewash the criminal activities of our beloved Western leaders turned out to be eminently successful. A playful slap on the wrist for Mr Blair, but basically the Western criminals made to look like good guys although a few unintentional mistakes were made. From now on the West can continue business as usual. I wonder which countries the West has currently set its future sights on? I would suggest that Iran, Russia and China should keep their powder dry. The Westerners are playing for keeps, and they do not care who gets hurt on either side.

    [Dec 04, 2016] The left can win again – but will the lying slandering filth liberal media let them?

    crookedtimber.org

    Placeholder 12.02.16 at 9:03 am 95

    Why won't progressives reach out to the white working class in the US and the UK in election after election?

    Jeremy Corbyn has proposed a program of nationalization of the utilities, rail and postal systems – backed by an astonishing 70% of the public – even 70% of UKIP voters. The new leader of UKIP wants to privatize the NHS.

    The left can win again – but will the lying slandering filth liberal media let them?

    [Dec 04, 2016] Oil is facing 3 different scenarios RBC

    Blast from the past...
    Notable quotes:
    "... RBC Capital Markets' Global Head of Commodity Strategy Helima Croft outlined three potential scenarios for WTI crude on CNBC's "Fast Money" for the new year. The most bullish situation would be seeing more than a million barrels of oil pulled off the market and prices averaging in the $60 dollar range. ..."
    "... "If you are thinking about sort of about a mid-$30s average for WTI, low-$40s, I think that's a bearish scenario," said Croft, who's also a CNBC contributor. ..."
    "... "Our base case is this sort of middle range... $52 is our WTI call for next year," she said, implying that U.S. crude would be nearly one-third higher than its current trading levels. The fourth quarter "is really where you want to be looking for WTI to sort of take-off," she added. ..."
    Dec 30, 2015 | www.cnbc.com

    RBC Capital Markets' Global Head of Commodity Strategy Helima Croft outlined three potential scenarios for WTI crude on CNBC's "Fast Money" for the new year. The most bullish situation would be seeing more than a million barrels of oil pulled off the market and prices averaging in the $60 dollar range.

    The worst case scenario involves a tsunami of new production from OPEC, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Libya hitting the market -- all but certain to drive prices even lower. On Thursday, the final day of trading before the Christmas holiday, Brent and U.S. crude closed up by more than a percent, but still well under $40 per barrel.

    "If you are thinking about sort of about a mid-$30s average for WTI, low-$40s, I think that's a bearish scenario," said Croft, who's also a CNBC contributor.

    ... ... ....

    "Our base case is this sort of middle range... $52 is our WTI call for next year," she said, implying that U.S. crude would be nearly one-third higher than its current trading levels. The fourth quarter "is really where you want to be looking for WTI to sort of take-off," she added.

    [Dec 04, 2016] UK election Who really governs Britain

    But those politicians lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their capacity to affect even their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control.
    Notable quotes:
    "... But those politicians lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their capacity to affect even their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control. ..."
    "... In the case of Britain, the once-powerful centralized governments of that country are now multiply constrained. As the power of Britain in international affairs has declined, so has the British government's power within its own domain. Membership of the European Union constrains British governments' ability to determine everything from the quantities of fish British fishermen can legally catch to the amount in fees that British universities can charge students from other EU countries. ..."
    "... Not least, the EU's insistence on the free movement of labor caused the Conservative-dominated coalition that came to power in 2010 to renege on the Tories' spectacularly ill-judged pledge to reduce to "tens of thousands a year" the number of migrants coming to Britain. The number admitted in 2014 alone was nearer 300,000. ..."
    "... On top of all that, British governments -- even more than those of some other predominantly capitalist economies -- are open to being buffeted by market forces, whose winds can acquire gale force. In a world of substantially free trade, imports and exports of goods and services are largely beyond any government's control, and the Bank of England's influence over the external value of sterling is negligible. During the present election campaign, HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, indicated that it was contemplating shifting its headquarters from the City of London to Hong Kong. For good or ill, Britain's government was, and is, effectively helpless to intervene. ..."
    "... That's why we need a federal Europe. Local governments for local issues and elected by the local people and a European government for European issues elected by all Europeans. ..."
    May 04, 2015 | CNN.com

    Once upon a time, national elections were -- or seemed to be -- overwhelmingly domestic affairs, affecting only the peoples of the countries taking part in them. If that was ever true, it is so no longer. Angela Merkel negotiates with Greece's government with Germany's voters looming in the background. David Cameron currently fights an election campaign in the UK holding fast to the belief that a false move on his part regarding Britain's relationship with the EU could cost his Conservative Party seats, votes and possibly the entire election.

    Britain provides a good illustration of a general proposition. It used to be claimed, plausibly, that "all politics is local." In 2015, electoral politics may still be mostly local, but the post-electoral business of government is anything but local. There is a misfit between the two. Voters are mainly swayed by domestic issues. Vote-seeking politicians campaign accordingly. But those politicians lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their capacity to affect even their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control.

    Anyone viewing the UK election campaign from afar could be forgiven for thinking that British voters and politicians alike imagined they were living on some kind of self-sufficient sea-girt island. The opinion polls indicate that a large majority of voters are preoccupied -- politically as well as in other ways -- with their own financial situation, tax rates, welfare spending and the future of the National Health Service. Immigration is an issue for many voters, but mostly in domestic terms (and often as a surrogate for generalized discontent with Britain's political class). The fact that migrants from Eastern Europe and elsewhere make a positive net contribution to both the UK's economy and its social services scarcely features in the campaign.

    ... ... ...

    After polling day, all that will change -- probably to millions of voters' dismay. One American presidential candidate famously said that politicians campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. Politicians in democracies, not just in Britain, campaign as though they can move mountains, then find that most mountains are hard or impossible to move.

    In the case of Britain, the once-powerful centralized governments of that country are now multiply constrained. As the power of Britain in international affairs has declined, so has the British government's power within its own domain. Membership of the European Union constrains British governments' ability to determine everything from the quantities of fish British fishermen can legally catch to the amount in fees that British universities can charge students from other EU countries.

    Not least, the EU's insistence on the free movement of labor caused the Conservative-dominated coalition that came to power in 2010 to renege on the Tories' spectacularly ill-judged pledge to reduce to "tens of thousands a year" the number of migrants coming to Britain. The number admitted in 2014 alone was nearer 300,000.

    The UK's courts are also far more active than they were. The British parliament in 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British domestic law, and British judges have determinedly enforced those rights. During the 1970s, they had already been handed responsibility for enforcing the full range of EU law within the UK.

    Also, Britain's judges have, on their own initiative, exercised increasingly frequently their long-standing power of "judicial review," invalidating ministerial decisions that violated due process or seemed to them to be wholly unreasonable. Devolution of substantial powers to semi-independent governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has also meant that the jurisdiction of many so-called UK government ministers is effectively confined to the purely English component part.

    On top of all that, British governments -- even more than those of some other predominantly capitalist economies -- are open to being buffeted by market forces, whose winds can acquire gale force. In a world of substantially free trade, imports and exports of goods and services are largely beyond any government's control, and the Bank of England's influence over the external value of sterling is negligible. During the present election campaign, HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, indicated that it was contemplating shifting its headquarters from the City of London to Hong Kong. For good or ill, Britain's government was, and is, effectively helpless to intervene.

    The heirs of Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, Britain's political leaders are understandably still tempted to talk big. But their effective real-world influence is small. No wonder a lot of voters in Britain feel they are being conned.

    ItsJustTim

    That's globalization. And it won't go away, even if you vote nationalist. The issues are increasingly international, while the voters still have a mostly local perspective. That's why we need a federal Europe. Local governments for local issues and elected by the local people and a European government for European issues elected by all Europeans.

    [Dec 04, 2016] James Pinkerton Globalism Hits a Brick Wall Now, What Will Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Do

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Guardian ..."
    "... it seems fair to say: Globalism isn't quite the Wave of the Future that most observers thought it was, even just a year ago. And so before we attempt to divide the true intentions of Clinton and Trump, we might first step back and consider how we got to this point. ..."
    "... An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations . ..."
    "... Clinton will say anything then she'll sell you out. I hope we never get a chance to see how she will sell us out on TPP ..."
    "... What we would be headed for under Hillary Clinton is fascism--Mussolini's shorthand definition of fascism was the marriage of industry and commerce with the power of the State. That is what the plutocrats who run the big banks (to whom she owes her soul) aim to do. President, Thomas Jefferson knew the dangers of large European-style central banks. ..."
    Aug 30, 2016 | Breitbart
    On the surface, it appears that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, for all their mutual antipathy, are united on one big issue: opposition to new trade deals. Here's a recent headline in The Guardian: "Trump and Clinton's free trade retreat: a pivotal moment for the world's economic future."

    And the subhead continues in that vein:

    Never before have both main presidential candidates broken so completely with Washington orthodoxy on globalization, even as the White House refuses to give up. The problem, however, goes much deeper than trade deals.

    In the above quote, we can note the deliberate use of the loaded word, "problem." As in, it's a problem that free trade is unpopular-a problem, perhaps, that the MSM can fix. Yet in the meantime, the newspaper sighed, the two biggest trade deals on the horizon, the well-known Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the lesser-known Trans Atlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP), aimed at further linking the U.S. and European Union (EU), are both in jeopardy.

    Indeed, if TPP isn't doing well, TTIP might be dead: Here's an August 28 headline from the Deutsche Welle news service quoting Sigmar Gabriel, the No. 2 in the Berlin government: "Germany's Vice Chancellor Gabriel: US-EU trade talks 'have failed.'"

    So now we must ask broader questions: What does this mean for trade treaties overall? And what are the implications for globalism?

    More specifically, we can ask: Are we sure that the two main White House hopefuls, Clinton and Trump, are truly sincere in their opposition to those deals? After all, as has been widely reported, President Obama still has plans to push TPP through to enactment in the "lame duck" session of Congress after the November elections. Of course, Obama wouldn't seek to do that if the president-elect opposed it-or would he?

    Yet on August 30, Politico reminded its Beltway readership, "How Trump or Clinton could kill Pacific trade deal." In other words, even if Obama were to move TPP forward in his last two months in office, the 45th president could still block its implementation in 2017 and beyond. If, that is, she or he really wanted to.

    Indeed, as we think about Clinton and Trump, we realize that there's "opposition" that's for show and there's opposition that's for real.

    Still, given what's been said on the presidential campaign trail this year, it seems fair to say: Globalism isn't quite the Wave of the Future that most observers thought it was, even just a year ago. And so before we attempt to divide the true intentions of Clinton and Trump, we might first step back and consider how we got to this point.

    2. The Free Trade Orthodoxy

    It's poignant that the headline, "Trump and Clinton's free trade retreat", lamenting the decay of free trade, appeared in The Guardian. Until recently, the newspaper was known as The Manchester Guardian, as in Manchester, England. And Manchester is not only a big city, population 2.5 million, it is also a city with a fabled past: You see, Manchester was the cradle of the Industrial Revolution, which transformed England and the world. It was that city that helped create the free trade orthodoxy that is now crumbling.

    Yes, in the 18th and 19th centuries, Manchester was the leading manufacturing city in the world, especially for textiles. It was known as "Cottonopolis."

    Indeed, back then, Manchester was so much more efficient and effective at mass production that it led the world in exports. That is, it could produce its goods at such low cost that it could send them across vast oceans and still undercut local producers on price and quality.

    Over time, this economic reality congealed into a school of thought: As Manchester grew rich from exports, its business leaders easily found economists, journalists, and propagandists who would help advance their cause in the press and among the intelligentsia.

    The resulting school of thought became known, in the 19th century, as "Manchester Liberalism." And so, to this day, long after Manchester has lost its economic preeminence to rivals elsewhere in the world, the phrase "Manchester Liberalism" is a well-known in the history of economics, bespeaking ardent support for free markets and free trade.

    More recently, the hub for free-trade enthusiasm has been the United States. In particular, the University of Chicago, home to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, became free trade's academic citadel; hence the "Chicago School" has displaced Manchesterism.

    And just as it made sense for Manchester Liberalism to exalt free trade and exports when Manchester and England were on top, so, too, did the Chicago School exalt free trade when the U.S. was unquestionably the top dog.

    So back in the 40s and 50s, when the rest of the world was either bombed flat or still under the yoke of colonialism, it made perfect sense that the U.S., as the only intact industrial power, would celebrate industrial exports: We were Number One, and it was perfectly rational to make the most of that first-place status. And if scribblers and scholars could help make the case for this new status quo, well, bring 'em aboard. Thus the Chicago School gained ascendancy in the late 20th century. And of course, the Chicagoans drew inspiration from a period even earlier than Manchesterism,

    3. On the Origins of the Orthodoxy: Adam Smith and David Ricardo

    The beginnings of an intellectually rigorous discussion of trade can be traced to 1776, when Adam Smith published his famous work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

    One passage in that volume considers how individuals might optimize their own production and consumption:

    It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.

    Smith is right, of course; everyone should always be calculating, however informally, whether or not it's cheaper to make it at home or buy it from someone else.

    We can quickly see: If each family must make its own clothes and grow its own food, it's likely to be worse off than if it can buy its necessities from a large-scale producer. Why? Because, to be blunt about it, most of us don't really know how to make clothes and grow food, and it's expensive and difficult-if not downright impossible-to learn how. So we can conclude that self-sufficiency, however rustic and charming, is almost always a recipe for poverty.

    Smith had a better idea: specialization. That is, people would specialize in one line of work, gain skills, earn more money, and then use that money in the marketplace, buying what they needed from other kinds of specialists.

    Moreover, the even better news, in Smith's mind, was that this kind of specialization came naturally to people-that is, if they were free to scheme out their own advancement. As Smith argued, the ideal system would allow "every man to pursue his own interest his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality, liberty and justice."

    That is, men (and women) would do that which they did best, and then they would all come together in the free marketplace-each person being inspired to do better, thanks to, as Smith so memorably put it, the "invisible hand." Thus Smith articulated a key insight that undergirds the whole of modern economics-and, of course, modern-day prosperity.

    A few decades later, in the early 19th century, Smith's pioneering work was expanded upon by another remarkable British economist, David Ricardo.

    Ricardo's big idea built on Smithian specialization; Ricardo called it "comparative advantage." That is, just as each individual should do what he or she does best, so should each country.

    In Ricardo's well-known illustration, he explained that the warm and sunny climate of Portugal made that country ideal for growing the grapes needed for wine, while the factories of England made that country ideal for spinning the fibers needed for apparel and other finished fabrics.

    Thus, in Ricardo's view, we could see the makings of a beautiful economic friendship: The Portuguese would utilize their comparative advantage (climate) and export their surplus wine to England, while the English would utilize their comparative advantage (manufacturing) and export apparel to Portugal. Thus each would benefit from the exchange of efficiently-produced products, as each export paid for the other.

    Furthermore, in Ricardo's telling, if tariffs and other barriers were eliminated, then both countries, Portugal and England, would enjoy the maximum free-trading win-win.

    Actually, in point of fact-and Ricardo knew this-the relationship was much more of a win for England, because manufacture is more lucrative than agriculture. That is, a factory in Manchester could crank out garments a lot faster than a vineyard in Portugal could ferment wine.

    And as we all know, the richer, stronger countries are industrial, not agricultural. Food is essential-and alcohol is pleasurable-but the real money is made in making things. After all, crops can be grown easily enough in many places, and so prices stay low. By contrast, manufacturing requires a lot of know-how and a huge upfront investment. Yet with enough powerful manufacturing, a nation is always guaranteed to be able to afford to import food. And also, it can make military weapons, and so, if necessary, take foreign food and croplands by force.

    We can also observe that Ricardo, smart fellow that he was, nevertheless was describing the economy at a certain point in time-the era of horse-drawn carriages and sailing ships. Ricardo realized that transportation was, in fact, a key business variable. He wrote that it was possible for a company to seek economic advantage by moving a factory from one part of England to another. And yet in his view, writing from the perspective of the year 1817, it was impossible to imagine moving a factory from England to another country:

    It would not follow that capital and population would necessarily move from England to Holland, or Spain, or Russia.

    Why this presumed immobility of capital and people? Because, from Ricardo's early 19th-century perspective, transportation was inevitably slow and creaky; he didn't foresee steamships and airplanes. In his day, relying on the technology of the time, it wasn't realistic to think that factories, and their workers, could relocate from one country to another.

    Moreover, in Ricardo's era, many countries were actively hostile to industrialization, because change would upset the aristocratic rhythms of the old order. That is, industrialization could turn docile or fatalistic peasants, spread out thinly across the countryside, into angry and self-aware proletarians, concentrated in the big cities-and that was a formula for unrest, even revolution.

    Indeed, it was not until the 20th century that every country-including China, a great civilization, long asleep under decadent imperial misrule-figured out that it had no choice other than to industrialize.

    So we can see that the ideas of Smith and Ricardo, enduringly powerful as they have been, were nonetheless products of their time-that is, a time when England mostly had the advantages of industrialism to itself. In particular, Ricardo's celebration of comparative advantage can be seen as an artifact of his own era, when England enjoyed a massive first-mover advantage in the industrial-export game.

    Smith died in 1790, and Ricardo died in 1823; a lot has changed since then. And yet the two economists were so lucid in their writings that their work is studied and admired to this day.

    Unfortunately, we can also observe that their ideas have been frozen in a kind of intellectual amber; even in the 21st century, free trade and old-fashioned comparative advantage are unquestioningly regarded as the keys to the wealth of nations-at least in the U.S.-even if they are so no longer.

    4. Nationalist Alternatives to Free Trade Orthodoxy

    As we have seen, Smith and Ricardo were pushing an idea, free trade, that was advantageous to Britain.

    So perhaps not surprisingly, rival countries-notably the United States and Germany-soon developed different ideas. Leaders in Washington, D.C., and Berlin didn't want their respective nations to be mere dependent receptacles for English goods; they wanted real independence. And so they wanted factories of their own.

    In the late 18th century, Alexander Hamilton, the visionary American patriot, could see that both economic wealth and military power flowed from domestic industry. As the nation's first Treasury Secretary, he persuaded President George Washington and the Congress to support a system of protective tariffs and "internal improvements" (what today we would call infrastructure) to foster US manufacturing and exporting.

    And in the 19th century, Germany, under the much heavier-handed leadership of Otto von Bismarck, had the same idea: Make a concerted effort to make the nation stronger.

    In both countries, this industrial policymaking succeeded. So whereas at the beginning of the 19th century, England had led the world in steel production, by the beginning of the 20th century century, the U.S. and Germany had moved well ahead. Yes, the "invisible hand" of individual self-interest is always a powerful economic force, but sometimes, the "visible hand" of national purpose, animated by patriotism, is even more powerful.

    Thus by 1914, at the onset of World War One, we could see the results of the Smith/Ricardo model, on the one hand, and the Hamilton/Bismarck model, on the other. All three countries-Britain, the US, and Germany, were rich-but only the latter two had genuine industrial mojo. Indeed, during World War One, English weakness became glaringly apparent in the 1915 shell crisis-as in, artillery shells. It was only the massive importing of made-in-USA ammunition that saved Britain from looming defeat.

    Yet as always, times change, as do economic circumstances, as do prevailing ideas.

    As we have seen, at the end of World War II, the U.S. was the only industrial power left standing. And so it made sense for America to shift from a policy of Hamiltonian protection to a policy of Smith-Ricardian export-minded free trade. Indeed, beginning in around 1945, both major political parties, Democrats and Republicans, solidly embraced the new line: The U.S. would be the factory for the world.

    Yet if times, circumstances, and ideas change, they can always change again.

    5. The Contemporary Crack-Up

    As we have seen, in the 19th century, not every country wanted to be on the passive receiving end of England's exports. And this was true, too, in the 20th century; Japan, notably, had its own ideas.

    If Japan had followed the Ricardian doctrine of comparative advantage, it would have focused on exporting rice and tuna. Instead, by dint of hard work, ingenuity, and more than a little national strategizing, Japan grew itself into a great and prosperous industrial power. Its exports, we might note, were such high-value-adds as automobiles and electronics, not mere crops and fish.

    Moreover, according to the same theory of comparative advantage, South Korea should have been exporting parasols and kimchi, and China should have settled for exporting fortune cookies and pandas.

    Yet as the South Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang has chronicled, these Asian nations resolved, in their no-nonsense neo-Confucian way, to launch state-guided private industries-and the theory of comparative advantage be damned.

    Yes, their efforts violated Western economic orthodoxy, but as the philosopher Kant once observed, the actual proves the possible. Indeed, today, as we all know, the Asian tigers are among the richest and fastest-growing economies in the world.

    Leading them all, of course, is China. As the economic historian Michael Lind recounted recently,

    China is not only the world's largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), but also the world's largest manufacturing nation-producing 52 percent of color televisions, 75 percent of mobile phones and 87 percent of the world's personal computers. The Chinese automobile industry is the world's largest, twice the size of America's. China leads the world in foreign exchange reserves. The United States is the main trading partner for seventy-six countries. China is the main trading partner for 124.

    In particular, we might pause over one item in that impressive litany: China makes 87 percent of the world's personal computers.

    Indeed, if it's true, as ZDNet reports, that the Chinese have built "backdoors" into almost all the electronic equipment that they sell-that is to say, the equipment that we buy-then we can assume that we face a serious military challenge, as well as a serious economic challenge.

    Yes, it's a safe bet that the People's Liberation Army has a good handle on our defense establishment, especially now that the Pentagon has fully equipped itself with Chinese-made iPhones and iPads.

    Of course, we can safely predict that Defense Department bureaucrats will always say that there's nothing to worry about, that they have the potential hacking/sabotage matter under control (although just to be sure, the Pentagon might say, give us more money).

    Yet we might note that this is the same defense establishment that couldn't keep track of lone internal rogues such as Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. Therefore, should we really believe that this same DOD knows how to stop the determined efforts of a nation of 1.3 billion people, seeking to hack machines-machines that they made in the first place?

    Yes, the single strongest argument against the blind application of free- trade dogma is the doctrine of self defense. That is, all the wealth in the world doesn't matter if you're conquered. Even Adam Smith understood that; as he wrote, "Defense . . . is of much more importance than opulence."

    Yet today we can readily see: If we are grossly dependent on China for vital wares, then we can't be truly independent of China. In fact, we should be downright fearful.

    Still, despite these deep strategic threats, directly the result of careless importing, the Smith-Ricardo orthodoxy remains powerful, even hegemonistic-at least in the English-speaking world.

    Why is this so? Yes, economists are typically seen as cold and nerdy, even bloodless, and yet, in fact, they are actual human beings. And as such, they are susceptible to the giddy-happy feeling that comes from the hope of building a new utopia, the dream of ushering in an era of world harmony, based on untrammeled international trade. Indeed, this woozy idealism among economists goes way back; it was the British free trader Richard Cobden who declared in 1857,

    Free trade is God's diplomacy. There is no other certain way of uniting people in the bonds of peace.

    And lo, so many wars later, many economists still believe that.

    Indeed, economists today are still monolithically pro-fee trade; a recent survey of economists found that 83 percent supported eliminating all tariffs and other barriers; just 10 percent disagreed.

    We might further note that others, too, in the financial and intellectual elite are fully on board the free-trade train, including most corporate officers and their lobbyists, journalists, academics, and, of course, the mostly for-hire think-tankers.

    To be sure, there are always exceptions: As that Guardian article, the one lamenting the sharp decrease in support for free trade as a "problem," noted, not all of corporate America is on board, particularly those companies in the manufacturing sector:

    Ford openly opposes TPP because it fears the deal does nothing to stop Japan manipulating its currency at the expense of US rivals.

    Indeed, we might note that the same Guardian story included an even more cautionary note, asserting that support for free trade, overall, is remarkably rickety:

    Some suggest a "bicycle theory" of trade deals: that the international bandwagon has to keep rolling forward or else it all wobbles and falls down.

    So what has happened? How could virtually the entire elite be united in enthusiasm for free trade, and yet, even so, the free trade juggernaut is no steadier than a mere two-wheeled bike? Moreover, free traders will ask: Why aren't the leaders leading? More to the point, why aren't the followers following?

    To answer those questions, we might start by noting the four-decade phenomenon of wage stagnation-that's taken a toll on support for free trade. But of course, it's in the heartland that wages have been stagnating; by contrast, incomes for the bicoastal elites have been soaring.

    We might also note that some expert predictions have been way off, thus undermining confidence in their expertise. Remember, this spring, when all the experts were saying that the United Kingdom would fall into recession, or worse, if it voted to leave the EU? Well, just the other day came this New York Post headline: "Brexit actually boosting the UK economy."

    Thus from the Wall Street-ish perspective of the urban chattering classes, things are going well-so what's the problem?

    Yet the folks on Main Street have known a different story. They have seen, with their own eyes, what has happened to them, and no fusillade of op-eds or think-tank monographs will persuade them to change their mind.

    So we can see that there's been a standoff: Wall Street vs. Main Street; nor is this the first time this has happened.

    However, because the two parties have been so united on the issues of trade and globalization-the "Uniparty," it's sometimes called-the folks in the boonies have had no political alternative. And as they say, the only power you have in this world is the power of an alternative. And so, lacking an alternative, the working/middle class has just had to accept its fate.

    Indeed, it has been a bitter fate, particularly bitter in the former industrial heartland. In a 2013 paper, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) came to some startling conclusions:

    Growing trade with less-developed countries lowered wages in 2011 by 5.5 percent-or by roughly $1,800-for a full-time, full-year worker earning the average wage for workers without a four-year college degree.

    The paper added, "One-third of this total effect is due to growing trade with just China."

    Continuing, EPI found that even as trade with low-wage countries caused a decrease in the incomes for lower-end workers, it had caused an increase in the incomes of high-end workers-so no wonder the high-end thinks globalism in great.

    To be sure, some in the elite are bothered by what's been happening. Peggy Noonan, writing earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal-a piece that must have raised the hackles of her doctrinaire colleagues-put the matter succinctly: There's a wide, and widening, gap between the "protected" and the "unprotected":

    The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.

    Of course, Noonan was alluding to the Trump candidacy-and also to the candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders. Those two insurgents, in different parties, have been propelled by the pushing from all the unprotected folks across America.

    We might pause to note that free traders have arguments which undoubtedly deserve a fuller airing. Okay. However, we can still see the limits. For example, the familiar gambit of outsourcing jobs to China, or Mexico-or 50 other countries-and calling that "free trade" is now socially unacceptable, and politically unsustainable.

    Still, the broader vision of planetary freedom, including the free flow of peoples and their ideas, is always enormously appealing. The United States, as well as the world, undoubtedly benefits from competition, from social and economic mobility-and yes, from new blood.

    As Stuart Anderson, executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, notes, "77 percent of the full-time graduate students in electrical engineering and 71 percent in computer science at U.S. universities are international students." That's a statistic that should give every American pause to ask: Why aren't we producing more engineers here at home?

    Moreover, Reuters reported in 2012 that 44 percent of all Silicon Valley startups were founded by at least one immigrant, and a 2016 study found that more than half of all billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. No doubt some will challenge the methodology of these studies, and that's fine; it's an important national debate in which all Americans might engage.

    We can say, with admiration, that Silicon Valley is the latest Manchester; as such, it's a powerful magnet for the best and the brightest from overseas, and from a purely dollars-and-cents point of view, there's a lot to be said for welcoming them.

    So yes, it would be nice if we could retain this international mobility that benefits the U.S.-but only if the economic benefits can be broadly shared, and patriotic assimilation of immigrants can be truly achieved, such that all Americans can feel good about welcoming newcomers.

    The further enrichment of Silicon Valley won't do much good for the country unless those riches are somehow widely shared. In fact, amidst the ongoing outsourcing of mass-production jobs, total employment in such boomtowns as San Francisco and San Jose has barely budged. That is, new software billionaires are being minted every day, but their workforces tend to be tiny-or located overseas. If that past pattern is the future pattern, well, something will have to give.

    We can say: If America is to be one nation-something Mitt "47 percent" Romney never worried about, although it cost him in the end-then we will have to figure out a way to turn the genius of the few into good jobs for the many. The goal isn't socialism, or anything like that; instead, the goal is the widespread distribution of private property, facilitated, by conscious national economic development, as I argued at the tail end of this piece.

    If we can't, or won't, find a way to expand private ownership nationwide, then the populist upsurges of the Trump and Sanders campaigns will be remembered as mere overtures to a starkly divergent future.

    6. Clinton and Trump Say They Are Trade Hawks: But Are They Sincere?

    So now we come to a mega-question for 2016: How should we judge the sincerity of the two major-party candidates, Clinton or Trump, when they affirm their opposition to TPP? And how do we assess their attitude toward globalization, including immigration, overall?

    The future is, of course, unknown, but we can make a couple of points.

    First, it is true that many have questioned the sincerity of Hillary's new anti-TPP stance, especially given the presence of such prominent free-traders as vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine and presidential transition-planning chief Ken Salazar. Moreover, there's also Hillary's own decades-long association with open-borders immigration policies, as well as past support for such trade bills as NAFTA, PNTR, and, of course, TPP. And oh yes, there's the Clinton Foundation, that global laundromat for every overseas fortune; most of those billionaires are globalists par excellence-would a President Hillary really cross them?

    Second, since there's still no way to see inside another person's mind, the best we can do is look for external clues-by which we mean, external pressures. And so we might ask a basic question: Would the 45th president, whoever she or he is, feel compelled by those external pressures to keep their stated commitment to the voters? Or would they feel that they owe more to their elite friends, allies, and benefactors?

    As we have seen, Clinton has long chosen to surround herself with free traders and globalists. Moreover, she has raised money from virtually every bicoastal billionaire in America.

    So we must wonder: Will a new President Clinton really betray her own class-all those Davos Men and Davos Women-for the sake of middle-class folks she has never met, except maybe on a rope line? Would Clinton 45, who has spent her life courting the powerful, really stick her neck out for unnamed strangers-who never gave a dime to the Clinton Foundation?

    Okay, so what to make of Trump? He, too, is a fat-cat-even more of fat-cat, in fact, than Clinton. And yet for more than a year now, he has based his campaign on opposition to globalism in all its forms; it's been the basis of his campaign-indeed, the basis of his base. And his campaign policy advisers are emphatic. According to Politico, as recently as August 30, Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro reiterated Trump's opposition to TPP, declaring,

    Any deal must increase the GDP growth rate, reduce the trade deficit, and strengthen the manufacturing base.

    So, were Trump to win the White House, he would come in with a much more solid anti-globalist mandate.

    Thus we can ask: Would a President Trump really cross his own populist-nationalist base by going over to the other side-to the globalists who voted, and donated, against him? If he did-if he repudiated his central platform plank-he would implode his presidency, the way that Bush 41 imploded his presidency in 1990 when he went back on his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.

    Surely Trump remembers that moment of political calamity well, and so surely, whatever mistakes he might make, he won't make that one.

    To be sure, the future is unknowable. However, as we have seen, the past, both recent and historical, is rich with valuable clues.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Democrat Tom Coyne : Trump Challenging Institutional Elites in Both Parties

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump is challenging the very fabric of the institutional elites in this country on both sides that have, quite frankly, just straight up screwed this country up and made the world a mess. ..."
    Aug 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Tom Coyne, a lifelong Democrat and the mayor of Brook Park, Ohio, spoke about his endorsement of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump with Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Matt Boyle.

    Coyne said:

    The parties are blurred. What's the difference? They say the same things in different tones. At the end of the day, they accomplish nothing. Donald Trump is challenging the very fabric of the institutional elites in this country on both sides that have, quite frankly, just straight up screwed this country up and made the world a mess.

    Regarding the GOP establishment's so-called Never Trumpers, Coyne stated, "If it's their expertise that people are relying upon as to advice to vote, people should go the opposite."

    Coyne has been described as "a blue-collar populist, blunt and politically incorrect":

    In an interview last week, Coyne said that Democrats and Republicans have failed the city through inaction and bad trade policies, key themes Trump often trumpets.

    "He understands us," Coyne said of Trump. "He is saying what we feel, and therefore, let him shake the bedevils out of everyone in the canyons of Washington D.C. The American people are responding to him."

    Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

    [Dec 04, 2016] In Trump We Trust E Pluribus Awesome! Ann Coulter

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump isn't a politician -- he's a one-man wrecking ball against our dysfunctional and corrupt establishment. We're about to see the deluxe version of the left's favorite theme: Vote for us or we'll call you stupid. It's the working class against the smirking class. ..."
    "... He understands that if we're ever going to get our economy back on its feet the wage-earning middle class will have to prosper along with investors ..."
    "... Trump that really "gets" the idea that the economy is suffering because the middle class can't find employment at livable wages ..."
    "... Ms. Coulter says it more eloquently: "The Republican establishment has no idea how much ordinary voters hate both parties." Like me, she's especially annoyed with Republicans, because we think of the Republican Party as being our political "family" that has turned against us: ..."
    "... The RNC has been forcing Republican candidates to take suicidal positions forever They were happy to get 100 percent of the Business Roundtable vote and 20 percent of the regular vote. ..."
    "... American companies used free trade with low-wage countries as an opportunity to close their American factories and relocate the jobs to lower-paying foreign workers. Instead of creating product and exporting it to other countries, our American companies EXPORTED American JOBS to other countries and IMPORTED foreign-made PRODUCTS into America! Our exports have actually DECLINED during the last five years with most of the 20 countries we signed free trade with. Even our exports to Canada, our oldest free trade partner, are less than what they were five years ago. ..."
    "... Trade with Japan, China, and South Korea is even more imbalanced, because those countries actively restrict imports of American-made products. We run a 4x trade imbalance with China, which cost us $367 billion last year. We lost $69 billion to Japan and $28 billion to South Korea. Our exports to these countries are actually DECLINING, even while our imports soar! ..."
    "... Why do Establishment Republicans join with Democrats in wanting to diminish the future with the WRONG kind of "free trade" that removes jobs and wealth from the USA? As Ms. Coulter reminds us, it is because Republican Establishment, like the Democrat establishment, is PAID by the money and jobs they receive from big corporations to believe it. ..."
    "... The donor class doesn't care. The rich are like locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to the next country. A hedge fund executive quoted in The Atlantic a few years ago said, "If the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile [that] means one American drops out of the middle class, that's not such a bad trade." ..."
    "... The corporate 1% who believe that the global labor market should be tapped in order to beat American workers out of their jobs; and that corporations and the 1% who own them should be come tax-exempt organizations that profit by using cheap overseas labor to product product that is sold in the USA, and without paying taxes on the profit. Ms. Coulter calls this group of Republican Estblishmentarians "locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to the next country." ..."
    "... Pretending to care about the interests of minorities. Of course, the Republican Establishment has even less appeal to minorities than to the White Middle Class (WMC) they abandoned. Minorities are no more interested in losing their jobs to foreigners or to suffer economic stagnation while the rich have their increasing wealth (most of which is earned at the expense of the middle class) tax-sheltered, than do the WMC. ..."
    "... Trump has given Republicans a new lease on life. The Establishment doesn't like having to take a back seat to him, but perhaps they should understand that having a back seat in a popular production is so much better than standing outside alone in the cold. ..."
    Aug 26, 2016 | www.amazon.com

    Donald Trump isn't a politician -- he's a one-man wrecking ball against our dysfunctional and corrupt establishment. We're about to see the deluxe version of the left's favorite theme: Vote for us or we'll call you stupid. It's the working class against the smirking class.

    Frank A. Lewes

    No pandering! The essence of Trump in personality and issues , August 23, 2016

    Ms. Coulter explains the journey of myself and so many other voters into Trump's camp. It captures the essence of Trump as a personality and Trump on the issues. If I had to sum Ms. Coulter's view of the reason for Trump's success in two words, I'd say "No Pandering!" I've heard many people, including a Liberal tell me, "Trump says what needs to be said."

    I've voted Republican in every election going back to Reagan in 1980, except for 2012 when I supported President Obama's re-election. I've either voted for, or financially supported many "Establishment Republicans" like Mitt Romney and John McCain in 2008. I've also supported some Conservative ones like Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. In this election I'd been planning to vote for Jeb Bush, a superb governor when I lived in Florida.

    Then Trump announced his candidacy. I had seen hints of that happening as far back as 2012. In my Amazon reviews in 2012 I said that many voters weren't pleased with Obama or the Republican Establishment. So the question became: "Who do you vote for if you don't favor the agendas of either party's legacy candidates?" In November 2013 I commented on the book DOUBLE DOWN: GAME CHANGE 2012 by Mark Halperin and John Heileman:

    =====
    Mr. Trump occupies an important place in the political spectrum --- that of being a Republican Populist.

    He understands that if we're ever going to get our economy back on its feet the wage-earning middle class will have to prosper along with investors, who are recovering our fortunes in the stock market.

    IMO whichever party nominates a candidate like Trump that really "gets" the idea that the economy is suffering because the middle class can't find employment at livable wages, will be the party that rises to dominance.

    Mr. Trump, despite his flakiness, at least understood that essential fact of American economic life.

    November 7, 2013
    =====

    Ms. Coulter says it more eloquently: "The Republican establishment has no idea how much ordinary voters hate both parties." Like me, she's especially annoyed with Republicans, because we think of the Republican Party as being our political "family" that has turned against us:

    =====
    The RNC has been forcing Republican candidates to take suicidal positions forever They were happy to get 100 percent of the Business Roundtable vote and 20 percent of the regular vote.

    when the GOP wins an election, there is no corresponding "win" for the unemployed blue-collar voter in North Carolina. He still loses his job to a foreign worker or a closed manufacturing plant, his kids are still boxed out of college by affirmative action for immigrants, his community is still plagued with high taxes and high crime brought in with all that cheap foreign labor.

    There's no question but that the country is heading toward being Brazil. One doesn't have to agree with the reason to see that the very rich have gotten much richer, placing them well beyond the concerns of ordinary people, and the middle class is disappearing. America doesn't make anything anymore, except Hollywood movies and Facebook. At the same time, we're importing a huge peasant class, which is impoverishing what remains of the middle class, whose taxes support cheap labor for the rich.

    With Trump, Americans finally have the opportunity to vote for something that's popular.

    =====

    That explains how Trump won my vote --- and held on to it through a myriad of early blunders and controversies that almost made me switch my support to other candidates.

    I'm no "xenophobe isolationist" stereotype. My first employer was an immigrant from Eastern Europe. What I learned working for him launched me on my successful career. I've developed and sold computer systems to subsidiaries of American companies in Europe and Asia. My business partners have been English and Canadian immigrants. My family are all foreign-born Hispanics. Three of my college roommates were from Ecuador, Germany, and Syria.

    BECAUSE of this international experience I agree with the issues of trade and immigration that Ms. Coulter talks about that have prompted Trump's rising popularity.

    First, there is the false promise that free trade with low-wage countries would "create millions of high-paying jobs for American workers, who will be busy making high-value products for export." NAFTA was signed in 1994. GATT with China was signed in 2001. Since then we've signed free trade with 20 countries. It was said that besides creating jobs for Americans, that free trade would prosper the global economy. In truth the opposite happened:

    American companies used free trade with low-wage countries as an opportunity to close their American factories and relocate the jobs to lower-paying foreign workers. Instead of creating product and exporting it to other countries, our American companies EXPORTED American JOBS to other countries and IMPORTED foreign-made PRODUCTS into America! Our exports have actually DECLINED during the last five years with most of the 20 countries we signed free trade with. Even our exports to Canada, our oldest free trade partner, are less than what they were five years ago.

    We ran trade SURPLUSES with Mexico until 1994, when NAFTA was signed. The very next year the surplus turned to deficit, now $60 billion a year. Given that each American worker produces an average of $64,000 in value per year, that is a loss of 937,000 American jobs to Mexico alone. The problem is A) that Mexicans are not wealthy enough to be able to afford much in the way of American-made product and B) there isn't much in the way of American-made product left to buy, since so much of former American-made product is now made in Mexico or China.

    Trade with Japan, China, and South Korea is even more imbalanced, because those countries actively restrict imports of American-made products. We run a 4x trade imbalance with China, which cost us $367 billion last year. We lost $69 billion to Japan and $28 billion to South Korea. Our exports to these countries are actually DECLINING, even while our imports soar!

    Thus, free trade, except with a few fair-trading countries like Canada, Australia, and possibly Britain, has been a losing proposition. Is it coincidence that our economy has weakened with each trade deal we have signed? Our peak year of labor force participation was 1999. Then we had the Y2K collapse and the Great Recession, followed by the weakest "recovery" since WWII? As Trump would say, free trade has been a "disaster."

    Why do Establishment Republicans join with Democrats in wanting to diminish the future with the WRONG kind of "free trade" that removes jobs and wealth from the USA? As Ms. Coulter reminds us, it is because Republican Establishment, like the Democrat establishment, is PAID by the money and jobs they receive from big corporations to believe it. Ms. Coulter says:

    =====
    The donor class doesn't care. The rich are like locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to the next country. A hedge fund executive quoted in The Atlantic a few years ago said, "If the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile [that] means one American drops out of the middle class, that's not such a bad trade."
    =====

    Then there is immigration. My wife, son, and extended family legally immigrated to the USA from Latin America. The first family members were recruited by our government during the labor shortage of the Korean War. Some fought for the United States in Korea. Some of their children fought for us in Vietnam, and some grandchildren are fighting in the Middle East. Most have become successful professionals and business owners. They came here LEGALLY, some waiting in queue for up to 12 years. They were supported by the family already in America until they were on their feet.

    Illegal immigration has been less happy. Illegals are here because the Democrats want new voters and the Republicans want cheap labor. Contrary to business propaganda, illegals cost Americans their jobs. A colleague just old me, "My son returned home from California after five years, because he couldn't get construction work any longer. All those jobs are now done off the books by illegals."

    It's the same in technology. Even while our high-tech companies are laying off 260,000 American employees in 2016 alone, they are banging the drums to expand the importation of FOREIGN tech workers from 85,000 to 195,000 to replace the Americans they let go. Although the H1-B program is billed as bringing in only the most exceptional, high-value foreign engineers, in truth most visas are issued to replace American workers with young foreigners of mediocre ability who'll work for much less money than the American family bread-winners they replaced.

    Both parties express their "reverse racism" against the White Middle Class. Democrats don't like them because they tend to vote Republican. The Republican Establishment doesn't like them because they cost more to employ than overseas workers and illegal aliens. According to them the WMC is too technologically out of date and overpaid to allow our benighted business leaders to "compete internationally."

    Ms. Coulter says "Americans are homesick" for our country that is being lost to illegal immigration and the removal of our livelihoods overseas. We are sick of Republican and Democrat Party hidden agendas, reverse-racism, and economic genocide against the American people. That's why the Establishment candidates who started out so theoretically strong, like Jeb Bush, collapsed like waterlogged houses of cards when they met Donald Trump. As Ms. Coulter explains, Trump knows their hidden agendas, and knows they are working against the best interests of the American Middle Class.

    Coulter keeps coming back to Mr. Trump's "Alpha Male" personality that speaks to Americans as nation without pandering to specific voter identity groups. She contrasts his style to the self-serving "Republican (Establishment) Brain Trust that is mostly composed of comfortable, well-paid mediocrities who, by getting a gig in politics, earn salaries higher than a capitalist system would ever value their talents." She explains what she sees as the idiocy of those Republican Establishment political consultants who wrecked the campaigns of Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz by micromanaging with pandering.

    She says the Republican Establishment lost because it served itself --- becoming wealthy by serving the moneyed interests of Wall Street. Trump won because he is speaking to the disfranchised American Middle Class who loves our country, is proud of our traditions, and believes that Americans have as much right to feed our families through gainful employment as do overseas workers and illegal aliens.

    "I am YOUR voice," says Trump to the Middle Class that until now has been ignored and even sneered at by both parties' establishments.

    I've given an overview of the book here. The real delight is in the details, told as only Anne Coulter can tell them. I've quoted a few snippets of her words, that relate most specifically to my views on Trump and the issues. I wish there were space to quote many more. Alas, you'll need to read the book to glean them all!

    Frank A. Lewes
    Bruce, I would also add that the Republican Establishment chose not to represent the interests of the White Middle Class on trade, immigration, and other issues that matter to us. They chose to represent the narrow interests of:

    1. The corporate 1% who believe that the global labor market should be tapped in order to beat American workers out of their jobs; and that corporations and the 1% who own them should be come tax-exempt organizations that profit by using cheap overseas labor to product product that is sold in the USA, and without paying taxes on the profit. Ms. Coulter calls this group of Republican Estblishmentarians "locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to the next country."

    2. Pretending to care about the interests of minorities. Of course, the Republican Establishment has even less appeal to minorities than to the White Middle Class (WMC) they abandoned. Minorities are no more interested in losing their jobs to foreigners or to suffer economic stagnation while the rich have their increasing wealth (most of which is earned at the expense of the middle class) tax-sheltered, than do the WMC.

    The Republican Establishment is in a snit because Trump beat them by picking up the WMC votes that the Establishment abandoned. What would have happened if Trump had not come on the scene? The probable result is that the Establishment would have nominated a ticket of Jeb Bush and John Kasich. These candidates had much to recommend them as popular governors of key swing states. But they would have gone into the election fighting the campaign with Republican Establishment issues that only matter to the 1%. They would have lost much of the WMC vote that ultimately rallied around Trump, while gaining no more than the usual 6% of minorities who vote Republican. It would have resulted in a severe loss for the Republican Party, perhaps making it the minority party for the rest of the century.

    Trump has given Republicans a new lease on life. The Establishment doesn't like having to take a back seat to him, but perhaps they should understand that having a back seat in a popular production is so much better than standing outside alone in the cold.

    Frank A. Lewes
    It's funny how White Men are supposed to be angry. But I've never seen any White men:

    1. Running amok, looting and burning down their neighborhood, shooting police and other "angry White men." There were 50 people shot in Chicago last weekend alone. How many of those do you think were "angry white men?" Hint: they were every color EXCEPT white.

    2. Running around complaining that they aren't allowed into the other gender's bathroom, then when they barge their way in there complain about being sexually assaulted. No, it's only "angry females" (of any ethnicity) who barge their way into the men's room and then complain that somebody in there offended them.

    Those "angry white men" are as legendary as "Bigfoot." They are alleged to exist everywhere, but are never seen. Maybe that's because they mostly hang out in the quiet neighborhoods of cookie-cutter homes in suburbia, go to the lake or bar-be-que on weekends, and take their allotment of Viagra in hopes of occassionally "getting lucky" with their wives. If they're "angry" then at least they don't take their angry frustrations out on others, as so many other militant, "in-your-face" activist groups do!

    [Dec 04, 2016] Michael Hudson 2016 Is Wall Street and the Corporate Sector (Clinton) vs. the Populists (Trump)

    Notable quotes:
    "... I've tuned out Warren-she has become the "red meat" surrogate for Clinton. Just because Taibbi was excellent on exposing Wall St. doesn't mean he really knows s**t about politics. I find the depiction of Trump as some kind of monster-buffoon to be simply boring and not very helpful. ..."
    "... (might be the Trump Chaos bc Hillary will strategically turn our war machine on us can't believe this is as good as it gets, sighed out) ..."
    "... Having the establishment, the military-industrial complex and Wall Street against him helps Trump a lot. ..."
    "... You can fool part of the people all the time, and all people part of the time, but Brexit won, so will Trump, politician extraordinaire ..."
    "... Given his family, a Trump presidency may look more like JFK's, where Bobby had more power than LBJ. Also, given Trump's negotiating expertise, I would certainly not believe any assertion of support he proclaims for the VP. I expect he had little choice in the matter, and that he also plans to send the VP to the hinterlands at the first opportunity. I'm unclear why so many appear to believe the VP has any influence whatsoever; I believe GWB was the only post-WW2 president who let the VP have any power. ..."
    "... What is a populist? Somebody that tries to do what the majority want. Current examples: Less wars and military spending. More infrastructure spending. Less support for banks and corps (imagine how many votes trump would gain if he said 'as pres I will jail bankers that break the law' And how that repudiates Obama and both parties.) Gun control (but not possible from within the rep party) ..."
    "... What is a fascist? Somebody that supports corporations, military, and military adventures. ..."
    "... Actually, it sounds a whole lot like a different candidate from a different party, doesn't it? ..."
    "... Neoliberal "Goodthink" flag. What this means when neoliberals say it is not let's build a better global society for all it means Corporations and our military should be able to run roughshod over the world and the people's of other countries. Exploit their citizens for cheap Labor, destroy their environment and move on. These are the exact policies of Hillary Clinton (see TPP, increase foreign wars etc.). Hillary globalism is not about global Brotherhood it's about global economic and military exploitation. Trump is nationalist non – interventionist, which leads to less global military destruction than hillary and less global exploitation. So who is a better for those outside the US, hillary the interventionist OR trump the non-interventionist? ..."
    "... Look, the Clintons are criminals, and their affiliate entities, including the DNC, could be considered criminal enterprises or co-conspirators at this point. ..."
    "... The very fact that Establishment, Wall St and Koch bros are behind HRC is evidence that the current 'status quo' will be continued! I cannot stand another 4 years of Hilabama. ..."
    "... The striving for American empire has so totally confused the political order of the country that up is down and down is up. The idea of government for and by the people is a distant memory. Covering for lies and contradictions of beliefs has blurred any notion of principles informing public action. ..."
    "... If there is any principle that matters today, it is the pursuit of money and profit reigns supreme. Trump is populist in the sense he is talking about bringing money and wealth back to the working classes. Not by giving it directly, but by forcing businesses to turn their sights back to the US proper and return to making their profits at home. In the end, it is all nostalgia and probably impossible, but working class people remember those days so it rings true. That is hope and change in action. People also could care less if he cheats on his taxes or is found out lying about how much he is worth. Once again, fudging your net worth is something working people care little about. Having their share of the pie is all that matters and Trump is tapping into that. ..."
    "... The only crime Trump has committed so far is his language. Liberals like Clinton, Blair and Obama drip blood. ..."
    "... The 2016 election cannot be looked at in isolation. The wars for profit are spreading from Nigeria through Syria to Ukraine. Turkey was just lost to the Islamists and is on the road to being a failed state. The EU is in an existential crisis due to Brexit, the refugee crisis and austerity. Western leadership is utterly incompetent and failing to protect its citizens. Globalization is failing. Its Losers are tipping over the apple cart. Humans are returning to their tribal roots for safety. The drums for war with Russia are beating. Clinton / Kaine are 100% Status Quo Globalists. Trump / Pence are candidates of change to who knows what. Currently I am planning on voting for the Green Party in the hope it becomes viable and praying that the chaos avoids Maryland. ..."
    Jul 24, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    Brindle, July 24, 2016 at 10:09 am

    I've tuned out Warren-she has become the "red meat" surrogate for Clinton. Just because Taibbi was excellent on exposing Wall St. doesn't mean he really knows s**t about politics. I find the depiction of Trump as some kind of monster-buffoon to be simply boring and not very helpful.

    abynormal , July 24, 2016 at 4:51 am

    for all the run around Hillary, Trump's chosen circle of allies are Wall Street and Austerity enablers. actually, Trump chaos could boost the enablers as easily as Hillary's direct mongering. War is Money low hanging fruit in this cash strapped era and either directly or indirectly neither candidate will disappoint.
    So I Ask Myself which candidate will the majority manage sustainability while assembling to create different outcomes? (might be the Trump Chaos bc Hillary will strategically turn our war machine on us can't believe this is as good as it gets, sighed out)

    Norb , July 24, 2016 at 10:54 am

    War is only good for the profiteers when it can be undertaken in another territory. Bringing the chaos home cannot be good for business. Endless calls for confidence and stability in markets must reflect the fact that disorder effects more business that the few corporations that benefit directly from spreading chaos. A split in the business community seems to be underway or at least a possible leverage point to bring about positive change.
    Even the splits in the political class reflect this. Those that benefit from spreading chaos are loosing strength because they have lost control of where that chaos takes place and who is directly effected from its implementation. Blowback and collateral damage are finally registering.

    Plenue , July 24, 2016 at 6:32 am

    Trump may be a disaster. Clinton will be a disaster. One of these two will win. I won't vote for either, but if you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose, I'd take Trump. He's certainly not a fascist (I think it was either Vice or Vox that had an article where they asked a bunch of historians of fascism if he was, the answer was a resounding no), he's a populist in the Andrew Jackson style. If nothing else Trump will (probably) not start WW3 with Russia.

    cm , July 24, 2016 at 11:28 am

    And war with Russia doesn't depend just on Hillary, it depends on us in Western Europe agreeing with it.

    A laughable proposition. The official US policy, as you may recall, is fuck the EU .

    Where was Europe when we toppled the Ukrainian govt? Get back to me when you can actually spend 2% GDP on your military. At the moment you can't even control your illegal immigrants.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 24, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    The political parties that survive display adaptability, and ideological consistency isn't a requirement for that. Look at the party of Lincoln. Or look at the party of FDR.

    If the Democrats decapitate the Republican party by bringing in the Kagans of this world and Republican suburbanites in swing states, then the Republicans will go where the votes are; the Iron Law of Institutions will drive them to do it, and the purge of the party after Trump will open the positions in the party for people with that goal.

    In a way, what we're seeing now is what should have happened to the Republicans in 2008. The Democrats had the Republicans down on the ground with Obama's boot on their neck. The Republicans had organized and lost a disastrous war, they had lost the legislative and executive branches, they were completely discredited ideologically, and they were thoroughly discredited in the political class and in the press.

    Instead, Obama, with his strategy of bipartisanship - good faith or not - gave them a hand up, dusted them off, and let them right back in the game, by treating them as a legitimate opposition party. So the Republican day of reckoning was postponed. We got various bids for power by factions - the Tea Party, now the Liberty Caucus - but none of them came anywhere near taking real power, despite (click-driven money-raising) Democrat hysteria.

    And now the day of reckoning has arrived. Trump went through the hollow institutional shell of the Republican Party like the German panzers through the French in 1939. And here we are!

    (Needless to say, anybody - ***cough*** Ted Cruz ***cough*** - yammering about "conservative principles" is part of the problem, dead weight, part of the dead past.) I don't know if the Republicans can remake themselves after Trump; what he's doing is necessary for that, but may not be sufficient.

    Steve C , July 24, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    Republicans won Congress and the states because the Democrats handed them to them on a silver platter. To Obama and his fan club meaningful power is a hot potato, to be discarded as soon as plausible.

    Older & Wiser , July 24, 2016 at 8:37 am

    Having the establishment, the military-industrial complex and Wall Street against him helps Trump a lot.

    Pro-Sanders folks, blacks, and hispanics will mostly vote for Trump.
    Having Gov. Pence on the ticket, core Republicans and the silent majority will vote for Trump.
    Women deep inside know Trump will help their true interests better than the Clinton-Obama rinse repeat
    Young people, sick and tired of the current obviously rigged system, will vote for change.

    You can fool part of the people all the time, and all people part of the time, but Brexit won, so will Trump, politician extraordinaire
    Even Michael Moore gets it

    cm , July 24, 2016 at 11:35 am

    Trump has intimated that he is not going to deal with the nuts and bolts of government, that will be Pence's job.

    Given his family, a Trump presidency may look more like JFK's, where Bobby had more power than LBJ.

    Also, given Trump's negotiating expertise, I would certainly not believe any assertion of support he proclaims for the VP. I expect he had little choice in the matter, and that he also plans to send the VP to the hinterlands at the first opportunity. I'm unclear why so many appear to believe the VP has any influence whatsoever; I believe GWB was the only post-WW2 president who let the VP have any power.

    John k , July 24, 2016 at 10:48 am

    Minorities will benefit at least as much as whites with infrastructure spending, which trump says he wants to do It would make him popular, which he likes, why not believe him? And if pres he would be able to get enough rep votes to get it passed. No chance with Hillary, who anyway would rather spend on wars, which are mostly fought by minorities.

    What is a populist? Somebody that tries to do what the majority want. Current examples:
    Less wars and military spending. More infrastructure spending. Less support for banks and corps (imagine how many votes trump would gain if he said 'as pres I will jail bankers that break the law' And how that repudiates Obama and both parties.) Gun control (but not possible from within the rep party)

    What is a fascist? Somebody that supports corporations, military, and military adventures.

    Uahsenaa , July 24, 2016 at 12:59 pm

    I'm saying you have a much better chance to pressure Clinton

    Sorry, but this argues from facts not in evidence and closely resembles the Correct the Record troll line (now substantiated through the Wikileaks dump) that Clinton "has to be elected" because she is at least responsive to progressive concerns.

    Except she isn't, and the degree to which the DNC clearly has been trying to pander to disillusioned Republicans and the amount of bile they spew every time they lament how HRC has had to "veer left" shows quite conclusively to my mind that, in fact, the opposite of what you say is true.

    Also, when NAFTA was being debated in the '90s, the Clintons showed themselves to be remarkably unresponsive both to the concerns of organized labor (who opposed it) as well as the majority of the members of their own party, who voted against it. NAFTA was passed only with a majority of Republican votes.

    I have no way of knowing whether you're a troll or sincerely believe this, but either way, it needs to be pointed out that the historical record actually contradicts your premise. If you do really believe this, try not to be so easily taken in by crafty rhetoric.

    EndOfTheWorld , July 24, 2016 at 8:19 am

    BTW, I'll take Trump's record as a husband over HRC's record as a wife. He loves a woman, then they break up, and he finds another one. This is not unusual in the US. Hillary, OTOH, "stood by her man" through multiple publicly humiliating infidelities, including having to settle out of court for more than $800,000, and rape charges. No problem with her if her husband was flying many times on the "Lolita Express" with a child molester. Could be she had no idea where her "loved one" was at the time. Do they in fact sleep in the same bed, or even live in the same house? I don't know.

    EndOfTheWorld , July 24, 2016 at 7:12 am

    RE: calling Donald Trump a "sociopath"-this is another one of those words that is thrown around carelessly, like "nazi" and "fascist". In the Psychology Today article "How to Spot a Sociopath", they list 16 key behavioral characteristics. I can't see them in Trump-you could make a case for a few of them, but not all. For example: "failure to follow any life plan", "sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated", "poor judgment and failure to learn by experience", "incapacity for love"-–you can't reasonably attach these characteristics to The Donald, who, indeed, has a more impressive and loving progeny than any other prez candidate I can think of.

    edmondo , July 24, 2016 at 8:01 am

    Actually, it sounds a whole lot like a different candidate from a different party, doesn't it?

    HBE , July 24, 2016 at 11:06 am

    "I have a sense of international identity as well: we are all brothers and sisters."

    Neoliberal "Goodthink" flag. What this means when neoliberals say it is not let's build a better global society for all it means Corporations and our military should be able to run roughshod over the world and the people's of other countries. Exploit their citizens for cheap Labor, destroy their environment and move on. These are the exact policies of Hillary Clinton (see TPP, increase foreign wars etc.). Hillary globalism is not about global Brotherhood it's about global economic and military exploitation. Trump is nationalist non – interventionist, which leads to less global military destruction than hillary and less global exploitation. So who is a better for those outside the US, hillary the interventionist OR trump the non-interventionist?

    "And not everyone feels the same way, but for most voters there is either a strong tribal loyalty (Dem or Repub) or a weaker sense of "us" guiding the voter on that day.
    Mad as I am about the Blue Dogs, I strongly identify with the Dems."

    So you recognize you are a tribalist, and assume all the baggage and irrationality that tribalism often fosters, but instead of addressing your tribalism you embrace it. What you seem to be saying (to me)is that we should leave critical thinking at the door and become dem tribalists like you.

    "But the Repubs and Dems see Wall Street issues through different cultural prisms. Republican are more reflexively pro-business. It matters."

    Hillary Clinton's biggest donors are Wallstreet and her dem. Husband destroyed glass-steagall. Trump wants to reinstate glass-steagall, so who is more business friendly again?

    "He is racist, and so he knows how to push ugly buttons."

    This identity politics trope is getting so old. Both are racist just in different ways, Trump says in your face racist things, which ensure the injustice cannot be ignored, where hillary has and does support racist policies, that use stealth racism to incrementaly increase the misery of minorities, while allowing the majority to pretend it's not happening.

    "First, he will govern with the Republicans. Republican judges, TPP, military spending, environmental rollbacks, etc. Trump will not overrule Repubs in Congress."

    These are literally hillarys policies not trumps.
    Trump: anti TPP, stop foreign interventions, close bases use money for infrastructure.
    Hillary :Pro TPP, more interventions and military spending

    "And no, no great Left populist party will ride to the rescue. The populist tradition (identity) is mostly rightwing and racist in our society.
    People do not change political identity like their clothes. The left tradition in the US, such as it is, is in the Dem party."

    So what you are saying is quit being stupid, populism is bad and you should vote for hillarys neoliberalism. The democrats were once left so even if they are no longer left, we must continue to support them if another party or candidate that is to the left isn't a democrat? Your logic hurts my head.

    Arnold Babar , July 24, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    Look, the Clintons are criminals, and their affiliate entities, including the DNC, could be considered criminal enterprises or co-conspirators at this point. Those who haven't realized that, or worse, who shill for them are willfully ignorant, amoral, or unethical. The fact that that includes a large chunk of the population doesn't change that. I don't vote for criminals.

    sunny129 , July 24, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    DNC is no different than RNC!

    The very fact that Establishment, Wall St and Koch bros are behind HRC is evidence that the current 'status quo' will be continued! I cannot stand another 4 years of Hilabama.

    I hate Hillary more than Trump. I want to protest at the Establishment, which at this represented by Hillary.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/politics/dnc-email-leak-wikileaks/index.html

    John k , July 24, 2016 at 11:13 am

    Populism (support for popular issues) is, well, popular.

    Fascism (support for corps and military adventures) is, at least after our ME adventures, unpopular.

    Commenters are expressing support for the person expressing popular views, such as infrastructure spending, and expressing little support for the candidate they believe is most fascist.

    Btw, Most on this site are liberals, few are reps, so to support him they have had to buck some of their long held antipathy regarding reps.

    EndOfTheWorld , July 24, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Right, what is changing with Trump is the Republicans are going back to, say, the Eisenhower era, when Ike started the interstate highway system, a socialist program if there ever was one.

    local to oakland , July 24, 2016 at 10:48 am

    This article by Mckay Coppins was illuminating I thought.
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/how-the-haters-made-trump?utm_term=.sm0BPXq0g#.qnzvzj8aP

    It shows some of his history in a fairly sympathetic light.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 24, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    It's a good article; this is a general observation. Sorry!

    "Hate" seems to be a continuing Democrat meme, and heck, who can be for hate? So it makes sense rhetorically, but in policy terms it's about as sensible as being against @ssh0les (since as the good book says, ye have the @ssh0les always with you). So we're really looking at virtue signaling as a mode of reinforcing tribalism, and to be taken seriously only for that reason. If you look at the political class writing about the working class - modulo writers like Chris Arnade - the hate is plain as day, though it's covered up with the rhetoric of meritocracy, taking care of losers, etc.

    Strategic hate management is a great concept. It's like hate can never be created or destroyed, and is there as a resource to be mined or extracted. The Clinton campaign is doing a great job of strategic hate management right now, by linking Putin and Trump, capitalizing on all the good work done in the press over the last year or so.

    Pat , July 24, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    For years we have been told that government should be run like a business. In truth that statement was used as a cudgel to avoid having the government provide any kind of a safety net to its citizenry because there was little or no profit in it for the people who think that government largess should only be for them.

    Here's the thing, if government had been run like a business, we the people would own huge portions of Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Chase today. We wouldn't have bailed them out without an equity stake in them. Most cities would have a share of the gate for every stadium that was built. And rather than paying nothing to the community Walmart would have been paying a share of their profits (much as those have dropped over the years).

    I do not like Trump's business, but he truly does approach his brand and his relationships as a business. When he says he doesn't like the trade deals because they are bad business and bad deals he is correct. IF the well being of the United states and his populace are what you are interested in regarding trade deals, ours are failures. Now most of us here know that was not the point of the trade deals. They have been a spectacular success for many of our largest businesses and richest people, but for America as a whole they have increased our trade deficit and devastated our job base. When he says he won't go there, this is one I believe him on.

    I also believe him on NATO and on the whole Russian thing. Why, because of the same reasons I believe him on Trade. They are not winners for America as a whole. They are bad deals. Europe is NOT living up to their contractual agreement regarding NATO. For someone who is a believer in getting the better of the deal that is downright disgusting. And he sees no benefit in getting into a war with Russia. The whole reserve currency thing vs. nukes is not going to work for him as a cost benefit analysis of doing it. He is not going to front this because it is a business loser.

    We truly have the worst choices from the main parties in my lifetime. There are many reasons Trump is a bad candidate. But on these two, he is far more credible and on the better side of things than the Democratic nominee. And on the few where she might reasonably considered to have a better position, unfortunately I do not for a moment believe her to be doing more than giving lip service based on both her record and her character.

    GF , July 24, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    This article from Talking Points Memo was pointed to by PK in his Twitter feed today. It has some interesting background on Trump's Russian connections:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

    tegnost , July 24, 2016 at 1:03 pm

    Is it your opinion that to have globalisation we must marginalize russia to the extent that they realize they can't have utopia and make the practical choice of allowing finance capitalism to guide them to realistic incrementally achieved debt bondage?

    DarkMatters , July 24, 2016 at 12:11 pm

    World turned upside down.

    The Democratic Party has been inching further and further to the right. Bernie tried to arrest this drift, but his internal populist rebellion was successfully thwarted by party elite corruption. The Democratic position is now so far to the right that the Republicans will marginalize themselves if they try to keep to the right of the Democrats.

    But, despite party loyalty or PC slogans, the Democrat's rightward position is now so obvious that it can be longer disguised by spin. The Trump campaign has demonstrated, the best electoral strategy for the Republican Party is to leapfrog leftward and campaign from a less corporate position. This has given space for the re-evaluation of party positions that Trump is enunciating, and the result is that the Trump is running to the
    left of Hillary. How weird is this?

    DarkMatters , July 24, 2016 at 12:59 pm

    I meant to use right and left to refer generally to elite vs popular. The issue is too big to discuss without some simplification, and I'm sorry it has distracted from the main issue. On the face of it, judging from the primaries, the Republican candidates who represented continued rightward drift were rejected. (Indications are that the same thing happened in the Democratic Party, but party control was stronger there, and democratic primary numbers will never be known).

    The main point I was trying to make is that the Democratic party has been stretching credulity to the breaking point in claiming to be democratic in any sense, and finally the contradiction between their statements and actions has outpaced the capabilities of their propaganda. Their Orwellian program overextended itself. Popular recognition of the disparity has caused a kind of political "snap" that's initiated a radical reorganization of what used to be the party of the right (or corporations, or elites, or finance, or "your description here".)

    Besides confusion between which issues are right or left for Republicans or Democrats on the national level, internationally, the breakdown of popular trust in the elites, and the failure of their propaganda on that scale, is leading to a related worldwide distrust and rejection of elite policies. This distrust has been percolating in pockets for some time, but it seems it's now become so widespread that it's practically become a movement.

    I suspect, however, there's a Plan B for this situation to restore the proper order. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

    Norb , July 24, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    The striving for American empire has so totally confused the political order of the country that up is down and down is up. The idea of government for and by the people is a distant memory. Covering for lies and contradictions of beliefs has blurred any notion of principles informing public action.

    If there is any principle that matters today, it is the pursuit of money and profit reigns supreme. Trump is populist in the sense he is talking about bringing money and wealth back to the working classes. Not by giving it directly, but by forcing businesses to turn their sights back to the US proper and return to making their profits at home. In the end, it is all nostalgia and probably impossible, but working class people remember those days so it rings true. That is hope and change in action. People also could care less if he cheats on his taxes or is found out lying about how much he is worth. Once again, fudging your net worth is something working people care little about. Having their share of the pie is all that matters and Trump is tapping into that.

    Clintons arrogance is worse because the transcripts probably clearly show her secretly conspiring with bankers to screw the working people of this country. Trumps misdeeds effect his relationship to other elites while Clintons directly effect working people.

    Such a sorry state of affairs. When all that matters is the pursuit of money and profit, moving forward will be difficult and full of moral contradictions. Populism needs a new goal. The political machinery that gives us two pro-business hacks and an ineffectual third party has fundamentally failed.

    The business of America must be redefined, not somehow brought back to a mythical past greatness. Talk about insanity.

    John Wright , July 24, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    Thanks for the mention of the Bob Herbert editorial.

    I found it by searching for your quoted statement at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/26/opinion/in-america-cut-him-loose.html

    I was published Feb 26,2001

    Herbert has some advice for the Democrats.

    "Bill Clinton has been a disaster for the Democratic Party. Send him packing."

    "There's not much the Democrats can do about Mrs. Clinton. She's got a Senate seat for six years. But there is no need for the party to look to her for leadership. The Democrats need to regroup, re-establish their strong links to middle-class and working-class Americans, and move on."

    "You can't lead a nation if you are ashamed of the leadership of your party. The Clintons are a terminally unethical and vulgar couple, and they've betrayed everyone who has ever believed in them."

    "As neither Clinton has the grace to retire from the scene, the Democrats have no choice but to turn their backs on them. It won't be easy, but the Democrats need to try. If they succeed they'll deserve the compliment Bill Clinton offered Gennifer Flowers after she lied under oath: "Good for you." "

    Amazing how the New York Times has "evolved" from Herbert's editorial stance of 15 years ago to their unified editorial/news support for HRC's candacy,

    In my view, it is not as if HRC has done anything to redeem herself in the intervening years.

    Herbert left the NY Times in 2011..

    Sound of the Suburbs , July 24, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    It takes liberals to create a refugee crisis.
    What country are we going to bomb back into the stone age this week?

    We are very squeamish about offensive language.
    We don't mind dropping bombs and ripping people apart with red hot shrapnel.
    We are liberals.

    Liberal sensibilities were on display in the film "Apocalypse Now".
    No writing four letter words on the side of aircraft.
    Napalm, white phosphorous and agent orange – no problem.

    Liberals are like the English upper class – outward sophistication hiding the psychopath underneath.
    They were renowned for their brutality towards slaves, the colonies and the English working class (men, women and children) but terribly sophisticated when with their own.

    Are you a bad language sort of person – Trump
    Or a liberal, psychopath, empire builder – Clinton

    The only crime Trump has committed so far is his language. Liberals like Clinton, Blair and Obama drip blood.

    Richard , July 24, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    Lambert strether said: my view is that the democrat party cannot be saved, but it can be seized.
    Absolutely correct.
    That is why Trump must be elected. Only then through the broken remains of both Parties can the frangible Democrat Party be seized and restored.

    VietnamVet , July 24, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    The 2016 election cannot be looked at in isolation. The wars for profit are spreading from Nigeria through Syria to Ukraine. Turkey was just lost to the Islamists and is on the road to being a failed state. The EU is in an existential crisis due to Brexit, the refugee crisis and austerity. Western leadership is utterly incompetent and failing to protect its citizens. Globalization is failing. Its Losers are tipping over the apple cart. Humans are returning to their tribal roots for safety. The drums for war with Russia are beating. Clinton / Kaine are 100% Status Quo Globalists. Trump / Pence are candidates of change to who knows what. Currently I am planning on voting for the Green Party in the hope it becomes viable and praying that the chaos avoids Maryland.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Dont blame the masses

    Notable quotes:
    "... Because we interpreted the end of the Cold War as the ultimate vindication of America's economic system, we intensified our push toward the next level of capitalism, called globalization. It was presented as a project that would benefit everyone. Instead it has turned out to be a nightmare for many working people. Thanks to "disruption" and the "global supply chain," many American workers who could once support families with secure, decent-paying jobs must now hope they can be hired as greeters at Walmart. Meanwhile, a handful of super-rich financiers manipulate our political system to cement their hold on the nation's wealth. ..."
    "... Rather than shifting to a less assertive and more cooperative foreign policy, we continued to insist that America must reign supreme. When we declared that we would not tolerate the emergence of another "peer power," we expected that other countries would blithely obey. Instead they ignore us. We interpret this as defiance and seek to punish the offenders. That has greatly intensified tensions between the United States and the countries we are told to consider our chief adversaries, Russia and China. ..."
    Aug 08, 2016 | www.bostonglobe.com
    Because we interpreted the end of the Cold War as the ultimate vindication of America's economic system, we intensified our push toward the next level of capitalism, called globalization. It was presented as a project that would benefit everyone. Instead it has turned out to be a nightmare for many working people. Thanks to "disruption" and the "global supply chain," many American workers who could once support families with secure, decent-paying jobs must now hope they can be hired as greeters at Walmart. Meanwhile, a handful of super-rich financiers manipulate our political system to cement their hold on the nation's wealth.
    Enrique Ferro's insight:
    Moments of change require adaptation, but the United States is not good at adapting. We are used to being in charge. This blinded us to the reality that as other countries began rising, our relative power would inevitably decline. Rather than shifting to a less assertive and more cooperative foreign policy, we continued to insist that America must reign supreme. When we declared that we would not tolerate the emergence of another "peer power," we expected that other countries would blithely obey. Instead they ignore us. We interpret this as defiance and seek to punish the offenders. That has greatly intensified tensions between the United States and the countries we are told to consider our chief adversaries, Russia and China.

    [Dec 04, 2016] The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies

    This is downright sickening and the people who are voting for Hillary will not even care what will happen with the USA iif she is elected.
    By attacking Trump using "Khan gambit" she risks a violent backlash (And not only via Wikileaks, which already promised to release information about her before the elections)
    People also start to understand that she is like Trump. He destroyed several hundred American lifes by robbing them, exploiting their vanity (standard practice in the USA those days) via Trump University scam. She destroyed the whole country -- Libya and is complicit in killing Khaddafi (who, while not a nice guy, was keeping the country together and providing be highest standard of living in Africa for his people).
    In other words she is a monster and sociopath. He probably is a narcissist too. So there is no much phychological difference between them. And we need tight proportions to judge this situation if we are talking about Hillary vs Trump.
    As for people voting for Trump -- yes they will. I think if Hillary goes aganst Trump, the female neoliberal monster will be trumped. She has little chances even taking into account the level of brainwashing in the USA (which actually is close to those that existed in the USSR).
    Notable quotes:
    "... The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist. ..."
    "... U.S. Government Tried to Tackle Gun Violence in 1960s ..."
    "... Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none of the nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once again, contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel and Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those complaining about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them. ..."
    "... The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements, once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself (The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving Labor with the consequences. ..."
    "... "Every society chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor." More specifically, isn't it a struggle between various political/economic/cultural movements within a society which chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor. ..."
    "... My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD, and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to be taken seriously. ..."
    "... " the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism" ..."
    "... The neoliberals are all too aware that the clock is ticking. In this morning's NYT, yet more talk of ramming TPP through in the lame duck. ..."
    "... The roads here are deteriorating FAST. In Price County, the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis. ..."
    "... This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint. People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it. They think a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot. ..."
    "... Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people Trump will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government. You can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely what his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government. ..."
    "... In other words, the MSM's fear is the clearest sign to these voters that their ..."
    "... Your phrase "Trump is political vandalism" is great. I don't think I've seen a better description. NPR this morning was discussing Trump and his relationship with the press and the issues some GOP leaders have with him. When his followers were discussed, the speakers closely circled your vandalism point. Basically they said that his voters are angry with the power brokers and leaders in DC and regardless of whether they think Trump's statements are heartfelt or just rhetoric, they DO know he will stick it to those power brokers so that's good. Vandalism by a longer phrase. ..."
    "... Meritocracy was ALWAYS a delusional fraud. What you invariably get, after a couple of generations, is a clique of elitists who define merit as themselves and reproduce it ad nauseam. Who still believes in such laughable kiddie stories? ..."
    "... Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal. ..."
    "... Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks. Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders. ..."
    "... Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts the number of doctors. ..."
    "... Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation. Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry. ..."
    "... Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development. ..."
    "... Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour. ..."
    "... Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official. ..."
    "... Free public education including college (4 year degree). ..."
    "... Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left. ..."
    "... This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not Bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade. ..."
    "... Totally agree tegnost, no more democratic neoliberals -- ..."
    "... "they are now re-shaping the world in their own image" Isn't this intrinsic to bourgeois liberalism? ..."
    "... Two things are driving our troubles: over-population and globalization. The plutocrats and kleptocrats have all the leverage over the rest of us laborers when the population of human beings has increased seven-fold in the last 70 years, from a little over a billion to seven billions (and growing) today. They are happy to let us freeze to death behind gas stations in order for them to compete with other oligarchs in excess consumption. ..."
    "... Thank you for mentioning the third rail of overpopulation. Too often, this giant category of problems is ignored, because it makes people uncomfortable. The planet is finite, resources on the planet are finite, yet the number of people keeps growing. We need to strive for a higher quality of life, not a higher quantity of people. ..."
    "... The issue goes beyond "current neoliberals up for election", it is most of our political establishment that has been corrupted by a system that provides for the best politicians money can buy. ..."
    "... America has always been a country where a majority of the population has been poor. With the exception of a fifty five year(1950-2005) year period where access to large quantities of consumer debt by households was deployed to first to provide a wealth illusion to keep socialism at bay, followed by a mortgage debt boom to both keep the system afloat and strip the accumulated capital of the working class, i.e. home equity, the history of the US has been one of poverty for the masses. ..."
    "... Further debt was foisted on the working class in the form of military Keynesianism, generating massive fiscal deficits which are to be paid for via austerity in a neo-feudal economy. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    The first comment gives a window into the hidden desperation in America that is showing up in statistics like increasing opioid addiction and suicides, rather than in accounts of how and why so many people are suffering. I hope readers will add their own observations in comments.

    seanseamour, June 1, 2016 at 3:26 am

    We recently took three months to travel the southern US from coast to coast. As an expat for the past twenty years, beyond the eye opening experience it left us in a state of shock. From a homeless man convulsing in the last throes of hypothermia (been there) behind a fuel station in Houston (the couldn't care less attendant's only preoccupation getting our RV off his premises), to the general squalor of near-homelessness such as the emergence of "American favelas" a block away from gated communities or affluent ran areas, to transformation of RV parks into permanent residencies for the foreclosed who have but their trailer or RV left, to social study one can engage while queuing at the cash registers of a Walmart before beneficiaries of SNAP.

    Stopping to take the time to talk and attempt to understand their predicament and their beliefs as to the cause of their plight is a dizzying experience in and of itself. For a moment I felt transposed to the times of the Cold War, when the Iron Curtain dialectics fuzzed the perception of that other world to the west with a structured set of beliefs designed to blacken that horizon as well as establish a righteous belief in their own existential paradigm.

    What does that have to do with education? Everything if one considers the elitist trend that is slowly setting the framework of tomorrow's society. For years I have felt there is a silent "un-avowed conspiracy", why the seeming redundancy, because it is empirically driven as a by-product of capitalism's surge and like a self-redeeming discount on a store shelf crystalizes a group identity of think-alike know-little or nothing frustrated citizens easily corralled by a Fox or Trump piper. We have re-rcreated the conditions or rather the reality of "Poverty In America" barely half a century after its first diagnostic with one major difference : we are now feeding the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach the upward mobility ladder, once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly sclerotic welfare states of Europe.

    Praedor, June 1, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    So Richard Cohen now fears American voters because of Trump. Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR) was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on NPR missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist.

    In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging. There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent real people in favor of useless eater rich.

    Make the people into commodities, endanger their washes and job security, impose austerity, and tale in floods of refugees. Of COURSE Europeans stay leaning fascist.

    Praedor , June 2, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    According to NPR's experts, many or most of those parties are "fascist". The fascist label is getting tossed around a LOT right now. It is slung at Trump, at UKIP, or any others. Fascist is what you call the opposition party to the right that you oppose. Now I don't call Trump a fascist. A buffoon, yes, even a charlatan (I still rather doubt he really originally thought he would become the GOP nominee. Perhaps I'm wrong but, like me, many seemed to think that he was pushing his "brand" – a term usage of which I HATE because it IS like we are all commodities or businesses rather than PEOPLE – and that he would drop by the wayside and profit from his publicity).

    Be that as it may, NPR and Co were discussing the rise of fascist/neofascist parties and wondering why there were doing so well. Easy answer: neoliberalism + refugee hoards = what you see in Europe.

    I've also blamed a large part of today's gun violence in the USA on the fruits of neoliberalism. Why? Same reason that ugly right-wing groups (fascist or not) are gaining ground around the Western world. Neoliberalism destroys societies. It destroys the connections within societies (the USA in this case). Because we have guns handy, the result is mass shootings and flashes of murder-suicides. This didn't happen BEFORE neoliberalism got its hooks into American society. The guns were there, always have been (when I was a teen I recall seeing gun mags advertising various "assault weapons" for sale this was BEFORE Reagan and this was BEFORE mass shootings, etc). Machine guns were much easier to come by BEFORE the 1980s yet we didn't have mass killings with machine guns, handguns, or shotguns. ALL that stuff is a NEW disease. A disease rooted in neoliberalism. Neoliberalism steals your job security, your healthcare security, your home, your retirement security, your ability to provide for your family, your ability to send your kids to college, your ability to BUY FOOD. Neoliberalism means you don't get to work for a company for 20 years and then see the company pay you back for that long, good service with a pension. You'll be lucky to hold a job at any company from month-to-month now and FORGET about benefits! Healthcare? Going by the wayside too. Workers in the past felt a bond with each other, especially within a company. Neoliberalism has turned all workers against each other because they have to fight to gain any of the scraps being tossed out by the rich overlords. You can't work TOGETHER to gain mutual benefit, you need to fight each other in a zero sum game. For ME to win you have to lose. You are a commodity. A disposable and irrelevant widget. THAT combines with guns (that have always been available!) and you get desperate acting out: mass shootings, murder suicides, etc.

    WorldBLee , June 2, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    There are actual fascist parties in Europe. To name a few in one country I've followed, Ukraine, there's Right Sector, Svoboda, and others, and that's just one country. I don't think anyone calls UKIP fascist.

    John Zelnicker , June 3, 2016 at 12:24 am

    @Praedor – Your comment that Yves posted and this one are excellent. One of the most succinct statements of neoliberalism and its worst effects that I have seen.

    As to the cause of recent mass gun violence, I think you have truly nailed it. If one thinks at all about the ways in which the middle class and lower have been squeezed and abused, it's no wonder that a few of them would turn to violence. It's the same despair and frustration that leads to higher suicide rates, higher rates of opiate addiction and even decreased life expectancy.

    Jacob , June 3, 2016 at 11:35 am

    "Machine guns were much easier to come by BEFORE the 1980s yet we didn't have mass killings with machine guns, handguns, or shotguns. ALL that stuff is a NEW disease. A disease rooted in neoliberalism."

    Easy availability of guns was seen as a serious problem long before the advent of neoliberalism. For one example of articles about this, see U.S. Government Tried to Tackle Gun Violence in 1960s . Other examples include 1920s and 1930s gangster and mob violence that were a consequence of Prohibition (of alcohol). While gun violence per-capita might be increasing, the population is far larger today, and the news media select incidents of violence to make them seem like they're happening everywhere and that everyone needs to be afraid. That, of course, instills a sense of insecurity and fear into the public mind; thus, a fearful public want a strong leader and are willing to accept the inconvenience and dangers of a police state for protection.

    Disturbed Voter , June 2, 2016 at 6:49 am

    First they came for the blue collar workers

    America has plenty of refugees, from Latin America

    Neo-liberal goes back to the Monroe Doctrine. We used to tame our native workers with immigrants, and we still do, but we also tame them by globalism in trade. So many rationalizations for this, based on political and economic propaganda. All problems caused by the same cause American predatory behavior. And our great political choice iron fist with our without velvet glove.

    Jeff , June 2, 2016 at 7:58 am

    Germany, Belgium, France, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Israel, Australia come to mind (if one is allowed to participate in a European song contest, one is supposed to be part of Europe :) They all have more or less fascist governments.
    Once you realize that the ECB creates something like 60 billion euros a month, and gives nothing to its citizens nor its nation-states, that means the money goes to corporations, which means that the ECB, and by extension the whole EU, is a fascist construct (fascism being defined as a government running on behalf of the corporations).

    Seb , June 2, 2016 at 8:07 am

    That's a fallacy. Corporatism is a feature of fascism, not the other way around.

    None of the governments you mention, with the possible exception of Israel and Turkey, can be called fascist in any meaningful sense.

    Even the anti-immigration parties in the Western European countries you mention – AfD, Front National, Vlaams Belang – only share their nationalism with fascist movements. And they are decidedly anti-corporatist.

    BananaBreakfast , June 4, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    The problem here is one of semantics, really. You're using "fascist" interchangeably with "authoritarian", which is a misnomer for these groups. The EU is absolutely anti-democratic, authoritarian, and technocratic in a lot of respects, but it's not fascist. Both have corporatist tendencies, but fascist corporatism was much more radical, much more anti-capitalist (in the sense that the capitalist class was expected to subordinate itself to the State as the embodiment of the will of the Nation or People, as were the other classes/corporate units). EU technocratic corporatism has none of the militarism, the active fiscal policy, the drive for government supported social cohesion, the ethno-nationalism, or millenarianism of Fascism.

    The emergent Right parties like UKIP, FNP, etc. share far more with the Fascists, thought I'd say they generally aren't yet what Fascists would have recognized as other Fascists in the way that the NSDAP and Italian Fascists recognized each other -perhaps they're more like fellow travelers.

    tgs , June 2, 2016 at 9:46 am

    True, I posted a few minutes ago saying roughly the same thing – but it seems to have gone to moderation.

    Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none of the nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once again, contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel and Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those complaining about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them.

    Jeff , June 2, 2016 at 10:05 am

    When I was young, there were 4 divisions:
    * who owned the means of production (public or private entities)
    * who decided what those means were used for.
    If it is a 'public entity' (aka government or regime) that decides what is built, we have a totalitarian state, which can be 'communist' (if the means also belong the public entities like the government or regional fractions of it) or 'fascist' (if the factories are still in private hands).
    If it is the private owner of the production capacity who decides what is built, you get capitalism. I don't recall any examples of private entities deciding what to do with public means of production (mafia perhaps).
    Sheldon Wolin introduced us to inverted totalitarism. While it is no longer the government that decides what must be done, the private 'owners' just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed to achieve their means.
    When I cite Germany, it is not so much AfD, but the 2€/hour jobs I am worried about. When I cite Belgium, it is not the fools of Vlaams Belang, but rather the un-taxing of corporations and the tear-down of social justice that worries me.

    Jim , June 2, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    But Jeff, is Wolin accurate in using the term "inverted totalitarianism" to try to capture the nature of our modern extractive bureaucratic monolith that apparently functions in an environment where "it is no longer the government that decides what must be done..simply.."private owners just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed to achieve their means."

    Mirowski argues quite persuasively that the neoliberal ascendency does not represent the retreat of the State but its remaking to strongly support a particular conception of a market society that is imposed with the help of the State on our society.

    For Mirowski, neoliberalism is definitely not politically libertarian or opposed to strong state intervention in the economy and society.

    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 10:19 am

    Inverted totalitarianism is the mirror image of fascism, which is why so many are confused. Fascism is just a easier term to use and more understandable by all. There is not a strict adherence to fascism going on, but it's still totalitarian just the same.

    jan , June 2, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Hi
    I live in Europe as well, and what to think of Germany's AfD, Greece's Golden Dawn, the Wilder's party in the Netherlands etc. Most of them subscribe to the freeloading, sorry free trading economic policies of neoliberalism.

    schizosoph , June 2, 2016 at 9:28 am

    There's LePen in France and the far-right, fascist leaning party nearly won in Austria. The far right in Greece as well. There's clearly a move to the far right in Europe. And then there's the totalitarian mess that is Turkey. How much further this turn to a fascist leaning right goes and how widespread remains to be seen, but it's clearly underway.

    myshkin , June 2, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Searched 'current fascist movements europe' and got these active groups from wiki.

    National Bolshevik Party-Belarus
    Parti Communautaire National-Européen Belgium
    Bulgarian National Alliance Bulgaria
    Nova Hrvatska Desnica Croatia
    Ustaše Croatia
    National Socialist Movement of Denmark
    La Cagoule France
    National Democratic Party of Germany
    Fascism and Freedom Movement – Italy
    Fiamma Tricolore Italy
    Forza Nuova Italy
    Fronte Sociale Nazionale Italy
    Movimento Fascismo e Libertŕ Italy
    Pērkonkrusts Latvia
    Norges Nasjonalsosialistiske Bevegelse Norway
    National Radical Camp (ONR) Poland
    National Revival of Poland (NOP)
    Polish National Community-Polish National Party (PWN-PSN)
    Noua Dreaptă Romania
    Russian National Socialist Party(formerly Russian National Union)
    Barkashov's Guards Russia
    National Socialist Society Russia
    Nacionalni stroj Serbia
    Otačastveni pokret Obraz Serbia
    Slovenska Pospolitost Slovakia
    Espańa 2000 Spain
    Falange Espańola Spain
    Nordic Realm Party Sweden
    National Alliance Sweden
    Swedish Resistance Movement Sweden
    National Youth Sweden
    Legion Wasa Sweden
    SPAS Ukraine
    Blood and Honour UK
    British National Front UK
    Combat 18 UK
    League of St. George UK
    National Socialist Movement UK
    Nationalist Alliance UK
    November 9th Society UK
    Racial Volunteer Force UK

    Lexington , June 2, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    "Fascism" has become the prefered term of abuse applied indiscriminately by the right thinking to any person or movement which they want to tar as inherently objectionable, and which can therefore be dismissed without the tedium of actually engaging with them at the level of ideas.

    Most of the people who like to throw this word around couldn't give you a coherant definition of what exactly they understand it to signify, beyond "yuck!!"

    In fairness even students of political ideology have trouble teasing out a cosistent system of beliefs, to the point where some doubt fascism is even a coherent ideology. That hardly excuses the intellectual vacuity of those who use it as a term of abuse, however.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , June 2, 2016 at 4:39 pm

    Precisely 3,248 angels can fit on the head of a pin. Parsing the true definition of "fascism" is a waste of time, broadly, fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks.

    As far as the definition "neo-liberalism" goes, yes it's a useful label. But let's keep it simple: every society chooses how resources are allocated between Capital and Labor. The needle has been pegged over on the Capital side for quite some time, my "start date" is when Reagan busted the air traffic union. The hideous Republicans managed to sell their base that policies that were designed to let companies be "competitive" were somehow good for them, not just for the owners of the means of production.

    The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements, once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself (The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving Labor with the consequences.

    Jim , June 2, 2016 at 7:40 pm

    PodBay stated:

    "Every society chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor." More specifically, isn't it a struggle between various political/economic/cultural movements within a society which chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor.

    Take, for example, the late 1880s-1890s in the U.S. During that time-frame there were powerful agrarian populists movements and the beginnings of some labor/socialist movements from below, while from above the property-production system was modified by a powerful political movement advocating for more corporate administered markets over the competitive small-firm capitalism of an earlier age.

    It was this movement for corporate administered markets which won the battle and defeated/absorbed the agrarian populists.

    What are the array of such forces in 2016? What type of movement doe Trump represent? Sanders? Clinton?

    Lexington , June 2, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks

    Which textbooks specifically?

    The article I cited above in Vox canvasses the opinion of five serious students of fascism, and none of them believe Trump is a fascist. I'd be most interested in knowing what you have been reading.

    As for your definition of "fascism", it's obviously so vague and broad that it really doesn't explain anything. To the extent it contains any insight it is that public institutions (the state), private businesses (the corporation) and the armed forces all exert significant influence on public policy. That and a buck and and a half will get you a cup of coffee. If anything it is merely a very crude descriptive model of the political process. It doesn't define fascism as a particular set of beliefs that make it a distinct political ideology that can be differentiated from other ideologies (again, see the Vox article for a discussion of some of the beliefs that are arguably characteristic of fascist movements). Indeed by your standard virtually every state that has ever existed has to a greater or lesser extent been "fascist".

    My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD, and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to be taken seriously. Given that these movements are only growing in strength as faith in traditional political movements and elites evaporate this is likely to produce exactly the opposite result. Right wing populism isn't going to disappear just because the left keeps trying to wish it away. Refusing to accept this basic political fact risks condemning the left rather than "the fascists" to political irrelevance.

    Roger Smith , June 2, 2016 at 7:13 am

    " the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism"

    This phrase is pure gold.

    allan , June 2, 2016 at 7:44 am

    The neoliberals are all too aware that the clock is ticking. In this morning's NYT, yet more talk of ramming TPP through in the lame duck.

    sleepy , June 2, 2016 at 7:56 am

    I moved to a small city/town in Iowa almost 20 years ago. Then, it still had something of a Norman Rockwell quality to it, particularly in a sense of egalitarianism, and also some small factory jobs which still paid something beyond a bare existence.

    Since 2000, many of those jobs have left, and the population of the county has declined by about 10%. Kmart, Penney's, and Sears have left as payday/title loan outfits, pawnshops, smoke shops, and used car dealers have all proliferated.

    Parts of the town now resemble a combination of Appalachia and Detroit. Sanders easily won the caucuses here and, no, his supporters were hardly the latte sippers of someone's imagination, but blue collar folks of all ages.

    weinerdog43 , June 2, 2016 at 8:25 am

    My tale is similar to yours. About 2 years ago, I accepted a transfer from Chicagoland to north central Wisconsin. JC Penney left a year and a half ago, and Sears is leaving in about 3-4 months. Kmart is long gone.

    I was back at the old homestead over Memorial Day, and it's as if time has stood still. Home prices still going up; people out for dinner like crazy; new & expensive automobiles everywhere. But driving out of Chicagoland, and back through rural Wisconsin it is unmistakeable.

    2 things that are new: The roads here are deteriorating FAST. In Price County, the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis. (Yes, that means there is only enough money to resurface all the county roads if spread out over 200 years.) 2nd, there are dead deer everywhere on the side of the road. In years past, they were promptly cleaned up by the highway department. Not any more. Gross, but somebody has to do the dead animal clean up. (Or not. Don't tell Snotty Walker though.)

    Anyway, not everything is gloom and doom. People seem outwardly happy. But if you're paying attention, signs of stress and deterioration are certainly out there.

    Jim Haygood , June 2, 2016 at 12:08 pm

    "the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis"

    while the fedgov spends north of 5 percent of GDP on global military dominance.

    We're the Soviets now, comrades: shiny weapons, rotting infrastructure.

    Today in San Diego, the Hildabeest will deliver a vigorous defense of this decadent, dying system.

    Mary Wehrheim , June 2, 2016 at 8:32 am

    This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint. People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it. They think a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot.

    You also have the more gullible fundis who have actually deluded themselves into thinking the man who is ultimate symbol of hedonism will deliver them from secularism because he says he will. Authoritarians who seek solutions through strong leaders are usually the easiest to con because they desperately want to believe in their eminent deliverance by a human deus ex machina. Plus he is ostentatiously rich in a comfortably tacky way and a TV celebrity beats a Harvard law degree. And why not the thinking goes the highly vaunted elite college Acela crowd has pretty much made a pig's breakfast out of things. So much for meritocracy. Professor Harold Hill is going to give River City a boys band.

    uahsenaa , June 2, 2016 at 9:58 am

    Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people Trump will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government. You can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely what his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government.

    In other words, the MSM's fear is the clearest sign to these voters that their political revolution is working. Since TPTB decided peaceful change (i.e. Sanders) was a non-starter, then they get to reap the whirlwind.

    Praedor , June 2, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    Your phrase "Trump is political vandalism" is great. I don't think I've seen a better description. NPR this morning was discussing Trump and his relationship with the press and the issues some GOP leaders have with him. When his followers were discussed, the speakers closely circled your vandalism point. Basically they said that his voters are angry with the power brokers and leaders in DC and regardless of whether they think Trump's statements are heartfelt or just rhetoric, they DO know he will stick it to those power brokers so that's good. Vandalism by a longer phrase.

    hunkerdown , June 2, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    Meritocracy was ALWAYS a delusional fraud. What you invariably get, after a couple of generations, is a clique of elitists who define merit as themselves and reproduce it ad nauseam. Who still believes in such laughable kiddie stories?

    Besides, consumers need to learn to play the long game and suck up the "scurrilous attacks" on their personal consumption habits for the next four years. The end of abortion for four years is not important - lern2hand and lern2agency, and lern2cutyourrapist if it comes to that. What is important is that the Democratic Party's bourgeois yuppie constituents are forced to defend against GOP attacks on their personal and cultural interests with wherewithal that would have been ordinarily spent to attend to their sister act with their captive constituencies.

    If bourgeois Democrats hadn't herded us into a situation where individuals mean nothing outside of their assigned identity groups and their corporate coalition duopoly, they wouldn't be reaping the whirlwind today. Why, exactly, should I be sympathetic to exploitative parasites such as the middle class?

    Dave , June 2, 2016 at 11:04 am

    There are all good ideas. However, population growth undermines almost all of them. Population growth in America is immigrant based. Reverse immigration influxes and you are at least doing something to reduce population growth.

    How to "reverse immigration influxes"?

    • Stop accepting refugees. It's outrageous that refugees from for example, Somalia, get small business loans, housing assistance, food stamps and lifetime SSI benefits while some of our veterans are living on the street.
    • No more immigration amnesties of any kind.
    • Deport all illegal alien criminals.
    • Practice "immigrant family unification" in the country of origin. Even if you have to pay them to leave. It's less expensive in the end.
    • Eliminate tax subsidies to American corn growers who then undercut Mexican farmers' incomes through NAFTA, driving them into poverty and immigration north. Throw Hillary Clinton out on her ass and practice political and economic justice to Central America.

    I too am a lifetime registered Democrat and I will vote for Trump if Clinton gets the crown. If the Democrats want my vote, my continuing party registration and my until recently sizeable donations in local, state and national races, they will nominate Bernie. If not, then I'm an Independent forevermore. They will just become the Demowhig Party.

    Jack Heape , June 2, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Here's a start

    1. Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal.
    2. Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks.
    3. Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders.
    4. Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts the number of doctors.
    5. Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation.
    6. Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry.
    7. Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development.
    8. Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour.
    9. Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official.
    10. Free public education including college (4 year degree).
    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 10:56 am

    Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 11:56 am

    This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not Bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade.

    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Totally agree tegnost, no more democratic neoliberals -- Patty Murray (up for re-election) and Cantwell are both trade traitors and got fast track passed.

    hunkerdown , June 2, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    "they are now re-shaping the world in their own image" Isn't this intrinsic to bourgeois liberalism?

    Sluggeaux , June 2, 2016 at 9:13 am

    Two things are driving our troubles: over-population and globalization. The plutocrats and kleptocrats have all the leverage over the rest of us laborers when the population of human beings has increased seven-fold in the last 70 years, from a little over a billion to seven billions (and growing) today. They are happy to let us freeze to death behind gas stations in order for them to compete with other oligarchs in excess consumption.

    This deserves a longer and more thoughtful comment, but I don't have the time this morning. I have to fight commute traffic, because the population of my home state of California has doubled from 19M in 1970 to an estimated 43M today (if you count the Latin American refugees and H1B's).

    Vatch , June 2, 2016 at 11:04 am

    Thank you for mentioning the third rail of overpopulation. Too often, this giant category of problems is ignored, because it makes people uncomfortable. The planet is finite, resources on the planet are finite, yet the number of people keeps growing. We need to strive for a higher quality of life, not a higher quantity of people.

    seanseamour , June 3, 2016 at 7:59 am

    The issue goes beyond "current neoliberals up for election", it is most of our political establishment that has been corrupted by a system that provides for the best politicians money can buy.

    In the 1980's I worked inside the beltway witnessing the new cadre of apparatchiks that drove into town on the Reagan coattails full of moral a righteousness that became deviant, parochial, absolutist and for whom bi-partisan approaches to policy were scorned prodded on by new power brokers promoting their gospels in early morning downtown power breakfasts. Sadly our politicians no longer serve but seek a career path in our growing meritocratic plutocracy.

    paul whalen , June 2, 2016 at 9:19 am

    America has always been a country where a majority of the population has been poor. With the exception of a fifty five year(1950-2005) year period where access to large quantities of consumer debt by households was deployed to first to provide a wealth illusion to keep socialism at bay, followed by a mortgage debt boom to both keep the system afloat and strip the accumulated capital of the working class, i.e. home equity, the history of the US has been one of poverty for the masses.

    Further debt was foisted on the working class in the form of military Keynesianism, generating massive fiscal deficits which are to be paid for via austerity in a neo-feudal economy.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/28/the-myth-of-the-middle-class-have-most-americans-always-been-poor/

    [Dec 04, 2016] Methheads as a sign of socioeconomic desperation: neoliberalism behaves much like British behaves in China during opium wars

    Notable quotes:
    "... Money, it seems to him, has somehow changed its role. It has "increased" (is that possible, he asks?) while at the same time it has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It appears to seek to become an autonomous and dominating sector of economic life, functionally separated from production of real things, almost all of which seem to come from faraway places. "Real" actually begins to change its meaning, another topic more interesting still. This devotion to the world of money-making-money seems to have obsessed the lives of many of the most "important" Americans. Entire TV networks are devoted to it. They talk about esoteric financial instruments that to the ordinary citizen look more like exotically placed bets-on-credit in the casino than genuine ways to grow real-world business, jobs, wages, and family income. The few who are in position to master the game live material lives that were beyond what almost any formerly "wealthy" man or woman in Rip's prior life could even imagine ..."
    "... children gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy or the virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness. ..."
    "... "If public life can suffer a metaphysical blow, the death of the labor question was that blow. For millions of working people, it amputated the will to resist." ..."
    "... It's a Wonderful Life ..."
    "... as educators ..."
    "... OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get off the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and in today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly positive, patriotic and constructive. ..."
    "... I am paying an exorbitant subscription for the UK Financial Times at the moment. Anyway, the good news is that very regular articles are appearing where you can almost feel the panic at the populist uprisings. ..."
    "... The kernel of Neoliberal Ideology: "There is no such a thing as society." (Margaret Thatcher). ..."
    "... "In this postindustrial world not only is the labor question no longer asked, not only is proletarian revolution passé, but the proletariat itself seems passé. And the invisibles who nonetheless do indeed live there have internalized their nonexistence, grown demoralized, resentful, and hopeless; if they are noticed at all, it is as objects of public disdain. What were once called "blue-collar aristocrats"-skilled workers in the construction trades, for example-have long felt the contempt of the whole white-collar world. ..."
    "... Or, we could replace Western liberal culture, with its tradition to consume and expand by force an unbroken chain from the Garden of Eden to Friedrich von Hayek, with the notion of maintenance and "enough". Bourgeois make-work holds no interest to me. ..."
    "... My understanding of the data is that living standards increased around the world during the so-called golden age, not just in the U.S. (and Western Europe and Japan and Australia ). It could be that it was still imperialism at work, but the link between imperialism and the creation of the middle class is not straightforward. ..."
    "... I thought neoliberalism was just the pogrom to make everyone – rational agents – as subscribed by our genetic / heraldic betters .. putting this orbs humans and resources in the correct "natural" order . ..."
    "... Disheveled Marsupial for those thinking neoliberalism is not associated with libertarianism one only has to observe the decades of think tanks and their mouth organs roaming the planet . especially in the late 80s and 90s . bringing the might and wonders of the – market – to the great unwashed globally here libertarian priests rang in the good news to the great unwashed ..."
    "... I would argue that neoliberalism is a program to define markets as primarily engaged in information processing and to make everyone into non-agents ( as not important at all to the proper functioning of markets). ..."
    "... It also appears that neoliberals want to restrict democracy to the greatest extent possible and to view markets as the only foundation for truth without any need for input from the average individual. ..."
    Jun 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    bluecollarAl , June 2, 2016 at 10:06 am

    I am almost 70 years old, born and raised in New York City, still living in a near suburb.

    Somehow, somewhere along the road to my 70th year I feel as if I have been gradually transported to an almost entirely different country than the land of my younger years. I live painfully now in an alien land, a place whose habits and sensibilities I sometimes hardly recognize, while unable to escape from memories of a place that no longer exists. There are days I feel as I imagine a Russian pensioner must feel, lost in an unrecognizable alien land of unimagined wealth, power, privilege, and hyper-glitz in the middle of a country slipping further and further into hopelessness, alienation, and despair.

    I am not particularly nostalgic. Nor am I confusing recollection with sentimental yearnings for a youth that is no more. But if I were a contemporary Rip Van Winkle, having just awakened after, say, 30-40 years, I would not recognize my beloved New York City. It would be not just the disappearance of the old buildings, Penn Station, of course, Madison Square Garden and its incandescent bulb marquee on 50th and 8th announcing NYU vs. St. John's, and the WTC, although I always thought of the latter as "new" until it went down. Nor would it be the disappearance of all the factories, foundries, and manufacturing plants, the iconic Domino Sugar on the East River, the Wonder Bread factory with its huge neon sign, the Swingline Staples building in Long Island City that marked passage to and from the East River tunnel on the railroad, and my beloved Schaeffer Beer plant in Williamsburg, that along with Rheingold, Knickerbocker, and a score of others, made beer from New York taste a little bit different.

    It wouldn't be the ubiquitous new buildings either, the Third Avenue ghostly glass erected in the 70's and 80's replacing what once was the most concentrated collection of Irish gin mills anywhere. Or the fortress-like castles built more recently, with elaborate high-ceilinged lobbies decorated like a kind of gross, filthy-wealthy Versailles, an aesthetically repulsive style that shrieks "power" in a way the neo-classical edifices of our Roman-loving founders never did. Nor would it even be the 100-story residential sticks, those narrow ground-to-clouds skyscraper condominiums proclaiming the triumph of globalized capitalism with prices as high as their penthouses, driven ever upward by the foreign billionaires and their obsession with burying their wealth in Manhattan real estate.

    It is not just the presence of new buildings and the absence of the old ones that have this contemporary Van Winkle feeling dyslexic and light-headed. The old neighborhoods have disintegrated along with the factories, replaced by income segregated swatches of homogenous "real estate" that have consumed space, air, and sunlight while sucking the distinctiveness out of the City. What once was the multi-generational home turf for Jewish, Afro-American, Puerto Rican, Italian, Polak and Bohunk families is now treated as simply another kind of investment, stocks and bonds in steel and concrete. Mom's Sunday dinners, clothes lines hanging with newly bleached sheets after Monday morning wash, stickball games played among parked cars, and evenings of sitting on the stoop with friends and a transistor radio listening to Mel Allen call Mantle's home runs or Alan Freed and Murray the K on WINS 1010 playing Elvis, Buddy Holly, and The Drifters, all gone like last night's dreams.

    Do you desire to see the new New York? Look no further than gentrifying Harlem for an almost perfect microcosm of the city's metamorphosis, full of multi-million condos, luxury apartment renovations, and Maclaren strollers pushed by white yuppie wife stay-at-homes in Marcus Garvey Park. Or consider the "new" Lower East Side, once the refuge of those with little material means, artists, musicians, bums, drug addicts, losers and the physically and spiritually broken - my kind of people. Now its tenements are "retrofitted" and remodeled into $4000 a month apartments and the new residents are Sunday brunching where we used to score some Mary Jane.

    There is the "Brooklyn brand", synonymous with "hip", and old Brooklyn neighborhoods like Red Hook and South Brooklyn (now absorbed into so desirable Park Slope), and Bushwick, another former outpost of the poor and the last place I ever imagined would be gentrified, full of artists and hipsters driving up the price of everything. Even large sections of my own Queens and the Bronx are affected (infected?). Check out Astoria, for example, neighborhood of my father's family, with more of the old ways than most but with rents beginning to skyrocket and starting to drive out the remaining working class to who knows where.

    Gone is almost every mom and pop store, candy stores with their egg creams and bubble gum cards and the Woolworth's and McCrory's with their wooden floors and aisles containing ordinary blue collar urgencies like thread and yarn, ironing boards and liquid bleach, stainless steel utensils of every size and shape. Where are the locally owned toy and hobby stores like Jason's in Woodhaven under the el, with Santa's surprises available for lay-away beginning in October? No more luncheonettes, cheap eats like Nedicks with hot dogs and paper cones of orange drink, real Kosher delis with vats of warm pastrami and corned beef cut by hand, and the sacred neighborhood "bar and grill", that alas has been replaced by what the kids who don't know better call "dive bars", the detestable simulacra of the real thing, slick rooms of long slick polished mahogany, a half-dozen wide screen TV's blaring mindless sports contests from all over the world, over-priced micro-brews, and not a single old rummy in sight?

    Old Rip searches for these and many more remembered haunts, what Ray Oldenburg called the "great good places" of his sleepy past, only to find store windows full of branded, high-priced, got-to-have luxury-necessities (necessary if he/she is to be certified cool, hip, and successful), ridiculously overpriced "food emporia", high and higher-end restaurants, and apparel boutiques featuring hardened smiles and obsequious service reserved for those recognized by celebrity or status.

    Rip notices too that the visible demographic has shifted, and walking the streets of Manhattan and large parts of Brooklyn, he feels like what walking in Boston Back Bay always felt like, a journey among an undifferentiated mass of privilege, preppy or 'metro-sexed' 20 and 30-somethings jogging or riding bicycles like lean, buff gods and goddesses on expense accounts supplemented by investments enriched by yearly holiday bonuses worth more than Rip earned in a lifetime.

    Sitting alone on a park bench by the river, Rip reflects that more than all of these individual things, however, he despairs of a city that seems to have been reimagined as a disneyfied playground of the privileged, offering endless ways to self-gratify and philistinize in a clean, safe (safest big city in U.S., he heard someone say), slick, smiley, center-of-the-world urban paradise, protected by the new centurions (is it just his paranoia or do battle-ready police seem to be everywhere?). Old ethnic neighborhoods are filled with apartment buildings that seem more like post-college "dorms", tiny studios and junior twos packed with three or four "singles" roommates pooling their entry level resources in order to pay for the right to live in "The City". Meanwhile the newer immigrants find what place they can in Kingsbridge, Corona, Jamaica, and Cambria Heights, far from the city center, even there paying far too much to the landlord for what they receive.

    New York has become an unrecognizable place to Rip, who can't understand why the accent-less youngsters keep asking him to repeat something in order to hear his quaint "Brooklyn" accent, something like the King's English still spoken on remote Smith Island in the Chesapeake, he guesses
    .
    Rip suspects that this "great transformation" (apologies to Polanyi) has coincided, and is somehow causally related, to the transformation of New York from a real living city into, as the former Mayor proclaimed, the "World Capital" of financialized commerce and all that goes with it.

    "Financialization", he thinks, is not the expression of an old man's disapproval but a way of naming a transformed economic and social world. Rip is not an economist. He reads voraciously but, as an erstwhile philosopher trained to think about the meaning of things, he often can't get his head around the mathematical model-making explanations of the economists that seem to dominate the more erudite political and social analyses these days. He has learned, however, that the phenomenon of "capitalism" has changed along with his city and his life.

    Money, it seems to him, has somehow changed its role. It has "increased" (is that possible, he asks?) while at the same time it has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It appears to seek to become an autonomous and dominating sector of economic life, functionally separated from production of real things, almost all of which seem to come from faraway places. "Real" actually begins to change its meaning, another topic more interesting still. This devotion to the world of money-making-money seems to have obsessed the lives of many of the most "important" Americans. Entire TV networks are devoted to it. They talk about esoteric financial instruments that to the ordinary citizen look more like exotically placed bets-on-credit in the casino than genuine ways to grow real-world business, jobs, wages, and family income. The few who are in position to master the game live material lives that were beyond what almost any formerly "wealthy" man or woman in Rip's prior life could even imagine
    .
    Above all else is the astronomical rise in wealth and income inequality. Rip recalls that growing up in the 1950's, the kids on his block included, along with firemen, cops, and insurance men dads (these were virtually all one-parent income households), someone had a dad who worked as a stock broker. Yea, living on the same block was a "Wall Streeter". Amazingly democratic, no? Imagine, people of today, a finance guy drinking at the same corner bar with the sanitation guy. Rip recalls that Aristotle had some wise and cautionary words in his Politics concerning the stability of oligarchic regimes.

    Last year I drove across America on blue highways mostly. I stayed in small towns and cities, Zanesville, St. Charles, Wichita, Pratt, Dalhart, Clayton, El Paso, Abilene, Clarksdale, and many more. I dined for the most part in local taverns, sitting at the bar so as to talk with the local bartender and patrons who are almost always friendly and talkative in these spaces. Always and everywhere I heard similar stories as my story of my home town. Not so much the specifics (there are no "disneyfied" Lubbocks or Galaxes out there, although Oxford, MS comes close) but in the sadness of men and women roughly my age as they recounted a place and time – a way of life – taken out from under them, so that now their years are filled with decayed and dead downtowns, children gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy or the virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness.

    I am not a trained economist. My graduate degrees were in philosophy. My old friends call me an "Eric Hoffer", who back in the day was known as the "longshoreman philosopher". I have been trying for a long time now to understand the silent revolution that has been pulled off right under my nose, the replacement of a world that certainly had its flaws (how could I forget the civil rights struggle and the crime of Viet Nam; I was a part of these things) but was, let us say, different. Among you or your informed readers, is there anyone who can suggest a book or books or author(s) who can help me understand how all of this came about, with no public debate, no argument, no protest, no nothing? I would be very much appreciative.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    I'll just highlight this line for emphasis
    "there are no "disneyfied" Lubbocks or Galaxes out there, although Oxford, MS comes close) but in the sadness of men and women roughly my age as they recounted a place and time – a way of life – taken out from under them, so that now their years are filled with decayed and dead downtowns, children gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy or the virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness."
    my best friend pretty much weeps every day.

    Michael Fiorillo , June 2, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    bluecollar Al,

    As a lifelong New Yorker, I too mourn the demise of my beloved city. Actually, that's wrong: my city didn't die, it was taken from me/us.

    But if it's any consolation, remember that Everyone Loses Their New York (even insufferable hipster colonizers)

    Left in Wisconsin , June 2, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    Beautifully said.

    I don't have a book to recommend. I do think you identify a really underemphasized central fact of recent times: the joint processes by which real places have been converted into "real estate" and real, messy lives replaced by safe, manufactured "experiences." This affects wealthy and poor neighborhoods alike, in different ways but in neither case for the better.

    I live in a very desirable neighborhood in one of those places that makes a lot of "Best of" lists. I met a new neighbor last night who told me how he and his wife had plotted for years to get out of the Chicago burbs, not only to our city but to this specific neighborhood, which they had decided is "the one." (This sentiment is not atypical.) Unsurprisingly, property values in the neighborhood have gone through the roof. Which, as far as I can tell, most everyone here sees as an unmitigated good thing.

    At the same time, several families I got to know because they moved into the neighborhood about the same time we did 15-20 years ago, are cashing out and moving away, kids off to or out of college, parents ready (and financed) to get on to the next phase and the next place. Of course, even though our children are all Lake Woebegoners, there are no next generations staying in the neighborhood, except of course the ones still living, or back, at "home." (Those families won't be going anywhere for awhile!)

    I can't argue that new money in the hood hasn't improved some things. Our formerly struggling food co-op just finished a major expansion and upgrade. Good coffee is 5 minutes closer than it used to be. But to my wife and me, the overwhelming feeling is that we are now outsiders here in this neighborhood where we know all the houses and the old trees but not what motivates our new neighbors. So I made up a word for it: unsettling (adj., verb, noun).

    Softie , June 2, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    Try to read this one:

    "If public life can suffer a metaphysical blow, the death of the labor question was that blow. For millions of working people, it amputated the will to resist."

    - Steve Fraser, The Age of Acquiescence

    Jim , June 2, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    bluecollar Al:

    Christopher Lash in "Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy" mentions Ray Oldenburg's "The Great Good Places: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts and How they Got You through the Day."

    He argued that the decline of democracy is directly related to the disappearance of what he called third places:,

    "As neighborhood hangouts give way to suburban shopping malls, or, on the other hand private cocktail parties, the essentially political art of conversation is replaced by shoptalk or personal gossip.

    Increasingly, conversation literally has no place in American society. In its absence how–or better, where–can political habits be acquired and polished?

    Lasch finished he essay by noting that Oldenburg's book helps to identify what is missing from our then newly emerging world (which you have concisely updated):

    "urban amenities, conviviality, conversation, politics–almost everything in part that makes life worth living."

    JDH , June 2, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    The best explainer of our modern situation that I have read is Wendell Berry. I suggest that you start with "The Unsettling of America," quoted below.

    "Let me outline briefly as I can what seem to me the characteristics of these opposite kinds of mind. I conceive a strip-miner to be a model exploiter, and as a model nurturer I take the old-fashioned idea or ideal of a farmer. The exploiter is a specialist, an expert; the nurturer is not. The standard of the exploiter is efficiency; the standard of the nurturer is care. The exploiter's goal is money, profit; the nurturer's goal is health - his land's health, his own, his family's, his community's, his country's. Whereas the exploiter asks of a piece of land only how much and how quickly it can be made to produce, the nurturer asks a question that is much more complex and difficult: What is its carrying capacity? (That is: How much can be taken from it without diminishing it? What can it produce dependably for an indefinite time?) The exploiter wishes to earn as much as possible by as little work as possible; the nurturer expects, certainly, to have a decent living from his work, but his characteristic wish is to work as well as possible. The competence of the exploiter is in organization; that of the nurturer is in order - a human order, that is, that accommodates itself both to other order and to mystery. The exploiter typically serves an institution or organization; the nurturer serves land, household, community, place. The exploiter thinks in terms of numbers, quantities, "hard facts"; the nurturer in terms of character, condition, quality, kind."

    I also think Prof. Patrick Deneen works to explain the roots (and progression) of decline. I'll quote him at length here describing the modern college student.

    "[T]he one overarching lesson that students receive is the true end of education: the only essential knowledge is that know ourselves to be radically autonomous selves within a comprehensive global system with a common commitment to mutual indifference. Our commitment to mutual indifference is what binds us together as a global people. Any remnant of a common culture would interfere with this prime directive: a common culture would imply that we share something thicker, an inheritance that we did not create, and a set of commitments that imply limits and particular devotions.

    Ancient philosophy and practice praised as an excellent form of government a res publica – a devotion to public things, things we share together. We have instead created the world's first Res Idiotica – from the Greek word idiotes, meaning "private individual." Our education system produces solipsistic, self-contained selves whose only public commitment is an absence of commitment to a public, a common culture, a shared history. They are perfectly hollowed vessels, receptive and obedient, without any real obligations or devotions.

    They won't fight against anyone, because that's not seemly, but they won't fight for anyone or anything either. They are living in a perpetual Truman Show, a world constructed yesterday that is nothing more than a set for their solipsism, without any history or trajectory."

    ekstase , June 2, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    Wow. Did this hit a nerve. You have eloquently described what was the city of hope for several generations of outsiders, for young gay men and women, and for real artists, not just from other places in America, but from all over the world. In New York, once upon a time, bumping up against the more than 50% of the population who were immigrants from other countries, you could learn a thing or two about the world. You could, for a while, make a living there at a job that was all about helping other people. You could find other folks, lots of them, who were honest, well-meaning, curious about the world. Then something changed. As you said, you started to see it in those hideous 80's buildings. But New York always seemed somehow as close or closer to Europe than to the U.S., and thus out of the reach of mediocrity and dumbing down. New York would mold you into somebody tough and smart, if you weren't already – if it didn't, you wouldn't make it there.

    Now, it seems, this dream is dreamt. Poseurs are not artists, and the greedy and smug drive out creativity, kindness, real humor, hope.

    It ain't fair. I don't know where in this world an aspiring creative person should go now, but it probably is not there.

    Dave , June 2, 2016 at 10:21 am

    Americans cannot begin to reasonably demand a living wage, benefits and job security when there is an unending human ant-line of illegals and legal immigrants willing to under bid them.

    Only when there is a parity or shortage of workers can wage demands succeed, along with other factors.

    From 1925 to 1965 this country accepted hardly any immigrants, legal or illegal. We had the bracero program where Mexican males were brought in to pick crops and were then sent home to collect paychecks in Mexico. American blacks were hired from the deep south to work defense plants in the north and west.

    Is it any coincidence that the 1965 Great Society program, initiated by Ted Kennedy to primarily benefit the Irish immigrants, then co-opted by LBJ to include practically everyone, started this process of Middle Class destruction?

    1973 was the peak year of American Society as measured by energy use per capita, expansion of jobs and unionization and other factors, such as an environment not yet destroyed, nicely measured by the The Real Progress Indicator.

    Solution? Stop importing uneducated people. That's real "immigration reform".

    Now explain to me why voters shouldn't favor Trump's radical immigration stands?

    RUKidding , June 2, 2016 at 11:06 am

    Maybe, but OTOH, who is it, exactly, who is recruiting, importing, hiring and training undocumented workers to downgrade pay scales??

    Do some homework, please. If businesses didn't actively go to Central and South America to recruit, pay to bring here, hire and employ undocumented workers, then the things you discuss would be great.

    When ICE comes a-knocking at some meat processing plant or mega-chicken farm, what happens? The undocumented workers get shipped back to wherever, but the big business owner doesn't even get a tap on the wrist. The undocumented worker – hired to work in unregulated unsafe unhealthy conditions – often goes without their last paycheck.

    It's the business owners who manage and support this system of undocumented workers because it's CHEAP, and they don't get busted for it.

    Come back when the USA actually enforces the laws that are on the books today and goes after big and small business owners who knowingly recruit, import, hire, train and employee undocumented workers you know, like Donald Trump has all across his career.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    This is the mechanism by which the gov't has assisted biz in destroying the worker, competition for thee, but none for me. For instance I can't go work in canada or mexico, they don't allow it. Policy made it, policy can change it, go bernie. While I favor immigration, in it's current form it is primarily conducted on these lines of destroying workers (H1b etc and illegals combined) Lucky for the mexicans they can see the american dream is bs and can go home. I wonder who the latinos that have gained citizenship will vote for. Unlikely it'll be trump, but they can be pretty conservative, and the people they work for are pretty conservative so no guarantee there, hillary is in san diego at the tony balboa park where her supporters will feel comfortable, not a huge venue I think they must be hoping for a crowd, and if she can't get one in san diego while giving a "if we don't rule the world someone else will" speech, she can't get one anywhere. Defense contractors and military advisors and globalist biotech (who needs free money more than biotech? they are desperate for hillary) are thick in san diego.

    RUKidding , June 2, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    I live part-time in San Diego. It is very conservative. The military, who are constantly screwed by the GOP, always vote Republican. They make up a big cohort of San Diego county.

    Hillary may not get a big crowd at the speech, but that, in itself, doesn't mean that much to me. There is a segment of San Diego that is somewhat more progressive-ish, but it's a pretty conservative county with parts of eastern SD county having had active John Birch Society members until recently or maybe even ongoing.

    There's a big push in the Latino community to GOTV, and it's mostly not for Trump. It's possible this cohort, esp the younger Latino/as, will vote for Sanders in the primary, but if Clinton gets the nomination, they'll likely vote for her (v. Trump).

    I was unlucky enough to be stuck for an hour in a commuter train last Friday after Trump's rally there. Hate to sound rude, but Trump's fans were everything we've seen. Loud, rude, discourteous and an incessant litany of rightwing talking points (same old, same old). All pretty ignorant. Saying how Trump will "make us great again." I don't bother asking how. A lot of ugly comments about Obama and how Obama has been "so racially divisive and polarizing." Well, No. No, Obama has not been or done that, but the rightwing noise machine has sure ginned up your hatreds, angers and fears. It was most unpleasant. The only instructive thing about it was confirming my worst fears about this group. Sorry to say but pretty loutish and very uninformed. Sigh.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    part timer in sd as well, family for hillary except for nephew and niece .I keep telling my mom she should vote bernie for their sake but it never goes over very well

    Bob Haugen , June 2, 2016 at 10:35 am

    Re Methland, we live in rural US and we got a not-very-well hidden population of homeless children. I don't mean homeless families with children, I mean homeless children. Sleeping in parks in good weather, couch-surfing with friends, etc. I think related.

    equote , June 2, 2016 at 10:43 am

    Fascism is a system of political and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy and purity of communities in which liberal democracy stand(s) accused of producing division and decline. . . . George Orwell reminded us, clad in the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and time, . . . an authentically popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black; in Western Europe, secular and antisemitic, or more probably, these days anti-Islamic; in Russia and Eastern Europe, religious, antisemitic, and slavophile.
    Robert O. Paxton
    In The Five Stages of Faschism

    " that eternal enemy: the conservative manipulators of privilege who damn as 'dangerous agitators' any man who menaces their fortunes" (maybe 'power and celebrity' should be added to fortunes)
    Sinclair Lewis
    It Can't Happen Here page 141

    Take the Fork , June 2, 2016 at 11:07 am

    On the Boots To Ribs Front: Anyone hereabouts notice that Captain America has just been revealed to be a Nazi? Maybe this is what R. Cohen was alluding to but I doubt it.

    pissed younger baby boomer , June 2, 2016 at 11:57 am

    The four horse men are, political , social, economic and environmental collapse . Any one remember the original Mad Max movie. A book I recommend is the Crash Of 2016 By Thom Hartmann.

    rfam , June 2, 2016 at 11:59 am

    From the comment, I agree with the problems, not the cause. We've increased the size and scope of the safety net over the last decade. We've increased government spending versus GDP. I'm not blaming government but its not neoliberal/capitalist policy either.

    1. Globalization clearly helps the poor in other countries at the expense of workers in the U.S. But at the same time it brings down the cost of goods domestically. So jobs are not great but Walmart/Amazon can sell cheap needs.

    2. Inequality started rising the day after Bretton Woods – the rich got richer everyday after "Nixon Shock"

    https://www.google.com/search?q=gini+coefficient+usa+chart&client=safari&rls=en&biw=1371&bih=793&tbm=isch&imgil=tRkxcVEo17ID8M%253A%253B-Lt3-YscSzdOaM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.the-crises.com%25252Fincome-inequality-in-the-us-1%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=tRkxcVEo17ID8M%253A%252C-Lt3-YscSzdOaM%252C_&usg=__bipTqXhWx0tXxke6Xcj5MUAcn-o%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjY18rm2onNAhUPeFIKHREjAS4QyjcILw&ei=nFdQV9iZCo_wyQKRxoTwAg#imgrc=tRkxcVEo17ID8M%3A

    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    Hi rfam : To point 1 : Why is there a need to bring down the cost of goods? Is it because of past outsourcing and trade agreements and FR policies? I think there's a chicken and egg thing going on, ie.. which came first. Globalization is a way to bring down wages while supplying Americans with less and less quality goods supplied at the hand of global corporations like Walmart that need welfare in the form of food stamps and the ACA for their workers for them to stay viable (?). Viable in this case means ridiculously wealthy CEO's and the conglomerate growing bigger constantly. Now they have to get rid of COOL's because the WTO says it violates trade agreements so we can't trace where our food comes from in case of an epidemic. It's all downhill. Wages should have risen with costs so we could afford high quality American goods, but haven't for a long, long time.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Globalization helps the rich here way more than the poor there. The elites get more money for nothing (see QE before you respond, if you do, that's where the money for globalization came from) the workers get the husk. Also the elite gets to say "you made your choices" and other moralistic crap. The funny(?) thing is they generally claim to be atheists, which I translate into "I am God, there doesn't need to be any other" Amazon sells cheap stuff by cheating on taxes, and barely makes money, mostly just driving people out of business. WalMart has cheap stuff because they subsidise their workers with food stamps and medicaid. Bringing up bretton woods means you don't know much about money creation, so google "randy wray/bananas/naked capitalism" and you'll find a quick primer.

    RUKidding , June 2, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    The Walmart loathsome spawn and Jeff Bezos are the biggest welfare drains in our nation – or among the biggest. They woefully underpay their workers, all while training them on how to apply for various welfare benefits. Just so that their slaves, uh, workers can manage to eat enough to enable them to work.

    It slays me when US citizens – and it happens across the voting spectrum these days; I hear just as often from Democratic voters as I do from GOP voters – bitch, vetch, whine & cry about welfare abuse. And if I start to point out the insane ABUSE of welfare by the Waltons and Jeff Bezos, I'm immediately greeted with random TRUE stories about someone who knew someone who somehow made out like a bandit on welfare.

    Hey, I'm totally sure and in agreement that there are likely a small percentage of real welfare cheats who manage to do well enough somehow. But seriously? That's like a drop in the bucket. Get the eff over it!!!

    Those cheats are not worth discussing. It's the big fraud cheats like Bezos & the Waltons and their ilk, who don't need to underpay their workers, but they DO because the CAN and they get away with it because those of us the rapidly dwindling middle/working classes are footing the bill for it.

    Citizens who INSIST on focusing on a teeny tiny minority of real welfare cheats, whilst studiously ignoring the Waltons and the Bezos' of the corporate world, are enabling this behavior. It's one of my bugabears bc it's so damn frustrating when citizens refuse to see how they are really being ripped off by the 1%. Get a clue.

    That doesn't even touch on all the other tax breaks, tax loopholes, tax incentives and just general all-around tax cheating and off-shore money hiding that the Waltons and Bezos get/do. Sheesh.

    JustAnObserver , June 2, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    This statement –

    "I'm immediately greeted with random TRUE stories about someone who knew someone who somehow made out like a bandit on welfare."

    is the key and a v. long term result of the application of Bernays' to political life. Its local and hits at the gut interpersonal level 'cos the "someones" form a kind of chain of trust esp. if the the first one on the list is a friend or a credentialed media pundit. Utterly spurious I know but countering this with a *merely* rational analysis of how Walmart, Amazon abuse the welfare system to gouge profits from the rest of us just won't ever, for the large majority, get through this kind emotional wall.

    I don't know what any kind of solution might look like but, somehow, we need to find a way of seriously demonising the corporate parasites that resonates at the same emotional level as the "welfare cheat" meme that Bill Clinton and the rest of the DLC sanctified back in the '90s.

    Something like "Walmart's stealing your taxes" might work but how to get it out there in a viral way ??

    Vatch , June 2, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    "random TRUE stories about someone who knew someone who somehow made out like a bandit on welfare."

    Hmm. Your acquaintances might need to be educated about urban legends .

    Anonymous Coward , June 2, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    Wait, you mean we don't all enjoy living in Pottersville?

    For anyone missing the reference, you clearly haven't been subjected to It's a Wonderful Life enough times.

    Judith , June 2, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    People may be interested in an ongoing project by the photographer Matt Black (who was recently invited to join Magnum) called the Geography of Poverty. http://www.mattblack.com/the-geography-of-poverty/

    Steve Sewall , June 2, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    What a comment from seanseamour. And the "hoisting" of it to high visibility at the site is a testament to the worth of Naked Capitalism.

    seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if one considers the elitist trend " This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is so utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of the beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard and Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities – Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators to maintaining the health of the nation's public school system.*

    And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses everything.

    But I don't want to spend all morning doing that because I'm convinced that it's not too late for America to rescue itself from maelstrom in which it finds itself today. (Poe's "Maelstrom" story, cherished by Marshall McLuhan, is supremely relevant today.)

    To turn America around, I don't look to education – that system is too far gone to save itself, let alone the rest of the country – but rather to the nation's media: to the all-powerful public communication system that certainly has the interactive technical capabilities to put citizens and governments in touch with each other on the government decisions that shape the futures of communities large and small.

    For this to happen, however, people like the us – readers of Naked Capitalism – need to stop moaning and groaning about the damage done by the neoliberals and start building an issue-centered, citizen-participatory, non-partisan, prime-time Civic Media strong enough to give all Americans an informed voice in the government decisions that affect their lives. This Civic media would exist to make citizens and governments responsive and accountable to each other in shaping futures of all three communities – local, state and national – of which every one of us is a member.

    Pie in the sky? Not when you think hard about it. A huge majority of Americans would welcome this Civic Media. Many yearn for it. This means that a market exists for it: a Market of the Whole of all members of any community, local, state and national. This audience is large enough to rival those generated by media coverage of pro sports teams, and believe it or not much of the growth of this Civic media could be productively modeled on the growth of media coverage of pro sports teams. This Civic Media would attract the interest of major advertisers, especially those who see value in non-partisan programming dedicated to getting America moving forward again. Dynamic, issue-centered, problem-solving public forums, some modeled on voter-driven reality TV contests like The Voice or Dancing with the Stars, could be underwritten by a "rainbow" spectrum of funders, commericial, public, personal and even government sources.

    So people take hope! Be positive! Love is all we need, etc. The need for for a saving alternative to the money-driven personality contests into which our politics has descended this election year is literally staring us all in the face from our TV, cellphone and computer screens. This is no time to sit back and complain, it's a time to start working to build a new way of connecting ourselves so we can reverse America's rapid decline.

    OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get off the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and in today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly positive, patriotic and constructive. And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too dumbed down, too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive use of a non-partisan, problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence of Americans when they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation – in public forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final.

    hunkerdown , June 2, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    "Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

    Sound of the Suburbs , June 2, 2016 at 12:36 pm

    I am paying an exorbitant subscription for the UK Financial Times at the moment. Anyway, the good news is that very regular articles are appearing where you can almost feel the panic at the populist uprisings.

    The end is nigh for the Neo-Liberals.

    Sound of the Suburbs , June 2, 2016 at 1:04 pm

    Whatever system is put in place the human race will find a way to undermine it. I believe in capitalism because fair competition means the best and most efficient succeed.

    I send my children to private schools and universities because I want my own children at the top and not the best. Crony capitalism is inevitable, self-interest undermines any larger system that we try and impose.

    Can we design a system that can beat human self-interest? It's going to be tricky.

    "If that's the system, how can I take advantage of it?" human nature at work. "If that's the system, is it working for me or not?" those at the top.
    If not, it's time to change the system.
    If so, how can I tweak it to get more out of it?

    Neo-Liberalism

    Academics, who are not known for being street-wise, probably thought they had come up with the ultimate system using markets and numeric performance measures to create a system free from human self-interest.

    They had already missed that markets don't just work for price discovery, but are frequently used for capital gains by riding bubbles and hoping there is a "bigger fool" out there than you, so you can cash out with a handsome profit.

    (I am not sure if the Chinese realise markets are supposed to be for price discovery at all).

    Hence, numerous bubbles during this time, with housing bubbles being the global favourite for those looking for capital gains.

    If we are being governed by the markets, how do we rig the markets?
    A question successfully solved by the bankers.

    Inflation figures, that were supposed to ensure the cost of living didn't rise too quickly, were somehow manipulated to produce low inflation figures with roaring house price inflation raising the cost of living.

    What unemployment measure will best suit the story I am trying to tell?
    U3 – everything great
    U6 – it's not so good
    Labour participation rate – it hasn't been this bad since the 1970s

    Anything missing from the theory has been ruthlessly exploited, e.g. market bubbles ridden for capital gains, money creation by private banks, the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income and the fact that Capitalism trickles up through the following mechanism:

    1) Those with excess capital collect rent and interest.
    2) Those with insufficient capital pay rent and interest.

    Neo-Liberalism – It's as good as dead.

    perpetualWAR , June 2, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    I just went on a rant last week. (Not only because the judge actually LIED in court)

    I left the courthouse in downtown Seattle, to cross the street to find the vultures selling more foreclosures on the steps of the King County Administration Building, while above them, there were tents pitched on the building's perimeter. And people were walking by just like this scene was normal.

    Because the people at the entrance of the courthouse could view this, I went over there and began to rant. I asked (loudly) "Do you guys see that over there? Vultures selling homes rendering more people homeless and then the homeless encampment with tents pitched on the perimeter above them? In what world is this normal?" One guy replied, "Ironic, isn't it?" After that comment, the Marshall protecting the judicial crooks in the building came over and tried to calm me down. He insisted that the scene across the street was "normal" and that none of his friends or neighbors have been foreclosed on. I soon found out that that lying Marshall was from Pierce County, the epicenter of Washington foreclosures.

    The scene was totally surreal. And unforgettable.

    Softie , June 2, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    You need to take a photograph or two using your above words as caption.

    EGrise , June 2, 2016 at 2:31 pm

    And nobody cares
    As long as they get theirs

    Softie , June 2, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    The kernel of Neoliberal Ideology: "There is no such a thing as society." (Margaret Thatcher).

    Softie , June 2, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    "In this postindustrial world not only is the labor question no longer asked, not only is proletarian revolution passé, but the proletariat itself seems passé. And the invisibles who nonetheless do indeed live there have internalized their nonexistence, grown demoralized, resentful, and hopeless; if they are noticed at all, it is as objects of public disdain. What were once called "blue-collar aristocrats"-skilled workers in the construction trades, for example-have long felt the contempt of the whole white-collar world.

    For these people, already skeptical about who runs things and to what end, and who are now undergoing their own eviction from the middle class, skepticism sours into a passive cynicism. Or it rears up in a kind of vengeful chauvinism directed at alien others at home and abroad, emotional compensation for the wounds that come with social decline If public life can suffer a metaphysical blow, the death of the labor question was that blow. For millions of working people, it amputated the will to resist."

    - Steve Fraser, The Age of Acquiescence

    LeitrimNYC , June 2, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    One thing I don't think I have seen addressed on this site (apologies if I have missed it!) in all the commentary about the destruction of the middle class is the role of US imperialism in creating that middle class in the first place and what it is that we want to save from destruction by neo-liberalism. The US is rich because we rob the rest of the world's resources and have been doing so in a huge way since 1945, same as Britain before us. I don't think it's a coincidence that the US post-war domination of the world economy and the middle class golden age happened at the same time. Obviously there was enormous value created by US manufacturers, inventors, government scientists, etc but imperialism is the basic starting point for all of this. The US sets the world terms of trade to its own advantage. How do we save the middle class without this level of control? Within the US elites are robbing everyone else but they are taking what we use our military power to appropriate from the rest of the world.

    Second, if Bernie or whoever saves the middle class, is that so that everyone can have a tract house and two cars and continue with a massively wasteful and unsustainable lifestyle based on consumption? Or are we talking about basic security like shelter, real health care, quality education for all, etc? Most of the stories I see seem to be nostalgic for a time when lots of people could afford to buy lots of stuff and don't 1) reflect on origin of that stuff (imperialism) and 2) consider whether that lifestyle should be the goal in the first place.

    perpetualWAR , June 2, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    I went to the electronics recycling facility in Seattle yesterday. The guy at customer service told me that they receive 20 million pounds per month. PER MONTH. Just from Seattle. I went home and threw up.

    Praedor , June 2, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    It doesn't have to be that way. You can replace military conquest (overt and covert) with space exploration and science expansion. Also, instead of pushing consumerism, push contentment. Don't setup and goose a system of "gotta keep up with the Joneses!"

    In the 50s(!!!) there was a plan, proven in tests and studies, that would have had humans on the mars by 1965, out to Saturn by 72. Project Orion. Later, the British Project Daedalus was envisioned which WOULD have put space probes at the next star system within 20 years of launch. It was born of the atomic age and, as originally envisioned, would have been an ecological disaster BUT it was reworked to avoid this and would have worked. Spacecraft capable of comfortably holding 100 personnel, no need to build with paper-thin aluminum skin or skimp on amenities. A huge ship built like a large sea vessel (heavy iron/steel) accelerated at 1g (or more or slightly less as desired) so no prolonged weightlessness and concomitant loss of bone and muscle mass. It was all in out hands but the Cold War got in the way, as did the many agreements and treaties of the Cold War to avoid annihilation. It didn't need to be that way. Check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

    All that with 1950s and 60s era technology. It could be done better today and for less than your wars in the Middle East. Encourage science, math, exploration instead of consumption, getting mine before you can get yours, etc.

    hunkerdown , June 2, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    Or, we could replace Western liberal culture, with its tradition to consume and expand by force an unbroken chain from the Garden of Eden to Friedrich von Hayek, with the notion of maintenance and "enough". Bourgeois make-work holds no interest to me.

    Left in Wisconsin , June 2, 2016 at 4:12 pm

    My understanding of the data is that living standards increased around the world during the so-called golden age, not just in the U.S. (and Western Europe and Japan and Australia ). It could be that it was still imperialism at work, but the link between imperialism and the creation of the middle class is not straightforward.

    Likewise, US elites are clearly NOT robbing the manufacturing firms that have set up in China and other low-wage locations, so it is an oversimplification to say they are "robbing everyone else."

    Nostalgia is overrated but I don't sense the current malaise as a desire for more stuff. (I grew up in the 60s and 70s and I don't remember it as a time where people had, or craved, a lot of stuff. That period would be now, and I find it infects Sanders' supporters less than most.) If anything, it is nostalgia for more (free) time and more community, for a time when (many but not all) people had time to socialize and enjoy civic life.

    jrs , June 2, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    those things would be nice as would just a tiny bit of hope for the future, our own and the planet's and not an expectation of things getting more and more difficult and sometimes for entirely unnecessary reasons like imposed austerity. But being we can't have "nice things" like free time, community and hope for the future, we just "buy stuff".

    catlady , June 2, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    I live on the south side, in the formerly affluent south shore neighborhood. A teenager was killed, shot in the head in a drive by shooting, at 5 pm yesterday right around the corner from my residence. A white coworker of mine who lives in a rich northwest side neighborhood once commented to me how black people always say goodbye by saying "be safe". More easily said than done.

    Skippy , June 2, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    I thought neoliberalism was just the pogrom to make everyone – rational agents – as subscribed by our genetic / heraldic betters .. putting this orbs humans and resources in the correct "natural" order .

    Disheveled Marsupial for those thinking neoliberalism is not associated with libertarianism one only has to observe the decades of think tanks and their mouth organs roaming the planet . especially in the late 80s and 90s . bringing the might and wonders of the – market – to the great unwashed globally here libertarian priests rang in the good news to the great unwashed

    Jim , June 2, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    Hi Skippy:

    I would argue that neoliberalism is a program to define markets as primarily engaged in information processing and to make everyone into non-agents ( as not important at all to the proper functioning of markets).

    It also appears that neoliberals want to restrict democracy to the greatest extent possible and to view markets as the only foundation for truth without any need for input from the average individual.

    But as Mirowski argues–carrying their analysis this far begins to undermine their own neoliberal assumptions about markets always promoting social welfare.

    Skippy , June 2, 2016 at 10:09 pm

    Hay Jim

    When I mean – agents – I'm not referring to agency, like you say the market gawd/computer does that. I was referencing the – rational agent – that 'ascribes' the markets the right at defining facts or truth as neoliberalism defines rational thought/behavior.

    Disheveled Marsupial yes democracy is a direct threat to Hayekian et al [MPS and Friends] paranoia due to claims of irrationality vs rationally

    Rick Cass , June 2, 2016 at 7:32 pm

    Neo-liberalism could not have any power without legal and ethical positivism as the ground work of the national thought processes.

    seanseamour , June 3, 2016 at 4:32 am

    I have trouble understanding the focus on an emergence of fascism in Europe, focus that seems to dominate this entire thread when, put in perspective such splinter groups bear little weight on the European political spectrum.
    As an expat living in France, in my perception the Front National is a threat to the political establishments that occupy the center left and right and whose historically broad constituencies have been brutalized by the financial crisis borne of unbridled anglo-saxon runaway capitalism, coined neoliberalism. The resulting disaffection has allowed the growth of the FN but it is also fueled by a transfer of reactionary constituencies that have historically found identity in far left parties (communist, anti-capitalist, anarchist ), political expressions the institutions of the Republic allow and enable in the name of plurality, a healthy exultury in a democratic society.
    To consider that the FN in France, UKIP in the UK and others are a threat to democratic values any more that the far left is non-sensical, and I dare say insignificant compared to the "anchluss" our conservative right seeks to impose upon the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
    The reality in Europe as in America is economic. The post WWII era of reconstruction, investment and growth is behind us, the French call these years the "Trente Glorieuses" (30 glorious years) when prosperity was felt through all societal strats, consumerism for all became the panacea for a just society, where injustice prevailed welfare formulas provided a new panacea.
    As the perspective of an unravelling of this golden era began to emerge elites sought and conspired to consolidate power and wealth, under the aegis of greed is good culture by further corrupting government to serve the few, ensuring impunity for the ruling class, attempting societal cohesiveness with brash hubristic dialectics (America, the greatest this or that) and adventurism (Irak, mission accomplished), conspiring to co-opt and control institutions and the media (to understand the depth of this deception a must read is Jane Mayer in The Dark Side and in Dark Money).
    The difference between America and Europe is that latter bears of brunt of our excess.
    The 2008 Wall St / City meltdown eviscerated much of America' middle class and de-facto stalled, perhaps definitively, the vehicle of upward mobility in an increasingly wealth-ranked class structured society – the Trump phenomena feeds off the fatalistic resilience and "good book" mythologies remnant of the "go west" culture.
    In Europe where to varying degrees managed capitalism prevails the welfare state(s) provided the shock absorbers to offset the brunt of the crisis, but those who locked-in on neoliberal fiscal conservatism have cut off their nose in spite leaving scant resources to spur growth. If social mobility survives, more vibrantly than the US, unemployment and the cost thereof remains steadfast and crippling.
    The second crisis borne of American hubris is the human tidal wave resulting from the Irak adventure; it has unleashed mayhem upon the Middle East, Sub Saharan Africa and beyond. The current migrational wave Europe can not absorb is but the beginning of much deeper problem – as ISIS, Boko Haram and so many others terrorist groups destabilize the nation-states of a continent whose population is on the path to explode in the next half century.
    The icing on the cake provided by a Trump election will be a world wave of climate change refugees as the neoliberal establishment seeks to optimize wealth and power through continued climate change denial.
    Fascism is not the issue, nationalism resulting from a self serving bully culture will decimate the multilateral infrastructure responsible nation-states need to address today's problems.
    Broadly, Trump Presidency capping the neoliberal experience will likely signal the end of the US' dominant role on the world scene (and of course the immense benefits derived for the US). As he has articulated his intent to discard the art of diplomacy, from soft to institutional, in favor of an agressive approach in which the President seeks to "rattle" allies (NATO, Japan and S. Korea for example) as well as his opponents (in other words anyone who does not profess blind allegiance), expect that such modus operandi will create a deep schism accompanied by a loss of trust, already felt vis-a-vis our legislature' behavior over the last seven years.
    The US's newfound respect among friends and foes generated by President Obama' presidency, has already been undermined by the GOP primaries, if Trump is elected it will dissipate for good as other nations and groups thereof focus upon new, no-longer necessarily aligned strategic relationships, some will form as part as a means of taking distance, or protection from the US, others more opportunist with the risk of opponents such as Putin filling the void – in Europe for example.

    dk , June 3, 2016 at 8:08 am

    Neoliberalism isn't helping, but it's a population/resource ratio thing. Impacts on social orders occur well before raw supply factors kick in (and there is more than food supply to basic rations). The world population has more than doubled in the last 50 years, one doesn't get that kind of accelerated growth without profound impacts to every aspect of societies. Some of the most significant impacts are consequent to the acceleration of technological changes (skill expirations, automations) that are driven in no small part by the needs of a vast + growing population.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
    Note that the vertical scale in the of the first graph is logarithmic.

    I don't suggest population as a pat simplistic answer. And neoliberalism accelerates the declining performance of institutions (as in the CUNY article and that's been going on for decades already, neoliberalism just picked up where neoconservatism petered out), but we would be facing issues like homelessness, service degradation, population displacements, etc regardless of poor policies. One could argue (I do) that neoliberalism has undertaken to accelerate existing entropies for profit.

    Murica Derp , June 3, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    Thanks for soliciting reader comments on socioeconomic desperation. It's encouraging to know that I'm not the only failure to launch in this country.

    I'm a seasonal farm worker with a liberal arts degree in geology and history. I barely held on for six months as a junior environmental consultant at a dysfunctional firm that tacitly encouraged unethical and incompetent behavior at all levels. From what I could gather, it was one of the better-run firms in the industry. Even so, I was watching mid-level and senior staff wander into extended mid-life crises while our entire service line was terrorized by a badly out-of-shape, morbidly obese, erratic, vicious PG who had alienated almost the entire office but was untouchable no matter how many firing offenses she committed. Meanwhile I was watching peers in other industries (especially marketing and FIRE) sell their souls in real time. I'm still watching them do so a decade later.

    It's hard to exaggerate how atrociously I've been treated by bougie conformists for having failed/dropped out of the rat race. A family friend who got into trouble with the state of Hawaii for misclassifying direct employees of his timeshare boiler room as 1099's gave me a panic attack after getting stoned and berating me for hours about how I'd wake up someday and wonder what the fuck I'd done with my life. At the time, I had successfully completed a summer job as the de facto lead on a vineyard maintenance crew and was about to get called back for the harvest, again as the de facto lead picker.

    Much of my social life is basically my humiliation at the hands of amoral sleazeballs who presume themselves my superiors. No matter how strong an objective case I have for these people being morally bankrupt, it's impossible to really dismiss their insults. Another big component is concern-trolling from bourgeois supremacists who will do awfully little for me when I ask them for specific help. I don't know what they're trying to accomplish, and they probably don't, either. A lot of it is cognitive dissonance and incoherence.

    Some of the worst aggression has come from a Type A social climber friend who sells life insurance. He's a top producer in a company that's about a third normal, a third Willy Loman, and a third Glengarry Glen Ross. This dude is clearly troubled, but in ways that neither of us can really figure out, and a number of those around him are, too. He once admitted, unbidden, to having hazed me for years.

    The bigger problem is that he's surrounded by an entire social infrastructure that enables and rewards noxious, predatory behavior. When college men feel like treating the struggling like garbage, they have backup and social proof from their peers. It's disgusting. Many of these people have no idea of how to relate appropriately to the poor or the unemployed and no interest in learning. They want to lecture and humiliate us, not listen to us.

    Dude recently told me that our alma mater, Dickinson College, is a "grad school preparatory institution." I was floored that anyone would ever think to talk like that. In point of fact, we're constantly lectured about how versatile our degrees are, with or without additional education. I've apparently annoyed a number of Dickinsonians by bitterly complaining that Dickinson's nonacademic operations are a sleazy racket and that President Emeritus Bill Durden is a shyster who brainwashed my classmates with crude propaganda. If anything, I'm probably measured in my criticism, because I don't think I know the full extent of the fraud and sleaze. What I have seen and heard is damning. I believe that Dickinson is run by people with totalitarian impulses that are restrained only by a handful of nonconformists who came for the academics and are fed up with the propaganda.

    Meanwhile, I've been warm homeless for most of the past four years. It's absurd to get pledge drive pitches from a well-endowed school on the premise that my degree is golden when I'm regularly sleeping in my car and financially dependent on my parents. It's absurd to hear stories about how Dickinson's alumni job placement network is top-notch when I've never gotten a viable lead from anyone I know from school. It's absurd to explain my circumstances in detail to people who, afterwards, still can't understand why I'm cynical.

    While my classmates preen about their degrees, I'm dealing with stuff that would make them vomit. A relative whose farm I've been tending has dozens of rats infesting his winery building, causing such a stench that I'm just about the only person willing to set foot inside it. This relative is a deadbeat presiding over a feudal slumlord manor, circumstances that he usually justifies by saying that he's broke and just trying to make ends meet. He has rent-paying tenants living on the property with nothing but a pit outhouse and a filthy, disused shower room for facilities. He doesn't care that it's illegal. One of his tenants left behind a twenty-gallon trash can full to the brim with his own feces. Another was seen throwing newspaper-wrapped turds out of her trailer into the weeds. They probably found more dignity in this than in using the outhouse.

    When I was staying in Rancho Cordova, a rough suburb of Sacramento, I saw my next-door neighbor nearly come to blows with a man at the light rail station before apologizing profusely to me, calling me "sir," "man," "boss," and "dog." He told me that he was angry at the other guy for selling meth to his kid sister. Eureka is even worse: its west side is swarming with tweakers, its low-end apartment stock is terrible, no one brings the slumlords to heel, and it has a string of truly filthy residential motels along Broadway that should have been demolished years ago.

    A colleague who lives in Sweet Home, Oregon, told me that his hometown is swarming with druggies who try to extract opiates from local poppies and live for the next arriving shipment of garbage drugs. The berry farm where we worked had ten- and twelve-year-olds working under the table to supplement their families' incomes. A Canadian friend told me that he worked for a crackhead in Lillooet who made his own supply at home using freebase that he bought from a meathead dealer with ties to the Boston mob. Apparently all the failing mill towns in rural BC have a crack problem because there's not much to do other than go on welfare and cocaine. An RCMP sergeant in Kamloops was recently indicted for selling coke on the side.

    Uahsenaa's comment about the invisible homeless is spot on. I think I blend in pretty well. I've often stunned people by mentioning that I'm homeless. Some of them have been assholes about it, but not all. There are several cars that I recognize as regular overnighters at my usual rest area. Thank God we don't get hassled much. Oregon is about as safe a place as there is to be homeless. Some of the rest areas in California, including the ones at Kingsburg and the Sacramento Airport, end up at or beyond capacity overnight due to the homeless. CalTrans has signs reminding drivers that it's rude to hog a space that someone else will need. This austerity does not, of course, apply to stadium construction for the Kings.

    Another thing that almost slipped my mind (and is relevant to Trump's popularity): I've encountered entrenched, systemic discrimination against Americans when I've tried to find and hold menial jobs, and I've talked to other Americans who have also encountered it. There is an extreme bias in favor of Mexican peasants and against Americans in the fields and increasingly in off-farm jobs. The top quintile will be lucky not to reap the whirlwind on account of this prejudice.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Donald Trump, Brexit Are Blowback From Years of Anti-Government Rhetoric US News Opinion

    Notable quotes:
    "... The number one issue fueling the leave vote was immigration – a lot like Trump's wall against Mexico. The number two issue was lack of accountability of government: Leavers believe that the EU government in Brussels is unaccountable to voters. For Trump supporters, resentment towards a distant and unaccountable Washington government ranks high as well. The Brexit constituency and the Trump constituency are both motivated by the same sense of loss and vulnerability. ..."
    "... In both the U.S. and the U.K., a large and growing segment of voters has not prospered in today's complex, technology-driven global economy. Their wages have stagnated and in many cases fallen. Too few good-paying jobs exist for people lacking a college degree, or even people with a college degree, if the degree is not in the right field. These people are angry, frustrated, and afraid -- and with very good reason. Both countries' governments have done little to help them adapt, and little to soothe the sting of globalization. The voter's concerns in both places are mostly the same even though these concerns have coalesced around a policy issue ("leave") in the U.K. whereas here in the U.S. they have coalesced around a candidate (Trump). ..."
    "... Similarly, the elite insiders of the Republican Party and their business allies badly underestimated Trump. Establishment candidates like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush failed terribly. Now the Republican political insiders are trying to make sense of a presumptive nominee who trashes free trade, one of the fundamental principles of the party, and openly taunts one of most important emerging voting blocks. ..."
    "... Perhaps the biggest reason for the impotence of today's political elites is that elites have trashed the very idea of competent and effective government for 35 years now, and the public has taken the message to heart. Ever since Reagan identified government as the problem, conservative elites have attacked the idea of government itself – rather than respecting the idea of government itself while criticizing the particular policies of a particular government. This is a crucial (and dangerous) distinction. In 1986, Reagan went on to say "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" ..."
    Aug 07, 2016 | www.usnews.com
    In addition, the issues are similar between the two campaigns: The number one issue fueling the leave vote was immigration – a lot like Trump's wall against Mexico. The number two issue was lack of accountability of government: Leavers believe that the EU government in Brussels is unaccountable to voters. For Trump supporters, resentment towards a distant and unaccountable Washington government ranks high as well. The Brexit constituency and the Trump constituency are both motivated by the same sense of loss and vulnerability.

    In both the U.S. and the U.K., a large and growing segment of voters has not prospered in today's complex, technology-driven global economy. Their wages have stagnated and in many cases fallen. Too few good-paying jobs exist for people lacking a college degree, or even people with a college degree, if the degree is not in the right field. These people are angry, frustrated, and afraid -- and with very good reason. Both countries' governments have done little to help them adapt, and little to soothe the sting of globalization. The voter's concerns in both places are mostly the same even though these concerns have coalesced around a policy issue ("leave") in the U.K. whereas here in the U.S. they have coalesced around a candidate (Trump).

    In both countries, political elites were caught flat-footed. Elites lost control over the narrative and lost credibility and persuasiveness with angry, frustrated and fearful voters. The British elites badly underestimated the intensity of public frustration with immigration and with the EU. Most expected the vote would end on the side of "remain," up to the very last moment. Now they are trying to plot their way out of something they never expected would actually happen, and never prepared for.

    Similarly, the elite insiders of the Republican Party and their business allies badly underestimated Trump. Establishment candidates like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush failed terribly. Now the Republican political insiders are trying to make sense of a presumptive nominee who trashes free trade, one of the fundamental principles of the party, and openly taunts one of most important emerging voting blocks.

    How did the elites lose control? There are many reasons: With social media so pervasive, advertising dollars no longer controls what the public sees and hears. With unrestricted campaign spending, the party can no longer "pinch the air hose" of a candidate who strays from party orthodoxy.

    Perhaps the biggest reason for the impotence of today's political elites is that elites have trashed the very idea of competent and effective government for 35 years now, and the public has taken the message to heart. Ever since Reagan identified government as the problem, conservative elites have attacked the idea of government itself – rather than respecting the idea of government itself while criticizing the particular policies of a particular government. This is a crucial (and dangerous) distinction. In 1986, Reagan went on to say "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

    Reagan booster Grover Norquist is known for saying, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Countless candidates and elected officials slam "Washington bureaucrats" even though these "bureaucrats" were none other than themselves. It's not a great way to build respect. Then the attack escalated, with the aim of destroying parts of government that were actually mostly working. This was done to advance the narrative that government itself is the problem, and pave the way for privatization. Take the Transportation Security Administration for example. TSA has actually done its job. No terrorist attacks have succeeded on U.S. airplanes since it was established. But by systematically underfunding it , Congress has made the lines painfully long, so people hate it. Take the Post Office. Here Congress manufactured a crisis to force service cuts, making the public believe the institution is incompetent. But the so-called "problem" is due almost entirely to a requirement, imposed by Congress, forcing the Postal Service to prepay retiree's health care to an absurd level, far beyond what a similar private sector business would have to do. A similar dynamic now threatens Social Security. Thirty-five years have passed since Reagan first mocked the potential for competent and effective government. Years of unrelenting attack have sunk in. Many Americans now distrust government leaders and think it's pointless to demand or expect wisdom and statesmanship. Today's American voters (and their British counterparts), well-schooled in skepticism, disdain and dismiss leaders of all parties and they are ready to burn things down out of sheer frustration. The moment of blowback has arrived.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Human beings are now considered consumer goods in job market to be used and then discarded. As a consequence, a lot of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape (pope Francis)

    Aug 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    R.L.Love : August 27, 2016 at 09:49 AM

    PK has nearly lost all of his ability to see things objectively. Ambition got him, I suppose, or maybe he has always longed to be popular. He was probably teased and ridiculed too much in his youth. He is something of a whinny sniveler after-all.

    Then too, I doubt if PK has ever used a public restroom in the Southwest, or taken his kids to a public park in one of the thousands of small towns where non-English speaking throngs take over all of the facilities and parking.Or had his children bullied at school by a gang of dark-skinned kids whose parents believe that whites took their land, or abused or enslaved their distant ansestors. It might be germane here too... to point out that some of this anti-white sentiment gets support and validation from the very rhetoric that Democrats have made integral to their campaigns.

    As for not knowing why crime rates have been falling, the incarceration rates rose in step, so duh, if you lock up those with propensities for crime, well, how could crime rates not fall? And while I'm on the subject of crime, the statistical analysis that is commonly used focuses too much on violent crime and convictions. Thus, crimes of a less serious nature, that being the type of crimes committed by poor folks, is routinely ignored. Then too, those who are here illegally are often transient and using assumed names, and so they are, presumably, more difficult to catch. So, statistics are all too often not as telling as claimed.

    And, though I'm not a Trump supporter, I fully understand his appeal. As would PK if he were more travelled and in touch with those who have seen their schools, parks, towns, and everything else turn tawdry and dysfunctional. But of course the nation that most of us live in is much different than the one that PK knows.

    likbez -> R.L.Love

    > And, though I'm not a Trump supporter, I fully understand his appeal

    I wonder why everybody is thinking about this problem only in terms of identity politics.

    This is a wrong, self-defeating framework to approach the problem. which is pushed by neoliberal MSM and which we should resist in this forum as this translates the problems that the nation faces into term of pure war-style propaganda ("us vs. them" mentality). To which many posters here already succumbed

    IMHO the November elections will be more of the referendum on neoliberal globalization (with two key issues on the ballot -- jobs and immigration) than anything else.

    If so, then the key question is whether the anger of population at neoliberal elite that stole their jobs and well-being reached the boiling point or not. The level of this anger might decide the result of elections, not all those petty slurs that neoliberal MSM so diligently use as a smoke screen.

    All those valiant efforts in outsourcing and replacing permanent jobs with temporary to increase profit margin at the end have the propensity to produce some externalities. And not only in the form "over 50 and unemployed" but also by a much more dangerous "globalization of indifference" to human beings in general.

    JK Galbraith once gave the following definition of neoliberal economics: "trickle down economics is the idea that if you feed the horse enough oats eventually some will pass through to the road for the sparrows." This is what neoliberalism is about. Lower 80% even in so-called rich countries are forced to live in "fear and desperation", forced to work "with precious little dignity".

    Human beings are now considered consumer goods in "job market" to be used and then discarded. As a consequence, a lot of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: "without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape" (pope Francis).

    And that inevitably produces a reaction. Which in extreme forms we saw during French and Bolsheviks revolutions. And in less extremist forms (not involving lampposts as the placeholders for the "Masters of the Universe" (aka financial oligarchy) and the most obnoxious part of the "creative class" aka intelligentsia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentsia ) in Brexit vote.

    Hillary and Trump are just symbols here. The issue matters, not personalities.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Trump victory as yet another sign of collapse of neoliberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton and her lackeys will be taking a lot of heat for their shady actions in the primaries, get berned! ..."
    "... How could Hillary be the best qualified candidate of all time??? She was a liar. Just being a woman does not automatically make you the best person ..."
    "... A nice way of understanding this is the media, pollsters and pseudo liberal's use of the term popularist. This has been identified as the danger and a type of ignorance/stupidity if you just reflect for a moment it could be seen as a synonym for the majority. ..."
    "... Trump' victory marks the profound failures of the political and economic system in America and across the West. It is a complete failure of the Clinton and the DNC establishment approach to politics ..."
    "... The Guardian should have supported Bernie Sanders' campaign. There was a systemic failure to acknowledge and recognise the intense disillusionment and sweeping anti-establishment zeitgeist among huge numbers of the electorate both in America and Europe. ..."
    Nov 13, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    Philip Leung 4d ago

    Hillary Clinton and her lackeys will be taking a lot of heat for their shady actions in the primaries, get berned!

    smithchart 4d ago

    Clinton is a horribly corrupt dynast on the Saudi payroll.

    It's not misogyny. It's not racism.

    Sometimes, when you offer people a shit sandwich they'll pass.

    ID449590 , 9 Nov 2016 12:3>

    How could Hillary be the best qualified candidate of all time??? She was a liar. Just being a woman does not automatically make you the best person, there are other honest and more competent women.

    Granted Trump isn't ideal but Hilary was equally divisive and assumed the whole fiasco was about her being the first woman to make it into the white house than the policy issues that needed serious tackling.

    NeilBarna , 9 Nov 2016 12:3>
    This is a revolution against the media and the pollsters stuck in the washington/westminster bubble. It was obvious to any objective observer that Trump was going to win.

    The liberal media and the pollsters just as in Brexit have had an incredulous bioptic view of what was happening.

    Not once in 18 months has there been a serious attempt to understand Trump's appeal and what he was really saying, not once.

    A nice way of understanding this is the media, pollsters and pseudo liberal's use of the term popularist. This has been identified as the danger and a type of ignorance/stupidity if you just reflect for a moment it could be seen as a synonym for the majority.

    The people want change even if it comes from Trump. I wonder if Farage is thinking of staying on as leader?

    muttley79 , 9 Nov 2016 12:3>
    Trump' victory marks the profound failures of the political and economic system in America and across the West. It is a complete failure of the Clinton and the DNC establishment approach to politics.

    The Guardian should have supported Bernie Sanders' campaign. There was a systemic failure to acknowledge and recognise the intense disillusionment and sweeping anti-establishment zeitgeist among huge numbers of the electorate both in America and Europe.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Is liberalism really to blame for Britains (and Americas) ills?

    The soft neoliberalism (or The Third Way) promoted by Clinton and Blair now is replaced with a splash of far right nationalism. the level of anger in the bottom 99% and a refusal to accept the lies and propaganda by the top 1% created a crisis of legitimacy for neoliberal elite. Moreover, right years of king of "bait and switch" Obama with his typical for neoliberals unconditional love for financial elites has revealed that change can be delivered only through radical means...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Of course in the age of inverted reality, spin and obfuscation, the true nature of [neo]iberals is quite the reverse. Just like the fabians they seek to divert attention from their real goals by describing themselves as mirror opposites. ..."
    "... The [neo]liberal elite is nothing of the sort, they seek to control, manipulate and suppress everything which doesn't fit their hidden purpose, which is to promote the flat earth globalisation of the debt pyramid on behalf of the banking cartel and the likes of the Rothschild's. ..."
    "... They are despicable creatures, full to the brim with breath-taking hypocrisy, happy to claim faux indignation over widening inequality and falling living standards while they promote the pyramid scheme of debts which causes it. They may dream of a world government with socialism for the masses and largesse for the elites, but as sure as the sun rises in the east, such concentration of power, wielded by those least suitable to hold it, would create an authoritarian tyranny like seen before. ..."
    "... Essentially, Third Way liberalism as practised by Clinton and Blair, but even more so by those who followed them (Clinton and Blair were, let's not forget, populists of a sort), is predicated on the belief that you can fashion a winning mandate to govern by appealing to a consensus among middle class professionals, the liberal rich, and what they saw as a new, unideological class of 21st century workers - the socially liberal, politically apathetic, precariously situated masses who hover somewhere between traditional working class and educated middle. ..."
    "... They did this by appealing to issues of social identity while reinforcing the economics of the right-wing neoliberal ushered in by Thatcher and Reagan. They were, at the same time, losing working class votes - but their analysis of the economics told them that the (in a Marxist sense) working class was an endangered species. ..."
    "... 2008 exploded this fiction but its architects remain wedded to the cause. They personally enriched themselves by opening-up traditionally popular parties to the donations and interests of corporate capitalism. Look beyond Blair and the Clintons and you will see hundreds of centre-left politicians growing fat on an endless stream of corporate money: Cory Booker, Chuck Schumer, DWS, Howard Dean (in the US), Ben Bradshaw, Chris Byrne, Alastair Campbell, Jack Straw (in the UK) ..."
    "... Deregulated capitalism tends to monopolies and the rise of a rentier class epitomised on Wall Street and property speculators like Donald Trump. ..."
    "... Global capitalism pits workers against workers in an endless spiral of wage deflation and this fosters divisions between those whose class interests are, in fact, the same. The alienation that is an intimate part of capitalist production ..."
    "... Marx also made a distinctive between productive and fictitious capital - share prices, derivatives and other financial instruments, arbitrage and all the other heinous arsenal of second-order exploitation. Neoliberalism has delivered productive capital into the arms of fictitious capital and ushered us into a world governed by nobody so much as orchestrated according to the graph-lines of the global stock markets. It has turned the spectacle from social relations mediates by images into the beating heart of how, where and why wealth moves the way that it does. The unreality has seeped into every aspect of lived experience. ..."
    "... I am less despondent then I was under Obama and his smooth delivery of a hope and change always deferred. ..."
    "... Or Hillary Clinton and her revolution of upper-class women with their own specific class interests. There is organising taking place right now and making demands that this system will not satisfy - because it is designed to do the exact opposite. ..."
    "... I would rather speak with an alt-right troll than a liberal because one is searching for answers in the wrong place where the other glibly renders apologies for the system from which they seek to profit at the expense of those to whom they offer nothing but false sympathy. ..."
    "... There is a mobilisation of anger and a refusal to accept the fictions spun by the ruling class that can potentially be harnessed for permanent change - and, moreover, 8 years of Obama and his pathological love for financial elites has revealed that radical change can be delivered only through radical means. ..."
    "... But as others have said really we mean neoliberalism, not liberalism. Liberalism and capitalism are not the same thing and cant be used interchangeably, liberalism is a set of beliefs and capitalism is a set of practices which are sometimes at odds with one another. On the other hand, neoliberalism as a set of beliefs explicitly accepts the hegemony of capital and the expansion of the market economy into all areas of society and life. ..."
    "... the reformist and incrementalist view of a progressive social democracy that balances state and market for the betterment of all is con. ..."
    "... I don't think that Trump and Brexit mark an epochal shift; I think they are signs of disintegration. The more significant (though still not epochal!) moment was the 2008 financial crisis - and the complete failure of the political elites of Europe and America to address its fallout. This, by the way, was also far from the unforeseeable calamity that it was characterised as being in many sections of the media. Many economists and political analysts had discussed deregulation and unsustainable debt in terms of future crises; it wasn't prophesy, but a basic understanding of how unrestricted market capitalism (especially when reliant on the vicissitudes of shares/bonds/derivatives) operates. ..."
    "... More broadly, I agree with you - history is not some untroubled march of the working class to freedom (alas!) It is contingent, messy and unexpected. We have agency - and we have to use it (another thing I believe has been reignited in the last 8 years). One of many ironies of the present situation is that neoliberal politicians believed that the educated precariat they were helping to create would be unideological, politically apathetic consumers - and yet it is the young who are returning the repressed in the form of unrest, economic demands, and the re-introduction of class into political discourse. ..."
    "... Okay though, back to reality! That, I concede, is a very American and European perspective that does not take into account the global developments in Asia, Africa or Latin America. I actually lived in China for a while as a young man, and it struck me at the time that the society offered a possible, if bleak, template for the future - a technocratic, one-party state in which people trusted them to deliver the right decisions through a central bureaucracy but with consumer freedoms sufficient to forestall unrest. This is, perhaps, an alternative to the dissent and potentially unrest I have described - and what makes the latter imperative...? ..."
    "... Oh, and what you wrote about waste is very interesting. I certainly agree that it, "efficiency" (usually code for cuts and/or transfer from public to private stewardship), are over-fetishised. In fact, ridiculously so. The waste of most governments is staggering and yet they attack only certain areas. What America squanders on its military is the most obvious of examples - or its increasingly repressive police. ..."
    "... The point with Trump - and Brexit too - is not so much what it means to the man himself (or Brexit-profiteers like Boris Johnson) but how his victory gets brandished to confer legitimacy and political cover for a newly emboldened syndicate of zealously right-wing politicians and the corporate interests they represent (especially in America, where the majority of Congressional Republicans are little better than local union bosses who have been installed by the Mafia to carry their water and hold their places to exclude anyone else attaining any uncorrupted power or autonomous control). ..."
    "... We are seeing this happen right now as Trump fashions his administration - there are a lot of lobbyists, reactionary financiers, neoconservative mavens, embittered figures from the intelligence community, and evangelical culture warriors suddenly footloose and demob happy after 8 years of Barack Obama and his patented brand of Fidel-loving, radical Chicago organising, spectacularly lukewarm but yet (according to Fox) apocalyptically awful, anti-American, Socialist Revolution. ..."
    "... Much of the above will be familiar from Bush files - a man who was seldom happier than when sunk into his Lay-Z-Boy learning how to eat pretzels safely from Barney, his Scottish Terrier. His main role was to show up when required and gurn for the cameras, narrow his peepers and regurgitate what the teleprompter feeds him, before signing the executive orders dreamt up by his dream-team of vampyric, far-right champions of such American glories as the Vietnam War, Watergate, Iran/Contra, and more Latin American coup d'etats than even Henry Kissinger could shake his razor-studded cudgel at. ..."
    "... The fact is that Trump cares about victory and basking in the light of his own self-proclaimed greatness – and now he's won. I doubt he cares nearly as much about mastering the levers of government or pursuing some overarching vision as he does about preening himself in his new role as the Winner of the World's Greatest Ever Reality TV Show. He may have thrown red meat to the crowds with the gun-toting, abortion-hating campaign rhetoric, but that is the base for every contemporary Republican's bill of fare. I don't believe he gives a tinker's cuss about those issues or any of the other poisons that constitute their arsenal of cultural pesticides. ..."
    "... Like all rich people, he wants to pay as little tax as possible without breaking the law (or at least breaking it outrageously enough to attract the notice of the perennially over-worked, under-resourced IRS). ..."
    "... And finally, like most rich people, he refuses to accept that governments can or should regulate transactions or industries in ways that may even slightly inhibit their unbound, irrepressible pursuit of their self-interests and unquenchable desire for more, more and yet again more. ..."
    "... These basic right-wing tenets, of course, all easily translate into concrete policy - that's what the Republicans do best. ..."
    "... But beyond that, there is the small matter of the world's most highly evolved and comprehensive system of state surveillance and repression - a confluence of agencies, technologies, paranoia and class war that was embraced and embellished by Obama from the moment he brought his glacial approach to change to the highest office in the land – indeed, he showed that he was quite comfortable signing off on historic erosions of constitutional freedoms provided it was endorsed by his ever-responsible friends in Langley and The Pentagon. ..."
    "... So while Trump and his administration may in many ways resemble the familiar class warriors of Republican presidencies past, albeit with added evangelical vim, viciousness and vapidity courtesy of Mike Pence, let's not forget that his frequently displayed authoritarianism will have ample opportunity to be both stress-tested and to revenge itself on a plethora of opponents. ..."
    "... The point, really, is to move beyond the office of the President, which is always absurdly fetishised in American politics to the detriment of scrutiny that should be directed elsewhere - at his team, his cabinet, his appointments, and his place in the web of Congressional Republicans, lobbyists and corporate money – the nexus of interests that really dictates policies and determined which political battles get fought aggressively, which cast aside. ..."
    "... People will not see a new dawn, but the delirious rush to expand those chaotic, inhumane, amoral, and utterly unaccountable market forces that have already seeped far too deep into the already grotty political system. Trump is only a piece of this large and ugly tapestry – a figurehead for an army of cultural and social vandals serving alongside economic thieves and assassins. These are, moreover, the experts in how to instrumentalise economic inequality to serve the very politicians responsible for fostering the inequality in the first place and those most wedded to beliefs capable only of making matters worse for all but themselves and their donor-owners. ..."
    "... But let's not be lulled by the familiarity of parts of this story. Familiar from Reagan and Bush Jnr, as well as Clinton and Obama (albeit with a more fulgent presentation and the skilled performance of sympathy to sugar the pill). ..."
    "... [Neo]Liberalism is an ideology, it has many variations and even definitions for people. Arrogance, superiority, disdain, refusal to engage etc. A moral certainty more in line with doctrinal religion. ..."
    "... The first question to ask is why these right wing commentators are attacking liberalism . Is it because they want a better society in which everyone gets a chance of a decent life ? Do they actually care about the people they claim to speak for - they people right at the bottom of the social scale ? ..."
    "... The answer , of course, is no. They see attacking liberalism as a means of defending their own privileges which they believe liberalism and the gradual progress of recent years towards a more equal society have undermined. ..."
    "... Since they are basically conning the underprivileged and cannot deliver what they promise the right will find itself driven to even more extremes of bigotry and deceit to maintain its position. The prospect is terrifying. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | www.theguardian.com


    MintonVase33 3d ago

    Of course in the age of inverted reality, spin and obfuscation, the true nature of [neo]iberals is quite the reverse. Just like the fabians they seek to divert attention from their real goals by describing themselves as mirror opposites.

    The [neo]liberal elite is nothing of the sort, they seek to control, manipulate and suppress everything which doesn't fit their hidden purpose, which is to promote the flat earth globalisation of the debt pyramid on behalf of the banking cartel and the likes of the Rothschild's.

    They are despicable creatures, full to the brim with breath-taking hypocrisy, happy to claim faux indignation over widening inequality and falling living standards while they promote the pyramid scheme of debts which causes it. They may dream of a world government with socialism for the masses and largesse for the elites, but as sure as the sun rises in the east, such concentration of power, wielded by those least suitable to hold it, would create an authoritarian tyranny like seen before. Power in all forms should be spread into as many hands as possible, monopolies are always bad yet, once again, the illiberal's love a monopoly because they're not what they seem.

    tempestteacup 1d ago Guardian Pick

    ...You certainly have a point that the experiences in the UK and the US are different for lots of reasons - historic alignments of the major parties, political corruption, and the different points where class, race, gender and geographical location intersect - but the latter-day form of liberalism tried - and failed - to do the same thing in both countries.

    Essentially, Third Way liberalism as practised by Clinton and Blair, but even more so by those who followed them (Clinton and Blair were, let's not forget, populists of a sort), is predicated on the belief that you can fashion a winning mandate to govern by appealing to a consensus among middle class professionals, the liberal rich, and what they saw as a new, unideological class of 21st century workers - the socially liberal, politically apathetic, precariously situated masses who hover somewhere between traditional working class and educated middle.

    They did this by appealing to issues of social identity while reinforcing the economics of the right-wing neoliberal ushered in by Thatcher and Reagan. They were, at the same time, losing working class votes - but their analysis of the economics told them that the (in a Marxist sense) working class was an endangered species. The Republicans in America willingly played into this fantastical analysis by engaging in the culture wars - politically useful but also economically necessary as a distraction from the growing cross-party consensus on how to enshrine, extend and improve the means of capitalist exploitation through deregulation and debt.

    2008 exploded this fiction but its architects remain wedded to the cause. They personally enriched themselves by opening-up traditionally popular parties to the donations and interests of corporate capitalism. Look beyond Blair and the Clintons and you will see hundreds of centre-left politicians growing fat on an endless stream of corporate money: Cory Booker, Chuck Schumer, DWS, Howard Dean (in the US), Ben Bradshaw, Chris Byrne, Alastair Campbell, Jack Straw (in the UK) .

    Evolutions and developments require always refreshed analysis but the basic principles by which we subject those developments to our analysis remain fundamentally the same: capitalism is a system by which wealth is transferred from the workers to those owning the means of production. Deregulated capitalism tends to monopolies and the rise of a rentier class epitomised on Wall Street and property speculators like Donald Trump.

    Global capitalism pits workers against workers in an endless spiral of wage deflation and this fosters divisions between those whose class interests are, in fact, the same. The alienation that is an intimate part of capitalist production is carried over into the social relations between workers and can only be short-circuited by acts of radical organising - revolution begins with a question that the system cannot answer and ends with a demand that refuses to be denied.

    Marx also made a distinctive between productive and fictitious capital - share prices, derivatives and other financial instruments, arbitrage and all the other heinous arsenal of second-order exploitation. Neoliberalism has delivered productive capital into the arms of fictitious capital and ushered us into a world governed by nobody so much as orchestrated according to the graph-lines of the global stock markets. It has turned the spectacle from social relations mediates by images into the beating heart of how, where and why wealth moves the way that it does. The unreality has seeped into every aspect of lived experience.

    And yet, strangely, I am less despondent then I was under Obama and his smooth delivery of a hope and change always deferred.

    Or Hillary Clinton and her revolution of upper-class women with their own specific class interests. There is organising taking place right now and making demands that this system will not satisfy - because it is designed to do the exact opposite.

    I would rather speak with an alt-right troll than a liberal because one is searching for answers in the wrong place where the other glibly renders apologies for the system from which they seek to profit at the expense of those to whom they offer nothing but false sympathy.

    There is a mobilisation of anger and a refusal to accept the fictions spun by the ruling class that can potentially be harnessed for permanent change - and, moreover, 8 years of Obama and his pathological love for financial elites has revealed that radical change can be delivered only through radical means.

    joropofever -> tempestteacup 2d ago

    I would agree about this idea of a vacuum being created by the political class but really I think the political turmoil is a reflection of the economic inequality, economics shaping the political. But as others have said really we mean neoliberalism, not liberalism. Liberalism and capitalism are not the same thing and cant be used interchangeably, liberalism is a set of beliefs and capitalism is a set of practices which are sometimes at odds with one another. On the other hand, neoliberalism as a set of beliefs explicitly accepts the hegemony of capital and the expansion of the market economy into all areas of society and life.

    I think what you are saying (correct me if wrong) is that the reformist and incrementalist view of a progressive social democracy that balances state and market for the betterment of all is con. Marxists said this view would result in the state becoming a conduit for the accumulation of power in the hands of capital and the gradual destruction of welfare and social institutions, and they were right.

    My question is then though is how do you achieve this transformation (though I don't know what you would think best) without running the risk of a right-wing and nationalist hijack? History is littered with cases where well intended left-wing revolutions and social movements helped sow the seeds for later horrors. As you say, the prognosis and world view of the radical left and the alt-right are not miles apart.

    tempestteacup -> joropofever 2d ago

    More excellent and pertinent questions!

    I don't think that Trump and Brexit mark an epochal shift; I think they are signs of disintegration. The more significant (though still not epochal!) moment was the 2008 financial crisis - and the complete failure of the political elites of Europe and America to address its fallout. This, by the way, was also far from the unforeseeable calamity that it was characterised as being in many sections of the media. Many economists and political analysts had discussed deregulation and unsustainable debt in terms of future crises; it wasn't prophesy, but a basic understanding of how unrestricted market capitalism (especially when reliant on the vicissitudes of shares/bonds/derivatives) operates.

    And I don't accept that this is an anglocentric point of view. There are crises across Europe, although none have as yet had quite the before/after drama of the Brexit and presidential votes. In France, the Front National are basically the second party. In Italy, the chaotic 5 Star Movement are on the verge of toppling the prime minister and making gains elsewhere. In Hungary, Fidesz and the borderline neo-fascist Jobbik dominate political discourse, as the Law and Justice party have come to do in Poland. Even in Scandinavia, the Danish People's Party and True Finns have made significant, even decisive, inroads on political discourse.

    Commentators are fond of saying that the left-right divide has been scrambled. Doubtless they would cite some of these as examples - many of the European nationalist parties I have mentioned are in favour of strong welfare protections, and use race, country of origin, religion or ethnicity as a dividing line. To me this does not signify the same thing - the Nazis were called National Socialists for a reason, and while the purges of the 30s and the war brought the anti-semitic mass murderers into the ascendancy, there were many founder-members like Strasser and Rohm who were essentially socialists with a racial or nationalist element.

    But look, you're right - the events of 2016 are, as we speak, being interpreted, exploited and spun to the benefit of the prevailing conditions. One would expect no different - it's why I was not surprised that the Tory bloodletting post-Brexit gave way to such a painless transition, just as it appears to be doing in America under President-elect Trump. It's what the ruling class do - protect their interests. What I believe has happened is that there is now a rupture within the left (in its broadest sense) and that rupture is defined by those who believe economic change will deliver social justice on the one hand and those who believe in cosmetic changes without challenging the economic system.

    More broadly, I agree with you - history is not some untroubled march of the working class to freedom (alas!) It is contingent, messy and unexpected. We have agency - and we have to use it (another thing I believe has been reignited in the last 8 years). One of many ironies of the present situation is that neoliberal politicians believed that the educated precariat they were helping to create would be unideological, politically apathetic consumers - and yet it is the young who are returning the repressed in the form of unrest, economic demands, and the re-introduction of class into political discourse.

    If I may be allowed to spit-ball for a moment, this is, to my mind, a pivotal moment in history. Those of us adults but under 40 are the last vestiges of the 20th century and its traditions of dissent, revolt and counterculture. We are, so to speak, the children of the 1960s. And those from the 1960s are still here - there is a living link, and in revolutionary terms, such things matter. In a period where we could potentially prevent catastrophic, irreversible climate change, there is no more time. It is imperative that we make our stand now, with those who lived through the last revolutionary period in the west, to keep that flame of revolt alive - or, better yet, to stoke it into a pyre. Because without those signal historical developments, those noble challenges, the flame dies down and is covered in ashes....

    Okay though, back to reality! That, I concede, is a very American and European perspective that does not take into account the global developments in Asia, Africa or Latin America. I actually lived in China for a while as a young man, and it struck me at the time that the society offered a possible, if bleak, template for the future - a technocratic, one-party state in which people trusted them to deliver the right decisions through a central bureaucracy but with consumer freedoms sufficient to forestall unrest. This is, perhaps, an alternative to the dissent and potentially unrest I have described - and what makes the latter imperative...?

    tempestteacup -> joropofever 2d ago

    Oh, and what you wrote about waste is very interesting. I certainly agree that it, "efficiency" (usually code for cuts and/or transfer from public to private stewardship), are over-fetishised. In fact, ridiculously so. The waste of most governments is staggering and yet they attack only certain areas. What America squanders on its military is the most obvious of examples - or its increasingly repressive police.

    I was more concerned, though, with the general sustainability of a system where decisions are made by criteria other than profit/loss, demand/supply. You're right about direct democracy (it's been ages since I've read Raymond Williams so I'm glad you reminded me to do so again!) - but how does that work when it comes to resources that have to be shared over large areas? Is it possible to build, step by step, a democratic structure of shared ownership that is both responsive to individual communities and responsible in its disposition of resources on the basis of needs rather than profits?

    tempestteacup -> ForgetThePolitics 1d ago

    Sorry but I can't agree with that. Popular in terms of electoral success and populist in terms of generating fervid support through direct, emotionally charged appeals to your audience's most passionately held interests, fears or aspirations while adopting their language and mobilising their energy, are two very different things. Obama was popular but not, it turned out, a populist – despite the narrative of his early presidency, inflected as it still was with the delirious, joyous cheers the followed his rhetorically rich but studiously vague Yes We Can barnburner (of sorts).

    The point with Trump - and Brexit too - is not so much what it means to the man himself (or Brexit-profiteers like Boris Johnson) but how his victory gets brandished to confer legitimacy and political cover for a newly emboldened syndicate of zealously right-wing politicians and the corporate interests they represent (especially in America, where the majority of Congressional Republicans are little better than local union bosses who have been installed by the Mafia to carry their water and hold their places to exclude anyone else attaining any uncorrupted power or autonomous control).

    We are seeing this happen right now as Trump fashions his administration - there are a lot of lobbyists, reactionary financiers, neoconservative mavens, embittered figures from the intelligence community, and evangelical culture warriors suddenly footloose and demob happy after 8 years of Barack Obama and his patented brand of Fidel-loving, radical Chicago organising, spectacularly lukewarm but yet (according to Fox) apocalyptically awful, anti-American, Socialist Revolution.

    There are legions of pissed off, fired up kingpins from the fossil fuel industry already itching to fire up the federal shredders fired up and set loose in the EPA. There are batallions of combat-ready, obscenely wealthy people and dynasties for whom there is no such thing as too much, and who are salivating just as they imagine the glorious bonfire of taxes that their Republican lackeys have a chance to build and dance around in one of their pagan rituals of money worship and rapacity as a fetish of a heavenly future. And they can build it on the floor of a Congress they also dominate, before embarking on a mission to extend their current gains during the 2018 mid-terms, when several precariously held Democratic Senate seats in otherwise Trump-friendly states will be up for re-election.

    Much of the above will be familiar from Bush files - a man who was seldom happier than when sunk into his Lay-Z-Boy learning how to eat pretzels safely from Barney, his Scottish Terrier. His main role was to show up when required and gurn for the cameras, narrow his peepers and regurgitate what the teleprompter feeds him, before signing the executive orders dreamt up by his dream-team of vampyric, far-right champions of such American glories as the Vietnam War, Watergate, Iran/Contra, and more Latin American coup d'etats than even Henry Kissinger could shake his razor-studded cudgel at. It was their interests, energies, vendettas and connections that provided the real substance for a presidency characterised above all by the elevation of anti-intellectualism to the level of essential and authentic patriotic performance (preparing ground now bulldozed across by a Trump-shaped figure reveling in the sheer winningness of it all).

    The fact is that Trump cares about victory and basking in the light of his own self-proclaimed greatness – and now he's won. I doubt he cares nearly as much about mastering the levers of government or pursuing some overarching vision as he does about preening himself in his new role as the Winner of the World's Greatest Ever Reality TV Show. He may have thrown red meat to the crowds with the gun-toting, abortion-hating campaign rhetoric, but that is the base for every contemporary Republican's bill of fare. I don't believe he gives a tinker's cuss about those issues or any of the other poisons that constitute their arsenal of cultural pesticides.

    Like all rich people, he wants to pay as little tax as possible without breaking the law (or at least breaking it outrageously enough to attract the notice of the perennially over-worked, under-resourced IRS). Like many rich people, he believes that his wealth is objective and irrefutable proof of his personal excellence; that this proves how America is truly a land of opportunity, where hard work, innovation and good old moxie can transform any Joe Schlubb on Main Street into a millionaire princeling of the Upper West Side - thus demonstrating that social investment in education or spending to address issues like systemic discrimination is just throwing money at life's losers.

    tempestteacup -> ForgetThePolitics 1d ago

    And finally, like most rich people, he refuses to accept that governments can or should regulate transactions or industries in ways that may even slightly inhibit their unbound, irrepressible pursuit of their self-interests and unquenchable desire for more, more and yet again more.

    These basic right-wing tenets, of course, all easily translate into concrete policy - that's what the Republicans do best. It is what should be expected.

    But beyond that, there is the small matter of the world's most highly evolved and comprehensive system of state surveillance and repression - a confluence of agencies, technologies, paranoia and class war that was embraced and embellished by Obama from the moment he brought his glacial approach to change to the highest office in the land – indeed, he showed that he was quite comfortable signing off on historic erosions of constitutional freedoms provided it was endorsed by his ever-responsible friends in Langley and The Pentagon.

    If, as would be unsurprising, public unrest spreads and civil disobedience intensifies while Trump begin work on the familiar Republican transfer of wealth, with Black Lives Matter hardening their resistance and resolve in the face of police brutalities now able to justify themselves in terms of sympathetic views espoused by the incoming President himself; with white working class voters realising that their interests have been, were always going to be, betrayed; with environmental activists mobilised in deadly earnest and in a desperate effort to push back against potentially catastrophic energy and industrial policies that imperil everyone's future; as young people schooled in the Bernie campaign seek to organise and resist the excesses of a Trump presidency that few accept as legitimately representative of them or their lives, and as the despair of the country increases under a divisive, duplicitous and avaricious administration soaked in the very corruption it was such a winning strategy to declaim - well, then Trump has at his fingers the shiniest forms of repression that money and 21st century technology can provide: blanket surveillance online and in the streets, habeas corpus perilously undermined by legislation like the NDAA, hyper-militarised police forces trained in the use of obscenely excessive force, obscenely high sentences imposed by one of the army of judges perversely satisfied by every extreme species of punitive justice at their fingertips, along with prosecutors who consider the multi-year deprivation of freedom in a brutalising prison system as a badge of professional honour, all the while dreaming up criminal indictments that are so overzealous they look for felonies to charge the felonies with. Many warned that the step-by-step construction of this multi-layered, barely controllable system (to complement the steady erosion of civil liberties and constitutional rights) betrayed a potentially disastrous lack of foresight. It would not always rest in the command of people unwilling to test its full extent, and once you have created such possibilities in law, in storage rooms of equipment, in training drills and operating manuals, it is only a matter of time before they will be invoked in reality (and seldom in the exact ways they were originally intended or designed).

    tempestteacup -> ForgetThePolitics 1d ago

    So while Trump and his administration may in many ways resemble the familiar class warriors of Republican presidencies past, albeit with added evangelical vim, viciousness and vapidity courtesy of Mike Pence, let's not forget that his frequently displayed authoritarianism will have ample opportunity to be both stress-tested and to revenge itself on a plethora of opponents. Add in the fact that the Republicans have achieved an unexpected, clean sweep of Congress, as well as holding an unprecedented number of governorships. They can act from a position of unparalleled strength, and as a strength that came unexpectedly one should not be surprised if they start wielding it recklessly. They can do so, also, after 8 years of stultification and political paralysis, placed under restraints in order the more effectively to effectively perform their new definition of Congressional work: obstruct everything the President attempts to do. They only receive the occasional fun day-out to the Benghazi hearings or when they could play find the gavel during the 2013 sequester.

    So I would expect a lot of pent-up resentment, plenty of lunatic ideas and plenty of hubris that sees no problem in airing them as if they were the wisdom of Solomon. Their opposition is disastrously enfeebled after years of poor candidates being selected on the basis of their ability to toe the corporate line rather than define and then achieve political goals. There is a chance here, in other words and before demographic changes make future Republican presidential victories more remote, to pursue their most cherished, most ideological, most shameless, lunatic, idiotic, corrupt, destructive and irresponsible policies. Trump's bulbous slab of torso-meat, congenitally bound to seek and fill every available limelight, can provide cover as they rip up every regulation they see lying around or pretend to have read, slash taxes for themselves, their families, friends, and all those fine citizens who fund their political cesspool, all the while having fun with whichever civil liberty or egalitarian policy that catches their eye or makes them feel confused, perhaps inadequate, with their nasty, un-American regard for systemic injustice and the imperative to address historic wrongs.

    Fresh from one of their favoured think-tanks, where charmed minds devote themselves to the rigorous and sober analysis, the scholarly investigation of such pressing national issues as: the best way to enjoy your money is to keep it, why the poor have only themselves to blame, and freedom is whatever we say it is, vulpine Republican advisers can sink their teeth into racial equality, voting rights, affirmative action, abortion rights, and whatever else Mike Pence and friends have decided does not represent their crushingly reactionary, mind-numbingly mediocre vision of an America without charm and sunk grotesquely in self-love, with anti-intellectualism as a core principle and, in the end, frightened of anything that diverges from a template of respectability designed by someone who seemingly loathes the entire human race.

    None of this, however, justifies the orgy of visions competing to describe the most apocalyptic America, commentators outdoing each other in op-ed after op-ed as they spin stories from the most terrifying speculations or possible scenarios. I'm simply pointing out that it is not that difficult to foresee the direction Trump's presidency will travel - or to point out where and how things could become very nasty. The point, really, is to move beyond the office of the President, which is always absurdly fetishised in American politics to the detriment of scrutiny that should be directed elsewhere - at his team, his cabinet, his appointments, and his place in the web of Congressional Republicans, lobbyists and corporate money – the nexus of interests that really dictates policies and determined which political battles get fought aggressively, which cast aside.

    The truth so far is about as desolate as one would expect – made that little bit worse by the continued (maybe permanent?) state of delusion and the feeble platitudes dribbling out of the by-now-almost-unsalvageable Congressional Democratic Wurlitzer of Wisdom, scarcely enough to drowned the noise of meretricious minds whirring as they look for solutions to the only question that really matters: how to continue mainlining the corporate donor money-dope while at the same time presenting an appearance of interest in the left-wing changes championed by progressive Democrats like Bernie sufficient to placate the latter along with their irritatingly rambunctious supporters.

    tempestteacup -> ForgetThePolitics 1d ago

    Ok, crazy - this is like a nightmare of my own making. So long! But must finished now I've started........


    Blimey, this got long - apologies. Let me offer the reader's digest, abbreviated version: Trump and his court have thus far confirmed what was fairly obvious - that he and his new Congressional play-mates are already pawing the ground in anticipation of the approaching adventure into their favourite land: the magical kingdom of inexhaustible tax cuts, where every regulation can be tossed on the fire, where protections come to you to be gutted and the public finances positively cry out to be finagled in a giant cabaret that they can dedicate, as is their wont, to their feared yet beloved corporate masters. They can demonstrate to their heart's content their enduring fealty to the donor-class who bestride the nation like benevolent princes, they can lavish on them a horn of plenty overflowing with gifts, endowments, contracts, pourboires, fortunes bilked from the taxpayer and juggled into the pockets of these stalwart champions of American values, coy little loopholes with diagrams for how to exploit them, and above all – first, last and always – every asset they can think of stripping from public ownership they have been taught to believe is merely a euphemism for Marxist-Leninism.

    In the meantime, public resistance or acts of dissent, the faintest hint of mass organising will be met with state forces of repression restrained now by little more than the frayed strands of a mostly cut-through piece of rope. Divisions revealed, exploited and entrenched during the election will, without serious and sustained will to extend solidarity beyond immediate interest-groups and to learn from the experiences of others, become the permanent operative language of the entire administration of American government. People will not see a new dawn, but the delirious rush to expand those chaotic, inhumane, amoral, and utterly unaccountable market forces that have already seeped far too deep into the already grotty political system. Trump is only a piece of this large and ugly tapestry – a figurehead for an army of cultural and social vandals serving alongside economic thieves and assassins. These are, moreover, the experts in how to instrumentalise economic inequality to serve the very politicians responsible for fostering the inequality in the first place and those most wedded to beliefs capable only of making matters worse for all but themselves and their donor-owners.

    But let's not be lulled by the familiarity of parts of this story. Familiar from Reagan and Bush Jnr, as well as Clinton and Obama (albeit with a more fulgent presentation and the skilled performance of sympathy to sugar the pill). Familiar from every interview with almost every Republican and certainly the freshly minted, post Tea Party brand of prosperity Christian bullies worthy of far greater anger and loathing than they often receive thanks to a perhaps deliberate act involving a quasi-folksy clownishness – however many references, though, to the Republican clown car cannot alter the fact that even the thickest among them is capable of being herded with the others when it comes to voting for vicious legislation, insane tax cuts and budgets in which each new one is more limited, more nihilistic than the one before in every respect but the military and the ever-growing number of enormous flags that will soon follow Republican politicians around the country to provide an immediately appropriate backdrop in case they feel the sudden need to share their wisdom with the world or the nearest news anchor.

    But while some parts are familiar, enough should be new or unknown to keep all of us looking forward anxiously, preparing carefully, and planning intelligently for the potentially vicious challenges ahead.

    Danny Sheahan 3d ago

    [Neo]Liberalism is an ideology, it has many variations and even definitions for people. Arrogance, superiority, disdain, refusal to engage etc. A moral certainty more in line with doctrinal religion.

    These are big problems on the left/liberal platform.

    Certainly not all but enough to damage it is a position.

    Many, like me, who vote left are hoping that the penny will drop. It has to at some stage, why not now?

    It may not though, it would not surprise me.

    tehanomander -> Danny Sheahan 3d ago

    What Danny said

    Supported Labour all my life probably will with reservations still ....but the disconnect is palpable now (think Owen Smith to understand my meaning)

    I voted Leave though .....so obviously now in here I'm a Trump supporter and racist xenophobe (which always amuses my Jamaican wife when I tell her)

    Keith Macdonald 3d ago \

    The first question to ask is why these right wing commentators are attacking liberalism . Is it because they want a better society in which everyone gets a chance of a decent life ? Do they actually care about the people they claim to speak for - they people right at the bottom of the social scale ?

    Do they really want their own children to compete on equal terms with the rest of the population for the inevitably limited number of top jobs ?

    The answer , of course, is no. They see attacking liberalism as a means of defending their own privileges which they believe liberalism and the gradual progress of recent years towards a more equal society have undermined.

    Since they are basically conning the underprivileged and cannot deliver what they promise the right will find itself driven to even more extremes of bigotry and deceit to maintain its position. The prospect is terrifying.

    The next question is how liberals and progressives deal with this powerful onslaught. So far we have done badly. For example Hillary Clinton clearly did not have a clue how Trump used the constructed "reality" of shows like The Apprentice to mount a presidential campaign based on fiction (although of course the underlying discontents are real). There is a massive amount of work to do here.

    Yes - there has been a failure to make globalisation work. I think Thomas Piketty began to give some answers to this at

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/16/globalization-trump-inequality-thomas-piketty yesterday.

    ... ... ...

    [Dec 04, 2016] The myth of Ronald Reagan: pragmatic moderate or radical conservative?

    Notable quotes:
    "... he changed American politics forever by demonstrating that style was more important than substance. In fact, he showed that style was everything and substance utterly unimportant. ..."
    "... Conservatives used "bracket creep" to convince the middle class that reducing marginal rates on the top tax brackets along with their own would be a good idea, then with the assistance of Democrats replaced the revenue with a huge increase in FICA so that the Social Security Trust Fund could finance the deficit in the rest of the budget. The result was a huge boon to the richest, little difference for the middle class, and a far greater burden for the working poor. ..."
    "... Any conversation about who the fantasy-projection "Reagan" was, misses an important reality: He was a hologram, fabricated by a kaleidoscope of various sorts of so-called "conservative" handlers and puppeteers. It was those "puppeteers" who ranged from heartlessly, stunningly "conservative" (destroya-tive), all the way further right to the kind of militaristic, macho, crackpots who have finally emerged from under their rocks at this year's "candidates." ..."
    The Guardian


    cgoodwood 19 Sep 2015 11:40

    Do not contradict the memories of all the old teabaggers who desperately need the myth of Saint Ronnie to justify their Greed is Good declining mentality and years.

    When Reagan cut-and-ran on Lebanon he showed rare discretion. A lot of the puffery stuff was B-Movie grade, but there was a lot of cross-the-aisle ventures, too.

    He was a politician. The current GOP is just a bunch of white Fundie bullies, actually and metaphorically (e.g., Carson).

    Zepp -> thedono 19 Sep 2015 11:37

    Well, compared to Cruz, or Santorum, or Huckabee, he's a moderate. Of course, compared to the right people, you can describe Mussolini or Khruschev as moderates...

    mastermisanthrope 19 Sep 2015 11:37

    Lifelong shill

    LostintheUS -> William J Rood 19 Sep 2015 11:36

    Reagan underwent a political conversion when Nancy broke up his marriage with Jane Wyman and married him.

    LostintheUS 19 Sep 2015 11:33

    Here is the Reagan administration in a five second video clip:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR3RqMMIwD4

    LostintheUS -> inchoateruffian 19 Sep 2015 11:32

    Here is the video clip where Don Regan (former CEO of Merrill Lynch) tells PRESIDENT Reagan to "speed it up".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR3RqMMIwD4

    RightSaid -> ID3732233 19 Sep 2015 11:31

    The cold war ended while Reagan was president, but he did not win the cold war. His rhetoric and strategy was wishful thinking - there's no way he could have had the definitive intelligence about the entire military-political-economic that would have justified the confidence he projected. He merely lucked out, significantly damaging the US economy by trying (and luckily succeeding) to out-militarize the soviets.

    pretzelattack -> kattw 19 Sep 2015 11:31

    both clinton and obama have showed a willingness to "reform social security". try naked capitalism, there are probably a number of articles in the archives.

    LostintheUS -> piethein 19 Sep 2015 11:29

    And that the emergency room federally funded program that saved his life was soon after defunded...by him.

    LostintheUS -> pretzelattack 19 Sep 2015 11:28

    Many of us saw through him...I noted the senility during his speeches during his first campaign...as did many people I knew.

    pretzelattack -> 4Queeen4country 19 Sep 2015 11:27

    thatcher said of reagan "bit of a dim bulb..."

    Jim Loftus 19 Sep 2015 11:26

    Dementia masquerading as politics.
    But you can't say anything negative about Saint Ronald!

    Peter Davis -> Peter Davis 19 Sep 2015 11:22

    I believe Reagan also is responsible for creating the Hollywood notion in American politics and political thinking that life works just like a movie--with good guys and bad guys. And all one needs is a gun and you can save the world. That sort of delusional thinking has been at the heart of the modern GOP ever since.

    loljahlol -> ID3732233 19 Sep 2015 11:21

    Reagan did not end the Cold War. Brezhnev rule solidified the Soviet death. Their corrupt, inefficient form of capitalism could not compete with the globalization of Western capitalism.

    John78745 19 Sep 2015 11:21

    There's not much nuance to Reagan. He was a coward, a bully and a loser. He got hundreds of U.S. Marines killed then he ran from the terrorists in Beirut and on the Archille Lauro personally creating the seeds of the morass of terrorists we now live with. He fostered the republican traditions of sending U.S. jobs overseas at the expense of U.S. taxpayers and of invading helpless, hapless nations, a tradition so adeptly followed by Bush I & II. He also promised that there would never be a need for another amnesty.

    I guess it's true that he talked mean to the Russians, broke unions, and helped make the military industrial complex into the insatiable war machine that it is today. Remember murderous Iran-Contra (a real) scandal where he and his minions worked in secret without congressional authorization to overthrow a democratically elected government while conspiring to supply arms to the dastardly Iranians!

    We could also say that he bravely fought to save the U.S. from socialized medicine and to expunge the tradition of free tuition for California students. Whatta hero!

    thankgodimanatheist 19 Sep 2015 11:19

    Reagan, the acting President, was the worst President since WWII until the Cheney/Bush debacle.

    Most of the problems we face today can be directly traced to his voodoo economics, huge deficit spending, deregulation, and in retrospect disastrous foreign policies.


    LostintheUS 19 Sep 2015 11:17

    "these days everyone seems to love Ronald."

    Absolutely, not true. The farther along we go in time, the more Americans realize the damage this man and his backers did to America and the world. The inversion of the tax tables, the undoing of union laws, the polarization of Americans against each other so the plutocrats had no real opposition and on and on. His camp stole the election in 1980 through making a back door deal with the Iranian government to hold onto the American hostages until the election when Jimmy Carter had negotiated an end to the hostage crisis, which was the undoing of Jimmy Carter's administration.

    "Behind Carter's back, the Reagan campaign worked out a deal with the leader of Iran's radical faction - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini - to keep the hostages in captivity until after the 1980 Presidential election." This is, unquestionably, treason. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/20287-without-reagans-treason-iran-would-not-be-a-problem

    No, Reagan marks the downward turn for our country and has resulted in the economic and social mess we still have not clawed our way back out of. No, Reagan is no hero, he is an American nemesis and a traitor. Reagan raised taxes three times while slashing the tax rate of the super rich...starting the downward spiral of the middle-class and the funneling of money toward the 1%. Thus his reputation as a "tax cutter", yeah, if you were a multi-millionaire.

    Check this out for a synopsis of the damage: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/10/942453/-How-Ronald-Reagan-s-Policies-Destroyed-the-United-States#

    namora -> nogapsallowed 19 Sep 2015 11:15

    Never thought of Reagan as the first Shrub but it fits. I wonder if future pundits will sing the Dub's praises as well. I think I'm gonna be sick for a bit.

    kattw -> namora 19 Sep 2015 11:10

    Pretzel is maybe talking about the 'strengthen SS' bandwagon? Perhaps? Not entirely sure myself, but yeah - one of the major democrat platform planks is that SS should NOT be privatized, and that if people want to invest in stocks, they can do that on their own. The whole point of SS is to be a mattress full of cash that is NOT vulnerable to the vagaries of the market, and will always have some cash in it to be used as needed.

    SS would be totally secure, too, if congress would stop robbing it for other projects, or pay back all they've borrowed. As it is, I wish *I* was as broke as republicans claim SS is - I wouldn't mind having a few billion in the bank.

    William J Rood 19 Sep 2015 11:08

    Reagan was former president of the Screen Actors' Guild. Obviously, he thought unions for highly educated workers were great. Meatpackers? Not so much.

    RealSoothsayer 19 Sep 2015 11:04

    This article does not mention the fact that in his last couple of years as President at least, his mental state had seriously deteriorated. He could not remember his own policies, names, etc. CBS' Leslie Stahl should be prosecuted for not being honest with her everyone when she found out.

    Peter Davis 19 Sep 2015 11:04

    Reagan was a failed president who nonetheless managed to convince people that he was great. He was a professional actor, after all. And he acted his way into the White House. Most importantly, he changed American politics forever by demonstrating that style was more important than substance. In fact, he showed that style was everything and substance utterly unimportant. He was the figurehead while his handlers did the dirty work of Iran-Contra, ballooning deficits, and tanking unemployment.

    nishville 19 Sep 2015 11:03

    For me, he was a pioneer. He was the first sock-puppet president, starting a noble tradition that reached its climax with W.

    mbidding -> hackerkat 19 Sep 2015 11:03

    In addition to:

    Treasonous traitor when, as a presidential candidate, he negotiated with Khomeini to hold the hostages till after the election.

    Subverter of the Constitution via the Iran-Contra scandal.

    Destroyer of social cohesion by turning JFK's famous admonishment of "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" on its head with his meme that all evil emanates from the government and taxation represents stealing rather than a social obligation for any civilized society that wishes to continue to develop in a sound fashion that lifts all boats.

    Incarcerator in Chief through his tough on crime and war on drugs policies, not to mention defunding mental health care.

    Pisser in Chief through his successful efforts to imbed trickle down economics as the economic thought du jour which even its original architects, notably Stockman, now confirm is a failed theory that we nonetheless cling to to this day.

    Ignoramus in Chief by gutting real federal financial aid for higher education leading to the obscene amounts of student debt our college students now incur.

    Terrorist creator extraordinaire not only with the creation of the Latin American death squads you note, but the creation, support, trading, and funding of the mujahedin and Bin Laden himself, now known as the Taliban, Al Qa'ida, and ISIS, only the most notable among others.

    namora -> trholland1 19 Sep 2015 10:59

    That is not taking into account his greatest role for which he was ignored for a much deserved Oscar, Golden Globe or any of the other awards passed out by the entertainment industry, President of The United States of America. He absolutely nailed that one.

    William J Rood 19 Sep 2015 10:58

    Conservatives used "bracket creep" to convince the middle class that reducing marginal rates on the top tax brackets along with their own would be a good idea, then with the assistance of Democrats replaced the revenue with a huge increase in FICA so that the Social Security Trust Fund could finance the deficit in the rest of the budget. The result was a huge boon to the richest, little difference for the middle class, and a far greater burden for the working poor.

    Tax brackets could have been indexed to inflation, but that wouldn't have been so great for Reagans real supporters.

    Doueman 19 Sep 2015 10:55

    What sad comments by these armchair experts.

    They don't gel with my experiences in North America during this period at all. When Reagan ran for the presidency he was generally ridiculed by much of the press in the US and just about all of the press in the UK for being a right wing fanatic, a lightweight, too old, uninformed and even worse an actor. I found this rather curious and watched him specifically on TV in unscripted scenarios to form my own impression as to how such a person, with supposedly limited abilities, could possibly run for President of the US. I get a bit suspicious when organisations and individuals protest and ridicule too much.

    My reaction was that he handled himself well and gradually concluded that the mainly Eastern liberal press in the US couldn't really stomach a California actor since they themselves were meant to know everything. He actually was pretty well read ( visitors were later astonished to read his multiple annotations in heavy weight books in his library). He was a clever and astute union negotiator dealing with some of the toughest Hollywood moguls who would eat most negotiators for dinner. He had become Governor of California and had done a fine job. I thought it was unlikely he was the simpleton many portrayed. He couldn't be easily categorised as he embraced many good aspects of the Democrats and the Republicans. Life wasn't so polarised then.

    The US had left leaning Republicans and right wing Democrats. A political party as Churchill noted was simply a charger to ride into action.

    In my view, his presidential record was pretty remarkable. A charming, fair minded charismatic man without the advantage of a wealthy background or influential family. The world was lucky to have him.

    raffine -> particle 19 Sep 2015 10:50

    Reagan's second term was a disaster. But as someone below mentioned, conservative pundits and their financers engaged in a campaign to make Reagan into a right-wing FDR. The most effective, albeit bogus, claim on Reagan's behalf was that he had ended the Cold War.

    jpsartreny 19 Sep 2015 14:22

    Reagan is the shadow governments greatest triumph. After the adolescent Kennedy, egomaniacs Johnson and Nixon , they needed front guys who followed orders instead .

    The experiment with the peanut farmer from Georgia provided disastrous to Zebrew Brzezinski and the liberals. The conservatives had better luck with a B- movie actor with an great talent to read of the teleprompter.

    RealSoothsayer -> semper12 19 Sep 2015 14:19

    How? By talking? Gobachev brought down the USSR with his 'Glasnost' and 'Perestroika' policies. His vision was what communist China later on achieved: mixed economy that flies a red flag. Reagan was just an observer, absolutely nothing more. Tito of Yugoslavia was even more instrumental.

    Marc Herlands 19 Sep 2015 14:17

    IMHO Reagan was the second most successful president, behind FDR and ahead of LBJ. Not that I liked anything about him, but he moved this country to the right and set the play book. He lowered taxes on the wealthy, the corporations, capital gains, and estate taxes. He reduced growth in programs for the poor, and made it impossible to increase their funding after his presidency because of he left huge federal deficits caused by lowering taxes and increasing outlays on the military. This Republican playbook still is their way of making sure that the Democrats can't give the poor more money after they lose power. Also, he enlarged the program for deregulating industries, doing away with antitrust laws, hindering labor laws, encouraged anti-union behavior, and did nothing for AIDS research. He was a scoundrel who did a deal with Iran to prevent Carter from being re-elected. He directly disobeyed Congressional laws not to intervene in Nicaragua. He set the tone for US interventions after him.


    bloggod 19 Sep 2015 14:17

    Obama, Clinton, and the Bushes all hope to be forgiven for their unpardonable crimes.

    Popularity is created. It is not populism, or informed consent of the pubic as approval for more of the same collusion.

    It is a One Party hoe down.

    bloggod -> SigmetSue 19 Sep 2015 14:12

    "they"

    the indicted Sec of Defense Weinberger; the indicted head of the CIA Casey who "died" as he was due to testify: Mcfarlane, Abrams, Clair George, Oilyver North, Richard Secord, Albert Hakim

    Reagan had no genius, he had Bush-CIA and the Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, and the "immoral majority" of anti-abortion war profiteers.


    Marios Antoniou Lattimore 19 Sep 2015 13:52

    I agree with everything you mentioned, and I intensely dislike Reagan YET the point of the article wasn't that Reagan was good, it rather points to the fact that Republicans have shifted so far to the right that Reagan would appear moderate compared to the current batch.

    Rainer Jansohn pretzelattack 19 Sep 2015 13:52

    Interesting had been his speeches during the Cold War.Scientists have subsumed it under "Social Religion",a special form of political theology.Simple dialectical:UDSSR the incarnation of the evil/hell on the other side USA :the country of God himself.A tradition in USA working until now.There is no separation between government and church as in good old centuries sincetwo centuries resulting from enlightening per Philosophie/Voltaire/Kant/Hume/Descartes and so on.Look at Obamas speeches/God is always mixed in!

    talenttruth 19 Sep 2015 13:49

    Any conversation about who the fantasy-projection "Reagan" was, misses an important reality: He was a hologram, fabricated by a kaleidoscope of various sorts of so-called "conservative" handlers and puppeteers. It was those "puppeteers" who ranged from heartlessly, stunningly "conservative" (destroya-tive), all the way further right to the kind of militaristic, macho, crackpots who have finally emerged from under their rocks at this year's "candidates."

    The fact that Reagan was going ga-ga – definitely in his second term, and likely for part of the first – was entirely convenient for his Non-Human-Based-Crackpot-Right-Holographers, since he had was not actually "driven" to vacuousness by a tragic mental condition (dementia) – THAT change was merely a "short putt" – from his entire previous life.

    Regarding his Great Achievement, the collapse of the Soviet Union? After decades of monstrous over-spending by the USA's Military-Industrial-Complex, the bogus and equally insane USSR finally bankrupted itself trying to "compete" and fell. Reagan (and his puppeteer handlers), always excellent at Taking Credit for anything, showed up with exquisite cynical timing, and indeed Took Credit.

    Lest anyone forget, Reagan got elected in 1980, via a totally illegal and stunningly immoral "side deal" with the Iranians, in which they agreed to not release our hostages to make Carter look like a feeble old man. Then we got Reagan who WAS a "feeble old man" (ESPECIALLY intellectually and morally). Reagan "won," the hostages were "released" and he of course took credit for that too.

    So all these so-called "candidates" ARE the heirs of all the very worst of Ronald Reagan: they are all simpleminded, they are totally beholden to Hidden Sociopathic Billionaires hiding behind various curtains, and they all have NO CLUE what the word "ethics" means. Vacuous, anti-intellectual, scheming, appealing only to morons, and puppets all. Perfect "Reaganites."

    Bill Ehrhorn -> semper12 19 Sep 2015 13:32

    It seems that the teabaggers and their ilk give only Reagan credit.

    SigmetSue 19 Sep 2015 13:16

    They called him the Teflon President because nothing ever stuck. It still doesn't. That was his genius -- and I'm no fan.


    Lattimore 19 Sep 2015 13:13

    The article seems to present Reagan as an theatrical figure. I disagree. Reagan, President of the United States, was a criminal; as such, he was among the most corrupt and anti democratic person to hold the office POTUS. The fact that he tripled the national debt, raised taxes and skewed the tax schedules to benifit the wealthy, are comparitively minor.
    ,,,
    Reagan's crimes and anti democratic acts:
    1. POTUS: CIA smuggling cocaine into the U.S., passing the drug to wholesalers, who then processed the drug and distributed crack to Black communities. At the same time Reagan's "War on Crime" insured that the Black youth who bought "Central Intelligenc Agencie's" cocaine were criminalized and handed lengthy prison sentences.
    2. POTUS supported SOUTH AMERICAN terrorist, and the genocidal atrocities commited by terrorist in Chili, Guatamala, El Mazote, etc.
    3. POTUS supported SOUTH AFRICAN apartheid, and the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela as well. Vetoing a bill that would express condemnation of South Africa.
    4. POTUS sold Arms to Iran.
    5. POTUS used taxpayer dollars to influence election outcomes.
    6. POTUS rigged government grants to enrich his cronies.
    7. POTUS thew mental patients onto the streets.
    8. POTUS supported McCarthyism, witch hunts, etc.
    9. POTUS created and supported Islamic terrorist--fore runners of al Queada, ISIS, etc.

    Niko2 LostintheUS 19 Sep 2015 13:12

    I don't have much love for Nancy, but she did not break up this marriage, to be fair. And she actually got rid off the extreme right wingers in Reagan's administration, like Haig and Regan, whom she called "extra chromosome republicans". Surely she was a vain and greedy flotus with no empathy whatsoever for people not in her Bel Air circles (I can easily imagine her, "Do I really have to go and see these Aids-Babies, I'd rather shop at Rodeo Drive, lose the scheduler") but she realized at an early stage that hubbies shtick-it-to-the-commies policies would do him no favour. Maybe she's the unsung heroine of his presidency.

    tommydog -> MtnClimber 19 Sep 2015 13:04

    The principle subsidies to big oil are probably the strategic oil reserve and subsidies to low income people for winter heating oil. You can choose which of those you'd like to cut. After that you're arguing about whether exploration costs should be expensed in the year incurred or capitalized and amortized over time.

    WilliamK 19 Sep 2015 13:03

    He was one of J Edgar Hoover's red baiting fascist admiring boys along with Richard Nixon and Walt Disney used to destroy the labor unions, control the propaganda machine of Hollywood and used to knuckle under the television networks and undermine as much as possible the New Deal polices of Franklin Roosevelt. An actor groomed by the General Electric Corporation and their fellow travelers. "Living better through electricity" was his mantra and he played the role of President to push forward their right wing agenda. Now we are in new stage in our "political development" in America. The era of the "reality television star" with Hollywood in bed with the military industrial complex, selling guns, violence and sex to the fool hardy and their children and prime time television ads push pharmaceutical drugs, children hear warnings of four hour erections, pop-stars flash their tits and asses and a billionaire takes center stage as the media cashes in and goes along for the ride. Yeah Ronnie was a second tier film star and with his little starlet Nancy by his side become one of America's greatest salesman.


    Backbutton 19 Sep 2015 12:57

    LOL! Reagan was a walking script renderer, with lines written by others, and a phony because he was just acting the part of POTUS. His speeches were all crafted, and he had good writers.

    He was no Abraham Lincoln.

    And now these morons running for office all want to rub off his "great communicator" fix.

    Good help America!

    Milwaukee Broad 19 Sep 2015 12:49

    Ronald Reagan was an actor whom the depressingly overwhelming majority of American voters thought was a messiah. They so believed in him that they re-elected him to a second term. Nothing positive whatsoever became of his administration, yet he is still worshiped by millions of lost souls (conservatives).

    Have a nice day.


    Michael Williams 19 Sep 2015 12:48

    The US was the world's leading creditor when Reagan took office. The US was the world's leading debtor by the time Bush 1 was tossed out of office.

    This is what Republicans cannot seem to remember.

    All of the other scandals pale in comparison, even as we deal with the blowback from most of these original, idiotic policies.

    Reagan was an actor, mouthing words he barely understood, especially as his dementia progressed.

    This is the exact reason the history is so poorly taught in the US.
    People might make connections....

    Jessica Roth 19 Sep 2015 12:46

    Oh, he had holes in his brain long before the dementia. "Facts are stupid things", trees cause pollution, and so on.

    A pathetic turncoat who sold out his original party (the one that kept his dad in work throughout the Great Depression via a series of WPA jobs) because Nancy allegedly "gave the best head in Hollywood" and who believed that only 144,000 people were going to Heaven, presumably accounting for his uncaring treatment of the less-well-off.

    His administration was full of corruption, from Richard Allen's $1000 in an envelope (and three wristwatches) that he claimed was an inappropriate gift for Mrs. Reagan he had "intercepted" and then "forgotten" to report to William Casey trading over $3,000,000 worth of stocks while CIA director. (Knowing about changes in the oil market ahead of time sure came in handy.) You had an attorney general who took a $50,000 "severance payment" (never done before) from the board of a corporation he resigned from to avoid conflict of interest charges and this was William French Smith; his successor, Edwin Meese, was the one with real scandals (about the sale of his home).

    Hell, Reagan himself put his ranch hand (Dennis LeBlanc) on the federal payroll as an "advisor" to the Commerce Department. I didn't know the Commerce Dept needed "advice" on clearing wood from St. Ronnie's ranch, but LeBlanc got a $58,500 salary out of the deal. (Roughly Ł98,000 at today's prices.) Nice work if you can get it.

    Meanwhile, RR "talked tough" at the Soviets (resulting in the world nearly ending in 1983 due to a false alarm about a US nuclear attack) while propping up any rightwing dictator they could find, from the South African racists to Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos (after they had Aquino assassinated at the airport) to Roberto "Death Squad" D'Aubuisson in El Salvador (the man who masterminded the assassination of Archbishop Romero while he was performing Mass).

    Oh, and while Carter did a nice job of shooting himself in the foot, Reagan benefited in the election not only from his treasonous dealings with the Iranian hostage-takers (shades of Nixon making a deal with North Viet Nam to stall the peace talks until after the 1968 elections, promising them better terms) but through more pedestrian means such as his campaign's stealing of Carter's briefing book for the campaign's only debate, Reagan being coached for the debate by a supposedly neutral journalist (George Will, of ABC and The Washington Post), who then went on television afterwards (in the days when there were only three commercial channels) and "analysed" how successful Reagan had been in executing his "game plan" and seeming "Presidential" without either Will or ABC bothering to mention that Will had coached Reagan and designed the "game plan" in question. The "liberal bias" in the media, no doubt.

    Always a joke, only looking slightly better by the dross that has followed him. (Including Bill "Third Way" Clinton and his over-Ł50,000,000 in post-Presidential "speaking fees" graft, and Barack Obama, drone-murderer of children in over a dozen countries and serial-summary-executioner of U.S. citizens. When Gordon-effing-Brown is the best that's held office on either side of the Atlantic since 1979, you can see how this planet is in the state it's in.)

    pretzelattack DukeofMelbourne 19 Sep 2015 12:45

    his stand on russia was inconsistent, and he didn't cause it to collapse. his economic programs were a failure. his foreign policy generally a disaster. he set the blueprint for the current mess.


    pretzelattack semper12 19 Sep 2015 12:38

    a total crock. reagan let murdering thugs run rampant as long as they paid lip service to democracy, the world over from africa to central america. the ussr watched this coward put 240 marines to die in lebanon, and then cut and run, exactly the pattern he was so ready to condemn as treason in others, and was so ready to portray as showing weakness, and you think the ussr was terrified of him. he was a hollywood actor playing a role, and you bought it.


    Tycho1961 19 Sep 2015 12:13

    No President exists in a political vacuum. While he was in office, Reagan had a large Democrat majority in the House of Representatives and a small Republican majority in the Senate. The Supreme Court was firmly liberal. Whatever his political agenda Reagan knew he had to constructively engage with people of both parties that were in opposition to him. If he didn't he would suffer the same fate as Carter, marginalized by even his own party. His greatest strength was as a negotiator. Reagan's greatest failures were when he tried to be clever and he and his advisors were found to be rather ham handed about it.


    RichardNYC 19 Sep 2015 11:57

    The principal legacy of Ronald Reagan is the still prevalent view that corporate interests supersede individual interests.


    Harry Haff 19 Sep 2015 11:45

    Reagan did many horrible things while in office, committed felonies and supported murderous regimes in Central America that murdered tens of thousands of people with the blessing of the US chief executive. he sold arms to Iran and despoiled the natural environment whenever possible. But given those horrendous accomplishments, he could not now get a seat at the table with the current GOP. He would be considered a RINO, that most stupid and inaccurate term, at best, and a closet liberal somewhere down the line. The current GOP is more to the right than the politicians in the South after the Civil War.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Much-disputed Iranian nuclear bomb

    An interesting warning about possible return of neocons in Hillary administration. Looks like not much changed in Washington from 2005 and Obama more and more looks like Bush III. Both Hillary and Trump are jingoistic toward Iran. Paradoxically Trump is even more jingoistic then Hillary.
    Notable quotes:
    "... That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal. ..."
    "... And not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier by Ira Chernus on a graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and still viewable ). ..."
    "... Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective, and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium, generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues for their insights and suggestions." ..."
    "... What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. ..."
    "... In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs. From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director of national intelligence. ..."
    "... Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of déjŕ vu . They are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement. ..."
    "... So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago. Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well, you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped. ..."
    Sep 22, 2005 | www.washingtonpost.com
    That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal.

    As Los Angeles Times reporter Douglas Frantz wrote at one point, "Though Israel is a democracy, debating the nuclear program is taboo A military censor guards Israel's nuclear secrets." And this "taboo" has largely extended to American reporting on the subject. Imagine, to offer a very partial analogy, if we all had had to consider the Cold War nuclear issue with the Soviet, but almost never the American nuclear arsenal, in the news. Of course, that would have been absurd and yet it's the case in the Middle East today, making most strategic discussions of the region exercises in absurdity.

    I wrote about this subject under the title, Nuclear Israel , back in October 2003, because of a brief break, thanks to Frantz, in the media blackout on the subject. I began then, "Nuclear North Korea, nuclear Iraq, nuclear Iran - of these our media has been full for the last year or more, though they either don't exist or hardly yet exist. North Korea now probably has a couple of crude nuclear weapons, which it may still be incapable of delivering. But nuclear Israel, little endangered Israel? It's hard even to get your head around the concept, though that country has either the fifth or sixth largest nuclear arsenal in the world." And not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier by Ira Chernus on a graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and still viewable ).

    Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective, and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium, generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues for their insights and suggestions." Now, read on. ~ Tom

    Attacking Iran: I Know It Sounds Crazy, But...

    By Ray McGovern

    "'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.'

    "(Short pause)

    "'And having said that, all options are on the table.'

    "Even the White House stenographers felt obliged to note the result: '(Laughter).'"

    ( The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin on George Bush's February 22 press conference)

    For a host of good reasons -- the huge and draining commitment of U.S. forces to Iraq and Iran's ability to stir the Iraqi pot to boiling, for starters -- the notion that the Bush administration would mount a "preemptive" air attack on Iran seems insane. And still more insane if the objective includes overthrowing Iran's government again, as in 1953 -- this time under the rubric of "regime change."

    But Bush administration policy toward the Middle East is being run by men -- yes, only men -- who were routinely referred to in high circles in Washington during the 1980s as "the crazies." I can attest to that personally, but one need not take my word for it.

    According to James Naughtie, author of The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency , former Secretary of State Colin Powell added an old soldier's adjective to the "crazies" sobriquet in referring to the same officials. Powell, who was military aide to Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger in the early eighties, was overheard calling them "the f---ing crazies" during a phone call with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw before the war in Iraq. At the time, Powell was reportedly deeply concerned over their determination to attack -- with or without UN approval. Small wonder that they got rid of Powell after the election, as soon as they had no more use for him.

    If further proof of insanity were needed, one could simply look at the unnecessary carnage in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003. That unprovoked attack was, in my view, the most fateful foreign policy blunder in our nation's history...so far.

    It Can Get Worse

    "The crazies" are not finished. And we do well not to let their ultimate folly obscure their current ambition, and the further trouble that ambition is bound to bring in the four years ahead. In an immediate sense, with U.S. military power unrivaled, they can be seen as "crazy like a fox," with a value system in which "might makes right." Operating out of that value system, and now sporting the more respectable misnomer/moniker "neoconservative," they are convinced that they know exactly what they are doing. They have a clear ideology and a geopolitical strategy, which leap from papers they put out at the Project for the New American Century over recent years.

    The very same men who, acting out of that paradigm, brought us the war in Iraq are now focusing on Iran, which they view as the only remaining obstacle to American domination of the entire oil-rich Middle East. They calculate that, with a docile, corporate-owned press, a co-opted mainstream church, and a still-trusting populace, the United States and/or the Israelis can launch a successful air offensive to disrupt any Iranian nuclear weapons programs -- with the added bonus of possibly causing the regime in power in Iran to crumble.

    But why now? After all, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency has just told Congress that Iran is not likely to have a nuclear weapon until "early in the next decade?" The answer, according to some defense experts, is that several of the Iranian facilities are still under construction and there is only a narrow "window of opportunity" to destroy them without causing huge environmental problems. That window, they say, will begin to close this year.

    Other analysts attribute the sense of urgency to worry in Washington that the Iranians may have secretly gained access to technology that would facilitate a leap forward into the nuclear club much sooner than now anticipated. And it is, of course, neoconservative doctrine that it is best to nip -- the word in current fashion is "preempt" -- any conceivable threats in the bud. One reason the Israelis are pressing hard for early action may simply be out of a desire to ensure that George W. Bush will have a few more years as president after an attack on Iran, so that they will have him to stand with Israel when bedlam breaks out in the Middle East.

    What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. For me, this evokes a painful flashback to the early eighties when "intelligence," pointing to "moderates" within the Iranian leadership, was conjured up to help justify the imaginative but illegal arms-for-hostages-and-proceeds-to-Nicaraguan-Contras caper. The fact that the conjurer-in-chief of that spurious "evidence" on Iranian "moderates," former chief CIA analyst, later director Robert Gates, was recently offered the newly created position of director of national intelligence makes the flashback more eerie -- and alarming.

    George H. W. Bush Saw Through "The Crazies"

    During his term in office, George H. W. Bush, with the practical advice of his national security adviser Gen. Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State James Baker, was able to keep "the crazies" at arms length, preventing them from getting the country into serious trouble. They were kept well below the level of "principal" -- that is, below the level of secretary of state or defense.

    Even so, heady in the afterglow of victory in the Gulf War of 1990, "the crazies" stirred up considerable controversy when they articulated their radical views. Their vision, for instance, became the centerpiece of the draft "Defense Planning Guidance" that Paul Wolfowitz, de facto dean of the neoconservatives, prepared in 1992 for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. It dismissed deterrence as an outdated relic of the Cold War and argued that the United States must maintain military strength beyond conceivable challenge -- and use it in preemptive ways in dealing with those who might acquire "weapons of mass destruction." Sound familiar?

    Aghast at this radical imperial strategy for the post-Cold War world, someone with access to the draft leaked it to the New York Times , forcing President George H. W. Bush either to endorse or disavow it. Disavow it he did -- and quickly, on the cooler-head recommendations of Scowcroft and Baker, who proved themselves a bulwark against the hubris and megalomania of "the crazies." Unfortunately, their vision did not die. No less unfortunately, there is method to their madness -- even if it threatens to spell eventual disaster for our country. Empires always overreach and fall.

    The Return of the Neocons

    In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs. From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director of national intelligence.

    Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of déjŕ vu . They are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement.

    Why dwell on this? Because it is second in importance only to the portentous reality that the earth is running out of readily accessible oil – something of which they are all too aware. Not surprisingly then, disguised beneath the weapons-of-mass-destruction smokescreen they laid down as they prepared to invade Iraq lay an unspoken but bedrock reason for the war -- oil. In any case, the neocons seem to believe that, in the wake of the November election, they now have a carte-blanche "mandate." And with the president's new "capital to spend," they appear determined to spend it, sooner rather than later.

    Next Stop, Iran

    When a Special Forces platoon leader just back from Iraq matter-of-factly tells a close friend of mine, as happened last week, that he and his unit are now training their sights (literally) on Iran, we need to take that seriously. It provides us with a glimpse of reality as seen at ground level. For me, it brought to mind an unsolicited email I received from the father of a young soldier training at Fort Benning in the spring of 2002, soon after I wrote an op-ed discussing the timing of George W. Bush's decision to make war on Iraq. The father informed me that, during the spring of 2002, his son kept writing home saying his unit was training to go into Iraq. No, said the father; you mean Afghanistan... that's where the war is, not Iraq. In his next email, the son said, "No, Dad, they keep saying Iraq. I asked them and that's what they mean."

    Now, apparently, they keep saying Iran ; and that appears to be what they mean.

    Anecdotal evidence like this is hardly conclusive. Put it together with administration rhetoric and a preponderance of other "dots," though, and everything points in the direction of an air attack on Iran, possibly also involving some ground forces. Indeed, from the New Yorker reports of Seymour Hersh to Washington Post articles , accounts of small-scale American intrusions on the ground as well as into Iranian airspace are appearing with increasing frequency. In a speech given on February 18, former UN arms inspector and Marine officer Scott Ritter (who was totally on target before the Iraq War on that country's lack of weapons of mass destruction) claimed that the president has already "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June in order to destroy its alleged nuclear weapons program and eventually bring about "regime change." This does not necessarily mean an automatic green light for a large attack in June, but it may signal the president's seriousness about this option.

    So, again, against the background of what we have witnessed over the past four years, and the troubling fact that the circle of second-term presidential advisers has become even tighter, we do well to inject a strong note of urgency into any discussion of the "Iranian option."

    Why Would Iran Want Nukes?

    So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago. Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well, you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped.

    Recovering quickly and realizing that he could not just leave the word "Israel" hanging there, Lugar began again: "Well, Israel is alleged to have a nuclear capability."

    Is alleged to have ? Lugar is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and yet he doesn't know that Israel has, by most estimates, a major nuclear arsenal, consisting of several hundred nuclear weapons? (Mainstream newspapers are allergic to dwelling on this topic, but it is mentioned every now and then, usually buried in obscurity on an inside page.)

    Just imagine how the Iranians and Syrians would react to Lugar's disingenuousness. Small wonder our highest officials and lawmakers -- and Lugar, remember, is one of the most decent among them -- are widely seen abroad as hypocritical. Our media, of course, ignore the hypocrisy. This is standard operating procedure when the word "Israel" is spoken in this or other unflattering contexts. And the objections of those appealing for a more balanced approach are quashed.

    If the truth be told, Iran fears Israel at least as much as Israel fears the internal security threat posed by the thugs supported by Tehran. Iran's apprehension is partly fear that Israel (with at least tacit support from the Bush administration) will send its aircraft to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, just as American-built Israeli bombers destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981. As part of the current war of nerves, recent statements by the president and vice president can be read as giving a green light to Israel to do just that; while Israeli Air Force commander Major General Eliezer Shakedi told reporters on February 21 that Israel must be prepared for an air strike on Iran "in light of its nuclear activity."

    US-Israel Nexus

    The Iranians also remember how Israel was able to acquire and keep its nuclear technology. Much of it was stolen from the United States by spies for Israel. As early as the late-1950s, Washington knew Israel was building the bomb and could have aborted the project. Instead, American officials decided to turn a blind eye and let the Israelis go ahead. Now Israel's nuclear capability is truly formidable. Still, it is a fact of strategic life that a formidable nuclear arsenal can be deterred by a far more modest one, if an adversary has the means to deliver it. (Look at North Korea's success with, at best, a few nuclear weapons and questionable means of delivery in deterring the "sole remaining superpower in the world.") And Iran already has missiles with the range to hit Israel.

    Israeli Prime Minister Sharon has for some time appeared eager to enlist Washington's support for an early "pre-emptive" strike on Iran. Indeed, American defense officials have told reporters that visiting Israeli officials have been pressing the issue for the past year and a half. And the Israelis are now claiming publicly that Iran could have a nuclear weapon within six months -- years earlier than the Defense Intelligence Agency estimate mentioned above.

    In the past, President Bush has chosen to dismiss unwelcome intelligence estimates as "guesses" -- especially when they threatened to complicate decisions to implement the neoconservative agenda. It is worth noting that several of the leading neocons – Richard Perle, chair of the Defense Policy Board (2001-03); Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and David Wurmser, Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney -- actually wrote policy papers for the Israeli government during the 1990s. They have consistently had great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel and those of the US -- at least as they imagine them.

    As for President Bush, over the past four years he has amply demonstrated his preference for the counsel of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who, as Gen. Scowcroft said publicly , has the president "wrapped around his little finger." (As Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board until he was unceremoniously removed at the turn of the year, Scowcroft was in a position to know.) If Scowcroft is correct in also saying that the president has been "mesmerized" by Sharon, it seems possible that the Israelis already have successfully argued for an attack on Iran.

    When "Regime Change" Meant Overthrow For Oil

    To remember why the United States is no favorite in Tehran, one needs to go back at least to 1953 when the U.S. and Great Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Premier Mohammad Mossadeq as part of a plan to insure access to Iranian oil. They then emplaced the young Shah in power who, with his notorious secret police, proved second to none in cruelty. The Shah ruled from 1953 to 1979. Much resentment can build up over a whole generation. His regime fell like a house of cards, when supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini rose up to do some regime change of their own.

    Iranians also remember Washington's strong support for Saddam Hussein's Iraq after it decided to make war on Iran in 1980. U.S. support for Iraq (which included crucial intelligence support for the war and an implicit condoning of Saddam's use of chemical weapons) was perhaps the crucial factor in staving off an Iranian victory. Imagine then, the threat Iranians see, should the Bush administration succeed in establishing up to 14 permanent military bases in neighboring Iraq. Any Iranian can look at a map of the Middle East (including occupied Iraq) and conclude that this administration might indeed be willing to pay the necessary price in blood and treasure to influence what happens to the black gold under Iranian as well as Iraqi sands. And with four more years to play with, a lot can be done along those lines. The obvious question is: How to deter it? Well, once again, Iran can hardly be blind to the fact that a small nation like North Korea has so far deterred U.S. action by producing, or at least claiming to have produced, nuclear weapons.

    Nuclear Is the Nub

    The nuclear issue is indeed paramount, and we would do well to imagine and craft fresh approaches to the nub of the problem. As a start, I'll bet if you made a survey, only 20% of Americans would answer "yes" to the question, "Does Israel have nuclear weapons?" That is key, it seems to me, because at their core Americans are still fair-minded people.

    On the other hand, I'll bet that 95% of the Iranian population would answer, "Of course Israel has nuclear weapons; that's why we Iranians need them" -- which was, of course, the unmentionable calculation that Senator Lugar almost conceded. "And we also need them," many Iranians would probably say, "in order to deter 'the crazies' in Washington. It seems to be working for the North Koreans, who, after all, are the other remaining point on President Bush's 'axis of evil.'"

    The ideal approach would, of course, be to destroy all nuclear weapons in the world and ban them for the future, with a very intrusive global inspection regime to verify compliance. A total ban is worth holding up as an ideal, and I think we must. But this approach seems unlikely to bear fruit over the next four years. So what then?

    A Nuclear-Free Middle East

    How about a nuclear-free Middle East? Could the US make that happen? We could if we had moral clarity -- the underpinning necessary to bring it about. Each time this proposal is raised, the Syrians, for example, clap their hands in feigned joyful anticipation, saying, "Of course such a pact would include Israel, right?" The issue is then dropped from all discussion by U.S. policymakers. Required: not only moral clarity but also what Thomas Aquinas labeled the precondition for all virtue, courage. In this context, courage would include a refusal to be intimidated by inevitable charges of anti-Semitism.

    The reality is that, except for Israel, the Middle East is nuclear free. But the discussion cannot stop there. It is not difficult to understand why the first leaders of Israel, with the Holocaust experience written indelibly on their hearts and minds, and feeling surrounded by perceived threats to the fledgling state's existence, wanted the bomb. And so, before the Syrians or Iranians, for example, get carried away with self-serving applause for the nuclear-free Middle East proposal, they will have to understand that for any such negotiation to succeed it must have as a concomitant aim the guarantee of an Israel able to live in peace and protect itself behind secure borders. That guarantee has got to be part of the deal.

    That the obstacles to any such agreement are formidable is no excuse not trying. But the approach would have to be new and everything would have to be on the table. Persisting in a state of denial about Israel's nuclear weapons is dangerously shortsighted; it does nothing but aggravate fears among the Arabs and create further incentive for them to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.

    A sensible approach would also have to include a willingness to engage the Iranians directly, attempt to understand their perspective, and discern what the United States and Israel could do to alleviate their concerns.

    Preaching to Iran and others about not acquiring nuclear weapons is, indeed, like the village drunk preaching sobriety -- the more so as our government keeps developing new genres of nuclear weapons and keeps looking the other way as Israel enhances its own nuclear arsenal. Not a pretty moral picture, that. Indeed, it reminds me of the Scripture passage about taking the plank out of your own eye before insisting that the speck be removed from another's.

    Lessons from the Past...Like Mutual Deterrence

    Has everyone forgotten that deterrence worked for some 40 years, while for most of those years the U.S. and the USSR had not by any means lost their lust for ever-enhanced nuclear weapons? The point is simply that, while engaging the Iranians bilaterally and searching for more imaginative nuclear-free proposals, the U.S. might adopt a more patient interim attitude regarding the striving of other nation states to acquire nuclear weapons -- bearing in mind that the Bush administration's policies of "preemption" and "regime change" themselves create powerful incentives for exactly such striving. As was the case with Iraq two years ago, there is no imminent Iranian strategic threat to Americans -- or, in reality, to anyone. Even if Iran acquired a nuclear capability, there is no reason to believe that it would risk a suicidal first strike on Israel. That, after all, is what mutual deterrence is all about; it works both ways.

    It is nonetheless clear that the Israelis' sense of insecurity -- however exaggerated it may seem to those of us thousands of miles away -- is not synthetic but real. The Sharon government appears to regard its nuclear monopoly in the region as the only effective "deterrence insurance" it can buy. It is determined to prevent its neighbors from acquiring the kind of capability that could infringe on the freedom it now enjoys to carry out military and other actions in the area. Government officials have said that Israel will not let Iran acquire a nuclear weapon; it would be folly to dismiss this as bravado. The Israelis have laid down a marker and mean to follow through -- unless the Bush administration assumes the attitude that "preemption" is an acceptable course for the United States but not for Israel. It seems unlikely that the neoconservatives would take that line. Rather

    "Israel Is Our Ally."

    Or so said our president before the cameras on February 17, 2005. But I didn't think we had a treaty of alliance with Israel; I don't remember the Senate approving one. Did I miss something?

    Clearly, the longstanding U.S.-Israeli friendship and the ideals we share dictate continuing support for Israel's defense and security. It is quite another thing, though, to suggest the existence of formal treaty obligations that our country does not have. To all intents and purposes, our policymakers -- from the president on down -- seem to speak and behave on the assumption that we do have such obligations toward Israel. A former colleague CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris , has put it this way: "The Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight the ropes binding the American Gulliver to Israel and its policies."

    An earlier American warned:

    "A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.... It also gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, who devote themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country." ( George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796 )

    In my view, our first president's words apply only too aptly to this administration's lash-up with the Sharon government. As responsible citizens we need to overcome our timidity about addressing this issue, lest our fellow Americans continue to be denied important information neglected or distorted in our domesticated media.

    Ray McGovern served as a CIA analyst for 27 years -- from the administration of John F. Kennedy to that of George H. W. Bush. During the early 1980s, he was one of the writers/editors of the President's Daily Brief and briefed it one-on-one to the president's most senior advisers. He also chaired National Intelligence Estimates. In January 2003, he and four former colleagues founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

    Copyright 2005 Ray McGovern

    [Dec 04, 2016] Chilcot: Intelligence reports confirm Iraq war created ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... " It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations. " ..."
    "... A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). " ..."
    "... " They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. " ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Intelligence reports examined and now released by the Chilcot inquiry appear to confirm Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) was created by the Iraq war, a view now apparently backed by Britain's Tory Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. The reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), which were previously classified, tell the story of the security services' increasing concern that the war and occupation was fuelling ever more extremism in Iraq.

    The evidence also appears to debunk repeated claims by former PM Tony Blair that IS began in the Syrian civil war and not Iraq, positioning the brutal group's rise clearly within Iraq's borders.

    The Chilcot findings were backed up Thursday by serving Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond. He told The Foreign Affairs Committee " many of the problems we see in Iraq today stem from that disastrous decision to dismantle the Iraqi army and embark on a program of de-Baathification ."

    " That was the big mistake of post-conflict planning. If we had gone a different way afterwards we might have been able to see a different outcome, " he said.

    Hammond conceded that many members of Saddam's armed forces today filled top roles in IS.

    " It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations. "

    The documents show that by 2006 – three years into the occupation – UK intelligence chiefs were increasingly concerned about the rise of Sunni jihadist resistance to the Western-backed regime of Shia President Nouri Al-Maliki.

    A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). "

    Many leading Al-Qaeda figures had been pro-regime Baathists and members of the former Iraqi Army disbanded by the occupation. They are broadly accepted to have later formed the basis for IS.

    The report describes AQ-I as being " in the vanguard. "

    " Its strategic main effort is the prosecution of a sectarian campaign designed to drag Iraq into civil war " at the head of a number of other Sunni militia groups.

    " We judge its campaign has been the most effective of any insurgent group, having significant impact in the past year, and poses the greatest immediate threat to stability in Iraq. The tempo of mass-casualty attacks on predominantly Shia targets has been relentless, " the spies argue.

    Chillingly, an earlier report from 2006 appears to echo some of the realizations made late in the Vietnam War that there were also strong elements of nationalism driving the insurgency.

    " They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. "

    The reports appear to suggest that the conditions also somewhat echo the Afghanistan war, which by that time was already underway, in that the anti-coalition forces displayed a mix of ideological and economic drivers to resist the occupation.

    " Their motivation is mixed: some are Islamist extremists inspired by the AQ agenda, others are simply hired hands attracted by the money, " the spies warn.

    The religious sectarianism involved, however, was distinctly Iraqi and reflected the power battle between the deposed Sunni forces and the US-installed Shia regime which replaced it.

    They also appeared to believe that AQ-I was composed of local and not, as was claimed at the time, foreign fighters.

    " We judge Al-Qaida in Iraq is the largest single insurgent network and although its leadership retains a strong foreign element, a large majority of its fighters are Iraqi.

    " Some are drawn in by the opportunity to take on Shia militias: the jihadists' media effort stresses their role as defenders of the Sunni ," the report concludes.

    Prophetically, even before IS began to germinate in Iraq, one now-declassified Foreign Office memo from January 2003 warned "all the evidence from the region suggests that coalition forces will not be seen as liberators for long, if at all. Our motives are regarded with huge suspicion. "

    AHHA -> Blue Car 7 Jul

    No there was a documentary on the rise of IS months ago on Dutch television coming to the same conclusion. Kicking all Baath party members (all Sunni people) out of the army, leaving only Shiite in created IS. Baath militairy specialists did it out of revenge. One former high Baath militairy officer even went up to the room of the American leadership on Irak to tell him that if they would kick Baath people out he would have no other option than to start fighting America. Because what would all those people have to live of. And they did not just kick them out of the army but out of all government posts. But the Americans and making one group less equal to another by treating them different, does that ring any bells. ?
    AHHA -> Blue Car 8 Jul
    It was not Fox, I loath them. It was a well built Dutch documentary not praising the Americans for a change but being real True, together with Bush and the rest of their accomplices, of the most horrific mass killings based on lies (more than a million innocent people have perished because of their deceitful actions)! We should all demand Justice for the sake of humanity, and also because it is the only way to deter feature self-righteous leaders like them from leading our world to more blood sheds and catastrophic destructions! No one should be above the law!
    Blue Scissors -> Red Snow 7 Jul
    No, Bush and Cheney are the biggest terrorist. Blair just followed behind them, like a sheep.
    Linx 7 Jul
    Its clear that the U.S. government was the instigator of the war in Iraq based on 911and WMD. Blair in his ambition to reached the top lied to his parliament because there is noway they did not have the intelligence there not WMDs. In a stunning but little-known speech from 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark claims America underwent a "policy coup" at the time of the 9/11 attacks. In this video, he reveals that, right after 9/11, he was privy to information contained in a classified memo: US plans to attack and remove governments in seven countries over five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. He was told: "We learned that we can use our military without being challenged . We've got about five years to clean up the Soviet client regimes before another superpower comes along and challenges us." "This was a policy coup these people took control of policy in the United States. The interview is still available in the internet.
    Orange Tag 7 Jul
    What I want to be informed about is the ICC court date set for Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the generals ordering the killings of innocent people in Iraq. It's time for the west to wake up and provide all and every help that Syrian legitimate government needs, and for west to stop the support of Saudis, Qatari and others alike regimes whom are the providers and are state sponsors of terrorism as Isis and others a like called " "moderates terrorist". Look you fly the Emirates you pay for the costs of their terrorism in Middle East.
    keghamminas 7 Jul Edited
    Very true about the blind destructive policy of the US-Nato that should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq .The same faults are committed now against Syria and it's legal government ; the total destruction of this country will lead to more anarchy and new terrorist movements as what's happenning in Iraq. All the puppets ,like the UK are guilty by their criminal participation.
    Malcolm stark 7 Jul
    Yet another problem caused by Washington and Co and yet their are still people even here who say Russia, Russia, Russia. And will make excuses for the problems caused without blaming their own government.
    CyanDog 7 Jul
    Sexton: What a surprise. An investigation designed to whitewash the criminal activities of our beloved Western leaders turned out to be eminently successful. A playful slap on the wrist for Mr Blair, but basically the Western criminals made to look like good guys although a few unintentional mistakes were made. From now on the West can continue business as usual. I wonder which countries the West has currently set its future sights on? I would suggest that Iran, Russia and China should keep their powder dry. The Westerners are playing for keeps, and they do not care who gets hurt on either side.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Merkel in Jeopardy: Germanys European Hegemony, Refugees and Upcoming Elections

    Notable quotes:
    "... Like most social democratic parties in Europe, their motto seems to be "fill your pockets while you can". ..."
    "... Merkel has fancied herself as UN secretary general. She probably saw visions of murals of her leading down trodden women and children and "qualified" me being welcomed by a new, smiling Germany. In her vision, Merkel would be 8 feet tall wit a golden hue emerging from the far Kenedy lands of Southern Europe and beyond. The UN would have to take her. ..."
    "... See what happens when the U.S. seeks regime change? You get regime change-everywhere! ..."
    "... I've noticed that Merkel gets an extraordinary easy ride in the English language press ..."
    "... In reality she has been a disaster for Germany and Europe. Her constant approach of taking the easy option has left Germany with a rotting infrastructure and has wrecked havoc in the European economy and European institutions. It seems that like so many who grew up behind the Iron Curtain her anti-communism has blinded her to the faults in European and Anglo-American conservatives – unlike her CD predecessors who were always much more pragmatic about power and its uses. ..."
    "... Germany in many ways is operating like a company which has stopped investing in order to maximise short to medium term profits (think: Dell), which is in ironic counterpoint to its famously foresighted private companies. ..."
    "... The Anglo-American world sowing doubt about the German system when we ourselves are worse on most of the metrics in question. This is especially true since one of the reasons – tax cuts in the name of groaf – is exactly what us Atlanticists have been telling the rest of the world to do. They have also started very seriously exploring public private partnership options as modeled by London and DC. ..."
    "... Germany was part of the Friends of Syria. Merkel actively encouraged the war. She invited refugees through their active creation. Refugees were going to go somewhere. Why not visit their friend? Crossing the Atlantic is too difficult. ..."
    "... Politicians should be held accountable for the fallout from their decisions. Merkel as chancellor of Germany could have undermined the effort to attack Syria. ..."
    "... As per EU commission, 60% of the migrants have an "economic" i.e. better their life chances motivation, and counting. I would accept an humanitarian motivation, but only with the approval of the parliament, currently outstanding. ..."
    "... who had already reached Hungary ..."
    "... on the 13th September, Germany re-introduced border controls with Austria. Nowadays borders have closed further. ..."
    "... she is a politician interested in securing short-sighted advantages to her country and patching things as they come - not a stateswoman with a vision. ..."
    "... Regarding economic migrants, the missing passports, the asset-stripping to pay smugglers, etc, this is not new. Exactly the same issues were raised long ago, when the crisis was taking place in Spain and not in Greece, when corpses were washing ashore ..."
    "... EU has a puppet president, and a host of other dumb institutions very eager in designing and imposing all kind of stupid legislation on member countries, but unable to speak about this migration crisis. Give me a break! And angela she is past due date already! ..."
    "... I think Merkel – or perhaps, the establishment in general – will do fine. Any party seriously challenging the status quo will be declared to be racist and dissolved. Increasingly anyone objecting to the status quo will be accused of 'hate speech' – hate speech, of course, is any statement opposing government policy. ..."
    "... Merkel was perfectly willing to let the Greeks starve to bail out the banks – the notion that she is in any way motivated by compassion is absurd. I hear that Merkel wants to make refugee labor available to big companies for just a euro an hour (medical care etc. to be subsidized by taxes on the middle class). ..."
    "... The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria and Ukraine were started by the West. The Troika's imposition of austerity on Greece resulted in its borders being open to the refugees of the wars. The ruling elite want free movement of people and capital and are working to negate the powers of the democratic sovereign states. This contempt of the lower classes is the direct cause of the rise of people's nationalist movements in the West. ..."
    "... Between this and the disintegration of the EU, looks like the Fourth Reich isn't going to last long either. ..."
    Mar 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    By Mathew D. Rose, a freelance journalist in Berlin

    The inexorable political decline of Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel as well as her traditional opponents, the Social Democrats, is gathering pace. Upcoming elections in three German federal states on 13 March have given this process a considerable fillip. Both Ms Merkel's Christian Democratic Party and the Social Democrats are expecting some harrowing results.

    It seems that each new crisis that Ms Merkel creates is more formidable than its predecessor. Her mishandling of the refugee question – nationally and internationally – is making her conflict with Greece last year appear like a festival of love and unity.

    ... ... ...

    For the Social Democrats under the leadership of Sigmar Gabriel, who seems more concerned with lining up some well remunerated jobs in advance of his retirement from politics, there is a bleak future. Like most social democratic parties in Europe, their motto seems to be "fill your pockets while you can". Following the debacles of the social democrats in Spain and their compatriots in the Republic of Ireland, who appear to have gone into a death spin, the German social democrats seem to be following in their footsteps. The party will probably struggle to receive 20 percent of the vote at the next national election in a year's time.

    Domestically Ms Merkel's party and the Social Democrats have tried to save themselves by changing the German laws regarding refugees. Nations that were until recently considered warzones or systematically violating human rights have been declared "safe countries of origin", making refugees from these countries "economic migrants" to facilitate fast track extradition. Benefits for refugees are being slashed, as well not permitting refugees to bring their families to join them in Germany.

    The situation became palpably absurd, as Ms Merkel declared that refugees have to integrate themselves in German society or leave, only then to declare that she expects them to depart as soon as the conflicts in their nations have terminated.

    Ms Merkel's real hope is purchasing the acquiescence of Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to stop all refugees at his own border, thus relocating the source of the current political conflict out of Europe and into Turkey. Erdoğan, who is fighting a war against the Kurds, would appreciate the billions of Euros on offer, as well as the EU members of NATO turning a blind eye to his pact with ISIS. Let us have no illusions: Erdoğan is an anti-democratic and authoritarian, with nor respect for human rights. He is on the threshold of becoming a dictator. He knows he has all the political trumps in his hand in negotiations with Ms Merkel and will exact a commensurate price. This is only the most recent juncture in a political disaster that spiralled out of control months ago.

    Add to this the newly created mission of NATO using a fleet of warships to stop the flow of refugees from Turkey to Greece, while negotiations continue with Erdoğan. It is cynically claimed that the NATO force is there to arrest those smuggling the refugees. This is absurd. As everyone knows, the smugglers put the refugees in dilapidated boats and send them off on their own. They are not cruise operators. Thus the NATO ships are in effect sending back refugees, many of them women and children, to Turkey. Is this what NATO was created for? Where were the NATO ships, as thousands of refugees were drowning in the Mediterranean?

    The whole affair, as with Greece before it, has become a disgrace for Europe. I doubt it would surprise anyone, should negotiations with Turkey fail, and Ms Merkel announced that her government was in talks with ISIS to assist in stemming the refugee threat to European Civilisation.

    German leaders are infallible, so there is no way back for Ms Merkel, although there is not much backtracking left to do. The upcoming elections in Germany could well decide her political fate in Germany. The Christian Union would have to scramble to find a new leader for the upcoming national elections in 2017, although that is not really a problem. The party has enough mediocre politicians like Ms Merkel in the wings, just as capable of following the policy dictated by German and international business interests. Germany's domestic political landscape is in flux, as in most of Europe, which makes any predictions concerning the future precarious.

    As for Ms Merkel, she will have been a victim of endemic German hubris, not content with being the "Mutti" of Germany and the iron fist of Europe, but wanting to be a saint as well (and pocket the Nobel Peace Prize). Unfortunately – as always – others have paid and will pay the price: the thousands of refugees who will have died trying to reach the shelter of Europe, as well as those that make it, but will become victims of European racism and greed, and especially of the corrupt European political class. The great hope are the millions of decent Europeans, who know what solidarity is and value the Humanitarianism that was born here.

    No one in particular , March 2, 2016 at 5:05 am

    Well, to be read with more than a pinch of salt . and I have too little time to depict it properly.

    1. Merkel has continued her lawless activity, started with the Greek bailout 1.0 (to save French banks, Sarkozy and German banks, in that order) with the refugee crisis. I do not know what her motives for opening the borders were, but not to close them in time was a fatal error;

    especially for the German democratic system, because there was neither the will nor the instruments to stop her. What a blow to the cherished "basic law", exposed as an empty shell. A poisoned arrow, slowly permeating the state of Germany, questioning the functionality of the entire German democracy.

    2. Possibly a blessing in disguise, the unfolding refugee crisis (a mixture of war refugees and economic migration) has exposed "EU solidarity" or "Merkel leads Europe" for what it always was – the periphery needed (and needs) the German credit card to maintain the appearance of solvency – so they temporarily bowed to the inevitable, but out of selfish interest, not overarching interest in "solidarity"; which was a one-way street, always. So the lack of support for her should have been no surprise for anybody, but Berlin still manages to keep up the illusion. This was fatally complemented by the hubris not to inform anybody before the deed, thus giving all the uninformed union members of the feeling of second or third best . not the best basis to ask for help.

    3. Unbeknownst to any non-German speaker, there is a "fifths" power emerging, something akin to a "speech police" – were any – and I mean any – criticism or resistance is labeled immediately as "geistige Brandstiftung" (roughly mental arson), and a stereotype for right wing Nazi idea's. A lot of words are becoming unusable [emergency,unlawful and similar], unless you want to be labeled as "populist", right wing or worse. Consequently, there is no unbiased discussion possible, anywhere, so a calamitous silence becomes ever more prevalent by the day. Note, that Facebook is now policed by the subsidiary of Bertelsmann, a big German publishing house, to remove "incitement" and similar posts.

    4. Slowly some parts of the German main stream press are waking up to the fallacies caused by the blanket invitation – the refugees coming are more or less unskilled, and thus quick integration into the German labor market is improbable, to say the least.

    5. However, the political establishment, i.e. the parties currently represented in parliament, have lost any connection to what the populace is thinking (quietly, as per 3.) and a mutiny is brewing even in normally patient and middle of the road guys; fueled by the wishful thinking of all will be well. And the muddling through will continue, unless some force outside of control of Berlin will stop it, thus exposing the inability of the "state" to keep a semblance of democracy and to govern within the framework of the "basic law", as the parliament and the press both failed to stop Merkel.

    Honestly, I am not sure what to wish for, the continuation or the exposure of harsh reality.

    Damian , March 2, 2016 at 9:11 am

    "there is no unbiased discussion possible"

    Politically Correct is an intellectual Gulag -- everywhere

    same in the US of A - the politically correct speech game with Trump is now a badge of courage

    Keith , March 2, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    Same here (UK)

    Though the politically correct stuff seems to have backed off a bit recently.

    Perhaps my comments about the PC Thought Police in the online Guardian did some good (wishful thinking).

    Also, comments on "PC Top Trumps" as homosexual and female rights clash with those of other religions.

    NotTimothyGeithner , March 2, 2016 at 9:34 am

    About your first point, Merkel has fancied herself as UN secretary general. She probably saw visions of murals of her leading down trodden women and children and "qualified" me being welcomed by a new, smiling Germany. In her vision, Merkel would be 8 feet tall wit a golden hue emerging from the far Kenedy lands of Southern Europe and beyond. The UN would have to take her.

    She is a Christian Democrat. She is mediocre by definition. I doubt she could ever conceive of her plans going wrong.

    Gio Bruno , March 2, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    See what happens when the U.S. seeks regime change? You get regime change-everywhere!

    PlutoniumKun , March 2, 2016 at 5:34 am

    This is one of the reasons I love NC so much – nice to see something in-depth and suitably skeptical about a country which despite its huge importance is rarely reported in real detail in the mainstream English language press. There is often much better reporting of China or Japan than Germany for some odd reason.

    I've noticed that Merkel gets an extraordinary easy ride in the English language press – even people from the left seem to have a sort of grudging admiration and even affection for her. In reality she has been a disaster for Germany and Europe. Her constant approach of taking the easy option has left Germany with a rotting infrastructure and has wrecked havoc in the European economy and European institutions. It seems that like so many who grew up behind the Iron Curtain her anti-communism has blinded her to the faults in European and Anglo-American conservatives – unlike her CD predecessors who were always much more pragmatic about power and its uses.

    jsn , March 2, 2016 at 9:21 am

    Agreed, very interesting!

    Does anyone know good english sources regarding Hungary and Orban? They seem to be under the same MSM cloud occluding realistic views of what's happening in Russia. But its hard to tell because information is so thin. If its in the Times, WSJ or FT, it appears on its face to be propaganda simply from the personalization of the country into the leader.

    washunate , March 2, 2016 at 11:14 am

    a rotting infrastructure

    Which infrastructure, exactly, is rotting? I agree Germany isn't some kind of luminary leftist paradise. But relative to us Anglo-Americans, things are working rather well there from the perspective of social and built landscape infrastructure.

    PlutoniumKun , March 2, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    Germany has maintained its relatively healthy public sector balance mainly through massive cuts in infrastructural spending. Its not immediately noticeable as a combination of low population growth and high levels of investment in the post war years has left it with a very good historic legacy. But only Spain has a lower level of public investment as a percentage of GDP as this FT article e xplains:

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4fea7fa0-351c-11e4-a2c2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz41gGbFFof

    Its not just transport infrastructure – the power infrastructure is creaking too, with poor interconnectedness across the country. Housing and building stock is visibly deteriorating due to a lack of investment. Germany in many ways is operating like a company which has stopped investing in order to maximise short to medium term profits (think: Dell), which is in ironic counterpoint to its famously foresighted private companies. Germany can get away with this for a decade or more, but eventually the chickens will come home to roost in the form of huge bills as roads and railways will require major investments to make up for the neglect.

    The real problem is even worse than the total investment spend indicates. For reasons I've never fully understood, the German building industry is notoriously bad at controlling spending, so what they do spend is often wasted – the notorious Brandenburg Airport in Berlin being just one example.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/5-billion-euros-costs-increase-again-for-berlin-brandenburg-airport-a-928989.html

    washunate , March 2, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    GDP? I would say it's a good thing Germany spends less on healthcare than we do, not a bad thing. I just don't quite follow where you are going with this. Rotting, creaking, deteriorating, and comparisons to Dell strike me as sensationalizing the situation. With that kind of language, I want to see actual decrepit train stations right now, not a potential problem decades from now. How much capex exactly does Berlin Hauptbahnhof need over the next 5 years?

    It is much easier transiting Germany without a car than the US. Amtrak, for example, has two departures a day from NYC to Chicago (Lakeshore and Capitol), and it will take you 19-21 hours to get there. Deutsche Bahn has 9 departures from Berlin to Frankfurt, and that's only counting morning trains with no train changes on the high speed lines. Or in speed terms, your total all in travel is a little over 80 MPH in Germany with trains leaving regularly and a little over 40 MPH in the US where if you miss your train you get to wait another half day.

    If Germany is rotting, what are the Americans doing?

    PlutoniumKun , March 3, 2016 at 5:34 am

    I'm not sure where you get the comment on healthcare from – I was referring entirely to physical infrastructure. And yes of course, German roads and railways are generally very good, but as that FT article points out, this is almost entirely a legacy of 20th Century investment. And German railways have fallen behind France, Spain and other countries in terms of speed and, most notably, capacity. The problem with not investing consistently in physical infrastructure is that you can get away with it for a while, but when your existing stock starts hitting the end of its 30 or 40 year design life, the bills to keep things going can be very high. A railway line can last pretty much forever if you are constantly working on it to improve and maintain it. Neglect it for a couple of decades and it will start to disintegrate and will need replacing in its entirety.

    I brought up Dell as a well known example of a company which suffered from milking an existing line of products without investing to compete as technology changes. Dell looked healthy and profitable for a long while until eventually their failures caught up. I thought of them because just a few days ago I drove past the empty shell of what was their biggest manufacturing centre. There are plenty of other examples of course.

    washunate , March 3, 2016 at 8:09 am

    "Not as fast as le TGV" and "Dell level failure" strike me as radically different uses of language.

    FT is behind a paywall, so I don't know the nuance of their argument, but this has a tone I have heard in other contexts. The Anglo-American world sowing doubt about the German system when we ourselves are worse on most of the metrics in question. This is especially true since one of the reasons – tax cuts in the name of groaf – is exactly what us Atlanticists have been telling the rest of the world to do. They have also started very seriously exploring public private partnership options as modeled by London and DC.

    Plus, it doesn't jibe with what is available in the English language world about German concerns. The Germans themselves are not that concerned with a lack of megabuildings and the national pride of having the biggest/fastest/whateverest national scale projects. Rather, the infrastructure concerns are primarily about depreciation of local government assets, the small municipal stuff.

    Finally, I thought you were talking about recent changes with Merkel and co. Now you're taking this back many years or decades? Germany has done lots of infrastructure construction over the past couple decades. They have a more equal society than we do. They have more efficient healthcare than we do. These things all directly contradict widespread, catastrophic failure. That's the connection. Even if there is room for improvement (which of course, there always is), there is much less systemic failure compared to USUK.

    visitor , March 2, 2016 at 5:35 am

    I repeat what I have already stated in a comment to a previous article: Merkel and her government did not invite refugees to Germany. In fact, every measure taken so far had only one objective: keep as many of those refugees as far away from Germany as possible. Hence:

    1) Dublin: the rule that refugees must remain and ask for asylum in the first country of entry to the EU - which for obvious geographical reasons happens never to be Germany.

    2) Africa: (1) collapses under the massive flows of desperate people? Then bribe African countries to prevent migrants from moving to Europe.

    3) Turkey: (2) fails? Then bribe Turkey to keep refugees in camps and prevent them from crossing the Mediterranean.

    4) Hotspots: (3) is taking too much time? Then make sure that refugees are blocked at the periphery of the EU - in Italy and Greece.

    5) Quotas: re-distributed those refugees stuck in (4) and who want to go to Germany or Sweden to somewhere else, away from Germany.

    6) Countries of origin: declare countries as safe, making it possible to deport refugees quickly.

    7) Subsidiary protection: if (6) does not work, ensure that asylum seekers are not treated as full-fledged refugees, making them easier to deport once war abates.

    8) If (7) does not work and refugee status must be granted, then restrict family reunification to prevent more people coming.

    And so on, and so forth. Most of those measures failed.

    The fact that Merkel was forced to accept droves of refugees entering Germany is due to three reasons:

    a) There are German, EU and international laws that Germany must abide with, and that compel the country to accept asylum seekers.

    b) The Dublin-Schengen glacis in the Balkans collapsed under the sheer number of people suddenly moving to the EU.

    c) Other countries, especially poorer ones, have been so infuriated by an overbearing Germany and its lack of solidarity in the past that they gleefully try to have Germany pick up the tab for the crisis.

    Those who criticize Merkel in Germany (and elsewhere) would face exactly the same quandary in her position: either violate international, EU and German laws to stop refugees at the border; or frantically try to hack some legal measure to deflect the flow of people to their country.

    NotTimothyGeithner , March 2, 2016 at 10:11 am

    Germany was part of the Friends of Syria. Merkel actively encouraged the war. She invited refugees through their active creation. Refugees were going to go somewhere. Why not visit their friend? Crossing the Atlantic is too difficult.

    Politicians should be held accountable for the fallout from their decisions. Merkel as chancellor of Germany could have undermined the effort to attack Syria.

    susan the other , March 2, 2016 at 1:52 pm

    It looks that way to me too. More like a secret agreement between Russia, the US, France, Germany and the UK. Russia and France would "go in" to Syria; the US and the UK would provide all the support needed, and Germany would maintain its pacifist position by accepting the refugees. But when the first giant wave of refugees arrived, the great humanitarian heart of the German people had a big infarction and they started burning down refugee housing, etc. I didn't know NATO had sent warships to turn the refugees back to Turkey, whereupon Turkey will once again launch them away. This whole thing is shameless. The entire western world is an odious farce.

    No one in particular , March 2, 2016 at 6:41 am

    @ Visitor

    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/fluechtlingskrise-in-deutschland-rechtsstaatlich-machbar-14060376.html
    [riddled with legalese, the summary is – a lot of laws are broken]

    Merkel did, if involuntarily, invite a lot of migrants, and it was not covered by EU, German or other law – see link, four professors of law, not me.

    You can apply for political asylum only if you are on German soil, and I am not aware of any neighboring state where a war is fought or persecution is prevalent – in the middle of the EU. Geneva applies only to adjacent countries, and again – "for obvious geographic reasons" – not applicable. So if Dublin would be applied, NONE of the migrants had a legal right to come to Germany.

    As per EU commission, 60% of the migrants have an "economic" i.e. better their life chances motivation, and counting. I would accept an humanitarian motivation, but only with the approval of the parliament, currently outstanding.

    Merkel certainly is in a quandary to square the circle of "push and pull" factors, some self-inflicted, some admittedly not so much.

    Whilst some in Germany are suffering from a pathological "need to help" (to feel better/superior) – and thrive on "helping", there was no legal precedence to issue the "blanket invitation" on September 4th. Period. And while the will to help war refugees from Syria and Iraq is laudable, it has been abused by scores of people from Northern Africa, the Balkans, etc. Why do think so many people are arriving without passports, if claiming to come from Syria is like winning the jackpot, i.e. the right to stay and much better life chances.

    Even if not imaginable for many Westerners, lot of families have sold everything, gone into debt to sent one family member, feathered the nest of the smugglers for this hope. At the very least there has been serious failure of communication – to manage expectations – as we all could observe over the recent month; partly because Merkel does not dare to touch the elephant in the room, the missing legal framework for legal economic immigration, thus the "political asylum" is stretched beyond it's limits.

    And her "plan" is defeated simply by the sheer numbers – whilst 1 million all over the EU might have been possible, the 60-80 mio people globally in search of a better life – will be too much for Germany alone.

    The only reason for her to be still in power, other than the missing emergency brakes in the German Democratic system, is the fear of the CDU members to loose their own position of power, there is no vision to what could follow Merkel whilst preserving their own position.

    visitor , March 2, 2016 at 10:27 am

    The legal review you refer to basically amounts to recalling that Dublin allows Germany to push asylum seekers back to Austria, which is legally the place where they must ask for refugee status because that country allowed them to cross its territory after declining to send them back to Hungary (or Slovenia, or ) Taking into account the fact that Germany is allowed to make individual exceptions and not granting them "en masse", this is basically a call to dump the hot potato onto Austria's lap.

    Basically, this would be tactic (9): harp on the legal fine points and have Germany's bordering countries deal with the refugees. Austria has already put in place a throttling mechanism to make sure it does not have to deal with lots of cases anyway - and that although much more effective than a zealous and pedantic application of the Dublin stipulations, this mechanism has dubious legality.

    With this, we have not left the tactic desperately followed by Merkel et al: deflect the refugees as much as possible from Germany, and let others deal with the mess. Just as I described.

    Regarding the 4th September decision (actually 5th September), it was clearly a measure to relieve temporarily the pressure on Hungary by allowing only those refugees who had already reached Hungary to proceed to Austria and further to Germany. The reason: Hungary was seriously on its way to crash Schengen, Schengen was essential (for reasons already discussed) to Germany, and Merkel was desperate to save Schengen from collapsing. It did not work: on the 13th September, Germany re-introduced border controls with Austria. Nowadays borders have closed further.

    But a "blanket invitation"? In no way. The fact that it was interpreted in such a way by the press and that it sucked in more refugees arriving in Greece was something Merkel could have predicted and forestalled, but she is a politician interested in securing short-sighted advantages to her country and patching things as they come - not a stateswoman with a vision.

    Regarding economic migrants, the missing passports, the asset-stripping to pay smugglers, etc, this is not new. Exactly the same issues were raised long ago, when the crisis was taking place in Spain and not in Greece, when corpses were washing ashore of the Canary Islands not on Lesbos, and when Ceuta and Melilla where being frantically fortified, not Bulgaria or Macedonia. The only thing that has changed is that the flows have progressively move East towards Europe's soft underbelly, and that at each stage they grew by an order of magnitude. Spain dealt with tens of thousands of people per year, Italy with hundreds of thousands, and now we have reached the million mark in the Balkans. All the improvised plans on quotas, hot-spots, UNHCR funding, etc, come 20 years too late.

    No one particular , March 2, 2016 at 11:37 am

    Nice diversion, let's deal with the fine print.

    a) we agree the current practice is illegal. b) it might sound morally superior to "help" the Austrians, but for whom is it the better solution? c) I maintain the "blanket invitation" was the result, even if unintended – the appearance of "all are welcome" incentivised too many to uproot themselves in vain d) true, the collective refusal of Germany and the rest of Europe to deal with the (economic) immigration question for decades has contributed to the current situation – however, Merkel's solo attempt to solve the Budapest issue, and adding insult to injury – without informing the "partners" supposed to share the burden beforehand – was neither effective, nor sensible, nor diplomatic. e) I wonder whether the "save Schengen" argument will survive the scrutiny of hindsight, i.e. IMHO it does not sound credible, but I can only speculate and I will refrain. Schengen is important to the German economy, but the price paid – utter distrust by the majority of Germans into the government, state and press was much too high, I think. There must have been higher stakes at play, I guess. f) Merkel wasted 5-6 month to create a proper immigration law, differentiating the three routes, i.e. asylum, temporary war shelter due to Geneva Convention and "economic immigration" – and to entice the rest of Europe to deal with it, as she has not started the process to update the archaic German laws regarding sexual harassment, rape etc to EU wide standards, the current draft is wanting – before and after Cologne. g) She burdened the Germans with
    1. with a lot of unskilled and difficult to integrate Migrants
    2. destroyed whatever goodwill there was towards Germany in Europe or the world –
    3. settled the country with global unease about a Germany so out of bounds, palpable for everyone outside Berlin – years of reputation building down the drain
    4. recently gave the appearance of obstinacy to stick to a plan unsuited for reality, stubbornly ignoring the unwillingness of the other Europeans to sacrifice their countries alongside Germany – there will be no support and no "coalition of the willing" – at least not until Merkel sees reason and closes the borders. I do think her comment yesterday, about "migrants to not have the right to choose where to apply for asylum" was tentatively going in the right direction, but was certainly not strong enough to persuade desperate people not to start their journey or to go home from Greece.
    5. more or less exposed the German democratic system as incapable in dealing with this emergency situation in a legal and democratic way
    6. allowing H. Maas to accuse the ex constitutional judges of "mental arson" for voicing objections (FAZ) – the article was just about short of telling the judges to shut up, which, as an indication of were free speech is going, was rather frightening

    And no realism or vision in sight. Deplorable, for Germany and everybody else.

    OIFVet , March 2, 2016 at 9:21 am

    Send a couple of million to the US and to Saudi Arabia. And keep expediting the rest to Germany, with all due haste. The Balkans are indeed shutting down the borders, but given the mountainous terrain some migrants will inevitably slip through. Personally I find it a good investment to charter planes to Berlin and fly them directly to Madame Merkel. Because that's what hse deserves for being a spineless puppet, and for also kissing the ring of the wanna-be sultan in Ankara.

    dandaniel , March 2, 2016 at 10:34 am

    The emperor is naked!
    Who should deal with this migration crisis? EU council or angela? I mean, you have a bunch of bureaucrats in bruxelles and EU was supposed to be led by this council? Also, EU has a puppet president, and a host of other dumb institutions very eager in designing and imposing all kind of stupid legislation on member countries, but unable to speak about this migration crisis. Give me a break! And angela she is past due date already!

    washunate , March 2, 2016 at 11:20 am

    This post seems a little disjointed. Is the argument that Merkel specifically and Germany generally is bad because they're not as open as they ought to be to foreign nationals? Or is the post saying Germany is bad because they are too open to foreign nationals?

    And is Germany bad because they trap Greece in an evil, domineering EMU? Or is Germany bad because they're kicking Greece out of a great, happy EMU?

    TG , March 2, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    I think Merkel – or perhaps, the establishment in general – will do fine. Any party seriously challenging the status quo will be declared to be racist and dissolved. Increasingly anyone objecting to the status quo will be accused of 'hate speech' – hate speech, of course, is any statement opposing government policy.

    Merkel was perfectly willing to let the Greeks starve to bail out the banks – the notion that she is in any way motivated by compassion is absurd. I hear that Merkel wants to make refugee labor available to big companies for just a euro an hour (medical care etc. to be subsidized by taxes on the middle class). Even a technically sophisticated economy needs quite a lot of 'unskilled' labor, and replacing a few million Germans making 15 euro/hour with refugees that only need be directly paid a euro an hour, can make the right companies an awful lot of money. Do the math.

    And on another note: we constantly hear that more people are always better, that anyone suggesting that opening the borders to the overpopulated third world could possibly in any way be a bad thing, must a priori be racist. So surely bottling up all those refugees in Greece can only be wonderful? Why not do the Greeks a favor and force them to take all the surplus populations from Syria, Iraq, Algeria, Pakistan etc? That simply MUST be wonderful and anyone objecting must be a fascist like Golden Dawn or Donald Trump and such hateful speech should be quashed as quickly as possible. Because people are the ultimate resource and it doesn't matter if Greece runs out of food or fresh water or timber or housing or electric generating capacity etc., because more people will automatically and without delay create even more wealth despite having nothing to work with. Yes?

    VietnamVet , March 2, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    It is quite astonishing to read these reports but there are no explanations of the causes.

    The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria and Ukraine were started by the West. The Troika's imposition of austerity on Greece resulted in its borders being open to the refugees of the wars. The ruling elite want free movement of people and capital and are working to negate the powers of the democratic sovereign states. This contempt of the lower classes is the direct cause of the rise of people's nationalist movements in the West.

    Knute Rife , March 2, 2016 at 9:49 pm

    Between this and the disintegration of the EU, looks like the Fourth Reich isn't going to last long either.

    [Dec 02, 2016] The ceaseless expressions of disdain for Russia by Paul Krugman strike me as a dangerously prejudice fostering madness

    Notable quotes:
    "... The ceaseless expressions of disdain for Russia, because the easily elected and decidedly popular president of Russia is only a reflection of Russia, strike me as a dangerously prejudice fostering madness. ..."
    "... Putin is a dilemma in that he is the enemy of conservative Republican enemies, Obama and Clinton, so he must be a friend. Except he is allied with Assad who was a good dictator until he had to ally with Iran thanks to the House of Saud holding onto power by exporting radical Whabbist terrorism. ..."
    "... Speaking of invasions real and otherwise, Krugman's pursuing his omnidirectional self-embarrassment campaign with real gusto. ..."
    "... The US has never funneled vast sums of money to the man at the top to buy loyalty? Krugman is disingenuous. It happens all the time...he only needs to read John Perkins 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.' ..."
    "... I guess Krugman's not aware that the European states are rather well-armed themselves, and that the Poles in particular are pretty ferocious. Maybe possibly "security guarantees" for Vilnius aren't really a sane American concern? ..."
    "... Speaking of invasions real and otherwise, Krugman's pursuing his omnidirectional self-embarrassment campaign with real gusto. ..."
    "... US funneled 58000 kids' lives to keep the crooks at the top in Saigon. ..."
    "... Independence of Baltics turned into a tragedy for Russians living in those countries who instantly became "green card holders" instead of citizens and were discriminated pretty openly. But a lot of those Russians who have marketable skills and, especially, higher education, already left for Germany and other Western countries (Baltic countries are really small: Estonia 1.3 million, Latvia 2.2 Lithuania 3.3 in total less then population of New York) ..."
    Dec 02, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne : November 28, 2016 at 10:55 AM

    On the other hand, someplace like Vladimir Putin's Russia can easily funnel vast sums to the man at the top in return for, say, the withdrawal of security guarantees for the Baltic States....

    -- Paul Krugman

    [ The ceaseless expressions of disdain for Russia, because the easily elected and decidedly popular president of Russia is only a reflection of Russia, strike me as a dangerously prejudice fostering madness.

    I do not even care a fig what Baltics may be, I am not interested in a cold or a hot war over any Baltics. I am content not having Baltics for the holidays. ]

    DrDick -> anne... , November 28, 2016 at 11:18 AM
    "I am content not having Baltics for the holidays."

    That is because you are not Vladimir Putin, who very much does. The Baltics are Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which all became independent and increasingly tied to Western Europe with the collapse of the Soviet Union and which the Russians have assiduously tried to bring back under their control ever since.

    sglover said in reply to DrDick... , November 28, 2016 at 02:44 PM
    The Baltic blitz is this year's fear-mongering idiocy. So yeah, sure, in a purely military sense Russia could roll over the Baltics. And yeah, sure, in some sense Russia (AKA Putin) "wants" the Baltics.

    What the hysterics never bother to answer -- does it even occur to them to ask? -- is precisely **why** Moscow should do so. Unless Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are sitting on top of slabs of platinum, they're really not worth all that much. Against that "benefit", occupying them would bring nothing but severe costs, not least a likely European war and a certain protracted partisan war.

    Yeah yeah yeah, I know: Crimea! Donbas! Sounds convincing. Too bad the analogies are so deeply uninformed. (Not that that ever got in the way of so many self-proclaimed "authorities" on Russia.) Unlike Crimea, Baltic residents don't broadly favor merging with Russia -- not even all the Russophones. Moscow knows this.

    The situation in Donbas contradicts the sloppy assumption that Russia is relentlessly expansionist. Other than as an occasional thorn in Kiev's side, Moscow doesn't really seem to know what to do with the "prize" of Donbas. Many of the residents, likely a solid majority, of the "People's Republics" favor Russian annexation. Moscow's said and done nothing toward that end.

    Unless you believe that the world is run by deeply stupid cartoon villains -- and that really does seem to be the level of a lot of the "liberals" around here -- the scenario simply doesn't add up.

    ilsm -> DrDick... , November 28, 2016 at 04:01 PM
    "That is because you are not Vladimir Putin...."

    I do not see the Poles mobilizing.

    Let the EU/EZ do it this time!

    Seems to me the Germans see it the same way I do.

    Poles should care, they can mobilize....... occupy Vilnius and tell Putin "try it again...!"

    I do not care that Putin goes in and runs all over the balts and the Ukraine.

    anne -> anne... , November 28, 2016 at 11:45 AM
    Vladimir Putin's Russia can easily funnel vast sums to the man at the top in return for, say, the withdrawal of security guarantees for the Baltic States....

    -- Paul Krugman

    [ So that I am clear, Russia can funnel vast sums to Francois Hollande for exclusive visiting rights to the Eiffel Tower and I would be disappointed because I too like to visit now and then but there are other places in France to visit and I am as little interested in talk about securing visiting rights to the Eiffel Tower as I am about war crazed talk about securing Baltics when I have no idea and do not care what a Baltic may be.

    Life for me has been and is content being Baltic-less. ]

    mulp -> anne... , November 28, 2016 at 02:26 PM
    If you had been born in the Baltics, would you favor Russian invasion to restore the glory of Russian Empire? What we have is conservative moral relativism at work.

    Fidel is evil because he was a dictator who overthrew the dictator democratic US capitalists imposed on Cubans who were not sufficiently white, and only US backed dictators get permission to to kill people. The Shah. The House of Saud. Sadam when at war with Iran, not when he invaded and deposed the US backed dictator of Kuwait.

    Putin is a dilemma in that he is the enemy of conservative Republican enemies, Obama and Clinton, so he must be a friend. Except he is allied with Assad who was a good dictator until he had to ally with Iran thanks to the House of Saud holding onto power by exporting radical Whabbist terrorism.

    But it all comes back to whether you would be happy to be born in US backed Saudi Arabia instead of its evil enemy Iran, in China instead of Japan, or even China instead of Putin's Russia?

    If you won the born in USA lottery, was that proof that you are a harder worker and thus more deserving than those born in the Baltics under threat from Putin's political needs.

    kthomas said in reply to anne... , November 28, 2016 at 11:57 AM
    Precious hypocrite.
    anne -> kthomas... , November 28, 2016 at 12:31 PM
    Vladimir Putin's Russia can easily funnel vast sums to the man at the top in return for, say, the withdrawal of security guarantees for the Baltic States....

    -- Paul Krugman

    [ So that I am clear, Russia can funnel vast sums to Francois Hollande for exclusive visiting rights to the Eiffel Tower and I would be disappointed because I too like to visit now and then but there are other places in France to visit and I am as little interested in talk about securing visiting rights to the Eiffel Tower as I am about war crazed talk about securing Baltics when I have no idea and do not care what a Baltic may be.

    Life for me has been and is content being Baltic-less.

    Precious enough? ]

    kthomas said in reply to anne... , November 28, 2016 at 01:14 PM
    Baltic-less? You sound just like a Deplorable now. Click those heals baby!
    sglover said in reply to anne... , November 28, 2016 at 02:50 PM
    I guess Krugman's not aware that the European states are rather well-armed themselves, and that the Poles in particular are pretty ferocious. Maybe possibly "security guarantees" for Vilnius aren't really a sane American concern?

    Speaking of invasions real and otherwise, Krugman's pursuing his omnidirectional self-embarrassment campaign with real gusto.

    JohnH -> anne... , 2016 at 02:50 PM
    The US has never funneled vast sums of money to the man at the top to buy loyalty? Krugman is disingenuous. It happens all the time...he only needs to read John Perkins 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.'

    sglover -> anne... November 28, 2016 at 02:50 PM

    I guess Krugman's not aware that the European states are rather well-armed themselves, and that the Poles in particular are pretty ferocious. Maybe possibly "security guarantees" for Vilnius aren't really a sane American concern?

    Speaking of invasions real and otherwise, Krugman's pursuing his omnidirectional self-embarrassment campaign with real gusto.

    ilsm -> sglover... , November 28, 2016 at 04:02 PM
    once past the shark..... seems pk has no limits.
    ilsm -> JohnH... , November 28, 2016 at 04:03 PM
    US funneled 58000 kids' lives to keep the crooks at the top in Saigon.
    ilsm -> anne... , November 28, 2016 at 03:57 PM
    poor pk
    likbez -> ilsm... , -1
    "poor pk"

    He is far from being poor. He is remunerated very nicely for the McCarthyism nonsense he utter.

    Independence of Baltics turned into a tragedy for Russians living in those countries who instantly became "green card holders" instead of citizens and were discriminated pretty openly. But a lot of those Russians who have marketable skills and, especially, higher education, already left for Germany and other Western countries (Baltic countries are really small: Estonia 1.3 million, Latvia 2.2 Lithuania 3.3 in total less then population of New York)

    De-industrialization followed. Now two out those three countries in economic sense are basket cases. And that will not change.

    Who would want to put a lot of money to restore what is lost? For the sake of what?
    If I were Putin, I would propose Duma to adopt some kind of anti-apartheid law that would make Russian energy and Russian market inaccessible to them and see how they behave. It would be not such a big hit for Russia, but pretty noticeable for those three tiny countries.

    It is easy to organize marches of former Waffen SS ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcl0NN8DgxA ) and desecrate Russian army monuments erected after WWII understanding that that they have full USA and EU government support, and that Russia will not break diplomatic and economic relations with them.

    During WWII concentration camps in terrotiry of those countries were the most vicious. Real death factories especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaspils_concentration_camp

    And in Latvia in Salaspils concentration camp they conducted experiments on children including using them as blood donors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MswHJHR1Ky8

    Typhoid fever, measles and other diseases killed about 12,000 children at the camp.[4] In one of the burial places by the camp, 632 corpses of children of ages 5 to 9 were revealed.[5]

    [Dec 02, 2016] The incomes of the financial sector are mostly pure rents so there are fewer gains from trade possible here than there are for more productive sectors. Trade negotiations on this are therefore more win-lose rather than potentially win-win

    Notable quotes:
    "... The incomes of the financial sector are mostly pure rents so there are fewer gains from trade possible here than there are for more productive sectors. Trade negotiations on this are therefore more 'win-lose' rather than potentially 'win-win'. ..."
    Dec 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    derrida derider 11.29.16 at 2:09 am 5

    T's right – the economic impact of Brexit on the UK will overwhelmingly depend on how the EU "passport" entitlements for the banks are negotiated. And of course the Germans (with Frankfurt) and the French (with Paris) have a strong incentive to make sure that a good slab of the City's business goes to them.

    The incomes of the financial sector are mostly pure rents so there are fewer gains from trade possible here than there are for more productive sectors. Trade negotiations on this are therefore more 'win-lose' rather than potentially 'win-win'.

    I think the result will certainly be lower aggregate GDP for the UK but it might well be better distributed (eg London property prices may be less absurd). The City has long made the rest of the UK economy suffer from a form of Dutch disease through an overvalued pound sterling. So those Sunderland Brexit voters might prove ultimately correct in their assessment of their economic interests – just not in the way they think.

    [Dec 02, 2016] Still More Myths About Clinton's Defeat in Election 2016 Debunked

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Lambert Strether of Corrente . ..."
    "... we have no way of knowing whether Clinton's claim is true ..."
    "... Clinton's claim rests on the word of a proven liar ..."
    "... with respect to voting integrity, 17 is really 0 ..."
    "... Clinton's claim that foreign "influence" (or "interference)" is unprecedented is false ..."
    "... the concept of "influence" (or "interference") is extremely hazy ..."
    "... nobody with actual responsibility for governing is acting like Russian interference is significant ..."
    "... with respect to Wikipedia, telling the truth seems an odd form of influence to have problems with ..."
    "... if business dealings with Russia make Trump a puppet, then there are Democrat puppets, too ..."
    "... makes Trump a puppet, then heaven help us all ..."
    "... nobody with actual responsibility for governing is acting like Trump is a Russian puppet. ..."
    "... It just hasn't met their best excuse head on. ..."
    "... bought people IDs and driven them to the polls ..."
    "... throughout the campaign ..."
    "... Pattern Recognition ..."
    "... re foreign influence in American elections ..."
    "... Is anyone going to seriously deny that Israel has a huge influence not just on our elections, but our foreign policy as well? ..."
    Dec 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on November 28, 2016 by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether of Corrente .

    Here is a sixth post debunking two common talking points by die-in-the-last-ditch Clinton loyalists and Democrat Establishment operatives. For both talking points, I'll give a quotation that illlustrates the myth, followed by rebuttals. ( Three previous talking points are debunked here , two more here , two more here , and one more here .) As usual, I hope you'll find the rebuttals useful if these topics come up

    I'll cover talking points related to - drumroll, please - Russia, and therefore a bad-faith effort could be made to frame this post as - gasp - Russian propaganda. Let me assure readers at once that even though I'm writing this from my spandy new Russian dacha , that doesn't have the slightest influence on my views! That said - [Yes, Dmitri? Was there more? Ras kol nikov!] - That said, Yves said to go ahead with this topic. However, Yves doesn't review what I write before posting, so any errors or omissions are solely my own.

    The topic of Russian influence on the election, and Russian influence over (or, in strong form, control of) President-Elect Trump has already generated a vast literature, if I may so call it, in the echo chamber created by the political class. Frankly, I don't have the days it would take to sort all the talking points out. So I'm going to limit my scope to the talking points used by candidate Clinton in the third Presidential debate; Clinton's performance was, after all, Ground Zero for these talking points, and gave all her supporters in the political class and the electorate license to expand on them.

    Let's remember that anything Clinton said in the debate was carefully engineered by the Clinton campaign team. Here's a description of Clinton's debate preparation from Politico:

    [Karen] Dunn and her partner Ron Klain – the two most experienced debate prep specialists in Democratic politics – are overseeing an orderly and intensely secretive process.

    Clinton's advisers, in conversations over the last month, have repeatedly emphasized that the mock debate session, while important, is less vital than the informal law school sessions where Clinton hashes out her reactions and attacks. "It's a moot court set-up," said a Clinton insider. "She's doing less of the usual mock debate sessions, with 100 people standing around, this time."

    [L]ongtime Clinton aide Phillippe Reines [and the] buttoned-down, courtly Klain has also stood in parrying questions with Clinton, according to people close to the situation – but both men have been less concerned with imitating Trump than preparing Clinton for the substance of the attacks, two keen attorneys framing Clinton's reactions in the precise, disciplined language their lawyerly candidate thrives on.

    Clinton's experience and confidence can make her an intimidating person to prep - when you count her own three dozen on-stage debates there is arguably no one in American politics with more prime-time experience. Her coaches, however, are also longtime debate aficionados - campaign consultants Joel Benenson, Jim Margolis and Mandy Grunwald all sit in on prep, as does Palmieri, longtime attorney Bob Barnett, senior policy adviser Jake Sullivan, Podesta, occasionally Bill Clinton, younger policy aides who have helped compile the thick green binders of prep materials, and others.

    Klain and Dunn, who report directly to Sullivan, not only offer an overarching strategy, but act as speechwriters - line-writers, really - paring down language and crafting practiced lines.

    In other words, Clinton's talking points are most likely to be "practiced lines" "crafted" by very smart Democrats; each will be the best shot the Clinton Team could take.

    Talking Point: 17 Intelligence Agencies Confirmed that Russia Is Trying to Influence the Election

    Here is Clinton deploying the talking point in the third debate :

    [CLINTON:] And what's really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans. They have hacked American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions. Then they have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the Internet.

    This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government, clearly, from Putin himself, in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election.

    And Clinton broadens the scope of her attack, merging Wikileaks with espionage with cyberattacks (I assume "hacking") generally, and broadening "influence" to "interference":

    [CLINTON:] We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17 - 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.

    So, let's look at some problems with Clinton's talking point.

    First, we have no way of knowing whether Clinton's claim is true [1]. Her claim comes from this joint statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence , James Clapper. Politifact :

    The U.S. Intelligence Community is made up of 17 agencies, forming the basis of Clinton's claim.

    The 17 agencies are: Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Energy Department, Homeland Security Department, State Department, Treasury Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, Navy Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

    The 17 separate agencies did not independently declare Russia the perpetrator behind the hacks . However, as the head of the 17-agency intelligence community, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, headed by James Clapper, speaks on behalf of the group.

    We don't know how many separate investigations into the attacks they were. But the Director of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country's 17 federal intelligence agencies, released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia is behind recent hacks into political organizations' emails. The statement sourced the attacks to the highest levels of the Russian government and said they are designed to interfere with the current election.

    We rate Clinton's statement True.

    Carefully parsing Politfact's story against what Clinton actually said, I rate Clinton's carefully engineered statement as not proven, and certainly not true. "17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed" is not the same as "James Clapper says that 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed." First, we simply don't know, as Politfact admits, that any of the individual agencies confirmed anything. I mean, was Coast Guard Intelligence really a serious player? Second, we don't know the quality of the confirmations. What was the interagency process? Were any of the confirmations tested or cross-checked against each other? Or were the confirmations mere formalities? Third, is there a reason other than authoritarian followership to trust James Clapper? Bringing me to my next point–

    Second, Clinton's claim rests on the word of a proven liar . Here's the blogosphere's doyenne of national security and civil liberties, Marcy Wheeler on James Clapper :

    Obviously Bogus Clapper Exoneration Attempt 4.0

    Wyden: Does the NSA collect any type of data, at all, on millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans?

    Clapper: No sir.

    Wyden: It does not?

    Clapper: There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, uh, collect, but not wittingly. [After 6:38]

    The first Edward Snowden leaks proved James Clapper lied.

    Wheeler then goes through a hilarious exegesis of Clapper's various attempts to wriggle out of the trap his own words placed him in. Remember, 17 agencies did not confirm. James Clapper wrote a memo saying they did. That's not the same!

    Third, with respect to voting integrity, 17 is really 0 . From the DNI statement :

    Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government. The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion. This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process.

    Fourth, Clinton's claim that foreign "influence" (or "interference)" is unprecedented is false . Politico :

    Foreign Governments Have Been Tampering With U.S. Elections for Decades

    Examples given: Nixon in 1968 created an October surprise telling South Vietnam's President Thieu, through Anna Chan Chennault, that he'd get a better deal from him than from Democrat candidate Humphrey. On November 4, Thieu said he wouldn't participate in peace talks. Iran refused to release the hostages it held to Carter until moments after Reagan was inaugurated. Of course, I'm not saying any of these examples are good , but they do show Clinton's claim is false.

    Fifth, the concept of "influence" (or "interference") is extremely hazy . By "influence" (or "interference"), do we mean overthrowing a democratically elected government, as in Honduras ? Or by "interference" do we mean funding political parties and factions, as in Ukraine ? Or do we mean calling for a particular outcome in a foreign country's referendum ? Clearly, there's a spectrum of possibilities, and it's not clear where Russia's putative "influence" (or "interference") falls on that spectrum, or how significant it really is.

    Sixth, nobody with actual responsibility for governing is acting like Russian interference is significant . Has the United States determined that Russian "influence" (or "interference") is a casus belli ? No. Has the United States tightened sanctions against Russia? No. Has the United States withdrawn its ambassador from Russia? No. Has Secretary of State Kerrey issued a diplomatic protest? Not that I can find . How about a "démarche" to the United Nations Secretary General? Ditto. So, even if the United States "formally accused the Russian government," the accusation doesn't amount to much, does it? Oh my goodness! "Formally"! In the lead, yet.

    Seventh, with respect to Wikipedia, telling the truth seems an odd form of influence to have problems with . Returning to Clinton's original point of departure, not one of the Podesta emails has even been shown to be false. See Glenn Greenwald (who disposes of Kurt Eichenwald, so please don't bring that up):

    Top Democrats have repeatedly waved off substantial questions arising from their hacked emails by falsely implying that some of them are forgeries created by Russian hackers.

    The problem with that is that no one has found a single case of anything forged among the information released from hacks of either Clinton campaign or Democratic Party officials.

    The strategy dates all the way back to a conference call with Democratic lawmakers in August. Politico reported that a number of Democratic strategists suggested that Russian hackers - who have been blamed by U.S. intelligence agencies for supplying the emails to Wikileaks and other web sites - could sprinkle false data among the real information.

    Since then, despite the complete lack of evidence to support such a claim, it's become a common dodge among leading Democrats and the Clinton campaign when asked questions about the substance of the emails.

    Frankly, I've been gobsmacked by the refusal of Democratic loyalists to process or even accept the Podesta emails; the press, though adding caveats that legal clearly insisted on, accepts them as true as shown by the stories they write; but Democrats go into full "LA LA LA I can't hear you!!!" mode. Since I came up as a Democrat, the idea that Democrats are as susceptible to epistemic closure as Republicans was alien to me. No more. If espionage and the truth are one and the same, how do we function as a democracy? I could understand the furor if the emails were about the Manhattan Project, but they're only about a corrupt and vicious in-group of sycophants and grifters buffing their candidate's talking points and pimping them to the press. So who cares?

    In conclusion, I want to remind you that this talking point was carefully engineered; the Clinton team took its best shot. As we have seen, the "17 agencies" best shot claim is not proven as stated, is an argument from authority where the authority is a proven liar, doesn't apply to voting integrity (the other "Russkis" narrative currently in play), depends on a hazy notion of "influence" (or "interference") and isn't taken seriously by the United States government, as shown by its actions. Oh, and the Podesta emails are legit. Doesn't that count? Once again the staggering incompetence of the Clinton campaign team stands revealed.

    Talking Point: Trump is a Russian Puppet

    Here again Clinton deploys the talking point in the third debate:

    CLINTON: Well, that's because he'd [Putin] rather have a puppet as president of the United States.

    First, if business dealings with Russia make Trump a puppet, then there are Democrat puppets, too . Politico :

    A prominent D.C. lobbying firm has hired outside counsel over revelations that it may have been improperly involved in lobbying on behalf of pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians who also employed former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

    Although the Podesta Group was founded by Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, he has not been involved with the lobbying firm that bears his name for years. His brother, Tony Podesta, is currently chairman of the firm.

    According to an Associated Press report, the controversy centers around Rick Gates, the Trump campaign's liaison to the Republican National Committee and a Manafort ally who also did work for the pro-Russian political party in Ukraine. As part of his work for the Ukrainian political party, Gates connected the Podesta Group with the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a non-profit whose board originally contained Ukrainian members of parliament from the pro-Russian party./p>

    Controversy surrounding Manafort's ties to the pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians prompted his resignation on Friday, part of a larger campaign shakeup that included the hiring of a new campaign manager and campaign CEO. A New York Times story published last Sunday detailed how secret ledgers discovered in Kiev earmarked a total of $12.7 million in cash payments to be delivered to Manafort. The former Trump campaign chairman said he never received any such money.

    Working on behalf of the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, the Podesta Group lobbied in Washington for positions favored by the pro-Russian political party, of which deposed former President Viktor Yanukovych was a member. The lobbying work ended in 2014 after Yanukovych fled Ukraine for Russia, where he remains in exile.

    Gee, it's like they all know each other, isn't it? Oh, and isn't "work" for a "Ukrainian political party" influencing (or interfering with) elections?

    Second, if realpolitik makes Trump a puppet, then heaven help us all . Here's how Trump responded in the debate:

    [TRUMP:] Now we can talk about Putin. I don't know Putin. He said nice things about me. If we got along well, that would be good. If Russia and the United States got along well and went after ISIS, that would be good.

    Assuming the validity of America's imperial role for the sake of the argument, imagine that the world is tri-polar, with Russia, China, and the United States. Why then does it make sense to, as it were, fight a two-front war? Why not de-escalate with one, and focus on the other, possibly together? Of course, I'm not a foreign policy expert, unlike the national security class that got us into two losing wars and set a few trillion dollars on fire, but Trump's logic is, at least, not insane. And it certainly doesn't make him a Russian "puppet."

    Third, nobody with actual responsibility for governing is acting like Trump is a Russian puppet. . See the sixth point above, and then ask yourself how a "Russian puppet" was also receiving intelligence briefings as a Presidential candidate if anybody with actual responsibility took this point seriously. Here's Obama on this point, post-election :

    [OBAMA:] I think it is important for us to let him make his decisions. The American people will judge over the course of the next couple of years whether they like what they see. This office has a way of waking you up. Those aspects of his positions or his predispositions that don't match up with reality, he will find shaken up pretty quick because reality has a way of asserting itself."

    One can hope.

    So, if Trump's business dealings make him a Russian puppet, there are other Russian puppets in the Beltway, including the brother of Clinton's campaign manager. Further, Trump's policy toward Russia can't be shown to make him a puppet; it's realpolitik. Finally, nobody who would have to take action, were Trump a puppet, is taking Clinton's campaign seriously.

    Conclusion

    Clinton loyalists should step away from the blame cannons and look in the mirror. Little chance of that happening soon!

    NOTES

    [1] I'm not going to concern myself with what private national security consultants write; I assume they're talking their book.

    0 0 0 0 0 0 This entry was posted in Politics , Russia on November 28, 2016 by Lambert Strether . About Lambert Strether

    Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration 24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com

    View all posts by Lambert Strether →
    Trade now with TradeStation – Highest rated for frequent traders
    Subscribe to Post Comments 186 comments Donald November 28, 2016 at 1:50 pm

    Typo alert–

    " Iraq refused to release the hostages it held to Carter until moments after Reagan was inaugurated"

    Iran, not Iraq.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 28, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    Thank you!

    Villainesse November 28, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    And another typo-

    "Seventh, with respect to Wikipedia, telling the truth "

    Wikileaks, not wikipedia, is meant here.

    Different wikis are very different indeed. The wonderful open wiki nature of wikipedia does offer many more chances for both the intentional and accidental insertion of propaganda/removal of truth and other unsubstantiated lies and hearsay. On the other hand, wikileaks has taken far more care than other media to substantiate the accuracy of their obviously opinionated and biased leaked documents while at the same time completely protecting their leaker/whistleblowers from their own end. (Few will make Chelsea's tragic mistake in the future!)

    Our world needs them both, but we need completely different mindframes to successfully parse the biases inherent in each. And also, we need that constant reminder that all our media is created within our smoldering stew of biases.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 1:46 am

    If I had a nickel for every time I've typed WikiPedia instead of WikiLeaks

    Portia November 28, 2016 at 1:51 pm

    whose "reality", I wonder? TPTB's reality? Yeah, so you think you're POTUS, do you? LOL

    [Obama] This office has a way of waking you up. Those aspects of his positions or his predispositions that don't match up with reality, he will find shaken up pretty quick because reality has a way of asserting itself."

    Ivy November 28, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    Would love to have been a flyski on the wall when Obama was shaken up and confronted with reality, although what is the life span of said flyski ? Was he shown 8×10 glossies of some embarrassing event during community organizing, perhaps off shore, and by whom? The mind reels from the possibilities.

    Dean November 28, 2016 at 9:34 pm

    Your comment is intriguing. Makes one wonder how the intel agencies use their daily briefing to turn the president into their Manchurian candidate.

    Kurt Sperry November 28, 2016 at 10:00 pm

    I read somewhere that Nixon, when he first got into the White House, made a point of returning his written intelligence reports unopened, and obviously unread. Smart guy.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:00 am

    You're quite right. Kansas City Star :

    Priess, author of "The President's Book of Secrets," said Nixon refused to sit down with CIA briefers during the transition. To try to get the document to Nixon, intelligence officials resorted to dropping sealed copies of the PDB each morning with Nixon's secretary.

    After Nixon's inauguration, his aides returned the briefing books still in their unopened envelopes, Priess said.

    BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA! What a great true fact. Thank you!

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    Again, you're never going to put and end to the excuses from establishment Democrats to rest until right-wing voter suppression is devalued as a reason Clinton lost. It is one of the easy goto comebacks of establishment types on the internet. I wish I had the time spend in attacking it, but I don't.

    nippersdad November 28, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    The excuse that Republican voter suppression as a rationale for Clinton's loss would work better had the Obama Administration's Justice Department spent any time, whatsoever, going after it the past eight years. That and the fact that Clinton could so casually defund state Party election efforts using the Hillary Victory Fund scam shows that the Democratic Party never thought it much of a problem prior to the election.

    Had it been a real problem for them, why didn't they do anything about it when it would have made a difference?

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    That doesn't rebut the claim that it caused Clinton to lose in the rust best states, though.

    nippersdad November 28, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    She lost in the rust belt states because, in her private opinion, their jobs were better offshored and anyone who doesn't like it can drink Flint water. She was a simply appalling candidate, and if they cannot get over that they need only look at all of the other candidates like her who have lost their elections over the past eight years. They got what they asked for.

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    I'm sure you realize that still doesn't rebut the voter suppression excuse. They claim if it weren't for voter suppression, they would have won in the rust belt states. There needs to be a rebuttal.

    grayslady November 28, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    It's actually easier to rebut than you are making out. Try this:

    "Although two federal district courts had ruled that the photo ID law discriminated against African-Americans, who disproportionately lack the approved IDs, the law was applied on Election Day after an appeals court stayed one of the decisions. Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican who backed the laws, has said they have no impact on voter participation, and Mr. Albrecht allowed that their effect on Milwaukee's turnout would not have erased Mr. Trump's victory in the state.

    Perhaps the biggest drags on voter turnout in Milwaukee, as in the rest of the country, were the candidates themselves. To some, it was like having to choose between broccoli and liver."

    From an article in the NY Times .

    Few governors have done as much to suppress minority voting as Scott Walker in Wisconsin. So far, the voters have managed to get around the obstacles. Those who didn't vote chose not to vote. They weren't prevented from voting.

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    Of course, Walker is going to assert his voter suppression has no impact on participation. So what? That's not something to throw in the face of the establishment Democrats and have any effect on their excuse.

    grayslady November 28, 2016 at 8:52 pm

    You might get off your hobby horse long enough to read the article. The citizens who were interviewed mostly chose to stay home, or write in someone else, rather than vote for Hillary. These were former Obama voters. Similar activity occurred in Ohio and Pennsylvania, to name two other states, although, unlike the voters in Milwaukee, many chose to vote Trump, having been disappointed by Obama's empty rhetoric. These stories have been all over the internet. Search is your friend.

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 9:17 pm

    My "hobby horse?"

    Maybe come up with a quality response to their excuse that corners them logically would be a first step. Then if I dismiss it, you might be justified in your little diminutive characterization. But until you do, maybe you should note I haven't disagreed with anything here about what went on. It just hasn't met their best excuse head on. That excuse needs to be buried with a forceful argument, then jammed in the establishment D's face.

    I would hate to have to conclude that what goes on even here is just another instance of what goes on when I find myself confronted with either a right-winger of any persuasion or an establishment D: the inevitable retreat into the comfortable cocoon of one's safe place worldview and subsequent accusation of anyone asking hard questions of being on the attack instead of that someone trying to deal with the inherent difficulties of making solid cases. To not deal with this is to let them slip away comfortably in their self-denial and self-pity. I want them to be miserable in their unmitigated failure and the understand just how massive that failure is. I want them writing in agony at just what a disaster they've drove the country and world into.

    Reading comprehension is your friend.

    run75441 November 29, 2016 at 12:12 am

    Thank you.

    run75441 November 29, 2016 at 12:13 am

    thank you

    integer November 29, 2016 at 1:07 am

    It just hasn't met their best excuse head on.

    Trying to reason logically with someone who is arguing from an emotional standpoint (though they will not admit this) is useless. A possible strategy is to dampen the initial collision as best you can, move the conversation perpendicularly by talking about something else that is loosely related yet emotionally comfortable for them, and then surprise them with logic when their emotional guard is down. Easier said than done but people rarely listen to, let alone properly process, information from someone who directly contradicts their views. Be kind and good luck!

    integer November 29, 2016 at 1:20 am

    Btw Clinton would have been an environmental nightmare also. At this stage the only real option is a total change in paradigm (ie. the wellbeing of the environment being considered as more important than corporate profits, especially by those at the highest levels of government), and the probability Clinton would have ushered that in is 0.

    Barry Fay November 29, 2016 at 8:36 am

    Sarah – your response should be in the header of the comments section! As I read the exchanges I was thinking the exact same thing (it is very rare for me to find "like minds" on other blogs – another reason why I love NC!)

    olga November 29, 2016 at 8:52 am

    It's all circular, though If Democrats had not abandoned the blue collar voters long ago (i.e., Bill C), they might not have lost so many states' legislatures and there would be fewer voter suppression efforts to begin with

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:02 am

    The counties that flipped to Trump from Obama surely refute that.

    Bluto November 29, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    If Hillary Clinton cannot defeat a clown like Trump in a landslide what exactly CAN she do??
    Even with Republican voter suppression a decent candidate running a political campaign of "I am going to end neoliberalism and bring back jobs to the Rust Belt states" could have prevailed over the orange garbage can from New York.

    Clinton could not run on that theme because she is neoliberalism personified.

    It is illusory to expect that the Democratic Party can be reformed so that it can become the advocate of working people. Eight years of Obama proved that.

    neo-realist November 28, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    I'd also say that a combination of Bush moles in the Justice Department that Obama couldn't get rid of combined w/ the usual Obama's reticence to not dirty his hands w/ tough controversial issues, particularly ones that involve injustice to black folks which might cause him to look like a "Black President" as opposed to a President of One America if he took the black side, would account for non-action on the voter suppression issue.

    But I do recall an NYT op-ed from the President in support of the voting rights act, so that's something ain't it?

    andyb November 29, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    If Bush had moles in the DOJ, they would have backed Clinton, a fellow criminal and globalist. Those who still believe that we have a 2 party system should reflect upon the fact that there are no significant policy changes going from Dem to Repub Admins or vice versa. I'm sure you remember Poppy Bush and Bill C together pleading for Haitian relief. Since Haitians received less than 10% of the reported billions, I would imagine the missing money was split between the families of the 2 ex presidents.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 28, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    If the Democrat establishment viewed expanding the franchise and voter registration as core party functions none of this would be happening. This has been an obvious problem since the Florida felon's list in 2000. Sixteen years, and they haven't done squat.

    What did Clinton spend on TV? A billion? Some amazing number. They could have just bought people IDs and driven them to the polls for that kind of money.

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 4:15 pm

    I understand, but it still doesn't rebut their lazy and easy claim. You're not going to shut them up anymore than you're going to shut up a wingnut that knows his side is lying if you can't deliver more than admonitions about what they should have been doing to prevent the suppression efforts. As we're all well aware, the establishment D's are still acting as if their economic policies were built upon the genius of their unassailable recognition of the inevitability of the wisdom of markets, globalization, and there was Nothing-That-Could-Be-Done but to cow to the scientific inevitability of it all. They and their apologists like to pretend the same sort of inevitability of political processes as if we're all caught in some sort of vicious Hegelian dialectic; "There was just nothing we could do!" they say. "The moron masses will vote against their own economic interests no matter what we say." This is, of course, an excuse to allow themselves to cater to the donor constituency instead of doing what is necessary politically.

    If the voter suppression excuse isn't met head on and exposed as just another act of establishment D political cowardice, then debunking their myths as to how and why they lost will fail, and they will keep right on pretending there was nothing that could be done. (Sure, they're going to do that anyway, but failing a rebuttal there will be nothing to expose their determined sophistry.) Of course, implicit in these arguments is that nobody in America could have beaten Donald Trump in the electoral college and there aren't words to describe how idiotic that implicit argument is.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:12 am

    Well, it sounds like I have another topic for this series, then. Got any useful links? A clear statement of the thesis would be a start.

    uncle tungsten November 29, 2016 at 4:28 am

    YES Sarah, +100 maintain the rage. The Dems did FA for years to get people to the polls. Once they smashed the Sanders assault, they changed no policies that the Bernie believers were gasping for. From that time on their fate was sealed. Had they been constantly advocating voting reform and voter access and fairer economy they would have neutralized the Trumpsters well ahead of time.

    I have said this before on NC but the Dem misleadership can't even count. Bernie Sanders potentially delivered millions of voters for the Dems to harvest and that Podesta/Mook/Clinton trio spat on them and chased off looking for a few thousand alienated rich Repugnants like lemmings off a cliff.

    Now their Democrat Chair apparent (supported by Sanders !!!) has voted for a no fly zone in Syria. They are stupid, totally insincere and there is no humanity in them! UK had the same ignorant mindset and is desperately trying to destroy the alternative, Australia is bogged down by the same neoliberal madness in its 'left' party, Germany is about to hemorrhage due to its absurd neoliberal economics rigidity, France has never found its way after the betrayal of Mitterand and his champaign neoliberal 'left'. Greece lies in ruins AGAIN! These neoliberal economic hucksters are voodoo economists.

    Tequila! now.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:11 am

    I don't think there's a clear enough thesis to refute. Can you give a link?

    For example, both these things can be true:

    1) The Republican CrossCheck operation operation suppressed a lot of votes nationwide

    2) Trump won because counties that voted for Obama in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016.

    It depends on what counties and precincts the votes were suppressed in, and I don't think we know that.

    I wouldn't bother too much with the excuses Democrats make about losing. If they stop firing the Blame Cannons at voter suppression, they'll just point them at another target, like Putin, or Comey, or whatever.

    They had one job: Win. A competent campaign would have done that. The Democrats had, what, $2 billion in TV money? (Can that possibly be true?) They had plenty of press on their side. But as we know from the Ada debacle - which appeared in the news flow for about two days, and then vanished - they systematicallly misallocated their billions throughout the campaign . That's why, for example, Clinton never visited Wisconsin, which she lost, and never gave the mayor of Madison a call.

    It may be that the Democrats simply believe themselves to be the natural ruling party, and hence any obstacles in the way of their (royal) "progress" are deemed to be illegitimate in some way. But a campaign isn't a parade. It's a campaign , a war. And in war there are obstacles!

    divadab November 28, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    When she rolled out "the Russians ate my homework" in debate I knew it was over for her. How downright pathetic. What a filthy liar. Good riddance.

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 7:07 pm

    Well, it would have been nice to have had the Democrats run an anti-neo-liberal instead of Clinton. But even with Clinton, the planet would have still stood a chance to provide a home to future generations as even establishment Democrats recognize AGW is real. As it stands now, America has told the world it doesn't give a shhit whether or not the planet is made inhospitable for future human civilization. With Clinton as president, we would have bought time for both the planet and for the Democrats to get fixed. Now, pretty much all is lost. I do hope you understand that.

    Code Name D November 28, 2016 at 8:41 pm

    I'm not convinced that is true. Oh sure, HRC states publicly that global warming is real and is man made. But then defends and expands fracking and ever met an oil pipeline she didn't love. Those wars overseas are mosty about pipeline routs. NC calls it "soft deniyal", I call it lieing through your teeth.

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    There is all that. But I don't call it "lying through your teeth." I call it political cowardice in standing up to market and corporate brow-beating and which is essentially the entirety of the Democratic party's problem and what lead them to embrace neo-liberalism as a response to Reagan and Powell (not to discount the post-Vietnam/Watergate Democrat's denial of FDR/New Deal in favor of fluffing Wall Street to their own enrichment). That being said, the Democratic party is much more sensitive to being taken to task by environmental groups. And given how late in the game we are on AGW and that the public is amenable to the truth on AGW, a Clinton presidency would have had been loath to continue business as usual even out of a sense of corporate obeisance much less one of moral decency. I think we can all agree there is not a scintilla of hope a Trump administration will give one moment's thought to the consequences of their actions with regard to even 10 years from now much less 100 or 200.

    nippersdad November 28, 2016 at 9:25 pm

    " a Clinton Presidency would have been loath to continue business as usual even out of a sense of corporate obeisance much less one of moral decency."

    As can be seen from both Clinton and Obama's presence at the DAPL protests. Your arguments are increasingly appearing to be for the sake of argument.

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    Well, if you think Democrats, even establishment D's, really aren't bothered by AGW, then I have to admit I've run into someone that is vastly more cynical than I am. It's like I said, I think, in general, they're brow-beaten political cowards that, at least congenitally, are concerned about facets of individual and social life that rise above vulgar economic existential factors, but, also congenitally psychologically, are spineless in the face of aggression and alpha maleness.

    And yes, I think they would be loath to continue business as usual. I'm pretty sure we both know what's going to happen with a libertarian climate denier as Trump's EPA chief, right? So choose; who would you have rather had in regards to choosing for that position? in dealing with legislation that's going to be coming from the GOP House and GOP Senate?

    tegnost November 28, 2016 at 10:39 pm

    The hurdle you seem to be unable to get over is that hillary ran as a republican, courted republicans, espoused republican philosophy, kicked the left, and most importantly in your case, suppressed voters in the primaries thinking she could win without them. She favored protectionist trade deals, the murders of unionists in columbia were a result of CAFTA, never met a fracker she didn't like and basically told goldman sachs she was 100% behind them but couldn't say so publicly. That is why she lost. Global warming will now, ironically, get more of a voice as purple dems need to find a purpose, and maybe dems won't engage in so much voter suppression next time around. Read the emails of your brow beaten cowards and you may find they were doing the brow beating themselves, and fully expected to flummox all of us morans .dint work thanks to a smattering of rust belt voters combined with an underwhelming turnout of supporters who did not vote because dems didn't want them to, and didn't think they needed them, which is a form of suppression in itself. They, and you, were wrong. AGW's been a thing for quite a while and your precious defenseless alpha dems had their dog food left in the bowl and now it's really gross and mouldering.

    Sarah November 28, 2016 at 11:31 pm

    "The hurdle you seem to be unable to get over is that hillary ran as a republican, "

    Good grief. No, she ran as a tempered neo-liberal New Democrat (that are starting to understand the error of their ways, but haven't gotten there.) Somebody's got a hurdle to get over, but it isn't me.

    "Global warming will now, ironically, get more of a voice as purple dems need to find a purpose, ,,,"

    And I thought wingnuts and establishment D's were delusional. Republicans are going to unleash such an withering shhitstorm of destruction just on short-term and immediate issues, Democrats won't even get heard on those, much less have the time, energy, or political courage to take on issues of far-off voter concern that they haven't worked up the moxie to take on to date.

    "Read the emails of your brow beaten cowards and you may find they were doing the brow beating themselves, and fully expected to flummox all of us morans ."

    Democrats are brow-beaten cowards of the right; they are the American right's doormats. But that's what gives them the false courage of neglecting and debasing anybody, anything, or any organization to the left of the DNC. They're actually sucking up to their mind masters on the right and Conventional Wisdom Washington Consensus when they piss on the out-of-favor wacko left like FDR New Dealers. (I do really hope you get the sarcasm, but just in case you don't, well, whatever.)

    "dint work thanks to a smattering of rust belt voters combined with an underwhelming turnout of supporters who did not vote because dems didn't want them to, and didn't think they needed them, which is a form of suppression in itself."

    Well, you really showed them Democrats you have their number. It reads like you're happy Clinton lost to Trump. If that is so, I have no idea what it is you hold dear but if it was anything that Democrats from Sanders/Warren/Brown/etc. to Joe Manchin even pretend to hold important, you lost it. Congratulations on your contemptuous victory in cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    "They, and you, were wrong."

    What was I wrong about, pray tell?

    "AGW's been a thing for quite a while and your precious defenseless alpha dems had their dog food left in the bowl and now it's really gross and mouldering."

    Yet another of you with reading comprehension problems. My "defenseless alpha dems?" When did I ever claim the existence of "alpha dems?" When did I ever claim establishment D's are defenseless? (I called them political cowards. That means they *choose* weakness and impotence.) When did I call establishment D's mine? Where have I intimated support for establishment D's other than to imply it would have been better for Clinton to be president than Trump? I mean seriously, is it the consensus here that Trump was preferable? Hoo, boy. Do you realize a Trump presidency means, at least if you take climate scientists seriously, the world just missed the last off-ramp to avoid going over 2 degrees Celsius warming? I trust you know the significance of that. Am I right?

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 12:33 am

    I think it's more important to seek advantage from the current situation, whatever it may be, than worry about alternate histories that never came to pass. (Perhaps one day there will be Campaign 2016 Re-enactors). My preference was for a Democrat Senate and a Republican House, as readers know, because I feel that gridlock is my friend. The voters threw the bums out everywhere, so we're not going to get gridlock (modulo Senate filibusters). Instead, we're going to get a fluid and dynamic situation (volatility).

    Adding, the Democrat establishment had one job: Win Clinton the Presidency. They blew it. They should all be purged, those who have not already died of shame.

    Jen November 29, 2016 at 5:22 am

    WRT to the Senate: running tools like Evan Bayh and Patrick Murphy didn't help.

    And yes, as I repeatedly point out to the wailing Clintonistas in my circle: when you are running for public office, be it for dog catcher or President it is your job to get people to vote for you. Do that, you win; don't, you lose. It's that simple.

    different clue November 29, 2016 at 12:42 am

    If Trump can cause a major trade war with China leading to a deep depression in America and in China both, carbon emissions in both countries will decline far faster and deeper than they ever would have under a petroleo-phillic Clinton Administration.

    But what if Trump can't trigger a major trade war between China and America leading to a carbon-curbing great depression in both countries? He could still open the door to a steady abolition of Free Trade and a steady return to Protectionism. One Free Trade Container Supership emits as much carbon as a hundred million cars. Shrinking Free Trade enough to retire 20 Free Trade Container Superships from service has the same carbon impact as taking Two! Billion! cars off the road. That is some major carbon reduction impact.

    So, no. All is not necessarily lost.

    Free Trade is the New Slavery. Protectionism is the New Abolition.

    Think about it.

    cnchal November 29, 2016 at 1:13 am

    . . . One Free Trade Container Supership emits as much carbon as a hundred million cars . . .

    I am a wee bit skeptical. Do you mind running the numbers?

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 1:53 am

    "If Trump can cause a major trade war with China leading to a deep depression in America and in China both, carbon emissions in both countries will decline far faster and deeper than they ever would have under a petroleo-phillic Clinton Administration."

    I do not believe what I'm reading. As satire, I used to claim that if you were concerned about AGW, you would vote Republican because Democrats will make a mixed market economy grow faster and produce more consumption through conventional counter-cyclic demand-side policies thereby increasing emissions. Of course, Democrats would also be pursuing green energy alternatives, at the same time, but that would have gotten in the way of the satire. Never mind, here in the flesh is the Onion losing its war on irony.

    And anybody believing Trump is going to do anything about the inequality-increasing aspects of our intentionally rent-seeking, reverse Robin Hood "free" trade deals are as big a suckers as the people who think he's going to bring back all the coal jobs back to Appalachia (which he would do if he could, of course, because he doesn't give a whit about the consequences of coal as an energy source (and those jobs are just strip mine jobs in the West).) To understand he's not going to do that, just look at his proposals for infrastructure "stimulus," which are nothing but a scheme to have the public underwrite private investment in profit making ideas and not to actually invest in needed infrastructure that doesn't come with an immediate return to private interests.

    There is *no* positive side to Trump other than he's better than an establishment Republican. With Trump, there's the off-chance he might blunder into some policy that isn't harmful. That is not a possibility with an establishment Republican or theocrat like Pence. And of course, both of them will allow the rest of the world to become the sources of green and renewable energy sources whilst they turn America into a country that makes nothing but financial instruments and continue the giveaways to the extraction industries and sell-offs of public lands and resources.

    Besides, if Trump was to create a big ol' depression, Democrats would probably be able to muster up the energy to win in 2020 and you certainly wouldn't want that, would you? All that pent-up demand from the depression would

    Lord.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:48 am

    > There is *no* positive side to Trump other than he's better than an establishment Republican.

    Marginal. But not insignificant!

    different clue November 29, 2016 at 2:37 am

    You have every right to be sceptical. It comes from an article I saw posted once on the Reddit. Reddit is such an unsearchable grab bag of trash and treasure mixed that I was never able to re-find it.

    Anyway, the article claimed that one Container Supership releases as much carbon as Seven Hundred Million cars. The article didn't say what KIND of cars, or how much they were driven, or anything like that. So I reduced it in my own mind from Seven down to One hundred million cars.

    If that still sounds too good to be true, I am ready to be corrected by any good article on Super Container Ship emmissions compared to car emmissions that anyone can bring here.

    uncle tungsten November 29, 2016 at 4:51 am

    There will be a major global f*kup soon enough to quell carbon emissions. There are decades of recovery ahead to compensate for the obscene leverage in the global economic casino.

    If we are extremely lucky, an economic crash will 'save' us. I don't ever count on luck that comes in a package of that shape and weight.

    jrs November 29, 2016 at 1:06 am

    blah blah blah we would have missed it anyway you know. Hillary ran on a pro fracking platform.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 2:02 am

    Yeah, and you're so self-certain of that that it was of no consequence to just go ahead and turn the U.S. government over to the most frothing right-wing asswholes we've ever run into. I mean, just because the Democrats' racists/misogynist/xenophobic/ excuses are not the reason they lost, that doesn't mean Trump hasn't unleashed the demons from Pandora's box.

    Even if AGW was of no concern, that doesn't excuse handing the country over to increasingly alarming elements of authoritarianism and fascism. I think some of have lost a sense of what has happened. Neo-liberalism is leading us into authoritarianism and fascism. That doesn't mean we should fear the fascism less than the neo-liberalism. We should be working to get rid of the neo-liberalism without allowing the authoritarianism and fascism to appear.

    We're losing. And badly.

    Michael November 29, 2016 at 1:28 am

    HRC had one job.

    nippersdad November 29, 2016 at 2:15 am

    The problem with your rationale is that there is no proof of it existing in the real world. Obama sold the most coal leases of any President in history even as the market for gas rendered its' business model obsolete. The reason that gas is so cheap is because of the fracking from sea to shining sea that has now given the US the nickname of Saudi America. No one had heard of tar sands before the proliferation of oil pipelines Obama's interior department has pushed throughout his Presidency. The Obama Administration has spent its' two terms either scuttling or signing on to severely flawed global warming treaties like the Paris Accords and his foreign policy is rife with examples of war for oil related interests. Nothing I have seen would indicate that Clinton would have been any better, and there is a lot of evidence that she would have been worse.

    None of that is calculated to give the impression that they give a damn about anything but near term bottom lines. This is just a talking point for them to corral the lefties, and it shows. Better to have an actual enemy that one can organize against than someone who talks a good game and, thereby, delays any effort at change.

    One of the most disgusting things that I routinely hear is that Trump is going to derail all of Obama's environmental advances; what advances would those be? He has STILL not taken responsibility for his debacle with the Macondo well in the Gulf, and extended his bad record even unto the Chukchi sea. I'm just not seeing it.

    Better the evil you know than the one that sticks a knife in your back with a smile on their face.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 9:41 am

    We know EXACTLY what Republicans are going to do. Exactly.

    Trust me, my friend – you have nothing on me when it comes to my disgust with and sense of betrayal from establishment D's. But Clinton wouldn't have put a libertarian climate denier with a puny degree in economics as head of the EPA.

    You, and I'm supposing many around here, have let their sense of betrayal motivate them to argue and act in a way that makes them more complicit, more culpable with the hurricane of right-wing evil that is coming than the cowardice and self-serving neo-liberal establishment Democrats that you feel betrayed by.

    "Better the evil you know than the one that sticks a knife in your back with a smile on their face."

    No. Not when 1) your estimation of the betrayal is too strong and 2) not when the planet's suitability for future human civilization's is at stake.

    Selfish are we? You think the *possibility* of *you* being betrayed yet again by pretenders to the things you hold dear is justification to, instead of taking the risk our priorities will be yet again abused by establishment D's and our support taken for granted, go ahead and hand power over to people you *know* will destroy what you hold dear and what is necessary for future generations? Well, aren't you precious and important. At least now, the betrayers can't betray you this time. Never mind the consequences; at least the establishment D's can't upset you, sweetie.

    Now, watch it burn. Enjoy.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 9:58 am

    Test.

    Edit: Never mind. Apparently, I'm having problems on my end.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Not never mind. Where's the reply that comes before the 9:58 am one?

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:17 am

    > With Clinton as president, we would have bought time for both the planet and for the Democrats to get fixed.

    I don't agree. We don't know who Clinton sold herself to with the influence peddling she did with the Clinton Foundation; for every policy statement she mades, she has made commitments to silent partners we know nothing about. I think this claim rests on the idea that Clinton personally and the Democrats are operating in good faith, in general and on climate. Assumes facts not in evidence.

    I also think that the only way to fix the Democrats is to punish them by removing them from power. The prospect of being hanged did not, apparently, concentrate their minds, so perhaps actually having hung them will do the trick.

    different clue November 29, 2016 at 2:40 am

    Actually, it won't. The only thing that will do the trick is treating the Democratic Party very aggressively with a multi-year course of treatment with the most powerful political chemotherapy possible to kill all the metastatic malignant clintonoma cells scattered throughout the party . . . and at the same time with a multi-year course of treatment with the most powerful political antibiotics possible to kill every Yersiniobama pestis bacterium within the party. If that doesn't work, the DemParty will have to be put to death so that any non-compromised organs it may contain ( if any) can be transplanted into other parties which still have a chance of survival.

    olga November 29, 2016 at 9:02 am

    Hard to do, though Today's Dem party seems to be composed mainly of a multitude of well-paid (as in fat and happy) consultants and a similar sort of hangers-on. As long as there are donors willing to cover their chunky salaries, they've no reason to change or depart.

    Stephen Verchinski November 29, 2016 at 12:59 pm

    Thanks for this series. It should serve many to quit the dems for good. Now go and help the Greens. At least with the Greens have a platform based on principles and values we need as a species to survive. The dems platform got shredded even before the Democratic National Convention got underway and went Republican lite.

    The Greens just need organizational help, voters to reregister as Greens, and candidates for the mission to challenge open positions at higher levels of government. In New Mexico some 70% of all elected positions were, at the general election, run unopposed.

    Just to remind all too despite a media blackout the Greens still doubled their votes nationally from the last cycle. Thats a true progressive promise for the future.

    Oh and watch out for the new SOS dem implants. The next act at dem voter suppression is to bring back party straight ticket voting so that hacks can still run unexamined.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 10:49 am

    @Lambert:
    "We don't know who Clinton sold herself to with the influence peddling she did with the Clinton Foundation "

    That's right. We DON'T know and we DON'T know if any *possible* influence peddling would have influenced a decision to deal with the problem. So acting as if you might as well have assumed the results of known influence peddling and bad faith acting was and is an act of extreme self-important irresponsibility roughly equivalent to any climate denier manufacturing false rationales to ignore the reality.

    No. That is not a reason enough to guarantee missing the last off-ramp to avoid 2 degrees Celsius warming.

    Now, we've missed it. It's gone. It can't be fixed. And it will not be fixed. If you or anyone around here were arguing Trump was a better choice than Clinton, you now share in the shame that is America's, the Koch's, Jim Inhofe's, Mitch McConnell's, for all time. I hope that isn't the case, but if so, but if it is the case, it was a position of sanctimonious irresponsibility that in and of itself was an act of bad faith toward the well-being of future generations.

    Punishing Democrats should have waited till Clinton did indeed stiff the world in America's obligation to deal with the problem. We would have known soon enough if that would have been the case and would have had the chance to marshal a pushback against it. Now, we don't. I sure hope your conscience is clear. I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

    Fco November 29, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    I must be looking at a different crystal ball because my conscience is crystal clear. Even the snowflakes in them don't look too bad.

    Seems like you are still on the blaming phase of grief. Though I don't share it, I do feel your pain.

    4 years. Give it 4 years. In the mean time Taco Tuesday.

    Stephen Verchinski November 29, 2016 at 1:10 pm

    The rest of the world is tired of us and is moving past our stupidity on AGW. They will be better off without us.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 1:17 pm

    They can't succeed without us. But don't let that bother you as you smugly stroke your chin.

    marym November 29, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Based on the past 8 years, it seems more likely that what's left of Democratic partisans would be more likely to push back on Trump policies than Clinton policies.

    I don't think a significant portion of Trump voters were people on the left voting for spite, but that's just an opinion.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    Based on the last 30+ years, anybody paying attention understands the right doesn't just ignore anybody pushing back against their vileness, they run over them. And anybody equating what Clinton would do to what Trump is going to do is engaging in not only their own despicable MSM-like false equivalence, but attempting to inoculate themselves from their own complicity and culpability in the unfolding disaster.

    mary November 29, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    It wasn't the few disgruntled lefties who may have voted for Trump that cost Clinton the election, or so many other national, state, and local elections. If the argument is now "lesser of 2 complicities/culpabilities" in bad politics and bad policies, that cause people not to trust or vote for them, Team Blue doesn't have much to say for itself anymore. We'll see if they support the next Occupy, BLM, NoDAPL, Sanders, etc. movement or not.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    "It wasn't the few disgruntled lefties who may have voted for Trump that cost Clinton the election, or so many other national, state, and local elections."

    Nobody said it was. Clinton earned her electoral college defeat and the excuses coming from establishment D's are to be slammed hard. But the discussion here has turned to people defending the idea that Trump was preferable or equivalent to Clinton as president. And I'm telling you that was damaging, self-defeating, selfish petulance and willing delusion born of a sense of betrayal.

    And if you think Occupy or BLM or .. were models for organizing the nonexistent "left" in taking on the right, then , jeez, I'm speechless. Inchoate and easily dissipated anger is worthless. The right will laugh and fart in whatever direction they think that determined impotence is coming from. Then issue another decree to spray the unwashed masses from the streets. The comfortable won't even hear about it.

    marym November 29, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    It was Democratic mayors coordinating with a Democratic administration that sprayed the Occupiers off the streets, with silence from Democratic loyalists. You don't see supporting such resistance attempts in the streets as viable. Thus you probably predict that Clinton supporters won't join any such initiatives in the future. The only electoral approach you see as viable is voting for Clinton. Yet you think there would have been "pushback" to bad Clinton policies?

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    marym: "The only electoral approach you see as viable is voting for Clinton. Yet you think there would have been "pushback" to bad Clinton policies?"

    That's incorrect. Clinton was vastly preferable to Trump. Period. Trump represents the end of the country and world as we know it and as we wished it could be. That's not hyperbole. That's the truth. This can't be fixed, save Mitch McConnell not doing away with the filibuster and Democrats mount total defiance (and who believes that will happen).

    A bunch of people parked in streets refusing to make demands or prioritize political objectives can not and will not offer any resistance to either the rabid right or center-right neo-liberalism.

    It's not that Clinton wasn't bad. It just that she was the only thing that stood between the abyss and reasonable hope to turn it all around without permanent irreversible damage. We/you were trapped and there was no escape and no other choice from the Lesser Evilism the Democrats triangulated us/you with. No amount of resentment about that could change that very fact. So apparently plenty of folks here preferred to act on prideful defiance and bristle against those they felt most betrayed against. Congratulations. Now you've got Greater Evil and much less reason to hope it can be reversed. And you've also built in permanent, irreversible damage for you, yours, and all future generations. You're going to love Trump's Supreme Court picks.

    Happy?

    Fco November 29, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    Sarah, it's not the unfolding disaster that you passionately predict that worries me, it is your lack of understanding or your stubborn refusal to understand that people who do not share your sentiments are not as " vile" as you describe them to be.

    I am now wondering how you have escaped being run over these past 30 years.

    Words like "despicable" are not helpful, they didn't work the last time, and they won't work going forward. What they will do though is alienate those you want to win over.

    But I have to say, morbid as it may seem, I do enjoy reading your rants.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    Fco: "Sarah, it's not the unfolding disaster that you passionately predict that worries me, it is your lack of understanding or your stubborn refusal to understand that people who do not share your sentiments are not as " vile" as you describe them to be. "

    Then you can show me where I'm wrong.

    Fco November 29, 2016 at 7:04 pm

    I would really love to. But I'm thinking at this juncture in time, you may paint a glorious sunset into a hematoma of a sky.

    It's not that you're wrong. I'm sure your definition of "vile" may be more encompassing than mine.

    So How is that working for you?

    Taco Tuesday.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    Translation: You can't show where I'm wrong or have any lack of understanding. So you hide behind vague, amorphous insinuations without meaning. But I knew that.

    So How is that being wrong working for you?

    sierra7 November 30, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    Reply to "Fco" 2:33 PM

    I was wondering how far into these comments "yours" would appear ..Bravo!

    Fco November 30, 2016 at 8:21 pm

    Sarah,
    You are right, there is absolutely no way I can show you that not all people who do not share your sentiments are vile.

    I do not mind being wrong at all. In fact, I have been wrong numerous times in my life.

    What's strange though is that you even bother to respond to someone like me who hides behind vague stuff. I know you must have better stuff to do with your time. After all, the weight of the world sits on your shoulders.

    By the way, last time I read, Trump's still the presumptive POTUS. (I thought maybe if you read that name more often, you'ld get used to the pain. But forgive me if it is actually doing the opposite.)

    Naked Capitalism has educated me more than you'll ever know. Even your rage and rants and minor belittling ( borderline bullying) have enlightened me.

    For some odd reason, I picture you with a cat. I don't know why. Maybe because I'm allergic to them?

    Last but not the least, I will always hide from you.

    Happy now?

    Fco November 30, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    Sierra7

    I'm new to this thing. Why the "bravo" comment? Are we only allowed a number of comments per post?

    Code Name D November 29, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    Seems to me your approch had already been tried with Obama. And as you already noted, we went saling past the last exit ramp for AGW, on Obama's Watch, no Trump required.

    It's like spouce abuse. He keeps beating you over and over again. But you always return because you know, deep down in his heart, he really loves you and is trying to change. But he wont because you never give him a reason to change.

    As bad as you imagin Trump might be, the EVEDENCE shows that Clintion would have been just as bad, or not worse. And your argument that "Clition might change" is simply not compeling.

    The reality was that AGW was alsways going to get worse, no mater who one. Your faith dosn't really change that.

    Pat November 29, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    So when do Democrats get to reject "New Democrats" aka Republicans marketing themselves as Democrats? Obama has already stiffed the world. But hey give Clinton a chance despite her lackluster record as Senator and her God awful record at State. And then it will be her successor we must give a chance despite a record that giving lip service to global warming is as deep as they are willing to go.

    The climate was a loser no matter who got elected. Could be that having someone in office who isn't pretending to be concerned might end up accomplishing more, just by providing a clear target.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    Whoosh, right over all of your heads.

    Nobody was exposing Democrats until Sanders/Warren. (And no, blabbering on internet, writing books, , doesn't expose them. Only a political voice that is widely available ends up exposing them.) And Democrats show signs of feeling the heat. Even Bill Clinton acknowledges it. So sure, go ahead and build certain destruction in with complete GOP control instead of allow the dawning realization Democrats are going through a chance to work. Brilliant. Make sure you write something on your tombstones of your thinking on 11/8/16. Yours who come after you will admire you for your petulant selfishness.

    Code Name D: "As bad as you imagin Trump might be, the EVEDENCE shows that Clintion would have been just as bad, or not worse. And your argument that "Clition might change" is simply not compeling. "

    Stupid beyond belief. You are getting a libertarian climate denier as head of the EPA. Do you *really* understand the significance of that? Really?

    Pat: "But hey give Clinton a chance despite her lackluster record as Senator and her God awful record at State. And then it will be her successor we must give a chance despite a record that giving lip service to global warming is as deep as they are willing to go."

    How stupid it would have been, right? I mean, it's like Trump asking black people to vote for him with the reasoning "What have you got to lose?" Well, I think they're finding out and I think people who care even a whit about the planet are finding out the certainty of what we're going to lose.

    It's clear a lot of you folks are in the process of attempting to wipe your guilt away. You're going to fail. If these are the arguments you were making before the election you're just as guilty as any aging frothing wingnut denier, and more guilty than the establishment D's you apparently hate more than the nauseating right.

    Enjoy your misery. Try not to let it weigh too much on your consciences.

    J Robertson November 29, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    Why are you lashing out at everyone here? It's not going to change anything. The election is over. Trump is going to be president. He is going to appoint whoever he wants to and congress will confirm them. It doesn't matter what Clinton would or would not have done. She lost, end of story. If the Dems don't come up with a better answer than the crap they've been pushing they will continue to lose and it will be all Republican policies all the time. We missed the deadline on AGW and we will all suffer the consequences of that. That's a fact. All that can be done is for each of us to try our best to pick up the pieces and move forward into whatever the future brings. I plan on resisting the coming administration as best I can, but I don't imagine it will make all that much difference. What are you going to do?

    Fco November 29, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    Shhh let her vent. Safer here than out on the streets.

    pretzelattack November 29, 2016 at 7:24 pm

    oh you mean like john edwards. he sure exposed them with his "two nation's" rhetoric, right. after that, the democrats reformed which is why we have president elect bernie sanders today. oh wait, we aren't. instead, given the choice between a proven warmonger and a potential warmonger, many democrats either stayed home, voted 3d party, or voted for trump. clinton was a truly awful candidate, focus on that and stop making excuses about all the changes she was going to go through, and pivot away from the truly awful neocons that supported her.

    Sarah November 29, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    What the hell are you talking about? I don't need to understand why she lost the electoral college. I know why.

    But if you made the estimation and argument that it didn't matter whether Trump or Clinton became president, and acted on it, then good luck with your conscience. If you have one.

    – Look in the mirror when Trump makes his Supreme Court picks.
    – Look in the mirror when Trump signs the ACA out of existence and health care is taken away from 20,000,000+ people.
    – Look in the mirror when Medicare is privatized and insufficient vouchers are given to people who can't afford the extra premiums.
    – Look in the mirror when Social Security is privatized.
    – Look in the mirror when climate scientists tell you what's in store now that America has

    It'll all be worth it because, you know, you were edgy and cool and on the cutting edge of social-economic insight, understanding and hating the cancer of neo-liberalism and all. I mean, you have the answer of guaranteed jobs and Stacey Kelton and MMT and . all that, so what about the misery created by what amounts to insouciant political nihilism from some sort of fake, hip conscienceless left. Never mind that the only political thing lamer than establishment D's are pissant movements like Occupy that never even get around to making and organizing political objectives. Never mind that the GOP will move with such speed to destroy existing structures that provide even the slight mechanism to challenge their complete grip on power. Never mind that the GOP is getting ready to run what amounts to a Gish Gallop of destruction on 20th century political progress that what's left of any political opposition won't even be able to defend one item before the next bulldozer on the 20th century is right upon them. Never you mind all that. Because you're cool, man, and that dislocated shoulder you got from patting yourself on the back for noticing just how evil establishment D's are is covered by health care that others now can't afford.

    Clinton got her comeuppance that her neo-liberal economics, neo-conservative warmonging, frackin-lovin' environment-destroying smug dismissal of class in favor of identity earned her. That's all that matters. You won! Your trenchant insight was vindicated! Celebrate!

    Never mind the politically illegitimate garbage that will now be making the rules.

    David Green November 29, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    That's Stephanie Kelton, who's no Malibu Stacey.

    aab November 29, 2016 at 8:32 pm

    Sarah, I'm going to hypothesize that you're commenting in good faith, even though much of what you're saying is not merely factually inaccurate and dishonest, but regurgitates Clintonian establishment talking points. I realize that it's difficult to resist swallowing said poisonous talking points, because so much of public discourse is contaminated with them, and people are seeking a way to perceive themselves and the status quo that benefits them as morally good, and a vehicle for positive progress, because to accept the contrary position feels uncomfortable.

    But if you really do care about the environment, the climate crisis, the abuse of marginalized people, etc., you need to read more and better information sources, rather than hectoring people here. That is a necessary but not sufficient condition if you really want to be an agent of positive change. For example, you seem to be trying to claim that enabling the installation of Hillary Clinton as President would be better for dealing with the climate crisis than Trump being elected, because Clinton says words indicating that she recognizes the role of human activity in the crisis.

    But when others point out that Clinton saying she recognizes this factual reality is irrelevant, because she has displayed NO willingness to take effective action to alleviate the crisis, you wave your hands around and hurl invective. This is a waste of your time. Nobody here will fall for that, and you will change no minds elsewhere. To the degree that false propaganda will be effective in public discussion, it does not need you, here, regurgitating it. Do something else. Almost anything else.

    Right now, under President Obama, we are seeing fascism in action, at Standing Rock. Mercenaries in the service of banks and oil companies have launched extra-legal military assaults on the soil of a treaty-allied sovereign nation against its people and American citizen allies standing with them, to facilitate the construction of an oil pipeline that has the potential to poison that nation's water and our nation's water, while primarily privately enriching global corporations and banks. These violent corporate-backed actions are illegal in numerous ways, yet the local, state and federal government are either actively facilitating this corporate thuggery, or passively allowing it to happen. Our Democratic President is allowing it to happen. Hillary Clinton has not lifted her pinkie finger to stop it, or even speak words condemning it. They won't stop it, because they are tools of these banks and corporations. Regardless of what they may or may not actually believe, they are refusing to limit their own enrichment one iota in the service of such beliefs. So their beliefs are functionally irrelevant.

    Their polite words mean nothing, if, while in power, they will take no actions that give meaningful force to those words. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both, demonstrably, evil people. Hillary Clinton deserved to lose the election. She lost not because of people like me who read and comment on Naked Capitalism, but because many of the New Democrats' victims said, "We've seen enough, thanks," and either voted elsewhere or just stayed home.

    I know that is uncomfortable to face, but until you do face these uncomfortable truths, you are an obstacle to positive change, and therefore, a servant of evil. You are a servant of evil, because you are acting as a servant of the Democratic status quo, which is evil.

    In addition to better educating yourself about Standing Rock, and the complicity of Democratic Party leadership in the atrocities happening there, please read the pieces that the corporate media is reluctantly delivering about all the suffering people - many of them black - who rightly condemn Obama and the Clintons for their suffering, and refused to vote for Hillary Clinton. They're not fools. They're not expecting much from Trump. If you're going to come here and excoriate me on their behalf, you should at least familiarize yourself with their current conditions, life experience, and perspective - that is, if you really do care about suffering people and respect them as your equals.

    Clinton violated serious laws against the state. She was planning a hot war against Russia, the disembowelment of Social Security, and the utter abrogation of our national sovereignty under TPP/TISA, et al. She would have had a completely clear path to do those things, and set a horrifying precedent about what a person can do and still be awarded the presidency. I am not at all sorry she has (hopefully) been prevented from taking power. The voices of those who have been destroyed by NAFTA and the other corporate control treaties have ONLY been heard in the corridors of power because she lost. That is the ONLY reason the New York Times and New York Magazine deigned to send reporters to talk to them. Before her loss, it was, "Employment is down! The economy is great!"

    The first step to achieving ANY forward progress was going to have to be stopping Clinton. Clinton is the one who elevated Trump, so his election is totally on her, not on me or anyone at Naked Capitalism. And since he's the father of her daughter's best friend, and he's the golfing buddy of her husband, I'm just gonna guess that he's not all that much different from the Clintons, and not actually a world-ending Bond villain. If he is, well, again, his election is the Clintons' fault. You can accept it or not, but these shrieking rants are ineffective.

    Ernesto Lyon November 28, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    Trump is a devil, but he is not the devil the Hill bots have made him out to be. He's a different sort of devil, that we don't fully understand yet.

    The interesting thing about Trump is that he's his own man. He's the 1% of the 1%. There are few in the world who can pull rank on him. He has no need to climb, unlike Hillary who seems have devoted her life to it, and still had a ways to go.

    There are problems with Trump, starting with the crony Republican cabinet, but there are also possibilities with him that are usually not open.

    different clue November 29, 2016 at 12:46 am

    And not only that, he was never invited to any of the fancy schmansy meetings of the INsider esTABlishment OPOOP ( One Per Cent Of One Per Cent) like Davos, Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg, etc.
    They regard him as a vulgar plumber . . . Not Their Kind, Dear. They feel about him as if it were their septic tank pumping technician who made a few billion dollars . . . somehow. Oh the Humanity!

    And he knows what they think of him. Perhaps he will seek some wounded pride vengeance against the Greatest and the Goodest.

    Michael November 29, 2016 at 1:28 am

    He's a kleptocrat; we're in for some stuff we haven't seen for a while. This'll be fun.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:21 am

    This is the thing that drives me nuts. There's so damn much liberal noise-making it's tough to figure out the real players and where the power lies.

    It's as if the Democrat establishment lost a big battle, and instead of hunkering down and trying to fix the position of the enemy and work out their next move, they're running around blowing trumpets and sending up flares and firing their guns into the air and screaming and yammering. And they're not firing the generals who lost the battle.

    It's a volatile situation, a war of movement. Take advantage!

    Tempestteacup November 29, 2016 at 5:38 am

    Yeah but as we now know – because the Washington Post told us – you are in fact as well as mere conjecture an organ of Russian propaganda. The euphemism de nos jours for any and all critics of Democratic establishment wisdom, foresight and moral rectitude has finally reached you and you should be very proud!

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/

    Code Name D November 29, 2016 at 7:49 pm

    So is your next myth going to debunk Trumps connections to the dark lord? (Could use a little lightening up.)

    Sam Adams November 28, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    Quibble – Iran held the Carter/St Ronnie of the Cons hostages, not Iraq

    Lambert Strether Post author November 28, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    Dimitry must have jogged my elbow.

    Villainesse November 28, 2016 at 7:39 pm

    The all-powerful "Dmitry" is why I most happily visited, first time today! DLC neo-'red'-baiting is clearly good for somethin!

    L November 28, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    Thank you for this excellent series.

    Along these lines, The Baffler has a nice piece making many similar points to yours: #RIPMyShillaries
    An end to the era of professionally explained candidates"
    . While I do not share his optimism that the end is nigh for folks like Ezra Klein, when one consideres his godawful profile piece in which he argued that the meaning of the Democratic primary is that Clinton was the better, more feminine, listener. And that is what people want despite the fact that they showed up en-masse to Sanders rallies you one can't help but enjoy passages like this:

    Funny, somehow Sen. Elizabeth Warren doesn't have the same trouble speaking as vociferously as Sanders on the issues that matter to them and to a large swathe of Democratic voters.

    Sadly I fear that connected folks like Klein, Dean, and Reid won't get the message that the policies do matter. At present they are still sending me requests for donations for the DCCC as if they hadn't already lost.

    L November 28, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    Apropos of your comment about the carefully-crafted talking points, it is also worth noting that the Baffler piece notes that the phrase "Stronger Together" was the best of 85 alternative slogans which they paid good money to get. Slogans which included "Your future, your terms."

    Given their ongoing obsession with the idea that "Russia Did It" you have to wonder if they test marketed that along with a dozen other bad countries as well. Perhaps "Canada Did it" just didn't have the same zest.

    flora November 28, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    "Canada Did It." ? That's just loonie. ;)

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:24 am

    "Canadian Single Payer Fanatics Cost Hillary the Election!"

    There should really be a twitterbot that fires off the blame cannons every few hours. Anybody game?

    Ian November 29, 2016 at 5:43 am

    I'm certain there is a drinking game somewhere in there.

    UserFriendly November 28, 2016 at 5:20 pm

    Just imagine the HillBots trying to get their heads around Mexico did it Right after they send their Rapists.

    nippersdad November 28, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    That no one caught on to the idea that the "stronger together" concept derives from the Latin fasces (bundle of sticks), from which in turn the word fascist comes from kind of surprised me. Seems like, were I in that particular poll, that would have stuck out. But then being "with her" and " Homeland Security" would have failed with me as well.

    They must have some mighty interesting people in their poll groups.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:27 am

    Oh, man. I missed that one. You're right, of course.

    "Together," that is, except for the #BerniBros, the women with a "special place in hell," and who could forget the irredeemables?

    "Love trumps hate" is about as Orwellian as it could be

    nippersdad November 29, 2016 at 2:48 am

    The DLC/Third Way/New Dems have spent, literally, decades slapping down every element of the former Democratic coalition save for their funders. That they are now a regional Party should come as no surprise to them after having run possibly the most sociopathic example of their creed. And they still don't get it! Pelosi and Schumer must think we are all fools.

    I thought this was really interesting: http://blackagendareport.com/keith-ellison-dnc *

    One hates to say it, but it is beginning to look like Sanders really was a sheepdog for the Democratic Party, if not HIllary herself. At least he changed the conversation.

    *BTW, Lambert, if you have not looked at BAR in the past week or so, they have some really good stuff up.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:52 am

    Thanks for the reminder. The volume (both senses) is so great it's hard to keep track and look at everything I should.

    If you want to play the inside/outside game, then you need a politician on the inside. Sanders is the best choice for that. If that makes people stamp their feet and cry "sheepdog," I don't really give two sh*ts at this point (as I would not, having just been called a sheep. Eh?)

    Marco November 29, 2016 at 5:11 am

    Ouch!! Dixon on Ellison: "An empty black face in a very high place"

    HotFlash November 29, 2016 at 4:35 am

    Hey, you left out us deplorables!

    uncle tungsten November 29, 2016 at 5:01 am

    Turkmenistan did it. If not then Finland.

    flora November 28, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    Yes. Klein, Dean and Reid think all they need is better messaging and better PR.

    "Democrats don't see a need to change policy – just the way they sell it "

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article117525968.html#storylink=mainstage

    It will take more than one election to change this mindset.

    nippersdad November 28, 2016 at 9:29 pm

    After the past several elections, and now as a regional Party, they don't have many more to lose before the mindset becomes irrelevant.

    Michael November 29, 2016 at 1:29 am

    Dems do, in fact, need better messaging, but on a very deep level. cf: 50-state strategy.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:31 am

    From the McClatchy story :

    And they still face a daunting challenge crafting, let alone communicating, an economic message. It's widely agreed that the party was unable to find a vigorous, meaningful way of telling working class voters it understood their concerns.

    Pleasing to see a reporter use the phrase "working class" without prefixing with "white."

    fresno dan November 28, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    Naked Capitalist Pigs Comrades: you are most fortunate to have actual Soviet communist spy infiltrator, who has been inseminated into your society from conception, to reveal himself to you and our nefarious plots to restore world wide communism through our subversive and inconceivable plots. Here, in my basement lair, in my pajamas and fuzzy red hammer and sickle bunny slippers, I receive my orders from Putin himself, via walky talky while he rides his horse bare chested .and so is Putin.

    Now, with all the electronic monitoring of the communications, many dismiss that the Soviets can communicate with all the infiltrators without detection.
    After all, your own Secretary of State uh .stated:
    [CLINTON:] And what's really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans. They have hacked American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions {[AND OF COURSE, THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES]}. Then they have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the Internet.

    This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government, clearly, from Putin himself, in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election. {[DESPITE OUR BEST EFFORTS, WE FAILED TO ELECT CLINTON AS WE BELIEVED SHE WOULD CAUSE THE INTERNAL COLLAPSE OF THIS COUNTRY MUCH QUICKER THAN ANYONE ELSE .CURSES!!! FOILED AGAIN}]
    ============================================
    That is why I always in my bunny slippers – yes, we do not use internet because is soooooo insecure – real spies receive their instructions for world domination by radio waves, which is why .I wear bunny slippers ..because I need the rabbit ears as antenna
    Yes, every person wearing bunny slippers is a Soviet mole.

    rowlf November 28, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    Comrade,
    Be careful with your bunny slippers. They may not be adequate:

    This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: "Why Lenin wore regular shoes, but Stalin wore boots?"

    We're answering: "At Lenin's time, Russia was still only ankle-high in shit."

    Commie Martyr High Class of 1977

    integer November 28, 2016 at 10:30 pm

    Interesting. I used to get my Russian operational briefings from Unfavorable Semicircle on YouTube, but we have been forced to switch to Twitter since YouTube disabled our communications channel.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:33 am

    Those YouTubes looks like an hommage to Gibson's Pattern Recognition .

    integer November 29, 2016 at 3:03 am

    Just read the Wikipedia plot synopsis and would have to agree. Nice connection of the dots!

    different clue November 29, 2016 at 12:52 am

    Fresno Dan.

    Is being most amazing thing! Is true you are being Putommunist Agent! How can I telling this? You mispelling of "walky talky". Americans spelling are "walkIE talkIE" . . . not "walky talky" as you have mispelling it here.

    But Why Agent Fresno? WHY? Why have you revealing yourself at this most sensitive juncture with most obviousful plain mis-spellingly "tell" as like this?

    desmana moschata November 29, 2016 at 5:21 am

    There must be more of us. I had always been programmed to believe I was the original russian mole and that we were nearly extinct. Good that we have friends.
    The Russian desman often lives in small (usually not related) groups of two to five animals, and appears to have a complex (but largely unstudied) communication and social systems and that is why it took so long for Clinton to find us.

    flora November 28, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    Thanks for this post. Interesting that Hillary ran as a sort of Eisenhower Republican, since the GOP used to stand for Civil Rights for blacks, and equal rights for women. They did not stand for the little guy or rising wages, however. See Margaret Chase Smith, Nelson Rockefeller, Edward Brooke.
    GOP Sen Joe McCarthy was a cold war demagogue during Eisenhower's admin. (Sen. M.C. Smith stood to denounce McCarthy.)
    Today's neolib Dems blend the best and the WORST of the Eisenhower Republicans. 3rd Way?
    It is deeply ironic that the DNC neolib Hillary campaign absorbs the Eisenhower GOP's stance on civil rights, ignores the traditional Dem stance on the economic needs of the little guy, AND turns to McCarthyist smear tactics against political and press opponents. She's not even as principled as Sen. Margaret Chase Smith was. (Sen. from Maine!)

    aside to Lambert, aka Raskolnikov! : one of the most insidious and pernicious effects of McCarthyism was self-censorship, fear, distrust and look-over-the-shoulder.

    Watt4Bob November 28, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    It seems to me that we're having a hard time getting our collective minds wrapped around the fact that our ' leaders ' not only feel entitled to lie to us, but that it is their duty to lie to us.

    The Clinton 'folks' evidently think that we're so susceptible to repuglican lies, that the only solution is a dose of democrapic lies.

    They haven't for one minute considered the possibility that we're so tired of being lied to, that we've decided to forego what has become utterly unbearable, that is, being forced to listen to even one more lie from the mouth of a 'third-way' democrat.

    It would appear that the repuglicans are in no way more self-aware than the democraps as far as that goes, so we're in for a deluge of dis-honesty surrounding Trumps broken promises and empty campaign rhetoric.

    As far as both sides of the faux-political-spectrum are concerned here's only one game in town, and that's called Give the Rich What They Pay For.

    Our political class, has explained to us in perfectly clear english, (Thanks HRC) that their actions are governed by opinions they consider 'private', and that these opinions are often the exact opposite of the opinions they offer in public.

    Some of us are enjoying the small comfort that comes from the realization that at least the lies will come from someone not named Clinton or Bush.

    Since it was our political class that taught us to settle for incrementalism, they should understand why many of us consider this progress.

    Harold November 28, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    Not only is lying a slippery slope but people really resent being lied to.

    run75441 November 29, 2016 at 12:15 am

    Do not fall into the same trap; "repuglican lies, that the only solution is a dose of democrapic lies."

    Paid Minion November 28, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    So let me get this straight .

    The Russians are "interfering" with US elections, by showing the American people the truth, vs. the propaganda doled out by the Democratic Party.

    To this I say: Thanks Russia. Keep it coming. Don't even bother attempting to plant "false info" in any of this stuff, the truth is damaging enough. While you are at it, lets see some stuff out of the Republican camp, and the Wall Street banks.

    This illustrates the US Governments dilemma. They have put out so much false BS that the wretched refuse believes nothing they say anymore, even if it's the truth. Integrity and credibility are tough to get back, once they have been lost/tossed aside.

    And the "interfering in US elections" is a real hoot to begin with. Like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, etc (not to mention various above-the-nation-state entities like MNCs and the Banksters) haven't been interfering/influencing US elections for decades.

    How has the Clinton Foundation been doing with "donations", now that they have zero influence in US government policy?

    Mildred Montana November 28, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    "This illustrates the US Governments dilemma. They have put out so much false BS that the wretched refuse believes nothing they say anymore, even if it's the truth. Integrity and credibility are tough to get back, once they have been lost/tossed aside."

    The man whose falsehoods no longer deceive has forfeited the right to tell the truth.
    -Ambrose Bierce

    Code Name D November 28, 2016 at 8:46 pm

    Maybe I am sending my FOIA requests to the wrong place. I should be sending them to Moscow

    different clue November 29, 2016 at 12:58 am

    The Clintonites are grooming Chelsea Clinton to run for Congress, so that the Clinton Foundation will still have influence in the US government so as to keep those donations coming.

    That is why it is so very important that Chelsea not be allowed to get into Congress.

    HotFlash November 29, 2016 at 4:44 am

    There are not enough groomers in the entire world to get her in.

    Anne November 28, 2016 at 3:22 pm

    I think one of the things that just frosts my cupcakes is this drummed-up outrage over so-called Russian incursions into Americans' data, knowing that our own government has been harvesting and mining and tiptoeing through our information like a love-sick Ferdinand the Bull cavorting through the daisies, because, you know, terrorism! We don't know what they're doing with it, whether they are storing it, or building dossiers with it – but it's landing some people on watch lists, so it can't be as random as they want us to believe, can it? They keep assuring us that it isn't like they're actually reading our e-mails and taking snapshots of our web activity but we're supposed to be suffused with indignation and huffing with outrage because Putin and Russia? Really?

    steelhead23 November 28, 2016 at 5:11 pm

    +1000

    phred November 28, 2016 at 5:17 pm

    I'm with you Anne. How absurd is it to get one's knickers in a twist over Russia when Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, the 17 US "intelligence" agencies, etc., etc., etc., not to mention our bestest pals the Brits with their shiny new spying laws, have been asserting their God-given right to all of our digital information? Russia might just as well get in line.

    Spring Texan November 28, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    You put that very well!!!

    uncle tungsten November 29, 2016 at 5:28 am

    Because human terrain mapping! and trained people need to perfect dossiers and now they have supercomputers.

    uncle tungsten November 29, 2016 at 5:34 am

    Plus I meant to include: the Russian stuff is a red herring as some people are desperate to avoid us looking at the DIA as the agent who leaked it. There is sh!t going down big time over this leak and it does point to a state actor but much closer to home. I read Trump is elevating the likely lad to a senior role in his administration. Pure speculation yes, but much more likely. Besides we have forgotten about Comey, phew! that was close.

    ChrisPacific November 28, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    Thank you for deconstructing the 17 intelligence agencies talking point. I read it when it was linked and was struck by the same points.

    In particular I think this part is suspect:

    "We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

    Authorized these activities? What the heck does that mean? Are we supposed to accept that the Russian hacking community is some kind of centrally controlled organization that must seek government approval before they attempt anything too drastic? If so it's like no hacking community that I've ever heard of. What if there was a WikiLeaks-like attack on a Russian government server that was traced to an American source, and the Russians tried to use the same argument to pin it on the US government?

    Also on the cyberwarfare front, does anybody really believe that this isn't going on all the time? Or that at least some of the actors on each side are state funded and/or have ties to intelligence agencies? We know from the Snowden material that the US does it even to its allies (they were tapping Merkel's phone, FFS!) So even if every word of it is true, there is an additional burden of proof to demonstrate that the activity is somehow exceptional and not just a continuation of the current security status quo. So far I have seen no attempt to do this, or even acknowledge that it's necessary.

    I do find it amusing that the Clinton camp was simultaneously maintaining that (a) national security was under constant threat from the big bad Russians and (b) Clinton systematically ignoring security regulations for electronic communications wasn't a big deal at all.

    Skip Intro November 29, 2016 at 2:41 am

    Who but a state actor would be able to crack Podesta's email password of "p@ssword"?

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:15 am

    Here's a nice takedown from Jacobin :

    But what we do know, thanks to digital forensics of the hacked emails, is that Podesta clicked twice on a not-so-sophisticated fishing email asking for his password. We also know from the same emails that John Podesta lost his cellphone in a taxi on January 19, 2015; and that his password was "p@ssword."

    With leadership like that, the rest makes sense.

    A point for the Left in all this: the DNC's ideas are not only bad because they don't advocate the social-democratic redistribution we would like to see - they are also bad because they don't work at a purely technical level.

    Their arrogance and contempt for the working class produced a flawed political theory, which in turn produced a bad strategy, which in turn produced a tactically inept ground game.

    Too busy congratulating themselves and concurring with each other, the Clintonites couldn't even get the rudiments of the campaign correct.

    Not even a zero for the "o" in password? Remarkable

    johnnygl November 28, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    Lambert, i didn't see you mention Clapper's resignation letter where he admitted that that they don't know who hacked the dnc/podesta.

    grayslady November 28, 2016 at 5:13 pm

    Was that the one time Clapper was telling the truth? Who knows? Personally, I wouldn't use Clapper in any of my arguments. Trying to determine whether or not Clapper is telling the truth is about as difficult as trying to determine what Trump is going to say next.

    xformbykr November 28, 2016 at 10:08 pm

    ditto

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:28 am

    Well, that's because I didn't do that. I see it was November 17; if a meteor crashed into the earth the week after the election, I might have missed that too.

    However, I can't find a copy of the letter. Can you supply a link? (As far as the admission, Clapper says nothing about it in this (hagiographical) interview by Wired .)

    JohnnyGL November 29, 2016 at 12:40 pm

    Lambert,

    My apologies, upon further review, this isn't air-tight sourcing. It seems like it came out of the last committee meeting where Clapper submitted his resignation letter. So, there might be something.

    https://twitter.com/Harlan/status/799405593475825664

    clarky90 November 28, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    Trust in any relationship is sacrosanct. Suspecting your husband or wife or partner, of hidden infidelity is like having "a conspiracy theory". You have a bad feeling, a sense of unease- but that is all. It can go on for years.

    However, walking in, unexpectedly, on a (denied) liaison (romance) is all together different. You have been lied to. You know it. You grok it. You absorb the information into your very essence. The relationship (union) must and does change.

    I watched many Trump speeches in full on youtube, and then, afterwords, read the reports in the MSM of what he had just said. They were lying to me! I could see it, hear it. They lied to me.

    They must have been lying to me for the last sixty years of my life! I feel like such a sucker! I believed these lying bastards. I listened to them. I modified my actions, my thoughts, my diet, my beliefs. I subscribed to their "true information", their "helpful advice", their "concerned warnings".

    I have been addicted to "the news" since my childhood. (I fondly remember the Sunday NYT spread out in our living room floor in the late 50s, early 60s). This has been a clarifying year for me. (tip of the hat to Boris Strether and Natasha Smith)

    Tammy Wynette – D-I-V-O-R-C-E (Live)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRis1kfzD-I

    Susan C November 28, 2016 at 11:37 pm

    I had the same experience you did. A couple months ago ran into a Trump speech and listened to what he said and then the next day the MSM all said he said something that was completely different than what he actually said. I think it was something to do about Iraq – Trump made a harmless comment about it but the media said he said something else all together and they all repeated the horrible thing they say he said. I was pretty shocked by this – I heard exactly what he said and he never said anything like that. That next night he was aired on CNN again speaking to the crowds and saying that he said xyz about Iraq and the MSM said he said something completely different (which I heard them say) and he said see folks – this is what I mean about the media. And I realized he was right – the media was lying and they were all in on it. Another thing crossed my mind during that time – why was he attracting such large crowds – maybe people wanted to hear what he was actually saying for themselves and not filtered by the media.

    cnchal November 29, 2016 at 12:31 am

    . . . They must have been lying to me for the last sixty years of my life!

    Welcome to reality. Beware though that Trump doesn't suck you into his lies. Although the people have been watching narcissistic politicians since the dawn of time, you can take nothing they say at face value.

    The main goal of a narcissist is to get an emotional response from the people around him (or her – although narcissism is less prevalent in women) and it doesn't matter if the response is to be loved or hated, as long as there is an emotional response to feed off. The people nearby are objects, to be used as the narcissist sees fit for his own satisfaction, to be used and abused and when of no further use, discarded.

    What they hate, more than anything else, is to be ignored and shown no emotion when interacting with them. Becoming emotionally flat is a sure fire way to get a narcissist to lose interest and move onto someone vulnerable to their "charisma".

    After the final debate, there was a few moments when the camera panned to Trump, alone at the podium clutching his notes looking angry and ready to eat the notes before stuffing them in his jacket. He wasn't angry that he thought he might have lost the debate. He was angry that for a few moments there was no attention on him, and he didn't calm down until his family entourage joined him on stage and they walked out together. That's only my opinion, but the body language says a lot.

    Now the Presidency and the whole world is an object and plaything, as if they weren't before, but he isn't beholden to anybody, which frees him from constraints that previous presidents had. That's new.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:36 am

    As I wrote on August 1st :

    Readers, I'm eliminating "The Trail" coverage from Water Cooler's 2016 election coverage, for a few reasons. First, the political class, across the board, is working actively for one candidate, as if they were extensions of that candidate's campaign. Hence, at least insofar as material generated in the Acela corridor goes, there's no news to aggregate. Second, and as a result of the first, the volume and toxicity of the talking points in this election is so great that it's starting to affect my health; when I find myself drinking most of a bottle of wine, instead of the glass I had planned, it's time to re-assess. The surreality is worse than I've ever seen in my thirteen years of daily blogging on politics, and that includes the run-up to the Iraq War, when the political class also lost its mind; the opportunity cost of investing in such surreality is simply too great, particularly when I could be improving other coverage. So, for the remainder of the campaign, I'm going to focus on topics that are not bright shiny objects or clickbait: on policy, money, understanding the voters (in ways that go beyond the material that appears under Class Warfare), and institutional issues within the parties. Where I focus on the "horse race," it will only be in swing states. Finally, I don't expect volatility to cease on November 8; I believe the political class suffers from a legitimacy crisis, which the election will not solve. Readers may wonder if I have a dog in this fight, and the answer is yes: I want divided government and gridlock. It's always possible to make thing worse!

    Looks like I made the right call on that (well before the Podesta emails, too). Especially on " I don't expect volatility to cease" .

    Arizona Slim November 28, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    I'm sitting across the room from a Russian. And he's a friend. Does that make me part of the conspiracy?

    Onlyindreams November 28, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    This time of the year, I do enjoy baking melt in your mouth Russian tea cakes lest I make the short list of feeding the enemy, it may be a good time to switch to Mexican Wedding Cookies.

    Nephews this past weekend were taunting this ole lady ( me) for reading NC alledgely a hotbed for "fake news". All of a sudden I found new respect for being cavalier.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:37 am

    Wow. That story made it that far. How poisonous. The Post has a lot to answer for.

    lin1 November 29, 2016 at 6:10 pm

    "Carefully parsing Politfact's story against what Clinton actually said, I rate Clinton's carefully engineered statement as not proven, and certainly not true. "17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed" is not the same as "James Clapper says that 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed."

    Considering that Clapper is a known serial liar who perjured himself in senate hearings, his "confirmations" don't mean much. Your question, though made as a joke, is a good one..Its been clear from the beginning what they mean by "propaganda" – its anything that contradicts their own, or exposes any of their massive hypocrisy and flat out lying. Its now becoming clear to me what they are talking about when they say "Russian operative" ..they are talking about Lambert, or any one of the commenters here..David Swanson (a "Russian agent") explains. The enemies list is back. The blacklist is back http://davidswanson.org/node/5363?link_id=0&can_id=247cc645ac7384b6c932e854b3cbbd13&source=email-how-i-produce-fake-news-for-russia-3&email_referrer=how-i-produce-fake-news-for-russia-3&email_subject=how-i-produce-fake-news-for-russia

    steelhead23 November 28, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Clapper should have been fired. Let me say first – I am not a spook. But I know a bit about intelligence and for the chief of U.S. intelligence to announce that Russia had hacked into the DNC's server was either a lie – or beyond stupid. One does not let one's enemies know what you know. It doesn't help you – it would help them. Think about it. Let us assume that said hacker was in the Kremlin, hacking away. That server has an IP address. Now, Clapper has just announced not only that the U.S. has the technology to find hackers, it also knows the IP address of a Kremlin server. How exactly would revealing that information to the world help the U.S.? Ans. – it wouldn't. I haven't a clue why Clapper did this, but he should have been immediately fired.

    UserFriendly November 28, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    How many pro Russian comments do I have to make before I get my own Russian dacha? ;-)

    flora November 28, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    Your reference to the Honduras military coup is interesting.
    https://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/13/shes_baldly_lying_dana_frank_responds

    Not that trying to influence US electors after the election or discredit the electoral college to her own advantage is relevant.

    flora November 28, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    adding: on the one hand liberals decry NSA spying as an evil over throwing of Constitutional protections. On the other hand liberals encourage eliminating or electioneering the vote in the electoral college (a Constitutionally mandated part of the election of presidents) to guarantee Hillary's win. (If the recounts aren't done by EC vote day, do those EC votes go uncounted?) No double-standard there. Nope. Consistency and principal, if it's personally advantageous.

    MaroonBulldog November 29, 2016 at 3:06 am

    "If the recounts aren't done by EC vote day, do those EC votes go uncounted?" They shouldn't. I believe federal statutes establish a procedure for dealing with this.

    The election of the president is complete when the votes of the electors are opened and counted in the newly-elected House of Representatives on its first day in session in the new year. (The election of the vice president is completed when the voltes of the electors are opened and counted in the Senate). The way to deal with a situation like this might be: The Republican slate of electors, pledged to vote for Trump and Pence, files returns, claiming that when the recount is completed it will show that they were elected ("they" referring to the slate of electors, not Trump and Pence–votes for presidential and vice presidential candidates actually elect the electors who will cast the electoral votes). The Democratic slate of electors, pledged to vote for Clinton and Kaine, likewise files a return claiming that they (again, the electors) were so elected. The House of Representatives then votes to decide which return to accept, and which to reject., regarding the president,, and the Senate so votes concerning the returns of the vice -resident. (I haven't researched the law on this since the time of Bush v. Gore,but that's the conclusion I think I remember coming to after reading the United States Code provisions on presidential elections. I'm pretty sure that statutes haven't changed).

    Jerry Denim November 28, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    " the idea that Democrats are as susceptible to epistemic closure as Republicans was alien to me. No more."

    The Republicans built their own closed-loop media ecosphere first with Fox news and Right Wing Talk radio. During the W Bush administration, there was no way team Dem could be anything but critics making team Dem seem more like critical thinkers and adversarial to entrenched power than they actually were. As soon as the Democrats had their own charismatic, infallible, 'Great Leader' to rally around (Obama) and their own little closed loop media eco-sphere that grew up around the cult of Obama, with supposedly left-leaning brand image (MSNBC, Orange Satan, Huffington Post) the Democrats quickly zipped themselves up in a tight, impenetrable sack of epistemic closure to match the Republicans. The Democrat's impenetrable sack was Neo-Liberal just like the Republicans, but the Democrat's sack (pardon the analogy/pun) smelled of sweet meritocratic credentialism and minority identity politics.

    If this past election cycle has taught me anything it's that "Team Dem" blue juice drinkers are probably worse (more blinded) than the right-wing crowd. A Bush voter that voted Republican in every election since 2000 can most likely admit Bush's faults and admit the Republican party has quite a bit of work to do. Your typical two-time Obama voter that voted Hillary this last election is incapable of recognizing Obama's many flaws and if you try to talk to them about the Podesta emails you get fingers-in-the-ears "La-La-La" just as Lambert stated. According to the Team Blue cult members Hillary Clinton didn't suck as a candidate- she was robbed, and anyone who criticizes Clinton from the left OR the right is a damn Russian double agent.

    The state of political discourse in the country is so bad I don't know where to begin. 99 out of every 100 Americans are completely insane at the moment.

    Onlyindreams November 28, 2016 at 7:10 pm

    Being part of that reluctant 1% ( Jill voters), I now feel the icky slime as if I had voted for HC. I was once sane, but now doubting it much. Feeling voters remorse big time. Should've left it blank the first time.

    jrs November 28, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    Yea really smarter people than me voted Peace and Freedom party. I should have listened to them.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:39 am

    > tight, impenetrable sack of epistemic closure

    "Epistemic closure" wasn't my expectation for what that sack would be full of #JustSaying

    olga November 29, 2016 at 9:16 am

    Perhaps not insane just brainwashed (and without adequate education, historical knowledge, and good memory, unable to make sense of any of what is happening). Maybe that is why so much of what passes for "news" is targeted mainly at people's emotions.

    I Have Strange Dreams November 28, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    Why did none of the 17 intelligence agencies warn US gov employees (including SoS) that Russia had the capability to hack private servers and why was using private servers for gov business not made illegal?

    redleg November 28, 2016 at 9:19 pm

    Hillary Clinton as SOS sent a memo ordering State Department personnel to cease using private email accounts due to hacking risk.
    Oh the irony.

    Code Name D November 28, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    Especially servers that were completely unencrypted for nine-months. If only we had an intelligence apparitions to help secure government e-mail conversation on secure servers. Oh wait

    I Have Strange Dreams November 29, 2016 at 3:31 am

    Sounds like Clinton deliberately sabotaged herself. Is Clinton a Russian agent?

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 4:23 am

    I couldn't work this in, but this "objectively pro-Putin" crap is - showing my age, hear - like arguing that John McNamara was a Yankee mole because he left Bill Buckner in at first base in Game Six of the 1986 World Series. I mean, come on.

    andyb November 29, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    I was at that game. Had religiously followed the Sox from the time my grandfather first took me to see Teddy Ballgame play. Used to fill out box scores when listening to a game on the radio The Buckner miscue devastated me and will be forever etched in my memory.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 2:31 pm

    I saw it on an enormous old black and white TV while I was working as a janitor. Vacuumed the rugs, then sat down and watched the game. Horrible moment, just horrible.

    tgs November 28, 2016 at 6:52 pm

    re foreign influence in American elections

    Is anyone going to seriously deny that Israel has a huge influence not just on our elections, but our foreign policy as well? As usual, it is the elephant in the room.

    integer November 29, 2016 at 3:29 am

    Is anyone going to seriously deny that Israel has a huge influence not just on our elections, but our foreign policy as well?

    Yes, however those that do so are wrong/dishonest.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:41 am

    I should have added AIPAC. Heck, I should have added BiBi on the House floor explaining to us what our foreign policy should be.

    Anonymouse November 28, 2016 at 8:00 pm

    Seventh, with respect to Wikipedia , telling the truth seems an odd form of influence to have problems with.

    – Lambert I believe that you meant Wikileaks instead of Wikipedia in context.

    annie moose November 28, 2016 at 8:21 pm

    Submitted for your approval. An awful lot of electrons spilt for what feelz like buyers remorse. Clinton lost because at that point in time when it was most important Hillz was hated more than the Donald pick your reason pizzagate, hacked emails, past history, comfy fbi bs, the list goes on.
    Now you have the Donald enjoy his divine light. Revel in the caucasian version of the bath party. I know I will.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:42 am

    > the bath party

    What's a bath party? (Not the Ba'ath Party, I assume.)

    RabidGandhi November 29, 2016 at 9:53 am

    Not sure, but I would dread being interrogated by their Comfy FBI .

    Ping November 28, 2016 at 8:38 pm

    File under: Democrats Haven't Learned Anything

    Tim Ryan, challenger to Nancy Pelosi demoratic leadership, was all over the talk shows proclaiming 'we need a new message' . His entire challenge is based on presenting 'a new message'. New PR slogans .

    The morons still don't get that it's not about crafting a "message" but about action that reflects that they have managed to venture into the real world.

    TK421 November 28, 2016 at 9:10 pm

    "Imagine having a presidential candidate in the pocket of a foreign nation!" scolded Hillary Clinton, as she went to pledge four hundred billion dollars to Israel for its plan to use Palestinians as ballast.

    scorpio November 28, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    with time we will probly come to learn that the wikileak of Podesta et al emails –like so many such situations– was an inside job, not hackers much less Russki intel. my guess is the H campaign made a few job offers to Bernie Bro techies in hopes of reaching his audience. and one of them decided to download on these Clinton grifters in hopes a better future Dem Party might rise from the neoCon neoLiberal smashup. or maybe it's just my fondest wish. as a fellow Bernie Bro

    fco November 29, 2016 at 12:29 am

    I think the Butler did it.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 3:49 am

    With the email. In the server room.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 29, 2016 at 1:12 am

    > inside job

    My private speculation, too. Bernie supporters would not be my guess, but rather somebody embedded in the Democrat nomenklatura for a long time, and somebody smart enough to use a cutout when phishing Podesta. "Embedded" long enough to get the hatred really curdled

    Marco November 29, 2016 at 5:44 am

    An optimistic sign that the snark-fog-of-war is lifting over at Atrios? "They-Had-One-Job". I prefer "She-Had-One-Job" but that may be too personal. I'm sure the commenters will smack him back into line.

    Marco November 29, 2016 at 5:53 am

    I was referring to an Atrios post at 5:30am that appears to have disappeared. Please disregard.

    Lynne November 29, 2016 at 9:11 am

    What gets me about the whole "ebil Russians" argument is that it was yet more evidence that Clinton should never be elected IF what she claimed was true. Her big selling point was that she was tested, highly competent, and experienced. Yeah, so competent that she couldn't pick campaign staff with the sense to avoid a simple phishing exercise AFTER being warned of the risk? I am constantly bombarded with horror stories of what the Feds would do to me if I had a data breach and hackers got PII (finance business). Yet here's a woman who essentially brags that they were hacked and we're supposed to agree that makes her eminently qualified?

    I told one of her supporters that her pushing the Russian hacker excuse was yet another reason not to vote for her. Their reply was to claim I probably blamed rape victims for wearing short skirts! Yeah, because the "campaign" was obviously supposed to be a coronation rather than a job interview, and obvious incompetence is to be rewarded, right?

    olga November 29, 2016 at 9:21 am

    Right the Russian-hacker claim is soooo obviously a cynical ploy (exploitation) of a campaign that had very little of meaningful substance to offer voters that I cannot even believe folks would seriously discuss it. But here we are

    hjhg November 29, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    Does Russia run covert operations to subvert whichever government they perceive as threat or are you saying that Trump is a very principled patriot and a diligent man, and would not allow himself to be used to subvert the US? This are the two most important questions and the first one is true and the second is not.

    Charles Peterson November 30, 2016 at 12:39 am

    A large number of real things could possibly have made the outcome different. By and large reasonable reasons for losing a close selection cannot be entirely debunked, though they could be ranked, and likely every ranking will be different.

    However "17 agencies" was not a respectable argument at all. It was simply a lie that Lambert has debunked.

    The people Trump has been selecting do NOT look like the ones who might turn our relationship with Russia from cold-war-with-no-name into Peace (which makes the larger claim of Russian involvement seem remote to the point of being a bad joke). Sadly, quite the reverse, with even small advances like the Iran deal likely being reversed. But making peace with Russia and her client states would actually be the most excellent thing to do right now (if not 70 years ago), and strangely I believe Russia is reasonable enough to want that, and not simply to take our place on top of the global-chaos-we-made, which they wouldn't be doing anyway.

    [Nov 30, 2016] Secretary of State pick is the biggest test case to see whether Trump, like Obama before him, is going to forget about his populist base and take the carrot Wall Street is offering him

    Notable quotes:
    "... One thing not mentioned yet, is Trump getting slammed by his populist base for his Secretary of State picks, which seem to come down to Romney and Giuliani. Romney is the worst of Wall Street, a complete tool of the neoliberal program, and Giuliani has a Hillary Clinton-like record on bloated speaking fees and pay-to-play deals with his law firm, Giuliani Partners. ..."
    "... That's the biggest test case to see whether Trump, like Obama before him, is going to forget about his populist base and take the carrot Wall Street is offering him. ..."
    "... If Trump really wanted to shake things up, he could pick Tulsi Gabbard for Secretary of State, that would be a clever move, far better than Giuliani or Romney. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    nonsensefactory | Nov 29, 2016 10:59:10 PM | 75

    One thing not mentioned yet, is Trump getting slammed by his populist base for his Secretary of State picks, which seem to come down to Romney and Giuliani. Romney is the worst of Wall Street, a complete tool of the neoliberal program, and Giuliani has a Hillary Clinton-like record on bloated speaking fees and pay-to-play deals with his law firm, Giuliani Partners. Either one of those clowns as Secretary of State would be a complete betrayal of everything Trump said he stood for on foreign policy. Romney however is drawing howls of protest from Rust Belt Trump supporters, because he's so pro-NAFTA, pro-TPP:
    https://www.thenation.com/article/more-nafta-anyone-romney-positions-free-trade-champion/

    That's the biggest test case to see whether Trump, like Obama before him, is going to forget about his populist base and take the carrot Wall Street is offering him. Another big one is whether John Bolton, neocon war pig just like Clinton pals Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan, ends up with a big foreign policy role. Forget about cooperation with Russia on ISIS in that case. So, those are some serious issues that Trump might want to distract his base from, but they're the major issues that will determine what kind of foreign policy, economic and military, Trump will really pursue.

    As far as Jill Stein, what the hell is she doing? The biggest Green Party issue right now should be helping block the Dakota Accesss Pipeline debacle, a consortium of short-sighted interests aiming at exporting Bakken crude overseas, including Warren Buffett, billionaire Democratic supporter, whose in $6 billion to DAPL via Phillips 66, and Kelcy Warren, billionaire Republican supported, CEO of Energy Transfer Partners, another DAPL partner.

    Instead she's playing some dumb political game, totally ignoring the one issue any real "Green Party" would be focusing on right now.

    nonsensefactory | Nov 29, 2016 11:04:38 PM | 77

    P.S. If Trump really wanted to shake things up, he could pick Tulsi Gabbard for Secretary of State, that would be a clever move, far better than Giuliani or Romney.

    Here's something on that:
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/307527-tulsi-gabbard-is-the-pick-for-secretary-of-state-not
    That would be a real jack move, slapping both the Democratic and Republican establishments, wouldn't it?

    [Nov 30, 2016] The Electoral Consequences of Globalization

    Notable quotes:
    "... Capital in the Twenty-first Century, ..."
    Nov 29, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
    by Joseph Joyce The Electoral Consequences of Globalization

    The reasons for the election of Donald Trump as President of the U.S. will be analyzed and argued about for many years to come. Undoubtedly there are U.S.-specific factors that are relevant, such as racial divisions in voting patterns. But the election took place after the British vote to withdraw from the European Union and the rise to power of conservative politicians in continental Europe, so it is reasonable to ask whether globalization bears any responsibility.

    The years before the global financial crisis were years of rapid economic globalization. Trade flows grew on average by 7% a year over the 1987-2007 period. Financial flows also expanded, particularly amongst the advanced economies. Global financial assets increased by 8% a year between 1990 and 2007 . But all this activity was curtailed in 2008-09 when the global financial crisis pushed the world economy into a downturn. Are the subsequent rises in nationalist sentiment the product of these trends?

    Trump seized upon some of the consequences of increased trade and investment to make the case that globalization was bad for the U.S. He had great success with his claim that international trade deals are responsible for a loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector. In addition, he blamed outward foreign direct investment (FDI) by U.S. firms that opened production facilities in foreign countries for moving manufacturing jobs outside the U.S. Among the firms that Trump criticized were Ford Motor, Nabisco and the Carrier Corporation , which is moving a manufacturing operation from Indiana to Mexico.

    Have foreign workers taken the jobs of U.S. workers? Increased trade does lead to a reallocation of resources, as a country increases its output in those sectors where it has an advantage while cutting back production in other sectors. Resources should flow from the latter to the former, but in reality it can be difficult to switch employment across sectors. Daron Acemoglu and David Autor of MIT, David Dorn of the University of Zurich, Gordon Hanson of UC-San Diego and Brendan Price of MIT have found that import competition from China after 2000 contributed to reductions in U.S. manufacturing employment and weak U.S. job growth. They estimated manufacturing job losses due to Chinese competition of 2.0 – 2.4 million. Other studies find similar results for workers who do not have high school degrees.

    Moreover, multinational firms do shift production across borders in response to lower wages, among other factors. Ann E. Harrison of UC-Berkeley and Margaret S. McMillan of Tufts University looked at the hiring practices of the foreign affiliates of U.S. firms during the period of 1977 to 1999. They found that lower wages in affiliate countries where the employees were substitutes for U.S. workers led to more employment in those countries but reductions in employment in the U.S. However, when employment across geographical locations is complementary for firms that do significantly different work at home and abroad, domestic and foreign employment rise and fall together.

    Imports and foreign production, therefore, have had an impact on manufacturing employment in the U.S. But several caveats should be raised. First, as Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee of MIT and others have pointed out, technology has had a much larger effect on jobs. The U.S. is the second largest global producer of manufactured goods, but these products are being made in plants that employ fewer workers than they did in the past. Many of the lost jobs simply do not exist any more. Second, the U.S. exports goods and services as well as purchases them. Among the manufactured goods that account for significant shares of U.S. exports are machines and engines, electronic equipment and aircraft . Third, there is inward FDI as well as outward, and the foreign-based firms hire U.S. workers. A 2013 Congressional Research Service study by James V. Jackson reported that by year-end 2011 foreign firms employed 6.1 million Americans, and 37% of this employment-2.3 million jobs-was in the manufacturing sector. More recent data shows that employment by the U.S. affiliates of multinational companies rose to 6.4 million in 2014. Mr. Trump will find himself in a difficult position if he threatens to shut down trade and investment with countries that both import from the U.S. and invest here.

    The other form of globalization that drew Trump's derision was immigration. Most of his ire focused on those who had entered the U.S. illegally. However, in a speech in Arizona he said that he would set up a commission that would roll back the number of legal migrants to "historic norms."

    The current number of immigrants (42 million) represents around 13% of the U.S. population, and 16% of the labor force. An increase in the number of foreign-born workers depresses the wages of some native-born workers, principally high-school dropouts, as well as other migrants who arrived earlier. But there are other, more significant reasons for the stagnation in working-class wages . In addition, a reduction in the number of migrant laborers would raise the ratio of young and retired people to workers-the dependency ratio-and endanger the financing of Social Security and Medicare. And by increasing the size of the U.S. economy, these workers induce expansions in investment expenditures and hiring in areas that are complementary.

    The one form of globalization that Trump has not criticized, with the exception of outward FDI, is financial. This is a curious omission, as the crisis of 2008-09 arose from the financial implosion that followed the collapse of the housing bubble in the U.S. International financial flows exacerbated the magnitude of the crisis. But Trump has pledged to dismantle the Dodd-Frank legislation, which was enacted to implement financial regulatory reform and lower the probability of another crisis. While Trump has criticized China for undervaluing its currency in order to increase its exports to the U.S., most economists believe that the Chinese currency is no longer undervalued vis-ŕ-vis the U.S. dollar.

    Did globalization produce Trump, or lead to the circumstances that resulted in 46.7% of the electorate voting for him? A score sheet of the impact of globalization within the U.S. would record pluses and minuses. Among those who have benefitted are consumers who purchase items made abroad at cheaper prices, workers who produce export goods, and firms that hire migrants. Those who have been adversely affected include workers who no longer have manufacturing jobs and domestic workers who compete with migrants for low-paying jobs. Overall, most studies find evidence of positive net benefits from trade . Similarly, studies of the cost and benefits of immigration indicate that overall foreign workers make a positive contribution to the U.S. economy.

    Other trends have exerted equal or greater consequences for our economic welfare. First, as pointed out above, advances in automation have had an enormous impact on the number and nature of jobs, and advances in artificial intelligence wii further change the nature of work. The launch of driverless cars and trucks, for example, will affect the economy in unforeseen ways, and more workers will lose their livelihoods. Second, income inequality has been on the increase in the U.S. and elsewhere for several decades. While those in the upper-income classes have benefitted most from increased trade and finance, inequality reflects many factors besides globalization.

    Why, then, is globalization the focus of so much discontent? Trump had the insight that demonizing foreigners and U.S.-based multinationals would allow him to offer simple solutions-ripping up trade deals, strong-arming CEOs to relocate facilities-to complex problems. Moreover, it allows him to draw a line between his supporters and everyone else, with Trump as the one who will protect workers against the crafty foreigners and corrupt elite who conspire to steal American jobs. Blaming the foreign "other" is a well-trod route for those who aspire to power in times of economic and social upheaval.

    Globalization, therefore, should not be held responsible for the election of Donald Trump and those in other countries who offer similar simplistic solutions to challenging trends. But globalization's advocates did indirectly lead to his rise when they oversold the benefits of globalization and neglected the downside. Lower prices at Wal-Mart are scarce consolation to those who have lost their jobs. Moreover, the proponents of globalization failed to strengthen the safety networks and redistributive mechanisms that allow those who had to compete with foreign goods and workers to share in the broader benefits. Dani Rodrik of Harvard's Kennedy School has described how the policy priorities were changed: "The new model of globalization stood priorities on their head, effectively putting democracy to work for the global economy, instead of the other way around. The elimination of barriers to trade and finance became an end in itself, rather than a means toward more fundamental economic and social goals."

    The battle over globalization is not finished, and there will be future opportunities to adapt it to benefit a wider section of society. The goal should be to place it within in a framework that allows a more egalitarian distribution of the benefits and payment of the costs. This is not a new task. After World War II, the Allied planners sought to revive international trade while allowing national governments to use their policy tools to foster full employment. Political scientist John Ruggie of the Kennedy School called the hybrid system based on fixed exchange rates, regulated capital accounts and government programs " embedded liberalism ," and it prevailed until it was swept aside by the wave of neoliberal policies in the 1980s and 1990s.

    What would today's version of "embedded liberalism" look like? In the financial sector, the pendulum has already swung back from unregulated capital flows and towards the use of capital control measures as part of macroprudential policies designed to address systemic risk in the financial sector. In addition, Thomas Piketty of the École des hautes etudes en sciences (EHESS) and associate chair at the Paris School of Economics , and author of Capital in the Twenty-first Century, has called for a new focus in discussions over the next stage of globalization: " trade is a good thing, but fair and sustainable development also demands public services, infrastructure, health and education systems. In turn, these themselves demand fair taxation systems."

    The current political environment is not conducive toward the expansion of public goods. But it is unlikely that our new President's policies will deliver on their promise to return to a past when U.S. workers could operate without concern for foreign competition or automation. We will certainly revisit these issues, and we need to redefine what a successful globalization looks like. And if we don't? Thomas Piketty warns of the consequences of not enacting the necessary domestic policies and institutions: "If we fail to deliver these, Trump_vs_deep_state will prevail."

    cross posted with Capital Ebbs and Flows

    Comments (10) | Digg Facebook Twitter | --> --> --> Comments (10)

    1. spencer November 29, 2016 10:33 am

      Since 1980, US manufacturing output has approximately doubled while manufacturing employment fell by about a third.

      Yes, globalization impacts the composition of output and it is a contributing factor in the weaker growth of manufacturing output. but overall it has accounted for a very minor share of the weakness in manufacturing employment since 1980. Productivity has been the dominant factor driving manufacturing employment down.

    2. JimH November 29, 2016 11:11 am

      "Overall, most studies find evidence of positive net benefits from trade."

      Of course they do! And in your world, studies always Trump real world experience.

      Studies on trade can ignore the unemployed workers with a high school education or less. How were they supposed to get an equivalent paying job? EDUCATION they say! A local public university has a five year freshman graduation rate of 25%. Are those older students to eat dirt while attempting to accumulate that education!

      Studies on trade can ignore that illegal immigration increases competition for the those under educated employees. Since 1990 there has been a rising demand that education must be improved! That potential high school drop outs should be discouraged by draconian means if necessary. YET we allow immigrants to enter this country and STAY with less than the equivalent of an American high school education! Why are we spending so much on secondary education if it is not necessary!

      "In Mexico, 34% of adults aged 25-64 have completed upper secondary education, much lower than the OECD average of 76% the lowest rate amongst OECD countries."
      See: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/mexico/

      Trade studies can ignore the fate of a small town when its major employer shuts down and leaves. Trade studies can assume that we are one contiguous job market. They can assume that an unemployed worker in Pennsylvania will learn of a good paying job in Washington state, submit an application, and move within 2 weeks. Or assume that the Washington state employer will hold a factory job open for a month! And they can assume that moving expenses are trivial for an unemployed person.

      Our trade partners have not attempted anything remotely resembling balanced trade with us.

      Here are the trade deficits since 1992.
      Year__________US Trade Balance with the world
      1992__________-39,212
      1993__________-70,311
      1994__________-98,493
      1995__________-96,384
      1996__________-104,065
      1997__________-108,273
      1998__________-166,140
      1999__________-258,617
      2000__________-372,517
      2001__________-361,511
      2002__________-418,955
      2003__________-493,890
      2004__________-609,883
      2005__________-714,245
      2006__________-761,716
      2007__________-705,375
      2008__________-708,726
      2009__________-383,774
      2010__________-494,658
      2011__________-548,625
      2012__________-536,773
      2013__________-461,876
      2014__________-490,176
      2015__________-500,361
      From: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.pdf

      AND there is the loss of the income from tariffs which had been going to the federal government! How has that effected our national debt?

      "However, when employment across geographical locations is complementary for firms that do significantly different work at home and abroad, domestic and foreign employment rise and fall together."

      And exactly how do you think that the US government could guarantee that complementary work at home and abroad. Corporations are profit seeking, amoral entities, which will seek profit any way they can. (Legal or illegal)

      The logical conclusion of your argument is that we could produce nothing and still have a thriving economy. How would American consumers earn an income?

      Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are RUST BELT states. Were the voters there merely ignorant or demented? You should never ever run for elected office.

    3. Beverly Mann November 29, 2016 12:30 pm

      Meanwhile, Trump today chose non-swampy Elaine Chao, Mitch McConnell's current wife and GWBush's former Labor Secretary, as Transportation Secretary, to privatize roads, bridges, etc.

    4. JimH November 29, 2016 12:36 pm

      The trade balances are in millions of dollars in the table in my last comment.

      Global trade had a chance of success beginning in 1992. But that required a mechanism which was very difficult to game. A mechanism like the one that the Obama administration advocated in October 2010.

      "At the meeting in South Korea's southern city of Gyeongju, U.S. officials sought to set a cap for each country's deficit or surplus at 4% of its economic output by 2015.
      The idea drew support from Britain, Australia, Canada and France, all of which are running trade deficits, as well as South Korea, which is hosting the G-20 meetings and hoping for a compromise among the parties.
      But the proposal got a cool reception from export powerhouses such as China, which has a current account surplus of 4.7% of its gross domestic product; Germany, with a surplus of 6.1%; and Russia, with a surplus of 4.7%, according to IMF statistics."
      See: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/24/business/la-fi-g20-summit-20101024

      That cap was probably too high. But at least the Obama administration showed some realization that global trade was exhibiting serious unpredicted problems. Too bad that Hillary Clinton could not have internalized that realization enough to campaign on revamping problematic trade treaties. (And persuaded a few more of the voters in the RUST BELT to vote for her.) Elections have consequences and voters understand that, but what choice did they have?

      In your world, while American corporations act out in ways that would be diagnosed as antisocial personality disorder in a human being, American human beings are expected to wait patiently for decades while global trade is slowly adjusted into some practical system. (As one shortcoming after another is addressed.)

      Antisocial personality disorder:
      "a personality disorder that is characterized by antisocial behavior exhibiting pervasive disregard for and violation of the rights, feelings, and safety of others "
      See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antisocial%20personality%20disorder#medicalDictionary

    5. Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 1:01 pm

      Spencer,

      The article states almost exactly what you 'add' in your comment:

      "Imports and foreign production, therefore, have had an impact on manufacturing employment in the U.S. But several caveats should be raised. First, as Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee of MIT and others have pointed out, technology has had a much larger effect on jobs".

      So, what gives? Is there an award today for who ever gets the biggest DUH??? If there is anything worth adding, it would be a mention of the Ball St study that supports the author's claim but is somehow overlooked. But your comment, well, DUH!!

      =================================================

      JimH,

      Some good stuff there, your assessment of Economics and its penchant for ignoring variables, and your insight which states that "studies can assume that we are one contiguous job market", is all very true, and especially when it comes to immigration issues. I've lived most of my life near the Southern border and when economists claim that undocumented workers are good for our economy I can only chuckle and shake my head. I suppose I could also list all of the variables which those economists ignore, and there are many to choose from, but, there is that quote by Upton Sinclair: "You can't get a man to understand what his salary depends on his not understanding".

      In all fairness though, The Dept. of Labor does of course have its JOLTS data, and so not all such studies are based on broad assumptions, but Economics does have its blind spots, generally speaking. And of course economists apply far too much effort and energy serving their political and financial masters.

      As for your comment in regards to the the trade deficit, you might want to read up a little on the Triffin Dilemma. The essence of globalization has a lot to do with the US leadership choosing to maintain the reserve-currency status and Triffin showed that an increasing amount of dollars must supply the world's demand for dollars, or, global growth would falter. So, the trade deficit since 1975 has been intentional, for that reason, and others. Of course the cost of labor in the US was a factor too, and shipping and standards and so on. But, it is wise also, to remember that these choices were made at time, during and just after the Viet Nam war, when military recruitment was a very troubling issue for the leadership. And the option of good paying jobs for the working-class was very probably seen as in conflict with military recruitment. Accordingly, the working-class has been left with fewer options. This being accomplished in part with the historical anomaly of high immigration quotas, (and by the tolerance for illegal immigration), during periods with high unemployment, a falling participation-rate, inadequate infrastructure, and etc.

    6. Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 2:18 pm

      JimH,

      After posting my earlier comment it occurred to me that I should have recommended an article by Tim Taylor that has some good info on the Triffin dilemma.

      http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-triffin-dilemma-and-us-trade.html

      Also, it might be worth mentioning that you are making the common mistake of assigning blame to an international undertaking that would be more accurately assigned to national shortcomings. I'm referring here to what you quoted and said:

      ""Overall, most studies find evidence of positive net benefits from trade.""

      "Of course they do! And in your world, studies always Trump real world experience".

      My point being that "positive net benefits from trade" are based on just another half-baked measurement as you suggest, but the problems which result from trade-related displacements are not necessarily the fault of trade itself. There are in fact political options, for example, immigration could have been curtailed about 40 years ago and we would now have about 40 million fewer citizens, and thus there would almost certainly be more jobs available. Or, the laws pertaining to illegal immigration could have been enforced, or the 'Employee Free Choice Act could have been passed, or whatever, and then trade issues may have had much different impact.

    7. Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 3:12 pm

      It seems worth mentioning here, that there are other more important goals that make globalization valuable than just matters of money or employment or who is getting what. Let us not forget the famous words of Immanuel Kant:

      "the spirit of commerce . . . sooner or later takes hold of every nation, and is incompatible with war."

    8. coberly November 29, 2016 6:33 pm

      Ray

      the spirit of commerce did not prevent WW1 or WW2.

      otherwise, thank you, and Jim H and Joseph Joyce for the first Post and Comments for grownups we've had around here in some time.

    9. Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 7:03 pm

      Hey Coberly, long time no see.

      And yes, you are right, 'the spirit of commerce' theory has had some ups and downs. But, one could easily and accurately argue that the effort which began with the League of Nations, and loosely connects back to Kant's claim, has gained some ground since WW2. There has not, after-all, been a major war since.

      So, when discussing the pros and cons of globalization, that factor, as I said, is worthy of mention. And it was a key consideration in the formation of the Bretton Woods institutions, and in the globalization effort in general. This suggesting then that there are larger concerns than the unemployment-rate, or the wage levels, of the working-class folks who may, or may not, have been at the losing end of 'free-trade'.

      I've been a 'labor-lefty' since the 1970s, but I am still capable of understanding that things could have been much worse for the American working-class. Plus, if anyone must give up a job, who better than those with a fairly well-constructed safety-net. History always has its winners and losers, and progress rarely, if ever, comes in an even flow.

      Meanwhile, those living in extreme poverty, worldwide, have dropped from 40% in 1981, to about 10% in 2015 (World Bank), so, progress is occurring. But of course much of that is now being ignored by the din which has drowned out so many considerations that really do matter, and a great deal.

    10. coberly November 29, 2016 8:25 pm

      Ray

      I am inclined to agree with you, but sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees. Especially if one of those trees has fallen on you.

      In general I am more interested in stopping predatory business models that really hurt people than in creating cosmic justice.

      as for the relative lack of big wars since WW2, I always thought that was because of mutual assured destruction. I am sure Vietnam looked like a big enough war to the Vietnamese.

    [Nov 30, 2016] How the Global Left Destroyed Itself

    Notable quotes:
    "... Each of these was based fundamentally upon the principle that language was the key to all power. That is, that language was not a tool that described reality but the power that created it, and s/he who controlled language controlled everything through the shaping of "discourse", as opposed to the objective existence of any truth at all ..."
    "... When you globalise capital, you globalise labour. That meant jobs shifting from expensive markets to cheap. Before long the incomes of those swimming in the stream of global capital began to seriously outstrip the incomes of those trapped in old and withering Western labour markets. As a result, inflation in those markets also began to fall and so did interest rates. Thus asset prices took off as Western nation labour markets got hollowed out, and standard of living inequality widened much more quickly as a new landed aristocracy developed. ..."
    "... With a Republican Party on its knees, Obama was positioned to restore the kind of New Deal rules that global capitalism enjoyed under Franklin D. Roosevelt. ..."
    "... But instead he opted to patch up financialised capitalism. The banks were bailed out and the bonus culture returned. Yes, there were some new rules but they were weak. There was no seizing of the agenda. No imprisonments of the guilty. The US Department of Justice is still issuing $14bn fines to banks involved yet still today there is no justice. Think about that a minute. How can a crime be worthy of a $14bn fine but no prison time?!? ..."
    "... Alas, for all of his efforts to restore Wall Street, Obama provided no reset for Main Street economics to restore the fortunes of the US lower classes. Sure Obama fought a hostile Capitol but, let's face it, he had other priorities. ..."
    "... This comment is a perfect example of the author's (and Adolf Reed's) point: that the so-called "Left" is so bogged down in issues of language that it has completely lost sight of class politics. ..."
    "... It's why Trump won. He was a Viking swinging an ax at nuanced hair-splitters. It was inelegant and ugly, but effective. We will find out if the hair-splitters win again in their inner circle with the Democratic Minority Leader vote. I suspect they missed the point of the election and will vote Pelosi back in, thereby missing the chance for significant gains in the mid-term elections. ..."
    "... One of the great triumphs of Those Who Continue To Be Our Rulers has been the infiltration and cooptation of 'the left', hand in hand with the 'dumbing down' of the last 30+ years so few people really understand what is going on. ..."
    "... That the Global Left appears to be intellectually weak regarding identity politics and "political correctness" vs. class politics, there is no doubt. But to skim over Global Corporate leverage of this attitude seems wrong to me. The right has also embraced identity politics in order to keep the 90% fully divided in order to justify it's continual economic rape of both human and physical ecology. ..."
    "... Every "identity politics" charge starts here, with one group wanting a more equitable social order and the other group defending the existing power structure. Identity politics is adjusting the social order and rattling the power structure, which is why it is so effective. ..."
    "... I think it can be effectively argued that Trump voters in PA, WI, OH, MI chose to rattle the power structure and you could think of that as identity politics as well. ..."
    "... On the contrary, the (Neo-)Liberal establishment uses identity politics to co-opt and neutralise the left. It keeps them occupied without threatening the real power structure in the least. ..."
    "... Hillary (Neoliberal establishment) has many supporters who think of themselves as 'left' or 'liberal'. The Democratic Party leadership is neither 'left' nor 'liberal'. It keeps the votes and the love of the 'liberals' by talking up harmless 'liberal' identity politics and soft peddling the Liberal power politics which they are really about. ..."
    "... Just from historical perspective, the right wing had more money to forward its agenda and an OCD like affliction [biblical] to drive simple memes relentlessly via its increasing private ownership of education and media. Thereby creating an institutional network over time to gain dominate market share in crafting the social narrative. Bloodly hell anyone remember Bush Jr Christian crusade after politicizing religion to get elected and the ramifications – neocon – R2P thingy . ..."
    "... Its not hard once neoliberalism became dominate in the 70s [wages and productivity diverged] the proceeds have gone to the top and everyone else got credit IOUs based mostly on asset inflation via the Casino or RE [home and IP]. ..."
    "... Foucault in particular advanced a greatly expanded wariness regarding the use of power. It was not just that left politics could only lead to ossified Soviet Marxism or the dogmatic petty despotism of the left splinters. Institutions in general mapped out social practices and attendant identities to impose on the individual. His position tended to promote a distrust not only of "grand narratives" but of organizational bonds as such. As far as I can tell, the idea of people joining together to form an institution that would enhance their social power as well as allow them to become personally empowered/enhanced was something of a categorial impossibility. ..."
    "... There is no global left. We have only global state capitalists and global social democrats – a pseudo left. The countries where Marxist class analysis was supposedly adopted were not industrial countries where "alienation" had brought the "proletariat" to an inevitable communal mentality. The largest of these countries killed millions in order to industrialize rapidly – pretending the goal was to get to that state. ..."
    "... Bigotry. Identity centered thinking. Neither serves egalitarianism. But people cling to them. "I gotta look out for myself first." And so called left thinkers constantly pontificate about "benefits" and "privileges" that some class, sex, and race confer. Hmmm. The logic is that many of us struggling daily to keep our jobs and pay the bills must give up something in order to be fair, in order to build a better society. Given this thinking it is no surprise that so many have retreated into the illusion of safety offered by identity based thinking. ..."
    "... "Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and rebranded every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself back to new emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated itself instead to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference that capitalism turned into a cultural supermarket." ..."
    "... But why does the Dem estab embrace the conservative neoliberal agenda? The Dem estab are smart people, can think on multiple levels, are not limited in scope, are not racist. So, why then does the Dem estab accept and promote the conservative GOP neoliberal economic agenda? ..."
    "... Because the Dem estab isn't very smart. ..."
    "... Conservative is: private property, capitalism, limited taxes and transfer payments plus national security and religion. ..."
    "... Liberalism is not in opposition to any of that. Identity politics arose at the same time the Ds were purging the reds (socialists and communists) from their party. Liberalism/progressivism is an ameliorating position of conservatism (progressive support of labor unions to work within a private property/corporatist structure not to eliminate the system and replace it with public/employee ownership) Not too far, too fast, maybe toss out a few more crumbs. ..."
    "... There is a foundation for identity politics on the liberal-left (see what I did there?) – it rests in the sense of moral superiority of just this liberal-left, which superiority is then patronisingly spread all over the social world – until it meets those who deny the moral superiority claim, whereupon it becomes murderous (in, of course, the name of humanity and humanitarianism). ..."
    "... This is why the 1% continue to prevail over the 99%. If the 1% wasn't so incompetent this would continue forever. They know how to divide, conquer and rule the 99%, however they don't know how to run a society in a sustainable way. ..."
    "... But I will say one thing for the Right over the Left: they have taken the initiative and are now the sole force for change. Granted, supporting a carnival barker for president is an act of desperation. Nevertheless he was the only option for change and the Right took it. Perhaps the Left offering little to nothing in the way of change reflects its lack of desperation. ..."
    "... Excellent comment, EoinW! You just summed up years of content and commentary on this site. Obviously as the "Left" continues to defend the status quo as you describe it stops being "Left" in any meaningful way anymore. ..."
    "... The Koch brothers are economically to the very right. They are socially to the left, perhaps even more socially liberal than many of your liberal friends. No joke. There's a point here, if I can figure out what it is. ..."
    "... Trump isn't Right or Left. Trump is a can of gasoline and a match. His voters weren't voting for a Left or Right agenda. They were voting for a battering ram. That is why he got a pass on racist, misogynist, fascist statements that would have killed any other candidate. ..."
    "... PC is a parody of the 20th Century reform movements. ..."
    "... In the 70's the feminists worked against legal disabilities written into law. Since the Depression, the unions fought corporate management create a livable relationship between management and labor. Real struggles, real problems, real people. ..."
    "... What's interesting is that in an article pushing class over identity. he never tried to set his class ethos in order to convince working class people or the bourgeoisie why they should listen to him. ..."
    "... "This site, along with the MSM, has flown way off the handle since the election loss." ..."
    "... "Our nation's problems can be remedied with one dramatic change" ..."
    "... Bringing C level pay packages at major corporations in line with the real contributions of the recipients would be great. How would we do it? With laws or regulations or executive orders banning the federal government from doing business with any firm that failed to comply with some basic guidelines? ..."
    "... It's an academic point right now in any event. The Trump administration – working together with the Ryan House – is not going to make legislation or sign executive orders to do anything remotely like this. Which is one of the many reasons why bashing Democrats has taken off here I suspect. This election was theirs to lose, and they did everything in their power to toss it. ..."
    "... You do realize that the wealthy are both part of and connected to the legislative branch of every single country on this planet right? As long as that remains so (as it has since the dawn of humans) then good luck trying to cap any sort of hording behavior of the wealthy. ..."
    "... The post-structural revolution transpired [in the U.S.] before and during the end of the Cold War just as the collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison detre. ..."
    "... Foucault was not entirely sympathetic to the Left, at least the unions, but he was trying to articulate a politics that was just as much about liberation from capitalism as classic Marxism. To that end, discourse analysis was the means to discovering those subtle articulations of power in human relations, not an end in itself as it was for, say, Barthes. ..."
    "... Imagine inequality plotted on two axes. Inequality between genders, races and cultures is what liberals have been concentrating on. This is the x-axis and the focus of identity politics and the liberal left. ..."
    "... On the y-axis we have inequality from top to bottom. 2014 – "85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world" 2016– "Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world's population" ..."
    "... The neoliberal view L As long as everyone, from all genders, races and cultures, is visiting the same food bank this is equality. ..."
    "... You can see why liberals love identity politics. ..."
    "... labor is being co-opted by the right: the Republican Workers Party I think this rhymes with Fascist. But then, in a world soon to be literally scrambling for high ground and rebuilding housing for 50 million people the time honored "worker" might actually have a renaissance. ..."
    "... But the simple act of writing checks cost me n-o-t-h-i-n-g in terms of time, energy, education, physical or mental exertion. ..."
    "... A much more nuanced discussion of the primacy of identity politics on the Left in Britain and the US is http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/29/prospects-for-an-alt-left/ "Prospects for an Alt-Left," November 29, 2016, by Elliot Murphy, who teaches in the Division of Psychology and Language Sciences at University College, London. ..."
    "... The electorate is angry (true liberals at the Dems, voters in select electoral states at "everything"). If democracy is messy, then that's what we've got; a mess. Unfortunately, it's coming at the absolutely wrong time (Climate Change, lethal policing, financial elite impunity). ..."
    "... But certainly the fall of the USSR was the thing that forced capitalism's hand. At that point capitalism had no choice but to step up and prove that it could really bring a better life to the world. ..."
    "... A Minsky event of biblical proportions soon followed (it only took about 10 years!) and now all is devastation and nobody has clue. But the 1990 effort could have been in earnest. Capitalists mean well but they are always in denial about the inequality they create which finally started a chain reaction in "identity politics" as reactions to the stress of economic competition bounced around in every society like a pinball machine. A tedious and insufferable game which seems to have culminated in Hillary the Relentless. I won't say capitalism is idiotic. But something is. ..."
    "... Left and Right only really make sense in the context of the distribution of power and wealth, and only when there is a difference between them about that distribution. This was historically the case for more than 150 years after the French Revolution. By the mid-1960s, there was a sense that the Left was winning, and would continue to win. Progressive taxation, zero unemployment, little real poverty by today's standards, free education and healthcare . and many influential political figures (Tony Crosland for example) saw the major task of the future as deciding where the fruits of economic growth could be most justly applied. ..."
    "... So until class-based politics and struggles over power and money re-start (if they ever do) I respectfully suggest that "Left" and "Right" be retired as terms that no longer have any meaning. ..."
    "... powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone weaker than you, which is why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force, with a vested interest in the problems it has chosen to identify ..."
    "... Identity politics is a disaster ongoing for the Democratic Party, for reasons they seem to have overlooked. First, the additional identity group is white. We already see this in the South, where 90% of the white population in many states votes Republican. ..."
    "... When that spreads to the rest of the country, there will be a permanent Republican majority until the Republicans create a new major disaster. ..."
    "... So soon we forget the Battle of Seattle. The Left has been opposed to globalization, deregulation, etc., all along. Partly he's talking about an academic pseudo-left, partly confusing the left with the Democrats and other "center-left," captured parties. ..."
    "... I mean, Barack Obama was our first black president, but most blacks didn't do very well. George W. Bush was our first retard president, and most people with cognitive handicaps didn't do very well. ..."
    "... But we can boil it all down to something even simpler and more primal: divide and conquer. ..."
    Nov 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Yves here. This piece gives a useful, real-world perspective on the issues discussed in a seminal Adolph Reed article . Key section:

    race politics is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature. An integral element of that moral economy is displacement of the critique of the invidious outcomes produced by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized categories of ascriptive identity that sort us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially are rather than what we do. As I have argued, following Walter Michaels and others, within that moral economy a society in which 1% of the population controlled 90% of the resources could be just, provided that roughly 12% of the 1% were black, 12% were Latino, 50% were women, and whatever the appropriate proportions were LGBT people. It would be tough to imagine a normative ideal that expresses more unambiguously the social position of people who consider themselves candidates for inclusion in, or at least significant staff positions in service to, the ruling class.

    This perspective may help explain why, the more aggressively and openly capitalist class power destroys and marketizes every shred of social protection working people of all races, genders, and sexual orientations have fought for and won over the last century, the louder and more insistent are the demands from the identitarian left that we focus our attention on statistical disparities and episodic outrages that "prove" that the crucial injustices in the society should be understood in the language of ascriptive identity.

    My take on this issue is that the neoliberal use of identity politics continue and extends the cultural inculcation of individuals seeing themselves engaging with other in one-to-one transactions (commerce, struggles over power and status) and has the effect of diverting their focus and energy on seeing themselves as members of groups with common interests and operating that way, and in particular, of seeing the role of money and property, which are social constructs, in power dynamics.

    By David Llewellyn-Smith, founding publisher and former editor-in-chief of The Diplomat magazine, now the Asia Pacific's leading geo-politics website. Originally posted at MacroBusiness

    Let's begin this little tale with a personal anecdote. Back in 1990 I met and fell in love with a bisexual, African American ballerina. She was studying Liberal Arts at US Ivy League Smith College at the time (which Aussies may recall was being run by our Jill Kerr Conway back then). So I moved in with my dancing beauty and we lived happily on her old man's purse for a year.

    I was fortunate to arrive at Smith during a period of intellectual tumult. It was the early years of the US political correctness revolution when the academy was writhing through a post-structuralist shift. Traditional dialectical history was being supplanted by a new suite of studies based around truth as "discourse". Driven by the French post-modern thinkers of the 70s and 80s, the US academy was adopting and adapting the ideas Foucault, Derrida and Barthe to a variety of civil rights movements that spawned gender and racial studies.

    Each of these was based fundamentally upon the principle that language was the key to all power. That is, that language was not a tool that described reality but the power that created it, and s/he who controlled language controlled everything through the shaping of "discourse", as opposed to the objective existence of any truth at all .

    ... ... ...

    The post-structural revolution transpired before and during the end of the Cold War just as the collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison detre. But its social justice impulse didn't die, it turned inwards from a notion of the historic inevitability of the decline of capitalism and the rise of oppressed classes, towards the liberation of oppressed minorities within capitalism, empowered by control over the language that defined who they were.

    Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and rebranded every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself back to new emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated itself instead to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference that capitalism turned into a cultural supermarket.

    As the Left turned inwards, capitalism turned outwards and went truly, madly global, lifting previously isolated nations into a single planet-wide market, pretty much all of it revolving around Americana replete with its identity-branded products.

    But, of course, this came at a cost. When you globalise capital, you globalise labour. That meant jobs shifting from expensive markets to cheap. Before long the incomes of those swimming in the stream of global capital began to seriously outstrip the incomes of those trapped in old and withering Western labour markets. As a result, inflation in those markets also began to fall and so did interest rates. Thus asset prices took off as Western nation labour markets got hollowed out, and standard of living inequality widened much more quickly as a new landed aristocracy developed.

    Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased. Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some losers in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence. Indeed, it went further. So satisfied was it with human progress, and so satisfied with its own role in producing it, that it turned the power of language that it held most dear back upon those that opposed the new order. Those losers in Western labour markets that dared complain or fight back against the free movement of capital and labour were labelled and marginalised as "racist", "xenophobic" and "sexist".

    This great confluence of forces reached its apogee in the Global Financial Crisis when a ribaldly treasonous Wall St destroyed the American financial system just as America's first ever African American President, Barack Obama, was elected . One might have expected this convergence to result in a revival of some class politics. Obama ran on a platform of "hope and change" very much cultured in the vein of seventies art and inherited a global capitalism that had just openly ravaged its most celebrated host nation.

    But alas, it was just a bit of "retro". With a Republican Party on its knees, Obama was positioned to restore the kind of New Deal rules that global capitalism enjoyed under Franklin D. Roosevelt. A gobalisation like the one promised in the brochures, that benefited the majority via competition and productivity gains, driven by trade and meritocracy, with counter-balanced private risk and public equity.

    But instead he opted to patch up financialised capitalism. The banks were bailed out and the bonus culture returned. Yes, there were some new rules but they were weak. There was no seizing of the agenda. No imprisonments of the guilty. The US Department of Justice is still issuing $14bn fines to banks involved yet still today there is no justice. Think about that a minute. How can a crime be worthy of a $14bn fine but no prison time?!?

    Alas, for all of his efforts to restore Wall Street, Obama provided no reset for Main Street economics to restore the fortunes of the US lower classes. Sure Obama fought a hostile Capitol but, let's face it, he had other priorities. And so the US working and middle classes, as well as those worldwide, were sold another pup. Now more than ever, if they said say so they were quickly shut down as "racist", "xenophobic", or "sexist".

    Thus it came to pass that the global Left somehow did a complete back-flip and positioned itself directly behind the same unreconstructed global capitalism that was still sucking the life from the lower classes that it always had. Only now it was doing so with explicit public backing and with an abandon it had not enjoyed since the roaring twenties.

    Which brings us back to today. And we wonder how it is that an abuse-spouting guy like Donald Trump can succeed Barack Obama. Trump is a member of the very same "trickle down" capitalist class that ripped the income from US households. But he is smart enough, smarter than the Left at least, to know that the decades long rage of the middle and working classes is a formidable political force and has tapped it spectacularly to rise to power.

    And, he has done more. He has also recognised that the Left's obsession with post-structural identity politics has totally paralysed it. It is so traumatised and pre-occupied by his mis-use of the language of power – the "racist", "sexist" and "xenophobic" comments – that it is further wedging itself from its natural constituents every day.

    Don't get me wrong, I am very doubtful that Trump will succeed with his proposed policies but he has at least mentioned the elephant in the room, making the American worker visible again.

    Returning to that innocent Aussie boy and his wild romp at Smith College, I might ask what he would have made of all of this. None of the above should be taken as a repudiation of the experience of racism or sexism. Indeed, the one thing I took away from Smith College over my lifetime was an understanding at just how scarred by slavery are the generations of African Americans that lived it and today inherit its memory (as well as other persecuted). I felt terribly inadequate before that pain then and I remain so today.

    But, if the global Left is to have any meaning in the future of the world, and I would argue that the global Right will destroy us all if it doesn't, then it must get beyond post-structural paralysis and go back to the future of fighting not just for social justice issues but for equity based upon class. Empowerment is not just about language, it's about capital, who's got it, who hasn't and what role government plays between them.

    All sex is not rape, but most poverty is.

    Big River Bandido November 29, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    This comment is a perfect example of the author's (and Adolf Reed's) point: that the so-called "Left" is so bogged down in issues of language that it has completely lost sight of class politics. Essentially, the comment vividly displays the exact methodology the author lambasts in the piece - it hijacks the discussion about an economic issue, attempts to turn it into a mere distraction about semantics, and in the end contributes absolutely nothing of substance to the "discourse".

    rd November 29, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    It's why Trump won. He was a Viking swinging an ax at nuanced hair-splitters. It was inelegant and ugly, but effective. We will find out if the hair-splitters win again in their inner circle with the Democratic Minority Leader vote. I suspect they missed the point of the election and will vote Pelosi back in, thereby missing the chance for significant gains in the mid-term elections.

    Dave Patterson November 29, 2016 at 7:00 am

    One of the great triumphs of Those Who Continue To Be Our Rulers has been the infiltration and cooptation of 'the left', hand in hand with the 'dumbing down' of the last 30+ years so few people really understand what is going on.

    Explained in more detail here if anyone interested in some truly 'out of the box' perspectives – It's not 'the left' trying to take over the world and shut down free speech and all that other bad stuff – it's 'the right'!! http://tinyurl.com/h4h2kay .

    JCC November 29, 2016 at 9:01 am

    Although I haven't yet read the article you posted, my "feeling" as I read this was that the author inferred that the right was in the mix somehow, but it was primarily the fault of the left.

    That the Global Left appears to be intellectually weak regarding identity politics and "political correctness" vs. class politics, there is no doubt. But to skim over Global Corporate leverage of this attitude seems wrong to me. The right has also embraced identity politics in order to keep the 90% fully divided in order to justify it's continual economic rape of both human and physical ecology.

    anonymouse November 29, 2016 at 10:15 am

    >The right has also embraced identity politics

    So many people critiquing the Dems' use of identity politics seem to miss this point.

    Art Eclectica November 29, 2016 at 11:23 am

    Exactly. My guess is that this plays out somewhat like this:

    Dems: This group _____ should be free to have _____ civil right.

    Reps: NO. We are a society built on _____ tradition, no need to change that because it upends our patriarchal, Christian, Caucasian power structure.

    Every "identity politics" charge starts here, with one group wanting a more equitable social order and the other group defending the existing power structure. Identity politics is adjusting the social order and rattling the power structure, which is why it is so effective.

    I think it can be effectively argued that Trump voters in PA, WI, OH, MI chose to rattle the power structure and you could think of that as identity politics as well.

    Grebo November 29, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    Identity politics is adjusting the social order and rattling the power structure, which is why it is so effective.

    On the contrary, the (Neo-)Liberal establishment uses identity politics to co-opt and neutralise the left. It keeps them occupied without threatening the real power structure in the least.

    jrs November 29, 2016 at 5:57 pm

    When have they ever done any such thing? Vote for Hillary because she's a woman isn't even any kind of politics it's more like marketing branding. It's the real thing. Taste great, less filling. I'm loving it.

    Grebo November 29, 2016 at 8:04 pm

    Hillary (Neoliberal establishment) has many supporters who think of themselves as 'left' or 'liberal'. The Democratic Party leadership is neither 'left' nor 'liberal'. It keeps the votes and the love of the 'liberals' by talking up harmless 'liberal' identity politics and soft peddling the Liberal power politics which they are really about.

    They exploit the happy historical accident of the coincidence of names. The Liberal ideology was so called because it was slightly less right-wing than the Feudalism it displaced. In today's terms however, it is not very liberal, and Neoliberalism is even less so.

    Paul Art November 29, 2016 at 7:14 am

    If I was in charge of the DNC and wanted to commission a very cleverly written piece to exonerate the DLC and the New Democrats from the 30 odd years of corruption and self-aggrandizement they indulged in and laughed all the way to the Bank then I would definitely give this chap a call. I mean, where do we start? No attempt at learning the history of neoliberalism, no attempt at any serious research about how and why it fastened itself into the brains of people like Tony Coelho and Al From, nothing, zilch. If someone who did not know the history of the DLC read this piece, they would walk away thinking, 'wow, it was all happenstance, it all just happened, no one deliberately set off this run away train'. Sometime in the 90s the 'Left' decided to just pursue identity politics. Amazing. I would ask the Author to start with the Powell memo and then make an investigation as to why the Democrats then and the DLC later decided to merely sit on their hands when all the forces the Powell memo unleashed proceeded to wreak their havoc in every established institution of the Left, principally the Universities which had always been the bastion of the Progressives. That might be a good starting point.

    skippy November 29, 2016 at 7:38 am

    My response at MB

    Sigh . the left was marginalized and relentlessly hunted down by the right [grab bag of corporatists, free marketers, neocons, evangelicals, and a whole cornucopia of wing nut ideologists (file under creative class gig writers)].

    Just from historical perspective, the right wing had more money to forward its agenda and an OCD like affliction [biblical] to drive simple memes relentlessly via its increasing private ownership of education and media. Thereby creating an institutional network over time to gain dominate market share in crafting the social narrative. Bloodly hell anyone remember Bush Jr Christian crusade after politicizing religion to get elected and the ramifications – neocon – R2P thingy .

    Its not hard once neoliberalism became dominate in the 70s [wages and productivity diverged] the proceeds have gone to the top and everyone else got credit IOUs based mostly on asset inflation via the Casino or RE [home and IP].

    ...

    flora November 29, 2016 at 8:12 am

    Yes, it's interesting that the academic "left" (aka liberals), who so prize language to accurately, and to the finest degree distinguish 'this' from 'that', have avoided addressing the difference between 'left' and 'liberal' and are content to leave the two terms interchangable.

    JTFaraday November 29, 2016 at 11:28 am

    The reason for that is that when academic leftists attempted a more in depth critique, of one sort or another, of the actually existing historical liberal welfare state, the liberals threw the "New Deal-under-siege" attack at them and attempted to shut them down.

    There is very little left perspective in public. All this whining about identity politics is not left either. It is reactionary. I can think of plenty of old labor left academics who have done a much better job of wrapping their minds around why sex, gender, and race matter with respect to all matters economic than this incessant childish whine. The "let me make you feel more comfortable" denialism of Uncle Tom Reed.

    Right now, I would say that these reactionaries don't want to hear from the academic left any more than New Deal liberals did. Not going to stop them from blaming them for all their problems though.

    Maybe people should shoulder their own failures for a change. As for the Trumpertantrums, I am totally not having them.

    hemeantwell November 29, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    Since the writer led off talking about an academic setting, it would be useful to flesh out a bit more how trends in academic theoretical discussion in the 70s and 80s reflected and reinforced what was going on politically. He refers to postructuralism, which was certainly involved, but doesn't give enough emphasis to how deliberately poststructuralists - and here I'm lumping together writers like Lyotard, Foucault, and Deleuze and Guattari - were all reacting to the failure of French Maoism and Trotskyism to, as far as they were concerned, provide a satisfactory alternative to Soviet Marxism.

    As groups espousing those position flailed about in the 70s, the drive to maintain hope in revolutionary prospects in the midst of macroeconomic stabilization and union reconciliation to capitalism frequently brought out the worst sectarian tendencies. While writers like Andre Gorz bid adieu to the proletariat as an agent of change and tried to tread water as social democratic reformists, the poststructuralists disjoined the critique of power from class analysis.

    Foucault in particular advanced a greatly expanded wariness regarding the use of power. It was not just that left politics could only lead to ossified Soviet Marxism or the dogmatic petty despotism of the left splinters. Institutions in general mapped out social practices and attendant identities to impose on the individual. His position tended to promote a distrust not only of "grand narratives" but of organizational bonds as such. As far as I can tell, the idea of people joining together to form an institution that would enhance their social power as well as allow them to become personally empowered/enhanced was something of a categorial impossibility.

    When imported to US academia, traditionally much more disengaged from organized politics than their European counterparts, these tendencies flourished. Aside from being socially cut off from increasingly anodyne political organizations, poststructuralists in the US often had backgrounds with little orientation to history or social science research addressing class relations. To them the experience of a much more immediate and palpable form of oppression through the use of language offered an immediate critical target. This dovetailed perfectly with the legalistic use of state power to end discrimination against various groups, A European disillusionment with class politics helped to fortify an American evasion or ignorance of it.

    ejp November 29, 2016 at 7:41 am

    There is no global left. We have only global state capitalists and global social democrats – a pseudo left. The countries where Marxist class analysis was supposedly adopted were not industrial countries where "alienation" had brought the "proletariat" to an inevitable communal mentality. The largest of these countries killed millions in order to industrialize rapidly – pretending the goal was to get to that state.

    The terms left and right may not be adequate for those of us who want an egalitarian society but also see many of the obstacles to egalitarianism as human failings that are independent of and not caused by ruling elites – although they frequently serve the interests of those elites.

    Bigotry. Identity centered thinking. Neither serves egalitarianism. But people cling to them. "I gotta look out for myself first." And so called left thinkers constantly pontificate about "benefits" and "privileges" that some class, sex, and race confer. Hmmm. The logic is that many of us struggling daily to keep our jobs and pay the bills must give up something in order to be fair, in order to build a better society. Given this thinking it is no surprise that so many have retreated into the illusion of safety offered by identity based thinking.

    Hopefully those of us who yearn for an egalitarian movement can develop and articulate an alternate view of reality.

    flora November 29, 2016 at 8:04 am

    "Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and rebranded every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself back to new emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated itself instead to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference that capitalism turned into a cultural supermarket."


    "Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased. Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some losers in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence. Indeed, it went further. So satisfied was it with human progress, and so satisfied with its own role in producing it, that it turned the power of language that it held most dear back upon those that opposed the new order. Those losers in Western labour markets that dared complain or fight back against the free movement of capital and labour were labelled and marginalised as "racist", "xenophobic" and "sexist". "

    Great post. Thanks.

    JTFaraday November 29, 2016 at 11:40 am

    That is not it at all. The real reason is the right wing played white identity politics starting with the southern strategy, and those running into the waiting arms of Trump today, took the poisoned bait. Enter Bill Clinton.

    People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions, and stop blaming the academics and the leftists and the wimmins and the N-ers.

    JTFaraday November 29, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    And THAT is why "race" has a primary place in American political discourse, however maladaptive a response today's D-Party partisans may present.

    Conservatives put over their neoliberal agenda BECAUSE RACISM.

    flora November 29, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    But why does the Dem estab embrace the conservative neoliberal agenda? The Dem estab are smart people, can think on multiple levels, are not limited in scope, are not racist. So, why then does the Dem estab accept and promote the conservative GOP neoliberal economic agenda?

    UserFriendly November 29, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    Because the Dem estab isn't very smart. I doubt more than half of them could define neoliberalism much less describe how it has destroyed the country. They are mostly motivated by the identity politics aspects.

    Propertius November 29, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Because the Dem estab isn't very smart.

    No, but they make up for it with arrogance.

    Waldenpond November 29, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    Conservative is: private property, capitalism, limited taxes and transfer payments plus national security and religion.

    Liberalism is not in opposition to any of that. Identity politics arose at the same time the Ds were purging the reds (socialists and communists) from their party. Liberalism/progressivism is an ameliorating position of conservatism (progressive support of labor unions to work within a private property/corporatist structure not to eliminate the system and replace it with public/employee ownership) Not too far, too fast, maybe toss out a few more crumbs.

    witters November 29, 2016 at 6:00 pm

    There is a foundation for identity politics on the liberal-left (see what I did there?) – it rests in the sense of moral superiority of just this liberal-left, which superiority is then patronisingly spread all over the social world – until it meets those who deny the moral superiority claim, whereupon it becomes murderous (in, of course, the name of humanity and humanitarianism).

    EoinW November 29, 2016 at 8:09 am

    We live in a society where no one gets what they want. The Left sees the standard of living fall and is powerless to stop it. The Right see the culture war lost 25 years ago and can't even offer a public protest, let alone move things in a conservative direction. Instead we get the agenda of the political Left to sell out at every opportunity. Plus we get the agenda of the political Right of endless war and endless security state. Eventually the political Left and Right merge and support the exact same things. Now when will the real Left and Right recognize their true enemy and join forces against it? This is why the 1% continue to prevail over the 99%. If the 1% wasn't so incompetent this would continue forever. They know how to divide, conquer and rule the 99%, however they don't know how to run a society in a sustainable way.

    But I will say one thing for the Right over the Left: they have taken the initiative and are now the sole force for change. Granted, supporting a carnival barker for president is an act of desperation. Nevertheless he was the only option for change and the Right took it. Perhaps the Left offering little to nothing in the way of change reflects its lack of desperation.

    After all, the Left won the culture war and continues to push its agenda to extremes(even though such extremes will guarantee a back lash that will send people running back to their closets to hide). The Left still has the MSM media on its side when it comes to cultural issues. Thus the Left is satisfied with the status quo, with gorging themselves on the crumbs which fall from the 1% table. Consequently, you not only have a political Left that has sold out, you also have the rest of the Left content to accept that sell out so long as they get their symbolic victories over their ancient enemy – the Right.

    Until the Left recognize its true enemy, the fight will only come from the Right. During that process more people will filter from the Left to the Right as the latter will offer the only hope for change.

    integer November 29, 2016 at 8:27 am

    I think left and right as political shorthand is too limited. Perhaps the NC commentariat could define up and down versions of each of these political philosophies (ie. left and right) and start to take control of the framing. Hence we would have up-left, down-left, up-right, and down-right. I would suggest that up and down could relate to environmental viewpoints.

    Just a thought that I haven't given much thought, but it would be funny (to me at least) to be able to quantify one's political stance in terms of radians.

    Minnie Mouse November 29, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    Left and Right are two wings on the same bird and the bird is a turkey. Where is the hard perpendicular?

    Ed November 29, 2016 at 8:28 am

    Excellent comment, EoinW! You just summed up years of content and commentary on this site. Obviously as the "Left" continues to defend the status quo as you describe it stops being "Left" in any meaningful way anymore.

    Katharine November 29, 2016 at 9:19 am

    This seems to assume that change is an intrinsic good, so that change produced by the right will necessarily be improvement. Unfortunately, change for the worse is probably more likely than change for the better under this regime. Equally unfortunately, we may have reached the point where that is the only thing that will make people reconsider what constitutes a just society and how to achieve it. In any case, this is where we are now.

    flora November 29, 2016 at 10:06 am

    The economic left sees its standard of living fall. The social right sees its cultural verities fall.

    The Koch brothers are economically to the very right. They are socially to the left, perhaps even more socially liberal than many of your liberal friends. No joke. There's a point here, if I can figure out what it is.

    susan the other November 29, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    Gary Johnson claims the libertarian mantra is what I used to think was the liberal mantra: economically conservative, socially liberal.

    flora November 29, 2016 at 2:07 pm

    One of Koch brothers, David Koch, was the 1980 Libertarian Party's VP candidate.

    Karl November 29, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    "He [Trump] was the only option for change and the Right took it."

    You forget Bernie. The Left tried, and Bernie bowed out, not wanting to be another "Nader" spoiler. Now, for 2020, the Left thinks it's the "their turn."

    The problem is, the Left tends to blow it too (e.g. McGovern in 1972), in part because their "language" also exudes power and tends to alienate other, more moderate, parts of the coalition with arcane (and rather elitist) arguments from Derrida et. al.

    Lambert Strether November 29, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    > not wanting to be another "Nader" spoiler.

    And a good thing, too.

    rd November 29, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    Trump isn't Right or Left. Trump is a can of gasoline and a match. His voters weren't voting for a Left or Right agenda. They were voting for a battering ram. That is why he got a pass on racist, misogynist, fascist statements that would have killed any other candidate.

    Trump is starting out with some rallies in the near-future. The Republicans in Congress think they are going to play patty-cake on policy to push the Koch Brothers agenda. We are going to see a populist who promised jobs duke it out publicly with small government austerity deficit cutters. It will be interesting to see what happens when he calls out Republican Congressmen standing in the way of his agenda by name.

    scraping_by November 29, 2016 at 8:48 am

    PC is a parody of the 20th Century reform movements. I n the 60's the Black churches and the labor unions fought Jim Crow laws and explicit institutional discrimination. In the 70's the feminists worked against legal disabilities written into law. Since the Depression, the unions fought corporate management create a livable relationship between management and labor. Real struggles, real problems, real people.

    [Tinfoil hat on)]

    At the same time the reformist subset was losing themselves in style points, being 'nice', and passive aggressive intimidation, the corporate community was promoting the anti-government screech for the masses. That is, at the same time the people lost sight of government as their counterweight to capital, the left elite was becoming the vile joke Limbaugh and the other talk radio blowhards said they were. This may be coincidental timing, or their may be someone behind the French connection and Hamilton Fish touring college campuses in the 80's promoting subjectivism. It's true the question of 'how they feel' seems to loom large in discussions where social justice used to be.

    [Tinfoil hat off]

    There are many words but no communication between the laboring masses and the specialist readers. Fainting couch feminists have nothing to say to wives and mothers, the slippery redefinitions out of non-white studies turn off people who work for a living, and the promotion of smaller and more neurotic minorities are just more friction in a society growing steeper uphill.

    Ulysses November 29, 2016 at 8:52 am

    "She was studying Liberal Arts at US Ivy League Smith College at the time (which Aussies may recall was being run by our Jill Kerr Conway back then). So I moved in with my dancing beauty and we lived happily on her old man's purse for a year."

    I hate to be overly pedantic, but Smith College is one of the historically female colleges known as the Seven Sisters: Barnard College, Bryn Mawr College, Mount Holyoke College, Radcliffe College, Smith College, Vassar College, and Wellesley College. While Barnard is connected to Columbia, and Radcliffe to Harvard, none of the other Sisters has ever been considered any part of the Ancient Eight (Ivy League) schools: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Yale.

    I find it highly doubtful that someone, unaware of this elementary fact, actually lived off a beautiful bisexual black ballerina's (wonderful alliteration!) "old man's purse," for a full year in Northampton, MA. He may well have dated briefly someone like this, but it strains credulity that– after a full year in this environment– he would never have learned of the distinction between the Seven Sisters and the Ivy League.

    The Trumpening November 29, 2016 at 9:24 am

    The truth of the matter is not so important. The black ballerina riff had two functions. First it helped push an ethos for the author of openness and acceptance of various races and sexual orientations. This is a highly charged subject and so accusations of racism, etc, are never far away for someone pushing class over identity.

    Second it served as a nice hook to get dawgs like me to read through the whole thing; which was a very good article. Kind of like the opening paragraph of a Penthouse Forum entry, I was hoping that the author would eventually elaborate on what happened when she pirouetted over him

    What's interesting is that in an article pushing class over identity. he never tried to set his class ethos in order to convince working class people or the bourgeoisie why they should listen to him.

    Ulysses November 29, 2016 at 10:10 am

    I have never, ever known Brits to claim an "Oxbridge education" if they haven't attended either Oxford or Cambridge. Similarly, over several decades of knowing quite well many alumnae from Wellesley, Smith, etc. I have never once heard them speak of their colleges as "Ivy League."

    I do get your point, however. Perhaps Mr. Llewellyn-Smith was deliberately writing for a non-U.S. audience, and chose to use "Ivy League" as synonymous with "prestigious." I have seen graduates of Stanford, for example, described as "Ivy Leaguers" in the foreign press.

    PlutoniumKun November 29, 2016 at 10:31 am

    I have never, ever known Brits to claim an "Oxbridge education" if they haven't attended either Oxford or Cambridge

    As a graduate of OBU, I've heard it several times (but usually, it must be said, tongue in cheek).

    7 November 29, 2016 at 9:54 am

    Lisa gives a good tour

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hElhGMkRtyM

    PlutoniumKun November 29, 2016 at 9:58 am

    I think the gradual process whereby the left, or more specifically, the middle class left, have been consumed by an intellectually vacant went hand in hand with what I found the bizarre abandonment of interest by the left in economics and in public intellectualism. The manner in which the left simply surrendered the intellectual arguments over issues like taxes and privatisation and trade still puzzles me. I suspect it was related to a cleavage between middle class left wingers and working class activists. They simple stopped talking the same language, so there was nobody to shout 'stop' when the right simply colonised the most important areas of public policy and shut down all discussion.*

    A related issue is I think a strong authoritarianist strain which runs through some identity politics. Its common to have liberals discuss how intolerant the religious or right wingers are of intellectual discussion, but even try to question some of of the shibboleths of gender/race discussions and you can immediately find yourself labelled a misogynist/homophobe/racist. Just see some of the things you can get banned from the Guardian CIF for saying.

    LA Mike November 29, 2016 at 10:14 am

    This site, along with the MSM, has flown way off the handle since the election loss. Democrat-bashing is the new pastime.

    Our nation's problems can be remedied with one dramatic change:

    Caps on executive gains in terms of multiples in both public and private companies of a big enough size. For example, the CEO at most can make 50 times the average salary. Something to that effect. And any net income gains at the end of the year that are going to be dispersed as dividends, must proportionally reach the internal laborers as well. Presto, a robust economy.

    All employees must share in gains. You don't like it? Tough. The owner will still be rich.

    Historically, executives topped out at 20-30 times average salary. Now it's normal for the number to reach 500-2,000. It's absurd. As if a CEO is manufacturing products, marketing, and selling them all by himself/herself. As if Tim Cook assembles iPhones and iMacs by hand and sells them. As if Leslie Moonves writes, directs, acts in, and markets each show.

    Put the redistributive mechanism in the private sphere as well as in government. Then America will be great again.

    integer November 29, 2016 at 10:22 am

    "This site, along with the MSM, has flown way off the handle since the election loss."

    I presume you forgot to add "in my opinion" to the end of this sentence.

    "Our nation's problems can be remedied with one dramatic change"

    Ha!

    FluffytheObeseCat November 29, 2016 at 11:16 am

    Bringing C level pay packages at major corporations in line with the real contributions of the recipients would be great. How would we do it? With laws or regulations or executive orders banning the federal government from doing business with any firm that failed to comply with some basic guidelines?

    It's an academic point right now in any event. The Trump administration – working together with the Ryan House – is not going to make legislation or sign executive orders to do anything remotely like this. Which is one of the many reasons why bashing Democrats has taken off here I suspect. This election was theirs to lose, and they did everything in their power to toss it.

    inhibi November 29, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    You do realize that the wealthy are both part of and connected to the legislative branch of every single country on this planet right? As long as that remains so (as it has since the dawn of humans) then good luck trying to cap any sort of hording behavior of the wealthy.

    Michael November 29, 2016 at 10:21 am

    As someone who grew up in and participated in those discussions:

    1) It was "women's studies" back then. "Gender studies" is actually a major improvement in how the issues are examined.

    2) We'd already long since lost by then, and we were looking to make our own lives better. Creating a space where we could have good sex and a minimum of violence was better. Reagan's election, and his re-election, destroyed the Left.

    3) We live in a both/and world.

    Uahsenaa November 29, 2016 at 10:58 am

    I feel like this piece could use the yellow waders as well. Instead of simply repeating myself every time these things come up, I proffer an annotation of a important paragraph, to give a sense of what bothers me here.

    The post-structural revolution transpired [in the U.S.] before and during the end of the Cold War just as the collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison detre. But its social justice impulse didn't die, [a certain, largely liberal tendency in the North American academy] turned inwards from a notion of the historic inevitability of the decline of capitalism and the rise of oppressed classes, towards the liberation of oppressed minorities within capitalism[, which, if you paid close attention to what was being called for, implied and sometimes even outright demanded clear restraints be placed upon the power of capital in order to meet those goals], empowered by control over the [images, public statements, and widespread ideologies–i.e. discourse {which is about more than just language}] that defined who they were.

    The post-structural turn was just as much about Derrida at Johns Hopkins as it was about Foucault trying to demonstrate the subtle and not-so-subtle effects of power in the explicit context of the May '68 events in France. The economy ground to a halt, and at one point de Gaulle was so afraid of a violent revolution that he briefly left the country, leaving the government helpless to do much of anything, until de Gaulle returned shortly thereafter.

    Foucault was not entirely sympathetic to the Left, at least the unions, but he was trying to articulate a politics that was just as much about liberation from capitalism as classic Marxism. To that end, discourse analysis was the means to discovering those subtle articulations of power in human relations, not an end in itself as it was for, say, Barthes.

    A claim is being made here regarding the "global left" that clearly comes from a parochial, North American perspective. Indian academics, for one, never abandoned political economy for identity politics, especially since in India identity politics, religion, regionalism, castes, etc. were always a concern and remain so. It seems rather odd to me that the other major current in academia from the '90s on, namely postcolonialism, is entirely left out of this story, especially when critiques of militarism and political economy were at the heart of it.

    The Trumpening November 29, 2016 at 11:36 am

    The saddest point of the events of '68 is that looking back society has never been so equal as at that point in time. That was more or less the time of peak working class living standard relative to the wealthy classes. It is no accident, at least in my book, that these mostly bourgeois student activists have a tard at the end of their name in French: soixante-huitards.

    In the Sixites the "Left" had control of the economic levers or power - and by Left I mean those interested in smaller differences between the classes. There is no doubt the Cold War helped the working classes as the wealthy knew it was in their interest to make capitalism a showcase of rough egalitarianism. But during the 60's the RIght held cultural sway. It was Berkeley pushing Free Speech and Lenny Bruce trying to break boundaries while the right tried to keep the Overton Window as tight and squeaky clean as possible.

    But now the "Right" in the sense of those who want to increase the difference between rich and poor hold economic power while the Left police culture and speech. The provocateurs come from the right nowadays as they run roughshod over the PC police and try to smash open the racial, gender. and sexual orientation speech restrictions put in place as the left now control the Overton Window.

    Sound of the Suburbs November 29, 2016 at 11:19 am

    The Left and Liberal are two different things entirely.

    In the UK we have three parties:

    Labour – the left
    Liberal – middle/ liberal
    Conservative – the right

    Mapping this across to the US:

    Labour – X
    Liberal – Democrat
    Conservative – Republican

    The US has been conned from the start and has never had a real party of the Left.

    At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Century US ideas changed and the view of those at the top was that it would be dangerous for the masses to get any real power, a liberal Democratic party would suffice to listen to the wants of the masses and interpret them in a sensible way in accordance with the interests of the wealthy.

    We don't want the masses to vote for a clean slate redistribution of land and wealth for heaven's sake.

    In the UK the Liberals were descendents of the Whigs, an elitist Left (like the US Democrats).

    Once everyone got the vote, a real Left Labour party appeared and the Whigs/Liberals faded into insignificance.

    It is much easier to see today's trends when you see liberals as an elitist Left.

    They have just got so elitist they have lost touch with the working class.

    The working class used to be their pet project, now it is other minorities like LGBT and immigration.

    Liberals need a pet project to feel self-righteous and good about themselves but they come from the elite and don't want any real distribution of wealth and privilege as they and their children benefit from it themselves.

    Liberals are the more caring side of the elite, but they care mainly about themselves rather than wanting a really fair society.

    They call themselves progressive, but they like progressing very slowly and never want to reach their destination where there is real equality.

    The US needs its version of the UK Labour party – a real Left – people who like Bernie Sanders way of thinking should start one up, Bernie might even join up.

    In the UK our three parties all went neo-liberal, we had three liberal parties!

    No one really likes liberals and they take to hiding in the other two parties, you need to be careful.

    Jeremy Corbyn is taking the Labour party back where it belongs slowly.

    left – traditional left
    liberal – elitist left

    Sound of the Suburbs November 29, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Imagine inequality plotted on two axes. Inequality between genders, races and cultures is what liberals have been concentrating on. This is the x-axis and the focus of identity politics and the liberal left.

    On the y-axis we have inequality from top to bottom. 2014 – "85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world" 2016– "Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world's population"

    Doing the maths and assuming a straight line .
    5.4 years until one person is as wealthy as poorest half of the world.

    This is what the traditional left normally concentrate on, but as they have switched to identity politics this inequality has gone through the roof. They were over-run by liberals.

    Some more attention to the y-axis please.

    The neoliberal view L As long as everyone, from all genders, races and cultures, is visiting the same food bank this is equality.

    left – traditional left – y-axis inequality
    liberal – elitist left – x -axis inequality (this doesn't affect my background of wealth and privilege)

    You can see why liberals love identity politics.

    UserFriendly November 29, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    https://www.politicalcompass.org/counterpoint-20161110

    The main page has a test you can take but that is a nice little post mortem.

    susan the other November 29, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    labor is being co-opted by the right: the Republican Workers Party I think this rhymes with Fascist. But then, in a world soon to be literally scrambling for high ground and rebuilding housing for 50 million people the time honored "worker" might actually have a renaissance.

    UserFriendly November 29, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    Identity politics does make democrats lose. The message needs to be economic. It can have the caveat that various sub groups will be paid special attention to, but if identity is the only thing talked about then get used to right wing governments.

    TK421 November 29, 2016 at 3:54 pm

    If identity politics is a winning issue, where are the wins?

    readerOfTeaLeaves November 29, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    Empowerment is not just about language, it's about capital, who's got it, who hasn't and what role government plays between them.

    Empowerment is very much about capital, but the Left has never had the cajones to stare down and take apart the Right's view of 'capital' as some kind of magical elixir that mysteriously produces 'wealth'.

    I ponder my own experiences, which many here probably share:

    First: slogging through college(s), showing up to do a defined list of tasks (a 'job', if you will) to be remunerated with some kind of payment/salary. That was actual 'work' in order to get my hands on very small amounts of 'capital' (i.e., 'money').

    Second: a few times, I just read up on science or looked at the stock pages and did a little research, and then wrote checks that purchased stock shares in companies that seemed to be exploring some intriguing technologies. In my case, I got lucky a few times, and presto! That simple act of writing a few checks made me look like a smarty. Also, paid a few bills. But the simple act of writing checks cost me n-o-t-h-i-n-g in terms of time, energy, education, physical or mental exertion.

    Third: I have also had the experience of working (start ups) in situations where - literally!!! - I made less in a day in salary than I'd have made if I'd simply taken a couple thousand dollars and bought stock in the place I was working.

    To summarize:
    - I've had capital that I worked long and hard to obtain.
    - I've had capital that took me a little research, about one minute to write a check, and brought me a handsome amount of 'capital'. (Magic!)
    - I've worked in situations in which I created MORE capital for others than I created for myself. And the value of that capital expanded exponentially.

    If the Left had a spine and some guts, it would offer a better analysis about what 'capital' is, the myriad forms it can take, and why any of this matters.

    Currently, the Left cannot explain to a whole lot of people why their hard work ended up in other people's bank accounts. If they had to actually explain that process by which people's hard work turned into fortunes for others, they'd have a few epiphanies about how wealth is actually created, and whether some forms of wealth creation are more sustainable than other forms.

    IMVHO, I never saw Hillary Clinton as able to address this elemental question of the nature of wealth creation. The Left has not traditionally given a shrewd analysis of this core problem, so the Right has been able to control this issue. Which is tragic, because the Right is trapped in the hedge fund mentality, in the tight grip of realtors and mortgage brokers; they obsess on assets, and asset classes, and resource extraction. When your mind is trapped by that kind of thinking, you obsess on the tax code, and on how to use it to generate wealth for yourself. Enter Trump.

    Matthew G. Saroff November 29, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    One small correction: Smith is not an Ivy League school, it is one of the "Seven Sisters:
    Ivy League:
    Brown
    Columbia
    Cornell
    Dartmouth
    Harvard
    Penn
    Princeton
    Yale

    Seven Sisters:
    Barnard
    Bryn Mawr
    Mount Holyoke
    Radcliffe
    Smith
    Vassar
    Wellesley

    Theo November 29, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    A much more nuanced discussion of the primacy of identity politics on the Left in Britain and the US is http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/29/prospects-for-an-alt-left/ "Prospects for an Alt-Left," November 29, 2016, by Elliot Murphy, who teaches in the Division of Psychology and Language Sciences at University College, London.

    And let's not forget that identity politics arose in the first place because of genuine discrimination, which still exists today. In forsaking identity politics in favor of one of class, we should not forget the original reasons for the rise of the phenomena, however poorly employed by some of its practitioners, and however mined by capitalism to give the semblance of tolerance and equality while obscuring the reality of intolerance and inequality.

    Lambert Strether November 29, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    Trivially, I would think the last thing to do is adopt the "alt-" moniker, thereby cementing the impression in the mind of the public that the two are in some sense similar.

    Adamski November 29, 2016 at 6:22 pm

    The blogger Lord Keynes at Social Democracy for the 21st Century at blogspot suggests Realist Left instead of alt-left. I think how people are using the term "identity politics" at the moment isn't "actual anti-racism in policy and recruitment" but "pandering to various demographics to get their loyalty and votes so that the party machine doesn't have to try and gain votes by doing economic stuff that frightens donors, lobbyists and the media". Clinton improved the female vote for Democratic president by 1 percentage point, and the black and Latino shares of the Republican were unchanged from Romney in 2012. Thus, identity politics is not working when the economy needs attention, even against the most offensive opponent.

    Trigger warning November 29, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    So to repress class conflicts, the kleptocracy splintered them into opposition between racists and POC, bigots and LGBTQ, patriarchal oppressors and women, etc., etc. The US state-authorized parties used it for divide and rule. The left fell for it and neutered itself. Good. Fuck the left.

    Outside the Western bloc the left got supplanted with a more sensible opposition: between humans and the overreaching state. That alternative view subsumes US-style identity politics in antidiscrimination and cultural rights. It subsumes traditional class struggle in labor, migrant, and economic rights. It reforms and improves discredited US constitutional rights, and integrates it all into the concepts of peace and development. It's up and running with binding law and authoritative institutions .

    So good riddance to the old left and the new left. Human rights have already replaced them in the 80-plus per cent of the world represented by UNCTAD and the G-77. That's why the USA fights tooth and nail to keep them out of your reach.

    Anon November 29, 2016 at 1:05 pm

    To All Commenters: thanks for the discussion. Many good, thoughtful ideas/perspectives.

    Mine? Living in California (a minority white populace, broad economic engine, high living expenses (and huge homeless population) and a leader in alternative energy: Trump is what happens when you don't allow the "people" to vote for their preferred candidates (Bernie) and don't listen to a select few voters in key electoral states (WI,MI,PA).

    The electorate is angry (true liberals at the Dems, voters in select electoral states at "everything"). If democracy is messy, then that's what we've got; a mess. Unfortunately, it's coming at the absolutely wrong time (Climate Change, lethal policing, financial elite impunity).

    Hold this same election with different (multiple) candidates and the outcome is likely different. In the end, we all need to work and demand a more fair and Just society. (Or California is likely to secede.)

    Jerry Denim November 29, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    "Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased. Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some losers in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence."

    I can only imagine the glee of the wealthy feminists at Smith while they witnessed the white, lunch pailed, working class American male thrown out of work and into the gutter of irrelevance and despair. The perfect comeuppance for a demographic believed to be the arch-nemesis of women and minorities. Nothing seems quite so fashionable at the moment as hating white male Republicans that live outside of proper-thinking coastal enclaves of prosperity. Unfortunately I fail to see how this attitude helps the country. Seems like more divide and conquer from our overlords on high.

    TK421 November 29, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    You might find this interesting: link

    Anon November 29, 2016 at 9:06 pm

    just more whining from the Weekly Standard. While men may have been disproportionately displaced in jobs that require physical strength, many women (nurses?) likely lost their homes during the Great Financial Scam and its fallout.

    The enemy is a rigged political, financial, and judicial system.

    susan the other November 29, 2016 at 1:37 pm

    Identity Politics gestated for a while before the 90s. Beginning with a backlash against Affirmative Action in the 70s, the Left began to turn Liberal. East Coast intellectuals who were anxious they would be precluded from entering the best schools may have been the catalyst (article from Jacobin I think).

    But certainly the fall of the USSR was the thing that forced capitalism's hand. At that point capitalism had no choice but to step up and prove that it could really bring a better life to the world.

    A Minsky event of biblical proportions soon followed (it only took about 10 years!) and now all is devastation and nobody has clue. But the 1990 effort could have been in earnest. Capitalists mean well but they are always in denial about the inequality they create which finally started a chain reaction in "identity politics" as reactions to the stress of economic competition bounced around in every society like a pinball machine. A tedious and insufferable game which seems to have culminated in Hillary the Relentless. I won't say capitalism is idiotic. But something is.

    David November 29, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    "Perhaps the NC commentariat could define up and down versions of each of these political philosophies (ie. left and right) and start to take control of the framing."

    Well, I'll have a first go, since I was around at the time.

    Left and Right only really make sense in the context of the distribution of power and wealth, and only when there is a difference between them about that distribution. This was historically the case for more than 150 years after the French Revolution. By the mid-1960s, there was a sense that the Left was winning, and would continue to win. Progressive taxation, zero unemployment, little real poverty by today's standards, free education and healthcare . and many influential political figures (Tony Crosland for example) saw the major task of the future as deciding where the fruits of economic growth could be most justly applied.

    Three things happened that made the Left completely unprepared for the counter-attack in the 1970s. First, simple complacency. When Thatcher appeared, most people thought she'd escaped from a Monty Python sketch. The idea that she might actually take power and use it was incredible.

    Secondly, the endless factionalism and struggles for power within the Left, usually over arcane points of ideology, mixed with vicious personal rivalries. The Left loves defeats, and picks over them obsessively, looking for someone else to blame.

    Third, the influence of 1968 and the turning away from the real world, towards LSD and the New Age, and the search for dark and hidden truths and structures of power in the world. Fueled by careless and superficial readings of bad translations of Foucault and Derrida, leftists discovered an entire new intellectual continent into which they could extend their wars and feuds, which was much more congenial, since it involved eviscerating each other, rather than seriously taking on the forces of capitalism and the state.

    And that's the very short version. We've been living with the consequences ever since. The Left has been essentially powerless, and powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone weaker than you, which is why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force, with a vested interest in the problems it has chosen to identify continuing, or it would have no reason to exist.

    So until class-based politics and struggles over power and money re-start (if they ever do) I respectfully suggest that "Left" and "Right" be retired as terms that no longer have any meaning.

    FluffytheObeseCat November 29, 2016 at 6:20 pm

    " powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone weaker than you, which is why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force, with a vested interest in the problems it has chosen to identify "

    Yes. As long as the doyens of identity politics don't have any real fear of being homeless they can happily indulge in internecine warfare. It's a lot more fun than working to get $20/hour for a bunch of snaggle-toothed guys who kind of don't like you.

    integer November 29, 2016 at 6:48 pm

    Very interesting. Thank you.

    George Phillies November 29, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    I read: "Traditional dialectical history was being supplanted by a new suite of studies based around truth as "discourse". Driven by the French post-modern thinkers of the 70s and 80s, the US academy was adopting and adapting the ideas Foucault, Derrida and Barthe to a variety of civil rights movements that spawned gender and racial studies."

    Of course, I have been a college professor since the late 1970s. On the other hand, I am a physicist. The notion that truth is discourse is, in my opinion, daft, and says much about the nature of the modern liberal arts, at least as understood by many undergraduates. I have actually heard of the folks referenced in the above, and to my knowledge their influence in science, engineering, technology, and mathematics–the academic fields that are in this century actually central*–is negligible.

    *Yes, I am in favor of a small number of students becoming professional historians, dramatists, and composers, but the number of these is limited.

    Identity politics is a disaster ongoing for the Democratic Party, for reasons they seem to have overlooked. First, the additional identity group is white. We already see this in the South, where 90% of the white population in many states votes Republican.

    When that spreads to the rest of the country, there will be a permanent Republican majority until the Republicans create a new major disaster.

    Second, some Democratic commentators appear to have assumed that if your forebearers spoke Spanish, you can not be white. This belief is properly grouped with the belief that if your forebearers spoke Gaelic or Italian, you were from one of the colored races of Europe (a phrase that has faded into antiquity, but some of my friends specialize in American history of the relevant period), and were therefore not White.

    Identity politics is a losing strategy, as will it appears be noticed by the losers only after it is too late.

    Oregoncharles November 29, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    An extremely important point, but overblown in a way that may reflect the author's background and is certainly rhetorical.

    So soon we forget the Battle of Seattle. The Left has been opposed to globalization, deregulation, etc., all along. Partly he's talking about an academic pseudo-left, partly confusing the left with the Democrats and other "center-left," captured parties.

    That doesn't invalidate his point. If you want to see it in full-blown, unadorned action, try Democrat sites like Salon and Raw Story. A factor he doesn't do justice to is the extreme self-righteousness that accompanies it, supported, I suppose, by the very real injustices perpetrated against minorities – and women, not a minority.

    The whole thing is essentially a category error, so it would be nice to see a followup that doesn't perpetuate the error. But it's valuable for stating the problem, which can be hard to present, especially in the face of gales of self-righteousness.

    TG November 29, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    Well said. An excellent attack on 'identity politics.'

    I mean, Barack Obama was our first black president, but most blacks didn't do very well. George W. Bush was our first retard president, and most people with cognitive handicaps didn't do very well.

    But we can boil it all down to something even simpler and more primal: divide and conquer.

    [Nov 30, 2016] Identity politics is a more accurate term than any alternative such as racism, fascism, ethnonationalism. In the latter case it is just the identity in question is that of the majority

    Nov 30, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    RichardM 11.30.16 at 8:52 am 64

    'Identity politics' is both more accurate, and more useful, a term than any alternative such as racism, fascism, ethnonationalism, etc. It's just the identity in question is that of the majority.

    Voters voted for Trump, or Brexit, because they identified with him, or it. In doing so, they found that whatever they wanted is what that represents.

    But the action always comes before the consequences; you can't get upset about Trump supporters being called racists unless you already identify with them. The action is the choice of identity, the consequence is the adoption of opinion.

    [Nov 30, 2016] Neither Steve Keen nor any other guest on RT show appears because he lambasts the American political establishment

    Nov 30, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Edward Harrison

    Hi Naked Capitalism. I haven't been on this site for some time. But I felt it necessary to comment due to an ad hominem attack from a commenter "James" regarding the show I produce at RT called Boom Bust.

    From my vantage point as producer at RT, I have been able to see the whole anti-Russia campaign unfold in all its fury. I have a lot of thoughts on this but I want to restrict my comments to the specific argument James makes. here:

    "it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do."

    Since I produce the show that Steve Keen appears on, I am well-placed to give you a view on this. James' comment is flat out false. What James writes is something he has fabricated in his imagination – connecting dots he believes should be connected based on no first hand evidence whatsoever.

    What actually happens on Boom Bust is this:

    Since no one I work with at RT has a sophisticated background in economics, finance or financial reporting, they give us a wide berth in putting together content for our show with nearly no top down dictates at all. That means we as American journalists have a pretty much free hand to report economic news intelligently and without bias. We invite libertarian, mainstream, non-mainstream, leftist, Democratic commentators, Republican commentators – you name it. As for guests, they are not anti-American in any way shape or form. They are disproportionately non-mainstream.

    We have no pro-Russian agenda. And that is in part because Russia is a bit player on the economic stage, frankly. Except for sanctions, it has mostly been irrelevant on our show since inception.

    Let me share a strange anecdote on that. We had a guest on our show about three years ago, early in my tenure. We invited him on because he had smart things to say about the UK economy. But he had also written some very negative things about Putin and Russia. Rather than whitewash this we addressed it specifically in the interview and asked him an open-ended question about Russia, so he could say his piece. I was ASTONISHED when he soft-pedaled his response and made no forceful case as he had done literally days ago in print. This guy clearly self-censored – for what reason I don't know. But it is something that has stayed with me ever since.

    The most important goal from a managerial perspective has been that our reporting is different i.e. covers missing and important angles of the same storyline that are missing in the mainstream media or that it covers storylines that are missing altogether.

    Neither Steve Keen nor any other guest on our show appears "because he lambasts the American political establishment". This is false. He appears on our show because he is a credible economist who provides a differentiated view on economics and insight that we believe will help our viewers understand the global economy. If Paul Krugman had something to say of that nature and would appear on our show, we would welcome him. In fact, I and other producers have reached out to him many times to no avail, especially after we had Gerald Friedman give his take on the dust-up surrounding Bernie Sanders' economic plan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yna275KzuDQ

    Look, I understand the scepticism about RT and its motives. It IS a state-funded news outlet with news story angles that sometimes contrast sharply with western media. And it has not been critical of the Russian government as far as I can tell. But you can't ascribe nefarious motives to individual economists or reporters based on inaccurate or false third hand accounts. You are just making things up, creating a false narrative based on circumstantial evidence. This is just adding to the building peer pressure associated with what almost seems like an orchestrated campaign to discredit non-mainstream sources of news.

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    You are in good company with that suspicion of a campaign to "sanitize" the public's sources of information. If one were to consider the Corporate sector as the equivalent of a state, then almost all news sources are liable to extra strong scrutiny. Going back to Bernays, the "shepherding" of the news sources used by the majority of the population is crucial to maintaining control of public perceptions. In that sense, the present struggle for control of the news narrative is understandable.
    Keep up the good work.

    susan the other November 26, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    This means we need more outlets besides Google and Facebook; outlets impervious to witch hunts – maybe offshore enterprises, after all that's the trend. The more the merrier for manufacturing dissent – in a good sense. What Russia does cannot harm us but it is always good to hear their take; and China is interesting as well. We get such gobbledegook from MSM we would never understand a single issue without alternative news. It's a little late for them to be all hysterical about losing their grip – they've been annoying us and boring us to death for 5 decades; and selling us down the river. I'm amazed they have a following at all.

    [Nov 28, 2016] The Fake News Witch-Hunters At The Washington Post

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... "The flood of 'fake news' this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation." ..."
    "... "Russia's increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery – including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human 'trolls,' and networks of websites and social-media accounts – echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia." ..."
    "... "You've seen reports. Russia's hacked into a lot of things. China's hacked into a lot of things. Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us. ..."
    "... "As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses." ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... fighting ..."
    Nov 28, 2016 | www.mintpressnews.com
    By Justin Raimondo

    No one outside of a few obsessed cranks would've noticed it if the Washington Post hadn't given it front page prominence last week: a formerly obscure web site, propornot.com, which purports to identify a "Russian active measures" campaign with some very specific goals in mind As Post "reporter" Craig Timberg put it :

    "The flood of 'fake news' this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation."

    While the Post piece doesn't link directly to the propornot site – because doing so would've exposed its laughably amateurish "methodology" for all to see – Timberg does mention their list of online Boris Badenovs , including not only Antiwar.com but also the Drudge Report, WikiLeaks, David Stockman's Contra Corner, the Ron Paul Institute, LewRockwell.com, Counterpunch, Zero Hedge, Naked Capitalism, Truthdig, Truth-out, and a host of others. These sites, according to the Post , not only promoted a barrage of "fake news" with the aim of defeating Mrs. Clinton, but they did so at the behest of a "centrally-directed" (per propornot) intelligence operation undertaken by the Russians. So what did this "fake news" consist of? Timberg "reports":

    "Russia's increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery – including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human 'trolls,' and networks of websites and social-media accounts – echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia."

    Never mind that it was Hillary Clinton herself who heightened international tensions by threatening military retaliation against the Russians for supposedly unleashing via WikiLeaks a flood of embarrassing emails. In a speech touted as outlining her foreign policy platform, she railed:

    "You've seen reports. Russia's hacked into a lot of things. China's hacked into a lot of things. Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us.

    "As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses."

    According to the "experts" at propornot – granted anonymity by Timberg due to alleged fear of "Russian hackers" – to so much as note this clear threat is to brand oneself as a "Russian agent of influence."

    And what about Mrs. Clinton's health problems – was reporting on this driven by Russian spies embedded in the alternative media? Or was it occasioned by this video , which saw her falling to the ground after leaving the 9/11 ceremony early? Are the folks at propornot and their fans at the Washington Post saying the amateur videographer who took that footage is a Russian secret agent? Were the television networks and other outlets that showed the footage "useful idiots," to employ a favorite cold war smear revived by propornot? Given their criteria for labeling people agents of the Kremlin, the answer to these questions has to be yes – and now we are falling down the rabbit hole, in a free-fall descent into lunacy.

    Propornot's " criteria " for inclusion on their blacklist is actually an ideological litmus test: if you hold certain views, you're in the pay of the Kremlin, or else an " unwitting agent " – as former CIA head Mike Morell said of Trump. If you say anything at all positive about Russia or Putin – or a long list of entities, like China or "radical political parties in the US or Europe" (does this include the GOP?) – it's a dead giveaway. We're told to "investigate this by searching for mentions of, for example, 'russia', on their site by Googling for 'site:whateversite.com Russia', and seeing what comes up."

    If only Sherlock Holmes had had Google at his disposal, those detective stories would've been a lot shorter!

    The propornot site is filled with complex graphs, and the text is riddled with "scientific"-sounding phrases, but when you get right down to it their "methodology" boils down to this: if you don't fit within a very narrow range of allowable opinion, either falling off the left edge or the right edge, you're either a paid Russian troll or else you're being "manipulated" by forces you don't understand and don't want to understand.

    Did you cheer on Brexit? You're Putin's pawn!

    Are you worried about "World War III, nuclear devastation, etc." instead of being content in the knowledge that their preferred policy – unmitigated hostility toward Russia - would "just result in a Cold War 2 and Russia's eventual peaceful defeat, like the last time"? Well, then, clearly you're either on Putin's payroll, or else you'd like to be.

    Other proscribed opinions include: "gold standard nuttery and attacks on the US dollar," believing "the mainstream media can't be trusted," and "anti-'globalism.'" And to underscore their complete lack of self-awareness, we're told that additional warning signs of Putinism are "hyperbolic alarmism" and "generally ridiculous over-the-top assertions."

    In their world, it isn't hyperbolic alarmism to point to ramshackle Russia, with a GDP equal to Spain's and a declining military budget that pales before our own, as an existential threat to the West. And if you're a reporter for the Washington Post , which has destroyed what reputation it had by effectively becoming the house organ of the Democratic National Committee, generally ridiculous overt-the-top assertions, such as those proffered by propornot, are "news."

    The Post piece also cites an article published on the "War On The Rocks" web site (which is exactly what it sounds like). The authors, a triumvirate of neocons, avers that they've been "tracking" "Russian propaganda" efforts since 2014, and they've concluded that the Grand Goal of the Russkies is to "Erode trust between citizens and elected officials and democratic institutions" – as if this process isn't occurring naturally due to the depredations of a corrupt and arrogant political class.

    Another insidious theme of Russian "active measures" as identified by these geniuses is "Stoking fears over the national debt, attacking institutions such as the Federal Reserve , and attempts to discredit Western financial experts and business leaders." So we mustn't talk about the national debt – because to do so brands one as a cog in Putin's propaganda machine. Gee, based on these criteria, we can only conclude that every vaguely conservative politician running for office in the last decade or so is part of the Vast Russian Conspiracy, not to mention numerous economists.

    And that's not all – not by a long shot. Here's a list of more Forbidden Topics we're not supposed to discuss, except maybe in whispers in the privacy of our own homes: " Police brutality , racial tensions, protests, anti-government standoffs , online privacy concerns , and alleged government misconduct are all emphasized [by the Vast Russian Conspiracists – ed.] to magnify their scale and leveraged to undermine the fabric of society." After all, Russia Today is "emphasizing" these issues – so mum's the word!

    Yes, these people are serious – but why should anyone take them seriously? Why is the Washington Post "reporting" this nonsense – and putting it on the front page, no less? In short, what's the purpose of this virulent propaganda campaign? After all, Hillary Clinton has been defeated, along with her campaign theme of "A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin." What does a continuation of this losing mantra hope to accomplish?

    The folks at propornot are explicit about their goal: they want the government to step in. They want to close down these "agents of influence." In their own words, they want the FBI and the Department of Justice to launch "formal investigations" of the sites on their blacklist on the grounds that "the kind of folks who make propaganda for brutal oligarchies are often involved in a wide range of bad business." They accuse the proprietors of the listed web sites – including us, by the way – of having "violated the Espionage Act, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and other related laws."

    Oh, but they say they want to "avoid McCarthyism"! They just want to shut us down and shut us up.

    These people are authoritarians, plain and simple: under the guise of fighting authoritarianism, they seek to ban dissenting views, jail the dissenters, and impose a narrow range of permissible debate on the public discourse. They are dangerous, and they need to be outed and publicly shamed.

    To be included on their list of "subversives" is really a badge of honor, and one we here at Antiwar.com wear proudly.

    [Nov 28, 2016] Governments Are Running Out Of Excuses Paul Craig Roberts Exposes The Western War On Truth by Paul Craig Roberts

    Notable quotes:
    "... Western democracies have found it essential to align themselves firmly with lies in order to pursue their agendas. Now these Western governments are attempting to discredit the truthtellers who challenge their lies. ..."
    "... Russian news services are under attack from the EU and Western presstitutes as purveyors of "fake news. " Abiding by its Washington master's orders, the EU actually passed a resolution against Russian media for not following Washington's line. ..."
    "... As George Orwell predicted, telling the truth is now regarded by Western "democratic" governments as a hostile act. ..."
    "... Does propornot.com's funding come from the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros? ..."
    "... In the West those who disagree with the murderous and reckless policies of public officials are demonized as "Russian agents." The president-elect of the United States himself has been designated a "Russian agent." ..."
    "... Clearly, Western governments and Western media have no respect for truth, so how can the West possibly be democratic? ..."
    "... The presstitute Washington Post played its assigned role in the claim promoted by Washington that the alternative media consists of Russian agents. Craig Timberg, who appears devoid of integrity or intelligence, and perhaps both, is the WaPo stooge who reported the fake news that "two teams of independent researchers" - none of whom are identified - found that the Russians exploited my gullibility, that of CounterPunch, Professor Michel Chossudosky of Global Researh, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and that of 194 other websites to help "an insurgent candidate" (Trump) "claim the White House." ..."
    "... Western governments are running out of excuses. Since the Clinton regime, the accumulation of war crimes committed by Western governments exceed those of Nazi Germany. Millions of Muslims have been slaughtered, dislocated, and dispossessed in seven countries. Not a single Western war criminal has been held accountable. ..."
    Nov 28, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    The "war on terror" has simultaneously been a war on truth. For fifteen years-from 9/11 to Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" and "al Qaeda connections," "Iranian nukes," "Assad's use of chemical weapons," endless lies about Gadaffi, "Russian invasion of Ukraine"-the governments of the so-called Western democracies have found it essential to align themselves firmly with lies in order to pursue their agendas. Now these Western governments are attempting to discredit the truthtellers who challenge their lies.

    Russian news services are under attack from the EU and Western presstitutes as purveyors of "fake news. " Abiding by its Washington master's orders, the EU actually passed a resolution against Russian media for not following Washington's line. Russian President Putin said that the resolution is a "visible sign of degradation of Western society's idea of democracy."

    As George Orwell predicted, telling the truth is now regarded by Western "democratic" governments as a hostile act. A brand new website, propornot.com, has just made its appearance condemning a list of 200 Internet websites that provide news and views at variance with the presstitute media that serves the governments' agendas. Does propornot.com's funding come from the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros?

    I am proud to say that paulcraigroberts.org is on the list.

    In the West those who disagree with the murderous and reckless policies of public officials are demonized as "Russian agents." The president-elect of the United States himself has been designated a "Russian agent."

    This scheme to redefine truthtellers as propagandists has backfired. The effort to discredit truthtellers has instead produced a catalogue of websites where reliable information can be found, and readers are flocking to the sites on the list. Moreover, the effort to discredit truthtellers shows that Western governments and their presstitutes are intolerant of truth and diverse opinion and are committed to forcing people to accept self-serving government lies as truth.

    Clearly, Western governments and Western media have no respect for truth, so how can the West possibly be democratic?

    The presstitute Washington Post played its assigned role in the claim promoted by Washington that the alternative media consists of Russian agents. Craig Timberg, who appears devoid of integrity or intelligence, and perhaps both, is the WaPo stooge who reported the fake news that "two teams of independent researchers" - none of whom are identified - found that the Russians exploited my gullibility, that of CounterPunch, Professor Michel Chossudosky of Global Researh, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and that of 194 other websites to help "an insurgent candidate" (Trump) "claim the White House."

    Note the term applied to Trump - "insurgent candidate." That tells you all you need to know. You can read here what passes as "reliable reporting" in the presstitute Washington Post , and here .

    Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, which somehow escaped inclusion in The 200, unloads on Timberg and the Washington Post here .

    Western governments are running out of excuses. Since the Clinton regime, the accumulation of war crimes committed by Western governments exceed those of Nazi Germany. Millions of Muslims have been slaughtered, dislocated, and dispossessed in seven countries. Not a single Western war criminal has been held accountable.

    The despicable Washington Post is a prime apologist for these war criminals. The entire Western print and TV media is so heavily implicated in the worst war crimes in human history that, if justice ever happens, the presstitutes will stand in the dock with the Clintons, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Obama and their neocon operatives or handlers as the case may be.

    Radical Marijuana Nov 27, 2016 11:30 PM ,

    The only thing that is "new" is the technological means, which depended on series of intellectual scientific revolutions and profound paradigm shifts in mathematical physics. Otherwise, it is the same as it has always been .

    The oldest and best developed forms of social science and engineering where warfare.

    Everything civilization has developed to become is due to the long, long history of warfare.

    Intense paradoxes arise as sets of consistent contradictions from those basic social facts.

    The oldest book on The Art of War begins by stating that "success in war depends on deceits," and ends with "spies are the most important soldiers."

    Sun Tzu's Art of War

    Ebook whose link only works when copied & pasted:

    http://www.artofwarsuntzu.com/Art of War PDF.pdf

    Page 4, point 18.

    All warfare is based on deception.

    Page 17, point 15.

    In war, practice dissimulation, and you will succeed.

    Page 35. Chapter XIII.

    THE USE OF SPIES

    The essential political problems regarding "the truth" were recognized long ago:

    In the fifth century BC,

    Greek dramatist Aeschylus said:

    "In war, truth is the first casualty."

    While I agreed with everything that Paul Craig Roberts wrote, and especially that, so far, 9/11 was the most spectacular symbol of the "War on Truth," there is nothing "new" in Roberts' presentations, because he does not attempt to make political science become more consistent with physical science, since he does not attempt to transform political science in ways which go through series of intellectual scientific revolutions and profound paradigm shifts, in the ways that mathematical physics already has.

    There is nothing "new" in civilization being based upon being able to back up lies with violence. "Western Civilization" simply became able to do that on a greater scale than ever before! The only things which are "new" are due to enforced frauds being able to be done with exponentially advancing technologies, due to the prodigious progress in mathematical physics, which has driven exponentially increasing fraudulence, becoming more and more blatant, such that more and more people are noticing the apparent anomalies that governments were always the biggest forms of organized crime, dominated by the best organized gangs of criminals.

    We should look for inspiration to mathematical physics regarding how to transform political science! The main theme of progress in physical science has been to develop UNITARY MECHANISMS in order to encompass previous presumptions of DUALITIES.

    IF "Western Civilization" is going to renew itself, then it should apply the progress it made in scientific methods to better understand political science. However, that can not be done without going through series of intellectual scientific revolutions and profound paradigm shifts. In my opinion, authors like Roberts, as well as most of the rest of the content published on Zero Hedge , still only engages in superficially correct analysis of the increasingly apparent anomalies that Globalized Neolithic Civilization, as dominated by Western Civilization, has driven sociopolitical systems based upon enforcing frauds to become exponentially more fraudulent, since what was "new" that has been added were the technologies which enabled that to happen.

    It is because the progress in mathematical physics enabled technologies to become trillions of times more powerful and capable than ever before in human history that we should be looking at how and why that was possible in order to perhaps transform political science enough to cope with the consequences of having done that. I.e., stop thinking about "truth versus lies" as DUALITIES, but rather, attempt to develop UNITARY MECHANISMS which encompass both!

    VWAndy -> Radical Marijuana Nov 27, 2016 11:33 PM ,
    The stuff in that book has saved my but so many times.
    TNTARG Radical Marijuana Nov 27, 2016 11:46 PM ,
    Very interesting approach. This global stage of decline could well be the opportunity for a little step towards evolution. Or extinction.

    Since there is not much left to corrupt...

    Dave Whiteman Radical Marijuana Nov 27, 2016 11:59 PM ,
    that'z whut mcnamara said
    ecrtr Nov 27, 2016 11:27 PM ,
    In other words, if people continue to tell the truth, the deep state will be bankrupted when they try to put all of is in internment camps?
    Rebel yell Nov 27, 2016 11:31 PM ,
    The establishment lost the information war because they keep lying. Everyone who takes an interest in the world around them is onto them. They are panicking because they wanted to go to war against Assad and got caught up in a campaign of terror and deception. People all over the world are rising up against the vampire globalists need for more blood, war, and money. Leaders all over the world are terrified because they know how truly appalling their actions were and they never thought that those actions would see the light of day. First with Brexit, then the Trump victory, in France the National Front Party, in Germany The AfD, in Austria the Freedom Party, the world is rejecting the establishment and their bloody wars!
    big-data Nov 27, 2016 11:33 PM ,
    ZeroHedgers, Want to know how propaganda works and how it was used during the election cycle? How about how propaganda is used with surveillance? All here. This will blow your mind! Media As a Shaping Agent of Society: The Technology of Influence https://medium.com/deepconnections/media-as-a-shaping-agent-of-society-wherefore-art-thou-treacherous-62b4c3f843d6#.waoukm742

    [Nov 28, 2016] How the CIA Invented Conspiracy Theories

    Notable quotes:
    "... Conspiracy Theory in America ..."
    "... For various reasons these days, the entire American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. ..."
    "... Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of alleged Russian conspiracies that appear to be "false positives," dire allegations seemingly having little factual basis or actually being totally ridiculous. Meanwhile, even the crudest sort of anti-Russian ..."
    "... To some extent the creation of the Internet and the vast proliferation of alternative media outlets, including my own small webzine , have somewhat altered this depressing picture. So it is hardly surprising that a very substantial fraction of the discussion dominating these Samizdat-like publications concerns exactly those subjects regularly condemned as "crazy conspiracy theories" by our mainstream media organs. ..."
    "... Indeed, several years ago a senior Obama Administration official argued that the free discussion of various "conspiracy theories" on the Internet was so potentially harmful that government agents should be recruited to "cognitively infiltrate" and disrupt them, essentially proposing a high-tech version of the highly controversial Cointelpro operations undertaken by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. ..."
    Nov 27, 2016 | www.unz.com
    A year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film Interstellar , and although the plot wasn't any good, one early scene was quite amusing. For various reasons, the American government of the future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been faked, a trick aimed at winning the Cold War by bankrupting Russia into fruitless space efforts of its own. This inversion of historical reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and those few people who claimed that Neil Armstrong had indeed set foot on the Moon were universally ridiculed as "crazy conspiracy theorists." This seems a realistic portrayal of human nature to me.

    Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented in the pages of our most respectable newspapers-from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant local case of petty urban corruption-could objectively be categorized as a "conspiracy theory" but such words are never applied. Instead, use of that highly loaded phrase is reserved for those theories, whether plausible or fanciful, that do not possess the endorsement stamp of establishmentarian approval.

    Put another way, there are good "conspiracy theories" and bad "conspiracy theories," with the former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never described as such. I've sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control of our television stations and other major media outlets suddenly changed, the new information regime would require only a few weeks of concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous "conspiracy theories" in the minds of the gullible American public. The notion that nineteen Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses, and reduced several landmark buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the most preposterous "conspiracy theory" ever to have gone straight from the comic books into the minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd "lone gunman" theory of the JFK assassination.

    Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American public beliefs have frequently occurred in the recent past, merely on the basis of implied association. In the initial weeks and months following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to denounce and vilify Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist master-mind, as our greatest national enemy, with his bearded visage endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon becoming one of the most recognizable faces in the world. But as the Bush Administration and its key media allies prepared a war against Iraq, the images of the Burning Towers were instead regularly juxtaposed with mustachioed photos of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden's arch-enemy. As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003, polls revealed that some 70% of the American public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade Center. By that date I don't doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" anyone with the temerity to suggest that Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one in authority having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.

    These factors of media manipulation were very much in my mind a couple of years ago when I stumbled across a short but fascinating book published by the University of Texas academic press. The author of Conspiracy Theory in America was Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, a former president of the Florida Political Science Association.

    Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book's headline revelation was that the CIA was very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a term of political abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing public opinion.

    During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission findings that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been solely responsible for President Kennedy's assassination, and growing suspicions that top-ranking American leaders had also been involved. So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories." Soon afterward, there suddenly appeared statements in the media making those exact points, with some of the wording, arguments, and patterns of usage closely matching those CIA guidelines. The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the residual impact continueing right down to the present day. Thus, there is considerable evidence in support of this particular "conspiracy theory" explaining the widespread appearance of attacks on "conspiracy theories" in the public media.

    ORDER IT NOW

    But although the CIA appears to have effectively manipulated public opinion in order to transform the phrase "conspiracy theory" into a powerful weapon of ideological combat, the author also describes how the necessary philosophical ground had actually been prepared a couple of decades earlier. Around the time of the Second World War, an important shift in political theory caused a huge decline in the respectability of any "conspiratorial" explanation of historical events.

    For decades prior to that conflict, one of our most prominent scholars and public intellectuals had been historian Charles Beard , whose influential writings had heavily focused on the harmful role of various elite conspiracies in shaping American policy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, with his examples ranging from the earliest history of the United States down to the nation's entry into WWI. Obviously, researchers never claimed that all major historical events had hidden causes, but it was widely accepted that some of them did, and attempting to investigate those possibilities was deemed a perfectly acceptable academic enterprise.

    However, Beard was a strong opponent of American entry into the Second World War, and he was marginalized in the years that followed, even prior to his death in 1948. Many younger public intellectuals of a similar bent also suffered the same fate, or were even purged from respectability and denied any access to the mainstream media. At the same time, the totally contrary perspectives of two European political philosophers, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss , gradually gained ascendancy in American intellectual circles, and their ideas became dominant in public life.

    Popper, the more widely influential, presented broad, largely theoretical objections to the very possibility of important conspiracies ever existing, suggesting that these would be implausibly difficult to implement given the fallibility of human agents; what might appear a conspiracy actually amounted to individual actors pursuing their narrow aims. Even more importantly, he regarded "conspiratorial beliefs" as an extremely dangerous social malady, a major contributing factor to the rise of Nazism and other deadly totalitarian ideologies. His own background as an individual of Jewish ancestry who had fled Austria in 1937 surely contributed to the depth of his feelings on these philosophical matters.

    Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.

    Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and Strauss are probably no more than vague names mentioned in textbooks, and that was certainly true in my own case. But while the influence of Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the same is hardly true of his rivals. Popper probably ranks as one of the founders of modern liberal thought, with an individual as politically influential as left-liberal financier George Soros claiming to be his intellectual disciple . Meanwhile, the neo-conservative thinkers who have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement for the last couple of decades often proudly trace their ideas back to Strauss.

    So, through a mixture of Popperian and Straussian thinking, the traditional American tendency to regard elite conspiracies as a real but harmful aspect of our society was gradually stigmatized as either paranoid or politically dangerous, laying the conditions for its exclusion from respectable discourse.

    By 1964, this intellectual revolution had largely been completed, as indicated by the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the famous article by political scientist Richard Hofstadter critiquing the so-called "paranoid style" in American politics , which he denounced as the underlying cause of widespread popular belief in implausible conspiracy theories. To a considerable extent, he seemed to be attacking straw men, recounting and ridiculing the most outlandish conspiratorial beliefs, while seeming to ignore the ones that had been proven correct. For example, he described how some of the more hysterical anti-Communists claimed that tens of thousands of Red Chinese troops were hidden in Mexico, preparing an attack on San Diego, while he failed to even acknowledge that for years Communist spies had indeed served near the very top of the U.S. government. Not even the most conspiratorially minded individual suggests that all alleged conspiracies are true, merely that some of them might be.

    Most of these shifts in public sentiment occurred before I was born or when I was a very young child, and my own views were shaped by the rather conventional media narratives that I absorbed. Hence, for nearly my entire life, I always automatically dismissed all of the so-called "conspiracy theories" as ridiculous, never once even considering that any of them might possibly be true.

    To the extent that I ever thought about the matter, my reasoning was simple and based on what seemed like good, solid common sense. Any conspiracy responsible for some important public event must surely have many separate "moving parts" to it, whether actors or actions taken, let us say numbering at least 100 or more. Now given the imperfect nature of all attempts at concealment, it would surely be impossible for all of these to be kept entirely hidden. So even if a conspiracy were initially 95% successful in remaining undetected, five major clues would still be left in plain sight for investigators to find. And once the buzzing cloud of journalists noticed these, such blatant evidence of conspiracy would certainly attract an additional swarm of energetic investigators, tracing those items back to their origins, with more pieces gradually being uncovered until the entire cover-up likely collapsed. Even if not all the crucial facts were ever determined, at least the simple conclusion that there had indeed been some sort of conspiracy would quickly become established.

    However, there was a tacit assumption in my reasoning, one that I have since decided was entirely false. Obviously, many potential conspiracies either involve powerful governmental officials or situations in which their disclosure would represent a source of considerable embarrassment to such individuals. But I had always assumed that even if government failed in its investigatory role, the dedicated bloodhounds of the Fourth Estate would invariably come through, tirelessly seeking truth, ratings, and Pulitzers. However, once I gradually began realizing that the media was merely "Our American Pravda" and perhaps had been so for decades, I suddenly recognized the flaw in my logic. If those five-or ten or twenty or fifty-initial clues were simply ignored by the media, whether through laziness, incompetence, or much less venial sins, then there would be absolutely nothing to prevent successful conspiracies from taking place and remaining undetected, perhaps even the most blatant and careless ones.

    In fact, I would extend this notion to a general principle. Substantial control of the media is almost always an absolute prerequisite for any successful conspiracy, the greater the degree of control the better. So when weighing the plausibility of any conspiracy, the first matter to investigate is who controls the local media and to what extent.

    Let us consider a simple thought-experiment. For various reasons these days, the entire American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. Hence I would argue that the likelihood of any large-scale Russian conspiracy taking place within the operative zone of those media organs is virtually nil. Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of alleged Russian conspiracies that appear to be "false positives," dire allegations seemingly having little factual basis or actually being totally ridiculous. Meanwhile, even the crudest sort of anti-Russian conspiracy might easily occur without receiving any serious mainstream media notice or investigation.

    This argument may be more than purely hypothetical. A crucial turning point in America's renewed Cold War against Russia was the passage of the 2012 Magnitsky Act by Congress, punitively targeting various supposedly corrupt Russian officials for their alleged involvement in the illegal persecution and death of an employee of Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund manager with large Russian holdings. However, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that it was Browder himself who was actually the mastermind and beneficiary of the gigantic corruption scheme, while his employee was planning to testify against him and was therefore fearful of his life for that reason. Naturally, the American media has provided scarcely a single mention of these remarkable revelations regarding what might amount to a gigantic Magnitsky Hoax of geopolitical significance.

    To some extent the creation of the Internet and the vast proliferation of alternative media outlets, including my own small webzine , have somewhat altered this depressing picture. So it is hardly surprising that a very substantial fraction of the discussion dominating these Samizdat-like publications concerns exactly those subjects regularly condemned as "crazy conspiracy theories" by our mainstream media organs. Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry to government officials who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and unpunished. Indeed, several years ago a senior Obama Administration official argued that the free discussion of various "conspiracy theories" on the Internet was so potentially harmful that government agents should be recruited to "cognitively infiltrate" and disrupt them, essentially proposing a high-tech version of the highly controversial Cointelpro operations undertaken by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.

    Until just a few years ago I'd scarcely even heard of Charles Beard, once ranked among the towering figures of 20th century American intellectual life . But the more I've discovered the number of serious crimes and disasters that have completely escaped substantial media scrutiny, the more I wonder what other matters may still remain hidden. So perhaps Beard was correct all along in recognizing the respectability of "conspiracy theories," and we should return to his traditional American way of thinking, notwithstanding endless conspiratorial propaganda campaigns by the CIA and others to persuade us that we should dismiss such notions without any serious consideration.

    [Nov 27, 2016] Washington Post Promotes Shadowy Website That Accuses 200 Publications of Being Russian Propaganda Plants

    This idea of McCarthy style attack turned in promotion with some sites having large flow of donations from outrages readers.
    Notable quotes:
    "... By Max Blumenthal, a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the award-winning author of Goliath and Republican Gomorrah. His most recent book is The 51 Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza. Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal. Originally published at Alternet ..."
    "... it was created about three months ago when the Red baiting was already in full swing in the media. ..."
    "... it now has a wikipedia page as of 15 Nov. ..."
    "... Congratulations! That site is like a who's who of influential critical reporting. I suspect, as with so many of the bubble-dwellers attempts, that this slapdash but probably overpriced effort will drive traffic to those sites while reducing the credibility of its promoters. An instant classic own-goal. I look forward to the inevitable and embarassing revelations about their founders and funding. ..."
    "... Under general tenets of defamation law (statutory and in common law), it is not just the original entity or person defaming (including defamation "per se") another that is liable for such torts, but others who carelessly or recklessly repeat the original defamatory statements/claims (in this case, both The Washington Post & New York Times bear similar potential liability as PropOrNot). ..."
    "... Requires actual malice since it's the media you're suing – but that can be proven by reckless indifference to the truth which this might actually meet the standard of, especially since the site isn't making this claim based on anything other than the content of the views espoused by the sites. ..."
    "... i vaguely thought the actual malice requirement was tied to the target being a public figure; maybe running a blog qualifies. ..."
    "... Propornot is directly accusing NC and the rest of a crime (espionage), which constitutes defamation per se, so I think the only issue before the court would be whether it was done with reckless indifference. ..."
    "... The MSM did such a fine job reporting the news during the campaign. (16 anti-Sanders stories in 16 hours from the WaPo. A new record.) Are small news/opinion sites cutting into their online advertising revenue. ;) ..."
    "... Second, had you bothered to read the actual PropOrNot site, it accuses all of the sites listed as being "propaganda outlets" under the influence of "coordinators abroad" (#11 in its FAQ). ..."
    "... And under #7, PropOrNot asserts that "some" of the sites are guilty of violating the Espionage Act and the Foreign Agent Registration Act, as in accusing them of being spies and calling for investigation (by implication of all, since how do you know which is or isn't) by the FBI and DoJ. ..."
    "... Their MSM propaganda isn't working and they see it. They already heavily censor comments on their MSM sites. Other MSM sights such as Bloomberg closed down comments altogether. Expect more of that. ..."
    "... what weakens people's confidence in their leaders is their not addressing people's issues and lying about their inability to do so. Despite protestations from the likes of much of our 'intelligentsia', mainstream media, and most of our political class, the majority of people are not stupid. There is a reason why terms like 'lame stream media' resonate with a large number of people. ..."
    "... For instance when Obama is out there talking about a recovery and people know that there is no such thing in their lives, their communities then HE has lost their confidence – not someone giving an interview on RT. ..."
    "... Or to put it another way the problem isn't someone going on RT and saying the emperor isn't wearing clothes, the problem is that the emperor isn't wearing clothes. ..."
    "... Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do. ..."
    "... How do you know any of this? how would you know would Russian intelligence's goals are, or how they think of Steve Keen? this is all just McCarthyism 2016, accusing the left of being dupes or willing agents of Russia. McCarthy had his 200 communists in the state department, this website and the Washington Post have their 200 Russian propaganda websites. Why are you catapulting this bullshit? ..."
    "... James do you happen to remember when those intelligence agencies reported Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.? How about when North Korea hacked Sony? Both of which were inaccurate and dare I say it propaganda intended to mislead the American public. ..."
    "... Why does Naval Intelligence have anything to do with this investigation? ..."
    "... Why were 17 agencies watching the DNC? ..."
    "... The immediate claims that Russia hacked the DNC were never credible to any one with even a bit of knowledge about high level hacking. The 17 agency thing was outright laughable once you asked the simple question of what most of them had to do with this investigation. And USA Today was and is the print equivalent of the Yahoo front page. ..."
    "... oh so now you're an intelligence expert, but somehow you still don't have any evidence, because the "17 intelligence agencies" don't have any evidence either. they didn't have evidence of wmd's but i bet you fell for that, too. i think the most dishonest line in your post is this: You should wander out of the alt-left echo chamber once in a while and stop thinking that any criticism of Russia is 'red-baiting' and propaganda ..."
    "... If Russia is actively trying to influence American politics, then they have been far more effective than the US and get a much bigger bang for their buck. For one thing, they didn't have to drop a single bomb to effect a regime change. So assuming you are correct, the noise is just a hysterical regime change envy. ..."
    "... So are RT and Sputnik propaganda outlets? Sometimes they are, but sometimes they report the truth that our MSM, having given up the last shreds of their journalistic integtity in return for access, won't report. ..."
    "... Given the widespread funding of media (including government-owned media) by Western governments, I would say that US and Euro hysteria about Russian propaganda, real and imagined, is yet another off-putting display of noxious American exceptionalism. ..."
    "... I grew up listening to broadcasts of RFE and VOA behind the Iron Curtain, and mixed in with honest reporting was a heavy dose of propaganda aimed at weakening Eastern European governments. Now, it is the America For Bulgaria Foundation that funds several media outlets in the country. What they all have in common is rabid Russophobia-driven editorial stances, and one can easily conclude that it is driven by the almighty dollar rather than by honest, deeply held convictions. So, America can do it but whines like a toddler when it is allegedly done to it?! What a crock. ..."
    "... The worst thing is that regardless of whatever propaganda wars are going on, this list constitutes a full frontal attack on free speech in the alleged "Land of the Free." Besides NC, there are number of sites distinguished by thorough, quality reporting of the kind that WaPo and NYT no longer engage in. Having grown up behind the Iron Curtain, this is chilling to me. Dissident voices speaking against the endless wars for profit and neoliberalism are in effect being intimidated and smeared by anonymous thugs. This, while the militarized local police and federal agencies, closely coordinated by "fusion centers", have ruthlessly put down a number of citizen protests, have engaged in spying on all of us, and have gone after whistleblowers for exposing the reach and scope of the surveillance state. These are the hallmarks of dictatorships, not of the alleged "world's greatest democracy and beacon of freedom." What the eff happened to America, and why are you equating challenging the oppressive and exploitative status quo with being "unwitting Russian dupes?" Seems to me that the useful idi0t here is you, with all due respect. ..."
    "... American intelligence uses exactly the same tactics, and has since at least WW1. Selling the American public on the Iraq war is a classic example. Remember that all news is biased, some much more so than others (we report, you decide.) ..."
    "... The advent of the internet and the subsequent broadening of readily available news of all slants has made it much harder for any intelligence agency of any specific country to control the news( but it has made it extremely easy for them to monitor what we are reading). ..."
    "... . The normal tell for this is being state sponsored, or having a big sugar daddy providing the funding, and Yves doesn't have any of that. ..."
    "... Some of us happen to believe that 'lambast[ing] the American political establishment and weaken[ing] the public's confidence in its leaders' is in the best interests of everyone on the planet, including the American public. If that constitutes propaganda, I'm not about to look that gift horse in the mouth. RT isn't perfect – I personally find their relentless cheerleading for economic growth rather wearying – but it knocks spots off the competition and consistently sends me scurrying to the internet to chase up on new faces and leads. I'm grateful for that. ..."
    "... Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious ..."
    "... It is obvious that Russia has been trying to influence American politics. The very existence of RT makes that obvious. What is not obvious is why modestly left-of-center Americans' political concerns should be subject to McCarthyite attacks in our most influential news outlets. We've been subject to internally generated far-right propaganda for decades now and have seen minimal, feeble 'mainstream' efforts to counter it. The far right has done tremendous damage to our nation and is poised to do much more now that its doyens control all branches of the federal government. ..."
    "... What I interpret this as is a strike by 'think tank' grifters against those who are most likely to damage their incomes, their prestige and their exceedingly comfortable berths on the Acela corridor. It's a slightly panicky, febrile effort by a bunch of heels who are looking at losing their mid-6-figure incomes . and becoming like so many of the rest of us: over-credentialed, under-paid and unable to afford life in the charming white parts of our coastal metropolises. ..."
    "... You've just libeled me. You have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate your claim. Nor do you have any evidence that Russia has been "aggressively" trying to influence US politics. This is one of many hysterical lines offered by Team Dem over the course of this election, up there with depicting all Trump voters as racist yahoos. ..."
    "... "Russia is aggressively trying to influence American politics" Apparently with the help of Hillz. Was her decision to use a private email server made with the help of Putin? ..."
    "... If you'd like, take a trip in the Wayback Machine to 1959. Then you'll find many criticisms of US society by the Civil Rights movement sharing the same sinister tone as criticisms made by Soviet new outlets. Then you'll also find a gaggle of US pols and their minions claiming on that basis that the Civil Rights movement is communist inspired, funded, and run. Then you'll also find many people who don't bother to distinguish source from story and end up enjoying the official Kool Aid. ..."
    "... It reminds me of a story from Northern Ireland in the 1960's when the leader of a civil rights march was asked by a BBC reporter 'is it true that your organisation has been infiltrated by radicals and communists?' His reply was to sigh and say 'I f**king wish it was true'. ..."
    "... @hemeantwell – This same claim of communist inspiration and connection was also thrown at the anti-war movement. I remember arguing with a friend of my parents in the summer of 1969, after my freshman year at college where I was active in the anti-war and anti-draft movements. After countering all of the arguments made by this gentleman, he was left with nothing to say but "Well, that's the Commie's line " as a final dismissal. ..."
    "... Right up to his death on 4 Apr 1968, Martin Luther King was accused by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI of "knowingly, willingly and regularly cooperating with and taking guidance from communists." Now there's a US national holiday in King's honor. ..."
    "... It's all propaganda of one sort or another. I exhort you to read Plato and understand that the Sophists for which Socrates held so much ire are much the same as anon and administration sources for so much of what drives journalism. ..."
    "... NC separates the wheat from the chaff. ..."
    "... Verdict on PropOrNot: Looks like Prop to me. Getting really sloppy, Oligarchy ..."
    "... This has all the earmarks of an effort by the Nuland Neocons that joined Camp Hillary, and now in defeat constitute a portion Hillary's professional dead enders. ..."
    "... Camp Hillary, as you call it, has decamped and is on the march. It has powerful allies in the intelligence community, the media and actors on the world stage who deem Trump to be an existential threat to America and world. The story of Russian inspired fake news is paving the way for regime change, an HRC specialty. The recount is the tip of the spear. If they can pull this coup off, sites like this will move from the useful idiot category to the enemy of the state category overnight. ..."
    "... Manfred Keeting November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am If you weren't on the Nixon's enemies list, there was something wrong with you ..."
    "... First as tragedy, then as farce. People literally killed themselves because of McCarthyism. No one is going to kill themselves over this farce. ..."
    "... Aha, I have solved the mystery. It is elementary my dear Watson! The PropOrNot site is itself a Russian propaganda ploy on the part of the KGB! What? errr, ok, the FSB then. ..."
    "... But Max himself is an interesting character. I've been scratching my head wondering how a guy one step removed (Sidney Blumenthal) from the Clintons' inner circles is ambitious about exposing the ludicrous claims made by those same people regarding Palestine and Syria. ..."
    "... I like the idea some commenter had (too lazy to find it right now) that all these strategems were long-prepared, and in place for a Clinton victory. Now the Clinton faction in the political class is deploying them anyhow. They'd better hurry, because influence peddling at the Clinton Foundation isn't as lucrative as it once was . ..."
    "... For long time readers this russian(chinese) propaganda should be obvious. And it is ok, get used to it. Great opportunity to learn "how to read between the lines", and when you understand, solidifying into a basic skill. ..."
    "... Be careful NC. MSM are in panic. They see that their propaganda is less and less effective and start targeting those who offer an alternative against their obsolete narratives. Be prepared: when they will realize that these don't work at all, their fake democracy will become an open dictatorship. ..."
    "... The US MSM is all propaganda all the time-every bit as bad as Pravda ever was. RT now is the "anti-propaganda." They were even carrying Jesse Ventura and other Americans who are blacklisted by the MSM. ..."
    "... This is a "hail mary pass." ..."
    "... A hail mary pass that was intercepted by the opposing team and run back for a touchdown. ..."
    "... What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I feel like I missed some important public dis somewhere that would explain it all. Condoleeza Rice's general dated anti-Soviet attitude I could understand, but that doesn't explain the escalating bigotry pouring out of Obama and Clinton (and their various surrogates). Is it a case of a bomb in search of a war? ..."
    "... Looks to me like it came out of the HRC campaign. ..."
    "... What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I think it can be traced back to this . ..."
    "... I don't think there is an easy answer to your question, but I think it goes around to the failed Ukrainian coup (well, partially failed) and the realisation within a certain element of the neocon establishment that Putin had been inadvertently strengthened by their policy failures in the Ukraine and Syria. I think there was a concerted element within the Blob to refocus on 'the Russian threat' to cover up their failures in the Middle East and the refusal of the Chinese to take the bait in the Pacific. ..."
    "... This rolled naturally into concerns about cyberwar and it was a short step from there to using Russian cyberespionage to cover up the establishments embarrassment over wikileaks and multiple other failures exposed by outsiders. As always, when a narrative suits (for different reasons) the two halves of the establishment, the mainstream media is always happy to run it unquestioningly. ..."
    "... So in short, I think its a mixture of genuine conspiracy, mixed in with political opportunism. ..."
    "... Listen to Gore Vidal (in 1994!) and find out why: https://www.c-span.org/video/?61333-1/state-united-states ..."
    "... That is very good question and it does not have a simple answer. I have been pondering this for 8 years now. The latest bout of Russia-hatred began as Putin began to re-assert their sovereignty after the disastrous Yeltsin years. This intensified after Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. In adddition the US was preprogrammed to hate Russia for historical reasons. Mostly because of the Soviet era but also when the US inherited the global empire from the Brits we also got some of their dislike of the Russian empire dating back to the 19th century. ..."
    "... It all started when Putin arrested the Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, when Putin put a stop to the shock therapy looting of Russia by the Harvard mafia and Jeffrey Sachs. Didn't he know that oligarch's are above the law? They are in the US. Didn't he know that money can buy you immunity from prosecution like it does in Europe and the US? Can't have that, hence the Ukraine, deprive him of his warm water naval base. Then there was the Crimean referendum. Out smarted again! Can't have that! ..."
    "... And so the Democratic Party ends, not with a bang, but with a McCarthyite lynch mob. ..."
    "... Didn't we used to call "fake news" rumors? And when did newspapers stop printing rumors? ..."
    "... Based on the evidence of above mentioned link, this "PropOrNot" can be part of a project of U.S. government to manipulate media to create an anti-Russia climate or more likely another method of attack on what they consider "Left" so status quo in economic policies of U.S. can be maintained. ..."
    "... it scares the pants off me ..."
    "... I'm with you Tom Stone. There is nothing funny about this. The MSM at this point is the greatest purveyor of fake news on the planet, I am talking about not just CNN and Fox, but the BBC, France24 and so on. ..."
    "... Pretty much everything they have said and every video they has shown on east Aleppo is either a lie or a fake. As someone noted the other day (I can't remember who) if the stories about east Aleppo were actually true, then the Russians and Syrians have destroyed approximately 900 hospitals – including the 'last pediatric hospital in east Aleppo' which has been completely demolished on at least three separate occasions in the last few months. The main stream outlets don't even try to be consistent. ..."
    "... It's 90 hospitals not 900, but 90 is just as ridiculous given the whole country of Syria only has 88 hospitals/clinics. ..."
    "... Weapons of Mass Distraction. Another nail in the coffin of credibility of the NYT and WaPo. Recall after the Stupid War and how there were zero weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq that the NYT and Wapo declined to mention or explore their own culpability in beating the drums of war. This will be more of the same. ..."
    "... I suspect that PropOrNot's outburst was developed during the campaign by well heeled and connected Hilary supporters to be unveiled after the election to muzzle increasingly influential web sites including NC. As it stands PropOrNot shot a blank. If Hilary had won the campaign against "fake news" would probably have taken on a more ominous tone. ..."
    "... PropOrNot is asserting that the sites on the 'List", both right and left, were responsible for the Clinton loss by spreading false Russian propaganda. This would make more sense, as a political project, if Clinton had won. Asking the Trump DOJ and Trump's/Comey's FBI to investigate the asserted causes of Trump's win is bizarre. ..."
    "... Excellent observation, preparation for a post Killery election purge of the alternate media. ..."
    "... Lots of panic for the Washington regime. The clownish asshole loser that they carefully groomed proved less repulsive than their chosen Fuehrer Clinton. Now they are distraught to see that their enemy Russia sucks much less than the USA. ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Jill Stein has embarrassed herself with this effort. I gave money to her until she made her final vp choice – Baraka called Bernie a white supremacist! I did vote for her and now feel it really was a wasted vote. 1% in the national totals. Ok. Being a useful idiot for the Clintons – no way. ..."
    "... When the rot is complete and the edifice tumbles? Or when TINA wins, and the voices go silent? My bet is on the later. Collectively, the money got all 4 aces (and a few more hidden up their sleaves and a few more hidden in their boots, etc – no end of aces.) ..."
    "... Charles Hugh-Smith's response to the "list": "The Washington Post: Useful-Idiot Shills for a Failed, Frantic Status Quo That Has Lost Control of the Narrative" ..."
    Nov 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Yves here. As indicated in Links, we'll have more to say about this in due course. Note, however, that as Blumenthal points out, some of the sites that are listed as PropOrNot allies receive US government funding. As Mark Ames pointed out via e-mail, "The law is still clear that US State Dept money and probably BBG money cannot be used to propagandize American audiences." So if these sites really are "allies" in terms of providing hard dollars or other forms of support (shared staff, research), this site and its allies may be in violation of US statutes.

    By Max Blumenthal, a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the award-winning author of Goliath and Republican Gomorrah. His most recent book is The 51 Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza. Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal. Originally published at Alternet

    A shady website that claims "Russia is Manipulating US Opinion Through Online Propaganda" has compiled a blacklist of websites its anonymous authors accuse of pushing fake news and Russian propaganda. The blacklist includes over 200 outlets, from the right-wing Drudge Report and Russian government-funded Russia Today, to Wikileaks and an array of marginal conspiracy and far-right sites. The blacklist also includes some of the flagship publications of the progressive left, including Truthdig, Counterpunch, Truthout, Naked Capitalism, and the Black Agenda Report, a leftist African-American opinion hub that is critical of the liberal black political establishment.

    Called PropOrNot, the blacklisting organization was described by the Washington Post's Craig Timberg as "a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds." The Washington Post agreed to preserve the anonymity of the group's director on the grounds that exposure could result in their being targeted by "Russia's legions of skilled hackers." The Post failed to explain what methods PropOrNot relied on to conclude that "stories planted or promoted by the Russian disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times." (Timberg also cited a report co-authored by Aaron Weisburg, founder of the one-man anti-Palestinian "Internet Haganah" operation, who has been accused of interfering in federal investigations, stealing the personal information of anarchists, online harassment, and fabricating information to smear his targets.)

    Despite the Washington Post's charitable description of PropOrNot as a group of independent-minded researchers dedicated to protecting the integrity of American democracy, the shadowy group bears many of the qualities of the red enemies it claims to be battling. In addition to its blacklist of Russian dupes, it lists a collection of outlets funded by the U.S. State Department, NATO and assorted tech and weapons companies as "allies." PropOrNot's methodology is so shabby it is able to peg widely read outlets like Naked Capitalism, a leading left-wing financial news blog, as Russian propaganda operations.

    Though the supposed experts behind PropOrNot remain unknown, the site has been granted a veneer of credibility thanks to the Washington Post, and journalists from the New York Times, including deputy Washington editor Jonathan Weissman to former Obama senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer , are hailing Timberg's story as Pulitzer-level journalism. "Russia appears to have successfully hacked American democracy," declared Sahil Kapur, the senior political reporter for Bloomberg. The dead-enders of Hillary Clinton's campaign for president have also seized on PropOrNot's claims as proof that the election was rigged, with Clinton confidant and Center For American Progress president Neera Tanden declaring , "Wake up people," as she blasted out the Washington Post article on Russian black ops.

    PropOrNot's malicious agenda is clearly spelled out on its website. While denying McCarthyite intentions, the group is openly attempting to compel "formal investigations by the U.S. government, because the kind of folks who make propaganda for brutal authoritarian oligarchies are often involved in a wide range of bad business." The group also seeks to brand major progressive politics sites (and a number of prominent right-wing opinion outlets) as "'gray' fake-media propaganda outlets" influenced or directly operated by Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB). It can then compel Facebook and Google to ban them , denying them the ad revenue they rely on to survive.

    Though PropOrNot's hidden authors claim, "we do not reach our conclusions lightly," the group's methodology leaves more than enough room to smear an outlet on political grounds. Among the criteria PropOrNot identifies as clear signs of Russian propaganda are, "Support for policies like Brexit, and the breakup of the EU and Eurozone" and, "Opposition to Ukrainian resistance to Russia and Syrian resistance to Assad."

    By these standards, any outlet that raises the alarm about the considerable presence of extreme right-wing elements among the post-Maidan Ukrainian government or that questions the Western- and Saudi-funded campaign for regime change in Syria can be designated a Russia dupe or a paid agent of the FSB. Indeed, while admitting that they have no idea whether any of the outlets they blacklisted are being paid by Russian intelligence or are even aware they are spreading Russian propaganda, PropOrNot's authors concluded that any outlets that have met their highly politicized criteria "have effectively become tools of the Russian intelligence services, and are worthy of further investigation."

    Among the most ironic characteristics of PropOrNot is its claim to be defending journalistic integrity, a rigorous adherence to the facts, and most of all, a sense of political levity. In fact, the group's own literature reflects a deeply paranoid view of Russia and the outside world. According to PropOrNot's website , Russia is staging a hostile takeover of America's alternative online media environment "in order to Make Russia Great Again (as a new 'Eurasian' empire stretching from Dublin to Vladisvostok), on the other. That means preserving Russian allies like Bashar al-Assad in Syria, breaking up the 'globalist' EU, NATO, and US-aligned trade and defense organizations, and getting countries to join 'Eurasianist' Russian equivalents Or else."

    The message is clear: Stamp out the websites blacklisted by PropOrNot,or submit to the malevolent influence of Putin's "new global empire."

    Among the websites listed by PropOrNot as "allies" are a number of groups funded by the U.S. government or NATO. They include InterpreterMag, an anti-Russian media monitoring blog funded through Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, an arm of the U.S. government, which is edited by the hardline neoconservative Michael Weiss. Polygraph Fact Check, another project of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty aimed at Russian misinformation, is listed as an "ally." So is Bellingcat, the crowdsourced military analysis blog run by Elliot Higgins through the Atlantic Council, which receives funding from the U.S. State Department, various Gulf monarchies and the weapons industry. (Bellingcat is directly funded by Google, according to Higgins.)

    Unfortunately for PropOrNot's mysterious authors, an alliance requires the consent of all parties involved. Alerted to his designation on the website, Bellingcat's Higgins immediately disavowed it: "Just want to note I hadn't heard of Propornot before the WP piece and never gave permission to them to call Bellingcat 'allies,'" he wrote .

    As scrutiny of PropOrNot increases, its credibility is rapidly unraveling. But that has not stopped Beltway media wiseguys and Democratic political operatives from hyping its claims. Fake news and Russian propaganda have become the great post-election moral panic, a creeping Sharia-style conspiracy theory for shell-shocked liberals. Hoping to punish the dark foreign forces they blame for rigging the election, many of these insiders have latched onto a McCarthyite campaign that calls for government investigations of a wide array of alternative media outlets. In this case, the medicine might be worse than the disease.

    Daryl November 26, 2016 at 1:38 am

    The PropOrNot domain was registered on August 21st. It's hosted on Blogger.

    Seems pretty legit to me.

    Daryl November 27, 2016 at 1:30 am

    What I meant by my sarcastic remark is that there seems to be absolutely no reason to trust anything it says, from its content, to the fact that it was created about three months ago when the Red baiting was already in full swing in the media.

    begob November 27, 2016 at 9:00 am

    And it now has a wikipedia page as of 15 Nov. Plus discussion on non-deletion:

    Skip Intro November 26, 2016 at 1:53 am

    Congratulations! That site is like a who's who of influential critical reporting. I suspect, as with so many of the bubble-dwellers attempts, that this slapdash but probably overpriced effort will drive traffic to those sites while reducing the credibility of its promoters. An instant classic own-goal. I look forward to the inevitable and embarassing revelations about their founders and funding.

    JEHR November 26, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Yes, now I know where to go to read good critical analyses (the list).

    jrs November 26, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    The full list was a mix of really good sites and the unknown personal blogs of some whack-a -doodles producing "content" of little value. I see the list linked to is smaller.

    "Collectively, this propaganda is undermining our public discourse by providing a warped view of the world, where Russia can do no wrong, and America is a corrupt dystopia that is tearing itself apart."

    Meanwhile publicans even they would deem credible like the L.A. times report there are 63,000 homeless youths in los angeles. Corrupt dystopia? No it can not be.

    "It is vital that this effort be exposed for what it is: A coordinated attempt to deceive U.S. citizens into acting in Russia's interests."

    look idiots, the truth as I understand it is neither Russian interest NOR US government interests are necessarily in my interest

    kimsarah November 26, 2016 at 2:09 am

    Meanwhile, the Clintonoids still trying to twist the arms of electoral college voters. What stage of grief is this?
    http://www.goupstate.com/news/20161125/sc-electors-besieged-by-requests-not-to-cast-votes-for-trump

    Daryl November 26, 2016 at 3:14 am

    I believe it's "bargaining." But don't look out for "acceptance" any time soon or ever.

    wheresOurTeddy November 26, 2016 at 4:05 am

    So much kvetching pre-nov 8 about Trump not accepting results of election.

    Because what kind of person would do that?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef November 26, 2016 at 11:41 am

    No defeat, no soul-searching.

    So far, she is still undefeated, and the dying working class votes have not repudiated her yet.

    "Let's not be premature."

    AnonymousCounsel November 26, 2016 at 2:22 am

    I am an attorney. I am not soliciting or advising any entity or person, but those identified by PropOrNot, including Naked Capitalism, should consult competent legal counsel, having appropriate and specific experience regarding defamation law (maybe even in a "pooled," co-ordinated effort with others' among the over 200 entities named by PropOrNot) to seek a legal opinion as to whether there exists a viable defamation claim against The Washington Post, and also, via Weisburg, The New York Times, as both publications repeated potentially defamatory claims made by PropOrNot.

    Under general tenets of defamation law (statutory and in common law), it is not just the original entity or person defaming (including defamation "per se") another that is liable for such torts, but others who carelessly or recklessly repeat the original defamatory statements/claims (in this case, both The Washington Post & New York Times bear similar potential liability as PropOrNot).

    hunkerdown November 26, 2016 at 6:14 am

    Understanding the distinction between an attorney, and *my* attorney, and as a matter of general interest, I am curious: What about individual posters in their capacities as employees, contractors, or just rabble?

    Romancing The Loan November 26, 2016 at 9:29 am

    Requires actual malice since it's the media you're suing – but that can be proven by reckless indifference to the truth which this might actually meet the standard of, especially since the site isn't making this claim based on anything other than the content of the views espoused by the sites. /also an attorney but the wrong specialty. I'd be pleased to help if I can though – all of the sites I read regularly are on the list and whoever's propaganda op the site is the whole concept of what it represents scares the pants off me.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 11:48 am

    i vaguely thought the actual malice requirement was tied to the target being a public figure; maybe running a blog qualifies.

    Romancing The Loan November 26, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    All private individual gets you is compensatory damages – and everyone's readership and donations have increased.

    "We hold that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual. But this countervailing state interest extends no further than compensation for actual injury. For the reasons stated below, we hold that the States may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages, at least when liability is not based on a showing of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth."

    Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347-349 (1974).

    Propornot is directly accusing NC and the rest of a crime (espionage), which constitutes defamation per se, so I think the only issue before the court would be whether it was done with reckless indifference.

    Seriously, Yves, please feel free to contact me offlist – I would be delighted to pro bono the heck out of this including at the direction of whoever you hire.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 10:44 pm

    thanks for enlightening me. it's such an obvious smear, and the post as far as i can see didn't vet the organization or its claims at all.

    skippy November 26, 2016 at 2:54 am

    Kudos

    flora November 26, 2016 at 3:31 am

    The MSM did such a fine job reporting the news during the campaign. (16 anti-Sanders stories in 16 hours from the WaPo. A new record.) Are small news/opinion sites cutting into their online advertising revenue. ;)

    James November 26, 2016 at 3:32 am

    I like you and your blog, but I'm almost positive your site has been guilty of accidently publishing Russian propaganda at some point. You've probably linked to stories that sound legit but can be traced all the way back to some Russian operation like RT, even though the third party source you got the story from seemed ok.

    The creator of the app never said all the sites on the list knowingly did it.

    Yves Smith Post author November 26, 2016 at 4:37 am

    First the fact that a story appeared on RT does not make it propaganda. We featured videos from Ed Harrison on the RT program Boom/Bust, which is about the US economy and has featured respected US and foreign academics, like Steve Keen.

    What Steve Keen has to say is not suddenly propaganda by virtue of appearing on RT.

    If you read Eddy Bernay's book Propaganda, he defines it as an entity or cause promoting its case. Thus when a news organization that is government-affiliated, like Voice of America or RT, presents a news story that is straight up reporting, that does not qualify as propaganda either (like "Marine Le Pen Gains in French Polls"). In fact, for a government site to be seen as credible when it does present propaganda, it has to do a fair bit of reasonably unbiased reporting.

    Second, had you bothered to read the actual PropOrNot site, it accuses all of the sites listed as being "propaganda outlets" under the influence of "coordinators abroad" (#11 in its FAQ).

    Several individuals on Twitter called this out as libel with respect to NC. And under #7, PropOrNot asserts that "some" of the sites are guilty of violating the Espionage Act and the Foreign Agent Registration Act, as in accusing them of being spies and calling for investigation (by implication of all, since how do you know which is or isn't) by the FBI and DoJ.

    And you defend this witch hunt? Seriously? Do you have any idea of what propaganda consists of? Hint: it is not reporting accurately and skeptically.

    John November 26, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Their MSM propaganda isn't working and they see it. They already heavily censor comments on their MSM sites. Other MSM sights such as Bloomberg closed down comments altogether. Expect more of that.

    And they will take every measure to close down any other independent sites people have turned to get some truth which millions of us know we aren't getting from the MSM.

    Those of us who have a grasp on what is going on in this country will find #7 is very disturbing.
    As it tells us what they have in mind to discredit and close down independent sites.

    James November 26, 2016 at 10:51 am

    As you know, propaganda doesn't have to [be] false. It can be more about selectively reporting certain facts or emphasizing certain facts over others to smear your target and mislead people. Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do.

    And the site clearly states that some sites are knowingly coordinating with Russian agents (like RT) and some are likely unaware that they are being influenced. They likely think NC falls into the unaware category.

    I think they should be more specific as to what sites they believe fall into the 'knowingly' and 'unknowingly' categories, but I also don't believe the app is an entirely crazy idea. Russia is aggressively trying to influence American politics as we saw in the most recent US election and coming up with a response is a good idea even if this particular one should be improved.

    Pat November 26, 2016 at 11:07 am

    Um, James what weakens people's confidence in their leaders is their not addressing people's issues and lying about their inability to do so. Despite protestations from the likes of much of our 'intelligentsia', mainstream media, and most of our political class, the majority of people are not stupid. There is a reason why terms like 'lame stream media' resonate with a large number of people.

    For instance when Obama is out there talking about a recovery and people know that there is no such thing in their lives, their communities then HE has lost their confidence – not someone giving an interview on RT.

    Or to put it another way the problem isn't someone going on RT and saying the emperor isn't wearing clothes, the problem is that the emperor isn't wearing clothes.

    Pretending not to notice doesn't mean that no one has noticed. Considering the Washington/NY/California bubble, most people probably have and have been screaming at their television that he needs to get dressed.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 11:12 am

    what did we see in "the most recent election"? what is your evidence that Russia is "aggressively trying to influence American politics?"

    Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do.

    How do you know any of this? how would you know would Russian intelligence's goals are, or how they think of Steve Keen? this is all just McCarthyism 2016, accusing the left of being dupes or willing agents of Russia. McCarthy had his 200 communists in the state department, this website and the Washington Post have their 200 Russian propaganda websites. Why are you catapulting this bullshit?

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mccarthy-says-communists-are-in-state-department

    pebird November 26, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    But it's obvious, clearly. If you think otherwise, you are an unobvious.

    ChrisPacific November 26, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    Well put. I could equally well argue that it's in Russia's interests that American leadership not be questioned, if it's following policies that are clearly stupid and likely to weaken America's position in the world. So the PropOrNot site might actually be a double blind backed by Russia, using fear of Russian influence to manipulate people into uncritical acceptance of their leaders and prevent questioning of poor decisions, thereby weakening America. (ALERT: If it's not obvious to readers, this is sarcasm).

    If your methodology is gazing into the tea leaves to figure out what Russia's position is, then smearing anybody that advocates a similar position, then that's such a ridiculously flimsy veneer of logic that it can be used to reach pretty much any conclusion you like (as my example above demonstrates). Tell me again who is guilty of propaganda in this scenario?

    James November 26, 2016 at 8:46 pm

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

    I suppose all 17 intelligence agencies could be wrong.

    And RT has a pattern of inviting dissidents that have extremely negative views of American leadership. You can say this negative view justified but that doesn't negate the fact that Russia wants to amplify that discontent as much as possible.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 10:35 pm

    i suppose they still haven't provided any evidence whatsoever. just like you. What 17 agencies? what evidence are they relying on? Why does Obama say the election was not fixed by Russia, that there was no ramping up of cyber attacks?

    You could be working for David Brock at correct the record. the way you blindly accept the talking points of the Clinton campaign indicates that. you just keep repeating them, and don't respond to the criticisms of propornot as a source, or the reporter who uncritically accepted their little mccarthyite hit list. linking to a usa today article that blindly repeats the same talking points, again sans evidence, does not support your argument.

    James November 27, 2016 at 3:44 am

    I was not claiming Russia fixed the election results. I was referring to the email hacking directed at the Clinton camp during the election campaign.

    And my claim that Russia was likely involved in the email hacking is backed up by 17 intelligence agencies and reporting from various independent news outlets. If you had bothered to read the article, which you apparently didn't, you would know that the 17 agencies are the 'Office of the Director of National Intelligence' plus the 16 agencies listed in the link available in the article I provided.

    Here is the link in question: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/intelligence-community/members-of-the-ic

    If USA Today reporting is not credible to you but Russia Today's reporting is, then I'm afraid your trust of Kremlin created propaganda outlets over independent news outlets only underscores my point that Russian information warfare has been very successful at influencing and shaping parts of American public opinion.

    I also don't think US intelligence agencies would make this accusation publicly if they were not confident. They could have just as easily made this accusation against China but have not because it doesn't fit China's MO. Russia has engaged in similar types of email hacking operations in former Eastern European countries it has been seeking to control and influence.

    And comparing an app to McCarthyism is absurd. McCarthysim was the state targeting individuals and organizations. This is private citizens compiling a list by their own accord, which they are free to do. When a left wing blog makes a list of the top ten most right-wing and GOP influenced websites, are they also engaging in 'McCarthism'? Is the left engaging in 'McCarthyism' when it accuses Fox News of being GOP influenced propaganda? C'mon.

    Regardless, I am done with this conversation for now. You can think what you want.

    Pat November 27, 2016 at 4:24 am

    James do you happen to remember when those intelligence agencies reported Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.? How about when North Korea hacked Sony? Both of which were inaccurate and dare I say it propaganda intended to mislead the American public.

    Short of watching the hacking in real time there is no way those agencies would have been able to trace any competent hacker.So here are some very serious questions for you. Do you think the Russians hire script kiddies? Why does Naval Intelligence have anything to do with this investigation? Same with at least half of those agencies?

    Why were 17 agencies watching the DNC? Don't they have anything better to do, like figuring out who hacked the State Department, the IRS and Social Security?

    The immediate claims that Russia hacked the DNC were never credible to any one with even a bit of knowledge about high level hacking. The 17 agency thing was outright laughable once you asked the simple question of what most of them had to do with this investigation. And USA Today was and is the print equivalent of the Yahoo front page.

    You say you are done, but I sincerely hope so e of what was said here percolates in your thoughts. Most of us here understand propaganda, misinformation, and yes confirmation bias. You seem to need to learn to look critically at your usual sources as well as those you have warned about.

    James November 27, 2016 at 6:04 am

    Being wrong about something in the past doesn't mean you are always wrong. In fact, the CIA and FBI have been on the money about countless things in the past, but I'm sure you know this and are just trying to deflect. And it's not true that NK being involved in the Sony hack has been debunked. Opinion is mixed among independent security analysts. Look it up.

    And I think you should take your own advice as far as confirmation bias and understanding propaganda are concerned. Nobody who relies on FSB cut outs like RT for information and analysis has room to talk about their intelligence and critical thinking. NC and other alternative 'anti-establishment' news sources you consume are full of their own bias. You should wander out of the alt-left echo chamber once in a while and stop thinking that any criticism of Russia is 'red-baiting' and propaganda. Mr. Putin isn't a damsel in distress that needs your defending.

    integer November 27, 2016 at 6:52 am

    You can think what you want.

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 6:58 am

    There are so many straw men in this I don't know where to begin. So I'm not going to. Not feeding trolls is one of my policies.

    pretzelattack November 27, 2016 at 9:14 am

    oh so now you're an intelligence expert, but somehow you still don't have any evidence, because the "17 intelligence agencies" don't have any evidence either. they didn't have evidence of wmd's but i bet you fell for that, too. i think the most dishonest line in your post is this: You should wander out of the alt-left echo chamber once in a while and stop thinking that any criticism of Russia is 'red-baiting' and propaganda

    while you're searching for evidence to back up the rancid propaganda exposed by glenn greenwald's article in the intercept, you can look for one single post expressing this conviction. just one.

    after all the lies by our intelligence agencies, using the same methods as this smear, to uncritically accept anonymous quotes betrays either a great naďveté or intellectual dishonesty.

    David Lamy November 26, 2016 at 11:31 am

    Gee, if only there were some North American country that would try to influence foreign elections, for example say Russian or Ukrainian ones.
    But let me extend James's thought above by advocating for our leaders to obtain public encryption keys so that we may send our grievances privately without enabling any foreign interference. Won't that just invigorate our democracy?

    OIFVet November 26, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    If Russia is actively trying to influence American politics, then they have been far more effective than the US and get a much bigger bang for their buck. For one thing, they didn't have to drop a single bomb to effect a regime change. So assuming you are correct, the noise is just a hysterical regime change envy.

    So are RT and Sputnik propaganda outlets? Sometimes they are, but sometimes they report the truth that our MSM, having given up the last shreds of their journalistic integtity in return for access, won't report.

    Given the widespread funding of media (including government-owned media) by Western governments, I would say that US and Euro hysteria about Russian propaganda, real and imagined, is yet another off-putting display of noxious American exceptionalism.

    I grew up listening to broadcasts of RFE and VOA behind the Iron Curtain, and mixed in with honest reporting was a heavy dose of propaganda aimed at weakening Eastern European governments. Now, it is the America For Bulgaria Foundation that funds several media outlets in the country. What they all have in common is rabid Russophobia-driven editorial stances, and one can easily conclude that it is driven by the almighty dollar rather than by honest, deeply held convictions. So, America can do it but whines like a toddler when it is allegedly done to it?! What a crock.

    The worst thing is that regardless of whatever propaganda wars are going on, this list constitutes a full frontal attack on free speech in the alleged "Land of the Free." Besides NC, there are number of sites distinguished by thorough, quality reporting of the kind that WaPo and NYT no longer engage in. Having grown up behind the Iron Curtain, this is chilling to me. Dissident voices speaking against the endless wars for profit and neoliberalism are in effect being intimidated and smeared by anonymous thugs. This, while the militarized local police and federal agencies, closely coordinated by "fusion centers", have ruthlessly put down a number of citizen protests, have engaged in spying on all of us, and have gone after whistleblowers for exposing the reach and scope of the surveillance state. These are the hallmarks of dictatorships, not of the alleged "world's greatest democracy and beacon of freedom." What the eff happened to America, and why are you equating challenging the oppressive and exploitative status quo with being "unwitting Russian dupes?" Seems to me that the useful idi0t here is you, with all due respect.

    Glen November 26, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    American intelligence uses exactly the same tactics, and has since at least WW1. Selling the American public on the Iraq war is a classic example. Remember that all news is biased, some much more so than others (we report, you decide.)

    The advent of the internet and the subsequent broadening of readily available news of all slants has made it much harder for any intelligence agency of any specific country to control the news( but it has made it extremely easy for them to monitor what we are reading).

    Naked capitalism uses a wide variety of sources, and obviously has no coordination with any intelligence agency. The normal tell for this is being state sponsored, or having a big sugar daddy providing the funding, and Yves doesn't have any of that.

    As always, it's up to the reader to use their critical thinking skills and form their own opinions.

    Atalanta69 November 26, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Some of us happen to believe that 'lambast[ing] the American political establishment and weaken[ing] the public's confidence in its leaders' is in the best interests of everyone on the planet, including the American public. If that constitutes propaganda, I'm not about to look that gift horse in the mouth. RT isn't perfect – I personally find their relentless cheerleading for economic growth rather wearying – but it knocks spots off the competition and consistently sends me scurrying to the internet to chase up on new faces and leads. I'm grateful for that.

    FluffytheObeseCat November 26, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    " Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious "

    Damning with faint praise. A dainty smear tactic noted as such since the days of .. Shakespeare.

    It is obvious that Russia has been trying to influence American politics. The very existence of RT makes that obvious. What is not obvious is why modestly left-of-center Americans' political concerns should be subject to McCarthyite attacks in our most influential news outlets. We've been subject to internally generated far-right propaganda for decades now and have seen minimal, feeble 'mainstream' efforts to counter it. The far right has done tremendous damage to our nation and is poised to do much more now that its doyens control all branches of the federal government.

    And yet this libelous attack is more focused on left-leaning opinion sites than on the ultra-right. The latter were thrown into this list almost as window dressing. Conceivably because the far right is very adept at self-defense. But more because the prestige and financial well-being of the center-"left" is endangered by the rise of an adversarial, econo-centric left. The insiders from this branch of our duopoly never have been harmed by their historic "opposition" (Tea Party kooks + corrupt Beltway Republicans).

    What I interpret this as is a strike by 'think tank' grifters against those who are most likely to damage their incomes, their prestige and their exceedingly comfortable berths on the Acela corridor. It's a slightly panicky, febrile effort by a bunch of heels who are looking at losing their mid-6-figure incomes . and becoming like so many of the rest of us: over-credentialed, under-paid and unable to afford life in the charming white parts of our coastal metropolises.

    Brad November 26, 2016 at 6:34 pm

    Correct. The Democratic party liberals perform only one objective function: Attack the Left. That is what they are "there" for.

    nippersdad November 26, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    I was wondering what Brock has been up to since the dissolution of "Correct the Record."

    Has it been dissolved or has it morphed into something else? This looks like too seamless a transition from the Clinton campaign strategy we have all grown to love to the revenge strategy we have come to expect from such people. I look forward to the discovery portions of the libel suits to come. Hopefully Yves and Lambert will be taking up a collection for so worthy an enterprise soon.

    flora November 26, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    since you ask: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/david-brock-donald-trump-donor-network-231588 I think the term is "doubling down."

    Yves Smith Post author November 26, 2016 at 6:12 pm

    You've just libeled me. You have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate your claim. Nor do you have any evidence that Russia has been "aggressively" trying to influence US politics. This is one of many hysterical lines offered by Team Dem over the course of this election, up there with depicting all Trump voters as racist yahoos.

    Ed Harrison, who is the producer of the show and replied later in this thread, is the one who booked Keen and interviewed and other economists and firmly disputes your assertion that his show has anything to do with promoting an anti-US line. And as a former diplomat, Harrison would be far more sensitive than most to that sort of issue. I'm repeating his comment below:

    Hi Naked Capitalism. I haven't been on this site for some time. But I felt it necessary to comment due to an ad hominem attack from a commenter "James" regarding the show I produce at RT called Boom Bust.

    From my vantage point as producer at RT, I have been able to see the whole anti-Russia campaign unfold in all its fury. I have a lot of thoughts on this but I want to restrict my comments to the specific argument James makes. here:

    "it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do."

    Since I produce the show that Steve Keen appears on, I am well-placed to give you a view on this. James' comment is flat out false. What James writes is something he has fabricated in his imagination – connecting dots he believes should be connected based on no first hand evidence whatsoever.

    What actually happens on Boom Bust is this:

    Since no one I work with at RT has a sophisticated background in economics, finance or financial reporting, they give us a wide berth in putting together content for our show with nearly no top down dictates at all. That means we as American journalists have a pretty much free hand to report economic news intelligently and without bias. We invite libertarian, mainstream, non-mainstream, leftist, Democratic commentators, Republican commentators – you name it. As for guests, they are not anti-American in any way shape or form. They are disproportionately non-mainstream.

    We have no pro-Russian agenda. And that is in part because Russia is a bit player on the economic stage, frankly. Except for sanctions, it has mostly been irrelevant on our show since inception.

    Let me share a strange anecdote on that. We had a guest on our show about three years ago, early in my tenure. We invited him on because he had smart things to say about the UK economy. But he had also written some very negative things about Putin and Russia. Rather than whitewash this we addressed it specifically in the interview and asked him an open-ended question about Russia, so he could say his piece. I was ASTONISHED when he soft-pedaled his response and made no forceful case as he had done literally days ago in print. This guy clearly self-censored – for what reason I don't know. But it is something that has stayed with me ever since.

    The most important goal from a managerial perspective has been that our reporting is different i.e. covers missing and important angles of the same storyline that are missing in the mainstream media or that it covers storylines that are missing altogether.

    Neither Steve Keen nor any other guest on our show appears "because he lambasts the American political establishment". This is false. He appears on our show because he is a credible economist who provides a differentiated view on economics and insight that we believe will help our viewers understand the global economy. If Paul Krugman had something to say of that nature and would appear on our show, we would welcome him. In fact, I and other producers have reached out to him many times to no avail, especially after we had Gerald Friedman give his take on the dust-up surrounding Bernie Sanders' economic plan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yna275KzuDQ

    Look, I understand the scepticism about RT and its motives. It IS a state-funded news outlet with news story angles that sometimes contrast sharply with western media. And it has not been critical of the Russian government as far as I can tell. But you can't ascribe nefarious motives to individual economists or reporters based on inaccurate or false third hand accounts. You are just making things up, creating a false narrative based on circumstantial evidence. This is just adding to the building peer pressure associated with what almost seems like an orchestrated campaign to discredit non-mainstream sources of news.

    bob November 26, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    "Russia is aggressively trying to influence American politics" Apparently with the help of Hillz. Was her decision to use a private email server made with the help of Putin?

    Brad November 26, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    James, we get it. We US citizens are not to be permitted to criticize our own government or corporations as that might "weaken public confidence" in our Dear Leaders.

    We cannot be trusted to think for ourselves in discerning what is and is not propaganda, for after all we would be able to discern the same coming from the US side.

    The overt stifling of dissent that was such an outrageous feature of the Clinton campaign "is clearly a goal" of your side.

    Who needs Putin when we have mindless ClintonBots to do all the dirty work here?

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:22 am

    > weakens the public's confidence in its leaders*

    Assumes facts not in evidence. See Pew Research :

    This is a secular trend, a great wave. If Steve Keen were going on Tass 24 hours a day, seven days a week, Live!!! With ***Nude*** WOMBATS!!!!, undermining confidence in neoliberal economists - let me pause to gasp in horror - it would be the merest bit of froth on that wave. Taking Jame's view as a proxy for the views of the intelligence community, if they really believe this - and it's not just a ploy for budget time - then the country truly is doomed.

    NOTE * Note the authoritarian followership of "leaders." So my response with institutions is not precisely on point.

    Pat November 27, 2016 at 8:04 am

    The idea that banks were trusted more than organized labor was troublesome to me till I remembered the labor leaders like Trumka and the continued betrayals of membership by the likes of the AFL CIO. At that point I got it really was a toss up.

    Synoia November 26, 2016 at 9:38 pm

    This is a Bezos hostile takeover – aka:

    My revenue is suffering because my rag is bullshit, but all these alternatives are unfair competition - please Mr Government shut them done, because I, the one and only Great Bezos (or Great Bozo), is loosing money.

    Boo Hoo, boo hoo boo hoo .

    davidly November 26, 2016 at 5:41 am

    almost positive = have a vague notion based on nothing but conditioning
    In other words, you are a small-time useful ijit

    hemeantwell November 26, 2016 at 8:51 am

    If you'd like, take a trip in the Wayback Machine to 1959. Then you'll find many criticisms of US society by the Civil Rights movement sharing the same sinister tone as criticisms made by Soviet new outlets. Then you'll also find a gaggle of US pols and their minions claiming on that basis that the Civil Rights movement is communist inspired, funded, and run. Then you'll also find many people who don't bother to distinguish source from story and end up enjoying the official Kool Aid.

    PlutoniumKun November 26, 2016 at 9:23 am

    It reminds me of a story from Northern Ireland in the 1960's when the leader of a civil rights march was asked by a BBC reporter 'is it true that your organisation has been infiltrated by radicals and communists?' His reply was to sigh and say 'I f**king wish it was true'.

    John Zelnicker November 26, 2016 at 9:47 am

    @hemeantwell – This same claim of communist inspiration and connection was also thrown at the anti-war movement. I remember arguing with a friend of my parents in the summer of 1969, after my freshman year at college where I was active in the anti-war and anti-draft movements. After countering all of the arguments made by this gentleman, he was left with nothing to say but "Well, that's the Commie's line " as a final dismissal.

    Jim Haygood November 26, 2016 at 10:52 am

    'US pols and their minions claiming that the Civil Rights movement is communist inspired, funded, and run.'

    Right up to his death on 4 Apr 1968, Martin Luther King was accused by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI of "knowingly, willingly and regularly cooperating with and taking guidance from communists." Now there's a US national holiday in King's honor.

    That same year, my dad visited Moscow and Czechoslovakia during the Prague Spring. After he returned, we started receiving crudely mimeographed newsletters from Moscow - actual Soviet propaganda , delivered right to our mailbox in Texas.

    So laden were they with hoary old Marxist rhetoric that we started satirizing it in our underground student newspaper, mocking the public school administration as "capitalist running dogs" and "colonialist oppressors." (This did not go over well.)

    To his regret, my dad sent one of the Soviet flyers to the FBI, but never got a reply. He suspected that they put him on a watch list, rather than investigating how the Soviets were distributing their crude invective through the US mail.

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:16 am

    So laden were they with hoary old Marxist rhetoric that we started satirizing it in our underground student newspaper, mocking the public school administration as "capitalist running dogs" and "colonialist oppressors." (This did not go over well.)

    No capitalistic pigs?????
    – OINK!

    EGrise November 26, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    Are you sure the newsletter wasn't printed by the FBI?

    Titus Pullo November 26, 2016 at 9:52 am

    They link American propaganda all the time. If you take off your blinders, you'll find that most news is just propaganda, because the basis for most news stories is what person X says. What's sad is that people like you believe there is some kind of "objective" news source in the "free world" that is telling it like it is. There isn't and there never has been.

    It's all propaganda of one sort or another. I exhort you to read Plato and understand that the Sophists for which Socrates held so much ire are much the same as anon and administration sources for so much of what drives journalism.

    NC separates the wheat from the chaff.

    Stick November 26, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Yep Sputnik News is a regular feature in Links.

    Yves Smith Post author November 27, 2016 at 12:08 am

    No, it isn't and I'm the one who puts links together. Shame on you.

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:25 am

    Surely this is irony?

    flora November 26, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    You assume, without evidence, that the claims are true. I think in econ that's called "assume a can opener."

    anonymous in Southfield, MI November 26, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    I have identified a motif that pretty much always gives away a Hillary bot- it was used about several dozen thousand times as part of 'Correct the Record' during the runup to November 8. And here we have it again. It goes like this: I was always in favor of – – – – – – – (fill in the blank with the supposed offenders name) until I found out this 'truth'.

    Also, why not just admit you are a Clinton Supporter who finds it convenient that a lot of the sites could be trashed for being critical of HRC

    Spring Texan November 26, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    Yes, that motif was EVERYWHERE . . . you couldn't escape it!!

    Brad November 26, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    NC is likely "far more guilty" in accidentally republishing your American propaganda, since the Russian variety is so obvious.

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:05 am

    Let me just make a list of the weasel words (setting aside the famous "I like you, but ____" trope, which I have never yet seen used in good faith in all my many years of blogging, partly because of the assumption that whether a random commenter "likes" the blog is important.

    1. almost positive
    2. guilty of accidentally
    3. at some point
    4. probably linked (but with no evidence)
    5. can be traced (but not by James!)
    6. some . operation like

    The ginormous pile of steaming innuendo and faux reasonableness aside, James seems to think that the NC readership has no critical thinking skills at all. Apparently, NC readers are little children who need expert guidance from James and his ilk - bless their hearts! - to distinguish crap from not crap.

    Adding "

    KnotRP November 26, 2016 at 3:47 am

    If there is any take away from this foul
    Bernays-inspired campaign season, it is
    that fear can and will overrule reason completely.
    Half of the voters (whichever lost) were set up
    for a cognitive dissonance cork blowing episode.
    No one should expect reason to be an effective defense against cognitive attempts to rectify that dissonance .neither side can be unplugged
    from their self-selected news matrix, without
    blowing their cork. It will not matter that this list
    is comical, because it is a dog whistle to the
    audience preloaded with fear (and the other side would've done a variation of the thene if they had lost).

    (pretty funny of them to list your site though..I guess
    the Russians must've also been quite upset by all
    the American mortage fraud in housing bubble #1
    and felt a need to •head explodes•)

    I suppose this comment will add me to some list maintained by some very frightened but misguided people? What's the line "lighten up, Francis"?

    wheresOurTeddy November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am

    Verdict on PropOrNot: Looks like Prop to me. Getting really sloppy, Oligarchy

    Benedict@Large November 26, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    This has all the earmarks of an effort by the Nuland Neocons that joined Camp Hillary, and now in defeat constitute a portion Hillary's professional dead enders.

    RenoDino November 26, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Camp Hillary, as you call it, has decamped and is on the march. It has powerful allies in the intelligence community, the media and actors on the world stage who deem Trump to be an existential threat to America and world. The story of Russian inspired fake news is paving the way for regime change, an HRC specialty. The recount is the tip of the spear. If they can pull this coup off, sites like this will move from the useful idiot category to the enemy of the state category overnight.

    The brilliance of this move will eliminate all possibly of civil unrest since America democracy will be saved from a Russia threat that requires a declaration of war and severe restrictions on media freedom.

    I can guarantee you Trump is looking over his shoulder and sees it coming and is working furiously to build a case for his own legitimacy. He is doing his best to sound normal.

    Obama has relegated himself to the sidelines. He hates conflict, but will back Hillary if she can pull it off.

    We will know in two weeks one way or the other.

    bob November 26, 2016 at 6:18 pm

    "Camp Hillary, as you call it, has decamped and is on the march." True that. Even a lost election can't stop them. Heard over the holiday- Andrew Cuomo for prez. So the same people who didn't show up to vote for Hillz can now not show up to vote for her waterboy/bagman.

    Manfred Keeting November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am

    Yet Mike Shedlock was not listed. If I were he, I'd be pissed. I'd write to the site demanding to know why!

    Yves Smith Post author November 26, 2016 at 4:17 am

    His post yesterday says pretty much that.

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:18 am

    Manfred Keeting November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am If you weren't on the Nixon's enemies list, there was something wrong with you

    Synoia November 26, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    Or not important enough. I seem to remember those years, and my focus was on:

    1. The next Beer
    2. The next female
    3. The next Party
    4. Going to work
    5. I need to pee (see 1)

    All of which changed priority at a whim of what I had to do next.

    begob November 27, 2016 at 7:52 am

    I think sicsempertyrannis was omitted too. Some comments on there are informative on Syria.

    Propertius November 26, 2016 at 4:27 am

    Down in the 8th Circle of hell, I assume Joe McCarthy is getting a chuckle out of this.

    a different chris November 26, 2016 at 10:29 am

    For sure. The "history doesn't repeat but it rhymes" is suddenly sickeningly applicable here.

    I hope they've bitten off more than they can chew in this case. There is that argument that we are "siloing" in our little corners of the web, however – everybody read the newspapers and listed to the radio back then. Which means a very, very small subset of the population set the agenda. Nowadays, the "far-left" and "far-right" are only a click away from each other (and they always did seem to have more in common with each other than the center which has gone from mushy to absolutely rotten). A unified pushback on this is not impossible and who knows where it might lead?

    Gabriel November 26, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    "First as tragedy, then as farce"

    Plenue November 26, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    First as tragedy, then as farce. People literally killed themselves because of McCarthyism. No one is going to kill themselves over this farce.

    The Rev Kev November 26, 2016 at 4:28 am

    Aha, I have solved the mystery. It is elementary my dear Watson! The PropOrNot site is itself a Russian propaganda ploy on the part of the KGB! What? errr, ok, the FSB then. By adding sites such as the Naked Capitalism site to the list, it will be discredited in its entirety thus letting the nefarious Russian propaganda websites be given a free pass. Mystery solved! And sorry Max but "Naked Capitalism" a leading left-wing financial news blog"? I'd rather label it a practical and empirical financial news blog myself.

    Seriously, I am wondering if something else is going on here ("tin-foil hat" mode on) with this piece of trash. No doubt people here have heard all the cries of "fake news" since the election. This was on top of months of claims of Russian hacking of the election which is still ongoing (cough cough, Jill Stein). Now Merkel is screaming blue murder of probable Russian hacking of the German elections next year and just this week the EU Parliament has passed a resolution which in part states that Russian media exists to "undermine the very notion of objective information or ethical journalism," and one of its methods is to cast all other information "as biased or as an instrument of political power."

    I am given to understand that the military use the term "preparing the battlefield" and that is what I think that we are seeing here. There have already been calls for FaceBook and Google to implement censorship of "fake news" which will amount to censorship of social and news feeds – the same media Trump used to bf the entire news establishment in this years election. Could we be seeing the beginnings of calls to censor the internet? All to fight terrorism and black propaganda of course. The Left would have absolutely no problem with this and if was used to get rid of sites that contrasted the mainstream media's narrative, more people would be forced to use the mainstream media for their news which would make them happy. Something to think about.

    rusti November 26, 2016 at 5:01 am

    And sorry Max but "Naked Capitalism" a leading left-wing financial news blog"? I'd rather label it a practical and empirical financial news blog myself.

    While the level of discussion here is generally at a much deeper level than most sites and commenters don't fit into neat little ideological boxes, I don't think it's a particularly egregious generalization to call a site with readers that overwhelmingly support things like financial regulation, single-payer health care and post-office banking "left-wing".

    But Max himself is an interesting character. I've been scratching my head wondering how a guy one step removed (Sidney Blumenthal) from the Clintons' inner circles is ambitious about exposing the ludicrous claims made by those same people regarding Palestine and Syria.

    flora November 26, 2016 at 5:22 am

    The list of news sites on the said fact-free, unsourced, anonymous webpage are all, so far as I can tell, news sites that have disagreed with neocon foreign policy preferences on several occasions.

    JEHR November 26, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    I am so tired of the use of "left" and " right" and "progressive" and "libertarian" that when I see these words I go off into a daze. These words are bandied about in so many different ways for so many different reasons, that they have almost become meaningless. I would rather that people or organizations be described in detail who supposedly have these "left" "right" etc. characteristics, then I would know what was being claimed.

    clincial wasteman November 26, 2016 at 11:47 pm

    yes, and one good way to that sort of detailed description is to read here regularly for a while: there's hardly any political self-tagging or confessional drama going on, but any one person's comments over a few months do add up to a picture of how her/his life experience, unlabelled political principles, intellectual ( not the same as academic!) background and style of spontaneous reaction (yes Mr Mencken, 'humor!) all fit together. And this gradually reveals a lot more than Left-Right status updates or biographical oversharing ever could: not so much about the person - who has a right to all the unknownness s/he wants - but about the experiences and reasoning that might connect a statement that delights you and another that leaves you aghast when both come from the same person and within about a dozen lines. And all this with no fuzzy-fake "consensus" in sight: mutual respect across abyssal differences is hard-won and correspondingly cared for.

    "The internet" still gets blamed for "ruining face-to-face interaction" by people who probably flatter themselves about the richness of their past social lives. But I can't imagine when I'll ever have a spare few years and some mysterious money (not to mention some "social skills" and a valid passport ) with which to visit Maine, Oregon, Arizona, Buenos Aires (etc etc etc) for extended casual conversations there. In the absence of that option, whatever you all have the patience to write here counts as THE escape route out of political parochialism and geographical niche.

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:37 am

    > preparing the battlefield

    I like the idea some commenter had (too lazy to find it right now) that all these strategems were long-prepared, and in place for a Clinton victory. Now the Clinton faction in the political class is deploying them anyhow. They'd better hurry, because influence peddling at the Clinton Foundation isn't as lucrative as it once was .

    KK November 26, 2016 at 4:29 am

    Surely any site that accepts donations could be funded by a foreign power without knowing?
    ps A couple of my students make 50p a post for challenging negative posts on travel websites by making up how great was their experience.

    a different chris November 26, 2016 at 10:34 am

    And, um, so what? They can waste money anywhere they want. How much has the US spent over my lifetime propagandizing the Middle East and how did that work out?

    rusti November 26, 2016 at 4:50 am

    The Neera Tandeen tweet is revealing in that it shows how hypocritical all the pearl-clutching was over Trump's complete lack of discretion in pushing bogus and fabricated stories. A cursory glance through the rest of her feed shows a bunch of equally thoroughly scrutinized claims that the Putin/Comey/Deplorables triumvirate conspired to steal the election from the forces of Good.

    z November 26, 2016 at 5:21 am

    For long time readers this russian(chinese) propaganda should be obvious. And it is ok, get used to it. Great opportunity to learn "how to read between the lines", and when you understand, solidifying into a basic skill.

    "The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent." and now you have a good ones, not a cheap wapo columnist but organised, educated, trained information warfare hacks.

    we are on the early days, more to come, much worse to come.

    nmb November 26, 2016 at 5:25 am

    Be careful NC. MSM are in panic. They see that their propaganda is less and less effective and start targeting those who offer an alternative against their obsolete narratives. Be prepared: when they will realize that these don't work at all, their fake democracy will become an open dictatorship.

    Steve H. November 26, 2016 at 10:26 am

    President-elect Trump calling them liars may have unsettled them.

    It's good to know we have a strong leader protecting our backs!

    /s? Time will tell.

    David N November 26, 2016 at 5:31 am

    I loved naked capitalism's election coverage, but here is an anecdote of how it angered conventional liberals.

    I read a particle physics blog by Columbia mathematician Peter Woit, who wrote an election post-mortem (he occasionally writes about politics). Not Even Wrong is one of the most popular blogs in theoretical physics, I've several excellent physicists post in the comments to previous entries. I was very surprised to see Woit blame naked capitalism (and others) for the electoral defeat of Hillary Clinton, he's a very conventional thinker normally so I would have expected him to not even know about naked capitalism. I'm still surprised he knew about it.

    My guess? There is a lot of communication in the country between people who do read some of these 200 news media organizations, with the vast majority who stick to conventional sources such as the NYT, the WSJ, and who think that Vox and The Atlantic are intellectual sources. When people get exposed to alternative media for the first time, even educated people, their most likely response is some combination of anger, laughter, and asking if the writer also believes that 9/11 is an inside job.

    Anyway, this is what it looked like: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8906

    PlutoniumKun November 26, 2016 at 7:35 am

    I hate to get tin foily, but that blog is typical of a few I've seen – expressing real anger at the amorphous 'left' for not getting on board the Hilary train. There is an element of vengefulness in some of the writing and combined with the evidence of the article above, it seems there is an element within the establishment (the losing half) who are in full on McCarthy mode – and of course the first stage of a purge is to accuse the targets of being traitors and in the pay of foreign interests. Trump and the people around him are dangerous of course, but I think a defeated neolib/neocon establishment is equally dangerous. We are in worrying times, and its not just the far right we have to be worried about.

    john bougearel November 26, 2016 at 11:17 am

    Even normally level-headed Bill Black posted some rather biased opinionated op-eds here about P-Elect Trump. Which surprised me.

    Synoia November 26, 2016 at 9:44 pm

    he's a very conventional thinker

    And he is in the field of Physics research? Does that make it a Oxy-Moron or the dear Prof a complete Moron?

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:34 am

    > some rather biased opinionated op-eds

    Let's parse this

    1) Throw away the weasel words

    some rather biased opinionated op-eds -> biased opinionated op-eds

    2) Throw away the evidence-free

    biased opinionated op-eds -> opinionated op-eds

    3) Expand the abbreviations

    opinionated op-ed -> opinionated opinion editorial

    4) Eliminate redundancy

    opinionated opinion editorial -> opinion editorial

    So Bill Black wrote an "opinion editorial." Is there a problem with that?

    Marco November 26, 2016 at 8:37 am

    Woit also includes the NYT in his list of culprits so I don't know what planet he resides. Also interesting to note his jetting off to Paris as tonic. Oh the humanity!!

    craazyman November 26, 2016 at 8:40 am

    It's incredible how many otherwise smart people can't think for themselves.

    • Once a newspaper touches a story the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonist. -Norman Mailer
    • I am unable to understand how a man of honor can take a newspaper in his hand without a shudder of disgust. -Charles Baudelaire
    • The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -Thomas Jeffereson
    • Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper. -Thomas Jefferson
    • If you're not careful, the newspaper will have you hating people being oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing -Malcolm X
    • Journalism is organized gossip. -Edward Egglestone
    • If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read it, you are misinformed. -Mark Twain (allegedly, but it could be misinformation)

    It's hard to know what to believe! You can believe your own eyes, but even your mind connects the dots without you knowing it.

    This is not the Washington Post's finest hour - although they probably haven't had one of those for years at this point. I'm down to the Redskins coverage in the WaPo, which is still quite good actually.

    I used to be a Washington Post paper boy, so I'l put one last quote from Charles Osgood

    It was while making newspaper deliveries, trying to miss the bushes and hit the porch, that I first learned about accuracy in journalism
    -Charles Osgood

    (All quotes from quotegarden.com)

    shinola November 27, 2016 at 12:05 am

    More people should read the historical "rantings" of Mark Twain, Mike Royko & Molly Ivins

    Joseph P. November 26, 2016 at 9:15 am

    I notice that Woit has disabled comments on this particular post (all other posts have comments enabled). Probably he justifies it by telling himself that he is running a physics related blog and isn't interested in promoting discussion on non-physics related matters like politics (but he still wants to promote his own political opinions on his physics blog!). It's typical of the fingers-in-the-ears reaction that ivory tower liberals to Trump's win.

    lyman alpha blob November 26, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    I am protesting his column by believing in string theory – that should teach him.

    David N November 26, 2016 at 7:05 pm

    One doesn't need string theory to explain the lyman-alpha forest though, just lambda-CDM cosmology :-)

    ggm November 26, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    Calling Susan out by name, misrepresenting her viewpoints, and then turning of comments is completely indefensible.

    I always felt he has needlessly politicized string theory research l by making his case against it primarily in popular science books and on his blog rather than in peer-reviewed journals and academic papers. Since when is it a good idea to let public perception influence our scientific whims? Whether or not his arguments are valid is beside the point, it wasn't the right way to go about attempting to influence the field.

    Sammy November 26, 2016 at 5:35 am

    I am re-posting the following from an insightful comment on the Liberty Blitzkrieg report on this scam site:

    "The anonymous "executive director" of the Propornot website, quoted by the Washington Post, was mostly a likely a "senior military intelligence" impostor cum serial teen pornographer named Joel Harding. He is facing a lawsuit over the copyright infringement of Internet-distributed (teen) pornography (Case No. 1:16-cv-00384-AJT-TCB) in the US District Court for the eastern district of Virginia, Alexandria division. This is in the public domain.

    BTW, Harding's fellow trolls have been known to ascribe the rank of Brig Gen to their pathetic troll leader in private messages to the unsuspecting.

    No wonder Joel Harding wished to remain the anonymous "executive director" whose laughably scientific work was quoted by Washington Post. But why didn't Washington Post's Craig Timberg check this up? Basic journalistic checks thrown out of the mixed gender bathroom window? Details of Harding's trolling activities are available on the very Internet that is trolled by Joel Harding through his 3,000-odd troll sites.

    And to think that I used to be an avid reader of Washington Post's science and Technology reports now galls me.

    There is a growing assumption that the patriotic paranoid activities of Joel Harding and associates are a cover for their Ukrainian teen pornography distribution business."

    EndOfTheWorld November 26, 2016 at 5:41 am

    Sigmund Freud called this "projection".

    The US MSM is all propaganda all the time-every bit as bad as Pravda ever was. RT now is the "anti-propaganda." They were even carrying Jesse Ventura and other Americans who are blacklisted by the MSM.

    This is a "hail mary pass."

    Pavel November 26, 2016 at 8:02 am

    A hail mary pass that was intercepted by the opposing team and run back for a touchdown.

    Methinks the WaPo, "PropOrNot", and the rest of the MSM involved with this stunt are going to have a lesson in The Streisand Effect. Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg (whom I greatly admire BTW) has said he already has many new followers and donors.

    EndOfTheWord November 26, 2016 at 8:39 am

    The hail mary pass was intercepted and run back for a touchdown. Ha, ha, ha. That's a good one, Mr. Pavel.

    hunkerdown November 26, 2016 at 6:18 am

    There's a Chrome addon in beta! Wow. I must say I'm impressed. It's like a porn blocker for liberals in crisis.

    This demands popcorn and much Nietzschean weaponized laughter.

    sd November 26, 2016 at 6:34 am

    Serious question here.

    What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I feel like I missed some important public dis somewhere that would explain it all. Condoleeza Rice's general dated anti-Soviet attitude I could understand, but that doesn't explain the escalating bigotry pouring out of Obama and Clinton (and their various surrogates). Is it a case of a bomb in search of a war?

    EndOfTheWorld November 26, 2016 at 6:58 am

    Looks to me like it came out of the HRC campaign. LOL James Carville was talking about the KGB tampering with the vote tally .not knowing they've been out of business since 1991. The whole thing makes absolutely no sense, and it won't fly with the American public, many of whom watch RT, or may be married to or dating Russians. Even Randy Newman likes Putin enough to write a song about him.

    John November 26, 2016 at 9:17 am

    The funny thing is it's been an open secret that the Democratic party has known about electronic voting fraud (always swinging to the Right) for years but refuses to go near the subject publicly supposedly because they didn't want people to lose faith in election results and stop voting.

    John November 26, 2016 at 9:47 am

    Even today they are defending the results
    U.S. Officials Defend Integrity of Vote, Despite Hacking Fears
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/us/politics/hacking-russia-election-fears-barack-obama-donald-trump.html?_r=0

    tgs November 26, 2016 at 10:26 am

    The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election , it has concluded that the results "accurately reflect the will of the American people."

    From the NYT article you mention. It is now axiomatic that the Putin government was actively attempting to subvert our election. This despite the fact that absolutely no compelling evidence has ever been given.

    integer November 26, 2016 at 7:37 am

    What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I think it can be traced back to this .

    z November 26, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    After the nineties opening foreign influence was accepted and russia started integrating into the western world. Some years later the resurged nationalist kicked out western companies, broke cultural-social contacts.

    West is made on free trade-free business-free ideas flow. if russia not trading on common terms, west gonna take it by force. and russia holds one-fourth of fresh water, one-fifth of world forests, one sixth of arable but never before used land, and never before properly explored mineral wealth. All these can help to secure a prosperous 21.century for the west.

    Same like before the american conquest, only difference now local indigenous people wield nuclear weapons and have unlimited chinese support, so no rush let them make mistakes. (and they do, ukraine-syria-azerbaijan just the latest)

    WJ November 27, 2016 at 2:45 am

    I bet your funders can't wait to "properly explore" that Russian mineral wealth.

    PlutoniumKun November 26, 2016 at 7:41 am

    I don't think there is an easy answer to your question, but I think it goes around to the failed Ukrainian coup (well, partially failed) and the realisation within a certain element of the neocon establishment that Putin had been inadvertently strengthened by their policy failures in the Ukraine and Syria. I think there was a concerted element within the Blob to refocus on 'the Russian threat' to cover up their failures in the Middle East and the refusal of the Chinese to take the bait in the Pacific.

    This rolled naturally into concerns about cyberwar and it was a short step from there to using Russian cyberespionage to cover up the establishments embarrassment over wikileaks and multiple other failures exposed by outsiders. As always, when a narrative suits (for different reasons) the two halves of the establishment, the mainstream media is always happy to run it unquestioningly.

    So in short, I think its a mixture of genuine conspiracy, mixed in with political opportunism.

    Dirk77 November 26, 2016 at 8:44 am

    +1

    cocomaan November 26, 2016 at 8:53 am

    Don't forget Snowden and Assange. The intelligence community is, I'm sure, furious about those two. With Snowden still in Russia, it's basically a weeping sore on the intelligence community's face. Those people do not like exposure at all.

    I remember that, shortly after Snowden's revelations, the war drums really started to beat for Syria.

    a different chris November 26, 2016 at 10:43 am

    In all success* is the seeds of failure. Once upon a time, the "beating of war drums" was a great distraction from whatever ill's were currently affecting a nation. But the US now has such an overwhelming military that not only is there absolutely no threat to the US land mass, but for a given person there are at least two degrees of freedom between them and anybody actually involved in these wars themselves. We lost a soldier – ONE soldier – on Thanksgiving day and sure it was all over the news but how many USians actually know even a member of his family, let alone him? About zero to a first approximation.

    So it just isn't working as a distraction. TPTB I don't think really get that yet.

    *the word success here is used in a morally neutral sense

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    Likewise don't forget Chelsea/Bradley Manning! He was the one who put WikiLeaks on the map and is now paying a horrible price for his courage and love of humanity. His name is constantly dropped from the list of whistle blower heroes. Why? Because of his gender ambiguity? Whatever his gender Manning is an American hero worth remembering.

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:29 am

    PlutoniumKun
    November 26, 2016 at 7:41 am

    I think that's about right PlutoniumKun but I would add your moniker – the US is gonna spend a FORTUNE (I TRILLION dollars using Austin Powers voice) updating our nuclear arsenal. Can't really justify using ISIS, so the Soviet boogyman has to be resurrected .

    Lurker November 26, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    YES! You need a big bad enemy to justify expenditures on big bad weapons. ISIS ain't gonna cut it.

    integer November 26, 2016 at 8:02 pm

    Plutonium kun : "I'm hardly absorbed by your stomach or intestines and I'm expelled by your body, so in fact I can't kill people at all"

    (Curiosity finally got the better of me)

    grayslady November 26, 2016 at 8:30 am

    A friend of mine is convinced that Obama and the Beltway crowd have never gotten over Russia giving asylum to Edward Snowden. If you look at the timing between Snowden's revelations and the U.S. ginning up its anti-Russia talk and activities, there is some correlation.

    cocomaan November 26, 2016 at 8:54 am

    haha, I literally just posted this two inches above! +1

    I think the intelligence community, all those northern virginia folks, hate the fact that every day there's a traitor who has an outlet on twitter.

    witters November 26, 2016 at 6:09 pm

    Listen to Gore Vidal (in 1994!) and find out why: https://www.c-span.org/video/?61333-1/state-united-states

    ToivoS November 26, 2016 at 6:10 pm

    What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late?

    That is very good question and it does not have a simple answer. I have been pondering this for 8 years now. The latest bout of Russia-hatred began as Putin began to re-assert their sovereignty after the disastrous Yeltsin years. This intensified after Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. In adddition the US was preprogrammed to hate Russia for historical reasons. Mostly because of the Soviet era but also when the US inherited the global empire from the Brits we also got some of their dislike of the Russian empire dating back to the 19th century.

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 7:49 pm

    It all started when Putin arrested the Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, when Putin put a stop to the shock therapy looting of Russia by the Harvard mafia and Jeffrey Sachs. Didn't he know that oligarch's are above the law? They are in the US. Didn't he know that money can buy you immunity from prosecution like it does in Europe and the US? Can't have that, hence the Ukraine, deprive him of his warm water naval base. Then there was the Crimean referendum. Out smarted again! Can't have that!

    WJ November 27, 2016 at 2:53 am

    Yes. There was a Michael Hudson piece posted here in 2014 that lays it all out. Apparently those wanting to bring "democratic institutions" to Russia haven't given up yet.

    This Propornot outfit has all the makings of a National Endowment for Democracy scam, including its sudden appearance in the Post, which has been publishing crazy regime-change-esque editorials on Russia for more than two years now.

    It's all so depressing.

    Mark Alexander November 26, 2016 at 6:37 am

    It's all my fault. I studied Russian in high school (4 years) and college (1 year), and even subscribed to Pravda briefly in college (as did all of my classmates) to improve reading skills. I also spent a month in Russia in 1971. This is how I became a dirty commie. By commenting on NC a half dozen times in the past, I have forever tainted it. Sorry!

    BTW, what is the W3C approved sarcasm tag? /sarc or /s?

    Disturbed Voter November 26, 2016 at 8:28 am

    I also took 4 years of Russian in HS. When in the Cold War, it is best to understand your opponents (not enemies), rather than be ignorant. That is how one can play chess and win and yes, it is as much a matter of intimidation and annoyance, as it is cold calculation. Bobby Fischer vs Boris Spassky. States have no enemies. Former allies become opponents and vice versa pragmatism rules.

    pebird November 26, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    Sometimes it isn't necessary.

    allan November 26, 2016 at 6:54 am

    " the kind of folks who make propaganda for brutal authoritarian oligarchies are often involved in a wide range of bad business."

    Sounds like half of the D.C. economy. And so the Democratic Party ends, not with a bang, but with a McCarthyite lynch mob.

    The Vole November 26, 2016 at 7:03 am

    Wow this is straight out of John LeCarre.

    divadab November 26, 2016 at 7:03 am

    Well Joe McCarthy was a Republican so this is yet another example of Democrats taking on that mantle of paranoid fear and war-mongering. Flipping Clintons, the best Republican President and candidate the Dems could come up with.

    Kathleen Smith November 26, 2016 at 7:45 am

    The MSM can no longer fool the people that there has been an economic recovery, that is why nobody believes the media anymore and that is why Donald Trump won the election. Watching news today is like watching a bad puppet show. The masses are finally waking up to the fact that their government has sold them down the river to big corporations and predatory bankers. Took the sheeple long enough.

    Kokuanani November 26, 2016 at 7:52 am

    I was dismayed to see a reference to this rotten WaPo article on Bill Moyers' Facebook. Usually he's much better than that.

    And based on the comments, folks are believing this junk.

    Escher November 26, 2016 at 8:21 am

    It's an idiotic new red scare, and I can tell you the well credentialed, supposedly smart liberals in my circles will eat it right up. Their critical thinking is completely out the window at this point, and they'll accept apparently anything to avoid coming to terms with Clinton having lost to Trump. It's terrifying.

    knowbuddhau November 26, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    Bummer. I'll always have a fondness for him from the Power of Myth interviews.

    Was surprised to find PoN recommended in an article on In These Times.

    http://inthesetimes.com/article/19658/20-lessons-from-the-20th-century-on-how-to-survive-in-trumps-america

    9. Investigate. Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on your screen is there to harm you. Bookmark PropOrNot and other sites that investigate foreign propaganda pushes.

    It was so jarring I kept reading that last sentence, thinking I'd missed the snark. Fully expected it to end with "as an example," not to lend it cred.

    Harold November 26, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    The article you mention in In These Times is by Timothy Snyder :), who despite being a well-known historian is no mean propagandist himself, having suggested that the Ukrainians not the Soviets liberated Auschwitz. http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/03/07/crimea-putin-vs-reality/

    OIFVet November 26, 2016 at 5:46 pm

    Timothy Snyder is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. That he would recommend PoN is at least a small indication of who stands behind it. Snyder is has given bad odor to the term "historian" over the past three years. He is to objective history what Bernays was to objective journalism.

    Harold November 26, 2016 at 8:26 pm

    Snyder: "The army group that liberated Auschwitz was called the First Ukrainian Front." The NYR of Books has suppressed the comment section on its blog, probably to spare Snyder the embarrassment of having his howlers pointed out by readers.

    knowbuddhau November 26, 2016 at 7:03 pm

    Ah so, thanks to you both. Two tells made me suspicious: lots of apparently good advice, then the little drop of poison just nonchalantly dropped in the mix; and Yale historian ;) .

    My comment there hasn't made it out of moderation yet. But someone else tore into him for the same reason I did, recommending PoN:

    Because you have no idea who the hell they are, anymore than anyone else does, they've just released a list of non-MSM news sites that they disagree with. They smear long running and well trusted sites as "propaganda" outlets without offering any evidence or stating any sort of methodology. You have litereally abandoned the professional ethic which ought to go along with being a published.historian and University professor purely because it makes you FEEL BETTER.

    I just asked him, as a Yale historian, to please tell us how the list was compiled, or at least give some reason for his unqualified recommendation. I went on to say that I read several of the sites listed, esp. Counterpunch and of course, NC. Even helpfully provided a link to this article, saying the idea that NC pushes foreign propaganda is ludicrous, and the WaPo article was being thoroughly debunked here.

    Ended with "I call upon the author to explain! (h/t Nick Cave)"

    inode_buddha November 26, 2016 at 8:22 am

    WaPo Has been sounding increasingly shrill for the last year. Makes you wonder what they're hiding or what truth they're running from.

    polecat November 26, 2016 at 5:11 pm

    Hit em where it hurts .. PROFITS --

    **BOYCOTT AMAZON & The WASHINGTON POST !!

    ** Any and all who spew this crap

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 9:38 am

    More likely, what "truth" 'they' are trying to manufacture. (When did the new 'owners' take up the reins at WaPo? There might be a correlation, and a causation involved)

    Inode_buddha November 26, 2016 at 10:29 am

    This is why I'm looking forward to any legal cases that may arise out of this - I plan to follow such *very* closely. Would love to see discovery documents upon the editorial and ownership staff . the legal equivalent of a public enema, "you shall have no more secrets "

    After all, didn't Fox News win a case essentially stating that it was OK to flat out lie and fabricate from whole cloth? Then why can't Democrat media organs do likewise?

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 10:46 am

    Why didn't I think of that earlier? "Political Infotainment." If my reading serves me right, I was under the impression that newspapers of a hundred years ago and earlier displayed their political allegiances openly. A reader could easily work out the underlying story from separating "story" from "interpretation." Now, news outlets are supposedly impartial and pure of heart. Yet another cherished myth bites the dust. Perhaps it is better this way.

    John November 26, 2016 at 10:52 am

    Yes Fox Lies did win such a case. And if any fake "news" outlet should be on the list it is them.

    pebird November 26, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    Didn't we used to call "fake news" rumors? And when did newspapers stop printing rumors?

    Disturbed Voter November 26, 2016 at 8:24 am

    Per FDR .. sometimes we are better known by our enemies, than by our friends.

    Vedant Desai November 26, 2016 at 8:30 am

    Just check this out :

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

    Based on the evidence of above mentioned link, this "PropOrNot" can be part of a project of U.S. government to manipulate media to create an anti-Russia climate or more likely another method of attack on what they consider "Left" so status quo in economic policies of U.S. can be maintained.

    Susan C November 26, 2016 at 8:32 am

    What is going on with the press/MSM lately? It is like one big game of mind control. Is that what journalism is for – to persuade people to do what the system wants them to do and I hope I am not stretching here but a la Bernays? I mean when I think about this it is really sort of terrifying as the MSM has done little else but constantly broadcast to people that life in America is just fine and everyone is happy when in fact the opposite is true – there is a lot of hardship out there since the financial crisis, a lot of people never recovered, millions or tens of millions. So how can people not be drawn to alternative news sites which thankfully are quite abundant now and want political change? It just seems like the WaPo, NYT are living in this one little sliver of opulence and prosperity while the rest of us just shake our heads and wonder what has happened to this country, especially as we see their darling was not voted in as President. So now they are striking out and attempting to smear the reputations of good sites, And what is this fake news thing – I am not on social media and have no idea what the fake news is – is it about the pizza places? And why are the social media sites being censored – I had read on zh that when the Comey story hit before the election that that news was not trending at all which was very strange according to those who would know better.

    I don't know where all this fear is coming from in the MSM but I imagine they have lost their grasp of the American mind. I worry every time I tune in that I am being lied to and misled for a reason. A political reason. I grew up in the 50's and remember real journalism and I want it back. I want to know what is really going on. Everywhere.

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    It has worked for a hundred years, since WWI and the Creel Commission, the destruction of a vibrant American Left. Imagine the panic in the boardroom suites, the millennials no longer think that socialism is a bad word, and supported an aging leftist for president. OMFG! It's all Russia's fault providing an alternate plausible narrative. Can't have that. Outsourcing jobs to Asia, burdening college students with immense debts, incredible corruption personified by the Queen of Wall Street couldn't have anything to do with it. All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's finally happened, they have over reached and are about to fall off the edge. Relish the panic.

    Escher November 26, 2016 at 8:41 am

    So this WaPo story is an example of the "fake news" we're supposed to be on the lookout for, right?

    cocomaan November 26, 2016 at 8:46 am

    When everything hits the fan, I'll be glad to have you other filthy propagandists in the FEMA camp alongside me, breaking rocks, eating gruel, and discussing the path to insanity.

    I really wish that reporters like those at the Post and the Times had done us all a favor and walked into the ocean after their abysmal election coverage. Why anyone listens to these outlets anymore is a question that I ponder at night, staring at the ceiling, wondering what the hell happened to my country.

    Butch In Waukegan November 26, 2016 at 9:04 am

    On PropOrNot's list is usslibertyveterans.org, which might be an indication its neocon origins.

    The site has few articles, no comments and its visit counter shows under 3,800 hits. It looks like it was created 4 months ago. It is propaganda because?

    Their stats page shows that ProOrNot's strategy might backfire. Yesterday was a record day for hits.

    Or maybe usslibertyveterans.org is a fishing lure.

    Jagger November 26, 2016 at 10:24 am

    Who could possibly have a problem with a site on the USS Liberty? Certainly narrows down the list of suspects considerably, assuming it wasn't a deliberate false track. For those not familiar with the USS Liberty, it was the USN ship attacked, nearly sunk with heavy casualties, by Israel in 1967. A lot of military still have bitterness towards Israel and the American leadership due to the lack of justice and cover-up over that incident.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

    integer November 26, 2016 at 9:10 pm

    The surrounding of "Russian propaganda" with the letter 'y' reminds me a bit of this :

    (((Echo))) is a symbol used by anti-Semitic members of the alt-right to identify certain individuals as Jewish by surrounding their names with three parentheses on each side. The symbol became a subject of online discussions and media scrutiny in June 2016 after Google removed a browser extension that automatically highlights Jewish surnames in the style.

    Note that Israel has a lot to lose if Trump pulls the US out of the Middle East. Here's some Russian propaganda on the issue:

    Jagger November 26, 2016 at 10:32 pm

    Recent tweet by PropOrNot per Greenwald.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/

    Tila Tequila's Descent Into Nazism Is A Long Time Coming

    The self-proclaimed "alt-reich queen" has a long history of anti-Semitism, and an even longer one of internet trolling.

    Again unless this is a false lead, these guys are looking more and more Israeli or Israeli sympathizers. Other tweets per Greenwald at same link also suggest a pretty low maturity level. Possibly kids or college level??

    Old Hickory November 26, 2016 at 9:20 am

    The WaPo story is in today's Greensboro (N.C.) News & Record. Front page, above the fold. Sheesh.

    Tom Stone November 26, 2016 at 9:26 am

    This is a lot worse than "Yellow Cake" and it scares the pants off me. This is the "Official line", signed off on by the editors of WaPo. Think about that for a minute. And then think about the campaign to get the EC to enthrone HRC.

    Trump dissed the MSM and they are pissed off, so are their masters who wanted Obama to slide through TPP in the period between Hillary's win and the inauguration. They blew more than $1Billion on a loser and they may have decided that losing is not acceptable and that it will be HRC on the throne, whatever it takes. The recklessness displayed by the MSM here is breathtaking at a moment when the USA is more divided than it has been since the election of 1860.

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 9:48 am

    Add this to the "YouTube Heros" project,
    see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh_1966vaIA
    and the nascent "fake news site" purge program,
    see: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-facebook-crack-down-adverts-appearing-fake-news-sites-us-election-trump-2016-11
    and one sees a coordinated meta project to "sanitize" the public's sources of information.
    I'm leaning towards your take on this. Joe McCarthy had nothing on these present "operators."

    Patricia November 26, 2016 at 4:43 pm

    Hero youtube vid ("mass flag videos!") has 918K dislikes to 29k likes. Encouraging

    tgs November 26, 2016 at 10:36 am

    it scares the pants off me

    I'm with you Tom Stone. There is nothing funny about this. The MSM at this point is the greatest purveyor of fake news on the planet, I am talking about not just CNN and Fox, but the BBC, France24 and so on.

    Pretty much everything they have said and every video they has shown on east Aleppo is either a lie or a fake. As someone noted the other day (I can't remember who) if the stories about east Aleppo were actually true, then the Russians and Syrians have destroyed approximately 900 hospitals – including the 'last pediatric hospital in east Aleppo' which has been completely demolished on at least three separate occasions in the last few months. The main stream outlets don't even try to be consistent.

    The people who run things here and in Europe are apparently desperate – and this latest move is an indication of how desperate they actually are. It is indeed scary.

    HBE November 26, 2016 at 11:11 am

    It's 90 hospitals not 900, but 90 is just as ridiculous given the whole country of Syria only has 88 hospitals/clinics.

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:36 am

    tgs
    November 26, 2016 at 10:36 am

    I am publicly apologizing to Sarah Palin who I used to think was a dingbat for all of her criticism of the MSM aka Lame stream media. She was far, far more correct than I ever thought possible.

    But look at the silver lining – how many people like me who thought that the large media got the essential facts correct can now see how much we're being fed pure propaganda .how much of what you see depends on what your looking for .

    MRLost November 26, 2016 at 9:54 am

    Weapons of Mass Distraction. Another nail in the coffin of credibility of the NYT and WaPo. Recall after the Stupid War and how there were zero weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq that the NYT and Wapo declined to mention or explore their own culpability in beating the drums of war. This will be more of the same.

    John Wright November 26, 2016 at 11:11 am

    The Times had a retrospective on their actions on May 26,2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html

    "Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all."

    So the Times DID admit some culpability, but it wasn't as if the Times volunteered to donate a portion of their profits(deepen their losses?) to help Iraqi victims or US soldiers and their families.

    And given the Times Syria coverage, where even the sanctimonious Nick Kristof (August 28, 2013) called on for Obama to bomb Syria for credibility reasons, nothing has changed at the Times.

    "Yet there is value in bolstering international norms against egregious behavior like genocide or the use
    of chemical weapons. Since President Obama established a "red line" about chemical weapons use, his
    credibility has been at stake: he can't just whimper and back down."

    The Times playbook is to parrot what TPTB wants to do and then if the readers subsequently revolt in disgust, apologize later.

    After I quit my digital subscription to the Times, it seems I'm limited to 10 articles/month. This might be more than the safely recommended monthly dose of the NYTimes.

    clarky90 November 26, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    The dissimulation, the feigned ignorance (the irony). During the 1930s, the New York Times actually acted as propaganda agents for Stalin. They collaborated with the Soviet Security Services to prevent the rescue of millions of Ukrainian peasants (deplorables).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

    "In 1932 Duranty received a Pulitzer Prize for a series of reports about the Soviet Union, 11 of them published in June 1931. He was criticized then and later for his denial of widespread famine (1932–33) in the USSR, most particularly the mass starvation in Ukraine. Years later, there were calls to revoke his Pulitzer; The New York Times, which submitted his work for the prize in 1932, wrote that his articles constituted "some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper."

    Elizabeth Burton November 26, 2016 at 4:03 pm

    Editors were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper.

    And there you have it, boys and girls, the one driving force behind journalism as practiced in the corporate media. If I had been paid for every time I was told to fudge a story lest the local broadcast stations break it first, I would have been able to pay my mortgage.

    The Trumpening November 26, 2016 at 10:06 am

    This whole Russian propaganda campaign is nothing more then elites attempting to slam shut the Overton Window that the Trump campaign has pried open a bit this year. This article explains why they will most likely fail:

    http://thefutureprimaeval.net/the-overton-bubble/

    simjam November 26, 2016 at 10:11 am

    I suspect that PropOrNot's outburst was developed during the campaign by well heeled and connected Hilary supporters to be unveiled after the election to muzzle increasingly influential web sites including NC. As it stands PropOrNot shot a blank. If Hilary had won the campaign against "fake news" would probably have taken on a more ominous tone.

    Mel November 26, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Wolf mentioned that the list will function as a dog-whistle for money - that is, advertisers - telling them about the dangerous places. Maybe not shooting a blank in the short run. In the long run, of course, advertisers will follow the eyeballs anywhere.

    flora November 26, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    maybe David Brock is still correcting the record? ;) http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/david-brock-donald-trump-donor-network-231588

    Oil Dusk November 26, 2016 at 10:14 am

    The MSM became so biased during the Presidential election, it drove many Americans toward social media where you could at least view campaign speaches unfiltered. The same process is now being applied in the support of manmade climate change alarmism with hopefully the same result

    witters November 26, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    Go away. Stop smearing NC with climate denialism. You, sir, are a troll.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    i think you meant the same process is applied in the support of oil company propaganda. the msm slavishly supported the pro fracking clinton, slavishly acted for years as if there were an actual scientific debate, instead of fossil fuel shills vs scientists.

    Uahsenaa November 26, 2016 at 10:15 am

    I really hope this doesn't get buried in the comments, because it's important to note that Ames is actually incorrect. He would have been right as recently as 3 years ago but no longer is.

    The provisions of the Smith-Mundt act that prevented materials produced by the BGG from being used for domestic purposes were repealed by the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (actually passed in 2013, when incorporated into the NDAA), which states:

    The Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are authorized to use funds appropriated or otherwise made available for public diplomacy information programs to provide for the preparation, dissemination, and use of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, its people, and its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers, instructors, and other direct or indirect means of communication.

    It also contains a provision that supposedly prevents the BBG from influencing domestic public opinion, yet also says the following.

    Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure.

    Worth noting: passed under Obama and discounted at the time but venues such as Mother Jones, who did the heavy lifting of telling progressives they were paranoid.

    Uahsenaa November 26, 2016 at 10:18 am

    Mother Jones link .

    Katharine November 26, 2016 at 11:36 am

    Thanks for this information!

    I am guessing the proviso you quote may have been intended to cover the possibility of people in places like Florida hearing broadcasts aimed at Cuba or other targets, but it certainly raises questions.

    What I find most despicable in all this is the cowardice of these people making up their accusations and refusing to say who they are. Beneath contempt.

    Uahsenaa November 26, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    As a loophole it's not perfect (the intent of the primary provision it qualifies seems rather clear on its face), but we're talking about people who wrote elaborate memos justifying torture and extra judicial murder, and who went before Congress (i.e. Holder) to claim that "due process" does not necessarily mean "judicial process." A loophole like that is more than enough to judge such activities legal enough. I certainly can't imagine anyone in the current administration prosecuting it.

    Yves Smith Post author November 27, 2016 at 12:13 am

    Ames tells me Pando has a legal opinion to the contrary.

    lyman alpha blob November 26, 2016 at 10:19 am

    In regards to all this 'fake news' and 'Russian propaganda' hysteria, one potential problem I keep seeing mentioned is that certain sites could be banned from FleeceBook thereby destroying these sites' page hits and ad revenue.

    I don't use the FleeceBook so I guess I don't understand how this works. I can come to this or any other website any time I want so why would I care that it's been banned by FleeceBook? I don't remember exactly how I first heard of NC but I'm guessing I followed a link from one of the other left-leaning sites I read regularly (which coincidentally also are authored by Boris Badinov according to the WaPo). Is FB sort of like AOL back in the day where AOL users thought they were surfing the intertubes but in reality were in some sort of AOL-approved pen? And if that's the case I have to wonder how long it will be before FB becomes just like AOL is today, ie mainly used by the less internet savvy. I already hear rumors that the youngsters consider FB something only old people use.

    I am genuinely interested if anyone can explain this – would it really hurt websites that much to be banned by FB? Wouldn't there be a backlash against FB for doing so?

    PS: The thing that made me start using NC as my go-to source for news besides the excellent original financial reporting was the fact that you guys started including regular links to sites like BAR, Counetrpunch, etc that I was already reading anyway. I feel like I can read here without missing out on what was going on elsewhere – there's only so much one can read in a day. Keep up the great work!

    Yves Smith Post author November 26, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    I would assume that's how they intend to hurt these sites, but we get virtually no traffic from Facebook. However, being banned from FB would seriously dent out policy influence.

    Jess November 26, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    The thing is, it would prevent people like me from linking to NC stories in our personal posts, or in replies to posts from our FB friends.

    polecat November 26, 2016 at 5:17 pm

    Well now they gotcha were they want ya

    don't .. use Faceborg -- .. see that was easy .

    same with GooGOO, TWITTED etc. .

    Jess November 26, 2016 at 8:09 pm

    Unfortunately, Faceborg is the best way for me to stay in touch with certain people. For example, it has a closed group called FDL-LLN which is limited to former commenters on FireDogLake. (LLN stands for Late Late Night, which was a subforum for people to post music and discuss musical artists; the LLN heading was used for the FB group out of, I believe, both nostalgia and the friendships that many formed as FDL "pups".)

    In addition, if you post an NC link on FB, it gets seen by many people who might not otherwise become aware of the site.

    polecat November 27, 2016 at 2:20 am

    well .. by all means go ahead and continue to be used as product, because THAT"S the only thing of import by the likes of zuckerberg.

    homeroid November 27, 2016 at 2:39 am

    Ah Jess I miss LLN and Suz an Tut and all the rest. But not enough to go Faceborg. Somethings are lost some remain. I still have a phone which i use every so often.
    Bob.

    skippy November 27, 2016 at 3:44 am

    After a few years of FB econ sites, hashing things out with the usual suspects, things began to increasingly change as the primaries got to the wire. Once solid commenters replete with knowlage and experience began to mimic the very people and camps they once railed against.

    It was on then when I took on these people for such actions that I started to get the FB treatment, ending in privacy washing.

    Disheveled Marsupial . especially when noting Hillary's history and bad side, sad to think it might have been one of the old gang that put in a complaint to FB.

    WhatsNotToLike November 26, 2016 at 10:20 am

    There is something bizarre about this whole scenario.

    PropOrNot is asserting that the sites on the 'List", both right and left, were responsible for the Clinton loss by spreading false Russian propaganda. This would make more sense, as a political project, if Clinton had won. Asking the Trump DOJ and Trump's/Comey's FBI to investigate the asserted causes of Trump's win is bizarre.

    It only makes sense, IMHO, if this project was already in the works pre-election anticipating a Clinton win, where it would have had the benefit of targeting both the right and the left and continuing the drum beat for war. If that is the case, the losers appear to be too shell-shocked or committed, financially or ideologically, to think through the implications of letting this go forward.

    I do like the idea of NC, and other left-wing sites, forming a coalition with right-wing sites to take legal action. Ralph Nader's "Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State" comes to mind.

    Skip Intro November 26, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    The site was apparently registered on Aug. 21 2016, when the establishment still felt confident that the ascension of the empress was a done deal.

    WJ November 27, 2016 at 3:09 am

    Wasn't the reality of Russia intervention in Syria well underway by that time as well? Wasn't the whole US Syrian ploy dependent on everybody selling the people a clear distinction between evil Assad, evil ISIS, and good moderates (ahem al-quaeda)?

    That narrative was clearly no longer believed even by the journalists writing it. Why? Sites like this one and others. Why does it matter? Because aim was to get rid of Assad to cut Russia out of Mideast, having failed to achieve that goal two years earlier in Ukraine. Cui bono?

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 6:41 pm

    Excellent observation, preparation for a post Killery election purge of the alternate media.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    ah, that makes sense. and why waste a good purge even if plan a doesn't quite work out?

    nippersdad November 26, 2016 at 8:13 pm

    Good points. Also, IIRC, internet governance is due to be turned over to a non-governmental organization in the not too distant future. Might this not be a way of achieving the elimination of net neutrality during a Democratic Administration that would not want to be seen as sticking the knife in themselves?

    In that scenario, it would look a lot like the present Administration is secretly working the refs in the same way that they tried to push the TPP and its' associated ISDS provisions before the whistle was blown on them.

    Light a Candle November 26, 2016 at 10:37 am

    Wow, this is surreal. Edward Bernays on steroids.

    This whole bizarre "fake news" meme along with the and the Russians are coming is getting widespread media traction including Vanity Fair. It's getting repeated in Canadian media too.

    Now PropOrNot not is not credited as the source but the more plausible sounding Foreign Policy Research Institute and lots of references to the Washington Post's "reporting".

    I think this is a deliberate campaign to discredit progressive and independent news sources. God forbid that citizens should read a variety of sources and make up their own minds.

    jo6pac November 26, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Yes eddy b. meets Eric Hoffers True Believers.

    NC Please keep up the wonderful work done here.

    Stephanie November 26, 2016 at 10:40 am

    I have wondered for about a year now if someone is handing out anti-Russian story quotas – or maybe anti-Russian story cash, with a bonus for anything that goes viral. I'm not sure how else you explain stuff like this from a Gawker site that was mainly focused on minimum wage law and whether the Tilted Kilt could legally fire you for being too fat.

    This current listicle feels very much the same, except with less professionalism and more credulity. Either someone is getting paid enough not to care how asinine this looks, or the inmates really are running the media asylum.

    S Haust November 26, 2016 at 10:58 am

    Thanks a lot for noticing this.
    Provides me a one-click route to a long list of my favorite sources.
    Don't need to bother with bookmarks anymore.

    OIFVet November 26, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Naked Capitalism is in great company: BAR, Counterpunch, Antiwar, Consortium News. I didn't need to read these sites to come to my views though, all they did is to confirm what I had come to believe all on my own: that Hillary is a corrupt warmonger, that the American government has been captured by the moneyed elites, that the Democrat Party is a rat nest of neoliberal infestation. And while I was naturally predisposed toward Russia by virtue of where I was born and by Bulgarian history, my college career was marked by my support for all of the bad policies that brought us the new Cold War with Russia: NATO expansion, the bombing of Serbia, the economic ruin of Russia, the unipolar world order. I was young, stupid, and ambitious. Later on I simply settled into profound indifference toward Russia and a general anti-war attitude brought about by my own service. It wasn't until the hysterical MSM crapstorm of breathless smears about Sochi that I began to notice the US policies against Russia. So for me, the most effective pro-Russia propaganda outlets proved to be US MSM, WaPo and NYT being the most effective of all. Just one of life's little ironies. So WaPo wants to sling mud and go on a witch hunt? I suggest that they indict themselves first and foremost, for being a mindless disseminators of US government propaganda.

    Dave November 26, 2016 at 11:10 am

    Naked Capitalism is my home page and the first thing I read. If it's Russian Propaganda, I would like to offer a big Thank You to Russia. -sarc.

    Consider the Bezor's attack a positive, he will introduce thousands of new readers to this site.

    S Haust November 26, 2016 at 11:12 am

    "a new 'Eurasian' empire stretching from Dublin to Vladisvostok"

    Why Dublin? With a flick of the finger, they could have had the flyover terrain between there and Shannon.

    And why Vladivostock? You can go a lot farther East than that and still be in Russia.

    For Pete's sake, why have they not included Sapporo and the rest of Japan. Aren't they vulnerable too?

    And the Aleutians; for that matter, why not the rest of Alaska too? After all, we only bought it from them at a knock-down price. Anyone knows they got
    a raw deal. Shouldn't they want that back too?

    Katharine November 26, 2016 at 11:40 am

    You forget their target audience is ignorant of geography, inter alia. They had to stick to names people might be able to place at least vaguely.

    PlutoniumKun November 26, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    Shannon Airport would have been appropriate as during the Cold War it was Aeroflots main base for flying on to Cuba. Its now only a short drive from Trumps Irish golf course.

    Ted November 26, 2016 at 11:21 am

    Conflicted. On the one hand, as a long time reader of a diversity of listed websites (on the lefty side mostly), this comes across as ham fisted and, frankly, bizarre. Not only the laughable story itself, but that it has been picked up and reposted by a host of other rather mainstream and 'liberal' surrogates.

    It is *bizarre* because Russia today is nothing of what the boogeyman USSR was in times past: an alternative political-economic arrangement to then industrial capitalism. Russia Today (wink, wink) is as capitalist and as democratic as any of the other players on this particular stage (plenty of the former, not so much of the latter). An economic competitor, sure, but no USSR. So the anti-Russia/Putin propaganda just consistently reads hollow to anyone who spends any time just reading run of the mill reporting of goings on in the world (reporting aside from propaganda stories). In other words, if you are a relatively informed reader of diverse sources and traveler, the anti-Russia stuff just comes across as contrived from the get go.

    But then again, I got a chance to visit with some 1000s of academic colleagues at a national convention recently. This is where the 'conflicted' point comes from. As Good Liberals, academics dine daily on a strict NYT, WAPO, NPR diet, with the more 'edgy' types hanging at VOX and HuffPo. And they BELIEVE everything their beloved media tells them through these sources, without reservation (and with the requisite snark and smirk). The academy is nearly completely captured and now so deeply immersed in its echo chamber that any information that might challenge its perception of the world is immediately dismissed as nefarious propaganda (either paid for by the Koch bros, or Putin). Of course, since the elite academy is overwhelmingly Ivy educated, their worldview loops back to their Ivy educated friends at said media outlets. Creating a bubble that is increasingly impenetrable to reason and critical analysis.

    Moose and Squirrel must DIE November 26, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Lots of panic for the Washington regime. The clownish asshole loser that they carefully groomed proved less repulsive than their chosen Fuehrer Clinton. Now they are distraught to see that their enemy Russia sucks much less than the USA.

    Russians get a much better deal than the US subject population. The Russian head of state has approval ratings that US politicians scarcely dream of. Russia complies with the Paris Principles, the gold standard for institutionalized human rights protection under international review. The USA does not. Russia's incorruptible President keeps kleptocrats in check, while the US banana republic installs them in high office. Russia complies with the rule of law: they refrain from use or threat of force and rely on pacific dispute resolution, using proportional and necessary force in compliance with UN Charter Chapter VII. The US shits on rule of law, interpreting human rights instruments in bad faith and flouting jus cogens to maintain impunity for the gravest crimes. In the precise terms of Responsibility to Protect, the US government does not even meet the minimal test for state sovereignty: compliance with the International Bill of Human Rights, the Rome Statute, and the UN Charter. Naturally the US is bleeding legitimacy and international standing, and Russia is going from strength to strength. If Russia invaded, we would strew flowers and sweets.

    The collapse of the USSR did Russia a world of good. Now it's time for the USA to collapse and free America.

    nothing but the truth November 26, 2016 at 11:29 am

    it boils down to Soros vs Putin. Anyone who is not with Soros is with Putin, according to Soros. Soros cannot digest the death threat he was given by Putin, to stay away from Russia or else. Since Soros was born in old communist europe, he seems to believe he has the right to regime change there. And he has been very successful – primarily because he is in bed with the CIA and the Russians are just now waking up again.

    Ignacio November 26, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    So sorry! I am a foreign "propagandist" reader, commenter and contributer from Spain, and I am just shoked to see this! How sad is this, it pretty much looks like McCarthysm again!!!!

    Edward Harrison November 26, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    Hi Naked Capitalism. I haven't been on this site for some time. But I felt it necessary to comment due to an ad hominem attack from a commenter "James" regarding the show I produce at RT called Boom Bust.

    From my vantage point as producer at RT, I have been able to see the whole anti-Russia campaign unfold in all its fury. I have a lot of thoughts on this but I want to restrict my comments to the specific argument James makes. here:

    "it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do."

    Since I produce the show that Steve Keen appears on, I am well-placed to give you a view on this. James' comment is flat out false. What James writes is something he has fabricated in his imagination – connecting dots he believes should be connected based on no first hand evidence whatsoever.

    What actually happens on Boom Bust is this:

    Since no one I work with at RT has a sophisticated background in economics, finance or financial reporting, they give us a wide berth in putting together content for our show with nearly no top down dictates at all. That means we as American journalists have a pretty much free hand to report economic news intelligently and without bias. We invite libertarian, mainstream, non-mainstream, leftist, Democratic commentators, Republican commentators – you name it. As for guests, they are not anti-American in any way shape or form. They are disproportionately non-mainstream.

    We have no pro-Russian agenda. And that is in part because Russia is a bit player on the economic stage, frankly. Except for sanctions, it has mostly been irrelevant on our show since inception.

    Let me share a strange anecdote on that. We had a guest on our show about three years ago, early in my tenure. We invited him on because he had smart things to say about the UK economy. But he had also written some very negative things about Putin and Russia. Rather than whitewash this we addressed it specifically in the interview and asked him an open-ended question about Russia, so he could say his piece. I was ASTONISHED when he soft-pedaled his response and made no forceful case as he had done literally days ago in print. This guy clearly self-censored – for what reason I don't know. But it is something that has stayed with me ever since.

    The most important goal from a managerial perspective has been that our reporting is different i.e. covers missing and important angles of the same storyline that are missing in the mainstream media or that it covers storylines that are missing altogether.

    Neither Steve Keen nor any other guest on our show appears "because he lambasts the American political establishment". This is false. He appears on our show because he is a credible economist who provides a differentiated view on economics and insight that we believe will help our viewers understand the global economy. If Paul Krugman had something to say of that nature and would appear on our show, we would welcome him. In fact, I and other producers have reached out to him many times to no avail, especially after we had Gerald Friedman give his take on the dust-up surrounding Bernie Sanders' economic plan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yna275KzuDQ

    Look, I understand the scepticism about RT and its motives. It IS a state-funded news outlet with news story angles that sometimes contrast sharply with western media. And it has not been critical of the Russian government as far as I can tell. But you can't ascribe nefarious motives to individual economists or reporters based on inaccurate or false third hand accounts. You are just making things up, creating a false narrative based on circumstantial evidence. This is just adding to the building peer pressure associated with what almost seems like an orchestrated campaign to discredit non-mainstream sources of news.

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    You are in good company with that suspicion of a campaign to "sanitize" the public's sources of information. If one were to consider the Corporate sector as the equivalent of a state, then almost all news sources are liable to extra strong scrutiny. Going back to Bernays, the "shepherding" of the news sources used by the majority of the population is crucial to maintaining control of public perceptions. In that sense, the present struggle for control of the news narrative is understandable.
    Keep up the good work.

    shinola November 26, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    NC " a leading left-wing financial news blog"?

    Isn't that a compliment? I mean it does say "leading" (and I have to agree).

    As for "left-wing", well NC does frequently feature articles by Bill Black & others associated with the University of Mo. Kansas City; and UMKC has long been known for its lefty, socialist/commie leanings – I know because my 81 y.o. mother told me so (and I had a prof. there teaching "History of Economic Thought" who came right out & claimed to be a Socialist – horrors!)

    DJG November 26, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Lambert foresaw that there would be a witch hunt after the election. He indicated that it would come from the Democratic Party and the conserva-Dem establishment. And, ecco!, a witch hunt. So what could possibly be the source?

    I am noticing on my Facebook feeds that the ooshy liberals are in a feeding frenzy: They believe that they are victims of some breakdown in information. The shocker was that the news being passed around in DemPartyLandia was that the Democrats were on the verge of retaking both houses of Congress and the presidency. Meanwhile, Water Cooler showed that the neither house of Congress was truly in play and the presidential race was a dead heat. After the election, various lists began to circulate. The one cited by Yves isn't the first. I saw one list that included The Onion, The Daily Currant, and Duffel Blog. You mean Duffel Blog's story on U.S. soldiers trying en masse to join the Canadian army isn't true?

    Further, much of liberaldom is now deep into trying to flip the Electoral College or amend the Constitution immediately, as well as the Trump as Fascist meme.

    Yes, America, land of self-proclaimed bad-asses, turns out to be the realm of panic. And many policies and stances are going to have to be suddenly revised: Ooshy liberals, who supported charter schools for years, are suddenly shocked that DeVos of Amway is a charter-school addict. The disastrous foreign-policy adventures of the last few years have to be offloaded very soon on Trump, so that Obama can be thanked for being scandal-free.

    And, evidently, the conspiracy is now so big that it can't be blamed solely on Al-Jazeera.

    flora November 26, 2016 at 12:28 pm

    yes. a lot of people have stopped thinking straight, or stopped thinking:
    http://www.gocomics.com/michaelramirez/2016/11/19

    Ignacio November 26, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Isn't this a good run to autodestruction?
    -I mean, Dem party autodestruction?

    susan the other November 26, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    This means we need more outlets besides Google and Facebook; outlets impervious to witch hunts – maybe offshore enterprises, after all that's the trend. The more the merrier for manufacturing dissent – in a good sense. What Russia does cannot harm us but it is always good to hear their take; and China is interesting as well. We get such gobbledegook from MSM we would never understand a single issue without alternative news. It's a little late for them to be all hysterical about losing their grip – they've been annoying us and boring us to death for 5 decades; and selling us down the river. I'm amazed they have a following at all.

    Isolato November 26, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    I was horrified to hear this regurgitated on NPR last night w/o the slightest question. Proof? We don' need no steenkin' proof!

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:43 am

    If you have an NPR tote bag, demand a refund!

    TedWa November 26, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    The military industrial complex and all the elites are behind all this massive propaganda stuff and fake news. They want war and nothing is going to stand in their way – not the democrats, not the republicans, no one. HRC knew this – hence her "paranoia" about Russia. It's crazy. I hope Trump has the balls to stand up against them. Thanks NC for being here --

    Rostale November 26, 2016 at 2:06 pm

    With the Washington Post at least, there is a pretty handy avenue of response. Namely that its CEO Jeff Bezos, who clearly approves of the editorial policy, is also owner of Amazon.com If you don't approve of Mr. Bezos using his media platform to revive McCarthyism and Yellow Journalism, keep that in mind when doing your holiday shopping, and when you see that item you were thinking of buying on amazon, take a moment to see about buying it elsewhere, even if it costs a bit more to do so. If Mr. Bezos want to use the Washington Post to promote censorship of media control, make him pay for it in a drop in Amazon's stock price.

    Calvin madamombe November 26, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    "Information globalism is a free flow of information across the world irrespective of race, source geography. Its up to a competent reader being selective- choosing what sort of information they want consuming. Its the bases of choice, a basic human right."

    Don Lowell November 26, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    Surely there is a lot of stuff going on and its good to flush it out. Wisconsin recount is a good place to start

    I think its local hacking as well as the rooskies..

    flora November 26, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    The Clinton campaign announced today they'll be joining the recount effort. Greens start a recount effort, Friday WaPo prints vile rumors, Saturday Clinton campaign announces it is joining the Wisc recount effort. This is banana republic stuff.

    winstonsmith November 26, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Here is Glenn Greenwald's take: Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group . I heartily agree with:

    One of the most egregious examples is the group's inclusion of Naked Capitalism, the widely respected left-wing site run by Wall Street critic Yves Smith. That site was named by Time Magazine as one of the best 25 Best Financial Blogs in 2011 and by Wired Magazine as a crucial site to follow for finance, and Smith has been featured as a guest on programs such as PBS' Bill Moyers Show. Yet this cowardly group of anonymous smear artists, promoted by the Washington Post, has now placed them on a blacklist of Russian disinformation.

    From the propornot website (deliberately not linking it) the YYY thing is really creepy.

    The YYYcampaignYYY is an effort to crowdsource identifying Russian propaganda outlets and sympathizers. To participate, when you see a social-media account, commenter, or outlet echoing Russian propaganda themes, highlight it with YYYs accordingly!

    Romancing The Loan November 26, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    Reminds me of the (((name of jewish person))) thing that popped up very briefly in the right wing fever swamp only to be instantly proudly self-added by a ton of jewish liberals.

    Elizabeth Burton November 26, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    I have come to the conclusion, based on personal observation, that anyone who includes the words "our leaders" in their narrative is not to be trusted. Granted, it's a personal thing, as I have been advocating whenever possible that we should under no circumstances apply that label to our elected officials but should instead always use their proper designation: "public servants."

    Anyone want to wager a thorough check of the MSM for the last fifty years or more would eventually uncover the first one of their ilk to refer to elected officials as "our leaders"? To then be followed by all of the others?

    Because how better to persuade the voting public that they should just fill in the bubble or push the button without asking a lot of silly questions about issues than by subtly brainwashing them with the implication the people they're voting for are better equipped to deal with the important stuff? Because "our leaders" are clearly better qualified to make the decisions than we are.

    George Phillies November 26, 2016 at 7:27 pm

    Also look for folks who refer to America as the Homeland. Heimatland sounds snazzier in the original German.

    shinola November 27, 2016 at 12:24 am

    "Homeland Security" had a creepy feel to it the 1st time I heard/read it

    Skip Intro November 27, 2016 at 2:28 am

    Good one. And referring to the president as our 'Commander in Chief' is also a pretty revolting tell.

    hunkerdown November 27, 2016 at 12:00 am

    Interesting. Google's n-gram viewer shows that "our leaders" is much more prevalent in books during and after wartime, peaking in 1942-44, with a somewhat steady rise between just before WW1 and the end of WW2 (upon which each war is superimposed), and an odd reversal upward around 1996 whose incline isn't much deflected by 9/11, and which levels off around 2005. It's almost like looking at the Third Way made flesh.

    Elizabeth November 26, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    My ex husband told me that back in the 70s when he was applying for a government job, he had to undergo an extensive FBI check. The fibbies found out he had a subscription to "Soviet Life" (a magazine about cultural, economic stuff in the USSR). As a result, his neighbors, family, past co-workers were all interviewed to see if he was a "subversive." The Russophobia has a long history.

    I agree with many commenters that Pravda's ProPorNet's listing is heading somewhere scary. The MSM got the message that they have no credibility anymore, and they're in a panic, as are the neocons/neolibs. I think after the US backed Ukrainian coup failed to nudge Russia into a war, this "Russian aggression" meme started in earnest. Now that the election is over and the "favored one" lost, it is quite telling to me that the panicked establishment isn't going to go quietly. They were planning on having WWIII, and are furious now.

    I'm too young to remember McCarthyism, but this stuff is frightening.

    sunny129 November 26, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    fyi

    [..]Also included are popular libertarian hubs such as Zero Hedge, Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul Institute, along with the hugely influential right-wing website the Drudge Report and the publishing site WikiLeaks.

    [..]One of the most egregious examples is the group's inclusion of Naked Capitalism, the widely respected left-wing site run by Wall Street critic Yves Smith. That site was named by Time Magazine as one of the best 25 Best Financial Blogs in 2011 and by Wired Magazine as a crucial site to follow for finance, and Smith has been featured as a guest on programs such as PBS' Bill Moyers Show. Yet this cowardly group of anonymous smear artists, promoted by the Washington Post, has now placed them on a blacklist of Russian disinformation.[..]

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/

    european November 26, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Key line from Greenwald IMO: "The Post story served the agendas of many factions: those who want to believe Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton; those who want to believe that the internet and social media are a grave menace that needs to be controlled, in contrast to the objective truth which reliable old media outlets once issued; those who want a resurrection of the Cold War."

    me: The only way the mainstream media can get its power back is by killing or at least crippling the internet.

    polecat November 26, 2016 at 5:21 pm

    Boycott ANYTHING Bezos related !!!

    sunny129 November 26, 2016 at 5:01 pm

    the biggest peddler of FAKE News!

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-25/who%E2%80%99s-biggest-peddler-fake-news

    George Phillies November 26, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    What is happening for which this is a distraction?

    watermelonpunch November 27, 2016 at 12:04 am

    A bunch of people in the U.S. got fed up, and now it means that a lot of people who were used to only having contact with other people like themselves and hanging out at fancy parties are being told they need to start interacting with the general public or get a different job, and they're not happy about it.

    Karl Kolchack November 26, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Just last week I made my first ever reader contribution to NC–now I wish I had waited a few days so my donation could be interpreted as an "FU" to ProporNot. :)

    Optimader November 26, 2016 at 5:30 pm

    My comment waz very bad and had a time, then marched out behind the barn an waz shotz

    Sluggeaux November 26, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    This Washington Post piece is so insidious as to make my blood run cold. We've seen in "education reform" how the Gates Foundation and Walton Foundation would place un-sourced propaganda in articles by friendly reporters in the WaPost and the NYTimes and then reference the news outlets as proving their propaganda to be "fact."

    As some know, I am a professional conspiracy theorist, having served as a local-level criminal prosecutor for over 32 years. I see a grave threat to the First Amendment when an anonymous source suspected to have ties to the military-industrial complex calls for the government to investigate news sources for espionage.

    I also find it interesting that The Intercept didn't make the list, despite the presence of Glenn Greenwald. Given Pierre Omidyar's closeness to the current administration (was FirstLook created to take Greenwald and Taibbi out of circulation during the 2012 election?), is there some sort of "tell" here about where this attack on Free Speech is coming from?

    Those on this blacklist should pool resources to pursue retraction, repudiation, and an admission by the Post editorial board that Timberg's outrageously un-sourced "reporting" is libelous and was published with an at best reckless and at worst intentional disregard for the truth.

    Yves Smith Post author November 27, 2016 at 12:24 am

    They've listed only sites that they think lack the $ to sue them. That is clearly one of the criteria.

    WJ November 27, 2016 at 3:21 am

    Probably true, though also worth noting that (as has been observed frequently here), the Intercept's regular reporting on Ukraine and Syria was often little better than mainstream outlets.

    LifelongLib November 27, 2016 at 3:22 am

    David Stockman's site is on the list. Wonder if he still has any pull

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    What is even more alarming, this seems to be coordinated with Jane Harmon's recent advocacy of a FISA drone court which also targets "enemy" web sites. Is this a prelude to shutting down dissenting web sites based on their status as foreign agents of our arch enemy "Russia" which the European Parliament has equated with Daesh. There is a sense of impending revolution world wide, is this the first step to preempt such? Is martial law the next step? There seemed to be a lot of projection involved when the neo-libs accused Trump of fascism and not accepting election results. Who is now not accepting election results and who are the real fascists calling for the shutting down of news outlets?

    Kevin November 26, 2016 at 6:23 pm

    Instead of "most of all, a sense of political levity", maybe Max meant to say something like political heft, political gravitas?

    Paul Jurczak November 26, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    Yet another reason why political establishment got what it deserved this election cycle. They still think that a bit of propaganda denied them a victory and there is nothing wrong with their policies

    flora November 26, 2016 at 9:06 pm

    WaPo is now too vile to read.
    McClatchy is still a fairly good news source. And, oh, look at this: Clinton campaign will join recount effort in Wisconsin. Not surprising.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article117235428.html#storylink=latest_side

    flora November 26, 2016 at 9:10 pm

    adding: I think Stein and the Greens have been played.

    tgs November 26, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    Jill Stein has embarrassed herself with this effort. I gave money to her until she made her final vp choice – Baraka called Bernie a white supremacist! I did vote for her and now feel it really was a wasted vote. 1% in the national totals. Ok. Being a useful idiot for the Clintons – no way.

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 11:50 pm

    Ah yes, one more chance to steal the election. Syria must fall and be partitioned. Russia must be driven from the Ukraine, the internet must be cleansed of dissent. Patent and Copyright monopolies must be imposed on the world. This election took TPTB by surprise, they are surprised no longer. Trump does not want to be President, he's scared to death. The consensus is that the results will not change. Don't be so sure. There may yet be a coronation and then the shit will hit the proverbial fan. Apparently it was not enough for TPTB to control both parties, they also control the minor parties. Et tu Jill Stein!

    flora November 27, 2016 at 1:31 am

    recounts + planted stories on Russkie interference + pressure on electors to change their votes. that looks like the plan. in my foil bonnet opinion.

    Kim Kaufman November 26, 2016 at 9:46 pm

    Here's James Corbett's response to being on the list: What I Learned From the "PropOrNot" Propaganda List https://www.corbettreport.com

    integer November 26, 2016 at 11:11 pm

    Did you see this comment? It certainly seems plausible to me that cybersponse are involved. https://cybersponse.com/solutions/government

    integer November 26, 2016 at 11:42 pm

    FWIW I also checked that the registration address was correct. https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=propornot.com

    Contact details: General Inquiries | Support – 480.646.3006 | [email protected]

    Reify99 November 26, 2016 at 10:37 pm

    Hillary and her handlers had the choice to lose to Bernie or to Trump. They chose Trump.
    (OK, maybe not consciously.)

    Now, they are are NOT happy with the result but please notice that Bernie is looking better, has more news coverage, even appearing on The View, for crying out loud! Yes veal pen, "outreach", whatever. Doesn't matter what they Think They are crafting.

    If they keep up the Rooskie angle they will be amazed how good Bernie starts to look.
    A little FB censorship. Ditto! Shut down some international protests. (In North Dakota) Bingo!
    Drive people into the street! Whoooee!

    They, DNC, Bezos et al, will pine for him before this is all over. Because he is the symbol for what could have happened if they had followed the law and had gone peacefully.

    They can't see it yet.

    BTW, RT has a 30 minute segment with Chris Hedges at Standing Rock circulating now.
    Seems legit to me. Decide for yourself.

    RBHoughton November 26, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    Yves stand up and take a bow. You have been noticed by the filth. One of the many reassuring signs to come from the corridors of power lately. Is it possible change really is coming?

    RBHoughton November 27, 2016 at 12:11 am

    I have just learned of a group in the European Parliament led by a Polish MEP and member of the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformers in Europe that is likewise attempting to create a fear of "fake news" from those sites that don't follow the MSM Editors' example of restraint in publication.

    It has this week received a huge injection of public money to extend its work. It seems that North America and Europe are in lockstep on the need to keep the people ignorant.

    John Day November 26, 2016 at 11:21 pm

    I have emailed whoever is at Propornot and politely requested to be added to their list. Johnday's Blog http://www.johndayblog.com/ , though modest and unnoticed, links mostly to sites on their list. http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html

    If this site is seriously trying to help snowflakes create information-safe-places, then it needs to protect them from my blog, too. Fair is fair. I deserve recognition.

    I also think Ilargi @ The Automatic Earth is being snubbed through their non-inclusion of that site. Everybody should email them and demand that all worthy blogs get included in their precious list.

    Roquentin November 26, 2016 at 11:58 pm

    When's this shit going to end? Every time I think these big media outlets have hit rock bottom, they find a way to sink even lower.

    makedoanmend November 27, 2016 at 1:22 am

    "When's this shit going to end?"

    When the rot is complete and the edifice tumbles? Or when TINA wins, and the voices go silent? My bet is on the later. Collectively, the money got all 4 aces (and a few more hidden up their sleaves and a few more hidden in their boots, etc – no end of aces.)

    Then the silence reigns and TINA is happy. Despair is walled offed into its own echo chamber and silence is taken for acquiescence and indifference.

    Until it doesn't.

    Human history just keeps playing the same music. Mind you, big nature might be adding a new wrinkle to march-of-death tune. Interesting times, very interesting.

    Dugh November 27, 2016 at 3:58 am

    Charles Hugh-Smith's response to the "list": "The Washington Post: Useful-Idiot Shills for a Failed, Frantic Status Quo That Has Lost Control of the Narrative"

    http://www.oftwominds.com/blognov16/useful-idiots11-16.html?fullweb=1

    [Nov 27, 2016] What I Learned From the "PropOrNot" Propaganda List The Corbett Report

    Notable quotes:
    "... I look into the latest pathetic attempt by a flailing establishment to bolster their discredited mouthpiece media organs and counter the ascendant alternative media. ..."
    "... I appreciate the attempted sleuthing here, but I'm afraid what you uncovered is the business address that Domains By Proxy uses for their registrations. ..."
    Nov 27, 2016 | www.corbettreport.com

    Yes, corbettreport.com has made this new, mysterious, anonymously-authored "propaganda list" of websites to watch out for in the era of #FakeNews and Russians under every rock. And yes, the list is as ridiculous as that sounds. Join me today as I look into the latest pathetic attempt by a flailing establishment to bolster their discredited mouthpiece media organs and counter the ascendant alternative media. (Spoiler: they're going to lose this battle as well.)

      blunder says: 11/27/2016 at 2:31 am

      Have a look at whois: https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=propornot.com

      Registrant: Private anonymously, but we have Admin-Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111

      On google maps we find an UPS store and CyberSponse, Inc..

      So who is Cybersponse? https://cybersponse.com/
      Board & Advisors: https://cybersponse.com/board-advisors
      Solutions for government: https://cybersponse.com/solutions/government

      Questions? No. Nothing to see here. Better go to UPS!

      Log in to Reply mkey says: 11/27/2016 at 6:33 am

      I kind of expected this to be a spoof site, but obviously not. These people mean business. LOL

      Log in to Reply paul4 says: 11/27/2016 at 8:14 am

      Wow! Well done, blunder.

      So who are this cast of characters behind Cybersponse? Some that just leap out are:

      Lt. Gen. Rhett A. Hernandez (ret.) Former Commander US Army Cyber Command

      Joel Brenner, Esq. Counterintelligence & Cyber Expert Former NSA Inspector General

      Robert D. Rodriguez Chairman and Founder Security Innovation Network (SINET)
      What is SINET and why is it supported by the Dept. of Homeland Security???
      https://www.security-innovation.org/
      https://www.security-innovation.org/about-sinet/

      Our Mission:
      We believe that effective Cybersecurity is required to facilitate economic growth, protect critical infrastructure and maintain political stability. To accomplish this objective, SINET is dedicated to building a cohesive, worldwide Cybersecurity community with the goal of accelerating innovation through collaboration. SINET is a catalyst that connects senior level private and government security professionals with solution providers, buyers, researchers and investors. SINET sponsors highly interactive networking sessions designed to:
      * Introduce leading innovators in the Cybersecurity industry
      * Encourage collaboration by breaking down communication barriers
      * Facilitate high level sharing of ideas and best practices vital to the strengthening and accelerating Cybersecurity innovations.

      SINET Programs in NY, WDC, Silicon Valley and London are Supported by DHS, Science & Technology Directorate.

      Check out his bio: http://la.cybertechconference.com/content/robert-d-rodriguez
      Formerly US Secret Service, works with DHS, UK Government, Australian Government, US Air Force, etc. "He has been called upon numerous times by Federal Government Agencies to help advise and build private sector outreach initiatives with corporations, the entrepreneurial and venture capital communities" Just the guy to call to "maintain political stability" when the Main Stream misinformation networks have discredited themselves.

      And the Cybersponse Chairman, Founder, and CEO – Joseph Loomis
      (Mr. Corporate Brand Protection)

      https://www.crunchbase.com/person/joseph-loomis#/entity
      "Mr. Loomis was previously the founder & CEO of Net Enforcers, a private online security company focused on counterfeit and corporate brand protection technology services A formally licensed Private Investigator, Mr. Loomis is also a cooperative member with the FBI and DEA's divisions on Cybercrime."

      http://www.josephloomis.com/
      https://www.linkedin.com/in/joeloomis

      Originally a US Navy Officer Candidate with a focus on crypto, electronics, computer networking and advanced communications.

      This link connecting him as a member of SINET seems to have been removed:
      https://www.security-innovation.org/bios/Joseph_Loomis.htm

      CyberSponse seems to be a fairly new (2012) startup company located in Phoenix AZ that seems to have recently and suddenly attracted heavy hitter talent and investment:
      https://gust.com/companies/cybersponse_inc_1
      https://lockerdome.com/startup-cities/10-names-heating-up-the-startup-scene-in-phoenix
      http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/techflash/2014/04/cybersponse-using-new-funding-to-help-small.html
      http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2013/06/04/cybersponse-hires-former-fbi-spy.html

      All I can say is there is enough spooks at Cybersponse they could make extra money renting themselves out as a Halloween Haunted House.

      Log in to Reply Corbett says: 11/27/2016 at 6:15 pm

      I appreciate the attempted sleuthing here, but I'm afraid what you uncovered is the business address that Domains By Proxy uses for their registrations. For those who don't know, Domains By Proxy is a business that allows people to register a website without putting their personal address and contact details up there for the entire internet to see , so all of the info in a DBP registration are DBP corporate details, and will appear on every site registered with them, including (duh duh duhhhh)

      https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=corbettreport.com

      Now the idea that DBP is tied into a shady NSA and gov-connected corp like cybersponse is not surprising to me, but it doesn't tell us anything about PropOrNot.

      Log in to Reply nosoapradio says: 11/27/2016 at 7:07 pm

      Okaaaayyyy! I was looking at the "important dates" part and hadn't even noticed that the rest of the info was exactly the same

      But that's what's so great about this site! As the tired old saying goes: several heads are better than one: everyone encouraging, checking, brainstorming, analysing, researching and rechecking, lighting the way and moving forward together through this opaque cloud that is the information age!

      Log in to Reply blunder says: 11/27/2016 at 11:08 pm

      Sorry. I apologize for the mistake and will hold my eyes open. At least we now know cypersponse, cybering all day long.

      Keep up your great work and feel honoured standing on the list.

      Log in to Reply

    [Nov 27, 2016] The Washington Post: Useful-Idiot Shills for a Failed, Frantic Status Quo That Has Lost Control of the Narrative

    Notable quotes:
    "... Labeling everyone who dissents or questions the ruling elite's narrative as tools of an enemy power is classic McCarthy-era witch-hunting, i.e. a broad-brush way of marginalizing and silencing critics with an accusation that is easy to fabricate but difficult to prove. ..."
    "... The real useful-idiot shills are the editors and hacks paid by the Washington Post, who are busy penning articles such as "Why the electoral college should choose Hillary Clinton". Isn't this fundamentally a call to over-ride the Constitutional framework of the republic's democracy? ..."
    "... Substitution is a useful technique to reveal propaganda: if Trump had lost by a thin margin, would the The Washington Post publish an article "Why the electoral college should choose Donald Trump"? ..."
    "... The fundamental source of the Post's hysterical accusations is the ruling elite has lost control of the narrative. This is the source of the mainstream media's angst-tinged hysteria and frantic efforts to marginalize and discredit any dissenting narratives that undermine or question the power of a corrupted, self-serving ruling elite that has failed the nation and its citizens. ..."
    "... This is why Donald Trump was routinely labeled a Russian shill by the mainstream media during the campaign. ..."
    "... Yes and no. The print media is dying. Less than 10% of people now buy a newspaper and their circulation is dropping by about 10% every year. They are also getting thinner as advertising revenue falls and many have ceased publication. This also applies to magazines with many titles now defunct and others just about there (Newsweek). ..."
    "... The idea of the ruling elite as a conspiracy in common meaning of the word it is not, since they have no specific plan of action or even specific ultimate objective to be achieved, short of holding onto the power and expand the limits of control by whatever means available. What they use are the methods and techniques of manipulating of the population stratified into the casts or classes via propaganda of the abstract concepts of economic development, political process, social policies, law, religion, science, vertical mobility, sports, nationalism, racism etc., and in the cases when it fails they use raw brutality as the ultimate expression of "innate" morality of their power. ..."
    "... Personally I think we would do well to go back to the good old days (pre-Church Commission 1978) when the CIA was allowed to use domestic journalists as assets. In a relative sense their work was much more honest and truthful than what today's Media Barons inflict on the public. ..."
    "... Who manipulates the news and tries to sway public opinion? Answer: The 'progressive' wealthy elite. ..."
    "... Who monitors every single movement of the average citizen, from his or her shopping and viewing habits to by-the-second GPS location---and then constructs a detailed profile of said citizen? Answer: the Amazons/Facebooks/Apples/Googles of this world. ..."
    Nov 27, 2016 | www.oftwominds.com
    This is another sign of the crisis of legitimacy

    ...My "crime" is a simple one: challenging the ruling elite's narrative. Labeling all dissent "enemy propaganda" is of course the classic first phase of state-sponsored propaganda and the favorite tool of well-paid illiberal apologists for an illiberal regime.

    Labeling everyone who dissents or questions the ruling elite's narrative as tools of an enemy power is classic McCarthy-era witch-hunting, i.e. a broad-brush way of marginalizing and silencing critics with an accusation that is easy to fabricate but difficult to prove.

    Such unsupported slander is a classic propaganda technique. It has more in common with Nazi propaganda than with real journalism.

    The real useful-idiot shills are the editors and hacks paid by the Washington Post, who are busy penning articles such as "Why the electoral college should choose Hillary Clinton". Isn't this fundamentally a call to over-ride the Constitutional framework of the republic's democracy?

    In other words, the ruling elite's candidate lost, so let's subvert democracy to "right this terrible wrong" that was wrought by fed-up debt-serfs.

    Substitution is a useful technique to reveal propaganda: if Trump had lost by a thin margin, would the The Washington Post publish an article "Why the electoral college should choose Donald Trump"?

    Any site suggesting such an outlandish subversion of American democracy would of course by labeled Russian-controlled propaganda by The Washington Post. In other words, it's OK for the organs of Imperial Propaganda to call for the subversion of the Constitution, but if someone else dares to do so, you know the drill: they're labeled a tool of Russian propaganda.

    Just as a reminder, this is the status quo / ruling elite's handiwork The Washington Post shills/propagandists support: a status quo of institutionalized privilege, corruption and systemically soaring wealth and income inequality:

    • The institutionalized impoverishment of non-elite students:
    • The institutionalized impoverishment of the bottom 99.9%:
    • The institutionalized impoverishment of everyone below the protected technocrat-insider class of shills, apparatchiks and professionals

    This is what The Washington Post is pushing: a parasitic, predatory, exploitive, ruinously corrupt and venal ruling class and its army of apologists/lackeys/factotums.

    The fundamental source of the Post's hysterical accusations is the ruling elite has lost control of the narrative. This is the source of the mainstream media's angst-tinged hysteria and frantic efforts to marginalize and discredit any dissenting narratives that undermine or question the power of a corrupted, self-serving ruling elite that has failed the nation and its citizens.

    This is why Donald Trump was routinely labeled a Russian shill by the mainstream media during the campaign. Regardless of what you think of Trump or Clinton, what can we say about a supposedly responsible media that so cavalierly spews fact-free accusations of foreign control? This is the height of irresponsible propaganda being passed off as "journalism."

    The delicious irony of The Washington Post's hysterical campaign to smear dissenters as tools of Russian propaganda is that it only serves to discredit the Post itself.

    Comments from Zero Hedge

    fleur de lis -> philipat •Nov 27, 2016 9:55 AM

    The NYT has been promoting murder and mayhem around the world for years on the pretext of democracy.

    Have they ever done an expose on the American tax money that got laundered through the Federal Reserve to fund the filthy Bolsheviks?

    Have they ever done an expose on the narcotics business that fattens the bankbooks of DC screwballs?

    Have they ever done an expose on the USS Liberty?

    Have they ever done a real expose on anything other than easy targets?

    The NYT would never touch a story that would upset their DC feeders.

    The NYT is like some kind of gossip paper and a soap opera all rolled up into birdcage liners.

    East Indian -> TeamDepends •Nov 27, 2016 12:06 AM

    Russians are no longer commies,

    And commies are no longer Russians.

    Russians are now crony capitalists, and American elite control the American society more than Stalin ever could control the Russian society.


    land_of_the_few -> East Indian •Nov 27, 2016 5:51 AM

    The Russians are capitalists now but they are not the Oligarch-robbed dolts the MSM would like you to believe. It *was* like that in the 90s - a lot of the robber barons were thrown out and now sit moaning in the West that it's "so unfair", and pretend to be hard-done-by "political" exiles. These are people who can't comply with enforced post-Yeltsin features such as "actually filling out compulsory tax returns" for companies and individuals, and "filing company accounts". There is a capital amnesty scheme where oligarchs can come back with the money they took (normally ftom fraudulent privatisation and asset-stripping) and do business as long as they actually follow the tax and accounts rules.

    AViewFromDublin -> TeamDepends •Nov 27, 2016 2:03 AM

    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    Arthur SchopenhauerGerman philosopher (1788 - 1860)

    rrrr -> balz •Nov 26, 2016 11:54 PM

    It is not a question of whether the Washington Post and the New York Times are right or wrong, or desperate, or smart, or anything like that. Rather, it is only a question of how many people see it their way, and whether there are enough such people to wield the power the WP and NYT are trying to bring about. All the posts on this page completely underestimate the potential influence these powerful entities seek to incite and control. The men behind entities such as these have been doing such things for a very long time. They have very consistently succeeded. To prevail they do not have to defeat us permanently all at once. All they have to do is grind us down over centuries. This they are doing.

    effendi -> sun tzu •Nov 27, 2016 4:34 AM

    Yes and no. The print media is dying. Less than 10% of people now buy a newspaper and their circulation is dropping by about 10% every year. They are also getting thinner as advertising revenue falls and many have ceased publication. This also applies to magazines with many titles now defunct and others just about there (Newsweek).

    20 years ago nearly every commuter had a newspaper, now I rarely see a single paper and most are playing Scary Bird or watching videos on their phones or pads.

    WaPo has fallen from 431,000 in March 2013 to 330,000 in Sept 2015. NYT from 731,000 to 528,000. Wall St Journal from 1,481,000 to 1,064,000 etc etc. I'll bet that their circulation will continue to fall and as circulation falls the distribution costs rise per each copy (if a delivery truck delivers a bundle of newspapers then the cost to deliver is higher than when they delivered 10 bundles). They also have to trim staff and expenses so they also cut back on what investigative research they can do.

    Many no longer even watch TV.

    swmnguy •Nov 26, 2016 10:20 PM

    That Washington Post story was the single worst story I've seen in a US publication since Judith Miller's stories pimping the Bush Administration's tales of Iraq's "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

    The technique is almost identical. Shady anonymous sources making unsupported allegations. Named sources not-quite-fully endorsing the allegations, with weasel-words and "seems like," "resembles," "may be connected," etc. The language reads to the unaware reader like a careful endorsement of the allegations, but if you've seen this sort of thing before, you recognize legal advice as to just how close one can come without exactly lying. One wonders if Cheryl Mills was the source of such advice. If not her, someone like her.

    ... ... ...

    Oldwood -> Meyer Bauer •Nov 26, 2016 11:24 PM

    They know their credibility is gone, so what do they have to lose? And their lies are evermore extreme and obvious, but is not desperation as much as calculation. All of this is being layered on top of each other to give context to their public rationalization that will be used to mount increasingly violent protests. A recount adds credence to these hostilities but an economic quake in the markets will create more public demand to prevent Trump from taking office than a Hillary win in the recount. This is about using crisis to justify unconstitutional acts while blaming Trump for all of it....something could have never done with a simple Hillary win.

    big-data Nov 26, 2016 10:37 PM
    ZeroHedgers, Want to know how propaganda works and how it was used during the election cycle? How about how propaganda is used with surveillance? All here. This will blow your mind! Media As a Shaping Agent of Society: The Technology of Influence https://medium.com/deepconnections/media-as-a-shaping-agent-of-society-wherefore-art-thou-treacherous-62b4c3f843d6#.waoukm742
    scatha Nov 27, 2016 12:58 AM

    The WAPO shills are prostitutes for the global ruling elite and political establishment that have been horrible embarrassed of losing last shred of credibility, revealing themselves of buffoons, morons, big fucking mouth mofos who do not know a shit, not because they lie but cause they are impotent in shaping public opinion and manipulate outcome of election thru propaganda lies they are paid for to proliferate and are now in panic that their bosses will whip their asses hard and fuck them up literally and metaphorically out of their cushy repugnant and dirty jobs as poor excuses for journalists, actually abhorrent influence peddlers.But their disdain for ordinary people and those who picket up fight for them is echoing the inhumane attitude of their ruling elite bosses.

    Here is who are those ruling elite WAPO sold out to and foe whose silver coin the spew the McCarthyism venom:

    An excerpt from:

    https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/matrix-of-control-a-s...

    Structure of Society vs. Moral Attitudes [of Elites].

    Every society consist of a continuously emerging elite, a group of often interbred families or clans that persuaded themselves that it is their prerogative to control the rest of society, seen as animalistic masses, immoral abominations of humanity. They see themselves, whether they admit it or not, as reluctant saviors of the humanity, against all odds. Their self-proclaimed objective and perceived necessity is to become the absolute moral arbiters, life and death decision makers. They believe that they are Hegelian type "ubermensch", supermen, meant as the only true humans, the building blocks and foundations of perfect social order and the power structure able to support it. Hence, to hold the power is their solemn duty, a burden they must carry for the higher good of the society at large.

    They consider themselves not as much better humans as they just consider the rest of the humanity as a certain earthly creatures, items of natural world, a resource to be harvested or exploited in any way they deem necessary.

    Such a attitude permeates all the decision-making processes within the ruling elite, all understood not as means of survival and dominance but as a self-sacrifice for the higher end, for higher purposes than their individual well-being, one of the paranoid delusions deviously nurtured among themselves.

    In their obviously psychopathic or even psychotic state of mind it is all about the binary moral order, the good and the evil, absolute truths and absolute values, incomprehensible concepts to those who don't belong, those unable to achieve the higher state of consciousness beyond any notion of forethought or petty human concerns. Seen as a matter of the objective reality, their law is their will and their morality is their immediate need or benefit, all the other considerations rescinded. They regard themselves beyond any earthly moral insecurities or doubts as an expression of the ultimate justice and absolute truth.

    What is astounding that all those assertions are not developed and accepted by the ruling elite as much as dogmas of their rule but rather as a rational conclusion based on the results of numerous experiments and detailed observations of the society at large and its behavior. The ruling elite rationally concludes that their rule is the only thing that works for all the society.

    The idea of the ruling elite as a conspiracy in common meaning of the word it is not, since they have no specific plan of action or even specific ultimate objective to be achieved, short of holding onto the power and expand the limits of control by whatever means available. What they use are the methods and techniques of manipulating of the population stratified into the casts or classes via propaganda of the abstract concepts of economic development, political process, social policies, law, religion, science, vertical mobility, sports, nationalism, racism etc., and in the cases when it fails they use raw brutality as the ultimate expression of "innate" morality of their power.

    chindit13 •Nov 27, 2016 9:42 AM

    Personally I think we would do well to go back to the good old days (pre-Church Commission 1978) when the CIA was allowed to use domestic journalists as assets. In a relative sense their work was much more honest and truthful than what today's Media Barons inflict on the public.

    The world really is upside down. Intel agencies are truly the dinosaurs of the modern world, with little to no relative power.

    Who manipulates the news and tries to sway public opinion? Answer: The 'progressive' wealthy elite.

    Who monitors every single movement of the average citizen, from his or her shopping and viewing habits to by-the-second GPS location---and then constructs a detailed profile of said citizen? Answer: the Amazons/Facebooks/Apples/Googles of this world.

    Everyone looks over his or her shoulder fearing the approach of those who inhabit the world of shadows, yet freely opens the doors and windows to the real and genuine threat to privacy and personal freedom. It's like kids who have nightmares of Tyrannosaurus Rex, but think Mark Zuckerberg is one cool dude.

    How I miss the days of trench coats, black fedoras, the quiet back streets of post-war Vienna on a cloudy late-Autumn afternoon, and the cold comfort of a Walther PPK, all the while trading shots---vodka and 9mm Kunz/9x18 Makarov---with young Vlad Putin!

    [Nov 27, 2016] Washington Post Peddles Tarring of Ron Paul Institute as Russian Propaganda - Ron Paul Liberty Report

    Nov 27, 2016 | www.ronpaullibertyreport.com

    The Washington Post has a history of misrepresenting Ron Paul's views. Last year the supposed newspaper of record ran a feature article by David A. Fahrenthold in which Fahrenthold grossly mischaracterized Paul as an advocate for calamity, oppression, and poverty - the opposite of the goals Paul routinely expresses and, indeed, expressed clearly in a speech at the event upon which Fahrenthold's article purported to report. Such fraudulent attacks on the prominent advocate for liberty and a noninterventionist foreign policy fall in line with the newspaper's agenda. As Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob G. Hornberger put it in a February editorial, the Post's agenda is guided by "the interventionist mindset that undergirds the mainstream media."

    On Thursday, the Post published a new article by Craig Timberg complaining of a "flood" of so-called fake news supported by "a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy," To advance this conclusion, Timberg points to PropOrNot, an organization of anonymous individuals formed this year, as having identified "more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season." Look on the PropOrNot list. There is the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity's (RPI) website RonPaulInstitute.org listed among websites termed "Russian propaganda outlets."

    What you will not find on the PropOrNot website is any particularized analysis of why the RPI website, or any website for that matter, is included on the list. Instead, you will see only sweeping generalizations from an anonymous organization. The very popular website drudgereport.com even makes the list. While listed websites span the gamut of political ideas, they tend to share in common an independence from the mainstream media.

    Timberg's article can be seen as yet another big media attempt to shift the blame for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's loss of the presidential election away from Clinton, her campaign, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that undermined Sen Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) challenge to Clinton in the Democratic primary.

    The article may also be seen as another step in the effort to deter people from looking to alternative sources of information by labeling those information sources as traitorous or near-traitorous.

    At the same time, the article may be seen as playing a role in the ongoing push to increase tensions between the United States and Russia - a result that benefits people, including those involved in the military-industrial complex, who profit from the growth of US "national security" activity in America and overseas.

    This is not the first time Ron Paul and his institute has been attacked for sounding pro-Russian or anti-American. Such attacks have been advanced even by self-proclaimed libertarians .

    Expect that such attacks will continue. They are an effort to tar Paul and his institute so people will close themselves off from information Paul and RPI provide each day in furtherance of the institute's mission to continue and expand Paul's "lifetime of public advocacy for a peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home." While peace and liberty will benefit most people, powerful interests seek to prevent the realization of these objectives. Indeed, expect attacks against RPI to escalate as the institute continues to reach growing numbers of people with its educational effort. This article was originally published at The Ron Paul Institute .

    [Nov 27, 2016] Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election, experts say by Craig Timberg

    The only reason pro-Russian site were sympathetic to Trump is that Hillary was a despicable neocon warmonger, that could unleash WWIII.
    As for eroding faith in US government, "They want to essentially erode faith in the U.S. government or U.S. government interests," the US government can do this job perfectly well without any assistance from Russians. Disappearing jobs and stagnant paychecks does not increase faith in the government. And DemoRats and especially Obama "bait and switch" maneuver (open betray of working people interests after the election, despite promises during the election campaign) essentially put him among the most despicable figures in the US political spectrum. Even die in wool republicans look somewhat more honest. They at least do not hide their despise for common folk and openly propose to milk them as hard as possible.
    Notable quotes:
    "... They want to essentially erode faith in the U.S. government or U.S. government interests," said Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who along with two other researchers has tracked Russian propaganda since 2014. "This was their standard mode during the Cold War. The problem is that this was hard to do before social media ..."
    "... Another group, called PropOrNot, a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds, planned to release its own findings Friday showing the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda campaigns. ..."
    "... PropOrNot's monitoring report, which was provided to The Washington Post in advance of its public release, identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans. On Facebook, PropOrNot estimates that stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times. ..."
    www.washingtonpost.com

    " They want to essentially erode faith in the U.S. government or U.S. government interests," said Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who along with two other researchers has tracked Russian propaganda since 2014. "This was their standard mode during the Cold War. The problem is that this was hard to do before social media ."

    Watts's report on this work, with colleagues Andrew Weisburd and J.M. Berger, appeared on the national security online magazine War on the Rocks this month under the headline " Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy. " Another group, called PropOrNot, a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds, planned to release its own findings Friday showing the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda campaigns.

    The researchers used Internet analytics tools to trace the origins of particular tweets and mapped the connections among social-media accounts that consistently delivered synchronized messages. Identifying website codes sometimes revealed common ownership. In other cases, exact phrases or sentences were echoed by sites and social-media accounts in rapid succession, signaling membership in connected networks controlled by a single entity.

    PropOrNot's monitoring report, which was provided to The Washington Post in advance of its public release, identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans. On Facebook, PropOrNot estimates that stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times.

    [Could better Internet security have prevented Trump's win?]

    Some players in this online echo chamber were knowingly part of the propaganda campaign, the researchers concluded, while others were "useful idiots" - a term born of the Cold War to describe people or institutions that unknowingly assisted Soviet Union propaganda efforts.

    [Nov 27, 2016] Trump, and Great Business Ideas for America by Robert J. Shiller

    Notable quotes:
    "... A business-oriented president could be helpful in this intellectual world, too, by taking actions like doubling the budget for the National Science Foundation, which was created in 1950 when Harry S. Truman was president, and infusing the National Institutes of Health, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities with more cash. ..."
    Nov 27, 2016 | www.nytimes.com
    Shiller is wrong -- sky high salaries are result of neoliberalism and are part of wealth redistribution toward top 1%. Trumo with his "bastard neoliberalism" (neoliberalism without globalization) will not change that. He is also somewhat hostile to government agences.

    A businessman with a lifetime of experience in management has been elected president of the United States. Donald J. Trump's administration may be viewed as an experiment - an opportunity to discover whether one particular businessman's perspective and skills will be assets in governing a nation.

    Mr. Trump's background evidently appealed to voters, but he should be careful not to be overconfident. His election may be a culmination of a trend in society of lionizing business stars and expecting too much of them.

    We've seen this phenomenon in the outlandish salaries paid to top chief executives and in the public enthusiasm for them. Rakesh Khurana, dean of Harvard College, described the trend eloquently in his book "Searching for a Corporate Savior: The Irrational Quest for Charismatic C.E.O.s" (Princeton, 2002). He discerned a long trend in American business toward choosing chief executives from outside a company and paying them handsomely for some presumed business flair despite their ignorance of the long-term internal issues facing a company.

    Professor Khurana warned that expecting these people to perform acts of genius was asking for trouble. The charismatic outsider tends to become authoritarian, alienating others in the company. The executive's desperate efforts to live up to their promise may sometimes result in wild gambles. There are grounds for concern that President Trump could be this kind of outsider chief executive.

    Mr. Trump has a number of business books to his name, all written with co-authors. Often these books are amusing, if simplistic and boastful. "How to Get Rich" (Random House, 2004, written with Meredith McIver) has advice like "Business Rule #1: If you don't tell people about your success, they probably won't know about it," "Business Rule #2: Keep it short, fast and direct" and "Business Rule #3: Begin working at a young age. I did." Maybe these nostrums are important for Mr. Trump but they seem to have little to do with making a country rich.

    But there is still possibly another, more interesting strand in his advice: Mr. Trump's admonition to be ambitious.

    "How to Get Rich" also includes a "final rule," "Think big and live large." The book says: "In some ways, it's easier to buy a skyscraper than a small house in a bad section of Brooklyn." I've actually been giving a version of this advice for years to my students: Go for big ideas and avoid the trivia. My version of big and Mr. Trump's are different, of course: He is known for his large, splashy buildings, while I try to encourage out-of-the-box economic ideas. Big ideas can lead to great things when they are encouraged, perhaps especially by a president.

    Ambitious thinking led to big infrastructure projects like the Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge and La Guardia Airport, the kinds of projects we could use today. It also led to intellectual and humane triumphs, like the Dorothea Lange photo record of poverty in America, financed by the New Deal program the Farm Security Administration. Those stunning images gave dignity to the people of that difficult time.

    A business-oriented president could be helpful in this intellectual world, too, by taking actions like doubling the budget for the National Science Foundation, which was created in 1950 when Harry S. Truman was president, and infusing the National Institutes of Health, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities with more cash. But of course a president must resist the temptation to meddle in their grant-making process. These are democratic institutions and must stay that way.

    [Nov 27, 2016] The entire American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980

    Notable quotes:
    "... For various reasons these days, the entire American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. ..."
    "... Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of alleged Russian conspiracies that appear to be "false positives," dire allegations seemingly having little factual basis or actually being totally ridiculous. Meanwhile, even the crudest sort of anti-Russian conspiracy might easily occur without receiving any serious mainstream media notice or investigation. ..."
    Nov 27, 2016 | www.unz.com

    In fact, I would extend this notion to a general principle. Substantial control of the media is almost always an absolute prerequisite for any successful conspiracy, the greater the degree of control the better. So when weighing the plausibility of any conspiracy, the first matter to investigate is who controls the local media and to what extent.

    Let us consider a simple thought-experiment. For various reasons these days, the entire American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. Hence I would argue that the likelihood of any large-scale Russian conspiracy taking place within the operative zone of those media organs is virtually nil. Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of alleged Russian conspiracies that appear to be "false positives," dire allegations seemingly having little factual basis or actually being totally ridiculous. Meanwhile, even the crudest sort of anti-Russian conspiracy might easily occur without receiving any serious mainstream media notice or investigation.

    This argument may be more than purely hypothetical. A crucial turning point in America's renewed Cold War against Russia was the passage of the 2012 Magnitsky Act by Congress, punitively targeting various supposedly corrupt Russian officials for their alleged involvement in the illegal persecution and death of an employee of Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund manager with large Russian holdings. However, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that it was Browder himself who was actually the mastermind and beneficiary of the gigantic corruption scheme, while his employee was planning to testify against him and was therefore fearful of his life for that reason. Naturally, the American media has provided scarcely a single mention of these remarkable revelations regarding what might amount to a gigantic Magnitsky Hoax of geopolitical significance.

    [Nov 27, 2016] American Pravda series

    Notable quotes:
    "... American Pravda ..."
    "... American Pravda ..."
    "... Unz Review ..."
    Nov 27, 2016 | www.unz.com
    , focusing on the suspicious lapses and lacunae in our media narratives.

    The underlying political strategy behind these efforts may already be apparent, and I've sometimes suggested it here and there. But I finally decided I might as well explicitly outline the reasoning in a memo as provided below.

    The Mainstream Media is the Crucial Opposing Force

    Groups advocating policies opposed by the American establishment should recognize that the greatest obstacle they face is usually the mainstream media.

    Ordinary political and ideological opponents surely exist, but these are usually inspired, motivated, organized, and assisted by powerful media support, which also shapes the perceived framework of the conflict. In Clauswitzian terms, the media often constitutes the strategic "center of gravity" of the opposing forces.

    The Media Should Be Made a Primary Target

    If the media is the crucial force empowering the opposition, then it should be regarded as a primary target of any political strategy. So long as the media remains strong, success may be difficult, but if the influence and credibility of the media were substantially degraded, then the ordinary opposing forces would lose much of their effectiveness. In many respects, the media creates reality, so perhaps the most effective route toward changing reality runs through the media.

    Discrediting the Media Anywhere Weakens It Everywhere

    The mainstream media exists as a seamless whole, so weakening or discrediting the media in any particular area automatically reduces its influence everywhere else as well.

    The elements of the media narrative faced by a particular anti-establishment group may be too strong and well-defended to attack effectively, and any such attacks might also be discounted as ideologically motivated. Hence, the more productive strategy may sometimes be an indirect one, attacking the media narrative elsewhere, at points where it is much weaker and less well-defended. In addition, winning those easier battles may generate greater credibility and momentum, which can then be applied to later attacks on more difficult fronts.

    A Broad Alliance May Support the Common Goal of Weakening the Media

    Once we recognize that weakening the media is a primary strategic goal, an obvious corollary is that other anti-establishment groups facing the same challenges become natural, if perhaps temporary, allies.

    Such unexpected tactical alliances may drawn from across a wide range of different political and ideological perspectives-Left, Right, or otherwise-and despite the component groups having longer-term goals that are orthogonal or even conflicting. So long as all such elements in the coalition recognize that the hostile media is their most immediate adversary, they can cooperate on their common effort, while actually gaining additional credibility and attention by the very fact that they sharply disagree on so many other matters.

    The media is enormously powerful and exercises control over a vast expanse of intellectual territory. But such ubiquitous influence also ensures that its local adversaries are therefore numerous and widespread, all being bitterly opposed to the hostile media they face on their own particular issues. By analogy, a large and powerful empire is frequently brought down by a broad alliance of many disparate rebellious factions, each having unrelated goals, which together overwhelm the imperial defenses by attacking simultaneously at multiple different locations.

    A crucial aspect enabling such a rebel alliance is the typically narrow focus of each particular constituent member. Most groups or individuals opposing establishment positions tend to be ideologically zealous about one particular issue or perhaps a small handful, while being much less interested in others. Given the total suppression of their views at the hands of the mainstream media, any venue in which their unorthodox perspectives are provided reasonably fair and equal treatment rather than ridiculed and denigrated tends to inspire considerable enthusiasm and loyalty on their part. So although they may have quite conventional views on most other matters, causing them to regard contrary views with the same skepticism or unease as might anyone else, they will usually be willing to suppress their criticism at such wider heterodoxy so long as other members of their alliance are willing to return that favor on their own topics of primary interest.

    Assault the Media Narrative Where It is Weak Not Where It Is Strong

    Applying a different metaphor, the establishment media may be regarded as a great wall that excludes alternative perspectives from the public consciousness and thereby confines opinion to within a narrow range of acceptable views.

    Certain portions of that media wall may be solid and vigorously defended by powerful vested interests, rendering assaults difficult. But other portions, perhaps older and more obscure, may have grown decrepit over time, with their defenders having drifted away. Breaching the wall at these weaker locations may be much easier, and once the barrier has been broken at several points, defending it at others becomes much more difficult.

    ORDER IT NOW

    For example, consider the consequences of demonstrating that the established media narrative is completely false on some major individual event. Once this result has been widely recognized, the credibility of the media on all other matters, even totally unrelated ones, would be somewhat attenuated. Ordinary people would naturally conclude that if the media had been so wrong for so long on one important point, it might also be wrong on others as well, and the powerful suspension of disbelief that provides the media its influence would become less powerful. Even those individuals who collectively form the corpus of the media might begin to entertain serious self-doubts regarding their previous certainties.

    The crucial point is that such breakthroughs may be easiest to achieve in topics that seem merely of historical significance, and are totally removed from any practical present-day consequences.

    Reframe Vulnerable "Conspiracy Theories" as Effective "Media Criticism"

    Over the last few decades, the political establishment and its media allies have created a powerful intellectual defense against major criticism by investing considerable resources in stigmatizing the notion of so-called "conspiracy theories." This harsh pejorative term is applied to any important analysis of events that sharply deviants from the officially-endorsed narrative, and implicitly suggests that the proponent is an disreputable fanatic, suffering from delusions, paranoia, or other forms of mental illness. Such ideological attacks often effectively destroy his credibility, allowing his actual arguments to be ignored. A once-innocuous phrase has become politically "weaponized."

    However, an effective means of circumventing this intellectual defense mechanism may be to adopt a meta-strategy of reframing such "conspiracy theories" as "media criticism."

    Under the usual parameters of public debate, challenges to established orthodoxy are treated as "extraordinary claims" that must be justified by extraordinary evidence. This requirement may be unfair, but it constitutes the reality in many public exchanges, based upon the framework provided by the allegedly impartial media.

    Since most of these controversies involve a wide range of complex issues and ambiguous or disputed evidence, it is often extremely difficult to conclusively establish any unorthodox theory, say to a confidence level of 95% or 98%. Therefore, the media verdict is almost invariably "Case Not Proven" and the challengers are judged defeated and discredited, even if they actually appear to have the preponderance of evidence on their side. And if they vocally contest the unfairness of their situation, that exact response is then subsequently cited by the media as further proof of their fanaticism or paranoia.

    However, suppose that an entirely different strategy were adopted. Instead of attempting to make a case "beyond any reasonable doubt," proponents merely provide sufficient evidence and analysis to suggest that there is a 30% chance or a 50% chance or a 70% chance that the unorthodox theory is true. The very fact that no claim of near certainty is being advanced provides a powerful defense against any plausible accusations of fanaticism or delusional thinking. But if the issue is of enormous importance and-as is usually the case-the unorthodox theory has been almost totally ignored by the media, despite apparently having at least a reasonable chance of being true, then the media may be effectively attacked and ridiculed for its laziness and incompetence. These charges are very difficult to refute and since no claim is being made that the unorthodox theory has necessarily been proven correct, merely that it might possibly be correct, any counter-accusations of conspiratorial tendencies would fall flat.

    Indeed, the only means the media might have of effectively rebutting those charges would be to explore all the complex details of the issue (thereby helping to bring various controversial facts themselves to much wider attention) and then argue that there is only a negligible chance that the theory might be correct, perhaps 10% or less. Thus, the usual presumptive burden is completely reversed. And since most members of the media are unlikely to have ever paid much serious attention to the subject, their ignorant presentation may be quite weak and vulnerable to a knowledgeable deconstruction. Indeed, the most likely scenario is that the media will just continue to totally ignore the entire dispute, thereby reinforcing those plausible accusations of laziness and incompetence.

    Individuals distressed by media failings on a controversial topic often accuse the media and its individual representatives of being biased, corrupted, or quietly under the control of powerful forces allied with the establishment position. These charges may sometimes be correct and sometimes not, but they are usually quite difficult to prove, except in the minds of existing true-believers, and they do carry the taint of "paranoia." On the other hand, claiming that media failings are due to venial sins such as laziness and incompetence are just as likely to be correct, and these charges are much less likely to risk a backlash.

    Finally, once the media itself has become the primary target of the criticism, it automatically loses its status as a neutral outside arbitrator and no longer has as much credibility in proclaiming the winning side of the debate.

    The Advantage of Flooding Media Defense Zones

    Individuals who challenge the prevailing media narrative with unorthodox claims are often reluctant to raise too many such controversial claims simultaneously lest they be ridiculed as "crazy," with all their views summarily dismissed.

    In most cases, this may be the correct strategy to pursue, but if handled properly, an exact opposite approach might sometimes be quite effective. So long as the overall presentation is framed as media criticism and no inordinate weight is attached to the validity of any of the particular claims being presented, attacking along a very broad front, perhaps including dozens of entirely independent items, may "flood the zone" of the media, saturating and overwhelming existing defenses. Or as suggested in a quote widely misattributed to Stalin, "Quantity has a quality all its own."

    Consider the example of entertainer Bill Cosby. Over the years, one or two individual women had come forward claiming that he had drugged and raped them, and the charges had been largely ignored as unsubstantiated or implausible. However, over the last year or two, the dam suddenly burst and a total of nearly sixty separate women came forward, all making identical accusations, and although there seems little hard evidence in any of the particular cases, virtually every observer now concedes that the charges are likely to be true.

    Suppose it is established that there is a reasonable likelihood that the media completely missed and ignored an important matter that should have been investigated and reported. The impact is not necessarily substantial, and many individuals stubbornly wedded to a belief in their establishment media narratives might even resist admitting the possibility that the media had seriously erred in that particular situation.

    However, suppose instead that several dozen such separate examples could be established, each strongly suggesting a serious error or omission on the part of the media. At that point, ideological defenses would crumble and nearly everyone would quietly acknowledge that many, perhaps even most, of the accusations were probably true, producing an enormous credibility gap for the mainstream media. The credibility defenses of the media would have been saturated and overcome.

    The key point is that all of the particular items should be presented as reasonable-likelihood cases, and indicative of media shortcomings rather than being proven or necessarily as important issues in and of themselves. By remaining aloof and somewhat agnostic regarding any individual item, there is little risk of being tagged as fanatic or monomaniacal for raising a multitude of them.

    My American Pravda Series and Unz Review Webzine as Examples

    The political/media strategy outlined above was the central motivation behind my American Pravda articles and Unz Review webzine.

    For example, in the original 2013 American Pravda article I raised over half a dozen enormous media lapses, all of them now universally acknowledged: Enron's collapse, the Iraq War WMDs, the Madoff Swindle, the Cold War spies, and various others. Having thereby set the stage by presenting this admitted pattern of major failure, demonstrating that a considerable suspension of disbelief was warranted, I then extended the discussion to three or four important additional examples, none of them yet acknowledged, but all of them perfectly plausible. Perhaps as a consequence, the article received reasonably good attention including by elements of the mainstream media itself, who are often willing to acknowledge the errors of their class so long as these are presented persuasively and in a responsible manner.

    Following that piece, I intermittently produced additional elements in the series, some more comprehensive than others, and am now embarking upon a regular series .

    The McCain/POW examples in the series perfectly illustrate the strategy I have suggested above. The Vietnam War ended over forty years ago, the POWs have probably all been dead for decades, and even John McCain is in the very twilight of his career. The practical significance of raising the scandal or providing evidence establishing its likelihood is virtually nil. But if it were to become widely recognized that our entire media successfully covered up such a massive scandal for so many years, the credibility of the media would have suffered a devastating blow. Several such blows and it would be in ruins. Meanwhile, the powerful vested interests that once so vigorously maintained the official narrative in that area are long gone, and the orthodox case has few remaining defenders in the media, greatly increasing the likelihood of an eventual breakthrough and victory.

    A similar strategy in broader form is applied by my Unz Review alternative media webzine, which hosts numerous different writers, columnists, and bloggers, all tending to sharply challenge the establishment media narrative along a wide variety of different axes and issues, some of them conflicting. By raising serious doubts about the omissions and errors of our mainstream media in so many different areas, the goal is to weaken the perceived credibility of the media, leading readers to consider the possibility that large elements of the conventional narrative may be entirely incorrect.

    For Further Reading

    [Nov 26, 2016] Economists View Paul Krugman The Populism Perplex

    Notable quotes:
    "... According to Kevin Drum, a big Hillary supporter, the class issue was real. ..."
    "... The net loss here is about 2 points of the total vote. It's true that among the working class Clinton lost more among whites than nonwhites, but she lost big among all races. ..."
    "... Most of the workers, including my friends and relatives, have never read a single economics paper - but they do understand something - their paycheck. They understand losing a job. They understand bill collectors. They understand patching up the Chevy one more time. ..."
    "... Krugman is desperate to make this about racism. Or class. Or something other than the empty factories. ..."
    Nov 26, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    William Meyer : , November 25, 2016 at 10:32 AM

    According to Kevin Drum, a big Hillary supporter, the class issue was real.

    "The net loss here is about 2 points of the total vote. It's true that among the working class Clinton lost more among whites than nonwhites, but she lost big among all races. This strongly suggests that the working class was primarily motivated by economic concerns and only secondarily by racial issues. This is the opposite of what I thought during the campaign, but I was wrong."

    Per Mr. Kaufman, who I generally respect, the Dems may have to push something directed at the working class in areas hard hit in the last 20 post NAFTA years. Maybe trade adjustment public works program and education investment. I mean they need something to offer here.

    William Meyer : , November 25, 2016 at 10:47 AM
    Sorry I didn't give a link to the Drum piece. You can read the whole thing at:

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/why-clinton-lost-bitter-bernie-crooked-comey-and-wounded-working-class

    I should mention Drum also blames millennial lack of enthusiasm for Hillary, which he blames on Bernie, and James Comey.

    Dan Berg : , November 25, 2016 at 10:54 AM
    " The only way to make sense of what happened is to see the vote as an expression of, well, identity politics - some combination of white resentment at what voters see as favoritism toward nonwhites (even though it isn't) and anger ... at liberal elites whom they imagine look down on them.
    To be honest, I don't fully understand this resentment"

    This epitomizes Professor Krugman and NYTs generally; no matter one's view of Trump, understanding the world in which we find ourselves is not to be found here.

    Tom aka Rusty : , -1
    Most of the workers, including my friends and relatives, have never read a single economics paper - but they do understand something - their paycheck. They understand losing a job. They understand bill collectors. They understand patching up the Chevy one more time.

    Krugman is desperate to make this about racism. Or class. Or something other than the empty factories.

    [Nov 26, 2016] Roger Stone - Why Bannon is Targeted

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bannon is targeted because the left knows he is dangerous. ..."
    "... Internally Bannon is the keeper of the Trump flame and must be a protector of the Trump agenda. ..."
    "... To be a great president Trump must deliver on his core promises of sealing our boarders, recharging economy, renegotiating the detrimental globalist trade deals upgrading veterans healthcare to be the finest in the world, creating a job boom in our inner cities while conducting a foreign policy that keeps us out of war while entering a new period of detente and hardheaded negotiations with Putin and the Russians that will enable us to work in coordination to crush our mutual enemy ISIS. ..."
    Nov 26, 2016 | www.newswithviews.com

    Bannon is targeted because the left knows he is dangerous. Bannon has a keen understanding of alternative media and the Internet. Bannon understands the greater cultural divides and developments in the electorate which made the Trump victory possible. Bannon also knows that the Trump administration must not be co-opted by the party establishment types or the neocons who's war policies Trump disagrees with. Internally Bannon is the keeper of the Trump flame and must be a protector of the Trump agenda.

    To be a great president Trump must deliver on his core promises of sealing our boarders, recharging economy, renegotiating the detrimental globalist trade deals upgrading veterans healthcare to be the finest in the world, creating a job boom in our inner cities while conducting a foreign policy that keeps us out of war while entering a new period of detente and hardheaded negotiations with Putin and the Russians that will enable us to work in coordination to crush our mutual enemy ISIS.

    [Nov 26, 2016] Flashback Trump-Trashing Journalists Oozed Over Obamas 08 Transition

    Notable quotes:
    "... Over on CNN, contributor David Gregory (a onetime rising star at NBC) on November 18 slapped Trump's pick for National Security advisor, General Michael Flynn, for his allegedly "short-sighted, ignorant thinking." Two days later, on NBC's Sunday Today , Bloomberg's John Heilemann said Trump's Cabinet was shaping up to be a "really, really old white group of old white men." ..."
    "... Trump's election itself was cause for mourning. New York Times columnist Tom Friedman , on HBO's Real Time on November 11, equated it with the bloodiest day in U.S. history since the Battle of Antietam: "This is a moral 9/11. Only 9/11 was done to us from the outside and we did this to ourselves." ..."
    Nov 26, 2016 | www.newsbusters.org
    During the campaign, the liberal news media did everything they could to prevent Donald Trump's election - including 91% negative coverage from the broadcast networks - but he won anyway. Now, journalists are trashing the way Trump is handling his transition, as well as his early Cabinet picks.

    But eight years ago, viewers heard a very different tone coming from the media, as journalists celebrated the election of Barack Obama, cheered the "brain power" of the "team of geniuses" he was assembling for his Cabinet, and tingled over how "cool" Obama seemed as he assumed the responsibilities of office.

    With Trump, the media are touting the "continuing turmoil" in his transition, as ABC's Tom Llamas claimed on the November 16 Good Morning America . "No one really knows who's in charge," correspondent Hallie Jackson echoed that evening on NBC's Nightly News . The selection of Steve Bannon on November 13 as a top White House advisor was greeted by the broadcast networks with phrases such as "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "extremist," "racist" and "anti-Semitic."

    Over on CNN, contributor David Gregory (a onetime rising star at NBC) on November 18 slapped Trump's pick for National Security advisor, General Michael Flynn, for his allegedly "short-sighted, ignorant thinking." Two days later, on NBC's Sunday Today , Bloomberg's John Heilemann said Trump's Cabinet was shaping up to be a "really, really old white group of old white men."

    Trump's election itself was cause for mourning. New York Times columnist Tom Friedman , on HBO's Real Time on November 11, equated it with the bloodiest day in U.S. history since the Battle of Antietam: "This is a moral 9/11. Only 9/11 was done to us from the outside and we did this to ourselves."

    On MSNBC the day after the election, host Lawrence O'Donnell bitterly griped: "There is the stench of the Trumpian vulgarity in the air now. Half the country is reeling under the hard to accept realization that they're going be hearing that voice every day for four years."

    But when liberal icon Barack Obama was preparing to assume power, the media took a very different approach. Here are a few examples, from the archives of the Media Research Center:

    Signing Up for Obama's Revolution

    MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "You know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that-"
    Host Joe Scarborough: "Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist."
    Matthews: "Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country....This country needs a successful presidency more than anything right now."
    - Exchange on MSNBC's Morning Joe , November 6, 2008.

    We Just Can't Wait One Minute More

    "If I had my druthers right now, we would convene a special session of Congress, amend the Constitution and move up the inauguration from Jan. 20 to Thanksgiving Day....Just get me a Supreme Court justice and a Bible, and let's swear in Barack Obama right now - by choice - with the same haste we did - by necessity - with L.B.J. in the back of Air Force One. "
    - New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, November 23, 2008.

    Obama's Cabinet: Excellence, Brain Power, a "Team of Geniuses"

    Host Keith Olbermann: "Is there going to be an overarching theme in the appointments? We discussed this last night, competency, bipartisanship, diversity, newness, where are they going?"
    Newsweek 's Howard Fineman: "Well, it's going to be all of those. But I think, if you had to pick one, it would be excellence."
    - MSNBC's Countdown , November 5, 2008.

    Co-host Robin Roberts: "Some would say it's a team of rivals, a la President Lincoln, or is a better comparison a team of geniuses as FDR did?"
    ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "Well, one Obama advisor told me what they like is a combination of team of rivals and The Best and the Brightest , which is the David Halberstam book about the incoming Kennedy administration.... We have not seen this kind of combination of star power and brain power and political muscle this early in a cabinet in our lifetimes."
    - ABC's Good Morning America , November 24, 2008.

    "It's also a meritocracy. These are superstars, not afraid of strong personalities - Larry Summers inside the White House - but people with so much brain power, and so much education, and a combination of talents here."
    - NBC's Andrea Mitchell on Obama's cabinet, December 21, 2008 Meet the Press .

    [Nov 26, 2016] EU Approves Resolution to Counter Russian Media, Aligns RT with ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... British MEP James Carver noted the report is "worryingly reminiscent of the Cold War." ..."
    "... Moscow has never prevented anyone from making reports from Russia based on their contents and ideology, the diplomat said, adding that it now might be forced to act accordingly and respond to the EU's moves if Russian journalists are oppressed in the West. "It's not our choice, and we don't want to fuel tensions," she said. ..."
    "... Moscow earlier said it would be forced to take reciprocal steps to the EU lawmakers' "unfriendly actions." ..."
    Nov 26, 2016 | thefreethoughtproject.com

    In the Wednesday vote, 304 MEPs supported the resolution based on the report 'EU strategic communication to counteract propaganda against it by third parties', with 179 voting against it and 208 abstaining.

    ... ... ...

    Before the Wednesday vote, the document had been criticized by some MEPs, who called it both "insane" and "ridiculous." The EU "desperately needs an enemy, be it Russia or any other," that it can blame for any of its own failures, French MEP Jean-Luc Schaffhaueser told RT. Spanish MEP Javier Couso Permuy said "it fosters hysteria against Russia," while British MEP James Carver noted the report is "worryingly reminiscent of the Cold War."

    The Russian authorities have always treated foreign media working in Russia with respect, and have "never discriminated" against journalists from other countries, Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in an interview with Rossiya 1 TV channel.

    Moscow has never prevented anyone from making reports from Russia based on their contents and ideology, the diplomat said, adding that it now might be forced to act accordingly and respond to the EU's moves if Russian journalists are oppressed in the West. "It's not our choice, and we don't want to fuel tensions," she said.

    Moscow earlier said it would be forced to take reciprocal steps to the EU lawmakers' "unfriendly actions." Having called the MEPs' move "cynical," the Russian Federation Council member on international affairs, Igor Morozov, said that European lawmakers "should be aware that their unfriendly actions" would cause a "very tough response" from Moscow.

    [Nov 26, 2016] Trump's media feud enters new era TheHill

    Nov 26, 2016 | thehill.com

    Of course, the media will get little sympathy from the public, with a favorable rating sitting at an all-time low in the latest Gallup survey. Only 32 percent of Americans say they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the press.

    And Trump's allies believe all of their moves to beat back at what they view as a hopelessly biased liberal media are justified.

    They're fuming over what they see as a press corps that has dropped any pretense of objectivity in covering Trump, and they're sick of what they view as breathless coverage of frivolous stories...

    [Nov 26, 2016] Humanitarian aid of a tool of neocolonialism

    Nov 26, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    SergeyL 1h ago 1 2 The problem is not a populism but western democracy which is a new religion, and as any religion it's intolerant to any opposite opinion. I can bet what if you will kill all Russians and all who are not western you will split and start fight between yourselves like Christianity or Islam did before. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Tongariro1 2h ago 1 2 We have not had an election to put a populist government into power in the UK. We had a referendum on the specific issue of EU membership. Even in the USA, they have elected a populist president, but Congress had much the same political complexion as it has had in times past. There is no campaign of any note in the UK to reduce aid.

    The vulnerability of aid programmes to the whims of just two countries reveals a greater weakness - too few other countries contribute too little.

    If the UN were to act more effectively to meet its core objective - "to maintain international peace and security" - then there would be less need for aid. Increasingly, the role of the UN seems to be to lament the failings of the west and other developed nations in preventing carnage, whilst doing little to tackle the perpetrators or bring about peace. Syria is a prime example of catastrophic failure. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report PrinceVlad 2h ago 2 3 If western populism leads to more isolationist foreign policies, there will be fewer refugees. Wouldn't this be a good thing? Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report John Chaloner 3h ago 10 11 According to the linked table in the article, the UK provides significantly more aid than France, Italy and Germany combined.

    I would have thought indifference from Europe's other leading economies is a more serious impediment for the global aid effort than populism in the uk\us. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Bob's Your Uncle John Chaloner 2h ago 0 1 You're in the wrong place. The UK and the US are neo-liberal hell holes with all the selfish nastiness that entails, whereas continental Europe is a beacon of social democracy. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report flabbotamus 4h ago 6 7 is hardly surprising that governments are requiring reform when there are creatures such as Peter Sutherland at the UN using aid money t to forward his globalist no borders agenda by destabilising the very countries providing that aid.

    Drain that swamp and then come back with the begging bowl Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Laurence Johnson 4h ago 6 7 Humanitarian aid became political a long time ago and nothing to do with populists. What is incredible is whilst the West was creating the tragedy with one hand, the taxpayers were left to pick up the tab of attempting to fix it all up.

    Refugees are on the whole the result of Western intervention, subversive and open in other nations democratic systems, or indeed other nations despotic systems.

    The world has changed in 2016, people have become far wiser to what has been going on and the costs of intervening in projecting what we perceive to be democracy in our eyes has cost many lives, and many trillions of dollars.

    So Yes it is correct that Trump will pull back from conflicts, and many would think that to be a good idea. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report PrinceVlad Laurence Johnson 3h ago 3 4 Clinton wanted regime change in Syria, one of the main reasons I refused to support her. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Polly123456 4h ago 4 5 Western populism was created by the likes of Blair who promised a referendum but didn't give one. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report synechdoche 4h ago 1 2 Where else but the Guardian do you learn new words and concepts like "dunantist"? It's a wonderful publication. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Polly123456 5h ago 7 8 Aid is wholly political now. We buy foreign criminal dictators, so we can mine in their countries with cheap labour and get cheap commodities. The Niger delta is completely destroyed from oil, other places the same. Let's not pretend that the current system is any better than a future system. It's rotten to the core. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report This_Kidocelot 5h ago 4 5 Why aren't the comments open on the real news today........Don't want to truth it up today .......eh? Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report This_Kidocelot 5h ago 4 5 Pure sophistry! Alternatively, don't start and finance proxy or direct intervention wars and redirect some of that vast amount of expense into the natural disasters etc around the world.

    Oh and stop the financial oppression of your workers, who are being squeezed in the pocket like never before in this globalist world!

    What's this Crown Agents.....so transparent! Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Tsugunder 5h ago 6 7 "even if the US and UK do not decrease aid contributions, there is still a risk that they would allow humanitarian action to fall prey to politics."
    Is this a sick joke? From the Marshall Plan on, Western governmental aid (with the possible exception of Scandinavian donors) has been consistently and unashamedly political, with disastrous results.
    Sub-Saharan Africa, where the number of aid workers is higher than the complement of colonial administrators in the bygone era, is a case in point: "Since 1960, western governments have pumped more than $1 trillion in aid into the region, with the remarkable result that GDP per capita has declined." http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/07/imperialism-is-back-and-this-time-its-politically-correct /
    It's not 'Western populism' that threatens humanitarian action globally but its instrumentalisation by the likes of the US and the UK. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report radsatser 5h ago 2 3 " they will jeopardise not only their jobs,"

    I think we can condense your essay down to seven words in your first paragraph. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report LillyGallagher 6h ago 11 12 The reason we have a hard time being humanitarian is because of failed crony capitalism. We can't afford to take care of our own people, let alone others. I would like to know what of the last 40 years does the Guardian say has been a humanitarian success, and how it can write off Trump before he's even started? Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report HorseCart LillyGallagher 6h ago 2 3 If you would like to know, that suggests you are capable of taking in information.

    What does this article say it is published with the support of?

    Crown Agents

    Learn more, talk less.

    [Nov 25, 2016] EU Declares War On Fake News, Votes To Counter Propaganda Critical Of Its Policies

    Notable quotes:
    "... What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news! ..."
    Nov 25, 2016 | www.activistpost.com

    It seems long gone are the days when the corporate media could label anti-establishment information as a "conspiracy theory" if they wanted their viewers to ignore it. However, with more than half of the US population believing in these so-called " conspiracy theories ," the new moniker of the establishment for information they don't want you to see has become "fake news."

    Since the election's "surprise" outcome, the corporate media has railed against their alternative competitors labeling them as "fake" while their own frequently flawed, misleading, and false stories are touted as "real" news. World leaders have now begun calling out "fake news" in a desperate attempt to lend legitimacy to the corporate media, which continues to receive dismal approval ratings from the American public. Out-going US president Barack Obama was the first to speak out against the danger of "misinformation," though he failed to mention the several instances where he himself lied and spread misinformation to the American public.

    Now, the European Union has also effectively declared war on anti-establishment information as a wave of populism threatens the super-state's survival. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has now joined Obama in speaking out against "fake news," saying that such "misinformation" was manipulating public opinion on the internet. She also said that the growth of movements critical of her policies had been caused by these "fake" sites, saying "we must confront this phenomenon and if necessary, regulate it." Merkel also cited "concerns about the stability of our familiar order" for her criticisms of "fake news." Merkel, whose opposing party is set to make major gains in the next German election, stands to gain much from the censorship of alternative view points.

    As Merkel launched Europe's war against "fake news," the EU parliament just passed a resolution that calls for the EU to "respond to information warfare," particularly Russian "propaganda" from alternative news websites like Russia Today (RT) which receive Russian-government funding. RT and Sputnik news agencies were named directly as the most dangerous "tools of Russian propaganda." The resolution blames Moscow for the rise of populism in Europe, saying that by providing viewpoints that diverge from the corporate media's narrative it has sought to "incite fear and divide Europe." Apparently the mishandling of the refugee crisis , the EU's decision to eliminate the self-determination of certain issues by member nations, or the EU's move to create an EU super army were no match for "Russian propaganda" in creating widespread disillusionment with the European Union's current policies.

    The resolution also mentioned Russian media organizations alongside terrorist groups such as the Islamic State , which led several MEPs to call the resolution "ridiculous" and as fostering anti-Russian hysteria . As a result of the resolution's passage, EU member states are expected to "boost financing" for "counter-propaganda projects." It seems clear that the EU and the rest of the Western establishment has learned nothing from the decline of the corporate media as state-sanctioned propaganda is not having the same effect it used to. It's about time.

    What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news!

    This article ( EU Declares War On "Fake News," Votes To Counter "Propaganda" Critical Of Its Policies ) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com

    [Nov 25, 2016] Anti Russian warriors created valuable set of sites that fight neocon/neoliberal propaganda

    For them neocon/neoliberal propaganda 24/7 is OK, but anti-neoliberalism, anti-neoconservatism information, which sometimes is pro-Russian propaganda is not. Viva to McCarthyism! The hint is that you do not have a choice -- Big Brother is watching you like in the USSR. Anti-Russian propaganda money in action. It is interesting that Paul Craig Roberts who served in Reagan administration is listed as "left-wing"... Tell me who is your ally ( Bellingcat) and I will tell who you are...
    As Moon of Alabama noted "I wholeheartedly recommend to use the list that new anonymous censorship entity provides as your new or additional "Favorite Bookmarks" list. It includes illustrious financial anti-fraud sites like Yves Smith's Naked Capitalism , Wikileaks , well informed libertarian sites like Ron Paul and AntiWar.com and leftish old timers like Counterpunch . Of general (non-mainstream) news sites Consortiumnews , run by Robert Parry who revealed the Iran-contra crimes, is included as well as Truthdig and Truth-out.org ."
    Extended list is here It a real horror to see how deep pro Russian propaganda penetrated the US society ;-) This newly minted site lists as allies, and with such allies you can reliably tell who finance it
    www.propornot.com
    Name Domain Primary Target Audience Interests Review Article Absurd Pro-Russia Content Source? Repeater?
    Infowars / Alex Jones infowars.com Conspiracy Example Example Major Major
    Zerohedge zerohedge.com Finance Example Example Major Major
    True Activist trueactivist.com Left-wing Example Example Minor Major
    Natural News naturalnews.com Health Example Example Major Major
    Ending The Fed endingthefed.com Right-wing Example Example Minor Major
    Corbett Report corbettreport.com Geopolitics Example Example Major Minor
    Washington's Blog washingtonsblog.com General Example Example Major Major
    Before It's News beforeitsnews.com General Example Example No Major
    Counterpunch counterpunch.org Left-wing Example Example Major Minor
    Ron Paul Institute ronpaulinstitute.org Right-Wing Example Example Major Major
    Hang the Bankers hangthebankers.com Finance Example Example Minor Major
    The Activist Post activistpost.com Left-wing Example Example Major Minor
    The Anti-Media theantimedia.org Anti-Media Example Example Major Minor
    Veterans Today veteranstoday.com Veterans Example Example Major Major
    Southfront southfront.org Military Example Example Major Major
    Your Newswire yournewswire.com General Example Example Major Major
    America's Freedom Fighters americasfreedomfighters.com Right-wing Example Example Minor Minor
    Global Research globalresearch.ca General Example Example Major Major
    Paul Craig Roberts paulcraigroberts.org Left-wing Example Example Major Minor

    List of allies:

    [Nov 25, 2016] Recommended links that fight neocon/neoliberal propaganda

    Look like some guys from Soviet Politburo propaganda department make it to the USA :-) The site definitely smells with McCarthyism -- the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. Which was the standard way of suppressing dissidents in the USSR. So this is really "Back in the USSR" type of sites.
    But the list definitely has value: the sites listed are mostly anti-establishment, anti status-quo, anti-neocon/neolib sites not so much pro-Russian. After all Russia is just another neoliberal state, although they deviate from Washington consensus and do not want to be a puppet of the USA, which is the key requirement for the full acceptable into the club of "Good neoliberal states". Somehow this list can be called the list of anti US Imperialism sites or anti--war sites. And this represents the value of the list as people may not know about their existence.
    The new derogatory label for the establishment for information they don't want you to see has become "fake news." Conspiracy theories do nto work well anymore. That aqures some patina of respectability with age :-). "Since the election's "surprise" outcome, the corporate media has railed against their alternative competitors labeling them as "fake" while their own frequently flawed, misleading, and false stories are touted as "real" news. World leaders have now begun calling out "fake news" in a desperate attempt to lend legitimacy to the corporate media, which continues to receive dismal approval ratings from the American public. Out-going US president Barack Obama was the first to speak out against the danger of "misinformation," though he failed to mention the several instances where he himself lied and spread misinformation to the American public."
    The most crazy inclusion is probably Baltimore Gazette. Here how editors define its mission: "Baltimore Gazette is Baltimore's oldest US news source and one of the longest running daily newspapers published in the United States. With a focus on local content, the Gazette thrives to maintain a non-partisan newsroom making their our content the most reliable source available in print and across the web."
    Nov 25, 2016 | www.propornot.com
    PropOrNot is an independent team of concerned American citizens (an independent from whom? Concerned about what ? Looks like they are very dependent and so so much concerned, Playing pro-establishment card is always safe game -- NNB) with a wide range of backgrounds and expertise, including professional experience in computer science, statistics, public policy, and national security affairs. We are currently volunteering time and skills to identify propaganda - particularly Russian propaganda - targeting a U.S. audience. We collect public-record information connecting propaganda outlets to each other and their coordinators abroad, analyze what we find, act as a central repository and point of reference for related information, and organize efforts to oppose it. 2 We formed PropOrNot as an effort to prevent propaganda from distorting U.S. political and policy discussions (they want it to be distorted in their own specific pro-neoliberal way --NNB).

    We hope to strengthen our cultural immune systems against hostile influence (there is another name for that -- it is usually called brainwashing --NNB) and improve public discourse generally. However, our immediate aim at this point is to empower the American voter and decrease the ability of Russia to influence the ensuing American election.

    [Nov 25, 2016] EdwardBernays

    Nov 25, 2016 | profile.theguardian.com
    , 14 Nov 2016 08:3>
    Neoliberalism is the ideology of children who didn't get their needs met or suffered abuse or neglect. The more adverse child experiences one suffers, the greater the danger they pose to everyone else, and they seem to gravitate to warped belief systems where compassion or relying on others is deemed deeply shameful
    dreamwatcher EdwardBernays , 14 Nov 2016 09:0>
    I am no psychologist, but it must be evident to most that, at the micro level, childhood trauma and mental, physical and sexual abuse experienced at a young age within the family unit can lead to the child intending to rebalance and repay the power imbalance in adult life, with invariably adverse consequences for their environment and those around them.

    Looking at the world today it is not hard to see the culmination of the sins of the father over the centuries in the form of decent, hard-working people with no power struggles to redress being subjected to endless and downright cruel, even vindictive actions and policies enshrined into law and played out across the world stage by those who have abused power to make it to the top.

    And it is the socially disadvantaged and most vulnerable in society who have invariably suffered the most, hence the vast inequality in wealth distribution which has gathered momentum in recent years.

    Brexit and Trump are a symptom, a reaction and a backlash to the traumatised child reclaiming and abusing their power on a macro level.

    [Nov 25, 2016] Is Obama presiding over a national security state gone rogue? by Michael Cohen

    National security state gone rogue is fascism. Frankly, I don't see evidence of huge abuse of US liberties. But I do see our foreign policy distorted by a counter-terror obsession
    Notable quotes:
    "... the government's interpretation of that law ..."
    "... "One reports a crime; and one commits a crime." ..."
    "... but does not include differences of opinion concerning public policy matters ..."
    Jun 21, 2013 | The Guardian

    Jump to comments (118)

    Two weeks ago, the Guardian began publishing a series of eye-opening revelations about the National Security Agency and its surveillance efforts both in the United States and overseas. These stories raised long-moribund and often-ignored questions about the pervasiveness of government surveillance and the extent to which privacy rights are being violated by this secret and seemingly unaccountable security apparatus.

    However, over the past two weeks, we've begun to get a clearer understanding of the story and the implications of what has been published – informed in part by a new-found (if forced upon them) transparency from the intelligence community. So here's one columnist's effort to sort the wheat from the chaff and offer a few answers to the big questions that have been raised.

    These revelations are a big deal, right?

    To fully answer this question, it's important to clarify the revelations that have sparked such controversy. The Guardian (along with the Washington Post) has broken a number of stories, each of which tells us very different things about what is happening inside the US government around matters of surveillance and cyber operations. Some are relatively mundane, others more controversial.

    The story that has shaped press coverage and received the most attention was the first one – namely, the publication of a judicial order from the Fisa court to Verizon that indicated the US is "hoovering" up millions of phone records (so-called "metadata") into a giant NSA database. When it broke, the story was quickly portrayed as a frightening tale of government overreach and violation of privacy rights. After all, such metadata – though it contains no actual content – can be used rather easily as a stepping-stone to more intrusive forms of surveillance.

    But what is the true extent of the story here: is this picture of government Big Brotherism correct or is this massive government surveillance actually quite benign?

    First of all, such a collection of data is not, in and of itself, illegal. The Obama administration was clearly acting within the constraints of federal law and received judicial approval for this broad request for data. That doesn't necessarily mean that the law is good or that the government's interpretation of that law is not too broad, but unlike the Bush "warrantless wiretapping" stories of several years ago, the US government is here acting within the law.

    The real question that should concern us is one raised by the TV writer David Simon in a widely cited blogpost looking at the issues raised by the Guardian's reporting, namely:

    "Is government accessing the data for the legitimate public safety needs of the society, or are they accessing it in ways that abuse individual liberties and violate personal privacy – and in a manner that is unsupervised."

    We know, for example, that the NSA is required to abide by laws that prevent the international targeting of American citizens (you can read more about that here). So, while metadata about phone calls made can be used to discover information about the individuals making the calls, there are "minimization" rules, procedures and laws that guide the use of such data and prevent possible abuse and misuse of protected data.

    The minimization procedures used by the NSA are controlled by secret Fisa courts. In fact, last year, the Fisa court ruled that these procedures didn't pass constitutional muster and had to be rewritten.

    Sure, the potential for abuse exists – but so, too, does the potential for the lawful use of metadata in a way that protects the privacy of individual Americans – and also assists the US government in pursuit of potential terrorist suspects. Of course, without information on the specific procedures used by the NSA to minimize the collection of protected data, it is impossible to know that no laws are being broken or no abuse is occurring.

    In that sense, we have to take the government's word for it. And that is especially problematic when you consider the Fisa court decisions authorizing this snooping are secret and the congressional intelligence committees tasked with conducting oversight tend to be toothless.

    But assumptions of bad faith and violations of privacy by the US government are just that assumptions. When President Obama says that the NSA is not violating privacy rights because it would be against the law, we can't simply disregard such statements as self-serving. Moreover, when one considers the privacy violations that Americans willingly submit to at airports, what personal data they give to the government in their tax returns, and what is regularly posted voluntarily on Facebook, sent via email and searched for online, highly-regulated data-mining by the NSA seems relatively tame.

    Edward Snowden: is he a hero or a traitor?

    One of the key questions that have emerged over this story is the motivation of the leaker in question, Edward Snowden. In his initial public interview, with Glenn Greenwald on 9 June, Snowden explained his actions, in part, thus:

    "I'm willing to sacrifice because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."

    Now, while one can argue that Snowden's actions do not involve personal sacrifice, whether they are heroic is a much higher bar to cross. First of all, it's far from clear that the US government is destroying privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world. Snowden may sincere about being "valiant for truth", but he wouldn't be the first person to believe himself such and yet be wrong.

    Second, one can make the case that there is a public interest in knowing that the US is collecting reams of phone records, but where is the public interest – and indeed, to Snowden's own justification, the violation of privacy – in leaking a presidential directive on cyber operations or leaking that the US is spying on the Russian president?

    The latter is both not a crime it's actually what the NSA was established to do! In his recent online chat hosted by the Guardian, Snowden suggested that the US should not be spying on any country with whom it's not formally at war. That is, at best, a dubious assertion, and one that is at odds with years of spycraft.

    On the presidential directive on cyber operations, the damning evidence that Snowden revealed was that President Obama has asked his advisers to create a list of potential targets for cyber operations – but such planning efforts are rather routine contingency operations. For example, if the US military drew up war plans in case conflict ever occurred between the US and North Korea – and that included offensive operations – would that be considered untoward or perhaps illegitimate military planning?

    This does not mean, however, that Snowden is a traitor. Leaking classified data is a serious offense, but treason is something else altogether.

    The problem for Snowden is that he has now also leaked classified information about ongoing US intelligence-gathering efforts to foreign governments, including China and Russia. That may be crossing a line, which means that the jury is still out on what label we should use to describe Snowden.

    Shouldn't Snowden be protected as a whistleblower?

    This question of leakers v whistleblowers has frequently been conflated in the public reporting about the NSA leak (and many others). But this is a crucial error. As Tara Lee, a lawyer at the law firm DLA Piper, with expertise in defense industry and national security litigation said to me there is an important distinction between leakers and whistleblowers, "One reports a crime; and one commits a crime."

    Traditionally (and often technically), whistleblowing refers to specific actions that are taken to bring to attention illegal behavior, fraud, waste, abuse etc. Moreover, the US government provides federal employees and contractors with the protection to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. In the case of Snowden, he could have gone to the inspector general at the Department of Justice or relevant congressional committees.

    From all accounts, it appears that he did not go down this path. Of course, since the material he was releasing was approved by the Fisa court and had the sign-off of the intelligence committee, he had good reason to believe that he would have not received the most receptive hearing for his complaints.

    Nevertheless, that does not give him carte blanche to leak to the press – and certainly doesn't give him carte blanche to leak information on activities that he personally finds objectionable but are clearly legal. Indeed, according to the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), whistleblowers can make complaints over matter of what the law calls "urgent concern", which includes "a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinion concerning public policy matters [my italics]."

    In other words, simply believing that a law or government action is wrong does not give one the right to leak information; and in the eyes of the law, it is not considered whistleblowing. Even if one accepts the view that the leaked Verizon order fell within the bounds of being in the "public interest", it's a harder case to make for the presidential directive on cyber operations or the eavesdropping on foreign leaders.

    The same problem is evident in the incorrect description of Bradley Manning as a whistleblower. When you leak hundreds of thousands of documents – not all of which you reviewed and most of which contain the mundane and not illegal diplomatic behavior of the US government – you're leaking. Both Manning and now Snowden have taken it upon themselves to decide what should be in the public domain; quite simply, they don't have the right to do that. If every government employee decided actions that offended their sense of morality should be leaked, the government would never be able to keep any secrets at all and, frankly, would be unable to operate effectively.

    So, like Manning, Snowden is almost certainly not a whistleblower, but rather a leaker. And that would mean that he, like Manning, is liable to prosecution for leaking classified material.

    Are Democrats hypocrites over the NSA's activities?

    A couple of days ago, my Guardian colleague, Glenn Greenwald made the following assertion:

    "The most vehement defenders of NSA surveillance have been, by far, Democratic (especially Obama-loyal) pundits. One of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy has been the transformation of Democrats from pretend-opponents of the Bush "war on terror" and national security state into their biggest proponents."

    This is regular line of argument from Glenn, but it's one that, for a variety of reasons, I believe is not fair. (I don't say this because I'm an Obama partisan – though I may be called one for writing this.)

    First, the lion's share of criticism of these recent revelations has come, overwhelmingly, from Democrats and, indeed, from many of the same people, including Greenwald, who were up in arms when the so-called warrantless wiretapping program was revealed in 2006. The reality is that outside a minority of activists, it's not clear that many Americans – Democrats or Republicans get all that excited about these types of stories. (Not that this is necessarily a good thing.)

    Second, opposition to the Bush program was two-fold: first, it was illegal and was conducted with no judicial or congressional oversight; second, Bush's surveillance policies did not occur in a vacuum – they were part of a pattern of law-breaking, disastrous policy decisions and Manichean rhetoric over the "war on terror". So, if you opposed the manner in which Bush waged war on the "axis of evil", it's not surprising that you would oppose its specific elements. In the same way, if you now support how President Obama conducts counter-terrorism efforts, it's not surprising that you'd be more inclined to view specific anti-terror policies as more benign.

    Critics will, of course, argue – and rightly so – that we are a country of laws first. In which case it shouldn't matter who is the president, but rather what the laws are that govern his or her conduct. Back in the world of political reality, though, that's not how most Americans think of their government. Their perceptions are defined in large measure by how the current president conducts himself, so there is nothing at all surprising about Republicans having greater confidence in a Republican president and Democrats having greater confidence in a Democratic one, when asked about specific government programs.

    Beyond that, simply having greater confidence in President Obama than President Bush to wield the awesome powers granted the commander-in-chief to conduct foreign policy is not partisanship. It's common sense.

    George Bush was, undoubtedly, one of the two or three worst foreign policy presidents in American history (and arguably, our worst president, period). He and Dick Cheney habitually broke the law, including but not limited to the abuse of NSA surveillance. President Obama is far from perfect: he made the terrible decision to surge in Afghanistan, and he's fought two wars of dubious legality in Libya and Pakistan, but he's very far from the sheer awfulness of the Bush/Cheney years.

    Unless you believe the US should have no NSA, and conduct no intelligence-gathering in the fight against terrorism, you have to choose a president to manage that agency. And there is nothing hypocritical or partisan about believing that one president is better than another to handle those responsibilities.

    Has NSA surveillance prevented terrorist attacks, as claimed?

    In congressional testimony this week, officials from the Department of Justice and the NSA argued that surveillance efforts stopped "potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11". Having spent far too many years listening to public officials describe terrifying terror plots that fell apart under greater scrutiny, this assertion sets off for me a set of red flags (even though it may be true).

    I have no doubt that NSA surveillance has contributed to national security investigations, but whether it's as extensive or as vital as the claims of government officials is more doubtful. To be honest, I'm not sure it matters. Part of the reason the US government conducts NSA surveillance in the first place is not necessarily to stop every potential attack (though that would be nice), but to deter potential terrorists from acting in the first place.

    Critics of the program like to argue that "of course, terrorists know their phones are being tapped and emails are being read", but that's kind of the point. If they know this, it forces them to choose more inefficient means of communicating, and perhaps to put aside potential attacks for fear of being uncovered.

    We also know that not every terrorist has the skills of a Jason Bourne. In fact, many appear to be not terribly bright, which means that even if they know about the NSA's enormous dragnet, it doesn't mean they won't occasionally screw up and get caught.

    Yet, this gets to a larger issue that is raised by the NSA revelations.

    When is enough counter-terrorism enough?

    Over the past 12 years, the US has developed what can best be described as a dysfunctional relationship with terrorism. We've become obsessed with it and with a zero-tolerance approach to stopping it. While the former is obviously an important goal, it has led the US to take steps that not only undermine our values (such as torture), but also make us weaker (the invasion of Iraq, the surge in Afghanistan, etc).

    To be sure, this is not true of every anti-terror program of the past dozen years. For example, the US does a better job of sharing intelligence among government agencies, and of screening those who are entering the country. And military efforts in the early days of the "war on terror" clearly did enormous damage to al-Qaida's capabilities.

    In general, though, when one considers the relatively low risk of terrorist attacks – and the formidable defenses of the United States – the US response to terrorism has been one of hysterical over-reaction. Indeed, the balance we so often hear about when it comes to protecting privacy while also ensuring security is only one part of the equation. The other is how do we balance the need to stop terrorists (who certainly aspire to attack the United States) and the need to prevent anti-terrorism from driving our foreign policy to a disproportionate degree. While the NSA revelations might not be proof that we've gone too far in one direction, there's not doubt that, for much of the past 12 years, terrorism has distorted and marred our foreign policy.

    Last month, President Obama gave a seminal speech at the National Defense University, in which he essentially declared the "war on terror" over. With troops coming home from Afghanistan, and drone strikes on the decline, that certainly seems to be the case. But as the national freakout over the Boston Marathon bombing – and the extraordinary over-reaction of a city-wide lockdown for one wounded terrorist on the loose – remind us, we still have a ways to go.

    Moreover, since no politician wants to find him- or herself in a situation after a terrorist attack when the criticism "why didn't you do more?" can be aired, that political imperative of zero tolerance will drive our counterterrorism policies. At some point, that needs to end.

    In fact, nine years ago, our current secretary of state, John Kerry, made this exact point; it's worth reviewing his words:

    "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

    What the NSA revelations should spark is not just a debate on surveillance, but on the way we think about terrorism and the steps that we should be willing to take both to stop it and ensure that it does not control us. We're not there yet.

    007Prometheus

    No GCHQ - MI5 - MI6 - NSA - CIA - FBI etc........... ad nausem!

    How many Billions / Trillions are spent on these services? If 11/9 and 7/7 were homegrown attacks, then i think, they will take us all down with them.

    NOTaREALmerican

    @007Prometheus

    Re: How many Billions / Trillions are spent on these services?

    The wonderful thing about living in a "Keynesian" perpetually increasing debt paradise is you NEVER have to say you can't afford anything. (Well, unless you want to say it, but if you do it's just political bullshit).

    So, to answer your question... A "Keynesian" never asks how much, just how much do you want.

    bloopie2

    "Frankly, I don't see evidence of huge abuse of US liberties"

    Just wait until they come for you.

    bloopie2

    "When one considers the privacy violations that Americans willingly submit to at airports, what personal data they give to the government in their tax returns, and what is regularly posted voluntarily on Facebook, sent via email and searched for online, highly-regulated data-mining by the NSA seems relatively tame."

    Dear Sir: Please post your email addresses, bank accounts, and passwords. We'd like to look at everything.

    Got a problem with that?

    Tonieja

    "When one considers the privacy violations that Americans willingly submit to at airports, what personal data they give to the government in their tax returns, and what is regularly posted voluntarily on Facebook, sent via email and searched for online [...]"

    Wow! I don't really care about my personal email. I do care about all political activists, journalists, lawyers etc. That a journalist would support Stasi style surveillance state is astonishing.

    gisbournelove

    I wish I had the time to go through this article and demolish it sentence by sentence as it so richly deserves, but at the moment I don't. Instead, might I suggest to the author that he go to the guardian archive, read every single story about this in chronological order and then read every damn link posted in the comment threads on the three most recent stories.

    Most especially the links in the comment threads. If after that, he cannot see why we "civil libertarian freaks" are not just outraged, but frightened, he frankly lacks both historical knowledge and any ability to analyze the facts that are staring him in the face. I can't believe I am going to have to say this again but here goes: YOU do not get to give away my contitutional rights, Mr. Cohen.

    I don't give a shit how much you trust Obama compared to dubya. The Bill of Rights states in clear, unambiguous language what the Federal government may NOT do do its citizens no matter WHO is president.

    goodkurtz

    Michael Cohen
    Frankly, I don't see evidence of huge abuse of US liberties.

    Well of course you wont see them.
    But the abuses are very probably already happening on a one to one basis in the same shadows in which the intelligence was first gathered.

    [Nov 25, 2016] Donald Trump tells mainstream media what he really thinks of them

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Being in front of a fucking firing squad" ..."
    "... room full of liars" ..."
    theduran.com
    President-elect Donald Trump recently had an 'off the record' meeting with members of the American press, aka mainstream media. Such events are not unusual for presidents and future presidents, but according to a variety anonymous sources, Donald Trump has not extended an olive branch to media figures who displayed their open bias against him throughout the campaign. >

    According to The Hill, Trump said that being in front of the mainstream media was like, "Being in front of a fucking firing squad". Other sources claim he repeatedly said that he was in a "room full of liars". If he indeed said either of those things, it is difficult to disagree with such an assessment. He also claimed that he "hated" CNN, feelings which seem self-evidently mutual.

    According to the generally anti-Trump Politico, the President-elect blasted NBC for using unflattering photographs of him throughout their coverage.

    Whether or not these reports are fully accurate is beside the point. Frankly, why would one trust off the record comments from people who publicly slandered Trump on the record and did so without a hint of shame.

    What is more significant is what Trump said about his use of social media during his lengthy interview on CBS's 60 Minutes. Here, Trump said that social media is an effective way to bypass big-media and speak directly to the public. He also stated that it is a quick, cheap and effective way to clarify misstatements made by the mainstream media.

    This is unequivocally true and it is heartening. To think that a small smartphone has the ability to reach as many and at times even more people than the mainstream media with their millions of dollars worth of cameras, microphones, lights, sets, drivers, vehicles, offices and staff, is a sign that the world is no longer beholden to the arrogant gatekeepers of news, perhaps better referred to as "fake news".

    Donald Trump was indeed given a very unfair time by the media and he has no reason to forget nor forgive. He also has no reason to placate them, and frankly due to the power of new-media, online media and his own highly effective use of social media, he doesn't need them.

    They are relics of the past and he is a symbol of the future.

    Steven Barry

    The alt-media is the samizdat (google it) of the internet age. The genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting it back.

    Simon

    Excellent. Yet even 'IF' the reports of this meeting are exaggerated, there is a fact that is undeniable; The new President is holding Court in his own palace, on top of his own castle, in New York.

    All the supplicants are coming to him. Even the Japanese Prime minister. He sits there in the economic capital of the USA rather than being in Washington - where presumably something like the HQ of the Republican Party would be the more normal venue for a president-elect.

    Far away in the DC Swamp (which voted 94% Hillary) the politicians, the hacks, the lobbyists the 'professionals' are in panic - there's no way to meet him, no way to do lunch at 30mins notice. All they have is the tragic ghost of BHO wandering around the White House, but the glitz the zeitgeist the locus is now at Trump Tower. Every day we see its lobby and the golden lift in the news.

    Many believe nothing will change, but so far there are plenty signs that it has.

    tom > Simon

    Let's hope the Trump Tower doesn't get 9/11'd.

    le-DeplorableFroggy > tom

    As long as the Mossad terrorists are kept OUT of the US from now on, and every zionist stooge is either locked up or thrown OUT of this country, NO more israHell/Mossad false flags in the US.

    ● How Ehud Barak Pulled Off 9-11 - (bollyn dot com/how-ehud-barak-pulled-off-9-11-2)
    ● MADE IN ISRAEL - 9-11 and the Jewish Plot Against America PDF - (shop.americanfreepress dot net/store/c/25-Israel.html)
    ● 9-11 EVIL - Israel's Central Role in the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attacks - (shop.americanfreepress dot net/store/c/25-Israel.html)
    ● Get the Hell Out of Our Country! Parts 1 to 5 - (veteranstoday dot com/2015/02/05/get-the-hell-out-of-our-country/)
    ● Israel a cornered rat - "In 10 years there will be no more Israel" - Henry 'Balloonie' Kizzinger - (darkmoon dot me/2014/israel-a-cornered-rat/)
    ● Netanyahu tells ministers not to talk to Trump's people - (theuglytruth.wordpress dot com/2016/11/21/netanyahu-tells-ministers-not-to-talk-to-trumps-people/#more-162166)

    7.62x54r • 3 days ago

    US media ( and other NATO media ) are propagandists. The US Big 6 should have their licenses yanked for putting forth a flawed and wholly dishonest product. Screw them.

    [Nov 24, 2016] Donald Trumps New York Times Interview Full Transcript - The New York Times

    Nov 24, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    FRIEDMAN: What do you see as America's role in the world? Do you believe that the role

    TRUMP: That's such a big question.

    FRIEDMAN: The role that we played for 50 years as kind of the global balancer, paying more for things because they were in our ultimate interest, one hears from you, I sense, is really shrinking that role.

    TRUMP: I don't think we should be a nation builder. I think we've tried that. I happen to think that going into Iraq was perhaps I mean you could say maybe we could have settled the civil war, O.K.? I think going into Iraq was one of the great mistakes in the history of our country. I think getting out of it - I think we got out of it wrong, then lots of bad things happened, including the formation of ISIS. We could have gotten out of it differently.

    FRIEDMAN: NATO, Russia?

    TRUMP: I think going in was a terrible, terrible mistake. Syria, we have to solve that problem because we are going to just keep fighting, fighting forever. I have a different view on Syria than everybody else. Well, not everybody else, but then a lot of people. I had to listen to [Senator] Lindsey Graham, who, give me a break. I had to listen to Lindsey Graham talk about, you know, attacking Syria and attacking, you know, and it's like you're now attacking Russia, you're attacking Iran, you're attacking. And what are we getting? We're getting - and what are we getting? And I have some very definitive, I have some very strong ideas on Syria. I think what's happened is a horrible, horrible thing. To look at the deaths, and I'm not just talking deaths on our side, which are horrible, but the deaths - I mean you look at these cities, Arthur, where they're totally, they're rubble, massive areas, and they say two people were injured. No, thousands of people have died. O.K. And I think it's a shame. And ideally we can get - do something with Syria. I spoke to Putin, as you know, he called me, essentially

    UNKNOWN: How do you see that relationship?

    TRUMP: Essentially everybody called me, all of the major leaders, and most of them I've spoken to.

    FRIEDMAN: Will you have a reset with Russia?

    TRUMP: I wouldn't use that term after what happened, you know, previously. I think - I would love to be able to get along with Russia and I think they'd like to be able to get along with us. It's in our mutual interest. And I don't go in with any preconceived notion, but I will tell you, I would say - when they used to say, during the campaign, Donald Trump loves Putin, Putin loves Donald Trump, I said, huh, wouldn't it be nice, I'd say this in front of thousands of people, wouldn't it be nice to actually report what they said, wouldn't it be nice if we actually got along with Russia, wouldn't it be nice if we went after ISIS together, which is, by the way, aside from being dangerous, it's very expensive, and ISIS shouldn't have been even allowed to form, and the people will stand up and give me a massive hand. You know they thought it was bad that I was getting along with Putin or that I believe strongly if we can get along with Russia that's a positive thing. It is a great thing that we can get along with not only Russia but that we get along with other countries.

    JOSEPH KAHN, managing editor: On Syria, would you mind, you said you have a very strong idea about what to do with the Syria conflict, can you describe that for us?

    TRUMP: I can only say this: We have to end that craziness that's going on in Syria. One of the things that was told to me - can I say this off the record, or is everything on the record?

    [Nov 24, 2016] Flynn and Ledeens Imaginary Alliance The American Conservative

    Nov 24, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    isn't impressed with Trump's national security appointments so far. Here he comments on Flynn's views:

    Iran is another subject on which Flynn displays far more simplistically expressed emotion than any careful attention to facts and the pros and cons of U.S. policy options. His attitude is demonstrated in Congressional testimony in June 2015, which can be fairly summarized as saying that Iran is bad in every respect and we should have no dealings with it on anything. (Jim Lobe has collated some of the lowlights from this statement). Flynn stated that "regime change in Tehran is the best way to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program"-with no further elaboration on how this would be brought about, leaving us to suppose that it is the Iraq 2003 model. He has given no indication since then of dropping his blanket opposition to the negotiated agreement that limits Iran's nuclear program and has successfully been in operation for more than a year, nor does he show any awareness of the U.S. intelligence community's public judgment that Iran had stopped any nuclear weapons program several years before he was testifying.

    Among other things, Flynn claims to know that "Iran has every intention of building a nuclear weapon" despite the fact that their government abandoned any attempt to do so over a decade ago. He claims that Iran's government has stated this intention "many times," but the truth is that their government has consistently denied ever seeking to build such a weapon. Many of the things that Flynn asserts in his testimony are demonstrably untrue, but they are part of a pattern of consistently exaggerating the threat from Iran and ignoring evidence that contradicts his alarmist assessments. Later in his testimony, he says this about Iran's relations with certain other states:

    Just look at the cooperation with North Korea, China and Russia. Connect those dots, and you get the outline of a global alliance aimed at the U.S., our friends, and our allies.

    This is not a case of "connecting dots" at all. It is an invention of an "alliance" where none exists on the basis of some very weak evidence. There is some limited cooperation between these states, but they are not allies nor do they regularly work together as if they were. We see in Flynn's testimony a nod towards the imaginary global "alliance" that Flynn and Ledeen concoct in their book (here is a video of the co-authors talking about the book from earlier this year), so this is a view that he already held over a year ago. That brings me back to the conclusion I reached over the summer when I first started writing about Flynn:

    The fact that he believes (or claims to believe) things as obviously false global "alliance" of villains should make it clear that he is happy to indulge and recycle extremely dangerous and foolish ideological talking points. That's not someone any of us should want working in or advising a future administration.

    Unfortunately, he will be advising the next president in a very influential position, and we should have no illusions about the quality of advice Flynn will be giving him.

    [Nov 24, 2016] Network: Its most famous virtue is its extreme and eerie prescience about where the news media would go in the next decades

    Notable quotes:
    "... If Trump hadn't settled on Make America Great Again for a slogan, he could have easily run on "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more!" ..."
    "... Nobody wants news any more, says Christensen, as she ruthlessly lays out a template for the coming age of "disinfotainment" and canned news-porn. ..."
    Nov 23, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Comments 225
    Network at 40: the flawed satire that predicted Trump and cable 'news porn'. Prescient and powerful, the film foreshadowed the likes of Bill O'Reilly with its 'mad as hell' protagonists and the climate of American anger that birthed Trump

    Does this sound familiar? "The American people are turning us off. They've been clobbered by Vietnam, Watergate, the inflation, the depression. They've turned off, shot up the American people want someone to articulate their rage." And how about this? "There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT, and ATT and DuPont, Dow, Union-Carbide and Exxon. The world is a business it has been ever since man crawled up out of the slime."

    Change the historical events, change the names of the conglomerates, and these speeches could have been written yesterday morning about, or by, President-elect Donald J Trump. He is Network screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky's nightmare made real, his blistering satire come completely true just in time for the film's 40th anniversary this week. If Trump hadn't settled on Make America Great Again for a slogan, he could have easily run on "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more!"

    Network is like a time machine: when it was released four decades ago this week it more or less accurately predicted the state of media as it is 40 years later. It mourns the original golden age of television – the 1950s – of which Paddy Chayefsky was a major and emblematic figure, but it partakes of all that era's shortcomings, too: overstatement, speechifying, ranting, self-indulgent writing, sledgehammer subtlety.

    Trump could have easily run on a slogan of 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more!'

    It also, nonetheless, looks startlingly like a work that would fit snugly into the current golden age of television alongside shows like The Newsroom and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The creator of those shows, Aaron Sorkin, even went so far as to invoke Chayefsky when he received his screenwriting Oscar for The Social Network.

    Network's most famous virtue is its extreme and eerie prescience about where the news media would go in the next decades. Howard Beale, "the mad prophet of the airwaves", lurks behind any number of real-life media ranters and screamers of our own time, from Bill O'Reilly to Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck to Alex Jones.

    Faye Dunaway's carnivorous network suit Diana Christensen – Sammy Glick via Tracy Flick – is derived from young TV execs of the 1970s who were accused of infantilizing the medium. People like NBC daytime programmer Lin Bolen and Fred Silverman, who serially headed all three networks, in particular. Network takes the side of the old against the young, seeing youth as a destructive, insatiable, Darwinian force that will ultimately usurp William Holden's ageing newsroom chief Max Schumacher.

    Nobody wants news any more, says Christensen, as she ruthlessly lays out a template for the coming age of "disinfotainment" and canned news-porn. The first step of which is to bring the independent news division under the heel of network entertainment programming. What Shumacher dreams up in a drunken haze as a joke, she makes reality – or reality television, as it had yet to be known.

    'It is a pre-digital realm of rotary phones, filing cabinets, steno pads and typewriters; the newsroom is an exact match for the newsroom in All the President's Men '

    Another of Network's accidental byproducts is the nostalgia one feels right from its opening shot of four TV network news anchors – three real, one fictional. In those pre-Fox years, of course, there were only three networks, and they underpinned what was left of the American consensus after Goldwater and Nixon, Vietnam and Watergate. It is a pre-digital realm of rotary phones, filing cabinets, steno pads and typewriters; the newsroom is an exact match for the newsroom in All the President's Men, also released during the bicentennial, and the idealistic yin to Network's pessimistic yang.

    And the mid-1970s was almost insane enough to obviate satire entirely. Network is embedded in the very real world of 1975, satire notwithstanding. We hear of "the Lennon deportation", the two recent assassination attempts on President Gerald Ford, the Opec price hike, and the Patty Hearst kidnapping. Indeed, the movie mentions multiple heiress-terrorists and offers us one of its own, played by Kathy Cronkite, daughter of Walter, America's most trusted anchorman.

    Forty years later, Network is half a masterpiece. At more or less the one-hour mark, right after the mad-as-hell speech and 60 minutes of very sure-footed satire, it loses all steam and caves in on itself. Chayefsky falls prey to all the spell-it-out vices of the golden age of television, and one can imagine it all in black-and-white, being broadcast in 1956. Character names aren't exactly subtle: Robert Duvall's shark-like executive, prone to budget-slashing, is named Hackett, while the affair between Dunaway and Holden plays like bad Philco Playhouse dross.

    Everybody gets a chance to yell at great length, and with the exception of Duvall (who is here turned up to maximum Charlie-Don't-Surf!), few of them carry it off well. Even Mr Jensen's apocalyptic bollocking of Peter Finch ("Valhalla, Mr Beale, Please sit down ") seems faintly risible now. And the dialogue betrays a working-class autodidact's over-fondness for Big Words: "multivariant", "auspicatory", "eraculate", "intractable and adamantine"!

    Chayefsky, a creature of postwar television, despises what it has become (he'd quit TV in disgust in 1960). The young are all vacant, amoral gargoyles. The black characters are near-racist caricatures puking up demented Marxist-Leninist verbiage while eating fried chicken and cradling machine guns. Satire repeatedly merges with spite and contempt – for characters and audience – putting Network up there with A Face in the Crowd in the never-ending war between Hollywood and upstart television.

    But still, there is that breathtaking, unnerving prescience, which makes one sorry that three of Network's principal architects – Chayefsky, Finch and Holden – were dead long before it became apparent. And there is this, from Finch-Beale, a line that reaches straight across 40 years of time and grabs us by the throat: " This tube is the most awesome goddamn force in the whole godless world, and woe is us if it ever falls into the hands of the wrong people! " Perhaps it's too late.

    Four films that predicted the rise of Donald Trump

    From Citizen Kane to Gangs of New York, cinema has been warning of the inexorable rise of the Republican candidate for years Read more

    Trump v the media: did his tactics mortally wound the fourth estate?

    From a bonanza of free airtime to an overt media campaign against him, Donald Trump was a candidate covered like no other. But were journalists unwitting accomplices in his election? And where does the industry go from here?

    [Nov 24, 2016] Populists as Snake Oil Sellers

    Title is pretty misleading. It is neoliberals who are snake oil sellers. In no way FDR was a snake oil seller.
    Notable quotes:
    "... People aren't so much voting _for_ snake oil as _against_ the status quo. ..."
    "... False analogies. Time for "change", no expectation of "hope" from the bomber* who got the Nobel peace prize. 'Snake oil'+ from both sides in 2016. Add a dash of corruption and rigged system. The corrupt snake oil sales pitch who lost to the unorganized snake oil sales pitch. ..."
    "... From my prospective the donkey-s were pushing more of the same conservative party-line straight from 1928. The publicans had deep vested interest in the same failed approach to culture, society, economy, and finance. The same except for one of its hopeful candidates who saw the problem, some of the remedies, and a path towards the control tower using the popular but outdated methods of pandering to our most disgusting instincts of evil. Sure! ..."
    "... Snake oil salesmen, eh? One only has to read Minsky on the neoclassical assumptions or, for that matter, Milton Friedman on why nonsense is perfectly fine to know who the big league snake oil salesmen have been. People voting for Brexit and Trump were voting for anything but the snake oil status quo. ..."
    "... The Establishment isn't delivering so you get populists on the left and right. ..."
    "... Make me think of the Middle East where the West destroyed the communists and socialists and so all that was left was the military-backed authoritarians and the mosques with their "snake oil." ..."
    "... "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people" ..."
    "... Seems it to difficult to admit globalization damaged US workers, so the fall back is to call workers gullible and racist. ..."
    Nov 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Ron Waller : November 24, 2016 at 08:20 AM

    Clearly Keynes and FDR were snake-oil salesmen. The Progressive New Deal Era (1932-80) being the biggest economic muckup in the history of humanity!

    Thankfully Friedman came along and made America and the world great again. (Just a slight kink in the model: the global economy teetering on the verge of collapse into fascist revolutions and world war. Nothing a little free-market medicine can't nip in the bud!)

    anne -> Ron Waller ... , November 24, 2016 at 08:36 AM
    Clearly Keynes and FDR were snake-oil salesmen. The Progressive New Deal Era (1932-80) being the biggest economic muckup in the history of humanity!

    [ Perfectly ironic. ]

    anne -> Ron Waller ... , November 24, 2016 at 08:40 AM
    http://www.measuringworth.com/growth/

    January 15, 2016

    Annualized Growth Rates

    1933 to 1979 Real GDP = 4.71%
    1933 to 1979 Real GDP per capita = 3.39%

    1980 to 2015 Real GDP = 2.70%
    1980 to 2015 Real GDP per capita = 1.69%

    Unhandyandy : , November 24, 2016 at 08:31 AM
    Maybe a misdiagnosis. People aren't so much voting _for_ snake oil as _against_ the status quo.
    ilsm : , November 24, 2016 at 08:48 AM
    False analogies. Time for "change", no expectation of "hope" from the bomber* who got the Nobel peace prize. 'Snake oil'+ from both sides in 2016. Add a dash of corruption and rigged system. The corrupt snake oil sales pitch who lost to the unorganized snake oil sales pitch.

    If the faux left don't get some logic it needs to be replaced by a leftie of the Trump brand.

    *con artist/war monger

    +racism/sexism fear mongers

    Choco Bell : , November 24, 2016 at 09:01 AM
    have become "homogeneous", while Lebanon has not thrived as a nation
    "
    ~~steve randy waldman~

    Populist Politicians

    From the steve quotation you can guess that USA has thrived thus all our long list of ethnicity-s are mutually dissolving each into the other. As interbreeding proceeds you can see the evidence within Gaussian distribution of each ethnic feature. We are now a nation of one people.

    If it then follows that the recent election was not merely all things racism, what was the focus of the candidates?

    From my prospective the donkey-s were pushing more of the same conservative party-line straight from 1928. The publicans had deep vested interest in the same failed approach to culture, society, economy, and finance. The same except for one of its hopeful candidates who saw the problem, some of the remedies, and a path towards the control tower using the popular but outdated methods of pandering to our most disgusting instincts of evil. Sure!

    His vision is incomplete. He is still searching for the answers, but he is certain that we cannot return to the cold war of 1950. Will he rediscover deflation, full reserve banking, green transportation, a gentler approach to the Luddites?

    We need to support his search for a more sustainable USA, a more sustainable planet, a more sustainable

    population-al
    shrinkage --

    Sandwichman : , November 24, 2016 at 09:09 AM
    Snake oil salesmen, eh? One only has to read Minsky on the neoclassical assumptions or, for that matter, Milton Friedman on why nonsense is perfectly fine to know who the big league snake oil salesmen have been. People voting for Brexit and Trump were voting for anything but the snake oil status quo.

    There are populists and then there are demagogues masquerading as populists. Stamp out the populists with constant ridicule from the crackpot realists and all that will be left are the demagogues who style themselves as populists.

    Peter K. -> Sandwichman ... , November 24, 2016 at 09:18 AM
    Well said.
    Denis Drew : , November 24, 2016 at 09:18 AM
    CUT-AND-PASTE AGAIN :-]

    As my old Bronx doctor, Seymour Tenzer, put it: "All these histories are bullshit -- I got punched in the chest; that's why I've got a lump." [:-)]

    Trump's victory is down to the disappearance of the $800 job for the $400 job. That subtracted from the vote in the black ghettos – and added to the vote in the white ghettos -- both ghettos being far off the radar screen of academic liberals like Hill and O.

    I notice the white ghettos because that is me. My old taxi job (much too old now at 72 3/4) was "in-sourced" all over the world to drivers who would work for remarkably less (than the not so great incomes we native born eked out). Today's low skilled jobs go to native and foreign born who willing to show up for $400 (e.g., since Walmart gutted supermarket contracts). Fast food strictly to foreign born who will show up for $290 a week (min wage $400, 1968 -- when per cap income half today's).

    Don't expect the 100,000 out of maybe 200,000 Chicago gang age males to show up for a life time of $400/wk servitude. Did I mention, manufacturing was down to 6% of employment 15 years ago -- now 4% (disappearing like farm labor, mostly robo; look to health care for the future?)?
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/

    6% union density at private employers = 20/10 BP which starves every healthy process in the social body = disappearance of collective bargaining and its institutional concomitants which supply political funding and lobbying equal to oligarchs plus most all the votes ...

    ... votes: notice? 45% take 10% of overall income -- 45% earn $15/hr or less -- a lot of votes.

    Peter K. : , November 24, 2016 at 09:25 AM
    The Establishment isn't delivering so you get populists on the left and right. Would Dillow or SWL call Corbyn and Sanders snake oil salesmen?

    The centrists do. The corrupt corporate media makes a point to do that.

    Make me think of the Middle East where the West destroyed the communists and socialists and so all that was left was the military-backed authoritarians and the mosques with their "snake oil."

    "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people"

    Tom aka Rusty : , November 24, 2016 at 10:27 AM
    Seems it to difficult to admit globalization damaged US workers, so the fall back is to call workers gullible and racist.

    [Nov 24, 2016] Jill Stein, who said on the campaign trail that Clinton is more dangerous than Trump, is filing for a recount with the specific aim of overturning the result and making Clinton president

    Notable quotes:
    "... That being the case I'm sorry I voted for Stein and question her honesty and the Green Party itself. Since the allegations of hacked voting machines sound shaky at best, one starts to wonder whether the allegations that Stein was in fact a vaxxer are true. But more to the point one wonders whether she has HRC on the speed dial. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Carolinian November 24, 2 | 016 at 6:11 pm

    So Jill Stein, who said on the campaign trail that Clinton is more dangerous than Trump, is filing for a recount with the specific aim of overturning the result and making Clinton president–at least according to your link.

    That being the case I'm sorry I voted for Stein and question her honesty and the Green Party itself. Since the allegations of hacked voting machines sound shaky at best, one starts to wonder whether the allegations that Stein was in fact a vaxxer are true. But more to the point one wonders whether she has HRC on the speed dial.

    [Nov 24, 2016] Trumps National Security Adviser Facilitated the Murder of Civilians in Afghanistan

    Nov 24, 2016 | www.truth-out.org
    But as an investigation published by Truthout in 2011 revealed , the target list that JSOC used for its "night raids" and other operations to kill supposed Taliban was based on a fundamentally flawed methodology that was inherently incapable of distinguishing between Taliban insurgents and civilians who had only tangential contacts with the Taliban organization. And it was Flynn who devised that methodology.

    The "night raids" on Afghan homes based on Flynn's methodology caused so much Afghan anger toward Americans that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, acknowledged the problem of Afghan antagonism toward the entire program publicly in a March 2010 directive.

    The system that led to that Afghan outrage began to take shape in Iraq in 2006, when Flynn, then-intelligence chief for JSOC, developed a new methodology for identifying and locating al-Qaeda and Shia Mahdi Army members in Iraq. Flynn revealed the technologies used in Iraq in an unclassified article published in 2008.

    At the center of the system was what Flynn called the "Unblinking Eye," referring to 24-hour drone surveillance of specific locations associated with "known and suspected terrorist sites and individuals." The drone surveillance was then used to establish a "pattern of life analysis," which was the main tool used to determine whether to strike the target. We now know from reports of drone strikes in Pakistan that killed entire groups of innocent people that "pattern of life analysis" is frequently a matter of guesswork that is completely wrong.

    Flynn's unclassified article also revealed that "SIGINT" (signals intelligence), i.e., the monitoring of cell phone metadata, and "geo-location" of phones were the other two major tools used in Flynn's system of targeting military strikes. JSOC was using links among cell phones to identify suspected insurgents.

    Flynn's article suggested that the main emphasis in intelligence for targeting in Iraq was on providing analysis of the aerial surveillance visual intelligence on a target to help decide in real time whether to carry out a strike on it.

    But when McChrystal took command of US forces in Afghanistan in mid-2009 and took Flynn with him as his intelligence chief, Flynn's targeting methodology changed dramatically. JSOC had already begun to carry out "night raids" in Afghanistan -- usually attacks on private homes in the middle of the night -- and McChrystal wanted to increase the tempo of those raids. The number of night raids increased from 20 per month in May 2009 to 90 per month six months later. It reached an average of more than 100 a month in the second half of 2009 and the first half of 2010.

    At this point, the targets were no longer Taliban commanders and higher-ups in the organization. They included people allegedly doing basic functions such as logistics, bomb-making and propaganda.

    In order to rapidly build up the highly secret "kill/capture" list (called the "Joint Prioritized Effects List," or JPEL) to meet McChrystal's demands for more targets, Flynn used a technique called "link analysis." This technique involved the use of software that allowed intelligence analysts to see the raw data from drone surveillance and cell phone data transformed instantly into a "map" of the insurgent "network." That "map" of each network associated with surveillance of a location became the basis for adding new names to the JPEL.

    Flynn could increase the number of individual "nodes" on that map by constantly adding more cell phone metadata for the computer-generated "map" of the insurgency. Every time JSOC commandos killed or captured someone, they took their cell phones to add their metadata to the database. And US intelligence also gathered cell phone data from the population of roughly 3,300 suspected insurgents being held in the Afghan prison system, who were allowed to use mobile phones freely in their cells.

    What the expansion of cell phone data surveillance meant was that an ever-greater proportion of the targets on Flynn's "kill/capture list" were not identified at all, except as mobile phone numbers. As Matthew Hoh, who served as the senior US civilian official in Zabul Province until he quit in protest in September 2009, explained to me, "When you are relying on cell phones for intelligence, you don't get the names of those targeted."

    There was no requirement for any effort to establish the actual identity of the targets listed as cell phone numbers in order to guard against mistakes.

    What made Flynn's methodology for expanding the kill/capture list even riskier was that there was no requirement for any effort to establish the actual identity of the targets listed as cell phone numbers in order to guard against mistakes.

    Using such a methodology in the Afghan socio-political context guaranteed that a high proportion of those on the kill/capture list were innocent civilians. As former deputy to the European Union special representative to Afghanistan Michael Semple (one of the few genuine experts in the world on the Taliban movement) explained to me, most Afghans in the Pashtun south and east of Afghanistan "have a few Taliban commander numbers saved to their mobile phone contacts" as a "survival mechanism."

    Nader Nadery, a commissioner of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission in 2010, estimated that the total civilian deaths for all 73 night raids about which the commission had complaints that year was 420. But the commission acknowledged that it didn't have access to most of the districts dominated by the Taliban. So the actual civilian toll may well have been many times that number -- meaning that civilians may have accounted for more than half of the 2,000 alleged "Taliban" killed in JSOC's operations in 2010.

    The percentage of innocent people among those who were captured and incarcerated was even higher. In December 2010, the US command in Afghanistan leaked to a friendly blogger that 4,100 "Taliban" had been captured in the previous six months. But an unclassified February 5, 2011, internal document of the Combined Joint Inter-Agency Task Force responsible for detention policy in Afghanistan, which I obtained later in 2011, showed that only 690 Afghans were admitted to the US detention facility at Parwan during that six-month period. Twenty percent of those were later released upon review of their files. So alleged evidence of participation in the Taliban insurgency could not have existed for more than 552 people at most, or 14 percent of the total number said to have been captured. But many of those 552 were undoubtedly innocent as well. basarov 9 hours ago

    Porter is either a paid CIA/dimocrat party shill or perhaps extraordinarily stupid.
    It was OBAMA who implemented the vaunted 'surge" and flooded Afghanistan with an extra 30,000 US mercenaries. And I believe that obama was the US leader in 2009. To whine about a 3 star general, under orders to carry out an obama policy and then blame Trump by association reminds one of a 3 year old trying to make sense of Kabuki....surreal or simply delusional?

    We see that america needs a police state oligarchy; americans cannot distinguish between bovine excreta and caviar.

    Karl Rowley 19 hours ago
    Obama facilitated the murder of civilians in Afghanistan too. Are you outraged about that?
    DofG Karl Rowley 13 hours ago
    And so did the American people by sitting in the passive bubble of patriotism while we continue to scorch the Earth with imperialism abroad while having a surveillance state at home. We are ALL guilty!
    Ando Arike 20 hours ago
    Ultimately, isn't it Obama, as commander-in-chief, who's responsible for the dirty work of his team of assassins in JSOC? As far as I know, Obama is not out of office yet...
    Michael Valentine a day ago
    Gee I thought we were doing a swell job of killing folks in Afghanistan, that's what we are there for right?
    DofG Michael Valentine a day ago
    We are there to keep the poppy crops going which the Taliban had destroyed! You know that heroin/opiates thing.
    max's pad Michael Valentine a day ago
    I don't know why we are there or in Iraq. It was the Saudi families and Saudi funding that created the terrorism of 9-11. It was the Bush Admin NeoCons and the Neoliberal philosopy that created the longest war in our history. It is entirely coincidental that this war like Vietnam inflicts its greatest toll on a bunch of impoverished villagers.
    Francis max's pad 6 hours ago
    Max - the Saudi's may have helped finance 911 but they certainly were not the ones that pulled it off.blockquote>Jethro_T

    max's pad a day ago

    Thanks for mentioning Viet Nam. Flynn appears to have been cut from the same cloth as Gen. Wm. Westmoreland, who first brought us "victory" by body count.

    [Nov 24, 2016] Major Media Crash They Need A Scapegoat Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... In the last 100+ years, there has never been an alternative world that wasn't thoroughly infiltrated by the mainstream world. ..."
    "... the Russians remain the scappiest goat of all http://theduran.com/war-with-russia-us-politicians-close-to-approving-no... ..."
    "... You mean Hillary didn't win? Pre-election night Woof Bitzer said 98% chance.... wtf?! ..."
    "... This "fake news" bullshit isn't going to gain any traction. As soon as folks find their favorite alt site on the list, it'll just confirm what most already know. ..."
    "... Presstitute lamestream media ..."
    "... I've found the inverse also applies, that is, when something peculiar or seemingly significant is reported then quickly sent 'down the memory hole' it usually has great importance. ..."
    Nov 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Nov 23, 2016 Submitted by Jon Rappoport via Strategic-Culture.org,

    They kept telling the American people Hillary Clinton was going to win the election; and in every way they could think of, they told the American people this was a good idea.

    Then, on election night, they, the media, crashed.

    The results came in.

    The media went into deep shock.

    As protests and riots then spread across America, the media neglected to mention a) they'd been bashing Trump because he said he might not accept the outcome of the vote, and b) here were large numbers of people on the Democrat side who weren't accepting the outcome of the vote.

    A new campaign had to be launched.

    Suddenly, on cue, it was: Hillary Clinton lost because "fake news" about her had been spread around during the campaign.

    Fake news sites. That was the reason.

    These "fake sites" had to be punished. Somehow. They had to be defamed. Blocked. Censored.

    Here is an excerpt from a list of "fake news" sites suggested by one professor. The list is circulating widely on the Web: Project Veritas; Infowars; Breitbart; Coast To Coast AM; Natural News; Zero Hedge; The Daily Sheeple; Activist Post; 21st Century Wire.

    Free speech? Bill of Rights? Never heard of it.

    Excuse me. "We won't know what to protect?" Meaning what to favor, what to promote, what to lie about? Meaning only some speech is free?

    Obama is way, way behind the curve. Thousands of websites and blogs have been exposing major media as fake for years. I started nomorefakenews.com in 2001.

    If Google, Facebook, and Twitter keep expanding their censorship of "disfavored messages," they're going to pay a price. More and more users will go elsewhere.

    The facade of the major media is getting thinner. You can see a glow of rage and resentment behind it. They're desperately looking for revenge on the millions and millions of people who are deserting them and laughing at them.

    They presumed too much. They presumed they had us in the palm of their hand. We were their property. We were transfixed by their authority.

    All that is going away. Bye, bye.

    The big shift is accelerating. Independent media are in the ascendance. Understand that. Recognize it.

    The impossible is happening.

    Fake news sites? Please. The major media are the biggest fakes the world has ever seen. Their anchors and star reporters are bloviating cranks. They're dinner-theater actors.

    Over the years, I've talked to some of them. I've warned them of their coming troubles. They were miles away from believing me. Now, they're starting to sweat blood.

    Major media news for America is still basically manufactured in New York and Washington-plus occasional outbursts from Hollywood creatures who bemoan the decline of inclusive liberalism, as they expand their gun-toting security staffs and dig deeper bunkers. The New York-Washington axis exists in a self-serving bubble, which has now taken serious punctures. The delusional attacks against "fake sites" underlines how out of touch these elites are with the rest of the country.

    Independent media outlets are winning. They won't be stopped.

    When the people who now head the tech giants were growing up, they were heralding the Internet as a new era of free information-exchange. But now that they find themselves working with the government in the Surveillance State, they're fronting for censorship. In fact, they're showing they were never for freedom. That was a pose all along. They were, from the beginning, agents of repression. They can try to stop independent media now, but they will fail.

    Fake web sites? What about fake companies? What about Google, Facebook, Twitter? Behind their happy-happy messages, they were built to propagandize, profile, and control.

    Understand this: major media have a rock-bottom article of faith. It is: "We own the news."

    They can't give it up. They'll never give it up. It fuels everything they do. It's the substance and core of their attitude.

    As their ship goes down below the waves, they'll be chanting it. "We own the news."

    But they don't. In truth, they never did. For a time, they managed to sell that delusion to the people.

    That time is drawing to a close.

    The elite political class and their media minions fear more than independent news countering their own news. For obvious reasons, every civilization down through history has had its own monopolistic media, its central "broadcasting system." Its controlled outlet. But now, The One has become Many.

    That is the threat.

    The rapid proliferation of The Many is an unpredictable X-factor.

    The population is waking up to decentralized media. Instead of the hypnotic attachment to one basic information source - the habit of a lifetime - the public is learning to handle multiple sources. Therefore, the hypnotic spell is being broken and dissolved.

    This is the basic problem for the elites.

    How can they reinstate the trance?

    By trying to censor the Internet? By creating a sudden war or other disaster, briefly "unifying" the country? These are not permanent solutions, particularly since more and more people understand such maneuvers and their true aims.

    Awake is awake. Putting the genie back in the bottle - particularly when major media denizens aren't very bright, as evidenced by their latest "fake news" scam - is on the order of trying to perform a piece of stage magic after the audience has already learned how it's done.

    Of course, the media clowns will try. And in the process, they'll further expose themselves and actually assist in the awakening.

    Cognitive Dissonance Nov 23, 2016 4:36 PM ,
    Alternative media is the new mainstream media.

    And at times it's as (increasingly) hard to find 'truth' in the alt world as it is in the mainstream world

    In the last 100+ years, there has never been an alternative world that wasn't thoroughly infiltrated by the mainstream world.

    Snípéir_Ag_Obair Cognitive Dissonance Nov 23, 2016 4:37 PM ,
    the Russians remain the scappiest goat of all http://theduran.com/war-with-russia-us-politicians-close-to-approving-no...

    Engel... Irish guy, right?

    LA_Goldbug Snípéir_Ag_Obair Nov 23, 2016 4:54 PM ,
    They truly are in Panic Mode.
    Dragon HAwk LA_Goldbug Nov 23, 2016 4:57 PM ,
    Couldn't happen to a nicer batch of Assholes.
    847328_3527 Dragon HAwk Nov 23, 2016 5:00 PM ,
    You mean Hillary didn't win? Pre-election night Woof Bitzer said 98% chance.... wtf?!
    Twee Surgeon 847328_3527 Nov 23, 2016 5:23 PM ,
    "Awake is Awake." As in, Well rested and feeling vigorous but waking to a giant pile of horse shit that needs taking care of in a hurry.

    A Giant has been awoken.

    JRobby Twee Surgeon Nov 23, 2016 6:51 PM ,
    MSM is done, watch the slow unwind, sucks to be them..... (Laugh Track Deafening !!!!)
    nmewn JRobby Nov 23, 2016 8:53 PM ,
    Here is how bad the prog media SUCKS and they say nary a word. Obama tweeted out "I'm extremely proud of the fact that over 8 years we have not had the kinds of scandals that have plagued other administrations."

    lol...fucking REALLY?!!!

    1. Operation Fast and Furious.

    2. Benghazi.

    3. The IRS targeted conservative organizations.

    4. The DOJ seized Associated Press phone records as well as phone and email records from Fox News reporter James Rosen.

    5. The NSA conducted mass surveillance against American citizens without a warrant. Thanks to leaking

    6. The Obama administration paid ransom to Iran for hostages, and lied to the American people about it.

    7. Hillary's email scandal.

    8. The Environmental Protection Agency poisoned a Colorado river.

    9. The EPA also broke federal law in promoting a regulation...(leftwing blog links on .gov websites)

    10. The GSA scandal.

    11. The Secret Service scandal.

    Citxmech nmewn Nov 23, 2016 9:18 PM ,
    This "fake news" bullshit isn't going to gain any traction. As soon as folks find their favorite alt site on the list, it'll just confirm what most already know.
    Holy hand grena... Dragon HAwk Nov 23, 2016 5:02 PM ,
    "When you're a BOY, some days are tough... B'n a DNC PIZ- ZA - Un DER-GROUND & stuff..."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SWYZK-c3nQ

    bobnoxy Holy hand grenade of Antioch Nov 23, 2016 5:10 PM ,
    "The New York Times is a great, great American jewel" - Donald J.Trump
    Omen IV bobnoxy Nov 23, 2016 6:04 PM ,
    I would rather have a 1,000 points of light than the MSM --

    the proliferation of news, fact - editorial based news sites will usher in a new age of education for the American public - it does not matter if they are fake or not - sooner or later they will figure it out what is real - the lack of concentration and focus on the MSM will produce ..........more and deeper truth

    sandhillexit Dragon HAwk Nov 23, 2016 5:29 PM ,
    The best part of Nov 8th was watching Wolf Blitzer proving himself an idiot on live television. The degree of certitude, the degree of distrust of facts his own people were putting forward, was a great bit of theater. I was waiting for him to say why he was so convinced that things would somehow swing back to his version of reality. What did he think it meant when 40k people waited in the cold at 1 am in Grand Rapids? what a maroon. There is no recovering your reputation as an expert after such an epic fail.
    DrLucindaX sandhillexit Nov 23, 2016 6:14 PM ,
    His performance on "Jeopardy" is one for the ages. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVC28oemocA
    WillyGroper DrLucindaX Nov 23, 2016 7:40 PM ,
    WTF...he gets a $1K trophy? LOL!
    Akzed Cognitive Dissonance Nov 23, 2016 6:08 PM ,
    something else from strategic-culture.org ::: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/11/21/how-trump-knows-continu...

    Steve Bannon - global warming affirmer. Maybe he's changed his mind.

    underman Cognitive Dissonance Nov 23, 2016 6:23 PM ,
    Alternatives do mature and go through cycles. Lean/raw to fat/lazy. There's always new alternatives. You can't wait for the alternative to find you. It starts with high quality education and non-stop desire for knowledge. Dig for the alternative.
    drendebe10 Cognitive Dissonance Nov 23, 2016 8:16 PM ,
    Progressive liberal democraps are among the meanest nastiest hypocrite intolerant people on the face of the earth
    sun tzu Cognitive Dissonance Nov 24, 2016 3:08 AM ,
    Presstitute lamestream media
    J Jason Djfmam Nov 23, 2016 4:35 PM ,
    Max Headroom replaces Wolf Blitzer.
    Uzda Farce J Jason Djfmam Nov 23, 2016 5:18 PM ,
    "The fact that we will not reestablish [another] Walter Cronkite, because of technology... does not mean we can't have people who are trusted. Brian Williams is sitting here, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric..."

    -- Rockefeller/CFR media control roundtable, Sep 2009, sponsored by Time-Warner and moderated by Christiane Amanpour

    http://www.cfr.org/media-and-foreign-policy/edward-r-murrow-press-fellow...

    WTFRLY Nov 23, 2016 4:36 PM ,
    Reporters Ask Why U.S. Confirms Syrian, Russian War Crimes But Not For Rebels and Islamic State
    Vatican_cameo Nov 23, 2016 4:37 PM ,

    They'll find some way to place the blame. If nothing else, all the losers in the MSM stick together. Informed individuals will always be informed individuals. The "Snowflakes" are an entire issue unto themselves.

    taketheredpill Nov 23, 2016 4:37 PM ,

    Remember when the Media blew up Howard Dean? He yelled a bit too loud and that was all it took...

    Cognitive Dissonance taketheredpill Nov 23, 2016 4:40 PM ,
    The very first filter I apply to the MSM is the degree to which the same voice and story is being repeated. The more they speak in unison, the more likely what I'm hearing is a lie.....or at best a severely distorted 'truth '.
    RafterManFMJ ONEwarrior Nov 23, 2016 5:14 PM ,
    Bushe's faked national guard letter

    Trayvon the thug - only showing a picture taken when he was 12 instead of a recent one (which they had access to) when he was 18 showing a muscled up tatted up thug

    Actually EDITING the 911 call to make it appear the "White Hispanic" was a raging psycho racist

    I find it funny in a way people will allow the media to shit in their mouth repeatedly - and I've no tolerance for them. Far as I'm concerned they're garbage.

    Oh, and I made sweet sweet money betting on Trump to win the election from a bunch of libtards - some gave me odds!!!

    And more than one said "are you really going to take my money?"

    Yes, friend DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW A BET WORKS? Do you have any honor at all?!

    RafterManFMJ Cognitive Dissonance Nov 23, 2016 5:07 PM ,
    My metric is if I hear it once, doubt it. If twice, I know it's a lie. If I hear it 3 times, I believe the opposite.
    phaedrus1952 RafterManFMJ Nov 23, 2016 5:42 PM ,
    Excellent metric.

    I've found the inverse also applies, that is, when something peculiar or seemingly significant is reported then quickly sent 'down the memory hole' it usually has great importance.

    Bonus situation for the Establishment ... Only we hard core tin foil types are aware of the info at all, thus easily ridiculed and dismissed.

    sixsigma cygnus... Nov 23, 2016 5:02 PM ,
    The MSM has lost control. That's what really angers them. And terrifies them.
    AlexCharting sixsigma cygnusatratus Nov 23, 2016 5:39 PM ,
    We should not feel to confident. Alt. media platforms like YouTube, Twitter, FB, and the podcast systems are OWNED and managed by liberals.
    friendly manitoba Nov 23, 2016 4:39 PM ,
    Best is Charlie Rose -- i like the old dr he interviews regularly. Anderson was ok til he went skunky on the election and picked a side.

    worst is the cute brown fairy on cnn -- with his weird black guests all talking at once -- pukefest

    wolfe shud retire -- we all know the cnn announcer standing out if the ocean with a hurricaine coming at him or her doesnt die

    i figured out he would win - dont need to be told by a bunch of highpaid losers why they think he did ..

    Uzda Farce friendly manitoba Nov 23, 2016 5:22 PM ,
    Charlie Rose is a member of the Rockefeller/CFR along with Margaret Warner (CFR director), Jim Lehrer, and Judy Woodruff to name a few. See member lists at cfr dot org.
    HedgeJunkie friendly manitoba Nov 24, 2016 1:30 AM ,
    Why in the hell are you voluntarily watching CNN? They usually have it on at the bank I use and the drivel sets my dentures to grind.
    Dutch Nov 23, 2016 4:39 PM ,
    I love the smell of rotting newsprint in the morning.
    kochevnik Nov 23, 2016 4:41 PM ,
    9/11 unified the people against Rockefeller, State Department and Israel

    [Nov 23, 2016] Ron Paul: Shadow Government May Pull False Flag To Get Trump Into War

    www.infowars.com
    Former Congressman and Libertarian icon Ron Paul has warned that 'shadow government' neocons could orchestrate a 'false flag' incident in order to drag new president Donald Trump into a fresh war.

    "I don't how anybody can say they know what is going to happen," Paul told The Daily Caller, referring to Trump's foreign policy.

    "All we need is a false flag and an accident and everybody will be for teaching them a lesson," Paul said, warning that such an event could trigger new foreign entanglement.

    "The neocons always talked about it before 9/11 they kept saying, 'we aren't going to get our program in until we have a Pearl Harbor event,'" the former congressman stated, stopping short of saying he believes those attacks were staged.

    "I think other countries could use false flags." Paul also added.

    Paul also warned that a shadow government will continue to operate when Trump is president, just as it did during Obama's time in office.

    "Obama probably was much more attune to a different foreign policy of less aggression but why then does he do it?" Paul said.

    "I think there's the shadow government, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, and all the things that can be done because they just melt away and they do exactly what the establishment says." the former Congressman added.

    Paul warned that those within the shadow government are seeking to influence Trump now.

    "He's very friendly with a lot of them right now, he's talking to them," Paul said, adding that "We don't have a final answer, we have to wait to see who get's appointed."

    "He doesn't talk about blowback and coming out of these countries. He has a better policy with Russia but I think he still is talking with the neoconservatives." Paul also stated.

    "The deep state is very very powerful and they have a lot of control," Paul said, adding "That is one of my big issues about how shadow government is so powerful in all administrations."

    Earlier this month, Paul issued the same warnings, saying that neocons and shadow government figures are going to attempt to infiltrate and influence Trump's presidency and prevent him from achieving successful change.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Trump will have as many problems with Ayn Ryan Congress as Obama/Clinton on economic issues

    Nov 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Cry Shop November 23, 2016 at 6:16 pm

    Bankers & Trump

    Bankers know you capture catch more flies with money honey.

    ewmayer November 23, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    "The Trump campaign, meanwhile, delved into message tailoring, sentiment manipulation and machine learning." - Oh, please, this sounds like a stereotypical Google-centric view of things. They of course left out the most important part of the campaign, the key to its inception, which could be described in terms like "The Trump campaign, meanwhile, actually noticed the widespread misery and non-recovery in the parts of the US outside the elite coastal bubbles and DC beltway, and spotted a yuuuge political opportunity." In other words, not sentiment manipulation – that was, after all, the Dem-establishment-MSM-wall-street-and-the-elite-technocrats' "America is already great, and anyone who denies it is deplorable!" strategy of manufactured consent – so much as actual *reading* of sentiment. Of course if one insisted on remaining inside a protective elite echo chamber and didn't listen to anything Trump or the attendees actually said in those huge flyover-country rallies that wasn't captured in suitably outrageous evening-news soundbites, it was all too easy to believe one's own hype.

    " former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who has known Trump socially for decades and is currently advising the president-elect on foreign policy issues " - I really, really hope this is just Hammerin' Hank tooting his own horn, as he and his sycophants in the FP establishment and MSM are wont to do.

    Brad November 23, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    "Trump dumps the TPP: conservatives rue strategic fillip to China" (Guardian)

    Another wedge angle for Trumps new-found RINO "friends" to play. Trump will have as many problems with Ayn Ryan Congress as Obama/Clinton on economic issues.

    "The TPP excludes China, which declined to join, proposing its own rival version, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which excludes the US." You see, it is all China's fault. No info presented on why China "declined" to join.

    And if Abe's Japan were really an independent country, they'd pick up the TPP baton and sell it to China.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Ron Paul Shadow Government May Pull False Flag To Get Trump Into War

    www.infowars.com
    Former Congressman and Libertarian icon Ron Paul has warned that 'shadow government' neocons could orchestrate a 'false flag' incident in order to drag new president Donald Trump into a fresh war.

    "I don't how anybody can say they know what is going to happen," Paul told The Daily Caller, referring to Trump's foreign policy.

    "All we need is a false flag and an accident and everybody will be for teaching them a lesson," Paul said, warning that such an event could trigger new foreign entanglement.

    "The neocons always talked about it before 9/11 they kept saying, 'we aren't going to get our program in until we have a Pearl Harbor event,'" the former congressman stated, stopping short of saying he believes those attacks were staged.

    "I think other countries could use false flags." Paul also added.

    Paul also warned that a shadow government will continue to operate when Trump is president, just as it did during Obama's time in office.

    "Obama probably was much more attune to a different foreign policy of less aggression but why then does he do it?" Paul said.

    "I think there's the shadow government, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, and all the things that can be done because they just melt away and they do exactly what the establishment says." the former Congressman added.

    Paul warned that those within the shadow government are seeking to influence Trump now.

    "He's very friendly with a lot of them right now, he's talking to them," Paul said, adding that "We don't have a final answer, we have to wait to see who get's appointed."

    "He doesn't talk about blowback and coming out of these countries. He has a better policy with Russia but I think he still is talking with the neoconservatives." Paul also stated.

    "The deep state is very very powerful and they have a lot of control," Paul said, adding "That is one of my big issues about how shadow government is so powerful in all administrations."

    Earlier this month, Paul issued the same warnings, saying that neocons and shadow government figures are going to attempt to infiltrate and influence Trump's presidency and prevent him from achieving successful change.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Donald Trump meets with prominent Sanders supporter Tulsi Gabbard

    www.theguardian.com

    Donald Trump's unorthodox US presidential transition continued on Monday when he held talks with one of the most prominent supporters of leftwing Democrat Bernie Sanders.

    The president-elect's first meeting of the day at Trump Tower in New York was with Tulsi Gabbard, a Democratic maverick who endorsed the socialist Sanders during his unsuccessful primary battle with Hillary Clinton.

    ... ... ...

    At first glance Gabbard, who is from Hawaii and is the first Hindu member of the US Congress, seems an unlikely counsellor. She resigned from the Democratic National Committee to back Vermont senator Sanders and formally nominated him for president at the party convention in July, crediting him with starting a "movement of love and compassion", although by then Clinton's victory was certain.

    But the Iraq war veteran has also expressed views that might appeal to Trump, criticising Obama, condemning interventionist wars in Iraq and Libya and taking a hard line on immigration. In 2014, she called for a rollback of the visa waiver programme for Britain and other European countries with what she called "Islamic extremist" populations.

    In October last year she tweeted: "Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and must be defeated. Obama won't bomb them in Syria. Putin did. #neverforget911." She was then among 47 Democrats who joined Republicans to pass a bill mandating a stronger screening process for refugees from Iraq and Syria coming to the US.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Trump won because Democratic Party governance eviscerated those communities

    Notable quotes:
    "... Judging by the people who Trump has appointed, it is looking like an ugly situation for the US. If he actually hires people like John Bolton, we will know that a betrayal was certain. While I think that it is probable that he is the lesser evil, he was supposed to avoid neoconservatives and Wall Street types (that Clinton associates herself with). ..."
    "... I think it would be a mistake to attribute too much "genius" to Trump and Kushner. It sounds like Kushner exhibited competence, and that's great. But Trump won in great measure because Democratic Party governance eviscerated those communities. ..."
    "... This is akin to how Obama got WAY too much credit for being a brilliant orator. People wanted change in '08 and voted for it. That change agent betrayed them, so they voted for change again this time. Or, more accurately, a lot of Obama voters stayed home, the Republican base held together, and Trump's team found necessary little pockets of ignored voters to energize. But that strategy would never have worked if not for Obama's and Clinton's malfeasance and incompetence. Honestly, Hillary got closer to a win that she had a right to. That ought to be the real story. ..."
    Nov 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Altandmain November 23, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    Does anyone else get the overwhelming impression that the US is heading for an impending collapse or serious decline at least, unless it puts a fight it against the status quo?

    Judging by the people who Trump has appointed, it is looking like an ugly situation for the US. If he actually hires people like John Bolton, we will know that a betrayal was certain. While I think that it is probable that he is the lesser evil, he was supposed to avoid neoconservatives and Wall Street types (that Clinton associates herself with).

    I find it amazing how tone deaf the Clinton campaign and Democratic Establishment are. Trump and apparently his son in law, no matter what else, are political campaigning geniuses given their accomplishments. For months people were criticizing their lack of experience in politics like a fatal mistake..

    I think that no real change is going to happen until someone authentically left wing takes power or if the US collapses.

    aab November 23, 2016 at 5:30 pm

    I think it would be a mistake to attribute too much "genius" to Trump and Kushner. It sounds like Kushner exhibited competence, and that's great. But Trump won in great measure because Democratic Party governance eviscerated those communities.

    This is akin to how Obama got WAY too much credit for being a brilliant orator. People wanted change in '08 and voted for it. That change agent betrayed them, so they voted for change again this time. Or, more accurately, a lot of Obama voters stayed home, the Republican base held together, and Trump's team found necessary little pockets of ignored voters to energize. But that strategy would never have worked if not for Obama's and Clinton's malfeasance and incompetence. Honestly, Hillary got closer to a win that she had a right to. That ought to be the real story.

    Daryl November 23, 2016 at 6:09 pm

    It is not clear to me what exactly a collapse entails. The US doesn't have obvious lines to fracture across, like say the USSR did. (I suppose an argument could be made for "cultural regions" like the South, Cascadia etc separating out, but it seems far less likely to happen, even in the case of continuing extreme economic duress and breakdown of democracy/civil rights).

    The US is and has been in a serious decline, and will probably continue.

    [Nov 23, 2016] War with Russia US politicians close to approving no-fly zone in Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... Suspension of the rules is a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills in the United States House of Representatives .such as naming Post Offices " ..."
    "... "We cannot delay action on Syria any further . if we don't get this legislation across the finish line in the next few weeks, we are back to square one." ..."
    "... "the brave Syrian defector known to the world as Caesar, who testified to us the shocking scale of torture being carried out within the prisons of Syria." ..."
    "... "The administration has decided not to decide. And that itself, unfortunately, has set a course where here we sit and watch and the violence only worsens. Mr. Speaker, America has been sitting back and watching these atrocities for far too long. Vital U.S. national security interests are at stake." ..."
    "... "Four years ago I thought we should have aided the Free Syrian Army. They came to us in Washington and begged us for help they were simply looking for weaponry. I really believe if we had given it to them, the situation in Syria would have been different today." ..."
    "... "We're going into the New Year 2017, Assad still clings to power, at the expense of killing millions of his citizens." ..."
    "... "The world has witnessed this terrible tragedy unfold before our eyes. Nearly half a million Syrians killed. Not soldiers – men, women, children killed." ..."
    "... "It is the sense of Congress that– ..."
    "... (1) Bashar al-Assad's murderous actions against the people of Syria have caused the deaths of more than 400,000 ..."
    "... civilians " ..."
    "... "committing crimes against humanity and war crimes against civilians including murder, torture and rape. No one has been spared from this targeting, even children." ..."
    "... "We (previously) heard the testimony of Raed Saleh of the Syrian White Helmets. These are the doctors, nurses and volunteers who actually, when the bombs come, run towards the areas that have been hit in order to try to get the injured civilians medical treatment They have lost over 600 doctors and nurses." ..."
    "... "It is Russia, it is Hezbollah, that are the primary movers of death and destruction it is the IRGC fighters from Iran ..."
    "... "Yes, we want to go after Assad's partners in violence along with Iranian and Hezbollah forces ..."
    "... "the Syrian regime . often plays a useful role for US and Israeli interests." ..."
    "... "We always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc." ..."
    Nov 23, 2016 | theduran.com
    According to wikipedia:

    " Suspension of the rules is a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills in the United States House of Representatives .such as naming Post Offices "

    In this case, the resolution calls for evaluating and developing plans for a"No Fly Zone" which is an act of war. This is obviously controversial and it seems clear the resolution should have been debated and discussed under normal rules with a normal amount of Congressional presence and debate.

    The motivation for bypassing normal rules and rushing the bill through without debate was articulated by the bill's author and ranking Democrat Eliot Engel, who said:

    "We cannot delay action on Syria any further . if we don't get this legislation across the finish line in the next few weeks, we are back to square one."

    The current urgency may be related to the election results, since Trump has spoken out against "regime change" foreign policy. As much as they are critical of Obama for not doing more, Congressional neoconservatives are concerned about the prospect of a President who might move toward peace and away from war.

    The Caesar Fraud

    HR5732 is titled the "Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act". Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ed Royce (R-Ca) explained that the resolution is named after "the brave Syrian defector known to the world as Caesar, who testified to us the shocking scale of torture being carried out within the prisons of Syria."

    In reality, the Caesar story was a grand deception involving the CIA with funding from Qatar to sabotage the 2014 Geneva negotiations. The 55,000 photos which were said to show 11,000 torture victims have never been publicly revealed. Only a tiny number of photos have been publicized.

    However, in 2015 Human Rights Watch was granted access to view the entire set. They revealed that almost one half the photos show the opposite of what was claimed: instead of victims tortured by the Syrian government, they actually show dead Syrian soldiers and civilian victims of car bombs and other terror attacks!

    The "Caesar" story, replete with masked 'defector', was one of the early propaganda hoaxes regarding Syria.

    False Claims that the US has been doing nothing

    One of the big lies regarding Syria is that the US has been inactive. Royce says:

    "The administration has decided not to decide. And that itself, unfortunately, has set a course where here we sit and watch and the violence only worsens. Mr. Speaker, America has been sitting back and watching these atrocities for far too long. Vital U.S. national security interests are at stake."

    The ranking Democrat Eliot Engel said:

    "Four years ago I thought we should have aided the Free Syrian Army. They came to us in Washington and begged us for help they were simply looking for weaponry. I really believe if we had given it to them, the situation in Syria would have been different today."

    This is nonsense. The US was actively coordinating, training and supplying armed opposition groups beginning in late 2011. When the Qadaffi government was toppled in Fall 2011, the CIA oversaw the theft of the Libyan armories and shipment of weapons to Syrian armed opposition as documented in the Defense Intelligence Agency report of October 2012.

    These weapons transfers were secret. For the public record it was acknowledged that the US was supplying communications equipment to the armed opposition while Saudi Arabia and Qatar were supplying weaponry. This is one reason that Saudi purchases of weapons skyrocketed during this time period; they were buying weapons to replace those being shipped to the armed opposition in Syria. It was very profitable for US arms manufacturers.

    Huge weapons transfers to the armed opposition in Syria have continued to the present. This past Spring, Janes Defense reported the details of a U.S. delivery of 2.2 million pounds of ammunition, rocket launchers and other weaponry to the armed opposition.

    Claims that the US has been inactive are baseless. In reality the US has done everything short of a direct attack on Syria. And the US military is starting to cross that barrier. On September 17 the US air coalition did a direct attack on the Syrian Army in Deir Ezzor, killing 80 Syrian soldiers and enabling ISIS to launch an attack on the position.

    Claims that it was a "mistake" are highly dubious.

    The claims by Congressional hawks that the US has been 'inactive' in the Syrian conflict are part of the false narrative suggesting the US must "do something" which leads to a No Fly Zone and full scale war. Ironically, these calls for war are masked as "humanitarian". And never do the proponents bring up the case of Libya where the US and NATO "did something": destroyed the government and left chaos.

    Congress as a Fact-Free House of Propaganda

    With only a handful of representatives present and no debate, the six Congress members engaged in unrestrained propaganda and misinformation. The leading Democrat, Eliot Engel, said "We're going into the New Year 2017, Assad still clings to power, at the expense of killing millions of his citizens."

    That number is way off anyone's charts.

    Rep Kildee said "The world has witnessed this terrible tragedy unfold before our eyes. Nearly half a million Syrians killed. Not soldiers – men, women, children killed."

    The official text of the resolution says:

    "It is the sense of Congress that–
    (1) Bashar al-Assad's murderous actions against the people of Syria have caused the deaths of more than 400,000
    civilians "

    The above accusations – from "millions of citizens" to "half a million" to "400,000 civilians" – are all preposterous lies.

    Credible estimates of casualties in the Syrian conflict range from 300,000 to 420,000. The opposition supporting Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimates the documented 2011-2016 death toll as follows:

    killed pro Syrian forces – 108,000
    killed anti government forces – 105,000
    killed civilians – 89,000

    In contrast with Congressional and media claims, civilians comprise a minority of the total death count and the largest casualty group is those fighting in defense of the the Syrian state. These facts are ignored and never mentioned because they point to the reality versus the propaganda narrative which allows the USA and allies to continue funding terrorism and a war of aggression against Syria.

    The Congressional speakers were in full self-righteous mode as they accused the Syrian government of "committing crimes against humanity and war crimes against civilians including murder, torture and rape. No one has been spared from this targeting, even children."

    A naive listener would never know that the Syrian government is primarily fighting the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda, including thousands of foreigners supplied and paid by foreign governments.

    The Congressional speakers go on to accuse the Syrian military of "targeting" hospitals, schools and markets. A critical listener might ask why they would do that instead of targeting the Al-Qaeda terrorists and their allies who launch dozens and sometimes hundreds of hell cannon missiles into government held Aleppo every day.

    The Congressional propaganda fest would not be complete without mention of the " White Helmets ". House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce said:

    "We (previously) heard the testimony of Raed Saleh of the Syrian White Helmets. These are the doctors, nurses and volunteers who actually, when the bombs come, run towards the areas that have been hit in order to try to get the injured civilians medical treatment They have lost over 600 doctors and nurses."

    This is more Congressional nonsense.

    There are no nurses or doctors associated with the White Helmets. The organization was created by the USA and UK and heavily promoted by a " shady PR firm ". The White Helmets operate solely in areas controlled by Nusra and associated terrorist groups. They do some rescue work in the conflict zone but their main role is in the information war manipulating public opinion.

    The White Helmets actively promote US/NATO intervention through a No Fly Zone. Recently the White Helmets has become a major source of claims of innocent civilian victims in east Aleppo. Given the clear history of the White Helmets, these claims should be treated with skepticism. What exactly is the evidence?

    The same skepticism needs to be applied to video and other reports from the Aleppo Media Center. AMC is a creation of the Syrian Expatriates Organization whose address on K Street, Washington DC indicates it is a US marketing operation.

    What is really going on?

    The campaign to overthrow the Syrian government is failing and there is possibility of a victory for the Syrian government and allies. The previous flood of international jihadi recruits has dried up. The Syrian Army and allies are gaining ground militarily and negotiating settlements or re-locations with "rebels" who previously terrorized Homs, Darraya (outer Damascus) and elsewhere.

    In Aleppo, the Syrian army and allies are tightening the noose around the armed opposition in east Aleppo. This has caused alarm among neoconservative lawmakers devoted to Israel, Saudi Arabia and U.S. empire. They are desperate to prevent the Syrian government from finally eliminating the terrorist groups which the West and allies have promoted for the past 5+ years.

    "Pro Israel" groups have been major campaigners for the passage of HR5732. The name of Simon Wiesenthal is even invoked in the resolution. With crocodile tears fully flowing, Rabbi Lee Bycel wrote " Where is the Conscience of the World? " as he questioned why the "humanitarian" HR5732 was not passed earlier.

    Israeli interests are one of the primary forces sustaining and promoting the conflict. Syria is officially at war with Israel which continues to occupy the Syrian Golan Heights; Syria has been a key ally of the Lebanese resistance; and Syria has maintained its alliance with Iran.

    In 2010 Secretary of State Clinton urged Syria to break relations with Hezbollah, reduce relations with Iran and come to settlement with Israel. The Syrian refusal to comply with these Washington demands was instrumental in solidifying Washington's hostility .

    Congressional proponents of HR5732 make clear the international dimension of the conflict. Royce explains:

    "It is Russia, it is Hezbollah, that are the primary movers of death and destruction it is the IRGC fighters from Iran ."

    Engel echoes the same message:

    "Yes, we want to go after Assad's partners in violence along with Iranian and Hezbollah forces ."

    These statements are in contrast with the analysis of some writers who believe Israel is not deeply opposed to the Damascus government. For example Phyllis Bennis recently wrote that belief in an "arc of resistance" has been "long debunked" and that "the Syrian regime . often plays a useful role for US and Israeli interests."

    It's remarkable that this faulty analysis continues to be propounded. In words and deeds Israel has made its position on Syria crystal clear. Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren explained in an interview:

    "We always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc."

    These statements have been fully backed up by Israeli actions bombing Syrian positions in southern Syria and providing medical treatment for Nusra/Al-Qaeda and other armed opposition fighters.

    What Will Happen Now?

    If the Syrian government and allies continue to advance in Aleppo, Deir Ezzor, outer Damascus and the south, the situation will come to a head. The enemies of Syria – predominately the USA, Gulf Countries, NATO and Israel – will come to a decision point. Do they intervene directly or do they allow their regime project to collapse?

    HR5732 is an effort to prepare for direct intervention and aggression.

    One thing is clear from the experience of Libya: Neoconservatives do not care if they leave a country in chaos. The main objective is to destabilize and overthrow a government which is too independent. If the USA and allies cannot dominate the country, then at least they can destroy the contrary authority and leave chaos.

    What is at stake in Syria is whether the USA and allies – Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. are able to destroy the last secular and independent Arab country in the region and whether the US goal of being the sole superpower in the world prevails.

    The rushed passing of HR5732 without debate is indicative that:

    – "regime change" proponents have not given up their war on Syria;
    – they seek to escalate US aggression;
    – the US Congress is a venue where blatant lies are said with impunity and where violent actions are advanced behind a cynical and amoral veneer of "humanitarianism" and crocodile tears.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Populism and the Media

    Notable quotes:
    "... the media is not in competition with talking about disenchantment over globalisation and de-industrialisation, but a complement to it. ..."
    "... This piece is right on the money and nails the ultimate failure of our modern corporate media. ..."
    "... Modern corporate media is in existence to make more money, not to serve society. Whatever makes (the collective) us more likely to pay attention to the media is what the media will serve up. With the failure of old style media we have to be concerned whether an actual informed political discourse will be possible. ..."
    "... These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America http://www.morriscreative.com/6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america/ ..."
    "... People are looking for scapegoats and the corrupt corporate media are misleading them, along with politicians. Why are they looking for scapegoats? Not simply because they're wealthy racist Trump supporters who long for the good old days, as the center-left is telling us. ..."
    "... The corrupt corporate media was incredibly unfair to both Bernie Sanders and Jeremby Corbyn but the Blairites and Clinton supporters were okay with that. Sanders was quite good on calling out the media. We need more of that. ..."
    "... "We know that erecting trade barriers is harmful: the only question is whether in this case it will be pretty harmful or very harmful"...to whom? To the elites? Or to those who voted for Brexit? ..."
    "... Instead of constantly harping on the illusory 'free trade is a free lunch for all,' 'liberal' economists need to start taking responsibility for not emphasizing or even acknowledging that free trade is not a panacea...it has real downsides for many...and real benefits mostly for elites that negotiated the deals. ..."
    "... Too many were severely harmed by off shoring and illegal immigration. ..."
    Nov 22, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Simon Wren-Lewis: Populism and the media :

    This could be the subtitle of the talk I will be giving later today. I will have more to say in later posts, plus a link to the full text..., but I thought I would make this important point here about why I keep going on about the media. In thinking about Brexit and Trump, talking about the media is not in competition with talking about disenchantment over globalisation and de-industrialisation, but a complement to it.

    I don't blame the media for this disenchantment, which is real enough, but for the fact that it is leading people to make choices which are clearly bad for society as a whole, and in many cases will actually make them worse off. They are choices which in an important sense are known to be wrong.

    ... ... ...

    DrDick : November 22, 2016 at 10:38 AM

    This piece is right on the money and nails the ultimate failure of our modern corporate media.
    DeDude : , November 22, 2016 at 10:59 AM
    Modern corporate media is in existence to make more money, not to serve society. Whatever makes (the collective) us more likely to pay attention to the media is what the media will serve up. With the failure of old style media we have to be concerned whether an actual informed political discourse will be possible.
    Paul Mathis -> DeDude... , November 22, 2016 at 01:23 PM
    Case in Point: Fake Media. As documented in the WaPo yesterday, two unemployed restaurant workers (McDonalds?) made a fortune with their fake news website that collected ad revenue from the likes of Facebook. They didn't bother with any facts; just published stories they knew would attract right wing extremists.

    They really worked at their craft using specific language and formats to draw in eyeballs. It worked beyond their wildest expectations and they won't even discuss how much money they made.

    Lili : November 22, 2016 at 11:14 AM
    These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America http://www.morriscreative.com/6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america/
    sglover -> Lili... , November 22, 2016 at 05:42 PM
    Something tells me there might be a bit of "fake news" creation going on in those shops, eh? But no, let's pull out our hair over some 20-year-old with a Facebook feed. And -- censor! For the greater good, naturally.
    The Rage : , November 22, 2016 at 12:19 PM
    That is because it isn't populism.
    Peter K. : , November 22, 2016 at 01:13 PM
    "In thinking about Brexit and Trump, talking about the media is not in competition with talking about disenchantment over globalisation and de-industrialisation, but a complement to it."

    People are looking for scapegoats and the corrupt corporate media are misleading them, along with politicians. Why are they looking for scapegoats? Not simply because they're wealthy racist Trump supporters who long for the good old days, as the center-left is telling us.

    The corrupt corporate media was incredibly unfair to both Bernie Sanders and Jeremby Corbyn but the Blairites and Clinton supporters were okay with that. Sanders was quite good on calling out the media. We need more of that.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , November 22, 2016 at 01:20 PM
    The SyFy Channel has a new series called Incorporated about a dystopian America set in 2074 where global climate change has wrecked havoc on politics and society. Giant multinational corporations have stepped in and taken over for governments as America's class divisions have sharpened between the haves and the have-nots. You can watch the first episode online.

    http://www.syfy.com/incorporated

    Teapot : November 22, 2016 at 02:42 PM
    Globalization is not Pareto improving. Maybe it could be done in a way that is, but until then, the "media" is correct to paint a disenchanting picture
    pgl -> Teapot... , November 22, 2016 at 02:58 PM
    Pareto improving assumes we compensates those who lose from globalization. This is well known. What else is well known is we have a terrible track record on this score.
    JohnH : , November 22, 2016 at 03:05 PM
    "We know that erecting trade barriers is harmful: the only question is whether in this case it will be pretty harmful or very harmful"...to whom? To the elites? Or to those who voted for Brexit?

    Instead of constantly harping on the illusory 'free trade is a free lunch for all,' 'liberal' economists need to start taking responsibility for not emphasizing or even acknowledging that free trade is not a panacea...it has real downsides for many...and real benefits mostly for elites that negotiated the deals.

    Why do 'liberal' economists insist on invalidating the life experience of so many?

    ken melvin : , November 22, 2016 at 03:30 PM
    Wisdom implies giving a good look to the consequences, and taking measures to ameliorate those negative. Too many were severely harmed by off shoring and illegal immigration. These weren't without consequences and maybe not even, on balance, gainful.

    In the future, let those best able to make any necessary sacrifices and adjustments.

    Denis Drew :
    As my old Bronx doctor, Seymour Tenzer, put it: "All these histories are bullshit -- I got punched in the chest; that's why I've got a lump."

    Trump's victory is down to the disappearance of the $800 [a week] job for the $400 job. That subtracted from the vote in the black ghettos – and added to the vote in the white ghettos -- both ghettos being far off the radar screen of academic liberals like Hill and O.

    I notice the white ghettos because that is me. My old taxi job (much too old now at 72 3/4) was "in-sourced" all over the world to drivers who would work for remarkably less (than the not so great incomes we native born eked out). Today's low skilled jobs go to native and foreign born who willing to show up for $400 (e.g., since Walmart gutted supermarket contracts). Fast food strictly to foreign born who will show up for $290 a week (min wage $400, 1968 -- when per cap income half today's).

    Don't expect the 100,000 out of maybe 200,000 Chicago gang age males to show up for a life time of $400/wk servitude. Did I mention, manufacturing was down to 6% of employment 15 years ago -- now 4% (disappearing like farm labor, mostly robo; look to health care for the future?)?
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/

    6% union density at private employers = 20/10 BP which starves every healthy process in the social body = disappearance of collective bargaining and its institutional concomitants which supply political funding and lobbying equal to oligarchs plus most all the votes ...

    ... votes: notice? 45% take 10% of overall income -- 45% earn $15/hr or less -- a lot of votes.

    [Nov 23, 2016] A crisis of legitimacy -- recommended links

    Nov 23, 2016 | www.economist.com

    Legitimation crisis - Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimation_ crisis

    Jump to International crises of legitimacy - Legitimation crisis refers to a decline in the confidence of administrative functions, institutions, or leadership. The term was first introduced in 1973 by Jürgen Habermas, a German sociologist and philosopher. ‎ Legitimacy · ‎ Theories of legitimacy · ‎ Legitimation crisis origin · ‎ Historical examples A crisis of legitimacy | The Economist www.economist.com/node/796097

    A crisis of legitimacy . People are fed up with politics. Do not blame globalisation for that. Sep 27th 2001 | From the print edition. Timekeeper. Add this article to ... Legitimacy: Legitimation Crises and Its Causes - Political Science Notes www.politicalsciencenotes.com/ legitimacy / legitimacy -legitimation- crises -and-its.../797

    Causes of Legitimation Crisis : There are several causes or aspects of legitimation crisis . Habermas and several other neo-Marxists, after studying all the aspects of capitalist societies, have concluded that a number of factors are responsible for the legitimation crisis

    The Global Crisis of Legitimacy | Stratfor https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100503_global_ crisis _ legitimacy

    The Global Crisis of Legitimacy . Geopolitical Weekly. May 4, 2010 | 08:56 GMT. Print. Text Size. By George Friedman. Financial panics are an integral part of ...

    The Legitimacy Crisis in the United States: A Conceptual Analysis - JStor https://www.jstor.org/stable/800195 by DO Friedrichs - ‎1980 - ‎ Cited by 52 - ‎ Related articles A " legitimacy crisis " is widely perceived to exist on the basis of polls of public at- ... causes of a legitimacy crisis may be identified, it has been associated with the ...

    [PDF] THEORETICAL BASIS OF CRISIS OF LEGITIMACY AND ... - Dialnet https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3640420.pdf

    by GE Reyes - ‎2010 - ‎ Cited by 1 - ‎ Related articles Theoretical basis of crisis of legitimacy and implications for less developed countries: Guatemala as a case of study. TENDENCIAS. Revista de la Facultad de ...

    [PDF] A Crisis of Democratic Legitimacy? It's about Legitimation, Stupid! aei.pitt.edu/63549/1/EPB21-def.pdf

    by A Mattelaer - ‎2014 - ‎ Related articles Mar 21, 2014 - generalised crisis in legitimacy , our democracies face a crisis of legitimation: political choices are in dire need of an explanatory narrative that. The Legitimacy Crisis | RealClearPolitics www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/08/the_ legitimacy _ crisis _126530.html

    May 8, 2015 - American government - at all levels - is losing the legitimacy it needs to function. Or, perhaps, some segments of the government have ...

    The Global Crisis of Legitimacy of Liberal Democracy - Global ... https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/211/44824.html

    The third dimension of the crisis that I identify is the crisis of legitimacy of US hegemony. This, I think, is as serious as the other two crises, since, as an admirer of ...

    The Crisis of Legitimacy in Africa | Dissent Magazine https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the- crisis-of-legitimacy -in-africa

    The Crisis of Legitimacy in Africa. Abiola Irele ▫ Summer 1992. A bleak picture emerges from today's Africa. One glaring aspect is the material deprivation ...

    [Nov 23, 2016] Disrespecting the American Imperial Presidency by Matt Peppe

    www.counterpunch.org
    The Imperial Presidency of the United States has evolved over the last century to the point that the executive holds certain powers that can be considered dictatorial. Arguably, the most consequential decision in politics is to wage war. The Constitution specifically reserves this right for Congress. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, directs the wars that Congress declares. However, starting with Truman's intervention in the Korean War in 1950 and continuing with invasions of Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq and Afghanistan and the bombings of dozens more countries, the President's ability to unilaterally initiate war with a sovereign nation has been normalized. Congress has not declared war since 1941 despite the fact the U.S. military has intervened in nearly every corner of the world in the years since.

    In recent years, George W. Bush assumed the power to kidnap, torture, and assassinate any individual, anywhere in the world, at any time, without even a pretense of due process. Upon replacing Bush, Barack Obama legitimized Bush's kidnapping and torture (by refusing to prosecute the perpetrators or provide recourse to the victims) while enthusiastically embracing the power to assassinate at will. Noam Chomsky has said this represents Obama trashing the 800-year-old Magna Carta, which King John of England would have approved of.

    Can there be anything more dictatorial than the power of a single individual to kill and make war at will? While American presidents thankfully do not have the power to unilaterally impose taxes, pass legislation, or incarcerate without charges inside U.S. borders, the illegitimate authority they do possess to carry out unrestrained violence across the world is unquestionably a dictatorial feature.

    There has not been a single American president since World War II that has not exceeded his constitutional authority by committing crimes that would meet the standard by which officials were convicted and executed at the Nuremberg trials.

    Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 to imprison Japanese Americans in concentration camps was a flagrant violation of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

    Truman's firebombing of Tokyo, nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and invasion of Korea violated provisions of multiple treaties that are considered the "supreme law of the land" per Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

    Eisenhower's use of the CIA to overthrow democratically elected presidents in Iran and Guatemala, as well as the initiation of a terrorist campaign against Cuba, violated the UN Charter, another international treaty that the Constitution regards as the supreme law of the land.

    Kennedy was guilty of approving the creation of a mercenary army to invade Cuba, as well as covert warfare in Vietnam. Johnson massively escalated U.S. military involvement in Vietnam with the introduction of ground troops, which he fraudulently justified through misrepresentation of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

    Succeeding Johnson, Nixon waged a nearly genocidal air campaign against not only Vietnam but Cambodia and Laos, killing hundreds of thousands of people, destroying ecosystems across Indochina, and leaving an unfathomable amount of unexploded ordnance, which continues to kill and maim hundreds of people each year.

    Ford covertly supported the South African invasion of Angola and overtly supported the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. Carter continued supporting the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, as well as providing financial and military support to military dictatorships in Guatemala and El Salvador. Reagan oversaw the creation and operation of a terrorist army in Nicaragua, sponsored military dictatorships throughout Central America, and directly invaded Grenada.

    Bush the Elder invaded Panama and Iraq. Clinton oversaw sanctions in Iraq that killed as many as 1 million people, carried out an air war that indiscriminately pulverized civilian targets from 15,000 feet in Serbia, and bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that produced medications for half the country. Bush the Lesser invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama continued both of those wars, as well as dramatically expanding the drone assassination program in as many as seven countries.

    So I beg to differ with Blow and anyone else who claims the presidency deserves respect. Any institution or position that permits such illegal and immoral actions unchecked should be eradicated and replaced with some alternative that does not.

    Liberal Clinton defender Matt Yglesias argues that from a historical perspective, Trump is uniquely dangerous. "(P)ast presidents," Yglesias writes, "have simply been restrained by restraint. By a belief that there are certain things one simply cannot try or do."

    It is hard to take such vacuous proclamations with a straight face. As we have seen, every single American president since at least WWII has engaged in serious violations of international and domestic law to cause death, destruction and misery across the world, from murdering individuals without due process to unleashing two nuclear bombs on civilian populations in a defeated country that was seeking to surrender.

    When Trump assumes the presidency, he will inherit a frightening surveillance/military/incarceration apparatus that includes a targeted killing program; a vast NSA domestic and international spying network; a death squad (the Joint Special Operations Command); and an extralegal system for indefinite kidnapping and imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay.

    Partisans see a problem only when the presidency is in the "wrong" hands. If Obama is at the helm, liberals are fine with unconstitutional mass surveillance or killing an American citizen without charge or trial every now and then. Conservatives trusted Bush to warrantlessly surveill Americans, but were outraged at the Snowden revelations.

    Principled opponents recognize that no one should be trusted with illegitimate authority. The hand-wringing and hyperventilation by liberals about the dangers of a Trump presidency ring hollow and hypocritical.

    American presidents long ago became the equivalent of elected monarchs, beyond the democratic control of the those they purportedly serve. The occupant of the office is able to substitute his own judgments and whims for a universally applicable set of laws and limits on the exercise of power. It is what Dolores Vek describes as "actually existing fascism." Both parties have contributed to it, the media has normalized it, and the public has accepted its creation and continued existence without rebelling against it. It's time to stop treating the presidency itself with respect and start actively delegitimizing it.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Expect the Unexpected

    Nov 23, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    This unadmitted ignorance was previously displayed for those with eyes to see it in the Libya debacle, perhaps not coincidentally Clinton's pet war. Cast by the Obama White House as a surgical display of "smart power" that would defend human rights and foster democracy in the Muslim world, the 2011 Libyan intervention did precisely the opposite. There is credible evidence that the U.S.-led NATO campaign prolonged and exacerbated the humanitarian crisis, and far from creating a flourishing democracy, the ouster of strongman Muammar Qaddafi led to a power vacuum into which ISIS and other rival unsavories surged.

    The 2011 intervention and the follow-up escalation in which we are presently entangled were both fundamentally informed by "the underlying belief that military force will produce stability and that the U.S. can reasonably predict the result of such a campaign," as Christopher Preble has argued in a must-read Libya analysis at Politico . Both have proven resoundingly wrong.

    Before Libya, Washington espoused the same false certainty in advance of intervention and nation-building Iraq and Afghanistan. The rhetoric around the former was particularly telling: we would find nuclear weapons and "be greeted as liberators," said Vice President Dick Cheney. The whole thing would take five months or less, said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It would be a "cakewalk." As months dragged into years of nation-building stagnation, the ignored truth became increasingly evident: the United States cannot reshape entire countries without obscene risk and investment, and even when those costly commitments are made, success cannot be predicted with certainty.

    Nearly 14 years later, with Iraq demonstrably more violent and less stable than it was before U.S. intervention, wisdom demands we reject Washington's recycled snake oil.

    Recent polls (let alone the anti-elite backlash Trump's win represents ) suggest Americans are ready to do precisely that. But a lack of public enthusiasm has never stopped Washington from hawking its fraudulent wares-this time in the form of yet-again unfounded certainty that escalating American intervention in Syria is a sure-fire solution to that beleaguered nation's woes.

    We must not let ourselves be fooled. Rather, we "should understand that we don't need to overthrow distant governments and roll the dice on what comes after in order to keep America safe," as Preble, reflecting on Libya, contends . "On the contrary, our track record over the last quarter-century shows that such interventions often have the opposite effect."

    And as for the political establishment, let Trump's triumph be a constant reminder of the necessity of expecting the unexpected and proceeding with due (indeed, much overdue) prudence and restraint abroad. If Washington so grossly misunderstood the direction of its own heartland-without the muddling, as in foreign policy, of massive geographic and cultural differences-how naďve it is to believe that our government can successfully play armed puppet-master over an entire region of the world?

    Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities. She is a weekend editor at The Week and a columnist at Rare , and her writing has also appeared at Time , Politico , Relevant , The Hill , and other outlets.

    [Nov 23, 2016] M of A - Elijah Magnier On Fake News And Fake Analysts

    Notable quotes:
    "... The above is based on factual knowledge and experience, not on political agendas or paid "analyst" propaganda. One hopes that younger journalists will learn from it. ..."
    "... The keyword here is 'paid'. If journalist is actually doing his job, he is fired. Everyone you see on the Wests mass media is a paid mouthpiece, regardless if he/she likes it or not, they have no choice, thats the reality of "independent press" nowadays. ..."
    "... My view: Fake News is an American Tradition. ..."
    "... The fake news regarding Syria and Iraq, the omission of news regarding Daesh and al-Qaeda atrocities and the complete silence as to why the Americans refuse to join with the Russians in eradicating the terrorist threat all stem from the fact that 90% of the US media is controlled by six mega-corporations, whose ownership and editorial direction are pro-Zionist. ..."
    "... Any journalist or opinion writer who refuses to toe the editorial line is banished and becomes a pariah. ..."
    Nov 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    While I am still knocked out somewhat by a nasty influenza let me recommend Elijah Magnier's most recent piece on the "fake news" and "fake analyst" media:

    Syria and Iraq caught between the "new analysts' and the politicised media

    Some excerpts:

    The wars in Syria and Iraq celebrated the unfortunate end of the "free and independent press" and the rise of the "neo-analysts". They sit in far-off lands, with no ground knowledge of the war, collecting information and analysing the colourful bin of social networking sites.

    They have even the temerity to believe they can dictate to the US administration what measures should be taken, who to support and, as if they had mastered the "art of war", they even push for a nuclear war with Russia.

    On Syria:

    According to the US State Department and to the western press, over 90 hospitals were totally destroyed in eastern Aleppo in the last months at the rate of almost one destroyed hospital per day. And every day we hear "the last hospital has been totally destroyed". The only problem with this figure is the statistic released by the Syrian Ministry of Health stating that "on the entire Syrian territory, there are only 88 hospitals".
    ...
    [W]hen jihadists and rebels start a large scale attack against Syrian Army forces and their allies, the media stand by, waiting for results. If the regime begins a military operation hospitals are destroyed and civilians are killed in the first hour of the battle. Rarely do militants die in mainstream media.

    On Iraq:

    Cont. reading: Elijah Magnier On Fake News And Fake Analysts

    Harry | Nov 23, 2016 1:59:38 PM | 1
    The above is based on factual knowledge and experience, not on political agendas or paid "analyst" propaganda. One hopes that younger journalists will learn from it.
    The keyword here is 'paid'. If journalist is actually doing his job, he is fired. Everyone you see on the Wests mass media is a paid mouthpiece, regardless if he/she likes it or not, they have no choice, thats the reality of "independent press" nowadays.
    rg the lg | Nov 23, 2016 2:03:13 PM | 2
    My view: Fake News is an American Tradition. "American Blood on American Soil" was trumpeted loudly to justify the Mexican War; "Battleship Maine Sunk In Cuban Harbor" was the media call for war with the crumbling Spanish Empire; "Pearl Harbor Bombed" was the catalyst for going to war in 1941. Each of them were false flag events to justify war.
    Nothing has changed

    EXCEPT

    That now people do not need to have outfits like the NYTimes, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al trumpet the news to cause people to support the empire ... . Alternatives exist ... until the guv'ment of the 1% and the media they own make the alternatives hard, if not impossible, to learn from.

    Yeah, despite the flu, B continues to make the world aware ...

    Good job ... thanks.

    chet380 | Nov 23, 2016 2:11:05 PM | 3
    The fake news regarding Syria and Iraq, the omission of news regarding Daesh and al-Qaeda atrocities and the complete silence as to why the Americans refuse to join with the Russians in eradicating the terrorist threat all stem from the fact that 90% of the US media is controlled by six mega-corporations, whose ownership and editorial direction are pro-Zionist.

    Any journalist or opinion writer who refuses to toe the editorial line is banished and becomes a pariah.

    Mina | Nov 23, 2016 2:28:37 PM | 4
    Pretty interesting that Trump had to go off the record to talk about how to stop the craziness in Syria, in fear of betraying some "secret" issue".
    JOSEPH KAHN, managing editor: On Syria, would you mind, you said you have a very strong idea about what to do with the Syria conflict, can you describe that for us?

    TRUMP: I can only say this: We have to end that craziness that's going on in Syria. One of the things that was told to me - can I say this off the record, or is everything on the record?

    SULZBERGER: No, if you want to

    TRUMP: I don't want to violate, I don't want to violate a

    SULZBERGER: If you want to go off the record, we have agreed you can go off the record. Ladies and gentlemen, we are off the record for this moment.

    [Trump speaks off the record.]

    TRUMP: Now we can go back on.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html

    Mina | Nov 23, 2016 2:51:47 PM | 5
    Just the idea we won't see Samantha Power anymore... what a thrill!!!
    james | Nov 23, 2016 2:59:02 PM | 6
    thanks b! i always appreciate the articles from elijah magnier... i was looking at his site just the other day, but it was before this was posted.. it is an excellent article, but i doubt any mainstream media type will try to aspire to this level of journalism... as @1 harry points out - they would be fired if they actually reported anything other then propaganda!

    @5 mina... did i miss something? has s. power been removed from her role as usa propaganda mouthpiece at the un?

    Stephen | Nov 23, 2016 2:59:10 PM | 7
    https://southfront.org/how-many-last-hospitals-russia-led-airstrikes-destroyed-in-aleppo/
    Mina | Nov 23, 2016 3:24:56 PM | 8
    Yep James, just check the NYT; one seems to be a nice pick (to replace Power) and the other is... Erik Prince's sister.

    Not sure if the video had been posted here, this link has an embedded video of the anti-rebels protests in East Aleppo last week
    http://www.chroniquesdugrandjeu.com/2016/11/matriochkas-syriennes-et-sun-tzu.html

    Sorry. I have been posting too much. Pro-cras-ti-na-ting.

    PavewayIV | Nov 23, 2016 3:54:00 PM | 9
    Mina@4 - "...can I say this off the record, or is everything on the record?..."

    I kind of wish some journalist would act like one someday and flat out say,

    "Look, you don't get to suspend reality, not even for a second. Everything your say is on the record 100% of the time - that's my damn job. If you say something to me 'off the record' and I agree, then you are making me complicit in a corruption of the public trust. I'll either be deceptive or lying by reporting only part of the truth. What idiot would ever read a news article and believe its contents if they knew that some information was being withheld from them for some unknown reason? If you need to 'adjust' the facts I present as complete with secret, off-the-record facts, then that wouldn't be journalism - it would be propaganda or tabloid garbage."
    Curtis | Nov 23, 2016 3:54:01 PM | 10
    Their problem has been that the alt news has gained more attention from the MSM goons. And with that attention has come more scrutiny of MSM and more credibility for the alt news. It's not just the MSM that has received more scrutiny but the powers behind the thrones. They don't like that and hence the attacks on the messengers.

    Magnier hit the nail on the head of the coverage of Syria. No real war news and any attacks on our favored rebels are attacks on hospitals and children ... when they're not barrel bombs ... which in turn had replaced chemical weapons attacks. That last one ended with Russian/Syrian efforts to get rid of the weapons.

    dahoit | Nov 23, 2016 4:13:09 PM | 11
    More manufactured dissent for all examples than wishful thinking, but yes, they wished for their puppet dupe HRC as POTUS, their trepidation towards America First and Donald Trump seems so far well founded.

    He is now announcing women and women minorities for his cabinet, further defanging the ziomonsters poison pen against him.

    The snake is in the grass; Guardian says votes in 3 states troublesome.

    They never sleep.

    2;Stop the nonsensical America hatred huh? Yeah, its possible the Mexican War was a fraud, but would the citizens there(MN,AZ,Cal) wish to live in Mexico? I highly highly doubt that. And the evidence for or against MW causastion is very flimsy and vague(1846 was like that).

    The Maine did sink, and however it was sunk is the issue, but I agree it was most definitely used as propaganda for war, a war that stared US on the road to imperial perdition.

    And Pearl harbor a false flag?

    No, it might have been provoked, but it was Japan who jumped headlong and perilously into the maelstrom that Yamamoto warned against. They were a warlord cult who needed to be curbed, btw, although the end result was terrible.

    Bravo3 | Nov 23, 2016 4:16:49 PM | 12
    "Why you fool, it's the educated reader who CAN be gulled. All our difficulty comes with the others. When did you meet a workman who believes the papers? He takes it for granted that they're all propaganda and skips the leading articles. He buys his paper for the football results and the little paragraphs about girls falling out of windows and corpses found in Mayfair flats. He is our problem. We have to recondition him. But the educated public, the people who read the high-brow weeklies, don't need reconditioning. They're all right already. They'll believe anything." -- C.S. Lewis
    Jack Smith | Nov 23, 2016 4:22:00 PM | 13
    Watch RT

    https://www.rt.com/on-air/

    marcel duchamp | Nov 23, 2016 4:22:29 PM | 14
    There are only two kind of journalists today : the prostitute and the unemployed.
    Formerly T-Bear | Nov 23, 2016 4:34:57 PM | 15
    @ marcel duchamp | Nov 23, 2016 4:22:29 PM | 14

    Small correction - better said: " of journalists today: the presstitute and the unemployed." Otherwise spot on!

    Pw | Nov 23, 2016 4:41:50 PM | 16

    And just today I read this,

    EU in another attack on russian media. Just another attack on freedom of speech.
    https://www.rt.com/news/367922-eu-resolution-russian-media/

    jo6pac | Nov 23, 2016 4:42:12 PM | 17
    #5

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/23/nikki-haley-un-ambassador/94325672/

    Might be an improvement but then again who knows

    AntiSpin | Nov 23, 2016 4:46:22 PM | 18
    @PavewayIV 9

    I was in the news business for several years, having been a newspaper reporter, editor, managing editor and publisher. Over many years I worked for five different newspapers in five different states.

    I started out many, many years ago. During all that time the reporter's "creed" that you simulated was in fact the way that we were required to operate.

    I constantly have difficulty believing what passes for "reporting" these days. I have not watched network news nor read newspapers for years now, and keep searching the interwebs for more and more reliable information sources. The numbers of those who do the same will grow, and as they do the power of the presstitutes will fade further and further into forgotten history.

    Good riddance -- though I'm sad for the good old days when I got my start as a journalist.

    Jen | Nov 23, 2016 4:54:58 PM | 19
    A big part of the problem with the MSM is that with so many newspapers and TV stations falling under the control of huge media corporation giants like News Corporation whose objectives and goals are nothing more than profit, profit and more profit, what used to be half-decent institutions like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Guardian - well, one assumes they were half-decent to begin with - have been under pressure to increase sales revenues and profits, and cut costs to their utmost.

    The result is that good journalists, analysts and editors have been sacked and replaced by cheap stenographers, and the culture that used to exist in newsrooms that valued the pursuit of truth and facts and teaching the next generation of reporters the same and carry on with valued traditions and ethics has been destroyed. In its place is a voracious competitive pseudo-culture with no ethics and rewarding and encouraging a mercenary spirit, at once apparently submissive yet bullying and voracious.

    The cost-cutting extends to removing reporters from the frontline in Lebanon and Syria or wherever else things are happening and changing rapidly, and sticking them in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem where they are fed Israeli propaganda and told to repeat it.

    james | Nov 23, 2016 5:05:19 PM | 20
    @8 mina.. thanks... sounds like they have the usual wonderful selection to choose from.. erik princes sister - yikes! when will the usa change it's name to blackwater or academie group as the case may be? i guess when a country is so in bed with the military industrial complex / banks - it is only a matter of time where they have to do a name change!
    TheRealDonald | Nov 23, 2016 5:07:13 PM | 21
    Last winter the Asian flu was *really* bad. Thought I would die. Of course, if you HAVE any thoughts with the flu, then you're not going to die. Two folks I know got the Asian flu this winter, one is on a respirator and heart-lung machine, friends. Flu shots only help spread the plague. Isolation, rest and exercise is the remedy.

    The doctors say it's 'avian flu', but we know that 'flu' was really due to GMO corn dumping to Russia and Central America and Viet Nam, the GMO corn destroying the gut of chickens it was fed too, as GMO corn was DESIGNED to do, (just like it did with 'swine flu') then the chickens became host to human influenza in their weakened state, now we have a real killer. Go ahead, match the GMO corn dumping countries to their reports of avian flu. The match is a 100% correlation.

    So, of course, the first announcement after the Kiev Coup by the Israeli junta leaders was a massive ag lands privatization contract to Israel's Monsanto Seed, for GMO, which means plans for the coup and lands privatization was planned well before Maidan, you don't just write a big contract like that one week after a coup. If they can plan a takeover like that, think of what they're doing now.

    Probably all that Monsanto GMO corn (maize) being fed to Ukrainian chickens is migrating the avian flu into Germany for this winter's flu season, and they'll call it some 'H342X' label, so nobody puts two and two together on the back-trace genomics, and folks will get sicker than sh*t and wonder why the 'flu' is so bad, so some division of Bayer can launch another influenza vaccination program, lol.

    Monsanto GMO is the cause, flu the vector, and Bayer is the for-profit 'solution'.

    No laughing matter, folks. This winter protect yourself. Eat well, rest, exercise. And for gods sake, wear your rubbers when you go out, lol. An associate in China high up in the medical research establishment has found prostate and ovarian (and esophageal) cancers are all related and are probably spread by a virus. Nice. So some division of Bayer can launch another cervical warts vaccination program, neh?

    They really don't give a f*ck about you, at least until next April 15th comes due.

    Get well, b.

    Mina | Nov 23, 2016 5:42:30 PM | 22
    right on spot
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/11/14/chickens-culled-germany-bird-flu-detected/93801770/
    http://fortune.com/2016/11/12/bird-flu-outbreak-europe/
    http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2016/11/more-avian-flu-expected-europe-us
    you bet it didn't hit the news in Europe except in Germany. Must be the fault of RT and Sputnik propaganda.

    Back to topic: it still amazes me than with the hundred thousands of Syrians in Europe and in Lebanon/Turkey/Jordan etc. we don't see ANY documentaries where representative number of ppl are interviewed to tell what happened in their area. It seems that this might be part of the new "Putin-makes-the-winner" effect on elections (Fillon had said he would talk with Syria/Iran/Russia to solve the conflict and he instantly jumped and won the first round). Ppl are not stupid and they know in many generations of DNA that the first think is to stop the war, because that costs and spreads.

    [Nov 22, 2016] The key question here is not whether Trump will be able to pursue isolationist agenda and improve the US relationship with Russia. The key question is whether he will allowed to do that and resist strong attempts to co-opt him into the standard set of neocon policies, which Washington pursued for several decades.

    crookedtimber.org

    likbez: 11.22.16 at 2:45 pm 42

    @41
    Chet Murthy 11.22.16 at 5:08 am

    There have been two constants in his campaign: "stomp the weaker" and "lovin' Putin". That's it.

    "lovin' Putin" is a propaganda trick which enforces a certain judgment on the US-Russia relations. You should better stay above this level in this blog.

    Putin was and remains an obstacle on building global neoliberal empire governed by the USA. So hate toward him by Washington establishment is quite natural. Nothing personal, just business. In other words, demonization of Putin and hysterical anti-Russian campaign (including Hillary attempt to convert Democratic Party into a War party) is just a sign of disapproval of Washington his lack of desire to convert Russia into yet another vassal state.

    The key question here is not whether Trump will be able to pursue isolationist agenda and improve the US relationship with Russia. The key question is whether he will allowed to do that and resist strong attempts to co-opt him into the standard set of neocon policies, which Washington pursued for several decades.

    His "Contract with America" does not cover foreign policy issues except rejection of TPP, NAFTA and like.

    https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

    The hypothesis that he will pursue isolationist agenda is undermined by the amount of Iran hawks in his close circle.

    My impression is that his administration will try to bait Russia in order to prevent any strengthening of China-Russia alliance which was the main blowback of Obama policies toward Russia.

    Also under Trump the USA might be more selective as running six concurrent conflicts (Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine) which during Obama administration proved to be pretty expensive. Libya is now a failed state. In Ukraine the standard of living dropped to the level of $2 per day for the majority of population and the country became yet another debt slave, always balancing on the wedge of bankruptcy. And costs for the USA are continuing to mount in at least three of the six countries mentioned ( profits extracted in Ukraine and Iraq partially offset that). It is unclear whether Trump administration will continue this Obama policy of multiple unilateral engagements but I think is that during Trump administration the resistance to the USA unilateral interventionism will be stronger as neoliberalism itself became much less attractive ideology. Which is more difficult to "export". Similar to the fact that "communism" was more difficult to export after 60th by the USSR. In a way, after 2008 it is a "damaged good" notwithstanding its recent victories in Brazil and Argentina. See for example discussion at:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/22/does-clintons-defeat-mean-the-decline-of-us-interventionism/

    The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions reflects their punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be a new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions of the United States and its allies; they are a new rationale for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are a way to suppress Russia and deprive it of its zones of influence. (3)

    What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World (G77) at the Havana Summit in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including humanitarian, which did not respect the sovereignty of the states concerned. (4) This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign policy of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state. (5)

    But, of course, we can only guess how Trump administration will behave.

    [Nov 22, 2016] Does Clinton's Defeat Mean the Decline of US Interventionism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Did the United States not know that intervening in "the lands of Islam" would act as a catalyst for Jihad? Was it by chance that the United States intervened only in secular states, turning them into manholes of religious extremism? Is it a coincidence that these interventions were and are often supported by regimes that sponsor political Islam? Conspiracy theory, you say? No, these are historical facts. ..."
    "... The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions reflects their punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be a new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions of the United States and its allies; they are a new rationale for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are a way to suppress Russia and deprive it of its zones of influence. (3) ..."
    "... What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World (G77) at the Havana Summit in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including humanitarian, which did not respect the sovereignty of the states concerned. (4) This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign policy of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state. (5) ..."
    "... At the moment of this writing, any speculation as to the policy choices of Trump's foreign policy is premature. ..."
    "... Like Donald Trump, George W. Bush was a conservative Republican non-interventionist. He advocated "America First," called for a more subdued foreign policy and adopted Colin Powell's realism "to attend without stress" (7) with regard to the Near and Middle East. But his policy shifted to become the most aggressive and most brutal in the history of the United States. Many international observers argue that this shift came as a response to the September 11 attacks, but they fail to note that the aggressive germs already existed within Bush's cabinet and advisers: the neo-conservatives occupied key functions in his administration. ..."
    "... Up until now, Trump's links with the neo-cons remain unclear. The best-known neo-cons, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, and Robert Kagan, appear to have lost their bet by supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy. But others, less prominent or influential, seem to have won it by supporting Trump: Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, and James Woolsey, his adviser and one of the architects of the wars in the Middle East. ..."
    "... it is more realistic to suppose that as long as the United States has interests in the countries of the South and the Near and Middle East, so long it will not hesitate to intervene. ..."
    "... In this context, Trump's defeat and Clinton's accession are not sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism -- the end of an era and the beginning of another. ..."
    "... (Translated from the French by Luciana Bohne) ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    ... ... ...

    If the discourse of humanitarianism seduced the North, it has not been so in the South, even less in the Near and Middle East, which no longer believe in it. The patent humanitarian disasters in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have disillusioned them.

    It is in this sense that Trump's victory is felt as a release, a hope for change, and a rupture from the policy of Clinton, Bush, and Obama. This policy, in the name of edifying nations ("nation building"), has destroyed some of the oldest nations and civilizations on earth; in the name of delivering well-being, it has delivered misery; in the name of liberal values, it has galvanized religious zeal; in the name of democracy and human rights, it has installed autocracies and Sharia law.

    Who is to blame?

    Did the United States not know that intervening in "the lands of Islam" would act as a catalyst for Jihad? Was it by chance that the United States intervened only in secular states, turning them into manholes of religious extremism? Is it a coincidence that these interventions were and are often supported by regimes that sponsor political Islam? Conspiracy theory, you say? No, these are historical facts.

    Can the United States not learn from history, or does it just doom itself to repeat it? Does it not pose itself the question of how al-Qaeda and Daesh originated? How did they organize themselves? Who trained them? What is their mobilizing discourse? (1) Why is the US their target? None of this seems to matter to the US: all it cares about is projecting its own idealism. (2)

    The death of thousands of people in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya or Syria, has it contributed to the well being of these peoples? Or does the United States perhaps respond to this question in the manner of Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, who regretted the death of five-hundred-thousand Iraqi children, deprived of medications by the American embargo, to conclude with the infamous sentence, "[But] it was worth it "?

    Was it worth it that people came to perceive humanitarian intervention as the new crusades? Was it worth it that they now perceive democracy as a pagan, pre-Islamic model, abjured by their belief? Was it worth it that they now perceive modernity as deviating believers from the "true" path? Was it worth that they now perceive human rights as human standards as contrary to the divine will? Was it worth it that people now perceive secularism as atheism whose defenders are punishable by beheading?

    Have universal values become a problem rather than a solution? What then to think of making war in their name? Has humanitarian intervention become punishment rather than help?

    The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions reflects their punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be a new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions of the United States and its allies; they are a new rationale for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are a way to suppress Russia and deprive it of its zones of influence. (3)

    What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World (G77) at the Havana Summit in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including humanitarian, which did not respect the sovereignty of the states concerned. (4) This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign policy of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state. (5)

    The end of interventionism?

    But are Clinton's defeat and Trump's accession to power sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism?

    Donald Trump is a nationalist, whose rise has been the result of a coalition of anti-interventionists within the Republican Party. They professe a foreign policy that Trump has summarized in these words: "We will use military force only in cases of vital necessity to the national security of the United States. We will put an end to attempts of imposing democracy and overthrowing regimes abroad, as well as involving ourselves in situations in which we have no right to intervene." (6)

    But drawing conclusions about the foreign policy of the United States from unofficial statements seems simplistic. At the moment of this writing, any speculation as to the policy choices of Trump's foreign policy is premature. One can't predict his policy with regard to the Near and Middle East, since he has not yet even formed his cabinet. Moreover, presidents in office can change their tune in the course of their tenure. The case of George W. Bush provides an excellent example.

    Like Donald Trump, George W. Bush was a conservative Republican non-interventionist. He advocated "America First," called for a more subdued foreign policy and adopted Colin Powell's realism "to attend without stress" (7) with regard to the Near and Middle East. But his policy shifted to become the most aggressive and most brutal in the history of the United States. Many international observers argue that this shift came as a response to the September 11 attacks, but they fail to note that the aggressive germs already existed within Bush's cabinet and advisers: the neo-conservatives occupied key functions in his administration. (8)

    Up until now, Trump's links with the neo-cons remain unclear. The best-known neo-cons, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, and Robert Kagan, appear to have lost their bet by supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy. But others, less prominent or influential, seem to have won it by supporting Trump: Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, and James Woolsey, his adviser and one of the architects of the wars in the Middle East.

    These indices show that nothing seems to have been gained by the South, still less by the Near and Middle East. There appears to be no guarantee that the situation will improve.

    The non-interventionism promised by Trump may not necessarily equate to a policy of isolationism. A non-interventionist policy does not automatically mean that the United States will stop protecting their interests abroad, strategic or otherwise. Rather, it could mean that the United States will not intervene abroad except to defend their own interests, unilaterally -- and perhaps even more aggressively. Such a potential is implied in Trump's promise to increase the budget for the army and the military-industrial complex. Thus, it is more realistic to suppose that as long as the United States has interests in the countries of the South and the Near and Middle East, so long it will not hesitate to intervene.

    In this context, Trump's defeat and Clinton's accession are not sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism -- the end of an era and the beginning of another. The political reality is too complex to be reduced to statements by a presidential candidate campaigning for election, by an elected president, or even by a president in the course of performing his office.

    No one knows what the future will bring.

    Marwen Bouassida is a researcher in international law at North African-European relations, University of Carthage, Tunisia. He regularly contributes to the online magazine Kapitalis.

    (Translated from the French by Luciana Bohne)

    [Nov 21, 2016] Trump first and foremost is the symptom, not cause of crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. Ideology is dead, like Bolshevism was dead soon after the end of WWII in the USSR

    The Imperial Presidency of the United States has evolved over the last century to the point that the executive holds certain powers that can be considered dictatorial. Arguably, the most consequential decision in politics is to wage war. The Constitution specifically reserves this right for Congress.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The anger against outsourcing jobs is very real and very dangerous for current corrupt neocon/neolib elite in Washington with their dream of global dominance and global neoliberal empire spanning all countries on all continents much like Trotsky dreamed about global Communist empire. ..."
    "... The key information about his real intention would be the candidate for the Secretary of State. But even here uncertainty will remain. For example, it is not completely clear to me that if Bolton would be appointed he will be able to pursue the policies of his neocon past. After all Trump has distinct authoritarian inclinations and Bolton is not stupid enough not to understand that. ..."
    "... Hopefully his foreign policy will be less jingoistic that Obama foreign policy. "Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war," said Trump, "unlike other candidates, war and aggression will not be my first instinct." ..."
    "... "lovin' Putin" is a propaganda trick which enforces a certain judgment on the US-Russia relations ..."
    "... Putin was and remain an obstacle on building global neoliberal empire governed by the USA. So hate toward him by Washington establishment is quite natural. Nothing personal, just business. In other words, demonization of Putin and hysterical anti-Russian campaign (including Hillary attempt to convert Democratic Party into a War party) is just a sign of disapproval of Washington his lack of desire to convert Russian into yet another vassal state. ..."
    "... The key question here is not whether Trump will be able to pursue isolationist agenda and improve the US relationship with Russia. The key question is whether he will allowed to do that and resist strong attempts to co-opt him into standard set of neocon policies, which Washington pursued for several decades. ..."
    "... Any idea that he will peruse isolationist agenda is undermined by the amount of Iran hawks in his close circle. ..."
    "... My impression is that his administration will try to bait Russia in order to prevent any strengthening of China-Russia alliance which was the main blowback of Obama policies toward Russia. ..."
    "... This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign policy of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state. (5) ..."
    "... The US Empire has been nice to the Russians before. It was called detente and caused almost (not quite) as much hysteria in war-mongering (proto-neoconservative) circles as Trump's 'neo-detente' is causing now. However, the proviso is (and always was) that the warmongering could be ramped up again any time the Americans chose, and of course it was again under Reagan. ..."
    "... From the point of view of American imperialism, Trump's plan to (temporarily) be nice to Russia makes a lot of strategic sense: as you point out, under Obama American imperial forces were becoming increasingly overstretched. In any case, for historical reasons, Russia (white, capitalist, Christian) doesn't make as good an enemy as the mysterious dark forces of 'Radical Islam'. ..."
    "... So I am guessing under Trump we will see temporary rapprochement with Russia in the East, and more concentration on command and control of the Middle East. I am also guessing Obama's 'Pivot to China' will be allowed to quietly continue. It's also likely the US' policy of quietly picking off 'weak links' in the 'pink tide' in South American (cf Brazil, Honduras) will continue. ..."
    "... For the moment I take great comfort in the hostility Trump displayed to Eliot Cohen and his ilk – https://twitter.com/EliotACohen/status/798512852931788800 ..."
    "... "After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly." ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    likbez 11.21.16 at 10:41 pm 33

    Trump first and foremost is the symptom, not cause of crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. Ideology is dead, like Bolshevism was dead soon after the end of WWII in the USSR.

    Trump has two major path of his governance. He might try relying on nationalist insurgence his election provoked and squeeze the "deep state" and neocon cabal in Washington, or he will be co-opted by Republican brass. He probably understand that his positioning during election campaign as a fighter against globalization and neoliberalism excesses in the USA is the key link that provides political support for his administration. And throwing a couple on neocons or banksters against the wall would be a populist gesture well received by American public.

    The anger against outsourcing jobs is very real and very dangerous for current corrupt neocon/neolib elite in Washington with their dream of global dominance and global neoliberal empire spanning all countries on all continents much like Trotsky dreamed about global Communist empire.

    My feeling is that a lot of people are really ready to fight for Trump and that creates for problem for the "deep state", if Trump "indoctrination" by Washington establishment fails.

    Past revolts in some US cities are just the tip of the iceberg. Obama lost not only his legacy with Trump election. He lost his bid to keep all members of top 1% and first of all financial oligarchy that drives the events on 2008 unaccountable.

    So "accountability drive" which will be interpreted by neoliberals as "witch hunt" might well be in the cards. I encourage everybody in this blog to listen to the following Trump election advertisement.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2s9AV910NY

    Also I would not assume that he is a newcomer to political games. Real estate business is very a political activity. So a more plausible hypothesis is that he is a gifted politician both by nature and due to on the job training received in his occupation.

    His idea of creating a circle of advisors who compete with each other and thus allow him to be the final arbiter of major decisions is not new. He is not hostile to conflicts within his inner circle.

    The key information about his real intention would be the candidate for the Secretary of State. But even here uncertainty will remain. For example, it is not completely clear to me that if Bolton would be appointed he will be able to pursue the policies of his neocon past. After all Trump has distinct authoritarian inclinations and Bolton is not stupid enough not to understand that.

    Hopefully his foreign policy will be less jingoistic that Obama foreign policy. "Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war," said Trump, "unlike other candidates, war and aggression will not be my first instinct."

    likbez 44

    @41
    Chet Murthy 11.22.16 at 5:08 am

    There have been two constants in his campaign: "stomp the weaker" and "lovin' Putin". That's it.

    "lovin' Putin" is a propaganda trick which enforces a certain judgment on the US-Russia relations . You should better stay above this level in this blog.

    Putin was and remain an obstacle on building global neoliberal empire governed by the USA. So hate toward him by Washington establishment is quite natural. Nothing personal, just business. In other words, demonization of Putin and hysterical anti-Russian campaign (including Hillary attempt to convert Democratic Party into a War party) is just a sign of disapproval of Washington his lack of desire to convert Russian into yet another vassal state.

    The key question here is not whether Trump will be able to pursue isolationist agenda and improve the US relationship with Russia. The key question is whether he will allowed to do that and resist strong attempts to co-opt him into standard set of neocon policies, which Washington pursued for several decades.

    His "Contract with America" does not cover foreign policy issues except rejection of TPP, NAFTA and like.

    https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

    Any idea that he will peruse isolationist agenda is undermined by the amount of Iran hawks in his close circle.

    My impression is that his administration will try to bait Russia in order to prevent any strengthening of China-Russia alliance which was the main blowback of Obama policies toward Russia.

    Also under Trump the USA might be more selective as running six concurrent conflicts (Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine). Which during Obama administration proved to be pretty expensive. Libya is now a failed state. In Ukraine the standard of living dropped to the level of $2 per day for the majority of population and the country became yet another debt slave, always balancing on the wedge of bankruptcy. And costs for the USA are continuing to mount in at least three of the six countries mentioned ( profits extracted in Ukraine and Iraq partially offset that). It is unclear whether Trump administration will continue this Obama policy of multiple unilateral engagements but I think is that during Trump administration the resistance to the USA unilateral interventionism will be stronger as neoliberalism itself became much less attractive ideology. Which is more difficult to "export". Similar to the fact that "communism" was more difficult to export after 60th by the USSR. In a way, after 2008 it is a "damaged good" notwithstanding its recent victories in Brazil and Argentina. See for example discussion at:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/22/does-clintons-defeat-mean-the-decline-of-us-interventionism/

    The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions reflects their punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be a new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions of the United States and its allies; they are a new rationale for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are a way to suppress Russia and deprive it of its zones of influence. (3)

    What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World (G77) at the Havana Summit in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including humanitarian, which did not respect the sovereignty of the states concerned. (4) This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign policy of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state. (5)

    But, of course, we can only guess how Trump administration will behave.

    Hidari 11.23.16 at 8:38 am 51

    'The key question here is not whether Trump will be able to pursue isolationist agenda and improve the US relationship with Russia. The key question is whether he will allowed to do that and resist strong attempts to co-opt him into standard set of neocon policies, which Washington pursued for several decades.'

    The US Empire has been nice to the Russians before. It was called detente and caused almost (not quite) as much hysteria in war-mongering (proto-neoconservative) circles as Trump's 'neo-detente' is causing now. However, the proviso is (and always was) that the warmongering could be ramped up again any time the Americans chose, and of course it was again under Reagan.

    From the point of view of American imperialism, Trump's plan to (temporarily) be nice to Russia makes a lot of strategic sense: as you point out, under Obama American imperial forces were becoming increasingly overstretched. In any case, for historical reasons, Russia (white, capitalist, Christian) doesn't make as good an enemy as the mysterious dark forces of 'Radical Islam'.

    So I am guessing under Trump we will see temporary rapprochement with Russia in the East, and more concentration on command and control of the Middle East. I am also guessing Obama's 'Pivot to China' will be allowed to quietly continue. It's also likely the US' policy of quietly picking off 'weak links' in the 'pink tide' in South American (cf Brazil, Honduras) will continue.

    'Trump: foreign policy continuity rather than change' may well be a typical graduate thesis in 30 years' time.

    reason 11.23.16 at 9:00 am 52

    I'm curious how Trump will deal with Erdogan. Erdogan seems to have all the tact and subtlety of an angry Bison and with Trump's thin skin, there is bound to be a conflict at some stage. And Erdogan is not Christian.

    kidneystones 11.23.16 at 10:05 am 53

    ... ... ...

    For the moment I take great comfort in the hostility Trump displayed to Eliot Cohen and his ilk – https://twitter.com/EliotACohen/status/798512852931788800

    "After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly."

    [Nov 21, 2016] If Berlusconi is like Trump, what can Italy teach America?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Many of these people voted for Obama in 2012. The reason they abandoned the Democrats this time is that they hadn't seen any improvement in their lives in the last 4 years. When Trump said Clinton was in the pocket of Wall Street, they agreed. They were right: she is. ..."
    "... Berlusconi allied himself both with the nascent Lega and the remains of the neo-fascist MSI, members of which went on to hold high positions in his governments. The effects of this alliance were seen in spectacular fashion at the Genoa G8 meeting, which was used very effectively to outlaw street protest or at least to rebrand anyone protesting against government as 'extremist' (he similarly labelled anyone to his left as 'communist'). ..."
    "... The Guardian's Trump nervous breakdown continues apace.... what would you talk about if he didn't exist?? ..."
    "... As far as the part of non-deplorable voters are concerned, it is relatively clear what they want: economic security and perspective rather than the choice between unemployment and MacJobs, public services working reasonably well rather than garbage piling up in the streets, respectable political culture rather than corruption and nepotism. ..."
    "... Obviously, and not without reason, the confidence of many voters in the ability of the political establishment has faded to a degree allowing exploitation by tycoons presented as 'can-do' strongmen. Neither crying nor shouting at the voters nor agreeing that the N-word is ok will change that. ..."
    "... Trump wasn't as bad as Berlusconi however at the end of the day ordinary people are more concerned about their jobs, their own local economies, their hospitals, schools, local taxes, housing costs so in that respect they look to see change not the same oppressive status quo ..."
    "... It's why Sarkozy was rejected yesterday outright as people don't want a fake offer and the neoliberal Establishment serving corporates, a bent media and banking interests at the cost to themselves and their families. ..."
    Nov 21, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    by Stephanie Kirchgaessner

    Berlusconi was Italy's longest serving post war PM. Like Bill Clinton he was a talented totally corrupt, sexually obsessed politician.
    Derrick Hibbett 9m ago

    People voted for Trump for a variety of reasons. Some wanted abortion made illegal, some were KKK racists. It is pointless trying to "understand their concerns"; they will never support the left.

    Others voted for Trump because they believe he provide them with a secure job, with a salary which allows them to support themselves and their families. Many of these people voted for Obama in 2012. The reason they abandoned the Democrats this time is that they hadn't seen any improvement in their lives in the last 4 years. When Trump said Clinton was in the pocket of Wall Street, they agreed. They were right: she is.

    The problem is that in the absence of a strong labour movement they were prey to a trickster who has no intention of challenging the corporations.

    nadaward 22m ago

    Something the article doesn't mention was Berlusconi's bringing of the far right out of the political cupboard.

    Berlusconi allied himself both with the nascent Lega and the remains of the neo-fascist MSI, members of which went on to hold high positions in his governments. The effects of this alliance were seen in spectacular fashion at the Genoa G8 meeting, which was used very effectively to outlaw street protest or at least to rebrand anyone protesting against government as 'extremist' (he similarly labelled anyone to his left as 'communist').

    I'm not sure that apart from a sort of desire for privatization of the state apparatus Berlusconi has or had strong political views. I think questions such as immigration were used in an instrumental fashion.

    It's often said that Berlusconi also brought what in Italy is called the language of the 'Bar Sport' into the political arena. In other words he cancelled the veneer of respectability in political language, with great help from the Lega. There was a sort of 'naughty boy' factor involved in this taboo breaking that had enormous appeal outside of the 'educated classes'. People suddenly felt entitled to let it all hang out and say what they wanted. A sort of nine-year stag night. The more people objected to his version of 'pussy grabbing' the more they could be successfully labelled stuck-up do-gooders.

    On the question of the Church and its complicity, I think that had a lot to do with the conservative papacies of the times.

    pfcbg 23m ago

    I love Donald Donny T. He is a phenomenal leader. Unlike Hillary, he isn't going to ally himself with Islamists of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but in fact, might crush them. I love Donald Donny T. He might unite with Russia crush Islamists.

    qpdarloboy 25m ago

    Berlusconi was a front man for the mafia. It's no coincidence that Forza Italia was launched immediately after the judicial investigations into corruption in the existing political parties looked set to wipe out the mafia's hold over Italian politics

    Nick Pers 32m ago

    it seems like the title of this article is inverted, Trump is like Berlusconi not the other way around. At least chronologically Berlusconi's political engagement was much prior to Trump and even on the financial level according to Forbes magazine Berlusconi is more than twice richer than Trump and obviously had much more media influence, but I do not see how the contrary is true as the title seems to suggest????

    Hurrellr 1h ago

    The Guardian's Trump nervous breakdown continues apace.... what would you talk about if he didn't exist?? Actually perhaps nervous breakdown is the wrong metaphor, perhaps its more like an orgasm ... he hits the sweet spot, you can protest endlessly... years and years lie ahead of you blathering on about Trump being the devil. The ultimate orgasmic showcasing of virtue. Christmas has come early!

    carlygirl 2h ago

    While it has received scant attention, Trump has also promised to repeal a 1954 ban that prevents tax-exempt organisations like churches from getting involved in politics, a change that could give churches an even more powerful role in US politics.

    Pure idiocy. Putting cults that believe in 'invisible men' in charge of political policy - it would be like the Taliban taking control of Afghanistan.

    pollyp57 -> carlygirl 22m ago

    The American religious right has a great deal in common with the Taliban - they aren't mad keen on science, they want to impose their own version of social control and they both absolutely agree that women should lip up and get on with the housework.

    Peter Krall 2h ago

    try and seriously understand what his voters want

    What is this supposed to mean? Understanding that some deplorables feel terrorised by the 'p.c.-police' if using the N-word is deprecated and bowing to them? Sorry, no! It may be possible to win the votes of these people by pursuing Trump's/Berlusconi's agenda but if this agenda is to be pursued: why not just let them do it?

    As far as the part of non-deplorable voters are concerned, it is relatively clear what they want: economic security and perspective rather than the choice between unemployment and MacJobs, public services working reasonably well rather than garbage piling up in the streets, respectable political culture rather than corruption and nepotism.

    Understanding this is the easy part. The problem is delivering. Obviously, and not without reason, the confidence of many voters in the ability of the political establishment has faded to a degree allowing exploitation by tycoons presented as 'can-do' strongmen. Neither crying nor shouting at the voters nor agreeing that the N-word is ok will change that.


    Streatham 2h ago

    And don't let's forget Berlusconi's pal Blair, he of the 'eye-catching initiatives' like the destruction of Iraq. Trump and Berlusconi together will never be responsible for as much evil as the billionaire Blair - close friend as well, of course, of Bill 'The Sleaze' Clinton.

    SpiderJerusalem01 2h ago

    People aren't that concerned with tabloid journalism. They worry about jobs, taxes, the economy. You know, the real stuff. But then, when you don't have those worries I guess you can indulge in fluff pieces.

    That's why the jig is up for you elitists. The world is changing, and not in your favour. Heh.


    Dimitri 3h ago

    Of course this whole nightmare can be avoided if the electoral collage actually decides to select the candidate who won the popular vote by over a million and a half...'such stuff as dreams are made on.'...

    tictactom -> Dimitri 3h ago

    Careful. You'll get ticked off for listening to MSM propaganda talking like that!

    FishDog -> Dimitri 3h ago

    They will state by state.

    Somefing Looms -> Dimitri 2h ago

    Clinton stole votes in several large urban areas - those where the returns were abnormally slow to be returned.

    imo, Clinton lost the popular vote by millions if a true vote were recorded.

    But, even if she didn't, without the Electoral College, a handful of states and even large cities would be choosing the POTUS every term in perpetuity, irrespective of the wishes of those elsewhere in the county.

    Why do you think that's a good idea?

    shaftedpig 3h ago

    Trump wasn't as bad as Berlusconi however at the end of the day ordinary people are more concerned about their jobs, their own local economies, their hospitals, schools, local taxes, housing costs so in that respect they look to see change not the same oppressive status quo .

    It's why Sarkozy was rejected yesterday outright as people don't want a fake offer and the neoliberal Establishment serving corporates, a bent media and banking interests at the cost to themselves and their families. If you want to know who the culprit politicos are look at people like Schauble who are openly threatening us and the democracy we voted for. This guy wasn't even elected by us but feels he has a right to dictate to us as one of his political ancestors once tried.

    https://mishtalk.com/2016/11/19/wolfgang-schauble-turns-to-threats-and-extortion/

    [Nov 21, 2016] Chuck Baldwin -- Trump Supporters Must Not Go To Sleep

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. ..."
    "... On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. ..."
    "... To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack. ..."
    "... Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). ..."
    "... You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration. ..."
    "... Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. ..."
    "... What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties. ..."
    "... The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected. ..."
    Nov 17, 2016 | www.newswithviews.com

    After my post-election column last week, a lady wrote to me and said, "I have confidence he [Trump] plans to do what is best for the country." With all due respect, I don't! I agree wholeheartedly with Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

    If Donald Trump is going to be anything more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected phony, he is going to have to put raw elbow grease to his rhetoric. His talk got him elected, but it is going to be his walk that is going to prove his worth.

    And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House chief strategist.

    Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee. If that doesn't tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably picked him because he is in so tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment, thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus does NOT share Trump's anti-establishment agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out at worst.

    On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it.

    To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack.

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the globalist elite gave Newt Gingrich the assignment of cozying up to (and "supporting") Trump during his campaign with the sole intention of being in a position for Trump to think he owes Gingrich something so as to appoint him to a key cabinet post in the event that he won. Gingrich could then weave his evil magic during a Donald Trump presidential administration.

    Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration, I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about "draining the swamp." You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.

    Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. Granted, he hasn't even been sworn in yet, and it's still way too early to make a true judgment of his presidency. But for a fact, his cabinet appointments and his first one hundred days in office will tell us most of what we need to know.

    What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties.

    There is a reason we have lost more liberties under Republican administrations than Democratic ones over the past few decades. And that reason is the conservative, constitutionalist, Christian, pro-freedom people who should be resisting government's assaults against our liberties are sound asleep because they trust a Republican President and Congress to do the right thing -- and they give the GOP a pass as our liberties are expunged piece by piece. A pass they would NEVER give to a Democrat.

    The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected.

    I tell you again: this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the course of a nation. Frankly, if this opportunity is squandered, there likely will not be another one in most of our lifetimes.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Obama helped to create ISIS by turning a bling eye on US intelligence reports

    Notable quotes:
    "... Flynn: "I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, a willful decision." ..."
    "... Hasan (Interviewer): "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?" ..."
    "... Flynn: "A willful decision to do what they're doing, You have to really ask the President what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very, very confusing." ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    THIS IS "CHANGE"

    The successor of Susan Rice:

    Hasan (Interviewer) (From 11.15 onwards into the interview): "In 2012, your agency was saying, quote: "The Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda in Iraq [(which ISIS arose out of)], are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." In 2012, the US was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups. Why did you not stop that if you're worried about the rise of Islamic extremism?"

    Flynn: "Well I hate to say it's not my job, but my job was to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be, and I will tell you, it goes before 2012. When we were in Iraq, and we still had decisions to be made before there was a decision to pull out of Iraq in 2011, it was very clear what we were going to face."

    Hasan (Interviewer): You are basically saying that even in government at the time, you knew those groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't listening?"

    Flynn: "I think the administration."

    Hasan (Interviewer): "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"

    Flynn: "I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, a willful decision."

    Hasan (Interviewer): "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?"

    Flynn: "A willful decision to do what they're doing, You have to really ask the President what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very, very confusing."

    Former US Intelligence Chief Admits Obama Took "Willful Decision" to Support ISIS Rise

    http://journal-neo.org/2015/08/13/former-us-intelligence-chief-admits-obama-took-willful-decision-to-support-isis-rise/

    [Nov 21, 2016] Im beginning to wonder if the Marxist construction of alienated labor isnt itself invalid in our brave new world

    Notable quotes:
    "... We can't say it's a matter of needing more "good jobs" or better "labor protections," because both those solutions presume a specific paradigm where "working" is synonymous with "being productive" and that may no longer be the case. ..."
    "... Food service for people who don't have time to cook (or never had time to learn); childcare for parents who can't be around to do it themselves; house cleaners, landscapers, dog walkers - an entire constellation of careers and "careers" apparently premised on the notion that modern people are just too damn busy to ever come home. Badly paid busy people doing work for underpaid busy people doing work for overpaid busy people who sell services to a hundred other busy people. ..."
    "... Consider the lunch break. Something simple: coffee and a sandwich. You can "cook" it in ten minutes and the ingredients will cost you maybe a buck or two, or you can go down to the corner, spend the same ten minutes waiting in line, pay about ten times as much, and get something of roughly the same quality. It's pretty clear what the math favors (even notwithstanding the "I asked for no mayonnaise" contingency), and yet millions of us are buying that coffee and sandwich every day. ..."
    Nov 21, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Dave 11.20.16 at 8:59 am 22

    I've been thinking a lot about what, exactly, "work" is and whether our society still needs it, as such. The early socialists recognized that much of what was alleged to be "productive" labor was, in fact, indulgence. Capitalism, since its inception, has exploited the human animal's natural drive toward industry so that the few could profit off the work of the many, but I'm beginning to wonder if the Marxist construction of alienated labor isn't itself invalid in our brave new world.

    How can you "alienate" labor that scarcely seems to have a product in the first place? What do we make of that massive sector of the economy that does work that doesn't appear to need doing? How do you harness the power of labor for social change when a huge chunk of the workforce feels like if they quit tomorrow, they could be replaced in a week or, perhaps, not replaced at all.

    We can't say it's a matter of needing more "good jobs" or better "labor protections," because both those solutions presume a specific paradigm where "working" is synonymous with "being productive" and that may no longer be the case. What happens when work isn't labor, as such, but rather a kind of anti-labor? An inordinately large portion of the economy consists of people doing jobs for other people that those people would be able to do themselves if they weren't so busy working. Food service for people who don't have time to cook (or never had time to learn); childcare for parents who can't be around to do it themselves; house cleaners, landscapers, dog walkers - an entire constellation of careers and "careers" apparently premised on the notion that modern people are just too damn busy to ever come home. Badly paid busy people doing work for underpaid busy people doing work for overpaid busy people who sell services to a hundred other busy people.

    Now, the standard line is that specialized labor is more efficient, more efficient labor is more productive, and increased productivity makes us all richer. Capitalists tend to assume that the market is fair and those riches trickle down (or at least end up in the "right" hands), socialists rightly insist that the market doesn't work that way so wealth must be redistributed. What wealth though?

    Consider the lunch break. Something simple: coffee and a sandwich. You can "cook" it in ten minutes and the ingredients will cost you maybe a buck or two, or you can go down to the corner, spend the same ten minutes waiting in line, pay about ten times as much, and get something of roughly the same quality. It's pretty clear what the math favors (even notwithstanding the "I asked for no mayonnaise" contingency), and yet millions of us are buying that coffee and sandwich every day.

    This leads me to ask if there's such a thing as counterproductive efficiency (inefficient productivity?). I'm not an economist, so someone else will have to tell me if any of the standard models incorporate "forgetting to go to the grocery store" and "not having time to pack a lunch that morning" as variables, but it seems like as far as economics relates to real people, these petty details aren't just part of the picture, they are the picture. If we can have a "convenience" industry that chiefly exists because the rest of our lives are rather inconvenient, and this is supposed to be more efficient, then something is very wrong with how we model efficiency.

    It's not just that our economies are underestimating the true costs of labor (in terms of time, health, and mental energy), it's that we as a society have decided that it's a social duty to do work that impoverishes us. What does it mean to "earn a living?" Consider that phrase. We use it constantly, for many of us it's our main goal in life, and yet it's anathema to the idea of inalienable rights. You cannot have a right to life (and liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.) and an obligation to "earn" that living at the same time. Most of us would be outraged if we were told that we had to "earn" our right to vote, or our right to speak freely, yet our basic right to survival is contingent on participation in a labor system that squanders the better part of our lives, restricts our liberties, and has no patience at all for the pursuit of happiness.

    Now, there's much to be said for what was once called the "Protestant work ethic' (before it went global). There will always be jobs that need to be done and people should be in the habit of doing them (and many of us know firsthand how bad things can get when you get out of that habit), but the reverse is also true. Some jobs don't need doing (or only need doing because other people aren't free to do them) and it's high time we started asking why, exactly, we all have to spend so much time doing them.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Ron Paul Reveals Hit List Of Alleged Fake News Journalists

    Notable quotes:
    "... CNN is Paul's biggest alleged culprit, with nine entries, followed by the NY Times and MSNBC, with six each. The NY Times has recently come under fire from President-elect Donald Trump, who accuses them of being "totally wrong" on news regarding his transition team, while describing them as "failing." ..."
    "... CNN's Wolf Blitzer is also amongst those named on the list. In an email from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) released by WikiLeaks, the DNC staff discusses sending questions to CNN for an interview with Donald Trump. ..."
    "... So-called 'fake news' has been recently attacked by US President Barack Obama, who claimed that false news shared online may have played a role in Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential election. ..."
    Nov 21, 2016 | www.infowars.com

    "This list contains the culprits who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and lied us into multiple bogus wars,"according to a report on his website, Ron Paul Liberty Report. Paul claims the list is sourced and "holds a lot more water" than a list previously released by Melissa Zimdars, who is described on Paul's website as "a leftist feminist professor."

    "These are the news sources that told us 'if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,'" he said. "They told us that Hillary Clinton had a 98% of winning the election. They tell us in a never-ending loop that 'The economy is in great shape!'"

    Paul's list includes the full names of the "fake news" journalists as well as the publications they write for, with what appears to be hyperlinks to where the allegations are sourced from. In most cases, this is WikiLeaks, but none of the hyperlinks are working at present, leaving the exact sources of the list unknown.

    CNN is Paul's biggest alleged culprit, with nine entries, followed by the NY Times and MSNBC, with six each. The NY Times has recently come under fire from President-elect Donald Trump, who accuses them of being "totally wrong" on news regarding his transition team, while describing them as "failing."

    The publication hit back, however, saying their business has increased since his election, with a surge in new subscriptions.

    CNN's Wolf Blitzer is also amongst those named on the list. In an email from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) released by WikiLeaks, the DNC staff discusses sending questions to CNN for an interview with Donald Trump.

    Also listed is NY Times journalist Maggie Haberman, whom leaked emails showed working closely with Clinton's campaign to present the Democratic candidate in a favorable light.

    So-called 'fake news' has been recently attacked by US President Barack Obama, who claimed that false news shared online may have played a role in Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential election.

    Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg has now said that the social media site may begin entrusting third parties with filtering the news.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Chuck Baldwin -- Trump Supporters Must Not Go To Sleep

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. ..."
    "... On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. ..."
    "... To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack. ..."
    "... Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). ..."
    "... You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration. ..."
    "... Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. ..."
    "... What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties. ..."
    "... The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected. ..."
    Nov 17, 2016 | www.newswithviews.com

    After my post-election column last week, a lady wrote to me and said, "I have confidence he [Trump] plans to do what is best for the country." With all due respect, I don't! I agree wholeheartedly with Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

    If Donald Trump is going to be anything more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected phony, he is going to have to put raw elbow grease to his rhetoric. His talk got him elected, but it is going to be his walk that is going to prove his worth.

    And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House chief strategist.

    Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee. If that doesn't tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably picked him because he is in so tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment, thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus does NOT share Trump's anti-establishment agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out at worst.

    On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it.

    To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack.

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the globalist elite gave Newt Gingrich the assignment of cozying up to (and "supporting") Trump during his campaign with the sole intention of being in a position for Trump to think he owes Gingrich something so as to appoint him to a key cabinet post in the event that he won. Gingrich could then weave his evil magic during a Donald Trump presidential administration.

    Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration, I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about "draining the swamp." You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.

    Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. Granted, he hasn't even been sworn in yet, and it's still way too early to make a true judgment of his presidency. But for a fact, his cabinet appointments and his first one hundred days in office will tell us most of what we need to know.

    What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties.

    There is a reason we have lost more liberties under Republican administrations than Democratic ones over the past few decades. And that reason is the conservative, constitutionalist, Christian, pro-freedom people who should be resisting government's assaults against our liberties are sound asleep because they trust a Republican President and Congress to do the right thing -- and they give the GOP a pass as our liberties are expunged piece by piece. A pass they would NEVER give to a Democrat.

    The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected.

    I tell you again: this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the course of a nation. Frankly, if this opportunity is squandered, there likely will not be another one in most of our lifetimes.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Apples iCloud retains the entire call history of every iPhone for as long as four months, making it an easy target for law enforcement and surveillance

    Nov 17, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Rusty tell us of Android hacking by the Chinese and today we learn the iphone has issues too

    http://bgr.com/2016/11/17/iphone-security-secret-call-history-icloud/

    "Russian security firm says iPhone secretly logs all your phone calls"

    By Mike Wehner...Nov 17, 2016...10:36 AM

    "A Russian security firm is casting doubt on just how big of an ally Apple is when it comes to consumer privacy. In a new report, the company alleges that Apple's iCloud retains the entire call history of every iPhone for as long as four months, making it an easy target for law enforcement and surveillance.

    The firm, Elcomsoft, discovered that as long as a user has iCloud enabled, their call history is synced and stored. The log includes phone numbers, dates and durations of the calls, and even missed calls, but the log doesn't stop there; FaceTime call logs, as well as calls from apps that utilize the "Call History" feature, such as Facebook and WhatsApp, are also stored.

    There is also apparently no way to actually disable the feature without disabling iCloud entirely, as there is no toggle for call syncing.

    "We offer call history syncing as a convenience to our customers so that they can return calls from any of their devices," an Apple spokesperson told The Intercept via email."Device data is encrypted with a user's passcode, and access to iCloud data including backups requires the user's Apple ID and password. Apple recommends all customers select strong passwords and use two-factor authentication."

    But security from unauthorized eyes isn't what users should be worrying about, according to former FBI agent and computer forensics expert Robert Osgood. "Absolutely this is an advantage [for law enforcement]," Osgood told The Intercept. ""Four months is a long time [to retain call logs]. It's generally 30 or 60 days for telecom providers, because they don't want to keep more [records] than they absolutely have to."

    If the name Elcomsoft sounds familiar, it's because the company's phone-cracking software was used by many of the hackers involved in 2014's massive celebrity nudes leak. Elcomsoft's "Phone Breaker" software claims the ability to crack iCloud backups, as well as backup files from Microsoft OneDrive and BlackBerry."

    [Nov 21, 2016] Trumps team will start new wars in the Middle East - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... Former associates complain of Flynn's political tunnel vision that could wreak havoc in the Middle East. His consulting company, the Flynn Intel Group, appears to lobby for the Turkish government and Flynn recently wrote an article calling for all-out US support for Turkey, who Washington has been trying to stop launching a full scale invasion of Syria and Iraq. ..."
    Nov 21, 2016 | www.unz.com

    Flynn notoriously sees Islamic militancy not only as a danger, but as an existential threat to the US. He tweeted earlier this year that "fear of Muslims is RATIONAL".

    There is an obsessive, self-righteous quality to Flynn's approach that led him to join chants of "lock her up" in reference to Hillary Clinton during election rallies. Former associates complain of Flynn's political tunnel vision that could wreak havoc in the Middle East. His consulting company, the Flynn Intel Group, appears to lobby for the Turkish government and Flynn recently wrote an article calling for all-out US support for Turkey, who Washington has been trying to stop launching a full scale invasion of Syria and Iraq. Unsurprisingly, the Turkish president welcomed Trump's election with enthusiasm and sharply criticised protests against it in the US (something that would be swiftly dealt with by police water cannon in Turkey).

    A striking feature of the aspirants for senior office under Trump is a level of personal greed high even by the usual standards of Washington. Trump famously campaigned under the slogan "Drain the Swamp" and castigated official corruption, but it is turning out that the outflow pipe from swamp is the entry point of the new administration.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Michael Flynn Should Remember Truths He Blurted Out Last Year by DavidSwanson

    Notable quotes:
    "... New York Times ..."
    www.washingtonsblog.com

    Michael Flynn, expected to advise Donald Trump on counterproductive killing operations misleading labeled "national security," is generally depicted as a lawless torturer and assassin. But, whether for partisan reasons or otherwise, he's a lawless torturer and assassin who has blurted out some truths he shouldn't be allowed to forget.

    For example:

    "Lt. Gen. Flynn, who since leaving the DIA has become an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, charges that the White House relies heavily on drone strikes for reasons of expediency, rather than effectiveness. 'We've tended to say, drop another bomb via a drone and put out a headline that "we killed Abu Bag of Doughnuts" and it makes us all feel good for 24 hours,' Flynn said. 'And you know what? It doesn't matter. It just made them a martyr, it just created a new reason to fight us even harder.'"

    Or even more clearly:

    "When you drop a bomb from a drone you are going to cause more damage than you are going to cause good. The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just fuels the conflict."

    Will Flynn then advise Trump to cease dropping bombs from drones? Or will he go ahead and advise drone murders, knowing full well that this is counterproductive from the point of view of anyone other than war profiteers?

    From the same report:

    "Asked . . . if drone strikes tend to create more terrorists than they kill, Flynn . . . replied: 'I don't disagree with that,' adding: 'I think as an overarching strategy, it is a failed strategy.'"

    So Trump's almost inevitable string of drone murders will be conducted under the guidance of a man who knows they produce terrorism rather than reducing it, that they endanger the United States rather than protecting it. In that assessment, he agrees with the vast majority of Americans who believe that the wars of the past 15 years have made the United States less safe, which is the view of numerous other experts as well.

    Flynn, too, expanded his comments from drones to the wars as a whole:

    "What we have is this continued investment in conflict. The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just fuels the conflict. Some of that has to be done but I am looking for the other solutions."

    Flynn also, like Trump, accurately cites the criminal 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as critical to the creation of ISIS:

    "Commenting on the rise of ISIL in Iraq, Flynn acknowledged the role played by the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. 'We definitely put fuel on a fire,' he told Hasan. 'Absolutely there is no doubt, history will not be kind to the decisions that were made certainly in 2003. Going into Iraq, definitely it was a strategic mistake."

    So there will be no advice to make similar strategic mistakes that are highly profitable to the weapons industry?

    Flynn, despite perhaps being a leading advocate of lawless imprisonment and torture, also admits to the counterproductive nature of those crimes:

    "The former lieutenant general denied any involvement in the litany of abuses carried out by JSOC interrogators at Camp Nama in Iraq, as revealed by the New York Times and Human Rights Watch, but admitted the US prison system in Iraq in the post-war period 'absolutely' helped radicalise Iraqis who later joined Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and its successor organisation, ISIL."

    Recently the International Criminal Court teased the world with the news that it might possible consider indicting US and other war criminals for their actions in Afghanistan. One might expect all-out resistance to such a proposal from Trump and his gang of hyper-nationalist war mongers, except that . . .

    "Flynn also called for greater accountability for US soldiers involved in abuses against Iraqi detainees: 'You know I hope that as more and more information comes out that people are held accountable History is not going to look kind on those actions and we will be held, we should be held, accountable for many, many years to come.'"

    Let's not let Flynn forget any of these words. On Syria he has blurted out some similar facts to those Trump has also articulated:

    "Publicly commenting for the first time on a previously-classified August 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo, which had predicted 'the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria ( ) this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want' and confirmed that 'the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and [Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,' the former DIA chief told Head to Head that 'the [Obama] Administration' didn't 'listen' to these warnings issued by his agency's analysts. 'I don't know if they turned a blind eye,' he said. 'I think it was a decision, I think it was a willful decision.'"

    Let that sink in. Flynn is taking credit for having predicted that backing fighters in Syria could lead to something like ISIS. And he's suggesting that Obama received this information and chose to ignore it.

    Now, here's a question: What impact will "bombing the hell" out of people have? What good will "killing their families" do? Spreading nukes around? "Stealing their oil"? Making lists of and banning Muslims? Is it Flynn's turn to willfully ignore key facts and common sense in order to "advise" against his better judgment a new president who prefers to be advised to do what he was going to do anyway?

    Or can Flynn be convinced to apply lessons learned at huge human cost to similar situations going forward even with a president of a different party, race, and IQ?

    [Nov 21, 2016] The State Department is so knee high in neocon bullshit, along with the majority of MSM that can't see straight, even if it's pointed out to them

    Neoliberal MSM campaign against Trump didn't stop at all after the election. Important to monitor that. So much at stake.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The amount of libtard hystericals getting about is unbelievable. They really were under a deep, deep [neoliberal] MSM spell. The denial and anger phase looks very nasty. ..."
    "... the usa state dept is so knee high in bullshit, along with the majority of media related people, right on down to the gutter as expressed thru the NYT, WAPO and WSJ - they can't see straight, even if it's pointed out to them.. ..."
    "... yes - begin with the wmds of saddam and continue on in that rut - it is what American presidents do now.. is there a chance trump will be different? he is going against the grain and it will be an uphill slog, but it would be good if the naysayers gave the guy as chance. ..."
    "... The finance sector and the medias that they support are having problems digesting the 105 millions wasted on Hillary. Then how many readers have decided that MSM was a waste of money and cancelled their subscriptions? Who takes seriouly CNN or the NYT or the Guardian who have hysterically supported their pathetic candidate by demonizing Trump? ..."
    "... People have become highly suspicious of news and 'analysis' from the MSM... Trump has opened the eyes of the americans to the manipulation of information that the MSM commonly practiced and is not usually exposed. It has now been exposed and the relation with the media will never be the same anymore. They have lost their credibility for a long long time ..."
    "... Interesting alternative news search engine www.goodgopher.com ..."
    "... I once counted on a very liberal and heavily viewed liberal website 26 anti-Trump stories. One or two positive Hillary stories all claiming support for her because she had a vagina. AT the end of the day, more people knew more about Trump than Clinton. ..."
    "... One position that people probably knew about Hillary was that she hated Putin (and China). ..."
    "... And apparently on the one position she really staked her election, people who voted didn't give a shit. The voters in WI, PA, MI, Ohio, and FL certainly did not seem to care. ..."
    "... Klein was unsurprised to see Mrs. Clinton playing the blame game after the election. "Have you ever known Hillary to take responsibility for anything?" he asked ..."
    "... The US has voted against global hegemony. That was their choices. A do or die effort for global hegemon under Clinton, or a controlled descent to a regional power/world power among others under Trump. Though the neo-con passengers are in a panic and may cause the aircraft to crash rather than glide in for a controlled landing. Either way I don't care, so long as the US goes down. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    5 & 7 -> Ron Showalter 12

    Hey, calm down there buddy. Deep breaths, in with the good, out with the bad. The votes are in. The Don won. Rigged MSM polls didn't hurt The Don, they hurt Hillary - no one got out of bed to go to the races. Game over.

    You gotta lighten up a little there old soldier... If Trump could win, against all odds, against the money, against the media collusion, against the establishment, against the neocons, against rampant neoliberalism, against the bookies, against his own party...then surely that is a sign that democracy is alive and kicking, right...? Go grab a beer.

    The amount of libtard hystericals getting about is unbelievable. They really were under a deep, deep [neoliberal] MSM spell. The denial and anger phase looks very nasty.

    james | Nov 17, 2016 3:22:57 PM | 13
    thanks b, for hammering away at this.. it bears repeating.. as @3 karlof1 points out and which i pointed out on the previous thread - the usa state dept is so knee high in bullshit, along with the majority of media related people, right on down to the gutter as expressed thru the NYT, WAPO and WSJ - they can't see straight, even if it's pointed out to them..

    yes - begin with the wmds of saddam and continue on in that rut - it is what American presidents do now.. is there a chance trump will be different? he is going against the grain and it will be an uphill slog, but it would be good if the naysayers gave the guy as chance.

    @6 perimetr.. indeed, if you've seen one jackass, you've seen them all.. our local resident troll ron showalter fits the bill plaguing moa for the time being..

    virgile | Nov 17, 2016 3:24:07 PM | 14
    The finance sector and the medias that they support are having problems digesting the 105 millions wasted on Hillary. Then how many readers have decided that MSM was a waste of money and cancelled their subscriptions? Who takes seriouly CNN or the NYT or the Guardian who have hysterically supported their pathetic candidate by demonizing Trump?

    People have become highly suspicious of news and 'analysis' from the MSM... Trump has opened the eyes of the americans to the manipulation of information that the MSM commonly practiced and is not usually exposed. It has now been exposed and the relation with the media will never be the same anymore. They have lost their credibility for a long long time

    ALberto | Nov 17, 2016 3:25:56 PM | 15
    Interesting alternative news search engine www.goodgopher.com
    Curtis | Nov 17, 2016 3:59:03 PM | 23
    Yes, b. It is very frustrating when the media (which brags about being "most trusted news source") takes things Trump has said and then twists them. He said that some illegals bring crime (and some are good people) and this has been twisted to him saying illegal immigrants (as in ALL) are bad guys. And they're still doing it.

    But now Google and Facebook have said they're going after fake news as in their own version of censorship. And youre right that real bad news on Clinton has been ignored or minimized like her accomplishment with Libya or that industry gave her campaign 25 times as much as to Trump's.

    I use this chart from the Fortune magazine article (Open Secrets and FEC) that shows $250 mill to HRC and less than $10 mill to Trump.
    https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/hil-09-15-16-chart-1-donors-e1473284811948.png

    MadMax2 | Nov 17, 2016 4:07:03 PM | 24
    Posted by: james | Nov 17, 2016 3:22:57 PM | 13
    "...is there a chance trump will be different? he is going against the grain and it will be an uphill slog, but it would be good if the naysayers gave the guy as chance..."

    There is every chance. This is because the MSM is operating against Trump in a way that the MSM should have been operating against G.W.Bush, against Obama's covert war abroad and upon his own people.

    Where was the MSM in collective outcry when Barry'O signed the NDAA into effect a minute before midnight one New Years Eve...? Indefinite detention without charge for all...!! What a greasy fukker...but not a peep from the MSM. All very hush-hush...all very fascist. Corporate media...corporate anything...all on board. And liberals are proud of this guy...? What a snake.

    But The Don won't be able to get away with that in his 1st term. No no. Only today it was reported he took a dump before eating a ham sandwich instead of talking to the press at lunchtime. This is news. (?)

    The 4th Estate retain special freedoms that are meant to be a check upon power. Over the years they have been slowly eroded. Obama's war on whistle-blowers' was pretty sadistic... but, under Hillary the medsubversion of the MSM would have been complete.

    Hysterical libtards don't understand the bullet they just dodged... and the MSM will either have total faith lost or find it's adversarial balance on power.

    Quadriad | Nov 17, 2016 4:22:37 PM | 25
    Good point Maddie. I too reckon Don will have to allow the spirits to calm down a bit to create some space for some real chistkas behind the curtains.

    Hiring an "ex" Goldman Sachs bitch boy or two for a couple of top spots might create such an environment of plausible revolution denial, while keeping the banksterim calm, at least for a while. Everything needs to look legit for the first year or two. I'd personally start with cleaning up the supreme court - that Ginsburg lizard needs to be replaced with someone a bit less foreign loyalty-ish, dual citizen-ish let's say.

    The only downsides is that the most short-fused among the Tea Party-ists might get the cold feet real early, even feel betrayed. Which, as long as kept under check with symbolic anti-illegal moves, and going a bit tougher on the Saudis (is there anyone with half a working brain that genuinely believes Trump has anything against Latinos, even "illegal" ones, in general?).

    In the short to medium run, even support for Bibi's fascist day to day excesses might increase. The Zio frog must be calmed down first, and only then slowly microwaved.

    Manta 11.18.16 at 10:39 am

    If a news source get some confidential information, the criterion on whether to publish it or not should be: "1) is it true? 2) is it (reasonably) complete? 3) is it of interest to the public?"

    The identity of the source is relevant only to decide 1) and 2) (for instance, if a candidate campaign passes some information about the opponent, the news source should investigate more carefully about 1) and 2) )
    On that score, Wikileaks did the right thing in publishing the Clinton email dump.
    It fitted the criteria: as far as I know, Hillary never tried to claim that they were forged (but see the bbc article linked below), and if some emails that would have given more background were missing , she could have released them.

    The alternative for Wikileaks would have been "we got a ton of information about a candidate, but we will not publish it because it may damage her".

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37639370

    Killary PAC | Nov 17, 2016 5:01:34 PM | 32
    Actually Existing Fascism

    "Rather than face up to the fact that Hillary Clinton has little appeal outside of Goldman Sachs and whatever the Project for a New American Century is called these days, Democrats are cursing Sanders fans, third-party voters, and non-voters with a hatred usually reserved for vegans. Since they can only imagine their own upper-middle class lives orbiting major urban centers, the loudest Democrats think that everyone who's not exactly like them is a racist, woman-hating cretin, and hope " that they be educated and moved to the vicinity of the major hubs in the northeast and western parts, that they die off [or] that a country would attack the United States and obliterate them."

    Rather than actually learn anything of substance, liberals are doing the only thing their politics really involve: sharing and commiserating over an extremely circumscribed set of insipid pop-culture references that flatter them and insulate them from reality .

    Those leftist critiques of Obama or Clinton that do manage to penetrate this fantasy-world get angrily dismissed as right-wing media conspiracy theories or Kremlin propaganda. And finally, as with any good whitewash, liberals are going to pretend that Donald Trump represents something totally alien and uniquely menacing, as though Obama hasn't done everything Trump says he will.

    And now, as soon as humanity has its first shot at finally being rid of the Clintons, and taking a small step back from the brink of ultimate atomic horror, these people want to gnash their teeth about America finally becoming fascist.

    Fuck them.

    If Trump is a fascist, them countless prominent American liberals are too, chief among them the widely beloved Barack Obama. Contemporary America doesn't look like Nazi Germany for the simple reason that it isn't Nazi Germany (J. Sakai argues that " Settlerism filled the space that fascism normally occupies"). What the Democrats offer is a slightly more "woke fascism," in which the slave-owning settlers are remade in entertainment media as cool black guys , with all the "problematic" racist history elided via a harmonious multi-ethnic makeover.

    It's worth noting that Donald Trump makes overtures to the same woke fascism as Obama and Clinton: after the Pulse nightclub massacre, Trump promised to defend " the LGBTQ community " from foreign attackers. In other words, Trump and Clinton alike promise a typically colonialist defense of liberal values like gay rights from the swarthy hordes.

    So color me unim-fucking-pressed that now that a blatantly villainous Republican is headed for the White House, everyone is talking about a united front against fascism. Of course, given that the vast majority of the newly radicalized loved and still love the child-murdering white supremacist Barack Obama, what we're talking about is a just another united front against the GOP.

    I know it's ancient history to be talking about the Bush years, just like it's hopelessly passé to unironically talk about "imperialism" in 2016, but please indulge me. I remember back when George W. Bush was president, torturing people around the world, "shredding the Constitution," attacking Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran with nukes. At the time, it was pretty common, even popular and fashionable, to call the president a fascist. Even on TV! Everyone who wasn't a Republican was radical: it seemed like Democrats and communists alike could gripe over everything from a stolen Florida election to the invasion of Iraq.

    Then sometime around 2007, a neoliberal and fundamentally conservative mediocrity named Barack Obama showed up, and while he made a lot of noise about how different he was, there was almost nothing of substance to back it up. Once he was president, all the stuff that was proof of George W.'s fascism became a trifling issue, a simple mistake, or a regrettable necessity when Obama did it. As Obama continued George Bush's legacy, and as Dick Cheney came out in support of Hillary Clinton, liberals stopped thinking of the Bush administration as a fascist criminal enterprise and started seeing it through Sorkin-colored glasses, with a George Bush-Michelle Obama hug at the twilight of the Obama presidency marking the decisive transition."

    Ghostship | Nov 17, 2016 10:09:56 PM | 47

    At least with Trump I expect him to talk crap but Obama talks crap as well when he should know better:

    The values that we talked about -- the values of democracy, and free speech, and international norms, and rule of law, respecting the ability of other countries to determine their own destiny and preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity -- those things are not something that we can set aside.

    The unbridled hypocrisy makes me want to puke.

    Erelis | Nov 17, 2016 11:09:40 PM | 50
    Ironically, major mass media play a critical role in the Clinton loss even though it was fully in for Clinton. In attacking literally everything Trump said 24/7, people learned about his positions. But this did not leave much oxygen left in the room for Clinton's (phony) positions. Sort of an archetypal news day was how terrible Trump was on cutting taxes. Well, there, you know what Trump stood for. The countervailing stories were that Trump and his followers were sexist, racist, and Putin puppets, so vote for Hillary. What did she stand for again? I once counted on a very liberal and heavily viewed liberal website 26 anti-Trump stories. One or two positive Hillary stories all claiming support for her because she had a vagina. AT the end of the day, more people knew more about Trump than Clinton.

    One position that people probably knew about Hillary was that she hated Putin (and China). Wikileaks counted the most mentioned subjects in the debates and it was Putin and Russia. That was on Clinton. And apparently on the one position she really staked her election, people who voted didn't give a shit. The voters in WI, PA, MI, Ohio, and FL certainly did not seem to care.

    likklemore | Nov 18, 2016 12:00:07 AM | 56
    @ jawbonw 52 I posted another comment that ended up a no show. It could be the link to the piece at Breitbart. In this radio interview Ed Klein is with b. He had 5 top reasons for HRC's lost:
    [.] Klein laid out his top five reasons for why Hillary Clinton lost the election: "Number one, Hillary. Number two, Hillary. Number three, Hillary. Number four, Hillary. Number five, Hillary."[.]

    Klein was unsurprised to see Mrs. Clinton playing the blame game after the election. "Have you ever known Hillary to take responsibility for anything?" he asked.[.]

    "At every turn of her life, she's pointed accusing fingers at other people for her own self-made problems. This certainly, this campaign, she was the general of the campaign. She lost the war. She should take the responsibility," he said.

    And Ed Klein does not see Chelsea continuing the dynasty. She doubled down on her mother's dna.
    Peter AU | Nov 18, 2016 2:14:46 AM | 59
    The US has voted against global hegemony. That was their choices. A do or die effort for global hegemon under Clinton, or a controlled descent to a regional power/world power among others under Trump. Though the neo-con passengers are in a panic and may cause the aircraft to crash rather than glide in for a controlled landing. Either way I don't care, so long as the US goes down.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Belgiums Dutroux Pedophile, Child Rape Affair A Road Map for Deep-State Criminality

    Nov 20, 2016 | www.newnationalist.net
    Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, controlled press and a mere token opposition party.

    1. Dummy up . If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

    2. Wax indignant . This is also known as the "how dare you" gambit.

    3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."

    4. Knock down straw men . Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

    5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot" and, of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned.

    6. Impugn motives . Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money.

    7. Invoke authority . Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

    8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

    9. Come half-clean . This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken.

    10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

    11. Reason backward , using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report it.

    12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.

    13. Change the subject . This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Obama crosses the line in hypocrisy when he start talking about the values of democracy, and free speech, and international norms, and rule of law, respecting the ability of other countries to determine their own destiny and preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity. What about Libya, Syria and Yemen we would like ask this hypocrite

    www.moonofalabama.org

    Ghostship | Nov 17, 2016 10:09:56 PM | 47

    At least with Trump I expect him to talk crap but Obama talks crap as well when he should know better:

    The values that we talked about -- the values of democracy, and free speech, and international norms, and rule of law, respecting the ability of other countries to determine their own destiny and preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity -- those things are not something that we can set aside.

    The unbridled hypocrisy makes me want to puke.

    [Nov 21, 2016] The Deciders The American Conservative by John Hay

    Notable quotes:
    "... The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit their own goals. ..."
    "... Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. ..."
    "... Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe." ..."
    "... To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and arms control issues. ..."
    "... Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. ..."
    "... This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent lack of interagency review." ..."
    "... I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected, including mid-level party members like teachers. ..."
    "... Perle echoed this view two years later when he told Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad." ..."
    "... illustration by Michael Hogue ..."
    Oct 27, 2015 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration unwittingly unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.

    The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar instances, but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences have been even more disastrous.

    The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle, who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as the leader of postwar Iraq.

    On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career diplomat who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal experience of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer issued two orders that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath party members were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their jobs, taking their weapons with them.

    The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The Washington Post , for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed to be the head of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification and the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to fueling extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York Times reported in 2007:

    The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.

    This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men to do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs." Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points , George W. Bush acknowledges the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead of signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."

    Yet in spite of the wide-ranging consequences of these de-Baathification and disbanding policies, they-and the decision-making processes that led to them-remain obscure to most Americans. What is more, it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted. In November 2003, the Washington Post claimed, "Before the war, President Bush approved a plan that would have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept them available to provide security." There had apparently been two National Security Council meetings, one on March 10 and another on March 12, during which the president approved a moderate de-Baathification policy and a plan, as reported by the New York Times ' Michael R. Gordon, to "use the Iraqi military to help protect the country." (The invasion of Iraq began on March 19.) President Bush later told biographer Robert Draper that "the policy was to keep the army intact" but it "didn't happen."

    So the question remains: if CPA Orders 1 and 2 weren't Bush's policies, whose were they? In 2007, Doug Feith told the Los Angeles Times that "until everybody writes memoirs and all the researchers look at the documents, some of these things are hard to sort out. You could be in the thick of it and not necessarily know all the details." Now that the memoirs have been written, it is time to establish just who the policymakers were in May 2003.

    The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit their own goals.

    ♦♦♦

    At the start of May 2003, the chief administrative entity in Iraq was the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (OHRA), which was replaced shortly thereafter by the CPA under Bremer. The head of OHRA was General Garner, who worked "under the eyes of senior Defense Department aides with direct channels to Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Under Secretary for Policy Douglas J. Feith," according to the Washington Post . For his part, Garner strongly favored a policy of maintaining the Iraqi army, and preparations towards this end began almost a year earlier. For instance, Colonel John Agoglia told the New York Times that "Starting in June 2002 we conducted targeted psychological operations using pamphlet drops, broadcasts and all sorts of means to get the message to the regular army troops that they should surrender or desert and that if they did we would bring them back." The Times reported earlier that under Garner's leadership, "Top commanders were meeting secretly with former Iraqi officers to discuss the best way to rebuild the force and recall Iraqi soldiers back to duty when Mr. Bremer arrived in Baghdad with his plan."

    In the same story, the Times claimed that "The Bush administration did not just discuss keeping the old army. General Garner's team found contractors to retrain it." Bremer, however, showed up with policy ideas that diverged sharply from Garner's.

    In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling his wife that:

    I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and by Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration in 'post-hostility' Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked expertise in high-level diplomatic negotiations and politics. I had the requisite skills and experience for that position.

    Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany.

    Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed, "What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."

    Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,

    The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith to hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers. A week later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted by the Pentagon.

    In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his own on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As the new CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."

    The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of the people we're bringing on."

    Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."

    What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe. He writes in his memoir:

    To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and arms control issues.

    In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure enough, in November 2003 the Washington Post reported:

    The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed,' Slocombe said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this.'

    Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12, Slocombe's statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the request of Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the Iraqi army; in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting in early March spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But this is not what happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith attributes to Slocombe and Bremer:

    Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army back might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.

    Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going, they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview, "We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. What we did do was to formally dissolve all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party structure, his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority."

    Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding the army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion of "careful consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed," Bremer and Slocombe's notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong impression that they are hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps Washington Post journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation for this confusion in his book Imperial Life in the Emerald City , when he writes, "Despite the leaflets instructing them to go home, Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their garrisons. Now he figured that calling them back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned, the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive." This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the policy the president had agreed to in the NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.

    ♦♦♦

    Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably, Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame: to administration planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the Bush administration ('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was in chaos-socially, politically and economically')."

    Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post , "I've grown weary of being a punching bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't understand its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration is ironic, given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.) On September 4, 2007, the New York Times reported that Bremer had given the paper exculpatory letters supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But the Times concluded, "the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew much about it. Mr. Bremer referred only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter and offered no details." Moreover, the paper characterized Bremer's correspondence with Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant reference to a major decision that a number of American military officials in Iraq strongly opposed." Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed, "the policy was carefully considered by top civilian and military members of the American government." And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."

    Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of the policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I don't know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe told PBS's "Frontline,"

    What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this, do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job from my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington end, with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output. And how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel was from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.

    It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences, he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't know how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post that the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other words, the decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year, and even in the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.

    This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent lack of interagency review."

    The blame game is nowhere more evident than in a 2007 Vanity Fair article entitled "Neo Culpa," which was previewed online just before the 2006 midterm elections. Writer David Rose spoke with numerous neoconservatives, who roundly censured George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld, and Bremer for the chaos in Iraq. Speaking broadly about the Bush administration, Adelman said, "They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era." And Perle complained, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible."

    Yet Perle's reflection on the timeliness of decisions conflicts with President Bush's account rather strikingly. In his memoir, Bush writes:

    I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected, including mid-level party members like teachers.

    In June 2004, Bill Kristol was already censuring the president for his "poor performance," musing that his school of thought has been collateral damage in a mismanaged foreign policy: neoconservatism, he wrote, "has probably been weakened by the Bush administration's poor performance in implementing what could be characterized as its recommended foreign policy." Kristol argued that "This failure in execution has been a big one. It has put the neoconservative 'project' at risk. Much more important, it has put American foreign policy at risk." Perle echoed this view two years later when he told Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad."

    This downplaying of neoconservative influence in "what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad" is curious, and Perle is not the only person to have tried it. Max Boot, writing in the same 2004 collection as Kristol, does the same thing when, after naming Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Elliott Abrams, and Perle as neoconservatives who served Bush, he argues:

    Each of these policy-makers has been an outspoken advocate for aggressive and, if necessary, unilateral action by the United States to promote democracy, human rights, and free markets, and to maintain U.S. primacy around the world. While this list seems impressive, it also reveals that the neocons have no representatives in the administration's top tier.

    But apparently it didn't matter that there were no neoconservatives in top positions-not when one considers the knowledge and prior government experience of Vice President Cheney, the neoconservatives' sponsor. In A World Transformed , George H.W. Bush writes of Cheney that he "knew how policy was made." Barton Gellman observes in Angler , his book about Cheney: "Most of the government's work, Cheney knew, never reached the altitude of Senate-confirmed appointees. Reliable people in mid-level posts would have the last word on numberless decisions about where to spend or not spend money, whom to regulate, how to enforce." In the end avoiding the highest positions in the administration makes it all the more easy to dodge blame.

    ♦♦♦

    Americans are painfully familiar with stories like this one, in which a coterie of advisors takes policy in a dangerous direction with little or no knowledge on the part of the president. But the case of the Iraq War and the decisions that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein has a unique importance-because we are still living with the consequences, and others are dying for them.

    Democrats may be tempted to dismiss all that happened in the Bush years as simply the other party's fault. Republicans have a comforting myth of their own in the belief that President Bush's 2007 "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq ended the country's instability, which only returned after President Obama fully withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011. But as the role of Walter Slocombe-the Democratic counterpart to Doug Feith in more ways than one-illustrates, Clintons no less than Bushes are susceptible to this personnel problem.

    Republicans, meanwhile, should consider retired Lt. Col. Gian Gentile's verdict that "the reduction in violence" in Iraq in 2007 "had more to do with the Iraqis than the Americans," specifically with the Sunni tribesmen's newfound willingness to fight (for a price) alongside Americans against al-Qaeda and with Moqtada al-Sadr's de-escalation of Shi'ite activity. But regardless of what the surge did or did not contribute to quelling the bloodshed in Iraq, the intensity of the civil war that raged there in the first place was in considerable part a product of misguided de-Baathification and disbanding policies-and the Islamic State today depends on the military and intelligence forces that Bremer, Feith, and Slocombe casually dismissed.

    When you have the wrong diagnosis, you risk coming to the wrong solution, no matter how clever you think you are. As the GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election have made their campaigns official, they have been pummeled with hindsight questions about the Iraq War and ISIS, and no one has a harder time facing this than Jeb Bush. In order to correctly address what to do about the Islamic State, it is important to acknowledge what specifically went wrong with decision-making in the Iraq War.

    This episode highlights a weakness in the executive branch that is ripe for exploitation under any administration. When the neoconservative Frank Gaffney, speaking about George W. Bush, told Vanity Fair , "This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated, active, ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of his policies," it seems incredible to think that he failed to see the irony of his assertion. But for those who have a deep understanding of how the government works, it is quite possible to undermine a president, then step back and pretend to have had minimal involvement, and finally stand in judgment. But now that the story is known, the American people can be the judges.

    John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.

    MORE IN POLITICS

    Hide 58 comments

    58 Responses to The Deciders

    ← Older Comments
  • EliteCommInc. , says: October 28, 2015 at 10:57 pm
    "In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly assigned responsibilities not doing their job."

    1. I am not sure what your point is here. Whether anyone wanted the events to occur is not really the question. The issue is simly the behavior of the staff at the embassy in relation to their superiors. The Sec. of State failed to respond to a request for more security. That is her fault – directly. She took no steps based on the record. She ignored the real time assessments. That is not the executive's fault. That is hers. Period. That isn't a tactical failure, that is a supply failure. That is a leadership failre. It is not as if she was not inflrmed.

    2. The Pres. of the US cannot be held directly accountable for 9/11 because neither the previous admin. not the releveant organizations informed of very specicif data sets that have changed the history of that day.

    The failure rests:

    a. the previous admin
    b. the agencies responsible for immigration management
    the FBI
    c. CIA
    d the airlines

    Well as previously noted. Back to your tactical failure. Well, Libya was foolish on its face. We shuld have informed the UK that under the circumstances further destabilizing the region would be distaterous at best. The tactical problem, weponizing fighters over who we had no command and control. Here again, the utter failure of the State Dept. and the CIA to comprehend who the players were and their capabilities. There's plenty more, but let's leave it at that - again, a major player was the Sec of State. The same could said of Egypt, Syria all areas in which the supposed expertise would come from the CIA and the State Deprtment - That's on Sec. Hillary Clinton – directly. That even playing the tactical and strategic game you intend to muddy the waters of responsibility with were explicated - the fault lies on her desk.

    mojrim , says: October 29, 2015 at 10:35 am
    Pure Bush/Cheney apologia.

    "If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"

    No. Just no.

    Jim Houghton , says: October 29, 2015 at 4:19 pm
    " it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack the policy process "

    Especially when you have a president who's more interested in taking time off and clearing brush, purposely allowing others to do his job. An administration with real leadership at the top is not nearly so vulnerable to this kind of hijacking.

    Harold MacCaughey , says: October 29, 2015 at 7:44 pm
    Irresponsible people in responsible positions, such as the neocons so note, the bankers who bet the farm with our money, and pols on the take for reelection largesse need to do time.
    EliteCommInc. , says: October 30, 2015 at 5:08 am
    "If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"

    I am not sure you are reading the same article I read. I guess one could make the case you are advancing if they addressed some specifics, but that is not the case.

    But there are credible reasons to beleive that the occupation would have been vastly different, despite the civil conflict that had broken as the Us military rolled toward Bagdad.

    cityeyes , says: November 1, 2015 at 11:17 am
    If one was brilliant, one would not be a neocon.
    Mike Schilling , says: November 1, 2015 at 7:11 pm
    James Fallows has written about this at length, his point being that the Bush administration (at all levels) refused to believe that any planning for the post-war was necessary, which is why they were improvising. See, for example, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/01/blind-into-baghdad/302860/ .
    SteveJ , says: November 6, 2015 at 4:25 pm
    Hay insinuates that there were things that could have been done AFTER the invasion that would have prevented problems.

    This is problematic.

    The real army under Saddam Hussein, the Republican Guard, was Sunni. Shiites were used as the fodder.

    A Sunni army was not going to follow orders from a Shiite ruler - a Shiite ruler being the inevitable result of elections. And a Shiite ruler was not going to tolerate a Sunni army or police forces.

    Bremer must have recognized this eventually, and went for a strategy of kicking the can down the road.

    I refer you to an article by General Odom some years back, and point out with regard to this article Myth Number 2.

    http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=146

  • The Deciders

    The disastrous Iraq policies that led to ISIS were not President Bush's.

    By John Hay October 27, 2015

    illustration by Michael Hogue

    In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration unwittingly unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.

    The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar instances, but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences have been even more disastrous.

    The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle, who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as the leader of postwar Iraq.

    On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career diplomat who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal experience of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer issued two orders that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath party members were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their jobs, taking their weapons with them.

    The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The Washington Post , for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed to be the head of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification and the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to fueling extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York Times reported in 2007:

    The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.

    This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men to do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs." Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points , George W. Bush acknowledges the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead of signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."

    Yet in spite of the wide-ranging consequences of these de-Baathification and disbanding policies, they-and the decision-making processes that led to them-remain obscure to most Americans. What is more, it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted. In November 2003, the Washington Post claimed, "Before the war, President Bush approved a plan that would have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept them available to provide security." There had apparently been two National Security Council meetings, one on March 10 and another on March 12, during which the president approved a moderate de-Baathification policy and a plan, as reported by the New York Times ' Michael R. Gordon, to "use the Iraqi military to help protect the country." (The invasion of Iraq began on March 19.) President Bush later told biographer Robert Draper that "the policy was to keep the army intact" but it "didn't happen."

    So the question remains: if CPA Orders 1 and 2 weren't Bush's policies, whose were they? In 2007, Doug Feith told the Los Angeles Times that "until everybody writes memoirs and all the researchers look at the documents, some of these things are hard to sort out. You could be in the thick of it and not necessarily know all the details." Now that the memoirs have been written, it is time to establish just who the policymakers were in May 2003.

    The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit their own goals.

    ♦♦♦

    At the start of May 2003, the chief administrative entity in Iraq was the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (OHRA), which was replaced shortly thereafter by the CPA under Bremer. The head of OHRA was General Garner, who worked "under the eyes of senior Defense Department aides with direct channels to Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Under Secretary for Policy Douglas J. Feith," according to the Washington Post . For his part, Garner strongly favored a policy of maintaining the Iraqi army, and preparations towards this end began almost a year earlier. For instance, Colonel John Agoglia told the New York Times that "Starting in June 2002 we conducted targeted psychological operations using pamphlet drops, broadcasts and all sorts of means to get the message to the regular army troops that they should surrender or desert and that if they did we would bring them back." The Times reported earlier that under Garner's leadership, "Top commanders were meeting secretly with former Iraqi officers to discuss the best way to rebuild the force and recall Iraqi soldiers back to duty when Mr. Bremer arrived in Baghdad with his plan."

    In the same story, the Times claimed that "The Bush administration did not just discuss keeping the old army. General Garner's team found contractors to retrain it." Bremer, however, showed up with policy ideas that diverged sharply from Garner's.

    In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling his wife that:

    I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and by Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration in 'post-hostility' Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked expertise in high-level diplomatic negotiations and politics. I had the requisite skills and experience for that position.

    Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed, "What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."

    Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,

    The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith to hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers. A week later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted by the Pentagon.

    In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his own on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As the new CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."

    The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of the people we're bringing on."

    Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."

    What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe. He writes in his memoir:

    To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and arms control issues.

    In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure enough, in November 2003 the Washington Post reported:

    The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed,' Slocombe said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this.'

    Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12, Slocombe's statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the request of Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the Iraqi army; in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting in early March spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But this is not what happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith attributes to Slocombe and Bremer:

    Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army back might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.

    Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going, they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview, "We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. What we did do was to formally dissolve all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party structure, his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority."

    Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding the army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion of "careful consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed," Bremer and Slocombe's notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong impression that they are hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps Washington Post journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation for this confusion in his book Imperial Life in the Emerald City , when he writes, "Despite the leaflets instructing them to go home, Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their garrisons. Now he figured that calling them back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned, the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive." This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the policy the president had agreed to in the NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.

    ♦♦♦

    Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably, Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame: to administration planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the Bush administration ('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was in chaos-socially, politically and economically')."

    Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post , "I've grown weary of being a punching bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't understand its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration is ironic, given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.) On September 4, 2007, the New York Times reported that Bremer had given the paper exculpatory letters supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But the Times concluded, "the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew much about it. Mr. Bremer referred only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter and offered no details." Moreover, the paper characterized Bremer's correspondence with Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant reference to a major decision that a number of American military officials in Iraq strongly opposed." Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed, "the policy was carefully considered by top civilian and military members of the American government." And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."

    Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of the policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I don't know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe told PBS's "Frontline,"

    What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this, do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job from my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington end, with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output. And how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel was from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.

    It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences, he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't know how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post that the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other words, the decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year, and even in the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.

    This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent lack of interagency review."

    The blame game is nowhere more evident than in a 2007 Vanity Fair article entitled "Neo Culpa," which was previewed online just before the 2006 midterm elections. Writer David Rose spoke with numerous neoconservatives, who roundly censured George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld, and Bremer for the chaos in Iraq. Speaking broadly about the Bush administration, Adelman said, "They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era." And Perle complained, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible."

    Yet Perle's reflection on the timeliness of decisions conflicts with President Bush's account rather strikingly. In his memoir, Bush writes:

    I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected, including mid-level party members like teachers.

    In June 2004, Bill Kristol was already censuring the president for his "poor performance," musing that his school of thought has been collateral damage in a mismanaged foreign policy: neoconservatism, he wrote, "has probably been weakened by the Bush administration's poor performance in implementing what could be characterized as its recommended foreign policy." Kristol argued that "This failure in execution has been a big one. It has put the neoconservative 'project' at risk. Much more important, it has put American foreign policy at risk." Perle echoed this view two years later when he told Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad."

    This downplaying of neoconservative influence in "what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad" is curious, and Perle is not the only person to have tried it. Max Boot, writing in the same 2004 collection as Kristol, does the same thing when, after naming Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Elliott Abrams, and Perle as neoconservatives who served Bush, he argues:

    Each of these policy-makers has been an outspoken advocate for aggressive and, if necessary, unilateral action by the United States to promote democracy, human rights, and free markets, and to maintain U.S. primacy around the world. While this list seems impressive, it also reveals that the neocons have no representatives in the administration's top tier.

    But apparently it didn't matter that there were no neoconservatives in top positions-not when one considers the knowledge and prior government experience of Vice President Cheney, the neoconservatives' sponsor. In A World Transformed , George H.W. Bush writes of Cheney that he "knew how policy was made." Barton Gellman observes in Angler , his book about Cheney: "Most of the government's work, Cheney knew, never reached the altitude of Senate-confirmed appointees. Reliable people in mid-level posts would have the last word on numberless decisions about where to spend or not spend money, whom to regulate, how to enforce." In the end avoiding the highest positions in the administration makes it all the more easy to dodge blame.

    ♦♦♦

    Americans are painfully familiar with stories like this one, in which a coterie of advisors takes policy in a dangerous direction with little or no knowledge on the part of the president. But the case of the Iraq War and the decisions that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein has a unique importance-because we are still living with the consequences, and others are dying for them.

    Democrats may be tempted to dismiss all that happened in the Bush years as simply the other party's fault. Republicans have a comforting myth of their own in the belief that President Bush's 2007 "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq ended the country's instability, which only returned after President Obama fully withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011. But as the role of Walter Slocombe-the Democratic counterpart to Doug Feith in more ways than one-illustrates, Clintons no less than Bushes are susceptible to this personnel problem.

    Republicans, meanwhile, should consider retired Lt. Col. Gian Gentile's verdict that "the reduction in violence" in Iraq in 2007 "had more to do with the Iraqis than the Americans," specifically with the Sunni tribesmen's newfound willingness to fight (for a price) alongside Americans against al-Qaeda and with Moqtada al-Sadr's de-escalation of Shi'ite activity. But regardless of what the surge did or did not contribute to quelling the bloodshed in Iraq, the intensity of the civil war that raged there in the first place was in considerable part a product of misguided de-Baathification and disbanding policies-and the Islamic State today depends on the military and intelligence forces that Bremer, Feith, and Slocombe casually dismissed.

    When you have the wrong diagnosis, you risk coming to the wrong solution, no matter how clever you think you are. As the GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election have made their campaigns official, they have been pummeled with hindsight questions about the Iraq War and ISIS, and no one has a harder time facing this than Jeb Bush. In order to correctly address what to do about the Islamic State, it is important to acknowledge what specifically went wrong with decision-making in the Iraq War.

    This episode highlights a weakness in the executive branch that is ripe for exploitation under any administration. When the neoconservative Frank Gaffney, speaking about George W. Bush, told Vanity Fair , "This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated, active, ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of his policies," it seems incredible to think that he failed to see the irony of his assertion. But for those who have a deep understanding of how the government works, it is quite possible to undermine a president, then step back and pretend to have had minimal involvement, and finally stand in judgment. But now that the story is known, the American people can be the judges.

    John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.

    EliteCommInc. , says: October 28, 2015 at 10:57 pm
    "In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly assigned responsibilities not doing their job."

    1. I am not sure what your point is here. Whether anyone wanted the events to occur is not really the question. The issue is simly the behavior of the staff at the embassy in relation to their superiors. The Sec. of State failed to respond to a request for more security. That is her fault – directly. She took no steps based on the record. She ignored the real time assessments. That is not the executive's fault. That is hers. Period. That isn't a tactical failure, that is a supply failure. That is a leadership failre. It is not as if she was not inflrmed.

    2. The Pres. of the US cannot be held directly accountable for 9/11 because neither the previous admin. not the releveant organizations informed of very specicif data sets that have changed the history of that day.

    The failure rests:

    a. the previous admin
    b. the agencies responsible for immigration management
    the FBI
    c. CIA
    d the airlines

    Well as previously noted. Back to your tactical failure. Well, Libya was foolish on its face. We shuld have informed the UK that under the circumstances further destabilizing the region would be distaterous at best. The tactical problem, weponizing fighters over who we had no command and control. Here again, the utter failure of the State Dept. and the CIA to comprehend who the players were and their capabilities. There's plenty more, but let's leave it at that - again, a major player was the Sec of State. The same could said of Egypt, Syria all areas in which the supposed expertise would come from the CIA and the State Deprtment - That's on Sec. Hillary Clinton – directly. That even playing the tactical and strategic game you intend to muddy the waters of responsibility with were explicated - the fault lies on her desk.

    mojrim , says: October 29, 2015 at 10:35 am
    Pure Bush/Cheney apologia.

    "If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"

    No. Just no.

    Jim Houghton , says: October 29, 2015 at 4:19 pm
    " it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack the policy process "

    Especially when you have a president who's more interested in taking time off and clearing brush, purposely allowing others to do his job. An administration with real leadership at the top is not nearly so vulnerable to this kind of hijacking.

    Harold MacCaughey , says: October 29, 2015 at 7:44 pm
    Irresponsible people in responsible positions, such as the neocons so note, the bankers who bet the farm with our money, and pols on the take for reelection largesse need to do time.
    EliteCommInc. , says: October 30, 2015 at 5:08 am
    "If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"

    I am not sure you are reading the same article I read. I guess one could make the case you are advancing if they addressed some specifics, but that is not the case.

    But there are credible reasons to beleive that the occupation would have been vastly different, despite the civil conflict that had broken as the Us military rolled toward Bagdad.

    cityeyes , says: November 1, 2015 at 11:17 am
    If one was brilliant, one would not be a neocon.
    Mike Schilling , says: November 1, 2015 at 7:11 pm
    James Fallows has written about this at length, his point being that the Bush administration (at all levels) refused to believe that any planning for the post-war was necessary, which is why they were improvising. See, for example, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/01/blind-into-baghdad/302860/ .
    SteveJ , says: November 6, 2015 at 4:25 pm
    Hay insinuates that there were things that could have been done AFTER the invasion that would have prevented problems.

    This is problematic.

    The real army under Saddam Hussein, the Republican Guard, was Sunni. Shiites were used as the fodder.

    A Sunni army was not going to follow orders from a Shiite ruler - a Shiite ruler being the inevitable result of elections. And a Shiite ruler was not going to tolerate a Sunni army or police forces.

    Bremer must have recognized this eventually, and went for a strategy of kicking the can down the road.

    I refer you to an article by General Odom some years back, and point out with regard to this article Myth Number 2.

    http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=146

    Fran Macadam , says: October 27, 2015 at 1:16 am
    Neo con men.
    Mike Alexander , says: October 27, 2015 at 6:47 am
    Bush was 100% at fault. He chose to appoint Rumsfeld and Cheney as top members of his administration. These were strong-willed men who had both served his father well. The problem was Bush Jr. was not his father. The old man was older and more experienced than either of his underlings AND he was the President. As a result these strong personalities were truly subordinate to Bush Sr. Both men were older and vastly more experienced than the son, and he was no match for them.

    Hence the Iraq policy was not a coherent policy set by the office of the POTUS but many strategies, often conflicting, because POTUS was absent. Some (Garner) were working to replace Saddam with someone better, leaving the government in place, to facilitate a quick exit. Others (Bremer) thought they were working to establish a capitalist democracy in the Middle East. And some I suppose some (Kay) thought the war had been about WMDs.

    jefemt , says: October 27, 2015 at 7:58 am
    Wah wah, Bush was a victim. Yeepers. My takeaway: the minions, advisors, apparatchik melt away, and Bush- as those before him, and inevitably those to follow – somehow are also given a free pass through plausible deniability. No man is an island, and one only need look at an aerial photo of DC to realize that there are a LOT of moving parts, many folks with impact, and a ton money floating around to lubricate the whole deal. Little Versailles on the Potomac , with lethal global consequences.
    Response , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:10 am
    It is crucially important that we identify, fire, and shame those whose bad faith, corruption, and/or incompetence did so much to wreck the Middle East and damage America.

    Articles like this are a step in that direction. Please publish more of them.

    JR , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:38 am
    I knew the moment that Bush chose Cheney as his vp back in 00 that we were going to go to war and Bush's humble foreign policy was going to be flushed down the toilet.
    Kurt Gayle , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:41 am
    The heading of "The Deciders" claims that "The disastrous Iraq policies that led to ISIS were not President Bush's."

    You're joking?

    How were these pivotal, publicly-announced policies not Bush's?

    Bush was President!

    The May 16, 2003 CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi government and the May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. "In short, Baath party members were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their jobs, taking their weapons with them."

    John Hay says that considering the discussions of these two areas of Iraq occupation policy at two National Security Council meetings, (March 10 and March 12) "it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted."

    But when two such vitally important polices were announced on May 16th and May 23rd, if the President had seen that the announced policies were contrary to the policies he favored – and that Order Number 1 and Order Number 2 represented in effect a mid-level mutiny within his administration's chain of command – it was certainly Bush's duty as President to immediately rescind those policies and to fire all of those responsible.

    But President Bush didn't rescind the policies.

    He didn't fire those who had issued policies allegedly contrary to his own.

    Instead, he said nothing contrary to either CPA Order Number 1 or CPA Order Number 2 and allowed the orders to stand.

    I have no idea why the heading of this John Hay article claims that "the disastrous Iraq policies that led to ISIS were not President Bush's" when in fact those policies WERE President Bush's.

    Again, Bush was President!

    Johann , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:52 am
    I said at the time, it was obvious these clueless people were re-living WWII, and that it was completely inappropriate, as are most historical comparisons. Rumsfeld even looked and talked like someone out of the 1940s. It was comical in a sad sort of way. Virtually everyone in Saddam's government was required to be a Baathist, down to the lowest levels. And there simply was not the depth of education in the general population to be able to throw out an entire government, including all of the working bureaucrats and to be able to quickly recruit new qualified people and ramp up a new government effectively. It was not a developed country like Germany or Japan. And just think about it. People who had spent their working lives in the Iraq government were dumped out on the streets. And we thought they would consider us liberators?
    SDS , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:56 am
    When the story of America is written it will say that the fall came, not due to external aggression, but to our own banal incompetence, prideful ignorance and hubris ..

    Another way of saying we get the government we deserve and we're gonna' get it; good and hard.

    Ken T , says: October 27, 2015 at 10:11 am
    So your point is that George "I am the Decider" Bush should not be blamed because all of the people that he hand-picked and then trusted implicitly with no oversight are the ones who really screwed up, is that it?

    Don't get me wrong – I'm all in favor of naming the names of all the advisors down the line, and holding them appropriately responsible (seeing as how they all continue to be employed as advisors to the current candidates); but that in no way lets W off the hook for his own incompetence as a leader.

    Clint , says: October 27, 2015 at 10:32 am
    "Political progress has come to a near standstill, and most of the established benchmarks for progress – including provincial elections, the passage of de-Baathification laws, and a plan for oil revenue-sharing – are far from reach." – Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, January 10, 2008.

    Two days before the Iraqi parliament unanimously passed the "Accountability and Justice" de-Baathification law.

    balconesfault , says: October 27, 2015 at 11:26 am
    I'd say this puts culpability for the Iraq debacle squarely in the laps of every voter who cast a ballot for GW Bush in 2000.

    After all – not only Bush's lack of foreign policy experience, but his inability to really speak in depth on foreign policy during the campaign, constituted huge red flags. Yet voters lined up to vote for this man who not only was inexperienced but seemed disinterested in foreign policy – a complete lightweight – because as I heard over and over they were confident that he would surround himself with "smart people" who would guide him.

    So basically – everyone who voted for Bush deliberately voted for those self-same "smart people", instead of the highly experienced and clearly well informed Gore, had served in Vietnam, had served on the House Intelligence Committee (and introduced and arms control plan), had sat on the Senate Homeland Security and Armed Services Committees, and had a record of trying to pull US support for Saddam back in the 80's, when the Reagan Administration was still sending arms and money (Reagan threatened a veto of his bill).

    The GOP voters chose Bush knowing full well that guys like Bremer, Feith, Wolfowitz, Libby, Pearle, and of course Cheney were going to be the ones doing all the heavy lifting on our foreign policy.

    JamesDDean , says: October 27, 2015 at 11:31 am
    Whether he knew it or not Bush '43 inherited a mess left by his father and Clinton. All of those PNAC members believed they could subjugate Iraq and the rest would fall in line were mistaken. The men and women who died in the Middle East from 1990 thru today were wasted.
    Chris G , says: October 27, 2015 at 11:35 am
    I think the headline and tagline actually do a disservice to this otherwise excellent article. They bring the reader in with the assumption that the author is trying exculpate Bush by distancing him from these terrible policies, but that assumed intent is not borne out by the actual text ("while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush "). I think this is a very informative chronicle of how government can be co-opted by mid-level bureaucrats, and perhaps a title change might better reflect this focus.
    William Dalton , says: October 27, 2015 at 11:59 am
    There is great irony in the claim that Bush's de-Baathification policies in Iraq were inspired by the de-Nazification policies in postwar Germany. For one of the lessons of that era was that the policy of removing all Nazi Party members from positions of authority was foolish and made governing Germany unmanageable. In due course, the policy of de-Nazification was loosened and many functionaries of the Hitler regime, who had been NSDAP members but not ideologues and were happy to serve the new order as they had been the old, were put in positions of authority and the transition out of Allied Military Government and the restoration of a functioning German state, a member of the anti-Soviet alliance, in the West was successfully accelerated. It was only late in the Twentieth Century, with the rise of the neo-cons in American politics, that this history was revised and the wisdom of even bringing ex-Nazi scientists to the U.S., who enabled us to develop a new generation of weapons and win the "space race" with the Soviet Union, began to be questioned. Magnanimity to the defeated in battle has always been the mark of a wise ruler. Incessant reproaches for past sins is a prescription for unending division and strife in any society which tolerates it.

    I agree with those above who note that Bush was no more ignorant of the policies being implemented by his government in Iraq than were the American people who heard it reported. He has no excuse for not countermanding orders which were not his. He is responsible for all of them.

    JR , says: October 27, 2015 at 1:18 pm
    This was without a doubt Bush's fault and his decision. He was just not intellectually strong enough to challenge or question the expertise of others. So he just let things flow as they did without giving them the resistance and or rejections.

    By pure coincidence I have been reading Woodward's book State of Denial mentioned in this article for the last several weeks and the key players don't share the view that Bush was left out of these decisions. It's a very compelling read.

    MJRay , says: October 27, 2015 at 1:54 pm
    If you've read Greg Palast's 2006 book "Armed Madhouse", where he talked about the State Department's and National Security Council's pre-9/11 Plan A (which would have kept the Baathist power structure pretty much intact) and the neocons' post-9/11 Plan B (which purged the Baathists from the military and government), then you already know about all of this.
    Kelly Smith , says: October 27, 2015 at 2:11 pm
    I vividly remember being laughed at, as far back as 2002, when I asserted that this entire bit of inevitable, impending foolishness was due to half of Bush's Cabinet being drawn from the ranks of PNAC.

    The media (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, et al) only report the "news" that is "print to fit." They have no knowledge of the truth (or no desire to report it).

    Project for the New American Century . . . it isn't difficult; simply spend some time reading the contents of their website. Why NOT learn all you can about the members of the President's Cabinet?

    The mainstream media isn't going to do it. It's up to us.

    Sam , says: October 27, 2015 at 2:19 pm
    Pat Buchanan got it right in these very pages with "Whose War Anyway?".
    Ken Hoop , says: October 27, 2015 at 3:23 pm
    Saddam had left a Mao-styled revolution of guerilla nature in place before the invasion even started. The work of Ali Ballout a journalist confirmed this in 2003.
    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ballout1.html

    There was no manner of invasion and occupation which would not have resulted in some type of multi-pronged insurgencies and medium if not long term chaos.
    Yes, the neocons assumed none of this, but they don't care much as long as they are not charged with war crimes, their specific reputations are not harmed, and Israel is not threatened.

    Chris Chuba , says: October 27, 2015 at 3:25 pm
    I absolutely hate the entire premise of the Iraq war but to play devil's advocate, are Conservative non-interventionists saying that it would have been a success had we kept Saddam's army intact? Certainly disbanding it was a disaster but I kind of shudder at the thought that this war can somehow be justified on the basis that the occupation was simply botched.
    Kurt Gayle , says: October 27, 2015 at 3:25 pm
    On November 4, 1960 a group of us from my high school went to hear Dr. Wernher von Braun, who was a featured speaker at the 76th Annual Convention of the Virginia Education Association in Richmond. At the time von Braun was serving as director of the newly formed Marshall Space Flight Center where he was the chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that would eventually propel the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.

    Dr. von Braun gave a very inspiration address and those in our group – most of whom were already interested in a career in math, the sciences, and engineering-were thrilled.

    The next week in school some of the teaching staff discussed with some of us who had attended the speech the fact that Dr. von Braun had worked in Germany's rocket development program, where he helped design and develop the V-2 at Peenemünde; during that time he had been a member of the Nazi Party and the SS and had at times been involved in the selection and supervision of some of the forced labor that was used in the V-2 program at Peenemünde. We all knew that, obviously, Dr. von Braun and other German rocket scientists brought to the US after the war were exceptions to the general US/Allied policy of de-Nazification. We, both students and teachers, had such an interesting series of discussions with speakers on both sides of the issue.

    William Dalton writes that "in due course, the policy of de-Nazification was loosened and many functionaries of the Hitler regime, who had been NSDAP members but not ideologues and were happy to serve the new order as they had been the old, were put in positions of authority and the transition out of Allied Military Government and the restoration of a functioning German state."

    I agree with two important points that William Dalton makes:

    (1) "Magnanimity to the defeated in battle has always been the mark of a wise ruler. Incessant reproaches for past sins is a prescription for unending division and strife in any society which tolerates it."

    (2) "There is great irony in the claim that Bush's de-Baathification policies in Iraq were inspired by the de-Nazification policies in postwar Germany."

    Rock Sash , says: October 27, 2015 at 4:09 pm
    Without the de-Baathification, we may have ended up with a stable Iraqi government. That means one that would now be headed by someone similar to Saddam Hussein. Until the people of Iraq can resolve their differences – and they don't show any evidence of approaching this point – only a despotic ruler can keep any order. The problem is that we don't want order. We want to chase idealistic dreams. If we had any rational assessment of the situation in the Middle East, we wouldn't have gone there in the first place. So the de-Baathification was logically consistent with the misguided nature of our overall mission.
    balconesfault , says: October 27, 2015 at 4:31 pm
    It is useful to remember the real goal behind deBaathification. And it wasn't because it was strategic from a military/security standpoint. It was strategic from a purely ideological standpoint.

    After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions, which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated into both countries laws by the occupation authorities. And what do you know – both countries flourished economically in the coming decades.

    The Bush Administration was filled with Heritage vetted appointees who wanted Iraq to be a new model – of what would happen if you took all the Heritage wet dreams and stick them into a country and the moribund economy after the last decade of sanctions took off? It was to be a perfect laboratory to demonstrate that right wing economic policies were the way to go. A flat tax, sale of government assets to private companies, opening Iraq up to international corporations with little or no regulation, dismantling Saddam's socialist economic infrastructure – these were seemingly prioritized more by the people the Bush Administration sent to Iraq that security concerns. Dedication to Heritage/free market principles was valued for Reconstruction authorities over knowledge and experience in Middle Eastern geopolitics.

    And you had to deBaathify Iraq, totally cleanse the government of Baathist officials and laws, to make the Heritage Foundation's dream come true. In their mind, the deck was stacked – oil revenues would guarantee success for their experiment, and provide a counter-narrative to the post-war economic successes of Germany and Japan.

    Alas – supply side economics can never fail – it can only be failed. See Kansas today.

    The Other Sands , says: October 27, 2015 at 4:39 pm
    "Nobody elected your family
    And we didn't elect your friends
    No one voted for your advisors
    And nobody wants amends

    You're the one we voted for
    So you must take the blame
    For handing out authority
    To men who were insane"

    Arlo Guthrie, Presidential Rag

    Lenny , says: October 27, 2015 at 6:05 pm
    So Bush is not to blame for this, but Clinton is responsible for Benghazi?
    balconesfault , says: October 27, 2015 at 6:12 pm
    @The Other Sands:

    "You're the one we voted for
    So you must take the blame
    For handing out authority
    To men who were insane"

    And again – those who voted for Bush in 2000 absolutely knew he was going to be handing out that authority. They knowingly turned our foreign policy over to those "bureaucrats".

    http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/16/world/2000-campaign-advisor-bush-s-foreign-policy-tutor-academic-public-eye.html?pagewanted=all

    "Mr. Bush has unabashedly shown his dependence on Ms. Rice Ms. Rice's role is all the more critical because Mr. Bush doesn't like to read briefing books on the nuts-and-bolts of national security, and his lack of experience in foreign affairs has raised questions about his preparedness for the White House. "

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/24/president.2000/foreign.policy/

    "While the junior Bush may lack his father's resume - CIA director, ambassador to China, architect of the Gulf War victory - George W. has inherited some of his father's top aides, and with little experience of his own, Bush says he will rely on their advice. "

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/dec/13/uselections2000.usa9

    "Mr Bush has shown little interest in getting to know the world beyond Texas, where he is governor, having travelled abroad only three times in his adult life, excluding visits to neighbouring Mexico. He has not even visited Canada. This means that Mr Bush, if he takes the White House, will inevitably rely on more seasoned advisers in formulating America's future defence and foreign policy."

    EliteCommInc. , says: October 27, 2015 at 7:01 pm
    "I'd say this puts culpability for the Iraq debacle squarely in the laps of every voter who cast a ballot for GW Bush in 2000."

    I voted for G.W Bush for the Executive Office. And I have no issues taking responsibility for my vote. I will also take responsibility for my failure in convincing him not to support:

    1. the long term application of the PA

    2. Invading Afghanistan as opposed to treating the matter as a course of law, thereby putting the processes of the FBI, in conjunction with the State Department and if need be, the CIA, Special Ops. – using an incision instead of a cudgel.

    3. Not invading Iraq at all

    I completely and utterly failed. That failure resides quite deep in my being. However, being a conservative is not really responsible for the decisions made. In fact, if anything conservative thought would have steered a far different course.
    _____________________

    I do not think for a minute that the author is denying where the ultimate responsibility lies. To say that the "buck" stops at the executive office goes without saying.

    The article dissects the failure to its managers. It's like Benghazi. Sure the executive must ultimately bare responsibility. However, understanding how the director of the State Department mismanaged matters is important in understanding government. Especially in terms of accountability. And at its core is one of the reasons that big government (scale and efficiency) is problematic to any organization. The ability of senior and midlevel managers to avoid responsibility for their choices by blaming the upper echelons.

    The lines of ownership get blurred through weak "delegated" accountability. It's similar to the arguments made about 9/11. Nothing in the Admin. was available for them to act in CONUS on the actors involved because that information was not passed on by the agencies that had it. The general "hair on fire" threat analysis did not include known terrorists that had made it to the US. It did not include data that the same were learning to fly airliners minus landing and take offs(?). Any of the knowledgeable agencies could have acted minus direct involvement of the WH, but they did not. Those agencies: CIA, FBI, State Department and the airlines application of "no fly lists".

    Sure September 11 occurred while Pres. Bush was in office, but there is a reason why one delegates authority.

    As to Iraq, absolutely, heads should have rolled. All of which is a matter of management style within an organizations culture and environment. And on a scale this large - anyone who doesn't comprehend that vital errors are only covered by chance more often than not, doesn't get this article in my view.

    I will skip the sad tales of the Iraqi government being Nazi's, by way of Chalabi and company. But an examination of large scale conflicts, such as WWII, for example will reveal managerial disasters that cost lost lives needlessly.

    The Iraq example has one over riding reality. We never should invaded in the first place. Here I think the Pres. ignored his instincts. My opinion despite the "cowboy" image, Pres. Bush is not a decisive gunslinger and given the 9/11 scenarios. He needn't have been. I think no small number of choices were undermined by others.

    Still those choices were his to make.

    EliteCommInc. , says: October 27, 2015 at 7:08 pm
    While I certainly appreciate sanctimonious retorts. The emotional anger and dismay experienced by most of the country played no small roll in the decisions, including that of no small number of democrats and liberals.

    Forget the WH and Congress, trying explaining in sane language why actions taken should not have been to members of the public was tantamount to treason.

    So taking a cue from the vote for Pres. Bush to blame. How about anyone who supported the use of the military in both campaigns.

    Complicity in the act -

    Paul Windels , says: October 28, 2015 at 8:17 am
    The article makes telling points against Bremer, Feith, et al., but that does not and should not absolve GWB. He was President, and the buck stopped with him.

    I would add two points. First that wars are always messy affairs. Anyone who talks of surgical wars is either a fool or a fraud (if not both). Second, this whole chain of events started with GHW Bush's decision to go to war in 1990.

    BTW is John Hay a nom de plume?

    Chris Chuba , says: October 28, 2015 at 8:54 am
    Rock Sash, I don't know if you were responding to my post but just in case you were thank you, it provides a good explanation. In short, the more rational management of Iraq leads us closer to the pre-invasion Iraq version of Iraq which of course means that we should not have invaded.
    No one is suggesting that Saddam was a good guy and in fact, now that they have been birthed, I wish the current govt of Iraq well. As someone who respects the sovereignty of nations I am appalled at those who want to meddle further in Iraq by partitioning their country into three separate countries to fix a problem that we created because we don't like that the Shiites are the majority and are predictably aligned with Iran. No, let's leave them alone and let them re-take the Sunni portion of Iraq and try to re-integrate it back into their country. If we meddle and try to create 'Sunnistan' then the geniuses in our country are going to discover that it will be harder than they think to keep it from becoming ISI(S-) 2.
    Connecticut Farmer , says: October 28, 2015 at 9:31 am
    If this is true, then clearly the inmates were running the asylum. And still are i.e. Benghazi. And it was probably always thus, no matter whose administration was in charge. This suggests the presence of some deep-seated structural problems not only within the Executive Department but with the very way in which we presume to govern ourselves as a country.
    balconesfault , says: October 28, 2015 at 10:35 am
    @Connecticut Farmer
    If this is true, then clearly the inmates were running the asylum.

    It seems to me that inmates running the asylum has been a feature of GOP foreign policy for awhile (eg – Iran/Contra and Ollie North April Glaspie's assurances to Saddam that his border dispute with Kuwait was not a concern to the US )

    OTOH – Benghazi? I don't get the connection, except in that these days conservatives seem to want to link Benghazi to everything.

    Steve J , says: October 28, 2015 at 11:05 am
    It's an interesting piece. I'm not sure what anyone was supposed to do after the invasion that would have prevented fragmentation.

    I am inclined to agree with a piece by General Odom some time back - in particular myth number 2.

    http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=146

    Ken Hoop , says: October 28, 2015 at 11:08 am
    Chris Chuba

    "Conservative non-interventionists" worthy of the name would not attempt to justify the war, period.

    As far as voters owning a share of the guilt, I believe anyone who votes for candidates of either of the corrupt duopoly rather than helping build alternative parties run the likely risk of sharing
    in any unjustified intervention ultimately carried out.
    Granted this belief rests on the assumption both the GOP and Dems are either irredeemable or a viable multiparty system is necessary to nudge them into redemption.

    Kurt Gayle , says: October 28, 2015 at 11:34 am
    @ balconesfault who wrote: "After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions, which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated into both countries laws by the occupation authorities."

    You're right, balconesfault, that the "socialists" of the National Socialist German Workers Party - like the "socialists" of the Union of Soviet "Socialist" Republics - banned membership in all unions that were not under government control and they outlawed all strikes.

    But you're wrong, balconesfault, with respect to Nazi welfare provisions. One of the means by which the Nazis maintained strong popular support was through a generous welfare state that particularly benefitted German lower classes. Hitler implemented price and rent controls, higher corporate taxes, much higher taxes on capital gains, and subsidies to German farmers to protect them from weather and price fluctuations. The Nazi government increased pension benefits substantially and put in place a state-run health care system.

    MIke Glatt , says: October 28, 2015 at 11:38 am
    Imagine if Obama had presided over this cluster$#@% and
    then tried to blame his policymakers.
    Johann , says: October 28, 2015 at 12:14 pm
    baconesfault – "After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions, which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated into both countries laws by the occupation authorities. And what do you know – both countries flourished economically in the coming decades."

    Why must you always look at the world through donkey colored glasses?

    Actually, the rejection of the US imposed economic straight jacket, which included price controls is credited by economists in Germany for the economic success in Germany. The fathers of Ordo-liberalism, Franz Bohm, Walter Euken, Ludwig Erhard, and others pushed these reforms. Erhard in particular, as Economics minister defied the occupation authority and abolished the price controls and other economic controls that were in place, and at the same time introduced the deutsche mark, replacing the reichsmark. A hard money policy is a tenet of Ordoliberalism. They reject the concept of economic stimulus.

    Ordo-liberalism is a system that is a "third way" system between classical liberalism and the socialist system. Its based on free market economics, but the adherents believe government is required to ensure free markets remain free from monopolies and other manipulations that may occur that would destroy a free market.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism

    PermReader , says: October 28, 2015 at 12:53 pm
    Russian chief tale of a good tsar and bad boyars.
    balconesfault , says: October 28, 2015 at 1:06 pm
    @Johann Actually, the rejection of the US imposed economic straight jacket, which included price controls is credited by economists in Germany for the economic success in Germany. The fathers of Ordo-liberalism, Franz Bohm, Walter Euken, Ludwig Erhard, and others pushed these reforms.

    OK – that's nice. You still did nothing to address the thesis.

    Useful reading:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6930.htm

    The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war's ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want. The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush's Republicans are, in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist environmentalists.

    Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership restrictions.

    Emilio , says: October 28, 2015 at 1:37 pm
    Great comments. I'll reiterate what I said previously about the general topic:

    I don't think there are enough sane "mid-level" Republicans in DC to properly staff any incoming administration, even a Paul one. I know that sounds harsh, but I know it in my gut, is that fair? By all available lights, Cheney/Rumsfeld types and their lackeys still dominate the GOP on foreign policy, hell, if even the Democrats are compromised, it is beyond me how anyone can believe that a newly moderate and sensible GOP foreign policy staff has magically materialized in the last eight years but is somehow still keeping largely silent. Where are they? Where's the proof that the risks have been mitigated?

    balconesfault , says: October 28, 2015 at 1:58 pm
    @Kurt Gayle But you're wrong, balconesfault, with respect to Nazi welfare provisions.

    I did not say that the Nazi's did not have a welfare state (although they did limit beneficiaries to those of Aryan blood). I merely noted that the reconstruction authorities incorporated strong welfare provisions into the post-war laws of Germany and Japan, and that those countries economies (and quality of life) flourished in subsequent years.

    Johann , says: October 28, 2015 at 2:27 pm
    baconesfault – I don't think we are in much disagreement regarding the disaster that was Iraq's occupation. I do not take issue with the fact that the Iraq economic disaster was set up by the Bush administration. I don't think it was a failure of capitalism though. It was a long term Christmas present for major corporations. And according to a friend of mine who was there as a civilian working for the US Army Corps of Engineers, it was worse than crony capitalism. Outright theft by contractors was rampant and purposely overlooked. I would not call that a failure of capitalism. It was a predictable result of crony capitalism corruption and the lack of the rule of law.
    EliteCommInc. , says: October 28, 2015 at 3:05 pm
    "Benghazi? I don't get the connection, except in that these days conservatives seem to want to link Benghazi to everything."

    I am unclear if you understand the concept here. It is not generally referred to as surgical warfare, though I get why you use the term. It's surgical "strike".

    Those uses of force with very specific objectives and generally limitted goals. Ten tears too late and anti-climatic at best, the capture of Bin Laden would be considred such an operation.

    The Benghazi matter is simple. The executive in the WH delegatese State Deapt operations to the Sec of State. While he is ultimately responsible because he sits at the head. The immediate responsibility rests with those to whom he delegates authority. The Embassy personnnel send tepetaed dispatches that the security environment in Libya id deteriorating and doing so quickly. They dispatch the need for help. The State department misjudges, mischaracterizes or ignors the on the scene damage reports and the call for help. Instead choosing to focus on the political response to Libyan violence. Embassy is attacked and personnel are killed.

    The Sec of State is immediately responsible. We now no so much more based on the details of events. That anyone in the State Department should be ashamed for blaiming the matter on internet videos or anything else other than our support for a rebellion, that backfired.

    On the larger question, to accountability - Executives can mullify the impact by taking corrective action and or holding his delegates responsible. I think the perception here is that no one has been held accountable in either admin.

    Perhaps, Sec. Clinton lost her position at the state department as consequence. But the accountability for failed leadership in several disasterous foreign policy advances seems to be a bid for the WH. Which begs the question - what does accountability mean.

    In either admin. it seems to hold no value. I think the article demonstrates the issues very well.

    Myron Hudson , says: October 28, 2015 at 3:42 pm
    Very interesting article. I understand that it is not an apology or an excuse for W. Rather, it is a deconstruction of the antics of what The Economist once referred to as "this most inept of administrations".

    It makes sense. So much attention is paid to the Executive that not enough is paid to the coterie that comes with him. In W's case the was Cheney, Rove and those whom Bush Sr. referred to as "the crazies in the basement".

    Considering the role that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith et al played in ginning up the war, it is not surprising that they and their cohort proceeded to screw it up once they got it.

    It was ill conceived and poorly executed and rightly stands as our most disastrous foreign policy bungle ever. The fact that the authors still refuse to believe that it was ill conceived, only poorly executed, shows what their judgement is worth. Nothing.

    Lenny , says: October 28, 2015 at 4:34 pm
    Is this serious?
    If so, why would any sane person ever vote for a Republican candidate?
    balconesfault , says: October 28, 2015 at 5:44 pm
    @EliteCommInc – I think the confusion I have here is over accountability for strategy, versus accountability for tactics.

    The de-Baathification of Iraq was a strategy. It was an enormous, ground changing plan, and one would expect accountability for this to run directly to the Chief Executive, not only for the giving responsibility for designing the strategy, but for approving the strategy itself.

    Similarly, for the examples I brought up – Iran/Contra was a strategy. Selling weapons to Iran and using money to fund insurgents in Nicaragua wasn't simply a matter of tactics. Again, it was the responsibility of the POTUS to know this was going on, and Reagan failed on this count. Whether or not the US had an interest in preserving the integrity of Kuwait's borders with Iraq was a strategy, and not simply a tactic, and the President should have been involved in approving any communications with Saddam on that point.

    Benghazi was a tactical failure. In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly assigned responsibilities not doing their job.

    To the extent that someone dropped the ball with Benghazi, this wasn't due to mid-level bureaucrats making their own policies independent of the POTUS. Our involvement in Libya itself was a strategy, and Mr. Larison has repeatedly pointed out how it's a shame that the Benghazi committee has microfocused on the tactics of protecting the consulate and the responsibility for failure to do so, rather than on the strategy that put our diplomatic personnel in the middle of that tinderbox in the first place.

    That said, President Obama has clearly taken responsibility for the strategy. Our air cover for Libyan rebels, and our subsequent diplomatic efforts, are on his plate.

    Carol , says: October 28, 2015 at 7:35 pm
    Excuse me, but I knew before! the invasion that toppling Hussein and installing a Shiite regime would unsettle that country and lead to civil war. I erred in thinking the civil war part would happen sooner than it has. I am simply an informed housewife and librarian. George Bush should have known, too, without any advisers telling him. Don't give me the both sides do it malarkey.
    Hosea McAdoo , says: October 28, 2015 at 8:00 pm
    He was President and Commander-in-Chief therefore totally responsible.
    EliteCommInc. , says: October 28, 2015 at 9:16 pm
    In the above cases within the strategy or tactic, it's remains the case of indivual failure.

    ________________
    "The fact that the authors still refuse to believe that it was ill conceived, only poorly executed, shows what their judgement is worth. Nothing."

    In one of my rare defenses, I think you are dancing with an unknown. Whether the Iraq invasion was wise or not is not really part of the question here. While one can acknowledge it's overall veracity, ther is value in examining the details of what transpired afterwards that made matters worse.

    And i think disbanding the military was a huge contributor to subsequent events. And obviously so. For the message was that members of the military were essentially now enemies of the state they once fought to protect and as such they were on their own aort from state function. Excuse me but departing weapons in hand to fight back against any reprisals or making the efforts of the US and their newly established system makes perfect sense.

    AHd they not disbanded the military which includes the admin. bureacracy, despite the head having been dismantled would have vital foundational systems in place upon which basic services would have remained functional, including and not the least of which was running water, electricty and basic policing.

    Whether one agrees or disagrees with the invasion. Making assessments about subsequent decisions and implementation are valuable in understanding what happened during the occupation. No doubt that Iraqis patrolling the streets, who the people, the language, customs and had some legtmate established authority would have been less problematic than US servicemen and, especially women playingthat role.

    [Nov 21, 2016] REVEALED The Real Fake News List

    Warning: The table was scanned from the picture might contain errors
    www.ronpaullibertyreport.com

    Ron Paul Liberty Report

    We've seen the make-shift "fake news" list created by a leftist feminist professor. Well, another fake news list has been revealed and this one holds a lot more water.

    This list contains the culprits who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and lied us into multiple bogus wars. These are the news sources that told us "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." They told us that Hillary Clinton had a 98% of winning the election. They tell us in a never-ending loop that "The economy is in great shape!"

    This is the real Fake News List (and it's sourced):

    Journalist Outlet Source
    Cecilia Vega ABC WikiLeaks
    David Muir ABC WikiLeaks
    Diane Sawyer ABC WikiLeaks
    George Stephanopoulos ABC WikiLeaks
    Jon Kail ABC WikiLeaks
    John Heillman Bloomberg WikiLeaks
    Mark Halperin Bloomberg WikiLeaks
    Norah О'Donnell CBS WikiLeaks
    Vicki Gordon CBS WikiLeaks
    John Harwood CNBC WikiLeaks
    Brianna Keilar CNN WikiLeaks
    David Chalian CNN WikiLeaks
    Gloria Borger CNN WikiLeaks
    Jeff Zeleny CNN WikiLeaks
    John Berman CNN WikiLeaks
    Kate Bouldan CNN WikiLeaks
    Mark Preston CNN WikiLeaks
    Sam Feist CNN WikiLeaks
    Wolf Blitzer CNN WikiLeaks
    Jackie Kucinich Daily Beast WikiLeaks
    Whitney Snyder Huffington Post WikiLeaks
    Betsy Fisher Martin MORE WikiLeaks
    Alex Wagner MSNBC WikiLeaks
    Beth Fouhy MSNBC WikiLeaks
    Chuck Todd MSNBC WikiLeaks
    Phil Griffin MSNBC WikiLeaks
    Rachel Maddow MSNBC WikiLeaks
    Rachel Racusen MSNBC WikiLeaks
    Savannah Gutherie NBC WikiLeaks
    Jamil Smith New Republic WikiLeaks
    Amy Chozik New York Times WikiLeaks
    Gail Collins New York Times WikiLeaks
    Jonathan Martin New York Times WikiLeaks
    Maggie Habennan New York Times DNC leak
    Mark Leibovich New York Times WikiLeaks
    Pat Healey New York Times WikiLeaks
    Ryan Liza New Yorker WikiLeaks
    Sandia Sobieraj Westfall PEOPLE WikiLeaks
    Glenn Thrush POLITICO WikiLeaks
    Kenneth Vogel POLITICO WikiLeaks
    Mike Allen POLITICO WikiLeaks
    Jessica Valenti The Guardian WikiLeaks
    Monisha Rajesh The Guardian WikiLeaks
    Sidy Doyle The Guardian WikiLeaks
    Brent Budowskv The Hill WikiLeaks
    Alyssa Mastramonoco VICE WikiLeaks
    Jon Allen VOX WikiLeaks
    Karen Tumults Washington Post WikiLeaks

    [Nov 21, 2016] Beppe Grillo The Amateurs Are Conquering The World Because The Experts Destroyed It

    An interesting variant of rotation of elite...
    Notable quotes:
    "... echo chamber ..."
    "... With Trump, exactly the same thing has happened as with my Five Star Movement, which was born of the Internet: the media were taken aback and asked us where we were before. We gathered millions of people in public squares and they marvelled. We became the biggest movement in Italy and journalists and philosophers continued to say that we were benefitting from people's dissatisfaction. ..."
    "... the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies. ..."
    "... If that's the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is ..."
    "... Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand that, we'll also get to face it." ..."
    "... Until now, these anti-establishment movements have come face-to-face with their own limits: as soon as they come to power they seem to lose their capabilities and reason for being. Alexis Tsipras, in Greece, for example ..."
    "... President Juncker suggested modifying the code of ethics and lengthening the period of abstinence from any private work for former Commission members to three years. Is that enough? ..."
    "... I have serious doubts about a potential change in the code of ethics being made by a former minister of a tax haven. ..."
    "... We've always maintained this idea of total autonomy in decision-making, but we united over the common idea of a different Europe, a mosaic of autonomies and sovereignties. ..."
    "... If he wants to hold a referendum on the euro, he'll have our support. If he wants to leave the Fiscal Stability Treaty – the so-called Fiscal Compact – which was one of our battles, we'll be there ..."
    "... Renzi's negotiating power will also depend on the outcome of the constitutional referendum in December. We'll see whether he sinks or swims. ..."
    "... Neoliberal Trojan Horse Obama has quite a global legacy. ..."
    "... Maybe it's time for the Europeans to stop sucking American cock. Note that we barely follow your elections. It's time to spread your wings and fly. ..."
    "... "The Experts* Destroyed The World" - Beppe Grillo. Never a truer word spoken, Beppe! YOU DA MAN!!! And these "Experts" - these self-described "ELITE" - did so - and are STILL doing so WITH MALICIOUS INTENT - and lining their pockets every fking step of the way! ..."
    "... As the Jason Statham character says in that great Guy Richie movie "Revolver": "If there's ONE thing I've learnt about "Experts", it's that they're expert in FUCK ALL!" ..."
    "... Apart from asset-stripping the economy & robbing the populace blind that is - and giving their countries away to the invader so indigenous populations cant fight back... or PURPOSELY angling for WW3 to hide their criminality behind the ULTIMATE & FINAL smokescreen. ..."
    "... It NATO collapses so will the Euro project. The project was always American from the start. In recent years it has become a mechanism by which the Poles (and other assorted Eastern Europeans) can extract war guarantees out of the USA, UK and France. It is a total mess and people like Grillo add to the confusion by their flawed analysis. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Whatever the reason, we agree with the next point he makes, namely the overthrow of "experts" by amateurs.

    euronews: "Do you think appealing to people's emotions is enough to get elected? Is that a political project?"

    Beppe Grillo: "This information never ceases to make the rounds: you don't have a political project, you're not capable, you're imbeciles, amateurs And yet, the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies. If that's the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is. If the EU is what we have today, it means the European dream has evaporated. Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand that, we'll also get to face it."

    Bingo, or as Nassim Taleb put its, the "Intellectual-Yet-Idiot" class. It is the elimination of these so-called "experts", most of whom have PhDs or other letters next to their name to cover their insecurity, and who drown every possible medium with their endless, hollow, and constantly wrong chatter, desperate to create a self-congratulatory echo chamber in which their errors are diluted with the errors of their "expert" peers, that will be the biggest challenge for the world as it seeks to break away from the legacy of a fake "expert class" which has brought the entire world to its knees, and has unleashed the biggest political tsunami in modern history.

    One thing is certain: the "experts" won't go quietly as the "amateurs" try to retake what is rightfully theirs.

    ... ... ...

    Beppe Grillo, Leader of the Five Star Movement
    "It's an extraordinary turning point. This corn cob – we can also call Trump that in a nice way – doesn't have particularly outstanding qualities. He was such a target for the media, with such terrifying accusations of sexism and racism, as well as being harassed by the establishment – such as the New York Times – but, in the end, he won.

    "That is a symbol of the tragedy and the apocalypse of traditional information. The television and newspapers are always late and they relay old information. They no longer anticipate anything and they're only just understanding that idiots, the disadvantaged, those who are marginalised – and there are millions of them – use alternative media, such as the Internet, which passes under the radar of television, a medium people no longer use.

    "With Trump, exactly the same thing has happened as with my Five Star Movement, which was born of the Internet: the media were taken aback and asked us where we were before. We gathered millions of people in public squares and they marvelled. We became the biggest movement in Italy and journalists and philosophers continued to say that we were benefitting from people's dissatisfaction. We'll get into government and they'll ask themselves how we did it."

    euronews
    "There is a gap between giving populist speeches and governing a nation."

    Beppe Grillo
    "We want to govern, but we don't want to simply change the power by replacing it with our own. We want a change within civilisation, a change of world vision.

    "We're talking about dematerialised industry, an end to working for money, the start of working for other payment, a universal citizens revenue. If our society is founded on work, what will happen if work disappears? What will we do with millions of people in flux? We have to organise and manage all that."

    euronews
    "Do you think appealing to people's emotions is enough to get elected? Is that a political project?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "This information never ceases to make the rounds: you don't have a political project, you're not capable, you're imbeciles, amateurs

    "And yet, the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies.

    "If that's the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is. If the EU is what we have today, it means the European dream has evaporated. Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand that, we'll also get to face it."

    euronews
    "Until now, these anti-establishment movements have come face-to-face with their own limits: as soon as they come to power they seem to lose their capabilities and reason for being. Alexis Tsipras, in Greece, for example "

    Beppe Grillo
    "Yes, I agree."

    euronews
    "Let's take the example of Podemos in Spain. They came within reach of power, then had to backtrack. Why?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "Because there's an outdated way of thinking. Because they think power is managed by forming coalitions or by making agreements with others.

    "From our side, we want to give the tools to the citizens. We have an information system called Rousseau, to which every Italian citizen can subscribe for free. There they can vote in regional and local elections and check what their local MPs are proposing. Absolutely any citizen can even suggest laws in their own name.

    "This is something never before directly seen in democracy and neither Tsipras nor Podemos have done it."

    euronews
    "You said that you're not interested in breaking up the European Union, but rather in profoundly changing it. What can a small group of MEPs do to put into motion such great change?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "The little group of MEPs is making its voice heard, but there are complications In parliament, there are lobby groups and commissions. Parliament decides, but at the same time doesn't decide.

    "We do what we can, in line with our vision of a world based on a circular economy. We put forward the idea of a circular economy as the energy of the future and the proposal has been adopted by the European parliament."

    euronews

    "One hot topic at the Commission at the moment is the problem of the conflicts of interest concerning certain politicians.

    "President Juncker suggested modifying the code of ethics and lengthening the period of abstinence from any private work for former Commission members to three years. Is that enough?"

    Beppe Grillo

    "I have serious doubts about a potential change in the code of ethics being made by a former minister of a tax haven."

    euronews
    "You don't think the Commission is legitimate?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "Absolutely not. Particularly because it's a Commission that no one has actually elected. That's what brought us closer to Nigel Farage: a democracy coming from the people."

    euronews
    "You don't regret being allied with Farage?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "It was an alliance of convenience, made to give us enough support to enter parliament. We've always maintained this idea of total autonomy in decision-making, but we united over the common idea of a different Europe, a mosaic of autonomies and sovereignties.

    "I'm not against Europe, but I am against the single currency. Conversely, I am for the idea of a common currency. The words are important: 'common' and 'single' are two different concepts.

    "In any case, the UK has demonstrated something that we in Italy couldn't even dream of: organising a clear 'yes-no' referendum."

    euronews
    "That is 'clear' in terms of the result and not its consequences. In reality, the population is torn. Many people's views have done u-turns."

    Beppe Grillo
    "Whatever happens, the responsibility returns entirely to the British. They made the decision."

    euronews
    "Doesn't it bother you that Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is playing the spoilsport in Europe? Criticising European institutions was your battle horse and now he is flexing his muscles in Brussels."

    Beppe Grillo
    "Renzi has to do that. But he's just copying me and in doing so, strengthens the original."

    euronews
    "Whatever it may be, his position at the head of the government can get him results."

    Beppe Grillo
    "Very well. If he wants to hold a referendum on the euro, he'll have our support. If he wants to leave the Fiscal Stability Treaty – the so-called Fiscal Compact – which was one of our battles, we'll be there."

    euronews
    "In the quarrel over the flexibility of public accounts due to the earthquake and immigration, who are you supporting?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "On that, I share Renzi's position. I have nothing against projects and ideas. I have preconceptions about him. For me, he is completely undeserving of confidence."

    euronews
    "Renzi's negotiating power will also depend on the outcome of the constitutional referendum in December. We'll see whether he sinks or swims."

    Beppe Grillo
    "It's already lost for him."

    euronews
    "If he doesn't win, will you ask for early elections?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "Whatever happens, we want elections because the government as it stands is not legitimate and, as a consequence, neither are we.

    "From this point onwards, the government moves forward simply by approving laws based on how urgent they are. And 90 percent of laws are approved using this method. So what good will it do to reform the Senate to make the process quicker?"

    euronews
    "Can you see yourself at the head of the Italian government?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "No, no. I was never in the race. Never."

    euronews
    "So, Beppe Grillo is not even a candidate to become prime minister or to take on another official role, if one day the Five Star Movement was to win the elections?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "The time is fast approaching."

    euronews
    "Really? A projection?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "People just need to go and vote. We're sure to win."

    BabaLooey -> Nemontel •Nov 21, 2016 6:27 AM

    euronews: "You don't think the Commission is legitimate?"

    Beppe Grillo: "Absolutely not. Particularly because it's a Commission that no one has actually elected. That's what brought us closer to Nigel Farage: a democracy coming from the people."

    BOILED DOWN - THAT IS ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID.

    Blackhawks •Nov 21, 2016 3:15 AM

    Neoliberal Trojan Horse Obama has quite a global legacy. People all over the world are voting for conmen and clowns instead of his endorsed candidates and chosen successor. Having previously exposed the "intellectual-yet-idiot" class, Nassim Taleb unleashes his acerbic tone in 3 painfully "real news" tweets on President Obama's legacy...

    Obama:
    Protected banksters (largest bonus pool in 2010)
    "Helped" Libya
    Served AlQaeda/SaudiBarbaria(Syria & Yemen) https://t.co/bcNMhDgmuo

    - NassimNicholasTaleb (@nntaleb) November 19, 2016

    2) (Cont) But in the end what Obama did that is unforgivable is increasing centralization in a complex system.

    - NassimNicholasTaleb (@nntaleb) November 19, 2016

    3) Don't fughet Obama is leaving us a Ponzi scheme, added ~8 trillions in debt with rates at 0. If they rise, costs of deficit explode...

    - NassimNicholasTaleb (@nntaleb) November 20, 2016

    LetThemEatRand •Nov 21, 2016 3:20 AM

    Maybe it's time for the Europeans to stop sucking American cock. Note that we barely follow your elections. It's time to spread your wings and fly.

    Yen Cross -> LetThemEatRand •Nov 21, 2016 3:27 AM

    Amen~ The" European Toadies" should also institute " term limits" so those Jean Paul & Draghi][JUNKERS[]- technocratic A-Holes can be done away with!

    NuYawkFrankie •Nov 21, 2016 5:07 AM

    "The Experts* Destroyed The World" - Beppe Grillo. Never a truer word spoken, Beppe! YOU DA MAN!!! And these "Experts" - these self-described "ELITE" - did so - and are STILL doing so WITH MALICIOUS INTENT - and lining their pockets every fking step of the way!

    As the Jason Statham character says in that great Guy Richie movie "Revolver": "If there's ONE thing I've learnt about "Experts", it's that they're expert in FUCK ALL!"

    Apart from asset-stripping the economy & robbing the populace blind that is - and giving their countries away to the invader so indigenous populations cant fight back... or PURPOSELY angling for WW3 to hide their criminality behind the ULTIMATE & FINAL smokescreen.

    Yep -THAT is how F'KING sick they are. These, my friends, are your "Experts", your self-decribed "Elite" - and Soros is at the head of the parade.

    lakecity55 -> NuYawkFrankie •Nov 21, 2016 6:18 AM

    You know the old saying, "an expert's a guy from more than 20 miles outside of town."

    tuetenueggel •Nov 21, 2016 5:17 AM

    Which experts do you mean Beppe ?

    All I Kow is that those "experts" are too stupid to piss a hole in the snow.

    Oettinger ( not even speaking his mother tongue halfways correct )

    Jean clown Juncker ( always drunk too is a kind of well structured day )

    Schulz capo (who was too stupid as mayor of a german village so they fucked him out)

    Hollande ( lefts are always of lower IQ then right wing people )

    Blair ( war criminal )

    and thousands more not to be named her ( due to little space availlable )

    caesium •Nov 21, 2016 6:35 AM

    It NATO collapses so will the Euro project. The project was always American from the start. In recent years it has become a mechanism by which the Poles (and other assorted Eastern Europeans) can extract war guarantees out of the USA, UK and France. It is a total mess and people like Grillo add to the confusion by their flawed analysis.

    The bedrock of Italy was always the Catholic faith which the country has abandoned. "The Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith" said Hilaire Belloc. A reality that Grillo is unable to grasp.

    [Nov 20, 2016] The Field of Fight How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies by Michael T. Flynn, Michael Ledeen

    Trump essentially betrayed Flynn, who tried to did the billing of Kushner and persuade Russia to abstain from anti-Israel vote.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The big takeaways from this book is the (1) systemic manipulation of intelligence analysts' conclusions to fit political narratives (I have personally seen my work modified to "soften" the message/conclusions for x, y, or z reasons) and (2) Radical Islam is not a new phenomenon that spawned as a response to "American imperialism" as often preached from the lecterns of western universities. ..."
    "... There is no love lost between Lt Gen Flynn and President Obama, and Flynn's frustration with Obama's lack of leadership is clear throughout this work. ..."
    "... General Flynn is a career Army combat intelligence officer with extensive hard experience mostly in the Middle East, a lifetime Democrat, who seems to understand and is able to clearly and concisely define the threat of Radical Islam (NOT all Islam) far better than both the Bush ("W") and Obama administrations politicos in Washington were willing to hear or accept. ..."
    "... in contrast to what his detractors might opine, General Flynn is speaking of Radical Islam as a "tribal cult," and not taking aim at the religion itself. ..."
    "... The general's comments on human intelligence and interrogation operations being virtually nonexistent makes one wonder if all the Lessons Learned that are written after every conflict and stored away are then never looked at again - I suspect it's true. ..."
    "... My unit, the 571st MI Detachment of the 525th MI Group, ran agents (HUMINT) throughout I Corps/FRAC in Vietnam. The Easter Offensive of 1972 was actually known and reported by our unit before and during the NVA's invasion of the South. We were virtually the only intelligence source available for the first couple of weeks because of weather. Search the internet for The Easter Offensive of 1972: A Failure to Use Intelligence. ..."
    "... I totally concur with Lt. General, Michael T. Flynn, US Army, (ret), that any solution to "Radical Islamic Terrorism" today has to also resolve the ideology issue, along side the other recommendations that he discusses in his book. ..."
    "... Provocative, bellicose, rhetorical, and patriotic, the author leaves the reader wondering if his understanding of the enemy is hubris or sagacity. Much of that confusion can be attributed to conditioning as a an American and seeing prosecution of American wars as apolitical and astrategic. General Flynn's contribution to the way forward, "Field of Fight" is certainly political and at a minimum operational strategy. His practical experience is normative evidence to take him at his word for what he concludes is the next step to deal with radicals and reactionaries of political Islam. ..."
    "... One paradox that he never solved was his deliberate attempt to frame terrorist as nothing more that organized crime, but at the same respect condemn governments that are "Islamic Republics," whom attempt to enforce the laws as an ineffective solution, and attempting to associate the with the other 1.6 billion Muslims by painting them as "Radical Islam." ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.amazon.com

    SomeRandomGuy July 17, 2016

    We're at war, but few people know it... or are willing to accept it.

    When I had heard in the news that Lt Gen Flynn might be chosen by Donald Trump as his Vice Presidential nominee, I was quick to do some research on Flynn and came across this work. Having worked in the intelligence community myself in the past several years, I was intrigued to hear what the previous director of the DIA had to say. I have read many books on the topic of Islam and I am glad I picked this up.

    The big takeaways from this book is the (1) systemic manipulation of intelligence analysts' conclusions to fit political narratives (I have personally seen my work modified to "soften" the message/conclusions for x, y, or z reasons) and (2) Radical Islam is not a new phenomenon that spawned as a response to "American imperialism" as often preached from the lecterns of western universities.

    If you have formed your opinion of Islam and the nature of the West's fight in the Middle East on solely what you hear in the main steam media (all sides), you would do well to read this book as a starting point into self-education on an incredibly complex topic.

    There is no love lost between Lt Gen Flynn and President Obama, and Flynn's frustration with Obama's lack of leadership is clear throughout this work. Usually this political opining in a work such as this is distracting, but it does add much-needed context to decisions and events. That said, Lt Gen Flynn did a great job addressing a complex topic in plain language. While this is not a seminal work on

    Amazon Customer on November 11, 2016

    A critically important work for western civilization.

    General Flynn is a career Army combat intelligence officer with extensive hard experience mostly in the Middle East, a lifetime Democrat, who seems to understand and is able to clearly and concisely define the threat of Radical Islam (NOT all Islam) far better than both the Bush ("W") and Obama administrations politicos in Washington were willing to hear or accept.

    He supports what he can tell us with citations. Radical Islam has declared war on Western democracies, most of all on the US. Its allies include Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and others. Their war against us is a long-term effort, and our politicians (except Trump?) don't want to hear it. We need to demand that our politicos prepare for this assault and start taking wise, strong steps to defeat it.

    Western Europe may already have been fatally infiltrated by "refugees" who will seek to Islamize it, and current birth rates suggest that those nations will have Muslim majorities in 20 years. General Flynn details what we must do to survive the assault. I bought the Kindle version and began reading it, but then paid more for the audible version so that I could get through it faster. Please buy and read this book!

    David Firester on September 2, 2016

    Looking Inward First, is What Generates the Strategy-Shifting Process. Flynn Gets This. Few Others Do.

    To begin with, I will say that the book is not exactly what one might expect from a recently retired General. For starters, there were numerous spelling errors, an assortment of colloquialisms and some instances in which the prose took on a decidedly partisan tone. The means of documenting sources was something akin to a blog-posting, in that he simply copied and pasted links to pages, right into the body of the work. I would have liked to have seen a more thoroughly researched and properly cited work. All of this was likely due to the fact that General Flynn released his book in the days leading up to Donald J. Trump's announcement of his Vice Presidential pick. As Flynn is apparently a close national security advisor to Trump, I can understand why his work appears to be somewhat harried. Nonetheless, I think that the book's timeliness is useful, as the information it contains might be helpful in guiding Americans' election choices. I also think that despite the absence of academic rigor, it makes his work more accessible. No doubt, this is probably one of Mr. Trump's qualities and one that has catapulted him to national fame and serious consideration for the office he seeks. General Flynn makes a number of important points, which, despite my foregoing adverse commentary, gives me the opportunity to endorse it as an essential read.

    In the introductory chapter, General Flynn lays out his credentials, defines the problem, and proceeds to inform the reader of the politically guided element that clouds policy prescriptions. Indeed, he is correct to call attention to the fact that the Obama administration has deliberately exercised its commanding authority in forbidding the attachment of the term "Islam" when speaking of the threat posed by extremists who advocate and carry out violence in the religion's name. As one who suffered at the hands of the administration for speaking truth to power, he knows all too well what others in the Intelligence Community (IC) must suffer in order to hold onto their careers.

    In chapter one, he discusses where he came from and how he learned valuable lessons at home and in service to his country. He also gives the reader a sense of the geopolitical context in which Radical Islamists have been able to form alliances with our worst enemies. This chapter also introduces the reader to some of his personal military heroes, as he delineates how their mentorship shaped his thinking on military and intelligence matters. A key lesson to pay attention to in this chapter is what some, including General Flynn, call 'politicization of intelligence.' Although he maintains that both the present and previous administration have been guilty of this, he credits the Bush administration with its strategic reconsideration of the material facts and a search for better answers. (He mentions this again in the next chapter on p.42, signifying this capability as a "leadership characteristic" and later recalls the president's "insight and courage" on p. 154.)

    Chapter two of The Field of Fight features an excellent summary of what transpires in a civil war and the manner in which Iraqis began to defect from al-Qa'ida and cooperate with U.S. forces. In this task, he explains for the layperson what many scholars do, but in far fewer pages. Again, this makes his work more accessible. He also works through the process of intelligence failures that are, in his opinion, produced by a superordinate policy failure housed in the upper echelons of the military structure. In essence, it was a misperception (willful or not) that guided thinking about the cause of the insurgency, that forbade an ability to properly address it with a population-centric Counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy. He pays homage to the adaptability and ingenuity of General Stanley McChrystal's Task Force 714, but again mentions the primary barrier to its success was bureaucratic in nature.

    The main thrust of chapter 3, aptly named "The Enemy Alliance," is geared toward tying together the earlier assertion in chapter regarding the synergy between state actors like Iran, North Korea, Syria, and the like. It has been documented elsewhere, but the Iranian (non-Arab Shi'a) connection to the al-Qa'ida (Arab Sunni) terrorist organization can't be denied. Flynn correctly points out how the relationship between strange bedfellows is not new in the Middle East. He briefly discusses how this has been the case since the 1970s, with specific reference to the PLO, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, Bosnia and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's. He also references President Obama's "curious sympathy" (p. 92) for enemies in places such as Venezuela and Cuba.

    General Flynn then reminds readers of some facts that have either been forgotten, or virtually unknown, by most Americans. Namely, the role that Saddam Hussein actually played with regard to the recruitment of foreign terrorists, the internal policies of appeasement for Islamists in his army and the support he lent to Islamists in other countries (e.g., Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan). He also reminds the readers of the totalitarian mindset that consumes Islamist groups, such as al-Qa'ida and the Islamic State. All the while, and in contrast to what his detractors might opine, General Flynn is speaking of Radical Islam as a "tribal cult," and not taking aim at the religion itself. This chapter is perhaps the most robust in the book and it is the sort of reading that every American should do before they engage in conversations about the nature of political Islam.

    Chapter four is a blueprint for winning what used to be called the 'global war on terror.' Although such a phraseology is generally laughed at in many policy circles, it is clear, as General Flynn demonstrates, that some groups and countries are locked in combat with us and our partners in the West. Yet, as he correctly points out, the Obama administration isn't willing to use global American leadership in order to defeat those who see us, and treat us, as their collective enemy. General Flynn's prescription includes four strategic objectives, which I won't recite here, as I'm not looking to violate any copyright laws. The essence of his suggestions, however, starts with an admission of who the enemy is, a commitment to their destruction, the abandonment of any unholy alliances we have made over the years, and a counter-ideological program for combating what is largely an ideologically-based enemy strong suit. He points to some of the facts that describe the dismal state of affairs in the Arab world, the most damning of which appear on pages 127-128, and then says what many are afraid to say on page 133: "Radical Islam is a totalitarian political ideology wrapped in the Islamic religion." Nonetheless, Flynn discusses some of the more mundane and pecuniary sources of their strength and the means that might be tried in an effort to undermine them.

    The concluding chapter of General Flynn's work draws the reader's attention to some of the works of others that have been overlooked. He then speaks candidly of the misguided assumptions that, coupled with political and bureaucratic reasons, slows adaptation to the changing threat environment. Indeed, one of the reasons that I found this book so refreshing is because that sort of bold introspection is perhaps the requisite starting point for re-thinking bad strategies. In fact, that is the essence of both the academic and practical work that I have been doing for years. I highly recommend this book, especially chapter 3, for any student of the IC and the military sciences.

    Bob Baker on August 4, 2016
    It's ironic that the general wrote about Pattern Analysis, ...

    It's ironic that the general wrote about Pattern Analysis, when DIA in late-1971 warned that the Ho Chi Minh Trail was unusually active using this technique.

    The general's comments on human intelligence and interrogation operations being virtually nonexistent makes one wonder if all the Lessons Learned that are written after every conflict and stored away are then never looked at again - I suspect it's true.

    My unit, the 571st MI Detachment of the 525th MI Group, ran agents (HUMINT) throughout I Corps/FRAC in Vietnam. The Easter Offensive of 1972 was actually known and reported by our unit before and during the NVA's invasion of the South. We were virtually the only intelligence source available for the first couple of weeks because of weather. Search the internet for The Easter Offensive of 1972: A Failure to Use Intelligence.

    Amazon Customer on August 1, 2016
    A GREAT BOOK FOR UNDERSTANDING THE WAR ON TERROR

    At a time when so much is hanging in the balance, General Flynn's book plainly lays out a strategy for not only fighting ISIS/ISIL but also for preventing totalitarianism from spreading with Russia, North Korea and Cuba now asserting themselves - again.

    Sadly, because there is some mild rebuke towards President Obama, my fear is people who should read this book to gain a better understanding of the mind of the jihadist won't because they don't like their president being called out for inadequate leadership. But the fact remains we are at war with not just one, but several ideologies that have a common enemy - US! But this book is not about placing blame, it is about winning and what it will take to defeat the enemies of freedom.

    We take freedom for granted in the West, to the point where, unlike our enemies, we are no longer willing to fight hard to preserve those freedoms. General Flynn makes the complicated theatre of fighting Radical Islam easier to understand. His experience in explaining how we can and have won on the battlefield gives me great comfort, but also inspires me to want to help fight for the good cause of freedom.

    My sincerest hope is that both Trump and Clinton will read this book and then appoint General Flynn as our next Defense Secretary!

    Amazon Customer DCC on July 30, 2016
    recommend you read " Heretic

    I totally concur with Lt. General, Michael T. Flynn, US Army, (ret), that any solution to "Radical Islamic Terrorism" today has to also resolve the ideology issue, along side the other recommendations that he discusses in his book. All of the radical fighting that has taken place in the world, ever since the beginning evolution of the Islamic religion over 1400 years ago, has revolved around radical interpretations of the Qur'an.

    Until there is an Islamic religious reformation, there will never be a lasting resolution to the current "Radical Islamic Terrorist" problem. It is a religious ideology interpretation issue. Until that interpretation is resolved within the Islamic world, there will always be continuing radical interpretation outbreaks, from within the entire Islamic world, against all other forms of non-Islamic religions and their evolving cultures.

    If you require further insight, recommend you read " Heretic, Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now" , by Ayaan Hirisi Ali. DCC

    Aaron Rudroff on July 26, 2016
    To be continued...

    Provocative, bellicose, rhetorical, and patriotic, the author leaves the reader wondering if his understanding of the enemy is hubris or sagacity. Much of that confusion can be attributed to conditioning as a an American and seeing prosecution of American wars as apolitical and astrategic. General Flynn's contribution to the way forward, "Field of Fight" is certainly political and at a minimum operational strategy. His practical experience is normative evidence to take him at his word for what he concludes is the next step to deal with radicals and reactionaries of political Islam.

    One paradox that he never solved was his deliberate attempt to frame terrorist as nothing more that organized crime, but at the same respect condemn governments that are "Islamic Republics," whom attempt to enforce the laws as an ineffective solution, and attempting to associate the with the other 1.6 billion Muslims by painting them as "Radical Islam."

    As if there is any relationship to relationship to Islam other than it is the predominant religion in a majority of the area where they commit their criminal activity. As if the political war with terrorist is a function of a label that is of itself a oversimplification of the issues. Indeed, suggesting it is a nothing more than 'political correctness" and ignoring the possibility that it might be a function of setting the conditions in an otherwise polygon of political justice. This argument alone is evidence of the his willingness to develop domestic political will for war with a simple argument. Nevertheless, as a national strategy, it lacks the a foundational argument to motivate friendly regional actors who's authority is founded on political Islam.

    In 2008 a national election was held and the pyrrhic nature of the war in Iraq adjudicated via the process of democratic choice that ended support for continued large scale conventional occupation. That there is some new will to continue large scale conventional occupation seems unlikely, and as a democratic country, leaders must find other means to reach the desired end state, prosecuting contiguous operations to suppress, neutralize, and destroy "ALL" who use terrorism to expand and enforce their political will with a deliberate limited wars that have methodological end states. Lastly, sounding more like a General MacArther, the General Flynn's diffuse strategy seems to ignore the most principles of war deduced by Von Clausewitz and Napoleon: Concentration of force on the objective to be attacked. Instead, fighting an ideology "Radical Islam" seems more abstract then any splatter painting of modern are in principle form it suggests a commitment to simplicity to motivate our nation to prepare for and endure the national commitment to a long war.

    Since we can all agree there is no magical solution, then normative pragmatism of the likes that General. Flynn's assessment provides, must be taken into account in an operation and tactical MDMP. Ignoring and silencing Subject Matter Experts (SME's) will net nothing more than failure, a failure that could be measured in innocent civilian lives as a statistical body count. I could see General Flynn's suggestions and in expertise bolstering a movement to establish a CORP level active duty unit to prepare, plan, and implemented in phases 0, IV, & V (JP 5-0) . Bear in mind, Counter Insurgency (COIN) was never considered a National strategy but instead at tactical strategy and at most an operational strategy.

    William Struse TOP 500 REVIEWER on July 17, 2016
    The Crossroads of Our Republic

    Several times in its nearly 250 years of existence our Nation has been at a crossroads. Looking back on our War for Independence, the Civil War, and WWII we know the decisions made in those tumultuous times forever altered the destiny of our Republic.

    We are once again at one of those crossroads where the battle lines have been drawn, only this time in an asymmetrical war between western democracy and the radical Islamists and nation states who nurture them. In his timely book Field of Fight, Lt. General Michael T. Flynn provides a unique perspective on this war and what he believes are some of the steps necessary to meet this foe.

    Field of Fight begins as an autobiography in which the author gives you a sense of who he is as a man and a soldier. This background information then provides the reader with a better perspective through which to evaluate his analysis of the challenges we face as well as the course of action he believes we need to take to meet those challenges.

    The following are a few of the guidelines General Flynn proposes for developing a winning strategy in our war with radical Islam and other potential foes:

    1. Properly assess your environment and clearly define your enemy;
    2. Face reality – for politicians, this is never an easy thing to do;
    3. Understand the social context and fabric of the operational environment;
    4. Recognize who's in charge of the enemy's forces.

    In Field of Fight General Flynn makes the case that we are losing this war with radical Islam because our nation's leadership has failed to develop a winning strategy. Further he opines that our current leaders lack the clarity of vision and moral certitude that understands American democracy is a "better way", that not all forms of human government are equal, and that there are principled reasons worth fighting for - the very basic of those being, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

    I'll admit I'm concerned about the future of our country. As a husband and a father of five I wonder about the world we leaving for our children to inherit. I fear we have lost our moral compass thus creating a vacuum in which human depravity as exemplified by today's radical Islamists thrives.

    Equally concerning to me is what happens when the pendulum swings the other way. Will we have the moral and principled leaders to check our indignation before it goes too far? When that heart rending atrocity which is sure to come finally pushes the American people to white hot wrath who will hold our own passions in check? In a nation where Judeo-Christian moral absolutes are an outdated notion what will keep us from becoming that which we most hate?

    As I stated at the start of this review, today we are at a crossroads. Once again our nation needs principled men and women in positions of leadership who understand the Field of Fight as described by General Flynn and have the wisdom and courage to navigate this battlefield.

    * * *

    In summary, although I don't agree with everything written in this book I found it to be an educational read which will provided me with much food for thought over the coming months. As a representative republic choosing good leadership requires that we as citizens understand the problems and challenges we face as a nation. Today radical Islam is one of those challenges and General Flynn's book Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies gives a much needed perspective on the subject.

    Terry M Petty on July 16, 2016
    Flynn does great with military intelligence, needs more cultural intelligence

    Gen Flynn has been in the news a lot lately. He apparently did not get on well in DC with his views on fighting terrorism. That is very relevant now as we are seeking better ways to fight ISIS and terror in general. I read his book today to learn what is on his mind. Flynn had a lot of experience starting in the 82nd Airborne and was almost always in intelligence work. Army intelligence is narrowly focused - where is the enemy, how many of them are there, how are they armed and what is the best way to destroy them. Undoubtedly he was good at this. However, that is not the kind of intelligence we need to defeat ISIS. Flynn's book shows no sign of cultural awareness, which is the context by which we must build intelligence about our opponent. In Iraq, he did learn the difference between who was Sunni and who was Shia but that was it. He shows no sign of any historical knowledge about these groups and how they think and live. In looking at Afghanistan, he seems unaware of the various clans and languages amongst different people. The 2 primary languages of Afghanistan are Pashto and Dari. Dari is essentially the same as Farsi, so the Persian influence has been strong in the country for a long time. Flynn seems totally unaware. Intelligence in his world is obtained from interrogation and captured documents. They are processed fast and tell him who their next target should be. This kind of work is not broad enough to give him a strategic background. He sees USA's challenges in the world as a big swath of enemies that are all connected and monolithic. North Korea, China, Iran, Russia, Syria, ISIS, and so forth. All need to be dealt with in a forceful manner. He never seems to think about matching resources with objective.

    This monlithic view of our opponents is obviously wrong. Pres George W Bush tried it that way with the Axis of Evil. The 1950's Cold War was all built in fear of the monolithic Soviet Union and China. All these viewpoints were failures.
    Flynn does not see it though. In the book, Flynn says invading Iraq in 2003 might have been the wrong choice. He would have invaded Iran. The full Neocon plan was for 7 countries in 5 years, right after knocking down Iraq, then we would do the same to Iran. I hope we have lost a lot of that hubris by now. But with poor vision by leaders like Flynn, we might get caught up again in this craziness.

    To beat ISIS and Al Qaeda type groups we need patience and allies. We have to dry up the source of the terrorists that want to die. That will be done with a combination of cultural outreaches as well as armed force.
    I am sure the Presidential candidates will both see that Flynn does not have that recipe. Where is a General that does? We have often made this mistake. Sixty Six years ago, we felt good that Gen Douglas MacArthur "knew the Oriental mind" and he would guid us to victory in Korea. That ended up as a disaster at the end of 1950. I think we are better off at working with leaders that understand the people that are trying to terrorize us. Generals don't develop those kinds of empathic abilities.

    [Nov 20, 2016] Here is an interesting interpretation of Trumps selection of cabinet and advisor positions

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump's main problem in this respect is that the diversity of viewpoints within the military, the NSA or other government agencies might already be too narrow and he needs a Republican version of Stephen Cohen who has always advocated for engagement with Russia, along with other people from outside Washington DC but with experience in state legislatures for the various departments. ..."
    "... I agree and I suspect Trump regards Putin as a fellow CEO and perhaps the best one on the planet. ..."
    "... A more fundamental problem is that the US has not yet reached rock bottom. So, its delusions remain strong. Trump, as said before, may be a false dawn unless the bottom is closer than suspected and he has new allies (perhaps foreign allies). ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Patient Observer , November 19, 2016 at 8:41 am

    Here is an interesting interpretation of Trump's selection of cabinet and advisor positions:

    https://sputniknews.com/politics/201611191047623363-trump-administration-analysis/

    It is not about politics, but Trump's peculiar management style, Timofey Bordachev, Director of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at Russia's High School of Economics, told RIA Novosti.

    "Those who have been studying the business biography of the newly elected president have noted that he has always played off his high-ranking employees against each other. While doing so he remained above the fight," he said.

    And

    Gevorg Mirzayan, an assistant professor of the Political Science department at the Financial University in Moscow pointed out two purposes for the nominations.

    "Trump needs to consolidate the Republican Party, hence he should nominate representatives of different party groups to key positions in his administration to win the support of the whole party," he told RIA Novosti. Surveillance © Photo: Pixabay Trump National Security Team Reportedly Wants to Dismantle Top US Spy Agency The second purpose is to form an administration that doesn't look too "dovish" or too "hawkish" to be able to avoid further accusations of excessive loyalty towards Moscow, he suggested. Thus without an image of a 'dove" who neglects the national interests, he will be able to normalize Russian-American relations, the expert said.

    The above brings rationality to the diverse selections made by Trump.

    However, the black swan event will be an economic collapse (fast or protracted over several years). That will be the defining event in the Trump presidency. I have no inkling how he or those who may replace him would respond.

    Jen , November 19, 2016 at 12:18 pm
    I had guessed myself that Trump was going to run the government as a business corporation. Surrounding himself with people of competing viewpoints, and hiring on the basis of experience and skills (and not on the basis of loyalty, as Hillary Clinton might have done) would be two ways Trump can change the government and its culture. Trump's main problem in this respect is that the diversity of viewpoints within the military, the NSA or other government agencies might already be too narrow and he needs a Republican version of Stephen Cohen who has always advocated for engagement with Russia, along with other people from outside Washington DC but with experience in state legislatures for the various departments.

    If running the US government as a large mock business enterprise brings a change in its culture so it becomes more open and accountable to the public, less directed by ideology and identity politics, and gets rid of people engaged in building up their own little empires within the different departments, then Trump might just be the President the US needs at this moment in time.

    Interesting that Russian academics have noted the outlines of Trump's likely cabinet and what they suggest he plans to do, and no-one else has. Does this imply that Americans and others in the West have lost sight of how large business corporations could be run, or should be run, and everyone is fixated on fake "entrepreneurship" or "self-entrepreneur" (whatever that means) models of running a business where it's every man, woman, child and dog for itself?

    Patient Observer , November 19, 2016 at 5:21 pm Patient Observer , November 19, 2016 at 5:21 pm
    I agree and I suspect Trump regards Putin as a fellow CEO and perhaps the best one on the planet. Trump may have noted how Putin did an incredible turnaround of Russia and it all started with three objectives: restore the integrity of the borders, rebuild the industrial base and run off the globalists/liberals/kreakles. I am certainly not the first one to say this and I think that there is a lot of basis for that analysis. However, Trump will have a far more difficult challenge and frankly I don't think he has enough allies or smarts to pull it off.

    A more fundamental problem is that the US has not yet reached rock bottom. So, its delusions remain strong. Trump, as said before, may be a false dawn unless the bottom is closer than suspected and he has new allies (perhaps foreign allies).

    [Nov 20, 2016] Rand Paul says he will oppose John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani for Secretary of State

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years - particularly those Trump promised to avoid as president," ..."
    "... "It's important that someone who was an unrepentant advocate for the Iraq War, who didn't learn the lessons of the Iraq War, shouldn't be the secretary of state for a president who says Iraq was ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | rare.us

    Senator Rand Paul said Tuesday in an op-ed for Rare that he would oppose President-elect Donald Trump's rumored selection of former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton as Secretary of State.

    "Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years - particularly those Trump promised to avoid as president,"

    Paul wrote citing U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya that Trump has criticized but that Bolton strongly advocated.

    Reports since have indicated that former New York City mayor and loyal Trump ally, Rudy Giuliani is being considered for the post.

    The Washington Post's David Weigel reports , "Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a newly reelected member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said this morning that he was inclined to oppose either former U.N. ambassador John Bolton or former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani if they were nominated for secretary of state."

    "It's important that someone who was an unrepentant advocate for the Iraq War, who didn't learn the lessons of the Iraq War, shouldn't be the secretary of state for a president who says Iraq was a big lesson," Paul told the Post. "Trump said that a thousand times. It would be a huge mistake for him to give over his foreign policy to someone who [supported the war]. I mean, you could not find more unrepentant advocates of regime change."

    Related: Rand Paul: Will Donald Trump betray voters by hiring John Bolton?

    [Nov 20, 2016] War Breaks Out Between Neo-Cons And Libertarians Over Trumps Foreign Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... "How many people sleep better knowing that the Baltics are part of NATO? They don't make us safer, in fact, quite the opposite . We need to think really hard about these commitments," said William Ruger, vice president of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute. ..."
    "... A prominent member of the outsiders is Rand Paul, skeptic of Bush's foreign policy, who has criticized Bolton in the last few days. Paul on Tuesday blasted Bolton in an op-ed in Rare as "a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose." ..."
    "... However, neo-cons are bad at losing, so they have redoubled efforts to land one of their own next to Trump. Lindsey Graham, a prominent foreign policy hawk in the Senate, issued an endorsement of Bolton on Thursday, saying: "He understands who our friends and enemies are. We see the world in very similar ways." ..."
    "... He also slammed Paul's criticism of Bolton: "You could put the number of Republicans who will follow Rand Paul's advice on national security in a very small car. Rand is my friend but he's a libertarian and an outlier in the party on these issues." ..."
    "... Meanwhile, the biggest warmonger, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, who has not said who he'd like to see in Trump's cabinet, laid down a marker on Tuesday by warning the future Trump administration against trying to seek an improved relationship with adversary Russia. "When America has been at its greatest, it is when we have stood on the side those fighting tyranny. That is where we must stand again," he warned. ..."
    "... MENA is the most important, perhaps the only leverage that the US has to hold the global reserve currency. As long as the US retain the world's money, the US can finance its debt while collecting rent worldwide. Also, the US can export its inflation. ..."
    "... No US President can, or will willingly let these three to fail, because the collapse will be horrifying. ..."
    "... the U.S. Empire has globalised its reach as an instrument of the deep state and its oligarchy of owner/operators. Ostensibly to bring democracy to the oppressed, its real purpose was to enrich the rent-seekers on the MIC value chain and to protect and serve the private globalist interests who were the clients of the deep state. National funds flow has always been net outbound, and not the other way around, as in any successful precendent for empire. This continues to be true to this day because of the influence the wealthy rent-seekers on this value chain have over the federal government. Simple as that. ..."
    "... Raytheon, Lockheed and Boeing are corporate sponsors of the Rockefeller/CFR. James Woolsey, Stephen Hadley, John Bolton, Eliot Cohen and John McCain are CFR members. Also Bill Clinton, Janet Yellen, John Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein and George Soros. See member lists at cfr dot org. Cohen, Bolton, Woolsey, and McCain were also members of PNAC. ..."
    "... Yes. Out of NATO, stop the endless pointless wars in the M.E., embrace George Washington and avoiding "foreign entaglements." ..."
    "... Agree...but, easier said than done. A large component of our economy is wholly dependent on government funded MIC and arms sales. Dependency on government spending as large part of our economy has seeped into nearly every aspect of our market place. ..."
    "... There is a problem with the long term approach...is that the every attempt will be made to stop such a transition in its tracks. Even if it means world war. ..."
    "... With modern travel and communications neither policy would work any longer but I'll take nationalism. Bottom line on hawks, the budget is busted out! Cant afford guns and butter anymore. ..."
    "... The empire building has made all but a few a lot poorer and the majority on earth more miserable. I am not naive, I know violence is sometimes necessary, but eternal offence as a strategy ensures enemies will find ways to focus on that top dog and beat you. Beside what I think or believe about foreign policy, it doesn't matter we are broke in affording empire. Period. ..."
    "... You guys crazy or sumpthin? You want full employment at good wages? All out War is your best bet. No messy "fixing" anything, just flip the switch and off you go. Draft all those troublemakers, turn them into cannon fodder, crank up the printing presses and happy days are here again. ..."
    "... What is with you people? It is almost like Saudi Arabia doesn't exist and doesn't buy our politicians. It is almost as if Hillary Clinton never existed, nor her Saudi asset girlfriend (yes, married to an Israeli asset). Look, if you're going to blame the Jews every time, also blame the Wahhabis. And then you might want to also say fuck you to the British who are responsible for both nations. ..."
    "... Look, if you're going to blame the Jews every time, also blame the Wahhabis ..."
    "... Wahabism/Salafism has been used since Reagan as a weapon for covert war. Saudi Petrodollars recycle back to the U.S. MIC as they pass through the CIA Hillary Clinton approved very large increases in weapons to the Saudi's especially as they funded the Clinton machine. Clintons are CFR agents, and that has a heavy jewish illuminst influence. ..."
    "... In what fucking dimension do people this fucking incompetent still have jobs, let alone credibility? Preposterous that they even still have jobs. The US has blown 5-6 trillion on losing one war after the other, has caused massive disorder and chaos in the Mideast to absolutely no one's benefit except Israel, or so Israel believes, and destabilized the entire region to the point that a WWIII could erupt at any moment. ..."
    "... Disaster and incompetence at this level can only be rewarded with sackings and terminations across the board. But no, not in the US. The public is more preooccupied with fictional racists and Donald's bawdy pussy talk. ..."
    "... Trump has been provided an easy litmus test, who has ever advocated deposing Assad must be rejected, not because Assad is such a great guy, but because those who would replace him are radical islamists all. Russia could be cultivated as a friend and do more for world peace than the Arab world which has a fatal jihad disease. ..."
    "... The presidency is more of a ceremonial position now. If the deep state doesn't like the president, it can simply fire him, as it did with Kennedy (and arguably Nixon). It can also make his life a living hell or force a foreign policy showdown as it did with Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs. ..."
    "... Controlled demolitions take weeks of planning and preparation. So the implication is that someone planned the WTC7 collapse weeks in advance. WTC7 held a number of offices, including offices of the SEC. Many files were destroyed. ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    In late October, when it was still conventional wisdom that Hillary was "guaranteed" to win the presidency, the WaPo explained that among the neo-con, foreign policy "elites" of the Pentagon, a feeling of calm content had spread: after all, it was just a matter of time before the "pacifist" Obama was out, replaced by the more hawkish Hillary.

    As the WaPo reported , "there is one corner of Washington where Donald Trump's scorched-earth presidential campaign is treated as a mere distraction and where bipartisanship reigns. In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama's departure from the White House - and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton - is being met with quiet relief ."

    The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American foreign policy via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House.

    Oops.

    Not only did the "foreign policy" elite get the Trump "scorched-earth distraction" dead wrong, it now has to scramble to find what leverage - if any - it has in defining Trump's foreign policy. Worse, America's warmongers are now waging war (if only metaphorically: we all know they can't wait for the real thing) against libertarians for direct access to Trump's front door, a contingency they had never planned for.

    As The Hill reported earlier , "a battle is brewing between the GOP foreign policy establishment and outsiders over who will sit on President-elect Donald Trump's national security team. The fight pits hawks and neoconservatives who served in the former Bush administrations against those on the GOP foreign policy edges."

    Taking a page out of Ron Paul's book, the libertarians, isolationists and realists see an opportunity to pull back America's commitments around the world, spend less money on foreign aid and "nation-building," curtail expensive military campaigns and troop deployments, and intervene militarily only to protect American interests. In short: these are people who believe that human life, and the avoidance of war, is more valuable than another record quarter for Raytheon, Lockheed or Boeing.

    On the other hand, the so-called establishment camp, many of whom disavowed Trump during the campaign, is made up of the same people who effectively ran Hillary Clinton's tenure while she was Secretary of State, fully intent on creating zones of conflict, political instability and outright war in every imaginable place, from North Africa to Ukraine. This group is pushing for Stephen Hadley, who served as national security adviser under George W. Bush. Another Bush ally, John Bolton whose name has been floated as a possible secretary of State, also falls into this camp.

    According to The Hill, other neo-con, establishment candidates floated include Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), outgoing Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), rising star Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), and senior fellow at conservative think-tank American Enterprise Institute and former Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.).

    "These figures all generally believe that the United States needs to take an active role in the world from the Middle East to East Asia to deter enemies and reassure allies."

    In short, should this group prevail, it would be the equivalent of 4 more years of HIllary Clinton running the State Department.

    The outsider group sees things differently.

    They want to revamp American foreign policy in a different direction from the last two administrations. Luckily, this particular camp is also more in line with Trump's views questioning the value of NATO, a position that horrified many in the establishment camp.

    "How many people sleep better knowing that the Baltics are part of NATO? They don't make us safer, in fact, quite the opposite . We need to think really hard about these commitments," said William Ruger, vice president of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute.

    A prominent member of the outsiders is Rand Paul, skeptic of Bush's foreign policy, who has criticized Bolton in the last few days. Paul on Tuesday blasted Bolton in an op-ed in Rare as "a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose."

    ... ... ...

    However, neo-cons are bad at losing, so they have redoubled efforts to land one of their own next to Trump. Lindsey Graham, a prominent foreign policy hawk in the Senate, issued an endorsement of Bolton on Thursday, saying: "He understands who our friends and enemies are. We see the world in very similar ways."

    He also slammed Paul's criticism of Bolton: "You could put the number of Republicans who will follow Rand Paul's advice on national security in a very small car. Rand is my friend but he's a libertarian and an outlier in the party on these issues."

    Funny, that's exactly what the experts said about Trump's chances of winning not even two weeks ago.

    Meanwhile, the biggest warmonger, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, who has not said who he'd like to see in Trump's cabinet, laid down a marker on Tuesday by warning the future Trump administration against trying to seek an improved relationship with adversary Russia. "When America has been at its greatest, it is when we have stood on the side those fighting tyranny. That is where we must stand again," he warned.

    Luckily, McCain - whose relationship with Trump has been at rock bottom ever since Trump's first appearance in the presidential campaign - has zero impact on the thinking of Trump.

    Furthermore, speaking of Russia, Retired Amy Col. Andrew Bacevich said there needs to be a rethink of American foreign policy. He said the U.S. must consider whether Saudi Arabia and Pakistan qualify as U.S. allies, and the growing divergence between the U.S. and Israel. "The establishment doesn't want to touch questions like these with a ten foot pole," he said at a conference on Tuesday hosted by The American Conservative, the Charles Koch Institute, and the George Washington University Department of Political Science.

    Furthermore, resetting the "deplorable" relations with Russia is a necessary if not sufficient condition to halt the incipient nuclear arms build up that has resulted of the recent dramatic return of the Cold War. As such, a Trump presidency while potentially a failure, may be best remember for avoiding the launch of World War III. If , that is, he manages to prevent the influence of neo-cons in his cabinet.

    And then there are the wildcards: those Trump advisers who are difficult to peg into which camp they fall into. One example is retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who was selected by Trump as his national security adviser. Flynn is a "curious case," said Daniel Larison, senior editor at The American Conservative. The retired Army general has said he wants to work with Russia, but also expressed contrary views in his book "Field of Fight."

    According to Larison, Flynn writes of an "enemy alliance" against the U.S. that includes Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. From that standpoint, he is about as "establishment" as they come.

    It's also not crystal clear which camp Giuliani falls into. The former mayor is known as a fierce critic of Islamic extremism but has scant foreign policy experience.

    Most say what is likely is change.

    "Change is coming to American grand strategy whether we like it or not,' said Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security at Texas A&M University.

    "I think we are overdue for American retrenchment. Americans are beginning to suffer from hegemony fatigue," he said.

    And, let's not forget, the tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children who are droned to death every year by anonymous remote-control operators in the US just so the US can pursue its global hegemonic interest. They most certainly have, and unless something indeed changes, will continue to suffer, leading to even more resentment against the US, and even more attacks against US citizens around the globe, and on US soil. Some call them terrorism, others call them retaliation.

    Escrava Isaura -> FreezeThese Nov 20, 2016 8:26 AM ,

    Help me here with this word (or whatever it means) REALISTS :

    Article: Ron Paul's book, the libertarians, isolationists and REALISTS see an opportunity . to intervene militarily only to protect American interests.

    So dear Libertarians, as I am about to show you two examples, but the list is long, that you have a problem, because of (US) reality:

    1) You are told by the left and right massmedia that the US is something like that: King of natural gas. We'll be the world exporter. That we have enough natural gas for 100 years, or some nonsense like that. But here is the REALITY :

    US "still" had to import almost 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2015.

    https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/importsexports/annual/

    2) Again, you might hear from the left and right massmedia that: US is shale this. US is shale that, even that shale is not oil, but some form of kerogen. In any event, here' the reality: US crude oil imports, by Millions of Barrels a Day: 2014: 7,344 2015: 7,363 As of July 2016: 8,092 (MBD)

    http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_snd_d_nus_mbblpd_m_cur-1.htm

    Key Point (in my opinion): Libertarians, you can't have both of best worlds -two incomparable believes. You have to chose, otherwise you'll be a hypocrite while being a neocon as well.

    BigJim -> Escrava Isaura Nov 20, 2016 8:46 AM ,
    What's your point? That if we don't rule MENA, then the people in charge there won't sell us their natural gas?

    Lulz

    Escrava Isaura -> BigJim Nov 20, 2016 9:39 AM ,

    It's more complicated than that.

    MENA is the most important, perhaps the only leverage that the US has to hold the global reserve currency. As long as the US retain the world's money, the US can finance its debt while collecting rent worldwide. Also, the US can export its inflation.

    No US President can, or will willingly let these three to fail, because the collapse will be horrifying.

    Pairadimes -> Escrava Isaura Nov 20, 2016 10:02 AM ,
    This construction of the U.S. empire is a myth. Unlike the British, Spanish, French, Portuguese, or any other empire throughout history you care to name, the construction of the U.S. Empire has been a drastic net drain on U.S. finances.

    Unlike any preceding empire, which invaded other lands in search of wealth and captured client states to monetize added value, the U.S. Empire has globalised its reach as an instrument of the deep state and its oligarchy of owner/operators. Ostensibly to bring democracy to the oppressed, its real purpose was to enrich the rent-seekers on the MIC value chain and to protect and serve the private globalist interests who were the clients of the deep state. National funds flow has always been net outbound, and not the other way around, as in any successful precendent for empire. This continues to be true to this day because of the influence the wealthy rent-seekers on this value chain have over the federal government. Simple as that.

    In the process, the USA has been hollowed out from the inside, and risks imminent collapse. The greatest hope we can hold out for a Trump presidency is a recognition of the truth of this. Bannon gets close sometimes, but I still have my doubts that there is true recognition of just how dire these current circumstances are. In this, people like Ron Paul are right on target - to save the Republic, the Empire and its enabling institutions (like the Fed) must go.

    Uzda Farce -> jeff montanye Nov 20, 2016 10:06 AM ,
    Raytheon, Lockheed and Boeing are corporate sponsors of the Rockefeller/CFR. James Woolsey, Stephen Hadley, John Bolton, Eliot Cohen and John McCain are CFR members. Also Bill Clinton, Janet Yellen, John Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein and George Soros. See member lists at cfr dot org. Cohen, Bolton, Woolsey, and McCain were also members of PNAC.

    Michael Flynn's book "Field of Fight" is co-authored by neocon Michael Ledeen, defender of Israel and promoter of "universal fascism" . Ledeen is a member of the "Foundation for Defense of Democracies" where Trump advisor James Woolsey is chairman. Woolsey, Clinton's ex-CIA director, is also a member of the "Flynn Intel Group".

    Tallest Skil -> Stan522 Nov 19, 2016 10:51 PM ,
    Fuck the Truman Doctrine . We must return to Glorious Isolationism .
    ebworthen -> Tallest Skil Nov 19, 2016 11:08 PM ,
    Yes. Out of NATO, stop the endless pointless wars in the M.E., embrace George Washington and avoiding "foreign entaglements."

    Drain the M.I.C. and bank/corporation/insurer swamp!

    It is about individuals and families, not the vampire squids, trolls, and homunculi that infest the Imperial City.

    "Hang 'em high!"

    Falcon49 -> ebworthen Nov 20, 2016 7:05 AM ,
    Agree...but, easier said than done. A large component of our economy is wholly dependent on government funded MIC and arms sales. Dependency on government spending as large part of our economy has seeped into nearly every aspect of our market place.

    The gov expansion into and control of the economy has so distorted the markets, and created so much dependency that we are now in a situation where without it, our economy collapses. It would take decades to fix this problem without collapsing the economy while you are doing it...

    However, we would still feel the pain as we transition the economy. There is a problem with the long term approach...is that the every attempt will be made to stop such a transition in its tracks. Even if it means world war.

    Raging Debate -> Tallest Skil Nov 20, 2016 6:40 AM ,
    With modern travel and communications neither policy would work any longer but I'll take nationalism. Bottom line on hawks, the budget is busted out! Cant afford guns and butter anymore.

    The empire building has made all but a few a lot poorer and the majority on earth more miserable. I am not naive, I know violence is sometimes necessary, but eternal offence as a strategy ensures enemies will find ways to focus on that top dog and beat you. Beside what I think or believe about foreign policy, it doesn't matter we are broke in affording empire. Period.

    shovelhead -> Raging Debate Nov 20, 2016 8:45 AM ,
    You guys crazy or sumpthin? You want full employment at good wages? All out War is your best bet. No messy "fixing" anything, just flip the switch and off you go. Draft all those troublemakers, turn them into cannon fodder, crank up the printing presses and happy days are here again.

    Only those doped up hippies worry about nukes. Don't listen to them.

    geno-econ -> Stan522 Nov 20, 2016 9:09 AM ,
    Dear President Elect Donald Trump,

    I hear you do not like yo read, but you must read this ZH post that neatly summarizes the NeoCon influence in Wash. which has run it's course with little tangible returns and many negative debt outcomes including loss of millions of lives . Time to change or face world condemnation worse than Germany received after WWII. America has always been regarded as a savior Nation until the Neocons took over Wash. for narrow corporate, DOD and foreign interests.

    You have now heard all the arguments and must decide---compromise will only lead to more strife and possible economic collapse. This is the most important decision of your Presidency ---all other decisions and promises depend on this one.

    Sincerely,

    Mankind

    chosen , Nov 19, 2016 10:43 PM ,
    Fuck those stinking neo-con bastards. We are not going to be fighting Israel's wars again. This is the United States, not Israel, no matter how much jew money controls congress and no matter how much jew money controls the media. I hope Trump understands this very clearly.
    Krungle -> chosen , Nov 19, 2016 11:00 PM ,
    What is with you people? It is almost like Saudi Arabia doesn't exist and doesn't buy our politicians. It is almost as if Hillary Clinton never existed, nor her Saudi asset girlfriend (yes, married to an Israeli asset). Look, if you're going to blame the Jews every time, also blame the Wahhabis. And then you might want to also say fuck you to the British who are responsible for both nations.

    The reason "Islamophobia" is even a thing is because Saudis paid Jewish SJWs to make it a thing, all while they pay WASPs like Bolton to go apeshit on non-Wahhabi Muslims.

    Yes, before you even start, I'm aware of the claims that the Saudis are some sort of "crypto-Jews". Whatever. They need to be named regardless.

    chosen -> Krungle Nov 19, 2016 11:20 PM ,
    I don't recall the US fighting any wars that would directly benefit Saudi Arabia. Sure, the Saudis have a lot of money, but they are just a bunch of camel-fuckers who got rich because they are sitting on oil. They are still a bunch of dumb camel-fuckers. They don't have any nukes. I imagine the Saudis do nothing without the approval of the CIA Israel is a whole different story.
    Falcon49 -> chosen Nov 20, 2016 5:37 AM ,
    Several editions of the Iraq War? Your statement of what they are is moronic.
    MEFOBILLS -> Krungle Nov 19, 2016 11:24 PM ,
    Look, if you're going to blame the Jews every time, also blame the Wahhabis

    Let's deconstruct this statement shall we:

    What does America get, especially the Western Illuminist Bankers? All Saudi Petrodollars are to cycle into Western Capital Market, including Western Banks. Saudi's are to buy TBILLs with their petrodollars. All oil is to be priced in dollars, to then create demand for said dollars. Saudi's do not get to own a powerful financial center. (Can you name me a powerful Saudi bank?)

    Our Jewish friends are not stupid and have been running the money game since forever.

    The Coup for Saudi was actually a British MI6 project. If you trace MI6 back in time, it was an arm of Bank of England. BOE was brought into existence by Jewish Capital out of Amsterrrdaaaamn.

    Wahabism/Salafism has been used since Reagan as a weapon for covert war. Saudi Petrodollars recycle back to the U.S. MIC as they pass through the CIA Hillary Clinton approved very large increases in weapons to the Saudi's especially as they funded the Clinton machine. Clintons are CFR agents, and that has a heavy jewish illuminst influence.

    So- absolutely, the Salafists are on the side of our Illuminist friends.

    The Shites, especially those of Iran/Persia - have had their "funds" absconded with and/or locked up.

    So, which side of Islam has our Jewish Illuminist Cabal masters selected?

    inosent -> MEFOBILLS Nov 19, 2016 11:58 PM ,
    if you can post some reliable source material to support your post I'd like the see it. it generally tracks with my understanding but i could use some solid source material.
    MEFOBILLS -> inosent Nov 20, 2016 12:26 AM ,
    if you can post some reliable source material to support your post I'd like the see i

    Google 1973 Saudi Kissinger deal:

    For BOE the sources are more obscure. I personally have tracked them through time using population statistics and the like. I need to write a book, so I can quote myself.

    BOE, Cromwell, the Orange Kings - the usurpation of England, are all related by way of Stock Market Capital in Amersterdamn. You can trace our Jewish friends arrival in Amersterdamn with their loss of East West Mechanism (silver gold exchange rates on the caravan routes). They lost it to the portuguese when Vasco de Gama discovered the Sourthern route.

    The person who best cataloged these maneuvers was an american Alexander Del Mar - a great monetary historian. Look for his books.

    This stuff will take you years of effort, and I applaud anyone who takes it on.

    MEFOBILLS -> MEFOBILLS Nov 20, 2016 12:33 AM ,
    For the circulation of dollars during Vietnam War, See Hudson's books... especially Super Imperialism

    Dr. Bonzo •Nov 19, 2016 11:04 PM

    The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American foreign policy via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House.

    In what fucking dimension do people this fucking incompetent still have jobs, let alone credibility? Preposterous that they even still have jobs. The US has blown 5-6 trillion on losing one war after the other, has caused massive disorder and chaos in the Mideast to absolutely no one's benefit except Israel, or so Israel believes, and destabilized the entire region to the point that a WWIII could erupt at any moment.

    Disaster and incompetence at this level can only be rewarded with sackings and terminations across the board. But no, not in the US. The public is more preooccupied with fictional racists and Donald's bawdy pussy talk.

    A nation of fucking morons. I swear.

    Victor999 -> Dr. Bonzo •Nov 20, 2016 4:09 AM

    You answered your own question....Israel is the first priority of American foreign policy - always.

    Chaos is precisely what Israel ordered in order to weaken central governments of the ME and destroy their military capability. WWIII? Doesn't matter in the least for Israel who will quietly stand aside and let the goyim fight it out, and then pick up the remains. We're all fucking morons for allowing the Jews to take over our money supply, our government, our intelligence services, our media - and hide themselves under the protective cloak of liberalism, political correctness and 'anti-Semitism' to shut down all rational debate and guard them against 'discriminatory' practices.

    Neochrome •Nov 19, 2016 11:06 PM

    First of all, McStain should STFU, we'll send a nurse to change his depends, no need to get all cranky.

    Giuliani's foreign expertise comes down apparently to be so "brave" to kick down Serbs when they are down and to proclaim to their face that they have deserved to be bombarded.

    Bolton is exactly opposite of everything that Trump campaigned on.

    Again, Mitt doesn't look half-bad considering the alternatives...

    Kagemusho •Nov 19, 2016 11:13 PM

    The Elite always signal their intent through the Traditional Media...like this:
    Empire or Not? A Quiet Debate Over U.S. Role
    by Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, 21 August 2001 https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/empireOrNot.html

    You will find the bastards were planning for war and just needed their Pearl Harbor 2 in order to launch it. The same PNAC, Office of Special Plans NeoCon nutcases that want to get close to Trump were talking so glibly and blithely about 'empire'. I knew even then that this was the Elite signaling intent, and we all know what happened a few weeks later. This article should provide the benefit of hindsight when considering Cabinet postings. These NeoCon Israel-Firster assholes belong in prison for war crimes!

    Salzburg1756 •Nov 19, 2016 11:16 PM

    neocon = Israel-Firster

    If Trump disempowers them, he will be a great/good president.

    the.ghost.of.22wmr -> Salzburg1756 •Nov 20, 2016 12:18 AM

    Trump sure sounds like an Israel-firster. How else could you interpret this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQgDgMGuDI0

    dunce •Nov 19, 2016 11:17 PM

    Trump has been provided an easy litmus test, who has ever advocated deposing Assad must be rejected, not because Assad is such a great guy, but because those who would replace him are radical islamists all. Russia could be cultivated as a friend and do more for world peace than the Arab world which has a fatal jihad disease.

    The Kurds have served our shared interests well , but like all Muslims have no real interest in becoming westernized and will turn on us once they have achieved their goals.

    UnschooledAustr... -> dunce •Nov 20, 2016 1:50 AM

    You are wrong about the Kurds. Besides the Alevites the only sane people in this mess called the islamic world.

    shovelhead -> dunce •Nov 20, 2016 9:35 AM

    The Kurds are an ethnic identity, not a religious one. While most are of an Islamic rootstock, the are Kurds of various religious beliefs. The Kurds are fighting for an autonomous region where all religions can co-exist without one being dominant and forcing others to conform.

    The Kurds problem is they are not physically separated by geography like Sicily, who falls under the Italian State but are still distinctly Sicilian in language and culture while the outside world sees them as Italian.

    The Kurds problem is that someone in Europe drew a line on a map without consulting them whether they wanted their traditional homeland to be divided between three different countries.

    Dabooda •Nov 20, 2016 12:37 AM

    BERNIE SANDERS would be a genius choice for Secretary of State. A kick in the teeth to the Clintonistas and the neocons, an olive branch to liberals of good will, and a hilarious end to the American civil war that the MSM and Soros are trying to drum up. Bernie's foreign policy was the only thing I liked about him.

    sinbad2 -> Dabooda •Nov 20, 2016 1:02 AM

    What a fantastic idea, political genius.

    UnschooledAustr... -> Dabooda •Nov 20, 2016 1:30 AM

    I - non-US citizen living in the US - frequently argued that I would have loved seeing Bernie run as VP for Trump.

    Not a lot of people who got it. You did.

    BTW: Fuck Soros.

    Big Ben •Nov 20, 2016 12:51 AM

    The presidency is more of a ceremonial position now. If the deep state doesn't like the president, it can simply fire him, as it did with Kennedy (and arguably Nixon). It can also make his life a living hell or force a foreign policy showdown as it did with Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs.

    Incidentally, I've been looking at some websites that claim that the 911 attacks could not have happened the way the government claimed. There were actually THREE buildings that collapsed: the North and South Towers and WTC7 which was never hit by an airplane. The government claims it collapsed due to fires, but a whole bunch of architects and structural engineers say that isn't possible. And if you look at the video of the collapse, it looks like a perfect controlled demolition. There have been a number of large fires in steel framed skyscrapers and none of them has caused a collapse. And even if a fire somehow managed to produce a collapse, it would create a messy uneven collapse where the parts with the hottest fires collapse first.

    Controlled demolitions take weeks of planning and preparation. So the implication is that someone planned the WTC7 collapse weeks in advance. WTC7 held a number of offices, including offices of the SEC. Many files were destroyed.

    Also Steven Jones, a retired BYU physics professor and other scientists have found particles of thermite in the dust from the North and South tower collapses. Thermite is an incendiary used to cut steel. This suggests that the collapse of the the North and South Towers was also caused by something other than an airplane collision.

    I have seen claims that GW Bush's younger brother was a high executive in the company that handled WTC security.

    So were the 9/11 attacks a preplanned event designed to create support for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?

    .... ... ...

    [Nov 20, 2016] Most individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling.

    www.moonofalabama.org
    Posted by: Circe | Nov 19, 2016 8:37:46 PM | 23

    95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is a catastrophic error in judgment I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time.

    And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden with the death penalty, if Snowden is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him to find out who he shared intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job. He already stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back from Russia and get the death penalty for treason.

    Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against Assad and wrote this in the Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern of gratuitous and unpunished affronts to U.S. interests,".

    That's not all, Pompeo wants to enhance the surveillance state, and he too wants to tear up the Iran deal.

    Many of you here are extremely naďve regarding Trump.

    b's speculation has the ring of truth. I've often wondered if Trump was encouraged to run by a deep-state faction that found the neocons to be abhorrent and dangerous.

    Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible. Among these were those that spoke of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet.The neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon-unfriendly President was elected.

    Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 10:20:57 PM | 26

    Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result in a shooting war with Iran. The 'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to fund security agencies and buy arms.

    And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a placeholder until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran, and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad as they were before the "peace deal". So all the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly.

    What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military), the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.

    And so it is interesting that those that want to undermine Trump have resorted to the claim that he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't attacked like that before the election, huh?

    The profound changes and profound butt-hurt lead to the following poignant questions:

    >> Have we just witnessed a counter-coup?

    >> Isn't it sad that, in 2016(!), the only check on elites are other elite factions? An enormous cultural failure that has produced a brittle social fabric.

    >> If control of NSA snooping power is so crucial, why would ANY ruling block ever allow the another to gain power?

    Indeed, the answer to this question informs one's view on whether the anti-Trump protests are just Democratic Party ass-covering/distraction or a real attempt at a 'color revolution'.

    [Nov 20, 2016] Speculation: Trump Promotes NSA Boss Rogers To DNI Because He Leaked The Clinton Emails

    Notable quotes:
    "... Putin has been supporting right-wing movements across the West in order to weaken NATO ..."
    "... prepare ourselves ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Speculation: Trump Promotes NSA Boss Rogers To DNI Because He Leaked The Clinton Emails

    If some investigative journos start digging into the issue this story could develop into a really interesting scandal:

    Pentagon and intelligence community chiefs have urged Obama to remove the head of the NSA

    The heads of the Pentagon and the nation's intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.

    The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
    ...
    The news comes as Rogers is being considered by President-Elect Donald Trump to be his nominee for DNI, replacing Clapper as the official who oversees all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower.

    Adm. Michael S. Rogers recently claimed in reference to the hack of the Democratic National Council emails that Wikileaks spreading them is "a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect." He obviously meant Russia.

    Compare that with his boss James Clapper who very recently said (again) that the "intelligence agencies don't have good insight on when or how Wikileaks obtained the hacked emails."

    Emails of the DNC and of Clinton's consigliere John Podesta were hacked and leaked. Additionally emails from Clinton's private email server were released. All these influenced the election in favor of Trump.

    Wikileaks boss Assange says he does not know where the emails come from but he does not think they came from Russia.

    Clapper and Carter wanted Rogers fired because he was generally disliked at the NSA, because two big breaches in the most secret Tailored Access Organization occurred on his watch even after the Snowden case and because he blocked, with the help of Senator McCain, plans to split the NSA into a spying and a cyber war unit.

    Now let me spin this a bit.

    Rogers obviously knew he was on the to-be-fired list and he had good relations with the Republicans.

    Now follows some plausible speculation:

    Some Rogers trusted dudes at the NSA (or in the Navy cyber arm which Rogers earlier led) hack into the DNC, Podesta emails and the Clinton private email server. An easy job with the tools the NSA provides for its spies. Whoever hacked the emails then pushes what they got to Wikileaks (and DCleaks , another "leak" outlet). Wikileaks publishes what it gets because that is what it usually does. Assange also has various reasons to hate Clinton. She was always very hostile to Wikileaks. She allegedly even mused of killing Assange by a drone strike.

    Rogers then accuses Russia of the breach even while the rest of the spying community finds no evidence for such a claim. That is natural to do for a military man who grew up during the cold war and may wish that war (and its budgets) back. It is also a red herring that will never be proven wrong or right unless the original culprit is somehow found.

    Next we know - Trump offers Rogers the Clapper job. He would replace the boss that wanted him fired.

    Rogers support for the new cold war will also gain him favor with the various weapon industries which will eventually beef up his pension.

    Some of the above is speculation. But it would make sense and explain the quite one-sided wave of leaks we saw during this election cycle.

    Even if it isn't true it would at least be a good script for a Hollywood movie on the nastiness of the inside fighting in Washington DC.

    Let me know how plausible you find the tale.

    Posted by b on November 19, 2016 at 02:14 PM | Permalink

    Comments woogs | Nov 19, 2016 2:29:47 PM | 1
    As the song goes, "Aim high, shoot low".

    Not sure about the speculation. There's justification for military spending beyond the cold war. Actually, the cold war could be sacrificed in order to re-prioritize military spending.

    In any case, Trump's proposed picks are interesting. I especially like the idea of Dana Rohrabacher as Secretary of State if it comes to pass.

    One thing for sure .... there's been so much 'fail' with the Obama years that there's an abundance of low-hanging fruit for Trump to feather his cap with success early on, which will give him a template for future successes. That depends largely on who his picks for key posts are, but there has seldom been so much opportunity for a new President as the one that greets Trump.

    It's there to be had. Let's hope that Trump doesn't blow it.

    jo6pac | Nov 19, 2016 2:36:32 PM | 2
    Sounds about right and this just means a new criminal class has taken over the beltway. That doesn't do anything for us citizens, just more of the same.

    Everything is on schedule and please there's nothing to see here.

    Jen | Nov 19, 2016 2:37:52 PM | 3
    I wonder if Rogers' statement appearing to implicate Russian government hackers in leaking DNC information to Wikileaks at that link to Twitter was made after the Democratic National Convention itself accused Russia of hacking into its database. In this instance, knowing when Rogers made his statement and when the DNC made its accusation makes all the difference.

    If someone at the NSA had been leaking information to Wikileaks and Rogers knew of this, then the DNC blaming Russia for the leaked information would have been a godsend. All Rogers had to do then would be to keep stumm and if questioned, just say a "nation state" was responsible. People can interpret that however they want.

    GoraDiva | Nov 19, 2016 2:38:45 PM | 4
    Any of the scenarios you mention could be right. The one thing that is certain - Russia was not the culprit. Not because Russians would not be inclined to hack - I think it is plausible that everyone hacks everyone (as someone said) - but Russians would not likely go to Wikileaks to publicize their prize. They'd keep it to themselves... in that way, they are probably like LBJ, who knew that Nixon had sabotaged the end-of-war negotiations in Paris in 1968, but said nothing for fear of shocking the "system" and the people's trust in it... (didn't work out too well in the end, though). Putin was right when he said (referring to the 2016 US election) that it all should somehow be ... more dignified.

    karlof1 | Nov 19, 2016 2:52:16 PM | 5
    Makes me wonder who populates the Anonymous group of loosely affiliated hackers and if they were used. The tale has probability; it would be even more interesting if the motive could be framed within the hacker's fulfilling its oath of obligation to the Constitution. Le Carre might be capable of weaving such a tale plausibly. But what about the Russia angle? IMO, Russia had the biggest motive to insure HRC wouldn't become POTUS despite all its denials and impartiality statements. Quien Sabe? Maybe it was Chavez's ghost who did all the hacking; it surely had an outstanding motive.

    PavewayIV | Nov 19, 2016 3:14:56 PM | 6
    I'll add some color on Rogers in another post, but I just want to preface any remarks with one overriding aspect of the leaks. From the details of most of these leaks, speculation on tech blogs (and as far as anyone knows for certain):

    There are many parties that had great incentive to acquire and leak the emails, but I have to insist with the utmost conviction (without a string of expletives) that a junior high school kid could have performed the same feat using hacking tools easily found on the internet . There was absolutely nothing technically sophisticated or NSA-like in someone's ability to get into the DNC server or grab Podesta's emails. It was a matter of opportunity and poor security. If anyone has a link to any other reasoning, I would love to see it. The DNC and Hillary leaks (among other hacks) were due to damn amateurish security practices. The reason you don't outsource or try to get by on the cheap for systems/network security is to reduce the risk of this happening to an acceptable cost/benefit level.

    So the presumption of Wikileaks source being (or needing to be) a state actor with incredibly sophisticated hacking tools is utter nonsense. Yes, it could have been the Russian FSB or any one of the five-eyes intelligence agencies or the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. But it could have just as plausibly been Bart Simpson pwning the DNC from Springfield Elementary School and sending everything to Wikileaks, "Cool, I just REKT the Clintons!"

    WikiLeaks doesn't care if the leak comes from the head of a western intel agency or a bored teenager in New Jersey. It cares that the material is authentic and carefully vets the content, not the source. At least until they kidnapped Assange and took over WikiLeaks servers a couple of weeks ago, but that's for a different tin-foil hat thread.

    Carol Davidek-Waller | Nov 19, 2016 3:18:02 PM | 7
    Is Trump that much of a deep thinker? Rebellious teenager who chooses anyone that the last administration didn't like seems more plausible to me. It doesn't matter who they are or what their record is. I don't think Trump plans to surrender any of his undeserved power to anyone. He'll be running the whole show. They'll do what he wants or be shown the door.

    Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 3:42:42 PM | 8
    Here is another tale I find very plausible:

    rufus (aka "rufie") the MoA Hillbot uses a new persona - "Ron Showalter" - to attack Trump post-election. rufie/Ron conducts a false flag attack on MoA (making comments that are pages long) so that his new persona can claim that his anti-Trump views are being attacked by someone using his former persona.

    See here , here , and here .

    nmb | Nov 19, 2016 4:01:23 PM | 9
    One thing Trump could do immediately to signal that he is not with the establishment

    Qoppa | Nov 19, 2016 4:12:16 PM | 10
    I generally dislike "theories" that go too much into speculation, -- however this one sounds actually quite plausible!

    As for "Russia did it", this was obvious bullshit right from the start, not least because of what GoraDiva #4 says:
    I think it is plausible that everyone hacks everyone (as someone said) - but Russians would not likely go to Wikileaks to publicize their prize. They'd keep it to themselves

    Allegations against Russia worked on confusing different levels: hacking -- leaking -- "rigging".


    It was all like this :-)
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwI-ThzWIAApRki.jpg


    This picture encapsulates IMO the full absurdity this election campaign had come down to:
    MSM constantly bashing Trump for "lies", "post-factual", "populist rage", "hate speech", -- while themselves engaging in the same on an even larger level, in a completely irresponsible way that goes way beyond "bias", "preference" or even "propaganda".
    I understand (and like) the vote for Trump mainly as a call to "stop this insanity!"

    ~~~

    Some more on the issue:

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/10/really-really-upset-foreign-office-security-services/
    I left Julian [Assange] after midnight. He is fit, well, sharp and in good spirits. WikiLeaks never reveals or comments upon its sources, but as I published before a fortnight ago, I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not any Russian state actor or proxy that gave the Democratic National Committee and Podesta material to WikiLeaks.


    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/10/russia-hack-dnc-really.html


    And here about an inconspicuous detail suggesting one hacker actually planned to set up "Russians" as the source:
    https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/the-yandex-domain-problem-2076089e330b#

    Nice summary on Sputnik
    https://sputniknews.com/us/201610261046768902-dnc-hack-speculation-carr-interview/


    Qoppa | Nov 19, 2016 4:35:36 PM | 11
    btw, the "inside job" theory goes quite nicely with what we know about alleged traces to "Russians":

    https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/

    The following week, two cybersecurity firms, Fidelis Cybersecurity and Mandiant, independently corroborated Crowdstrike's assessment that Russian hackers infiltrated DNC networks, having found that the two groups that hacked into the DNC used malware and methods identical to those used in other attacks attributed to the same Russian hacking groups.

    But some of the most compelling evidence linking the DNC breach to Russia was found at the beginning of July by Thomas Rid, a professor at King's College in London, who discovered an identical command-and-control address hardcoded into the DNC malware that was also found on malware used to hack the German Parliament in 2015. According to German security officials, the malware originated from Russian military intelligence. An identical SSL certificate was also found in both breaches.

    Sooooo .... these "traces" all show known Russian methods (whether true or not). If they are known they can be faked and used by someone else.


    Now who is the no. 1 organisation, worldwide, in having and being capable to use such information?


    @b, your speculation gets better and better the more one thinks about it.


    IhaveLittleToAdd | Nov 19, 2016 4:58:27 PM | 12
    I'm out of my depth on cyber forensics, but would the NSA, and thus Clapper, know who hacked and leaked these documents? Or would the NSA be in the dark, as they suggest?

    Just watched Oliver Stone's "Snowden". Awesome. Can't believe after seeing it that Clapper has survived all these years. Just another Hoover.

    Posted by: Mina | Nov 19, 2016 5:18:42 PM | 13

    Just watched Oliver Stone's "Snowden". Awesome. Can't believe after seeing it that Clapper has survived all these years. Just another Hoover.

    Posted by: Mina | Nov 19, 2016 5:18:42 PM | 13

    Manne | Nov 19, 2016 6:35:17 PM | 14
    Sheer conspiracy talk, besides b are wrong on Assange, Assange know who leaked it and have denied that a nation is behind it!

    james | Nov 19, 2016 6:50:23 PM | 15
    thanks b.. i like the idea of it being an inside job.. makes a lot of sense too.

    i like @3 jens question about the timing as a possible aid to understanding this better.

    @4 gordiva comment - everyone hacks everyone comment..ditto. it's another form of warfare and a given in these times..

    i agree with @6 paveway, and while it sounds trite, folks who don't look after their own health can blame all the doctors.. the responsibility for the e mail negligence rests with hillary and her coterie of bozos..

    @7 carol. i agree.

    @8 jr.. did you happen to notice a few posts missing from the thread from yesterday and who it was that's been removed? hint : poster who made the comment "more popcorn" is no longer around. they have a new handle today..

    @20 manne.. you can say whatever you want and be speculative too, but i don't share your view on assange knowing who leaked it..

    stumpy | Nov 19, 2016 7:00:28 PM | 16
    Except that you have to consider the targeting. I've suspected an insider all along, given the pre-packaged spin points coordinated with the release vectors. Not that the Russies, Pakistanis, or Chinese wouldn't know more about the US than the US knows about itself, but the overall nuance really hits the anti-elitist spurned sidekick chord. This clashes a bit with b's interagency pissing match scenario, but, then again, you step on the wrong tail... Someone didn't get their piece of pie, or equally valid, someone really really disapproves of the pie's magnitude and relative position on the table.

    Curious how Weenergate led to the perfectly timed 650K emails on that remarkably overlooked personal device.

    MadMax2 | Nov 19, 2016 7:01:17 PM | 17
    @20 Manne
    Yes I think on this case Assange does know, if I remember correctly, he spoke to RT and said something to the effect of 'it's not Russia, we don't reveal our sources but if the DNC found out who it was they would have "egg on their faces"' ...and easy access, copy, paste, send job, my hunch it was the DNC staffer who was suicided.

    Manne | Nov 19, 2016 7:05:51 PM | 18
    James

    Its what Assange himself says, do your homework, as someone else said here, Wikileaks wont reveal the source, that doesnt mean they dont know who leaked it.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 19, 2016 7:05:53 PM | 19
    Is Trump that much of a deep thinker? Rebellious teenager who chooses anyone that the last administration didn't like seems more plausible to me. It doesn't matter who they are or what their record is. I don't think Trump plans to surrender any of his undeserved power to anyone. He'll be running the whole show. They'll do what he wants or be shown the door.
    Posted by: Carol Davidek-Waller | Nov 19, 2016 3:18:02 PM | 7

    I agree.
    Trump's got charm and a good memory and doesn't need to be a deep thinker in order to network efficiently and listen carefully. Nor does he need to be a mathematician to figure out that 1 + 1 = 2.

    james | Nov 19, 2016 7:07:22 PM | 20
    @24 manne.. okay, thanks..

    Oddlots | Nov 19, 2016 7:32:04 PM | 21
    Has anyone else got the feeling that much of the panic inside Washington is due to the possibility that the crimes of the Obama administration might be exposed?

    One of the most uncanny moments I've experienced watching the Syria crisis unfold is seeing the "Assad gasses his people" operation launched, fail miserably, then - mostly - interest is lost. I know: the lie, once asserted, has done most of its work already, debunked or not. I also understand that the western press is so in the tank for the establishment, so "captured" that it shouldn't surprise anyone that no follow up is offered. My point is, rather, that if you think back over just the Ukrainian and Syrian debacle the amount of dirt that could be exposed by a truly anti-establishment figure in the White House is mind boggling.

    Just off the top of my head:

    - the sabotage of the deal to save the Ukrainian constitutional order brokered by Putin, Merkel and Hollande c/o of the excuisitely timed and staged sniper shootings (otherwise known as the "most obvious coup in history")
    - the farce that is the MH17 inquiry (and the implication: another false flag operation with a cut-out that killed, what was it, 279 innocents?)
    - the Kherson pogrom and the Odessa massacre
    - the targeting of both Libya and Syria with outright lies and with all the propaganda perfectly reflecting the adage that, in dis- info operations, the key is to accuse your enemies of all the crimes you are committing or planning to
    - highlights of the above might include: Robert Ford's emails scheming to create "paranoia" in Damascus while completely justifying same; the "rat-lines" and Ghoutta gas operation; the farcically transparent White Helmets Psy-op *

    And on and on...

    If you or the institution that pays you had a closet full to bursting with skeletons like this and you were facing an incoming administration that seems to relish and flaunt it's outsider status wouldn't you be freaking out?

    To ice the cake the latest Freudian slip is the crusade against "fake news." Seriously, if I were in their shoes that's the last phrase I would want people ruminating over. I think it was R. D. Laing who said "we always speak the truth." One way or another.


    * This comes with the delicious irony that the operation's own success offers proof of the adage that sometimes you can succeed too well. The fact that the Omran photo was plastered across every paper in the west is good evidence of how completely "fake" our news has become. My favourite is this farcical interview between Amanpour and Lavrov: https://youtu.be/Tx8kiQyEkHc

    MadMax2 | Nov 19, 2016 7:53:11 PM | 22
    @27 Oddlots
    Most of those are pretty easy picking under a firm rule of law - plenty of underling rats willing to squeal with even gentle pressure, I'm sure.

    His legacy is horrific.

    Obama taught constitutional law for 12 years... It would be sweet, sweet poetry to see him nailed... his 'white papers', formed in secret courts that no one can see, no oversight in the light of day... phony legal documents that allowed him to incinerate fellow humans via drone without charge, without trial...

    Some brother, some nobel prize...

    Circe | Nov 19, 2016 8:37:46 PM | 23
    95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is a catastrophic error in judgment I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time.

    And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden with the death penalty, if Snowden is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him to find out who he shared intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job. He already stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back from Russia and get the death penalty for treason.

    Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against Assad and wrote this in the Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern of gratuitous and unpunished affronts to U.S. interests,".

    That's not all, Pompeo wants to enhance the surveillance state, and he too wants to tear up the Iran deal.

    Many of you here are extremely naďve regarding Trump.

    Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 8:53:09 PM | 24
    James @21 I noticed the different handle but b hasn't commented on the attack. I assumed that this meant that b didn't know for sure who did the attack.

    As I wrote, rufus/Ron made himself the prime suspect when he described the attack as an attempt to shut down his anti-Trump message. Some of us thought that it might be a lame attempt to discredit rufus but only "Ron" thought that the attack was related to him.

    If one doesn't believe - as I do - that Ron = rufus then you might be less convinced that rufus did the deed.

    Gaianne | Nov 19, 2016 9:43:45 PM | 25
    @20 Manne--

    Yes, it is important to remember that Assange, though he did not state that he knew who provided the DNC emails, implied that he did, and further implied--but did not state--that it was Seth Rich. Assange's statement came shortly after Rich's death by shooting. Assange stated he specifically knew people had people had risked their lives uploading material, implying that they had in fact lost them.

    --Gaianne

    Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 10:20:57 PM | 26
    b's speculation has the ring of truth. I've often wondered if Trump was encouraged to run by a deep-state faction that found the neocons to be abhorrent and dangerous.
    Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible. Among these were those that spoke of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet.The neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon -unfriendly President was elected.

    Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result in a shooting war with Iran. The 'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to fund security agencies and buy arms.

    And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a placeholder until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran, and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad as they were before the "peace deal". So all the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly.

    What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military) , the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.

    And so it is interesting that those that want to undermine Trump have resorted to the claim that he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't attacked like that before the election, huh?

    The profound changes and profound butt-hurt lead to the following poignant questions:

    >> Have we just witnessed a counter-coup?

    >> Isn't it sad that, in 2016(!), the only check on elites are other elite factions? An enormous cultural failure that has produced a brittle social fabric.

    >> If control of NSA snooping power is so crucial, why would ANY ruling block ever allow the another to gain power?

    Indeed, the answer to this question informs one's view on whether the anti-Trump protests are just Democratic Party ass-covering/distraction or a real attempt at a 'color revolution'.

    ben | Nov 19, 2016 11:33:40 PM | 27
    Plausible as hell b.

    b said also.."Rogers support for the new cold war will also gain him favor with the various weapon industries which will eventually beef up his pension."


    That's the long game for most of the "Hawks" in DC. Perpetual war is most profitable.

    And, that game transcends both parties.

    Circe | Nov 19, 2016 11:52:44 PM | 28
    @32

    What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military), the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.

    Oh please! Trump is stacking his cabinet with Iran-obsessed Islam haters! Nominal enemy , my ass! And was every candidate for spending a Trillion more on defense??? Did you even read Trump's plan to build up the military?

    You do Netanyahu proud with your deflection. What? Nothing regarding Pompeo's blistering comments on Russia or Ed Snowden?

    Why are you trying to diminish the threat to Iran with the hawks, Islam-haters, and Iran-obsessed team that Trump cobbled together so far?

    Trump's Israel adviser David Friedman is known to be more extreme than even Netanyahu.

    No doubt Netanyahu has unleashed an army of IDF hasbara to crush criticism of Trump and his Iran-obsessed cabinet because he must be elated with his choices and wants to make them palatable to the American sheeple.

    Netanyahu is the first leader Trump spoke with on the phone. Trump praised Netanyahu from day one. PNAC and Clean Break were war manifestos for rearranging the Middle East with the ultimate goal of toppling Iran.

    Trump and his cabinet are all about tearing up the deal and assuming a much more hostile position with Iran. Tearing up the deal is a precursor to a casus belli. What more proof is there that Trump is doing the bidding of Zionist Neocons??? Oh, but you don't want more, do you?

    Your comment reeks of duplicity and sophistry.

    psychohistorian | Nov 20, 2016 1:28:45 AM | 29
    I always try to "follow the money" concept.

    As chipnik noted in a comment, Iran is one of the only countries that is yet to be under the control of private finance (see my latest Open Thread comments, please)

    I personally see all this as obfuscation covering for throwing Americans under the bus by the global plutocrats. The elite can see, just like us, that the US empire's usefulness is beyond its "sold by" date and are acting accordingly. America and its Reserve Currency status are about to crash and the elites are working to preserve their supra-national private finance base of power/control while they let America devolve to who knows what level.

    Too much heat and not enough light here...or if you prefer, the noise to signal ratio is highly skewed to noise.

    psychohistorian | Nov 20, 2016 1:31:46 AM | 30
    And in support of my noise to signal comment there is this comment I made recently in the MoA Fake News posting:

    So is this real or fake news? Trump meeting with folks this week to expand his personal business interests in India....EGAD!

    http://www.ebhsoc.org/journal/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/6/6

    Crimes involving moral turpitude have an inherent quality of baseness, vileness, or depravity with respect to a person's duty to another or to society in general.

    Given the above Trump would not be allowed to immigrate to the US.....just saying...

    Manne | Nov 20, 2016 3:50:10 AM | 31

    Assange: No state actor behind the leak.
    http://fortune.com/2016/11/03/julian-assange-wikileaks-russia-podesta-emails/

    the pair | Nov 20, 2016 3:55:42 AM | 32
    the shadowbrokers say they have NSA malware/tools and to prove it after their auction was met with crickets riding tumbleweeds they released some teaser info on NSA servers used for proxy attacks and recon. of course a few just happened to be "owned" boxes in russia (and china and some other places for that matter). add their russian IP addresses to some (mostly useless) sigantures associated with supposedly russian-designed malware and you've got some good circumstantial evidence.

    also: an email address associated with one or more attacks is from a russian site/domain but whoever registered was directed to the .com domain instead of the .ru one. this probably means someone got sloppy and didn't remember to check their DNS for fail.

    in general these hacks look less like russians and more like someone who wants to look like russians. the overpaid consultants used by the DNC/clinton folks can put "bear" in the names and claim that a few bits of cyrillic are a "slam dunk" but all the "evidence" is easily faked. not that anyone in the "deep state" would ever fake anything.

    Harry | Nov 20, 2016 5:35:50 AM | 33
    @ Jackrabbit | 26

    Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran.

    I worry about it as well. Trump said he'll tear up nuclear agreement, and the people he is choosing also have rabid anti-Iranian agenda.

    Nice start for Trump:

    Thursday US House voted to stop civilian aircraft sales to Iran by both Boeing and Airbus.

    Few days before - US extending economic sanctions against Iran through 2026.

    Of course Trump can block it, but will he? Even if he does, he might blackmail Iran for something in return, etc. Iran is by no means off the hook for neocons and Israel, and I wouldnt be surprised if Trump follows the suit.

    Trump will (or might) have better relations with Russia, but this cordiality doesnt extend to Iran. Or as Jackrabbit says, US neocons will simply switch the targeted state and Iran may soon become "worse threat to humanity than ISIS", again.

    FecklessLeft | Nov 20, 2016 7:12:24 AM | 34
    @33

    I doubt separating the animosity towards Russia and Iran is even possible. Truth be told his comments towards Russia during the election seemed more like he was woefully unaware of the reality of the Russo-American situation in the Mideast than about being ready to negotiate major US power positions and accept Russia as anything more than enemy. Sounded very off the cuff to me. Maybe he thought he'd 'get along great with Putin' at the time but after realizing later that means making nice with Iran and giving up a large measure of US influence in the MENA he has reconsidered and taken the party line. It'd certainly be understandable for a noncareer politician. I'd imagine he'd be more interested now in currying favour with the MIC and the typical Republican party hawks than with Russia/Putin given his statements on military spending. Back when I saw him bow down at the altar of AIPAC earlier in the season I had trouble reconciling that with how he hoped to improve relationships with Russia at the same time given their radical differences wrt their allies. He's made a lot of those type of statements too, it was hard to read where he stood on most any issue during election season.

    I imagine as he's brought into the fold and really shown the reality of how US imperialist power projection he'll change his mind considerably. I think we, as readers and amateur analysts of this type of material, take for granted how hard some of this knowledge is to come by without looking for it directly. When we hear someone is going to make nice with Russia we want to think "well he says that as he must surely recognize the insanity and destructive forces at work." Maybe it's more of a case where the person speaking actually thinks we're in Syria to fight ISIS - that they have very little grasp of how things really work over there.

    In my eyes the names he's been considering are reason for much worry for those hoping Trump would be the one to usher in a multipolar world and end the cold war. I never had much hope in that regard (but I'm still praying for the best).

    Oui | Nov 20, 2016 7:45:56 AM | 35
    Figment of imagination ...

    Putin has been supporting right-wing movements across the West in order to weaken NATO

    Care to back this statement with arguments, examples ar a link to an excellent article?

    Looking at most of "New Europe", it's the other way around ... fascist states allied with Nazi Germany against communism, participating in massacres of Jewish fellow citizens and functioning as a spearhead for US intelligence against communism after the defeat of Nazi Germany – see Gladio. Now used by the CIA in the coup d'état in Ukraine in Februari 2014.

    Ahhh ... searched for it myself, a paper written earlier in 2016 ... how convenient!

    Putinism and the European Far Right | IMR|

    The paper, authored by Alina Polyakova , Ph.D., deputy director of the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council , was originally presented at the 2015 ASEEES Annual Convention.

    Policy set by the Atlantic Council years ago: make Russia a pariah state . Written about it many times. BS and more western propaganda. The West has aligned itself with jihadists across the globe, Chechnya included. Same as in Afghanistan, these terrorists were called "freedom fighters". See John McCain in northern Syria with same cutthroats.

    Absolutely outrageous! See her twitter account with followers/participants Anne Applebaum and former and now discredited Poland's FM Radoslaw Sikorski .

    Pitiful and so uninformed!

    Posted earlier @BT - To the Stake .. Burn the Heretic

    Yonatan | Nov 20, 2016 7:58:10 AM | 36
    "Emails of the DNC and of Clinton's consigliere John Podesta were hacked and leaked. Additionally emails from Clinton's private email server were released. All these influenced the election in favor of Trump."

    Not necessarily so. An informal poll of people in blue collar flyover country about their voting intentions prior to the election expressed 4 common concerns

    i) The risk of war.
    ii) The Obamacare disaster especially recent triple digit percent increase in fees.
    iii) Bringing back jobs.
    iv) Punishing the Democrat Party for being indistinguishable from the Republicans.

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/when-shouting-stops.html

    Newsboy | Nov 20, 2016 8:23:05 AM | 37
    Fascists usually start off doing a lot of good work in the honeymoon-period.
    Here we go!

    Jackrabbit | Nov 20, 2016 9:03:25 AM | 38
    Circe @28

    We shouldn't take Trump's bluster at face value. For example, Trump said that he'd eliminate Obamacare. Now he has backed off that saying that some elements of Obamacare are worthwhile.

    Trump called for a strong military while attacking Hillary as "trigger happy" . The implication is clear - Trump would not be looking for wars like Hillary would.

    That the Israeli head of state is one of the first foreign leaders that any President-elect speaks to is no surprise. That you harp on what is essentially nonsense is telling.

    In my view Trump is not anti-Jewish. He is anti-neocon/anti-Zionist. As Bannon said, America has been getting f*cked.

    john | Nov 20, 2016 9:18:04 AM | 39
    Oddlots @ 21 says:

    To ice the cake the latest Freudian slip is the crusade against "fake news."

    i see it more as another mindfucking meme than a Freudian slip. another paean to Discordia, the goddess of chaos. we've lived with 'fake news,' heretofore advertised by reliable sources , since forever. baptizing this bastardized melange only sinks us deeper into dissonant muck.

    Jules | Nov 20, 2016 10:12:03 AM | 40
    One would hope if that is true - Trump recognises this and fires him as well rather than promoting him.

    However, if he were instrumental in getting Trump elected it is understandable if Trump decided to promote him.

    It's well-known and clear Trump rewards those who have done him favours.

    Let us hope it is not true.

    The first thing Trump must do when elected is declassify all material related to MH17. This can be done in late January/ February as one of his first orders of business.

    It's important to do this quickly - at least before the Dutch Elections in March 2017.

    #MH17truth

    If Trump does this he will do a number of things.

    1 - Likely reveal that it was the Ukrainians who were involved in shooting down MH17. I say likely because it's possible this goes deeper than just Ukraine - if that's the case - more the better.

    2. He will destroy the liar Porky Poroshenko and his corrupt regime with him. He will destroy Ukraine's corrupt Government's relationship with Europe.

    3. He will destroy the sell-out traitor to his own people Mark Rutte of Netherlands. This will ensure an election win for a key Trump ally - Geert Wilders.

    If Rutte is discredited for using the deaths of 200 Dutch citizens for his own political gain - he is finished and might end up in jail.

    4. He will destroy Merkel utterly. Her chances of re-election (which she just announced she will stand!) will be utterly destroyed.

    5. He will restory Russia-USA relations in an instant.

    Trump must also do this ASAP because this is the kind of thing that could get him killed if he doesn't do it ASAP when he's inaugurated.

    Of course - until then - he should keep his mouth shut about it - but the rest of us should be shouting it all around the Internet.

    #MH17truth
    #MH17truth
    #MH17truth
    #MH17truth
    #MH17truth

    Then - after that - he can move to do the same for September 11.

    MH17 must come first ASAP because of the Dutch Elections and the chance to remove that globalist traitor to his own people Rutte.

    Denis | Nov 20, 2016 10:19:43 AM | 41
    b: "Let me know how plausible you find the tale."

    Very, very, very plausible. Yes! (Fist-pump)

    And very well documented, too. Sort of like the theory that 9/11 was carried out by the Boy Scouts of America. After all, the boost in jingoism and faux-patriotism gave the BSA a boost in revenue and membership, so that pretty well proves it, eh?

    And if you dig deep enough I'm sure you'll find that on 9/10 the BSA shorted their stocks in United.

    Yo! (Double fist-pump)

    Jules | Nov 20, 2016 10:35:24 AM | 42
    Re: Posted by: Oddlots | Nov 19, 2016 7:32:04 PM | 21

    Totally agree Oddlots and that is why Trump must be on the front foot immediately.

    Exposing MH17 and destroying Poroshenko, Rutte & Merkel - and Biden & Obama by the way and a bunch of others is absolutely key.

    Blow MH17 skyhigh and watch Russia-USA relations be restored in a nanosecond.

    It will be especially sweet to watch the Dutch traitor to his own people Rutte destroyed in the midst of an election campaign such that he might end up in jail charged with treason and replaced by Geert Wilders - the Dutch Donald Trump if ever there was one - within a matter of weeks.

    However, a word of caution, it is precisely because of these possibilities that there has to be a high chance Trump will be assassinated.

    Pence would not walk that line. Not at all.

    There is no doubt Trump's life is in danger. I hope he has enough good people around him who will point the finger in the right direction if and when it happens.

    Because frankly I doubt it.

    juliania | Nov 20, 2016 10:37:15 AM | 43
    I think it's a bit of a stretch. First of all, there are other, deeper areas of investigative matters concerning previous governments of the US, impeachable offenses and international crimes - remember when Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table? Not to mention, what did happen in Benghazi and why? It wouldn't matter who did that hacking of those emails- it's a bit like the exposure of the White House tapes in Nixon's presidency. We didn't worry about who revealed that - we went to the issues themselves. I think that is what Trump is doing as he brings people to his home for conversations. It is the opposite of Obama's 'moving forward, not looking back'. Trump is going to look back. It's not about reinstating the cold war; it's about gathering information.

    Do we want another Obama? I don't think so.


    Jules | Nov 20, 2016 10:43:57 AM | 44
    Re: Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 10:20:57 PM | 26

    I think Saudi Arabia are the ones who should be scared. Trump has implied before he knows who is responsible for September 11.

    My guess is he wants to expose Saudi Arabia and the Bush Family.

    Ever wondered why the Bushes hate and appear frightened of Trump? Because they understand he will expose their complicity in September 11 and potentially have them locked up.

    Or perhaps he'll let Dubya off claiming he didn't know in return for a favour and lock up Dick Cheney instead. Quite possible.

    The Saudis will get thrown down the river and lose any assets they hold in US Dollars - a significant amount I believe!

    Sucks to be a Saudi Royal right about now - they better liquidate their US assets ASAP if they have any brains.

    lysias | Nov 20, 2016 10:49:04 AM | 45
    Retired UK ambassador Craig Murray said on his Web site, after meeting with Assange and then traveling to Washington where he met with former NSA officials, that he was 100 percent sure that Wikileaks's source was not the Russians and also suggested that the leaks came from inside the U.S. government.

    lysias | Nov 20, 2016 10:52:19 AM | 46
    Pursue the truth about 9/11, and you'll also find guilty paties in Israel (as well as Pakistan). Is Trump willing to do that?

    lysias | Nov 20, 2016 10:54:41 AM | 47
    Guilty parties

    Jules | Nov 20, 2016 11:02:05 AM | 48
    Re: Posted by: lysias | Nov 20, 2016 10:52:19 AM | 46

    That would seem to be the truth wouldn't it, but I doubt he'd go that far down the rabbit hole? How would that serve him?

    He'd go as far down as Saudi Arabia & Pakistan - and yes, that would serve his purpose for "enemies".

    It would also serve Israel's interests. I can't imagine he'd go as far as to expose Israel - why would he? His life would then be in danger!

    james | Nov 20, 2016 11:49:01 AM | 49
    @24 jr.. i found the rs guy to be quite repugnant..rufus never came across quite the same way to me, but as always - i could be wrong! i see pac is gone today and been replaced with another name, lol.. and the beat goes on.. b has deleted posts and must be getting tired of them too.

    @31 manne.. thanks.. does that rule out an insider with the nsa/cia as well?

    @34 fecklessleft.. i agree with your last paragraph..

    @36 yonatan.. i agree with that alternative take myself..

    @40 jules.. would be nice to see happen, but most likely an exercise in wishful thinking.. sort of the same with your @44 too.. the saudis need to be taken down quite a few notches.. the usa/israel being in bed with the headchopper cult has all the wrong optics for suggesting anything positive coming from usa/israel..


    Robert Beal | Nov 20, 2016 12:04:35 PM | 50
    #1 election story, from 3 (indirectly 4) separate investigative journalists.

    Also, see Sputnik comments at bottom of:

    https://sputniknews.com/radio_the_bradcast/201611171047576289-us-election-exit-polls/

    h | Nov 20, 2016 12:11:40 PM | 51
    b says 'Next we [can speculate] - Trump offers Rogers the Clapper job. He would replace the boss that wanted him fired.' There, fixed it.

    There appears to be a growing canyon in the intelligence world with some wanting to rid the Office of the National Intelligence agency altogether, while others are lobbying for it to remain.

    Recall the 50+ intelligence analysts who went on record that the higher ups within the spying apparatus were cooking the books on Syria and the Islamic State - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html

    Remember when Obama referred to the rise of the Islamic State as the 'JV team'? That nonchalant attitude by Obama towards the growing threat of the head choppers in Iraq and Syria was squarely placed on senior management within the intelligence community -

    "Two senior analysts at CENTCOM signed a written complaint sent to the Defense Department inspector general in July alleging that the reports, some of which were briefed to President Obama, portrayed the terror groups as weaker than the analysts believe they are. The reports were changed by CENTCOM higher-ups to adhere to the administration's public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda's branch in Syria, the analysts claim."

    Who knows, Rogers may very well have been one in senior management who encouraged these 50 analysts to come forward. Maybe the IG investigation is wrapping up and at least internally, the senior management who made intel reports to Obama full of 'happy talk' have been identified and are now leaving on their own.

    Maybe Rogers is a 'White Hat' as is being suggested by the CTH - https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/11/19/shadow-fight-angst-within-obama-admin-as-intel-community-white-hats-align-w-trump/

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 1:25:22 PM | 52
    @38

    We shouldn't take Trump's bluster at face value. For example, Trump said that he'd eliminate Obamacare. Now he has backed off that saying that some elements of Obamacare are worthwhile.

    For crying out loud! I don't give a rat's ass about Obamacare when he outlined a plan to boost the military by a trillion dollars and stacks his cabinet with crazy Iran-obsessed hawks who want to start a world war over effing Iran! And you're deflecting this with freakin' Obamacare -- It's speaks volumes about your credibility!

    Trump is anti-Zionist??? Ha! His adviser to Israel David Friedman is an extreme right-wing Zionist! Or do you just prefer to completely ignore fact and reality???

    And Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo can't stand Putin and their comments and record are there - FACT!

    And Trump didn't only tell Hillary he was going to build up the military; he outlined it later in his plan with facts and figures and it's going to cost about a Trillion dollars, so quit comparing it to a gradual phasing out of Obamacare!

    Okay, you know what? I see right through your little game. Unless you have something cogent with factual backup; I don't wanna read your responses based on pure fantasy and deflection. I look at the cold, hard facts and reality. I look at who Trump is surrounding himself with rabid Islam-haters obsessed with going after Iran and extremist Zionist loons and hawks like Pompeo and Pence making disturbing comments on Russia and Snowden and Trump's plan. So quit pretending you're not trying to obscure fact with fiction meant to deceive!

    Quadriad | Nov 20, 2016 1:37:31 PM | 53
    #23 Circe

    "...and not a regular war where 300,000 people die..."

    - Regular? So, you're calling an aggression on Syria just a 'Regular' war, on par with the course? The very least the Americans have to do, including those given the 'Nobel Peace Prize' (a bloody joke if there ever was one)? And those regular wars are needed to, what, regularly feed and the US MIC Beast? So... Obama and Hillary were just getting on with the inevitable?

    Your other observations regarding Pompeo are more meaningful, but I think you underestimate the power of groupthink under the Clinton-Bush-Obama continuous administration complex. Anyway, if Pompeo doesn't wish to get "reassigned", he might be better off unmounting the neocon horse mindset and getting on better with the Tea Party dogma, where the enemies of thy enemies are more likely to be seen as friends then frenemies.

    #34 Feckless Left

    In a sense you are right, he is not a career politician and he might be underestimating the depth of the abyss. Yet, he has far more street cred than you seem to be giving him credit for. An honest, naive idealist, he is certainly not...

    Lozion | Nov 20, 2016 1:51:14 PM | 54
    Circe, I have addressed your panic about Iran in another thread and you failed to reply so again:

    "Even if true that the future administration would shift its focus against Iran, what can they accomplish militarily against it? Nought. SAA & ISA would send militias to support Iran, nothing would prevent Russia from using Hamedan airbase just as it uses Hmeimim and deploy S-400 et al systems to bolster Iran's already existing ones. Plus on what grounds politically could they intervene? Nobody is buying Bibi's "Bomb" bs seriously anymore. Forget it, with Syria prevailing Iran is safe.."

    Jackrabbit | Nov 20, 2016 1:57:06 PM | 55
    @Circe

    If Trump is so friendly with Zionists, why did they go crazy when Bannon was named as a senior adviser?

    And, neocon angst about the Trump Administration is well summed up by Cohen's tweet :

    After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly.

    S.H.E. | Nov 20, 2016 2:03:31 PM | 56
    Oddlots #21. insightful. you ignored the entire list on the financial side, but they are linked through the profound mutual support between Israel and Wall Street.

    I have been really surprised at the lack of discussion of BHO's impromptu post-election tour of Germany and Greece. It seems to me Egypt flipped and it was met with silence, because WashDC must be secured before the neocons can respond. But the two countries that are game-set-match are Germany and Greece. The Greek navy with German support is a great power in the Mediterranean. How convenient to keep them at each other's throats for a decade. I think BHO was trying desperately to keep them onside. But he would either have to promise them something that he can no longer deliver after Jan 20th...or he has to clue them in to a different timeline than the one we think is playing out. Anyone have a idea why the Prez had to go and talk to Merkel and Tsipras *without intermediaries?*

    Nick | Nov 20, 2016 2:22:33 PM | 57
    Today Putin meeting Obama in Peru. Like, you lost nigga!
    https://cdnbr2.img.sputniknews.com/images/623/35/6233517.jpg

    TheRealDonald | Nov 20, 2016 2:47:05 PM | 58
    28

    Having now founded a central bank in every nation of the world, the Khazars have defeated the Pope and the Caliphate. Only Iran and North Korea don't have a Khazar central bank. And only Iran has the last stash of crown jewels and gold bullion that the Khazars don't already control.

    They want Iran as part of Greater Israel, and they hate Russia for driving them out after the fall of the Soviet Union. The Khazars control the American Union under a Red/Blue Star. Just talking ethnics, not race, religion or creed, since Hebrew is a religion of pure commercial convenience for the Khazars.

    US and IL are therefore aligned against IR and RU. Now we can get rid of all the race, religion or creed crap, and talk New Math set theory: {US,IL} ≠ {IR,RU}

    Who are {US,IL} sanctions against? {IR,RU}. In this new Trump' Administration: {TA} ⊆ {US,IL}, and {TA} ⊄ {IR,RU}. From a chess perspective, Putin just got Kieningered, because the Khazars would have everyone believe that {TA} ❤ {RU}, when in reality, {TA} ∩ {RU} = {Ř}.

    On to {IR}!!

    ben | Nov 20, 2016 2:55:01 PM | 59
    I'm fully expecting a radical change in rhetoric coming from Mr. Trump and his new team, but little else. The REAL movers and shakers who run the U$A have everything moving their direction right now, so why change? I expect "the Donald" to do as he's
    told, like every other POTUS in modern history. They'll let him screw the workers, but, not the REAL owners of the U$A( 1%).

    TheRealDonald | Nov 20, 2016 2:59:20 PM | 60
    55

    You don't know? Before he died, my father told me a trick. Once the bloom was off their marriage, his wife would deliberately provoke his heavy-handed management of the family, by doing whatever he didn't want. So he learned to always 'go crazy' over things, knowing that's exactly what she would do to spite him, ...and in that way, using 'reverse psychology', the Khazars would have you believe that they hate Trump, and Trump loves Russia. They're just putting the Maidan gears into motion.

    Like taking c__ from a (ಥ‸ಥ).

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 3:14:41 PM | 61
    If Trump is considering Mitt Romney for SoS then you can bet his policy towards Russia will be hostile because the only reason Trump would put someone between himself and Putin, who repeatedly called Russia, America's No. 1 enemy, is because he wants a bad cop on Russia in the State Department, in spite of his supposed good cop remarks regarding Putin. In other words, he wants someone who can put it straight to Putin so he himself can pretend to be the good cop. If Trump were being honest regarding a softening in policy with Russia do you really believe he would ever consider someone like Romney for SoS??? Again, Mitt Romney has made the most scathing comments of anyone against Putin, and then calling Russia the number one geopolitical enemy of the U.S. . Many on the Democratic and even Republican side felt he went overboard and many have since called his comment prophetic and today Romney feels vindicated.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/30/romney-again-makes-case-russia-most-dangerous-foe-amid-syrian-air-strikes.html

    Many analysts on the Democratic side and Republican side are calling Romney prophetic since he made that statement on Russia before Russia messed with U.S. plans for Syria.

    So, my point is this; it's possible, it's very possible that, Mike Pompeo, Trump's choice for CIA Director, who also has a hostile position towards Russia asked Trump to consider Romney because he know doubt also believes that Romney proved good foresight with that comment regarding Russia and urged Trump to give Romney a meeting.

    My 2nd point is this: quit trying to make Trump into what he's not when he's spelling it all out for you in black and white!

    It doesn't look good. This picture that's starting to develop is looking worse by the day. Look at who he's surrounding himself with; look at his actions and forget about his words. This man has sold ice to the eskimos in his business dealings. Look at the facts. Trump is not who you think he is and just because he made some comments favorable in Putin's regard doesn't mean he's not going to turn around and stick it to Putin a year or maybe a few years down the line. Kissinger told Fareed Zakaria today on GPS: One should not insist in nailing Trump to positions he took during the campaign.

    I already wrote that I believe Trump is using this fake softer strategy to get Russia to look sideways on a coming Resolution to invade Iran and then he's going to deal with Putin and Russia.

    If Trump picks someone like Romney for State; he'll have 3 individuals in the most important cabinet positions dealing with foreign policy and foreign enemies who will be hostile to Russia: VP, CIA Director and SoS. Therefore he would be sending his bad cop to deal with Russia and sending a message to Putin like: Don't put your money on whatever I said during the campaign, my positions are changing for the empire's benefit and strategic interests. And even if he doesn't choose Mitt, because on Breitbart where his base convenes they're up in arms about this meeting, I would still be wary of his direction because of the picks he's made already; the majority of his cabinet so far want war with Iran and his VP and CIA Director can't stand Putin and then looking at who's advising him, rabid Neocon Zionists like James Woolsey and David Friedman.

    Look at what Trump does, who he's meeting with, who he's choosing to surround himself with and quit hanging on what he said, because talk is cheap, especially coming from someone who's now in the inner circle of American power.

    @55

    Please don't give me one measly Cohen tweet as fact! The entire Zionist Organization of America came to Bannon's defense and he will be attending their gala! It's been made public everywhere; so quit obscuring the truth.

    @54

    Yes, Russia could come to Iran's defense considering Iran allowed for Russia's use of that air base for Syria and rescued one of the two Russian pilots shot down by Turkey, and is fighting al-Nusra shoulder to shoulder with Russia, but the empire has something up its sleeve to stop Russia from coming to the defense of Iran, should the U.S. and Israel decide to circumvent the Security Council. Something stinks; Trump is top loading his cabinet with crazy, Iran-obsessed hawks and his VP and CIA Direct also have no love for Putin. They're planning something against Iran and I know they're going to do something to tie Putin's hands. Something's up and it's going to lead to war beyond Syria. Look the Russians are already depleting resources in Syria; already that puts Russia in a weakened position. I don't know what they're planning but it's not good. The picture unfolding with Trump's cabinet is very disturbing.

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 3:35:38 PM | 62
    There's another aspect and maybe it's significant and maybe not that could influence a change in Trump's position on Russia that would have also made him take the extreme step of meeting with Romney while considering the SoS position. Trump is getting the highest level of security briefings now that he's President-elect. You wanna bet that Russia and Putin are mentioned in over 50% of those briefings and ISIS, Iran and others get the other 50% collectively???

    Jackrabbit | Nov 20, 2016 3:41:53 PM | 63
    @Circe

    Hasbara hysteria to undermine Trump. Unrelenting bullshit and innuendo.

    What was Bannon talking about when he said that America is getting f*cked? Globalism vs. Nationalism. Who equates nationalism with nazism? Zionists. Who is butt-hurt over Trump Presidency? Zionists and neocons.

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 3:47:15 PM | 64
    @63

    Unrelenting bullshit and innuendo.

    Yep, describes your weak deception to a T! ...like I'm going to hang on Bannon's word as gospel when he's going to be wining and dining with Zionists at the ZOA gala.

    Try again.

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 3:54:39 PM | 65
    Oh, and one more thing: Zionists, FYI, relate very well with nationalists and supremacists since they got their own nationalist, supremacist operation in ISRAEL! So I'm only too sure they'll be commiserating and exchanging ideas on how best to secure their nationalist, supremacist vision for the empire. There's a whole lot of common ground for them to cover during the gala, and YOU CAN'T AND DIDN'T DENY THAT BANNON IS ATTENDING THE ZIONIST GALA! Did you???

    So again, quit dogging me, quit presuming I'm some undercover hasbara, that maybe you are, and spare me the bullshit.

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 4:59:44 PM | 66
    As if we didn't need anymore proof of where Trump is taking the U.S.: Trump tweeted a comment highly praising General James Mattis after their meeting considering him for Secretary of Defense. This is a major, major red flag signalling a very troubling direction in Trump's foreign policy.

    Mattis served for two years as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. Although, he served under Obama, he was against the Iran deal and considers Iran more dangerous that ISIS!

    Mattis is nicknamed "mad-dog mattis" for a reason: he is an extreme hawk and he is MIC incorporated.

    But here's the kicker, Mattis like Pompeo, Pence and Romney has also made blistering comments against Russia, stating that Putin wants to break up NATO, sent "dogs and thugs" into Georgia and has been very critical of Putin's actions in Ukraine and Syria.

    At the beginning of the primaries, Neocons wanted Mattis as a candidate for the Presidency on the Republican side. I like how the following article describes just how much Neocon war hawks salivated over the thought of Mattis in the White House:

    http://original.antiwar.com/daniel-mcadams/2016/04/25/neocons-panting-president-mad-dog-mattis/

    Well folks, Mattis, the darling of Neocons, will be in the White House next to Trump advising him on war strategy! And worst of all this mad-dog Neocon war hawk is going to run the Pentagon, oversee a trillion-dollar military expansion and command the next world war!

    So are you convinced yet that Trump is perpetuating the Neocon PNAC/Clean Break plan or are you still totally blind???

    Harry | Nov 20, 2016 5:17:23 PM | 67
    More and more troubling news from Trump camp and his party, but lets not make snap judgements. We'll see soon enough.

    jfl | Nov 20, 2016 5:24:10 PM | 68
    @34 fl, 'In my eyes the names he's been considering are reason for much worry for those hoping Trump would be the one to usher in a multipolar world and end the cold war. I never had much hope in that regard (but I'm still praying for the best).'

    Trump is in it for Trump. He's a solipsist. We and our 'real world' doesn't exist for Trump. He lives in Trump Tower. The only things he cares about are his personal interests. He'll put in people to 'run the government' who will insulate him and his interests from the consequences of their actions and that'll keep him happy and them in their jobs, no matter the consequences for our 'imaginary' real world. We're back to the mad Caesars. Our government has been steadily walking away from us since Bush XLI. It's on the run now, we're up to Nero. We 'barbarians' need to take care of our real world in its absence, prepare ourselves to pick up the pieces when it's become so unrecognizable that it's finally disappeared.

    [Nov 20, 2016] The Great Con: Political Correctness Has Marginalized the Working Class

    Nov 20, 2016 | www.oftwominds.com

    November 18, 2016

    So when the protected class of well-paid institutional "progressives" speak darkly of "reversing 40 years of social progress," what they're really saying is we're terrified that the bottom 95% might be waking up to our Great Con of identity politics and political correctness.

    To understand the Great Con of political correctness, we must first grasp the decline of the working class (self-described as "the middle class") , i.e. those who must sell their labor to earn their livelihood.

    Labor's share of the national economy has been declining for 46 years:

    So where has the wealth that's been generated ended up? In the hands of the .1%:

    And where did the wages gains end up? In the top 5% technocrat/ managerial class:

    And what is the technocrat/ managerial class response to this staggering decline in wealth and wages suffered by the bottom 95%? Political correctness.

    Let's look at political correctness and identity politics through the lens of class warfare and class consciousness . Those enjoying enormous gains in wealth and income have a problem: they must fragment and distract the bottom 95% who have lost income and wealth to the top 5%, lest the bottom 95% realize:

    1. We have lost the undeclared economic war

    2. We have more in common economically with others in the bottom 95% than we do with our neofeudal technocrat/ managerial overlords.

    This unifying class consciousness would threaten the wealth, power and perquisites of the neofeudal technocrat/ managerial class, so they had to undermine an economic awareness of class.

    They found the perfect weapon in identity politics and political correctness. What better way to fragment the working class than to carve it into cultural subclasses that could be manipulated into declaring war on each other?

    What better way to mask the collapse of working class political agency than to distract the bottom 95% with fake-Progressive double-speak about "empowerment," "safe spaces" and "micro-aggression"?

    The heart of the Great Con of identity politics and political correctness is a tragic irony: the more wealth, income and power that slip through the fingers of the bottom 95%, the more their overlords rely on social "empowerment," as if a "safe space" on campus is a substitute for real political and economic agency.

    That's the Great Con of political correctness: using worthless speech acts about empowerment to distract the working class from its disempowerment in the real world. No amount of "safe space" and happy talk about empowerment can replace meaningful opportunities for economic security and advancement--precisely what is abundant for the protected technocrat/ managerial class and scarce for the unprotected 95% that's been sold down the river.

    The propaganda beauty of class-consciousness-destroying political correctness is its deceptive claim of "progressive." If you set out to design the perfect tool to enforced neofeudalism (the political and economic dominannce of the protected few at the expense of the exploited many), you'd choose an Orwellian fake-Progressive agenda of cultural fragmentation and conflict that undermines any class consciousness of shared economic disempowerment.

    This is why the protected technocrat/ managerial class is freaking out about Trump's victory: the inchoate sense that the few have profited at the expense of the many is an expression of an emergent class consciousness that has the potential to threaten the neofeudal dominance of the New Nobility and its self-serving technocrat/ managerial class.

    So when the protected class of well-paid institutional "progressives" speak darkly of "reversing 40 years of social progress," what they're really saying is we're terrified that the bottom 95% might be waking up to our Great Con of identity politics and political correctness .

    [Nov 20, 2016] Trouble Ahead With Trump and For Him by Andrew Levine

    Notable quotes:
    "... The good news is that Hillary Clinton won't be starting World War III. Also, at least for now and probably forever, we are rid of the two most noxious political families in recent American history, the Bushes and the Clintons. ..."
    "... For this, thank Donald Trump. Remember him on Thanksgiving Day. ..."
    "... The Clintons didn't do the Bushes in; Trump did. Then, a few months later, he took care of the Clintons. Three cheers to him for that! ..."
    "... Will any more good come from the Donald's doings? The prospects are dimming. But if he does try to deliver on some of the positions he took during the campaign, there is a chance. ..."
    "... And his views on relations with Russia and China, regime change wars, and imperial overreach, as best they can be ascertained, are a lot wiser and less lethal than hers. These are not so much left-right issues as matters of common sense. ..."
    "... Clinton's overriding concern was and always has been to maintain and expand American world domination - in the face of economic decline, and at no matter what cost. Trump wants, or says he wants, to do business with other countries in the way that he did with sleaze ball real estate moguls and network executives, people like himself. He wants to make deals. ..."
    "... Better that, though, than a foreign policy dedicated to keeping America the world's hegemon. That is the foreign policy establishment's aim; it is therefore Clinton's too. It is the way of perpetual war. Trump's way is far from ideal, but it is less wasteful, less onerous and less reckless. ..."
    "... During the campaign, Trump would sometimes speak out against banksters and financiers, especially the too-big-to-fail and too-big-to-jail kind. For some time, though, the "populist" billionaire has been signaling to his class brothers and sisters in the financial "industry" that he is more likely to deregulate than to regulate their machinations. ..."
    "... Many of the rich and heinous were skeptical of Trump's candidacy at first; because he is such a loose cannon. But now that he has won, the bastards are sucking up; and glee is returning to Wall Street. ..."
    "... Trump is now starting too to allay the fears of the movers and shakers of the National Security State. He still has a way to go, however. We can therefore still hope that they are right to worry. What is bad for them is good for the country. ..."
    "... Clinton's defeat also seems to have unnerved their counterparts in European capitals, at NATO headquarters in Brussels, and in Japan, South Korea and other countries where the presence of the American military has been very very good for the few at the top, and disastrous for ordinary people. ..."
    "... Trump may not be quite the "isolationist" that some people think, but he has said repeatedly that the countries America "protects" should pay their own way. ..."
    "... Then there is Israel. Trump thinks that the blank check the ethnocratic settler state already gets from the United States isn't nearly enough. So much for allies paying their own way! ..."
    "... However, even if Trump leaves America's perpetual war regime and its military alliances intact, some good could come just from him being at the helm – not so much because, as a wheeler and dealer, he would be less inclined actually to start wars than has become the norm, but because he is vile enough, and enough of an embarrassment, to undermine America's prestige, hastening the day when the hegemon is a hegemon no more. ..."
    "... This is "exceptional," all right, but not in the way that exponents of "American exceptionalism" like Obama and Clinton have in mind. Perhaps their commitment to that illusion has something to do with the zeal with which those two, along with many others, are now promoting a fallback position. ..."
    "... Obama especially has been trumpeting the claim that, in the Land of the Free, when an election is over and the incumbent – or, as in this case, the continuator of his "legacy" - is out, we Americans transfer power not just peacefully but also cordially. Since this is the norm in much of the world these days, since there is nothing "exceptional" about it, it is not clear how this makes our "democracy" a model for the world. But leave that aside. ..."
    "... Whatever the explanation, it was remarkable how he had taken it upon himself to make nice with Trump even before the dust had settled. What a feat of moral and psychological abasement! ..."
    "... After all, the Donald has never had a kind word to say about the President; indeed, his line, from Day One, has been that Obama's presidency is illegitimate. ..."
    "... As it turned out, Hillary, the role model, is teaching a less edifying lesson: that when you flub badly, blame everybody but yourself. What a piece of work that woman is! If FBI Director James Comey had done nothing that she could blame her failure on, it would be Jill Stein or Julian Assange, or most likely (and most far-fetched) of all, Vladimir Putin - anybody but her or her husband or the corporate-infested rotting hulk that the Democratic Party has become. ..."
    "... The neoliberal world order that the Clintons did so much to fashion, and that Hillary was poised to take over and extend, is heading for a crash. Americans had better watch out. There are no soft landings for hegemons that insist on continuing to dominate the world after their time has passed. ..."
    "... A soft landing would be a blessing, though – for the peoples of the world and for the American people. It would spare a lot of people a lot of grief. ..."
    "... Until its Clintonism is expunged that opposition is not the Democratic Party. Far too many liberals, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren among them, thought that it was – and look where that got us. ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org

    The good news is that Hillary Clinton won't be starting World War III. Also, at least for now and probably forever, we are rid of the two most noxious political families in recent American history, the Bushes and the Clintons.

    For this, thank Donald Trump. Remember him on Thanksgiving Day.

    Thank corporate media too. They loved Hillary, but they loved advertising revenue more; and the Donald was a godsend for their bottom lines. They showered him with enough free publicity to elect a dozen buffoons.

    Not long ago, when only the tabloids were reporting on Trump, it looked like the 2016 election would be a Hillary versus Jeb Bush affair that would do in one or the other of their respective dynasties, but not both.

    It didn't work out that way, however. The Clintons didn't do the Bushes in; Trump did. Then, a few months later, he took care of the Clintons. Three cheers to him for that!

    ***

    Will any more good come from the Donald's doings? The prospects are dimming. But if he does try to deliver on some of the positions he took during the campaign, there is a chance.

    ... ... ...

    On trade policy, though, job creation, and infrastructure development, the positions Trump took during the campaign beat anything Hillary promised. Trump outflanked her from the left.

    And his views on relations with Russia and China, regime change wars, and imperial overreach, as best they can be ascertained, are a lot wiser and less lethal than hers. These are not so much left-right issues as matters of common sense.

    Clinton's overriding concern was and always has been to maintain and expand American world domination - in the face of economic decline, and at no matter what cost. Trump wants, or says he wants, to do business with other countries in the way that he did with sleaze ball real estate moguls and network executives, people like himself. He wants to make deals.

    The Trump way is, as they say, "transactional." The idea is to wheel and deal on a case-by-case basis, with no further, non-pecuniary end in view.

    In the real estate world and in network television, that would mean wringing as much money out of each transaction as possible. What it would mean in world affairs is unclear – except perhaps to those who think that "making America great again" isn't meaningless cant.

    Better that, though, than a foreign policy dedicated to keeping America the world's hegemon. That is the foreign policy establishment's aim; it is therefore Clinton's too. It is the way of perpetual war. Trump's way is far from ideal, but it is less wasteful, less onerous and less reckless.

    During the campaign, Trump would sometimes speak out against banksters and financiers, especially the too-big-to-fail and too-big-to-jail kind. For some time, though, the "populist" billionaire has been signaling to his class brothers and sisters in the financial "industry" that he is more likely to deregulate than to regulate their machinations.

    This will become even clearer once Trump settles on key Cabinet posts and on his economic advisors. It is already plain, though, that the modern day counterparts of Theodore Roosevelt's "malefactors of great wealth" have little to fear; they and Trump are joined by indissoluble bonds of class-consciousness and solidarity.

    Many of the rich and heinous were skeptical of Trump's candidacy at first; because he is such a loose cannon. But now that he has won, the bastards are sucking up; and glee is returning to Wall Street.

    There is no doubt about it: whoever voted for the Donald for "populist" reasons is an out and out chump.

    Trump is now starting too to allay the fears of the movers and shakers of the National Security State. He still has a way to go, however. We can therefore still hope that they are right to worry. What is bad for them is good for the country.

    Clinton's defeat also seems to have unnerved their counterparts in European capitals, at NATO headquarters in Brussels, and in Japan, South Korea and other countries where the presence of the American military has been very very good for the few at the top, and disastrous for ordinary people.

    Trump may not be quite the "isolationist" that some people think, but he has said repeatedly that the countries America "protects" should pay their own way.

    If he means it, then more power to him. The United States and the rest of the world would be well rid of the American dominated military alliances now in place; NATO most of all. However, having talked with him, Obama is now telling the Europeans that Trump is fine with NATO. Time will tell.

    Then there is Israel. Trump thinks that the blank check the ethnocratic settler state already gets from the United States isn't nearly enough. So much for allies paying their own way!

    However, even if Trump leaves America's perpetual war regime and its military alliances intact, some good could come just from him being at the helm – not so much because, as a wheeler and dealer, he would be less inclined actually to start wars than has become the norm, but because he is vile enough, and enough of an embarrassment, to undermine America's prestige, hastening the day when the hegemon is a hegemon no more.

    This would be good for most Americans, and good for the world.

    The election he won has already done a lot to explode the idea, more widely believed at home than abroad, that American "democracy" is somehow a model for the world.

    What an odd idea! Leaving aside the inordinate influence of private money - political corruption that a "conservative" Supreme Court regards as Constitutionally protected free speech - and the fact our two major parties have concocted an electoral duopoly system that stifles even mildly reformist political expression, in what kind of model can Clinton garner at least two million more votes than Trump yet still lose the election?

    More glaringly undemocratic yet, Democrats routinely garner more votes than Republicans in House and Senate races, but only sometimes control either chamber. In the final years of the Obama presidency, Democrats controlled neither one. A fine model indeed!

    When he, like everyone else, was sure that he would lose, Trump would rail against how the system is "rigged." It was rigged – by Clinton and Company against Bernie Sanders. It was hardly rigged against Trump; at least not in any way that mattered. Quite to the contrary, the system worked to Trump's advantage to such an extent that, unlike Hillary, he didn't need to cheat.

    And what a system it is! After wasting prodigious quantities of money, time, and effort over more than a year and a half, it produced a contest between two of the most appalling and unpopular candidates ever to disgrace the political scene.

    This is "exceptional," all right, but not in the way that exponents of "American exceptionalism" like Obama and Clinton have in mind. Perhaps their commitment to that illusion has something to do with the zeal with which those two, along with many others, are now promoting a fallback position.

    Obama especially has been trumpeting the claim that, in the Land of the Free, when an election is over and the incumbent – or, as in this case, the continuator of his "legacy" - is out, we Americans transfer power not just peacefully but also cordially. Since this is the norm in much of the world these days, since there is nothing "exceptional" about it, it is not clear how this makes our "democracy" a model for the world. But leave that aside.

    Perhaps Obama had no overriding propaganda purpose in mind, and was only being gracious. Whatever the explanation, it was remarkable how he had taken it upon himself to make nice with Trump even before the dust had settled. What a feat of moral and psychological abasement!

    After all, the Donald has never had a kind word to say about the President; indeed, his line, from Day One, has been that Obama's presidency is illegitimate. Trump launched his campaign for the White House by championing birther nonsense, and it has been all downhill from there.

    Nevertheless, if Obama wants to take the high ground, he should go for it. As Hillary's campaign ads made clear, children need role models who are as unlike Trump as can be. Obama won't be fooling anybody about the "exceptional" magnanimity of American democracy; that ship sailed long ago. But a class act on his part now might at least be good for the kids.

    Obama is better positioned for that than Hillary, even though one of the few remotely plausible arguments for voting for her was that a woman President would be good for little girls – because it would show them that, like little boys, they could someday achieve the highest office in the land. Trump cut the ground out from that argument too - by devaluing the office.

    As it turned out, Hillary, the role model, is teaching a less edifying lesson: that when you flub badly, blame everybody but yourself. What a piece of work that woman is! If FBI Director James Comey had done nothing that she could blame her failure on, it would be Jill Stein or Julian Assange, or most likely (and most far-fetched) of all, Vladimir Putin - anybody but her or her husband or the corporate-infested rotting hulk that the Democratic Party has become.

    ***

    The neoliberal world order that the Clintons did so much to fashion, and that Hillary was poised to take over and extend, is heading for a crash. Americans had better watch out. There are no soft landings for hegemons that insist on continuing to dominate the world after their time has passed.

    A soft landing would be a blessing, though – for the peoples of the world and for the American people. It would spare a lot of people a lot of grief.

    Is it possible that, through sheer inadvertence, Trump could get us there? It is too soon, at this point to say what the chances are, but, by Inauguration Day, if not before, we should have a good idea.

    Since Trump knows little and cares less about governance, and since he is unfit for the job the Electoral College will bestow upon him, it will be up to the people he appoints to do, or not do, what he said he wanted to do during the campaign.

    On that score, the news so far has been, to say the least, troubling.

    Being as sure as everyone else that Trump would lose and therefore that they were not harming their careers by dissing the Donald – that they were instead making a cost free political statement that would benefit their careers in the long run - nearly all the usual suspects that a Republican President-elect might call upon when setting up a new administration rejected Trump a long time ago. Predictably, many of them want back in now, but the Donald is nothing if not vengeful.

    Therefore Trump's "transition team" will have no choice but to scrape the very bottom of the barrel. Even Sarah Palin has been mentioned. Even John Bolton.

    We already now that Reince Priebus of the RNC, the Republican National Committee, will be Trump's Chief of Staff and that Stephen Bannon, of Breitbart News, champion of the white nationalist "alt-right," will be his "chief strategist and senior counselor" - one mainstream mediocrity and one shameless epigone of "the darker angels of our nature," as a later-day Lincoln might call them.

    Eight years ago, when Obama's appointments also seemed hard to make sense of, pop historians would go on about how, like Lincoln, Obama, in his infinite wisdom, was assembling "a team of rivals." So far, no one has found anything similarly complimentary to say about what Trump and his inner circle are up to. The news oozing out of Trump Tower is too repugnant to spin.

    And the reasons for this are too evident to hide. They stem from Trump's egomania and insecurity. He is therefore now doing what others like him in similar circumstances have done before: making loyalty not just the main thing, but the only thing.

    ***

    Too bad for the Donald that governments are bigger and more multi-faceted than real estate operations. The "deep state" must be fed, and there aren't nearly enough people around who have a clue about what needs to be done whose loyalty Trump doesn't doubt.

    The evidence suggests too that Trump considers himself too important to worry about anything but the "commanding heights" of his administration; and that he is eager to delegate the authority to pick and choose underlings. If that authority can be delegated to someone he so far trusts, and whose office carries an air of political legitimacy, then so much the better.

    Enter Mike Pence.

    In recent years, it has become practically an axiom of American presidential politics that by their choices of Vice Presidents, ye shall know them.

    Anyone who is not quite sure what a dodo John McCain is, should reflect on Sarah Palin. And as if the support Obama got from Wall Street and corporate media wasn't enough to show which side he was on, his choice of Joe Biden for a running mate ought to have sealed the deal.

    Did Hillary really take a progressive turn, as she and her handlers wanted people to think when they still feared the wrath of Sanders' supporters? By picking Tim Kaine to run with her, she settled that question. How more eloquently could she have expressed contempt not just for people feeling the Bern, but also for everyone less retrograde than she!

    The best that can be said of the Vice President-elect, who famously described himself as "a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican in that order," is that he is a rock solid reactionary - in the Dick Cheney mold, with a little of Scott Walker, Wisconsin's union busting Governor, thrown in.

    That, after kicking Chris Christie out, Trump chose him to head his transition-team, suggests that the Trump administration will be less disruptive of ordinary Republican imbecility than those of us who are looking for silver linings in Trump's victory would like.

    We who underestimated the enormity of Hillary Clinton's ineptitude, and who still can't quite understand how any Democrat, even she, could lose to Donald Trump, were, and are, of one mind with Trump voters on that: many of them too were hoping that Trump would destroy or mortally wound the GOP. We will have to wait a while longer for that now.

    Ironically, the silver lining is that now the onus will be on Trump – for having given the Republican Party new life. That should teach those Trump voters who thought they were sending a message to the GOP establishment. It should also cause them to turn on Trump sooner than Clinton voters would have turned on her, and a lot sooner than millions of Obama supporters came to realize how wrong-headed Obamaphilia was.

    By winning, Trump has placed himself in an untenable situation.

    He cannot even begin to implement the agenda his base thought he would while relying only on his children and the handful of Republicans he knows and doesn't have it in for. But neither can he throw himself on the mercy of the establishment Republicans he ran against. That would go against his every instinct; and, as a man without principles or convictions, instincts are all he has.

    Also, it would cost him his base.

    He therefore has no choice but to muddle on as best he can, disappointing everyone.

    Obama ended up disappointing a lot of people too. When he ran in 2008, the people who voted for "hope" and "change" found that what they got was the same old same old.

    Now many Trump voters want change. They have fewer illusions; they don't expect their candidate to usher in a Golden Age; few of them even like the Donald. All they wanted was not Hillary and in her stead something, anything, different from what Democrats and Republicans have been handing them for as long as they could remember. They too will find that what they voted into office was what they thought they were voting out.

    Therefore, they too will despair and, when the time comes, revolt. But it will be worse this time because the President they voted into office is dangerously unhinged. Whatever else he may be, Obama is cautious, thoughtful, and emotionally mature; Trump, though shrewd and adept at self-promotion, is an ignoramus with the emotional maturity of a teenage boy.

    When the people who put him in office realize this, as they very soon will, watch out!

    Don't feel sorry for him, though. Whether or not his villainy is heartfelt or only a huckster-politician's gimmick, he merits all the condemnation his detractors can muster.

    And although many of the people who voted for him felt that there was no other way to tell the political class how justifiably pissed off they are, don't feel sorry for them either.

    Corporate media and the Commission on Presidential Debates and the National Committees of the Democratic and Republic Parties saw to it that most voters wouldn't take third party alternatives seriously, even if they somehow found out about them at all.

    But to express contempt for Hillary, they didn't have to vote for Trump. For example, they could have voted only in down-ticket contests, and not for President; or they could have not voted at all. Better that than voting for someone associated, fairly or not, with nativism, racism and Islamophobia.

    ***

    The tragic fact is that our democracy, or lack of it, made "deplorables" of us all. Trump enthusiasts are the worst, though, for different and less reprehensible reasons, Clinton enthusiasts too have a lot to answer for too. So do all the lesser evil and faute de mieux voters on both sides. And so do those who didn't bother to vote, whether out of conviction, indifference or laziness, and those of use who put integrity above efficacy by voting, as I did, for Jill Stein, or for Gary Johnson.

    Once it became clear that the election would be between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, all was lost. Even trying to jack up the Stein vote to the point where the Greens could get federal funding next time around was a fool's errand. This was clear from the moment Bernie Sanders made good on his pledge to support the Democratic ticket. Those of us who thought otherwise were deceiving ourselves.

    In the circumstances, is there anything to do now except put it all behind us and move on?

    The answer is emphatically Yes.

    The first order of business now is to do all we can to protect the people whose vulnerability Trump exploits and endangers: Muslims and undocumented Latinos, above all; to fight back in solidarity with them – against Trump and his minions and against the miscreants in the larger society whose nativism, racism, Islamophobia, homophobia and sexism Trump has unleashed.

    If Trump starts deporting people, the deportations must do all we can to stop him - by any means necessary. If he starts registering Muslims, we must insist on being registered too.

    We must never lose sight, however, of the underlying cause of the Trump phenomenon – the Clintonite (neoliberal, liberal imperialist, anti-working class) turn in American, especially Democratic Party, politics.

    Without making the mistake of going over to the opposite extreme, by forsaking the progressive side of identity politics, the Clintonite turn must be reversed, as quickly and definitively as possible.

    And so, the struggles ahead must be waged simultaneously on two fronts: in the first instance, against reactionaries of the Trumpian sort and against reactionary Trumpian initiatives, but also against the politics of Hillary and Bill and those who think like them.

    Each day brings news of opposition in the streets; and plans are afoot for massive demonstrations around Inauguration Day. This is all well and good. But it must not be forgotten that when there are no effective means for achieving political ends, actions become merely expressive, and often turn out badly. Even when the level of repression is minimal, there is always a backlash; and, when militant energies are exhausted, quiescence generally follows.

    Therefore act, but also think! And learn not just from experience, but also from the enemy.

    House and Senate Republicans are, as a rule, more loathsome than their Democratic Party counterparts, and they are not the brightest bulbs on the tree. But, through sheer obstinacy, they were able to prevail over a popular, albeit weak, President, and to block all but his most timid initiatives.

    The emerging anti-Trump resistance can learn a lot from their example.

    Needless to say, House and Senate Democrats are ill equipped to do anything of the sort; they are worse than useless. Many, maybe most, of them are no less politically retrograde than their Republican counterparts, and they are all a lot less capable of keeping a President at bay through obstinacy alone.

    But if they will not, or cannot, follow the lead of their Republican colleagues, "we, the people" can.

    We can obstruct, obstruct, and obstruct some more.

    But with a difference! House and Senate Republicans wanted only to cause Obama's presidency to fail. We can do better than that.

    Insofar as his administration actually does do some of the comparatively progressive things that Trump promised it would, "we, the people" should support it, even as we do our best to keep Trump and his followers from succumbing to their nefarious, quasi-fascist inclinations.

    There is no time to lose. It is very likely that Trump's team, once it takes shape, will start off with some spectacularly execrable displays of malice – intended to show that the Donald is indeed a man of his word.

    Trump has already said that he intends, right off, to deport some two to three million "illegal" aliens.

    Had Deporter-in-Chief Obama been taken on in the past, stopping Trump now would be a less daunting task. But it can still be done – if the opposition is sufficiently militant and united.

    Until its Clintonism is expunged that opposition is not the Democratic Party. Far too many liberals, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren among them, thought that it was – and look where that got us.

    The opposition now, though huge, has no party – except perhaps the Greens, and they are still too marginal to count. Rectifying this situation is a matter of the utmost urgency, nearly as important, even in the short run, as defending the victims of the new order that the failed, Clintonized Democratic Party has foisted upon us. Join the debate on Facebook

    ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). More articles by: Andrew Levine

    [Nov 20, 2016] Trumps Appointment of Pompeo as CIA Chief is Major Fail

    Notable quotes:
    "... Thank you for this very good link. The swamp cant be drained with an election, the society has been infested and corrupt beyond redemption. There can't be a revolution either, because no charismatic figure could lead it, and the majority of the people prefer to bury their head in the sand. ..."
    "... It'd be nice to think that the coming devolution won't be an exact repeat, e.g. a neo-Dark Age for hundreds of years, but who can say? Maybe science and philosophy won't be entirely lost this time around. But of course all speculation is rendered nul and void IF we have WW3 ..."
    "... If Trump appoints any vetted neocons to high positions in his administration, he runs the risk of synchronized resignations if he decides to move closer to Russia. ..."
    "... Fake Libertarians need to understand that Radical islam is a problem not because of America's wars in the Middle East or NATO. Radical islam is inherently violent. India has been a victim of this virus since the 8th century! India never invaded any country. ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    CorneliuCodreanu Nov 20, 2016 1:30 AM ,

    Trump's Appointment of Pompeo as CIA Chief is Major Fail

    http://www.newnationalist.net/2016/11/20/trumps-appointment-of-pompeo-as...

    jfb CorneliuCodreanu Nov 20, 2016 8:42 AM ,
    Thank you for this very good link. The swamp cant be drained with an election, the society has been infested and corrupt beyond redemption. There can't be a revolution either, because no charismatic figure could lead it, and the majority of the people prefer to bury their head in the sand.

    What will eventually happen is an economic implosion and chaos. The "elite" won't be able to finance a repressive force since their "electronic money" will not be trusted, and everything will fall apart.

    And years after, small communities will gradually re-emerge since there will be a need to protect the people with a local police force. But the notion of a super-state or even more of a NWO will not survive, after an initial depopulation we'll have something similar than what you had at the begining of the middle age, a life organized around small independant comunities of 3,000 or 5,000 people.

    Setarcos jfb Nov 20, 2016 9:54 AM ,
    Very close to my thinking ... and a precedent is the demize of the Roman Empire, when Europe devolved into numerous small feudal regions, such as in England for over a thousand years, i.e after numerous internal wars, such as the Wars of the Roses and the reign of Henry VIII, it wasn't until the 1600s and the so-called "Enlightenment" that England was unified ... and it wasn't until the 1700s that Scotland was conquered and "Great Britain" existed, also having incorporated Wales and Ireland, with at least Eire having gained independence during the 1920s, Wales never being really integrated, nor Scotland now moving away from the centre of the whole shebang ... London always.

    It'd be nice to think that the coming devolution won't be an exact repeat, e.g. a neo-Dark Age for hundreds of years, but who can say? Maybe science and philosophy won't be entirely lost this time around. But of course all speculation is rendered nul and void IF we have WW3 despite, or because(?) of Trump and similar phenonema in the West.

    francis scott f... Nov 20, 2016 2:09 AM ,

    BE CAREFUL, MR TRUMP

    If Trump appoints any vetted neocons to high positions in his administration, he runs the risk of synchronized resignations if he decides to move closer to Russia.

    And when that is picked up by the arch deceivers at the WaPo, NYT, WSJ etc, it will be embarrassing for Mr Trump and for the foreign policy he campaigned on.

    Lynn Trainor francis scott falseflag Nov 20, 2016 5:53 AM ,
    Mr. Trump, please move closer to Russia - Putin has longed for sane dialogue with the US for the last 8 or more years and has gotten the cold shoulder.
    GraveDancer Nov 20, 2016 3:24 AM ,
    Fake Libertarians need to understand that Radical islam is a problem not because of America's wars in the Middle East or NATO. Radical islam is inherently violent. India has been a victim of this virus since the 8th century! India never invaded any country.

    Islam fundamentally is incompatible with a modern society.

    [Nov 20, 2016] Whether it is criminal to aid Al Qaeda terrorists – who also happen to be the enemy in the war on terror – may be a decision for courts

    mondoweiss.net
    Bandolero November 18, 2016, 5:35 pm
    With well-known blogger Jennifer Rubin Trump also raises red flags with his Flynn pick. She writes :

    Flynn's personal testiness, unhinged zealousness, rash judgment and anti-Muslim hysteria echo Trump's deficiencies.

    As far as I remember Jennifer Rubin was always a great friend of Muslims, wasn't she?

    So, what's going on? Maybe with his statement that the creation of an ISIS caliphate in Syria and Iraq happened due to a "willful decision" in Washington he hasn't made himself not only friends? I think that he wants to talk with Russia couldn't be it, because virtually nobody I know would prefer throwing nuclear missiles at each other instead.

    For people not familiar with Flynn I think an interview with Flynn by Sophie Shevardnadze from about a year ago can give some answers on what kind of worldview Flynn holds:

    https://youtu.be/4RIUE68cpGc Log in to Reply

    Bandolero November 18, 2016, 9:00 pm
    Trumps pick of Flynn not only raised red föags with Jennifer Rubin, but with the Washington Post "Editorial Board" aka Fred Hiatt, too. The Post's View it's called, the title is " Trump has made some dangerous appointments ," under the title is a picture of Flynn and then the Washington Post states:

    Mr. Flynn has attracted attention with his rhetorical assaults on Islam and Muslims. He has described Islam as not a religion but a "political ideology" that hides "behind what we call freedom of religion." He once tweeted that "Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL." the appointments of Mr. Flynn and Mr. Pompeo suggest a turn toward policies that could deeply alienate U.S. Muslim allies, including Sunni states whose assistance is critically needed to forge political alternatives to the terrorists in Iraq and Syria The general has accepted payment from the Russian propaganda network RT, and his consulting firm has lobbied for a businessman close to Turkey's autocratic president.

    So, if I may summarize that stance of the Washiongton Post. Mike Flynn is so anti-islamic, that he "could deeply alienate U.S. Muslim allies, including Sunni states whose assistance is critically needed to forge political alternatives to the terrorists in Iraq and Syria" – and his biggest sins are being on RT and lobbying for Erdogan – who happens to be the president of the most important U.S. Muslim ally, and of course Turkey is a Sunni majority state.

    The Washington Post can't decide: is Flynn ugly because he's anti-muslim or is he ugly because he's too cozy with muslim president Erdogan. It seems to me proof that the neocon Washington Post is hiding why they are really against Flynn.

    But I think I know a part of why the Washington Post is so much against Flynn. It's this story, and all what's linked with it: Former DIA Chief Michael Flynn Says Rise of Islamic State was "a willful decision" and Defends Accuracy of 2012 Memo . Flynn didn't shut up on this, even when pressed.

    Whether it is criminal to aid Al Qaeda terrorists – who also happen to be the enemy in the war on terror – may be a decision for courts. But I remember well the chants of "Lock her up" and it looks to me some people are scared it could happen – and not only to her.

    gingershot November 19, 2016, 4:58 pm
    'The End of Political Judaism and the Israel Lobby/Jewish Lobby Alt Right Movement' – The Israel Lobby's famous 'Islamophobia Cottage Industry' IS the 'Alt Right' birthplace – and Steve Bannon is a poster child for a 'Alt Right Pro-Israel' fascist

    Why do Steve Bannon and Frank Gaffney and other Israeli Firsters/Kahanists/Neocons get along so famously? Because they are both 'Alt Right' everybody clear? 'Alt Right Pro-Israel' targets MUSLIMS not Jews. Everybody got it?

    'Alt Right Pro-Israel' IS the Islamophobia cottage industry of the Israeli Lobby/Jewish Lobby/Neocons in the US – they promote racism TOWARDS Muslims, not Jews

    Dermer is having to explain Bannon to the rest of the Diaspora and America because they don't get it – Bannon ain't anti-semitic, he's 'Alt Right Pro-Israel' – in fact he LOVES Israel – just like Breivik Anders Breivik or Mike Huckabee or Gaffney or John Bolton or Pam Geller or Chuck Krauthammer or Naftali Bennett or Yvet Lieberman etc, etc

    Time to break America's trance SNAP! SNAP!

    Israel itself is 'Alt Right' – as well as all the Neocons

    David Horowitz, Pam Geller, Frank Gaffney, Cliff May, Anders Breivik, Charles Krauthammer, Geert Wilders, and Neocons writ large are all part of it and they have one thing in common – they target Muslims NOT Jews and love Israel

    The Islamophobia industry is worldwide now and heavily promoted by the Israeli Lobby and Israel. (David Horowitz donated $20K to Geert Wilder's party in 2014, Anders Breivik blogged at Pam Gellers site/Gates of Vienna and admired Avigdor Lieberman and Israel)

    The 'Alt Right' movement is a part of the Islamophobia Cottage industry of the Israel Lobby of the US and they identify with extreme Right Wing Israel (Bibi, Bennett, Lieberman and the rest of the true blue Kahanists)

    This new fascism is CREATED by the Jewish Lobby/Israel Lobby/Neocons (and Israel) and targets Muslims NOT Jews.

    Yes Virigina, it's Israeli Lobby-CREATED fascism towards Muslims, NOT Jews. The Israeli Lobby is famous for it – Gaffney is a poster child for it.

    International 'Alt Right' fascists like Wilders and Breivik hate Muslims NOT Jews Israel is 'Alt Right' – they hate Muslims NOT Jews
    Neocons like Frank Gaffney are 'Alt Right' – they hate Muslims not Jews

    Why do Steve Bannon and Frank Gaffney get along? Because they are both 'Alt Right' . 'Alt Righters' LOVE 'Neocons', these are INTERCHANGEABLE TERMS in my mind, or perhaps even clearer, Alt Right is synonymous with 'Kahanist'

    Why is the Trump appointments/campaign getting stuffed with 'Alt Right' type and 'extreme right wing Pro-Israel' appointments? Yep, you got it

    The American Israel Lobby/Jewish Lobby/Neocons target Muslims (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Palestine) NOT Jews
    The Israelis target Muslims (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine, the rest of their Clean Break targets) NOT Jews
    The International Islamophobes (LePen, Geert Wilders, Breivik, etc) target Muslims NOT Jews

    Trump appointments are STUFFED with both the 'Alt Right' Gen Flynn, Mike Pompeo, Bannon – as well as the Kahanist/extreme Right Wing Israeli Kahanist-type picks like David Friedman, Greenblatt, maybe Frank Gaffney, etc.

    They all get along and they all go watch 'Homeland' together to get their 'Alt Right Kahanist' rocks off (Pompeo just met the 'Homeland' producers at Mike Rodger's house this week- can't make it up)

    Time to get this one fact clear – these new fascists ALL target Muslims, not Jews. The targets of the Alt Right are MUSLIMS not Jews, and it's promoted by the Jewish Lobby/Israel Lobby

    The collapse of Political Judaism in Israel (Zionism as practiced by it's Israeli enthusiasts, which is Apartheid) and in America (the 'Alt Right Movement and it's Israeli Lobby/Jewish Lobby/Neocon supporters') is in motion

    When America's High Schoolers find out Trump and his 'Alt Right are really the 'Kahanist Alt Right' it's gonna happen even faster.

    Humiliations Galore!

    [Nov 20, 2016] US ex-intelligence chief on ISIS rise It was a willful Washington decision - RT America

    Notable quotes:
    "... "turned a blind eye" ..."
    "... "I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision," ..."
    "... "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al- Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria," ..."
    "... "the West, Gulf countries and Turkey." ..."
    "... "If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime." ..."
    "... "dire consequences" ..."
    "... "ISI (the Islamic State of Iraq) could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards of unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory," ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.rt.com
    The US didn't interfere with the rise of anti-government jihadist groups in Syria that finally degenerated into Islamic State, claims the former head of America's Defense Intelligence Agency, backing a secret 2012 memo predicting their rise. Trends Islamic State

    An interview with retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), given to Al Jazeera's Mehdi Hasan, confirms earlier suspicions that Washington was monitoring jihadist groups emerging as opposition in Syria.

    'American foreign policy demands demons' (Op-Edge) http://t.co/nUsRpDeJAF pic.twitter.com/XhOcziLb7g

    - RT America (@RT_America) July 29, 2015

    General Flynn dismissed Al Jazeera's supposition that the US administration "turned a blind eye" to the DIA's analysis.

    Flynn believes the US government didn't listen to his agency on purpose.

    "I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision," the former DIA chief said.

    READ MORE: Iraq Diary, Day 8: Does the DIA report talk about ISIS roots?

    The classified DIA report presented in August 2012, stated that "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al- Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria," being supported by "the West, Gulf countries and Turkey."

    US wants to use ISIS for projects in Iraq – Shiite militia leader http://t.co/vGlEgbDx5r pic.twitter.com/Ge2mOkJF4J

    - RT (@RT_com) July 29, 2015

    The document recently declassified through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), analyses the situation in Syria in the summer of 2012 and predicts: "If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."

    Putin's initiative to create 'united front' to fight #ISIS intrigues US, allies – Lavrov http://t.co/IjV56XdUei pic.twitter.com/dLUvD0Qsta

    - RT (@RT_com) August 9, 2015

    The report warns of "dire consequences" of this scenario, because it would allow Al-Qaeda to regain its positions in Iraq and unify the jihadist Sunni forces in Iraq, Syria and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against all other Muslim minorities they consider dissenters.

    READ MORE: 'US created conditions for ISIS': RT talks to Iraqi Shia militia as they leave to fight

    "ISI (the Islamic State of Iraq) could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards of unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory," the DIA report correctly predicted at the time.
    Those groups eventually emerged as Islamic State (IS formerly ISIS/ISIL) and Al-Nusra Front, an Islamic group loyal to Al-Qaeda.

    [Nov 20, 2016] The fundamental problem is the leftes are playing the game of the neoliberals for them. Especially in the area of immigration

    Notable quotes:
    "... The fundamental problem seems to be that the left / liberals are playing the game of the right for them and not being intelligent enough to realise it. ..."
    "... Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers. ..."
    "... Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal) is bad for working class people who are citizens of the US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the past naturally come to their defense. ..."
    "... Multinational businesses love this mentality, because it allows them to indirectly harm billions of people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a very liberal concept) which cuts their taxes and makes them stronger than most national governments, so they wield vast, unaccountable power, and get away with massive levels of pollution. ..."
    "... Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers. ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    Stillgrizzly 3d ago

    The fundamental problem seems to be that the left / liberals are playing the game of the right for them and not being intelligent enough to realise it.

    Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.

    The liberal left are confusing the cries of alarm from those losing out with racism and bigotry, which have been ingrained in their psyche due to identity politics.

    RJB73 Stillgrizzly 3d ago

    Well put. Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal) is bad for working class people who are citizens of the US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the past naturally come to their defense.

    Instead, they've labelled them racists and islamphobes etc. because they are not driven by (classical) liberalism but rather divisive identity politics focused on minority groups (e.g. transgender issues, which is not going to win many votes.)

    greenwichite Stillgrizzly 3d ago 22 23 Liberals and the Left are not the same thing, though.

    I think the liberals' horror at Jeremy Corbyn demonstrates this, as did the way liberals torpedoed Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.

    To be liberal is to let people do whatever they want, so long as they don't directly harm other people.

    Multinational businesses love this mentality, because it allows them to indirectly harm billions of people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a very liberal concept) which cuts their taxes and makes them stronger than most national governments, so they wield vast, unaccountable power, and get away with massive levels of pollution.

    Jaisans Stillgrizzly 3d ago

    Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.

    you might be putting the cart before the horse a little bit there. the problem isn't freedom of movement (let's try not to use emotive terms like mass migration) is employers seeking cheap labour. better wages would attract more local labour, instead employers actively seek cheap labour from abroad. and that's a result of economic liberalism, which is very different to classical liberalism. classical liberals built houses for their workers to live in, rather than not paying them enough to live in their own house.

    [Nov 20, 2016] Aleppo is watch by drones, satellites, radars and electronic sensors of every type by both US and Russia. Yet, the DOS (Department of Shit?) exclusively relies on the Observer dude in London and other miscreants for their claims of sinister Russian air strikes

    Notable quotes:
    "... Why doesn't the White House just shut the fuck up ..."
    "... And as one of its sources, dear old Aunty BBC quotes "a volunteer with the White Helmets Civil Defence force" who told the AFP news agency that he had "never heard such intense artillery bombardments". ..."
    "... Recycling the same bullshit as used to justify the first Iraq war. Every time there is a war, babies are trotted out to justify escalation and slaughter. By the million. This baby ploy works on the suckers every time... ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Moscow Exile , November 19, 2016 at 11:17 am

    Premature babies in Aleppo removed from incubators after air strikes hit city's only hospital
    Attacks prompt White House to condemn Syrian regime and Russia for "heinous actions"

    Premature babies in Aleppo have been removed from their incubators after air strikes destroyed hospitals across the city, prompting condemnation of the Syrian government and Russia by the US and the UN.

    Harrowing video footage shows tiny babies being removed from their incubators in a smoke-filled ward, with nurses reduced to tears as they detach the tubing providing support and wrap the babies in blankets.

    Now where have I heard a similar story before? .

    Why doesn't the White House just shut the fuck up or, failing that, send a drone flying off to Moscow so as to zap the Evil One and any bystanders in his vicinity?

    Moscow Exile , November 19, 2016 at 11:30 am
    "The Syrian regime and its allies, Russia in particular, bear responsibility for the immediate and long-term consequences these actions have caused in Syria and beyond" - said Susan Rice, of course.

    And as one of its sources, dear old Aunty BBC quotes "a volunteer with the White Helmets Civil Defence force" who told the AFP news agency that he had "never heard such intense artillery bombardments".

    See: Syria conflict: Aleppo hospitals 'knocked out by bombardment'

    Patient Observer , November 19, 2016 at 11:52 am
    Aleppo must be one of the most intensely scrutinized area on earth – drones, satellites, radars and electronic sensors of every type by both US and Russia. Yet, the DOS (Department of Shit?) exclusively relies on the "Observer" dude in London and other miscreants for their claims of sinister Russian air strikes. The DOS needs a 'tard wrangler for these various groups.

    The other possibility is that Russia has perfected stealth on every wavelength including visible light and have zero-noise jet engines.

    kirill , November 19, 2016 at 3:46 pm
    Recycling the same bullshit as used to justify the first Iraq war. Every time there is a war, babies are trotted out to justify escalation and slaughter. By the million. This baby ploy works on the suckers every time...

    [Nov 19, 2016] The Wall Street Journal Steve Bannon on Politics as War

    Notable quotes:
    "... He's proud that the first job offer-to former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for national security adviser-went to a "registered Democrat," and that the country is going to see "a lot of interesting choices." Mr. Trump "knows how to mix and match, get the best out of people, and I think it says something about what a historic figure he could be." ..."
    "... I never went on TV one time during the campaign. Not once. You know why? Because politics is war. General Sherman would never have gone on TV to tell everyone his plans. ..."
    "... Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

    Stephen K. Bannon in a rare interview talks with Kimberley A. Strassel of the Wall Street Journal about the winning campaign of Donald J. Trump and his part in helping the president-elect accomplish his vision for America. Bannon also refutes charges of being antisemitic or a white nationalist saying the allegations, "just aren't serious. It's a joke."

    Below are a few excerpts from the interview:

    ... ... ... Why does he think that leftists are so fixated on him? "They were ready to coronate Hillary Clinton. That didn't happen, and I'm one of the reasons why. So, by the way, I wear these attacks as an emblem of pride." Mr. Bannon believes Mr. Trump to be uniquely suited to make the case, as "one of the best political orators in American history, rated with William Jennings Bryan." He's proud that the first job offer-to former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for national security adviser-went to a "registered Democrat," and that the country is going to see "a lot of interesting choices." Mr. Trump "knows how to mix and match, get the best out of people, and I think it says something about what a historic figure he could be."

    I never went on TV one time during the campaign. Not once. You know why? Because politics is war. General Sherman would never have gone on TV to tell everyone his plans.

    "Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States"

    [Nov 19, 2016] The Democratic party lost its soul. Its time to win it back

    Notable quotes:
    "... For one thing, many vested interests don't want the Democratic party to change. Most of the money it raises ends up in the pockets of political consultants, pollsters, strategists, lawyers, advertising consultants and advertisers themselves, many of whom have become rich off the current arrangement. They naturally want to keep it. ..."
    "... For another, the Democratic party apparatus is ingrown and entrenched. Like any old bureaucracy, it only knows how to do what it has done for years. Its state and quadrennial national conventions are opportunities for insiders to meet old friends and for aspiring politicians to make contacts among the rich and powerful. Insiders and the rich aren't going to happily relinquish their power and perquisites, and hand them to outsiders and the non-rich. ..."
    "... I have been a Democrat for 50 years – I have even served in two Democratic administrations in Washington, including a stint in the cabinet and have run for the Democratic nomination for governor in one state – yet I have never voted for the chair or vice-chair of my state Democratic party. That means I, too, have had absolutely no say over who the chair of the Democratic National Committee will be. To tell you the truth, I haven't cared. And that's part of the problem. ..."
    "... Finally, the party chairmanship has become a part-time sinecure for politicians on their way up or down, not a full-time position for a professional organizer. In 2011, Tim Kaine (who subsequently became Hillary Clinton's running mate in the 2016 election) left the chairmanship to run, successfully, for the Senate from Virginia. ..."
    "... The chair then went to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Florida congresswoman who had co-chaired Clinton's bid for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. This generated allegations in the 2016 race that the Democratic National Committee was siding with Clinton against Bernie Sanders – allegations substantiated by leaks of emails from the DNC. ..."
    "... So what we now have is a Democratic party that has been repudiated at the polls, headed by a Democratic National Committee that has become irrelevant at best, run part-time by a series of insider politicians. It has no deep or broad-based grass-roots, no capacity for mobilizing vast numbers of people to take any action other than donate money, no visibility between elections, no ongoing activism. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    For one thing, many vested interests don't want the Democratic party to change. Most of the money it raises ends up in the pockets of political consultants, pollsters, strategists, lawyers, advertising consultants and advertisers themselves, many of whom have become rich off the current arrangement. They naturally want to keep it.

    For another, the Democratic party apparatus is ingrown and entrenched. Like any old bureaucracy, it only knows how to do what it has done for years. Its state and quadrennial national conventions are opportunities for insiders to meet old friends and for aspiring politicians to make contacts among the rich and powerful. Insiders and the rich aren't going to happily relinquish their power and perquisites, and hand them to outsiders and the non-rich.

    Most Americans who call themselves Democrats never hear from the Democratic party except when it asks for money, typically through mass mailings and recorded telephone calls in the months leading up to an election. The vast majority of Democrats don't know the name of the chair of the Democratic National Committee or of their state committee. Almost no registered Democrats have any idea how to go about electing their state Democratic chair or vice-chair, and, hence, almost none have any influence over whom the next chair of the Democratic National Committee may be.

    I have been a Democrat for 50 years – I have even served in two Democratic administrations in Washington, including a stint in the cabinet and have run for the Democratic nomination for governor in one state – yet I have never voted for the chair or vice-chair of my state Democratic party. That means I, too, have had absolutely no say over who the chair of the Democratic National Committee will be. To tell you the truth, I haven't cared. And that's part of the problem.

    Nor, for that matter, has Barack Obama cared. He basically ignored the Democratic National Committee during his presidency, starting his own organization called Organizing for America. It was originally intended to marshal grass-roots support for the major initiatives he sought to achieve during his presidency, but morphed into a fund-raising machine of its own.

    Finally, the party chairmanship has become a part-time sinecure for politicians on their way up or down, not a full-time position for a professional organizer. In 2011, Tim Kaine (who subsequently became Hillary Clinton's running mate in the 2016 election) left the chairmanship to run, successfully, for the Senate from Virginia.

    The chair then went to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Florida congresswoman who had co-chaired Clinton's bid for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. This generated allegations in the 2016 race that the Democratic National Committee was siding with Clinton against Bernie Sanders – allegations substantiated by leaks of emails from the DNC.

    So what we now have is a Democratic party that has been repudiated at the polls, headed by a Democratic National Committee that has become irrelevant at best, run part-time by a series of insider politicians. It has no deep or broad-based grass-roots, no capacity for mobilizing vast numbers of people to take any action other than donate money, no visibility between elections, no ongoing activism.

    [Nov 19, 2016] The Wall Street Journal Steve Bannon on Politics as War

    Notable quotes:
    "... He's proud that the first job offer-to former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for national security adviser-went to a "registered Democrat," and that the country is going to see "a lot of interesting choices." Mr. Trump "knows how to mix and match, get the best out of people, and I think it says something about what a historic figure he could be." ..."
    "... I never went on TV one time during the campaign. Not once. You know why? Because politics is war. General Sherman would never have gone on TV to tell everyone his plans. ..."
    "... Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

    Stephen K. Bannon in a rare interview talks with Kimberley A. Strassel of the Wall Street Journal about the winning campaign of Donald J. Trump and his part in helping the president-elect accomplish his vision for America. Bannon also refutes charges of being antisemitic or a white nationalist saying the allegations, "just aren't serious. It's a joke."

    Below are a few excerpts from the interview:

    ... ... ... Why does he think that leftists are so fixated on him? "They were ready to coronate Hillary Clinton. That didn't happen, and I'm one of the reasons why. So, by the way, I wear these attacks as an emblem of pride." Mr. Bannon believes Mr. Trump to be uniquely suited to make the case, as "one of the best political orators in American history, rated with William Jennings Bryan." He's proud that the first job offer-to former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for national security adviser-went to a "registered Democrat," and that the country is going to see "a lot of interesting choices." Mr. Trump "knows how to mix and match, get the best out of people, and I think it says something about what a historic figure he could be."

    I never went on TV one time during the campaign. Not once. You know why? Because politics is war. General Sherman would never have gone on TV to tell everyone his plans.

    "Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States"

    [Nov 19, 2016] The Origins of the Republican Media Machine

    The Republican brass degenerated into a bunch to neocon racketeers who want to impoverish regular Americans. That's why Trump won.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Indeed, in an October 1991 letter to Patrick J. Buchanan, Regnery claimed that Americans had been hornswoggled into supporting the war by "the President and those who form public opinion." ..."
    "... Everywhere he looked, the media-newspapers, network radio and television news, magazines, and journals-all seemed locked in a [neo]liberal consensus. . . . If conservatives were going to claw their way back in from the outside, they were going to need to first find a way to impair and offset liberals in the media. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | nationalinterest.org
    From: The Origins of the Republican Civil War

    Nicole Hemmer, Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016), 368 pp., $34.95.

    IN DECEMBER 1953, Henry Regnery convened a meeting in Room 2233 in New York City's Lincoln Building. Regnery, a former Democrat and head of Regnery Publishing, had moved sharply to the Right after he became disillusioned with the New Deal. His guests included William F. Buckley Jr.; Frank Hanighen, a cofounder of Human Events ; Raymond Moley, a former FDR adviser who wrote a book called After Seven Years that denounced the New Deal; and John Chamberlain, a lapsed liberal and an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal . Regnery had not called these men together merely to discuss current events. He wanted to reshape them. "The side we represent controls most of the wealth in this country," he said. "The ideas and traditions we believe in are those which most Americans instinctively believe in also." So why was liberalism in the ascendant? Regnery explained that media bias was the problem. Anywhere you looked, the Left controlled the commanding heights-television, newspapers and universities. It was imperative, Regnery said, to establish a "counterintelligence unit" that could fight back.

    In her superb Messengers of the Right , Nicole Hemmer examines the origins of conservative media. Hemmer, who is an assistant professor at the University of Virginia, has performed extensive archival research to illuminate the furthest recesses of the Right, complementing earlier works like Geoffrey Kabaservice's Rule and Ruin . She provides much new information and penetrating observations about figures such as Clarence Manion, William Rusher and Henry Regnery. Above all, she shows that there has been a remarkable consistency to the grievances and positions, which were often one and the same, of the conservative movement over the decades.

    According to Hemmer, the modern Right first took shape in the form of the America First Committee. A number of leading conservatives saw little difference between Adolf Hitler and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Regnery recollected that "both Hitler and Roosevelt-each in his own way -- were masters of the art of manipulating the masses."

    Indeed, in an October 1991 letter to Patrick J. Buchanan, Regnery claimed that Americans had been hornswoggled into supporting the war by "the President and those who form public opinion." Others such as the gifted orator Clarence Manion, a former FDR acolyte, joined the America First Committee in 1941. After the war, Manion became the dean of the Notre Dame Law School and wrote a book called The Key to Peace , which argued that limited government was the key to American greatness, not a quest to "take off for the Mountains of the Moon in search of ways and means to pacify and unify mankind."

    While serving in the Eisenhower administration, he also became a proponent of the Bricker Amendment, which would have subjected treaties signed by the president to ratification by the states. Eisenhower demanded his resignation. An embittered Manion, Hemmer writes, concluded that columnists such as James Reston, Marquis Childs, and Joseph and Stewart Alsop had effectively operated as a united front to ruin him.

    Everywhere he looked, the media-newspapers, network radio and television news, magazines, and journals-all seemed locked in a [neo]liberal consensus. . . . If conservatives were going to claw their way back in from the outside, they were going to need to first find a way to impair and offset liberals in the media.

    In 1954, the Manion Forum of Opinion , which aired on several dozen radio stations, was born. It soon became a popular venue that allowed Manion, who was cochair of a political party called For America, to inveigh against the depredations of liberalism and preach the conservative gospel.

    ... ... ...

    With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the conservative media seemed to have arrived. But as Hemmer notes, a New Right generation of activists that included figures such Terry Dolan of the National Conservative Political Action Committee and Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority had arrived that did not have much in common with the older conservative generation. She points out that leaders of the New Right backed Republican congressman Phil Crane, then former Texas governor John Connally, only supporting Reagan during the general election. Buckley and his cohort, Hemmer writes, saw the New Right paladins as "Johnnies-come-lately to the movement, demanding rigorous fealty to social issues that had only recently become the drivers of politics." Hemmer might have noted that, although Reagan has since become a conservative icon, George F. Will and Norman Podhoretz, among others, lamented what they viewed as Reagan's concessive posture towards Mikhail Gorbachev.

    Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.

    [Nov 19, 2016] Labour theory of value

    Nov 19, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    eason : November 18, 2016 at 05:25 AM , 2016 at 05:25 AM

    Can anybody tell me what Branco Milanovic is trying to get at in this piece: http://glineq.blogspot.de/2016/11/labor-theory-of-value-primer.html

    He seems to be saying that the Labour theory of value is not much use for capitalist economists, but Marx didn't think it was either. If not, then what exactly is he trying to say?

    anne -> reason ... , November 18, 2016 at 06:19 AM
    ...in my opinion the true contribution of Marx in this area, is to have insisted that the equilibrium price cannot be independent of the relations of production, that is, of who owns capital and in some cases (slavery) labor too. Two identical economies, but one composed of small-scale producers who own the means of production, and another capitalist, will have different relative prices....

    -- Branko Milanovic

    reason -> anne... , November 18, 2016 at 06:29 AM
    Is this useful - and how is it different from standard micro-economic analysis of the difference between perfect competition, monopolistic competition and monopoly?

    I'm sorry, but this just seems like trying to shoehorn Marx into a picture where he doesn't fit. I don't see the point.

    DrDick -> reason ... , November 18, 2016 at 07:25 AM
    The point is a refutation of the mindless criticisms of LTV by mainstream economists and others. As he says in the first paragraph:

    "Why do I write it then? Because recently I was several times surprised by the casualness with which people talk of "labor theory of value" apparently implying thereby that it is some weird concoction where the price of a good should simply be proportional to the number of hours one has put in producing it."

    DrDick -> reason ... , November 18, 2016 at 07:23 AM
    That is not at all what I read him as saying. Indeed, his pieces seems more of a defense of Marx's actual writings on the LTV as opposed to the caricature in critiques of it.

    [Nov 19, 2016] The Origins of the Republican Media Machine

    The Republican brass degenerated into a bunch to neocon racketeers who want to impoverish regular Americans. That's why Trump won.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Indeed, in an October 1991 letter to Patrick J. Buchanan, Regnery claimed that Americans had been hornswoggled into supporting the war by "the President and those who form public opinion." ..."
    "... Everywhere he looked, the media-newspapers, network radio and television news, magazines, and journals-all seemed locked in a [neo]liberal consensus. . . . If conservatives were going to claw their way back in from the outside, they were going to need to first find a way to impair and offset liberals in the media. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | nationalinterest.org
    From: The Origins of the Republican Civil War

    Nicole Hemmer, Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016), 368 pp., $34.95.

    IN DECEMBER 1953, Henry Regnery convened a meeting in Room 2233 in New York City's Lincoln Building. Regnery, a former Democrat and head of Regnery Publishing, had moved sharply to the Right after he became disillusioned with the New Deal. His guests included William F. Buckley Jr.; Frank Hanighen, a cofounder of Human Events ; Raymond Moley, a former FDR adviser who wrote a book called After Seven Years that denounced the New Deal; and John Chamberlain, a lapsed liberal and an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal . Regnery had not called these men together merely to discuss current events. He wanted to reshape them. "The side we represent controls most of the wealth in this country," he said. "The ideas and traditions we believe in are those which most Americans instinctively believe in also." So why was liberalism in the ascendant? Regnery explained that media bias was the problem. Anywhere you looked, the Left controlled the commanding heights-television, newspapers and universities. It was imperative, Regnery said, to establish a "counterintelligence unit" that could fight back.

    In her superb Messengers of the Right , Nicole Hemmer examines the origins of conservative media. Hemmer, who is an assistant professor at the University of Virginia, has performed extensive archival research to illuminate the furthest recesses of the Right, complementing earlier works like Geoffrey Kabaservice's Rule and Ruin . She provides much new information and penetrating observations about figures such as Clarence Manion, William Rusher and Henry Regnery. Above all, she shows that there has been a remarkable consistency to the grievances and positions, which were often one and the same, of the conservative movement over the decades.

    According to Hemmer, the modern Right first took shape in the form of the America First Committee. A number of leading conservatives saw little difference between Adolf Hitler and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Regnery recollected that "both Hitler and Roosevelt-each in his own way -- were masters of the art of manipulating the masses."

    Indeed, in an October 1991 letter to Patrick J. Buchanan, Regnery claimed that Americans had been hornswoggled into supporting the war by "the President and those who form public opinion." Others such as the gifted orator Clarence Manion, a former FDR acolyte, joined the America First Committee in 1941. After the war, Manion became the dean of the Notre Dame Law School and wrote a book called The Key to Peace , which argued that limited government was the key to American greatness, not a quest to "take off for the Mountains of the Moon in search of ways and means to pacify and unify mankind."

    While serving in the Eisenhower administration, he also became a proponent of the Bricker Amendment, which would have subjected treaties signed by the president to ratification by the states. Eisenhower demanded his resignation. An embittered Manion, Hemmer writes, concluded that columnists such as James Reston, Marquis Childs, and Joseph and Stewart Alsop had effectively operated as a united front to ruin him.

    Everywhere he looked, the media-newspapers, network radio and television news, magazines, and journals-all seemed locked in a [neo]liberal consensus. . . . If conservatives were going to claw their way back in from the outside, they were going to need to first find a way to impair and offset liberals in the media.

    In 1954, the Manion Forum of Opinion , which aired on several dozen radio stations, was born. It soon became a popular venue that allowed Manion, who was cochair of a political party called For America, to inveigh against the depredations of liberalism and preach the conservative gospel.

    ... ... ...

    With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the conservative media seemed to have arrived. But as Hemmer notes, a New Right generation of activists that included figures such Terry Dolan of the National Conservative Political Action Committee and Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority had arrived that did not have much in common with the older conservative generation. She points out that leaders of the New Right backed Republican congressman Phil Crane, then former Texas governor John Connally, only supporting Reagan during the general election. Buckley and his cohort, Hemmer writes, saw the New Right paladins as "Johnnies-come-lately to the movement, demanding rigorous fealty to social issues that had only recently become the drivers of politics." Hemmer might have noted that, although Reagan has since become a conservative icon, George F. Will and Norman Podhoretz, among others, lamented what they viewed as Reagan's concessive posture towards Mikhail Gorbachev.

    Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.

    [Nov 19, 2016] The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss of jobs. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun.

    It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland ..."
    "... The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate. ..."
    "... two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. ..."
    "... Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime. ..."
    "... In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined. ..."
    "... But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism. ..."
    "... Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this. ..."
    "... Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. ..."
    "... Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. ..."
    "... The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico. ..."
    "... I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit. ..."
    "... Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics. ..."
    "... It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. ..."
    "... The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present. ..."
    "... Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'. ..."
    "... Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote. ..."
    "... Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'? ..."
    "... I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective. ..."
    "... In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s." ..."
    "... Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate." ..."
    "... In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.' ..."
    "... In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power. ..."
    "... To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay. ..."
    "... This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it). ..."
    "... You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all. ..."
    "... You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem. ..."
    "... One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party. ..."
    "... Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery. ..."
    "... None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it. ..."
    "... . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part. ..."
    "... This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them. ..."
    "... Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win? ..."
    "... "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians." ..."
    "... "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.' ..."
    "... "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken." ..."
    "... Foreign Affairs ..."
    "... "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..) ..."
    "... " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote. ..."
    "... "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened. ..."
    "... "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun." ..."
    "... They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work. ..."
    "... trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept. ..."
    "... trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there. ..."
    "... "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html ..."
    "... Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. "" ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    dbk 11.18.16 at 6:41 pm 130

    Bruce Wilder @102

    The question is no longer her neoliberalism, but yours. Keep it or throw it away?

    I wish this issue was being seriously discussed. Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland (cf. "flyover zone" – a pejorative term which inhabitants of the zone are not too stupid to understand perfectly, btw).

    The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate.

    As noted upthread, two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. The jobs that have been lost will not return, and indeed will be lost in ever greater numbers – just consider what will happen to the trucking sector when self-driving trucks hit the roads sometime in the next 10-20 years (3.5 million truckers; 8.7 in allied jobs).

    Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime.

    In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined.

    I appreciate and espouse the goals of identity politics in all their multiplicity, and also understand that the institutions of slavery and sexism predated modern capitalist economies. But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism.

    Also: Faustusnotes@100
    For example Indiana took the ACA Medicaid expansion but did so with additional conditions that make it worse than in neighboring states run by democratic governors.

    And what states would those be? IL, IA, MI, OH, WI, KY, and TN have Republican governors. Were you thinking pre-2014? pre-2012?

    To conclude and return to my original point: what's to become of the Rust Belt in future? Did the Democratic platform include a New New Deal for PA, OH, MI, WI, and IA (to name only the five Rust Belt states Trump flipped)?

    kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:32 pm ( 135 )

    Thomas Pickety

    " Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this.

    Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. "

    The Guardian

    kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:56 pm 137 ( 137 )

    What should have been one comment came out as 4, so apologies on that front.

    I spent the last week explaining the US election to my students in Japan in pretty much the terms outlined by Lilla and PIketty, so I was delighted to discover these two articles.

    Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. It was therefore very easy to call for a show of hands to identify students studying here in Tokyo who are trying to decide whether or not to return to areas such as Tohoku to build their lives; or remain in Kanto/Tokyo – the NY/Washington/LA of Japan put crudely.

    I asked students from regions close to Tohoku how they might feel if the Japanese prime minister decided not to visit the region following Fukushima after the disaster, or preceding an election. The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico.

    I then asked the students, particularly those from outlying regions whether they believe Japan needed a leader who would 'bring back Japanese jobs' from Viet Nam and China, etc. Many/most agreed wholeheartedly. I then asked whether they believed Tokyo people treated those outside Kanto as 'inferiors.' Many do.

    Piketty may be right regarding Trump's long-term effects on income inequality. He is wrong, I suggest, to argue that Democrats failed to respond to Sanders' support. I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit.

    Faustusnotes 11.19.16 at 12:14 am 138

    Also worth noting is that the rust belts problems are as old as Reagan – even the term dates from the 80s, the issue is so uncool that there is a dire straits song about it. Some portion of the decline of manufacturing there is due to manufacturers shifting to the south, where the anti Union states have an advantage. Also there has been new investment – there were no Japanese car companies in the us in the 1980s, so they are new job creators, yet insufficient to make up the losses. Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics.

    It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. Suddenly it's not the forces of capital and the objective facts of history, but a bunch of whiny black trannies demanding safe spaces and protesting police violence, that drove those towns to ruin.

    And what solutions do they think the dems should have proposed? It can't be welfare, since we got the ACA (watered down by representatives of the rust belt states). Is it, seriously, tariffs? Short of going to an election promising w revolution, what should the dems have done? Give us a clear answer so we can see what the alternative to identity politics is.

    basil 11.19.16 at 5:11 am

    Did this go through?
    Thinking with WLGR @15, Yan @81, engels variously above,

    The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present.

    I get that the tropes around race are easy, and super-available. Privilege confessing is very in vogue as a prophylactic against charges of racism. But does it threaten the structures that produce this abjection – either as embittered, immiserated 'white working class' or as threatened minority group? It is always *those* 'white' people, the South, the Working Class, and never the accusers some of whom are themselves happy to vote for a party that drowns out anti-war protesters with chants of USA! USA!

    Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'.

    --

    Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote.

    Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'?

    I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective.

    Why the Working Class was Never 'White'

    The 'racialisation' of class in Britain has been a consequence of the weakening of 'class' as a political idea since the 1970s – it is a new construction, not an historic one.

    .

    This is not to deny the existence of working-class racism, or to suggest that racism is somehow acceptable if rooted in perceived socio-economic grievances. But it is to suggest that the concept of a 'white working class' needs problematizing, as does the claim that the British working-class was strongly committed to a post-war vision of 'White Britain' analogous to the politics which sustained the idea of a 'White Australia' until the 1960s.

    Yes, old, settled neighbourhoods could be profoundly distrustful of outsiders – all outsiders, including the researchers seeking to study them – but, when it came to race, they were internally divided. We certainly hear working-class racist voices – often echoing stock racist complaints about over-crowding, welfare dependency or exploitative landlords and small businessmen, but we don't hear the deep pathological racial fears laid bare in the letters sent to Enoch Powell after his so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 (Whipple, 2009).

    But more importantly, we also hear strong anti-racist voices loudly and clearly. At Wallsend on Tyneside, where the researchers were gathering their data just as Powell shot to notoriety, we find workers expressing casual racism, but we also find eloquent expressions of an internationalist, solidaristic perspective in which, crucially, black and white are seen as sharing the same working-class interests.

    Racism is denounced as a deliberate capitalist strategy to divide workers against themselves, weakening their ability to challenge those with power over their lives (shipbuilding had long been a very fractious industry and its workers had plenty of experience of the dangers of internal sectarian battles).

    To be able to mobilize across across racialised divisions, to have race wither away entirely would, for me, be the beginning of a politics that allowed humanity to deal with the inescapable violence of climate change and corporate power.

    *To add to the bibliography – David R. Roediger, Elizabeth D. Esch – The Production of Difference – Race and the Management of Labour, and Denise Ferreira da Silva – Toward a Global Idea of Race. And I have just been pointed at Ian Haney-López, White By Law – The Legal Construction of Race.

    Hidari 11.19.16 at 8:16 am 152

    FWIW 'merica's constitutional democracy is going to collapse.

    Some day - not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies - there is going to be a collapse of the legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we're lucky, it won't be violent. If we're very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better, more robust, political system. If we're less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen .

    In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."

    Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."

    In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.'

    http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed

    Given that the basic point is polarisation (i.e. that both the President and Congress have equally strong arguments to be the the 'voice of the people') and that under the US appalling constitutional set up, there is no way to decide between them, one can easily imagine the so to speak 'hyperpolarisation' of a Trump Presidency as being the straw (or anvil) that breaks the camel's back.

    In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power.

    Eventually something is going to break.

    dbk 11.19.16 at 10:39 am ( 153 )

    nastywoman @ 150
    Just study the program of the 'Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland' or the Program of 'Die Grünen' in Germany (take it through google translate) and you get all the answers you are looking for.

    No need to run it through google translate, it's available in English on their site. [Or one could refer to the Green Party of the U.S. site/platform, which is very similar in scope and overall philosophy. (www.gp.org).]

    I looked at several of their topic areas (Agricultural, Global, Health, Rural) and yes, these are general theses I would support. But they're hardly policy/project proposals for specific regions or communities – the Greens espouse "think global, act local", so programs and projects must be tailored to individual communities and regions.

    To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay.

    Soullite 11.19.16 at 12:46 pm 156

    This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it).

    I expect at this point that Trump will be reelected comfortably. If not only the party itself, but also most of its activists, refuse to actually change, it's more or less inevitable.

    You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all.

    You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem.

    mclaren 11.19.16 at 2:37 pm 160

    One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party.

    Folks, we have seen this before. Let's not descend in backbiting and recriminations, okay? We've got some commenters charging that other commenters are "mansplaining," meanwhile we've got other commenters claiming that it's economics and not racism/misogyny. It's all of the above.

    Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery.

    None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it.

    Instead, what we're seeing is a whirlwind of finger-pointing from the Democratic leadership that lost this election and probably let the entire New Deal get rolled back and wiped out. Putin is to blame! Julian Assange is to blame! The biased media are to blame! Voter suppression is to blame! Bernie Sanders is to blame! Jill Stein is to blame! Everyone and anyone except the current out-of-touch influence-peddling elites who currently have run the Democratic party into the ground.

    We need the feminists and the black lives matter groups and we also need the green party people and the Bernie Sanders activists. But everyone has to understand that this is not an isolated event. Trump did not just happen by accident. First there was Greece, then there was Brexit, then there was Trump, next it'll be Renzi losing the referendum in Italy and a constitutional crisis there, and after that, Marine Le Pen in France is going to win the first round of elections. (Probably not the presidency, since all the other French parties will band together to stop her, but the National Front is currently polling at 40% of all registered French voters.) And Marine LePen is the real deal, a genuine full-on out-and-out fascist. Not a closet fascist like Steve Bannon, LePen is the full monty with everything but a Hugo Boss suit and the death's heads on the cap.

    Does anyone notice a pattern here?

    This is an international movement. It is sweeping the world . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.

    Feminists, BLM, black bloc anarchiest anti-globalists, Sandernistas, and, yes, the former Hillary supporters. Because it not just a coincidence that all these things are happening in all these countries at the same time. The bottom 90% of the population in the developed world has been ripped off by a managerial and financial and political class for the last 30 years and they have all noticed that while the world GDP was skyrocketing and international trade agreements were getting signed with zero input from the average citizen, a few people were getting very very rich but nobody else was getting anything.

    This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them.

    And the Democratic party is so helpless and so hopeless that it is letting the American Nazi Party run to the left of them on health care, fer cripes sake! We are now in a situation where the American Nazi Party is advocating single-payer nationalized health care, while the former Democratic presidential nominee who just got defeated assured everyone that single-payer "will never, ever happen."

    C'mon! Is anyone surprised that Hillary lost? Let's cut the crap with the "Hillary was a flawed candidate" arguments. The plain fact of the matter is that Hillary was running mainly on getting rid of the problems she and her husband created 25 years ago. Hillary promised criminal justice reform and Black Lives Matter-friendly policing policies - and guess who started the mass incarceration trend and gave speeches calling black kids "superpredators" 20 years ago? Hillary promised to fix the problems with the wretched mandate law forcing everyone to buy unaffordable for-profit private insurance with no cost controls - and guess who originally ran for president in 2008 on a policy of health care mandates with no cost controls? Yes, Hillary (ironically, Obama's big surge in popularity as a candidate came when he ran against Hillary from the left, ridiculing helath care mandates). Hillary promises to reform an out-of-control deregulated financial system run amok - and guess who signed all those laws revoking Glass-Steagal and setting up the Securities Trading Modernization Act? Yes, Bill Clinton, and Hillary was right there with him cheering the whole process on.

    So pardon me and lots of other folks for being less than impressed by Hillary's trustworthiness and honesty. Run for president by promising to undo the damage you did to the country 25 years ago is (let say) a suboptimal campaign strategy, and a distinctly suboptimal choice of presidential candidate for a party in the same sense that the Hiroshima air defense was suboptimal in 1945.

    Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win?

    Because we're back in the 1930s again, the economy has crashed hard and still hasn't recovered (maybe because we still haven't convened a Pecora Commission and jailed a bunch of the thieves, and we also haven't set up any alphabet government job programs like the CCC) so fascists and racists and all kinds of other bottom-feeders are crawling out of the political woodwork to promise to fix the problems that the Democratic party establishment won't.
    Rule of thumb: any social or political or economic writer virulently hated by the current Democratic party establishment is someone we should listen to closely right now.

    Cornel West is at the top of the current Democratic establishment's hate list, and he has got a great article in The Guardian that I think is spot-on:

    "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/17/american-neoliberalism-cornel-west-2016-election

    Glenn Greenwald is another writer who has been showered with more hate by the Democratic establishment recently than even Trump or Steve Bannon, so you know Greenwald is saying something important. He has a great piece in The Intercept on the head-in-the-ground attitude of Democratic elites toward their recent loss:

    "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.'

    "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken."

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/18/the-stark-contrast-between-the-gops-self-criticism-in-2012-and-the-democrats-blame-everyone-else-posture-now/

    Last but far from least, Scottish economist Mark Blyth has what looks to me like the single best analysis of the entire global Trump_vs_deep_state tidal wave in Foreign Affairs magazine:

    "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..)

    " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote.

    "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.

    "In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them.

    "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun."

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-11-15/global-Trump_vs_deep_state

    efcdons 11.19.16 at 3:07 pm 161 ( 161 )

    Faustusnotes @147

    You don't live here, do you? I'm really asking a genuine question because the way you are framing the question ("SPECIFICS!!!!!!) suggests you don't. (Just to show my background, born and raised in Australia (In the electoral division of Kooyong, home of Menzies) but I've lived in the US since 2000 in the midwest (MO, OH) and currently in the south (GA))

    If this election has taught us anything it's no one cared about "specifics". It was a mood, a feeling which brought trump over the top (and I'm not talking about the "average" trump voter because that is meaningless. The average trunp voter was a republican voter in the south who the Dems will never get so examining their motivations is immaterial to future strategy. I'm talking about the voters in the Upper Midwest from places which voted for Obama twice then switched to trump this year to give him his margin of victory).

    trump voters have been pretty clear they don't actually care about the way trump does (or even doesn't) do what he said he would do during the campaign. It was important to them he showed he was "with" people like them. They way he did that was partially racialized (law and order, islamophobia) but also a particular emphasis on blue collar work that focused on the work. Unfortunately these voters, however much you tell them they should suck it up and accept their generations of familial experience as relatively highly paid industrial workers (even if it is something only their fathers and grandfathers experienced because the factories were closing when the voters came of age in the 80s and 90s) is never coming back and they should be happy to retrain as something else, don't want it. They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work.

    trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept.

    The idea they don't want "government help" is ridiculous. They love the government. They just want the government to do things for them and not for other people (which unfortunately includes blah people but also "the coasts", "sillicon valley", etc.). Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part due to the auto bailout.

    trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there.

    "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

    So yes. Clinton needed vague promises. She needed something more than retraining and "jobs of the future" and "restructuring". She needed to show she was committed to their way of life, however those voters saw it, and would do something, anything, to keep it alive. trump did that even though his plan won't work. And maybe he'll be punished for it. In 4 years. But in the interim the gop will destroy so many things we need and rely on as well as entrench their power for generations through the Supreme Court.

    But really, it was hard for Clinton to be trusted to act like she cared about these peoples' way of life because she (through her husband fairly or unfairly) was associated with some of the larger actions and choices which helped usher in the decline.

    Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. ""

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/news/economy/hillary-clinton-trade/

    [Nov 19, 2016] Is Trump a Death Sentence for the Iran Deal

    Notable quotes:
    "... Another tactic is to discourage international companies from doing business with Iran, an effort coordinated by the Iran Project of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a premier anti-JCPOA lobbying center supported by Sheldon Adelson, a prominent donor to the Republicans and Trump. For instance, the FDD took a lead in denouncing the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for easing controls on dollar transactions between Iran and foreign banks and companies. ..."
    "... With so much at stake, Iranians followed the American election with great interest. The Hezb-e Etedal va Toseh (Moderation and Development Party) of President Hassan Rouhani and Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has the most to lose from the Trump presidency. ..."
    "... Rouhani came to power in 2013 with a promise to fix the Iranian economy broken by years of mismanagement and sanctions. He managed to push through the JCPOA with assurances that the economic benefits would outweigh the cost of giving up the nuclear project-so much so that the Moderation and Development Party gained a majority in the 2016 parliamentary election. ..."
    "... Even a cursory perusal of the Rouhani-affiliated media, such as Iran, Etemad and Arman newspapers, among others, indicates more than a passing level of anxiety about his chances in the wake of Trump's election. ..."
    "... Rouhani's normalization plan, more than the JCPOA, puts the moderates on a collision course with the Revolutionary Guards and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The former are incensed about Rouhani's new banking regulations, while the latter opposes the type of broad opening to the world that the moderates are pushing. The supreme leader is known to worry that liberalization and Westernization would further undermine the corroding legitimacy of the theocratic state. Not surprisingly, hard-liners have reacted to Trump's victory with glee. Depicting Trump's election as "a victory of the insane over the liar," Kayhan, representing the Supreme Leader, called Trump "a shredder of the JCPOA, an agreement which had zero benefit for Iran." Javan, a mouthpiece for the Revolutionary Guards, wrote that Trump is better for Iran because he would undermine the credibility of the moderates. ..."
    "... The hotly disputed ballistic-missile tests conducted by the Revolutionary Guards in the past year would also come under a review by the new administration; Congress is already crafting legislation that would further sanction implicated countries, companies and individuals. Even small infringements-like the recent incident in which the IAEA reported Iran exceeding the amount of heavy water allowed under the deal-can trigger more measures. ..."
    "... Under Obama, such disputes were resolved by a special team of State Department and National Security Council officials, working with the IAEA. Whether the Trump administration would retain the team is doubtful, especially as such a move would be opposed by Bolton or other hard-liners, should they join the administration. Bolton, who accused the IAEA of covering up for Iran, would be most likely press for a more vigilant oversight of Iran's compliance, creating additional friction. This, in turn, can trigger potentially damaging developments. Under the JCPOA terms, Iran is not due additional sanction relief until 2023, but the president is required to sign periodical waivers on sanctions that are on the books if Iran is judged to be in compliance. By refusing to issue the waivers, the Trump administration would essentially abrogate American participation in the accord. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | nationalinterest.org

    Overlooked in the speculations about Trump's future decisions is the dominant role that Congress would play in shaping American policy toward the JCPOA. In 2015, in conjunction with the government of Israel and the Israel lobby in Washington, congressional Republicans mounted an unprecedented but ultimately an unsuccessful campaign to derail the deal. Still, the lobby and its congressional patrons have not abandoned their effort to limit the economic benefits of the deal to Iran. One effective tool is new sanctions-generating legislation. Lawmakers from the House Republican Israel Caucus introduced several bills which would, among others provisions, extend the Iran Sanctions Act due to expire in December 2016, block the sale of eighty Boeing planes to Iran and prohibit the Export-Import Bank from financing business with Iran. Unlike President Obama, President-elect Trump is not expected to veto the anti-Iran legislation, setting a relatively low bar for its passage.

    ... ... ...

    Another tactic is to discourage international companies from doing business with Iran, an effort coordinated by the Iran Project of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a premier anti-JCPOA lobbying center supported by Sheldon Adelson, a prominent donor to the Republicans and Trump. For instance, the FDD took a lead in denouncing the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for easing controls on dollar transactions between Iran and foreign banks and companies.

    After initially banning all dollar-denominated transactions, OFAC reversed itself authorizing such dealings provided they are not processed by the American financial system. In yet another effort to spur international business with Iran, OFAC declared that foreign companies could transact business with non-sanctioned Iranian companies even if a sanctioned entity held a minority share of its assets. The Treasury also relaxed the requirement that foreign companies contracting with Iranian counterparts do automatic due intelligence. Since the Revolutionary Guards have operated numerous ventures with legitimate entities, the FDD decried this step as "green-lighting" business with the Guards.

    ... ... ...

    With so much at stake, Iranians followed the American election with great interest. The Hezb-e Etedal va Toseh (Moderation and Development Party) of President Hassan Rouhani and Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has the most to lose from the Trump presidency.

    Rouhani came to power in 2013 with a promise to fix the Iranian economy broken by years of mismanagement and sanctions. He managed to push through the JCPOA with assurances that the economic benefits would outweigh the cost of giving up the nuclear project-so much so that the Moderation and Development Party gained a majority in the 2016 parliamentary election. There is little doubt that a serious reduction of the economic benefits accruing from the deal would hurt Rouhani's chances in the 2017 presidential election. Even a cursory perusal of the Rouhani-affiliated media, such as Iran, Etemad and Arman newspapers, among others, indicates more than a passing level of anxiety about his chances in the wake of Trump's election.

    ... ... ...

    Under Obama, such disputes were resolved by a special team of State Department and National Security Council officials, working with the IAEA. Whether the Trump administration would retain the team is doubtful, especially as such a move would be opposed by Bolton or other hard-liners, should they join the administration. Bolton, who accused the IAEA of covering up for Iran, would be most likely press for a more vigilant oversight of Iran's compliance, creating additional friction. This, in turn, can trigger potentially damaging developments. Under the JCPOA terms, Iran is not due additional sanction relief until 2023, but the president is required to sign periodical waivers on sanctions that are on the books if Iran is judged to be in compliance. By refusing to issue the waivers, the Trump administration would essentially abrogate American participation in the accord.

    Even without a formal abrogation, an aggressive American policy would make it hard for Rouhani to protect all the aspects of JCPOA-mandated compliance. Hard-liners may be encouraged by the fact that the EU, Russia and China are not likely to agree on snapping back sanctions, because they would hold the Trump administration responsible for disrupting flourishing trade with Tehran. It is virtually impossible to predict whether Iran, under a hard-line leadership, would resume its nuclear project. It is equally difficult to foresee whether an Obama-type coalition behind the JCPOA could be recreated in the future, should the need arise.

    A Trump administration could let Tehran's hard-liners sabotage the JCPOA.
    Farhad Rezaei

    November 16, 2016

    Rouhani's normalization plan, more than the JCPOA, puts the moderates on a collision course with the Revolutionary Guards and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The former are incensed about Rouhani's new banking regulations, while the latter opposes the type of broad opening to the world that the moderates are pushing. The supreme leader is known to worry that liberalization and Westernization would further undermine the corroding legitimacy of the theocratic state. Not surprisingly, hard-liners have reacted to Trump's victory with glee. Depicting Trump's election as "a victory of the insane over the liar," Kayhan, representing the Supreme Leader, called Trump "a shredder of the JCPOA, an agreement which had zero benefit for Iran." Javan, a mouthpiece for the Revolutionary Guards, wrote that Trump is better for Iran because he would undermine the credibility of the moderates.

    ... ... ...

    The hotly disputed ballistic-missile tests conducted by the Revolutionary Guards in the past year would also come under a review by the new administration; Congress is already crafting legislation that would further sanction implicated countries, companies and individuals. Even small infringements-like the recent incident in which the IAEA reported Iran exceeding the amount of heavy water allowed under the deal-can trigger more measures.

    Under Obama, such disputes were resolved by a special team of State Department and National Security Council officials, working with the IAEA. Whether the Trump administration would retain the team is doubtful, especially as such a move would be opposed by Bolton or other hard-liners, should they join the administration. Bolton, who accused the IAEA of covering up for Iran, would be most likely press for a more vigilant oversight of Iran's compliance, creating additional friction. This, in turn, can trigger potentially damaging developments. Under the JCPOA terms, Iran is not due additional sanction relief until 2023, but the president is required to sign periodical waivers on sanctions that are on the books if Iran is judged to be in compliance. By refusing to issue the waivers, the Trump administration would essentially abrogate American participation in the accord.

    Even without a formal abrogation, an aggressive American policy would make it hard for Rouhani to protect all the aspects of JCPOA-mandated compliance. Hard-liners may be encouraged by the fact that the EU, Russia and China are not likely to agree on snapping back sanctions, because they would hold the Trump administration responsible for disrupting flourishing trade with Tehran. It is virtually impossible to predict whether Iran, under a hard-line leadership, would resume its nuclear project. It is equally difficult to foresee whether an Obama-type coalition behind the JCPOA could be recreated in the future, should the need arise.

    Dr. Farhad Rezaei is a research fellow at Middle East Institute, Sakarya University, Turkey. He is the author of the forthcoming Iran's Nuclear Program: A Study in Nuclear Proliferation and Rollback (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).

    [Nov 19, 2016] Provocation of KGB/FSB on the front page of neoliberal yellow rag Economist ;-)

    Nov 19, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Lyttenburgh ,

    November 18, 2016 at 12:19 am
    Provocation of KGB/FSB!

    First of all – turns out Ed Lucas' personal pleasure object (aka "The Economist") has no idea, who are the Chinese. Second – the depiction of MLP is uncanonical! I protest! We, human masses, demand more canonical depiction of Marine Le Pen! Reply

    [Nov 19, 2016] Steve Bannon Interviewed Its About Americans Not Getting disposed

    Notable quotes:
    "... " Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement ," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks . It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." ..."
    "... Nobody in the Democratic party listened to his speeches, so they had no idea he was delivering such a compelling and powerful economic message. He shows up 3.5 hours late in Michigan at 1 in the morning and has 35,000 people waiting in the cold. When they got [Clinton] off the donor circuit she went to Temple University and they drew 300 or 400 kids." ..."
    "... Bannon on Murdoch: "Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump" ..."
    "... " The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ." ..."
    "... ... I'd say, IMO, Steve Bannon is more than an excellent choice for President Trump's team ... Bannon's education, business, work and military experience speaks highly of his abilities ... I wish the MSM would stop labelling him a white nationalist and concentrate on his successful accomplishments and what he could contribute to Trump's cabinet. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Bannon next discusses the "battle line" inside America's great divide.

    He absolutely - mockingly - rejects the idea that this is a racial line. "I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist, " he tells me. " The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ."

    Bannon's vision: an "entirely new political movement", one which drives the conservatives crazy. As to how monetary policy will coexist with fiscal stimulus, Bannon has a simple explanation: he plans to "rebuild everything" courtesy of negative interest rates and cheap debt throughout the world. Those rates may not be negative for too long.

    " Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement ," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks . It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement."

    How Bannon describes Trump: " an ideal vessel"

    It is less than obvious how Bannon, now the official strategic brains of the Trump operation, syncs with his boss, famously not too strategic. When Bannon took over the campaign from Paul Manafort, there were many in the Trump circle who had resigned themselves to the inevitability of the candidate listening to no one . But here too was a Bannon insight: When the campaign seemed most in free fall or disarray, it was perhaps most on target. While Clinton was largely absent from the campaign trail and concentrating on courting her donors, Trump - even after the leak of the grab-them-by-the-pussy audio - was speaking to ever-growing crowds of thirty-five or forty thousand. "He gets it, he gets it intuitively," says Bannon, perhaps still surprised he has found such an ideal vessel. "You have probably the greatest orator since William Jennings Bryan, coupled with an economic populist message and two political parties that are so owned by the donors that they don't speak to their audience. But he speaks in a non-political vernacular, he communicates with these people in a very visceral way. Nobody in the Democratic party listened to his speeches, so they had no idea he was delivering such a compelling and powerful economic message. He shows up 3.5 hours late in Michigan at 1 in the morning and has 35,000 people waiting in the cold. When they got [Clinton] off the donor circuit she went to Temple University and they drew 300 or 400 kids."

    Bannon on Murdoch: "Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump"

    At that moment, as we talk, there's a knock on the door of Bannon's office, a temporary, impersonal, middle-level executive space with a hodgepodge of chairs for constant impromptu meetings. Sen. Ted Cruz, once the Republican firebrand, now quite a small and unassuming figure, has been waiting patiently for a chat and Bannon excuses himself for a short while. It is clear when we return to our conversation that it is not just the liberal establishment that Bannon feels he has triumphed over, but the conservative one too - not least of all Fox News and its owners, the Murdochs. "They got it more wrong than anybody," he says. " Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump. To him, Trump is a radical. Now they'll go centrist and build the network around Megyn Kelly." Bannon recounts, with no small irony, that when Breitbart attacked Kelly after her challenges to Trump in the initial Republican debate, Fox News chief Roger Ailes - whom Bannon describes as an important mentor, and who Kelly's accusations of sexual harassment would help topple in July - called to defend her. Bannon says he warned Ailes that Kelly would be out to get him too .

    Finally, Bannon on how he sees himself in the administration:

    Bannon now becomes part of a two-headed White House political structure, with Reince Priebus - in and out of Bannon's office as we talk - as chief of staff, in charge of making the trains run on time, reporting to the president, and Bannon as chief strategist, in charge of vision, goals, narrative and plan of attack, reporting to the president too. Add to this the ambitions and whims of the president himself, and the novel circumstance of one who has never held elective office, the agenda of his highly influential family and the end runs of a party significant parts of which were opposed to him, and you have quite a complex court that Bannon will have to finesse to realize his reign of the working man and a trillion dollars in new spending.

    "I am," he says, with relish, "Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors."

    Life of Illusion nibiru Nov 18, 2016 2:32 PM ,
    now that is direct with truth

    " The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ."

    Deathrips Life of Illusion Nov 18, 2016 2:34 PM ,
    William Jennings Bryan!!!! Bonus Points.

    http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1876-1900/william-jennings-bryan-cro...

    Read cross of gold about bimetalism. Gold AND Silver

    PrayingMantis wildbad Nov 18, 2016 3:51 PM ,
    ... I'd say, IMO, Steve Bannon is more than an excellent choice for President Trump's team ... Bannon's education, business, work and military experience speaks highly of his abilities ... I wish the MSM would stop labelling him a white nationalist and concentrate on his successful accomplishments and what he could contribute to Trump's cabinet.

    ........ from wiki ...

    Stephen Kevin Bannon was born on November 27, 1953, in Norfolk, Virginia into a working-class, Irish Catholic, pro-Kennedy, pro-union family of Democrats. He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1976 and holds a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. In 1983, Bannon received an M.B.A. degree with honors from Harvard Business School.

    Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy, serving on the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Pacific Fleet and stateside as a special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.

    After his military service, Bannon worked at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker in the Mergers & Acquisitions Department. In 1990, Bannon and several colleagues from Goldman Sachs launched Bannon & Co., a boutique investment bank specializing in media. Through Bannon & Co., Bannon negotiated the sale of Castle Rock Entertainment to Ted Turner. As payment, Bannon & Co. accepted a financial stake in five television shows, including Seinfeld. Société Générale purchased Bannon & Co. in 1998.

    In 1993, while still managing Bannon & Co., Bannon was made acting director of Earth-science research project Biosphere 2 in Oracle, Arizona. Under Bannon, the project shifted emphasis from researching space exploration and colonization towards pollution and global warming. He left the project in 1995.

    After the sale of Bannon & Co., Bannon became an executive producer in the film and media industry in Hollywood, California. He was executive producer for Julie Taymor's 1999 film Titus. Bannon became a partner with entertainment industry executive Jeff Kwatinetz at The Firm, Inc., a film and television management company. In 2004, Bannon made a documentary about Ronald Reagan titled In the Face of Evil. Through the making and screening of this film, Bannon was introduced to Peter Schweizer and publisher Andrew Breitbart. He was involved in the financing and production of a number of films, including Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman, The Undefeated (on Sarah Palin), and Occupy Unmasked. Bannon also hosts a radio show (Breitbart News Daily) on a Sirius XM satellite radio channel.

    Bannon is also executive chairman and co-founder of the Government Accountability Institute, where he helped orchestrate the publication of the book Clinton Cash. In 2015, Bannon was ranked No. 19 on Mediaite's list of the "25 Most Influential in Political News Media 2015".

    Bannon convinced Goldman Sachs to invest in a company known as Internet Gaming Entertainment. Following a lawsuit, the company rebranded as Affinity Media and Bannon took over as CEO. From 2007 through 2011, Bannon was chairman and CEO of Affinity Media.

    Bannon became a member of the board of Breitbart News. In March 2012, after founder Andrew Breitbart's death, Bannon became executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC, the parent company of Breitbart News. Under his leadership, Breitbart took a more alt-right and nationalistic approach towards its agenda. Bannon declared the website "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016. Bannon identifies as a conservative. Speaking about his role at Breitbart, Bannon said: "We think of ourselves as virulently anti-establishment, particularly 'anti-' the permanent political class."

    The New York Times described Breitbart News under Bannon's leadership as a "curiosity of the fringe right wing", with "ideologically driven journalists", that is a source of controversy "over material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist." The newspaper also noted how Breitbart was now a "potent voice" for Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

    Escrava Isaura The Saint Nov 18, 2016 6:11 PM ,

    Bannon: " The globalists gutted the American working class ..the Democrats were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ."

    Well said. Couldn't agree more.

    Bannon: " Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan.

    Dear Mr. Bannon, it has to be way more than $1trillion in 10 years. Obama's $831 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) didn't make up the difference for all the job lost in 2007/08. Manufacturing alone lost about 9 million jobs since 1979, when it peaked.

    Trump needs to go Ronald Reagan 180% deficit spending. If Trump runs 100% like Obama, Trump will fail as well.

    [Nov 19, 2016] The Anti-Democratic Heart of Populism by Andrés Velasco

    The author mixes the notion of populism as a social protest against the excesses of the rule of the current oligarchy, which enpoverish common people, with neofascism and far right nationalism, which are now popular forms of expression of this protest
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.project-syndicate.org

    SANTIAGO – Many of the men and women who turned out for the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund in early October were saying something like this: "Imagine if the Republicans had nominated someone with the same anti-trade views as Trump, minus the insults and the sexual harassment. A populist protectionist would be headed to the White House."

    The underlying view is that rising populism on the right and the left, both in the United States and in Europe, is a straightforward consequence of globalization and its unwanted effects: lost jobs and stagnant middle-class incomes. Davos men and women hate this conclusion, but they have embraced it with all the fervor of new converts.

    Yet there is an alternative – and more persuasive – view: while economic stagnation helps push upset voters into the populist camp, bad economics is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for bad politics. On the contrary, argues Princeton political scientist Jan-Werner Mueller in his new book : populism is a "permanent shadow" on representative democracy.

    Populism is not about taxation (or jobs or income inequality). It is about representation – who gets to speak for the people and how.

    Advocates of democracy make some exalted claims on its behalf. As Abraham Lincoln put it at Gettysburg , it is "government of the people, by the people, for the people." But modern representative democracy – or any democracy, for that matter – inevitably falls short of these claims. Voting in an election every four years for candidates chosen by party machines is not exactly what Lincoln's lofty words call to mind.

    What populists offer, Mueller says, is to fulfill what the Italian democratic theorist Norberto Bobbio calls the broken promises of democracy. Populists speak and act, claims Mueller, " as if the people could develop a singular judgment,... as if the people were one,... as if the people, if only they empowered the right representatives, could fully master their fates."

    Populism rests on a toxic triad: denial of complexity, anti-pluralism, and a crooked version of representation.

    Most of us believe that social choices (Build more schools or hospitals? Stimulate or discourage international trade? Liberalize or restrict abortion?) are complex, and that the existence of a plurality of views about what to do is both natural and legitimate. Populists deny this. As Ralf Dahrendorf once put it, populism is simple; democracy is complex. To populists, there is only one right view – that of the people.

    If so, the complex mechanisms of liberal democracy, with its emphasis on delegation and representation, are all unnecessary. No need for parliaments endlessly debating: the unitary will of the people can easily be expressed in a single vote. Hence populists' love affair with plebiscites and referenda. Brexit, anyone?

    And not just anyone can represent the people. The claim is to exclusive representation. Remember Trump's boast in his address to the Republican National Convention: "I alone can fix it."

    Politics is always about morality, Aristotle told us. But populists favor what Mueller calls a particular moralistic interpretation of politics . Those who hold the right view about the world are moral; the rest are immoral, lackeys of a corrupt elite. That was exactly the rhetoric of the late Venezuelan ruler Hugo Chávez. When that failed, and when Chávez's sank his country's economy, there was always US imperialism to blame. So populism is a kind of identity politics. It is always us against them .

    Viewed in this light, populism is not a useful corrective to a democracy captured by technocrats and elites, as Marine Le Pen, Rafael Correa, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, or assorted Western intellectuals want you to believe. On the contrary, it is profoundly anti-democratic, and hence a threat to democracy itself.

    What is to be done? My take (the prescription is my own, not Mueller's) is that democrats must (and can) beat populists at their own game. The toxic triad can become salutary.

    First, acknowledge complexity. The only thing that upsets voters as much as being lied to is being treated like babies. People who lead challenging lives know that the world is complex. They do not mind being told that. They appreciate being spoken to as the grownups they are.

    Second, do not treat diversity of views and identities as a problem calling for a technocratic solution. Rather, make respect for such diversity a profoundly moral feature of society. The fact that we are not all the same and we can still get along is a tremendous democratic achievement. Make the case for it. And do not fall for the tired cliché that reason is for democrats and emotion is for populists. Make the case for pluralistic democracy in a way that inspires and stirs emotion.

    Third, defend – and update – representation. Leave delegation to complex technical matters. Take advantage of modern technologies to bring other choices – particularly those having to do with the fabric of daily life – closer to voters. Tighten campaign finance laws, regulate lobbying better, and enforce affirmative-action measures to ensure that representatives are of the people and work for the people.

    These measures alone will not ensure that all of democracy's broken promises are fulfilled. But we cannot expect a single set of simple actions to solve a complex problem. Nor can we believe that we alone can fix it.

    If we believed that, we would be populists. For the sake of democracy, that is precisely what we should not be.

    Andrés Velasco, a former presidential candidate and finance minister of Chile, is Professor of Professional Practice in International Development at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. He has taught at Harvard University and New York University, and is the author of numerous studies on international economics and development.

    [Nov 19, 2016] Men arent interested in working at McDonalds for $15 per hour instead of $9.50. What they want is... steady, stable, full-time jobs that deliver a solid middle-class life

    Notable quotes:
    "... The economic point is that globalisation has boosted trade and overall wealth, but it has also created a dog eat dog world where western workers compete with, and lose jobs to, people far away who will do the work for much less. ..."
    "... But neither Trump nor Farage have shown any evidence of how realistically they can recreate those jobs in the west. And realistically god knows how you keep the wealth free trade and globalisation brings but avoid losing the good jobs? At least the current mess has focused attention on the question and has said that patience has run out. ..."
    "... Compared to the real economic problems, the identity politics is minor, but it is still an irritant that explains why this revolution is coming from the right not from the left. ..."
    "... And what "age" has that been Roy? The "age" of: climate change, gangster bankers, tax heavens, illegal wars, nuclear proliferation, grotesque inequality, the prison industrial complex to cite just a few. That "age"? ..."
    "... the right wing press detest one kind of liberalism, social liberalism, they hate that, but they love economic liberalism, which has done much harm to the working class. ..."
    "... Most of the right wing press support austerity measures, slashing of taxes and, smaller and smaller governments. Yet apparently, its being socially liberal that is the problem ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | profile.theguardian.com
    goodtable, 3d ago

    A crucial point "WWC men aren't interested in working at McDonald's for $15 per hour instead of $9.50. What they want is... steady, stable, full-time jobs that deliver a solid middle-class life."

    The economic point is that globalisation has boosted trade and overall wealth, but it has also created a dog eat dog world where western workers compete with, and lose jobs to, people far away who will do the work for much less.

    But neither Trump nor Farage have shown any evidence of how realistically they can recreate those jobs in the west. And realistically god knows how you keep the wealth free trade and globalisation brings but avoid losing the good jobs? At least the current mess has focused attention on the question and has said that patience has run out.

    Compared to the real economic problems, the identity politics is minor, but it is still an irritant that explains why this revolution is coming from the right not from the left.

    If you're white and male it's bad enough losing your hope of economic security, but then to be repeatedly told by the left that you're misogynist, racist, sexist, Islamophobic, transgenderphobic etc etc is just the icing on the cake. If the author wants to see just how crazy identity politics has become go to the Suzanne Moore piece from yesterday accusing American women of being misogynist for refusing to vote for Hillary. That kind of maniac 'agree with me on everything or you're a racist, sexist, homophobe' identity politics has to be ditched. Reply

    EnglishMike -> goodtable 3d ago
    Funny, I've been a white male my whole life and not once have I been accused of being a misogynist, racist, sexist, Islamophobic, or transgenderphobic. I didn't think being a white male was so difficult for some people... Reply
    garrylee 3d ago
    "Are we turning our backs on the age of enlightenment?".

    And what "age" has that been Roy? The "age" of: climate change, gangster bankers, tax heavens, illegal wars, nuclear proliferation, grotesque inequality, the prison industrial complex to cite just a few. That "age"?

    Bazz Leaveblank -> garrylee 3d ago
    I agree hardly an age of enlightenment. My opinion... the so called Liberal Elite are responsible for many of the issues in the list. The poor and the old in this country are not being helped by the benefits system. Yet the rich get richer beyond the dreams of the ordinary man.

    I would pay more tax if I thought it might be spent more wisely...but can you trust politicians who are happy to spend 50 billion on a railway line that 98% of the population will never use.

    No solutions from me ...an old hippy from the 60s "Love and peace man " ...didn't work did it :)

    aronDi 3d ago
    I have come under the impression that the right wing press detest one kind of liberalism, social liberalism, they hate that, but they love economic liberalism, which has done much harm to the working class.

    Most of the right wing press support austerity measures, slashing of taxes and, smaller and smaller governments. Yet apparently, its being socially liberal that is the problem.

    [Nov 19, 2016] British neocons are frustrated that Trump does not consult US neocons

    Speaking to foreign heads of state without briefing papers from neocon bottom feeders from the State Department might be a wise move.
    And meaningful contact with such the nation's foreign policy professionals as Samantha Paul or Victoria Nuland is probably impossible ;-).
    "...turning a blind eye to Russia's designs on Ukraine and its support for the Assad regime in Syria." might be what is really needed for the USA foreigh policy.
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    From: Michael Flynn will be a disaster as national security adviser by Richard Wolffe

    Like his new boss, Flynn appears very comfortable with the current Russian regime, working with Russia Today , the Kremlin's propaganda TV network. He apparently received classified intelligence briefings while running a lobbying firm for foreign clients. He seems to favor working with Russia to combat Islamist terrorists while turning a blind eye to Russia's designs on Ukraine and its support for the Assad regime in Syria.

    ... ... ..

    In the brief time since he won the election, Trump's first call with a world leader was not with a trusted US ally but with the Egyptian dictator President al-Sisi. He sat with prime minister Abe of Japan this week, but his aides told the Japanese not to believe every word Trump said.

    He met with the populist right wing British politician Nigel Farage before meeting the British prime minister Theresa May. But he somehow found time to meet with several Indian real estate developers to discuss his property interests with them, and the Trump Organization signed a Kolkata deal on Friday.

    Amid his many interactions with foreign powers, Trump is speaking without briefing papers from the State Department because his transition team is in such chaos that they have yet to establish meaningful contact with the nation's foreign policy professionals.

    [Nov 19, 2016] The fundamental problem is the leftes are playing the game of the neoliberals for them. Especially in the area of immigration

    Nov 19, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    Stillgrizzly 3d ago 85 86 The fundamental problem seems to be that the left / liberals are playing the game of the right for them and not being intelligent enough to realise it.

    Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.

    The liberal left are confusing the cries of alarm from those losing out with racism and bigotry, which have been ingrained in their psyche due to identity politics. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report RJB73 Stillgrizzly 3d ago 48 49 Well put. Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal) is bad for working class people who are citizens of the US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the past naturally come to their defense. Instead, they've labelled them racists and islamphobes etc. because they are not driven by (classical) liberalism but rather divisive identity politics focused on minority groups (e.g. transgender issues, which is not going to win many votes.) Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report greenwichite Stillgrizzly 3d ago 22 23 Liberals and the Left are not the same thing, though.

    I think the liberals' horror at Jeremy Corbyn demonstrates this, as did the way liberals torpedoed Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.

    To be liberal is to let people do whatever they want, so long as they don't directly harm other people.

    Multinational businesses love this mentality, because it allows them to indirectly harm billions of people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a very liberal concept) which cuts their taxes and makes them stronger than most national governments, so they wield vast, unaccountable power, and get away with massive levels of pollution. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Stillgrizzly greenwichite 3d ago 9 10 The liberals "horror" at Corbyn is because he is bringing out reactionary "hard" left elements amongst other things, which are destroying what was a kind of consensus.

    This is fracturing the opposition and driving people towards the right or "protest" parties. Corbyn is the best recruiting tool UKIP never had. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report icansee Stillgrizzly 3d ago 6 7 If you think that this was a universal backlash to the effects of immigration on jobs , then you are missing the point .
    My advise is for you to check the archives of mother jones and other blogs to find out how this faux rage developed .
    Trump's primary voters have an average income of $70,000. They are not affected by mass migration .
    This is a rage against Marriage equality ,Seperation of the church and state ,continuation of the war against affirmative action ,environmental protection ,union etc .

    The faux rage was engineered by l

    1 Remnants of Koch brothers tea party
    2 Fox news
    3 Alt right
    4 Evangelicals
    5 Gun manufacturers

    They created an hurricane and carried other unwilling groups like blue collar democrats with them .
    However , they wouldn't have stand any chance if progressives had turned up . Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Jaisans Stillgrizzly 3d ago 0 1 Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.

    you might be putting the cart before the horse a little bit there. the problem isn't freedom of movement (let's try not to use emotive terms like mass migration) is employers seeking cheap labour. better wages would attract more local labour, instead employers actively seek cheap labour from abroad. and that's a result of economic liberalism, which is very different to classical liberalism. classical liberals built houses for their workers to live in, rather than not paying them enough to live in their own house. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Stillgrizzly icansee 3d ago 2 3 Trump is allied with the Republican party, people seem to have overlooked that. Therefore, shock horror, a lot of Republican voters voted for him.

    Also in the US, the level of non voting is huge, suggesting a level of ignorance / disillusionment with either of the choices. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Stillgrizzly Jaisans 3d ago 3 4 You're arguing for protectionism, just like Trump, effectively state subsidy of the incumbent population via tarriffs / subsidies / buy British / American campaigns / increased welfare etc, the net effect is the same.

    If you're arguing for better "welfare" for the incumbents also, you'd have to discriminate between the incumbents and migrants, something which is anathema to the left in particular and the EU. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Jaisans Stillgrizzly 2d ago 0 1 You're arguing for protectionism

    isn't controlled immigration also protectionism? employers exploiting foreign workers at the expense of local labour is just plain wrong, it's not market forces. and it's not the fault of freedom of movement. and it causes trouble...even keir hardie saw that

    better welfare would be a good idea. a better one would universal credit. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Its_me Stillgrizzly 2d ago 3 4 Yep, they hate Corbyn because he's rocking their cosy boat where they could wear Red while having Blue policies. The people who hate Corbyn are the same ones who were vociferous against UKIP, for the same reasons - they threatened to disrupt their LibLabCon club and the opportunities they think they deserve.

    [Nov 19, 2016] Battle brews over Trump's foreign policy as Americans are beginning to suffer from hegemony fatigue

    Notable quotes:
    "... "How many people sleep better knowing that the Baltics are part of NATO? They don't make us safer, in fact, quite the opposite. We need to think really hard about these commitments," said William Ruger, vice president of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute. ..."
    "... Bolton has come under criticism from Sen. Rand Paul Rand Paul Battle brews over Trump's foreign policy Steve Bannon - what do you actually know about him? America's public servants: Our last, best hope MORE (R-Ky.), who was a skeptic of Bush's foreign policy. ..."
    "... Paul on Tuesday blasted Bolton in an op-ed in Rare as "a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose." ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | thehill.com

    ... The outsider group sees things differently. They want to revamp American foreign policy in a different direction from the last two administrations. The second camp is also more in line with Trump's views questioning the value of NATO, a position that horrified many in the establishment camp.

    "How many people sleep better knowing that the Baltics are part of NATO? They don't make us safer, in fact, quite the opposite. We need to think really hard about these commitments," said William Ruger, vice president of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute.

    Bolton has come under criticism from Sen. Rand Paul Rand Paul Battle brews over Trump's foreign policy Steve Bannon - what do you actually know about him? America's public servants: Our last, best hope MORE (R-Ky.), who was a skeptic of Bush's foreign policy.

    Paul on Tuesday blasted Bolton in an op-ed in Rare as "a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose."

    ...military historian and Retired Amy Col. Andrew Bacevich said there needs to be a rethink of American foreign policy. He said the U.S. must consider whether Saudi Arabia and Pakistan qualify as U.S. allies, and the growing divergence between the U.S. and Israel.

    "The establishment doesn't want to touch questions like these with a ten foot pole," he said at a conference on Tuesday hosted by The American Conservative, the Charles Koch Institute, and the George Washington University Department of Political Science.

    With some Trump advisers, it's not clear which camp they fall into. One example is retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who may become Trump's national security adviser.

    Flynn is a "curious case," said Daniel Larison, senior editor at The American Conservative. The retired Army general has said he wants to work with Russia, but also expressed contrary views in his book "Field of Fight."

    According to Larison, Flynn writes of an "enemy alliance" against the U.S. that includes Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

    It's also not crystal clear which camp Giuliani falls into. The former mayor is known as a fierce critic of Islamic extremism but has scant foreign policy experience.

    Most say what is likely is change.

    "Change is coming to American grand strategy whether we like it or not,' said Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security at Texas A&M University.

    "I think we are overdue for American retrenchment. Americans are beginning to suffer from hegemony fatigue," he said.

    [Nov 19, 2016] How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer

    Nov 19, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> anne... November 18, 2016 at 05:07 AM

    http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    Introduction: Trading in Myths

    In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

    This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

    The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

    The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

    That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

    In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return.

    [Figure 1-1] Theoretical and actual capital flows.

    So the United States, Japan, and the European Union should be running large trade surpluses, which is what an outflow of capital means. Rich countries like ours should be lending money to developing countries, providing them with the means to build up their capital stock and infrastructure while they use their own resources to meet their people's basic needs.

    This wasn't just theory. That story accurately described much of the developing world, especially Asia, through the 1990s. Countries like Indonesia and Malaysia were experiencing rapid annual growth of 7.8 percent and 9.6 percent, respectively, even as they ran large trade deficits, just over 2 percent of GDP each year in Indonesia and almost 5 percent in Malaysia.

    These trade deficits probably were excessive, and a crisis of confidence hit East Asia and much of the developing world in the summer of 1997. The inflow of capital from rich countries slowed or reversed, making it impossible for the developing countries to sustain the fixed exchange rates most had at the time. One after another, they were forced to abandon their fixed exchange rates and turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for help.

    Rather than promulgating policies that would allow developing countries to continue the textbook development path of growth driven by importing capital and running trade deficits, the IMF made debt repayment a top priority. The bailout, under the direction of the Clinton administration Treasury Department, required developing countries to switch to large trade surpluses (Radelet and Sachs 2000, O'Neil 1999).

    The countries of East Asia would be far richer today had they been allowed to continue on the growth path of the early and mid-1990s, when they had large trade deficits. Four of the five would be more than twice as rich, and the fifth, Vietnam, would be almost 50 percent richer. South Korea and Malaysia would have higher per capita incomes today than the United States.

    [Figure 1-2] Per capita income of East Asian countries, actual vs. continuing on 1990s growth path.

    In the wake of the East Asia bailout, countries throughout the developing world decided they had to build up reserves of foreign exchange, primarily dollars, in order to avoid ever facing the same harsh bailout terms as the countries of East Asia. Building up reserves meant running large trade surpluses, and it is no coincidence that the U.S. trade deficit has exploded, rising from just over 1 percent of GDP in 1996 to almost 6 percent in 2005. The rise has coincided with the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing jobs, roughly 20 percent of employment in the sector.

    There was no reason the textbook growth pattern of the 1990s could not have continued. It wasn't the laws of economics that forced developing countries to take a different path, it was the failed bailout and the international financial system. It would seem that the enemy of the world's poor is not Bernie Sanders but rather the engineers of our current globalization policies.

    There is a further point in this story that is generally missed: it is not only the volume of trade flows that is determined by policy, but also the content. A major push in recent trade deals has been to require stronger and longer patent and copyright protection. Paying the fees imposed by these terms, especially for prescription drugs, is a huge burden on the developing world. Bill Clinton would have much less need to fly around the world for the Clinton Foundation had he not inserted the TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) provisions in the World Trade Organization (WTO) that require developing countries to adopt U.S.-style patent protections. Generic drugs are almost always cheap - patent protection makes drugs expensive. The cancer and hepatitis drugs that sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year would sell for a few hundred dollars in a free market. Cheap drugs would be more widely available had the developed world not forced TRIPS on the developing world.

    Of course, we have to pay for the research to develop new drugs or any innovation. We also have to compensate creative workers who produce music, movies, and books. But there are efficient alternatives to patents and copyrights, and the efforts by the elites in the United States and other wealthy countries to impose these relics on the developing world is just a mechanism for redistributing income from the world's poor to Pfizer, Microsoft, and Disney. Stronger and longer patent and copyright protection is not a necessary feature of a 21st century economy.

    In textbook trade theory, if a country has a larger trade surplus on payments for royalties and patent licensing fees, it will have a larger trade deficit in manufactured goods and other areas. The reason is that, in theory, the trade balance is fixed by national savings and investment, not by the ability of a country to export in a particular area. If the trade deficit is effectively fixed by these macroeconomic factors, then more exports in one area mean fewer exports in other areas. Put another way, income gains for Pfizer and Disney translate into lost jobs for workers in the steel and auto industries....

    reason : , November 18, 2016 at 05:14 AM

    I thought this from Dean Baker was interesting:
    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/if-you-thought-a-trump-presidency-was-bad?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+beat_the_press+%28Beat+the+Press%29

    It includes this interesting piece on international trade:

    "I'll start with my favorite, the complaint that the trade policy advocating by Warren and Sanders would hurt the poor in the developing world, or to use their words:


    "And their ostensible protection of American workers leaves no room to consider the welfare of poor people elsewhere in the world."

    I like this one because it turns standard economic theory on its head to advance the interests of the rich and powerful. In the economic textbooks, rich countries like the United States are supposed to be exporting capital to the developing world. This provides them the means to build up their capital stock and infrastructure, while maintaining the living standards of their populations. This is the standard economic story where the problem is scarcity.

    But to justify trade policies that have harmed tens of millions of U.S. workers, either by costing them jobs or depressing their wages, the Post discards standard economics and tells us the problem facing people in the developing world is that there is too much stuff. If we didn't buy the goods produced in the developing world then there would just be a massive glut of unsold products.

    In the standard theory the people in the developing world buy their own stuff, with rich countries like the U.S. providing the financing. It actually did work this way in the 1990s, up until the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. In that period, countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia were growing very rapidly while running large trade deficits. This pattern of growth was ended by the terms of the bailout imposed on these countries by the U.S. Treasury Department through the International Monetary Fund.

    The harsh terms of the bailout forced these and other developing countries to reverse the standard textbook path and start running large trade surpluses. This post-bailout period was associated with slower growth for these countries. In other words, the poor of the developing world suffered from the pattern of trade the Post advocates. If they had continued on the pre-bailout path they would be much richer today. In fact, South Korea and Malaysia would be richer than the United States if they had maintained their pre-bailout growth rate over the last two decades. (This is the topic of the introduction to my new book, Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer, it's free.)"

    Not sure that I fully agree with him, but I do agree that trade imbalances and mercantilism is a large part of the problem.

    Oh I see Anne posted this in parallel.

    anne -> reason ... , November 18, 2016 at 05:59 AM
    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/if-you-thought-a-trump-presidency-was-bad?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+beat_the_press+%28Beat+the+Press%29

    November 15, 2016

    If You Thought a Trump Presidency Was Bad .

    The Washington Post editorial page decided to lecture readers * on the meaning of progressivism. Okay, that is nowhere near as bad as a Trump presidency, but really, did we need this?

    The editorial gives us a potpourri of neo-liberal (yes, the term is appropriate here) platitudes, all of which we have heard many times before and are best half true. For framing, the villains are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who it tells us "are embracing principles that are not genuinely progressive."

    I'll start with my favorite, the complaint that the trade policy advocating by Warren and Sanders would hurt the poor in the developing world, or to use their words:

    "And their ostensible protection of American workers leaves no room to consider the welfare of poor people elsewhere in the world."

    I like this one because it turns standard economic theory on its head to advance the interests of the rich and powerful. In the economic textbooks, rich countries like the United States are supposed to be exporting capital to the developing world. This provides them the means to build up their capital stock and infrastructure, while maintaining the living standards of their populations. This is the standard economic story where the problem is scarcity.

    But to justify trade policies that have harmed tens of millions of U.S. workers, either by costing them jobs or depressing their wages, the Post discards standard economics and tells us the problem facing people in the developing world is that there is too much stuff. If we didn't buy the goods produced in the developing world then there would just be a massive glut of unsold products.

    In the standard theory the people in the developing world buy their own stuff, with rich countries like the U.S. providing the financing. It actually did work this way in the 1990s, up until the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. In that period, countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia were growing very rapidly while running large trade deficits. This pattern of growth was ended by the terms of the bailout imposed on these countries by the U.S. Treasury Department through the International Monetary Fund.

    The harsh terms of the bailout forced these and other developing countries to reverse the standard textbook path and start running large trade surpluses. This post-bailout period was associated with slower growth for these countries. In other words, the poor of the developing world suffered from the pattern of trade the Post advocates. If they had continued on the pre-bailout path they would be much richer today. In fact, South Korea and Malaysia would be richer than the United States if they had maintained their pre-bailout growth rate over the last two decades. (This is the topic of the introduction to my new book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer," ** it's free.)

    It is also important to note that the Post is only bothered by forms of protection that might help working class people. The United States prohibits foreign doctors from practicing in the United States unless they complete a U.S. residency program. (The total number of slots are tightly restricted with only a small fraction open to foreign trained doctors.) This is a classic protectionist measure. No serious person can believe that the only way for a person to be a competent doctor is to complete a U.S. residency program. It costs the United States around $100 billion a year ($700 per family) in higher medical expenses. Yet, we never hear a word about this or other barriers that protect the most highly paid professionals from the same sort of international competition faced by steelworkers and textile workers.

    Moving on, we get yet another Post tirade on Social Security.

    "You can expand benefits for everyone, as Ms. Warren favors. Prosperous retirees who live mostly off their well-padded 401(k)s will appreciate what to them will feel like a small bonus, if they notice it. But spreading wealth that way will make it harder to find the resources for the vulnerable elderly who truly depend on Social Security.

    "But demographics - the aging of the population - cannot be wished away. In the 1960s, about five taxpayers were helping to support each Social Security recipient, and the economy was growing about 6 percent annually. Today there are fewer than three workers for each pensioner, and the growth rate even following the 2008 recession has averaged about 2 percent . On current trends, 10 years from now the federal government will be spending almost all its money on Medicare, Social Security and other entitlements and on interest payments on the debt, leaving less and less for schools, housing and job training. There is nothing progressive about that."

    There are all sorts of misleading or wrong claims here. First, the economy did not grow "about 6 percent annually" in the 1960s. There were three years in which growth did exceed 6.0 percent, and it was a very prosperous decade, but growth only averaged 4.6 percent from 1960 to 1970.

    I suppose we should be happy that the Post is at least getting closer to the mark. A 2007 editorial *** praising The North American Free Trade Agreement told readers that Mexico's GDP "has more than quadrupled since 1987." The International Monetary Fund data **** put the gain at 83 percent. So by comparison, they are doing pretty good with the 6 percent growth number for the sixties.

    But getting to the demographics, we did go from more than five workers for every retiree to less than three today, and this number is projected to fall further to around 2.0 workers per retiree in the next fifteen years. This raises the obvious question, so what?

    The economy did not collapse even as we saw the fall from 5 workers per retiree to less than 3, so something really really bad happens when it falls further? We did raise taxes to cover the additional cost and we will probably have to raise taxes in the future.

    We get that the Post doesn't like tax increases (no one does), but this hardly seems like the end of the world. The Social Security Trustees project ***** that real wages will rise on average by more than 34 percent over the next two decades. Suppose we took back 5–10 percent of these projected wage gains through tax increases (still leaving workers with wages that are more than 30 percent higher than they are today), what is the big problem?

    Of course most workers have not seen their wages rise in step with the economy's growth over the last four decades. This is a huge issue which is the sort of thing that progressives should be and are focusing on. But the Post would rather distract us with the possibility that at some point in the future we may be paying a somewhat higher Social Security tax.

    The Post's route for savings is also classic misdirection. It tells how about high-living seniors who get so much money from their 401(k)s they don't even notice their Social Security checks. Only a bit more than 4.0 percent of the over 65 population has non-Social Security income of more than $80,000 a year. If the point is to have substantial savings from means-testing it would be necessary to hit people with incomes around $40,000 a year or even lower. That is not what most people consider wealthy.

    We could have substantial savings on Medicare by pushing down the pay of doctors and reducing the prices of drugs and medical equipment. The latter could be done by substituting public financing for research and development for government granted patent monopolies (also discussed in Rigged). These items would almost invariably be cheap in a free market. But the Post seems uninterested in ways to save money that could affect the incomes of the rich.

    One can quibble with whether the current benefits for middle income people are right or should be somewhat higher or lower, but it is ridiculous to argue that raising them $50 a month, as proposed by Senator Warren, will break the bank.

    Then we have the issue of free college. The Post raises the issue, pushed by Senator Sanders in his presidential campaign, and then tells readers:

    "Our answer - we would argue, the progressive answer - is that there are people in society with far greater needs than that upper-middle-class family in Fairfax County that would be relieved of its tuition burden at the College of William & Mary if Mr. Sanders got his wish."

    There are two points to be made here. First there is extensive research ****** showing that many children from low- and moderate-income families hugely over-estimate the cost of college, failing to realize that they would be eligible for financial aid that would make it free or nearly free. This means that the current structure is preventing many relatively disadvantaged children from attending college. Arguably better education on the opportunities to get aid would solve this problem, but the problem has existed for a long time and better education has not done much to change the picture thus far.

    The second point is that the process of determining eligibility for aid is itself costly. Many children have divorced parents, with a non-custodial parent often not anxious to pay for their children's college. Perhaps it is appropriate that they should pay, but forcing payment is not an easy task and it doesn't make sense to make the children in such situations suffer.

    In many ways, the free college solution is likely to be the easiest, with the tax coming out of the income of higher earners, the vast majority of whom will be the beneficiaries of this policy. There are ways to save on paying for college. My favorite is limiting the pay of anyone at a public school to the salary of the president of the United States ($400,000 a year). We can also deny the privilege of tax exempt status to private universities or other non-profits that don't accept a similar salary cap. These folks can pay their top executives whatever they want, but they shouldn't ask the taxpayers to subsidize their exorbitant pay packages.

    There is one final issue in the column worth noting. At one point it makes a pitch for the virtues of economic growth then tells readers:

    "It's not in conflict with the goal of redistribution."

    At least some of us progressive types are not particularly focused on "redistribution." The focus of my book and much of my other writing is on the way that the market has been structured to redistribute income upward, compared with the structures in place in the quarter century after World War II. Is understandable that people who are basically very satisfied with this upward redistribution of market income would not want this rigging of the market even to be discussed, but serious progressives do.

    * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-does-it-mean-to-be-progressive/2016/11/14/469662fe-9c8d-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html

    ** http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    *** http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/02/AR2007120201588.html

    **** http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=44&pr.y=2&sy=1987&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=273&s=NGDP_R&grp=0&a=

    ***** https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2015/index.html

    ****** http://www.allhallows.org/ourpages/auto/2012/9/7/43578201/Real%20and%20Imagined%20barriers.pdf

    -- Dean Baker

    anne -> reason ... , November 18, 2016 at 06:01 AM
    I thought this from Dean Baker was interesting...

    [ And, I think, especially important. ]

    reason -> anne... , November 18, 2016 at 06:19 AM
    Although I like much of what Dean Baker, I don't like his term "loser liberalism", nor do I think his de-emphasis on redistribution useful. Au contraire, I think talking about redistribution is absolutely essential if we are to move to sustainable world. We can no longer be certain that per person GDP growth will be sufficient to be able to ignore distribution or to rely on "predistribution".
    anne -> reason ... , November 18, 2016 at 06:35 AM
    "Although I like much of what Dean Baker, I don't like his term 'loser liberalism', nor do I think his de-emphasis on redistribution useful...."

    http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/ending-loser-liberalism-why-a-market-based-approach-makes-sense

    November 18, 2015

    Ending Loser Liberalism: Why a Market Based Approach Makes Sense

    -- Dean Baker

    [ Well worth arguing about. ]

    anne -> reason ... , November 18, 2016 at 07:19 AM
    http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/End-of-Loser-Liberalism.pdf

    2011

    The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive
    By Dean Baker

    Upward Redistribution of Income: It Didn't Just Happen

    Money does not fall up. Yet the United States has experienced a massive upward redistribution of income over the last three decades, leaving the bulk of the workforce with little to show from the economic growth since 1980. This upward redistribution was not the result of the natural workings of the market. Rather, it was the result of deliberate policy, most of which had the support of the leadership of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

    Unfortunately, the public and even experienced progressive political figures are not well informed about the key policies responsible for this upward redistribution, even though they are not exactly secrets. The policies are so well established as conventional economic policy that we tend to think of them as incontrovertibly virtuous things, but each has a dark side. An anti-inflation policy by the Federal Reserve Board, which relies on high interest rates, slows growth and throws people out of work. Major trade deals hurt manufacturing workers by putting them in direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. A high dollar makes U.S. goods uncompetitive in world markets.

    Almost any economist would acknowledge these facts, but few economists have explored their implications and explained them to the general public. As a result, most of us have little understanding of the economic policies that have the largest impact on our jobs, our homes, and our lives. Instead, public debate and the most hotly contested legislation in Congress tend to be about issues that will have relatively little impact.

    This lack of focus on crucial economic issues is a serious problem from the standpoint of advancing a progressive agenda....

    Johannes Y O Highness -> anne... , November 18, 2016 at 06:25 AM
    Awareness is the first step forward. Foreign workers is just another name for workers, just another

    name for My
    People --

    anne -> Johannes Y O Highness... , November 18, 2016 at 06:36 AM
    Foreign workers is just another name for workers...

    [ Nicely expressed. ]

    [Nov 19, 2016] What Did Draghi Know About Potential Loss And Abuses At Italys Largest Bank

    Notable quotes:
    "... Apparently lax and/or incompetent regulation of systemically important banks by bureaucrats, central bankers, and politicians may not be just a recent American phenomenon. ..."
    "... He related how he was not only ignored by his bank, the Irish regulator but also all the major political parties. He then pointed out that the Irish regulator claims that it always – and it is the law after all – informs the regulator of the home country of banks which have subsidiaries in Ireland, about any serious problems. ..."
    "... Mr Sugarman suggested Mr Draghi should be asked point-blank of he did or if he did not know . If he did not then the Irish regulator was at least incompetent, and may have lied, misled and perhaps even broken Irish laws. If he was told and did know, then Mr Draghi has serious questions to answer regarding his own dereliction of duty. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Via Jesse's Cafe Americain blog,

    Apparently lax and/or incompetent regulation of systemically important banks by bureaucrats, central bankers, and politicians may not be just a recent American phenomenon.

    As we read this, it could imperil the soundness of the financial system in Europe as well, as is still apparently the case with The Banks in the states, despite assurances to the contrary.

    Golem XIV asks some very good questions in the article below, recently posted on his blog here.

    Whistleblowers Testify in EU Parliament

    Yesterday a very high-powered panel of international banking whistleblowers met and told their stories in the European parliament . The questions raised were important. Among them was the Irish Whistleblower, Jonathan Sugarman, who when UniCredit Ireland was breaking the law in very serious ways reported it to the Irish regulator.

    He related how he was not only ignored by his bank, the Irish regulator but also all the major political parties. He then pointed out that the Irish regulator claims that it always – and it is the law after all – informs the regulator of the home country of banks which have subsidiaries in Ireland, about any serious problems.

    In the case of UniCredit that would mean the Italian Central bank would have been told that Italy's largest Bank was in serious breach of Irish law in ways that could endanger the whole banking system. The head of the Italian Central Bank at the time was a certain Mr Mario Draghi.

    Mr Sugarman suggested Mr Draghi should be asked point-blank of he did or if he did not know . If he did not then the Irish regulator was at least incompetent, and may have lied, misled and perhaps even broken Irish laws. If he was told and did know, then Mr Draghi has serious questions to answer regarding his own dereliction of duty.

    Surely not I hear you say. Well perhaps someone might ask him? Or is he above the law?

    http://www.guengl.eu/news/article/whistleblower-protection-what-must-be-done

    [Nov 19, 2016] The 2016 election sounded the death knell for the identity politics by Michael Hudson

    www.counterpunch.org

    What is the Democratic Party's former constituency of labor and progressive reformers to do? Are they to stand by and let the party be captured in Hillary's wake by Robert Rubin's Goldman Sachs-Citigroup gang that backed her and Obama?

    The 2016 election sounded the death knell for the identity politics. Its aim was to persuade voters not to think of their identity in economic terms, but to think of themselves as women or as racial and ethnic groups first and foremost, not as having common economic interests. This strategy to distract voters from economic policies has obviously failed...

    This election showed that voters have a sense of when they're being lied to. After eight years of Obama's demagogy, pretending to support the people but delivering his constituency to his financial backers on Wall Street. 'Identity politics' has given way to the stronger force of economic distress. Mobilizing identity politics behind a Wall Street program will no longer work."

    Michael Hudson

    [Nov 19, 2016] Top 5 Big Foreign Conflicts Donald Trump Will Inherit (And What He Might Do About Them)

    Nov 18, 2016 | nationalinterest.org

    The Defense Department reports that as of Aug. 31, the total cost of operations related to defeating ISIS is $9.3 billion and the average daily cost is $12.3 million.

    Printer-friendly version

    Even if ISIS loses Mosul and Raqqa, and Trump increases resources for the fight against the group, the terrorist danger won't go away, experts say. Indeed, like it or not, Trump will have to confront a complex "day after" scenario that has proved stubbornly enduring.

    "ISIS is not the problem, but a symptom of the problem," said Kenneth Pollack, a Middle East policy expert at the Brookings Institution, in an interview with The Daily Signal. "If you've learned anything over recent time, you can't get rid of terrorism by just killing terrorists, if you don't address the underlying grievances. Even if you kill them all, they will come back the next day."

    2. Afghanistan War:

    ...The U.S. continued military efforts in Afghanistan were underscored this weekend, when a suicide bomber snuck into the main American military base in the country, killing four Americans. The Taliban, the long-running Islamic group waging war against Afghanistan's government, took credit for the attack.

    Indeed, this grinding 15-year war, and the U.S. contribution to it, shows no signs of ending anytime soon.

    3. Ukraine-Russia War:

    ... ... ..

    Trump has not criticized Russia for its action in Ukraine, and has hinted he would accept the annexation of Crimea.

    The Republican-led House, meanwhile, approved a resolution for the U.S. to provide lethal arms to the Ukrainian government, but the White House has resisted, saying that it would only encourage more violence.

    Based on his public comments, it seems unlikely Trump will escalate the U.S. involvement in Ukraine, and perhaps back off from its current role.

    4. Saudi Arabia-Yemen War:

    ... ... ...

    The Houthis ousted Yemen's government and forced its U.S.-backed president, Abed Mansour Hadi, to flee to Saudi Arabia. The Houthis receive support from Iran, Saudi Arabia's rival in the Middle East.

    Obama decided to intervene in the fight because he wanted to reassure the U.S.' commitment to Saudi Arabia, a longtime ally that was troubled by the nuclear deal with Iran. In addition, the U.S. is concerned the chaos in Yemen could benefit the country's al-Qaeda affiliate.

    About 10,000 people, nearly half civilians, have been killed in the war, most of them by the Saudi military coalition, according to the United Nations.

    5. Campaigns Against Terrorists in Africa:

    What's Happening Now:

    Obama has described his efforts to destroy al-Qaeda's core leadership as one of the successes of his national security policy. But the terrorist threat has spread to new regions in recent years, prompting a U.S. military response, and Trump will have to decide how to proceed.

    Unrelated campaigns in Libya and Somalia are prime examples of the diffuse threat.

    In Libya, the U.S. has conducted more than 360 airstrikes in support of pro-government forces trying to expel ISIS from the coastal Libyan city, Sirte. A small number of U.S. special operations forces are also providing on-the-ground support.

    This first appeared in The Daily Signal here.

    [Nov 19, 2016] Robert Gibbs It Wasn't Racism, Hillary Lost Because She Had No Economic Message

    www.breitbart.com

    President Barack Obama's former press secretary Robert Gibbs faulted Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign for failing to have a dynamic economic message that applied to working class voters, and ridiculed the suggestion that voters voted for Donald Trump because they were racists.

    "The truth is, the party didn't have an economic message," Gibbs said. "The party didn't fight in places that it should have."

    Gibbs, who now works for McDonalds as the Global Chief Communications officer, explained that his biggest surprise was that Clinton failed so badly in Michigan, pointing out that Obama won the state by 16 points in 2008 and 10 points in 2012.

    "We have a lot of people that are going through economic strife and turmoil and the truth is we were going to elect a president who was going to represent all of those people so you got to go to those places," Gibbs said.

    He made his remarks as part of an ongoing post-election therapy session held by former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau and former senior adviser Dan Pfieffer on their Keepin' it 1600 podcast.

    Gibbs cited Bay County, Michigan - a county that was 95 percent white with a median household income of $45,000 and only four out of five people didn't have a college degree. He reminded the audience that Obama won the country by 3,000 votes in 2008, but that Clinton lost the county by 7,000 votes.

    "There's all this kind of, I think, commentary devoid of real reality that somehow there's this big racist vote that came out for Donald Trump," Gibbs said. "You talk about a 95 percent white county that voted twice for Barack Hussein Obama. They didn't become racist in the last four years."

    [Nov 19, 2016] Former Turkish general: Trump could broker peace in Syria and end the civil war

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I'm thinking that Donald Trump seems a realistic and a pragmatist man," retired Gen. Ilker Basburg, a former chief of staff of the Turkish military, told reporters Wednesday. "I think he will open a direct link with the central Syrian government." ..."
    "... However, Trump has said the main U.S. goal in Syria is the defeat of the Islamic State group and not the future of the Syrian government. He said the ouster of Arab strongmen in Egypt, Yemen and Libya have served to destabilize the Middle East and led to the rise of Islamic extremists. ..."
    "... On Wednesday, Erdogan announced Turkish-backed forces were close to retaking al-Bab, a city about 20 miles east of Aleppo, from the Islamic State group. Turkey believes the capture of al-Bab as strategically important because it keeps Kurdish forces from taking it and consolidating their territory in northern Syria along the Turkish border. ..."
    www.stripes.com

    A former top Turkish general said Donald Trump's election could hasten the end of the Syrian civil war by opening the door to negotiations with the Syrian government of President Bashar Assad.

    "I'm thinking that Donald Trump seems a realistic and a pragmatist man," retired Gen. Ilker Basburg, a former chief of staff of the Turkish military, told reporters Wednesday. "I think he will open a direct link with the central Syrian government."

    The United States and Turkey have demanded that Assad step down as part of any agreement to end the five-year Syrian war.

    However, Trump has said the main U.S. goal in Syria is the defeat of the Islamic State group and not the future of the Syrian government. He said the ouster of Arab strongmen in Egypt, Yemen and Libya have served to destabilize the Middle East and led to the rise of Islamic extremists.

    Basburg's views do not reflect those of the Turkish government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In fact, Basburg was imprisoned for life in 2013 for conspiring against the Turkish government but the courts overturned the conviction in 2014.

    Nevertheless, Basburg said Turkey's interests in Syria have evolved since the war began in 2011, in large part because of the role of Kurdish militants, whom the Turks consider an enemy. But the Kurds are supported by the United States, Turkey's longtime ally. Turkey was alarmed when a Kurdish-dominated rebel alliance seized the border city of Manbij from the Islamic State group.

    On Wednesday, Erdogan announced Turkish-backed forces were close to retaking al-Bab, a city about 20 miles east of Aleppo, from the Islamic State group. Turkey believes the capture of al-Bab as strategically important because it keeps Kurdish forces from taking it and consolidating their territory in northern Syria along the Turkish border.

    Basburg said Turkey's top concern is having a secure border with Syria. With the United States and Turkey re-evaluating their interests in Syria, he was optimistic a new administration "will make some different policy."

    "We have to work with [the current Syrian] government. Today, [it's] Assad. Tomorrow, somebody else might be head of the government," he said.

    Basburg also said Russia and Iran would also need to be involved in the negotiations.

    "Turkey and the United States have been old friends," Basburg said, but U.S. ties to the Kurdish forces have led to questions about that relationship.

    [Nov 19, 2016] Trump's Win, Brexit Vote Stem From Mishandling of Globalization, Obama Says

    www.wsj.com

    President Barack Obama said Wednesday that America's election of Donald Trump and the U.K.'s vote to leave the European Union reflect a political uprising in the West over economic inequities spawned by leaders' mishandling of globalization.

    [Nov 19, 2016] Globalizations Last Gasp by Barry Eichengreen

    Notable quotes:
    "... Already, motor-vehicle manufacturers ship an automotive transmission back and forth across the US-Mexican border several times in the course of production. At some point, unpacking that production process still further will reach the point of diminishing returns. ..."
    "... The story for cross-border flows of financial capital is even more dramatic. Gross capital flows – the sum of inflows and outflows – are not just growing more slowly; they are down significantly in absolute terms from 2009 levels. ..."
    "... ... cross-border bank lending and borrowing that have fallen. Foreign direct investment – financial flows to build foreign factories and acquire foreign companies – remains at pre-crisis levels. ..."
    "... This difference reflects regulation. Having concluded, rightly, that cross-border bank lending is especially risky, regulators clamped down on banks' international operations. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.project-syndicate.org

    Does Donald Trump's election as United States president mean that globalization is dead, or are reports of the process' demise greatly exaggerated? If globalization is only partly incapacitated, not terminally ill, should we worry? How much will slower trade growth, now in the offing, matter for the global economy?

    World trade growth would be slowing down, even without Trump in office. Its growth was already flat in the first quarter of 2016, and it fell by nearly 1% in the second quarter. This continues a prior trend: since 2010, global trade has grown at an annual rate of barely 2%. Together with the fact that worldwide production of goods and services has been rising by more than 3%, this means that the trade-to-GDP ratio has been falling, in contrast to its steady upward march in earlier years.

    ... the resurgent protectionism manifest in popular opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP),

    Causality in economics may be elusive, but in this case it is clear. So far, slower trade growth has been the result of slower GDP growth, not the other way around.

    This is particularly evident in the case of investment spending, which has fallen sharply since the global financial crisis. Investment spending is trade-intensive, because countries rely disproportionately on a relatively small handful of producers, like Germany, for technologically sophisticated capital goods.

    In addition, slower trade growth reflects China's economic deceleration. Until 2011 China was growing at double-digit rates, and Chinese exports and imports were growing even faster. China's growth has now slowed by a third, leading to slower growth of Chinese trade.

    China's growth miracle, benefiting a fifth of the earth's population, is the most important economic event of the last quarter-century. But it can happen only once. And now that the phase of catch-up growth is over for China, this engine of global trade will slow.

    The other engine of world trade has been global supply chains. Trade in parts and components has benefited from falling transport costs, reflecting containerization and related advances in logistics. But efficiency in shipping is unlikely to continue to improve faster than efficiency in the production of what is being shipped. Already, motor-vehicle manufacturers ship an automotive transmission back and forth across the US-Mexican border several times in the course of production. At some point, unpacking that production process still further will reach the point of diminishing returns.

    The story for cross-border flows of financial capital is even more dramatic. Gross capital flows – the sum of inflows and outflows – are not just growing more slowly; they are down significantly in absolute terms from 2009 levels.

    ... cross-border bank lending and borrowing that have fallen. Foreign direct investment – financial flows to build foreign factories and acquire foreign companies – remains at pre-crisis levels.

    This difference reflects regulation. Having concluded, rightly, that cross-border bank lending is especially risky, regulators clamped down on banks' international operations.

    In response, many banks curtailed their cross-border business. But, rather than alarming anyone, this should be seen as reassuring, because the riskiest forms of international finance have been curtailed without disrupting more stable and productive forms of foreign investment.

    We now face the prospect of the US government revoking the Dodd-Frank Act and rolling back the financial reforms of recent years. Less stringent financial regulation may make for the recovery of international capital flows. But we should be careful what we wish for.

    [Nov 18, 2016] Meet Mike Pompeo, The New Director Of The CIA

    Notable quotes:
    "... Pompeo was close to Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who served with Pompeo in the House. Last month, Pompeo helped prepare Pence for the vice presidential debate with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. ..."
    "... Pompeo is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran. ..."
    "... He's a supporter of the National Security Agency's controversial bulk data collection program and sought to restore the agency's access to the data it had already collected under the Patriot Act from its inception through late last year. ..."
    "... He was elected to Congress in 2010 on a wave of tea party support and with backing from the Koch Industries political action committee. The Wichita-based conglomerate's PAC is well known for its support of conservative candidates. ..."
    "... Though Pompeo is generally known for his opposition to Obama administration policies, he's occasionally given heat to some fellow Republicans. Last year, his name was floated as a potential rival to Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to become House speaker. ..."
    "... Pompeo has sponsored numerous bills that would maintain or increase sanctions on Iran over its nuclear weapons program. He's been a staunch opponent of the deal negotiated by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that eases sanctions in exchange for dismantling the nuclear weapons program. ..."
    "... Pompeo has served on the House Select Benghazi Committee. ..."
    "... When the committee released its report on the attack in June, Pompeo and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio released a separate report that was even more sharply critical of Clinton's handling of the affair. They wrote that Clinton intentionally misled Americans about the nature of the attack because Obama was up for re-election. ..."
    "... Pompeo has made some controversial statements about Muslims. Weeks after the Boston marathon bombing in 2013, in a speech on the House floor, he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them. ..."
    "... Couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about the issues of global warming at this stage and crisis we now face. I just want to know if the asshole is stupid enough to use NATO to get energy for this Country that neither we nor the Saudi's have any longer. ..."
    "... If Trump is smart he will engage detente with the Russians at the expense of all of his war mongering staff. ..."
    "... Looks like Trump decided to sell us down the river rather than drain the swamp. And now we're caught between his thugs and an army of crazy children in the streets. ..."
    "... The buck still stops with Trump and he isn't even in office yet for anyone to judge him fairly. For me that means he gets a year or two. Further, he's a smart guy and I never assumed he was going to bring in 4000+ newbies into his administration. The fucking wheels would lock up immediately. He knows this. He needs competent, loyal people in these roles, period. ..."
    "... Trump is already showing himself through his choices. This guy is a hard liner in the push for the govt to trample the constitution and treat the citizens like serfs. ..."
    "... The advantage of the Trump win is the exposure that has already happened. The Ds and Rs have been exposed. MSM has been exposed for extreme bias. The rats that double down on their anti-Trump rhetoric think they are hiding their own crimes when really they are exposing themselves for all the world to see. The "Love Trumps Hate" protestors are exposing all their own hypocrisy for all the world to see. ..."
    "... Appointing a member of the Bengazhi committee to run the CIA means Hillary is completely FUCKED though. That's a bonus, a big one. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Moments after Donald Trump offered the Attorney General spot to senator Jeff Sessions (which he promptly accepted), it was announced that Trump had also picked rep. Mike Pompeo as CIA director, who likewise accepted.

    Trump has offered position of CIA director to US Rep Mike Pompeo and Pompeo has accepted -transition official

    - Steve Holland (@steveholland1) November 18, 2016

    The selection of Pompeo, a three-term Republican from Wichita, started earlier this week when he met with Donald Trump, according to the president-elect's transition team. Now we know what the meetings were about. Courtesy of McClatchy , here is profile of the new director of America's top spy agency:

    * * *

    Pompeo originally supported Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's presidential bid. Like most of his Kansas colleagues, Pompeo backed Trump when it was clear the New York real-estate developer would become the Republican presidential nominee, though not enthusiastically.

    But Pompeo was close to Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who served with Pompeo in the House. Last month, Pompeo helped prepare Pence for the vice presidential debate with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia.

    The most prominent Kansas elected official to endorse Trump early on was Secretary of State Kris Kobach, now a member of the Trump transition team and a possible candidate for U.S. Attorney General.

    Republican Gov. Sam Brownback and recently defeated Rep. Tim Huelskamp are both potential picks for agriculture secretary.

    Pompeo is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran.

    He's a supporter of the National Security Agency's controversial bulk data collection program and sought to restore the agency's access to the data it had already collected under the Patriot Act from its inception through late last year.

    He's a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and Harvard Law School. He's also a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

    Pompeo, who grew up in the traditionally Republican enclave of Orange County, California, founded Thayer Aerospace, a company that made parts for commercial and military aircraft. After selling Thayer, he became president of Sentry International, a company that manufactures and sells equipment used in oil fields.

    He was elected to Congress in 2010 on a wave of tea party support and with backing from the Koch Industries political action committee. The Wichita-based conglomerate's PAC is well known for its support of conservative candidates.

    Though Pompeo is generally known for his opposition to Obama administration policies, he's occasionally given heat to some fellow Republicans. Last year, his name was floated as a potential rival to Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to become House speaker.

    Earlier this year, he briefly flirted with a primary challenge to Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran after the state's junior senator appeared to break with Senate Republican opposition to Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland.

    Joe Romance, an associate professor of political science at Fort Hays State University, said it makes sense for Pompeo to consider a job in the executive branch, given the way the stage is set from Kansas to Washington in the next several years.

    "He's ambitious," Romance said. "Jerry Moran just got reelected. Roberts is not up until 2020. So where do you need to move? And I don't think Ryan's going anywhere as speaker. So why not?"

    Pompeo has sponsored numerous bills that would maintain or increase sanctions on Iran over its nuclear weapons program. He's been a staunch opponent of the deal negotiated by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that eases sanctions in exchange for dismantling the nuclear weapons program.

    In February, Pompeo and two of his Republican House colleagues unsuccessfully sought visas to monitor the country's elections.

    When Iran detained a group of American sailors earlier whose ship had wandered into its territorial waters earlier this year, Pompeo introduced a bill requiring the Obama administration to investigate whether Iran violated the Geneva Convention. It didn't become law. The sailors were not harmed, and the Navy later concluded that the sailors had entered Iran's waters by mistake.

    Pompeo has served on the House Select Benghazi Committee. The special panel was created in 2014 to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Libya that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. One of its key targets was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on whose watch the attack had occurred.

    When the committee released its report on the attack in June, Pompeo and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio released a separate report that was even more sharply critical of Clinton's handling of the affair. They wrote that Clinton intentionally misled Americans about the nature of the attack because Obama was up for re-election.

    "Officials at the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, learned almost in real time that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack," Pompeo and Jordan wrote. "With the presidential election just 56 days away, rather than tell the American people the truth and increase the risk of losing an election, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly."

    Pompeo has made some controversial statements about Muslims. Weeks after the Boston marathon bombing in 2013, in a speech on the House floor, he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them.

    "When the most devastating terrorist attacks on America in the last 20 years come overwhelmingly from people of a single faith, and are performed in the name of that faith, a special obligation falls on those that are the leaders of that faith," Pompeo said. " Instead of responding, silence has made these Islamic leaders across America potentially complicit in these acts and more importantly still, in those that may well follow."

    But last month, three militiamen were arrested in western Kansas in an alleged plot to blow up an apartment complex that's home to Somali Muslim refugees.

    Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said statements like Pompeo's were detrimental to policies that keep all Americans safe.

    "We believe it's counterproductive to our nation's safety and security because they will act based on their faulty perceptions of Muslims and Islam," Hooper said, "and will not carry out policies based on accurate and balanced information."


    wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:25 AM ,
    I'm stunned by this....bulk collection proponent?
    Son of Captain Nemo -> wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:30 AM ,
    Yep... Like all the rest that pass through the "revolving doors" of D.C. he'll feather his nest and continue "killing some folks" and "torturing some folks".

    Only not in Syria or Ukraine -that is for certain!

    wildbad -> Son of Captain Nemo, Nov 18, 2016 8:33 AM ,
    some of his opinions are concerning but a quick bio read in wikipedia showed some pretty well reasoned unorthodox stances.

    he's not a global warming sycophant, nor particularly doctrinaire in things energy. but a bulk collection fan..I was really hoping for someone with a track record of following the fourth amendment.

    Son of Captain Nemo -> wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:42 AM ,
    Couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about the issues of global warming at this stage and crisis we now face. I just want to know if the asshole is stupid enough to use NATO to get energy for this Country that neither we nor the Saudi's have any longer.

    We'll know these cocksuckers are sincere when they tell us the truth about the "riches of bakken oil" is 10 years and not 100 and that the systemic looting operation in the ME using our military is counter productive given the tradeoff of war with the Russians and the accumulated debt to fund our misadventures that will never find a buyer!

    Only time will tell.

    Son of Captain Nemo -> wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:56 AM ,
    On the road less travelled.

    And why February of 2014 changed the calculus of everything including Russia's participation in the booting out of NATO from Syria. https://southfront.org/us-experts-offer-donald-trump-3-steps-for-normali...

    If Trump is smart he will engage detente with the Russians at the expense of all of his war mongering staff.

    Joe Davola -> Son of Captain Nemo, Nov 18, 2016 9:25 AM ,
    Let me preface this by saying I find bulk collection totally an affront to the constitution, however "private" companies already have bulk collection in place. It's only the slightest catalyst from there to the government requiring the companies hand over all that data. I'm surprised people advocate for bulk data openly, when they know the hurdle to cross to access private databases is very low. And that whole shooter's phone charade where Apple "stood up" to the FBI was so much bluster when both sides likely already had the capability that they claimed not to have.
    swmnguy -> Joe Davola, Nov 18, 2016 9:32 AM ,
    The "hurdle" is even lower than you state. The only "hurdle" is whether they can openly use that data in court. They already have it all. All the data goes through collection "checkpoints."
    Billy the Poet -> joeyman9, Nov 18, 2016 9:54 AM ,
    Looks like Trump decided to sell us down the river rather than drain the swamp. And now we're caught between his thugs and an army of crazy children in the streets.

    This is why I would have preferred seeing Hillary win despite the fact that I voted for Trump. It felt like a con and a con it was, apparently.

    lucitanian -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 10:22 AM ,
    When was it anything but a con. Madness, when you keep doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. The deep state has you suckered, and you still think its the land of the free. Reality is relative to your perception. Its an extension of what you want to believe. You live with your delusions, no one elses.
    froze25 -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:02 AM ,
    Nice we can all be deluded together. I don't mind this choice its not for the CIA director to decide what is constitutional or not, that is for the Supreme court so we the people must challenge the collection and use of the collected data in the Supreme court. The CIA director is to obey the Law as it is presented to him.
    new game -> froze25, Nov 18, 2016 11:08 AM ,
    obey the Law

    lol

    Mr. Bones -> froze25, Nov 18, 2016 12:49 PM ,
    That's not how the CIA works. They do a mea culpa, then 10 years later the same mea culpa. The spooks were behind torture and secret prisons during the Bush admin, they're behind the not torture that doesn't happen in prisons that we don't admit to. Only the language changed. We all pretend to be offended when we find out that unspeakable acts are being committed in our names, or we deny it - that's been working for the left for 2 terms.
    PTR -> Mr. Bones, Nov 18, 2016 1:30 PM ,
    Yes, that's what's done to us. One via the Corporate, the other via the State. No lube, though.
    The Merovingian -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:10 AM ,
    The buck still stops with Trump and he isn't even in office yet for anyone to judge him fairly. For me that means he gets a year or two. Further, he's a smart guy and I never assumed he was going to bring in 4000+ newbies into his administration. The fucking wheels would lock up immediately. He knows this. He needs competent, loyal people in these roles, period.

    Time will tell on this. If his appointments start going apeshit like OBungler's did, then we have a real problem. For individual citizens the choice is clear, hope for the best and keep planning for the worst, which is what I've been doing for the last 12 years+. If you and your family are not prepared for some major disruptions to your way of life and basic daily sustenance, then you better get on it.

    Lastly, the deep state is NEVER going away either. Not even sure they can be curbed. I honestly don't have an answer for that one yet except to be prepared to completely and totally unplug from everything, and become 'invisible, passive and benign' to the system itself at some point.

    Creepy Lurker -> The Merovingian, Nov 18, 2016 11:45 AM ,
    I logged in to thank you for this Voice Of Reason post. I don't know just what people expected. Was he supposed to start appointing random biker dudes to cabinet posts? Come on. To some extent one must work with the system if one is to have any hope of making changes to it.

    Like baba looey keeps saying, let the man work, FFS.

    Seer -> Creepy Lurker, Nov 18, 2016 12:35 PM ,

    Do people demand a really just system? Well, we'll arrange it so that they'll be satisfied with one that's a little less unjust ... They want a revolution, and we'll give them reforms -- lots of reforms; we'll drown them in reforms. Or rather, we'll drown them in promises of reforms, because we'll never give them real ones either!!

    DARIO FO, Accidental Death of an Anarchist

    Blankone -> The Merovingian, Nov 18, 2016 11:55 AM ,
    Trump is already showing himself through his choices. This guy is a hard liner in the push for the govt to trample the constitution and treat the citizens like serfs. But Trump's supporters are ok with it because it is "their guy" doing it, just like the Dems/liberals/whatever were ok with Obama shredding the constitution and killing hundreds of thousands because Obama was "their guy".

    The velvet glove will come off soon and you will only have the iron fist.

    Yes We Can. But... -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:30 AM ,
    With HRC22, I"d get about 2% of what I'd want.

    With Trump, perhaps 60%. I'm happy with that, and will try not to bitch about the 40%.

    Don't get me wrong... Putting HRC in a coffin, is a wonderful thing... But my sensibilities tell me that 'DRAINING A SWAMP' is too much of a task for Donald Trump (or anyone else)...

    f_s

    stacking12321 -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 10:28 AM ,
    I almost agree with you about Hillary, would have been sweet to see the economy collapse on her watch instead of trumps.

    But with Hillary the risk of ww3 would be imminent.

    WordSmith2013 -> stacking12321, Nov 18, 2016 11:03 AM ,
    MP tore up Hillary during Benghazigate.

    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=57032

    Mike Pompeo destroys Hillary Clinton during prime time!
    Seer -> stacking12321, Nov 18, 2016 12:40 PM ,
    Not sure if it's going to be "sweet." For sure, though, it's going to collapse. ALL empires collapse (regardless of ideology/religion/leadership).
    madmax1965 -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 10:32 AM ,
    Drain the swamp indeed! I can't believe people thought the Donald would change anything! Same shit different color(literally and figuratively) douchebags!
    PT -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:26 AM ,
    Billy: Who is going to help Trump drain the swamp? The current swamp monsters? Why would they want to ruin their own home? That was always the problem.

    Either way, I am glad he got in. You knew you were going nowhere with Hillary. If Trump fails then he will prove that outsiders are no good either. The election started out looking like insider vs insider - Clinton vs Bush. That was a good reason for all the voters to stay home, or to write "Me" or "None of the Above" on their ballots - for those who had paper ballots.

    If Trump was a Conspiracy then his job was to make the plebs think they had a choice, to drag them to the voting booth, to create the illusion of legitimacy for the new government. If Trump can not change anything then the next "outsider" will have to put on an even bigger show and let us remember, this election will be a hard act to follow. My biggest fear is post-election amnesia, everything is already forgotten, let alone remembered in four years time. Is Wikileaks still chugging away? Where is that fantastic leak that would supposedly send Hillary straight to jail? What came of the Podesta emails? Are his spirits truly cooked? Are all the FBI investigations to be forgotten? Come the next election, are we really going to see crimes greater than the Comet Pizza allegations bubble to the surface? If the alleged crimes of the past year, and especially the last month or week, are forgotten, does that mean they were simply elaborate theatre? Will people remember this past year and, come the next election, declare "Well, look what happened in 2016! If that meant nothing, then how on earth could any other news mean anything? Refuse to participate in the show."

    The advantage of the Trump win is the exposure that has already happened. The Ds and Rs have been exposed. MSM has been exposed for extreme bias. The rats that double down on their anti-Trump rhetoric think they are hiding their own crimes when really they are exposing themselves for all the world to see. The "Love Trumps Hate" protestors are exposing all their own hypocrisy for all the world to see.

    Worst thing about this election? I paid attention. Politicians lie, especially in the lead up to an election. Everything they say can be safely ignored. Damn shame I got sucked into paying attention to this one - for the first time in my life. But now, in order to gain the attention of people who think like me, the next election will have to have theatrics of an order of magnitude greater than this one. Scary, eh! ;)

    TruthHammer -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:39 AM ,
    Not every pick trump makes it going to please everyone. Trump is a hardliner on fighting Terrorism, that means you aren't going to get Assange/Snowden love-ins, or someone trying to destroy the intelligence overreach of the US. Appointing a member of the Bengazhi committee to run the CIA means Hillary is completely FUCKED though. That's a bonus, a big one.

    The guy is Half-TeaParty, with NeoCon leanings towards fighting terrorism. Trump is going to be libertarian on War and Interventionism, but Neo-Con on Islamic Terror.

    None of that has to do with "not draining the swamp"

    Seer -> TruthHammer, Nov 18, 2016 12:48 PM ,
    Perfect example of why all this SHIT is going to continue! Terrorism is an idea. It is the PERFECT tool for govts to exert control.

    "Islamic Terror?" CIA started it all and the western propaganda machine has churned it into something that morons suck up.

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke101109.html
    Argentumentum -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 1:15 PM ,
    You can ELECT but not SELECT - Trump to Israelis: Together we will stand up to Iran. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=141817

    If voting could change anything ... it would be illegal. Emma Goldman

    How many times will the monkeys push the button before they realize they never get the banana?

    Big Brother -> joeyman9, Nov 18, 2016 12:42 PM ,
    Thanks, man. Big Brother loves you too.
    VinceFostersGhost -> BennyBoy, Nov 18, 2016 10:55 AM ,

    he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them.

    Huh.....really?

    Chris Dakota -> BennyBoy, Nov 18, 2016 1:09 PM ,
    ...

    Neocon Invasion of Team Trump Fully Underway Trump must stop neocon takeover of his administration Wayne Madsen

    The purge of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie loyalists from the Donald Trump presidential transition team has little to do with Christie's Bridgegate scandal and everything to do with a battle between Bush-era neoconservatives and national security realists for control over key departments of the Trump administration.

    It appears that Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner , the publisher of the New York Observer and someone who is aligned with the Likud Party of Israel, is now the de facto chair of the Trump transition team , especially when it comes to national security matters.

    Vice President-elect Mike Pence, the official chairman of the team, is concentrating on domestic policy appointments, such as the rumored appointment of Texas Senator Ted Cruz as Attorney General.

    Kushner fired Christie and Christie loyalist, former House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers, from the transition team and replaced them with the discredited neocon Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy.

    It is likely that Gaffney will seek to bring a host of neocons who championed the U.S. invasion of Iraq into the Trump administration.

    Also fired was Matthew Freedman, another Christie loyalist. Kushner never liked Christie because as a federal prosecutor in north Jersey, Christie successfully prosecuted Kushner's father, real estate tycoon Charles Kushner, who received a prison sentence at Christie's urging.

    Where one finds the likes of Gaffney, former CIA director James Woolsey, also a member of the Trump transition team, and John Bolton, rumored to be in consideration for Secretary of State or deputy Secretary of State, one will find the other neocons who drove the United States into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    These include Richard Perle, who claimed U.S. troops invading Iraq would be met with Iraqis throwing "flowers and candy." This editor wrote the following about Perle's fatuous claim in a March 31, 2003, article for CounterPunch: "Perle's military experience does not permit him to distinguish between flowers and candy and bullets and mortar rounds."

    There is someone far more sinister than Gaffney, Bolton, and Perle chomping at the bit to join the new administration.

    Wayne Madsen Reports has learned from multiple knowledgeable sources that the proponent of neo-fascism, Michael Ledeen, is working closely with former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, to ensure that as many neocons from the Bush 43 and Reagan eras find senior positions in the Trump administration.

    Flynn co-authored a book with Ledeen that was released in July and titled, "The Field of Flight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies."

    The book represents typical neocon pabulum more than it does realism.

    In July, Kushner's Observer, unsurprisingly, published a five-star review of the book.

    Flynn, who distinguished himself admirably by suggesting that the Obama administration was coddling the Islamic State and its allied jihadists in Syria, appears not to recognize that it has long been the desire of neocons like Ledeen, Perle, Woolsey, and Bolton to divide the Arab nation-states into warring factions so that Israel can hold ultimate sway over the entire Middle East.

    Breitbart launched his site in 2007 from Jerusalem, its a Mossad front.

    Most of the posters in the begining were Jews and Christian Zionists. They started to use white nationalists during the primary like they used them in Ukraine, then purged.

    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/11/Screen-Shot-2015-11-17-at-09.04...

    I was struck by this photo of Ivanka in cocktail attire, or fox news chick look. She is being used as a distraction for the Jap guys.

    https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/article_small/public...

    YHC-FTSE -> Chris Dakota, Nov 18, 2016 1:25 PM ,
    +1 Once I saw the zionists rubbing shoulders in the thicket of Trump's cabinet, I was hoping for a 50/50 split. But I dare say the zionist neocons' takeover is complete. Mike Pompous-Ass is pure MIC through and through (See Thayer Aerospace).

    Another zionist cunt with Israel-first mentality whose only dubious virutes are hatred of muslims and Hillary.

    Zero change in domestic and foreign intelligence policies from Hitlery who was planning to go to war with Iran by way of war against the Russo-Syrian alliance.

    Any stupid fucker who is a proponent of blanket surveillance is a fucking traitor to every values in individual freedom and rights that I hold dear.

    BullyBearish -> Chris Dakota, Nov 18, 2016 1:32 PM ,
    The non-Semitic majority of Israel want to demonize the true Semitics (Arabs) by disparaging Islam in order to steal their land and its resources. Since they cannot or do not want to do all of the killing themselves, they use Christians to do their dirty work. The US Christian political leaders (e.g. Pence/Pompeo) have been targetted by Israel:

    One of the keys to AIPAC's success is its education arm, the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF). AIEF sponsors trips to Israel for Members of Congress and their staffs, and uses these trips generally relay Likud's view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In all, AIEF spent $2,035,233 sponsoring congressional trips to Israel in 2011, according to data my blog, Republic Report , gathered through the Legistorm database. In contrast, the more moderate Israel lobby J Street - which launched in 2008 to provide an alternative to AIPAC's hawkish advocacy - spent only $45,954 on congressional trips to Israel. J Street's trips, included more extensive meetings with Palestinians and Israeli human rights groups. Which means that J Street was, in this area, outspent by a factor of 44: 1 in 2011. Republic Report has plotted this data into the following chart:

    Look at the itinerary (requires free registration with Legistorm) of a nine-day, $20,000 AIEF trip Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) took in August 2011. During his trip, Pompeo was treated to meals, information sessions, tours, and other activities with mostly hawkish high-ranking Israeli officials, academics, and non-profit leaders. The sessions included "Terror from Gaza and Sinai" and "Hamas Next Door." During the nine days, only an hour was spent with Palestinian officials, with a short meeting scheduled in with Salam Fayyad, a Palestinian Authority Prime Minister widely viewed as highly sympathetic to the Israeli government.

    Son of Captain Nemo -> Joe Davola, Nov 18, 2016 9:41 AM ,
    J D

    What you say is in fact true. But it's the "coordination" that takes place between government and industry with that information that is lethal. When NSA "cherry picks" and manipulates that date to remove it's "rivals" (perceived or otherwise) and uses the Justice Department acting as the "stick", you know anything becomes possible!

    Seer -> Son of Captain Nemo, Nov 18, 2016 12:49 PM ,
    Power corrupts.

    [Nov 18, 2016] I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia. (My first thought is that like that stupid charitable campaign to Stand Up to Cancer!, another place where the phrase was either meaningless or foolhardy.) ..."
    "... IF Russia ever started actually interfering in our relations with our neighbors or attempted to get us thrown out of our legal bases in foreign nations, I would say that Barack Obama might have a point. Since we are the party guilty of such actions, he would do better to clean up his own administration's relations with Russia, apologize to Russia, and then STFU. ..."
    "... 'Obama Urges Trump to Maintain Pointless, Hyper-Aggresive Encirclement of Russia Strategy, Acknowledge Nuclear Apocalypse "Inevitable"' ..."
    "... In the best of circumstances, Obama in his post-presidency will be akin to Jimmy Carter and stay out of politics, less or less. (I think he has exhausted all trust and value.) If he goes the Jimmy Carter route; he is bound to do worse and will fade away. I don't think he'll go the Clinton route unless Michelle tries to run for office. ..."
    "... The good people of the US are awaiting DHS' final report on Russia's attempts to hack our elections. We deserve as much. ..."
    "... If there's any basis to the allegations it's about time someone provided it. Up till now it's been unfounded assertions. Highly suspect at that. ..."
    "... My guess is the whole Russian boogeyman was a ploy to attract those "moderate Republicans" who liked Romney. ..."
    "... "My hope is that the president-elect coming in takes a similarly constructive approach, finding areas where we can cooperate with Russia where our values and interests align, but that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia when they are deviating from our values and international norms," Obama said. "But I don't expect that the president-elect will follow exactly our approach." ..."
    "... Yes, because "U.S. values" as defined by the actions of the last 16 years have been so enlightened and successful and because the U.S. is a sterling example of adhering to international norms ..."
    "... Just how deluded, ignorant or sociopathic does a person need to be that they can say things like that without vomiting? ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Pat November 17, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia. (My first thought is that like that stupid charitable campaign to Stand Up to Cancer!, another place where the phrase was either meaningless or foolhardy.)

    IF Russia ever started actually interfering in our relations with our neighbors or attempted to get us thrown out of our legal bases in foreign nations, I would say that Barack Obama might have a point. Since we are the party guilty of such actions, he would do better to clean up his own administration's relations with Russia, apologize to Russia, and then STFU.

    Which I am sure he will do once everyone recognizes that that is the appropriate thing to do. But as we well know everyone else will have to do the heavy lifting of figuring that out before he will even acknowledge the possibility.

    Katharine November 17, 2016 at 3:26 pm

    The Guardian headline struck me as hilarious:

    Obama urges Trump against realpolitik in relations with Russia
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/17/obama-urges-trump-against-realpolitik-in-relations-with-russia

    I mean, we can't have people actually taking our real interests into consideration in foreign relations, can we? That would be so–unexceptional.

    JSM November 17, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    Why not make it affirmative?

    'Obama Urges Trump to Maintain Pointless, Hyper-Aggresive Encirclement of Russia Strategy, Acknowledge Nuclear Apocalypse "Inevitable"'

    Knot Galt November 17, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    In the best of circumstances, Obama in his post-presidency will be akin to Jimmy Carter and stay out of politics, less or less. (I think he has exhausted all trust and value.) If he goes the Jimmy Carter route; he is bound to do worse and will fade away. I don't think he'll go the Clinton route unless Michelle tries to run for office.

    In this case, Obama is probably too vain and Michelle being the saner of the two might rein him in? Best of any world would, as you say, STFU. (As the Ex Prez. Obamamometer, that is probably not in the cards.)

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL November 18, 2016 at 12:28 am

    Maybe he will end up like Geo Bush, sitting in the bathtub drooling while he paints childish self-portraits
    Or maybe he will end up like OJ, where he tries to go hang out with all his cool friends and they tell him to get lost

    Adamski November 18, 2016 at 5:18 am

    Ppl still mention him as a master orator, etc. Lots of post presidency speaking engagements I suppose. I'd prefer him not to but then again if he makes enough annually from it to beat the Clintons we might get the satisfaction of annoying them

    JTMcPhee November 17, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    "legal bases in foreign nations " Another reason why "we" are Fokked, thinking like that.

    JSM November 17, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    The good people of the US are awaiting DHS' final report on Russia's attempts to hack our elections. We deserve as much.

    Steve C November 17, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    If there's any basis to the allegations it's about time someone provided it. Up till now it's been unfounded assertions. Highly suspect at that.

    NotTimothyGeithner November 17, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    My guess is the whole Russian boogeyman was a ploy to attract those "moderate Republicans" who liked Romney.

    timbers November 17, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    "My hope is that the president-elect coming in takes a similarly constructive approach, finding areas where we can cooperate with Russia where our values and interests align, but that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia when they are deviating from our values and international norms," Obama said. "But I don't expect that the president-elect will follow exactly our approach." What Obama is saying is he wants Russia to join America in bombing hospitals, schools, children, doctors, public facilities like water treatment plants, bridges, weddings, homes, and civilians to list just few – while arming and supporting terrorists for regime change. And if anyone points this out, Russia like the US is supposed to say "I know you are but what am I?"

    RMO November 17, 2016 at 6:28 pm

    Yes, because "U.S. values" as defined by the actions of the last 16 years have been so enlightened and successful and because the U.S. is a sterling example of adhering to international norms

    Just how deluded, ignorant or sociopathic does a person need to be that they can say things like that without vomiting?

    Lemmy November 17, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    Is this the same Russia that just hacked our election and subverted our fine democracy? Why, President Obama, I believe it behooves you to stand up to Russia yourself. Show President-Elect Trump how it is done sir!

    [Nov 18, 2016] Former US Intelligence Chief Admits Obama Took "Willful Decision" to Support ISIS Rise

    Notable quotes:
    "... "US votes against UN resolution condemning Nazism": http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/11/18/494118/US-UN-Russia-Nazi ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    From The Hague | Nov 18, 2016 7:06:06 AM | 64

    THIS IS "CHANGE"

    The successor of Susan Rice:

    Hasan (Interviewer) (From 11.15 onwards into the interview): "In 2012, your agency was saying, quote: "The Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda in Iraq [(which ISIS arose out of)], are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." In 2012, the US was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups. Why did you not stop that if you're worried about the rise of Islamic extremism?"

    Flynn: "Well I hate to say it's not my job, but my job was to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be, and I will tell you, it goes before 2012. When we were in Iraq, and we still had decisions to be made before there was a decision to pull out of Iraq in 2011, it was very clear what we were going to face."

    Hasan (Interviewer): You are basically saying that even in government at the time, you knew those groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't listening?"

    Flynn: "I think the administration."

    Hasan (Interviewer): "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"

    Flynn: "I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, a willful decision."

    Hasan (Interviewer): "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?"

    Flynn: "A willful decision to do what they're doing You have to really ask the President what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very, very confusing."

    Former US Intelligence Chief Admits Obama Took "Willful Decision" to Support ISIS Rise

    http://journal-neo.org/2015/08/13/former-us-intelligence-chief-admits-obama-took-willful-decision-to-support-isis-rise/

    POL | Nov 18, 2016 7:25:33 AM | 65

    Obama support nazis at the UN:

    "US votes against UN resolution condemning Nazism": http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/11/18/494118/US-UN-Russia-Nazi

    [Nov 18, 2016] Meet Mike Pompeo, The New Director Of The CIA

    Notable quotes:
    "... Pompeo was close to Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who served with Pompeo in the House. Last month, Pompeo helped prepare Pence for the vice presidential debate with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. ..."
    "... Pompeo is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran. ..."
    "... He's a supporter of the National Security Agency's controversial bulk data collection program and sought to restore the agency's access to the data it had already collected under the Patriot Act from its inception through late last year. ..."
    "... He was elected to Congress in 2010 on a wave of tea party support and with backing from the Koch Industries political action committee. The Wichita-based conglomerate's PAC is well known for its support of conservative candidates. ..."
    "... Though Pompeo is generally known for his opposition to Obama administration policies, he's occasionally given heat to some fellow Republicans. Last year, his name was floated as a potential rival to Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to become House speaker. ..."
    "... Pompeo has sponsored numerous bills that would maintain or increase sanctions on Iran over its nuclear weapons program. He's been a staunch opponent of the deal negotiated by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that eases sanctions in exchange for dismantling the nuclear weapons program. ..."
    "... Pompeo has served on the House Select Benghazi Committee. ..."
    "... When the committee released its report on the attack in June, Pompeo and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio released a separate report that was even more sharply critical of Clinton's handling of the affair. They wrote that Clinton intentionally misled Americans about the nature of the attack because Obama was up for re-election. ..."
    "... Pompeo has made some controversial statements about Muslims. Weeks after the Boston marathon bombing in 2013, in a speech on the House floor, he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them. ..."
    "... Couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about the issues of global warming at this stage and crisis we now face. I just want to know if the asshole is stupid enough to use NATO to get energy for this Country that neither we nor the Saudi's have any longer. ..."
    "... If Trump is smart he will engage detente with the Russians at the expense of all of his war mongering staff. ..."
    "... Looks like Trump decided to sell us down the river rather than drain the swamp. And now we're caught between his thugs and an army of crazy children in the streets. ..."
    "... The buck still stops with Trump and he isn't even in office yet for anyone to judge him fairly. For me that means he gets a year or two. Further, he's a smart guy and I never assumed he was going to bring in 4000+ newbies into his administration. The fucking wheels would lock up immediately. He knows this. He needs competent, loyal people in these roles, period. ..."
    "... Trump is already showing himself through his choices. This guy is a hard liner in the push for the govt to trample the constitution and treat the citizens like serfs. ..."
    "... The advantage of the Trump win is the exposure that has already happened. The Ds and Rs have been exposed. MSM has been exposed for extreme bias. The rats that double down on their anti-Trump rhetoric think they are hiding their own crimes when really they are exposing themselves for all the world to see. The "Love Trumps Hate" protestors are exposing all their own hypocrisy for all the world to see. ..."
    "... Appointing a member of the Bengazhi committee to run the CIA means Hillary is completely FUCKED though. That's a bonus, a big one. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Moments after Donald Trump offered the Attorney General spot to senator Jeff Sessions (which he promptly accepted), it was announced that Trump had also picked rep. Mike Pompeo as CIA director, who likewise accepted.

    Trump has offered position of CIA director to US Rep Mike Pompeo and Pompeo has accepted -transition official

    - Steve Holland (@steveholland1) November 18, 2016

    The selection of Pompeo, a three-term Republican from Wichita, started earlier this week when he met with Donald Trump, according to the president-elect's transition team. Now we know what the meetings were about. Courtesy of McClatchy , here is profile of the new director of America's top spy agency:

    * * *

    Pompeo originally supported Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's presidential bid. Like most of his Kansas colleagues, Pompeo backed Trump when it was clear the New York real-estate developer would become the Republican presidential nominee, though not enthusiastically.

    But Pompeo was close to Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who served with Pompeo in the House. Last month, Pompeo helped prepare Pence for the vice presidential debate with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia.

    The most prominent Kansas elected official to endorse Trump early on was Secretary of State Kris Kobach, now a member of the Trump transition team and a possible candidate for U.S. Attorney General.

    Republican Gov. Sam Brownback and recently defeated Rep. Tim Huelskamp are both potential picks for agriculture secretary.

    Pompeo is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran.

    He's a supporter of the National Security Agency's controversial bulk data collection program and sought to restore the agency's access to the data it had already collected under the Patriot Act from its inception through late last year.

    He's a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and Harvard Law School. He's also a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

    Pompeo, who grew up in the traditionally Republican enclave of Orange County, California, founded Thayer Aerospace, a company that made parts for commercial and military aircraft. After selling Thayer, he became president of Sentry International, a company that manufactures and sells equipment used in oil fields.

    He was elected to Congress in 2010 on a wave of tea party support and with backing from the Koch Industries political action committee. The Wichita-based conglomerate's PAC is well known for its support of conservative candidates.

    Though Pompeo is generally known for his opposition to Obama administration policies, he's occasionally given heat to some fellow Republicans. Last year, his name was floated as a potential rival to Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to become House speaker.

    Earlier this year, he briefly flirted with a primary challenge to Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran after the state's junior senator appeared to break with Senate Republican opposition to Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland.

    Joe Romance, an associate professor of political science at Fort Hays State University, said it makes sense for Pompeo to consider a job in the executive branch, given the way the stage is set from Kansas to Washington in the next several years.

    "He's ambitious," Romance said. "Jerry Moran just got reelected. Roberts is not up until 2020. So where do you need to move? And I don't think Ryan's going anywhere as speaker. So why not?"

    Pompeo has sponsored numerous bills that would maintain or increase sanctions on Iran over its nuclear weapons program. He's been a staunch opponent of the deal negotiated by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that eases sanctions in exchange for dismantling the nuclear weapons program.

    In February, Pompeo and two of his Republican House colleagues unsuccessfully sought visas to monitor the country's elections.

    When Iran detained a group of American sailors earlier whose ship had wandered into its territorial waters earlier this year, Pompeo introduced a bill requiring the Obama administration to investigate whether Iran violated the Geneva Convention. It didn't become law. The sailors were not harmed, and the Navy later concluded that the sailors had entered Iran's waters by mistake.

    Pompeo has served on the House Select Benghazi Committee. The special panel was created in 2014 to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Libya that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. One of its key targets was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on whose watch the attack had occurred.

    When the committee released its report on the attack in June, Pompeo and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio released a separate report that was even more sharply critical of Clinton's handling of the affair. They wrote that Clinton intentionally misled Americans about the nature of the attack because Obama was up for re-election.

    "Officials at the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, learned almost in real time that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack," Pompeo and Jordan wrote. "With the presidential election just 56 days away, rather than tell the American people the truth and increase the risk of losing an election, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly."

    Pompeo has made some controversial statements about Muslims. Weeks after the Boston marathon bombing in 2013, in a speech on the House floor, he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them.

    "When the most devastating terrorist attacks on America in the last 20 years come overwhelmingly from people of a single faith, and are performed in the name of that faith, a special obligation falls on those that are the leaders of that faith," Pompeo said. " Instead of responding, silence has made these Islamic leaders across America potentially complicit in these acts and more importantly still, in those that may well follow."

    But last month, three militiamen were arrested in western Kansas in an alleged plot to blow up an apartment complex that's home to Somali Muslim refugees.

    Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said statements like Pompeo's were detrimental to policies that keep all Americans safe.

    "We believe it's counterproductive to our nation's safety and security because they will act based on their faulty perceptions of Muslims and Islam," Hooper said, "and will not carry out policies based on accurate and balanced information."


    wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:25 AM ,
    I'm stunned by this....bulk collection proponent?
    Son of Captain Nemo -> wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:30 AM ,
    Yep... Like all the rest that pass through the "revolving doors" of D.C. he'll feather his nest and continue "killing some folks" and "torturing some folks".

    Only not in Syria or Ukraine -that is for certain!

    wildbad -> Son of Captain Nemo, Nov 18, 2016 8:33 AM ,
    some of his opinions are concerning but a quick bio read in wikipedia showed some pretty well reasoned unorthodox stances.

    he's not a global warming sycophant, nor particularly doctrinaire in things energy. but a bulk collection fan..I was really hoping for someone with a track record of following the fourth amendment.

    Son of Captain Nemo -> wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:42 AM ,
    Couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about the issues of global warming at this stage and crisis we now face. I just want to know if the asshole is stupid enough to use NATO to get energy for this Country that neither we nor the Saudi's have any longer.

    We'll know these cocksuckers are sincere when they tell us the truth about the "riches of bakken oil" is 10 years and not 100 and that the systemic looting operation in the ME using our military is counter productive given the tradeoff of war with the Russians and the accumulated debt to fund our misadventures that will never find a buyer!

    Only time will tell.

    Son of Captain Nemo -> wildbad, Nov 18, 2016 8:56 AM ,
    On the road less travelled.

    And why February of 2014 changed the calculus of everything including Russia's participation in the booting out of NATO from Syria. https://southfront.org/us-experts-offer-donald-trump-3-steps-for-normali...

    If Trump is smart he will engage detente with the Russians at the expense of all of his war mongering staff.

    Joe Davola -> Son of Captain Nemo, Nov 18, 2016 9:25 AM ,
    Let me preface this by saying I find bulk collection totally an affront to the constitution, however "private" companies already have bulk collection in place. It's only the slightest catalyst from there to the government requiring the companies hand over all that data. I'm surprised people advocate for bulk data openly, when they know the hurdle to cross to access private databases is very low. And that whole shooter's phone charade where Apple "stood up" to the FBI was so much bluster when both sides likely already had the capability that they claimed not to have.
    swmnguy -> Joe Davola, Nov 18, 2016 9:32 AM ,
    The "hurdle" is even lower than you state. The only "hurdle" is whether they can openly use that data in court. They already have it all. All the data goes through collection "checkpoints."
    Billy the Poet -> joeyman9, Nov 18, 2016 9:54 AM ,
    Looks like Trump decided to sell us down the river rather than drain the swamp. And now we're caught between his thugs and an army of crazy children in the streets.

    This is why I would have preferred seeing Hillary win despite the fact that I voted for Trump. It felt like a con and a con it was, apparently.

    lucitanian -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 10:22 AM ,
    When was it anything but a con. Madness, when you keep doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. The deep state has you suckered, and you still think its the land of the free. Reality is relative to your perception. Its an extension of what you want to believe. You live with your delusions, no one elses.
    froze25 -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:02 AM ,
    Nice we can all be deluded together. I don't mind this choice its not for the CIA director to decide what is constitutional or not, that is for the Supreme court so we the people must challenge the collection and use of the collected data in the Supreme court. The CIA director is to obey the Law as it is presented to him.
    new game -> froze25, Nov 18, 2016 11:08 AM ,
    obey the Law

    lol

    Mr. Bones -> froze25, Nov 18, 2016 12:49 PM ,
    That's not how the CIA works. They do a mea culpa, then 10 years later the same mea culpa. The spooks were behind torture and secret prisons during the Bush admin, they're behind the not torture that doesn't happen in prisons that we don't admit to. Only the language changed. We all pretend to be offended when we find out that unspeakable acts are being committed in our names, or we deny it - that's been working for the left for 2 terms.
    PTR -> Mr. Bones, Nov 18, 2016 1:30 PM ,
    Yes, that's what's done to us. One via the Corporate, the other via the State. No lube, though.
    The Merovingian -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:10 AM ,
    The buck still stops with Trump and he isn't even in office yet for anyone to judge him fairly. For me that means he gets a year or two. Further, he's a smart guy and I never assumed he was going to bring in 4000+ newbies into his administration. The fucking wheels would lock up immediately. He knows this. He needs competent, loyal people in these roles, period.

    Time will tell on this. If his appointments start going apeshit like OBungler's did, then we have a real problem. For individual citizens the choice is clear, hope for the best and keep planning for the worst, which is what I've been doing for the last 12 years+. If you and your family are not prepared for some major disruptions to your way of life and basic daily sustenance, then you better get on it.

    Lastly, the deep state is NEVER going away either. Not even sure they can be curbed. I honestly don't have an answer for that one yet except to be prepared to completely and totally unplug from everything, and become 'invisible, passive and benign' to the system itself at some point.

    Creepy Lurker -> The Merovingian, Nov 18, 2016 11:45 AM ,
    I logged in to thank you for this Voice Of Reason post. I don't know just what people expected. Was he supposed to start appointing random biker dudes to cabinet posts? Come on. To some extent one must work with the system if one is to have any hope of making changes to it.

    Like baba looey keeps saying, let the man work, FFS.

    Seer -> Creepy Lurker, Nov 18, 2016 12:35 PM ,

    Do people demand a really just system? Well, we'll arrange it so that they'll be satisfied with one that's a little less unjust ... They want a revolution, and we'll give them reforms -- lots of reforms; we'll drown them in reforms. Or rather, we'll drown them in promises of reforms, because we'll never give them real ones either!!

    DARIO FO, Accidental Death of an Anarchist

    Blankone -> The Merovingian, Nov 18, 2016 11:55 AM ,
    Trump is already showing himself through his choices. This guy is a hard liner in the push for the govt to trample the constitution and treat the citizens like serfs. But Trump's supporters are ok with it because it is "their guy" doing it, just like the Dems/liberals/whatever were ok with Obama shredding the constitution and killing hundreds of thousands because Obama was "their guy".

    The velvet glove will come off soon and you will only have the iron fist.

    Yes We Can. But... -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:30 AM ,
    With HRC22, I"d get about 2% of what I'd want.

    With Trump, perhaps 60%. I'm happy with that, and will try not to bitch about the 40%.

    Don't get me wrong... Putting HRC in a coffin, is a wonderful thing... But my sensibilities tell me that 'DRAINING A SWAMP' is too much of a task for Donald Trump (or anyone else)...

    f_s

    stacking12321 -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 10:28 AM ,
    I almost agree with you about Hillary, would have been sweet to see the economy collapse on her watch instead of trumps.

    But with Hillary the risk of ww3 would be imminent.

    WordSmith2013 -> stacking12321, Nov 18, 2016 11:03 AM ,
    MP tore up Hillary during Benghazigate.

    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=57032

    Mike Pompeo destroys Hillary Clinton during prime time!
    Seer -> stacking12321, Nov 18, 2016 12:40 PM ,
    Not sure if it's going to be "sweet." For sure, though, it's going to collapse. ALL empires collapse (regardless of ideology/religion/leadership).
    madmax1965 -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 10:32 AM ,
    Drain the swamp indeed! I can't believe people thought the Donald would change anything! Same shit different color(literally and figuratively) douchebags!
    PT -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:26 AM ,
    Billy: Who is going to help Trump drain the swamp? The current swamp monsters? Why would they want to ruin their own home? That was always the problem.

    Either way, I am glad he got in. You knew you were going nowhere with Hillary. If Trump fails then he will prove that outsiders are no good either. The election started out looking like insider vs insider - Clinton vs Bush. That was a good reason for all the voters to stay home, or to write "Me" or "None of the Above" on their ballots - for those who had paper ballots.

    If Trump was a Conspiracy then his job was to make the plebs think they had a choice, to drag them to the voting booth, to create the illusion of legitimacy for the new government. If Trump can not change anything then the next "outsider" will have to put on an even bigger show and let us remember, this election will be a hard act to follow. My biggest fear is post-election amnesia, everything is already forgotten, let alone remembered in four years time. Is Wikileaks still chugging away? Where is that fantastic leak that would supposedly send Hillary straight to jail? What came of the Podesta emails? Are his spirits truly cooked? Are all the FBI investigations to be forgotten? Come the next election, are we really going to see crimes greater than the Comet Pizza allegations bubble to the surface? If the alleged crimes of the past year, and especially the last month or week, are forgotten, does that mean they were simply elaborate theatre? Will people remember this past year and, come the next election, declare "Well, look what happened in 2016! If that meant nothing, then how on earth could any other news mean anything? Refuse to participate in the show."

    The advantage of the Trump win is the exposure that has already happened. The Ds and Rs have been exposed. MSM has been exposed for extreme bias. The rats that double down on their anti-Trump rhetoric think they are hiding their own crimes when really they are exposing themselves for all the world to see. The "Love Trumps Hate" protestors are exposing all their own hypocrisy for all the world to see.

    Worst thing about this election? I paid attention. Politicians lie, especially in the lead up to an election. Everything they say can be safely ignored. Damn shame I got sucked into paying attention to this one - for the first time in my life. But now, in order to gain the attention of people who think like me, the next election will have to have theatrics of an order of magnitude greater than this one. Scary, eh! ;)

    TruthHammer -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 11:39 AM ,
    Not every pick trump makes it going to please everyone. Trump is a hardliner on fighting Terrorism, that means you aren't going to get Assange/Snowden love-ins, or someone trying to destroy the intelligence overreach of the US. Appointing a member of the Bengazhi committee to run the CIA means Hillary is completely FUCKED though. That's a bonus, a big one.

    The guy is Half-TeaParty, with NeoCon leanings towards fighting terrorism. Trump is going to be libertarian on War and Interventionism, but Neo-Con on Islamic Terror.

    None of that has to do with "not draining the swamp"

    Seer -> TruthHammer, Nov 18, 2016 12:48 PM ,
    Perfect example of why all this SHIT is going to continue! Terrorism is an idea. It is the PERFECT tool for govts to exert control.

    "Islamic Terror?" CIA started it all and the western propaganda machine has churned it into something that morons suck up.

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke101109.html
    Argentumentum -> Billy the Poet, Nov 18, 2016 1:15 PM ,
    You can ELECT but not SELECT - Trump to Israelis: Together we will stand up to Iran. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=141817

    If voting could change anything ... it would be illegal. Emma Goldman

    How many times will the monkeys push the button before they realize they never get the banana?

    Big Brother -> joeyman9, Nov 18, 2016 12:42 PM ,
    Thanks, man. Big Brother loves you too.
    VinceFostersGhost -> BennyBoy, Nov 18, 2016 10:55 AM ,

    he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them.

    Huh.....really?

    Chris Dakota -> BennyBoy, Nov 18, 2016 1:09 PM ,
    ...

    Neocon Invasion of Team Trump Fully Underway Trump must stop neocon takeover of his administration Wayne Madsen

    The purge of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie loyalists from the Donald Trump presidential transition team has little to do with Christie's Bridgegate scandal and everything to do with a battle between Bush-era neoconservatives and national security realists for control over key departments of the Trump administration.

    It appears that Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner , the publisher of the New York Observer and someone who is aligned with the Likud Party of Israel, is now the de facto chair of the Trump transition team , especially when it comes to national security matters.

    Vice President-elect Mike Pence, the official chairman of the team, is concentrating on domestic policy appointments, such as the rumored appointment of Texas Senator Ted Cruz as Attorney General.

    Kushner fired Christie and Christie loyalist, former House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers, from the transition team and replaced them with the discredited neocon Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy.

    It is likely that Gaffney will seek to bring a host of neocons who championed the U.S. invasion of Iraq into the Trump administration.

    Also fired was Matthew Freedman, another Christie loyalist. Kushner never liked Christie because as a federal prosecutor in north Jersey, Christie successfully prosecuted Kushner's father, real estate tycoon Charles Kushner, who received a prison sentence at Christie's urging.

    Where one finds the likes of Gaffney, former CIA director James Woolsey, also a member of the Trump transition team, and John Bolton, rumored to be in consideration for Secretary of State or deputy Secretary of State, one will find the other neocons who drove the United States into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    These include Richard Perle, who claimed U.S. troops invading Iraq would be met with Iraqis throwing "flowers and candy." This editor wrote the following about Perle's fatuous claim in a March 31, 2003, article for CounterPunch: "Perle's military experience does not permit him to distinguish between flowers and candy and bullets and mortar rounds."

    There is someone far more sinister than Gaffney, Bolton, and Perle chomping at the bit to join the new administration.

    Wayne Madsen Reports has learned from multiple knowledgeable sources that the proponent of neo-fascism, Michael Ledeen, is working closely with former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, to ensure that as many neocons from the Bush 43 and Reagan eras find senior positions in the Trump administration.

    Flynn co-authored a book with Ledeen that was released in July and titled, "The Field of Flight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies."

    The book represents typical neocon pabulum more than it does realism.

    In July, Kushner's Observer, unsurprisingly, published a five-star review of the book.

    Flynn, who distinguished himself admirably by suggesting that the Obama administration was coddling the Islamic State and its allied jihadists in Syria, appears not to recognize that it has long been the desire of neocons like Ledeen, Perle, Woolsey, and Bolton to divide the Arab nation-states into warring factions so that Israel can hold ultimate sway over the entire Middle East.

    Breitbart launched his site in 2007 from Jerusalem, its a Mossad front.

    Most of the posters in the begining were Jews and Christian Zionists. They started to use white nationalists during the primary like they used them in Ukraine, then purged.

    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/11/Screen-Shot-2015-11-17-at-09.04...

    I was struck by this photo of Ivanka in cocktail attire, or fox news chick look. She is being used as a distraction for the Jap guys.

    https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/article_small/public...

    YHC-FTSE -> Chris Dakota, Nov 18, 2016 1:25 PM ,
    +1 Once I saw the zionists rubbing shoulders in the thicket of Trump's cabinet, I was hoping for a 50/50 split. But I dare say the zionist neocons' takeover is complete. Mike Pompous-Ass is pure MIC through and through (See Thayer Aerospace).

    Another zionist cunt with Israel-first mentality whose only dubious virutes are hatred of muslims and Hillary.

    Zero change in domestic and foreign intelligence policies from Hitlery who was planning to go to war with Iran by way of war against the Russo-Syrian alliance.

    Any stupid fucker who is a proponent of blanket surveillance is a fucking traitor to every values in individual freedom and rights that I hold dear.

    BullyBearish -> Chris Dakota, Nov 18, 2016 1:32 PM ,
    The non-Semitic majority of Israel want to demonize the true Semitics (Arabs) by disparaging Islam in order to steal their land and its resources. Since they cannot or do not want to do all of the killing themselves, they use Christians to do their dirty work. The US Christian political leaders (e.g. Pence/Pompeo) have been targetted by Israel:

    One of the keys to AIPAC's success is its education arm, the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF). AIEF sponsors trips to Israel for Members of Congress and their staffs, and uses these trips generally relay Likud's view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In all, AIEF spent $2,035,233 sponsoring congressional trips to Israel in 2011, according to data my blog, Republic Report , gathered through the Legistorm database. In contrast, the more moderate Israel lobby J Street - which launched in 2008 to provide an alternative to AIPAC's hawkish advocacy - spent only $45,954 on congressional trips to Israel. J Street's trips, included more extensive meetings with Palestinians and Israeli human rights groups. Which means that J Street was, in this area, outspent by a factor of 44: 1 in 2011. Republic Report has plotted this data into the following chart:

    Look at the itinerary (requires free registration with Legistorm) of a nine-day, $20,000 AIEF trip Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) took in August 2011. During his trip, Pompeo was treated to meals, information sessions, tours, and other activities with mostly hawkish high-ranking Israeli officials, academics, and non-profit leaders. The sessions included "Terror from Gaza and Sinai" and "Hamas Next Door." During the nine days, only an hour was spent with Palestinian officials, with a short meeting scheduled in with Salam Fayyad, a Palestinian Authority Prime Minister widely viewed as highly sympathetic to the Israeli government.

    Son of Captain Nemo -> Joe Davola, Nov 18, 2016 9:41 AM ,
    J D

    What you say is in fact true. But it's the "coordination" that takes place between government and industry with that information that is lethal. When NSA "cherry picks" and manipulates that date to remove it's "rivals" (perceived or otherwise) and uses the Justice Department acting as the "stick", you know anything becomes possible!

    Seer -> Son of Captain Nemo, Nov 18, 2016 12:49 PM ,
    Power corrupts.

    [Nov 18, 2016] Economists View Links for 11-17-16

    Notable quotes:
    "... Does Finance care about bigotry? Finance has a history of recognizing bigotry and promoting it if it makes loans more predictable. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    jonny bakho : , November 17, 2016 at 05:26 AM
    Does Finance care about bigotry? Finance has a history of recognizing bigotry and promoting it if it makes loans more predictable.

    Home values could drop if too many blacks moved to a neighborhood so finance created red-lining to protect their investments while promoting bigotry.
    Finance is all in favor of tearing down minority neighborhoods or funding polluters in those neighborhoods to protect investments in gated communities and white sundown towns.

    Finance is often part of the problem, not the solution.

    Peter K. -> jonny bakho... , November 17, 2016 at 06:14 AM
    Thought-provoking question!

    All of what you say is true but I have some contrarian/devil's advocate thoughts.

    Some finance people are smart and have an enlightened self-interest. Think of Robert Rubin, George Soros or Warren Buffet. They often back Democrats. Think of Chuck Schumer. Think of Hillary Clinton's speeches to the banks.

    Finance often knocks down walls and will back whatever makes a profit. Often though as you say it conforms to prejudice and past practices, like red-lining.

    I think of the lines from the Communist Manifesto:

    "The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom - Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

    The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers."

    But the cash nexus isn't enough spiritually or emotionally and when living standards stagnate or decline, anxious people retreat into tribalism.

    DrDick -> jonny bakho... , November 17, 2016 at 07:31 AM
    "Often"? Try "usually".
    JohnH -> jonny bakho... , November 17, 2016 at 07:37 AM
    Sub-prime lenders targeted minorities...bigotry in action.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/nyregion/15subprime.html
    im1dc -> jonny bakho... , November 17, 2016 at 08:57 AM
    'Does Finance care about bigotry?'

    When I first glances at your question I immediately answered your query like you everyone here did, 'no, finance does not care about bigotry except to the degree finance can profit from it.'

    Then I realized there are too many assumptions contained in your question for me to respond b/c I was thinking inside the box and not taking in all that impacts Finance and bigotry.

    Your question assumes "Finance" is Private and for profit. But that is not true is it, since there is Public, NGO, Charity, Socialistic, Communistic, et. al., Finance.

    And, then there is the problem with the word "bigotry."

    Your post makes clear to me that you are referring to American bigotry in housing, but that means you ignore that "bigotry" exists largely from ones individual perspective, which we know depends upon from where one sees it.

    What I mean by that is Russia, China, Syria, Turkey, Iran, etc., all see and proclaim bigotry in the USA but deny bigotry in their own countries.

    If your point is simply that America Finance discriminates against people of color in Housing or that such discrimination perpetuates bigotry then no one can disagree with you, imo, however, your implication that that is done to perpetuate bigotry and racism is probably false since Finance is amoral, looking to secure profit, and not out to discriminate against a particular group such as people of color as long as they can profit.

    [Nov 18, 2016] Democratic Party identity politics stance is a shallow, desperate attempt to stop the Democratic Party being forced to respond to inquality issues – its no coincidence that this identity politics uprising from the hard left occurs at the same time we see a rust belt decination by globalization forces

    Notable quotes:
    "... "He spoke of the need to reform our trade deals so they aren't raw deals for the American people," she said. "He said he will not cut Social Security benefits. He talked about the need to address the rising cost of college and about helping working parents struggling with the high cost of child care. He spoke of the urgency of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and putting people back to work. He spoke to the very real sense of millions of Americans that their government and their economy has abandoned them. And he promised to rebuild our economy for working people." ..."
    "... And economic populists really care about race gender etc, we just think that focusing on social justice as a priority over economic equality inevitably leads to Trump or someone like him. ..."
    "... I don't know who Clinton might represent more than American feminists, and they, or at least the ones over thirty with power and wealth, certainly seemed to feel possessive and empowered by her campaign and possible election. ..."
    "... And white American feminists could not even get 50% of white working class women nationwide, and I suspect the numbers are even worse in the Upper Midwest swing states. In comparison, African-Americans delivered as always, 90% of their vote, across all classes and educational levels. Latinos delivered somewhere around 60-70%. ..."
    "... You seem to have just ignored what Val, small, Helen, faustusnotes have been saying and inserted a straw man into the conversation. No you don't have to be a Marxist to worry about social discrimination, but being sensitive to social discrimination does make you sensitive to injustice in general. Who exactly are these people you are talking about? ..."
    "... Over the past decade, a small but growing movement has realized that the Rube Goldberg neoliberalism of Obamacare–and many other parts of modern Democratic policy–is not sustainable. I've come to that conclusion painfully and slowly. I've taught the law for six years, and each year I get better at explaining how its many parts work, and fit together." ..."
    "... I offered in an earlier comment, that the left looks askance at identity politics because of the recuperation of these – gender emancipation, anti-racism and anti-colonial struggles – by capital and the state. engels, above has offered Nancy Fraser linked here. ..."
    "... I have no argument with the notion that Clinton was an imperfect candidate. Almost all candidates are (even a top-notch one like Obama) ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Hidari 11.17.16 at 7:08 am 50

    The idea that people who are against capitalism (or neoliberalism, if you want) are also not generally against patriarchy and racist colonialism ( as a system ) is obviously false.

    On the contrary it's people who are 'into' identity politics who generally are not against these things (again, as a system). People who are into identity politics are against racism and sexism, sure, but seem to have little if any idea as to why these ideas came into being and what social purposes they serve: they seem to think they are just arbitrary lifestyle choices, like not liking people with red hair, or preferring The Beatles to the Rolling Stones or something. And if this is true, all we have to do is 'persuade' people not to 'be racist' or 'be sexist' and then the problem goes away. Hence dehistoricised (and, let's face it, depoliticised) 'political correctness'. which seems to insist that as long as you don't, personally , call any African-American the N word and don't use the C word when talking about women, all problems of racism and sexism will be solved.

    The inability to look at History, and social structures, and the history of social structures, and the purpose of these structures as a pattern of domination, inevitably leads to Clintonism (or, in the UK, Blairism), which, essentially, equals 'neoliberalism plus don't use the N word'.

    Hidari 11.17.16 at 7:20 am 51 ( 51 )

    I'm not going to argue directly with people because some people are obviously a bit angry about this but the question is not whether or not sexism or homophobia are good things (they obviously aren't): the question is whether or not fighting against these things are necessarily left-wing, and the answer is: depends on how you do it. For example, in both cases we have seen right-wing feminism ('spice girls feminism') and right wing gay rights (cf Peter Thiel, Milo Yiannopoulos) which sees 'breaking the glass ceiling' for women and gays as being the key point of the struggle. I know Americans got terribly excised about having the first American female President and that's understandable for its symbolic value, but here in the UK we now have our second female Prime Minister.

    So what? Who gives a shit? What's changed (not least, what's changed for women?)?. Nothing.

    Eventually you are going to get your first female President. You will probably even someday get your first gay President. Both of them may be Republicans. Think about that.

    nastywoman 11.17.16 at 7:23 am 52

    What's wrong with -(from the NYT):
    'Democrats, who lost the White House and made only nominal gains in the House and Senate, face a profound decision after last week's stunning defeat: Make common cause where they can with Mr. Trump to try to win back the white, working-class voters he took from them

    – while always reminding the people that F face von Clownstick actually is a Fascistic Racist Birther.

    and at the same time (from E. Warren):

    "He spoke of the need to reform our trade deals so they aren't raw deals for the American people," she said. "He said he will not cut Social Security benefits. He talked about the need to address the rising cost of college and about helping working parents struggling with the high cost of child care. He spoke of the urgency of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and putting people back to work. He spoke to the very real sense of millions of Americans that their government and their economy has abandoned them. And he promised to rebuild our economy for working people."

    Faustusnotes 11.17.16 at 7:52 am 53 ( Faustusnotes )

    Straw man much, hidari? Just to pick a random example of someone who thinks these things are important, Ursula le guin Sure she's never made any state,nets about systematic oppression, and economic systems? The problem you have when you try to claim that these ideas "cameo to being" through social and structural factors is that you're wrong.

    Everyone knows rape is as old as sex, the idea it's a product of a distorted economic system is a fiction produced by Beardy white dudes to shut the girls up until after the revolution.

    Which is exactly what you "reformers" of liberalism, who think it has lost its way in the maze of identity politics, want to do. Look at the response of people like rich puchalsky to BLM – trying to pretend it's equivalent to the system of police violence directed against occupy, as if violence against white people for protesting is the same as e murder of black people simply for being in public.

    It's facile, it's shallow and it's a desperate attempt to stop the Democratic Party being forced to respond to issues outside the concerns of white rust belt men – it's no coincidence that this uprising g of shallow complaints against identity politics from the hard left occurs at the same time we see a rust belt reaction against the new left. And the reaction from the hard left will be as destructive for the dems as the rust belt reaction is for the country.

    nastywoman 11.17.16 at 8:04 am

    – and what a 'feast' for historians this whole 'deal' must be? –
    as there are all kind of fascinating thought experiment around this man who orders so loudly and in fureign language a Pizza on you-tube.

    And wasn't it time that our fellow Americans find out that Adolf Hitler not only ordered Pizza or complained about his I-Phone – NO! – that he also is very upset that Trump also won the erection?

    And there are endless possibilities for histerical conferences about who is the 'Cuter Fascist – or what Neo Nazis in germany sometimes like to discuss: What if Hitler only would have done 'good' fascistic things?

    Wouldn't he be the role model for all of US?

    Or – as there are so many other funny hypotheticals

    bob mcmanus 11.17.16 at 8:23 am ( 55 )

    1) And economic populists really care about race gender etc, we just think that focusing on social justice as a priority over economic equality inevitably leads to Trump or someone like him.

    2) I don't know who Clinton might represent more than American feminists, and they, or at least the ones over thirty with power and wealth, certainly seemed to feel possessive and empowered by her campaign and possible election.

    And white American feminists could not even get 50% of white working class women nationwide, and I suspect the numbers are even worse in the Upper Midwest swing states. In comparison, African-Americans delivered as always, 90% of their vote, across all classes and educational levels. Latinos delivered somewhere around 60-70%.

    American feminism has catastrophically, an understatement, failed over the last couple generations, and class had very much to do with it, upper middle class advanced degreed liberal women largely followed Clinton's model, leaned in, and went for the bucks rather than reaching ou to their non-college sisters in the Midwest. Kinda like Mao staying in Shanghai, or Lenin in Zurich and expecting the Feminist Revolution to happen in the countryside while they profit.

    Feminist Philosophers "Us"

    comment, "hbaber":

    Feminism, also playing to its base of upper middle class women, has also shifted its focus from economic and labor force issues, to a range of social and sexuality issues that are of less concern to most women. Personally, I feel betrayed. The male-female wage gap has not narrow appreciably since the 1990s, glass ceilings are still in place and, for me most importantly, horizontal sex segregation in the market for jobs that don't require a college degree, where roughly 2/3 of American women compete, is unabated. I looked at the most recent BLS stats for occupations by gender recently. Of the two aggregated categories of occupations that would be characterized as 'blue collar' work, women represent a little over 2 and 3 percent respectively. For specific occupations under those categories more than half (eyeballing) don't even include a sufficient number of women to report.

    Again, it isn't hard to see why. Upper middle class women can easily imagine themselves, or their daughters, needing abortions. The possibility that that option would not be available is a real fear. They do not worry that they or their daughters would be stuck for most of their adult lives cashiering at Walmart, working in a call center, or doing any of the other boring, dead-end pink-collar work which are the only options most women have. And they don't even think of blue-collar work.

    Which Marxists always have expected and why we strongly prefer that the UMC and bourgeois be kept out of the Party. It's called opportunism and is connected to reformism, IOW, wanting to keep the system, just replace the old bosses with your owm.

    You backed the war-mongering plutocrat and handed the world to fascism. Can you show responsibility and humility for even a week?

    Faustusnotes 11.17.16 at 8:38 am

    aaand bob mansplains how all white feminists think!

    reason 11.17.16 at 8:40 am ( 57 )

    Hidari http://crookedtimber.org/2016/11/15/on-the-national-and-international-causes-of-Trump_vs_deep_state/#comment-698690

    You seem to have just ignored what Val, small, Helen, faustusnotes have been saying and inserted a straw man into the conversation. No you don't have to be a Marxist to worry about social discrimination, but being sensitive to social discrimination does make you sensitive to injustice in general. Who exactly are these people you are talking about?

    reason 11.17.16 at 8:43 am

    Of course Hidari might have had a point if he was making an argument about campaign strategy and emphasis, but he seems to be saying more that that, or are I wrong?

    basil 11.17.16 at 8:51 am ( 59 )

    Thank you for this Eric. Did you see this?

    Frank Pasquale recants calculated support for the ACA

    Over the past decade, a small but growing movement has realized that the Rube Goldberg neoliberalism of Obamacare–and many other parts of modern Democratic policy–is not sustainable. I've come to that conclusion painfully and slowly. I've taught the law for six years, and each year I get better at explaining how its many parts work, and fit together."

    basil 11.17.16 at 9:09 am

    I offered in an earlier comment, that the left looks askance at identity politics because of the recuperation of these – gender emancipation, anti-racism and anti-colonial struggles – by capital and the state. engels, above has offered Nancy Fraser linked here.

    CT's really weird on identity. Whose work are we thinking through? 'Gender'and 'Race' are political constructions that are most explicitly economic in nature. There were no black people before racism made certain bodies available for the inhumanity of enslavement, and thus the enrichment of the slaver class. Commentators oughtn't, I don't think, write as if there are actually existing black and white people. As Dorothy Roberts – Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-Create Race in the 21st Century (and Paul Gilroy – Against Race: Imagining Political Culture beyond the Color Line, and Karen and Barbara Fields – Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life, etc put it, it is racism that creates and naturalises race. Of course liberalism's logics of governance, the necessity of making bodies available for control and exploitation constantly reproduce and entrench race (and gender).

    I offered that racialised people, particularly those gendered as women/queer, the ones who have been refused whiteness, are also super suspicious of these deployments of identity politics, especially by non-subjugated persons who've a political project for which they are weaponising subordinated identities. It really is abusive and exploitative.

    We must listen better. As the racialised and gendered are pointing out, it is incredible that it has taken the threat of Trump, and now their ascension for liberals to tune in to the violence waged against racialised, gendered, queer lives and bodies by White Supremacy. History will remember that #BLM (like the record deportations, the Clintons' actual-existing-but-to-liberals invisible border wall, the Obamacare farce in the OP, de Blasio's undocumented persons list, Rahm in Chicago, the employment of David Brock, Melania's nudes, the crushing poverty of racialised women, the exploitation of those violated by Trump, the re-invasion and desecration of Native American territory) happened under a liberal presidency. That liberal presidency responded to BLM with a Blue Lives Matter law. This is evidence of liberalism's inherently violent attitude towards those it pretends to care about. All this preceded Trump.

    If you are for gender emancipation or anti-race/racism, be against these all the time, not just to tar your temporary electoral foes. Be feminist when dancing Yemenis gendered as women – some of the poorest, most vulnerable humans – are droned at weddings. Be feminist when Mexico's farmers gendered as women are dying at NAFTA's hand. Be feminist when poor racialised queer teens are dying in the streets as you celebrate the right of wealthy gays to marry. Be feminist and reject people who've got multiple sexual violence accusations against them and those who help them cover these up and shame the victims. Be feminist and anti-racist and reject people who glory in making war on poor defenceless people. Be feminist and anti-racist and reject white nationalists gendered female who call racialised groups 'super-predators' to court racists. Reject people who say of public welfare improvements – it will never, ever happen, this is not Denmark. The people who need those services the most are vulnerable humans, racialised and gendered as women. Never say that politicians who put poor migrants in cages on isolated islands are nice people. They absolutely aren't. Some of this is really easy.

    A racialised gendered voice, Mayukh Sen at the bottom has a different take.

    These puerile rhetorical gestures reveal the people for whom 2:30 a.m. on Wednesday was simply a glass ceiling left unbroken by a woman who launched a massive Yemeni bombing campaign. Perhaps as a mechanic of coping, it has become incredibly sexy for a certain class of liberals to dodge any responsibility for the lives they, too, have compromised. They aren't the same ones who have to worry about who will be the first person to call them a terrorist faggot ..For the rest of us, the victory of this fascist is a confirmation of the biases we have known all along, no matter public liberal consciousness's inabilities to wrangle them into submission."

    nastywoman 11.17.16 at 9:17 am ( 61 )

    @55
    and why do we always have to make so many words about 'Cookie Baking'?

    Another Nick 11.17.16 at 9:28 am

    faustusnotes, can you comment on the "identity politics" behind the Dem choice of Lena Dunham for celebrity campaign mascot?

    In what ways might be she have been expected to appeal/not appeal to eg. rural voters?

    How do you think decisions like that played out for the Dems?

    nastywoman 11.17.16 at 9:33 am ( 63 )

    – and just a suggestion I have learned from touring the rust belt – waaay before it was as 'fashionable' as it is right now.

    While we in some hotel room in Scranton fought our Ideological fights -(we had a French Camera Assistant who insisted that America one day will elect 'a Fascist like Hitler') –
    the mechanic we had scheduled to interview about his Camaro SS for the next day – had exchanged all the spark plucks of his car.

    bob mcmanus above,
    I really think social justice and economic justice are bound together, and that Universal Healthcare, for example, as a fundamental right is a basic feminist and anti-racist goal. Most particularly because the vulnerability of these groups, their economic hardship, their very capacity to live, to survive is at stake in a marketised health care system. Racialised outcomes for ACA.

    Similarly with marketised higher education and skills training. How cynical that HRC used HBCUs to argue that racialised people would suffer from free public tertiary education!

    Dorothy Roberts' work for example has interesting perspectives on how race is created in part through the differentiated access to healthcare. They discuss how this plays out for both maternal and child mortality, and for breast cancer survival. 'Oh, the evidence shows that racialised women are more vulnerable to x condition'. Exactly, because a racist and marketised system denies them necessary healthcare.

    Val 11.17.16 at 10:07 am ( 65 )

    A funny thing about the new comment moderation regime is that you can get two people posting in rapid succession saying pretty much opposite things like me then Hidari. It seems as if (although again it's not very clear) Hidari is suggesting capitalism created sexism and racism? Or something like that? I'm definitely on better ground there though: patriarchy and sexism predate capitalism.

    In fairness though, I think I understand what Hidari and engels are getting at. I know lots of young people, women and people of colour, who probably fit their description in a way. They are young, smart, probably a bit naive, and at least some of them probably from privileged backgrounds. They appear driven by desire to succeed in a hierarchical academic system that still tends to be dominated by white men at the upper levels, and they don't seem to question the system much, at least not openly.

    But can I just mention, some of our hosts here are actually fairly high up in that system. Why aren't they being attacked as liberals or proponents of "identity politics"? Why is it only when women or people of colour try to succeed in that very same academic system that it becomes so wrong?

    faustusnotes 11.17.16 at 11:55 am

    Another Nick, yes I can comment on that. I think it's fascinating that the old beardy leftists and berniebros are fixated on Lena Dunham. Who else is fixated on Lena Dunham? The right bloggers, who are inflamed with rage at everything she does. Who else is fixated on identity politics? The right bloggers, who present it as everything wrong with the modern left, PC gone mad, censorship etc. You guys should get together and have a party – you're made for each other.

    Also, the Democrats don't have a "celebrity campaign mascot." So what are you actually talking about?

    Val 11.17.16 at 12:02 pm ( 69 )

    basil @ 64
    basil what in any conceivable world makes you think that feminists on CT don't know about the issues you're talking about? I work in a school of public health and my entire work consists of trying to address those sorts of issues, plus ecological sustainability.

    Seriously this has all gone beyond straw-wo/manning. Some people here are talking to others who exist only in their minds or something. The world's gone mad.

    engels 11.17.16 at 12:06 pm

    Umm Val and FaustusNoted, which part of-

    identity politics isn't the same thing as feminism, anti-racism, LGBT politics, etc. They're all needed now more than ever.

    -was unclear to you?

    I DON'T want to live in a world in which 'patriarchy and racism' are okay, I want to live in a world in which America has a real Left, which represents the working class (black, white, gay, straight, female, male-like other countries do to a greater lesser degree), and which is the only thing that has a shot at stopping its descent into outright fascism.

    engels 11.17.16 at 12:19 pm ( 71 )

    it often gets thrown around as a kind of all-encompassing epithet

    Point taken-but there's really nothing I can do to stop other people misusing terms (until the Dictatorship of the Prolerariat anyway :) )

    Cranky Observer 11.17.16 at 12:27 pm

    = = = faustnotes @ 4:14 am The reason these conservative Dems come from those states is that those states don't support radical welfare provisions – they don't want other people getting a free lunch, and value personal responsibility over welfarism. = = =

    As long as you don't count enormous agricultural, highway, postal service, and military base subsidies as any form of "welfare", sure. And that's not even counting the colossal expenditures on military force and bribes in the Middle East to keep the diesel-fuel-to-corn unroofed chemical factory (i.e. farming) industry running profitably. Apparently the Republicans who hate the US Postal Service with a vengeance, for example, are unaware that in 40% of the land area of the United States FedEx, UPS, etc turn over the 'last hundred mile' delivery to the USPS.

    engels 11.17.16 at 12:29 pm ( 73 )

    Ps I'm kind of surprised this thread has been allowed to go on so long but I'm going to bow out now-feel free to continue trying to smear me behind my back

    bob mcmanus 11.17.16 at 12:35 pm

    Would a real leftist let her daughter marry a hedge-fund trader? I suppose they are a step above serial killers and child molesters, but c'mon. Quotes from Wiki, rearranged in chronological order.

    Beginning in the early 1990s, Mezvinsky used a wide variety of 419 scams. According to a federal prosecutor, Mezvinsky conned using "just about every different kind of African-based scam we've ever seen."[11] The scams promise that the victim will receive large profits, but first a small down payment is required. To raise the funds needed to front the money for the fraudulent investment schemes he was being offered, Mezvinsky tapped his network of former political contacts, dropping the name of the Clinton family to convince unwitting marks to give him money.[12]

    In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 felony charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud

    "In July 2010, Mezvinsky married Chelsea Clinton in an interfaith ceremony in Rhinebeck, New York.[12] The senior Clintons and Mezvinskys were friends in the 1990s ; their children met on a Renaissance Weekend retreat in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina."

    Subsequent to his graduations, he worked for eight years as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs before leaving to join a private equity firm, but later quit. In 2011, he co-founded a Manhattan-based hedge fund firm, Eaglevale Partners, with two longtime partners, Bennett Grau and Mark Mallon.[1][8] In May 2016, The New York Times reported that the Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity Fund is said to have lost nearly 90 percent of its value, [which equated to a 90% loss to investors] and sources say it will be shutting down.[9][10] Emails discovered as part of Wikileaks' release of the "Podesta emails" seemed to indicate that Mezvinsky had used his ties to the Clinton family to obtain investors for his hedge fund through Clinton Foundation events.

    Marcotte, Sady Doyle, Valenti, the Clinton operatives knew this stuff.

    Prioritizing women's liberation over economic populism, just a little bit, doesn't quite cover it. Buying fully into the most rapacious aspects of predatory capitalism is more lie it.

    If Clinton is your champion, and I am still seeing sads at Jezebel, you have zero credilibity on economic issues. She's one of the worst crooks to ever run for President. And we will see how Obama fares on his immediate switch from President to his ambition to be a venture capitalist for Silicon Valley. I'll bet Obama gets very very lucky!

    Yan 11.17.16 at 1:20 pm ( 75 )

    Val @49 &
    "they (at some confused and probably not fully conscious level) do seem to assume that violence and oppression of women and people of colour never used to happen when white men (including white working class men) had 'good jobs' .. patriarchy and racism predate neoliberalism by centuries."
    "patriarchy and sexism predate capitalism."

    I think this framing is misleading, because you're historically comparing forms of oppression with economic systems, rather than varieties of one or the other.

    Wouldn't the more relevant comparison be something like: patriarchy and sexism are coeval with classism and economic inequality?

    What concretely are racism and sexism, after all, but ideologies dependent upon power inequalities, and what are those but inequalities of social position (man, father) and wealth and ownership that make possible that power difference? How could sexism or racism have existed without class or inequality?

    novakant 11.17.16 at 1:32 pm

    I have no argument with the notion that Clinton was an imperfect candidate. Almost all candidates are (even a top-notch one like Obama)

    Strawman (I have heard a lot of times before):

    nobody criticizes Clinton for being imperfect, people criticize her for being a terrible, terrible candidate and the DNC establishment for supporting this terrible, terrible candidate: she lost against TRUMP for goodness' sake.

    Layman 11.17.16 at 1:47 pm ( 77 )

    bob mcmanus: "In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 felony charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud "

    Well, either I'm shocked to discover that Clinton was involved in her daughter's husband's father's crimes some 20 years ago, or you've demonstrated that Clinton's daughter married a man whose father was a crook. I'm guessing the latter, though I'm left wondering WTF that has to do with Clinton's character.

    engels 11.17.16 at 2:03 pm

    One more:

    "we cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of white men and a majority of white women, across class lines, voted for a platform and a message of white supremacy, Islamophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-science, anti-Earth, militarism, torture, and policies that blatantly maintain income inequality. The vast majority of people of color voted against Trump, with black women registering the highest voting percentage for Clinton of any other demographic (93 percent). It is an astounding number when we consider that her husband's administration oversaw the virtual destruction of the social safety net by turning welfare into workfare, cutting food stamps, preventing undocumented workers from receiving benefits, and denying former drug felons and users access to public housing; a dramatic expansion of the border patrol, immigrant detention centers, and the fence on Mexico's border; a crime bill that escalated the war on drugs and accelerated mass incarceration; as well as NAFTA and legislation deregulating financial institutions.

    "Still, had Trump received only a third of the votes he did and been defeated, we still would have had ample reason to worry about our future.

    "I am not suggesting that white racism alone explains Trump's victory. Nor am I dismissing the white working class's very real economic grievances. It is not a matter of disaffection versus racism or sexism versus fear. Rather, racism, class anxieties, and prevailing gender ideologies operate together, inseparably, or as Kimberlé Crenshaw would say, intersectionally."
    https://bostonreview.net/forum/after-trump/robin-d-g-kelley-trump-says-go-back-we-say-fight-back

    Faustusnotes 11.17.16 at 2:38 pm ( 79 )

    Bob, a real feminist would not tell her daughter who to marry.

    You claim to be an intersectional feminist but you say things like this, and you blamed feminists for white dudes voting for trump. Are you a parody account?

    Michael Sullivan 11.17.16 at 2:41 pm

    Mclaren @ 25 "As for 63.7% home ownership stats in 2016, vast numbers of those "owned" homes were snapped up by giant banks and other financial entities like hedge funds which then rented those homes out. So the home ownership stats in 2016 are extremely deceptive."

    There may be ways in which the home ownership statistic is deceptive or fuzzy, but it's hard for me to imagine this being one of them.

    The definition you seem to imply for home ownership (somebody somewhere owns the home) would result in by definition 100% home ownership every year.

    I'm pretty sure that the measure is designed to look at whether one of the people who live in a home actually owns it. Ok, let's stuff the pretty sure, etc. and use our friend google. So turns out that the rate in question is the percentage of households where one of the people in the household owns the apartment/house. If some banker or landlord buys a foreclosure and then rents the house out, that will be captured in the homeownership rate.

    Where that rate may understate issues is that it doesn't consider how many people are in a household. So if lots of people are moving into their parent's basements, or renting rooms to/from unrelated people in their houses, those people won't be counted as renters or homeowners, since the rate tracks households, not people. Where that will be captured is in something called the headship rate, and represents the ratio of households to adults. That number dropped by about 1.5% between the housing bust and the recession, and appears to be recovering or at worst near bottom (mixed data from two different surveys) as of 2013. So, yes, the drop in home ownership rate is probably understated (hence the headline of my source article below) somewhat, but not enormously as you imply, and the difference is NOT foreclosures - unless they are purchased by another owner occupier, they DO show up in the home ownership rate. The difference is larger average households: more adults living with other adults.

    Here's my source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/why-the-homeownership-rate-is-misleading/?_r=0

    Yan 11.17.16 at 3:03 pm ( 81 )

    engels @70, "I DON'T want to live in a world in which 'patriarchy and racism' are okay, I want to live in a world in which America has a real Left, which represents the working class (black, white, gay, straight, female, male-like other countries do to a greater lesser degree), and which is the only thing that has a shot at stopping its descent into outright fascism."

    So many prominent people and such a large majority of voters have be so completely wrong, so many times, on everything, for a year that I really am not confident about making any strong political claims anymore. However, it has opened me to possibilities I wouldn't have previously considered.

    One is this: I'm beginning to wonder (not believe, wonder), if a lot of working class and lower-to-middle middle class Americans, including a lot of the ones who didn't vote or who switched from Obama to Trump (not including those who were always on the right) would already be on board, or in the long run be able of getting on board, with the picture Engels paints at 70.

    That possibility seems outrageous because we assume this general group are motivated *primarily* by resentment against women and people of color. But the more I read news stories that directly interview them–not the rally goers, but the others–the more it seems that they will side with *almost anyone* who they think is on their side, and *against anyone* who they think has contempt or indifference for them. Put another way: they are driven by equal opportunity resentment to whatever prejudices serve their resentment, rather than by a deeply engrained, fixed, rigid, kind of prejudice. (I have in mind a number of recent articles, but one thing that struck me is interviews with racially diverse factory workers, with Latinos and women, who voted for Trump.)

    I also begin to wonder if there is as much, if not more, resistance to wide solidarity among the left than among this group of voters who aren't really committed to either party. I begin to think that many on the left are strongly, deeply, viscerally opposed to the middle range working class, period, and not *just* to the racism and sexism that are all too often found there. I worry the Democrats' class contempt, their conservative disgust for their social, educational, professional, and economic inferiors is growing–partly based in reasonable disgust at the horrendous excesses of the right, but partly class-based, pathological, and subterranean, independent of that reasonable side.

    I say this not to justify Trump voters or non-voters or to vilify Democrats, but actually with a bit of optimism. For a very long time even many on the far left has looked at the old Marxist model of wide solidarity among the proletariat with skepticism. But I'm wondering if that skepticism is still justified. I wonder if what stands in the way of a truly diverse working class movement is not the right but the left. If they're ready, and we've not been paying attention.

    Are we really faced with a working class that rejects diversity? Are we really opposing to them a professional class that truly accepts diversity? Isn't there a kind of popular solidarity appearing, in awkward and sometimes ugly ways, that is destroying the presumptions of that opposition?

    engels 11.17.16 at 3:32 pm Cornel West:

    In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future. What is to be done? First we must try to tell the truth and a condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak. For 40 years, neoliberals lived in a world of denial and indifference to the suffering of poor and working people and obsessed with the spectacle of success. Second we must bear witness to justice. We must ground our truth-telling in a willingness to suffer and sacrifice as we resist domination. Third we must remember courageous exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr, who provide moral and spiritual inspiration as we build multiracial alliances to combat poverty and xenophobia, Wall Street crimes and war crimes, global warming and police abuse – and to protect precious rights and liberties .

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/17/american-neoliberalism-cornel-west-2016-election

    WLGR 11.17.16 at 4:00 pm ( 83 )

    Val: "It seems as if (although again it's not very clear) Hidari is suggesting capitalism created sexism and racism? Or something like that? I'm definitely on better ground there though, patriarchy and sexism predate capitalism."

    If Hidari is coming from a more-or-less mainline contemporary Marxist position, this is a misunderstanding of their argument, which is no more a claim that capitalism "created sexism and racism" than it would be a claim that capitalism created class antagonism. What's instead being suggested is that just as capitalism has systematized a specific form of class antagonism (wage laborer vs. capitalist) as a perceived default whose hegemony and expansion shapes our perception of all other potential antagonisms as anachronistic exceptions, so it has done the same with specific forms of sexism and racism, the forms we might call "patriarchy" and "white supremacy". In fact the argument is typically that antagonisms like white vs. POC and man vs. woman function as normalized exceptions to the normalized general antagonism of wage laborer vs. capitalist, a space where the process known since Marx as "primitive accumulation" can take place through the dispossession of women and POC (up to and including the dispossession of their very bodies) in what might otherwise be considered flagrant violation of liberal norms.

    As theorists like Rosa Luxemburg and Silvia Federici have elaborated, this process of accumulation is absolutely essential to the continued functioning of capitalism - the implication being that as much as capitalism and its ideologists pretend to oppose oppressions like racism and sexism, it can never actually destroy these oppressions without destroying its own social basis in the process. Hence neoliberal "identity politics", in which changing the composition of the ruling elite (now the politician shaking hands with Netanyahu on the latest multibillion-dollar arms deal can be a black guy with a Muslim-sounding name! now the CEO of a company that employs teenaged girls to stitch T-shirts for 12 hours a day can be a woman!) is ideologically akin to wholesale liberation, functions not as a way to destroy racism and sexism but as a compromise gambit to preserve them.

    Another Nick 11.17.16 at 4:01 pm f

    austusnotes, I asked if you could comment on the "identity politics" behind the Dem choice of Lena Dunham for celebrity campaign mascot. ie. their strategy. What they were planning and thinking? And how you think it played out for them?

    Not a list of your favourite boogeymen.

    "So what are you actually talking about?"

    I was attempting to discuss the role of identity politics in the Clinton campaign. I asked about Dunham because she was the most prominent of the celebrities employed by the Clinton campaign to deploy identity politics. ie. she appeared most frequently in the media on their behalf.

    http://www.vulture.com/2016/11/lena-dunham-fake-psa-hillary-clinton-rap-video.html

    Not seeing much discussion about actual policies there, economic or otherwise. It's really just an entire interview based on identity politics. With bonus meta-commentary on identity politics.

    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/nov/11/lena-dunham-election-letter-trump

    Lena blames "white women, so unable to see the unity of female identity, so unable to look past their violent privilege, and so inoculated with hate for themselves," for the election loss.

    Why didn't the majority of white women vote for Hillary? Because they "hate themselves".

    [Nov 18, 2016] Physical access is not equal to game over

    Notable quotes:
    "... What if the disk is passworded? What about that not all systems are exclusively for business/corporate use (see also BYOD) and therefore may be tuned to varying security postures owing to other factors? ..."
    "... Physical access ≠ game over. Physical access + unguarded time + experience + tooling = game over. One used to could safely leave someone alone with their computer while one went to the kitchen for a glass of water. Now this tooling has made the time and experience components a bit less relevant to successful, quick pwnage with few or no tracks. Neato! ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    LarryB November 17, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    The "Poison Tap" is not really that big of deal. It's usually trivially easy to break into any computer that you can physically access. You can boot from a CD or USB drive, for instance, or even just steal the hard drive. Security on USB needs to be improved, but this is not even close to being the end of the world.

    Knifecatcher November 17, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    +1. If someone has direct physical access to your device – PC or smartphone – you're pretty much hosed.

    Daryl November 17, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    Yep. Physical access is root access.

    River November 17, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    If you have the time with the physical machine anyway.

    I could see kids having fun with this though. Going into a box store that has computers on display, getting access (even better if they have a web cam on it). Upload porn or shocking material and showing the customers and watching/recording the reactions and putting it on youtube.

    Or more nefarious, the same thing but for casing a store (limited vantage from the web cam .but may better than nothing).

    Etc. lots you could do and more importantly not a lot of skill required. Lower bar for entry for hacking mischief and a low cost.

    hunkerdown November 17, 2016 at 7:51 pm

    LarryB, and how long will that take you? And will you have the computer back together by the time they see you? And will logs suggest anything funny happened around that time? What if the disk is passworded? What about that not all systems are exclusively for business/corporate use (see also BYOD) and therefore may be tuned to varying security postures owing to other factors?

    Physical access ≠ game over. Physical access + unguarded time + experience + tooling = game over. One used to could safely leave someone alone with their computer while one went to the kitchen for a glass of water. Now this tooling has made the time and experience components a bit less relevant to successful, quick pwnage with few or no tracks. Neato!

    [Nov 18, 2016] Ellison is a dud, Bernie tweets support for Schumer theres nobody I know better prepared and more capable of leading our caucus than Chuck Schumer -- Well theres a good

    Nov 18, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    chunder maker in that statement eh? Hope dashed! jo6pac November 17, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    Lambert you were on to something when you mention his twitter account.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/17/the-skeletons-in-keith-ellisons-display-case/

    I know my Muslim friends would never want to hurt anyone but this guy is as crazy as hillabillie.

    cocomaan November 17, 2016 at 7:44 pm

    Support for Syria and Libya interventions? Gross. No thanks.

    Who else do we got? Wait this is it? WHAT?!!

    uncle tungsten November 18, 2016 at 7:25 am

    Ellison is a dud, Bernie tweets support for Schumer "there's nobody I know better prepared and more capable of leading our caucus than Chuck Schumer"!
    Well there's a good chunder maker in that statement eh? Hope dashed!

    There are no doubt many who are better informed, more progressive and principled, more remote from Wall Street and oligarchic capture than Chuck Schumer and Ellison. So there you have it – this is reform in the Democrats after a crushing defeat.

    Vale democrats, and now the journey becomes arduous with these voices to smother hope. A new party is urgently needed (I know how difficult that is) and these voices of the old machine need to be ignored for the sake of sanity.

    [Nov 18, 2016] A very conservative butcher bill of US neocons that does not include the wounded, the homeless, the refugees, or the cost of the wars to you, who continue to believe that before Trump the world was a nice and comfortable place -- for you Dear Americans

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now you are worried about yourselves, but there are only the dead and their survivors left for whom you didn't speak up for. Give me one reason why anybody should worry about you, who seem to believe that only you count because you are Americans. My very best wishes for your precious safety and comfort and may you continue to look in the mirror and see no one there. Trust me, a mirror does not lie. ..."
    "... https://youtu.be/G0R09YzyuCI Collapse of Complex Societies by Dr. Joseph Tainter ..."
    "... Eliminate the social cancer of private finance and unfettered inheritance or continue to repeat history to assured extinction. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Killary PAC | Nov 17, 2016 5:18:20 PM | 33

    Dear Americans,

    I understand some of you are very worried about the election of Donald Trump. But I want you think about this:

    1. First they went for Yugoslavia, and you didn't worry: a country died
    2. Then they went for Afghanistan and you didn't worry: 220,000 Afghans have died.
    3. Then, they went for Iraq, and you didn't worry: 1 million Iraqis died.
    4. Then they went for Libya, and you didn't worry: 30,000 to 50,000 people died. Did you worry when Qaddafi was murdered with a bayonet up his rectum? No. And someone even laughed.
    5. Then they went for Ukraine, and you didn't worry: 10,000 people died and are dying.
    6. Then they went for Syria, and you didn't worry: 250,000 people died
    7. Then they went for Yemen: over 6,000 Yemenis have been killed and another 27,000 wounded. According to the UN, most of them are civilians. Ten million Yemenis don't have enough to eat, and 13 million have no access to clean water. Yemen is highly dependent on imported food, but a U.S.-Saudi blockade has choked off most imports. The war is ongoing.
    8. Then there is Somalia , and you don't worry

    Then there are the countries that reaped the fallout from the collapse of Libya. Weapons looted after the fall of Gaddafi fuel the wars in Mali, Niger, and the Central African Republic.

    Now you are worried about yourselves, but there are only the dead and their survivors left for whom you didn't speak up for. Give me one reason why anybody should worry about you, who seem to believe that only you count because you are Americans. My very best wishes for your precious safety and comfort and may you continue to look in the mirror and see no one there. Trust me, a mirror does not lie.

    Sincerely,

    One who does not worry about you.

    PS By the way the butcher bill I am here presenting is very conservative on the body count and does not include the wounded, the homeless, the refugees, or the cost of the wars to you, who continue to believe that before Trump the world was a nice and comfortable place--for you.

    okie farmer | Nov 17, 2016 5:35:10 PM | 34
    https://youtu.be/G0R09YzyuCI Collapse of Complex Societies by Dr. Joseph Tainter
    Lochearn | Nov 17, 2016 5:35:11 PM | 35
    @ 33 Great comment, but remember the tribe. French revolution, Marxism, Russian revolution, Israel, neoliberalism. I am from the hard "Grapes of Wrath" left. Marxism was a brilliant Jewish ploy to split the left, then identity politics. Oh, they are so clever and we are so dumb...
    psychohistorian | Nov 17, 2016 7:07:27 PM | 36
    @ Lochearn

    Nice continuation of the Killary Pac comment. I want to take it further.

    Since the Marxism ploy to split the left the folks that own private finance have developed/implemented another ploy to redirect criticism of themselves/their tools by adding goyim to the fringes of private finance to make it look like a respectable cornerstone of our "civilization".

    Oh, they are so clever and we are so dumb...

    Eliminate the social cancer of private finance and unfettered inheritance or continue to repeat history to assured extinction.

    stumpy | Nov 17, 2016 9:37:19 PM | 45
    @32

    Nicely done. The other image that I find humorous is the dancing W at the Dallas police killings memorial.

    Ghostship | Nov 17, 2016 10:01:11 PM | 46
    >>>>virgile | Nov 17, 2016 3:24:07 PM | 14
    The finance sector and the medias that they support are having problems digesting the 105 millions wasted on Hillary.
    No they're not - that is chicken feed to them. A few hundred dollars each out of their bonuses will cover that, perhaps the cost of a meal out.

    [Nov 18, 2016] The statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes by Bruce Wilder

    Notable quotes:
    "... The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance. ..."
    "... It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. ..."
    "... When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. ..."
    "... Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. ..."
    "... It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics. ..."
    "... This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints. ..."
    "... No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence. ..."
    "... If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying. ..."
    "... Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:07 pm 30

    At the center of Great Depression politics was a political struggle over the distribution of income, a struggle that was only decisively resolved during the War, by the Great Compression. It was at center of farm policy where policymakers struggled to find ways to support farm incomes. It was at the center of industrial relations politics, where rapidly expanding unions were seeking higher industrial wages. It was at the center of banking policy, where predatory financial practices were under attack. It was at the center of efforts to regulate electric utility rates and establish public power projects. And, everywhere, the clear subtext was a struggle between rich and poor, the economic royalists as FDR once called them and everyone else.

    FDR, an unmistakeable patrician in manner and pedigree, was leading a not-quite-revolutionary politics, which was nevertheless hostile to and suspicious of business elites, as a source of economic pathology. The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance.

    It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle.

    In retrospect, though the New Deal did use direct employment as a means of relief to good effect economically and politically, it never undertook anything like a Keynesian stimulus on a Keynesian scale - at least until the War.

    Where the New Deal witnessed the institution of an elaborate system of financial repression, accomplished in large part by imposing on the financial sector an explicitly mandated structure, with types of firms and effective limits on firm size and scope, a series of regulatory reforms and financial crises beginning with Carter and Reagan served to wipe this structure away.

    When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup.

    I don't know what considerations guided Obama in choosing the size of the stimulus or its composition (as spending and tax cuts). Larry Summers was identified at the time as a voice of caution, not "gambling", but not much is known about his detailed reasoning in severely trimming Christina Romer's entirely conventional calculations. (One consideration might well have been worldwide resource shortages, which had made themselves felt in 2007-8 as an inflationary spike in commodity prices.) I do not see a case for connecting stimulus size policy to the health care reform. At the time the stimulus was proposed, the Administration had also been considering whether various big banks and other financial institutions should be nationalized, forced to insolvency or otherwise restructured as part of a regulatory reform.

    Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. Accelerating the financialization of the economy from 1999 on made New York and Washington rich, but the same economic policies and process were devastating the Rust Belt as de-industrialization. They were two aspects of the same complex of economic trends and policies. The rise of China as a manufacturing center was, in critical respects, a financial operation within the context of globalized trade that made investment in new manufacturing plant in China, as part of globalized supply chains and global brand management, (arguably artificially) low-risk and high-profit, while reinvestment in manufacturing in the American mid-west became unattractive, except as a game of extracting tax subsidies or ripping off workers.

    It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics.

    It is conceding too many good intentions to the Obama Administration to tie an inadequate stimulus to a Rube Goldberg health care reform as the origin story for the final debacle of Democratic neoliberal politics. There was a delicate balancing act going on, but they were not balancing the recovery of the economy in general so much as they were balancing the recovery from insolvency of a highly inefficient and arguably predatory financial sector, which was also not incidentally financing the institutional core of the Democratic Party and staffing many key positions in the Administration and in the regulatory apparatus.

    This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints.

    No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence.

    bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:33 pm ( 31 )

    The short version of my thinking on the Obama stimulus is this: Keynesian stimulus spending is a free lunch; it doesn't really matter what you spend money on up to a very generous point, so it seems ready-made for legislative log-rolling. If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying.

    Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.

    likbez 11.18.16 at 4:48 pm 121

    bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:07 pm 30

    Great comment. Simply great. Hat tip to the author !

    Notable quotes:

    "… The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance. …"

    "… It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. …"

    "… When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. … "

    "… Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. …"

    "… It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics. …"

    "… This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints. …"

    "… No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence. …"

    "… If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying. …"

    "… Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. …"

    [Nov 18, 2016] Flinn has been criticized by US neocon circles for refusing to take an anti-Russian stance

    www.moonofalabama.org
    x | Nov 18, 2016 7:30:36 AM | 66

    "President-elect Donald Trump has named retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as his new national security adviser, according to a close source. The former DIA chief has been criticized in US circles for refusing to take an anti-Russian stance."

    https://www.rt.com/usa/367375-trump-flynn-national-adviser/

    POL | Nov 18, 2016 7:50:32 AM | 67
    Obama going full speed with anti-russian tour in the EU, he seems to do everything to block Russia/US peace.
    https://www.rt.com/news/367381-obama-eu-sanctions-russia/

    [Nov 18, 2016] Obama, EU leaders agree to keep anti-Russian sanctions over Ukraine

    Final anti-Russian tour by neocon Obama
    Notable quotes:
    "... We [Russia] have never initiated sanctions. These [sanctions] don't prevent us from building dialogue and continuing the dialogue on matters that are of interest to us, to Russia ..."
    "... Russian President Vladimir Putin and outgoing US President Obama are likely to talk informally on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in the Peruvian capital of Lima, Peskov said on Friday. ..."
    "... The two administrations have not agreed on any separate meetings, but we can assume that President Putin and President Obama will cross paths on the sidelines of the forum and will talk ..."
    "... "Russia, breaking international law. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East. The refugee and migration crisis. International terrorism. Hybrid warfare. And cyber-attacks," ..."
    www.rt.com

    US President Barack Obama and EU leaders have agreed to keep anti-Russian sanctions in place for a further year over the situation in Ukraine.

    President Obama, who is on his final official visit to Europe, met with the leaders of Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the UK on Friday.

    Among the main topics on the agenda were extending sanctions against Russia, cooperation within the framework of NATO, the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, and possible new anti-Russian sanctions over Moscow's actions in Syria.

    "The leaders also affirmed the importance of continued cooperation through multilateral institutions, including NATO," the White House added.

    Sanctions won't stop Russia from improving its dialogue and ties with other countries, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

    "We [Russia] have never initiated sanctions. These [sanctions] don't prevent us from building dialogue and continuing the dialogue on matters that are of interest to us, to Russia," Peskov said.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and outgoing US President Obama are likely to talk informally on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in the Peruvian capital of Lima, Peskov said on Friday.

    "The two administrations have not agreed on any separate meetings, but we can assume that President Putin and President Obama will cross paths on the sidelines of the forum and will talk," Peskov said.

    Also on Friday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg gave a speech at an event hosted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), where he said that Europe and the United States "are close economic and trade partners" and mentioned potential threats for the alliance. "Russia, breaking international law. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East. The refugee and migration crisis. International terrorism. Hybrid warfare. And cyber-attacks," said Stoltenberg, listing the perceived dangers.

    [Nov 18, 2016] Media-Drugged Zombies by Linh Dinh

    Notable quotes:
    "... The revulsion towards Trump is strongest among those with little to no work or life experience. Just about everything they know about the world has been programmed into them by electronic media. Their entire lives, from how they stand or walk to their barely audible interior monologues, are molded by electronic media. Their skulls are electronic media echo chambers. ..."
    www.unz.com
    According to a Nielsen study, the average American adult consumes 10:39 hours of electronic media per day in 2016, up a full hour from 2015. Each year, it increases. At 13:17 hours, blacks expose themselves to the most, with Asians the least at 5:31 hours.

    During many cross-country train trips, I've always noticed that the calmest and most content people in the lounge car were the Amish, those with no cravings for electronic media. Their children, in particular, were always impressively serene. Instead of hunching over a private movie, or being plugged to detonating beats that irritated everyone nearby, the Amish enjoyed each other's company. Not wedded to gadgets, they bantered or sat in silence while contemplating this earth, unfurling outside the window.

    Minus sleep and work, you only have about eight hours for all other activities. If someone spends all his available time watching TV, listening to music or staring at his stupid phone, he'll act and react according to his programming, wouldn't you think?

    After Trump won the presidency, young Americans all over the country hit the streets in protest. High school students walked out of class en masse to march. Colleges organized counseling sessions and even cry-ins. It's quite telling, this uniform dismay. Schools indoctrinate, and colleges teach you how to self-censor.

    The revulsion towards Trump is strongest among those with little to no work or life experience. Just about everything they know about the world has been programmed into them by electronic media. Their entire lives, from how they stand or walk to their barely audible interior monologues, are molded by electronic media. Their skulls are electronic media echo chambers.

    If it's cool, they're hooked. Who cares about contradictions? In 2012, Lady Gaga visited Julian Assange at his de facto London prison. In 2013, she performed at an inaugural ball for Obama's campaign staff. Gaga is also a long-time supporter of the Clintons. Gaga's fans, then, can admire her for siding with both Assange and his vicious persecuters. Hillary on Assange, "Can't we just drone this guy?"

    Doped up with songs and slogans, the media-drugged can't even register contradictions in real time.

    In 2011, the Clintons threw a bash for themselves at the Hollywood Bowl. With an all-star lineup, the Decade of Difference Concert celebrated their tremendous role in improving the world. No doubt thinking of NAFTA, Kenny Chesney sang "Beer in Mexico."

    [Nov 16, 2016] Russia would back down in face of military force, says Donald Trump aide in line for foreign policy job

    Nov 15, 2016 | telegraph.co.uk
    The United States should threaten Russia with military force in order to contain the Kremlin's growing power on the international stage, a top candidate to become Donald Trump's Secretary of State has said.

    Rudy Giuliani, the former New York Mayor who is believed to be the front runner to head Mr Trump's State Department, made the comments at a Washington event sponsored by the Wall Street Journal .

    In quotes | The Trump - Putin relationship Putin on Trump:

    • "He is a very flamboyant man, very talented, no doubt about that He is an absolute leader of the presidential race, as we see it today. He says that he wants to move to another level of relations, to a deeper level of relations with Russia. How can we not welcome that? Of course we welcome it." - December 2015

    Trump on Putin:
    • "It is always a great honour to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond." - December 2015
    • "I think I would just get along very well with Putin. I just think so. People say what do you mean? I just think we would." - July 2015
    • "I have no relationship with [Putin] other than he called me a genius. He said Donald Trump is a genius and he is going to be the leader of the party and he's going to be the leader of the world or something. He said some good stuff about me I think I'd have a good relationship with Putin, who knows." - February 2016
    • "I have nothing to do with Putin, I have never spoken to him, I don't know anything about him, other than he will respect me." - July 2016
    • "I would treat Vladimir Putin firmly, but there's nothing I can think of that I'd rather do than have Russia friendly as opposed to how they are right now so that we can go and knock out Isis together with other people. Wouldn't it be nice if we actually got along?" - July 2016
    • "The man has very strong control over a country. It's a very different system and I don't happen to like the system, but certainly, in that system, he's been a leader." - September 2016
    • "Well I think when [Putin] called me brilliant, I'll take the compliment, okay?" - September 2016

    [Nov 16, 2016] My impression is that Donald Trump might run the government as a business, choosing people as cabinet secretaries on the basis of past experience and on what they would bring to the position, as opposed to choosing cabinet secretaries because they have been loyal yes-people

    Notable quotes:
    "... News that Trump might work 4 days a week as President, or at least work the same work week as Congress does, would suggest he plans on running a lean government. ..."
    "... A counter-argument that could be put forward is that the Presidency doesn't (and shouldn't) define the office-holder's life and the Clintons themselves are an example of what can happen if the Presidency consumes their lives ..."
    "... If it's Trump's intention to reform the political culture in Washington and make it more accountable to the public, and bring the Presidency closer to the public, then defining the maximum limits of the position on his time and sticking to them, perhaps through delegating roles and functions to his cabinet secretaries, is one path to reform. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Jen, November 15, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    My impression is that Donald Trump is planning or at least thinking of running the government as a business, choosing people as cabinet secretaries on the basis of past experience and on what they would bring to the position, as opposed to choosing cabinet secretaries because they have been loyal yes-people (as Hillary Clinton would have done)

    News that Trump might work 4 days a week as President, or at least work the same work week as Congress does, would suggest he plans on running a lean government. At present the prevailing attitude among Washington insiders and the corporate media is that Trump is not really that interested in being President and isn't committed to the job 24/7.

    A counter-argument that could be put forward is that the Presidency doesn't (and shouldn't) define the office-holder's life and the Clintons themselves are an example of what can happen if the Presidency consumes their lives: it can damage the individuals and in Hillary Clinton's case, cut her off so much from ordinary people that it disqualifies her from becoming President herself.

    If it's Trump's intention to reform the political culture in Washington and make it more accountable to the public, and bring the Presidency closer to the public, then defining the maximum limits of the position on his time and sticking to them, perhaps through delegating roles and functions to his cabinet secretaries, is one path to reform.

    [Nov 16, 2016] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity McCain to Trump Dont You Dare Make Peace with Russia!

    Notable quotes:
    "... a normal person might look at the slight thaw in Cold War 2.0 as an early positive indicator of the end of the Obama Era. ..."
    "... Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) begs to differ. In a blistering statement he released today responding to the Trump/Putin telephone call, Sen. McCain condemned any efforts by President-elect Trump to find common ground with Putin. ..."
    "... Interesting that Republican McCain has taken to using the Hillary Clinton campaign line (the one that lost her the election) that somehow the Russians were manipulating the US electoral process. The claim was never backed up by facts and Hillary's claim that some 17 US intelligence agencies agreed with her was shown to be a dangerous and foolish lie. ..."
    "... What McCain doesn't say is that unlike US troops in Syria, the Russians are invited by the Syrian government and operate according to international law. Oh yes, and they are also fighting al-Qaeda and ISIS, which has sought to overthrow Assad for the past five years. ..."
    "... Maybe McCain is just really sensitive after meeting with al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria? ..."
    "... As rumors swirl from Washington about neocons sniffing out top jobs in the incoming administration, it would serve president-elect Trump well to reflect on he true nature of the neocon beast... ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | ronpaulinstitute.org
    Sit down. This is going to shock you. (Not). We reported yesterday on the telephone call between US president-elect Trump and Russian president Putin, where the current and future presidents discussed the need to set aside differences and look to more constructive future relations.

    With serious observers of this past year's increasing tensions between US and Russia openly worrying about a nuclear war breaking out, with some 300,000 NATO troops placed on Russia's border, with sanctions hurting average businesspersons on both sides, a normal person might look at the slight thaw in Cold War 2.0 as an early positive indicator of the end of the Obama Era.

    Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) begs to differ. In a blistering statement he released today responding to the Trump/Putin telephone call, Sen. McCain condemned any efforts by President-elect Trump to find common ground with Putin.

    Any claim by Putin that he wants to improve relations with the US must be vigorously opposed, writes McCain. He explains:

    We should place as much faith in such statements as any other made by a former KGB agent who has plunged his country into tyranny, murdered his political opponents, invaded his neighbors, threatened America's allies, and attempted to undermine America's elections.
    Interesting that Republican McCain has taken to using the Hillary Clinton campaign line (the one that lost her the election) that somehow the Russians were manipulating the US electoral process. The claim was never backed up by facts and Hillary's claim that some 17 US intelligence agencies agreed with her was shown to be a dangerous and foolish lie.

    Why is Putin not to be trusted, according to McCain?

    Vladimir Putin has rejoined Bashar Assad in his barbaric war against the Syrian people with the resumption of large-scale Russian air and missile strikes in Idlib and Homs. Another brutal assault on the city of Aleppo could soon follow.
    What McCain doesn't say is that unlike US troops in Syria, the Russians are invited by the Syrian government and operate according to international law. Oh yes, and they are also fighting al-Qaeda and ISIS, which has sought to overthrow Assad for the past five years.

    Maybe McCain is just really sensitive after meeting with al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria?

    As rumors swirl from Washington about neocons sniffing out top jobs in the incoming administration, it would serve president-elect Trump well to reflect on he true nature of the neocon beast...


    Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    [Nov 16, 2016] The New Red Scare: Reviving the art of threat inflation

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reviving the art of threat inflation ..."
    "... "Welcome to the world of strategic analysis," Ivan Selin used to tell his team during the Sixties, "where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist." Selin, who would spend the following decades as a powerful behind-the-scenes player in the Washington mandarinate, was then the director of the Strategic Forces Division in the Pentagon's Office of Systems Analysis. "I was a twenty-eight-year-old wiseass when I started saying that," he told me, reminiscing about those days. "I thought the issues we were dealing with were so serious, they could use a little levity." ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al , November 16, 2016 at 2:51 am
    Harpers Magazine via Antiwar.com: The New Red Scare
    http://harpers.org/archive/2016/12/the-new-red-scare/?single=1

    Reviving the art of threat inflation

    By Andrew Cockburn

    "Welcome to the world of strategic analysis," Ivan Selin used to tell his team during the Sixties, "where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist." Selin, who would spend the following decades as a powerful behind-the-scenes player in the Washington mandarinate, was then the director of the Strategic Forces Division in the Pentagon's Office of Systems Analysis. "I was a twenty-eight-year-old wiseass when I started saying that," he told me, reminiscing about those days. "I thought the issues we were dealing with were so serious, they could use a little levity."

    ####

    While I do have some quibbles with the piece (RuAF pilots are getting much more than 90 hours a year flight time & equipment is overrated and unaffordable in any decent numbers), it is pretty solid.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Trumps Opponents See Normal Americans as Deplorables

    Notable quotes:
    "... Because I was critical of the George W. Bush regime, the liberal-progressive-leftwing and homosexual/transgendered rights groups have me on their mailing lists. ..."
    "... Unless they provoke him beyond reason, Trump is not going to bother any of these people. Trump wants to bring middle class jobs back to Americans, including for all those paid to protest him. In order to avoid nuclear war, Trump wants to restore normal relations between the major nuclear powers. When there are no jobs for Americans that pay enough to support an independent existence, Trump doesn't see the point of massive legal and illegal immigration. This is only common sense. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.unz.com
    I guess we have all noticed that the holier-than-thou groups who whined that Trump wasn't going to accept the outcome of the election refuse to accept it themselves.

    Because I was critical of the George W. Bush regime, the liberal-progressive-leftwing and homosexual/transgendered rights groups have me on their mailing lists.

    And it is unbelievable. The entirety of "the other America" refuses to accept the people's decision. They think that their concerns are more important than the concerns of the American people, who they regard as nothing but a collection of racist homophobic rednecks.

    Unless they provoke him beyond reason, Trump is not going to bother any of these people. Trump wants to bring middle class jobs back to Americans, including for all those paid to protest him. In order to avoid nuclear war, Trump wants to restore normal relations between the major nuclear powers. When there are no jobs for Americans that pay enough to support an independent existence, Trump doesn't see the point of massive legal and illegal immigration. This is only common sense.

    Yet "the threatened people" see it as fascism. Who are "the threatened people?" As always, the most powerful. Tell me, what lobby is more powerful than the Israel Lobby? You can't. But the Jewish Lobby, J Street, has sent me a hysterical email at 5:11pm on 14 November. Unless "we all come together and oppose Trump's appointment of Breitbart editor Stephan Bannon as chief strategist and senior counselor" a "wave of hate will sweep across the land," consuming "Jews, Muslims, African-Americans, LGBT peoople (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered), immigrants, Hispanics, women and other groups."

    Really now! So is Trump's chief strategist, whatever position that is, going to attack the Jews and those with unusual sexual impulses with drones and cluster bombs, like the Zionist neoconservatives who controlled the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes did to millions of slaughtered and displaced peoples in 7 countries, and like Israel does to Palestinians? Or is the former Breitbart editor going to round them all up and torture them in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo like Bush and Obama did. And like Netanyahu does in Israel?

    Or will Trump simply shoot them down in the streets like Netanyahu does to the Palestinian women and children.

    How come J Street and the Oligarchy-funded fronts are only concerned with nonexistent threats and ignore all of the real threats?

    ... ... ...

    We must hope that Donald Trump understands the state of moral, cultural, legal, and political collapse that America is in. Two years ago at the Valdai International Discussion Club, Russian President Vladimir Putin said:

    "Many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilization. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities, national, cultural, religious, and even secular. They are implementing policies that equate families with same-sex partnerships, worship of God with worship of Satan. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis."

    Ordinary Americans know what he means. They are forced to accept blasphemous films about Jesus Christ and shameless newspaper caricatures of the Virgin Mary, but if one of them calls a homosexual a pervert, he has committed a hate crime.

    America is a country without an honest media. A country without an honest judiciary. Without an honest government. Without an honest legislature. Without honest schools and universities. A country whose morals are confused by propaganda. A country whose elites believe that they are entitled to all the income and wealth and that normal American people are the "deplorables," to use Hillary's term for ordinary Americans.

    (Reprinted from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)

    [Nov 16, 2016] This is evidence that the elites in the Democrat Party would rather lose with their candidate than win with an outsider

    Notable quotes:
    "... Of course, the DNC was too busy trying to blow the Sanders campaign to smithereens and Hillary decided that comforting the Democrat Party's donor base was more important than attracting working class voters in the Rust Belt. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Greg T November 16, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    I read all of these points and conclude that Bernie Sanders would have defeated Trump in the general election. Sanders would have held all of the Democratic strongholds, and he would have beaten Trump in the Midwest.

    Of course, the DNC was too busy trying to blow the Sanders campaign to smithereens and Hillary decided that comforting the Democrat Party's donor base was more important than attracting working class voters in the Rust Belt.

    This is evidence that the elites in the Democrat Party would rather lose with a ' made ' candidate than win with an outsider.

    [Nov 16, 2016] By pure coincidence, the top three donors to McCains Campaigns: Defense Electronics, For-profit Education, Misc Defense

    Notable quotes:
    "... So remember, if Iraqis die by the hundreds of thousands – Birthpangs of Democracy. By pure coincidence, the top three donors to McCain's Campaigns: Defense Electronics, For-profit Education, Misc Defense ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | ucgsblog.wordpress.com
    ucgsblog says: November 15, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    He graduated at the bottom of his class, successfully got shot down in the Nam, and lobbied for Iraq, a war that cost thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and trillions of dollars, and now he's back to promote his favorite activity when he's not involved it in: warfare. Johnny "Rotten Judgement" McCain: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

    "Senator John McCain issued a blunt warning on Tuesday to President-elect Trump and his emerging foreign policy team: Don't try another "reset" with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. During the campaign, Mr. Trump described Mr. Putin as a strong leader and suggested that the United States and Russia might join forces in fighting the Islamic State. Mr. Putin congratulated Mr. Trump on his election in a phone call on Monday and discussed working together to combat terrorism and resolve the crisis in Syria, according to the Kremlin's account. That was too much for Mr. McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who cautioned the incoming administration not to be taken in by "a former K.G.B. agent." "When America has been at its best, it's when we've stood w/ those fighting tyranny- that's where we must stand again" McCain tweeted "The Obama administration's last attempt at resetting relations with Russia culminated in Putin's invasion of Ukraine and military intervention in the Middle East," Mr. McCain, the newly re-elected Arizona Republican, said in a statement."

    Got it everyone? Obama's reset in 2008 caused Ukraine in 2014. Because as we all know, nothing really happened between 2008 and 2014. There was coup in Ukraine, no Arab Spring, nothing.

    "At the very least, the price of another 'reset' would be complicity in Putin and Assad's butchery of the Syrian people," he added. "This is an unacceptable price for a great nation. When America has been at its greatest, it is when we have stood on the side of those fighting tyranny. That is where we must stand again."

    So remember, if Iraqis die by the hundreds of thousands – Birthpangs of Democracy. By pure coincidence, the top three donors to McCain's Campaigns: Defense Electronics, For-profit Education, Misc Defense

    https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00006424&type=I&newmem=N

    [Nov 16, 2016] The Rotation of Imperial Power by Manlio Dinucci

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the 2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street", that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate, the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency. ..."
    "... As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia" – an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against Russia. ..."
    "... Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around US-led Nato. ..."
    "... Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. ..."
    "... Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income). ..."
    "... Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically, factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of the US middle class becoming even worse. ..."
    "... It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect], Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich. ..."
    www.voltairenet.org

    Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the 2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street", that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate, the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency.

    How will this change of guard at the White House change US foreign policy? Certainly, the core objective of remaining the dominant global power will remain untouched. [Yet] this position is increasing fragile. The USA is losing ground both within the economic and the political domains, [ceding] it to China, Russia and other "emerging countries". This is why it is throwing the sword onto the scale. This is followed by a series of wars where Hillary Clinton played the [lead] protagonist.

    As her authorized biography reveals, she was the one as First Lady, to convince the President, her consort, to engage in war to destroy Yugoslavia, initiating a series of "humanitarian interventions" against "dictators" charged with "genocide".

    As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia" – an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against Russia.

    Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around US-led Nato. But he will of course thump his fists on the table to secure a deeper commitment, particularly on military expenditure from the allies.

    Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

    Such decisions, that will surely open the door for further wars, do not depend on Trump's warrior-like temperament, but on centres of power wherein lies the matrix of command on which the White House itself depends.

    Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income).

    Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically, factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of the US middle class becoming even worse.

    Then you have the giants of the war industry that extract profit from war.

    It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect], Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich.

    [Nov 16, 2016] The main targets of Russian strikes are warehouses with ammunition, terrorist gatherings and terrorist terrorist training centers, as well as plants for the production of various kinds of weapons of mass destruction

    Notable quotes:
    "... We are talking factories, not mere workshops, more specifically the plants for the production of all sorts of rather serious means of mass destruction. Clearly, this is a well-established industrial production, these are the targets for today's strikes. And they will continue. ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Patient Observer, November 15, 2016 at 5:22 am
    Russia air and missile strikes are back!

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201611151047453340-admiral-kuznetsov-syria/

    Russian Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft-carrying cruiser has begun combat operations in Syria, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Tuesday.

    "Today, we started a major operation to launch massive strikes on Daesh and al-Nusra Front targets in the Idlib and Homs provinces [in Syria]," Shoigu said at Russian President Vladimir Putin's meeting with the ministry's leadership and defense enterprises.

    And

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201611151047453617-frigate-syria-missiles/

    Russian Admiral Grigorovich frigate targeted terrorists in Syria with Kalibr cruise missile strikes, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Tuesday.

    The NGO faux whining about Aleppo will increase but in a few months they may lose their chief audience and facilitator.

    Patient Observer, November 15, 2016 at 7:30 am
    Additional details on the Russian air and cruise missile strikes:

    http://theduran.com/breaking-russia-launches-major-anti-terrorist-offensive-syria/

    At a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the top leadership of the Russian Armed Forces, Shoigu said the following:

    Today at 10:30 and 11:00 we launched a large-scale operation against the positions of Islamic State and Al-Nusra [terrorist groups] in the provinces of Idlib and Homs.

    The main targets of the strikes are warehouses with ammunition, [terrorist] gatherings and terrorist training centers, as well as plants for the production of various kinds of weapons of mass destruction.

    We are talking factories, not mere workshops, more specifically the plants for the production of all sorts of rather serious means of mass destruction. Clearly, this is a well-established industrial production, these are the targets for today's strikes. And they will continue.

    [Nov 16, 2016] BBC hypocrisy knows no bounds!

    Notable quotes:
    "... Alexei Ulyukayev is a well-known economic liberal, with a career dating back to the turbulent market reforms of the 1990s ..."
    "... "The arrest was big news on Russia's state-run TV channels." ..."
    "... Yesterday RBK economic channel (pro-liberast independent one) could not shut up – they were talking only about this. Ekho Moscvy was hysterical, as if it was not the crook arrested, but Lucavichev rabbi robbed and killed in his synagogue. ..."
    "... "News of the minister's arrest sparked a mixture of shock and bewilderment." ..."
    "... "Alexei Ulyukayev is a well-known economic liberal, with a career dating back to the turbulent market reforms of the 1990s." ..."
    "... So… to become a "liberal victim of the Regime" instead of "Regime's lackey" you must steal lots of money and get caught? A-okey! ..."
    "... It's also charming when the article uses the tired cliché "some think" or "some people consider this" as a way of legitimizing their own speculations. ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Moscow Exile , November 15, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    BBC hypocrisy knows no bounds!

    Russian Economy Minister Ulyukayev charged with $2m bribe

    The arrest was big news on Russia's state-run TV channels.

    However, sources told the Novaya Gazeta website that Mr Ulyukayev himself did not take any money, contradicting earlier reports, and there was no video footage of his arrest. [Novaya Gazeta said that? Well what a surprise! - ME]

    The economy ministry described the arrest as "strange and surprising".

    Show of state strength or payback? By Sarah Rainsford, BBC News, Moscow

    News of the minister's arrest sparked a mixture of shock and bewilderment.

    A stream of commentators on state TV have been telling viewers that this means that no-one is untouchable, or above the law. Even ministers.

    So on one level, the FSB operation is a clear show of state strength. A message to senior officials and far beyond.

    But elsewhere there are doubts, and questions about the possible politics behind this.

    Alexei Ulyukayev is a well-known economic liberal, with a career dating back to the turbulent market reforms of the 1990s.

    He's against increasing state-control of the economy and opposed the Bashneft privatisation deal which was led by a close and powerful ally of President Putin.

    So some suggest this could be a dramatic form of payback. More effective, than simply sacking him.

    Others see a symbolic blow to the liberal camp in government.

    [my stress]

    State TV! State TV! State TV!

    D'ya hear me? - State TV!!!!!!!

    Unlike the British Broadcasting Corporation, of course.

    Lyttenburgh , November 15, 2016 at 11:33 pm
    "The arrest was big news on Russia's state-run TV channels."

    Yesterday RBK economic channel (pro-liberast independent one) could not shut up – they were talking only about this. Ekho Moscvy was hysterical, as if it was not the crook arrested, but Lucavichev rabbi robbed and killed in his synagogue.

    "News of the minister's arrest sparked a mixture of shock and bewilderment."

    Mainly a good cheer and hope that other liberal ministers will soon follow in his steps.

    "Alexei Ulyukayev is a well-known economic liberal, with a career dating back to the turbulent market reforms of the 1990s."

    So… to become a "liberal victim of the Regime" instead of "Regime's lackey" you must steal lots of money and get caught? A-okey!

    It's also charming when the article uses the tired cliché "some think" or "some people consider this" as a way of legitimizing their own speculations.

    [Nov 16, 2016] The my way or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening

    Notable quotes:
    "... The "my way" or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening. When Bush was called a warmonger for Iraq, that was fine. When Clinton was called a warmonger for Iraq and Libya, the Clintonites went on the offensive, often throwing around crap like "if she was a man, she wouldn't be a warmonger!" ..."
    "... On racism: "what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they acted exactly like us." ..."
    "... I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive. And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities." ..."
    "... And the rural folk are called a "basket of deplorables" and other names. If you want to fight racism, a battle that is Noble and Honorable, you have to understand the nuances between racism and hopelessness. The wizard-wannabe idiots are a tiny fringe. The "deplorables" are a huge part of rural America. If you alienate them, you're helping the idiots mentioned above. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    ucgsblog, November 14, 2016 at 3:50 pm
    Erm, atheist groups are known to target smaller Christian groups with lawsuits. A baker was sued for refusing to bake a cake for a Gay Wedding. She was perfectly willing to serve the couple, just not at the wedding. In California we had a lawsuit over a cross in a park. Atheists threatened a lawsuit over a seal. Look, I get that there are people with no life out there, but why are they bringing the rest of us into their insanity, with constant lawsuits. There's actually a concept known as "Freedom from Religion" – what the heck? Can you imagine someone arguing about "Freedom from Speech" in America? But it's ok to do it to religious folk! And yes, that includes Muslims, who had to fight to build a Mosque in New York. They should've just said it was a Scientology Center

    The "my way" or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening. When Bush was called a warmonger for Iraq, that was fine. When Clinton was called a warmonger for Iraq and Libya, the Clintonites went on the offensive, often throwing around crap like "if she was a man, she wouldn't be a warmonger!"

    The problem with healthcare in the US deserves its own thread, but Obamacare did not fix it; Obamacare made it worse, especially in the rural communities. The laws in schools are fundamentally retarded. A kid was suspended for giving a friend Advil. Another kid suspended for bringing in a paper gun. I could go on and on. A girl was expelled from college for trying to look gangsta in a L'Oreal mask. How many examples do you need? Look at all of the new "child safety laws" which force kids to leave in a bubble. And when they enter the Real World, they're fucked, so they pick up the drugs. In cities it's crack, in farmvilles it's meth.

    Hillary didn't win jack shit. She got a plurality of the popular vote. She didn't win it, since winning implies getting the majority. How many Johnson votes would've gone to Trump if it was based on popular vote, in a safe state? Of course the biggest issue is the attack on the way of life, which is all too real. I encourage you to read this, in order to understand where they're coming from: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

    "Nothing that happens outside the city matters!" they say at their cocktail parties, blissfully unaware of where their food is grown. Hey, remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind of weird that a big hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV shows about it), you'd barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and doing an astounding $125 billion in damage. But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy about a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New Orleans is culturally important. It matters. To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites. "Are you assholes listening now?"

    On racism: "what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they acted exactly like us."

    "They're getting the shit kicked out of them. I know, I was there. Step outside of the city, and the suicide rate among young people fucking doubles. The recession pounded rural communities, but all the recovery went to the cities. The rate of new businesses opening in rural areas has utterly collapsed."

    ^ That, I'd say, is known as destroying their lives. Also this:

    "In a city, you can plausibly aspire to start a band, or become an actor, or get a medical degree. You can actually have dreams. In a small town, there may be no venues for performing arts aside from country music bars and churches. There may only be two doctors in town - aspiring to that job means waiting for one of them to retire or die. You open the classifieds and all of the job listings will be for fast food or convenience stores. The "downtown" is just the corpses of mom and pop stores left shattered in Walmart's blast crater, the "suburbs" are trailer parks. There are parts of these towns that look post-apocalyptic.

    I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive. And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities."

    And the rural folk are called a "basket of deplorables" and other names. If you want to fight racism, a battle that is Noble and Honorable, you have to understand the nuances between racism and hopelessness. The wizard-wannabe idiots are a tiny fringe. The "deplorables" are a huge part of rural America. If you alienate them, you're helping the idiots mentioned above.

    [Nov 16, 2016] What Will Trumps Foreign Policy Mean for the World An Interview With Patrick Cockburn

    Notable quotes:
    "... Do you think Trump was serious when he called for a Russia détente? ..."
    "... PC: He might be. It's not so stupid. To some degree, that's what we already have had: negotiations and an attempted ceasefire with the Russians. You can justify that by saying that if there is going to be any peace agreement in Syria, it has to be negotiated by the biggest players which are the U.S. and Russia. They may not be enough to do it, they may not be able to control allies or proxies or something. [But] that's sort of feasible. ..."
    "... it's evident that within the U.S. government, different parts of the government have different policies; you know, the CIA arming various rebel factions, the Pentagon tried this. But the idea of arming factions that were supposedly moderate not only hasn't worked but it's been disastrous, it's been a joke. Whatever the state of the Syrian political opposition, the armed opposition is dominated by Islamists and has been a long time. So that might continue but I don't think it'll make much difference. When it comes to troops, soldiers, on the ground cooperating with the U.S., of course, the Pentagon did find people but it was the Kurds and various proxies supported by the Kurds. ..."
    "... I don't think it works that way at the moment because they tend to think of Americans, Europeans, not just non-Muslims but non-believers in that sort of Wahhabi variant of Islam that they believe in. So to them all the world's an enemy, whether it's a Shia Muslim who's worthy of immediate death or Yazidis, who many are enslaved. ..."
    "... Now we're getting to-the fighting is in East Mosul and that's full of people. This is an important question that's going to come up now in the next few weeks. The Iraqi army isn't making that much progress over the last week in those areas, so what'll they do? One option is much more bombing and disregard the civilian casualties. If that happens then the number of civilian casualties will soar vastly from what it is now. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Above all, what's the relationship to Iran? That's one thing Trump is very committed to, was denouncing the Iran deal. Now, does that fall apart? Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies would be very pleased if it did fall apart. If that falls apart then that further destabilizes the region and gives an incentive to the Iranians to maybe increase their intervention [in Iraq] and Syria. It has all sorts of repercussions.

    That's probably the most menacing thing, is whether the deal Obama did with the Iranians is dropped by Trump, which would probably delight the Israelis, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies. That's the most destabilizing thing that could happen and is perhaps the most likely thing that could happen.

    KK: What effect would killing the Iran deal have on the war against ISIS?

    PC: There has always been this funny mixture particularly in Iraq, of public rivalry and private cooperation between the Iranian army and the U.S. because for a long time they had the same enemies-initially in Saddam Hussein and then al-Qaeda in Iraq. You had a Shia government [in Iraq] supported by the U.S. after 2005 but it was also supported by Iran. They wanted to increase their influence and limit that of America but they had the same friends and the same enemies. The degree of cooperation would depend somewhat on this nuclear deal and has increased because of this nuclear deal.

    Also the current government of Iran that is committed to this deal could fall apart. It's all very negative if that goes.

    KK: If Trump tears up the agreement, will there be a government more like Ahmadinejad's in Iran?

    PC: That's one thing that could happen…a tougher U.S. line on Iran provokes the whole Shia coalition against the U.S., makes them look more towards war than diplomacy.

    KK: Do you think Trump was serious when he called for a Russia détente?

    PC: He might be. It's not so stupid. To some degree, that's what we already have had: negotiations and an attempted ceasefire with the Russians. You can justify that by saying that if there is going to be any peace agreement in Syria, it has to be negotiated by the biggest players which are the U.S. and Russia. They may not be enough to do it, they may not be able to control allies or proxies or something. [But] that's sort of feasible.

    It's also true that policies such as Hillary Clinton's -- or just the people around her who were talking about fighting Islamic State and fighting, getting rid of Assad-were never feasible. There isn't a moderate opposition faction that could've fought both. It barely exists. The problem about this is, what Trump has said, these are not defined policies. We don't know who the guys who are meant to implement them are. So it's pretty incoherent.

    KK: Do you think these attempts to arm the rebels will continue to happen?

    PC: Yeah, it's evident that within the U.S. government, different parts of the government have different policies; you know, the CIA arming various rebel factions, the Pentagon tried this. But the idea of arming factions that were supposedly moderate not only hasn't worked but it's been disastrous, it's been a joke. Whatever the state of the Syrian political opposition, the armed opposition is dominated by Islamists and has been a long time. So that might continue but I don't think it'll make much difference. When it comes to troops, soldiers, on the ground cooperating with the U.S., of course, the Pentagon did find people but it was the Kurds and various proxies supported by the Kurds.

    KK: Has Trump's victory helped jihadis in Syria in Iraq?

    PC: Potentially it could, but I don't think it works that way at the moment because they tend to think of Americans, Europeans, not just non-Muslims but non-believers in that sort of Wahhabi variant of Islam that they believe in. So to them all the world's an enemy, whether it's a Shia Muslim who's worthy of immediate death or Yazidis, who many are enslaved. One of the things about the siege of Mosul, down the road from where I am, is that there are different armies-all of whom are enemies of the Islamic state and all hate each other -- besieging the place at the moment.

    Now potentially, [if] Muslims start getting kicked out, if some people get killed and so forth, yeah that would play to their advantage. Any sort of communal punishment of Muslims anywhere is something that they can take advantage of in their propaganda. The degree to which that's successful and helps them of course depends on the degree of the communal punishment to which Muslims are subject.

    KK: Do you think the numbers we're seeing are vastly understated with respect to civilian casualties arising from the coalition airstrikes on ISIS territory?

    PC: They're probably understated; whether they're vastly understated I don't know. Areas I've been to between here and Mosul, most of the villages were uninhabited ever since ISIS took them over in 2014. There weren't many people living there, so they could bomb these ISIS positions without killing many civilians.

    Now we're getting to-the fighting is in East Mosul and that's full of people. This is an important question that's going to come up now in the next few weeks. The Iraqi army isn't making that much progress over the last week in those areas, so what'll they do? One option is much more bombing and disregard the civilian casualties. If that happens then the number of civilian casualties will soar vastly from what it is now.

    KK: Could Trump pursue that option?

    PC: Potentially, yeah, they could up the bombing, particularly in places like Mosul. But it's too early to say.

    [Nov 16, 2016] What Was the Election All About

    Nov 12, 2016 | www.independent.org

    ...In fact, the entire Democratic Party has mainly ceased to campaign on issues-choosing instead to invest heavily in identity politics. The message to black voters is: vote for us because you are black, not because of anything we are going to do. Ditto for Hispanics. And women. And the LGBT community. And others. Hillary does have an agenda. More on that in a future post. But she didn't campaign on it.

    As for the mainstream media, I have never seen an election in which the media was so biased. And not just biased. The media's entire view of the election was Hillary Clinton's view. Even on Fox News, the entire focus on election night and in the days that followed was on identity politics. How many blacks were voting? How many Hispanics? How many women?

    As if demography were destiny.

    Now, as it turns out, a greater percentage of blacks voted for Trump than voted for Romney. The same thing is true of Hispanics. In fact, Trump did better among minorities than any Republican since Ronald Reagan. He even got a majority of white female votes.

    Why were all these people doing something they weren't supposed to do? On network television and even on cable television, no one had an answer.

    Putting the media aside for the moment, do you know what Hillary's position is on trade deals with other countries? Of course, you don't. And neither does anyone else. When she spoke about the issue at all, she said one thing behind closed doors and another in public. The reason this doesn't matter on Wall Street (or to the editors of the New York Times ) is that they assume she has no real convictions and that money and special interest influence will always win out.

    What about Hillary's solution to the problem of illegal immigration? Do you know what that is? How about her position on corporate tax reform? Or school choice? Or Obamacare? Or opportunities for blacks in inner cities?

    I bet you don't know her positions on any of these topics. But I bet you do know Donald Trump's. Not in detail, of course. But I bet you know the general way in which he differs from Obama administration policies.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Black Lives Matter actually means Black Lives Matter First

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Class first" amongst men of the left has always signaled "ME first." What else could it mean? ..."
    "... So "Black Lives Matter" actually means "Black Lives Matter First". Got it. So damn tired of identity politics. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, in the usual way of such things, #BlackLivesMatter hashtag activism became fashionable, as the usual suspects were elevated to celebrity status by elites. Nothing, of course, was changed in policy, and so in a year or so, matters began to bubble on the ground again. ..."
    "... I'm not tired of identity politics. I'm just tired of some identity-groups accusing other identity-groups of "identity-politics". I speak in particular of the Identity Left. ..."
    "... Identity politics, any identity, is going to automatically split voters into camps and force people to 'pick' a side. ..."
    "... The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I and many other writers argued that the bourgeois feminism Clinton represents works against the interests of the vast majority of women. This has turned out to be even more true than we anticipated. That branding of feminism has delivered to us the most sexist and racist president in recent history: Donald Trump. ..."
    "... Hillary spoke to the million-dollar feminists-of-privilege who identified with her multi-million dollar self and her efforts to break her own Tiffany Glass ceiling. And she worked to get many other women with nothing to gain to identify with Hillary's own breaking of Hillary's own Tiffany Glass ceiling. ..."
    "... For me (at least) the essence of the "Left" is justice. When we speak of Class we are putting focus on issues of economic justice. Class is the material expression of economic (and therefore political) stratification. Class is the template for analysing the power dynamics at play in such stratification. ..."
    "... in the absence of economic justice, it's very difficult to obtain ANY kind of justice - whether such justice be of race, gender, legal, religious or sexual orientation. ..."
    "... I find it indicative that the 1% (now) simply don't care one way or another about race or gender etc, PROVIDED it benefits or, has no negative effects on their economic/political interests. ..."
    "... "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." ..."
    "... In ship sinking incidents, where a lot of people are dumped in the water, many adopt the strategy of trying to use others as flotation devices, pushing them under while the "rich class" tootle off in the lifeboats. Sounds like a winner, all right. ..."
    "... The rich class has enlisted the white indentured servants as their Praetorian Guard. The same play as after Bacon's Rebellion. ..."
    "... Is what is actually occurring another Kristallnacht, or the irreducible susurrus of meanness and idiocy that is part of every collection of humans? It would be nice not to get suckered into elevating the painful minima over the importance of getting ordinary people to agree on a real common enemy, and organizing to claim and protect. ..."
    "... If even one single banker had gone to jail for the mess (fed by Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) that blew up in 2008, we would be having a different conversation. We are in a huge legitimacy crisis, in part because justice was never served on those who made tens of millions via fraud. ..."
    "... The Malignant Overlords - the King or Queen, the Financial Masters of the Universe,, the tribal witch doctor- live by grazing on the wealth of the natural world and the productivity of their underlings. There are only a few thousand of them but they control finance and the Money system, propaganda organizations (in the USA called the Media) land and agriculture, "educational" institutions and entire armies of Homeland Insecurity police. ..."
    "... Under them there are the sycophants– generals and officers, war profiteers and corporate CEO's, the intelligentsia, journalists, fake economists, and entertainment and sports heroes who grow fat feasting on the morsels left over after the .0001% have fed. And far below the Overlords are the millions of professional Bureaucrats whose job security requires unquestioning servitude. ..."
    "... Race, gender identity, religion, etc. are the false dichotomies by which the oligarchs divide us. Saudi princes, African American millionaires, gay millionaires etc. are generally treated the same by the oligarchs as wasp millionaires. The true dichotomy is class, that is the dichotomy which dare not speak its name. ..."
    "... For Trump it was so easy. He just says something that could be thought of as racist and then his supporters watch as the media morphs his words, removes context, or just ignores any possible non-racist motivations for his words. ..."
    "... Just read the actual Mexican- rapists quote. Completely different then reported by the media. Fifteen years ago my native born Mexican friend said almost exactlly the same thing. ..."
    "... whilst his GOP colleagues publicly recoiled in horror, there is no question that Trump was merely making explicit what Republicans had been doing for decades – since the days of Nixon in 1968. The dog whistle was merely replaced by a bull horn. ..."
    "... Yes, class identity can be a bond that unites. However, in the US the sense of class identity remains underdeveloped. In fact, it is only with the Sanders campaign that large swaths of the American public have had practical and sustained exposure to the concept of class as a political force. For most of the electorate, the language of class is still rather alien, particularly since the "equality of opportunity" narrative even now is not completely overthrown. ..."
    "... It seems inevitable that populist sentiment, which both Sanders and Trump have used to electoral advantage, will spill over into a variety of economic nationalism. ..."
    "... Obama was a perfect identity candidate, i.e., not only capable of getting the dem nomination, but the presidency and than not jailing banksters NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID, OR WILL DO… ..."
    "... One truism about immigration, to pick a topical item, is that uncontrolled immigration leads to overwhelming an area whether city, state or country. Regardless of how one feels about the other aspects of immigration, there are some real, unacknowledged limits to the viability of the various systems that must accommodate arrivals, particularly in the short term. Too much of a perceived ..."
    "... There is an entrenched royal court, not unlike Versailles in some respects, where the sinecures, access to the White House tennis court (remember Jimmy Carter and his forest for the trees issues) or to paid "lunches in Georgetown" or similar trappings. Inflow of populist or other foreign ideas behind the veil of media and class secrecy represents a threat to overwhelm, downgrade (Sayeth Yogi Berra: It is so popular that nobody goes there anymore) or remove those perks, and to cause some financial, psychic or other pain to the hangers-on. ..."
    "... Pretty soon, word filters out through WikiLeaks, or just on the front page of a newspaper in the case of the real and present corruption (What do you mean nobody went to jail for the frauds?). In those instances, the tendency of a populace to remain aloof with their bread and circuses and reality shows and such gets strained. ..."
    "... Some people began noticing and the cognitive dissonance became to great to ignore no matter how many times the messages were delivered from on high. That led to many apparent outbursts of rational behavior ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    pretzelattack November 15, 2016 at 6:03 pm

    if poor whites were being shot by cops at the rate urban blacks are, they would be screaming too. blm is not a corporate front to divide us, any more than acorn was a scam to help election fraud.

    Kukulkan November 15, 2016 at 9:37 pm

    They are. Why #BlackLivesMatter should be #PoorLivesMatter.

    Also available as a video .

    Jay Mani November 15, 2016 at 9:41 am

    It's lazy analysis to suggest Race was a contributing factor. On the fringes, Trump supporters may have racial overtones, but this election was all about class. I applaud sites like NC in continually educating me. What you do is a valuable service.

    JTFaraday November 15, 2016 at 1:02 pm

    "We won't need a majority of the dying "white working class" in our present and future feminine, multiracial American working class. Just a minority."

    Indeed, this site has featured links to articles elaborating the demographic composition of today's "working class". And yet we still have people insisting that appeals to the working class, and policies directed thereof, must "transcend" race and gender.

    JTFaraday November 15, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    And, of course this "class first" orientation became a bone of contention between some loud mouthed "men of the left" during the D-Party primary and "everyone else" and that's why the "Bernie Bro" label stuck. It didn't help the Sanders campaign either.

    "Class first" amongst men of the left has always signaled "ME first." What else could it mean?

    Fieryhunt November 15, 2016 at 6:22 pm

    So "Black Lives Matter" actually means "Black Lives Matter First". Got it. So damn tired of identity politics.

    Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 11:16 pm

    This is, actually, complicated. It's a reasonable position that black lives don't matter because they keep getting whacked by cops and the cops are never held accountable. Nobody else did anything, so people on the ground stood up, asserted themselves, and as part of that created #BlackLivesMatter as an online gathering point; all entirely reasonable. #AllLivesMatter was created, mostly as deflection/distraction, by people who either didn't like the movement, or supported cops, and of course if all lives did matter to this crowd, they would have done something about all the police killings in the first place.

    Meanwhile, in the usual way of such things, #BlackLivesMatter hashtag activism became fashionable, as the usual suspects were elevated to celebrity status by elites. Nothing, of course, was changed in policy, and so in a year or so, matters began to bubble on the ground again.

    Activist time (we might say) is often slower than electoral time. But sometimes it's faster; see today's Water Cooler on the #AllOfUs people who occupied Schumer's office (and high time, too). To me, that's a very hopefully sign. Hopefully, not a bundle of groups still siloed by identity (and if that's to happen, I bet that will happen by working together. Nothing abstract).

    different clue November 16, 2016 at 3:18 am

    I'm not tired of identity politics. I'm just tired of some identity-groups accusing other identity-groups of "identity-politics". I speak in particular of the Identity Left.

    pretzelattack November 15, 2016 at 10:04 pm

    what "men of the left"? the "bernie bro" label only stuck for Clinton supporters who had already had the kool aid. Much like the "putin stooge" label.

    Knot Galt November 15, 2016 at 1:52 pm

    "We won't need a majority of the dying "white working class" in our present and future feminine, multiracial American working class. Just a minority."

    That statement is as myopic a vision as the current political class is today. The statement offends another minority, or even a possible majority. Identity politics, any identity, is going to automatically split voters into camps and force people to 'pick' a side.

    Focus! The larger battle is is about Class.

    Knot Galt November 15, 2016 at 2:06 pm

    To clarify, from Links:

    In False Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I and many other writers argued that the bourgeois feminism Clinton represents works against the interests of the vast majority of women. This has turned out to be even more true than we anticipated. That branding of feminism has delivered to us the most sexist and racist president in recent history: Donald Trump.

    different clue November 16, 2016 at 3:21 am

    I wonder if there is an even simpler more colorful way to say that. Hillary spoke to the million-dollar feminists-of-privilege who identified with her multi-million dollar self and her efforts to break her own Tiffany Glass ceiling. And she worked to get many other women with nothing to gain to identify with Hillary's own breaking of Hillary's own Tiffany Glass ceiling.

    If the phrase "Tiffany Glass ceiling" seems good enough to re-use, feel free to re-use it one and all.

    animalogic November 15, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    For me (at least) the essence of the "Left" is justice. When we speak of Class we are putting focus on issues of economic justice. Class is the material expression of economic (and therefore political) stratification. Class is the template for analysing the power dynamics at play in such stratification.

    Class is the primary political issue because it not only affects everyone, but in the absence of economic justice, it's very difficult to obtain ANY kind of justice - whether such justice be of race, gender, legal, religious or sexual orientation.

    I find it indicative that the 1% (now) simply don't care one way or another about race or gender etc, PROVIDED it benefits or, has no negative effects on their economic/political interests.

    JTMcPhee November 15, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    "Just how large a spike in hate crime there has been remains uncertain, however. Several reports have been proven false, and Potok cautioned that most incidents reported to the Southern Poverty Law Center did not amount to hate crime.

    Levin of California State University added that there was no "independent evidence to sustain the contention that there were more [hate crimes] in the days after the Trump election than after 9/11."" http://www.voanews.com/a/hate-crimes-surge-after-donald-trump-victory/3596298.html

    All us ordinary people are insecure. Planet is becoming less habitable, war everywhere, ISDS whether we want it or not, group sentiments driving mass behaviors with extra weapons from our masters, soil depletion, water becoming a Nestle subsidiary, all that. But let us focus on maintaining our favored position as more insecure than others, with a "Yes, but" response to what seems to me the fundamental strategic scene:

    "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

    Those mostly white guys, but a lot of women too, the "rich classs," are ORGANIZED, they have a pretty simple organizing principle ("Everything belong us") that leads to straightforward strategies and tactics to control all the levers and fulcrums of power. The senators in Oregon are "on the right side" of a couple of social issues, but they both are all in for "trade deals" and other big pieces of the "rich class's" ground game. In ship sinking incidents, where a lot of people are dumped in the water, many adopt the strategy of trying to use others as flotation devices, pushing them under while the "rich class" tootle off in the lifeboats. Sounds like a winner, all right.

    TarheelDem November 15, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    The comparison with 9/11 is instructive. That is not minimizing hate crimes. Within days after 9/11, my Sikh neighbor was assaulted and called a "terrorist". He finally decided to stop wearing a turban, cut his hair, and dress "American". My neighborhood was not ethnically tense, but it is ethnically diverse, and my neighbor had never seen his assailant before.

    Yes, the rich classes are organized…organized to fleece us with unending wars. But don't minimize other people's experience of what constitutes a hate crime.

    In 1875, the first step toward the assassination of a black, "scalawag", or "carpetbagger" public official in the South was a friendly visit from prominent people asking him to resign, the second was night riders with torches, the third was night riders who killed the public official. Jury nullification (surprise, surprise) made sure that no one was punished at the time. In 1876, the restoration of "home rule' in Southern states elected in a bargain Rutherford B. Hayes, who ended Reconstruction and the South entered a period that cleansed "Negroes, carpetbaggers, and scalawags" from their state governments and put the Confederate generals and former plantation owners back in charge. That was then called The Restoration. Coincidence that that is the name of David Horowitz's conference where Donna Brazile was hobnobbing with James O'Keefe?

    The rich class has enlisted the white indentured servants as their Praetorian Guard. The same play as after Bacon's Rebellion.

    JTMcPhee November 15, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    Not minimizing - my very peaches-and-cream Scots-English daughter is married to a gentleman from Ghana whose skin tones are about as dark as possible.
    the have three beautiful children, and are fortunate to live in an area that is a hotbed of "tolerance." I have many anecdotes too.

    Do anecdotes = reality in all its complexity? Do anecdotes = policy? Is what is actually occurring another Kristallnacht, or the irreducible susurrus of meanness and idiocy that is part of every collection of humans? It would be nice not to get suckered into elevating the painful minima over the importance of getting ordinary people to agree on a real common enemy, and organizing to claim and protect.

    readerOfTeaLeaves November 15, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    If even one single banker had gone to jail for the mess (fed by Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) that blew up in 2008, we would be having a different conversation. We are in a huge legitimacy crisis, in part because justice was never served on those who made tens of millions via fraud.

    When there's no justice, its as if the society's immune system is not functioning.

    Expect more strange things to appear, almost all of them aimed at sucking the remaining resources out of the system with the knowledge that they'll never face consequences for looting. The fact that they're killing the host does not bother them.

    animalogic November 15, 2016 at 9:09 pm

    Corruption is both cause & effect of gross wealth inequities. Of course to the 1% it's not corruption so much as merely what is owed as of a right to the privileged. (Thus, the most fundamental basis of liberal democracy turns malignant: that ALL, even rulers & law makers are EQUALLY bound by the Law).

    Crazy Horse November 15, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Here is the way it works:

    The Malignant Overlords - the King or Queen, the Financial Masters of the Universe,, the tribal witch doctor- live by grazing on the wealth of the natural world and the productivity of their underlings. There are only a few thousand of them but they control finance and the Money system, propaganda organizations (in the USA called the Media) land and agriculture, "educational" institutions and entire armies of Homeland Insecurity police.

    Under them there are the sycophants– generals and officers, war profiteers and corporate CEO's, the intelligentsia, journalists, fake economists, and entertainment and sports heroes who grow fat feasting on the morsels left over after the .0001% have fed. And far below the Overlords are the millions of professional Bureaucrats whose job security requires unquestioning servitude.

    Once upon a time there was what was known as the Middle Class who taught school or built things in factories, made mortgage payments on a home, and bought a new Ford every other year. But they now are renters, moving from one insecure job in one state to an insecure one across the country. How else are they to maintain their sense of self-worth except by identifying a tribe that is under them? If the members of the inferior tribe look just like you they might actually be more successful and not a proper object of scorn. But if they have a black or brown skin and speak differently they are the perfect target to make you feel that your life is not a total failure.

    It's either that or go home and kick the dog or beat the wife. Or join the Army where you can go kill a few foreigners and will always know your place in the hierarchy.

    Class "trumps" race, but racial prejudice has its roots far back in human social history as a tribal species where the "other" was always a threat to the tribe's existence.

    Elizabeth Burton November 15, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    Anyone who thinks it is only class and not also race is wearing some very strange blinders

    No one with any sense is saying that, Katharine, and constantly bringing it up as some kind of necessary argument (which, you may recall, was done as a way of trying to persuade people of color Sanders wasn't working for them in the face of his entire history) perpetuates the falsehood dichotomy that it has to be one or the other.

    I can understand the desire to reduce the problems to a single issue that can then be subjected to our total focus, but that's what's been done for the last fifty years; it doesn't work. Life is too complex and messy to be fixed using magic pills, and Trump's success because those who've given up hope of a cure are still enormously vulnerable to snake oil.

    mark ó dochartaigh November 15, 2016 at 11:04 pm

    Race, gender identity, religion, etc. are the false dichotomies by which the oligarchs divide us. Saudi princes, African American millionaires, gay millionaires etc. are generally treated the same by the oligarchs as wasp millionaires. The true dichotomy is class, that is the dichotomy which dare not speak its name.

    kramer November 15, 2016 at 1:34 pm

    yes, racism still exist, but the Democrats want to make it the primary issue of every election because it is costs them nothing. I've never liked the idea of race based reparations because they seem like another form of racism.

    However, if the neolibs really believe racial disparity and gender issues are the primary problems, why don't they ever support reparations or a large tax on rich white people to pay the victims of racism and sexism and all the other isms?

    Perhaps its because that would actually cost them something. I think what bothers most of the Trumpets out here in rural America is not race but the elevation of race to the top of the political todo list.

    For Trump it was so easy. He just says something that could be thought of as racist and then his supporters watch as the media morphs his words, removes context, or just ignores any possible non-racist motivations for his words.

    Just read the actual Mexican- rapists quote. Completely different then reported by the media. Fifteen years ago my native born Mexican friend said almost exactlly the same thing. Its a trap the media walks right into. I think most poor people of whiteness do see racism as a sin, just not the only or most awful sin. As for Trump being a racist, I think he would have to be human first.

    sinbad66 November 15, 2016 at 9:43 am

    whilst his GOP colleagues publicly recoiled in horror, there is no question that Trump was merely making explicit what Republicans had been doing for decades – since the days of Nixon in 1968. The dog whistle was merely replaced by a bull horn.

    Spot-on statement. Was watching Fareed Zakaria (yeah, I know, but he makes legit points from time to time) and was pleasantly surprised that he called Bret Stephens, who was strongly opposed to Trump, out on this. To see Stephens squirm like a worm on a hook was priceless.

    JW November 15, 2016 at 9:46 am

    "…what divides people rather than what unites people…"

    Yes, class identity can be a bond that unites. However, in the US the sense of class identity remains underdeveloped. In fact, it is only with the Sanders campaign that large swaths of the American public have had practical and sustained exposure to the concept of class as a political force. For most of the electorate, the language of class is still rather alien, particularly since the "equality of opportunity" narrative even now is not completely overthrown.

    Sanders and others on an ascendant left in the Democratic Party - and outside the Party - will continue to do the important work of building a sense of class consciousness. But more is needed, if the left wants to transform education into political power. Of course, organizing and electing candidates at the local and state level is enormously important both to leverage control of local institutions and - even more important - train and create leaders who can effectively use the tools of political power. But besides this practical requirement, the left also needs to address - or co-opt, if you will - the language of economic populism, which sounds a lot like economic nationalism.

    It seems inevitable that populist sentiment, which both Sanders and Trump have used to electoral advantage, will spill over into a variety of economic nationalism. Nationalist sentiment is the single most powerful unifying principle available, certainly more so than the concept of class, at least in America. I don't see that changing anytime soon, and I do see the Alt-Right using nationalism as a lever to try to coax the white working class into their brand of identity politics. But America's assimilationist, "melting pot" narrative continues to be attractive to most people, even if it is under assault in some quarters. So I think moving from nationalism to white identity politics will not so easy for the Alt-Right. On the other hand, picking up the thread of economic nationalism can provide the left with a powerful tool for bringing together women, minorities and all who are struggling in this economy. This becomes particularly important if it is the case that technology already makes the ideal of full (or nearly full) employment nothing more than a chimera, thus forcing the question of a guaranteed annual income. Establishing that kind of permanent safety net will only be possible in a polity where there are firm bonds between citizens and a marked sense of responsibility for the welfare of all.

    fresno dan November 15, 2016 at 10:05 am

    And if the Democratic Party is honest, it will have to concede that even the popular incumbent President has played a huge role in contributing to the overall sense of despair that drove people to seek a radical outlet such as Trump. The Obama Administration rapidly broke with its Hope and "Change you can believe in" the minute he appointed some of the architects of the 2008 crisis as his main economic advisors, who in turn and gave us a Wall Street friendly bank bailout that effectively restored the status quo ante (and refused to jail one single banker, even though many were engaged in explicitly criminal activity).

    ====================================================================
    For those who think its just Hillary, its not. There is no way there will ever be any acknowledgement of Obama;s real failures – he will no more be viewed honestly by dems than he could be viewed honestly by repubs. Obama was a perfect identity candidate, i.e., not only capable of getting the dem nomination, but the presidency and than not jailing banksters NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID, OR WILL DO…
    I imagine Trump will be one term, and I imagine we return in short order to our nominally different parties squabbling but in lock step with regard to their wall street masters…

    Altandmain November 15, 2016 at 10:09 am

    That's the problem though – the Democrats are not honest and have not been for a very long time.

    Enquiring Mind November 15, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    Democrats seem to be the more visible or clumsy in their attempts to govern themselves and the populace, let alone understand their world. By way of illustration, consider the following.

    One truism about immigration, to pick a topical item, is that uncontrolled immigration leads to overwhelming an area whether city, state or country. Regardless of how one feels about the other aspects of immigration, there are some real, unacknowledged limits to the viability of the various systems that must accommodate arrivals, particularly in the short term. Too much of a perceived good thing may be hazardous to one's health. Too much free stuff exhausts the producers, infrastructure and support networks.

    To extend and torture that concept further, just because, consider the immigration of populist ideas to Washington. There is an entrenched royal court, not unlike Versailles in some respects, where the sinecures, access to the White House tennis court (remember Jimmy Carter and his forest for the trees issues) or to paid "lunches in Georgetown" or similar trappings. Inflow of populist or other foreign ideas behind the veil of media and class secrecy represents a threat to overwhelm, downgrade (Sayeth Yogi Berra: It is so popular that nobody goes there anymore) or remove those perks, and to cause some financial, psychic or other pain to the hangers-on.

    Pretty soon, word filters out through WikiLeaks, or just on the front page of a newspaper in the case of the real and present corruption (What do you mean nobody went to jail for the frauds?). In those instances, the tendency of a populace to remain aloof with their bread and circuses and reality shows and such gets strained.

    Some people began noticing and the cognitive dissonance became to great to ignore no matter how many times the messages were delivered from on high. That led to many apparent outbursts of rational behavior (What, you sold my family and me out and reduced our prospects, so why should we vote for a party that takes us for granted, at best), which would be counter-intuitive by some in our media.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Will Trump really be Isolationist Or will he March us to War

    Notable quotes:
    "... Outgoing representative Randy Forbes of Virginia, a contender to be secretary of the Navy in the new administration, recently said that the president elect would employ "an international defense strategy that is driven by the Pentagon and not by the political National Security Council… Because if you look around the globe, over the last eight years, the National Security Council has been writing that. And find one country anywhere that we are better off than we were eight years [ago], you cannot find it." ..."
    "... Such a plan might actually blunt armed adventurism, since it was war-weary military officials who reportedly pushed back against President Obama's plans to escalate Iraq War 3.0. ..."
    "... Under President Obama, the U.S. has waged war in or carried out attacks on at least eight nations - Afghanistan, Iran , Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. A Clinton presidency promised more, perhaps markedly more, of the same - an attitude summed up in her infamous comment about the late Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi: " We came, we saw, he died ." ..."
    "... "Trump does not believe in war. He sees war as bad, destructive, death and a wealth destruction."... ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.juancole.com
    As Clinton's future in the Oval Office evaporated, leaving only a whiff of her stale dreams, I saw all the foreign-policy certainties, all the hawkish policies and military interventions, all the would-be bin Laden raids and drone strikes she'd preside over as commander-in-chief similarly vanish into the ether.

    With her failed candidacy went the no-fly escalation in Syria that she was sure to pursue as president with the vigor she had applied to the disastrous Libyan intervention of 2011 while secretary of state. So, too, went her continued pursuit of the now-nameless war on terror, the attendant " gray-zone " conflicts - marked by small contingents of U.S. troops, drone strikes, and bombing campaigns - and all those munitions she would ship to Saudi Arabia for its war in Yemen.

    As the life drained from Clinton's candidacy, I saw her rabid pursuit of a new Cold War start to wither and Russo-phobic comparisons of Putin's rickety Russian petro-state to Stalin's Soviet Union begin to die. I saw the end, too, of her Iron Curtain-clouded vision of NATO, of her blind faith in an alliance more in line with 1957 than 2017.

    As Clinton's political fortunes collapsed, so did her Israel-Palestine policy - rooted in the fiction that American and Israeli security interests overlap - and her commitment to what was clearly an unworkable "peace process." Just as, for domestic considerations, she would blindly support that Middle Eastern nuclear power, so was she likely to follow President Obama's trillion-dollar path to modernizing America's nuclear arsenal. All that, along with her sure-to-be-gargantuan military budget requests, were scattered to the winds by her ringing defeat.

    ... ... ....

    ...would he follow the dictum of candidate Trump who said , "The current strategy of toppling regimes, with no plan for what to do the day after, only produces power vacuums that are filled by terrorists."

    Outgoing representative Randy Forbes of Virginia, a contender to be secretary of the Navy in the new administration, recently said that the president elect would employ "an international defense strategy that is driven by the Pentagon and not by the political National Security Council… Because if you look around the globe, over the last eight years, the National Security Council has been writing that. And find one country anywhere that we are better off than we were eight years [ago], you cannot find it."

    Such a plan might actually blunt armed adventurism, since it was war-weary military officials who reportedly pushed back against President Obama's plans to escalate Iraq War 3.0. According to some Pentagon-watchers, a potentially hostile bureaucracy might also put the brakes on even fielding a national security team in a timely fashion.

    While Wall Street investors seemed convinced that the president elect would be good for defense industry giants like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, whose stocks surged in the wake of Trump's win, it's unclear whether that indicates a belief in more armed conflicts or simply more bloated military spending.

    Under President Obama, the U.S. has waged war in or carried out attacks on at least eight nations - Afghanistan, Iran , Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. A Clinton presidency promised more, perhaps markedly more, of the same - an attitude summed up in her infamous comment about the late Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi: " We came, we saw, he died ."

    Trump advisor Senator Jeff Sessions said , "Trump does not believe in war. He sees war as bad, destructive, death and a wealth destruction."...

    [Nov 16, 2016] Neoliberal MSM use identity politics as a stalking horse to rob the public blind, while spewing invectives about racism and mysogony when the public stops buying their neoliberal propaganda

    Notable quotes:
    "... The funny thing is that they've so learned to love the smell of their own farts (or propaganda) that they internalized an image of enlightened progressivism for themselves. This Trump election was probably the first clue that their self image is faulty and not widely shared by others. They are not taking it well. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    sleepy November 16, 2016 at 7:31 am

    NYTimes still blames race on Trump's winning over Obama supporters in Iowa:

    Trump clearly sensed the fragility of the coalition that Obama put together - that the president's support in heavily white areas was built not on racial egalitarianism but on a feeling of self-interest. Many white Americans were no longer feeling that belonging to this coalition benefited them.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/20/magazine/donald-trumps-america-iowa-race.html

    Racial egalitarianism wasn't the reason for white support for Obama in 2008 and 2012 in Iowa. It reflected racial egalitarianism, but that support had to do with perceived economic self-interest, just as the switch to Trump in 2016 did.

    And what on earth is wrong with self-interest as a reason for voting?

    jgordon November 16, 2016 at 8:39 am

    Right. These corporatists use identity politics as a stalking horse to rob the public blind, and then they spew invectives about racism and mysogony wherever the public stops buying the bullcrap.

    The funny thing is that they've so learned to love the smell of their own farts (or propaganda) that they internalized an image of enlightened progressivism for themselves. This Trump election was probably the first clue that their self image is faulty and not widely shared by others. They are not taking it well.

    Leigh November 16, 2016 at 8:59 am

    Yup, it's not the self-interest in voting – it's the self-interest in Governing

    nycTerrierist November 16, 2016 at 8:32 am

    Obama: "Let them eat p.r.!"

    [Nov 16, 2016] Ultimately the Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one

    Notable quotes:
    "... Judging by the volume of complaints from Clinton sycophants insisting that people did not get behind Clinton or that it was purely her gender, they won't. Why would anyone get behind Clinton save the 1%? Her policies were pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and at odds with what the American people needed. Also, we should judge based on policy, not gender and Clinton comes way short of Sanders in that regard – in many regards, she is the antithesis of Sanders. ..."
    "... "Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility" I disagree. In my view, it is not a question at all. They have never taken responsibility for anything, and they never will. ..."
    "... What would make Democrats focus on the working class? Nothing. They have lost and brought about destruction of the the Unions, which was the Democratic Base, and have become beholden to the money. The have noting in common with the working class, and no sympathy for their situation, either. ..."
    "... What does Bill Clinton, who drive much of the policy in the '90s, and spent his early years running away form the rural poor in Arkansas (Law School, Rhodes Scholarship), have in common with working class people anywhere? ..."
    "... Iron law of institutions applies. Position in the D apparatus is more important than political power – because with power come blame. ..."
    "... I notice Obama worked hard to lose majorities in the house and Senate so he could point to the Republicans and say "it was their fault" except when he actually wanted something, and made it happen (such as TPP). ..."
    "... Agreed with the first but not the second. It's typical liberal identity politics guilt tripping. That won't get you too far on the "white side" of Youngstown Ohio. ..."
    "... Also suspect that the working-class, Rust-Belt Trump supporters will soon be thrown under the bus by their Standard Bearer, if the Transition Team appointments are any indicator: e.g. Privateers at SSA. ..."
    "... My wife teaches primary grades in an inner city school. She has made it clear to me over the years that the challenges her children are facing are related to poverty, not race. She sees a big correlation between the financial status of a family and its family structure (one or more parents not present or on drugs) and the kids' success in school. Race is a minor factor. ..."
    "... The problem with running on a class based platform in America is, well, it's America; and in good ol' America, we are taught that anyone can become a successful squillionare – ya know, hard work, nose-to-the-grindstone, blah, blah, blah. ..."
    "... The rags to riches American success fable is so ingrained that ideas like taxing the rich a bit more fall flat because everyone thinks "that could be me someday. Just a few house flips, a clever new app, that ten-bagger (or winning lottery ticket) and I'm there" ("there" being part of the 1%). ..."
    "... The idea that anyone can be successful (i.e. rich) is constantly promoted. ..."
    "... I think this fantasy is beginning to fade a bit but the "wealth = success" idea is so deeply rooted in the American psyche I don't think it will ever fade completely away. ..."
    "... If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy - which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog - you will come to an awful realization. It wasn't Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that. ..."
    "... Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain't what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down. ..."
    "... The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. ..."
    "... White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America ..."
    "... Poor or Poorer whites have been demonised since the founding of the original Colonies, and were continuously pushed west to the frontiers by the ruling elites of New England and the South as a way of ridding themselves of "undesirables", who were then left to their own resources, and clung together for mutual assistance. ..."
    "... White trash is a central, if disturbing, thread in our national narrative. The very existence of such people – both in their visibility and invisibility – is proof that American society obsesses over the mutable labels we give to the neighbors we wish not to notice. "They are not who we are". But they are who we are and have been a fundamental part of our history, whether we like it or not". ..."
    "... "To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists " ..."
    "... working class white women ..."
    "... Obama is personally likeable ..."
    "... History tells us the party establishment will move further right after election losses. And among the activist class there are identity purity battles going on. ..."
    "... Watch as this happens yet again: "In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years." That is why we need a strong third party, a reformed election system with public support of campaigns and no private money, and free and fair media coverage. But it ain't gonna happen. ..."
    "... Obviously, if the Democrats nominate yet another Clintonite Obamacrat all over again, I may have to vote for Trump all over again . . . to stop the next Clintonite before it kills again. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Altandmain November 15, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Ultimately the Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility for what happened.

    Judging by the volume of complaints from Clinton sycophants insisting that people did not get behind Clinton or that it was purely her gender, they won't. Why would anyone get behind Clinton save the 1%? Her policies were pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and at odds with what the American people needed. Also, we should judge based on policy, not gender and Clinton comes way short of Sanders in that regard – in many regards, she is the antithesis of Sanders.

    Class trumps race, to make a pun. If the left doesn't take the Democratic Party back and clean house, I expect that there is a high probability that 2020's election will look at lot like the 2004 elections.

    I'd recommend someone like Sanders to run. Amongst the current crop, maybe Tulsi Gabbard or Nina Turner seem like the best candidates.

    Carla November 15, 2016 at 10:42 am

    "Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility" I disagree. In my view, it is not a question at all. They have never taken responsibility for anything, and they never will.

    Synoia November 15, 2016 at 10:13 am

    What would make Democrats focus on the working class? Nothing. They have lost and brought about destruction of the the Unions, which was the Democratic Base, and have become beholden to the money. The have noting in common with the working class, and no sympathy for their situation, either.

    What does Bill Clinton, who drive much of the policy in the '90s, and spent his early years running away form the rural poor in Arkansas (Law School, Rhodes Scholarship), have in common with working class people anywhere?

    The same question applies to Hillary, to Trump and the remainder of our "representatives" in Congress.

    Without Unions, how are US Representatives from the working class elected?

    What we are seeing is a shift in the US for the Republicans to become the populist party. They already have the churches, and with Trump they can gain the working class – although I do not underestimate the contempt help by our elected leaders for the Working Class and poor.

    The have forgotten, if they ever believed: "There, but for the grace of God, go I".

    Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    > What would make Democrats focus on the working class?

    The quest for political power.

    Synoia November 15, 2016 at 11:19 pm

    Iron law of institutions applies. Position in the D apparatus is more important than political power – because with power come blame.

    I notice Obama worked hard to lose majorities in the house and Senate so he could point to the Republicans and say "it was their fault" except when he actually wanted something, and made it happen (such as TPP).

    James Dodd November 15, 2016 at 10:46 am

    What So Many People Don't Get About the U.S. Working Class – Harvard Business Review

    anonymouse November 15, 2016 at 11:07 am

    We know that class and economic insecurity drove many white people to vote for Trump. That's understandable. And now we are seeing a rise in hate incidents inspired by his victory. So obviously there is a race component in his support as well. So, if you, white person, didn't vote for Trump out of white supremacy, would you consider making a statement that disavows the acts of extremist whites? Do you vow to stand up and help if you see people being victimized? Do you vow not to stay silent when you encounter Trump supporters who ARE obviously in thrall to the white supremacist siren call?

    Brad November 15, 2016 at 11:45 am

    Agreed with the first but not the second. It's typical liberal identity politics guilt tripping. That won't get you too far on the "white side" of Youngstown Ohio.

    And I wouldn't worry about it. When I worked at the at the USX Fairless works in Levittown PA in 1988, I was befriended by one steelworker who was a clear raving white supremacist racist. (Actually rather nonchalant about about it). However he was the only one I encountered who was like this, and eventually I figured out that he befriended a "newbie" like me because he had no friends among the other workers, including the whites. He was not popular at all.

    Harold November 15, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Left-wing populism unites people of all classes and all identities by emphasizing policies. That was what Bernie Sanders meant to me, at least.

    Citizen Sissy November 15, 2016 at 11:38 am

    I've always thought that Class, not Race, was the Third Rail of American Politics, and that the US was fast-tracking to a more shiny, happy feudalism.

    Also suspect that the working-class, Rust-Belt Trump supporters will soon be thrown under the bus by their Standard Bearer, if the Transition Team appointments are any indicator: e.g. Privateers at SSA.

    Gonna get interesting very quickly.

    rd November 15, 2016 at 11:47 am

    My wife teaches primary grades in an inner city school. She has made it clear to me over the years that the challenges her children are facing are related to poverty, not race. She sees a big correlation between the financial status of a family and its family structure (one or more parents not present or on drugs) and the kids' success in school. Race is a minor factor.

    She also makes it clear to me that the Somali/Syrian/Iraqi etc. immigrant kids are going to do very well even though they come in without a word of English because they are working their butts off and they have the full support of their parents and community. These people left bad places and came to their future and they are determined to grab it with both hands. 40% of her class this year is ENL (English as a non-native language). Since it is an inner city school, they don't have teacher's aides in the class, so it is just one teacher in a class of 26-28 kids, of which a dozen struggle to understand English. Surprisingly, the class typically falls short of the "standards" that the state sets for the standardized exams. Yet many of the immigrant kids end up going to university after high school through sheer effort.

    Bullying and extreme misbehavior (teachers are actually getting injured by violent elementary kids) is largely done by kids born in the US. The immigrant kids tend to be fairly well-behaved.

    On a side note, the CSA at our local farmer's market said they couldn't find people to pick the last of their fall crops (it is in a rural community so a car is needed to get there). So the food bank was going out this week to pick produce like squash, onions etc. and we were told we could come out and pick what we wanted. Full employment?

    Dave November 15, 2016 at 11:55 am

    "Women and minorities encouraged to apply" is a Class issue?

    shinola November 15, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    The problem with running on a class based platform in America is, well, it's America; and in good ol' America, we are taught that anyone can become a successful squillionare – ya know, hard work, nose-to-the-grindstone, blah, blah, blah.

    The rags to riches American success fable is so ingrained that ideas like taxing the rich a bit more fall flat because everyone thinks "that could be me someday. Just a few house flips, a clever new app, that ten-bagger (or winning lottery ticket) and I'm there" ("there" being part of the 1%).

    The idea that anyone can be successful (i.e. rich) is constantly promoted.

    I think this fantasy is beginning to fade a bit but the "wealth = success" idea is so deeply rooted in the American psyche I don't think it will ever fade completely away.

    Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    I'm recalling (too lazy to find the link) a poll a couple years ago that showed the number of American's identifying as "working class" increased, and the number as "middle class" decreased.

    Vatch November 15, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    Here ya go!

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/182918/fewer-americans-identify-middle-class-recent-years.aspx

    jrs November 15, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    even working class is a total equivocation. A lot of them are service workers period.

    TarheelDem November 15, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    It is both. And it is a deliberate mechanism of class division to preserve power. Bill Cecil-Fronsman,

    Common Whites: Class and Culture in Antebellum North Carolina identifies nine classes in the class structure of a state that mixed modern capitalist practice (plantations), agrarian YOYO independence (the non-slaveowning subsistence farms), town economies, and subsistence (farm labor). Those classes were typed racially and had certain economic, power, and social relations associated with them. For both credit and wages, few escaped the plantation economy and being subservient to the planter capitalists locally.

    Moreover, ethnic identity was embedded in the law as a class marker. This system was developed independently or exported through imitation in various ways to the states outside North Carolina and the slave-owning states. The abolition of slavery meant free labor in multiple senses and the capitalist use of ethnic minorities and immigrants as scabs integrated them into an ethnic-class system, where it was broad ethnicity and not just skin-color that defined classes. Other ethnic groups, except Latinos and Muslim adherents, now have earned their "whiteness".

    One suspects that every settler colonial society develops this combined ethnic-class structure in which the indigenous ("Indians" in colonial law) occupy one group of classes and imported laborers or slaves or intermixtures ("Indian", "Cape Colored" in South Africa) occupy another group of classes available for employment in production. Once employed, the relationship is exactly that of the slaveowner to the slave no matter how nicely the harsh labor management techniques of 17th century Barbados and Jamaica have been made kinder and gentler. But outside the workplace (and often still inside) the broader class structure applies even contrary to the laws trying to restrict the relationship to boss and worker.

    Blacks are not singling themselves out to police; police are shooting unarmed black people without punishment. The race of the cop does not matter, but the institution of impunity makes it open season on a certain class of victims.

    It is complicated because every legal and often managerial attempt has been made to reduce the class structure of previous economies to the pure capitalism demanded by current politics.

    So when in a post Joe McCarthy, post-Cold War propaganda society, someone wants to protest the domination of capitalism, attacking who they perceive as de facto scabs to their higher incomes (true or not) is the chosen mode of political attack. Not standing up for the political rights of the victims of ethnically-marked violence and discrimination allows the future depression of wages and salaries by their selective use as a threat in firms. And at the individual firm and interpersonal level even this gets complicated because in spite of the pressure to just be businesslike, people do still care for each other.

    This is a perennial mistake. In the 1930s Southern Textile Strike, some organizing was of both black and white workers; the unions outside the South rarely stood in solidarity with those efforts because they were excluding ethnic minorities from their unions; indeed, some locals were organized by ethnicity. That attitude also carried over to solidarity with white workers in the textile mills. And those white workers who went out on a limb to organize a union never forgot that failure in their labor struggle. It is the former textile areas of the South that are most into Trump's politics and not so much the now minority-majority plantation areas.

    It still is race in the inner ring suburbs of ethnically diverse cities like St. Louis that hold the political lock on a lot of states. Because Ferguson to them seems like an invasion of the lower class. Class politics, of cultural status, based on ethnicity. Still called by that 19h century scientific racism terminology that now has been debunked - race - Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid. Indigenous, at least in the Americas, got stuck under Mongoloid.

    You go organize the black, Latino, and white working class to form unions and gain power, and it will happen. It is why Smithfield Foods in North Carolina had to negotiate a contract. Race can be transcended in action.

    Pretending the ethnic discrimination and even segregation does not exist and have its own problems is political suicide in the emerging demographics. Might not be a majority, but it is an important segment of the vote. Which is why the GOP suppressed minority voters through a variety of legal and shady electoral techniques. Why Trump wants to deport up to 12 million potential US citizens and some millions of already birthright minor citizens. And why we are likely to see the National Labor Review Board gutted of what little power it retains from 70 years of attack. Interesting what the now celebrated white working class was not offered in this election, likely because they would vote it down quicker because, you know, socialism.

    armchair November 15, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    Your comment reminded me of an episode in Seattle's history. Link . The unions realized they were getting beat in their strikes, by scabs, who were black. The trick was for the unions to bring the blacks into the union. This was a breakthrough, and it worked in Seattle, in 1934. There is a cool mural the union commissioned by, Pablo O'Higgins , to celebrate the accomplishment.

    barrisj November 15, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    Speaking of class, and class contempt , one must recall the infamous screed published by National Review columnist Kevin Williamson early this year, writing about marginalised white people here is a choice excerpt:

    If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy - which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog - you will come to an awful realization. It wasn't Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that.

    Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain't what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down.

    The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin.

    http://crasstalk.com/2016/03/poor-white-america-deserves-to-die-says-national-review/

    Now it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to state that Williamson's animus can be replicated amongst many of the moneyed elite currently pushing and shoving their way into a position within the incoming Trump Administration. The Trump campaign has openly and cynically courted and won the votes of white people similar to those mentioned in Williamson's article, and who – doubtlessly – will be stiffed by policies vigourously opposed to their welfare that will be enacted during the Trump years. The truly intriguing aspect of the Trump election is: what will be the consequences of further degradation of the "lower orders' " quality of life by such actions? Wholesale retreat from electoral politics? Further embitterment and anger NOT toward those in Washington responsible for their lot but directed against ethnic and racial minorities "stealing their jawbs" and "getting welfare while we scrounge for a living"? I sincerely doubt whether the current or a reconstructed Democratic Party can at all rally this large chunk of white America by posing as their "champions" the class divide in the US is as profound as the racial chasm, and neither major party – because of internal contradictions – can offer a credible answer.

    Waldenpond November 15, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    [In addition to the growing inequality and concomitant wage stagnation for the middle and working classes, 9/11 and its aftermath has certainly has contributed to it as well, as, making PEOPLE LONG FOR the the Golden Age of Managerial Capitalism of the post-WWII era,]

    Oh yeah, I noticed a big ol' hankerin' for that from the electorate. What definition could the author be using for Managerial Capitalism that could make it the opposite of inequality? The fight for power between administration and shareholders does not lead to equality for workers.

    [So this gave force to the idea that the government was nothing but a viper's nest full of crony capitalist enablers,]

    I don't think it's an 'idea' that the govt is crony capitalists and enablers. Ds need to get away from emotive descriptions. Being under/unemployed, houseless, homeless, unable to pay for rent, utilities, food . aren't feelings/ideas. When that type of language is used, it comes across as hand waving. There needs to be a shift of talking to rather than talking about.

    If crony capitalism is an idea, it's simply a matter for Ds to identify a group (workers), create a hierarchy (elite!) and come up with a propaganda campaign (celebrities and musicians spending time in flyover country-think hanging out in coffee shops in a flannel shirt) to get votes. Promise to toss them a couple of crumbs with transfer payments (retraining!) or a couple of regulations (mandatory 3 week severance!) and bring out the obligatory D fall back- it would be better than the Rs would give them. On the other hand, if it's factual, the cronies need to be stripped of power and kicked out or the nature of the capitalist structure needs to be changed. It's laughable to imagine liberals or progressives would be open to changing the power and nature of the corporate charter (it makes me smile to think of the gasps).

    The author admits that politicians lie and continue the march to the right yet uses the ACA, a march to the right, as a connection to Obama's (bombing, spying, shrinking middle class) likability.

    [[But emphasizing class-based policies, rather than gender or race-based solutions, will achieve more for the broad swathe of voters, who comprehensively rejected the "neo-liberal lite" identity politics]

    Oops. I got a little lost with the neo-liberal lite identity politics. Financialized identity politics? Privatized identity politics?

    I believe women and poc have lost ground (economic and rights) so I would like examples of successful gender and race-based (liberal identity politics) solutions that would demonstrate that identity politics targeting is going to work on the working class.

    If workers have lost power, to balance that structure, you give workers more power (I predict that will fail as unions fall under the generic definition of corporatist and the power does not rest with the members but with the CEOs of the unions – an example is a union that block the members from voting to endorse a candidate, go against the member preference and endorse the corporatist candidate), or you remove power from the corporation. Libs/progs can't merely propose something like vesting more power with shareholders to remove executives as an ameliorating maneuver which fails to address the power imbalance.

    [This is likely only to accelerate the disintegration of the political system and economic system until the elephant in the room – class – is honestly and comprehensively addressed.]

    barrisj November 15, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    For a thorough exposition of lower-class white America from the inception of the Republic to today, a must-read is Nancy Isenberg's White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America . Poor or Poorer whites have been demonised since the founding of the original Colonies, and were continuously pushed west to the frontiers by the ruling elites of New England and the South as a way of ridding themselves of "undesirables", who were then left to their own resources, and clung together for mutual assistance.

    Thus became the economic and cultural subset of "crackers", "hillbillies", "rednecks", and later, "Okies", a source of contempt and scorn by more economically and culturally endowed whites. The anti-bellum white Southern aristocracy cynically used poor whites as cheap tenant farming, all the while laying down race-based distinctions between them and black slaves – there is always someone lower on the totem pole, and that distinction remains in place today. Post-Reconstruction, the South maintained the cult of white superiority, all the while preserving the status of upper-class whites, and, by race-based public policies, assured lower-class whites that such "superiority" would be maintained by denying the black populations access to education, commerce, the vote, etc. And today, "white trash", or "trailer trash", or poorer whites in general are ubiquitous and as American as apple pie, in the North, the Midwest, and the West, not just the South. Let me quote Isenberg's final paragraph of her book:

    White trash is a central, if disturbing, thread in our national narrative. The very existence of such people – both in their visibility and invisibility – is proof that American society obsesses over the mutable labels we give to the neighbors we wish not to notice. "They are not who we are". But they are who we are and have been a fundamental part of our history, whether we like it or not".

    Enquiring Mind November 15, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Also read Albion's Seed for interesting discussion about the waves of immigration and how those went on to impact subsequent generations.

    vegeholic November 15, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    Presenting a plan for the future, which has a chance to be supported by the electorate, must start with scrupulous, unwavering honesty and a willingness to acknowledge inconvenient facts. The missing topic from the 2016 campaigns was declining energy surpluses and their pervasive, negative impact on the prosperity to which we feel entitled. Because of the energy cost of producing oil, a barrel today represents a declining fraction of a barrel in terms of net energy. This is the major factor in sluggish economic performance. Failing to make this case and, at the same time, offering glib and vacuous promises of growth and economic revival, are just cynical exercises in pandering.

    Our only option is to mange the coming decline in a way that does not descend into chaos and anarchy. This can only be done with a clear vision of causes and effects and the wisdom and courage to accept facts. The alternative is yet more delusions and wishful thinking, whose shelf life is getting shorter.

    ChrisAtRU November 15, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    Marshall is awesome.

    To be fair to the article, Marshall did in fact say:

    "To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists "

    IMO the point Marshall is making that race was not the primary reason #DJT won. And I concur.

    This is borne out by the vote tallies which show that the number of R voters from 2012 to 2016 was pretty much on the level (final counts pending):
    2016 R Vote: 60,925,616
    2012 R Vote: 60,934,407
    (Source: US Election Atlas )

    Stop and think about this for a minute. Every hard core racist had their guy this time around; and yet, the R's could barely muster the same amount of votes as Mittens in 2012. This is huge, and supports the case that other things contributed far more than just race.

    Class played in several ways:
    Indifference/apathy/fatigue: Lambert posted some data from Carl Beijer on this yesterday in his Clinton Myths piece yesterday.
    Anger: #HRC could not convince many people who voted for Bernie that she was interested in his outreach to the working class. More importantly, #HRC could not convince working class white women that she had anything other than her gender and Trump's boorishness as a counterpoint to offer.
    Outsider v Insider: Working class people skeptical of political insiders rejected #HRC.

    TG November 15, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    Kudos. Well said.

    If black workers were losing ground and white workers were gaining, one could indeed claim that racism is a problem. However, both black and white workers are losing ground – racism simply cannot be the major issue here. It's not racism, it's class war.

    The fixation on race, the corporate funding of screaming 'black lives matter' agitators, the crude attempts to tie Donald Trump to the KKK (really? really?) are just divide and conquer, all over again.

    Whatever his other faults, Donald Trump has been vigorous in trying to reach out to working class blacks, even though he knew he wouldn't get much of their vote and he knew that the media mostly would not cover it. Last I heard, he was continuing to try and reach out, despite the black 'leadership' class demanding that he is a racist. Because as was so well pointed out here, the one thing the super-rich fear is a united working class.

    Divide and conquer. It's an old trick, but a powerful one.

    Suggestion: if (and it's a big if) Trump really does enact policies that help working class blacks, and the Republicans peel away a significant fraction of the black vote, that would set the elites' hair on fire. Because it would mean that the black vote would be in play, and the Neoliberal Democrats couldn't just take their votes for granted. And wouldn't that be a thing.

    pretzelattack November 16, 2016 at 3:09 am

    that was good for 2016. I will look to see if he has stats for other years. i certainly agree that poor whites are more likely to be shot; executions of homeless people by police are one example. the kind of system that was imposed on the people of ferguson has often been imposed on poor whites, too. i do object to the characterization of black lives matter protestors as "screaming agitators"; that's all too reminiscent of the meme of "outside agitators" riling up the local peaceful black people to stand up for their rights that was characteristically used to smear the civil rights movement in the 60's.

    tongorad November 15, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    I might not have much in common at all with certain minorities, but it's highly likely that we share class status.
    That's why the status quo allows identity politics and suppresses class politics.

    Sound of the Suburbs November 15, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    Having been around for sometime, I often wonder what The Guardian is going on about in the UK as it is supposed to be our left wing broadsheet.

    It isn't a left I even recognised, what was it?

    I do read it to try and find out what nonsense it is these people think.

    Having been confused for many a year, I think I have just understood this identity based politics as it is about to disappear.

    I now think it was a cunning ploy to split the electorate in a different way, to leave the UK working class with no political outlet.

    Being more traditional left I often commented on our privately educated elite and private schools but the Guardian readership were firmly in favour of them.

    How is this left?

    Thank god this is now failing, get back to the old left, the working class and those lower down the scale.

    It was clever while it lasted in enabling neoliberalism and a neglect of the working class, but clever in a cunning, nasty and underhand way.

    Sound of the Suburbs November 15, 2016 at 5:33 pm

    Thinking about it, so many of these recent elections have been nearly 50% / 50% splits, has there been a careful analysis of who neoliberalism disadvantages and what minorities need to be bought into the fold to make it work in a democracy.

    Women are not a minority, but obviously that is a big chunk if you can get them under your wing. The black vote is another big group when split away and so on.

    Brexit nearly 50/50; Austria nearly 50/50; US election nearly 50/50.

    giovanni zibordi November 15, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    So, 85% of Blacks vote Hillary against Sanders (left) and 92% vote Hillary against Trump (right), but is no race. It's the class issue that sends them to the Clintons. Kindly explain how.

    dk November 15, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    Obama is personally likeable

    Funny think about likeability, likeable people can be real sh*ts. So I started looking into hanging out with less likeable people. I found that they can be considerably more appreciative of friendship and loyalty, maybe because they don't have such easy access to it.

    Entertainment media has cautiously explored some aspect so fthis, but in politics, "nice" is still disproportionately values, and not appreciated as a possible flag.

    Erelis November 15, 2016 at 10:59 pm

    Watch out buddy. They are onto you. I have seen some comments on democratic party sites claiming the use of class to explain Hillary's loss is racist. The democratic party is a goner. History tells us the party establishment will move further right after election losses. And among the activist class there are identity purity battles going on.

    Gaylord November 15, 2016 at 11:24 pm

    Watch as this happens yet again: "In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years." That is why we need a strong third party, a reformed election system with public support of campaigns and no private money, and free and fair media coverage. But it ain't gonna happen.

    different clue November 16, 2016 at 3:47 am

    Well it certainly won't happen by itself. People are going to have to make it happen. Here in Michigan we have a tiny new party called Working Class Party running 3 people here and there. I voted for two of them. If the Democrats run somebody no worse than Trump next time, I will be free to vote Working Class Party to see what happens.

    Obviously, if the Democrats nominate yet another Clintonite Obamacrat all over again, I may have to vote for Trump all over again . . . to stop the next Clintonite before it kills again.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Identity politics divides just as well as class politics. It simply divides into smaller (less powerful) groups. The reason the elites don't like class politics is that the class division that forms against their class, once organized, is large enough to take them on.

    Notable quotes:
    "... when "capitalism" failed to remedy class inequity, in fact worked to cause it, propaganda took over and focused on all sorts of things that float around the edges of class like race, opportunity, civil rights, etc – but not a word about money. ..."
    "... "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." ..."
    "... "The reason the elites don't like class politics is that the class division that forms against their class, once organized, is large enough to take them on." ..."
    "... Class divides the 99% from the small elite who lead both political parties. That makes it an explosive threat. I'm speaking of actual economic class, not the media BS of pork rinds and NASCAR versus brie and art museums. ..."
    "... I've always maintained that Class is the real third rail of American politics, and the US is fast tracking to a shiny, prettified version of feudalism. ..."
    "... There are two elephants in the room, class and technology. Both are distorted by those in power in order to ensure their continued rule. It seems to me the technology adopted by a society determines its class structure. ..."
    "... Add to that HRC's neocon foreign policy instincts ..."
    "... This goes beyond corruption. It is one thing to be selling public infrastructure construction contracts to crony capitalist contributors (in the Clintons' case do we call them philanthropists?) – entirely another to be selling guns and bombs used by Middle Eastern despots to grind down (IOW blow up, murder) opposition to their corrupt regimes. ..."
    "... In fact, most of Western Civilization (sic?) seems to be happy with the status quo of a 'post-industrial' America as the "exceptional nation" whose only two functions are consuming the world's wealth and employing military Keynesianism to maintain a global social order based on money created ex nihilo by US and international bankers and financiers. ..."
    "... What we are witnessing is a political crisis because the system is geared against the citizen. ..."
    "... And journalists/media are complicit. Where is the cutting investigative journalism? There is none – the headlines should be screaming it. Thanks God (or whoever) for blogs like these. ..."
    "... Sooo, they spent a generation telling the white worker that he was a racist, sexist bigot, mocking his religion, making his kids read "Heather Has Two Mommies" in school, and blaming him for economic woes caused in New York and DC. ..."
    "... Tryng lately to get my terminology straight, and I think the policies you itemized should be labeled neoliberal, not liberal/progressive. Neoliberalism seems to be the one that combines the worst features of the private sector with the worst features of the public sector, without the good points of either one. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    susan the other November 15, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    when "capitalism" failed to remedy class inequity, in fact worked to cause it, propaganda took over and focused on all sorts of things that float around the edges of class like race, opportunity, civil rights, etc – but not a word about money. That's why Hillary was so irrelevant and boring. If class itself (money) becomes a topic of discussion, the free-market orgy will be seen as a last ditch effort to keep the elite in a class by themselves by "trading" stuff that can just as easily be made domestically, and just not worth the effort anymore.

    Benedict@Large November 15, 2016 at 10:37 am

    Identity politics divides just as well as class politics. It simply divides into smaller (less powerful) groups. The reason the elites don't like class politics is that the class division that forms against their class, once organized, is large enough to take them on.

    JTMcPhee November 15, 2016 at 11:06 am

    "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

    Yep.

    And once again: What outcomes do "we" want from "our" political economy?

    Ulysses November 15, 2016 at 11:25 am

    "The reason the elites don't like class politics is that the class division that forms against their class, once organized, is large enough to take them on."

    BINGO!!!

    XR November 15, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    I believe there is another aspect to the shift we are seeing, and it is demographics.

    Specifically deplorable demographics.

    It should be noted that the deplorable generation, gen x, are very much a mixed racial cohort. They have not participated in politics much because they have been under attack since they were children. They have been ignored up to now.

    Deplorable means wretched, poor.

    This non participation is what has begun to change, and will accelerate for the next 20 years and beyond.

    Demographically speaking, with analysis of the numbers right now are approximately…

    GEN GI and Silent Gen – 22,265,021

    Baby Boomers 50,854,027

    Gen X 90,010,283

    Millenials 62,649,947 18 Years to 34
    25,630,521 (12-17 Years old)
    Total 88,280,468

    Artist Gen 48,820,896 and growing…

    * Using the Fourth Turning Cultural Demographic Measurement vs. the politically convenient, MSM supported, propaganda demographics. They would NEVER do such a thing right? Sure.

    GI 92–114 Silent 74–91 Boomer 55–72 Gen-X 35–55 Millennial 12–34 Homeland 0–11

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory

    * Source Demographic Numbers (Approximate)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States

    We are in the Fourth Turning, the Crisis. Gen X will take it on – head on.

    https://scholarsandrogues.com/2014/04/10/how-generation-x-will-save-the-world/

    Have a nice day.

    redleg November 15, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    The reason they like it is that the different groups can be set against each other.

    Mike G November 15, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    Class divides the 99% from the small elite who lead both political parties. That makes it an explosive threat. I'm speaking of actual economic class, not the media BS of pork rinds and NASCAR versus brie and art museums.

    tongorad November 15, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    Class divides people; more decisively than race or gender.

    Really? There's so few of him/her, and so many of us.

    When we reach the day when people self-describe themselves as working class FIRST, rather than Catholic or Asian, etc, then we might get somewhere.

    CitizenSissy November 15, 2016 at 8:24 am

    Hi Yves – great post! I've always maintained that Class is the real third rail of American politics, and the US is fast tracking to a shiny, prettified version of feudalism.

    I suspect that the working-class Trump voters in the Rust Belt will eventually disappointed in their standard bearer, Transition Team staffing is any indication: e.g. Privateers back at SSA.

    Nels Nelson November 15, 2016 at 8:38 am

    In the post-Reconstruction South poor whites and blacks alike were the victims of political and legal institutions designed to create a divided and disenfranchised work force for the benefit of landlords, capitalists and corporations. Poor whites as well as poor blacks were ensnared in a system of sharecropping and debt peonage. Poll taxes, literacy tests and other voter restrictions disenfranchised blacks and almost all poor whites creating an electorate dominated by a white southern gentry class.

    Martin Luther King, Jr. clarified this at the end of his address at the conclusion of the Selma March on March 25, 1965.

    …You see, it was a simple thing to keep the poor white masses working for near-starvation wages in the years that followed the Civil War. Why, if the poor white plantation or mill worker became dissatisfied with his low wages, the plantation or mill owner would merely threaten to fire him and hire former Negro slaves and pay him even less. Thus, the southern wage level was kept almost unbearably low.

    Toward the end of the Reconstruction era, something very significant happened. That is what was known as the Populist Movement. The leaders of this movement began awakening the poor white masses and the former Negro slaves to the fact that they were being fleeced by the emerging Bourbon interests. Not only that, but they began uniting the Negro and white masses into a voting bloc that threatened to drive the Bourbon interests from the command posts of political power in the South.

    To meet this threat, the southern aristocracy began immediately to engineer this development of a segregated society…. If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow. He gave him Jim Crow. And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man. And he ate Jim Crow. And when his undernourished children cried out for the necessities that his low wages could not provide, he showed them the Jim Crow signs on the buses and in the stores, on the streets and in the public buildings. And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, their last outpost of psychological oblivion.

    Thus, the threat of the free exercise of the ballot by the Negro and the white masses alike resulted in the establishment of a segregated society. They segregated southern money from the poor whites; they segregated southern mores from the rich whites; they segregated southern churches from Christianity; they segregated southern minds from honest thinking; and they segregated the Negro from everything. That's what happened when the Negro and white masses of the South threatened to unite and build a great society: a society of justice where none would prey upon the weakness of others; a society of plenty where greed and poverty would be done away; a society of brotherhood where every man would respect the dignity and worth of human personality.

    Joan November 15, 2016 at 7:36 pm

    Lovely! Thanks,

    JTMcPhee November 15, 2016 at 9:52 pm

    The MLK so few remember, the obscuring of his real message has been so very effective.

    Norb November 15, 2016 at 8:46 am

    There are two elephants in the room, class and technology. Both are distorted by those in power in order to ensure their continued rule. It seems to me the technology adopted by a society determines its class structure.

    So much of todays discussion revolves around justifying the inappropriate use of technology, it seems inevitable that only a major breakdown of essential technological systems will afford the necessary space to address growing social problems.

    E.F. Schumacher addressed all this in the 70's with his work on appropriate technologies. Revisiting the ideas of human scale systems offers a way to actively and effectively deal with todays needs while simultaneously trying to change larger perspectives and understanding of the citizenry. While Schumacher's work was directed at developing countries, the impoverishment of the working class makes it relevant in the US today.

    Addressing our technology question honestly will lead to more productive changes in class structure than taking on the class issue directly. Direct class confrontation is violent. Adopting human scale technology is peaceful. In the end what stands for a good life will win out. I'm working for human scale.

    Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Why do you think class and technology are separate?

    ScottW November 15, 2016 at 8:49 am

    Thought experiment: If you opposed Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin does that make you a racist and a sexist?
    Or, is it only when someone votes against a supposed liberal? And when Hillary supported Cuomo over Teachout for NY Governor, none of her supporters labeled her a Cuomobros.

    Hillary received millions fewer votes than Obama because she was a seriously flawed candidate who could not muster any excitement. The only reason she received 60 million is because she was running against Trump. The play on identity politics was pure desperation.

    readerOfTeaLeaves November 15, 2016 at 12:05 pm

    I think this part of the post nails a whole lot:

    "So this gave force to the idea that the government was nothing but a viper's nest full of crony capitalist enablers , which in turn helped to unleash populism on the right (the Left being marginalised or co-opted by their Wall Street/Silicon Valley donor class). And this gave us Trump. Add to that HRC's neocon foreign policy instincts , which could have got us in a war with Russia and maybe the American electorate wasn't so dumb after all."

    I voted for Hillary, but it was not easy.
    I agree that identity politics of the DNC variety have passed their pull date. Good riddance.

    Jim November 15, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    Here's another thought experiment: were voters who chose Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary sexists? Were Hillary's voters racists?

    I don't think you give the Democratic establishment enough credit for obtuseness by characterizing their identity politics play as "desperation". I have several sisters who were sucked in by Hillary's "woman" card, and it made them less than receptive to hearing about her record of pay-for-play, proxy warmongering, and baseless Russia-bashing.

    And it turned people like me – who would choose a woman over a man, other things being equal – into sexists for not backing Hillary (I voted for Stein).

    financial matters November 15, 2016 at 8:55 am

    Yes. If Hillary had been elected I felt like we would have been played by someone who is corrupt and with no real interest in the working/middle class. We would have slogged through another 4 years with someone who arrogantly had both a private and public position and had no real interest in climate change (she was very pro fracking), financial change (giving hour long $250,000 speeches to banks) or health care (she laughed at the idea of single payer although that's what most people want).

    Sanders had opposite views on these 3 issues and would have been an advocate of real change which is why he was so actively opposed by the establishment and very popular with the people as evidenced by his huge rallies.

    Trump was seen by many as the only real hope for some change. As mentioned previously we've already seen 2 very beneficial outcomes of his being elected by things calming down with Syria and Russia and with TPP apparently being dead in the water.

    Another positive could be a change in the DOJ to go after white collar criminals of which we have a lot.

    Climate change is I think an important blind spot but he has shown the capacity to be flexible and not as much of an ideologue as some. It's possible that as he sees some of his golf courses go under water he could change his mind. It can be helpful if someone in power changes his mind on an important issue as this can relate better to other doubters to come to the same conclusion.

    Getting back to class I watched the 2003 movie Seabiscuit a few days ago. This film was set in the depression period and had clips of FDR putting people back to work. It emphasized the dignity that this restored to them. It's a tall order but I think that's what much of Trump's base is looking for.

    Si November 15, 2016 at 9:20 am

    Whilst I agree with the points made, there is a BIG miss for me.

    Unless I missed it – where are the comments on corruption? This is not a partisan point of view, but to make the issue entirely focussed on class misses the point that the game is rigged.

    Holder, an Obama pick, unless I am mistaken, looked the other way when it came to investigating and prosecuting miscreants on Wall Street. The next in line for that job was meeting Bill behind closed so that Hillary could be kept safe. Outrageous.

    The Democratic party's attempts to make this an issue about race is so obviously a crass attempt at manipulation that only the hard of thinking could swallow it.

    The vote for Trump was a vote against corrupt insiders. Maybe he will turn out to be the same.

    Time will tell……

    Leigh November 15, 2016 at 9:37 am

    Paragraph 7, I believe.

    To your point; dumbfounded that a country that proposes to be waging a "War on Drugs" pardons home grown banking entities that laundered money for drug dealers.

    If you or I attempted such foolishness – we'd be incarcerate in a heartbeat.

    Monty Python (big fan), at it's most silly and sophomoric – could not write this stuff…

    Leight November 15, 2016 at 10:01 am

    Clarification: "this stuff' meaning what's transpired in the U.S. over the last 10-20 years -NOT Yves post.

    polecat November 15, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    Don't expect all the disheartened university SJW snowflaks to get that …or much else of import --

    Si November 16, 2016 at 1:52 am

    Yep – para 7. A bit of a passing reference to the embedded corruption and payola for congress and the writing of laws by lobbyists.

    And yes, war on drugs is pretty much a diversionary tactic to give the impression that the rule of law is still in force. It is for you an me……. for the connected, corrupt, not so much!

    Carla November 15, 2016 at 10:25 am

    @Si - "the hard of thinking" - I like it!

    Steven November 15, 2016 at 11:09 am

    This goes beyond corruption. It is one thing to be selling public infrastructure construction contracts to crony capitalist contributors (in the Clintons' case do we call them philanthropists?) – entirely another to be selling guns and bombs used by Middle Eastern despots to grind down (IOW blow up, murder) opposition to their corrupt regimes.

    In fact, most of Western Civilization (sic?) seems to be happy with the status quo of a 'post-industrial' America as the "exceptional nation" whose only two functions are consuming the world's wealth and employing military Keynesianism to maintain a global social order based on money created ex nihilo by US and international bankers and financiers.

    As for a "crass attempt at manipulation", have you seen this:
    Martin Armstrong Exposes "The Real Clinton Conspiracy" Which Backfired Dramatically

    A couple of paragraphs…

    This conspiracy has emerged from the Podesta emails. It was Clinton conspiring with mainstream media to elevate Trump and then tear him down. We have to now look at all the media who endorsed Hillary as simply corrupt. Simultaneously, Hillary said that Bernie had to be ground down to the pulp. Further leaked emails showed how the Democratic National Committee sabotaged Sanders' presidential campaign. It was Hillary manipulating the entire media for her personal gain. She obviously did not want a fair election because she was too corrupt.

    What is very clear putting all the emails together, the rise of Donald Trump was orchestrated by Hillary herself conspiring with mainstream media, and they they sought to burn him to the ground. Their strategy backfired and now this is why she has not come out to to speak against the violence she has manipulated and inspired.

    It seems to be clear the Democratic Party needs to purge itself of the Clinton – Obama influence. Is Sanders' suggestion for the DNC head a good start or do we need to look elsewhere?

    Si November 16, 2016 at 2:08 am

    Exactly my point.

    What are are getting now are attempts by the Dems (and let me state here I am not fan of the Repubs – the distinction is a false one) to point to anything other than the problem that is right in front of them.

    What we are witnessing is a political crisis because the system is geared against the citizen.

    And journalists/media are complicit. Where is the cutting investigative journalism? There is none – the headlines should be screaming it. Thanks God (or whoever) for blogs like these.

    There has been a coup I believe. The cooperation and melding of corporate and political power, and the interchange of power players between the two has left the ordinary person nowhere to go. This is not a left vs right, Dem vs Repub argument. Those are distinctions are there to keep us busy and to provide the illusion.

    Chris Hedges likend politics to American Pro Wrestling – that is what we are watching!

    kgw November 15, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    Class is corruption. . .

    Mike G November 15, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    The idea that a guy who ran casinos in New Jersey, and whose background was too murky to get a casino license in Nevada, will be the one to clean up corruption in DC is a level of gullibility beyond my comprehension.

    Si November 16, 2016 at 2:11 am

    And nor will it be cleaned up by lawyers who promise hopey changey b.s.

    Or lawyers who clearly see themselves above the law….

    different clue November 16, 2016 at 3:07 am

    Not that it would have been cleaned up by President Hillary Shyster and First Shyster Husband Bill either.

    craazyman November 15, 2016 at 9:21 am

    a lot of people out there need 10 baggers. I sure do.

    Why work? I mean really. It sucks but what's your choice? The free market solution is to kill yourself - that's what slaves could have done. If you don't like slavery, then just kill yourself! Why complain? You're your own boss of "You Incorporated" and you can choose who to work for! Even nobody.

    the 10-bagger should be just for billionaires. Even a millionaire has a hard time because there's only so much you can lose before you're not a millionaire. Then you might have to work!

    If most jobs didn't suck work wouldn't be so bad. That's the main thing, make jobs that don't suck so you don't drown yourself in tattoos and drugs. It's amazing how many people have tattoos. Drugs are less "deplorable" haha. Some are good - like alcohol, Xanax, Tylenol, red wine, beer, caffeine, sugar, donuts, cake, cookies, chocolate. Some are bad, like the shlt stringy haired meth freaks take. If they had good jobs it might give them something better to do,

    How do you get good jobs and not shlt jobs? That's not entirely self evident. In the meantime, the 10 bagger at least gets you some breathing room so you can think about it. Even if you think for free, it's OK since you don't have to work. Working gets in the way of a lot of stuff that you'd rather be doing. Like nothing,

    The amazing thing is this: no matter how much we whinge, whine, bitch moan, complain, rant, rail, fulminate, gripe, huarrange (that mght be speled wrong), incite, joculate, kriticize, lambaste, malign, naysay, prevaricate, query, ridicule, syllogize, temporize, ululate (even Baudelaire did that I red on the internet), yell and (what can "Z" be? I don't want to have to look something up I'm too lazy, how about "zenophobiasize" hahahahahahahah,

    The amazing thing is: million of fkkkers want to come here and - get this! - THEY WON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT ANY OF THE SHT WE DO!

    How about that?

    casino implosion November 15, 2016 at 9:26 am

    ""By making him aware he has more in common with the black steel workers by being a worker, than with the boss by being white."

    Sooo, they spent a generation telling the white worker that he was a racist, sexist bigot, mocking his religion, making his kids read "Heather Has Two Mommies" in school, and blaming him for economic woes caused in New York and DC.

    How'd that work out for ya?

    sharonsj November 15, 2016 at 11:34 am

    Actually, too many white workers are racist, sexist, and think everyone is a rabid Christian just like them. I ought to know because I live in red rural Pennsylvania. I'm not mocking you folks, but I am greatly pissed off that you just don't mind your own damn business and stop trying to force your beliefs on others. And I don't want to hear that liberals are forcing their beliefs on others; we're just asking you follow our laws and our Constitution when it comes to liberty and justice for all.

    And for every school that might have copies of "Heather Has Two Mommies," I can give you a giant list of schools that want to ban a ton of titles because some parent is offended. One example is the classic "Brave New World" by Aldus Huxley. "Challenged in an Advanced Placement language composition class at Cape Henlopen High School in Lewes, Del. (2014). Two school board members contend that while the book has long been a staple in high school classrooms, students can now grasp the sexual and drug-related references through a quick Internet search." Source: Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, May 2014, p. 80.

    Quick internet search, my ass. Too many conservatives won't even use the internet to find real facts because that would counter the right-wing meme.

    tongorad November 15, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    And for every school that might have copies of "Heather Has Two Mommies," I can give you a giant list of schools that want to ban a ton of titles because some parent is offended.

    And for every liberal/progressive politician, I can give a you basket of shitty policies, such as charter schools, shipping jobs overseas, cutting social security, austerity, the grand bargain, Obamacare, drones, etc.

    Great. So the library has a copy of "Heather Has Two Mommies." Or not. Who cares? The United Colors of Benetton worldview doesn't matter a fig when I'm trying to pay for rising health care, rent, College education, retirement costs, etc.

    J Bookly November 15, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    Tryng lately to get my terminology straight, and I think the policies you itemized should be labeled neoliberal, not liberal/progressive. Neoliberalism seems to be the one that combines the worst features of the private sector with the worst features of the public sector, without the good points of either one.

    tongorad November 15, 2016 at 10:20 pm

    It seems to me that you're referencing a certain historical model of "liberal" that doesn't, nay, cannot exist anymore. A No-True-Scotsman fallacy, as I see it.
    We can only deal with what we have in play, not some pure historical abstraction.

    But for the sake of argument, let's say that a distinction can be made between neoliberal and "real" liberalism. Both entities, however you want to differentiate/describe them, serve as managers to capital. In other words, they just want to manage things, to fiddle with the levers at the margin.

    We need a transfer of power, not a new set of smart managers.

    mark ó dochartaigh November 15, 2016 at 10:53 pm

    Yes, liberal intolerance of intolerance is not the same as conservative intolerance of tolerance.

    Mike G November 15, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    The right has spent a generation supporting rabidly bigoted media like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News making sure the white working class blame all their ills on immigrants, minorities, feminists and stirring up a Foaming Outrage of the Week at what some sociology professor said at a tiny college somewhere.

    Kiss up, kick down authoritarianism. It's never the fault of the people with all the money and all the power who control their economic lives.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Rand Paul: Will Donald Trump betray voters by hiring John Bolton?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump has blamed George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list, who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles. ..."
    "... In 2011, Bolton bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic interest in toppling Gaddafi… But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton bragged , "We came, we saw, he died." ..."
    "... All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy across the globe is demanded. ..."
    "... Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy." ..."
    "... But he's seems to be okay with your son or daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | rare.us
    Bolton was one of the loudest advocates of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and still stupefyingly insists it was the right call 13 years later. "I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct," Bolton said just last year.

    Trump, rightly, believes that decision was a colossal mistake that destabilized the region. "Iraq used to be no terrorists," Trump said in 2015. "(N)ow it's the Harvard of terrorism."

    "If you look at Iraq from years ago, I'm not saying he was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy," Trump said of Saddam Hussein, "but it was a lot better than it is right now."

    Trump has said U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003 "helped to throw the region into chaos and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper." In contrast, Bolton has said explicitly that he wants to repeat Iraq-style regime change in Syrian and Iran.

    You can't learn from mistakes if you don't see mistakes.

    Trump has blamed George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list, who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles.

    In 2011, Bolton bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic interest in toppling Gaddafi… But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton bragged , "We came, we saw, he died."

    When Trump was asked last year if Libya and the region would be more stable today with Gaddafi in power, he replied "100 percent." Mr. Trump is 100 percent right .

    No man is more out of touch with the situation in the Middle East or more dangerous to our national security than Bolton.

    All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy across the globe is demanded.

    Woodrow Wilson would be proud, but the parents of our soldiers should be mortified. War should be the last resort, never the first. War should be understood to be a hell no one wishes for. Dwight Eisenhower understood this when he wrote, "I hate war like only a soldier can, the stupidity, the banality, the futility."

    Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy."

    But he's seems to be okay with your son or daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us: "Even before the Iraq War, John Bolton was a leading brain behind the neoconservatives' war-and-conquest agenda," notes The American Conservative's Jon Utley.

    At a time when Americans thirst for change and new thinking, Bolton is an old hand at failed foreign policy.

    The man is a menace.

    Rand Paul is the junior senator from Kentucky.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Trump Needs Good Advice

    Notable quotes:
    "... Instead, by some accounts, we will quite possibly be getting Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, Sarah Palin, Jose Rodriguez, Michael Ledeen, and Michael Flynn. Bolton, who is being tagged as a possible secretary of state, would be a one-man reactionary horror show, making one long for the good old days of Condi Rice and Madeleine Albright. ..."
    "... It is reported that associates from the conservative Heritage Foundation have been tasked with the search for suitable national-security candidates as part of the transition team. One candidate to head the CIA is Jose Rodriguez, who back under W headed the agency's torture program. ..."
    "... The White House could, however, de facto scuttle the agreement by imposing new sanctions on Iran and continuing to apply pressure on Iranian banks and credit through Washington's influence over international financial markets. ..."
    "... Someone has to try to convince Trump that the Iranian agreement is good for everyone involved, including Israel and the United States. ..."
    "... The president-elect is largely ignorant of the world and its leaders, so he has relied on a mixed bag of foreign-policy advisors. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, appears to be the most prominent. Flynn is associated with arch-neocon Michael Ledeen, and both are rabid about Iran, with Flynn suggesting that nearly all the unrest in the Middle East should be laid at Tehran's door. Ledeen is, of course, a prominent Israel-firster who has long had Iran in his sights. Their solution to the Iran problem would undoubtedly entail the use of military force against the Islamic Republic. Given what is at stake in terms of yet another Middle Eastern war and possible nuclear proliferation, it is essential that Donald Trump hear some alternative views. ..."
    "... There are other foreign-policy areas as well where Trump will undoubtedly be receiving bad advice and would benefit from a broader vision. ..."
    "... The Trump Asia policy, meanwhile, consists largely of uninformed and reactionary positions that would benefit from a bit of fresh air provided through access to alternative viewpoints. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    I would very much like to see the White House revert to a George Marshall type of foreign policy, in which the United States would use its vast power wisely rather than punitively. As Donald Trump knows little of what makes the world go round, senior officials and cabinet secretaries will play a key role in framing and executing policy. One would like to see people like Jim Webb, Chas Freeman, Andrew Bacevich, or even TAC 's own Daniel Larison in key government positions, as one might thereby rely on their cool judgment and natural restraint to guide the ship of state. But that is unfortunately unlikely to happen.

    Instead, by some accounts, we will quite possibly be getting Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, Sarah Palin, Jose Rodriguez, Michael Ledeen, and Michael Flynn. Bolton, who is being tagged as a possible secretary of state, would be a one-man reactionary horror show, making one long for the good old days of Condi Rice and Madeleine Albright. There are also lesser, mostly neocon luminaries lining up for supporting roles, résumés ready at hand. To be sure, we won't be seeing the Kagans, Eliot Cohen, Eric Edelman, or Michael Hayden, who defected to Hillary in dramatic fashion, but there are plenty of others who are polishing up their credentials and hoping to let bygones be bygones. They are eager to return to power and regain the emoluments that go with high office, so they will now claim to be adaptable enough to work for someone they once described as unfit to be president.

    It is reported that associates from the conservative Heritage Foundation have been tasked with the search for suitable national-security candidates as part of the transition team. One candidate to head the CIA is Jose Rodriguez, who back under W headed the agency's torture program. Another former CIA officer who is a particularly polarizing figure and is apparently being looked at for high office is Clare Lopez, who has claimed that the Obama White House is infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Lopez is regarded by the Trump team as "one of the intellectual thought leaders about why we have to fight back against radical Islam." She has long been associated with the Center for Security Policy , headed by Frank Gaffney, a fanatical hardliner who believes that Saddam Hussein was involved in both the 1993 World Trade Center attack and the Oklahoma City bombing, that Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist is a secret agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, that Gen. David Petraeus has "submitted to Sharia," and that the logo of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency reveals "official U.S. submission to Islam" because it "appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic crescent and star."

    But if Rodriguez and Lopez and others like them can be either discarded or kept in a closet somewhere, let us hope for the best. If Trump appoints competent senior officials, they might actually undertake a serious review of what America does around the world. Such an examination would be appropriate, as Trump has more or less promised to shake things up. He has indicated that he would abandon the policy of humanitarian intervention so loved by President Barack Obama and his advisors, and has signaled that he will not be pursuing regime change in Syria. He will also seek détente with Russia, a major shift from the increasingly confrontational policy of the past eight years.

    Donald Trump rejects arming rebels as in Syria because we know little about whom we are dealing with and increasingly find that we cannot control what develops from the relationship. He is against foreign aid in principle, particularly to countries like Pakistan where the U.S. is strongly disliked. These are all positive steps, and the new administration should be encouraged to pursue them. The White House might also want to consider easing the United States out of Afghanistan through something like the negotiated Paris Peace talks arrangement that ended Vietnam. Fifteen years of conflict with no end in sight: Afghanistan is a war that is unwinnable.

    Apart from several easy-to-identify major issues, Trump's foreign policy is admittedly quite sketchy, and he has not always been consistent in explaining it. He has been slammed, appropriately enough, for being simple minded in saying that he would "bomb the [crap] out of ISIS" and that he is willing to put 30,000 soldiers on the ground if necessary to destroy the terrorist group, but he has also taken on the Republican establishment by specifically condemning the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq. He has more than once indicated that he is not interested in being either the world's policeman or a participant in new wars in the Middle East. He has repeatedly stated that he supports NATO, but not as a blunt instrument designed to irritate Russia. He would work with Putin to address concerns over Syria and Eastern Europe. He would demand that NATO countries spend more for their own defense and also help pay for the maintenance of U.S. bases, which many argue to be long overdue.

    Trump's controversial call to stop all Muslim immigration has been rightly condemned, but he has somewhat moderated that stance to focus on travelers and immigrants from countries that have been substantially radicalized or where anti-American sentiment is strong. And the demand to take a second look at some potential visitors or residents is not unreasonable in that the current process for vetting new arrivals in this country is far from transparent and apparently not very effective.

    Beyond platitudes, the Obama administration has not been very forthcoming on what might be done to fix the entire immigration process, but Trump is promising to put national security and border control first. If Trump were to receive good advice on the issue, he would indeed tighten border security and gradually move to repatriate most illegal immigrants, but he would also look at the investigative procedures used to examine the backgrounds and intentions of refugees and asylum seekers who come in through other resettlement programs. The United States has an obligation to help genuine refugees from countries that have been shattered through Washington's military interventions, but it also has a duty to know exactly whom it is letting in.

    Trump is also critical of the Iran nuclear agreement and the steps to normalize relations with Cuba, the two most notable foreign-policy successes of the Obama administration. Any change in the latter would have relatively little impact on the United States, but the Iran deal is important as it stopped potential proliferation by Iran, which likely would have produced a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Trump has called the agreement "horrible" because it stopped short of total capitulation by Tehran and has pledged to "renegotiate it," which might prove impossible given that the pact had five other signatories. Iran would in any event refuse to make further concessions, particularly as it would no longer be prepared to accept assurances that Washington would comply with any agreement.

    The White House could, however, de facto scuttle the agreement by imposing new sanctions on Iran and continuing to apply pressure on Iranian banks and credit through Washington's influence over international financial markets. If enough pressure were applied, Iran could rightly claim that the U.S. had failed to comply with the agreement and withdraw from it, possibly leading to an accelerated nuclear-weapons program justified on the basis of self-defense. It is precisely the outcome that many hardliners both in Washington and Iran would like to see, as it would invite a harsh response from the White House, ending any possibility of an accord over proliferation.

    Someone has to try to convince Trump that the Iranian agreement is good for everyone involved, including Israel and the United States. Even though such a suggestion is unlikely to come from the current group of advisors, who are strongly anti-Iranian, a good argument might be made based on what Trump himself has been urging vis-ŕ-vis Syria, stressing that ISIS is America's real enemy and Iran is a major partner in the coalition that is actively fighting the terrorist group. As in the case of Russia, it makes sense to cooperate with Iran when it is in our interest, and it also is desirable to prolong the process, delaying Iran's possible decision to acquire a nuclear capability. Working with Iran might even make the country's leadership less paranoid and would reduce the motivation to acquire a weapon in the first place, an argument analogous to Trump's observations about dealing with Russia.

    But it all comes down to the type of "expert" advice Trump gets. The president-elect is largely ignorant of the world and its leaders, so he has relied on a mixed bag of foreign-policy advisors. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, appears to be the most prominent. Flynn is associated with arch-neocon Michael Ledeen, and both are rabid about Iran, with Flynn suggesting that nearly all the unrest in the Middle East should be laid at Tehran's door. Ledeen is, of course, a prominent Israel-firster who has long had Iran in his sights. Their solution to the Iran problem would undoubtedly entail the use of military force against the Islamic Republic. Given what is at stake in terms of yet another Middle Eastern war and possible nuclear proliferation, it is essential that Donald Trump hear some alternative views.

    There are other foreign-policy areas as well where Trump will undoubtedly be receiving bad advice and would benefit from a broader vision. He has said that he would be an even-handed negotiator between Israel and the Palestinians, but he has also declared that he is strongly pro-Israel and would move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem-which is a bad idea, not in America's interest, even if Benjamin Netanyahu would like it. It would produce serious blowback from the Arab world and would inspire a new wave of terrorism directed against the U.S. Someone should explain to Mr. Trump that there are real consequences to pledges made in the midst of an acrimonious electoral campaign.

    The Trump Asia policy, meanwhile, consists largely of uninformed and reactionary positions that would benefit from a bit of fresh air provided through access to alternative viewpoints. In East Asia, Trump has said he would encourage Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenals to deter North Korea. That is a very bad idea, a proliferation nightmare, but Trump evidently eased away from that position during a recent phone call to the president of South Korea. Trump would also prefer that China intervene in North Korea and make Kim Jong Un "step down." He would put pressure on China to stop devaluing its currency because it is "bilking us of billions of dollars" and would also increase U.S. military presence in the region to limit Beijing's expansion in the South China Sea.

    It is to be hoped that Donald Trump and his transition team will be good listeners over the next 60 days. Positions staked out during a heated campaign do not equate to policy and should be regarded with considerable skepticism. American foreign policy, and by extension U.S. interests, have suffered for 16 years under the establishment-centric but nevertheless quite different groupthinks prevailing in the Bush and Obama White Houses. It is time for a little fresh advice.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Nov 15, 2016] Over half of Ukraines population lives below poverty level

    Nov 15, 2016 | eadaily.com
    Nearly 60% (58.3%) of the population in Ukraine lives below the poverty line, according to data of the M.V. Ptukha Institute of Demography and Social Surveys, the National Academy of Science of Ukraine.

    In 2015, this indicator was half as much – 28.6%. "The poverty index has increased twofold along with the actual cost of living," says Svetlana Polyakova , the leading research fellow at the Living Standard Department at the Demography Institute. "In addition, within the past year, we saw a growth of the poverty level defined by the UN criteria for estimation of internationally comparable poverty line in Central and Eastern Europe."

    The highest poverty line was registered among the families having at least one child – 38.6% and pensioners – 23%. The situation may deteriorate this year. According to the State Service of Statistics, savings of Ukrainians in April-June fell by 5.297billion hryvnias (more than $200 million at the current exchange rate).

    The cost of living in Ukraine in 2016 makes up 1,544 hryvnias (about $60).

    Earlier, Prime Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Groysman said the previous policy of populism and "money printing and distribution to people" made the country weaker and the people poorer.

    [Nov 15, 2016] Soros And Liberal Mega-Donors Plot For War With Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... A requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated ..."
    "... A five year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service ..."
    "... A lifetime ban on the White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government ..."
    "... A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    While focusing on preserving ObamaCare and other achievements of the Obama administration that are threatened by a Donald Trump presidency, the DA's agenda includes panels on rethinking polling and the left's approach to winning the working-class vote. The group will also stress funneling cash into state legislative policy initiatives and races where Republicans took over last week.

    President-elect Donald Trump has said his first 100 days will be dedicated to restoring "honesty, accountability and change to Washington" through the following seven steps:

    1. A Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress
    2. A hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health)
    3. A requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated
    4. A five year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service
    5. A lifetime ban on the White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government
    6. A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections
    7. Cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure

    Billionaire George Soros immediately had fingers of blame pointing at him for the anti-Trump riots and protests that swept the nation since Nov. 9, as his group MoveOn.org has organized most of them .

    The billionaire committed $25 million to boosting the Clinton campaign and other Democratic candidates and causes in 2016.

    [Nov 15, 2016] Its Class, Stupid, Not Race

    Notable quotes:
    "... To a large degree, Bernie Sanders understood and appreciated this, although as we now know, the Wall Street/Silicon Valley donors which comprise the donor class of the DNC were appalled by this and actively worked to sabotage his campaign. By the time we got to the general election, the party's message was watered down and muddled, in some races focused almost entirely on gender issues and attacks of Trump's lack of suitability for the office. ..."
    "... he became the voice for an increasing number of Americans, who counted themselves amongst the biggest losers of globalization and free trade. In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years. ..."
    "... perhaps Trump is a faux populist, who is merely deploying bait and switch tactics, but he explicitly addressed his campaign to those who have been marginalized by the neo-liberal policies dominant in both parties. ..."
    "... once Senator Bernie Sanders lost the nomination, the Democrats made little effort to recapture these voters. That is largely because the party's nominee was the very embodiment of the establishment policies that has created so much misery for these groups and Hillary Clinton had no credible message for what the press condescendingly termed "flyover country". ..."
    "... incumbent President has played a huge role in contributing to the overall sense of despair that drove people to seek a radical outlet such as Trump. The Obama Administration rapidly broke with its Hope and "Change you can believe in" the minute he appointed some of the architects of the 2008 crisis as his main economic advisors, who in turn and gave us a Wall Street friendly bank bailout that effectively restored the status quo ante (and refused to jail one single banker, even though many were engaged in explicitly criminal activity). He followed that up with a bailout of the private health insurance industry under the guise of so-called "health care reform" legislation, the "Affordable" Care Act (which contained no provision for containing the cost of the health insurance oligopolies, because the marginal "public option" was gutted out of the final legislation, courtesy of the lobbyists invited to craft the legislation). All of the Rubinites were brought back in to run economic policy. Wall Street and the stock market boomed, but wages continued to stagnate, and the vast majority of all the gains went to the top 1 percent of income earners. The rest of the population was left far behind. ..."
    "... this gave force to the idea that the government was nothing but a viper's nest full of crony capitalist enablers, which in turn helped to unleash populism on the right (the Left being marginalised or co-opted by their Wall Street/Silicon Valley donor class). ..."
    "... Add to that HRC's neocon foreign policy instincts, which could have got us in a war with Russia and maybe the American electorate wasn't so dumb after all. ..."
    "... The Pecora Commission (established in the GD's aftermath) was given relatively free rein to investigate the causes of the crisis and to go after the fraud. Widespread defaults and bankruptcies wiped out a lot of the private sector's debt. The financial sector was downsized and rendered relatively unimportant for several decades. ..."
    "... voters, who comprehensively rejected the "neo-liberal lite" identity politics on offer by the Democrats this time around. It is true that this process is likely to be resisted by the donor class and it may well take another financial crisis before their power is fully broken. ..."
    "... Holder, an Obama pick, unless I am mistaken, looked the other way when it came to investigating and prosecuting miscreants on Wall Street. The next in line for that job was meeting Bill behind closed so that Hillary could be kept safe. Outrageous. ..."
    "... The Democratic party's attempts to make this an issue about race is so obviously a crass attempt at manipulation that only the hard of thinking could swallow it. ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    During the Presidential campaign of 1988, the Reverend Jesse Jackson was asked, "How you are going to get the support of the white steelworker?" He replied: "By making him aware he has more in common with the black steel workers by being a worker, than with the boss by being white." Jackson also did speak of reviving a "rainbow coalition", but in spite of being associated with black radicalism by much of the country, he was able to obtain almost 50 percent of the Democratic delegates at the Atlanta convention through an explicit appeal which transcended race, instead invoking class. Jackson himself is not the likely future leader of the Democratic Party, but his model is one the Dems would be well to consider if they wish to recapture much of the country that they lost in last week's election.

    To a large degree, Bernie Sanders understood and appreciated this, although as we now know, the Wall Street/Silicon Valley donors which comprise the donor class of the DNC were appalled by this and actively worked to sabotage his campaign. By the time we got to the general election, the party's message was watered down and muddled, in some races focused almost entirely on gender issues and attacks of Trump's lack of suitability for the office.

    .... I wrote in an earlier analysis of the Trump phenomenon , he became the voice for an increasing number of Americans, who counted themselves amongst the biggest losers of globalization and free trade. In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years. That's why so many Americans have simply stopped voting (and this year was no different, as it looks like a mere 57.9% of the voter eligible population turned out). And perhaps Trump is a faux populist, who is merely deploying bait and switch tactics, but he explicitly addressed his campaign to those who have been marginalized by the neo-liberal policies dominant in both parties.

    The difference this time is that once Senator Bernie Sanders lost the nomination, the Democrats made little effort to recapture these voters. That is largely because the party's nominee was the very embodiment of the establishment policies that has created so much misery for these groups and Hillary Clinton had no credible message for what the press condescendingly termed "flyover country". These voters instead went for the change candidate, even though his platform lacked much of the coherence of, say, the Sanders program and in many respects might make their position worse. But when you live in Youngstown, Ohio, or Scranton, Pennsylvania, and have virtually no stake in the existing system, is it at all surprising that you're willing to place your bets with a bomb-thrower?

    No question that today there is a kind of all-encompassing pessimism which transcends economics. In addition to the growing inequality and concomitant wage stagnation for the middle and working classes, 9/11 and its aftermath has certainly has contributed to it as well, as, making people long for the the Golden Age of Managerial Capitalism of the post-WWII era, which was a dynamic period of great economic achievements and pax Americana. Distilling it into movies (America's version of a cultural yardstick), the American zeitgeist today is a weird mashup of Bladerunner, Mad Max, and Reality TV – with the characters longing for Ozzie and Harriet Nelson, hardly a recipe that brings hope for a positive future.

    And if the Democratic Party is honest, it will have to concede that even the popular incumbent President has played a huge role in contributing to the overall sense of despair that drove people to seek a radical outlet such as Trump. The Obama Administration rapidly broke with its Hope and "Change you can believe in" the minute he appointed some of the architects of the 2008 crisis as his main economic advisors, who in turn and gave us a Wall Street friendly bank bailout that effectively restored the status quo ante (and refused to jail one single banker, even though many were engaged in explicitly criminal activity). He followed that up with a bailout of the private health insurance industry under the guise of so-called "health care reform" legislation, the "Affordable" Care Act (which contained no provision for containing the cost of the health insurance oligopolies, because the marginal "public option" was gutted out of the final legislation, courtesy of the lobbyists invited to craft the legislation). All of the Rubinites were brought back in to run economic policy. Wall Street and the stock market boomed, but wages continued to stagnate, and the vast majority of all the gains went to the top 1 percent of income earners. The rest of the population was left far behind.

    So this gave force to the idea that the government was nothing but a viper's nest full of crony capitalist enablers, which in turn helped to unleash populism on the right (the Left being marginalised or co-opted by their Wall Street/Silicon Valley donor class). And this gave us Trump. Add to that HRC's neocon foreign policy instincts, which could have got us in a war with Russia and maybe the American electorate wasn't so dumb after all.

    They could read Podesta's odious emails as well as the rest of us could. (As an aside, regardless of the source of the leaks, we should be thankful for the hacked emails, which allowed us to discover that nation's media works directly with one of the nation's major political parties to manipulate coverage of their opponents and curry favor for their chosen nominee.)

    Obama is personally likeable, but did he really give us anything as great and durable as FDR did in the 1930s? The Affordable Care Act was effectively RomneyCare (with the comparable problem that there remains no means of controlling private health insurance costs, a fact that was cruelly revealed days before the election when 25% hikes in health insurance premiums were announced), much as Dodd-Frank was a joke in terms of achieving genuine financial reform, especially when one compares it to the legislation that emerged out of the Great Depression (which lasted unchanged for over 40 years). The Pecora Commission (established in the GD's aftermath) was given relatively free rein to investigate the causes of the crisis and to go after the fraud. Widespread defaults and bankruptcies wiped out a lot of the private sector's debt. The financial sector was downsized and rendered relatively unimportant for several decades.

    The establishment, especially the Democratic Party establishment, keeps enforcing what divides people rather than what unites people by embracing identity politics and ignoring class. Yes, a huge majority of women were offended by Trump's "locker room talk", but a large chunk still voted for him, and larger numbers of Hispanics voted for Trump than Romney. Doesn't that suggest that identity politics has reached some sort of limit? Why not find common ground on the issue of class?

    As former Jackson advisor, Vicente Navarro wrote : "The objective of the 'billionaire class' is to co-opt African Americans and women into the system so they are closer and more aligned to the dominant class. The fact that so little is spoken about class in the US is because the billionaire class does not want people to speak or think in class terms."

    It's also the case that it is difficult to get a man to understand his own best interests after he's swallowed a handful of Oxycontins and chased them with half a quart of Wild Turkey. But emphasizing class-based policies, rather than gender or race-based solutions, will achieve more for the broad swathe of voters, who comprehensively rejected the "neo-liberal lite" identity politics on offer by the Democrats this time around. It is true that this process is likely to be resisted by the donor class and it may well take another financial crisis before their power is fully broken.

    Voters crave effective action to reverse long term economic decline and runaway economic inequality, but nothing on the scale required will be offered to them by either of America's money-driven major parties. This is likely only to accelerate the disintegration of the political system and economic system until the elephant in the room – class – is honestly and comprehensively addressed.

    By Marshall Auerback, a market analyst and a research associate at the Levy Institute for Economics at Bard College (www.levy.org). Follow him on Twitter at @Mauerback. Originally published at Counterpunch

    templar555510, November 15, 2016 at 7:56 am

    How right you are Marshall and it shows just how successful ( remember Warren Buffet's little story about his secretary paying more tax than him ) the propaganda ( there is no alternative aka TINA ) of neoliberalism has been in convincing the populace at large that whatever their lot is they deserve it. Until now . Trump's emphasis on making America great ' again -- ' goes to the heart of the rot ; that the 99% don't feel it is great now and somebody needs to fix it. The problem with demagogues ( and no doubt Trump is one ) is that they don't deliver on their promises and the only way out for them is through violence which is not hard to achieve when emotions have been whipped up to the nth degree . Will it be the same with President Trump ? Who knows, but the historical record is not on the side of an alternative. A great deal of damage can be done in the four years before the possibility can be tested .

    Ignim Brites November 15, 2016 at 8:10 am

    "The establishment, especially the Democratic Party establishment, keeps enforcing what divides people rather than what unites people by embracing identity politics and ignoring class". One problem. Class divides people; more decisively than race or gender.

    craazyboy November 15, 2016 at 8:47 am

    They need to find 99 little boxes to keep the 99% in. Then we're all even.

    ScottW November 15, 2016 at 8:49 am

    Thought experiment: If you opposed Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin does that make you a racist and a sexist? Or, is it only when someone votes against a supposed liberal? And when Hillary supported Cuomo over Teachout for NY Governor, none of her supporters labeled her a Cuomobros.

    Hillary received millions fewer votes than Obama because she was a seriously flawed candidate who could not muster any excitement. The only reason she received 60 million is because she was running against Trump. The play on identity politics was pure desperation.

    Si November 15, 2016 at 9:20 am

    Whilst I agree with the points made, there is a BIG miss for me.

    Unless I missed it – where are the comments on corruption? This is not a partisan point of view, but to make the issue entirely focussed on class misses the point that the game is rigged.

    Holder, an Obama pick, unless I am mistaken, looked the other way when it came to investigating and prosecuting miscreants on Wall Street. The next in line for that job was meeting Bill behind closed so that Hillary could be kept safe. Outrageous.

    The Democratic party's attempts to make this an issue about race is so obviously a crass attempt at manipulation that only the hard of thinking could swallow it.

    The vote for Trump was a vote against corrupt insiders. Maybe he will turn out to be the same.

    Time will tell

    [Nov 15, 2016] Suspected 5th Column blogger Streetwise Professor Defends Elites

    Notable quotes:
    "... Earning your living in finance or the related co-dependent fields such as economics, business management, certain areas of law and, most especially, information technology, you quickly pick up on the cult mentality that pervades it. ..."
    "... When, like so many of us, you're desperate to try to cling onto some semblance of middle class status, you're an easy and, although I'd strongly qualify this statement, understandable, target for buying into the group-think. ..."
    "... " Markets " do not " demand " anything. ..."
    "... But a "market" can - at the very most, through the use of pricing signals - induce actors to consider entering into a transaction. ..."
    "... They provided credit to low income customers because it was insanely profitable. The reason it was insanely profitable was that the loans to the low income customers could be securitised and the commissions the banks earned on the sale of those securities paid for massive bonus pools which directly benefitted bank employees. ..."
    "... Yes, I'd always be the first to agree with the proverb "In Heaven you get justice, here on Earth we have the law". The law and our legal systems are not perfect. But they are not that shabby either. ..."
    "... If it is regulatory interventions, rather than criminal indictments, that the Streetwise Professor is referring to, the banks can and do leave no political stone unturned in their efforts to water down, delay and neuter regulatory bodies. Look , if you can do so without wincing, at what has happened to the SEC. ..."
    "... It wasn't a " pre-crisis political bargain " that caused the Global Financial Crisis. It was financial innovation that was supposed to "free" the financial services industry to allow it to soar to ever greater heights, heights that couldn't be reached with cumbersome "legacy" thinking. If that sounds a lot like Mike Hearn's Blockchain justifications, it's because it is exactly the same thing. ..."
    "... Innovation must never be viewed only through separate, disconnected lenses of "technology", "politics", "ethics", "economics", "power relationships" and "morality". Each specific innovation is subject to and either lives or dies by the interplay between these forces." ..."
    "... I agree - however, "I don't mind people doing dangerous things" should require a little elucidation. What you likely meant to say was you don't mind people doing dangerous things, WITHIN REASON. ..."
    "... Also, there is the rank unwillingness on the part of regulators to, you know, actually do their jobs. I can no longer count the number of times Yellen has sat in front of the Senate banking committee like a deer in headlights ..."
    "... Excellent points, I thought that the Bush Wars were initiated to alleviate an oncoming recession as well as ensure W's reelection ..."
    "... It did take them a while to get the pieces in place, the Banksters Real Estate Fraud Appraisals were identified as early as 2000, then the Banksters Fraudulent Loans peaked in 2006, and then we had the Banksters Fraudulent Reps and Warranties . ..."
    "... Ah, the neo-liberals and the libertarians make their arguments by redefining terms and eliding facts. Once the audience agrees that up is down, why then their arguments are reasonable, dispassionate, and offered in dulcet tones of humble sincerity and objectivity. ..."
    "... What a pleasure, then, to read your cold water smack-down of their confidence game. Perhaps they believed their own nonsense. Who knows. ..."
    "... A third consequence of modern-day liberals' unquestioning, reflexive respect for expertise is their blindness to predatory behavior if it comes cloaked in the signifiers of professionalism. ..."
    "... The difference in interpretation carries enormous consequences: Did Wall Street commit epic fraud, or are they highly advanced professionals who fell victim to epic misfortune? modern day liberals pretty much insist on the later view . Wall Street's veneer of professionalism is further buttressed by its technical jargon, which the financial industry uses to protect itself from the scrutiny of the public ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on November 14, 2016 by Clive

    Earning your living in finance or the related co-dependent fields such as economics, business management, certain areas of law and, most especially, information technology, you quickly pick up on the cult mentality that pervades it.

    When, like so many of us, you're desperate to try to cling onto some semblance of middle class status, you're an easy and, although I'd strongly qualify this statement, understandable, target for buying into the group-think. Or at least going along with it on the promise of continued employment. While I'm letting myself off the hook in the process, I think that's forgivable. I and others like me need the money. Besides, in our spare time, we might try to atone for our misdeeds by using whatever means we have available, such as contributing to Naked Capitalism in whatever way we can, to try to set the record straight.

    Not quite so easily forgivable, though, are the members of an altogether different cadre who don't give the impression of having to live paycheck to paycheck. What is it that motivates them? Why do they willingly devise clever - and, I have to say it, some are exceptionally adept - ruses to defend and further the causes of our élites?

    ... ... ...

    As readers with not-so-long memories will recall, in the run-up to the Global Financial Crisis, the TBTFs did indeed exercise the " FU Option ". As asset prices for the securities they held fell precipitously, they held more and more of those assets on their balance sheets, refusing to - or unable to - off-load them into a market that was shunning them. Eventually their capital cushions were so depleted because of this, they became insolvent. Staring catastrophe in the face, governments were put into a double-bind by the TBTFs: Rescue us through bail-outs or stand by and see our societies suffer major collateral damage (bank runs, a collapse of world trade, ruining of perfectly good and solvent businesses with the likelihood of mass unemployment and civil unrest).

    In that situation, who was the " U " who was being " F "'ed? It was governments and the public.

    Faced with an asymmetry of power, in a reverse of the scenario painted by the Streetwise Professor for OTC trading (where a notional seller tells a theoretical buyer they can go to Hell if they don't want to pay the price the seller is asking), governments - and us - found themselves on the buy-side of an " FU Option ". "F the-rest-of-us By Necessity" was a better description as we were turned into forced buyers of what no other "market participant" would touch.

    My dear Professor, allow me to give you , if I may risk the label of being impudent, a lesson. If I am selling my prized Diana, Princess of Wales tea cups in a yard sale and you make me a offer for them, that - I'm sure we'd agree on this point - is an OTC transaction. There's no exchange (mercifully) for Diana, Princess of Wales tea cups. I put a price sticker on them. If you want them, you pay the price I'm asking. Or else, you make me a different offer. If you don't pay the price I want, or I don't accept the price you're offering, we do, indeed, have a genuine " FU Option " scenario. But if instead my mother-in-law threatens to saw your face off with her cheese grater if you don't buy my Diana, Princess of Wales tea cups at the price shown on the sticker, then we no longer have an OTC transaction. We have extortion. See the difference?

    That's not all. The piece discusses the differences between a proposed smart-contract based settlement compared with a centralised counterparty which brings up some very valid points. But then it makes a serious blunder which is introduced with some subtly but is all the more dangerous because of it. I'll highlight the problem:

    So the proposal does some of the same things as a CCP, but not all of them, and in fact omits the most important bits that make central clearing central clearing. To the extent that these other CCP services add value–or regulation compels market participants to utilize a CCP that offers these services–market participants will choose to use a CCP, rather than this service. It is not a perfect substitute for central clearing, and will not disintermediate central clearing in cases where the services it does not offer and the functions it does not perform are demanded by market participants , or by regulators.

    Did you catch what is the most troubling thing in that paragraph? The technicalities of it are fine, but the bigger framing is perilous. "Market participants" is given agency. And put on the same level as actions taken by regulators. This is at best unintentionally misleading and at worse an entirely deliberate falsehood.

    The fallacious thinking which caused it is due to a traditional economist's mind-set. But this mind-set is hopelessly wrong and every time we encounter it, we must challenge it. Regardless of what other progressive goodies it is being bundled up with.

    " Markets " do not " demand " anything.

    A regulator or central bank can demand that a bank hold more capital and open its books to check the underlying asset quality. The CFPB can demand that Wells Fargo stops opening fake accounts. Even I can demand a pony. The power structures, laws, enforcement and levels of trust (to name the main constraints) governing who is demanding what from whom determine how likely they will be to have their demands met.

    But a "market" can - at the very most, through the use of pricing signals - induce actors to consider entering into a transaction. The pricing signal cannot make any potential actor participate in that transaction. Not, probably, that it would have helped her much, but Hillary Clinton could have created a market for left-wing bloggers to shill for Obamacare by offering Lambert $1million to start churning out pro-ACA posts on his blog. But that market which Hillary could create could not "demand" Lambert accept her offer. Lambert would not take that, or any other monetary amount, and would never enter such a transaction. Markets have limits.

    Whether unintentionally or by design, we have a nice example of bait and switch in the Streetwise Professor's Blockchain article. If you run a critique of Blockchain, you'll likely attract an anti-libertarian audience. It's a classic example of nudge theory . If you can lure readers in with the promise of taking a swipe at disruptive innovation nonsense but then lead them to being suckered into a reinforcement of failed conventional free-market hogwash, that can be a powerful propaganda tool.

    But perhaps the Blockchain feature was an aberration, just a one-off? No.

    Take, for example, this feature on Deutsche Bank from earlier this month which I'll enter as Exhibit B - It's not the TBTFs Fault, the Regulators / Governments / Some Guy / Made Us Do It

    I'll leave the worst 'til last, but for now let's start with this little treasure:

    the pre-crisis political bargain was that banks would facilitate income redistribution policy by provide credit to low income individuals. This seeded the crisis (though like any complex event, there were myriad other contributing causal factors), the political aftershocks of which are being felt to this day. Banking became a pariah industry, as the very large legal settlements extracted by governments indicate.

    No, Streetwise Professor, banks did not provide credit to low income individuals as part of some "political bargain". They provided credit to low income customers because it was insanely profitable. The reason it was insanely profitable was that the loans to the low income customers could be securitised and the commissions the banks earned on the sale of those securities paid for massive bonus pools which directly benefitted bank employees.

    Almost unimaginable wealth could be generated by individuals (the Naked Capitalism archive details the full sordid story of the likes of Magnetar). The fact that this would all blow up eventually was certainly predicable and even known by many actors in the prevailing milieu but they didn't care. They knew they'd have already set themselves up for life financially even after just a few years in that "game". Politics, for once, had nothing to do with it, save perhaps that regulators, which are the politicians' responsibility, should have been better able to spot what was going on.

    But the Streetwise Professor is only just getting started with the counterfactual misinformation:

    It is definitely desirable to have mechanisms to hold financial malfeasors accountable, but the Deutsche episode illustrates several difficulties. The first is that even the biggest entities can be judgment proof, and imposing judgments on them can have disastrous economic externalities. Another is that there is a considerable degree of arbitrariness in the process, and the results of the process. There is little due process here, and the risks and costs of litigation mean that the outcome of attempts to hold bankers accountable is the result of a negotiation between the state and large financial institutions that is carried out in a highly politicized environment in which emotions and narratives are likely to trump facts. There is room for serious doubt about the quality of justice that results from this process.

    A casual skim could leave the reader with the impression that the Streetwise Professor is lamenting, rightly, the persistency of the TBTF model. But there's something really dastardly being concocted here - the notion that in our societies, the rule of law is always and inevitably fallible and not fit for the purpose of bringing errant TBTFs to justice. And that, if a case is brought against a TBTF like Deutsche, then it can't help but become a political football.

    Yes, I'd always be the first to agree with the proverb "In Heaven you get justice, here on Earth we have the law". The law and our legal systems are not perfect. But they are not that shabby either. Any quick parse through the judgments which the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.K. Supreme Court or the European Court of Justice (to name only a few) hand down on complex cases - often running to hundreds or even a thousand pages - demonstrates that courts can and do consider fairly and justly the evidence that prosecutors present and make balanced rulings. And banks can utilize the same legal safeguards that the law provides - they're not likely to be short of good legal advice options. Trying, as the Steetwise Professor does, to claim that the TBTFs can't get justice is an insult to our judicial systems and acceptance of this notion followed by any routine repetition serves to undermine faith in the rule of law.

    If it is regulatory interventions, rather than criminal indictments, that the Streetwise Professor is referring to, the banks can and do leave no political stone unturned in their efforts to water down, delay and neuter regulatory bodies. Look , if you can do so without wincing, at what has happened to the SEC.

    It wasn't a " pre-crisis political bargain " that caused the Global Financial Crisis. It was financial innovation that was supposed to "free" the financial services industry to allow it to soar to ever greater heights, heights that couldn't be reached with cumbersome "legacy" thinking. If that sounds a lot like Mike Hearn's Blockchain justifications, it's because it is exactly the same thing.

    In summary, when you throw brickbats at a fellow blogger, it seems to me that you have a moral obligation to put your cards on the table, to explain your motivations. I don't have to write for a living ("just as well", I hear forbearing readers shout back). I don't take a penny from Naked Capitalism's hard-wrung fundraisers, although Yves has generously offered a very modest stipend in line with other contributors, I cannot conscientiously take anything for what I submit. I write in the hope that I have some small insights that would help to undo some of the damage which big finance has done to our cultures, our shared values and our aspirations for what we hope the future will be for us and others.

    That's what motivates me, anyway. After reading his output, I'm really still not at all sure what is motivating the Streetwise Professor. Certainly there is nothing at all to suggest that he is interested in rebuking or revising any of the traditional thought-forms which pass for the so-called science of economics. Conventional economic theory is the ultimate in betrayal of the use of rational methodology to provide air-cover for élite power grabs. It'll take more than a refutation of Blockchain spin to convince me that the Streetwise Professor is ready to kick away the more odious ladders - like being a professional economist - that have given him the leg-ups to the lofty perch he enjoys occupying.

    About Clive

    Survivor of nearly 30 years in a TBTF bank. Also had the privilege of working in Japan, which was great, selling real estate, which was an experience bordering on the psychedelic. View all posts by Clive →

    vlade November 14, 2016 at 7:15 am

    I disagree on the first bit. Even at this blog, Yves mentiones not quite rarely the dangers of tight coupling. The central exchanges create exactly that. Yes, the FU option of OTC is dangerous. But then, everything is dangerous, and if I have to choose between tight coupling dangerous option and loose coupling one, I'll chose the lose coupling one.

    The problem is that the regulators refused to recognise that the institutions gamed the regulations – moving stuff from trading to banking books. It is recognised now, under the new regulation, although I still have some doubts about its effectivness.

    To me all the para says is: markets demand services, and CCP don't offer them – and don't have to. Regulators demand services (to be offered by CCP), and CCP deliver.

    And sorry, I also disagree with your "markets participants demand". The text says "services [ ] are demanded [by potential clients and by regulators]". I can't honestly see what's the problem with that. Of course, regulatory demand, and a client demand are two different things – the former you ignore at your peril, the second you can ignore to your heart's content.

    But markets (or, I'd say agents that want to purchase – or sell) _always_ demand something, and always offer something – otherwise there would not be any market or exchange of services (it doesn't have to be there even with offer and demand, but in the absence of one it definitely won't be there).

    You could happily change the word to "require" "want" etc. and the meaning of the para would remain unchanged.

    Clive Post author November 14, 2016 at 8:20 am

    The problem I had with the notion that OTC reduces tight coupling is that it gives the appearance of reducing tight couple but doesn't actually do this. While "the market" is functioning within its expected parameters, OTC is less tightly coupled than an Exchange. But as we saw first-hand in the GFC, those markets function, right up until the point where they don't. By continuing to function, or certainly giving the appearances of continuing to be functioning, they hide the stresses which are building up within them but no-one can see. Unless you are deeply plumbed in to the day-to-day operational activities of the OTC market and can spot signs - and that's all they are, signs, you don't get to take a view of the whole edifice - you simply don't have a clue. There were, at most, only a couple of dozen people in the organisation itself and outside it who knew that my TBTF was a day away from being unable to open for business. That was entirely down to information asymmetry and that asymmetry was 100% down to OTC prevalence.

    And all the while TBTF isn't fixed, then as soon as the OTC market(s) fall off a cliff, the public provision backstops can be forced to kick in. Yes, everything is dangerous. I don't mind people doing dangerous things. But I do mind an awful lot being asked to pick up the pieces when their dangerous things blow up in their faces and they expect me to sort the mess out. If that is the dynamic, and to me, it most definitely is, then I want the actors who are engaged in the dangerous things to be highly visible, I want them right where I can see them. Not hiding their high-risk activities in an OTC venue that I'm not privy to.

    And I stick by my objection to the - what I can't see how it isn't being deliberate - fuzziness or obfuscation about who gets to "demand" and who is merely allowed "invite" parties to a transaction to either perform or not perform of their own volition. This isn't an incidental semantic about vocabulary. It goes to the heart of what's wrong with the Streetwise Professor's assessment of innovation.

    Innovation must never be viewed only through separate, disconnected lenses of "technology", "politics", "ethics", "economics", "power relationships" and "morality". Each specific innovation is subject to and either lives or dies by the interplay between these forces. My biggest lambaste of the Streetwise Professor's commentaries is that he examines them only in terms of "technology" and "economics". In doing so, he reaches partial and inaccurate conclusions.

    A 10 year old child might "demand", "require", "ask for", "insist", "claim a right to have" (use whatever word or phrase you like there) a gun and live ammunition. But they are not, and should not be, permitted to enter into a transaction to obtain the said gun and ammo based only on the availability of the technology and the economics that would allow them to satisfy the seller's market clearing sale price if they saved their pocket money for a sufficient amount of time. The other forces I listed in my above paragraph are also involved, and just as well.

    Ulysses November 14, 2016 at 9:30 am

    "Innovation must never be viewed only through separate, disconnected lenses of "technology", "politics", "ethics", "economics", "power relationships" and "morality". Each specific innovation is subject to and either lives or dies by the interplay between these forces."

    Very well said. I would argue further that "power relationships" structure how all the other lenses actually operate. In the early sixteenth century the power relationship between the Church, and Martin Luther, was such that the latter had an opening to redefine "morality"– in such a way that the Pope's moral opinion was eventually no longer dispositive for Protestants.

    In other words, the French invasion of Italy, late in the fifteenth century, weakened the papal states enough to allow for defiance.

    Ulysses November 14, 2016 at 10:02 am

    That last sentence, is of course a gross over-simplification! Anyone wishing to know the nitty-gritty details of how foreign domination over the Italian peninsula was established by the middle of the sixteenth century should read Machiavelli and Guicciardini.

    The latter author's appeal to skepticism, when interpreting the actions and motivations of powerful people, rings very true five centuries later:

    " perché di accidenti tanto memorabili si intendino i consigli e i fondamenti; i quali spesso sono occulti, e divulgati il piů delle volte in modo molto lontano da quell che č vero."

    ( Storia d'Italia , XVI, vi)

    animalogic November 15, 2016 at 5:12 am

    "Yes, everything is dangerous. I don't mind people doing dangerous things. But I do mind an awful lot being asked to pick up the pieces when their dangerous things blow up in their faces".

    I agree - however, "I don't mind people doing dangerous things" should require a little elucidation. What you likely meant to say was you don't mind people doing dangerous things, WITHIN REASON.

    And let's face it, much of the prior GFC behaviour was unreasonably dangerous. As it turned out, not that dangerous to its perpetrators .

    Danger, like risk, is a cost-benefit calculation. When that calculation ONLY includes benefits for its originator & suppresses any (real & calculatable) cost for the community it's already looking suspiciously like an unreasonable danger .

    Uahsenaa November 14, 2016 at 9:04 am

    The problem is that the regulators refused to recognise that the institutions gamed the regulations – moving stuff from trading to banking books. It is recognised now, under the new regulation, although I still have some doubts about its effectivness.

    Also, there is the rank unwillingness on the part of regulators to, you know, actually do their jobs. I can no longer count the number of times Yellen has sat in front of the Senate banking committee like a deer in headlights as Warren tries to get her to give anything like a straight answer as to why, to this day, many if not most TBTFs have no rapid selloff/solvency plan (which is required by the Dodd-Frank law) or why those banks that fail their stress tests (again and again) suffer no consequences as a result.

    How is any of this supposed to work when so many are clearly acting in bad faith?

    bmeisen November 14, 2016 at 9:06 am

    Bravo bravo encore encore! Especially the characterization of Sorkin and the account of the crisis at the start of exhibit B. Clive for President!

    Synoia November 14, 2016 at 9:44 am

    Earning your living in finance or the related co-dependent fields such as economics, business management, certain areas of law and, most especially, information technology, you quickly pick up on the cult mentality that pervades it.

    If you do not subscribe to the "cult mentality," although I'd prefer to call it a dogma, because it is a unswerving belief in an unproven fact in the face of evidence the fact is not only unproven, but wrong, one is "not a team player" and then penalized.

    If these libertarian want "open markets" and innovation they have to shed the human response to proof. In their behavior they are no better than the medieval pope, and his court, who did not want to believe a the earth travels around the sun.

    WJ November 14, 2016 at 8:32 pm

    Medieval popes were probably more open to Pythagorean/Copernican cosmologies than early 17th century Jesuits (i.e. Bellarmine); the opposition of the latter to Galileo had nothing to do with science and everything to do with Protestantism and Protestant biblical interpretation. Bellarmine was wrong and what happened to Galileo was shameful. But many of the best astronomers of the time were in fact Jesuits, and the traditional way the story is told is inaccurate on almost every level (and a product of late 19th century Italian nationalism).

    susan the other November 14, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    this was very interesting stuff. Since a lot of things were coming together in the 90s and 2000s that were all connected in a mess too big to understand simply as immoral banking (freeing up capital like that was crazy but there must have been a reason to try it besides windfall profiteering and flat-out gambling), I imagine the following: Greenspan and the TBTFs knew returns were diminishing and set out to do something about it. Because growth and expanding markets were the only thing that could keep up with a demand by pension funds (and then little Bush's idiotic war) for a minimum 8% return. But growth was slowing down so the situation required clever manipulations and incomprehensible things like financial derivatives. Makes sense to me. And if this is even partially true then there was a political mandate all mixed up with the GFC. The banks really did crazy stuff, but with the blessing of the Fed. Later when Bernanke said about QE and nirp: "now we are in uncharted territory" he was fibbing – the Fed had been in uncharted territory, trying to make things work, for almost 20 years. And failing.

    madame de farge November 14, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    Excellent points, I thought that the Bush Wars were initiated to alleviate an oncoming recession as well as ensure W's reelection

    It did take them a while to get the pieces in place, the Banksters Real Estate Fraud Appraisals were identified as early as 2000, then the Banksters Fraudulent Loans peaked in 2006, and then we had the Banksters Fraudulent Reps and Warranties .

    WORSE then a bunch of Used Car Salesman, but what else would you expect from people who KEEP the State Income taxes withheld from their employees checks

    Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 12:00 am

    > "how long does that take" and he said "minimum of ten years, 15 is better"

    Via Extra, Extra – Read All About It: Nearly All Binary Searches and Mergesorts are Broken Google Research, 2006:

    This bug can manifest itself for arrays whose length (in elements) is 230 or greater (roughly a billion elements). This was inconceivable back in the '80s, when Programming Pearls was written, but it is common these days at Google and other places. In Programming Pearls, Bentley says "While the first binary search was published in 1946, the first binary search that works correctly for all values of n did not appear until 1962." The truth is, very few correct versions have ever been published, at least in mainstream programming languages.

    Sorting is, or ought to be, basic blocking and tackling. Very smart, not corrupt people worked on this. And yet, 2006 – 1946 = 60 years later, bugs are still being discovered.

    The nice thing about putting your cash in a coffee can in the back yard is that it won't evaporate because some hacker gets clever about big numbers.

    flora November 14, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Ah, the neo-liberals and the libertarians make their arguments by redefining terms and eliding facts. Once the audience agrees that up is down, why then their arguments are reasonable, dispassionate, and offered in dulcet tones of humble sincerity and objectivity.

    What a pleasure, then, to read your cold water smack-down of their confidence game. Perhaps they believed their own nonsense. Who knows.

    flora November 14, 2016 at 8:28 pm

    What is the Streetwise Professor's (note the word "professor") real view? Has he thought much about it or simply imbibed his "owners'" views, making him a useful tool. I don't know.

    From the book "Listen, Liberal."

    " A third consequence of modern-day liberals' unquestioning, reflexive respect for expertise is their blindness to predatory behavior if it comes cloaked in the signifiers of professionalism. Take the sort of complexity we saw in the financial instruments that drove the last financial crisis. For old-school regulators, I am told, undue financial complexity was an indication of likely fraud. But for the liberal class, it is the opposite: an indicator of sophistication. Complexity is admirable in its own right. The difference in interpretation carries enormous consequences: Did Wall Street commit epic fraud, or are they highly advanced professionals who fell victim to epic misfortune? modern day liberals pretty much insist on the later view . Wall Street's veneer of professionalism is further buttressed by its technical jargon, which the financial industry uses to protect itself from the scrutiny of the public. "
    -Thomas Frank

    [Nov 15, 2016] M of A - Trump Rejects Neocon Turncoats - Russia Launches Aleppo Campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... Well, I will say this about President-Elect Trump, so far so good. Media justifiably discredited, neocons sucking air, Democratic Party doubling down on the stupid and self-destructing by selling out to Soros, what's not to like? ..."
    "... I was happy to hear that the old liberal Trump still exists. ..."
    "... I still have not heard any rumors about Lt. Gen. Flynn. I am very interested to know where he is assigned. I thought he would have 2nd pick after Sessions so either DoD, CIA or Head of the NSC. ..."
    "... As a lifelong liberal who voted for Trump primarily to keep to the warmongering wackjob Clinton out of power the early moves by Trump are promising. ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Wikipedia: Eliot A. Cohen
    ... co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was a center for prominent neoconservatives. He has been a member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, a committee of civilians and retired military officers that the U.S. Secretary of Defense may call upon for advice, that was instituted during the administration of President George W. Bush. He was put on the board after acquaintance Richard Perle put forward his name. Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as "World War IV". In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent persons who pressed for an invasion.

    Cohen in WaPo May 3 2016:

    It's over. Donald Trump, a man utterly unfit for the position by temperament, values and policy preferences, will be the Republican nominee for president. He will run against Hillary Clinton, who is easily the lesser evil ...

    Cohen in the NYT on May 17 2016:

    Mr. Trump's temperament, his proclivity for insult and deceit and his advocacy of unpredictability would make him a presidential disaster - especially in the conduct of foreign policy, where clarity and consistency matter.
    ...
    Hillary Clinton is far better: She believes in the old consensus and will take tough lines on China and, increasingly, Russia.

    Cohen in The American Interest on November 10 2016 (immediately after Trump won):

    Trump may be better than we think. He does not have strong principles about much, which means he can shift. He is clearly willing to delegate legislation to Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. And even abroad, his instincts incline him to increase U.S. strength-and to push back even against Russia if, as will surely happen, Putin double-crosses him. My guess is that sequester gets rolled back, as do lots of stupid regulations, and experiments in nudging and nagging Americans to behave the way progressives think they should.

    Cohen on Twitter November 15 2016

    Eliot A Cohen @EliotACohen

    After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly.

    Retweets 3,719 Likes 3,204
    5:07 AM - 15 Nov 2016

    I find the above very funny. How could that turncoat think he would be greeted by the Trump organization with anything but derision? Cohen believed he and his ilk would be welcome with candies and roses after insulting Trump in all major media? Who is the arrogant one in the above?

    Oh, by the way. Here is a headline from October 2013: President Obama to Republicans: I won. Deal with it . I do not remember Cohen, or anyone else, calling that "arrogant".

    While the papers are full of (badly) informed rumors about who will get this or that position in a Trump administration let's keep in mind that 90% of such rumors are just self promotions by people like Cohen who shill for the rumored job. That is why I will not write about John Bolton or Rudy Giuliani as coming Secretary of State. Both are possible (unqualified) candidates. But others are just as likely to get that position. We will only know who it is after the official release.

    Meanwhile Trump yesterday had a phonecall with the Russian President Putin. They discussed bilateral relations, Syria and fighting terrorism. Today the Russian and Syrian military started the long expected big campaign against the "moderate" al-Qaeda in east-Aleppo city and Idleb governate. Air strikes on east-Aleppo had been held back for 28 days. Today missiles and cruise missiles were launched against fixed targets and dozens of carrier and land launched airplanes attacked Nusra position on the various front and in its rear. Long range bombers flown from Russia joined the campaign. Trump seems to have voiced no objections to this offensive.

    The Russian military has upped its air defense in Syria. Additional to the S-400 system around its airport in Latakia seven S-300 systems were deployed as a screen against U.S. cruise missile attacks. These are joined by rehabilitated Syrian S-200 system and Pantsyr S-1 short range systems for point defense. This should be enough to deter any stupid idea the Pentagon hawks, or dumb neocons like Eliot Cohen, might have.

    Posted by b on November 15, 2016 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

    kafkananda | Nov 15, 2016 12:30:47 PM | 2
    Well, I will say this about President-Elect Trump, so far so good. Media justifiably discredited, neocons sucking air, Democratic Party doubling down on the stupid and self-destructing by selling out to Soros, what's not to like?

    A lot sure to come, no doubt. But for now, go Donald!

    woogs | Nov 15, 2016 12:36:49 PM | 3
    I've never known a president-elect to have such an effect right after an election. It's like a house of cards falling. Hell, at this rate, Trump may be able to declare 'mission accomplished' before even taking office!!! j/k :)
    AnEducatedFool | Nov 15, 2016 12:39:17 PM | 4
    Thank you for this summary. Trump will be a mixed bag especially in domestic politics. I was happy to hear that the old liberal Trump still exists. He may appoint an openly gay man to a Cabinet position (I do not know if this is tokenism or not). If his appointments follow policy then I think a lot of Clinton crybabies in the streets will have a harder time gaining traction with the social justice warriors.

    I sometimes used Cohen's WWIV statement to see how strongly a person held their neo-conservative positions. Only a few knew what I was talking about during the 2nd Iraq War. I'm glad that is he gone. I hope Trump can pull in some realists but I do not know where these people exist anymore. People like that are typically weeded out at lower levels.

    I still have not heard any rumors about Lt. Gen. Flynn. I am very interested to know where he is assigned. I thought he would have 2nd pick after Sessions so either DoD, CIA or Head of the NSC.

    stumpy | Nov 15, 2016 12:43:45 PM | 5
    Ironic, shifting the balance of power over Syria means denial of both a successful coalition air campaign as well as opportunity for stupid bait operation to create pretext for retaliation. Queen against wall of pawns.
    Denis | Nov 15, 2016 12:46:07 PM | 6
    1
    Timelines are the most valuable tool of all in outing ponderous idiots. Thanks, b.
    Here's one for idiot Paul Krugman.

    Nov09 (day after election) – PK: The markets are in free-fall, the recession has begun, it will "never" end.

    Reality: the markets were going thought the roof. Dow Jones went straight up and past it's previous high.

    Nov11 – PK: I have rethought what I said on Nov09 and there's a chance the markets will take the elections results well.

    Nov14 – PK: After giving my Nov09 prediction some thought, I "quickly" retracted it.

    Yeah, you moran. You retracted it after seeing it was 180 degrees wrong and everyone can now see that your fear-mongering about markets was just more of your bullshit.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    2
    b: "That is why I will not write about John Bolton or Rudy Giuliani as coming Secretary of State. Both are possible (unqualified) candidates. "

    You just did.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    3.
    b: "Today the Russian and Syrian military started the long expected big campaign against the "moderate" al-Qaeda in east-Aleppo city and Idleb governate."

    I don't know about Aleppo. Here's RT earlier today:

    " The Russian military has launched a large-scale operation against terrorists stationed in Homs and Idlib provinces of Syria, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said on Tuesday."

    /snip

    "Journalists asked presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov about the possibility of the operation which started on Tuesday to be expanded to include Aleppo. 'Aleppo has not been mentioned in the report of the defense minister; it concerned other areas – Homs and Idlib [provinces],' Peskov told the press.

    /snip

    "Russian jets have not been in the vicinity of Aleppo for the last 28 days"

    Joanne Leon | Nov 15, 2016 1:05:50 PM | 7
    You just can't make this stuff up. The tantrum Cohen threw on Twitter was just amazing.

    Anyway, I look forward to the time when we, in America, stop providing such crazy entertainment for the world world.

    We're exhausted.

    okie farmer | Nov 15, 2016 1:07:45 PM | 8
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-aleppo-idUSKBN13A16O
    Intense air strikes resumed in rebel-held districts of eastern Aleppo after a weeks-long pause on Tuesday, killing at least three people, residents and a war monitor said.
    Syrian state television said the Damascus government's air force took part in strikes against "terrorist strongholds" in Aleppo's Old City while Russia said it had struck Islamic State and former Nusra Front sites elsewhere in Syria, without mentioning Aleppo.
    The bombardment appeared to mark the end of a pause in strikes on targets inside the city declared by Syria's government and Russia on Oct 18.
    ~~~
    On Monday and early Tuesday, air strikes hit hospitals in three towns and villages in rebel-held areas to the west of Aleppo, putting them all out of action. Damascus and Moscow both deny targeting hospitals.
    Other strikes, including some by suspected Russian cruise missiles, hit Saraqeb in Idlib, a province near Aleppo where many of the rebel factions have a large presence.
    Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Tuesday Russia had launched attacks in Idlib and Homs provinces using missiles and jets from the country's only aircraft carrier, which recently arrived in the eastern Mediterranean.
    okie farmer | Nov 15, 2016 1:13:45 PM | 9
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-russia-mideast-idUSKBN13A2CN?il=0
    Russia has long-term ambitions in the Middle East: Israeli official
    By Luke Baker | JERUSALEM
    Israel should be concerned about the deepening disconnect between Russia's aims in the Middle East and its own goals, according to a senior Israeli official who held high-level meetings in Moscow last week.
    Avi Dichter, chairman of Israel's foreign affairs and defense committee and the former head of the Shin Bet intelligence agency, said Russia's views on Iran, Syria's Bashar al-Assad and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah were in sharp contrast to Israel's and a growing source of potential conflict.
    While he said Moscow appreciates the good ties it has with Israel and takes the diplomatic relationship seriously, it won't hesitate to impose actions that serve its interests on any countries in the Middle East, including Israel.

    "The gap between us and them is large and disturbing," Dichter said in summing up discussions with senior members of Russia's upper and lower houses of parliament, the deputy defense minister and the deputy head of national security.

    "Russia thinks and acts as a superpower and as such it often ignores Israeli interest when it doesn't coincide with the Russian interest," he said.

    Ron Showalter | Nov 15, 2016 1:19:02 PM | 10
    Wow, more insightful analysis about the US!!!! FAIL.

    Um, James Woolsey of PNAC was Trump's advisor. He was also financially backed by Adelson who is one of the people who FUNDS the neocons or are we not going to talk about the neocon's Zionist roots?

    Gee, b, could the neocons have everyone in their pocket or do thoughts like that get in the way of your devotion to this fascist girl-raping piece of garbage, Trump?

    I can't remember, did Berlusconi send a shiver down your spine as well, b?

    Erelis | Nov 15, 2016 1:28:20 PM | 13
    Does this mean that Victoria Nuland will be fired? Actually, can she be fired? or at at least transferred to the embassy in Outer Mongolia?
    Jackrabbit | Nov 15, 2016 1:29:54 PM | 14
    Judging solely by the evident hysterical efforts to undermine Trump since the election, I'd say b is very correct in his assessment.

    It appears that the Democrats and neocons have learned nothing (as I warned). They will double-down on bullshit and spite.

    psychohistorian | Nov 15, 2016 1:54:14 PM | 15
    Here is another example of folks trying get in front of the Trump train and turn it into a parade.

    "Trump has pledged to change things in Washington -- about draining the swamp. He is going to need some people to help guide him through the swamp -- how do you get in and how do you get out? We are prepared to help do that."
    -former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, speaking on behalf of Squire Patton Boggs, the lobbying firm he works for

    Yul | Nov 15, 2016 1:54:28 PM | 16
    @ 13 Erelis

    Nuland has managed to "burrow" herself - convert their political slot to permanent one at Foggy Bottom since Strobe Talbot after Bill Clinton's terms.
    There are quite a few Israel firsters like her: Jeffrey Feltman is another one.

    Yul | Nov 15, 2016 2:01:01 PM | 18
    This picture is enough to remove Giuliani, Bolton and Newt as prospects for Secretary of State:

    http://irananders.de/uploads/pics/PaMEK.jpg

    rg the lg | Nov 15, 2016 2:13:54 PM | 19
    What have the poor people of Outer Mongolia ever done to deserve this: "Does this mean that Victoria Nuland will be fired? Actually, can she be fired? or at at least transferred to the embassy in Outer Mongolia?" I think all of the neo-cons should replace current prisoners at Gitmo, along with BOTH Clintons, Obama, G W Bush, Cheney, et al. Then subjected to all sorts of 'information gathering techniques' ...

    I mean, fair is fair.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 15, 2016 2:19:52 PM | 20
    Ha ha.
    Obama has called a press conference to deliver a lecture about the consequences of a descent into 'tribalism'.
    One hopes that Bibi and the pro-"Israel" crowd are paying attention...
    chipnik | Nov 15, 2016 2:22:11 PM | 21
    Let's hope that all the radical rabbinical right-wing fascists like Cohen and Nuland and Bolton can be pressed to death with stones at Foggy Bottom Swamp.
    Very tiny stones, lol. Like Death of 3,035,795,900,000 Cuts they impose on US.

    I did some math on Mil.Gov.Fed. There are 6,800 banks in the US, and an average bank robbery in the US nets ~$10,000. If every bank in the US was robbed every 10 minutes, of every day, throughout every month, for the entire year, that would equal the yearly depredation of our last life savings by OneParty of Mil.Gov.Fed.

    That's 6,800 211A police bank robbery calls, every 10 minutes, forever, and that doesn't include $T a year interest-only forever payments on their odious 'debt'.

    Maybe pressed to death with damp pig dung would be more appropriate for them.

    Stevens | Nov 15, 2016 2:31:58 PM | 23
    @AnEducatedFool

    "Thank you for this summary. Trump will be a mixed bag especially in domestic politics. I was happy to hear that the old liberal Trump still exists. He may appoint an openly gay man to a Cabinet position (I do not know if this is tokenism or not). If his appointments follow policy then I think a lot of Clinton crybabies in the streets will have a harder time gaining traction with the social justice warriors."

    Yes.

    As a lifelong liberal who voted for Trump primarily to keep to the warmongering wackjob Clinton out of power the early moves by Trump are promising.

    As someone who lived lived through the 1980s I remember how telling people how concerned and fearful you were of nuclear war was most something you did in an attempt to make yourself look 'deep'.

    This past six month have been the first time in my life where I was found myself really being afraid. Sitting in my safe home that has never been touched by war it has been a sobering shock of just how close the frantic push for all out war with Russia by Clinton and her army of neocon cronies infesting the US government came to killing tens or hundreds of millions of people.

    It is going to be a painful four years for a large number of liberal issues but the avoidance of the horror of an actual all out war between two nuclear powers is worth the pain on many social and environmental issues.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 15, 2016 2:51:07 PM | 28
    ...
    I hope Trump can pull in some realists but I do not know where these people exist anymore. People like that are typically weeded out at lower levels.
    ...
    Posted by: AnEducatedFool | Nov 15, 2016 12:39:17 PM | 4

    Don't fret. Trump is a gifted personnel picker with a flair for innovation.
    In 1980 he (very unfashionably) appointed a woman as the construction project manager for Trump Tower, a task she performed with remarkable expertise.

    mauisurfer | Nov 15, 2016 2:54:59 PM | 29
    Bacevich for Secretary of State!
    Or at least Secretary of Defense.
    Would be great to see Chas Freeman nominated for Sec/State but
    GOP/Neocons/Zionists blocked him from lesser post under Obama.
    Circe | Nov 15, 2016 2:58:43 PM | 30
    Here we have a Zionist neocon think tank where both Woolsey, senior advisor to Trump since September, and Cohen are both on the Board.

    http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/about/board-of-advisors/

    Here we have Woolsey quoting and adopting Cohen's WWIV theory (I wonder who they think the parties will be for WWIII) and Woolsey has even referred to Cohen as my friend just this month!

    I have adopted Eliot Cohen's formulation, distinguished professor at Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, that we are in World War IV, World War III having been the Cold War. And I think Eliot's formulation fits the circumstances really better than describing this as a war on terrorism.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/021116-ww4.htm

    His friend:

    http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/james-woolsey-discusses-cias-role-in-fighting-terrorism/

    But hey, keep on dreaming that Trump isn't all in with the Zionist/Neocon gang.

    Ron Showalter | Nov 15, 2016 3:00:05 PM | 33
    Yes, I do think you get your news from the MSM and what is worse is that you actually believe it just like b.

    Gee, do you think that having all of the neocons tell the MSM - and thus you - that they really support HRC had anything to do with how much you, b and the other bedwetters p!ssed themselves about OMG!1!! WWIII!!1!!1 especially as those announcements came out in March - now listen closely - when HRC WAS RUNNING AGAINST BS?

    Why, that sure was fuel to the fire for Bernie-bros, huh?

    By deception thou shall wage war, huh?

    Gee, I can't think of a worse poison pill for a fake-left Democratic candidate than to have the endorsements of the neocons, can you? Why, that might even sway some easily fooled MSM-imbibers as to whose string the neocons might end up pulling in the end, huh?

    Why, maybe do ya think they might sway even more people by PUBLICLY tweeting about just HOW MUCH they still hate that dastardly Trump, y'know, the same guy who was backed by the world's richest Zionist Jew and who was advised by James Woosley throughout his campaign?

    No one - but especially Israeli-backing neocons - would never think to use subterfuge to get their way, huh?

    But you and b and all the rest here don't pay attention to the MSM, huh? You all just happened to have been parroting the "neocons love HRC" line that was first found in the MSM, huh?

    Does not compute, scaredy cat.

    fintor | Nov 15, 2016 3:02:28 PM | 35
    Trump got 5million campaign money from Sheldon Anderson.. maybe he's just paying dues.. http://fortune.com/2016/09/20/donald-trump-donation/
    Ron Showalter | Nov 15, 2016 3:03:12 PM | 36
    @31

    Um, do you know who Sheldon Adelson is?

    Do you know where POTUS-elect Trump gave his first post-stolen-election interview?

    But that's ok, projection is so Zionist traitor sexy like.

    OleImmigrant | Nov 15, 2016 3:23:28 PM | 40
    Names have been floated for this and that positions in the Trump Administration but I haven't seen Pat Buchanan been named for anything; or have I skipped too much comments? I rather think much of Buchanan's world views are in line with Trump's, and he should make a sensible Secretary of State.
    ALberto | Nov 15, 2016 3:46:56 PM | 43
    Norm MacDonald the Canadian humorist was fired from Saturday Night Live in 1998 for allegedly telling to many O.J. Simpson jokes. This 25 minute compilation video illustrates that the real reason was most likely that Norm made fun of the Clinton's life of crime by actually stating their crime spree facts disguised as humor?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnw8JRpXdAc

    Ghostship | Nov 15, 2016 4:14:24 PM | 46
    Maybe Putin told Trump "the sooner we (Russia, Syria, etc. clear out Al Qaeda, the sooner we deal with ISIS". An offer Trump would be an idiot to refuse, not that I think he's an idiot. Hopefully, the moronic BS we had to put up with from Obama, Cameron, Hollande, The Grauniad, New York Times, etc. about how Russia, Syria, weren't attacking ISIS but were attacking "moderate" Al Qaeda will soon go away.
    B2 | Nov 15, 2016 4:31:44 PM | 48
    "Vice President-elect Mike Pence is the best person to shape the transition effort, with the president-elect's input, Trump spokesman Jason Miller said."

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-15/trump-transition-stalls-as-kushner-said-to-oust-christie-allies

    [Nov 15, 2016] The Trump Doctrine The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... On Sunday's "60 Minutes," Trump said: "You know, we've been fighting this war for 15 years. … We've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion - we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete." ..."
    "... They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea. ..."
    "... At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and preached a global crusade for democracy "to end tyranny in our world." ..."
    "... Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin's country. ..."
    "... The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit, and to the vital interests of the United States. ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    However Donald Trump came upon the foreign policy views he espoused, they were as crucial to his election as his views on trade and the border. Yet those views are hemlock to the GOP foreign policy elite and the liberal Democratic interventionists of the Acela Corridor. Trump promised an "America First" foreign policy rooted in the national interest, not in nostalgia. The neocons insist that every Cold War and post-Cold War commitment be maintained, in perpetuity.

    On Sunday's "60 Minutes," Trump said: "You know, we've been fighting this war for 15 years. … We've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion - we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete."

    Yet the War Party has not had enough of war, not nearly.

    They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.

    They want to establish a no-fly zone and shoot down Syrian and Russian planes that violate it, acts of war Congress never authorized.

    They want to trash the Iran nuclear deal, though all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies told us, with high confidence, in 2007 and 2011, Iran did not even have a nuclear weapons program.

    Other hardliners want to face down Beijing over its claims to the reefs and rocks of the South China Sea, though our Manila ally is talking of tightening ties to China and kicking us out of Subic Bay.

    In none of these places is there a U.S. vital interest so imperiled as to justify the kind of war the War Party would risk.

    Trump has the opportunity to be the president who, like Harry Truman, redirected U.S. foreign policy for a generation.

    After World War II, we awoke to find our wartime ally, Stalin, had emerged as a greater enemy than Germany or Japan. Stalin's empire stretched from the Elbe to the Pacific.

    In 1949, suddenly, he had the atom bomb, and China, the most populous nation on earth, had fallen to the armies of Mao Zedong.

    As our situation was new, Truman acted anew. He adopted a George Kennan policy of containment of the world Communist empire, the Truman Doctrine, and sent an army to prevent South Korea from being overrun.

    At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and preached a global crusade for democracy "to end tyranny in our world."

    A policy born of hubris.

    Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin's country.

    How did we expect Russian patriots to react?

    The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit, and to the vital interests of the United States.

    What should Trump say?

    Then Trump should move expeditiously to lay out and fix the broad outlines of his foreign policy, which entails rebuilding our military while beginning the cancellation of war guarantees that have no connection to U.S. vital interests. We cannot continue to bankrupt ourselves to fight other countries' wars or pay other countries' bills.

    The ideal time for such a declaration, a Trump Doctrine, is when the president-elect presents his secretaries of state and defense.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .

    [Nov 14, 2016] Clintons electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation

    Notable quotes:
    "... The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by 11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent. ..."
    "... Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation ..."
    "... Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the working class, regardless of race or gender. ..."
    Nov 14, 2016 | www.wsws.org
    The elections saw a massive shift in party support among the poorest and wealthiest voters. The share of votes for the Republicans amongst the most impoverished section of workers, those with family incomes under $30,000, increased by 10 percentage points from 2012. In several key Midwestern states, the swing of the poorest voters toward Trump was even larger: Wisconsin (17-point swing), Iowa (20 points), Indiana (19 points) and Pennsylvania (18 points).

    The swing to Republicans among the $30,000 to $50,000 family income range was 6 percentage points. Those with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 swung away from the Republicans compared to 2012 by 2 points.

    The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by 11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent.

    Clinton was unable to make up for the vote decline among women (2.1 million), African Americans (3.2 million), and youth (1.2 million), who came overwhelmingly from the poor and working class, with the increase among the rich (1.3 million).

    Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation.

    Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the working class, regardless of race or gender.

    [Nov 14, 2016] Note on the signs of decline of the US neoliberal empire

    crookedtimber.org

    likbez 11.15.16 at 1:19 am 93

    Salazar 11.14.16 at 12:11 am #18

    > How is the American Empire in decline? And how do we measure its decline?
    We can only speculate about signs of decline. From WaTimes ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/29/cal-thomas-america-shows-decline-signs-of-empires-/ )
    British diplomat John Glubb wrote a book called "The Fate of Empires and Search For Survival." Glubb noted that the average age of empires since the time of ancient Assyria (859-612 B.C.) is 250 years. Only the Mameluke Empire in Egypt and the Levant (1250-1517) made it as far as 267 years. America is 238 years old and is exhibiting signs of decline. All empires begin, writes Glubb, with the age of pioneers, followed by ages of conquest, commerce, affluence, intellect and decadence. America appears to have reached the age of decadence, which Glubb defines as marked by "defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, the welfare state, [and] a weakening of religion."

    The most important is probably the fact that the ideology of the current US empire -- neoliberalism (called here "liberal progressivism") -- became discredited after 2008. What happened after the collapse of the Marxist ideology with the USSR is well known. It took 46 years (if we assume that the collapse started in 1945 as the result of victory in WWII, when the Soviet army has a chance to see the standard of living in Western countries). Why the USA should be different ? Decline of empires is very slow and can well take a half a century. Let's say it might take 50 years from 9/11 or October 2008.

    One telling sign is the end of "American hegemony" in the global political sphere. One telling sign is the end of "American hegemony" in the global political sphere. As Lupita hypothesized here Trump might be the last desperate attempt to reverse this process.

    Another, the deterioration of the standard of living of the USA population and declining infrastructure, both typically are connected with the overextension of empire. In Fortune ( http://fortune.com/2015/07/20/united-states-decline-statistics-economic/ ) Jill Coplan lists 12 signs of the decline.

    Trump election is another sign of turmoil. The key message of his election is "The institutions we once trusted deceived us" That includes the Democratic Party and all neoliberal MSM. Like was the case with the USSR, the loss of influence of neoliberal propaganda machine is a definite sign of the decline of empire.

    Degeneration of the neoliberal political elite that is also clearly visible in the current set of presidential candidates might be another sign. Hillary Clinton dragged to the car on 9/11 commemorative event vividly reminds the state of health of a couple of members of Soviet Politburo .

    See also:

    [Nov 14, 2016] Three Myths About Clintons Defeat in Election 2016 Debunked

    Notable quotes:
    "... Because the following talking points prevent a (vulgar) identity politics -dominated Democrat Party from owning its loss, debunking them is then important beyond winning your Twitter wars. I'm trying to spike the Blame Cannons! ..."
    "... Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin. ..."
    "... These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump. Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump . ..."
    "... The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total, but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.) ..."
    "... And so, for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that counties who voted for the black man in 2012 were racist because they didn't vote for the white women in 2016. Bringing me, I suppose, to sexism. ..."
    "... These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump's unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he'd be the greatest job producer who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill's. ..."
    "... pink slips have hit entire neighbourhoods, and towns. The angry white working class men who voted in such strength for Trump do not live in an emotional vacuum. They are loved by white working class women – their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers, who participate in their remaindered pain. I t is everywhere in the interviews. "My dad lost his business", "My husband hasn't been the same since his job at the factory went away" . ..."
    "... So, for this talking point to be true, you have to believe that sexism simultaneously increased the male vote for Trump, yet did not increase the female vote for Clinton. Shouldn't they move in opposite directions? ..."
    "... First, even assuming that the author's happy but unconscious conflation of credentials with education is correct, it wasn't the "dunces" who lost two wars, butchered the health care system, caused the financial system to collapse through accounting control fraud, or invented the neoliberal ideology that was kept real wages flat for forty years and turned the industrial heartland into a wasteland. That is solely, solely down to - only some , to be fair - college-educated voters. It is totally and 100% not down to the "dunces"; they didn't have the political or financial power to achieve debacles on the grand scale. ..."
    "... Second, the "dunces" were an important part of Obama's victories ..."
    "... Not only has polling repeatedly underplayed the importance of white voters without college degrees, it's underplayed their importance to the Obama coalition: They were one-third of Obama votes in 2012. They filled the gap between upper-class whites and working-class nonwhites. Trump gained roughly 15 percentage points with them compared to Romney in 2012. ..."
    "... "No, you are ignorant! You threw away the vote and put Trump in charge." Please, it will be important to know what derogatory camp you belong in when the blame game swings into full gear. *snark ..."
    "... 'Stupid' was the word I got very tired of in my social net. Two variant targets: ..."
    "... 1) Blacks for not voting their interests. The responses included 'we know who our enemies are' and 'don't tell me what to think.' ..."
    "... Mostly it was vs rural, non-college educated. iirc, it was the Secretary of Agriculture, pleading for funds, who said the rural areas were where military recruits came from. A young fella I know, elite football player on elite non-urban HS team, said most of his teammates had enlisted. So they are the ones getting shot at, having relatives and friends come back missing pieces of body and self. ..."
    "... My guy in the Reserves said the consensus was that if HRC got elected, they were going to war with Russia. Not enthused. Infantry IQ is supposedly average-80, but they know who Yossarian says the enemy is, e'en if they hant read the book. ..."
    Nov 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether of Corrente .

    This post is not an explainer about why and how Clinton lost (and Trump won). I think we're going to be sorting that out for awhile. Rather, it's a simple debunking of common talking points by Clinton loyalists and Democrat Establishment operatives; the sort of talking point you might hear on Twitter, entirely shorn of caveats and context. For each of the three talking points, I'll present an especially egregious version of the myth, followed by a rebuttals.

    Realize that Trump's margin of victory was incredibly small. From the Washington Post :

    How Trump won the presidency with razor-thin margins in swing states

    Of the more than 120 million votes cast in the 2016 election, 107,000 votes in three states [Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania] effectively decided the election.

    Of course, America's first-past-the-post system and the electoral college amplify small margins into decisive results. And it was the job of the Clinton campaign to find those 107,000 votes and win them; the Clinton operation turned out to be weaker than anyone would have imagined when it counted . However, because Trump has what might be called an institutional mandate - both the executive and legislative branches and soon, perhaps, the judicial - the narrowness of his margin means he doesn't have a popular mandate. Trump has captured the state, but by no means civil society; therefore, the opposition that seeks to delegitimize him is in a stronger position than it may realize.

    Hence the necessity for reflection; seeking truth from facts, as the saying goes. Because the following talking points prevent a (vulgar) identity politics -dominated Democrat Party from owning its loss, debunking them is then important beyond winning your Twitter wars. I'm trying to spike the Blame Cannons!

    Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Racism

    Here's a headline showing the talking point from a Vox explainer :

    Trump's win is a reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism

    The subtext here is usually that if you don't chime in with vehement agreement, you're a racist yourself, and possibly a racist Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is false.

    First, voter caring levels dropped from 2012 to 2016, especially among black Democrats . Carl Beijer :

    From 2012 to 2016, both men and women went from caring about the outcome to not caring. Among Democratic men and women, as well as Republican women, care levels dropped about 3-4 points; Republican men cared a little less too, but only by one point. Across the board, in any case, the plurality of voters simply didn't care.

    Beijer includes the following chart (based on Edison exit polling cross-referenced with total population numbers from the US Census):

    Beijer interprets:

    White voters cared even less in 2016 then in 2012, when they also didn't care; most of that apathy came from white Republicans compared to white Democrats, who dropped off a little less. Voters of color, in contrast, continued to care – but their care levels dropped even more, by 8 points (compared to the 6 point drop-off among white voters). Incredibly, that drop was driven entirely by a 9 point drop among Democratic voters of color which left Democrats with only slim majority 51% support; Republicans, meanwhile, actually gained support among people of color.

    Beijer's data is born out by anecdote from Milwaukee, Wisconsin :

    Urban areas, where black and Hispanic voters are concentrated along with college-educated voters, already leaned toward the Democrats, but Clinton did not get the turnout from these groups that she needed. For instance, black voters did not show up in the same numbers they did for Barack Obama, the first black president, in 2008 and 2012.

    Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin.

    Second, counties that voted for Obama in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016 . The Washington Post :

    These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump. Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump .

    The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total, but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.)

    Here's the chart:

    And so, for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that counties who voted for the black man in 2012 were racist because they didn't vote for the white women in 2016. Bringing me, I suppose, to sexism.

    Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Sexism

    Here's an article showing the talking point from Newsweek :

    This often vitriolic campaign was a national referendum on women and power.

    (The subtext here is usually that if you don't join the consensus cluster, you're a sexist yourself, and possibly a sexist Trump supporter). And if you only look at the averages this claim might seem true :

    On Election Day, women responded accordingly, as Clinton beat Trump among women 54 percent to 42 percent. They were voting not so much for her as against him and what he brought to the surface during his campaign: quotidian misogyny.

    There are two reasons this talking point is not true. First, averages conceal, and what they conceal is class . As you read further into the article, you can see it fall apart:

    In fact, Trump beat Clinton among white women 53 percent to 43 percent, with white women without college degrees going for [Trump] two to one .

    So, taking lack of a college degree as a proxy for being working class, for Newsweek's claim to be true, you have to believe that working class women don't get a vote in their referendum, and for the talking point to be true, you have to believe that working class women are sexist. Which leads me to ask: Who died and left the bourgeois feminists in Clinton's base in charge of the definition of sexism, or feminism? Class traitor Tina Brown is worth repeating:

    Here's my own beef. Liberal feminists, young and old, need to question the role they played in Hillary's demise. The two weeks of media hyperventilation over grab-her-by-the-pussygate, when the airwaves were saturated with aghast liberal women equating Trump's gross comments with sexual assault, had the opposite effect on multiple women voters in the Heartland.

    These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump's unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he'd be the greatest job producer who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill's.

    Missing this pragmatic response by so many women was another mistake of Robbie Mook's campaign data nerds. They computed that America's women would all be as outraged as the ones they came home to at night. But pink slips have hit entire neighbourhoods, and towns. The angry white working class men who voted in such strength for Trump do not live in an emotional vacuum. They are loved by white working class women – their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers, who participate in their remaindered pain. I t is everywhere in the interviews. "My dad lost his business", "My husband hasn't been the same since his job at the factory went away" .

    Second, Clinton in 2016 did no better than Obama in 2008 with women (although she did better than Obama in 2012). From the New York Times analysis of the exit polls, this chart...

    So, for this talking point to be true, you have to believe that sexism simultaneously increased the male vote for Trump, yet did not increase the female vote for Clinton. Shouldn't they move in opposite directions?

    Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Stupidity

    Here's an example of this talking point from Foreign Policy , the heart of The Blob. The headline:

    Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally

    And the lead:

    OK, so that just happened. Donald Trump always enjoyed massive support from uneducated, low-information white people. As Bloomberg Politics reported back in August, Hillary Clinton was enjoying a giant 25 percentage-point lead among college-educated voters going into the election. (Whether that trend held up remains to be seen.) In contrast, in the 2012 election, college-educated voters just barely favored Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Last night we saw something historic: the dance of the dunces. Never have educated voters so uniformly rejected a candidate. But never before have the lesser-educated so uniformly supported a candidate.

    The subtext here is usually that if you don't accept nod your head vigorously, you're stupid, and possibly a stupid Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is not true.

    First, even assuming that the author's happy but unconscious conflation of credentials with education is correct, it wasn't the "dunces" who lost two wars, butchered the health care system, caused the financial system to collapse through accounting control fraud, or invented the neoliberal ideology that was kept real wages flat for forty years and turned the industrial heartland into a wasteland. That is solely, solely down to - only some , to be fair - college-educated voters. It is totally and 100% not down to the "dunces"; they didn't have the political or financial power to achieve debacles on the grand scale.

    Second, the "dunces" were an important part of Obama's victories . From The Week :

    Not only has polling repeatedly underplayed the importance of white voters without college degrees, it's underplayed their importance to the Obama coalition: They were one-third of Obama votes in 2012. They filled the gap between upper-class whites and working-class nonwhites. Trump gained roughly 15 percentage points with them compared to Romney in 2012.

    So, to believe this talking point, you have to believe that voters who were smart when they voted for Obama suddenly became stupid when it came time to vote for Clinton. You also have to believe that credentialed policy makers have an unblemished record of success, and that only they are worth paying attention to.

    Conclusion

    Of course, Clinton ran a miserable campaign, too, which didn't help. Carl Beijer has a bill of particulars :

    By just about every metric imaginable, Hillary Clinton led one of the worst presidential campaigns in modern history. It was a profoundly reactionary campaign, built entirely on rolling back the horizons of the politically possible, fracturing left solidarity, undermining longstanding left priorities like universal healthcare, pandering to Wall Street oligarchs, fomenting nationalism against Denmark and Russia, and rehabilitating some of history's greatest monsters – from Bush I to Kissinger. It was a grossly unprincipled campaign that belligerently violated FEC Super PAC coordination rules and conspired with party officials on everything from political attacks to debate questions. It was an obscenely stupid campaign that all but ignored Wisconsin during the general election, that pitched Clinton to Latino voters as their abuela, that centered an entire high-profile speech over the national menace of a few thousand anime nazis on Twitter, and that repeatedly deployed Lena Dunham as a media surrogate.

    Which is rather like running a David Letterman ad in a Pennsylvania steel town. It must have seemed like a good idea in Brooklyn. After all, they had so many celebrities to choose from.

    * * *

    All three talking points oversimplify. I'm not saying racism is not powerful; of course it is. I'm not saying that sexism is not powerful; of course it is. But monocausal explanations in an election this close - and in a country this vast - are foolish. And narratives that ignore economics and erase class are worse than foolish; buying into them will cause us to make the same mistakes over and over and over again.[1] The trick will be to integrate multiple causes, and that's down to the left; identity politics liberals don't merely not want to do this; they actively oppose it. Ditto their opposite numbers in America's neoliberal fun house mirror, the conservatives.

    NOTES

    [1] For some, that's not a bug. It's a feature.

    NOTE

    You will have noticed that I haven't covered economics (class), or election fraud at all. More myths are coming.

    Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration 24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com

    TK421 November 14, 2016 at 1:03 pm

    Yes, I'm a sexist because I voted for Jill Stein instead of Hillary Clinton.

    Knot Galt November 14, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    "No, you are ignorant! You threw away the vote and put Trump in charge." Please, it will be important to know what derogatory camp you belong in when the blame game swings into full gear. *snark

    IdahoSpud November 14, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    Is it sexist, racist, and/or stupid to conclude that one awful candidate is less likely to betray you than a different awful candidate?

    rwv November 14, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    Didn't feel the Bern, and if you burn your ass you'll have to sit on the blisters

    Steve H. November 14, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Stupidity

    'Stupid' was the word I got very tired of in my social net. Two variant targets:

    1) Blacks for not voting their interests. The responses included 'we know who our enemies are' and 'don't tell me what to think.'

    2) Mostly it was vs rural, non-college educated. iirc, it was the Secretary of Agriculture, pleading for funds, who said the rural areas were where military recruits came from. A young fella I know, elite football player on elite non-urban HS team, said most of his teammates had enlisted. So they are the ones getting shot at, having relatives and friends come back missing pieces of body and self.

    My guy in the Reserves said the consensus was that if HRC got elected, they were going to war with Russia. Not enthused. Infantry IQ is supposedly average-80, but they know who Yossarian says the enemy is, e'en if they hant read the book.

    Maybe not so stupid after all.

    Jason Boxman November 14, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    Thanks so much for this!

    [Nov 14, 2016] Trump and Brexit Defeat Globalism, but For How Long

    Notable quotes:
    "... There are some who believe the elites are actually splintered into numerous groups and that domestic US elites have positioned themselves against the banking elites in London's City. ..."
    "... US elites are basically in the employ of a handful of families, individuals and institutions in our view. It is confusing because it is hard to tell if Hillary, for instance, is operating on her own accord or at the behest of higher and more powerful authorities. ..."
    "... It is probably a combination of both but at root those who control central banks are managing the world's move towards globalism. ..."
    "... The vote to propel Trump to the US presidency reflects a profound backlash against open markets and borders, and the simmering anger of millions of blue-collar white and working-class people who blame their economic woes on globalisation and multiculturalism. ..."
    "... If indeed Trump's election has damped the progress of TPP, and TTIP, this is a huge event. As we've pointed out, both agreements effectively substituted technocratic corporatism for the current sociopolitical model of "democracy." ..."
    "... one of the elite's most powerful, operative memes today is "populism vs. globalism" ..."
    "... No matter what, the reality of these two events, the victories of both Trump and Brexit, stand as signal proof that elite stratagems have been defeated, at least temporarily. Though whether these defeats have been self-inflicted as part of a change in tactics remains to be seen. ..."
    Nov 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Via The Daily Bell

    ... ... ...

    Was Trump's victory actually created by the very globalist elites that Trump is supposed to have overcome? There are some who believe the elites are actually splintered into numerous groups and that domestic US elites have positioned themselves against the banking elites in London's City. We see no fundamental evidence of this.

    The world's real elites in our view may have substantive histories in the hundreds and thousands of years. US elites are basically in the employ of a handful of families, individuals and institutions in our view. It is confusing because it is hard to tell if Hillary, for instance, is operating on her own accord or at the behest of higher and more powerful authorities.

    It is probably a combination of both but at root those who control central banks are managing the world's move towards globalism. History easily shows us who these groups are – and they are not located in America.

    This is a cynical perspective to be sure, and certainly doesn't remove the impact of Trump's victory or his courage in waging his election campaign despite what must surely be death threats to himself and his family..

    But if true, this perspective corresponds to predictions that we've been making for nearly a decade now, suggesting that sooner or later elites – especially those in London's City – would have to "take a step back."

    More:

    The vote to propel Trump to the US presidency reflects a profound backlash against open markets and borders, and the simmering anger of millions of blue-collar white and working-class people who blame their economic woes on globalisation and multiculturalism.

    "There are a few parallels to Switzerland – that the losers of globalisation find somebody who is listening to them," said Swiss professor and lawyer Wolf Linder, a former director of the University of Bern's political science institute.

    "Trump is doing his business with the losers of globalisation in the US, like the Swiss People's Party is doing in Switzerland," he said. "It is a phenomenon which touches all European nations."

    ... ... ...

    If indeed Trump's election has damped the progress of TPP, and TTIP, this is a huge event. As we've pointed out, both agreements effectively substituted technocratic corporatism for the current sociopolitical model of "democracy." The elites were trying to move toward a new model of world control with these two agreements. ...

    Additionally, one of the elite's most powerful, operative memes today is "populism vs. globalism" that seeks to contrast the potentially freedom-oriented events of Trump and Brexit to the discarded wisdom of globalism. See here and here.

    No matter what, the reality of these two events, the victories of both Trump and Brexit, stand as signal proof that elite stratagems have been defeated, at least temporarily. Though whether these defeats have been self-inflicted as part of a change in tactics remains to be seen.

    Conclusion: But the change has come. One way or another the Internet and tens of millions or people talking, writing and acting has forced new trends. This can be hardly be emphasized enough. Globalism has been at least temporarily redirected.

    Editor's Note: The Daily Bell is giving away a silver coin and a silver "white paper" to subscribers. If you enjoy DB's articles and want to stay up-to-date for free, please subscribe here .

    spqrusa Nov 14, 2016 8:28 PM ,

    The analysis is flawed in that it fails to understand the context for power and influence in the western alliance. The Crowns in contest are seeking coordinated domination through political proxy, i.e. the force behind the EU and the UN. The problem is the most influential crown was not in a mind to destroy the fabric of their civilization and more importantly to continue to bail-out the "socialist" paradises in the continent and beyond. Britannia has its own socialism to support much less that of the world.

    Trump represents keeping the Colony in line with a growing interest in keeping traditions intact and in more direct control of Anglo values. Europe has this insane multi-culturalism that is fundamentally incompatible with a "free" and robust civilization. The whole goal of detente with China was to convert them to our values via proxy institutions and that is working in the long-run. In the short-run, the Empire must reunite and solidify its value bulwark against the coming storm from China and to a lesser extend from the expanded EU states. Russia is playing out on its own.

    [Nov 14, 2016] Fearmongering Propaganda Is Immensely Profitable... And Distracting Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Elite fragmentation is the core dynamic in play in America. The Neoliberal class, personified by the Clintons and the rest of the incestuous Washington Elite (Demopublicans), has used the self-serving corporate media to whip up a frenzy of hysteria that is ultimately aimed at the Elite camp that opposes their self-aggrandizement at the expense of the nation. ..."
    "... The financial coup d'etat occurred in the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton , when the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed, freeing the predatory financial elites to plunder the nation. ..."
    "... Presidents G.W. Bush and Obama institutionalized the coup by bailing out the banks post-2008. ..."
    "... The mainstream media in America is a corporate-owned media, or in the case of PBS, corporate-funded via sponsorships. Advertising rates are set by the size of the audience and the number of hours they consume the broadcast/feed. ..."
    Nov 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

    If you want to stop being played as a chump, turn off the CNN/MSM and disengage from the self-referential social media distraction.

    Let's start by asking: if Trump had lost and his supporters had angrily taken to the streets, destroying private property and threatening police officers while proclaiming "not my president," would the mainstream media have characterized the rioters differently than it has the pro-Clinton rioters?

    Any fair-minded observer knows the answer is yes: the CNN/MSM would have lambasted the "rioting deplorables" as "what's wrong with America."

    Substitution is a useful tool to expose bias. How come the CNN/mainstream corporate media isn't declaring the pro-Clinton rioters "deplorables"?

    This tells us something else is going on here. I want to explain what's really going on, but first we need to run a simple experiment:

    Turn off CNN, PBS, CBS et al., your Twitter and Facebook feeds, etc. for seven days, and live solely in the media-free real world for a week. If you're truly interested in understanding what's really going on in America, then come back in a week and read the rest of the essay.

    Have you pulled out the CNN/MSM/social media fearmongering/propaganda dripline for a few days? This is a necessary step, as we shall soon see.

    Everyone who is consuming CNN/MSM/ self-referential social media every waking hour is being played as chumps. Start by asking yourself: cui bono --to whose benefit? Who is benefiting from the ceaseless fearmongering of the CNN/social-media-parroting mainstream corporate media?

    (Longtime readers know I start any analysis by asking cui bono .)

    Two Power Elites have benefited enormously from the ceaseless media fearmongering: the owners of the corporate media spewing the fearmongering, and the Neoliberal camp of the Ruling Elite.

    The hysterical tone of the fearmongering serves the agenda of the Neoliberals, who are desperate to maintain their grip on power.

    As I have endeavored to explain over the past few years, America's Deep State no longer enjoys a monolithic unity of world-view and narrative. The Deep State has fragmented into two conflicted camps: the Neonconservatives, who espouse the globalist, interventionist foreign policy manifestation of Neoliberalism, and a smaller, more forward-looking camp that understands Neoliberalism is actively undermining our national security and our core national interests.

    This split in the Deep State extends into the entire Ruling Elite. Thus we have the currently dominant globalist Neoliberal camp personified by the Clintons, the Corporatocracy that has funded them, the clubby Washington Elites (Demopublicans) and the Neocon camp of the Deep State.

    The opposing camp of Elite "outsiders" is viewed as the enemy which threatens the wealth and power of the self-serving Neoliberal Elites. Longtime readers have seen many accounts here over the years that explain the key dynamic of Elite fragmentation: as self-serving personal aggrandizement poisons the values of public service, the Elite splinters into a parasitic, predatory self-serving majority and an Elite minority that sees the inevitable dissolution of the empire should the self-serving few continue their predation of the many.

    Here are a few of the many essays I've posted on this key dynamic. Please read a few of these for context if you missed them the first time around:

    Elite fragmentation is the core dynamic in play in America. The Neoliberal class, personified by the Clintons and the rest of the incestuous Washington Elite (Demopublicans), has used the self-serving corporate media to whip up a frenzy of hysteria that is ultimately aimed at the Elite camp that opposes their self-aggrandizement at the expense of the nation.

    This war within America's Power Elite is for all the marbles. This explains the absurd urgency of the CNN/MSM fearmongering propaganda.

    Let's deconstruct one of the many hysterical claims of the CNN/MSM: Trump's victory is a coup d'etat. This absurd claim is akin to "the Martians are coming!" Right out of the gate, it is a clueless mis-use of the term coup d'etat. If you actually want to understand the term, as opposed to using it to whip up hysteria that profits the Corporate owners of CNN/MSM, then start by reading the 1968 classic Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook by Edward Luttwak, and then move on to The Quiet Coup by Simon Johnson (2010).

    The financial coup d'etat occurred in the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton , when the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed, freeing the predatory financial elites to plunder the nation.

    Presidents G.W. Bush and Obama institutionalized the coup by bailing out the banks post-2008.

    So who does all the fearmongering benefit? The CNN/MSM, which profited immensely, and the Neoliberal Elite, which distracted the populace from the fatal consequences of its dominance.

    The mainstream media in America is a corporate-owned media, or in the case of PBS, corporate-funded via sponsorships. Advertising rates are set by the size of the audience and the number of hours they consume the broadcast/feed.

    The MSM's fearmongering propaganda greatly expanded the number of eyeballs glued to their product and increased the duration of consumers' time spent online. This increase in audience/duration has been immensely profitable to the corporate media, which has relied on fearmongering to drive audience since 9/11.

    Consider this email from correspondent M.K. on his family's media consumption:

    "I was struck awake this morning at 4 am with the realization that the left tried to win by selling fear. I don't mean this in a hyperbolic way... I mean they purposefully, willfully planned to sell fear as a tool to get the vote out. At first I didn't see the connection, but my subconscious did...

    I'm a Agorist/Voluntarist and don't vote, because I don't wish to consent to my own enslavement... you know the drill. On the day of voting my father (76) texted me to urge me to vote, because "my children's future was at stake". This seemed odd to me, because it had never happened before and he followed up with some more fearful statement.

    The day after the election, my daughter, who tends to also be level headed, texted me the following: "Uh oh... what does this mean for our country?". I tried to calm them both, but they were exceedingly fearful.

    I watched in amazement at the "cry ins", demonstrations other outward pouring of sadness, hate and fear. Thus, I awoke and realized that both my father and daughter watch CNN. I really do believe that they were programmed.... This was planned and executed exceedingly well.

    As you realize, "fear is the enemy" or "fear is the opposite of love". Pick your quote, but it's a powerful tool and it has been used to club my loved ones."

    We can summarize the fanning of mass hysteria thusly: hyper-connectedness to a self-referential corporate/elite-controlled media produces a fear-based mass hysteria.

    This fear-based mass hysteria is the perfect mechanism to distract a populace from the reality of a self-serving Elite that profits from their serfdom. Please glance at these four charts, which tell a simple but profound truth:

    Productivity has risen for 36 years, but the gains from that massive increase in wealth has been captured by the few at the top of the wealth/power pyramid. If you want to understand who benefited from the CNN/MSM fearmongering propaganda distraction, study these four charts.

    The income of the bottom 95% has stagnated while productivity/wealth soared.

    The gains flowed to the top .1% in wealth and the top 5% in income:

    The self-serving Neoliberal Elite's CNN/mainstream media did a magnificent job of profiting from fearmongering while distracting the serfs from their immiseration. If you want to stop being played as a chump, turn off the CNN/MSM and disengage from the self-referential social media distraction.

    * * *

    Join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com . My new book is #8 on Kindle short reads -> politics and social science: Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition) For more, please visit the book's website . bh2 Nov 14, 2016 9:22 AM ,

    After having ignored my facebook account virtually since I created it, I have finally gotten around to having it removed. I have never sent a single "tweet" since most originate from people who are plainly twits. Which is to say the like of narcissistic Hlllary voters.

    The echo chamber in the funhouse should be left to snowflakes who need safespaces for lack of accommodation by the real world, which is rapidly passing them by as they continue to indulge their delusional group trance.

    Gunga Nov 14, 2016 9:17 AM ,
    Brexit and Trump have been solid hits against the global elite parasites. Don't be fooled by the fear mongering lies of the establishment media.
    johnnycanuck Nov 14, 2016 10:41 AM ,
    "As one lobbyist told me (in 2007), "Twenty­-five years ago… it was 'just keep the government out of our business, we want to do what we want to,' and gradually that's changed to 'how can we make the government our partners?' It's gone from 'leave us alone' to 'let's work on this together .'" Another corporate lobbyist recalled,"When they started, [management] thought government relations did something else. They thought it was to manage public relations crises, hearing inquiries... My boss told me, you've taught us to do things we didn't know could ever be done."

    As companies became more politically active and comfortable during the late 1980s and the 1990s, their lobbyists became more politically visionary. For example, pharmaceutical companies had long opposed the idea of government adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, on the theory that this would give government bargaining power through bulk purchasing, thereby reducing drug industry profits. But sometime around 2000, industry lobbyists dreamed up the bold idea of proposing and supporting what became Medicare Part D-a prescription drug benefit, but one which explicitly forbade bulk purchasing-an estimated $205 billion benefit to companies over a 10-year period.

    What makes today so very different from the 1970s is that corporations now have the resources to play offense and defense simultaneously on almost any top-priority issue. When I surveyed corporate lobbyists on the reasons why their companies maintained a Washington office, the top reason was "to protect the company against changes in government policy." On a one-to-seven scale, lobbyists ranked this reason at 6.2 (on average). But closely behind, at 5.7, was "Need to improve ability to compete by seeking favorable changes in government policy."

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyi...

    Media are just a part of the process.

    [Nov 14, 2016] Clinton betrayal and the future of Democratic Party

    Nov 14, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    weejonnie Intheround 11h ago ...In the last 8 years the Democrat party.

    Lost control of the Senate
    Lost control of the House of Representatives
    Lost control of dozens of state legislatures and Governorships.
    The Republicans control 36 States of America - One more and they could in theory amend the Constitution.

    In Wisconsin (notionally Democrat) the Legislature and Governor are both Republican controlled. And Clinton didn't even campaign there when it was pretty obvious the State was not trending towards her.

    [Nov 14, 2016] Working class wages destroyed. The wages of the low paid lowered. Ordinary people robbed of holiday and sickness pay

    Most commenters do not realise that it is neoliberalism that caused the current suffering of working people in the USA and elsewhere...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Working class wages destroyed. The wages of the low paid lowered. Ordinary people robbed of holiday and sickness pay. Working people priced out of ever owning their own home. Our city centers socially cleansed of the working class. Poor people forced to fight like rats in sacks with even poorer foreigners for jobs, housing, school places and social and health services. ..."
    "... Keep going mate. Continue to pump out that snobbish attitude because every time you do you've bagged Mr Trump, Mr Farage and Ms LePen another few votes. ..."
    "... I recall a time when any suggestion that immigration may be too high was silenced by cries of racism, eventually that label was misused so often that it lost its potency, one gets the sense that this trend for dubbing those who hold certain opinions as somehow unintelligent will go the same way. People are beginning to see through this most hateful tactic of the Modern Left. ..."
    "... Which is why I think Mr D'Ancona and many others are wrong to say that Farage and Trump will face the whirlwind when voters realise that their promises were all unachievable. The promises were much less important than the chance to slap the political world in the face. Given another chance, a lot of voters will do the same again. ..."
    "... I think the author completely misses the most salient point from the two events he cites: simply that the *vast* majority of people have become completely disenfranchised with the utter corruption that is mainstream politics today. ..."
    "... It doesn't matter who is voted in, the status quo [big business and the super-rich get wealthier whilst the middle is squeezed and the poorest are destroyed] remains. ..."
    "... The votes for Brexit and Trump are as much a rejection of "establishment" as anything else. Politicians in both countries heed these warnings at their peril... ..."
    "... The majority of the people are sick and tired of PC ism and the zero hour, minimum wage economy that both Britain and America have suffered under "globalisation". And of the misguided "[neo]liberal" agenda of much of the media which simply does not speak to or for society. ..."
    "... People in western democracies are rising up through the ballot box to defeat PC [neo]liberalism and globalisation that has done so much to impoverish Europe and America morally and economically. To the benefit of the tax haven corporates. ..."
    "... Globalisation disembowelled American manufacturing so the likes of Blair and the Clintons could print money. The illimitable lives they destroyed never entered their calculus. ..."
    "... I have stood in the blue lane in Atlanta waiting for my passport to be processed; in the adjoining lane was a young British female student (so she said to the official). The computer revealed she had overstayed her visa by 48 hours the last time she visited. She was marched out by two armed tunics to the next plane home. That's how Europeans get treated if they try to enter America illegally. Why the demented furor over returning illegal Hispanics or anyone else? ..."
    Nov 14, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    IanPitch 12h ago

    Surely the people who voted for Trump and Farage are too stupid to realise the sheer, criminal folly of their decision...

    thoughtcatcher -> IanPitch 12h ago

    Working class wages destroyed. The wages of the low paid lowered. Ordinary people robbed of holiday and sickness pay. Working people priced out of ever owning their own home. Our city centers socially cleansed of the working class. Poor people forced to fight like rats in sacks with even poorer foreigners for jobs, housing, school places and social and health services.

    But yeah, they voted against the elite because they are "stupid".

    attila9000 -> IanPitch 11h ago

    I think at some point a lot of them will realize they have been had, but then they will probably just blame immigrants, or the EU. Anything that means they don't have to take responsibility for their own actions. It would appear there is a huge pool of people who can be conned into acting against their own self interest.

    jonnyoyster -> IanPitch 11h ago

    Keep going mate. Continue to pump out that snobbish attitude because every time you do you've bagged Mr Trump, Mr Farage and Ms LePen another few votes. Most people don't appreciate being talked down to and this arrogant habit of calling those who hold views contrary to your own 'stupid' is encouraging more and more voters to ditch the established parties in favour of the new.

    I recall a time when any suggestion that immigration may be too high was silenced by cries of racism, eventually that label was misused so often that it lost its potency, one gets the sense that this trend for dubbing those who hold certain opinions as somehow unintelligent will go the same way. People are beginning to see through this most hateful tactic of the Modern Left.

    DilemmataDocta -> IanPitch 11h ago

    A lot of the people who put their cross against Brexit or Trump weren't actually voting for anything. They were just voting against this, that or the other thing about the world that they disliked. It was voting as a gesture.

    Which is why I think Mr D'Ancona and many others are wrong to say that Farage and Trump will face the whirlwind when voters realise that their promises were all unachievable. The promises were much less important than the chance to slap the political world in the face. Given another chance, a lot of voters will do the same again.


    Sproggit 12h ago

    I think the author completely misses the most salient point from the two events he cites: simply that the *vast* majority of people have become completely disenfranchised with the utter corruption that is mainstream politics today.

    It doesn't matter who is voted in, the status quo [big business and the super-rich get wealthier whilst the middle is squeezed and the poorest are destroyed] remains.

    The votes for Brexit and Trump are as much a rejection of "establishment" as anything else. Politicians in both countries heed these warnings at their peril...

    NotoBlair 11h ago

    OMG, the lib left don't Geddit do they?

    The majority of the people are sick and tired of PC ism and the zero hour, minimum wage economy that both Britain and America have suffered under "globalisation". And of the misguided "[neo]liberal" agenda of much of the media which simply does not speak to or for society.

    People in western democracies are rising up through the ballot box to defeat PC [neo]liberalism and globalisation that has done so much to impoverish Europe and America morally and economically. To the benefit of the tax haven corporates.

    The sour grapes bleating of the lib left who refuse to accept the democratic will of the people is a movement doomed failure.

    Frankincensedabit 11h ago

    Malign to whom? Wall Street and people who want us all dead?

    Globalisation disembowelled American manufacturing so the likes of Blair and the Clintons could print money. The illimitable lives they destroyed never entered their calculus.

    I have stood in the blue lane in Atlanta waiting for my passport to be processed; in the adjoining lane was a young British female student (so she said to the official). The computer revealed she had overstayed her visa by 48 hours the last time she visited. She was marched out by two armed tunics to the next plane home. That's how Europeans get treated if they try to enter America illegally. Why the demented furor over returning illegal Hispanics or anyone else?

    I likely wouldn't have voted at all. But all my life the occupants of the White House represented the interests of those nobody could ever identify. The owners of the media and the numbered accounts who took away the life-chances of U.S. citizens by the million and called any of them who objected a thick white-trash bigot. Whatever Trump is, he will be different.

    [Nov 13, 2016] Donald Trumps Foreign Policy is as interventionist as Clinton, Bush or Obama administrations

    Expectation of any change were just an illusion. Trump decided to practice gangster capitalism on international arena
    Nov 13, 2016 | nationalinterest.org
    That is why watching President-elect Trump's choices for his foreign policy team is so important. If he chooses primarily alumni of the Bush administration, we can be fairly certain that there will be few, if any, beneficial changes in Washington's security strategy. Indeed, it could conceivably be even more interventionist than that pursued by the Clinton, Bush or Obama administrations.

    The main difference might be that it would be conducted unilaterally rather than multilaterally, especially if someone like John Bolton gets a key position.

    If on the other hand, Trump begins to pick advisers who have little or no previous government service, it would be an encouraging step. Watch for appointments from realist enclaves like Defense Priorities, the Independent Institute and others. Also watch for the appointment of individual unorthodox or "rogue" scholars from such places as Notre Dame University, George Mason University, the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, and (ironically) the Bush School at Texas A&M University. Such moves would indicate that Trump was choosing new blood and really intending to make a meaningful change in the direction of U.S. foreign policy.

    For now, we can only wait and watch and hope.

    [Nov 13, 2016] The slogan drain the swamp proved to quite oppostite of what it initially meants. It now means bring all thos bottom feeded into the administration by Beverly Mann

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's not just corporate lobbyists who are playing early, visible roles in the new power structure. Some of Trump's biggest political donors are shaping the incoming administration, including Rebekah Mercer, a daughter of billionaire Robert Mercer, who is figuring prominently in behind-the-scenes discussions, according to people familiar with the transition. ..."
    "... Mercer is among four major donors appointed by Trump Friday to a 16-person executive committee overseeing his transition. The others are campaign finance chairman Steven Mnuchin, New York financier Anthony Scaramucci and Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    The chant echoed through Donald Trump's boisterous rallies leading up to Election Day: "Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!"

    "We are fighting for every citizen that believes that government should serve the people, not the donors and not the special interests," the billionaire real estate developer promised exuberant supporters at his last campaign rally in Manchester, N.H.

    But just days later, there is little evidence that the president-elect is seeking to restrain wealthy interests from having access and influence in his administration.

    It's not just corporate lobbyists who are playing early, visible roles in the new power structure. Some of Trump's biggest political donors are shaping the incoming administration, including Rebekah Mercer, a daughter of billionaire Robert Mercer, who is figuring prominently in behind-the-scenes discussions, according to people familiar with the transition.

    Mercer is among four major donors appointed by Trump Friday to a 16-person executive committee overseeing his transition. The others are campaign finance chairman Steven Mnuchin, New York financier Anthony Scaramucci and Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel.

    Meanwhile, top campaign fundraisers and a raft of lobbyists tied to some of the country's wealthiest industries have been put in charge of hiring and planning for specific federal agencies. They include J. Steven Hart, chairman of the law and lobbying shop Williams & Jensen; Michael McKenna, an energy company lobbyist who is overseeing planning for the Energy Department; and Dallas fundraiser Ray Washburne, was has been tapped to oversee the Commerce Department.

    Billionaires who served as Trump's policy advisers, such as Oklahoma oil executive Harold Hamm, are under consideration for Cabinet positions.

    Donors and lobbyists already shaping Trump's 'drain the swamp' administration , Matea Gold and Tom Hamburger, Washington Post, today

    LOL . LOL . So how about a new chant for protesters: DRAIN THE SWAP!?

    ... ... ...

    UPDATE:

    Asked about the tensions, and about Kushner's role in the leadership change at the transition team, Trump spokesman Jason Miller said, "Anybody seeing today's news about the appointment of Vice President-elect Mike Pence to run the Presidential Transition Team realizes that President-elect Donald J. Trump is serious about changing Washington whether the town likes it or not. This might ruffle the delicate sensitivities of the well-heeled two-martini lunch set, but President-elect Trump isn't fighting for them, he's fighting for the hard-working men and women outside the Beltway who don't care for insider bickering."

    It's not uncommon for rivalries to emerge inside campaigns and administrations as advisers jockey to place allies in key roles and advance their policy priorities. But the level of internecine conflict during Trump's drive toward the GOP nomination was so extreme that it sometimes resulted in conflicting directives for even simple hiring and spending decisions.

    Trump team rivalries spark infighting , Kenneth P. Vogel, Nancy Cook and Alex Isenstadt, Politico, late last night

    ... ... ...

    Anyone ?

    [Nov 13, 2016] Trump Dont Follow the Bush-Obama Foreign Policy Legacy

    Nov 13, 2016 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    Eight years ago, President Obama had a chance to change the warmongering direction that outgoing President Bush and the U.S. national-security establishment had led America for the previous eight years. Obama could have said, "Enough is enough. America has done enough killing and dying. I'm going to lead our country in a different direction - toward peace, prosperity, and harmony with the people of the world." He could have ordered all U.S. troops in the Middle East and Afghanistan to return home. He could have ended U.S. involvement in the endless wars that Bush, the Pentagon, and the CIA spawned in that part of the world. He could have led America in a new direction.

    Instead, Obama decided to stay Bush's course, no doubt believing that he, unlike Bush, could win the endless wars that Bush had started. It was not to be. He chose to keep the national-security establishment embroiled in Afghanistan and Iraq. Death and destruction are Obama's legacy, just as they were Bush's.

    Obama hoped that Hillary Clinton would protect and continue his (and Bush's) legacy of foreign death and destruction. Yesterday, a majority of American voters dashed that hope.

    Will Trump change directions and bring U.S. troops home? Possibly not, especially given he is an interventionist, just as Clinton, Bush, and Obama are. But there is always that possibility, especially since Trump, unlike Clinton, owes no allegiance to the U.S. military-industrial complex, whose survival and prosperity depends on endless wars and perpetual crises.

    If Clinton had been elected, there was never any doubt about continued U.S. interventionism in Afghanistan and the Middle East. Not only is she a died-in-the-wool interventionist, she would have been owned by the national-security establishment. She would have done whatever the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA wanted, which would have automatically meant endless warfare - and permanent destruction of the liberty and prosperity of the American people.

    It's obvious that Americans want a new direction when it comes to foreign policy. That's partly what Trump's election is all about. Americans are sick and tired of the never-ending wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere. That includes military families, especially the many who supported Trump, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein. Americans are also tired of the out of control spending and debt that come with these wars. By electing Trump, it is obvious that Americans are demanding a change on foreign policy.

    Imagine the benefits to American society if Trump were to change directions on foreign policy. No more anti-American terrorist blowback, which would mean no more war on terrorism. That means the restoration of a sense of normality to American lives. No more TSA checkpoints at airports. No more mass surveillance schemes to "keep us safe." No more color coded warnings. No more totalitarian power to round up Americans, put them into concentration camps or military dungeons, and torture them. No more power to assassinate people, including Americans. In other words, the restoration of American civil liberties and privacy.

    The Middle East is embroiled in civil wars - wars that have been engendered or magnified by U.S. interventionism. Continued interventionism in an attempt to fix the problems only pours gasoline on the fires. The U.S. government has done enough damage to Afghanistan and the Middle East. It has already killed enough people, including those in wedding parties, hospitals, and neighborhoods. Enough is enough.

    Will Trump be bad on immigration and trade? Undoubtedly, but Clinton would have been bad in those areas too. Don't forget, after all, that Obama has become America's greatest deporter-in-chief, deporting more illegal immigrants than any U.S. president in history. Clinton would have followed in his footsteps, especially in the hope of protecting his legacy. Moreover, while Trump will undoubtedly begin trade wars, Clinton would have been imposing sanctions on people all over the world whose government failed to obey the commands of the U.S. government. A distinction without a difference.

    Another area for hope under a Trump presidency is with respect to the drug war, one of the most failed, destructive, and expensive government programs in history. Clinton would have followed in Bush's and Obama's footsteps by keeping it in existence, if for no other reason than to cater to the army of DEA agents, federal and state judges, federal and state prosecutors, court clerks, and police departments whose existence depends on the drug war.

    While Trump is a drug warrior himself, he doesn't have the same allegiance to the vast drug-war bureaucracy that Clinton has. If we get close to pushing this government program off the cliff - and I am convinced that it is on the precipice - there is a good chance that Trump will not put much effort into fighting its demise. Clinton would have fought for the drug war with every fiber of her being.

    There is another possible upside to Trump's election: The likelihood that Cold War II will come to a sudden end. With Clinton, the continuation of the new Cold War against Russia was a certainty. In fact, Clinton's Cold War might well have gotten hot very quickly, given her intent to establish a no-fly zone over Syria where she could show how tough she is by ordering U.S. warplanes to shoot down Russian warplanes. There is no telling where that would have led, but it very well might have led to all-out nuclear war, something that the U.S. national-security establishment wanted with the Soviet Union back in the 1960s under President Kennedy.

    The danger of war with Russia obviously diminishes under a President Trump, who has said that he favors friendly relations with Russia, just as Kennedy favored friendly relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba in the months before he was assassinated.

    Indeed, given Trump's negative comments about NATO, there is even the possibility of a dismantling of that old Cold War dinosaur that gave us the crisis in Ukraine with Russia.

    How about it, President-Elect Trump? While you're mulling over your new Berlin Wall on the Southern (and maybe Northern) border and your coming trade wars with China, how about refusing to follow the 16 years of Bush-Obama when it comes to U.S. foreign interventionism? Bring the troops home. Lead America in a different direction, at least insofar as foreign policy is concerned - away from death, destruction, spending, debt, loss of liberty and privacy, and economic impoverishment and toward freedom, peace, prosperity, and harmony.

    Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation .

    [Nov 13, 2016] Ron Paul Neocons are Trying to Infiltrate Trump`s Administration

    Nov 13, 2016 | www.youtube.com

    archivesDave 1 day ago

    " TRYING" ???...That's a JOKE, Right? Gingrich, Giuliani, etc, etc, These Neocons already have a lot of the wild cards and 'Trump Cards'...Closet Globalists, even though they probably wouldn't admit it.

    Reference Carroll Quigley and Craig Hulet if you really want to get the REAL skinny!

    * Problem~Reaction~Solution

    [Nov 13, 2016] It is not an easy job to drain the swamp; it can pull you in by Beverly Mann

    Nov 12, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    The chant echoed through Donald Trump's boisterous rallies leading up to Election Day: "Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!"

    "We are fighting for every citizen that believes that government should serve the people, not the donors and not the special interests," the billionaire real estate developer promised exuberant supporters at his last campaign rally in Manchester, N.H.

    But just days later, there is little evidence that the president-elect is seeking to restrain wealthy interests from having access and influence in his administration.

    It's not just corporate lobbyists who are playing early, visible roles in the new power structure. Some of Trump's biggest political donors are shaping the incoming administration, including Rebekah Mercer, a daughter of billionaire Robert Mercer, who is figuring prominently in behind-the-scenes discussions, according to people familiar with the transition.

    Mercer is among four major donors appointed by Trump Friday to a 16-person executive committee overseeing his transition. The others are campaign finance chairman Steven Mnuchin, New York financier Anthony Scaramucci and Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel.

    Meanwhile, top campaign fundraisers and a raft of lobbyists tied to some of the country's wealthiest industries have been put in charge of hiring and planning for specific federal agencies. They include J. Steven Hart, chairman of the law and lobbying shop Williams & Jensen; Michael McKenna, an energy company lobbyist who is overseeing planning for the Energy Department; and Dallas fundraiser Ray Washburne, was has been tapped to oversee the Commerce Department.

    Billionaires who served as Trump's policy advisers, such as Oklahoma oil executive Harold Hamm, are under consideration for Cabinet positions.

    Donors and lobbyists already shaping Trump's 'drain the swamp' administration , Matea Gold and Tom Hamburger, Washington Post, today

    LOL . LOL . So how about a new chant for protesters: DRAIN THE SWAP!?

    ... ... ...

    UPDATE:

    Asked about the tensions, and about Kushner's role in the leadership change at the transition team, Trump spokesman Jason Miller said, "Anybody seeing today's news about the appointment of Vice President-elect Mike Pence to run the Presidential Transition Team realizes that President-elect Donald J. Trump is serious about changing Washington whether the town likes it or not. This might ruffle the delicate sensitivities of the well-heeled two-martini lunch set, but President-elect Trump isn't fighting for them, he's fighting for the hard-working men and women outside the Beltway who don't care for insider bickering."

    It's not uncommon for rivalries to emerge inside campaigns and administrations as advisers jockey to place allies in key roles and advance their policy priorities. But the level of internecine conflict during Trump's drive toward the GOP nomination was so extreme that it sometimes resulted in conflicting directives for even simple hiring and spending decisions.

    Trump team rivalries spark infighting , Kenneth P. Vogel, Nancy Cook and Alex Isenstadt, Politico, late last night

    ... ... ...

    Anyone ?

    [Nov 13, 2016] Fears that Trump will be tamed by the deep state and neocons

    Nov 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 9:00 PM ,

    An Open Letter To Donald J. Trump

    THE ULTIMATE "APPRENTICE"

    November 12, 2016

    Dear Mr. President-Elect:

    I was one of the millions of people that believed in you. Believed what you said. Heard you.

    You got "hired" by 60 MILLION people. WE are your boss. YOU BECAME THE EMPLOYEE.

    Something you are not used to.

    I myself convinced nearly 20 people to vote for you over these last two years. Know what I said?

    "He's NOT a politician. He's a business man. He's an outsider – something Washington, D.C. SORELY needs. He's NOT the same 'business as usual' guy. Mr. Trump will change things for the better in Washington. Clean it up. Make peace with Russia – not war. Trump is a BUILDER – not a destroyer. He'll negotiate FAIR deals with countries. Install sensible immigration policies. Reverse the stranglehold on health care policies that have bankrupted millions." I made them see how biased the media was against you. How they lied by omission – and sometimes outright lied about you. (To a person, they NO LONGER WATCH, TRUST, OR HEED the media anymore.)

    He'll change the culture of Washington – because that's EXACTLY WHAT IT NEEDS. CHANGE."

    Washington has become a den of vipers. Self-enriching criminals that have sucked the life blood out of US – YOUR EMPLOYERS . The phrase; "You're FIRED" must be repeated often to MANY people over the next few years. People that have engorged themselves because of the previous employees, who have mismanaged the nation, and lied to it's people.

    Your very words from your speeches that convinced us to hire you. Your platform. Your slogans;

    "Make America Great Again." "I'll take back this country for you".

    You said that to 60 MILLION of us – and we hired you based on it.

    We hired you because we're SICK AND TIRED OF CAREER POLITICIANS. We hired you because we are sick of the GREED, DUPLICITY, THE CORRUPTION of Congress and the past administrations that have enriched the elite, while robbing from the American taxpayer.

    Already, the public has noticed that you have had a LOT of the old-guard/same ol' same ol' Republican Washington "insiders" advising you. We understand that you will need some guidance in the first few months. All "apprentices" do.

    However, we, as your employers, will NOT TOLERATE THE SAME OL' SAME OL' ANYMORE.

    We hired YOU to do the right THINGS. "Drain The Swamp" "Take Our Country BACK".

    Commencing January 21, 2017, that's exactly what we demand of you – our new employee.

    WE WILL WANT RESULTS. ACTIONS. CHANGE.

    WE WILL WANT INVESTIGATIONS. ARRESTS. PROSECUTIONS OF THE PEOPLE THAT WRONGED THIS NATION. STOLE FROM IT. CORRUPTED IT. DAMAGED IT.

    Just like you monitored your "apprentices", and judged them on their performances, WE ARE JUDGING YOU. And we are NOT going to be fooled, like the oppositions legions were and are; by a biased media that lies to them. No one is going to get a "pass" anymore. Especially like your immediate predecessor.

    That's over.

    On January 21, 2017, your official duties commence.

    We all wish you the best, and are with you.

    The last thing we want to do is tell you;

    You're Fired.

    blue51 BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 9:10 PM ,
    One fine letter.
    espirit blue51 Nov 12, 2016 9:20 PM ,
    Concern that President-Elect Trump may not have foreseen what a Medusas' head of Snakes the .gov is.

    Think Ron Paul has forewarned him.

    It's a nasty and corrupt business.

    Kirk2NCC1701 BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 9:20 PM ,
    What!? How does the last line jive with the rest above it?

    You must have meant "If you don't perform and deliver as promised, then You're Fired! In the meantime, You're Hired! Welcome Aboard."

    BabaLooey Kirk2NCC1701 Nov 12, 2016 9:28 PM ,
    Read it again.

    "On January 21, 2017, your official duties commence.

    We all wish you the best, and are with you.

    The last thing we want to do is tell you;

    You're Fired."

    -----------------------------

    IF Trump even reads it (doubtful), he'll get it.

    I get your point though Captain.

    dreihoden BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 9:28 PM ,
    hear! hear! i second that emotion sir!

    FIAT CON BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 9:30 PM ,
    it was just yesterday that I had posted the following to a friend... very similar.

    I know, well the Internet people that elected him may and can put tremendous pressure on him to do the right thing... And I expect that to happen...I expect the people to demand through social media that they keep their promises and that they do what they are told by the people that elected them.....can you imagine the damage that could happen if the trump supporters starting to Diss him because he didn't do what he was told by the people that elected him.

    I think in the very near future countries will be run by the people of the country via the Internet where everybody's voice counts and the people that want to share their voice will be the actual leaders of the country and the people that want to watch sports and stick their head in the sand will be sheeple.

    I think referendums will be a much more common item

    BabaLooey FIAT CON Nov 12, 2016 9:55 PM ,
    @ Fiat Con

    I wrote that in the hopes that someone on the "TTT" (Trump Transition Team) reads it, and maybe, maybe, shows Trump himself.

    We all know he trolls different sites - and I'll bet he trolls ZH.

    I agree with you; the "internet people" elected him. The "alt-right" (which IS the new media) elected him.

    If we had no internet, and had to rely on the MSM, Clinton would have been elected.

    Or worse.

    But they are now the "old guard ". It is funny....sickening...and sad to watch them flail away like they have relevancy -

    THEY don't.

    In a big way, this election was a wake up call to THEM (like the NYT piece on here shows), to clean up THEIR act.

    NO MORE business as usual. CFR meets and Washington insider parties of poo.

    I actually DID convince 18 people to switch from Clinton to Trump (really, it was 12 from Cruz/Bush/Sanders, and 6 outright flip Clinton to Trump).. and ALL of them HAD been a daily staple of watching the MSM.

    Getting them to stop was akin to getting a smoker off cigarettes. Some still do - but they NOW know how the MSM LIES.

    (One way I showed them? A tape on YouTube of 60 Minutes "editing techniques", linked below, which REALLY opened some eyes)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG8SjeeV7Y4

    MaxThrust BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 11:08 PM ,
    Babalooey

    I certainly hope Trump does get to read your post because I agree with it 100%.

    We Trump supporters will not be fooled. We will not accept Neocons, CFR members or Israeli Duals.

    May I suggest you send a copy of this post to all newspapers in the hope one will print it as an editorial.

    BabaLooey MaxThrust Nov 13, 2016 8:31 AM ,
    @ MaxThrust

    Cheers Max!

    The video embedded in this thread - when Ann Coulter was on Bill Maher and got mocked for her backing Trump - in several instances - was me in 2014 and 2015. I got laughed at by many for coming out for Trump back then.

    However, what I wrote is true. I literally changed 18 people into Trump supporters from then to now.

    The reasons are many - but the MAIN one is;

    I'm. PISSED. OFF.

    I'm angry as to the mis-management, lies and over-regulation that has killed the little guy in businesses. I'm angry as to the lies and deceit from the bought of main stream media. A whole LOT of other reasons as well.

    I am giving free reign for anyone here to re-post this on ANY internet forum they want; Brietbart, Drudge, and ANY online newspaper comment op-ed section they wish.

    I only am a commenter here. I choose not to become one on any other forum.

    Please copy and paste it anywhere you'd like.

    I'm just a little guy. A "peon". However, I did work hard for Trump. I expect no compensation. No recognition.

    I DO expect Trump however - to DO WHAT he said. As a political outsider.

    I am concerned as to the vipers, old guard Washington insiders, and of course, the Deep State - along with Israel - getting to Trump.

    WE didn't elect them. We elected HIM.

    So please - have at it. Post away.

    I hope my post inspires others to do their own "Apprentice" type open letters to Trump.

    He needs to hear from us (and I bet he does troll ZH and other finanical sites.)

    [Nov 13, 2016] Donald Trumps Foreign Policy What Will He Really Do

    Nov 13, 2016 | nationalinterest.org
    That is why watching President-elect Trump's choices for his foreign policy team is so important. If he chooses primarily alumni of the Bush administration, we can be fairly certain that there will be few, if any, beneficial changes in Washington's security strategy. Indeed, it could conceivably be even more interventionist than that pursued by the Clinton, Bush or Obama administrations.

    The main difference might be that it would be conducted unilaterally rather than multilaterally, especially if someone like John Bolton gets a key position.

    If on the other hand, Trump begins to pick advisers who have little or no previous government service, it would be an encouraging step. Watch for appointments from realist enclaves like Defense Priorities, the Independent Institute and others. Also watch for the appointment of individual unorthodox or "rogue" scholars from such places as Notre Dame University, George Mason University, the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, and (ironically) the Bush School at Texas A&M University. Such moves would indicate that Trump was choosing new blood and really intending to make a meaningful change in the direction of U.S. foreign policy.

    For now, we can only wait and watch and hope.

    [Nov 13, 2016] Donald Trump Is Picking His Cabinet

    Looks like Secretary of State shortlist is dominated by neocons. A couple of candidates would make Hillary Clinton proud... the head of CIA is an informal head of shadow government and as such is also very important. Allen Dulles example should still be remembered by all presidents, if they do not want to repeat the face of JFK ....
    Nov 13, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...

    Here's a Short List http://nyti.ms/2eNpI6a
    NYT - Nov 12

    (There are 5 women on the list, including Sarah Palin & NH's Kelly Ayotte, demonstrating that ilsm has some influence.
    For Sec/Defense - seriously. Alternatively for UN Ambassador. Right.)

    The list:

    Secretary of State

    John R. Bolton Former United States ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush [ neocon; one of the members of PNAC ; see About the PAC - John Bolton PAC BoltonPAC.com ]

    Bob Corker Senator from Tennessee and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [ See also Bob Corker on the Issues ]

    Newt Gingrich Former House speaker [former neocon; Political ally of Rand Paul recently]

    Newt Gingrich Abandons Neocons, Joins Rand Paul In GOP Foreign Policy Civil War

    [ Newt Gingrich's Deep Neocon Ties Drive His Bellicose Middle East Policy - The Daily Beast ; Newt Gingrich A Brilliant Neo-Con with a lot of Baggage Off The Grid News ]

    Zalmay Khalilzad Former United States ambassador to Afghanistan [ neocon; one of the members of PNAC ; See Washington's Neocon in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad Nominated as U.S. Ambassador Democracy Now! ]

    Stanley A. McChrystal Former senior military commander in Afghanistan [See neo-neocon " Blog Archive " Loose lips the McChrystal article ]

    Treasury Secretary

    Thomas Barrack Jr. Founder, chairman and executive chairman of Colony Capital; private equity and real estate investor
    Jeb Hensarling Representative from Texas and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee
    Steven Mnuchin Former Goldman Sachs executive and Mr. Trump's campaign finance chairman
    Tim Pawlenty Former Minnesota governor

    Defense Secretary

    Kelly Ayotte Departing senator from New Hampshire and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
    Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (he would need a waiver from Congress because of a seven-year rule for retired officers)
    Stephen J. Hadley National security adviser under George W. Bush
    Jon Kyl Former senator from Arizona
    Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama who is a prominent immigration opponent

    Attorney General

    Chris Christie New Jersey governor
    Rudolph W. Giuliani Former New York mayor
    Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama

    Interior Secretary

    Jan Brewer Former Arizona governor
    Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner
    Harold G. Hamm Chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas company
    Forrest Lucas President of Lucas Oil Products, which manufactures automotive lubricants, additives and greases
    Sarah Palin Former Alaska governor

    Agriculture Secretary

    Sam Brownback Kansas governor
    Chuck Conner Chief executive officer of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
    Sid Miller Texas agricultural commissioner
    Sonny Perdue Former Georgia governor

    Commerce Secretary

    Chris Christie New Jersey governor
    Dan DiMicco Former chief executive of Nucor Corporation, a steel production company
    Lewis M. Eisenberg Private equity chief for Granite Capital International Group

    Labor Secretary

    Victoria A. Lipnic Equal Employment Opportunity commissioner and work force policy counsel to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce

    Health and Human Services Secretary

    Dr. Ben Carson Former neurosurgeon and 2016 presidential candidate
    Mike Huckabee Former Arkansas governor and 2016 presidential candidate
    Bobby Jindal Former Louisiana governor who served as secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals
    Rick Scott Florida governor and former chief executive of a large hospital chain

    Energy Secretary

    James L. Connaughton Chief executive of Nautilus Data Technologies and former environmental adviser to President George W. Bush
    Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner
    Harold G. Hamm Chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas company

    Education Secretary

    Dr. Ben Carson Former neurosurgeon and 2016 presidential candidate
    Williamson M. Evers Education expert at the Hoover Institution, a think tank

    Secretary of Veterans Affairs

    Jeff Miller Retired chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee

    Homeland Security Secretary

    Joe Arpaio Departing sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz.
    David A. Clarke Jr. Milwaukee County sheriff
    Michael McCaul Representative from Texas and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee
    Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama

    White House Chief of Staff

    Stephen K. Bannon Editor of Breitbart News and chairman of Mr. Trump's campaign
    Reince Priebus Chairman of the Republican National Committee

    E.P.A. Administrator

    Myron Ebell A director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a prominent climate change skeptic
    Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner who was involved in drafting the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
    Jeffrey R. Holmstead Lawyer with Bracewell L.L.P. and former deputy E.P.A. administrator in the George W. Bush administration

    U.S. Trade Representative

    Dan DiMicco Former chief executive of Nucor Corporation, a steel production company, and a critic of Chinese trade practices

    U.N. Ambassador

    Kelly Ayotte Departing senator from New Hampshire and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
    Richard Grenell Former spokesman for the United States ambassador to the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration

    CIA Director / Director of National Intelligence

    Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
    Peter Hoekstra Former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
    Mike Rogers Former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
    Frances Townsend Former homeland security adviser under George W. Bush

    National Security Adviser

    Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... November 12, 2016 at 08:49 PM

    Trump's Hires Will Set Course of His Presidency http://nyti.ms/2eNUfRg
    NYT - MARK LANDLER =- Nov 12

    WASHINGTON - "Busy day planned in New York," President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Twitter on Friday morning, two days after his astonishing victory. "Will soon be making some very important decisions on the people who will be running our government!"

    If anything, that understates the gravity of the personnel choices Mr. Trump and his transition team are weighing.

    Rarely in the history of the American presidency has the exercise of choosing people to fill jobs had such a far-reaching impact on the nature and priorities of an incoming administration. Unlike most new presidents, Mr. Trump comes into office with no elective-office experience, no coherent political agenda and no bulging binder of policy proposals. And he has left a trail of inflammatory, often contradictory, statements on issues from immigration and race to terrorism and geopolitics.

    In such a chaotic environment, serving a president who is in many ways a tabula rasa, the appointees to key White House jobs like chief of staff and cabinet posts like secretary of state, defense secretary and Treasury secretary could wield outsize influence. Their selection will help determine whether the Trump administration governs like the firebrand Mr. Trump was on the campaign trail or the pragmatist he often appears to be behind closed doors. ...

    [Nov 13, 2016] Long Live the Establishment!

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington insiders attempt to capture Trump and influence his positions, policies and decisions. ..."
    "... Trump will likely form a very small team of offshoots of himself, people whom he trusts implicitly, in order to extend his capacity to choose people who will adhere to and execute his agenda. ..."
    "... The presidency is an establishment and Washington is another. By being elected, Trump struck a blow at the members of the establishment who will be packing their bags while weeping over their losses (see here and here .) ..."
    "... The Obama establishment is dead. The Democratic establishment is dead, at least for 4 years. There was a time, a very brief time under the Articles of Confederation, when Americans recognized the evils of the establishment and avoided instituting one. ..."
    Nov 13, 2016 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    What happens next in Washington? Trump fills out his administration.

    At the same time, Washington insiders attempt to capture Trump and influence his positions, policies and decisions. The presidency is an institution, not a man, not a president. The presidency is a network of enormous power with Trump now at its center. Washington insiders who live and breathe politics are now in a race for positions of power and influence. They hanker and vie for appointments. Trump must make appointments. He cannot operate alone. He must delegate power to make decisions. He cannot monitor all information pertinent to every issue in which the government has a hand.

    The presidency is not 100 percent centralized. Decision-making power is allocated to levels below the president himself and to levels surrounding him. It also lies outside the presidency in Congress. Trump has his ideas and desires for actions, but their realization depends on the people he appoints. He loses control and locks himself in with every appointment that he makes. People around him want his power and want to influence him. They have a heavy influence on what he hears, whom he sees, the options presented to him, and the evaluations of competing personnel. Trump will likely form a very small team of offshoots of himself, people whom he trusts implicitly, in order to extend his capacity to choose people who will adhere to and execute his agenda.

    Power in Washington is not simply the apparatus of administering the presidency that will take up headlines for the next few months. After the U.S. Treasury robs the tax-paying Americans, new robbers (the Lobby) appear to rob the Treasury using every device they can get away with. There is a second contingent, the power-seekers. Those who covet the exercise of power unceasingly work toward their own narrow aims. As long as Washington remains the place that concentrates unbelievably large amounts of money and powers, it will remain the swamp that Trump has promised to drain but won't. He cannot drain it, not without destroying Washington's power and he cannot accomplish that, nor does he even hint that he wants to accomplish that. His stated aims are the redirection of money and powers, not their elimination for the sake of a greater justice, a greater right, and a truly greater people and country.

    The presidency is an establishment and Washington is another. By being elected, Trump struck a blow at the members of the establishment who will be packing their bags while weeping over their losses (see here and here .)

    But elections do not strike the roots of the presidency, the establishment or Washington. Neither will demonstrations against Trump.

    The Obama establishment is dead. The Democratic establishment is dead, at least for 4 years. There was a time, a very brief time under the Articles of Confederation, when Americans recognized the evils of the establishment and avoided instituting one.

    This gave way almost immediately (in 1787) to the constitutional seed that planted the enormous tree that now cuts out the sun of justice from American lives. A domestic war failed to uproot that tree. Long live the establishment, the Union, the American state, and may they be possessed of immense powers over our lives - these became the social and political reality. Trump isn't going to change it. He's a president administering a presidency. He's at the top of the heap. His credo is still "Long Live the Establishment!"

    Reprinted with permission from LewRockwell.com .

    [Nov 13, 2016] The last thing Trump needs to do is start adopting the neocon, zionist, israeli first agenda after the total opposition of this folks during the presidential compaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump can renegotiate that Iranian treaty but he should never change the result: Iran loses its sanctions and joins the rest of the trading world. ditto with Russia. I have a feeling after trump has a long talk with Putin the Iranian deal will look somewhat different. ..."
    Nov 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    jeff montanye justin423 Nov 13, 2016 10:56 AM ,
    Trump can renegotiate that Iranian treaty but he should never change the result: Iran loses its sanctions and joins the rest of the trading world. ditto with Russia. I have a feeling after trump has a long talk with Putin the Iranian deal will look somewhat different.

    the last thing, the very fucking last thing, trump needs to do is start adopting the neocon, Zionist, Israeli first agenda after the total opposite of those fucks elected him.

    [Nov 13, 2016] Long Live the Establishment!

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington insiders attempt to capture Trump and influence his positions, policies and decisions. ..."
    "... Trump will likely form a very small team of offshoots of himself, people whom he trusts implicitly, in order to extend his capacity to choose people who will adhere to and execute his agenda. ..."
    "... The presidency is an establishment and Washington is another. By being elected, Trump struck a blow at the members of the establishment who will be packing their bags while weeping over their losses (see here and here .) ..."
    "... The Obama establishment is dead. The Democratic establishment is dead, at least for 4 years. There was a time, a very brief time under the Articles of Confederation, when Americans recognized the evils of the establishment and avoided instituting one. ..."
    Nov 13, 2016 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    What happens next in Washington? Trump fills out his administration.

    At the same time, Washington insiders attempt to capture Trump and influence his positions, policies and decisions. The presidency is an institution, not a man, not a president. The presidency is a network of enormous power with Trump now at its center. Washington insiders who live and breathe politics are now in a race for positions of power and influence. They hanker and vie for appointments. Trump must make appointments. He cannot operate alone. He must delegate power to make decisions. He cannot monitor all information pertinent to every issue in which the government has a hand.

    The presidency is not 100 percent centralized. Decision-making power is allocated to levels below the president himself and to levels surrounding him. It also lies outside the presidency in Congress. Trump has his ideas and desires for actions, but their realization depends on the people he appoints. He loses control and locks himself in with every appointment that he makes. People around him want his power and want to influence him. They have a heavy influence on what he hears, whom he sees, the options presented to him, and the evaluations of competing personnel. Trump will likely form a very small team of offshoots of himself, people whom he trusts implicitly, in order to extend his capacity to choose people who will adhere to and execute his agenda.

    Power in Washington is not simply the apparatus of administering the presidency that will take up headlines for the next few months. After the U.S. Treasury robs the tax-paying Americans, new robbers (the Lobby) appear to rob the Treasury using every device they can get away with. There is a second contingent, the power-seekers. Those who covet the exercise of power unceasingly work toward their own narrow aims. As long as Washington remains the place that concentrates unbelievably large amounts of money and powers, it will remain the swamp that Trump has promised to drain but won't. He cannot drain it, not without destroying Washington's power and he cannot accomplish that, nor does he even hint that he wants to accomplish that. His stated aims are the redirection of money and powers, not their elimination for the sake of a greater justice, a greater right, and a truly greater people and country.

    The presidency is an establishment and Washington is another. By being elected, Trump struck a blow at the members of the establishment who will be packing their bags while weeping over their losses (see here and here .)

    But elections do not strike the roots of the presidency, the establishment or Washington. Neither will demonstrations against Trump.

    The Obama establishment is dead. The Democratic establishment is dead, at least for 4 years. There was a time, a very brief time under the Articles of Confederation, when Americans recognized the evils of the establishment and avoided instituting one.

    This gave way almost immediately (in 1787) to the constitutional seed that planted the enormous tree that now cuts out the sun of justice from American lives. A domestic war failed to uproot that tree. Long live the establishment, the Union, the American state, and may they be possessed of immense powers over our lives - these became the social and political reality. Trump isn't going to change it. He's a president administering a presidency. He's at the top of the heap. His credo is still "Long Live the Establishment!"

    Reprinted with permission from LewRockwell.com .

    [Nov 13, 2016] The Middle East crises Trump inherits could still suck him in

    Notable quotes:
    "... Real foreign policy positions will only emerge with the formation of a Trump cabinet when it becomes clear who will be in charge. ..."
    "... But, if future policies remain unknowable, super-charged American nationalism combined with economic populism and isolationism are likely to set the general tone. ..."
    "... This sort of aggressive nationalism is not unique to Trump. All over the world nationalism is having a spectacular rebirth in countries from Turkey to the Philippines. It has become a successful vehicle for protest in Britain, France, Germany, Austria and Eastern Europe. ..."
    "... The most serious wars in which the US is already militarily involved are in Iraq and Syria and here Trump's comments during the campaign suggest that he will focus on destroying Isis, recognise the danger of becoming militarily over-involved and look for some sort of cooperation with Russia as the next biggest player in the conflict. This is similar to what is already happening. ..."
    "... Trump's instincts generally seem less well-informed but often shrewd, and his priories have nothing to do with the Middle East. ..."
    "... The region has been the political graveyard for three of the last five US presidents: Jimmy Carter was destroyed by the consequences of the Iranian revolution; Ronald Reagan was gravely weakened by the Iran-Contra scandal; and George W Bush's years in office will be remembered chiefly for the calamities brought on by his invasion of Iraq. Barack Obama was luckier and more sensible, but he wholly underestimated the rise of Isis until it captured Mosul in 2014. ..."
    Nov 13, 2016 | www.unz.com
    ...the election campaign was focused almost exclusively on American domestic politics with voters showing little interest in events abroad. This is unlikely to change.

    Governments around the world can see this for themselves, though this will not stop them badgering their diplomats in Washington and New York for an inkling as to how far Trump's off-the-cuff remarks were more than outrageous attempts to dominate the news agenda for a few hours. Fortunately, his pronouncements were so woolly that they can be easily jettisoned between now and his inauguration. Real foreign policy positions will only emerge with the formation of a Trump cabinet when it becomes clear who will be in charge.

    But, if future policies remain unknowable, super-charged American nationalism combined with economic populism and isolationism are likely to set the general tone. Trump has invariably portrayed Americans as the victims of the foul machinations of foreign countries who previously faced no real resistance from an incompetent self-serving American elite.

    This sort of aggressive nationalism is not unique to Trump. All over the world nationalism is having a spectacular rebirth in countries from Turkey to the Philippines. It has become a successful vehicle for protest in Britain, France, Germany, Austria and Eastern Europe. Though Trump is frequently portrayed as a peculiarly American phenomenon, his populist nationalism has a striking amount in common with that of the Brexit campaigners in Britain or even the chauvinism of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey. Much of this can be discounted as patriotic bombast, but in all cases there is a menacing undercurrent of racism and demonisation, whether it is directed against illegal immigrants in the US, asylum seekers in the Britain or Kurds in south east Turkey.

    In reality, Trump made very few proposals for radical change in US foreign policy during the election campaign, aside from saying that he would throw out the agreement with Iran on its nuclear programme – though his staff is now being much less categorical about this, saying only that the deal must be properly enforced. Nobody really knows if Trump will deal any differently from Obama with the swathe of countries between Pakistan and Nigeria where there are at least seven wars raging – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and South Sudan – as well as four serious insurgencies.

    The most serious wars in which the US is already militarily involved are in Iraq and Syria and here Trump's comments during the campaign suggest that he will focus on destroying Isis, recognise the danger of becoming militarily over-involved and look for some sort of cooperation with Russia as the next biggest player in the conflict. This is similar to what is already happening.

    Hillary Clinton's intentions in Syria, though never fully formulated, always sounded more interventionist than Trump's. One of her senior advisers openly proposed giving less priority to the assault on Isis and more to getting rid of President Bashar al-Assad. To this end, a third force of pro-US militant moderates was to be raised that would fight and ultimately defeat both Isis and Assad. Probably this fantasy would never have come to pass, but the fact that it was ever given currency underlines the extent to which Clinton was at one with the most dead-in-the-water conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment in Washington.

    President Obama developed a much more acute sense of what the US could and could not do in the Middle East and beyond, without provoking crises exceeding its political and military strength. Its power may be less than before the failed US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan following 9/11, but it is still far greater than any other country's. Currently, it is the US which is successfully coordinating the offensive against Isis's last strongholds in Mosul and Raqqa by a multitude of fractious parties in Iraq and Syria. It was never clear how seriously one should have taken Clinton's proposals for "safe zones" and trying to fight Isis and Assad at the same time, but her judgements on events in the Middle East since the Iraq invasion of 2003 all suggested a flawed idea of what was feasible.

    Trump's instincts generally seem less well-informed but often shrewd, and his priories have nothing to do with the Middle East. Past US leaders have felt the same way, but they usually end up by being dragged into its crises one way or other, and how they perform then becomes the test of their real quality as a leader. The region has been the political graveyard for three of the last five US presidents: Jimmy Carter was destroyed by the consequences of the Iranian revolution; Ronald Reagan was gravely weakened by the Iran-Contra scandal; and George W Bush's years in office will be remembered chiefly for the calamities brought on by his invasion of Iraq. Barack Obama was luckier and more sensible, but he wholly underestimated the rise of Isis until it captured Mosul in 2014.

    (Reprinted from The Independent by permission of author or representative)

    [Nov 13, 2016] Will Donald Trump Really Torpedo the Iran Deal

    Notable quotes:
    "... if the rumors are true and Trump nominates John Bolton as secretary of state, it's almost unfathomable to believe that Washington would continue to certify that Tehran is meeting its nuclear commitments. ..."
    "... This is the same guy who, during the tail-end of the P5+1 negotiating process for an interim, placeholder accord, wrote in the New York Times that the United States needed to bomb Iran's facilities or at least support the Israelis so they could do it themselves. ..."
    "... John Bolton for SoS? Criminality! ..."
    "... If the hardest core neocons are brought directly into the highest echelons of American government and institute the kinds of policies mentioned in this article there will be much destruction, and when the dust settles there will be a popularly mandated realignment of EU countries away from fast allegiance with the US, and finally, a functioning alternative monetary and financial system revolving around the BRICS countries. ..."
    Nov 13, 2016 | nationalinterest.org

    Trump's ambivalence and wishy-washiness isn't much comfort for people who worked on the negotiation tirelessly over a matter of years. Richard Nephew, the former sanctions official who helped put in place and implement nuclear-related economic restrictions on the Iranians, strongly believes that the JCPOA is a dead deal walking and will be slowly strangled to death as soon as Trump is sworn in. In many ways, he could be right;

    if the rumors are true and Trump nominates John Bolton as secretary of state, it's almost unfathomable to believe that Washington would continue to certify that Tehran is meeting its nuclear commitments.

    This is the same guy who, during the tail-end of the P5+1 negotiating process for an interim, placeholder accord, wrote in the New York Times that the United States needed to bomb Iran's facilities or at least support the Israelis so they could do it themselves.

    LavXolm a day ago

    John Bolton for SoS? Criminality!

    If the hardest core neocons are brought directly into the highest echelons of American government and institute the kinds of policies mentioned in this article there will be much destruction, and when the dust settles there will be a popularly mandated realignment of EU countries away from fast allegiance with the US, and finally, a functioning alternative monetary and financial system revolving around the BRICS countries.

    It doesn't have to happen, but if Trump brings in fire breathing nut jobs like Bolton, it WILL happen. Non-the-less, I do predict that Trump will be greatly coopted by "the establishment" he vilified and that the public largely hates. It's an irresistible force that will only be brought down with general social collapse.

    [Nov 13, 2016] Stoltenberg worried about the viability of his cushy position

    Nov 13, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Moscow Exile , November 12, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    Stoltenberg worried about the viability of his cushy number:

    Now is not the time for the US to abandon Nato – nor should its European allies go it alone

    We face the greatest challenges to our security in a generation. This is no time to question the value of the partnership between Europe and the United States.

    (And I need the money!)

    [Nov 13, 2016] I dont think it will be difficult for the US president-elect to tell the UK government where to go.

    Nov 13, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile , November 12, 2016 at 10:10 pm
    Sound the alarm, Britannia!

    Trump Putin alliance sparks diplomatic crisis

    Britain is facing a diplomatic crisis with the US over Donald Trump's plans to forge an alliance with Vladimir Putin and bolster the Syrian regime.

    In a significant foreign policy split, officials admitted that Britain will have some "very difficult" conversations with the President-elect in coming months over his approach to Russia.

    I don't think it will be difficult for the US president-elect to tell the UK government where to go.

    marknesop , November 12, 2016 at 10:27 pm
    Donald Trump's plans to forge an alliance with Vladimir Putin and bolster the Syrian regime. When did he ever say he had any such plans? But now they are a fact in being, thanks to the Torygraph. Britain has evolved into an expert panicker.

    [Nov 13, 2016] Donald Trump Threatens Neocon War Lobby Five Principles To Develop A Foreign Policy For America

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump, to a degree previously matched only by such outlier presidential candidates as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, is challenging Washington's conventional wisdom that America must dominate the globe. ..."
    "... He also criticized nation-building. "We have a country that's in bad shape," he reasonably allowed: "I just think we have to rebuild our country." ..."
    "... Fifth, foreign policy is ultimately about domestic policy. "War is the health of the state," Randolph Bourne presciently declared a century ago. There is no bigger big government program war, no graver threat to civil liberties than perpetual conflict with the homeland the battlefield, no greater danger to daily life than blowback from military overreach. ..."
    Mar 24, 2016 | forbes.com/

    Still, Trump, to a degree previously matched only by such outlier presidential candidates as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, is challenging Washington's conventional wisdom that America must dominate the globe. The "usual suspects" who manage foreign policy in every administration, Republican and Democrat, believe that the U.S. must cow every adversary, fight every war, defend every ally, enforce every peace, settle every conflict, pay every bill, and otherwise ensure that the lion lies down with the lamb at the end of time, if not before.

    Not Donald Trump. He recently shocked polite war-making society in the nation's capital when he criticized NATO, essentially a welfare agency for Europeans determined to safeguard their generous social benefits. Before the Washington Post editorial board he made the obvious point that "NATO was set up at a different time." Moreover, Ukraine "affects us far less than it affects other countries in NATO, and yet we're doing all of the lifting." Why, he wondered? It's a good question.

    His view that foreign policy should change along with the world scandalized Washington policymakers, who embody Public Choice economics, which teaches that government officials and agencies are self-interested and dedicated to self-preservation. In foreign policy that means what has ever been must ever be and everything is more important today than in the past, no matter how much circumstances have changed.

    Trump expressed skepticism about American defense subsidies for other wealthy allies, such as South Korea and Saudi Arabia as well as military deployments in Asia. "We spent billions of dollars on Saudi Arabia and they have nothing but money," he observed. Similarly, he contended, "South Korea is very rich, great industrial country, and yet we're not reimbursed fairly for what we do." He also criticized nation-building. "We have a country that's in bad shape," he reasonably allowed: "I just think we have to rebuild our country."

    Unlike presidents dating back at least to George H.W. Bush, Trump appears reluctant to go to war. He opposed sending tens of thousands of troops to fight the Islamic State: "I would put tremendous pressure on other countries that are over there to use their troops." Equally sensibly, he warned against starting World War III over Crimea or useless rocks in East Asian seas. He made a point that should be obvious at a time of budget crisis: "We certainly can't afford to do this anymore."

    ... ... ...

    Fifth, foreign policy is ultimately about domestic policy. "War is the health of the state," Randolph Bourne presciently declared a century ago. There is no bigger big government program war, no graver threat to civil liberties than perpetual conflict with the homeland the battlefield, no greater danger to daily life than blowback from military overreach.

    [Nov 13, 2016] Ron Paul Neocons are Trying to Infiltrate Trump`s Administration

    Nov 13, 2016 | www.youtube.com

    archivesDave 1 day ago

    " TRYING" ???...That's a JOKE, Right? Gingrich, Giuliani, etc, etc, These Neocons already have a lot of the wild cards and 'Trump Cards'...Closet Globalists, even though they probably wouldn't admit it.

    Reference Carroll Quigley and Craig Hulet if you really want to get the REAL skinny!

    * Problem~Reaction~Solution

    [Nov 13, 2016] Donald Trump Is Picking His Cabinet

    Looks like Secretary of State shortlist is dominated by neocons. A couple of candidates would make Hillary Clinton proud... the head of CIA is an informal head of shadow government and as such is also very important. Allen Dulles example should still be remembered by all presidents, if they do not want to repeat the face of JFK ....
    Nov 13, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...

    Here's a Short List http://nyti.ms/2eNpI6a
    NYT - Nov 12

    (There are 5 women on the list, including Sarah Palin & NH's Kelly Ayotte, demonstrating that ilsm has some influence.
    For Sec/Defense - seriously. Alternatively for UN Ambassador. Right.)

    The list:

    Secretary of State

    John R. Bolton Former United States ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush [ neocon; one of the members of PNAC ; see About the PAC - John Bolton PAC BoltonPAC.com ]

    Bob Corker Senator from Tennessee and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [ See also Bob Corker on the Issues ]

    Newt Gingrich Former House speaker [former neocon; Political ally of Rand Paul recently]

    Newt Gingrich Abandons Neocons, Joins Rand Paul In GOP Foreign Policy Civil War

    [ Newt Gingrich's Deep Neocon Ties Drive His Bellicose Middle East Policy - The Daily Beast ; Newt Gingrich A Brilliant Neo-Con with a lot of Baggage Off The Grid News ]

    Zalmay Khalilzad Former United States ambassador to Afghanistan [ neocon; one of the members of PNAC ; See Washington's Neocon in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad Nominated as U.S. Ambassador Democracy Now! ]

    Stanley A. McChrystal Former senior military commander in Afghanistan [See neo-neocon " Blog Archive " Loose lips the McChrystal article ]

    Treasury Secretary

    Thomas Barrack Jr. Founder, chairman and executive chairman of Colony Capital; private equity and real estate investor
    Jeb Hensarling Representative from Texas and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee
    Steven Mnuchin Former Goldman Sachs executive and Mr. Trump's campaign finance chairman
    Tim Pawlenty Former Minnesota governor

    Defense Secretary

    Kelly Ayotte Departing senator from New Hampshire and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
    Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (he would need a waiver from Congress because of a seven-year rule for retired officers)
    Stephen J. Hadley National security adviser under George W. Bush
    Jon Kyl Former senator from Arizona
    Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama who is a prominent immigration opponent

    Attorney General

    Chris Christie New Jersey governor
    Rudolph W. Giuliani Former New York mayor
    Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama

    Interior Secretary

    Jan Brewer Former Arizona governor
    Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner
    Harold G. Hamm Chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas company
    Forrest Lucas President of Lucas Oil Products, which manufactures automotive lubricants, additives and greases
    Sarah Palin Former Alaska governor

    Agriculture Secretary

    Sam Brownback Kansas governor
    Chuck Conner Chief executive officer of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
    Sid Miller Texas agricultural commissioner
    Sonny Perdue Former Georgia governor

    Commerce Secretary

    Chris Christie New Jersey governor
    Dan DiMicco Former chief executive of Nucor Corporation, a steel production company
    Lewis M. Eisenberg Private equity chief for Granite Capital International Group

    Labor Secretary

    Victoria A. Lipnic Equal Employment Opportunity commissioner and work force policy counsel to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce

    Health and Human Services Secretary

    Dr. Ben Carson Former neurosurgeon and 2016 presidential candidate
    Mike Huckabee Former Arkansas governor and 2016 presidential candidate
    Bobby Jindal Former Louisiana governor who served as secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals
    Rick Scott Florida governor and former chief executive of a large hospital chain

    Energy Secretary

    James L. Connaughton Chief executive of Nautilus Data Technologies and former environmental adviser to President George W. Bush
    Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner
    Harold G. Hamm Chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas company

    Education Secretary

    Dr. Ben Carson Former neurosurgeon and 2016 presidential candidate
    Williamson M. Evers Education expert at the Hoover Institution, a think tank

    Secretary of Veterans Affairs

    Jeff Miller Retired chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee

    Homeland Security Secretary

    Joe Arpaio Departing sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz.
    David A. Clarke Jr. Milwaukee County sheriff
    Michael McCaul Representative from Texas and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee
    Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama

    White House Chief of Staff

    Stephen K. Bannon Editor of Breitbart News and chairman of Mr. Trump's campaign
    Reince Priebus Chairman of the Republican National Committee

    E.P.A. Administrator

    Myron Ebell A director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a prominent climate change skeptic
    Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner who was involved in drafting the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
    Jeffrey R. Holmstead Lawyer with Bracewell L.L.P. and former deputy E.P.A. administrator in the George W. Bush administration

    U.S. Trade Representative

    Dan DiMicco Former chief executive of Nucor Corporation, a steel production company, and a critic of Chinese trade practices

    U.N. Ambassador

    Kelly Ayotte Departing senator from New Hampshire and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
    Richard Grenell Former spokesman for the United States ambassador to the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration

    CIA Director / Director of National Intelligence

    Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
    Peter Hoekstra Former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
    Mike Rogers Former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
    Frances Townsend Former homeland security adviser under George W. Bush

    National Security Adviser

    Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... November 12, 2016 at 08:49 PM

    Trump's Hires Will Set Course of His Presidency http://nyti.ms/2eNUfRg
    NYT - MARK LANDLER =- Nov 12

    WASHINGTON - "Busy day planned in New York," President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Twitter on Friday morning, two days after his astonishing victory. "Will soon be making some very important decisions on the people who will be running our government!"

    If anything, that understates the gravity of the personnel choices Mr. Trump and his transition team are weighing.

    Rarely in the history of the American presidency has the exercise of choosing people to fill jobs had such a far-reaching impact on the nature and priorities of an incoming administration. Unlike most new presidents, Mr. Trump comes into office with no elective-office experience, no coherent political agenda and no bulging binder of policy proposals. And he has left a trail of inflammatory, often contradictory, statements on issues from immigration and race to terrorism and geopolitics.

    In such a chaotic environment, serving a president who is in many ways a tabula rasa, the appointees to key White House jobs like chief of staff and cabinet posts like secretary of state, defense secretary and Treasury secretary could wield outsize influence. Their selection will help determine whether the Trump administration governs like the firebrand Mr. Trump was on the campaign trail or the pragmatist he often appears to be behind closed doors. ...

    [Nov 13, 2016] Avalanche of negative coverage from MSM backfired

    Notable quotes:
    "... The media and Clinton campaign created some sympathy for Donald Trump because the message was not subtle, it was an avalanche, indeed, an unprecedented deluge of negative, caustic, burn-it-to-the-ground anti-Trump messaging, and people don't respond to that ..."
    nypost.com

    "The media and Clinton campaign created some sympathy for Donald Trump because the message was not subtle, it was an avalanche, indeed, an unprecedented deluge of negative, caustic, burn-it-to-the-ground anti-Trump messaging, and people don't respond to that," Conway said.

    [Nov 13, 2016] We were told confidently by Clinton surrogates like Krugman and DeLong that Brexit wouldnt happen again

    By John Cassidy conviniently forget that Hillary was/is a neocon warmonger, perfectly cable of unleashing WWIII. Instead he pushes "Comey did it" bogeyman"...
    Nov 13, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. : November 13, 2016 at 03:48 AM

    EMichael and im1dc would rather have their head in the sand. We were told confidently by Clinton surrogates like Krugman and DeLong that Brexit wouldn't happen again.

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/media-culpa-the-press-and-the-election-result

    MEDIA CULPA? THE PRESS AND THE ELECTION RESULT

    By John Cassidy , NOVEMBER 11, 2016

    Since Tuesday night, there has been a lot of handwringing about how the media, with all its fancy analytics, failed to foresee Donald Trump's victory. The Times alone has published three articles on this theme, one of which ran under the headline "How Data Failed Us in Calling an Election." On social media, Trump supporters have been mercilessly haranguing the press for getting it wrong.

    Clearly, this was a real issue. It's safe to say that most journalists, myself included, were surprised by Tuesday's outcome. That fact should be acknowledged. But journalists weren't the only ones who were shocked. As late as Tuesday evening, even a senior adviser to Trump was telling the press that "it will take a miracle for us to win."

    It also shouldn't be forgotten that, in terms of the popular vote, Clinton didn't lose on Tuesday. As of 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, a tally by CNN showed that Hillary Clinton had received 60,617,062 votes, while Trump got 60,118,567. The margin in her favor-now at 498,495-is likely to grow as the remaining votes are counted in California. At the end of the day, Clinton may end up ahead by two per cent of the total votes cast. If the United States had a direct system of voting, Clinton would have been the one at the White House on Thursday meeting with President Obama. But, of course, Trump won the Electoral College. If the final count in Michigan remains in his favor, Trump will end up with three hundred and six Electoral College votes, to Clinton's two hundred and twenty-six.

    Still, as journalists and commentators, we all knew the rules of the game: if Trump got to two hundred and seventy votes in the Electoral College, he'd be President. Why did so few observers predict he'd do it? Many Trump supporters insist it was East Coast insularity and ideological bias, and many in the media are now ready to believe that. To be sure, it's easy to get sucked into the media bubble. But there are also strong professional incentives for journalists to get things right. Why did that prove so difficult this year?

    It wasn't because journalists weren't legging it to Michigan or Wisconsin or West Virginia. In this magazine alone, a number of writers-including Larissa MacFarquhar, Evan Osnos, George Packer, and George Saunders-published long, reported pieces about the Trump phenomenon in different parts of the country. Many other journalists spent a lot of time talking with Trump supporters. I'd point you to the work of ProPublica's Alec MacGillis and the photojournalist Chris Arnade, but they were just two among many. So many, in fact, that some Clinton supporters, such as Eric Boehlert, of Media Matters, regularly complained about it on social media.

    To the extent that there was a failure, it was a failure of analysis, rather than of observation and reporting. And when you talk about how the media analyzed this election, you can't avoid the polls, the forecasting models, and the organizing frames-particularly demographics-that people used to interpret the incoming data.

    It was clear from early in the race that Trump's electoral strategy was based on appealing to working-class whites, particularly in the Midwest. The question all along was whether, in the increasingly diverse America of 2016, there were enough alienated working-class whites to propel Trump to victory.

    Some analysts did suggest that there might be. Immediately after the 2012 election, Sean Trende, of Real Clear Politics, pointed out that one of the main reasons for Mitt Romney's defeat was that millions of white voters stayed home. Earlier this year, during the Republican primaries, Trende returned to the same theme, writing, "The candidate who actually fits the profile of a 'missing white voter' candidate is Donald Trump."

    The Times' Nate Cohn was another who took Trump's strategy seriously. In June, pointing to a new analysis of Census Bureau data and voter-registration files, Cohn wrote, "a growing body of evidence suggests that there is still a path, albeit a narrow one, for Mr. Trump to win without gains among nonwhite voters." As recently as Sunday, Cohn repeated this point, noting that Trump's "strength among the white working class gives him a real chance at victory, a possibility that many discounted as recently as the summer."

    Among analysts and political demographers, however, the near-consensus of opinion was that Trump wouldn't be able to turn back history. Back in March, I interviewed Ruy Teixeira, the co-author of an influential 2004 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority," which highlighted the growing number of minority voters across the country, particularly Hispanics. Drawing on his latest data, Teixeira, who is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress, offered some estimates of how many more white working-class voters Trump would need to turn out to flip states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. "It's not crazy," he said. "But I think it would be very hard to pull off."

    Trump managed it, though. He enjoyed a thirty-nine-point advantage among whites without college degrees, according to the network exit poll, compared to the twenty-six-point advantage Romney saw in 2012. "What totally tanked the Democrats was the massive shift in the white non-college vote against them, particularly in some of the swing states," Teixeira told me by telephone on Thursday. "And that by itself is really enough to explain the outcome."

    In the lead-up to the election, the possibility of Clinton winning the popular vote while losing the Electoral College was well understood but, in hindsight, not taken seriously enough. In mid-September, David Wasserman, an analyst at the Cook Political Report, laid out a scenario in which turnout among white non-college voters surged and turnout among some parts of the Democratic coalition, particularly African-Americans, fell. "Clinton would carry the popular vote by 1.5 percentage points," Wasserman wrote. "However, Trump would win the Electoral College with 280 votes by holding all 24 Romney states and flipping Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Maine's 2nd Congressional District."

    In the days and weeks leading up to the election, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver also considered the possibility of Clinton winning the popular vote and losing the election. But he, Wasserman, and others who looked at the matter believed this was an unlikely outcome. On Tuesday, the FiveThirtyEight forecasting model estimated that the probability of such a scenario happening was about one in ten.

    There was a straightforward reason for all the skepticism about Trump's chances: when you looked at the state-level polling, it looked like Clinton's "blue wall" was holding. Take Wisconsin, which turned out to be a state that Trump won. The Huffington Post's polling database lists the results of more than thirty polls that were taken in the Badger State since June: Trump didn't lead in any of them. Three of the final four surveys showed Clinton ahead by six points or more, and the Huffpollster poll average put her lead at 6.3 percentage points. Trump carried the state by one point. In other key states, the pattern was similar. The final Huffington Post poll averages showed Trump losing by nearly six points in Michigan, and by four points in Pennsylvania.

    In a public statement issued on Wednesday, the American Association for Public Opinion Research said bluntly, "The polls clearly got it wrong this time." The organization announced that it had already put together a panel of "survey research and election polling experts" tasked with finding some answers. Several possible explanations have already been floated.

    First, it's possible there was a late swing to Trump among undecided voters, which the state polls, in particular, failed to pick up. Another possibility is that some Trump voters didn't tell the pollsters about their preferences-the "shy Trump supporter" hypothesis.

    A third theory, which I suspect may be the right one, is that a lot of Trump voters refused to answer the pollsters' calls in the first place, because they regarded them as part of the same media-political establishment that Trump was out railing against on the campaign trail. Something like this appears to have happened in Britain earlier this year, during the run-up to the Brexit referendum. Turnout wound up being considerably higher than expected among lower-income voters in the north of England, particularly elderly ones, and that swung the result.

    Whatever went wrong with the polls in this country, they inevitably colored perceptions. "The reason it surprised me was because, like everyone else, I was taken in by those pesky polls," Teixeira told me. "It didn't look like, by and large, that he was running up as big a margin as he needed among non-college whites."

    The prediction models didn't help things. On Tuesday morning, FiveThirtyEight's "polls-only" prediction model put the probability of Clinton winning the presidency at 71.4 per cent. And that figure was perhaps the most conservative one. The Times' Upshot model said Clinton had an eighty-five per cent chance of winning, the Huffington Post's figure was ninety-eight per cent, and the Princeton Election Consortium's estimate was ninety-nine per cent.

    These numbers had a big influence on how many people, including journalists and political professionals, looked at the election. Plowing through all the new polls, or even keeping up with all the state and national poll averages, can be a time-consuming process. It's much easier to click on the latest update from the model of your choice. When you see it registering the chances of the election going a certain way at ninety per cent, or ninety-five per cent, it's easy to dismiss the other outcome as a live possibility-particularly if you haven't been schooled in how to think in probabilistic terms, which many people haven't.

    The problem with models is that they rely so much on the polls. Essentially, they aggregate poll numbers and use some simulation software to covert them into unidimensional probabilistic forecasts. The details are complicated, and each model is different, but the bottom line is straightforward: when the polls are fairly accurate-as they were in 2008 and 2012-the models look good. When the polls are off, so are the models.

    Silver, to his credit, pointed this out numerous times before the election. His model also allowed for the possibility that errors in the state polls were likely to be correlated-i.e., if the polls in Wisconsin got it wrong, then most likely the Michigan polls would get it wrong, too. This was a big reason why FiveThirtyEight's model consistently gave Trump a better chance of winning than other models did. But the fact remains that FiveThirtyEight, like almost everyone else, got the result wrong.

    I got it wrong, too. Unlike in 2012, I didn't make any explicit predictions this year. But based on the polls and poll averages-I didn't look at the models much-I largely accepted the conventional wisdom that Clinton was running ahead of Trump and had an enduring advantage in the Electoral College. In mid-October, after the "Access Hollywood" tape emerged, I suggested that Trump was done.

    Clearly, he wasn't. In retrospect, the F.B.I. Director James Comey's intervention ten days before the election-telling Congress that his agency was taking another look at e-mails related to Clinton's private server-may have proved decisive. The news seems to have shifted the national polls against Clinton by at least a couple of points, and some of the state polls-in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and other places-also moved sharply in Trump's direction. Without any doubt, it energized Republicans and demoralized Democrats.

    One thing we know for sure, however, is that in mid-October, even some of the indicators that the Trump campaign relied on were sending out alarm signals. "Flash back three weeks, to October 18," Bloomberg News's Joshua Green and Sasha Issenberg reported on Thursday. "The Trump campaign's internal election simulator, the 'Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory,' showed Trump with a 7.8 percent chance of winning. That's because his own model had him trailing in most of the states that would decide the election, including the pivotal state of Florida."

    Of course, neither the Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory software nor I knew that fate, in the form of Comey, was about to take a hand.

    [Nov 13, 2016] As any macro economist will demonstrate, working lower/blue-collar men, predominantly white, born from the 1960s to 1980s have experienced virtually no prosperity, no 'American dream'.

    Nov 13, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    Sulphurman 4d ago 18 19 As any macro economist will demonstrate, working lower/blue-collar men, predominantly white, born from the 1960s to 1980s have experienced virtually no prosperity, no 'American dream'. Their incomes have not kept up with the cost of living, their job sectors have crumbled in the face of outsourcing and technology efficiencies, they are usually debt laden and increasingly angry. Trump captured all of that vote. His team actively targeted that demographic in their state visits.

    These voters have been labelled 'off the grid' by the idiotic pollsters, because they dont engage in social media particularly.

    The most useful statistic about this victory comes from the Federal Reserve survey in 2013 that found an astonishing 47% of respondents would struggle to pay for a $400 emergency car or heating repair. That breeds disillusion, and gave Trump his majority.

    The sexism, racism, misogyny and dark behaviour of Trump made no difference to the fact his winning votes came from people on the wrong end of the distribution of wealth, millions and millions of them. They'll let him continue that behaviour if theres a financial improvement in their lives.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Neocons Trying to Sneak Into Trump Administration by Jason Ditz

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's a cliche to say that the cushiest positions of influence in any US administration go to figures who were seen to have brought something to the table during the campaign. ..."
    "... a lot of high-ranking neoconservatives are expecting the exact opposite, figuring that they can step right into positions of power and influence despite openly campaigning against Trump. ..."
    "... There are more than a few people who would normally be in line for top positions in a Republican White House, but who were very publicly part of the "Never Trump" crowd, attacking him throughout the primary and the general election. These same people are now making public their "willingness" to work with Trump. ..."
    "... In other words, they want the usual spoils of victory, but having positioned themselves as so firmly in opposition to Trump's worldview, and to Trump in general, it's not at all clear how willing Trump's transition team is to consider such candidates for important positions. ..."
    "... For many of the neocons, this is likely less about getting cushy jobs or fancy titles and more about ensuring that the US remains aggressively interventionist abroad. Indeed, many of these people split with Trump in the first place over concerns he was insufficiently hawkish, and now want jobs that would put them in a position to shift his new administration in those same hawkish directions. ..."
    news.antiwar.com
    Fiercely Opposed to His Election, 'Never Trump' Crowd Now Seeks Influence

    It's a cliche to say that the cushiest positions of influence in any US administration go to figures who were seen to have brought something to the table during the campaign. Yet with the election of Donald Trump, a lot of high-ranking neoconservatives are expecting the exact opposite, figuring that they can step right into positions of power and influence despite openly campaigning against Trump.

    There are more than a few people who would normally be in line for top positions in a Republican White House, but who were very publicly part of the "Never Trump" crowd, attacking him throughout the primary and the general election. These same people are now making public their "willingness" to work with Trump.

    In other words, they want the usual spoils of victory, but having positioned themselves as so firmly in opposition to Trump's worldview, and to Trump in general, it's not at all clear how willing Trump's transition team is to consider such candidates for important positions.

    The early indications are that a lot of the foreign policy-related positions are going to be led by high-ranking former military officials who backed Trump's candidacy, with officials noting that long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have left them with a lot of such officials to choose from.

    For many of the neocons, this is likely less about getting cushy jobs or fancy titles and more about ensuring that the US remains aggressively interventionist abroad. Indeed, many of these people split with Trump in the first place over concerns he was insufficiently hawkish, and now want jobs that would put them in a position to shift his new administration in those same hawkish directions.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Donald Trump Is Poised to Overturn Generations of Liberal-Neocon Rule

    Notable quotes:
    "... What happened? Why is this clique's triumphant return to power erupting in massive scandal this time around? Probably because we are living in an era during which much that was mysterious is suddenly becoming clear. Probably because Trump's "silent majority" suddenly saw before them someone they had been waiting for for a long time – a man ready to defend their interests. ..."
    "... Perhaps also it is because the middle class is choking on its growing exasperation with the "elite caste" occupying its native country. And it finally became clear to the sober-minded American patriots in law enforcement that the return to power of the people responsible for the current global chaos could be a big threat to the US and rest of the world. Because, in the end, everyone has children and no one wants a new world war. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | russia-insider.com
    Today Trump represents an entirely new party made up of half of the American electorate, and they are ready for action. And whatever the eventual political structure of this new model, this is what is shaping America's present reality. Moreover, this does not seem like such a unique situation. It rather appears to be the final chapter of some ancient story, in which the convoluted plotlines finally take shape and find resolution.

    The circumstances are increasingly reminiscent of 1860, when Lincoln's election so enraged the South that those states began agitating for secession. Trump is today symbolic of a very real American tradition that during the Civil War (1860-1865) ran headlong into American revolutionary liberalism for the first time.

    Right up until World War I traditional American conservatism wore the guise of "isolationism." Prior to WWII it was known as "non-interventionism." Afterward, that movement attempted to use Sen. Joseph McCarthy to battle the left-liberal stranglehold. And in the 1960s it became the primary target of the "counter-cultural revolution."

    Its last bastion was Richard Nixon , whose fall was the result of an unprecedented attack from the left-liberal press in 1974. And this is perhaps the example against which we should compare the present-day Trump and his current fight.

    And by the way, the crimes of Hillary Clinton, who has failed to protect state secrets and has repeatedly been caught lying under oath, clearly outweigh the notorious Watergate scandal that led to Nixon's forced resignation under threat of impeachment. But the liberal American media remains silent, as if nothing has happened.

    By all indications it is clear that we are standing before a truly epochal moment. But before turning to the future that might await us, let's take a quick glance at the history of conflict between revolutionary liberalism and traditional white conservatism in the US.

    ***

    Immediately after WWII, an attack on two fronts was launched by the party of "expansionism" (we'll call it that). The Soviet Union and Communism were designated the number one enemy. Enemy number two (with less hype) was traditional American conservatism. The war against traditional "Americanism" was waged by several intellectual fringe groups simultaneously.

    The country's cultural and intellectual life was under the absolute control of a group known as the " New York Intellectuals ." Literary criticism as well as all other aspects of the nation's literary life was in the hands of this small group of literary curators who had emerged from the milieu of a Trotskyist-communist magazine known as the Partisan Review (PR). No one could become a professional writer in the America of the 1950s and 1960s without being carefully screened by this sect.

    The foundational tenets of American political philosophy and sociology were composed by militants from the Frankfurt School , which had been established during the interwar period in Weimar Germany and which moved to the US after the National Socialists took power. Here, retraining their sights from communist to liberal, they set out to design a "theory of totalitarianism" in addition to their concept of an "authoritarian personality" – both hostile to "democracy."

    The "New York Intellectuals" and representatives of the Frankfurt School became friends, and Hannah Arendt , for example, was an authoritative representative of both sects. This is where future neocons (Norman Podhoretz, Eliot A. Cohen, and Irving Kristol) gained their experience. The former leader of the Trotskyist Fourth International and godfather of the neocons, Max Shachtman , held a place of honor in the "family of intellectuals."

    The anthropological school of Franz Boas and Freudianism reigned over the worlds of psychology and sociology at that time. The Boasian approach in psychology argued that genetic, national, and racial differences between individuals were of no importance (thus the concepts of "national culture" and "national community" were meaningless).

    Psychoanalysis also became fashionable, which primarily aimed to supplant traditional church institutions and become a type of quasi-religion for the middle class.

    The common denominator linking all these movements was anti-fascism. Did something look fishy in this? But the problem was that the traditional values of the nation, state, and family were all labeled "fascist." From this standpoint, any white Christian man aware of his cultural and national identity was potentially a "fascist."

    Kevin MacDonald, a professor of psychology at California State University, analyzed in detail the seizure of America's cultural, political, and mental landscape by these "liberal sects" in his brilliant book The Culture of Critique , writing:

    "The New York Intellectuals, for example, developed ties with elite universities, particularly Harvard, Columbia, the University of Chicago, and the University of California-Berkeley, while psychoanalysis and anthropology became well entrenched throughout academia.

    "The moral and intellectual elite established by these movements dominated intellectual discourse during a critical period after World War II and leading into the countercultural revolution of the 1960s."

    It was precisely this intellectual milieu that spawned the countercultural revolution of the 1960s.

    Riding the wave of these sentiments, the new Immigration and Nationality Act was passed in 1965, encouraging this phenomenon and facilitating the integration of immigrants into US society. The architects of the law wanted to use the celebrated melting pot to "dilute" the "potentially fascist" descendants of European immigrants by making use of new ethno-cultural elements.

    The 60s revolution opened the door to the American political establishment to representatives from both wings of the expansionist "party" – the neo-liberals and the neo-conservatives.

    Besieged by the left-liberal press in 1974, Richard Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment. In the same year the US Congress passed the Jackson-Vanik Amendment (drafted by Richard Perle ), which emerged as a symbol of the country's "new political agenda" – economic war against the Soviet Union using sanctions and boycotts.

    At that same time the "hippie generation" was joining the Democratic Party on the coattails of Senator George McGovern's campaign . And that was when Bill Clinton's smiling countenance first emerged on the US political horizon.

    And the future neo-conservatives (at that time still disciples of the Democratic hawk Henry "Scoop" Jackson) began to slowly edge in the direction of the Republicans.

    In 1976, Mr. Rumsfeld and his fellow neo-conservatives resurrected the Committee on the Present Danger , an inter-party club for political hawks whose goal became the launch of an all-out propaganda war against the USSR.

    Former Trotskyists and followers of Max Shachtman (Kristol, Podhoretz, and Jeane Kirkpatrick) and advisers to Sen. Henry Jackson (Paul Wolfowitz, Perle, Elliott Abrams, Charles Horner, and Douglas Feith) joined Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and other "Christian" politicians with the intention of launching a "campaign to transform the world."

    This is where the neocons' "nonpartisan ideology" originated. And eventually today's "inalterable US government" hatched from this egg.

    American politics began to acquire its current shape during the Reagan era. In economics this was seen in the policy of neoliberalism (politics waged in the interests of big financial capital) and in foreign policy – in a strategy consisting of "holy war against the forces of evil." The Nixon-Kissinger tradition of foreign policy (which viewed the Soviet Union and China as a normal countries with which is essential to find common ground) was entirely abandoned.

    The collapse of the USSR was a sign of the onset of the final phase of the "neocon revolution." At that point their protégé, Francis Fukuyama, announced the "end of history."

    ***

    As the years passed, the influence of the neo-conservatives (in politics) and neoliberals (in economics) only expanded. Through all manner of committees, foundations, "think tanks," etc., the students of Milton Friedman and Leo Strauss (from the departments of economics and political science at the University of Chicago) penetrated ever more deeply into the inner workings of the Washington power machine. The apotheosis of this expansion was the presidency of George W. Bush, during which the neocons, having seized the primary instruments of power in the White House, were able to plunge the country into the folly of a war in the Middle East.

    By the end of the Bush presidency this clique was the object of universal hatred throughout the US. That's why the middle-ground, innocuous figure of Barack Obama, a Democrat, was able to move into the White House for the next eight years. The neocons stepped down from their central rostrums of power and returned to their "influential committees." It is likely that this election was intended to facilitate the triumphant return of the neoconservative-neoliberal paradigm all wrapped up in "new packaging." For various reasons, the decision was made to assign this role to Hillary Clinton. But it seems that at the most critical moment the flimsy packaging ripped open

    What happened? Why is this clique's triumphant return to power erupting in massive scandal this time around? Probably because we are living in an era during which much that was mysterious is suddenly becoming clear. Probably because Trump's "silent majority" suddenly saw before them someone they had been waiting for for a long time – a man ready to defend their interests.

    Perhaps also it is because the middle class is choking on its growing exasperation with the "elite caste" occupying its native country. And it finally became clear to the sober-minded American patriots in law enforcement that the return to power of the people responsible for the current global chaos could be a big threat to the US and rest of the world. Because, in the end, everyone has children and no one wants a new world war.

    How will this new conservative revolt against the elite end? Will Trump manage to "drain the swamp of Washington, DC" as he has promised, or he will end up as the system's next victim? Very soon we can finally get an answer to these questions.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Ron Paul several neocons are getting closer to Trump

    Nov 12, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    Donald Trump's success or failure as the next US president will largely depend on his ability to keep his independence from the "shadow government" and elite structures that shaped the policies of previous administrations, former presidential candidate Ron Paul told RT.
    [...]
    " Unfortunately, there has been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump. And if gets his advice from them then I do not think that is a good sign, " Paul told the host of RT's Crosstalk show Peter Lavelle.
    The retired Congressman said that people voted for Trump because he stood against the deep corruption in the establishment, that was further exposed during the campaign by WikiLeaks, and because of his disapproval of meddling in the wider Middle East.
    " During the campaign, he did talk a little bit about backing off and being less confrontational to Russia and I like that. He criticized some the wars in the Middle East at the same time. He believes we should accelerate the war against ISIS and terrorism, " Paul noted.
    [...]
    " But quite frankly there is an outside source which we refer to as the 'deep state' or the 'shadow government'. There is a lot of influence by people which are actually more powerful than our government itself, our president, " the congressman said.
    " Yes, Trump is his own guy, more so than most of those who have ever been in before. We hope he can maintain an independence and go in the right direction. But I fear the fact that there is so much that can be done secretly, out of control of our apparent government and out of the view of so many citizens, " he added.
    More:
    https://www.rt.com/usa/366404-trump-ron-paul-crosstalk/

    [Nov 12, 2016] No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obamas lame- duck period and thereafter

    Notable quotes:
    "... No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014. ..."
    "... The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    kirill , November 12, 2016 at 5:12 am

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/11/11/clintons-and-soros-launch-america-purple-revolution.html

    " No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

    As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

    The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America."

    marknesop , November 12, 2016 at 10:46 am
    Realistically, how many more colour revolutions is George Soros going to be around for? Come on, he's 86. Let an old guy have some fun.
    kirill , November 12, 2016 at 11:52 am
    He will be staging them as long as he has enough health to try. Of course he is not the only player. Soros is just one of the agents of western imperialism. Reply

    [Nov 12, 2016] The Clintons And Soros Launch America s Purple Revolution

    Notable quotes:
    "... No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014. ..."
    "... One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Wayne Madsen via Strategic-Culture.org,

    Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

    The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

    It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin . President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

    America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.

    Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.

    There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.

    Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:

    "Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".

    President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.

    Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution

    No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

    As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

    The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.

    President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.

    One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.

    [Nov 12, 2016] The Podesta emails - After Hillary, John Podesta had been seriously warned about the Syrian chaos

    Nov 12, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.
    globinfo freexchange
    A letter under the title "Stay out of Syria" from Jon Soltz , an Iraq War Veteran and founder of VoteVets.org, to John Podesta in May, 2013, confirms the multiple, serious warnings that the Clinton/Podesta complex had received about the implications of the US involvement on Syrian mess.
    Soltz's warnings couldn't be more clear. He points that " arming and training the Syrian rebels is a misguided and dangerous idea " and that he helped to train the Iraqi Army, and " their concern is that many of the anti-Assad forces are the same terrorists they've fought before and who continue to target them ". He also writes that " there is no winning scenario when we get involved in other nations' civil wars and proxy wars ".
    Most important parts of the short letter:
    Earlier this week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 15-3 in favor of arming and training the Syrian rebels. This is a misguided and dangerous idea. I helped to train the Iraqi Army during my second tour, and their concern is that many of the anti-Assad forces are the same terrorists they've fought before and who continue to target them . Plus, as Senator Tom Udall noted, once we introduce weapons, we have zero control over them . The United States "could turn over the weapons we're talking about and next day they end up in the hands of al-Qaida." Three Senators voted against the bill in committee, but we need you to send a strong message to the other 97 that you oppose intervention in Syria's civil war.
    Moreover, there is no winning scenario when we get involved in other nations' civil wars and proxy wars . On this point, Senator Chris Murphy said it best: "We have failed over and over again in our attempts to pull the strings of Middle Eastern politics." Let's not make the same mistake again.
    Full letter:
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/59165
    Recall that, another letter from Clinton email series, released also by WikiLeaks, proves that Hillary had been seriously warned about the oncoming Syrian chaos , already since 2011.
    Apparently, the Clinton/Podesta complex completely ignored those serious warnings. Hillary and her team are totally responsible for doing nothing to prevent, or at least restrict, the Middle East chaos.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there

    Notable quotes:
    "... The party elites--the superdelegates--committed to Clinton from the beginning. They decided it was her turn. And despite all the evidence showing they were supporting a weak, vulnerable, and heavily disliked candidate, they stuck with it anyway. This Trump presidency, and the Republican sweep in the House and Senate, is entirely on the shoulders of 300 insider Democrats. ..."
    "... Clinton's supporters among the media didn't help much, either. It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation's papers, but it was the quality of the media's enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. ..."
    "... But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    thetowncrier -> NathAldridge 4d ago

    No shit, Sherlock. Sanders would have beaten Trump. We are living in extreme times, and in extreme times centrism and political 'triangulation' doesn't work.

    This result will be repeated next year in France with the National Front. Mark my words. And when it does, France will vote to leave the EU and the house of cards will come crashing down.

    You can thank the Democrats, a party that used to represent working people, for at least part of that. Their billionaire backers picked Clinton because she'd ensure their wealth would remain untouched. I wonder what they're feeling now?

    Aaron Jackson -> NathAldridge 4d ago

    How do you figure? Clinton won the Democratic primary by less than the margin of superdelegates. She had a MASSIVE lead in funding, institutional support, and (at the least) insider bias--though it was likely more than that, given that nearly every single election anomaly in that primary bounced her way.

    The DNC intentionally limited the debates and scheduled those they did have for off times to try to limit the damage Sanders could do to Clinton, and big media refused to cover Bernie Sanders except in the context of Clinton.

    And even with all of that, Sanders pulled within 300 delegates of winning the Democratic Nomination by working through a grassroots, positive campaign. The momentum was entirely on his side, too! And national polls showed him performing MUCH better against Trump than Clinton. And, of course, he had no scandals (real or imagined) to leverage.

    The party elites--the superdelegates--committed to Clinton from the beginning. They decided it was her turn. And despite all the evidence showing they were supporting a weak, vulnerable, and heavily disliked candidate, they stuck with it anyway. This Trump presidency, and the Republican sweep in the House and Senate, is entirely on the shoulders of 300 insider Democrats.


    NathAldridge 4d ago

    The Guardian in a nutshell!

    Clinton's supporters among the media didn't help much, either. It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation's papers, but it was the quality of the media's enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. Here's what it consisted of:

    • Hillary was virtually without flaws. She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white, a super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women and children, a warrior for social justice.
    • Her scandals weren't real.
    • The economy was doing well / America was already great.
    • Working-class people weren't supporting Trump. And if they were, it was only because they were botched humans. Racism was the only conceivable reason for lining up with the Republican candidate.

    dynamic22 4d ago

    "But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine."

    You said everything really.

    Watchman80 -> dynamic22 4d ago

    Yup.

    Also, see this. Note the date (and the imagined Trump speech)

    http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency


    Choller21 4d ago

    Maybe it's time to consider whether there's something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.

    I couldn't have put it better. I could have put it with more swear words in though.

    BigBlue80 4d ago

    Maybe there is a bright side to a Trump victory. After all, there was a reason that tens of millions of good people voted for him yesterday, and maybe he will live up to their high regard for him.

    If you assume that election victory (not even a majority as apparently Clinton will win the popular vote) legitmises everything, you are right. But if you believe that there are western values that should not be sacrificed than you are wrong. Eventually, this will be the end of democracy - it will kill itself by electing a fascist. I happened before and it looks ever more likely. The you US with ist overbearing nationalism, its leader-orientation and glorification of the military was always close to fascism, but now it might have taken the final leap into the abyss.

    atuocool 4d ago

    "[Neo]Liberals" are a type of conservative who never convince me of the sincerity of their "progressive" values. What was progressive about Hillary? What would she have actually done for the poor? How would she have moved America away from being a corporate plutocracy? We all know the answer is nothing. Trump is a nightmare, but he represents a bizarre, retrograde change while Clinton represented a vacuous status quo.

    John Hunter 4d ago

    with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station


    Correct, it is censorship and suppression of contrary opinion and enormously biased towards "The Chosen One"

    Once again it proves that the Guardian is against the tide of History.

    It is not bad to be contrarian or representing an alternative opinion or "voice" however provided you still maintain some sense of integrity and journalistic professionalism, providing content, news and information that is fair, balanced without indulging in gratuitous character assassination, presenting controversial issues of public importance in a manner that is honest, equitable, and balanced.

    The Guardian during the American election as with Brexit and many other controversial issues has consistently aligned itself with policies and opinion that many would consider left-wing or liberal yet is neither as the viewpoints they support betrays the liberty and freedom of the ordinary citizen.

    As I said before the election regardless who win or lose the media has already lost by showing its hand and exposed itself as not a true independent source of news and information, but pursuing definite agendas and siding with corporate news media's opinions and politics.

    According to the Guardian's own view liberalism will have to be remade in a post-liberal age. It is their own peculiar set of values they believe that is important and not the very principles the left originally defended. Pursuing a certain "metropolitan liberal creed".

    An metropolitan liberal elite who believe they are more educated, more intelligent and talented, more enlightened, more able to comprehend what society needs than the slow, slobs, the wasters and good for nothings with their prejudices, that do not know what is good for them.

    Their brand of Liberalism has been the complete antithesis of allowing people to take control of their lives. It has been a dictatorial imposition of the beliefs of the least liberal nature.

    Equating the tendencies of so-called "social justice warriors" and so-called "identity politics" and equating them somehow with liberalism you're a long way from the truth have little to do with liberalism and no, that's not "left" either.

    The establishment in the mainstream media believe they are economically liberals - though privately they look more kindly on monopolies than old school liberals would have. Yet these "liberals" want to happily embrace Brussels' legalistic regime of rules that range from the petty and impractical to a punitive and autocratic dictatorship.

    Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.

    It is no secret what the problem is, lack of jobs, lack of opportunities, people who feel they have no future or rights in their own country anymore.

    Ask yourself is what you identify with or support contributing towards a more peaceful, harmonious society where all have a sense of having a place and a future in their own country where they feel they fit in and contribute towards a more safe, secure and prosperous society?

    Jerome Fryer John Hunter 4d ago 14 15

    An metropolitan liberal elite who believe they are more educated, more intelligent and talented, more enlightened, more able to comprehend what society needs than the slow, slobs, the wasters and good for nothings with their prejudices, that do not know what is good for them.

    This is not a new problem. The social elites (self-appointed) of all political persuasions are always bemoaning the stupidity of the plebs in not bowing to their superior understanding of all things. That this unfounded hubris is an amazing exemplar of denial of reality (who just won this election, for example) doesn't seem able to take root in the bubble of acceptable thought in their minds. How could they possibly be talking out of their bottom when it comes to damn near everything? (All evidence aside.)

    We need the voice of the 'common people' to be heard, without being filtered by the elites. Fake democracy is not going to work -- we'll end up with a bigger fiasco, such as Jamie Dimon vs Kim Kardashian in the next US Presidential contest. Way past time for those in power to wake up to the fact that they're not in control, and real change that involves the great unwashed in the process is necessary. Trump is one dumb guy, but he has managed to figure out how to use this frustration to get his misogynist, racist, backside into the chair in the Oval Office.

    Wise up, 'smart people'. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report _jhfta_ Jerome Fryer 4d ago 10 11

    We need the voice of the 'common people' to be heard, without being filtered by the elites.

    I give you: Boaty McBoatface. trp981 , 9 Nov 2016 11:2>
    Concluding Unscientific Postscripts (*)

    - Election of Trump is not just another routine changing of the guards in the US two-party system (although it is that too). This is a significant deviation in the business-as-usual model of politics, and there will be substantial repercussions that will explicitly manifest themselves somewhere down the line.

    - The Founding Dudes and the Framers of the US Constitution had set up the system so as to preclude the possibility of ascendance of someone like Trump.

    - The Founding Dudes and the Framers of the US Constitution had set up the system so as to eventually make possible the ascendance of someone like Trump.

    - Sanders was right. That having had had been said, he would have still lost to Drumpf if he were the D's nominee instead of HRC.

    - That is because RealAmerica_a spoke more vocally this time around, overwhelming the voice of RealAmerica_b.

    - Judging by geographical size alone, RealAmerica_a is Real America.

    - It is simply unimaginable that the enlightened citizenry will elect someone as destructive and unqualified as Reagan in 1980. Such a possibility is not conceivable in any logical space, and even fiction writers are wary to contemplate such an impossibility.

    - Election of Reagan is not just another routine changing of the guards in the US two-party system (although it is that too). This is a significant deviation in the business-as-usual model of politics, and there will be substantial repercussions that will explicitly manifest themselves somewhere down the line.

    - Trump's victory is a repeat of the interplay of the socioeconomic forces that made Dubya's presidency possible in 2000. Eight more years of this worldview and we will have another Obama-type candidacy afterwards to clean up the mess and make the world safe again for the staggering-but-still-dominant neoliberal order.

    - People will be just too exhausted after eight years of Trump's presidency, and they will be so relieved after the election of the next Obama-type president as to retreat to their homes and let the new savior continue cuddling the big economic players and attempting to reach a Grand Bargain with the Republicans to further erode the threadbare social safety net holding up the people, of course for the good of the people themselves and in the name of Serious Politics.

    -The dominant position in our society will continue to be the generalization of Alan Grayson's observation: Don't fall down, if you do disappear quickly.

    - Setting aside the status quo status of Clinton's policy prescriptions (she a competent steward of the Washington Consensus), Trump's victory also signals the provisional victory of the manly men of RealAmerica_a (and the women who love them) over women (and minorities, and the LGBT, and immigrants, and etc).

    - The same way that most people don't know or care about the wavelengths associated with colors, they don't know or care about the underlying forces affecting their lives as long as the politicians put on a good Reality TV show and pull effectively at their heartstrings.

    - In other words, F science, F reality.

    - In other words, long live Realty TV, the rule of Kardashians, the Apprentice, WWE/WWF , etc. Constant exposure to these things matter.


    - Constant exposure to these things don't matter.

    - Tomorrow the Sun will come up as before, and the Earth will go around it at a steady pace as before, and the already enfeebled welfare state will continue to fray as before, and millions of US citizens will continue their steady fall into precariousness as before (especially Trump supporters in RealAmerica_a), and millions will continue to lose steady jobs and be pushed into the the gig economy, and the 1% will continue raking in the loot as before under the benevolent gaze of their new leader.

    - If HRC had won, all above would still occur, but probably at a lower rate (except for the Sun and Earth thing).

    - Drumpf was the Smoker to HRC's Atoller .

    (*) Yesyes, I know.

    rasnip , 9 Nov 2016 11:2>
    I feel lots of parallels can be drawn with brexit, particularly the points made at the end. amazingly people dont like being insulted and talked down to by party elites, the gop base has been totally transformed by trumps campaign.

    that said has anyone else noticed that trump supporters only ever say 'hes going to do so much for us' and trump says we are going to reopen the mines/factories/get a better deal but never said how. he has promised unicorns and rainbows to people dealt a shit hand by the economic changes of the last 30 years.

    spotthelemon usini , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
    The political class amongst US liberals are neo-liberals

    Neoliberalism from Reagan to [Bill] Clinton .
    written in 1998 the review of this book ends with
    " Michael Meeropol's damning indictment of the economic direction of the Clinton presidency demonstrates that nowhere is the need for a new movement more pressing than in the United States".

    Well Bush & Obama & Hillary, had she been elected, were continuations of that economic direction. If America has needed a new movement to win since 1999 then I guess they got really desperate which is why they voted for something as bad as Trump. Yes , the liberals or more specifically neo-liberals an be held responsible

    Musicismath usini , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    Frank has been making exactly this point since 1997. Others worth reading on this issue include Walter Benn Michaels and Adolph L. Reed, Jr.

    Unfortunately, in a lot of fora where this message sorely needs to be heard right now, this article would be summarily dismissed on the basis that Frank used the word "shrill," which is out of bounds in liberal discourse. Which of course just illustrates Frank's point.

    Aboutface , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>
    The DNC put President Trump into the White House. The DNC, fixated on the anointed, untouchable HRC, lost its moral compass and the good work of Bernie and Warren, now amounts to a big fat ZERO.
    Laughable, how out of touch - meaningless motherhood cliches cannot pay the bills.
    Pinback71 , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>
    It is a case in point that the MSM have completely lost touch with a population that often relies on the internet for its news. In the old days, the newspaper that was closest to your political viewpoint was delivered to your door as your primary source of information, now every news outlet, blog and forum in the world is delivered directly to your tablet.
    The media, like the Government has considerably less influence than a decade or two ago.
    Ummmmm , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>
    Good article and, as one poster put it, encapsulates the Guardian's editorial line in a nutshell.

    The FT seems to be to the left of this paper these days, forced to be more hard nosed about the world. This from its columnist Wolfgang Munchenau some days ago:

    "What led the centre-left on to such a self-destructive path? The answer is a combination of the following: a false belief that elections are won from the centre; the lure of ministerial limousines; an inferiority complex about not being able to run "responsible fiscal policies"; and a belief that voters of the left have nowhere else to go. .. The main issue is not whether a Keynesian policy response would be economically correct. The more important point is that if the centre-left does not offer it, the populists will. Unless the centre-left returns to its Keynesian roots, I think there is a good chance that the politics of insurrection will succeed."


    https://www.ft.com/content/dba252f8-a29c-11e6-82c3-4351ce86813f

    Same trends at play in UK, US and Europe. Any lessons to learn?

    Omoikani , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>
    Excellent article. Perhaps the Guardian needs to do a whole lot of soul-searching.

    The one thing left out of the article is what Michael Moore said, which is really worth reading in full , but the nub of which is the following:

    You live here in Ohio, you know what I'm talking about. Whether Trump means it or not, is kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump. He is the human molotov cocktail that they've been waiting for. The human hand grande that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them.

    Persianwar , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>

    the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station.

    That's a very accurate summary. The first step to winning next time is to understand why you lost this time. The establishment view was that people were going to get Hillary Clinton whether they liked it or not. Next time try listening to people who are angry that their pay has fallen in real terms for 10 years. Try listening to people whose views you disagree with rather than 'no platform' them lest your delicate sensibilities be offended.

    MacWolf , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>
    The list of celebrities and pundits and surrogates taking his side on the campaign trail was extremely short.

    I often wonder is having a celebrity endourse you counter productive. I saw many celebs appear on TV and social media telling people they shouldn't vote for Trump. Some went as far as to call people who might vote for Trump idiots. How many people got fed up with rich, famous people telling them how they should vote? If you're someone sitting in America's rust belt, no job or low paid crap job, being told by someone you think probably owns a Hollywood mansion and does very little work, would you not feel a little resentful being told by them how to vote? Wouldn't you take a dislike to a candidate who appears on stage with these celebs and yet you feel ignores you? Just a thought.

    dizzyalien MacWolf , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
    Rights come with responsibilities.

    If you have the right to vote, the responsibility is to think through the implications of using that vote for X or Y candidate, to work out for yourself what will happen to you, your family, your community and your country if you vote for X or Y.

    If you vote for Y because you feel "resentful" that someone is using their freedom of speech to urge voting for X rather than Y - perhaps you shouldn't really be voting at all. Just a thought.

    SqueakEMouse MacWolf , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    More than just an odd thought my friend. The sight of a procession of wealthy, smug and self entitled celebs, often utter hypocrites, expecting to deliver their Facebook followers to a politician is nauseating and angers more than a few. Few of these celebs are famous for their brains so being called an idiot by a halfwit with money hardly endears them. But still society is in thrall to the concept of celebrity following. It begs the question of what all these followers are actually following. Perhaps Lady Gaga et al have confused the pathological need for an entertainment fix with an adoration of their thoughts and outlook.
    MatthewRendall 4d ago

    Killing off the neo-liberal virus in the Democratic Party would be a start, but won't be enough, if the Democrats simply put the American equivalents of Jeremy Corbyn in its place. What's desperately needed here are fresh ideas--something analogous to the Keynesian ideas that gave intellectual underpinning to the New Deal.

    eken92 , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>

    The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn't all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn't accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it's time to consider whether there's something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.

    I think this is a very succinct assessment and goes most of the way to explaining this result, and the Brexit result too. People don't want to be lectured, they want to be listened to (yes, even if you think they're wrong).

    MaoriSideStep , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
    'Liberals' created the grounds for Brexit too.

    You see, their sneering attitude to the British working class, their name-calling, their bogus judgements about the working class for not wanting any more of their rights and opportunities taken away from them.

    The 'liberals' are hated as much as the toffs. Brexit was a great example of the bile and hatred the 'liberals' spew out at the disadvantaged working class.

    It wasn't the 'liberals' housing and schools, communities and healthcare, employment rights and opportunities that was being eroded though was it? No. But that didn't stop the 'liberals' branding the working class as 'racists' and 'stupid' and 'blind' did it.

    Maybe you now can see yourself, on this poxy 'liberal' website and see how YOU have created a situation where the working class want ANYTHING other than more of your poison.

    Look at the people bleating about Brexit: the 'liberals', the politicians, the bankers, big business, the judges...my goodness, doesn't that tell a story of the haves and have nots. All the bleaters are the scum that have never had the working class' best interests in mind and yet you think we, the working class, should take heed of their fatuous, aquisitive, vile, whimpers? Really?

    It's only just beginning. Toodle pip.

    BayOfGiggs MaoriSideStep , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>

    The 'liberals' are hated as much as the toffs.

    Why you think you'll get a great deal from....

    Multi-Billionaire Media Barons controlling the news on both sides of the Atlantic (the same Baron in the case of Murdoch) and they in turn backed by the Trillionaire old and true establishment who are the exact same families as a hundred years ago and hundreds of years before that in many cases.

    ....baffles me however.

    Designcycle MaoriSideStep , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    Very well written and I agree to a large extent - the problem is.. are people like Trump and blood Boris Johnson going to be any more cognisant of the lives and problems of the working class than the liberals? And are they likely to do anything about those problems unless they simultaneously line their own pockets? If, and it's a very big if, the interests of the working class and the interests of Trump et al align somehow then there is a silver lining. If not, then the best we can hope for is that liberals start to reconnect with the people they purport to represent.
    westcoaster Designcycle , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>

    the problem is.. are people like Trump and blood Boris Johnson going to be any more cognisant of the lives and problems of the working class than the liberals?


    No. But maybe, just maybe, the 'left-wing' parties will wake and remember what they are supposed to be for.
    Omoikani , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
    Here's the other thing. Clinton and her mates at the New York Times and the Guardian are always lecturing us on the need to be compassionate and welcoming towards refugees from faraway places who would like to come and live among us, but there's never a moment of compassion for the people who are already here and suffering miserably on the margins of our already unequal societies - the unemployed and badly employed, the badly housed and homeless, those working sixty hours a week on the minimum wage for some crappy agency. So, guess what. That's why people are voting for stuff like Brexit and Trump.

    If you lot in the metropolitan elite can't see this then you are doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes.

    Voltaire21 , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
    Just like Silvio Berlusconi, Trumps opponents were incapable to escape the trap of trying to sling shit at a candidate made out of teflon.

    The Clinton camp tried to fight a war in the trenches...but Trump feeds of negativity, they should have learnt early that nothing was too outrageous or controversial to tarnish him.

    The closest they got was the misogyny accusations and even they didn't stick. Just like Berlusconi, Trump the lover of pageantry and beautiful women was being portrayed as a woman hater but he cleverly made it sound like he was hater of feminists instead of women.

    The problem with Clinton is that she tried to play the integrity card but that was easily debunked by Trump with email gate.

    hashtagthat Voltaire21 , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    "The Clinton camp tried to fight a war in the trenches.."

    Very apt, considering she's a warmonger.

    finnja , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
    The voice of sanity. Thank you, Mr. Frank.
    The Democratic Establishment didn't give a hoot about what Bernie had to say, because his presidency would not have served their ambitions. They're more interested in getting nice jobs at Goldman Sachs than controlling the finance industry. And their sons and daughters will not fight in all the wars Clinton&Co see as great business opportunity.
    The Dem establishment has failed the people, and now we all reep the whirlwind.
    Geoff Conway , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    I agree with Frank's analysis though not his use of the word 'liberal' which has confusingly different meanings. I think the same analysis could be used to explain Brexit.

    The problem is a political class which wishes to maintain the status quo of a neo-liberal, globalised economy. For 35 years this economy has redistributed wealth from the poor to the rich and massively damaged the environment. It has thus disadvantaged the great majority of the people in the USA, the UK and indeed people across the world. People are quite reasonably fed up with the lies behind this 'trickle-down' economics. They are angry and want something different. The vacuum created by the failure of the left to recognise this, and come up with a new solution, has resulted in Trump, UKIP, Marine LePen etc.

    shooglebunny forkintheroad , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    No. I really think liberals have been their own worst enemies during this election.

    They have treated ordinary white Americans as if they are shit, spoken about them in ways that should make them hang their heads in shame and behaved as if they are living in a oligarchy where they can call the shots instead of a democracy and now they are paying the price.

    You can only kick a dog so many times before it turns around and bites you.

    I would also question the term"liberals" to describe people who are happy seeing jobs moved offshore, causing unemployment at home and slave labour conditions abroad; encouraging mass immigration to bring wages down and create a powerless and easily exploitable servant class and globalisation that provides them with a luxury lifestyle on the cheap while making it harder for just about everyone else.

    The only "liberal" thing about these people is their attitudes towards trivial personal issues like sexuality and lifestyle choices.

    NathAldridge , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    Wise words from Frank - I hope the Guardian opinionators are made to read it

    Clinton's supporters among the media didn't help much, either. It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation's papers, but it was the quality of the media's enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. Here's what it consisted of:

    Hillary was virtually without flaws. She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white, a super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women and children, a warrior for social justice.
    Her scandals weren't real.
    The economy was doing well / America was already great.
    Working-class people weren't supporting Trump.
    And if they were, it was only because they were botched humans. Racism was the only conceivable reason for lining up with the Republican candidate.

    Craig Ross , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    I hope all the Democratic Party insiders who rigged the primary elections are happy now.
    SixHeads 4d ago

    Absolutely right. And I'm willing to wager the liberal response to this will be to double down on the identity politics, double down on the victimhood narratives, double down on the march toward globalism, and double down on the cries for open borders and ever-increasing levels of immigration. They simply never learn.

    It's very clear what happened this morning. Trump won because he picked up the white working class vote in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio, all of which had previously voted for Obama in both 2008 and 2012. The people in these states didn't magically become racist over the past four years. They saw a candidate (Clinton) who represented "business as usual", and they rejected her.

    mrsmiow , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>

    Excellent article. Summarises both Brexit as well as Trump's victory.

    The stats are showing that Trump polled higher amongst African and Hispanic Americans. I am not surprised. The Democrats, like the UK Labour party, like to think they OWN ethnic voters and they are merely another 'special interest' group alongside women, gays, etc. They don't and us ethnic voters have the same concerns as any other working or middle class voters. And NO ONE appreciates being told they are wrong, racist and unintelligent.

    This shows Social liberialism is dead and rotten. Well past its used by date, time to chuck it out. It went off when supposed social justice warriors got into business with big business and fickle finance.

    The elites may be well educated but that they couldn't even bare to bring themselves to understand the perspectives of another reveals how broadminded they really are - the journalists, academics etc. They believed in democracy where only one way of thinking and the status quo could be permitted to flourish. This is the most intelligent article to capture the social change that far too many liberals are denying. How are they going deal with reality, ie. Are the majority of Americans and British really racists? The greatest irony is this article is published within the vanguard of what ordinary people are democratically retaliating against.

    Dustbowler , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    When you reach rock bottom the only way is to look up. The problem for the Liberalism of the Democratic Party of the last three decades is that it has become a social scientific morality of the well connected and completely unable to deal with the naked populism of Trump let alone the half baked morass of crony capitalism of George Bush.
    Lets be opportunistic. This gives it a chance to wipe the slate clean and at the very least rid themselves of the influence of the Clintons who from the removal of Glass-Steagal Act demonstrated their only concerns were with the needs of the Super Rich rather than the majority of the population. Unfortunately you have that feeling that they are not even capable of doing that.
    George Pratt , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    "Trump... a folly so bewildering, an incompetence so profound ..."

    Har, har, har, the foolish and incompetent Trump is now president elect and you are a wise and competent journalist who foresaw the future clearly.

    Maybe you're the foolish incompetent, not Trump. Maybe you should examine the foolish certainty which made you write your Guardian article headlined "With Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton" and many others based on foolish and incompetent assumptions, reasoning and conclusions

    Maybe you and all the rest of the useful idiots on the left should examine all of your convictions about the world. You might discover how often you have been hoodwinked by your own folly into believing trash like Trump will lose to Hillary, AGW is a real problem which can be corrected by funneling trillions to crony capitalist alternative energy companies, fracking is dangerous and the unlimited immigration of millions of young, able bodied, violent, low IQ men is a good thing.

    babyboomer1957 , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    Hillary can console herself with a new job at Goldman Sachs, rather like Barosso, Global ambassador sounds nice.
    notacarboncopy babyboomer1957 , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    And that is precisely a big part of why she lost.

    People are sick of that merry-go-round, proof of the cabal that rules over us.

    jennyjl90 , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
    Trump will achieve nothing of what he's said he wants to do. Reversing the 'reverse colonisation' of the white western world will fail, especially in the USA where, after all, the Afro-black population didn't ask to move to in the first place (though I'll bet tend dollars dollars not a single Afro-black American would opt for emigrating back to Africa, however much they complain about racial prejudice in the USA - the financial advantages of living in the developed world are FAR too valuable for that!).

    As for the Hispanics, I doubt even a wall would stop them. The mass population of Central and South America is far, far greater than that of 'white western America' and their third world economics keep the USA and the developed world a desperate magnet for them (and I can't blame them - I'd fight tooth and nail to get in to the rich west as well!)

    Nope, the Trump victory is a sad, hopeless rearguard action against the triumph of twenty-first century 'reverse colonisation' and that is that. The white western world is finished - the only question is, can it 'westernise' the immigrant population in time to save the developed world, or are we doomed to another Dark Ages of Global Third Worldism? (Maybe China will take over as Islam did post Roman Empire, while Europe went savage...)

    White Western World - it's game over. Accept it.

    queequeg7 , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    When you separate identity politics - race and gender - from inequality and class, which is what Obama and Clinton both did, you end up with Donald Trump moving into the White House ......
    queequeg7 Joelee73 , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    The liberal argument has always been about the equality to exploit not an end to exploitation. It was at the heart of New Labour as well as Obama/Clinton Democrats ...
    tedthetopcat queequeg7 , 9 Nov 2016 12:2>
    For the last 30 odd years the liberal left have claimed class no longer mattered. Now the "white" working class have twice given them a kicking in 2016. When you're at the bottom class really matters!
    MereMortal , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>

    And so Democratic leaders made Hillary their candidate even though they knew about her closeness to the banks, her fondness for war, and her unique vulnerability on the trade issue – each of which Trump exploited to the fullest.

    I really like Thomas Frank, but I wish in this diatribe that he wouldn't cheapen the countless (because the Americans don't count them) who have paid the price for Hillary's 'fondness for war' by referring to it like that, in passing, as if it was a fondness for muffins.
    I wish that he had a bit more righteous fury about how the crazed neocon warmongers who effectively rule America and for whom Hillary was the latest acceptable face, with her almost total sense of entitlement, based on the fact that she was a woman, acted like she was heading for a coronation.
    Yes it would be great if a woman had been elected president, I can think of at least two others one running, and one not, but doesn't even the most basic tenet of critical thinking require us to ask searching questions, about the specific woman ?

    callaspodeaspode , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    He has run one of the lousiest presidential campaigns ever. In saying so I am not referring to his much-criticized business practices or his vulgar remarks about women. I mean this in a purely technical sense: this man fractured his own party.

    But did he really 'fracture' his own party? From the superficial point of view, one might have thought so. Many Democrats hope so.
    But I'll suggest this. Anybody who is holding out the faint hope that he will work badly with the GOP in Congress is going to be very disappointed. He's going to put his signature to virtually everything they want. They're going to have a lot of fun together.
    Even stuff which directly contradicts what he ran on and which upset many in the Republican establishment. I'm thinking foreign policy and trade agreements.

    And those in movement conservatism who didn't like him, like Glenn Beck and Erick Erickson? Watch them do a 180 over the next six months.

    I'll bet on it.

    Designcycle , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    Excellent article, about six months late, but hopefully not too late for liberals everywhere to wake up to the idea that if you claim to want to help improve the lives of the working class you better listen to them first, and connect with them second. I always thought laughing and sneering at Trump and particularly his supporters was never going to work. And sure enough it didn't. Nobody likes being patronised.
    fragglerokk , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    Sanders would have breezed it.

    The Democrats ultimatey feared change

    The Republicans didn't.

    Sometimes you've got to have the courage to move beyond a rotting status quo and into a brave new world. If you don't you leave the door open for something potentially much much worse to take that opportunity.

    How about doing a piece on how the press keep getting it wrong all the time, how you keep misjudging the mood of the people, the zeitgeist, how afraid you are of change and how as a result you keep siding with the establishment when the vast majority of people are fed up with its incessant inaction and bullshit?
    Youre letting the fascists in through the open door because youre too afraid to give up your priviledges and go towards healthy change. You deserve what youre going to get because you spent too much time on here waffling bullshit and not enough time on the streets listening to what people want. Total cognitive dissonance. Social media is no good for assessing the mood of the people, its for pussy cat photos and selfies.

    Franz Habsburg fragglerokk , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    Would have? He could not even beat Clinton in the primaries! Americans overthrow democratic socialist governments, they don't elect them.
    edhemingway fragglerokk , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    The republicans feared change, but winning was more important to them. As incongruous as it may seem, a billionaire businessman reached out to voters disenfranchised by some 30 years of partisan parlour games. Maybe it'll dawn on the Democrats who they should be reaching out to and maybe it'll dawn on the Republicans that there's more to being a politician than banging on about God and being against abortion.

    I don't like the guy and find some of his views abhorrent and would even have preferred HC, but... but... this may be a wake up call for politics in America. Not sure it will be because after Brexit, the finger was pointed at the London middle classes and older voters whereas the strength of the vote came from the post-industrial heartland destroyed by Thatcher and virtually ignored by both parties ever since. Still, we'll see.

    Steve Giess , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    "With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. "

    Spot on analysis.
    Let the soul-searching amongst the mainstream journalistic elites begin.

    People have rspecially started to notice the "with nuance and all contrary views deleted" part. That is part of the problem and part of the reason Trump got elected as a sort of collective middle finger to the establishment by ordinary people who are sick of being told what to think and how to think by unelected elites whose job it is supposed to be to report the FACTS, and not to dictate what people are allowed to say or think. Because as a great person once said "Facts are sacred." And as JS Mill said in his famous essay 'On Liberty' - we should not censor unpopular views because even though the unpopular view may be incorrect we may come to a better understanding of why our own view is correct by seeing its collision with error. (Quite apart from the fact that the unpopular view is not always correct and by suppressing it we may never know the truth.)

    I hope the mainstream media learn from this disaster and start living up to the ideals of the intellectual founders of our liberal democracies such as JS Mill who would no doubt be appalled at the lerhaps well intentioned but counterproductive censorsgip of views which run counter to that of the prevailing orthodoxy.

    MustaphaMondeo Steve Giess , 9 Nov 2016 12:2>
    It's because they believe we are stupid. The intellectual snobbery of the oxbridge set, think they are better than us. Little suspecting that most of us can't be arsed with that shite.

    I blame education. It's turned their heads.

    AlpineJoe 4d ago

    The thing that keeps coming back to me with this election, as with Brexit, was the established candidates ignoring what people were saying. In Brexit, the remain side utterly ignored immigration, whilst the leave side focused on it. I don't think the remain side realised that immigration wasn't just conjured up by Daily Mail headlines but was a genuine issue for many people.

    In the US, Trump spoke openly about jobs; bringing them back and preventing outsourcing. Looking again at trade deals to make sure American jobs were protected. Clinton's team ignored this.

    Take heed for the future, politicians. Listen to what people actually say, not just the bits they say that you agree with.

    Stillgrizzly AlpineJoe , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>

    Indeed, that's the problem, a narrow political elite expecting the population to vote as they think, rather than as the population think. The disconnect between the consensus and the politicians is wide, the left in particular withdraws to the safety of it's narrow agenda when threatened leaving the centre wide open.
    Louis Raine , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    "Cold War propaganda station. Here's what it consisted of:

    - Hillary was virtually without flaws.
    - She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white, a super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women and children, a warrior for social justice.
    - Her scandals weren't real.
    - The economy was doing well / America was already great.
    - Working-class people weren't supporting Trump.
    - If they were, it was only because they were botched humans. Racism was the only
    conceivable reason for lining up with the Republican candidate."

    Funny how all of these points were constantly touted in the Guardian... oh the ironny

    SlumVictim , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    The neoliberals weren't listening and probably still aren't listening. They will be blaming the white working class rednecks but there isn't enough of white working class rednecks to cause this upset. Professional neoliberal policians have neither the insight nor the intelligence to figure out they are the problem, they alienated the people they ignored while looking after the rich.

    We see the same problem in the Labour Party here. The neoliberal Blairites spent 13 years using identity politics as a way to pretend to be radical while showing utter contempt for the white (and black) working class. When they lost two elections and Scotland, they blamed the left, as though no one could reject neoliberalism. Sorry professional neoliberal politicians, your days of your front trotters in the trough are almost up, you are being rejected and anyone but you seems to be the preference.

    Inversnaid SlumVictim , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    You, Sir or Madam, are a genius. Your analysis - like the analysis of the article - is spot on and your prose is punchy, concise and grammatically correct. You should be pick of the day.
    SlumVictim , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
    The neoliberals weren't listening and probably still aren't listening. They will be blaming the white working class rednecks but there isn't enough of white working class rednecks to cause this upset. Professional neoliberal policians have neither the insight nor the intelligence to figure out they are the problem, they alienated the people they ignored while looking after the rich.

    We see the same problem in the Labour Party here. The neoliberal Blairites spent 13 years using identity politics as a way to pretend to be radical while showing utter contempt for the white (and black) working class. When they lost two elections and Scotland, they blamed the left, as though no one could reject neoliberalism. Sorry professional neoliberal politicians, your days of your front trotters in the trough are almost up, you are being rejected and anyone but you seems to be the preference.

    Inversnaid SlumVictim , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    You, Sir or Madam, are a genius. Your analysis - like the analysis of the article - is spot on and your prose is punchy, concise and grammatically correct. You should be pick of the day.
    Spacebanj0 , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    Very interesting, and striking, parallels with Brexit. A disaffected majority, who don't believe they are listened to, rally round people who speak their language, engage with their fears and concerns and give them easy solutions to difficult problems.

    Both decisions are tragically wrong, in my view, but its clear there is a huge disconnect between those on the left (notional or otherwise) and their usual target voters.

    catherine Spacebanj0 , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    The description of the Democrats is reminding me of New Labour...
    iruka , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    Absolutely spot on. And broadly applicable right across the western world. It wasn't Hillary the personality, or Hillary the crook, or Hillary the incompetent who lost the election.

    It was the Hillary the archetypal representative of the smug 'n' shabby liberal stitch-up that's done us all over, basking in its meritocratic delusions, and raising all the ladders (and greasing the sides) to the lifeboats in which those delusions were acted out to delusional acclaim...

    ...even as it was busy handing the world over first (greedily) to transnational capitalism and now (stupidly) to the marauding squads of pinhead fascists that'll be everywhere in the US within weeks, maybe days. A couple of million George fucking pinhead Zimmermans.

    "Socialism or Barbarism" (rings truer and truer!) is a choice that excludes liberalism only because liberalism is too morally and aesthetically insubstantial to make the cut. Imagine the choice in the form of a movie, and liberalism would be the twitching little grass who betrays the hero for the price of a bottle of White Lighting.

    (In real life it's not a bottle of cider, of course: it's more likely a nice old house in a gentrified area that still holds on to the charming character of the people it displaced, some of whom spend 5 hours a day on the bus to come back and work in the charming shops and eateries, or as nannies and cleaners....).

    Musicismath , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    This is a very good piece (as you'd expect from a cultural critic as smart as Frank is), but it really needs to be read alongside Adolph L. Reed's excoriating article in Harper's from 2014, "Nothing Left: The Slow Surrender of American Liberals":

    The left has no particular place it wants to go. And, to rehash an old quip, if you have no destination, any direction can seem as good as any other. The left careens from this oppressed group or crisis moment to that one, from one magical or morally pristine constituency or source of political agency (youth/students; undocumented immigrants; the Iraqi labor movement; the Zapatistas; the urban "precariat"; green whatever; the black/Latino/LGBT "community"; the grassroots, the netroots, and the blogosphere; this season's worthless Democrat; Occupy; a "Trotskyist" software engineer elected to the Seattle City Council) to another. It lacks focus and stability; its métier is bearing witness, demonstrating solidarity, and the event or the gesture. Its reflex is to "send messages" to those in power, to make statements, and to stand with or for the oppressed.


    We are in a very bad place right now, in terms of ideas and arguments. The opposition, in pretty much every western hemisphere country, has been colonised by the same people: professional politicians, upper-middle-class in social background, educated at the same small group of elite universities, reflexively committed to meritocratic ideology. They're very good at expressing sympathy for the marginalised, at saying the right words, at, as Reed says, "sending messages" and engaging in representational politics. But all those gestures do nothing for the constituencies they supposedly represent. They're ultimately selfish -- focussed on their own career advancement and the narrow class interests of the meritocratic-professional elite itself. The opposition, as Frank himself once said, "has ceased to oppose" in any economically meaningful sense. (Although they're very good at symbolic forms of opposition on cultural and historical issues.)

    And now their constituencies have noticed and have withdrawn their votes.

    sarahsmith232 , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    according to exit polls every section of white America, old, young, affluent, low-income, educated/not voted Trump, all bar 'young college educated white females', older college educated white females also voted Trump.
    Same here with Brexit, voting patterns show the all white groups voted out, nothing to do with education levels, income or age.
    The pundits write about 'the crisis of liberalism',, hhmmm, I think it should more be 'the rejection of illiberal openess'. When we say 'immigration needs to be reduced' the 'elites' reach for the favourite fall back 'you're a white that's racist/fascist/backward/uneducated' etc etc etc response. Well, turns out, the white part is right, the rest is just class based ignorance. Clinton was the absolute embodiment of this type of ignorance and arrogance. That basket of deplorables thing was disgusting, I felt personally insulted by it myself (i'm in the UK). Absolute standard 'elite' arrogance and hatred of those that don't agree with you. She's just paid for that hate by alienating absolutely EVERY SINGLE section of white America.
    Trump's politics is a rejection of a globalism that has damaged the interests of so many, we're all far far too open to the forces of the world coming in at us from all directions, Catholics in Eastern Europe are not allowed their Christian values, are smeared as backward and ordered by foreign 'elites' in Brussels to drop all that they hold dear or face fines. We've all watched as the Remoaners showed to the world just exactly how 'tolerant' and 'accepting' they are of those they don't agree with, erupting into a torrent of class based ignorance and venomous hatred.
    Well, they've all been at all this for far too long, and we're all pushing back against it. Spew race based hate at those that don't agree with you, BBC journalists shouting 'Nazi, fascist, racist' at any slight tightening up of immigration, Hilary Clinton labelling most white working-class a basket of fascist deployarables and hey presto, you lose to a repulsive cartoon like Trump.
    They need to start thinking on about just exactly who it is in reality that's the race haters. Most are on the Left.
    alanredangel , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>

    A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine.

    Good writing.

    Mr Baker , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    hflashman , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    Given that Republicans have been opposed to intervention by Big Government at least since the Great Depression if Trump gets the go ahead for some of his ideas it will be a case of 4 legs good 2 legs better.
    Omoikani , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>

    With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station.

    Quite so. And now the elitist corporate media which got everything wrong, including their highly confident predictions about the result, will now tell you in a highly confident manner all the things that are going to happen as a result of the thing they said wouldn't happen. First to dash off a thousand words of hyperventilating predictions? Jonathan Freedland , so top marks to him for speed, if nothing else.

    gipsymermaid , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    Interesting article, and in a way I sensed it coming unfortunately, at least in the meaning that I have always felt that certain liberal and "progressive" thoughts are just too alien from basic human nature, and are being forced to enter the mainstream a bit too fast, and that this is a huge risk in the sense that when people decide they are not ready for these and it's time to reject them properly, then all the valuable, truly liberating and forward-thinking ideas will be drained along with them and that means dark times ahead indeed.

    I am from Eastern-Europe, and, while I don't have a lot of personal memories of the communist times myself, most of the liberal bits of my cultural heritage comes from the counter-culture, a lot of the things we value today in my country were, albeit not necessarily all illegal as such, certainly more of the taboo sort, than they would have been in the West. Now it looks like that with all this Brexit and America, the West will have to learn to use the liberal thinking to serve as meaningful criticism of the system that will be built in the future by these new people. It's the Westerner's turn now, to learn to read between the lines and produce culture with purpose other than entertainment (if there is any positive side to this, then it should be the rise of new, creative movies and the end of the high-budget superhero era, and the birth of music with lyrics worth listening to lol, that's what I keep telling myself as my silver lining for now at least.)

    It's obviously difficult to compare, nothing, in the entire world at the time was this commercialised and business and technology and life and everything was obviously very different. And, crucially, whilst the commies declared themselves to be ruling in the name of the common working people, they had their own breed of intellectuals, at least in my country, there was an approved bunch of scientists, artists etc, who could stretch it and provide some sense. So, worryingly enough, from this point of view I wouldn't say they were comparable to the type of anti-intellectualist mob rule seemingly putting these people into power, and that is my real fear, that these new rulers will not even have their own bunch of approved scientists who might not approve the views of atheists or feminists or whatever, but would at least be ready to provide these new governments with sound advice on the environment, education, health, etc.

    I'm not sure how avoidable this could have been in reality, but it should have been, because we have no time for such ideological bullsh*t games (excuse my words), the damage we are doing to our own, living planet is becoming irreparable, and we really, absolutely, from all backgrounds and cultures must work together to basically stay alive.

    bobkolker , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    The arrogance and snotty mindedness of the progressive liberal establishment has be dealt a righteous slap in the face which they have been asking for, for decades. The Revolt of the Deplorables. This was the winter of our discontent. Now it is our turn.

    Time will tell whether this upset is the beginning of a much better era in the U.S.

    I voted for Trump not because I like him (personally I find him repulsive) but because he was a wrecking ball and a sledge hammer to be used against the liberal progressives that have been running the U.S. into the ground for decades.

    This the Moment of the Ticked Off Deplorables.

    This is also a surprise. This is the most exciting time since Truman defeated Dewey.

    Jamozki , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    Except it was the Republicans (not the "white collar liberals") who deregulated the Wall Street banks. It was the Republicans who gave tax breaks to the wealthy 1% and it was the Republicans who got rid of welfare. The biggest con of all? That the majority of uneducated Americans who just voted Republican, think that the GOP represent thier interests and it's all the fault of the "liberals". We are without doubt witnessing the beginning of the end of the American empire...
    Down2dirt Jamozki , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
    Clinton kept all Bush Senior's 'experts' , loonies like Greenspan. Obama's candidate?

    Wake up! They are two cheeks of the same arse.

    grauniadreader101 Jamozki , 9 Nov 2016 12:2>

    We are without doubt witnessing the beginning of the end of the American empire...

    And about time, too! That said, you are right about the GOP being the party of deregulation, tax-breaks for the rich etc. but since in the 35 years since Reagan, when bank deregulation began in earnest (I know, Nixon repealed the Gold Standard), we have had 16 years of Democratic rule, and NOTHING has been done to reverse it; in fact, quite the opposite. Most of the damage was done between Clinton (who repealed Glass-Steigel) and his chairman of the Fed, Alan Greenspan.

    Thomas Fr

    grauniadreader101 Jamozki , 9 Nov 2016 12:2>

    We are without doubt witnessing the beginning of the end of the American empire...

    And about time, too! That said, you are right about the GOP being the party of deregulation, tax-breaks for the rich etc. but since in the 35 years since Reagan, when bank deregulation began in earnest (I know, Nixon repealed the Gold Standard), we have had 16 years of Democratic rule, and NOTHING has been done to reverse it; in fact, quite the opposite. Most of the damage was done between Clinton (who repealed Glass-Steigel) and his chairman of the Fed, Alan Greenspan.

    Thomas Frank is right on the money. People voted for Trump precisely because both parties represent business as usual and people are sick of it. Same with Brexit.

    ank is right on the money. People voted for Trump precisely because both parties represent business as usual and people are sick of it. Same with Brexit.

    ProperEnglishman 4d ago

    The silent majority,the ones who go to work pay their taxes and quietly get on with life have spoken. Don't underestimate us. We're intelligent, humble and caring. We're entitled to a view. We've had enough, we don't have to bully scream and shout to get our way, we go down to the polling station and we put a cross in the box we feel passionately about and we go home back to our quiet lives-job done.Well done the people of America,you have had the equivalent to our Brexit and now let's get the world back to how it should be. One of the most satisfying parts is listening to the Lefties,Luvvies and BBC crying their eyes out. The times they are a changing.

    mouchefisher , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>

    It is a liberalism of the rich, it has failed the middle class, and now it has failed on its own terms of electability. Enough with these comfortable Democrats and their cozy Washington system. Enough with Clintonism and its prideful air of professional-class virtue. Enough!

    Amen to that. Thank you, Thomas Frank, for articles such as this one. A lone voice of progressive reason at the Guardian (neo)liberal circus.

    We need to overhaul the DNC, as well as the Guardian and NYT editorial boards.

    HenryGeorgeFan , 9 Nov 2016 12:2>

    She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch.

    Spot on. And this is exactly the misery that infects both wings of the Labour Party.

    People in politics jostling for power and status, like it's a hobby for them, a kind of shoot-em up where the consequences of policy affect only other people.

    Cameron and Johnson and all the slime of the Tory party suffer from the same disease.

    Why do you want to be prime minister, you spam faced Tefal foreheaded dilettante?

    "Well, I think I'd be rather good at it."

    Well, you weren't. You were awful at it, because you had no basic guiding principles, just like all the other dilettantes from Eton and all the other posh boy Petri dishes where hubris is cultivated.

    Buggin's turn.

    Well, bug off.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Trump Outsmarts Media, Aims to Destroy Obamas Divisive, Racialist Policies - Breitbart

    Notable quotes:
    "... He overcame all the odds, beat back both political parties, jumped around all the powerful special interest industries that own Washington and scored an unprecedented victory for the people. ..."
    "... And he did it all while circumventing the massive media machine that worked in lockstep unison to block him at every turn. Every mainstream newspaper and television outlet - after months of gorging themselves at the profit trough of his monster ratings - shirked all pretense of covering the election fairly. ..."
    "... Mr. Trump - excuse me, President-elect Trump - was smeared as a racist, xenophobic misogynist with tiny hands and a small bank account. ..."
    "... these people have no one to blame but themselves and the outgoing current President, Barack Obama, who promised them the world and promised all of us a healed country. "Post-racial" they were calling it in 2008. ..."
    "... Well, he has surely failed on that score. Race relations in this country have not been this ugly and strained in decades. The president's divisive, racialist language and posture throughout his presidency has set the country back many, many painful years. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    He overcame all the odds, beat back both political parties, jumped around all the powerful special interest industries that own Washington and scored an unprecedented victory for the people.

    And he did it all while circumventing the massive media machine that worked in lockstep unison to block him at every turn. Every mainstream newspaper and television outlet - after months of gorging themselves at the profit trough of his monster ratings - shirked all pretense of covering the election fairly.

    Mr. Trump - excuse me, President-elect Trump - was smeared as a racist, xenophobic misogynist with tiny hands and a small bank account.

    Then he beat the last GOP standard-bearer among blacks and Hispanics. Even Hillary Clinton's much ballyhooed appeal to women shrank a bit from President Obama's levels in the past two elections. Those right there are the single most devastating statistics out of the whole election. The mainstream media has cried wolf for the last time. Nobody is listening to any of them anymore.

    The only people left believing these liars and slime artists are these melting snowflakes calling in sick and hovering in safe places under their beds - the dopes marching in the streets demanding civility as they shout threats to grab Trump by his genitals.

    Or these thug criminals beating the tar out of a Trump voter at a street intersection.

    These snowflakes need to tread very, very carefully because these kinds of wild and violent and ugly demonstrations will only strengthen President-elect Trump and his now-vocal majority.

    Anyway, these people have no one to blame but themselves and the outgoing current President, Barack Obama, who promised them the world and promised all of us a healed country. "Post-racial" they were calling it in 2008.

    Well, he has surely failed on that score. Race relations in this country have not been this ugly and strained in decades. The president's divisive, racialist language and posture throughout his presidency has set the country back many, many painful years.

    Now we have a new president. He sweeps into office with a clear and bold mandate from the people.

    Godspeed.

    Charles Hurt can be reached at [email protected] ; follow him on Twitter via @charleshurt .

    [Nov 12, 2016] This Election Has Disgraced the Entire Profession of Journalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Mark Leibovich of the Times magazine gave the Clinton campaign significant input and review into a fawning profile of the candidate. "Pleasure doing business!" campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri wrote him at the conclusion of the process. ..."
    "... Ezra Klein, the boy wonder editor-in-chief of Vox, is considered to be the campaign's most reliable mouthpiece, as seen in a March 23, 2015 email in which Clintonistas were wondering which journalist it could call upon to push out a campaign storyline they were then concocting. "I think that person…is Ezra Klein," wrote Palmieri. "And we can do it with him today." ..."
    "... In a July email, Neera Tanden, Hillary's longtime friend, aide, and attack puppet, strategized with Podesta about "recruiting brown and women pundits" and pushing pro-Hillary media figures such as MSNBC's Joan Walsh and Klein's colleague at Vox, Matthew Yglesias, to be even more faithful stenographers. "They can be emboldened," she wrote, as if these two loyalist PR assets needed any further encouragement. ..."
    "... Trump's threats to expand libel laws and to sue journalists are genuinely scary, but Hillary displays similar contempt for journalists. In September, she gave her first formal press conference in more than nine months - virtually this entire presidential campaign. And as the Podesta emails show, the Clintonistas happily work hand in glove with pliant surrogates but operate in quite a different, and dishonest, way with critics. ..."
    "... The Clinton-Giustra partnership had been written about but no U.S. journalists had traveled to Colombia to see what the Foundation has done there. In fact, with few exceptions, the Clinton Foundation's claims about the good it has done overseas have been unexamined. ..."
    "... Furthermore, I had "misled" the Foundation in the past so "we have every reason to be suspicious of his intentions and doubt he would give our facts a fair hearing," he wrote. "Other news organizations have handled this material differently, always checking with us prior to publication, giving us an opportunity to respond." (Giving us the opportunity to edit and approve, is what he should have written.) In the end, Fusion updated the story and posted an editorial note saying that it had not met its standards. ..."
    "... Second, of course I'm biased against the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons, on the basis of evidence and reporting. I've never bothered to hide my feelings, in public, on social media, or in my articles, because I believe that all reporters are biased and readers are smart enough to know that, and that the pretense of objectivity is itself dishonest. What makes a journalist honest is holding all sides to the same standard of criticism, no matter what your own views. ..."
    "... Third, and most important, I repeatedly sought comment from the Clinton Foundation. This may seem like a minor matter but the fact that the foundation lied about that shows that it not only seeks out well-trained pet reporters as surrogates, but keeps tabs on and actively seeks to undermine its "enemies." ..."
    observer.com

    ... ... ...

    The destruction of the industrial heartland due to Democratic-driven trade policies, shrinking salaries that force many Americans to work two and three jobs to support their families, the staggering rise in health care costs under Obamacare, widespread economic insecurity that has fueled a national opioid epidemic, and Hillary's trigger-happy views are highly rational reasons for any voter to consider casting a ballot for Trump. So, too, are fears that Clinton's election would lead to an entrenchment of institutionalized corruption and corporate political power. (If Hillary wins and Chuck Schumer takes over as Senate Majority Leader, Wall Street will get its every dream through Congress.)

    There's nothing secret about the media's anti-Trump stance. A formal declaration of war was launched on August 7, when Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times media columnist, wrote a story under the headline, "Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism." Rutenberg wrote that journalists were in a terrible bind trying to stay objective because Trump, among other things, "cozies up to anti-American dictators," has "put financial conditions on the United States defense of NATO allies," and that his foreign policy views "break with decades-old …consensus."

    And worst of all is Rutenberg's statement about the role of journalists. "All governments are run by liars and nothing they say should be believed," I.F. Stone once wrote. "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations," said George Orwell. For those two self-evident reasons, being "oppositional" is the only place political journalists should ever be, no matter who is in power or who is campaigning.

    But for Rutenberg and the New York Times being oppositional is only "uncomfortable" when it comes to covering Hillary Clinton. It didn't seem uncomfortable at all when it came to running a story about Trump's taxes based on three pages of a decades-old tax return that was sent anonymously or when it ran another story with the headline, "The 282 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List."

    All during the campaign we have watched Hillary Clinton rehearse campaign themes and, almost as if by magic, the media amplifying those themes in seeming lockstep. The hacked emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta have demonstrated that this was not mere happenstance, but, at least in part, resulted from direct coordination between the Clintonistas and the press.

    Mark Leibovich of the Times magazine gave the Clinton campaign significant input and review into a fawning profile of the candidate. "Pleasure doing business!" campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri wrote him at the conclusion of the process.

    The Clintonistas had an equally pleasurable relationship with the Times's Maggie Haberman, who, it was said in one email, "We have had… tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed." Haberman even apparently read Palmieri an entire story prior to publication "to further assure me," Palmieri wrote.

    Ezra Klein, the boy wonder editor-in-chief of Vox, is considered to be the campaign's most reliable mouthpiece, as seen in a March 23, 2015 email in which Clintonistas were wondering which journalist it could call upon to push out a campaign storyline they were then concocting. "I think that person…is Ezra Klein," wrote Palmieri. "And we can do it with him today."

    In a July email, Neera Tanden, Hillary's longtime friend, aide, and attack puppet, strategized with Podesta about "recruiting brown and women pundits" and pushing pro-Hillary media figures such as MSNBC's Joan Walsh and Klein's colleague at Vox, Matthew Yglesias, to be even more faithful stenographers. "They can be emboldened," she wrote, as if these two loyalist PR assets needed any further encouragement.

    In the same email, Tanden wrote that when New York mayor Michael Bloomberg was "having problems" with the Times he called publisher Arthur Schulzburger [sic] to arrange a coffee to complain about the newspaper's reporting and that their chat "changed the coverage moderately but also aired the issues in the newsroom so people were more conscious of it."

    Unfortunately, she added, "Arthur is a pretty big wuss" so he wouldn't do more to help out Bloomberg without additional prodding.

    To get real results to change the Times's coverage of the 2016 campaign, "Hillary would have to be the one to call" Sulzberger - a rather astonishing remark that begs a million questions about the Times' election reporting.

    Politico reporter Glenn Thrush apologized to Podesta for writing a story draft that he feared was too critical. "I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u," he wrote. "Please don't share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I fucked up anything." On bended knee would have been more dignified.

    Trump's threats to expand libel laws and to sue journalists are genuinely scary, but Hillary displays similar contempt for journalists. In September, she gave her first formal press conference in more than nine months - virtually this entire presidential campaign. And as the Podesta emails show, the Clintonistas happily work hand in glove with pliant surrogates but operate in quite a different, and dishonest, way with critics.

    Which leads me to my own recent experience writing about the Clinton Foundation's abysmal programs in Colombia, where it has worked closely with Frank Giustra, reportedly the foundation's largest donor. Giustra, a Canadian stock market manipulator who was known as the "Poison Dwarf" because of his tiny stature - he's a little north of 5 feet- and tendency to make tons of money at the expense of small investors, invested heavily in Colombia in oil, gold, and timber. He made a fortune while companies he was affiliated with ruthlessly exploited workers and reportedly raped and pillaged the environment.

    The Clinton-Giustra partnership had been written about but no U.S. journalists had traveled to Colombia to see what the Foundation has done there. In fact, with few exceptions, the Clinton Foundation's claims about the good it has done overseas have been unexamined.

    I spent 10 days in Colombia last May and spoke to unionists, workers, environmentalists, Afro-Colombians and entrepreneurs - exactly the people who the foundation brags about helping on its website- as well as three left-leaning senators who champion the poor. They were overwhelmingly negative, and in many cases disparaging, about the Clinton Foundation and Giustra, who was deeply involved with an oil company, Pacific Rubiales, that recently went spectacularly bankrupt and which worked with the Army to smash a strike after workers revolted over miserable pay and working conditions.

    Bill Clinton had a friendly relationship with Pacific Rubiales too, and in 2012 the two men golfed together at a charitable event for the foundation sponsored by the oil company. Colombia's president, whose niece got a plush job as "Sustainability Manager" for Pacific Rubiales, golfed with Bill.

    I had wanted to write the Colombia story for months but, as is often the case in journalism today, couldn't find a media outlet to pay for the trip. A friend steered me to the American Media Institute (AMI), a conservative non-profit, which funded the trip.

    AMI arranged for the story to run in Politico, but it killed an early version. I then pitched it to Fusion, which ran it on October 13. It immediately generated a furious reaction from the Clinton camp, starting off with a series of tweets by Angel Urena, Bill Clinton's spokesman. Then the Foundation tried to get Fusion to take the story off its website.

    On October 14, Craig Minassian, a Clinton Foundation spokesman, sent a 14-page letter to Fusion, CC-ing foundation officials, Urena and Mark Gunton of the Clinton-Giustra Enterprise Partnership. The first few pages attacked me, citing past articles about the Clinton Foundation and a series of "vulgar" tweets I'd posted about Hillary Clinton and her supporters, including Clinton's long-time surrogate Joe Conason, author of Man of the World, a rapturous book about Bill Clinton's post-presidency. (Conason is also former executive editor of the Observer.)

    It also complained about factual errors and cited the funding from AMI as being evidence that the story was a right wing plot. In fact, I set up the trip with the help of fixer in Colombia, picked people to interview, and there was no political intrusion into the story. Ironically, a conservative non-profit paid for a piece that defended unions, the poor, women, and Afro-Colombians.

    Mostly the dossier contained unverifiable Clinton Foundation propaganda and references to positive press stories about the foundation, like one in pro-Hillary Vox titled "The key question on the Clinton Foundation is whether it saved lives. The answer is clearly yes." A central component of the foundation's attack - which Urena played heavily on his Twitter feed -was that I had never attempted to reach the Clinton Foundation or campaign for comment.

    Furthermore, I had "misled" the Foundation in the past so "we have every reason to be suspicious of his intentions and doubt he would give our facts a fair hearing," he wrote. "Other news organizations have handled this material differently, always checking with us prior to publication, giving us an opportunity to respond." (Giving us the opportunity to edit and approve, is what he should have written.) In the end, Fusion updated the story and posted an editorial note saying that it had not met its standards.

    OK, let me acknowledge my mistakes and provide a little further information. First off, the Fusion story did contain a number of errors. My name is on the story so I have to take responsibility.

    Fine. None of the mistakes was intentional and I spent endless hours prior to publication trying to ensure everything was accurate. There is nothing more embarrassing as a journalist than having to make corrections. I screwed up. But I stand by the story's on-the-ground reporting from Colombia and the conclusions about the Clinton Foundation's meager results there.

    Second, of course I'm biased against the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons, on the basis of evidence and reporting. I've never bothered to hide my feelings, in public, on social media, or in my articles, because I believe that all reporters are biased and readers are smart enough to know that, and that the pretense of objectivity is itself dishonest. What makes a journalist honest is holding all sides to the same standard of criticism, no matter what your own views.

    I'm equally biased against Donald Trump and have written a number of critical articles about him and described him in equally vulgar and unflattering terms. The only reasons I haven't written about Trump more is that I had pitches about him turned down - including one about his revolting comments about women, which I shopped around unsuccessfully last spring during the GOP primaries - and because I believed (and still do) that Hillary Clinton is likely to be elected president, which makes her a bigger target.

    Third, and most important, I repeatedly sought comment from the Clinton Foundation. This may seem like a minor matter but the fact that the foundation lied about that shows that it not only seeks out well-trained pet reporters as surrogates, but keeps tabs on and actively seeks to undermine its "enemies."

    In August, when the piece was at Politico, I sent a detailed email to the foundation, to Hillary's campaign and to the CGEP seeking comment. There was nothing coy about it. I wrote, in part:

    I'm currently writing a piece about the foundations' activities in Colombia, where I recently spent 10 days, and interviewed dozens of people…I truly want to hear your side of this story, which thus far appears to be utterly appalling. While the Foundation and presidential candidate Hilary Clinton have effusively and repeatedly expressed their concerns for the poor and organized labor - and in Colombia specifically mention a deep concern for Afro-Colombians - I found no evidence of that on the ground.

    Unionists, Afro-Colombians, elected officials and impoverished people in the slums of Bogota and Cartagena are unanimous: the Clinton Foundation…has played no role at all in helping Colombia's poor or even worse, it has played a negative role.

    I've tried unsuccessfully to get comment from you in the past about other stories but wanted to reach out once again in the hopes that you might be able to reply to some simple straightforward questions.

    In fact, this was the fifth time in the past year that I wrote about the foundation and it only replied once, prior to publication of the first story. Furthermore, I sought comment at the Clinton Foundation in Colombia and at several of its projects in Bogota and Cartagena, and no one could talk to me or provide even minimal information. (For example, why does the Clinton Foundation run a private equity fund out of its Bogota office? What does that have to do with its charitable efforts?)

    Should I have reached out to the foundation again after the story moved to Fusion? Perhaps, but another reporter who had been working on the Colombia story had attempted to get comment from the foundation and received no reply. The foundation (and the Clinton campaign) was given ample opportunity to reply and chose not to. I have a strong suspicion that if Thrush or Klein or Haberman or one of its other pet journalists had asked for comment they would have had no problem.

    The 2016 election has exposed like nothing in modern times the desperate need for political reform in this country.

    ... ... ...

    [Nov 12, 2016] Ron Paul several neocons are getting closer to Trump

    Nov 12, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    Donald Trump's success or failure as the next US president will largely depend on his ability to keep his independence from the "shadow government" and elite structures that shaped the policies of previous administrations, former presidential candidate Ron Paul told RT.
    [...]
    " Unfortunately, there has been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump. And if gets his advice from them then I do not think that is a good sign, " Paul told the host of RT's Crosstalk show Peter Lavelle.
    The retired Congressman said that people voted for Trump because he stood against the deep corruption in the establishment, that was further exposed during the campaign by WikiLeaks, and because of his disapproval of meddling in the wider Middle East.
    " During the campaign, he did talk a little bit about backing off and being less confrontational to Russia and I like that. He criticized some the wars in the Middle East at the same time. He believes we should accelerate the war against ISIS and terrorism, " Paul noted.
    [...]
    " But quite frankly there is an outside source which we refer to as the 'deep state' or the 'shadow government'. There is a lot of influence by people which are actually more powerful than our government itself, our president, " the congressman said.
    " Yes, Trump is his own guy, more so than most of those who have ever been in before. We hope he can maintain an independence and go in the right direction. But I fear the fact that there is so much that can be done secretly, out of control of our apparent government and out of the view of so many citizens, " he added.
    More:
    https://www.rt.com/usa/366404-trump-ron-paul-crosstalk/

    [Nov 12, 2016] The Clintons And Soros Launch America s Purple Revolution

    Notable quotes:
    "... No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014. ..."
    "... One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Wayne Madsen via Strategic-Culture.org,

    Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

    The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

    It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin . President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

    America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.

    Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.

    There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.

    Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:

    "Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".

    President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.

    Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution

    No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

    As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

    The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.

    President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.

    One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Trump elected as President – risks and opportunities

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers, in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy: the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution, and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict ". ..."
    "... The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict – only ideological issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe, or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants – needs – is the USA as a *normal* nation. ..."
    "... The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it, but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know. ..."
    "... Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable. ..."
    "... Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end. ..."
    "... With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible conditions for his country. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | www.unz.com

    So it has happened: Hillary did not win! I say that instead of saying that "Trump won" because I consider the former even more important than the latter. Why? Because I have no idea whatsoever what Trump will do next. I do, however, have an excellent idea of what Hillary would have done: war with Russia. Trump most likely won't do that. In fact, he specifically said in his acceptance speech:

    I want to tell the world community that while we will always put America's interests first, we will deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations. We will seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict .

    And Putin's reply was immediate:

    We heard the statements he made as candidate for president expressing a desire to restore relations between our countries. We realise and understand that this will not be an easy road given the level to which our relations have degraded today, regrettably. But, as I have said before, it is not Russia's fault that our relations with the United States have reached this point.

    Russia is ready to and seeks a return to full-format relations with the United States. Let me say again, we know that this will not be easy, but are ready to take this road, take steps on our side and do all we can to set Russian-US relations back on a stable development track.

    This would benefit both the Russian and American peoples and would have a positive impact on the general climate in international affairs, given the particular responsibility that Russia and the US share for maintaining global stability and security.

    This exchange, right there, is enough of a reason for the entire planet to rejoice at the defeat of Hillary and the victory of Trump.

    Will Trump now have the courage, willpower and intelligence to purge the US Executive from the Neocon cabal which has been infiltrating it for decades now? Will he have the strength to confront an extremely hostile Congress and media? Or will he try to meet them halfway and naively hope that they will not use their power, money and influence to sabotage his presidency?

    I don't know. Nobody does.

    One of the first signs to look for will be the names and backgrounds of the folks he will appoint in his new administration. Especially his Chief of Staff and Secretary of State.

    I have always said that the choice for the lesser evil is morally wrong and pragmatically misguided. I still believe that. In this case, however, the greater evil was thermonuclear war with Russia and the lesser evil just might turn out to be one which will gradually give up the Empire to save the USA rather than sacrifice the USA for the needs of the Empire. In the case of Hillary vs Trump the choice was simple: war or peace.

    Trump can already be credited with am immense achievement: his campaign has forced the US corporate media to show its true face – the face of an evil, lying, morally corrupt propaganda machine. The American people by their vote have rewarded their media with a gigantic "f*ck you!" – a vote of no-confidence and total rejection which will forever demolish the credibility of the Empire's propaganda machine.

    I am not so naive as to not realize that billionaire Donald Trump is also one of the 1%ers, a pure product of the US oligarchy. But neither am I so ignorant of history to forget that elites do turn on each other , especially when their regime is threatened. Do I need to remind anybody that Putin also came from the Soviet elites?!

    Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers, in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy: the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution, and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict ".

    The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict – only ideological issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe, or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants – needs – is the USA as a *normal* nation.

    The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it, but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know.

    Make no mistake – even if Trump does end up disappointing those who believed in him what happened today has dealt a death blow to the Empire. The "Occupy Wall Street" did not succeed in achieving anything tangible, but the notion of "rule of the 1%" did emerge from that movement and it stayed. This is a direct blow to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order of the USA: far from being a democracy, it is a plutocracy/oligarchy – everybody pretty much accepts that today. Likewise, the election of Trump has already proved that the US media is a prostitute and that the majority of the American people hate their ruling class. Again, this is a direct blow to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order. One by one the founding myths of the US Empire are crashing down and what remains is a system which can only rule by force.

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable.

    Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end.

    With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible conditions for his country. Frankly, I am pretty sure that all the key world leaders realize that it is in their interest to make as many (reasonable) concessions to Trump as possible and work with him, rather than to deal with the people whom he just removed from power.

    If Trump can stick to his campaign promises he will find solid and reliable partners in Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Neither Russia nor China have anything at all to gain from a confrontation or, even less so, a conflict with the USA. Will Trump have the wisdom to realize this and use it for the benefit of the USA? Or will he continue with his anti-Chinese and anti-Iranian rhetoric?

    Only time will tell.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Trumps infrastructure plan faces speed bumps

    Nov 12, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs : November 12, 2016 at 08:15 AM , 2016 at 08:15 AM

    Trump's infrastructure plan faces speed bumps http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-infrastructure-plan-faces-speed-bumps-1478884989
    via @WSJ - David Harrison - Nov 11

    Donald Trump's proposal for $1 trillion worth of new infrastructure construction relies entirely on private financing, which industry experts say is likely to fall far short of adequately funding improvements to roads, bridges and airports.

    The president-elect's infrastructure plan largely boils down to a tax break in the hopes of luring capital to projects. He wants investors to put money into projects in exchange for tax credits totaling 82% of the equity amount. His plan anticipates that lost tax revenue would be recouped through new income-tax revenue from construction workers and business-tax revenue from contractors, making the proposal essentially cost-free to the government.

    Mr. Trump has made a $1 trillion infrastructure investment over 10 years one of his first priorities as president, promising in his victory speech early Wednesday morning to "rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals."

    The Trump team's $1 trillion infrastructure investment plan over 10 years is laid out in a description of the proposal on the website (#) of Peter Navarro, an adviser to Mr. Trump and a public-policy professor at the University of California, Irvine. A presidential transition website that went up this week (*) said Mr. Trump planned to invest $550 billion in infrastructure, without offering details on where that funding would come from. Top Trump aides couldn't be reached to comment on the proposal.

    Experts and industry officials, though, say there are limits to how much can be done with private financing. Because privately funded projects need to turn a profit, they are better suited for major projects such as toll roads, airports or water systems and less appropriate for routine maintenance, such as repaving a public street, they say.

    Officials also doubt that the nation's aging infrastructure can be updated without a significant infusion of public dollars. ...

    #- http://www.peternavarro.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/infrastructurereport.pdf

    *- https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/transportation-infrastructure.html

    [Nov 12, 2016] Neoliberalism is equal to identity politics and that is why both ought to be crushed ruthlessly

    Notable quotes:
    "... What's bought [sic] us to this stage is a policy – whether it's been intentional or unintentional or a mixture of both – of divide and rule, where society is broken down into neat little boxes and were told how to behave towards the contents of each one rather than, say, just behaving well towards all of them. ..."
    "... And this right here is why neoliberalism = identity politics and why both ought to be crushed ruthlessly. ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Amir Fasad November 10, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Well, that makes a lot of sense for a very good reason: racism was essentially created in the British colonies first in the Americas (read: Virginia) in the 17th and 18th centuries. Slavery became synomous with race, i.e., only Africans and their colonial descendants could be legally enslaved. Before, pretty much anyone could be a slave, including the destitute, or religious "others" (Irish, especially), or war captives (Native peoples, Muslims, etc.). In the colonies, this new racialized legal definition of slavery created a very real divide in the lower orders and working classes – specifically, race was a way to divide enslaved people away from indentured servants and landless peasants. (you could say it also created what is now called "white privilege," putting white people one notch above black slaves, in legal terms). Look into the Virginia slave codes, Bacon's Rebellion, etc. They literally invented race-thinking to divide the lower classes and protect the colonial social hierarchy and its economy. It's where "racism" began, arguably.

    This was the British empire we're talking about here. And you mentioned India…under British colonial rule. If interested, the classic text on this is Edward Morgan's "American Slavery, American Freedom." It's a must-read for all Americans and those interested in US/imperial history, or the history of slavery writ large. Must read, as in top ten histories of all time. Not coincidentally, the British became more interested in Asia after their American colonists got all uppity, demanded their political autonomy, and created their own empire in the Americas. British historians of empire call this the empire's "swing to the east." This happened in the latter part of the 18th century.

    Carolinian November 10, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    The old divide and conquer. A cynic might suggest this is exactly the strategy of the corporate Dems. Assimilation–what used to be called "the melting pot"–is their enemy.

    hunkerdown November 10, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    Hoisted from over there:

    What's bought [sic] us to this stage is a policy – whether it's been intentional or unintentional or a mixture of both – of divide and rule, where society is broken down into neat little boxes and were told how to behave towards the contents of each one rather than, say, just behaving well towards all of them.

    And this right here is why neoliberalism = identity politics and why both ought to be crushed ruthlessly.

    [Nov 12, 2016] The Clintons And Soros Launch Americas Purple Revolution

    Notable quotes:
    "... America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers. ..."
    "... Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team. ..."
    "... There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions. ..."
    "... Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. ..."
    "... PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle. ..."
    "... HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED... ..."
    "... Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil. ..."
    "... Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly... ..."
    "... We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... ..."
    "... JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world. ..."
    "... If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him) ..."
    "... Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Wayne Madsen via Strategic-Culture.org,

    Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

    The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

    It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin . President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

    America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.

    Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.

    There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.

    Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:

    "Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".

    President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.

    Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution

    No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

    As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

    The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.

    President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.

    One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.

    Pinto Currency nmb Nov 11, 2016 8:37 PM ,

    Purple must be the color of pedophiles.

    Soros, Clintons, Podestas, amd apparently Obama are all into it as we are learning from Comet Ping Pong scandal:

    https://i.sli.mg/ayI6QF.jpg

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5b1qtf/comet_ping_pong_pizz...

    https://dcpizzagate.wordpress.com/

    https://i.redd.it/3l20mhvrxtvx.png

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/breaking-from-the-anon-who-brought-you-th...

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a1c_1478546206

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gord...

    http://www.newsdailystudio.com/2016/11/05/bill-clinton-wasnt-the-only-on...

    Keep your eye on Jared Kushner, who is Trump's son-in-law. He refused to have his newspaper the NY Observer endorse Trump. That is not a good sign.

    MalteseFalcon Pinto Currency Nov 11, 2016 8:39 PM ,
    "It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care."

    None of those "pressing issues" involve the DOJ or the FBI.

    Investigate, prosecute and jail Hillary Clinton and her crew.

    Trump is going to need a hostage or two to deal with these fucks.

    If he doesn't, they will deal with him.

    letsit Occident Mortal Nov 11, 2016 8:45 PM ,
    Netanyahu, the greatest neocon of all, endorsed Trump. All TRUE neocons love Trump.

    https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/views-of-news/#trumpmeans

    Husk-Erzulie nmewn Nov 12, 2016 9:48 AM ,
    Big series of protests being planned. Recruiting ads in Craigslist nationwide. Purple ties and dresses all over MSM this morning.

    This is when the Purple Hats, Flags, Balloons start coming out.

    Kill it before it grows.

    https://twitter.com/AustinChas/status/797445221122506752

    any_mouse californiagirl Nov 12, 2016 2:54 AM ,
    Purple and royalty? Purple in Rome?

    News for the Clintons, The R's and D's already united to vote against Hillary.

    I do not understand why they think street protests will bring down a POTUS? And that would be acceptable in a major nation.

    Why isn't the government cracking down the separatists in Oregon, California, and elsewhere? They are not accepting the legal outcome of an election. They are calling for illegal secession. (Funny in 1861 this was a cause for the federal government to attack the joint and seveal states of the union.) If a group of whites had protested Obama's election in 2008?

    The people living in Kalispell are reviled and ridiculed for their separatist views. Randy Weaver and family for not accepting politically correct views. And so on.

    This is getting out of hand. There will be no walking this back.

    Erek any_mouse Nov 12, 2016 7:47 AM ,
    Purple is the color of royalty! Are these fuckers proclaiming themselves as King and Queen of America? If so, get the executioner and give them a "French Haircut"!
    X_in_Sweden Grimaldus Nov 12, 2016 10:58 AM ,
    Grimaldus ,

    "Yes. And who are the neocons really? Progressives. Neocon is a label successfully used by criminal progressives to shield their brand."

    Well let's go a little bit deeper in examing the 'who' thing:

    "The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative") Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary , a media arm of the American Jewish Committee , which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward , the oldest American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: " If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it.... "

    From the article By Laurent Guyénot , Who Are The Neoconservatives?* http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35106.htm

    Are you connecting the dots.......folks......?

    . . . _ _ _ . . . Bendromeda Strain Nov 11, 2016 11:04 PM ,

    Great avatar!

    GROWTH IS THE ULTIMATE PONZI SCHEME

    Lavada Chupacabra-322 Nov 12, 2016 10:41 AM ,
    The idea of arresting the Clinton Crime, Fraud and Crime Family would be welcomed. BUT, who is going to arrest them? Loretta Lynch, James Comey, WHO? The problem here is that our so called "authorities" are all in the same bed. The tentacles of the Eastern Elite Establishment are everywhere in high office, academia, the media, Big Business, etc. The swamp is thoroughly infested with this elite scum of those in the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Chatham House, Club of Rome, Committee of 300, Jason Society and numerous other private clubs of the rich, powerful and influential. The Illuminati has been exposed, however they aren't going down lightly. They still have massive amounts of money, they own the media and the banking houses. Some have described it as MIMAC, the Military Industrial Media Academic Complex. A few months ago here at Zero Hedge, there was an article which showed a massive flow chart of the elites and their organization

    They could IF and WHEN Trump gets to Washington after 20 Jan 2017, simply implode the economy and blame t it on Trump. Sort of what happened to Herbert Hoover in the late 1920's. Unfortunately the situation in the US will continue to deteriorate. George Soros, a major financial backer of Hillary will see to that. Soros is a Globalist and advocate of one world government. People comment that Soros should be arrested. I agree, BUT who is going to do that?

    Grimaldus ShortCommonSense Nov 12, 2016 9:12 AM ,
    Agree. I think Trump will yank all the "aid" to Israel as well as "aid" to the Islamic murderers of the Palitrashian human garbage infesting the area. This "aid" money is simply a bribe to keep both from killing each other. F**k all of them. None of our business what they do.

    We got progressives ( lots and lots of Jews in that group) who are the enemy of mankind and then we got Islam who are also the enemy of mankind. Why help either of them? Makes no sense.

    Wile-E-Coyote Bastiat Nov 12, 2016 5:35 AM ,
    How come Soros never got picked up by Mossad for war crimes against his own people?

    And if he is such a subversive shit why hasn't a government given him a Polonium 210 enema.

    Martian Moon Wile-E-Coyote Nov 12, 2016 8:13 AM ,
    Always wondered about that

    Soros is hated in Israel and has never set foot there but his foundations have done such harm that a bill was recently passed to ban foreign funding of non profit political organizations

    Chupacabra-322 RopeADope Nov 11, 2016 9:03 PM ,
    The fact that we all have to worry about the CIA killing a President Elect simply because the man puts America first, really says it all.

    The Agency is Cancer. Why are we even waiting for them to kill another one of our people to act? There should be no question about the CIA's future in the US.

    Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long, that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes Against The American People.

    King Tut Chupacabra-322 Nov 11, 2016 9:11 PM ,
    JFK made the mistake of publicly stating his intention of smashing the CIA instead of just doing it quickly and quietly
    Chupacabra-322 King Tut Nov 11, 2016 9:30 PM ,
    There are entirely way too many Intelligence Agencies. Plus the Contractors, some of who shouldn't have high level clearance to begin with which the US sub contracts the Intel / work out to.

    For Fucks sake, Government is so incompetent it can't even handle it own Intel.

    Something along the lines of Eurpoe's Five Eyes would be highly effective.

    Fuck those Pure Evil Psychopaths at the CIA They're nothing more than a bunch of Scum Fuck murdering, drug running, money laundering Global Crime Syndicate.

    HowdyDoody Chupacabra-322 Nov 11, 2016 10:59 PM ,
    Five Eyes isn't European, it is US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. If you note carefully, the NSA etc think we can't count.
    chubbar Pinto Currency Nov 11, 2016 8:46 PM ,
    The FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation, Trump needs to encourage that through backdoor channels. Soro's needs to be investigated, he has been tied to a conspiracy to incite violence, this needs to be documented and dealt with. Trump can not ignore this guy. If any of these investigations come back with a recommendation to indict then that process needs to be started. Take the fight to them, they are vulnerable!
    Chupacabra-322 chubbar Nov 11, 2016 9:12 PM ,
    Make a National APB Warrent for the apprehension & arrest of George Sooros for inciting violence, endsrgerimg the public & calling for the murder of our Nations Police through funding of the BLM Group.

    Have every Law Informent Agency in the Nation on alert. Also, issue a Bounty in the Sum of $5,000,000 for his immediate apprehension.

    kwc chubbar Nov 12, 2016 4:50 AM ,
    Trump needs to replace FBI chickenshits & sellouts with loyal people then get the FBI counter-terrorism to investigate and shut down Soros & the various agencies instigating the riots. It's really simple when you quit over-thinking a problem. It's domestic terrorism. It's the FBI's job to stop it.
    Laddie nmb Nov 11, 2016 8:43 PM ,
    I read what Paul said this morning and thought, despite Paul's hostility to Trump during the primaries most likely due to his son, Rand's loss, that Paul gave good advice to Trump.
    Let's face it Donald Trump is a STOP GAP measure. And demographic change over the next 4 years makes his re-election very, very UNLIKELY. If he keeps his campaign promises he will be a GREAT president. However as ZH reported earlier he appears to be balking from repealing Obamacare, I stress the word APPEARS.

    Let us give him a chance. This is all speculation. His enemies are DEADLY as they were once they got total control in Russia, they killed according to Solzhenitsyn SIXTY-SIX MILLION Russian Christians. The descendants of those Bolsheviks are VERY powerful in the USSA. They control the Fed, Hollyweird, Wall Street, the universities...

    Professor Kevin MacDonald's 'The Culture of Critique' Reviewed

    Like the South Africans the Tribe TALKED us out of our nation.

    Mechanisms for Cuckservatives and Other Misguided White People by Dr. Kevin MacDonald September 22, 2016

    Much of the media and advertising exist by pushing buttons that trigger appropriate financially lucrative reflexes in their audiences, from pornography to romantic movies to team sports. Media profits are driven by competition over how best to push those buttons. But the effort to produce politically and racially cuckolded Whites adds a layer of complexity: What buttons do you push to make Whites complicit in their own racial and cultural demise?

    Actually, there are a whole lot of them, which shouldn't be surprising. This is a very sophisticated onslaught, enabled by control over all the moral, intellectual, and political high ground by the left. With all that high ground, there are a lot of buttons you can push.

    Our enemies see this as a pathetic last gasp of a moribund civilization and it is quite true for our civilization is dying. Identity Christians describe this phase as Jacob's Troubles and what the secular Guillaume Faye would, I think, describe as the catastrophe required to get people motivated. The future has yet to be written, however I cannot help but think that God's people, the White people, are stirring from their slumber.

    King Tut Laddie Nov 11, 2016 8:49 PM ,
    See: The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon- Rudyard Kipling
    Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey Nov 11, 2016 8:20 PM ,
    "PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle.

    JINSA, The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. "explaining the link between U.S. national security and Israel's security" Served on JINSA's Advisory Board: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Perle."

    Mini-Me Nov 11, 2016 8:18 PM ,
    If Trump has probable cause on the Soros crimes, have his DoJ request a warrant for all of Soros's communications via the NSA, empanel a grand jury, indict the bastard, and throw his raggedy ass in prison. It would be hard for him to run his retarded purple revolution when he's getting ass-raped by his cell mate.
    Hurricane Baby -> Mini-Me Nov 11, 2016 8:41 PM ,
    I agree. Thing is, I think as president he can simply order the NSA to cough up whatever they have, just like Obama could have done at any point. The NSA is part of the Defense Department, right? What am I missing here?
    Dilluminati Nov 11, 2016 8:26 PM ,
    Funny: Clinton swears Comey did her in and the DNC blames arrogant Hillary.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-11-11/dnc-staff-ar...

    But in respect to Soro's money and the Dalas shooting or other incited events, there should be a grand jury empanelled and then charges brought against him. I think nothing short of him hiding in an embassy with all his money blocked by Swift is justice for the violence that he funded.

    ... ... ...

    Skiprrrdog Nov 11, 2016 8:57 PM ,
    It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

    And so it begins; I really hope that this is just some misinformation/disinformation, because HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED...

    johnwburns Nov 11, 2016 9:10 PM ,
    The likes of Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg get to catch up on their Torah for the forseeable future but the likes of Lloyd Blankfein will probably get to entertain the court since they have probably crossed paths doing business in NYC. The "real conservative" deeply introspective, examine-my-conscience crowd screwed themselves to the wall, god love them.
    Ms No Nov 11, 2016 9:05 PM ,
    Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil.
    Rebel yell Nov 11, 2016 9:36 PM ,
    Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly...
    Posa Nov 12, 2016 10:25 AM ,
    We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... (just in case you confused him with Mother Theresa).. But then again JFK took office with a set of initiatives that were far more bellicose and provocative (like putting huge Jupiter missile launchers on the USSR border in Turkey)... once he saw he light and fired the pro Nazi Dulles Gang , JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world.

    If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him)

    I'm guessing though that deep down Trump is quite comfortable with a neoCon cabinet... hell he already offered Jamie Diamon the office of Treasry Secretary... no doubt a calculated gesture to signal compliance with the Deep State.

    rocknrollinhone... Nov 11, 2016 9:59 PM ,
    Soros is heavily invested in the globalist agenda. Wouldn't be surprised if they don't take a shot at assassinating Trump.
    bsdetector Nov 11, 2016 11:10 PM ,
    The Clintons do not do things by accident. Coordination of colors at the concession speech was meant for something. Perhaps the purple revolution or maybe they want to be seen as royals. It doesn't really matter why they did it; the fact is they are up to something. They will not agree to go away and even if they offered to just disappear with their wealth we know they are dishonest. They will come back... that is what they do.

    They must be stripped of power and wealth. This act must be performed publicly.

    In order to succeed Mr. Trump I suggest you task a group to accomplish this result. Your efforts to make America great again may disintegrate just like Obamacare if you allow the Clintons and Co. to languish in the background.

    bsdetector Nov 12, 2016 12:06 AM ,
    The protestors are groups of individuals who may seek association for any number of reasons. One major reason might be the loss of hope for a meaningful and prosperous life. We should seek out and listen to the individuals within these groups. If they are truly desirous of being heard they will communicate what they want without use of violence. Perhaps individuals join these protest groups because they do not have a voice.

    Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen.

    The articles reporting that Mr. Trump has changed his response to the protestors is a good effort to discover the protestors' complaints and channel their energy into beneficial political activity. Something must be done quickly though, before the protests get out of hand, for if that happens the protestors will be criminals and no one will want to work with them.

    In order to make America great again we need input from all of America. Mr. Trump you can harness the energy of these protestors and let them know they are a part of your movement.

    Batman11 -> Batman11 Nov 12, 2016 3:09 AM ,
    Classical economists are experts on today's capitalism, it is 18th and 19th Century capitalism, it's how it all started.

    Adam Smith would think we are on the road to ruin.

    "But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."

    Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?

    When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalizing itself by:

    1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future

    2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services.

    Got that wrong as well.

    Adam Smith wouldn't like today's lobbyists.

    "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

    OH NO, It's ALL WRONG

    dogismycopilot Nov 12, 2016 5:39 AM ,
    First five minutes of Alex Jones' video today is clips of people saying "Donald Trump will never be president".

    Full Show - Soros-Funded Goons Deployed to Overthrow America - 11/11/2016

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPH26ohO_DY

    CoCosAB Nov 12, 2016 7:04 AM ,
    AMERICAN SPRING: She practiced overseas in Tunisia, Algeria, Oman, Jordan, Libya, Egypt... Now it's time to apply the knowledge in her own country!

    lakecity55 -> CoCosAB •Nov 12, 2016 7:53 AM

    Really good chance these subversive operations will continue. Soros has plenty of money. Trump will have to do some rough stuff, but he needs to, it's what we hired him for.

    [Nov 12, 2016] NATO mulls worst-case scenario in case Trump pulls US troops out of Europe – report - RT News

    Nov 12, 2016 | www.rt.com
    NATO strategists are reportedly planning for a scenario in which Trump orders US troops out of Europe, as the shock result of the US presidential election sinks in, spreading an atmosphere of uncertainty. According to Spiegel magazine, strategists from NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg's staff have drafted a secret report which includes a worst-case scenario in which Trump orders US troops to withdraw from Europe and fulfills his threat to make Washington less involved in European security. Read more German defense minister says Trump should be firm with Russia as NATO stood by US after 9/11

    "For the first time, the US exit from NATO has become a threat" which would mean the end of the bloc, a German NATO officer told the magazine.

    During his campaign, Trump repeatedly slammed NATO, calling the alliance "obsolete." He also suggested that under his administration, the US may refuse to come to the aid of NATO allies unless they "pay their bills" and "fulfill their obligations to us."

    "We are experiencing a moment of the highest and yet unprecedented uncertainty in the transatlantic relationship," said Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador in Washington and head of the prominent Munich Security Conference. By criticizing the collective defense, Trump has questioned the basic pillar of NATO as a whole, Ischinger added.

    The president-elect therefore has to reassure the European allies that he remains firm on the US commitment under Article 5 of the NATO charter prior to his inauguration, the top diplomat stressed.

    Earlier this week, Stoltenberg lambasted Trump's agenda, saying: "All allies have made a solemn commitment to defend each other. This is something absolutely unconditioned."

    Fearing that Trump would not appear in Brussels even after his inauguration, NATO has re-scheduled its summit – expected to take place in early 2017 – to next summer, Spiegel said.

    The report might reflect current moods within the EU establishment as well, as Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, has called on the member states to establish Europe's own military.

    Washington "will not ensure the security of the Europeans in the long term... we have to do this ourselves," he argued on Thursday.

    If Trump is serious about reducing the number of US troops stationed in Europe, large NATO countries like Germany have little to offer, Spiegel said. Even major member states' militaries lack units able to replace the Americans, which in turn may trigger debate on strengthening NATO's nuclear arm, a sensitive issue in most European countries for domestic reasons.

    Still, an increase in defense spending has already been approved by the Europeans following pressure from the outgoing US administration. Over the past few days in Brussels, representatives of NATO states have been working on the so-called "Blue Book," a secret strategy paper which stipulates each member's contribution in the form of troops, aircraft, warships, and heavy armor until 2032, Spiegel reported.

    The document stipulates an increase in each NATO members' military spending by one percent of each nation's GDP, in addition to the current two percent.

    Uncertainty over Trump's NATO policy seems to be taking its toll; Germany, one of the largest military powers in Europe, plans to allocate 130 billion euros ($140bn) to military expenditures by 2030, but the remarkable figure may be a drop in the ocean.

    "No one knows yet if the one percent more would be enough," the German NATO officer told Spiegel.

    Nevertheless, the US is continuing to deploy troops to eastern Europe, justifying the move with the need to protect the region from "assertive Russia." Earlier this week, the largest arms shipment yet, 600 containers, arrived in Germany to supply the US armored and combat aviation brigades, expected to deploy in Europe by January 2017.

    Read more EU Commission president wants clarity from Trump on NATO, trade

    [Nov 12, 2016] Trump's national security guru

    Notable quotes:
    "... Better relations with Russia will encourage them to venture into Europe? How does that work? The more friendly they are with us, I'd think the less they'd want to upset us and destroy those gains. The alternative might end up in a war with Russia. Yeah, that's great! Good grief, CNN. ..."
    "... " ultranationalistic rhetoric". This sensationalist hyperbole is wrecking our language. Being against intervening in other countries affairs is not being "ultranationalistic" ..."
    "... When you [neo]liberals living in your bubble fly over middle America, over all the small towns, farms, factories and coal miners that you often forget about. Just remember that there is a big middle finger pointing up at you. ..."
    "... Well now a substancial portion of Americans know that free trade isn't so good. When it started to hit home for non working class folks, eyes opened up. ..."
    www.cnn.com

    Flynn, like Trump, sees Russian president Vladimir Putin as someone the US can do business with. In December, Flynn attended a banquet in Moscow where he sat next to Putin. He also has appeared on the Kremlin TV mouthpiece, Russia Today (which Flynn has compared to CNN).

    If Flynn is Trump's national security advisor or secretary of defense we can expect him to push for a closer relationship with the Russians; a punitive policy on Iran -- and a more aggressive war on Islamist militants around the world. These views mesh well with what we have heard from Donald Trump on the campaign trail.

    Daniel, 35 minutes ago

    Mr. Bergen : "American Islamists, Flynn claims, are trying to create "an Islamic state right here at home" by pushing to "gain legal standing for Sharia." Flynn cited no evidence for this claim." !!!?? Really ?? "German court lets off 'Sharia police' patrol in Wuppertal" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35059488

    SimpleStupid

    Not a bad article up until the last paragraph. Better relations with Russia will encourage them to venture into Europe? How does that work? The more friendly they are with us, I'd think the less they'd want to upset us and destroy those gains. The alternative might end up in a war with Russia. Yeah, that's great! Good grief, CNN.

    And "derail the deal that prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons"? What is this, backwards day?

    Ron Lane

    " ultranationalistic rhetoric". This sensationalist hyperbole is wrecking our language. Being against intervening in other countries affairs is not being "ultranationalistic"

    hanklmarcus

    Iraq was a failure , But attacking IRAN will not be ??????????? FOOLS

    CNN User

    When you [neo]liberals living in your bubble fly over middle America, over all the small towns, farms, factories and coal miners that you often forget about. Just remember that there is a big middle finger pointing up at you.

    We don't accept your values and are tired of having ours oppressed.

    LizardKing

    @Lenny Good - Ukraine should clearly be dominated by Russia and who gives a s t about Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Call me when Russia is threatening Poland

    Dwright :

    Well now a substancial portion of Americans know that free trade isn't so good. When it started to hit home for non working class folks, eyes opened up.

    [Nov 11, 2016] I ve been reading the Grauniad , as it used to be affectionately known because of its frequent misprints, for nearly fifty years, and I don't think I've ever found it as unreadable (not to mention smug and self-righteous) as it is today. Its earnest and hectoring tone was always easy to parody

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    David November 10, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    I've been reading the Grauniad , as it used to be affectionately known because of its frequent misprints, for nearly fifty years, and I don't think I've ever found it as unreadable (not to mention smug and self-righteous) as it is today. Its earnest and hectoring tone was always easy to parody ("Guardian Woman" had become a standing joke by the 1980s) but over the last few years of reading it on the internet from abroad I am no longer sure what I actually read and what my subconscious invented in the form of parody (was there really a headline like "Why is the Football Association Failing Transexual Goalkeepers?" or did I just dream it?") If you want a classic example of a once distinguished publication ruined by identity politics, that would be my nomination. (To be fair, the Independent 's coverage has been an order of magnitude worse.)

    The real French equivalent of the Guardian by the way is Libération which has followed a similar, but even worse trajectory, and specialises these days in front-page vilification of anyone who transgresses correct identity group thinking – most recently the philosopher Michel Onfray who dared to make a few critical remarks about radical islam. Le Monde is a neoliberal and neoconservative rag these days, but less unreadable than Libé.
    Oh tempora, oh mores!

    Synoia November 10, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    I now feel the same about The Economist, I used to read it for education, starting at Uni in 1967. It appears to me now to be a Neo Liberal mouthpiece.

    craazyboy November 10, 2016 at 6:27 pm

    Surprise! Under "new" management.

    The Economist Group is owned by the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Agnelli and other family interests as well as a number of staff and former staff shareholders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Group

    makedoanmend November 10, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    I'll take your word about the French newspapers. I fled from the Lib after about 2 minutes perusal recently – it had been years (many, many) since I read it.

    And I just don't see that much difference between the guardian's neoliberalism and Le Monde's but, then again, I only dip into Le Monde about once a week. Science articles are the only thing I read in any depth.

    best

    [Nov 11, 2016] Pepsi and Cola neoliberal wings of the same Grand American Imperial Party

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Democrats don't represent the blue collar class anymore, but neither do the Republicans. Republicans supported NAFTA, CAFTA and China joining the WTO. They were the architects of the modern economy. The forerunners that the Clinton Democrats emulated. They were major advocates of deregulation of the financial sector, weakening of anti-trust laws, the destruction of the social safety net, and the crippling of labor unions. They created the wealth gap under Ronald Reagan. TPP might be considered Obama's project, but a Republican Congress fast-tracked it. ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    MooseMcNaulty 6h ago

    The Democrats don't represent the blue collar class anymore, but neither do the Republicans. Republicans supported NAFTA, CAFTA and China joining the WTO. They were the architects of the modern economy. The forerunners that the Clinton Democrats emulated. They were major advocates of deregulation of the financial sector, weakening of anti-trust laws, the destruction of the social safety net, and the crippling of labor unions. They created the wealth gap under Ronald Reagan. TPP might be considered Obama's project, but a Republican Congress fast-tracked it.

    This was less about which party better represents the working class than it was about which personality and rhetoric the working class preferred. Trump was talking about illegal immigration, trade policy, manufacturing jobs, rigged politics and sycophantic media, while Clinton was talking about incremental changes to subsidize childcare. If it had been Sanders and Jeb! it would've gone the other way, for much the same reasons.

    [Nov 11, 2016] the issue here is class , the Republicans and Democrats are the two wings of the same party

    Nov 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com

    Justanotherwageslave

    , 10 Nov 2016 12:3>
    The analysis is correct more of less , the issue here is class , the Republicans and Democrats are the two wings of the same party. The party of property and money and the powerful , the vote for Trump is one of those events that happens much like Obama being elected twice after the Republicans stole the two previous elections via the supreme court and election fraud. It can happen but the system remains the same , there is no serious challenge to the supremacy of the ruling class.

    The one analysis you will not hear in the media is a class one and if it is then it will be howled down lest it gain currency and the wage slaves realise they have been conned yet again , Trump is not unusual in his attitudes or views , it's just that the campaign gave them wide publicity.

    In the UK the same kind of thing has happened to Labour , they lost Scotland and the 2010 election and the remain vote because ordinary working people are tired just as they are in the US of seeing the rich get every richer and their own living standards fall and nothing in the future but more pain and misery. They vote UKIP/SNP here as a cry in the wilderness and they voted for Trump for the same reason because they aren't what they've had before , the real problem will come when the right wing populists have been in power for a while and nothing has really improved.

    [Nov 11, 2016] The Working Class Won the Election What Kind of Trump Administration Global Research

    www.globalresearch.ca
    It also remains to be seen how the Oligarchy will respond to Trump's victory. Wall Street and the Federal Reserve can cause an economic crisis in order to put Trump on the defensive, and they can use the crisis to force Trump to appoint one of their own as Secretary of the Treasury. Rogue agents in the CIA and Pentagon can cause a false flag attack that would disrupt friendly relations with Russia. Trump could make a mistake and retain neoconservatives in his government.
    Centre for Research on Globalization
    With Trump there is at least hope. Unless Trump is obstructed by bad judgment in his appointments and by obstacles put in his way, we should expect an end to Washington's orchestrated conflict with Russia, the removal of the US missiles on Russia's border with Poland and Romania, the end of the conflict in Ukraine, and the end of Washington's effort to overthrow the Syrian government. However, achievements such as these imply the defeat of the US Oligarchy. Although Trump defeated Hillary, the Oligarchy still exists and is still powerful.
    Trump said that he no longer sees the point of NATO 25 years after the Soviet collapse. If he sticks to his view, it means a big political change in Washington's EU vassals. The hostility toward Russia of the current EU and NATO officials would have to cease. German Chancellor Merkel would have to change her spots or be replaced. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg would have to be dismissed.

    We do not know who Trump will select to serve in his government. It is likely that Trump is unfamiliar with the various possibilities and their positions on issues. It really depends on who is advising Trump and what advice they give him. Once we see his government, we will know whether we can be hopeful for the changes that now have a chance.

    If the oligarchy is unable to control Trump and he is actually successful in curbing the power and budget of the military/security complex and in holding the financial sector politically accountable, Trump could be assassinated.

    [Nov 11, 2016] The President of the U.S. cant pardon someone in advance for possible later crimes, but can give a pardon for any and all past crimes without specifying those crimes

    Notable quotes:
    "... Oh, what does anyone know about Pence? Folks have been saying he's going to be Trump's Cheney (and apparently Cheney is a Pence's avowed role model and personal hero). Cheney had a lifetime of insider experience and I'm guessing is both ambitious and intelligent (if evil). ..."
    "... Did anyone catch Peter Thiel's speech to the National Press Club? Listen to this and tell me it is not spot on. His is actually on Rumps transition team. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfYLEPRiIyE ..."
    "... "The deep state ushered in Trump because he's clearly their most useful decoy. As the country hopes in vain, the crooked men behind the curtain will go on with business as usual. Trump is simply an Obama for a different demographic. Nothing will change for the better." ..."
    "... So is Trump Hope and Change for the Angry White Male demographic? ..."
    "... I doubt very much that the Obama is providing "continuity". IMO this is a naive reading. Obama has just created a smokescreen that allows for preparing to 'facts on the ground' that will force Trump to respond accordingly. ..."
    "... To claim the trump is more powerful and has more influence over the US deep state on day one is just ludicrous. ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    "...the paradox problem is they'll have to charge Clinton before da boy can pardon her..."

    That's one of those facts that sounds right but isn't true. If the law was logical that might be correct, but then mathematicians would get the highest scores on the Law School Admission Test (which supposedly tests aptitude to "think like a lawyer.")

    The President of the U.S. can't pardon someone in advance for possible later crimes, but can give a pardon for any and all past crimes without specifying those crimes. That's how Ford was able to pardon Nixon, who had not been indicted, for any crimes "he might have committed."

    If Obama wants he can pardon the Clintons for everything and anything they MIGHT have done up to the final minutes of swearing in Trump. In that case they would never need to concede they had ever broken any laws at all.

    Remember, the U.S. Constitution was written by aristocrats who were still in many ways monarchists who didn't want to give up all their power. That mindset also put the electoral college process into the constitution.

    Susan Sunflower | Nov 11, 2016 2:07:03 PM | 48
    Are you saying that Obama could pardon Bill Clinton and his entire foundation for financial crimes (apparently) being investigated in New York wrt New York's laws regarding charitable foundation practices? That seems like it would be "bigger than Marc Rich" demonstration of Democratic misuse / abuse of power, cronyism, etc.

    If he can do it, he might do it ... if the punishment/threat for not doing it was sufficient. I've not been impressed by Obama's "brilliance" or "vision" ... I have been impressed rather by his self-promotion and self-interest -- Neither Bush or Bill Clinton had the sort of job opportunities that GHWB enjoyed.

    Oh, what does anyone know about Pence? Folks have been saying he's going to be Trump's Cheney (and apparently Cheney is a Pence's avowed role model and personal hero). Cheney had a lifetime of insider experience and I'm guessing is both ambitious and intelligent (if evil). Does Pence have genuine potential as Cheney II ... and where does the awkward relationship between the GOP establishment and Trump put "Pence as a new Cheney" ... The GOP might love it. Is Trump ideologically consistent enough (don't laugh) to recognize the contradictions?

    Trixie from Dixie | Nov 11, 2016 2:14:28 PM | 49
    Did anyone catch Peter Thiel's speech to the National Press Club? Listen to this and tell me it is not spot on. His is actually on Rumps transition team.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfYLEPRiIyE
    Yonatan | Nov 11, 2016 2:15:41 PM | 50
    Jack Smith @6

    Early days indeed. An alternative view of the recent events, by someone who said more or less the same about Obama when he was selected.

    "The deep state ushered in Trump because he's clearly their most useful decoy. As the country hopes in vain, the crooked men behind the curtain will go on with business as usual. Trump is simply an Obama for a different demographic. Nothing will change for the better."

    http://linhdinhphotos.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/the-trump-ploy.html

    So is Trump Hope and Change for the Angry White Male demographic?

    Jackrabbit | Nov 11, 2016 12:47:24 PM | 29
    I agree with Hoarsewhisperer @11: ... it's a crock and a trick.

    I doubt very much that the Obama is providing "continuity". IMO this is a naive reading. Obama has just created a smokescreen that allows for preparing to 'facts on the ground' that will force Trump to respond accordingly.

    We are at a very very dangerous point in time.

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Also, giving ANY credence to 'Obama legacy' BS is misguided in the extreme. His 'legacy' is dissembling and treachery. Anything thing beyond that is just BS meant to keep adversary's off-balance.

    bbbb | Nov 11, 2016 12:47:39 PM | 30
    @22 Where do you get the idea that those countries are somehow bad for USA? If we ramp up industries in USA it will cost substantially more than in those countries. They've benefitted USA immensely. If the industries come back to USA it won't go over too well, unless slave wages are truly instituted
    Susan Sunflower | Nov 11, 2016 12:53:18 PM | 31
    I don't know if Trump can take credit ... but rather that the Clinton wing of the Pentagon and CIA, etc. has been defanged and the threat of a coup (if Obama acted in ways contrary to Clinton and the General's plans) is now neutralized ... Clinton's loss, I hope, will mean future books will be more candid than might have been possible if she were in office... yes, I wanna know how bad it's been these last 8 years.

    Obama's personal stock wrt his future as a consultant, motivational speaker and all around leader fell dramatically both with Clinton's campaign (and anticipated sharp turn from Obama's foreign policy) but also with her defeat (now his legacy). He was spared the ongoing shaming by a Clinton administration. Likely too little, too late ... when does Kerry get back from the Antarctica? He's got a chance at some legacy mending as well.

    I believe reports that the Clintons and the Obamas loathe each other ... particularly since the Clintons hate everyone/anyone who does not grovel perfectly. Did Obama sell-out to the DLC Democrats to secure his future $$$ with all their and the foundation's friends... it will be fun to watch and look for breadcrumbs, particularly if the foundation implodes under scrutiny.

    Peter AU | Nov 11, 2016 12:58:58 PM | 33
    Paveway 21

    I think your worst case senario is now off the table. I believe Turkey has been told to keep its planes out of Syria, and the US only conducts missions within reach of the Russian air defences with Russian approval.

    Turkey using only ground forces to achieve its aims? I suspect this is part of the reason the Russian naval force is loitering off the Syrian coast (apart from securing the area prior to constructing the naval base at Tartus).

    Cruise missiles would decimate any conventional ground forces, and I believe the Granit anti ship missiles have a land strike capability, also the S-300 S-400 may also have a ground strike capability.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 11, 2016 1:03:45 PM | 34
    That would be as part of the carveup that we are not supposed to talk about because it is a wicked "conspiracy theory"...
    Posted by: paul | Nov 11, 2016 12:12:44 PM | 17

    That's a mini-conspiracy compared with the one that the Fake War Of Terror has distracted people's attention from. The Privatisation of almost every Publicly-owned asset and piece of infrastructure in the West. The Neolib takeover was well-advanced in 1999 but slipped into overdrive in 2001.
    Banks, Insurance Cos, Telcos, Airlines, Childcare, Hospitals, Health Clinics (preventative), Roads, Rail, Electrical Generation and distribution.

    In Oz the Govt/people used to own all of the above, or a competitive participant in the 'market' in the case of banking, insurance, health clinics, airlines etc. In 2016 the govt owns only unprofitable burdens. Public Education is currently under extreme pressure to be Privatised for Profit.

    (The Yanks call it Anti-Communism but consumers call it an Effing Expensive way to get much crappier service than in the Good Old Days).

    Fuckus Assclown | Nov 11, 2016 1:11:07 PM | 35
    I think you give Barrack Obongo way too much credit. He is a "selfishly concerned" narcissist alright but that's about it. All his years at the bathhouses and public lavatories with his wookie-in-drag in Chicago, has not made him particularly smarter you know, rather the opposite...
    Mina | Nov 11, 2016 1:19:52 PM | 36
    Dropping AQ means dropping KSA, i.e. the 9/11 enquiry will probably go ahead. As for the MB/Qatar who run a bunch of other groups, this is left to the EU to decide what it want to do with Turkey. You bet the Eurocrats are having a headache. And Hollande shows his muscles (sic) and claims he will talk with Trump on the phone and gets some "clarifications" about his programme.

    MSM are reporting on a daily basis of the huge problems with the "Syrian refugees" crossing the Mediterranean Sea although there is just a handful of Syrians compared to Eritreans, Sudanese, Gambians etc.

    ALberto | Nov 11, 2016 1:23:12 PM | 37
    @35 Ahhh yes. Bath House Barry. The community ORGANizer.
    tom | Nov 11, 2016 1:25:03 PM | 38
    To claim the trump is more powerful and has more influence over the US deep state on day one is just ludicrous.

    b | Nov 11, 2016 1:33:18 PM | 41
    I had earlier reported here that Turkey was told by Russia not to enter Syrian airspace after it killed some 100 Kurds on their way to al-Bab.

    An Erdogan daily now confirms it: Turkish jets not participating in airstrikes in Syria

    According to the report, the last time Turkish jets participated in airstrikes against terrorists in Syria was on October 23, three days after around 200 PKK/PYD terrorists were killed.

    schlub | Nov 11, 2016 1:34:28 PM | 42
    Ash Carter is, together with John Brennan, the major anti-Russian force in the Obama administration. He is a U.S. weapon industry promoter and the anti-Russia campaign, which helps to sell U.S. weapons to NATO allies in Europe, is largely of his doing.

    https://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/john_mccain_visits_al_qaeda_isis_terrorists_in_syria_may2013.jpg

    Why did u leave out equal credit to Mad Dog McCain, aka Lawrence of Insania---short memory?
    https://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/john_bin_laden_mccain.jpg

    BTW, I do believe he re-won his senate seat, against the true patriot Arpaio there.
    Hence his absence from the public scene these months.

    So things have not changed much if at all, since still 70 days to Jan20, except for appearances as they've rearranged some furniture & color-matched the curtains to the upholstery in the act/play is all.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 11, 2016 1:40:45 PM | 43
    @11 Hoarsewhisperer - I think it's unrealistic to expect the US simply to leave..
    ...
    Posted by: Grieved | Nov 11, 2016 12:33:02 PM | 27

    Today, your guess is as good as mine (at least).
    But I regard FrUKUS as Ter'rism Central and if Russia & China et al think they can put a stop to TerCent without dislodging some teeth and kneecapping them, they're pissing into the wind/dreaming.

    It's a bit ambiguous but China, according to CCTV Nov 12, during a chat about Sun Yat Sen and China/Taiwan unity, seems to be issuing a Global reminder to Loyal Chinese Citizens overseas similar to the one that Russia issued a month ago.

    jo6pac | Nov 11, 2016 1:48:12 PM | 44
    I'm going with the new boss is the same as the old boss.

    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.3843587/will-trump-try-to-re-shape-the-world-former-cia-chief-and-trump-adviser-explains-how-1.3843590

    Susan Sunflower | Nov 11, 2016 1:48:15 PM | 45
    REuters: Saudi Arabia sets aside $26.7 billion to settle delayed private sector payments: document .
    Saudi Arabia's government has set aside 100 billion riyals ($26.7 billion) to pay debts that it owes to private sector companies after payment delays that have lasted months, an official document seen by Reuters shows.

    To help curb a huge budget deficit caused by low oil prices, the government of the world's largest oil exporter has slashed spending and reduced or suspended payments that it owes to construction firms, medical establishments and even some of the foreign consultants who helped to design its economic reforms.

    But the payment delays have seriously damaged some companies, slowing the economy, and earlier this week the government said it would make all delayed payments by the end of this year.

    This seems to suggest that Saudi mismanagement is or is about to cost citizens their paychecks even jobs ... KSA is such a black box police state, it's dangerous to speculate what public opinion "might be."

    The "loss of face" of retreating from Syria could be of smaller priority than Egypt's alleged pivot to Iran and Egypt finding new funding (2.7 billion) from the IMF after KSA's largess ... Middleeasteye (11/07/2016): Saudi Arabia halts $23bn oil aid deal to Egypt 'indefinitely' #EgyptTurmoil - Egypt and Iran deny talks over alternative deal after Riyadh pulls supplies under $23bn agreement which included handover of Red Sea islands .
    The interwebs are full of reports and denials, but big money as leverage. Financially, Egypt is completely dependent on the generosity of others and the Sinai has been "restive" recently ... Change is gonna come but no telling when or what it will look like.. or how US influences will shape it.

    I figured the "rebels" in Syria would keep fighting until the paychecks stopped coming, but I've wondered how many "rebels" were dislodged from relatively personally safe "rebel strongholds" recently and decided they'd rather quit than die.

    Yonatan | Nov 11, 2016 2:24:33 PM | 51
    Contra Obama's attempt to cleanse his legacy by using the US military to actually attack ISIS, Russian media report that Ass Carter has warned the president not to cooperate with Russia in Syria until they are sure Moscow will 'do the right thing'. The report is based on data avaialable at the af.mil website

    https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/tvzvezda.ru/news/vstrane_i_mire/content/201611112047-44ah.htm

    h | Nov 11, 2016 2:34:36 PM | 52
    O/T - Wall Street Heads Spin Over Trump Weighing Dimon for Treasury and Restoring Glass-Steagall - http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/11/wall-street-heads-spin-over-trump-weighing-dimon-for-treasury-and-restoring-glass-steagall/

    The last video details Trump's infrastructure plan.

    Mina | Nov 11, 2016 2:39:16 PM | 53
    maybe we could start a hall of fame for the craziest articles and declarations post US elections?
    these two should compete:
    http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/article/2016/11/11/la-ministre-allemande-de-la-defense-demande-a-trump-de-s-expliquer-sur-l-otan-et-la-russie_5029172_829254.html
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/andrew-sullivan-president-trump-and-the-end-of-the-republic.html

    Elwood | Nov 11, 2016 2:49:45 PM | 54
    Haha. He has to start tying off loose ends. Some former friends are about to be on the receiving end of what other former friends received.

    Ken Nari | Nov 11, 2016 2:51:53 PM | 55
    Susan Sunflower @ 48

    Disgusting as it is, yes, my understanding is Obama can do exactly that. My guess is, want to or not, he probably will come under so much pressure he will have to pass out plenty of pardons. Or maybe Lynch will give everyone involved in the Clinton Foundation immunity to testify and then seal the testimony -- or never bother to get any testimony. So many games.

    For Obama, it might not even take all that much pressure. From about his second day in office, from his body language, he's always looked like he was scared.

    Instead of keeping his mouth shut, which he would do, being the lawyer he is, Giuliani has been screaming for the Clintons' scalps. That's exactly what a sharp lawyer would do if he was trying to force Obama to pardon them. If he really meant to get them he would be agreeing with the FBI, saying there doesn't seem to be any evidence of wrong doing, and then change his mind once (if) he's AG and it's too late for deals.

    With so many lawyers, Obama, the Clintons, Lynch, Giuliani, Comey, no justice is likely to come out of this.

    h | Nov 11, 2016 2:53:37 PM | 56
    Maybe I saw the question about a 9/11 investigation on the other thread, but someone here asked if this is true. Well, it appears to be on a burner -

    http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/trump-reopening-911-reversing-rome-in-bid-to-be-greatest-american-steward/

    jdmckay | Nov 11, 2016 2:58:20 PM | 57
    Ken Nari @ 55

    From what I've read, prez pardon comes with explicit admission of guilt. Highly questionable either (or both) Clintons would accept that.

    Mina | Nov 11, 2016 3:03:16 PM | 58
    Simply brilliant
    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/
    (it could be on the other thread, sorry)

    Susan Sunflower | Nov 11, 2016 3:12:12 PM | 59
    @ Posted by: Ken Nari | Nov 11, 2016 2:51:53 PM | 55

    I heard a podcast on Batchelor with Charles Ortel which explained some things -- even if there are no obvious likely criminal smoking guns -- given that foundations get away with a lot of "leniency" because they are charities, incomplete financial statements and chartering documents, as I recall. I was most interested in his description of the number of jurisdictions the Foundation was operating under, some of whom, like New York were already investigating; and others, foreign who might or might be, who also have very serious regulations, opening the possibility that if the Feds drop their investigation, New York (with very very strict law) might proceed, and that they might well be investigated (prosecuted/banned??) in Europe.

    The most recent leak wrt internal practices was just damning ... it sounded like a playground of favors and sinecures ... no human resources department, no written policies on many practices ...

    This was an internal audit and OLD (2008, called "the Gibson Review") so corrective action may have been taken, but I thought was damning enough to deter many donors (even before Hillary's loss removed that incentive) particularly on top of the Band (2011) memo. Unprofessional to the extreme.

    It's part of my vast relief that Clinton lost and will not be in our lives 24/7/365 for the next 4 years. (I think Trump is an unprincipled horror, but that's as may be, I'm not looking for a fight). After the mess Clinton made of Haiti (and the accusations/recriminations) I somehow thought they'd have been more careful with their "legacy" -- given that it was founded in 1997, 2008 is a very long time to be operating without written procedures wrt donations, employment

    from 11/08/2016, Batchelor segment page

    okie farmer | Nov 11, 2016 3:22:53 PM | 60
    Donald Trump and a World of Distrust
    https://www.project-syndicate.org/default/library/fc1bc22730c324ed2881f4874a20db40.square.jpg"

    [Nov 11, 2016] President Trump: Big Liar or Tribune of the People Going to Washington

    Notable quotes:
    "... HiIlary Clinton is a perfect enemy of Trump. She has become rich in office, and as Harry Truman said "anyone who gets rich in politics is a crook". She has dedicated her life to political power at the top while growing ever wealthier from its use. And she loves foreign wars. She has supported a long line of eco-genocidal attacks and bombings of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, all of them still in motion and waiting for her to be escalated further. ..."
    "... Know a man by his enemies. Trump has countless enemies, but most of them march to the drums of endless wars of aggression and care less about the casualties of tens of millions of lost good jobs in America. Most are neo-liberals in fact, the bipartisan doctrine of dispossession of citizens and foreign wars to grow the system further. The worst have been Washington servants of the world corporate machine looting the world. They above all condemn his peace overtures to Russia and his promise to repeal NAFTA – both unspeakable heresies on the US public stage until Trump's movement against them. ..."
    "... Where Trump agrees with the US money-and-war party is on Israel and Iran. He started with a policy of more neutrality towards the Israel-Palestine conflict, but soon backed out when the attack-dogs went into action with a $50 million gift for his campaign from a wealthy Zionist at the same time. Then he declared " Israel is America". So Trump can proclaim opposite positions without a blink, including on the continuous war crimes of Israel supported by the US. ..."
    "... When you join the dots to Trump preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the underlying meaning emerges. He wants to stop the non-productive transnational corporations from feasting on the public purse. At the beginning after 2008, he even dared to recognize that Wall Street should be nationalized, as it once was by the American Revolution, Abraham Lincoln and FDR's Federal Reserve. This would be as big a turn of US government in the people's interests as stopping ruinous foreign wars. ..."
    "... Trump also once said that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israel-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics. Big Pharma was also called out with "$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of prices". He even confronted the more powerful HMO's with the possibility of a "one-payer system" far better than the Obamacare pork-barrel for ever higher insurance premiums. ..."
    www.globalresearch.ca
    Enrique Ferro's insight:
    HiIlary Clinton is a perfect enemy of Trump. She has become rich in office, and as Harry Truman said "anyone who gets rich in politics is a crook". She has dedicated her life to political power at the top while growing ever wealthier from its use. And she loves foreign wars. She has supported a long line of eco-genocidal attacks and bombings of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, all of them still in motion and waiting for her to be escalated further.
    Know a man by his enemies. Trump has countless enemies, but most of them march to the drums of endless wars of aggression and care less about the casualties of tens of millions of lost good jobs in America. Most are neo-liberals in fact, the bipartisan doctrine of dispossession of citizens and foreign wars to grow the system further. The worst have been Washington servants of the world corporate machine looting the world. They above all condemn his peace overtures to Russia and his promise to repeal NAFTA – both unspeakable heresies on the US public stage until Trump's movement against them.

    HiIlary Clinton is a perfect enemy of Trump. She has become rich in office, and as Harry Truman said "anyone who gets rich in politics is a crook". She has dedicated her life to political power at the top while growing ever wealthier from its use. And she loves foreign wars. She has supported a long line of eco-genocidal attacks and bombings of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, all of them still in motion and waiting for her to be escalated further.

    She wants a return to this bombing in Syria as a "free-fly zone" – free for US and NATO bombers – just as she led Libya's destruction from 2011 on. She abuses Russia and slanders Putin at every opportunity and she supported the neo-Nazi coup overthrowing the elected government of Ukraine and the civil war since. She has done nothing but advocate or agree to endless US-led war crimes without any life gain but only mass murder, social ruin and terror which she ignores. Like her mentor Madeleine Allbright , even the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq by Clinton-led bombing are "worth the price".

    Where Trump agrees with the US money-and-war party is on Israel and Iran. He started with a policy of more neutrality towards the Israel-Palestine conflict, but soon backed out when the attack-dogs went into action with a $50 million gift for his campaign from a wealthy Zionist at the same time. Then he declared " Israel is America". So Trump can proclaim opposite positions without a blink, including on the continuous war crimes of Israel supported by the US.

    Trump also bellows against on the giveaway of many billions of US money to Iran and prefers to bomb their nuclear facilities as Israel wants, and has already done in Syria. He does not tell his audience that all of this US money is Iran's money being returned to it from its US seizure in exchange for its nuclear disarmament never suggested for Israel which has enough nuclear weaponry to blow up the whole Middle East and beyond. Trump too is not to be trusted when it suits his run to be US President. Yet even here Trump still holds to his position that use of nuclear weapons means "game over". Clinton and the bipartisan money-and-war party express no such constraint.

    Why the Establishment Hates Trump, But Will Accept Him

    All of them have reason to hate Trump for a more basic reason. He is seemingly alone in the money-media-military establishment to publicly deplore the rigged electoral system in which big money and media rule – formerly unspeakable in the press and political discussion on stage. Trump has even voiced suspicion of the 9-11 killing spectacle and the "six-trillion- dollar" haemorrhage of US money on Middle East and Afghanistan wars propelled and justified by 9-11 from 2001 on.

    Yet here again the problem is that Trump backs off as soon as he thinks he will not be able to sell it. This is the art of political lying at which Trump, like Reagan, is a master. But the hard-line difference between Trump and Reagan and neo-con-lib rulers over the last 30 years is deep – Trump's denunciation of NAFTA and willingness to have peace with other nations not bowing to Uncle Sam.

    Before Trump, job-destroying edicts of transnational global corporations and captive states called 'free trade' have been anathema to oppose in official society. But Trump sticks to his heretical position. Right up to the election he has promised a "35% tariff" on products of US factories that disemploy workers to get cheaper labor elsewhere. No-one in the US political establishment has risked such a position, or blamed these corporate-rights treaties for hollowing out American society itself. It is apostasy in the corporate 'free press'.

    Trump is still hated for such deviations from the official corporate-state line. But the haters cannot say this. They stick to the politically correct repudiations, and call him "racist", "sexist", "bigot" and so on even if the conclusion does follow from what he says or does. Selected instances are the ruling fallacy here.

    Trump and the Media-Lie System

    Trump is unique in calling out the major mass media as continuous purveyors of lies and propaganda – although he centers it on himself and not global corporate rule across borders which they worship. Anyone not doing so is excommunicated from the press. This profound disorder is never allowed into the mass media as an issue, and Trump never raises it. He too is a believer, but one who sees the life costs of the sacrifice-workers rule inside the US. He also advocates job-creating public spending on physical infrastructure which is as crucial to his movement as it was to FDR. It is no longer taboo inside the dumkopfen party

    Trump is a first. Never before has anyone been able to denounce the mass media framing, half-truths and fabrications and still come out stronger The onslaught of ideological assassination by a hireling intelligentsia and media of record like the New York Times has always succeeded before. Trump reacts only as it affects his own position, but his raw defiance right into the cameras has been eye-popping and unique in America.

    This may be Trump's most remarkable achievement. He has been slandered and demonized more than Russia's Putin, and Russia-baiting him with McCarthy-like accusations of collaboration with Putin has been part of the attack by Hillary and the press. Yet passionate voter support of Trump has still grown in the face of all this denunciation by the political establishment.

    An underlying revolution in thinking has occurred. Trump has tapped the deep chords of worker rage at dispossession by forced corporate globalization, criminally disastrous Middle East wars, and trillions of dollars of bailouts to Wall Street. He never connects the dots on stage. But by Clinton's advocacy of all of them, she has made them her own and will go down because of it.

    Trump's unflinching vast ego and media savvy have been what she and the political establishment are too corrupted to defeat, The underlying contradiction that now raises its head pits the mass media against the President of the United States himself – against the long sacred office of the commander-in-chief of US power across the world, precisely what he is proposing to pacify with friendly relations instead of ruinous war invasions as in Iraq. Many observers think that Wall Street and big money won't let it happen. Or that Trump will like others before him will be determined by the office. Or that Clinton's billion dollars of PAC money will succeed work in the end. But the meaning is out and cannot be reversed out of sight.

    Whatever happens next in this saga it will be ground-shaking. The worst that can happen to Trump's enemies is that he wins despite the all-fronts attack. They define his underlying meaning, just as the Enemy they construct abroad defines them. If he loses, there will be a carnival of the money-war-media party pretending a healing of the great division that has come to view. But this is not a Republican-Democrat division. It is as deep as all the lost jobs and lives since 2001, and it is ultimately grounded in the tens of millions of dispossessed people which the life-blind global market system and its wars have imposed on America too.

    The Great Division Will Not Go Away

    Trump is the closest to an egomaniac that has ever run for the presidential office. If he were not, he could not have withstood the public shaming heaped upon him by the political establishment and dominant media everywhere.

    But the tens of millions of Americans for whom Trump speaks tend to have one thing in common more than anything else. They have been dispossessed and smeared by the neo-con/ neo-liberal alliance that has taken or traded away their life security and belittled them with political correctness – the establishment's patronizing diversion from their fallen state.

    All the while, the ruling money party behind the media and the wars is system-driven to seek limitlessly more money under masks of 'free trade' and "America's interests abroad'. The majority is left behind as the sacrificial living dead. Multiplying transnational money sequences of the very rich have bled the world into a comatose state, and perpetual wars against the next Enemy of the cancerous system have sown chaos across the world.

    Trump at least starts remission by seeing a criminally blind rule and chaos inside America itself. Before his campaign, there was helplessness against the invading wars and money sequences always profiting from the global ruin. The reality has been taboo to see in public. Only entertainments have appeared in ever new guises as the corporate money-and-war machine has rolled and careened on across all borders, now marching East through Ukraine into Russia, Brazil to Venezuela to the Caribbean, from the Congo to the South China Sea.

    The Trump entertainment, the most watched in the world, may be the long bridge to taking down the neo-liberal pillars of majority dispossession and war-criminal state.

    Trump is the Opposite to Reagan in Policy Directions

    On the face of it, Trump is an ideal leader for US empire. He is like Ronald Reagan on steroids. His long practiced camera image, his nativist US supremacism, his down-home talk, and his reality-show confidence all go one better. He is America come to meet itself decades down the road as its pride slips away in third-world conditions.

    But unlike Reagan and Bush who spoke to the rich becoming richer, Trump speaks to the losing white working class and those who have come to hate the money-corrupted Washington forging the policies of dispossession Reagan started.

    Washington has since ignored and patronized their plight over 30 years. Trump's constituency has been the disposable rejects from the corporate global system that it is rigged from top to bottom with rights only for the profits of transnational abroad and bought politicians at home.

    The Trump constituency may have no clear idea of this inner logic of the system. But they directly experience the unemployment, underemployment, ever lower pay, deprived pensions, degraded living conditions, public squalor, contempt from official society, and no future for their children.

    At the surface level, what drives them mad is the 'political correctness' that diverts all attention from their plight to pant-suit 'feminists' getting a leg up, racial rights with no life substance, sexual queers they had been conditioned to abhor, and other symbols of oppression changed as the actually ruling system of dispossession becomes inexorably worse all the way down to their grand children.

    Here too Hillary Clinton has been an embodiment of the smug ideology of the system that bleeds the unseen job-deprived into powerless humiliation: an existential crisi where the secure jobs and goods of US life have been stripped from them in continuous eviction from the American way with no notice.

    While Trump's narrative is that the American Dream seeks recovery again, the dominant media and political elite relentlessly denounce him for his message. He gives lots of ammunition to them. His most popular line is "build the wall", "build the great wall" between Mexico and the US. No political correctness cares that the biggest source of near-slave labor for the big businesses of the US South is Mexican 'illegals', and Trump himself never mentions this. He prefers to blame the Mexican illegals themselves for drugs, rape and violence, the standard lie of blame-the-poorer for your problems. Trump also wants to tax their slim earnings to pay for the wall. This is the still running sore of America beneath the lost jobs.

    Trump has thus attracted lots of votes. But many non-ignorant people too recognise that the tens of millions of illegal migrants seeking work in the richer USA cannot continue in any country with borders, or any nation that seeks to keep worker wages up not down by lower priced labor flooding in. The legal way must be the only way if the law of nations is to exist and working people are to be secure from dispossession by starvation wages illegal migrants can be hired for. Borders are, few notice, the very target of the carcinogenic neo-liberal program.

    Of course the political discourse never gets to this real and complex economic base of the problem. Nor does Trump. His choral promise is "'l'll fix it. Believe me". But something deeper than demagoguery and blaming the weak is afoot here. An untapped historic resentment is boiling up from underneath which has long been unspeakable on the political stage. Trump has mined it and proposed a concrete solution – one grand gate through which immigrants must pass.

    Is this really racist? It is rather that Trump is very good at bait and switch. From his now deserted promise to halve the Pentagon's budget to getting the Congress off corporate-donation payrolls, now by fixed congressional terms, the public wealth that the politicians and corporate lobbies stand to lose from a Trump presidency is very disturbing to them. The Mexican wall does not fit the borderless neo-liberal program either. But all of it is welcome to citizens' ears. That is why the establishment hates Trump for exposing all these issues long kept in the closet and covered over by politically correct identity politics.

    On the other hand, Trump leaves the halving of the Pentagon's budget behind as soon as he sees the massive private money forces against it. It is Reagan in reverse. He now promises hundreds of billions more to the military – but he still opposes foreign wars. That might even do it. But this most major issue of the election has been completely ignored by the media and opposing politicians alike. It is the historic core of his bid for the presidency.

    Yet the US political establishment across parties cannot yet even conceive it so used are they to the Reagan-led war state, the military corporate lobbies paying them off in every Senate seat, anti-union policies at macro as well as micro levels, and always designated foreign enemies to bomb for resistance. "Say Uncle" said Reagan to the Sandinistas when they asked what could stop the mercenary killers paid by US covert drug running from bombing their harbours, schools and clinics.

    Trump is going the opposite direction in foreign affairs, but the establishment commentators call it "isolationist" to discredit it. Clinton talks of overcoming the divisions in America, but has never mentioned holding back on foreign wars. On the contrary, she approves more war power against Russia and in Syria and in the Ukraine. This is the biggest danger that no media covers – ever more ruinous US wars on other continents. The formula is old and Reagan exemplified it. Russia is portrayed as the evil threat to justify pouring up to two billion dollars-a-day of public money into the US war-for-profit machine occupying across the world, now prepping for China.

    But the bipartisan war party backed by Wall Street is going down if Trump's policy can prevail. This may be the salvation of America and the world, but it is silenced up to election day.

    Trump Against the Special Interests

    At the beginning g of his public campaign, Trump's policy claims threatened almost every big lobby now in control of US government purse strings. And these policies grounded in no more foreign wars which have already cost over 'six trillion dollars' of US public money. At the same time, the country's physical infrastructures degrade on all levels, and its people's lives are increasingly impoverished and insecure for the majority. Trump promises to rebuild them all.

    Yet the cut-off of hundreds of billions of public giveaways to the Big Corps that Trump advocated did not end here. It hit almost every wide-mouthed transnational corporate siphon into the US Treasury, taxpayers' pockets and the working majority of America. Masses of American citizens increasingly without living wages and benefits and in growing insecurity listened to what the political establishment and corporate media had long silenced.

    Trump raised the great dispossession into the establishment's face, and this is why he will win. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage"."The grapes of wrath have risen from the long painful stripping of the people's livelihoods, their social substance and their cities by corporate globalization selecting for the limitless enrichment of the few living off an ever-growing takes from public coffers and the impoverishment of America's working citizens. A primal rage has united them across party lines in the public person of Donald Trump.

    Can he deliver? Well he certainly has shown the guts necessary to do so, most uniquely in facing down the corporate media and Washington politicians.

    Looking Past the Victory

    The issue still remains that Trump does not promise any fixing of the greatest transfer of wealth to the very rich in history that Reagan started. This great transfer of wealth includes his own. We may recall that his model Ronald Reagan started this Great Dispossession to "make America great again" too.

    Now Trump has promised a massive tax cut to the rich and private capital gains as Reagan did. In the meantime nothing has been less talked about in election commentary than the globally powerful interests Trump promised to rein back from the public troughs bleeding the country's capacities to build for and to employ its people. On this topic, there has been only silence from the media and politicians, and retreating vague generalizations from Trump.

    At the beginning, he not only went after the foreign wars, but the sweetheart deals of the government with Big Pharma, the health insurance racket, lobby-run foreign policy, off-shore tax evasion, and global trade taking jobs in the tens of millions from home workers. This is why the establishment so universally hated him. Most of their private interests in looting public wealth were named. He reversed the tables on the parasite rich in Washington lobbying and gobbling up public money faster than it could be bribed, printed and allocated to their schemes – except on real estate, his own big money 'special interest' not centered in Washington. Indeed Trump loves 'eminent domain', state seizure of people's private property for big developers like him.

    This is where Trump joins hands with those depending on the deep system corruptions he has promised to reverse. He even asked, in his loud way, how these huge private interests go on getting away with a corporate-lobby state transferring ever more public wealth and control to them at the expense of the American working majority and their common interest as Americans. But it had all pretty well slid away by election day except the hatred of self-enriching Washington fixers like Hillary, Mexican illegals, the Obamacare new charges (with no mention of the HMO's doing it), and the disrespect for people bearing arms by the second-amendment right.

    Do we have here the familiar positional determinism where political and economic class leaders desert what they promised as they enter into elected office or have sold the goods?

    Yet the victory Trump is about to reap is far from empty for America and the world if he keeps to the promises he made. The money-and media-rigged elections have stayed front and center where no-one in official politics dared say it before. The black-hole of US foreign wars has above all has remained his historic target.

    His entire strategy has been based on getting public attention, and he is a master at it. He is unbuyably rich, has energy beyond a rock star, and is the most watched person in America across the country and the world for months on end. He can't be shut up. Media stigmatization and slander without let-up do not work as always before.

    Trump is also capable of meeting perhaps the world's most important challenges, holding back the global US war machine from perpetual eco-genocidal aggression and investing back into public infrastructure and workers' productive jobs.

    Most importantly, Trump challenges "the Enemy" cornerstone of US ideology when he says "wouldn't it be nice to get along with Russia and China for a change?" And as he said to Canada whose branch-plant corporate state still plays minion to its US corporate masters, "congratulations. You have become independent".

    As for Trump's much publicized 'denial of climate change, it is not really accurate. He has said little on the topic, but has expressed his opposition to "bullshit government spending" on preventing climate. So does James Lovelock, the famous global ecologist behind 'the Gaia hypothesis '. Certainly the green-wash hoaxes of the private corporations (and Al Gore) becoming much richer than before on solutions that do not work to prevent the global market-led climate destabilization do need more astute appraisal.

    When you join the dots to Trump preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the underlying meaning emerges. He wants to stop the non-productive transnational corporations from feasting on the public purse. At the beginning after 2008, he even dared to recognize that Wall Street should be nationalized, as it once was by the American Revolution, Abraham Lincoln and FDR's Federal Reserve. This would be as big a turn of US government in the people's interests as stopping ruinous foreign wars.

    Trump also once said that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israel-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics. Big Pharma was also called out with "$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of prices". He even confronted the more powerful HMO's with the possibility of a "one-payer system" far better than the Obamacare pork-barrel for ever higher insurance premiums.

    Trump is no working-class hero. He has long been a predatory capitalist with all the furies of greed, egoism and self-promotion that the ruling system selects for. But he is not rich from foreign wars of aggression, or from exporting the costs of labor to foreign jurisdictions with subhuman standards. He has not been getting richer or more smug by seeking high office in a context of saturating slander and denunciation from official society. He has initiated a long overdue recognition of parasite capitalism eating out and wasting the life capacities of the US itself as well as the larger world.

    Trump has now won the first major step that his enemies declared inconceivable, and he can now do what he has promised 'in the place where the buck stops'.

    Prof. John McMurtry is author of The Cancer Stage of Capitalism: From Crisis to Cure (available from University of Chicago Press) and an elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.

    The original source of this article is Global Research Copyright © Prof. John McMurtry , Global Research, 2016

    [Nov 11, 2016] Industrialisation enabled first world countries to gain productivity advantage through exploitation of natural resources - either at home or through empire building. Gradually the advantage gets lost that increases the level of inequality within first world countries.

    Notable quotes:
    "... So when, as in USA, eventually its the traditional white population gets really affected - then its time to revert to old fashioned thinking - stop exporting productivity capability. Very noticeable this was okay when the non-white population was not dramatically affected. ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    Brendan Greene -> Sandy Kippling , 10 Nov 2016 12:3>
    Think its a bigger shift than that. Industrialisation enabled "first world" countries to gain productivity advantage through exploitation of natural resources - either at home or through empire building.

    As that spread through the world the advantage gets lost - and the spread of inequality - which was between countries - forms within countries. Each manage this process differently - and the social construct determines the impact.

    So when, as in USA, eventually its the traditional white population gets really affected - then its time to revert to old fashioned thinking - stop exporting productivity capability. Very noticeable this was okay when the non-white population was not dramatically affected.

    Agreed to win votes/referendums - promise that the future will be great if we just tell everyone else to f**k off - and you get the votes - because individuals think that's what the past actually was - when things were so much better.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Hey, Midwestern and Rust Belt Blue-Collar Voters: Hows THIS Workin Out for Ya So Far? by Beverly Mann

    Nov 11, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    President-­elect Donald J. Trump, who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests, is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists.

    Jeffrey Eisenach, a consultant who has worked for years on behalf of Verizon and other telecommunications clients, is the head of the team that is helping to pick staff members at the Federal Communications Commission.

    Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist whose clients include Devon Energy and Encana Oil and Gas, holds the "energy independence" portfolio.

    Michael Torrey, a lobbyist who runs a firm that has earned millions of dollars helping food industry players such as the American Beverage Association and the dairy giant Dean Foods, is helping set up the new team at the Department of Agriculture.

    Trump Campaigned Against Lobbyists, but Now They're on His Transition Team , Eric Lipton, New York Times, today

    What? No steelworker? No auto-plant worker? Not even a family farmer? Might y'all have been had ?

    Who'd a thunk?

    Bernie and Elizabeth to the rescue. Now, please . Now .

    But, hey, white blue collar folks: You get what you vote for. The problem for me is that I get what you vote for. I said roughly 540 times here at AB in the last year: Trump isn't conquering the Republican Party; he's the Republican Party's Trojan Horse. What was that y'all were saying about wanting change so badly? Here it is.

    Welcome to the concept of industry regulatory capture . Perfected to a science, and jaw-droppingly brazen. LOL . Funny, but Bernie talked about this. Some of you listened. Then. Elizabeth Warren has talked about it, a lot. Some of you listened. Back then. But she wasn't running for president. Hillary Clinton was, instead. And she couldn't talk about it because she had needed all those speaking fees , all the way up to about a minute before she announced her candidacy.

    Aaaaand, here come the judges. And of course the justices. Industry regulatory capture of the judicial-branch variety.

    I called this one right, in the title of this post yesterday . I mean, why even wait until the body is buried? No reason at all.

    So he thinks. But what if he's wrong?

    Anyway can't wait for the political cartoons showing Trump on Ryan's lap, with Ryan's arm showing reaching up under Trump's suit jacket.

    Edgar Ryan and Charlie Trump.

    Oh, and I do want to add this: If one more liberal pundit or feminism writer publishes something claiming that Clinton lost because of all those sexist men out there who couldn't handle the idea of a woman president , or claims she ran a remarkable campaign cuz of all that tenacity and stamina she showed in the face of what was thrown at her from wherever, see, or makes both claims (if not necessarily in the same columns or blog posts or tweeter comments), and I read so much as the title of it, I'm gonna something .

    It's effing asinine . Everyone's entitled to their little personal delusions, but why the obsessiveness about this patent silliness? What is exactly is the emotional hold that Hillary Clinton holds on these people? It's climate-change-denial-like.

    Elizabeth Warren would have beaten Donald Trump in a landslide. So would have Bernie Sanders. And brought in a Democratic-controlled Senate and House. Because both would have run a remarkably campaign, under normal standards, not a special low bar.

    That's the efffing truth .

    UPDATE: From a new blog post by Paul Waldman titled " If you voted for Trump because he's 'anti-establishment,' guess what: You got conned ":

    An organizational chart of Trump's transition team shows it to be crawling with corporate lobbyists, representing such clients as Altria, Visa, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Verizon, HSBC, Pfizer, Dow Chemical, and Duke Energy. And K Street is positively salivating over all the new opportunities they'll have to deliver goodies to their clients in the Trump era. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing?

    The answer is, anyone who was paying attention. Look at the people Trump is considering for his cabinet, and you won't find any outside-the-box thinkers burning to work for the little guy. It's a collection of Republican politicians and corporate plutocrats - not much different from who you'd find in any Republican administration.

    And from reader EMichael in the Comments thread to this post about 35 minutes ago:

    OH, it will be worse than that, much worse.

    Bank regulation will go back to the "glory days" of the housing bubble, and Warren's CFPB will be toast.

    Buddy of mine works HR for a large bank. He has been flooded with resumes from current employees of the CFPB the last couple of days.

    Yup. HSBC ain't in that list for nothing. But, not to worry. Trump's kids will pick up lots of real estate on the (real) cheap, after the crash. Their dad will give them all the tips, from experience.

    And the breaking news this afternoon is that Pence–uh-ha; this Mike Pence –has replaced Christie as transition team head. Wanna bet that Comey told Trump today that Christie is likely to be indicted in Bridgegate?

    Next up, although down the road a few months: rumors that a grand jury has been convened to try to learn how, exactly, Giuliani got all that info from inside the FBI two weeks ago. Once the FBI inspector general completes his investigation. Or once New York's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, begins looking into violations of NY state criminal law.

    How downright sick. And how pathetic.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more by Robert Reich

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the start of the 2016 election cycle, this power structure proclaimed Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoo-ins for the nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties. After all, both of these individuals had deep bases of funders, well-established networks of political insiders, experienced political advisers and all the political name recognition any candidate could possibly want. ..."
    "... Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don't reflect the insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money. ..."
    "... Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. ..."
    "... Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump's authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency. ..."
    "... The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn't wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump. ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    What has happened in America should not be seen as a victory for hatefulness over decency. It is more accurately understood as a repudiation of the American power structure.

    At the core of that structure are the political leaders of both parties, their political operatives, and fundraisers; the major media, centered in New York and Washington DC; the country's biggest corporations, their top executives, and Washington lobbyists and trade associations; the biggest Wall Street banks, their top officers, traders, hedge-fund and private-equity managers, and their lackeys in Washington; and the wealthy individuals who invest directly in politics.

    At the start of the 2016 election cycle, this power structure proclaimed Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoo-ins for the nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties. After all, both of these individuals had deep bases of funders, well-established networks of political insiders, experienced political advisers and all the political name recognition any candidate could possibly want.

    But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House. The presidency was won by Donald Trump, who made his fortune marketing office towers and casinos, and, more recently, starring in a popular reality-television program, and who has never held elective office or had anything to do with the Republican party. Hillary Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, but not enough of the states and their electors secure a victory.

    Hillary Clinton's defeat is all the more remarkable in that her campaign vastly outspent the Trump campaign on television and radio advertisements, and get-out-the-vote efforts. Moreover, her campaign had the support in the general election not of only the kingpins of the Democratic party but also many leading Republicans, including most of the politically active denizens of Wall Street and the top executives of America's largest corporations, and even former Republican president George HW Bush. Her campaign team was run by seasoned professionals who knew the ropes. She had the visible and forceful backing of Barack Obama, whose popularity has soared in recent months, and his popular wife. And, of course, she had her husband.

    Trump, by contrast, was shunned by the power structure. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate in 2012, actively worked against Trump's nomination. Many senior Republicans refused to endorse him, or even give him their support. The Republican National Committee did not raise money for Trump to the extent it had for other Republican candidates for president.

    What happened?

    There had been hints of the political earthquake to come. Trump had won the Republican primaries, after all. More tellingly, Clinton had been challenged in the Democratic primaries by the unlikeliest of candidates – a 74-year-old Jewish senator from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist and who was not even a Democrat. Bernie Sanders went on to win 22 states and 47% of the vote in those primaries. Sanders' major theme was that the country's political and economic system was rigged in favor of big corporations, Wall Street and the very wealthy.

    ... ... ...

    The power structure of America wrote off Sanders as an aberration, and, until recently, didn't take Trump seriously. A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo. "The economy is in good shape," he said. "Most Americans are better off than they've been in years."

    Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don't reflect the insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money.

    Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Workers without college degrees – the old working class – have fallen furthest. Most economic gains, meanwhile, have gone to top. These gains have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing market power without interference by anti-monopoly enforcement – all of which have further reduced wages and pulled up profits.

    Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it.

    The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.

    Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

    They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class – failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violate them, or help workers form unions with simple up-or-down votes. Partly as a result, union membership sank from 22% of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less than 12% today, and the working class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy's gains.

    Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump's authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency.

    Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump's isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn't care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.

    The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn't wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump.

    gloriousrevolution , 11 Nov 2016 15:5

    I'm in agreement with RR, as far as he goes. He could have gone further, but it's probably not the time or place for that, anyway, that road is depressing.

    Trump's an opportunist, certainly, but a very, very, successful one indeed. He has, after all, made an awful lot of money that way, so he's not that lacking in intelligence and ruthlessness. If only Sanders had been more ruthless and willing to stick the knife into the Democratic Party when he had the chance.

    Trump, essentially ran as an independent. First he needed to defeat the Republican Party's establishment, which he did, take over the party and only then was he ready to challenge the Democrats and beat them down. He succeeded in his strategy, beating both of them, which is an astonishing feat, historic in character.

    It actually gets worse for liberals. Trump also took on the liberal media and despite their best efforts to destroy him, brazenly supporting Clinton and ridiculing Trump and his supporters... Trump didn't just survive the onslaught, but crushed the media as well. Vast swathes of the population hate and despise the media as much as they loathe the political elite. People simply don't believe the media anymore, so most of their attacks on Trump were useless and ineffective when they came.

    And it really isn't Trump that's important here. It's the character of the wave he surfed on and lifted him into the White House. But the media ignored the wave and have done for years and years. Now, the fascist chickens have really come home to roost and much of the responsibility lies with the incredible ignorance, arrogance and mind-numbing stupidity that characterizes so much of the media.

    zootsuitbeatnick , 11 Nov 2016 15:5
    "Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more."
    And they haven't since Bill Clinton had his way with the party in the 90s.
    As much as the right enjoys calling the Clintons liberals, they're not.
    They're neo-liberals, which is a whole different philosophy.
    The Dems abandoned those who supported them for generations and we are all living in the ever-worsening result of that betrayal.
    judyblue , 11 Nov 2016 14:2
    So Robert Reich spent the past year enthusiastically encouraging us to vote for a candidate who embodied every last bit of the formula that he now tells us was a sure loser. Should he perhaps have warned his long-time good friend Hillary that she was on the wrong road? That being the servant of Wall Street and promising the status quo with incremental progress was a recipe for failure?
    Dave Hobbs judyblue , 11 Nov 2016 15:4
    Except Reich was a Sanders supporter...
    twitty , 11 Nov 2016 14:1
    As you say, sir:
    "The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn't wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump."
    This includes Obama's role as enabler.
    Ironic, that Obama was a charismatic campaigner who failed entirely to become a charismatic president. And he lost to a candidate who had another sort of charisma: That of a lying, sneering, insulting, self-important clown.
    Shows how bad things have become for a once hard-working & productive middle class now set adrift.
    newsfrommars twitty , 11 Nov 2016 15:0
    The same power structure that has for decades ignored the plight of millions in favour of it's own elitist wealth building, little wonder this election result. The neo liberals by their arrogance and lack of empathy have brought us to this setting us back decades. Clinton was definately does not hold any sympathy for the downtrodden, she cannot, she's in another class, the billionaire type. That is why we must never trust them or ever look again to people with this background to help us. They are responsible for the descent towards fascism and the people are responsible for their utter gullability in believing them in the first place.
    morphy smith twitty , 11 Nov 2016 15:3
    Obama is the worst president and most divisive. he is the master race baiter as well.

    Nov 11, 2016 | Pinterest

    How the 2016 US election night unfolded

    The power structure of America wrote off Sanders as an aberration, and, until recently, didn't take Trump seriously. A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo. "The economy is in good shape," he said. "Most Americans are better off than they've been in years."

    Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don't reflect the insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money.

    Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Workers without college degrees – the old working class – have fallen furthest. Most economic gains, meanwhile, have gone to top. These gains have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing market power without interference by anti-monopoly enforcement – all of which have further reduced wages and pulled up profits.

    Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it.

    The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.

    Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

    They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class – failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violate them, or help workers form unions with simple up-or-down votes. Partly as a result, union membership sank from 22% of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less than 12% today, and the working class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy's gains.

    Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump's authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency.

    Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump's isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn't care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.

    The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn't wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump.

    ga gamba , 11 Nov 2016 13:0
    I give Mr Reich his due. He recognised the the issue and foresaw this outcome when he wrote about it on 25 Jan 2016 .

    I've known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she's the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have.

    But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he's leading a political movement for change.

    The upcoming election isn't about detailed policy proposals. It's about power – whether those who have it will keep it, or whether average Americans will get some as well. [...]

    Which explains a paradox I found a few months ago when I was on book tour in the nation's heartland: I kept bumping into people who told me they were trying to make up their minds in the upcoming election between Sanders and Trump.

    At first I was dumbfounded. The two are at opposite ends of the political divide. But as I talked with these people, I kept hearing the same refrains. They wanted to end "crony capitalism." They detested "corporate welfare," such as the Wall Street bailout.

    They wanted to prevent the big banks from extorting us ever again. Close tax loopholes for hedge-fund partners. Stop the drug companies and health insurers from ripping off American consumers. End trade treaties that sell out American workers. Get big money out of politics. [...]

    You don't care about the details of proposed policies and programs.

    You just want a system that works for you.

    If you click his name at the byline you'll see how many articles published in 2016. Now think about the number of pieces published that pushed the pro-Clinton argument of more of the same.

    Paul Eichhorn , 11 Nov 2016 12:4
    "Third-Way" Democrats made an art form of triangulating a position between the old-line liberal Democrats the positions made by the mainstream corporate Republican party. By tacking as far right as possible, these corporate Democrats could scrape off enough of the business friendly, socially progressive Independents and Republicans to stymie any sort of Republican Presidential bid. Corporate America gave to both parties, but loves first and foremost to be on the side of the winner, where its influence can manifest itself in business friendly legislation, politically friendly appointments, no prosecutions for criminal behavior. no enforcement of labor or business legislation and no break-ups of monopolies using the still existent anti-trust legislation.
    One of the things that made Republicans furious during Bill Clinton's term was that he was skilled in the extreme at taking issues the Republicans were pushing and getting out in front of them and making the issue his own, making the result at least somewhat palpable to the old liberals of the world.
    The Democrats became the other war party, the other big business party, the other big banking party, the other big agriculture party, the other big oil party, the other big communications party, the other international exploitation party, the other anti-union party the other big medical party, the other big pharmaceutical party, the other international trade deal party.
    Bill Clinton sat down with Alan Greenspan and agreed to be the other austerity party. He supported low tax rates on the billionaires and corporations and low tariffs. That led to lower services for the public and small businesses and the tax burden being borne by the long suffering middle class and working poor. The non-working poor suffered as well with no welfare, more stringent unemployment benefits, and a stagnant job market for meaningful jobs. At the same time, law enforcement was focusing on them, putting them in prison for extreme amounts of time for often trivial matters.
    But Bill had an overall good economy because of the Computer Generation, so the economy grew and he was able to deliver to George W. Bush a budget surplus, which, if maintained, would have entirely paid off the national debt by now.
    Unfortunately all those economic gains were being funneled to the top. Overall wages of working people actually declined since Ronald Reagan came in to begin the austerity measures while the wealth of the top 1% quadrupled. Working people were losing good paying jobs and having to have both wage earners in a family work lesser jobs to make up for hemorrhaging income. These lesser jobs not only had less wages, they had less benefits. Against an out of control health care industry, banking industry, communications industry and investment industry they were being sucked dry well before retirement. No amount of savings could stand up to catastrophic illness. People's 401K plans were repeatedly slaughtered while the big guys who precipitated the mess ended up owning more and more of the means of generating wealth in our country. Remember the absolutely sinful Republican law that made student debt unforgivable at the same time that school costs were skyrocketing? It was so unpopular, Republicans needed help from Joe Biden and other corporate Democrats to get it passed.
    Never mind the corporate media and Republican lies about Barack Obama being a "Liberal", he was, in fact, another version of corporate Democrat. Since he was black, the racist Republicans could do the unprecedented in America politics: they decided to block everything. For no good reason. Other than he was black and no one would hold them accountable. He went along with the austerity plan because he had no other option. Able enough manager, he was able to drastically reduce the national deficit virtually on his own. But he kept up the wars. Hell, he and Hillary Clinton started wars for oil and natural gas. Just like the Republicans. Along with the very expensive war and secret intelligence budget and police state budget. He has restarted the nuclear weapons program, never mind that we already have enough nukes to destroy the world 100 times over. He also longed for hanging his hat on another record-breaking Trans Pacific Partnership international trade deal encompassing 40% of the world's Gross Domestic Product. Like Bill Clinton/George HW Bush's NAFTA on steroids. Jobs would be flowing out to low wage countries and waves of filthy international profits would come flowing back in to: the top 1%, where presumably the fraud of trickle down economics would waged on the American worker once again.
    Iron Mike , 11 Nov 2016 11:1
    Yup the elites got hammered Tuesday. Even though they say they are for democracy, they aren't. The elites want open borders and the people at the bottom of the wage scale are having to compete against these low wage border jumpers.

    How can the elites say they are for open borders and for raising wages. It isn't possible. It is the law of supply and demand. Sure the government could pass minimum wage increases but that will drive businesses to automate as much as possible. That ain't going to help these people either!

    Rick LaBonte , 11 Nov 2016 09:3
    Wikileaks proved that the Democrat party is the party of the ruling class elites, no question. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders? Give me a break, These two phonies are owned lock stock and barrel by Wall Street and the Big Banks. Warren's Consumer Protection racket is like Dodd-Frank - a Potemkin village of fake reforms designed to kill off any competition to the ruling class oligarchs.
    molemen , 11 Nov 2016 08:2
    A better analysis than the hysterical white/kkk/racist/woman hater etc pieces that have been flooding the pages lately.

    Its "dont piss on my back and tell me its raining" stuff, Obamacare has stung those in work, in some cases badly, and those out of work see no hope or change either.
    No-one went to jail for screwing the world economy.
    Even the government agencies who had oversight, and failed to see one single indicator of trouble saw no-one demoted, just a call for more power.

    And lastly importing more people to compete for low skilled jobs from overseas does keep downward pressure on wages, and make jobs harder to find for the native born. Pretending otherwise in some misguided sense of international "solidarity" is punishing your own people for outsiders advantage.

    maryB_USA , 11 Nov 2016 08:0
    The roles of the two parties have been interchanged over the years, but they both ended up the same way -- serving the Davos community.

    Some have suggested the formation of a third party as a possible remedy. I don't think that is the solution. As long as campaigns are financed through private contributions, the politicians elected would be beholden to the rich, regardless of the number of parties involved. The voice of the less privileged voters will not be heard. To have a truly representative body of elected officials, private (including corporate) campaign contributions should be eliminated from politics. Candidates should disseminate their message and platform in publicly funded campaigns. So I would say don't worry about the number of parties. Just get rid of Citizens United and limit spending for political campaigns to public funding.

    The present Republican-controlled government will not do that. HRC had promised to get rid of Citizens United. The only remedy now is to organize and try to give the House in 2 years to whoever will do so.

    Matt Dillon , 11 Nov 2016 08:0
    If was the duffus you worked for Mr. Reich who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act ushering in the tech bubble, the housing bubble and now the 'everything' bubble. A financialization of our economy that has benefited only the top 10 to 15 percent of the population.
    valwayne , 11 Nov 2016 08:0
    I don't usually agree w Sex Reich but he mostly right here. The Democratic Party has been corrupted & a tool of Goldman Sachs, Wall Street, Big Banks, & Corrupt Democrat billionaires ...

    Wall Street does care if the kill growth & jobs as long as they keep interest rates at Zero & Print trillions to fuel the market & fill their pockets. Same w the banks.
    The Democrats have Total comtempt for working Americans out here in what they call flyover land. You know... IW WI MI OH. So Reich is right there but more Gov, more socialism is not the answers. Economic growth & free Enterprise w sound monetary policy to crest jobs & raise incomes is what we need & what Trump will provide.

    Maurith , 11 Nov 2016 06:3
    There's definitely a failure of government to do its job: to ensure that the market economy works to improve the lives of all people (they instead ensure that they get a job at a Goldman Sachs or a Morgan Stanley once they leave government). Robert Reich points out in the article that the government never steps in to prevent anti-monopoly practices. To his point, one has only to look at the over-valued market capitalizations of the financial and pharmaceutical sectors to see that these guys are getting a free ride. Since not everyone can be a Paul Volcker, one may have to raise the pay grade of civil servants to attract the best talents.

    Whether he's a Democrat or a Republican, the white voter is a bit lost, unable to find his way in a world where the white man no longer dominates. This doesn't apply to the working or middle class.

    This said, it's not because we want change that we're going to cast our vote for a monster like Trump. We know what happened in 1933 in Germany, in 1917 in Russia. Whether it's gas chambers or the Goulag, these psychopaths (Hitler, Stalin) can go very far. The worst ones are the toned-down versions: a Hitler Light. I sure won't vote for Marine Le Pen.

    frankelee , 11 Nov 2016 05:5
    It's truly a worrying time for the intelligent citizen. Democrats fail the middle class, yet for all my life there's only been one party who would throw their own mother on hot coals and walk over her body to give a rich man a tax cut: the Republican Party. I hope it's true that Trump represents their defeat just as much as the Democrats. They've sold out their base for decades now, peddling condescending lies and culture war excuses for their greed and cronyism. Not a single Republican used to be an expert scientist until reducing pollution was going to cost their donors a few dollars, then all of sudden they all knew better than a PhD how the climate worked. Their last President started a war and gave no-bid government contracts to his friends, and even tried to privatize Social Security so business associates could skim off the top of that too, consequences be damned. When neither side is either willing or able to save you, what can you do?
    Joe Daigle , 11 Nov 2016 05:5
    Mr. Reich, you can't see the forest for the trees. Hillary promised that AFTER you lost your job to bad trade deals, she'd help you to retrain to become a 7-11 night clerk. In essence, she was offering to bury your job in a fine casket. Donald offered to fight for your job and shake up America's trade deals if he had to in order to level the playing field and keep our manufacturing here. And oh yea, bring some jobs back home too. He also said he would protect them from cheap labor pouring across the border legally and illegally. Illegal Latinos don't all work picking lettuce - some drive trucks, do construction, are plumbers, carpenters, electricians, shipyard workers, you know - jobs our own citizens want. It's not about whether you can strangle another company with union demands, it's about the lack of jobs period. So in essence, Hillary wanted open borders and all of our jobs going to Latinos. Donald wants the opposite.
    BizaaroLand , 11 Nov 2016 04:4
    Wonder what makes you Einsteins think the republicans are now suddenly for the working man? Republicans have always been on the side of big money interests, and nothing has changed. Trump is just there to placate the mid western rubes. 'Mericuns are so naive. (no tolerance for propaganda like the Euros or Russians seem to have.) Trump is just a head fake. Its business as usual. He's just gonna pick up where Obama and Shrub left off. Seen this trick before.
    ceclas , 11 Nov 2016 03:5
    The Guardian needs to publish an editorial apologizing for being part of this problem. During the Sanders-Clinton race, the Guardian was nothing but derisive towards Sanders, and elevated Clinton as the responsible and adult choice to stop Donald Trump. They even compared Sanders to Nader as a spoiler from 2000, not realizing that all the warning signs were there that Clinton would play the role of John Kerry in 2004.

    There were comments in the comment section with people saying "I still don't fully understand the difference between Clinton and Sanders, can someone please explain it to me?" That was the Guardian's job. For the record, here is the correct explanation.

    For decades the Democratic Party has abandoned working people and embraced globalization at their expense. Clinton was the candidate of continuity with that policy, Sanders was the candidate of "Hey, that was actually a bad idea, our mistake, we'll start caring about your issues as well." It was obvious that Clinton would be vulnerable in a general election against anyone who ran a populist platform, which Trump was doing.

    This train wreck was obvious from a mile away. The DNC and the media need to own this blunder.

    DoyleSaylor ceclas , 11 Nov 2016 04:3
    You are correct. I would add that electing trump has ended the dlc Democratic party. Of course my conjecture remains to be proved by events going forward. Still this rightwing shift has a real chance now to remain in power like the collapsed dlc Clinton Obama clique for a considerable period ahead. And besides that a restive U.S. working class is in motion with little obvious direction to the left right now. I would expect though a left opposition is coming rather soon.
    PATROKLUS00 , 11 Nov 2016 03:1
    The US is a country with a lot of very angry and unhappy people. The nation is in decline and the people are fearful; they know something is terribly wrong but they do not have the political acumen to deal with the situation. The two political parties, co-opted if not largely owned by the plutocracy-, offer no respite from the oppression of which, in fact, they are the instruments being vassals of their plutocratic masters.

    Unfortunately, the plutocracy and their subservient mass media have convinced about half of the population to vote, to their own destruction, for continual transfer of wealth and power to the corporations and plutocrats-. The Trumpers, arguably less educated, politically ignorant and naive, easily manipulated, and riddled with fear fueled with bigotry, are the leading edge of the discontent and fright. However, their blindness to reality is a severe obstacle to any possibility of getting that nation back on the track. The plutocrats-, like all parasites, will drain the nation of its lifeblood and then move on to another country to exploit.

    As long as the Trumpeters and those of their ilk can be so easily duped and manipulated, it is unlikely that there will be any common ground. In fact, common ground is not what is needed. Rather, what is needed is an aggressively progressive agenda to restore democracy, economic recovery and re-establishment of a rapidly disappearing middle class.

    ViewFromTheUSA , 11 Nov 2016 03:0
    Politicians like Clinton and Obama give paid speeches behind closed doors on Wall St, whom they bailed out at the expense of the people. They throw $10k-a-plate fundraisers with celebrities, and cozy up to the profit-over-people industries like big pharmaceutical and big oil. They are for hedge fund managers, payday lenders, defense contractors, and credit card companies. Then they have the gall to send out "tweets" saying we must overturn Citizens United.

    I realize the Republicans are no better, in fact, they're even worse, but everyone knows who and what they are. They make no bones about it, they don't dress up in wolf's clothing and pretend they are for the working man.

    Democrats do. Democrats are like the Republicans from 30 years ago. Over the last 3 decades, the left has moved to the right and the right has moved into an insane asylum. So now it's the Democrats who do the red-baiting (see their treatment of Sanders) and the RNC are accusing neoliberal centre-right politicians like Obama of being a socialist. Socialist? He's not even a liberal.

    Julie Mendelsohn ViewFromTheUSA , 11 Nov 2016 05:4
    You are forgetting to add in the "for profit' colleges. How much did Debbie Dearest get from *that* lobby? How many millions did Bill get to sit on their boards? These political grifters got paid big money by the very entities which were foreclosing on homes, suffocating kids with student loan debt, and tanking the economy via Wall Street schemes. The Dems thought we weren't paying attention?
    mike1798 , 11 Nov 2016 02:0
    Trump is offering a solution, that's all. Can he implement it, probably not, but no one else is even talking about re negotiating NAFTA, penalizing China or anything else to bring back millions of good paying factory jobs.
    Our politicians are out of touch, and corrupted by the oceans of money thrown at them. The 58 million people who voted for Trump want anyone to talk to them about what has happened to their lives and opportunities and address their problems.
    Hillary may in fact be the most competent politician, but that is the problem. She never came across as a leader who would lead us out of our problems. So we elected a lying misogynist who is, at least, not a politician!
    rauch47 , 11 Nov 2016 02:0
    Reich debated Chris Hedges on democracynow before the election, Hedges pointed out
    to him that under Ronald Ray-Gun the levers of power were given over to all the
    corp's of the world, there isn't a DNC or a RNC, it's a less than one percent secure hold
    on all power, Trump is just another puppet --
    BehindBlurredLines , 11 Nov 2016 01:4
    The last two paragraphs are absolutely dead on with what happened. You can't cater to minorities and expect the majority to stick with you forever as they suffer. The Democrats are so blind they didn't understand why Bernie surged or why Trump won but this writer has real clarity and speaks the truth absolutely on it. If you ignore the majority, which is mostly working class or rural citizens, you lose election after election with never ever holding total power for long. Trump truly needs to be a Teddy Roosevelt up there and set the barn on fire to chase all of the rats out and rebuild it.

    That's what we need and at least there is the tiniest sliver of hope he will, whereas with Hillary we would have received more establishment politics which always include purposeful half-truths and omissions at the working class's expense. Seriously, Schumer and Pelosi need to be investigated with Hillary Clinton because the way they act up there is exactly what made America a stagnant decaying landscape.

    I think it's time we get to the real issues the majority and minority citizens face together and stop beating to death your four issues that are inconsequential to the other 90 % of us in one way or another. That goes for both parties too. It makes me wonder if they ever talk to anyone but the people who have money. It would seem so and it needs to change now because them people live in a bubble and bubbles always burst. Drag the swamp Donald on both sides of the isle and you will be my hero forever. Fail and you will be my most hated president yet.

    And on a final note, thank god the Guardian has pulled back from the left some now and is being a good news source again. Thank you for this article and a big thank you to this writer for telling it like it

    Imperialist , 11 Nov 2016 00:5
    The parties are realigning.

    Once the Democratic Party was the party of the working man. The union member. Blue collar. Trying to get higher wages for the working man.

    The Republican Party was the party of capital. Bankers. Corporate types. Millionaires.

    The Democrats abandoned the working man for the underclass.

    Now it seems to becoming that the Republicans are the party of people who work for a living at a private job, along with the business owners.

    The Democrats represent those who either don't work, or those who work for the State: welfare recipients, students, public union members, most every staffer in DC. Hollywood types. Millionaires, especially dot com ones.

    Despite calling it racist over and over, unfettered immigration holds wages down. Free trade with China and Mexico guts unions and makes the proposed $15/hr minimum wage a joke when factories have all moved to Mexico or China. It's a fine thing with Britain, Germany or Canada, but a big loser with low wage countries. Especially with China who puts barriers in place for OUR exports.

    It also didn't help when Katy Perry, Madonna and J.Lo endorsed Hillary. It sent more people towards the Republicans looking for people who looked like them. Who got up in the morning to go to work.

    Bill Gorrell Imperialist , 11 Nov 2016 03:4
    They are both the party of capital. The unleashed Repubs while destroy the working class.
    SomethingU8 Imperialist , 11 Nov 2016 04:0
    If U.S. Democrats have any sense, they'll kick the DNC leadership losers out and let Bernie and Elizabeth Warren lead the Party. Then we'll have at least one party that represents the interests of Workers.

    Trump has two years to make the lives of his supporters substantially better. Looking at the people around him, that's not likely to happen. I can't wait to see him make the case that more tax cuts for Huuge corporations will somehow help Working People! If they try more of the same, then the market crash will happen on their watch.

    Good luck in 2018 then. Dems re-take House & Senate, with Bernie & Elizabeth Warren leading the way...

    djsunset , 11 Nov 2016 00:5
    Robert Reich, the author of this article, fronted an excellent documentary in 2013 called "Inequality for All". It's well worth a watch.

    There's a ropey/poor quality copy on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-MmIV_JBRg , but it's definitely worth getting hold of a good copy.

    shazza618 , 11 Nov 2016 00:2
    OFFS Robert.. STFU... after Bernie bowed out you shilled for Hill all the way to the election singing her "imaginary" praises. Fecking hypocrite.
    sandyssanders , 11 Nov 2016 00:1
    We are living through the death of "growth", the death of capitalism. The 1% are using the 99% as human shields to buffer themselves from the collapse of their religion and their Gawd, horded wealth. Trump will sellout his Chumps worse than Obama... And the idea that the TwoParty will ever move to meet the social needs of humanity is a pipe dream. The only way we will get this is by Direct Democracy. The 99% votes policy. The government are employees who implement those policies... or they are fired.
    netizenk , 11 Nov 2016 00:0
    Nearly every single elected politician currently in office on both sides is bought and paid for and works in the best interest of large corporations, not in the best interest of we the people. A complete purge, a system flush is required if we are to take our country back.

    It seams like a monumental task, it looks like an impossible mission when you look at the sheer amount of money and power in play but it is actually simple and it's all on us, all we need to do is stop voting for Repocrats and start voting for people of integrity outside of these two establishment parties.

    That is the only way to quickly affect real change and if everyone did that we'd have our country back in no time. So stop bashing the people who are voting third party and independent, stop telling them that their vote is wasted or a vote for the "other side", realize that there are no two sides really and join them in voting the Repocrats out of everything and voting in the people who will overturn Citizens United, outlaw lobbying and pass a new campaign finance law that will take the money complete out of politics and allow us to elect the congress and the president that will work for us, not the Wall Street or MIC.

    Will Morgan , 10 Nov 2016 23:2
    Is Trump's election really a rejection of the "power structure"? How could that be since that power structure, whether Democrat or Republican, remains intact decade after decade? I don't think Trump's victory is a rejection of the power structure. The rejection of the power structure was embodied, if anywhere, by the Sanders campaign, but it was defied by the Clinton's and by actors like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and by the fraud employed by those actors during the primaries. In a system of only two parties voting for one or the other can simply be a vote based in anger about an excluded middle, or a non-existent "left". These frustrating complaints tell you more about the result than does "the power structure" who could care less which party wins, so long as their interests are served.
    ram Posthumus , 10 Nov 2016 23:1
    Some sanity at last amidst the demented ragings of the identity politics crowd that STILL does not understand that it was them who put Trump in the White House. Not white male rage. Not the shy white female vote. Not any other race/gender/sexuaity category that you wish to dream up.

    No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
    And no.

    What put Trump in the White House was a deeply dysfunctional political system. The fact that the symbol of this deeply dysfunctional political system happened to be female is neither here nor there. Understand this. Understand this and learn.

    Ditch the identity politics. Become a real progressive, not a fake progressive deriving fatally deluded ideas from exclusio

    raskolnikov88 , 10 Nov 2016 23:1
    Robert Reich is also no friend of the working class so why bother listen to him point his finger
    Gary Reber , 10 Nov 2016 23:1
    Robert Reich actually gets this right. Well stated.

    "Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it."

    Mikael Carpelan , 10 Nov 2016 22:2
    Reich has some points, but is ignoring several key circumstances, such as the 72K$ median income among Trump supporters, but mainly hostile legislators blocking anything more than incremental changes as to wealth redistribution such as the ACA. Neither Obama nor Clinton have supernatural powers to get progressive measures passed through republican congress.
    TheMediaSux , 10 Nov 2016 22:1
    The Guardian once represented the working class. Not any more.

    The next president had been decided. The elites, the lobbyists, the corporate bosses, and the media all decided the next president. Only one thing missing. The voters. They weren't playing ball! Those pesky working class voters! Now the media get to pretend they were with us all along!

    ImaHack , 10 Nov 2016 22:0
    Could Bernie Sanders have beaten Trump?

    https://newrepublic.com/minutes/138665/bernie-sanders-beaten-trump

    "In an article out today at The Washington Post, Freddie DeBoer makes this case. He points out that Sanders during the Democratic primary won in key states, like Michigan and Wisconsin, that Clinton lost in the general, and that Sanders was able to attract independent voters. He also notes Sanders's higher favorability and popularity ratings. Of course, such arguments are entirely speculative. We don't know how Sanders would have fared under Republican attacks. And we can't forget that Sanders lost the primary, by a not insignificant amount.

    "But one of the biggest arguments made by Clinton and her supporters was that she was pragmatic and electable-the safe candidate. Sanders's campaign, with its proposals for a $15 minimum wage and universal health care, was derided as pie-in-the-sky, and the candidate himself painted his platform as an electoral disaster. I suspect that more than a few Democrats went with their heads instead of their hearts when casting their votes for Clinton. But we found out that playing a safe and moderate campaign (i.e., picking Tim Kaine, the most forgettable man in existence) doesn't necessarily translate into a winning one. Clinton failed to pick up moderate Republicans and white women. And many of her supporters skated over her extreme unfavorability ratings and her inability to generate excitement.

    "There is no concrete evidence that Sanders would have won. But we were sold a candidate who we were told was electable, when most of the signs pointed to the fact that she wasn't."

    freeandfair , 10 Nov 2016 22:0
    Democratic party turned into a party of identity politics painting by the numbers. Here is how they assemble their base by pandering to each group specifically:
    *women - check
    *blacks - check
    *latino - check
    *lgbt -check
    *millenials - check
    *educated white collar progressives - check

    But then it turns out these groups are not one-dimensional and their voting is not based on just a single identity. They are complex people. And this is how the Democratic voting base splintered. There was no message unifying them.

    ID8584281 , 10 Nov 2016 21:5
    First Brexit, now Trump ... world politics are not going the way that Guardianistas envisaged!
    So where has it all gone wrong for the left?
    What Rubin says about the democrats abandoning the working class in the US could equally apply to Labour in the UK.
    Serves the Washington and London elites f***ing well right, you might say.
    But whereas the Washington/New York democrats will just have to lump it, the London elites don't want to accept Brexit because they didn't get the result they wanted, and they will try to do anything to stop it.
    If they do, and they might because they will stop at nothing, it will destroy any fleeting idea of democracy in Britain.
    And for what?
    To remain a member of a corrupt and bankrupt euro project that is running off the rails?
    The euro elite is as bent as they come. What they did and are doing to the greeks is unforgivable.
    Yanis Varoufakis was against Brexit not because he supports the Brussels autocrats, but because he thinks that the best way to combat the world's biggest threats - i.e., climate change - is through combined efforts (not much point in one country trying to combat climate change on its own if no one else bothers).
    The euro project is doomed. The 28 or 30 countries can agree on nothing (response to refugee crisis?), except to punish those that dissent
    ID8493055 , 10 Nov 2016 21:5
    Trump & the GOP don't represent the working class [either]. All the misguided "uneducated, poor white folk" will find that out soon enough when the new regime is allowed to ride roughshod over all the gov't support programs they've relied on.
    yelzohy gomarj , 10 Nov 2016 21:2
    Think he served one year and resigned. He was too much of an idealist as came from educational system and could not enough accomplished to justify himself being in that position as per what I saw him say many years ago.
    Theodore Svedberg gomarj , 10 Nov 2016 21:5
    Yes Reich was a Clinton appointee. He wrote a book about his four years as Secretary of Labor. It is an interesting read. My take from that book was how Bill gutted labor influence inside his admin.
    EsKiusmi , 10 Nov 2016 20:3
    The Clintos and Obama watched as their fellow blue-class and middle class workers were gobbled up by larger and larger corporations, and now they are surprised that they refuse to vote for them? Trumps message to African Americans was simple and so painfully true: "Vote for me, what do you have to lose?". In the end, most voters decided "what do I have to lose?"
    Beatsong EsKiusmi , 10 Nov 2016 20:3
    And now they're about to find out . . .
    Gorgon Mashovic ID8493055 , 10 Nov 2016 22:2
    Because four million people voted for someone even more right wing then trump. If you think Gary Johnson is a supporter of expanded government services, then you're entirely unfamiliar with his career as new mexico's governor.
    Bogdanich , 10 Nov 2016 20:2
    Thomas Ferguson granted an interview this morning. In it he said,

    (in a paper from 2014 he predicted that) "Hillary Clinton would have a lot of trouble putting together the old coalition of effectively Wall Street and if you'll allow me to speak quickly and directly for the sake of communication, identity politics. They're really interesting to study. You can see for example in the white college age women that Hillary only got 6% more of those than Trump did which is sort of unbelievable. But let me come to what I think is probably the heart of the matter. I think we really are at the end of the classical democratic formula of the Clinton period which was Wall Street plus identity politics. I think this is it. You're never going to be able to put that humpty dumpty back together again. If the democrats want to win they're going to actually have to make a strong appeal to working class Americans. Now you know the problem this is going to create. There's a ton of money in the democratic party. It is not going to sit there and tolerate candidates like Sanders. They just really despised and hated Sanders. So we're now going to have a very interesting situation where you've got a top heavy party with cash at the top and no mass at the base at all, or very little."

    The interesting thing about Ferguson is he doesn't speak or write that often as he dislikes arguing, but when he does come to a conclusion he is willing to share he is seldom wrong.

    Theodore Svedberg Bogdanich , 10 Nov 2016 20:5
    I think you, Reich and Ferguson are spot on. It is very hard to argue against "identity" politics since it is basically arguing that minorities (racial, sexual, religious, whatever) have rights. Unfortunately these "identity" groupings somehow left out the working class. So the Democratic Party ended up representing a coalition that involved Wall Street (at its center) and many other small minority groups. What was left out of this coalition was any voice for the working class. Now that is a classical example of divide and conquer. And yes this is a case of the big money of capitalism dividing America's workers.

    Fifty years ago organized labor unions had a seat at the table who could speak for American workers (whatever small group the individual worker may have belonged to). Today that is gone. Hopefully in the coming years the Democratic Party can restore its roots and begin to represent that class of Americans who actually work for a living. These workers can be divided into hundreds of different groups -- white, black, male, female, straight,gay, wonks, blue collar, hispanic, many others. But together they can have a voice in the national dialogue. If electing Trump is the way to educate the Democratic Party honchos on what is required then perhaps Trump's win will serve a useful purpose.

    macmarco , 10 Nov 2016 19:5
    Bill Clinton moved the Democratic Party to the right. Although rejected by the GOP (racism) Obama continued that move. Hillary could have easily won the election by reaching out to the millions disenfranchised for more than 30 years, but failed to do so. What and who made her stick to a campaign of 'Not Trump' and elitism is puzzling but not an enigma.

    My guess is Bill and Wall Street created the plan, and it went down in a blaze.

    murnau , 10 Nov 2016 19:4
    "Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more".

    A good article which explains the route the Democrats have taken over the years. Faced with the Republican victories of Ronald Reagan from 1981-1989 the democrats chose to move to the right, the party having a previous lineage with ordinary workers back to FDR and further. Bill Clinton in 1992 took onboard the third way calling itself the New Democrats. In the UK Tony Blair copied this following on after the tories Margaret Thatcher and John Major with his New Labour transformation of the party into a virtual copy of the tories.

    Just like the 2010 election in the UK with Labour, many people who would have voted Democrat simply did not turn out for Hilary Clinton and did not vote at all. With complete establishment backing including Wall Street and the MSM she lost to Donald Trump. Many would have voted for him anyway but a sizeable percentage must have used him as an anti Clinton vote. Jill Stein called Hilary Clinton corrupt. Clinton is a war hawk she supported the Iraq war and doesn't appear to have learnt from the disaster as she was mainly responsible for the catastrophy in Libya. She loves to boast, we came, we saw, he died, meaning Col. Gaddafi she is more reserved about the later deaths of the ambassador Christopher Stevens and some of his colleagues in the Libyan embassy as a direct result of supporting the jihadis. While still secretary of state she said that she would arm anyone fighting against President Assad thats turned out well. She supported the coup in Honduras and was instrumental in laying the ground out for the coup in Ukraine. The recent wikileaks indicated she knew the Saudis were financing ISIS but she said nothing as they were contributing to the Clinton Foundation.

    Hillary Clinton Lies About Attending Bilderberg While In Denver

    http://wearechange.org/hillary-clinton-lies-attending-bilderberg-denver /

    Trigz , 10 Nov 2016 19:1
    An excellent analysis. Clinton was an awful candidate. She represents the establishment in every possible way; the same establishment that has stood shamelessly by while the US working and middle classes have been abandoned.

    She offered precisely nothing other than not being Donald Trump. Her campaign resembled a coronation. This sheer hubris and arrogance cost the Democrats the presidency. Forget the tiresome shrieks of racism and fascism for a minute: Trump won because Clinton failed to get support among the masses of underemployed and unemployed industrial working class in the Rust Belt; because she offered nothing new, no answers other than more of the same.

    They failed to address the very real concerns and fears of everyday Americans. They have no one to blame but themselves for this disaster.

    Mohammed Wong durable13 , 10 Nov 2016 18:3
    Nonsense.The article nails it. A failure to address the Economic Vampirism that Clinton champions.Sure, there are plenty of racists and misogynists in the GOP, but willfull ignorance couched in identity rhetoric is how the party lost so much.until establishment dems realize that, things will continue to get bleaker for them.
    Stefan Mochnacki , 10 Nov 2016 18:2
    This is a very good article, but it doesn't pay enough attention to the human, emotional aspect of political leadership. The really sad thing is that the Democrats had somebody in Bernie Sanders who could have beaten Trump, as all polls earlier this year indicated, but the determination of Hillary to be President combined with the vast web of Clinton connections led to the result we have. Everybody knew about her problems going into the primary campaign, but the attraction of electing a female President combined with unease with Sanders' roots and radicalism (actually, not such big difficulties) led to her rock-solid "super-delegate" support and sufficient voter support in the primaries. I doubt the DNC "dirty tricks" were quite enough to cause Sanders' defeat, but the Party establishment support no doubt swayed some voters, too. Unfortunately, Sanders will be too old to carry the torch, as is Elizabeth Warren; they should now lead the battle in the Senate and write the books so needed to shape American progressive thought in the coming years. The Democrats need to completely rebuild, so that in eight years they can be ready again for executive power, with the essential support of Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress. It's not worth their while winning the Presidency without control of Congress. It means building a real party, a social movement and organization, not just a label, with leaders who can connect emotionally with citizens.
    voxusa , 10 Nov 2016 18:1
    "Bill Clinton and Barack Obama helped shift power away from the people towards corporations..."?

    What about the landslide shift of power to corporations, lobbyists, and the rich under the Bush and Reagan regimes?

    I always agree with you, Mr Reich, and gain insight from your writings/columns, but I think you're really missed the boat here. A demagogue told the big lie to people, and many bought it!

    For all the Democrats' (many shortcomings), the BLAME for the sad state of the middle-class, working class, and non-1% is on the Republicans' heads!

    And the war on unions is one of the right-wing's key rallying points

    Tucsonian OptPrime , 10 Nov 2016 19:3
    You need to explain that assertion.

    But let me make a related one:

    Clinton is at least partly responsible for Brexit.

    1) She led the US into invading Libya. Persuaded Obama, who was initially against it, and now calls it his biggest mistake as president.

    2) As Gaddafi predicted, his regime was the "cork in the bottle of Africa" (Assange's words) since Libya was patrolling the region. Removing him opened the first front of the European migrant crisis.

    3) Destabilizing Libya provided a base for ISIS and other factions, which helped destabilize Syria, opening the second front of the European migrant crisis.

    4) The European migrant crisis was one of the primary drivers of Brexit.

    dongerdo , 10 Nov 2016 16:4
    Well regular Joe Blow has been mocked and ignored for years. Joe Blow might not live in a trailer park, he might have some nice house but he and Jane Blow are working double shifts to pay for it. Joe and Jane have long given up on politics because 'it does not change a thing anyways', they have never seen a politician outside the election phase to descend to their rather unremarkable town in the middle of nowhere. Unions are nowhere to be seen, no one actually gives a damn about them and no one listens to their concerns.
    But they understand. They do not have a college degree so those people from NY or Detroit might be right that they do not understand the big picture, watching the news they see that their elected officials have much more important things to take care of. Gender neutral bathrooms, organizing community hours to paint the safe space at the nearby college, giving debt and tax reliefs to the same banks threatening the two of them to foreclose their house, apparently they are really busy.
    But now, after years, someone is coming around and listens. He might not really care and only pretend to but he DOES listen. For the first time ever.

    And we really wonder about the outcome of this election?!

    tigerfisch , 10 Nov 2016 16:3
    Reich's article pretty much nails it. The Democratic bigwigs preferred the company of corporate fat cats, facilitated their greed and lost touch with their base....
    Bob999 , 10 Nov 2016 16:1
    This is one of the few articles that provides any insight into the 2016 presidential election. The reality is that Americans don't like either political party and don't trust politicians. American voters identify with political parties far less than voters in other countries, and most Americans assume that politicians are crooks. That's just the way it is.

    Presidential candidates hire consultants to provide marketing expertise to their political campaigns. Trump, by contrast, is himself a marketing expert. As a young man in his twenties, he had the insight that he could increasing the value of real estate by branding it, just as luxury automobiles are branded.

    The people who have been mocking Donald Trump for being a real estate magnate and reality show TV impresario fail to realize that those are pursuits where it is impossible to succeed without understanding what the consuming public wants. Many people find Trump to be outrageously offensive, but that is part of a persona he has developed over decades in his property development and TV enterprises in order to attract large numbers of people to his golf courses and hotels, and to attract viewers to The Apprentice.

    In politics, Trump's persona translated into a vicious political style that led his opponents to focus on his persona rather than his message. The message was that the increasing deemphasis on national borders (in the form of globalized trade, illegal immigration, and arguably even international terrorism) should be dialed back because it is changing America for the worse. That message resonated with a large number of people and resulted in his election.

    Throughout the 2016 election cycle, Trump's opponents failed to address his message and focused instead on his persona. Every opponent who tried to take out Trump by attacking his outrageous and offensive persona was destroyed in the process. During the Republican primary, candidates were talking about Donald Trump so much that they were defining themselves in terms of Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton made the same mistake the 16 unsuccessful Republican primary candidates made. Her campaign was a social message that used Donald Trump as a bogeyman.

    The appeal to social interest groups did not address the objective and important issues that Trump was (arguably inarticulately) articulating, which are the issues that really attracted voters to him attracted voters to him. Like Britain, America has a lot of towns where the local economy has been destroyed by the closing of, for example, a steel mill. Trump knew how to address the voters in those towns, and that's how he got elected.

    TettyBlaBla Bob999 , 10 Nov 2016 21:1
    The missing piece from your comment is Trumps use of media that was relatively new compared to prior presidential elections. In Trump's case this was Twitter and Twitter bot accounts re-tweeting messages to smartphones. Obama did well harnessing social media, just as Reagan used taped video feeds appearing to be live (have to remember how primitive color transmissions were not that long ago), Kennedy used television, and earlier presidents won harnessing radio.
    Bob999 TettyBlaBla , 11 Nov 2016 15:2
    That is true, as well. Trump's campaign was arguably the American equivalent of the Twitter revolutions that swept North Africa and the Ukraine a few years ago. One question is whether that use of social media is why Trump won or whether it is more narrowly why his win was not predicted by pollsters. This may also be relevant to the unexpectedness of the results of the Brexit referendum.

    It's also a reminder to those who shout "power to the people" in the expectation that empowered people will return a particular result. With Trump, and with Brexit, the people appear to have repudiated those who see themselves as empowerers of the people. It's worth some reflection.

    saltchunkmary , 10 Nov 2016 16:1
    This is an excellent article. In a perverse way it was those zealously anti Trump wailers who unwittingly made him the 45th president of the USA.

    Words of wisdom for those disappointed by the result: Understand why those who voted for Trump did. Don't just write them all of as racist/xenophobic. The majority are not. They are angry because politicians, including and especially those Democrats who were supposed to be on their side, sold their souls to the devil - globalisation, big corporations etc.

    In fact one may argue that Bill Clinton signing the NAFTA free trade agreement back in 1994 sowed the seeds for this current situation. Think about it

    David Perry saltchunkmary , 10 Nov 2016 16:2
    Exactly! These people are suffering, and instead of getting help from the Democratic Party they were just all labeled as a bunch of racists, xenophobes. homophobes, etc. Most people who voted for Trump didn't vote for the man. They voted for the hope that they could take their country back from a bunch of elitist, corporatists, and rich bankers who have stolen it from them. You aren't going to win them back by denigrating them further.
    Michael McBrearty , 10 Nov 2016 16:1
    Yet the mainstream media will persist in explaining the Trump disaster in terms of race or gender issues, never in terms of economic class.
    This is how they keep us divided.
    Dunbar1999 , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
    Yes. I live in rural Missouri, and I absolutely agree with this analysis. The bit that worries me is that none of the embryonic "plans" suggested by Trump -- the wall, the deportations, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act -- will do anything but make the less well-off less well-off in every way. Does anyone really believe, for example, that lowering the tax on business will induce any businessman with any sense to rebuild an old factory in a small, crumbling midwestern town with an uneducated workforce? Let alone allow a union to form, provide decent salaries, pensions and healthcare like their grandfathers had from companies like Ford, General Motors, Caterpillar, John Deere etc? Of course, there's always a war as a last resort: that used to get the economy going, using up lots of materials and lots of surplus young men, didn't it? But I'm afraid the Chinese don't want to fight us, they want to buy us. There's still so much useable, badly-tended space in the middle of America ...
    Thatoneguyyouknow Dunbar1999 , 10 Nov 2016 16:1
    "The bit that worries me is that none of the embryonic "plans" suggested by Trump -- the wall, the deportations, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act -- will do anything but make the less well-off less well-off in every way."

    Actually, GETTING ELECTED was the best thing he could have done. At least it's a CHANCE for the Democratic Party to wake the **** up and see the working class (not the WHITE working class, the WHOLE working class) has been slipping away from them and at an accelerating rate. And they are FURIOUS at getting the shaft while their union "leaders" ORDER them to "vote blue no matter who" and are bullied and browbeaten if they so much as DARE to ask what happened to all those empty promises from last campaign season that have been DOWNGRADED yet again into something even smaller and less ambitious, only to be silenced with "the other guys will be the apocalypse so don't you dare ask any questions you dirty racists!"

    Laborequalswealth , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
    My husband and two friends and I traveled from SF to Philly to protest the DNC convention.

    The protestors - most of whom were under 35 - were corralled in FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT PARK. The delegates lounged in WELLS FARGO CENTER. They even shut down the subway station used by both groups so that only delegates could use it. They did this even though at the end of the day a torrential electrical storm was drenching the protesters. Nope, folks. That PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS FOR THE DNC ONLY.

    Did Hillary really think we didn't NOTICE?? Did she think that making FIVE TIMES the average annual income of Americans for a 45 minutes speech to Gold In Sacks would be ignored? That we didn't care that she and Bill RENEGED on the deal with Russia that Bush One made re NATO is pushing Europe to the brink of war? That she loves loves loves the TPP?

    Just how fucking stupid did Hillary think we were NOT to notice her Wall Street/MIC worshiping history and positions?

    Trump is a domestic disaster. We'll have to deal with that. But I am at least slightly comforted that he wants to stop this war machine (bon chance) and does not support the treasonous, sovereignty-killing TPP - which Hillary SUPPORTED.

    The only one who got Trump elected was HILLARY CLINTON and her arrogant followers.

    rentierDEATHcult , 10 Nov 2016 15:5
    i hope mr reich can help to clear out the faux liberal power elites from the democratic party ... the wall street apparatchiks and senior officials that preside over the various electoral 'plantations' for the clintons: millenials, blacks, lgbt/trans and hispanics

    this type of politics is regressive because it provides cover for vested interests (that derive their wealth through ownership of capital) to colonise democracy against the vast majority of people that depend upon wages for a living

    the power structure at the top of the democratic party is corrupt and corrupting ... the way this organisation has sought and cultivated minority votes (not in the pursuit of some higher class goal) but to enhance the career prospects of an 'out of touch' political class on capitol hill is the ultimate form of betrayal

    in particular, the way impoverished black communities across america have been used by a 'praetorian guard' of senior black democratic leaders to support the dynastic ambitions of the clinton family must come to an end

    it is down to enlightened thinkers like mr reich to ensure that the democratic party transitions from being the 'last plantation owner in america' (and trader in chief of minority votes) towards a champion of working people and their class interests

    this would be a good start: i would fire most senior black leaders in the democratic party ... (you know, the likes of donna brazile!) for activities incompatible with representing the class interests of working americans - period

    LeonardPynchon , 10 Nov 2016 15:5
    One problem the left has to overcome is the sheer seductiveness of the argument that the Farages and Trumps of this world put forward - they tell those who have not fared well under capitalism that the fault is not their own, that the real problem is immigrants - it is a cynical but effective lie that those who feel left behind find hard to resist.

    In truth the problem is that the system they - Trump and Farage - actually favour is utterly dependent on workers who will work for very little whether they are immigrants or not. The tragic irony is that the right has absolutely no intention of improving the lot of the poor fools who vote for them.

    ehmaybe , 10 Nov 2016 15:5
    In a multi party parliamentary system the US labor unions and the US' left-leaning social justice voters would not be represented by the same party.
    Too many people make the mistake of thinking labor in the US is a left-wing movement. It hasn't been for decades. US labor unions don't fight for workers rights, they fight for their workers pocketbooks and nothing else.
    In 1972 labor abandoned the Democrats when they chose a too-progressive candidate for president. Since that time the relationship between progressives and the working class has been a nothing but a marriage of convenience. That marriage seems to have broken up.
    Paul Loucks ehmaybe , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
    17% of American indusrtry is union. There wasn't much of a marriage to break up. Factory mechanization was accompanied by moving out of the rust belt into anti-union Southern states. Later, they left for China.
    ehmaybe Paul Loucks , 10 Nov 2016 16:2
    The value of unions to Democrats has little to do with the voters in their ranks. Unions have long been the Democrat's counterbalance against Republican wealth - they can't buy as many ads but they can provide nearly unlimited free labor to the Democrats canvassing and telephone campaigns.
    WIthout unions the Democrats would have even fewer seats in the House and Senate and Woodrow Wilson would probably have been their last president.
    60boy , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
    No, the democrats no longer represent the working classes in the US . As the Labour party here no longer does. I listened to Ed Miliband this morning on the radio and when asked whether he supported Brexit he said he was worried about coloured people, Muslims, transgender and almost everyone else, but he didn't mention the working class at all.
    This is why the Tories can get away with doing whatever they want, because Labour is finished in most working class areas. They became a party for minorities and encouraged mass immigration. Now they mean less than nothing to most ordinary, indigenous people in this country!
    We don't need a Trump, we've got the Tories and UKIP instead!
    KrautOliver 60boy , 10 Nov 2016 16:0

    but he didn't mention the working class at all.

    That would be because the classical working class is an 1860s-1970s phenomenon. It's not describing any meaningful "class" of people anymore. Some people may "feel" working class, but the truth of the matter is that for everyone who feels that way, there's someone with similar living conditions who doesn't.

    ene Adair , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
    While I find much to agree with in analyses like Reich's and Frank's, I find that they tend to romanticize the white working class and ignore the elephants in the room, those being racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and the rest. I feel I can say this because I come from a white working-class background in small-town Arkansas (Bill Clinton's hometown and mine were thirty-five miles apart). Believe me, Robert, there is a virulent strain of racism among many of those folks, and It's something that needs to be better addressed by analyses such as yours and Tom Frank's. It's not just something that GOP fear mongering conjured out of thin air. It has deep historical roots and cannot be brushed easily aside by discussions based solely on economic arguments. (See, for example, Stacy Patton's article: http://www.damemagazine.com/2016/11/01/why-i-have-no-sympathy-angry-white-men .)
    IamDolf Gene Adair , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
    My GF comes from a similar background. I posted this earlier on this thread.

    I know the "working classes" in the USA, especially the midwestern variety. Dumb, ill informed, incurious. Obsessed with macho posturing, weapons, military exploits.
    Rampant racism, misogyny, extreme religiosity. Birtherism, creationism, paranoia, you name it. You have to read the anti-Obama and Clinton vitriol from people lke that to believe it. From people who do not have a pot to piss in.
    My GF hails from some dot in the middle of nowhere in IA. She describes being raised there as living in a cult. She had to come to Long Island to realise that there actually were still jews alive today. She more or less thought they were like the Hittites and the Sumerians, something you read about in the bible. To this day she loves to watch documentaries on TV because the education she received in school was so poor and narrow minded.

    Duggi390 Gene Adair , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
    A lot of that rascism, xenophobia, homophobia etc is born out of the frustration that the working class find themselves in. Many believe, rightly or wrongly, that foreigners, the LGBTQ community, Arfrican Americans, Latino's, Asians and so on, are given special treatment. These groups have jumped to the front of the cue to reach the American Dream, while the working class have been stuck in line at the back for years and they have become frustrated and angry. It doesn't excuse those views, but if you look at it from their perspective you can see why they hit out.

    Additionally, these views are held right across the demographic makeup of the US, not just the Working Class.

    VinceDaFox , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
    hopefully once the dust has died down this is the sort of considered writing that we will see in the Guardian - not the ludicrous outpourings of bile we have seen in the past few days.

    I listened to the live radio account from the BBC and noted the evident discomfiture as the result differed from the script. At the end of a presidential election the assembled studio experts should have more to say about a candidate than bewailing perceived racism, perceived misogyny (I doubt that Trump is a true misogynist!) and Mexican walls yet listening to the BBC since then it's as if the programme presenters are working to a script. Likewise. I'm afraid, The Guardian.

    What I find truly remarkable is the analogous positions of Trump and Corbyn: both outsider candidates who relied on votes from outside their respective Establishments to win through. Trump had little to do with the Republicans in the past. Corbyn was best known for voting against his party. Both have been reviled by their own party elites (and by the Guardian). Corbyn has faced a coup rumoured to have been organised from outside the PLP. Leading Republicans wore the fact that they had not voted for their own candidate as a badge of honour. Of course this was solely intended to save their political necks, but in the event did no harm whatsoever to Trump or Corbyn - indeed it may have positively assisted them. Had Corbyn been positively endorsed by say, Harriet Harman, he would possibly never have survived.

    The US and UK political elites set great store by their acceptance of other faiths and ethnicities yet seem curiously intolerant to the outsiders in their own milieu.

    BigPhil1959 , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
    Clinton, Blair and Schroeder came up with the third way. Snake oil salesmen that all profited from sucking up to the corporations and selling their influence. Schroeder signed a deal with the Russians supply gas to Germany before joining Nordstream the company set up to do so. As for Clinton and Blair the list is long a sto how they have lined their pockets. The third way has never been about the ordinary working man. Wages have not risen in Germany in real terms for years as they havent in the US. In the UK easy credit has masked the real situation and now peple are suffering.

    What Robert Reich has written has hit the nail on the head.

    KrautOliver BigPhil1959 , 10 Nov 2016 16:1

    Schroeder signed a deal with the Russians supply gas to Germany before joining Nordstream the company set up to do so.

    Except he merely served on the supervisory board.

    The third way has never been about the ordinary working man. Wages have not risen in Germany in real terms for years as they havent in the US.

    "The working man" is waffling. Contrary to propaganda, Schroeder's reforms have contributed massively to Germany not being hit as hard by the financial crisis as others - and contrary to legends, it has improved the situation of the poor. It's the people peddling those legends, devoid of any understanding how the situation was before, who contribute to the unemployed feeling outcast.

    It's the 21st century. Wake up. Waffling about the "Working Man" is the same as waffling about Cowboys and believing cattle farming is still being done like in 1850.

    Loafervandross , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
    Democrats are as much a part of the elite as republicans.
    muttley79 , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
    Guardian columnists such as Hadley Freeman, Lucia Graves, Wolff, Abramson, Freedland and company should be forced to read this article. These columnists very rarely if ever talk about the Gilded Age style inequality levels in the West, and the USA in particular. Instead it is all about identity politics for them. Can these individuals start writing about the disastrous chasm between the very rich and the rest please?
    hexotic muttley79 , 10 Nov 2016 15:5
    Definitely. Identity politics has been coopted by the neoliberal technocracy to divert attention from wealth inequalities, the operation of big corporations in politics and the general lack of democratic accountability in governance.
    feenix07 , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
    Thank you Mr Reich. Best article I have read for months.

    The vote for Trump was a protest vote. It was a non violent revolution. A significant part of the US electorate were angry. They saw their quality of life eroded. They saw little change of their children having a chance of a better life. Trump was the perfect outsider. He was not part of the "corrupt system". If you are living on your knees why not vote for someone who might bring the whole corrupt rotting edifice crashing down?

    THe usual media suspects have been trying to explain what happen in their normal closeted, university educated, urban, smug, condesending manner. But when people are angry, when they are protesting they want action, they want change , they don't want the status quo. During the French revolution the mobs didn't ask "whats your policy on gender based minorities?"...they just shouted "off with their heads"

    Until the media, the politicians, the policy makers, the wealthy elite start properly listening to the people left behind, then we will continue to see more Trumps and Brexits.

    Ahnaf15 , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
    Excellent analysis . Mr Reich was Labour secretary under Clinton and so she shares the responsibility of his policies. Of note is media complicity including so called liberal progressive media no heavy weights. It seems that 'generating ' money / growth/ markets etc etc seem to be the all important factors . Citizens' solidarity and the needs of the most vulnerable are at the bottom of the checklist if it is ther at all. These progressives have fallen or perhaps fallen into the trap of believing that talking about 'progressive' topics e.g. misogyny and gender etc is enough to earn the badge of 'progressives and liberals '.

    It is very strange indeed in the midst of all this ther is no mention of JC and McDonnel and co and their ' old 'foolish' 'defunct' types of policies that no one wants to vote for because .......

    Finally it is curious to note that many US citizens voted for Trump because of the disillusionment with political establishment. The odd thing is that ' those in the know ' did not know about their anger -- To complicate matters further and using this an example does US and the West really know what ordinary citizens in Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of ME Asia and Africa really think about the ruinous roles of the West in making their lives and their children's lives and their countries and their future a waste . Just because ther are strategic and national security and economic interests of West and their local reps. Do we have to believe the stories and features of the natives and their 'backgrward ' oppressors or just believe ( as US election showed ) what we want to believe that the natives, want , deserve and should get --

    And yes we are in 21 st century and using all the powers of Internet and modern society to be acquainted with the outside world -- Doh --

    corund , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
    This article and simon Jenkins article on trump are the best two articles I've read in the guardian for a long time! Spot on .keep reminding people that gw bush supported h. Clinton ,bush whose personal vendetta against Saddam cost thousands of lives ,Iraqi ,us ,UK ,etc! And how million american workers were put on the dole by bill clinton !ill
    JacktheNat , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
    Thanks for that, Robert.

    The Clintons also helped corrupt the Democratic party to deny Bernie Sanders the opportunity to put many of these popular views to the test on Tuesday.

    That also meant denying the voters the chance of having someone like Tulsi Gabbard as vice-president:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzYoDOXsNm8

    jeanshaw1 , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
    Exactly. Messrs Thatcher/Major/Blair/Cameron followed the same path here and that is why we have decided that we , the people , want to take back control and showed it by voting to recover our sovereignty by leaving the EU .
    letrightbedone , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
    Remember, Trump used to be a Democrat. The fact that he has led the Republicans to peers suggests very little difference between establishment parties, as in the U.K. Trump is a savvy enough schemer to play to the fears and feelings of the dispossed. Let's see what he can deliver. I doubt much. All I can hope is that he recruits right wing Us Supreme Court justices in the vein of Scalia.
    Hopeabandoned letrightbedone , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
    Mr Justice Scalia, by his verdict in the Citizens United case, sold US politics to the highest bidder. He and his devout followers have done more harm to their country than any other supreme Court Justice. A man who supposedly believed in the 10 commandments, but who lacked the integrity to hear any death penalty cases. A hypocrite.
    kjjng1 dvdmartin , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
    Glass-Steagall, which was used to protect ordinary savers from high risk investment banking, was removed by Clinton, not GWB. Sure, Congress and House were dominated by Republicans, but the Democrats had Bill Clinton and could have filibustered (see how effective the Republicans have been since). Instead, Gramm-Leach-Biley passed with bipartisan support. And let's not even talk about NAFTA.
    FilthyRichBanker , 10 Nov 2016 15:2
    The Socialist bread van resprayed in a liberalism, neoliberalism, multiculturalism, political correctness, globalism and liberal interventionism pretty colour by the Blairites, the Clintonites and EU political elites, was still the same old failed product under the bonnet.

    Guaranteed whenever it is taken out on the roads to breakdown and take a Nation or Federal Superstate to the brink of bankruptcy before the passengers(electorate) see it for what it really is - they had been sold a clapped out old banger with a new coat of paint!

    UK Socialists, memorably described by Margaret Thatcher as people who when in power always run out of other peoples money, are mostly a well meaning lot, but their bread van which crashed spectacularly in the 1970's and got taken to the scrap yard as beyond repair, was years later deviously bought(hijacked) as a 'damaged repairable', by a small group of liberal metropolitan elite scam artists who had quietly infiltrated the Labour Party.

    After a little tinkering under the bonnet(parachuting their own candidates into Labour heartland seats) and a new touchy feely PR paint job, they relaunched it onto the streets as a New Model 'Green' Socialist vehicle, when in reality it just a bunch of second hand car dealers in sharp suits operating an industrial scale 'cut and shut' job scam of Madoff proportions on hoodwinked buyers(the electorate).

    Working hand in glove with Goldman Sachs and big business, they made themselves extremely rich but now have a lot to answer for, as they're responsible for the rise of the left and right wing populist genie out of the bottle. Once out, like the inflation genie it is a devilishly difficult task to put back in.

    As evidenced by the latest utterances of a beaming Nigel Farage, aka Mr Brexit, following the Trump Presidential winning campaign:

    "Brexit, and now Trump, and now the wagons roll on to the rest of Europe for all the elections next year," Farage said, smiling like a cheshire cat. "This is a really exciting time. As someone who has now become a demolitions expert I'm thoroughly enjoying what's going on."

    With bold, brash, crass, in your face characters like Trump and Farage at the forefront of the political stage, the next few years, like a fairground ride could be rather wild and bumpy, but never dull.

    We live in interesting times --

    Bilge FilthyRichBanker , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
    What so you're saying Trump and Farage lied? ....They're not going to protect our lifestyles and western living standards using left wing socialist protectionism? ....who woulda thunk it?
    Sal2011 , 10 Nov 2016 15:2
    It may be a repudiation of the American power structure, or the result of building certain perceptions in the American public over the years by the mainstream media that Trump pounced upon and crudely exploited to the hilt. The US media couldn't steer the beast it had created when it wanted to. Think it's wishful thinking that we're not in for a period of great upheaval, possibly tragedy. We saw what happened during the Bush presidency, an ugly war with a tally of tens of thousands of lives and global financial meltdown. This time it could be much, much worse.
    Ummmmm , 10 Nov 2016 15:2

    The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.


    Change "Democratic" for "Labour", "Washington" for "Westminster", "Wall Street" for "the City", and it still rings true. Corbyn and the swing to the left isn't the cause of the crisis, it's a response. What happens with Sanders and his base next will be pivotal.
    CaptainHogwash Ummmmm , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
    Change globalisation of "Trade" to "Rightwing Politicies" and I think you've hit a home run
    evaelbee537 , 10 Nov 2016 15:2
    Compulsory reading for all who formed & remain part of what is described with forensic precision, including many contributing journalist to this paper. To be taken seriously, not immediately denounced, Robert Reich could only put pen to paper with confidence after Trump won so decisively, & why we are still reeling from reality about to unfold from success of the Brexit campaign. Fundamental change in reactionary maverick hands.
    Both Trump & UKIP/Farage/ Tory right engaged willingly, without shame, in a campaign of authoritarian demagoguery, with elevation of racist, xenophobic sentiments to being new national virtue of saying it as it is.
    Existing power structures with their intricate connections, web of back rubbing fundraising, & legislation to enable profit accumulation to continue unhindered by challenges from 'shopfloor' labour groups, failed to see what was under their noses. Insulated, blinkered privileged they dismissed as unelectable what was coming down on them like a ton of bricks.
    Great piece, well worth reading more than once.
    Kurwenal , 10 Nov 2016 15:1
    It is more an indictment of the mainstream political parties than the electorates that politicians like Trump, Farage, Le Pen and all the other hate preachers are attracting so much support. It is equally an indictment of the leftist media that they cling to the discredited leaders of the so called centre left parties. But then they have personally done very nicely out of the cozy relationships they have with leaders who are held in as much contempt by the ordinary voters as the misnamed liberal media holds them.
    Maitreya2016 , 10 Nov 2016 15:1
    Democrats were once for slavery as well.
    leadballoon , 10 Nov 2016 15:0

    The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.

    That is the most relevant paragraph I've seen here in recent months. exactly the same for the UK Labour party, Nobody with any real prospect of power represents the working class. The only shadows left are the unrealistic promises of Trump, or Brexit that we know will be ignored once the vote is cast. But what else is there?
    IamDolf leadballoon , 10 Nov 2016 15:2
    The "lumpenproletariat" that brought the social democratic parties in europe to power and made the european communist political parties a force to reckon with no longer exist. The old working classes have been superseded by an underclass who do the truly unskilled work, and a middle class, the successful children of the former workingclass who now are nurses, administrators, middle managers, etc.
    Steel, mining, ship building, car manufacturing, etc, used to employ thousands or even tens of thousands of people in a single plant. Those days are over. Everywhere. To exclusively focus on the 20% of the population that are truly left behind is political suicide. And why a guy like Corbyn will never see an electoral win.
    And then one needs to keep in mind that the American working class are much more right leaning than their european counterparts.
    goto100 , 10 Nov 2016 15:0
    Fuck all globalist hellspawn. Fuck all neocons. Fuck all neoliberals. All of them.
    SoccerPundit WorrierQueen , 10 Nov 2016 15:2
    First past the post does have benefits e.g., stable governments that last 4-5 years, manifesto's printed up-front rather than debated behind closed doors, prevention of extremist parties achieving influence via balance of power.
    UK, USA main two parties are actually 'large tents/broad churches' where multiple views exist rather than narrow dogma.
    Democracy is not perfect - but the peaceful transfer of power - in the UK, US is to be commended and not taken for granted.
    (ps I agree with gerrymandering in US but that's a result of the States vs Federal system. Also one more thing - FPTP is the only way to choose a President whether by Electoral College or popular vote).
    BarrieJ SoccerPundit , 10 Nov 2016 16:2
    Stable governments that don't represent voter's views or needs. Manifestos that are manifestly ignored at the earliest convenience, policies that were never announced or publicised, pursued in the interests of political lobbyists, donors or corporations. Politicians whose default position is to lie if it serves them better than the truth and the electorate offered the only opportunity to dismiss them at the next election, when they can reliably expect to be rewarded with a seat in the Lords or any number of sinecures in the form of directorships and consultancies.
    The system is not fit for purpose and that's just the way our political class likes it.
    PerspectivesPlease , 10 Nov 2016 14:5
    Thank you! Thank you! Thank you, Secy. Reich. I cannot say enough!

    Yes, Sir no one can fool all the people all the time. The Clintons were masters at this game and believed they could get the people to believe that 2+2=5 assisted with their unlimited corporate money, Wall St. influence, and the dissemination of misinformation aided by the media.

    There would not have been any need for organizations like Wikileaks, if journalists had a modicum of integrity.

    As for the Guardian, it had to have their favorite, and the most corrupt, candidate defeated at the elections resoundingly in order to have voices, the like that of Secy. Reich express his views in this otherwise skewed newspaper. With the increase in corruption in public office, journalistic integrity followed that same path.

    The frustration of the people with establishment politics rose to such a level where they did not care even if the opposing non-establishment candidate was Donald Trump or Donald Duck who groped other ducklings.

    Omoikani , 10 Nov 2016 14:4
    The Guardian was one of Clinton's loudest barking dogs, following the Goldman Sachs playlist to the letter. Adverse comments BTL about her or the Guardian's election coverage were deleted.
    CaptainHogwash , 10 Nov 2016 14:4
    "Democrats once represented the working class. Not anymore "

    Republicans never represented the working class but the working classes continued to vote them into office.

    The destruction of the trade union movement has always been one of the highest priorities for Conservatives – the success they have had in large part due to the concerted efforts of Ronnie and Maggie (who are now engaged in a torrid posthumous affair).

    In the UK there is a sinister parallel between zero hour contracts and workers during the depression standing in the streets hoping to pick up a day's work.
    Apparently "job security" is a threat to the prosperity of the nation and so it goes on.
    Now that the unions have been dealt with the Tories in the UK have set their sights on dismantling the NHS (by incrementally starving it to death) and there is presently nothing to stop them.

    Trump clearly tailored his message to reach the disenfranchised but unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any evidence that (a) he really cares about them and (b) anything substantial is about to improve their lot.

    sylvesta34 , 10 Nov 2016 14:4
    Its quite ironic that right-wing, neo-lib ideology, created what we have now, and at the same time its the right and far right that are getting all the gains. The popularity of Trump. Farage and this movement tells you how utterly and totally the left and liberals in general have failed in connecting with the working classes and offer something different.
    Biblio , 10 Nov 2016 14:4

    Bill Clinton and Barack Obama helped shift power away from the people towards corporations. It was this that created an opening for Donald Trump

    Sums things up succintly. If you're concentrating on stealing their clothes, they can steal yours, especially when you only wave them about listlessly yet refuse to wear them.

    Trojans08 Biblio , 10 Nov 2016 14:4
    That's been happening since Reagan. I get the blame on Clinton & Obama in the context of "Dems played the same game as GOP", but not in a more open context. This has been happening for 35 years with trickle down economy. It also happens to "coincide" with the widening of wealth gap...
    Light_and_Liberty , 10 Nov 2016 14:4
    It was a repudiation of President Barack Obama and his leftist [neoliberal] policies that decimated middle class jobs, health insurance and the respect for the rule of law.

    A valid point can be stated in one sentence.

    Karl Holder , 10 Nov 2016 14:3
    Obama just nailed the whole working class with a massive Obamacare rate hike. What did they expect was going to happen? You cannot provide free healthcare to the poor on the backs of the working class while the upper mids and wealthy pay nothing. The upper mids already have employer insurance, people, and they do not get an opinion. OCare is hitting me for $400 a month for insurance with a $13,000 deductible! That is fraud! I am a working class liberal- Obama broke every campaign promise he ever made to us, and Clinton has done nothing to shed her 'corrupt DNC insider' image or distance herself from Obama's treacherous policies. ALL of the reasons the Trump people are giving for voting for Trump are VALID and we can blame this one on THE DNC. BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON.
    PDXtoNOLA , 10 Nov 2016 14:3
    I find it poetic that the Guardian, which seemed this past year to be competing with the other US majors in the grotesque sidelining and marginalizing of Bernie Sanders, is now On their hands and knees with their contribution drive. I will never give a dime to these hacks. What's funny is that had they stuck to their principles of fearless reporting I have no doubt a huuuge number of readers would have jumped at the opportunity to make a worthwhile contribution. Like the DNC, they had a clear thoroughbred in the stable and they drowned it in the backyard. i have no sympathy for this rag. I have contempt for it.
    Bilge , 10 Nov 2016 14:3
    Trump + brexit means the right have control. OK guys what happens next, what's the plan?
    RationalGuardianMan , 10 Nov 2016 14:2
    Just as after Brexit, this paper is flooded with articles claiming how 'minority' groups, BMEs, LGBTQ...s, and even women, are now being attacked in numbers and how vulnerable they feel.

    I follow the MSM and have seen nothing of substance that backs this up.

    Nor do I feel that Trump is going to mount major campaigns against such groups.

    Interestingly I believe it true that 29% of the 'Hispanic' minority actually voted for Trump.

    Similarly was the figure for white women not c.50% ?

    Many fewer blacks did, but should Trump's economics actually bring back jobs for the 'working class' why would blacks in this group of both (all ?) sexes not benefit also and if that is the case watch how their voting patterns change next time.

    NoSerf , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
    Thankfully there are articles like this.
    Media other than Guardian who don't care to give this thought the time of the day, slip into irrelevance. I mean the MSMs here who all embody Trotzkism.
    Trotzkism dictates that the livelihoods of people ought to be taken away to make them pliable. China bought US-TBs (for US government aggrandizement) upon US shipping jobs over there. Feeding the hungry? With the Fed going into overdrive. Banks together with govt concocted the financial crisis to profit off bear strategies that mortals can't do. In following years, the elite coined high-flying ideals such as globalization, which is good for them because they sit in govt, teach in universities or are detached ueber-owners of businesses. Joe Blow was screamed at when he would ask: How am I gonna pay for stuff that the big wigs have now manufactured overseas, when we now make, or get as welfare, $10 instead of $25 an hour?
    Hard to reverse the destruction, but worth a try.
    Willbeck , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
    I never thought I would be in agreement with Robert Reich but I am today. Every election cycle the Democratic Party spouts happy talk about being the people's party and the worker's party (in contrast to the supposedly blue blooded, monied Republican Party.) While that may once have been a somewhat accurate portrayal, it has long since become a sham of an image.

    Today's Democratic Party is the party of the corporate billionaires, the tech titans, and the globalist elitists who don't want a simplistic notion like that of national borders to get in the way of their profit seeking. Naturally, the entertainment and media stars gravitate toward their corporate masters and shill for the Democrats. Throw in a fixation on divisive identity politics and the Democratic establishment and its less loud and proud Republican counterpart thought that the authentic voice of the American people could forever be drowned out. The success of Bernie Sanders (done in by the rigged Democratic Party rules) and Donald Trump demonstrates that the people will no longer be silenced.

    biologixco , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
    Hey GUARDIAN, where is that 99% chance of Hillary winning???
    I personally know three people that didnt vote because they thought she had a win in the bank.
    Shame on the Guardian.
    Those pollsters along with GUARDIAN should be summarily FIRED.
    And don't let the door hit them in the a$$.
    meggo56 , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
    Thank you for your voice of intelligence & grounded wisdom. As I read elsewhere, the treaties that Mr. Clinton & Obama have backed have unravelled the middle class. And let's not forget Mr. Reagan who reversed high tax rates on the wealthy and broke the back of unions. Neither party represents working people anymore. Certainly Mr. Trump does not. And playing to that disenfranchisement won him the election---but I fear that he has no interest in redeeming the middle class. He was interested in getting elected and telling people anything they want to hear.
    Bilge , 10 Nov 2016 14:0
    The western first world dominance is coming to an end. People in the west like to think they are the top of the food chain but reality is the second world of Asia and the far east is rapidly stepping into their shoes. Capitalism dictates that maximum profits are returned for minimum outlay so if you can make a product for minimal cost i.e. wages, and sell for the maximum price then you have a successful business model. Protectionism has been tried before and Trump's version trying to roll back globalisation will be no more successful. ..same applies to brexit. It'll get even worse as robotics take over more and more, the only solution will be social control mechanisms to ensure that suppliers have consumers to sell their products to. It's going to take a while for this realism to sink in...but it's unavoidable.
    eminijunkie Bilge , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
    Protectionism is working great in China, and it once did wonders for the US.

    Free trade is the pathway to poverty for all but the [already] rich.

    MalleusSacerdotum , 10 Nov 2016 14:0
    Sense at last in a Guardian article.
    But still not enough sense to say clearly what a weak campaigner and what a poor choice of candidate Hillary Clinton was.

    Oh well... maybe the Guardian will use the period between now and January 20 to reflect on how they cheer-led for a candidate who didn't have what it takes to win an election.
    Or maybe not. Maybe they will continue to print and post stories that are tinged with hurt surprise that democracy means one -and only one- vote for every citizen who cares to cast it. How can democracy function if all those white unemployed and immiserated vote against the candidates that the rich have prepared for them?

    LibertineUSA , 10 Nov 2016 13:5
    As is usual Mr. Reich hits the nail squarely on the head.

    The working class had long been the backbone of the Democratic Party electorate. They no longer are because the Democratic Party is no longer the party of the working class. The banks, the upscale suburban liberals, minorities and specific issue oriented groups are the people that matter most to the Democratic Party. The working class support has been taken for granted for far too long by the Dems. I can't remember how many times I have heard said, or seen written, by Democratic insiders "where else do they have to go (for candidates to support)?"

    The working class has to be a part, and an important part, of the left's coalition going forward or risk seeing more shock election results like this. Their lots have not improved in this brand new global economy championed by both parties. And while their numbers aren't as large as when Reagan was elected (and before) there are more than enough of them to be an election decider.

    It also will be helpful to choose candidates who will not to insult them like who, for example, call them all a "basketful of deplorables".

    coolook , 10 Nov 2016 13:5
    the biggest factor in the Trump victory,and in the Brexit mayhem,is quite simply Globalization. it is Globalization that has exported jobs,and skills out of the western world. it is responsible for ghost towns in the industrial and manufacturing heartlands. western governments have had no strategy for regeneration on anything like a great enough scale. unless the consequences of globalization are addressed and reversed, the West faces ever falling living standards and huge unrest.
    simpledino coolook , 10 Nov 2016 19:0
    Yes, what we call "globalization" is quite simply the universalizing of a certain set of relations between capital and labor -- it's clear that if the process is allowed to proceed without proper safeguards, capital will be greatly favored, while labor will be reduced to the lowest possible level. Marx pointed out a long time ago that the tendency of capitalism is to squeeze the greatest amount of "surplus value" out of the workforce while granting them only as much money as necessary for them to scrape by from day to day. Essentially, under capitalism, he wrote, people exist to produce things and are less important than the things they produce. Marx may have been wrong about the viability of "scientific socialism," but he was often spot-on as an analyst of the way capitalism works and who it really benefits.

    Trade is wonderful, but only when it doesn't proceed by reducing us all to wage slaves. Maybe Dems who keep supporting bullshit neoliberal trade deals need to go read some of old Uncle Karl's delightfully sarcastic works. Capital, Vol. 1 would be a fine start: see in particular the chapter, "The Fetishism of the Commodity and the Secret Thereof." It's a masterpiece.

    blackrocket2000 , 10 Nov 2016 13:4
    Can anyone turn back the tide of globalisation and power of the corporations? What is the role of MSM? Are they all part of the problem? Interesting times. Maybe Trump will be force for good. We certainly need stronger leadership from our politicians, on both sides of the pond.
    simpledino stupormundi , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
    Yes, I think of lot of that sort of stuff is misplaced. True, there are some despicable people supporting Trump -- the Klan, neo-Nazi types, and so forth. But most people who voted for him aren't like that. It's probably more the case that they put aside considerable disdain for Trump's wretched behavior and voted for him based on his promise to "unforget" the working class. Personally, I think he's a brazen demagogue who doesn't give any more of a rat's bottom about the poor and the working class than Hitler did in Germany, what with all his "national socialist" promises of "two chickens in every pot." But it isn't hard to understand the appeal of such populist rhetoric when people are suffering and insecure. The American Left needs to rediscover its proper role as a moderator of the harsher side of capitalism -- it has forgotten that role, and the bill for that forgetfulness just came due. I don't blame Hillary personally -- Secretary Reich is right to frame the problem in much broader terms, i.e. as having to do with the Democratic leadership as a whole.
    Aboutface , 10 Nov 2016 13:3
    The business of government has morphed into the government for businesses.
    Take a hint from what President Xi of China is doing, in managing the PRC. A good yardstick of good governance comes from the analects of Confucius.
    Pyrophyte , 10 Nov 2016 13:3
    What an excellent article.

    It's the same almost everywhere.

    For instance, once upon a time in Germany, social democrats represented the working class. Not anymore. People couldn't care less about Germany's wonderful economic growth either, as most of the surplus goes to the top.*

    The "social democrat" Schröder demolished the welfare state and introduced a new low wage sector, much beloved by his corporate buddies. Thanks to his and Angela Merkel's efforts, numbers of working poor and food banks are increasing. So is the wealth gap.* Thanks to an ongoing media hate campaign against the meritocratic losers, most people suffered in silence. And now everyone acts shocked and confused that a right-winged populist party is on the rise.

    Well, thank you Angela Merkel, these are the fruits of your beloved austerity. The next vote in Germany is going to be interesting. And just for the record: austerity was employed by Brüning to boot. And that turned out so well, didn't it?

    http://www.dw.com/en/study-income-inequality-reaches-new-high-in-germany/a-36009472

    trundlesome1 , 10 Nov 2016 13:2
    Capitalism is the best economic system we have but it becomes increasingly self destructive and unstable if it is not managed properly. The moderate left and right would both agree on this normally but the left would prioritise the interests of workers and the right the interests of capitalists. However both, self interestedly, would support policies and institutions that kept the system stable and growing.

    Unfortunately hubris and market fundamentalism has turned the right's head and allowed the rich and greedy to destructively run rampant. This is in no-one's longer term interest as the impoverishment of the middle class and destruction of a prosperous mas market will eventually undermine even most of the wealthy. The economic elite need to be dragged back under control. Theodore Roosevelt broke up the trusts in the 20s and Franklin brought in the New Deal in the Great Depression. It has been done before. It needs to be done again.

    Russ Bestley , 10 Nov 2016 13:2
    Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump's isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn't care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.

    Exactly, and the parallels with the Brexit vote and against an EU corporate bureaucracy set up to benefit the wealthy are stark. You could apply the same phrasing here in the UK:

    Now British voters have rebelled by supporting a campaign that wants to fortify the UK against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Brexit's isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most British workers couldn't care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.

    trundlesome1 , 10 Nov 2016 13:0
    Great article.

    The Democrats have more or less sold out the working class to the rich and powerful. They are, in large part, the rich and powerful as this article points out. If the left wants to counter right wing populists such as Trump it will need to address the growing anger of the white working class towards policies that have put them in a position where they will be a minority in their own country where they have historically been a large majority. It will also have to look after the unemployed, working and middle classes at the expense of Wall Street, big tech and big business generally. Ironically the right needs to do exactly the same thing. And both need to do these things while protecting the well-being of minorities. Will these mainstream politicians be able to escape the orbit of the rich? It is difficult to be optimistic.

    ThomasD , 10 Nov 2016 13:0
    Maybe so, but the only solution offered here is more Unions... if you think that's a solution to the stagnating earnings of the bottom half of the population then I'm afraid you are way off the mark.

    The problem, and it's one that Trump will utterly fail to address and strikes at the heart of our beliefs, is that a modern economy has little use (and places little economic value) on low and unskilled labour. There is not a thing that can't be done cheaper by foreign factories and machines (computers/robots/automation). This is deeply unpalatable and I do not like it, but without a solution to how we ensure fair treatment of people who are, day by day, becoming less economically valuable to the modern economy, this issue will not go away. Trump is a reaction, but he is not the solution but he will set out to blame every minority, foreign government, trade agreement he can because he can't or won't address this issue, and that will be very bad for everyone.

    epidavros ThomasD , 10 Nov 2016 13:2
    Its much worse than that. The modern economy places no real value on labour at all. Over the coming years about 1/3 of all jobs are considered at risk of automation, including doctors, lawyers (already happening), journalists (already happening) etc. The liberal elite in some of these jobs are like lobsters in a slowly heating pot - they are too busy congratulating themselves on how toasty warm their situation is to realise what is going on, and so all too happy to applaud the status quo.
    ThomasD epidavros , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
    Certainly it's a rising tide that threatens to wash away at everyone, though the higher skilled the safer you are likely to be, at least for now.

    I think the challenges are ultimately going to affect everyone, the question is going to be who benefits politically. The left (which is where my political sympathies lie) is currently in a real funk and lacks meaningful answers, the right is reducing it's message to 'blame the others, they take your job, benefit at your expense etc'. No real answers.

    P.S. I think your reference to the 'liberal elite' is misplaced, I'm not sure if the local GP or bloke who writes wills in the local high street really count as an elite, just ordinary people doing relatively well for themselves. The risk in this kind of language is that the tendency is to think they are some kind of other who are to blame for all this, when what's happening is actually far more wide ranging and fundamental.

    epidavros ThomasD , 10 Nov 2016 14:2
    Liberal elite is a slight. Its not misplaced at all. Wikipedia gets it spot on:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_elite

    And the liberal elite are by definition to blame for this because they are the ones whose privilege got them the managerial and leadership positions they hold yet whose ideology and political views have meant they have carried out these roles so badly.

    I agree that neither side has the answers because both sides are in effect faces of the same coin, cut from the same metal, imbued with the same flaws. Corbyn no more has answers than Trump.

    What Trump has done is prove that no politician can go forward ignoring the questions. Hillary firmly expected to.

    Josh Graver , 10 Nov 2016 13:0
    Mirrored exactly with the new labour. Billionaires and celebrities rubbing shoulders with the political elite, little wonder why we became disillusioned with them. For years now, the government neglected the working class. Industries and jobs vanished ever since replaced with ZHC jobs and low pay, keeping the broken system going on the back of a 'trickle-down effect' lie.

    The Democrats had their party, Perry turned up, endorsed by lines of celebrities, we are looking back with perplexed bemused expressions. If we elect her, it would be more of the same. The free market shite started off a few decades ago, heavily entrenched by corporations and billionaires, the scandal of offshore trust funds, we are dumped and forgotten.

    basalte , 10 Nov 2016 13:0
    What struck me as a tourist to San Francisco in 2014 were the sheer numbers of very visible homeless on the streets, begging or just looking beaten . Yet all around them there were mass preparations for the annual Gay Pride celebration. Obviously I am not decrying Gay Pride but the sense of priorities seemed strange and I was forced to think that America is a pretty insane place. It is going the same way here, a lot easier to celebrate identity than to tackle systemic injustice. That used to be Governments` job but they have largely abandoned their historic responsibilities. Time for Labour to bring those fundamental responsibilities back --
    TettyBlaBla basalte , 10 Nov 2016 22:0
    All told, San Francisco spends close to three quarters of a Billion dollars every year on "homeless" of which close to $200 million is a specific department and budget item. As such, many flock to San Francisco, which is also well known for lack of enforcement of many laws. Many of the beggars are already housed at taxpayer expense and prefer to generate additional income outdoors on a schedule of their choice, which is where they also purchase and consume items never sold in stores.
    lotusblue , 10 Nov 2016 12:4
    The working classes have been stripped of their dignity, whole communities have become wastelands and virtual ghettos. The working class don't trust the left to sort things out for them and that is why and how a figure like Trump can come along and say 'I will save you all' and become President. Meanwhile, the socialist left sit around scratching their heads, unable to work out what has happened and squabble about the spirit of socialism and ideology that in all honesty, most working class people don't give a toss about. They just want jobs that pay a decent wage, a nice house to own, nice food on the table, two cars and nice holidays. They want to be middle class in other words.
    marjane52 lotusblue , 10 Nov 2016 12:5
    But democrats are not left. They right wing too. If Americans think that Democrats are left, they don´t know what left is at all. And what socialist goverment has USA had. I see Americans saying tthat Democrats are socialists, really?.Hillary left and socialist?. Trump and Hillary are both right wing, only that Trump is more extreme.
    BlessedCheesemaker , 10 Nov 2016 12:4

    A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo. "The economy is in good shape," he said. "Most Americans are better off than they've been in years."

    The political elite of *both* parties are completely out of touch with the citizenry. The economy has been restructured over the last 20-30 years to completely de-value labor and prioritize the rich and corporations.

    Having said that, I believe people just want to be heard. Voting for Trump was seen as voting against the status quo, and voting for Hillary was voting for the big establishment. Much like Brexit, I don't think voters were thinking through the long-term consequences of their decision.

    petermhogan , 10 Nov 2016 12:3
    Monday morning quarterbacking of the worst kind. That the Democrats have lost the white working class is obvious. But to blame the Democrats, such as Hillary, is misplaced. It is the Dems who have attempted to help the working poor and propose improvements in health care and child care and tax redistribution. It is not a lack of concern that is the issue. What Reich ignores is that voters are voting an ideology and not self-interest. They have bought into the notion that getting rid of immigrants and taking care of the rich will solve all problems.
    The voters had a clear choice and they chose the demagogue peddling a non-solution. They wanted to believe that they are wonderful people and problems can be solved by a wealthy idiot who promises to turn the clock back. In Democracy sometimes it is the voters who get it wrong.
    Justanotherwageslave , 10 Nov 2016 12:3
    The analysis is correct more of less , the issue here is class , the Republicans and Democrats are the two wings of the same party. The party of property and money and the powerful , the vote for Trump is one of those events that happens much like Obama being elected twice after the Republicans stole the two previous elections via the supreme court and election fraud. It can happen but the system remains the same , there is no serious challenge to the supremacy of the ruling class.

    The one analysis you will not hear in the media is a class one and if it is then it will be howled down lest it gain currency and the wage slaves realise they have been conned yet again , Trump is not unusual in his attitudes or views , it's just that the campaign gave them wide publicity.

    In the UK the same kind of thing has happened to Labour , they lost Scotland and the 2010 election and the remain vote because ordinary working people are tired just as they are in the US of seeing the rich get every richer and their own living standards fall and nothing in the future but more pain and misery. They vote UKIP/SNP here as a cry in the wilderness and they voted for Trump for the same reason because they aren't what they've had before , the real problem will come when the right wing populists have been in power for a while and nothing has really improved.

    Minorityreported , 10 Nov 2016 12:1
    For the last thirty years, there has been no left or right wing governments - not economically or fiscally. Third way centrism (liberal progressiveness) embraced the primacy of unfettered market capitalism and corporate globalism, and focused exclusively on using political power as a tool to win the culture war instead. That's fine if you've done materially very well out of unfettered market capitalism and corporate globalism, and all that therefore matters to you is social justice issues. But if you were once in a secure job with a decent income and decent prospects for your children, and all of that has been ripped away from you by unfettered market capitalism and corporate globalism, and the people responsible for preventing that - or at least fixing it when it happens - are more concerned with policing the language you use to express your fears and pain, and demonstrating their compassion by trying to improve the life chances of people on other continents, then social justice issues become a source of burning resentment, not enlightenment. There has been a crushing rejection of globalism and corporate plutocracy by Western electorates. The Western progressive left will only survive if it has the courage to recognise that, and prioritises the fight for economic and fiscal policies that promote the interests and prospects of its own poor and middle class, over and above the cultural issues that have defined it for a quarter of a century. We should always remain vigilant, but the truth is that the culture war is won. It would be tragic beyond words if that victory was reversed by an explosion of resentment caused by the left's determination to guard old battle fields, while ignoring the reality that its thinkers and activists are needed to right new injustices. Trump's success doesn't represent the victory of hate over hope, it just represents the loss of hope. The left has to see that or its finished.
    HHeLiBe , 10 Nov 2016 12:1
    The Guardian had a very interesting article on Bill Clinton's culpability for mass incarceration of drug users, mainly Afro-Americans.

    It is really questionable whether they represent liberalism.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/15/bill-clinton-crime-bill-hillary-black-lives-thomas-frank

    ECullen DrMcNounVerber , 10 Nov 2016 16:4
    It's not quite as simple as that. Some things like clothes are certainly still made by people (in horrific conditions for terrible pay) but more and more factories are automated with a bare skeleton staff running the show. The BBC series 'Inside the Factory' was an eye opener for me. The UK food manufacturing industry for example is heading toward almost full automation - I'd imagine the US industry is even further down the automated road. This is why the UK and US have moved to services and these areas are the vast bulk of unskilled jobs now.
    Quint Red , 10 Nov 2016 12:1

    The Democratic party once represented the working class

    Now it sneers at them as a "basket of deplorables". The same has happened in the UK; only this morning Owen Jones was asking the left to reach out to the working class, and in the very same article labelled them as racist, misogynist homophobes.

    The consequences of this disdain are entirely predictable

    Bootsy_Collins Quint Red , 10 Nov 2016 12:3
    Re: "basket of deplorables" -- if you care about accuracy, she didn't sneer at them as a basket of deplorables; she sneered at *half* of them as a basket of deplorables. In the same paragraph, she described the other half as having legitimate concerns that weren't being addressed.

    As far as her criticisms of half of Trump's voting base -- politically, stupid as hell. But valid? Well, what do carefully-taken public opinion polls from the 15 months before the election tell us? 2/3 of Trump supporters believe Obama is a Muslim who was born in another country. 63% want to amend the Constitution to eliminate citizenship for people born in the U.S. 40% consider African-Americans lazier than white people. A third of Trump supporters believe that the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2 was a good thing. 31% believe in banning homosexuals from entering the United States. A quarter of them believe that Antonin Scalia was murdered in a conspiracy. A quarter believe that vaccines cause autism. 16% believe that whites are a superior race, and another 14% just aren't sure.

    I don't see a very strong case that she was wrong.

    EdmundLange , 10 Nov 2016 12:1
    It's the same problem the UK had with brexit. People feel squeezed, invariably because of neoliberalist policies that benefit the wealthy, and the rising wage and wealth gap drives resentment because of it.

    Suddenly, you get populists who spring up with "solutions" to such problems, but rather than being actual solutions seem to scapegoat totally unrelated factors, such as immigration, free trade, power blocs, specific groups of people who may be out of favour at the moment, rather than the actual correct causes in the first place.

    PSmd Captain_America , 10 Nov 2016 13:0
    Your post actually chimes with what I've been saying. There was a big moment for the left, that came in 2008 in the USA. A mixed race opponent of the Iraq War, sounding plausibly leftish leaning, praised public healthcare, accused relentlessly by the right of being a communist/socialist, of being a muslim, of not born in the USA. And he won. So only 8 years ago, there was a moment where American electorate shifted left, it'd seem. But instead Obama brought back Rubin, Summers, Geithner, same old 1990's wall street cabal. FDR he was not.

    There'll be a moment within a decade for things to move left, who will head 'the left' (Clinton and Blair types?) will tell whether things actually do move in that direction.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Democratic coalition of Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Identity Politics is imploding, because it cant deliver goodies to people outside top ten percent

    Notable quotes:
    "... my equation of Neoliberalism (or Post-Capitalism) = Wall Street + Identity Politics generated by the dematerialization of Capital. CDO's are nothing but words on paper or bytes in the stream; and identity politics has much less to do with the Body than the culture and language. Trumpists were interpellated as White by the Democrats and became ideological. Capital is Language. ..."
    "... "Sanders and Trump inflamed their audiences with searing critiques of Capitalism's unfairness. Then what? Then Trump's response to what he has genuinely seen is, analytically speaking, word salad. Trump is sound and fury and garble. Yet - and this is key - the noise in his message increases the apparent value of what's clear about it. The ways he's right seem more powerful, somehow, in relief against the ways he's blabbing." ..."
    "... But Trump's people don't use suffering as a metric of virtue. They want fairness of a sort, but mainly they seek freedom from shame. Civil rights and feminism aren't just about the law after all, they are about manners, and emotions too: those "interest groups" get right in there and reject what feels like people's spontaneous, ingrained responses. People get shamed, or lose their jobs, for example, when they're just having a little fun making fun. Anti-PC means "I feel unfree. ..."
    "... The Trump Emotion Machine is delivering feeling ok, acting free. Being ok with one's internal noise, and saying it, and demanding that it matter. Internal Noise Matters. " my emp ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bob mcmanus 11.10.16 at 1:45 pm 172

    I thought someone above talked about Trump's rhetoric

    1) Tom Ferguson at Real News Network post at Naked Capitalism says (and said in 2014) that the Democratic coalition of Wall Street (Silicon Valley) + Identity Politics is imploding, because it can't deliver populist goodies without losing part of it's core base.

    Noted no for that, but for my equation of Neoliberalism (or Post-Capitalism) = Wall Street + Identity Politics generated by the dematerialization of Capital. CDO's are nothing but words on paper or bytes in the stream; and identity politics has much less to do with the Body than the culture and language. Trumpists were interpellated as White by the Democrats and became ideological. Capital is Language.

    2) Consider the above an intro to

    Lauren Berlant at the New Inquiry "Trump or Political Emotions" which I think is smart. Just a phrase cloud that stood out for me. All following from Berlant, except parenthetical

    It is a scene where structural antagonisms - genuinely conflicting interests - are described in rhetoric that intensifies fantasy.

    People would like to feel free. They would like the world to have a generous cushion for all their aggression and inclination. They would like there to be a general plane of okayness governing social relations

    ( Safe Space defined as the site where being nasty to those not inside is admired and approved. We all have them, we all want them, we create our communities and identities for this purpose.)

    "Sanders and Trump inflamed their audiences with searing critiques of Capitalism's unfairness. Then what? Then Trump's response to what he has genuinely seen is, analytically speaking, word salad. Trump is sound and fury and garble. Yet - and this is key - the noise in his message increases the apparent value of what's clear about it. The ways he's right seem more powerful, somehow, in relief against the ways he's blabbing."

    (Wonderful, and a comprehension of New Media I rarely see. Cybernetics? Does noise increase the value of signal? The grammatically correct tight argument crowd will not get this. A problem I have with CT's new policy)

    "You watch him calculating, yet not seeming to care about the consequences of what he says, and you listen to his supporters enjoying the feel of his freedom. "

    (If "civil speech" is socially approved signal, then noise = freedom and feeling. Every two year old and teenage guitarist understands)

    "But Trump's people don't use suffering as a metric of virtue. They want fairness of a sort, but mainly they seek freedom from shame. Civil rights and feminism aren't just about the law after all, they are about manners, and emotions too: those "interest groups" get right in there and reject what feels like people's spontaneous, ingrained responses. People get shamed, or lose their jobs, for example, when they're just having a little fun making fun. Anti-PC means "I feel unfree."

    The Trump Emotion Machine is delivering feeling ok, acting free. Being ok with one's internal noise, and saying it, and demanding that it matter. Internal Noise Matters. " my emp

    Noise again. Berlant worth reading, and thinking about.

    [Nov 11, 2016] neoliberalism = identity politics

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    hunkerdown November 10, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    Hoisted from over there:

    What's bought [sic] us to this stage is a policy – whether it's been intentional or unintentional or a mixture of both – of divide and rule, where society is broken down into neat little boxes and were told how to behave towards the contents of each one rather than, say, just behaving well towards all of them.

    And this right here is why neoliberalism = identity politics and why both ought to be crushed ruthlessly.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Chalabi on US elections: another reasonable article from Guardian

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ... this commentary is fairly good:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/third-party-candidate-gary-johnson-jill-stein-clinton-loss

    The headline is "Did third-party candidates Jill Stein and Gary Johnson lose Clinton the election?" and the short answer is no, but Chalabi takes the time to point out the reasoning behind the answer.

    makedoanmend November 10, 2016 at 4:43 pm

    Thanks for the link. Don't get me wrong, there are 1 or 2 writers still worth reading and some articles that actually provide content.

    It's just that, overall, the jist the of paper seems to have established a deliberate policy of contradictory messaging to cloud important issues, or momentarily providing balance to only later use the apparent balance a to push a one-sided agenda.

    The Blairite faction's attack on Corbyn and the guardian's coverage comes to mind. It was pure hack journalism. The political careerists were so obviously in league with the hack journalist careerists.

    Life is just too short.

    best

    Katharine November 10, 2016 at 4:47 pm

    I hear you! You do what you need to do to be sane.

    JustAnObserver November 10, 2016 at 5:14 pm

    Apart from the Science & Tech stuff I've really only been reading the Graun recently (esp since its utterly scandalous treatment of Corbyn (*)) for the Thomas Frank pieces. Is he publishing these anywhere else on-line ?

    (*) They're probably kicking themselves for not labeling them as `deplorables' & letting the Clinton team get to this phrase first.

    pretzelattack November 10, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    i'm looking forward to their climate change articles sans references to how we must vote for clinton.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Hey, Midwestern and Rust Belt Blue-Collar Voters: How's THIS Workin' Out for Ya So Far? by Beverly Mann

    Nov 11, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    President-­elect Donald J. Trump, who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests, is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists.

    Jeffrey Eisenach, a consultant who has worked for years on behalf of Verizon and other telecommunications clients, is the head of the team that is helping to pick staff members at the Federal Communications Commission.

    Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist whose clients include Devon Energy and Encana Oil and Gas, holds the "energy independence" portfolio.

    Michael Torrey, a lobbyist who runs a firm that has earned millions of dollars helping food industry players such as the American Beverage Association and the dairy giant Dean Foods, is helping set up the new team at the Department of Agriculture.

    Trump Campaigned Against Lobbyists, but Now They're on His Transition Team , Eric Lipton, New York Times, today

    What? No steelworker? No auto-plant worker? Not even a family farmer? Might y'all have been had ?

    Who'd a thunk?

    Bernie and Elizabeth to the rescue. Now, please . Now .

    But, hey, white blue collar folks: You get what you vote for. The problem for me is that I get what you vote for. I said roughly 540 times here at AB in the last year: Trump isn't conquering the Republican Party; he's the Republican Party's Trojan Horse. What was that y'all were saying about wanting change so badly? Here it is.

    Welcome to the concept of industry regulatory capture . Perfected to a science, and jaw-droppingly brazen. LOL . Funny, but Bernie talked about this. Some of you listened. Then. Elizabeth Warren has talked about it, a lot. Some of you listened. Back then. But she wasn't running for president. Hillary Clinton was, instead. And she couldn't talk about it because she had needed all those speaking fees , all the way up to about a minute before she announced her candidacy.

    Aaaaand, here come the judges. And of course the justices. Industry regulatory capture of the judicial-branch variety.

    I called this one right, in the title of this post yesterday . I mean, why even wait until the body is buried? No reason at all.

    So he thinks. But what if he's wrong?

    Anyway … can't wait for the political cartoons showing Trump on Ryan's lap, with Ryan's arm showing reaching up under Trump's suit jacket.

    Edgar Ryan and Charlie Trump.

    Oh, and I do want to add this: If one more liberal pundit or feminism writer publishes something claiming that Clinton lost because of all those sexist men out there who couldn't handle the idea of a woman president , or claims she ran a remarkable campaign cuz of all that tenacity and stamina she showed in the face of what was thrown at her from wherever, see, or makes both claims (if not necessarily in the same columns or blog posts or tweeter comments), and I read so much as the title of it, I'm gonna … something .

    It's effing asinine . Everyone's entitled to their little personal delusions, but why the obsessiveness about this patent silliness? What is exactly is the emotional hold that Hillary Clinton holds on these people? It's climate-change-denial-like.

    Elizabeth Warren would have beaten Donald Trump in a landslide. So would have Bernie Sanders. And brought in a Democratic-controlled Senate and House. Because both would have run a remarkably campaign, under normal standards, not a special low bar.

    That's the efffing truth .

    UPDATE: From a new blog post by Paul Waldman titled " If you voted for Trump because he's 'anti-establishment,' guess what: You got conned ":

    An organizational chart of Trump's transition team shows it to be crawling with corporate lobbyists, representing such clients as Altria, Visa, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Verizon, HSBC, Pfizer, Dow Chemical, and Duke Energy. And K Street is positively salivating over all the new opportunities they'll have to deliver goodies to their clients in the Trump era. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing?

    The answer is, anyone who was paying attention. Look at the people Trump is considering for his cabinet, and you won't find any outside-the-box thinkers burning to work for the little guy. It's a collection of Republican politicians and corporate plutocrats - not much different from who you'd find in any Republican administration.

    And from reader EMichael in the Comments thread to this post about 35 minutes ago:

    OH, it will be worse than that, much worse.

    Bank regulation will go back to the "glory days" of the housing bubble, and Warren's CFPB will be toast.

    Buddy of mine works HR for a large bank. He has been flooded with resumes from current employees of the CFPB the last couple of days.

    Yup. HSBC ain't in that list for nothing. But, not to worry. Trump's kids will pick up lots of real estate on the (real) cheap, after the crash. Their dad will give them all the tips, from experience.

    And the breaking news this afternoon is that Pence–uh-ha; this Mike Pence –has replaced Christie as transition team head. Wanna bet that Comey told Trump today that Christie is likely to be indicted in Bridgegate?

    Next up, although down the road a few months: rumors that a grand jury has been convened to try to learn how, exactly, Giuliani got all that info from inside the FBI two weeks ago. Once the FBI inspector general completes his investigation. Or once New York's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, begins looking into violations of NY state criminal law.

    How downright sick. And how pathetic.

    [Nov 11, 2016] It was the Democrats embrace of neoliberalism that won it for Trump by Naomi Klein

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    People have lost their sense of security, status and even identity. This result is the scream of an America desperate for radical change

    They will blame James Comey and the FBI. They will blame voter suppression and racism. They will blame Bernie or bust and misogyny. They will blame third parties and independent candidates. They will blame the corporate media for giving him the platform, social media for being a bullhorn, and WikiLeaks for airing the laundry.

    But this leaves out the force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we now find ourselves wide awake: neoliberalism. That worldview – fully embodied by Hillary Clinton and her machine – is no match for Trump-style extremism. The decision to run one against the other is what sealed our fate. If we learn nothing else, can we please learn from that mistake?

    Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present.

    At the same time, they have witnessed the rise of the Davos class, a hyper-connected network of banking and tech billionaires, elected leaders who are awfully cosy with those interests, and Hollywood celebrities who make the whole thing seem unbearably glamorous. Success is a party to which they were not invited, and they know in their hearts that this rising wealth and power is somehow directly connected to their growing debts and powerlessness.

    For the people who saw security and status as their birthright – and that means white men most of all – these losses are unbearable.

    Donald Trump speaks directly to that pain. The Brexit campaign spoke to that pain. So do all of the rising far-right parties in Europe. They answer it with nostalgic nationalism and anger at remote economic bureaucracies – whether Washington, the North American free trade agreement the World Trade Organisation or the EU. And of course, they answer it by bashing immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading women. Elite neoliberalism has nothing to offer that pain, because neoliberalism unleashed the Davos class. People such as Hillary and Bill Clinton are the toast of the Davos party. In truth, they threw the party.

    Trump's message was: "All is hell." Clinton answered: "All is well." But it's not well – far from it.

    Neo-fascist responses to rampant insecurity and inequality are not going to go away. But what we know from the 1930s is that what it takes to do battle with fascism is a real left. A good chunk of Trump's support could be peeled away if there were a genuine redistributive agenda on the table. An agenda to take on the billionaire class with more than rhetoric, and use the money for a green new deal. Such a plan could create a tidal wave of well-paying unionised jobs, bring badly needed resources and opportunities to communities of colour, and insist that polluters should pay for workers to be retrained and fully included in this future.

    It could fashion policies that fight institutionalised racism, economic inequality and climate change at the same time. It could take on bad trade deals and police violence, and honour indigenous people as the original protectors of the land, water and air.

    People have a right to be angry, and a powerful, intersectional left agenda can direct that anger where it belongs, while fighting for holistic solutions that will bring a frayed society together.

    Such a coalition is possible. In Canada, we have begun to cobble it together under the banner of a people's agenda called The Leap Manifesto, endorsed by more than 220 organisations from Greenpeace Canada to Black Lives Matter Toronto, and some of our largest trade unions.

    Bernie Sanders' amazing campaign went a long way towards building this sort of coalition, and demonstrated that the appetite for democratic socialism is out there. But early on, there was a failure in the campaign to connect with older black and Latino voters who are the demographic most abused by our current economic model. That failure prevented the campaign from reaching its full potential. Those mistakes can be corrected and a bold, transformative coalition is there to be built on.

    That is the task ahead. The Democratic party needs to be either decisively wrested from pro-corporate neoliberals, or it needs to be abandoned. From Elizabeth Warren to Nina Turner, to the Occupy alumni who took the Bernie campaign supernova, there is a stronger field of coalition-inspiring progressive leaders out there than at any point in my lifetime. We are "leaderful", as many in the Movement for Black Lives say.

    So let's get out of shock as fast as we can and build the kind of radical movement that has a genuine answer to the hate and fear represented by the Trumps of this world. Let's set aside whatever is keeping us apart and start right now.

    xpxpxp , 11 Nov 2016 14:5>

    Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously.

    You forgot to mention identity politics. Neoliberalism and identity politics go hand in hand. I don't think it's a surprise that after the 50's and the Second Red Scare, HUAC, McCarthyism and the John Birch Society the socialist, communist and other left-wingers were gone from the US and identity politics became ascendant.

    We don't see SJW being dragged in front of Congress and them losing their jobs, nor do we see the National Guard coming in to break up Slut Walks. Instead, we see them in the highest positions of power and with governments and corporations embracing their ideas. The reason is simple; identity politics and SJWs are no threat to people in power.

    Keep people divided into ever smaller identities and they can't fight back. Keep demonizing people for objecting, calling them sexist and racist for speaking up, and you muzzle the opposition. If someone wants to take on neoliberalism then they need to abandon identity politics.


    ngonyama , 11 Nov 2016 12:5>
    Glass-Steagal was repealed, Wall St. stole itself rich, people wanted change (Yes we can!). But not a single bankster megathief was even investigated and in the rust belt and elsewhere millions suffered. They were told that they needed to shut up because they were evil privileged white males who needed to be HRC's blue wall because she owned them. Refusal to comply meant they were racist misogynists.

    So now they are racist misogynists and proud of it.

    And why all this? Because Hillary's ego is so large that it bumps into the edges of the universe. She calls that her class ceiling.

    Thanks Hillary. You brought us Trump. You and that bunch of privileged DNC-ers that are in bed with Wall Street.

    Mark Linley , 11 Nov 2016 12:3>
    The left's reflections are getting closer, but we're still not quite there it seems.

    ... ... ...

    The visible, real-life consequences of globalisation and modern capitalism are those targets picked out (hardly by coincidence) by Trump and Farage. The most obvious sign of globalisation is not a billionaire's yacht, but that when you call to sort out being overcharged or crappy service, you finally get through to an outsourced offshored call centre. And when the right attacks them and the left inevitably and correctly defends them - that immigrants do contribute to the economy, but are still disadvantaged economically, that women are paid less for the same work, that muslims face discrimination every day - we're infact subliminally reinforcing Trump/Farage's blunter message: that the left's priority constituents are immigrants, people of colour, muslims and women.

    And then we criticise a 50 year old white unemployed or zero-hour-contract man for being "selfish" and "stupid" when he votes for the only candidate who *appears* to put him first, when we seem to ask him to put everyone else first.

    The left is losing the argument because our answers to modern problems are removed from everyday experience. Correct, but complex. Trump and Farage understand KISS. If we think the solution is to just keep saying the same thing louder, like an English tourist abroad, we'll carry on losing.

    Quistal , 11 Nov 2016 11:5>
    "It was the Democrats' embrace of neoliberalism that won it for Trump"

    Yes indeed, I have seen this coming since the mid nineties, when the -fairly high tech- Company, where I worked for at the time, became a victim of globalization, 120 people got fired, a.o. me.

    Gladly I was able to still find a job at 50, a hell of a lot of others did not.

    Besides, I have been active in International business since the early 1960's until recently, so I know what I am talking about.

    We are spoiling 200 years of social economic improvement to the short term interests of capital at supersonic speed. (modern communication and transport, the free movement of capital)

    Both the republicans and the democrats made that happen (as their followers did in Europe)

    The Globalizing, Outsourcing, Monetary, Laissez-Faire, Supply side economy.

    That is the one thing that I was in agreement with, with Trump, for the rest, by the way he is talking now, it looks very much as if we will be having to deal with a liar. (and a cheat?)

    After all he did say a lot of different things while selling himself in the campaign from the image that he seems to depict now..

    The worst things are in my opinion his wish to destroy the livelyhood of lots of people world wide by not accepting the human influences on the climate, this besides lots of others things is in my opinion extremely selfish, especially seen the fact that a green economy can be -at least- as profitable (in work and money) as the fossil one was.

    And of course the repeal of Obamacare, one of the few successes that Obama could materialize in his mainly obstructed time in office.

    wariquari MarkAWilliams , 11 Nov 2016 10:5>

    What is 'Neoliberalism'
    Neoliberalism is a policy model of social studies and economics that transfers control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sector. It takes from the basic principles of neoclassical economics, suggesting that governments must limit subsidies, make reforms to tax law in order to expand the tax base, reduce deficit spending, limit protectionism, and open markets up to trade. It also seeks to abolish fixed exchange rates, back deregulation, permit private property, and privatize businesses run by the state.

    Liberalism, in economics, refers to a freeing of the economy by eliminating regulations and barriers that restrict what actors can do. Neoliberal policies aim for a laissez-faire approach to economic development.

    Investopedia

    Also: Steve Keen

    "It's a belief that the human social system works best if there's almost no government, and almost everything is done through markets... and also it says there should be no trade unions, no tariffs, remove all the controls and the economy will work better.

    Now that's only true of a system if it is inherently stabilizing, it's like saying 'this ship will go a lot faster if you take off all the stuff that's there to stabilize it.' Yeah it will but it'll go upside down at some point and sink."

    Jim987 , 11 Nov 2016 08:4>
    From the British perspective this is true here as well. After a number of high powered meetings over a fifteen year period, the Labour Party embraced NeoLiberalism and paid when it failed. Those meetings where pretty big and millions turned up. Those meetings took place in 19779, 983, 1987 and the final one was in 1992. The general public announced that no one would elect anyone who did not support wholesale privatisation, free markets at every turn with a special emphasis on labour market laws. Any devience, under any circumstances from Tory ideology was punished at the ballot box. Labour was forced to drop clause four as a sop to get elected.

    And when this neo liberal wet dream started to crumble in the form of crippling PFI schemes, light touch banking, zero hour agency work and possibly bigger than the light touch banking collapse, the free movement of Labour for the biggest companies in the UK. Who did the public blame for these Tory driven Liberalism? The Tories? Themselves for forcing the Labour Party to adopt these flawed policies? The Newspapers who condemned anything other than free market ideology? Nope, the blamed the very people who had been campaigning against Tory policies all along. The people who got blamed for the banking collapse was not the people who DEMANDEDbanks be deregulated, not the Party who carried out the deregulation, but the poor saps in power when it blew up.

    Who gets blamed for the importing of labour? The political ideology that people had supported for thirty years? Nope, again the Party that bent over backwards to accommodate the Tesco, ASDA and sports direct et al.

    And guess what? After punishing anything to the Left of Reagan or questioning free trade at the ballot box, and dismissing it as 'Socailism' it turns out they voted for a protectionist who is opposed to free trade and multi Nationals. The Party who are opposed to free trade, multinationals and 'What is good for GM is good for America'? The protector of jobs and regulated labour markets? Why the GOP of course. The Party whose DNA has all this time been at the heart of protecting jobs who shun free trade agreements and are at the very heart of the socialist movement are the Republican movement. And nobody even said anything. We all just moved into a parallel universe where the Republican movement have been campaigning against free trade for two hundred years.

    Jeff Miller , 11 Nov 2016 08:0>
    "The indisputable fact is that prevailing institutions of authority in the West, for decades, have relentlessly and with complete indifference stomped on the economic welfare and social security of hundreds of millions of people. While elite circles gorged themselves on globalism, free trade, Wall Street casino gambling, and endless wars (wars that enriched the perpetrators and sent the poorest and most marginalized to bear all their burdens), they completely ignored the victims of their gluttony, except when those victims piped up a bit too much - when they caused a ruckus - and were then scornfully condemned as troglodytes who were the deserved losers in the glorious, global game of meritocracy."

    - Glenn Greenwald

    Lily Ng , 11 Nov 2016 07:1>
    "Neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade..." Are you sure those are neoliberal policies? They sound exactly like conservative Republican mainstays to me. Didn't Trump run on these very things?
    phil100a Lily Ng , 11 Nov 2016 07:4>
    Exactly, they are virtually the same, with the difference being that the GOP adds "nostalgic nationalism and anger at remote economic bureaucracies – whether Washington, the North American free trade agreement the World Trade Organisation or the EU. And of course, they answer it by bashing immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading women".

    In difficult times, people want relief as fast as possible and they want to blame *anyone* for their plight. This is what a demagogue offers; it's why Trump is in the White House. Prepare yourselves, and never give in to Trump's cynicism.

    epidavros Lily Ng , 11 Nov 2016 07:5>
    They sound like EU policy to me. And that is because they are EU policy, all backed by EU directives.
    reidlou , 11 Nov 2016 07:0>
    Warren sold Sanders out. Sanders sold his supporters out for Debbie Wasserman Shultz, who incidentally was reelected. Hillary was forced on the ticket by the oligarchy. Change will not come from Trudeau, or Obama, or Trump, or Sanders or Warren. These people have betrayed what they said. Where do we go from here? Which is the way that's clear? Dunno, but all of the above have shown to be frauds. Whose next?
    bernique , 11 Nov 2016 06:2>
    In this election, Donald Trump was the lesser evil, so I am glad that he won. There won't be nu clear war on Iran or wherever, and better relations with Russia, China, and hopefully, the rest of the world.

    As for domestic politics, we'll take care of those issues ourselves, forcefully protesting against, if necessary. It'll be few and far between, I project.

    bernique , 11 Nov 2016 06:2>
    In this election, Donald Trump was the lesser evil, so I am glad that he won. There won't be nu clear war on Iran or wherever, and better relations with Russia, China, and hopefully, the rest of the world.

    As for domestic politics, we'll take care of those issues ourselves, forcefully protesting against, if necessary. It'll be few and far between, I project.

    AnneGlenEden , 11 Nov 2016 05:1>
    "...a green new deal. Such a plan could create a tidal wave of well-paying unionised jobs, bring badly needed resources and opportunities to communities ... and insist that polluters should pay for workers to be retrained and fully included in this future."

    That is, at least, the only positive suggestion that's been made. I think it's a good one the needs to be developed. I'm far from an economist but perhaps we need also to start thinking about blended economic systems rather than just one type as well.

    What I don't agree with is the continuation of identity politics. It's suffering badly from overuse and also from its juxtaposition with the application of economic pain to those who are also consistently abused with every vile epithet known to man. In brief, people have been operant conditioned to either worship at its feet or loathe it with most or all of their being. It's past its use-by date and needs to grow into the real expression of its stated aims.

    As an example, Merkel is quoted as saying, ""Germany and America are connected by values of democracy, freedom, and respect for the law and the dignity of man, independent of origin, skin colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or political views."

    The words are just positive framing. We all know now that 'democracy' (defined by the UN as extreme terrorism to be fought and eliminated when iit involves public voting) refers to voting by an elite group. For the rest of it, Junckers right hand man was quoted this week as saying it's to be achieved by 'elimination of all national, cultural, ethnic, and faith identity'.

    There is a unbridgable gulf between those two concepts, and the first one is simply dishonest. But journalists never explain that.

    The way forward is to treat all people with dignity and respect, as long as they're not harassing or killing each other, and stop trying to brainwash them. If someone is a racist and content to keep that to themselves, leave them alone. Likewise with all the other -isms and -obias. The law and institutions need to treat people equally indeed. No negative and no positive discrimination. 'Indigenous peoples' could have a special role- but not to dispossess, sponge off, or lord it over others. Religious holidays need to be observed for all religions, not for none. I can hear the business howls now but the reality is we need to be decreasing industrial pollution and having less 'stuff', not increasing it.

    I wanted Trump to win but if I saw someone(including him) harassing someone else racially, homophobically, or any other -ism or -obia, I would defend the victim to the death as long as they were in my presence. That includes male victims of domestic violence. Everything has its day and identity politics is in that category.

    We need a new way and it needs to honour the reality described in the fraudelent rhetoric of the recent past globalist, multiculturalsit, and liberalist concepts. We need a completely new economic system or blend of the old which serves the needs of all the people, al the time. And we need democratic systems which empower constant feedback from those people on how far its succeeding.

    AhBrightWings , 11 Nov 2016 02:4>

    Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present.

    Agree 100% with this, but am at an utter loss to grasp why this is chalked up to the hip new lingo of "neoliberalism." Bullshit. It's as pure a distillation of conservatism as has ever been penned.

    This obsession with renaming things for the sake of confusion serves no one well. This is prime Trickle Down and the Conservative Manifesto through and through.

    Woodenarrow123 AhBrightWings , 11 Nov 2016 03:1>
    I am afraid the author is correct in describing the problem as Neo Liberalism - It is not Conservatism or Capitalism.

    This is Neo Liberalism - You are the CEO of a plant employs 5,000 people that makes widgets. You don't know how to make a better widget but you want to increase profits so you decide to close down your plant and outsource 4,000 of the jobs to a low wage economy where workers don't have the same rights (remember China doesn't have democracy or freedom of speech).

    Now your making widgets cheaper but you still aren't making enough money so you offshore the tax liability to a tax haven - There goes schools, roads, hospitals.

    Now your making so much more money for the company what do you do? You give yourself a pay rise. Not any old pay rise. You pay yourself five or ten times as much.

    And then you buy shares because the share price goes way up.

    And then you donate to politicians and they tell the great unwashed (that's you and me) this wheeze is FREE TRADE, or conservatism or capitalism or trickle down.

    It isn't its Neo Liberalism and both left and right in most of Europe and the USA has embraced it to the detriment of its citizens.

    HolyInsurgent , 11 Nov 2016 02:4>

    Naomi Klein: The Democratic party needs to be either decisively wrested from pro-corporate neoliberals, or it needs to be abandoned.

    It starts by having the DNC follow its own rules. The superdelegates were dutifully counted as Hillary supporters from Day One of the primaries. Something like 507 to begin with! When Sanders won successive states, more and more superdelegates mysteriously appeared supporting Hillary. People understand what a rigged game means. This was Thumb-On-The-Scale tactics and people saw through it. The Party chose Hillary and that was that. That's not democracy. The Democratic Party needs a complete transformation from root to branch.

    But yes, the bigger picture must be a focus on institutional reform. Not just for America but everywhere.

    Excellent article.

    aulusmagnus , 10 Nov 2016 23:3>
    I agree with Klein's take on neoliberalism, its Panglossian economic model, as a cause of much angst in the world, but the remedy is simple in the US -- regulation. Break up the big banks, end monopolies based on third-party payments, licensing and credentialing (health care, the universities, etc.), and levy higher taxes on the wealthy. I truly believe that race relations among Americans have never been better, and that most "problems" have largely been manufactured. What America is crying out for is good, pragmatic government.
    Debra Smith , 10 Nov 2016 22:5>
    Naomi is spot on. She is speaking a truth that too many have no wish to hear because it tampers with their idealize status quo. They have theirs and to hell with everyone else. That time has past and the groaning of the privileged- people who do not CARE (which does not include many people with means- that is stupid to relegate the carers to hell with the criminals) is so LOUD right now. They are spinning bank reports and market doom and gloom.

    It has been said that HALF of the USA is a 'basket of deplorables' - WOW that is reductionist logic and it explains nothing.

    I am not American and yet, what I know is that PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE- human beings- so please- what a bullshit argument- that you have tried all too often with Brexit (its not working for you so who is the insane one? Wasn't it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result?

    RESEARCH says that people are usually very informed about the issues of their own lives. All they have left is their lives and the lives of their children. A LITTLE respect would be nice.

    Many creatures can only see things that are moving. Maybe some people are like that once they trust. WE ALL trusted government, police, agencies because we wanted to believe in a common good. That trust was ABUSED. The last grasping woke people up. They saw that grab very clearly.
    And this one:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWNqMV4Bgs (I was married to a cop at that time and the interviewee is one of the most staid journalists in Canada with a program on public television.
    Someone has to OWN those facts before casting aspersions on mankind. The voters are not stupid ESPECIALLY when it comes to SURVIVAL and it is brink time.

    You expect them to DIE QUIETLY? Dream on in your precious nightmare.

    colddebtmountain , 10 Nov 2016 22:0>

    People have a right to be angry

    And people have been saying that for decades but no one has been listening, least of all the trendy neoliberals who thought they had found the final economic solution.

    You cannot strip away a person's identity, life and loves, without them losing their dignity -totally. You must prepare and assist every one of them for change over realistic time scales dealing with every consequence as it happened. None of that was done because all of what has happened is the product of opportunism - cash today think about it tomorrow.

    These trendy neoliberals have cheated us all, not once, not twice, but all the time, and they show no guild, no guilt at all. They will continue to pay the price until they listen to us and change.

    Debra Smith , 10 Nov 2016 22:5>
    Naomi is spot on. She is speaking a truth that too many have no wish to hear because it tampers with their idealize status quo. They have theirs and to hell with everyone else. That time has past and the groaning of the privileged- people who do not CARE (which does not include many people with means- that is stupid to relegate the carers to hell with the criminals) is so LOUD right now. They are spinning bank reports and market doom and gloom.

    It has been said that HALF of the USA is a 'basket of deplorables' - WOW that is reductionist logic and it explains nothing.

    I am not American and yet, what I know is that PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE- human beings- so please- what a bullshit argument- that you have tried all too often with Brexit (its not working for you so who is the insane one? Wasn't it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result?

    RESEARCH says that people are usually very informed about the issues of their own lives. All they have left is their lives and the lives of their children. A LITTLE respect would be nice.

    Many creatures can only see things that are moving. Maybe some people are like that once they trust. WE ALL trusted government, police, agencies because we wanted to believe in a common good. That trust was ABUSED. The last grasping woke people up. They saw that grab very clearly.
    And this one:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWNqMV4Bgs (I was married to a cop at that time and the interviewee is one of the most staid journalists in Canada with a program on public television.
    Someone has to OWN those facts before casting aspersions on mankind. The voters are not stupid ESPECIALLY when it comes to SURVIVAL and it is brink time.

    You expect them to DIE QUIETLY? Dream on in your precious nightmare.

    Azul66 , 10 Nov 2016 21:0>
    Perfect. Thank you, Naomi, for the best column on the 2016 election. Democrats are proving to be sore losers but they can come around if they all or most read your take on the outcome of our presidential election. Neoliberal has been our downfall but still most Americans are not aware of even the word. Times to get explanation of the ideology and the negative effect on the world. It has been so cruel and so horrible since Jimmy Carter who started this whole thing but the Clintons were the cruelest of all. I am so glad Hillary did not win. I could not vote for Trump so voted for Jill Stein.
    ViewFromTheUSA , 10 Nov 2016 19:5>
    It was also their (and the left in general's) embrace of identity politics. Welcoming the whiny 'social justice warrior' attitude that puts everyone into little groups and puts those groups into little lanes, and no one can ever leave their group or lane. Calling people racist or bigoted, not for actual racism or bigotry, but for merely expressing a different opinion. White privilege- trying to shut down the opinions of white people. Cultural appropriation- witch-hunting people for wearing a certain hairstyle or costume. Safe spaces- creating echo chambers and segregating people from even hearing opposing opinions or ideas. Microagressions- claiming offense over perceived slights and insults in harmless remarks. not to mention trying to police, ban, and control speech.

    I'm a liberal, I lean left, my ideals and values and principles and what I stand for are more in line with left-wing ideology, but if they want to be taken seriously and have a chance at winning again, the left needs to let identity politics die.

    RobMorganAU Hubert Hammack , 10 Nov 2016 20:5>
    Yeah, you need to slow down a bit there, Hubert.

    Neoliberalism.

    An ideology that believes that if you give rich people absolutely unfettered ability to make even more money, they'll magically look after everyone else.

    American_Sniper , 10 Nov 2016 19:4>
    Davosland where Bill Clinton gets to hang out with Rupert Murdoch.
    Dominique2 , 10 Nov 2016 19:3>
    Not only the Democrats.

    The center left's shameful, braindead acceptance of Thatcher-Reaga, Dumbonomics has been a worldwide plague.

    The EU, supposedly a bulwark of common sense, is still officially austerian and neoliberal, even though some hard thinking is going on.

    Anger-fuelled adoption of far right policies and economics is a further lurch in the same direction: deregulation, unchecked corporate power, quashing of workers' rights.

    A bad time for the disenfranchised all over the world, now being used as electoral cannon fodder by their owners.

    AnnHodson , 10 Nov 2016 19:1>
    As an English woman who lived in America for some years, it was perfectly clear to me that voters there have a choice between cuddly-right and hard-right.

    There is no "left" in America, and there is none in the UK either in any meaningful, workable sense. All we have is the soft-right and an unreconstructed 70s Trot. Brilliant.

    Nice as it might seem, " The Leap Manifesto, endorsed by more than 220 organisations from Greenpeace Canada to Black Lives Matter Toronto, and some of our largest trade unions" sounds like yet another loose coalition of pressure groups with no cohesive platform or plan. Same old, same old.

    ilwudumass , 10 Nov 2016 18:4>
    Absolutely spot on. I remember, as a rare liberal working at a GOP-run Enron, how disheartened I was watching Bill Clinton pander to the GOP elites and shove NAFTA through a GOP-run Congress while the majority of Democrats voted against it. He also sought, for political expediency, many neoliberal solutions that doomed the working class to subsistence. The GOP crowed that Reagan won the Cold War when actually it was the shift of wealth from the West to the 3rd world as a bribe that ultimately brought us to the globalized mess we find ourselves in. This was during Clinton's presidency. Unfortunately Obama did a u-turn and continued GW's disastrous tenure in what really matters: wars, globalization, abandonment of the working class. Why didn't the Democratic elite not remind voters that the GOP was behind globalization and the shift of wealth from the middle class to overseas?
    JohnBinxBolling , 10 Nov 2016 18:3>
    A Message from the Rust Belt: It's the NAFTA, Stupid

    The road to President Trump began with the enactment of NAFTA, a heinous betrayal by the Democratic Party of its blue collar base and of it's most basic principles, taking it from the party of the New Deal to the party of the Brave New Global World Order Deal, screwing it's most loyal constituents in favor of Wall Street.

    The next step on the road to the Trump House was the Clinton's reckless deregulation, culminating in the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, yet again in the name of a bigger, more profitable, more powerful Wall Street at the peril of Main Street.

    But perhaps the most decisive factor in sending blue collar rust belt America into the arms of an orange-haired demon is what happened when they put their faith, heart and souls into electing Barack Obama, a man who ran as a progressive, promising hope and change, but who then immediately governed as a neo-lib.

    I know what some of you are saying right now, that given the fierce opposition he was up against, he accomplished what he could; but that's a bunch of bull, as we say in the Midwest.

    No one forced him to appoint, immediately upon taking office, Wall Street insiders to his cabinet and make Larry Summers (the architect of deregulation, neo-lib style) his chief economic adviser.

    No one forced him to appoint corporate toady, Common Core loving, privatization loving (through charter schools) Arne "teach to the test" Duncan to Secretary of Education.

    No one forced him to immediately abandon, in the fight for Obamacare, the public option.

    No one forced him to ultimately come up with a health care plan, that at its base, is of by and big Pharma and the insurance industry, one that lowers costs not by controlling them but by rationing care (that's what those huge deductibles and co-pays are for and they're working--working Americans, even while insured, don't dare visit the doctor, except when at death's door, for fear the doctor will order tests they can't afford to pay.)

    Most now use their insurance as catastrophic policies to be used only in emergencies. This is why Obamacare is so hated in America--not because it's socialist, but because it isn't. (Remember, they voted for hope and change)

    No Republican cabal forced Obama to embrace TPP, NAFTA on steroids and so univerally hated here in the heartland.

    Ah, but you say, Hillary has come out against it. But only after praising it and only in cagey language, about not approving it in its present form (and she has yet to comment on the viscerally hated NAFTA forever linked to the Clintons and the Democrats).

    Much is made (and rightly so) of Trump's threats to constitutionality and the rule of law. Yet Democrats seem blissfully unaware of their own full-frontal assaults on the Constitution.

    For elected officials who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, supporting NAFTA and TPP, which sign over US sovereignty to unelected, unaccountable (corporate controlled) international tribunals, giving them the power to, in essence, overturn any US, state or federal, is nothing less than an act of treason. You might as well just take the Constitution, rip it to shreds, and throw it up in the air like confetti.

    (It's so easy to see Trump's threats to the Constitution, so difficult for Democratic elites to see their own obliteration of it.)

    Why is the hatred of NAFTA, of TPP (and of the Clintons) so visceral in rust-belt America?

    I know people who watched the plants they worked in dismantled piece by piece and shipped off to Mexico. I've spoken to people who've had the humiliating experience of going to Mexico to train their replacements. I've talked to union members who've reported that employers, at the bargaining table, have demanded huge cuts in pay and benefits, saying that unless they concede, they're moving to Mexico.

    It's personal.

    It's not like blue collar, rust-belt America hasn't given the Democrats chance after chance. They've been voting Democratic since 1992.

    They gave Obama two chances, believing his promises of hope and change, only to witness his championing of TPP.

    Time and again, the Clintonian Democrats have deceived and betrayed their blue collar, rust-belt base. Time and again rust-belt blue collar America has supported them, nonetheless, hoping, like Charlie Brown, that this time they wouldn't have the football pulled away.

    But the accumulating decay, the devastation of the great recession (and the feeble, corporate oriented Democratic response) have left them with no hope left. The vote for Donald is a howl of rage and desperation. He was the only way left for them to vent their rage (after the Democratic elites dispensed with Bernie Sanders).

    The next four years are going to be hell. But for heartland rust-belt America, the last thirty-five years have been hell (and they have nothing left to lose).

    Welcome to their world.

    Tzctguar JohnBinxBolling , 10 Nov 2016 21:5>
    Some USians , trumpeters mostly, are very funny.

    On the one hand you don't want immigrants in your mist because they undercut local workers.

    And in the other hand you don't want those same people to get good jobs in their own country, because they undercut your own workers.

    You think you have a God given right to jobs for which you aren't productive enough.

    In other words you don't want to compete.

    You want to sell us your stuff allright ( NAFTA slaughtered the Mexican farming sector, specially subsistence farming) but you would rather don't buy Mexican stuff, unless it is raw materials so you can add value and sell it back to us.

    NAFTA has made countless articles cheaper to all of you, and has slowed down illegal immigration which has been in the decline for a while.

    But you want it all, no matter how unrealistic.

    Having you cake and eat it. While riding an unicorn please.

    Emma Rosenthal , 10 Nov 2016 18:1>
    Why Klein doesn't mention Jews in her list of targets of this right wing hate and reaction is surprising. In defining the reason neo-liberalism failed so many people, she states "At the same time, they have witnessed the rise of the Davos class, a hyper-connected network of banking and tech billionaires, elected leaders who are awfully cosy with those interests, and Hollywood celebrities who make the whole thing seem unbearably glamorous. Success is a party to which they were not invited, and they know in their hearts that this rising wealth and power is somehow directly connected to their growing debts and powerlessness." And this paragraph directly applies to how the Trumpettes, the KKK, who endorsed him, the Alt-right who he played a major role of normalizing, sees JEWS. Central to the ideology of the extreme right is their hatred of Jews. How Klein missed that is really baffling.
    ID4352889 rubagreta , 10 Nov 2016 18:2>
    Naive comment. The "lefts" criticism of Israel is largely unrelated to the growing right's hostility to Jews. It's the latter you need to be concerned about.
    rubagreta ID4352889 , 10 Nov 2016 18:3>
    What right's hostility in the US? Where are they. There isn't a single Republican member of Congress who is hostile to Israel. David Duke ran for senate in Lousiana and got 3% of the vote.
    WTIngle , 10 Nov 2016 18:0>
    Naomi: "But this leaves out the force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we now find ourselves wide awake: neoliberalism."

    Is this completely correct, leaving out as it does something that has grown since at least the last days of WWII and throughout the Cold War, something that some call the "Deep State?"

    Here's one view of it, written by a former Republican congressional staffer but in an essay found on the Bill Moyers and Company's website (Bill Moyers is definitely neither a Republican nor a conservative):

    http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/ .

    "Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day."

    Lofgren's description is not exhaustive, not really focusing on the darkest heart within the "military industrial complex" that is intimately associated with the deep state, namely the covert, classified areas of the intelligence and security components. (I find the fact that the present president recently renewed the illegal and unconstitutional 9/11 State of Emergency Act for the eighth year in a row, just as his predecessor did every year he was in office after the Act was first signed in September, 2001, telling.)

    Still, it's good starting point.

    It looks to me that this huge beast is more about empire than Neoliberalism (or even NeoConservatism -- it encompasses both; it's not necessarily "left" or "right" as most use the terms, not truly Democrat or Republican).

    bananakingdom , 10 Nov 2016 16:3>
    Hillary has promised to be a president for everyone…that is, everyone who contributes to 'The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation'.
    According to the Foundation's website, it is a 'non-profit 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.'
    The easiest way to make an organisation non-profit is to pay out all earnings - seven-figure director fees, first class travel, Fifth Avenue offices…oh how you can spend your way to a luxurious non-profit outcome! And whatever is left over after your personal indulgences have been satisfied, you can spend on a few pet projects.
    The Clintons are seen as money grubbers who'd sell their own family members for the right price. Hillary is a despised person.

    Trump is no better. The only difference between him and Hillary is that he is openly corrupt. Whereas Hillary hides her corruption behind a cloak of establishment respectability.

    ArchibaldLeach , 10 Nov 2016 16:3>
    The dumbest thing about the response to this is is how everyone is just shoehorning their own narrative into this. If this was just about neoliberalism, nobody would have voted for the Republican party. Trump won for a variety of factors. It wasn't that he was against globalisation, it's that he lied that he could change it. These people believed his "we'll bring back all the jobs" over concrete plans.

    Such a coalition is possible. In Canada, we have begun to cobble it together under the banner of a people's agenda called The Leap Manifesto, endorsed by more than 220 organisations from Greenpeace Canada to Black Lives Matter Toronto, and some of our largest trade unions.

    I hang around in liberal circles in Toronto and even there, Black Lives Matter is hardly popular. I know socialists see the result and think that they can be next, but they won't be.

    MooseMcNaulty , 10 Nov 2016 16:2>
    The political class assiduously serves the needs of the wealthy, while the working people fend for themselves. The banks get a bailout, the bankers get a bonus, and the consumer gets his house foreclosed on. The oil companies and hedge funds get loopholes built into the tax code, and the middle class hears that they might not be able to draw their Social Security until they're seventy. It's not hard to see why people are unhappy, and Trump was unafraid to call the system rigged and the players corrupt. You can analyze the results of this election until you're blue in the face, but I think what it ultimately comes down to is that the working people have been thrown under the bus in favor of corporate profit for far too long.
    Bar4U MooseMcNaulty , 10 Nov 2016 16:3>
    True enough, but Trump's "solutions" will just make it worse for the same group of people and continue to support corporations and the wealthy. Sadly yet again the voters have been duped.
    MooseMcNaulty Bar4U , 10 Nov 2016 17:1>
    Probably. The only hope I have is that Trump is a vanity candidate, so I expect he really will try to do the best job he can for as many people as he can. He genuinely has no love for the political class and our campaign finance or lobbying systems. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that something half decent might yet come of his election. Probably not any of the big issues, and it's a shame about the environment and the Supreme Court, but you never know... Or so I'll keep telling myself.
    Alarcos , 10 Nov 2016 16:1>
    The problem with this stroy is two-fold:

    1] Since the Eighties the powerless left have been saying that the solutions are on the left ... while the voters kept moving right. Repeating the same thing but louder doesn't make it work any better.
    2] Since the Eighties every faction of the left has been calling unto the other flavours of left to 'unite' ... whereas as what they usually meant was 'join us'. Even now I see no evidence that the left is capable of running a 'united-self' ... let alone capable of uniting and healing the deep rift in the society of Trumpian-US or Brexit-UK.

    This ship has sailed! The Modern Left has failed to prevent this fascist take-over every bit as much as 'Old Left' failed to stand-up in the Europe of the 1930's and 'Older Left' failed to withstand the nationalist fervor of '14-'18. No, I am afraid that, as in all previous episode, this fascism must be fought. We better start preparing while we still can.

    formerlefty Alarcos , 10 Nov 2016 16:2>
    But the problem with your story is that the left were defeated some time back. What we've had since are liberals (i.e. the neo-liberal right) tacking ever-rightward, constantly insisting that's the only way to avert the hard populist right. The result has been complete failure, as all that right-ward movement by liberals has achieved is to further create the conditions that lead to the rise of the right.

    Its pretty much the same thing that happened in Russia post-communism. Neo-liberalism/liberalism (they are, in fact, the same thing) led to the rise of watered-down kind of fascism.

    The modern pro-capitalist/non-populist right has failed to prevent this fascist take-over every bit as much as 'Old Right' failed to stand-up in the Europe of the 1930's...

    Europa77 Alarcos , 10 Nov 2016 16:3>

    as much as 'Old Left' failed to stand-up in the Europe of the 1930's

    The 'old left' did stand up in the 1930s. The prison camps of mainland Europe were full of 'lefties' who stood up.

    DunedainRanger , 10 Nov 2016 16:1>
    This article is spot on. Neoliberalism creates its own hierarchy which has no place for the peole who voted for Trump. Two quotes from US voters (with acknowledgements to Sky News).
    1. A black man who voted for Trump...'most blacks have more in common with white woeking class families trying to make ends meet than they do with the democrats'
    2. A well heeled white democrat man in shock....'trying to come to terms with an election which has shown me a side of America I was unaware of...'
    Shock horror....Trump was elected by ordinary people.
    fmajor7 , 10 Nov 2016 16:1>
    It was interesting to see that nearly each and every newspaper in the US and the UK and everywhere else and nearly all the TV channels started a barrage of anti-Trump rhetoric always repeating his sexual escapades and his racist and sexist comments. Only a few alternative blogs or news channels dared to criticise Hillary or question her integrity.
    Now that Trump has won has shocked all these news channels and everybody is asking who voted for him ? All those "deplorable" people as mentioned by Hillary or all those sexist, racist or uneducated whites ? Were they angry ? If so, why ? Was it a protest vote ? Why ?
    It is interesting to read Charles Hugh Smith's writing "The source of our rage" below and wonder why all these "expert" commentators got it wrong --
    https://goo.gl/VuEGZy
    bananakingdom , 10 Nov 2016 16:0>
    Turn on your television or pick up a paper. Listen to a radio or read the online news. There's always someone telling us how we should think, and what we should do.
    The belief that they know better - that they are superior to the rest of us - permeates every corner of our lives. Those that disagree with and challenge the 'consensus' are considered ignorant or uneducated.

    This is the argument that's been trotted out since Brexit. The poor old folks didn't know what they were doing. That somehow, those who grew up under the black cloud shadowing post-Second World War Britain couldn't comprehend the implications of seeking to regain control of their economy and borders.

    That's the way society has gone - the megaphone minority blasting away in our ear. The elites who believe their values and opinions are the only ones that matter. Pity the poor taxpayer who picks up the tab.

    The international 'specialist' who flies in for a couple of days to lecture us on what they think we're doing wrong. From how farmers should manage their land, the type of energy we should use, through to how to control our borders. How these self-appointed experts love to enlighten the great unwashed. It happens at the local level as well. It could be the council dictating something as simple as the colour a homeowner is allowed to paint their fence.

    There's the local action group. After moving into an area and setting themselves up as they see fit, they seek to restrict who can join them, and what their fellow residents can do.
    A paddock that once held a herd of sheep has been subdivided, and then subdivided again. Yet the new owner places a placard on their new fence protesting against any future developments.

    The events of yesterday in the US have turned the world on its head. World leaders are struggling to know how to respond, to Trump's victory.
    While so much of the commentary and analysis by the experts has been about the two personalities involved, the US election results reflect something much more basic than that.

    It's that the ones who do the lifting - that is, those who set their alarms early and go off to work - are tired of subsidising those that are the recipients of the public purse. They've had enough of paying for the lifestyles of those who look down on them. This includes the political class who lecture them, and everyone else.

    The commentariat are putting their spin on the US election result. Much like Brexit, they're arguing that the poor uneducated folks didn't know what they were doing. The result is a two-fingered salute to the political elite who sign off on trade agreements with little regard for those that will lose their jobs. It's a protest against those elected to represent the voters' interests but rarely, if ever, visit the factory floor.

    But it's not only the political class who left the majority behind. The result also reflects the great chasm that continues to grow between the wealthy elite - Wall Street - and those on the other side where wages have gone nowhere for years.

    The post-GFC world has only pumped more money into the top few percent, while everybody else has been left a long way behind. While the Dow Jones Industrial Index has increased more than two-and-a-half times since the lows of 2009, real wages have barely increased a dime.

    Nobody knows how the Trump presidency will play out. I doubt he even knows himself. And as the elites predict, it might turn out to be one of the US' great follies.
    Some are calling the result a swing back to conservatism. But the result illustrates ever so strongly how the so-called 'silent majority' are deciding to reclaim the way their lives are governed. It's a major blow to elitism, and is a trend that will only grow.

    Matt Hibbard,
    For The Daily Reckoning

    Andrew Failes bananakingdom , 10 Nov 2016 16:1>
    Yeah because putting one of the elite in power a 'a major blow to elitism'. Maybe you actually should listen to an expert
    outkast1213 , 10 Nov 2016 16:0>
    Perhaps if The Guardian and every other major left media site would have been understanding this the past few years instead of ignoring Bernie, plugging for Clinton, and pushing the SJW stuff there wouldn't have been a Trump presidency. Everyone shares a bit of blame for his win. Hopefully we can not get so obsessed with blind Dem support and identity politics going forward.
    Bogdanich , 10 Nov 2016 15:5>
    Ya think? Finally someone says something sensible. Neo-liberal economic policy and neo-con foreign policy I might add. There is a German blogger who is a polyglot. He speaks German, French, Italian, English and Russian. He reads the romance languages at least I don't know about Russian. He monitors how different news events are spun to the various populations. Which facts are presented, which omitted, obfuscations, lies and who's controlling the narrative. Because of the time difference he went to bed before the election results were known and woke up after. The opening sentence on his piece that morning was, "So I just woke up and found that the world has changed. World War III was called off."

    Which in my estimation is accurate. Perhaps not WWIII but certainly another major war. And what's the result over here in America? It's the Hillary supporters who are behaving violently. Rioting, destroying property, assaults, interfering with transportation etc. Not covered in your press of course because it is the republicans who were supposed to be the violent monsters and it doesn't fit the narrative.

    AmyInNH Bogdanich , 10 Nov 2016 16:4>
    First, neo-con warring, an essential subcomponent of neoliberalism, for when CIA manipulation of political strife isn't possible. Indonesia versus Iraq, for example.
    Second, Hillary supporters rebelling is in the news this morning, though they aren't a) airing it as an alarming event, nor b) having the same paramilitary police response to it.
    Third, R has been pushing for warring and I've no idea where you'd (they'd?) come up with an all R Washington isn't going to jump right in. Particularly, post election, when congress refuels the "campaign donation" money laundering machine, defense contractors (Northrop, etc.) and infrastructure (Parsons Brinckerhoff, etc.), with the gifting of federal contracts, which will no doubt run way over budget as cost plus contracts.
    Peter Wynn , 10 Nov 2016 15:5>
    Many of those left seemingly disenfranchised by neo-liberalism are taking up scapegoating, rather than blaming the REAL cause of their problems.
    AmyInNH Peter Wynn , 10 Nov 2016 16:5>
    There's a whole lot of less than Whole Truth used to manipulate. Some intentional, some due to ignorance.
    Long ago I asked, what is the difference between ignorance and arrogance, and about the only thing I can come up with is ignorance is unintentional while arrogance is confident ignorance.
    Dean Myerson , 10 Nov 2016 15:5>
    And people like Trump never went to Davos? Republicans don't do that? Yes, a lot of people are in economic pain, and the Democrats and Clinton share that blame. I agree that the Democratic party needs to be either decisively wrested from pro-corporate neoliberals, or it needs to be abandoned, but Trump's victory is not just about economic pain. It's also about fear of the diverse country we are becoming. You want to know who is to blame for the election of Donald Trump? The people who voted for him. They are the ones who fell for the con that he was their solution.
    mcstowy Dean Myerson , 10 Nov 2016 16:0>
    What you say is correct, but the point is that it is expected that the GOP will protect business interests and profit at the expense of people. That is why they exist. The Democrats have historically been the party that protects the working class. As the author points out, they have abandoned that role during the last 40 years, leaving the working class without protection from the concentration of corporate wealth, power and influence. Working class whites, Latinos and blacks should be allies, not competitors for the scraps left after the Davos party. The conservative right in America is successful because they have successfully pitted these natural allies against each other, but they have been aided the the embrace of corporate neoliberalism by the Democratic party leadership.
    PierreCorneille , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
    Bill Clinton gave us Bush the Younger thanks to having the self control of an adolescent chimpanzee. Now the Democrat establishment aided by another Clinton gave us Trump. When are we going to stop buying into the neo-liberal bullshit. They have played us like suckers since the revolution the French won for us. Speaking of the French, their revolution scared the shit out of the "founding fathers" especially the parts about equality and fraternity. I saw Trump coming a long time ago, but I thought someone would stand up. It wasn't as if we weren't warned. Instead all the talking fucking heads are telling us it's time to heal to work together. Right, like the way the Republicans worked with Obama. Are we going to work together, are we going to fight? Nah. We"ll find someone new to bomb in the name of liberty and some new shinny thing will come along and we'll just stay bent over. But never forget, we are the greatest and the most exceptional.
    evacarey PierreCorneille , 10 Nov 2016 15:5>
    Good post. But it was also Obama who recently led us here. He didn't do anything. Sure he was stymied by the Republican congress. But he didn't even use the bully pulpit.
    He seemed to me to want to work for the rest of the world more than he did the U.S. He couldn't even see that the trade agreements are a problem for our citizens. And I supported him more than any previous presidential candidate, because I thought he cared.
    NoOneYouKnowNow , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
    Ironic that Ms Klein has published this in the Clintonista, neocon Guardian. Perhaps we can revive the media as well.
    nonsensefactory JulesBywaterLees , 10 Nov 2016 16:4>
    Generally speaking, American and British media supports neoconservative foreign policy (regime change in Libya and Syria, military confrontation with Russia and China, expanded funding for NATO, the Iraq War WMD lies, etc.). At the same time, it tends to support neoliberal trade policies (free flow of capital, offshoring manufacturing to sweatshop zones) that enrich billionaires while impoverishing the middle class.

    The only real difference between "conservative" and "liberal" media outlets is in their take on identity politics; this is why people view media as propaganda that tries to point people away from the more important issues of global war and wealth inequality. It's a distraction tactic.

    nonsensefactory , 10 Nov 2016 15:2>
    Naomi Klein is right about the neoliberalism that played such a huge role in the creation of massive wealth inequality in the United States, but the other issue is that Hillary Clinton embraced the Bush-era neoconservative program (just look at her record as Secretary of State with Honduras, Haiti, Libya and Syria, as well as all the arms deals and support for Saudi Arabia and Israel). In addition, she was completely loyal to the Wall Street interests who crashed the economy in 2008 and yet were never criminally charged by the Obama Administration.

    Obama shares much of the blame - despite coming in with Congress in Democratic hands, he quickly abandoned his populist base in favor of pro-Wall Street agendas; he expanded the domestic mass surveillance program and persecuted whistleblowers like nobody before him; and he was seduced by the CIA's regime change/drone assassination program. His peace prize is now the punchline of a joke. He didn't help out homeowners who'd been targeted by Wall Street; he instead pushed for a massive taxpayer bailout of Wall Street - and minority homeowners in particular were hit hard by the banks. As far as all the young people who supported him? He did nothing to alleviate student loan debt; that's not what Wall Street wanted. As far as renewable energy? He did little if anything on that front; instead he quietly OK'd offshore oil drilling, oil exports, and pipelines like Dakota Access. He betrayed his base and served Wall Street, and of course that's what Hillary Clinton would have done as well.

    Bernie Sanders, in contrast, had good policies on all these issues and would have won the primary if it hadn't been rigged by the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the corporate media.

    The Democratic Party reforms needed are obvious:
    (1) A fixed number of debates in the primary (Sanders vs. Clinton? 9 debates. Obama vs. Clinton? 26 debates).
    (2) Elimination of the superdelegate system. (In Feb 2008, Clinton had 241 to Obama's 181; in Feb 2016, Clinton had 451 to Sander's 19)
    (3) Opening the primaries to independent voters in places like New York, at the very least allowing last-minute party registration for independent voters.

    That all takes power away from Wall Street-tied party elites, who will otherwise continue to pick losers that will serve Wall Street interests in exchange for big donations - but who are unpopular with the general public. That rigged process is why Bernie Sanders, who would obviously have beaten Trump with enthusiastic millenial support, was prevented from winning the Democratic Primary.

    The other party in this debacle, the corporate media - they deserve to be broken up by anti-trust legislation. TimeWarner, Disney, etc. should all be forced to break up into a hundred independently owned news outlets, otherwise it'll be an endless stream of Wall Street propaganda from them.

    mypets nonsensefactory , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
    Sanders was far too radical and unrealistic to have carried the day. He lost fair and square.
    freeandfair nonsensefactory , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
    " Hillary Clinton embraced the Bush-era neoconservative program (just look at her record as Secretary of State with Honduras, Haiti, Libya and Syria, as well as all the arms deals and support for Saudi Arabia and Israel). In addition, she was completely loyal to the Wall Street interests who crashed the economy in 2008 and yet were never criminally charged by the Obama Administration."

    Very much so. Hillary Clinton to me was pretty indistinguishable from George Bush. I never voted for Bush and I wasn't going to vote for a female version of him.

    Dewsburian , 10 Nov 2016 15:1>
    "They will blame James Comey and the FBI. They will blame voter suppression and racism. They will blame Bernie or bust and misogyny. They will blame third parties and independent candidates. They will blame the corporate media for giving him the platform, social media for being a bullhorn, and WikiLeaks for airing the laundry."
    And in the Guardian, of course, they'll work out some way to blame Jeremy Corbyn...
    Kevin Parcell , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
    Wrong.

    We need to ask why the polling was wrong. People who normally vote did not, and people who normally don't vote did. Clinton really did rig the election as proven by Wikileaks, and lots of Bernie supporters could not bring ourselves to vote for her ; and Clinton called Trump's redneck base "a basket of deplorables", and many of those folks who would have watched the election from a bar stool got up to kick her ass. Naturally the same persons who pretended that Clinton did not rig the election want to continue to pretend. But Naomi, she really did.

    Mckim Kevin Parcell
    LYLEJAMES Mckim , 10 Nov 2016 16:5>
    I too believe Clinton and the DNC sealed their own fate. But the "bucket of losers" accusation has proved to be false, the product of a spoof Podesta email.
    ronaldadair , 10 Nov 2016 17:3>
    So in other words Naomi Klein admits that "rampant insecurity and inequality exist" and that something is required to be done to correct this - which I think many of us realise is a balancing of the needs of national autonomy and globalisation, but then Naomi has the audacity to attribute these "responses " to "neo fascists" So suffer on you poor under privileged unwashed. but should you rise up then we ( the enlightened) know that you are being prodded by neo fascists !! A totally ridiculous idea which can only be explained as the last desperate gasp of the politically correct whose credibility is not only on the line but is now clearly beyond the pale
    kleptco , 10 Nov 2016 17:2>
    Beautifully said. Eight years of neo-liberal acting/progressive talking Barack Obama and the prospect of more of the same from the deeply flawed Hillary Clinton was enough to hand the presidency to the grotesque Donald Trump. The Democratic party is smoldering and needs to be rebuilt as Naomi says by and for the 99%.

    http://www.snopes.com/hillary-calls-voters-bucket-of-losers /

    nonsensefactory , 10 Nov 2016 15:2>
    Naomi Klein is right about the neoliberalism that played such a huge role in the creation of massive wealth inequality in the United States, but the other issue is that Hillary Clinton embraced the Bush-era neoconservative program (just look at her record as Secretary of State with Honduras, Haiti, Libya and Syria, as well as all the arms deals and support for Saudi Arabia and Israel). In addition, she was completely loyal to the Wall Street interests who crashed the economy in 2008 and yet were never criminally charged by the Obama Administration.

    Obama shares much of the blame - despite coming in with Congress in Democratic hands, he quickly abandoned his populist base in favor of pro-Wall Street agendas; he expanded the domestic mass surveillance program and persecuted whistleblowers like nobody before him; and he was seduced by the CIA's regime change/drone assassination program. His peace prize is now the punchline of a joke. He didn't help out homeowners who'd been targeted by Wall Street; he instead pushed for a massive taxpayer bailout of Wall Street - and minority homeowners in particular were hit hard by the banks. As far as all the young people who supported him? He did nothing to alleviate student loan debt; that's not what Wall Street wanted. As far as renewable energy? He did little if anything on that front; instead he quietly OK'd offshore oil drilling, oil exports, and pipelines like Dakota Access. He betrayed his base and served Wall Street, and of course that's what Hillary Clinton would have done as well.

    Bernie Sanders, in contrast, had good policies on all these issues and would have won the primary if it hadn't been rigged by the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the corporate media.

    The Democratic Party reforms needed are obvious:
    (1) A fixed number of debates in the primary (Sanders vs. Clinton? 9 debates. Obama vs. Clinton? 26 debates).
    (2) Elimination of the superdelegate system. (In Feb 2008, Clinton had 241 to Obama's 181; in Feb 2016, Clinton had 451 to Sander's 19)
    (3) Opening the primaries to independent voters in places like New York, at the very least allowing last-minute party registration for independent voters.

    That all takes power away from Wall Street-tied party elites, who will otherwise continue to pick losers that will serve Wall Street interests in exchange for big donations - but who are unpopular with the general public. That rigged process is why Bernie Sanders, who would obviously have beaten Trump with enthusiastic millenial support, was prevented from winning the Democratic Primary.

    The other party in this debacle, the corporate media - they deserve to be broken up by anti-trust legislation. TimeWarner, Disney, etc. should all be forced to break up into a hundred independently owned news outlets, otherwise it'll be an endless stream of Wall Street propaganda from them.

    freeandfair nonsensefactory , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
    " Hillary Clinton embraced the Bush-era neoconservative program (just look at her record as Secretary of State with Honduras, Haiti, Libya and Syria, as well as all the arms deals and support for Saudi Arabia and Israel). In addition, she was completely loyal to the Wall Street interests who crashed the economy in 2008 and yet were never criminally charged by the Obama Administration."

    Very much so. Hillary Clinton to me was pretty indistinguishable from George Bush. I never voted for Bush and I wasn't going to vote for a female version of him.

    Giancarlo Bruno , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
    While I'm troubled by many of the implications of this electoral result, I think the main story is that the Democrats have bled so many votes that an extremely unpopular Republican candidate was able to win simply by holding on to most of the votes that Romney managed to get 4 years ago and flipping a few swing voters. When the final tally comes in, Hillary Clinton will likely have received over 8 million fewer votes than Obama in 2008 and nearly 5 million less than he got in 2012. Trump got fewer still, and he'll now be president because he managed to sway just enough voters in the rust belt to win several of those states.

    It could not be clearer that Sanders' approach would have been the better one for this election by far. He spoke to the anger at the economic hollowing out of so much of this country while offering prescriptions that were in the best interests of the vast majority of people and framed the discussion in a way that made it clear race was not at the center, that the unchecked pursuit of the class interests of the wealthy & well-connected was responsible for so much of the human devastation that can easily be observed in so many parts of the country.

    Anyone who zealously advocated for this view was derided as a "Bernie bro" or mocked with sneering suggestions that Bernie was only a viable candidate in white states. (Nevermind that being absolute bunkum) Clinton supporters and other DNC hacks falsely equated working class white people in states like Wisconsin and Ohio supporting a more left-leaning economic program that placed a lesser emphasis on racial & identity issues to engaging in some sort of insidious white male identity politics- and they did so deliberately, to muddy the waters.

    They forced a widely reviled, ethically challenged, evasive servant of the establishment who deemed TPP "the gold standard" of trade agreements, supported the Iraq war, was content to let the financial sector completely off the hook for the last financial meltdown and engineered the disastrous Libya intervention down everyone's throat on the premise that Americans didn't have a choice. Anyone who expressed their fear that this would result in a loss to Trump, much less voiced a slight preference for Trump over Clinton (even if absolutely de minimis), was vilified to such a degree that I am confident that it stifled some of the public discussion about how to electorally confront Trump. The only acceptable answer was voting for Hillary Clinton without reservation, even accepting that many criticisms of her were valid was tantamount to enabling fascism.

    Look where we are now. There's a lesson in this: you cannot rely on progressive issues on a few social positions as a fig leaf to cover up a massive failure to challenge the systemic rot of our economy, our governmental institutions and our legal system. Standing up for a person's right to peace, security and opportunity irrespective of race, ethnicity or creed is absolutely the right thing to do. Same goes for women's right to make family planning decisions or the rights of gay people to marry and live free of discrimination. None of these can begin to mask massive system-wide failures, that we are seemingly hopelessly chained to an economic paradigm that is grossly indifferent- even actively hostile- to the welfare of the majority of our citizens.

    I think Sanders' response to Trump's election is entirely appropriate. If Trump does follow through on some of his challenges to globalization, lobbyists or modernizing and improving our infrastructure, we should offer our qualified support. If he attempts to push through massive deregulation, lopsided tax cuts for the wealthy, stripping of environmental protections, or anything to stoke the flames of bigotry and division we should unite in principled, civil opposition.

    Laborequalswealth Giancarlo Bruno , 10 Nov 2016 15:5>
    Excellent and intelligent post. I especially agree with your last sentence. Trump may have saved us from an insane war with Russia. But mass resistance is called for if he and the blood-red Congress try to turn us into Christo-fascist serfs.
    Ardnas1936 , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
    Absolutely on target, thanks Naomi! The DLC (Democratic Leadership?? Council) won this for Trump. They may have taken a couple of presidencies--mostly on false promises--but their wishywashy presidents did nothing for real people and worked solely for the rich oligarchs and imperialists. The "Leadership" was only toward the Right. This election was the Revolt of the Rustbelt and the Dead Small Towns. But Drumpf will do nothing for them except postpone, then forget, and finally turn against any who dare complain.

    And just think--if not for the DLC stuffed shirts and Wall Street bootlickers who held power in the Dem establishment, we might be happy that Bernie & Jane Sanders--AUTHENTIC feminists and genuine reformers--were going to the White House. I'm 80 years old, may not be around to see the young people's victory, so I get sick thinking of how much we almost gained, but was lost by the DLC Beltway minds and the GOP (Greedy Oil Party) solipsists. We lost more than Trump can guess, until his Miami properties are all swallowed by the sea. It takes a heavy knock on his orange noggin to get that egomaniac's attention.

    I firmly believe that we must bring down BOTH of our over-age, limping, idiot-led political parties, or reform them from the grassroots up! (If they can be saved, which I doubt.) It's time to revive the LaFollette Progressive Republicans and the New Deal Democrats, but under different names--and this time NOT just for privileged, "entitled" white males. Yes, I know Bob LaFollette tried to be inclusive, but the time is way past when our children and grandchildren must support and empathize with the entire HUMAN race, not just the paleface branch who've grabbed all the goodies.

    As for the macho white males, offer the cowboys a chance to put their he-man cravings to work at the top of wind-powered electric generators 200 feet tall out in the deep ocean, or avoiding glass slashes from large solar trombe wall collectors or even small glass solar cells, or staying alive around unexpected flares of methane, or getting caught in the ebb of a massive tidal bore and swept out to sea. All of these are renewable energy generating systems, safe for the planet but requiring daredevils who would marvel at how comparably un-scary mining and lumberjacking were back in the Olden Days.

    John McManus , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
    Trump was born into the 1% and has stayed there; inherited wealth don't ya know. His policies and those of the Republican hierarchy include : union busting, lower taxes at the top, austerity at the bottom, financial deregulation below 2008 levels, and privatization of government services. Democratic policies are the complete opposite in each of these cases.
    Trump doesn't stand for less neoliberalism but more.
    cielosdeazul , 10 Nov 2016 14:4>
    "People have lost their sense of security, status and even identity."

    That's about the only part that's correct. Globalisation and the threat of open borders is what does that. Everyone wants to feel secure in their home, individually or collectively, without the threat that anyone who likes your home better than theirs can invite themselves over and redecorate.

    Canada's elite smugly refuse to recognize that its seeming imperviousness to "ethnophobic nationalism" is precisely because it has secure borders and an immigration policy that selects immigrants.

    FooBar21 Nancy M Ruff , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
    Obama was elected twice in very recent history. If the country consisted mostly
    of bigots, that would have never happened. To chalk this up to bigotry is
    exactly the wrong thing to do - it makes one feel all smug and superior without
    bothering to engage with the real issues, like the ones that Klein is discussing.
    The Democrats have failed as a party of the middle and working classes. They
    are the party of Wall Street bankers and the MIC and the Hollywood elite, who
    are more concerned with eating organic arugula and with the bathroom rights of
    transgender people than they are with the economic plight of the majority of
    people in this country. And they nominated the one person who almost perfectly
    embodies this establishment: Clinton - a war mongering, corrupt establishment neoconservative who revels in Hollywood fund raisers with $50,000/person
    tickets, gets paid a quarter of million dollars by Goldman Sachs for an 1-hour
    speech, and salivates at the prospect of starting more wars in the middle east
    and poking Putin in the eye. That's why the lost, not because of bigotry.


    It's not bigotry that got Trump elected,
    although

    richardbunning , 10 Nov 2016 14:3>
    This piece is exactly right. The infiltration of the neoliberals has poisoned mainstream politics and hijacked the left. It is given form by the Washington Consensus:

    1. Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;

    2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;

    3. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;

    4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;

    5. Competitive exchange rates;

    6. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;

    7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;

    8. Privatization of state enterprises;

    9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;

    10. Legal security for property rights.

    Trump is planning to tear up a lot of this, and he is quite right to do it, even if for the wrong reasons. Globalisation has screwed working people in the developed world and enabled multinationals to form an unholy alliance with the chinese communists to exploit the chinese people to make bigger profits, whilst the old manufacturing base in the developed economies has been hollowed out and sent to China.

    jackrousseau , 10 Nov 2016 14:2>
    The Democratic Party changed fundamentally under Carter/Clinton in the 1980s/1990s. Very much like Labour in the UK changed during the same period under Blair. During that period, both parties morphed from domestic worker's parties into global capitalist parties with (somewhat) progressive social agendas. In both instances, the move away from core left economic values was justified by electability. The sweeping elections of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair in the early 1990s won the argument and relegated the original base of the parties (workers) to the periphery.

    Now that neoliberals are no longer electable, what's the justification for their continued existence? No one on the left is happy with their core policies (deregulation, privatization, free trade, unfettered immigration, coziness with corporations/banks, etc.). If they aren't advancing progressive social issues y winning elections, why should we continue putting up with the neolibs co-opting our economic policies?

    Ideally, Democrats would use this opportunity to revert back into being a domestic worker's party with genuine progressive/leftist values (much like Labour did in the UK by electing Corbyn). It almost happened with Sanders. Given the enthusiasm/turnout he generated, that's clearly the way forward.

    Sadly, if I were betting, I'd imagine the Democratic establishment will do exactly what the Labour establishment did in the UK post Brexit...circle the wagons and double down. And with the anger being directed at Trump rather than the Democratic establishment's malpractice in this botched election, they may get away with it (unlike the Blairites in the UK).

    Diane Lake jackrousseau , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
    The New Democrats (neoliberals) have been circuling the wagons for awhile now. They have tried to shoot down progressive candidates running in primaries for office and support the neoliberal ones.
    The guy who lost to Rubio was a former republican who became a New Democrat while the party shut down any progressives.
    It will take alot of battles to change the party back to their New Deal roots. The party saw the reaction to the true son of the New Deal, Bernie Sanders. Instead of taking lessons from that and what the democratic voters craved, they did everything to undermine him and shut him down.
    It will take very heavy equipment to remove the entrenched neoliberals from the party and put true democrats in their rightful place
    jackrousseau Diane Lake , 10 Nov 2016 15:2>
    It's strange to watch...the UK seems to be about half an election cycle ahead of us in its rejection of neoliberalism. Everything happening in UK politics is echoed over here about 6 month's later. Down to the fact that, in both countries, wealthy orange haired baboons somehow managed to speak to the disaffected working class. If Gove hadn't snaked Boris Johnson at the death, both countries would currently be led by said orange haired baboons. I mean, what are the odds?

    Granted, it is the Year of the Monkey per the Chinese calendar...so there might be something in that after all.

    Relatedly, I cannot wait until the UK's new Secretary of State has a photo op with our President elect. Which one is the doppelganger?

    wiggystardust , 10 Nov 2016 14:1>
    This is a very decent article, indeed the mainstream left made a deal with the devil and now he's getting his due. But on the other hand I think it's terribly optimistic to assume everything boils down to kick starting a new democratic-socialist movement, raking in all those votes that have just been waiting for it to happen(and only voted for a right wing populist because it didn't yet, sure) and fixing everybody's problems forever.
    For one, the neoliberals managed to singlehandedly to make the left look like even more of a villain in the eyes of those who already eschewed it, alienate those who believed in a left solution but were not diehard about it, and fracture the remaining group into niches who refuse to engage in dialogue or even in recognize each other as fellow lefties. Managing to form a stable coalition is a beginning but it only deals with the latter problem, the left still has a huge public image problem to solve before it can make a return.
    And for another, the very idea of safety nets and benefits seems to have fallen out of fashion with the electorate: the "I had to climb the hill both ways to get here, so nobody dare cut a tunnel through it" mentality has been on the rise lately. It seems the neoliberals' failures somehow managed to make us all even more individualist, if only a bit more tribal too. Thus, for a new left to rise it wouldn't be enough to restore trust among all the isolated left groups, but also among society as a whole.
    Diane Lake wiggystardust , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
    But, when you have people homeless, starving, falling through society's cracks you have a rise in crime.
    Many who are suffering are not shiftless. Many are working but, don't make enough to pay bills and put food on the table.
    Many do not have access to healthcare.
    Children go to bed without food.
    When society is uncaring, mean and causes undue suffering, society falls apart and into haves and have nots.
    All the money that went to help people is the same money that now lines the pockets of the uber wealthy.
    Our schools cannot teach with rats and cockroaches, ceillings falling in and no heat. When children cannot get a lunch anymore, how do they learn?
    When we cannot pay teachers or even support them, you end up with the bottom of the barrel teaching the upcoming generation inadequately.
    You can tell the strength of a society from how it cares for its poor and in need.
    Ours is a 'i got mine' selfish shallow society now.
    And it is violent and people are filled with hate.
    Maybe because we have stopped caring and making sure people have opportunities and jobs and education and help when they fall on hard times.
    MaryCurry , 10 Nov 2016 14:1>
    Agreed, except for the major actors who started this globalization's depression ofN. American and European workers-- the Reagan and the Bush corporate supporters and puppet masters. Clintons and other neolibs have followed suit because they wrongly believed that they could beat them by joining them yet still do a bit of good for their voters. Wrong. But yes, the Revolution continues. Whether it can save the planet -- the environment, however, is doubtful, and nothing matters nearly as much. For years on is far to late.
    Justthefactsman , 10 Nov 2016 14:0>
    Yes it was the Democrats promotion of neo-liberalsim aided by such claptrap as this opinion from another Guardian scribbler.

    "Centrism has failed these and many other voters. Clinton was not handpicked by the Democratic party's elite: she defeated an unexpectedly successful challenge by self-described socialist Bernie Sanders, partly because of his failure to inspire African Americans. "
    That a closet Clinton supporter should have the temerity to write something like this to explain Clintons defeat is beyond belief, when we know from Wikileaks e-mails that the DNC actively opposed Sanders.
    The reality is that all politics is dominated by the golden rule: he who has the gold rules.
    Well meaning scribblers like Naomi can scribble all they want it will never change the situation. Even revolution will not change the situation for the simple facts are "the oppressed are potential oppressors".
    The achievement of dominance and superiority seems to be built into human genes, and why not it is so in the rest of the animal world.

    Ardnas1936 Justthefactsman , 10 Nov 2016 15:2>
    Forget Richard Dawkins, dominance is certainly not universal among living creatures. If a species exists with a plentiful supply of food, domination and competition are unnecessary. Think of the cooperative bonobo and the symbiosis of insects and field flowers. On the other hand, where resources are scare, competition begins and we have social structures like the baboons and leafy trees that kill competitive seedlings by their own shade.

    However, throughout evolution cooperation outweighs competition. If it didn't we'd still be solitary single-celled amoebae. As things are, our own bodies are well-furnished with microscopic critters from RNA through viruses and bacteria, many of whom run the shop in the background. Cooperation, whether vestigial, symbiotic or by choice, is the way that leads to life. Competition is the way of violence and death. That's not Marxism. It's nature.

    Justthefactsman Ardnas1936 , 11 Nov 2016 04:1>
    "Forget Richard Dawkins, dominance is certainly not universal among living creatures. If a species exists with a plentiful supply of food, domination and competition are unnecessary."
    There is a plentiful supply of food for the human species.
    So how can you explain the general situation that exists on the planet whereby governing elites control and enjoy the major part of all that human labour creates to the detriment of over 50% of the human population ?
    Matt Wood , 10 Nov 2016 14:0>
    "Neo-fascist responses"? Get over yourself Klein. Trump won because the Clinton's "own" the Democrat Party and they and Goldman Sachs were confident she would be the nominee and millions of gullible Americans would vote for Hillary.

    By far the best candidate was Bernie Sanders but the Clintons had him run off the road by "Super Delegates". Oh and by the way is it not odd that the Democrats did not change the electoral system when they were in power?

    House of Cards comes close to showing us just how ruthless the Clintons really are.

    Karsten Scheibler , 10 Nov 2016 14:0>
    Well, that it is worthwhile reading. At the beginning I thought: good that someone pointed that out. People haven't forgotten NAFTA and Hillary's speeches in closed wall street circles and so on. I just wanted to remark that it was probably a multitude of reasons that explain the Democratic loss. Comey's interference and other stuff that is outright dismissed by the author also played a role. However, as I read on I couldn't help but realize that there seems to be another person who wasn't even aware that Bernie and Elizabeth supported Hillary and wasn't aware of their arguments or the Democratic platform Bernie Sanders fought so hard for. The last two paragraphs speak volumes of Ms. Klein's realism or rather the lack thereof.
    JTMcPhee gerrygoulde , 10 Nov 2016 14:3>
    And how clear does it have to be that "the Network" is and has been purely supra and post-national? How many trillions in dark loot in shadow banks and other asset dumps which the Panama Papers only show a fraction of?

    These Fokkers and Fuggers, what drives them? How much is enough? There's always been this cadre of people who figure out how to scam and manipulate and "transcend boundaries," but to the extent that exists today? With the habitability of the planet in question?

    But then I have to remember that these people are into self-pleasing on a gargantuan scale, are what we call sociopaths, who have been with the species since "we" figured out how to grow grains and build granaries and walls to protect the granaries and warriors to man the walls and attack the neighbors and take their stuff, and artisans to make the weapons and "improvements," and kings to issue the orders, and priests to justify it all as the Hand and Will of God -- what we call "civilization." And the people at the top have known since forever that if they insulate themselves adequately from the rabble, they face no consequences for their predations, and can live out their lives of looting and indulgence and die comfortably, cared for by loving nurses and doctors who will ease their passing (unlike what the rest of us now face). Because as they have known since forever, "Apres ils le deluge," "IBG-YBG," http://tradicionclasica.blogspot.com/2006/01/expression-aprs-moi-le-dluge-and-its.html ,

    And what are the rest of us going to do when they have passed on, or fled like the Nazis with the gold from the teeth of millions and the art treasures and other portable wealth of demolished and decimated nations, to live out their lives as CIA "assets" or in comfortable temperate South American and African places? Dig up their corpses and desecrate them, or try to find their "cremains" and burn them again? They do not care what happens to their children, even.

    I wish us ordinary people all the luck in the world trying to create and maintain a different order that will let everyone eat only to their honest hunger and drink only to their reasonable thirst...

    kakaran , 10 Nov 2016 13:3>
    Couldn't agree more. The neo-liberalism orthodoxy instead of suddenly knocking at the door has come silently home to roost. The Democrats in America and Labor in UK were hand in glove with elites in the greatest robbery the history has ever seen. The concentration of wealth in one percent which was rationalized as panacea of all economic ills has turned out to be an opening of mythical Pandora's box unleashing evils of racism, xenophobia, misogyny etc. The abhorrent echo of "too big to fail" is still heard by the those who were let down by the same oligarchs. I have yet to find an answer to the vexing question as to why enormous benefits of human knowledge and scientific advances be exclusively extracted by one percenters.
    vacuous , 10 Nov 2016 13:3>
    Guardian commentators use identity politics and cries of "racism, sexism and xenophobia" to try and distract the working class from noticing how internationalism, globalization and immigration has stagnated their wages, moved meaningful jobs oversees and stoked up asset prices allowing a homeowner in London to earn more by twiddling their thumbs than their Polish cleaner gets paid in a year.
    No matter how shrill the likes of Owen, Jonathan, Paul, Polly and Hadley try and distract us with their daily dribble of identity politics, we increasingly see them as just another faded facet of the corporatist, internationalist status quo.
    JTMcPhee glauben , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
    The union excesses (which have largely been killed off and the union and former and would-be union workers looted and impoverished along with the rest of the "lower orders) are just part of the disease -- which is corruption, and self-pleasing at the expense of everyone else. Union "leaders," absent disinterested "regulation" by government (which has been mostly corrupted too) and thanks to cooptation by "capitalists," definitely screwed the ordinary people (who one must acknowledge included quite a few rank-and-file that aspired to leadership so they could join the looting).

    There probably is stuff that needs to be built and manufactured (not the 7,000 pound SUVs and big Dodge and GMC and Ford F-series and "TUNDRA" trucks) to try to keep the species and culture alive. But killing the ability of ordinary people to organize, essentially making unions illegal except in tiny niches, just makes the end-game even worse. And continuing to punch down on working people on account of some 1962 wages (NOT "salaries," these were hourly payrolls, with "benefits" that in may cases like pension funds were subsequently looted by "private equity" vampire-squids and captured-government actions) just makes it harder for ordinary people to come together AS A CLASS and fight the 0.01% for a decent future.

    Arnie Arnesen , 10 Nov 2016 13:1>
    my post on Facebook that mirrors Naomi:
    My thoughts about last night:
    Bill Clinton's New Democrats were incinerated last night...arrogant, ivy league, sleeping with Wall Street, multinational corporations, insurance companies... and thinking that if they wrap themselves in the social issues from abortion to gay marriage that wage starved workers with enormous bills and debts, evaporating opportunities, disappearing pensions, shit schools and deteriorating infrastructure wouldn't notice they were overlooked and forgotten. This election underscores that Economic injustice is color blind
    shooglebunny , 10 Nov 2016 13:1>
    Good analysis; and exceptionally honest.

    What I want to know though is that, given the reality of what you are saying, did none of this occur to the Democratic party prior t the election?

    If they knew all this why did they not respond to it instead of continuing to plough the same old furrow regardless of the likely consequences for ordinary voters?

    macktan894 shooglebunny , 10 Nov 2016 13:4>
    Why? Because the Dem Elites knew that with Hillary their perks, access, power, etc. was secure. They wanted status quo and, just as they have behaved the past years, failed to listen to their constituencies, ignored them. They should have known just by seeing Bernie's exceptional campaign and the enthusiasm that fueled it, giving him more money than what Hillary often raised from her wealthy donors each month, that no one was excited about more of the same. Arrogantly, they chose to ignore and minimize what was before their eyes.
    Mardak , 10 Nov 2016 13:1>
    The most cogent analysis I have read so far. Bravo Ms. Klein. In a year where the country was screaming for populist change, the Democratic party establishment who had their own highly effective populist candidate, CHOSE to offer up possibly the most "establishment" candidate in history. Fly-over America responded with a sharply erect, if ignorantly self-destructive middle finger.
    zenkaon , 10 Nov 2016 13:0>
    Spot on diagnosis. People are angry that neolibralism has failed them and does not given a damn about them. Clinton offered nothing but the same to too many people. Trump was a molotov cocktail, warts and all, that they got to throw into Washington.

    I don't buy the racist argument. People that elected Obama in 2008 and 2012, but Trump in 2016 are not racist. At the same time I acknowledge that all the KKK people did vote Trump.

    Question is, does the left have an answer that is palatable to the people? It would be good if it did, but I'm not holding my breath. Corbyn isn't it, that you can be certain of.

    tinguinha , 10 Nov 2016 13:0>
    Clinton was a comically bad choice that made no sense whatsoever. The left often gets told that it has to endlessly suffer centrist/neo-liberal "lesser evil" candidates in order to defeat the right as they're more electable, which is an argument that at least makes some logical sense under some circumstances, even if I disagree with it. But in the case of this election, everyone has known for years that Clinton is wildly unpopular, and there was a radical alternative to her available who consistently out-polled her against Trump in the form of Sanders.

    Now her backers, such as Hadley Freedman on here today, rather than admitting their massive and obvious mistake in supporting her against Sanders and generally backing the "centrist" policies that brought us to this point, are suggesting nonsense such as the idea that those who voted for Trump should be "held responsible." What does that even mean? What are you going to do, elect a new people? You could have had a radical candidate who unlike Clinton could have brought about real change, and unlike Clinton would have attracted many of Trump's blue collar supporters and, you know, won .

    All that lesser evil neoliberal politics gives us is a lack of change that allows the right to make even more radical changes during the periods they're in power and eventually leads to the rise of people like Trump, and it's particularly stupid when it throws up deeply unpopular and unelectable people like Clinton, Miliband or the various empty suits lined up against Corbyn. It's time this paper decisively turned its back on the concept.

    Lord Lew , 10 Nov 2016 13:0>
    I don't have a lot of confidence in the prospect of political ideologies forged in the Industrial Age - "left", "right", "conservative", liberal" - being able to meet the challenges of this post-Industrial age and the future beyond.

    Western societies are fracturing into ever-smaller social groups defined by different, complex combinations of social/economic/national/ethnic/topographical/sexual/religious factors which mushrooming sub-groups all create their own realities based on the unregulated information they they select from divisive, self-reflexive social media sources rather than inclusive "mainstream" news media which have become increasingly corrupted and not trusted.

    Fragmentation, disintegration of societies - these lead to paranoia and aggression aimed at the "other" - and we can see this on both the "left" and the "right" in the blame-games that have followed Brexit and Trump's victory. The 19th century liberals and conservative who provided the foundations for the institutions of Western Democracy didn't foresee the emergence of global corporations and banks with interests that could defy "the national good" or disrupt the moderately equitable distribution of wealth and replace it with a massive diversion of wealth to a tiny global elite (So long affluent workers! Goodbye aspiring middle-class!) - while placating most of the population with a consumerist, material lifestyle mostly funded by debt. The old system is broken.

    In both the Brexit referendum and the US election the most striking split was between the old - the over-50s, clinging to the past - and young people, disconnected in their social media silos, wanting a different future but, as a generation, not able to organize and politically express their unhappiness and their hopes for the future because inadequate conventional Left/Right political thinking doesn't chime with the reality of their lives.

    Not everyone who voted for Donald Trump is a racist or a misogynist. Not everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton has no sympathy with an unemployed factory worker in a mid-west town whose future has been written off. However, everywhere you look - people are anxious and fearful that "the others" are trying to stop them getting what they solipsistically feel they deserve.

    Donald Trump won't be able to get Apple of Walmart to switch their product sourcing from China to the US, nor will he be able to halt the long-term economic decline of the US any more than Theresa May will be able to prevent post-Brexit economic decline in the UK: the challenges our dysfunctional political institutions face are too complex for politicians who are strong on rhetoric and promises but intellectually feeble and cowardly when it comes to decision-making and execution.

    We need education, public-service-based information, new political ideas and new political parties that can cut through the destructive white noise of Twitter and Facebook and focus on values that bring people together and counter the greed of the supra-national elites - something more powerful than divisive, out-dated concepts like Left and Right.

    nooriginalthought Lord Lew , 10 Nov 2016 13:2>
    What a lot of words to say bugger all.
    Why do people with no answers always say we need more education ?

    We have to get rid of this notion that we US and UK are post industrial.
    We have made a huge mistake offshoring our industry and must relocate the more essential parts. We cannot be a service economy without making things.
    Bashing metal turning wood molding plastics must be part of our future.
    We cannot be a nation of management consultants and hairdressers.

    mzlizzi Lord Lew , 10 Nov 2016 14:3>
    The boom in population during the Boom didn't help. We are overpopulated, and our current economic structure cannot support the material lifestyles and the narratives of freedom that we grew up living with or dreaming about. That's the education that's needed.

    Until we accept our current situation, we cannot understand or construct new political ideas, parties, or narratives.

    goldshirt39 Kipwar , 10 Nov 2016 13:5>
    Neoliberal globalization is the worst kind of socialism, whether or not it is actually socialism. It's what we're going to get if young people don't become collectively more informed and quickly. There is an attitude of entitlement among young people that drives towards a socialist mentality and the left has picked up the scent. They're going to chase that vote and those disaffected voters are going to chase that lie right down the rabbit hole eventually. If Hillary and Obama have their way, the riots that are being orchestrated right now will start the process immediately.
    lochinverboy , 10 Nov 2016 12:3>
    A very confused article. Neo liberalism is unfettered Global Capitalism given a nice sounding name. It is an invention of the right. To think that the most extreme Republican President ever, will improve the lot of the common man is quite simply bizzare.
    onlythetruth1 , 10 Nov 2016 12:2>

    A good chunk of Trump's support could be peeled away if there were a genuine redistributive agenda on the table. An agenda to take on the billionaire class with more than rhetoric, and use the money for a green new deal

    Particularly as Trump himself is a member of that billionaire class and clearly has no interest in redistributing wealth away from himself, or in doing anything to overhaul the economic system that has made him very rich.

    RutherfordFHEA , 10 Nov 2016 12:2>
    Trump was elected US President by riding the same wave of anger & disaffection that fuelled Brexit. Many of those who were disappointed by the result were quick to console themselves with the (wishful) thought that he will not attempt to implement his more radical proposals, or that, if he tries, he will be thwarted by the Republicans (who now hold majorities in both the House and the Senate). It is important to bear in mind however, that any who dare oppose him will know that they do so at the risk of their seats.
    WinkingJesus , 10 Nov 2016 12:1>
    The "Inconvenient Truth" is that the politics of Donald Trump has much in common with movements like Attack and Occupy Wall Street, and hence with Naomi Klein. They both want to stop, or put a break on, international trade. Donald Trump wants to revive local production through protectionism. Klein sees international trade as a source of both environmental and social degradation.

    Naomi, thus, carries some responsibility for Donald's success.

    The combined Trump/Klein policies would see the old rust belt workers boarding self driven electrical buses to go to work in the new windmill factories. These windmills, normally, would be both more expensive and less effective than if the business was subject to international competition, hence the electricity they produced would be more expensive, giving domestic business a disadvantage.

    The new environmental businesses would require support from the public purse (if not, we would already have had them). The taxpayers seem in no mood for such grand scale subsidies.

    History does not repeat itself, but in the 1930s the industrial nations raised barriers to trade in order to protect their work forces. As a result, everybody got poorer and reacted by electing extremist politicians.

    BonzoFerret , 10 Nov 2016 12:0>
    Michael Moore outlines his post-election strategy. Point 1 is Take over the Democratic Party and return it to the people. They have failed us miserably.

    Exactly the same as what is happening in the Labour Party. But in that case The Guardian supports neoliberalism and seeks to undermine the ones who are trying to change things.

    http://www.trueactivist.com/michael-moores-post-election-plan-is-being-shared-30000-times-an-hour/#.WCRDLir-FmI.facebook

    Nada89 , 10 Nov 2016 12:0>
    Klein's diagnosis is depressingly accurate.

    Sadly I think the electorate in some western societies are in danger of becoming just as ineffective as 'the proles' in 1984, while the vice like grip of the military/industrial complex is just as tenacious as that exerted by Big Brother and the party.

    Since the entire political class, or least those with any clout all sing from the same hymn sheet while moderate, or leftist figures, like Corbyn, or Sanders, are bound to be shredded by their own party and by the media, then what hope, eh, unless that hope is something new and outside of party politics?

    Tom Wessel , 10 Nov 2016 12:0>
    Thank you, thank you, thank you Naomi. Even after an unbelievable defeat, the neoliberals still don't get it. Blame game articles are starting already but no self reflection.

    The how and why:
    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit /

    Gem59 , 10 Nov 2016 11:3>
    The role of the media (The Guardian included big time) have a responsibility and offended people's intelligence and sensitivity about democracy, elites etc. Now they are running for cover. Today, Hadley Freeman writes "Misogyny won the US election – let's stop indulging angry white men". Disgrace, offensive and arrogant. Also, Hadley Freeman with "The US has elected its most dangerous leader"...No remorse, no responsibility, blaming American people for being angry, for swallowing the same medicine again...

    Compare the Guardian and AP (recall who called California early and rigged the pre-selection against Sanders?) and Waleed Aly here: ( http://www.theage.com.au/comment/us-election-2016-its-not-about-racism-or-sexism-its-about-class-warfare-20161109-gslxzs.html)...What options did the "forgotten", vast majority, the "insignificant other", the disadvantaged, the powerless have? When one is drowning, the relatively privileged onlooker has a duty to help rather than blame the one drowning for "pulling our hair". Of course the future looks terribly bleak for democracy, gender/racial relations etc...

    Seriously, could Clinton be an answer for the family that struggles to pay rent, the homeless, the unemployed, those scared of terrorism or a WWIII, the working poor, those in debt due to college fees, those who lost their house and jobs for the sake of "free trade"...These are many, many people folks...real people with flesh, dreams and humanity...

    Understanding their pain and their lack of options (thanks to NDC & the Media) does not mean one identifies with Trump and the ugly fascist monsters creeping behind him...It's not about us or one's dream about equality, freedom...It's about survival & human dignity for millions of US people...
    Did the demonizing of many working people send them straight to Trump land? Waleed Aly: "progressives have treated the working class largely as a source of xenophobia ... ignore it at our peril" --

    KillerMarmot Gem59 , 10 Nov 2016 11:5>
    I agree. The Freeman article was a disgrace.

    She fails to see that such arrogance was precisely what many Trump supporters were voting against.

    TheDudleyOmmer , 10 Nov 2016 11:2>
    Excellent article much of which could have been written during the past thirty years.

    We all know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I was puzzled as to why Mrs Clinton seemed to cold shoulder Bernie Sanders. He had already connected with many of the 'left behind' by putting a Social Democratic view opposite to Mr Trump's views. Both had identified the problems that the Chicago economists and neoliberalism had caused, but not having Mr Sanders involved or even accepting that his views would be part of her next administration, Mrs Clinton left the field open to her opponent. If only she had remembered her husband's slogan 'Its the economy, stupid', it may have turned fire on Trump's campaign.

    There is an irony that although it was right wing politicians who bought in the neo liberal policies which have impoverished working people, it is the social democratic parties on both sides of the Atlantic who have suffered by trying to make neoliberalism work. They could not demonstrate however how 'trickledown' benefitted the poorest and the image left was of rich people sucking up more wealth and more influence over politicians as Ms Klein points out.

    On our side of the Atlantic Mrs Thatcher ensured that the right have a strong supportive press due to her ownership reforms and the right is gradually weakening our BBC so that any opposition views will be stifled. Mr Corbyn has already been character assassinated. It remains to be seen if Mr Trump carries out his threats to the American press supporters of Mrs Clinton to reinforce only right wing views.

    The smell of authoritarian regimes is now appearing in many places.

    Whereangelsfear , 10 Nov 2016 11:1>
    There was an almost dynastic arrogance in the Clinton's assumption that they would carry the day. I have often been impressed with Bill's eloquence and Hillary's tough fight for a rational health and insurance system, but have never heard a word of self-criticism about the dire effects of deregulation and the financial crisis. The democrats missed their chance for radical measures when they had control of Congress just after Lehman Bros.
    Still, for international affairs, climate change, any sane kind of approach Trump is an unmitigated disaster. Hillary has much experience in international affairs, but her opportunism in the wake of 9/11 had led her to support the intervention in Iraq. Of course we were all opposed to Saddam's régime, but not with those means and in that kind of way, made much worse of course by Bush jr. Islamic State is a direct consequence of the chaos and unemployment in Iraq created under the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration.
    stuart6233 Marangaranga , 10 Nov 2016 11:4>
    "Neo-fascist responses"
    "Trump-style extremism"
    "they answer it by bashing immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading women"

    You call my right to vote the way I choose "stupid".
    You just don't get it. Millions of Americans voted exactly this way. A big middle finger to the establishment, media, Wall Street, "experts", and yes moral posturing know-it-alls is a great way to use your vote.

    You completely misunderstand Trump. He is far more for the working man than Clinton. The poor voted for him in droves. And for good reason.

    KelvinYearwood , 10 Nov 2016 10:3>
    Well said Naomi.

    I am an angry white male, and I am not a misogynist, as this paper would have it.
    I am fully aware of the appalling nature of Donald Trump.

    On the other hand, I fully understand the bureaucratic nature of the Democrat Party, the embedded interests of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex in that bureaucracy, the dirty tricks that that bureaucratic machinery got up to in order to extinguish Bernie Sander's campaign.

    I am aware of how that machinery has been ramping up a situation of global conflict, shamelessly recreating an aggressive Cold war Mk II situation with Russia and China, which is simply cover for the US racist colonial assumption that the world and its resources belongs to it in its sense of itself as an exceptional entity fulfilling its manifest destiny upon a global stage that belongs to its exceptional, wealthy and powerful elites.

    And I am aware of how Hillary was so keen to service this reality and American image of itself. And to go beyond that, and bomb Libya for 6 months, killing thousands of civilians (Middle eastern unpeople) and, may I suggest, doing nothing whatsoever for the women of Libya. Quite the opposite!

    Michael Moore, in a talk in which he predicted the victory of Trump before the election, notes how Trump went into an American car factory and told the executives of that company that if they relocated to Mexico, he would put a huge tax on their cars coming into America. Not all was misogyny in the vote for Trump. Whether he delivers on his threat or not, unlike the democrat bureaucratic machinery, he showed he was actually listening to working class Americans and that he was ;prepared to face up to company executives.

    What has this paper got to say about Hillary and the Democrat Party's class bigotry – its demonstrable contempt for 10s of millions of Americans whose lives are worse now than in 1973, while productivity and wealth overall has skyrocketed over those 43 years.

    What has this paper got to say about the lives of African American women, which have been devastated by Republican/Democrat bipartisan policy over the last 43 years?
    What has Hadley Freeman got to say about Hillary's comment that President Mubarek of Egypt was "one of the family? A president whose security forces used physical and sexualised abuse of female demonstrators in the Arab Spring?

    A feminist would need more than a peg on their nose to vote for Hillary – a feminist would need all the scented oils of Arabia. Perhaps Wahhabi funded Hillary can buy them up.

    bunkl , 10 Nov 2016 10:1>
    Great article, but Hilary was hardly responsible for privatization and austerity in the USA. She only had 2 terms in the senate (and was only one of 450+ in congress). She was in fact mildly center-left and at least nominally and aginst the TPPA. She could have led a progressive congress (as in the Johnson year) if her coattails were long enough.

    I have never in my long life ever seen a politician so demonized... not by the mainstream media, but by the new media run mostly by the alt-right and funded by the likes of the Koch brothers. It worked.

    The climate accord is now finished ..any movement towards single payer or paid parental leave, minimum wage increase ...gone. - military spending is now going up, and Trump is proposing tolls on all roads -all to be privatized to pay for tax cuts for the top earners. and this is tip of the iceberg...and not including the racist upswing.

    That said, the DNC has a lot to answer for with its undemocratic superdelegates and documented undemining of Sanders...as did the media who either ignored him or unfairly lambasted him. The RealClearPolitics average from May 6-June 5 had Sanders at 49.7% to Trump's 39.3%, a 10.4-point cushion...polling that included independents. In that same time frame, Trump was polling close to Clinton and was even ahead in multiple polls. Most people were well aware of Sander's so-called "socialist" label since October the previous year, so I'm unclear if that would have been a factor in the general election.

    Quiller , 10 Nov 2016 10:1>
    An analysis of the media is long over due : It was remarkable to see the media, including American media, go into shock mode and scramble to reorganise the script and the thinking to run a perspective on what was happening on the night the votes were counted. The media had conditioned themselves to a Clinton win. Clearly the editors and the reporters were not out on the streets and in the hustings getting all the messages. The Guardian is in shock mode after the British Referendum and the American Presidential Election. The most politically dangerous person is a discontented voter with a ballot paper. How could the media have not spotted in advance what was happening ? I do not buy the lazy perspective that the voters deceived the media into their voting intentions. Personally, I think the media have got fat and lazy and need to come out from behind their editorial desks.
    DaveLester FrankyJane , 10 Nov 2016 10:1>

    This article is brilliant. Truth in spades.

    Naomi, has omitted one very important detail: automation, i.e. the use of AI to replace jobs.

    This absolutely requires us to restructure society to provide security and purpose to each every one of us who is not part of the super rich owners.

    For example we will see driving jobs rapidly disappearing within the next five to ten years.

    I also notice that where the worst effects of rampant capitalism are ameliorated there appear to be fewer issues. I'm thinking of many Western European nations where the issues do not yet seem to have the over fifty percent traction that they have in the US and the UK. If Australia were suffering a similar economic slow down it may well join the US and UK. But what's happening in Canada and New Zealand?

    SlumVictim , 10 Nov 2016 09:2>
    The problem with centre left parties throughout the western world is that they sold out to corporate capitalism, which forced people who rejected neoliberalism to go to the extremes to protest. The question is, once someone's loyalty has been broken, it is that much more difficult to win loyalty back, if it is possible at all.
    empestteacup SlumVictim , 10 Nov 2016 11:5>
    Good, concise post.

    And you're right - the neoliberal capture of centre-left legacy parties from the Democrats to the German SPD and French Socialist Party has created an exceptionally unpromising landscape and public mood. Trust has been broken. Responsibilities betrayed. Intellectual traditions traduced, distorted, or simply cast aside.

    In moments of humiliation or defeat - and make no mistake, this was both - there needs to be reflection and a willingness to return to first principles as well as evolving new strategies and insights appropriate to the present.

    Economic realities shape cultural and social relations. The left should always listen to the experiences of people and build a consensus based on solidarity between groups and not the alienated support of different self-interested demographics. Exploitation is the corner-stone of capitalism when it is left to run unchecked. Without regulation, capitalism tends towards monopolies that end up subverting democracy itself.

    These are the issues Bernie Sanders raised and the enthusiasm with which it was greeted is testimony to the fact that there are white working class voters hungry for a politics of positive, radical social change. Intoning with robotic piety that the people have never had it so good despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is a form of deceit; when it comes from the mouths of corporate Democrats, it is political obscenity.

    zephirine tempestteacup , 10 Nov 2016 12:1>

    In moments of humiliation or defeat - and make no mistake, this was both - there needs to be reflection and a willingness to return to first principles

    I think what I've realised from the Brexit and Trump results is how desperate people are for something to believe in. What used to be called 'the vision thing'.

    For decades we've had to choose between different forms of managerialism and variations on a theme of 'there is no alternative to rule by the market'. We just had to put up and shut up, there was nothing to get excited about. Nobody's ever jumped up and down shouting "What do want? Trickle-down economics! When do we want it? Now!"

    The thing about demagogues is they offer that emotional release. What we need is principled political movements that also enable it.

    tempestteacup zephirine , 10 Nov 2016 12:3>
    Absolutely right. One of the by-products of There Is No Alternative, though, is that managerialism and wonkiness have been fetishised. Hillary Clinton's devastatingly uninspiring offer to the American people was hailed by some as a mark of her "maturity", "experience", and "competence". Bernie Sanders, by contrast, was attacked for firing people up, for inspiring them to believe change was possible - by implication, of course, such attacks rest on the belief that change is in fact not possible at all. It is a bleak nihilism that states the best that can be hoped or organised for is a slightly better management of existing structures.

    There is a hypocrisy, too, when someone like Clinton derides Trump's economic plans as "Trumped-up trickle-down". In reality, they were arguing simply over who would offer the *bigger* tax cuts. The notion that there were alternative visions on the economy, on climate change, on racial equality or healthcare and education, not to mention foreign policies, was almost completely absent.

    This is why I wrote that in some ways Hillary Clinton was the greater evil in this election. It is one thing to hark backwards to a mythical past, as Donald Trump did. It is quite another to put such tight constraints on the entire notion of what is possible in the future. Trump offered nostalgia. Clinton offered the tyranny of low expectations - forever.

    But that is all in the past now - for the future, I agree with you that there needs to be a willingness to offer radical, inspirational and visionary alternatives to a system that has simply not worked for the majority of people who through no fault of their own find their quality of life, possibilities and security in decline while wealth flows ceaselessly upwards and into the pockets of those already insulated from the harm their favoured politicians unleash.

    Bernie showed what can be done - he also showed that people are willing to finance such campaigns and thus liberate the political process from the death-grip of corporate donations. Personally, I am sceptical of whether the Democratic Party is an appropriate vehicle for such politics (I know that Bernie doesn't agree with me!) Regardless, his campaign should provide somewhat of a model for what can be done - and likewise his statement from today. Amidst the headlong rush - in this paper as well - to denigrate and smear voters for failing to advance bourgeois liberal interests, it is imperative that deprived, working class voters of all races are listened to properly and not labelled racists and bigots. A few no doubt are. But these are, in many instances, the same people that helped elect Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. They are crying out for something to organise around. Hillary Clinton failed because she was not and never has been a person capable of, even interested in, offering that.

    eyelacesforyou , 10 Nov 2016 09:2>
    This is a great article. Alas, I fear it is all too late.

    Everyone knew what was wrong with Clinton and the whole rotten DNC operation, but they supported her anyway. When her flaws were pointed out, people kept saying 'but she's a woman.' As if that even mattered.

    Fundamentally the left has to abandon its obsession with identity politics, embrace national identity and individual liberty. Then it will be able to get over its economic message and win the day.

    [Nov 11, 2016] The Donald Trump victory is on the DNC establishment who rigged the primaries and eliminatd Sanders

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ironically, "respectability" is an intrinsically far-right notion in the first place. ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    flora November 10, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    The Donald's victory is on the Dem estab who rigged the primaries. It's on the MSM who acted as Hillary's surrogate and cheerleader and who slandered Sanders' voters at every opportunity. And they're STILL slandering Sanders' voters. More important for the Dem estab to keep control of the party than to win against the GOP. Bernie would'a beat Trump, imo.

    marym November 10, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    would'a had some coat tails for House and Senate too, imo.

    hunkerdown November 10, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    But not "respectable" coat tails. Remember, the Democratic Party is the "respectable" left, not those hooligan socialists that want to make bosses and workmen peers (ew).

    Ironically, "respectability" is an intrinsically far-right notion in the first place.

    [Nov 11, 2016] November 10, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    lyman alpha blob November 10, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    Been wondering if I should renew the Nation subscription that I allowed to lapse a few years ago.

    This makes the decision easy.

    Katharine November 10, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Ah, yes, The Nation! I have had a subscription for decades (it was much better in Cockburn's day) and have long marveled that they raise money by having cruises where wealthy donors can schmooze with columnists or special contributors, and apparently see no conflict between this and their professed political values. (Come cruise the Caribbean and see the dear natives and talk about social justice? Ugh!) They do still sometimes produce good articles, but their lack of connection with the world outside their bubble seems to be growing.

    Carolinian November 10, 2016 at 4:23 pm

    They do still have Greider.

    As for the amazingly stupid "whiteness" article (and I did not vote for Trump), Vanden Heuvel should hang her head in shame. Her own husband has styled the neocon (and therefore HIllary) policy toward Russia as something close to lunacy. Which is to say there were plenty of reasons to vote against Hillary other than "whiteness." In fact a more accurate statement about most white people and race is that they probably don't think about it much at all. Call this insensitive if you like, but ignoring a problem and contributing to it are not the same things. After all the author of the Nation article clearly hasn't spent a lot of time thinking about Russia, Syria, Libya, or Hillary's victims. Nevertheless I'll refrain from calling him a bigot.

    craazyboy November 10, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    Truth be told, I've had trouble all along believing Hillary is indeed a black lady.

    tgs November 10, 2016 at 6:51 pm

    and I did not vote for Trump

    Nor did I, but given his thesis, that doesn't matter. I'm still complicit. Another interesting consequence of his thesis is that Hillary Clinton is also complicit. But 'complicity' implies agency – one cannot be unconsciously complicit since 'being complicit' means 'knowingly helping helping others to commit a crime or other wrong doing'.

    Speaking of extending the sense of a term, the 'white supremacy' trope is suffering from overuse. First of all, there really are white supremacists. You can Google it. But like 'antisemitic' once it is applied generally as a term of abuse it loses its force – it suffers semantic inflation. Jill Stein's running mate, Ajamu Baraka suggested in a blog post that Bernie Sanders had a commitment to Eurocentrism and normalized white supremacy . Calling Bernie Sanders a white supremacist is really rendering the term meaningless.

    [Nov 11, 2016] True convictions of Western presstitutes and so called democratic neoliberals

    Notable quotes:
    "... As open-minded and tolerant [neo]liberals purport to be, they are more moralistic than they realize. They can't for the life of them understand why enlightened California should not count more than degenerate Texas; their contempt towards the heartland and jokes about withdrawing the franchise from the rednecks is revealing of their vacuous elitism. Their willingness to flee the country and protest now that their chosen political instrument was rejected is a testament to their complete political flaccidity. As much as a broad coalition must be built to push the world to the Left, these people deserved to lose and hurt. The problem is they won't learn, and the world will be a disaster by the time they are forced to realize their errors. ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Bjornasson November 10, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    Nice to see some self-awareness in the press. However, Polly Toynbee of the Guardian continues to embarrass herself .

    I was talking to my parents (not very well-versed in political theory) about how liberals really have no true convictions other than their fragile faith in the universality of moral values. My friends are literally convulsing from having to resolve the following contradictions in their minds:

    a) their hatred and misunderstanding of Trump's victory,
    b) straight up animosity towards anyone perceived to have supported Trump or not supported Hillary (the latter being the same as the former for them), and
    c) reiterating their faith in democracy and "respecting" everyone's right to democratic expression.

    As open-minded and tolerant [neo]liberals purport to be, they are more moralistic than they realize. They can't for the life of them understand why enlightened California should not count more than degenerate Texas; their contempt towards the heartland and jokes about withdrawing the franchise from the rednecks is revealing of their vacuous elitism. Their willingness to flee the country and protest now that their chosen political instrument was rejected is a testament to their complete political flaccidity. As much as a broad coalition must be built to push the world to the Left, these people deserved to lose and hurt. The problem is they won't learn, and the world will be a disaster by the time they are forced to realize their errors.

    As a non-American in America, this election has been supremely clarifying to me about the true nature of the educated, enlightened West[en elite]. But I am also thankful for having come closer to my true convictions mostly because of the coverage and comments at NC. You guys rock!

    [Nov 11, 2016] The complicity extends far beyond Trump voters, to those whites who voted against Sanders in the primary, and indeed to everyone who did. Yes, those black church ladies voting lockstep in the early primaries for a neoliberal warmonger

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    tgs November 10, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Apparently, the Donald's victory on Tuesday is 'on' white people whether they voted for him or not! In voting for DT, white people did not vote against their interests; rather they voted for the one thing they value above all else – their whiteness. At the Nation:

    This Is What White Supremacy Looks Like

    And please note that I am not including any qualifiers. For working-class whites. Or whites from Rust Belt cities. Or white men. Or white people who didn't graduate from college-or rural whites, or Midwestern whites, or Southern whites. Or whites disillusioned with Washington. Or whites who hate Clinton. Or whites who felt ignored by politicians. This is on all white people-who are complicit even if they didn't vote for Trump.

    Does this mean I would not be a white supremacist if Hillary had won? Seems to me that if we had elected Hillary a whole rainbow coalition of people would have been complicit in bringing to power a white, neo-liberal war hawk who have shortly launched attacks both economic and military both here and abroad.

    JTMcPhee November 10, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    Naw, "white supremacist" is a thing, an indelible genetic Magic Marker evidenced by having skin tones that are actually cream, tan, peach and an assortment of pastels, shading to gray-green as death approaches or fiery red if overexposed to the cleansing power of natural (or tanning-bed) light, and any such creature who voted Democrat did so purely out of fear of retribution… /s

    timbers November 10, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    "This is on all white people-who are complicit even if they didn't vote for Trump."

    Yes – white people who voted for Hillary are complicit in Trump's victory.

    At least in so far as they didn't vote for Bernie in the primaries … think this guy is on to something!

    Kurt Sperry November 10, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    Exactly. Except I'd expand that to say the complicity extends far beyond Trump voters, to those whites who voted against Sanders in the primary, and indeed to *everyone* who did. Yes, those black church ladies voting lockstep in the early primaries for the only candidate who could lose to Trump did their part for the white supremacist cause as well, albeit as unwittingly as many of the others.

    Thus, the author of that piece, Damon Young, who I'll assume from reading it was a Clinton supporter, was it turns out equally complicit as well but obviously lacking in sufficient self-awareness to see it.

    ChiGal in Carolina November 10, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    the article continues:

    "Yes, there exists a difference between allies and racial antagonists. They are not the same. But those allies obviously haven't done enough collectively to repudiate the mindsets existing in their families and among their friends…

    "Millions of white voters have shown us that nothing existing on earth or in heaven or hell matters more to them than being white , and whichever privileges-real or fabricated, concrete or spiritual-existing as White in America provides."

    First, such exit polling as I have seen indicates it is not that white people turned out in droves to vote for Trump; it is rather the case that people of color DIDN'T turn out in droves to vote for Clinton. Second. it is rather a tall order for us "allies" to convince other folks' friends and family of anything – not always but mostly within one's own circle values are largely shared. Although I certainly have had my share of exchanges affirming the legitimacy of Black Lives Matter with commenters here who would deny it.

    But heavens, all the snark on this site about Van Jones yesterday? Folks, this stuff is heartfelt. See Ta-Nehisi Coates' Between the World and Me. The seemingly hysterical outcry of fear above has to be understood within the context of the history of this country. Can anyone seriously doubt that as the demographics change the fight to preserve power/status for those who traditionally held it will intensify? Who gives up power voluntarily?

    We are going through a seismic change and it could well get ugly, and those who have been on the receiving end of ugly for generations are terrified, truly terrified. I got quite the dressing down from an African American friend who is furious I didn't vote for Clinton. I stood my ground, but with compassion. In the end, the browns inevitably will prevail, and let us hope they are kinder to whites than whites have been to them over the centuries.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Some recommendation for alternative media

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Altandmain November 10, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    Just wondering, is there anywhere a source of reliable media writers that we can rely on?

    A small list to start with:
    – Glenn Greenwald
    – Naomi Klein
    – Thomas Frank
    – Chris Hedges

    Need a full list of people that we can trust to give us an honest breakdown.

    What is the quality of coverage at the Al Jaazera English network and RT? Any alt media sites you guys trust?

    This election has a been a serious eye opener. A lot of supposedly left leaning sites proved to be little more than Clinton bots – the Daily Kos being the most visible example but there have been others.

    diptherio November 10, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    Everybody on your list is usually pretty good, but no one is on all the time. It's totally possible to be right about a lot things and woefully blind to others. See Matt Taibbi, Christopher Hitchens, etc. It's always important to not assume someone knows what they're talking about just because that's been the case in the past. No matter the source, you always gotta think it through yourself.

    That said, this site (obviously) and anything by Bill Black, Michael Hudson, The Real News Network, or Laura Flanders is a good bet for real news. And that's just for starters….

    Lambert Strether Post author November 10, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    Chris Arnade, Michael Tracey, Carl Beijer, Stephanie Kelton, Francis McKenna, Adolph Reed, Corey Robin, Jimmy Dore, Benjamin Dixon, Erica Garner, Dan Froomkin.

    XFR November 10, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    Ian Welsh and Eric Margolis.

    Patricia November 10, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    Also Jordan Chariton from TYT Politics, Ian Welsh, Marcy Wheeler, Lee Fang, Kevin Gosztola.

    And for now, a hilarious blend of conservative/liberal Sanders types at reddit's way of the bern.

    Waldenpond November 10, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    I might add Adam H. Johnson with the Michael Tracey crowd.

    Two twitter feeds… actualflatticus and Nina Illingworth that have been 'fiery' about the election.

    nycTerrierist November 10, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    I would add to the list: Ted Rall, I always enjoy Jeffrey St. Clair,
    and BAR's Glen Ford and Margaret Kimberly

    Emma November 10, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    Mmm…. these days it's a rare type of journalist who won't fall on earth void of sense, nor drop to earth dead of mind! Agree with those listed by NC commenters but would also include the following below. Why?
    None of them (rarely?) prostrate themselves upon the ground………they instead bravely choose to behold the earth in all its' darkest extremities. For they are a crazy bunch of hellacious mortals piercing our gloom with much added sparkle and stars….
    International Business Times – David Sirota and his colleagues
    The Young Turks – Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian (a formidable young lady!) et al
    The Empire Files with Abby Martin (another formidable young lady!)
    Watching the Hawks – Tabetha Wallace (as with Ana and Abby!), Tyrel Ventura etc.
    The Intercept – Lee 'BIG' Fang, Jeremy Scahill, and the rest of the team
    There are also a few typically labeled right-wingers IMHO who are good too, not least because they remain sane and surprisingly impartial for the most part compared to their batty brethren! Otherwise I'd suggest the non-English language media for a decent lay of the USA…

    Plenue November 10, 2016 at 4:32 pm

    Is Dore still part of the TYT crowd? Because he seriously has a vastly better grasp of things than they do.

    I Have Strange Dreams November 10, 2016 at 4:58 pm

    True. The Young Shitebags are awful. They make Rush Limbaugh seem erudite.

    YY November 10, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    While Cenk can be hard on the ears when in all caps rants, TYT is really quite informative and entertaining. Dore on a tear complete with parenthetical remarks manages to compress a lot of detail in a short time. He makes comedy central look sick/dead.

    Plenue November 10, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    I don't know, just watched a few of their recent videos. Michael Shure is the epitome of the clueless identity politics liberal, sneering about all the 'people in overalls with pitchforks' who voted for Trump, and John Iadarola seems convinced the only possible reason non-college educated white men under 45 could have voted for Trump is because they hate women. Pathetic.

    Emma November 10, 2016 at 6:00 pm

    Both the WSJ and the National Review appear to thankfully give some out-of-the-box latitude to their teams at times to present some impartial, well-researched and well-written journalism. Don't read everything in either journal but I haven't seen any "sneering of people in overalls with pitchforks" from either journal.

    YY November 10, 2016 at 7:05 pm

    Try this one.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyBMhmK79tg

    human November 10, 2016 at 5:06 pm

    Glen Ford, Greg Palast, Bev Harris, Arthur Silber

    par4 November 10, 2016 at 3:26 pm

    I'd add Prof. Richard Wolff to that list

    Pat November 10, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    I'll throw in David Dayen.

    Robert Hahl November 10, 2016 at 4:32 pm

    John Pilger, e.g. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/04/the-secrets-of-the-us-election-julian-assange-talks-to-john-pilger/

    However I would ignore Naomi Klein at this point.

    pretzelattack November 10, 2016 at 5:13 pm

    i haven't been following her lately, but disaster capitalism was great. what has she done that would lead you to ignore her?

    Treadingwaterbutstillkicking November 10, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    Is there really an answer to this? I mean, everyone we "ostensibly" seem to trust seems to have a blind spot somewhere.

    Glenn Greenwald is great, but has some issues with releasing Snowden documents (which I think Cryptome has discussed), plus there's always the issue of what angle Pierre Omydar is pushing.

    Chris Hedges seems to have a an overly soft heart for religion in general and was overly apologetic in my mind to Islam after 9/11, which I think Sam Harris did a good job of pointing out the flaws in his, not logic, but rather "faith."

    But then Sam Harris has some serious issues with wanting to use nuclear weapons against religious fundamentalists too… (There's a good podcast interview between Dan Carlin and Sam on you tube where Dan I think exposes some of Sam's blind spots.)

    Chomsky, of course, has the problem of LOTE-ism by telling everyone to hold their noses and vote for Hillary.

    I say something along the lines of trust, but verify…or trust no one (at the heart of it all) when it comes to journalistic sources, experts or other thinkers.

    I don't think it could ever be a matter of just following "trusted" sources as you might not always be able to know when they've been compromised or change their viewpoints and subtly/slowly alter their reporting to fit their new perspective or paradigm.

    Sometimes it's not even subtle, like when Christopher Hitchens went all in with Shrub on invading Iraq & Middle East adventurism.

    It's mostly about critical thinking skills and putting pieces together using varied sources, even those that might disgust you simply because they force your to look at issues from other perspectives.

    sunny129 November 10, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    Your last paragraph is SPOT ON!

    The capacity of masses in developing 'critical thinking' and ability to discern fact from fad, I am afraid is limited!

    Tim November 10, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    Critical Thinking should be mandatory coursework in High School. The world would be a much better place.

    Katharine November 10, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    I wonder if it isn't a bit risky to create such lists, though I admit my daily reading implicitly relies on one. Nobody, even well-intentioned, can be guaranteed always reliable, nor is someone who really annoys you sometimes always going to be wrong. Facts matter, with sources if they are not in the category of general knowledge, and clear reasoning, and a willingness to consider other points of view when they are offered with some substantiation–all the sorts of things that characterize our hosts and some of the most knowledgeable and thoughtful commenters here.

    When I was in seventh or eighth grade we had "current events" in which you had to bring in a news article from one of the newspapers, present its information, and give your preliminary critique, which opened up discussion from the floor, with questions about whether the article was giving all the information or seemed to give inappropriate weight to one point of view without factual support, etc. Judging by letters in my local paper, I suspect this practice died long ago, as many people don't understand that opinion and bias on the editorial page are both permissible and to be expected, but yet others fail to see them in articles.

    Sometimes for kicks or because of recent developments, I look for news sources in another area or country, for which I have sometimes found this site useful:

    World Newspapers Online http://www.actualidad.com

    Either use advanced browsing or scroll down to the map and pick your area. You can quickly find out which papers you're capable of reading and then apply your critical thinking skills to try to assess the target audience, possible backing, bias, etc. It's an interesting exercise, and sometimes preferable to getting the "expert" opinion of someone in this country who really doesn't know the subject as well as he claims to.

    abynormal November 10, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    holy cow, i wrote the longest reply i've written in years and it went poof!
    anywho…Thank You Kathrine for the reminder that skills that seem to come naturally, can always use a bit of dusting off. Thanks for the link, luv aby.

    Jonathan Holland Becnel November 10, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    H.A. Goodman
    Hamilton Nolan
    Matt Taibbi
    Shaun King has been so so.

    AdelleChattre November 10, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    Chris Savage, Ellen Nakashima, Carol Rosenberg, Mark Ames, John Dolan aka Gary Brecher aka The War Nerd, James Risen, Ray MacGovern, Robert Parry, Michael Winship, Bill Moyers, Charles P. Piece.

    Fred November 10, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    Robert Parry's Consortium News is good especially for foreign affairs.

    JerseyJeffersonian November 10, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    Altandmain,

    Various good suggestions have certainly been made by other posters, but I should like to commend the value of visiting other sites where you may encounter views that are not homogeneous with yours. If I may, I would submit that this very narrowness of field of vision was part and parcel of the collapse of the Democrat party's fortunes; when one lives in an echo chamber, where all that is on offer is confirmation bias, and all other viewpoints are believed to

    [Nov 11, 2016] Neoliberal media lost credibility

    Notable quotes:
    "... EXCELLENT article on the "unbearable smugness" of the media from a CBS political correspondent/managing director: ..."
    "... great piece, and the comments are scathing. what I don't get is why they don't mention that beyond being insular and smug, the journos are also corporate-owned agents of the 1%. ..."
    "... Yesterday I watched Rachel Maddow patronizingly begin a lesson on what things make America America – how we know we're here and nowhere else in the world. I had to turn it off toot sweet when she with a completely straight face enumerated a "free" press as one of those things. ..."
    "... Not state owned, eh? But you are corporate owned, same difference. Why did MSNBC not report at all on opposition to the TPP – wouldn't have anything to do with being owned by ComCast now, would it? ..."
    "... Years ago I liked her, now she is the poster child for smug. ..."
    Nov 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    jeremy November 10, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    NBC Poll: Media Approval rating: 19%

    AP Poll: Americans with high confidence in the media: 6%

    EXCELLENT article on the "unbearable smugness" of the media from a CBS political correspondent/managing director:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-unbearable-smugness-of-the-press-presidential-election-2016/

    Oops – just noticed it's already linked above. So consider this an endorsement. :)

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef November 10, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    Personally, this tin-foil hatter believes the rating is -19%.

    To get that number, one has to rig the poll though (by including people not longer living or not born yet)…e.g. 1,000 people live in this town, and of them, 1,190 disapprove.

    ChiGal in Carolina November 10, 2016 at 7:27 pm

    great piece, and the comments are scathing. what I don't get is why they don't mention that beyond being insular and smug, the journos are also corporate-owned agents of the 1%.

    I broke my ban on MSM the night of the election and have been "slipping" a bit. Yesterday I watched Rachel Maddow patronizingly begin a lesson on what things make America America – how we know we're here and nowhere else in the world. I had to turn it off toot sweet when she with a completely straight face enumerated a "free" press as one of those things.

    Not state owned, eh? But you are corporate owned, same difference. Why did MSNBC not report at all on opposition to the TPP – wouldn't have anything to do with being owned by ComCast now, would it?

    Years ago I liked her, now she is the poster child for smug.

    [Nov 11, 2016] November 10, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    Notable quotes:
    "... I watched the election coverage over at R/T. I haven't watched a lamestream media broadcast of any kind for about 15 years, other than being a captive audience member at the airport, but toward the end of the night I tuned in to MSNBC and CNN. The funereal mood at these two "networks" was pretty over-the-top. The smug look on Rachel Maddow's face was priceless. ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    robnume November 10, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    I watched the election coverage over at R/T. I haven't watched a lamestream media broadcast of any kind for about 15 years, other than being a captive audience member at the airport, but toward the end of the night I tuned in to MSNBC and CNN. The funereal mood at these two "networks" was pretty over-the-top. The smug look on Rachel Maddow's face was priceless.

    I really thought all of the talking heads were going to break out into tears. It was quite a disturbing scene. They all looked like special little snowflakes who had just had something stolen from them. The hubris was unbelievable. The coverage over at R/T was a breath of fresh air, in comparison. The anchors were professional, they understand clearly and with articulation described how and why the election went the way it did. R/T clearly "gets it" and did a bang-up job on election night 2016. Good job,, R/T.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Trump was the only one who talked about stopping the globalization which is destroying the American middle class and ending our crazy endless unwinnable foreign wars.

    Notable quotes:
    "... the more credible explanation is: 1) Barack Obama very eloquently promised Hope and Change in 2008 and 2012. 2) Barack Obama systematically broke his promises of hope and change. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton promised to continue Obama's policies. 4) Working people who had voted for Obama in the hope that he truly would change things lost patience and got sick of Democrats who (in the words of one millenial) "promise everything and change nothing." ..."
    "... Populism is the real explanation for Trump's victory. ...he talked about stopping the globalization that's destroying the American middle class and ending our crazy endless unwinnable foreign wars. By contrast, Hillary Clinton gave $225,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs hedge fund traders in which she said the "banker-bashing so popular within both parties was unproductive and indeed foolish." ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    mclaren 11.10.16 at 10:42 am 162

    Raven Oathill in #145 says: "Oh, for examples of Trumpian fascism I forgot advocating torture …"

    Barack Obama continued Bush-era torture, only slightly differently. Obama restricted torture to Appendix M of the CIA's interrogation manual - that's the manual that the CIA created by studying the Chinese communist's Mao-era thought reform torture methods. Appendix M prohibits cutting and beating in favor of sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, cold, noise assault, and other methods like the water drip method. These forms of torture leave no marks but drive people insane or destroy their minds as surely as the standard three weeks of non-stop beatings favored in Lubyanka.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/25/obama-administration-military-torture-army-field-manual

    Let's not forget that the American president who began our current ride on the torture carousel was Bill Clinton, who initiated "extraordinary rendition" (AKA fly prisoners to third world countries in CIA chartered Lear jets and let third world dictators torture the victims for us).

    https://www.aclu.org/other/fact-sheet-extraordinary-rendition

    The problem with the smug top-4% narrative of the Democratic elite's professional class that "It's all about racism!" is that many of the counties in red states that went heavily for Trump in this election went even more heavily for Bernie Sanders. A lot of states that voted for Trump in this election voted for Obama in the last election.

    What, did those Rust Belt states suddenly decide to not become racist when Obama ran, and then became racist again when Trump ran? How does that work? "A black guy is running for president, so I'm going to stop being a racist and vote for him. Oh, wait, now a white guy is running for president, so I'm going to become a racist again." Does that make sense?

    No, the more credible explanation is: 1) Barack Obama very eloquently promised Hope and Change in 2008 and 2012. 2) Barack Obama systematically broke his promises of hope and change.

    3) Hillary Clinton promised to continue Obama's policies. 4) Working people who had voted for Obama in the hope that he truly would change things lost patience and got sick of Democrats who (in the words of one millenial) "promise everything and change nothing."

    Populism is the real explanation for Trump's victory. ...he talked about stopping the globalization that's destroying the American middle class and ending our crazy endless unwinnable foreign wars. By contrast, Hillary Clinton gave $225,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs hedge fund traders in which she said the "banker-bashing so popular within both parties was unproductive and indeed foolish."

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-vampire-squid-tells-us-how-to-vote-20160205

    Meanwhile Bill Clinton dismissed the American population's rage at the bankers who crashed the world economy with the comment: `"You could take Lloyd Blankfein in an alley and slit his throat, and it would satisfy them for about two days," Clinton said. "Then the blood lust would rise again."'

    Did I mention that Hillary's daughter Chelsea is married to former Goldman Sachs hedge fund manager Mark Mezvinsky? They recently bought a pre-WW I ten million dollar townhouse overlooking Madison Square Park. So much for Chelsea's "zero dollar salary." I don't know a lot of people with a salary of zero dollars who can afford to buy 10.5 million dollar apartments in the upper West Side of New York. Do you?

    http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-estate/chelsea-clinton-buys-10-5-million-article-1.1288710

    Hillary has wooed defense contractors with the love that dare not speak its name (the love of foreign intervention, AKA burning brown babies by the bushel-load) and she has promised lots more endless unwinnable wars around the globe, disguised as the sound-bite "America needs a more assertive foreign policy."

    `"It is clear that she is behind the use of force in anything that has gone on in this cabinet. She is a Democratic hawk and that is her track record. That's the flag she's planted," said Gordon Adams, a national security budget expert who was an associate director in President Bill Clinton's Office of Management and Budget.

    `Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who has spent her post-service days protesting the war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, is more blunt.

    "Interventionism is a business and it has a constituency and she is tapping into it," she tells TAC. "She is for the military industrial complex, and she is for the neoconservatives."'

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-military-industrial-candidate/

    By way of contrast, here's Donald Trump giving a speech on foreign policy:

    "Unfortunately, after the Cold War, our foreign policy veered badly off course. We failed to develop a new vision for a new time. In fact, as time went on, our foreign policy began to make less and less sense. Logic was replaced with foolishness and arrogance, and this led to one foreign policy disaster after another. We went from mistakes in Iraq to Egypt to Libya, to President Obama's line in the sand in Syria. Each of these actions have helped to throw the region into chaos, and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper.

    "It all began with the dangerous idea that we could make Western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interest in becoming a Western Democracy. We tore up what institutions they had and then were surprised at what we unleashed. Civil war, religious fanaticism; thousands of American lives, and many trillions of dollars, were lost as a result. The vacuum was created that ISIS would fill. Iran, too, would rush in and fill the void, much to their unjust enrichment. Our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster. No vision, no purpose, no direction, no strategy."

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/trump-foreign-policy-15960

    Do I believe that Trump meant any of that? Of course not. Did Trump change his foreign policy stance five minutes after he gave that speech? Probably. Is the rest of that Trump foreign policy speech crazy and counterfactual? Obviously - especially the part where Trump claims that America's military is underfunded (!)

    But the point here is that Trump actually at least talked about these screwups. He talked about America's mad wars around the globe. He talked about how American leaders couldn't stop getting into endless unwinnable foreign quagmires after the Cold War ended. Every ordinary American knows this stuff. But no one in Washington was talking about it - except Trump. Hillary, who voted for the Iraq war of 2003 and tried to convince president Obama to bomb Iran rather than negotiate, certainly never wanted to mention any of these inconvenient problems. And our beloved president Obama's response was "America is already great." Torture? Endless wars? Collapsing middle class? Burgeoning poverty? Skyrocketing child malnutrition? Bankers asset-stripping the economy? No problem, America is already great. Enjoy!

    Sanders and Trump were the only candidates who talked about American corporations shipping jobs overseas. Sanders and Trump were the only candidates who talked about bankers looting the population and crashing the world economy and paying themselves bonuses out of the publicly-funded bailout money. Sanders and Trump were the only candidates who talked about how globalization is destroying the U.S. middle class.

    The professionals with advanced degrees who make $80,000 a year or more (the top 4% of the American population) are the ones who control the Democratic party today. And they made sure Sanders never got the nomination. These self-styled Big Brains have decided to treat ordinary working folks and peons who have a mere bachelor's degree and no professional credential (Ma, PhD, M.D., LLD, JD) the same way Jim Crow Southerners used to treat black people.

    Everyone without an advanced degree is now treated by the leaders of the Democratic party as one of "those people," ungrateful curs who have the unbelievable gall to criticize their betters. "Those people" have the insufferable temerity to question the wiser and smarter and far more wealthy doyens of the Democratic party, the masterminds with professional credentials, the geniuses who assure them that the TPP is spiffy and globalization is absolutely marvy-doo and global wage arbitrage is just dreamy.

    To the professional class top-4% who run the Democratic party, working people and scum with a mere bachelor's degree are inferior creatures, not ready for self-governance. "Those people" must be guided by a superior breed, the elites with advanced degrees, those wise enough to have gotten things right by invading Iraq. And deregulating the banks. And making sure Bernie Sanders never got the Democratic nomination. And writing those marvelous zero-hours work contracts that let employers force employees to call in every morning to see if they get a shift that day.

    "Those people" without advanced degrees need careful management, since they have no impulse control, they're filthy and smelly, they're really animals who can't help drinking and carousing and breeding. "Those people" never had the discipline to get a masters or an M.D., so they need a firm hand, and the strict guidance of the All-Powerful Market to keep them in check. Sound familiar? Sort of like, oh, say, Deep South slaveowners talking about their slaves circa 1840?

    Populism. That's the reason why Trump won. ... he's the only one of the two presidential candidates who sounded any genuinely populist notes during the campaign. When Hillary was asked if she wanted to break up the too-big-to-fail banks, she said "no." When Hillary was asked about foreign wars, she lapsed into the old "indispensable nation" crap. When Hillary was asked about single-payer health care she called it "something that will never, ever happen."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will-never-ever-happen/

    Gee, I wonder why Hillary lost? It's such a puzzle. Racism! That's it! It must be racism!

    [Nov 11, 2016] The Democrats abandoned the only people that are paying the bills in this country - period! And the working class sent a message loud and clear.

    Nov 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    sou812 3h ago 0 1 The Democrats abandoned the only people that are paying the bills in this country - period! And the working class sent a message loud and clear. The arrogance and ignorance of he left is astounding: focused on the novelty of getting a woman elected to the presidency even though she was the worst of choices. An arrogant, dishonest, bought and paid for Wall Street elitist like her husband, they thought that her experience was enough to seal her success. Ta!
    The Dem's have lost it all and it will take two decades to recover, if ever.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Betrayal is punished...

    Nov 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com

    garfield08

    , 10 Nov 2016 12:4>
    After 8 years of "no change" Obama, a president totally owned by the corporations, banks, big money etc. and the man who failed to do anything about that huge and ever widening wealth gap the Democrats were obviously out of favour with the poor working class. But the voters seem to have forgotten than Trump still stands for the Republicans and thats where he will enrol his cabinet from, he can not act alone. Those same weak, ineffective ultra right loonies that stood against Trump and made him look special will now stand with him in government. Its still money politics.

    [Nov 11, 2016] M of A - Nusra On The Run - Trump Induces First Major Policy Change On Syria

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The people loyal to the Syrian government are happy with Donald Trump winning the U.S. election:
    At the passport counter, a Syrian officer's face lit up when he saw an American traveler.

    "Congratulations on your new president!" he exclaimed, giving an energetic thumbs up. Mr. Trump, he said, would be "good for Syria."

    The first significant step of the new administration comes while Trump is not even in offices. Obama, selfishly concerned with his historic legacy, suddenly makes a 180 degree turn and starts to implement Trump polices. Lets consider the initial position :

    Asked about Aleppo in an October debate with Clinton, Trump said it was a humanitarian disaster but the city had "basically" fallen. Clinton, he said, was talking in favor of rebels without knowing who they were.

    The rebels fighting Assad in western Syria include nationalists fighting under the Free Syrian Army banner, some of them trained in a CIA-backed program, and jihadists such as the group formerly known as the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front.

    The Obama administration, through the CIA led by Saudi asset John Brennan, fed weapons, training and billions of dollars to "moderate rebels". These then turned around (vid) and either gave the CIA gifts to al-Qaeda in Syria (aka Jabhat al Nusra) or joined it themselves. The scheme was no secret at all and Russia as well as Syria pointed this out several times. The Russian foreign Minister Lavrov negotiated with the U.S. secretary of State Kerry who promised to separate the "moderate rebels" from al-Qaeda. But Kerry never delivered. Instead he falsely accuse Russia of committing atrocities that never happened. The CIA kept the upper hand within the Obama administration and continued its nefarious plans.

    That changed the day the president-elect Trump set foot into the White House. While Obama met Trump in the oval office, new policies, prepared beforehand, were launched. The policies were held back until after the election and would likely not have been revealed or implemented if Clinton had won.

    The U.S. declared that from now on it will fight against al-Qaeda in Syria:

    President Obama has ordered the Pentagon to find and kill the leaders of an al-Qaeda-linked group in Syria that the administration had largely ignored until now and that has been at the vanguard of the fight against the Syrian government, U.S. officials said.

    That shift is likely to accelerate once President-elect Donald Trump takes office. ... possibly in direct cooperation with Moscow .
    ...
    U.S. officials who opposed the decision to go after al-Nusra's wider leadership warned that the United States would effectively be doing the Assad government's bidding by weakening a group on the front line of the counter-Assad fight.
    ...
    Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and other Pentagon leaders initially resisted the idea of devoting more Pentagon surveillance aircraft and armed drones against al-Nusra.

    Ash Carter is, together with John Brennan, the major anti-Russian force in the Obama administration. He is a U.S. weapon industry promoter and the anti-Russia campaign, which helps to sell U.S. weapons to NATO allies in Europe, is largely of his doing. He saw al-Qaeda in Syria as a welcome proxy force against Russia.

    But Obama has now shut down that policy. We are not yet sure that this is for good but the above Washington Post account is not the only signal : rg the lg | Nov 11, 2016 11:02:07 AM | 5

    Obama shifting policy is probably to protect his legacy from the reality that the US promotes chaos as a national goal. It is also a cynical attempt to pre-empt any Trump induced success in Syria?

    The good news is that there is rioting in the DuhMurriKKKan streets as a consequence of Trump being elected rather than Clinton ... and all this time we were supposed to be afraid of Trump-ites hitting the streets if their guy lost. I don't recall anyone suggesting there would be Clintonistas on the streets if Trump won.

    Mina | Nov 11, 2016 11:07:45 AM | 7
    While Carter is appeasing the Turks, Erdogan is now turning against the Egyptian governement as "Gulen supporters"!!
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/248787/Egypt/Politics-/Egypt-slams-Erdogans-double-standards.aspx
    as for the EU....business as usual "Pressure growing in EU to halt Turkish membership talks but no decision yet", i.e. now that we've given large shares of our electricity, cars manufacturers etc to the Gulf, whom should we beg!?
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/248818/World/Region/Pressure-growing-in-EU-to-halt-Turkish-membership-.aspx

    Denis | Nov 11, 2016 11:18:04 AM | 9
    It is telling that the WaPo article emphasizes that "limited" US airstrikes are being conducted and only after notifying Ru. IOW Putin has established a de facto no-fly zone. He is now controlling where and when USG flies in Syria.

    DTDuck now starts his balancing act; we'll soon know if he's got what it takes to be a leader. He can't kiss Putin's ass without helping Assad. He can't help Assad and kiss Bibi's ass. And yet he's already kissing Bibi's ass. Syria is about Yisrael. Always has been. If DTDuck can come down on both sides of that fence, he's a genius.

    And maybe he is. DTDuck has just proven that he doesn't need the MSM or AIPAC's shekels to get elected. That means the iJews won't be able control him unless they threaten him and his family physically. He's one dangerous dude as far as Ertz Yisrael goes. But so was JFK.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 11, 2016 11:34:57 AM | 11
    I'm quite certain that Obama is playing his "Trump" card as a last-ditch effort to encourage the Russians to delay their impending (full spectrum) offensive and keep them off-balance for a few more days/ weeks and thus give his 'Russian quagmire' dream another 40 winks. According to Al Jazeera, the Yanks are saying that they'll be restricting the scope of their attacks on 'Terrorist Leaders' in Syria to drone surveillance and strikes. Al Jaz's reporter was speaking to their Washington correspondent and one of them (not sure which) mentioned that the US won't be sending in boots or manned aircraft without the permission of the Syrian Govt. So, if nothing else, this probably spells the end of any present or future (illegal) military involvement by AmeriKKKa's Christian allies in Syria.

    So imo, overall, it's a crock and a trick - small bikkies with a high risk of Yankee treachery. If the Yankees were sincere (cough, cough) they'd cooperate directly with Syria/Russia and agree on who's in charge of the joint mission. And if the Russians are sincere they'll ask the Yankees to respect Syria's sovereignty and stay out of Syria.

    s | Nov 11, 2016 11:36:44 AM | 12
    Inasmuch as the CIA has a very good idea where the leaders of al-Nusrah front are, this is ostensibly a directive to bomb the CIA Will the US campaign against al-Nusrah inexplicably fail?

    Jack Smith: Clinton won the election. The electoral college overturns the popular vote of course...unless the electors keep faith with democracy, and vote for the winner?

    james | Nov 11, 2016 11:47:05 AM | 13
    @11 hoarsewhisperer.. i have to agree with you on all that, but it is fun to be optimistic, if only for a second!

    Erlindur | Nov 11, 2016 11:57:56 AM | 14
    A clean up operation maybe? Who knows what kind of dirt those moder...oops terrorist leaders may have and who they could probably implicate. With Hillary in the white house, any info that may come from them, could easily go under the carpet as propaganda. Who knows what Trump could do?

    BraveNewWorld | Nov 11, 2016 12:03:27 PM | 15
    This should make it untenable for the other colonial powers in NATO to keep supporting AQ as well. So hopefully we have seen the end of any more white helmets and other propaganda and we won't hear any more from that idiot sitting in his basement in the UK that all the MSM take as the new messiah of truth. Maybe Ken Roth will lose his job lose his job to.

    @12 The democrats were perfectly fine with the electoral college when it was going to work for them so they can STFU.

    paul | Nov 11, 2016 12:11:50 PM | 16
    And yet there is this:

    "According to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, after meeting with his Turkish counterpart, that "The coalition and Turkey will work together on the long-term plan for seizing, holding and governing Raqqa."

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/11/u-s-turkey-plan-seizing-holding-occupying-syrian-territory-raqqa.html

    This indicates that the US is simply consolidating its strategy to take and hold the northwest of Syria.

    h | Nov 11, 2016 12:13:42 PM | 18
    b - please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting those millions of Saudi/Qatari/Israeli dollars that personally enriched the Clinton's, funded their private family foundation and bankrolled the DNC machine to anoint ONLY Queen Clinton BOUGHT the necessary United States influence (CIA, Military, State, WH, DNC) to ensure U.S. foreign policy 'stay the course no matter the damned consequences' in Syria? Russia? Ukraine? until November 8 when she was to be crowned?

    And now that she and her diabolical neocon pals have lost the opportunity to rip apart the Middle East the U.S. client states - the Saudi's, Qatari's and Israeli's - are taking there marbles back and going home b/c the new guy refuses to play their way?

    Might this provocative suggestion also account for the record breaking U.S. arms sales to the Saudi's and Israeli's this year in preparation for that 'all hell would break loose WWIII' she, her neocon pals and the Saudi's, Israeli's and Qatari's were all lusting after.

    Might this suggestion also account for Adelson's buying Trump's silence, loyalty to Israel? We'll see how far Trump goes, but here's a link to his Israeli policy position pre 11/8 - http://bit.ly/2fIqhir (the joint statement is posted at Medium. I posted a bit.ly link b/c I feared the Medium link would have blown out the thread)

    Finally, Giuliani's advice that the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation stay the course when asked about Obama pardoning the almost crowned Queen, make's a great deal more sense, that is, if I'm reading your underlying suggestion correctly, b.

    P.S. - I can't help but to remain curious why we didn't see more leaked emails from the Podesta stash between Hillary, John and maybe Obama, but at least Hillary and John. After all, he kept nearly 60k emails on his gmail account and few that were released dealt with foreign policy/donors/deals. Maybe a get out of the Ecuadorian Embassy card is being played? Absolutely delicious if my reading into b's post today is correct.

    PavewayIV | Nov 11, 2016 12:18:07 PM | 21
    Everything potentially happening in Syria now revolves around Turkey and Russia. Either Erdogan will invade with Turkish troops/armor to carve off his Kurdish buffer zone/concentration camp in northern Syria, or he won't. Russia will either let them or it won't.

    The Turkmen/Al Zenki FSA head-choppers are over-extended and can't take al Bab (or ar Raqqa) by themselves anymore. They will either be abandoned (which I don't think will happen) to die at the hands of the Kurds and SAA, or they'll be reinforced by the invading Turkish Army to 'finish' the creation of Turkmeneli (or as much as they can grab). The U.S. will sit on the sidelines and watch, with the occasional coalition air strikes to make it look like we still matter - at least as much as Russia.

    Worst case: the Turks abandon the FSA/Al Zenki head-choppers because they don't want to start WWIII with Russia. The U.S. will turn into Al Zenki's air force and 'support' their land-grabbing. CJTF-OIR commander Townsend will send the 101st to ar Raqqa and maybe Deir Ez Zor to clean up our mess, but then pull out and abandon Syria (the WW III thing) to roving gangs of well-armed head-choppers. It will be a hell-hole of violence, but since no ISIS-held territory will be left on the map, we'll declare victory and 'Mission: Accomplished!" just like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Putin: "Do you now realize what you have done?"
    Americans: "Huh? Do you mean us? Hey - look over there! SQUIRREL!"

    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 11, 2016 12:21:44 PM | 23
    What I DO like about this story is that it's a Golden Opportunity for Vlad to test Trump's sincerity BEFORE he becomes POTUS. I'd like Russia to start slaughtering Obama's Ter'rists in Syria, en masse, tomorrow morning. It's a reliable way to find out how much 'daylight' there is between the Trump Doctrine and the Obama Doctrine - keeping in mind that this slice of Hopie Changie-ness has nothing whatsoever to do with President-elect Trump.

    Grieved | Nov 11, 2016 12:33:02 PM | 27
    @11 Hoarsewhisperer - I think it's unrealistic to expect the US simply to leave Syria. The loss of face would be appalling, and it's unnecessary. If in fact the US is coordinating with Russia and Syria, there's no loss of face, and Russia has always accommodated the US presence in all its public pronouncements, conditional on that coordination.

    I think b's take makes sense - there were two sets of plans on Obama's desk, and these moves are the Trump set.

    There remains that school of thought long speculating that part of the US "deep state" for lack of a better term, supported Trump as the man to reverse some of these disastrous policies that simply can no longer win, and which must be walked back from with as much tough face-saving as possible.

    Personally, I'm curious to see what Trump's support turns out to be in the serving military. Since I'm no expert, I'd like to see analysis one day that shows a war between the Pentagon and the CIA, with the soldiers winning, and choosing Trump.

    sejomoje | Nov 11, 2016 12:34:59 PM | 28
    Absolutely a mop-up op. That it will pre-empt Trump's own "success" is just gravy.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Mutinous DNC Staffers Rage At Donna Brazile You Are Part Of The Problem... You Let This Happen

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Mutinous DNC Staffers Rage At Donna Brazile: "You Are Part Of The Problem... You Let This Happen"

    Tyler Durden Nov 11, 2016 2:55 PM 0 SHARES Liar, cheat, and fired CNN contributor Donna Brazile faced an angry crowd on Thursday night ... as Democratic Party officials held their first staff meeting since Hillary Clinton was crushed by the "least qualified candidate for President ever."

    As The Huffington Post reports, Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one attendee described as "a rip-roaring speech" to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.

    "Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?" he asked, according to two people in the room. "You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself."

    Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.

    "You are part of the problem," he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump's victory by siding with Clinton early on . "You and your friends will die of old age and I'm going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy."

    Zach gathered his things and began to walk out. When Brazile called after him, asking where he was going, he told her to go outside and "tell people there" why she should be leading the party.

    Two DNC staffers confirmed the exchange, and Brazile appeared to confirm the exchange also...

    "As you can imagine, the individual involved is a member of the staff and I personally do not wish to discuss our internal meetings."

    Brazile could move to stay on as chair after March, but Thursday's meeting shows at least some party officials want fresh blood at the top.

    "The party is at a crossroads. They have been using the same playbook for decades, and now, they won't let anyone else come in and change it up," said one former longtime DNC staffer, who requested anonymity to speak freely.

    "The fact that Democrats just sat through a devastating defeat and now have to trust the leadership that not only contributed to Clinton's loss, but the crushing 2014 midterm losses, well, what do they expect?"

    Mutiny at the DNC? And where does Brazile go now? No TV network will hire a proven liar and cheat. There's no Democratic campaign for her to jump to like Wasserman-Schultz... So Brazile will probably find herself worling at The Clinton Foundation.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Real delorable are MSM pressitutes and thier owners

    Nov 11, 2016 | profile.theguardian.com
    Michael McBrearty , 10 Nov 2016 16:1>
    Yet the mainstream media will persist in explaining the Trump disaster in terms of race or gender issues, never in terms of economic class.
    This is how they keep us divided.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Donald Trump Wins US Presidency A Blow to the Global Establishment…or Its Latest Iteration Global Research - Centre for Res

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.globalresearch.ca

    With all that said, today I break my silence, in order to comment briefly on the 2016 US presidential election in the aftermath of Trump's victory. At the beginning of this presidential campaign, I thought Donald Trump's candidacy might be a publicity stunt; like a bombastic prime time reality show. But I was aware that the hard-core neocon, war mongering Hilary Clinton was the real danger, in terms of foreign policy and international politics. Her policies and past crimes are completely in-line with the current US-imperial agenda of endless war and military might, and this makes her far far more dangerous than Trump. It also made her far more likely to win the election, I presumed.

    His extreme outrageousness and egomania aside, I felt from the outset that Trump is perceived as a threat to the global corporate, militarized establishment and its political allies, and that this is the real reason he has been demonized adhominem by the political establishment and the media in the US, across party lines. Most democratic and republican politicians and media pundits are part of the global establishment machine.

    Trump's greatest crime seemed to be his unwillingness to acquiesce to the global establishment. His views on foreign policy, military spending and economic and trade policy demonstrate this. Because of his apparent threat to the global military industrial, US-led, global banking/war empire, I was certain that the deep state and global elites simply would not allow him to win. Even if they had to rig the elections in an already rigged political system, I was certain they would not "let him" win.

    Now that he has, I'm not sure what to think, especially considering FBI director Comey's sudden flip flop and condemnation of Clinton, reopening the investigation into the Clinton email (email Gate) scandal, in the eleventh hour. Does the FBI wish to see Trump in office? If so, what does that mean about his threat to the establishment? Is Trump the beginning of the end of the global establishment or is he just a revision, a new direction, a preparation for a new iteration of the status quo? Of course, Trump is part of the elite given his immense wealth and corporate muscle. But as the Centre for Research on Globalization explains, the elites are not a monolith [1], and there may be divisions and factions within the global elite that do indeed oppose the present and historical direction of the global establishment. Is that what Trump represents, the division within the global power structure? Does he have friends in high places that wish to revamp the current global militarized corporate and banking oligarchy? Or, is he but its latest iteration of it? Is he a gateway to what is to come–Martial Law, etc [2]? It remains to be seen.

    For now, I'm guardedly optimistic about the new direction that economic policy and US foreign policy could take under his presidency. If he is willing (and able) to rein in either, then he will have surpassed the broken promises of the previous US administration. He has stated numerous times that he opposes many elements of the war on terror (the invasion of Libya, current US operations in Syria and attempts to oust the existing regime, covert support of ISIS by the US, etc) and the military industrial complex. And while he is no doubt a capitalist, he is more of the old-school nationalist capitalist or protectionist-isolationist kind, not the neoliberal global capitalism that has put everyone out of work. This alone made Trump better than Hilary, so to speak. But the fact that he is no doubt part of the economic elite and that he was able to win at all, despite resistance from all sides of the political and media spectrum (both democratic and republican), raises questions.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Of course it's pc to pretend that immigrants create jobs rather than taking them etc etc. But I would put this question to any economist, journalist or politician who doesn't believe that immigration hurts the working classes: how would you like it if a million workers arrived, all qualified to your level or above in economics/journalism/politics, and all willing to work for much less than you make?

    Nov 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    Ed209 5h ago 2 3 Good article, but it fails to mention immigration as a further factor hammering the working class. Of course it's pc to pretend that immigrants create jobs rather than taking them etc etc. But I would put this question to any economist, journalist or politician who doesn't believe that immigration hurts the working classes: how would you like it if a million workers arrived, all qualified to your level or above in economics/journalism/politics, and all willing to work for much less than you make?

    Of course, in the case of the UK it hasn't been one million, but more than three million. And in the case of the USA, untold millions (illegals alone are thought to number 10 million).

    It's because economists, journalists and politicians never have to face this kind of competition for their own jobs that they are so keen on mass immigration. But low-skill/no-skill workers face this reality everyday. Nika2015 Ed209 4h ago 0 1 Telling it like it is...Bravo! Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Dana Todd Ed209 4h ago 0 1 There's a pretty in-depth analysis of immigration's effect on economy and workers/wages here http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-literature
    Bottom line is, it's complicated, and not all immigrants are the same - or the same value to a country. Immigrants with college degrees definitely add to the GDP of their new home, typically estimated in six figures cumulative per individual contribution. Immigrants without college degree do place a drain on the country, through depressed wages, because there's parity (and since we haven't invested as much in our educations here, we are not as competitive to outside labor). Illegal immigrants cause a definite deficit, albeit not so big as to threaten an entire economy - but by creating an artificial competition they drive wages down.
    I am by all measures a liberal and very open to immigration - I think we can't measure in dollars what we get in new ideas, new energy, culture, art, food, music - but for those who take a hard line look at the return/impacts, it's worth taking the time to understand the more complex story in the data.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Keith Ellison, Howard Dean offered as possible DNC chairs as Democrats seek to regroup

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.washingtonpost.com

    In the wreckage of Hillary Clinton's unexpected loss, liberal lawmakers and advocacy groups have started plotting a major overhaul of the Democratic National Committee, with the aim of using the staid organization to reconnect the party with working-class voters it lost to President-elect Donald Trump.

    Much of the talk since Tuesday's election has focused on selecting a new chairman, with the most frequently mentioned successor being Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who backed the primary bid of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

    On Thursday afternoon, former Vermont governor Howard Dean (D) offered his service for a second tenure as DNC chairman, saying on Twitter: "The dems need organization and focus on the the young. Need a fifty State strategy and tech rehab. I am in for chairman again."

    Evil Incarnate1956

    I think the Republicans should get down on their knees and give thanks to God for Barack Obama. I'm serious.

    He did great at getting himself elected, and he had some coattails when he was on the ballot. When he wasn't on the ballot, the Dems' election performance has been one unmitigated disaster after another- midterm epic-fails in 2010 and 2014, and Tuesday's election the frosting on the cake.

    Where is the Democrats' bench strength? Where is their future? Besides Barack Obama, the face of their party today is Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Steny Hoyer.

    Obama, by cramming Obamacare down people's throats against their will, and his executive order overreach, has taken a wrecking ball to the Democrat Party.

    I hope the Democrats will adopt a strategy to continue the trend.

    NewbieWaDoobie
    Neat trick.....if you were to take the overtones of the media at large and the messaging coming from the HRC camp you can easily see why she lost the rust belt. I worked as a carpenter in South Bend, IN from about 2002-2008 and she was never going to win those people without a MESSAGE....when did she ELEVATE AND STUMP HARD for income equality and the platform....NEVER!!!! It was against her principles and the interests of the people who surrounded her and the DNC.....FOOLS!!!!!

    Neoliberalism is DEAD....even the IMF, published a report on this back in June 2016....take a look at Glen Greenwald's piece while you're at it.

    https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06...
    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trum...

    nealkaye, 8:46 PM EST


    The GOP has the White House, the Senate and the House, the 33 state Governerships and, for the next 30 years, the US Supreme Court (once Trump picks the next 3 Justices).

    Thank you Pres. Obama.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Obama and Clinton Are Complicit in Creating ISIS

    See also Hillary Clinton and Obama created ISIS
    Notable quotes:
    "... The origins of Daesh, known commonly as the Islamic State or ISIS, tie back directly to Obama and Clinton policy delusions and half measures of the Iraq and Syria conflicts. ..."
    "... The FSA exerted zero control over the dozens of rival militias fighting each other and the Assad regime in Damascus. The Syrian Rebel groups were like dozens of hungry baby vultures in a nest all competing for resources, and the worst and meanest destroyed their counterparts using the aid given them by their misguided American benefactors. ..."
    "... The Sunni Arab Gulf states piled on behind the U.S. government to help their Sunni brethren with more arms and cash. The result was a true race to the bottom of Syrian Rebel groups. ..."
    "... The chaos sewn globally by ISIS today grew directly from the bad seeds planted by the Clinton/Obama failures in the basics of statecraft. ..."
    "... Obama/Clinton continued to approach the Middle East with the same naivety that led the Bush Administration into Iraq in the first place. For all of the criticism that Obama levied on Bush, he continued to apply a deeply delusional Washington perspective to Middle Eastern politics and culture - ignoring all we should have learned in 13 years of Iraq conflict and warfare. ..."
    Jun 16, 2016 | breitbart.com

    The origins of Daesh, known commonly as the Islamic State or ISIS, tie back directly to Obama and Clinton policy delusions and half measures of the Iraq and Syria conflicts.

    With the recent release of an August 2012 classified intelligence memo to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton detailing the presence of the organization that became ISIS among the Syrian oppositional forces supported by the West, it's important to remember the history of exactly how the Islamic State arose from the ashes of a failed Obama/Clinton foreign policy.

    The Syrian "Arab Spring" agitations that began in March 2011, where majority Sunnis rebelled against an Assad run Alawite Shia Ba'th Party, quickly dissolved into a multi sided proxy war. Clinton State Department policy grew into helping these Sunni rebels under the banner of the "Free Syrian Army (FSA)" with weapons, money and diplomatic support.

    However, the reality is that the FSA existed only in the minds of the State Department leadership. The FSA exerted zero control over the dozens of rival militias fighting each other and the Assad regime in Damascus. The Syrian Rebel groups were like dozens of hungry baby vultures in a nest all competing for resources, and the worst and meanest destroyed their counterparts using the aid given them by their misguided American benefactors.

    The Sunni Arab Gulf states piled on behind the U.S. government to help their Sunni brethren with more arms and cash. The result was a true race to the bottom of Syrian Rebel groups. All the while the Assad regime's traditional allies of Russia and Iran provided weapons, training, and even thousands of fighters themselves to combat the U.S. supported Sunni rebels. The Obama/Clinton team couldn't even do a proxy war correctly.

    The chaos sewn globally by ISIS today grew directly from the bad seeds planted by the Clinton/Obama failures in the basics of statecraft.

    ... ... ...

    Obama/Clinton continued to approach the Middle East with the same naivety that led the Bush Administration into Iraq in the first place. For all of the criticism that Obama levied on Bush, he continued to apply a deeply delusional Washington perspective to Middle Eastern politics and culture - ignoring all we should have learned in 13 years of Iraq conflict and warfare.

    Erik Prince is a former Navy SEAL, founder of Blackwater, and currently a frontier market investor and concerned parent.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Obama and Clinton Are Complicit in Creating ISIS

    See also Hillary Clinton and Obama created ISIS
    Notable quotes:
    "... The origins of Daesh, known commonly as the Islamic State or ISIS, tie back directly to Obama and Clinton policy delusions and half measures of the Iraq and Syria conflicts. ..."
    "... The FSA exerted zero control over the dozens of rival militias fighting each other and the Assad regime in Damascus. The Syrian Rebel groups were like dozens of hungry baby vultures in a nest all competing for resources, and the worst and meanest destroyed their counterparts using the aid given them by their misguided American benefactors. ..."
    "... The Sunni Arab Gulf states piled on behind the U.S. government to help their Sunni brethren with more arms and cash. The result was a true race to the bottom of Syrian Rebel groups. ..."
    "... The chaos sewn globally by ISIS today grew directly from the bad seeds planted by the Clinton/Obama failures in the basics of statecraft. ..."
    "... Obama/Clinton continued to approach the Middle East with the same naivety that led the Bush Administration into Iraq in the first place. For all of the criticism that Obama levied on Bush, he continued to apply a deeply delusional Washington perspective to Middle Eastern politics and culture - ignoring all we should have learned in 13 years of Iraq conflict and warfare. ..."
    Jun 16, 2016 | breitbart.com

    The origins of Daesh, known commonly as the Islamic State or ISIS, tie back directly to Obama and Clinton policy delusions and half measures of the Iraq and Syria conflicts.

    With the recent release of an August 2012 classified intelligence memo to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton detailing the presence of the organization that became ISIS among the Syrian oppositional forces supported by the West, it's important to remember the history of exactly how the Islamic State arose from the ashes of a failed Obama/Clinton foreign policy.

    The Syrian "Arab Spring" agitations that began in March 2011, where majority Sunnis rebelled against an Assad run Alawite Shia Ba'th Party, quickly dissolved into a multi sided proxy war. Clinton State Department policy grew into helping these Sunni rebels under the banner of the "Free Syrian Army (FSA)" with weapons, money and diplomatic support.

    However, the reality is that the FSA existed only in the minds of the State Department leadership. The FSA exerted zero control over the dozens of rival militias fighting each other and the Assad regime in Damascus. The Syrian Rebel groups were like dozens of hungry baby vultures in a nest all competing for resources, and the worst and meanest destroyed their counterparts using the aid given them by their misguided American benefactors.

    The Sunni Arab Gulf states piled on behind the U.S. government to help their Sunni brethren with more arms and cash. The result was a true race to the bottom of Syrian Rebel groups. All the while the Assad regime's traditional allies of Russia and Iran provided weapons, training, and even thousands of fighters themselves to combat the U.S. supported Sunni rebels. The Obama/Clinton team couldn't even do a proxy war correctly.

    The chaos sewn globally by ISIS today grew directly from the bad seeds planted by the Clinton/Obama failures in the basics of statecraft.

    ... ... ...

    Obama/Clinton continued to approach the Middle East with the same naivety that led the Bush Administration into Iraq in the first place. For all of the criticism that Obama levied on Bush, he continued to apply a deeply delusional Washington perspective to Middle Eastern politics and culture - ignoring all we should have learned in 13 years of Iraq conflict and warfare.

    Erik Prince is a former Navy SEAL, founder of Blackwater, and currently a frontier market investor and concerned parent.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Paul Krugman -- Hillary sycophant with anti-russian bent

    Notable quotes:
    "... If one "fact" is known to be false then one is inclined to think those "facts" one is unfamiliar with are also false. I'll always think of Clinton's behavior on hearing of Gadaffi's death. That's the thing you want running the most powerful corporation on earth. ..."
    "... I don't remember Krugman saying that Bush Sr. spent his days at the CIA so he trained as a professional assassin. ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Murray Hobbs : November 07, 2016 at 09:50 AM

    If one "fact" is known to be false then one is inclined to think those "facts" one is unfamiliar with are also false. I'll always think of Clinton's behavior on hearing of Gadaffi's death. That's the thing you want running the most powerful corporation on earth.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Murray Hobbs... , November 07, 2016 at 09:58 AM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi

    ...International reactions...

    ... Hillary Clinton, laughed and expressed delight with Gaddafi's death, stating "We came. We saw. He died..."

    Richard A. -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , November 07, 2016 at 11:57 AM
    We came, we saw, he died https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , November 07, 2016 at 03:51 PM
    Before he died Qaddafi was sodomized.........
    anne -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 12:01 PM
    The election was rigged by Russian intelligence, which was almost surely behind the hacking of Democratic emails, which WikiLeaks then released with great fanfare. Nothing truly scandalous emerged, but the Russians judged, correctly, that the news media would hype the revelation that major party figures are human beings, and that politicians engage in politics, as somehow damning....

    -- Paul Krugman

    [ A wildly speculative, purposely inflaming even dangerous passage. And in keeping with previously expressed, inflaming Krugman stereotypes.

    I know, I know, the Russians are going to eat our children for breakfast but I am in no mood for another era of Cold War McCarthyism. Children for what? OMG. ]

    anne -> Jim Harrison ... , November 07, 2016 at 02:49 PM
    OMG, the Russians not being satisfied with eating the children of Cleveland are also going to eat the Baltics and we all know that Baltics are already endangered (climate change and all). Who knew?

    "Save the Baltics from hungry Russians," must be the cry through the land. Save the Baltics, I am ready.

    "Get me my net," Henry.

    anne -> Jim Harrison ... , November 07, 2016 at 02:51 PM
    I'm hearing is simply a recognition that Putin is a problem and that his agents are trying to influence the election, which they sure appear to be doing and have done in many other cases in many countries. It's SOP for this guy....

    [ https://twitter.com/vastleft/status/795234806422503424

    vastleft ‏@vastleft

    Can we be sure Putin isn't behind this changing-the-clocks thing?

    4:02 AM - 6 Nov 2016 ]

    anne -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 03:01 PM
    "Save the Baltics."

    Right, I'm there.

    [ I know, I have no idea how to portray this as absurd as it actually is. Remember though, I am always ready to go to the Baltics when called to battle. ]

    anne -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 12:03 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/opinion/donald-trump-the-siberian-candidate.html

    July 21, 2016

    Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate
    By Paul Krugman

    The Republicans' presidential nominee doesn't just admire Vladimir Putin.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html

    December 21, 2014

    Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion
    By Paul Krugman

    Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug....

    Dan Kervick -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 03:13 PM
    "Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug...."

    That is a highly simplistic statement about the KGB. Putin worked in counter-intelligence. He wasn't a leg breaker.

    anne -> Dan Kervick... , November 07, 2016 at 04:36 PM
    What is important and saddening is the wild Cold War prejudice, a prejudice that extends to China and would readily descend to name-naming. I get this, fortunately I get the prejudice.

    No matter, when called as I have made clear I will be naming-names from A to Z, but I get this.

    Julio -> Dan Kervick... , November 08, 2016 at 06:37 AM
    Yes, exactly. I don't remember Krugman saying that Bush Sr. spent his days at the CIA so he trained as a professional assassin.
    anne -> Julio ... , November 08, 2016 at 06:44 AM
    I don't remember Krugman saying that Bush Sr. spent his days at the CIA so he trained as a professional assassin.

    [ Perfect:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html

    December 21, 2014

    Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion
    By Paul Krugman

    Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug.... ]

    [Nov 08, 2016] American And Saudi Weapons Recoverd From ISIS Positions In Mosul

    Nov 08, 2016 | www.mintpressnews.com

    " An anonymous Iraqi official recently stated that front line troops "always see US helicopters flying over the ISIL-controlled areas and dropping weapons and urgent aids for them.", Iraq, ISIS, Mosul, Operation Inherent Resolve, Saudi Arabia, United States, Weapons,"

    .,. ... ...

    Iraqi militia commander Uday al-Khaddran reported the weapons after capturing former Islamic State positions. According to GeoPolitics Alert , the weapons are of Saudi origin, and are by no means an isolated incident. Iraqi forces have reported Saudi and even American supplied ISIS weaponry and food shipments since the war began. Militiamen believe the weapons are, in part, being transported by the Turkish government.

    US manufactured missiles were also allegedly retrieved from the cleared IS area's. In this case, according to Reports Afrique , Iraqi commanders believe the weapons were dropped to ISIS by coalition planes . Such claims, once again, have circulated throughout the war.

    An anonymous Iraqi official recently stated that front line troops " always see US helicopters flying over the ISIL-controlled areas and dropping weapons and urgent aids for them." The commander went onto claim ISIS fighters are even transported by US aircraft to medical facilities in Syria and countries friendly to the group.

    In 2015, Iraqi commanders reported they'd begun shooting down coalition craft seen aiding the group. Iraq's parliament disclosed that year that two British planes seen aiding the enemy were shot down, with wreckage photographed . The government of Iraq called on western leaders to claim the crash, but no response ever came.

    Commander Al-Khaddran also accuses the Turks of sending advisors to aid in IS artillery, and other operations. Since these kinds of reports first surfaced nearly two years ago, they've been largely disregarded. It's only recently, with Hillary Clinton's email leaks allegedly confirming Saudi Arabia funds ISIS, that the mainstream can re-examine these reports.

    Turkish special forces operatives have been stationed outside Mosul for months now without Iraq's approval. Turkey's prime minister was brazen in telling Iraqi's leadership to "know your place" when asked to pull troops out. American officials, who also train Syrian rebels in Turkey–the majority of which are linked to jihadist groups–approve of the forces in northern Iraq. All of these operations, from rebel training to Turkish troop deployments, have coincided with a brutal government crackdown on Turkish media .

    Clinton was emailing her campaign chairman in 2014, advocated for pressure on Saudi Arabia because they "are providing clandestine financial and logistical support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region." Saudi government officials, Daily Caller reports , has donated over $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Like rapists neoliberals do not take no for the answer and will push Britain back in the EU again until the right result was achieved.

    Nov 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Carolinian November 7, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    Raimondo–globalism is the issue

    That's why a British court has effectively overturned the results of the Brexit vote – in a lawsuit brought by a hedge fund manager and former model – and thrown the fate of the country into the hands of pro-EU Tories, and their Labor and Liberal Democrat collaborators.

    This stunning reversal was baked in to the legislation that enabled the referendum to begin with, and is par for the course as far as EU referenda are concerned: in 1992,

    Danish voters rejected the EU, only to have the Euro-crats demand a rematch with a "modified" EU treaty which won narrowly. There have been repeated attempts to modify the modifications, which have all failed. Ireland voted against both the Lisbon Treaty and the Nice Treaty, only to have the issue brought up again until the "right" result was achieved.

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/11/06/bringing-globalist-monster/

    [Nov 08, 2016] The US elections are a staged political farce with NO MATERIAL IMPACT on the US imperial policies, domestic or international

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is shockingly disappointing that MOA, this otherwise intelligent incisive, a deeply intellectual and factual blog's readership exhibit a trait common to overall American anti-intellectual sheeple constituency as Gore Vidal posited decades ago, having no shame expressing their utter confusion and ignorance about one fundamental fact of reality they are facing. ..."
    "... Those political puppets, stooges of oligarchy are no alternatives to the calcified imperial system itself, they never have been and they never will. They are new/old faces of the same old 240 y.o. Anglo-American imperial regime based on ancient and modern slavery and they already declared it by submitting to it via pledging to run in this farcical rigged electoral fallacy. ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Kalen | Nov 8, 2016 3:21:04 AM | 73

    It is shockingly disappointing that MOA, this otherwise intelligent incisive, a deeply intellectual and factual blog's readership exhibit a trait common to overall American anti-intellectual sheeple constituency as Gore Vidal posited decades ago, having no shame expressing their utter confusion and ignorance about one fundamental fact of reality they are facing.

    THE FACT: The US elections are a staged political farce with NO MATERIAL IMPACT on the US imperial policies, domestic or international WHATSOEVER. And that's the fact based on rock solid empirical evidences also MOA proliferates that only a mental patient can deny.

    SO WHAT THE F.U.CK ALL OF YOU PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT? "Voting" for this or that? NONSENSE;

    Those political puppets, stooges of oligarchy are no alternatives to the calcified imperial system itself, they never have been and they never will. They are new/old faces of the same old 240 y.o. Anglo-American imperial regime based on ancient and modern slavery and they already declared it by submitting to it via pledging to run in this farcical rigged electoral fallacy.

    All at the end will openly pledge unwavering support for the regime and their rotten deeply corrupted parties while abandoning their gullible voters.

    Supporters of any of these plastic puppets of oligarchy not unlike a cargo cult, are impatient, nervous, excited and scared sitting and waiting before an impregnable curtain of political deceit, lies and manipulation by the ruling elite in front of their wide shut eyes , turning to magic, superstition, appeasement, making up stories, poems out of their incoherent utterances filed with tautologies, innuendos and absurd, begging for mercy or praying for a caprice of good will to save them ultimately in a form of fake, meaningless political turds passing as empty "political" platform promises while blatantly abandoning their unalienable rights to independence, self-determination and democratic system of people's rule, based on equality in the law, and one voter one vote principle, for a role of a meddlesome spectators to their own execution.

    THE FACT: The democratic electoral system worth participating does not exist in the US but none of the candidates would utter this truth as long as they can benefit from the fraud and that includes third parties. If this was a true change or revolution, that we desperately need, honest leaders would not run their campaign within the corrupted system set up by and for two oligarchic parties but they would decry and utterly reject it.

    Think people, all the so-called candidates even third party candidates are just nibbling on the behemoth of abhorrent and brutal US imperial power mostly with utterances that they never intended to follow if they wanted to survive terror of the US security apparatus, while peddling the lies about small incremental changes and stealing ours and our children future by asking us to wait, be patient, and begging ruling elite for mercy and may be for some crumbs from an oligarchs' table after they are not able to gorge themselves anymore with our blood sweat and tears.

    Unfortunately, this time as well, millions of irrational, desperate and helpless in their daily lives electoral zombies such as those, under a spell of exciting political masquerade, regrettably also on this blog, will be aligning themselves with one or the other anointed by establishment winner [whoever it will be] of a meaningless popularity/beauty contest, in a delusional feat of transference of a fraction of elite's power to themselves just for a second of a thrill of illusion of power, illusion of feelings that something depends on me, that I can make a difference, a delusion of holding skies from falling and by that saving the world common among paranoid mental patients.

    And they will continue to authorize their own suicide mission, since even baseless, continually disproved hope of Sisyphus, of any chance of influencing of the political realm via means of begging is the last thing that dies.

    THE LOUD POLITICAL BOYCOTT OF THIS FARCE, UTTER REJECTION OF THIS FACADE OF DEMOCRATIC CHOICE, REJECTION OF ANY POLITICAL LEGITIMACY OF THIS SORRY SPECTACLE IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE TO ANY DECENT PERSON, INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN CITIZEN WHO TAKES A MORAL STAND REJECTING ENSLAVEMENT RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW.

    THE REST WILL JUST PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR OWN CHAINS.

    MAKE YOU CHOICE.

    Posted by: Kalen | Nov 8, 2016 3:21:04 AM | 73

    [Nov 08, 2016] The real danger of serious election-rigging: electronic voting machines. How do we know the machine *really* recorded everyones votes correctly? Insrtead we have anti-russian hysteria fed to us 24 x 7

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men." ... ..."
    "... poor pk a leader of the Stalinist press ..."
    "... the surprising success of Bernie Sanders -- a Brooklyn-born, Jewish socialist -- in the primaries is solid proof that the electorate was open to a coherent argument for genuine progressive change, and that a substantial portion of that electorate is not acting on purely racist and sexist impulses, as so many progressive commentators say. ..."
    "... "I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine. I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine." That assumes you're about 85 years old...and don't have long to live! ..."
    "... Laid out by whom? By the commercial "media" hype machine that has 12-16 hours of airtime to fill every day with the as sensationalized as possible gossip (to justify the price for the paid advertisements filling the remaining hours). ..."
    "... Killary Clinton got no closer than Ann Arbor this weekend, a message! ..."
    "... Mr. Krugman forgot to list the collusion of the DNC and the Clinton campaign to work against Sanders. ..."
    "... putting crooked in the same sentence as Clinton or DNC is duplicative wording. This mortification is brought to US by the crooked and the stalinist press that calls crooked virtue. ..."
    "... Krugman did so much to help create the mass of white working class discontent that is electing Trump. Krugman and co cheering on NAFTA/PNTR/WTO etc, US deindustrialization, collapse of middle class... ..."
    "... Hopefully the working class masses will convince our rulers to abandon free trade before every last factory is sold off or dismantled and the US falls to the depths of a Chad or an Armenia. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 01:47 PM

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/the-truth-about-the-sanders-movement/

    May 23, 2016

    The Truth About the Sanders Movement
    By Paul Krugman

    In short, it's complicated – not all bad, by any means, but not the pure uprising of idealists the more enthusiastic supporters imagine.

    The political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels have an illuminating discussion of Sanders support. The key graf that will probably have Berniebros boiling is this:

    "Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men." ...

    [ Yes, I do find defaming people by speculation or stereotype to be beyond saddening. ]

    ilsm -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 03:53 PM
    poor pk a leader of the Stalinist press
    anne -> Chris Lowery ... , November 07, 2016 at 10:28 AM
    The fact that Obama either won, or did so much better than Hillary appears to be doing with, the white working-class vote in so many key battleground states, as well as the surprising success of Bernie Sanders -- a Brooklyn-born, Jewish socialist -- in the primaries is solid proof that the electorate was open to a coherent argument for genuine progressive change, and that a substantial portion of that electorate is not acting on purely racist and sexist impulses, as so many progressive commentators say.

    And her opponent was/is incapable of debating on substance, as there was/is neither coherence nor consistency in any part of his platform -- nor that of his party....

    [ Compelling argument. ]

    JohnH : , November 07, 2016 at 10:26 AM
    Question is, will Krugman be able to move on after the election...and talk about something useful? Like how to get Hillary to recognize and deal with inequality...
    JohnH : , November 07, 2016 at 10:29 AM
    Barbara Ehrenreich: "Forget fear and loathing. The US election inspires projectile vomiting. The most sordid side of our democracy has been laid out for all to see. But that's only the beginning: whoever wins, the mutual revulsion will only intensify... With either Clinton or Trump, we will be left to choke on our mutual revulsion."
    JohnH -> JohnH... , November 07, 2016 at 10:29 AM
    Link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/03/us-election-projectile-vomiting-barbara-ehrenreich
    JohnH -> Bloix... , November 07, 2016 at 04:59 PM
    "I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine. I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine." That assumes you're about 85 years old...and don't have long to live!
    ilsm -> JohnH... , November 07, 2016 at 03:54 PM
    the great mortification, these two.
    cm -> JohnH... , November 07, 2016 at 11:11 PM
    Laid out by whom? By the commercial "media" hype machine that has 12-16 hours of airtime to fill every day with the as sensationalized as possible gossip (to justify the price for the paid advertisements filling the remaining hours).
    Tom aka Rusty : , November 07, 2016 at 11:17 AM
    Something interesting today.... President Obama came to Michigan. I fully expected him to speak in Detroit with a get out the vote message. Instead he is in Ann Arbor, speaking to an overwhelmingly white and white-collar audience. On a related note, the Dems have apparently written off the white blue collar vote in Michigan, even much of the union vote. the union leaders are pro Clinton, but the workers not so much. Strange year.
    ilsm -> Tom aka Rusty... , November 07, 2016 at 03:55 PM
    Killary Clinton got no closer than Ann Arbor this weekend, a message!
    John M : , November 07, 2016 at 11:26 AM
    The real danger of serious election-rigging: electronic voting machines. How do we know the machine *really* recorded everyone's votes correctly? (Did any Florida county ever give Al Gore negative something votes?)
    Julio -> John M ... , November 08, 2016 at 06:42 AM
    That's a big subject but you are right, that is the biggest risk of significant fraud. Not just the voting machines, but the automatic counting systems. Other forms of possible election fraud are tiny by comparison.
    Enquiring Mind : , November 07, 2016 at 11:48 AM
    Here is the transcript from 60 Minutes about the Luntz focus group rancor. Instructive to read about the depth of feeling in case you didn't see the angry, disgusted faces of citizens.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-american-voters-on-trump-clinton/

    ScottB : , November 07, 2016 at 12:08 PM
    Mr. Krugman forgot to list the collusion of the DNC and the Clinton campaign to work against Sanders.
    ilsm -> ScottB... , November 07, 2016 at 03:57 PM
    putting crooked in the same sentence as Clinton or DNC is duplicative wording. This mortification is brought to US by the crooked and the stalinist press that calls crooked virtue.
    Before the 1970s the US was both rich and protectionist - no look at our horrible roads and hopeless people - the miracle of free trade! : , November 07, 2016 at 07:13 PM
    Krugman did so much to help create the mass of white working class discontent that is electing Trump. Krugman and co cheering on NAFTA/PNTR/WTO etc, US deindustrialization, collapse of middle class...

    Hopefully the working class masses will convince our rulers to abandon free trade before every last factory is sold off or dismantled and the US falls to the depths of a Chad or an Armenia.

    [Nov 08, 2016] We don't want World War 3 with Russia. We want our factories and jobs back, we would like to spend $1 trillion a year on infrastructure instead of blowing up yet another Middle Eastern nation.

    Notable quotes:
    "... We don't want World War 3 with Russia. We want our factories and jobs back, we would like to spend $1 trillion a year on infrastructure instead of blowing up yet another Middle Eastern nation. ..."
    "... Fuck Hillary, Fuck the neolibcons, Fuck al-CIAda, Fuck the fascist banksters who eat our children for breakfast. ..."
    "... Vote Trump in swing states. Vote Jill everywhere else. ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Perimetr | Nov 8, 2016 4:34:49 AM | 77

    The heartland of the US is RED, solid RED.
    The neolibcons are printing up their Newsweek mags with Madam President on the cover.

    They don't have a clue about how pissed off the people in the "flyover states" are.

    Fuck their rigged polls and lying news.

    Sure Trump is behind or neck-and-neck . . . Just like we have 5% unemployment.

    As long as you don't count the 1/3 of working age people who DON"T HAVE A JOB.

    The deplorables can think of 650,000 reasons why Hillary should be in PRISON, even if the FBI can't.

    We don't want World War 3 with Russia. We want our factories and jobs back, we would like to spend $1 trillion a year on infrastructure instead of blowing up yet another Middle Eastern nation.

    Fuck Hillary, Fuck the neolibcons, Fuck al-CIAda, Fuck the fascist banksters who eat our children for breakfast.

    ProPeace | Nov 8, 2016 7:02:55 AM | 80
    @RayB | Nov 8, 2016 12:18:53 AM | 62 "The only real issue here is either war or peace."

    Yes, especially that the US has war-based, or "blood economy" (like diamonds).

    Interesting tidbits:

    ... ... ...

    rufus magister | Nov 8, 2016 7:26:46 AM | 81
    fairleft at 43 --

    Do not blow shit up, like the political system, without a clear idea where the pieces will land and how you will put them back together. Crisis would benefit the right, not the left, given the current correlation of class and political forces.

    The best result. sadly, would be a resounding win for Mrs. Clinton. As the comment at 11 shows, anything less than a crushing defeat will enable the alt-right and embolden the most reactionary and nativist elements in society.

    The notion that worsening conditions will automatically produce progressive revolution is a pipe-dream. Beaten-down folks struggling to survive don't have the time or energy to organize.

    Vote your conscience, your hopes. Takingg the long view, I am again voting, as I have for years, for the Socialist Workers Party.

    Jackrabbit | Nov 8, 2016 8:03:07 AM | 82
    rufus @81:
    Do not blow shit up ...
    The corrupt 'Third Way' Democrats blew up U.S. democracy years ago. "Do not blow shit up" = BOHICA.
    The best result. sadly, would be a resounding win for Mrs. Clinton.... I am again voting, as I have for years, for the Socialist Workers Party.
    Shameless, unadulterated bullshit.

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Vote Trump in swing states. Vote Jill everywhere else.

    [Nov 08, 2016] It is important to expose yourself to points of view you find uncomfortable – otherwise how can you tell other people that their newspapers are lying if you do not dip into them from time to time to confirm that is indeed the case

    Notable quotes:
    "... I also read other written and printed media because I think it is important to expose yourself to points of view you find uncomfortable – and how can you tell other people their newspapers etc are lying to them and misleading them if you do not dip into them from time to time to confirm that is indeed the case? ..."
    "... The Economist has thrown any semblance of impartiality out the window the last couple years. Sign of the times, I guess. ..."
    "... One angle is how feckless Democrats sought to give up regulatory power because they wanted to duck responsibility for mistaken decisions. ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    In this context, abuse is a positive thing. Both Jebbie and the mainstream press needed abusing! Now look at them! They're earning it more than ever! In other news….RealClear give some space to a pro-ColoradoCare writer. Very nice to see!

    http://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2016/11/07/could_colorados_proposed_health_care_plan_be_a_model_for_the_rest_of_us_110230.html

    William C November 7, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    I still read both the FT and Economist. The FT still has some good pieces in it, even if it is diminished from pre-Crash days when Gillian Tett was the person to read. And the book reviews in the Economist can be worth reading, though it is a pale shadow of the journal it used to be.

    I also read other written and printed media because I think it is important to expose yourself to points of view you find uncomfortable – and how can you tell other people their newspapers etc are lying to them and misleading them if you do not dip into them from time to time to confirm that is indeed the case?

    But NC I read every day.

    david s November 7, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    The Economist has thrown any semblance of impartiality out the window the last couple years. Sign of the times, I guess.

    Plenue November 7, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    Are the Economist's reviews of the 'an important work' type that get featured on the cover, even though the publication continues to ignore every insight and alternative idea presented in the book reviewed?

    Roger Smith November 7, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    Regarding Vox, Current Affairs (author Robinson) published a really strong breakdown of why Vox is such a reporting trash heap.

    Explaining It All To You

    Robinson does a great job pulling out the abstract thoughts that guide these people to be fools.

    Judith November 7, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    Yes, the article was wonderfully insightful.

    hemeantwell November 7, 2016 at 3:40 pm

    Stoller is paraphrasing his review of Greta Krippner's Capitalizing on Crisis, which sounds well worth a read.

    It is. One angle is how feckless Democrats sought to give up regulatory power because they wanted to duck responsibility for mistaken decisions. Why run risks ironing out business cycles when you can collect campaign contributions for venerating Alan Greenspan?

    [Nov 08, 2016] The conflict with Russia is not one of economic systems. It's simply that America wants to control other countries and keep other countries within the dollar orbit. And what that means is that if the whole world saves in the form of dollars, that means saving by buying Treasury bonds.

    Notable quotes:
    "... What America objects to in Russia is that Americans couldn't buy control of their oil, couldn't buy control of their natural resources, couldn't buy control of their public utilities and charge economic rents and continue to make Russia the largest stock market boom in the world as it was from 1994 through 1998 when there was the crisis. ..."
    "... So the conflict is not one of economic systems. It's simply that America wants to control other countries and keep other countries within the dollar orbit. And what that means is that if the whole world saves in the form of dollars, that means saving by buying Treasury bonds. ..."
    "... And other countries are trying to withdraw from this and America says, "Well, we can smash you." ..."
    "... There really is no alternative, and that's the objective of control: to create a society in which there is no choice. That's what a free market [myth] is really all about: preventing any choice by the people except what the government gives them. ..."
    "... has the illusion of choice in choosing either between which is the lesser evil. They get to vote for the lesser evil when it's all really the same process. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    mauisurfer | Nov 8, 2016 12:02:23 AM | 60

    Michael Hudson says

    > Ashcroft: What sort of president then will Hillary Clinton be?

    > Hudson: A dictator. She… a vindictive dictator, punishing her enemies, appointing neocons in the secretary of state, in the defense department, appointing Wall Street people in the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, and the class war will really break out very explicitly. And she'll-as Warren Buffet said, there is a class war and we're winning it.

    > Ashcroft: As in the one percent are winning it.

    > Hudson: The one percent are winning it. And she will try to use the rhetoric to tell people: "Nothing to see here folks. Keep on moving," while the economy goes down and down and she cashes in as she's been doing all along, richer and richer, and if she's president, there will not be an investigator of the criminal conflict of interest of the Bill Clinton Foundation, of pay-to-play. You'll have a presidency in which corporations who pay the Clintons will be able to set policy. Whoever has the money to buy the politicians will buy control of policy because elections have been privatized and made part of the market economy in the United States. That's what the Citizens United Supreme Court case was all about.

    > Hudson: Well, after 1991 when the Soviet Union broke up, it really went neoliberal. And Putin is basically a neoliberal. So there's not a clash of economic systems as there was between capitalism and communism. What America objects to in Russia is that Americans couldn't buy control of their oil, couldn't buy control of their natural resources, couldn't buy control of their public utilities and charge economic rents and continue to make Russia the largest stock market boom in the world as it was from 1994 through 1998 when there was the crisis.

    So the conflict is not one of economic systems. It's simply that America wants to control other countries and keep other countries within the dollar orbit. And what that means is that if the whole world saves in the form of dollars, that means saving by buying Treasury bonds.

    And that means lending all of the balance-of-payments surplus that Russia or China or other countries look at, by lending it to the U.S. Treasury, which will use that money to militarily encircle these countries and threaten to do to any country that seeks to withdraw from the dollar system exactly what they did to Iraq or Libya or Afghanistan, or now Syria.

    And other countries are trying to withdraw from this and America says, "Well, we can smash you." No country's going to invade any other country. There's not going to be a military draft in any country 'cause the students; the population would rise up. Nobody's going to invade, and you can't control or occupy a country if you don't have an army. So the only thing that America can do-or any country can do militarily-is drop bombs.

    And that's sort of the equivalent of, just like the European Central Bank told Greece, "We'll close down your banks and the ATM machines will be empty," America will say, "Well, we'll bomb you, make you look like Syria and Libya if you don't turn over your oil, your pipelines, your utilities to American buyers so we can charge rents; we can be the absentee landlords. We can conquer the world financially instead of militarily. We don't need an army; we can use finance. And the threat of military warfare and bombing you to achieve things." Other countries are trying to stay free of the mad bomber, and it's all about who's going to control the world's natural resources: water, real estate, utilities-not a question of economic systems so much anymore.

    > Well, President Obama, even though he's a tool of Wall Street, at least he says, "It's not worth blowing up the world to fight in the near east." Hillary says, "It is worth pushing the world back to the Stone Age if they don't let us and me, Hillary, tell the world how to behave." That's a danger of the world and that's why the Europeans should be terrified of a Hillary presidency and terrified of the direction that America is doing, saying, "We want to control the world." It's not control the world through a different economic philosophy. It's to control the world through ownership of their land, natural resources and essentially, governments and monetary systems. That's really what it's all about. And the popular press is not doing a good job of explaining that context, but I can assure you, that's what they're talking about in Russia, China and South America.

    > There really is no alternative, and that's the objective of control: to create a society in which there is no choice. That's what a free market [myth] is really all about: preventing any choice by the people except what the government gives them. That's what the Austrian school was all about in the 1920s, waging war and assassination against the labor leaders and the socialists in Vienna, and that's what the free marketers in Chile were all about in the mass assassinations of labor leaders, university professors, intellectuals, and that's exactly the situation in America today without the machine guns, because the population doesn't really feel that it has any alternative, but has the illusion of choice in choosing either between which is the lesser evil. They get to vote for the lesser evil when it's all really the same process.

    http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/michael_hudson_on_why_trump_is_the_lesser_evil_20161107

    [Nov 08, 2016] Oh, What a Lovely War! Delusional foreign policy could bring disaster

    Notable quotes:
    "... The American people don't know very much about war even if Washington has been fighting on multiple fronts since 9/11. The continental United States has not experienced the presence a hostile military force for more than 100 years and war for the current generation of Americans consists largely of the insights provided by video games and movies. The Pentagon's invention of embedded journalists, which limits any independent media insight into what is going on overseas, has contributed to the rendering of war as some kind of abstraction. Gone forever is anything like the press coverage of Vietnam, with nightly news and other media presentations showing prisoners being executed and young girls screaming while racing down the street in flames. ..."
    "... Given all of that, it is perhaps no surprise that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, neither of whom has served in uniform, should regard violence inflicted on people overseas with a considerable level of detachment. ..."
    "... They both share to an extent the dominant New York-Washington policy consensus view that dealing with foreigners can sometimes get a bit bloody, but that is a price that someone in power has to be prepared to pay. One of Hillary's top advisers, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, famously declared that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. led sanctions were "worth it." ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton and her advisors, who believe strongly in Washington's leadership role globally and embrace their own definition of American exceptionalism, have been explicit in terms of what they would do to employ our military power. ..."
    "... She would be an extremely proactive president in foreign policy, with a particular animus directed against Russia. ..."
    "... Hillary has received support from foreign policy hawks, including a large number of formerly Republican neocons, to include Robert Kagan, Michael Chertoff, Michael Hayden, Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman. James Stavridis, a retired admiral who was once vetted by Clinton as a possible vice president, recently warned of "the need to use deadly force against the Iranians. ..."
    "... Hillary believes that Syria's president Bashar al-Assad is the root cause of the turmoil in that country and must be removed as the first priority. . It is a foolish policy as al-Assad in no way threatens the United States while his enemy ISIS does and regime change would create a power vacuum that will benefit the latter. ..."
    "... Hillary has not recommended doing anything about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of which have at one time or another for various reasons supported ISIS, but she is clearly no friend of Iran, which has been fighting ISIS. ..."
    "... One of Hillary's advisors, former CIA acting Director Michael Morell, has called for new sanctions on Tehran and has also recently recommended that the U.S. begin intercepting Iranian ships presumed to be carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen. ..."
    "... Hillary's dislike for Russia's Vladimir Putin is notorious. Syria aside, she has advocated arming Ukraine with game changing offensive weapons and also bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which would force a sharp Russian reaction. One suspects that she might be sympathetic to the views expressed recently by Carl Gershman in a Washington Post op-ed that received curiously little additional coverage in the media. Gershman is the head of the taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which means that he is a powerful figure in Washington's foreign-policy establishment. NED has plausibly been described as doing the sorts of things that the CIA used to do. ..."
    "... She would increase U.S. military presence in the South China Sea to deter any further attempts by Beijing to develop disputed islands and would also "ring China with defensive missiles," ostensibly as "protection" against Pyongyang but also to convince China to pressure North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One wonders what Beijing might think about being surrounded by made-in-America missiles. ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | www.unz.com

    The American people don't know very much about war even if Washington has been fighting on multiple fronts since 9/11. The continental United States has not experienced the presence a hostile military force for more than 100 years and war for the current generation of Americans consists largely of the insights provided by video games and movies. The Pentagon's invention of embedded journalists, which limits any independent media insight into what is going on overseas, has contributed to the rendering of war as some kind of abstraction. Gone forever is anything like the press coverage of Vietnam, with nightly news and other media presentations showing prisoners being executed and young girls screaming while racing down the street in flames.

    Given all of that, it is perhaps no surprise that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, neither of whom has served in uniform, should regard violence inflicted on people overseas with a considerable level of detachment. Hillary is notorious for her assessment of the brutal killing of Libya's Moammar Gaddafi, saying "We came, we saw, he died." They both share to an extent the dominant New York-Washington policy consensus view that dealing with foreigners can sometimes get a bit bloody, but that is a price that someone in power has to be prepared to pay. One of Hillary's top advisers, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, famously declared that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. led sanctions were "worth it."

    In the election campaign there has, in fact, been little discussion of the issue of war and peace or even of America's place in the world, though Trump did at one point note correctly that implementation of Hillary's suggested foreign policy could escalate into World War III. It has been my contention that the issue of war should be more front and center in the minds of Americans when they cast their ballots as the prospect of an armed conflict in which little is actually at stake escalating and going nuclear could conceivably end life on this planet as we know it.

    With that in mind, it is useful to consider what the two candidates have been promising. First, Hillary, who might reasonably be designated the Establishment's war candidate though she carefully wraps it in humanitarian "liberal interventionism." As Senator and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has always viewed a foreign crisis as an opportunity to use aggressive measures to seek a resolution. She can always be relied upon to "do something," a reflection of the neocon driven Washington foreign policy consensus.

    Hillary Clinton and her advisors, who believe strongly in Washington's leadership role globally and embrace their own definition of American exceptionalism, have been explicit in terms of what they would do to employ our military power.

    She would be an extremely proactive president in foreign policy, with a particular animus directed against Russia. And, unfortunately, there would be little or no pushback against the exercise of her admittedly poor instincts regarding what to do, as was demonstrated regarding Libya and also with Benghazi. She would find little opposition in Congress and the media for an extremely risky foreign policy, and would benefit from the Washington groupthink that prevails over the alleged threats emanating from Russia, Iran, and China.

    Hillary has received support from foreign policy hawks, including a large number of formerly Republican neocons, to include Robert Kagan, Michael Chertoff, Michael Hayden, Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman. James Stavridis, a retired admiral who was once vetted by Clinton as a possible vice president, recently warned of "the need to use deadly force against the Iranians. I think it's coming. It's going to be maritime confrontation and if it doesn't happen immediately, I'll bet you a dollar it's going to be happening after the presidential election, whoever is elected."

    Hillary believes that Syria's president Bashar al-Assad is the root cause of the turmoil in that country and must be removed as the first priority. . It is a foolish policy as al-Assad in no way threatens the United States while his enemy ISIS does and regime change would create a power vacuum that will benefit the latter. She has also called for a no-fly zone in Syria to protect the local population as well as the insurgent groups that the U.S. supports, some of which had been labeled as terrorists before they were renamed by current Secretary of State John Kerry. Such a zone would dramatically raise the prospect of armed conflict with Russia and it puts Washington in an odd position vis-ŕ-vis what is occurring in Syria. The U.S. is not at war with the Syrian government, which, like it or not, is under international law sovereign within its own recognized borders. Damascus has invited the Russians in to help against the rebels and objects to any other foreign presence on Syrian territory. In spite of all that, Washington is asserting some kind of authority to intervene and to confront the Russians as both a humanitarian mission and as an "inherent right of self-defense."

    Hillary has not recommended doing anything about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of which have at one time or another for various reasons supported ISIS, but she is clearly no friend of Iran, which has been fighting ISIS. As a Senator, she threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran but she has more recently reluctantly supported the recent nuclear agreement with that country negotiated by President Barack Obama. But she has nevertheless warned that she will monitor the situation closely for possible violations and will otherwise pushback against activity by the Islamic Republic. As one of her key financial supporters is Israeli Haim Saban, who has said he is a one issue guy and that issue is Israel, she is likely to pursue aggressive policies in the Persian Gulf. She has also promised to move America's relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a "new level" and has repeatedly declared that her support for Israel is unconditional.

    One of Hillary's advisors, former CIA acting Director Michael Morell, has called for new sanctions on Tehran and has also recently recommended that the U.S. begin intercepting Iranian ships presumed to be carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen. Washington is not at war with either Iran or Yemen and the Houthis are not on the State Department terrorist list but our good friends the Saudis have been assiduously bombing them for reasons that seem obscure. Stopping ships in international waters without any legal pretext would be considered by many an act of piracy. Morell has also called for covertly assassinating Iranians and Russians to express our displeasure with the foreign policies of their respective governments.

    Hillary's dislike for Russia's Vladimir Putin is notorious. Syria aside, she has advocated arming Ukraine with game changing offensive weapons and also bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which would force a sharp Russian reaction. One suspects that she might be sympathetic to the views expressed recently by Carl Gershman in a Washington Post op-ed that received curiously little additional coverage in the media. Gershman is the head of the taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which means that he is a powerful figure in Washington's foreign-policy establishment. NED has plausibly been described as doing the sorts of things that the CIA used to do.

    After making a number of bumper-sticker claims about Russia and Putin that are either partially true, unproven or even ridiculous, Gershman concluded that "the United States has the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do so." It is basically a call for the next administration to remove Putin from power-as foolish a suggestion as has ever been seen in a leading newspaper, as it implies that the risk of nuclear war is completely acceptable to bring about regime change in a country whose very popular, democratically elected leadership we disapprove of. But it is nevertheless symptomatic of the kind of thinking that goes on inside the beltway and is quite possibly a position that Hillary Clinton will embrace. She also benefits from having the perfect implementer of such a policy in Robert Kagan's wife Victoria Nuland, her extremely dangerous protégé who is currently Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and who might wind up as Secretary of State in a Clinton Administration.

    Shifting to East Asia, Hillary sees the admittedly genuine threat from North Korea but her response is focused more on China. She would increase U.S. military presence in the South China Sea to deter any further attempts by Beijing to develop disputed islands and would also "ring China with defensive missiles," ostensibly as "protection" against Pyongyang but also to convince China to pressure North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One wonders what Beijing might think about being surrounded by made-in-America missiles.

    Trump's foreign policy is admittedly quite sketchy and he has not always been consistent. He has been appropriately enough slammed for being simple minded in saying that he would "bomb the crap out of ISIS," but he has also taken on the Republican establishment by specifically condemning the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq and has more than once indicated that he is not interested in either being the world's policeman or in new wars in the Middle East. He has repeatedly stated that he supports NATO but it should not be construed as hostile to Russia. He would work with Putin to address concerns over Syria and Eastern Europe. He would demand that NATO countries spend more for their own defense and also help pay for the maintenance of U.S. bases.

    Trump's controversial call to stop all Muslim immigration has been rightly condemned but it contains a kernel of truth in that the current process for vetting new arrivals in this country is far from transparent and apparently not very effective. The Obama Administration has not been very forthcoming on what might be done to fix the entire immigration process but Trump is promising to shake things up, which is overdue, though what exactly a Trump Administration would try to accomplish is far from clear.

    Continuing on the negative side, Trump, who is largely ignorant of the world and its leaders, has relied on a mixed bag of advisors. Former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency General Michael Flynn appears to be the most prominent. Flynn is associated with arch neocon Michael Ledeen and both are rabid about Iran, with Flynn suggesting that nearly all the unrest in the Middle East should be laid at Tehran's door. Ledeen is, of course, a prominent Israel-firster who has long had Iran in his sights. The advice of Ledeen and Flynn may have been instrumental in Trump's vehement denunciation of the Iran nuclear agreement, which he has called a "disgrace," which he has said he would "tear up." It is vintage dumb-think. The agreement cannot be canceled because there are five other signatories to it and the denial of a nuclear weapons program to Tehran benefits everyone in the region, including Israel. It is far better to have the agreement than to scrap it, if that were even possible.

    Trump has said that he would be an even-handed negotiator between Israel and the Palestinians but he has also declared that he is strongly pro-Israel and would move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, which is a bad idea, not in America's interest, even if Netanyahu would like it. It would produce serious blowback from the Arab world and would inspire a new wave of terrorism directed against the U.S.

    Regarding the rest of the Middle East, Trump would prefer strong leaders, i.e. autocrats, who are friendly rather than chaotic reformers. He rejects arming rebels as in Syria because we know little about whom we are dealing with and find that we cannot control what develops. He is against foreign aid in principle, particularly to countries like Pakistan where the U.S. is strongly disliked.

    In East Asia, Trump would encourage Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenals to deter North Korea. It is a very bad idea, a proliferation nightmare. Like Hillary, he would prefer that China intervene in North Korea and make Kim Jong Un "step down." He would put pressure on China to devalue its currency because it is "bilking us of billions of dollars" and would also increase U.S. military presence in the region to limit Beijing's expansion in the South China Sea.

    So there you have it as you enter the voting booth. President Obama is going around warning that "the fate of the world is teetering" over the electoral verdict, which he intends to be a ringing endorsement of Hillary even though the choice is not nearly that clear cut. Part of the problem with Trump is that he has some very bad ideas mixed in with a few good ones and no one knows what he would actually do if he were president. Unfortunately, it is all too clear what Hillary would do.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Political correctness functions like a despotic regime. It is an oppressiveness that spreads its edicts further and further into the crevices of everyday life.

    Notable quotes:
    "... political correctness functions like a despotic regime. It is an oppressiveness that spreads its edicts further and further into the crevices of everyday life. ..."
    "... Mr. Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, is the author of "Shame: How America's Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country" (Basic Books, 2015). ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    The current election-regardless of its outcome-reveals something tragic in the way modern conservatism sits in American life. As an ideology-and certainly as a political identity-conservatism is less popular than the very principles and values it stands for. There is a presumption in the culture that heartlessness and bigotry are somehow endemic to conservatism, that the rigors of freedom and capitalism literally require exploitation and inequality - this despite the fact that so many liberal policies since the 1960s have only worsened the inequalities they sought to overcome.

    In the broader American culture-the mainstream media, the world of the arts and entertainment, the high-tech world, and the entire enterprise of public and private education-conservatism suffers a decided ill repute.

    ...And this is oppressive for conservatives because it puts them in the position of being a bit embarrassed by who they really are and what they really believe.

    Deference has been codified in American life as political correctness. And political correctness functions like a despotic regime. It is an oppressiveness that spreads its edicts further and further into the crevices of everyday life. We resent it, yet for the most part we at least tolerate its demands. But it means that we live in a society that is ever willing to cast judgment on us, to shame us in the name of a politics we don't really believe in. It means our decency requires a degree of self-betrayal.

    And into all this steps Mr. Trump, a fundamentally limited man but a man with overwhelming charisma, a man impossible to ignore. The moment he entered the presidential contest America's long simmering culture war rose to full boil. Mr. Trump was a non-deferential candidate. He seemed at odds with every code of decency. He invoked every possible stigma, and screechingly argued against them all. He did much of the dirty work that millions of Americans wanted to do but lacked the platform to do.

    Thus Mr. Trump's extraordinary charisma has been far more about what he represents than what he might actually do as the president. He stands to alter the culture of deference itself.

    ... ... ...

    Societies, like individuals, have intuitions. Donald Trump is an intuition. At least on the level of symbol, maybe he would push back against the hegemony of deference-if not as a liberator then possibly as a reformer...

    Mr. Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, is the author of "Shame: How America's Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country" (Basic Books, 2015).

    [Nov 08, 2016] Last Stand for ISIS by Eric Margolis

    Notable quotes:
    "... Islamic State(IS), the defender of Mosul, is a paper tiger, blown out of all proportion by western media. IS is, as this writer has been saying for years, an armed mob made up of 20-something malcontents, religious fanatics, and modern-day anarchists. At its top is a cadre of former Iraqi Army officers with military experience. ..."
    "... These former officers of Saddam Hussain are bent on revenge for the US destruction of their nation and the lynching of its late leader. But IS rank and file has no military training, little discipline, degraded communications, and ragged logistics. ..."
    "... In fact, today's Islamic State is what the Ottoman Empire used to term, 'bashi-bazouks," a collection of irregular cut-throats and scum of the gutter sent to punish and terrorize enemies by means of torture, rapine, looting and arson. ..."
    "... Western and Kudish auxiliary forces have been sitting 1.5 hours drive from Mosul and the IS town of Raqqa for over a year. Instead, western – mainly US – warplanes have been gingerly bombing around these targets in what may be an effort to convince breakaway ISIS to rejoin US-led forces fight the Damascus regime. ..."
    "... Note that ISIS does not appear to have ever attacked Israel though it is playing an important role in the destruction of Syria. Some reports say Israel is providing logistic and medical support for IS. ..."
    "... The siege of Mosul is being played up by western media as a heroic second Stalingrad. Don't be fooled. IS has only 3-5,000 lightly armed fighters in Mosul and Raqqa, maybe even less. The leaders of IS are likely long gone. IS has few heavy weapons, no air cover at all, and poor communications. Its rag-tag fighters will run out of ammunitions and explosives very quickly. ..."
    "... Encircling Mosul are at least 50,000 western-led soldiers, backed by heavy artillery, rocket batteries, tanks, armored vehicles and awesome air power ..."
    "... The western imperial forces are composed of tough Kurdish pasha merga fighters, Iraqi army and special forces, some Syrian Kurds, Iranian 'volunteers' irregular forces and at least 5,000 US combat troops called "advisors", plus small numbers of French, Canadian and British special forces. Hovering in the background are some thousands of Turkish troops, supported by armor and artillery ready to 'liberate' Iraq – which was once part of the Ottoman Empire. ..."
    www.unz.com
    Reprinted from EricMargolis.com

    As a former soldier and war correspondent who has covered 14 conflicts, I look at all the media hoopla over tightening siege of Mosul, Iraq and shake my head. This western-organized "liberation" of Mosul is one of the bigger pieces of political-military theater that I've seen.

    Islamic State(IS), the defender of Mosul, is a paper tiger, blown out of all proportion by western media. IS is, as this writer has been saying for years, an armed mob made up of 20-something malcontents, religious fanatics, and modern-day anarchists. At its top is a cadre of former Iraqi Army officers with military experience.

    These former officers of Saddam Hussain are bent on revenge for the US destruction of their nation and the lynching of its late leader. But IS rank and file has no military training, little discipline, degraded communications, and ragged logistics.

    In fact, today's Islamic State is what the Ottoman Empire used to term, 'bashi-bazouks," a collection of irregular cut-throats and scum of the gutter sent to punish and terrorize enemies by means of torture, rapine, looting and arson.

    What has amazed me about the faux western war against ISIS is its leisurely nature, lack of élan, and hesitancy. In my view, ISIS was mostly created by the US and its allies as a weapon to be used against Syria's government – just as the Afghan mujahadin were used by the US and the Saudis to overthrow the Soviet-backed Afghan government. Israel tried the same tactics by helping create Hamas in Palestine and Hezbullah in Lebanon. Both were cultivated to split the PLO.

    ISIS is an ad hoc movement that wants to punish the West and the Saudis for the gross carnage they have inflicted on the Arab world.

    Western and Kudish auxiliary forces have been sitting 1.5 hours drive from Mosul and the IS town of Raqqa for over a year. Instead, western – mainly US – warplanes have been gingerly bombing around these targets in what may be an effort to convince breakaway ISIS to rejoin US-led forces fight the Damascus regime.

    Note that ISIS does not appear to have ever attacked Israel though it is playing an important role in the destruction of Syria. Some reports say Israel is providing logistic and medical support for IS.

    The siege of Mosul is being played up by western media as a heroic second Stalingrad. Don't be fooled. IS has only 3-5,000 lightly armed fighters in Mosul and Raqqa, maybe even less. The leaders of IS are likely long gone. IS has few heavy weapons, no air cover at all, and poor communications. Its rag-tag fighters will run out of ammunitions and explosives very quickly.

    Encircling Mosul are at least 50,000 western-led soldiers, backed by heavy artillery, rocket batteries, tanks, armored vehicles and awesome air power

    The western imperial forces are composed of tough Kurdish pasha merga fighters, Iraqi army and special forces, some Syrian Kurds, Iranian 'volunteers' irregular forces and at least 5,000 US combat troops called "advisors", plus small numbers of French, Canadian and British special forces. Hovering in the background are some thousands of Turkish troops, supported by armor and artillery ready to 'liberate' Iraq – which was once part of the Ottoman Empire.

    For the US, current military operations in Syria and Iraq are the realization of an imperialist's fondest dream: native troops led by white officers, the model of the old British Indian Raj. Washington arms, trained, equips and financed all its native auxiliaries.

    The IS is caught in a dangerous dilemma. To be a political movement, it was delighted to control Iraq's second largest city. But as a guerilla force, it should not have holed up in an urban area where it was highly vulnerable to concentrated air attack and being surrounded. This is what's happening right now.

    In the mostly flat Fertile Crescent with too few trees, ground forces are totally vulnerable to air power, as the recent 1967, 1973 Israel-Arab wars and 2003 Iraq wars have shown. Dispersion and guerilla tactics are the only hope for those that lack air cover.

    IS forces would best advised to disperse across the region and continue their hit-and-run attacks. Otherwise, they risk being destroyed. But being mostly bloody-minded young fanatics, IS may not heed military logic and precedent in favor of making a last stand in the ruins of Mosul and Raqqa

    When this happens, western leaders will compete to claim authorship of the faux crusade against the paper tiger of ISIS.

    [Nov 08, 2016] What Hath Trump Wrought

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bush I and II, Mitt Romney, the neocons and the GOP commentariat all denounced Trump as morally and temperamentally unfit. Yet, seven of eight Republicans are voting for Trump, and he drew the largest and most enthusiastic crowds of any GOP nominee. ..."
    "... How could the Republican establishment advance anew the trade and immigration policies that their base has so thunderously rejected? ..."
    "... Do mainstream Republicans think that should Trump lose a Bush Restoration lies ahead? The dynasty is as dead as the Romanovs. ..."
    "... The media, whose reputation has sunk to Congressional depths, has also suffered a blow to its credibility. ..."
    "... Its hatred of Trump has been almost manic, and WikiLeaks revelations of the collusion between major media and Clintonites have convinced skeptics that the system is rigged and the referees of democracy are in the tank. ..."
    "... But it is the national establishment that has suffered most. The Trump candidacy exposed what seems an unbridgeable gulf between this political class and the nation in whose name it purports to speak. ..."
    "... Middle America believes the establishment is not looking out for the nation but for retention of its power. And in attacking Trump it is not upholding some objective moral standard but seeking to destroy a leader who represents a grave threat to that power. ..."
    "... Moreover, they see the establishment as the quintessence of hypocrisy. Trump is instructed to stop using such toxic phrases as "America First" and "Make America Great Again" by elites... ..."
    "... While a Trump victory would create the possibility of a coalition of conservatives, populists, patriots and nationalists governing America, should he lose, America's future appears disunited and grim. ..."
    www.unz.com
    Herewith, a dissent. Whatever happens Tuesday, Trump has made history and has forever changed American politics.

    Though a novice in politics, he captured the Party of Lincoln with the largest turnout of primary voters ever, and he has inflicted wounds on the nation's ruling class from which it may not soon recover.

    Bush I and II, Mitt Romney, the neocons and the GOP commentariat all denounced Trump as morally and temperamentally unfit. Yet, seven of eight Republicans are voting for Trump, and he drew the largest and most enthusiastic crowds of any GOP nominee.

    Not only did he rout the Republican elites, he ash-canned their agenda and repudiated the wars into which they plunged the country.

    Trump did not create the forces that propelled his candidacy. But he recognized them, tapped into them, and unleashed a gusher of nationalism and populism that will not soon dissipate.

    Whatever happens Tuesday, there is no going back now.

    How could the Republican establishment advance anew the trade and immigration policies that their base has so thunderously rejected?

    How can the GOP establishment credibly claim to speak for a party that spent the last year cheering a candidate who repudiated the last two Republican presidents and the last two Republican nominees?

    Do mainstream Republicans think that should Trump lose a Bush Restoration lies ahead? The dynasty is as dead as the Romanovs.

    The media, whose reputation has sunk to Congressional depths, has also suffered a blow to its credibility.

    Its hatred of Trump has been almost manic, and WikiLeaks revelations of the collusion between major media and Clintonites have convinced skeptics that the system is rigged and the referees of democracy are in the tank.

    But it is the national establishment that has suffered most. The Trump candidacy exposed what seems an unbridgeable gulf between this political class and the nation in whose name it purports to speak.

    Consider the litany of horrors it has charged Trump with.

    He said John McCain was no hero, that some Mexican illegals are "rapists." He mocked a handicapped reporter. He called some women "pigs." He wants a temporary ban to Muslim immigration. He fought with a Gold Star mother and father. He once engaged in "fat-shaming" a Miss Universe, calling her "Miss Piggy," and telling her to stay out of Burger King. He allegedly made crude advances on a dozen women and starred in the "Access Hollywood" tape with Billy Bush.

    While such "gaffes" are normally fatal for candidates, Trump's followers stood by him through them all.

    Why? asks an alarmed establishment. Why, in spite of all this, did Trump's support endure? Why did the American people not react as they once would have? Why do these accusations not have the bite they once did?

    Answer. We are another country now, an us-or-them country.

    Middle America believes the establishment is not looking out for the nation but for retention of its power. And in attacking Trump it is not upholding some objective moral standard but seeking to destroy a leader who represents a grave threat to that power.

    Trump's followers see an American Spring as crucial, and they are not going to let past boorish behavior cause them to abandon the last best chance to preserve the country they grew up in.

    These are the Middle American Radicals, the MARs of whom my late friend Sam Francis wrote.

    They recoil from the future the elites have mapped out for them and, realizing the stakes, will overlook the faults and failings of a candidate who holds out the real promise of avoiding that future.

    They believe Trump alone will secure the borders and rid us of a trade regime that has led to the loss of 70,000 factories and 5 million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA. They believe Trump is the best hope for keeping us out of the wars the Beltway think tanks are already planning for the sons of the "deplorables" to fight.

    Moreover, they see the establishment as the quintessence of hypocrisy. Trump is instructed to stop using such toxic phrases as "America First" and "Make America Great Again" by elites...

    ... ... ...

    While a Trump victory would create the possibility of a coalition of conservatives, populists, patriots and nationalists governing America, should he lose, America's future appears disunited and grim.

    But, would the followers of Donald Trump, whom Hillary Clinton has called "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … bigots," to the cheers of her media retainers, unite behind her should she win?

    No. Win or lose, as Sen. Edward Kennedy said at the Democratic Convention of 1980, "The work goes on, the cause endures."

    Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority."

    [Nov 08, 2016] Looking in The Mirror: How the US Only Sees Itself in Its Putin Propaganda

    Nov 08, 2016 | comehomeamerica.wordpress.com
    Posted on May 9, 2016 by comehomeamerica by Dr. Bill Wedin Who benefits?

    Who benefits?

    Yes. In the famous words of Pogo :

    "We have met the enemy. And he is us."

    That's how paranoia works. We project onto a feared "other" our own unacceptable desires. In Putin's case, it's our unacceptable wish to incinerate him and all Russians with him that we may rule the world.

    Not out of avarice, mind you. Or so the noble lie goes. But out of our selfless compassion. Our Christian compassion, if that floats your boat. Yes, indeed. We selfless, exceptional Americans are willing to bear the heavy burden of world hegemony–not for all the power and wealth it brings us. Perish the thought! But for the peace and prosperity our rule will bestow on all the colored peoples of the earth–drop by drop–beneath us.

    That's what our leaders tell us. And that's what the mainstream media echo back to us–again and again and again. That we're the best. The greatest. The goodest. The purest. We act always only for others. Our motives can never be questioned. For Americans alone can judge what is good and what is evil. We're like God in that way. That's why Americans ate so much from the Tree of Knowledge in the first place! Continue reading →

    [Nov 07, 2016] Under the Din of the Presidential Race Lies a Once and Future Threat Cyberwarfare

    This neocon propagandists (or more correctly neocon provocateur) got all major facts wrong. And who unleashed Flame and Stuxnet I would like to ask him. Was it Russians? And who invented the concept of "color revolution" in which influencing of election was the major part of strategy ? And which nation instituted the program of covert access to email boxes of all major webmail providers? He should study the history of malware and the USA covert operations before writing this propagandist/provocateur opus to look a little bit more credible...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Email, a main conduit of communication for two decades, now appears so vulnerable that the nation seems to be wondering whether its bursting inboxes can ever be safe. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    The 2016 presidential race will be remembered for many ugly moments, but the most lasting historical marker may be one that neither voters nor American intelligence agencies saw coming: It is the first time that a foreign power has unleashed cyberweapons to disrupt, or perhaps influence, a United States election.

    And there is a foreboding sense that, in elections to come, there is no turning back.

    The steady drumbeat of allegations of Russian troublemaking - leaks from stolen emails and probes of election-system defenses - has continued through the campaign's last days. These intrusions, current and former administration officials agree, will embolden other American adversaries, which have been given a vivid demonstration that, when used with some subtlety, their growing digital arsenals can be particularly damaging in the frenzy of a democratic election.

    "Most of the biggest stories of this election cycle have had a cybercomponent to them - or the use of information warfare techniques that the Russians, in particular, honed over decades," said David Rothkopf, the chief executive and editor of Foreign Policy, who has written two histories of the National Security Council. "From stolen emails, to WikiLeaks, to the hacking of the N.S.A.'s tools, and even the debate about how much of this the Russians are responsible for, it's dominated in a way that we haven't seen in any prior election."

    The magnitude of this shift has gone largely unrecognized in the cacophony of a campaign dominated by charges of groping and pay-for-play access. Yet the lessons have ranged from the intensely personal to the geostrategic.

    Email, a main conduit of communication for two decades, now appears so vulnerable that the nation seems to be wondering whether its bursting inboxes can ever be safe. Election systems, the underpinning of democracy, seem to be at such risk that it is unimaginable that the United States will go into another national election without treating them as "critical infrastructure."

    But President Obama has been oddly quiet on these issues. He delivered a private warning to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia during their final face-to-face encounter two months ago, aides say. Still, Mr. Obama has barely spoken publicly about the implications of foreign meddling in the election. His instincts, those who have worked with him on cyberissues say, are to deal with the problem by developing new norms of international behavior or authorizing covert action rather than direct confrontation.

    After a series of debates in the Situation Room, Mr. Obama and his aides concluded that any public retaliation should be postponed until after the election - to avoid the appearance that politics influenced his decision and to avoid provoking Russian counterstrikes while voting is underway. It remains unclear whether Mr. Obama will act after Tuesday, as his aides hint, or leave the decision about a "proportional response" to his successor.

    Cybersleuths, historians and strategists will debate for years whether Russia's actions reflected a grand campaign of interference or mere opportunism on the part of Mr. Putin. While the administration has warned for years about the possibility of catastrophic attacks, what has happened in the past six months has been far more subtle.

    Russia has used the techniques - what they call "hybrid war," mixing new technologies with old-fashioned propaganda, misinformation and disruption - for years in former Soviet states and elsewhere in Europe. The only surprise was that Mr. Putin, as he intensified confrontations with Washington as part of a nationalist campaign to solidify his own power amid a deteriorating economy, was willing to take them to American shores.

    The most common theory is that while the Russian leader would prefer the election of Donald J. Trump - in part because Mr. Trump has suggested that NATO is irrelevant and that the United States should pull its troops back to American shores - his primary motive is to undercut what he views as a smug American sense of superiority about its democratic processes.

    Madeleine K. Albright, a former secretary of state who is vigorously supporting Hillary Clinton, wrote recently that Mr. Putin's goal was "to create doubt about the validity of the U.S. election results, and to make us seem hypocritical when we question the conduct of elections in other countries."

    If so, this is a very different use of power than what the Obama administration has long prepared the nation for.

    Four years ago, Leon E. Panetta, the defense secretary at the time, warned of an impending "cyber Pearl Harbor" in which enemies could "contaminate the water supply in major cities or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country," perhaps in conjunction with a conventional attack.

    [Nov 07, 2016] No, Hillary Clinton is not less Evil than Trump One has Funny Hair, the Other Wears Trouser-suits Global Research - Centre

    Nov 07, 2016 | www.globalresearch.ca
    After all, Clinton is not going to make it into the Oval Office unless she can secure the votes of those who backed the far-more progressive Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries.

    Clinton's camp have wielded various sticks to beat these voters into submission. Not least they have claimed that a refusal to vote for Clinton is an indication of one's misogyny . But it has not been an easy task. Actor Susan Sarandon, for example, has stated that she is not going to "vote with my vagina". As she notes, if the issue is simply about proving one is not anti-women, there is a much worthier candidate for president who also happens to be female: Jill Stein, of the Green Party.

    Sarandon, who supported Sanders in the primaries, spoke for a vast swath of voters excluded by the two-party system when she told BBC Newsnight:

    I am worried about the wars, I am worried about Syria, I am worried about all of these things that actually exist. TTP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] and I'm worried about fracking. I'm worrying about the environment. No matter who gets in they don't address these things because money has taken over our system.

    Given that both Donald Trump and Clinton represent big money – and big money only – Clinton's supporters have been forced to find another stick. And that has been the "lesser evil" argument. Clinton may be bad, but Trump would be far worse. Voting for a non-evil candidate like Jill Stein – who has no hope of winning – would split the progressive camp and ensure Trump, the more evil candidate, triumphs. Therefore, there is a moral obligation on progressive voters to back Clinton, however bad her track record as a senator and as secretary of state.

    There is nothing new about this argument. It had been around for decades, and has been corralling progressives into voting for Democratic presidents who have still advanced US neoconservative policy goals abroad and neoliberal ones at home.

    America's pseudo-democracy

    So is it true that Clinton is the lesser-evil candidate? To answer that question, we need to examine those "policy differences" with Trump.

    On the negative side, Trump's platform poses a genuine threat to civil liberties. His bigoted, "blame the immigrants" style of politics will harm many families in the US in very tangible ways. Even if the inertia of the political system reins in his worst excesses, as is almost certain, his inflammatory rhetoric is sure to damage the façade of democratic discourse in the US – a development not to be dismissed lightly. Americans may be living in a pseudo-democracy, one run more like a plutocracy, but destroying the politics of respect, and civil discourse, could quickly result in the normalisation of political violence and intimidation.

    On the plus side, Trump is an isolationist, with little appetite for foreign entanglements. Again, the Washington policy elites may force him to engage abroad in ways he would prefer not to, but his instincts to limit the projection of US military power on the international stage are likely to be an overall good for the world's population outside the US. Any diminishment of US imperialism is going to have real practical benefits for billions of people around the globe. His refusal to demonise Vladimir Putin, for example, may be significant enough to halt the gradual slide towards a nuclear confrontation with Russia, either in Ukraine or in the Middle East.

    Clinton is the mirror image of Trump. Domestically, she largely abides by the rules of civil politics – not least because respectful discourse benefits her as the candidate with plenty of political experience. The US is likely to be a more stable, more predictable place under a Clinton presidency, even as the plutocratic elite entrenches its power and the wealth gap grows relentlessly.

    Abroad, however, the picture looks worse under Clinton. She has been an enthusiastic supporter of all the many recent wars of aggression launched by the US, some declared and some covert. Personally, as secretary of state, she helped engineer the overthrow of Col Muammar Gaddafi. That policy led to an outcome – one that was entirely foreseeable – of Libya's reinvention as a failed state, with jihadists of every stripe sucked into the resulting vacuum. Large parts of Gadaffi's arsenal followed the jihadists as they exported their struggles across the Middle East, creating more bloodshed and heightening the refugee crisis. Now Clinton wants to intensify US involvement in Syria, including by imposing a no-fly zone – or rather, a US and allies-only fly zone – that would thrust the US into a direct confrontation with another nuclear-armed power, Russia.

    In the cost-benefit calculus of who to vote for in a two-party contest, the answer seems to be: vote for Clinton if you are interested only in what happens in the narrow sphere of US domestic politics (assuming Clinton does not push the US into a nuclear war); while if you are a global citizen worried about the future of the planet, Trump may be the marginally better of two terribly evil choices. (Neither, of course, cares a jot about the most pressing problem facing mankind: runaway climate change.)

    So even on the extremely blinkered logic of Clinton's supporters, Clinton might not be the winner in a lesser-evil presidential contest.

    Mounting disillusion

    But there is a second, more important reason to reject the lesser-evil argument as grounds for voting for Clinton.

    Trump's popularity is a direct consequence of several decades of American progressives voting for the lesser-evil candidate. Most Americans have never heard of Jill Stein, or the other three candidates who are not running on behalf of the Republican and Democratic parties. These candidates have received no mainstream media coverage – or the chance to appear in the candidate debates – because their share of the vote is so minuscule. It remains minuscule precisely because progressives have spent decades voting for the lesser-evil candidate. And nothing is going to change so long as progressives keep responding to the electoral dog-whistle that they have to keep the Republican candidate out at all costs, even at the price of their own consciences.

    Growing numbers of Americans understand that their country was "stolen from them", to use a popular slogan. They sense that the US no longer even aspires to its founding ideals, that it has become a society run for the exclusive benefit of a tiny wealthy elite. Many are looking for someone to articulate their frustration, their powerlessness, their hopelessness.

    Two opposed antidotes for the mounting disillusionment with "normal politics" emerged during the presidential race: a progressive one, in the form of Sanders, who suggested he was ready to hold the plutocrats to account; and a populist one, in the form of Trump, determined to deflect anger away from the plutocrats towards easy targets like immigrants. As we now know from Wikileaks' release of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta's emails, the Democats worked hard to rig their own primaries to make sure the progressive option, Sanders, was eliminated. The Republicans, by contrast, were overwhelmed by the insurrection within their own party.

    The wave of disaffection Sanders and Trump have been riding is not going away. In fact, a President Clinton, the embodiment of the self-serving, self-aggrandising politics of the plutocrats, will only fuel the disenchantment. The fixing of the Democratic primaries did not strengthen Clinton's moral authority, it fuelled the kind of doubts about the system that bolster Trump. Trump's accusations of a corrupt elite and a rigged political and media system are not merely figments of his imagination; they are rooted in the realities of US politics.

    Trump, however, is not the man to offer solutions. His interests are too close aligned to those of the plutocrats for him to make meaningful changes.

    Trump may lose this time, but someone like him will do better next time – unless ordinary Americans are exposed to a different kind of politician, one who can articulate progressive, rather regressive, remedies for the necrosis that is rotting the US body politic. Sanders began that process, but a progressive challenge to "politics as normal" has to be sustained and extended if Trump and his ilk are not to triumph eventually.

    The battle cannot be delayed another few years, on the basis that one day a genuinely non-evil candidate will emerge from nowhere to fix this rotten system. It won't happen of its own. Unless progressive Americans show they are prepared to vote out of conviction, not out of necessity, the Democratic party will never have to take account of their views. It will keep throwing up leaders – in different colours and different sexes – to front the tiny elite that runs the US and seeks to rule the world.

    It is time to say no – loudly – to Clinton, whether she is the slightly lesser-evil candidate or not. The original source of this article is Jonathan Cook Blog Copyright © Jonathan Cook , Jonathan Cook Blog , 2016

    [Nov 07, 2016] More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions

    Notable quotes:
    "... it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce its decisions. ..."
    "... It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of baseness. ..."
    "... Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked. ..."
    "... Economists told us that free trade deals and open borders would make us prosperous and yet that hasn't happens. ..."
    "... The technicians running trade policy, monetary policy and fiscal policy haven't held up their end of the bargain. ..."
    "... Wealth and power has been redistributed upwards. ..."
    "... The union movement has been destroyed in outright class war. ..."
    "... The corporate media spread lies and distraction. It induces both apathy and a rat race/dog-eat-dog mentality. ..."
    "... Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today. Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider. ..."
    "... Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*. ..."
    "... Trump's policies would double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs." ..."
    "... Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply? ..."
    Nov 07, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Adam Davidson in the New Yorker:
    More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions : ...Institutions are significant to economists, who have come to see that countries become prosperous not because they have bounteous natural resources or an educated population or the most advanced technology but because they have good institutions. Crucially, formal structures are supported by informal, often unstated, social agreements. A nation not only needs courts; its people need to believe that those courts can be fair. ...

    Over most of history, a small élite confiscated wealth from the poor. Subsistence farmers lived under rules designed to tax them so that the rulers could live in palaces and pay for soldiers to maintain their power. Every now and then, though, a system appeared in which leaders were forced to accommodate the needs of at least some of their citizens. ... The societies with the most robust systems for forcing the powerful to accommodate some of the needs of the powerless became wealthier and more peaceful. ... Most nations without institutions to check the worst impulses of the rich and powerful stay stuck in poverty and dysfunction. ...

    This year's Presidential election has alarmed economists for several reasons. No economist, save one , supports Donald J. Trump's stated economic plans, but an even larger concern is that, were he elected, Trump would attack the very institutions that have provided our economic stability. In his campaign, Trump has shown outright contempt for courts, free speech, international treaties, and many other pillars of the American way of life. There is little reason to think that, if granted the Presidency, Trump would soften his stand. ...

    ...it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce its decisions. No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail.

    Alex S : , November 05, 2016 at 01:15 PM
    It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of baseness.

    Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked.

    Peter K. : , November 05, 2016 at 01:23 PM
    "No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail."

    This is all true but let's provide a little more context than the totebaggers' paint-by-numbers narrative.

    • Economists told us that free trade deals and open borders would make us prosperous and yet that hasn't happens.
    • The technicians running trade policy, monetary policy and fiscal policy haven't held up their end of the bargain.
    • Wealth and power has been redistributed upwards.
    • The union movement has been destroyed in outright class war.
    • The corporate media spread lies and distraction. It induces both apathy and a rat race/dog-eat-dog mentality.

    The Democratic Party has been moved to right as the middle class has struggled.

    And more and more people become susceptible to demagogues like Trump as Democrats try to play both sides of the fence, instead of standing foresquarely behind the job class.

    Let's hope we don't find out what Trump does if elected. My guess is that he'd delegate foreign and domestic policy to Mike Pence as Trump himself would be free to pursue his own personal grudges via whatever means are available.

    Alex S -> Peter K.... , -1
    As we can see here, through leftist glasses, the only possible remedy for solving a problem is moving left.
    Julio -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:02 PM
    Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today.
    Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.
    anne -> Julio ... , November 05, 2016 at 03:26 PM
    Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today. Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.

    [ An important criticism. ]

    Alex S -> Julio ... , November 05, 2016 at 03:50 PM
    We have moved left. The gays and blacks are treated better. We no longer tolerate wars like Vietnam. The Iraq war was an order of magnitude smaller. War helps scientific discovery and progress. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0 For more capable nations to help civilize weaker and more chaotic ones is helpful, but leftists won't accept that.
    Peter K. -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:12 PM
    As Julio points out, under any objective analysis, politics have moved to the right.

    Rightwing policy solutions have been tried: tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, breaking of unions, etc.

    We've seen the results. Stagnation and slow growth.

    The social democratic post-war years were much better with shared prosperity for all citizens.

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 03:53 PM
    "It's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts."

    When Obama refuses to jail torturers or those responsible for mortgage fraud, we the people are justified in having less confidence in the courts.

    Peter Liepmann -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 05:52 PM
    Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*.

    Trump's policies would double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs."

    Tim Harford made a good case for trust accounting for 99% of the difference in per capita GNP between the US and Somalia.

    ""If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain basically all the difference between the per capita income of the United States and Somalia," ventures Steve Knack, a senior economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for over a decade. That suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are wondering, is 99.5% of this country's income (2006 figures). If you make $40,000 a year, then $200 is down to hard work and $39,800 is down to trust.

    How could that be? Trust operates in all sorts of ways, from saving money that would have to be spent on security to improving the functioning of the political system. But above all, trust enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth." goo.gl/t3OqHc

    anne -> Peter Liepmann... , November 05, 2016 at 06:38 PM
    Precise references, including links are necessary.
    anne : , November 05, 2016 at 01:49 PM
    Adam Davidson in the essay refers to this paper, which is well worth reading:

    https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20140913

    April, 2016

    Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration
    By Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson

    Abstract

    The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (our focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future.

    Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 02:59 PM
    Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?
    pgl -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:03 PM
    I was in college in the mid 1970's and we asked this question a lot. Some think this worry has gone away. I don't agree with those types. Which is why a green technology investment drive makes a lot of sense for so many reasons.
    Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:03 PM
    Quote from the paper you linked to: "Arguably, oil shocks have more to do with US foreign policy than with US economic policy-the two Gulf Wars being prominent examples. That said, several economists have claimed that US monetary policy played an important role in bringing on the oil shocks. See, for example, Barsky and Kilian (2002)."
    anne -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:13 PM
    Do set down a link to a reference when possible:

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w8389

    July, 2001

    Do We Really Know that Oil Caused the Great Stagflation? A Monetary Alternative
    By Robert B. Barsky and Lutz Kilian

    Abstract

    This paper argues that major oil price increases were not nearly as essential a part of the causal mechanism that generated the stagflation of the 1970s as is often thought. There is neither a theoretical presumption that oil supply shocks are stagflationary nor robust empirical evidence for this view. In contrast, we show that monetary expansions and contractions can generate stagflation of realistic magnitude even in the absence of supply shocks. Furthermore, monetary fluctuations help to explain the historical movements of the prices of oil and other commodities, including the surge in the prices of industrial commodities that preceded the 1973/74 oil price increase. Thus, they can account for the striking coincidence of major oil price increases and worsening stagflation.

    Alex S -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:22 PM
    My quote dragged on too long. I should have ended it with the first sentence. Monetary policy could play a role but foreign policy could still be the biggest factor.
    Peter K. -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 03:09 PM
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-25/fed-inclined-to-raise-rates-if-next-president-pumps-up-budget

    "Former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said he's skeptical that fiscal policy will be loosened a great deal if Clinton wins the election, as seems likely based on recent voter surveys.

    "She is promising not to make budget deficits bigger by her programs," said Blinder, who is now a professor at Princeton University. "Whatever fiscal stimulus there is ought to be small enough for the Fed practically to ignore it."

    PGL told us that Hillary's fiscal program would be YUGE.

    Like with Trump everything he says is a lie.

    anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 03:56 PM
    Dean Baker in "Rigged" * reminds me of the lasting limits to growth that appear to follow the sacrifice of growth, especially to the extent of allowing a recession, for the sake of budget balancing during a time of surrounding economic weakness:

    * http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 04:01 PM
    Simply excellent:

    http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    Introduction: Trading in Myths

    In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

    This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

    The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

    The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

    That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

    In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return....

    pgl -> Peter K.... , November 06, 2016 at 03:37 AM
    It is yuuuuge - and no I did not say anything of the sort. Rather I noted it would be less than 1% of GDP. This is what I get for trying to get the facts right. It gets too complicated for you even when we simplify things so you get angry and start screaming "liar". Grow up.
    mrrunangun : , November 05, 2016 at 06:23 PM
    Per capta GDP grew from $51,100 to $51,400 between July 1 2015 and July 1 2016. This 0.6% growth does not seem to me to be a statistic supporting claims of improving employment and improving wage growth.

    Dean has suggested in one of his commentaries that wage growth may be an artifact of a decline in the quality of health insurance coverage. Wage growth is not figured net of increased outlays for deductibles and copays related to changes in health insurance. PPACA discourages low deductible and low copay health plans by placing a "Cadillac tax" on them, or at least threatening to do so. The consequent rise in wage workers' outlays for copays and deductibles are not captured in the statistics that claim to measure wage gains. This results in an income transfer from the well to the sick, but can produce statistics that can be interpreted in politically convenient ways by those so inclined

    anne -> mrrunangun... , November 05, 2016 at 06:33 PM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8cpp

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and United Kingdom, 2007-2015

    (Percent change)


    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8cpv

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and United Kingdom, 2007-2015

    (Indexed to 2007)

    anne -> mrrunangun... , November 05, 2016 at 06:35 PM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8bue

    January 15, 2016

    Employment Cost Indexes for Wages and Salaries & Benefits, 2007-2016

    (Percent change)


    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8bua

    January 15, 2016

    Employment Cost Indexes for Wages and Salaries & Benefits, 2002-2016

    (Percent change)

    pgl -> mrrunangun... , November 06, 2016 at 03:38 AM
    Excellent perspective. Let me say well done before PeterK gets angry and calls you a liar.
    ilsm -> mrrunangun... , November 06, 2016 at 05:10 AM
    I had a job offer about 15 years ago, the quoted salary was not to my liking so the HR type told me how much the Cadillac insurance was "worth".

    I do not think you 'get' why Cadillac plans are taxed............

    or

    'income transfers'......

    mrrunangun -> ilsm... , November 06, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    I get why the plans are taxed. I don't believe that the results of that policy have been beneficial for the bulk of the population. Most of the good done by PPACA was done by the expansion of Medicaid eligibility. I believe that requiring the working poor people to settle for high deductible high copay policies has had the practical effect of requiring them to choose between adequate medical and further impoverishment. I do not believe that the PPACA could not have been financed in a way less injurious to the working poor. As the insurers have been unable to make money in this deal, the hospital operators seem to have been the only winners in that their bad debt problems have been ameliorated.
    cm : , November 05, 2016 at 11:09 PM
    "people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas"

    And this is entirely rational, as in the situation described, the fruits of their efforts will likely be siphoned from their pockets by the elites and generally rent-seekers with higher social standing and leverage, or at best their efforts will amount to too little to be worth the risk (including the risk of wasting one's time i.e. opportunity cost). It also becomes correspondingly harder to convince and motivate others to join or fund any worthwhile efforts. What also happens (and has happened in "communism") is that people take their interests private, i.e. hidden from the view of those who would usurp or derail them.

    Chris G : , -1
    "Those who witness extreme social collapse at first hand seldom describe any deep revelation about the truths of human existence. What they do mention, if asked, is their surprise at how easy it is to die.

    The pattern of ordinary life, in which so much stays the same from one day to the next, disguises the fragility of its fabric. How many of our activities are made possible by the impression of stability that pattern gives? So long as it repeats, or varies steadily enough, we are able to plan for tomorrow as if all the things we rely on and don't think about too carefully will still be there. When the pattern is broken, by civil war or natural disaster or the smaller-scale tragedies that tear at its fabric, many of those activities become impossible or meaningless, while simply meeting needs we once took for granted may occupy much of our lives.

    What war correspondents and relief workers report is not only the fragility of the fabric, but the speed with which it can unravel. As we write this, no one can say with certainty where the unraveling of the financial and commercial fabric of our economies will end. Meanwhile, beyond the cities, unchecked industrial exploitation frays the material basis of life in many parts of the world, and pulls at the ecological systems which sustain it.

    Precarious as this moment may be, however, an awareness of the fragility of what we call civilisation is nothing new.

    'Few men realise,' wrote Joseph Conrad in 1896, 'that their life, the very essence of their character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in the safety of their surroundings.' Conrad's writings exposed the civilisation exported by European imperialists to be little more than a comforting illusion, not only in the dark, unconquerable heart of Africa, but in the whited sepulchres of their capital cities. The inhabitants of that civilisation believed 'blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in the power of its police and of its opinion,' but their confidence could be maintained only by the seeming solidity of the crowd of like-minded believers surrounding them. Outside the walls, the wild remained as close to the surface as blood under skin, though the city-dweller was no longer equipped to face it directly.

    Bertrand Russell caught this vein in Conrad's worldview, suggesting that the novelist 'thought of civilised and morally tolerable human life as a dangerous walk on a thin crust of barely cooled lava which at any moment might break and let the unwary sink into fiery depths.' What both Russell and Conrad were getting at was a simple fact which any historian could confirm: human civilisation is an intensely fragile construction. It is built on little more than belief: belief in the rightness of its values; belief in the strength of its system of law and order; belief in its currency; above all, perhaps, belief in its future.

    Once that belief begins to crumble, the collapse of a civilisation may become unstoppable. That civilisations fall, sooner or later, is as much a law of history as gravity is a law of physics. What remains after the fall is a wild mixture of cultural debris, confused and angry people whose certainties have betrayed them, and those forces which were always there, deeper than the foundations of the city walls: the desire to survive and the desire for meaning."

    Source - http://dark-mountain.net/about/manifesto/

    [Nov 07, 2016] How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer

    economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 04:01 PM

    Simply excellent:

    http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    Introduction: Trading in Myths

    In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

    This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

    The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

    The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

    That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

    In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return....

    [Nov 07, 2016] Economists View More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions

    Nov 07, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Adam Davidson in the New Yorker:
    More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions : ...Institutions are significant to economists, who have come to see that countries become prosperous not because they have bounteous natural resources or an educated population or the most advanced technology but because they have good institutions. Crucially, formal structures are supported by informal, often unstated, social agreements. A nation not only needs courts; its people need to believe that those courts can be fair. ...

    Over most of history, a small élite confiscated wealth from the poor. Subsistence farmers lived under rules designed to tax them so that the rulers could live in palaces and pay for soldiers to maintain their power. Every now and then, though, a system appeared in which leaders were forced to accommodate the needs of at least some of their citizens. ... The societies with the most robust systems for forcing the powerful to accommodate some of the needs of the powerless became wealthier and more peaceful. ... Most nations without institutions to check the worst impulses of the rich and powerful stay stuck in poverty and dysfunction. ...

    This year's Presidential election has alarmed economists for several reasons. No economist, save one , supports Donald J. Trump's stated economic plans, but an even larger concern is that, were he elected, Trump would attack the very institutions that have provided our economic stability. In his campaign, Trump has shown outright contempt for courts, free speech, international treaties, and many other pillars of the American way of life. There is little reason to think that, if granted the Presidency, Trump would soften his stand. ...

    ...it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce its decisions. No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail.

    Alex S : , November 05, 2016 at 01:15 PM
    It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of baseness. Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked.
    pgl -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 01:51 PM
    Agreed. You should have seen Peter Navarro latest performance. He may be ruder than Trump himself and he certainly babbles gibberish.
    Peter K. : , November 05, 2016 at 01:23 PM
    "No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail."

    This is all true but let's provide a little more context than the totebaggers' paint-by-numbers narrative.

    • Economists told us that free trade deals and open borders would make us prosperous and yet that hasn't happens.
    • The technicians running trade policy, monetary policy and fiscal policy haven't held up their end of the bargain.
    • Wealth and power has been redistributed upwards.
    • The union movement has been destroyed in outright class war.
    • The corporate media spread lies and distraction. It induces both apathy and a rat race/dog-eat-dog mentality.

    The Democratic Party has been moved to right as the middle class has struggled.

    And more and more people become susceptible to demagogues like Trump as Democrats try to play both sides of the fence, instead of standing foresquarely behind the job class.

    Let's hope we don't find out what Trump does if elected. My guess is that he'd delegate foreign and domestic policy to Mike Pence as Trump himself would be free to pursue his own personal grudges via whatever means are available.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 01:29 PM
    As Bernie Sanders's campaign demonstrated, there is still hope. In fact hope is growing.

    Lucky for us Sanders campaigned hard for Hillary, knowing what the stakes are.

    Given the way people like PGL treated Sanders during the campaign and given what Wikileaks showed, I doubt the reverse would have been true had Sanders won the primary.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 01:30 PM
    But then Sanders still would have beaten Trump easily.
    Gerri -> Peter K.... , November 06, 2016 at 06:39 AM
    The reverse would have been true, because we Democrats would have voted party above all else and especially in this election year. Remember "party" the thing that Bernie supporters and Bernie himself denigrated? I believe the term
    "elites" was used more than once to describe the party faithful.
    Alex S -> Peter K.... , -1
    As we can see here, through leftist glasses, the only possible remedy for solving a problem is moving left.
    Julio -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:02 PM
    Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today.
    Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.
    anne -> Julio ... , November 05, 2016 at 03:26 PM
    Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today.

    Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.

    [ An important criticism. ]

    Alex S -> Julio ... , November 05, 2016 at 03:50 PM
    We have moved left. The gays and blacks are treated better. We no longer tolerate wars like Vietnam. The Iraq war was an order of magnitude smaller. War helps scientific discovery and progress. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0 For more capable nations to help civilize weaker and more chaotic ones is helpful, but leftists won't accept that.
    anne -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:08 PM
    Oh, I understand:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html

    June 13, 2014

    The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
    By Tyler Cowen

    [ Who else could possibly have written such an essay? The guy is really, really scary. ]

    anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:20 PM
    http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/does-the-right-hold-the-economy-hostage-to-advance-its-militarist-agenda

    June 14, 2014

    Does the Right Hold the Economy Hostage to Advance Its Militarist Agenda?

    That's one way to read Tyler Cowen's New York Times column * noting that wars have often been associated with major economic advances which carries the headline "the lack of major wars may be hurting economic growth." Tyler lays out his central argument:

    "It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today's entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth."

    This is all quite true, but a moment's reflection may give a bit different spin to the story. There has always been substantial support among liberals for the sort of government sponsored research that he describes here. The opposition has largely come from the right. However the right has been willing to go along with such spending in the context of meeting national defense needs. Its support made these accomplishments possible.

    This brings up the suggestion Paul Krugman made a while back (jokingly) that maybe we need to convince the public that we face a threat from an attack from Mars. Krugman suggested this as a way to prompt traditional Keynesian stimulus, but perhaps we can also use the threat to promote an ambitious public investment agenda to bring us the next major set of technological breakthroughs.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html

    -- Dean Baker

    Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 05:15 PM
    Three points

    1. Baker's peaceful spending scenario is not likely because of human nature.

    2. Even if Baker's scenario happened, a given dollar will be used more efficiently in a war. If there is a threat of losing, you have an incentive to cut waste and spend on what produces results.

    3. The United States would not exist at all if we had not conquered the territory.

    anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:24 PM
    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

    September, 2016

    US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
    Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
    By Neta C. Crawford

    Summary

    Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the major categories of spending.

    As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.

    But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger....

    anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:27 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html

    June 13, 2014

    The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
    By Tyler Cowen

    [ Guy is really, really, really scary. ]

    Peter K. -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:12 PM
    As Julio points out, under any objective analysis, politics have moved to the right.

    Rightwing policy solutions have been tried: tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, breaking of unions, etc.

    We've seen the results. Stagnation and slow growth.

    The social democratic post-war years were much better with shared prosperity for all citizens.

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 03:53 PM
    "It's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts."

    When Obama refuses to jail torturers or those responsible for mortgage fraud, we the people are justified in having less confidence in the courts.

    Peter Liepmann -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 05:52 PM
    Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*. Trump's policies would double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs." Tim Harford made a good case for trust accounting for 99% of the difference in per capita GNP between the US and Somalia.
    ""If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain basically all the difference between the per capita income of the United States and Somalia," ventures Steve Knack, a senior economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for over a decade. That suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are wondering, is 99.5% of this country's income (2006 figures). If you make $40,000 a year, then $200 is down to hard work and $39,800 is down to trust.

    How could that be? Trust operates in all sorts of ways, from saving money that would have to be spent on security to improving the functioning of the political system. But above all, trust enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth." goo.gl/t3OqHc

    anne -> Peter Liepmann... , November 05, 2016 at 06:38 PM
    Precise references, including links are necessary.
    anne : , November 05, 2016 at 01:49 PM
    Adam Davidson in the essay refers to this paper, which is well worth reading:

    https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20140913

    April, 2016

    Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration
    By Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson

    Abstract

    The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (our focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future.

    Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 02:59 PM
    Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?
    pgl -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:03 PM
    I was in college in the mid 1970's and we asked this question a lot. Some think this worry has gone away. I don't agree with those types. Which is why a green technology investment drive makes a lot of sense for so many reasons.
    anne -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:40 PM
    Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?

    [ Having read and reread this question, I do not begin to understand what it means. There is oil here, there is oil all about us, there is oil in Canada and Mexico and on and on, and the supply of oil about us is not about to be disrupted by any conceivable war and an inconceivable war is never going to be fought. ]

    anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 03:50 PM
    Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?

    [ My guess is that this is a way of scarily pitching for fracking for oil right in my garden, but I like my azealia bushes and mocking birds. ]

    Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:03 PM
    Quote from the paper you linked to: "Arguably, oil shocks have more to do with US foreign policy than with US economic policy-the two Gulf Wars being prominent examples. That said, several economists have claimed that US monetary policy played an important role in bringing on the oil shocks. See, for example, Barsky and Kilian (2002)."
    anne -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:13 PM
    Do set down a link to a reference when possible:

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w8389

    July, 2001

    Do We Really Know that Oil Caused the Great Stagflation? A Monetary Alternative
    By Robert B. Barsky and Lutz Kilian

    Abstract

    This paper argues that major oil price increases were not nearly as essential a part of the causal mechanism that generated the stagflation of the 1970s as is often thought. There is neither a theoretical presumption that oil supply shocks are stagflationary nor robust empirical evidence for this view. In contrast, we show that monetary expansions and contractions can generate stagflation of realistic magnitude even in the absence of supply shocks. Furthermore, monetary fluctuations help to explain the historical movements of the prices of oil and other commodities, including the surge in the prices of industrial commodities that preceded the 1973/74 oil price increase. Thus, they can account for the striking coincidence of major oil price increases and worsening stagflation.

    Alex S -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:22 PM
    My quote dragged on too long. I should have ended it with the first sentence. Monetary policy could play a role but foreign policy could still be the biggest factor.
    Peter K. -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 03:09 PM
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-25/fed-inclined-to-raise-rates-if-next-president-pumps-up-budget

    "Former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said he's skeptical that fiscal policy will be loosened a great deal if Clinton wins the election, as seems likely based on recent voter surveys.

    "She is promising not to make budget deficits bigger by her programs," said Blinder, who is now a professor at Princeton University. "Whatever fiscal stimulus there is ought to be small enough for the Fed practically to ignore it."

    PGL told us that Hillary's fiscal program would be YUGE.

    Like with Trump everything he says is a lie.

    anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 03:56 PM
    Dean Baker in "Rigged" * reminds me of the lasting limits to growth that appear to follow the sacrifice of growth, especially to the extent of allowing a recession, for the sake of budget balancing during a time of surrounding economic weakness:

    * http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 04:01 PM
    Simply excellent:

    http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    Introduction: Trading in Myths

    In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

    This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

    The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

    The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

    That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

    In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return....

    pgl -> Peter K.... , November 06, 2016 at 03:37 AM
    It is yuuuuge - and no I did not say anything of the sort. Rather I noted it would be less than 1% of GDP. This is what I get for trying to get the facts right. It gets too complicated for you even when we simplify things so you get angry and start screaming "liar". Grow up.
    mrrunangun : , November 05, 2016 at 06:23 PM
    Per capta GDP grew from $51,100 to $51,400 between July 1 2015 and July 1 2016. This 0.6% growth does not seem to me to be a statistic supporting claims of improving employment and improving wage growth.

    Dean has suggested in one of his commentaries that wage growth may be an artifact of a decline in the quality of health insurance coverage. Wage growth is not figured net of increased outlays for deductibles and copays related to changes in health insurance. PPACA discourages low deductible and low copay health plans by placing a "Cadillac tax" on them, or at least threatening to do so. The consequent rise in wage workers' outlays for copays and deductibles are not captured in the statistics that claim to measure wage gains. This results in an income transfer from the well to the sick, but can produce statistics that can be interpreted in politically convenient ways by those so inclined

    anne -> mrrunangun... , November 05, 2016 at 06:33 PM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8cpp

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and United Kingdom, 2007-2015

    (Percent change)


    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8cpv

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and United Kingdom, 2007-2015

    (Indexed to 2007)

    anne -> mrrunangun... , November 05, 2016 at 06:35 PM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8bue

    January 15, 2016

    Employment Cost Indexes for Wages and Salaries & Benefits, 2007-2016

    (Percent change)


    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8bua

    January 15, 2016

    Employment Cost Indexes for Wages and Salaries & Benefits, 2002-2016

    (Percent change)

    pgl -> mrrunangun... , November 06, 2016 at 03:38 AM
    Excellent perspective. Let me say well done before PeterK gets angry and calls you a liar.
    ilsm -> mrrunangun... , November 06, 2016 at 05:10 AM
    I had a job offer about 15 years ago, the quoted salary was not to my liking so the HR type told me how much the Cadillac insurance was "worth".

    I do not think you 'get' why Cadillac plans are taxed............

    or

    'income transfers'......

    mrrunangun -> ilsm... , November 06, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    I get why the plans are taxed. I don't believe that the results of that policy have been beneficial for the bulk of the population. Most of the good done by PPACA was done by the expansion of Medicaid eligibility. I believe that requiring the working poor people to settle for high deductible high copay policies has had the practical effect of requiring them to choose between adequate medical and further impoverishment. I do not believe that the PPACA could not have been financed in a way less injurious to the working poor. As the insurers have been unable to make money in this deal, the hospital operators seem to have been the only winners in that their bad debt problems have been ameliorated.
    cm : , November 05, 2016 at 11:09 PM
    "people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas"

    And this is entirely rational, as in the situation described, the fruits of their efforts will likely be siphoned from their pockets by the elites and generally rent-seekers with higher social standing and leverage, or at best their efforts will amount to too little to be worth the risk (including the risk of wasting one's time i.e. opportunity cost). It also becomes correspondingly harder to convince and motivate others to join or fund any worthwhile efforts. What also happens (and has happened in "communism") is that people take their interests private, i.e. hidden from the view of those who would usurp or derail them.

    Chris G : , -1
    "Those who witness extreme social collapse at first hand seldom describe any deep revelation about the truths of human existence. What they do mention, if asked, is their surprise at how easy it is to die.

    The pattern of ordinary life, in which so much stays the same from one day to the next, disguises the fragility of its fabric. How many of our activities are made possible by the impression of stability that pattern gives? So long as it repeats, or varies steadily enough, we are able to plan for tomorrow as if all the things we rely on and don't think about too carefully will still be there. When the pattern is broken, by civil war or natural disaster or the smaller-scale tragedies that tear at its fabric, many of those activities become impossible or meaningless, while simply meeting needs we once took for granted may occupy much of our lives.

    What war correspondents and relief workers report is not only the fragility of the fabric, but the speed with which it can unravel. As we write this, no one can say with certainty where the unraveling of the financial and commercial fabric of our economies will end. Meanwhile, beyond the cities, unchecked industrial exploitation frays the material basis of life in many parts of the world, and pulls at the ecological systems which sustain it.

    Precarious as this moment may be, however, an awareness of the fragility of what we call civilisation is nothing new.

    'Few men realise,' wrote Joseph Conrad in 1896, 'that their life, the very essence of their character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in the safety of their surroundings.' Conrad's writings exposed the civilisation exported by European imperialists to be little more than a comforting illusion, not only in the dark, unconquerable heart of Africa, but in the whited sepulchres of their capital cities. The inhabitants of that civilisation believed 'blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in the power of its police and of its opinion,' but their confidence could be maintained only by the seeming solidity of the crowd of like-minded believers surrounding them. Outside the walls, the wild remained as close to the surface as blood under skin, though the city-dweller was no longer equipped to face it directly.

    Bertrand Russell caught this vein in Conrad's worldview, suggesting that the novelist 'thought of civilised and morally tolerable human life as a dangerous walk on a thin crust of barely cooled lava which at any moment might break and let the unwary sink into fiery depths.' What both Russell and Conrad were getting at was a simple fact which any historian could confirm: human civilisation is an intensely fragile construction. It is built on little more than belief: belief in the rightness of its values; belief in the strength of its system of law and order; belief in its currency; above all, perhaps, belief in its future.

    Once that belief begins to crumble, the collapse of a civilisation may become unstoppable. That civilisations fall, sooner or later, is as much a law of history as gravity is a law of physics. What remains after the fall is a wild mixture of cultural debris, confused and angry people whose certainties have betrayed them, and those forces which were always there, deeper than the foundations of the city walls: the desire to survive and the desire for meaning."

    Source - http://dark-mountain.net/about/manifesto/

    [Nov 07, 2016] Donald Trump: Hillary Clintons policy for Syria would lead to world war three

    Nov 07, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    by Lauren Gambino

    Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Hillary Clinton's plan for Syria would "lead to world war three" because of the potential for conflict with military forces from nuclear-armed Russia.

    In an interview focused largely on foreign policy, the Republican presidential nominee said defeating Islamic State was a higher priority than persuading than Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, to step down, playing down a long-held goal of US policy.

    Trump questioned how his Democratic opponent would negotiate with Russia's president Vladimir Putin after having demonized him; blamed Barack Obama for a downturn in US relations with the Philippines under its new president, Rodrigo Duterte; bemoaned a lack of Republican unity behind his candidacy and said he would easily win the election if the party leaders supported him.

    "If we had party unity, we couldn't lose this election to Hillary Clinton," he said.

    On Syria's civil war, Trump said Clinton could drag the US into a world war with a more aggressive posture toward resolving the conflict.

    Clinton has called for the establishment of a no-fly zone and "safe zones" on the ground to protect noncombatants. Some analysts fear that protecting those zones could bring the US bring into direct conflict with Russian fighter jets.

    "What we should do is focus on Isis. We should not be focusing on Syria," said Trump as he dined on fried eggs and sausage at his Trump National Doral golf resort. "You're going to end up in world war three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton," Trump said.

    "You're not fighting Syria any more, you're fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk," he said.

    Trump said Assad is much stronger now than he was three years ago. He said getting Assad to leave power was less important than defeating Isis.

    "Assad is secondary, to me, to Isis," he said.

    On Russia, Trump again knocked Clinton's handling of US-Russian relations while secretary of state and said her harsh criticism of Putin raised questions about "how she is going to go back and negotiate with this man who she has made to be so evil", if she wins the presidency.

    On the deterioration of ties with the Philippines, Trump aimed his criticism at Obama, saying the president "wants to focus on his golf game" rather than engage with world leaders.

    Since assuming office, Duterte has expressed open hostility towards the US, rejecting criticism of his violent anti-drug clampdown, using an expletive to describe Obama and telling the US not to treat his country "like a dog with a leash".

    The Obama administration has expressed optimism that the two countries can remain firm allies. Trump said Duterte's latest comments showed "a lack of respect for our country".

    [Nov 07, 2016] Clinton, Trump and foreign policy: global conflicts await the next president by Julian Borger World affairs editor and Oliver Milman in New York

    Notable quotes:
    "... In the presidential debates, Clinton talked of establishing a "no-fly zone" or a "safe zone" inside Syria. However, it is hard to see how that would be done without risking a direct clash with Russia, with all the risks that entails. The generals at the Pentagon, who have long argued against the feasibility of establishing such a zone, would work hard to block such a scheme. A Clinton White House is also likely to explore ways of increasing the flow of arms to moderate opposition groups. ..."
    "... Trump has indicated that he would seek to work with Assad and Putin in a combined fight against Isis, and has not voiced criticism of the bombardment of rebel-held areas such as eastern Aleppo. That policy would also have heavy costs. The Syrian opposition and the Gulf states would see it as a betrayal, and the new administration would have to deal with the reality that neither the regime nor Russia has much immediate interest in fighting Isis. ..."
    "... Trump is likely to take the opposite approach. He avoided criticism of Russia for its actions in Ukraine, hinted he might accept the annexation of Crimea, and ignored US intelligence findings that Moscow was behind the hacking of Democratic party's email. ..."
    "... Trump has suggested, by contrast, that Nato is obsolete and questioned whether its security commitments in Europe are worth what the US is currently spending on them. ..."
    "... Clinton first supported the TPP and then criticised it in the face of the primary challenge from Bernie Sanders. Her reservations may prolong the negotiations, but she is ultimately expected to pursue and seek completion of the ambitious multilateral trade deals. ..."
    "... Trump built his campaign on opposition to all such deals , which he has characterised as inherently unfavourable to the US. He has promised to seek bilateral trade deals on better terms and to punish other countries deemed to be trading unfairly with sanctions, ignoring the threat of retaliation. ..."
    Nov 07, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    ... ... ...

    China

    Within his or her first year in office, a new US president would also face a direct challenge to US power in the western Pacific. The Chinese programme of laying claim to reefs and rocks in the South China Sea and turning them into naval and air bases gives Beijing potential control over some the busiest shipping lanes in the world. US influence is under further threat by the rise of Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, who has threatened to eject US troops , casting doubt on his predecessor's agreement to allow new permanent American presence.

    Clinton's likely policy will be to continue Obama's faltering "pivot to Asia", and to prioritise restoring the faith of US allies in the region that Washington will help them resist Chinese attempts to dominate the South China Sea. It is a policy that is held hostage to some extent by Duterte's ultimate intentions, and it could lead to a rapid escalation of tension in the region.

    Trump has pointed to the Chinese reef-building programme as a reflection of US weakness but has not said what he would do about it. He has focused more on the threat posed to the US by its trade relations with China. In the transactional model of foreign relations Trump favours, he could agree to turn a blind eye to creeping Chinese takeover in the South China Sea in exchange for a bilateral trade deal with Beijing on better terms.

    Syria

    A new US president will arrive in office at a time of significant military advances against Islamic State in Syria and neighbouring Iraq, but diminishing options when it comes to helping shape the opposition battle against the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian backers. It is possible that the rebel stand in Aleppo will have fallen by then, giving the regime the upper hand and postponing yet again any hopes of a political transition.

    In the presidential debates, Clinton talked of establishing a "no-fly zone" or a "safe zone" inside Syria. However, it is hard to see how that would be done without risking a direct clash with Russia, with all the risks that entails. The generals at the Pentagon, who have long argued against the feasibility of establishing such a zone, would work hard to block such a scheme. A Clinton White House is also likely to explore ways of increasing the flow of arms to moderate opposition groups.

    Trump has indicated that he would seek to work with Assad and Putin in a combined fight against Isis, and has not voiced criticism of the bombardment of rebel-held areas such as eastern Aleppo. That policy would also have heavy costs. The Syrian opposition and the Gulf states would see it as a betrayal, and the new administration would have to deal with the reality that neither the regime nor Russia has much immediate interest in fighting Isis.

    Russia and Ukraine

    A Clinton administration is expected to take a tougher line with Moscow than the Obama White House, all the more so because of the substantial evidence of the Kremlin's efforts to try to intervene in the US presidential election in her opponent's favour. Clinton could well seek to take a leadership role in negotiations with Moscow over Ukraine and the stalled Minsk peace process, which have hitherto been left to Germany and France. She could also opt to send lethal aid to Ukraine as a way of increasing US leverage.

    Trump is likely to take the opposite approach. He avoided criticism of Russia for its actions in Ukraine, hinted he might accept the annexation of Crimea, and ignored US intelligence findings that Moscow was behind the hacking of Democratic party's email. A Trump administration is unlikely to contest Russian enforcement of its influence in eastern Ukraine.

    Europe and Nato

    Clinton aides have signalled consistently that one of her priorities would be to show US willingness to shore up EU and Nato cohesion, and will attend summits of both organisations in February.

    Trump has suggested, by contrast, that Nato is obsolete and questioned whether its security commitments in Europe are worth what the US is currently spending on them. He said he would check whether US allies "fulfilled their obligation to us" before coming to their defence , calling into question the purpose of the defence pact. Later in the campaign, he changed tack, saying he would seek to strengthen the alliance, but a win for Trump on Tuesday would nonetheless deepen anxiety in eastern European countries, such as the Baltic states, that a US-led Nato would come to their defence in the face of Russian encroachment.

    Trade

    The two major free trade projects of the Obama administration, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with Europe (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with the countries on the Pacific rim, will probably still be under negotiation when the new president comes into office, giving him or her the option of killing or completing them.

    Clinton first supported the TPP and then criticised it in the face of the primary challenge from Bernie Sanders. Her reservations may prolong the negotiations, but she is ultimately expected to pursue and seek completion of the ambitious multilateral trade deals.

    Trump built his campaign on opposition to all such deals , which he has characterised as inherently unfavourable to the US. He has promised to seek bilateral trade deals on better terms and to punish other countries deemed to be trading unfairly with sanctions, ignoring the threat of retaliation.

    ... ... ...

    [Nov 07, 2016] Populism Needs Place-ism The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... Well, two can play at tendentiousness. I'd say that American populism, in its various guises, has been distinguished by three basic beliefs: ..."
    "... Concentrated wealth and power are pernicious, so widespread distribution of both is the proper condition; ..."
    "... War and militarism are ruinous to the republic and to the character (not to mention physical health) of the people; and ..."
    "... Ordinary people can be trusted to make their own decisions. ..."
    "... The Democratic candidate this time around is the most hawkish nominee of her party since LBJ in 1964 and its most pro-Wall Street standard bearer since John W. Davis in 1924. She is, in every way, including her "the peasants are revolting" shtick, the compleat anti-populist. ..."
    "... Place-based populism, seeded in love, defends a people against the powerful external forces that would crush or corrupt or subjugate them. It's Jane Jacobs and her "bunch of mothers" fighting Robert Moses on behalf of Greenwich Village. It's the people of Poletown, assisted by Ralph Nader, defending their homes and churches against the depredations of General Motors and the execrable Detroit Mayor Coleman Young. It's parents-whether in South Boston, Brooklyn, or rural America-championing their local schools against berobed bussers, education bureaucrats, and Cold War consolidators. ..."
    Nov 07, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    With every generational populist efflorescence (those who disapprove call it a "recrudescence") two things are guaranteed:

    First, the prosy men with leaden eyes of the New York Times will rouse themselves from complacent torpor into a Cerberus-like defense of the ruling class against the intruder. The Times of 1896 on William Jennings Bryan (a "cheap and shallow … blatherskite" with an "unbalanced and unsound mind," though whether or not Bryan was "insane," the Times editorialist of 1896 conceded, "is a question for expert alienists") is no different than the Times in 2016 on Donald Trump. For his part, Trump probably thinks Bryan's Cross of Gold would make a classy adornment to the Mar-a-Lago Club chapel.

    The second certainty is that middlebrow thumb-suckers and chin-pullers will invoke midcentury historian Richard Hofstadter, whose 1964 essay that refuses to die, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," ascribed dissent from the Cold War Vital Center consensus to mental illness. In your guts, as LBJ backers said of Barry Goldwater, you know he's nuts.

    Or they'll quote Hofstadter's The Age of Reform , winner of the Pulitzer Prize-always a bad sign-in which populism is merely "the simple virtues and unmitigated villainies of a rural melodrama" writ large, and it ulcerates with "nativist phobias," "hatred of Europe and Europeans," and resentment of big business, intellectuals, the Eastern seaboard, the other bulwarks of Time-Life culture, circa 1955. (Only a Vital Centurion could believe that wishing to refrain from killing Europeans in wars is evidence of "hatred of Europe and Europeans.")

    Well, two can play at tendentiousness. I'd say that American populism, in its various guises, has been distinguished by three basic beliefs:

    1. Concentrated wealth and power are pernicious, so widespread distribution of both is the proper condition;
    2. War and militarism are ruinous to the republic and to the character (not to mention physical health) of the people; and
    3. Ordinary people can be trusted to make their own decisions.

    The Democratic candidate this time around is the most hawkish nominee of her party since LBJ in 1964 and its most pro-Wall Street standard bearer since John W. Davis in 1924. She is, in every way, including her "the peasants are revolting" shtick, the compleat anti-populist.

    But Hillary's awfulness should not obscure the truth that a healthy populism requires anchorage. It must be grounded in a love of the particular-one's block, one's town, one's neighbors (of all shapes and sizes and colors)-or else it is just a grab bag of resentments, however valid they may be.

    An unmoored populism leads to scapegoating and the sputtering fury of the impotent. Breeding with nationalism, it submerges local loyalties and begets a blustering USA! USA! twister of nothingness.

    From out of that whirlwind spin the faux-populists of the Beltway Right: placeless mountebanks banking the widow's mite in Occupied Northern Virginia. To a man they are praying for a Hillary Clinton victory, which would be the Clampetts' oil strike and the winning Powerball ticket all rolled into one. President Clinton the Second would be the most lucrative hobgoblin for the ersatz populists of Birther Nation since Teddy Kennedy crossed his last bridge.

    Place-based populism, seeded in love, defends a people against the powerful external forces that would crush or corrupt or subjugate them. It's Jane Jacobs and her "bunch of mothers" fighting Robert Moses on behalf of Greenwich Village. It's the people of Poletown, assisted by Ralph Nader, defending their homes and churches against the depredations of General Motors and the execrable Detroit Mayor Coleman Young. It's parents-whether in South Boston, Brooklyn, or rural America-championing their local schools against berobed bussers, education bureaucrats, and Cold War consolidators.

    For a span in the early 1990s, Jerry Brown dabbled in populism. Alas, the protean Brown, once returned to California's governorship, became his father, the numbingly conventional liberal hack Pat Brown, though the chameleonic Jesuit may have one final act left him, perhaps as a nonagenarian desert ascetic.

    A quarter-century ago, Brown spoke of the populists' struggle against "a global focus over which we have virtually no control. We have to force larger institutions to operate in the interest of local autonomy and local power. Localism, if you really take it seriously, is going to interrupt certain patterns of modern growth and globalism."

    The harder they come, the harder they fall, as Jimmy Cliff sang.

    The two self-styled populists who made 2016 interesting never so much as glanced at, let alone picked up, the localist tool recommended by Jerry Brown in one of his previous lives. Their populism, dismissive of the local, is hollow. It's all fury and no love. But tomorrow, as a Georgia lady once wrote, is another day.

    Bill Kauffman is the author of 10 books, among them Dispatches from the Muckdog Gazette and Ain't My America .

    [Nov 07, 2016] WikiLeaks DNC and CNN colluded on questions for Trump, Cruz

    www.washingtonexaminer.com

    Newly released emails from WikiLeaks suggest that the Democratic National Committee colluded with CNN in devising questions in April to be asked of then-Republican primary candidate Donald Trump in an upcoming interview.

    In an email to DNC colleagues on April 25 with the headline "Trump Questions for CNN," a DNC official with the email username [email protected] asked for ideas for an interview to be conducted by CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer.

    "Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Trump on Tues ahead of his foreign policy address on Wed. ... Please send me thoughts by 10:30 AM tomorrow."

    The sender of the email would seem to be DNC Research Director Lauren Dillon, who was identified in previous reports of DNC emails released by WikiLeaks in July.

    [Nov 07, 2016] Neoliberalisms Border Guard

    Notable quotes:
    "... fundamentally antiracism and other identitarian programs are not only the left wing of neoliberalism but active agencies in its imposition of a notion of the boundaries of the politically thinkable " ..."
    "... Feminism…? gender discrimination….? racial equality ? …. racism ? Yes, OK, looks good, let's see what works best for us…. ..."
    "... There is still the issue that some professions are more prestigious or lucrative than others and attract many individuals with a skill set that would better serve other functions. ..."
    "... Valuing people for who they are and integrating them into the social order implies that they have something to contribute and that they have a responsibility for making things better for others, not just making themselves more comfortable in public. ..."
    "... The idea that we have progressed past prior barbarisms … we have forgotten that "the past is prologue" among other things. ..."
    "... This label of progressivism is just so coy and unconvincing in the face of neoliberalism's full spectrum dominance of all facets of society and culture. ..."
    "... I know Reagan was no conservative and Thatcher lost all moorings as an enlightened Tory as the "project" became all consuming to the detriment of all else. The Tory today isn't conservative – far from it – a real ideolgical zealot for the promotion of "me, myself and (at most) my class" in most cases. ..."
    "... Is Progressivism just a balm for those who want to feel good about themselves but don't want to do think about anything in particular? In fact, it is just a cover for I'm ok, screw you pal when the chips are down? ..."
    Nov 07, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    animalogic November 7, 2016 at 7:10 am

    "These responses [show] how fundamentally antiracism and other identitarian programs are not only the left wing of neoliberalism but active agencies in its imposition of a notion of the boundaries of the politically thinkable "

    Yes: there we have it.

    Neoliberalism (unlike conservatism, often mistaken for each other) has NO social/cultural values…or, perhaps, more precisely, it has ANY social/cultural values which directly/indirectly advance the 0.1%'s Will to wealth & power. (Likely, "wealth" is redundant, as it's a manifestation of power). Neoliberalism is powerful, like all great "evils" because it is completely protean.

    ( It makes the Nazi's look child-like & naive: after all, the Nazi's actually "believed" in certain things… [ evil nonsense, but that's not the point at the moment].

    Feminism…? gender discrimination….? racial equality ? …. racism ? Yes, OK, looks good, let's see what works best for us….

    Moneta November 7, 2016 at 7:40 am

    I often wonder if liberalism goes hand in hand with the availability of energy and resources… shrink these and witness a surge in all types of discrimination.

    You will notice that genocides are closely tied to the availability and distribution of resources… we humans seem to be masters at inventing all kinds of reasons to explain why we deserve the loot and not others.

    Moneta November 7, 2016 at 7:13 am

    There is still the issue that some professions are more prestigious or lucrative than others and attract many individuals with a skill set that would better serve other functions. And we do this under the guise that we can do whatever we want if we try hard enough.

    There is a difference between PC and truly valuing every individual in society no matter their job or profession.

    Uahsenaa November 7, 2016 at 8:49 am

    There is a difference between PC and truly valuing every individual in society no matter their job or profession.

    This.

    Mere inclusiveness, while not in itself a bad thing–being aware of other people's circumstances is simply polite–it doesn't really get you much further past where you already are and in large part can be satisfied with better rhetoric (or better PR, if you insist on being cynical about such things), all the while capitalism goes on its merry way, because no real pressure to change has been applied. Valuing people for who they are and integrating them into the social order implies that they have something to contribute and that they have a responsibility for making things better for others, not just making themselves more comfortable in public.

    What so often gets lost in these conversations about safe spaces and what have you is that we should have a sense of shared responsibility, responding TO others' circumstances while also being responsible FOR the conditions that oppress us all to greater and lesser degrees.

    In other words, it's about checking your privilege AND seizing the means of production, because without the second one, the first just ends up being mere window dressing.

    EATF – I really like these. I'll be sad when they conclude!

    Disturbed Voter November 7, 2016 at 7:20 am

    The idea that we have progressed past prior barbarisms … we have forgotten that "the past is prologue" among other things. Progressives think that if we completely forget the past, then the memes that created the sins of the past will become unthinkable, that like interrupted family violence, a chain will be broken and we can heal. Such people don't believe in the existence of Evil.

    Moneta November 7, 2016 at 7:49 am

    Is a lion eating an antelope evil?

    makedoanmend November 7, 2016 at 7:44 am

    As a socialist, what I miss is the conservative (small c) conversation in our daily affairs. This label of progressivism is just so coy and unconvincing in the face of neoliberalism's full spectrum dominance of all facets of society and culture. The conservative gave voice and depth to our internal doubts about how the future was all brite and new – at least the few conservatives I knew.

    I wonder would a conservative voice (seemingly non-existent any more) have argued for a more instructive change from industrialisation into what we've now become – might they have mitigated the course and provided pointers to alternatives?

    Maybe they did and I wasn't listening.

    I know Reagan was no conservative and Thatcher lost all moorings as an enlightened Tory as the "project" became all consuming to the detriment of all else. The Tory today isn't conservative – far from it – a real ideolgical zealot for the promotion of "me, myself and (at most) my class" in most cases.

    Is Progressivism just a balm for those who want to feel good about themselves but don't want to do think about anything in particular? In fact, it is just a cover for I'm ok, screw you pal when the chips are down?

    I never really liked Disney films as a kid and I certainly don't like them now – but each to their own.

    diptherio November 7, 2016 at 8:49 am

    I'm glad you're making these points. The arc of the story mirrors a number of conversations I've been having lately with people from poor, white, rural backgrounds. The insistence by good liberals of making a show of their concern for, and outrage over, both major and minor affronts to people of color, women, LGBTQI people, etc., while at the same time making jokes about toothless, inbred trailer-trash, is starting to really piss some people off. These are not conservative people. These are people to the left of Chomsky.

    For some reason, you can slander and shame poor white folks all you want…oh yeah, it's because they're deplorable racist, fundamentalist Christians who vote for evil Republicans and probably don't even have a GED, much less a college degree…so f- 'em. The good liberals, on the other hand, are highly-educated, fundamentalist secular humanists, who've been to college and vote for evil Democrats…which makes them God's chosen people, apparently. The rest are blasphemers, barely even human, and deserve whatever they get.

    Until we make a real commitment to both listening to everyone's suffering and then to doing practical things, now, to remedy that suffering, we'll be doomed to Dollary Clump elections and divide-and-conquer tactics forever after. Let's not go down that road, how about? How's about let's try treating each other with respect and compassion for once, just to see how it goes? Every other way lies damnation, imho.

    DJG November 7, 2016 at 9:02 am

    Sorry: I'm not buying this episode: For instance, maybe the reason for the stress on smartness is plain old class warfare.

    The U.S. slavishly follows English fashions, and one of the fashions in England (with which we have that Special Relationship) is that the upper classes made sure that their kids got into Eton, Cambridge, Oxford–the whole self-perpetuating educational system of the Pythonesque English "smart" twit.

    So the U S of A has imitated its betters in producing a lot of Tony Blairs. Exhibit A: Chelsea Clinton.

    This has little to do with smartness. It is all about class privilege. (Which has little to do with postmodernism and its supposed piercing insights.)

    flora November 7, 2016 at 9:02 am

    The title- Neoliberalisms Boarder Guard" – and this quote:

    "Looking now at the other two principles – postmodernism and suffering – Wendy Brown foretold that, as foci, they would be unable to coexist. Since the time of her prediction, the balance between the two has shifted dramatically, and it has become clear that Brown was rooting for the losing side. "

    combine to make me wonder. Does liberalism simply accommodate itself to the prevailing ruling power structure, regardless of that structure's philosophy? Is liberalism today a philosophy or a social emollient? Desirable social traits do not challenge the ruling neoliberal philosophy, although they make create a nice space within neoliberalism.

    DJG November 7, 2016 at 9:05 am

    Not buying this episode: "High profile instances of genocide and torture don't appear every day, and commitment flags without regular stimulation. And so we have taken seriously at least one idea from postmodernism, the fascination with slight conceptual nuances, and the faith or fear that these nuances can produce enormously consequential effects."

    Oh really?

    This sentence is on the order of, Who speaks of the Armenians?

    Guantanamo is high profile. Homan Square is high profile. Yemen is genocide. What are the Dakota Pipeline protests about? Genocide. Your bourgeois eyeglasses just don't allow you to look. It has nothing to do with micro-aggressions.

    [Nov 07, 2016] In June 2014, Mosul was handed over to the jihadists without a fight. The special forces of the United States left to the terrorists heavy military equipment, armor, ammunition, some very badly guarded bases for supply, and half a billion dollars in cash in several banks

    Nov 07, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    This is a excellent interview covering many topics discussed here regarding ME, USA, geopolitics, Turkeys mission, etc. Its from the Bulgarian perspective.

    https://southfront.org/why-cant-the-us-and-russia-reach-an-agreement-in-syria/

    "Interview conducted by Antoinette Kiselincheva with Boyan Chukov, former adviser on Foreign Policy and National Security in two governments of the Republic of Bulgaria, former diplomat in Paris and Madrid, foreign intelligence officer."

    "...Q: Does the US seriously they want to deal with DAESH or is it just a show? Because it is funny to observe how a country which claims to have the most powerful army in the world, lost so much time in a hopeless effort to chase away a handful of jihadis.

    BC: The attack on Mosul can be seen through the prism of globalization. There is another hypothesis. Do not forget that in June 2014, the city was handed over to the jihadists without a fight. The special forces of the United States left to the terrorists heavy military equipment, armor, ammunition, some very badly guarded bases for supply, and half a billion dollars in cash in several banks in Mosul. So DAESH procured modern weapons and considerable financial resources. Now they are looking for a decorative victory in Mosul to maintain globalism and Pan-Americanism in the face of Hillary Clinton. This is the reason to believe information that about 1.2 billion dollars is offered to bribe the leaders of the jihadists to leave Mosul.

    Analysts believe that the goal is not primarily to transfer jihadists from Mosul to Aleppo and Rakka, but for DAESH fighters to be transferred to northern Afghanistan, where weapons are stored in seven (again) poorly protected US bases. There are serious suspicions that the US special forces will once more try to play in Afghanistan, the elegant scheme of June 2014 in Mosul, with the transfer of weapons in a theatrical way. The placement of DAESH in Afghanistan will allow the jihadists to deploy an offensive line on Herat-Mara with the task to reaching the port of Turkmenbashi (Krasnovodsk) in Turkmenistan and to continue their offensive along the Caspian Sea toward Kazakhstan and the Russian Volga region."

    Posted by: Dean | Nov 4, 2016 6:01:38 PM | 16

    jfl | Nov 5, 2016 8:18:27 PM | 80
    from @16 Dean's link ...

    Why cant the US and Russia Reach an Agreement in Syria?


    US national interest automatically receive a soteriological status (Soteriology – the notion of salvation through Christ), US universality and value system becomes a sacred and religious complex,"spiritual obviousness" and a "moral imperative."

    I see this 'Christian' emphasis in most all Russian propaganda. Katehon is only the most obvious of them all. Soteriology is the notion of the salvation of society through religion, and it was perfected in India, if not invented there, and was adapted to Thailand, as Christine Gray detailed in Thailand: The Soteriological State in the 1970s , in order to enable the exploitation of the people by the apparatchiks in Bangkok and AC/DC for their distinct purposes.

    Why cant the US and Russia Reach an Agreement in Syria?


    The collapse of the Syrian state is required by the US to finally trigger chaos in the Middle East, which the Caliphate will then bring across Eurasia and Europe. This will allow Washington to eliminate alternative military, political and economic centers, primarily Russia and China. Consequently by wreaking havoc in Asia and Africa, and as a result of structures organized by Soros, Europe fell into a very difficult migrant situation (because of the betrayal of European elites). Further terrorist acts by jihadists in major European countries, worsened the economic attractiveness of the European economy. The dollar system in the world, is in critical condition and can not withstand the debt overload. A war in Syria is a handy tool to destabilize the American competitors in the economic race. This is why Beijing out of the role of a neutral observer in the Syrian crisis. In Syria there are 1000 fighters of the Chinese special forces, pursuing and destroying jihadists of Uighur origin. An agreement was signed between Damascus and Beijing. Chinese presence on Syrian territory like that of the Russians and Iranians is in line with international law.

    Stark as it is ... if it looks like a duck ... the peoples of the individual European nations need to get hold of themselves and exit, or destroy an re-create the EU. It has been suborned by the USA and they are in the USA'a sights as clearly as are Russia and China.

    No matter which of the 'effective' candidates is elected on Tuesday ... the only thing that will be communicated by his/her election is the impotence of the US populace when it comes to reigning in the neo-con putsch there that has brought all this death, devastation, destruction, and deceit about.

    And certainly it is no reach to envision the US destroying Erdogan at this point, and adding Turkey to it's list of states destroyed in the name of 'democracy and freedom'.

    jfl | Nov 5, 2016 8:23:35 PM | 81
    @77, psycho, 'Will the US do a false flag on its own infrastructure to escalate the war?'

    They already did ... well the NSA tested out the apparatus and oiled up the machinery ... about a week ago , remember?

    /div>

    [Nov 07, 2016] http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/11/open-thread-2016-37.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c8acbc7e970b

    Nov 07, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Dean | Nov 6, 2016 11:06:56 AM | 89
    jfl @85

    He is one of the 5th column "Atlanticists" that want Russia in the western orbit and that can only happen with it on its knees groveling.

    Here is an article that explains the internal politics better:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/putins-biggest-failure/

    "...when Putin came to power in 1999-2000 he inherited a system completely designed and controlled by the USA. During the Eltsin years, Russian ministers had much less power than western 'advisers' who turned Russia into a US colony. In fact, during the 1990s, Russia was at least as controlled by the USA as Europe and the Ukraine are today. And the results were truly catastrophic: Russia was plundered from her natural wealth, billions of dollars were stolen and hidden in western offshore accounts, the Russian industry was destroyed, a unprecedented wave of violence, corruption and poverty drowned the entire country in misery and the Russian Federation almost broke up into many small statelets. It was, by any measure, an absolute nightmare, a horror comparable to a major war. Russia was about to explode and something had to be done.

    Two remaining centers of power, the oligarchs and the ex-KGB, were forced to seek a solution to this crisis and they came up with the idea of sharing power: the former would be represented by Anatolii Medvedev and the latter by Vladimir Putin. Both sides believed that they would keep the other side in check and that this combination of big money and big muscle would yield a sufficient degree of stability.

    I call the group behind Medvedev the "Atlantic Integrationists" and the people behind Putin the "Eurasian Sovereignists". The former wants Russia to be accepted by the West as an equal partner and fully integrate Russia into the AngloZionist Empire, while the latter want to fully "sovereignize" Russia and then create a multi-polar international system with the help of China and the other BRICS countries.

    What the Atlantic Integrationists did not expect is that Putin would slowly but surely begin to squeeze them out of power: first he cracked down on the most notorious oligarchs such as Berezovskii and Khodorkovskii, then he began cracking down on the local oligarchs, gubernatorial mafias, ethnic mobsters, corrupt industry officials, etc. Putin restored the "vertical [axis]of power" and crushed the Wahabi insurgents in Chechnia. Putin even carefully set up the circumstances needed to get rid of some of the worst ministers such as Serdiukov and Kudrin. But what Putin has so far failed to do is to

    Reform the Russian political system
    Replace the 5th columnists in and around the Kremlin
    Reform the Russian economy"

    jfl | Nov 6, 2016 3:37:54 PM | 96
    @85 dean

    Yes. I'm a little shy of the Saker, though. He has his own enthusiasms. I agree that the Russian Central Bank is a knot that needs to be untied ... but what central bank isn't?

    Somebody - the poster by that 'original' name - posted a link to How Harvard Lost Russia , detailing the corruption of the Harvard team sent to Russia to 'help' after the collapse. I view Medvedev and 'Atlanticist' cronies as of the same ilk.

    There was an amazing 'report' by Medvedev, printed at the Kremlin site, of the corruption entailed in the last Russian election, all against his party, of course. I wonder if that isn't how Medvedev himself didn't get his seat?

    jfl | Nov 6, 2016 5:56:12 PM | 100
    The Anti-Empire Report #146

    "The Plan is for the United States to rule the world. The overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of domination. It calls for the United States to maintain its overwhelming superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge it on the world stage. It calls for dominion over friends and enemies alike. It says not that the United States must be more powerful, or most powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful." Vice-President Dick Cheney – West Point lecture, June 2002

    Still on course ...

    @99 b4

    I think that Putin is not so much a neo-liberal - you cannot be serious ... 'if you are to believe Western press' - as buried under the snow-job of Western 'economics'. They give Nobel Prizes for Western economic snow, and he's not the only one intimidated by it, the only one who still believes 'There Is No Alternative'. The Chinese are on the same page ... they seem to be enjoying it, though.

    Raqqa is in dispute. Mike Whitney agrees with you . I wait to see ...

    Piotr Berman | Nov 6, 2016 7:45:20 PM | 102
    Harvard team sent to Russia to 'help' after the collapse...

    History repeats itself. First as a tragedy, and then as a farce. Western (and Polish) expert help reforming the economy of Ukraine. Polish detractors wonder if even the Volhynia massacres justify this kind of retribution.

    james | Nov 6, 2016 8:35:58 PM | 105
    @103 dh.. wait! annie applepants and her dork husband to the rescue... or, dang - that didn't work... have to find some other stooges for the empire..

    james | Nov 6, 2016 8:38:28 PM | 106
    for anyone who missed all that, here is john helmers last article on the crazy couple who tried to conquer poland with neo con stupid-ness..
    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=13866

    [Nov 07, 2016] Whether the Clintons have real connections to Satanism/pedophilia or not cant be determined with what little information has come out so far. What IS interesting is how aggressively Twitter and Facebook are censoring rumors and innuendo based on a growing number of verifiable connections.

    Nov 07, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    PavewayIV | Nov 6, 2016 1:25:44 AM | 82

    bbbb@76 - "...interesting stuff here https://twitter.com/0HOUR1___

    Twitter has gone ballistic - anyone posting anything reasonably credible related to Clintons/Pedophilia/Lolita Express/Epstein have their accounts deleted. 0HOUR1___ was blown away minutes after posting Bill Clinton's Secret Service agent's connection to pedophilia/human trafficking. Any hashtags that associate the Clintons with their circle of occult friends or pedophilia are removed from the 'Trending' statistics, e.g., #spiritcooking

    @0HOUR1__'s re-tweets can still be found (for now) using this Twitter search .

    And @0HOUR1__ has created yet another account and is posting again under https://twitter.com/0hour . 2,200 followers for an account 38 minutes old. His/her recently deleted account had 15k followers. I don't care if this person is just making stuff up or not - CENSORSHIP = EVIL.

    Whether the Clintons have real connections to Satanism/pedophilia or not can't be determined with what little information has come out so far. What IS interesting is how aggressively Twitter and Facebook are censoring rumors and innuendo based on a growing number of verifiable connections. I have never seen them delete accounts as fast as they are now. So instead of allowing the conversations to develop and the facts to unfold (or reason and critical thinking come into play), the message Twitter and Facebook are sending to U.S. citizens is that you are not allowed to think for yourselves. You must be protected from 'dangerous' thoughts. The MSM will decide if something is newsworthy or not. You should go out and vote, but you are not allowed to base that decision on anything but MSM-approved opinions. No 'little-people opinions' are welcome or permitted (unless they're anti-Trump).

    And, oh yeah... the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Stazi warnings about Al Qaeda attacks next week are rumors and innuendo based on 'secret information' they have that has constantly proven to be wrong (unless DHS/FBI were the ones behind the fake attacks). So any re-reporting of DHS terrorizing the population to 'keep them safe' is OK - you should heed their warnings. But any information/rumors that the peons have that they could use to keep from electing a not-so-safe Satanist/pedophile/child-trafficker should be censored. You must not have this opinion because it is not approved.

    No Independent Thoughts - Obey - Believe - Consume - Conform - Vote

    [Nov 06, 2016] Putin Tells Everyone Exactly Who Created ISIS - YouTube

    Nov 06, 2016 | www.youtube.com
    Published on Oct 1, 2015

    Here's something you probably never saw or heard about in the west. This is Putin answering questions regarding ISIS from a US journalist at the Valdai International Discussion Club in late 2014.

    dornye easton 2 hours ago

    The White house and and the CIA ARE THE ONES causing this !!

    Gilbert Sanchez 2 weeks ago

    from the U.S.. much love for you Putin. you really opened the eyes of many, even in our country. this man is the definition of president and the u.s hasnt had one for over 40 years... smh.

    IronClad292 2 weeks ago

    As an American I can say that all of this is very confusing. However, one thing I believe is true, Obama and Hillary are the worst thing to ever happen to my country !!!! Average Americans don't want war with Russia. Why would we ?? The common people of both countries don't deserve this !!!!

    lown baby 9 hours ago

    We need Trump to restore our ties with the rest of the world or we are screwed!

    david wood 3 months ago

    He pretty much [said] that the President is a complete fucking idiot. I can't argue with him.

    simon6071 6 days ago (edited)

    +Emanuil Penev Obama is a human puppet who chose to be controlled, He is therefore culpable for his action of supporting Islamic terrorists. Right now Islamic invasion of western countries is the real problem. The USA is now under the control of Obama the Muslim Trojan horse who wants the world to be under the rule of an Islamic empire. USA's military action in the Middle East is the result of USA being under occupation by a Muslim Trojan horse that wants to create tidal waves of Muslim refugees harboring Muslim radicals and terrorists for invading Europe and the USA. Watch video (copy and paste for search) *From Europe to America The Caliphate Muslim Trojan Horse The USA is a victim, not a culprit, in the Muslim invasion of western counties. Obama and his cohorts are the culprits.

    StarWarLean 38 minutes ago

    America has become the evil empire

    Nicholas Villegas 2 days ago

    I hope we get better president and will have better ties and relations with Russia

    machinist1337 1 month ago

    basically Russia wants to be friends with America again and America ain't having it. they have the capabilities to set up shop all around the world. it's like putting guard towers in everyone's lawn just in case somebody wants commit crime. but you never see inside the towers or know who is in them but they have giant guns mounted on them ready to kill. that's how Putin feels. I mean I get it but every other country has nukes. get rid of the nukes and the missile defense will go away. if the situation were reversed it would be out president voicing this frustration. but Putin said it, America is a good example of success that's what Russia needs to do is be more like America. they have been doing it in the last year or so. I think America will come around and we will have good relations with Russia again. so wait... did we support isis as being generally isis or support all Qaeda / Saddam's regime which lead to isis??

    Brendon Charles 2 months ago

    The US supported multiple Rebel Groups that fought against Syria, they armed them, gave them money, and members of those groups split up and formed more Rebel groups or joined different ones. ISIS (at the time, not as large) was supported by the rebel groups the US armed and they got weapons and equipment from said Rebel Groups, even manpower as well.. That is how ISIS came to be the threat it is today.

    benD'anon fawkes 3 months ago

    putin doesnt view the us as a threat to russia..?? he has said countless times that he considers the us as a threat.. and that russian actions are a result of us aggression

    indycoon 3 months ago (edited)

    US people are a threat for all the world because they are not interested in politics, they don't want to know truth, they believe to their one-sided media and allow their government and other warmongers in the US military industry to do whatever they wish all over the world. US politics are dangerous and lead to a new big war where US territory won't stay away this time. It''s time for Americans to understand it. If you allow your son to become a criminal, don't be surprised that your house will be burned some day.

    Wardup04 1 day ago

    Obama and Clinton are progressive evil cunts funded by Soros. Their decision making is calculated and they want these horrendous results because it weakens the US and benefits globalism. Putin kicked the globalists the fuck out, and when Trump wins he will do the same! They are scared shitless. TRUMP/PENCE 2016

    ThePoopMaster01 1 week ago

    It's pretty sad when RT is more trustworthy than all other mainstream news networks

    Michael Espeland 3 days ago

    Someone owns mainstream media, so. Yeah. The rest is kinda self-explanatory

    Daniel Gyllenbreider 1 month ago

    With a stupid and warmongering opponent such as the USA, Russia do not need to construct a narrative or think out some elaborate propaganda. Russia simply needs to speak the truth. And this is why the US and its puppets hates Russia and Putin so much.

    [Nov 06, 2016] Trump vs. the REAL Nuts -- the GOP Uniparty Establishment

    Notable quotes:
    "... An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty." ..."
    "... There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. ..."
    "... To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. ..."
    "... Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.unz.com
    54 Comments Credit: VDare.com.

    A couple of remarks in Professor Susan McWillams' recent Modern Age piece celebrating the 25th anniversary of Christopher Lasch's 1991 book The True and Only Heaven , which analyzed the cult of progress in its American manifestation, have stuck in my mind. Here's the first one:

    In the most recent American National Election Studies survey, only 19 percent of Americans agreed with the idea that the government, "is run for the benefit of all the people." [ The True and Only Lasch: On The True and Only Heaven, 25 Years Later , Fall 2016]

    McWilliams adds a footnote to that: The 19 percent figure is from 2012, she says. Then she tells us that in 1964, 64 percent of Americans agreed with the same statement.

    Wow. You have to think that those two numbers, from 64 percent down to 19 percent in two generations, tell us something important and disturbing about our political life.

    Second McWilliams quote:

    In 2016 if you type the words "Democrats and Republicans" or "Republicans and Democrats" into Google, the algorithms predict your next words will be "are the same".

    I just tried this, and she's right. These guesses are of course based on the frequency with which complete sentences show up all over the internet. An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty."

    There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians.

    Which leads me to a different lady commentator: Peggy Noonan, in her October 20th Wall Street Journal column.

    The title of Peggy's piece was: Imagine a Sane Donald Trump . [ Alternate link ]Its gravamen: Donald Trump has shown up the Republican Party Establishment as totally out of touch with their base, which is good; but that he's bat-poop crazy, which is bad. If a sane Donald Trump had done the good thing, the showing-up, we'd be on course to a major beneficial correction in our national politics.

    It's a good clever piece. A couple of months ago on Radio Derb I offered up one and a half cheers for Peggy, who gets a lot right in spite of being a longtime Establishment Insider. So it was here. Sample of what she got right last week:

    Mr. Trump's great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its own base really thinks about the big issues. The party's leaders didn't know! They were shocked, so much that they indulged in sheer denial and made believe it wasn't happening.

    The party's leaders accept more or less open borders and like big trade deals. Half the base does not! It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn't want to, not right now! Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses. When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he'd opposed the Iraq invasion, the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn't want to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.

    I'll just pause to note Peggy's use of Steve Sailer' s great encapsulation of Bush-style NeoConnery: "Invade the world, invite the world." Either Peggy's been reading Steve on the sly, or she's read my book We Are Doomed , which borrows that phrase. I credited Steve with it, though, so in either case she knows its provenance, and should likewise have credited Steve.

    End of pause. OK, so Peggy got some things right there. She got a lot wrong, though

    Start with the notion that Trump is crazy. He's a nut, she says, five times. His brain is "a TV funhouse."

    Well, Trump has some colorful quirks of personality, to be sure, as we all do. But he's no nut. A nut can't be as successful in business as Trump has been.

    I spent 32 years as an employee or contractor, mostly in private businesses but for two years in a government department. Private businesses are intensely rational, as human affairs go-much more rational than government departments. The price of irrationality in business is immediate and plainly financial. Sanity-wise, Trump is a better bet than most people in high government positions.

    Sure, politicians talk a good rational game. They present as sober and thoughtful on the Sunday morning shows.

    Look at the stuff they believe, though. Was it rational to respond to the collapse of the U.S.S.R. by moving NATO right up to Russia's borders? Was it rational to expect that post-Saddam Iraq would turn into a constitutional democracy? Was it rational to order insurance companies to sell healthcare policies to people who are already sick? Was the Vietnam War a rational enterprise? Was it rational to respond to the 9/11 attacks by massively increasing Muslim immigration?

    Make your own list.

    Donald Trump displays good healthy patriotic instincts. I'll take that, with the personality quirks and all, over some earnest, careful, sober-sided guy whose head contains fantasies of putting the world to rights, or flooding our country with unassimilable foreigners.

    I'd add the point, made by many commentators, that belongs under the general heading: "You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps." If Donald Trump was not so very different from run-of-the-mill politicians-which I suspect is a big part of what Peggy means by calling him a nut-would he have entered into the political adventure he's on?

    Thor Heyerdahl sailed across the Pacific on a hand-built wooden raft to prove a point, which is not the kind of thing your average ethnographer would do. Was he crazy? No, he wasn't. It was only that some feature of his personality drove him to use that way to prove the point he hoped to prove.

    And then there is Peggy's assertion that the Republican Party's leaders didn't know that half the party's base were at odds with them.

    Did they really not? Didn't they get a clue when the GOP lost in 2012, mainly because millions of Republican voters didn't turn out for Mitt Romney? Didn't they, come to think of it, get the glimmering of a clue back in 1996, when Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary?

    Pat Buchanan is in fact a living counter-argument to Peggy's thesis-the "sane Donald Trump" that she claims would win the hearts of GOP managers. Pat is Trump without the personality quirks. How has the Republican Party treated him ?

    Our own Brad Griffin , here at VDARE.com on October 24th, offered a couple more "sane Donald Trumps": Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. How did they fare with the GOP Establishment?

    Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. Probably he's less well-informed about the world than the average pol. I doubt he could tell you what the capital of Burkina Faso is. That's secondary, though. A President has people to look up that stuff for him. The question that's been asked more than any other about Donald Trump is not, pace Peggy Noonan, "Is he nuts?" but, " Is he conservative? "

    I'm sure he is. But my definition of "conservative" is temperamental, not political. My touchstone here is the sketch of the conservative temperament given to us by the English political philosopher Michael Oakeshott :

    To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.

    Rationalism in Politics and other essays (1962)

    That fits Trump better than it fits any liberal you can think of-better also than many senior Republicans.

    For example, it was one of George W. Bush's senior associates-probably Karl Rove-who scoffed at opponents of Bush's delusional foreign policy as "the reality-based community." It would be hard to think of a more un -Oakeshottian turn of phrase.

    Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment.

    I thank him for that, and look forward to his Presidency.

    [Nov 06, 2016] Putin Tells Everyone Exactly Who Created ISIS - YouTube

    Nov 06, 2016 | www.youtube.com
    Published on Oct 1, 2015

    Here's something you probably never saw or heard about in the west. This is Putin answering questions regarding ISIS from a US journalist at the Valdai International Discussion Club in late 2014.

    dornye easton 2 hours ago

    The White house and and the CIA ARE THE ONES causing this !!

    Gilbert Sanchez 2 weeks ago

    from the U.S.. much love for you Putin. you really opened the eyes of many, even in our country. this man is the definition of president and the u.s hasnt had one for over 40 years... smh.

    IronClad292 2 weeks ago

    As an American I can say that all of this is very confusing. However, one thing I believe is true, Obama and Hillary are the worst thing to ever happen to my country !!!! Average Americans don't want war with Russia. Why would we ?? The common people of both countries don't deserve this !!!!

    lown baby 9 hours ago

    We need Trump to restore our ties with the rest of the world or we are screwed!

    david wood 3 months ago

    He pretty much [said] that the President is a complete fucking idiot. I can't argue with him.

    simon6071 6 days ago (edited)

    +Emanuil Penev Obama is a human puppet who chose to be controlled, He is therefore culpable for his action of supporting Islamic terrorists. Right now Islamic invasion of western countries is the real problem. The USA is now under the control of Obama the Muslim Trojan horse who wants the world to be under the rule of an Islamic empire. USA's military action in the Middle East is the result of USA being under occupation by a Muslim Trojan horse that wants to create tidal waves of Muslim refugees harboring Muslim radicals and terrorists for invading Europe and the USA. Watch video (copy and paste for search) *From Europe to America The Caliphate Muslim Trojan Horse The USA is a victim, not a culprit, in the Muslim invasion of western counties. Obama and his cohorts are the culprits.

    StarWarLean 38 minutes ago

    America has become the evil empire

    Nicholas Villegas 2 days ago

    I hope we get better president and will have better ties and relations with Russia

    machinist1337 1 month ago

    basically Russia wants to be friends with America again and America ain't having it. they have the capabilities to set up shop all around the world. it's like putting guard towers in everyone's lawn just in case somebody wants commit crime. but you never see inside the towers or know who is in them but they have giant guns mounted on them ready to kill. that's how Putin feels. I mean I get it but every other country has nukes. get rid of the nukes and the missile defense will go away. if the situation were reversed it would be out president voicing this frustration. but Putin said it, America is a good example of success that's what Russia needs to do is be more like America. they have been doing it in the last year or so. I think America will come around and we will have good relations with Russia again. so wait... did we support isis as being generally isis or support all Qaeda / Saddam's regime which lead to isis??

    Brendon Charles 2 months ago

    The US supported multiple Rebel Groups that fought against Syria, they armed them, gave them money, and members of those groups split up and formed more Rebel groups or joined different ones. ISIS (at the time, not as large) was supported by the rebel groups the US armed and they got weapons and equipment from said Rebel Groups, even manpower as well.. That is how ISIS came to be the threat it is today.

    benD'anon fawkes 3 months ago

    putin doesnt view the us as a threat to russia..?? he has said countless times that he considers the us as a threat.. and that russian actions are a result of us aggression

    indycoon 3 months ago (edited)

    US people are a threat for all the world because they are not interested in politics, they don't want to know truth, they believe to their one-sided media and allow their government and other warmongers in the US military industry to do whatever they wish all over the world. US politics are dangerous and lead to a new big war where US territory won't stay away this time. It''s time for Americans to understand it. If you allow your son to become a criminal, don't be surprised that your house will be burned some day.

    Wardup04 1 day ago

    Obama and Clinton are progressive evil cunts funded by Soros. Their decision making is calculated and they want these horrendous results because it weakens the US and benefits globalism. Putin kicked the globalists the fuck out, and when Trump wins he will do the same! They are scared shitless. TRUMP/PENCE 2016

    ThePoopMaster01 1 week ago

    It's pretty sad when RT is more trustworthy than all other mainstream news networks

    Michael Espeland 3 days ago

    Someone owns mainstream media, so. Yeah. The rest is kinda self-explanatory

    Daniel Gyllenbreider 1 month ago

    With a stupid and warmongering opponent such as the USA, Russia do not need to construct a narrative or think out some elaborate propaganda. Russia simply needs to speak the truth. And this is why the US and its puppets hates Russia and Putin so much.

    [Nov 06, 2016] Trumps closing argument

    Nov 06, 2016 | www.unz.com
    Pretty good Trump ad tying together his themes of Hillary's corruption and globalism. Rather than just attack Hillary over idiosyncratic scandals, he's pulling together the threads of how Hillary's ideology and self-interest support each other.

    It's funny how Trump is developing a more coherent big picture framework.

    My recollection of Romney's campaign is that he generally lacked an intellectual framework for tying together his a la carte issues.

    With McCain, he had Invade the World / Invite the World. Sure, it doesn't make much sense, but at least it's an ethos.

    Romney, though, was a more reasonable man than McCain, so he was kind of stuck in nowhere land in the middle.

    In contrast to the remarkable spectacle of Donald Trump, of all people, evolving into an insightful critic of the conventional wisdom of the zeitgeist , Hillary's big intellectual breakthrough in 2016 was realizing how much she really hates people who don't vote for her due to their irredeemable deplorableness.

    That doesn't mean, however, the details will necessarily work together for Trump. For example, industrial protectionism was likely pretty good for America on the whole during the "infant industries" era (to quote the non-rap Alexander Hamilton). But you didn't really want to see how the sausage is made. Tariff battles in Congress tended to gross out everybody who wasn't a hired lobbyist or wardheeler.

    Jerry Pournelle has proposed a modest tariff (e.g., 10%) on everything, no exceptions, as a way around the corruption problem. Of course, that's the opposite approach to Trump's Art of the Deal inclinations.

    [Nov 06, 2016] Russia expects Washington to provide an explanation after a report claimed that Pentagon cyber-offensive specialists have hacked into Russias power grids, telecommunications networks, and the Kremlins command systems for a possible sabotage

    Nov 06, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Molin | Nov 5, 2016 7:21:49 AM | 52

    Obama hack Russia openly,

    "Russia expects Washington to provide an explanation after a report claimed that Pentagon cyber-offensive specialists have hacked into Russia's power grids, telecommunications networks, and the Kremlin's command systems for a possible sabotage."

    https://www.rt.com/news/365423-russia-us-hacker-grid/

    [Nov 06, 2016] Michael Hudson on Meet the Renegades

    Notable quotes:
    "... In fact, I would posit that the Ivy League, especially Yale, Princeton, Harvard and MIT, are the principal crime factories in America today. ..."
    "... Brownback is in Kansas; UMKC is in Missouri. There is a Kansas City in Kansas, and another Kansas City in Missouri. Missouri is not as red as KS, but it's still a red state. ..."
    "... UMKC is part of the state system and most likely receives no funding from the city. It was home to New Letters, a respected literary magazine edited by poet John Ciardi. I hail from Kanasa City and always thought of UMKC as a decent commuter school, mostly catering to the educational needs of adult city dwellers. But the evolution of both the Econ and jazz studies departments lead me to suspect things have changed. Whether that's by design or through organic happenstance I don't know. ..."
    "... Couldn't a Marxian analysis of capitalism as a whole also shed some light on this issue? I think Hudson is pretty much right but I think, like Sanders, he's offering a reformist option as opposed to a full on critique of the entire system. ..."
    "... Not that a revolution is the option you necessarily want to go with, I just think that Marx's criticism of capitalism has useful information that could help with shaping the perspective here. ..."
    Nov 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Michael Hudson spends a half hour with Meet the Renegades explaining his views on money, finance, economic training, rentier capitalism, and how debt overhangs operate. Hudson fans will recognize his regular themes. This is a good segment for introducing people you know to Hudson and to heterodox economic ideas.

    EndOfTheWorld November 5, 2016 at 5:52 am

    I've always found it interesting that both Hudson and Bill Black are on the faculty of UMKC, which is a state university in a pretty conservative state. It's possible that some of the funding for UMKC comes from the municipality of Kansas City, MO, but that town has never been known as a hotbed of radical intellectuality either.

    Distrubed Voter November 5, 2016 at 6:21 am

    Joseph Campbell didn't teach at an Ivy League either. Conformity starts with the faculty in your own department … and the Ivy League is as status quo and status conscious as it gets.

    craazyboy November 5, 2016 at 8:43 am

    The Ivy League are not much different than privately held corporations when you consider who their alma materi are, how much money the alma materi have, and where Ivy League endowments come from.

    sgt_doom November 5, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    In fact, I would posit that the Ivy League, especially Yale, Princeton, Harvard and MIT, are the principal crime factories in America today.

    Please recall that the dood who financed Liberty Lobby and other white supremacist nonsense was Koch family patriarch, Fred Koch, who was a trustee at MIT. (Ever hear Noam Chomsky complain about that????? Of course not!)

    a different chris November 5, 2016 at 8:40 am

    Ah but is it really an inherently conservative state fiscally, or just socially? That is, are the people like Brownback appealing to one sort of conservatism and using that to do a "trust me" on the other sort?

    I would say it's not unreasonable for anybody to delegate something they are not so sure of to somebody they trust for other reasons.

    EndOfTheWorld November 5, 2016 at 11:11 am

    Brownback is in Kansas; UMKC is in Missouri. There is a Kansas City in Kansas, and another Kansas City in Missouri. Missouri is not as red as KS, but it's still a red state.

    Randy November 5, 2016 at 8:53 am

    UMKC is part of the state system and most likely receives no funding from the city. It was home to New Letters, a respected literary magazine edited by poet John Ciardi. I hail from Kanasa City and always thought of UMKC as a decent commuter school, mostly catering to the educational needs of adult city dwellers. But the evolution of both the Econ and jazz studies departments lead me to suspect things have changed. Whether that's by design or through organic happenstance I don't know.

    Moneta November 5, 2016 at 8:59 am

    If you are not on the money makers' distribution list, it would make sense to find other ways to get some of that loot if you can't the traditional way…

    You can be conservative in your social values but want change, i.e. liberalism, in the way the monetary system distributes the money.

    Steve H. November 5, 2016 at 10:47 am

    Thank Warren Mosler, wouldn't be there without his direct support.

    EndOfTheWorld November 5, 2016 at 7:32 am

    Well, little UMKC can claim to be pretty much "cutting edge" in economics with these two stalwarts on their faculty.

    Benedict@Large November 5, 2016 at 9:32 am

    The UMKC is also the home of the Kansas City School of Economics, more commonly known as the MMT School. Neither Hudson nor Black are MMTers per se, but both have grown by their affiliation with the school.

    Amateur Socialist November 5, 2016 at 9:14 am

    Thanks for sharing this excellent interview. Watching it I realized the people I actually admire more than Hudson are his students. They must care more about learning the truth than securing wealth and job prospects on wall street.

    susan the other November 5, 2016 at 11:04 am

    fun to learn how Hudson fired Greenspan way back when

    EndOfTheWorld November 5, 2016 at 11:08 am

    lol "Free trade" is Orwellian word usage.

    King Arthur November 5, 2016 at 11:49 am

    Couldn't a Marxian analysis of capitalism as a whole also shed some light on this issue? I think Hudson is pretty much right but I think, like Sanders, he's offering a reformist option as opposed to a full on critique of the entire system.

    Not that a revolution is the option you necessarily want to go with, I just think that Marx's criticism of capitalism has useful information that could help with shaping the perspective here.

    BecauseTradition November 5, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    The solution is write down the debt. Michael Hudson

    Why not Steve Keen's "A Modern Jubilee" since non-debtors have been cheated by the system too?

    Steve in Dallas November 5, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    I asked Yves Smith at the Dallas meetup last week (paraphrasing) "Do you meet with Michael Hudson and Bill Black… is the independent media community, or any community, organizing around Michael Hudson and Bill Black… to not only support and promote Hudson's and Black's perspectives but to help develop their concepts and 'fine tune' their messaging?" I said to Yves "Hudson and Black are clearly the leaders we desperately need to rally behind and push into Washington… they clearly know what needs to be done… a PR machine needs to be developed… to get their messages out to our families, friends, and acquaintances… unfortunately, the current messaging is not good enough… I can't get my family, friends, and others to engage and echo the messaging to their family, friends, etc."

    Michael Hudson has been good at repeating his central message… 'by increasing land, monopoly, and finance rent costs… the 1% are a highly organized mafia methodically looting our economy… effectively raping, pillaging and consequently destroying every component of our social structures'.

    Very unfortunately, Bill Blacks central message seems to have been lost for years now… he doesn't repeat his central message… 'the crimes must be stopped… there is no alternative… looting criminals MUST be publicly exposed, investigated, indicted, prosecuted, convicted, punished and their loot returned to society… by letting cheaters prosper, organized white-collar crime, perpetrated by the top-most leaders of our public and private institutions, has become an epidemic… the very fabric of civil society is being destroyed… we have no choice… the criminals must be stopped… and the only way to do that is to publicly expose, investigate, indict, prosecute, punish, and take back what is ours'.

    In 2008, when I tuned out of the mainstream media and tuned into the independent media, I thought the messages from Michael Hudson ("they are organized criminals… this is what they're doing…") and Bill Black ("the criminals must be stopped… here's how we stopped the Savings & Loan criminals…) would resonate and become common knowledge. I quickly discovered that it didn't even resonate with close family and friends. Why???

    I will send out this video… Michael Hudson at his best, speaking-wise. I don't expect to get any reaction… why?… very frustrated…

    Ivy November 5, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    Amen. Once you start noticing, it becomes hard to stop. In looking hard for a silver lining to the current election storm clouds, public awareness of the MSM seems to have nudged a few toward slightly more objectivity, although I may just be wishing for that after media fatigue ;)

    [Nov 06, 2016] The Podesta Emails - Undeniable proof that the lobbyists wanted to put Bernie out

    Notable quotes:
    "... WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. ..."
    "... if President Obama signs this terrible legislation that blatantly validates Bernie's entire campaign message about Wall Street running our government, this will give Bernie a huge boost and 10,000 -20,000 outraged citizens (who WILL turn up because they will be so angry at the President for preemption vt) will be marching on the Mall with Bernie as their keynote speaker. " ..."
    "... But Hirshberg does not stop here. In order to persuade Podesta about the seriousness of the matter, he claims that " It will be terrible to hand Sanders this advantage at such a fragile time when we really need to save our $$$ for the Trump fight. " ..."
    Nov 06, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
    WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.

    An email from Gary Hirshberg, chairman and former president and CEO of Stonyfield Farm , to John Podesta on March 13, 2016, confirms why the lobbyists strongly opposed Bernie Sanders.

    Hirshberg writes to a familiar person, as he was mentioned at the time as a possible 2008 Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, requesting Obama should not pass the Roberts bill because " if President Obama signs this terrible legislation that blatantly validates Bernie's entire campaign message about Wall Street running our government, this will give Bernie a huge boost and 10,000 -20,000 outraged citizens (who WILL turn up because they will be so angry at the President for preemption vt) will be marching on the Mall with Bernie as their keynote speaker. "

    But Hirshberg does not stop here. In order to persuade Podesta about the seriousness of the matter, he claims that " It will be terrible to hand Sanders this advantage at such a fragile time when we really need to save our $$$ for the Trump fight. "

    [Nov 06, 2016] On MSM propaganda techniques

    www.englishclub.com

    doublespeak (noun): deliberately ambiguous or obscure language designed to mislead, for example the military expression collateral damage instead of civilian deaths and injuries

    Learn more at: https://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/doublespeak.htm

    Posted by: Molin | Nov 5, 2016 6:23:41 AM | 50

    [Nov 06, 2016] Trump vs. the REAL Nuts -- the GOP Uniparty Establishment

    Notable quotes:
    "... An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty." ..."
    "... There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. ..."
    "... To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. ..."
    "... Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.unz.com
    54 Comments Credit: VDare.com.

    A couple of remarks in Professor Susan McWillams' recent Modern Age piece celebrating the 25th anniversary of Christopher Lasch's 1991 book The True and Only Heaven , which analyzed the cult of progress in its American manifestation, have stuck in my mind. Here's the first one:

    In the most recent American National Election Studies survey, only 19 percent of Americans agreed with the idea that the government, "is run for the benefit of all the people." [ The True and Only Lasch: On The True and Only Heaven, 25 Years Later , Fall 2016]

    McWilliams adds a footnote to that: The 19 percent figure is from 2012, she says. Then she tells us that in 1964, 64 percent of Americans agreed with the same statement.

    Wow. You have to think that those two numbers, from 64 percent down to 19 percent in two generations, tell us something important and disturbing about our political life.

    Second McWilliams quote:

    In 2016 if you type the words "Democrats and Republicans" or "Republicans and Democrats" into Google, the algorithms predict your next words will be "are the same".

    I just tried this, and she's right. These guesses are of course based on the frequency with which complete sentences show up all over the internet. An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty."

    There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians.

    Which leads me to a different lady commentator: Peggy Noonan, in her October 20th Wall Street Journal column.

    The title of Peggy's piece was: Imagine a Sane Donald Trump . [ Alternate link ]Its gravamen: Donald Trump has shown up the Republican Party Establishment as totally out of touch with their base, which is good; but that he's bat-poop crazy, which is bad. If a sane Donald Trump had done the good thing, the showing-up, we'd be on course to a major beneficial correction in our national politics.

    It's a good clever piece. A couple of months ago on Radio Derb I offered up one and a half cheers for Peggy, who gets a lot right in spite of being a longtime Establishment Insider. So it was here. Sample of what she got right last week:

    Mr. Trump's great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its own base really thinks about the big issues. The party's leaders didn't know! They were shocked, so much that they indulged in sheer denial and made believe it wasn't happening.

    The party's leaders accept more or less open borders and like big trade deals. Half the base does not! It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn't want to, not right now! Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses. When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he'd opposed the Iraq invasion, the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn't want to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.

    I'll just pause to note Peggy's use of Steve Sailer' s great encapsulation of Bush-style NeoConnery: "Invade the world, invite the world." Either Peggy's been reading Steve on the sly, or she's read my book We Are Doomed , which borrows that phrase. I credited Steve with it, though, so in either case she knows its provenance, and should likewise have credited Steve.

    End of pause. OK, so Peggy got some things right there. She got a lot wrong, though

    Start with the notion that Trump is crazy. He's a nut, she says, five times. His brain is "a TV funhouse."

    Well, Trump has some colorful quirks of personality, to be sure, as we all do. But he's no nut. A nut can't be as successful in business as Trump has been.

    I spent 32 years as an employee or contractor, mostly in private businesses but for two years in a government department. Private businesses are intensely rational, as human affairs go-much more rational than government departments. The price of irrationality in business is immediate and plainly financial. Sanity-wise, Trump is a better bet than most people in high government positions.

    Sure, politicians talk a good rational game. They present as sober and thoughtful on the Sunday morning shows.

    Look at the stuff they believe, though. Was it rational to respond to the collapse of the U.S.S.R. by moving NATO right up to Russia's borders? Was it rational to expect that post-Saddam Iraq would turn into a constitutional democracy? Was it rational to order insurance companies to sell healthcare policies to people who are already sick? Was the Vietnam War a rational enterprise? Was it rational to respond to the 9/11 attacks by massively increasing Muslim immigration?

    Make your own list.

    Donald Trump displays good healthy patriotic instincts. I'll take that, with the personality quirks and all, over some earnest, careful, sober-sided guy whose head contains fantasies of putting the world to rights, or flooding our country with unassimilable foreigners.

    I'd add the point, made by many commentators, that belongs under the general heading: "You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps." If Donald Trump was not so very different from run-of-the-mill politicians-which I suspect is a big part of what Peggy means by calling him a nut-would he have entered into the political adventure he's on?

    Thor Heyerdahl sailed across the Pacific on a hand-built wooden raft to prove a point, which is not the kind of thing your average ethnographer would do. Was he crazy? No, he wasn't. It was only that some feature of his personality drove him to use that way to prove the point he hoped to prove.

    And then there is Peggy's assertion that the Republican Party's leaders didn't know that half the party's base were at odds with them.

    Did they really not? Didn't they get a clue when the GOP lost in 2012, mainly because millions of Republican voters didn't turn out for Mitt Romney? Didn't they, come to think of it, get the glimmering of a clue back in 1996, when Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary?

    Pat Buchanan is in fact a living counter-argument to Peggy's thesis-the "sane Donald Trump" that she claims would win the hearts of GOP managers. Pat is Trump without the personality quirks. How has the Republican Party treated him ?

    Our own Brad Griffin , here at VDARE.com on October 24th, offered a couple more "sane Donald Trumps": Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. How did they fare with the GOP Establishment?

    Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. Probably he's less well-informed about the world than the average pol. I doubt he could tell you what the capital of Burkina Faso is. That's secondary, though. A President has people to look up that stuff for him. The question that's been asked more than any other about Donald Trump is not, pace Peggy Noonan, "Is he nuts?" but, " Is he conservative? "

    I'm sure he is. But my definition of "conservative" is temperamental, not political. My touchstone here is the sketch of the conservative temperament given to us by the English political philosopher Michael Oakeshott :

    To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.

    Rationalism in Politics and other essays (1962)

    That fits Trump better than it fits any liberal you can think of-better also than many senior Republicans.

    For example, it was one of George W. Bush's senior associates-probably Karl Rove-who scoffed at opponents of Bush's delusional foreign policy as "the reality-based community." It would be hard to think of a more un -Oakeshottian turn of phrase.

    Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment.

    I thank him for that, and look forward to his Presidency.

    [Nov 05, 2016] Susan Sarandon DNC is completely corrupt

    Nov 05, 2016 | thehill.com
    Actress Susan Sarandon on Thursday tore into the Democratic National Committee (DNC), calling it "completely corrupt." "After my experience in the primary, it's very clear to me the DNC is gone," she told CNN's Carol Costello .

    "Every superdelegate is a lobbyist. The way that the system is set up in terms of trying of having superdelegates - you could win a state and not get the delegates. It's crazy."

    Sarandon backed Sen. Bernie Sanders Bernie Sanders Dem elector says he won't vote for Clinton A field guide to third-party prospects Susan Sarandon on refusing to back Clinton: 'I don't vote with my vagina' MORE (I-Vt.) for the Democratic nomination. She said she still respects Sanders even though he endorsed Hillary Clinton Hillary Rodham Clinton Trump seeks uptick in race's final days Trump touts 'contract' in GOP weekly address Beyonce, Jay Z rally young voters at Clinton concert MORE for president.

    "Look, Bernie has said 'don't ever listen to me if I tell you how to vote,' " she said.

    "What [Sanders] did is show people that they counted. He brought them hope. He's supporting a lot of candidates. It's very important to go and vote down the ticket."

    Sarandon predicted a surge in third-party support on Election Day, calling Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump Donald Trump Trump seeks uptick in race's final days Trump touts 'contract' in GOP weekly address Report: National Enquirer withheld story about Trump affair MORE "untrustable."

    "I think we've been voting the lesser of two evils for too long. The good news is everybody's so frustrated that at least we're awake."

    Sarandon on Monday endorsed Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

    "It's clear a third-party is necessary and viable at this time," she said in a letter posted on Stein's campaign website. "And this is the first step in accomplishing that end."

    Stein has about 2 percent support nationally, according to a RealClearPolitics average of polls . iv>

    [Nov 05, 2016] Economists View Paul Krugman Who Broke Politics

    Notable quotes:
    "... I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail. ..."
    "... In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain, Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch brothers will primary them. ..."
    "... While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class? Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift? ..."
    "... I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years. I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument. ..."
    "... Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles. While we shredded the safety net. ..."
    "... Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population and they couldn't bear it. ..."
    "... Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. ..."
    Nov 05, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. : November 04, 2016 at 08:51 AM , 2016 at 08:51 AM
    This is all true but Krugman always fails to tell the other side of the story.

    I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail.

    The centrists always do this to push through centrist, neoliberal "solutions" which anger the left.

    In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain, Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch brothers will primary them.

    Let's hope Hillary does something about campaign finance reform and Citizen United and takes a harder line against obstructionist Republicans.

    Eric : November 04, 2016 at 09:28 AM

    While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class? Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift?

    I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years. I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument.

    Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles. While we shredded the safety net.

    Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population and they couldn't bear it.

    Perhaps the less partisan take-way would be - is it possible for any political candidate to get elected in this environment without bowing to the proper interests? How close did Bernie get? And, how do we fix it without first admitting that the policies of both political parties have not really addressed the social adjustments necessary to capture the benefits of globalization? We need an evolution of both political parties - not just the Republicans. If we don't get it, we can expect the Trump argument to take even deeper root.

    America was rich when it had tariff walls - now it's becoming poor - Thanks economists! : November 04, 2016 at 09:43 PM
    Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. East Asian economists including Ha Joon Chang among others debunked comparative advantage and Ricardianism long ago.

    Manufacturing is everything. It is all that matters. We needed tariffs yesterday. Without them the country is lost.

    [Nov 04, 2016] Can The Oligarchy Still Steal The Presidential Election

    Notable quotes:
    "... With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests. ..."
    "... A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him. ..."
    "... If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure? ..."
    "... "Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls." ..."
    Nov 04, 2016 | www.unz.com
    Yes they can ;-). that's how two party system is functioning by default. Rank-and-file are typically screwed. the only exception is so called "revolutionary situation", when the elite lost legitimacy and can't dictate its will on the people below.

    November 4, 2016

    The election was set up to be stolen from Trump. That was the purpose of the polls rigged by overweighting Hillary supporters in the samples. After weeks of hearing poll results that Hillary was in the lead, the public would discount a theft claim. Electronic voting makes elections easy to steal, and I have posted explanations by election fraud experts of how it is done.

    Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that they could control him, and Hillary is their agent.

    With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests.

    Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation.

    Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy's interests. She would be worthless to them, and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could damage the oligarchs.

    In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability.

    A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him.

    Moreover, the Republicans in the House and Senate would not stand for it. House Committee on oversight and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz has already declared Hillary to be "a target-rich environment. Even before we get to day one, we've got two years worth of material already lined up." House Speaker Paul Ryan said investigation will follow the evidence.

    If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure?

    What happens if the FBI recommends the indictment of the president? Even insouciant Americans would see the cover-up if the attorney general refused to prosecute the case. Americans would lose all confidence in the government. Chaos would rule. Chaos can be revolutionary, and that is not good for oligarchs.

    Moreover, if reports can be believed, salacious scandals appear to be waiting their time on stage. For example, last May Fox News reported:

    "Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender's infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express" - even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.

    "Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls."

    Fox News reports that Epstein served time in prison for "solicitation and procurement of minors for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to service his friends on 'Orgy Island,' an estate on Epstein's 72-acre island, called Little St. James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands." http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html
    Some Internet sites, the credibility of which is unknown to me, have linked Hillary to these flights. http

    [Nov 04, 2016] The Guardian WikiLeaks Reveals How Globalist Elites Run America for Their Own Interests

    Notable quotes:
    "... From The Guardian : ..."
    "... Read the rest here . ..."
    www.breitbart.com
    Thomas Frank writes in The Guardian that the WikiLeaks emails to and from Hillary Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta "offer an unprecedented view into the workings of the elite, and how it looks after itself." They provide "a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers."

    From The Guardian:

    This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else. Of course Hillary Clinton staffed her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she appears to think that any kind of bank reform should "come from the industry itself". And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted by the Obama administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another's careers, constantly.

    Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon Valley, the nonprofits, the "Global CEO Advisory Firm" that appears to have solicited donations for the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup. There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced degrees. For them the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out.

    Read the rest here.

    [Nov 04, 2016] Forget the FBI cache; the Podesta emails show how America is run

    Notable quotes:
    "... The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. ..."
    "... "What is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers now seem to stand on every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that". ..."
    "... Do they want more of the same + the Clinton's insatiable appetite for self-enrichmentand that permanent insincere smile? If not, why not give Trump a chance. If they don't like him, kick him out in four years' time. ..."
    "... My feeling is this sort of behaviour has its equivalents throughout history and that when it peaks we have upheaval and decline. ..."
    "... "Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out." ..."
    "... Of course you are quite correct, the Democratic Party is a fraud for working people and a collection of self serving elitist. If you have a solution to solve why people keep voting for them I would love to hear it. ..."
    "... I am sure the people of Syria and Libya are grateful to these amazing people for destroying their countries and stealing their resources. ..."
    "... What's left is a pretty ugly, self-righteous and corrupt crowd. Their attacks on Comey have been despicable, beneath contempt and absurd. I think they're going to lose and they will deserve to. ..."
    "... "Former National Endowment for the Arts chairman Bill Ivey says a leaked e-mail to Clinton deputy John Podesta did not reveal a 'master plan' for maintaining political power via 'an unaware and compliant citizenry.'" ..."
    "... I use work in these circles and the soul crushing thing is that elites look out for themselves and their careers and have no real personality, morals, values, character, backbone and certainly no interest in the people. They have personalities of wet fish and are generally cowardice and an embarrassment to mankind. In sort a waste of space ..."
    Nov 04, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. They are last week's scandal in a year running over with scandals, but in truth their significance goes far beyond mere scandal: they are a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers.

    The class to which I refer is not rising in angry protest; they are by and large pretty satisfied, pretty contented. Nobody takes road trips to exotic West Virginia to see what the members of this class looks like or how they live; on the contrary, they are the ones for whom such stories are written. This bunch doesn't have to make do with a comb-over TV mountebank for a leader; for this class, the choices are always pretty good, and this year they happen to be excellent.

    They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.

    ...I think the WikiLeaks releases furnish us with an opportunity to observe the upper reaches of the American status hierarchy in all its righteousness and majesty.

    The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present in this amazing body of work: financial innovators. High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving children. Foundation executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course, and high academic achievement.

    ...Hillary's ingratiating speeches to Wall Street are well known of course, but what is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers now seem to stand on every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that. In one now-famous email chain, for example, the reader can watch current US trade representative Michael Froman, writing from a Citibank email address in 2008, appear to name President Obama's cabinet even before the great hope-and-change election was decided (incidentally, an important clue to understanding why that greatest of zombie banks was never put out of its misery).

    The far-sighted innovators of Silicon Valley are also here in force, interacting all the time with the leaders of the party of the people. We watch as Podesta appears to email Sheryl Sandberg. He makes plans to visit Mark Zuckerberg (who, according to one missive, wants to "learn more about next steps for his philanthropy and social action"). Podesta exchanges emails with an entrepreneur about an ugly race now unfolding for Silicon Valley's seat in Congress; this man, in turn, appears to forward to Podesta the remarks of yet another Silicon Valley grandee, who complains that one of the Democratic combatants in that fight was criticizing billionaires who give to Democrats. Specifically, the miscreant Dem in question was said to be:

    "… spinning (and attacking) donors who have supported Democrats. John Arnold and Marc Leder have both given to Cory Booker, Joe Kennedy, and others. He is also attacking every billionaire that donates to [Congressional candidate] Ro [Khanna], many whom support other Democrats as well."

    Attacking billionaires! In the year 2015! It was, one of the correspondents appears to write, "madness and political malpractice of the party to allow this to continue".

    There are wonderful things to be found in this treasure trove when you search the gilded words "Davos" or "Tahoe".

    ... ... ...

    Then there is the apparent nepotism, the dozens if not hundreds of mundane emails in which petitioners for this or that plum Washington job or high-profile academic appointment politely appeal to Podesta – the ward-heeler of the meritocratic elite – for a solicitous word whispered in the ear of a powerful crony.

    This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else. Of course Hillary Clinton staffed her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she appears to think that any kind of bank reform should "come from the industry itself". And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted by the Obama administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another's careers, constantly.

    Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon Valley, the nonprofits, the "Global CEO Advisory Firm" that appears to have solicited donations for the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup. There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced degrees. For them the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.

    But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out.

    greatapedescendant 5d ago

    It's all polyarchy,plutocracy and powerful lobbyists for the arms and finance industries. The average US citizen counts for nothing. The higher up on the socio-economic scale you are, the more you count. Except for a brainwashed vote once every 4 years.

    From today's Guardian…

    "US politics tends to be portrayed as driven by geopolitical interests rather than personalities, and so most ordinary Russians assume that little will change, whoever wins."

    "And nothing will change for the average US citizen, just like in Britain. Looks like most ordinary Russians have got it spot on.

    greatapedescendant -> greatapedescendant 5d ago

    And as if that were not enough, the elections are 'rigged' in various ways.

    Americans have a great responsibility not only to their country but to other so-called advanced western democracies which follow they US model. A radical change in US politics to bring it in line with genuine concern for the interests of the average citizen would greatly assist efforts here on the other side of the Atlantic to do the same.

    SergeantPave 5d ago

    Astonishing that registered Democrats rejected one of the cleanest politicians in modern US history in order to nominate the Queen of Wall St. What do they hope to gain from expanded corporate globalism and entrenchment of the corporate coup d'etat at home?

    Matthew McNeany -> SergeantPave 5d ago

    Except that it was the same party grandees (Super-delegates - the very word sticks in your throat no?) who all but confirmed Clinton's appointment before a single ballot was cast by the party rank and file.

    djhurley , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
    "What is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers now seem to stand on every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that".

    Spot on. There's amnesia today about where the Democratic party historically stood in regard to Wall Street and its interests.

    Watchman80 -> djhurley , 31 Oct 2016 13:0
    Yep - very good article.

    I am surprised to find it in the Guardian.

    democratista -> Watchman80 , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    Beckow -> djhurley , 31 Oct 2016 15:1
    Real issues - like economic well-being for all - have been replaced by Democrats with mindless identity politics. Clinton is literally running on "I will spend half a billion to reduce bullying", on unisex bathrooms, and more women of color everywhere.

    Is that what democracy should be all about? FDR and other real Democrats would die laughing if they would see these current "progressive liberals" - they stand for nothing, they are a total waste of time, as Obama so amply demonstrated.

    ga gamba , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
    The warning signals were screaming months ago and the mass media concocted a smear campaign against Sanders because he wasn't owned and he was the wrong gender.

    Sanders would have destroyed Trump in this election.

    Oliver Elkington -> ga gamba , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    See, Trump is right when he says that the US media is corrupt
    DaveTheFirst -> ga gamba , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    Then Bernie endorsed Clinton... :\
    callaspodeaspode -> DaveTheFirst , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
    Yes he did endorse her. Because it is customary for the losing candidate(s) in the nomination race to do so. He said he would endorse her if she won, right from the start of the process. For the patently obvious reason, which he repeated again and again, that even a compromised HRC is far better than Donald Trump.

    And he kept his word, but not before he did his level best during the convention to get some decent policies jammed into the Democratic Party platform.

    unclestinky , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
    And if the same sort of leakage had come from the Republicans you'd see exactly the same patronage and influence peddling. If there's one area of politics that remains truly bipartisan it's the gravitational pull of large sums of money.
    Chris Davison -> unclestinky , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    Which only goes to show that ALL of them are unfit for any position of Public Office, let alone any Public employment.
    gandrew -> unclestinky , 31 Oct 2016 15:1
    Except Citizens United failed because Republicans opposed it in the form of their Supreme Court judges.
    OhSuitsYouSir -> Chris Davison , 31 Oct 2016 17:1
    yawn yawn - what a profound comment
    callaspodeaspode , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
    We even read the pleadings of a man who wants to be invited to a state dinner at the White House and who offers, as one of several exhibits in his favor, the fact that he "joined the DSCC Majority Trust in Martha's Vineyard (contributing over $32,400 to Democratic senators) in July 2014".

    Then there is the apparent nepotism, the dozens if not hundreds of mundane emails in which petitioners for this or that plum Washington job or high-profile academic appointment politely appeal to Podesta – the ward-heeler of the meritocratic elite – for a solicitous word whispered in the ear of a powerful crony.

    Something timeless about it all, isn't there? Like reading an account of court life in the era of Charles II.

    Mark Taylor -> callaspodeaspode , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    And to think that they had a revolution to get rid of all that nonsense.
    AIRrrww , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    gully_foyle , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
    There's nothing revelatory in the fact that this is happening among the Democrats, there is surely a carbon copy going on with the Republicans! But somehow I don't think Wikileaks will be releasing anything about that, until the GoP happens to do something that steps on Putin's toes...
    Banditolobster -> gully_foyle , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    Weak, the truth is the truth, ranting about reds under the beds is bollocks.
    sbmfc -> gully_foyle , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
    The Russian link is something made up by the Dems to take the heat off Clinton.

    Podesta was caught out by a simple phishing trick which could be carried out by anyone.

    gully_foyle -> Banditolobster , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
    We'll find out the truth about how Wikileaks operates one day. The alignment between Wikileaks releases and interests of Russian foreign policy became suspicious a long time before you read on Breitbart that Clinton made it up. And I wasn't in any way denying or diminishing the activities described in the article. There are just better articles out there, which consider corruption in "the system" from all sides - which is exactly how it should be viewed, not more of this divide and conquer bullshit.
    Oliver Elkington , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    It is clear that rigging had taken place in the Democrat primaries, Bernie Sanders was more popular with a big chunk of the electorate including the young, here in the Guardian few people had a bad word to say about him, compare that to Hillary who's only strong point seems to be that she is a safer choice than Trump.
    jianhan q -> Oliver Elkington , 31 Oct 2016 13:0
    She's not.
    js1919 -> jianhan q , 31 Oct 2016 14:0
    I'm not so sure anymore either. For the world, maybe Trump is better in the end (ofc Clinton is by far better for the US). I knew what a hawk Clinton is but seeing her "obliterate Iran" comments made me think she might be even more dangerous than I thought.
    HotTomales -> Oliver Elkington , 31 Oct 2016 17:1
    The corollary is, Trump is the only candidate that Hillary can beat. That bares some thinking over, I believe, especially in the light of the way we know the political system and the Democrats in particular work. Oh well . . .
    greenwichite , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    It didn't matter so much when the right-wing parties were puppets of billionaires.

    The political crisis arrived when the supposedly "left-wing" parties sold out to them too.

    At which point, democratic choice evaporated.

    Financial interests have today captured the entire body-politic of Britain and America, and it really doesn't matter which party you vote for - Goldman Sachs will call the shots regardless.

    And they see you as simply a cash-cow to be milked for the benefit of the very rich, themselves included.

    ID904765 -> greenwichite , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    Your general point is broadly accurate - however I would have second thoughts before singling out Goldman Sachs any more than say Morgan Stanley , Citigroup or Bank of America.
    Fred Bloggs -> ID904765 , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    Goldman Sachs are the leader of the gang?
    BurgermaS -> ID904765 , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
    I think he meant Goldman Sachs as a term for the larger banking group of interests (as you listed). Some call them the 'white shoe boys'. Everyone knows the banks control everything now.
    KateShade , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    Let me make sure I've got this right:

    you would prefer politicians who never speak to the people running businesses, finance, universities, hospitals etc etc.?

    Marjallche -> KateShade , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    I would prefer politicians who don't get paid by those whose power they are supposed to rein in.
    stormsinteacups -> KateShade , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
    you've got it the wrong way round....it's the groups you mention that plead NOT speak with politicians. Please don't include those running hospitals and universities with the worldwide business and finance mafia.
    KateShade -> Marjallche , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
    paying politicians is definitely not the way to go... campaign funding rules are what is crippling the US....

    other countries have much better systems...

    or are you thinking of other forms of 'payment'?

    JennM , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    I see no way out of this mess
    ralphrooney -> JennM , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    hopefully it ends with hillary in jail
    LabourMess -> JennM , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    So you don't think that Trump will try to drain the swamp.
    Mates Braas -> ralphrooney , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    Hoping to see Clinton end up in jail is no different than hoping to see Bush at the ICC.
    Brownbread , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    "This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else."

    This is quite a mundane observation. To which social group does a tendency for in-group loyalty NOT apply? I think what it actually shows is that high status people mix together and are more confident in using such forms of communication with powerful people (with whom they assume a connection) for personal gain. Hardly surprising. And also only applies to the sample - those who emailed - rather than the general class. That is, it's a bad sample because it is self selecting, and therefore says something more about people who are willing to communicate in this way, rather than their broader class.

    MacCosham -> Brownbread , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    A tendency for in-group loyalty and loyalty overriding everything else are two very, very, very different things.
    Brownbread -> MacCosham , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    Okay, read as, 'a tendency for an in-group loyalty that, when acted out, overrides everything else' (as implied by the definition of 'loyalty').
    Brownbread -> MacCosham , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    So to be clear, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. One is about how often you are loyal to your group, and the other is about the nature of loyalty itself.
    soixantehuitard , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    waldoh , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    kelso77 , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    What has seemingly slipped under the radar is Podesta's emails withDr Edgar Mitchell, Tom Delonge and a couple of Generals.

    The truth is out there...

    PaulGButler -> kelso77 , 31 Oct 2016 12:2

    What has seemingly slipped under the radar is Podesta's emails withDr Edgar Mitchell, Tom Delonge and a couple of Generals.

    Looks like it's going to stay there as well, at least as far as you are concerned ...

    JustinNimmo , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    That the people at the very top of their industry and professions know each other and communicate with each other is hardly a surprise. Nor is it bad - it helps the world to function. Nor is it necessarily corrupt provided they operate within the law. What is important is that getting to the top of these professions is an opportunity open to everyone with the ability and the drive. That, sadly, is not the case. Nepotism does not help either.
    greenwichite -> JustinNimmo , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    These people at the top of their professions have a track-record of abysmal failure. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and the other banks should have been allowed to collapse in 2008, as fitting punishment for their greed and incompetence. Instead, they used their paid-for access to the Bush White House to demand and acquire a trillion-dollar bailout.

    That's not networking. It's corruption.

    infamy72 -> JustinNimmo , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    Who's laws , oh the ruling classes laws.
    z8000736 , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
    [neo]Liberal may be a dirty word to call someone in America but the author of this piece seems unaware it doesn't work quite the same way the other side of the Atlantic. May I suggest panty-waisted pointy-head instead?
    1iJack -> z8000736 , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    Better yet: Globalist. Its an underlying theme that we have seen unite the Clintons and Bush/Romney families in this election cycle...we now know who the enemy is, and they have infiltrated both the Democrats and the Republicans. They have a secret badge they wear pledging an allegiance to a higher power: the Clinton/Bush/Romney families are the jack-booted thugs of the American globalists.
    Brownbread -> 1iJack , 31 Oct 2016 15:2
    Yeah, they are so much nastier than those cuddly protectionists.
    Ted_Pikul -> Brownbread , 31 Oct 2016 16:5
    The more the administrative class' borderless "humanism" aligns with the oligarchy's desire for cheap labor, the less objectionable those cuddly persons become.
    BobSlater , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    It's very easy to make a case that HRC is unfit for the presidency... Except for the fact the alternative is Trump. A clique arranges matters for themselves and the electorate is basically told to go to hell.

    What is over there is on it's way over here if it hasn't happened already. You can build big corporations with a flourishing financial sector or you can build a nation. I would say choose but you don't get a choice.

    kodicek , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    Good job in presenting Hillary as the poor victim, when she has the whole weight of the neo-liberal media-banking system behind her... Next up in Orwell land...
    flybow , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    here's a link to them. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774
    themandibleclaw , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    As George Carlin said "It's a big club and you ain't in it".
    Brownbread -> themandibleclaw , 31 Oct 2016 15:3
    He also said, "be excellent to each other."
    MitchellParker , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    "Along with the concept of American Dream runs the notion that every man and woman is entitled to an opinion and to one vote, no matter how ridiculous that opinion might be or how uninformed the vote. It could be that the Borderer Presbyterian tradition of "stand up and say your rightful piece" contributed to the American notion that our gut-level but uninformed opinions are some sort of unvarnished foundational political truths.

    I have been told that this is because we redneck working-class Scots Irish suffer from what psychiatrists call "no insight".

    Consequently, we will never agree with anyone outside our zone of ignorance because our belligerent Borderer pride insists on the right to be dangerously wrong about everything while telling those who are more educated to "bite my ass!"

    ― Joe Bageant, Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War

    Longerenong , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    There is still a week to go.

    The way this election has been going you'd have to be a fool not to expect yet another twist in the plot.

    HonourableMember , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    A meritocracy always crashes and crushes its actors and puppet masters whenever merit is neither exhibited nor warranted ...... for then is it too much alike a fraudulent ponzi to be anything else.
    noteasilyfooled , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    What Americans need to ask themselves is: Are they happy with things as they are after 8 years of Obama? Do they want more of the same + the Clinton's insatiable appetite for self-enrichmentand that permanent insincere smile? If not, why not give Trump a chance. If they don't like him, kick him out in four years' time.
    Elephantmoth -> noteasilyfooled , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    Are Americans happy with things as they are after 8 years of a Republican Congress stonewalling every attempt to improve things for ordinary people, even shutting down the whole government in pursuit of their partisan agenda? The childish antics of our 'democratic representatives' have diminished the ideals of democracy and would sink even further with Trump, who could do a lot of damage in four years.
    ID1906465 -> noteasilyfooled , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    four years is a very long time! Took less than that for the Nazis to get into power after having got into parliament.
    PaulGButler -> noteasilyfooled , 31 Oct 2016 12:1

    why not give Trump a chance.

    Bit ironic, given your user name "noteasilyfooled". You are aware that Donald Trump (in spite of several attempts to lose his fortune) is a billionaire?

    Bluejil , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
    It has been ongoing through out history, ancient Greece and the beginning of democracy, Romans, Kings, Queens, courts and courtiers. Is it really a surprise that if you do not have a Harvard MBA, you won't rise through the ranks of Goldman's and McKinsey? It's no different here in England, Ł50,000 and up to dine with Dave and George last year.

    Most of the population trusts who they elect to do the jobs they themselves would not do or could not do, it's steeped in history that the well educated take the helm. Politics is nepotism and money has always played a very large part, for every party, not just the democrats. Let's not pretend the republicans are innocent saints in all of this, if Wikileaks were to delve into their actions there would be a shit storm, remember the NRA is part and parcel of the Republican party.

    Blenheim -> Bluejil , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    Most of the population trusts who they elect to do the jobs they themselves would not do or could not do

    Not sure we do .. We're totally apathetic and cynical in regards to politics, and certainly those who put themselves forward mostly aren't up to the job but are seemingly unemployable elsewhere; look no further than the last PM and his idiot chum, and now the current PM and her front bench. Would you employ 'em?..

    MacCosham -> Bluejil , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    Ehm, sorry, no. Remember there is a word, democracy , which is taken to mean that governments act according to the wishes of the people who elected them. Your petty partisanship is blinding you.
    haribol , 31 Oct 2016 11:4

    They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.

    This is across the WHOLE of the West no matter whether right leaning or left leaning.

    moria50 -> elliot2511 , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
    Also cousins albeit 19th cousins. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3210778/Donald-Trump-Hillary-Clinton-revealed-distant-cousins-family-trees-share-set-royal-ancestors.html
    WhitesandsOjibwe , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
    "Keep the American public compliant and unaware."

    Clinton's private and public face. Says it all.

    missuswatanabe , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
    The really interesting question is whether it has always been like this (and we just don't have the emails to prove it) or whether this is a fairly new phenomenon. My feeling is this sort of behaviour has its equivalents throughout history and that when it peaks we have upheaval and decline.

    The current malaise goes back a long way but was catalysed by the end of the Cold War. Because the West 'won' with a system of liberal capitalist democracy, politics took a back seat to business interests. The Clintonian and Blairite 'third way' was billed as a practical compromise but the reality was an abdication of politics. Into this vacuum stepped the kind of self-serving elite the Podesta emails reveal. Arrangements are starting to break down and Michael Gove's much derided statement that people have 'had enough of experts' is actually the most insightful thing that has been said about 21st Century politics so far.

    dedalus77uk , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
    Yes, yes, Thomas. But one click on your name reveals an approach to these elections which about as unbiased against Clinton as Comley's - it's pretty clear who you want to win.

    Among other things, if Trump wins, though, there will be war in Europe within 2 years, as Putin grabs the Baltic states and the USA sits back, arms folded - you heard it here first.

    1iJack -> dedalus77uk , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    Europe hates the U.S. and hasn't wanted us in NATO for decades. Goodbye.
    jean2121 -> dedalus77uk , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    You are delusional. It isn quite the contrary that will happen. the war monger is Hillary. what proof do you need?
    caseball -> dedalus77uk , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    If Clinton is elected itll be First Strike using nukes by the US. You heard it here first.
    1iJack , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
    And by electing Trump, we are trying to fuck up all of the people you mention in your article above. We can't completely, but through things like term limits we can make Washington a city full of strangers to them. It is much more difficult to deal with strangers in the "back room" as you can't trust them.

    We need to make Washington as inaccessible to those folks as it is to Main Street America.

    We have to break America for these globalist elites before America will work for Main Street again.

    Because the American oligarchy has now turned globalist, their goals are now contrary to those of the American people, and that's why all Hillary has is empty slogans like "I'll fight for you" while Trump is saying tangible things like "I'll build a wall" and "I'll renegotiate or tear up NAFTA."

    We are done with them, and this is just getting started.

    TonyBlunt -> Raismail , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    Putin runs the only government that puts billionaires in jail. We put them in the House of Lords or let them run our media.
    AlfaBeta73 , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    fantastic ending to a great article:

    "Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out."

    traversecity , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    What's particularly interesting is to contrast the main-chance sleaziness of their internal jockeying with the overwhelming self-righteousness of their pronouncements on public issues. No wonder the voters want revenge.
    martinusher , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    This is just the class system in action. Or did everyone think that the US was a classless society?
    David Dougherty , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
    Of course you are quite correct, the Democratic Party is a fraud for working people and a collection of self serving elitist. If you have a solution to solve why people keep voting for them I would love to hear it.
    mattblack81 -> David Dougherty , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
    I think the point is that all politics is the same, democrat or republican. These people are self serving leeches on the rest of society and they have us thanking them for it......well in the USA they have you mindlessly chanting USA USA USA over and over again but you get my drift.
    hammond , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    It's called globalisation and it's exactly the same in the Uk . neoliberal asset stripping while the citizenry get shafted
    WhitesandsOjibwe -> Longerenong , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    Wikileaks doesn't get 'directed'. It's very likely the leaks are from the inside of the Clinton campaign. They've been very sloppy and not very tech savvy by all accounts.
    Peter Kelly , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    That such a state of affairs exists is no surprise at all, especially as the whole proclaimed basis of society in America is designed to produce it exactly.

    They may couch it in different terms and dress it up to look like 'democracy and freedom', but it is a selfish, greedy stampede where only the lucky or the nasty succeed.

    We are forever told that anyone can achieve the 'American dream', but it is a complete myth. The idea that if everyone just puts in the effort they could all live in limitless luxury is such a false illusion you wonder why it hasn't been buried along with believing the world is flat and the sun is a god.

    Stechris Willgil , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    If you want to understand how American politics works then watch House of Cards on Netflix with Kevin Spacey . A brilliant series .
    Mates Braas , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
    The best democracy money can buy indeed, and they want to export this sham to other countries using bombs.
    BurgermaS -> Mates Braas , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
    no they don't! The freedom and democracy is just bullshot that cons the populace to not see that it's really "nick all your stuff under the threat of violence". They're gangsters. That's all they do.
    unedited , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    The state and big business are corruptly entangled.
    reluctanttorontonian , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    http://usuncut.com/politics/leaked-emails-confirm-clinton-campaign-worked-bloggers-smear-bernie-sanders /
    Freemoneyforeveryone , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    Seriously? Your story is powerful people associate with each other and do each other favours? Absent a pure dictatorship, that's how power works. Even then, I happen to know you're inferring too much design in some of the events you describe.
    Mates Braas -> Freemoneyforeveryone , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    Don't you find it strange for corporations to be selecting a cabinet?
    FattMatt , 31 Oct 2016 12:2

    This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else.

    All classes use nepotism to some degree.

    Elephantmoth , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    We all know how people in power act in their own interests and that goes for both Parties, not only the one singled out in this article.
    What is less clear is how all this hysteria about personalities makes any difference to ordinary people whose interests have been entirely sidelined in this election circus. Where is the discussion about how Americans can get affordable healthcare, or a job that pays more than the minimum, or how to respond to climate change, for instance?
    Nada89 , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    The US presidential race signifies the way the political process has become irrevocably debased.
    The e-mails merely highlight the cynicism of politicians who long ago ceded power to the financial and corporate world.

    Politicians don't really understand the complexities of finance, in the same way they are unable to fathom the Middle east, or even what life has become like for huge swathes of the American population. At the same time politicians have long ceased to be the engine of social progress, in fact more often than not their policies are more likely to do great harm rather than good.

    If anybody is surprised by the general tenor of these e-mails I assume they must have been the sort of children who were heartbroken when one day their parents gently sat them down to break it to them that Santa was actually Daddy in an oversized red suit.

    TheFireRises , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
    And they wonder why Trump is doing so well, Dirty Media, Dirty Government.
    antipodes , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
    " The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present in this amazing body of work: financial innovators. High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving children. Foundation executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course, and high academic achievement."

    I am sure the people of Syria and Libya are grateful to these amazing people for destroying their countries and stealing their resources.

    keynsean , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
    Just look over here as former politicians get on the gravy train as they lose their seats or retire. As for the Eton alumni - closer than the mafia ....
    pleasevotegordonout , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
    Yes ...just look at thsi stunning revent incisive Guardian journam=lism that has helped break this open

    "But if she wins, what an added bonus that, as the first woman to enter the White House, she will also step through the door as by far the most qualified and experienced arrival there for generations."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/09/demonise-hillary-clinton-careful-us-president


    "This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest"

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson


    "The Guardian view on the FBI's Clinton probe: exactly the wrong thing to do"

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/30/the-guardian-view-on-the-fbis-clinton-probe-exactly-the-wrong-thing-to-do

    Chuckman , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
    "Forget the FBI cache; the Podesta emails show how America is run"

    First, no, no one in his right mind should forget the FBI cache which very likely contains evidence of serious crimes by Clinton.

    At the very least, they can prove she did not comply with subpoenas and destroyed evidence and lied to the FBI.

    Second, yes, the Podesta e-mails do show us something of how America is run, but the picture is far from complete.

    We've not had a enough look into the Clinton Foundation and its intertwining with the affairs of a very senior official and the President himself.

    One very much suspects Hillary of playing "pay for play" with foreign governments, much the kind of corruption the US loves to accuse less-developed countries of.

    After all, when the Clintons were in the White House, fund-raising gimmicks reached unprecedented levels. President Bill came up with the offer of a sleep-over in the Lincoln Bedroom for rich supporters who coughed up a $250,000 campaign contribution.

    There are many indications, but no hard proof, of just how corrupt this foundation is. One analyst who has spent some time studying it has called it a huge criminal scheme.

    Let's not forget that Julian Assange, the man who gave us the Podesta material, has promised revelations "which could put Hillary in jail" before the election.

    Frogdoofus -> FattMatt , 31 Oct 2016 12:5
    It's more a country club. If you're in, you're in. If you're out, you're out. Most people are out and will stay that way forever.
    Wolly74 -> Chelli , 31 Oct 2016 12:5

    The cost of democracy is corruption.

    And that's different from autocracy or dictatorship how exactly?

    Williamthewriter -> Chelli , 31 Oct 2016 13:0
    You're right of course. All of politics is about doing favors for people high and low, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. In the entire article the one real scandalous thing is that it quotes from hacked personal emails that no on but those who wrote them have a right to see.
    LeCochon -> Chelli , 31 Oct 2016 13:0
    It depends. Hardcore technical knowledge can put you above the technically illiterate lawyers, economists and journalists of the political class.
    keepithuman , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    If anyone thinks that the immediate solution to not backing this type of behavior from one of the major political parties is to elect a huckster riding the wave of righteous revulsion to all of this, then they deserve everything that they will get when said huckster gets to the pinnacle of power.

    The solution does not lie with the other major political party either, boy would I love to see a release of emails detailing how that organization is run. It is already in collapse due to the eroding corruption resulting in downright robbery of the people, and on-going bigotry and constant war-mongering to rob the world of its assets.

    Nothing will happen to change any of this unless a realistic third party based on true service to the people of this country gains national acceptance. The best thing that could come from these emails and the fracturing of the Republican party would be that all disillusioned and disgruntled citizens unite to form this third party. This will take the emergence of some genuine, selfless leadership, but I have hopes that this can and will happen.

    Otherwise, the future is not rosy, and one day we may look back at this hateful campaign with nostalgia.

    Flagella , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    We have our own elite clubs in this country some of which have been here for centuries. All members regardless of Party are connected through elite school networks and by of course the class system which is copper fastened to keep the great unwashed out. Corruption, nepotism and cronyism are all present here too even if concealed by the veil of respectability and having the right postcode. From the comfort of their clubs, their marble homes and granite banks they rob the people of Britain and the world.
    Isaac_Blunt -> Flagella , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    LOL. Not at all paranoid then...
    QuebecCityOliver -> Flagella , 31 Oct 2016 12:5
    Yes. I am sure that explains John Major very well.

    Gordon Brown does not fit the mould , either.

    Talent can make it through more easily in the UK than the USA. That is simply a fact.

    Wolly74 -> Isaac_Blunt , 31 Oct 2016 12:5
    As they say 'Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean etc. etc.....'
    DoctorWibble , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    I'd recommend reading "The Unwinding - An Inner History of the new America" by George Packer who dissects this very well via potted biographies of several real people. The book also covers it's opposite - the rising unemployment, de-industrialisation, repossessions and other themes. A very useful background for understanding this election and whatever comes after. And a good read too which can't always be said about such books.
    jazzfan19605 , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    Trump supporters say that Trump is not a politician or part of the Washington "establishment" but he has built his empire by buying politicians for years. His flock is so fooled.
    ThaddeusTheBold , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    As someone who started in poverty and rose to do well through lots of hard work and lots of good luck, the "revelation" that this country is controlled by a smug elite is not news. I may be liberal but I have no illusions about the elitism and exclusionism that ruling cadres always exhibit. And if I could achieve one thing, politically, in this lifetime it would be to break the back of privilege in this country and on this planet forever, and make true meritocracy -- not cronyism, not nepotism, not herdeitary wealth and power -- the ONLY determinant of success.
    LeCochon -> ThaddeusTheBold , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
    Then setup/ join a grassroots party.
    I would like to see a pan-European, non-ideological party which will focus on getting people out of the debt economy into economic and financial freedom. The price of housing and transportation and education needs to be addressed. There needs to be less government, fewer MPs and more room for people who create value and employment. There is a lot of innovation out there online for example, but the mass of people are not being exposed to these options. A
    gjjwatson , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    This is how the rich, powerful and landed interest in all societies work. Constitutional democracy was supposed to counter it`s worst excesses.
    Voters everywhere understand how their governments have been subverted and that is why politicians are mistrusted.
    QuebecCityOliver -> LesterUK , 31 Oct 2016 13:0
    I was confused by your spelling for a second - David Icke.

    One theory states that society would have had to crate a similar model if Icke hadn't provided us with one. It is also, probably, better to blame alien overlords to human ones.

    Rainsborow , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    This is a pretty tame assessment. The more I see about HRC (who I once respected, not that long ago) the more angry and saddened I feel. The Dems have lost their connection with the people they were meant to represent. What's left is a pretty ugly, self-righteous and corrupt crowd. Their attacks on Comey have been despicable, beneath contempt and absurd. I think they're going to lose and they will deserve to.
    Andrius Ledas , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
    The funniest thing about the comments of this article is the people who claim that electing Trump will be different somehow. Trump will demolish the system, Trump will shake things up! Please! Trump IS a part of this system, a system that has two clubs, A and B. Each club has its interests and each club wants to elect a figure that would represent its interests. Moreover, clubs A and B really work together, they are two groups of shareholders that are sometimes in disagreement in the distribution of profit, but at the bottom line they are working for the same goal, the enrichment of themselves and their associates. You have to be very naive to believe that POTUS, a mere public relations figure, would be allowed to make any significiant executive decisions in this company. That's not what a public relations officer does. The real decisions are with the executives of the club, and they are not elected, they are admitted into the club. The real question, however, is if it can be otherwise, if it has ever been otherwise, can we conceive of a system that would be different. This should be the concern of all political experts, scientists and journalists.
    CanWeNotKnockIt -> Andrius Ledas , 31 Oct 2016 12:5
    Yeah but he's going to build a wall, lock her up, tear up trade agreements with the neighbours, bar Muslims from coming to the USA, create millions of well-paid jobs, open up loads of coal mines, have a trade war with China, end lobbying, establish limited terms (if only a president could have a third term) and sue umpteen women for alleging sexual assault.
    Vidarr -> tobyjosh , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
    "Just a bunch of expensive suits deciding on what's best for the world (and themselves)"

    That's the wrong emphasis based on the points made in this article; surely it is "Just a bunch of expensive suits deciding on what's best for the themselves (and the world)".

    Alun Jones , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
    Time to Drain the Swamp
    hadeze242 , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
    sanders said it and trump, an insider of independent means, are both right about the Clinton duo's sleazy corruption. thank you Wikileaks, thank you perv Weiner, thank you Huma for sharing (one of your) computers with your sex-fiend husband. thank you for sharing your total honesty and high morality, all deserving that we citizens pay your pensions and salaries.
    Akkarrin , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
    Its taken a while but i think I've decided. I genuinely want Clinton to lose, i think Trump will be a disastrous president and the worst in history by far, and worse then Clinton.

    That said Clinton and the DNC deserve to lose for the horrific way they treated Sanders in the nomination to see Clinton crowned the candidate... she does not deserve to win and i cannot face that smug arrogant speech which will come if she does much less the next 4-8 years.

    supercool , 31 Oct 2016 13:2
    Lobbying, influence then a thin line to break into corruption and the system being run for the selfish interest of the tiny few against the majority. The US is no exception to this, it is just done more subtly with a smokescreen and sleight of hand.
    AkwaIbom999 , 31 Oct 2016 13:2
    I'm not sure where the "news" is in this piece. The same rules of engagement apply during Republican administrations. The same rules of engagement apply in every administration in every country in every part of our benighted World .... and, sadly, always have done. The only response to the article that I can think of is that eternally useful Americanism ... "No s**t Sherlock."
    stevecammack , 31 Oct 2016 13:2
    it is the elite - both right and left wing who have accumulated all the power, know each other very well and have one aim in life - to retain the power and priviledge for themselves, their families and their peers - whether that is by social class, university, religion and yes race. Bitter - you bet people are bitter - ignorant people who don't see they are all much of the same. It's all about the power and the money that they have, you don't and you don't seem to care. Actually you probably do have right power, money, class and race hence the pathetically flippant comment.
    HarryArs -> stevecammack , 31 Oct 2016 13:5
    There is no left wing in power in DC. It would be apt to say "the right wing and the far right wing".
    gondwanaboy -> CanWeNotKnockIt , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
    Well he's already aware of media bias and that a Deep State exists quietly in the background so it will be interesting to see what happens after the election.
    mattb1 , 31 Oct 2016 13:2
    This is old news. Anyone who knows The Golden Rule can tell you those with the gold make the rules.
    Phil Butler , 31 Oct 2016 13:2
    Brilliant. Absolutely and positively the best piece on the subject I have read. As an American, once a cable installer who visited all the cliche homes of social-strata USA, I find a ray of hope ij what you write. It is a hope that Americans will just admit the unbelievable folly of Hillary Clinton as a choice for dog catcher, much less Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. For God's sake, or the sake of Howard Hughes even, this group would nuke Idaho for not approving of a transexual-animal wedding ceremony, let along disagreeing on healthcare. You have framed and illuminated a portrait of the macabre aristocracy now in charge. I hope more people read this.
    smaguidhir , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
    Ok, new line, US Military coup 2017!!

    Neither of the two main political parties have a candidate worth anyone's time. The choice is between a sexual predator and a serial liar to see who will lead the richest most powerful country on the face of the earth and these two are what the parties have puked up for us to choose between. I cant imagine a general or admiral sitting in front of either of these two specimens and thinking themselves proud to be led by them.

    This entire cycle is a disgrace, vote for Hillary, impeach her in a year stick Kaine in as a caretaker and then have a proper election in 2020, its the only sane way out of this disaster.

    Phil429 -> smaguidhir , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
    There's no such thing as a military solution. A coup to dethrone the power, sure, but let's hope for one that's effective.
    Orr George -> smaguidhir , 31 Oct 2016 13:5
    "Sexual predator", really? You mean like Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton, 2 men with RAPE accusations following them around for decades? All Trump did was kiss women in show biz and beauty contests, and they LET him. I guess you never saw Richard Dawson on Family Feud?
    SlumVictim , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
    You know damn well, people who get to the top in so called western capitalist representative democracy, only represent themselves. The very idea they care about the people in general is totally demolished by observing the evidence, how countries function and where the money flows to and where from.

    The people are no better than domesticated cattle being led out to graze and brought back in the evening to be milked. Marx was right when he talked about wage slavery. The slavers are those in the legislatures of the west.

    MereMortal , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
    I really like Thomas Frank, author of the brilliant Pity the Billionaire.
    I can't help feeling here that he's really softballed the the US elite (the Democrats in this case) by only mildly calling them on their epic corruption.
    If seen from Main street, is it any wonder the US electorate have in their millions turned aournd and said "no, you're not going to ensnare us again with your bullshit promises because you want our vote, you are the problem and we're going to kick YOU out"
    I mean how many times can they hope to fool the electorate with bought and paid for contestants, all the while with the media having their back. When the media is as corrupt and 'owned' as the US mainstream media, people look elsewhere and there they find voices that are far far more critical of what their awful rulers get up to.
    Embracist -> MereMortal , 31 Oct 2016 13:4
    Trump and Clinton have been friends for years. So the electorate is fooled once again. Every time the public start to get wind of what's going on, the establishment just adds another layer to the onion. By the time the hoi polloi catch up, they've siphoned tens of billions, hundreds of billions for themselves, and created all new distractions and onion layers for the next election. People are undeniably stupid.
    Mauryan , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
    This confirms the existence of a shadow government, made up of rich and powerful industrialists and bankers who control the way elections results turn out, so that they can help themselves. From their standpoint, Trump will be a wart in their rear end, because he basically lacks the sophistication needed to hide excretion under the carpet and walk over it smiling. He is already full of it and therefore is of no use to them. They did not expect him to come this far. There is a first time surprise for everything. They did not expect Sanders to gain momentum either. But they managed to contain it, phew! Now with Clinton, they can continue with their merry ways, earning billions more, settings fires across the globe and making more profits out them. It is not just the Democratic party that is full of stench. It includes the other party as well. Right wing and left wing belong to the same bird. All the campaign for voting, right to vote, participate etc. are just window wash. American democracy is buried deep in the Arlington cemetery. What runs now is Plutocracy, whose roots have cracked through the foundations and pillars of this country. Either a bloody revolution will happen one day soon or America will go the way of Brazil.
    pretendname , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
    It's puzzling really

    The US public are pretty happy generally with extra-judicial killing (we call that murder in the UK, remember this for later on in the post), seems little concern about the on-record comments of Clinton regarding Libya.

    In fact the on-record comments of Clinton generally, that doesn't even involve hacked email accounts, are absolutely damning to most Europeans.

    However.. here in the UK what passes for satire comedy TV shows have rigorously stuck to the line Trump is an idiot, Clinton is a democrat.
    I can understand their fascination with Trump.. he's an easy target.. but nobody in the UK media seems to have the balls to call out the fact that Clinton is neck deep in 'extra judicial killing', which I find odd.. More importantly I find this to be an absolutely damning indictment of British media. This organ not withstanding.

    David Prince , 31 Oct 2016 13:4
    Interesting, but this just tells of the usual cronyism and nepotism; unedifying as it is. We see very little here though of her true masters; i.e. Goldman Sachs; or more specifically the people who own GS who are Hiliary's puppet masters. I would be more worried about Hiliarys ambition apparently to push for a conflict with Russia; a conflict that serves the Military industrial complex and the bankers that own it. DT may be a Narcicist but as Michael Moore says; "the enemy of my enemy....."
    BillFromBoston , 31 Oct 2016 14:0
    To be more precise these emails show how the US is run under the DEMOCRAT Party.
    Murdoch Mactaggart -> BillFromBoston , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
    These particular emails do, yes. You'd find exactly the same models were an equivalent lot released involving Reince Priebus or his ilk.
    seanwiddowson -> BillFromBoston , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
    As a Brit, I'd like to ask if the Republican Party is any different. I very much doubt it.
    ID9552055 , 31 Oct 2016 14:1

    It's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have XYZ's email address – you're out.

    Great article that makes you think as a reader. For instance, though more ethical, it makes you wonder how things are different in the BBC or The Guardian, or NYT, or other powerful organisations. How far does merit count, how far does having the right background, how far not rocking the boat?
    Hopefully the article will inspire others to look into the leaderships of American politics where "everything blurs into everything in this world'.

    W.R. Garvey , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
    The most shocking emails to me were the ones that revealed the Democratic Party had a substantial role in creating and organizing groups like Catholics United, with the intent of using them to try to liberalize the Catholic Church on issues like abortion and same sex marriage.

    The same people who (rightly) cried foul over GW Bush crossing the church/state divide apparently had no problem doing the same thing when it suited their agenda. I tend to vote Democratic, but I don't know if I can continue to do that in the future. This kind of thing should not be happening in America.

    SuSucat , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
    Sounds a bit like Italy to me or nearer to home Blair's cool Britannia.
    deFigueira , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
    With a constitution like that of the US, with its establishment parties sharing a bought and sold executive evey few years, and in the absence of representative parliamentary democracy, the psuedo macarthyist insinuations of this article are as civilized as it can get.
    KendoNagasaki , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
    An interesting article, offering snippets of the emails that have been released, all of which confirms two things, it seems to me:

    First, that the world operates as we might have suspected it to. In the control of, and in the interests of rich cliques.

    Second, that we are on the whole apathetic to our predicament.

    Mark Sutcliffe , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599
    "And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging."

    And there is the thinking of the elite rolled into a few sentences.

    ImaHack -> Mark Sutcliffe , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
    http://www.snopes.com/clinton-compliant-citizenry /

    "Former National Endowment for the Arts chairman Bill Ivey says a leaked e-mail to Clinton deputy John Podesta did not reveal a 'master plan' for maintaining political power via 'an unaware and compliant citizenry.'"

    BoomerLefty , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
    One might think that after reading this article, that a liberal/progressive like me would hate the Democratic Party and all of the elites in it. Well, you would be right (no pun intended), but the folks that I really despise are on the GOP side of the equation.

    My animosity begins with Eisenhower, who turned the Dulles brother lose on the world to start so many of the fires that still rage today. Then came Nixon, with his "southern strategy", to turn the hate and racism that existed in America since its founding into a political philosophy that only an ignorant, half-assed Hollywood actor could fully weaponize. Then there was GWB who threw jet fuel onto the still smoldering ashes left from the Dulles boys.

    (And if you think you can throw LBJ back at me, consider that he saw no way out of Vietnam simply because he knew the right was accuse him of being soft on communism - and so the big fool pushed ever deeper into the Big Muddy.)

    And the toxic fumes from those blazes then drifted over Donald J Trump and his fellow 16 clown car occupants - all trying to out-hate each other.

    There is simply no alternative to the Democratic Party because the GOP represents hate, misogyny, racism, and the zombie legions that catered to the corporatocracy and the Christian right. It was such a winning strategy that the Democratic Party created the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) - led by the likes of the Clinton's who out-repug'd the Repugnants, and stole their corporate lunches. And this is what we have left (no pun intended).

    It sucks!

    pierrependre , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
    First, Frank misunderstood Kansas. Now he says he was blind to the reality of the Democratic party until the Podesta emails enlightened him. He's right though that the Democrats are never out of power whether they win or lose elections (although it's always more convenient to win them, even with a Clinton and the knowledge that he or she means nasty baggage to come). Republicans have a lock on country clubs; Dems have a lock on government.
    Nobby Barnes -> pierrependre , 31 Oct 2016 15:2
    i understand that the republicans make up most of the governor positions as well as state houses plus the fed. senate and congress...that is why america is now a banana republic [re: see the fbi interference] and is why america is now an embarassment...run as it is by the republican duck dynasty intellectual class. stay tuned as fascism follows. please don't stand close to me...you're an american and embarrassing....
    guardiansek , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
    Trust me, middle and lower-class people also try to let eachother know that their kids need a job, and can you help out. And I don't mind the bank exec promoting the dinner of locally grown/caught produce with the tastesful wine pairing. Certainly pretty twee, but otherwise pretty normal.

    What should be concentrated on is the amount of "OMG, they are complaining about billionaires!" whining in these emails, and the amount of manipulative news cycle management and duplicitous skullduggery that takes place.

    And how about a law that prevents the Clintons from even stepping on Martha's Vineyard for at least 4-5 years?

    In all, a somewhat depressing but predictable confirmation that the Democratic party has embraced the donor class to the extent that the donors are now the party's true constituents.

    RichWoods -> guardiansek , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
    Just like New Labour. It's not very cheering.
    SmartestRs , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
    A self-interested, self-promoting, self-protecting "Elite" seeks to control and dominate. Clinton is clearly integral to this abhorrent system. The USA is in desperate need of change yet the political system is the antidote to any change. Trump is not the answer. Americans should be very worried.
    TinTininAmerica -> SmartestRs , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
    The only benefit to Trump winning is that both parties will be blown up and recreated with new, fresh faces - and Trump will be impeached within months.
    David Von Steiner -> SmartestRs , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
    Why isn't Trump the answer? No one can give me a valid rational reason. He is one of the few who has shone light on the Swamp and is bringing the woke corrupt world down.
    Nobby Barnes -> SmartestRs , 31 Oct 2016 15:0
    that elite you speak of happen to be your fellow americans and live on your street..unless of course you live in a trailer park..in which case stop your whining and get yourself an education and a better job instead of spending all your time watching wrestling and celebrity apprentice and moaning about the elite...i notice trump hired his stupid kids instead of cracker jack executives...i guess thats some of the nepotism you're crying about....ya rube.
    David Von Steiner -> John Star , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
    Trump is different though. He socialized in these environments...the politicians...use hit him up for donations....gossip too him about the goings on even try and sleep with him .
    Trump does not drink so at these events he probably heard unlimited stories maybe even Bill Clinton bragged to him.
    For what ever reason he wants to bring
    This scum down. Maybe they disgust him like they disgust us?
    Dean Alexander , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
    If the current rumours are true, HC is in it up to her neck.
    helenamcg , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
    'This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, ' I ss written as evidence of nepotism. But there is no mention of whether or not these requests were successful. Nepotism requires that the person requesting the favour is granted it.
    WallyWombat , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
    Indeed, how could the Clintons go from "effectively broke" in 2001 to $140 million in 2007, and $200 million in 2015?
    pretzelattack -> MontyJohnston , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
    lol no she doesn't. she doesnt want single payer, neither did obama. she doesnt want a liberal supreme court. she doesn't want the minimum wage raised to 15. she may support race gender lbgt "fairness" as long as it is to her political advantage. but when it isn't, she will throw anybody under the bus.
    makeinstall , 31 Oct 2016 14:3

    "Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another's careers, constantly."

    As long as that class division exists, nothing will ever change, and that class will never relinquish that division of their own accord.

    hush632 , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
    There appears to be an illusion to influencing the events that unfold, rather than responding to events. Conspiracy theorists may go knuts.
    Mafevema , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
    How different is this from anywhere else on the planet? There will always be " elites" composed of well connected and/or powerful and/ or wealthy and/or famous people.

    I have a good job in a good firm and i am inundated by emails from clients or their friends trying to place their offspring. I decline politely, blame HR and PC, express my sincerest regrets and delete.

    As for wealthy and powerful people enjoying holidays in the company of other wealthy and powerful people, so what? I spend my holiday with my friends and my friends tend to have the same professional middle class background and outlook.

    What's new?

    uponthehill -> LuckyBob , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
    She should have said ."You guys are a bunch of cowardly, greedy, malformed humans. You are the cream of everything wrong with society today.. And the worse of it all is,. you know it too. I can smell it in this very room."
    That's what!
    whiteblob -> LuckyBob , 31 Oct 2016 14:4

    Democratic government can save us from Hell.

    democracy should be about voting for the candidate you want to win, not who don't want to win!

    judyblue -> LuckyBob , 31 Oct 2016 15:1

    If we followed the likes of Frank Democrats would be out of power for ever.

    No, these Democrats would merely be members of the Republican Party, honestly declaring that the people with money make the rules to benefit themselves. What's the moral point of being in power if you have to be just as bad as the opposing party in order to stay in power?
    David Von Steiner , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
    I use work in these circles and the soul crushing thing is that elites look out for themselves and their careers and have no real personality, morals, values, character, backbone and certainly no interest in the people. They have personalities of wet fish and are generally cowardice and an embarrassment to mankind. In sort a waste of space
    judyblue -> David Von Steiner , 31 Oct 2016 15:1
    You used to work in these circles? Not proof-reading their correspondence, I hope.
    Shane Johns , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
    A meritocracy wouldn't have such hob-nobbing going on for positions of power. There'd be no reason to ask for special consideration for 'Johnny' -- since he would already have risen to the top based on his own MERIT. So I don't understand why this author keeps insisting that this is a meritocracy when the evidence is so clearly and so obviously the opposite.
    judyblue -> Shane Johns , 31 Oct 2016 15:1

    So I don't understand why this author keeps insisting that this is a meritocracy when the evidence is so clearly and so obviously the opposite.

    I think you missed the author's irony.
    SeanThorp , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
    Once upon a time these emails would have been front and centre of Guardian reporting, headline news and leader columns, now a single opinion article tucked away from the front page. Truly the gatekeepers have lost just as much credibility as the political class that they shill for.
    Ambricourt , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
    A secret "deep state" operated by a cabal of families? -Lizards on Martha's Vineyard? Is David Icke right, after all?
    muttley79 -> Ambricourt , 31 Oct 2016 16:2
    It is well known that there is a deep state operating in America, if you want to learn something instead of sneering and being ignorant, you could do worse than reading books such as these:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/American-Deep-State-Democracy-Library/dp/1442214244/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477931018&sr=1-1&keywords=the+american+deep+state

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Deep-State-Mike-Lofgren/dp/0143109936/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477931051&sr=1-3&keywords=the+american+deep+state

    MacSpeaker , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
    Shocking. And nothing like the bonhomie shared betwen Oxbridge, The City and No. 10, I suppose?
    judyblue -> MacSpeaker , 31 Oct 2016 15:0
    This is happening in America, which has always claimed that there are no classes here and everything is done according to merit. So, yes, it's exactly like the triad you mention and it is the more offensive for occurring in a country that expressly repudiates it.
    DavidTheDude -> judyblue , 31 Oct 2016 15:1
    No classes in America? In a country that was built on the back of slavery and segregation?

    Please give your head a shake.

    DrChris , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
    That article adds up to zero, it does not tell us anything. There are people with networks, and people promote other people they know. Nothing peculiar about this, it works like this in every walk of life. By and large people with high stakes will choose other people who they know can get very hard jobs done, otherwise their project becomes a failure. Can other talented people break into these networks? They can and they do.
    pretzelattack -> DrChris , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
    they're so talented, it only took 9 emails for huma to explain to clinton how a fax machine worked.
    pretzelattack -> Nobby Barnes , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
    he's pretty powerful yes. he just runs interference for clinton controlled foundations as far as i know, but i'm sure he will help out the big banks if called upon. your comment reeks of dishonesty.
    meggo56 -> SterlingPound , 31 Oct 2016 15:5
    It's called a "capitalist republic" for a reason.
    KissTheMoai -> meggo56 , 31 Oct 2016 15:5
    Plutocracy is a more fitting term.
    Paul Ryan , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
    The Democrats are as bad if not worse than the Republicans at deceit, manipulation of the media, leaking false information, feeding out a narrative etc..

    Its basically become like an arms race between the 2 parties to win by any means necessary because they are so polarized.

    The system needs to be overhauled and changed because its not fit for the 21st century. The UK political system too needs to modernise because its creaking as well.

    matvox , 31 Oct 2016 15:0
    Frank (What's the matter with Frank? Frank) misses the point. completely. The amazing thing about all these emails is how absolutely squeaky clean Podesta is. How many of us could say the same if our personal emails from the last 10 years were blasted all over the internet?!? Not one -- not one! -- example of intemperate language, of bias, of unchained passions, of immaturity. I'm proud to be his fellow citizen and would gladly let him serve as Chief of Staff again if he so chose. Go Italian-Americans!
    tweenthetropics -> matvox , 31 Oct 2016 15:2
    Do you think he has just one email account?

    It seems that his emails expose 10 years of bias ... don't you get it?

    And why the hyphenated American thing?

    dig4victory , 31 Oct 2016 16:0
    The Democratic Party faces exactly the same problem as the Labour Party in the UK.

    They are both parties which are supposed to represent the interests of the working class and middle class but they have been infiltrated by corrupt right wing groups lining their own pockets and representing the interests of the oligarchy.

    The Labour and Democratic parties need to work together to get these poisonous people out of their organisations before they destroy they destroy them from within.

    shoey000 , 31 Oct 2016 16:1
    This is all fascinating, and disturbing, but sadly, not a surprise.
    It also isn't restricted to the upper echelons of political parties either.

    It is no coincidence we hear the same comedians/pundits/writers on Radio Four every week.
    It is no coincidence we see the same people on tv.
    It is no coincidence the sons and daughters of sons and daughters of the people who went to certain universities go the same universities.
    It is no coincidence certain arts grants go to a certain group of people a lot more than they go to others.
    It is no coincidence that European grants go to the same small groups of people running organisations.
    I'll wager it is no coincidence at the Guardian certain people get work experience and internships.
    Its the way the world works, and it stinks.

    ACloud , 31 Oct 2016 16:1
    Great essay. It is hard to get all the thoughts about the elite into words when so much anger and confusion exist now that all lines have blurred. No longer left and right, but top to bottom. Whereas the world is mostly very grey for the bulk of us, these emails shed a light very clearly on what is black and white and green all over for a few who are really in control. This election has certainly pulled back the curtain and left everyone exposed. For so long Americans could pretend there was virtue and dignity in the "democratic" foundation of our politics, but now with absolute certainly we can see that it is not so and likely never was. No pretending anymore.
    muttley79 , 31 Oct 2016 16:1
    The class to which I refer is not rising in angry protest; they are by and large pretty satisfied, pretty contented. Nobody takes road trips to exotic West Virginia to see what the members of this class looks like or how they live; on the contrary, they are the ones for whom such stories are written. This bunch doesn't have to make do with a comb-over TV mountebank for a leader; for this class, the choices are always pretty good, and this year they happen to be excellent.

    They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.

    This is a good point. A lot of people who torpedoed Bernie Sanders' campaign against Hillary Clinton in the primaries seem to be comfortable with little or no political change. They do not seem willing to admit that the political and economic system in the US (and elsewhere) is fundamentally broken, and effectively is in ruins.

    B

    JimHarrison -> redwhine , 31 Oct 2016 17:1

    You' re saying that one bad effect of hacks is that email security will be improved and it will be harder to have secure communications. In effect, you hate the idea that the NSA can read our emails, but you're worried that the Russians won't be able to. Personally, I don't want either the government or Wikileaks to invade my privacy. You apparently think that data theft is OK as long as Julian Assange does it.
    julianps , 31 Oct 2016 16:1

    Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy.

    As in, there's a merit to being in the clique.
    akacentimetre -> Kevin Skilling , 31 Oct 2016 17:1
    That's an ahistorical understanding of the party. Yes, in the runup to the Civil War, the 'Democratic' party was the party of proto-white supremacists, slave owners, and agriculturalists. But the party system as it exists today with its alignment of Dems = liberal and Republicans = conservative came into being around/after 1968. Claiming that today's 'Democrats' voted against slavery is like claiming that today's 'Republicans' are worthy of being lauded for being abolitionists - which would be high hypocrisy given their habits of racism and black voter suppression.
    sblejo , 31 Oct 2016 16:2
    Righteousness and majesty...They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.

    Exactly what Bernie Sanders was against, just think what 'could' have happened if he were the nominee. The question is when will the email explicitly showing Clinton undermining him come out? Hillary deserves every bit of what is coming out against her, she asked for it, she wants the power and celebrity, but it comes with some pretty ugly stuff. As Mr. Sanders said, she is very 'ambitious', an understatement. If nothing comes out to prove her malice against Mr. Sanders, I will always be convinced it is there somewhere. Now because of what the Democrats did against him that was proven and oh by the way 'the Russians did it', we have her running neck and neck with Trump. They asked for it, they got it.

    MarkusKraut , 31 Oct 2016 16:3
    This is so depressing.

    Why is it that literally all Western democracies have developed totally incapable and immoral political elites at the same time who seem to be lacking any kind of ethical compass?

    It is blatantly obvious in the USA where both candidates are almost equally abysmal, but for different reasons. But the same is also true in Germany, Great Britain, France and most other Western countries I can judge on. How did that happen? Where are the politicians who are doing the job for other reasons than self-fulfillment and ideology?

    Trump, Clinton, May, Johnson, Farage, Hollande, Sarkozy, Le Pen, Merkel, Gabriel, Petry ... and the rest are all product of a political system that is in a deep crisis. And this comes from someone who has always and will always believe in democracy as such. But how can we finally get better representatives of our political system again?

    cyrilnorth -> MarkusKraut , 31 Oct 2016 16:4
    "all western democracies" are NOT democracies, but plutocracies
    Fitzoid -> MarkusKraut , 31 Oct 2016 16:4
    You can't put Corbyn in that group but look at the stick he gets. How dare he try and represent people when he's not part of the elite!
    Kevin Skilling -> MarkusKraut , 31 Oct 2016 17:0
    Start holding them to account for the lies they tell in a court of law, if they are running campaigns on bullshit, make them own it...
    gloriousrevolution , 31 Oct 2016 16:3
    What the writer is describing and what the e-mails reveal, is, for anyone with half a brain not too dumbed down by partisanship; is the structure of a system that isn't democracy at all, but clearly an oligarchy. The super-rich rule and the rest are occasionaly alowed to vote for a candidate chosen by the rich, giving the illusion of democracy.
    NarniScalo -> gloriousrevolution , 31 Oct 2016 16:5
    Yup, that about sums it up. Yet in the case the choice is truly awful.

    And whilst we are here let's remember that the European Parliament is very democratic. The US system or the UK System would never allow so many nut jobs from UKIP, FN, Lega Nord and various other facists have a voice. The EU parliament is very representative.

    ID8737013 , 31 Oct 2016 16:4
    Good read. Money is like manure and if you spread it around it does a lot of good. But if you pile it up in one place, like Silicon Valley or the banks, eventually it will smell pretty bad and attract a lot of flies, like the one that seems attracted to Hillary.
    Ubermensch1 , 31 Oct 2016 16:4
    You get some idea of just how batty the US electoral campaign system is when you consider that John Podesta is the guy who has hinted at 'exposing' the US government 'cover up' of UFOs...and even got Hillary Clinton making statements about looking into Area 51. Well, that's the vote of all the multitude of conspiracy loons nicely in the bag -- It only shows just how desperate the campaigns are.
    ev2rob , 31 Oct 2016 17:1
    world history has always provided that the wealthy look after themselves. What's new? Here, both American candidates are wealthy. But Clinton appears to want to look after others and other will look at and after her. I'm not sure what Trump can look after, perhaps his business dealings and bankruptcy triumphs, and lawsuits. Perhaps America is going through a new type of revolution, generational and the massive entry of the post-industrial age in America. How many Americans are screaming for the past, while at least one U.S. automakers shifts some of their factories to Mexico - e.g., Chrysler.
    occamslaser , 31 Oct 2016 17:2
    We get the candidates we deserve, in any so-called democracy. The west worships money and glitz and celebrity, willingly watches "reality" TV, and in general can aspire to nothing better than material superiority over the neighbours. The U.S., with its pathetic "American Dream," is the most egregious victim of its own obsessions. Bernie Sanders, who in Canada, Britain, or western Europe would be considered centrist, is vilified as a raving socialist. Genuinely well-disposed people with a more humane alternative political vision lack the necessary millions to gain public attention. And so one is left with Business-as-Usual Hillary Clinton (mendacious elitist one-percenter) or the duplicitous demagogue Donald Trump (mendacious vulgar one-percenter).

    The internet should be a democratic forum for intelligent discussion of alternatives but has become largely the province of trolls and wingnuts. We should be able to do better.

    ID1726608 , 31 Oct 2016 17:2
    I'm with MarkusKraut; not because of what the e-mails have discovered - I suspect we all suspected this kind of machinery from BOTH parties - but because their discovery is entirely one-sided.
    What does it prove? That the Republicans are any better? Or that Don is any more qualified to be president than he was two weeks ago?

    No. It proves one thing, and one thing only - that Republicans keep secrets better than Dems do. At least the important ones.

    And I say that as someone who was a security administrator for ten years. And I can guarantee you one thing (and one thing only): The Russians would NOT have got past any e-mail server that I built.

    My worry is now not who gets elected - this was always a ship of fools - or who's to blame (although I'm sure we'll be told in the first "hundred days"), but what it means for democracy.
    And don't worry, I'm not going to try to equate democracy with Hillary (although I still support her); but about secrecy .

    E-mail has always been the most likely medium to be cracked (the correct term for illegal hacking), and secrecy is anathema to democracy - always was, and always will be.
    And having been caught with their pants down, I'd like to see the Democratic party, win or lose this election, to say that ALL future e-mails will be a matter of public record. And challenge the GOP to do the same.

    Unfortunately, it'll simply be viewed as a failure of security that any administrator like me could tell you is almost impossible, and they'll simply buy better servers for 2020.

    oldworldwisdom , 31 Oct 2016 17:2
    How America is run? More like how the world has been hijacked by the oligarchs.
    Matt Wood , 31 Oct 2016 17:2
    For the 1% by the 1%?
    Soleprop , 31 Oct 2016 17:2
    I've never felt any of the mail to be particularly surprising, but merely a demonstration of what a NeoLiberal society, run by money, looks like at a more granular level. I won't vote for a Trump, but living in California I can vote Green without having to pull the lever for a Clinton. If California goes Trump, then every other state in the nation will have swirled down the drain with him.
    ElyFrog , 31 Oct 2016 17:3
    In the book 'Who Rules America" written by William Domhoff, first published in 1967, it laid out how the ruling class sits on each others boards of directors, (which he called 'interlocking directorates", inhabits certain think tanks and organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations or political parties, goes to the same clubs, intermarries, and knows one another. I.E. the ruling class is a coherent group of HUMAN BEINGS. People think they are some abstract, nameless wonder. They are not. Podesta's e-mails, as Frank rightly notices, show the Democratic Party elite. Another set will show the Republican Party elite, and how BOTH link to each other.
    piebeansMontrachet , 31 Oct 2016 17:3
    We are talking about the biggest war mongering outfit on the planet. An election. This ship is being driven by assholes no one elected...and as per, walk away with money and knighthoods while the fabric of our society is unravelling. Store water and tinned goods...or good luck on the help line
    MistaSyms , 31 Oct 2016 17:4
    Good comment except for the needless hand-wringing about reading "private" e-mails. The freak show that is the 2016 US general election is yet another clear sign that neo-liberalism is a scam run for and by bankers, corporate CEOs, kooky tech billionaires, corrupt politicians and other wealthy and amoral sociopaths.

    The media has become their propaganda arm and the divide between what people experience and see and what the media tells them is happening grows ever wider. Alternative media outlets (although some of these, such as VICE, are neo-lib shills also) and organisations like WikiLeaks are more important than ever as they still speak truth to power. Even some dissidents and media 'agitators' are coming down on the side of the establishment - I am thinking Snowden, Greenwald and Naomi Klein all of whom have wagged their fingers at Julian Assange for doing a job the media used to do.

    A good rule of thumb that tells you who the establishment worries about is looking at who is repeatedly denounced in the media. Trump, Assange and Putin currently have the powers that be worried because they are giving them the proverbial two fingers (or one finger, depending on which side of the Atlantic you are on) and exposing the rotten framework of lies and corruption that hold the rickety system together. Media darlings like Snowden present no real threat and are tolerated, even celebrated.

    [Nov 04, 2016] Julian Assange Says Trump Wont Be Allowed To Win, Clinton And ISIS Are Funded By The Same Money Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... In my opinion, the biggest thing to come out of these emails is the complete manipulation of the "news". ..."
    Nov 04, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment," said Assange. "Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves."

    He is right, but the same was said about Brexit.

    Cognitive Dissonance -> 1980XLS •Nov 4, 2016 8:10 AM

    It seems the Shadow Government has decided to go full banana republic.

    The sad fact is the vast majority of people simply don't believe this could happen 'here'.

    Joe Davola -> two hoots •Nov 4, 2016 9:09 AM

    In my opinion, the biggest thing to come out of these emails is the complete manipulation of the "news". The only thing I can attribute it to is that the media are just another form of the free-stuff crowd, because it's not as if Hillary offers a shining beacon of ideology. It's easy to write stories when they're written for you, and it appears that you're really smart because you "got the scoop".

    Sure the Saudi angle is quite damning, but for most that's just too deep and difficult to piece together - unless the news breaks it down to simple sound bytes (or an emoji). Heck, without Tyler combing these dumps and lining them up with the overall picture of what was going down at the time, it would be easy to just get swamped in the sheer volume. Much like the "we've printed out 50,000 emails" wasn't intended to help the investigation, it was intended to bog the process down.

    Mike in GA -> I am a Man I am Forty •Nov 4, 2016 8:28 AM

    Trump has pushed back on every issue that the establishment has thrown at him. Wikileaks has helped with their steady drip of revealing emails giving us all a behind-the-scenes look at the everyday thoughts of our "Leaders". The corruption, collusion and outright criminality thus exposed could only have been accomplished by Trump - certainly no establishment Uniparty candidate would so fearlessly take on the daily goring of everyone else's ox.

    Now exposed, this corruption and criminality HAS to be addressed and can only be addressed by an outsider, change-agent president. The opportunity to clean house so substantially does not present itself often and may never again. If properly executed, the halls of power could largely be purged of the criminal class so endemic in the wikileaked emails.

    This is where it gets pretty hairy for Trump, and for America. These criminals, living large, very large, on the taxpayer, will not go silently into the night. They will pull out every stop to stop Trump or at least limit the damage. People will start dying a little faster in DC now.

    Can anyone explain why that 55 y/o Major General, about to get the promotion of his lifetime into the Air Force Missile Command would commit suicide? And why it took 2 months for the AF to rule it a "suicide"? Rumor says he became privy to domestic EMP contingency plans and was unwilling to comply.

    When assassination becomes a tool of the ruling party, the Party has come to town.

    [Nov 04, 2016] the Podesta emails show compete corruption of democratic party

    Notable quotes:
    "... The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. ..."
    Nov 04, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. They are last week's scandal in a year running over with scandals, but in truth their significance goes far beyond mere scandal: they are a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers.

    The class to which I refer is not rising in angry protest; they are by and large pretty satisfied, pretty contented. Nobody takes road trips to exotic West Virginia to see what the members of this class looks like or how they live; on the contrary, they are the ones for whom such stories are written. This bunch doesn't have to make do with a comb-over TV mountebank for a leader; for this class, the choices are always pretty good, and this year they happen to be excellent.

    They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.

    [Nov 04, 2016] New Poll Shows Americans See Media As Much Greater Threat To Election Than Russian Hackers Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... 46 percent of likely voters believe the news media is "the primary threat that might try to change the election results." ..."
    "... Our news is all manipulation of facts, distortions, ommissions and outright lies. All set to serve an official narrative created by some cabal. ..."
    Nov 04, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    These are some pretty damning results for the mainstream media. Not only does the American public see the media as a bigger threat to election results than Russian hackers, it's not even close.

    The Washington Examiner reports:

    Voters fear the media far more than Russian hackers when it comes to tampering with election results.

    According to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll , 46 percent of likely voters believe the news media is "the primary threat that might try to change the election results."

    The national political establishment was the second most-suspected group at 21 percent, and another 13 percent were undecided.

    Foreign interests, including "Russian hackers," ranked fourth with 10 percent and "local political bosses" came in last with 9 percent of likely voters as the main threat to truthful election results.

    Mike Masr Nov 4, 2016 9:14 AM ,
    With all the controversy and scandal on Hillary emerging from Wikileaks and the new FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation this is what Fox News was focused on yesterday; the poll numbers and defending Hillary and slamming Donald J. Trump.

    Fuck the crooked MSM and I am officially vowing to become a dedicated RT viewer. Our news is all manipulation of facts, distortions, ommissions and outright lies. All set to serve an official narrative created by some cabal. Fuck them all!!!

    Just look at this partial list of major Clinton donors below. Fuck Hillary she deserves to be in jail not running for president!

    The list of donors to the Clinton campaign includes many of the most powerful media institutions in the country - among the donors:

    • Comcast (which owns NBC, and its cable sister channels, such as MSNBC);
    • James Murdoch of News Corporation (owner of Fox News and its sister stations, among many other media holdings);
    • Time Warner (CNN, HBO, scores of other channels);
    • Bloomberg;
    • Reuters;
    • Viacom;
    • Howard Stringer (of CBS News);
    • AOL (owner of Huffington Post);
    • Google;
    • Twitter;
    • The Washington Post Company;
    • George Stephanopoulos (host of ABC News' flagship Sunday show);
    • PBS;
    • PRI;
    • the Hearst Corporation and others

    ( http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37451-the-clinton-foundation-and-the-... ).

    [Nov 04, 2016] The 11th Anniversary of 9/11

    Nov 04, 2016 | www.unz.com

    Anon

    October 25, 2016 at 9:25 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The 11th Anniversary of 9/11 ~ Paul Craig Roberts
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-911-paul-craig-roberts/

    9/11 and the Orwellian Redefinition of "Conspiracy Theory"
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-and-the-orwellian-redefinition-of-conspiracy-theory/25339

    9/11 After 13 years
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/09/10/911-13-years-paul-craig-roberts/

    The Tide is Turning: The Official Story Is Now The Conspiracy Theory - Paul Craig Roberts
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/09/07/the-tide-is-turning-the-official-story-is-now-the-conspiracy-theory-paul-craig-roberts/

    No Airliner Black Boxes Found at the World Trade Center? Senior Officials Dispute Official 9/11 Claim
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/no-airliner-black-boxes-found-at-the-world-trade-center-senior-officials-dispute-official-911-claim/5400891

    [Nov 04, 2016] 9-11 Truth - The Unz Review

    Oct 25, 2016 | The Unz Review

    For the first time a presidential candidate, admittedly from a fringe party, is calling for a reexamination of 9/11. Jill Stein of the Green Party has recognized that exercises in which the United States government examines its own behavior are certain to come up with a result that basically exonerates the politicians and the federal bureaucracy. This has been the case since the Warren Commission report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which, inter alia, failed to thoroughly investigate key players like Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby and came up with a single gunman scenario in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary.

    When it comes to 9/11, I have been reluctant to enter the fray largely because I do not have the scientific and technical chops to seriously assess how buildings collapse or how a large passenger airliner might be completely consumed by a fire. In my own area, of expertise, which is intelligence, I have repeatedly noted that the Commission investigators failed to look into the potential foreign government involvement in the events that took place that day. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan just for starters may have been involved in or had knowledge relating to 9/11 but the only investigation that took place, insofar as I can determine, was a perfunctory look at the possible Saudi role, the notorious 28 pages, which have recently been released in a redacted form.

    A friend recently recommended that I take a look at a film on 9/11 that was first produced back in 2005. It is called Loose Change 9/11 and is available on Amazon Video or in DVD form as well as elsewhere in a number of updated versions. The first version reportedly provides the most coherent account, though the later updates certainly are worth watching, add significantly to the narrative, and are currently more accessible.

    Loose Change is an examination of the inconsistencies in the standard 9/11 narrative, a subject that has been thoroughly poked and prodded in a number of other documentaries and books, but it benefits from the immediacy of the account and the fresh memories of the participants in the events who were interviewed by the documentary's director Dylan Avery starting in 2004. It also includes a bit of a history lesson for the average viewer, recalling Hitler's Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all of which were essentially fraudulent and led to the assumption of emergency powers by the respective heads of state.

    The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything. Loose Change describes how leading hawkish Republicans were, as early as 2000, pushing to increase U.S. military capabilities so that the country would be able to fight multi-front wars. The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration.

    The new Pearl Harbor turned out to be 9/11. Given developments since 9/11 itself, to include the way the U.S. has persisted in going to war and the constant search for enemies worldwide to justify our own form of Deep State government, I would, to a large extent, have to believe that PNAC was either prescient or perhaps, more diabolically, actively engaged in creating a new reality.

    That is not to suggest that either then or now most federal employees in the national security industry were part of some vast conspiracy but rather an indictment of the behavior and values of those at the top of the food chain, people who are characteristically singularly devoid of any ethical compass and base their decisions largely on personal and peer group ambition.

    9/11 Truthers are characteristically very passionate about their beliefs, which is part of their problem in relating to a broader public. They frequently demand full adherence to their version of what passes for reality. In my own experience of more than twenty years on the intelligence side of government I have frequently found that truth is in fact elusive, often lying concealed in conflicting narratives. This is, I believe, the strength of Loose Change as it identifies and challenges inconsistencies in the established account without pontificating and, even though it has a definite point of view and draws conclusions, it avoids going over to the dark side and speculating on any number of the wilder "what-if" scenarios.

    I recommend that readers watch Loose Change as it runs through discussions of U.S. military exercises and inexplicable stand-downs that occurred on 9/11, together with convincing accounts of engineering and technical issues related to how the World Trade Center and WTC7 collapsed. Particularly intriguing are the initial eyewitness accounts from the site of the alleged downing of UA 93 in Pennsylvania, a hole in the ground that otherwise showed absolutely no evidence of a plane having actually crashed. Nor have I ever seen any traces of a plane in photos taken at the Pentagon point of impact.

    The film describes the subsequent investigative failures that took place, perhaps deliberately and arranged from inside the government, and concludes that the event amounts to an "American coup" which changed the United States both in terms of its domestic liberties and its foreign policy. After watching the film, one must accept that there are numerous inconsistencies that emerge from any examination of the standard narrative promoted by the 9/11 Commission and covered up by every White House since 2001. The film calls the existing corpus of government investigations into 9/11 a lie, a conclusion that I would certainly agree with.

    The consequences of 9/11 are indeed more important than the event itself. Even those who have come to accept the established narrative would have to concede that "that day of infamy" changed America for the worse, as the film notes. While the United States government had previously engaged in illegal activity directed against for suspected spies, terrorists and a variety of international criminals, wholesale surveillance of what amounts to the entire population of the country was a new development brought in by the Patriot Acts. And, for the first time, secret prisons were set up overseas and citizens were arrested without being charged and held indefinitely. Under the authority of the Military Commissions Act tribunals were established to try those individuals who were suspected of being material supporters of terrorism, "material supporters" being loosely interpreted to make arrest, prosecution and imprisonment easier.

    More recently, executive authority based on the anti-terror legislation has been used to execute American citizens overseas and, under the Authorization to Use Military Force, to attack suspects in a number of countries with which the United States is not at war. This all takes place with hardly a squeak from Congress or from the media. And when citizens object to any or all of the above they are blocked from taking action in the courts by the government's invocation of State Secrets Privilege, claiming that judicial review would reveal national secrets. Many believe that the United States has now become a precursor police state, all as a result of 9/11 and the so-called War on Terror which developed from that event.

    So who benefited from 9/11? Clearly the executive branch of the government itself, which has seen an enormous expansion in its power and control over both the economy and people's lives, but there are also other entities like the military industrial complex, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, and the financial services sector, all of which have gained considerably from the anti-terror largesse coming from the American taxpayer. Together these entities constitute an American Deep State, which controls both government and much of the private sector without ever being mentioned or seriously contested.

    Suggesting government connivance in the events of 9/11 inevitably raises the question of who exactly might have ordered or carried out the attacks if they were in fact not fully and completely the work of a handful of Arab hijackers? The film suggests that one should perhaps consider the possibility of a sophisticated "false flag" operation, by which we mean that the apparent perpetrators of the act were not, in fact, the drivers or originators of what took place. Blowing up huge buildings and causing them to pancake from within, if indeed that is what took place, is the work of governments, not of a handful of terrorists. Only two governments would have had that capability, the United States itself and also Israel, unfortunately mentioned only once in passing in the film, a state player heavily engaged in attempting to bring America into its fight with the Arab world, with Benjamin Netanyahu subsequently saying that "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq swung American public opinion in our favor."

    To be honest I would prefer not to think that 9/11 might have been an inside job, but I am now convinced that a new 9/11 Commission is in order, one that is not run and guided by the government itself. If it can be demonstrated that the attacks carried out on that day were quite possibly set up by major figures both inside and outside the political establishment it might produce such a powerful reaction that the public would demand a reversal of the laws and policies that have so gravely damaged our republic. It is admittedly unlikely that anything like that could ever take place, but it is at least something to hope for.

    NosytheDuke, October 25, 2016 at 4:36 am GMT • 100 Words

    Only by constantly repeating to all and sundry the blatant falsehoods, frauds and meddling that are evident which absolutely contradict the official narrative of what happened can a tipping point be reached and the demands for a new, open and independent investigation be the unavoidable topic in political and social life.

    Only after a new, open and independent investigation and a ruthless holding to account of those responsible has taken place can America go about its business of being great because it is good. Good luck with that.

    3.MarkinLA, October 25, 2016 at 4:39 am GMT • 200 Words

    Remember Korean Air flight 007. At that time the conspiracy theory was that the US and South Korean governments got the pilot to invade Soviet air space while the Space Shuttle was in the vicinity along with the electronic surveillance plane that crossed KAL007′s path in order to light up USSR air defenses and collect data.

    Whether it was true or not, the Reagan administration used it to vilify the USSR and push it's hawkish agenda.

    9/11 doesn't have to have been done by the government for Deep State entities to take advantage. Any preplanning of what to do afterward could also be explained by them knowing what was going to happen (ala Pearl Harbor) and letting it happen. There were plenty of intelligence reports in the commission proceedings that have indicated something was up but not acted upon. They didn't have an admiral they could blame like they did at Pearl so the whole system was blamed which made expanding the security apparatus so much easier.

    Brabantian, Website

    October 25, 2016 at 8:59 am GMT • 300 Words

    In the European press, Italy's President Francesco Cossiga exposed that the NYC towers destruction of 11 September 2001 was done by the USA & Israel's Mossad , and that all Europe's governments know this

    Too few people know, that the New York Times itself, a few weeks before the NYC towers fell, photographed 'Israeli art students' (!) working in-between the walls of the those towers, amidst stacks of boxes with certain markings which … identify the box contents as components of bomb detonators
    World Trade Center's Infamous 91st-Floor Israeli 'Art Student' Project

    Also, too few people know that Osama Bin Laden himself denied being involved in the 11 Sep. 2001 NYC towers destruction, & that the 'Osama Bin Laden' videos & tapes shown for several years afterwards, are clearly-proven fakes with actors

    The claimed discoverer of those 'bin Laden' videos & tapes – allegedly scouring the 'Jihadi YouTubes' for material no one else 'finds' – is Israeli-American Rita Katz of the laughable 'SITE' – 'Search for International Terrorist Entities'

    Dissident US military-intel veterans tell us:

    " The truth about [Osama] Bin Laden, that his last known communication was December 3rd, 2001, received by the CIA / NSA intercept facility in Doha, in which he accused American Neocons of staging 9-11.

    " This was less than two weeks before his death, as reported in Egypt, Pakistan, India, Iran and even by Fox News, until Rita Katz brought him back to life in the guise of a Mercedes repair shop owner of Somali parentage living in Haifa, Israel.

    " The new short, fat Bin Laden, who lost his ability to speak Oxford English, continued to drop audio tapes in the dumpster behind Katz's Brooklyn apartment for years, until his frozen corpse was dumped into the Indian Ocean. "

    - Gordon Duff, Veterans Today

    Hans Vogel, October 25, 2016 at 9:07 am GMT

    If I recall correctly, it was Thierry Meyssan who in 2002 in his book La terrible imposture first suggested that 9/11 was a coup. John Kerry's brother-in-law Sarkozy later forced Meyssan into exile, because he was becoming a nuisance to the US and their French puppets.

    AmericaFirstNow , October 25, 2016 at 11:59 am GMT
    @AmericaFirstNow 9/11 Motive & Media Betrayal :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&list=PL3C32560738EF3C30&feature=plpp

    For actual 9/11 truth about how fire brought down Building 7 as well see the links at following URL:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2011/07/14/alan-sabrosky-911-interview-with-press-tv-host-susan-modaress/

    Rehmat, October 25, 2016 at 12:35 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Dr. Giraldi is missing the point. While Washington and Zionist-controlled mainstream media had blamed the Taliban, Pakistan, Iran, and lately Saudi Arabia – they never mentioned the 800-pound Gorilla – the Zionist regime.

    The most vilified person had been head of Pakistan's intelligence chief, Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, who pointed his finger to Israel Mossad two weeks after the 9/11 – even before media ridiculously blamed Osama Bin Laden in order to invade and occupy Afghanistan – a country which did not had a single tank, helicopter, fighter jet or even a commercial plane to defend itself from the so-called ONLY WORLD POWER.

    Hamid Gul's claim on September 26, 2001, is now supported by thousands of scientists, scholars, politicians, architects and even a Jewish member of the so-called 9/11 COMISSION, Philip Zelikow (Zionist Jew) admitted in 2004 that America invaded Iraq in 2003 because Saddam Hussein became an existential threat to the Zionist entity.

    In December 2001, US historian Michael Collins Piper claimed that the so-called "19 Arab hijackers" could have been Israeli agents.

    On September 10, 2016, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts posted an article, entitled, 9/11: 15 years of a transparent lie.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/08/17/gen-hamid-gul-the-muslim-soparno-dies/

    Fred Reed , October 25, 2016 at 2:22 pm GMT

    Nine-Eleven Conspiracy Exam (Note: This was written when Israel was the most popular culprit. Some questions may need to be changed to reflect changes in guilt. Failure to answer all questions will result in a grade of F.)

    • Was the US government solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___
    • Was Israel solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___
    • Did Israel and the US government together engineer the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___
    • Was neither Israel nor the US government responsible? yes___no___Don't know___
    • Were Saudis involved in any way in the plot? yes___no___Don't know___
    • If Israel was responsible, did the CIA know? yes___no___Don't know___
    • Was President Bush, through the CIA or otherwise, aware of the Israeli participation, making the President and the CIA part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___
    • Did AA77 hit the Pentagon. yes___no___Don't know___
    • Essay question: If no, What happened to AA77? ____________ Don't know___
    • If not AA77, did a missile hit the Pentagon? yes___no___Don't know___
    • If a missile, was ws it fired by the US military, making the military part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___
    • If no, fired by whom? ____________ Don't know___
    • Did the NTSB fake the data from the flight data recorders, making it part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___
    • Were the Towers destroyed by a controlled demolition? yes___no___Don't know___
    • Did aircraft hit the the Towers? yes___no___Don't know___
    • If so, who flew them? ____________ Don't know__
    • Essay question: Why both controlled demolition and aircraft? Ignore this question if the two were not used together
    • Essay question: If a controlled demolition, describe the placement and quantities needed, and the source of your information.
    • Was the FBI involved in the cover-up, and therefore part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___
    • Was Larry Silverstein, owner of the Towers, part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___
    • Did the media cover up the conspiracy, thereby making them part of it? yes___no___Don't know___
    • Essay question: If Israel was involved, should America bomb Tel Aviv?

    Diogenes, October 25, 2016 at 2:24 pm GMT

    9/11 was an amazing sociological event for what it can tell us about human psychology. The vast majority of people uncritically swallowed the official explanation, a few critical observers cast suspicions on the official story, then a group of chronically suspicious people, known as conspiracy theorists, who believe the government cannot be trusted had a cause celebre, then a group of anti conspiracy theorists and pro-government reactionaries devoted their energies to discredit the 9/11 Truthers while the vast majority of people are as a result confused and paralyzed into indecision and apathy. I will take note of who in these comments are 9/11 naysayers and observe what they say about other controversial topics!

    Rurik , October 25, 2016 at 2:55 pm GMT

    The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything.

    we now know that they set the Waco compound on fire, and that they were firing machine guns into the only exit once the flames had engulfed the building. Bodies were piled up at the site of the exit that the coroner ruled were homicide deaths from bullet wounds. Homicides that our government committed. Most American yawn at such news. 'Those people (including the children) were 'whackos'.

    Recently our government has murdered or maimed or displaced millions upon millions of innocent men, women and children in the Middle East, and destroyed several countries, all based on by now well-established lies. Most Americans yawn at such knowledge. Those people 'hate our freedom'.

    Our government is also running a permanent torture camp. A 'Ministry of Love', or Minluv, in Orwell's Newspeak parlance.

    The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration.

    the "something" that these neocon Zionists demanded from their "new Pearl Harbor like event" was for America to set about destroying all Muslim nations considered inconvenient to Israel. Without the 'event', Americans just were not willing to sacrifice their children to the Zionist cause.

    One of the central figures demanding that America act in Israel's interest was a one Phillip D. Zelikow. A neocon insider extraordinaire.

    This from his Wiki page:

    In the November–December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article Catastrophic Terrorism, with Ashton B. Carter , and John M. Deutch, in which they speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, "the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently." [24]

    Yes, that Ashton Carter, our current Secretary of Defense. And John Deutch was the director of the CIA at one time. (perhaps Mr. Giraldi knows of him)

    This Jewish neocon war mongering Zionist who called for a Peal Harbor like event to catalyze Americans to go to war for Israel, ended up being the executive director of the 911 Commission. The same 911 Commission that is universally recognized as a fraud and a cover up. Even by some of the men who were on it.

    I'm going to stop here. My head simply swims from the sheer evil of these people.

    Miro23, October 25, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    @Fred Reed

    A simpler 9/11 questionnaire for Fred;

    "Did right wing elements in Israel close to Likud, and US Neocons close to the Bush administration engineer the attacks to enable the Iraq war?" Yes____ No____ Don't know____

    Essay question: Are there any similarities between these events and other False Flag attacks aimed at Great Britain and the US such as 1) The King David Hotel bombing 2) Operation Susannah – Lavon Affair 3) USS Liberty?

    Jon Gold , October 25, 2016 at 3:31 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Loose Change? C'mon Phil…

    9/11: Press For Truth
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmHPfXemf10

    In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBblyIPxZFE

    9/11 Family Members, Jersey Girls, and member of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee Lorie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg released a report showing how poorly the 9/11 Commission answered their questions:

    http://wewereliedtoabout911.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/fsc_review.pdf

    The September Eleventh Advocates (Jersey Girls) have released a multitude of press releases over the years bringing attention to and calling into question certain aspects of 9/11:

    http://wewereliedtoabout911.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/911advocates.pdf

    Here are the 9/11 Family Steering Committee's list of unanswered questions. The final statement from the 9/11 Family Steering Committee states "the report did not answer all of our questions…":

    http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

    Here is essential testimony from different 9/11 Family Members during the 9/11 Commission:

    http://www.911independentcommission.org/testimony.html

    Here are all of the different statements released by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee during the time of the 9/11 Commission. They show extremely well the corruption and compromise within the 9/11 Commission:

    http://www.911independentcommission.org/news.html

    My EXTREMELY extensive show "We Were Lied To About 9/11."

    https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/we-were-lied-to-about-9-11/id955030348?mt=2

    Rurik October 25, 2016 at 3:56 pm GMT • 1,000 Words
    @Fred Reed Nine-Eleven Conspiracy Exam (Note: This was written when Israel was the most popular culprit. Some questions may need to be changed to reflect changes in guilt. Failure to answer all questions will result in a grade of F.)

    Was the US government solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___


    Was Israel solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___


    Did Israel and the US government together engineer the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___


    Was neither Israel nor the US government responsible? yes___no___Don't know___


    Were Saudis involved in any way in the plot? yes___no___Don't know___


    If Israel was responsible, did the CIA know? yes___no___Don't know___


    Was President Bush, through the CIA or otherwise, aware of the Israeli participation, making the President and the CIA part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


    Did AA77 hit the Pentagon. yes___no___Don't know___


    Essay question: If no, What happened to AA77? ____________ Don't know___


    If not AA77, did a missile hit the Pentagon? yes___no___Don't know___


    If a missile, was ws it fired by the US military, making the military part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


    If no, fired by whom? ____________ Don't know___


    Did the NTSB fake the data from the flight data recorders, making it part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


    Were the Towers destroyed by a controlled demolition? yes___no___Don't know___


    Did aircraft hit the the Towers? yes___no___Don't know___


    If so, who flew them? ____________ Don't know__


    Essay question: Why both controlled demolition and aircraft? Ignore this question if the two were not used together


    Essay question: If a controlled demolition, describe the placement and quantities needed, and the source of your information.


    Was the FBI involved in the cover-up, and therefore part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


    Was Larry Silverstein, owner of the Towers, part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


    Did the media cover up the conspiracy, thereby making them part of it? yes___no___Don't know___


    Essay question: If Israel was involved, should America bomb Tel Aviv?

    Was the US government solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___

    no, Israel was also responsible

    Was Israel solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___

    No, elements in the US gov and controlled media were also responsible

    Did Israel and the US government together engineer the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___

    not governments per se, but elements in those governments. Like "the orders still stand" Dick Cheney, but certainly not all the assorted minions of the US or Israeli governments.

    Was neither Israel nor the US government responsible? yes___no___Don't know___

    not governments per se. If you restrict the question to this broadly defined blanket condemnation, then the answer would be 'yes'.

    Were Saudis involved in any way in the plot? yes___no___Don't know___

    there's zero reason for thinking so

    If Israel was responsible, did the CIA know? yes___no___Don't know___

    at the highest levels, yes, but there again, that certainly doesn't mean every single employee

    Was President Bush, through the CIA or otherwise, aware of the Israeli participation, making the President and the CIA part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

    Don't know

    Did AA77 hit the Pentagon. yes___no___Don't know___

    there's no evidence of it. And if it had, they'd show us one of the scores (hundreds?) of videos

    Essay question: If no, What happened to AA77? ____________ Don't know___

    the reason the flights were wildly diverted was probably to land the planes, liquidate the passengers and crew, and then send up specially outfitted jets for the purpose of crashing into the towers. (as the pretext for them to collapse, as the pretext to start the Eternal Wars for Israel and to turn us all into Palestinians)

    If not AA77, did a missile hit the Pentagon? yes___no___Don't know___

    it looks like it

    If a missile, was ws it fired by the US military, making the military part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

    Don't know. And again, it wouldn't be "the military", as in some monolithic entity that is fully aware of everything that "it' does. There are fringe sub-sets of the military that are often engaged in illegal and covert ops.

    If no, fired by whom? ____________ Don't know___

    Don't know

    Did the NTSB fake the data from the flight data recorders, making it part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

    what data?!

    From what I understand, we have not been made privy to any of the information on any of the flight data recorders. If you're aware of any data from the flight data recorders then you should give us a link!

    Were the Towers destroyed by a controlled demolition? yes___no___Don't know___

    yes

    it's *obvious* that building seven was thus demolished, and so it follows that the other two were also.

    Did aircraft hit the the Towers? yes___no___Don't know___

    two of them, yes. The third was not hit by a plane, it simply plopped down in nicely cut pieces ready for shipment to China.

    If so, who flew them? ____________ Don't know__

    In all likelihood, remote control. Check out the comptroller of the Pentagon at the time and his sundry organizations. Nice little rabbit hole of its own.

    Essay question: Why both controlled demolition and aircraft? Ignore this question if the two were not used together

    horror

    they needed to horrify and anger the American people to rally us to war on Israel's neighbors. (+ there was the added benefit to lucky Larry of a few billion shekels and an opportunity to get rid of a couple of financial boondoggles. Such a deal!)

    Essay question: If a controlled demolition, describe the placement and quantities needed, and the source of your information.

    this is silly

    we don't need to know the exact caliber of bullet that hit JFK to know that the government and Warren commission was lying. And they likely used military type crap that we're not even privy to. Come on Fred.

    Was the FBI involved in the cover-up, and therefore part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

    elements, sure

    like the people that went around and collected all the videos that might have showed what hit the Pentagon. Certainly the people at the top were and are privy to the crime and cover up. Just like with JFK.

    Was Larry Silverstein, owner of the Towers, part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

    Yes, of course he was

    Did the media cover up the conspiracy, thereby making them part of it? yes___no___Don't know___

    not your local channel seven, but the media as it's controlled from the top, and lie about EVERTYING. Yes Fred, that media was complicit. And still are. And are the ones that are going to hand the reins of this nations to Hillary Clinton. That media, you betcha.

    Essay question: If Israel was involved, should America bomb Tel Aviv?

    of course not. There again you're being silly Fred.

    what America should do is the same thing is should (and still needs to) do as regards the other cowardly and treacherous false flag that *elements* in the Israeli government and security forces were responsible for- the attack on the USS Liberty. We should have a real investigation that ferrets out these uber-criminals and brings them to justice.

    911 was a coup to turn the US into Israel's rabid dog in the Levant. And create a police state for any Americans that object, even with our very own torture camp. Isn't that something?

    You should write about it someday Fred. I can't think of a person more suited to mock the American idea of the free and the brave running a torture camp for goat herders and Afghans who don't want America making them free too.

    as for 911, all you have to know is that building seven was an obvious controlled demolition. From there it doesn't matter if George Dubya Bush was in on it or what type of materials specifically were used to bring the buildings down. That shit is all academic. We know they lied, and are lying. Only a deluded fool or moral coward (or worse) would pretend to themselves otherwise once he's seen the irrefutable evidence that they're lying.

    TheJester October 25, 2016 at 4:31 pm GMT • 200 Words

    There are multiple ways to engineer a "False Flag" attack:

    1. You do it yourself, flying someone else's "flag" and hope no one notices. (Very primitive … rarely works unless you are a wooden frigate at sea attacking enemy maritime commerce.)

    2. You hire someone else to do it and hope none of them get caught. (Moderately primitive … but it worked for awhile in the Kennedy assassination.)

    3. You infiltrate a hostile terrorist organization, take control, and redirect it to the attack. (Very difficult to do … but this was done in the NATO-sponsored Gladio terrorist attacks in Europe in the 1960s as well as the Black Hand attacks that precipitated WWI.)

    4. You infiltrate a hostile terrorist organization, discover what they have planned, and QUIETLY remove all of YOUR obstacles that would otherwise have prevented the attack. (This is the best if you can pull it off since you leave no fingerprints. You might, as in 911, be accused of incompetent but, okay, you missed that one, so what!)

    BTW: #4 doesn't mean you don't help the terrorists with a little demolition work to make sure the spectacle unfolds as planned. You really need grand firework displays in these things to get them the attention they deserve.

    Si1ver1ock, October 25, 2016 at 5:04 pm GMT

    For those just coming into the 911 Truth movement, you should probably look at the hard evidence first to see if it merits further consideration. After that, you can go to he circumstantial evidence.

    Start with the physics and engineering:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HNIIdpMhFg

    The question isn't whether this theory or that theory is absolutely correct. The question is whether there is sufficient cause for a new investigation. I never hear a good argument from the anti-Truth crowd as to why we shouldn't have another investigation.

    We want a new investigation. They don't want one. Why?

    Miro23, October 25, 2016 at 7:17 pm GMT

    A key to instant identification of the faith-based C-theorist is the loud claim that "steel-framed buildings" don't collapse as a result of fire. Fact is, yes they do - known, verified, fully-explained using real, verifiable data.

    Here's a list of steel framed high rises and other high rises that experienced major fires:

    – One New York Plaza, New York. 50 stories steel. Dropped beams on 33rd & 34th floors.
    – Alexis Nihon Plaza, Montreal. 15 stories steel. Partial collapse on 11th floor.
    – Windsor Tower, Madrid. 29 stories steel/concrete. Partial collapse.
    – One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia. 38 stories. No collapse.
    – Broadgate Phase 8, London. 14 stories. No collapse.
    – First Interstate Bank, Los Angeles. 62 stories. No collapse.
    – MGM Grand Hotel, Las Vegas. 26 stories. No collapse.
    – Joelma Building, Sao Paulo. 25 stories. No collapse.
    – Andraus Building, Sao Paulo. 31 stories. No collapse.

    These fires were much longer lasting and more intense than the WTC fires and none of these buildings experienced a complete collapse.
    Can you give a list of modern steel frame 20 storey+ buildings similar to WTC 1, 2 & 7 that have experienced a complete collapse due to fire – known and verified.

    Miro23 , October 25, 2016 at 8:23 pm GMT • 300 Words

    I have repeatedly noted that the Commission investigators failed to look into the potential foreign government involvement in the events that took place that day. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan just for starters may have been involved in or had knowledge relating to 9/11 but the only investigation that took place, insofar as I can determine, was a perfunctory look at the possible Saudi role, the notorious 28 pages, which have recently been released in a redacted form.

    It might have been worth checking out Israel a bit more closely. They have been running False Flag operations against the British and the US for years, aimed at engaging them in war against Arab states. For example:

    The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu attended a celebration to commemorate the event.

    Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centres in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.

    Or on June 8th 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the 6 Day War.

    Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the more recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that carries a lot of kudos with old ex-terrorist Likudniks. In any event, Israelis were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers.

    CanSpeccy says: • Website October 25, 2016 at 9:57 pm GMT •
    @War for Blair Mountain
    add in the fact that the steel support beams only had to be softened not melted to cause catastrophic structural failure.
    You are absolutely correct about that. If the beams had melted, or even softened, then the building would have collapsed. But not straight down at near free-fall speed into its own footprint, while crushing all the concrete to dust.

    If the columns had melted, or merely softened, they would not have melted or softened uniformly across the the building, so the result would have been an asymetric collapse resulting in the top of the building toppling over and crashing onto the roof of adjacent buildings. The portion of the building beneath the fire zone would have been left standing.

    But, as we know, nothing like that happened.

    CanSpeccy , October 26, 2016 at 2:07 am GMT • 400 Words @Oldeguy
    Pretty much my response. Something, I know not what, is amiss with Our Favorite Expatriate.
    Not being sure of what really happened in an event this pivotal is a reason to proceed with further discussion and investigation- not to shut it down.
    The most successful, by far, commando operation in history performed flawlessly by a bunch of guys with boxcutters directed by cell phone by a fugitive hiding out in a cave in Afghanistan ?
    On the the face of it, that matches the goofiest of any of the conspiracy theories.

    On the the face of it, that [the theory about 19 guys with box-cutters under the direction of fugitive in a cave in Afghanistan] matches the goofiest of any of the conspiracy theories.

    And even the members of the 9/11 Commission have admitted they don't really believe it.

    Thus:

    The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation".

    The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements , yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

    Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations .

    9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history .

    9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

    9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

    Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal" ; "This investigation is now compromised" ; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up" .

    9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that " We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest ".

    The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true."

    [Nov 03, 2016] Vladimir Putin - Straight From the Horses Mouth

    Nov 02, 2016 | www.wakingtimes.com

    Vladimir Putin in particular, and Russia in general, have been the focus of an intensive high-drama propaganda campaign of late. Are you buying it? For the time being, Russophobia has replaced Islamophobia as the driving force behind the lies. Various US officials have been frantically warning Americans that the Russians are behind everything: hacking the DNC, controlling Trump, influencing the election and breaking the Syrian ceasefire agreement. They might as well add making your girlfriend break up with you, making your toast get burnt and making your car run out of fuel for all the evidence they have presented. Many of these totally unfounded allegations stem from (naturally) the Clinton campaign, home to career criminals Bill and Hillary Clinton , who are desperately seeking to find something to gain some sort of shred of popularity or advantage over Trump, who fills up arenas with 1000s of people more easily than Clinton can fill a high school gym with 50. Many US officials and war hawks are trying to get in on the action; CIA man Mike Morell indicated it would be a good idea to covertly kill Russians to make them "pay a price" ; Hillary Clinton called Vladimir Putin the "grand godfather of extreme nationalism" and blamed him for the rising popularity of right-wing leaders; and even standing VP Joe Biden came out and said that, "We're sending a message to Putin it will be at the time of our choosing and under the circumstances that have the greatest impact" . It seems there is no depth to which some US leaders won't stoop in order to gain some political advantage, even it means lying, demonizing and destroying geopolitical partnerships in order to garner a few brownie points.

    Vladimir Putin: It's All About Distraction During Election Season

    You would think Russian President Vladimir President would be agitated by all of this mud-slinging. At times he has been, for instance when he issued a warning a few months ago about an impending WW3 due to NATO's constant aggression and advancement towards Russian borders. However, judging by his own words and mostly calm demeanor, he has seen through the agenda and understands what is going on. Putin spells out how it's all inflamed rhetoric before an election season, an old trick used by politicians to distract when they have no meaningful solutions for internal and domestic problems.

    Here is Vladimir Putin in his own words :

    "You can expect anything from our American friends the only novelty is that for the first time, on the highest level, the United States has admitted involvement in these activities, and to some extent threatened [us] – which of course does not meet the standards of international communication. As if we didn't know that US Government bodies snoop on and wiretap anyone? Everyone knows this

    Apparently, they are nervous. The question is why. I think there is a reason. You know, in an election campaign, the current government carefully crafts a pre-election strategy, and any government, especially when seeking re-election, always has unresolved issues. They need to show, to explain to the voters why they remain unresolved. In the US, there are many such problems for example, the massive public debt is a time bomb for the US economy and global financial system more examples can be cited in foreign policy in these conditions, many choose to resort to the usual tactics of distracting voters from their problems try to create an enemy and rally the nation against that enemy

    Iran and the Iranian threat did not work well for that. Russia is a more interesting story."

    And that's exactly what this whole thing is: a giant story. However, as Voltaire once said, if you can make someone believe absurdities, you can make them commit atrocities. Let's see what else Vladimir Putin has to say on other topics of interest.

    Russian Hacking: A Laughable Claim so the Clintons and DNC Can Try to Avoid Culpability

    Let's face it: the whole Russophobia affair is about avoiding blame, dodging responsibility and evading liability. Thanks to WikiLeaks, Project Veritas and many other sources, we know the entire Hillary Clinton campaign has been rigged beyond belief. Fake primaries, fake speeches, fake images, fake videos, fake crowds, fake supporters and fake debates. There is seemingly no depth of criminality to which that woman won't sink. She's selling out the presidency before she even gets there, such as the stunt of trying to promise future presidential executive orders to mega donors. There is not a shred of evidence that Russia is affiliated with WikiLeaks or behind any of the DNC hacks. As this Zero Hedge article NSA Whistleblower: US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia states:

    "On "Judge Napolitano Chambers," the Judge said that while the DNC, government officials, and the Clinton campaign all accuse the Russians of hacking into the DNC servers, "the Russians had nothing to do with it." Napolitano then mentioned Binney, arguing the NSA veteran and whistleblower who "developed the software that the NSA now uses, which allows it to capture not just metadata but content of every telephone call, text message, email in the United States of every person in [the country]" knew the NSA had hacked the DNC - not the Russians.

    If Judge Napolitano and Binney are right and the NSA did hack the DNC, what was the motive?

    According to the Judge, "members of the intelligence community simply do not want [Clinton] to be president of the United States."

    "She doesn't know how to handle state secrets," Napolitano continued. And since "some of the state secrets that she revealed used the proper true names of American intelligence agents operating undercover in the Middle East," some of these agents were allegedly captured and killed, prompting NSA agents to feel compelled to act. Whether NSA agents hacked the DNC or not, one thing is clear: there's no real evidence linking the DNC and Arizona and Illinois voting system hacks to the Russian government."

    The Mythical "Russian Threat"

    Vladimir Putin directly addressed another mythical story, that of the so-called Russian threat and Russian aggression , at the recent Valdai forum in Sochi from October 24-27, 2016:

    "There is another mechanism to ensure the transatlantic security, European security, the OC security and their attempt at turning this organization (NATO) into an instrument of someone's political interests. So what the OC is doing is simply void. Mythical threats are devised like the so-called Russian military threat. Certainly this can be (used to) gain some advantage, get new budgets, make your allies comply with your demands, make NATO deploy the equipment and troops closer to our border Russia is not trying to attack anyone. That would be ridiculous The population of Europe is 300 million and the population of the US is 300 million, while the population of Russia is 140 million, yet such menaces are served as a pretext. Hysteria has been fueled in the US with regard to Russia's alleged influence with the current presidential election.

    Is there anyone who seriously thinks that Russia can influence the choice of the American people? Is the US a banana republic? The US is a great power. If I'm wrong please correct me."

    Here's what he had to say about who the real aggressor is when it comes to the US (around and Russia:

    "Is it known to you that Russia, in the 90s, completely halted (as did the USSR) any strategic aviation in the further afield regions of patrol, i.e. not in the closer abroad. We halted such activity completely. US geostrategic aviation however, with nuclear weapons on board. They continued to encircle us! What for? Who are you concerned about? Or why are you threatening us? We continued with the non-patrol year after year. It is only since about 3 years ago that we restarted aviation patrol further abroad.

    Which party is the provocateur here? Is it us?

    We have only 2 military bases abroad. They are known areas of terrorism dangers US bases on the other hand are all over the world. And you are telling me that I am the aggressor? Have you any common sense?

    What are US forces doing in Europe, including nuclear weaponry? What business have they got there? Listen to me. Our military budget, while increased slightly from last year, in the dollar equivalent, is about US$50 billion. The military budget of the Pentagon is almost 10 times that amount. $575 billion, I think Congress singed off on. And you're telling me I'm the aggressor here? Have you no common sense at all? Is it us putting our forces on the border of the US? Or other states? Is it NATo, or who, that is moving their bases closer to us? Military infrastructure! It's not us. Does anyone even listen to us? Or try to have some kind of dialogue with us? The repeated answer we get is 'mind your own business' and 'each country can choose its own security measures'. Very well, so will we

    And finally, on the antiballistic missile defense system, who was it that exited from the treaty which was vital to the entire system of international security? Was it us? No. It was the States. In a one-sided way, they simply withdrew from the treaty. Now they are threatening us, turning their missiles towards us, not only from Alaska, but also from Europe too

    We want to develop normal relations in the sphere of security, in the fight against terrorism, in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. We want to work together with you so long as you want that too."

    US Repeatedly Broke Its Promises to Russia and Destroyed Trust

    The Western MSM is so one-sided in its coverage of geopolitical events like Ukraine and Syria. Anyone not toeing the line with US-UK-NATO interests is painted in a bad light. In point of fact, it has actually been the US who has been breaking agreements with Russia since the end of the Cold War. US leaders lied to Russian leaders at the time, by promising that NATO would not extend any further eastward, and possibly even hinting that Russia could join NATO. As Eric Zuesse explains in his article America Trashes NATO Founding Act; Rushes Weapons to Russia's Borders :

    "The NATO Founding Act was agreed to between the US and Russia in 1997 in order to provide to Russia's leader Boris Yeltsin some modicum of assurance that America wouldn't invade his country. When his predecessor Mikhail Gorbachev had ended the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact military alliance in 1991, the representatives of US President GHW Bush told him that NATO wouldn't move "one inch to the east" (toward Russia), but as soon as Gorbachev committed himself to end the Cold War, Bush told his agents, regarding what they had all promised to Gorbachev (Bush's promise which had been conveyed through them), "To hell with that! We prevailed, they didn't". In other words: Bush's prior instructions to them were merely his lies to Gorbachev, his lies to say that the US wouldn't try to conquer Russia (move its forces eastward to Russia's borders); but, now, since Gorbachev was committed and had already agreed that East Germany was to be reunited with and an extension of West Germany (and the process for doing that had begun), Bush pulled that rug of lies out from under the end of the Cold War "

    Bill Clinton carried on the great American legacy of exceptionalism (that is, excepting themselves from obeying international law) spearheaded by Daddy Bush of surrounding and dominating Russia by allowing NATO into the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Russia got shafted by trusting the US numerous times after the fall of the Soviet Union. Here's Vladimir Putin once again on America's broken promises (in April 2016):

    "In the early 2000s, we agreed with the Americans to destroy weapons-grade plutonium, on both sides. We were talking about the excessive amounts that were manufactured by both the US and Russia. This is the enriched uranium from which nuclear weapons are made. 34000 tonnes, from both sides. We signed an agreement, and decided that this material would be destroyed in a specific manner. It would be destroyed in an industrial way – for which special plants needed to be built. We fulfilled our obligations – we built the necessary plant. Our American partners did not. Moreover, recently they announced that rather than destroy the enriched material in the manner that we agreed, and signed an international agreement on, that they would dilute it and store it in a holding capacity. This means they retain the potential to bring it back

    Surely our American partners must understand that, jokes are one thing, such as creating smear campaigns against Russia, but questions of nuclear security are another thing entirely they must learn to fulfill their promises.

    They once said they would close down Guantanamo. And? Is it closed? No."

    Incidentally, this is the exact same plutonium agreement which made the news last month, when as reported on October 3rd, 216, Russia suspended their deal with the US on disposal of plutonium from decommissioned nuclear warheads. A decree signed by Vladimir Putin lists " the radical change in the environment, a threat to strategic stability posed by the hostile actions of the US against Russia, and the inability of the US to deliver on the obligation to dispose of excessive weapons plutonium under international treaties, as well as the need to take swift action to defend Russian security" as the reasons for why Russia chose to suspend the deal.

    Conclusion: Wake up and Smell the Russophobia

    Expect Vladimir Putin and Russia to keep being demonized by the Clintons – and more importantly the NWO manipulators who so desperately want them in power. Although the Clintons are a powerful modern American mafia family, replete with a long body count behind them, it's important to remember they are lackeys for far greater and more pervasive powers (check out some of Hillary's lovey-dovey letters to Lynn Forester de Rothschild here ). There's a lot at stake here. Right now, Vladimir Putin and Russia are being used with the sole purpose of getting Clinton elected. Although Putin is not perfect and has his own dark side, he deserves respect for standing his ground and refusing to become another US puppet. If we are to believe his own words, he has no qualm with Americans or even America itself, but rather the selfish, imperialistic and murderous agenda of the NWO agents running the USA:

    "We have a great deal of respect and love for the United States, and especially for the American people [however] the expansion of jurisdiction by one nation beyond the territory of its borders, to the rest of the world, is unacceptable and destructive for international relations."

    It's up to the American public to switch off CNN (Clinton News Network) and all the other duplicitous MSM channels and get truly informed. Vladimir Putin is reaching out his hand to America, in the hope that enough Americans can reclaim their country and work together with other nations in peace. On the issue of Vladimir Putin and Russia, the MSM is not just one-sided, it's outright lying.

    [Nov 03, 2016] And Now For Some Comic Relief by Jonathan V. Last

    Nov 03, 2016 | www.weeklystandard.com
    Presenting...the Clinton IT Department! This has not been an especially ennobling election. Or a rewarding one. Or even entertaining. Pretty much everything about 2016 has been boorish and grotesque. But finally it is time to laugh.

    This has not been an especially ennobling election. Or a rewarding one. Or even entertaining. Pretty much everything about 2016 has been boorish and grotesque. But finally it is time to laugh.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I present the Clinton IT department.

    Over the weekend we finally found out how Clinton campaign honcho John Podesta's emails were hacked. But first a couple disclaimers:

    1) Yes, it's unpleasant to munch on the fruit of the poisoned tree. But this isn't a court of law and you can't just ignore information that's dragged into the public domain.

    2) We're all vulnerable to hackers. Even if you're a security nut who uses VPNs and special email encryption protocols, you can be hacked. The only real security is the anonymity of the herd. Once a hacker targets you, specifically, you're toast.

    I'm a pretty tech-savvy guy and if the Chinese decided to hack my emails tonight, you'd have everything I've ever written posted to Wikileaks before the sun was up tomorrow.

    But that is … not John Podesta's situation.

    What happened was this: On March 19, Podesta got what looked--kind of, sort of--like an email from Google's Gmail team. The email claimed that someone from the Ukraine had tried to hack into Podesta's Gmail account and that he needed to change his password immediately.

    This is what's called a "phishing" scam, where hackers send legitimate-looking emails that, when you click on the links inside them, actually take you someplace dangerous. In Podesta's case, there was a link that the email told him to click in order to change his password.

    This was not an especially good bit of phishing. Go have a look yourself. The email calls Podesta by his first name. It uses bit.ly as a link shortener. Heck, the subject line is the preposterous "*someone has your password*". Why would Google say "someone has your password?" They wouldn't. They'd say that there had been log-in attempts that failed two-step authentication, maybe. Or that the account had been compromised, perhaps. If you've spent any time using email over the last decade, you know exactly how these account security emails are worded.

    And what's more, you know that you never click on the link in the email. If you get a notice from your email provider or your bank or anyone who holds sensitive information of yours saying that your account has been compromised, you leave the email, open your web browser, type in the URL of the website, and then manually open your account information. Again, let me emphasize: You never click on the link in the email!

    But what makes this story so priceless isn't that John Podesta got fooled by an fourth-rate phishing scam. After all, he's just the guy who's going to be running Hillary Clinton's administration. What does he know about tech? And Podesta, to his credit, knew what he didn't know: He emailed the Clinton IT help desk and said, Hey, is this email legit?

    And the Clinton tech team's response was: Hell yes!

    No, really. Here's what they said: One member of the team responded to Podesta by saying "The gmail one is REAL." Another answered by saying "This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately."

    It's like the Clinton IT department is run by 90-year-old grandmothers. I half-expect the next Wikileaks dump to have an email from one Clinton techie to another asking for help setting their VCR clock.

    As the other guy likes to say, "only the best people."

    [Nov 03, 2016] Obama channels inner Pinocchio: "I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity."

    He completely forgot what he said about her in 2008. At that time he was much closer to truth.
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Fiver

    Further to throwing Comey under the bus yesterday, Obama had this to say:

    "I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity."

    No amount of Bleach-bit can remove that yellow streak running down his back and straight through the entirety of his 'legacy'. Not once did he come down on the side opposite entrenched power – in fact, we can now add major 'obstruction of justice' to his prior litany of failures to prosecute white collar criminals as the basis for its own section, splitting criminal activity into two parts, one domestic, the other for a raft of war crimes.

    [Nov 03, 2016] John Podesta and Mook conspiring to commit money laundering

    Nov 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    oho November 3, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    John Podesta + Mook conspiring to commit money laundering. Not hyperbole.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794236216681992192/photo/1

    Portia November 3, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    3k/mo ok for you?

    why yes

    [Nov 03, 2016] Racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup

    Notable quotes:
    "... it seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from culturally based ultranationalism is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial understanding of "race" and "racism". ..."
    "... Populations can be racialized according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic ..."
    "... unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup ..."
    Nov 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    likbez @ 16,

    it seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from culturally based ultranationalism is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial understanding of "race" and "racism".

    Populations can be racialized according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are".

    Although from my understanding Ukrainian citizenship like that in most of Europe is primarily determined by jus sanguinis, and like most of Europe it's still deep in the muck of racial discrimination toward e.g. the Roma, so unless I'm misreading things it seems like a stretch to put too much distance between Ukraine (or Europe in general) and even a very colloquial sense of "ethnonationalism".

    It can be articulated more explicitly by outright fascists or more obliquely by mainstream centrist parties, but it's still there.

    And as long as we're talking about academic definitions of racism (I'm partial to the definition proffered by Ruth Wilson Gilmore, "the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death", although Emmett Rensin's obnoxiously thorough definition is also good) funnily enough they tend to point at something pretty much identical to what Quiggin appears to mean by "tribalism".

    Except unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup

    Which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking about it as a specific mass political movement at all.

    And again, as annoying as it is to have pigheaded reactionaries accuse us of twisting language and "playing the race card" and so on, putting up with this noise is preferable to sacrificing useful concepts like racism and fascism from one's everyday understanding of the world, and it's certainly preferable to swapping out the terms in question for a racially charged term like "tribalism".

    [Nov 03, 2016] Obama created this situation by allowing Loretta Lynch to be compromised

    Nov 03, 2016 | profile.theguardian.com

    MerlinUK 10h ago

    Obama can GTFO. He created this situation by allowing Loretta Lynch to be compromised, as well as himself. The BFBI was left with little choice but to go public in a legal way via FOIA requests, something that the corrupt DoJ can't stop. Jason Chaffetz has now formally asked another member of the corrupt Government to recuse himself, as he too is compromised and was tipping off the Clintons. We have yet to find out just how far these rabbit holes go, but the Illuminati appear to be worried - $150M is a lot to explain away...

    BillFromBoston 10h ago

    Obama criticizes the FBI today...but didn't have a single bloody word to say when BillyBob (that's Bill Clinton to you Brits) happened to bump into the nation's Attorney General several days before she declared Hillary to be a candidate for sainthood.

    But that's understandable...after all, all they talked about was grandchildren and golf.Just ask them,they'll tell you!


    curiouschak 10h ago

    Idiot democrat primary voters. They actually ended up selecting such a toxic, defensive, shifty corrupt candidate that she may up handing the election to an orange turd with a dead raccoon on its head.

    They couldn't do the right and smart thing and elect Sanders. He would have wiped the floor with this tangerine blowhard

    Chuckman 10h ago

    You are pathetic, Obama, absolutely pathetic. Who ever heard of the chief magistrate criticizing law enforcement during an investigation about which he indeed knows very little.

    Or, maybe that should be, pretends to know very little. There are suggestions that some material could be dangerous to Obama.

    His previous testimony that he knew nothing about illegal, insecure computers being used at State appears contradicted by the fact we now know from Wiki-Leaks material he had a pseudonym and had e-mails back and forth from Hills and Company.

    [Nov 03, 2016] If Trump wins, all the Democratic party elites should be given their pink slips and never allowed to run the DNC again.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Holding on to the White House in 2016 is extremely important. We can't afford to let party elites jeopardize that by ignoring the will of the voters. Join me and DFA in telling superdelegates to pledge to support the popularly-elected winner of the nomination now. ..."
    "... If Trump wins, all the Democratic party elites should be given their pink slips and never allowed to run the DNC again ..."
    Nov 03, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com

    nonsensefactory, 1h ago 3 4

    Recall this warning to the Democratic Party after Bernie Sander's landslide win in New Hampshire? Shockingly, all the superdelegates went over to Hillary Clinton:

    Holding on to the White House in 2016 is extremely important. We can't afford to let party elites jeopardize that by ignoring the will of the voters. Join me and DFA in telling superdelegates to pledge to support the popularly-elected winner of the nomination now.


    If Trump wins, all the Democratic party elites should be given their pink slips and never allowed to run the DNC again.

    [Nov 03, 2016] Clintons explosive e-mails, by Manlio Dinucci

    Notable quotes:
    "... When Hillary was Secretary of State, she convinced Obama to authorize a covert operation in Libya (which included sending in special forces and arming terrorist groups) in preparation for a US/Nato aeronaval attack. ..."
    "... Clinton's emails that subsequently came to light, prove what the real motive for war might be: blocking Gaddafi's plan to harness Libya's sovereign funds to establish independent financial organizations, located within the African Union and an African currency that could serve as an alternative to the dollar and the CFA franc. ..."
    "... Immediately after razing the State of Libya, the US and Nato brought in the Gulf Monarchies and set about a covert operation to destroy the State of Syria by infiltrating it with special forces and terrorist groups that gave birth to Isis. ..."
    "... "the best way to help Israel is to help the rebellion in Syria that has now lasted for more than a year" (i.e. from 2011). How? By mounting the case that the use of force is a sina qua non to make Basshar Assad fold, so as to endanger his life and that of his family". ..."
    "... "wrecking Assad would not only be a huge advantage for the security of the State of Israel, but would also go a long way to reducing Israel's justifiable fear that it will lose its nuclear monopoly". ..."
    Nov 03, 2016 | www.voltairenet.org

    From time to time, it is in the interests of the Western media and political establishment to do a bit of "political cleansing".

    Thus the West pulls out some skeleton from the closet. A British Parliamentary Committee has criticized David Cameron for authorizing the use of force in Libya when he was Prime Minister in 2011. However the basis for criticism was not the war of aggression per se (even though it erased from the map a sovereign state) but rather the fact that war was entered into without an adequate "intelligence" foundation and also because there was no plan for "reconstruction" [ 1 ].

    The same mistake was made by President Obama: thus he declared last April that Libya was his "biggest regret", not because he used US-led Nato forces to reduce it to smithereens but because he had failed to plan for "the day after". At the same time, Obama has confirmed his support for Hillary Clinton who is now running for president. When Hillary was Secretary of State, she convinced Obama to authorize a covert operation in Libya (which included sending in special forces and arming terrorist groups) in preparation for a US/Nato aeronaval attack.

    Clinton's emails that subsequently came to light, prove what the real motive for war might be: blocking Gaddafi's plan to harness Libya's sovereign funds to establish independent financial organizations, located within the African Union and an African currency that could serve as an alternative to the dollar and the CFA franc.

    Immediately after razing the State of Libya, the US and Nato brought in the Gulf Monarchies and set about a covert operation to destroy the State of Syria by infiltrating it with special forces and terrorist groups that gave birth to Isis.

    An e mail from Clinton, one of the many the Department of State was compelled to de-classify following the uproar triggered by the disclosures on Wikileaks, proves what one of the key objectives of the operation still underway. In an e mail dated 31 December 2012, declassified as "case no: F – 2014 – 20439, Doc No. CO5794998", Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, wrote [ 2 ]:
    "It is Iran's strategic relationship with the Bashar Assad regime that allows Iran to threaten Israel's security – not through a direct attack but through its allies in Lebanon such as the Hezbollah."
    She then emphasizes that:

    "the best way to help Israel is to help the rebellion in Syria that has now lasted for more than a year" (i.e. from 2011). How? By mounting the case that the use of force is a sina qua non to make Basshar Assad fold, so as to endanger his life and that of his family".

    And Clinton concludes:

    "wrecking Assad would not only be a huge advantage for the security of the State of Israel, but would also go a long way to reducing Israel's justifiable fear that it will lose its nuclear monopoly".

    So, the former Secretary of State admits what officially is not said. That Israel is the only country in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons [ 3 ].

    The support given by the Obama Administration to Israel over and above some disagreements (more formal than substantive) is confirmed by the agreement signed on 14 September at Washington under which the United States agrees to supply Israel over a ten year period with weapons of the latest design for a value of 38 billion dollars through an annual financing of 3.3 billion dollars plus half a million for "missile defense".

    In the meantime, after the Russian intervention scuppered the plan to engage in war to demolish Syria from within, the US obtains a "truce" (which it immediately violated), launching at the same time a fresh attack in Libya, in the sheepskin of humanitarian operations that Italy participates in with its "para-medics".

    Meanwhile Israel, lurking in the background, strengthens its nuclear monopoly so precious to Clinton.

    [Nov 03, 2016] Now being reported that the Cheryl Millls laptop, thought to have been destroyed as part of her immunity deal, is actually intact and being reviewed by the FBI

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now being reported that the Cheryl Millls laptop, thought to have been destroyed as part of her immunity deal, is actually intact and being reviewed by the FBI. Ruh Roh. Not sure if it will contain emails related to yoga classes or national security ..."
    Nov 03, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    stratplaya , 3 Nov 2016 17:1>
    Now being reported that the Cheryl Millls laptop, thought to have been destroyed as part of her immunity deal, is actually intact and being reviewed by the FBI. Ruh Roh. Not sure if it will contain emails related to yoga classes or national security

    Rouvas -> stratplaya 45m ago

    Why does she get immunity anyway? Usually you give someone immunity in return for getting them to blab on someone...

    Oh yes, silly me, it's the Clinton's we are talking about... different rules apply

    [Nov 03, 2016] Bill must feel left out

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary is already surrounded by fbi investigations and a Weiner sex scandal with minors. Bill must feel left out. ..."
    Nov 03, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    Juillette 26m ago

    Hillary is already surrounded by fbi investigations and a Weiner sex scandal with minors. Bill must feel left out.

    yianni Juillette 20m ago

    Ha ha ha, must be laugh a minute in your trailer.

    [Nov 03, 2016] Why did humans invent gods?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Well I'm sure there's many reasons but one has to be because religion was a good way of saying "I haven't got a fucking clue" without losing face. And we're obsessed with keeping face. ..."
    "... That's all religion really is. It fills the gaps in human knowledge and as the gaps become fewer we become less religious. ..."
    "... The issue of course is humans collectively know a lot of stuff but individually we only know a very specific amount of stuff. There's a lot of stuff on the internet these days which we can access and (skim) read but that's not to say we understand any of it or can critically assess it. ..."
    Nov 03, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Fred1 4h ago

    Why did humans invent gods?

    Well I'm sure there's many reasons but one has to be because religion was a good way of saying "I haven't got a fucking clue" without losing face. And we're obsessed with keeping face.

    That's all religion really is. It fills the gaps in human knowledge and as the gaps become fewer we become less religious.

    Now we probably shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves and say we've closed all of the gaps (we've barely left our neck of the woods) but there is certainly the sense that humans know a lot of stuff.

    The issue of course is humans collectively know a lot of stuff but individually we only know a very specific amount of stuff. There's a lot of stuff on the internet these days which we can access and (skim) read but that's not to say we understand any of it or can critically assess it.

    Which brings me to Trump. Religion is not as popular these days because we've all got a bit cocky and think we know everything because we can Google it. But we still have massive gaps in our knowledge.

    Trump panders to the same gaps in our knowledge that religion once did. Trump has the answers. Clinton is the problem. We know this apparently. Just like we once knew there was a god.

    As a general rule we should stick to what we know rather than what we perceive since perception can be so misleading (good old common sense). We should also be deeply suspicious when someone comes to us with answers especially when those answers are actually in the form of nothing in particular and criticising everyone else.

    Just for one second put aside what you think you know about the world and the "elite" and stick to what you actually know about Trump. Sexual assault anyone?

    [Nov 03, 2016] What Trump represents is not crazy and it is not going away. Peter Thiel defends support for Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... The support Trump has enjoyed is directly tied to the frustration many across the country feel toward Washington and its entrenched leaders, and they shouldn't expect that sentiment to dissipate regardless of whether Trump or Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wins at the ballot box on Nov. 8, he said. ..."
    The Washington Post

    Billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel reiterated his support for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump Monday morning, telling a room of journalists that a Washington outsider in the White House would recalibrate lawmakers who have lost touch with the struggles of most Americans.

    Thiel said it was "both insane and somehow inevitable" that political leaders would expect this presidential election to be a contest between "political dynasties" that have shepherded the country into two major financial crises: the tech bubble burst in the early 2000s, and the housing crisis and economic recession later that decade.

    The support Trump has enjoyed is directly tied to the frustration many across the country feel toward Washington and its entrenched leaders, and they shouldn't expect that sentiment to dissipate regardless of whether Trump or Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wins at the ballot box on Nov. 8, he said.

    "What Trump represents isn't crazy and it's not going away," he said.

    [Nov 03, 2016] Thousands of people eill vote for Trump as a cynical form of rebellion agaisnt neoliberal establishemnt which is hell-bent on globalization

    Nov 03, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    redwhine zitan

    10h ago
    I'd actually argue the opposite. Thousands of people are turning to Trump as a cynical form of rebellion. They think that voting for him will be interesting/fun. If you were to ask them how a Hillary Clinton presidency would seriously make their lives worse, they'd have nothing serious to answer. At best they might say that they'll be fine, but that the rest of the country would suffer, and then spout of a bunch of nonsense as to why that would be. It's a luxury to be so reckless, which is where America is right now. If millions of lives literally depended on the outcome of this election, people would be much more careful about how they plan to vote.

    [Nov 03, 2016] Trillions of dollars at stake as multinationals want Hillary to be elected

    Notable quotes:
    "... So no mention of the Department of Justice tipping off the Clinton campaign Guardian? Surely that it a pretty damning new revelation. Corrupt to the core. No of course not, ignoring wikileaks and shilling more of the same old wall to wall Anti Trump scaremongering. ..."
    "... We get it, Trump is a jerk. Hillary Clinton is systemically corrupt. ..."
    "... And here I was thinking the Guardian was progressive… but you'll stoop to anything to get your chosen corporatist candidate over the line eh? ..."
    "... Obama changed his tone. The Dems are in desperate mode. Kinda nice to see them on the defense. However they will never change their globalist agenda to sell off the rest of middle class. ..."
    "... Trump against the entire establishment with unlimited funds. They sent out their top politicians/celebrities in full force and still can't flip Florida. If he wins with only popular support it will be the best upset in modern history. ..."
    "... Obama has destroyed the nation with his identity politics, his lies, his elitist BS, his lack of awareness of the constitution, his constant pronouncing of guilt or innocence from the WH, his inviting key players in the BLM movement and the various idiot celebs like Jay-Z and Beyonce, to the WH, his arrogance, etc. ..."
    "... As the above LA Times poll shows, Trump now has a monstrous 5.4% lead. His supporters are growing on a daily basis, as he continues to attract African-American supporters and Democrats in record-breaking numbers for a Republican candidate. ..."
    "... Obama is a master of calling people racists without actually coming out with it. He is also a master of playing on people's fears. He has been such a disappointment. Instead of uniting the country he has kept it divided. ..."
    "... The Obamas are hypocrites of the highest order,In 2007/8 they said the Clintons were toxic and Hillary should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. The Obamas cronyism for the powerful and elite makes my blood boil ..."
    "... The Obamas swept into the White House on a dream ticket provided in the main by the black vote, With the first 2 yrs of hobnobbing with the rich, powerful and famous he was slow to do a thing for the voter and all of 8 yrs on he still hasn't and we all know he never will ? ..."
    "... The condescending Obamas are now out rallying for the very same woman they denounced 8 yrs earlier. They are in essence expecting the voter to forget everything that went on before and vote the impeached X President and his caustic wife ..."
    "... Sure... He's all that. But he said he doesn't want a nuclear war with Russia. Hillary on the other hand is really keen on the idea. All her MIC backers agree. ..."
    "... And clinton has the official endorsement of all the republican neocons who wrote and implemented the project for the new American century which embarked your country on a series of illegal wars in the middle east, millions of people dead, and created international terrorism. Oh and your national debt rose to trillions and your country's Infrastructure is falling apart and you have absolutely nothing tangible to show for it. Good luck with Hillary guys. ..."
    "... "But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote 'paid tribute' to Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy. She championed NAFTA - even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs. And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush's war in Iraq. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing. It's time to turn the page. ..."
    "... Shouldn't it be illegal, for Obama, a government official, to attempt to influence the election? The Guardian already reported that Obama has been campaigning more than any sitting president before him. ..."
    "... And besides, is that what he does on taxpayers' dime? Shouldn't he in general be addressing important issues of the country? ..."
    Nov 03, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    fedback 6h ago

    Trillions of dollars at stake.

    Massive multi billion dollar corporate entities and financial conglomerates who have a vested self interest in the election will throw everything they have got into the system. No effort too extreme, nothing out of bounds.


    65jangle 6h ago

    So no mention of the Department of Justice tipping off the Clinton campaign Guardian? Surely that it a pretty damning new revelation. Corrupt to the core. No of course not, ignoring wikileaks and shilling more of the same old wall to wall Anti Trump scaremongering.

    We get it, Trump is a jerk. Hillary Clinton is systemically corrupt.

    And here I was thinking the Guardian was progressive… but you'll stoop to anything to get your chosen corporatist candidate over the line eh?

    BlueberryCompote -> ByzantiumNovum 6h ago
    The lunatic Russophobia of the US State Department makes your intervention unnecessary as Obama probably was the last bulwark against insanity.

    Rigobertus 7h ago

    Let's not forget the dead:
    America Betrayed - Bush Administration, FBI Complicity In 911:
    http://www.rense.com/general25/fb.htm

    Juillette 7h ago

    Obama changed his tone. The Dems are in desperate mode. Kinda nice to see them on the defense. However they will never change their globalist agenda to sell off the rest of middle class.

    Trump against the entire establishment with unlimited funds. They sent out their top politicians/celebrities in full force and still can't flip Florida. If he wins with only popular support it will be the best upset in modern history.


    aldebaranredstar 8h ago

    Obama has destroyed the nation with his identity politics, his lies, his elitist BS, his lack of awareness of the constitution, his constant pronouncing of guilt or innocence from the WH, his inviting key players in the BLM movement and the various idiot celebs like Jay-Z and Beyonce, to the WH, his arrogance, etc.

    He has not only destroyed the Dem Party--which is weaker than it has ever been--but the entire nation with his Executive orders that got overturned by the SCOTUS--the man is pure hell. A bad leader is a bad leader, no matter the color. People are disgusted with his actions as POTUS and that is the bottom line cause of the rise of DT. Obama has waged war in his own nation--not only overseas. Peace Prize--HAHAHA.


    Flugler 8h ago

    Walkover;

    As the above LA Times poll shows, Trump now has a monstrous 5.4% lead. His supporters are growing on a daily basis, as he continues to attract African-American supporters and Democrats in record-breaking numbers for a Republican candidate.


    In addition to this, the polls may be horribly off, as Trump has what many are calling the "monster vote" waiting in the wings. This is in reference to the stunning amount of previously unregistered voters who have never voted in their life but plan on showing up to the polls to support Donald Trump, as internal polling is showing.

    Further supporting how strong his momentum is across all categories is the fact that Donald Trump now has the majority of support across ALL age categories. A huge development, considering that he has been struggling with young voters throughout much of his campaign.

    rocjoc43rd 8h ago

    Obama is a master of calling people racists without actually coming out with it. He is also a master of playing on people's fears. He has been such a disappointment. Instead of uniting the country he has kept it divided. I wonder if he is keeping the country safe while he spends the next week campaigning for his replacement.

    mandyjeancole 8h ago

    The Obamas are hypocrites of the highest order,In 2007/8 they said the Clintons were toxic and Hillary should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. The Obamas cronyism for the powerful and elite makes my blood boil

    The Obamas swept into the White House on a dream ticket provided in the main by the black vote, With the first 2 yrs of hobnobbing with the rich, powerful and famous he was slow to do a thing for the voter and all of 8 yrs on he still hasn't and we all know he never will ?

    The condescending Obamas are now out rallying for the very same woman they denounced 8 yrs earlier. They are in essence expecting the voter to forget everything that went on before and vote the impeached X President and his caustic wife another bite of the proverbial cherry, Donald Trumps somewhat blundering campaign has been mired in his apparent misogyny and he has come in for the most horrendous criticism by the world's press while Mrs. Clintons lies and, deceit up until now were considered acceptable for a 30 yr veteran of politics.

    Mr. Trump maybe an all-American dreamer, he may not always come across as the most coherent, but he loves his Country. and he wants what's best for it.....If America is looking for mistakes made look no further than Europe, The powers that be.. have made the most catastrophic decisions that have in turn left the once proud cultures of Europe in the grip of Islamic fundamentalist whose barbaric in doctoring wants to take us back a 1000 yrs. Give Mr. Trump 4 yrs.. its not too long..He just might surprise you. MJC

    Meep_Meep 8h ago

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump decried Democratic rival Hillary Clinton as "the candidate of yesterday," calling himself and his supporters "the movement of the future."

    Yeah...the future!

    DeAngelOfPi -> Brighton181 8h ago

    Sure... He's all that. But he said he doesn't want a nuclear war with Russia. Hillary on the other hand is really keen on the idea. All her MIC backers agree.

    SoloLoMejor -> PostTrotskyite 9h ago

    And clinton has the official endorsement of all the republican neocons who wrote and implemented the project for the new American century which embarked your country on a series of illegal wars in the middle east, millions of people dead, and created international terrorism. Oh and your national debt rose to trillions and your country's Infrastructure is falling apart and you have absolutely nothing tangible to show for it. Good luck with Hillary guys.

    RememberRemember 9h ago

    2016 Obama, perhaps you would like a word with 2008 Obama.

    Obama: "I'm Barack Obama, running for president and I approve this message."

    Announcer: "It's what's wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected. Now she's making false attacks on Barack Obama.

    "The Washington Post says Clinton isn't telling the truth. Obama 'did not say that he liked the ideas of Republicans.' In fact, Obama's led the fight to raise the minimum wage, close corporate tax loopholes and cut taxes for the middle class.

    "But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote 'paid tribute' to Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy. She championed NAFTA - even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs. And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush's war in Iraq.

    "Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing. It's time to turn the page. Paid for by Obama for America."


    calderonparalapaz 9h ago

    A Hillary ad should be about Clinton Inc as the american dream. Thanks Teneo!

    "Until the Friday blockbuster news that the FBI was reopening its probe into the Hillary email server, the biggest overhang facing the Clinton Campaign was the escalating scandal involving the Clinton Foundation, Doug Band's consultancy firm Teneo, and Bill Clinton who as a result of a leaked memo emerged was generously compensated for potential political favors by prominent corporate clients using Teneo as a pass-thru vehicle for purchasing influence.

    In a section of the memo entitled "Leveraging Teneo For The Foundation," Band spelled out all of the donations he solicited from Teneo "clients" for the Clinton Foundation. In all, there are roughly $14mm of donations listed with the largest contributors being Coca-Cola, Barclays, The Rockefeller Foundation and Laureate International Universities. Some of these are shown below (the full details can be found in "Leaked Memo Exposes Shady Dealings Between Clinton Foundation Donors And Bill's "For-Profit" Activities")"

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-30/doug-band-john-podesta-if-story-gets-out-we-are-screwed

    hadeze242 9h ago

    the more the media hush up on Huma Abedin, the more there is to know. it was her & criminally accused Weiner's PC which (in a folder innocuously labelled) had 650,000 emails. Abedin comments "she did not now how the 650,000 emails got there" (sic). the US media continues to cover up this aspect of the Trio story: Abedin-Clinton-Weiner... the fact that Weiner is buddy with Israel's Netanyahu simply adds to this intertwined messy cover-up.

    BoSelecta 9h ago

    The Clintonite corruption spreads in to the Justice Department:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/02/justice-department-official-gave-clinton-camp-heads-up-about-testimony.html

    vr13vr 9h ago

    Shouldn't it be illegal, for Obama, a government official, to attempt to influence the election? The Guardian already reported that Obama has been campaigning more than any sitting president before him.

    And besides, is that what he does on taxpayers' dime? Shouldn't he in general be addressing important issues of the country?

    ALostIguana -> vr13vr 9h ago

    Hatch Act explicitly excludes the President and Vice-President. They can take part in political campaigning. Most other members of the executive are constrained by the Hatch Act.


    [Nov 03, 2016] The stench of desperation and corruption is surrounding the Dems like the piles of rotting corpses Obama and Clinton have stacked up in Libya and Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... Let's hope that Mr. Assange is saving the best for last, and delivers the coup de grace to the warmongering sociopathic harpy and she melts down like the wicked witch of the west. ..."
    "... Either way, methinks that a great mass of unwashed deplorables may just rise up and sweep the authoritarian orange barbarian into power. ..."
    Nov 03, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    libertate 5h ago

    My my, the times they are interesting.

    The stench of desperation and corruption is surrounding the Dems like the piles of rotting corpses Obama and Clinton have stacked up in Libya and Syria.

    Let's hope that Mr. Assange is saving the best for last, and delivers the coup de grace to the warmongering sociopathic harpy and she melts down like the wicked witch of the west.

    Either way, methinks that a great mass of unwashed deplorables may just rise up and sweep the authoritarian orange barbarian into power.

    Which is why I'm stocking up on ribeyes, scotch, and ammo for next week. Should Trump prevail, I give better than even odds that the leftist chimps will, literally, go berserk .

    [Nov 03, 2016] Off The Record dinner at Podestas with reporters covering Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary wouldn't even be close if the press weren't in the tank for her ..."
    Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    JackMeOff Nov 3, 2016 9:37 AM

    Off The Record dinner at Podesta's with reporters covering Clinton:

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43604

    The goals of the dinner include:

    (1) Getting to know the reporters most closely c overing HRC and getting them comfortable with team HRC

    (2) Setting expectations for the announcement and launch period

    (3) Framing the HRC message and framing the race

    (4) Demystifying key players on HRC's campaign team

    (5) Having fun and enjoying good cooking

    I am a Man I am... JackMeOff Nov 3, 2016 10:01 AM ,
    REPORTERS RSVP (28) 1. ABC – Liz Kreutz 2. AP – Julie Pace 3. AP - Ken Thomas 4. AP - Lisa Lerer 5. Bloomberg - Jennifer Epstein 6. Buzzfeed - Ruby Cramer 7. CBS – Steve Chagaris 8. CNBC - John Harwood 9. CNN - Dan Merica 10. Huffington Post - Amanda Terkel 11. LAT - Evan Handler 12. McClatchy - Anita Kumar 13. MSNBC - Alex Seitz-Wald 14. National Journal - Emily Schultheis 15. NBC – Mark Murray 16. NPR - Mara Liassion 17. NPR – Tamara Keith 18. NYT - Amy Chozik 19. NYT - Maggie Haberman 20. Politico - Annie Karni 21. Politico - Gabe Debenedetti 22. Politico - Glenn Thrush 23. Reuters - Amanda Becker 24. Washington Post - Anne Gearan 25. Washington Post – Phil Rucker 26. WSJ - Colleen McCain Nelson 27. WSJ - Laura Meckler 28. WSJ - Peter Nicholas

    Pigeon •Nov 3, 2016 9:49 AM

    It bothers me these stories are constantly prefaced with the idea that Wikileaks is saving Trump's bacon. Hillary wouldn't even be close if the press weren't in the tank for her. How about Wikileaks evening the playing field with REAL STORIES AND FACTS?

    [Nov 02, 2016] The the Guardian a well-known crypto-Tory propaganda organ

    Nov 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Stephen 11.01.16 at 9:49 pm 79

    SusanC @60:

    "it's also a kind of conspiracy theory that Tony Blair lied to the people about the case for going to war in Iraq".

    The words "a kind of" are being used in an extremely vague and attenuated state. Rather a large number of people would interpret your meaning as "not in the slightest". Or are you trying to insinuate, I would not say argue, that Tony Blair told the truth the people about the case for going to war in Iraq?
    I ask as one who supported Labour before the Iraq war, which I see as criminally dishonest to a degree I would not have previously thought possible.

    Stephen 11.01.16 at 9:55 pm

    Nastywoman@68: I would recommend a long article from that well-known crypto-Tory propaganda organ , the Guardian, which sets out your case far more eloquently than I could. The title is not the author's responsibility, and is somewhat misleading.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/01/the-ruthlessly-effective-rebranding-of-europes-new-far-right ?

    [Nov 02, 2016] Traditional understanding of left and right does not exist anymore as the radical left and the radical right seem to agree on the most important issues like globalization and protectionism

    Nov 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    ( 69 )
    In conclusion this analysis is still based on a traditional understanding of left and right which doesn't exist anymore in most European countries – as concerning the most important issues like globalization and protectionism the radical left and the radical right seem to agree.

    And so the the traditional understanding of left and right is often used for justification of the own political position, while it is less and less helpful to explain voting behavior.
    As in voting behavior the dividing lines are NOT so much anymore between left and right, but more between a liberal, cosmopolitan bourgeoisie in the center and on both edges populists who are propagating partitioning and protectionism.

    This is true not only for Europe but also for the United States of Trump – aka the once 'United States of America' -(if this currently very popular joke in Europe is allowed?)

    [Nov 02, 2016] Meaninglessness or rather, obfuscation of typical MSM notions of left and right

    Notable quotes:
    "... What I like is how this highlights the meaninglessness (or rather, obfuscation) of typical mainstream notions of left and right, which refer to rival ideological subgroupings within liberalism ..."
    Nov 02, 2016 | www.carlbeijer.com
    and here , might be a three-party system of simply "alt-right", "alt-left", and "alt-center".

    What I like is how this highlights the meaninglessness (or rather, obfuscation) of typical mainstream notions of left and right, which refer to rival ideological subgroupings within liberalism, where alt-right and alt-left can be understood as groupings that reject certain basic premises of liberalism altogether;

    alt-center can then be understood as denoting establishment-aligned liberals of both "right" and "left" varieties, whose clear priority above and beyond superficial two-party bickering is to maintain the hegemony of liberalism (i.e. neoliberalism) against potential ideological competition.

    We can see this neoliberal/alt-center tendency in the US with moderate Republicans backing Clinton against the proto-fascist/alt-right tendencies channeled by Trump, and a mirror image in the UK with Blairite Labour's ongoing quest to marginalize the socialist/alt-left tendencies channeled by Corbyn at the expense of empowering the Tories under May.

    Of course I don't like the idea of conceding to alt-centrist liberals that the left/right dichotomy without "alt-" prefixes means what they claim it means, but as a way of planting the notion in people's heads that much of mainstream political discourse is more likely to hinder true understanding than help it, the "alt-" taxonomy seems easy enough both to explain and to understand.

    [Nov 02, 2016] Progressivism and humanitarianism in war profiteering and war mongering Civilian protective operations panders a neocon excuse for organized state run murder.

    Notable quotes:
    "... progressivism & humanitarianism in war profiteering aka mongering...... "Civilian protective operations" panders a neocon excuse for organized state run murder. Bill went after the Tsar as soon as his closet neocon found out they could have the Germans send a mechanized brigade of Warsaw Pact armaments to the Croats and Yeltsin did nothing. ..."
    "... The Russian version of Chamberlain and Munich was Croatian independence. ..."
    "... Most career military pilots I knew were terrified by the thought of no more perpetual bombing. ..."
    "... They would think Clinton and the neocons can keep a low boil going in the PNAC for another 100 years without tripping into a real war, or bankrupting the USA. ..."
    "... It is a signifier of the moral bankruptcy that the exceptional carry as a badge. ..."
    Oct 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : , October 26, 2016 at 09:59 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/opinion/playing-with-fear-russias-war-card.html

    October 26, 2016

    Russia's War Card
    By MICHAEL KHODARKOVSKY

    War hysteria in a country with imperial nostalgia, one-man rule and a weak economy cannot be taken lightly.

    Michael Khodarkovsky is a professor of history at Loyola University.

    [ The fostering of fear of and disdain for Russia is continual now and however false the characterizations of Russia are, and they are indeed false, the fear and disdain will influence and be self-defeating for American foreign policy from here till a dramatic change comes from another administration. I unfortunately find no such change in the offing. ]

    anne -> anne... , October 26, 2016 at 10:34 AM
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/791252853943836672

    Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald

    Any new war she gets the US involved in will be prosecuted with progressivism & humanitarianism in her heart, so what's the worry?

    Trevor Timm @trevortimm

    Retired senior military pilots "increasingly alarmed" Clinton's Syria No Fly Zone plan could lead to war with Russia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zones-russia-us-war

    5:19 AM - 26 Oct 2016

    ilsm -> anne... , October 26, 2016 at 03:22 PM
    progressivism & humanitarianism in war profiteering aka mongering......

    "Civilian protective operations" panders a neocon excuse for organized state run murder.

    Bill went after the Tsar as soon as his closet neocon found out they could have the Germans send a mechanized brigade of Warsaw Pact armaments to the Croats and Yeltsin did nothing.

    The Russian version of Chamberlain and Munich was Croatian independence.

    ilsm -> anne... , -1
    Most career military pilots I knew were terrified by the thought of no more perpetual bombing.

    They would think Clinton and the neocons can keep a low boil going in the PNAC for another 100 years without tripping into a real war, or bankrupting the USA.

    It is a signifier of the moral bankruptcy that the exceptional carry as a badge.

    With the "defenses available" to Syria they could enforce no fly zones on GCC and their blood thirsty allies as as might US over Raqqa.

    The hegemon!

    [Nov 02, 2016] Open question: does the neoliberal-lite party have any incentive to cater to the left?

    Notable quotes:
    "... The problem with racism underground has been clear for sometime: the racists tell themselves that they're clear-thinkers resisting the group think of the politically-correct mob. ..."
    Nov 02, 2016 | obsidianrook.com
    10.30.16 at 6:41 am ( Joseph Brenner )
    Cynically: is there a need to do anything? As long as the right is the (now out of the closet) home of racism, they've marginalized themselves. Open question: does the neoliberal-lite party have any incentive to cater to the left?

    The problem with racism underground has been clear for sometime: the racists tell themselves that they're clear-thinkers resisting the group think of the politically-correct mob.

    I've thought for some time that there would be some value in an anti-racism FAQ: no one bothers to argue against racists (beyond shouting "racist!") so everyone is rusty on what the data actually shows.

    The point of this is not necessarily to convince racists that they're wrong (good luck with that), but to shake their conviction that the anti-racists are the ones out of touch with reality.

    I would start with the excellent "Intelligence, Genes & Success" (subtitled: "Scientists Respond to _The Bell Curve_").

    [Nov 02, 2016] Joseph Brenner

    Nov 02, 2016 | obsidianrook.com
    10.30.16 at 6:41 am ( Joseph Brenner )
    Cynically: is there a need to do anything? As long as the right is the (now out of the closet) home of racism, they've marginalized themselves. Open question: does the neoliberal-lite party have any incentive to cater to the left?

    The problem with racism underground has been clear for sometime: the racists tell themselves that they're clear-thinkers resisting the group think of the politically-correct mob.

    I've thought for some time that there would be some value in an anti-racism FAQ: no one bothers to argue against racists (beyond shouting "racist!") so everyone is rusty on what the data actually shows.

    The point of this is not necessarily to convince racists that they're wrong (good luck with that), but to shake their conviction that the anti-racists are the ones out of touch with reality.

    I would start with the excellent "Intelligence, Genes & Success" (subtitled: "Scientists Respond to _The Bell Curve_").

    [Nov 02, 2016] Donald Trump is no outsider: he mirrors our political culture by George Monbiot

    Trump mirrors resentment with the current political culture. Unfortunately very few readers in this forum understand that the emergence of Trump as a viable candidate in the current race, the candidate who withstand 24x7 air bombarment by corrupt neoliberabl MSM (like Guardian ;-) signify deep crisis of neoliberalsm and neoliberal globalization.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless of its size." ..."
    "... That's it – finance and sophisticated lobbying. And you can add to that mass brainwashing at election campaigns by means of choice language and orchestration as advised by cognitive scientists who are expressly recruited for this purpose. Voters remain largely unaware of the mind control they are undergoing. And of course the essential prerequisite for all of this is financial power. ..."
    "... Now read again in this light Gore Vidal's famous pronouncement… "Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically by definition be disqualified from ever doing so." ..."
    "... Worse still, the political spectrum runs from right to right. To all intents and purposes, one single party, the US Neoliberal party, with 2 factions catering for power and privilege. Anything to the left of that is simply not an available choice for voters. ..."
    "... Americans have wakened up to the fact that they badly need a government which caters for the needs of the average citizen. In their desperation some will still vote for Trump warts and all. This for the same sorts of reasons that Italians voted for Berlusconi, whose winning slogan was basically 'I am not a politician'. ..."
    "... The right choice was Bernie Sanders. Sadly, not powerful enough. So Americans missed the boat there. But at least there was a boat to miss this time around. You can be sure that similar future boats will be sunk well in advance. Corporate power has learnt its lesson and the art of election rigging has now become an exact science. ..."
    "... Donald Trump, Brexit and Le Pen are all in their separate ways rejections of the dogma of liberalism, social and economic, that has dominated the West for the past three decades. ..."
    "... In 2010, Chomsky wrote : ..."
    "... The United States is extremely lucky.....if somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. ..."
    "... Dangerous times. The beauty of democracy is we get what we deserve ..."
    "... The worst thing about Donald Trump is that he's the man in the mirror. ..."
    "... He is the distillation of all that we have been induced to desire and admire. ..."
    "... I thought that he is the mirror image, the reverse, of the current liberal consensus. A consensus driven by worthy ideals but driven too far, gradually losing acceptance and with no self correcting awareness. ..."
    "... Trump is awful - but by speaking freely he challenges the excesses of those who would limit free speech. Trump is awful - but by demonising minorities he challenges those who would excuse minorities of all responsibility. Trump is awful - but by flaunting his wealth he challenges those who keep their connections and wealth hidden for the sake of appearances. ..."
    "... Trump is awful because the system is out of balance. He is a consequence, not a cause. ..."
    "... Voting for Trump is voting for peace. Voting for Clinton is voting for WW3. ..."
    "... It's quite clearly because Hillary as President is an utterly terrifying prospect. When half the population would rather have Trump than her, it must be conceded that she has some serious reputational issues. ..."
    "... Personally, I'd take Trump over Hillary if I was a US citizen. He may be a buffoon but she is profoundly dangerous, probably a genuine psychopath and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Presidency. Sanders is the man America needs now, though, barring one of Hillary's many crimes finally toppling her, it's not going to happen... ..."
    "... The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal ..."
    "... And the shame is we seem to be becoming desensitized to scandal. We cannot be said to live in democracies when our political class are so obviously bought by the vastly rich. ..."
    "... One of the things it says is that people are so sick of Identity Politics from the Left and believe the Left are not very true to the ideals of what should be the Left. ..."
    "... When the people who are supposed to care about the poor and working joes and janes prefer to care about the minorities whose vote they can rely on, the poor and the working joes and janes will show their frustration by supporting someone who will come along and tell it as it is, even if he is part of how it got that way. ..."
    "... People throughout the world have awoken to the Left being Right Light but with a more nauseating moral superiority complex. ..."
    "... he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics ..."
    "... 'Encouraged by the corporate media, the Republicans have been waging a full-spectrum assault on empathy, altruism and the decencies we owe to other people. Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.' ..."
    "... Many years ago in the British Military, those with the right connections and enough money could buy an officer's commission and rise up the system to be an incompetent General. As a result, many battles were mismanaged and many lives wasted due to the incompetent (wealthy privileged few) buying their way to the top. American politics today works on exactly the same system of wealthy patronage and privilege for the incompetent, read Clinton and Trump. Until the best candidates are able to rise up through the political system without buying their way there then the whole corrupt farce will continue and we will be no different to the all the other tin pot republics of the world. ..."
    "... There's the "culture wars" aspect. Many people don't like being told they are "deplorable" for opposing illegal (or even legal) immigration. They don't like being called "racist" for disagreeing with an ideology. ..."
    "... I like the phrase Monbiot ends with - "He is our system, stripped of its pretences" - it reminds me of a phrase in the Communist Manifesto - but I don't think it's true. "Our" system is more than capitalism, it's culture. And Clinton is a far more "perfect representation" of the increasingly censorious, narrow [neo]liberal culture which dominates the Western world. ..."
    "... Finally, Monbiot misses the chance to contrast Clinton's and Trump's apparent differences with regard to confronting nuclear-armed Russia over the skies of Syria. It could be like 1964 all over again - except in this election, the Democrat is the nearest thing to Barry Goldwater. ..."
    "... As a life-long despiser of all things Trump, I cannot believe that I am saying this: Trump is good for world peace. ..."
    "... I fully agree with Monbiot, American democracy is a sham - the lobby system has embedded corruption right in the heart of its body politic. Lets be clear here though, whatever is the problem with American democracy can in theory at least be fixed, but Trump simply can not and moreover he is not the answer ..."
    "... His opponent, war child and Wall Street darling can count her lucky stars that the media leaves her alone (with husband Bill, hands firmly in his pockets, nodding approvingly) and concentrates on their feeding frenzy attacking Trump on sexual allegations of abusing women, giving Hillery, Yes, likely to tell lies, ( mendacious, remember when she claimed to be under enemy fire in Bosnia? remember how evasive she was on the Benghazi attack on the embassy) Yes Trump is a dangerous man running against an also extremely dangerous woman. ..."
    "... Extremely interesting reference to the Madison paper, but the issue is less about the size of the electorate, and more about the power that the election provides to the victor. ..."
    "... Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt? ..."
    "... When you look at speeches and conversations and debates with the so-called bogeyman, Putin, he is not at all in a league as low and vile as portrayed and says many more sensible things than anybody cares to listen to, because we're all brainwashed. We are complicit in wars (now in Syria) and cannot see why we have to connive with terrorists, tens of thousands of them, and they get supported by the war machine and friends like Saudis and Turkey which traded for years with ISIS. ..."
    "... Clinton the war hawk, and shows us we are only capable of seeing one side and project all nastiness outward while we can feel good about ourselves by hating the other. ..."
    "... It fits the Decline of an Empire image as it did in other Falls of Civilizations. ..."
    "... Trump spoke to the executives at Ford like no one before ever has. He told them if they moved production to Mexico (as they plan to do) that he would slap huge tariffs on their cars in America and no one would buy them. ..."
    "... What happens in Syria could be important to us all. Clinton doesn't hide her ambition to drive Assad from power and give Russia a kicking. It's actually very unpopular although the media doesn't like to say so; it prefers to lambast Spain for re-fueling Russian war ships off to fight the crazed Jihadists as if we supported the religious fanatics that want to slaughter all Infidels! There is an enormous gulf between what ordinary people want and the power crazy Generals in the Pentagon and NATO. ..."
    "... USA has got itself in an unholy mess . It's politicians no longer work for the people . Their paymasters care not if life in Idaho resembles Dantes inferno . Trump has many faults but being "not Hilary" is not one of them. The very fact he is disliked by all the vested interests should make you take another look. And remember , the American constitution has many checks and balances , a President has a lot less power than most people imagine. ..."
    "... Like many on the right, the left have unthinkingly accepted a narrative of an organized, conspiratorial system run by an elite of politicians and plutocrats. The problem with this narrative is it suggests politics and politicians are inherently nefarious, in turn suggesting there are no political solutions to be sought to problems, or anything people can do to challenge a global system of power. As Monbiot asks: "You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?" Well, what indeed? ..."
    "... I don't think you need to believe in an organised conspiracy and I don't see any real evidence that George Monbiot does. The trouble is that the corporate and political interests align in a way that absorbs any attempt to challenge them and the narrative has been written that of course politics is all about economics and of course we need mighty corporations to sustain us. ..."
    "... Not long after the start of the presidential campaign I began to reflect that in Trump we are seeing materializing before us the logical result of the neoliberal project ..."
    "... The Republican party essentially offered their base nothing – that was the problem. ..."
    "... They couldn't offer all the things that ordinary Americans want – better and wider Medicaid, better and wider social security, tax increases on the rich, an end to pointless foreign wars and the American empire. ..."
    "... The Democrats have largely the same funding base, but they at least deliver crumbs – at least a nod to the needs of ordinary people through half-hearted social programmes. ..."
    "... Trump is imperfect because he wants normal relations rather than war with Russia. No, Hillary Clinton is the ultimate representation of the system that is abusing us. What will occur when Goldman Sachs and the military-industrial complex coalition get their, what is it, 5th term in office would be a great subject of many Guardian opinion pieces, actually. But that will have to wait till after November 8. ..."
    "... And, of course, we also have Hillary's Wall Street speeches -- thanks to Wikileaks we have the complete transcripts, in case Guardian readers are unaware. They expose the real thinking and 'private positions' of the central character in the next episode of 'Rule by Plutocracy'. ..."
    "... The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that they somehow representing the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies and hypocrisy and manipulating the working class everyday through their power over the media. Their function is to appease the working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party. ..."
    "... In what concerns foreign politics, Trump some times seems more reasonable than Clinton and the establishment. Clinton is the best coached politician of all times. She doesn't know that she's coached. She just followed the most radical groups and isn't able to question anything at all. The only thing that the coaches didn't fix until now is her laughing which is considered even by her coaches as a sign of weirdness. ..."
    "... Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming force. ..."
    "... "Trump personifies the traits promoted by the media and corporate worlds he affects to revile; the worlds that created him. He is the fetishisation of wealth, power and image in a nation where extrinsic values are championed throughout public discourse. His conspicuous consumption, self-amplification and towering (if fragile) ego are in tune with the dominant narratives of our age." ..."
    "... Yes, they don't care any more if we see the full extent of their corruption as we've given up our power to do anything about it. ..."
    "... It was once very common to see Democratic politicians as neighbors attending every community event. They were Teamsters, pipe fitters, and electricians. And they were coaches and ushers and pallbearers. Now they are academics and lawyers and NGO employees and managers who pop up during campaigns. The typical income of the elected Democrats outside their government check is north of $100,000. They don't live in, or even wander through, the poorer neighborhoods. So they are essentially clueless that government services like busses are run to suit government and not actual customers. ..."
    "... Yea, 15 years of constant wars of empire with no end in sight has pretty much ran this country in the ground. ..."
    "... We all talk about how much money is wasted by the federal government on unimportant endeavors like human services and education, but don't even bat an eye about the sieve of money that is the Pentagon. ..."
    "... Half a trillion dollars for aircraft carriers we don't need and are already obsolete. China is on the verge of developing wickedly effective anti-ship missiles designed specifically to target these Gerald R. Ford-class vessels. You might as well paint a huge bull's-eye on these ships' 4-1/2 acre flight deck. ..."
    "... There are plenty more examples of this crap and this doesn't even include the nearly TWO trillion dollars we've spent this past decade-and-a-half on stomping flat the Middle East and large swaths of the Indian subcontinent. ..."
    "... And all this time, our nation's infrastructure is crumbling literally right out from underneath us and millions upon millions of children and their families experience a daily struggle just to eat. Eat?! In the "greatest," wealthiest nation on earth and we prefer to kill people at weddings with drones than feed our own children. ..."
    "... I'd like to read an unbiased piece about why the media narrative doesn't match the reality of the Trump phenomenon. He is getting enormous crowds attend his rallies but hardly any coverage of that in the filtered news outlets. Hillary, is struggling to get anyone turn up without paying them. There is no real enthusiasm. ..."
    "... The buzzwords and tired old catch phrases and cliches used by the left to suppress any alternative discussion, and divert from their own misdemeanors are fooling no one but themselves. Trump supporters simply don't care any more how Hillary supporters explain that she lied about dodging sniper fire. Or the numerous other times she and her cohorts have been caught out telling fibs. ..."
    "... Very true. Throughout history the rich, the powerful, the landed, ennobled interest and their friends in the Law and money changing houses have sought to control governments and have usually succeeded. ..."
    "... In the Media today the rich are fawned over by sycophantic journalists and programme makers. These are the people who make the political weather and create the prevailing narratives. ..."
    "... Working class people fancied themselves to above the common herd and thought themselves part of some elite. ..."
    "... It's quite disturbing the lengths this paper will go to in order to slur and discredit Trump, labelling him dangerous and alluding to the sexual assault allegations. This even goes so far to a very lengthy article regarding Trumps lack of knowledge on the Rumbelows Cup 25 years ago. ..."
    "... Whereas very little examination is made into Hillary Clinton's background which includes serious allegation of fraud and involvement in assisting in covering up her husband's alleged series of rapes. There are also issues in the wikileaks emails that merit analysis as well as undercover tapes of seioau issues with her campaign team. ..."
    "... One of the most important characteristics of the so-called neoliberalism is its negative selection. While mostly successfully camouflaged, that negative selection is more than obvious this time, in two US presidential candidates. It's hard to imagine lower than those two. ..."
    "... Well, OK George. Tell me: if Trump's such an establishment candidate, then why does the whole of the establishment unanimously reject him? Is it normal for Republicans (such as the Bushes and the neocons) to endorse Democrats? Why does even the Speaker of the House (a Republican) and even, on occasion, Trump's own Vice-Presidential nominee seem to be trying to undermine his campaign? If Trump is really just more of the same as all that came before, why is he being treated different by the MSM and the political establishment? ..."
    "... Obviously, there's something flawed about your assumption. ..."
    "... Trump has exposed the corruption of the political system and the media and has promised to put a stop to it. By contrast, Clinton is financed by the very banks, corporates and financial elites who are responsible for the corruption. This Trump speech is explicit on what we all suspected is going on. Everybody should watch it, irrespective of whether they support him or not! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tab5vvo0TJw ..."
    "... "I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don't necessarily agree with him. They're not racist or redneck, they're actually pretty decent people and so after talking to a number of them I wanted to write this. ..."
    "... Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said "if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy them." It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the "Brexit" states. ..."
    "... Mrs Clinton is also the product of our political culture. A feminist who owes everything to her husband and men in the Democratic Party. A Democrat who started her political career as a Republican; a civil right activist who worked for Gerry Goldwater, one of last openly racist/segregationist politicians. A Secretary of State who has no clue about, or training in, foreign policy, and who received her position as compensation for losing the election. A pacifist, who has never had a gun in her hands, but supported every war in the last twenty years. A humanist who rejoiced over Qaddafi's death ("we came, we won, he is dead!") like a sadist. ..."
    "... One thing that far right politics offers the ordinary white disaffected voter is 'pay back', it is a promised revenge-fest, putting up walls, getting rid of foreigners, punishing employers of foreigners, etc., etc. All the stuff that far right groups have wet dreams about. ..."
    "... Because neoliberal politics has left a hell of a lot of people feeling pissed off, the far right capitalizes on this, whilst belonging to the same neoliberal dystopia so ultimately not being able to make good on their promises. Their promises address a lot of people's anger, which of course isn't really about foreigners at all, that is simply the decoy, but cutting through all the crap to make that clear is no easy task, not really sure how it can be done, certainly no political leader in the western hemisphere has the ability to do so. ..."
    "... Wrong as always. Trump *is* an outsider. He's an unabashed nationalist who's set him up against the *actual* caste that governs our politics: Neo-liberal internationalists with socially trendy left-liberal politics (but not so left that they don't hire good tax lawyers to avoid paying a fraction of what they are legally obliged to). ..."
    "... Best represented in the Goldman Sachs executives who are donating millions to Hillary Clinton because they are worried about Trump's opposition to free trade, and they know she will give them *everything* they want. ..."
    "... Trumps the closest thing we're gotten to a genuine threat to the system in a long, long time, so of course George Monbiot and the rest of the Guardian writers has set themselves against him, because if you're gonna be wrong about the EU, wrong about New Labour, wrong about social liberalism, wrong about immigration, why change the habit of a lifetime? ..."
    "... Lies: Emails, policy changes based on polls showing a complete lack of conviction, corporate collusion, Bosnia, Clinton Foundation, war mongering, etc. Racist stereotypes: Super predators. Misogyny: Aside from her laughing away her pedophile case and allegedly threatening the women who came out against Bill, you've also got this sexist gem "Women are the primary victims of war". ..."
    "... Alleged gropings: Well she's killed people by texting. So unless your moral compass is so out of whack that somehow a man JOKING about his player status in private is worse than Clinton's actions throughout her political career, then I guess you could make the case that Clinton at least doesn't have this skeleton in her closet. ..."
    "... Refusal to accept democratic outcomes: No. He's speaking out against the media's collusion with the democratic party favoring Clinton over every other nominee, including Bernie Sanders. He's talking about what was revealed in the DNC leaks and the O'Keefe tapes that show how dirty the tactics have been in order to legally persuade the voting public into electing one person or the other. ..."
    "... When do the conspiracy theories about the criminality of his opponent no longer count as conspiracies? When we have a plethora of emails confirming there is indeed fire next to that smoke, corruption fire, collusion fire, fire of contempt for the electorate. When we have emails confirming the Saudi Arabians are actually funding terrorist schools across the globe, emails where Hilary herself admits it, but will not say anything publicly about terrorism and Saudi Arabia, what's conspiracy and what's reality? ..."
    "... Is it because Saudi Arabia funded her foundation with $23 million, or because it doesn't fit with her great 'internationalists' global agenda? ..."
    "... Yep trump is a buffoon, but the failure of all media to deliver serious debate means the US is about to elect someone probably more dangerous than trump, how the hell can that be ..."
    "... Nothing wrong with a liberal internationalist utopia, it sounds rather good and worth striving for. It's just that what they've been pushing is actually a neoliberal globalist nirvana for the 1 per cent ..."
    "... The problem is the left this paper represents were bought off with the small change by neoliberalism, and they expect the rest of us to suck it up so the elites from both sides can continue the game ..."
    "... we near the end of the neoliberal model. That the USA has a choice between two 'demopublicans' is no choice at all. ..."
    "... This is the culmination of living in a post-truth political world. Lies and smears, ably supported by the corporate media and Murdoch in particular means that the average person who doesn't closely follow politics is being misinformed. ..."
    "... The complete failure of right wing economic 'theories' means they only have lies, smears and the old 'divide and conquer' left in their arsenal. 'Free speech' is their attempt to get lies and smears equal billing with the truth. All truth on the other hand must be suppressed. All experts and scientists who don't regurgitate the meaningless slogans of the right will be ignored, traduced, defunded, disbanded or silenced by law. ..."
    "... Not so much an article about Trump as much as a rant. George Monbiot writes with the utter conviction of one who mistakenly believes that his readers share his bigotry. When he talks about the 'alleged gropings' or the 'alleged refusal to accept democratic outcomes', that is exactly what they are 'alleged'. ..."
    "... The Democratic Party has been dredging up porn-stars and wannabe models who now make claims that Trump tried to 'kiss them without asking'. ..."
    "... The press also ignored the tapes of the DNC paying thugs to cause violence at Trump rallies, the bribes paid to the Clintons for political favours and the stealing of the election from Bernie Sanders. Trump is quite right to think the 'democratic outcome' is being fixed. Not only were the votes for Sanders manipulated, but Al Gore's votes were also altered and manipulated to ensure a win for Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The same interests who engineered the 2000 election have switched from supporting the Republican Party to supporting Clinton. ..."
    "... Great article. The neoliberals have been able to control the narrative and in doing so have managed to scapegoat all manner of minority groups, building anger among those disaffected with modern politics. Easy targets - minorities, immigrants, the poor, the disadvantaged and the low-paid workers. ..."
    "... The real enemy here are those sitting atop the corporate tree, but with the media controlled by them, the truth is never revealed. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    America's fourth president, James Madison, envisaged the United States constitution as representation tempered by competition between factions. In the 10th federalist paper, written in 1787, he argued that large republics were better insulated from corruption than small, or "pure" democracies, as the greater number of citizens would make it "more difficult for unworthy candidates to practise with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried". A large electorate would protect the system against oppressive interest groups. Politics practised on a grand scale would be more likely to select people of "enlightened views and virtuous sentiments".

    Instead, the US – in common with many other nations – now suffers the worst of both worlds: a large electorate dominated by a tiny faction. Instead of republics being governed, as Madison feared, by "the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority", they are beholden to the not-so-secret wishes of an unjust and interested minority. What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless of its size.

    For every representative, Republican or Democrat, who retains a trace element of independence, there are three sitting in the breast pocket of corporate capital. Since the supreme court decided that there should be no effective limits on campaign finance, and, to a lesser extent, long before, candidates have been reduced to tongue-tied automata, incapable of responding to those in need of help, incapable of regulating those in need of restraint, for fear of upsetting their funders.

    Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt? Turn to the demagogue who rages into this political vacuum, denouncing the forces he exemplifies. The problem is not, as Trump claims, that the election will be stolen by ballot rigging. It is that the entire electoral process is stolen from the American people before they get anywhere near casting their votes. When Trump claims that the little guy is being screwed by the system, he's right. The only problem is that he is the system.

    The political constitution of the United States is not, as Madison envisaged, representation tempered by competition between factions. The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal. In other words, all that impedes the absolute power of money is the occasional exposure of the excesses of the wealthy.

    greatapedescendant 26 Oct 2016 4:11

    A good read thanks. Nothing I really disagree with there. Just a few things to add and restate.

    "What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless of its size."

    That's it – finance and sophisticated lobbying. And you can add to that mass brainwashing at election campaigns by means of choice language and orchestration as advised by cognitive scientists who are expressly recruited for this purpose. Voters remain largely unaware of the mind control they are undergoing. And of course the essential prerequisite for all of this is financial power.

    Now read again in this light Gore Vidal's famous pronouncement… "Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically by definition be disqualified from ever doing so."

    Which recalls Madison over 200 years before… "The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."

    What the US has is in effect is not a democracy but a plutocracy run by a polyarchy. Which conserves some democratic elements. To which the US president is largely an obedient and subservient puppet. And which openly fails to consider the needs of the average US citizen.

    Worse still, the political spectrum runs from right to right. To all intents and purposes, one single party, the US Neoliberal party, with 2 factions catering for power and privilege. Anything to the left of that is simply not an available choice for voters.

    Americans have wakened up to the fact that they badly need a government which caters for the needs of the average citizen. In their desperation some will still vote for Trump warts and all. This for the same sorts of reasons that Italians voted for Berlusconi, whose winning slogan was basically 'I am not a politician'. Though that didn't work out too well. No longer able to stomach more of the same, voters reach the stage of being willing to back anyone who might bring about a break with the status quo. Even Trump.

    The right choice was Bernie Sanders. Sadly, not powerful enough. So Americans missed the boat there. But at least there was a boat to miss this time around. You can be sure that similar future boats will be sunk well in advance. Corporate power has learnt its lesson and the art of election rigging has now become an exact science.

    UltraLightBeam 26 Oct 2016 4:11

    Donald Trump, Brexit and Le Pen are all in their separate ways rejections of the dogma of liberalism, social and economic, that has dominated the West for the past three decades.

    The Guardian, among others, laments the loss of 'tolerance' and 'openness' as defining qualities of our societies. But what's always left unsaid is: tolerance of what? Openness to what? Anything? Everything?

    Is it beyond the pale to critically assess some of the values brought by immigration, and to reject them? Will only limitless, unthinking 'tolerance' and 'openness' do?

    Once self-described 'progressives' engage with this topic, then maybe we'll see a reversal in the momentum that Trump and the rest of the right wing demagogues have built up.

    petercookwithahook 26 Oct 2016 4:14

    In 2010, Chomsky wrote:

    The United States is extremely lucky.....if somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response.

    Dangerous times. The beauty of democracy is we get what we deserve.

    DiscoveredJoys -> morelightlessheat 26 Oct 2016 6:11

    The most telling part for me was:

    The worst thing about Donald Trump is that he's the man in the mirror.

    Except that instead of

    He is the distillation of all that we have been induced to desire and admire.

    I thought that he is the mirror image, the reverse, of the current liberal consensus. A consensus driven by worthy ideals but driven too far, gradually losing acceptance and with no self correcting awareness.

    Trump is awful - but by speaking freely he challenges the excesses of those who would limit free speech. Trump is awful - but by demonising minorities he challenges those who would excuse minorities of all responsibility. Trump is awful - but by flaunting his wealth he challenges those who keep their connections and wealth hidden for the sake of appearances.

    Trump is awful because the system is out of balance. He is a consequence, not a cause.


    Gman13 26 Oct 2016 4:25

    Voting for Trump is voting for peace. Voting for Clinton is voting for WW3.

    These events will unfold if Hillary wins:

    1. No fly zone imposed in Syria to help "moderate opposition" on pretence of protecting civilians.

    2. Syrian government nonetheless continues defending their country as terrorists shell Western Aleppo.

    3. Hillary's planes attack Syrian government planes and the Russians.

    4. Russia and Syria respond as the war escalates. America intensifies arming of "moderate opposition" and Saudis.

    5. America arms "rebels" in various Russian regions who "fight for democracy" but this struggle is somehow hijacked by terrorists, only they are not called terrorists but "opposition"

    6. Ukranian government is encouraged to restart the war.

    7. Iran enters the war openly against Saudi Arabia

    8. Israel bombs Iran

    9. Cornered Russia targets mainland US with nuclear weapons

    10. Etc.


    snakebrain -> Andthenandthen 26 Oct 2016 6:54

    It's quite clearly because Hillary as President is an utterly terrifying prospect. When half the population would rather have Trump than her, it must be conceded that she has some serious reputational issues.

    If Hillary and the DNC hadn't fixed the primaries, we'd now be looking at a Sanders-Trump race, and a certain Democrat victory. As it is, it's on a knife edge as to whether we get Trump or Hillary.

    Personally, I'd take Trump over Hillary if I was a US citizen. He may be a buffoon but she is profoundly dangerous, probably a genuine psychopath and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Presidency. Sanders is the man America needs now, though, barring one of Hillary's many crimes finally toppling her, it's not going to happen...

    jessthecrip 26 Oct 2016 4:29

    Well said George.

    The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal

    And the shame is we seem to be becoming desensitized to scandal. We cannot be said to live in democracies when our political class are so obviously bought by the vastly rich.

    Remko1 -> UnevenSurface 26 Oct 2016 7:43

    You're mixing up your powers. legislative, executive and judicial are the powers of law. Money and business are some of the keys to stay in command of a country. (there's also military, electorate, bureaucracy etc.)

    And if money is not on your side, it's against you, which gets quite nasty if your main tv-stations are not state-run.

    For example if the EU would (theoretically of course) set rules that make corruption more difficult you would see that commercial media all over the EU and notoriously corrupted politicians would start making propaganda to leave the EU. ;)

    yamialwaysright chilledoutbeardie 26 Oct 2016 4:38

    One of the things it says is that people are so sick of Identity Politics from the Left and believe the Left are not very true to the ideals of what should be the Left.

    When the people who are supposed to care about the poor and working joes and janes prefer to care about the minorities whose vote they can rely on, the poor and the working joes and janes will show their frustration by supporting someone who will come along and tell it as it is, even if he is part of how it got that way.

    People throughout the world have awoken to the Left being Right Light but with a more nauseating moral superiority complex.

    Danny Sheahan -> chilledoutbeardie 26 Oct 2016 5:25
    That many people are so desperate for change that even being a billionaire but someone outside the political elite is going to appeal to them.

    Tom1Wright 26 Oct 2016 4:32

    I find this line of thinking unjust and repulsive: the implication that Trump is a product of the political establishment, and not an outsider, is to tar the entire Republican party and its supporters with a great big flag marked 'racist'. That is a gross over simplification and a total distortion.

    UnevenSurface -> Tom1Wright 26 Oct 2016 5:05

    But that's not what the article said at all: I quote:

    he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics

    No mention of the GOP.

    Tom1Wright -> UnevenSurface 26 Oct 2016 5:14

    and I quote

    'Encouraged by the corporate media, the Republicans have been waging a full-spectrum assault on empathy, altruism and the decencies we owe to other people. Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.'

    HindsightMe 26 Oct 2016 4:33
    the truth is there is an anti establishment movement and trump just got caught up in the ride. He didnt start the movement but latched on to it. While we are still fixated on character flaws the undercurrent of dissatisfaction by the public is still there. Hillary is going to have a tough time in trying to bring together a divided nation
    leadale 26 Oct 2016 4:37
    Many years ago in the British Military, those with the right connections and enough money could buy an officer's commission and rise up the system to be an incompetent General. As a result, many battles were mismanaged and many lives wasted due to the incompetent (wealthy privileged few) buying their way to the top. American politics today works on exactly the same system of wealthy patronage and privilege for the incompetent, read Clinton and Trump. Until the best candidates are able to rise up through the political system without buying their way there then the whole corrupt farce will continue and we will be no different to the all the other tin pot republics of the world.
    arkley leadale 26 Oct 2016 5:48
    As Wellington once said on reading the list of officers being sent out to him,
    "My hope is that when the enemy reads these names he trembles as I do"
    Some would argue however that the British system of bought commissions actually made the army more effective in part because many competent officers had to stay in the field roles of platoon and company commanders rather than get staff jobs and through the fact that promotion on merit did exist for non-commissioned officers but there was a block on rising above sergeant.

    Some would argue that the British class system ensured that during the Industrial Revolution charge hands and foremen were appointed from the best workers but there was no way forward from that, the result being that the best practices were applied through having the best practitioners in charge at the sharp end.

    rodmclaughlin 26 Oct 2016 4:37
    "he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics."

    Obviously, Donald Trump is not an "outsider" in the economic sense. Trump definitely belongs to the ruling "caste", or rather, "class". But he is by no means the perfect representative of it. "The global economy", or rather, "capitalism", thrives better with the free movement of (cheap) labour than without it. Economically, poor Americans would be better off with more immigration control.

    And there's more too it than economics. There's the "culture wars" aspect. Many people don't like being told they are "deplorable" for opposing illegal (or even legal) immigration. They don't like being called "racist" for disagreeing with an ideology.

    I like the phrase Monbiot ends with - "He is our system, stripped of its pretences" - it reminds me of a phrase in the Communist Manifesto - but I don't think it's true. "Our" system is more than capitalism, it's culture. And Clinton is a far more "perfect representation" of the increasingly censorious, narrow [neo]liberal culture which dominates the Western world.

    Finally, Monbiot misses the chance to contrast Clinton's and Trump's apparent differences with regard to confronting nuclear-armed Russia over the skies of Syria. It could be like 1964 all over again - except in this election, the Democrat is the nearest thing to Barry Goldwater.

    nishville 26 Oct 2016 4:40
    As a life-long despiser of all things Trump, I cannot believe that I am saying this: Trump is good for world peace. He might be crap for everything else but I for one will sleep much better if he is elected POTUS.
    dylan37 26 Oct 2016 4:40
    Agree, for once, with a piece by George. Trump is nothing new - we've seen his kind of faux-outsider thing before, but he's amplifying it with the skills of a carnival barker and the "what me?" shrug of the everyman - when we all know he's not. The election result can't be rigged because the game is fixed from the start. A potential president needs millions of dollars behind them to even think about running, and then needs to repay those bought favours once in office. Trump may just win this one though - despite the polls, poor human qualities and negative press - simply because he's possibly tapped into a rich seam of anti-politics and a growing desire for anything different, even if it's distasteful and deplorable. It's that difference that might make the difference, even when it's actually just more of the same. It's all in the packaging.
    greenwichite 26 Oct 2016 4:41
    Donald Trump is a clumsy, nasty opportunist who has got one thing right - people don't want globalisation.

    What people want, is clean, high-tech industries in their own countries, that automate the processes we are currently offshoring. They would rather their clothes were made by robots in Rochdale than a sweat-shop in India.

    Same goes for energy imports: we want clean, local renewables.

    What people don't want is large, unpleasant multinational corporations negotiating themselves tax cuts and "free trade" with corrupt politicians like Hillary Clinton.

    Just my opinion, of course...

    TheSandbag -> greenwichite 26 Oct 2016 4:50
    Your right about globalisation, but I think wrong about the automation bit. People want Jobs because its the only way to survive currently and they see them being shipped to the country with the easiest to exploit workforce. I don't think many of them realize that those jobs are never coming back. The socioeconomic system we exist in doesn't work for 90% of the population who are surplus to requirements for sustaining the other 10%.
    Shadenfraude 26 Oct 2016 4:43
    I fully agree with Monbiot, American democracy is a sham - the lobby system has embedded corruption right in the heart of its body politic. Lets be clear here though, whatever is the problem with American democracy can in theory at least be fixed, but Trump simply can not and moreover he is not the answer.

    ... ... ...


    oddballs 26 Oct 2016 5:24

    Trump threatened Ford that if they closed down US car plants and moved them to Mexico he would put huge import tariffs on their products making them to expensive.

    Export of jobs to low wage countries, how do you think Americans feel when they buy 'sports wear, sweater, t-shirts shoes that cost say 3 $ to import into the US and then get sold for20 or 50 times as much, by the same US companies that moved production out of the country.

    The anger many Americans feel how their lively-hoods have been outsourced, is the lake of discontent Trump is fishing for votes.

    His opponent, war child and Wall Street darling can count her lucky stars that the media leaves her alone (with husband Bill, hands firmly in his pockets, nodding approvingly) and concentrates on their feeding frenzy attacking Trump on sexual allegations of abusing women, giving Hillery, Yes, likely to tell lies, ( mendacious, remember when she claimed to be under enemy fire in Bosnia? remember how evasive she was on the Benghazi attack on the embassy)
    Yes Trump is a dangerous man running against an also extremely dangerous woman.

    onepieceman 26 Oct 2016 5:31

    Extremely interesting reference to the Madison paper, but the issue is less about the size of the electorate, and more about the power that the election provides to the victor.

    One positive outcome that I hope will come of all of this is that people might think a little more carefully about how much power an incoming president (or any politician) should be given. The complacent assumption about a permanently benign government is overdue for a shakeup.

    peccadillo -> Dean Alexander 26 Oct 2016 5:43

    Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?

    Having missed that bit, I wonder if you actually read the article.

    tater 26 Oct 2016 5:46
    The sad thing is that the victims of the corrupt economic and political processes are the small town folk who try to see Trump as their saviour. The globalisation that the US promoted to expand its hegemony had no safeguards to protect local economies from mega retail and finance corporations that were left at liberty to strip wealth from localities. The Federal transfer payments that might have helped compensate have been too small and were either corrupted pork barrel payments or shameful social security payments. For a culture that prides itself on independent initiative and self sufficiency this was always painful and that has made it all the easier for the lobbyists to argue against increased transfer payments and the federal taxes they require. So more money for the Trumps of this world.

    And to the future. The US is facing the serious risk of a military take over. Already its foreign policy emanates from the military and the corruption brings it ever closer to the corporations. If the people don't demand better the coup will come.


    MrMopp 26 Oct 2016 6:12


    There's a reason turnout for presidential elections is barely above 50%.

    Wised up, fed up Americans have long known their only choice is between a Coke or Pepsi President.

    Well, this time they've got a Dr. Pepper candidate but they still know their democracy is just a commodity to be bought and sold, traded and paraded; their elections an almost perpetual presidential circus.

    That a grotesque like Trump can emerge and still be within touching distance of the Whitehouse isn't entirely down to the Democrats disastrous decision to market New Clinton Coke. Although that's helped.

    The unpalatable truth is, like Brexit, many Americans simply want to shake things up and shake them up bigly, even if it means a very messy, sticky outcome.

    Anyone with Netflix can watch the classic film, "Network" at the moment. And it is a film of the moment.

    "I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth. Banks are going bust. Shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be.

    We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is: 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.'

    Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get MAD! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman, because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. [shouting] You've got to say: 'I'm a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!'

    So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell: I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!

    I want you to get up right now. Sit up. Go to your windows. Open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!...You've got to say, I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE! Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first, get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

    And that was in 1976. A whole lot of shit has happened since then but essentially, Coke is still Coke and Pepsi is still Pepsi.

    Forty years later, millions are going to get out of their chairs. They are going to vote. For millions of Americans of every stripe, Trump is the "I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE", candidate.

    And he's in with a shout.


    André De Koning 26 Oct 2016 6:13

    Trump is indeed the embodiment of our collective Shadow (As Jung called this unconscious side of our Self). It does reflect the degeneration of the culture we live in where politics has turned into a travesty; where all projections of this side are on the Other, the usual other who we can collectively dislike. All the wars initiated by the US have started with a huge propaganda programme to hate and project our own Shadow on to this other. Often these were first friends, whether in Iran or Iraq, Libya: as soon as the oil was not for ""us" , they were depicted as monsters who needed action: regime change through direct invasion and enormous numbers of war crimes or through CIA programmed regime change, it all went according to shady plans and manipulation and lies lapped up by the masses.

    When you look at speeches and conversations and debates with the so-called bogeyman, Putin, he is not at all in a league as low and vile as portrayed and says many more sensible things than anybody cares to listen to, because we're all brainwashed. We are complicit in wars (now in Syria) and cannot see why we have to connive with terrorists, tens of thousands of them, and they get supported by the war machine and friends like Saudis and Turkey which traded for years with ISIS.

    The Western culture has become more vile than we could have imagined and slowly, like the frog in increasingly hot water, we have become used to neglecting most of the population of Syria and focusing on the rebel held areas, totally unaware of what has happened to the many thousands who have lived under the occupation by terrorists who come from abroad ad fight the proxy war for the US (and Saudi and the EU). Trump dares to embody all this, as does Clinton the war hawk, and shows us we are only capable of seeing one side and project all nastiness outward while we can feel good about ourselves by hating the other.

    It fits the Decline of an Empire image as it did in other Falls of Civilizations.


    tashe222 26 Oct 2016 6:28

    Lots of virtue signalling from Mr. M.

    Trump spoke to the executives at Ford like no one before ever has. He told them if they moved production to Mexico (as they plan to do) that he would slap huge tariffs on their cars in America and no one would buy them.

    Trump has said many stupid things in this campaign, but he has some independence and is not totally beholden to vested interests, and so there is at least a 'glimmer' of hope for the future with him as Potus.


    DomesticExtremist 26 Oct 2016 6:28

    I never tire of posting this link:

    Donald Trump and the Politics of Resentment

    Lindsay Went DomesticExtremist 26 Oct 2016 6:58

    Yes, when the Archdruid first posted that it helped me understand some of the forces that were driving Trump's successes. I disagree with the idea that voting for Trump is a good idea because it will bring change to a moribund system. Change is not a panacea and the type of change he is likely to bring is not going to be pleasant.


    Hanwell123 -> ArseButter 26 Oct 2016 6:59

    What happens in Syria could be important to us all. Clinton doesn't hide her ambition to drive Assad from power and give Russia a kicking. It's actually very unpopular although the media doesn't like to say so; it prefers to lambast Spain for re-fueling Russian war ships off to fight the crazed Jihadists as if we supported the religious fanatics that want to slaughter all Infidels! There is an enormous gulf between what ordinary people want and the power crazy Generals in the Pentagon and NATO.

    unsubscriber 26 Oct 2016 6:43
    George always writes so beautifully and so tellingly. My favourite sentence from this column is:
    Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.
    Cadmium 26 Oct 2016 6:51
    Trump is not a misogynist, look the word up. He may be crude but that's not the same thing. He also represents a lot more people than a tiny faction. He is also advocating coming down on lobbying, which is good. He may be a climate change denier but that's because a lot of his supporters are, he'd probably change if they did. The way to deal with it is with rational argument, character assassination is counterproductive even if he himself does it. Although he seems to do it as a reaction rather than as an attack. He probably has a lot higher chance of winning than most people think since a lot of people outside the polls will feel represented by him and a lot of those included in the polls may not vote for Hilary.
    ID4755061 26 Oct 2016 6:52
    George Monbiot is right. Trump is a conduit for primal stuff that has always been there and never gone away. All the work that has been done to try to change values and attitudes, to make societies more tolerant and accepting and sharing, to get rid of xenophobia and racism and the rest, has merely supressed all these things. Also, while times were good (that hasn't been so for a long time) most of this subterranean stuff got glossed over most of the time by some kind of feel good factor and hope for a better future.

    But once the protections have gone, if there is nothing to feel good about or there is little hope left, the primitive fear of other and strange and different kicks back in. It's a basic survival instinct from a time when everything around the human species was a threat and it is a fundamental part of us and Trump and Palin at al before him have got this, even if they don't articulate it this way, and it works and it will always work. It's a pure emotional response to threat that we can't avoid, the only way out of it, whihc many of use use, is to use our intellects to challenge the kick of emotion and see it for what it is and to understand the consequences of giving it free reign. It's this last bit that Trump, Palin, Farage and their ilk just don't get and never will, we aill always be fighting this fight.

    PotholeKid 26 Oct 2016 6:56
    Political culture includes the Clintons and Bushes, the Democratic party and Republican party. exploring that culture using the DNC and Podesta leaks as reference, paints a much better picture of the depth of depravity this culture represents..Trump is a symptom and no matter how much the press focuses on maligning his character. The Clintons share a huge responsibility for the corruption of the system. Mr. Monbiot would serve us well by looking at solutions for cleaning up the mess, what Trumps likes to call "Draining the swamp"
    lonelysoul72 26 Oct 2016 6:59
    Trump for me , he is horrendous but Clinton is worse.

    nooriginalthought 26 Oct 2016 7:06

    "Democracy in the U.S. is so corrupted by money it is no longer recognisable as democracy." Sounds like a quote from Frank Underwood. To catch a thief sometimes you need the services of a thief. With a fair degree of certainty we can be sure a Clinton administration will offer us continuity .

    • If that is what you think the world needs fine.
    • If you believe globalization to be of benefit only to the few .
    • If you believe Russia has no rights to a sphere of influence on its boarders.
    • If you believe America's self appointed role as world policemen a disaster.
    • If you believe trade agreements a backdoor to corporate control.
    • If your just pissed off with politicians .

    Your probably going to vote Trump. Looking forward to a long list of articles here in November prophecies of Armageddon a la brexit. You liberal lefties , you'll never learn. If you want to know what people are thinking , you got to get out of the echochamber.


    nooriginalthought -> aurlius 26 Oct 2016 7:45

    Sorry , hate having to explain myself to the dim witted.

    USA has got itself in an unholy mess . It's politicians no longer work for the people . Their paymasters care not if life in Idaho resembles Dantes inferno .
    Trump has many faults but being "not Hilary" is not one of them. The very fact he is disliked by all the vested interests should make you take another look.
    And remember , the American constitution has many checks and balances , a President has a lot less power than most people imagine.

    Pinkie123 26 Oct 2016 7:21

    While it is impossible to credibly disagree with the general thrust of this, some of Monbiot's assumptions exemplify problems with left-wing thinking at the moment.

    But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics. He is our system, stripped of its pretences.

    Like many on the right, the left have unthinkingly accepted a narrative of an organized, conspiratorial system run by an elite of politicians and plutocrats. The problem with this narrative is it suggests politics and politicians are inherently nefarious, in turn suggesting there are no political solutions to be sought to problems, or anything people can do to challenge a global system of power. As Monbiot asks: "You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?" Well, what indeed?

    I think Monbiot a principled, intelligent left-wing commentator, but at the same time he epitomises a left-wing retreat into pessimism in the face of a putatively global network of power and inevitable environmental catastrophe. In reality, while there is no shortage of perfidious, corrupt corporate interests dominating global economies, there is no organized system or shadowy establishment - only a chaotic mess rooted in complex political problems. Once you accept that reality, then it becomes possible to imagine political solutions to the quandaries confronting us. Rather than just railing against realities, you can envision a new world to replace them. And a new kind of world is something you very rarely get from the left these days. Unlike the utopian socialists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there is little optimism or imagination - just anger, pessimism and online echo chambers of 'clictivists'.

    Like the documentarian Adam Curtis says, once you conclude that all politics is corrupt then all you can do is sit there impotently and say: 'Oh dear'.

    deltajones -> Pinkie123 26 Oct 2016 8:12

    I don't think you need to believe in an organised conspiracy and I don't see any real evidence that George Monbiot does. The trouble is that the corporate and political interests align in a way that absorbs any attempt to challenge them and the narrative has been written that of course politics is all about economics and of course we need mighty corporations to sustain us.

    Even the left has largely taken on that narrative and it's seen as common sense. Challenging this belief system is the toughest job that there is and we see that in the howling indignation hurled at Jeremy Corbyn if he makes the slightest suggestion of nationalisation of the railways, for instance.

    ianfraser3 26 Oct 2016 7:29

    Not long after the start of the presidential campaign I began to reflect that in Trump we are seeing materializing before us the logical result of the neoliberal project, the ultimate shopping spree, buy an election.

    furiouspurpose -> IllusionOfFairness 26 Oct 2016 8:08

    The Republican party essentially offered their base nothing – that was the problem.

    They couldn't offer all the things that ordinary Americans want – better and wider Medicaid, better and wider social security, tax increases on the rich, an end to pointless foreign wars and the American empire. None of these things were acceptable to their funders so that only left emotional issues – anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-god, pro-gun. And all of the emotional issues are on the wrong side of history as the US naturally grows more politically progressive. So the Republican party couldn't even deliver on the emotionally driven agenda. I think their base realised that they were being offered nothing – and that's why they turned to Trump. Perhaps a fascist blowhard could bulldoze the system to deliver on the emotional side of the offer. That's why Trump broke through

    The Democrats have largely the same funding base, but they at least deliver crumbs – at least a nod to the needs of ordinary people through half-hearted social programmes. In the end the African Americans decided that Hillary could be relied upon to deliver some crumbs – so they settled for that. That's why Sanders couldn't break through.

    fairleft 26 Oct 2016 7:55

    Trump is imperfect because he wants normal relations rather than war with Russia. No, Hillary Clinton is the ultimate representation of the system that is abusing us. What will occur when Goldman Sachs and the military-industrial complex coalition get their, what is it, 5th term in office would be a great subject of many Guardian opinion pieces, actually. But that will have to wait till after November 8.

    Such commentary would be greatly aided the Podesta emails, which enlighten us as to the mind and 'zeitgeist' of the HIllary team. And, of course, we also have Hillary's Wall Street speeches -- thanks to Wikileaks we have the complete transcripts, in case Guardian readers are unaware. They expose the real thinking and 'private positions' of the central character in the next episode of 'Rule by Plutocracy'.

    But, of course, opinion columns and think pieces on the Real Hillary and the Podesta emails will have to wait ... forever.

    toffee1 26 Oct 2016 7:58

    Trump shows the true face of the ruling class with no hypocrisy. He is telling us the truth. If we have a democracy, we should have a party representing the interests of the business class, why not. The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that they somehow representing the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies and hypocrisy and manipulating the working class everyday through their power over the media. Their function is to appease the working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party.

    Kikinaskald Cadmium 26 Oct 2016 8:39
    In fact presidents don't usually have much affect, they're prey to their advisors. Generally true. But Obama was able to show that he was able to distance himself up to a certain point from what was around him. He was aware of the power of the establishment and of their bias. So, when the wave against Iran was as strong as never before, he made a deal with Iran. He also didn't want to intervene more actively in Syria and even in what concerns Russia, he seems to have moderate positions.

    In what concerns foreign politics, Trump some times seems more reasonable than Clinton and the establishment. Clinton is the best coached politician of all times. She doesn't know that she's coached. She just followed the most radical groups and isn't able to question anything at all. The only thing that the coaches didn't fix until now is her laughing which is considered even by her coaches as a sign of weirdness.


    Kikinaskald -> J.K. Stevens 26 Oct 2016 9:09

    She is considered to be highly aggressive, she pushed for the bombing of a few countries and intervening everywhere..

    Chris Williams 26 Oct 2016 8:20

    Unfortunately all politics in the west is based on a similar model with our own domestic landscape perhaps most closely resembling that in the US. We've always been peddled convenient lies of course, but perhaps as society itself becomes more polarised [in terms of distribution of wealth and the social consequences of that], the dissonance with the manufactured version of reality becomes ever sharper. It is deeply problematic because traditional popular media is dominated by the wealthy elite and the reality it depicts is as much a reflection of the consensual outlook of that elite as it is deliberate, organised mendacity [although there's plenty of that too].

    Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming force.

    Meanwhile the electorate is become increasingly disaffected by this mainstream of politics who they [rightly] sense is no longer truly representative of their interests in any substantive way. To this backdrop the media has made notable blunders in securing the status quo. It has revealed the corruption and self-seeking of many in politics and promoted the widespread distrust of mainstream politicians for a variety of reasons. While the corruption is real and endemic, howls of protest against political 'outsiders' from this same press is met with with the view that the political establishment cannot be trusted engendered by the same sources.

    The narrative for Brexit is somewhat similar. For many years the EU was the whipping boy for all our ills and the idea that it is fundamentally undemocratic in contrast to our own system, so unchallenged that it is taken for fact, even by the reasonably educated. Whilst I'm personally deflated and not a little worried by our exit, it comes as little surprise that a distorted perspective on the EU has led to a revolt against it.

    There are of course now very many alternative narratives to those which are the preserve of monied media magnates, but they're disparate, fractured and unfocused.

    Only the malaise has any sort of consistency about it and it is bitterly ironic that figures like Trump and Farage can so effectively plug into that in the guise of outsiders, to offer spurious alternatives to that which is so desperately needed. It's gloomy stuff.

    Winstons1 Chris Williams 26 Oct 2016 9:27

    Very well written .

    Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming force.

    I have been an advocate of this point for a long time.There is a saying in politics in America that'' the only difference between a Democrat and a Republican is the speed at which they drop to their knees when big business walks into the room''.

    How it is going to be stopped or indeed if there is the will to do so,I do not know. The proponents and those who have most to lose have been incredibly successful in propagating the myth that 'you to can have what I have'and have convinced a sizeable minority that there is no alternative.
    Until that changes and is exposed for the illusion that it is ,we are I fear heading for something far worse than we have now.

    trp981 26 Oct 2016 8:20 2 3

    "Trump personifies the traits promoted by the media and corporate worlds he affects to revile; the worlds that created him. He is the fetishisation of wealth, power and image in a nation where extrinsic values are championed throughout public discourse. His conspicuous consumption, self-amplification and towering (if fragile) ego are in tune with the dominant narratives of our age."

    Because this is who we are and this is how we role. We got on rickety ships and braved the cowardly waters to reach these shores, with tremendous realworld uncertainty and absolute religious zeal. We are the manly men and womanly women who manifested our destiny, endured the cruel nature naturing, and civilized the wild wild west, at the same time preserving our own wildness and rugged individualism. Why should we go all soft and namby-pamby with this social safety nonsense? Let the roadkills expire with dignified indignity on the margins of the social order. We will bequeath a glorious legacy to the Randian ubermenschen who will inherit this land from us. They will live in Thielian compounds wearing the trendiest Lululemons. They will regularly admonish their worses with chants of: "Do you want to live? Pay, pal". If we go soft, if we falter, how will we ever be able to look in the eye the ghosts of John Wayne, Marion Morrison, Curtis LeMay, Chuck Heston, Chuck Norris, and the Great Great Ronnie Himself? Gut-check time folks, suck it up and get on with the program.

    "The political constitution of the United States is not, as Madison envisaged, representation tempered by competition between factions. The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal."

    The Founders had a wicked sense of humor. They set up the structure of various branches so as to allow for the possibility of a future take-over by the Funders. That leaves room for the exorbitant influence of corporations and wealthy individuals and the rise of the Trumps, leading to the eventual fall into a Mad Max world.

    "Yes, [Trump] is a shallow, mendacious, boorish and extremely dangerous man. But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics. He is our system, stripped of its pretences."

    It is irrelevant if everyone sees the emperor/system has no clothes, it quite enjoys walking around naked now that it has absolute power.

    Lopedeloslobos -> trp981 26 Oct 2016 9:02

    'It is irrelevant if everyone sees the emperor/system has no clothes, it quite enjoys walking around naked now that it has absolute power.'

    Yes, they don't care any more if we see the full extent of their corruption as we've given up our power to do anything about it.


    chiefwiley -> Luftwaffe 26 Oct 2016 9:31

    It was once very common to see Democratic politicians as neighbors attending every community event. They were Teamsters, pipe fitters, and electricians. And they were coaches and ushers and pallbearers. Now they are academics and lawyers and NGO employees and managers who pop up during campaigns.
    The typical income of the elected Democrats outside their government check is north of $100,000. They don't live in, or even wander through, the poorer neighborhoods. So they are essentially clueless that government services like busses are run to suit government and not actual customers.

    It's sort of nice to have somebody looking after our interests in theory, but it would be at least polite if they deemed to ask us what we think our best interests are. Notice the nasty names and attributes being hurled at political "dissidents," especially around here, and there should be little wonder why many think the benevolent and somewhat single minded and authoritarian left is at least part of their problems.


    ghstwrtrx7 -> allblues 26 Oct 2016 14:02

    Yea, 15 years of constant wars of empire with no end in sight has pretty much ran this country in the ground.

    We all talk about how much money is wasted by the federal government on unimportant endeavors like human services and education, but don't even bat an eye about the sieve of money that is the Pentagon.

    Half a trillion dollars for aircraft carriers we don't need and are already obsolete. China is on the verge of developing wickedly effective anti-ship missiles designed specifically to target these Gerald R. Ford-class vessels. You might as well paint a huge bull's-eye on these ships' 4-1/2 acre flight deck.

    And then there there's the most egregious waste of money our historically over-bloated defense budget has ever seen: The Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter. Quite a mouthful, isn't? When you hear how much this boondoggle costs the American taxpayer, you'll choke: $1.5 Trillion, with a t. What's even more retching is that aside from already being obsolete, it doesn't even work.

    There are plenty more examples of this crap and this doesn't even include the nearly TWO trillion dollars we've spent this past decade-and-a-half on stomping flat the Middle East and large swaths of the Indian subcontinent.
    And all this time, our nation's infrastructure is crumbling literally right out from underneath us and millions upon millions of children and their families experience a daily struggle just to eat. Eat?! In the "greatest," wealthiest nation on earth and we prefer to kill people at weddings with drones than feed our own children.

    I can't speak for anyone else other than myself, but that, boys and girls, has a decided miasma of evil about it.

    transplendent 26 Oct 2016 9:49

    I'd like to read an unbiased piece about why the media narrative doesn't match the reality of the Trump phenomenon. He is getting enormous crowds attend his rallies but hardly any coverage of that in the filtered news outlets. Hillary, is struggling to get anyone turn up without paying them. There is no real enthusiasm.

    If Hillary doesn't win by a major landslide (and I mean BIGLY) as the MSM would lead us to believe she is going to, it could be curtains for the media, as what little credibility that is not already swirling around the plughole will disappear down it once and for all.

    The buzzwords and tired old catch phrases and cliches used by the left to suppress any alternative discussion, and divert from their own misdemeanors are fooling no one but themselves. Trump supporters simply don't care any more how Hillary supporters explain that she lied about dodging sniper fire. Or the numerous other times she and her cohorts have been caught out telling fibs.

    leftofstalin 26 Oct 2016 10:06

    Sorry George YOU and the chattering classes you represent are the reason for the rise of the far right blinded by the false promises of new labour and it's ilk the working classes have been demonized as striking troublemakers benefit frauds racists uneducated bigots etc etc and going by the comments on these threads from remainders you STILL don't understand the psyche of the working class

    Gary Ruddock 26 Oct 2016 10:07

    When Obama humiliated Trump at that dinner back in 2011 he may have set a course for his own destruction. Lately, Obama does not appear anywhere near as confident as he once did.

    Perhaps Trump has seen the light, seen the error of his ways, maybe he realizes if he doesn't stand up against the system, then no one will.


    transplendent 26 Oct 2016 10:38

    Trump's only crime, is he buys into the idea of national identity and statehood (along with every other nation state in the world mind you), and Hillary wants to kick down the doors and hand over the US to Saudi Arabia and any international vested interest who can drop a few dollars into the foundation coffers. I can't see Saudi Arabia throwing open the doors any day soon, unless it is onto a one way street.

    N.B. The Russians are not behind it.

    gjjwatson 26 Oct 2016 11:10

    Very true. Throughout history the rich, the powerful, the landed, ennobled interest and their friends in the Law and money changing houses have sought to control governments and have usually succeeded.

    In the Media today the rich are fawned over by sycophantic journalists and programme makers. These are the people who make the political weather and create the prevailing narratives.

    I remember when President Reagan railed against government whilst he was in office, he said the worst words a citizen could hear were "I`m from the government, I`m here to help you".

    Working class people fancied themselves to above the common herd and thought themselves part of some elite.

    All of this chimes of course with American history and it`s constitution written by slave owning colonists who proclaimed that "all men are created equal".

    bonhiver 26 Oct 2016 12:10

    It's quite disturbing the lengths this paper will go to in order to slur and discredit Trump, labelling him dangerous and alluding to the sexual assault allegations. This even goes so far to a very lengthy article regarding Trumps lack of knowledge on the Rumbelows Cup 25 years ago.

    Whereas very little examination is made into Hillary Clinton's background which includes serious allegation of fraud and involvement in assisting in covering up her husband's alleged series of rapes. There are also issues in the wikileaks emails that merit analysis as well as undercover tapes of seioau issues with her campaign team.

    Whereas it is fair to criticise Trump for a lot of stuff it does appear that there is no attempt at balance as Clinton's faults appear to get covered up om this paper.

    Whereas I can not vote in the US elections and therefore the partisan reporting has no substantive effect on how I may vote or act it is troubling that a UK newspaper does not provide the reader with an objective as possible reporting on the presidential race.

    It suggests biased reporting elsewhere.

    thevisitor2015 26 Oct 2016 12:46

    One of the most important characteristics of the so-called neoliberalism is its negative selection. While mostly successfully camouflaged, that negative selection is more than obvious this time, in two US presidential candidates. It's hard to imagine lower than those two.

    seamuspadraig 26 Oct 2016 13:37

    Well, OK George. Tell me: if Trump's such an establishment candidate, then why does the whole of the establishment unanimously reject him? Is it normal for Republicans (such as the Bushes and the neocons) to endorse Democrats? Why does even the Speaker of the House (a Republican) and even, on occasion, Trump's own Vice-Presidential nominee seem to be trying to undermine his campaign? If Trump is really just more of the same as all that came before, why is he being treated different by the MSM and the political establishment?

    Obviously, there's something flawed about your assumption.


    CharlesPDXOr -> seamuspadraig 26 Oct 2016 13:58

    I think the answer to your question is in the article: because Trump has brought the truth of the monied class into the open. He is a perfect example of all that class is and tries to pretend it is not. And when the commoners see this in front of them, a whole lot of them are disgusted by it. That doesn't sit well back in the country club and the boardroom, where they work so hard to keep all of that behind closed doors. They hate him because he is one of them and is spilling the beans on all of them.

    bill9651 26 Oct 2016 13:01

    Trump has exposed the corruption of the political system and the media and has promised to put a stop to it. By contrast, Clinton is financed by the very banks, corporates and financial elites who are responsible for the corruption. This Trump speech is explicit on what we all suspected is going on. Everybody should watch it, irrespective of whether they support him or not!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tab5vvo0TJw


    Frances56 26 Oct 2016 13:54

    Michael Moore explaining why a lot of people like him


    "I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don't necessarily agree with him. They're not racist or redneck, they're actually pretty decent people and so after talking to a number of them I wanted to write this.

    Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said "if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy them." It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the "Brexit" states.

    You live here in Ohio, you know what I'm talking about. Whether Trump means it or not, is kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump. He is the human Molotov Cocktail that they've been waiting for; the human hand grande that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them. And on November 8, although they lost their jobs, although they've been foreclose on by the bank, next came the divorce and now the wife and kids are gone, the car's been repoed, they haven't had a real vacation in years, they're stuck with the shitty Obamacare bronze plan where you can't even get a fucking percocet, they've essentially lost everything they had except one thing - the one thing that doesn't cost them a cent and is guaranteed to them by the American constitution: the right to vote.
    They might be penniless, they might be homeless, they might be fucked over and fucked up it doesn't matter, because it's equalized on that day - a millionaire has the same number of votes as the person without a job: one. And there's more of the former middle class than there are in the millionaire class. So on November 8 the dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot, close the curtain, and take that lever or felt pen or touchscreen and put a big fucking X in the box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system that has ruined their lives: Donald J Trump.

    They see that the elite who ruined their lives hate Trump. Corporate America hates Trump. Wall Street hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hates Trump, after they loved him and created him, and now hate. Thank you media: the enemy of my enemy is who I'm voting for on November 8.

    Yes, on November 8, you Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, all the Blows get to go and blow up the whole goddamn system because it's your right. Trump's election is going to be the biggest fuck you ever recorded in human history and it will feel good."

    Michael Moore


    Debreceni 26 Oct 2016 14:15

    Mrs Clinton is also the product of our political culture. A feminist who owes everything to her husband and men in the Democratic Party. A Democrat who started her political career as a Republican; a civil right activist who worked for Gerry Goldwater, one of last openly racist/segregationist politicians. A Secretary of State who has no clue about, or training in, foreign policy, and who received her position as compensation for losing the election. A pacifist, who has never had a gun in her hands, but supported every war in the last twenty years. A humanist who rejoiced over Qaddafi's death ("we came, we won, he is dead!") like a sadist.

    Both candidates have serious weaknesses. Yet Trump is very much an American character, his vices and weaknesses are either overlooked, or widely shared, secretively respected and even admired (even by those who vote against him). Clinton's arrogance, elitism and hypocrisy, coupled with her lack of talent, charisma and personality, make her an aberration in American politics.


    BabylonianSheDevil03 26 Oct 2016 15:26

    One thing that far right politics offers the ordinary white disaffected voter is 'pay back', it is a promised revenge-fest, putting up walls, getting rid of foreigners, punishing employers of foreigners, etc., etc. All the stuff that far right groups have wet dreams about.

    Farage used the same tactics in the UK. Le Pen is the same.

    Because neoliberal politics has left a hell of a lot of people feeling pissed off, the far right capitalizes on this, whilst belonging to the same neoliberal dystopia so ultimately not being able to make good on their promises. Their promises address a lot of people's anger, which of course isn't really about foreigners at all, that is simply the decoy, but cutting through all the crap to make that clear is no easy task, not really sure how it can be done, certainly no political leader in the western hemisphere has the ability to do so.

    ProseBeforeHos 26 Oct 2016 15:45

    "But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics."

    Wrong as always. Trump *is* an outsider. He's an unabashed nationalist who's set him up against the *actual* caste that governs our politics: Neo-liberal internationalists with socially trendy left-liberal politics (but not so left that they don't hire good tax lawyers to avoid paying a fraction of what they are legally obliged to).

    Best represented in the Goldman Sachs executives who are donating millions to Hillary Clinton because they are worried about Trump's opposition to free trade, and they know she will give them *everything* they want.

    Trumps the closest thing we're gotten to a genuine threat to the system in a long, long time, so of course George Monbiot and the rest of the Guardian writers has set themselves against him, because if you're gonna be wrong about the EU, wrong about New Labour, wrong about social liberalism, wrong about immigration, why change the habit of a lifetime?

    aofeia1224 26 Oct 2016 16:09

    "What is the worst thing about Donald Trump? The lies? The racist stereotypes? The misogyny? The alleged gropings? The apparent refusal to accept democratic outcomes?"

    Lies: Emails, policy changes based on polls showing a complete lack of conviction, corporate collusion, Bosnia, Clinton Foundation, war mongering, etc.
    Racist stereotypes: Super predators. Misogyny: Aside from her laughing away her pedophile case and allegedly threatening the women who came out against Bill, you've also got this sexist gem "Women are the primary victims of war".

    Alleged gropings: Well she's killed people by texting. So unless your moral compass is so out of whack that somehow a man JOKING about his player status in private is worse than Clinton's actions throughout her political career, then I guess you could make the case that Clinton at least doesn't have this skeleton in her closet.

    Refusal to accept democratic outcomes: No. He's speaking out against the media's collusion with the democratic party favoring Clinton over every other nominee, including Bernie Sanders. He's talking about what was revealed in the DNC leaks and the O'Keefe tapes that show how dirty the tactics have been in order to legally persuade the voting public into electing one person or the other.

    Besides that, who cares about his "refusal" to accept the outcome? The American people protested when Bush won in 2000 saying it was rigged. Same goes with Obama saying the same "anti democratic" shit back in 2008 in regards to the Bush Administration.

    Pot call kettle black

    caravanserai 26 Oct 2016 16:16

    Republicans are crazy and their policies make little sense. Neo-conservatism? Trickle down economics? Getting the poor to pay for the mess created by the bankers in 2008? Trump knows what sells to his party's base. He throws them red meat. However, the Democrats are not much better. They started to sell out when Bill Clinton was president. They pretend to still be the party of the New Deal, but they don't want to offend Wall Street. US democracy is in trouble.

    rooolf 26 Oct 2016 16:24

    When do the conspiracy theories about the criminality of his opponent no longer count as conspiracies? When we have a plethora of emails confirming there is indeed fire next to that smoke, corruption fire, collusion fire, fire of contempt for the electorate. When we have emails confirming the Saudi Arabians are actually funding terrorist schools across the globe, emails where Hilary herself admits it, but will not say anything publicly about terrorism and Saudi Arabia, what's conspiracy and what's reality?

    Is it because Saudi Arabia funded her foundation with $23 million, or because it doesn't fit with her great 'internationalists' global agenda?

    Either way there seems to be some conspiring of some sort

    When is it no longer theory? And where does the guardian fit into this corrupted corporate media idea?

    Yep trump is a buffoon, but the failure of all media to deliver serious debate means the US is about to elect someone probably more dangerous than trump, how the hell can that be

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/the-election-of-hillary-clinton-promises-a-more-dangerous-world/7966336

    rooolf 26 Oct 2016 16:35

    What the author overlooks is the media's own complicity in allowing this to develop

    Unfortunately the corruption of the system is so entrenched it takes an abnormality like trump to challenge it

    Hard to believe, but trump is a once in a lifetime opportunity to shake shit up, not a pleasant one, in fact a damn ugly opportunity, but the media shut him down, got all caught up in self preservation and missed the opportunity

    it what comes next that is scary


    BScHons -> rooolf 26 Oct 2016 17:09

    Nothing wrong with a liberal internationalist utopia, it sounds rather good and worth striving for. It's just that what they've been pushing is actually a neoliberal globalist nirvana for the 1 per cent

    rooolf BScHons 26 Oct 2016 17:17

    Totally agree

    The problem is the left this paper represents were bought off with the small change by neoliberalism, and they expect the rest of us to suck it up so the elites from both sides can continue the game

    Talking about the environment and diversity doesn't cut it

    mrjonno 26 Oct 2016 17:02

    Well said as ever George. Humanity is in a total mess as we near the end of the neoliberal model. That the USA has a choice between two 'demopublicans' is no choice at all.

    I would go further in your analysis - media controlled by these sociopaths has ensured that our society shares the same values - we are a bankrupt species as is.

    As long as you are here to provide sensible analysis, along with Peter Joseph, I have hope that we can pull out of the nosedive that we are currently on a trajectory for.

    Thank you for your sane input into an otherwise insane world. Thank you Mr Monbiot.


    annedemontmorency 26 Oct 2016 19:08

    We'll ignore the part about the inability to accept democratic outcomes since that afflicts so many people and organisations - Brexit , anyone?

    More to the point is how the summit of US politics produces candidates like Trump and Clinton.

    Clinton is suffering the same damage the LibDems received during their coalition with the Tories .Proximity to power exposed their inadequacies and hypocrisy in both cases.

    Trump - unbelievably - remains a viable candidate but only because Hillary Clinton reeks of graft and self interest.
    The obvious media campaign against Trump could also backfire - voters know a hatchet job when they see one - they watch House of Cards.

    But politics is odd around the whole world.
    The Guardian is running a piece about the Pirate party in Iceland.

    Why go so far? - the most remarkable coup in recent politics was UKIP forcing a vote on the EU which it not only won it did so in spite of only ever having ONE MP out of 630.

    Trump may be America's UKIP - he resembles them in so many ways.

    ID6209069 26 Oct 2016 20:35

    It's possible that something like this was inevitable, in a nation which is populated by "consumers" rather than as citizens. There are "valuable demographics" versus those that aren't worthy of the attention of the constant bombardment of advertising. I jokingly said last year that as I was turning 55 last year, I am no longer in the 'coveted 29-54 demo'. My worth as a consumer has been changed merely by reaching a certain age, so I now see fewer ads about cars and electronics and more about prescription medicines. The product of our media is eyeballs, not programs or articles. The advertising is the money maker, the content merely a means of luring people in for a sales pitch, not to educate or inform. If that structure sells us a hideous caricature of a successful person and gives him political power, as long as the ad dollars keep rolling in.

    GreyBags 26 Oct 2016 21:19

    This is the culmination of living in a post-truth political world. Lies and smears, ably supported by the corporate media and Murdoch in particular means that the average person who doesn't closely follow politics is being misinformed.

    The complete failure of right wing economic 'theories' means they only have lies, smears and the old 'divide and conquer' left in their arsenal. 'Free speech' is their attempt to get lies and smears equal billing with the truth. All truth on the other hand must be suppressed. All experts and scientists who don't regurgitate the meaningless slogans of the right will be ignored, traduced, defunded, disbanded or silenced by law.

    We see the same corrupted philosophy in Australia as well.


    JamesCameron 7d ago

    Yet Trump, the "misogynist, racist and bigot"' has more women in executive and managerial positions than any comparable company, pays these women the same or more than their male counterparts and fought the West Palm Beach City Council to be allowed to open his newly purchased club to blacks and Jews who had been banned until then. I suspect his views do chime with Americans fed up with political correctness gone mad as well as the venality of the administration of Barak Obama, a machine politician with dodgy bagmen from Chicago – the historically corrupt city in Illinois, the most corrupt state in the Union. Finally, unlike The Hilary, he has actually held down a job, worked hard and achieved success and perhaps they are more offended by what she does than what he says.

    aucourant 7d ago

    Not so much an article about Trump as much as a rant. George Monbiot writes with the utter conviction of one who mistakenly believes that his readers share his bigotry. When he talks about the 'alleged gropings' or the 'alleged refusal to accept democratic outcomes', that is exactly what they are 'alleged'.

    The Democratic Party has been dredging up porn-stars and wannabe models who now make claims that Trump tried to 'kiss them without asking'. This has become the nightly fare of the mainstream media in the USA. At the same time the media ignores the destruction of Clinton's emails, the bribing of top FBI officials who are investigating the destroyed tapes and the giving of immunity to all those who aided Clinton in hiding and destroying subpoenaed evidence.

    The press also ignored the tapes of the DNC paying thugs to cause violence at Trump rallies, the bribes paid to the Clintons for political favours and the stealing of the election from Bernie Sanders. Trump is quite right to think the 'democratic outcome' is being fixed. Not only were the votes for Sanders manipulated, but Al Gore's votes were also altered and manipulated to ensure a win for Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The same interests who engineered the 2000 election have switched from supporting the Republican Party to supporting Clinton.

    Anomander64 6d ago

    Great article. The neoliberals have been able to control the narrative and in doing so have managed to scapegoat all manner of minority groups, building anger among those disaffected with modern politics. Easy targets - minorities, immigrants, the poor, the disadvantaged and the low-paid workers.

    The real enemy here are those sitting atop the corporate tree, but with the media controlled by them, the truth is never revealed.

    mochilero7687 5d ago

    Perhaps next week George will write in detail about all the scandals Hildabeast has caused and been involved in over the past 40 years - which have cost the US govt tens of millions of dollars and millions of man hours - but I won't be holding my breath.

    [Nov 02, 2016] Donald gave a great speech a couple of weeks or so ago, and clearly is not the kind of puppet that occupied this high political office now

    Speeches does not matter much, especially in case of Hillary, who will forget about her election promises sooner then Obama and like Obama is able to turn around on a dime. But still there is some truth to that. Looks like the elite is slip. Look into NYPost -- it is strongly pro-Trump. Since 1993, Post has been owned by , Rupert Murdoch News Corporation and its successor, News Corp , which had owned it previously from 1976 to 1988. In 1976, Rupert Murdoch bought Post for US$30.5 million
    Nov 02, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Kayman billhicks Nov 2, 2016 5:51 PM ,
    The TPTB doesn't want Trump. They are just coming to the realization they are about to have their wrists handcuffed to their ankles.
    billhicks Kayman Nov 2, 2016 7:02 PM ,
    Not sure. And neither are u. As the proportion of red pillers increases, exponentially now perhaps, TPTB may change tact. Donald gave a great speech a couple of weeks or so ago, and clearly is not the kind of puppet who has been instilled into high political office thus far.

    However, is it not possible that TPTB realise all of this populism and moreover the insightful but significant minority is becoming an issue. And perhaps Trump can either placate or give them a scapegoat.

    It is also possible he's either an elaborately cloaked puppet or they think they can manipulate him eventually or worse. He is good, or rather better than what has come before. But is he the real deal? Possibly. Worth a try of course. He may save us. Economy will tank on the next POTUS.

    She will undoubtedly make it worse. He may make it better. Ron Paul would have saved us if we/they let him. That chance has gone. Am waiting for one of the new wave of populist anti-politicians to really lift the curtain. Trump has threatened to do it. Perhaps even the good ones realize that if they dish out red pills like smartest then it's game over...

    [Nov 02, 2016] Veterans, Feeling Abandoned, Stand by Donald Trump by NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

    Notable quotes:
    "... The roster of retired military officers endorsing Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied forces battling the Taliban in Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own country. ..."
    "... After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience. ..."
    "... "When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam." ..."
    Nov 02, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    The roster of retired military officers endorsing Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied forces battling the Taliban in Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own country.

    But as Election Day approaches, many veterans are instead turning to Donald J. Trump , a businessman who avoided the Vietnam draft and has boasted of gathering foreign policy wisdom by watching television shows.

    Even as other voters abandon Mr. Trump, veterans remain among his most loyal supporters, an unlikely connection forged by the widening gulf they feel from other Americans.

    After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience.

    Perhaps most strikingly, they welcome Mr. Trump's blunt attacks on America's entanglements overseas.

    "When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam."

    In small military towns in California and North Carolina, veterans of all eras cheer Mr. Trump's promises to fire officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs . His attacks on political correctness evoke their frustrations with tortured rules of engagement crafted to serve political, not military, ends. In Mr. Trump's forceful assertion of strength, they find a balm for wounds that left them broken and torn.

    "He calls it out," said Joshua Macias, a former Navy petty officer and fifth-generation veteran who lives in the Tidewater region of Virginia, where he organized a "Veterans for Trump" group last year. "We have intense emotion connected to these wars. The way it was politicized, the way they changed the way we fight in a war setting - it's horrible how they did that."

    [Nov 02, 2016] Trump Slams Media in Miami - Crowd Chants CNN Sucks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Never before have so many media organizations, old and new, abandoned all pretense of fairness to take sides and try to pick a president. It is unbelievable. ..."
    Nov 02, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Trump called integrity in journalism an important issue, but then denounced the media as "dishonest" and cited a New York Post piece by Michael Goodwin.

    "Another important issue for Americans his integrity in journalism," Trump said. "These people are among the most dishonest people I have ever met, spoken to, done business with. These are the most dishonest people. There has never been dishonesty – there has never been dishonesty like we have seen in this election. There has never been anywhere near the media dishonesty like we have seen in this election. Don't worry, they won't spin the cameras to show the massive crowds. They won't do that.

    The very talented Michael Goodwin of the New York Post just wrote today that 2016 presidential race will mark the low watermark of journalism that is worthy, if you think of it, of the First Amendment. Never before have so many media organizations, old and new, abandoned all pretense of fairness to take sides and try to pick a president. It is unbelievable. Honestly. for instance, a great story given out to the media they'll make it look as bad as possible – as bad possible.

    [Nov 02, 2016] This presidential race is the low-water mark of American journalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... A survey covering 12 weeks of the campaign after the summer conventions found that 91 percent of Trump coverage on the three largest broadcast networks was "hostile." The Media Research Center also found that much of the focus was on Trump's personal life, while the networks downplayed investigations into Clinton's emails and her family foundation. ..."
    "... Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have irrefutable evidence that none of this is based on journalism standards. Rather, it reflects the incestuous relationship between liberal members of elite media organizations and the Democratic Party. The alliance mocks any claims that the media are independent. ..."
    "... John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, was caught fielding flattering comments from reporters and columnists and guiding coverage. One Politico reporter, Glenn Thrush, sent Podesta a story to review before it was published, calling himself a "hack" and pleading, "Please don't share or tell anyone I did this." ..."
    "... CNN proved that its nickname, the Clinton News Network, is deserved. Only after WikiLeaks showed that Democratic Party honcho Donna Brazile, a paid commentator, twice gave Clinton debate questions in advance did the network sever its ties with her. ..."
    "... Tellingly, Clinton never rejected the insider advantage against rival Bernie Sanders, nor seemed surprised by it. And CNN still shows no curiosity about whether anyone else participated in the scam. ..."
    "... When the New York Times crossed the Rubicon by allowing reporters to express their opinions in so-called news stories, the floodgates opened across the country as imitators followed suit. ..."
    "... The decision by editor Dean Baquet to dismantle the standards of the Times to try to elect Clinton will not be easy to reverse after the campaign. The standards were developed over decades to build public trust, and removing them elevates the editor's bias to policy. ..."
    Nov 01, 2016 | nypost.com

    In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned America about the "unwarranted influence" of a "military-industrial complex." Were he speaking today, Ike might be warning about a media-political complex.

    And for the same reason - the dangers to democracy and liberty of "the disastrous rise of misplaced power."

    However it ends, the 2016 presidential race will mark the low-water mark of journalism that is worthy of the First Amendment. Never before have so many media organizations, old and new, abandoned all pretense of fairness to take sides and try to pick a president.

    Their cozy confederacy with the incumbent political faction is largely in opposition to public will. Although polls show a tight race for the White House, studies find staggeringly lopsided coverage, with Donald Trump getting far more negative coverage than Hillary Clinton.

    A survey covering 12 weeks of the campaign after the summer conventions found that 91 percent of Trump coverage on the three largest broadcast networks was "hostile." The Media Research Center also found that much of the focus was on Trump's personal life, while the networks downplayed investigations into Clinton's emails and her family foundation.

    Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have irrefutable evidence that none of this is based on journalism standards. Rather, it reflects the incestuous relationship between liberal members of elite media organizations and the Democratic Party. The alliance mocks any claims that the media are independent.

    John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, was caught fielding flattering comments from reporters and columnists and guiding coverage. One Politico reporter, Glenn Thrush, sent Podesta a story to review before it was published, calling himself a "hack" and pleading, "Please don't share or tell anyone I did this."

    CNN proved that its nickname, the Clinton News Network, is deserved. Only after WikiLeaks showed that Democratic Party honcho Donna Brazile, a paid commentator, twice gave Clinton debate questions in advance did the network sever its ties with her.

    Tellingly, Clinton never rejected the insider advantage against rival Bernie Sanders, nor seemed surprised by it. And CNN still shows no curiosity about whether anyone else participated in the scam.

    It is hard to escape the conclusion that playing favorites, while pretending to be neutral, is business-as-usual. The only difference is that WikiLeaks exposed the ugly truth. Much of the media world has long tilted left, but this year, the bias became open and notorious war because the liberal bell cow decided that Trump was not deserving of basic fairness.

    When the New York Times crossed the Rubicon by allowing reporters to express their opinions in so-called news stories, the floodgates opened across the country as imitators followed suit.

    The decision by editor Dean Baquet to dismantle the standards of the Times to try to elect Clinton will not be easy to reverse after the campaign. The standards were developed over decades to build public trust, and removing them elevates the editor's bias to policy.

    As such, the decision establishes a political litmus test for hiring, and new employees likely will be expected to echo the party line in their "reporting." Let's see how many conservatives or even moderates get promoted, and whether religiously observant employees feel discriminated against.

    This "disastrous rise of misplaced power" is visible each and every day as the Times' front-page headlines read like editorials in slamming Trump and boosting Clinton. Tuesday's was a classic, with the top story accusing Trump of a "tax dodge" 30 years ago.

    See also The New York Times abandoned its integrity just to bash Donald Trump

    [Nov 02, 2016] The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party

    Nov 02, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    toffee1 26 Oct 2016 7:58

    Trump shows the true face of the ruling class with no hypocrisy. He is telling us the truth. If we have a democracy, we should have a party representing the interests of the business class, why not. The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that they somehow representing the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies and hypocrisy and manipulating the working class everyday through their power over the media. Their function is to appease the working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party.

    [Nov 01, 2016] The Media Hysteria And Dishonesty On Trump Has Backfired

    Notable quotes:
    "... That is the takeaway from the Trump candidacy. They fired every gun they could muster at him, and he's still standing. Standing, and even winning, if some polls are to be believed. ..."
    "... It's kind of disappointing that it took an outsized personality like Trump to bring straightforwardness into the mainstream. Ron Paul was straightforward, and did amazingly well, but he wasn't glitzy enough to avoid being marginalized. Bernie Sanders was straightforward, but he wasn't glamorous enough to avoid being steamrollered by a political machine. Nope, it took a guy with cutthroat business savvy and TV experience to let America in on the Big Secret. ..."
    "... Any hour now the NYT, WaPo, LAT, and Atlantic are going to publish poll results showing that among their selected samples, the Mainstream Media are viewed as the same MiniTru banners-flying young crusaders as liberated the people of the United States in the 1970s from marriage, ethics, societal trust, and the horror of a life lived without STDs, divorce, multiracial offspring, and stoner grandparents. ..."
    "... "Only one major newspaper has endorsed Donald Trump. Only one. And this is a man whom the American people might choose as their president. What better proof could we have of the stark difference between printed opinion and public opinion, between what Americans think and what our rulers want us to think? Donald Trump has ripped away whatever was left of the pretense of media objectivity." ..."
    "... "Despite the concerted shrieking of virtually the entire American ruling class" ..."
    "... Ironically, the same potential outcome the discredited mainstream media bloviates and fear mongers about. ..."
    "... Race is big issue in the US, since it is a country that had a 90%+ majority of people of white European ancestry as recently as the 1950′s, with an accompanying European foundation and Constitution. ..."
    "... Yeah, the stupidity of it all offends me more than the content sometimes. Fortunately things are improving and sites like Breitbart are promoting the message while dropping this stupidity. ..."
    "... On Unz.com, let me suggest reading Sailer, Mercer, Reed, and Derbyshire. Ron Unz also co-founded the more highbrow AmConMag.com. ..."
    The Unz Review
    Credit: VDare.com.

    From the start of Donald Trump's campaign, the media have covered him dishonestly. They have consistently portrayed him as a closet "white supremacist" who deliberately appeals to " racists ." They have tried to tie him to a wicked movement known as the "Alt-Right." They are now working on another dishonest angle: that Donald Trump is "mainstreaming hate" and bringing "racism" into public discourse. The media clearly want to stampede voters into Mrs. Clinton's camp so as to spare us the agony of a "racist" in the White House.

    The demonization campaign has backfired. By trying to hang racial dissidents around Donald Trump's neck, the media have given American Renaissance and other organizations far more publicity than ever before. At the same time, constant shouts of "racist" and "bigot" don't seem to hurt Mr. Trump: instead they are wrecking what is left of media credibility. The biggest irony, though, is that Donald Trump is probably not one of us at all. But even small deviations from the cast-iron orthodoxy of race are enough to plunge our rulers into dark fantasies about Donald Trump as a secret David Duke fan.

    Media dishonesty started immediately. When Mr. Trump pointed out that some immigrants from Mexico were criminals, the press acted as if he had said all Mexican immigrants are criminals. Then, when alert news hounds discovered that those of us they love to call "haters" and "white supremacists" liked Mr. Trump, there was no end of articles with titles such as : " Meet the Horde of Neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and Other Extremist Leaders Endorsing Donald Trump ," " Top Racists And Neo-Nazis Back Donald Trump ," " 'Heil Donald Trump': Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists Show Support ," and " The White Nationalists Who Support Donald Trump ."

    These articles had a simpleminded purpose: discredit Mr. Trump by parading before the reader any Nazi, Kluxer, or racially conscious white person who had anything nice to say about the candidate. The implication was that if "racists" were going to vote for Donald Trump he must be "racist," too.

    This was deceitful and one-sided. When the chairman of the American Communist Party endorsed Hillary Clinton , no one suggested this meant she was a communist.

    It is true that Mr. Trump gave the media just enough of an excuse to pretend he really is a closet "bigot" because he did not repudiate "racists" with the snorts of indignation respectability requires. There was the famous exchange in February when a reporter pushed Mr. Trump to disavow an endorsement from David Duke. As The Hill reported it: " 'David Duke endorsed me? OK, alright. I disavow, OK?' Trump said, seeking to quickly move on to another question."

    That same month, there was another famous exchange with Jake Tapper of CNN :

    Tapper: Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don't want his vote or that of other white supremacists in this election?

    Donald Trump: Well just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke, OK? I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don't know. I don't know, did he endorse me, or what's going on? Because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists.

    The media leaped on these exchanges with shouts of joy . "Trump refuses to disavow white supremacists! That's because he is one!"

    There are far better explanations. First, Donald Trump is a pugnacious man. He doesn't like being pushed around by anyone, especially not by journalists who hate him . If Mr. Tapper had belligerently demanded that Mr. Trump agree that the sky is blue, Mr. Trump would have bridled at that.

    Second, Donald Trump probably doesn't know anything about David Duke or white supremacy. I would be astonished if he has ever looked into the thinking of David Duke or any other alleged "white supremacist." It is his feistiness and his ignorance of white advocacy that explain his answers, not some carefully concealed racial consciousness.

    The press has also pounced on Donald Trump's retweets of "racist" material, which is supposed to be yet more proof that he is a secret supremacist. Business Insider, for example, published this shocking story: " 5 times Donald Trump has engaged with alt-right racists on Twitter ." Not one of these tweets is obviously "racist," and it would be surprising if Mr. Trump or his skeleton staff took the time to vet the sources of the thousands of tweets @realDonaldTrump has sent during the campaign.

    Now the press is working on another smear-Trump angle. Recently, I have been contacted by journalists from such places as Bloomberg News, Reuters, and the New York Times , who clearly want to write that Donald Trump is "mainstreaming hate," that he is responsible for a huge surge in the Alt-Right. They want to know about all the people who have been flocking to AmRen.com because of what Donald Trump says. They want me to tell them about people who have been "emboldened" to "speak out against minorities" because Donald Trump has led the way. They would love to find someone who now thinks he is free to run down the street shouting "nigger!" because Mr. Trump wants to take a hard look at Muslim immigrants.

    I have explained to them as patiently as I can that they have it the wrong way around. No one comes looking for AmRen.com because Donald Trump wants to build a wall. They come looking for us because the media have written about us in their attempt to convince the world that Mr. Trump is a "racist." They come looking for us because Mrs. Clinton kindly called attention to us by complaining about the Alt-Right and her "basket of deplorables." I also try to explain that if the media had not launched its malicious campaign of trying to hold Donald Trump responsible for the views of certain people who support him, few people would have heard of the Alt-Right. In their zeal to paint their enemy in the darkest colors, they are promoting the Alt-Right, not Donald Trump.

    I explain that racial dissent has been growing like never before, for reasons that have nothing to do with the campaign. It is Trayvon Martin , Michael Brown , Black Lives Matter, and black rioters who are sending hundreds of thousands of frustrated white people our way– not Donald Trump. This will not change whether Mr. Trump wins or loses. The top landing pages on AmRen.com are analyses of race and crime–something Mr. Trump never talks about.

    I also explain to reporters that it is idiotic to think Mr. Trump has mainstreamed "hate," by which they mean sensible observations about race. I ask them to name a single person who has been "emboldened" to say something "racist" just because Donald Trump is the GOP nominee. Of course, they can't. If anything, it is the opposite. Mr. Trump has been called every name under the sun for the mildest, most common-sense observations about Muslims and immigration. Anyone tempted to come out of the closet is likely to hesitate more than ever. Things could change if Mr. Trump becomes president, but the candidate himself has done very little to spread our ideas.

    What Donald Trump has done is spark an unprecedented interest in politics among disaffected young people who recognize that Mitt Romney and John McCain are no different from Barack Obama when it comes to preserving whites, their society, and their culture. I know a number of millennials who never bothered to vote before but who certainly will in November. I know some who have made their first political contribution or who have spent weekends volunteering for the Trump campaign.

    I point out to reporters that this is what elections are supposed to be all about: giving the voters real choices. I note that the Trump/Clinton contest will almost certainly produce a record voter turnout for a modern election. Haven't our rulers been wringing their hands over a lack of political engagement, especially among the young? Well, now they have engagement, alright, but they don't like it. They don't like it because so many people are stumping for the candidate they love to call a " threat to democracy ." Liberals are such transparent hypocrites. They claim to love democracy, but suddenly start worrying about its health if the people refuse vote the way they tell them to.

    The whole Trump-is-a-racist fracas shows just how painfully fragile orthodoxy has become. I may be wrong, but I have no reason to think Donald Trump thinks at all as we do. He has never said or done anything to suggest he is anything more than an ordinary American with normal instincts: He doesn't want criminals sneaking across the border, he thinks sanctuary cities for illegals are crazy, he doesn't see why we need more Muslims, and he is angry when immigrants go on welfare. Millions of ordinary Americans clearly agree with him, and not because they are racially aware. It is because they are decent, fair-minded people who also have a nagging sense that the country is changing in unwelcome ways.

    I am convinced that Mr. Trump does not have a sophisticated understanding of race. So far as I can tell, he doesn't have a sophisticated understanding of much of anything. He has stumbled by instinct onto a few sensible policies that white advocates have been promoting for a long time, but not because he is one of us.

    Maybe–just maybe–he will move in our direction. It's not impossible to imagine a President Trump asking, in an offhand way, "What's wrong with white people wanting to remain a majority in the United States?" Or he might casually note that you can't expect as many blacks as Asians in AP classes because they don't have the same levels of intelligence. But I can imagine the opposite, too: President Trump so bogged down in Beltway baloney that he never even builds the wall.

    There is one thing that Donald Trump has changed. He has proven that Republican bromides about taxes and small government don't excite people. He has proven that there is tremendous anger against political insiders of both parties. He has proven that Americans do want their country to come first. They don't want it to try to save the world or to be a dumping ground for people who have wrecked their own countries.

    And even if he has not "mainstreamed racism," he has shown that if you have a backbone you can withstand what is surely the most intense and concentrated program of hate ever directed at an American. On October 11, Roger Cohen wrote in the New York Times that Donald Trump is a "phony, liar, blowhard, cheat, bully, misogynist, demagogue, predator, bigot, bore, egomaniac, racist, sexist, sociopath," and a "dictator-in-waiting with a brat's temper and a prig's scowl." [ Trump_vs_deep_state After Trump ] This must be one of the most unhinged, hysterical outbursts in the history of American political journalism. And it is unusual only for its wordiness, not its tone.

    Don't the editors of the Times realize that this kind of frothing explains why more Americans believe in Bigfoot (29 percent) than trust newspapers (20 percent)? Virtually the entire industry is so consumed with rage at Donald Trump and contempt for his supporters that it cannot control itself. Open, petulant bias is driving more and more Americans to social media and to sites like AmRen.com for their news.

    Despite the concerted shrieking of virtually the entire American ruling class, Donald Trump is going to get close to half of the vote on November 8. Some 60 million people are going to vote for a man for whom Roger Cohen [ Email him ] has emptied his dictionary trying to insult. Only one major newspaper has endorsed Donald Trump. Only one . And this is a man whom the American people might choose as their president. What better proof could we have of the stark difference between printed opinion and public opinion, between what Americans think and what our rulers want us to think? Donald Trump has ripped away whatever was left of the pretense of media objectivity.

    Whether he wins or not, whether he is one of us or not, Donald Trump has laid bare the collusion between big media and a political system in which both parties collaborate to run the country in their interests and those of their big donors. Voters–finally–have a chance to vote against the entire corrupt system. On November 8th they could bring it crashing down, but even if it still stands, it is visibly weakened, badly discredited. These are the perfect conditions in which our ideas will flourish as never before.

    Jared Taylor [ Email him ] is editor of American Renaissance and the author of Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America . (For Peter Brimelow's review, click here .) His most recent book is White Identity .

    (Reprinted from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
    1. Demeter Last says: November 1, 2016 at 6:14 am GMT • 300 Words

      And even if he has not "mainstreamed racism," he has shown that if you have a backbone you can withstand what is surely the most intense and concentrated program of hate ever directed at an American.

      That is the takeaway from the Trump candidacy. They fired every gun they could muster at him, and he's still standing. Standing, and even winning, if some polls are to be believed.

      (I suspect that this kind of determination resonates well with Mr. Taylor. Taylor is one of the most inoffensive men to have ever put pen to paper, but his ideas and honor have been attacked for years. Yet still he stands.)

      It's kind of disappointing that it took an outsized personality like Trump to bring straightforwardness into the mainstream. Ron Paul was straightforward, and did amazingly well, but he wasn't glitzy enough to avoid being marginalized. Bernie Sanders was straightforward, but he wasn't glamorous enough to avoid being steamrollered by a political machine. Nope, it took a guy with cutthroat business savvy and TV experience to let America in on the Big Secret.

      The Big Secret is:

      1) For all the fait accompli chatter on TV, this is still America, and Americans still get to vote.

      2) America really is the land of the free and the home of the brave, and we defined those aspects in the first two Amendments to the Constitution.

      3) When you're free enough to be brave, some people are brave enough to be free.

      TL;DR: happy to see Mr. Taylor's article here.


    2. Wally says: • Website November 1, 2016 at 6:23 am GMT

      The 'media' attacks Trump for wanting to built a wall, while they ignore Israel's apartheid wall that is already built.

      http://217.218.67.233/photo/20160407/824d1b8f-4b1e-425d-8368-c17853d16df5.jpg

      https://www.youtube.com/embed/uSBxqzKoUoU?feature=oembed


    3. Wally says: November 1, 2016 at 6:29 am GMT @Anon

      The media make fun of conspiracy theories, but the more they lie, the more they are adding fuel to fire to alternative media.

      I still believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy.

      But there have been so many lies about so many things that I wonder if future generations will trust anything. And if I were a millennial today, I wouldn't trust that Lee Oswald killed Kennedy either since the media are so surreal about everything. The 'new cold war' is the most ridiculous thing.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8MsA9xZJok

      Ah yes, the magic bullet.

      And how's your Big Foot fantasy coming along?

      • Replies: @Olorin Interesting you mention we PNWers' favorite evolutionary atavism. (Well, second-favorite, in Seattle and Portland.)

      I read somewhere in these pages (Derb?) recently that more Americans now believe in Bigfoot (29 percent) than believe the MSM are doing a good job (20 percent).

      You know what this means.

      Any hour now the NYT, WaPo, LAT, and Atlantic are going to publish poll results showing that among their selected samples, the Mainstream Media are viewed as the same MiniTru banners-flying young crusaders as liberated the people of the United States in the 1970s from marriage, ethics, societal trust, and the horror of a life lived without STDs, divorce, multiracial offspring, and stoner grandparents.


      Trust in US Media at All-Time High!

      Americans Praise NYT for Leading the Truth and Justice Vanguard against Fuhrer Trump and Generalissimo Pepe!

      Chocolate Rations Up 127%!

      Only Hillary Can Supply HerTurn Singularity!

      Coming Soon: Free Huma Abedin Action Figure!

      Turn in Your Parents for Likes, Upthumbs, and Game Upgrades!

    4. Miro23 says: November 1, 2016 at 7:41 am GMT • 100 Words

      "…. it (the MSM) is visibly weakened, badly discredited."

      This has to be one of the best articles on Unz.

      "Only one major newspaper has endorsed Donald Trump. Only one. And this is a man whom the American people might choose as their president. What better proof could we have of the stark difference between printed opinion and public opinion, between what Americans think and what our rulers want us to think? Donald Trump has ripped away whatever was left of the pretense of media objectivity."

      And this,

      "Despite the concerted shrieking of virtually the entire American ruling class"


    5. Miro23 says: November 1, 2016 at 8:21 am GMT • 100 Words @Fran Macadam Even Jared Taylor, like the proverbial broken clock, correctly calls out the times once in a while.

      "...whether he is one of us or not, Donald Trump has laid bare the collusion between big media and a political system in which both parties collaborate to run the country in their interests and those of their big donors."

      Momentarily accurate, but this isn't the way the hands of the clock point after that:

      "These are the perfect conditions in which our ideas will flourish as never before."

      Ironically, the same potential outcome the discredited mainstream media bloviates and fearmongers about.

      Ironically, the same potential outcome the discredited mainstream media bloviates and fear mongers about.

      Well, they could have tried having an open and frank discussion about RACE rather than just using it as a propaganda tool.

      Race is big issue in the US, since it is a country that had a 90%+ majority of people of white European ancestry as recently as the 1950′s, with an accompanying European foundation and Constitution. Now, as an open borders state, it is fast heading towards a country with a non-European racial majority. with the Establishment pushing them towards multiculturalism, identity politics and non-integration, probably to build a permanently fractured nation that they can easily dominate with their highly effective private system of patronage.

      • Replies: @Fran Macadam It's not skin color or ethnicity that counts, it's character and beliefs. I've no confidence in judging what policies or who to support by virtue of "race." I'd rather interact with a community of another ethnicity, which has compatible beliefs, than one whose individual physical characteristics most resemble mine, but reviles all I believe in. The fact is, there is a lot of the latter. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    6. Montefrío says: November 1, 2016 at 9:13 am GMT • 200 Words

      I'm one of those people who never paid any attention to the "alt-right" or any of the websites associated with it until the obviously-biased msm made such a fuss.

      "It is because they are decent, fair-minded people who also have a nagging sense that the country is changing in unwelcome ways." I like to believe I belong to this group and will remain in it, although with a somewhat harsher perspective than was previously the case. These sites have led me to read books I'd never considered reading and at 70, I've read a great deal.

      All things considered, I find the nazi stuff over the top, the racial slur stuff undignified, but much of the message spot on: the country (and not just the USA) has changed in "unwelcome ways", continues to do so based on observations from afar, and will continue to change for the worse for as long as falsely conscious folks of European origin play into the hands of their openly hostile enemies. I suggest visiting these sites to widen one's perspective if nothing else. One can discover literature effectively censored by the thought police for many years now, literature of far greater worth than much of what is promoted as "great" by others.

      • Replies: @jacques sheete
      ...literature of far greater worth than much of what is promoted as "great" by others.
      For sure. The garbage gets front page, Nobel prizes and Pulitzer prizes while tons of good stuff never sees the light of day or gets trashed. , @Lot Welcome aboard Montefrio! Please keep commenting. Since you are 70, I think this site's mostly under-40 readers will appreciate your perspective. Keep in mind though half of us have ADHD, so keep it brief too!
      I find the nazi stuff over the top, the racial slur stuff undignified, but much of the message spot on
      Yeah, the stupidity of it all offends me more than the content sometimes. Fortunately things are improving and sites like Breitbart are promoting the message while dropping this stupidity.

      On Unz.com, let me suggest reading Sailer, Mercer, Reed, and Derbyshire. Ron Unz also co-founded the more highbrow AmConMag.com.

      AmConMag is nice too because you can email article links to potential converts without having embarrassing anti-Semite crap all over the rest of the site that make you look like a nut. , @Schlock Trooper

      All things considered, I find the nazi stuff over the top
      But as Franz Stangl duly noted, they do have some really cool uniforms. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    7. WorkingClass says: November 1, 2016 at 9:32 am GMT • 100 Words

      "….he has shown that if you have a backbone you can withstand what is surely the most intense and concentrated program of hate ever directed at an American."

      It ain't just Trump. The continuous blizzard of hate is directed at me. Joe sixpack. Imperial Washington is a steaming heap of excrement. Theft, lies, treason and murder are it's stock in trade. Yet it is Trump who is vulgar and I who am deplorable. All I need to know about Trump is he stands up to these dirtbags.

      • Replies: @jacques sheete
      The continuous blizzard of hate is directed at me. Joe sixpack.
      Actually it's also directed at anyone who smells a rat, and there are plenty of mangy rodents in the steaming heaps of excrement in D.C., New Yawk and Chicago to name a few.And it appears to be an inviolable rule that "Sixpackians" smell rats long before the masses of White Collar Princes do.
      Theft, lies, treason and murder are it's stock in trade.
      And they always have been and shall continue, despite the silly mythology to the contrary. There's a reason Patrick Henry boycotted the cornstitutional convention in Philly in 1787, giving as a reason that he "smelt a rat." The rats have been spreading their droppings for centuries, and it will take a true Hercules to clean up the Augean cesspool they've made of the world, and it won't be done in one day, if ever.

      Nevertheless, we have no choice but to maintain the struggle! Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    8. Randal says: November 1, 2016 at 10:36 am GMT • 500 Words

      I may be wrong, but I have no reason to think Donald Trump thinks at all as we do. He has never said or done anything to suggest he is anything more than an ordinary American with normal instincts: He doesn't want criminals sneaking across the border, he thinks sanctuary cities for illegals are crazy, he doesn't see why we need more Muslims, and he is angry when immigrants go on welfare. Millions of ordinary Americans clearly agree with him, and not because they are racially aware. It is because they are decent, fair-minded people who also have a nagging sense that the country is changing in unwelcome ways.

      This seems to me to be a reasonable assessment of the man and his broad politics.

      Maybe–just maybe–he will move in our direction. It's not impossible to imagine a President Trump asking, in an offhand way, "What's wrong with white people wanting to remain a majority in the United States?" Or he might casually note that you can't expect as many blacks as Asians in AP classes because they don't have the same levels of intelligence. But I can imagine the opposite, too: President Trump so bogged down in Beltway baloney that he never even builds the wall.

      This, too, seems to be a reasonable assessment of the prospects were Trump to win.

      Though I have a general interest in the politics of identity and a more immediate interest in the ongoing demonization and criminalisation of traditionalist dissent by the dominant left, my primary interest in the US presidential election is in relation to foreign policy, and the extent to which the next president is likely to continue the bipartisan interventionist idiocies of the past 20 years. Clinton clearly will, having played a big part in driving said idiocies in her career to date. Trump, though, is an unknown quantity. Much as Taylor sees the possibilities in relation to his own area of particular interest, so it goes for my own area. It's possible to imagine a President Trump presiding over a draw back from the aggressive confrontation of Russia and China, and if not actually shutting down then at least deprioritising the various US "democracy promotion" and other programs designed to try to spread US ideology around the world. But it's also possible to imagine him going the other way, either leaving foreign policy to the US "experts" while he concentrates on the pressing domestic issues he would undoubtedly have in dealing with implacable sabotage of his time in office by the media, judicial and legislative branches of the US regime, or worse, letting himself be convinced by the same interventionist lobbyists as filled George W Bush's empty head after he took office.

      Sill, for both of us an unknown with at least the possibility of sensible policy is clearly better than the certainty of disaster the world would get with Clinton.


    9. Greg Bacon says: • Website November 1, 2016 at 10:45 am GMT • 100 Words

      Trump is 'Hope an Change,' v 2.o. Or, if you like, Obama in 'white-face' to give the rubes some entertainment while their world collapses around them and Wall Street pickpockets are nicking what money they have left while watching the show.

      The TBTF banks really run the show. Do you seriously think they'd let someone get into the WH who might actually do their job of protecting the USA and not Wall Street casinos?

    10. Authenticjazzman says: November 1, 2016 at 1:43 pm GMT • 100 Words

      Here's the solution :

      Interview : Mr Trump you are a racist.

      Mr trump answers : No you are a racist.

      Back and forth no matter how long.

      This is the only way to handle this distorted issue : DT and his folks must turn it around on them, as they are the real racists, but nobody dares to say it out loud.

      Detroit is a result of their racism.

      Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years.

    11. Randal says: November 1, 2016 at 2:01 pm GMT • 100 Words

      Here's the solution :

      Interview : Mr Trump you are a racist.

      Mr trump answers : No you are a racist.

      I think the best response to the assertion that one is a racist is to reply: "And?", and to make the case that being racist is not necessarily a bad thing, if all the things that antiracists claim are racist are to be included in the definition.

      • Replies: @Authenticjazzman "And"

      Nope it won't work, because agreeing with them, would be construed as a "Confession" and would simply turn potential allies against us.
      I would, if I had a say in campaign policy , I would accuse them, the leftists, the democrats right back of every fucking thing they have accused us of, and I would be right, as they in reality are the fucking racists, mysogenists, even the homophobes,as they now claim that a gay person cannot bonafibably ever be a Republican,which simply indicates that they have no respect for the self-determination of gay folks.

      The dumb-ass nice-guy Republicans have taken everything sitting down for the last half century
      and we see the results, and I am convinced that most of the turn-coats have done so because they are terrified of being hit with the "Racist" label.
      We need more allies and not a tedious redefinition of various labels.

      Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years, and pro jazz performer. , @RadicalCenter You know that most people aren't ready for that, especially "swing voters". If trump said that, he would surely lose. Counterproductive, if satisfying momentarily.

      But trump should call Dems racist for treating black Americans like serfs, and he absolutely should call out Clinton et al. on their fomenting racial hatred and division, and their apologism for widespread racially-targeted violence and intimidation against white and Asian people.

    12. highrpm says: November 1, 2016 at 2:16 pm GMT

      in their current state, the MSM are just evangelists pushing their religions, the crazy unfounded irrational beliefs that racism is evil and egalitarians are good. where are the independently verifiable clinical tests? just like all the other myriad religions, creating gods in their own image.

    [Nov 01, 2016] Soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the inchoate left also exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor

    Notable quotes:
    "... Do we acknowledge that the soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the inchoate left also "exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor."? They do it with a different style and maybe with some concession to economic melioration, as well as supporting anti-racist and feminist policy to keep the inchoate left on board, but . . . ..."
    "... I seriously doubt a human social phenomenon as broad and universal as "identifying with an in-group against an out-group", if this is how y'all intend to define "tribalism", can be made narrow enough to usefully describe a specific tendency in modern capitalist politics. ..."
    "... According to a study of Alan Krueger that examined prime-age men (ages 25–54) who are not working or looking for work – there are alone about 7 million (lost) workers -- (and their wives and relatives) – many of them supposedly dropped out of the labor force altogether and reporting 'pain' that keeps them from taking jobs. ..."
    "... "The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil." ..."
    "... I think the notion that racism is somehow regional in the US ..."
    "... Populations can be "racialized" according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are". ..."
    "... As in voting behavior the dividing lines are NOT so much anymore between left and right, but more between a liberal, cosmopolitan bourgeoisie in the center and on both edges populists who are propagating partitioning and protectionism. ..."
    Nov 01, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    xxx
    John, I agree that tribalism is a huge force in politics, but the way you have defined it describes a huge portion of how people on all sides vote. All sorts of research shows that a majority of people seem to use the rubric "what do people of my affiliation believe" to reach conclusions and then defend them rather than following any particular chain of logic about the actual question. So I'm not sure what kind of differentiation work the term is doing.

    On the other hand I think you're definitely on to something about the change of formerly stable political orders, and I'm not sure I can identify what it is either. I sort of see what you are trying to do with the in-group/out-group thing. Those impulses always existed, so I wonder what has changed? Is it assimilation norms that have weakened? Economic loss or the fear of it in the 'in group'? Fear of going from an 'in group' to an 'out group'? Combination of those?

    bruce wilder 10.30.16 at 9:34 pm

    The success of [civil rights and anti-apartheid] movements did not end racism, but drove it underground, allowing neoliberals to exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor.

    That coalition has now been replaced by one in which the tribalists and racists are dominant. For the moment at least, [hard] neoliberals continue to support the parties they formerly controlled, with the result that the balance of political forces between the right and the opposing coalition of soft neoliberals and the left has not changed significantly.

    There's an ambiguity in this narrative and in the three-party analysis.

    Do we acknowledge that the soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the inchoate left also "exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor."? They do it with a different style and maybe with some concession to economic melioration, as well as supporting anti-racist and feminist policy to keep the inchoate left on board, but . . .

    The new politics of the right has lost faith in the hard neoliberalism that formerly furnished its policy agenda of tax cuts for the rich, war in the Middle East and so on, leaving the impure resentment ungoverned and unfocused, as you say.

    The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil.

    The problem of how to oppose racism and tribalism effectively is now entangled with soft neoliberal control of the remaining party coalition, which is to say with the credibility of the left party as a vehicle for economic populism and the credibility of economic populism as an antidote for racism or sexism. (cf js. @ 1,2)

    The form of tribalism used to mobilize the left entails denying that an agenda of economic populism is relevant to the problems of sexism and racism, because the deplorables must be deplored to get out the vote. And, because the (soft) neoliberals in charge must keep economic populism under control to deliver the goods to their donor base.

    RichardM 10.30.16 at 9:41 pm ( 39 )

    "That doesn't mean that we should maintain the long-standing taboo on using the word "racist" to describe such people."

    Whether you 'should' or 'shouldn't' largely depends on which country you are in; the US has sufficient minorities able to vote that a 'wide' definition of racism is almost certainly a net vote-winner.

    The UK, Australia, etc. don't. So they have to rely on opposition to racism on moral grounds, which in turn depends on using a narrow definition.

    Alternatively, you could be talking in an academic context, independent of any particular country's politics, in which case I would imagine that using different words for different things would be minimally confusing.

    LFC 10.30.16 at 10:50 pm Alesis @19

    Race is the foundational organizing principle of American life

    There is no such thing as "the foundational organizing principle of American life." There are conflicting ideologies, a conflicting set of histories, and a conflicting set of regional traditions, plus founding documents that are subject to conflicting interpretations. There are certain experiences that might be presumed to shape some sort of common collective memory, but nowadays even that is debatable.

    Kurt Schuler 10.30.16 at 11:00 pm ( 41 )

    As one who has lived for more than fifty years in the United States, rather than just a few years here and there as John Quiggin has, I assure him that racism has not been driven underground here. It has died as a mass sentiment capable of serving as a power base for such figures as Lyndon Johnson, George Wallace, or Jimmy Carter.

    All had to change their tune to retain or increase their power, and that was about half a century ago. No aspiring politician could get started today making the kind of racial appeals they did at the beginning of their political careers, and in the cases of Johnson and Wallace for a long time thereafter.

    There is no mass sentiment for re-establishing separate drinking fountains, toilets, dining areas, schools, etc. by race or for repealing the Civil War-era amendments to the Constitution. I even hear rumors that Americans may be receptive to the idea of electing a black President.

    Alan Luchetti 10.30.16 at 11:11 pm

    I just put up this link for consideration:
    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/07/10/when-and-why-nationalism-beats-globalism/

    My suggestion is to tackle the pandering by the rich party for the poor's votes by appealing to racism, rather than the racism itself. "You're being played" may work better than "you're wrong".

    I also think that the severity continuum of racism needs to be emphasized. We pretty much all exhibit minor solecisms as we overcome features of our culture and upbringing. When a gentle correction triggers complaints about monstrous PC allegations, I recommend a response like "Hey, it's no biggie. You're not Hitler. Why are you taking a dive?"

    porpoise 10.30.16 at 11:29 pm ( 43 )

    "Tribalism" in the sense it's being used here has nothing to do with "primitive" tribes; it's a reference to the ancient Roman tribes (the origin of the word) and the similar Greek phylai, which were essentially arbitrary groupings of citizens which struggled amongst each other because of group identification despite all being of the same ethnic group and nation. If there's a better word for this, it isn't ethnonationalism or fascism.

    Omega Centauri 10.31.16 at 1:19 am

    I think poor to outright horrific epistemology in public discussion creates the basis for a lot of bad politics. Many have described our current time as a post-truth era. There have been some efforts towards fact-checking, but these seem to be simple refutations of facts, like Trump saying
    that he didn't say X, when we can play a two-day old tape of him in fact saying X. Part of the manifestation of "tribalism", is the holding of in-group shibboleths, and the failure to critically examine them -- for fear that that might weaken their role as weaponized-memes. That and our
    politics has severely degenerated into character assassination, much of it unfounded. So we can't even have a semi-rational discussion about issues, as political actors have to expend all their efforts fending off attempts to assassinate their reputation, and to level even more damaging attacks against their enemies.

    So we have to start reclaiming decent epistemological practices in our public discussion. I don't think this is going to be an easy or a quick process. But without it, we are highly vulnerable to emotion based movements and their demagogues. Graham's conspiracy theory observations, as well as those of bob@4 and loki@12, are symptoms of this degeneration of epiestemology.

    John Quiggin 10.31.16 at 1:44 am

    nastywoman @21 The idea that "the working class" has gone over to Trump is oversold. In US political discussion, "working class" is used to mean "no college degree" which isn't at all the same thing: it includes lots of small business owners, for example, and is also correlated with age.

    The terminology appears to be driven by data. Education level is objective and easily elicited, whereas social class is not.

    Mike Furlan 10.31.16 at 1:50 am

    Racism (and sexism), something described by Tom Magliozzi's "Non Impediti Ratione Cogitationis-Unencumbered by the Thought Process" is impervious to argumentation. I've lost a lot of friends driven mad first by the Kenyan, and now by that "nasty woman."

    Imagine a future scenario of yet another financial crisis the pushes unemployment above 30% and mere words will certainly fail you.

    My hope is to build communities of loving people, so that we are not picked off one at a time as we compose blog posts.

    Bob Zannelli 10.31.16 at 2:19 am ( 47 )

    The great problem progressives face is that many , if not most of the working class really don't want social justice , they want to be the fat cats. And when they don't join the ranks of the fat cats they are easily convinced that this is because the liberals are stealing from them to give to the "welfare" people. Trump has expanded to include hordes of invading Mexicans and Muslims.

    Bob Zannelli 10.31.16 at 2:20 am

    "There is no such thing as "the foundational organizing principle of American life." There are conflicting ideologies, a conflicting set of histories, and a conflicting set of regional traditions, plus founding documents that are subject to conflicting interpretations. There are certain experiences that might be presumed to shape some sort of common collective memory, but nowadays even that is debatable."

    I agree with this.

    js. 10.31.16 at 2:39 am ( 49 )

    Re bruce wilder

    the credibility of the left party as a vehicle for economic populism and the credibility of economic populism as an antidote for racism or sexism. (cf js. @ 1,2)

    1. I have no fucking idea what you got out of my comments, but just to be very clear, I would almost certainly support, and strongly, almost all _policies_ that you're likely to classify as "economically populist". (I prefer a term like "socially equitable"-in a material sense, not talking about symbolic stuff or the politics of recognition here. But e.g. I think repeal of the Hyde Amendment should go under exactly the same heading as minimum wage increases, trade deals with strong labor protections, etc.-which kind of thing gets lost when people talk about "economic populism".)

    On the _politics_ you and I each think the other one is dead wrong, and both of us already know this, and neither of us is about to give half an inch, so I don't think there's much point in pursuing the argument. But…

    2. …Entirely leaving aside racism for a minute, when has it ever seemed plausible that "economic populism" would be an effective counter to entrenched sexism? This makes no sense to me whatsoever.

    --

    Re WLGR

    In contrast to a true petite bourgeoisie, which has no historical memory of the full trauma of capitalist expropriation, a labor aristocracy on some level is aware that its economically secure position relative to the still-fully-dispossessed global working class depends on accepting and defending the racist/nationalist logic of imperial expropriation

    I'll have to think about more. My first instinct is to say - there's something to this, but the contrast is significantly less sharp than that (in both directions), but I need to think it out more.

    WLGR 10.31.16 at 4:18 am

    I seriously doubt a human social phenomenon as broad and universal as "identifying with an in-group against an out-group", if this is how y'all intend to define "tribalism", can be made narrow enough to usefully describe a specific tendency in modern capitalist politics.

    It would be absurd to claim that nobody who isn't a fascist/racist/ethnonationalist/etc. determines their political priorities on some level according to ingroup/outgroup morality - speaking from experience in a US context, cosmopolitan liberals' disdain for "rubes"/"hicks"/"rednecks" from "flyover country" (probably the very people "tribalist" is intended to denote) could itself be described as "tribalist" in the sense you mean it, as for that matter could many socialists' disdain for liberals, or economists' disdain for sociologists, or old-money politicos' disdain for nouveau-riche boors like Donald Trump, or whatever.

    People seem to be shying away from the idea that what defines so-called "tribalists" as a political force in developed capitalist nation-states is "tribalism" regarding a particular aspect of their worldview, namely race and nationality. I get that this is a contortion to avoid the politically charged act of calling people "racists" or "fascists" (although it's perplexing that so many people here have surrendered to reactionaries' bizarre contention that using these terms even when they're suitably descriptive is somehow foul play) but insinuating a categorical deficiency of basic human social consciousness compared to the categorically more enlightened social consciousness of the accuser is hardly any less insulting, even before you get into the racial implications of the term itself.

    The best comparison I can think of is the way so-called "New Atheists" tend to group their ideological taxonomy according to the distinction between "rational" and "irrational": both of these are such thoroughly universal aspects of human thought and behavior that it can only be monumental hubris to characterize "rationality" as the very cornerstone of one's worldview and "irrationality" as the very cornerstone of an opponent's. A weaker and more defensible claim of rationality about a very particular aspect of one's worldview, such as the existence of deities, leaves open the possibility of irrationality in other aspects of their worldview, such as the alleged existential threat of Islam (about which many "rationalist" "New Atheists" are famously paranoid and reactionary). Now imagine the term "irrational" has been used for centuries as a sloppily interchangeable pejorative for various targets of systematic marginalization, oppression, enslavement, and genocide.

    Graham 10.31.16 at 4:52 am ( 51 )

    do those qualify as conspiracy?
    Perhaps they do

    I would say that after talking to people the republican base is the coalition of
    1. Plutocrats
    2. Single issue abortion voters
    3. Conspiracy theorists and religious conspiracy theorists (end times prophecy mixed with conspiracy)
    4. True believers – that is free market types who believe that top end tax cuts and cutting minimum wage actually help the poor
    5. Basket of deplorables you racist/mysoginest you name it

    Type 1, 4 and some of 2 have been pealed off the R coalition during the trump campaign due to how shocking a candidate Trump is. However, type 3 and 5 are more energized than ever. If there was an effective way to counter type 3 republican voters their coalition would reduce by maybe half. I know that sounds like a lot but I've lived in the south and have a lot of friends there. Conspiracy is more powerful than people realize

    nastywoman 10.31.16 at 4:57 am

    'The idea that "the working class" has gone over to Trump is oversold.'

    Not if we count all 'the workers' – who follow and will vote for Trump because he promised them to bring their jobs back -(with fascistic solutions)

    According to a study of Alan Krueger that examined prime-age men (ages 25–54) who are not working or looking for work – there are alone about 7 million (lost) workers -- (and their wives and relatives) – many of them supposedly dropped out of the labor force altogether and reporting 'pain' that keeps them from taking jobs.

    These workers – a lot of them who had lost their jobs by US companies outsourcing or terminating their jobs altogether after the economical collapse of 2008 – are a 'traditional constituency' of the left – and they should have been supported much better and NOT 'picked up' by Trump.

    kidneystones 10.31.16 at 5:48 am ( 53 )

    @ 31 Hi Joseph.

    The link actually takes you to page 2 of the Grenville article. He cites Hochschild on page 1: 'Arlie Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right" captures the intractability of the discontent: "'You are patiently standing in a long line' for something you call the American dream. You are white, Christian, of modest means, and getting along in years. You are male. There are people of color behind you, and 'in principle you wish them well.' But you've waited long, worked hard, 'and the line is barely moving.'

    Then 'Look! You see people cutting in line ahead of you!' Who are these interlopers? 'Some are black,' others 'immigrants, refugees.'
    They get affirmative action, sympathy and welfare - 'checks for the listless and idle.' The government wants you to feel sorry for them."

    @50 WLGR "….rational" and "irrational": both of these are such thoroughly universal aspects of human thought and behavior that it can only be monumental hubris to characterize "rationality" as the very cornerstone of one's worldview and "irrationality" as the very cornerstone of an opponent's." Agreed. Happens here all the time, or used to.

    Val 10.31.16 at 6:22 am

    I tend to agree with what WLGR is saying about 'tribalists'. What porpoise @43 said is interesting historically, but I don't think it removes the overlay from later colonial and imperial associations of 'tribes' with 'primitives'/inferiors. So I don't think tribalism is a good word here, but not sure what would be a better one.

    'Cultural nationalism' seems to come closest, at least in the Australian and British contexts I'm familiar with, because the so-called 'tribalists' seem to be people who have a strong idea about who are the 'right kind' of Australians (or Britons), and it is a mixture of cultural and racial/ethnic characteristics.

    Here in Australia, it is certainly possible for people from non-Anglo backgrounds to be at least conditionally accepted by the 'tribalists' if they appear to embrace the tribalists' idea of Aussie culture (although it's conditional because the 'tribalists' who are 'accepting' the non-Anglo immigrants unconsciously see their ability to pass judgement as related to their own Anglo/white background, I think). Complicated, I am getting tied in knots, but I agree tribalist isn't the best word.

    Neville Morley 10.31.16 at 7:24 am ( 55 )

    Porpoise @43: I'm slightly puzzled by your version of classical history.

    Yes, the Romans had tribes, dating from the very beginning of their history; these *were* seen as relating to what you refer to as "primitive tribes", and according to at least one ancient source reflected the original composition of the Roman people from Latins, Sabines and Etruscans.

    Yes, by the late Republic these were largely (not entirely) arbitrary divisions of more or less homogeneous citizens – but by that date there's no evidence that I'm aware of that they served any purpose other than organising voting in the comitia tributa; certainly no struggles because of group identification.

    ZM 10.31.16 at 7:45 am bruce wilder,

    "The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil."

    I think economic populism is problematic really, depending on what policy settings you mean by "economic populism" I guess.

    I remember thinking Australia could have more protectionist policies and that would be a solution to some of our economic issues, but then I did an economics group project with a woman from Singapore, and I realised a country like Singapore would be much worse off if other countries resorted to protectionism as a response to the financial crisis, and I was being unfair thinking more protectionist policy was the answer.

    I don't think that the economic populism of the post-war era is really something we want to return to - in Australia at least it was connected to the racist White Australia Policy which was dismantled over time by 1973 and also to sexist policies that benefited male wage earners with the "living wage" but prevented women from taking up certain jobs or from working after marriage and that sort of thing.

    Also in the post-war era Australia benefitted from trade networks with the UK as part of the Commonwealth, but I presume that some other countries didn't benefit from that set of international trade agreements (although I have never looked into what the international trade settings were to know which countries overall benefited and which countries disbenefited).

    I don't think returning to economic populism is a solution. There were a lot of problems, both within countries with racism and sexism, and also between countries with unfair international trade agreements.

    Any solution to current problems has to be equitable within the nation, and fair between nations. If economic populism is the answer it has to be a transformed economic populism that is capable of that, and also of managing our global and local environmental problems.

    ZM 10.31.16 at 8:05 am ( 57 )

    Also at the moment the Australian federal government is doing the "Racism. It Stops With Me" campaign around Australia trying to encourage everyday Australians to speak out against racism when they encounter it in their daily lives. I hope the US government does something similar if Trump loses the election, I really think anti-racism is better off being bi-partisan, and its a bad long term strategy by either main party in America to use race to divide voters.

    https://itstopswithme.humanrights.gov.au

    Alesis 10.31.16 at 10:20 am

    I think the notion that racism is somehow regional in the US or that their are "conflicting histories" is pitch perfect example of the difficulty of keeping race in American life in focus I mentioned in my comment.

    There is no region of the US in which race did not play a foundation role. No history of the US which does not rest in the disenfranchisement of "lower races". From Oregon to Florida. From New York to California.

    From 1700 to 2016 this is an American constant and we will continue to the "Shocked! Shocked!" That more Trump's arise until we recognize that.

    RichardM 10.31.16 at 10:53 am ( 59 )

    > The terminology appears to be driven by data. Education level is objective and easily elicited, whereas social class is not.

    Race too, of course.

    It doesn't seem like it would be beyond the power of a single guy who wanted to write a book to bring a torch and see if there is anything interesting hidden where the lampposts don't shine.

    The raw data seems to be available[1], it just needs correlating with polls. That's a 2-3 man year project, probably doable within a 5 digit budget.

    [1] https://dqydj.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2013scf_income_v_wealth_united_states.png

    SusanC 10.31.16 at 1:41 pm

    I think I agree that "conspiracy theory" is a strong element in current politics. It has been for a while, of course. See for example Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics .

    In a democratic system, any party hoping to win has to somehow persuade the voters to vote for them and not the other party. Hence impugning the judgment or moral character of the opposing party is one of the obvious strategies. Accusing the other party of actually being crooks (as opposed to merely making poor decisions, or decisions that benefit some group other than the voters one wishes to court) takes this a step further. Once a party had taken the "they're a bunch of crooks" move, it would be surprising if they didn't leap at the chance when they can make a credible and specific allegation of lawbreaking by their opponent, instead of just relying on non-specific "would you buy a used car from this man?" rhetoric. ("man" -> "woman" if we're talking about Hilary Clinton rather than Richard Nixon, but the same principle holds)

    The current round of populism seems to go further still, in attributing crookedness not just to their political opponents but to just about everyone involved in the entire system, e.g. by alleging that the election might be fraudulent.

    The term "conspiracy theory" often has rather dismissive or perjorative connotations, but I think this basic political pattern could exist even if the opposing party were actually in fact crooks.

    [And over here in the UK, it's also a kind of conspiracy theory that Tony Blair lied to the people about the case for going to war in Iraq. It's less obvious what Blair could actually be charged with criminally (as opposed to Hilary Clinton), but that hasn't stopped people calling for his head … possibly in a literal, rather than metaphorical, sense]

    JimV 10.31.16 at 1:59 pm ( 61 )

    Omega Centauri 10.31.16 at 1:19 am (#44): great comment, puts the finger on the problem, and deserves engagement. Unfortunately, all I have to offer are solutions from science-fiction: reliable lie-detectors and benign A.I. government. But how to avoid the obvious misuses and bad side-tracks on the way to utopian deployment of such technologies is beyond me. The Internet already gives us the ability to do our own fact-checking and analysis of issues, but it seems more effective at spreading lies.

    MPAVictoria 10.31.16 at 2:29 pm

    Unions, unions, and more unions are the answer to the question of what the left should be doing going forward. Union members are more likely to:
    – Vote
    – Volunteer in support of progressive campaigns and causes
    – Support progressive economic AND social policies

    The left's strategy going forward MUST include efforts to increase union density.

    WLGR 10.31.16 at 3:46 pm ( 63 )

    js, I guess the most important caveat re: the US (along with other settler societies) is that many Euro-Americans never actually went through proletarianization themselves, but probably would have been pushed into the working class they'd stayed in Europe through the heyday of capitalist industrialization, so they left Europe and joined the metaphorical shock troops of settler-colonialism in order to avoid it. The important point is that the combined spoils of settler-colonial expropriation, racial/national hierarchy, and continuing imperialist exploitation in the Third World have largely spared the much-ballyhooed "white working class" (i.e. labor aristocracy) from the abject poverty capitalism invariably wreaks on the working class proper - and on some level these people realize that as long as capitalism exists, this economic safety net is only really justifiable if there's some fundamental hierarchy of humanity dictating that they as a group deserve to be offered better lives than the people trying to "steal their jobs" and so on. The extent to which different people in different situations are compelled to articulate this ideology in fully conscious ways is another matter, but when they are, terms like "racist", "ethnonationalist", and "fascist" are entirely descriptive and not the least bit inappropriate.

    For anybody who hasn't heard of it, the book Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat is an accessible exposition of this kind of viewpoint (and for anybody who takes a glance and can't get past smarming at the crude typesetting and nonstandard semantic choices e.g. "Amerika", just grow up).

    WLGR 10.31.16 at 3:52 pm

    likbez @ 16,

    it seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from culturally based ultranationalism is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial understanding of "race" and "racism".

    Populations can be "racialized" according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are".

    Although from my understanding Ukrainian citizenship like that in most of Europe is primarily determined by jus sanguinis, and like most of Europe it's still deep in the muck of racial discrimination toward e.g. the Roma, so unless I'm misreading things it seems like a stretch to put too much distance between Ukraine (or Europe in general) and even a very colloquial sense of "ethnonationalism". It can be articulated more explicitly by outright fascists or more obliquely by mainstream centrist parties, but it's still there.

    And as long as we're talking about academic definitions of racism (I'm partial to the definition proffered by Ruth Wilson Gilmore, "the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death", although Emmett Rensin's obnoxiously thorough definition is also good) funnily enough they tend to point at something pretty much identical to what Quiggin appears to mean by "tribalism". Except unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup , which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking about it as a specific mass political movement at all. And again, as annoying as it is to have pigheaded reactionaries accuse us of twisting language and "playing the race card" and so on, putting up with this noise is preferable to sacrificing useful concepts like racism and fascism from one's everyday understanding of the world, and it's certainly preferable to swapping out the terms in question for a racially charged term like "tribalism".

    Anarcissie 10.31.16 at 4:13 pm ( 65 )

    Mike Furlan 10.31.16 at 1:50 am @ 46:
    '… My hope is to build communities of loving people, so that we are not picked off one at a time as we compose blog posts.'

    Or at least tolerant people who are positive about relationships with the Others even though they may err. Surely this would be a requirement for achieving equality, because otherwise you have the good people and the bad people, and the good people would have to defeat, rule over, or maybe even exterminate the bad people. P. J. O'Rourke once wrote that the reason Evangelicals adhere to the Republican Party (and Black people to the Democrats) is that that is the party which, while it doesn't do much for them, doesn't hate them. We have seen that expressed in the recent past not only with Trump's success but with the 'basket of deplorables'. Even a petrochemical plant poisoning your back yard may be preferable to submitting to the power of those who openly despise you and your kind.

    But a lot of people want to fight.

    John Quiggin 10.31.16 at 8:33 pm

    Kurt Schuler @41 This seems an odd choice of post on which to claim special authority as a US resident, given that it's about developments common throughout the developed world, and refers to Australia and the UK, as well as the US.

    js. 10.31.16 at 8:47 pm ( 67 )

    On topic:

    The idea that "the working class" has gone over to Trump is oversold. In US political discussion, "working class" is used to mean "no college degree" which isn't at all the same thing: it includes lots of small business owners, for example, and is also correlated with age.

    Right. This is why I think petty bourgeois (petit bourgeois if you want to be all fancy and French about it) is a better term.

    nastywoman 10.31.16 at 9:43 pm

    In conclusion this analysis is still based on a traditional understanding of left and right which doesn't exist anymore in most European countries – as concerning the most important issues like globalization and protectionism the radical left and the radical right seem to agree.

    And so the the traditional understanding of left and right is often used for justification of the own political position, while it is less and less helpful to explain voting behavior.

    As in voting behavior the dividing lines are NOT so much anymore between left and right, but more between a liberal, cosmopolitan bourgeoisie in the center and on both edges populists who are propagating partitioning and protectionism.

    This is true not only for Europe but also for the United States of Trump – aka the once 'United States of America' -(if this currently very popular joke in Europe is allowed?)

    [Nov 01, 2016] Conspiracy Vs. Government Is Elite Propaganda Justifying Violent Repression Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... With US belief in "conspiracy theory" over 50 percent (see our previous article here ) elites are showing increasingly concern that they have lost control of their narrative. ..."
    "... The article explains that if people grow paranoid about government, then the "norms" of government will collapse. ..."
    "... The article also has parallels to an article we analyzed recently here by Cass Sunstein. His Bloomberg editorial suggested that nothing was more important from a political standpoint than returning "civility" to Congress and politics generally. ..."
    "... The NeoCons will take the United States in the same direction it is going until its' bust. Endless war, run down infrastructure and poverty is the future. Tax receipts are falling fast and government can't pay the big bills with service sector jobs. ..."
    "... Decommissioning the plethora of foreign airbases and dismantling NATO would see the Bankster/MIC die a death. Gotta starve those beasts pronto. ..."
    "... "Conspiracy theory is called "paranoid politics" in this article but it amounts to the same thing." ..."
    "... "conspiracy theory" ..."
    "... "paranoid" ..."
    "... "we should" ..."
    "... "paranoid politics" ..."
    "... "good" ..."
    "... necessarily controlled ..."
    "... "The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are." ..."
    "... "dishonest, insane and intolerable," ..."
    "... "paranoid politics," ..."
    "... "We need" ..."
    "... justifiably paranoid ..."
    Nov 01, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    With US belief in "conspiracy theory" over 50 percent (see our previous article here ) elites are showing increasingly concern that they have lost control of their narrative.

    This article again illustrates elite push back. The article explains that if people grow paranoid about government, then the "norms" of government will collapse.

    Conspiracy theory is called "paranoid politics" in this article but it amounts to the same thing.

    The article also has parallels to an article we analyzed recently here by Cass Sunstein. His Bloomberg editorial suggested that nothing was more important from a political standpoint than returning "civility" to Congress and politics generally.

    This article runs along the same lines: Negative perceptions of the US government can make the process of "governing" dysfunctional.

    Herdee •Nov 1, 2016 12:13 AM

    The NeoCons will take the United States in the same direction it is going until its' bust. Endless war, run down infrastructure and poverty is the future. Tax receipts are falling fast and government can't pay the big bills with service sector jobs.

    WTFUD •Oct 31, 2016 11:14 PM

    Major Civil Unrest is required in the USSofA to alleviate the pressure on Russia, the Elites' would be bogeyman. The rest of the world would benefit too.

    Decommissioning the plethora of foreign airbases and dismantling NATO would see the Bankster/MIC die a death. Gotta starve those beasts pronto.

    PoasterToaster •Oct 31, 2016 10:30 PM

    Bankers hiding behind "government" and using the moral authority it carries in people's heads to carry out their dirty deeds. But now the people have seen behind the curtain and the dope at the controls has been found wanting. Writing is on the wall for them and they know it.

    "The rise of paranoid politics could make America ungovernable"

    We in America aren't supposed to be "governed". And our state of mind is none of your goddamned business.

    medium giraffe Oct 31, 2016 9:55 PM
    "Conspiracy theory is called "paranoid politics" in this article but it amounts to the same thing."

    There is a huge difference between critical thought and lack of education.

    The Telegraph author's unwillingness to seperate the two is telling.

    Radical Marijuana -> medium giraffe Oct 31, 2016 11:45 PM
    One of the most delightful ironies (to those with a sufficiently macabre sense of humour) is that declassified CIA documents from the 1960s have proven that the mass media promotion of the "conspiracy theory" meme was deliberately developed by the CIA, using their media assets.

    Many people have developed ways to discuss the relatively slim differences between being "paranoid" versus being realistic. After several decades of enjoying the luxury to spend most of my time attempting to understand the political processes, my conclusion has always been that THE MORE I LEARNED, THE WORSE IT GOT.

    It is barely possible to exaggerate the degree to which "we should" seriously consider "paranoid politics" as being the most realistic. Governments are only "good" in the sense that they are the biggest forms of organized crime, dominated by the best organized gangs of criminals. In my view, that conclusion can both be derived from the basic principles of the ways that general energy systems operate, as well as empirically confirmed by an overwhelming abundance of well-documented evidence. Indeed, more rational evidence and logical arguments result in that any deeper analysis of politics ALWAYS discovers and demonstrates the ways that civilization is necessarily controlled by applications of the methods of organized crime, whose excessive successfulness are more and more spinning out of control.

    As H.L. Menchen stated:

    "The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are."

    The important things which most governments DO,

    that are "dishonest, insane and intolerable,"

    are ENFORCE FRAUDS by private banks.

    Given those social FACTS, it is barely possible to develop a sufficiently "paranoid politics," to encompass the degree to which the existing political economy, based upon enforcing frauds, is being driven by advancing technologies towards becoming exponentially more fraudulent. The problem is NOT that some people are becoming too critical, but that the majority of them have not yet become critical enough ... "We need" to go beyond being merely superficially cynical, in order to become profoundly cynical enough to perhaps cope with how and why governments ARE the biggest forms of organized crime, dominated by the best organized gangs of criminals.

    In my view, most of the content published on Zero Hedge, which engages in various superficially correct analyses of those problems, tends to never engage in deeper levels of analysis, due to the degree to which the resulting conclusions are way worse than anything which could be adequately admitted and addressed. Rather, it is barely possible to exaggerate the degree to which one is justifiably paranoid about the ways that the ruling classes in Globalized Neolithic Civilization are becoming increasingly psychotic psychopaths:

    THE EXCESSIVE SUCCESSFULNESS OF CONTROLLING CIVILIZATION

    BY APPLICATIONS OF THE VARIOUS METHODS OF ORGANIZED CRIME

    HAS RESULTED IN CIVILIZATION MANIFESTING CRIMINAL INSANITY!

    Radical Marijuana -> medium giraffe •Nov 1, 2016 12:25 AM

    Yes, mg, the CIA, in ways which were, of course, ILLEGAL, attempted to discredit those who did not believe the official story regarding the assination of President Kennedy.

    You may well already be familiar with this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM

    JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick

    The most relevant conclusion of that documentary was that, at the highest levels, there is no difference, because they blend together, between organized crime and government agencies such as the CIA, which was effectively the American branch of the secret police employed by the international bankers.

    jeff montanye Oct 31, 2016 9:08 PM
    i believe i've said it before but bust 9-11 and these fucks shut up for eternity, many of them incarcerated eventually.

    http://www.whale.to/b/israel_did_911.html

    https://sites.google.com/site/onedemocraticstatesite/archives/-solving-9...

    http://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_Ezjm7xDg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsoY3AIRUGA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhROd7Jt3-w

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgM6hjNedE0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj_AL4OlmHc&feature=iv&src_vid=rnbMjAN7B...

    http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticl...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVHstSrC1CQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpE.

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/everything-rich-man-trick/

    https://smile.amazon.com/dp/098213150X/sr=1-1/qid=1467687982/ref=olp_pro...

    http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

    [Nov 01, 2016] The terms racist and tribalist are deployed so cynically and freely as to render them practically meaningless.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Few dispute that a significant subset of any given population is going to regard in-group/out-group distinctions along the highly imprecise lines of 'race' and ethnicity, or religion. The question, for some, is what percentage? ..."
    "... Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines. ..."
    "... These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans. The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious lines as it does elsewhere. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.30.16 at 9:15 am 14

    I read an interesting piece in the Nikkei, hardly an left-leaning publication citing Arlie Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right."

    Doubtless some here would like to see more misery heaped upon those who do not look to the Democratic party as saviors, but Hochschild is rarely regarded as a defender of the American right.

    Few dispute that a significant subset of any given population is going to regard in-group/out-group distinctions along the highly imprecise lines of 'race' and ethnicity, or religion. The question, for some, is what percentage?

    The Nikkei article by Stephen Grenville concludes: Over the longer term, the constituency for globalization has to be rebuilt, the methodology for multilateral trade agreements has to be revived…"

    Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines.

    These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans. The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious lines as it does elsewhere.

    Generally, I think John is right. The term 'racist' no longer carries any of the stigma it once held in part because the term is deployed so cynically and freely as to render it practically meaningless. HRC and Bill and their supporters (including me, at one time) are racists for as long as its convenient and politically expedient to call them racists. Once that moment has passed, the term 'racist' is withdrawn and replaced with something like Secretary of State, or some other such title.

    I've no clear 'solution' other than to support a more exact and thoughtful discussion of the causes of fear and anxiety that compels people to bind together into in-groups and out-groups, and to encourage the fearful to take a few risks now and again.

    Here's the link: http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20161020-An-era-ends-in-Thailand/Viewpoints/Stephen-Grenville-The-US-election-is-putting-the-TPP-trade-agreement-in-doubt?page=2

    [Nov 01, 2016] Inside the Invisible Government - The Unz Review

    Nov 01, 2016 | www.unz.com

    The attack on Iraq, the attack on Libya, the attack on Syria happened because the leader in each of these countries was not a puppet of the West. The human rights record of a Saddam or a Gaddafi was irrelevant. They did not obey orders and surrender control of their country.

    The same fate awaited Slobodan Milosevic once he had refused to sign an "agreement" that demanded the occupation of Serbia and its conversion to a market economy. His people were bombed, and he was prosecuted in The Hague. Independence of this kind is intolerable.

    As WikLeaks has revealed, it was only when the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in 2009 rejected an oil pipeline, running through his country from Qatar to Europe, that he was attacked.

    From that moment, the CIA planned to destroy the government of Syria with jihadist fanatics – the same fanatics currently holding the people of Mosul and eastern Aleppo hostage.

    Why is this not news? The former British Foreign Office official Carne Ross, who was responsible for operating sanctions against Iraq, told me: "We would feed journalists factoids of sanitised intelligence, or we would freeze them out. That is how it worked."

    The West's medieval client, Saudi Arabia – to which the US and Britain sell billions of dollars' worth of arms – is at present destroying Yemen, a country so poor that in the best of times, half the children are malnourished.

    [Nov 01, 2016] Chris Hedges Its Our Bombs, Not Trumps Comments, that Fuel Hatred Towards the United States

    Notable quotes:
    "... HEDGES: Well what feeds the hatred toward the west has nothing to do with Donald Trump. It has to do with the one-thousand-pound iron fragmentation bombs and cruise missiles and 155 artillery shells that are being dropped all over areas that ISIS controls. ..."
    "... That is a far more potent engine of rage than anything Trump says and I think sometimes we forget what we' re doing and the state terror that is delivered day in and day out on Muslims in areas that have been opened up by these failed states because of our military adventurism in countries like Libya and Iraq. ..."
    "... : Chris the recently released WikiLeaks indicate that Hillary Clinton is involved in conspiring in maintaining Israels nuclear dominance in the region and containing Irans nuclear development program. ..."
    "... Yea, I mean shes quite upfront. I have to give her credit on that in terms of her militantly pro-Israel stance. She of course has courted quite successfully wealthy pro-Israeli donors attacking the Boycott Divestment Sanctions Movement. ..."
    "... So one of the dangers of Clinton and shes called for a no fly zone over Syria. Well, people forget that when you institute a no fly zone, that is patrolled and that requires very heavy presence of US forces. ..."
    therealnews.com
    ... ... .. ...

    HEDGES: Well what feeds the hatred toward the west has nothing to do with Donald Trump. It has to do with the one-thousand-pound iron fragmentation bombs and cruise missiles and 155 artillery shells that are being dropped all over areas that ISIS controls.

    That is a far more potent engine of rage than anything Trump says and I think sometimes we forget what we' re doing and the state terror that is delivered day in and day out on Muslims in areas that have been opened up by these failed states because of our military adventurism in countries like Libya and Iraq.

    PERIES: So connect those two for us. Give us some examples of how the war on terror in the Middle East, Syria in particular, is causing this kind of islamophobia here and our hesitancy about doing humanitarian work by accepting refugees that are fleeing these wars and how it manifests itself in the form of islamophobia here.

    HEDGES: Well, islamophobia here is a doctrine that plays quite conveniently into the goals of the corporate state in the same way that anti-communism once played into the goals of our capitalist democracy. So the caricature of threats from the Muslim world independent of the actual possibility of those threats has especially since 9/11, one of the corner stones of the argument that has been used by the security and surveillance state to strip us of basic civil liberties, including for instance, under the Obama administration, misinterpreting the 2001 authorization to use military force act as giving the executive branch to right to assassinate American citizens. Of course I'm talking about Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son.

    So the rise of islamophobia has been largely independent of anything Muslims have done other than perhaps initially the attacks of 9/11. The continued over 15 years of indiscriminate violence, industrial violence, delivered on whole swaps of the Muslim world has stirred up the kind of hornet' s nest that we' re seeing enraged not only among Muslims in the Muslim world but Muslims in Europe and many other parts of the globe who despite Clinton' s rhetoric see this as a war against Muslims. I think that although she speaks in kind of a softer and more tolerate tone, Clinton has been one of the main architects of the attacks for instance in Libya that have given or empowered or given rise to groups like ISIS. While Clinton' s rhetoric is certainly more palatable, she has been an enthusiastic supporter that we are going to bomb our way into peace in the Muslim world.

    PERIES: Chris give us a sense of the climate created by what both candidates eluded to that Muslims in this country has to help us in terms of identifying potential terrorists and any kind of activities in the community that might feed terrorists attacks here. What does this do to a society?

    HEDGES: Well it turns us into a society of informers. I think we have to acknowledge how pervasive the harassment is of Muslim Americans when they go through the airport, intrusive invasions of their privacy by Homeland Security, the FBI, and others. We have to acknowledge that almost all of the homegrown terrorist attacks that the FBI have broken have been orchestrated by the FBI usually with people of marginal means and sometimes marginal intelligence being prodded and often provided supposed equipment to carry out terrorist attacks. The racial profiling that has gone on coupled with the rhetoric and this is very dangerous because if you take already an alienated youth and subject it to this kind of unrelenting harassment, then you provide a recipe for homegrown radicalism.

    So yes it' s once again an effort in this case on part of the Trump rhetoric to blame the Muslims for not only their own victimhood but for terrorist attacks that are being driven by jihadist whom the vast majority, 99 plus percent of the Muslim world has no contact with and probably very little empathy for, I mean there' s 4 to 5 million Muslims, I think I have that right, in the United States. Most of them have integrated quite successfully into American. Unlike in Britain because Muslim immigrants in the United States whereas in Europe, France, they came over as laborers, we largely absorbed Muslim professional classes, doctors, engineers, and others and the Muslim community in the United States is pretty solidly middle class and professional.

    ... ... ...

    PERIES: Chris the recently released WikiLeaks indicate that Hillary Clinton is involved in conspiring in maintaining Israels nuclear dominance in the region and containing Irans nuclear development program. Your comments on those WikiLeaks.

    HEDGES: Yea, I mean shes quite upfront. I have to give her credit on that in terms of her militantly pro-Israel stance. She of course has courted quite successfully wealthy pro-Israeli donors attacking the Boycott Divestment Sanctions Movement. And she has and will continue what are considered Israeli interests in the region which are not our interest. Israel pushed very heavily for an invasion of Iraq as a way to destroy a powerful state within the region. That did not serve our interests at all. In fact, it elevated to the dominant position within the region, Iran and out of these vacuums gave birth to these jihadist groups and got us embroiled in wars that we can never win.

    So one of the dangers of Clinton and shes called for a no fly zone over Syria. Well, people forget that when you institute a no fly zone, that is patrolled and that requires very heavy presence of US forces. Not just air forces but ground stations, radar stations, anti-aircraft missile batteries. Shes quite openly calling for a further escalation for American involvement in the Syrian quagmire which of course again we did so much to create by along with our allies, the Saudis and Qataris and others pumping so many arms in them. I think we gave a billion dollars worth of arms to Syrian rebels as if you can control where those arms go, just in the last year.

    [Oct 31, 2016] Obama lied: he knew about Hillarys secret server and wrote to her using a pseudonym

    Oct 31, 2016 | stateofthenation2012.com
    _ _ _

    For the uninitiated this breakdown essentially says that President Barack Obama is stone-cold guilty of crimes and cover-ups that would make Watergate look like a walk in the park .

    "How Is This Not Classified?"- Obama Used A Pseudonym In Emails With Hillary, FBI Data Dump Reveals

    In fact, Obama is so deeply involved with the criminal workings of State that he had no choice but to lie about his knowledge of Clinton's private server and personal email account. This is why Emailgate is so HUGE- it's a massive cover-up of the greatest crimes EVER committed by the US Government . And Obama lied his way all through the never-ending conspiratorial saga. As follows:

    VIDEO: Barack Obama Outright Lies To The American People On National TV About Clinton's Private Email

    [Oct 31, 2016] Hillary Clinton took money from and supported nations that she KNEW funded ISIS and terrorists

    Notable quotes:
    "... "…the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region." ..."
    "... "Clintons should know better than to raise money from folks whose primary concern has been supporting the NIAC, a notorious supporter of the Radical Islamic Mullahs. "The Clinton's have thrown principle out the window in exchange for cold hard cash…putting money ahead of principle." ..."
    "... If these revelations don't completely terminate Hillary Clinton's candidacy, certainly four straight years of Congressional Emailgate hearings will, should she outright steal the election from Donald Trump on November 8th, or shortly thereafter. ..."
    Oct 31, 2016 | stateofthenation2012.com

    _ _ _

    If these revelations don't completely terminate Hillary Clinton's candidacy, certainly four straight years of Congressional Emailgate hearings will, should she outright steal the election from Donald Trump on November 8th, or shortly thereafter.

    [Oct 31, 2016] Trump Id Get Electric Chair for Cheating Debates Like Hillary

    Oct 31, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Trump was commenting on the revelation by Wikileaks on Monday that CNN commentator Donna Brazile, who is now the chair of the Democratic National Committee, had been caught again passing debate questions from the network to the Clinton campaign during the Democratic primary.

    Brazile had been exposed earlier doing the same - passing a question to the Clinton campaign in advance of a town hall debate against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

    At the time, Brazile was not yet DNC chair, but was a regular CNN contributor.

    CNN fired Brazile on Monday, releasing a statement: ""We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor."

    [Oct 31, 2016] IMO the whole flight crew of the U.S. aircraft along with their three back-end commanders need to be permanently removed from flying status.

    Oct 31, 2016 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    https://www.rt.com/news/364666-us-apologizes-syria-flyby/

    IMO the whole flight crew of the U.S. aircraft along with their three back-end commanders need to be permanently removed from flying status. And the aircraft's mission liaison at CENTCOM needs to be reamed as well.


    "By less than 500 meters"......cringe 30 October 2016 at 10:15 AM

    [Oct 30, 2016] After the attacks Americas new cold war

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions. ..."
    "... The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies ..."
    "... Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take. ..."
    "... A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. ..."
    Sep 28, 2001 | guardian.co.uk

    "Who says we share common values with the Europeans? They don't even go to church!" Will the atrocities of September 11 push America further to the right or open a new debate on foreign policy and the need for alliances? In this exclusive online essay from the London Review of Books, Anatol Lieven considers how the cold war legacy may affect the war on terrorism

    Not long after the Bush Administration took power in January, I was invited to lunch at a glamorous restaurant in New York by a group of editors and writers from an influential American right-wing broadsheet. The food and wine were extremely expensive, the decor luxurious but discreet, the clientele beautifully dressed, and much of the conversation more than mildly insane. With regard to the greater part of the world outside America, my hosts' attitude was a combination of loathing, contempt, distrust and fear: not only towards Arabs, Russians, Chinese, French and others, but towards 'European socialist governments', whatever that was supposed to mean. This went with a strong desire - in theory at least - to take military action against a broad range of countries across the world.

    Two things were particularly striking here: a tendency to divide the world into friends and enemies, and a difficulty verging on autism when it came to international opinions that didn't coincide with their own - a combination more appropriate to the inhabitants of an ethnic slum in the Balkans than to people who were, at that point, on top of the world.

    Today Americans of all classes and opinions have reason to worry, and someone real to fear and hate, while prolonged US military action overseas is thought to be inevitable. The building where we had lunch is now rubble. Several of our fellow diners probably died last week, along with more than six thousand other New Yorkers from every walk of life. Not only has the terrorist attack claimed far more victims than any previous such attack anywhere in the world, but it has delivered a far more damaging economic blow. Equally important, it has destroyed Americans' belief in their country's invulnerability, on which so many other American attitudes and policies finally rested.

    This shattering blow was delivered by a handful of anonymous agents hidden in the wider population, working as part of a tightly-knit secret international conspiracy inspired by a fanatical and (to the West) deeply 'alien' and 'exotic' religious ideology. Its members are ruthless; they have remarkable organisational skills, a tremendous capacity for self-sacrifice and self-discipline, and a deep hatred of the United States and the Western way of life. As Richard Hofstader and others have argued, for more than two hundred years this kind of combination has always acted as a prompt for paranoid and reactionary conspiracy theories, most of them groundless.

    Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions.

    The latter danger has been greatly increased by the attacks. The terrorists have raised to white heat certain smouldering tendencies among the American Right, while simultaneously - as is usually the case at the start of wars - pushing American politics and most of its population in a sharply rightward direction; all of which has taken place under an unexpectedly right-wing Administration. If this leads to a crude military response, then the terrorists will have achieved part of their purpose, which was to provoke the other side to indiscriminate retaliation, and thereby increase their own support.

    It is too early to say for sure how US strategies and attitudes will develop. At the time of writing Afghanistan is the focus, but whatever happens there, it isn't clear whether the US Administration will go on to launch a more general campaign of military pressure against other states which have supported terrorist groups, and if so, what states and what kind of military pressure? US policy is already pulled in two predictable but contradictory directions, amply illustrated in the op-ed pages of US newspapers and in debates within the Government.

    The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies. There are the beginnings, too, of a real public debate on how US policy needs to be changed and shaped to fight the new 'war'. All this is reminiscent of US attitudes and behaviour at the start of the Cold War, when Communism was identified as the central menace to the US and to Western capitalism and democracy in general.

    On the other hand, the public desire for revenge has strengthened certain attitudes - especially in the Republican Party and media, as well as parts of the Administration - which, if they prevail, will not only be dangerous in themselves, but will make the search for real allies difficult. And real allies are essential, above all in the Arab and Muslim worlds. In the longer run, only the full co-operation of Arab regimes - along with reform and economic development - can prevent the recruitment, funding and operations of Arab-based terrorist groups.

    As for Europe, British military support may be unconditional, but most European countries - Russia among them - are likely to restrict their help to intelligence and policing. Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take.

    Yet a blank cheque is precisely what the Administration, and the greater part of US public opinion, are asking for. This is Jim Hoagland, veteran establishment foreign correspondent and commentator, in the generally liberal Washington Post:

    "Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many of the other Arab states Powell hopes to recruit for the bin Laden posse have long been part of the problem, not part of the solution to international terrorism. These states cannot be given free passes for going through the motions of helping the United States. And European allies cannot be allowed to order an appetiser of bin Laden and not share in the costs of the rest of a meal cooked in hell."

    If this is the Post, then the sentiments in the right-wing press and the tabloids can well be imagined. Here is Tod Lindberg, the editor of Policy Review, writing in the Washington Times:

    "The United States is now energetically in the business of making governments pick a side: either with us and against the terrorists, or against us and with them... Against the category of enemy stands the category of 'friend'. Friends stand with us. Friends do whatever they can to help. Friends don't, for example, engage in commerce with enemies, otherwise they aren't friends."

    A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. Now it has spread and, for the moment at least, some rather important ideas have almost vanished from the public debate: among them, that other states have their own national interests, and that in the end nothing compels them to help the US; that they, too, have been the victims of terrorism - in the case of Britain, largely funded from groups in the United States - but have not insisted on a right of unilateral military retaliation (this point was made by Niall Ferguson in the New York Times, but not as yet in any op-ed by an American that I have seen); and that in some cases these states may actually know more about their own part of the world than US intelligence does.

    Beyond the immediate and unforeseeable events in Afghanistan - and their sombre implications for Pakistan - lies the bigger question of US policy in the Arab world. Here, too, Administration policy may well be a good deal more cautious than the opinions of the right-wing media would suggest - which again is fortunate, because much opinion on this subject is more than rabid. Here is AM Rosenthal in the Washington Times arguing that an amazing range of states should be given ultimatums to surrender not only alleged terrorists but also their own senior officials accused by the US of complicity:

    "The ultimatum should go to the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan and any other devoted to the elimination of the United States or the constant incitement of hatred against it... In the three days the terrorists consider the American ultimatum, the residents of the countries would be urged 24 hours a day by the United States to flee the capital and major cities, because they would be bombed to the ground beginning the fourth."

    Rosenthal isn't a figure from the lunatic fringe ranting on a backwoods radio show, but the former executive editor of the New York Times, writing in a paper with great influence in the Republican Party, especially under the present Administration.

    No Administration is going to do anything remotely like this. But if the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has emerged as the voice of moderation, with a proper commitment to multilateralism, other voices are audible, too. Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, has spoken of "ending states which support terrorism", and in the case of Iraq, there are those who would now like to complete the work of the Gulf War and finish off Saddam Hussein.

    Here, too, the mood of contempt for allies contributes to the ambition. Thus Kim Holmes, vice-president of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, argued that only deference to America's Arab allies prevented the US from destroying the Iraqi regime in 1991 (the profound unwillingness of Bush Senior to occupy Iraq and take responsibility for the place also played its part in the decision): "To show that this war is not with Islam per se, the US could be tempted to restrain itself militarily and accommodate the complex and contradictory political agendas of Islamic states. This in turn could make the campaign ineffectual, prolonging the problem of terrorism."

    Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is not in itself a bad idea. His is a pernicious regime, a menace to his own people and his neighbours, as well as to the West. And if the Iraqi threat to the Gulf States could be eliminated, US troops might be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia: it was their permanent stationing on the holy soil of Islam that turned Osama bin Laden from an anti-Soviet mujahid into an anti-American terrorist.

    But only if it were to take place in the context of an entirely new policy towards Palestine would the US be able to mount such a campaign without provoking massive unrest across the Arab world; and given what became of promises made during the Gulf War, there would first of all have to be firm evidence of a US change of heart. The only borders between Israel and Palestine which would have any chance of satisfying a majority of Palestinians and Arabs - and conforming to UN resolutions, for what they are worth - would be those of 1967, possibly qualified by an internationalisation of Jerusalem under UN control. This would entail the removal of the existing Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories, and would be absolutely unacceptable to any imaginable Israeli Government. To win Israeli agreement would require not just US pressure, but the threat of a complete breach of relations and the ending of aid.

    There may be those in the Administration who would favour adopting such an approach at a later stage. Bush Sr's was the most anti-Israeli Administration of the past two generations, and was disliked accordingly by the Jewish and other ethnic lobbies. His son's is less beholden to those lobbies than Clinton's was. And it may be that even pro-Israeli US politicians will at some point realise that Israel's survival as such is not an issue: that it is absurd to increase the risk to Washington and New York for the sake of 267 extremist settlers in Hebron and their comrades elsewhere.

    Still, in the short term, a radical shift is unlikely, and an offensive against Iraq would therefore be dangerous. The attacks on New York and the Pentagon and the celebrations in parts of the Arab world have increased popular hostility to the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular, a hostility assiduously stoked by Israeli propaganda. But when it comes to denouncing hate crimes against Muslims - or those taken to be Muslims - within the US, the Administration has behaved decently, perhaps because they have a rather sobering precedent in mind, one which has led to genuine shame: the treatment of Japanese Americans during world war two.

    This shame is the result of an applied historical intelligence that does not extend to the Arab world. Americans tend - and perhaps need - to confuse the symptoms and the causes of Arab anger. Since a key pro-Israel position in the US has been that fundamental Palestinian and Arab grievances must not be allowed legitimacy or even discussed, the only explanation of Arab hostility to the US and its ally must be sought in innate features of Arab society, whether a contemporary culture of anti-semitism (and anti-Americanism) sanctioned by Arab leaderships, or ancient 'Muslim' traditions of hostility to the West.

    All of which may contain some truth: but the central issue, the role of Israeli policies in providing a focus for such hatred, is overwhelmingly ignored. As a result, it is extremely difficult, and mostly impossible, to hold any frank discussion of the most important issue affecting the position of the US in the Middle East or the open sympathy for terrorism in the region. A passionately held nationalism usually has the effect of corrupting or silencing those liberal intellectuals who espouse it. This is the case of Israeli nationalism in the US. It is especially distressing that it should afflict the Jewish liberal intelligentsia, that old bedrock of sanity and tolerance.

    An Administration which wanted a radical change of policy towards Israel would have to generate a new public debate almost from scratch - which would not be possible until some kind of tectonic shift had taken place in American society. Too many outside observers who blame US Administrations forget that on a wide range of issues, it is essentially Congress and not the White House or State Department which determines foreign policy; this is above all true of US aid. An inability or unwillingness to try to work on Congress, as opposed to going through normal diplomatic channels, has been a minor contributory factor to Britain's inability to get any purchase on US policy in recent years.

    The role of Congress brings out what might be called the Wilhelmine aspects of US foreign and security policy. By that I do not mean extreme militarism or a love of silly hats, or even a shared tendency to autism when it comes to understanding the perceptions of other countries, but rather certain structural features in both the Wilhemine and the US system tending to produce over-ambition, and above all a chronic incapacity to choose between diametrically opposite goals. Like Wilhelmine Germany, the US has a legislature with very limited constitutional powers in the field of foreign policy, even though it wields considerable de facto power and is not linked either institutionally or by party discipline to the executive. The resulting lack of any responsibility for actual consequences is a standing invitation to rhetorical grandstanding, and the pursuit of sectional interests at the expense of overall policy.

    Meanwhile, the executive, while in theory supremely powerful in this field, has in fact continually to woo the legislature without ever being able to command its support. This, too, encourages dependence on interest groups, as well as a tendency to overcome differences and gain support by making appeals in terms of overheated patriotism rather than policy. Finally, in both systems, though for completely different reasons, supreme executive power had or has a tendency to fall into the hands of people totally unsuited for any but the ceremonial aspects of the job, and endlessly open to manipulation by advisers, ministers and cliques.

    In the US, this did not matter so much during the Cold War, when a range of Communist threats - real, imagined or fabricated - held the system together in the pursuit of more or less common aims. With the disappearance of the unifying threat, however, there has been a tendency, again very Wilhelmine, to produce ambitious and aggressive policies in several directions simultaneously, often with little reference at all to real US interests or any kind of principle.

    The new 'war against terrorism' in Administration and Congressional rhetoric has been cast as just such a principle, unifying the country and the political establishment behind a common goal and affecting or determining a great range of other policies. The language has been reminiscent of the global struggle against Communism, and confronting Islamist radicalism in the Muslim world does, it's true, pose some of the same challenges, on a less global scale, though possibly with even greater dangers for the world.

    The likelihood that US strategy in the 'war against terrorism' will resemble that of the Cold War is greatly increased by the way Cold War structures and attitudes have continued to dominate the US foreign policy and security elites. Charles Tilly and others have written of the difficulty states have in 'ratcheting down' wartime institutions and especially wartime spending. In the 1990s, this failure on the part of the US to escape its Cold War legacy was a curse, ensuring unnecessarily high military spending in the wrong fields, thoroughly negative attitudes to Russia, 'zero-sum' perceptions of international security issues in general, and perceptions of danger which wholly failed, as we now see, to meet the real threats to security and lives.

    The idea of a National Missile Defense is predicated on a limited revival of the Cold War, with China cast in the role of the Soviet Union and the Chinese nuclear deterrent as the force to be nullified. Bush's foreign and security team is almost entirely a product of Cold War structures and circumscribed by Cold War attitudes (which is not true of the President himself, who was never interested enough in foreign policy; if he can get his mind round the rest of the world, he could well be more of a free-thinker than many of his staff).

    The collapse of the Communist alternative to Western-dominated modernisation and the integration (however imperfect) of Russia and China into the world capitalist order have been a morally and socially ambiguous process, to put it mildly; but in the early 1990s they seemed to promise the suspension of hostility between the world's larger powers. The failure of the US to make use of this opportunity, thanks to an utter confusion between an ideological victory and crudely-defined US geopolitical interests, was a great misfortune which the 'war against terrorism' could in part rectify. Since 11 September, the rhetoric in America has proposed a gulf between the 'civilised' states of the present world system, and movements of 'barbaric', violent protest from outside and below - without much deference to the ambiguities of 'civilisation', or the justifications of resistance to it, remarked on since Tacitus at least.

    How is the Cold War legacy likely to determine the 'war against terrorism'? Despite the general conviction in the Republican Party that it was simply Reagan's military spending and the superiority of the US system which destroyed Soviet Communism, more serious Cold War analysts were always aware that it involved not just military force, or the threat of it, but ideological and political struggle, socio-economic measures, and state-building. The latter in particular is an idea for which the Bush team on their arrival in office had a deep dislike (if only to distance themselves from Clinton's policies), but which they may now rediscover. Foreign aid - so shamefully reduced in the 1990s - was also a key part of the Cold War, and if much of it was poured into kleptocratic regimes like Mobutu's, or wasted on misguided projects, some at least helped produce flourishing economies in Europe and East Asia.

    The Republican Party is not only the party of Goldwater and Reagan, but of Eisenhower, Nixon and Kissinger. Eisenhower is now almost forgotten by the party. 'Eisenhower Republicans', as they refer to themselves, are usually far closer to Tony Blair (or perhaps more accurately, Helmut Schmidt) than anyone the Republican Party has seen in recent years, and I'd wager that the majority of educated Americans have forgotten that the original warning about the influence of the 'military industrial complex' came from Eisenhower.

    Kissinger is still very much alive, however, and his history is a reminder that one aspect of the American capacity for extreme ruthlessness was also a capacity for radical changes of policy, for reconciliation with states hitherto regarded as bitter enemies, and for cold-blooded abandonment of close allies and clients whose usefulness was at an end. It would not altogether surprise me if we were now to see a radical shift towards real co-operation with Russia, and even Iran.

    In general, however, the Cold War legacies and parallels are discouraging and dangerous. To judge by the language used in the days since 11 September, ignorance, demonisation and the drowning out of nuanced debate indicate that much of the US establishment can no more tell the difference between Iran and Afghanistan than they could between China and the Soviet Union in the early 1960s - the inexcusable error which led to the American war in Vietnam. The preference for militarised solutions continues (the 'War on Drugs', which will now have to be scaled back, is an example). Most worryingly, the direct attack on American soil and American civilians - far worse than anything done to the US in the Cold War - means that there is a real danger of a return to Cold War ruthlessness: not just in terms of military tactics and covert operations, but in terms of the repulsive and endangered regimes co-opted as local American clients.

    The stakes are, if anything, a good deal higher than they were during the Cold War. Given what we now know of Soviet policymaking, it is by no means clear that the Kremlin ever seriously contemplated a nuclear strike against America. By contrast, it seems likely that bin Laden et al would in the end use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons if they could deliver them.

    There is also the question of the impact of US strategies (or, in the case of Israel, lack of them) on the unity of the West - assuming that this is of some importance for the wellbeing of humanity. However great the exasperation of many European states with US policy throughout the Cold War, the Europeans were bound into the transatlantic alliance by an obvious Soviet threat - more immediate to them than it was to the US. For the critical first decade of the Cold War, the economies of Europe were hopelessly inferior to that of the US. Today, if European Governments feel that the US is dragging them into unnecessary danger thanks to policies of which they disapprove, they will protest bitterly - as many did during the Cold War - and then begin to distance themselves, which they could not afford to do fifty years ago.

    This is all the more likely if, as seems overwhelmingly probable, the US withdraws from the Balkans - as it has already done in Macedonia - leaving Europeans with no good reason to require a US military presence on their continent. At the same time, the cultural gap between Europeans and Republican America (which does not mean a majority of Americans, but the dominant strain of policy) will continue to widen. 'Who says we share common values with the Europeans?' a senior US politician remarked recently. 'They don't even go to church!' Among other harmful effects, the destruction of this relationship could signal the collapse of whatever hope still exists for a common Western approach to global environmental issues - which would, in the end, pose a greater danger to humanity than that of terrorism.

    · Anatol Lieven is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC.

    [Oct 30, 2016] Computer seized in Weiner probe prompts FBI to take new steps in Clinton email inquiry

    Why thousands of emails were forwarded to unsecured computer shared by Abedin with her husband?
    How they were forwarded, were they forwarded individually or as a batch operation ?
    How many of them are those 30K deleted by Hillary "private" emails ?
    Does this batch contains any of previously discovered classified emails?
    What was the purpose of forwarding those emails to home computer.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Somebody at the F.B.I. must have picked up on the fact that the "FIX" was exposed hence on Friday an announcement was made by the F.B.I. that they had found further e-mails, I suspect that all the e-mails will have to be re-examined in the light of the lenient views taken by some F.B. I. Officers taken at the first pass or some more deletions will of necessity have to take place. ..."
    "... Meanwhile Clinton is shouting and screaming at the F.B.I. because she now knows that a new fix will be very difficult or impossible in the light of the revealed information and her "charity donations" of over $800,000 have not only been wasted but have exposed her flank! ..."
    "... ...the agents discovered the existence of tens of thousands of emails, some of them sent between Ms. Abedin and other Clinton aides, according to senior law enforcement officials ..."
    "... Nevertheless, how do you forward tens of thousands of emails? I don't think it can be a batch operation, they must have been forwarded individually. And what of the 30,000 destroyed (by Clinton) emails? ..."
    "... "We don't know what this means yet except that it's a real bombshell. And it is unthinkable that the Director of the FBI would take this action lightly, that he would put this letter forth to the Congress of the United States saying there is more information out there about classified e-mails and call it to the attention of congress unless it was something requiring serious investigation. So that's where we are..." ..."
    Oct 30, 2016 | www.washingtonpost.com
    Don Smith 4:38 PM EDT
    The other day I was reading an article which was talking about two "charity donations" given to the wife of an F.B.I. Officer involved in the e-mail investigation by "friends of the Clinton's".

    The article was very low key it's author briefly wondered if the officer concerned should have excused himself from the investigation. I also thought it strange that the officers interest had not been declared. Some time later I was reading about details concerning the e-mails sent from Clinton's staff to members of the F.B.I. ,basically what was happening was that the security rating of the information contained in non deleted mails was being talked down, at which point for me at least alarm bells were ringing loud and clear but I did not expect there to be any reaction. O.K. So I'm that cynical.

    Somebody at the F.B.I. must have picked up on the fact that the "FIX" was exposed hence on Friday an announcement was made by the F.B.I. that they had found further e-mails, I suspect that all the e-mails will have to be re-examined in the light of the lenient views taken by some F.B. I. Officers taken at the first pass or some more deletions will of necessity have to take place.

    Meanwhile Clinton is shouting and screaming at the F.B.I. because she now knows that a new fix will be very difficult or impossible in the light of the revealed information and her "charity donations" of over $800,000 have not only been wasted but have exposed her flank!

    CanardNoir 2:20 PM EDT [Edited]
    My Fellow Americans - Here is what the NYT is reporting in contrast to the WaPost's email count of more than 1,000, in terms of an actual number of emails to be reviewed:

    "...the agents discovered the existence of tens of thousands of emails, some of them sent between Ms. Abedin and other Clinton aides, according to senior law enforcement officials."

    Subsequently, that could change what the initial investigation by the Bureau had to look at this summer, and the understanding that all of the parties acknowledge that about 30k emails were deleted. So the "tens of thousands" may be duplicates or perhaps copies of the "thumb-drive" that one of HRC's lawyers was said to have been given?

    At any rate, this must bring into play at least 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally - and raise the question about whether conflicting DOJ internal "policy" has any affect on any of the Administration's current or former appointees, in terms of their "oath of office" or moving forward. And that would bring 5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of office - into play as well as the 5-year statute of limitations.

    We're likely still "Doomed" - so don't get too happy just yet, because EPA could still disallow "draining" anything as a result of the Clean Water Act, as amended.

    CanardNoir 2:41 PM EDT
    And here's the Sec. 2071 reason "why":

    (b) "Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States..."

    Rick B. 1:57 PM EDT
    Time to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald as special counsel
    9:57 AM EST

    [Edited] Lynch had to recuse herself after meeting with Bill Clinton. Had there not been information showing intent to violate espionage laws, Comey would have never acted. The fact is she is a criminal and cannot be elected . Image an elected Hillary who is impeached. The USA deserves better than a this and must turn the Clintons out to pasture forever.

    Avatar666 8:23 AM EST

    The FBI used to be a respected agency. Now, not so much. Working for, and in collusion with Obama, Loretta Lynch, the Clinton's and the media makes their "investigation" suspect, to say the least.

    Avatar666 8:07 AM EST

    Hillary "will say anything and do anything" (Obama's words, not mine) to get elected. Trying to blame her malfeasance on the FBI is simply stupid. She is so obsessed with money and power that she openly states "I have spent my life helping children and women". Right. Like when she was an 8 year Senator who only introduced 3 bills naming a couple highways and a bank. Her followers are dupes and dunces and we can only hope they don't outnumber rationally thinking people.

    Kathleen Galt 5:31 AM EST

    To think that Weiner and who knows who else had access to U.S. National Security information on the Weiner/Abedin computer. Sure sounds like the FBI is after Abedin not Clinton.

    Dems loved Comey when he slapped Clinton on the wrist for playing loose with U.S. National Security on her email server. Now those same Dems want to burn Comey at the stake.

    Let's not forget how Comey has come to be such a respected official
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
    In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.
    ad_icon

    The sickbed visit was the start of a dramatic showdown between the White House and the Justice Department in early 2004 that, according to Comey, was resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. But that was not before Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller and their aides prepared a mass resignation, Comey said. The domestic spying by the National Security Agency continued for several weeks without Justice approval, wheresthechow 2:27 AM EST The Clinton's are just so amazing in their cavalier above-the-law attitude that they can't even renovate their house without breaking the law.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/us/politics/chap...

    wwrfla 2:59 AM EST

    [Edited] "The Case Against Hillary Clinton"...as written by Christopher Hitchens.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&...

    Truer words have never been written.

    #NeverHillary!!! #BernieOrBust!!!

    dcammer 10/29/2016 9:31 PM EST

    Mr. Weiner has not aged well.....and it is not over....avoid park benches do not visit remote areas.....People you and I know may have a Boat moored in a slip at a Dock or a Yacht club that's Normal Americana....Yet A.G.Loretta Lynch was waiting on the Tarmac in her Jet Plane as Bill Clinton leaves His Jet Plane to chat with Loretta ....this is an area of privilege far above yacht club status....and this meeting broke several laws very quickly...so the A.G. has no authority to comment on what the head of F.B.I. has done regarding The Weiner Email discovery and whatever Bill had swindled for future favors or past I.O.U's has now become a waste of AA jet fuel for the,"IN", crowd.....Hillary is starting to look a little like Mr.Weiner; facial tension ,gaunt,hollow cheeks,terse lips,Bill was supposed to take care of all this....right?Now Mr. Comey had taken the J. Edgar Hoover pledge to Serve and protect and that would have been us under all other circumstances.....but he has to be loyal to his associates for they are the top 2% of the entire population and they deserve to be treated as the most important the bureau has....what transpired on the first pass left them in Mayberry P.D. limbo and will never happen could someone help Loretta Lynch to see the light or the exit sign ....Please

    711810943 10/29/2016 10:56 PM EST

    Yep, we're definitely talking about the battle of the twin dumpster fires here...

    Celebrity gossip trumps policy, if you'll forgive the expression. But what can you expect in a country that can name three Kardashian sisters, but not one foreign head of state.

    Hmmm... Those deck chairs need rearranging... See ya...

    canaffordit 10/29/2016 9:09 PM EST

    Laptop or PC is property of US once claissified info discovered. 18USC 798, right? Who says a warrant is needed to seize, protect? No so. And, for sure, they will read, use of which may or may not be impeded thereby. Still, there is allot to investigate, incl. numerous apparent violations of ethics in govt. act, etc, failures to disclose gifts / income, etc.

    RTDP 10/29/2016 8:29 PM EST

    The Clintons run a morally corrupt RICO that holds itself above the law. With Obama's support, the Justice Dept., IRS, FBI, State Dept. have aided and abetted the Clinton corruption of our government. This illustrates Hayek's point in The Road To Serfdom that when very powerful government institutions are created, "the worst rise to the top". Public power and money attract the least scrupulous, least honest, most power hungry, and most determined. Though Clinton's cabal publicly poses themselves as humanitarian progressives, the Doug Band statement of operations among Teneo, CGI, the Foundation, and the Clintons presents the underlying purpose of selling influence and the crony capital structure devised to split the proceeds. The Clinton Foundation operates outside the law. So where's the MSM, the IRS, the FBI, Justice...what justice?

    See: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/a_...

    Kathleen Galt 5:31 AM EDT

    To think that Weiner and who knows who else had access to U.S. National Security information on the Weiner/Abedin computer. Sure sounds like the FBI is after Abedin not Clinton.

    Dems loved Comey when he slapped Clinton on the wrist for playing loose with U.S. National Security on her email server. Now those same Dems want to burn Comey at the stake.

    Let's not forget how Comey has come to be such a respected official
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
    In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.
    ad_icon

    The sickbed visit was the start of a dramatic showdown between the White House and the Justice Department in early 2004 that, according to Comey, was resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. But that was not before Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller and their aides prepared a mass resignation, Comey said. The domestic spying by the National Security Agency continued for several weeks without Justice approval, he said.

    "I was angry," Comey testified. "I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."

    tjonathan 10/29/2016 7:38 PM EDT

    Watergate's Carl Bernstein: FBI Wouldn't Reopen A Probe Unless It Is "A Real Bombshell"

    HappyInSF 10/29/2016 7:09 PM EDT

    [Edited] In a previous release of information as a result of a Freedom of Information suit, it became known that Huma Abedin had forwarded emails from Clinton's private email server, to Ms. Abedin's personal yahoo email account.

    The new bit of news today, is that the FBI found TENS OF THOUSANDS of Clinton related emails on Weiner's (shared with Abedin?) laptop. I understand that Mrs. Clinton was SOS for four years.

    Nevertheless, how do you forward tens of thousands of emails? I don't think it can be a batch operation, they must have been forwarded individually. And what of the 30,000 destroyed (by Clinton) emails?

    The only thing that makes sense, is that the newly discovered emails include some of the missing emails. As Carl Bernstein (one of the two original Post reporters who broke the Watergate story, which led to Nixon's resignation) said yesterday:

    "We don't know what this means yet except that it's a real bombshell. And it is unthinkable that the Director of the FBI would take this action lightly, that he would put this letter forth to the Congress of the United States saying there is more information out there about classified e-mails and call it to the attention of congress unless it was something requiring serious investigation. So that's where we are..."

    [Oct 30, 2016] Anatol Lieven reviews 'The New American Militarism' by Andrew Bacevich

    Amazingly insightful review !!!
    Notable quotes:
    "... A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. ..."
    "... The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and the country. ..."
    "... The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent answer to any number of problems. ..."
    "... Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US. ..."
    "... And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'. ..."
    "... The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. ..."
    "... To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension. ..."
    "... They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world. ..."
    "... Wall Street Journal ..."
    "... Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. ..."
    "... Red Storm Rising ..."
    "... Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus. ..."
    "... Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society. ..."
    "... British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority, small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America. ..."
    "... As Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. ..."
    "... Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years to do so. ..."
    "... The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy. ..."
    Oct 20, 2005 | LRB

    The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War by Andrew Bacevich
    Oxford, 270 pp, Ł16.99, August 2005, ISBN 0 19 517338 4

    A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. Yet, as Andrew Bacevich points out in one of the most acute analyses of America to have appeared in recent years, the United States itself is in many ways a militaristic country, and becoming more so:

    at the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. The skepticism about arms and armies that informed the original Wilsonian vision, indeed, that pervaded the American experiment from its founding, vanished. Political leaders, liberals and conservatives alike, became enamoured with military might.

    The ensuing affair had, and continues to have, a heedless, Gatsby-like aspect, a passion pursued in utter disregard of any consequences that might ensue.

    The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and the country. Compared to German and other past militarisms, however, the contemporary American variant is extremely complex, and the forces that have generated it have very diverse origins and widely differing motives:

    The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent answer to any number of problems.

    Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US.

    And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'.

    The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage also ensure the support of much of the Congress, which often authorizes defense spending on weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group of senators and congressmen in whose home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension.

    That's not the same, however, as having an actual desire for war, least of all for a major conflict which might ruin the international economy. US ground forces have bitter memories of Vietnam, and no wish to wage an aggressive war: Rumsfeld and his political appointees had to override the objections of the senior generals, in particular those of the army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, before the attack on Iraq. The navy and air force do not have to fight insurgents in hell-holes like Fallujah, and so naturally have a more relaxed attitude.

    To understand how the Bush administration was able to manipulate the public into supporting the Iraq war one has to look for deeper explanations. They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world. This leads to a genuine belief that American soldiers can do no real wrong because they are spreading 'freedom'. Also of great importance – at least until the Iraqi insurgency rubbed American noses in the horrors of war – has been the development of an aesthetic that sees war as waged by the US as technological, clean and antiseptic; and thanks to its supremacy in weaponry, painlessly victorious. Victory over the Iraqi army in 2003 led to a new flowering of megalomania in militarist quarters. The amazing Max Boot of the Wall Street Journal – an armchair commentator, not a frontline journalist – declared that the US victory had made 'fabled generals such as Erwin Rommel and Heinz Guderian seem positively incompetent by comparison'. Nor was this kind of talk restricted to Republicans. More than two years into the Iraq quagmire, strategic thinkers from the Democratic establishment were still declaring that 'American military power in today's world is practically unlimited.'

    Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. Take Bacevich on the popular novelist Tom Clancy:

    In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash with heavily armed and implacably determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men and women of America's uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats. The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honor, extraordinary technological aptitude and sheer decency of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to enter a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one reviewer noted. 'All the Americans are paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.' Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated that nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.

    Such attitudes go beyond simply glorying in violence, military might and technological prowess. They reflect a belief – genuine or assumed – in what the Germans used to call Soldatentum: the pre-eminent value of the military virtues of courage, discipline and sacrifice, and explicitly or implicitly the superiority of these virtues to those of a hedonistic, contemptible and untrustworthy civilian society and political class. In the words of Thomas Friedman, the ostensibly liberal foreign affairs commentator of the ostensibly liberal New York Times, 'we do not deserve these people. They are so much better than the country they are fighting for.' Such sentiments have a sinister pedigree in modern history.

    In the run-up to the last election, even a general as undistinguished as Wesley Clark could see his past generalship alone as qualifying him for the presidency – and gain the support of leading liberal intellectuals. Not that this was new: the first president was a general and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries both generals and more junior officers ran for the presidency on the strength of their military records. And yet, as Bacevich points out, this does not mean that the uniformed military have real power over policy-making, even in matters of war. General Tommy Franks may have regarded Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, as 'the stupidest fucking guy on the planet', but he took Feith's orders, and those of the civilians standing behind him: Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the president himself. Their combination of militarism and contempt for military advice recalls Clemenceau and Churchill – or Hitler and Stalin.

    Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus.

    Its symbols may be often childish and its methods brutish, but American belief in 'freedom' is a real and living force. This cuts two ways. On the one hand, the adherence of many leading intellectuals in the Democratic Party to a belief in muscular democratization has had a disastrous effect on the party's ability to put up a strong resistance to the policies of the administration. Bush's messianic language of 'freedom' – supported by the specifically Israeli agenda of Natan Sharansky and his allies in the US – has been all too successful in winning over much of the opposition. On the other hand, the fact that a belief in freedom and democracy lies at the heart of civic nationalism places certain limits on American imperialism – weak no doubt, but nonetheless real. It is not possible for the US, unlike previous empires, to pursue a strategy of absolutely unconstrained Machtpolitik. This has been demonstrated recently in the breach between the Bush administration and the Karimov tyranny in Uzbekistan.

    The most important contradiction, however, is between the near worship of the military in much of American culture and the equally widespread unwillingness of most Americans – elites and masses alike – to serve in the armed forces. If people like Friedman accompanied their stated admiration for the military with a real desire to abandon their contemptible civilian lives and join the armed services, then American power in the world really might be practically unlimited. But as Bacevich notes,

    having thus made plain his personal disdain for crass vulgarity and support for moral rectitude, Friedman in the course of a single paragraph drops the military and moves on to other pursuits. His many readers, meanwhile, having availed themselves of the opportunity to indulge, ever so briefly, in self-loathing, put down their newspapers and themselves move on to other things. Nothing has changed, but columnist and readers alike feel better for the cathartic effect of this oblique, reassuring encounter with an alien world.

    Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society.

    This combination of a theoretical adulation with a profound desire not to serve is not of course new. It characterized most of British society in the 19th century, when, just as with the US today, the overwhelming rejection of conscription – until 1916 – meant that, appearances to the contrary, British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority, small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America.

    Despite spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and despite enjoying overwhelming technological superiority, American military power is actually quite limited. As Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. As for invading and occupying a country the size of Iran, this is coming to seem as unlikely as an invasion of mainland China.

    In other words, when it comes to actually applying military power the US is pretty much where it has been for several decades. Another war of occupation like Iraq would necessitate the restoration of conscription: an idea which, with Vietnam in mind, the military detests, and which politicians are well aware would probably make them unelectable. It is just possible that another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 might lead to a new draft, but that would bring the end of the US military empire several steps closer. Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years to do so.

    Facing these dangers squarely, Bacevich proposes refocusing American strategy away from empire and towards genuine national security. It is a measure of the degree to which imperial thinking now dominates US politics that these moderate and commonsensical proposals would seem nothing short of revolutionary to the average member of the Washington establishment.

    They include a renunciation of messianic dreams of improving the world through military force, except where a solid international consensus exists in support of US action; a recovery by Congress of its power over peace and war, as laid down in the constitution but shamefully surrendered in recent years; the adoption of a strategic doctrine explicitly making war a matter of last resort; and a decision that the military should focus on the defense of the nation, not the projection of US power. As a means of keeping military expenditure in some relationship to actual needs, Bacevich suggests pegging it to the combined annual expenditure of the next ten countries, just as in the 19th century the size of the British navy was pegged to that of the next two largest fleets – it is an index of the budgetary elephantiasis of recent years that this would lead to very considerable spending reductions.

    This book is important not only for the acuteness of its perceptions, but also for the identity of its author. Colonel Bacevich's views on the military, on US strategy and on world affairs were profoundly shaped by his service in Vietnam. His year there 'fell in the conflict's bleak latter stages long after an odor of failure had begun to envelop the entire enterprise'. The book is dedicated to his brother-in-law, 'a casualty of a misbegotten war'.

    Just as Vietnam shaped his view of how the US and the US military should not intervene in the outside world, so the Cold War in Europe helped define his beliefs about the proper role of the military. For Bacevich and his fellow officers in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, defending the West from possible Soviet aggression, 'not conquest, regime change, preventive war or imperial policing', was 'the American soldier's true and honorable calling'.

    In terms of cultural and political background, this former soldier remains a self-described Catholic conservative, and intensely patriotic. During the 1990s Bacevich wrote for right-wing journals, and still situates himself culturally on the right:

    As long as we shared in the common cause of denouncing the foolishness and hypocrisies of the Clinton years, my relationship with modern American conservatism remained a mutually agreeable one But my disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the Bush administration and its groupies, is just about absolute. Fiscal irresponsibility, a buccaneering foreign policy, a disregard for the constitution, the barest lip service as a response to profound moral controversies: these do not qualify as authentically conservative values.

    On this score my views have come to coincide with the critique long offered by the radical left: it is the mainstream itself, the professional liberals as well as the professional conservatives, who define the problem The Republican and Democratic Parties may not be identical, but they produce nearly identical results.

    Bacevich, in other words, is skeptical of the naive belief that replacing the present administration with a Democrat one would lead to serious changes in the US approach to the world. Formal party allegiances are becoming increasingly irrelevant as far as thinking about foreign and security policy is concerned.

    Bacevich also makes plain the private anger of much of the US uniformed military at the way in which it has been sacrificed, and its institutions damaged, by chickenhawk civilian chauvinists who have taken good care never to see action themselves; and the deep private concern of senior officers that they might be ordered into further wars that would wreck the army altogether. Now, as never before, American progressives have the chance to overcome the knee-jerk hostility to the uniformed military that has characterized the left since Vietnam, and to reach out not only to the soldiers in uniform but also to the social, cultural and regional worlds from which they are drawn. For if the American left is once again to become an effective political force, it must return to some of its own military traditions, founded on the distinguished service of men like George McGovern, on the old idea of the citizen soldier, and on a real identification with that soldier's interests and values. With this in mind, Bacevich calls for moves to bind the military more closely into American society, including compulsory education for all officers at a civilian university, not only at the start of their careers but at intervals throughout them.

    Or to put it another way, the left must fight imperialism in the name of patriotism. Barring a revolutionary and highly unlikely transformation of American mass culture, any political party that wishes to win majority support will have to demonstrate its commitment to the defense of the country. The Bush administration has used the accusation of weakness in security policy to undermine its opponents, and then used this advantage to pursue reckless strategies that have themselves drastically weakened the US. The left needs to heed Bacevich and draw up a tough, realistic and convincing alternative. It will also have to demonstrate its identification with the respectable aspects of military culture. The Bush administration and the US establishment in general may have grossly mismanaged the threats facing us, but the threats are real, and some at least may well need at some stage to be addressed by military force. And any effective military force also requires the backing of a distinctive military ethic embracing loyalty, discipline and a capacity for both sacrifice and ruthlessness.

    In the terrible story of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, one of the most morally disgusting moments took place at a Senate Committee hearing on 29 April 2004, when Paul Wolfowitz – another warmonger who has never served himself – mistook, by a margin of hundreds, how many US soldiers had died in a war for which he was largely responsible. If an official in a Democratic administration had made a public mistake like that, the Republican opposition would have exploited it ruthlessly, unceasingly, to win the next election. The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy.

    Because they are the ones who pay the price for reckless warmongering and geopolitical megalomania, soldiers and veterans of the army and marine corps could become valuable allies in the struggle to curb American imperialism, and return America's relationship with its military to the old limited, rational form. For this to happen, however, the soldiers have to believe that campaigns against the Iraq war, and against current US strategy, are anti-militarist, but not anti-military. We have needed the military desperately on occasions in the past; we will definitely need them again.


    Vol. 27 No. 20 · 20 October 2005 " Anatol Lieven " We do not deserve these people
    pages 11-12 | 3337 words

    [Oct 30, 2016] Soft neoliberals are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil

    Oct 30, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 10.30.16 at 9:34 pm 34

    The success of [civil rights and anti-apartheid] movements did not end racism, but drove it underground, allowing neoliberals to exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor.

    That coalition has now been replaced by one in which the tribalists and racists are dominant. For the moment at least, [hard] neoliberals continue to support the parties they formerly controlled, with the result that the balance of political forces between the right and the opposing coalition of soft neoliberals and the left has not changed significantly.

    There's an ambiguity in this narrative and in the three-party analysis.

    Do we acknowledge that the soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the inchoate left also "exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor."? They do it with a different style and maybe with some concession to economic melioration, as well as supporting anti-racist and feminist policy to keep the inchoate left on board, but . . .

    The new politics of the right has lost faith in the hard neoliberalism that formerly furnished its policy agenda of tax cuts for the rich, war in the Middle East and so on, leaving the impure resentment ungoverned and unfocused, as you say.

    The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil.

    The problem of how to oppose racism and tribalism effectively is now entangled with soft neoliberal control of the remaining party coalition, which is to say with the credibility of the left party as a vehicle for economic populism and the credibility of economic populism as an antidote for racism or sexism. (cf js. @ 1,2)

    The form of tribalism used to mobilize the left entails denying that an agenda of economic populism is relevant to the problems of sexism and racism, because the deplorables must be deplored to get out the vote. And, because the (soft) neoliberals in charge must keep economic populism under control to deliver the goods to their donor base.

    [Oct 30, 2016] The term racist no longer carries any of the stigma it once held in part because the term is deployed so cynically and freely as to render it practically meaningless

    Notable quotes:
    "... Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines. ..."
    "... These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans. The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious lines as it does elsewhere. ..."
    "... European workers have done much better in the new global economy.(The problems in Europe center around mass migration of people who resist assimilation and adoption of a Humanistic world view.) The answer is simple and horrifying. ..."
    "... A large percentage of American workers consistently vote against their own interest which has allowed the republican party in service to a powerful elite billionaire class ..."
    "... The combination of these reliable cadre of deplorables , controlled by faux news and hate radio , and the lack of political engagement by the low income Americans , has essentially turned power over to the billionaire class. ..."
    Oct 30, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.30.16 at 9:15 am

    I read an interesting piece in the Nikkei, hardly an left-leaning publication citing Arlie Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right."

    Doubtless some here would like to see more misery heaped upon those who do not look to the Democratic party as saviors, but Hochschild is rarely regarded as a defender of the American right.

    Few dispute that a significant subset of any given population is going to regard in-group/out-group distinctions along the highly imprecise lines of 'race' and ethnicity, or religion. The question, for some, is what percentage?

    The Nikkei article by Stephen Grenville concludes: Over the longer term, the constituency for globalization has to be rebuilt, the methodology for multilateral trade agreements has to be revived…"

    Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines.

    These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans. The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious lines as it does elsewhere.

    Generally, I think John is right. The term 'racist' no longer carries any of the stigma it once held in part because the term is deployed so cynically and freely as to render it practically meaningless. HRC and Bill and their supporters (including me, at one time) are racists for as long as its convenient and politically expedient to call them racists. Once that moment has passed, the term 'racist' is withdrawn and replaced with something like Secretary of State, or some other such title.

    I've no clear 'solution' other than to support a more exact and thoughtful discussion of the causes of fear and anxiety that compels people to bind together into in-groups and out-groups, and to encourage the fearful to take a few risks now and again.

    Here's the link: http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20161020-An-era-ends-in-Thailand/Viewpoints/Stephen-Grenville-The-US-election-is-putting-the-TPP-trade-agreement-in-doubt?page=2

    Bob Zannelli 10.30.16 at 11:44 am
    I've no clear 'solution' other than to support a more exact and thoughtful discussion of the causes of fear and anxiety that compels people to bind together into in-groups and out-groups, and to encourage the fearful to take a few risks now and again.

    Here's my take on this. The question to ask is why has this happened? European workers have done much better in the new global economy.(The problems in Europe center around mass migration of people who resist assimilation and adoption of a Humanistic world view.) The answer is simple and horrifying.

    A large percentage of American workers consistently vote against their own interest which has allowed the republican party in service to a powerful elite billionaire class form a reliable cadre of highly visible and highly vocal deplorables which even though slightly less than half the population of those who bother to vote have virtually shut down democratic safeguards which could have mitigated what has happened due to globalization. The combination of these reliable cadre of deplorables , controlled by faux news and hate radio , and the lack of political engagement by the low income Americans , has essentially turned power over to the billionaire class.

    ... ... ...

    Alesis 10.30.16 at 12:13 pm

    A strategy that doesn't work inside the tent is DOA outside it. As it stands many liberals (largely white and this is an important distinction) share with the right a deep discomfort with acknowledging the centrality of racism to American politics.

    Race is the foundational organizing principle of American life and it represents a considerable strain to keep it in focus. Donald Trump will win the majority of white voters as the racial resentment coalition has since the 1930s. An effective strategy for the long term is focused on breaking that near century long hold.

    I'd suggest the direct approach. Call racism what it is and ask white voters directly what good it has done for them lately. Did railing against Mexican rapists brings any jobs back?

    [Oct 30, 2016] The form of nationalism that prevails now can be called cultural nationalism not ethnonationalism . In a sense cultural nationalism is more inclusive, but it can be as radical as national socialism in the past. American exceptionalism is a good example of this type of nationalism.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Even if experience has shown it's futile, I still feel compelled to repeat the point that "tribalism" is a racist and imperialist pejorative ..."
    "... "tribalism" is used to describe the very same racist ideological currents that give the term its rhetorical power in the first place. ..."
    "... In essence, anything that relies on identification with an in-group against those outside the group. In that sense, nearly all of Trump's support base is tribalist, while only some could be described as racist/white nationalist. ..."
    "... The term "Tribalism" implicitly stresses the ethnic/racial component in the complex phenomena that modern nationalism represents. That's a major weakness. ..."
    "... Even in modern Ukrainian nationalism cultural elements are stronger then ethnic. ..."
    "... 'Cultural nationalism' seems to come closest, at least in the Australian and British contexts I'm familiar with, because the so-called 'tribalists' seem to be people who have a strong idea about who are the 'right kind' of Australians (or Britons), and it is a mixture of cultural and racial/ethnic characteristics. ..."
    "... Populations can be racialized according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are". ..."
    "... "the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death" ..."
    "... Except unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup , which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking about it as a specific mass political movement at all. ..."
    Oct 30, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    WLGR 10.30.16 at 10:30 am 16

    Even if experience has shown it's futile, I still feel compelled to repeat the point that "tribalism" is a racist and imperialist pejorative (basically this imagery condensed into a single signifier) that shouldn't play such a pivotal role in any remotely serious understanding, let alone one in which "tribalism" is used to describe the very same racist ideological currents that give the term its rhetorical power in the first place.

    As described in an earlier thread about all of this, my preference would be not to beat around the bush and go with "fascism" plain and simple, and even if one isn't comfortable making that assertion directly, "ethnonationalism" seems like it could play an equivalent role to "tribalism" in this analysis with little or no extra clarification needed. Call me crazy but this seems like a pretty minor lexical sacrifice to make for combating racist imagery in one's own language.

    Call me crazy but this seems like a pretty minor lexical sacrifice to make for combating racist imagery in one's own language.

    likbez 10.30.16 at 12:05 pm

    @16

    "ethnonationalism" seems like it could play an equivalent role to "tribalism" in this analysis with little or no extra clarification needed.

    While I agree that "tribalism" a bad term that clouds the issue, I think the form of nationalism that prevails now can be called "cultural nationalism" not "ethnonationalism". In a sense "cultural nationalism" is more inclusive, but it can be as radical as national socialism in the past. American exceptionalism is a good example of this type of nationalism.

    John Quiggin 10.30.16 at 7:33 pm

    @WLGR I'm happy to reconsider terminology. But I've been using "tribalism" for a kind of politics that's not necessary as extreme as ethno-nationalism, let alone fascism.

    In essence, anything that relies on identification with an in-group against those outside the group. In that sense, nearly all of Trump's support base is tribalist, while only some could be described as racist/white nationalist.

    likbez 10.30.16 at 7:39 pm

    @20

    The term "Tribalism" implicitly stresses the ethnic/racial component in the complex phenomena that modern nationalism represents. That's a major weakness.

    Even in modern Ukrainian nationalism cultural elements are stronger then ethnic.

    Val 10.31.16 at 6:22 am

    I tend to agree with what WLGR is saying about 'tribalists'. What porpoise @43 said is interesting historically, but I don't think it removes the overlay from later colonial and imperial associations of 'tribes' with 'primitives'/inferiors. So I don't think tribalism is a good word here, but not sure what would be a better one.

    'Cultural nationalism' seems to come closest, at least in the Australian and British contexts I'm familiar with, because the so-called 'tribalists' seem to be people who have a strong idea about who are the 'right kind' of Australians (or Britons), and it is a mixture of cultural and racial/ethnic characteristics.

    Here in Australia, it is certainly possible for people from non-Anglo backgrounds to be at least conditionally accepted by the 'tribalists' if they appear to embrace the tribalists' idea of Aussie culture (although it's conditional because the 'tribalists' who are 'accepting' the non-Anglo immigrants unconsciously see their ability to pass judgement as related to their own Anglo/white background, I think). Complicated, I am getting tied in knots, but I agree tribalist isn't the best word.

    WLGR 10.31.16 at 3:52 pm

    likbez @ 16,

    It seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from culturally based ultranationalism is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial understanding of "race" and "racism".

    Populations can be racialized according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are".

    Although from my understanding Ukrainian citizenship like that in most of Europe is primarily determined by jus sanguinis, and like most of Europe it's still deep in the muck of racial discrimination toward e.g. the Roma, so unless I'm misreading things it seems like a stretch to put too much distance between Ukraine (or Europe in general) and even a very colloquial sense of "ethnonationalism". It can be articulated more explicitly by outright fascists or more obliquely by mainstream centrist parties, but it's still there.

    And as long as we're talking about academic definitions of racism (I'm partial to the definition proffered by Ruth Wilson Gilmore, "the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death", although Emmett Rensin's obnoxiously thorough definition is also good) funnily enough they tend to point at something pretty much identical to what Quiggin appears to mean by "tribalism".

    Except unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup , which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking about it as a specific mass political movement at all.

    And again, as annoying as it is to have pigheaded reactionaries accuse us of twisting language and "playing the race card" and so on, putting up with this noise is preferable to sacrificing useful concepts like racism and fascism from one's everyday understanding of the world,

    [Oct 30, 2016] Speaking also of Pedesta email it is interesting that it was Podesta who make mistake of assessing phishing email link, probably accidentally

    turcopolier.typepad.com

    mistah charley, ph.d. said... 30 October 2016 at 09:13 AM

    Speaking also of Podesta's email, not Huma's, the following is interesting:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/phishing-email-hack-john-podesta-hillary-clinton-wikileaks/index.html

    Briefly, it seems Podesta received an email "You need to change your password", asked for professional advice from his staff if it was legit, was told "Yes, you DO need to change your password", but then clicked on the link in the original email, which was sent him with malicious intent, as he suspected at first and then was inappropriately reassured about - rather than on the link sent him by the IT staffer.

    Result - the "phishing" email got his password info, and the world now gets to see all his emails.

    Personally, my hope is that Huma and HRC will be pardoned for all their crimes, by Obama, before he leaves office.

    Then I hope that Huma's divorce will go through, and that once Hillary is sworn in she will at last be courageous enough to divorce Bill (who actually performed the Huma-Anthony Weiner nuptials - you don't have to make these things up).

    Then it could happen that the first same-sex marriage will be performed in the White House, probably by the minister of DC's Foundry United Methodist Church, which has a policy of LBGQT equality. Or maybe Hillary, cautious and middle-of-the-road as usual, will go to Foundry UMC sanctuary for the ceremony, recognizing that some Americans' sensibilities would be offended by having the rite in the White House.

    As Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan wrote, "Love is all there is, it makes the world go round, love and only love, it can't be denied. No matter what you think about it, you just can't live without it, take a tip from one who's tried."

    [Oct 30, 2016] If only NATO would bomb Syria there would be more secularism as in the Islamist state of new Libya?

    Oct 30, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> anne... October 30, 2016 at 04:51 PM http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/07/how-us-ensured-that-its-weapons-and.html

    July 22, 2012

    How the US ensures that its weapons and equipment don't fall into Al-Qa`idah hands

    "American and other Western intelligence officials have expressed concern that some of the more than 100 rebel formations fighting inside Syria may have ties to Al Qaeda that they could exploit as security worsens in the country or after the collapse of the government.... A small number of CIA officers have been operating secretly in southern Turkey for several weeks, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive weapons to fight the government." * I am assured that the US has a fool-proof system at hand.

    The CIA operatives ask the person in question: are you with Al-Qa`idah? If the person says no, he is told: take the weapons and money and run. If he says yes, he is told: not good. Take the money and weapons and run but don't use them against us one day, OK?

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/world/middleeast/us-to-focus-on-forcibly-toppling-syrian-government.html

    --- As'ad AbuKhalil Reply Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 04:51 PM anne -> anne... , October 30, 2016 at 05:00 PM

    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/12/non-lethal-us-aid.html

    December 15, 2012

    Non-lethal US aid

    Weeks before the Obama administration and other Western nations recognized a new Syrian opposition coalition as "the legitimate representative" of the Syrian people, Syrian rebels were receiving training in the use of light and heavy weapons with the backing of the Jordanian, British and U.S. governments, participants in the training have told McClatchy....

    By November, another rebel said, the training had expanded to anti-tank weapons and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.... *

    * http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/12/14/177474/syrian-rebels-say-americans-britons.html

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> anne... , October 30, 2016 at 05:07 PM
    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2013/05/in-raqqah-syria.html

    May 3, 2013

    In Raqqah, Syria

    This is from Raqqah in Syria. * The main square there has been renamed Prophet Muhammad Square, and a giant flag of Al-Qa`idah is posted. And do you still need a fortune teller to tell you how things are going in Syria?

    * http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-09/world/38405266_1_al-nusra-raqqah-oil-fields

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> anne... , October 30, 2016 at 05:10 PM
    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2013/03/lies-about-syria-in-western-media.html

    March 25, 2013

    Lies about Syria in the Western media

    What this article really reveals is that Western media were deliberately or ignorantly spreading the notion that Syrian rebels were desperate for arms and ammunition and that they were getting no external support whatsoever when tons (literally, tons) of shipments were arriving to them from as early as 2012. *

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> anne... , October 30, 2016 at 05:11 PM
    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-prophets-flag-or-al-qaidahs.html

    July 30, 2012

    The Prophet's Flag? or Al-Qa`idah's?

    "The groups demanded to raise the prophet's banner - solid black with 'There is no god but God.' " * Somebody needs to tell the New York Times that what it calls the "prophet's banner" is none other than the flag of Al-Qa`idah. What an informed paper.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/world/middleeast/as-syrian-war-drags-on-jihad-gains-foothold.html

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> anne... , October 30, 2016 at 05:31 PM
    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/11/i-am-dying-to-know-this-who-are-secular.html

    November 29, 2012

    I am dying to know this: Who are the "secular opposition groups supported by the West" who are fighting in Syria? Give me one name, or one unit? Who?

    "The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and ammunition are funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries overseen mainly by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, American officials said. Even that limited effort is being revamped in the wake of evidence that most arms sent to Syrian opposition fighters are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, not to the more secular opposition groups supported by the West." *

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/world/us-is-weighing-stronger-action-in-syrian-conflict.html

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> anne... , October 30, 2016 at 05:32 PM
    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/07/nato-secularism.html

    July 30, 2012

    NATO secularism

    "Some Syrians who seek a more secular revolution blame the lack of Western support for driving the rebellion into the arms of the extremists". * So if only NATO would bomb Syria there would be more secularism as in the Islamist state of new Libya? Where do you get those people?

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/world/middleeast/as-syrian-war-drags-on-jihad-gains-foothold.html

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> anne... , -1
    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/07/al-qaidah-in-syria.html

    July 25, 2012

    Al-Qa`idah in Syria

    Until recently, if someone suggested that Al-Qa`idah is present in Syria, he/she would be accused of being a shabbiha * for the Assad regime. But when the New York Times says it, ** it becomes true.

    * Or goon

    ** http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/world/middleeast/al-qaeda-insinuating-its-way-into-syrias-conflict.html

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    [Oct 30, 2016] The De Facto US/Al Qaeda Alliance by Robert Parry

    Notable quotes:
    "... Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America's revenge wars in the Middle East 15 years ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group has faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the preferred "good guy/bad guy" narrative regarding the Syrian war. ..."
    "... For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating primarily under Al Qaeda's command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the barbaric Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed as the east Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families peacefully congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family. ..."
    "... The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of wounded children being cared for by the "White Helmet" rebel civil defense corps, which has come under growing criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents. (There also are allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake war scene from the 1997 dark comedy, "Wag the Dog.") ..."
    "... The new offensive was a strong sign that rebel groups vetted by the United States were continuing their tactical alliances with groups linked to Al Qaeda, rather than distancing themselves as Russia has demanded and the Americans have urged. ..."
    "... What the article also makes clear in a hazy kind of way is that Al Qaeda's affiliate, the recently renamed Nusra Front, and its jihadist allies, such as Ahrar al-Sham, are waging the brunt of the fighting while the CIA-vetted "moderates" are serving in mostly support roles. ..."
    "... "the vast majority of the American-vetted rebel factions in Aleppo were fighting inside the city itself and conducting significant bombardments against Syrian government troops in support of the Qaeda-affiliated fighters carrying out the brunt of front-line fighting." ..."
    "... "offensive have been vetted by the CIA and have received arms from the agency, including anti-tank missiles. … ..."
    "... "In addition to arms provided by the United States, much of the rebels' weaponry comes from regional states, like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Lister said, including truck-borne multiple-rocket launcher systems and Czech-made Grad rockets with extended ranges." ..."
    "... In other words, the U.S. government and its allies have smuggled sophisticated weapons into Syria to arm rebels who are operating in support of Al Qaeda's new military offensive against Syrian government forces in Aleppo. By any logical analysis, that makes the United States an ally of Al Qaeda.... ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | https://consortiumnews.com

    Buried deep inside Saturday's New York Times was a grudging acknowledgement that the U.S.-armed "moderate" rebels in Syria are using their U.S. firepower to back an Al Qaeda offensive.

    A curious aspect of the Syrian conflict – a rebellion sponsored largely by the United States and its Gulf state allies – is the disappearance in much of the American mainstream news media of references to the prominent role played by Al Qaeda in seeking to overthrow the secular Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.

    There's much said in the U.S. press about ISIS, the former "Al Qaeda in Iraq" which splintered off several years ago, but Al Qaeda's central role in commanding Syria's "moderate" rebels in Aleppo and elsewhere is the almost unspoken reality of the Syrian war. Even in the U.S. presidential debates, the arguing between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton has been almost exclusively about ISIS, not Al Qaeda.

    Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America's revenge wars in the Middle East 15 years ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group has faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the preferred "good guy/bad guy" narrative regarding the Syrian war.

    For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating primarily under Al Qaeda's command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the barbaric Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed as the east Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families peacefully congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family.

    The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of wounded children being cared for by the "White Helmet" rebel civil defense corps, which has come under growing criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents. (There also are allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake war scene from the 1997 dark comedy, "Wag the Dog.")

    Rare Glimpse of Truth

    Yet, occasionally, the reality of Al Qaeda's importance in the rebellion breaks through, even in the mainstream U.S. media, although usually downplayed and deep inside the news pages, such as the article * in Saturday's New York Times by Hwaida Saad and Anne Barnard describing a rebel offensive in Aleppo. It acknowledges:

    "The new offensive was a strong sign that rebel groups vetted by the United States were continuing their tactical alliances with groups linked to Al Qaeda, rather than distancing themselves as Russia has demanded and the Americans have urged.

    The rebels argue that they cannot afford to shun any potential allies while they are under fire, including well-armed and motivated jihadists, without more robust aid from their international backers."

    (You might note how the article subtly blames the rebel dependence on Al Qaeda on the lack of "robust aid" from the Obama administration and other outside countries – even though such arms shipments violate international law.)

    What the article also makes clear in a hazy kind of way is that Al Qaeda's affiliate, the recently renamed Nusra Front, and its jihadist allies, such as Ahrar al-Sham, are waging the brunt of the fighting while the CIA-vetted "moderates" are serving in mostly support roles. The Times reported:

    "The insurgents have a diverse range of objectives and backers, but they issued statements of unity on Friday. Those taking part in the offensive include the Levant Conquest Front, a militant group formerly known as the Nusra Front that grew out of Al Qaeda; another hard-line Islamist faction, Ahrar al-Sham; and other rebel factions fighting Mr. Assad that have been vetted by the United States and its allies."

    The article cites Charles Lister, a senior fellow and Syria specialist at the Middle East Institute in Washington, and other analysts noting that "the vast majority of the American-vetted rebel factions in Aleppo were fighting inside the city itself and conducting significant bombardments against Syrian government troops in support of the Qaeda-affiliated fighters carrying out the brunt of front-line fighting."

    Lister noted that 11 of the 20 or so rebel groups conducting the Aleppo "offensive have been vetted by the CIA and have received arms from the agency, including anti-tank missiles. …

    "In addition to arms provided by the United States, much of the rebels' weaponry comes from regional states, like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Lister said, including truck-borne multiple-rocket launcher systems and Czech-made Grad rockets with extended ranges."

    The U.S./Al Qaeda Alliance

    In other words, the U.S. government and its allies have smuggled sophisticated weapons into Syria to arm rebels who are operating in support of Al Qaeda's new military offensive against Syrian government forces in Aleppo. By any logical analysis, that makes the United States an ally of Al Qaeda....

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/world/middleeast/aleppo-syria.html

    [Oct 30, 2016] Anatol Lieven · The Push for War The Threat from America

    [Oct 30, 2016] After the attacks Americas new cold war

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions. ..."
    "... The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies ..."
    "... Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take. ..."
    "... A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. ..."
    Sep 28, 2001 | guardian.co.uk

    "Who says we share common values with the Europeans? They don't even go to church!" Will the atrocities of September 11 push America further to the right or open a new debate on foreign policy and the need for alliances? In this exclusive online essay from the London Review of Books, Anatol Lieven considers how the cold war legacy may affect the war on terrorism

    Not long after the Bush Administration took power in January, I was invited to lunch at a glamorous restaurant in New York by a group of editors and writers from an influential American right-wing broadsheet. The food and wine were extremely expensive, the decor luxurious but discreet, the clientele beautifully dressed, and much of the conversation more than mildly insane. With regard to the greater part of the world outside America, my hosts' attitude was a combination of loathing, contempt, distrust and fear: not only towards Arabs, Russians, Chinese, French and others, but towards 'European socialist governments', whatever that was supposed to mean. This went with a strong desire - in theory at least - to take military action against a broad range of countries across the world.

    Two things were particularly striking here: a tendency to divide the world into friends and enemies, and a difficulty verging on autism when it came to international opinions that didn't coincide with their own - a combination more appropriate to the inhabitants of an ethnic slum in the Balkans than to people who were, at that point, on top of the world.

    Today Americans of all classes and opinions have reason to worry, and someone real to fear and hate, while prolonged US military action overseas is thought to be inevitable. The building where we had lunch is now rubble. Several of our fellow diners probably died last week, along with more than six thousand other New Yorkers from every walk of life. Not only has the terrorist attack claimed far more victims than any previous such attack anywhere in the world, but it has delivered a far more damaging economic blow. Equally important, it has destroyed Americans' belief in their country's invulnerability, on which so many other American attitudes and policies finally rested.

    This shattering blow was delivered by a handful of anonymous agents hidden in the wider population, working as part of a tightly-knit secret international conspiracy inspired by a fanatical and (to the West) deeply 'alien' and 'exotic' religious ideology. Its members are ruthless; they have remarkable organisational skills, a tremendous capacity for self-sacrifice and self-discipline, and a deep hatred of the United States and the Western way of life. As Richard Hofstader and others have argued, for more than two hundred years this kind of combination has always acted as a prompt for paranoid and reactionary conspiracy theories, most of them groundless.

    Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions.

    The latter danger has been greatly increased by the attacks. The terrorists have raised to white heat certain smouldering tendencies among the American Right, while simultaneously - as is usually the case at the start of wars - pushing American politics and most of its population in a sharply rightward direction; all of which has taken place under an unexpectedly right-wing Administration. If this leads to a crude military response, then the terrorists will have achieved part of their purpose, which was to provoke the other side to indiscriminate retaliation, and thereby increase their own support.

    It is too early to say for sure how US strategies and attitudes will develop. At the time of writing Afghanistan is the focus, but whatever happens there, it isn't clear whether the US Administration will go on to launch a more general campaign of military pressure against other states which have supported terrorist groups, and if so, what states and what kind of military pressure? US policy is already pulled in two predictable but contradictory directions, amply illustrated in the op-ed pages of US newspapers and in debates within the Government.

    The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies. There are the beginnings, too, of a real public debate on how US policy needs to be changed and shaped to fight the new 'war'. All this is reminiscent of US attitudes and behaviour at the start of the Cold War, when Communism was identified as the central menace to the US and to Western capitalism and democracy in general.

    On the other hand, the public desire for revenge has strengthened certain attitudes - especially in the Republican Party and media, as well as parts of the Administration - which, if they prevail, will not only be dangerous in themselves, but will make the search for real allies difficult. And real allies are essential, above all in the Arab and Muslim worlds. In the longer run, only the full co-operation of Arab regimes - along with reform and economic development - can prevent the recruitment, funding and operations of Arab-based terrorist groups.

    As for Europe, British military support may be unconditional, but most European countries - Russia among them - are likely to restrict their help to intelligence and policing. Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take.

    Yet a blank cheque is precisely what the Administration, and the greater part of US public opinion, are asking for. This is Jim Hoagland, veteran establishment foreign correspondent and commentator, in the generally liberal Washington Post:

    "Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many of the other Arab states Powell hopes to recruit for the bin Laden posse have long been part of the problem, not part of the solution to international terrorism. These states cannot be given free passes for going through the motions of helping the United States. And European allies cannot be allowed to order an appetiser of bin Laden and not share in the costs of the rest of a meal cooked in hell."

    If this is the Post, then the sentiments in the right-wing press and the tabloids can well be imagined. Here is Tod Lindberg, the editor of Policy Review, writing in the Washington Times:

    "The United States is now energetically in the business of making governments pick a side: either with us and against the terrorists, or against us and with them... Against the category of enemy stands the category of 'friend'. Friends stand with us. Friends do whatever they can to help. Friends don't, for example, engage in commerce with enemies, otherwise they aren't friends."

    A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. Now it has spread and, for the moment at least, some rather important ideas have almost vanished from the public debate: among them, that other states have their own national interests, and that in the end nothing compels them to help the US; that they, too, have been the victims of terrorism - in the case of Britain, largely funded from groups in the United States - but have not insisted on a right of unilateral military retaliation (this point was made by Niall Ferguson in the New York Times, but not as yet in any op-ed by an American that I have seen); and that in some cases these states may actually know more about their own part of the world than US intelligence does.

    Beyond the immediate and unforeseeable events in Afghanistan - and their sombre implications for Pakistan - lies the bigger question of US policy in the Arab world. Here, too, Administration policy may well be a good deal more cautious than the opinions of the right-wing media would suggest - which again is fortunate, because much opinion on this subject is more than rabid. Here is AM Rosenthal in the Washington Times arguing that an amazing range of states should be given ultimatums to surrender not only alleged terrorists but also their own senior officials accused by the US of complicity:

    "The ultimatum should go to the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan and any other devoted to the elimination of the United States or the constant incitement of hatred against it... In the three days the terrorists consider the American ultimatum, the residents of the countries would be urged 24 hours a day by the United States to flee the capital and major cities, because they would be bombed to the ground beginning the fourth."

    Rosenthal isn't a figure from the lunatic fringe ranting on a backwoods radio show, but the former executive editor of the New York Times, writing in a paper with great influence in the Republican Party, especially under the present Administration.

    No Administration is going to do anything remotely like this. But if the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has emerged as the voice of moderation, with a proper commitment to multilateralism, other voices are audible, too. Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, has spoken of "ending states which support terrorism", and in the case of Iraq, there are those who would now like to complete the work of the Gulf War and finish off Saddam Hussein.

    Here, too, the mood of contempt for allies contributes to the ambition. Thus Kim Holmes, vice-president of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, argued that only deference to America's Arab allies prevented the US from destroying the Iraqi regime in 1991 (the profound unwillingness of Bush Senior to occupy Iraq and take responsibility for the place also played its part in the decision): "To show that this war is not with Islam per se, the US could be tempted to restrain itself militarily and accommodate the complex and contradictory political agendas of Islamic states. This in turn could make the campaign ineffectual, prolonging the problem of terrorism."

    Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is not in itself a bad idea. His is a pernicious regime, a menace to his own people and his neighbours, as well as to the West. And if the Iraqi threat to the Gulf States could be eliminated, US troops might be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia: it was their permanent stationing on the holy soil of Islam that turned Osama bin Laden from an anti-Soviet mujahid into an anti-American terrorist.

    But only if it were to take place in the context of an entirely new policy towards Palestine would the US be able to mount such a campaign without provoking massive unrest across the Arab world; and given what became of promises made during the Gulf War, there would first of all have to be firm evidence of a US change of heart. The only borders between Israel and Palestine which would have any chance of satisfying a majority of Palestinians and Arabs - and conforming to UN resolutions, for what they are worth - would be those of 1967, possibly qualified by an internationalisation of Jerusalem under UN control. This would entail the removal of the existing Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories, and would be absolutely unacceptable to any imaginable Israeli Government. To win Israeli agreement would require not just US pressure, but the threat of a complete breach of relations and the ending of aid.

    There may be those in the Administration who would favour adopting such an approach at a later stage. Bush Sr's was the most anti-Israeli Administration of the past two generations, and was disliked accordingly by the Jewish and other ethnic lobbies. His son's is less beholden to those lobbies than Clinton's was. And it may be that even pro-Israeli US politicians will at some point realise that Israel's survival as such is not an issue: that it is absurd to increase the risk to Washington and New York for the sake of 267 extremist settlers in Hebron and their comrades elsewhere.

    Still, in the short term, a radical shift is unlikely, and an offensive against Iraq would therefore be dangerous. The attacks on New York and the Pentagon and the celebrations in parts of the Arab world have increased popular hostility to the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular, a hostility assiduously stoked by Israeli propaganda. But when it comes to denouncing hate crimes against Muslims - or those taken to be Muslims - within the US, the Administration has behaved decently, perhaps because they have a rather sobering precedent in mind, one which has led to genuine shame: the treatment of Japanese Americans during world war two.

    This shame is the result of an applied historical intelligence that does not extend to the Arab world. Americans tend - and perhaps need - to confuse the symptoms and the causes of Arab anger. Since a key pro-Israel position in the US has been that fundamental Palestinian and Arab grievances must not be allowed legitimacy or even discussed, the only explanation of Arab hostility to the US and its ally must be sought in innate features of Arab society, whether a contemporary culture of anti-semitism (and anti-Americanism) sanctioned by Arab leaderships, or ancient 'Muslim' traditions of hostility to the West.

    All of which may contain some truth: but the central issue, the role of Israeli policies in providing a focus for such hatred, is overwhelmingly ignored. As a result, it is extremely difficult, and mostly impossible, to hold any frank discussion of the most important issue affecting the position of the US in the Middle East or the open sympathy for terrorism in the region. A passionately held nationalism usually has the effect of corrupting or silencing those liberal intellectuals who espouse it. This is the case of Israeli nationalism in the US. It is especially distressing that it should afflict the Jewish liberal intelligentsia, that old bedrock of sanity and tolerance.

    An Administration which wanted a radical change of policy towards Israel would have to generate a new public debate almost from scratch - which would not be possible until some kind of tectonic shift had taken place in American society. Too many outside observers who blame US Administrations forget that on a wide range of issues, it is essentially Congress and not the White House or State Department which determines foreign policy; this is above all true of US aid. An inability or unwillingness to try to work on Congress, as opposed to going through normal diplomatic channels, has been a minor contributory factor to Britain's inability to get any purchase on US policy in recent years.

    The role of Congress brings out what might be called the Wilhelmine aspects of US foreign and security policy. By that I do not mean extreme militarism or a love of silly hats, or even a shared tendency to autism when it comes to understanding the perceptions of other countries, but rather certain structural features in both the Wilhemine and the US system tending to produce over-ambition, and above all a chronic incapacity to choose between diametrically opposite goals. Like Wilhelmine Germany, the US has a legislature with very limited constitutional powers in the field of foreign policy, even though it wields considerable de facto power and is not linked either institutionally or by party discipline to the executive. The resulting lack of any responsibility for actual consequences is a standing invitation to rhetorical grandstanding, and the pursuit of sectional interests at the expense of overall policy.

    Meanwhile, the executive, while in theory supremely powerful in this field, has in fact continually to woo the legislature without ever being able to command its support. This, too, encourages dependence on interest groups, as well as a tendency to overcome differences and gain support by making appeals in terms of overheated patriotism rather than policy. Finally, in both systems, though for completely different reasons, supreme executive power had or has a tendency to fall into the hands of people totally unsuited for any but the ceremonial aspects of the job, and endlessly open to manipulation by advisers, ministers and cliques.

    In the US, this did not matter so much during the Cold War, when a range of Communist threats - real, imagined or fabricated - held the system together in the pursuit of more or less common aims. With the disappearance of the unifying threat, however, there has been a tendency, again very Wilhelmine, to produce ambitious and aggressive policies in several directions simultaneously, often with little reference at all to real US interests or any kind of principle.

    The new 'war against terrorism' in Administration and Congressional rhetoric has been cast as just such a principle, unifying the country and the political establishment behind a common goal and affecting or determining a great range of other policies. The language has been reminiscent of the global struggle against Communism, and confronting Islamist radicalism in the Muslim world does, it's true, pose some of the same challenges, on a less global scale, though possibly with even greater dangers for the world.

    The likelihood that US strategy in the 'war against terrorism' will resemble that of the Cold War is greatly increased by the way Cold War structures and attitudes have continued to dominate the US foreign policy and security elites. Charles Tilly and others have written of the difficulty states have in 'ratcheting down' wartime institutions and especially wartime spending. In the 1990s, this failure on the part of the US to escape its Cold War legacy was a curse, ensuring unnecessarily high military spending in the wrong fields, thoroughly negative attitudes to Russia, 'zero-sum' perceptions of international security issues in general, and perceptions of danger which wholly failed, as we now see, to meet the real threats to security and lives.

    The idea of a National Missile Defense is predicated on a limited revival of the Cold War, with China cast in the role of the Soviet Union and the Chinese nuclear deterrent as the force to be nullified. Bush's foreign and security team is almost entirely a product of Cold War structures and circumscribed by Cold War attitudes (which is not true of the President himself, who was never interested enough in foreign policy; if he can get his mind round the rest of the world, he could well be more of a free-thinker than many of his staff).

    The collapse of the Communist alternative to Western-dominated modernisation and the integration (however imperfect) of Russia and China into the world capitalist order have been a morally and socially ambiguous process, to put it mildly; but in the early 1990s they seemed to promise the suspension of hostility between the world's larger powers. The failure of the US to make use of this opportunity, thanks to an utter confusion between an ideological victory and crudely-defined US geopolitical interests, was a great misfortune which the 'war against terrorism' could in part rectify. Since 11 September, the rhetoric in America has proposed a gulf between the 'civilised' states of the present world system, and movements of 'barbaric', violent protest from outside and below - without much deference to the ambiguities of 'civilisation', or the justifications of resistance to it, remarked on since Tacitus at least.

    How is the Cold War legacy likely to determine the 'war against terrorism'? Despite the general conviction in the Republican Party that it was simply Reagan's military spending and the superiority of the US system which destroyed Soviet Communism, more serious Cold War analysts were always aware that it involved not just military force, or the threat of it, but ideological and political struggle, socio-economic measures, and state-building. The latter in particular is an idea for which the Bush team on their arrival in office had a deep dislike (if only to distance themselves from Clinton's policies), but which they may now rediscover. Foreign aid - so shamefully reduced in the 1990s - was also a key part of the Cold War, and if much of it was poured into kleptocratic regimes like Mobutu's, or wasted on misguided projects, some at least helped produce flourishing economies in Europe and East Asia.

    The Republican Party is not only the party of Goldwater and Reagan, but of Eisenhower, Nixon and Kissinger. Eisenhower is now almost forgotten by the party. 'Eisenhower Republicans', as they refer to themselves, are usually far closer to Tony Blair (or perhaps more accurately, Helmut Schmidt) than anyone the Republican Party has seen in recent years, and I'd wager that the majority of educated Americans have forgotten that the original warning about the influence of the 'military industrial complex' came from Eisenhower.

    Kissinger is still very much alive, however, and his history is a reminder that one aspect of the American capacity for extreme ruthlessness was also a capacity for radical changes of policy, for reconciliation with states hitherto regarded as bitter enemies, and for cold-blooded abandonment of close allies and clients whose usefulness was at an end. It would not altogether surprise me if we were now to see a radical shift towards real co-operation with Russia, and even Iran.

    In general, however, the Cold War legacies and parallels are discouraging and dangerous. To judge by the language used in the days since 11 September, ignorance, demonisation and the drowning out of nuanced debate indicate that much of the US establishment can no more tell the difference between Iran and Afghanistan than they could between China and the Soviet Union in the early 1960s - the inexcusable error which led to the American war in Vietnam. The preference for militarised solutions continues (the 'War on Drugs', which will now have to be scaled back, is an example). Most worryingly, the direct attack on American soil and American civilians - far worse than anything done to the US in the Cold War - means that there is a real danger of a return to Cold War ruthlessness: not just in terms of military tactics and covert operations, but in terms of the repulsive and endangered regimes co-opted as local American clients.

    The stakes are, if anything, a good deal higher than they were during the Cold War. Given what we now know of Soviet policymaking, it is by no means clear that the Kremlin ever seriously contemplated a nuclear strike against America. By contrast, it seems likely that bin Laden et al would in the end use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons if they could deliver them.

    There is also the question of the impact of US strategies (or, in the case of Israel, lack of them) on the unity of the West - assuming that this is of some importance for the wellbeing of humanity. However great the exasperation of many European states with US policy throughout the Cold War, the Europeans were bound into the transatlantic alliance by an obvious Soviet threat - more immediate to them than it was to the US. For the critical first decade of the Cold War, the economies of Europe were hopelessly inferior to that of the US. Today, if European Governments feel that the US is dragging them into unnecessary danger thanks to policies of which they disapprove, they will protest bitterly - as many did during the Cold War - and then begin to distance themselves, which they could not afford to do fifty years ago.

    This is all the more likely if, as seems overwhelmingly probable, the US withdraws from the Balkans - as it has already done in Macedonia - leaving Europeans with no good reason to require a US military presence on their continent. At the same time, the cultural gap between Europeans and Republican America (which does not mean a majority of Americans, but the dominant strain of policy) will continue to widen. 'Who says we share common values with the Europeans?' a senior US politician remarked recently. 'They don't even go to church!' Among other harmful effects, the destruction of this relationship could signal the collapse of whatever hope still exists for a common Western approach to global environmental issues - which would, in the end, pose a greater danger to humanity than that of terrorism.

    · Anatol Lieven is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC.

    [Oct 30, 2016] Anatol Lieven · A Trap of Their Own Making The consequences of the new imperialism · LRB 8 May 2003

    [Oct 29, 2016] Why such the abrupt reversal by Comey, who by all indications is Obama man and helped to squash the investigation?

    Notable quotes:
    "... So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs : October 29, 2016 at 02:08 PM
    (You would suppose that the FBI director is under the control of the Justice Department, but evidently not.)

    Officials warned FBI head about decision on e-mails
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/29/officials-warned-fbi-head-about-decision-mails/AsSTVmOMuZFsg7xnOTmcSK/story.html?event=event25

    Sari Horwitz - Washington Post - October 29, 2016

    WASHINGTON - Senior Justice Department officials warned the FBI that Director James B. Comey's decision to notify Congress about renewing the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server was not consistent with long-standing practices of the department, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

    ... ... ...

    im1dc -> Fred C. Dobbs... , October 29, 2016 at 02:13 PM
    Comely went off the farm all on his own and must answer for his actions. Simple as that.

    BTW, imo this will not impact the outcome of the Election November 8th.

    likbez -> im1dc... October 29, 2016 at 05:29 PM
    "Comely went off the farm all on his own and must answer for his actions. Simple as that."

    IMHO that's extremely naďve. Such a "career limiting move"(CLM) in Washington-speak almost never done "on his own". Exception are whistleblowers like William Binney, who already decided for themselves that "this is the last stand" and are ready to face consequences.

    Few Washington bureaucrats want to became outcasts within the administration, even the lame duck administration. Bureaucracy, at the end, is just another flavor of a political coalition and they tend to cling to power by whatever means possible including criminal.

    Moreover, Comey so far was viewed as an "Obama man" who abruptly squashed the "emailgate" investigation instead of expanding it investigating Bill Clinton for his "accidental" meeting with Loretta Lynch and possibly putting the old fogey on the bench for the obstruction of justice. And who at the end granted immunity to all key members of Clinton entourage including Huma Abedin who proved to be, security wise, not the sharpest tool in the shed.

    See http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocons/Hillary/Emailgate/understanding_hillary_clinton_email_scandal.shtml

    So why such the abrupt reversal?

    The only plausible explanation that I see is that Comey action reflects a deep split within the USA elite including internal cracks and pressure within FBI brass (possibly from rank-and-file investigators, who understand what's going on) as for viability Hillary as the next POTUS.

    I would ask you a very simple question: do you really want a POTUS that has, say, 80% probability to be impeached by the House during the first year of his/her administration?

    And any security specialist will tell you that Hillary creation of "shadow IT" within the State Department is a crime. The behavior that would never be tolerated not only in super-secretive State Department (which recently assumed some functions previously performed by CIA), but in any large corporation.

    It also might well be that there are new highly compromising evidence (not necessary from Wiener case) which changed the "grand calculation".

    Here is an interesting post that I recently come across:
    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/27/team-clinton-head-emails-published-wikileaks-mood/#comment-2971488944

    DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ

    Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):

    So here's the REAL story.​ ​

    Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission.

    Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway.

    An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA

    Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.

    It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.

    Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not.

    Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.

    So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS.

    Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft was called in because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.

    [Oct 29, 2016] Dont worry, Lloyd Blankfein is checking Comeys work

    Notable quotes:
    "... FBI today placed the Weiner investigation under their crack Special Agent for Witness Liquidation, Aaron McFarlane ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Cleanup October 28, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    Don't worry, Lloyd Blankfein is checking Comey's work.

    FBI today placed the Weiner investigation under their crack Special Agent for Witness Liquidation, Aaron McFarlane.

    [Oct 29, 2016] Comey was forced to tell Congress the Clinton e-mail investigation was being reopened. If he did not then sure as hell the existence of those e-mails on the Weiner computer would be leaked.

    People started to demand Hillary scalp...
    Notable quotes:
    "... FBI agents looking at Weiners weiner on his laptop, sees tons of Huma emails and Clinton emails, turn and tell their boss they are disgusted with all this and he needs to disrupt her winning office or they are going public. That's what happened! ..."
    "... I think you are spot on with that observation. Comey was forced to tell Congress the Clinton e-mail investigation was being reopened. If he did not then sure as hell the existence of those e-mails on the Weiner computer would be leaked. ..."
    "... I agree, it is all puppet theatre with some humor added. The more outrageous the more believable, right? ..."
    "... It achieves some "unity" around Trump when there wasn't enough going down the home stretch, it became OBVIOUS she's not a winner, which anyone with half a brain has known since she announced? So maybe they are pulling the plug and she's been beat officially? Which leaves the question is Trump for real? ..."
    "... I must say, fake or not he fought hard? I like Trump. I hope he realizes if he did decide to do GOOD, he could become very powerful. Why these leaders get to these positions and give it all up for a little greed is beyond me? They could be 10 times more powerful by just being GOOD? You've got the money Trump, if your GOOD, you'll obtain the power? Trump has some political capital and makes him more attractive to the establishment. My guess is, im being too optimistic for good things to happen? I hope Im wrong. ..."
    "... The Clintons are a great success story. They never set out to be legal, only not to get sent to jail. By this standard they have succeeded. They have wealth and power and are 2 of the most admired people on earth. Lawyers and fines are just businesses expenses. ..."
    "... I want to share my intentions with my fellow ZH Bloggers and Patriots, beginning today, I am going to be sending a series of communications directly to Paul Ryan by using his WEBSITE found at the following URL: http://www.speaker.gov/contact ..."
    "... I plan to both encourage and challenge the Speaker. I know many on ZH look at Paul Ryan as a hypocrite. I understand why you may hold this position. I too am very disappointed with recent REPUBLICAN positions and communications. However, now is the time to unite as "WE THE PEOPLE". All of the data is suggesting that leadership within US Government Agencies is corrupted by special interests and their own fleshly nature. We see evidence of TREASON everywhere. But I believe brighter days lie ahead for America at least in the short term. ..."
    "... AMERICA has lost her way and this needs to be corrected. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    TahoeBilly2012 Rubicon Oct 29, 2016 9:46 AM ,
    FBI agents looking at Weiners weiner on his laptop, sees tons of Huma emails and Clinton emails, turn and tell their boss they are disgusted with all this and he needs to disrupt her winning office or they are going public. That's what happened!
    Tarjan TahoeBilly2012 Oct 29, 2016 10:18 AM ,
    I think you are spot on with that observation. Comey was forced to tell Congress the Clinton e-mail investigation was being reopened. If he did not then sure as hell the existence of those e-mails on the Weiner computer would be leaked.
    joego1 Tarjan Oct 29, 2016 1:15 PM ,
    Check this out;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgbEj-YyEIQ

    The FBI's hand was forced by Anonymous.

    Wow72 lil dirtball Oct 29, 2016 11:07 AM ,
    I agree, it is all puppet theatre with some humor added. The more outrageous the more believable, right?

    It achieves some "unity" around Trump when there wasn't enough going down the home stretch, it became OBVIOUS she's not a winner, which anyone with half a brain has known since she announced? So maybe they are pulling the plug and she's been beat officially? Which leaves the question is Trump for real?

    I must say, fake or not he fought hard? I like Trump. I hope he realizes if he did decide to do GOOD, he could become very powerful. Why these leaders get to these positions and give it all up for a little greed is beyond me? They could be 10 times more powerful by just being GOOD? You've got the money Trump, if your GOOD, you'll obtain the power? Trump has some political capital and makes him more attractive to the establishment. My guess is, im being too optimistic for good things to happen? I hope Im wrong.

    I've been burned so many times by BIG GOV. both DEM & REP? I just cant trust anyone that is near it?

    They take lots of ideas from ZH these days, and its not good..... ZH offers them the ideas, the power, and the creativity of the crowd. They use it against us, a very powerful tool.

    Kidbuck Fester Oct 29, 2016 10:56 AM ,
    The Clintons are a great success story. They never set out to be legal, only not to get sent to jail. By this standard they have succeeded. They have wealth and power and are 2 of the most admired people on earth. Lawyers and fines are just businesses expenses.
    GUS100CORRINA Fester Oct 29, 2016 11:07 AM ,
    I want to share my intentions with my fellow ZH Bloggers and Patriots, beginning today, I am going to be sending a series of communications directly to Paul Ryan by using his WEBSITE found at the following URL: http://www.speaker.gov/contact

    I plan to both encourage and challenge the Speaker. I know many on ZH look at Paul Ryan as a hypocrite. I understand why you may hold this position. I too am very disappointed with recent REPUBLICAN positions and communications. However, now is the time to unite as "WE THE PEOPLE". All of the data is suggesting that leadership within US Government Agencies is corrupted by special interests and their own fleshly nature. We see evidence of TREASON everywhere. But I believe brighter days lie ahead for America at least in the short term.

    AMERICA has lost her way and this needs to be corrected.

    I encourage everyone who reads this message to send a note to the SPEAKER encouraging him to do four things:

    1. Get on board the TRUMP/PENCE train no matter what it takes which includes eating "HUMBLE PIE".
    2. Go after Hillary R. Clinton and press for swift and immediate justice.
    3. Enforce existing laws for TREASON that are on the books.
    4. Do whatever it takes to ensure the integrity of the American POTUS Election process. MAKE OUR VOTE COUNT.

    I plan to do this today and will be sending the speaker notes and comments from ZH.

    If everyone contacts the SPEAKER, he will get the POINT.

    GOD's SPEED in whatever you decide to do as a CITIZEN of these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    [Oct 29, 2016] A recent linguistic analysis cited in the New York Times speculates without any real trace of evidence that the hackers language in threats against Sony was written by a native Russian speaker and not a native Korean speaker

    Notable quotes:
    "... An important thing about that Time article regarding the Sony Hack is that it is almost two years old. Important because I'm still having to tell people that despite what the President and the government said North Korea didn't hack Sony because of a really bad movie, but that insiders did it for reasons that were never part of the media blitz about it. And believe me, considering that Clinton is lying through her teeth beyond even the government about this, I point this out a lot. ..."
    "... Something that jumped out at me in December 2014 was a blog post by David E Martin. His blog post more or less laid out the whole game plan–and in so doing, I suspect he thwarted the planned story line. It was amazing to read that the whole plot had actually been presented to Congress years before. ..."
    "... I'm inferring his intention in writing the post was to spill enough beans to prevent a catastrophic false flag event, as that is why he wrote his book "Coup d'Twelve" . (He spoke about this on numerous radio interviews at the time, and as also discussed it in person.) ..."
    "... Never let an opportunity for a bit of Russian bashing go to waste it seems. Is there anything at all in the history of the entire world that the Russians aren't responsible for? ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Pat October 26, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    An important thing about that Time article regarding the Sony Hack is that it is almost two years old. Important because I'm still having to tell people that despite what the President and the government said North Korea didn't hack Sony because of a really bad movie, but that insiders did it for reasons that were never part of the media blitz about it. And believe me, considering that Clinton is lying through her teeth beyond even the government about this, I point this out a lot.

    TheCatSaid October 26, 2016 at 8:32 pm

    Something that jumped out at me in December 2014 was a blog post by David E Martin. His blog post more or less laid out the whole game plan–and in so doing, I suspect he thwarted the planned story line. It was amazing to read that the whole plot had actually been presented to Congress years before.

    I'm inferring his intention in writing the post was to spill enough beans to prevent a catastrophic false flag event, as that is why he wrote his book "Coup d'Twelve" . (He spoke about this on numerous radio interviews at the time, and as also discussed it in person.)

    Foy October 26, 2016 at 9:09 pm

    I had to laugh when I read this in the article though:

    "A recent linguistic analysis cited in the New York Times found that the hackers' language in threats against Sony was written by a native Russian speaker and not a native Korean speaker."

    Never let an opportunity for a bit of Russian bashing go to waste it seems. Is there anything at all in the history of the entire world that the Russians aren't responsible for?

    [Oct 29, 2016] Accusations of racism as a method to squash social resistance to neoliberalism

    Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Carolinian October 28, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    Or the racism of the middle class. People are tribal and arguably it is baked into our DNA. That doesn't excuse the mental laziness of trafficking in stereotypes but one could make a case that racism is as much a matter of ignorance as of evil character.

    Obama with his "bitter clingers" and HIllary with her "deplorables" are talking about people about whom they probably know almost nothing.

    One of the long ago arguments for school integration was that propinquity fosters mutual understanding. This met with a lot of resistance. And for people like our Pres and would be Pres a broader view of the electorate would be inconvenient.

    They might have to turn into actual liberals.

    [Oct 29, 2016] Phishing for Fools, Hipster Edition

    Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    allan October 28, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    Phishing for Fools, Hipster Edition:

    Emails show how Clinton campaign chairman apparently hacked [AP]

    New evidence appears to show how hackers earlier this year stole more than 50,000 emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, an audacious electronic attack blamed on Russia's government and one that has resulted in embarrassing political disclosures about Democrats in the final weeks before the U.S. presidential election.

    The hackers sent John Podesta an official-looking email on Saturday, March 19, that appeared to come from Google. It warned that someone in Ukraine had obtained Podesta's personal Gmail password and tried unsuccessfully to log in, and it directed him to a website where he should "change your password immediately."

    Podesta's chief of staff, Sara Latham, forwarded the email to the operations help desk of Clinton's campaign, where staffer Charles Delavan in Brooklyn, New York, wrote back 25 minutes later, "This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately."

    But the email was not authentic. …

    Lambert Strether Post author October 29, 2016 at 12:49 am

    And if the ploy was that low-grade, that means that the Russki superbrains in the KGB didn't have to be behind it. Dear Lord.

    This really is a hubris followed by nemesis thing, isn't it? And how sad it is, how tragic, that it was Brooklyn that brought Podesta down. Somehow I think Delavan is going to have a hard time getting a job in politics again, but he did the country a great service.

    TheCatSaid October 29, 2016 at 1:17 pm

    Social engineering wins again. This was something I learned about long ago when Black Box Voting.org started (approx. 2004). It was one of the many vulnerabilities in various points of election systems, both with paper and paperless. Very easy to get officials to reveal passwords that allowed access–that's in addition to the corruption situations. (Or rather, the social engineering angle would be just one of the tools used by insiders.)

    [Oct 29, 2016] Im With Her - Against Hillarys Malevolent Matriarchy

    Notable quotes:
    "... In recent interviews, Donald Trump's wife, Melania Trump, observed wryly that almost every malicious, lie-filled article about herself or he husband was written by a … female. ..."
    "... On the Soviet-style witch-hunt launched against her husband with media mediation, she said this: "All sexual assault allegations should be handled in a court of law. To accuse someone, man or woman, without evidence is damaging and unfair." ..."
    "... The very embodiment of the malevolent liberal matriarchy rising is the sainted Michelle Obama. The First Lady was lauded for an unhinged anti-Trump address to the nation's women. ..."
    Oct 26, 2016 | www.unz.com

    In recent interviews, Donald Trump's wife, Melania Trump, observed wryly that almost every malicious, lie-filled article about herself or he husband was written by a … female.

    ... ... ...

    When a liberal woman declares she's a strong woman (usually uttered in a tart-like, staccato inflection), she's using a cliché. Look at her actions. You'll see that "strong" to liberal distaff means kicking and screaming until she brings others into compliance with her worldview and ways.

    ... ... ...

    More material than her mien were Melania Trump's words of reason. On the Soviet-style witch-hunt launched against her husband with media mediation, she said this: "All sexual assault allegations should be handled in a court of law. To accuse someone, man or woman, without evidence is damaging and unfair."

    This was the exact verdict of famed defense attorney Tom Mesereau, about the Bill Cosby pile-on. Quit the feeding frenzy. Give the man his due process. Investigate the women, counseled Mesereau, Esq., at the time.

    ... ... ...

    The very embodiment of the malevolent liberal matriarchy rising is the sainted Michelle Obama. The First Lady was lauded for an unhinged anti-Trump address to the nation's women. In a world where Americans have been beheaded on camera, women raped en masse on Europe's streets, and Christians exterminated in the Middle East-the First Lady bewailed being "shaken" to her shallow core by raunchy words. "I can't stop thinking about it," groaned Michelle about Mr. Trump's Access Hollywood indiscretion. It "has shaken me to my core in a way I could not have predicted."

    [Oct 29, 2016] Sometimes Bill And Hillary Have The Worst Judgment Wikileaks Releases Part 22 Of Podesta File

    Notable quotes:
    "... and concludes by saying that " Sometimes HRC/WJC have the worst judgement ." In retrospect, she is right. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    In the aftermath of one of the most memorable (c)october shocks in presidential campaign history, Wikileaks continues its ongoing broadside attack against the Clinton campaign with the relentless Podesta dump, by unveiling another 596 emails in the latest Part 22 of its Podesta release, bringing the total emails released so far to exactly 36,190, leaving less than 30% of the total dump left to go.

    RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 22 #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails22 #HillaryClinton https://t.co/wzxeh70oUm pic.twitter.com/QnWewcpPbf

    - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 29, 2016

    As usual we will go parse through the disclosure and bring you some of the more notable ones.

    * * *

    In a February 2012 email from Chelsea Clinton's NYU alias, [email protected] , to Podesta and Mills, Bill and Hillary's frustrated daughter once again points out the "frustration and confusion" among Clinton Foundation clients in the aftermath of the previously noted scandals plaguing the Clinton consultancy, Teneo:

    Over the past few days a few people from the Foundation have reached out to me frustrated or upset about _____ (fill in the blank largely derived meetings Friday or Monday). I've responded to all w/ essentially the following (ie disintermediating myself, again, emphatically) below. I also called my Dad last night to tell him of my explicit non-involvement and pushing all back to you both and to him as I think that is indeed the right answer. Thanks

    Sample: Please share any and all concerns, with examples, without pulling punches, with John and Cheryl as appropriate and also if you feel very strongly with my Dad directly. Transitions are always challenging and to get to the right answer its critical that voices are heard and understood, and in the most direct way - ie to them without intermediation. Particularly in an effort to move more toward a professionalism and efficiency at the Foundation and for my father - and they're the decision-makers, my Dad most of all

    * * *

    A February 2015 email from Neera Tanden lashes out at David Brock of the Bonner Group, profiled in this post: " Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicated ." As a reminder, the Bonner Group, as we showed last month, may be a money laundering front involving various SuperPACs and non-profit institutions:

    In the email Tanden says that:

    "Brock/Bonner are a nightmare: Really, Suzie Buell isn't giving to the superpac? I wonder how that got in this story " Big donors holding off making pledges to pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC ",

    and concludes by saying that " Sometimes HRC/WJC have the worst judgement ." In retrospect, she is right.

    * * *

    Speaking of "donor advisor" Mary Pat Bonner , the following email from March 2009 hints at potential impropriety in shifting money from one democratic donor group to another, the Center for American Progress :

    I have moved all the sussman money from unity '09 to cap and am reviewing the others . I will assess it and keep you informed

    Something else for the DOJ to look into after the elections, perhaps?

    * * *

    And then there is this email from August 2015 in which German politician Michael Werz advises John Podesta that Turkish president Erdogan "is making substantial investments in U.S. to counter opposition (CHP, Kurds, Gulenists etc.) outreach to policymakers" and the US Government.

    John, heard this second hand but more than once. Seems Erdogan faction is making substantial investments in U.S. to counter opposition (CHP, Kurds, Gulenists etc.) outreach to policymakers and USG. Am told that the Erdogan crew also tries to make inroads via donations to Democratic candidates, including yours. Two names that you should be aware of are *Mehmet Celebi* and *Ali Cinar*. Happy to elaborate on the phone, provided you are not shopping at the liquor store.

    The email :

    This should perhaps explain why the US has so far done absolutely nothing to halt Erdogan's unprecedented crackdown on "coup plotters" which has seen as many as 100,000 workers lose their jobs, be arrested, or otherwise removed from Erdogan's political opposition.

    [Oct 29, 2016] Only 29% of those who said that they would vote for Clinton said their vote was intended to stop Trump from getting to the White House. By contrast, 43% of Trump voters said their decision was a defensive vote against Clinton

    Oct 29, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Polling offers some clues . Last week, George Washington University released the results of a survey of 1,000 adults who said they were registered and likely to vote. Only 29% of those who said that they would vote for Clinton said their vote was intended to stop Trump from getting to the White House. By contrast, 43% of Trump voters said their decision was a defensive vote against Clinton.

    That doesn't necessarily get us any closer to forecasting the results. It's a fact that voter turnout will shape this election outcome but it's much harder to predict how human nature might affect that turnout. What drives people to action more – support for a set of values or fear of the alternatives? Love or hate?

    [Oct 29, 2016] A Presidency From Hell by Patrick J. Buchanan

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moreover, thousands of emails were erased from her server, even after she had reportedly been sent a subpoena from Congress to retain them. During her first two years as secretary of state, half of her outside visitors were contributors to the Clinton Foundation. Yet there was not a single quid pro quo, Clinton tells us. ..."
    "... Pat is oh-so right: "This election is not over." In fact it's likely that Donald Trump will continue to surge and will win on November 8th. ..."
    "... Remember: Many of the polls claiming to show statistically significant Clinton leads were commissioned by the same corrupt news organizations that have worked for months to bias their news coverage in an attempt to throw the election to Clinton. ..."
    "... The problem facing the donor class and the party elites is that Trump supporters are not swayed by the media bias. A recent Gallup poll shows Americans trust in journalists to be at its lowest level since Gallup began asking the question. ..."
    "... Americans are savvy to the media's rigging of election reporting. Election Day, Nov. 8th, will show that the dishonest reporting of the mainstream media and the cooked samplings of their polls were all for naught. ..."
    "... More years of bank favoritism, corporate socialism, political corruption, failed social programs, deindustrialization, open borders lawlessness, erosion of liberties, interventionism and wage stagnation is all adding more steam to the pressure cooker. ..."
    "... A Trump presidency would back the pressure off, a Clinton presidency would be a disaster. ..."
    "... Why does PJB, of all people, cling to the abhorrent notion that presidential "greatness" is defined by territorial aggrandizement through war? ..."
    "... Unfortunately, that new evidence of the Clinton Criminal Enterprise (CCE) caused nary a ripple in the MSM. It was merely noted in the Crony lapdog Washington Post and then quickly submerged into the bottom of the content swamp. The Clinton WikiLeaks documents and the James O'Keefe corruption videos are marginalized or not even acknowledged to exist by the various MSM outlets. ..."
    "... Hillary is probably guilty of a lot of things. However, evidence from the counter-media and/or Congress means nothing to the MSM. In fact the MSM will actually conjure up a multitude of baseless red herrings to protect Hillary. E.g., the Trump as Putin puppet meme as a diversion away from documented Clinton corruption. ..."
    "... The anti-Hillary elements can only mutually reinforce in their internet ghettos. Those ghettos do not provide enough political leverage to move against a President Hillary no matter how compelling the evidence of the Clinton's collective criminality. In that context, Hillary will be politically inoculated by the protective MSM against Republican congressional inquiries and attacks. ..."
    "... Hillary's presidency will almost certainly be a catastrophe because it will manifest the haggard, corrupt, cronied-up, parasitic and mediocre qualities of the hack sitting in the Oval Office. Expect a one term fiasco and then Hillary will stumble out of the White House as even more of a political and personal wreck. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    ... ... ...

    Moreover, thousands of emails were erased from her server, even after she had reportedly been sent a subpoena from Congress to retain them. During her first two years as secretary of state, half of her outside visitors were contributors to the Clinton Foundation. Yet there was not a single quid pro quo, Clinton tells us.

    Yesterday's newspapers exploded with reports of how Bill Clinton aide Doug Band raised money for the Clinton Foundation, and then hit up the same corporate contributors to pay huge fees for Bill's speeches.

    What were the corporations buying if not influence? What were the foreign contributors buying, if not influence with an ex-president, and a secretary of state and possible future president?

    Did none of the big donors receive any official favors?

    "There's a lot of smoke and there's no fire," says Hillary Clinton.

    Perhaps, but there seems to be more smoke every day.

    If once or twice in her hours of testimony to the FBI, to a grand jury, or before Congress, Clinton were proven to have lied, her Justice Department would be obligated to name a special prosecutor, as was Nixon's.

    And, with the election over, the investigative reporters of the adversary press, Pulitzers beckoning, would be cut loose to go after her.

    The Republican House is already gearing up for investigations that could last deep into Clinton's first term.

    There is a vast trove of public and sworn testimony from Hillary, about the server, the emails, the erasures, the Clinton Foundation. Now, thanks to WikiLeaks, there are tens of thousands of emails to sift through, and perhaps tens of thousands more to come.

    What are the odds that not one contains information that contradicts her sworn testimony? Rep. Jim Jordan contends that Clinton may already have perjured herself.

    And as the full-court press would begin with her inauguration, Clinton would have to deal with the Syrians, the Russians, the Taliban, the North Koreans, and Xi Jinping in the South China Sea-and with Bill Clinton wandering around the White House with nothing to do.

    This election is not over. But if Hillary Clinton wins, a truly hellish presidency could await her, and us.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority


    Kurt Gayle , says: October 27, 2016 at 11:55 pm

    Pat is oh-so right: "This election is not over." In fact it's likely that Donald Trump will continue to surge and will win on November 8th.

    Remember: Many of the polls claiming to show statistically significant Clinton leads were commissioned by the same corrupt news organizations that have worked for months to bias their news coverage in an attempt to throw the election to Clinton.

    On the other hand, several polls with a history of accuracy have consistently shown either a Trump lead or a statistical dead-heat.

    The problem facing the donor class and the party elites is that Trump supporters are not swayed by the media bias. A recent Gallup poll shows Americans trust in journalists to be at its lowest level since Gallup began asking the question.

    Americans are savvy to the media's rigging of election reporting. Election Day, Nov. 8th, will show that the dishonest reporting of the mainstream media and the cooked samplings of their polls were all for naught.

    Thus, fortunately, the American people will avoid the spectacle of a "truly hellish" Clinton presidency.

    Matt , says: October 28, 2016 at 12:58 am
    More years of bank favoritism, corporate socialism, political corruption, failed social programs, deindustrialization, open borders lawlessness, erosion of liberties, interventionism and wage stagnation is all adding more steam to the pressure cooker.

    A Trump presidency would back the pressure off, a Clinton presidency would be a disaster.

    William N. Grigg , says: October 28, 2016 at 1:13 am
    James Polk, no charmer, was a one-term president, but a great one, victorious in the Mexican War, annexing California and the Southwest, negotiating a fair division of the Oregon territory with the British.

    Why does PJB, of all people, cling to the abhorrent notion that presidential "greatness" is defined by territorial aggrandizement through war?

    Michael Bienner , says: October 28, 2016 at 1:36 am
    Tyranny is upon us…
    Brian J. , says: October 28, 2016 at 7:17 am
    The only people responsible for that "cloud" are conservatives. If you wish to prevent the horrid fate that you're describing, Pat, you need to apologize and concede that these investigations are groundless. You can't say "where there's smoke, there's fire" if we can all see your smoke machine.
    PAXNOW , says: October 28, 2016 at 7:29 am
    The Visigoths will continue their advance on Rome by the millions. The Supreme Court and Fed will shy away from diversity in their numbers. The alternative media will go bonkers, but to no avail. The military will provide employment (endless wars) to those displaced by a permissive immigration policy. Elizabeth I – will look down (up) in envy.
    David , says: October 28, 2016 at 7:46 am
    "Cloud" is an understatement.
    SteveM , says: October 28, 2016 at 8:34 am
    Re: "Yesterday's newspapers exploded with reports of how Bill Clinton aide Doug Band raised money for the Clinton Foundation, and then hit up the same corporate contributors to pay huge fees for Bill's speeches."

    Unfortunately, that new evidence of the Clinton Criminal Enterprise (CCE) caused nary a ripple in the MSM. It was merely noted in the Crony lapdog Washington Post and then quickly submerged into the bottom of the content swamp. The Clinton WikiLeaks documents and the James O'Keefe corruption videos are marginalized or not even acknowledged to exist by the various MSM outlets.

    Hillary is probably guilty of a lot of things. However, evidence from the counter-media and/or Congress means nothing to the MSM. In fact the MSM will actually conjure up a multitude of baseless red herrings to protect Hillary. E.g., the Trump as Putin puppet meme as a diversion away from documented Clinton corruption.

    The anti-Hillary elements can only mutually reinforce in their internet ghettos. Those ghettos do not provide enough political leverage to move against a President Hillary no matter how compelling the evidence of the Clinton's collective criminality. In that context, Hillary will be politically inoculated by the protective MSM against Republican congressional inquiries and attacks.

    Hillary's presidency will almost certainly be a catastrophe because it will manifest the haggard, corrupt, cronied-up, parasitic and mediocre qualities of the hack sitting in the Oval Office. Expect a one term fiasco and then Hillary will stumble out of the White House as even more of a political and personal wreck.

    Agree with Pat though that it's going to be a wild ride for the rest of us – straight down.

    P.S. A Republican Congress does have the power of the purse and could shave away Clinton's Imperial use of the executive branch. But the feckless Congress has never been intelligent enough to utilize that power effectively.

    Mike Schilling , says: October 28, 2016 at 9:31 am
    And if anyone would know about clouds of mistrust, it's a Nixon staffer/
    Kurt Gayle , says: October 28, 2016 at 9:58 am
    SteveM makes excellent points about the mainstream media cover-up of the Wikileaks revelations:

    "Unfortunately, that new evidence of the Clinton Criminal Enterprise (CCE) caused nary a ripple in the MSM. It was merely noted in the Crony lapdog Washington Post and then quickly submerged into the bottom of the content swamp. The Clinton WikiLeaks documents and the James O'Keefe corruption videos are marginalized or not even acknowledged to exist by the various MSM outlets."

    Alex Pfeiffer (The Daily Caller) expands upon SteveM's critique in "The Anatomy Of A Press Cover-Up." Great stuff:

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/27/the-anatomy-of-a-press-cover-up/

    Viriato , says: October 28, 2016 at 10:14 am
    @William N. Grigg: "Why does PJB, of all people, cling to the abhorrent notion that presidential "greatness" is defined by territorial aggrandizement through war?"

    Yes, that's one aspect of PJB's thought that has long disturbed me. Granted, PJB is a nationalist, and I can see why an old-fashioned nationalist would admire Polk. But PJB also advocates an "enlightened nationalism." There's nothing enlightened about stealing someone else's land. Frankly, I fail to see how Polk's actions are any different from Hitler's actions a century later. I don't want to offend anyone but, I'm sorry… this needs to be said.

    Viriato , says: October 28, 2016 at 10:24 am
    I greatly admire Pat Buchanan, but this article is rather ridiculous.

    "If once or twice in her hours of testimony to the FBI, to a grand jury, or before Congress, Clinton were proven to have lied, her Justice Department would be obligated to name a special prosecutor, as was Nixon's."

    Translation: "I want revenge for Watergate."

    Look, I admire Nixon. I think he was one of our greatest Presidents. I really mean that. I also think that he was unfairly subjected to a witch hunt and that there was no valid reason for him to have faced the prospect of impeachment (and the same is true, in my view, for both of the Presidents who were actually impeached, interestingly enough). Nixon should have been allowed to finish his second term.

    I think Hillary Clinton is also facing a witch hunt. I don't agree with her foreign policy views or with many of her domestic policy views, but this vicious attempt by the GOP to take her down needs to stop. There is no evidence that she is any more corrupt than anybody else.

    And, in any case, if she gets elected, she will be entitled to serve as President. To deliberately try to sabotage her Presidency by hounding her with these investigations would be to show profound contempt for democratic norms.

    Enough already. I don't support Clinton or Trump. Jill Stein is my gal now. But I hope that whoever wins does a great job and that all goes well for them. Nothing else would be in the best interests of the country or the world.

    KevinS , says: October 28, 2016 at 10:43 am
    "Remember: Many of the polls claiming to show statistically significant Clinton leads were commissioned by the same corrupt news organizations that have worked for months to bias their news coverage in an attempt to throw the election to Clinton.
    On the other hand, several polls with a history of accuracy have consistently shown either a Trump lead or a statistical dead-heat."

    We heard this in 2012. Go back and read the Free Republic election night thread to see how such comforting thoughts came crashing down as the night went on. Then read the posts today…all the exact same people saying all the exact same things.

    Karel , says: October 28, 2016 at 12:53 pm
    For a society to work well and to succeed, the good-will (trust and support) of it's productive, tax-paying citizens is of paramount importance. The corrupt politics in DC for the last 25 years has used up this good-will. Only few trust these elitists , as evidenced by the success of the socialist, Sanders, and Trump.

    With the election of the corrupt, lying, unaccomplished politician, the legitimacy of the D.C. "Leaders" will be gone. It would be a disaster!

    KennethF , says: October 28, 2016 at 1:05 pm
    " She would enter office as the least-admired president in history, without a vision or a mandate. She would take office with two-thirds of the nation believing she is untruthful and untrustworthy. "

    Funny you should go there. Sure, HRC has historically high unfavorability ratings. Fact: DJT's unfavorability ratings are even higher. Check any reasonably non-partisan site such as RCP or 538.

    Pretty much all the negatives about HRC are trumped by Trump. His flip-flopping makes hers look amateur: he used to be a pro-choice Democrat; has publicly espoused admiration for HRC and declared that WJC was unfairly criticized for his transgressions. Integrity: he's stiffed countless businesses, small and large; he's been sued by his own lawyers for non-payment. Character: he behaves like a child, 'nuff said.

    Corruption: his daddy illegally bailed him out of a financial jam; Trump's foundation makes the Clintons' look legit by comparison.

    With HRC, the GOP had a huge chance to take back the WH: she has plenty of genuine baggage to go along with the made-up stuff. However the GOP managed to nominate the one candidate who makes her transgressions appear tolerable. The end result is that a significant number of moderate Republicans are supporting no one, Johnson, or even HRC. Trump is so toxic that very few progressive Dems will stray from HRC, despite being horrified by her corporate connections.

    Susan , says: October 28, 2016 at 2:46 pm
    Re today: The FBI is not investigating her server. Servers don't send emails on their own. They are investigating Hillary Clinton. They just don't like to say that. I wonder if it's in order to – once again – announce Hillary's "innocence," just before the end of early voting and voting day. We'll see.
    GeneTuttle , says: October 28, 2016 at 2:52 pm
    Once again, Pat shows prescience. The bombshell about the reopened FBI investigation was dropped minutes after I read this article.
    jeff , says: October 28, 2016 at 3:14 pm
    For those interested in a functional government, note that this is three straight elections – over twelve years – where the incoming president is a priori deemed illegitimate, regardless of the scale of the victory, and the opposing political party has no interest in working with that president.

    In fact, some senators and representatives (Cruz, Gowdy, Issa, etc.) seem to take joy and pride in noting the extent and length of these investigations, regardless of what they find. It is the very process of governmental obstruction they seek, not necessarily justice or truth.

    KD , says: October 28, 2016 at 3:26 pm
    Looks like the FBI discovered some new emails:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/

    Could we have a new historic first if Hillary wins, the First Woman President to be impeached by Congress? And the first couple in the history of the Republic to both be impeached?

    dave , says: October 28, 2016 at 3:27 pm
    At some point the Republicans have to be for something. I suppose they will be tempted to go after Ms. Clinton for what she has elided or attempted to, but I think that is a major mistake. You wrote: "Yet the hostility Clinton would face the day she takes office would almost seem to ensure four years of pure hell.
    The reason: her credibility, or rather her transparent lack of it."

    There are a few assumptions in this – first, that any investigations into her past behavior will be impartial. True or not, the impression will be hard to pull off – I expect they will easily be framed as misogynist. And some most likely will be, so it takes a bit of thought and study to determine which are motivated by misogyny and which are not. News cycles are too fast for that sort of reflection, and in any event more or less all the major papers and television networks are in her camp, so can't really expect journalism out of them anymore. It will be a called a misogynist, partisan investigation and that will be the end of it.

    Second, it assumes that the people doing the investigation have credibility. That's a big if – the GOP went from Bush 43's two terms of military adventurism, increasing income inequality and economic catastrophe to no introspection or admission of error in the ensuing 8 years of apparently mindless, vindictive opposition. That is a long time of being kind of – well – less than thoughtful.

    And it's had tremendous costs. Mr. Obama presents as a decent man in his profiles, but he was very inexperienced when elected and in my opinion has more or less been bumbling around for almost 8 years now, kind of like Clouseau in those old Pink Panther movies. Only a lot of people of died, lost their homes or have seen their communities consumed by despair. Government has been very ineffective for many Americans, and the Republicans have a lot to answer for with the way they've chosen to spend their time and direct their energy over the last 8 years. It's been a waste going after Obama, and going after Clinton will just be more of the same.

    And the last assumption is that with all that might be going on in the next few years, this is important. Ms. Clinton has made some statements, some good, some bad. The bad, though, are remarkably bad – she's for invading a Middle Eastern country and establishing control over their airspace, as an example. In 2017. It's pure crazy. She has Democratic support. Hate to think if she is elected the Republicans will be focusing on email.

    [Oct 29, 2016] More journalists to add to the presstitutes list. They were all obvious Clinton hacks though.

    Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    More journalists to add to the shit list. They were all obvious Clinton hacks though.
    https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/792026046191300608

    Lambert Strether Post author October 29, 2016 at 1:45 am

    Why, it's Neera Tanden to John Podesta :

    when bloomberg was having problems w the times he called Arthur schulzburger and asked for coffee. He made the case that they were treating him like a billionaire dilettante instead of Third term mayor. It changed the coverage moderately but also aired the issues in the newsroom so people were more conscious of it. But Arthur is a pretty big wuss so he's not going to do a lot more than that.

    Hillary would have to be the one to call.

    He also thinks the brown and women pundits can shame the times and others on social media. So cultivating Joan Walsh, Yglesias, Allen, perry bacon, Greg Sargent , to defend her is helpful. They can be emboldened. Fwiw - I pushed pir to do this a yr ago.

    "brown and women pundits". Neera so woke.

    aab October 29, 2016 at 3:08 am

    I'm guessing Harvard graduate Matt Yglesias is thrilled to find out that Clintonland views his usefulness primary through the prism of his skin color, particularly given that his family background not actually all that "brown."

    [Oct 29, 2016] 54 graduates of the program training Syrian opposition fighters: it is the first set of trained recruits in a $500,000,000 training program started in May 2015 .

    Notable quotes:
    "... It takes a village of idiots to raise a few more idiots. And that village gets paid. And that cost sink generates more resource and administrative cost sinks. So the nominal costs declared are the tip of a larger boondoggle iceberg. ..."
    "... I know this may be too simplistic a question for someone with the brilliance of Hillary Clinton and our current Military leaders, but would someone explain to me why we need to essentially recruit and train people for a civil war? ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    cocomaan October 26, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    Just a reminder on that 54 graduates of the program training Syrian opposition fighters: it is the first set of trained recruits in a $500,000,000 training program started in May 2015 .

    So if HRC triples that, we will graduate roughly 150 soldiers at the price of 10 million each, if I'm doing my figures correctly. Maybe they should hire contingent faculty and graduate students to handle the 101 courses, they might get the same results for cheaper.

    If you want to know more about Division 30, as this training program's fighting unit is called, read the wiki page , which has some great gems like:

    In September 2015, a second group of Division 30 rebels with 12 Toyota pick-up trucks, medium machine guns and ammunition crossed the Syrian-Turkish border and ended up giving up much of their weaponry and ammunition to the Al-Nusra Front in order to secure passage farther into Syria.[13][14]

    By the end of September 2015, General Lloyd Austin, head of US Central Command, said the remaining members of Division 30 were limited in number, "We're talking four or five". Division 30's current whereabouts are unknown after they allegedly stopped receiving funding and supplies from the U.S.[3]

    I can't even keep track of my coworkers, I have no idea how they can possibly say, "Oh yeah, there's four or five of them left".

    Tom October 26, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    Maybe they should hire contingent faculty and graduate students to handle the 101 courses, they might get the same results for cheaper.

    I'd like to suggest web-based training instead. I mean, we have no problem with remote-controlled drone assasinations, surely a cost-effective distance learning program isn't too much to ask.

    Tom October 26, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    Maybe they should hire contingent faculty and graduate students to handle the 101 courses, they might get the same results for cheaper

    I'd like to suggest web-based training instead. I mean, we have no problem with remote-controlled drone assassinations. Surely a distance-learning, interactive training curriculum for our designated freedom fighters isn't too much to ask. Add in a posttest and certification levels and you've got a Common Core for Democracy.

    JohnnyGL October 26, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    As I recall from reading Seymour Hersh on this….the program was set up as a replacement for the CIA's program to supply rebels, but the Pentagon lost the fight, partially on this. Both programs are still running.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 26, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    You missed the bit where one of our lovely "moderate" groups released video of beheading sick children in hospital beds, and that as a result we were planning to "review" our support of them. I'm sure that "review" is going well, in fact I think they should put McCain in charge of it, after all he knows these "moderates" personally and was filmed sharing lots of yuks and high-fives with them.

    sgt_doom October 26, 2016 at 6:27 pm

    So effectively one-half billion dollars was spent on a total of four or five "soldiers"???

    Massinissa October 26, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    Yeah, which would be crazy until you realize somebody got rich on those five soldiers. And it wasnt the five soldiers either.

    Pirmann October 26, 2016 at 9:56 pm

    Sounds similar to The Clinton Foundation's scope of assistance per dollars spent.

    Lambert Strether October 27, 2016 at 2:17 am

    That's not a bug. It's a feature.

    dk October 27, 2016 at 11:37 am

    It takes a village of idiots to raise a few more idiots. And that village gets paid. And that cost sink generates more resource and administrative cost sinks. So the nominal costs declared are the tip of a larger boondoggle iceberg.

    Pat October 26, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    I know this may be too simplistic a question for someone with the brilliance of Hillary Clinton and our current Military leaders, but would someone explain to me why we need to essentially recruit and train people for a civil war?

    If this war is one that the people have been driven to engage in, wouldn't the real problem be picking the best of the multitudes of volunteers who are dedicated to freeing their country? I seem to remember there being a pretty good number of people behind the US Civil War, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, etc. Sure there was coercion as well, but that was internal not external. Perhaps their problems is not the execution of the 'training', but the fact that they are trying to instigate an unwanted civil war.

    Just a thought, but I do think the Press might want to explore that possible aspect. Because as a betting woman, I'd say the odds are that a whole lot of Americans who have thought about this have come to the same conclusion I have. This isn't about what SYRIANS want.

    DJG October 26, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    +++

    polecat October 26, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    We create our own overseas civil war reality don'tcha know …. !!

    [Oct 28, 2016] German media is worst, because Germans need the most convincing to go to war with Russia

    Oct 28, 2016 | russia-insider.com
    Guest, 2 months ago
    I just want to point out that German media is worst, because Germans need the most convincing to go to war with Russia. The western media now has to combat the anti-war tendencies they propagated onto Germans ever since the end of WW2. If you read the comments on all these anti-Putin propaganda articles, you can tell that Germans hate their own media for doing so.
    Lisa Guest 2 months ago
    Hey, I`m from Germany (Stuttgart), and i can definitely say, that we Germans hate our media and get the informations we need from the Internet. Angela Merkel do what Obama says to her and we can do nothing. if we go to the street and make a Demonstration they say we are nazi or the media say nothing. many People (the old People) in Germany hate Putin and belive the lies from the media, but we, the young people dont belive the lies. We love Putin and wish Angela Merkel will be a little bit like Putin.
    EVcine Lisa 2 months ago
    At least ARD made an apology and have hosted an interview with Putin the UK media does not dare.
    dixi3150 Lisa a month ago
    I'm also German (Lahr, Schwartzwald) and totally agree. NEVER watch German TV. It is like for imbeciles. Cooking, singing, festivals everything to keep us from thinking for ourselves. I also get all my info from sites like this one and many others. Love Putin and think Ouma Merkel sold out to the US.
    Jon Geissinger 2 months ago
    Most of the psyop against Putin and Rus in general is due to the fact that the Central Banks, IMF, Federal Reserve, etc cannot worm their way into Rus for their own purposes. Those banks have destroyed every country that they have managed to get their dirty fingers into; the US included.

    Putin is not a bad man; my ONLY 'problem' with him is his divorce, beyond that, he appears to be above board in every way. NOBODY knows what happened within his family, so it is all tabloid speculation.

    The SECOND major reason that everyone wants to malign Rus (and Putin by proxy) is they have re-appeared on the world stage as a power to be dealt with. They seem to have recovered from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and are working their way into proper capitalism, BUT, again, the fingers of the bankers (hence the West) cannot get their groping claws into the country, so they are pissed! They want Rus to be a colony of the west; to bend on their whim. That did not occur.

    Third is the inability of the US 'security' agencies inability to penetrate and turn Rus into one of their nightmares. CIA, DIA, NSA, etc ALL want to conduct coup's, fiddle with the banking, mess with people's minds, randomly change the power structure at will, but they cannot, so they are pissed off as well.

    NOW that the West appears to be imploding, and the BRICS seem to be getting ready to break loose from the almighty US Dollar, they (the West) are woobeling back and forth with much veracity (typical of an Empire about to topple over on it's own weight). Think of a child's top that is loosing it's spin and is preparing to fall over.

    SO, the only way the powers-that-be can distract the 'public' from the truth is to make up pure BS.

    Johnpd Jon Geissinger 2 months ago
    Excellent. Another point to grasp is that the Banksters do not want a true capitalism, where inefficiency fails, & competition trims profits.
    They want what we now have in the West : a crony corporatist state, where ever fewer giant globalist multinationals dominate both commerce & countries, pay no taxes, to the benefit of their CEOs , shareholders & their banksters.
    In short, effectively, a Fascism.
    Book : Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr. See where those "Atlantic Integrationists" came from.
    David Chu Jon Geissinger 2 months ago
    Putin is not a bad man?!?

    President Putin is probably the Greatest World Leader for a long long time!

    What religious cult do you belong to? Divorce is evil!

    Igor R Jon Geissinger 2 months ago
    Russia today is the only power standing up to the world oligarchy. If Russia falls then we will all be living as slaves behind a barb wired fence, with chips under our skin, etc. etc.
    Webbily Jon Geissinger 2 months ago
    Yes, and Russia has actually been making efforts to keep the dollar afloat, because they know the US hegemons will get even nastier of their precious dollar becomes worthless. Their goal isn't to integrate Ukraine into the EU. They want to create a failed state on Russia's border, and also hopefully engage them militarily in Syria and in places like Chechnya.
    dixi3150 Jon Geissinger a month ago
    The say a rat that is cornered can be very viscous, that's the US.
    Antonio Calabria dixi3150 a day ago
    I don't think viscous is the word you want....
    spin to win Jon Geissinger a month ago
    I've heard tell...Russia's central banking institution does not belong to the state. Does this sound familiar? I do not believe that the international banking system give two turds about the affairs of Russia, unless...Russia moves to control it's own central bank, then there would be real war.
    Bankers have no allegiance except to money!
    patty donovan 2 months ago
    I am an American and hate what my government has done -- Mr Putin is the greatest world leader of our time -- My President is a total mess and a danger to world peace -- He's jealous of Mr Putin --
    cherrie greenbaum123 patty donovan 2 months ago
    Your president (and mine, unfortunately) is a puppet for the Zionists.
    morte al Nuovo ordine cherrie greenbaum123 2 months ago
    It is interesting to speculate what will happen when the dollar falls . The zionist entity will not get the billion of dollars they need to continue with the Apartheid state . The zionists are the major reason the USA is being destroyed from the inside. When there will be nothing to loot in the USA , I bet they will go back to Germany for another round of looting as they did before the advent of Hitler . So those Khazars in about 80 years have destroyed two European nations , Germany and the USA . Given a chance they would do the same with Russia .
    EVcine morte al Nuovo ordine 2 months ago
    Hello -- So now you give a rationale for Nazism. Putin is against the Nazis.
    Antonio Calabria cherrie greenbaum123 2 months ago
    Look, all US Presidents have been and are such puppets. It'd take an awful lot to change that.
    Jon Geissinger patty donovan 2 months ago
    OUR president really is NOT a president, he was installed, not elected. He is a mouthpiece puppet.
    Antonio Calabria Jon Geissinger 2 months ago
    Well, look, we had two national elections, and he won them, fair and square. So a majority of the people in the US chose him. That he's influenced by groups of one sort or another is a separate issue.
    His major problem has been and remains his revanchist mentor, the notorious Polish Brzezinski, who has been pushing him to oppose Russia. Obama is a lawyer, and he has very little knowledge of history, which could have helped him enormously. How? By showing him that bids for mastery of Europe, to think only of that area, which has seen tremendous contention with Russia over Ukraine, are bound to lead to wars if they're not replaced by a healthy respect for spheres of influence of the most important states, i.e., the US and Russia.
    Obama should never have allowed the Fascist coup that brought the Nazi Svoboda and Pravyi Sektor to power after Maidan in Kiev. That fascist government won't survive without US/EU help and funding. That was mistake number one. Mistake number two is even worse, and it's being made now. It is the extremely ill-considered attempt to destroy the pro-Russian Eastern Ukrainians, that is, to reassert Kiev's power over Eastern Ukraine (though it'd take US arms and aid).
    I frankly don't see that any responsible Russian statesman, Tsarist, Communist or post-Communist, could allow as vital and historically linked to Russia an area as Ukraine, let alone Eastern Ukraine, to be removed from Russia's rightful sphere of influence in Europe. If Obama wants peace, he should chuck Brzezinski and leave at the very least Eastern Ukraine, at this point, to the Russophile forces there.
    Samantha patty donovan 2 months ago
    Agree, Patty.
    The same for the un-elected Mandarins in Brussels. They are a real swamp. Lazy, clueless, overpaid and greedy still. They are powerhungry despite their tremendous lack of any political clout. Vasalls through blackmail by 3 letter agencies?
    The same for german Mrs. Merkel. Being a german citizen, I am ashamed of thus woman and her orwellian ,politics'.
    Today, the former CEO of Thyssen-Krupp, Prof. Dr. Dieter Spethmann, a lawyer, called for her urgent removal from the job by publishing an Open Letter in mmnews (a blog).
    dixi3150 patty donovan a month ago
    Whow Patty, an American that is not afraid to say it how it is. Watch out though, the badies are awatchin
    Patty Donovan John H 2 months ago
    I could care less the FBI or CIA comes knocking ..for what ? Voicing an opinion ? Good I will when I tell them to , Screw Off! My opinion sticks! Mr Putin is the greatest world leader of our time and don't expect another one like him for a good long time -- He takes no shit, bribes or bullshit -- Its what we need here in America! God bless him in his struggles with corrupt NATO and my twisted, warmongering Government!
    Jonathan Jarvis 2 months ago
    look at all the blogs/comments in Uk nationalistic papers eg Daily mail-readers comments are full of vile nonsense and insane idiocy-there is no hope of peaceful resolution Rus and west while ordinary people are so ill informed, do not even wish to understand, completely prejudiced, have such entrenched attitudes perpetuated by mass media, playstation/xbox games and zombie films exported from USA that have morally corrupted peoples and nations. NGO's being funded by USA to subvert other states, look out for cyberwarfare too. Please support The Saker too, very high intelligence from this analyst.
    dangood 2 months ago
    The Russia bashing is indeed perplexing. But it is not universal. One explanation is that Americans are afraid of the rivalry. Also Americans have been brought up with a negative imagine of "KGB" and it is impossible to shake this. Russia would love to be part of Europe and increase ties and business. Europe is game; but not USA. It represents a challenge to its own supremacy. I think this is the underlying problem. Putin came out of nowhere, as many of the "Putin Videos" show. His first priority was to rebuild the morale of the Russian army and to do this he picked on Chechnia. Perhaps today he would do things differently. He also turned on many oligarchs who had helped him. But he did this because he did not ask nor want their "help" which he considered self-serving; they wanted to control him, not the other way round. He may regret having been too hard on some (Boris Bereshovski for instance) but it had to be done. All these things played into the hands of the anti-Russians in US. One thing is sure. Neither Russia nor Putin had anything to do with the riots in Maidan which are the root cause of all the disasters occurring in that country. If Putin "took advantage" of the break-down in Kiev to retake Crimea so much to his credit. It was certainly not "planned". The State Dept got faked out. Now they are licking their wounds by Putin bashing day in day out. Rather pathetic really. The best would be to welcome Russia into the world economy. It can make a great contribution.
    Samantha dangood 2 months ago

    Well, Washington D.C. IS afraid of rivalry.
    Remeber the 1992 ,Wolfowitz Doctrine'? Even one of the mouthpieces, the NYT, was slightly disgusted.
    The essence of that vile doctrine: do not allow any rival to rise and challenge US power, hegemony.

    Patty Donovan dangood 2 months ago
    I was brought up to hate Russia, to fear Russia but not anymore! It was all lies and manipulation! Do not include all Americans because its just not true but yes, Russophobia is from decades and decades of brainshing in America.. Believe me, since literally the age of 5 I was taught to fear Russia. From school drills in preparation of " Russia coming to get us" to Putin being a communist dictator to now, Russia is more dangerous than terrorists organization is ALL lies by our government and media! People need to wake the hell up -- It is our government bombing and invading countries, our government funding millions to Isreal to slaughter Palestines, funding Nazi Ukraine president to kill Russian speaking E Ukrainians! Our government funded and trained ISIS! The world is not n chaos because of your government!
    Jon Geissinger dangood 2 months ago
    Americans are NOT afraid of Russia. The powers that be are afraid of Russia because they cannot control Russia (and probably never will, but history has proven man wrong at every turn).
    MOST Americans are asleep at the wheel of a paper vehicle traveling 1000 mile per hour towards a hole in the ground filled with burning oil and are happy for it! American society has become the antithesis of the founding fathers.
    Patty Donovan Jon Geissinger 2 months ago
    I am not at all afraid of Russia. In fact they're much like us , who want peace and wished our countries were friends and allies like we should be -- But NO -- We have twisted butthead warmongers who want to cause trouble and keep Russia down because heaven forbid they might be bigger and better than us! I say good for them -- We are NOT excepectionals , we should be equals --
    plamenpetkov Jon Geissinger 2 months ago
    Guess what, the Russians are not afraid of USA either.
    But we all ARE afraid of a wounded animal, they are the most dangerous. And USA is a wounded dying animal. I will be very surprised if humanity managed to avoid a nuclear war within the next 10 years. The fake "capitalism" is collapsing and the only way out is a major war.
    Rocky Racoon 2 months ago
    Just consider the speech's given by Western Leader's at the opening session of the UN recently-Cameron posits critical thinking as being aligned with ISIS-Obama casting Russia as a threat equal to ISIS and Ebola, ...these statements are allowed to pass uncritically into the mainstream without a second thought. This depraved leadership sends shivers down my spine as it indicates just serious our problems are and how far down the rabbit hole we have fallen. Capitalism in crisis produces fascism at home and primitive accumulation in the form of Imperialism abroad. America is broke and going from Broke having invested trillions in PNAC they are doubling down on full spectrum dominance-a fallacy that will never be reached leaving poverty stricken societies in their wake. Societies akin to the Hunger Games-quasi-feudal fiefdoms only serfs had more rights than today's wage slaves-tenure on the land,access to the mode of production ability the keep and trade the fruits of their labour at least to an extent. The fall of the Soviet Union was a catastrophe for the workers of the world-Not only did we not get a peace dividend from the end of the cold war but a century of social gains won by labour have been rolled back to practically nothing the finishing touches being put into place with the free trade deals about to be unleashed upon the Western Worker-notice austerity was and is not an option for Putin's Russia-he has put his neck on the line for his people and his country and they will do the same for him and the Motherland.
    America has to hire mercenaries to fight their battles which is why they can't win. And these false flags are getting a little tiresome. And Mr. Lavrov as FM he is the consummate diplomat, he does not brow beat or chest pound,nor does he humiliate his adversaries even though circumstances have offered him ample opportunities-people like MCCAIN OBAMA and KERRY embarrass themselves and their nation often enough without Russia having to add insult to injury-Russia is above that but truth telling is another matter and must be pursued no matter how embarrassing for certain parties the exercise maybe Russia does need to increase it's public relations budget every thing from student exchanges on up to film festivals Sochi would make an excellent venue for the glitterati......and serves as a reminder of just how immature the West truly is when one harken's back to the coverage of the Olympics. This Ukraine situation needs to be resolved in opposition to the fascists putsch ruling now before it blows up in all of our faces. Cohen nailed it-we are 5 min. to midnight and closing. Our real enemy is not in the Kremlin or the Middle East-but right here on Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue-time for Occupy 2.0 with Agenda.
    Webbily Rocky Racoon 2 months ago
    Yes, and Ebola isn't a real threat. The only reason it's in the US is because people have been idiots and have not taken the proper precautions. Russia has a vaccine ready to go. ISIS was created by the US, and they're not a real threat. I am not afraid of Russia or the KGB or Putin or Boris and Natasha. All of it is fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.
    elizabeth Eva Young Rocky Racoon 2 months ago
    Oh Yes, and not forgetting the hybrid not so Holy Hollywood, the entertainment industry who of course are run by the Banksters. The missing link in humanity the genetic modification from apes to human form, the Banksters. Do you remember the "Man from Atlantis" and the "Planet of the Apes" and the oil magnets "Dallas"
    idiotland • 2 months ago
    What this shows more than anything is how desperate the western elites are. They know Russia, China and others are rising powers and that the US empire's days are numbered. The dollar's reign as world reserve currency is coming to an end and they know that the US a busted, bankrupt economic house of cards that could completely collapse at any time taking down US power with it. Hence, the risk taking and recklessness. We're in a very dangerous time.
    elizabeth wesley 2 months ago
    It just takes a few to manipulate the minds of public opinion and perception. That is mind control and you have to ignore mainstream media and go online to find unadulterated truth. Putin has other means to deal with the US; he doesn't have to stoop so low to call obama what he really is: an illegitimate child who became an illegitimate president, a man who came from nowhere and has nothing to offer but war with third world nations who have no nuclear defense. America is as confused as Africa and his zionist handlers like it that way.
    maryh3 2 months ago
    The basic problem is, and always will be, that people believe what they want to believe irregardless of facts, evidence, proof or common sense. The believe that which they think will benefit themselves, soothe their ego, fill their pockets, bring tem pleasure etc and deliberatly ignore, condemn, and close their eyes to learning something that may not fit that goal. They rationalize away their deliberate ignorance and refuse to look for truth under some morally relative "label" or "cause" so that they don't have to face truth about themselves and their true intentions.
    David Chu 2 months ago
    The "US Deep State" is actually called the "US National Security State" which is comprised of the Black House, Satanic Pentagon, Cancerous CIA, Police State FBI, and a few other agencies. Their job is to make the world safe and prosperous for the 1% Owners of the United States.

    All this demonizing of President Putin is for a purpose: To paint the Narrative of who the Bad Guy is during our upcoming WW3! Remember when those ICBMs are flying, that is the END of WW3, not the beginning!

    David Chu 2 months ago
    Be very careful, mate. The western press might be defaming Putin, but he is far from being a saint. Putin is a powerful man and is there by virtue of a desire for power. Powerful men do whatever they can to remain powerful and it just so happens that this now goes against the interests of the banksters and the biatches that they control in power. If Putin believed for a minute that his best interest lay in doing what those scummers wanted, he would do so in a heartbeat.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Obama to Stick With First Strike Nuclear War Doctrine, Claiming Deterrence Value THE DISTRICT SENTINEL news co-op

    Oct 28, 2016 | www.districtsentinel.com
    The New York Times reported Tuesday that Obama won't attempt to revise the so-called "First Strike" doctrine before leaving office in January 2017.

    The paper noted he had faced criticism, including some from "former senior aides," over unfulfilled campaign and first-term promises, to work towards "a world without nuclear weapons."

    "For months, arms control advocates have argued for a series of steps to advance the pledge he made," the Times said. "An unequivocal no-first-use pledge would have been the boldest of those measures."

    The source of complaints about the President's about-face are from roughly six years ago. In 2010, when Obama renewed the START treaty with Russia, he also agreed to modernize the US nuclear arsenal, per Congressional Republicans' demands.

    The Times said that a shift away from First Strike would be mostly cosmetic, with US presidents dating back to Harry Truman, having pledged to only use nuclear weapons as a "last resort."

    History, however, casts a pall over these pledges.

    Truman ordered the dropping of two atomic bombs on an already-battered Imperial Japan in 1945, despite the fact that some American military officials –at the time and, in the years after–expressed doubt that the nuclear bombings were needed to force a Japanese surrender. Those critics included Dwight Eisenhower, Pacific fleet commander Adm. Chester Nimitz, and Truman's Chief of Staff, Adm. William Leahy. The United States is still the only nation in history to use nuclear weapons against an adversary.

    According to The New York Times' Tuesday report, President Obama had considered a move away from First Strike this summer, not long after he became the first US President to visit Hiroshima-the first of the two Japanese cities targeted by nuclear weapons, under orders from Truman.

    Obama was, however, persuaded to move away from altering the policy by his cabinet. The Secretaries of Defense, State and Energy-Ash Carter, John Kerry, and Ernest Moniz-were all opposed to the move.

    Kerry and Carter were particularly concerned about upsetting allies in East Asia, South Korea and Japan, in the context of perceived US "weakness," in the face of possible North Korean military strikes.

    The Times also noted Kerry objecting to "weaken[ing] the nuclear deterrent while Russia is running practice bombing runs over Europe and China is expanding its reach in the South China Sea."

    President Obama also ran the risk of adopting a policy that would be quickly reversed by the next administration, the paper noted.

    "[Donald] Trump bristled at the idea [of abandoning first strike], saying he would never want to weaken America's leverage," The Times said. "[Hillary] Clinton has not spoken on the issue during her campaign."

    [Oct 28, 2016] Why anti communism became such a popular theme for many USA-based opposition movements

    Oct 28, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Crooked Timber

    david 10.26.16 at 6:40 am 33 ( 33 )

    From the PHS:

    no one is demanding structural changes, such as the shuttling of Southern Democrats out of the Democratic Party.

    In such a setting of status quo politics, where most if not all government activity is rationalized in Cold War anti-communist terms, it is somewhat natural that discontented, super-patriotic groups would emerge through political channels and explain their ultra-conservatism as the best means of Victory over Communism

    Their political views are defined generally as the opposite of the supposed views of communists: complete individual freedom in the economic sphere, non-participation by the government in the machinery of production.

    But actually "anticommunism" becomes an umbrella by which to protest liberalism, internationalism, welfarism, the active civil rights and labor movements. It is to the disgrace of the United States that such a movement should become a prominent kind of public participation in the modern world - but, ironically, it is somewhat to the interests of the United States that such a movement should be a public constituency pointed toward realignment of the political parties, demanding a conservative Republican Party in the South and an exclusion of the "leftist" elements of the national GOP.

    Well, let no-one say that the SDS did not get exactly what they called for in this paragraph.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Howard Stern: Trump Has Always Been Sexist

    Oct 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc :

    Howard Stern: Trump Has Always Been Sexist

    "I, certainly, in a million years, I didn't expect Trump to seriously run for president,"

    Tonight's LOL funnee

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/26/media/howard-stern-on-trump-interviews/index.html

    "Howard Stern: Trump Has Always Been 'Sexist'"

    "Because he interviewed Donald Trump so many times over the years, Howard Stern has become an unlikely central figure in this year's presidential election, most notably by getting Trump to go on the record in favor of the Iraq War in 2002. But the SiriusXM host rarely discusses politics, which makes his latest comments this week about the Republican nominee and his own role in the race significant. "None of this was hidden," Stern said on his show Tuesday about Trump's most outrageous statements. "This is who Trump is. He was always bombastic. He always rated women. He always talked in a misogynistic, sexist kind of way, but he did it sort of proudly and out in the open; and he still won the Republican primary. In one sense, the fact that we do an interview and people's personalities come out, I'm very proud of that."

    "I, certainly, in a million years, I didn't expect Trump to seriously run for president," Stern added..."

    [Oct 28, 2016] Putin says U.S. hysteria over Russia is election ploy Reuters

    Oct 28, 2016 | www.reuters.com
    President Vladimir Putin on Thursday accused American politicians of whipping up hysteria about a mythical Russian threat as a ploy to distract voters from their own failings in the run-up to the U.S. presidential election.

    Putin, addressing an audience of foreign policy experts gathered in southern Russia, repeatedly lashed out at the Obama administration, saying it did not keep its word on Syria, did not honour deals, and had falsely accused Moscow of all manner of sins.

    The U.S. government has formally accused Russia of a campaign of cyber attacks against Democratic Party organisations, while Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has accused Republican rival Donald Trump of being a Putin "puppet".

    Putin said he found it hard to believe that anyone seriously thought Moscow was capable of influencing the Nov. 8 election.

    "Hysteria has been whipped up," said Putin.

    He said that was a ruse to cover up for the fact that the U.S. political elite had nothing to say about serious issues such as the country's national debt or gun control.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Retired senior military pilots increasingly alarmed Clintons Syria No Fly Zone plan could lead to war with Russia

    Oct 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne : , October 26, 2016 at 09:59 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/opinion/playing-with-fear-russias-war-card.html

    October 26, 2016

    Russia's War Card
    By MICHAEL KHODARKOVSKY

    War hysteria in a country with imperial nostalgia, one-man rule and a weak economy cannot be taken lightly.


    Michael Khodarkovsky is a professor of history at Loyola University.

    [ The fostering of fear of and disdain for Russia is continual now and however false the characterizations of Russia are, and they are indeed false, the fear and disdain will influence and be self-defeating for American foreign policy from here till a dramatic change comes from another administration. I unfortunately find no such change in the offing. ]

    anne -> anne... , October 26, 2016 at 10:34 AM
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/791252853943836672

    Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald

    Any new war she gets the US involved in will be prosecuted with progressivism & humanitarianism in her heart, so what's the worry?

    Trevor Timm @trevortimm

    Retired senior military pilots "increasingly alarmed" Clinton's Syria No Fly Zone plan could lead to war with Russia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zones-russia-us-war

    5:19 AM - 26 Oct 2016

    ilsm -> anne... , October 26, 2016 at 03:22 PM
    progressivism & humanitarianism in war profiteering aka mongering......

    "Civilian protective operations" panders a neocon excuse for organized state run murder.

    Bill went after the Tsar as soon as his closet neocon found out they could have the Germans send a mechanized brigade of Warsaw Pact armaments to the Croats and Yeltsin did nothing.

    The Russian version of Chamberlain and Munich was Croatian independence.

    ilsm -> anne... , -1
    Most career military pilots I knew were terrified by the thought of no more perpetual bombing.

    They would think Clinton and the neocons can keep a low boil going in the PNAC for another 100 years without tripping into a real war, or bankrupting the USA.

    It is a signifier of the moral bankruptcy that the exceptional carry as a badge.

    With the "defenses available" to Syria they could enforce no fly zones on GCC and their blood thirsty allies as as might US over Raqqa.

    The hegemon!

    [Oct 28, 2016] An Identity-Politicized Election and World Series Lakefront Liberals Can Love

    Oct 28, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org

    Identity politics provides cover for, and diversion from, class rule and from the deeper structures of class, race, gender, empire, and eco-cide that haunt American and global life today – structures that place children of liberal white North Side Chicago professionals in posh 40 th -story apartments overlooking scenic Lake Michigan while consigning children of felony-branded Black custodians and fast food workers to cramped apartments in crime-ridden South Side neighborhoods where nearly half the kids are growing up at less than half the federal government's notoriously inadequate poverty level. Most of the Black kids in deeply impoverished and hyper-segregated neighborhoods like Woodlawn and Englewood (South Side) or North Lawndale and Garfield Park (West Side) can forget not only about going to a World Series game but even about watching one on television. Their parents don't have cable and the Fox Sports 1 channel. There's few if any local restaurants and taverns with big-screen televisions in safe walking distance from their homes. Major League Baseball ticket prices being what they are, few of the South Side kids have even seen the White Sox – Chicago's South Side American League team, whose ballpark lacks the affluent white and gentrified surroundings of Wrigley Field. (Thanks in no small part to the urban social geography of race and class in Chicago, the White Sox winning the World Series in 2005 – thei

    ... ... ...

    There is, yes, I know, the problem of Democrats in the White House functioning to stifle social movements and especially peace activism (the antiwar movement has still yet to recover from the Obama experience). But there's more good news here about a Hillary presidency. Not all Democratic presidents are equally good at shutting progressive activism down. As the likely Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein (for whom I took five minutes to early vote in a "contested state" three weeks ago) noted in an interview with me last April (when the White Sox still held first place in their division), Hillary Clinton will have considerably less capacity to deceive and bamboozle progressive and young workers and citizens than Barack Obama enjoyed in 2007-08 . "Obama," Stein noted, was fairly new on the scene. Hillary," by contrast, "has been a warmonger who never found a war she didn't love forever!" Hillary's corporatist track record – ably documented in Doug Henwood's book My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency (her imperial track record receives equally impressive treatment in Diana Johnstone's volume Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton ) – is also long and transparently bad. All that and Mrs. Clinton's remarkable lacks of charisma and trustworthiness could be useful for left activism and politics in coming years.

    For what it's worth, the first and most urgent place to restore such activism and politics is in the area where Barack Obama has been most deadening: foreign policy, also known (when conducted by the U.S.) as imperialism. When it comes to prospects for World War III, it is by no means clear that the saber-rattling, regime-changing, NATO-expanding, and Russia-baiting Hillary Clinton is the "lesser evil" compared to the preposterous Trump. That's no small matter. During a friend's birthday party the night the Cubs clinched the National League pennant, I asked fellow celebrants and inebriates if they were prepared for the fundamental realignment of the space-time continuum that was coming when the North Siders won the league championship. That was a joke, of course, but there's nothing funny about the heightened chances of a real downward existential adjustment resulting from war between nuclear superpowers when the "lying neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton gets into office and insists on recklessly imposing a so-called no-fly zone over Russia-allied Syria.

    ... ... ...

    Paul Street's latest book is They Rule: The 1% v. Democracy (Paradigm, 2014)

    [Oct 28, 2016] The Moral Blindness of Identity Politics The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... In two party politics, generally political parties are mediating institutions, which moderate the claims of the interest groups composing them. However, when it switches to immutable characteristics, political parties become the vehicles of extremism, as each party tries to the "outbid" the other party in claims for dominance for its members. Further, each victory by the rival party spurs fears and polarization by the losers. Generally, you see de-stablization and violence in its wake. Its a good way to destroy a democracy. ..."
    Oct 25, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Slate's Jamelle Bouie analyzes the excellent "Black Jeopardy" skit in which Tom Hanks played "Doug," a Trump supporter who, along with his two black opponents, discovers that they have a lot in common. Bouie:

    Then comes the final punchline, "Lives That Matter." Obviously, the answer to the question is "black." But Doug has "a lot to say about this." Which suggests that he doesn't think the answer is that simple. Perhaps he thinks "all lives matter," or that "blue lives matter," the phrasing used by those who defend the status quo of policing and criminal justice. Either way, this puts him in direct conflict with the black people he's befriended. As viewers, we know that "Black Lives Matter" is a movement against police violence, for the essential safety and security of black Americans. It's a demand for fair and equal treatment as citizens, as opposed to a pervasive assumption of criminality.

    Thompson, Zamata, and Jones might see a lot to like in Doug, but if he can't sign on to the fact that black Americans face unique challenges and dangers, then that's the end of the game. Tucked into this six-minute sketch is a subtle and sophisticated analysis of American politics. It's not that working blacks and working whites are unable to see the things they have in common; it's that the material interests of the former-freedom from unfair scrutiny, unfair detention, and unjust killings-are in direct tension with the identity politics of the latter (as represented in the sketch by the Trump hat). And in fact, if Hanks' character is a Trump supporter, then all the personal goodwill in the world doesn't change the fact that his political preferences are a direct threat to the lives and livelihoods of his new friends, a fact they recognize.

    What Bouie doesn't seem to get is that black identity politics and the preferences of those who espouse them are a direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites - and even, at times, their lives ( hello, Brian Ogle! ).

    Consider this insanity from Michigan State University, pointed out by a reader this morning. It's the Facebook page of Which Side Are You On? , radical student organization whose stated purpose is:

    Michigan State University has chosen to remain silent on the issue of racial injustice and police brutality. We demand that the administration release a statement in support of the Movement for Black Lives; and, in doing so, affirms the value of the lives of its students, alumni, and future Spartans of color while recognizing the alienation and oppression that they face on campus. In the absence of open support, MSU is taking the side of the oppressor.

    Got that? Either 100 percent agree with them, or you are a racist oppressor. It's fanatical, and it's an example of bullying. But as we have seen over the past year, year and a half, Black Lives Matter and related identity politics movements (Which Side Are You On? says it is not affiliated with BLM) are by no means only about police brutality. If they were, this wouldn't be a hard call. No decent person of any race supports police brutality. To use Bouie's terms, the material interests of non-progressive white people are often in direct tension with the identity politics of many blacks and their progressive non-black allies. This is true beyond racial identity politics. It's true of LGBT identity politics also. But progressives can't see that, because to them, what they do is not identity politics; it's just politics.

    You cannot practice and extol identity politics for groups favored by progressives without implicitly legitimizing identity politics for groups disfavored by progressives.

    Good luck getting anyone on the left to recognize the fallacy of special pleading when it's right in front of their eyes. Posted in Politics , Pop Culture , Race . Tagged Black Jeopardy , Black Lives Matter , identity politics , Jamelle Bouie , progressives .

    KD , says: October 26, 2016 at 6:55 am
    To paraphrase FiveString:

    Some of my best friends are supporters of police brutality.

    In all seriousness, if one's identity preference is for dominance by your group, then obviously, a member of your group dominating the other group isn't going to bother you. Nor, on the other side, will you be troubled if your group shoots perceived agents of the other side. But note, the justification for racial primacy or racial supremacy is always rhetorically made by asserting claims or the threat of racial primacy or racial supremacy by the Other. Further, racial tensions are always caused by the behavior of the Other, and your groups actions are always "self defense". Of course, your actions are always portrayed as "aggression" by the Other, and lead to ratcheting up of anti-social behavior, but hey.

    I sort of assume that is not how most whites feel, but the reality is whether it is or not, if you turn the political question from legal equality for blacks to legal primacy or dominance, then you will push whites into taking the adversary position.

    In two party politics, generally political parties are mediating institutions, which moderate the claims of the interest groups composing them. However, when it switches to immutable characteristics, political parties become the vehicles of extremism, as each party tries to the "outbid" the other party in claims for dominance for its members. Further, each victory by the rival party spurs fears and polarization by the losers. Generally, you see de-stablization and violence in its wake. Its a good way to destroy a democracy.

    I love "Black Lives Matter" as a slogan, because it is ambiguous enough to be either a claim for dominance or primacy. Obviously, whether a BLM will support the assertion "All Lives Matter" is a litmus test for whether they are asserting racial supremacy or racial primacy. But plausible deniability is baked in.

    a commenter , says: October 26, 2016 at 8:18 am
    I don't mind identity politics, by which I assume you mean people appealing to voters to vote for their pet interest because it will help people with a particular set of characteristics or "identity". This is just people looking out for and lobbying the voting public on their interests, which is what democracy is all about.

    What I don't like is the stunning illogic and flawed reasoning behind some of the appeals, such as the "you're either with BLM or against black people" arguments, the policing of miniscule variations in speech (eg pronouns) as signs of haaaaaaaate, and the labeling of all white people as "white supremacists" unless they self-flagellate and take personal blame for all the police shootings. And, I think these people know that the reasoning is flawed. It's just that they also know that if you repeat it long and loud enough and have enough leaders behind you willing to fire or otherwise silence anyone who points out the flaws in your arguments, then you can convince everyone that it all makes sense.

    I think what is being lost is really the underlying logic of morality itself. Kids are being taught that it doesn't matter what your intention is, it doesn't matter what your reasoning is, it doesn't even matter whether an outcome is predictable from your action. What matters is how the people in identity groups feel about your action. It's consequentialism run amok.

    It's as if someone took Catholic reasoning on morality (grave matter, full knowledge, deliberate consent, don't do wrong things in order to achieve good ends, principle of double effect), reversed it, and then decided that this upside-down reasoning will be our new publicly mandated morality.

    It's fascinating to watch but I feel a bit frightened for my children, because they will have to deal with this new and deeply flawed public morality.

    M. F. Bonner , says: October 26, 2016 at 9:29 am
    "Let me explain something to you. Are you sitting down? Because this is going to come as a shock. Ready? We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people fought and died to end white supremacy. Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress, and puts that progress towards equal justice for all, regardless of their skin color, in jeopardy."

    For the most part, probably a fair observation. And it only took a couple of hundred years (or more, depending on where you chose to say "white identity politics" started and when (or if) you chose to say it ended).

    Low long have black identity politics had any influence?

    How long does it take, and at what "price" to atone for the past? Haven't we been grappling with that since Lincoln's second inaugural address?

    Will black identity politics be around longer than that? And when will white identity politics end? Not to mention all of the other identity politics in society. But, identity politics always takes at least two sides. You can never have identity politics without "the other." Black identity politics wouldn't last without white identity politics, and vice versa. So too for feminism identity politics, religious identity politics…and…so…on… Each has its counterpart on the other side.

    In a perfect world, identity politics would not exist, but in the real world, they have existed for as long as politics.

    Not that I don't see some hope. By and large, the younger generation gives me every hope that, some day, we might get over this, but probably not until a few score more generational replacements happen. But that too, might be a source of reassurance. A few score generations isn't really that long a time, after all.

    JWJ , says: October 26, 2016 at 9:50 am
    Jesse wrote "62% of white people have either a "great deal" or a "quite a lot" of confidence in the police – ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/192701/confidence-police-recovers-last-year-low.aspx ) – I'm not saying all 62% of those people are OK with police brutality, but they seem not to be that bothered by it."

    How in the blue blazes do you possibly do you go from folks having confidence in the police to them ALSO NOT being bothered by police brutality? How are those two things linked in your mind? Can you not possibly fathom that another human being could have confidence in an institution (or a group) while ALSO condemning the bad actors in that institution (or group)? Or in your mind do a few bad actors condemn an entire group?

    Here is your "logic" re-written in another way. Does it help you see my point?
    61% of non-white people have either "very little" or a "no" of confidence in the police. I'm not saying all 61% of those people are OK with attacking or murdering the police, but they seem not to be that bothered by it.

    Now possibly I am the only who finds your thought process disturbing and wonders how many other folks make the same leap of absurdity.

    DennisR , says: October 26, 2016 at 9:57 am
    In reply the religious liberty comments, I think almost everyone who supports BLM would say that it is about giving African Americans basic human rights in the United States. You might not agree with that, but that's how things stand from their point of view. To many liberals, religious liberty seems like special pleading, even though to you it seems like the advancement of a universal principal.
    GSW , says: October 26, 2016 at 11:03 am
    "All politics is identity politics!" @Ferny

    "Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another." Karl Marx

    "All that is not race in this world is trash… All historical events… are only the expression of the race's instinct of self-preservation." Adolf Hitler

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." Groucho Marx

    The Wet One , says: October 26, 2016 at 11:54 am
    M_Young,

    So we basically agree that people are the same all over. Which is to say terrible, awful, nasty beasts. Good.

    For the second time (possibly the third, I know we agreed it was Miller time once upon a time) we agree.

    I guess that's progress.

    🙂

    KD , says: October 26, 2016 at 12:40 pm
    I do not think that all politics is "identity" politics.

    The Populists going after the gold standard, or the New Dealers attempting to deal with the problems of labor and capital, where not primarily about identity politics.

    Certainly, there was lots of identity politics on the state level, whether in the South, or in states like NY, in the battle between upstate WASPs and ethnic political machines in NYC.

    Today we are increasingly nationalizing identity politics. Moreover, we are mainstreaming a slogan based on racial primacy /supremacy, e.g. "Black Lives Matter". You are seeing increasing attacks on traditional American symbols and calls for their replacement with "diverse" symbols. This is not just identity politics, it is ethnopolitics.

    The reality is that the political symbol is in the heart of the people a promise that they'll be treated preferentially. I think that is part of the racial tension post-Obama. We elected an African-American, who appointed a lot of African-Americans, but on the street, he hasn't done $#!+ to help Blacks.

    Now, if I thought that whites would just lay down and not resist racial subjugation and discrimination, I wouldn't be concerned. But I doubt whites are seriously going to go gracefully into that good night as the bottom rung of a racial caste system.

    "Virtue signaling" is very different from "virtue"–you can't tell a white nationalist from a white liberal based on their housing or dating preferences.

    If whites collectively grow to FEAR other groups politically, say due to demographic displacement and claims by minorities for primacy/supremacy, they will change teams overnight. All this anti-racism rhetoric presupposes white noblese oblige and security.

    Any serious movement from equality to some claim of primacy or supremacy is likely to trigger a counter-movement toward a claim of primacy or supremacy by the other group. Moreover, once you polarize racially, the political process encourages extremism, not moderation.

    One reason not to worship the U.S. Constitution is the limited understanding of factionalism by Madison, who accounted for interest group factions (which can break up or wax and wane) but failed to consider identity group factions based on immutable characteristics. It is these identity-based factions which frequently destroy attempts to create liberal democracy the world over.

    The reality is that representative democracy is only an effective system in ethnically homogeneous societies with a strong ethic of individualism (rooted in Protestant ancestors). While Korea and Japan get along politically, their political systems are "different" from a Western perspective, mostly due to lower levels of individualism.

    China is probably a better model for most countries than liberal democracy, because multiethnic societies generally degenerate into authoritarianism anyway.

    This is why, given multiculturalism and secularism, the likelihood of a serious institutional transformation in America seems increasingly a certain bet.

    Rick , says: October 26, 2016 at 1:56 pm
    Here's the brutal truth. We created Black Lives Matter.

    We did it with 400 years of brutal policies, physical violence, economic apartheid and ill conceived do gooder nonsense that could not even begin to counter the former impacts.

    In the 1950's and 1960's you had one branch of the Federal Government - the Federal Housing Authority– both building low income housing in the decaying neighborhoods that were the result of FHA red-lining polices that were was causing the decay - total madness. The black community has yet to recover from that by the way - trillions in lost equity in today's dollars.

    We are incredibly lucky to JUST have Black Lives Matter. It's a miracle that the black community hasn't amassed in force and burned large swaths of this country to the ground peppering us with automatic weapons fire along the way for good measure.

    It's a testament to their fortitude, generosity and patience as a people. That they have formed this group is inevitable.

    To lump BLM in with the white coddled SJW ignores their unique history and context. BLM has no obligation whatsoever to be rational, or contrite, or forgiving, or magnanimous.

    What has that ever gotten them in this country? Here's a hint, f%$k all. That's what it's gotten them.

    [NFR: Well, BLM can behave however it wants to, but don't be surprised if being irrational and bullying gets you nowhere, except on campus run by noodle-spined administrators. - RD]

    KD , says: October 26, 2016 at 2:18 pm
    On the other hand, the notion of color-blind standards is a joke.

    If you belong to a group that has an average IQ of 100 in economic competition with a group that has an average IQ of 85, and you believe that hiring/firing be based on merit, you are promoting a standard that benefits your group over the other guys.

    Likewise, if you are from the second group, you are arguing for proportional representation in the work force (and especially the elite), and you are promoting a standard that benefits your group over the other guys.

    If you look at Anglo-Saxons v. Blacks, Anglo-Saxons always want meritocracy.

    However, if you look at elite admissions in the early 20th Century, when Anglo-Saxons were competing against Jews, they implemented a quota system that benefited Anglo-Saxons. They also generated a lot of Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories blaming their failures on Jewish nepotism, rather than say Jews just being smarter.

    The problem for America is someone will decide on a standard, and that decision will privilege one group over another. Always.

    The more groups, the more divisive and polarizing each decision becomes, until democracy stops being capable of functioning, e.g. making decisions, even bad ones.

    You can have "racial equality", but not "racial equality" in accordance with a definition that all groups will ever agree upon. Further, many persons in all groups will secretly desire supremacy no matter the rhetoric, so will work to undermine and limit nominal "equality" every political chance they get.

    Mary , says: October 26, 2016 at 2:54 pm
    " A lot of people fought and died to end white supremacy"

    And what has it done? American social capital has been destroyed, our society is slowly turning into an atomized hell, and our politics will increasingly resemble tribal warfare. The fiction that we could make race irrelevant needs to die, group differences are real and ethnic tribalism is hardwired into humans by our DNA. Our founders chose to limit citizenship to whites of good character for a reason, just as Japan seeks to remain Japanese for a reason. Diversity + close proximity = war

    VikingLs , says: October 26, 2016 at 3:09 pm
    All politics is not identity politics. America has a rich tradition in positions of relative privilege taking on the political cause of disenfranchised groups.

    Given how many well off white people, including men, are Democrats, I really don't see why progressives would even make that argument.

    Pepi , says: October 26, 2016 at 4:07 pm
    This article showed me how many people in the US live a completely different life than I do. Not only did it change my understanding of race relations and prompt a great deal more study but it made me more aware, generally, of how little I know of how the other 99.9% live.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/03/how-st-louis-county-missouri-profits-from-poverty/?utm_term=.80f628c84134

    Jeff R. , says: October 26, 2016 at 4:49 pm
    Lots of hypocrites in this comment thread commenting that "identity politics is just politics, period." Okay, white nationalism it is, then! Time to bring David Duke back out from whatever rock he's been under and put him at the top of the ticket. Maybe Louis Farrakhan can run for something, too. After all, why would anti-semitism ever go out of fashion, anyway! Isnt' that just identity politics which is just regular politics, like marginal tax cuts and subsidies for electric cars?

    Twits.

    Liberty&Virtue , says: October 26, 2016 at 4:51 pm
    A few comments:

    -I don't think it's that difficult to understand the anger, stridency, and even vitriol coming from SJW/BLM supporters. With BLM, it's a mostly righteous indignation over a long history of abusive police tactics and laws, exploded by multiple recent captured instances of police abuse.

    As for LGBTQ-issues, I think many advocates–especially those in the vanguard–view themselves as participants in the Second Civil Rights Movement–that the laws and cultural attitudes they are fighting against are analogous to Jim Crow and racism. There is some degree of truth to this.

    The danger comes with the disturbingly common–or at least effective–practice of refusing to grant their opponents *any* goodwill. Like racists, opponents of full legal and cultural inclusion–if not acceptance–are deemed to be totally devoid of any redeeming features, and thus ought to be opposed relentlessly and by any means necessary. The same goes for those who aren't indulgent or repentant enough. We can partly thank the poisonous legacy of Marcuse's "tolerance" for this. We can also thank old-fashioned lust for power–especially to take down "the elite" or to take revenge–and the intoxicating feeling of being on the cutting edge of righteousness.

    How do you deal with this? As KD suggested above, if one group sees itself as against others and acts accordingly, then those others will fall into the "tribal struggle" mindset as well. If extremist social justice advocates (SJAs) define themselves in opposition to other attitudes, values, etc–and more importantly, if they refuse to engage in respectful dialogue and are not willing to compromise–then those who endorse those attitudes, values, etc will inevitably see themselves as being defined through opposition to SJAs. Thus the poison of identity politics–it exacerbates, rather than seeks to contain Us vs Them antagonism.

    The only ways I see out of it are direct, full-throated defenses of SJA's targets–such as last year's "Coddling of the American Mind" and U Chicago's defense of free expression and respectful challenging debate. Ignoring it–as many seem wont to do by dismissals of "oh, they're just stupid college kids, they'll grow out of it"–isn't viable because though many will, some will pursue positions of power and influence. Besides, the less challenged, the more the extreme views will be seen as respectable if not correct.

    -The debate over which groups are or are not practicing identity politics: In (academic) political theory, "identity politics" narrowly refers to a style of politics based on the self-organization of *oppressed* groups and pursuit of policy changes to their advantage. Identity comes to the forefront of members of oppressed groups' consciousness because it is that defining characteristic that puts them in an inferior position.

    The way some have described it here suggests it's more like practicing politics in a way meant to provide benefits for oneself–but that's just self-interest. A better broad view of identity politics would focus on the deliberate and open advocacy of benefits for a particular group one is a member of, when that group is defined by a specific and fundamental trait relevant to one's sense of self. In other words, if the phrase "As a (adjective) (personal-characteristic noun), I believe/support/oppose X" is central to your approach to politics, you're practicing identity politics.

    Axxr , says: October 26, 2016 at 5:28 pm
    JWJ, you are missing the entire point of identity politics.

    The morality inheres in the identity, not in the behavior.

    If brutality occurs, it is not a behavior, it is an identity ("Police"). If you are confident in "Police" you are thus confident in "brutality" because the behavior is not separable from the identity. And for similar reasons, your confidence in brutes means that you, too are a brute (of course this goes double if you are white, since all whites are brutes, for similar reasons).

    Identity politics is the refusal to separate identity from acts. Whiteness *is* slaveowning, blackness *is* victimhood, and so on, regardless of whether one has ever owned or been a slave; these things are irrelevant; they inhere in the identity.

    Loudon is a Fool , says: October 26, 2016 at 6:08 pm
    @ M F Bonner

    How long does it take, and at what "price" to atone for the past? Haven't we been grappling with that since Lincoln's second inaugural address?

    But here's the problem. It's not like the whites who are supporting Trump got fat, rich and happy during their period of "white identity." Whatever privilege attaches to whiteness it hasn't exactly trickled down (even in a Trumped-up fashion) to Trump voters. No doubt Mr. Bonner is either upper middle class or high status (academic, journalist or government employee). But low status whites see the world a bit differently. This is the real tragedy (or, if you're a fat cat, the beauty) of the situation. The lower classes will always fight among themselves for scraps, the high status (but often low pay) elites would scold the various parties for their various thoughtcrimes and the fat cats will high five and do the truffle shuffle, bouncing their greased bellies against each other. Thanks for doing your part.

    M_Young , says: October 26, 2016 at 8:23 pm
    "Now, you can try to make an argument that they are wrong, that they *are* getting equal treatment from law enforcement and that this is all in their heads. You can try, but in all fairness, the anecdotal and empirical evidence seem not to be on your side."

    No, when correcting for crime rates, there is no racial discrepancy in police killings. In fact, blacks are underrepresented and whites overrepresent, given the underlying proportion of criminality in the communities.

    "Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress,

    Who, exactly, is making this argument? Not BLM and not the mainstream liberal political establishment. "

    Uh, Hilary "whites must listen" Clinton. And lots more.

    M_Young , says: October 26, 2016 at 8:28 pm
    "However, if you look at elite admissions in the early 20th Century, when Anglo-Saxons were competing against Jews, they implemented a quota system that benefited Anglo-Saxons. "

    Why shouldn't the people who, you know, built the universities remain in charge of them? No one asks Brandeis to become a WASP bastion.

    M_Young , says: October 26, 2016 at 8:30 pm
    "In the 1950's and 1960's you had one branch of the Federal Government - the Federal Housing Authority– both building low income housing in the decaying neighborhoods that were the result of FHA red-lining polices that were was causing the decay - total madness. The black community has yet to recover from that by the way - trillions in lost equity in today's dollars"

    LOL, someone's been drinking the TNC Kool-aid (purple, I imagine). It causes people to reverse causality.

    The neighborhoods were redlined because they were poor risk. They were poor risk because of their demographic composition.

    M_Young , says: October 26, 2016 at 8:32 pm
    "It's a miracle that the black community hasn't amassed in force and burned large swaths of this country to the ground peppering us with automatic weapons fire along the way for good measure."

    Uh, they have. See Detroit.

    VikingLS , says: October 26, 2016 at 8:39 pm
    There's not one word in the BLM guiding principles page about the police. Not one word. If you go to their home pager and click on "what we believe" this is what you get.

    http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/

    Black Lives Matter may be talking about police brutality right now, but by their own words, it's not their primary cause.

    Caroline walker , says: October 26, 2016 at 11:25 pm
    Criminality matters.
    Esti , says: October 27, 2016 at 7:17 am
    If we would look into how much blacks have been killed by the police last year, the figure will be about few hundred at maximum. If we would look into the same category for whites, the result will be few thouthands, minimum. If we look into the statistics abut the main cause of death for the same period, it will be black on black homicide for blacks and car accident for whites. Also, blacks are about 13% of the American population or so, but make at least as much homicides as whites do. And most homicides are comitted within offenders race group.

    If anything, whites become targets of poluce brutality much more often. And yet, BLM are out there preching, as if police is hunting them for no reason. That's everything you need to know about BLM and their so called care about black lives.

    That's the main problems with such groups. They don't really want to improve the lot of the groups they are supposedly fighting for. They are just exaggerating the problem and imitating fighting for something important, because they'll get money and recognition for it. Without real risk to boot.

    John Smith , says: October 27, 2016 at 8:57 am
    The BLM radical movement is built on a lie. Blacks are 12% of the population yet commit 53% of murders and 70% of gun crime. In this era of cell phones, know the number of black people who have dubious interactions with police, thanks to the scandalous behavior of the news media. We can be sure police brutality is not an epidemic because the examples offered as evidence are,at best , dubious. Each example given, eg Ferguson Missouri or Trayvon Martin, are at best arguably due to the bad behavior by the black person. The real epidemic is black crime, black fatherlessness, and too many people indulging this "I'm a victim" culture. Shame on you Mr. Dreher for delineation this into a black and white cipher in this article. The entire country suffers from this epidemic of black crime and the false narrative that black people are mistreated by society. This is just another example of the madness on the political left the radical extreme hateful positions that are exposed on that side it seems solely.
    Jesse , says: October 25, 2016 at 3:53 pm
    "What Bouie doesn't seem to get is that black identity politics and the preferences of those who espouse them are a direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites - and even, at times, their lives (hello, Brian Ogle!)."

    OK, livelihoods and interests I can understand even if there's the fact that if you're an average white dude, an international student, a student with a soccer scholarship, an out of state student, or a a legacy admission is just as likely to knock you out of your preferred school as a non-white student is.

    However, can you point me to the radio host, politician, TV commentator, or even popular Twitter celebrity who says the people who killed Brian Ogle should go free?

    Because on the other hand, there's plenty of politicians, TV commentators, writers, radio hosts, etc. who think the police are doing a great job and that police brutality is just a liberal myth.

    62% of white people have either a "great deal" or a "quite a lot" of confidence in the police – ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/192701/confidence-police-recovers-last-year-low.aspx ) – I'm not saying all 62% of those people are OK with police brutality, but they seem not to be that bothered by it.

    But in general, the whole paragraph is why for the most part, black Americans will never trust white conservatives – you seem to imply that black Americans want carte blanche to kill white people while in reality, black people just want to be treated as well as a confirmed mass murderer was treated by police – to be fed some Burger King like Dylan Roof perhaps.

    Selvar , says: October 25, 2016 at 3:53 pm
    A moderate, peaceful, and democratic form of white identity politics that was widely representative of the white population would be acceptable as far as I am concerned. The problem is that white nationalists can't go two seconds without demonizing Jews, denying the holocaust, trying to justify the Confederacy, attacking the basic assumptions of liberal democracy, and admiring various obscure mid-20th century fascist/pseudo-fascist far right intellectuals. In that sense, white nationalists are the equivalent of the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam, as opposed to the NAACP or BLM. That does not mean that BLM and the NAACP are not harmful to the interests of whites, but they do not advocate a separate black ethnostate, antisemitism, or ethnic cleansing of whites.
    Andrew C , says: October 25, 2016 at 3:55 pm
    Just watched the SNL skit. Best thing they have done all election season. It's important we understand the motivations behind Trump's rise instead of pushing them under the surface where they fester.
    DennisR , says: October 25, 2016 at 3:57 pm
    I hate the term "identity politics." Identity politics are politics. Straight white people, even liberals (hello Bernie bros), often try to exclude themselves from the definition by casting their own thoughts as neutral while casting everyone with a marked "identity" as practicing identity politics. People are always speaking from a point of view, and in politics they are usually advocating to change things that negatively impact a group they are associated with.

    How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity politics?

    I agree that certain groups, especially at the university level, take into a totalitarian direction, but casting some activism as "identity politics" while excluding other forms of special pleading makes no sense to me.

    Nathan , says: October 25, 2016 at 4:02 pm
    I agree that *all* identity politics are a moral poison, white, black, Christian, Muslim, or anything else. It is a sad fact of human nature that we are tribal and care more for people like ourselves.

    This reminds me of the parable of the Good Samaritan. If we are to follow the parable, then we are to treat others of different religions and different countries exactly as if they our neighbors, meaning as if they are in our tribe. This is quite the opposite of identity politics.

    The Wet One , says: October 25, 2016 at 4:03 pm
    Rod wrote that:

    "freedom from unfair scrutiny, unfair detention, and unjust killings" for blacks…. are a direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites.

    I've moved things around a bit but in essence this is correct.

    If I've got this wrong Rod, kindly let me know how.

    Huh.

    I didn't realize that oppressing blacks was such a huge industry for white people.

    What exactly is going on in the U.S. exactly?

    Also, just for the record, this is a thing that happened: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wiggins-mississippi-high-school-noose-incident-town-state-image/

    It seems somehow relevant in the context of this discussion.

    I'm amazed. Truly and utterly amazed. The demand of blacks to be treated like citizens deserving the respect and protection of the law and agents of the law like everyone else is "a direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites."

    I mean, I know that white supremacy is a thing in the U.S., but is it really that ingrained and tenacious? Really?

    Perhaps you misspoke.

    Siarlys Jenkins , says: October 25, 2016 at 4:24 pm
    form of white identity politics that was widely representative of the white population

    That's an oxymoron. No form of "white identity" politics would be or could be "widely representative of the white population."

    A lot of the black rhetoric we're getting lately is belated recognition that "black people" don't really have enduring common interests that bind them all, and the defensive necessity to provide safety for each other in the face of vicious and pervasive persecution just isn't really strong enough to maintain a tenuous identity or unity much longer. As Jesse B. Semple remarked when his "white boss" asked "What does The Negro want now?" … there are fifty eleven different kinds of Negroes in the USA. That's even more true of "whites," always has been, and the hue an cry that a bit of affirmative action is tantamount to creating a massive common race interest is just nonsense.

    How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity politics?

    Because religion is a search for truth, and religious liberty affirms that there are lots of different searches going on, which are neither binding upon nonbelievers, nor to be suppressed by the skeptical or powerful?

    collin , says: October 25, 2016 at 4:39 pm
    It is nice to see America can laugh about things this year!

    While we can be complain about SJWs and BLMs, doesn't the conservative movement need the same exact lecture here? What was the speech that made Trump popular with Republicans? It was "Mexicans are rapist" speech that originally made 35 – 40% of the party support him the summer of 2015. (And Donald's speeches to African-Americans is not the way to win their votes either!)

    I almost think the best thing for the Republican Party this year is for Trump to lose Texas so the Party learns to better respect Hispanic-Americans. (Unlikely to happen though and Texas is not turning blue long term.)

    Jennifer , says: October 25, 2016 at 4:45 pm
    Jesse: "However, can you point me to the radio host, politician, TV commentator, or even popular Twitter celebrity who says the people who killed Brian Ogle should go free?

    Because on the other hand, there's plenty of politicians, TV commentators, writers, radio hosts, etc. who think the police are doing a great job and that police brutality is just a liberal myth….

    But in general, the whole paragraph is why for the most part, black Americans will never trust white conservatives – you seem to imply that black Americans want carte blanche to kill white people while in reality, black people just want to be treated as well as a confirmed mass murderer was treated by police – to be fed some Burger King like Dylan Roof perhaps."

    +1,000.

    I'd add that there are commentators, politicians, writers, etc. who seem to think that police brutality is justified because of crime rates, as though the Constitution, not to mention just basic fairness and protection against needless violence, applies only to the law-abiding.

    M_Young , says: October 25, 2016 at 4:50 pm
    "That does not mean that BLM and the NAACP are not harmful to the interests of whites, but they do not advocate a separate black ethnostate, "

    If they did, they'd be working for the interests of whites.

    [NFR: You longtime readers know that I reject M_Young's white identity politics. I want to take this opportunity to remind you all that when you cheer on left-wing, racial and sexual identity politics, you implicitly cheer on his. - RD]

    KD , says: October 25, 2016 at 4:53 pm
    There is a literature on the collective behavior of groups in cooperation/competition models. Groups (even artificial ones created by randomly assigning college undergraduates) will compete to maximize their relative power against other groups, even if it leads to collectively a lower standard of living (in other words, they would rather be relatively richer in a poorer world than than relatively poorer in a richer world).

    In interest group politics, say labor v. capital, you have groups which, while fighting each other for power, are permeable. People move from one group or the other, and even if they don't, it is possible to move.

    Identity groups are based on putatively immutable characteristics. In identity politics, identity groups struggle against each other for dominance. Claims can be of three varieties: equality ("All Lives Matter"), primacy ("Black Lives Matter"), and dominance ("Only Black Lives Matter").

    When political parties are defined on identity grounds, elections become censuses rather than "free" elections. You vote for the party that represents your group, because you are afraid of dominance by the other group. Further, you justify claims for primacy or dominance based on fears about the relative power of the other group.

    Political systems that polarize on identity end up in a census election where the winning coalition of groups dominates the other groups, and the group in the electoral minority has no possibility of exercising power. Because elections are censuses, and you don't have the numbers. What typically happens is that minorities turn to violence, and often racial unrest results in military rule.

    It is pretty clear that multiculturalism is precipitating the resurgence of identity politics, and if we believe the polls, that trend is about to accelerate. Further, ethnic polarization of one political party always triggers ethnic polarization in other parties, even over elite objections, as it becomes necessary to appeal to voters.

    This is why some version the Alt-Right represents the future of Conservative politics, even if the Conservative Establishment doesn't like the Alt-Right. It is structural, and you see the same type of political dynamic in Nigeria, Sri Lanka, post-Independence India, as well as places like the Ottoman Empire or Germany.

    What is fueling the Alt-Right is the policies around immigration and non-assimilation/multiculturalism, combined with demands for racial primacy and racial dominance by minorities (e.g. safe spaces where others are forcibly excluded).

    It could be halted today, but instead we are doubling down on the root causes of ethnic anxieties. Further, I don't know what would be "Left-Wing" about pushing whites into a white ethnic voting block intended to subordinate opponents, given their majority status for a few decades, and even as a plurality, they would have the largest plurality.

    Much as many people desire "racial equality", when one group argues for "primacy", politically, you are never going to get "equality" unless a rival group claims primacy for itself. This is basic bargaining theory. Hence, the inevitability of white with egalitarian preferences going over toward white nationalism. Unfortunately, the most probable result will be greater polarization, not compromise.

    P.S. Yes, I understand "racial primacy" for certain racial groups means "racial equality", just as "war is peace".

    Jennifer , says: October 25, 2016 at 4:56 pm
    Dennis R:

    "I hate the term "identity politics." Identity politics are politics. Straight white people, even liberals (hello Bernie bros), often try to exclude themselves from the definition by casting their own thoughts as neutral while casting everyone with a marked "identity" as practicing identity politics. People are always speaking from a point of view, and in politics they are usually advocating to change things that negatively impact a group they are associated with.

    How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity politics?"

    Exactly.

    The phrase "identity politics" is meant to render illegitimate the concerns of the person who is accused of practicing them. Thus, people don't have to grapple with the actual issue and see whether or not there's a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed. Rod spends a lot of time here complaining about the failings of Black Lives Matter, and very little acknowledging that they have a very legitimate issue that they are pushing to solve.

    KD , says: October 25, 2016 at 5:04 pm
    Religious liberty is not strictly identity politics, because religious affiliations in American society are voluntary. However, religious preferences are pretty inelastic, so you have approximate features of identity politics.

    However, LGBT ideology claims "sexual orientation" is an immutable characteristic. So LGBT is identity politics.

    In some Islamic societies, apostacy is punished by death, so Islam is pretty immutable. So in a strict Muslim society seeking to crack down on alcohol sales, the crack down would be an exercise in identity politics, even if alcohol vendors weren't an identity group.

    Giuseppe Scalas , says: October 25, 2016 at 5:15 pm
    DennisR

    How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity politics?

    Religious liberty is a universal freedom and it applies to all, including atheists and agnostics. (and, contrary to the narrative, being itself a civic right, it doesn't impinge on other "civil rights")
    Identity politics, on the other hand, is the fostering of tribalism. It's a degrading thing: it considers humans as dogs that have to bite at each other to get a greater share of the kibble bowl.

    KD , says: October 25, 2016 at 5:16 pm
    If you look at politics post-independence in Trinidad and Guyana, or Sri Lanka, you see the emergence of ethnic identity politics converting Communist and Socialist parties, and their leaders, from universalist political programs to ethnic-based programs, depending on what ethnic groups they derived more political support from.

    Although, I suppose some people think that because America is majority white, the same kind of political trends won't play out here. I think human nature is human nature, and identity politics is identity politics, and the result is never good for someone.

    FiveString , says: October 25, 2016 at 5:19 pm
    "No decent person of any race supports police brutality"

    I've known FAR too many "decent" middle and upper-middle class burb-dwellers who are perfectly comfortable with police brutality. They believe that citizens get the policing they deserve. Rodney King? "If you saw the entire tape, not just the excerpt on the evening news, you'd understand why the officers acted that way". Black Lives Matter? "All they have to do is follow the law and not disrespect the police". Unarmed, non-threatening, law-abiding minority killed by police? "There must be more to the story".

    loolaa , says: October 25, 2016 at 5:29 pm
    Lifting from (mooching off of) DennisR's comment, I am also interested in RD's response to this question:

    "How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity politics?"

    Joe the Plutocrat , says: October 25, 2016 at 5:39 pm
    moral blindness? all politics is identity politics. the fact that white, Christian, property-owning, heterosexual, males looked out for their interests for the first 200+ years of the plutocracy was identity politics in spades. the push-back from BLM, NOW, the LGBT community, and even Trump supporters are as well. I had a very good History professor in the 80's. he taught politics is merely a group or individual looking out for its vested, economic interests. the Karl Marx vs. Adam Smith stuff (ideology) is merely a demographic extension of this. what you call identity politics is more about the relationship between wealth and power, than left or right.
    EliteCommInc , says: October 25, 2016 at 5:39 pm
    It is certainly a peculiar advance that in a country founded on identity color politics those who have benefited and manipulated color politics to their advantage in every way --

    are finding logical flaws in the very system they have created for themselves.

    On its face - should raise serious doubts about the veracity of the complaint.

    Andy Toft , says: October 25, 2016 at 5:56 pm
    "No decent person of any race supports police brutality." Explain what you mean by "decent" person. This is a term similar to the term "elites" be bandied about in this election without anyone saying who they include in that group. All I get in response to my inquiries are quotations from dictionaries. So, please explain what is meant by "decent person."

    [NFR: If you believe it's okay for the police to brutalize people because of their race, or to brutalize anyone, you are not a decent person, in my view. - RD]

    MJR , says: October 25, 2016 at 6:08 pm
    This bit is much better than everything else SNL has commented on the 2016 election. I still think SNL caters way too much to African American chauvinism though.
    Todd carpenter , says: October 25, 2016 at 6:21 pm
    How much traction would BLM have if it were not funded by George Soros?, or any other identity group if they had not been funded by billionaires with an interest in destabilizing the American polity??
    KD , says: October 25, 2016 at 6:22 pm
    BTW, although it is not necessarily identity politics, the political principle that groups maximize their relative power over say the welfare of the totality also explains the problem of elites. All elites want to maximize their relative power over other groups, and so it is really competition (e.g. fear of revolution or being conquered) that keeps them "honest", otherwise they will grind the common man down to subsidence if they have the chance.
    KD , says: October 25, 2016 at 6:23 pm
    should read "subsistence"
    Ferny , says: October 25, 2016 at 6:41 pm
    All of American history includes the strong presence of white identity politics.

    Stop pretending otherwise. What else explains racialized chattel slavery and Jim crow and redlining and so forth?

    [NFR: Let me explain something to you. Are you sitting down? Because this is going to come as a shock. Ready? We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people fought and died to end white supremacy. Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress, and puts that progress towards equal justice for all, regardless of their skin color, in jeopardy. - RD]

    Sands , says: October 25, 2016 at 6:47 pm
    …to be fed some Burger King like Dylan Roof perhaps.

    You're either ignorant of the context of that situation, or you're deliberately taking it out of context. Roof was arrested by a tiny police department and held until the FBI showed up. He was arrested after 10pm and had not eaten for a while. The police department didn't even have the facilities to prepare a meal. Instead of automatically being suspicious, maybe you should consider that the police were making sure to not do something that could harm the prosecution in such an important case.

    But that's how it's done, huh? Exaggerate things to the extreme, and then wonder why white people don't understand.

    Dain , says: October 25, 2016 at 6:59 pm
    "Black Lives Matter and related identity politics movements (Which Side Are You On? says it is not affiliated with BLM) are by no means only about police brutality."

    Yep. It's also about Israeli "genocide" of Palestinians, if you haven't heard: http://bit.ly/2eJeXDZ

    I remember libertarians complaining in the aughts that it was almost impossible to partake in antiwar demonstrations with the left because it was never about MERELY war. Environmental degradation, environmental racism (yes, that's a thing), and all manner of other unrelated items were seen as a mandatory part of what naive libertarians thought was the goal of simply extracting the US military from the Middle East.

    Ideology is a helluva thing. It's an all-encompassing worldview that looks bizarre to people who aren't already steeped in one.

    Dain , says: October 25, 2016 at 7:01 pm
    "I hate the term 'identity politics'…"

    Then take it up with the campus left, because they're the ones who coined it to distinguish it from regular ol' politics.

    Ferny , says: October 25, 2016 at 7:36 pm
    [NFR: Let me explain something to you. Are you sitting down? Because this is going to come as a shock. Ready? We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people fought and died to end white supremacy. Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress, and puts that progress towards equal justice for all, regardless of their skin color, in jeopardy. - RD]

    Let me explain something to you too! I'd ask you to sit down, but you're probably already in your fainting couch!

    We have, sort of, in some parts of the country, in some ways moved away from white identity politics! Just because white identity politics doesn't look like lynching doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    All politics is identity politics! Why wouldn't it be? We create visions of the good and we view it through our prism of identity. The fact that in our nation the axis about race doesn't change that it does exist.

    And no one is asking for 'blacks' to be treated as some chosen people – at even the most exaggerated, most 'blacks' are asking for some acknowledgement that racial damage was done and it's going to take racially conscious solutions (and some people like reparations!).

    But also, here's the reality – the damage to large groups of people in this country was explicitly because of who they were. Why would the solutions necessarily be universal?

    If we both could have had 5, but then I was allowed to unfairly steal 4 from you, it wouldn't then be fair if my solution to the problem was to give both of us 5 again.

    K. W. Jeter , says: October 25, 2016 at 7:37 pm
    Per Selvar:

    The problem is that white nationalists can't go two seconds without demonizing Jews

    The much-reviled John Derbyshire seems to be able to go for quite a stretch without "demonizing" Jews:

    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Religion/jewsandi.html

    Quote: Taken all in all, though, I am proud to call myself a philosemite, and even at low points like the Spectator affair still, at the very least, an anti-antisemite. I recall the numberless kindnesses I have received at the hands of Jews, friendships I treasure and lessons I have learnt. I cherish those recollections.

    Patrick Spens , says: October 25, 2016 at 7:42 pm
    @Sandy

    The point isn't that police did anything wrong with Dylan Roof.

    Adamant , says: October 25, 2016 at 8:03 pm
    "We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics."

    The word 'steadily' is doing quite a lot of heavy lifting here. It seems the distance from full on Jim Crow to 'young bucks eating T bone steaks' is vanishingly small in historical time. If we could quantify and graph the prevalence of white identity politics, would that graph be pointing up or down?

    The comment made above is entirely correct: identity politics is just ordinary politics. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.

    Sam M , says: October 25, 2016 at 8:57 pm
    "Thompson, Zamata, and Jones might see a lot to like in Doug, but if he can't sign on to the fact that black Americans face unique challenges and dangers,"

    There's the BS right there. Doug might well admit that and accept it and still think that BLM is full of crap. That's my position. Bouie doesn't get to own the conversation like that and neither does BLM.

    Just like the NRA doesn't get to claim that anyone who fails to bow to its agenda and policies hates safety.

    Just because I disagree with the Sierra Clubs position on zero-cut goals on public land do they get to say I hate the earth?

    I'm not really asking for his permission.

    Sam M , says: October 25, 2016 at 9:00 pm
    JeremyK:

    "So the desire to be treated fairly is framed as identity politics?"

    So black people want to be killed more often by police?

    There's at least one famous study famously made famous in the NYT, by a really great black economist from Harvard, indicating that black people are killed LESS often in interactions with cops.

    Yep. That data is limited and incomplete. But so is the data you prefer.

    GSW , says: October 25, 2016 at 9:04 pm
    "We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people fought and died to end white supremacy… RD"

    In fact, the idea of a biologically-based white supremacy never held the political or social field to itself during the last two centuries in either Europe or America.

    This was because it was contested by important currents of both Christian and liberal thought on human equality. These ideas of Christian and liberal equality were powerful enough to sustain the successful 60 year international campaign of the world's leading 19th century Empire. the British, to abolish slavery and were as well a significant factor behind the U.S. civil war.

    Any serious reading of the history of the late 19th and early 20th century reveals how ethnic and "racial" conflicts were created and manipulated by unscrupulous politicians of that time and how these "identities" contributed to the radical destabilization and destruction of domestic and international peace.

    The 20th century Nazis represented the apogee of "white" supremacy and their European and American opponents in World War II repudiated with extreme force their odious race "science."

    Contemporary identity politics seeks to reassert and re-legitimize a supposed biological basis for political conflict. The historical evidence is clear that this is not a story that can in any way end well.

    Anna Duarte , says: October 25, 2016 at 9:34 pm
    Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people..

    Chosen people that are still more likely to be the victims of police brutality. I'm pretty sure they'd rather pass on being chosen and get on with being treated like everyone else.

    Joseph , says: October 25, 2016 at 9:40 pm
    You act as if "identity politics" only happens on the left. Small-o "orthodox Christians" are a tribe who practice "identity politics." All politics is local, Tip O'Neill taught us. A corollary of that is "all politics are tribal."

    I (and other liberals) get dismissed as being nonsensical for wanting to be respected on the basis of our identity, but the minute a Christian baker has to do business equally with a gay person, it's tyranny.

    What is the Benedict Option, if not Christian identity politics put into maximum effect?

    The thing that infuriates me (and people like me) is the assumption that we are the "other" and the view expressed here is the "default." As I see it, it's our tribe against yours. Your right to lead is no more evident than mine. We fight for the right to lead. Someone wins, and someone loses.

    I realize this a conservative blog, but try approaching the other side as moral equals, instead of with an a priori assumption that the left is tribal, and the right has the voice of G-d Himself as their trumpeter of all that is good and true.

    Rich , says: October 25, 2016 at 10:00 pm
    In any given society, the dominant majority defines the norm – in every area of life and culture – by using themselves as the yardstick. They are normal, everybody different (and their different stuff) is abnormal.

    This is all perfectly natural. It's why there's pretty much no such thing as "white music" or "white food" in America – whatever was traditional to whites was just called music and food. If it comes from white culture, it doesn't get a special name, and it doesn't get widely recognized as something specific to white people. It's just the norm.

    This is why white identity politics isn't usually called white identity politics, yet any politics arising out of a nonwhite experience is defined as abnormal and gets a special name.

    Seen from any perspective other than the traditionally dominant one, it's rather clear that the driving force on the American right has long been white identity politics. The Republican Party didn't get over 90% white by accident. Some people may have the privilege of calling their own politics the norm and assigning a name to the rest, but it's all identity politics whether they want to see it or not.

    Siarlys Jenkins , says: October 25, 2016 at 10:22 pm
    Then comes the final punchline, "Lives That Matter." Obviously, the answer to the question is "black." But Doug has "a lot to say about this."

    The beautiful thing about the skit is that it left all this hanging… it didn't try to write the final outcome, but left a range of variables and a variety of possible outcomes to the viewer's imagination.

    The problem with over-analysis is that it erases this well done ending, by trying to pin down exactly what the outcome is or was or would have been or should have been. Of course, each analysis erases many possibilities, which is a form of vandalism.

    In a small way, this reminds me of when I heard a woman state during Bible study that she likes the New International Version because it makes everything clear. This cemented my late in life preference for the King James Version, because by trying to make "everything clear," many nuances and layers of meaning are erased. The KJV is sufficiently poetic, and sufficiently archaic, that sometimes there may be five or ten or twenty layers of meaning there, and perhaps that is exactly what God intended.

    (Dain, the term "identity politics" was "coined" as much by Nigel Farage, who openly espouses it, as it was by "the campus left.")

    Environmental degradation, environmental racism (yes, that's a thing), and all manner of other unrelated items were seen as a mandatory part…

    This is a mislocation coined by the campus left… more precisely, by 1970s would-be Marxists, who latched onto the fuzzy notion that Marxism explains everything and that culture is all a "superstructure" resting on an economic "base." They then promulgated, spontaneously, not with much thought, that whatever your pet issue is, Marxism will deliver the desired result. And the Maoist slogan "unite the many to defeat the few" was best served by including everyone's favorite issue in one big happy family of agendas. There was even a short-lived "Lavender and Red League." It doesn't work, Marx and Mao may both be turning in their graves over such petty horse manure, Lenin would certainly call it an infantile disorder, but nobody every accused the post-1970 would-be leftists of professionalism, or profound strategic thinking, or even ability to articulate a coherent working class demand.

    Perichoresis , says: October 25, 2016 at 10:28 pm
    Joe the Plutocrat: "moral blindness? all politics is identity politics."

    No, it can and should be a contest of universal principles and ideas. The Marxian idea that such is just "false consciousness" is bunk and commits the genetic fallacy.

    VikingLS , says: October 25, 2016 at 10:41 pm
    If you haven't been to the Black Lives Matter webpage and read their Guiding Principals, you should not be expressing an opinion about them.

    http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/

    This isn't just about the very real issue of police brutality, it's a trojan horse.

    [NFR: That's right. - RD]

    kgasmart , says: October 25, 2016 at 11:26 pm
    I want to take this opportunity to remind you all that when you cheer on left-wing, racial and sexual identity politics, you implicitly cheer on his.

    Yeppers. Because if "people of color" can have their "safe spaces," off limits to white people, then white people are utterly and completely justified in seeking "white spaces," off limits to people of color.

    The assertion is that since people of color have historically been oppressed, they now have additional rights to request accommodations that would never be granted to their historic oppressors.

    Nope. Don't work that way. What's good for the goose is indeed good for the gander – no matter how many "microagressions' the geese detect.

    razib khan , says: October 25, 2016 at 11:41 pm
    why does this post seem racist to me? 😉
    Console , says: October 26, 2016 at 1:03 am
    "We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics."

    Right… because both political parties in America are just so diverse. Oh wait, one's the white people party and one is everyone else. In short, the everyone else party isn't the divisive one…

    [NFR: It is in the nature of progressive protest movements that they portray all things as having gotten no better, because if things *have* improved, it's harder for them to hold on to power and raise money. That's what's happening here. Anybody who doesn't think white supremacy and the identity politics that supported it is vastly weaker today than it was in 1960 is either a fool, or willfully blind. - RD]

    Nelson , says: October 26, 2016 at 1:21 am
    The original sin of conservatism is not giving "the other" equal rights and privileges. Whether it is blacks getting shot by police, the war on drugs (that disproportionately affects the poor), jim crow like immigration laws, not letting gays marry, not giving equal funding to poor school districts or any of the other many inequalities conservatives want to perpetuate.

    Nobody is "the chosen people" just because they gain some kind of right or privilege white middle class straight people already have.

    M_Young , says: October 26, 2016 at 3:07 am
    @WetOne

    We can trade racial aggressions - you'll run out long before I do.

    http://nypost.com/2016/10/25/crazed-teens-viciously-attack-college-kids-for-no-apparent-reason/

    M_Young , says: October 26, 2016 at 3:10 am
    "All of American history includes the strong presence of white identity politics."

    That's a feature, not a bug. Cf. Brazil.

    M_Young , says: October 26, 2016 at 3:24 am
    @Sands

    Thanks for the clarification. I had just assumed that the Narrative - the cops being buddy buddy with Roof and getting him some BK in the middle of the day on the way back to Charleston - was correct. I should have known better.

    As an interesting comparison, look at the treatment of one Trenton Trenton (I kid you not) Lovell, killer of LA Sheriff Deputy Steve Owen. Shot himself, he was patched up by paramedics, sent to the hospital where he was treated at taxpayer expense, and when fit enough for trial, arraigned.

    No complaints about that.

    Jay , says: October 26, 2016 at 5:17 am
    Good luck getting anyone on the left to recognize the fallacy of special pleading when it's right in front of their eyes.

    This special pleading, I do not think it means what you think it does. BLM is not asking to that African Americans be treated in a different fashion than anyone else. Rather, their argument is that they are disproportionately burdened by the manner in which police interact with them and that they are asking that they be just be treated the same as the majority of the country. A basic argument for fairness and equality, in other words.

    Now, you can try to make an argument that they are wrong, that they *are* getting equal treatment from law enforcement and that this is all in their heads. You can try, but in all fairness, the anecdotal and empirical evidence seem not to be on your side.

    Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress,

    Who, exactly, is making this argument? Not BLM and not the mainstream liberal political establishment. I'm sorry, but I appear to have missed the mainstreaming of black nationalism.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Stately mating of dinosaurs:

    Oct 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jim Haygood October 27, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Stately mating of dinosaurs:

    CenturyLink Inc. is in advanced talks to merge with Level 3 Communications Inc., a deal that would give the telecommunications companies greater heft in a brutally competitive industry.

    Terms of the deal couldn't be learned. As of Thursday afternoon before the Journal's report of the talks, Level 3, based in Broomfield, Colo., had a market value of $16.8 billion. CenturyLink, based in Monroe, La., was worth $15.2 billion.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/centurylink-in-advanced-merger-talks-with-level-3-communications-2016-10-27

    CenturyLink is a former rural telephone exchange operator which bought former Baby Bell, Qwest (U S West) in 2011.

    CenturyLink is a miserable, crappy telco - so spectacularly bad it makes the cable company look like a paragon of customer friendliness by comparison. CTL's share price has declined by about a third since its acquisition of Qwest, reflecting CTL's braindead managerial incompetence.

    If this merger goes through, we'll have a Big Three of dinosaur telcos: AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink.

    Arizona Slim October 27, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    CenturyLink is the landline carrier/ISP wannabe for my part of AZ. Around here, they make Cox Communications look like an excellent cable/ISP company.

    EnonZ October 27, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    My experience has been just the opposite. I have had excellent, reliable DSL service from CenturyLink and good technical support. Perhaps it's because I live somewhere there is still some competition – a duopoly with Comcast. I do have to call them every 6 or 12 months and talk to a retention service rep to keep the charges down.

    CenturyLink does seem slow in getting fiber to the end of the block everywhere in my city. I know lots of people who have been stuck for years down at 5Mbps, which is not enough these days. The routers they provide for customers (which most people call modems even though they're not) are crap. I tried getting a router from CenturyLink that supports 802.11n so I could use 5GHz (2.4GHz is very crowded in my neighborhood) – that's when I found out that 5GHz support is OPTIONAL under the 802.11n standard. Of course CenturyLink went with the cheaper model. Returning the router was no problem and the refund appeared promptly and correctly on my bill.

    The return of monopolization is traced by Barry C. Lynn in his 2010 book, Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction . It goes back to the decision of the Reagan administration to reinterpret antitrust regulation to emphasize efficiency over competition. No previous 20th century administration would have allowed the A&P chain to become a behemoth like Walmart.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Note on propagandists masquerading as security experts

    All their arguments does not stand even entry level programmer scrutiny. Especially silly are "Russian keyboard and timestamps" argument. As if, say Israelis or, say, Estonians, or any other country with sizable Russian speaking population can't use those to direct investigation at the wrong track ;-).
    If I were a Russian hacker trying to penetrate into DNC servers I would use only NSA toolkit and libraries that I can find on black market. First on all they are reasonably good. the second that help to direct people to in a wrong direction. and if knew Spanish or English or French reasonably well I would use them exclusively. If not I would pay for translation of set of variables into those languages and "forget" to delete symbol table in one of the module giving raw meat to idiots like those.
    Actually you can find a lot of such people even in London, Paris, Madrid and NYC, and some of them really do not like the US neoliberal administration with its unending wars of expansion of neoliberal empire :-) But still they are considered to be "security expert". When you hear now the word "security expert", please substitute it for "security charlatan" for better comprehensions -- that's almost always the case about people posing as security experts for MSM. The only reliable exception are whistleblowers -- those people sacrifices their lucrative carriers for telling the truth, so they can usually be trusted. They might exaggerate things on the negative side, though. I personally highly respect William Binney.
    The "regular" security expects especially from tiny, struggling security companies in reality they are low paid propagandists amplifying the set of prepared talking point. The arguments are usually pretty childish. BTW, after the USA/Israeli operation against Iran using Stixnet and Flame in Middle East, complex Trojans are just commonplace and are actually available to more or less qualified hacker, or even a unqualified person with some money and desire to take risks.
    I especially like the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt that the hack was in fact an operation of the Russian state." Is not this a slander, or what ? Only two cagagiry of peopel: impetcils and paid presstitutes has think about complex hacking operation origin "beyond reasonable doubt")
    observer.com

    Oct 28, 2016 | observer.com

    Original title: 7 Reasons Security Firms Believe the Russian State Hacked the DNC

    Originally from: Bloomberg

    • 10/26/16 1:02pm

    How do we really know that the breaches of the Democratic National Committee were conducted by organizations working on behalf of the Russian state? With the CIA considering a major counterstrike against the superpower, as NBC has reported , it's worthwhile for the public to measure how confident we can be that Putin's government actually deserves retribution.

    "When you're investigating a cybersecurity breach, no one knows whether you're a Russian hacker or a Chinese hacker pretending to be a Russian hacker or even a U.S. hacker pretending to be a Chinese hacker pretending to be a Russian hacker," reporter Jordan Robertson says during the third episode of a solid new podcast from Bloomberg, called "Decrypted." In the new episode, he and fellow reporter Aki Ito break down the facts that put security experts beyond a reasonable doubt that the hack was in fact an operation of the Russian state.

    Here are the key points:

    From there, the podcast asks: what does this hack mean for the U.S. election. They come to basically the same conclusions that the Observer did in September : voting systems are very safe-voter rolls are less so, but nation-states probably want to discredit our system more than they want to change outcomes.

    How sure can we be? Buratowski says, "Barring seeing someone at a keyboard or a confession, you're relying on that circumstantial evidence." So, we can never really know for sure. In fact, even Crowdstrike's attribution is based on prior experience, which assumes that they have attributed other hacks correctly in the past. Former congressional staffer Richard Diamond in USA Today argues that the hacks can be explained by bad passwords, but he also neglects to counter Crowdstrike's descriptions of the sophisticated code placed inside the servers. From Bloomberg's version of events, how the hackers got in was really the least interesting part of their investigation.

    So what does it all mean? It's natural for political junkies to wonder if there might be further disclosures coming before Election Day, but - if this is an information operation-it might be even more disruptive to hold documents until after the election in order to throw doubt on our final choice. Either way, further disclosures will probably come.

    [Oct 28, 2016] I find the whole hysteria over Russian hacking very one-sided.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I find the whole hysteria over Russian hacking very one-sided. If the US takes it upon itself, out of sincere concern, to help out "moderates" in overthrowing a repressive, evil government in Syria, Libya and Iraq, maybe the same thing happening to the US itself is not that weird? Here is a tyrannical government with little regard for its demotivated and demoralized citizens who can not on their own displace it. This government threatens nuclear war and kills an unjustified number of its own citizens. Its public infrastructure is in ruins and oligarchy is everywhere. In the past the US has set the example for dealing with such troubled states; its time the doctor took his own medicine. ..."
    "... Ahhhh, but that exactly where the "exceptional" clause kicks in. You see, America is justified in intervening in other countries' business because we see further, with a clearer gaze and a purer heart, than any other country in the world. Mired as they are in ignorance or inertia, no other country is qualified to judge us, and any mistakes that we make only occur because of the depths of our love for others and our passion for freedom. ..."
    "... America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse that the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War. ~John le Carre ..."
    "... It is terrifying to watch Clinton rave about adopting a more "muscular, aggressive" approach to foreign affairs - with little or no push back from the national media, either party or even many citizens. Hell, they are applause lines at her rallies. ..."
    "... If 15 years of endless wars, trillions of dollars of wasted money, hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides and metastasizing terrorist threat with no end in sight doesn't give one a little pause before advocating more of the same, then we might have a problem. ..."
    "... Hillary said twice during the debates that "America is great because America is good." Translation: We can do whatever we damn well please because we can. Lord, help us all. I'm so sick of hearing this and our endless criminal wars. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Bjornasson October 26, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    I find the whole hysteria over Russian hacking very one-sided. If the US takes it upon itself, out of sincere concern, to help out "moderates" in overthrowing a repressive, evil government in Syria, Libya and Iraq, maybe the same thing happening to the US itself is not that weird? Here is a tyrannical government with little regard for its demotivated and demoralized citizens who can not on their own displace it. This government threatens nuclear war and kills an unjustified number of its own citizens. Its public infrastructure is in ruins and oligarchy is everywhere. In the past the US has set the example for dealing with such troubled states; its time the doctor took his own medicine.

    reslez October 26, 2016 at 5:07 pm

    The "evidence" for Russian hacking is so suspect that anyone who repeats the story instantly stamps themselves as either a con or a mark. It's depressing to see media corruption so blatantly displayed. Now I know what 2003 must have felt like (I was too young to have much of an opinion back then).

    Gareth October 26, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is complete Clinton bullshit. I'm kind of amazed that journalists are now stating this as fact. I could say I'm shocked but nothing the presstitutes do surprises me anymore. They are busy preening for their future White House access. It kind of makes me want to get drunk and vote for the orange haired guy.

    Kokuanani October 26, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    Just finished trying to "re-educate" my husband after he listened to [and apparently believed] a report in the CBS Evening News on the "Russian hacking of Clinton's e-mails." They reported it as complete "fact," without even a perfunctory "alleged."

    Too difficult to do this correction one person at a time, while the networks have such massive reach.

    Kurt Sperry October 26, 2016 at 9:42 pm

    It *is* highly asymmetric warfare. And as is normal when working the insurgent side, the trick isn't to try to win by a large number of winning individual engagements, but rather of delegitimatizing the side with the resource advantage in a broader, cultural way. Delegitimize the mainstream media actively. If you win the culture war, you win the political war too just as a bonus. Tell the truth, unapologetically. That's as bad-ass as it gets.

    WJ October 26, 2016 at 10:30 pm

    This is sound advice. Problem is, how to delegitimate media generally? Actual insurgents avoid direct confrontations with superior occupying power and opt for a variety of other strategies of attack, including: IED's, flash attacks, suicide bombings, disruption of civilian life, etc. What are some equivalent, concrete (and legal) strategies for disrupting the order of imposed media? The use of social media seems to be one option, and maybe the most successful. Yet this tends to reach only certain segments of population who are unlikely to watch CNN or read the Post in any case. How can one harm the media powers where it hurts them most, by reaching and disrupting their actual consumers, who tend to be older, establishment-minded, white, etc…?

    Kurt Sperry October 26, 2016 at 11:36 pm

    How to delegitimize the media? They are doing that themselves. In spades. Listen to the people around you, they are getting wise to it. Just point it out to anyone who'll listen. It isn't the bombs and attacks that win an insurgency, none of that stuff works if the cause isn't widely understood and shared. The victory is won–to recycle a cliché–in the hearts and minds of the ordinary people. Naked Capitalism is a big ammo depot and we are the grunts and the munitions are ideas. And as I alluded to above, the power of truth. Truth will kick ass and take names if you let it.

    Ulysses October 27, 2016 at 10:30 am

    "Truth will kick ass and take names if you let it."

    Thanks for the spirit-raising exhortation Kurt!! Many Americans are walking around with heads like over-inflated cognitive dissonance balloons. If you listen closely, you can hear these balloons popping off all the time, resulting in yet another person able to confront reality.

    Massinissa October 26, 2016 at 7:26 pm

    What other intelligence agencies are there than the CIA and NSA? Does anyone know the other 15, and why are these intelligence agencies never spoken of in the media except when its useful for Clinton?

    xformbykr October 26, 2016 at 7:33 pm

    see http://www.businessinsider.com/17-agencies-of-the-us-intelligence-community-2013-5#

    JTMcPhee October 27, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    Why is it called a "community?" Cabal? Coven? Hey, isn't the proper collective noun for lawyers (Clintons, Yoo, Meese, Obama, etc.) a "conspiracy?"

    Bjornasson October 26, 2016 at 6:09 pm

    The idea is essentially that even if the evidence did exist, it should be welcomed with the same enthusiasm that US interventions have in Syria and Libya.

    dennison p nyberg October 27, 2016 at 11:24 am

    truth

    Tom October 26, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    Ahhhh, but that exactly where the "exceptional" clause kicks in. You see, America is justified in intervening in other countries' business because we see further, with a clearer gaze and a purer heart, than any other country in the world. Mired as they are in ignorance or inertia, no other country is qualified to judge us, and any mistakes that we make only occur because of the depths of our love for others and our passion for freedom.

    abynormal October 26, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse that the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War. ~John le Carre

    KILLING MACHINES AND THE MADNESS OF MILITARISM
    http://www.artsandopinion.com/2014_v13_n5/giroux-6.htm
    by Henry Giroux

    Tom October 26, 2016 at 6:48 pm

    historical madness/hysterical madness … take your pick.

    It is terrifying to watch Clinton rave about adopting a more "muscular, aggressive" approach to foreign affairs - with little or no push back from the national media, either party or even many citizens. Hell, they are applause lines at her rallies.

    If 15 years of endless wars, trillions of dollars of wasted money, hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides and metastasizing terrorist threat with no end in sight doesn't give one a little pause before advocating more of the same, then we might have a problem.

    abynormal October 26, 2016 at 7:12 pm

    she's a scorned woman beginning with her father. she's passive-aggressive with women…projects her never ending insecurities. SO she has something to prove…vengeance is mine.

    First, she'll drone Mercy Street(s)…

    Elizabeth October 26, 2016 at 7:58 pm

    Hillary said twice during the debates that "America is great because America is good." Translation: We can do whatever we damn well please because we can. Lord, help us all. I'm so sick of hearing this and our endless criminal wars.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Russias Putin says Obama administration does not stick to any deals Reuters

    Oct 28, 2016 | www.reuters.com
    Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current U.S. administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.

    Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people chose, and to discuss any problem.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Team Clinton Headspace Emails Published by WikiLeaks Are About Her Mood

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood swings' and her health problems.... ..."
    "... She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear Codes much less be running for President ..."
    "... Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women. ..."
    "... The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors! ..."
    "... Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence she is unqualified to lead the USA. ..."
    "... So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
    "... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
    "... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
    Oct 28, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood swings' and her health problems....

    She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear Codes much less be running for President because she also is a Criminal and belongs in Federal Prison.

    RobL_v2 2 hours ago Her mood??

    This is coded speech microaggression. They are discriminating against her because she is a woman, implying she is 'moody' you know 'hysterical'... hysterectomy... its sexist, its misogynist its harassment, its abuse, its hate speech.

    Come on Liberal media, where are you ... call it out... this is your bread and butter... Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women.

    They did it to Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachman... You know they'd do it if Trump said Hillary was 'moody'.

    The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors!

    Lion 3 WhiteSplainItToYou 42 minutes ago

    Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence she is unqualified to lead the USA.

    DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ an hour ago

    Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):

    So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.

    It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.

    Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.

    So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.

    Suelark DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ 42 minutes ago

    Please repost this here and elsewhere. If true it would make sense of much of what has happened.

    Regular Guy an hour ago
    Tim Kaine: "I don't think we can dignify documents dumped by WikiLeaks and just assume that they're all accurate and true,"

    They were confirmed true when John Podesta's Twitter password was distributed in one of the WikiLeaks email releases and his Twitter account was hijacked the same day by a troll saying, "Trump 2016! Hi pol". Checkmate b!tch. see more DNC Russian Hacker Pepe Regular Guy 12 minutes ago The way they parse words, the Kaine statement still doesn't state the documents are not accurate. He makes an editorial statement to mislead the listener into thinking there is some reason to question the facts.

    DeplorableCarlo an hour ago
    Sounds pretty much like poor temperament to me when you have mood problems. Can we please put national security on hold for now, we have to check her mood ring. It is imperative for the best outcome that we check her head space. WOW! That's a real dumb explanation. Maybe if we use the word mood instead of temperament that will be better than telling people she has health problems in her head.

    [Oct 28, 2016] An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a do-or-die mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.

    Notable quotes:
    "... So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
    "... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
    "... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
    Oct 28, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

    DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ an hour ago

    Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):

    So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.

    It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.

    Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.

    So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Carlos Danger Reopens EmailGate and Team Clinton Trembles

    Notable quotes:
    "... The New York Times is reporting that the emails came from the FBI's investigation into the sexting habits of former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner , who was married to Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's all-purpose factotum. The idea that another hack by persons unknown has truly opened Pandora's Box for Clinton, Inc. less than two weeks before the election, seems too delicious for some Republicans to contemplate. ..."
    "... It could be the long-awaited "smoking gun" that establishes serious criminality by Clinton, Inc.-or it could be more emails of Hillary discussing yoga and how to figure out the DVR. ..."
    "... That said, Democrats who are wordsmithing this development and prematurely declaring that it's no big deal-or worse, some nefarious Trumpian plot-need to step back and let the FBI do its job. It seems unlikely that the Bureau will wrap this up before November 8, and since Comey has informed Congress what's going on, the FBI director won't be telling the public much either. ..."
    "... Just over a year ago I predicted that EmailGate was far from over, and it remains very much alive today, despite the best efforts of Hillary Clinton, her staff, and her ardent defenders in the media. Nobody should expect that the Democratic nominee will be charged with any crimes in EmailGate: the naked interference of President Obama's Justice Department in this case demonstrates that reality. ..."
    "... However, this scandal remains very much alive as a political matter, and less than two weeks before the election, politics is what matters now. Hillary has never come up with very good answers about why she strictly avoided the use of State Department email when she was the boss at Foggy Bottom, much less why her "unclassified" emails contained so much highly classified information -and she seems unlikely to, all of a sudden. ..."
    "... Throughout this scandal, Friday news-dumps have been a regular feature, per well-honed Beltway bureaucratic practice. This one may be the biggest of all. ..."
    Oct 28, 2016 | observer.com
    Newly incriminating Clinton emails may have been found during the FBI's investigation into the sexting habits of former NY Congressman Anthony Weiner

    FBI Is Re-Opening Clinton E-Mail Investigation Oct. 28 -- The inquiry into Hillary Clinton's use of private e-mail as secretary of state is being re-opened by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to Congressional committee chairman alerting them of his decision. Bloomberg's Margaret Talev reports on "Bloomberg Markets."

    Just 11 days before our presidential election, the explosive issue of EmailGate is back in the news, thanks to James Comey, the FBI director who less than four months ago gave Hillary Clinton a pass on her illegal use of email and a personal server when the Democratic nominee was secretary of state.

    After weeks of damaging revelations care of Wikileaks about just how much the Clinton camp knew about EmailGate for years, and tried to downplay its significance in the media, Comey today sent a letter to the chairmen of the relevant Congressional committees-including, significantly, the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees -- that blows EmailGate wide open all over again. He says:

    "In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.

    In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.

    Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony."

    Having taken Comey to task for his serious mishandling of the FBI's year-long EmailGate investigation-particularly how his account of what the Bureau discovered made Hillary's guilt clear, but he still declined to ask the Department of Justice to seek prosecution-he deserves some credit for due diligence here. It requires some political fortitude to do this practically on an election's eve.

    Clearly the FBI has uncovered new emails-the mention of "connection with an unrelated case" is intriguingly vague-that may (or may not) have relevance to the investigation. We don't yet know what that information might be, or how it was obtained, but rumors are swirling as usual. Some are pointing a finger at a leaker inside the U.S. Government; other rumors point to a foreign origin of these newly discovered emails. The New York Times is reporting that the emails came from the FBI's investigation into the sexting habits of former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner , who was married to Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's all-purpose factotum. The idea that another hack by persons unknown has truly opened Pandora's Box for Clinton, Inc. less than two weeks before the election, seems too delicious for some Republicans to contemplate.

    In truth, the FBI isn't reopening the EmailGate investigation because it was never actually closed. Director Comey here is merely doing what he's legally required to: inform the relevant Congressional committees that new information which may have relevance has been discovered, and the FBI is now assessing its value to the on-going investigation.

    Republicans shouldn't get too excited just yet, since Comey hasn't told us anything about the provenance of these emails. It could be the long-awaited "smoking gun" that establishes serious criminality by Clinton, Inc.-or it could be more emails of Hillary discussing yoga and how to figure out the DVR.

    That said, Democrats who are wordsmithing this development and prematurely declaring that it's no big deal-or worse, some nefarious Trumpian plot-need to step back and let the FBI do its job. It seems unlikely that the Bureau will wrap this up before November 8, and since Comey has informed Congress what's going on, the FBI director won't be telling the public much either.

    Just over a year ago I predicted that EmailGate was far from over, and it remains very much alive today, despite the best efforts of Hillary Clinton, her staff, and her ardent defenders in the media. Nobody should expect that the Democratic nominee will be charged with any crimes in EmailGate: the naked interference of President Obama's Justice Department in this case demonstrates that reality.

    However, this scandal remains very much alive as a political matter, and less than two weeks before the election, politics is what matters now. Hillary has never come up with very good answers about why she strictly avoided the use of State Department email when she was the boss at Foggy Bottom, much less why her "unclassified" emails contained so much highly classified information -and she seems unlikely to, all of a sudden.

    For Team Clinton, EmailGate remains a nightmare that they would really prefer not to talk about. But here we are, talking about it all over again, thanks to Director Comey. Throughout this scandal, Friday news-dumps have been a regular feature, per well-honed Beltway bureaucratic practice. This one may be the biggest of all.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Inside the invisible government War, Propaganda, Clinton Trump

    Oct 28, 2016 | www.rt.com
    The American journalist, Edward Bernays, is often described as the man who invented modern propaganda. Trends

    The nephew of Sigmund Freud, the pioneer of psycho-analysis, it was Bernays who coined the term "public relations" as a euphemism for spin and its deceptions.
    In 1929, he persuaded feminists to promote cigarettes for women by smoking in the New York Easter Parade – behavior then considered outlandish. One feminist, Ruth Booth, declared, "Women! Light another torch of freedom! Fight another sex taboo!"
    Bernays' influence extended far beyond advertising. His greatest success was his role in convincing the American public to join the slaughter of the First World War. The secret, he said, was "engineering the consent" of people in order to "control and regiment [them] according to our will without their knowing about it."

    Read more At least 6 civilians killed, 71 wounded in jihadist shelling of Aleppo – RT reporter

    He described this as "the true ruling power in our society" and called it an "invisible government."

    Today, the invisible government has never been more powerful and less understood. In my career as a journalist and film-maker, I have never known propaganda to insinuate our lives and as it does now and to go unchallenged.

    Imagine two cities.

    Both are under siege by the forces of the government of that country. Both cities are occupied by fanatics, who commit terrible atrocities, such as beheading people.
    But there is a vital difference. In one siege, the government soldiers are described as liberators by Western reporters embedded with them, who enthusiastically report their battles and air strikes. There are front page pictures of these heroic soldiers giving a V-sign for victory. There is scant mention of civilian casualties.

    In the second city – in another country nearby – almost exactly the same is happening. Government forces are laying siege to a city controlled by the same breed of fanatics.

    The difference is that these fanatics are supported, supplied and armed by "us" – by the United States and Britain. They even have a media center that is funded by Britain and America.

    Another difference is that the government soldiers laying siege to this city are the bad guys, condemned for assaulting and bombing the city – which is exactly what the good soldiers do in the first city.

    Confusing? Not really. Such is the basic double standard that is the essence of propaganda. I am referring, of course, to the current siege of the city of Mosul by the government forces of Iraq, who are backed by the United States and Britain and to the siege of Aleppo by the government forces of Syria, backed by Russia. One is good; the other is bad.

    What is seldom reported is that both cities would not be occupied by fanatics and ravaged by war if Britain and the United States had not invaded Iraq in 2003. That criminal enterprise was launched on lies strikingly similar to the propaganda that now distorts our understanding of the civil war in Syria.

    Without this drumbeat of propaganda dressed up as news, the monstrous ISIS and Al-Qaeda and al-Nusra and the rest of the jihadist gang might not exist, and the people of Syria might not be fighting for their lives today.

    Some may remember in 2003 a succession of BBC reporters turning to the camera and telling us that Blair was "vindicated" for what turned out to be the crime of the century. The US television networks produced the same validation for George W. Bush. Fox News brought on Henry Kissinger to effuse over Colin Powell's fabrications.

    The same year, soon after the invasion, I filmed an interview in Washington with Charles Lewis, the renowned American investigative journalist. I asked him, "What would have happened if the freest media in the world had seriously challenged what turned out to be crude propaganda?"

    He replied that if journalists had done their job, " there is a very, very good chance we would not have gone to war in Iraq."

    It was a shocking statement, and one supported by other famous journalists to whom I put the same question - Dan Rather of CBS, David Rose of the Observer and journalists and producers in the BBC, who wished to remain anonymous.

    In other words, had journalists done their job, had they challenged and investigated the propaganda instead of amplifying it, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today, and there would be no ISIS and no siege of Aleppo or Mosul.

    There would have been no atrocity on the London Underground on 7th July 2005. There would have been no flight of millions of refugees; there would be no miserable camps.

    When the terrorist atrocity happened in Paris last November, President Francoise Hollande immediately sent planes to bomb Syria – and more terrorism followed, predictably, the product of Hollande's bombast about France being "at war" and "showing no mercy." That state violence and jihadist violence feed off each other is the truth that no national leader has the courage to speak.

    "When the truth is replaced by silence," said the Soviet dissident Yevtushenko, "the silence is a lie."

    The attack on Iraq, the attack on Libya, the attack on Syria happened because the leader in each of these countries was not a puppet of the West. The human rights record of a Saddam or a Gaddafi was irrelevant. They did not obey orders and surrender control of their country.

    The same fate awaited Slobodan Milosevic once he had refused to sign an "agreement" that demanded the occupation of Serbia and its conversion to a market economy. His people were bombed, and he was prosecuted in The Hague. Independence of this kind is intolerable.

    As WikiLeaks has revealed, it was only when the Syrian leader Bashar Assad in 2009 rejected an oil pipeline, running through his country from Qatar to Europe, that he was attacked.

    From that moment, the CIA planned to destroy the government of Syria with jihadist fanatics – the same fanatics currently holding the people of Mosul and eastern Aleppo hostage.

    Why is this not news? The former British Foreign Office official Carne Ross, who was responsible for operating sanctions against Iraq, told me: "We would feed journalists factoids of sanitized intelligence, or we would freeze them out. That is how it worked."
    The West's medieval client, Saudi Arabia – to which the US and Britain sell billions of dollars' worth of arms – is at present destroying Yemen, a country so poor that in the best of times, half the children are malnourished.

    Read more © Mr Ghostly Saudi Arabia intercepts ballistic missile fired by Yemeni rebels into holy Mecca – report

    Look on YouTube and you will see the kind of massive bombs – "our" bombs – that the Saudis use against dirt-poor villages, and against weddings, and funerals.

    The explosions look like small atomic bombs. The bomb aimers in Saudi Arabia work side-by-side with British officers. This fact is not on the evening news.

    Propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education – Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia - and with careers on the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post.

    These organizations are known as the liberal media. They present themselves as enlightened, progressive tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. They are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-LGBT.

    And they love war.

    While they speak up for feminism, they support rapacious wars that deny the rights of countless women, including the right to life.

    In 2011, Libya, then a modern state, was destroyed on the pretext that Muammar Gaddafi was about to commit genocide on his own people. That was the incessant news; and there was no evidence. It was a lie.

    In fact, Britain, Europe and the United States wanted what they like to call "regime change" in Libya, the biggest oil producer in Africa. Gaddafi's influence in the continent and, above all, his independence were intolerable.

    So he was murdered with a knife in his rear by fanatics, backed by America, Britain and France. Hillary Clinton cheered his gruesome death for the camera, declaring, "We came, we saw, he died!"

    The destruction of Libya was a media triumph. As the war drums were beaten, Jonathan Freedland wrote in the Guardian: "Though the risks are very real, the case for intervention remains strong."

    Intervention - what a polite, benign, Guardian word, whose real meaning, for Libya, was death and destruction.

    According to its own records, NATO launched 9,700 "strike sorties" against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. They included missiles with uranium warheads. Look at the photographs of the rubble of Misrata and Sirte, and the mass graves identified by the Red Cross. The UNICEF report on the children killed says, "most [of them] under the age of ten."

    As a direct consequence, Sirte became the capital of ISIS.

    Ukraine is another media triumph. Respectable liberal newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Guardian, and mainstream broadcasters such as the BBC, NBC, CBS, CNN have played a critical role in conditioning their viewers to accept a new and dangerous cold war.

    All have misrepresented events in Ukraine as a malign act by Russia when, in fact, the coup in Ukraine in 2014 was the work of the United States, aided by Germany and NATO.

    This inversion of reality is so pervasive that Washington's military intimidation of Russia is not news; it is suppressed behind a smear and scare campaign of the kind I grew up with during the first cold war. Once again, the 'Ruskies' are coming to get us, led by another Stalin, whom The Economist depicts as the devil.

    The suppression of the truth about Ukraine is one of the most complete news blackouts I can remember. The fascists who engineered the coup in Kiev are the same breed that backed the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Of all the scares about the rise of fascist anti-Semitism in Europe, no leader ever mentions the fascists in Ukraine – except Vladimir Putin, but he does not count.

    Many in the Western media have worked hard to present the ethnic Russian-speaking population of Ukraine as outsiders in their own country, as agents of Moscow, almost never as Ukrainians seeking a federation within Ukraine and as Ukrainian citizens resisting a foreign-orchestrated coup against their elected government.

    There is almost the joie d'esprit of a class reunion of warmongers. The drum-beaters of the Washington Post inciting war with Russia are the very same editorial writers who published the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

    To most of us, the American presidential campaign is a media freak show, in which Donald Trump is the arch villain. But Trump is loathed by those with power in the United States for reasons that have little to do with his obnoxious behavior and opinions. To the invisible government in Washington, the unpredictable Trump is an obstacle to America's design for the 21st century.

    This is to maintain the dominance of the United States and to subjugate Russia, and, if possible, China.

    To the militarists in Washington, the real problem with Trump is that, in his lucid moments, he seems not to want a war with Russia; he wants to talk with the Russian president, not fight him; he says he wants to talk with the president of China.

    Read more © Brendan McDermid Wall Street: The Trump-China missing link

    In the first debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump promised not to be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into a conflict. He said, "I would certainly not do first strike. Once the nuclear alternative happens, it's over." That was not news.

    Did he really mean it? Who knows? He often contradicts himself. But what is clear is that Trump is considered a serious threat to the status quo maintained by the vast national security machine that runs the United States, regardless of who is in the White House.

    The CIA wants him beaten. The Pentagon wants him beaten. The media wants him beaten. Even his own party wants him beaten. He is a threat to the rulers of the world – unlike Clinton who has left no doubt she is prepared to go to war with nuclear-armed Russia and China.

    Clinton has the form, as she often boasts. Indeed, her record is proven. As a senator, she backed the bloodbath in Iraq. When she ran against Obama in 2008, she threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran. As Secretary of State, she colluded in the destruction of governments in Libya and Honduras and set in train the baiting of China.

    She has now pledged to support a no-fly zone in Syria - a direct provocation for war with Russia. Clinton may well become the most dangerous president of the United States in my lifetime –a distinction for which the competition is fierce.

    Without a shred of evidence, she has accused Russia of supporting Trump and hacking her emails. Released by WikiLeaks, these emails tell us that what Clinton says in private, in speeches to the rich and powerful, is the opposite of what she says in public.

    That is why silencing and threatening Julian Assange is so important. As the editor of WikiLeaks, Assange knows the truth. And let me assure those who are concerned, he is well, and WikiLeaks is operating on all cylinders.

    Today, the greatest build-up of American-led forces since World War Two is under way – in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe, on the border with Russia, and in Asia and the Pacific, where China is the target.

    Keep that in mind when the presidential election circus reaches its finale on November 8th, if the winner is Clinton, a Greek chorus of witless commentators will celebrate her coronation as a great step forward for women. None will mention Clinton's victims: the women of Syria, the women of Iraq, the women of Libya. None will mention the civil defense drills being conducted in Russia. None will recall Edward Bernays' "torches of freedom".

    George Bush's press spokesman once called the media "complicit enablers." Coming from a senior official in an administration whose lies, enabled by the media, caused such suffering, that description is a warning from history.

    In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: "Before every major aggression, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically for the attack. In the propaganda system, it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons."

    This is adapted from an address to the Sheffield Festival of Words, Sheffield, England. JohnPilger.com - the films and journalism of John Pilger

    The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

    [Oct 28, 2016] The neoliberal totebaggers at Vox replay classic theme about kettle calling pot black

    Oct 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    DeDude : October 26, 2016 at 12:39 PM

    Excellent piece on how people can get trapped in their own universe separated from facts.

    http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/26/13413292/social-media-disrupting-politics

    Reply Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 12:39 PM Peter K. -> DeDude... , -1
    Like the totebaggers at Vox?

    [Oct 28, 2016] Junk the system: why young Americans won't do as they're told this election

    Oct 28, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    by Dave Schilling

    Instead, there's the very real possibility that as millennials age, they are less apt to stomach a thing called hope. The Obama presidency did not usher in a new age of cooperation. Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner did not announce they would be going on a nationwide concert tour performing the hits of the Carpenters.

    Racial tension, climate change, gun violence, terrorism, and poverty persist. Easy answers do not exist, and even if they did, they wouldn't be coming from one of the two major political parties – groups often more concerned with their own survival than practical solutions to tangible issues. As the global situation appears to become more and more hopeless – thanks to actual horrors, plus the media saturation that occurs after every tragedy, which amplifies our malaise – it should come as no surprise that millennials as a group and the nation at large disagree on how to turn things around.

    Consensus might just be a thing of the past; MTV is far from the unchallenged thought leader for American youth. What this election might be remembered for is the moment when the American political system became so ossified and incapable of solutions that we decided, at last, to junk it and start from scratch.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Some Trump Voters Warn of Revolution if Clinton Wins

    Oct 28, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    By ASHLEY PARKER and NICK CORASANITI 5:00 AM ET

    417 Comments

    [Oct 27, 2016] Hillary camp recruted Howard Stern to attack Trump

    Oct 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc : , 2016 at 05:39 PM

    "I, certainly, in a million years, I didn't expect Trump to seriously run for president,"

    Tonight's LOL funnee

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/26/media/howard-stern-on-trump-interviews/index.html

    "Howard Stern: Trump Has Always Been 'Sexist'"

    "Because he interviewed Donald Trump so many times over the years, Howard Stern has become an unlikely central figure in this year's presidential election, most notably by getting Trump to go on the record in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.

    But the SiriusXM host rarely discusses politics, which makes his latest comments this week about the Republican nominee and his own role in the race significant. "None of this was hidden,"

    Stern said on his show Tuesday about Trump's most outrageous statements. "This is who Trump is. He was always bombastic. He always rated women. He always talked in a misogynistic, sexist kind of way, but he did it sort of proudly and out in the open; and he still won the Republican primary. In one sense, the fact that we do an interview and people's personalities come out, I'm very proud of that."

    "I, certainly, in a million years, I didn't expect Trump to seriously run for president," Stern added..."

    [Oct 27, 2016] When mentioning undemocratic nature of Putin regime please mention current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen

    Notable quotes:
    "... If you say so. For now I'll leave any decisions or actions taken on these outcomes to Russian citizens. I would, however, kindly tell Victoria Nuland and her ilk to fuck off with their senile Cold War fantasies, morally bankrupt, third-rate Great Game machinations, and total spectrum dominance sociopathy. ..."
    "... "Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do." ..."
    "... There's definitely some of 'em hanging about, but yeah it mostly seems to be a motley assortment of oligarchs, gangsters, and grifters tied into international neoliberal capital and money flows. No doubt Russian believe a lot things. I find Americans tend to believe a lot things as well. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    phenomenal cat 10.26.16 at 6:55 pm

    "So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them?"

    No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian antipathy to Russia.

    "I'd give a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections."

    Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what the U.S. looked like with those dynamics in place.

    "Those have been slowly crushed in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great."

    If you say so. For now I'll leave any decisions or actions taken on these outcomes to Russian citizens. I would, however, kindly tell Victoria Nuland and her ilk to fuck off with their senile Cold War fantasies, morally bankrupt, third-rate Great Game machinations, and total spectrum dominance sociopathy.

    "Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do."

    There's definitely some of 'em hanging about, but yeah it mostly seems to be a motley assortment of oligarchs, gangsters, and grifters tied into international neoliberal capital and money flows. No doubt Russian believe a lot things. I find Americans tend to believe a lot things as well.

    [Oct 27, 2016] Washington Post Press Telling Trump Supporters Your Candidate Is Virtually Certain to Lose - Breitbart

    Notable quotes:
    "... These are accurate, statistically sound statements. But they are something else, too. Declarations that Trump is highly unlikely to win also serve as counters to the Republican nominee's warning that the "rigged" election could be " stolen from us ." ..."
    Oct 27, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Callum Borchers, author at the Washington Post blog The Fix, admits that the press is declaring victory for Hillary Clinton - to discredit claims that the election is rigged.

    From the Washington Post :

    Since the final presidential debate last week, many news outlets have been delivering an unvarnished message to Donald Trump supporters: Your candidate is virtually certain to lose the election Nov. 8.

    " Clinton probably finished off Trump last night ," FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver wrote the day after the debate. " Hillary Clinton is almost certain to be president ," Guardian columnist and former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson added.

    A day later, the Times's Upshot blog increased Clinton's chances of winning to 93 percent , an all-time high. On Monday, Politico's Ben Schreckinger wrote that " Donald Trump's path to an election night win is almost entirely closed ." Here at The Fix, Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake wrote that " Donald Trump's chances of winning are approaching zero ."

    These are accurate, statistically sound statements. But they are something else, too. Declarations that Trump is highly unlikely to win also serve as counters to the Republican nominee's warning that the "rigged" election could be " stolen from us ."

    Read the rest of the article here .

    Read More Stories About:

    2016 Presidential Race , Big Journalism , Hillary Clinton , Callum Borchers , Donald Trump , Washington Post

    [Oct 27, 2016] What Do Trump and Marx Have in Common - The New York Times

    Notable quotes:
    "... In Germany, some 60 percent of A.F.D. supporters say globalization has "mainly negative" effects. We live in a world, the liberal British historian Timothy Garton Ash noted lately, "which would have Marx rubbing his hands with Schadenfreude." ..."
    "... When Hillary Clinton calls half of Mr. Trump's voters a "basket of deplorables," she sounds as aloof as Marie Antoinette, telling French subjects who had no bread to "eat cake." ..."
    Oct 27, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    HAMBURG, Germany - We have a word in German, "Wutbürger," which means "angry citizen" - though like many German compound words, its meaning can never quite be captured in a pithy English translation. And yet nothing in either language quite frames this current political moment.

    It is a relatively new expression, with a derogatory connotation. A Wutbürger rages against a new train station and tilts against wind turbines . Wutbürgers came out in protest after the Berlin government decided to bail out Greece and to accept roughly one million refugees and migrants into Germany.

    Wutbürgers lie at both ends of the political spectrum; they flock to the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland (A.F.D.) and the socialist Linke (Left) Party. The left wing has long had a place in German politics, and the Linke has deep roots in the former East Germany's ruling party. And we've had a fringe right wing since the postwar period began. But the populist anger of the A.F.D. is something new: Anti-establishment, anti-European Union and anti-globalization, the A.F.D. didn't exist four years ago. Today, 18 percent of Germans would consider voting for it.

    The same thing is happening elsewhere in Europe: Many British Wutbürgers voted for Brexit. French Wutbürgers will vote for Marine Le Pen's National Front. Perhaps the most powerful Wutbürger of them all is Donald J. Trump.

    Which raises the question: How was anger hijacked?

    In its pure form, anger is a wonderful force of change. Just imagine a world without anger. In Germany, without the anger of the labor movement, we would still have a class-based voting system that privileged the wealthy, and workers would still toil 16 hours a day without pension rights. Britain and France would still be ruled by absolute monarchs. The Iron Curtain would still divide Europe, the United States would still be a British colony and its slaves could only dream of casting a vote this Nov. 8.

    Advertisement Continue reading the main story

    Karl Marx was a Wutbürger. So were Montesquieu, William Wilberforce, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the tens of thousands of Eastern German protesters who brought down the Berlin Wall in 1989.

    Now: Compare these spirits to the current parties claiming to stand for necessary change. Mr. Trump vs. Dr. King. Sadly, the leaders of today's Wutbürger movements never grasped the difference between anger driven by righteousness and anger driven by hate.

    Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter

    Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

    Sign-up for free NYT Newsletters

    Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box.

    Invalid email address. Please re-enter.

    You must select a newsletter to subscribe to.

    Thank you for subscribing.

    An error has occurred. Please try again later.

    You are already subscribed to this email.

    View all New York Times newsletters.

    Anger works like gasoline. If you use it intelligently and in a controlled manner, you can move the world. That's called progress. Or you just spill it about and ignite it, creating spectacular explosions. That's called arson.

    Unfortunately, a lack of maturity and prudence today exists among not just the new populist class, but parts of the political establishment. The governing class needs to understand that just because people are embittered and paranoid doesn't mean they don't have a case. A growing number of voters are going into meltdown because they believe that politicians - and journalists - don't see what they see.

    Sure, the injustices they see are, in historical perspective, less stark and obvious than in the days of Marx or King. The injustices of today are smaller, but they are more complex. And this is what makes them all the more terrifying.

    If John Steinbeck could travel the West today as he traveled America three generations ago, leaving the highways to visit forgotten towns, documenting people's struggles as he did in "The Grapes of Wrath,'' he would find much the same to write about. Globalization and its masters have capitalized on enormous pay gaps between West and East, at a huge profit for them, and huge cost to others.

    The upper class has gained much more from the internationalization of trade and finances than the working class has, often in obscene ways. Bankers get bonuses despite making idiotic decisions that trigger staggering losses. Giant enterprises like Facebook or Apple pay minimal taxes, while blue-collar workers have to labor harder - even taking a second or third job - to maintain their standard of living. And this is as true in Germany, France or Austria as it is in Ohio or Florida.

    In Germany, some 60 percent of A.F.D. supporters say globalization has "mainly negative" effects. We live in a world, the liberal British historian Timothy Garton Ash noted lately, "which would have Marx rubbing his hands with Schadenfreude."

    The grievances of white, often less-educated voters on both sides of the Atlantic are often dismissed as xenophobic, simplistic hillbillyism. But doing so comes at a cost. Europe's traditional force of social change, its social democrats, appear to just not get it. When Hillary Clinton calls half of Mr. Trump's voters a "basket of deplorables," she sounds as aloof as Marie Antoinette, telling French subjects who had no bread to "eat cake." In Germany, a deputy Social Democrat leader, Ralf Stegner, displays a similar arrogance when he calls A.F.D. supporters "racists" and "skunks." Media reports often convey the same degree of contempt.

    In Germany a recent poll showed that only 14 percent of the citizens trusted the politicians. This is an alarming figure, in a country where faith in a progressive, democratic government has been a cornerstone of our postwar peace. But this presumes that legitimate anger will be acknowledged as such. If this faith is rattled, democracy loses its basic promise.

    Amid their mutual finger-pointing, neither populist nor established parties acknowledge that both are squandering people's anger, either by turning this anger into counterproductive hatred or by denouncing and dismissing it. Mrs. Clinton has the chance to change, by leading a political establishment that examines and processes anger instead of merely producing and dismissing it. If she does, let's hope Europe once again looks to America as a model for democracy.

    Jochen Bittner is a political editor for the weekly newspaper Die Zeit and a contributing opinion writer. Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter , and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter .

    [Oct 27, 2016] Dennis Kucinichs Extraordinary Warning On Washingtons Think Tank Warmongers

    Notable quotes:
    "... Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich has just penned an extremely powerful warning about the warmongers in Washington D.C. Who funds them, what their motives are, and why it is imperative for the American people to stop them. ..."
    "... Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality by banding together, declaring themselves "think tanks," and raising money from external interests, including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life concerns of the American people. ..."
    "... As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16 years of congressional hearings where pedigreed experts came to advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking devoid of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the Pentagon was unable to reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged a missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a target. War is first and foremost a profitable racket. ..."
    "... According to the front page of this past Friday's Washington Post, the bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends the next president show less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of "liberal" hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama administration attacked Libya along with allied powers working through NATO. ..."
    Oct 27, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    WAR is a racket. It always has been.

    It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

    A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

    – From Major General Smedley Butler's War is a Racket

    Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich has just penned an extremely powerful warning about the warmongers in Washington D.C. Who funds them, what their motives are, and why it is imperative for the American people to stop them.

    The piece was published at The Nation and is titled: Why Is the Foreign Policy Establishment Spoiling for More War? Look at Their Donors .

    Read it and share it with everyone you know.

    Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality by banding together, declaring themselves "think tanks," and raising money from external interests, including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life concerns of the American people.

    As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16 years of congressional hearings where pedigreed experts came to advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking devoid of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the Pentagon was unable to reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged a missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a target. War is first and foremost a profitable racket.

    How else to explain that in the past 15 years this city's so called bipartisan foreign policy elite has promoted wars in Iraq and Libya, and interventions in Syria and Yemen, which have opened Pandora's box to a trusting world, to the tune of trillions of dollars, a windfall for military contractors. DC's think "tanks" should rightly be included in the taxonomy of armored war vehicles and not as gathering places for refugees from academia.

    According to the front page of this past Friday's Washington Post, the bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends the next president show less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of "liberal" hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama administration attacked Libya along with allied powers working through NATO.

    Indeed, I warned about this in last week's piece: U.S. Foreign Policy 'Elite' Eagerly Await an Expansion of Overseas Wars Under Hillary Clinton .

    The think tankers fell in line with the Iraq invasion. Not being in the tank, I did my own analysis of the call for war in October of 2002, based on readily accessible information, and easily concluded that there was no justification for war. I distributed it widely in Congress and led 125 Democrats in voting against the Iraq war resolution. There was no money to be made from a conclusion that war was uncalled for, so, against millions protesting in the United States and worldwide, our government launched into an abyss, with a lot of armchair generals waving combat pennants. The marching band and chowder society of DC think tanks learned nothing from the Iraq and Libya experience.

    The only winners were arms dealers, oil companies, and jihadists. Immediately after the fall of Libya, the black flag of Al Qaeda was raised over a municipal building in Benghazi, Gadhafi's murder was soon to follow, with Secretary Clinton quipping with a laugh, "We came, we saw, he died." President Obama apparently learned from this misadventure, but not the Washington policy establishment, which is spoiling for more war.

    The self-identified liberal Center for American Progress (CAP) is now calling for Syria to be bombed, and estimates America's current military adventures will be tidied up by 2025, a tardy twist on "mission accomplished." CAP, according to a report in The Nation, has received funding from war contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing, who make the bombers that CAP wants to rain hellfire on Syria.

    The Brookings Institute has taken tens of millions from foreign governments , notably Qatar, a key player in the military campaign to oust Assad. Retired four-star Marine general John Allen is now a Brookings senior fellow . Charles Lister is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute , which has received funding from Saudi Arabia , the major financial force providing billions in arms to upend Assad and install a Sunni caliphate stretching across Iraq and Syria. Foreign-government money is driving our foreign policy.

    As the drumbeat for an expanded war gets louder, Allen and Lister jointly signed an op-ed in the Sunday Washington Post, calling for an attack on Syria. The Brookings Institute, in a report to Congress , admitted it received $250,000 from the US Central Command, Centcom, where General Allen shared leadership duties with General David Petraeus. Pentagon money to think tanks that endorse war? This is academic integrity, DC-style.

    And why is Central Command, as well as the Food and Drug Administration, the US Department of transportation, and the US Department of Health and Human Services giving money to Brookings?

    Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who famously told Colin Powell , "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it," predictably says of this current moment , "We do think there needs to be more American action." A former Bush administration top adviser is also calling for the United States to launch a cruise missile attack on Syria.

    The American people are fed up with war, but a concerted effort is being made through fearmongering, propaganda, and lies to prepare our country for a dangerous confrontation, with Russia in Syria.

    The demonization of Russia is a calculated plan to resurrect a raison d'ętre for stone-cold warriors trying to escape from the dustbin of history by evoking the specter of Russian world domination.

    It's infectious. Earlier this year the BBC broadcast a fictional show that contemplated WWIII, beginning with a Russian invasion of Latvia (where 26 percent of the population is ethnic Russian and 34 percent of Latvians speak Russian at home).

    The imaginary WWIII scenario conjures Russia's targeting London for a nuclear strike. No wonder that by the summer of 2016 a poll showed two-thirds of UK citizens approved the new British PM's launching a nuclear strike in retaliation. So much for learning the lessons detailed in the Chilcot report.

    As this year's presidential election comes to a conclusion, the Washington ideologues are regurgitating the same bipartisan consensus that has kept America at war since 9/11 and made the world a decidedly more dangerous place.

    The DC think tanks provide cover for the political establishment, a political safety net, with a fictive analytical framework providing a moral rationale for intervention, capitol casuistry. I'm fed up with the DC policy elite who cash in on war while presenting themselves as experts, at the cost of other people's lives, our national fortune, and the sacred honor of our country.

    Any report advocating war that comes from any alleged think tank ought to be accompanied by a list of the think tank's sponsors and donors and a statement of the lobbying connections of the report's authors.

    It is our patriotic duty to expose why the DC foreign-policy establishment and its sponsors have not learned from their failures and instead are repeating them, with the acquiescence of the political class and sleepwalkers with press passes.

    It is also time for a new peace movement in America, one that includes progressives and libertarians alike, both in and out of Congress, to organize on campuses, in cities, and towns across America, to serve as an effective counterbalance to the Demuplican war party, its think tanks, and its media cheerleaders. The work begins now, not after the Inauguration. We must not accept war as inevitable, and those leaders who would lead us in that direction, whether in Congress or the White House, must face visible opposition.

    Thank you Mr. Kucinich, I couldn't agree more.

    RogerMud Oct 27, 2016 7:33 PM ,

    we should have elected him in 2008. missed opportunity.
    LetThemEatRand -> RogerMud Oct 27, 2016 7:41 PM ,
    Just like Ron Paul (with whom he agrees on matters of foreign policy and the Fed), he was painted by MSM as a kook. I wonder why. While I understand that many here would never vote for him because he believes in things like social programs, so do all of the Republicans in Congress. He would have made a far better president than zero or McCain.
    nmewn Oct 27, 2016 7:37 PM ,
    So I guess the War on Poverty is over...so who won? ;-)
    Ignatius Oct 27, 2016 7:43 PM ,
    Off Topic: Oregon Standoff -- Not Guilty of Conspiracy

    http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/judge_welcomes_new_jur...

    The comment section is filled with weeping bolsheviks, apparently.

    [Oct 27, 2016] Trumps Foreign Policy Is Sane While Clintons Is Belligerent

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reality dictates ...abstaining or voting for anyone other than Donald Trump is a de facto vote for Hillary Clinton. As POTUS she has declared her intentions of imposing a (Libyan style) "NO FLY" zone over Syria, to "Obliterate" "Iran" and "Russia", confront China and expand the globalization of the American economy. ..."
    "... For the sake of all humanity, criminal warmonger Hillary must be voted out on Nov.8 2016 ..."
    "... While what you say may be half true, you miss the point entirely. It's irrelevant weather or not Trump keeps his words as we have no control over that anyway. What we do have control over however is not giving a mandate to Hillary's criminal war making intentions and the only way to do that under the circumstances, is to vote her out, by voting Trump in period. ..."
    "... The clever economic left realizes that although Trump has some of dem ebul GOP economic ideas, he's more sensible than Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... I think b should've taken note of the Hillary camp's attempt in recent days to play down her militarism. ..."
    "... IMO the best strategy is to vote Trump in battleground states and vote Green everywhere else. ..."
    "... Very early on, I was of the opinion that Hillary's negatives were so high that her run should be seen as electing the Republican. But neocon defections, DNC collusion, 'sheepdog' Sanders, and more convinced me that the establishment really does want a Hillary coronation. ..."
    "... The lesser-evilists are assuming that there aren't enough votes, so you are just taking votes from the lesser evil and helping the greater evil. True if their assumption is true, that there aren't enough votes for a third party to win. ..."
    "... Another third-party argument is sending a signal to party leaders and the public that there are voters who despise the oligarchy candidates. That would improve growth of a third party (it would also attract oligarchy influence to them). ..."
    "... We need to stop letting the corporate press goad us into fighting over trivia - transgenders in bathrooms! Trump's hair! Clinton's smile! - and focus on what is truly crucial. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton is a monster and God help us all if she wins. I envision President Clinton with perfectly coiffed hair with a rosy plastic smile (kudos to her mortician) giving a perfectly written speech with all the trendy buzzwords (celebrating diversity, helping the middle class, sustainable energy, etc.etc.) while outside the world burns. ..."
    "... Whatever you do, no matter how much the corporate press tells you that Trump is 'finished,' go to the polls and vote. Because for the first time in decades, a US presidential election matters. ..."
    "... Trump will meet with much resistance from the establishment. His worst instincts will be constrained. That is not true for Hillary & Co. ..."
    "... A loss for a corrupted Democratic Party is best for the country. A strong showing by Greens is a further embarrassment. The left can then build on a solid foundation. ..."
    "... Chomsky advocated for voting for Hillary in battleground states and Greens elsewhere. ..."
    "... I do not believe that the 'Third Way' Democratic Party can be changed from within. The example of Obama and Hillary should have disabused any progressive of such fantasies. ..."
    "... Trump, both domestically and internationally is the best breath of fresh air in American politics since FDR. Of course purists and utopians might disagree, but when he wins on Nov.8,I'll treat that day as the second 4th of July. America first, at long last, instead of traitors for zion. Hoo haw. Todays Wapoo intimates Trump anti-Semite. And Colin liar Powell is for the Hell Bitch. ..."
    "... This elections cycle almost all fake leftist and NeoCon, both Democratic Party and Republicans voting for Hillary. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is taken straight out of "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" by Oded Yinon, also known as The Yinon Plan. ..."
    "... I am a spectator outside the USSA. USSA policies affect all of humanity on planet earth. A vote for the Clinton adds another potential 16 years reign in the WH, a continuation of the corruption, death, destruction and endless wars. ..."
    "... Since the 1990s in Arkansas then in D.C., their retirement is long overdue. Stop the Clintons from enriching themselves on the public purse…foreign and domestic. ..."
    "... OMg Illary cares about women's rights but takes $millions in donations from such likes as KSA, Qatar. Not to mention, countries that are steeped in poverty. Take a look at the donors to the Clinton Foundation. ..."
    Oct 27, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Some highlights of a recent Donald Trump interview with Reuters:
    U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Democrat Hillary Clinton's plan for Syria would "lead to World War Three," because of the potential for conflict with military forces from nuclear-armed Russia.

    In an interview focused largely on foreign policy, Trump said defeating Islamic State is a higher priority than persuading Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down,..

    Trump questioned how Clinton would negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin after demonizing him; blamed President Barack Obama for a downturn in U.S. relations with the Philippines under its new president, Rodrigo Duterte;...

    Trump's foreign policy talk is far more sane than Clinton's and her camp's. It is ludicrous to event think about openly attacking Russian (or Syrian) troops in Syria with an al-Qaeda supporting "no-Fly-Zone". Russia would respond by taking down U.S. planes over Syria. The Russian government would have to do so to uphold its authority internationally as well as at home.

    The U.S. could respond by destroying all Russian assets in and around Syria. It has the capabilities. But then what? If I were Putin my next step would be a nuclear test shoot in Siberia - a big one - to make a point and to wake up the rest of the world. I would also provide secret support to any indigenous anti-U.S. movement anywhere. China would support Russia as its first line of self defense.

    "What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria," said Trump as he dined on fried eggs and sausage at his Trump National Doral golf resort. "You're going to end up in World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton.

    "You're not fighting Syria any more, you're fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk," he said.
    ...
    On Russia, Trump again knocked Clinton's handling of U.S.-Russian relations while secretary of state and said her harsh criticism of Putin raised questions about "how she is going to go back and negotiate with this man who she has made to be so evil," if she wins the presidency.

    On the deterioration of ties with the Philippines, Trump aimed his criticism at Obama, saying the president "wants to focus on his golf game" rather than engage with world leaders.

    The last two points are important. Trump, despite all his bluster, knows about decency. What is the point of arrogantly scolding negotiation partner who have the power to block agreements you want or need?

    Why blame Russia for hacking wide open email servers when no Russian speakers were involved? Why blame Duterte? It is the U.S. that has a long history of violent racism in the Philippines and FBI agents committed false flag "terrorism" is Duterte's home town Davao. Bluster may paper over such history for a moment but it does not change the facts or helps solving problems.

    Trump's economic policies would be catastrophic for many people in the U.S. and elsewhere. But Hillary Clinton would put her husband, the man who deregulated Wall Street, back in charge of the economy. What do people expect the results would be?

    The points above may be obvious and one might be tempted to just pass them and dig into some nig-nagging of this or that election detail. But the above points as THE most important of any election. The welfare of the people is not decided with some "liberal" concession to this or that niche of the general society. The big issues count the most. Good or evil flow from them. Trumps principle, and I think personal position, is leaning towards peaceful resolution of conflicts. Clinton's preference is clearly, as her history shows, escalation and general belligerence. It is too risky to vote for her.

    RayB | Oct 26, 2016 4:14:08 AM | 1
    What's to be done?

    Reality dictates ...abstaining or voting for anyone other than Donald Trump is a de facto vote for Hillary Clinton. As POTUS she has declared her intentions of imposing a (Libyan style) "NO FLY" zone over Syria, to "Obliterate" "Iran" and "Russia", confront China and expand the globalization of the American economy.

    Thus all Americans by default and their own actions will have given her a mandate to do her will and thereby become complicit in their own economic destruction, war crimes and potentially starting world war three and a planetary thermonuclear holocaust.

    Striped of all the other none issue nonsense and distractions the critical choice we are all faced with making is that simple. And one that will for all eternity weigh on our collective souls conscience.

    For the sake of all humanity, criminal warmonger Hillary must be voted out on Nov.8 2016

    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 26, 2016 5:31:47 AM | 4
    @ jfl | Oct 26, 2016 4:32:57 AM | 2

    Why are you still beating on that worn out tin drum of yours, Dr. Jill Stein isn't going anywhere, not even if she politically walks on water. You keep at it like the dog in a manger, gnawing on the remains of some desiccated bone. What you (and others maintaining your OPINIONS) have become is stool pigeons to land some herd of discontents into the position of self inflicted voter suppression, their votes without effect on the outcome of the election. If you and the others weren't so completely innumerate, you would realise the first division in the election was between elegible participants and non-participants. Of the participants only voters for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will decide the eventual winner (with the highly probable event of assisted voting machine fraud). All other votes are the effete delusions of some morally deranged cult. There Is No Alternative (TINA) is the illusion of your political kindred is saying there is an alternative. You cannot point out even one city commission in the top thousand that either the 'Greens' or 'Libertarians' exercise control over, at best there may be a Communist mayor somewhere in that number. If perchance Dr Stein were to win, where is the political support necessary to conduct governance at any level? No your ideas come from Walt Disney directly - they are cartoon delusions. You need to carry a warning whenever you express your opinions, like those posted on nuts - My opinion may contain delusions.

    About the only ability for today's voter to have any effect on the voting system is to provide an unexpected aggregate that would draw back the curtains to expose the expectations and machinations of the vote counters. Voting as you suggest will only allow those manipulations to remain hidden - not effective voting by any measure, nor is it voting one's interests. If any of your ilk have a counter argument that will stand scrutiny, please have at it, otherwise your silence after once stating your opinion might be your best course to follow.

    RayB | Oct 26, 2016 6:25:20 AM | 5
    @2

    While what you say may be half true, you miss the point entirely. It's irrelevant weather or not Trump keeps his words as we have no control over that anyway. What we do have control over however is not giving a mandate to Hillary's criminal war making intentions and the only way to do that under the circumstances, is to vote her out, by voting Trump in period.

    Anything else amounts to a dereliction of patriotic duty and criminal negligence.

    The idea that there is any real "choice" here to be had, other than doing what's of a critical necessity at this point in time, is totally delusional in and of itself buying into the illusion that we have any real freedom of choices here. Sorry we don't have that luxury.

    We don't have a choice, other than to resister our protest vote against the political establishment which clearly doesn't want to see Trump win the presidency of the US empire under any circumstances.

    Given how close trump has gotten to within the reach of taking real power as commander in chief of the worlds most powerful imperial empire, the deep state and political establishment will make sure that, that threat will never happen again, if they even allow him to live very much longer.

    So no second chances here for us all in another 4-8 years down the road, nor for all the men, women and children victims to be killed by wars in all the countries Hillary has set her cross-hair sights on as soon as she takes control of the entire state apparatus from the white house.

    Time to get off our asses and get real here, and back on the right side of history, if but for once in our lifetimes.

    Talk is cheep but action is not. As in Trump's Gettysburg address he said "we have now crossed the Rubicon" and heaven or hell there's no going back to the status quo, as he's already declared war on the corrupt state department, the media and the whole of the elite's political establishment.

    "So there's but one choice left to make here, and it's which side are you fighting on?"

    somebody | Oct 26, 2016 6:31:50 AM | 6
    The paper of Trump's son in law tells it as it is .
    According to an email from Marissa Astor, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook's assistant, to Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, the campaign knew Trump was going to run, and pushed his legitimacy as a candidate.

    WikiLeaks' release shows that it was seen as in Clinton's best interest to run against Trump in the general election. The memo, sent to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) also reveals the DNC and Clinton campaign were strategizing on behalf of their candidate at the very beginning of the primaries. "We think our goals mirror those of the DNC," stated the memo, attached to the email under the title "muddying the waters."

    The memo named Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson as wanted candidates. "We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously," the memo noted.

    Clinton was widely presumed to be the Democratic presidential nominee long before the primaries began. This assumption was held by the mainstream media and the Democratic Party leadership. Expecting Clinton to be the nominee, the DNC and Clinton campaign developed strategies for the general election.

    In June, hacker Guccifer 2.0 released an opposition research dossier on Trump, dated December 19, 2015. Coincidentally, no other opposition research dossiers were released by Guccifer 2.0 from the DNC hacks.

    It was in the best interest of Clinton, and therefore the Democratic Party, that Trump was the Republican presidential nominee. Polls indicated Sen. Rubio, Gov. Kasich, or almost any other establishment Republican would likely beat Clinton in a general election. Even Cruz, who is reviled by most Republicans, would still maintain the ability to rally the Republican Party-especially its wealthy donors-around his candidacy. Clinton and Democrats expected the FBI investigation into her private email server would serve as a major obstacle to Clinton's candidacy, and the public's familiarity with her scandals and flip-flopping political record put her at a disadvantage against a newcomer. Donald Trump solved these problems.

    All the Clinton campaign had to do was push the mainstream media in the general direction of covering and attacking Trump as though he was the star of the Republican presidential primaries. As the presumed Democratic nominee, whomever she decided to dignify by responding to-whether the comments were directed at her or not-would be presumed to be the spokesperson, or nominee, of the Republican Party.

    "Clinton, Trump trade insults as rhetoric heats up between front-runners," read the headline from a CNN article in September 2015. "Hillary Clinton Seizes On Donald Trump's Remarks to Galvanize Women," read a New York Times headline from December. Several media outlets criticized the mainstream media obsession with Trump, but despite a few concerns that the media was propping up his legitimacy as a candidate with their constant news coverage, it continued unabatedly.

    The mainstream media was more than willing to do the Clinton campaign and DNC's work for them by creating a narrative that the 2016 presidential elections was about Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump.

    Was Trump in on it? You decide .

    Americans, you have been cheated.

    RayB | Oct 26, 2016 6:34:35 AM | 7
    @2

    (Sorry typo, let's try that again)

    Question being.....

    "So there's but one choice left to make here, and it's which side are you fighting on?"

    lemur | Oct 26, 2016 7:04:37 AM | 10
    "Trump's economic policies would be catastrophic for many people in the U.S. and elsewhere."

    http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.nz/2016/08/trump-keynesian-causes-libertarian.html

    The clever economic left realizes that although Trump has some of dem ebul GOP economic ideas, he's more sensible than Hillary Clinton.

    col | Oct 26, 2016 7:28:09 AM | 12
    Hey T bear are you Aussie, their was a poster T bear banging on in Aussie press, quite liked your arguments as of now.
    As Trump policy I predicted it (quite like Alexander Mercouris ) by 1. observation of what is said, what was not said and what you can tease out of the rest. After the 2 debate i was convinced that Trump would not declare "Assad must go " Just for this he has my consent to be POTUS.
    RayB | Oct 26, 2016 8:25:08 AM | 17
    @6

    Re: "You decide".

    How does the saying go?... 'oh what a tangled web we weave when we seek to deceive". Hence I don't believe that if Hillary actually chose Trump to be who she ran against, that she (nor all the expert politico's around her)had any real idea of what a Pandora's box they were opening.

    Same thing go's for Trump, whom I don't think understood how fate and destiney would seize him and transform his role in life into a renegade against the systemic corruption of the deep state's political establishment.

    Now only a year back, I would never have thought and sooner die and be the last person on earth to be plumbing for a megalomaniac character like billionaire Trump.

    But when faced with the real prospect of a criminally indictable and clinically insane, maniacal psychopathic personality like Hillary, having her finger on the red nuclear button, my instincts for survival and that of all humanity, informs my rational judgements and actions.

    And that's essentially the basis on which I've decided that voting for Trump is the only sane option left to try and avert more wars and the possibility of a thermonuclear disaster.

    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 8:26:08 AM | 18
    I think b should've taken note of the Hillary camp's attempt in recent days to play down her militarism.
    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 8:27:24 AM | 19
    IMO the best strategy is to vote Trump in battleground states and vote Green everywhere else.
    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 8:30:32 AM | 20
    Very early on, I was of the opinion that Hillary's negatives were so high that her run should be seen as electing the Republican. But neocon defections, DNC collusion, 'sheepdog' Sanders, and more convinced me that the establishment really does want a Hillary coronation.
    Killary PAC | Oct 26, 2016 8:36:52 AM | 21
    http://www.veteranstoday.com = Gordon Duff = Bob Foote

    Stew Webb Reveals Gordon Duff's Real Identity on PressTV (5-10-15) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHNLOopOAbU

    Here is an exact quote from Gordon Duff AKA Bob Foote .

      "About 30% of what's on Veterans Today is patently false. About 40% of what I write is at least purposefully partially false. Because if I didn't write false information I wouldn't be alive. I simply have to do that."
    Joe | Oct 26, 2016 8:47:01 AM | 22
    @jfl 15 and 16 and third-partyists

    Your points are good but there is no need for this vitriol: the opposing points are also good as far as they go.

    You believe that a third party is the only way out of the 2-party oligarchy sham. True only if it works, which it hasn't. You are assuming that there are, or eventually would be enough voters. That argument is missing so far. Provide that evidence and you beat the lesser-evilists.

    The lesser-evilists are assuming that there aren't enough votes, so you are just taking votes from the lesser evil and helping the greater evil. True if their assumption is true, that there aren't enough votes for a third party to win.

    You both need to get that evidence before getting angry.

    Another third-party argument is sending a signal to party leaders and the public that there are voters who despise the oligarchy candidates. That would improve growth of a third party (it would also attract oligarchy influence to them).

    I think that your anger would be better directed at the problem (take out MSM stations and staff and oligarchy generally). Between ourselves, let's get the evidence on vote effects.

    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 26, 2016 8:55:20 AM | 23
    @ 19 Jackrabbit

    Consider each state a 'battleground' state, there are national aggregates to consider that, if nothing else, shed light on the historical contest for future historians to inspect and pass judgement, particularly should the qualified 'not participating' outnumber the qualified participants. No telling what future criteria will be about the validity of sub-median voter turnout, in some places it is enough to invalidate a poll, that could easily spread.

    @ 12

    No, not Aussie but have friends who were. I hold the Australian government to be the hiding place for the 3rd Reich, so not likely any beneficial relationship will exist.

    @ fairleft | Oct 26, 2016 8:05:28 AM | 14

    Experience informs those who rely on 'ad hominem' as defence against another's argument are incapable of mounting a counter argument using facts. Furthermore, with few exception most so doing have developmental problems and have not matured much past adolescence, they going through life as man-children. Check back when you have matured. And that is definitely an ad hominem - to the person.

    TG | Oct 26, 2016 8:55:40 AM | 24
    Well and clearly said.

    We need to stop letting the corporate press goad us into fighting over trivia - transgenders in bathrooms! Trump's hair! Clinton's smile! - and focus on what is truly crucial.

    It's rational to worry about Trump. Yes, he has a good track record of getting along with business partners when it counts, but he has no track record in governance. But Hillary Clinton is a monster and God help us all if she wins. I envision President Clinton with perfectly coiffed hair with a rosy plastic smile (kudos to her mortician) giving a perfectly written speech with all the trendy buzzwords (celebrating diversity, helping the middle class, sustainable energy, etc.etc.) while outside the world burns.

    Whatever you do, no matter how much the corporate press tells you that Trump is 'finished,' go to the polls and vote. Because for the first time in decades, a US presidential election matters.

    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 9:22:55 AM | 27
    fairleft @25

    The fact is that the Greens can not/will not win.

    Trump will meet with much resistance from the establishment. His worst instincts will be constrained. That is not true for Hillary & Co.

    A loss for a corrupted Democratic Party is best for the country. A strong showing by Greens is a further embarrassment. The left can then build on a solid foundation.

    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 9:30:30 AM | 29
    @fair
    Chomsky advocated for voting for Hillary in battleground states and Greens elsewhere.

    I do not believe that the 'Third Way' Democratic Party can be changed from within. The example of Obama and Hillary should have disabused any progressive of such fantasies.

    dahoit | Oct 26, 2016 9:40:25 AM | 30
    Trump, both domestically and internationally is the best breath of fresh air in American politics since FDR. Of course purists and utopians might disagree, but when he wins on Nov.8,I'll treat that day as the second 4th of July. America first, at long last, instead of traitors for zion. Hoo haw. Todays Wapoo intimates Trump anti-Semite. And Colin liar Powell is for the Hell Bitch.

    What the hell do people need?

    SmoothieX12 | Oct 26, 2016 9:45:56 AM | 31
    The U.S. could respond by destroying all Russian assets in and around Syria. It has the capabilities. But then what? If I were Putin my next step would be a nuclear test shoot in Siberia - a big one - to make a point and to wake up the rest of the world.

    Russia's "deescalation" procedure (in reality it could be viewed both ways) is a take off of several strategic bombers (TU-160 from Engels) and deployment into the Arctic Region with subsequent launch of salvo of cruise missiles (Kh-102) armed with nuclear warheads into the polygons or uninhabited spaces. Putting all RVSN (nuclear strategic missile forces) on the immediate readiness (Combat Station) is also an option.

    There are certain ways, including diplomatic ones, to make "partners" more attentive to the events. Plus, most likely, the price, which US and NATO would pay in case some moron will decide to eliminate Russian Forces in Syria, will be very high purely militarily and, especially, reputation-wise.

    Attack on Russian Forces in Syria will also be the beginning of the end of NATO, if not the outright collapse. In the end, Russia has means to directly conventionally counter US, just this last quarter alone Russian Navy took delivery of 100+ cruise and ASMs of Kaliber and Onyx-classes. Contingencies have been counted and planned for.

    x | Oct 26, 2016 10:38:55 AM | 35
    Trump's foreign policy summed up in a 35% levy threat on Ford exporting jobs to Mexico. Read my lips ...! Nails the underlying tensions in the Race for the Place. The Big "F__k You!" election... Even the spinless Bernie S. is slithering into criticism of Klinton and the Wall St Gang. "Michael Moore Explains Why TRUMP Will Win"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKeYbEOSqYc

    [Published on Oct 24, 2016, 3:55m]

    dh | Oct 26, 2016 10:52:50 AM | 36
    James Clapper thinks the Russians just might be serious..... '...says he wouldn't put it past Russia to "to shoot down an American aircraft" if a no-fly zone is imposed over Syria.'

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/b70e5508-7db2-385a-b250-d3a28cafb5f6/ss_us-official%3A-russia-might.html

    Not to worry. Hillary was only kidding about a no fly zone. Talking tough to keep up with the boys. It's an empowerment thing.

    Jack Smith | Oct 26, 2016 11:38:53 AM | 37
    @Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 9:22:55 AM | 27

    A loss for a corrupted Democratic Party is best for the country. A strong showing by Greens is a further embarrassment. The left can then build on a solid foundation.

    We are on the same wavelength. YES , we can't have Green and Democratic Party at the same time. First eliminates the Democratic party in this election cycle. You can't eat your cake and have it too . Therefore, voting against Democratic Party is my first priority.

    This elections cycle almost all fake leftist and NeoCon, both Democratic Party and Republicans voting for Hillary.

    anon | Oct 26, 2016 11:47:31 AM | 38
    Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is taken straight out of "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" by Oded Yinon, also known as The Yinon Plan.

    Here are are a few illustrative excerpts:

    "The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi'ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.

    Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible."

    Now compare this to what Gen. Wesley Clarke revealed about the lead-up to the Iraq War. Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: "Are we still going to attack Iraq?" He said: "Sir, it's worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: "I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we're going to start with Iraq, and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."

    This document, and the events which have followed its publication, should lay to rest once and for all any illusions we might have harboured in relation to the various wars in the Middle East.


    The depths of the associated treason and treachery are simply breathtaking and will continue in overdrive should Hillary Rodent Clinton be elected President.

    likklemore | Oct 26, 2016 11:56:13 AM | 39
    @ jfl 2 and all commenters echoing

    No to Clinton, No to Trump?

    The only answer is eliminating the pre-selection mechanism that delivers the 2-candidate, elephant/jackass non-choice every election.
    This is the election to do so: No to Clinton, no to Trump

    jfl, I have always admired and read your comments here on MoA.

    Sadly your posit means either of these two candidates will be (s)elected. Third Party rise in the USSA Will. Not. Happen. Anytime .Soon. Third Party candidates will not attract the ->$7 + billions required to run for the presidency. The status quo prevails.
    So, in this very close election, wherein Soros told Bloomberg Hillary is a done deal,
    http://toprightnews.com/the-fix-is-in-george-soros-says-hillary-election-a-done-deal-despite-trump-landslide/ Amerikans are left with these two options; voting for the least dangerous of the two:

    (a) the brain damaged corrupt Illary as Huma, her sidekick, noted –"She is Still Not Perfect in Her Head"
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/huma-abedin-hillary-she-still-not-perfect-her-head

    or

    (b) Trump, the blabber.

    Derek Hunter, Radio Host, from the "Never Trump" camp:

    "Why I Now Feel Compelled To Vote For Trump"
    http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2016/10/23/why-i-now-feel-compelled-to-vote-for-trump-n2235899

    [.]
    The media needs to be destroyed. And although voting for Trump won't do it, it's something. Essentially, I am voting for Trump because of the people who don't want me to, and I believe I must register my disgust with Hillary Clinton.

    I am not of the mindset that any vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary, but a vote for Trump is a vote against Hillary. And I need to vote against Hillary. I need to vote against the media.

    After the last debate, when no outlet "fact checked" Hillary's lie that her opposition to the Heller decision had anything to do with children, or her lie that the State Department didn't lose $6 billion under her leadership, I couldn't hold out any longer.

    A Trump administration at least will include people I trust in positions that matter. I don't know if they will be able to hold him completely in check, but I know a Clinton administration will include people who have been her co-conspirators in corruption, and there won't even be a media to hold her accountable.

    The Wikileaks emails have exposed an arrogant cabal of misery profiteers who hold everyone, even their fellow travelers deemed not pure enough, in contempt. These bigots who've made their fortune from government service should be kept as far away from the levers of power as the car keys should be kept from anyone named Kennedy on a Friday night. My one vote against it will not be enough, but it's all I can do and I have to do all I can do.

    I won't stop being critical of Trump when he deserves it; I won't pretend someone is handing out flowers when they're shoveling BS. But I'd rather have BS shoveled out of a president than our tax dollars shoveled to a president's friends and political allies.

    The Project Vertias videos exposed a corrupt political machine journalists would have been proud to expose in the past. The Wikileaks emails pulled back the curtain on why that didn't happen – journalists are in on it. I can't pretend otherwise, and I have no choice but to oppose it. [.]

    I oppose much of what Donald Trump has said, but I oppose everything Hillary Clinton has done and wants to do. And what someone says, no matter how objectionable, is less important than what someone does, especially when it's so objectionable. A personal moral victory won't suffice when the stakes are so high. As such, I am compelled to vote against Hillary by voting for the only candidate with any chance whatsoever of beating her – Donald Trump.


    ~ ~ ~
    I am a spectator outside the USSA. USSA policies affect all of humanity on planet earth. A vote for the Clinton adds another potential 16 years reign in the WH, a continuation of the corruption, death, destruction and endless wars.

    Since the 1990s in Arkansas then in D.C., their retirement is long overdue. Stop the Clintons from enriching themselves on the public purse…foreign and domestic.

    OMg Illary cares about women's rights but takes $millions in donations from such likes as KSA, Qatar. Not to mention, countries that are steeped in poverty. Take a look at the donors to the Clinton Foundation.

    The Clintons have no shame, no conscience and they can't grow one.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 26, 2016 11:56:25 AM | 40
    @ 12
    No, not Aussie but have friends who were. I hold the Australian government to be one of the hiding place s for the 3rd Reich, so not likely any beneficial relationship will exist.
    ...
    Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Oct 26, 2016 8:55:20 AM | 23

    There, fixed it.
    ALL of the Christian Colonial countries have pro-AmeriKKKan fascist governments which studiously ignore the Will Of the People.
    I can't think of a single X-tian government which has NOT fallen into lockstep with the US - in flagrant defiance of the electorate.
    Since we can't outbid the ppl who are bribing them to defy us, the only practical solution is rg the lg's pitchforks.

    AnEducatedFool | Oct 26, 2016 12:05:00 PM | 41
    I don't post here much anymore but Dr. Stein is the head of an NGO called the Green Party not a political party. She is busy protesting in North Dakota to get on Democracy Now instead of camping out in Bernie States pushing those voters to continue our political revolution with her. It's a shame really.

    I've never had much respect for the Green Party and they have shown that they are incapable of becoming an oppisition party in the U.S.

    If you are interested in 3rd parties take some time to check out the Justice Party and Rocky Anderson. They are not active this cycle. The Justice Party does not have an International Party which is problematic for the Greens in the U.S. The name Justice is much better in rhetorical fights than Green and they are not riddled with former Democratic whores.

    With that said vote for Trump in swing states. He is the Lesser of Two Evils and this time we are talking about Nuclear War with Russia. Clinton is still a Goldwater Girl.

    anon | Oct 26, 2016 12:06:04 PM | 42

    The Green Party should, for all intents and purposes, be opposed to a billionaire lobbyist like Soros, however Jill Stein's running mate, Baraka, was also a board member at the Center for Constitutional Rights, CCR.

    Which happens to be funded by George Soros.

    http://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngos/center_for_constitutional_rights/

    There are other connections between the Green Party and George Soros, but I haven't got time to pursue this....

    Anyone interested should look into the period from 2004 to 2011, when Baraka was the Executive Director of the US Human Rights Network, and look at who was funding the HUNDREDS of NGOs that make up the Human Rights Network.

    ArthurGilroy | Oct 26, 2016 12:12:22 PM | 43
    You are all wrong.

    Anyone who seriously considers that voting...or NOT voting...for either of these creatures will change a goddamned thing is totally asleep to what has happened in the U.S. over the past 60+ years.

    Gor read this article on today's Counterpunch:

    A Deep State of Mind: America's Shadow Government and Its Silent Coup

    =======================================================================================

    Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system … a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state…. The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization… It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government…. This group … is answerable neither to the President, the Congress, nor the courts. It is practically irremovable."

    - Senator William Jenner, 1954 speech

    Unaffected by elections. Unaltered by populist movements. Beyond the reach of the law.

    Say hello to America's shadow government.

    A corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country, this shadow government represents the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry.

    No matter which candidate wins the presidential election, this shadow government is here to stay. Indeed, as recent documents by the FBI reveal, this shadow government-also referred to as "The 7th Floor Group"-may well have played a part in who will win the White House this year.

    ---snip---

    ==========================================================================================

    Read the rest of the article.

    All of it.

    And then go take care of your own business as best you can. The status quo will remain...hidden in various ways as it has been hidden since the late '40s/early '50s...until it fails of its own doing. No amount of talky talk talk, no amount of organizing, no amount of anything is going to change what is up here. The best any of us can do is to try to reach one mind at a time.

    Eisenhower tried to warn us in his farewell speech:

    ==========================================================================================

    The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.

    But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.

    Of these, I mention two only.

    A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

    Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

    Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
    American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.

    This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

    Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

    In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
    The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

    ==========================================================================================

    It didn't work then and it will work even less well now, in what we laughingly refer to as our "Information Age."

    It's all over but the failing, and that could take a long, long while.

    Or...it could be over in a nuclear instant.

    Deal wid it.

    Deal wid 'em both, and every other possibility in between.

    All of the constant political jerking off in the media?

    Just that.

    A virtual reality constructed for the entertainment...and thus silencing and control of...the proles, using other ignorant proles as Judas goats.

    Politics porn.

    Fuggedaboudit!!!

    Go do something real.

    Please.

    AG

    Shadyl | Oct 26, 2016 12:28:53 PM | 44
    Hillary's last no fly zone was Libya, just saying....
    Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 26, 2016 12:56:44 PM | 45
    "It is ludicrous to event think about openly attacking Russian (or Syrian) troops in Syria with an al-Qaeda supporting "no-Fly-Zone". Russia would respond by taking down U.S. planes over Syria. The Russian government would have to do so to uphold its authority internationally as well as at home."

    It is ludicrous. And stupid. It would also be tantamount to a declaration of war. And the chickenshit US Military does NOT want a war with Russia, no matter what the daydreamers might say.

    Tobin Paz | Oct 26, 2016 1:11:21 PM | 46
    Stating that the Green Party can not win does not take reality into account. Only 18% of voters participated in the primaries, the majority of voters are neither Democrats nor Republicans, and the population of Millennials has surpassed that of the Baby Boomers.

    Of course this doesn't change the fact that it is still very unlikely that Jill Stein will win, but to imply that it's impossible is dishonest. I have always voted for the candidate that I liked... never for the lesser of two evils. How different would the world be if Nader had either won or gained popular support in 2000? Voting for the lesser of two evils has pushed the Republican Party into crazy town with the Democratic Party taking their place.

    I'm not arrogant enough to tell people how to vote, however I am arrogant enough to inform. The lack of information and the inability to process more than one thought by both the voters and the media, alternative included, is astounding.

    I'm pretty sure that people on this site know what imposing a no-fly zone in Syria would entail.
    How is this not advocating a war of aggression? Have we forgotten what the Nuremberg Tribunal declared as the supreme international crime:

    War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

    Not only do you have the current administration committing war crimes, you also have it's presidential candidate openly advocating a war crime.

    likklemore | Oct 26, 2016 1:20:59 PM | 47
    My post, which I did not save, fell into a deep cyber hole.

    To All commenters echoing "No to Clinton no to Trump" voting third party will result in either of the two.

    It appears as we close in on the last weeks of the (s)election, Independents and Never Trumpers are breaking away for the Donald.

    From Derek Hunter, Radio Host, of the "Never Trump" camp

    Why I Now Feel Compelled To Vote For Trump
    http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2016/10/23/why-i-now-feel-compelled-to-vote-for-trump-n2235899


    [.] The media needs to be destroyed. And although voting for Trump won't do it, it's something. Essentially, I am voting for Trump because of the people who don't want me to, and I believe I must register my disgust with Hillary Clinton.

    I am not of the mindset that any vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary, but a vote for Trump is a vote against Hillary. And I need to vote against Hillary. I need to vote against the media.

    After the last debate, when no outlet "fact checked" Hillary's lie that her opposition to the Heller decision had anything to do with children, or her lie that the State Department didn't lose $6 billion under her leadership, I couldn't hold out any longer.

    A Trump administration at least will include people I trust in positions that matter. I don't know if they will be able to hold him completely in check, but I know a Clinton administration will include people who have been her co-conspirators in corruption, and there won't even be a media to hold her accountable.

    The Wikileaks emails have exposed an arrogant cabal of misery profiteers who hold everyone, even their fellow travelers deemed not pure enough, in contempt. These bigots who've made their fortune from government service should be kept as far away from the levers of power as the car keys should be kept from anyone named Kennedy on a Friday night. My one vote against it will not be enough, but it's all I can do and I have to do all I can do.

    I won't stop being critical of Trump when he deserves it; I won't pretend someone is handing out flowers when they're shoveling BS. But I'd rather have BS shoveled out of a president than our tax dollars shoveled to a president's friends and political allies.

    The Project Vertias videos exposed a corrupt political machine journalists would have been proud to expose in the past. The Wikileaks emails pulled back the curtain on why that didn't happen – journalists are in on it. I can't pretend otherwise, and I have no choice but to oppose it. [.]

    I oppose much of what Donald Trump has said, but I oppose everything Hillary Clinton has done and wants to do. And what someone says, no matter how objectionable, is less important than what someone does, especially when it's so objectionable. A personal moral victory won't suffice when the stakes are so high. As such, I am compelled to vote against Hillary by voting for the only candidate with any chance whatsoever of beating her – Donald Trump.

    ~ ~ ~ ~
    It is long past due and time to stop the corrupt Clintons from continuing to enrich themselves off the backs of taxpayers; domestic and foreign.
    Illary professes to care about women's rights yet her Clinton Family Foundation takes in $millions from the likes of KSA and Qatar. Moreover, there is no shame in taking donations from small countries steeped in poverty. It is high time to retire the Clintons. They have no conscience. If you haven't a conscience you can't grow one.

    h | Oct 26, 2016 1:29:32 PM | 48
    RayB - well stated arguments to vote for Trump. Thank you for taking the time to post them.

    As folks here already know, Hillary's stated commitment to impose a No-Fly Zone in Syria is a show stopper for me. There is no way I can support more tragedy in Syria let alone elsewhere.

    Any who don't think such a policy position does not matter tells me you are a supporter of the neoliberal/neocon imperial building for which I cannot support. This is what a vote for Clinton means.

    I may have had a different opinion or thought about the U.S. morphing into the world's top cop had I ever been asked, but I wasn't. I never was asked to vote on it or for/against it. These sneaky rastards intentions were never spelled out, never communicated succinctly to the populous let alone debated on the merits. Nope. These rastards are hell bent on shoving their neoliberal/neocon/third way/nwo crap down American's throats.

    And no, Donald is and always will be an outsider. If you believe otherwise you've obviously not been paying much attention to him over the last four years. That man did not win the primaries by chance, he won them handily through skill and out maneuvering his opponents. He has spent the last four years learning up close the plethora of challenges an open border presents to the security of the U.S. He gets the issues revolving around policing and the growing police state. He has formiddable experience making, losing and making money again. He's had a front seat to big business and its multiple machinations for decades.

    And a vote for Hillary is a vote for the Establishment and their utopian new world order, which includes WAR, WAR, and MORE WAR!

    Lisa | Oct 26, 2016 1:42:00 PM | 49
    Touching naivety about Trump however the probability of him being 'different', given his record, doesn't support it.

    The problem with Trump is he made a #1 strategic mistake in supporting and giving in to the religious right.

    Apart from anything else this gives zero confidence that he'd stand up to the far more powerful neo-liberal, neo-con 'war party' establishment if he got into power. If he caves totally to a bunch of fundamentalist nutjobs, who themselves are neo-liberal and neo-conservative to the core, it doesn't actually inspire any confidence whatsoever. Take one example Mike Pence is a neo-conservative 'Israel firster'... through and through.

    Somehow I can't see the world being a safer place if the US tears itself to pieces trying to become a fundamentalist religious 'state', dominated by a bunch of people wanting 'the end of times'....

    Despite the "with some "liberal" concession to this or that niche of the general society." comment, he has threatened the rights of the majority of voters and even the very existence of some.
    In case no one had noticed 50% of the population are women, add in all the other minorities and you have a healthy 60-70% he is directly threatening.

    Religious right candidates (like Cruz and Pence) are unelectable, ever more so with time as organised religion dies in the US and their policies on women and LGBTI people, plus let's not forget their endemic racism, become every more unacceptable.

    And note ALL the 'religious right' people are total neo-conservatives, that almost make Clinton look like a pacifist.

    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 1:50:53 PM | 50
    Tobin Paz @45

    Trump has nearly destroyed the Republican Party. And he has done so by speaking truths that are rarely heard in "polite company": our politicians are puppets and our elections are "rigged".

    Sanders spoke against inequality but he didn't go as far as Trump. He couldn't because he was merely a sheepdog, leading his young 'flock' to Hillary.

    If Trump wins, it would be a body blow to the Democrats who play on peoples fears to get elected but never deliver workable solutions. Rinse. Repeat.

    The Greens can win in 2020 after Trump fails and both parties are in disarray.

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    I'm not telling people how to vote. I encourage people to think for themselves. This is only MY opinion.

    ThatDamnGood | Oct 26, 2016 2:00:41 PM | 51
    Its hard to emotionally accept the occurrence of a nuclear war today.
    You should see how Saker couldn't cope with it at first.

    If Russian assets in Syria get destroyed. The response will not to be nuking that little island in the Indian ocean far away from everything or Hawaii that is in the middle of nowhere.

    An act of war was done.

    WW3 begins.

    Ody | Oct 26, 2016 2:05:09 PM | 52
    "The U.S. could respond by destroying all Russian assets in and around Syria. It has the capabilities. But then what?" Then the US activates also activates phase D which is NATO invasion of Russia (from Ukraine, the Baltics, Scandinavia) and China (from South Korea, Japan + other US bases scatered all over the US empire).

    I don't believe Trump's domestic and foreign policy will be any more different or peacefull. I think he would just be facing a lot more resistance. Either way, unless Hillary dies there is no doubt she will be the next POTUS.

    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 26, 2016 2:23:11 PM | 53
    @ Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 26, 2016 11:56:25 AM | 39

    Bartender, please set up a drink for the hoarsewispererer, should have watched the p's and q's a bit more closely and been a bit more inclusive.

    h | Oct 26, 2016 2:23:42 PM | 54

    Hey Lisa, how old are you?

    As a 50 something adult who lives in a state where we have a healthy voter population of Christian Right, which you refer to as religious right, folk let me assure you that your description of them is way the hell out of line. Your distasteful comment shows just how inexperienced and ignorant you are about this very American voting block.

    Why are you even weighing in here? You seem more of a DailyKos kinda poster. Posters around here tend to avoid language that is as divisive as yours and that all knowing punkish tone you are using.

    NemesisCalling | Oct 26, 2016 2:31:26 PM | 55
    Hey Lisa @48

    Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but these neoconservative you are talking about have been leaving his camp in droves in the preceeding months. Please do not lecture us on some secret collusion between Trump and those wicked shits. There is no doubt they will be crawling back to the Donald when he sits on the throne. But make no mistake: he will not forget the treachery of these subjects, just as the constituents of these jokers will not forget how they abandoned the Donald and revealed their obedience to the uniparty. These are the voters that hate "politicians," remember? I can't wait to see Paul Ryan squirm.

    And GTFO with your lgbtq trolling nonsense. Time to relegate these babies to their safe spaces so we can all breathe a sigh of relief to be rid of their loud, obnoxious mental anguish over their own petty insignificance. Remember, too, that Syrian lives matter. Once the culture of death is curtailed anroad, we can tackle the culture of death at home. Ancient Chinese wisdom for dumb trolls.

    ToivoS | Oct 26, 2016 2:47:27 PM | 56
    40

    #40. Good points.

    Trump sounds very scary in many ways but most of the stuff he babbles on about should not worry anybody. The President of the US does not rule the US. Power in the US is distributed into the three branches of government -- the executive, Congress and the judiciary. Most of Trump's worst ideas will have to pass through Congress and the judiciary. There is only one area where the President has total dominion and that is foreign policy and making war.

    The question should come down to who do we want want as the next President -- a candidate that seeks war with Russia or one who wants to negotiate and make deals? Given that question we will be better off with Trump.

    If Trump wins he will not have any support in Congress so it makes no sense that he will succeed in cutting taxes for the richest or build the Mexican wall or any of the other nutty things he advocates. But making peace with the Russians is the one thing he could accomplish.

    Also I support Trump because the Democratic National Committee has been completely taken over by the Hillary and neocon wing of the Democratic Party. As long as they control the Democratic Party (which they do today) any US president that is a Democrat means that WWIII is a real option always on the table. Tax cuts for the rich, increased monopolization of the economy, increased poverty rates, restrictions on abortions, etc, are quite secondary. [BTW, I have served on a county Democratic central committee for the last two decades and worked on presidential campaigns for Democrats going back to Eisenhower-Stevens in 1956 (except for Humphrey in 1968). What I have witnessed is that the entire party has been taken over by the big money contributions going down to city council elections.] A Trump victory will give us a small chance for the grass roots Democrats to regain some influence in national Party affairs -- today we have none.

    john | Oct 26, 2016 2:49:16 PM | 57
    ArthurGilroy

    NOT voting requires no amount of talky talk talk, no amount of organizing, no amount of anything. but if everyone did it the central government would become immediately irrelevant and collapse, and if the central government collapsed, its attendant institutions would unravel, the primary grifters would atrophy on the vine, and the deep state would be in deep shit.

    Tom Murphy | Oct 26, 2016 2:57:26 PM | 58
    @1 I think it makes little sense to convince progressives that the should vote for Hillary. And it is absurd to insist that a vote for anyone other than Trump is "a de facto vote for Hillary Clinton." The more people that don't vote for Hillary the better. And a vote for Jill Stein builds up the Green Party. If we could get the message out that Hillary is just too dangerous and that a real progressive choice is Jill Stein, then it is possible that a good number of people who may have voted for Hillary (and who can't stomach Trump) could take away Clinton's margin of victory . I am voting for Jill Stein, I live in NY, it is not practical, given past elections, to think Trump could win NY. I would be wasting my vote to vote for Trump in NY. When I vote for Jill Stein, that is another vote NOT going to Hillary Clinton. see video: VIDEO
    ALberto | Oct 26, 2016 2:58:21 PM | 59
    WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In the U.S., 13% approve of the job Congress is doing, in line with approval ratings ranging from 11% to 16% since August. The current rating is just four percentage points above the record low of 9% recorded in November 2013.

    'Selection' 2016 is a clown show. Trump, Hill & Bill, Bu$h I, Bu$h II even Romney are all heavily involved is the drug money laundry business. A vote is a vote that legitimises the system.

    I just cannot bring myself to vote for any of these criminals. Every vote legitimises this freak show.

    ***Last letter of the alphabet does not work on my keyboard.

    PEACE OUT

    Tom Murphy | Oct 26, 2016 3:01:29 PM | 60
    Donald Trump as the front runner and then candidate of the Republican Party didn't just happen. This was by design, it was what the DNC and the Hillary campaign wanted and what they told the media to do, to elevate him to leader of the pack. ( Wikileaks reveals
    ArthurGilroy | Oct 26, 2016 3:08:34 PM | 61
    @56
    ===========================================================================================================================================================
    NOT voting requires no amount of talky talk talk, no amount of organizing, no amount of anything. but if everyone did it the central government would become immediately irrelevant and collapse, and if the central government collapsed, its attendant institutions would unravel, the primary grifters would atrophy on the vine, and the deep state would be in deep shit.

    ===========================================================================================================================================================

    Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.

    But it ain't gonna happen .

    A huge majority of the U.S. population is still caught up in the wonderful political virtual reality game so generously provided for free by the Deep State-controlled media. They will clomp-clomp-clomp on out of their zombified dwellings and vote for whichever of the two-dimensional VR candidates for whom they root.

    So it goes.

    Would it were otherwise.

    AG

    tom | Oct 26, 2016 3:12:28 PM | 62
    Ludicrous propaganda once again from b. B sure is trying his darndest to want to work for the Russian state under his lord and saviour Putin the irresistible.

    Trump himself said that China is a threat to the US. And he refuses to rule out no war with China. Therefore Trump is likely wanting to start world War three by attacking China. How is that worse than Hitlery wanting to attack Russia in Syria.

    Trump will take Iraqs oil, make Mexico pay for a wall on the US side starting a war with them, and so much more horrendous criminality

    And Trumps foreign policy is "sane". What despicable ludicrous lies

    ALberto | Oct 26, 2016 3:15:11 PM | 63
    My opinion

    Trump and KKKillary popular vote split 50/50. Electoral College goes to $hillary.

    Like the 'Talking Heads' said "Same as it ever was."

    fast freddy | Oct 26, 2016 3:18:51 PM | 64
    I predicted that JEB! would be the next President. I still don't understand why I was so far off the mark. He's crooked enough...He's smart enough...
    ben | Oct 26, 2016 3:28:11 PM | 65
    Seriously people. If anyone believes either candidate means what they say, with all due respect, you're delusional. No matter what, whomever "wins", they'll do as they're instructed to do.

    Sorry b, with all due respect and gratitude for what you do, that includes you. Living up to one's rhetoric is difficult, for anyone running for POTUS, impossible.

    From The Hague | Oct 26, 2016 3:33:36 PM | 66
    The only relevant vote against that crazy bitch from hell?
    Of course:
    Trump
    A number of commentators have pointed out that the US could destroy Russia's assets - what they don't point out is that this would expose US assets to destruction - which is why WW3 is almost inevitable if the US escalates in Syria

    Posted by: paul | Oct 26, 2016 3:49:28 PM | 67

    A number of commentators have pointed out that the US could destroy Russia's assets - what they don't point out is that this would expose US assets to destruction - which is why WW3 is almost inevitable if the US escalates in Syria

    Posted by: paul | Oct 26, 2016 3:49:28 PM | 67

    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 4:03:45 PM | 68
    Those who say: Its all a charade, voting changes nothing, Trump will do what he's told, etc. have
    either given up in disgust or are purposely ignoring reality. The establishment is afraid of a
    Trump win. There are numerous instances of their manipulating or attempting to manipulate the election.

    Vote Trump in swing states. Vote Green everywhere else.

    NemesisCalling | Oct 26, 2016 4:10:33 PM | 69
    @59 Tom

    So what? I've read that leak. Doesn't speak or reference in any way complicity of Trump's campaign or even the repubs. I think you are framing that to fit your perspective that the DNC is the main powerbroker, here. Whereas, the more hilarious conclusion to draw would be that, through their arrogance and complete and utter disdain for the disaffected, they underestimated the threat of a "fringe" candidate. Talk about the most fuckin' shortsighted political decision (all-time bone head plays #1) this side of Joe Liebermann. God it makes me smile. And to think, the media played right into Trump's tiny hands. That's showmanship. Face it: he is smarter and crafter and he knows the people just a hair more.

    john | Oct 26, 2016 4:12:02 PM | 70
    ArthurGilroy says:

    But it ain't gonna happen

    no, Arthur, it ain't, but, presumably, you won't be voting either.

    NemesisCalling | Oct 26, 2016 4:20:45 PM | 71
    @Ben 64

    Yes, we all want Trump to save the whales, make cake healthy, unite the Muslim world, make college free, fix health-care, restore the rust-belt, solve climate - change while delivering more jobs to energy sector, defeat Isis while not upsetting KSA, Qatar, et.al, and not go into Syria.

    I'll take one of those at least for my vote. Can you guess which one?

    Pascal | Oct 26, 2016 4:22:03 PM | 72
    Lately I can understand why most people hate trump and love Clinton or vise versa. But I have to say that both party's have great and solid points that needs to be taken serious the voting will be harder then before that is for sure the only thing I hate about the politics is that when the candidate has won all point's they have made in the election round will go out the window.

    My dutch boyfriend just ask me why do they always put one man in the seat to control all why not join forces will this not be a better option what do you think those he has a point or is it just wrong thinking on his part.

    ArthurGilroy | Oct 26, 2016 4:25:33 PM | 73
    @69

    John...

    True dat.

    AG

    They weren't just talking tough about a no-fly zone in Libya.

    Posted by: lysias | Oct 26, 2016 4:43:07 PM | 74

    They weren't just talking tough about a no-fly zone in Libya.

    Posted by: lysias | Oct 26, 2016 4:43:07 PM | 74

    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 5:13:07 PM | 75
    Love Him or Hate Him, Trump is the Revolution Against the Establishment

    Look at Greece. The progressives/socialists could not win. It seems that we need a nationalist.

    It is a hard truth for progressives. The left has failed miserably to check the tyranny of neolibcon Centrists who sell us all out to the highest bidder.

    We need a Trump, like Russia needed a Putin. To right the ship.

    When the dust settles, and lessons are learned, real progressives with integrity can rebuild.

    dh | Oct 26, 2016 5:24:20 PM | 76
    @73 Libya was a piece of cake. No nasty Russians to worry about. If Hillary tries that in Syria she'll be sorry. We all will.
    schlub | Oct 26, 2016 5:50:54 PM | 77
    Jimbo is giving a good daily rundown of the fraud coming in from the advance polls, & other things.
    I like the one where the poll station workers are filling in the paper ballot votes after, for those not voting.
    http://82.221.129.208/basepageq5.html

    http://thumbs4.ebaystatic.com/d/l800/pict/322160913590_1.jpg

    dan | Oct 26, 2016 6:02:30 PM | 78
    I don't know about Trump. But Hillary is a fucking nightmare. I don't live in America and I can't vote there, but to those who do and can, please don't vote for that psycho bitch. Anyone else. Anybody. But to cast a vote for her would be an exhibition of ignorance and willful sociopathy. The world is begging you, please... Pleeeeeeeease. Do not vote for whole countries to be flushed down the same toilet of meglomaniacal greed. Be nice. There are a lot of other people living on this planet. We don't wanna kill anybody, we just wanna relax and thrive. Get with the program....
    ALberto | Oct 26, 2016 6:04:08 PM | 79
    Just my opinion

    Trump loses in the Electoral College. Gets his own TV network and proceeds to preempt and co opt 3rd party Constitution Party. Just like Dr. Ron Paul's campaign was co opted by supposed Tea Party people who were in fact Conservative paid stooges. Right off the top the Cock brothers come to mind.

    MadMax2 | Oct 26, 2016 6:16:17 PM | 80
    @Jackrabbit 74
    The Nationalist response is a natural one in the face of this unseen, centralising, globalist beast. UK just had theirs with Brexit, and now we see the battle lines redrawn and subsequent rally behind Corbyn. France could be next in Europe.

    The left seems not to know where it is in the states... I agree it needs to fall into disarray before rediscovering itself.

    Trump has the momentum going down the straight, no one knows what the fuck is going on amongst all the monkey shit being flung in the cage...but no one is oblivious to the the fact that the establishment, from the neocon flight to the unprecedented MSM collusion and everything in-between, is so OTT Trump. Too much so. It's what the progressive left always wanted, a hero like this, to stand up to the machine.

    All that money and all Hillary cam come up with is a naughty word and 'Never Trump' - almost as if Trump goaded them into a shitfight by making idiotic, outlandish statements alongside his more thoughtful output that doesn't make primetime cable news. Now the Dems have less than two weeks to attack some real issues to quiet the silent majority's upcoming 'fuck you' vote...

    I'd even go as far to say there will be plenty of silent Dems voting Trump if the election was right now. No wonder Trump wants a 4th debate.

    MadMax2 | Oct 26, 2016 6:24:30 PM | 81
    @78 ALberto
    Good call, its not The Don or Hillary, Hillary's toast either way. The November question is: President Trump or TrumpTV...?
    karlof1 | Oct 26, 2016 6:32:41 PM | 82
    The only recourse the citizenry of the Outlaw US Empire has in attempting to restore its freedoms and regain control of the national government is to revolt. Unfortunately, such a dire action requires a high degree of solidarity amongst a body of citizens large enough to make the attempt and there's no sign of such a body anywhere to be seen. Thus we'll see the selection of HRC and the last gasp of the Neoliberalcons attempt to establish Full Spectrum Dominance of the planet and its people that will likely escalate the already existing Hybrid WW3 to a hot war. In other words, it doesn't matter who you vote for, so you ought to vote your conscience so you can be right with yourself. Our household's voting Stein.
    dumbass | Oct 26, 2016 6:42:57 PM | 83
    >> He's crooked enough...He's smart enough...

    Stuart Smalley??

    Sigil | Oct 26, 2016 6:55:14 PM | 84
    'The big issues count the most. Good or evil flow from them. Trumps principle, and I think personal position, is leaning towards peaceful resolution of conflicts.' - b

    The latter sentence contrasts with trump's determination to kill ISIS and take their oil. Sounds like occupation to me. And his manner of fighting them - with unrestrained torture and bullets dipped in pig's blood - is likely to catalyse supporty for them else where in the muslim world (and the muslim parts of the west), even if ISIS is stomped flat in Syria/Iraq. Coup[led with his blanket ban on muslim immigration, this sounds like a recipe for more conflict, not less.

    Likewise with some other big issues: climate change and world trade. As shitty as the WTO system can be, simply withdrawing and erecting huge tariffs would have catastrophic effects on world trade that wwe comparable to if not worse than the 1931 Smoot-Hawley tariffs that crippled world trade and set the stage for WW2. Worse, Trump's 100% opposition to acting on climate change, and his determination to allow all fossil fuel extraction projects to go ahead, will guarantee catastrophic global warming that will make WW2 itself look insignificant in the long run.

    I agree that Hillary is a menace. But that doesn't make Trump less of one.

    lysias | Oct 26, 2016 6:59:27 PM | 85
    Climate change is indeed a threat, but not an immediate one.

    WW3 is an immediate threat.

    It made sense to ally with Stalin, a long-term threat, against Hitler, an immediate one.

    fairleft | Oct 26, 2016 7:31:04 PM | 86
    Perfect legacy of Obama is the just announced Obamacare insurance premium 25℅ avg rate increases. Covered at WSWS but can't link from this phone. How about a $10,000 deductible for a family of 4 making $40,000? Things will get worse on several fronts next year, according to bipartisan plans published in the NYT. Trump's 'solution' is going back to what we had before, ie he has no solution. Wants to turn Medicaid, aid for our poor, into a voucher program. Don't vote for austerity, don't vote for HillTrump.
    rufus magister | Oct 26, 2016 7:39:36 PM | 87
    I knew there would be further need of this. Once again, the facts strongly suggest why he's a bigger hawk than Hillary Clinton.
    Trump isn't a leftist, nor is he a pacifist. In fact, Trump is an ardent militarist, who has been proposing actual colonial wars of conquest for years. It's a kind of nationalist hawkishness that we haven't seen much of in the United States since the Cold War - but has supported some of the most aggressive uses of force in American history.

    You'll see a robust bill of particulars in the article; I've cited some of them earlier. To little effect of course; Red Hats and Green Tea Bags make excellent counter-factual filters.

    The author, Zack Beauchamp, quite helpfully puts The Day-Glo Orange Duckhead in historical context. He quotes the historian Walter Russell Mead on the Jacksonian tradition in American foreign policy. He's from Bard College, BTW, which rates fairly high up on the uber-liberal university scale. So they don't be doin' too many Orange Jello Shots, know what I mean?

    Jacksonians, according to Mead, are basically focused on the interests and reputation of the United States. They are skeptical of ... idealistic quests removed from the interests of everyday Americans. But when American interests are in question, or failing to fight will make America look weak, Jacksonians are more aggressive than anyone.

    "The Gulf War was a popular war in Jacksonian circles because the defense of the nation's oil supply struck a chord with Jacksonian opinion.... With them it is an instinct rather than an ideology - a culturally shaped set of beliefs and emotions rather than a set of ideas," Mead writes. Sound familiar?

    Historically - and here's the important part - the Jacksonian tradition has been partly responsible for a lot of what we see today as American atrocities....

    Jackson himself is responsible for the "Trail of Tears."

    On the campaign trail, Trump routinely cites Gens. George Patton and Douglas MacArthur as foreign policy models - uber-Jacksonians both. Patton wanted to invade the Soviet Union after World War II to head off perceived future threats to America. And President Harry Truman fired MacArthur, despite his strategic genius, for publicly and insubordinately advocating total war against China during the Korean War.

    This is the tradition Trump's views seem to fit into. But while Patton and MacArthur at least had real military expertise and intellectual heft animating their hawkishness, Trump is just a collection of angry impulses. There's no worked-out strategic doctrine here, just an impulse to act aggressively when it seems like America's interests and/or reputation are at stake.

    Just a bundle of anger, driven by emotion, no set plan, aggressive with poor impulse control. What could possibly go wrong?

    So he doesn't want the present wars in the Ukraine and Syria, he says, now. But all the better to bomb Iraq and Iran into a pulp, it would seem.

    Sigil | Oct 26, 2016 7:43:02 PM | 88
    Climate change is already affecting the world, and it will take a concerted effort over a much, much longer period to get it under control, when compared to the Nazi threat.
    This is scientifically certain. The prospect of WW3 under Hillary's presidency is very far from being certain.
    james | Oct 26, 2016 7:54:57 PM | 89
    thanks b.. i agree..

    what oligarch will those pesky amerikkans vote for?

    oligarch 1 - hillary

    or oligarch 2 - trump

    if it was me, i would be voting 2.. but being in canada, i don't get to vote.. i just get to listen to bullshite 2016 election usa 24/7 any time i venture onto the internut..

    blues | Oct 26, 2016 8:11:10 PM | 90
    What are we facing now? WE ARE FACING WW-III!

    I don't now recall if i've posted these pieces here yet, but they do involve a matter of life and death for ALL OF US! So here they are:

    Jill Stein Slams Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy As "Scarier Than Trump's"
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-20/jill-stein-slams-hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-scarier-trumps

    BREAKING: JILL STEIN ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP [Sort Of][1 min., 15 sec.]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBqvhafoUBY

    The third - and final - presidential debate between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump was held Oct. 19 at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and moderated by Fox News' Chris Wallace.

    At one point Hillary said: "....and I'm going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria"

    Listen at: 1 hour, 20 minutes in:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/19/watch_live_final_presidential_debate_between_hillary_clinton__donald_trump.html

    A No Fly Zone means we shoot down Russian planes. And THAT MEANS WW-III.

    = = = = Furthermore = = = =

    With single-bid ("plurality") voting you only have two candidates to choose from.

    I have described the strategic hedge simple score election method all over the Internet, and it has been known of for many years. It is simple in the sense that does not require easily hackable voting machines, and can easily work with hand counted paper ballots at non-centralized poling stations. It is not hampered by any requirement to cater to so-called "sincere," "honest" (actually artless and foolish) voters. It easily thwarts both the spoiler effect and the blind hurdle dilemma (the "Burr Dilemma"), which prevents voters from exercising the strategies that they need to use to defeat the big bosses. It just works.

    Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore them as though they did not exist), or strategically cast from five to ten votes for any number of candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit of, say, twelve candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.

    Both IRV-style and approval voting methods suffer from the blind hurdle dilemma, which can be overcome with the hedge voting strategy. An example of usage of the hedge strategy, presuming the (most famous) case of a "leftist" voter, would be casting ten votes for Ralph Nader, and only eight or nine "hedge votes" for Al Gore. This way, the voter would only sacrifice 20 or 10 percent of their electoral influence if Nader did not win.

    Don't be fooled by fake "alternatives" like "IRV" and "approval voting". Ranked choice voting is supported by the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Open Society Foundations (of Soros), and on and on.

    Ranked choice voting is just as bad,or worse than out present single-bid ("plurality") method with regard to enforcing the two party syndrome, and this has been demonstrated repeatedly in history.

    Score voting is fundamentally distinct from ranked choice voting, and does not promote the two party syndrome. That's probably why it doesn't get hundreds of millions of promotion dollars as the "Green" Party's ranked choice system does.

    PLEASE look at the truth for yourself:

    http://www.fairvote.org/financials

    http://www.fairvote.org/rcv

    Very hard to believe, huh?

    And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers".

    We are stuck with this miserable system because of a surprisingly large array of people who I call the "election methods cognoscenti". Over many years, these cognoscenti have assembled an enormous collection of distracting, unworkable election methods. This "intellectual subject" has, for instance, consumed perhaps hundreds of pages in works such as the Wikipedia. These cognoscenti have created a gigantic Glass Bead Game which serves no real purpose other than to facilitate intellectual speculation. In nearly every instance where their election methods have been employed, disaster has ensued, although in a few cases, their systems have languished on, providing no better results than the choose-one voting system. Millions, perhaps tens of millions of dollars, have been spent promoting the "IRV" method, which has been tried and abandoned in several venues where it caused massive chaos.

    We cannot afford any more of this intellectual masturbation, which has lead to this absurd 2016 "election". All we should be doing is protesting for safe, easy-to-understand strategic hedge simple score voting.

    And I will be voting for Donald Trump, even though I know that my "ballot" is going to be fed into an infernal machine.

    schlub | Oct 26, 2016 8:18:01 PM | 91

    Clinton advised the mainstream media to push his legitimacy as a "pied piper" candidate because she realized, after looking at the poll numbers, that she wouldn't stand a chance at winning the presidency against any of the establishment republicans without making them "pied pipers" – it just so happened that Donald was the easiest to play the role considering his long history of friendship with the Clintons.
    https://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2016/10/25/rigged-election-hillary-trump-caught-partying-like-bffs-kissinger-jesuit-gala.html

    Caption this!:
    https://dollarvigilante.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/donald-hillary-800.jpg

    or this:
    https://dollarvigilante.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/cardinalhillanddon.jpg

    jdmckay | Oct 26, 2016 8:50:23 PM | 92
    blues @ 89

    > BREAKING: JILL STEIN ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP

    Oh c'mon. Stooping pretty low on that one. One of election's sicker sideshows: Briebert's site covering Stein more then almost anyone else... when they can twist one of Jill's criticism's of Hillary into and endorsement of Trump. Jill is most certainly a NASTY woman. :)

    This is bottom feeding stuff.

    Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 8:56:56 PM | 93
    I get it. I really do.

    Trump has some strange ideas. And he'll cause some real harm in some areas.

    But again, his strong medicine is what is needed. We can spill loads of electronic ink debating the
    reasons why and talking about how he sucks but that won't change the reality.

    I am very much against the duopoly. But one of these two will win. A win by Trump and a strong
    showing by the Greens is the best we can hope for.It sends a clear message. What message does
    voting for Hillary send? That we will allow ourselves to be compromised yet AGAIN?

    Trump says: "either you have a country, or you don't". So what are the 'borders' that the left will
    defend? Just how much will the Left allow its so-called leaders to compromise and marginalize us?

    There is a natural alliance between the principled left and principled right that the mercenary,
    mendacious establishment fears. Don't be fooled by Hillary/DNC scare tactics and media manipulation!

    Hillary tells some voters that she will continue Obama's policies and other voters that she will be
    different. She assures Goldman Sacks that her private positions differ very much from her public
    positions. She runs pay to play scams via the Clinton Foundation, takes tons of money from Wall Street
    and pretends that none of that influences her. The Chair of the DNC joined her campaign after her
    work against Sanders was revealed! And Sanders response? He endorsed Hillary!!

    The Democrats believe that YOU and your family, friends, and neighbors are confused and scared or just
    plain dumb and foolish enough to vote for Hillary and other Democrats that will ride her coattails.
    Prove them wrong. Stand up for yourself! Vote for Trump in swing states and Jill Stein in other states.

    Sigil | Oct 26, 2016 9:09:07 PM | 94
    @92 What message does voting for Hillary send?

    That the establishment candidate is not automatically the worst possible candidate. Not when the other is an unrepentant racist determined to castrate the First Amendment and incinerate the climate. What message does it send when a candidate whose campaign took off at the point he called most - if not all - illegal immigrants 'rapists' wins the White House? Besides, you sound more like a Sanders supporter than a Trump supporter - so maybe his thoughts are worth taking into account here.

    metamars | Oct 26, 2016 9:10:12 PM | 95
    @ rufus magister 86


    I had assumed your link would be garbage, but took a look, anyway. In fact, it raises significant points. In particular, previously unknown (to me) details about his views about "taking the oil".

    I'm definitely for Trump, consider him far safer and saner than Clinton wrt foreign policy with most of the world (I suspect he could be worse wrt N Korea, than Clinton; also, no better wrt Africa, than Clinton).

    I have never been impressed with the Trumpian "take the oil" position that I learned of during the campaign, and have described it as "goofy" and "sure sounding like a war crime". That this particular stupidity (or hawkish stupidity, if you prefer) is nothing new, and extended to Libya, is disappointing.

    Still, on balance, compared to the endless hemming in and provocation of nuclear super-power Russia (not to mention smearing of Putin), by the neocon class of which Hillary is an obvious example of, the author's claim that Trump is more of a hawk than her still sounds absurd. Even if the argument has some merits.

    Foreign affairs editor of Chronicles Magazine, srdja Trifkovic rated Trump's foreign policy speech of April a B+. From https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/america-first-controversy/ :

    "Donald Trump's foreign policy speech last Wednesday deserves at least a solid B+ and you can read my take on it in the June issue of Chronicles. It offered an eloquent argument for offensive realism, based on the fact that the international system-composed of sovereign nation-states pursuing their interests-is still essentially competitive and Hobbesian. Trump is the only candidate who understands this cardinal fact, and who unambiguously states America is not and should not be an exception to that timeless principle."

    A key guy who has Trump's ear (and for whom there was speculation would be VP) was former DIA head Mike Flynn. See "Trump's favorite general" @ http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-general-michael-flynn-vp-225253 From that article:

    "Since leaving government, Flynn has angered U.S. officials over his friendly ties to Russia, with which he has publicly advocated better relations and military cooperation in the Middle East - a departure from the official Pentagon line. He even recently sat at the head table at a dinner in Moscow with President Vladimir Putin, whom Trump has praised."

    This same article also says,

    "Much as Trump likes to keep things in the family, Flynn's son, Michael G. Flynn, serves as a chief adviser."


    The idea that Trump wouldn't consult with the likes of Flynn - who might be his Secretary of Defense - also seems goofy. Of course he will.

    The Obama Administration, of which Hillary was an integral part, deliberately allowed ISIS to flourish, in it's early stages. Trump's incompetence as a political candidate is amply demonstrated by the fact that, even given 3 national debate audiences, he FAILED to pin the US non-interdiction of the mega ISIS oil trade, run through Turkey, on the Obama administration (thus, to one degree or another, also on Clinton). See "Russian intel spots 12,000 oil tankers & trucks on Turkey-Iraq border - General Staff" for photos that Trump should have (pardon the expression) trumpeted during all 3 national debates. Had he done so, in stead of being politically inept and inarticulate, he would have cemented in the public's mind just HOW evil the foreign policy of both Obama and Clinton were. (Of course, he should have also mentioned the wikileaks tick tock memos, crediting uber SoS failure Hilary Clinton with steps on the road to the destruction of Libya).

    Hillary has not just spouted militaristic, imperialistic hokum. She was also in the decision loop, as war crimes against Libya, in particular, were being decided on, then perpetrated. She has a history that is far more evidential of catastrophic militarism than goofy statements about "taking the oil".

    Jay M | Oct 26, 2016 9:20:36 PM | 96
    Even if you are going to pick the other guy's pocket, you have to view him as human
    I wonder about the digital scum
    rufus magister | Oct 26, 2016 9:27:52 PM | 97
    metamars at 94 --

    Very kind of you to note your new-found concerns, anytime.

    Trump has net yet been in the loop. I do not want him there, he would be bad for the country and planet. His public statements suggest he would make far worse decisions.

    blues | Oct 26, 2016 9:29:50 PM | 98
    re: jdmckay | Oct 26, 2016 8:50:23 PM | 91

    {quote} > BREAKING: JILL STEIN ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP

    Oh c'mon. Stooping pretty low on that one. {end quote}

    You are misquoting me intensionally. I put: "BREAKING: JILL STEIN ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP [Sort Of][1 min., 15 sec.]" And that is because YouTube links often break up while their titles remain searchable.

    You ignored that I added "[Sort of]"!

    I think there are likely a lot of DailyKos zombies around here tonight.

    Trump may be a bullheaded semi-thug, but I'll vote for him before I join the "die with Hillary" movement.

    metamars | Oct 26, 2016 10:35:59 PM | 99
    "His public statements suggest he would make far worse decisions."

    On balance, no, they don't. Even if Flynn couldn't talk any sense into him regarding "taking the oil", and a President Trump somehow managed to pull that off, and it turned into an endless conflict, the $$ cost of which exceeded the oil profits thus obtained, that would still be preferable to nuclear exchanges with Russia.

    I read just today about a Russian nuke, called "Satan", that supposedly can destroy a country the size of France (or the state of Texas). I had to read it twice, since the claim seemed preposterous. (I assume it's some sort of multiple warhead device, and what the claim really means is that it can destroy all cities in an area the size of France.)

    Peace with Russia is, to use a Star Trek phrase, the "prime directive". Trusting that to Clinton is a fool's errand. Trusting that to Trump is not.

    ab initio | Oct 26, 2016 10:41:58 PM | 100
    No matter the facts, and b has laid it out as clearly as one can, the left and the urban classes in America will vote for the proven warmonger. Why? For them virtue signalling is more important than the existential threat of riding up an escalatory ladder to a nuclear exchange with Russia.
    Shadow Nine | Oct 26, 2016 10:47:29 PM | 101
    After listening to right-wingers howl and whine today, droning on about big bad gumint and the only salvation is their guy and/or the free market. I say we end the misery that the capitalist system produces once and for all by throwing all support for Hillary. An anti-war vote for Trump helps preserve the madness, how could any sane person help capitalism, that to me is abnormal behaviour that Hillary can rectify. Death is an inevitable human condition, Right-wing evangelists are nothing but cowards. Viva Hillary and cheers to accelerating the process!
    james | Oct 26, 2016 11:10:05 PM | 102
    @100.. interesting approach..
    blues | Oct 26, 2016 11:27:08 PM | 103
    This website has been hacked.

    Someone has made it so that the site cannot be read unless the text is shrunk to be too small to read.

    psychohistorian | Oct 26, 2016 11:42:46 PM | 104
    @ blues

    Hacked is a bit strong....somebody messed up their attempt at HTML

    Shadow Nine | Oct 26, 2016 11:44:30 PM | 105
    @101, Just spitballing back into the Janus fascist face. Imagine the Borg exporting this capitalist madness , while proselytizing it's religious virtues to the masses?
    Julian | Oct 27, 2016 12:01:24 AM | 106
    Interesting, yes it is Reuters, but it's a quote of what Erdogan apparently said.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-idUSKCN12Q0GV

    President Tayyip Erdogan said Turkey's military operations in Syria aimed to secure al-Bab and the town of Manbij, which a group of Kurdish and Arab militias seized from Islamic State in August, but were not intended to stretch to Aleppo.

    "Let's make a joint fight against terrorist organizations. But Aleppo belongs to the people of Aleppo ... making calculations over Aleppo would not be right," he said in a speech in Ankara.

    Turkey launched "Operation Euphrates Shield" two months ago, sending tanks and warplanes into Syria in support of the largely Turkmen and Arab rebels.

    Erdogan signaled Turkey could target the Afrin region of northwest Syria, which is controlled by Kurdish YPG forces and lies just west of the "Euphrates Shield" area of operations.

    "In order to defeat threats directed at our nation from Kilis to Kirikhan, we are also putting that area on our agenda of cleansing from terror," he said, referring to two Turkish towns across the border from Afrin.

    Looks fairly clear the objectives are Al-bab & Manbij, and then the Afrin pocket. Definitely if the Syrians/Russians don't intervene to "save" Afrin, then that would push the Kurds into the arms of the Americans, but if that's all the Turks do, then that solidifies the Turkish-Russian pact at the same time.

    schlub | Oct 27, 2016 12:03:51 AM | 107
    Inching ever closer, one reported death at a time, to the current world record holder who is either Mark Twain or perhaps Binny himself.

    http://en.alalam.ir/news/1877644
    26 October 2016 14:48
    Iraqi Analyst Discloses S.Arabia, Turkey's Plot to Transfer Al-Baghdadi to Libya
    A prominent Iraqi military analyst disclosed that Riyadh and Ankara had hatched plots to transfer ISIL leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi from Mosul to Libya but the massive presence of the popular forces and Russian fighter jets at the bordering areas of Iraq and Syria dissuaded them.

    schlub | Oct 27, 2016 12:07:17 AM | 108
    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/filipino-president-wants-expel-us-forces-next-two-years/

    Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has said he wants all foreign troops, in which the majority are American, out of the Philippines in the next two years.

    This comes amidst his desire to realign his country with China and Russia, and further from the grasps of Washington.

    schlub | Oct 27, 2016 12:10:20 AM | 109
    http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/10/26/490849/russia-black-sea-fleet-stealth-submarine

    Russia has launched the latest addition to its series of super-stealth diesel-electric submarines, the Veliky Novgorod, which sports advanced stealth technologies and increased combat range.

    The latest addition to the Black Sea Fleet is capable of striking land, sea and underwater targets and was officially launched from St. Petersburg's Admiralty Shipyard on Wednesday in the presence of Russian Navy Deputy Commander Vice-Admiral Aleksandr Fedotenkov, and Admiralty Shipyard CEO Alexander Buzakov.

    schlub | Oct 27, 2016 12:11:37 AM | 110
    http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/10/27/490856/Trumps-antiIran-message-on-Mount-Zion-settlements-East-Jerusalem-alQuds

    GOP nominee Donald Trump does not believe that settlements built by the Zionist regime of Israel in Palestine are illegal, his advisor on Israel says.

    David Friedman, who was campaigning for the New York billionaire at a restaurant on Mount Zion (Jabel Sahyoun) in East Jerusalem al-Quds, made the comments to AFP after the Wednesday rally.

    Jack Smith | Oct 27, 2016 12:24:00 AM | 111
    Tom Hayden, Courageous Warrior for Peace. October 26, 2016 (BULL SHIT)

    Former antiwar sellout becomes a warmonger and support endless wars: warmongers - Obomo, Hillary.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/26/tom-hayden-courageous-warrior-for-peace/

    Remember on November 8, vote for any party, but not The Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is the war party.

    For me still undecided - Donald Trump or Jill Stein.

    Dr. William Wedin | Oct 27, 2016 12:48:06 AM | 112
    I agree with Moon of Alabama's predictions up to the point that he asserts that Putin's "best" or "most likely" response (I am not clear which) to having all of Russia's military assets in Syria destroyed is the meek test-firing of a "big" tactical nuclear weapon in Siberia by way of a non-lethal display of "shock and awe." Neither Putin nor his generals would ever let things get so one-sided in America's father. Rather, the Russian military would respond the way Putin, the 8th-degree black-belt Judoka has responded in every match that led to his becoming the Judo Champion of Leningrad in 1976. Namely, they would attack, attack, attack--no matter the cost. That's how General Zhukov defeated Hitler. The same way Grant won the Civil War. Zhukov never let up the pressure. Putin learned his lesson on that score when he tried to teach the US the Judo principle of Jita Kyoei (or the "mutual benefit") in mutual self-restraint in his acceptance of a ceasefire and a partial pull-out of Russian forces back in March; followed by another betrayed ceasefire last month. No more. Now if he is hit, he's going to hit back harder--in unexpected places and ways. He has vowed to never fight another war on Russian soil. So he may well carry the attack early to the US homeland. Study the way he won Judo matches--with lightning speed and startling moves. The Saker would argue that Putin would go for lateral rather than vertical escalation. But I think that Hillary's transsexual desire (I speak as a psychologist here) to prove herself the "tougher man" may force Putin to launch a First Strike in the expectation she's about to. Indeed he tells us that the first lesson he learned as a street fighter at the age of 10 was: "Strike First." I think he will.
    Jack Smith | Oct 27, 2016 12:59:30 AM | 113
    I can never under understand why so many 60s and 70s antiwar become warmongers today?

    Amerika drops more than 7 millions tons of bombs, about 20 to 30% unexploded. They knew millions innocent civilians perished and many more will die of unexploded bombs. Further Napalm & Agent Orange was used and still causing deforms children today.

    How can anyone vote for The Democratic Party is beyond common sense? The Democratic Party had always been a warmonger party, yesterday, today and tomorrow....

    Ike | Oct 27, 2016 1:32:14 AM | 114
    With the Clinton's long list of shady deals Hillary would be an easy target for blackmail by some organisation such as a security service that wants to control the policies of the president.
    Shadow Nine | Oct 27, 2016 1:35:48 AM | 115
    @112 Jack Smith,

    It's not funny how hypocritical the right-wing have become just to get their guy in office. Fuck 'em I say. For those same fucktards that believe Obama a communist/socialist, they're simply invoking a red scare tactic. The love to scapegoat the other, ie. teacher's, immigrants because their brainwashed minds love their servitude and criticism of the capitalist system is beyond the pale.

    Both parties represent what you nominally call warmonger in one form or the other, serving their corporate paymasters. Any minds reconciling the differences would be well advised to check up on Glen Ford, Omali Yeshitela and the world socialist website periodically.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 27, 2016 1:48:59 AM | 116
    This is a formal request to b...

    Would you please delete ArthurGilroy's comments
    at #42 and #60?
    #42 could have been an accident caused by
    failure to Preview.
    But #60 was a deliberate margin wrecker, imo.

    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 27, 2016 3:29:37 AM | 117
    @ psychohistorian | Oct 26, 2016 11:42:46 PM | 103

    No they did not mess up their HTML, they put ==== well beyond the wrap limits. It happens when commentators use any lengthy address that does not have hyphens incorporated. If the programming were to put in a virtual hyphen, that changes the address for using, it seems. HTML is the tool to use to get around that problem. The problem is few commentators are tool users; the result is the reader suffers from one: stupid, inattention or intent. The perpetrator:

    ArthurGilroy | Oct 26, 2016 3:08:34 PM | 60

    ProPeace | Oct 27, 2016 3:29:40 AM | 118
    How about a few bombs dropped on the Yellowstone caldera?

    Or artificial tsunamis flooding military bases on/in Diego Garcia, Guam, Hawaii, Norfolk,...

    The Atlantist Thalassocracy is quite vulnerable actually.

    The Kalibr missiles installed in Kaliningrad could reach London easily...

    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 27, 2016 3:32:59 AM | 119
    @ 115

    One upped. Should finish reading before sounding off.

    From The Hague | Oct 27, 2016 3:34:18 AM | 120
    @Jack Smith #110,112

    Yes, it's unbelieveble to read what for example the popstars say.

    'Look, America is like the best idea the world ever came up with. But Donald Trump is potentially the worst idea that ever happened to America, potentially,' Bono replied. 'It could destroy it,' the rocker added.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3798784/Donald-Trump-destroy-America-U2-s-Bono-uses-Clinton-Initiative-deliver-hysterical-lecture-Republican-candidate.html

    She compared him to Hitler, likened his campaign to a "racist" version of "Fun with Dick and Jane" and even said he evoked the murderous child star in "The Bad Seed."
    "I just think he's" an idiot, Cher said of Donald J. Trump, adding a decidedly unprintable modifier.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/24/us/politics/cher-hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html?_r=0

    With Hillary Clinton in the audience, singer Adele told her fans at a Miami concert Tuesday night not to vote for Donald Trump.
    "Don't vote for him," the Grammy Award winner said on stage, according to a Clinton aide. "I can't vote but I am 100% for Hillary Clinton, I love her, she's amazing."
    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/politics/hillary-clinton-adele-concert/

    And so on.
    Also for example:
    Elton John
    John Fogerty
    Neil Young
    Paul mcCartney
    Roger Waters

    Corrupt?
    Braindead?
    Just stupid and ignorant?

    MadMax2 | Oct 27, 2016 4:07:32 AM | 121
    @119 FTH
    Holier than thou superstars wrapped in the warm bosom of capitalism that is the 1%. Can't blame them, they're being looked after. They just hear the un-pc bleating.
    Working Class Nero | Oct 27, 2016 4:21:36 AM | 122
    What makes me happiest about this election is that we are finally seeing some left/right cooperation in the fight against the corporate oligarchy. I follow both sides closely and it is great to see right wingers cheering Jill Stein, Julian Assange, and even Bernie Sanders.

    In order for the left/right combination to work both sides have to make compromises. Certainly we see the Trumpian right dumping the warmongering. as MoA is pointing out. Trumpsters are also open to universal health care, and are less insistent on divisive social issues. And the rejection of job-killing "free" trade is another great evolution towards sanity on the right.

    The left are goig to have to abandon the idea of remaking America by pumping in millions of 3rd world immigrants. This is the largest wedge still existing between the left and right. if you have not seen Bernie Sanders denouncing Open Borders as a Koch Borthers scam to lower wages then you need to get busy on Google right now. Besides universal health care is absolutely impossible without very tight borders -- just ask Canada who have far more Draconian immigration laws than even Trump is proposing.

    But the most important reason to vote Trump is because if he wins the Powers-That-Be will never let him take power! Remember the Electoral College? TPTB can and will strip the victory away from Trump and give it to someone else. This will do more to destroy the current capitalist system than anything else.

    Yeah, Right | Oct 27, 2016 6:17:06 AM | 123
    @105, quoting Reuters: "Erdogan signaled Turkey could target the Afrin region of northwest Syria"

    When Turkey launched "Operation Euphrates Shield" there was much commentary about how this would end the Kurdish plan to link Kobane with the Afrin pocket.

    At the time I thought to myself: OK, so does that leave the Afrin pocket exposed, or is it pretty secure even when left to its own devices?

    Nobody else seemed the slightest bit interested in pondering that though, apparently, Erdogan has now decided that it is a blister that needs to be lanced.

    @105: "then that would push the Kurds into the arms of the Americans"

    Err, no, I suspect not. After all, it was Biden who ordered the Kurdish forces to withdraw back behind the Euphrates once Erdogan started his little adventure, so it's pretty obvious that if the choice is between (a) Turkey and (b) the Kurds then good ol' Uncle Sam is going to side with the Turks.

    fast freddy | Oct 27, 2016 7:04:22 AM | 124
    Surprised to see Roger Waters on that list. WTF, Roger?

    His condemnation of Israel and his love for Palestine has been clear.

    Expressing his staunch I/P political views, Roger has consistently angered warmongering wingnuts at his concerts. (They like his music, but they wish he would shut up about " his politics".)

    Waters should know clearly that Hillary Rotten Clinton will explicitly follow the Yinon Plan dictates for Greater Israel; and feed our sons and daughters (not hers) into the military meat grinder.

    fast freddy | Oct 27, 2016 7:06:40 AM | 125
    Neil Young is another one - should know better. Sir McCartney is no surprise. He's a suck-up, milquetoast douchebag.
    Wwinsti | Oct 27, 2016 7:24:47 AM | 126
    Russia wants to join forces with the US to take Raqqa.

    The story is the third one down, so you have to scroll a little.

    http://tass.com/pressreview/908986

    -- | Oct 27, 2016 7:26:35 AM | 127
    Sick motherf*cker is on again!

    Clinton adviser Chris Morell, wants US to intercept Iranian ships to help Saudi Arabia
    https://www.rt.com/usa/364286-iran-saudi-morell-clinton/

    pantaraxia | Oct 27, 2016 7:39:17 AM | 128

    @119 From The Hague

    "Yes, it's unbelieveble to read what for example the popstars say."


    Madonna offers oral sex to Clinton voters
    https://www.rt.com/usa/363357-madonna-offers-fellatio-clinton-voters/


    Nuff said.

    Jack Smith | Oct 27, 2016 8:40:02 AM | 129
    Blowin' In the Wind

    Many thanks for those who read and comments.. I can never under understand why so many 60s and 70s antiwar become warmongers today?

    I'm from the sixties - baby boom generation, not antiwar but leaning from anti commie to warmonger. I cannot understands why antiwar movements were against Vietnam war . America, land of the free leading the fighting against the commies spreading from the North moving southward to the two Korea, (Indochina) Laos, Cambodia, North &South Vietnam, Thailand, Malaya (independent), Singapore British Crown colony, Hong Kong British Crown colony, Indonesia, The Philippines. The warmonger was Lyndon B. Johnson a Democrat.

    Blowin' In the Wind sang by leftist's antiwar singers. I'm especially touched by Peter, Paul and Mary, Joan Baez... Where are they today? Warmongers for Hillary?

    Enjoy

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld6fAO4idaI
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFvkhzkS4bw

    Sorrie, Eng not my mother tongue.

    dahoit | Oct 27, 2016 9:13:31 AM | 130
    The red zionist leader pretend hates Trump.
    Hee hee,the vitriol from the serial liars should be enough for sane human to vote Trump.
    Imagine the debt that the HB will owe the zionists if they manage to steal this election for her,their obvious chosen whore.
    The zionists aint going to like the heartlands response to the fix.
    The raw deal they are issuing to Trump will be rejected.
    dahoit | Oct 27, 2016 9:15:21 AM | 131
    They found the deed at last;700 BC papyrus mentions Jerusalem!
    sheesh.They hate us all for not believing their bs.
    h | Oct 27, 2016 9:48:44 AM | 132
    112 said

    "But I think that Hillary's transsexual desire (I speak as a psychologist here) to prove herself the "tougher man" may force Putin to launch a First Strike in the expectation she's about to. Indeed he tells us that the first lesson he learned as a street fighter at the age of 10 was: "Strike First." I think he will."

    So do I. He did not go into Syria without a long-range strategy. And when he and China and others use the term "multi-polar" they mean it. Their commitment/strategy is at the cellular level which makes them unpredictable and dangerous to their adversary. Putin is all business.

    ----------------

    Here's a vid of Podesta's think tank - Center for American Progress - where Mike Morrell NOT Chris Morrell along with others discuss the Middle East and U.S. partners -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa8q_g66DU8&feature=youtu.be&t=1m38s


    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 27, 2016 9:53:27 AM | 133
    This may be priceless:

    https://www.rt.com/usa/364288-us-election-international-standards-osce/

    From Russia with LOVE.

    Noirette | Oct 27, 2016 11:33:18 AM | 134
    I've written along this line before, apologies for the repeat.

    The US has lost power, particularly economic power, and some soft power -not military power- in the last 20 or ++ years. An uncomfortable situation. This has disturbed, and will continue to disrupt, nay shatter, the PTB (Shadow Gvmt., fake duopoly, corporate rule, neo-fascism, slot in yr perso description) control.

    The selection of Obama was a simplistic move: he could be ushered in as representing 'change', and seemingly 'win' an 'election' twice, with biz as usual (hopefully) maintaining itself, continuing with a puppet President. (As is organised 'abroad', see Poroshenko for ex.)

    A crack on the political scene was the Tea Party, within Repub. circles, and it was genuine (if wacky), unlike Occupy Wall Street, or the present Black Lives Matter, which are more or less 'fake color revol.' controlled splinters that can be turned on or off. The Sanders candidacy split the Dem. base, and was either a nasty surprise for the neo-libs (they brought it on themselves, read Podesta e-mails) or an 'allowed' move to maintain the pretense of real political options.

    The Repubs. could not turn up a convincing candidate (anyone with brains would avoid this situation like the plague, and the Rubio, Cruz type personas were just 'place holders') so the plan morphed into letting Trump win the nomination and lose the election to the neo-lib-con (HRC) faction. This plan was born out of arrogance, hubris, 'bubble' blindness and ignorance, and the supposed iron grip control of the MSM, aka 'the narrative.'

    Trump did much better than expected, went on doing so. CNN at first gave him a 1% chance of winning the nomination, what a laugh. Imho Trump played the MSM masterfully, but that is neither here nor there - the PTB were shocked to see their hold erode, they never imagined losing control of the 'opposition' or the discontents, aka the rabble, the compliant sheeples: many different strands: Greens, e.g. Stein, whose vicious tweets against HRC are something to behold, libertarians, BernieBros for 'social democracy' and free college, now turned to Cleaning Out the Swamp, law -n- order types, gun toters, Blacks for Trump, and on and on ..unimaginable.

    As no reasoned politically argued response was available, the PTB went into attack mode which completely backfired, as could readily be predicted. This is the post-Democracy Age (if it ever existed and the term 'democracy' is of course BS.)

    Trump appears to confusedly propose a way of dealing with the US loss of economic domination, of power and place on the World Stage: nationalistic retrenchment, "better deals", OK, plus "a stronger military," a double-pronged sword, not pacifist, on the face of it.

    Makes a kind of hopeful sense, and appeals greatly. HRC (she is just a propped up figure) in a corrupt circuit of PTB-NWO - the top 20% globalist class - has to push the agenda of the MIC, of Wall Street, Big Corps, Silicon Valley, etc. for personal position. Donors who give mega-cash get corp. and pol. favors, etc.

    Mina | Oct 27, 2016 12:09:36 PM | 135
    French MSM report as if it was the most natural thing in the world that Erdogan made a speech to say he intends to get back Manbij from the Kurds and participate in getting back Northern Syria, in cooperation with the US.
    If the Turks enter that far, there is no doubt it will lead to a wider war ... Could that be the reason Hollande is so sure of being reelected in May?
    5 dancing shlomos | Oct 27, 2016 12:32:21 PM | 136
    stopped going to VT several years ago during their grand support of the slaughter of Libya. duff wrote I was posting from tel aviv.
    have to be careful with vt. what is a lie and what is decent.

    trump is hated/feared by repubs/dems, the establishment, wall st, the crooks, cronies, pedophiles, liars, warmongers, creepers in the dark, rich beggars with hands out, culture-destroyers.

    supporting legal immigration is sound national policy as is not wanting to fight wars for jewry. supporting soc sec and medicare and spending tax dollars on repairing infrastructure in America not Israel is also sound.

    i support trump.

    Piotr Berman | Oct 27, 2016 12:57:36 PM | 137
    My take is similar to rufus magister, namely that Trump (a) talks a lot of nonsense, but unlike a disciplined robot like Marco Rubio, he is eclectic and mixes that nonsense with surprisingly reasonable statements.

    Many attacks on Trump almost convince me that he is the best candidate out there. But his own web site is much less convincing, and his personal appearances may be outright scary.

    On domestic issues, he more or less follows all bad aspects of GOP model. His trade policy ideas are so unworkable that nothing will come out of them. Not that I disagree that there is too much of "free trade", but like with any complex system, it is much easier to make it worse that to make it better.

    Back to Trump as an architect of new, improved foreign policy. Here the room for improvement is much more clear, because so much of the current policy is to effectively do little shits here and there, and to sell more arms than before, so totally ineffective policy would be a plus. It does not even need to be particularly consistent etc. But "greedy merchant" mentality exhibited by Trump in many quotes, like "take their oil", "those allies do not pay their dues", and "why did we give [returned!!!] money to Iran", make me genuinely worried that he would continue selling weapons to Gulfies and help them bombing Yemen and smuggling weapons to Syria: if they pay us that this is OK. Secondly, he was abjectly pandering to AIPAC. Thirdly, some mad statements about decisive direct intervention and using torture. The only change that I would be sure under Trump presidency is that CIA would be out of the loop, or at least, much less visible than now. And he would probably stop pressing EU to maintain and expand sanctions on Russia. But he would restore sanctions on Iran??

    In other words, a mixed bag at best on foreign policy, probably ineffectual nonsense on trade policy and very retrograde changes in domestic policy. To name the few, green light to all possible abortion restriction, if not outlawing the abortion by SCOTUS, advocacy of police brutality, regressive taxation, letting people with chronic diseases die as uninsurable etc. So one has to consider how scary HRC is.

    My estimate is that she would be basically Obama with inferior rhetoric. Leaked e-mails show that her decision making is quite deliberative, and the circle of opinions that are included not particularly insular. It is too neocon to my liking, and "Obama as is" happened to be much less appealing than "Obama before elected". Since there is no consensus to attack the Russians, she would not hammer it through.

    Thus one can reasonably hope that HRC will be relatively harmless. And it is not even clear that Russia is harmed by sanctions. They restrict somewhat the access to goods and financial services, but during cheap oil, the top issues for Russia is import substitution, development of domestic production, and curtailing the capital flight. Good access to financial services can be quite detrimental to a country, as we can study on the example of Greece: joining Eurozone vastly improved the access to the financial markets and enabled to borrow much more that prudent. As Russia remains a net exporter by a quite large margin, keeping money at home is much more important than access to credit.

    That said, a reasonable hope does not exactly dispel the fears described above. Moreover, it is predicated on the lack of "imperialist/neo-con consensus", and wobbly results of the elections would help. Thus, everybody here who can vote should vote as she/he damn pleases. If you do not like Clinton, I would suggest Stein, because she actually spells out a coherent and sensible position, and not patches of senses and horror, so this is Trump's policy and this is Stein's policy.

    somebody | Oct 27, 2016 1:54:09 PM | 138
    Posted by: Working Class Nero | Oct 27, 2016 4:21:36 AM | 122

    Yeah, in Germany this is called "querfront" strategy. Problem is that fascism is a captialist scam for authoritarian rule.

    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 27, 2016 1:56:17 PM | 139
    Over at ZeroHedge a headline reads:

    Putin Asks: "Is America Now A Banana Republic"

    Politically yep, 'fraid so.

    somebody | Oct 27, 2016 2:13:19 PM | 140
    Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 27, 2016 12:57:36 PM | 137

    Actually, for breaking up the two party system I would probably vote the libertarian ticket.

    [Oct 27, 2016] Krugman on Trump TV and the Future of Right-Wing Media (Video)

    Oct 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Tuesday, October 25, 2016

    Krugman on Trump TV and the Future of Right-Wing Media (Video)

    Posted by Mark Thoma on Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 04:01 PM in Economics , Video | Permalink Comments (23)
    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post. JohnH : , October 25, 2016 at 04:19 PM

    I thought I'd never say this, but Glenn Beck gave a very thoughtful interview with Charley Rose last night. He raised a lot of issues that the other Glenn (Glenn Greenwald) has been raising--the moral bankruptcy of each political party and the tendency of each to attack the other for things that they themselves would deny, excuse, and say that it doesn't
    matter when their own party does it.

    Glenn is not supporting Trump. But he gives the example of the many Republicans who viciously attacked Bill Clinton for his sexual behavior but now deny, excuse and say that it doesn't matter when Trump does it.

    The flip side, of course, is found with the many Democrats who viciously attack Trump but denied, excused, and said that it didn't matter when Bill Clinton did it.

    Glenn says that to restore trust with the American people, both parties need to clean their houses and become parties that put laws and principles first, which implies criticizing their own instead of shielding them when
    they misbehave.

    reason -> JohnH... , October 26, 2016 at 12:01 AM
    The big difference with Trump is that he is the guy in the glass house throwing stones.
    Kenneth Almquist -> JohnH... , October 26, 2016 at 12:36 AM
    This sounds like another attempt to claim the two parties are equivalent. Your claim that "many Democrats...viciously attack Trump but denied, excused, and said that it didn't matter when Bill Clinton did it," would be a bit more credible if you actually named a few of the alleged "many Democrats."

    Most of the attacks on Trump are the result of Trump boasting about sexually assaulting women, which Clinton has not done. In any case, to claim that the Democratic party needs to "clean its house" you need evidence that there is a problem today, not merely one two decades ago when Bill Clinton was in office.

    JohnH -> Kenneth Almquist... , October 26, 2016 at 08:34 AM
    Thanks for providing a great example of a Democrat trying to deny, explain away, and say that Bill Clinton's behavior in the 1990s didn't matter!

    Of course, Bill Clinton's radical deregulation of the 1990s (ending Glass-Steagall, commodities deregulation, etc.) and ending welfare as we knew it doesn't matter either...because it was done by a Democrat.

    Nor did his attack on Serbia, which set the precedent for the pointless and futile war in Iraq. It's OK when Democrats wage war, as long as it's papered over with claims of 'humanitarian bombing.'

    And Barack Obama's refusal to prosecute bankers and torturers doesn't matter, though Democrats would have cried 'bloody murder' if a Republican had behaved this way. Nor does his embrace of NSA spying really matter. Nor his proposed cuts to Social Security and social programs in general...because his is a Democrat.

    This is why economic elites love to have Democrats in power...because they can push through horrible reforms...and rest confident that many of the party faithful will deny, excuse, and even claim that it didn't matter...because a Democrat did it.

    Chris Lowery -> JohnH... , October 26, 2016 at 09:57 AM
    John, speaking only for myself, the defense of Bill Clinton in the 1990's had nothing to do with excusing his atrocious behavior -- it had to do with the opposition engaging in a witch hunt to destroy a sitting president. and exploiting the vehicle of a special prosecutor's authority, granted to look into entirely different and unrelated matters, to do so. This was a gross misuse of official power. Clinton's mistake was in refusing to answer questions unrelated to the authorized inquiry.

    As to the other items on your list of objections to Bill Clinton's actions, a few I'd agree with, and others I'd disagree with; but they are all unrelated to the issue of equivalence that you and Beck raise.

    JohnH -> Chris Lowery ... , October 26, 2016 at 01:36 PM
    I'd agree that Democrats never organized a witch hunt against any sitting Republican since Nixon.

    Problem is, they never organized a serious opposition either, and readily bought into the opposition's tax cuts, budget cuts, and pointless and futile wars.

    If Democrats won't organize a serious opposition to the likes of Cheney/Bush43, how can you take them seriously as an opposition party?

    IMO Democrats are just Republicans-lite...

    JohnH -> Kenneth Almquist... , October 26, 2016 at 09:23 AM
    Kenneth Almquist claims that Bill Clinton never assaulted anyone, which provides yet more evidence of a Democratic denial of charges against their guy.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick

    Did Juanita Brodderick's name ever register among the Democratic faithful, staunch defenders of Bill Clinton, right or wrong?

    Brodderick's claim of rape was met with the typical denial and disbelief, which is still commonplace today...particularly when rape might have been done by someone rich or powerful...

    DeDude -> Kenneth Almquist... , October 26, 2016 at 06:49 PM
    Yes the big difference is that Clinton never ran around and said that sexual assault is OK, and he could get away with it. He was accused but never convicted of sexual assaults. You don't condemn a person for being accused of something. The only actual sex was consensual sex with a young woman.
    pgl : , October 25, 2016 at 05:49 PM
    Unlike JohnH - I actually bother to listen to the link our host provided. Krugman makes 3 claims:

    (1) Breitbart does not need the Donald.

    (2) Breitbart appeals to the racist crazies in our nation.

    (3) Faux News will try to survive by becoming less establishment Republican and more like Breitbart - a bunch of Tea Party racists.

    I have no crystal ball but this sounds about right.

    cm -> pgl... , October 25, 2016 at 06:52 PM
    The for-profit media thrive and depend on controversy and generally content that is emotionally engaging. Racism is only a small part of it, it is much more broadly appealing - it is essentially "addressing", channeling, amplifying, and redirecting existing grievances of a large part of the public. If economy and society would be doing great and a large majority of people would be happy/contented, these anger-based media formats wouldn't find an audience.

    The same underlying causes as the success of Trump. The reason why he can maintain considerable success despite of grave shortcomings is because he continues to be a channel for the anger that is not disappearing. (With the support of the media, who are also interested in an ongoing controversy with details as scandalous as possible.)

    EMichael -> cm... , October 26, 2016 at 07:48 AM
    I disagree.

    This "anger that is not disappearing" has been based on racism for decades. None of these Trump supporters are newly minted Rep voters; they have voted Rep their entire lives.

    This is not so new group based on outrage over the problems of our "rigged system", this is the base that has voted consistently against their economic well being for decades.

    EMichael -> EMichael... , October 26, 2016 at 09:01 AM
    AS in,

    "But holy hell, Republicans still refuse to be convinced.

    According to a new NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll, seventy-two percent of registered Republicans "still doubt" the President's place of birth. Forty-one percent outright disagreed with the statement, "Barack Obama was born in the United States," while only twenty-seven percent of Republicans agree.

    As NBC News blatantly states in the poll's findings, "Only slightly more than one in four Republican voters agreed that the president was born in the United States."

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-poll-shows-that-41-of-republicans-still-dont-think-obama-was-born-in-the-u-s/

    Let me know when you can come up with a reason that this kind of thought process is not dictated by racism.

    DeDude -> cm... , October 26, 2016 at 06:36 PM
    The main area where Faux needs to make a decision, is how far it will move with the GOP base on closed borders. The interest of the corporates is for open borders, whereas the xenophobe GOP base is strongly against. If Faux decide to remain on the corporates side of that issue, a Trump/Breibart media would have a chance. The GOP will face the same choice, but there is no way they split from the corporates that owns them. So the question is whether Faux will split with GOP on the issues that divide the GOP corporates from the GOP base. Their business office would say yes (hold on to the viewers), but they are not just a business.
    JohnH -> pgl... , October 25, 2016 at 09:31 PM
    I'd love to know exactly how pgl 'read' the video that our host provided...transcript please!

    The left needs media that
    1) Does not need Hillary
    2) Does not engage in cold war fearmongering
    3) Becomes less establishment and more progressive.

    Will Krugman talk about that?

    BTW Here's an address on inequality by Stiglitz, given two weeks ago. When was the last time that Krugman, whose day job at CUNY is allegedly about studying inequality, even talked about the subject?

    pgl -> JohnH... , October 26, 2016 at 01:18 AM
    Read??? Try "listen". Lord - you can't read.
    anne -> JohnH... , October 26, 2016 at 07:06 AM
    "Here's an address on inequality by Stiglitz, given two weeks ago...."

    Which would be the address in question?

    https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/press

    Interviews with and Articles about Professor Stiglitz
    2016

    forgotten ghost of American protectionism : , October 25, 2016 at 06:44 PM
    The trade deficit will continue to explode; the US will lose most of its remaining industrial base over the next few years and the population of new poor and unemployed will grow sharply. Trump will be in a strong position to say "I told you so" and pick up the pieces of our broken society in 2020. You can't destroy the livelihood of 150-300 million people without some kind of political movement emerging to restore the economy to its industrial age prosperity.
    reason -> forgotten ghost of American protectionism... , -1
    Where does 150-300 million people come from? And why aren't you looking at what is happening in finance which is just as important in driving the demise of US industry (an overvalued currency is exactly the same as a cut in tariffs).

    [Oct 27, 2016] October 26, 2016 at 12:39 PM

    Oct 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    the totebaggers at Vox repast classic them about kettle calling pot black

    DeDude : October 26, 2016 at 12:39 PM , 2016 at 12:39 PM

    Excellent piece on how people can get trapped in their own universe separated from facts.

    http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/26/13413292/social-media-disrupting-politics

    Peter K. -> DeDude... , -1
    Like the totebaggers at Vox?

    [Oct 27, 2016] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/02/millennial-voters-2016-election-apathy

    Oct 27, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Instead, there's the very real possibility that as millennials age, they are less apt to stomach a thing called hope. The Obama presidency did not usher in a new age of cooperation. Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner did not announce they would be going on a nationwide concert tour performing the hits of the Carpenters.

    Racial tension, climate change, gun violence, terrorism, and poverty persist. Easy answers do not exist, and even if they did, they wouldn't be coming from one of the two major political parties – groups often more concerned with their own survival than practical solutions to tangible issues. As the global situation appears to become more and more hopeless – thanks to actual horrors, plus the media saturation that occurs after every tragedy, which amplifies our malaise – it should come as no surprise that millennials as a group and the nation at large disagree on how to turn things around.

    Consensus might just be a thing of the past; MTV is far from the unchallenged thought leader for American youth. What this election might be remembered for is the moment when the American political system became so ossified and incapable of solutions that we decided, at last, to junk it and start from scratch.

    [Oct 26, 2016] Over-sampling issue in Podesta emails

    Notable quotes:
    "... The simplest explanation is usually best. All the indicators, especially the support of the donor class, elites of all kinds etc. points towards a Democratic victory, perhaps a very strong victory if the poll numbers last weekend translate into electoral college numbers. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.25.16 at 11:07 am ( 55 )

    I stopped by to check if my comment had cleared moderation. What follows is a more thorough examination (not my own, entirely) on Corey's point 1, and some data that may point towards a much narrower race than we're led to believe.

    The leaked emails from one Democratic super-pac, the over-sampling I cited at zerohedge (@13o) is part of a two-step process involving over-sampling of Democrats in polls combined with high frequency polling. The point being to encourage media to promote the idea that the race is already over. We saw quite a bit of this last weekend. Let's say the leaked emails are reliable.

    This suggests to me two things: first – the obvious, the race is much closer than the polls indicated, certainly the poll cited by Corey in the OP. Corey questioned the validity of this poll, at least obliquely. Second, at least one super-pac working with the campaign sees the need to depress Trump turn-out. The first point is the clearest and the most important – the polls, some at least, are intentionally tilted to support a 'Hillary wins easily' narrative. The second allows for some possibly useful speculation regarding the Clinton campaigns confidence in their own GOTV success.

    The simplest explanation is usually best. All the indicators, especially the support of the donor class, elites of all kinds etc. points towards a Democratic victory, perhaps a very strong victory if the poll numbers last weekend translate into electoral college numbers.

    That's a big if. I suggest Hillary continues to lead but by much smaller margins in key states. It's also useful to point out that Trump's support in traditionally GOP states may well be equally shaky.

    And that really is it from me on this topic barring a double digit swing to Hillary in the LA Times poll that has the race at dead even.

    Layman 10.25.16 at 11:31 am

    kidneystones:

    "The leaked emails from one Democratic super-pac, the over-sampling I cited at zerohedge (@13o) is part of a two-step process involving over-sampling of Democrats in polls combined with high frequency polling."

    Excellent analysis, only the email in question is eight years old. And it refers to a request for internal polling done by the campaign. And it suggests over-sampling of particular demographics so the campaign could better assess attitudes among those demographics.

    And this is a completely normal practice which has nothing to do with the polling carried out by independent third parties (e.g. Gallup, Ipsos, etc) for the purposes of gauging and reporting to the public the state of the race.

    And when pollsters to over-sample, the over-sampling is used for analysis but is not reflected in the top-line poll results.

    [Oct 25, 2016] Dean Baker: Rigged – How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer

    Notable quotes:
    "... Geithner's comments about his sacrifices in public service did not elicit any outcry from the media at the time because his perspective was widely shared. The implicit assumption is that the sort of person who is working at a high level government job could easily be earning a paycheck that is many times higher if they were employed elsewhere. In fact, this is often true. When he left his job as Treasury Secretary, Geithner took a position with a private equity company where his salary is likely several million dollars a year. ..."
    "... The CEOs who are paid tens of millions a year would like the public to think that the market is simply compensating them for their extraordinary skills. A more realistic story is that a broken corporate governance process gives corporate boards of directors - the people who largely determine CEO pay -little incentive to hold down pay. Directors are more closely tied to top management than to the shareholders they are supposed to represent, and their positions are lucrative, usually paying six figures for very part-time work. Directors are almost never voted out by shareholders for their lack of attention to the job or for incompetence. ..."
    "... We also have done little to foster medical travel. This could lead to enormous benefits to patients and the economy, since many high cost medical procedures can be performed at a fifth or even one-tenth the U.S. price in top quality medical facilities elsewhere in the world. In this context, it is not surprising that the median pay of physicians is over $250,000 a year and some areas of specialization earn close to twice this amount. In the case of physicians alone, if pay were reduced to West European-levels the savings would be close to $100 billion a year (@ 0.6 percent of GDP). ..."
    "... As a technical matter, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a private bank. It is owned by the banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System in the New York District. ..."
    Oct 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Yves here. We are delighted to feature an excerpt from Dean Baker's new book Rigged , which you can find at http://deanbaker.net/books/rigged.htm via either a free download or in hard copy for the cost of printing and shipping. The book argues that policy in five areas, macroeconomics, the financial sector, intellectual property, corporate governance, and protection for highly paid professionals, have all led to the upward distribution of income. The implication is that the yawning gap between the 0.1% and the 1% versus everyone else is not the result of virtue ("meritocracy") but preferential treatment, and inequality would be substantially reduced if these policies were reversed.

    I urge you to read his book in full and encourage your friends, colleagues, and family to do so as well.

    By Dean Baker, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

    Chapter 1: Introduction: Trading in myths

    In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

    This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). [1] After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

    The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

    The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt.

    In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

    That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. [2] Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. [3] Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

    In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return (Figure 1-1).

    So the United States, Japan, and the European Union should be running large trade surpluses, which is what an outflow of capital means. Rich countries like ours should be lending money to developing countries, providing them with the means to build up their capital stock and infrastructure while they use their own resources to meet their people's basic needs.

    This wasn't just theory. That story accurately described much of the developing world, especially Asia, through the 1990s. Countries like Indonesia and Malaysia were experiencing rapid annual growth of 7.8 percent and 9.6 percent, respectively, even as they ran large trade deficits, just over 2 percent of GDP each year in Indonesia and almost 5 percent in Malaysia.

    These trade deficits probably were excessive, and a crisis of confidence hit East Asia and much of the developing world in the summer of 1997. The inflow of capital from rich countries slowed or reversed, making it impossible for the developing countries to sustain the fixed exchange rates most had at the time. One after another, they were forced to abandon their fixed exchange rates and turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for help.

    Rather than promulgating policies that would allow developing countries to continue the textbook development path of growth driven by importing capital and running trade deficits, the IMF made debt repayment a top priority. The bailout, under the direction of the Clinton administration Treasury Department, required developing countries to switch to large trade surpluses (Radelet and Sachs 2000, O'Neil 1999).

    The countries of East Asia would be far richer today had they been allowed to continue on the growth path of the early and mid-1990s, when they had large trade deficits (Figure 1-2). Four of the five would be more than twice as rich, and the fifth, Vietnam, would be almost 50 percent richer. South Korea and Malaysia would have higher per capita incomes today than the United States.

    In the wake of the East Asia bailout, countries throughout the developing world decided they had to build up reserves of foreign exchange, primarily dollars, in order to avoid ever facing the same harsh bailout terms as the countries of East Asia. Building up reserves meant running large trade surpluses, and it is no coincidence that the U.S. trade deficit has exploded, rising from just over 1 percent of GDP in 1996 to almost 6 percent in 2005. The rise has coincided with the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing jobs, roughly 20 percent of employment in the sector.

    There was no reason the textbook growth pattern of the 1990s could not have continued. It wasn't the laws of economics that forced developing countries to take a different path, it was the failed bailout and the international financial system. It would seem that the enemy of the world's poor is not Bernie Sanders but rather the engineers of our current globalization policies.

    There is a further point in this story that is generally missed: it is not only the volume of trade flows that is determined by policy, but also the content. A major push in recent trade deals has been to require stronger and longer patent and copyright protection. Paying the fees imposed by these terms, especially for prescription drugs, is a huge burden on the developing world. Bill Clinton would have much less need to fly around the world for the Clinton Foundation had he not inserted the TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ) provisions in the World Trade Organization (WTO) that require developing countries to adopt U.S.-style patent protections. Generic drugs are almost always cheap -patent protection makes drugs expensive. The cancer and hepatitis drugs that sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year would sell for a few hundred dollars in a free market. Cheap drugs would be more widely available had the developed world not forced TRIPS on the developing world.

    Of course, we have to pay for the research to develop new drugs or any innovation. We also have to compensate creative workers who produce music, movies, and books. But there are efficient alternatives to patents and copyrights, and the efforts by the elites in the United States and other wealthy countries to impose these relics on the developing world is just a mechanism for redistributing income from the world's poor to Pfizer, Microsoft, and Disney. Stronger and longer patent and copyright protection is not a necessary feature of a 21 st century economy.

    In textbook trade theory, if a country has a larger trade surplus on payments for royalties and patent licensing fees, it will have a larger trade deficit in manufactured goods and other areas. The reason is that, in theory, the trade balance is fixed by national savings and investment, not by the ability of a country to export in a particular area. If the trade deficit is effectively fixed by these macroeconomic factors, then more exports in one area mean fewer exports in other areas. Put another way, income gains for Pfizer and Disney translate into lost jobs for workers in the steel and auto industries.

    The conventional story is that we lose manufacturing jobs to developing countries because they have hundreds of millions of people willing to do factory work at a fraction of the pay of manufacturing workers in the United States. This is true, but developing countries also have tens of millions of smart and ambitious people willing to work as doctors and lawyers in the United States at a fraction of the pay of the ones we have now.

    Gains from trade work the same with doctors and lawyers as they do with textiles and steel. Our consumers would save hundreds of billions a year if we could hire professionals from developing countries and pay them salaries that are substantially less than what we pay our professionals now. The reason we import manufactured goods and not doctors is that we have designed the rules of trade that way. We deliberately write trade pacts to make it as easy as possible for U.S. companies to set up manufacturing operations abroad and ship the products back to the United States, but we have done little or nothing to remove the obstacles that professionals from other countries face in trying to work in the United States. The reason is simple: doctors and lawyers have more political power than autoworkers. [4]

    In short, there is no truth to the story that the job loss and wage stagnation faced by manufacturing workers in the United States and other wealthy countries was a necessary price for reducing poverty in the developing world. [5] This is a fiction that is used to justify the upward redistribution of income in rich countries. After all, it is pretty selfish for rich country autoworkers and textile workers to begrudge hungry people in Africa and Asia and the means to secure food, clothing, and shelter.

    The other aspect of this story that deserves mention is the nature of the jobs to which our supposedly selfish workers feel entitled. The manufacturing jobs that are being lost to the developing world pay in the range of $15 to $30 an hour, with the vast majority closer to the bottom figure than the top. The average hourly wage for production and nonsupervisory workers in manufacturing in 2015 was just under $20 an hour, or about $40,000 a year. While a person earning $40,000 is doing much better than a subsistence farmer in Sub-Saharan Africa, it is difficult to see this worker as especially privileged.

    By contrast, many of the people remarking on the narrow-mindedness and sense of entitlement of manufacturing workers earn comfortable six-figure salaries. Senior writers and editors at network news shows or at the New York Times and Washington Post feel entitled to their pay because they feel they have the education and skills to be successful in a rapidly changing global economy.

    These are the sort of people who consider it a sacrifice to work at a high-level government job for $150,000 to $200,000 a year. For example, Timothy Geithner, President Obama's first treasury secretary, often boasts about his choice to work for various government agencies rather than earn big bucks in the private sector. His sacrifice included a stint as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York that paid $415,000 a year. [6] This level of pay put Geithner well into the top 1 percent of wage earners.

    Geithner's comments about his sacrifices in public service did not elicit any outcry from the media at the time because his perspective was widely shared. The implicit assumption is that the sort of person who is working at a high level government job could easily be earning a paycheck that is many times higher if they were employed elsewhere. In fact, this is often true. When he left his job as Treasury Secretary, Geithner took a position with a private equity company where his salary is likely several million dollars a year.

    Not everyone who was complaining about entitled manufacturing workers was earning as much as Timothy Geithner, but it is a safe bet that the average critic was earning far more than the average manufacturing worker - and certainly far more than the average displaced manufacturing worker.

    Turning the Debate Right-Side Up: Markets Are Structured

    The perverse nature of the debate over a trade policy that would have the audacity to benefit workers in rich countries is a great example of how we accept as givens not just markets themselves but also the policies that structure markets. If we accept it as a fact of nature that poor countries cannot borrow from rich countries to finance their development, and that they can only export manufactured goods, then their growth will depend on displacing manufacturing workers in the United States and other rich countries.

    It is absurd to narrow the policy choices in this way, yet the centrists and conservatives who support the upward redistribution of the last four decades have been extremely successful in doing just that, and progressives have largely let them set the terms of the debate.

    Markets are never just given. Neither God nor nature hands us a worked-out set of rules determining the way property relations are defined, contracts are enforced, or macroeconomic policy is implemented. These matters are determined by policy choices. The elites have written these rules to redistribute income upward. Needless to say, they are not eager to have the rules rewritten which means they have no interest in even having them discussed.

    But for progressive change to succeed, these rules must be addressed. While modest tweaks to tax and transfer policies can ameliorate the harm done by a regressive market structure, their effect will be limited. The complaint of conservatives - that tampering with market outcomes leads to inefficiencies and unintended outcomes - is largely correct, even if they may exaggerate the size of the distortions from policy interventions. Rather than tinker with badly designed rules, it is far more important to rewrite the rules so that markets lead to progressive and productive outcomes in which the benefits of economic growth and improving technology are broadly shared

    This book examines five broad areas where the rules now in place tend to redistribute income upward and where alternative rules can lead to more equitable outcomes and a more efficient market:

    In each of these areas, it is possible to identify policy choices that have engineered the upward redistribution of the last four decades.

    In the case of macroeconomic policy, the United States and other wealthy countries have explicitly adopted policies that focus on maintaining low rates of inflation. Central banks are quick to raise interest rates at the first sign of rising inflation and sometimes even before. Higher interest rates slow inflation by reducing demand, thereby reducing job growth, and reduced job growth weakens workers' bargaining power and puts downward pressure on wages. In other words, the commitment to an anti-inflation policy is a commitment by the government, acting through central banks, to keep wages down. It should not be surprising that this policy has the effect of redistributing income upward.

    The changing structure of financial regulation and financial markets has also been an important factor in redistributing income upward. This is a case where an industry has undergone very rapid change as a result of technological innovation. Information technology has hugely reduced the cost of financial transactions and allowed for the development of an array of derivative instruments that would have been unimaginable four decades ago. Rather than modernizing regulation to ensure that these technologies allow the financial sector to better serve the productive economy, the United States and other countries have largely structured regulations to allow a tiny group of bankers and hedge fund and private equity fund managers to become incredibly rich.

    This changed structure of regulation over the last four decades was not "deregulation," as is often claimed. Almost no proponent of deregulation argued against the bailouts that saved Wall Street in the financial crisis or against the elimination of government deposit insurance that is an essential part of a stable banking system. Rather, they advocated a system in which the rules restricting their ability to profit were eliminated, while the insurance provided by the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and other arms of the government were left in place. The position of "deregulators" effectively amounted to arguing that they should not have to pay for the insurance they were receiving.

    The third area in which the rules have been written to ensure an upward redistribution is patent and copyright protection. Over the last four decades these protections have been made stronger and longer. In the case of both patent and copyright, the duration of the monopoly period has been extended. In addition, these monopolies have been applied to new areas. Patents can now be applied to life forms, business methods, and software. Copyrights have been extended to cover digitally produced material as well as the internet. Penalties for infringement have been increased and the United States has vigorously pursued their application in other countries through trade agreements and diplomatic pressure.

    Government-granted monopolies are not facts of nature, and there are alternative mechanisms for financing innovation and creative work. Direct government funding, as opposed to government granted monopolies, is one obvious alternative. For example, the government spends more than $30 billion a year on biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health - money that all parties agree is very well spent. There are also other possible mechanisms. It is likely that these alternatives are more efficient than the current patent and copyright system, in large part because they would be more market-oriented. And, they would likely lead to less upward redistribution than the current system.

    The CEOs who are paid tens of millions a year would like the public to think that the market is simply compensating them for their extraordinary skills. A more realistic story is that a broken corporate governance process gives corporate boards of directors - the people who largely determine CEO pay -little incentive to hold down pay. Directors are more closely tied to top management than to the shareholders they are supposed to represent, and their positions are lucrative, usually paying six figures for very part-time work. Directors are almost never voted out by shareholders for their lack of attention to the job or for incompetence.

    The market discipline that holds down the pay of ordinary workers does not apply to CEOs, since their friends determine their pay. And a director has little incentive to pick a fight with fellow directors or top management by asking a simple question like, "Can we get a CEO just as good for half the pay?" This privilege matters not just for CEOs; it has the spillover effect of raising the pay of other top managers in the corporate sector and putting upward pressure on the salaries of top management in universities, hospitals, private charities, and other nonprofits.

    Reformed corporate governance structures could empower shareholders to contain the pay of their top-level employees. Suppose directors could count on boosts in their own pay if they cut the pay of top management without hurting profitability, With this sort of policy change, CEOs and top management might start to experience some of the downward wage pressure that existing policies have made routine for typical workers.

    This is very much not a story of the natural workings of the market. Corporations are a legal entity created by the government, which also sets the rules of corporate governance. Current law includes a lengthy set of restrictions on corporate governance practices. It is easy to envision rules which would make it less likely that CEOs earn such outlandish paychecks by making it easier for shareholders to curb excessive pay.

    Finally, government policies strongly promote the upward redistribution of income for highly paid professionals by protecting them from competition. To protect physicians and specialists, we restrict the ability of nurse practitioners or physician assistants to perform tasks for which they are entirely competent. We require lawyers for work that paralegals are capable of completing. While trade agreements go far to remove any obstacle that might protect an autoworker in the United States from competition with a low-paid factory worker in Mexico or China, they do little or nothing to reduce the barriers that protect doctors, dentists, and lawyers from the same sort of competition. To practice medicine in the United States, it is still necessary to complete a residency program here, as though there were no other way for a person to become a competent doctor.

    We also have done little to foster medical travel. This could lead to enormous benefits to patients and the economy, since many high cost medical procedures can be performed at a fifth or even one-tenth the U.S. price in top quality medical facilities elsewhere in the world. In this context, it is not surprising that the median pay of physicians is over $250,000 a year and some areas of specialization earn close to twice this amount. In the case of physicians alone, if pay were reduced to West European-levels the savings would be close to $100 billion a year (@ 0.6 percent of GDP).

    Changing the rules in these five areas could reduce much and possibly all of the upward redistribution of the last four decades. But changing the rules does not mean using government intervention to curb the market. It means restructuring the market to produce different outcomes. The purpose of this book is to show how.

    [1] See also Weissman (2016), Iacono (2016), Worstall (2016), Lane (2016), and Zakaria (2016).

    [2] As explained in the next chapter, this view is not exactly correct, but it's what you're supposed to believe if you adhere to the mainstream economic view.

    [3] There can be modest changes in employment through a supply-side effect. If the trade deal increases the efficiency of the economy, then the marginal product of labor should rise, leading to a higher real wage, which in turn should induce some people to choose work over leisure. So the trade deal results in more people choosing to work, not an increased demand for labor.

    [4] For those worried about brain drain from developing countries, there is an easy fix. Economists like to talk about taxing the winners, in this case developing country professionals and rich country consumers, to compensate the losers, which would be the home countries of the migrating professionals. We could tax a portion of the professionals' pay to allow their home countries to train two or three professionals for every one that came to the United States. This is a classic win-win from trade.

    [5] The loss of manufacturing jobs also reduced the wages of less-educated workers (those without college degrees) more generally. The displaced manufacturing workers crowded into retail and other service sectors, putting downward pressure on wages there.

    [6] As a technical matter, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a private bank. It is owned by the banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System in the New York District.

    fresno dan October 25, 2016 at 7:24 am

    "Markets are never just given. Neither God nor nature hands us a worked-out set of rules determining the way property relations are defined, contracts are enforced, or macroeconomic policy is implemented. These matters are determined by policy choices. The elites have written these rules to redistribute income upward. Needless to say, they are not eager to have the rules rewritten which means they have no interest in even having them discussed."

    ======================================================
    It is one of those remarkable hypocrisies that free "unregulated" trade requires deals of thousands of pages .
    but if these deals weren't so carefully structured to help the 1%, support would melt like snowmen in Fresno on a July day

    Kokuanani October 25, 2016 at 8:05 am

    Any other way to buy a paperback copy than via Amazon [which is where the link takes me]?

    I refuse to use them/it.

    JeffC October 25, 2016 at 9:15 am

    It's also at BarnesandNoble.com .

    Katharine October 25, 2016 at 11:15 am

    Or check your local indy, or one of those that take orders (I refrain from naming my favorite co-op in Chicago, and anyway I admit there are others). Nice to support those when you can.

    RickM October 25, 2016 at 10:55 am

    I downloaded the complete pdf directly from the link time to make a donation to the CEPR, I reckon.

    Vatch October 25, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    There's also this, which can help to find an independent bookseller in your area:

    http://www.indiebound.org/book/9780692793367

    Carolinian October 25, 2016 at 9:05 am

    Almost no proponent of deregulation argued against the bailouts that saved Wall Street in the financial crisis or against the elimination of government deposit insurance that is an essential part of a stable banking system.

    Actually I believe there were some Republicans who denounced the Wall Street bailout as a violation of capitalist principles. My state's Mark Sanford comes to mind. It was the Dems at the urging of Pelosi who saved the bailout. On the other hand many of my local politicians are big on "public/private" partnerships which would be a violation of laissez-faire that they approve. Perhaps it was simply that there are no giant banks headquartered in SC.

    The truth is there is no coherent intellectual basis to how the US economy is currently run. It's all about power and what you can do with it. Which is to say it is our politics, above all, that is broken.

    Sound of the Suburbs October 25, 2016 at 9:34 am

    "That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem.[2] Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment.[3] Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem."

    Unbelievable.

    By the 1920s they realised the system produced so much stuff that extensive advertising was needed to shift it all.

    One hundred year's later, we might take this on board.

    What is the global advertising budget?

    The amount necessary to shift all the crap the system produces today.

    Sound of the Suburbs October 25, 2016 at 9:45 am

    Demand has to be manufactured through advertising due to chronic over-supply.

    Sound of the Suburbs October 25, 2016 at 9:40 am

    We need to move on from Milton Freidman's ideas and discover what trade in a globalized world is really about.

    We are still under the influence of Milton Freidman's ideas of a globalised free trade world.

    These ideas came from Milton Freidman's imagination where he saw the ideal as small state, raw capitalism and thought the public sector should be sold off and entitlement programs whittled down until everything must be purchased through the private sector.

    "You are free to spend your money as you choose"

    Not mentioning its other meaning:

    "No money, no freedom"

    After Milton Freedman's "shock therapy" in Russia, people were left with so little money they couldn't afford to eat and starved to death. In Greece people cannot afford even bread today.

    But this is economic liberalism, the economy comes first.

    Milton Freidman used his imagination to work out what small state, raw capitalism looked like whereas he could have looked at it in reality through history books of the 18th and 19th centuries where it had already existed.

    The Classical Economists studied it and were able to see its problems first hand and noted the detrimental effects of the rentier class on the economy. They were constantly looking to get "unearned" income from doing nothing; sucking purchasing power out of the economy and bleeding it dry.

    Adam Smith observed:

    "The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers."

    Adam Smith saw landlords, usurers (bankers) and Government taxes as equally parasitic, all raising the cost of doing business.

    He sees the lazy people at the top living off "unearned" income from their land and capital.

    He sees the trickle up of Capitalism:
    1) Those with excess capital collect rent and interest.
    2) Those with insufficient capital pay rent and interest.

    He differentiates between "earned" and "unearned" income.

    Today we encourage a new rentier class of BTL landlords who look to extract the "earned" income of generation rent for "unearned" income. If you have a large BTL portfolio you can become a true rentier, do nothing productive at all and live off "unearned" income extracted from generation rent, the true capitalist parasite. (UK)

    The Classical Economists realised capitalism has two sides, the productive side where "earned" income is generated and the unproductive, parasitic, rentier side where "unearned" income is generated.

    You should tax "unearned" income to discourage the parasitic side of capitalism.
    You shouldn't tax "earned" income to encourage the productive side of capitalism.

    You should provide low cost housing, education and services to create a low cost of living, giving a low minimum wage making you globally competitive. This is to be funded by taxes on "unearned" income.

    The US has probably been the most successful in making its labour force internationally uncompetitive with soaring costs of housing, healthcare and student loan repayments.

    These all have to be covered by wages and US businesses are now squealing about the high minimum wage.

    That's Milton Freidman's imagined small state, raw capitalism.

    What he imagined bears little resemblance to the reality the Classical Economists saw firsthand.

    We need to move on from Milton Freidman fantasy land.

    Sound of the Suburbs October 25, 2016 at 9:42 am

    Milton Freidman fantasy land:

    Businesses should maximise profit.

    Small state, raw capitalism as observed by Adam Smith:

    "But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."

    When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalising itself by:
    1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
    2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services

    In the 18th Century they would have understood today's problems with growth and demand.

    Luckily Jeff Bezos didn't inhabit Milton Freidman fantasy land.

    He re-invested almost everything to turn Amazon onto the global behemoth it is today.

    Jim Haygood October 25, 2016 at 9:47 am

    ' The commitment to an anti-inflation policy is a commitment by the government, acting through central banks, to keep wages down. '

    This is strikingly silly. Insert the word 'nominal' before wages, and it's not a howler anymore.

    Anti-inflation policy in fact has little influence on real wages (the variable of concern, not nominal wages). But it has a lot to do with preventing the social chaos of constantly rising prices, strikes for higher wages, inability of first-time home buyers to borrow at affordable rates, and so on.

    Inflationism is greasy kid stuff not to mention a brazen fraud on the public.

    Anonymous2 October 25, 2016 at 10:18 am

    As one who walked the corridors of power in a very modest capacity in my country in the early to mid 1990s, can I just say that people with power or influence then were aware that globalisation would create winners and losers. I recall the consensus of those I knew then was that steps would need to be taken to compensate the losers. The tragedy is that these steps were never taken, or, if they were, only to a wholly inadequate degree.

    Alejandro October 25, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    The always elusive referents for cost, price and value the flip-side of social chaos would seem the entropic degradation of wasted lives, excluded from participating {either-OR} abandoned as irredeemable

    Katharine October 25, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    Higher interest rates slow inflation by reducing demand, thereby reducing job growth, and reduced job growth weakens workers' bargaining power and puts downward pressure on wages.

    Your assertion that anti-inflation policy has little influence on real wages does not address Baker's statement about the mechanism by which he says it does. Given an argument between two people, one of whom cites a mechanism he is probably prepared to document with numbers and one of whom merely declares his belief, which are people more likely to trust? Granted always, they should go look for the numbers before they fully accept the statement, his credibility is currently higher than yours on this subject.

    Jim Haygood October 25, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Real wages roughly doubled from 1947 (when BLS data begins) through the late 1970s:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wages#/media/File:US_productivity_and_real_wages.jpg

    Over this same period, the nominal yield on 10-year Treasury notes rose from 2.5% to over 10%:

    https://staticseekingalpha.a.ssl.fastly.net/uploads/2010/3/29/saupload_10_yr_treasury_yields_25_.jpg

    By contrast, since the 1970s real wages stalled, while interest rates round-tripped back to 2 percent.

    Over nearly seven decades, the correlation is quite the opposite from that made up claimed by Dean Bonkers. Namely, real wages soared under a regime of steadily rising nominal interest rates.

    Numbers - they can be crunchy sometimes.

    Katharine October 25, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    Since my original reply has disappeared in limbo, I will merely note that numbers are probably even crunchier when you don't generalize across a span of decades: first there was A, then there was B, nothing else happened. It's a sure way to obscure patterns.

    And Jim, please quit the ad hominem stuff! It's ugly and needless. If you really have an argument you don't need it, and if you don't you don't gain by it. You know perfectly well he's not making things up and he's not bonkers. When you say stuff like that, the obvious presumption is that you just don't want to consider his arguments because they lead somewhere you don't want to go.

    Paul Art October 25, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    Don't feed the troll

    Smell of Sulfur October 25, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    Perhaps I am missing the point being made, but if you are suggesting that increases in real wages in the 1945-1975 period caused inflation, why not provide the data on inflation which would in fact show that inflation was essentially tame for 20 years in this period (1952-1972, with a slight hiccup in 1969-1971), thereby contradicting your point? And if you are suggesting that Fed increases in interest rate have not resulted in suppression of wages you will have to demonstrate that using analysis that takes into account the lag in time between increase in rate and transmission to wages, and in that case would you not also use the Fed Funds Rate itself as a variable?

    sgt_doom October 25, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    Bulltwacky, they have been globalizing wages downwards while globalizing housing prices upwards!

    Every time some stupid and moronic newsy floozy on one of the CorporateNonMedia outlets claims housing purchases may be going down because consumer confidence is plummeting, they CHOOSE to ignore the foreign buyers of said houses!

    It's all connected - it's all rigged . . . .

    Minnie Mouse October 25, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    Did I get this right? Full employment is an assumed boundary condition and so is fixed balance of trade? If the model is to work as advertised then the boundary conditions must be hard wired to be true, right?

    sgt_doom October 25, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    Dean hits it out of the park once again!

    Sounds like a great book on every level.

    If the top 25 hedge fund managers saved around $5 billion per year in being taxed on their income at capital gains rate (carried interest ruling in tax code - utterly corrupt), then think of the amount that is being robbed from the tax base when one considers ALL the hedge fund people, and ALL the private equity types (who also do this), a conservative amount of tax revenues remitted should be around $100 billion per year!

    Now that would go far . . .

    [Oct 25, 2016] The neoliberal has won on labor and civil rights issues by changing the procedure by which one can assert the rights that may exist

    Notable quotes:
    "... On the "economy", "taxes", and, "foreign affairs" the respondents "trust" the GOP more than the Dems. Though on one key measure "caring about people like you" the Dems are trusted over the GOP by a slight margin. ..."
    "... she's the least popular Democratic candidate perhaps ever! ..."
    "... The donor class candidate always wins; drugs, video games and pornography will occupy and distract the young most affected; the 'left' will become the Vichy left – essentially sacrificing all principle to ensure their 'own' candidate is protected – essentially what we've had for the last 8 years. The left will pat itself on the back and engage in virtue signalling while Ted Cruz burns books and crosses, and increasing numbers of the forgotten and ignored lose what little faith remains. ..."
    "... A ruling class is not always able to bring about the visions of its ideology. However, I think in the last 30 years (or more) in the United States the ruling class desired more power, wealth, and inequality - the rightist vision - and was able to bring it about through control of both major political parties. ..."
    Oct 25, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    efcdons 10.24.16 at 4:16 pm 25

    The right has won or is winning in an some ways on labor and civil rights issues by changing the procedure by which one can assert the rights that may exist.

    The number of strikes are down as someone else mentioned. But the Right has also largely succeeded in reducing the ability of individual employees to engage in private actions to vindicate their rights. E.g. the huge increase in enforceable arbitration agreements in what are essentially contracts of adhesion.

    The Right has solidified the ability of business to prevent employees from using the independent, publicly funded judiciary, and instead forces them to use private, secretive, arbitrators who essentially work for the companies (because the business is a repeat player and the arbitrators rely on being chosen to arbitrate in order to make their money).

    The right has also succeeded in the same way to reduce consumer rights. Arbitration agreements are attached to almost everything you buy that needs an agreement (software, mobile phones, etc.) before use. The agreements not only mandate secret arbitration they also prevent consumers from banding together in order to form a class thus making each individual consumer litigate alone. Obviously this reduces the power of individual consumers and also decreases the incentive for any one consumer to do something about what, on the individual level, may be a small injury. Basically it allows business to steal a small amount from a lot of people.

    In regards to Clinton and her chances against any other Republican, here is some polling which suggests the country at least trust the GOP over the Dems on a number of important issues. It is from April, 2016 so not the freshest data. But it might indicate Trump's bog standard GOP policies are not what is driving votes to Clinton/away from Trump.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/dvsr.htm

    On the "economy", "taxes", and, "foreign affairs" the respondents "trust" the GOP more than the Dems. Though on one key measure "caring about people like you" the Dems are trusted over the GOP by a slight margin.

    bruce wilder 10.24.16 at 5:04 pm

    Among the most successful projects of the Right was financialization of the economy.

    The reduction of marginal income tax rates on the highest "wage" incomes combined with new doctrines of corporate business leadership that emphasized the maximization of shareholder value created a new class of C-suite business executives occupying positions of great political power as allies and servants of the rentier class of Capital owners. The elaborate structures of financial repression and mutual finance were systematically demolished, removing many of the protections from financial predation afforded the working and middle classes.

    In the current election, the Democratic Party has split on financial reform issues, with the dominant faction represented by the Party's candidate prioritizing issues of race and gender equality.

    Layman 10.24.16 at 5:06 pm ( 29 )

    "In regards to Clinton and her chances against any other Republican, here is some polling which suggests the country at least trust the GOP over the Dems on a number of important issues."

    I imagine any poll pitting 'generic Republican' against Hillary Clinton in April of this year would have shown 'generic Republican' winning. The problem is, you can't run 'generic Republican'. I'm hard pressed to point at any prominent Republican who I think would be handily beating Clinton now. Once you name them, they have to say what they're for and against, and she takes her shot at them, and they're fighting an uphill battle. And she's the least popular Democratic candidate perhaps ever! That's the only reason it would be close.

    A party built around the principles of white male supremacy and dedicated to expanding the wealth and income gap is at a massive disadvantage in any non-gerrymandered election.

    kidneystones 10.24.16 at 9:37 pm

    @21 None, but thanks.

    @ 27 You're omission of any reference to rising health care premiums is telling. I take your point regarding 'falling skies' in absolute terms. But the transformation I'm referring to is identified by Corey in the OP intro, and more thoroughly by PDG @32.

    When Mark Kleiman is asking people get out the vote to 'save the Republic' rather than build a fairer, juster society something dramatic has changed. On the domestic front, @30 Sebastion H hits the nail squarely on both points: things are bad and nobody is paying attention. Neither phenomena is new. The NYT had a headline in 2011 or so entitled "the Invisible unemployed." How did we miss it?

    Scott P. may be right that the numbers of officially unemployed may be dropping slightly, and that wages are rising this quarter. Let's say that both trends are spot on. We've all seen ( I hope) the data regarding income inequality white households versus all others.

    On the one hand I think Scott P. is completely correct. The donor class candidate always wins; drugs, video games and pornography will occupy and distract the young most affected; the 'left' will become the Vichy left – essentially sacrificing all principle to ensure their 'own' candidate is protected – essentially what we've had for the last 8 years. The left will pat itself on the back and engage in virtue signalling while Ted Cruz burns books and crosses, and increasing numbers of the forgotten and ignored lose what little faith remains.

    Anarcissie 10.25.16 at 4:06 am J-D 10.25.16 at 2:05 am

    @ 42

    A ruling class is not always able to bring about the visions of its ideology. However, I think in the last 30 years (or more) in the United States the ruling class desired more power, wealth, and inequality - the rightist vision - and was able to bring it about through control of both major political parties.

    [Oct 25, 2016] Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake!

    Oct 25, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Sandwichman : , October 24, 2016 at 09:50 AM
    Not to worry. The "Intelligence Community" (USIC) has it all figured out.
    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 09:55 AM
    Step one: discredit the whistle blowers by sending hacked emails to WikiLeaks and blaming Russia.

    Step two: collect mountains of data without oversight

    Step three: ??

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... , -1
    DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
    WASHINGTON, DC 20511

    October 07, 2016

    Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security
    and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

    https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

    The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... , -1
    is confident that... are consistent with...

    Wait just a damn minute.

    Why is the DNI telling THE RUSSIANS what the USIC suspects? Wouldn't that blunt the capability for taking counter measures? Unless... red herring?

    Look! Over there!

    likbez -> Sandwichman ... , -1
    Sandwinchment,

    First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange. There is executive branch and three letter agencies should generally keep their mouth shut and allow others to voice the concerns, etc.

    This might be a sigh of complete disorganization of executive branch with intelligence agencies becoming a power players. Kind of "Deep State" morphing into "surface state".

    There are might be also multiple valid reasons for disclosing such a sensitive information:

    1. I want your money stupid Pinocchio.

    2. Smoke screen to hide their own nefarious activities and/or blunders within the USA. Actually existence of Hillary private server is somewhat incompatible with the existence of NSA.

    This is one thing when Podesta using gmail. It's quite another when the Secretary of state uses "bathroom server" with incompetent or semi-competent tech staff and completely clueless entourage.

    3. Pre-emptive strike reflecting some internal struggle within US Intelligence community itself with a neocon faction going "all in" to force the viewpoint, and more aggressive toward Russia stance, which might not be shared by others.

    Please note that CIA and DOD are fighting each other in Iraq and Syria to a certain extent.

    4. Increase Anti-Russian hysteria, which helps Hillary as a candidate of neocon establishment.

    5. Russians might recently uncover some nefarious activities (I heard FSB did discover compromised computers in some ministries) and this is the preparation for the blowback.

    There might be more. You never know.

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 10:12 AM
    The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts....

    -- Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security
    and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

    [ "Consistent with the methods and motivations..." is a shocking supposition to be made public, but we have been subject to such suppositions, seemingly with increasing frequency, for these last 15 years. ]

    Sandwichman -> anne... , October 24, 2016 at 10:30 AM
    Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake!

    Keith B. Alexander:"Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense."

    ...

    Senator Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

    DNI Clapper"No, sir."

    Senator Wyden: "It does not?"

    DNI Clapper:"Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

    The [IN]operative word there was "collect" which in NSAspeak does not mean... collect.

    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2016/10/donald-loves-trikileaks.html

    DeDude -> anne... , -1
    Not shocking at all unless you are ignorant about tracing and analyzing hacks. The traces and approaches are like fingerprints. Nobody in the business have any doubts that the Russians did this - but they will never give you the details of how they got to that conclusion, because this is a public website and the hacking wars are like the missile wars, if the other side knows what you got they can counter it and make your job harder.
    likbez -> DeDude... , -1
    You might be a little bit naďve as for traces.

    The first rule of such activities on state level is to pretend that you are somebody else deliberately leaving false clues (IP space, keyboard layout, etc), everything that you call traces.

    Historically it was the USA that started cyberwar and who developed the most advanced capabilities in this space. Remember the worm which tried to subvert functionality of Iranian centrifuges electronics using specially designed malware and Trojans like Flame?

    So the first suspect should internal(kind of Snowden II), not external. There was also a story with an alternative viewpoint: http://www.amtvmedia.com/why-nsa-may-have-leaked-dnc-emails/

    There were also rumors about FOXACID - The NSA's hacking program getting into DNC hands. http://investmentwatchblog.com/warning-trump-fans-be-careful-possible-leaked-info-on-plans-to-attack-trump-supporters/

    Using botnets essentially gives anybody substantial freedom about what IP space you want to use. You can pretend to be Russian if you want to and use computers from Russian IP space.

    Sandwichman -> Sanjait... , -1
    More "paranoid claptrap" (or should that be Clappertrap?):

    Edward Snowden: "...the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back."

    Sanjait -> DrDick... , October 24, 2016 at 10:43 AM
    That's not untrue, but it seems to me to be getting worse.

    Or at least, we had been making progress, but now we are seeing a massive regression. There have always been racists and misogynists but they used to be hidden under rocks, and the GOP used to take pains to make their dog whistles to them subtle.

    Trump really has brought them out and given the gen a sense of validation and community.

    Though my working theory is that he merely hopped on to an existing trend, driven by the way digital media allows people to create their own comfortable ideological bubbles and find community for whatever spiteful, paranoid or asinine beliefs people have. This includes left and right, though pretty obviously the wingnuts on the right dominate their party and have more numbers and power.

    DrDick -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 10:51 AM
    Speaking as someone who grew up under segregation in Oklahoma in the 50s and 60s, it has been getting progressively worse since the 1980s (it did did significantly better from 1968- the early 80s). Nixon started this with his "Southern Strategy" and Reagan dialed it up with his "Welfare Queens" and "strapping young bucks." All Trump did was replace the dog whistles with a bullhorn.
    Peter K. -> DrDick... , October 24, 2016 at 11:51 AM
    But for the country as a whole we've had a black President re-elected, gay marriage and legalized pot.

    Could you imagine those things back in the 1950s and 1960s?

    And Bernie Sanders beat the spread and did very well for a self-proclaimed democratic socialist who engaged in "class war" talk.

    Hillary prefers the grow together "everybody wins" narrative we see in the hacked email and speeches.

    Peter K. -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 11:48 AM
    "That's not untrue, but it seems to me to be getting worse."

    Because of economic stagnation and anxiety among lower class Republicans.

    Trump blames immigration and trade unlike traditional elite Republicans. These are economic issues.

    Trump supporters no longer believe or trust the Republican elite who they see as corrupt which is partly true.

    They've been backing Nixon, Reagan, Bush etc and things are just getting worse. They've been played.

    Granted it's complicated and partly they see their side as losing and so are doubling down on the conservatism, racism, sexism etc.

    But Trump *brags* that he was against the Iraq war. That's not an elite Republican opinion.

    likbez -> DrDick... , -1
    My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders.

    Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude.

    Looks like they have found were to go this election cycle and this loss of the base is probably was the biggest surprise for neoliberal Democrats.

    Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to me.


    Some data suggest that among unions which endorsed Hillary 3 out of 4 members will vote against her. And that are data from union brass. Lower middle class might also demonstrate the same pattern this election cycle.

    In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and double dealing are still too fresh.

    We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise.

    That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks.

    [Oct 25, 2016] The Next Ukraine

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Russian-Turkish plan to pipe Russian gas through Turkey and then on to Macedonia and thence into southern Europe has long been opposed by the West, which is seeking to block the Russians at every turn. Now the Western powers have found an effective way to stop it: by overthrowing the pro-Russian government of Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski . ..."
    "... Speaking of which: the government of President Petro Poroshenko is leading the country into complete financial insolvency and veritable martial law. ..."
    "... which makes it a crime to criticize the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that fought on the side of the Germans during World War II. ..."
    May 22, 2015 | Antiwar.com
    The Russian-Turkish plan to pipe Russian gas through Turkey and then on to Macedonia and thence into southern Europe has long been opposed by the West, which is seeking to block the Russians at every turn. Now the Western powers have found an effective way to stop it: by overthrowing the pro-Russian government of Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski.

    The original plan was for the pipeline to go through Bulgaria, but Western pressure on the government there nixed that and so the alternative was to pipe the gas through Macedonia and Greece. With the Greeks uninterested in taking dictation from the EU – and relatively impervious, at the moment, to Western-sponsored regime change – the Macedonians were deemed to be the weak link in the pro-Russian chain. That was the cue for the perpetually aggrieved Albanians to play their historic role as the West's willing proxies.

    After a long period of dormancy, suddenly the "National Liberation Army" (NLA) of separatist Albanians rose up, commandeering police stations in Kumanovo and a nearby village earlier this month. A 16-hour gun battle ensued, with 8 Macedonian police and 14 terrorists killed in the fighting. The NLA, which reportedly received vital assistance from Western powers during the 2001 insurgency, claimed responsibility for the attacks.

    Simultaneously, the opposition Social Democratic Union party (SDSM) – formerly the ruling League of Communists under the Stalinist Tito regime – called for mass demonstrations over a series of recent government scandals. SDSM has lost the last three elections, deemed "fair" by the OCSE, with Gruevski's conservative VMRO-DPMNE (Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity) enjoying a comfortable majority in parliament. But that doesn't matter to the "pro-democracy" regime-changers: SDSM leader Zoran Zaev declared "This will not be a protest where we gather, express discontent and go home. We will stay until Gruevski quits."

    Sound familiar?

    Macedonia has a long history of manipulation at the hands of the NATO powers, who nurtured the Muslim-Kosovar insurgency to impose their will on the components of the former Yugoslavia. As in Kosovo, the Albanians of Macedonia were willing pawns of the West, carrying out terrorist attacks on civilians in pursuit of their goal of a "Greater Albania."

    During the 2001 Albanian insurgency, an outgrowth of the Kosovo war, the EU/US used the NLA as a battering ram against the Slavic authorities. The NLA was never an authentic indigenous force, but actually an arm of the US-armed-and-trained "Kosovo Liberation Army," which now rules over the gangster state of Kosovo, crime capital of Europe. A "peace accord," the Ohrid Agreement, was brokered by the West, which kept the NLA essentially intact, albeit formally "dissolved," while the Macedonian government was blackmailed into submission. I wrote about it at the time, here and here.

    Follow that last link to read about the George Soros connection. Soros was originally a big booster of Macedonia, handing them a $25 million aid package and holding the country up as a model of multiculturalism. However, the Macedonians soon turned against him when he sided with the Albanians in their demands for government-subsidized Albanian-language universities and ethnic quotas for government jobs. When he told them to change the name of the country to "Slavomakejonija," they told him to take a walk. Soros, a longtime promoter of Albanian separatism – he played sugar daddy to a multitude of front groups that promoted the Kosovo war – is now getting his revenge.

    Prime Minister Gruevski, for his part, charges that the sudden uptick in ethnic violence and political turmoil is the work of Western "NGOs" and intelligence agencies (or do I repeat myself?) with the latter playing a key role in releasing recordings of phone conversations incriminating several top government officials. A not-so-implausible scenario, given what happened in neighboring Ukraine.

    Speaking of which: the government of President Petro Poroshenko is leading the country into complete financial insolvency and veritable martial law. Aid money from the West is going into the prosecution of the ongoing civil war, and the country has already defaulted on its huge debt in all but the formal sense. Opposition politicians and journalists are routinely murdered and their deaths reported as "suicides," while it is now illegal to describe the ongoing conflict with the eastern provinces as anything but a "Russian invasion." Journalists who contradict the official view are imprisoned: Ruslan Kotsaba, whose arrest I reported on in this space, is still being held, his "trial" a farce that no Western journalist has seen fit to report on. Kotsaba's "crime"? Making a video in which he denounced the war and called on his fellow Ukrainians to resist being conscripted into the military. Antiwar activists throughout the country have been rounded up and imprisoned. Any journalist connected to a Russian media outlet has been arrested.

    Yes, these are the "European values" Ukraine is now putting into practice. Adding ignominy to outrage, a law was recently passed – in spite of this Reuters piece urging Poroshenko to veto it – which makes it a crime to criticize the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that fought on the side of the Germans during World War II. As Ha'aretz reports, a group of 40 historians from major Western academic institutions issued an open letter protesting this outrage:

    "Not only would it be a crime to question the legitimacy of an organization (UPA) that slaughtered tens of thousands of Poles in one of the most heinous acts of ethnic cleansing in the history of Ukraine, but also it would exempt from criticism the OUN, one of the most extreme political groups in Western Ukraine between the wars, and one which collaborated with Nazi Germany at the outset of the Soviet invasion in 1941. It also took part in anti-Jewish pogroms in Ukraine and, in the case of the Melnyk faction, remained allied with the occupation regime throughout the war."

    Ukraine is showing its true colors, which I identified last year, to the point where even the usually compliant Western media is forced to admit the truth.

    [Oct 25, 2016] The Clinton Foundation contributed to the February coup in Ukraine, having longstanding ties to Ukrainian oligarchs who pushed the country to European integration.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It has recently turned out that Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, a vocal proponent of Ukraine's European integration, made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State. Although the foundation swore off donations from foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was serving as a state official, it continued accepting money from private donors. Many of them had certain ties to their national governments like Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian businessman and ex-parliamentarian. ..."
    "... Viktor Pinchuk has always been one of the most vocal proponents of Ukraine's European integration. In 2004 Pinchuk founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) platform in Kiev. YES is led by the board including ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. According to the website of the platform, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Kofi Annan, Radoslaw Sikorski, Vitaliy Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Petro Poroshenko and other prominent figures have participated in annual meetings of YES since 2004. ..."
    "... Experts note that after the coup, the Ukrainian leadership has actually become Washington's puppet government. Several foreign citizens, including American civilian Natalie Jaresko, Lithuanian investment banker Aivaras Abromavicius and Georgia-born Alexander Kvitashvili have assumed high posts in the Ukrainian government. It should be noted that Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's Financial Minister, have previously worked in the US State Department and has also been linked to oligarch Viktor Pinchuk. ..."
    May 17, 2015 | sputniknews.com

    A sinister atmosphere surrounds the Clinton Foundation's role in Ukrainian military coup of February 2014, experts point out.

    It has recently turned out that Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, a vocal proponent of Ukraine's European integration, made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State. Although the foundation swore off donations from foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was serving as a state official, it continued accepting money from private donors. Many of them had certain ties to their national governments like Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian businessman and ex-parliamentarian.

    Remarkably, among individual donors contributing to the Clinton Foundation in the period between 1999 and 2014, Ukrainian sponsors took first place in the list, providing the charity with almost $10 million and pushing England and Saudi Arabia to second and third places respectively.

    It is worth mentioning that the Viktor Pinchuk Foundation alone transferred at least $8.6 million to the Clinton charity between 2009 and 2013. Pinchuk, who acquired his fortune from a pipe-making business, served twice as a parliamentarian in Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada and was married to the daughter of ex-president of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma.

    Although the Clinton's charity denies that the donations were somehow connected with political matters, experts doubt that international private sponsors received no political support in return. In 2008 Pinchuk pledged to make a five-year $29 million contribution to the Clinton Global Initiative in order to fund a program aimed at training future Ukrainian leaders and "modernizers." Remarkably, several alumni of these courses are current members of Ukrainian parliament. Because of the global financial crisis, the Pinchuk Foundation sent only $1.8 million.

    Experts note that during Mrs. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, Viktor Pinchuk was introduced to some influential American lobbyists. Curiously enough, he tried to use his powerful "friends" to pressure Ukraine's then-President Viktor Yanukovych to free Yulia Tymoshenko, who served a jail term.

    Viktor Pinchuk has always been one of the most vocal proponents of Ukraine's European integration. In 2004 Pinchuk founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) platform in Kiev. YES is led by the board including ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. According to the website of the platform, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Kofi Annan, Radoslaw Sikorski, Vitaliy Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Petro Poroshenko and other prominent figures have participated in annual meetings of YES since 2004.

    No one would argue that proponents of Ukraine's pro-Western course played the main role in organizing the coup of February 2014 in Kiev. Furthermore, the exceptional role of the United States in ousting then-president Viktor Yanukovich has also been recognized by political analysts, participants of Euromaidan and even by Barack Obama, the US President.

    Experts note that after the coup, the Ukrainian leadership has actually become Washington's puppet government. Several foreign citizens, including American civilian Natalie Jaresko, Lithuanian investment banker Aivaras Abromavicius and Georgia-born Alexander Kvitashvili have assumed high posts in the Ukrainian government. It should be noted that Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's Financial Minister, have previously worked in the US State Department and has also been linked to oligarch Viktor Pinchuk.

    So far, experts note, the recent "game of thrones" in Ukraine has been apparently instigated by a few powerful clans of the US and Ukraine, who are evidently benefitting from the ongoing turmoil. In this light the Clinton Foundation looks like something more than just a charity: in today's world of fraudulent oligopoly we are facing with global cronyism, experts point out, warning against its devastating consequences.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150323/1019905665.html#ixzz3YT3FykcI

    See also: US Intelligence Services Behind 2014 Ukraine Coup – EU Parliament Member

    [Oct 25, 2016] The moral bankruptcy of each political party

    Oct 25, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    JohnH : October 25, 2016 at 04:19 PM

    I thought I'd never say this, but Glenn Beck gave a very thoughtful interview with Charley Rose last night. He raised a lot of issues that the other Glenn (Glenn Greenwald) has been raising -- the moral bankruptcy of each political party and the tendency of each to attack the other for things that they themselves would deny, excuse, and say that it doesn't matter when their own party does it.

    Glenn is not supporting Trump. But he gives the example of the many Republicans who viciously attacked Bill Clinton for his sexual behavior but now deny, excuse and say that it doesn't matter when Trump does it.

    The flip side, of course, is found with the many Democrats who viciously attack Trump but denied, excused, and said that it didn't matter when Bill Clinton did it.

    Glenn says that to restore trust with the American people, both parties need to clean their houses and become parties that put laws and principles first, which implies criticizing their own instead of shielding them when they misbehave.

    cm -> pgl... , October 25, 2016 at 06:52 PM
    The for-profit media thrive and depend on controversy and generally content that is emotionally engaging. Racism is only a small part of it, it is much more broadly appealing - it is essentially "addressing", channeling, amplifying, and redirecting existing grievances of a large part of the public. If economy and society would be doing great and a large majority of people would be happy/contented, these anger-based media formats wouldn't find an audience.

    The same underlying causes as the success of Trump. The reason why he can maintain considerable success despite of grave shortcomings is because he continues to be a channel for the anger that is not disappearing. (With the support of the media, who are also interested in an ongoing controversy with details as scandalous as possible.)

    [Oct 25, 2016] The two-party system is a political monopoly of the capitalist class. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are political instruments of big business. The claims of Bernie Sanders and his pseudo-left apologists that it is possible to reform or pressure the Democrats-and even carry out a political revolution through it-have proven to be lies

    Notable quotes:
    "... This outcome has an objective character. The two-party system is a political monopoly of the capitalist class. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are political instruments of big business. The claims of Bernie Sanders and his pseudo-left apologists that it is possible to reform or pressure the Democrats-and even carry out a "political revolution" through it-have proven to be lies ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    "The 2016 election campaign was dominated for many months by explosive popular disaffection with the whole political and corporate establishment. But it has concluded in a contest between two candidates who personify that establishment-one a billionaire from the criminal world of real-estate swindling, the other the consensus choice of the military-intelligence apparatus and Wall Street.

    This outcome has an objective character. The two-party system is a political monopoly of the capitalist class. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are political instruments of big business. The claims of Bernie Sanders and his pseudo-left apologists that it is possible to reform or pressure the Democrats-and even carry out a "political revolution" through it-have proven to be lies."

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/28/pers-s28.html

    And of course….some warmonger gibberish from:

    [Oct 25, 2016] Welcome To The George Orwell Theme Park Of Democracy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Their grievances about a grift-maximized political economy were genuine, and Trump managed to make them look like a claque of sinister clowns. This cartoon of a rich kid with no internal boundaries was unable to articulate their legitimate complaints. His behavior during the so-called debates verged on psychotic. ..."
    "... The "tell" in these late stages of the campaign has been the demonization of Russia - a way more idiotic exercise than the McCarthyite Cold War hysteria of the early 1950s, since there is no longer any ideological conflict between us and all the evidence indicates that the current state of bad relations is America's fault, in particular our sponsorship of the state failure in Ukraine and our avid deployment of NATO forces in war games on Russia's border. Hillary has had the full force of the foreign affairs establishment behind her in this war-drum-banging effort, yet they have not been able to produce any evidence, for instance, in their claim that Russia is behind the Wikileaks hack of Hillary's email. They apparently subscribe to the Joseph Goebbels theory of propaganda: if you're going to lie, make sure it's a whopper, and then repeat it incessantly. ..."
    "... The media has been on-board with all this. The New York Times especially has acted as the hired amplifier for the establishment lies - such a difference from the same newspaper's role in the Vietnam War ruckus of yesteryear. Today (Monday) they ran an astounding editorial "explaining" the tactical necessity of Hillary's dishonesty: "In politics, hypocrisy and doublespeak are tools," The Times editorial board wrote. Oh, well, that's reassuring. Welcome to the George Orwell Theme Park of Democracy. ..."
    "... Of course neither Trump nor Hillary show any signs of understanding the real problems afflicting the USA. They don't recognize the basic energy equation that has made it impossible for industrial economies to keep growing, or the deformities in banking and finance that result from official efforts to overcome these implacable conditions, namely, the piling up of ever-greater debt to "solve" the problem of over-indebtedness. ..."
    "... Hillary would bring a more measured discredit to the system with the chance that our institutions might be rehabilitated - with the cherry-on-top being Hillary's eventual impeachment for lying, a fate that her husband and the late Richard Nixon both wiggled out of one way or another. ..."
    Oct 25, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by James Howard Kunstler via kunstler.com

    It's getting hard to give a shit about this election, though you might still care about this country. The damage has been done to the two long-reigning political parties and perhaps that's a good thing. They deserved to be dragged into the gutter and now they can either go through a severe rehab or be replaced by as-yet-unformed coalitions of reality-based interests.

    Trump did a greater disservice all-in-all to the faction he supposedly represented. Their grievances about a grift-maximized political economy were genuine, and Trump managed to make them look like a claque of sinister clowns. This cartoon of a rich kid with no internal boundaries was unable to articulate their legitimate complaints. His behavior during the so-called debates verged on psychotic. If Trump loses, I will essay to guess that his followers' next step will be some kind of violence. For the moment, pathetic as it is, Trump was their last best hope.

    I'm more comfortable about Hillary - though I won't vote for her - because it will be salutary for the ruling establishment to unravel with her in charge of it. That way, the right people will be blamed for the mismanagement of our national affairs. This gang of elites needs to be circulated out of power the hard way, under the burden of their own obvious perfidy, with no one else to point their fingers at. Her election will sharpen awareness of the criminal conduct in our financial practices and the neglect of regulation that marked the eight years of Obama's appointees at the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    The "tell" in these late stages of the campaign has been the demonization of Russia - a way more idiotic exercise than the McCarthyite Cold War hysteria of the early 1950s, since there is no longer any ideological conflict between us and all the evidence indicates that the current state of bad relations is America's fault, in particular our sponsorship of the state failure in Ukraine and our avid deployment of NATO forces in war games on Russia's border. Hillary has had the full force of the foreign affairs establishment behind her in this war-drum-banging effort, yet they have not been able to produce any evidence, for instance, in their claim that Russia is behind the Wikileaks hack of Hillary's email. They apparently subscribe to the Joseph Goebbels theory of propaganda: if you're going to lie, make sure it's a whopper, and then repeat it incessantly.

    The media has been on-board with all this. The New York Times especially has acted as the hired amplifier for the establishment lies - such a difference from the same newspaper's role in the Vietnam War ruckus of yesteryear. Today (Monday) they ran an astounding editorial "explaining" the tactical necessity of Hillary's dishonesty: "In politics, hypocrisy and doublespeak are tools," The Times editorial board wrote. Oh, well, that's reassuring. Welcome to the George Orwell Theme Park of Democracy.

    Of course neither Trump nor Hillary show any signs of understanding the real problems afflicting the USA. They don't recognize the basic energy equation that has made it impossible for industrial economies to keep growing, or the deformities in banking and finance that result from official efforts to overcome these implacable conditions, namely, the piling up of ever-greater debt to "solve" the problem of over-indebtedness.

    The beginning of the way out of this quandary will be recognition that the federal government is the greatest obstacle for America making the necessary adjustments to a world that has changed. If Trump got elected, I'm convinced that he would be removed from office by a military coup inside of a year, which would be an epic smash-up of our political machinery per se, comparable to the period 44 BCE in Rome, when the republic crashed. Hillary would bring a more measured discredit to the system with the chance that our institutions might be rehabilitated - with the cherry-on-top being Hillary's eventual impeachment for lying, a fate that her husband and the late Richard Nixon both wiggled out of one way or another.

    J S Bach BabaLooey Oct 24, 2016 5:03 PM ,

    This is nothing new.

    Hitler is accused of being the evil practitioner of the "Big Lie" technique, but as usual, he was misquoted. Here's the entire idea in context:

    "In this they [the Jews] proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads, and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others.…" (p. 231 of the Manheim translation)

    Hitler is accusing the Jews of the Vienna press of this strategy. It is often taken as evidence that Hitler advocated the "Big Lie." He is, in fact, accusing his enemies of lying.

    One might say, rightly, that Trump and Hitler ARE on the same page here... both accusing the jews of bearing grand false witness. (Trump implicitly)

    BabaLooey Captain Chlamydia Oct 24, 2016 4:46 PM ,
    BOYCOTT Hollywhack!

    www.genvideos.org

    If you must watch movies.

    Antenna TV - DUMP CABLE.

    IGNORE ANYTHING "Main Stream" - ALL THE CHANNELS

    Here's my own message to Hollywhackers

    Dear Hollywood celebrities:

    You exist for my entertainment. Some of you are great eye candy. Some of you can deliver a line with such conviction that you bring tears to my eyes. Some of you can scare the hell out of me. Others make me laugh.

    But you all have one thing in common, you only have a place in my world to entertain me. That's it. You make your living pretending to be someone else . Playing dress up like a 6 year old. You live in a make believe world in front of a camera.

    And often when you are away from one too. Your entire existence depends on my patronage. I'll crank the organ grinder; you dance. I don't really care where you stand on issues.

    Honestly, your stance matters far less to me than that of my neighbor. You see, you aren't real. I turn off my TV or shut down my computer and you cease to exist in my world . Once I am done with you, I can put you back in your little box until I want you to entertain me again.

    Get back into your bubble. I'll let you know when I'm in the mood for something blue and shiny. And I'm also supposed to care that you will leave this great country if Trump becomes president? Ha. Please don't forget to close the door behind you.

    We'd like to reserve your seat for someone who loves this country and really wants to be here. Make me laugh, or cry. Scare me. But realize that the only words of yours that matter are scripted. I might agree with some of you from time to time, but it doesn't matter. In my world, you exist solely as entertainment So, shut your pie hole and dance, monkey!

    beemasters Four chan Oct 24, 2016 5:09 PM ,
    "In politics, hypocrisy and doublespeak are tools," but she has made it a way of life that nobody knows if her campaign promises are essentially a "doublespeak". If only the criteria is being the best liar, she would win the presidency hands down.
    HopefulCynical beemasters Oct 24, 2016 5:15 PM ,
    This gang of elites needs to be circulated out of power the hard way, under the burden of their own obvious perfidy, with no one else to point their fingers at.

    Ahh, but you think they'll be "circulated out of power" under Hillary?! No chance. The bitch will have tanks in the street first. And after the financial collapse, the soldiers will cooperate, because they won't want their families starving like everybody else's will be.

    Mr. Bones HopefulCynical Oct 24, 2016 5:52 PM ,

    "Trump was their last best hope."

    Trump isn't a hope, he's a gesture. Woe unto those who don't recognize it.

    The Alarmist Mr. Bones Oct 24, 2016 7:04 PM

    "I'm more comfortable about Hillary - though I won't vote for her - because it will be salutary for the ruling establishment to unravel with her in charge of it."

    Sorry, but that is a leap of faith I can't make. It's like being at the event horizon of a black hole and deciding to jump into the hole because you look forward to seeing what is on the other side. Chances are you will be spaghettified so that your atoms might arrive elsewhere, but not in particular relation to the you that jumped into the hole, so you will not survive to see any change of scenery.

    There will be a USA after Hillary, but it will not be your father's USA, and getting to this new promised land will be a very painful process. Rome lived on until 1453 in the form of the Byzantine empire, but the Republic died well before the birth of Christ.

    yippee kiyay The Alarmist Oct 24, 2016 11:28 PM ,
    "This gang of elites"

    And who are they? These elusive "elites"? https://goo.gl/bFYusM

    [Oct 25, 2016] 11 Truth? Was it an American coup?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Jill Stein of the Green Party has recognized that exercises in which the United States government examines its own behavior are certain to come up with a result that basically exonerates the politicians and the federal bureaucracy. ..."
    "... A friend recently recommended that I take a look at a film on 9/11 that was first produced back in 2005. It is called Loose Change 9/11 and is available on Amazon Video or in DVD form as well as elsewhere in a number of updated versions. The first version reportedly provides the most coherent account, though the later updates certainly are worth watching, add significantly to the narrative, and are currently more accessible. ..."
    "... Loose Change is an examination of the inconsistencies in the standard 9/11 narrative, a subject that has been thoroughly poked and prodded in a number of other documentaries and books, but it benefits from the immediacy of the account and the fresh memories of the participants in the events who were interviewed by the documentary's director Dylan Avery starting in 2004. It also includes a bit of a history lesson for the average viewer, recalling Hitler's Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all of which were essentially fraudulent and led to the assumption of emergency powers by the respective heads of state. ..."
    "... The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything. ..."
    "... The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration. ..."
    "... The new Pearl Harbor turned out to be 9/11. Given developments since 9/11 itself, to include the way the U.S. has persisted in going to war and the constant search for enemies worldwide to justify our own form of Deep State government, I would, to a large extent, have to believe that PNAC was either prescient or perhaps, more diabolically, actively engaged in creating a new reality. ..."
    "... the strength of Loose Change as it identifies and challenges inconsistencies in the established account without pontificating and, even though it has a definite point of view and draws conclusions, it avoids going over to the dark side and speculating on any number of the wilder "what-if" scenarios. ..."
    "... I recommend that readers watch Loose Change as it runs through discussions of U.S. military exercises and inexplicable stand-downs that occurred on 9/11, together with convincing accounts of engineering and technical issues related to how the World Trade Center and WTC7 collapsed. Particularly intriguing are the initial eyewitness accounts from the site of the alleged downing of UA 93 in Pennsylvania, a hole in the ground that otherwise showed absolutely no evidence of a plane having actually crashed. Nor have I ever seen any traces of a plane in photos taken at the Pentagon point of impact. ..."
    Oct 25, 2016 | www.unz.com
    11 Truth? Was it an "American coup?" Leave a Comment For the first time a presidential candidate, admittedly from a fringe party, is calling for a reexamination of 9/11. Jill Stein of the Green Party has recognized that exercises in which the United States government examines its own behavior are certain to come up with a result that basically exonerates the politicians and the federal bureaucracy. This has been the case since the Warren Commission report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which, inter alia, failed to thoroughly investigate key players like Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby and came up with a single gunman scenario in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary.

    When it comes to 9/11, I have been reluctant to enter the fray largely because I do not have the scientific and technical chops to seriously assess how buildings collapse or how a large passenger airliner might be completely consumed by a fire. In my own area, of expertise, which is intelligence, I have repeatedly noted that the Commission investigators failed to look into the potential foreign government involvement in the events that took place that day. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan just for starters may have been involved in or had knowledge relating to 9/11 but the only investigation that took place, insofar as I can determine, was a perfunctory look at the possible Saudi role, the notorious 28 pages, which have recently been released in a redacted form.

    A friend recently recommended that I take a look at a film on 9/11 that was first produced back in 2005. It is called Loose Change 9/11 and is available on Amazon Video or in DVD form as well as elsewhere in a number of updated versions. The first version reportedly provides the most coherent account, though the later updates certainly are worth watching, add significantly to the narrative, and are currently more accessible.

    Loose Change is an examination of the inconsistencies in the standard 9/11 narrative, a subject that has been thoroughly poked and prodded in a number of other documentaries and books, but it benefits from the immediacy of the account and the fresh memories of the participants in the events who were interviewed by the documentary's director Dylan Avery starting in 2004. It also includes a bit of a history lesson for the average viewer, recalling Hitler's Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all of which were essentially fraudulent and led to the assumption of emergency powers by the respective heads of state.

    The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything. Loose Change describes how leading hawkish Republicans were, as early as 2000, pushing to increase U.S. military capabilities so that the country would be able to fight multi-front wars. The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration.

    The new Pearl Harbor turned out to be 9/11. Given developments since 9/11 itself, to include the way the U.S. has persisted in going to war and the constant search for enemies worldwide to justify our own form of Deep State government, I would, to a large extent, have to believe that PNAC was either prescient or perhaps, more diabolically, actively engaged in creating a new reality.

    That is not to suggest that either then or now most federal employees in the national security industry were part of some vast conspiracy but rather an indictment of the behavior and values of those at the top of the food chain, people who are characteristically singularly devoid of any ethical compass and base their decisions largely on personal and peer group ambition.

    9/11 Truthers are characteristically very passionate about their beliefs, which is part of their problem in relating to a broader public. They frequently demand full adherence to their version of what passes for reality. In my own experience of more than twenty years on the intelligence side of government I have frequently found that truth is in fact elusive, often lying concealed in conflicting narratives. This is, I believe, the strength of Loose Change as it identifies and challenges inconsistencies in the established account without pontificating and, even though it has a definite point of view and draws conclusions, it avoids going over to the dark side and speculating on any number of the wilder "what-if" scenarios.

    I recommend that readers watch Loose Change as it runs through discussions of U.S. military exercises and inexplicable stand-downs that occurred on 9/11, together with convincing accounts of engineering and technical issues related to how the World Trade Center and WTC7 collapsed. Particularly intriguing are the initial eyewitness accounts from the site of the alleged downing of UA 93 in Pennsylvania, a hole in the ground that otherwise showed absolutely no evidence of a plane having actually crashed. Nor have I ever seen any traces of a plane in photos taken at the Pentagon point of impact.

    The film describes the subsequent investigative failures that took place, perhaps deliberately and arranged from inside the government, and concludes that the event amounts to an "American coup" which changed the United States both in terms of its domestic liberties and its foreign policy. After watching the film, one must accept that there are numerous inconsistencies that emerge from any examination of the standard narrative promoted by the 9/11 Commission and covered up by every White House since 2001. The film calls the existing corpus of government investigations into 9/11 a lie, a conclusion that I would certainly agree with.

    The consequences of 9/11 are indeed more important than the event itself. Even those who have come to accept the established narrative would have to concede that "that day of infamy" changed America for the worse, as the film notes. While the United States government had previously engaged in illegal activity directed against for suspected spies, terrorists and a variety of international criminals, wholesale surveillance of what amounts to the entire population of the country was a new development brought in by the Patriot Acts. And, for the first time, secret prisons were set up overseas and citizens were arrested without being charged and held indefinitely. Under the authority of the Military Commissions Act tribunals were established to try those individuals who were suspected of being material supporters of terrorism, "material supporters" being loosely interpreted to make arrest, prosecution and imprisonment easier.

    More recently, executive authority based on the anti-terror legislation has been used to execute American citizens overseas and, under the Authorization to Use Military Force, to attack suspects in a number of countries with which the United States is not at war. This all takes place with hardly a squeak from Congress or from the media. And when citizens object to any or all of the above they are blocked from taking action in the courts by the government's invocation of State Secrets Privilege, claiming that judicial review would reveal national secrets. Many believe that the United States has now become a precursor police state, all as a result of 9/11 and the so-called War on Terror which developed from that event.

    So who benefited from 9/11? Clearly the executive branch of the government itself, which has seen an enormous expansion in its power and control over both the economy and people's lives, but there are also other entities like the military industrial complex, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, and the financial services sector, all of which have gained considerably from the anti-terror largesse coming from the American taxpayer. Together these entities constitute an American Deep State, which controls both government and much of the private sector without ever being mentioned or seriously contested.

    Suggesting government connivance in the events of 9/11 inevitably raises the question of who exactly might have ordered or carried out the attacks if they were in fact not fully and completely the work of a handful of Arab hijackers? The film suggests that one should perhaps consider the possibility of a sophisticated "false flag" operation, by which we mean that the apparent perpetrators of the act were not, in fact, the drivers or originators of what took place. Blowing up huge buildings and causing them to pancake from within, if indeed that is what took place, is the work of governments, not of a handful of terrorists. Only two governments would have had that capability, the United States itself and also Israel, unfortunately mentioned only once in passing in the film, a state player heavily engaged in attempting to bring America into its fight with the Arab world, with Benjamin Netanyahu subsequently saying that "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq swung American public opinion in our favor."

    To be honest I would prefer not to think that 9/11 might have been an inside job, but I am now convinced that a new 9/11 Commission is in order, one that is not run and guided by the government itself. If it can be demonstrated that the attacks carried out on that day were quite possibly set up by major figures both inside and outside the political establishment it might produce such a powerful reaction that the public would demand a reversal of the laws and policies that have so gravely damaged our republic. It is admittedly unlikely that anything like that could ever take place, but it is at least something to hope for.

    [Oct 25, 2016] Mergers Raise Prices, Not Efficiency

    Oct 25, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron : October 25, 2016 at 04:56 AM RE: Mergers Raise Prices, Not Efficiency

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-24/mergers-raise-prices-not-efficiency

    [IMO, Noah muddles the message, but it is a important topic that gets muddled by everyone else too. Economists with a financial bent had no problem apparently with the bank mergers that started in the seventies and everyone loved the auto maker mergers of the first half of the 2oth century.

    Efficiency itself is an amorphous term. Mergers can be an efficient use of capital since they deliver lower competition and higher profits. JP Morgan did not want to be in a industry that he could not dominate. Efficiency is different for a fish than a capital owner. Mergers are good for regulatory capture and ineffishient for fish. Mergers are inefficient for workers that want higher wages or the unemployed that want jobs. Market power and regulatory capture can be efficient vehicles for taking advantage of trade agreements to offshore production and increase returns to capital all while lowering both prices and quality as well as reducing domestic wages. Efficiency is in the eyeballs of the beholder especially if they make good soup.] Reply Tuesday, reason -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , October 25, 2016 at 06:58 AM

    But Keynes was saying something quite different - he wasn't actually talking about policy but about economics (the task of economists). He was saying that understanding short term fluctuations was as important as predicting the long term. Still relevant in this age of irrelevant general equilibrium models.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> reason ... , October 25, 2016 at 09:56 AM
    Sorry, I thought that the whole purpose of the study of macroeconomics was to guide policy decisions. I stand corrected.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , October 25, 2016 at 10:02 AM
    I always looked at Keynes as a fellow traveler, one who wrote obtusely at times for the express purpose of couching his meaning in sweetened platitudes that at a second glance were drenched in cynicism and sarcasm, at least when it came to his opinions of economists and politicians and the capital owning class that they both served.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , October 25, 2016 at 10:39 AM
    OK, "obtusely" was a poor choice of words, at least with regards to Keynes. Keynes realized WWI was a big mistake, the Treaty at Versailles was an abomination with regards to German restitution, and he was accused of anti-Semitism just for being honest about Jewish elites in the Weimar Republic. It was not that Keynes was insensitive, unpatriotic, or anti-Semitic, but that Keynes was just correct on all counts.
    JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , -1
    This is a good example of economists working in lock step with investors: "Economists with a financial bent had no problem apparently with the bank mergers that started in the seventies and everyone loved the auto maker mergers of the first half of the 2oth century."

    I think it has been questioned for decades whether increased efficiency in banking actually materialized in the wake of industry consolidation. Local market oligopolies may well have generated higher profits and the appearance of more efficiency. And concentration certainly facilitated collusion as we have seen in many markets, including LIBOR.

    What concentration indisputably caused was a dramatic increase in the political power of the Wall Street banking cartel, which owns not only the Federal Reserve but also a lot of powerful politicians...a subject on which 'liberal' economists are generally agnostic, since politics is outside their silo.

    point -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , October 25, 2016 at 10:26 AM
    The article ignored the effect of mergers on supplier relationships, often one of near monopsony (oligopsony?). DOJ seems to be focused on unit pricing to consumers(though perhaps not with cable) to the point that most managements understand that they have free rein to squeeze suppliers. And so they merge to do so.

    It may be that more contribution to increasing margins is from purchase prices than selling prices.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> point... , October 25, 2016 at 10:41 AM
    Doubly so with global supply chaining.

    [Oct 25, 2016] The rise of the angry voter, charted by David Keohane

    Notable quotes:
    "... The establishment GOP and establishment DNC have become almost identical in their support of big banks, big corporations, and extremely hawkish overseas military policies. Favorites of the top 10% in the US. ..."
    "... The biggest reason why it kicked this cycle. Historically only the bottom 20% or so have been heavily exploited. After 8 years of net loss (economic growth < population growth), almost everyone outside the elites of society are feeling the pinch. ..."
    "... There's British voters that claim Hillary Clinton would be a Tory there for example. ..."
    "... One specific example would be immigration, where voters don't agree with the Republican position on hardline enforcement of the law, nor with the Democratic position on continuing to expand immigration and granting legal status to those who have come illegally. ..."
    "... The government bailouts from the banking crash of 2007-8 really kickstarted the angry voter here in the U.S. ..."
    "... For the record, Sanders voted against the bank bailout. Obama and Clinton voted for it. Trump was not an elected official at the time of course. And Cruz was not yet in the Senate, but voter anger over items like this propelled him there. ..."
    "... A part of what you describe is due to the capture of the state and media by a modern clerisy, all clinging to power by chasing the same (presumed centrist) voter. Voter disgust at this class and their short-sighted decisions is fully understandable. ..."
    "... voting for a candidate who signals a Left/Right wing inclination (Clinton, NuLabour, Trump?) but has no intention of delivering - is a deliberate and willful disenfranchisement of the voter. ..."
    Oct 25, 2016 | ftalphaville.ft.com
    It's a bigly trend with enormous consequences for fiscal and monetary policy. But the rise of voter rage in advanced democracies is a hard narrative to chart, what with the lack of data and the abundance of anecdote. However, this seems a pretty decent attempt:

    Screen Shot 2016-10-24 at 13.03.20

    That's from Barclay's Marvin Barth - who has set out to measure "voter rage as a drop in the combined vote share of the centre-right and centre-left parties as voters shift to parties that they believe better reflect their frustrations," in a 73-page note.

    And the exercise perhaps demonstrates that Brexit wasn't much of an exception after all:

    Screen Shot 2016-10-24 at 15.12.17

    Interesting/telling that commodity exporters such as Norway and Australia bucked the general trend, no? Although you have to wonder how long that will last as the commodity boom fades.

    Another interesting question ( asked by Joseph, with his hat on as Southern Africa correspondent ): is South Africa - where unemployment is over 30 per cent and the economy is really feeling the pain of the commodity bust - part of the politics of rage?

    The rising number of violent 'service delivery protests' and the current unrest on university campuses both suggest that South Africa could be. On the other hand, in party politics itself, one curious thing about the fracturing of the African National Congress is that there hasn't been more support for radical alternatives.

    There are the Economic Freedom Fighters of course - but the party didn't do well enough capture any municipalities in recent local elections. The centre-focused Democratic Alliance took the prizes instead. Disaffected ANC voters are if anything staying home instead. Of course South Africa is full of political risk in several other ways. But it may be an interesting exception to the voter rage narrative.

    Anyway, elsewhere, in European democracies, Barclays say that the drop in centre-party support has actually been more like a collapse :

    Greece (GR), perhaps unsurprisingly, has had roughly a 50pp drop in its centre vote share on all three measures. But the 44-64pp drop in Austria (AT) is more shocking. In relative terms, the 24-37pp drop in the Netherlands (NL) is even more startling given that the centre vote share rarely ever has topped 50%; similarly striking is the 15-22pp drop in Belgium (BE), a country famous for its linguistically divided parliament. Even in countries that traditionally have fewer competitive parties, the declines have been large: Germany (DE) 20-27pp, France (FR) 18-32pp, and Spain (ES) 15-28pp.

    The broad-based decline also is unprecedented. Figure 3 charts a time series of the centre vote share in advanced economies, grouped by type, from 1970 to the present. While there has been a longer-term trend of mild erosion, a cross-country collapse in the political centre of the current scale has not occurred previously. Reviewing the entire post-WWII period, there is no other similar event. Nor was such a wide-ranging drop in the political centre visible during the inter-war, Great Depression years.

    … Figure 3 and Figure 4 also highlight another noteworthy point: voter rage does not seem to be due (solely) to severe economic distress, contrary to one popular notion. Not only did the Great Depression fail to provoke a similar collapse in the political centre among ongoing democracies in the 1930s, but the current bout of political rage appears to pre-date the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). As Figure 3 shows, the peak in the centre vote share was 2008 for Southern Europe, but in the US, non-euro area Europe and the northern euro area, the deterioration of the political centre began in 2003-05.

    Screen Shot 2016-10-24 at 15.20.03

    There's more in the usual place for those that want it, as we're loath to rerun the full list of potential reasons for this phenomenon here. Demographics, globalisation, xenophobia all get an airing and all get assigned to a "yeah, probably, but where does one begin and another end" bucket.

    Screen Shot 2016-10-24 at 14.53.56

    For what it's worth, Barc's underlying contention is that the "biggest source of voter rage appears to be a sense of economic and political disenfranchisement due to imperfect representation in national governments and delegation of sovereignty to supranational and intergovernmental organizations." Apparently 16 of 17 parties Barc looked at demanded "greater protection of, or retaking of, national sovereignty."

    Taking back control is more universal a wish than you might have imagined. It doesn't make you very confident about globalisation's fate.

    In the other direction, Barc suggest "the label 'populist' does not appear to fit the economic policies of a majority of the parties challenging the political centre." Also in that direction, "redistribution and corporate taxation, issues closely related to anger over increasing income inequality appear to be lower-order campaign issues for most alternative parties even if it is of primary importance for the remainder."

    It all seems plausible enough as theories go, but we reserve the right to grab on to any other narrative that comes along and which does a better job of grouping together what is a large number of competing, non-mutually exclusive, narratives. Tracking voter-to-party preferences in immigration, free trade, inequality (and so on) yield confusing results and, anyway, it seems unlikely to us that party policy as presented is always fully understood or taken at face value by supporters.

    Still, Barc themselves are humble about the data being used here and say they are "left to use logic and narrative to analyse numerous bivariate relationships" and the direction of causality is often impossible to determine.

    In short, this is a worthy exercise - but handle with care.

    10 hours ago
    Interesting too that the decline from Chart 5 seems to coincide with the emergence and growth of the world wide web and the many distinct/fractious perspectives and opinions instead of the more consensual/centralized editorial hubs typical of the previous "age". Also- it seems the concept of "enlightened self-interest" has been displaced a more dog-eat-dog-materialism where the winner takes all. The roots of rebellion and revolution have not changed so it is good to see some thought by a "winning" organization is seeking an explanation.
    Pi1010 5pts Featured
    11 hours ago

    Entrenched political alignment does not change much within a population, left and right winged-ness follows a normal distribution. Around the early 80's political parties got scientific and professional, they realised they only needed to win over the centrally minded swing voters but could ignore those outside the center who would vote for them anyway. At the same time politicians became stage managed by their media minders, Tony Blair being the master of this.

    Voters outside the center, taken for granted have gone elsewhere and also find the rare genuine politician appealing (Farage, Trump, Sanders, Corbyn). If voter rage is a problem, and I'm not convinced it is, then mainstream parties need to broaden their appeal away from the center, they won't though in case they lose to the other side, prisoners dilemma indeed.

    labantall 5pts Featured 12 hours ago

    The late Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky apparently proposed to Vladimir Putin that the oligarchs fund and control two parties, which would play out bitterly contested elections, while the same groups kept control behind the scenes. Putin in the end betrayed the oligarchs for his conception of Russian national interest (which may still involve oligarchs).

    As Russia Insider noted

    "(In) the U.S we have two capitalist parties that largely agree on everything. The exceptions are issues that matter a lot to the regular people who make up the two parties' bases, but are largely irrelevant to party elites who fund and run both of them."

    Which is why Trump, an outsider who cares about these issues, Is Literally Hitler as far as the corporate media are concerned, and why the DNC cheated Sanders.

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/boris-berezovskys-evil-plan-mimic-us-political-system/ri7972

    Paul Murphy

    In defense of labantall. First, the earlier citation of Frost was apposite; thought-provoking, if not completely convincing. Second, that both of the 2 parties are (usually) professional and (possibly) competent servants of their (admittedly disparate sets of) clients ought not be in dispute.

    The alleged Russian plan would be a sham, in that the clientele of the 2 parties would be the same - which is not the case in America - but I defend the observation as germane, even if it is fallacious in fact.

    The Russians just don't get it, and why would that be a surprise. I don't agree that Trump gets bad press only because he is an outsider, I think he's doing himself in; but that's not an absurd opinion.

    Londo 5pts Featured 10 hours ago

    @ Paul Murphy @ rj1 @ labantall

    Regardless of the source.... The analysis is largely correct.

    The establishment GOP and establishment DNC have become almost identical in their support of big banks, big corporations, and extremely hawkish overseas military policies. Favorites of the top 10% in the US.

    Simultaneous, anti-establishment movements happened in both primaries (Sanders & Trump). While "The Wall" stands as very different as a policy, both candidates agreed on some big issues impacting the bulk of the american populace such as,

    • Mass immigration = Wage suppression
    • Banks are too big. Sanders advocates the re-imposition of Glass Stegall

    The biggest reason why it kicked this cycle. Historically only the bottom 20% or so have been heavily exploited. After 8 years of net loss (economic growth < population growth), almost everyone outside the elites of society are feeling the pinch.

    Patience 5pts Featured 10 hours ago

    @ Londo @ Paul Murphy @ rj1 @ labantall As the child of Labour-voting parents in the Eisenhower era, both US parties seemed pretty much alike to me. So when my aunt who lived in the US came over to visit, I asked her why they had two such similar parties?

    She replied "Because every office door has an inside and an outside..."

    labantall 5pts Featured , 10 hours ago

    @ Paul Murphy

    Russia Insider is a website run by Western expats in Russia. I suppose it could be a fake site. I just found it by googling "Berezovsky two parties". You can find the original Berezovsky interview by Masha Gessen, who is as far from a Putin mouthpiece as you can get.

    "The idea that US democrats and republicans largely agree on everything is absurd"

    I think you have to distinguish between those at the top of the parties (and their funders) and the rank and file.

    Thanks to those commenters who defended my right to a different opinion ;-)

    Paul Murphy 5pts Moderator FT Featured

    @ labantall @ Paul Murphy Erm, the Dems and GOP are so in agreement we've had close to legislative grid-lock for the past eight years. All this wing-nuttery about global elites being in bed with the media, keeping a boot on the throat of the common man, etc etc, doesn't really have a place here on FTAV.

    So take a rest from this post -- and the site -- please.

    Pharma 5pts Featured 13 hours ago

    Not convinced that they can quantify this accurately. Assessing the vote of "centre-x" parties is both highly subjective, and also affected by longer-term trends in the parties themselves.

    Just to take the example of the UK. You might argue that the rise of UKIP, and perhaps the Green party, reflected an increased vote for more extreme parties. But maybe it reflected instead a move to the centre ground by the two main parties (big tents re-pitched so they no longer cover the extremes).

    Both Labour and the Conservatives have dramatically shifted positions over the years, in both directions. Was Michael Foot's Labout party a "centre-left" party? Were Michael Howard's Conservatives "centre-right"? I am sure for the purposes of this analysis, the answer was "yes" both times, but I would answer with two "no"s.

    rj1 5pts Featured 11 hours ago

    @ Pharma The terms themselves lose meaning when we go to a country-by-country basis. There's British voters that claim Hillary Clinton would be a Tory there for example.

    I've always wished someone could break down for me the difference between center, center-right, right, and far-right (ditto moving left) as 4 separate viewpoints.

    Felix2012 5pts Featured 14 hours ago

    I failed to find the words "corporate lobbying" or "lobbying" in the summary of Barclays's research.

    Serf8973521 5pts Featured 14 hours ago

    Hmm. 'New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples"' on Zero Hedge seems to have more than one million page views at the moment.

    Anger rising?

    Terra_Desolata 5pts Featured 15 hours ago

    The U.S. numbers are a bit misleading, since significant numbers of independent voters are actually in between the two parties on political views.

    One specific example would be immigration, where voters don't agree with the Republican position on hardline enforcement of the law, nor with the Democratic position on continuing to expand immigration and granting legal status to those who have come illegally.

    Hence, a lot of independent voters are up for grabs by whichever party happens to strike a more moderate tone. The challenge for the parties is in getting moderate candidates through the primary process, which of late has been dominated by hardliners and party loyalists who are not in tune with the general public's views (hence how both parties succeeded in nominating the candidate with the lowest favorability rating).

    labantall 5pts Featured 15 hours ago

    Along with economic and political disenfranchisement (see the billionaires response "Guess it takes a study to point out the obvious" to research concluding the US is no longer a democracy) don't forget demographic disenfranchisement.

    As the Canadian anthropologist Peter Frost puts it :

    "In late capitalism, the elites are no longer restrained by ties of national identity and are thus freer to enrich themselves at the expense of their host society. This clash of interests lies at the heart of the globalist project: on the one hand, jobs are outsourced to low-wage countries; on the other, low-wage labor is insourced for jobs that cannot be relocated, such as in the construction and service industries.
    This two-way movement redistributes wealth from owners of labor to owners of capital. Business people benefit from access to lower-paid workers and weaker labor and environmental standards. Working people are meanwhile thrown into competition with these other workers. As a result, the top 10% of society is pulling farther and farther ahead of everyone else, and this trend is taking place throughout the developed world. The rich are getting richer … not by making a better product but by making the same product with cheaper and less troublesome inputs of labor."

    Patience 5pts Featured 15 hours ago

    In order for a government to achieve anything constructive, a significant proportion of the population have to reach broad agreement on what policies are desirable, and what means of implementing them are acceptable. The political centre is where this broad agreement normally occurs.

    We appear to have entered a period where a majority of the population can agree on what they don't like (banker/CEO salaries, zero-hour contracts, housing shortage), but cannot agree on policies to expunge these outrages from our society. This fills me with foreboding.

    FearTheTree 5pts Featured 7 hours ago

    @ Patience Well, in the United States, for the first time ever, entitlement "reform" was not an issue during a presidential campaign. Trump has vowed to not touch Medicare or Social Security, while HRC has promised to perhaps enhance both entitlement programs.

    I believe that a consensus has developed in the United States that, due to income inequality, th budget for entitlement programs must be increased, not "streamlined".

    Regardless of what happens in two weeks, I doubt that a GOP presidential nominee can ever run on a platform to "reform" entitlement programs.

    And that is a good thing

    rj1 5pts Featured 16 hours ago

    The government bailouts from the banking crash of 2007-8 really kickstarted the angry voter here in the U.S. Don't know if you can ever find an identifiable cause across multiple democracies, but that's a key one common to the U.S. and Europe.

    rj1 5pts Featured 15 hours ago

    For the record, Sanders voted against the bank bailout. Obama and Clinton voted for it. Trump was not an elected official at the time of course. And Cruz was not yet in the Senate, but voter anger over items like this propelled him there.

    Flaneur 5pts Featured 16 hours ago

    So I'm an 'angry voter' and heres my take -

    " issues closely related to anger over increasing income inequality appear to be lower-order campaign issues for most alternative parties "

    This is because the f**k-witted managerial metropolitan centrists (as exemplified by the FT) fail to realise that income inequality (poverty) is seen as analogous to 'immigration' because right wing parties hijack the agenda and centrist governments are either 1) monumentally incompetent or 2) wholly captured by financial interests. (the answer is '2' btw)

    What people see are bankers back to getting paid millions, house prices rocketing out of any normal persons reach, wages stagnating and immigrants flooding in. Their lives are half what they used to be and the real, actual ignoramuses - politicians and media - sneer at people and telling them that _they_ are ignorant.

    'Dont believe your own eyes or experiences - believe us - youre worthless and ignorant'. . If this occured in a soap opera there'd be an outcry.
    Its the mantra of the abuser, writ national.

    And applauded by the FT.

    What youre observing is an economic revolt against the Reification Fallacy promulgated and promoted by the media.

    Economic models are notional constructs, they are neither real nor accurate. By messing around with the management of the country these bull*hit artists have cost ordinary people a decade of their productive lives. Enough is enough.

    People dont realise why this has happened but when they do - when its explained to them properly that a combination of 'professionals' fixated on imaginary models (how is this different from a mental illness?) and 'regulatory capture' (corruption) by financial interests has made them homeless/pensionless/savingsless there will be wholesale revolt.

    In addition, the increasingly shrill and unhinged demonisation by politicians and the media of peoples correctly expressed (if wrongly rooted) frustrations is evidence that the establishment realise their error. Yet they _still_ refuse to call for or enact a reversal of the Odious policies they operate!

    Looking forward to the Austrian election re-run and the Italian referendum, on top of general elections across Europe next year, I can only quote a recent noble laureate 'I dont need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows'

    (And I dont need a bank or a newspaper to tell me either.)

    Skwosh 5pts Featured 6 hours ago

    @ ceraunavolta I find these ideas about RWAs and the order/authoritarian openness axis very unsavoury. To me it just looks like de-humanising pejorative tribalism/categorisation dressed up as quantitative/objective analysis. A world neatly divided between nice clever open outward looking groovy people (like US) and horrid narrow-minded inward looking vengeful people (like THEM).

    This stuff is surely skirting the borders of medicalising dissent – which seldom ends well.

    Also – it's pretty lightweight if you think about it for more than about thirty seconds: On Brexit, for example, it surely could be argued that, for some, supporting continued EU membership actually represented a vote *for* order and an expression of a lack of openness to the possibility of change. Surely one person's order can be another's chaos – and one person's perception of what is 'other' can be another person's 'familiar' – so even if there is an intrinsic and fixed difference between people in their preference for order or openness you wouldn't necessarily expect such an intrinsic bias to be strongly predicative on any binary issue unless everyone's circumstances were the same (with regards to what for them constituted 'order' and 'other').

    I'm wondering if anyone's looked for evidence of a distinct personality type (perhaps at higher prevalence among academics) characterised by an over willingness to believe that people are automaton-like with inflexible fixed character traits (a view of humanity which, as it happens, is conveniently susceptible to simple numerical modelling and the production of impressive looking true-because-numbers/sciencey graphs)?

    I'm thinking we could call such people NHDs – 'naive human determinists' or possibly 'numerical human determinists'?

    Skwosh 5pts Featured 16 hours ago

    Excellent – I applaud your caution/scepticism David.

    Could it perhaps be that the reason the 'rise of the angry voter' is hard to chart is because it is not actually an independently identifiable thing? Most people, on all sides, tend to try lazily to medicalise/infantilise people who don't agree with them as being stupid, ill-educated/over-educated, indoctrinated by the evil media (left-wing or right-wing media respectively), angry/complacent, left-behind-socially-excluded/out-of-touch-wealthy-elitists and/or suffering from cognitive biases etc. Everyone but themselves, apparently, is susceptible to these sorts of factors – but I think it is basically pretty lazy (and dangerous!) for people to try to 'metta' out of (often difficult, complicated, non-simple right/wrong goody/baddy) arguments over the actual issues, and instead go for a kind of class-action-ad-hominem 'you only think that because you are this-that-or-the-other'.

    From a parochial perspective, back in the eighties, the 'variance' of mainstream politics in the UK was massive – people like Norman Tebbit on the one hand, and Michael Foot on the other were mainstream political figures – there was a massive absence of consensus. There was a lot of anger. The anger, presumably, was a *downstream* consequence of the realities. By the standards of the subsequent anodyne managerialist political/media merry-go-round we'd arrived at by the mid 2000s the gulf across the entire mainstream of UK politics was virtually infinitesimally small by comparison. Things have started to heat up again. This is all part of the process. This is how it is supposed to work. It ebbs and it flows – I imagine – for good reason. I'm inclined to think that trying to identify some sort of new thing – 'identity politics' or 'the new politics of rage' is mostly just displacement behaviour by people who, for a variety of reasons, don't really want to get their hands dirty with the real issues.

    I remember, I think it was Peter Mandelson, said back during the New Labour years something like 'politics doesn't really matter when times are good'. I think perhaps some people are starting to discover (some of them for the first time in their lives) why it is that we actually have politics. I think the SA example from Joseph is also very good – it illustrates that 'things are complicated' and that simple 'narratives' are no substitute for actually being on the ground and trying to understand what's actually going on.

    DaniaDelendaEst 5pts Featured
    15 hours ago

    @ Skwosh A part of what you describe is due to the capture of the state and media by a modern clerisy, all clinging to power by chasing the same (presumed centrist) voter. Voter disgust at this class and their short-sighted decisions is fully understandable.

    Flaneur 5pts Featured 15 hours ago

    @ DaniaDelendaEst @ Skwosh I'd briefly add that voting for a candidate who signals a Left/Right wing inclination (Clinton, NuLabour, Trump?) but has no intention of delivering - is a deliberate and willful disenfranchisement of the voter.

    Skwosh 5pts Featured 5 hours ago

    @ Flaneur @ DaniaDelendaEst

    I don't disagree – and I take the point made by you and other commenters about 'chasing the centre ground' in political/electoral strategy – but I'm not so sure it is avoidable. For sure, when the electoral conditions are right then you can win by appealing to a small number of often centrist swing voters, but it only works *if* those conditions already exist – and when those conditions exist then people who use that strategy will prevail and get to make policy (inclined to pander to the centre) – and if they instead fall on their swords and decided to loose honourably then another, different (and possibly less honourable) lot will play to the centre ground and win instead. It works until it doesn't. I grant that this approach is likely to end up going on for too long, allowing polarization and genuine disenfranchisement to build – but I think this is unfortunately all part of the process – one of the unavoidable costs of democracy's least-worst-ness. These electoral conditions wax and wane – there is only so far-apart or ill-balanced the political spectrum can get before there is no centre that can swing it. When it breaks – when the centre cannot (and probably should not) hold any longer then the particular reasons for this will presumably be many, varied, complicated and messy in any given instance and at any given point in political history – difficult to generalise about – and difficult to unify into a single 'narrative'.

    I am certainly not saying that there is no anger or disgust – and I'm not saying that these things are not justified. That there is anger and disgust is part of why things are heating up politically – and this is as it should be; this is what shifts a consensus that may have outlived its utility and/or establishes a new consensuses in an area where there was none before. During the transition such processes are inevitably shouty. My problem is with the idea that the 'anger' or the 'disgust' is somehow the causative thing that is making politics all 'freaky'. For one thing I don't really accept that politics has yet become *that* freaky (yet anyway). It is certainly freakier than of late, but I think some people need to get out more (in terms of historical perspective) if they think that this sort of thing is somehow unprecedented. It seems obvious to me that the anger and disgust is an inevitable consequence of the underlying grievances that people have – so if someone wants to understand 'what is going on' then they need to look at these underlying grievances rather than trying to understand it all in terms of being 'anger-driven'. Anger is something people naturally feel and express when they're unhappy about stuff and/or they think they (or others) are being treated unfairly, marginalised, patronised etc. (not that I'm implying either of you would disagree with this).

    [Oct 25, 2016] Grand Strategy What is America's Most Pressing Foreign Policy Issue

    Notable quotes:
    "... There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's foreign policy? ..."
    "... Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies." ..."
    "... according to Mearsheimer, the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle barrel is almost impossible." ..."
    "... "It's remarkably difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject failure." ..."
    "... Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are and why we do these things – a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world." ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | The National Interest Blog

    There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's foreign policy? Watch the rest of the videos in the "Grand Strategy" series.

    John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago doesn't shy away from a bold answer: The most pressing issue is that the United States has a "fundamentally misguided foreign policy." Mearsheimer argues that there are two dimensions to U.S. foreign policy that get the United States into "big trouble." First, he says, "We believe that we can dominate the globe, that we can control what happens in every nook and cranny of the world." The problem with this is that "the world is simply too big and nationalism is much too powerful of a force to make it possible for us to come close to doing that."

    Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies."

    The United States has engaged in numerous international military interventions over the past fifteen years, primarily in the Middle East. Proponents of these interventions argue that they are necessary in order to build stable democracies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. However, according to Mearsheimer, the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle barrel is almost impossible."

    So why has the United States continued to pursue policies and strategies that fail to convert U.S. military might into political ends?

    Eugene Gholz of the University of Texas at Austin suggests that the root of the issue could be American hubris. The United States has made the mistake of "thinking we can control things we can't control." Mearsheimer agrees with Gholz, although he finds the situation perplexing: "It's remarkably difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject failure."

    Several other scholars chime in to offer their own thoughts on this thorny issue. Boston University's Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are and why we do these things – a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world."

    Harvard University's Stephen Walt offers yet another possibility. Walt asks if the U.S. commitment to its current misguided and damaging foreign policy is due to "deep culture" or if it is result of "the national security apparatus we built after World War II." Walt thinks it is the latter: the United States "was not a highly interventionist country until after the Second World War." After World War II, "we built a large national security state, we had bases everywhere, and then we discovered that we can't let go of any of that, even though the original reason for building it is gone."

    Did the other panelists agree with Walt? Did anyone suggest a different problem as a candidate for the most pressing issue? Watch the full video above to see and be sure to check out the other videos of CNI and CKI's panel of nationally acclaimed foreign policy scholars addressing additional questions.

    [Oct 25, 2016] Trump supporters no longer believe or trust the Republican elite who they see as corrupt which is partly true

    Notable quotes:
    "... My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders. ..."
    "... Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude. ..."
    "... Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to me. ..."
    "... In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and double dealing are still too fresh. ..."
    "... We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise. That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 11:48 AM

    "That's not untrue, but it seems to me to be getting worse."

    Because of economic stagnation and anxiety among lower class Republicans. Trump blames immigration and trade unlike traditional elite Republicans. These are economic issues.

    Trump supporters no longer believe or trust the Republican elite who they see as corrupt which is partly true. They've been backing Nixon, Reagan, Bush etc and things are just getting worse. They've been played.

    Granted it's complicated and partly they see their side as losing and so are doubling down on the conservatism, racism, sexism etc. But Trump *brags* that he was against the Iraq war. That's not an elite Republican opinion.

    likbez -> DrDick... , -1
    My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders.

    Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude.

    Looks like they have found were to go this election cycle and this loss of the base is probably was the biggest surprise for neoliberal Democrats.

    Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to me.

    Some data suggest that among unions which endorsed Hillary 3 out of 4 members will vote against her. And that are data from union brass. Lower middle class might also demonstrate the same pattern this election cycle.

    In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and double dealing are still too fresh.

    We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise. That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks.

    likbez : , October 24, 2016 at 12:00 PM
    My impression is that that key issue is as following: a vote for Hillary is a vote for the War Party and is incompatible with democratic principles.

    She is way too militant, and is not that different in this respect from Senator McCain. That creates a real danger of unleashing the war with Russia.

    Trump with all his warts gives us a chance to get some kind of détente with Russia.

    In other words no real Democrat can vote for Hillary.

    [Oct 25, 2016] karl1haushofer

    Oct 25, 2016 | gravatar.com
    says:

    September 28, 2016 at 10:46 am Russia made another mistake back in 2014 when it handed the MH-17 wreck to the West. What Russia should have done is to keep all the evidence to itself and conduct its own investigation, denying the West any role in it. Reply
          • marknesop says: September 28, 2016 at 1:35 pm Yes, I'm sure an investigation by Russia – which the west had already designated the prime suspect – of wreckage it controlled in secret and would not let the west see would have had all kinds of credibility. But you don't think that either. You're just trolling. Reply
            • Moscow Exile says: September 28, 2016 at 9:56 pm Skimming through the UK newspapers this morning, as well as the BBC, the Dutch MH-17 report seems not to have caused headline news.

              The Telegraph front page is dominated by a shock-horror football corruption scandal (I mean that big girl's game with a round ball - what they like to call "soccer" outside the UK), the Independent has as its lead story the Congress veto on Obama, the BBC - the same. A far cry from when news of the downing broke and such headlines as "Putin's Killed My Son!" screamed out from the British gutter press.

              And that's not the distressed father's son pictured next to the headline: it's the British monarch's great-grandson, George, whose parents are at present waving to Canadians,the child's mother displaying, as ever, her inane, fixed grin. Reply

    [Oct 24, 2016] Hillary might be a symptom of degenerate neoliberal aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Gen. Butler book War Is A Racket is still a classic book on the subject

    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm -> to pgl ... October 23, 2016 at 04:10 AM

    Ruling elite has a crook for a candidate appealing to fears and prefers her wars for oil to be with Russia.

    DrDick -> ilsm ... October 23, 2016 at 08:54 AM , 2016 at 08:54 AM

    More stupidity. First off, the American elite (like all elites) is far from unitary and most of them back Republicans, though they hedge their bets by also supporting centrist Democrats.
    ilsm -> DrDick... , October 23, 2016 at 11:25 AM
    Greed is a unifier. What they said on SNL opening skit...... Klinton is the republican.
    anne : , October 23, 2016 at 05:23 AM
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/790154851682545665

    Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

    Exploiting Cold War rhetoric & tactics has helped her win the election. I guess the idea is: deal with the aftermath and fallout later.

    Katrina vandenHeuvel @KatrinaNation

    How does new Cold War-- which ends space for dissent, hurts women & children, may lead to nuclear war--help what Clinton claims she is for?

    4:36 AM - 23 Oct 2016

    EMichael -> anne... , October 23, 2016 at 05:28 AM
    I would submit that there are very few voters that will vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick. Greenwald keeps falling and cannot get up.
    ilsm -> EMichael...
    Few "will [move the] vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick.

    Those "few" were awake during the 80's and see the nuclear/neocon dystopian horror behind Clinton. While Trump mentioned using nukes, Hillary's nuke policy is 'well' laid out by Robert Kagan and the hegemon interests.

    Recall Mao said "go ahead......' Nukes are just another form of the pointless body count strategy.

    likbez -> ilsm...
    Like before WWI, Hillary might be "a symptom of degenerate [neoliberal] aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power." Gen. Butler, "War Is A Racket." is still a classic book on the subject.

    See an interesting discussion at

    http://crookedtimber.org/2016/10/22/unnecessary-wars/#comments

    Here are a couple of comments
    == quote ===

    greg 10.22.16 at 11:02 pm ( 29 )

    All war is for profit. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought for profit. The profit from Iraqi oil and whatever was expected from Afghanistan were irrelevant. Weapons of mass destruction, the Taliban, even Isis, were and are all issues that could have been more efficiently handled, but instead were pretexts to convince the credulous of the necessity of war.

    The real profit was the profit taken by the military-political-industrial complex in the treasure and stolen rights of the American people. That is the bottom line for why we went to war, and why we are still there, and why, if our elites persist, we might go to war with Russia or China.

    The good news is that, because of the unrelenting depredations by American elites on the treasure and rights of the people, the United States is increasingly unable to wage war effectively. The bad news is that our elites are too blind to see this.

    America: Consuming your future today.

    ====

    Peter T 10.23.16 at 8:56 am

    faustusnotes

    fear of "socialism" – meaning, broadly, greater popular participation in politics – was explicitly a major factor in the German and Russian decisions for war. In both cases, they hoped victory would shore up increasingly fragile conservative dominance. It also underlay British and French attitudes. 1870-1914 was a very stressful time for elites.

    1915 was too early for any of the combatants to settle. By mid-late 1916 there were some voices in favour of negotiations, but the Germans would have none of it then or in 1917. By the time the Germans were prepared to talk (mid 1918), they had lost. Fear of socialism was again a major factor in the post-war settlements.

    Liberals of today see World War I as the great disaster that shattered the pre-war liberal order. In the same way, the generation post 1815 saw the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars as the great disaster that shattered the happy old order. The extent of the damage and loss was much the same in each, although World War I took 5 years to do what the French wars did in 25.

    ===

    Omega Centauri 10.23.16 at 1:13 am ( 33 )

    The decision to continue it seems to be a natural consequence of the human proclivity towards doubling down. This operates on many levels, some of which are related to the need for vindication of those involved in the decision to start the conflict.

    There is also the horror that if you end a war without achieving something the masses can identify with as victory, then the families of those killed will see that their loved ones died in vain -- for someone else's mistake (very bad for your political future).

    And of course if you quit, what is to stop the enemy from extracting reparations or worse from you, because in his eyes, you are the criminal party. Much easier to try yet one more offensive, or to lure a formerly neutral party into joining in and opening up another front, which you hope will break the stalemate.

    The thing that appalls me so much about the Great War, is how so many nations were dragged in, by promises of booty . In many ways it resembles the Peloponnisian war, in its inability to allow neutrals to be neutrals.

    [Oct 24, 2016] New generation forget about the horrors of previous wars and internationalist idea does not survive the new war first hours, let alone first weeks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. ..."
    "... It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France. ..."
    "... And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? ..."
    "... That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first weeks. ..."
    "... Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result. ..."
    "... Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were. ..."
    "... Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace. The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case. ..."
    "... the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war. ..."
    "... I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When? ..."
    "... It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes. ..."
    "... If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences. ..."
    "... The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.) ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 10.22.16 at 8:46 pm ( 25 )

    The case against war was fully developed and strongly argued in the years before 1914 . . .

    Was it? I wonder about that.

    Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. It is on this point that I think arguments from before the war cannot have the weight the horror of experience must give them. Elite leadership across Europe failed.

    It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France.

    It is inexplicable, really, unless you can see that the moral and practical case against war is not fully developed between the wars; if there's a critique that made use of experience in its details in the 1920s and 1930s and made itself heard, I missed it - it seems like opposites of such an appreciation triumph.

    And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? There's certainly a socialist argument against war, based on the illegitimacy of war's class divisions, which were conveniently exemplified in military rank and reactionary attitudes among the officer class. That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first weeks.

    Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result.


    bruce wilder 10.22.16 at 8:47 pm.26

    Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were.

    Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace. The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case.

    Without looking it up I recall Barbara Tuchman using the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war.

    I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When?

    The long effort by reactionary forces to assemble a coalition capable of defeating Napoleon had created in Europe what for a time was called the Concert of Europe. Austria, Prussia and Russia initially cooperated in suppressing liberal and nationalist aspirations and that effort gradually morphed into efforts to harness or channel rising liberalism and nationalism and industrial power.

    It was the evolved apparatus descended from Metternich's Congress of Vienna thru Bismarck's Congress of Berlin that made wars brief and generally decisive in regard to some policy end.

    The long list of successive crises and brief wars that stevenjohnson references above - often cited as evidence of the increasing fragility of the general peace - could just as well be cited as evidence for the continued effectiveness of the antique Concert of Europe in containing and managing the risk of general war. (Fashoda 1898, Venezuela 1902, Russo-Japanese War 1905, Agadir 1911, Balkan Wars 1911-1912 - it can be a very long list).

    It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes.

    If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences.

    It was one of the mechanisms for peace by international law - the neutrality of Belgium mutually guaranteed by Britain and Germany in the Treaty of London 1839 - that triggered Britain's entry as an Allied Power and general war. There is, of course, no particular reason Australia should have taken an interest in Belgium's neutrality, but it was that issue that seemed to compel the consensus of opinion in favor of war in Britain's government.

    The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.)

    What I don't find is the alternative lever or mechanism at the ready, put in place by this fully developed argument against war. The mechanism in place was the neutrality of Belgium guaranteed by international law (arguably reinforced in the stipulations of the Hague Conference of 1907). If Germany doesn't violate Belgian neutrality, the result in the West at least is stalemate as France and Germany are evenly matched across their narrow and mostly impassable frontier; in the East, Russia must concede to Germany even as Austria must concede to Russia; - instead of a general conflagration, the result is another negotiated settlement of some sort, perhaps arbitrated by Britain or the U.S.

    The urgent questions of the day regarding the organization of modern liberal polities in the territories of Ottoman Turkey, Hapsburg Austria and Czarist Russia - what is the strongly argued and fully developed case there? How is the cause of Polish nationalism, or Finnish nationalism or Yugoslav nationalism to be handled or managed without violence and war?

    The antique system of a Concert of Europe had kinda sorta found a way by means of short and decisive engagements followed by multi-power negotiation, a pattern that had continued with the gradual emergence of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania. But, where was the argument for managing irredentism and nationalist aspiration peacefully?

    [Oct 24, 2016] Soros-Linked Voting Machines Cause Concern Over Rigged Election

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama said back in 2008: "I want to be honest, it's not as if it's just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. Sometimes, Democrats have, too." ..."
    "... hillary goes along with CIA and the neocon/zionist/MIC agenda but she's replaceable. ..."
    "... An out of control, above the law, criminal mafia acting on behalf of the Saudis and Israelis (if you think Syria is about the petrodollar or a Qatari pipeline... Think again - it's about Iran and Russia and about Greater Israel and its Leviathan and Golan gas most of all - Zbig et al would prefer to be full battle rattle in Ukraine and Chechnya...) is stopped how? ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    A U.K. based company that has provided voting machines for 16 states, including important battleground states like Florida and Arizona, has direct ties with billionaire leftist and Clinton crusader George Soros.

    With recent WikiLeaks emails showing that Hillary Clinton received foreign policy directives and coordinated on domestic policy with Soros , along with receiving tens of millions of dollars in presidential campaign support from the billionaire, concerns are growing that these shadowy players may pull the strings behind the curtains of the upcoming presidential election.

    As Lifezette reports , the fact that the man in control of voting machines in 16 states is tied directly to the man who has given millions of dollars to the Clinton campaign and various progressive and globalist causes will surely leave a bad taste in the mouth of many a voter.

    The balloting equipment tied to Soros is coming from the U.K. based Smartmatic company, whose chairman Mark Malloch-Brown is a former UN official and sits on the board of Soros' Open Society Foundation.

    According to Lifezette , Malloch-Brown was part of the Soros Advisory Committee on Bosnia and also is a member of the executive committee of the International Crisis Group, an organization he co-founded in the 1990s and built with funds from George Soros' personal fortune.

    In 2007 Soros appointed Malloch-Brown vice-president of his Quantum Funds, vice-chairman of Soros Fund Management, and vice-chairman of the Open Society Institute (former name of OSF).

    Browns ties also intertwine with the Clintons as he was a partner with Sawyer-Miller, the consulting firm where close Clinton associate Mandy Grunwald worked. Brown also was also a senior advisor to FTI Consulting, a firm at which Jackson Dunn, who spent 15 years working as an aide to the Clintons, is a senior managing director.

    When taking that into account, along with the poor track record Smartmatic has of providing free and fair elections, this all becomes quite terrifying.

    An astonishing 2006 classified U.S. diplomatic cable obtained and released by WikiLeaks reveals the extent to which Smartmatic may have played a hand in rigging the 2004 Venezuelan recall election under a section titled "A Shadow of Fraud." The memo stated that "Smartmatic Corporation is a riddle both in ownership and operation, complicated by the fact that its machines have overseen several landslide (and contested) victories by President Hugo Chavez and his supporters."

    "The Smartmatic machines used in Venezuela are widely suspected of, though never proven conclusively to be, susceptible to fraud," the memo continued. "The Venezuelan opposition is convinced that the Smartmatic machines robbed them of victory in the August 2004 referendum. Since then, there have been at least eight statistical analyses performed on the referendum results."

    "One study obtained the data log from the CANTV network and supposedly proved that the Smartmatic machines were bi-directional and in fact showed irregularities in how they reported their results to the CNE central server during the referendum," it read.

    With such suspicion and a study which claims to prove that the U.K. firm's equipment tampered with the 2004 Venezuelan recall election, should be enough for states to reject these machines if they desire a fair election.

    Smartmatic is providing machines to Arizona, California, Colorado, Washington DC, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, which means these Soros and Clinton linked machines are going to take the votes of thousands of Americans.

    While GOP nominee Donald Trump has been voicing his opinion that the elections are indeed rigged due to media bias, and the proof that mainstream polls are heavily weighted to favor Clinton , it is needless to say that if the results show Hillary as a winner in November, there is going to a mess to shuffle through to find signs of honesty.

    MillionDollarBonus_ Ghost of PartysOver Oct 24, 2016 10:57 AM ,

    MSNBC are reporting that Hillary is absolutely surging and now leading by double digits! America is going absolutely wild for Hillary!! This is very exciting – I can sense victory, and I see that bitter right-wingers can sense defeat as they pre-emptively blame their loss on vote rigging. There is no such thing as election rigging, unless we're talking about Al Gore losing to Bush – there was clear evidence of rigging during this election. But Republicans are known for rigging elections. Democrats have never, and will never rig an election.

    HOW TO FACT CHECK THE LIES AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES OF THE ALT RIGHT

    Cliff Claven Cheers BaBaBouy Oct 24, 2016 11:02 AM
    We the people ask congress to meet in emergency session about removing George Soros owned voting machines from 16 states

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/we-people-ask-congress-meet-e...

    Signed the Deplorably Dicked

    DD

    Beam Me Up Scotty Cliff Claven Cheers Oct 24, 2016 11:29 AM ,
    Two words: PAPER BALLOTS!!! How anyone with 3 brain cells or more can't see that paper ballots are the way to go when voting is beyond me. There is a paper trail, and they cannot be hacked. They can be recounted. Machines are easily manipulated and there is NO PAPER trail to recount. Use paper ballots and tell Gerge Soros to go fuck himself.
    Notveryamused Manthong Oct 24, 2016 12:11 PM ,
    The Soros voting machine issue is one of the largest problems with this election. Trump has mentioned him by name twice during the debates and has also talked openly about a 'rigged' election. I hope he will address this directly.

    We're already seeing the polls skew in Clinton's direction in unusual states like Arizona so even that is on the cards to be stolen.

    Mroex Beam Me Up Scotty Oct 24, 2016 11:54 AM ,
    Yes you are Damn right. Paper ballots were used in the Brexit vote and surprise surprise the people won

    I can wait a day or two for results, I do not need instant results

    Paper ballots would be kept under lock and quarded by representives of both parties

    then when the time has come they would be counted and verified by both party reps

    FUCK any form of voting machine, be it electronic or be it mechanical

    fx MillionDollarBonus_ Oct 24, 2016 11:18 AM ,
    LOL, not even your big hero Barry would claim that. To wit: Obama said back in 2008: "I want to be honest, it's not as if it's just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. Sometimes, Democrats have, too."

    And this time, it seems to be more than some monkeying on part of Hitlery and Barry. Rather "we rigged some votes and screwed some folks." Go figure.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-22/obama-warned-rigged-elections-b...

    AViewFromDublin fx Oct 24, 2016 11:26 AM ,

    Speaking at a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, Million Dollar Bonus said: "To say you won't respect the results of the election, that is a direct threat to our democracy.

    "The peaceful transfer of power is one of the things that makes America America.

    And look, some people are sore losers, and we just got to keep going" It was actually Hillary Clinton who said that, same difference lol,
    War Machine crossroaddemon Oct 24, 2016 11:29 AM ,
    You make a good point, and to distill the matter to its essence, apart from a controlled media and well established and entrenched special, foreign and banking interests in DC... The CIA is a CRIMINAL MAFIA acting under color of law, currently taking Saudi money to pay jihadi and 'blackwater' type mercs in Syria, and by the way Yemen, and elsewhere, to include the slow ramp up in E Ukraine.

    hillary goes along with CIA and the neocon/zionist/MIC agenda but she's replaceable.

    No they can and will steal this election if, in fact, Trump were to get a majority of votes (which by the way is unlikely - study the demographics... trump can not beat hillary when she has 70/80% of women, the latinos, blacks, leftists, and so on) - but the underlying issue remains:

    An out of control, above the law, criminal mafia acting on behalf of the Saudis and Israelis (if you think Syria is about the petrodollar or a Qatari pipeline... Think again - it's about Iran and Russia and about Greater Israel and its Leviathan and Golan gas most of all - Zbig et al would prefer to be full battle rattle in Ukraine and Chechnya...) is stopped how?

    Considering that US military personnel may quite literally be killed by CIA provided weapons, one might posit that one scenario is CIA personnel being hunted down and arrested (or not) by elements of the US special forces although this doesn't happen without either strong and secure leadership or some paradigm-shifting revelation.

    For example- if more knew how exceedingly likely it is that 9/11 was an inside/Israeli job... Knew it... Things might change.

    but I'm not optimistic.

    hillary means ww3, and we are not the good guys. If we ever were..

    Mroex crossroaddemon Oct 24, 2016 11:39 AM ,
    Things were way different back when JFK was killed, I know I was around then.

    For one thing there was no internet, and people trusted and respected the media (TV and Newspapers) This trust made it very easy to coverup and / or bury details.

    People overwhelmingly trusted government officials, Very few people questioned what government and media told them, again this makes it super easy to lie and coverup

    I repect your question, and I hope you consider what I said. I am trying to make the case that assasination is no longer an option, not unless they want to truly start a real civil war. Which I would not rule out. But if they wish to keep the status quo and the sheep silent, assasination is way way to risky for the reasons I mentioned above

    [Oct 24, 2016] New generation forget about the horrors of previous wars and internationalist idea does not survive the new war first hours, let alone first weeks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. ..."
    "... It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France. ..."
    "... And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? ..."
    "... That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first weeks. ..."
    "... Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result. ..."
    "... Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were. ..."
    "... Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace. The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case. ..."
    "... the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war. ..."
    "... I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When? ..."
    "... It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes. ..."
    "... If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences. ..."
    "... The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.) ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 10.22.16 at 8:46 pm ( 25 )

    The case against war was fully developed and strongly argued in the years before 1914 . . .

    Was it? I wonder about that.

    Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. It is on this point that I think arguments from before the war cannot have the weight the horror of experience must give them. Elite leadership across Europe failed.

    It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France.

    It is inexplicable, really, unless you can see that the moral and practical case against war is not fully developed between the wars; if there's a critique that made use of experience in its details in the 1920s and 1930s and made itself heard, I missed it - it seems like opposites of such an appreciation triumph.

    And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? There's certainly a socialist argument against war, based on the illegitimacy of war's class divisions, which were conveniently exemplified in military rank and reactionary attitudes among the officer class. That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first weeks.

    Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result.


    bruce wilder 10.22.16 at 8:47 pm.26

    Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were.

    Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace. The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case.

    Without looking it up I recall Barbara Tuchman using the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war.

    I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When?

    The long effort by reactionary forces to assemble a coalition capable of defeating Napoleon had created in Europe what for a time was called the Concert of Europe. Austria, Prussia and Russia initially cooperated in suppressing liberal and nationalist aspirations and that effort gradually morphed into efforts to harness or channel rising liberalism and nationalism and industrial power.

    It was the evolved apparatus descended from Metternich's Congress of Vienna thru Bismarck's Congress of Berlin that made wars brief and generally decisive in regard to some policy end.

    The long list of successive crises and brief wars that stevenjohnson references above - often cited as evidence of the increasing fragility of the general peace - could just as well be cited as evidence for the continued effectiveness of the antique Concert of Europe in containing and managing the risk of general war. (Fashoda 1898, Venezuela 1902, Russo-Japanese War 1905, Agadir 1911, Balkan Wars 1911-1912 - it can be a very long list).

    It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes.

    If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences.

    It was one of the mechanisms for peace by international law - the neutrality of Belgium mutually guaranteed by Britain and Germany in the Treaty of London 1839 - that triggered Britain's entry as an Allied Power and general war. There is, of course, no particular reason Australia should have taken an interest in Belgium's neutrality, but it was that issue that seemed to compel the consensus of opinion in favor of war in Britain's government.

    The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.)

    What I don't find is the alternative lever or mechanism at the ready, put in place by this fully developed argument against war. The mechanism in place was the neutrality of Belgium guaranteed by international law (arguably reinforced in the stipulations of the Hague Conference of 1907). If Germany doesn't violate Belgian neutrality, the result in the West at least is stalemate as France and Germany are evenly matched across their narrow and mostly impassable frontier; in the East, Russia must concede to Germany even as Austria must concede to Russia; - instead of a general conflagration, the result is another negotiated settlement of some sort, perhaps arbitrated by Britain or the U.S.

    The urgent questions of the day regarding the organization of modern liberal polities in the territories of Ottoman Turkey, Hapsburg Austria and Czarist Russia - what is the strongly argued and fully developed case there? How is the cause of Polish nationalism, or Finnish nationalism or Yugoslav nationalism to be handled or managed without violence and war?

    The antique system of a Concert of Europe had kinda sorta found a way by means of short and decisive engagements followed by multi-power negotiation, a pattern that had continued with the gradual emergence of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania. But, where was the argument for managing irredentism and nationalist aspiration peacefully?

    [Oct 24, 2016] Hillary might be a symptom of degenerate neoliberal aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Gen. Butler book War Is A Racket is still a classic book on the subject

    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm -> to pgl ... October 23, 2016 at 04:10 AM

    Ruling elite has a crook for a candidate appealing to fears and prefers her wars for oil to be with Russia.

    DrDick -> ilsm ... October 23, 2016 at 08:54 AM , 2016 at 08:54 AM

    More stupidity. First off, the American elite (like all elites) is far from unitary and most of them back Republicans, though they hedge their bets by also supporting centrist Democrats.
    ilsm -> DrDick... , October 23, 2016 at 11:25 AM
    Greed is a unifier. What they said on SNL opening skit...... Klinton is the republican.
    anne : , October 23, 2016 at 05:23 AM
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/790154851682545665

    Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

    Exploiting Cold War rhetoric & tactics has helped her win the election. I guess the idea is: deal with the aftermath and fallout later.

    Katrina vandenHeuvel @KatrinaNation

    How does new Cold War-- which ends space for dissent, hurts women & children, may lead to nuclear war--help what Clinton claims she is for?

    4:36 AM - 23 Oct 2016

    EMichael -> anne... , October 23, 2016 at 05:28 AM
    I would submit that there are very few voters that will vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick. Greenwald keeps falling and cannot get up.
    ilsm -> EMichael...
    Few "will [move the] vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick.

    Those "few" were awake during the 80's and see the nuclear/neocon dystopian horror behind Clinton. While Trump mentioned using nukes, Hillary's nuke policy is 'well' laid out by Robert Kagan and the hegemon interests.

    Recall Mao said "go ahead......' Nukes are just another form of the pointless body count strategy.

    likbez -> ilsm...
    Like before WWI, Hillary might be "a symptom of degenerate [neoliberal] aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power." Gen. Butler, "War Is A Racket." is still a classic book on the subject.

    See an interesting discussion at

    http://crookedtimber.org/2016/10/22/unnecessary-wars/#comments

    Here are a couple of comments
    == quote ===

    greg 10.22.16 at 11:02 pm ( 29 )

    All war is for profit. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought for profit. The profit from Iraqi oil and whatever was expected from Afghanistan were irrelevant. Weapons of mass destruction, the Taliban, even Isis, were and are all issues that could have been more efficiently handled, but instead were pretexts to convince the credulous of the necessity of war.

    The real profit was the profit taken by the military-political-industrial complex in the treasure and stolen rights of the American people. That is the bottom line for why we went to war, and why we are still there, and why, if our elites persist, we might go to war with Russia or China.

    The good news is that, because of the unrelenting depredations by American elites on the treasure and rights of the people, the United States is increasingly unable to wage war effectively. The bad news is that our elites are too blind to see this.

    America: Consuming your future today.

    ====

    Peter T 10.23.16 at 8:56 am

    faustusnotes

    fear of "socialism" – meaning, broadly, greater popular participation in politics – was explicitly a major factor in the German and Russian decisions for war. In both cases, they hoped victory would shore up increasingly fragile conservative dominance. It also underlay British and French attitudes. 1870-1914 was a very stressful time for elites.

    1915 was too early for any of the combatants to settle. By mid-late 1916 there were some voices in favour of negotiations, but the Germans would have none of it then or in 1917. By the time the Germans were prepared to talk (mid 1918), they had lost. Fear of socialism was again a major factor in the post-war settlements.

    Liberals of today see World War I as the great disaster that shattered the pre-war liberal order. In the same way, the generation post 1815 saw the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars as the great disaster that shattered the happy old order. The extent of the damage and loss was much the same in each, although World War I took 5 years to do what the French wars did in 25.

    ===

    Omega Centauri 10.23.16 at 1:13 am ( 33 )

    The decision to continue it seems to be a natural consequence of the human proclivity towards doubling down. This operates on many levels, some of which are related to the need for vindication of those involved in the decision to start the conflict.

    There is also the horror that if you end a war without achieving something the masses can identify with as victory, then the families of those killed will see that their loved ones died in vain -- for someone else's mistake (very bad for your political future).

    And of course if you quit, what is to stop the enemy from extracting reparations or worse from you, because in his eyes, you are the criminal party. Much easier to try yet one more offensive, or to lure a formerly neutral party into joining in and opening up another front, which you hope will break the stalemate.

    The thing that appalls me so much about the Great War, is how so many nations were dragged in, by promises of booty . In many ways it resembles the Peloponnisian war, in its inability to allow neutrals to be neutrals.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Ruling elite has a crook for a candidate appealing to fears and prefers her wars for oil to be with Russia.

    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> DrDick...October 23, 2016 at 04:10 AM
    Greed is a unifier.

    What they said on SNL opening skit...... Klinton is the republican.

    [Oct 24, 2016] the Dutch investigators were basing their conclusions on recorded conversations provided by the SBU

    Oct 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    cartman , September 28, 2016 at 7:53 am
    John Helmer has his analysis up. This part is important, since the Dutch "investigators" were basing their conclusions on recorded conversations provided by the SBU (such as the one that appeared on YouTube a day before the crash?)

    "Westerbeke acknowledged that all the telephone intercepts and wiretaps reported as evidence of Russian involvement in the reported missile operation originated from the Ukrainian secret service. Evidence of the missile movement, ground launch, and smoke trail from social media, photographs and videotapes, and purported witnesses presented at today's JIT session have all appeared publicly before; much of it already discredited as fakes."

    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=16440#more-16440

    marknesop , September 28, 2016 at 8:03 am
    The Ukies must be dancing in the corridors of power – the west supported them in spite of the ridicule and disgust that political decision incurred. This must surely be evidence of their national greatness.
    cartman , September 28, 2016 at 9:38 am
    The report is also based off of "social media"

    Too bad they didn't see that map that "journalists" were breathtakingly sharing that showed that pro-Trump tweets originated in a Russian bot factory in St. Petersburg. It turns out that map is a complete fake, probably created by Hillary's troll bots.

    marknesop , September 28, 2016 at 9:45 am
    The west is doubling down, but it will only harden Russian resolve. Things just escalated a few more notches.
    Pavlo Svolochenko , September 28, 2016 at 8:42 pm
    The lazy swamp monkeys should mail it back to two years ago when anyone remembered or cared about MH 17.
    Jeremn , September 28, 2016 at 6:48 am
    Video used in the JiT presentation on MH17. Watch all of it, if you can bear it. But look at the back of the low-loader platform at 03:31 exactly. The red upward ramps sudddenly disappear.

    This is proof of a fake. Good God.

    et Al , September 28, 2016 at 9:24 am
    It's fairly clear that Bell End's Cat is just the medium to feed carefully doctored intel so that the United States doesn't have to show its satellite recording of the launch, the one John Kerry said the US had but no-one has heard of since.

    On CNN this morning, John Kerry said the US actually observed the missile launch with satellite imagery and watched it hit the plane. And yet there were no assets in the area t the time of Benghazi – or at least that is what the Administration tells us. There was no drone in the air.

    marknesop , September 28, 2016 at 9:36 am
    Yes, the US can make exorbitant claims now that the decision has been rendered, cut and dried, and it no longer has to show its evidence. Now Kerry can strut and whoop and beat his chest and say we saw this, we saw that. Nobody will ever know. Reply

    [Oct 24, 2016] the newly-released raw radar data from Russia marknesop ,

    Oct 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    September 26, 2016 at 1:04 pm
    Typical of Eliot 'Tubby' Higgins, his take on the newly-released raw radar data from Russia is that it proves they faked their previous evidence. Keep on trollin', Tubby. What of all Bellingcat's 'evidence' of the surreptitious Buk launcher being smuggled into Ukraine from Russia and back again? It looks like a lot of theories may go up in smoke – not least the one that it was a Ukrainian fighter jet, since the Ust-Donetsk radar would surely have seen that.
    Chinese American , September 27, 2016 at 1:48 pm
    But then that means he thinks the new evidence the Russian defense ministry released must be genuine, since it can be used to prove something?

    Of course, the Russian defense ministry never claimed an Ukrainian fighter jet shot down the airliner. If have always be very careful to only say "this is what we observed; we are putting it out there". For me, it's interesting to consider the timing of Russia's new revelations. Clearly, Russia is playing a careful game in the info war against the powerful Western brainwashing machine.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Something interesting in the air, according to the Interfax feed

    Oct 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Jeremn , September 26, 2016 at 8:01 am

    Something interesting in the air, according to the Interfax feed:

    16:05
    Kyiv has still not published info on Ukrainian surface-to-air missile systems, conversations between dispatchers on day of Boeing crash – Russian Defense Ministry

    16:02
    Ukrainian air defense means were located near Boeing 777 crash site – Russian Aerospace Forces

    15:52
    Russian Defense Ministry accuses Ukraine of manipulating investigation into Malaysian Boeing crash

    15:48
    Russian Defense Ministry says Ukraine conceals info regarding 2014 Boeing crash

    15:46
    Netherlands will get from Russia irrefutable info on Boeing 777 crash in Donbas – Russian Defense Ministry

    15:39
    Russian radar station didn't register air objects coming towards Boeing in sky over Donbas from Snizhne side

    15:28
    INTL INQUIRY INTO BOEING 777 DISASTER IN UKRAINE IS ON THE WRONG TRACK; MISSILE TYPE, PLACE OF LAUNCH DETERMINED WRONGLY – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

    15:25
    RUSSIA TO GIVE OBJECTIVE AND IRREFUTABLE INFO ON BOEING 777 CRASH TO NETHERLANDS – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

    15:24
    KYIV CONCEALS INFO ON BOEING 777 DISASTER, FLIGHT WAS FOLLOWED BY UKRAINE'S RADARS, AIR DEFENSE FORCES – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

    15:24
    UKRAINE HAS NOT PUBLISHED INFO ON LOCATION OF ITS SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES BUK ON THE DAY OF BOEING 777 CRASH, MILITARY DISPATCHERS' CONVERSATIONS – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

    marknesop , September 26, 2016 at 12:04 pm
    Recently unearthed raw radar data from a civilian radar at Ust-Donetsk. The memory chips were replaced in July 2014, and they have recently come to light. Russia claims they are solid proof of the direction from which the attack came, but I'm not over-hopeful. The western point of view will be, the radar doesn't show anything. That doesn't mean there wasn't anything there. Maybe the radar just wasn't working properly. Or maybe the information was there, but has been edited out somehow. Of course, if the raw data shows MH17 right up until it is hit, it might be extremely valuable. We'll see. Can't wait for the Ukrainian reaction.

    Hmmmm….I guess I should have paid closer attention on the first run-through. According to the story, the raw video does indeed show MH-17, as well as two other civilian aircraft in the vicinity, the closest at only about 30 km away at the time it was shot down.

    Kiev will of course scream that the info is faked, and Russia is panicking because the final report is due, and the US State Department will of course back Kiev up for as long as it can. But experts will be able to tell if anything has been altered, and if they cannot find any such evidence they may have no choice but to accept it in the absence of any contradictory evidence – or any evidence at all – from Kiev.

    Ooooooo…the system also detected an Orlan-10 drone; much smaller than an SA-11. A lot slower, though. Reply

    [Oct 24, 2016] Seeing More of the Big Picture in Ukraine by marknesop

    Canadian view on consequences of Maydan. Deviates from views of Canadian Ukrainian Diaspora...
    Sep 14, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Posted on September 14, 2016

    ...let's roll the counters back to September 18, 2013 – almost exactly three years ago. Just before, of course, the glorious Maidan which freed Ukrainians from the oppressive yoke of Russia. At that moment in history, western analysts were trembling with eagerness to vilify Yanukovych, but were still hopeful that he would stick his head out of his shell long enough to sign the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) with the European Union. Washington maintains a kind of ongoing paternal affection for revolution – which is always less painful and noisy when it's a continent or two away – but is practical enough to accept an easy victory if that's the way it plays out.

    It didn't play out like that, of course, and an American-backed coup ensued in which Yanukovych offered to give the revolutionary political figures everything they had asked for – early elections, a provisional coalition government with the egghead among the revolutionaries as Prime Minister, the works. They were a little taken aback at how easy it was, and then decided it wasn't enough – Yanukovych must be holding back something if he gave in that easily, and therefore he must be tricking them, since the script called for the dictator-president to cower in fear and to be flung into the street in disgrace. So they went ahead with the traditional revolution, gaining nothing at all thereby except the ushering-in of a self-appointed revolutionary junta, and the empowerment of fervent fascist nationalists who had previously had to keep their admiration for the Nazis on the down-low.

    It is worth mentioning here – because whenever it is brought up, the response ranges from amnesia to outright denial it ever happened – that the pre-revolutionary government went into it with its eyes wide open and a good working awareness of the probable consequences. Yanukovych and Azarov, at least, were briefed that cutting off trade with Russia, which Brussels and Washington insisted upon, would likely be disastrous for the Ukrainian economy. Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Boiko announced that Ukraine was not blowing off the deal entirely; it was just suspending it until the state could be sure that increased trade with Europe would compensate for the loss of the Russian market. Before that, Yanukovych and Azarov tried energetically to broker a triumvirate coalition of Ukraine, Russia and the EU, to sort out the trade issues that Brussels insisted made such an arrangement impossible. Not to put too fine a point on it, Russia and Ukraine proposed a tripartite forum which would see Ukraine as a bridge between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union. Brussels emphatically rejected it, confident that it could pry Ukraine away from Russia, because the initiative was always strategic rather than economic .

    The government of the day in Ukraine saw fairly clearly what was likely going to happen – and so did we, didn't we? Yes, we did, as detailed here . We pointed out that nearly half those Ukrainians who answered a survey that they wanted Ukraine to join the EU did so because it would strengthen and grow the Ukrainian economy, but that it was difficult to see how that would come about considering 60% of Ukraine's trade was with the former Soviet market, and highlighted the unlikelihood that Europe was going to pick up 60%-plus of Ukraine's trade, resulting in prosperity. We pointed out that only half as many people who responded to the survey that Ukraine's relations with Russia were characterized as 'friendly' said the same of relations with the EU. So, you could kind of see how (a) a failure to see rapid economic benefits as a result of signing the agreement, coupled with (b) the opposite effect, a precipitate drop in trade, plus (c) severing of relations with a country nearly a quarter of Ukrainians considered a friend, in exchange for a necrophiliac relationship with a trade union few cared much for except for the usual percentage of lapdog dissidents, was very likely to result in widespread dissatisfaction and an explosive situation. Did it? It sure did.

    Anyway, as much fun as tooting our own horn is, that's not exactly what I wanted to talk about. I want to review, in exquisite detail, the panorama of failure that is Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's (RFE/RL) feelgood graphic presentation for the rubes and dimwits on how association with the EU was going to be better than sex in warm chocolate for Ukraine. And that forecast has turned out to be about as accurate as a prediction that Justin Bieber would be nominated UN Secretary-General by popular acclaim.

    But let's not leave it at that. Because you know that if those who forecast disaster for Ukraine – based on, I think, the ability to read and to add – had somehow been wrong, and Ukraine had sprinted into double-digit economic growth and taken over the role of driving engine of the European economy, we would never have been allowed to forget it. Turnabout, then, being fair play…

    1. The cream-skimming oligarchy, accustomed to riding to wealth on the backs of its panting workforce, will be out – swept away by a new era of small-business confidence. Did that happen? Hardly. The President Ukraine eventually elected was fingered for starting up a new offshore shell corporation even as his troops were being driven into a disastrous encirclement at Ilovaisk. The same old oligarchs continue to control more than 70% of Ukraine's GDP. The Anti-Corruption Committee appointed by Poroshenko, unsurprisingly, declined to investigate him for corruption . Now more than two years into his presidency, Poroshenko still has not sold his assets as he promised to do if elected, and his businesses continue to fatten his personal bottom line in direct contravention of Ukrainian law and the Constitution. Never a peep of protest about that, though, from Poroshenko's International Advisory Council , which includes former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, former Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and make-believe-economist wooden-head Anders Aslund. This council continues to advise the President of what remains the most corrupt country in Europe .

    2. The boss at the company where you work will have to learn different ways to lead, because screaming and ranting are not acceptable in Europe. In many European countries, the boss is just a senior worker who you can call by his first name. This sort of rolls into the first point, but it seems sort of self-evident that if Ukrainian companies do not do more business with Europe and replace their lost Russian markets, and the same oligarchs still own the same companies, little will change about employee-employer dynamics. According to Eurostat , Ukraine's trade with the EU was down sharply in 2015 in both imports and exports. A decrease in imports is not particularly surprising – Ukraine is living on handouts from the international community while it continues to pour funding into its armed forces so that it can pursue the game of civil war, and hasn't any money. Not to mention thousands of Ukrainian working stiffs are employed by Roshen, owned by the President, so I wouldn't be trying out, "Morning, Petro – how's it hanging?" on my tongue any time soon if I were you. The new Prime Minister, Vladimir Groysman, is unlikely to be 'Vova' to very many workers, either. He's quite wealthy in his own right, at least part of that wealth shunted from EU development funds to his father's cement and asphalt company. However, as an unnamed Ukrainian politician is said to have quipped to a Ukrainskaya Pravda reporter when Groysman received his new appointment, "Do you know what the difference is between Groysman and Yatsenyuk? When Volodymir [Groysman] will start stealing, he will steal off the profit. Yatsenyuk was doing it off the loss." It's good to see Ukrainians haven't lost their sense of humour.

    3. As the standard of living improves in Ukraine, people will begin to trust each other. In Yanukovych's Ukraine, people tended to trust only their own small circle, but in the New Ukraine, the doormat will be changed from "Beat It, Shyster!" to "Come On In, Friend!" I'll let Thomas C. Theiner take over on the subject of trust in Ukraine, post-Maidan. A committed Atlanticist neoconservative and former cheerleader for Ukraine, Theiner lived in Kiev for 5 years, and has the advantage of personal knowledge. In his assessment, if you are the type who likes to throw away money, go to Vegas instead of Kiev – that way, at least there's a chance you'll see a return. Thomas?

    "Even today, it's impossible for a foreign businessman to start a company in Ukraine without being harassed for bribes. If you pay, they just demand more; if you don't pay, you won't succeed at all. The only way out is to hire a local to help you navigate the bureaucracy and grease the correct wheels. But whomever you hire will charge a 400-500 percent premium. Hiring a foreign law company with offices in Kyiv, which charges Western prices, is the only alternative."

    Expectations of a dramatic change were not realized, and the changing of the guard only brought in different crooks. No significant progress has been made on corruption. If your company is successful without the correct palms being greased, an expedient will be found for getting you out of town for a few days. When you come back, the company will be under new ownership, and like George Thorogood in "Move it on Over" , your key won't fit no more. Move over, little dog, a big ol' dog's movin' in. All puffickly legal, as well, by Ukrainian courts.

    4. Without gross, horrible, corrupt Yanukovych in charge, trust in the police will rise and pretty soon they will be rescuing kitties from trees instead of taking bribes and roughing people up. Just last month, at least three police officers in western Ukraine beat Oleksandr Tsukerman and shot him dead in front of his relatives, including his mother. Around 200 local residents gathered in front of the police station, and uniformed officers had to keep them back when the detained police officers who are accused of the crime were brought out. In case you were thinking the dead man was a violent criminal who somehow invited his own death, the Ukrainian Police Chief ordered the entire station disbanded. A group of people in the same region were beating up passers-by right in front of the police , and officers involved in a wrongful death and four officers who raped a woman and fractured her skull were not dismissed from their jobs. Call me a pessimist, but that doesn't sound encouraging to me.

    5. The difference in social status between the very wealthy and the middle class will gradually disappear, and rich people will no longer be VIP's. It's pretty easy to show this one up for the epic piece of optimistic stupidity it was. The President of Ukraine is also an active businessman and multimillionaire, while per-capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power, for the ordinary folk, has collapsed and the unemployment rate is leaping upward in great jagged peaks. Yet according to the State Statistics of Ukraine, wage growth has been steady and touched a record high in July 2016. A month later, a Ukrainian miner on live TV set himself afire at a press conference to protest wage arrears. This desperate protest is alleged to have taken place after industrial action and hunger strikes failed to move the government. How can these two realities co-exist? I guess it's easy for wages to be at a record high if you don't…you know…pay them.

    6. Women's rights; in the European Parliament, a third of the members are women. In the Verkhovna Rada under jerky Yanukovych, only 10% were women. Well, folks, the glorious Maidan was not for nothing. The current Rada is 12.02% women – only 87.98% are men. The gain is mostly illusory, as only 416 seats of the Rada's statutory 450 are occupied due to the banning of certain political parties . But a third of 416 would be 138 women rather than the current 50, so women's rights groups should not relax just yet, as some work obviously remains to be done.

    7. In Yanukovych's Russia-friendly Ukraine, intolerance was the rule and blacks and homosexuals mostly stayed hidden. Most Ukrainians would not vote for a Jewish presidential candidate, and even fewer for a black one. How things have changed! Now Nazi symbology in public is commonplace in Ukraine , whilst the government ostentatiously banned Communist symbology and recognized Nazi-era collaborators as Freedom Fighters. As best I recall, the Nazis were not known for their tolerance. How many Ukrainians in the new Europe-ready Ukraine would vote for a black or a gay presidential candidate? A Gay Pride march in Kiev scheduled for 2014 was canceled when authorities refused to police the event and said they could not guarantee the participants' safety from homophobic violence. At another attempt in 2015 , international supporters from Canada had to cross three lines of police to get to the meeting point, and were given a list of things to not do: Don't wear bright colours. Don't kiss or hold hands. Don't speak to the police unless spoken to. The bus company which was approached by Kiev Pride to take the marchers to and from the march allegedly refused, saying, "We'll take the diplomats, we'll take the journalists, but we're not taking any faggots." Clearly, tolerance not only has not improved, but is in full retreat and is not a priority for the new government.

    8. Life expectancy. In 2010 , the year Yanukovych was elected president, it was 70.2 years. In 2016 , it's 69.6. I'm having a hard time seeing that as an improvement.

    9. Health. Sports clubs encourage a healthier lifestyle. Most of Ukraine's sports clubs and facilities were inherited from the Soviet Union. A search for "Poroshenko opens new sports club" yielded nothing much except the news – I guess I shouldn't be surprised – that he owns one : (search for "Poroshenko's allies show up on website listing tax-haven firms") Fifth Element, at 29A Electrykiv St. in Kiev. That's also the registered address of Intraco Management, owned by deputy head of Roshen Sergey Zaitsev. Intraco Management showed up in Mossack-Fonseca's records, which came to be better known as the Panama Papers. Meanwhile, health care in Ukraine remains deplorable and there has been no noticeable improvement.

    In fact, although you can find the occasional bright spot if your business is finding bright spots and spinning them into a tapestry of success, Ukraine is a nation in free-fall. The currency is trading at 26.33 UAH to the US greenback , slowly edging up to that truly scary record spike of 33.5 to the dollar in February of last year. Pre-Maidan, the rate was about 7 hryvnia to the dollar. When Poroshenko assumed his present office, it was 12 to the dollar. The president's approval rating has corkscrewed down to around 10% . Believe it or not – and I frankly find it incomprehensible there can be an electorate anywhere, whose fingers must be nothing but scar tissue now from being burnt so many times, that so adamantly will not change its ways – the current leader in the polls is… Yulia Tymoshenko. Yes, indeed; if anything can save the floundering country, it's another stinking-rich oligarch. Yulia Tymoshenko, multi-millionaire. Ukrainian family living wage , 9,950 UAH per month, about $383.00 USD. Per month. And the reduced price for gas for households was canceled in May , as an anti-corruption measure.

    By the benchmarks set in the happy-time graphic, Ukraine is failing catastrophically in every metric, gasping for breath like a fish on the kitchen floor with someone standing on it. There is zero chance of any kind of peace deal this year, since Poroshenko arbitrarily decided to reverse the agreed-upon terms and announce no moves toward autonomy for the east could take place until Russia returned control of the border to Ukraine – causing Russia to withdraw from the Normandy format, since negotiations with such a fucking blockhead are a complete waste of everyone's time.

    To be completely fair to RFE/RL, they did not originate the graphic; that came from the highly-imaginative Institute of World Politics in Ukraine. But it fits perfectly with RFE/RL's style; it's hard for a one-time CIA-funded leopard to change its spots, and many of it columnists seem to rely far more on imagination themselves when they are writing their material. So they can own it.

    [Oct 24, 2016] I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of Committee to Defend the Liberal Order when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato ..."
    "... A very interesting and pretty plausible hypothesis... That actually is the most deep insight I got from this interesting discussion. In such case intelligence agencies are definitely a part of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" which is yet another explanation of their strange behavior. ..."
    "... it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation schemes. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Dan Kervick -> Sandwichman ...

    I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato. Reply Monday, October 24, 2016 at 02:11 PM

    likbez -> Dan Kervick..., October 24, 2016 at 06:34 PM

    Dan,

    > ...some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato.

    A very interesting and pretty plausible hypothesis... That actually is the most deep insight I got from this interesting discussion. In such case intelligence agencies are definitely a part of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" which is yet another explanation of their strange behavior.

    Thank you --

    Dan Kervick -> likbez... October 24, 2016 at 01:14 PM , 2016 at 01:14 PM
    I can't claim that a mere mortal like me actually has the slightest clue what is really going on. All I will hazard is that, whatever it is, it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation schemes.

    Where this kind of high level foreign policy is involved, the US government and intelligence services blew their cred with me long ago. I disbelieve them now on as a strong and resilient prior.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Six reasons for optimism (and one big one for pessimism) - Crooked Timber

    Notable quotes:
    "... the discontent that motivates the Trump voters seems less likely to just vanish. We seem to be in the midst of a realignment of both UK and US politics, of which Trump and Farrage are just symptoms ..."
    "... Trump should be defeated according to most here. Some may actually believe Trump really is the anti-Christ Hitler we've been constantly told he is, instead of a widely watched and often admired vulgarian capitalist welcomed into living rooms across America for more than a decade. Whatever Trump is, he's not Cruz. His supporters are not Cruz supporters. Yet. ..."
    "... Which is why, in this instance, I think the polls are wrong. Who in their right mind is going to ever admit that Trump's language and behavior is not offensive? Nobody. Who in their right mind looks out at America and sees Donald Trump, not Bill Cosby etc, etc, etc as a threat to their own daughters, sisters, sons, etc? Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald. ..."
    "... The stink coming out of the Clinton campaign is so rank it's actually penetrating the media wall of silence. Given that social media provides numerous ways for candidates to bypass the gate-keepers, I suspect enough voters are learning what's in the emails whether CNN, or the Wapo, report the discoveries, or not. ..."
    "... On most wedge issues, Trump is running as a bog-standard Republican conservative, and he's losing on those issues. ..."
    "... Indeed I see the synthesis of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism as the final consolidation of conservatism and the end of what we have understood as history – the final triumph of capitalism as it dies. ..."
    "... The right has also succeeded in the same way to reduce consumer rights. Arbitration agreements are attached to almost everything you buy that needs an agreement (software, mobile phones, etc.) before use. The agreements not only mandate secret arbitration they also prevent consumers from banding together in order to form a class thus making each individual consumer litigate alone. Obviously this reduces the power of individual consumers and also decreases the incentive for any one consumer to do something about what, on the individual level, may be a small injury. Basically it allows business to steal a small amount from a lot of people. ..."
    "... On the "economy", "taxes", and, "foreign affairs" the respondents "trust" the GOP more than the Dems. Though on one key measure "caring about people like you" the Dems are trusted over the GOP by a slight margin. ..."
    "... The reduction of marginal income tax rates on the highest "wage" incomes combined with new doctrines of corporate business leadership that emphasized the maximization of shareholder value created a new class of C-suite business executives occupying positions of great political power as allies and servants of the rentier class of Capital owners. The elaborate structures of financial repression and mutual finance were systematically demolished, removing many of the protections from financial predation afforded the working and middle classes. ..."
    "... she's the least popular Democratic candidate perhaps ever! That's the only reason it would be close. A party built around the principles of white male supremacy and dedicated to expanding the wealth and income gap is at a massive disadvantage in any non-gerrymandered election. ..."
    "... It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace movement through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it in response to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror' (even as he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals as well until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention' has been hugely successful in that effort. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    SusanC 10.24.16 at 11:00 am

    Trump himself will go away, I think. But the discontent that motivates the Trump voters seems less likely to just vanish. We seem to be in the midst of a realignment of both UK and US politics, of which Trump and Farrage are just symptoms. Farrage has already made an attempt at retiring from politics, and I could easily see Trump going back to reality television after the election. The real question is: what will their supporters do next?

    I am also surprised that Corey thinks feminism and the civil rights movement has been defeated. These seem to me to be areas in which some progress has been made (along with other forms of identity politics, e.g. gay marriage). It's been the class-based labour/union movement that's been the real loser.

    Possibly it depends on which time scale you're talking about, and that some of us now count as old people, in that our implicit timescale is over our lifetimes. Maybe young college students think that all the progress made by feminism happened before they were even born, and things have slowed down of late. (With a slight hat-tip to Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions , I could easily see some further progress on feminist issues being made simply by the older guys in management positions dying off, and being replaced by younger people who grew up in a different culture),

    kidneystones 10.24.16 at 11:15 am ( 13 )

    Make that 4 and 2

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

    I disagree with the basic premise of the post in that the right has been beaten because it has won.

    That's certainly not how the right sees the landscape. The tea party of 2010 was co-opted by Richard Armey and the Kochs on the one hand and buried under a mountain of forms by Lois Lerner on the other. The Armey group rallies to Ted Cruz, who is sure to have something to say about America and the future of the Republican party should Trump be undone because of his lewd behavior and actions.

    The media is certain to be savaged no matter what the outcome. The number of artists and musicians who both profit from and promote misogyny and violence invited to the WH over the last 8 years to serve as role models for America's youth should raise nary an eyebrow. The prudery of the moment is going to be the template for 'social reform' under the Republicans. If Hillary and her media allies succeed in derailing the Trump insurgency via his mouth, his hands, and his zipper they're going to face an extremely hostile electorate. Cruz is certain to try to step into Trump's shoes as leader, preaching that Trump was a flawed messenger undone by an unforgiving god. This will make sense for too many Americans to completely ignore. The unhappy white males who have yet to self-identify as angry white males, rather than simply as Americans, may well decide to do so.

    Whatever few victories the Democrats enjoy lower down the ticket are unlikely to survive skyrocketing Affordable Care Act premiums, some form of amnesty, and an extension of America's wars in the ME. The Democrats are betting the farm that Republicans will never unlock the padlock Democrats maintain over socially-conservative minorities. Cruz's ground game and networking with the evangelical community didn't get the job done in 2016, but we can be sure that he and his team are already mapping 2020.

    Trump should be defeated according to most here. Some may actually believe Trump really is the anti-Christ Hitler we've been constantly told he is, instead of a widely watched and often admired vulgarian capitalist welcomed into living rooms across America for more than a decade. Whatever Trump is, he's not Cruz. His supporters are not Cruz supporters. Yet.

    I've no idea whether those supporting the Democratic candidate expect her to wake up on November 9, should she win, and suddenly decide to abandon the practices that got her this far. I certainly don't. If you're nauseated at the prospect of 4-8 more years of secrecy, war, lies, and corruption you're going to need to keep more than barf bags at hand, however. The polarization that has divided America over the last 8 years is, imho, far more likely to become much more corrosive and damaging with Democrats in charge.

    Ted Cruz will literally be burning crosses and probably books, pornography, and anyone/thing else that strikes his fancy. The donor class is praying that Hillary/Bush can stamp out the fires. With rising unemployment, stagnating wages, and more and more Americans feeling that the system isn't interested in them, or their children, there may very well be a little hell to pay, or a lot.

    kidneystones 10.24.16 at 12:37 pm @ 14

    It won't surprise you to learn I think you're wrong about Trump. The battle against Trump is for many a rejection of what they see in the mirror transposed onto Trump, as far as males go. Many women, including some who support him, see in Trump a dangerous predator who offers the promise of protection and wealth, but at a cost. Good thing no woman would ever sell herself, or her principles, to such a man – and if Bill Clinton pops into your head, please don't blame me.

    Which is why, in this instance, I think the polls are wrong. Who in their right mind is going to ever admit that Trump's language and behavior is not offensive? Nobody. Who in their right mind looks out at America and sees Donald Trump, not Bill Cosby etc, etc, etc as a threat to their own daughters, sisters, sons, etc? Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald.

    I like your question re: Cruz. I find him such a phenomenally transparent phony that I can't quite believe anyone trusts him. With Trump, and Bill Clinton, what you see is what you get – Slick Willie.

    At the moment Americans are being told they don't like what they see in Trump, but if that were the case, why was he so popular back when he was actually on the Howard Stern show and otherwise acting out? I frankly don't think most Americans give a toss what Trump did or said this week, much less ten years ago.

    The stink coming out of the Clinton campaign is so rank it's actually penetrating the media wall of silence. Given that social media provides numerous ways for candidates to bypass the gate-keepers, I suspect enough voters are learning what's in the emails whether CNN, or the Wapo, report the discoveries, or not.

    Like I said. I think it will be close and right now I still say Trump edges it.

    Layman 10.24.16 at 12:55 pm

    "Clinton will win easily, but it could easily be argued that the victory will be over Trump the man than over any ideology. If Clinton were running against Cruz – who on any reasonable measure is well to the right of Trump – would she be 20 points ahead with women?"

    Hard to find more recent polling than this; but based on this, women would solidly still prefer Clinton over Cruz.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/190403/seven-women-unfavorable-opinion-trump.aspx

    I also doubt that notion that it is Trump's vulgarity, on its own, rather than Republican conservative ideology which is driving the likely result. Trump does himself no favors, but Clinton's negatives hold her back, too. On most wedge issues, Trump is running as a bog-standard Republican conservative, and he's losing on those issues.

    infovore 10.24.16 at 1:30 pm

    @13 "Oversampling" is jargon with a specific technical meaning. Pew describes what it is in its discussion of http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/sampling/

    Jerry Vinokurov 10.24.16 at 1:30 pm ( 21 )

    Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald.

    What odds would you accept on this outcome?

    SusanC 10.24.16 at 2:26 pm @20.

    Indeed. There's a difference between a biased sample and the oversampling technique. The difference being that with oversampling you statistically correct for the fact that you've intentionally sampled some subpopulation more frequently than you would have done if you just chose members of the whole population uniformly at random (while a biased sample just ignores or is ignorant of the problem…)

    (I hope this isn't too much of a derail. There is a grand CT tradition of yawn-not-that-again OPs with derails where you might learn something).

    Waiting for Godot 10.24.16 at 3:38 pm ( 23 )

    I am not sanguine about the apparent collapse of this version (Trump) of American fascism. If conservatism can be said to be that which argues for the preservation of traditional social institutions and traditional political values then conservatism is far from dying. Indeed I see the synthesis of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism as the final consolidation of conservatism and the end of what we have understood as history – the final triumph of capitalism as it dies.

    Bernard Yomtov 10.24.16 at 3:59 pm

    the reason I think the right has not much of a future is that it has won. If you consider its great animating energies since the New Deal-anti-labor, anti-civil rights, and anti-feminism-the right has achieved a considerable amount of success.

    I agree with dd that this is just wrong. Are labor, the civil rights movement, women's rights, worse than they were at the end of the New Deal? I don't see how.

    efcdons 10.24.16 at 4:16 pm ( 25 )

    The right has won or is winning in an some ways on labor and civil rights issues by changing the procedure by which one can assert the rights that may exist.

    The number of strikes are down as someone else mentioned. But the Right has also largely succeeded in reducing the ability of individual employees to engage in private actions to vindicate their rights. E.g. the huge increase in enforceable arbitration agreements in what are essentially contracts of adhesion. The Right has solidified the ability of business to prevent employees from using the independent, publicly funded judiciary, and instead forces them to use private, secretive, arbitrators who essentially work for the companies (because the business is a repeat player and the arbitrators rely on being chosen to arbitrate in order to make their money).

    The right has also succeeded in the same way to reduce consumer rights. Arbitration agreements are attached to almost everything you buy that needs an agreement (software, mobile phones, etc.) before use. The agreements not only mandate secret arbitration they also prevent consumers from banding together in order to form a class thus making each individual consumer litigate alone. Obviously this reduces the power of individual consumers and also decreases the incentive for any one consumer to do something about what, on the individual level, may be a small injury. Basically it allows business to steal a small amount from a lot of people.

    In regards to Clinton and her chances against any other Republican, here is some polling which suggests the country at least trust the GOP over the Dems on a number of important issues. It is from April, 2016 so not the freshest data. But it might indicate Trump's bog standard GOP policies are not what is driving votes to Clinton/away from Trump.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/dvsr.htm

    On the "economy", "taxes", and, "foreign affairs" the respondents "trust" the GOP more than the Dems. Though on one key measure "caring about people like you" the Dems are trusted over the GOP by a slight margin.

    bruce wilder 10.24.16 at 5:04 pm

    Among the most successful projects of the Right was financialization of the economy.

    The reduction of marginal income tax rates on the highest "wage" incomes combined with new doctrines of corporate business leadership that emphasized the maximization of shareholder value created a new class of C-suite business executives occupying positions of great political power as allies and servants of the rentier class of Capital owners. The elaborate structures of financial repression and mutual finance were systematically demolished, removing many of the protections from financial predation afforded the working and middle classes.

    In the current election, the Democratic Party has split on financial reform issues, with the dominant faction represented by the Party's candidate prioritizing issues of race and gender equality.

    Layman 10.24.16 at 5:06 pm ( 29 )

    "In regards to Clinton and her chances against any other Republican, here is some polling which suggests the country at least trust the GOP over the Dems on a number of important issues."

    I imagine any poll pitting 'generic Republican' against Hillary Clinton in April of this year would have shown 'generic Republican' winning. The problem is, you can't run 'generic Republican'.

    I'm hard pressed to point at any prominent Republican who I think would be handily beating Clinton now. Once you name them, they have to say what they're for and against, and she takes her shot at them, and they're fighting an uphill battle. And she's the least popular Democratic candidate perhaps ever! That's the only reason it would be close. A party built around the principles of white male supremacy and dedicated to expanding the wealth and income gap is at a massive disadvantage in any non-gerrymandered election.

    PGD 10.24.16 at 6:28 pm

    It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace movement through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it in response to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror' (even as he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals as well until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention' has been hugely successful in that effort.

    One of the most depressing things about this election campaign to me has been to see the Democrats using their full spectrum media dominance not to fight for a mandate for left policies, but to run a coordinated and effective propaganda campaign for greater U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, focusing on demonizing Putin and on humanitarian intervention rhetoric around Aleppo and the like.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Dont Repeat That To Anybody - Hillary Clinton And Donna Brazile Personally Implicated In Latest Project Veritas Video

    Oct 24, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Last week, Jame O'keefe and Project Veritas Action potentially altered the course of the U.S. election, or at a minimum raised serious doubts about the practices of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, after releasing two undercover videos that revealed efforts of democrat operatives to incite violence at republican rallies and commit "mass voter fraud." While democrats have vehemently denied the authenticity of the videos, two democratic operatives, Robert Creamer and Scott Foval, have both been forced to resign over the allegations.

    Many democrats made the rounds on various mainstream media outlets over the weekend in an attempt to debunk the Project Veritas videos. Unfortunately for them, O'Keefe fired back with warnings that part 3 of his multi-part series was forthcoming and would implicate Hillary Clinton directly.

    Anything happens to me, there's a deadman's switch on Part III, which will be released Monday. @HillaryClinton and @donnabrazile implicated.

    - James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 21, 2016

    Now, we have the 3rd installment of O'Keefe's videos which does seemingly reveal direct coordination between Hillary Clinton, Donna Brazile, Robert Creamer and Scott Foval to organize a smear campaign over Trump's failure to release his tax returns. Per Project Veritas :

    Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton's campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it's all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. " In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground," says Creamer in one of several exchanges. "So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground." It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: "Don't repeat that to anybody."

    Within the video both Clinton and Brazile are directly implicated by Creamer during the following exchange:

    "The duck has to be an Americans United for Change entity. This had to do only with some problem between Donna Brazile and ABC, which is owned by Disney, because they were worried about a trademark issue. That's why. It's really silly.

    We originally launched this duck because Hillary Clinton wants the duck .

    In any case, so she really wanted this duck figure out there doing this stuff, so that was fine. So, we put all these ducks out there and got a lot of coverage. And Trump taxes. And then ABC/Disney went crazy because they thought our original slogan was 'Donald ducks his taxes, releasing his tax returns."

    They said it was a trademark issue. It's not, but anyway, Donna Brazile had a connection with them and she didn't want to get sued. So we switched the ownership of the duck to Americans United for Change and now our signs say 'Trump ducks releasing his tax returns.' And we haven't had anymore trouble."

    As Project Veritas points out, this direct coordination between Clinton, Brazile and Americans United For Change is a violation of federal election laws:

    "The ducks on the ground are likely 'public communications' for purposes of the law. It's political activity opposing Trump, paid for by Americans United For Change funds but controlled by Clinton/her campaign."

    Here is the full video just released:

    As a reminder, below are parts 1 & 2 of the Project Veritas series in case you missed them.

    Video 1 revealed DNC efforts to incite violence at Trump rallies:

    Video 2 provided the democrat playbook on how to committ "mass voter fraud":

    RawPawg Oct 24, 2016 1:10 PM ,
    i'm waiting for SHTF

    And all I get is Ducks

    nope-1004 RawPawg Oct 24, 2016 1:15 PM ,
    Throw the scumbag Hillary in Jail!!!!

    It's time people acknolwedge the deep corruption and headed down to the Capital on foot.

    remain calm nope-1004 Oct 24, 2016 1:15 PM ,
    Comey will get right on it.
    Duane Norman remain calm Oct 24, 2016 1:16 PM ,
    And this is why the people want Trump, because he isn't above Comey!

    http://fmshooter.com/real-reasons-people-will-vote-for-trump/

    Occident Mortal nyse Oct 24, 2016 1:45 PM ,
    What's the bets Comey ends up at Goldman Sachs?

    e.g. VP without portfolio?

    NoDebt Occident Mortal Oct 24, 2016 2:01 PM ,
    "As Project Veritas points out, this direct coordination between Clinton, Brazile and Americans United For Change is a violation of federal election laws "

    Yeah, you pretty much got the head shot there. Unfortunately, no gun to shoot it from. The enforcement authorities all work FOR the Democrat party.

    Full spectrum dominance. It's a bitch. Even if you catch them red-haned there's no "authorities" to report it to that will listen to you.

    Remember what happened to Planned Parenthood when they were caught red-handed selling human tissue for profit (which is also illegal)? That's right. Nothing. Same thing here.

    Son of Loki NoDebt Oct 24, 2016 2:02 PM ,
    Clinton attack featuring Miss Universe was months in the making, email shows

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-attack-featuring-miss-uni...

    The Saint froze25 Oct 24, 2016 5:22 PM ,
    The problem is that the MSM isn't reporting on any of this stuff about Hillary. And, the Republicans in office aren't on the news at all to talk about any of this. So, the only place it is reported is on the Trump campaign trail where just a few thousand hear about.

    If the media won't report it and the Republicans won't talk about it, Hillary gets a pass. The audience for sites like ZH and Drudge are just preaching to the chior and not reaching the people who could change their minds or haven't made up their minds.

    froze25 -> ImGumbydmmt •Oct 24, 2016 3:40 PM
    What this video is, is evidence of collusion between a campaign and a SuperPac. That is illegal in a criminal court. This is enough to open an investigation, problem is nothing will be done by Nov 8th. All we can do is share it non-stop.
    Bastiat d Haus-Targaryen •Oct 24, 2016 2:11 PM
    Don't discount the Enquirer: remember who took down Gary Hart and John Edwards:

    Hillary Clinton's shady Mr. Fix It will tell all on TV tonight, just days after his explosive confession in The National ENQUIRER hit the stands.

    The man who's rocked Washington, D.C., will join Sean Hannity on tonight's episode of "Hannity" - airing on the FOX News Channel at 10 p.m. EST - to reveal his true identity at last.

    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/politics/hillary-clinton-lesbian-trysts-...

    [Oct 24, 2016] Peace Through Trump The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... US-Russia-China cooperation will eliminate for the US the threat of war with the only two powers whose nuclear capabilities could pose existential threats to the US. ..."
    "... Simultaneously, Trump will put an end to "the prevailing view that the U.S. is, and always must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its allies, satellites-and even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits, and knowhow…a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over the well-being of the larger U.S. population…Instead of sacrificing American economic interests on the altar of U.S. 'leadership,' [Trump] will view the strengthening of the American economy as central to American greatness." ..."
    "... President Trump will rebuild the decimated US manufacturing sector and return to Americans those tens of millions of jobs that America's globalist elites were allowed to ship overseas. Rebuilding the US economy – and jobs! – will be the centerpiece of a Donald Trump presidency. ..."
    "... The problem is that everyone wants to call themselves a Realist, even the Neocons. The Neocons proclaim that promoting Democracy, nation building, and being the world's policeman is 'realism' because if you withdraw from the world the problems follow you home. Tom Rogan bellowed that we needed to destroy Syria in the name of realism. They are totally wrong but the point is that everyone wants to claim this mantle which is why I tend to avoid this term. ..."
    "... I think we should embrace the Putin Doctrine but that name is toxic. Basically, he eschews destroying standing govts because it is highly destabilizing. This is common sense. ..."
    "... Oh, when I hear 'Bush kept us safe' it tears my heart out when I see guys in their 20/30's walking around with those titanium prosthetics. Do the 4,000+ men who died in Iraq and 10,000+ severely wounded count? And this does not even start to count the chaos and death in the M.E. ..."
    "... Mainstream media are besides themselves at the prospect of their masters having to relinquish their special entitlements; namely, designer wars, selection of the few to govern the many (Supreme Court and the Fed), and putting foreign dictates over American interests at an incredible cost to the U.S. in human and non-human resources. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Donald Trump played a wily capitalistic trick on his Republican opponents in the primary fights this year-he served an underserved market.

    By now it's a cliché that Trump, while on his way to the GOP nomination, tapped into an unnoticed reservoir of right-of-center opinion on domestic and economic concerns-namely, the populist-nationalists who felt left out of the reigning market-libertarianism of the last few decades.

    Indeed, of the 17 Republicans who ran this year, Trump had mostly to himself the populist issues: that is, opposition to open borders, to free trade, and to earned-entitlement cutting. When the other candidates were zigging toward the familiar-and unpopular-Chamber of Commerce-approved orthodoxy, Trump was zagging toward the voters.

    Moreover, the same sort of populist-nationalist reservoir-tapping was evident in the realm of foreign affairs. To put it in bluntly Trumpian terms, the New Yorker hit 'em where they weren't.

    The fact that Trump was doing something dramatically different became clear in the make-or-break Republican debate in Greenville, S.C., on February 13. Back in those early days of the campaign, Trump had lost one contest (Iowa) and won one (New Hampshire), and it was still anybody's guess who would emerge victorious.

    During that debate, Trump took what seemed to be an extraordinary gamble: he ripped into George W. Bush's national-security record-in a state where the 43rd president was still popular. Speaking of the Iraq War, Trump said, "George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East."

    And then Trump went further, aiming indirectly at the former president, while slugging his brother Jeb directly: "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that."

    In response, Jeb intoned the usual Republican line, "He kept us safe." And others on the stage in Greenville that night rushed to associate themselves with Bush 43.

    In the aftermath of this verbal melee, many thought that Trump had doomed himself. As one unnamed Republican "strategist" chortled to Politico , "Trump's attack on President George W. Bush was galactic-level stupid in South Carolina."

    Well, not quite: Trump triumphed in the Palmetto State primary a week later, winning by a 10-point margin.

    Thus, as we can see in retrospect, something had changed within the GOP. After 9/11, in the early years of this century, South Carolinians had been eager to fight. Yet by the middle of the second decade, they-or at least a plurality of them-had grown weary of endless foreign war.

    Trump's victory in the Palmetto State was decisive, yet it was nevertheless only a plurality, 32.5 percent. Meanwhile, Sen. Marco Rubio, running as an unabashed neocon hawk, finished second.

    So we can see that the Republican foreign-policy "market" is now segmented. And while Trump proved effective at targeting crucial segments, they weren't the only segments-because, in actuality, there are four easily identifiable blocs on the foreign-policy right. And as we delineate these four segments, we can see that while some are highly organized and tightly articulate, others are loose and inchoate:

    First, the libertarians. That is, the Cato Institute and other free-market think tanks, Reason magazine, and so on. Libertarians are not so numerous around the country, but they are strong among the intelligentsia.

    Second, the old-right "isolationists." These folks, also known as "paleocons," often find common ground with libertarians, yet their origins are different, and so is their outlook. Whereas the libertarians typically have issued a blanket anathema to all foreign entanglements, the isolationists have been more selective. During World War I, for example, their intellectual forbears were hostile to U.S. involvement on the side of the Allies, but that was often because of specifically anti-English or pro-German sentiments, not because they felt guided by an overall principle of non-intervention. Indeed, the same isolationists were often eager to intervene in Latin America and in the Far East. More recently, the temperamentally isolationist bloc has joined with the libertarians in opposition to deeper U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

    Third, the traditional hawks. On the proverbial Main Street, USA, plenty of people-not limited to the active-duty military, veterans, and law-enforcers-believe that America's national honor is worth fighting for.

    Fourth, the neoconservatives. This group, which takes hawkishness to an avant-garde extreme, is so praised, and so criticized, that there's little that needs be added here. Yet we can say this: as with the libertarians, they are concentrated in Washington, DC; by contrast, out beyond the Beltway, they are relatively scarce. Because of their connections to big donors to both parties, however, they have been powerful, even preeminent, in foreign-policy circles over the last quarter-century. Yet today, it's the neocons who feel most threatened by, and most hostile to, the Trump phenomenon.

    We can pause to offer a contextual point: floating somewhere among the first three categories-libertarians, isolationists, hawks-are the foreign-policy realists. These, of course, are the people, following in the tradition of the great scholar Hans Morgenthau, who pride themselves on seeing the world as it is, regarding foreign policy as just another application of Bismarckian wisdom-"the art of the possible."

    The realists, disproportionately academics and think-tankers, are a savvy and well-credentialed group-or, according to critics, cynical and world-weary. Yet either way, they have made many alliances with the aforementioned trio of groups, even as they have usually maintained their ideological flexibility. To borrow the celebrated wisdom of the 19th-century realpolitiker Lord Palmerston, realists don't have permanent attachments; they have permanent interests. And so it seems likely that if Trump wins-or anyone like Trump in the future-many realists will be willing to emerge from their wood-paneled precincts to engage in the hurly-burly of public service.

    Returning to our basic quartet of blocs, we can quickly see that two of them, the libertarians and the neocons, have been loudly successful in the "battle of ideas." That is, almost everyone knows where the libertarians and the neocons stand on the controversies of the moment. Meanwhile, the other two groups-the isolationists and the traditional hawks-have failed to make themselves heard. That is, until Trump.

    For the most part, the isolationists and hawks have not been organized; they've just been clusters of veterans, cops, gun owners, and like-minded souls gathering here and there, feeling strongly about the issues but never finding a national megaphone. Indeed, even organized groups, such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, sizable as they might be, have had little impact, of late, on foreign affairs.

    This paradoxical reality-that even big groups can be voiceless, allowing smaller groups to carry the day-is well understood. Back in 1839, the historian Thomas Carlyle observed of his Britain, "The speaking classes speak and debate," while the "deep-buried [working] class lies like an Enceladus"-a mythological giant imprisoned under a volcano. Yet, Carlyle continued, the giant under the volcano will not stay silent forever; one day it will erupt, and the inevitable eruption "has to produce earthquakes!"

    In our time, Trump has provoked the Enceladus-like earthquake. Over the past year, while the mainstream media has continued to lavish attention on the fine points of libertarianism and neoconservatism, the Peoples of the Volcano have blown up American politics.

    Trump has spoken loudly to both of his groups. To the isolationists, he has highlighted his past opposition to the Iraq and Libya misadventures, as well as his suspicions about NATO and other alliances. (Here the libertarians, too, are on board.) At the same time, he has also talked the language of the hawks, as when he has said, "Take the oil" and "Bomb the [bleep] out of them." Trump has also attacked the Iran nuclear agreement, deriding it as "one of the worst deals ever made."

    Thus earlier this year Trump mobilized the isolationists and the hawks, leaving the libertarians to Rand Paul and the neocons to Rubio.

    Now as we move to the general election, it appears that Trump has kept the loyalty of his core groups. Many libertarians, meanwhile, are voting for Gary Johnson-the former Republican governor at the top of the Libertarian Party's ticket-and they are being joined, most likely as a one-off, by disaffected Republicans and Democrats. Meanwhile, the neocons, most of them, have become the objective allies, if not the overt supporters, of Hillary Clinton.

    Even if Trump loses, his energized supporters, having found their voice, will be a new and important force within the GOP-a force that could make it significantly harder for a future president to, say, "liberate" and "democratize" Syria.

    ♦♦♦

    Yet now we must skip past the unknown unknowns of the election and ask: what might we expect if Trump becomes president?

    One immediate point to be borne in mind is that it will be a challenge to fill the cabinet and the sub-cabinet-to say nothing of the thousands of "Schedule C" positions across the administration-with true Trump loyalists. Yes, of course, if Trump wins that means he will have garnered 50 million or more votes, but still, the number of people who have the right credentials and can pass all the background checks-including, for most of the top jobs, Senate confirmation-is minuscule.

    So here we might single out the foreign-policy realists as likely having a bright future in a Trump administration: after all, they are often well-credentialed and, by their nature, have prudently tended to keep their anti-Trump commentary to a minimum. (There's a piece of inside-the-Beltway realist wisdom that seems relevant here: "You're for what happens.")

    Yet the path to realist dominion in a Trump administration is not smooth. As a group, they have been in eclipse since the Bush 41 era, so an entire generation of their cadres is missing. The realists do not have long lists of age-appropriate alumni ready for another spin through the revolving door.

    By contrast, the libertarians have lots of young staffers on some think-tank payroll or another. And of course, the neocons have lots of experience and contacts-yes, they screwed up the last time they were in power, but at least they know the jargon.

    Thus, unless president-elect Trump makes a genuinely heroic effort to infuse his administration with new blood, he will end up hiring a lot of folks who might not really agree with him-and who perhaps even have strongly, if quietly, opposed him. That means that the path of a Trump presidency could be channeled in an unexpected direction, as the adherents of other foreign-policy schools-including, conceivably, schools from the left-clamber aboard. As they say in DC, "personnel is policy."

    Still, Trump has a strong personality, and it's entirely possible that, as president, he will succeed in imprinting his unique will on his appointees. (On the other hand, the career government, starting with the State Department's foreign service officers, might well prove to be a different story.)

    Looking further ahead, as a hypothetical President Trump surveys the situation from the Sit Room, here are nine things that will be in view:

    1.

    Trump will recall, always, that the Bush 43 presidency drove itself into a ditch on Iraq. So he will surely see the supreme value of not sending U.S. ground troops-beyond a few advisors-into Middle Eastern war zones.

    2.

    Trump will also realize that Barack Obama, for all his talk about hope and change, ended up preserving the bulk of Bush 43's policies. The only difference is that Obama did it on the cheap, reducing defense spending as he went along.

    Obama similar to Bush-really? Yes. To be sure, Obama dropped all of Bush's democratic messianism, but even with his cool detachment he kept all of Bush's alliances and commitments, including those in Afghanistan and Iraq. And then he added a new international commitment: "climate change."

    In other words, America now has a policy of "quintuple containment": Russia, China, Iran, ISIS/al-Qaeda, and, of course, the carbon-dioxide molecule. Many would argue that today we aren't managing any of these containments well; others insist that the Obama administration, perversely, seems most dedicated to the containment of climate change: everything else can fall apart, but if the Obamans can maintain the illusion of their international CO2 deals, as far as they are concerned all will be well.

    In addition, Uncle Sam has another hundred or so minor commitments-including bilateral defense treaties with countries most Americans have never heard of, along with special commitments to champion the rights of children, women, dissidents, endangered species, etc. On a one-by-one basis, it's possible to admire many of these efforts; on a cumulative basis, it's impossible to imagine how we can sustain all of them.

    3.
    A populist president like Trump will further realize that if the U.S. has just 4 percent of the world's population and barely more than a fifth of world GDP, it's not possible that we can continue to police the planet. Yes, we have many allies-on paper. Yet Trump's critique of many of them as feckless, even faithless, resonated for one big reason: it was true.

    So Trump will likely begin the process of rethinking U.S. commitments around the world. Do we really want to risk nuclear war over the Spratly Islands? Or the eastern marches of Ukraine? Here, Trump might well default to the wisdom of the realists: big powers are just that-big powers-and so one must deal with them in all their authoritarian essentiality. And as for all the other countries of the world-some we like and some we don't-we're not going to change them, either. (Although in some cases, notably Iraq and Syria, partition, supervised by the great powers, may be the only solution.)

    4.

    Trump will surely see world diplomacy as an extension of what he has done best all his life-making deals. This instinct will serve him well in two ways: first, he will be sharply separating himself from his predecessors, Bush the hot-blooded unilateralist war-of-choicer and Obama the cool and detached multilateralist leader-from-behind. Second, his deal-making desire will inspire him do what needs to be done: build rapport with world leaders as a prelude to making things happen.

    To cite one immediate example: there's no way that we will ever achieve anything resembling "peace with honor" in Afghanistan without the full cooperation of the Taliban's masters in Pakistan. Ergo, the needed deal must be struck in Islamabad, not Kabul.

    Almost certainly, a President Trump will treat China and Russia as legitimate powers, not as rogue states that must be single-handedly tamed by America.

    Moreover, Trump's deal-making trope also suggests that instead of sacrificing American economic interests on the altar of U.S. "leadership," he will view the strengthening of the American economy as central to American greatness.

    5.

    Trump will further realize that his friends the realists have had a blind spot of late when it comes to eco nomic matters. Once upon a time-that is, in the 19th century-economic nationalism was at the forefront of American foreign-policy making. In the old days, as America's Manifest Destiny stretched beyond the continental U.S., expansionism and Hamiltonianism went together: as they used to say, trade follows the flag. Theodore Roosevelt's digging of the Panama Canal surely ranks as one of the most successful fusions of foreign and economic policy in American history.

    Yet in the past few decades, the economic nationalists and the foreign-policy realists have drifted apart. For example, a Reagan official, Clyde Prestowitz of the Economic Strategy Institute, has been mostly ignored by the realists, who have instead embraced the conventional elite view of free trade and globalization.

    So a President Trump will have the opportunity to reunite realism and economic nationalism; he can once again put manufacturing exports, for example, at the top of the U.S. agenda. Indeed, Trump might consider other economic-nationalist gambits: for example, if we are currently defending such wealthy countries as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Norway, why aren't they investing some of the trillions of dollars in their sovereign-wealth funds into, say, American infrastructure?

    6.

    Trump will also come into power realizing that he has few friends in the foreign-policy establishment; after all, most establishmentarians opposed him vehemently. Yet that could turn out to be a real plus for the 45th president because it could enable him to discard the stodgy and outworn thinking of the "experts." In particular, he could refute the prevailing view that the U.S. is, and always must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its allies, satellites-and even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits, and knowhow. That was always, of course, a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over the well-being of the larger U.S. population-and maybe Trump can come up with a better and fairer vision.

    7.

    As an instinctive deal-maker, Trump will have the capacity to clear away the underbrush of accumulated obsolete doctrines and dogmas. To cite just one small but tragic example, there's the dopey chain of thinking that has guided U.S. policy toward South Sudan. Today, we officially condemn both sides in that country's ongoing civil war. Yet we might ask, how can that work out well for American interests? After all, one side or the other is going to win, and we presumably want a friend in Juba, not a Chinese-affiliated foe.

    On the larger canvas, Trump will observe that if the U.S., China, and Russia are the three countries capable of destroying the world, then it's smart to figure out a modus vivendi among this threesome. Such practical deal-making, of course, would undermine the moralistic narrative that Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are the potentates of new evil empires.

    8.

    Whether or not he's currently familiar with the terminology, Trump seems likely to recapitulate the "multipolar" system envisioned by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in the 1970s. Back then, the multipolar vision included the U.S., the USSR, Western Europe, China, and Japan.

    Yet multipolarity was lost in the '80s, as the American economy was Reaganized, the Cold War grew colder, and the Soviet Union staggered to its self-implosion. Then in the '90s we had the "unipolar moment," when the U.S. enjoyed "hyper-power" primacy.

    Yet as with all moments, unipolarity soon passed, undone by the Iraq quagmire, America's economic stagnation, and the rise of other powers. So today, multipolarity seems destined to re-emerge with a slightly upgraded cast of players: the U.S., China, Russia, the European Union, and perhaps India.

    9.

    And, of course, Trump will have to build that wall along the U.S.-Mexican border.

    ♦♦♦

    Some might object that I am reading too much into Trump. Indeed, the conventional wisdom, even today, maintains that Trump is visceral, not intellectual, that he is buffoonish, not Kissingerian.

    To such critics, this Trump supporter feels compelled to respond: when has the conventional wisdom about the New Yorker been proven correct?

    It's not easy to become president. In all of U.S. history, just 42 individuals have been elected to the presidency-or to the vice presidency and succeeded a fallen president. That is, indeed, an exclusive club. Or as Trump himself might say, it's not a club for dummies.

    If Trump does, in fact, become the 45th president, then by definition, he will have proven himself to be pretty darn strategic. And that's a portent that bodes well for his foreign policy.

    James P. Pinkerton is a contributor to the Fox News Channel.

    Kurt Gayle , October 24, 2016 at 12:03 am
    Among James Pinkerton's most compelling reasons to hope for a Trump presidency are these two:

    [1] "Almost certainly, a President Trump will treat China and Russia as legitimate powers, not as rogue states that must be single-handedly tamed by America…Trump will observe that if the U.S., China, and Russia are the three countries capable of destroying the world, then it's smart to figure out amodus vivendi among this threesome…"

    US-Russia-China cooperation will eliminate for the US the threat of war with the only two powers whose nuclear capabilities could pose existential threats to the US.

    [2] Simultaneously, Trump will put an end to "the prevailing view that the U.S. is, and always must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its allies, satellites-and even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits, and knowhow…a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over the well-being of the larger U.S. population…Instead of sacrificing American economic interests on the altar of U.S. 'leadership,' [Trump] will view the strengthening of the American economy as central to American greatness."

    President Trump will rebuild the decimated US manufacturing sector and return to Americans those tens of millions of jobs that America's globalist elites were allowed to ship overseas. Rebuilding the US economy – and jobs! – will be the centerpiece of a Donald Trump presidency.<

    Chris Chuba , October 24, 2016 at 8:28 am
    The problem is that everyone wants to call themselves a Realist, even the Neocons. The Neocons proclaim that promoting Democracy, nation building, and being the world's policeman is 'realism' because if you withdraw from the world the problems follow you home. Tom Rogan bellowed that we needed to destroy Syria in the name of realism. They are totally wrong but the point is that everyone wants to claim this mantle which is why I tend to avoid this term.

    I think we should embrace the Putin Doctrine but that name is toxic. Basically, he eschews destroying standing govts because it is highly destabilizing. This is common sense.

    Oh, when I hear 'Bush kept us safe' it tears my heart out when I see guys in their 20/30's walking around with those titanium prosthetics. Do the 4,000+ men who died in Iraq and 10,000+ severely wounded count? And this does not even start to count the chaos and death in the M.E.

    PAXNOW , October 24, 2016 at 10:13 am
    Trump just came across as different while maintaining conservative, albeit middle-American values. Mainstream media are besides themselves at the prospect of their masters having to relinquish their special entitlements; namely, designer wars, selection of the few to govern the many (Supreme Court and the Fed), and putting foreign dictates over American interests at an incredible cost to the U.S. in human and non-human resources.

    The song goes on. Trump hit a real nerve. Even if he loses, the American people have had a small but important victory. We are frustrated with the ruling cabal. A sleeping giant has been awoken. This election could be the political Perl Harbor….

    Ed Johnson , October 24, 2016 at 10:41 am
    Pinkerton has spent thousands of words writing about someone who is not the Donald Trump anyone has ever seen.

    In this, he joins every other member of the Right, who wait in hopeful anticipation to see a Champion for their cause in Donald Trump, and are willing to turn a blind eye to his ignorance, outright stupidity, lack of self-discipline, and lack of serious intent.

    Pinkerton, he will only follow your lead here if he sees what's in it for HIM, not for the Right and certainly not for the benefit of the American people.

    w vervin , October 24, 2016 at 1:00 pm
    Flawed premise. This opine works its way through the rabbit hole pretzel of current methodologies in D.C. The ones that don't work. The city of NY had a similar outcome building a certain ice skating facility within the confines of a system designed to fail.

    What Trump does is implode those failed systems, implements a methodology that has proven to succeed, and then does it. Under budget and before the deadline. Finding the *right* bodies to make it all work isn't as difficult as is surmised. What that shows is how difficult that task would be for the author. Whenever I hear some pundit claim that Trump can't possibly do all that means is the pundit couldn't possibly do it.

    The current system is full of youcan'tdoits, what have you got to lose, more of the same?

    [Oct 24, 2016] Some very interesting new aspects on the crash of flight MH17. Looks like the investigators forgot a possibility of a missle armed drone from nearby NATO maneuvers or from SBU

    That would be a pretty devious plot indeed...
    Notable quotes:
    "... a Python-5 (or Derby) missile can also be carried by an Israeli combat drone such as the Heron-TP (Eitan) , which easily reaches an altitude of 10 to 15km. (More on Israeli combat drones, see here , here and here ). ..."
    "... Because they wrongly assumed MH17 could only have been downed by the local war parties, i.e. the Ukrainian military or the Eastern Ukrainian rebels. Therefore, they wrongly restricted the "air-to-air scenario" to a Ukranian fighter jet, which was then excluded. The official investigation did not consider the possibility that a third party with more advanced technological capabilities may have been involved in the downing of MH17. ..."
    "... There is a video of a skype conversation with one of his officers (who suspected Kolomoyskyi had a hand in the downing of MH17) in which Kolomoyskyi called the crash of MH17 "a trifle". ..."
    "... According to another report , the exercise also included "the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)" . Moreover, "BREEZE included the AEGIS-class guided missile cruiser USS Vela Gulf. AEGIS cruisers' AN/SPY 1 radar has the ability to track all aircraft over a large region. (…) From the Black Sea, the Vela Gulf was able to track Malaysian Airlines 17 over the Black Sea and any missiles fired at the plane. U.S. AWACS electronic intelligence (ELINT) aircraft were also flying over the Black Sea region at the time of the MH-17 flyover of Ukraine. Growler aircraft have the capability to jam radar systems in all surface-to-air threats." ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | mh17scenario5.wordpress.com

    In August 2015, a Russian study suggested that MH17 was shot down by an Israeli Python-5 air-to-air missile (which usually targets the cockpit of a plane due to an advanced electro-optical guidance system). Yet the authors still assumed the missile must have been fired by a fighter jet. Because Ukraine has no fighter jets that can carry a Python-5, the authors speculated that a special version of a Georgian fighter jet may have been used. This seems unlikely.

    However, a Python-5 (or Derby) missile can also be carried by an Israeli combat drone such as the Heron-TP (Eitan) , which easily reaches an altitude of 10 to 15km. (More on Israeli combat drones, see here , here and here ).

    Why did the official investigation not even consider the scenario of a combat drone?

    Because they wrongly assumed MH17 could only have been downed by the local war parties, i.e. the Ukrainian military or the Eastern Ukrainian rebels. Therefore, they wrongly restricted the "air-to-air scenario" to a Ukranian fighter jet, which was then excluded. The official investigation did not consider the possibility that a third party with more advanced technological capabilities may have been involved in the downing of MH17.

    Excerpt from the JIT presentation (after they have excluded an accident and a bomb):

    Why did the official investigation conclude it must have been a BUK missile ?

    The only reason why the official investigation concluded MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile is that two pieces of butterfly-shaped warhead fragments were "found" in the debris of the plane:

    fragments-found-mh17
    Two pieces of butterfly-shaped fragments found in the debris of MH17 (top-left and top-right).

    These butterfly-shaped warhead fragments are found in only one specific warhead: a BUK warhead of type 9N314M1 :

    bukshrapnel-11
    Different types of BUK missiles and warheads.

    There is only one problem with this story: Almaz-Antey, the manufacturer of the BUK sytem, attested that a 9N314M1 warhead can only be used on an advanced BUK missile of type 9M38M1 (see image above). However, even the official investigation acknowledges that the Eastern Ukrainian rebels could not have possessed this advanced type of BUK missile, but only a standard missile of type 9M38 . Yet according to the manufacturer, a standard 9M38 BUK missile can carry only a standard warhead of type 9N314 , which does not contain the butterfly-shaped warhead fragments (see image above).

    There is however a much more plausible explanation for the two butterfly-shaped fragments found in the debris: they may simply have been planted prior to the examination in order to incriminate the rebels (and Russia), while overlooking the fact that the only warhead containing these fragments is perhaps not even compatible with a standard BUK missile.

    This explanation is in line with several other facts:

    1. No butterfly-shaped holes were found on the cockpit or fuselage of MH17
    2. The corpses of the cockpit crew, in which one of the butterfly-shaped fragments was "found", got a "special treatment" at a Ukranian mortuary prior to their delivery to the Netherlands
    3. The tests carried out by the manufacturer of the BUK system showed that if indeed a 9N314M1 warhead had been used, not only would there be many butterfly-shaped holes in the fuselage, but many more than just two such fragments would have been found in the wreckage. These results were again ignored by the official investigation.
    4. There is already strong indication that a third butterfly-shaped fragment was indeed planted in the wreckage after the crash.
    More faulty logic

    The next excerpt from the DSB report shows again the faulty logic applied by the official investigation:

    1. They first assume that "air-to-air" can only mean a local (Ukranian) fighter jet. Wrong!
    2. Because of this, they consider only locally available (Soviet/Russian) air-to-air missiles. Wrong!
    3. They identify three (Soviet) missiles with a fragmentation-explosion warhead (R-33, R-37 and R-40). However, because none of these contain "bow-tie" (butterfly) shaped fragments, they exclude the use of any air-to-air missile. Wrong!
    4. Because of this, they think they can exclude the air-to-air scenario altogether. Wrong!
    5. Finally, they add that in the case of an air-to-air attack, "another aircraft" (near MH17) would have to have been recorded "at least by primary radar data". Wrong again! Besides, the investigation didn't even have access to primary radar data (see point 5 above).

    ... ... ...

    If the downing of MH17 was indeed a carefully planned operation, the preparation of such false photos and videos putting the blame to the rebels (and Russia) would have been an integral an rather easy part of it.

    Who controlled the airspace in which MH17 was downed?

    It is perhaps noteworthy that MH17 was downed in the airspace of Ukrainian Oblast (region) Dnipropetrovsk . In July 2014, this Oblast was controlled by Ukrainian-Israeli oligarch Igor Kolomoyskyi , who had been governor of Dnipropetrovsk since March of that year. Now:

    Perhaps all of this is not important. Or perhaps it is. At any rate, the official investigation never looked into it.

    Why did nobody – not even Russia – ever mention the drone scenario?

    If MH17 was indeed shot down by an armed drone, it is not guaranteed that Russia can prove this in any way. Without a clear proof, what should they say? Moreover, in the case of a combat drone, they cannot simply accuse the government in Kiev, but they would have to accuse far more powerful actors. Perhaps it is easier to just trade some meaningless allegations between the Ukrainian military and the Eastern Ukrainian rebels.

    Recall that after the attack on a UN aid convoy in Syria in September 2016, the U.S. also immediately blamed Russia (without any proof, of course). Russia denied, but again it didn't – and probably couldn't – present any proof for another scenario.

    Final note

    Even if there were arguments speaking against an armed drone, the fact remains that the official investigation (both DSB and JIT) did not even consider this option. Thus no matter what, the official investigation used a faulty approach and prematurely ruled out the air-to-air scenario.

    1. A reader remarks that on the very day MH17 crashed (July 17, 2014), a ten day long NATO military exercise in the Black Sea ended (BREEZE 2014) . In other words, the military of the United States and nine more NATO members were present and active in the Black Sea region right up to the day of the MH17 disaster. According to a press release , these war games even involved "commercial traffic monitoring".

      According to another report , the exercise also included "the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)" . Moreover, "BREEZE included the AEGIS-class guided missile cruiser USS Vela Gulf. AEGIS cruisers' AN/SPY 1 radar has the ability to track all aircraft over a large region. (…) From the Black Sea, the Vela Gulf was able to track Malaysian Airlines 17 over the Black Sea and any missiles fired at the plane. U.S. AWACS electronic intelligence (ELINT) aircraft were also flying over the Black Sea region at the time of the MH-17 flyover of Ukraine. Growler aircraft have the capability to jam radar systems in all surface-to-air threats."

      The same report notes that "200 U.S. Army personnel normally assigned to bases in Germany were in Ukraine during the time of the MH-17 fly-over. They were participating in NATO exercise RAPID TRIDENT II . Ukraine's Ministry of Defense led the exercise."

    2. A reader notes that another option might be a so-called "suicide drone" , i.e. a loitering strike drone that includes a warhead in its fuselage and self-destructs into its target. These are basically missiles that fly like a plane. Due to their small size, they are invisible to radar detection systems. Examples include e.g. the Israeli IAI Harop and Hero-30 . Usually, such drones attack ground targets and therefore operate at a low altitude (and rather low speed, about 200 km/h). If a high-altitude suicide drone exists at all, it would also require a fragmentation-explosion warhead to cause the damage observed on the wreckage of MH17. Moreover, due to its low speed, timing would be more difficult compared to a drone-fired air-to-air missile.
    3. If a radar-guided medium-range air-to-air missile was used, there are two options to provide the radar signal: active radar homing with an integrated radar transceiver, or semi-active radar homing with an external, ground- or air-based radar signal. Thus the drone itself doesn't have to be equipped with a radar unit. In fact, this is another clear advantage over the BUK scenario: since the rebels didn't have their own radar unit (even the "videos" only show a launching unit), they would have fired the missile "blindly". This is unlikely to begin with, but it is even more unlikely that they would actually have hit a plane at 10 km altitude without radar guidance.
    4. A reader asks: can a BUK be fired from a drone, like other missiles that can be fired both surface-to-air and air-to-air (AMRAAM, Derby)? Officially no airborne version of the BUK exists. (There is a navy version, though.) So this would have to be experimental. However, air-to-air missiles such as the R-33, R-37 or R-40 have a fragmentation-explosion warhead of comparable size to the BUK.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Eli Lake a dork who used to be the National Security Correspondent for the Daily Beast exercises in Russophobia on Bloomberg

    Notable quotes:
    "... So… Russia is already isolated, its economy is in shreds… or not? Because you can't have isolation (as you, pressitudes, claimed since 2014) of Russia and demand it at the same time! At the same time, no – ignoring Russia completely and talking only about "plox, don't use nukes, m'cay?" is not a "diplomacy". ..."
    "... Absolutely schizophrenic Clinton-McFoul (yes, I know that his surname is spelled differently), which is still dominants in the alls of power of the West boils down to the following: ..."
    "... 1) Talk harsh (really harsh!) with Russia on things we don't like ..."
    "... 2) Cooperate with Russia when it possible as if never happened. ..."
    "... And when Russia says that there are direct links between 1) and 2), that you can't expect to get 2) after doing 1) – there is no use to fake a hurt innocence of Ukrainians from this old anecdote with the "А на за що?!" punchline, ..."
    "... You want war? You will have one! Want peace? Then behave yourself accodringly. ..."
    "... Eli Lake is a dork who used to be the 'National Security Correspondent' for the Daily Beast. You know what a rag that is. Also, he was educated at Trinity College, a private liberal-arts school. ..."
    "... I know how we can reach a compromise – me and the Russian government. Every year on the day that article was published, they could have "Eli Lake Day". On that day, an American company could be chosen at random to be kicked out of the country and have all its assets confiscated. The documents could lead off with, "Congratulations! You have been selected to receive the Eli Lake Award for Bankruptcy. You can thank Eli Lake and his big fucking mouth". ..."
    Oct 22, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Lyttenburgh , October 14, 2016 at 6:24 am

    Unsurprisingly – this article is from the Blub-blub-bloomberg. What is surprising – it's not by Lyonya Bershidski. It's by another titan of handshakability – Eli Lake.

    Treat Russia Like the International Poison It Is

    Why, surely with the name like that the article must be honest, objective and answer to all standards of the journalism (in the West)?

    I was again surprised when the now standard litany of Kremlin sins suddenly became an accusation of "Murder, Kidnapping and Jaywalking":

    "Russia also poisons the international system in small ways… It continues to support Kirsan Ilyumzhinov as head of the International Chess Federation, despite his chummy visits to rogue states like North Korea and Iran. His recent plan to hold the international chess championship in Iran has drawn protest from the U.S. women's chess champion, Nazi Paikidze-Barnes, because Iran requires women to cover their heads with a hijab."

    Wow. Yet another bottom is crushed successfully and the standards of journalism in the Free West get new way to fall! Or was it a secret way to endorse a "legitimate" head of the Chess Federation – fearless Gary Kimovich Kasparov?

    With new way to fall achieved by crashing yet another bottom the article takes a plunge:

    "Browder last month proposed a plan for Interpol to create a two-tiered system. Speaking before a human-rights commission in Congress, he said that transparent countries like the U.S. would have their red notice requests processed immediately, whereas countries like Russia, known to abuse the system, would have their requests reviewed by a panel of objective and independent experts before being sent out to member states."

    How handshakable! Surely, such approach will demonstrate the equality of countries in the international relations and the true value of the Rule of Law!

    The article ends in – now traditional for all Westie journos – couple of self-contradicting paragraphs:

    "None of this should preclude diplomacy with Russia. The U.S. and Russia should still have channels to discuss nuclear stockpiles and other matters. But as Secretary of State John Kerry has learned in his fruitless engagements, Russian promises are worthless. Everyone in U.S. politics, with the exception of Donald Trump and a few other extremists on the left and right, understands this. Russia is a pariah.

    Pariahs are not asked to cooperate on challenges to the global commons. They shouldn't get to host events like the World Cup, as Russia is scheduled to do in 2018. They should not be diplomatic partners in U.S. policy to disarm other pariahs like Iran. No, pariahs should be quarantined. With Russia, it's the very least the U.S. and its allies can do to save the international system from a country that seeks to destroy it."

    So… Russia is already isolated, its economy is in shreds… or not? Because you can't have isolation (as you, pressitudes, claimed since 2014) of Russia and demand it at the same time! At the same time, no – ignoring Russia completely and talking only about "plox, don't use nukes, m'cay?" is not a "diplomacy".

    Absolutely schizophrenic Clinton-McFoul (yes, I know that his surname is spelled differently), which is still dominants in the alls of power of the West boils down to the following:

    1) Talk harsh (really harsh!) with Russia on things we don't like

    2) Cooperate with Russia when it possible as if never happened.

    Now imagine that your neighbour decided to harm you in some nasty, really mean way. Imagine him throwing seeds on you car, parked outside, and then filming how birds land (and shit) o your car on his phone – with lots, and lots of really "smart" comments. Then your neighbor uploads this video on YouTube, his Facebook page, Twitter, Instagram etc, etc. Here he engages with other commenters in the vein of "Yeah, I know – he's a total douche! He got what he deserved! But wait, guys – I have more plans for my neighbour!!!:)".

    Next week he asks you to borrow him a landmover – as if nothing has ever happened before. And when Russia says that there are direct links between 1) and 2), that you can't expect to get 2) after doing 1) – there is no use to fake a hurt innocence of Ukrainians from this old anecdote with the "А на за що?!" punchline,

    You want war? You will have one! Want peace? Then behave yourself accodringly.

    marknesop , October 14, 2016 at 9:06 pm

    Eli Lake is a dork who used to be the 'National Security Correspondent' for the Daily Beast. You know what a rag that is. Also, he was educated at Trinity College, a private liberal-arts school. But the day will come when it is Russia's choice to punish Americans for the ignorant things people like Eli Lake said. I would do it in a heartbeat; I would chortle with glee as I tore up American proposals for joint ventures, and send balaclava-sporting kids dressed like Voina around to paint giant dicks on their office doors with the message, "This is for Eli", until they fled for the airport gibbering with terror. But that's me. Russia probably won't do it, because they are pragmatic and like business and profit.

    I know how we can reach a compromise – me and the Russian government. Every year on the day that article was published, they could have "Eli Lake Day". On that day, an American company could be chosen at random to be kicked out of the country and have all its assets confiscated. The documents could lead off with, "Congratulations! You have been selected to receive the Eli Lake Award for Bankruptcy. You can thank Eli Lake and his big fucking mouth".

    [Oct 23, 2016] In a remarkable conflict-of-interest, Fox News analyst and former Clinton operative Douglas E. Schoen has failed to disclosed to readers that hes been paid millions of dollars from Ukrainian agents to incite a war between the United States and Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... Just a re-post from the last thread to the new . "In a remarkable conflict-of-interest, Fox News analyst and former Clinton operative Douglas E. Schoen has failed to disclosed to readers that he's been paid millions of dollars from Ukrainian agents to incite a war between the United States and Russia. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Terry | Oct 22, 2016 11:28:30 AM | 1
    Just a re-post from the last thread to the new . "In a remarkable conflict-of-interest, Fox News analyst and former Clinton operative Douglas E. Schoen has failed to disclosed to readers that he's been paid millions of dollars from Ukrainian agents to incite a war between the United States and Russia.

    Before inciting war with Russia, Schoen worked for Bill Clinton and brokered meeting (for $40,000 a month) between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and billionaire oligarchs." http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/09/09/fox-news-analyst-and-clinton-operative-douglas-e-schoen-accepted-millions-of-dollars-to-agitate-for-war-with-russia/

    rg the lg | Oct 22, 2016 11:29:52 AM | 2
    Personally I don't know if I 'trust' RT any more than I 'trust' American media ... but I do pay attention to both.

    Here's an article to get the ball rolling: what is propaganda? Who is guilty of propagandizing news?

    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/363737-rt-uk-msm-hysteria-russia/

    Of course, I truly think that Telesur is about as balanced as we can get.

    [Oct 23, 2016] Rigged Elections Are An American Tradition

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased. ..."
    "... Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary. ..."
    "... The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft. ..."
    "... Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting. ..."
    "... Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.unz.com

    Paul Craig Roberts • October 21, 2016

    Do Americans have a memory? I sometimes wonder.

    It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased.

    The current cause celebre against Trump is his conditional statement that he might not accept the election results if they appear to have been rigged. The presstitutes immediately jumped on him for "discrediting American democracy" and for "breaking American tradition of accepting the people's will."

    What nonsense! Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary.

    So what's the big deal about Trump's suspicion of election rigging?

    The black civil rights movement has fought vote rigging for decades. The rigging takes place in a number of ways. Blacks simply can't get registered to vote. If they do get registered, there are few polling places in their districts. And so on. After decades of struggle it is impossible that there are any blacks who are not aware of how hard it can be for them to vote. Yet, I heard on the presstitute radio network, NPR, Hillary's Uncle Toms saying how awful it was that Trump had cast aspersion on the credibility of American election results.

    I also heard a NPR announcer suggest that Russia had not only hacked Hillary's emails, but also had altered them in order to make incriminating documents out of harmless emails.

    The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft.

    Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting.

    Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want.

    [Oct 23, 2016] Rigged Elections Are An American Tradition

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased. ..."
    "... Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary. ..."
    "... The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft. ..."
    "... Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting. ..."
    "... Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.unz.com

    Paul Craig Roberts • October 21, 2016

    Do Americans have a memory? I sometimes wonder.

    It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased.

    The current cause celebre against Trump is his conditional statement that he might not accept the election results if they appear to have been rigged. The presstitutes immediately jumped on him for "discrediting American democracy" and for "breaking American tradition of accepting the people's will."

    What nonsense! Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary.

    So what's the big deal about Trump's suspicion of election rigging?

    The black civil rights movement has fought vote rigging for decades. The rigging takes place in a number of ways. Blacks simply can't get registered to vote. If they do get registered, there are few polling places in their districts. And so on. After decades of struggle it is impossible that there are any blacks who are not aware of how hard it can be for them to vote. Yet, I heard on the presstitute radio network, NPR, Hillary's Uncle Toms saying how awful it was that Trump had cast aspersion on the credibility of American election results.

    I also heard a NPR announcer suggest that Russia had not only hacked Hillary's emails, but also had altered them in order to make incriminating documents out of harmless emails.

    The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft.

    Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting.

    Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want.

    [Oct 23, 2016] When security agencies are crying about Russians, that means they want more cash and might stage attacks themselves to justify the claims

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yes if next week motherland security and other 3 letter govt. are crying they need more cash to fight this then just maybe they did to themselves. ..."
    "... Internet hacks - it's this election cycle's white power in an envelope! ..."
    "... I would laugh so hard if a selection of sites [that] were shut down. ..."
    "... We so need to officially declare this whole bloody mess a parody: ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    jo6pac October 21, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Funny they were warned that this could happen months ago

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161021/09440935851/nice-internet-youve-got-there-you-wouldnt-want-something-to-happen-to-it.shtml

    Yes if next week motherland security and other 3 letter govt. are crying they need more cash to fight this then just maybe they did to themselves.

    RT is reporting the 3rd attack is underway.

    Tom October 21, 2016 at 6:18 pm

    Internet hacks - it's this election cycle's white power in an envelope!

    hunkerdown October 21, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    I trust the D involvement is meant to be implied by its conspicuous absence.

    Kokuanani October 22, 2016 at 1:55 am

    Do you mean white POWDER???

    Waldenpond October 21, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    I would laugh so hard if a selection of sites [that] were shut down. Waaah! Assange won't shut up! So Twitter, WL.org, Reddit, where else would make good spots to shut down discussion in these last days before the election. WL thought they had a good marketing gimmick going with the drip, drip and who knows maybe a special event for C's birthday? or creating a November surprise (I really liked that idea as it reflects how quickly info moves)

    The petty back and forth between C and WL on top is a sight.

    Steve H. October 21, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    We so need to officially declare this whole bloody mess a parody:

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/250

    [Oct 23, 2016] Did The White House Just Declare War On Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... Submitted by Darius Shahtamasebi via TheAntiMedia.org, ..."
    "... Consider the source. Biden is a blowhard and an embarassment. He said it for domestic consumption. Obama knows the Russians are not responsible and he will do nothing. ..."
    "... > ... "... Joe Biden's statement that the White House was preparing to send Vladimir Putin a "message" ..." ..."
    "... Absolutely. If the US and Russia got together - talk about a SUPERPOWER. The NeoCons are way too stupid to realize what a win-win this could be ..."
    "... "Americans marvel at the level and effectiveness of brainwashing in North Korea, and express shock that North Koreans revere Kim Jung-un as god, but the truth is that Americans are every bit as brainwashed and just as effectively. The god most Americans worship today is materialism." ..."
    "... the patriot VA state Senator who knows the truth as well https://www.sott.net/article/318592-Virginia-State-Senator-Richard-Black... ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    Submitted by Darius Shahtamasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,

    This past week, America's oldest continuously published weekly magazine, the Nation, asked the question : has the White House declared war on Russia?

    As the two nuclear powers sabre-rattle over conflicts within Syria, and to some extent, over the Ukrainian crisis, asking these questions to determine who will pull the trigger first has become more paramount than it was at the peak of the Cold War.

    The Nation's contributing editor, Stephen F. Cohen, reported Vice President Joe Biden's statement that the White House was preparing to send Vladimir Putin a "message" - most likely in the form of a cyber attack - amounted to a virtual "American declaration of war on Russia" in Russia's eyes. Biden's threat is reportedly in response to allegations that Russia hacked Democratic Party offices in order to disrupt the presidential election.

    Chuck Todd, host of the "Meet the Press" on NBC, asked Joe Biden: "Why haven't we sent a message yet to Putin?"

    Biden responded, "We are sending a message [to Putin] We have a capacity to do it, and "

    "He'll know it?" Todd interrupted.

    "He'll know it. It will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact," the U.S. vice president replied.

    What are the effects of this kind of rhetoric when dealing with international relations? Western media decided to pay little attention to Biden's statements, yet his words have stunned Moscow. As reported by the Nation:

    " Biden's statement, which clearly had been planned by the White House, could scarcely have been more dangerous or reckless - especially considering that there is no actual evidence or logic for the two allegations against Russia that seem to have prompted it."

    The statements will not come without any measured response from Russia. According to presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov, Russia's response is well underway:

    "The fact is, US unpredictability and aggression keep growing, and such threats against Moscow and our country's leadership are unprecedented, because the threat is being announced at the level of the US Vice President. Of course, given such an aggressive, unpredictable line, we have to take measures to protect our interests, somehow hedge the risks."

    The fact that our media refuses to pay attention to the dangers of our own establishment in sending warnings to adverse nuclear powers based on unasserted allegations shows our media is playing a very dangerous game with us - the people. This attempt to pull the wool over our eyes and prepare us for a direct confrontation with Russia can be seen clearly in the battle for Aleppo, Syria.

    As the Nation astutely noted:

    "Only a few weeks ago, President Obama had agreed with Putin on a joint US-Russian military campaign against 'terrorists' in Aleppo. That agreement collapsed primarily because of an attack by US warplanes on Syrian forces. Russia and its Syrian allies continued their air assault on east Aleppo now, according to Washington and the mainstream media, against anti-Assad 'rebels.' Where, asks Cohen, have the jihad terrorists gone? They had been deleted from the US narrative, which now accused Russia of 'war crimes' in Aleppo for the same military campaign in which Washington was to have been a full partner."

    So where is this conflict headed? A top U.S. general, Marine General Joseph Dunford, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in September of this year that the enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in Syria would mean a U.S. war with both Syria and Russia. Hillary Clinton is well aware of the repercussions of this war, as she acknowledged in a secret speech to Goldman Sachs (recently released by Wikileaks):

    "To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk - you're going to kill a lot of Syrians So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians."

    This is the same establishment that has been calling out Russia for allegedly committing war crimes in Aleppo even though Clinton's proposal would result in far more civilian deaths and likely lead to a direct war with Russia.

    As the war against Syria transitions into a much wider global conflict that could include nuclear powers Russia and China, our own media is deceiving us by dishonestly reporting on the events leading up to the activation of the doomsday clock.

    History doesn't occur in a vacuum; when the U.S. and Russia confront each other directly, it won't be because of a mere incident occurring in Syrian airspace.

    It will be because the two nuclear powers have been confronting each other with little resistance from the corporate media, which keeps us well entertained and preoccupied with political charades , celebrity gossip , and outright propaganda .


    manofthenorth -> TeamDepends •Oct 23, 2016 8:17 PM

    So this Jester has no connection to CIA/NSA ?

    This hack after the threat from short bus Joe is a pure coincidence right ?

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/jester-hacks-russian-ministry/

    847328_3527 -> manofthenorth •Oct 23, 2016 8:24 PM

    Zacktly. It's the NSA who is leaking the crooked DNC emails. Not Vlad.

    MalteseFalcon d 847328_3527 •Oct 23, 2016 8:50 PM

    "What are the effects of this kind of rhetoric when dealing with international relations? "

    Consider the source. Biden is a blowhard and an embarassment. He said it for domestic consumption. Obama knows the Russians are not responsible and he will do nothing.

    PrayingMantis -> TeamDepends Oct 23, 2016 8:37 PM

    > ... "... Joe Biden's statement that the White House was preparing to send Vladimir Putin a "message" ..."

    ... it might've been the other way around ... Mother Russia had already sent them a "message" in Sept but they failed to respond ...

    >>> "... 30 Israeli, Foreign Intelligence Officers Killed in Russia's Caliber Missile Attack in Aleppo ..." >>> http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950631000607

    ... "... Several US, Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and British officers were also killed along with the Israeli officers. The foreign officers who were killed in the Aleppo operations room were directing the terrorists' attacks in Aleppo and Idlib. ..."

    Jim in MN -> jmack Oct 23, 2016 8:05 PM

    This is why Israhell is furious with this Prez. And why they are seen in the Podesta emails making sure that none of 'those two-state solution' people get into key foreign/defense posts under Her Fury.

    It's going to be all war, all the time, boys, according to Israeli timetables and objectives.

    Unless We The People say NO on Nov. 8 and make it stick.

    General Titus -> Jim in MN Oct 23, 2016 8:16 PM

    Interesting that you bring up the "two-state solution" speculation along those lines goes like this. Clinton & Rabin were working on a two-state solution Rabin was assinated and Clinton was trolled by a modern day "Esther" to ensnare Clinton and destroy the two-state solution. You heard it here first on ZH my friend

    jmack -> Jim in MN Oct 23, 2016 8:24 PM

    Fuck all you anti-semetic trolls, probably all false flag fags anyway. Your ramblings don't make sense.

    Jim in MN -> jmack Oct 23, 2016 8:27 PM

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2649

    Suck it. We have proof.

    Jethro -> jmack •Oct 23, 2016 8:14 PM

    Anti-colonial agenda. Plus, Barry was bottom bitch to his Paki lover back in the day.

    Mandel Bot -> jmack •Oct 23, 2016 8:33 PM

    Absolutely. If the US and Russia got together - talk about a SUPERPOWER. The NeoCons are way too stupid to realize what a win-win this could be.

    ebworthen •Oct 23, 2016 7:59 PM

    Hitlary and the M.I.C. (and Wall Street/D.C. Imperial City) have no idea how much at risk they put themselves and the rest of us.

    Russia has been here and where America never has been, and they have defeated many, many, a foe. Abject stupidity to poke the Russian bear and disrespect our agreements post WWII and Cold War.

    Shameful, absolutely shameful! Rot in HELL you D.C. Vichy!

    RawPawg •Oct 23, 2016 7:59 PM

    Meanwhile...in 'Merica. Sunday afternoon Football stands are Full. very surreal given the times we live in,eh?

    Lost in translation -> RawPawg •Oct 23, 2016 8:23 PM

    After I explained that Americans don't care about the Podesta emails as long as the NFL is on, and have no idea what WikiLeaks is but can tell you everything about the NLCS, Mrs. Lost said...

    "Americans marvel at the level and effectiveness of brainwashing in North Korea, and express shock that North Koreans revere Kim Jung-un as god, but the truth is that Americans are every bit as brainwashed and just as effectively. The god most Americans worship today is materialism."

    General Titus Oct 23, 2016 8:02 PM

    The native Orthodox Christian Russian people took back their nation when they collapsed the Soviet Union and drove the mass murdering Bolsheviks out, many of whom came to the US & EU nations

    ""You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred, they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated, Bolshevism committed the greatest slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators"""

    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    General Titus -> i poop pink ice cream Oct 23, 2016 8:59 PM
    Just spreading awareness my friend. TYVM for the gratz. Here's a great one for the truth about the war to destroy secular Syria.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/

    and the patriot VA state Senator who knows the truth as well https://www.sott.net/article/318592-Virginia-State-Senator-Richard-Black...

    lakecity55 •Oct 23, 2016 8:07 PM

    Hey, Russians, We The People are not mad or at war with you. If you want to whack the Assholes in Vichy, however, go ahead!! You will have our thanks!

    evildimensions -> lakecity55 •Oct 23, 2016 8:19 PM

    Agreed. Just because we have a mad president, please don't think that we Americans are mad (in the British sense of the word). We wish the Russian people no harm. In fact, many of us, myself included, cheer your efforts in Syria to wipe out the rabid dogs of ISIS.

    Please keep bombing the living shit out of them. And this is important, so please listen carefully...

    Not degrade...Not diminish...Not contain...

    Wipe out. AS IN WIPE THEM THE FUCK OUT.

    [Oct 23, 2016] Putin on Hillary or Trump

    Oct 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    https://twitter.com/rodriQuez/status/789555582663479296

    Posted by: From The Hague | Oct 22, 2016 12:51:37 PM | 9

    [Oct 23, 2016] Clintonism is wedge politics directed against any class or populist upheaval that might threaten neoliberalism

    That's explains vicious campaign by neoliberal MSM against Trump and swiping under the carpet all criminal deeds of Clinton family. They feel the threat...
    Notable quotes:
    "... It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism. ..."
    "... That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness. That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    An excellent article

    It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism.

    That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness. That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. The North's abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War had more to do a desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from the competition of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.[…]

    There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to screw Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism.

    In other words it's all part of a grand plan when the Clintonoids aren't busy debating the finer points of her marketing and "mark"–a term normally applied to the graphic logo on a commercial product.

    http://www.unz.com/plee/trump-we-wish-the-problem-was-fascism/

    [Oct 23, 2016] Hillary Clinton and Identity Politics

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton's nomination and the euphoria in the press (one NPR female reporter said she has seen women weeping over the possibility of Hillary becoming president) eclipses any discussion about the real issues facing the country. ..."
    "... Notice how the term "women's issues" is used by the media and certain politicians to suggest that there is only one acceptable position for females on any given topic. To the left, women's issues appear to mean abortion rights, same-sex marriage, higher taxes, bigger government and electing more women who favor such things. ..."
    "... As the husband of a successful woman with a master's degree and accomplished daughters and granddaughters, that's how we feel about Hillary Clinton. We're all for a female president, just not this one. ..."
    www.newsbusters.org
    Have you heard that Hillary Clinton is the "first woman" ever to be nominated for president by a major political party? Of course you have. The media have repeated the line so often it is broken news.

    Hillary Clinton's nomination and the euphoria in the press (one NPR female reporter said she has seen women weeping over the possibility of Hillary becoming president) eclipses any discussion about the real issues facing the country.

    To quote Clinton in another context, "what difference does it make" that she is a woman? A liberal is a liberal, regardless of gender, race or ethnicity.

    Must we go through an entire list of "firsts" before we get to someone who can solve our collective problems, instead of making them worse? Many of those cheering this supposed progress in American culture, which follows the historic election of the "first African-American president," are insincere, if not disingenuous. Otherwise, they would have applauded the advancement of African-Americans like Gen. Colin Powell, Justice Clarence Thomas, former one-term Rep. Allen West (R-FL), Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) and conservative women like Sarah Palin, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), former presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, Rep. Mia Love (R-UT) and many others.

    Immigrants who entered the country legally and became citizens are virtually ignored by the media. They champion instead illegal immigrants and the liberals who support them.

    The reason for this disparity in attitude and coverage is that conservative blacks, women and Hispanics hold positions anathema to the left. Conservative African-Americans have been called all kinds of derogatory names in an effort to get them to convert to liberal orthodoxy, and they're ostracized if they don't convert. If conservative, a female is likely to be labeled a traitor to her gender, or worse.

    Notice how the term "women's issues" is used by the media and certain politicians to suggest that there is only one acceptable position for females on any given topic. To the left, women's issues appear to mean abortion rights, same-sex marriage, higher taxes, bigger government and electing more women who favor such things.

    When it comes to accomplished conservative female leaders, one of the greatest and smartest of our time was the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ronald Reagan's consequential U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. As Jay Nordlinger wrote in his review of Peter Collier's book "Political Woman" for National Review, "In a saner world, Jeane Kirkpatrick would have been lionized by feminists. She had risen from the oil patch to the commanding heights of U.S. foreign policy. But her views were 'wrong.'"

    Collier writes that Kirkpatrick, who was a Democrat most of her life, recalled feminist icon Gloria Steinem once referring to her as "a female impersonator." Author Naomi Wolf called her "a woman without a uterus" and claimed that she had been "unaffected by the experiences of the female body." Kirkpatrick responded, "I have three kids, while she, when she made this comment had none."

    The left gets away with these kinds of smears because they largely control the media and the message. No Republican could escape shunning, or worse, if such language were employed against a female Democrat.

    Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin, born in Philadelphia to Philippine citizens, has written about some of the printable things she's been called -- "race traitor," "white man's puppet," "Tokyo Rose," "Aunt Tomasina."

    As the cliche goes, if liberals didn't have a double standard, they would have no standards at all.

    There's an old joke about a woman with five children who was asked if she had it to do over again would she have five kids. "Yes," she replied, "just not these five."

    As the husband of a successful woman with a master's degree and accomplished daughters and granddaughters, that's how we feel about Hillary Clinton. We're all for a female president, just not this one.

    [Oct 23, 2016] The USA now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang

    Notable quotes:
    "... I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite. ..."
    "... But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid. ..."
    "... In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to governance of such a huge country crook. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
    likbez October 22, 2016 11:20 pm

    The key problems with Democratic Party and Hillary is that they lost working class and middle class voters, becoming another party of highly paid professionals and Wall Street speculators (let's say top 10%, not just 1%), the party of neoliberal elite.

    It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and lower middle class works this time. I think it will not. Even upper middle class is very resentful of Democrats and Hillary. So many votes will be not "for" but "against". This is the scenario Democratic strategists fear the most, but they can do nothing about it.

    She overplayed "identity politics" card. Her "identity politics" and her fake feminism are completely insincere. She is completely numb to human suffering and interests of females and minorities. Looks like she has a total lack of empathy for other people.

    Here is one interesting quote ( http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/10/how-trump-and-clinton-gave-bad-answers-on-us-nuclear-policy-and-why-you-should-be-worried.html#comment-2680036 ):

    "What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html ) revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited. "

    Usually people are resentful about Party which betrayed them so many times. It would be interesting to see how this will play this time.

    Beverly Mann October 23, 2016 12:00 pm

    It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and lower middle class works this time?

    Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand over to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC, the FCC, the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including the Antitrust Division)-to name only some.

    And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed proxies of big business.

    And then there's the incessant push to privatize Social Security and Medicare. It ain't the Dems that are pushing that.

    You're drinking wayyy too much Kool Aid, likbez. Or maybe just reading too much Ayn Rand, at Paul Ryan's recommendation.

    beene October 23, 2016 10:31 am

    I would suggest despite most of the elite in both parties supporting Hillary, and saying she has the election in the bag is premature. In my opinion the fact that Trump rallies still has large attendance; where Hillary's rallies would have trouble filling up a large room is a better indication that Trump will win.

    Even democrats are not voting democratic this time to be ignored till election again.

    likbez October 23, 2016 12:56 pm

    Beverly,

    === quote ===
    Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand over to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC, the FCC, the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including the Antitrust Division) -- to name only some.

    And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed proxies of big business.
    === end of quote ===

    This is all true. But Trump essentially running not as a Republican but as an independent on (mostly) populist platform (with elements of nativism). That's why a large part of Republican brass explicitly abandoned him. That does not exclude that he easily will be co-opted after the election, if he wins.

    And I would not be surprised one bit if Dick Cheney, Victoria Nuland, Paul Wolfowitz and Perle vote for Hillary. Robert Kagan and papa Bush already declared such an intention. She is a neocon. A wolf in sheep clothing, if we are talking about real anti-war democrats, not the USA brand of DemoRats. She is crazy warmonger, no question about it, trying to compensate a complete lack of diplomatic skills with jingoism and saber rattling.

    The problem here might be that you implicitly idealize Hillary and demonize Trump.

    I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite.

    But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid.

    That's what classic neoliberal DemoRats "bait and switch" maneuver (previously executed by Obama two times) means. And that's why working class now abandoned Democratic Party. Even unions members of unions which endorses Clinton are expected to vote 3:1 against her. Serial betrayal of interests of working class (and lower middle class) after 25 years gets on nerve. Not that their choice is wise, but they made a choice. This is "What's the matter with Kansas" all over again.

    It reminds me the situation when Stalin was asked whether right revisionism of Marxism (social democrats) or left (Trotskyites with their dream of World revolution) is better. He answered "both are worse" :-).

    In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to governance of such a huge country crook.

    Of course, we need also remember about existence of "deep state" which make each of them mostly a figurehead, but still the power of "deep state" is not absolute and this is a very sad situation.

    Beverly Mann, October 23, 2016 1:57 pm

    Good grace.

    Two points: First, you apparently are unaware of Trump's proposed tax plan, written by Heritage Foundation economists and political-think-tank types. It's literally more regressively extreme evn than Paul Ryan's. It gives tax cuts to the wealthy that are exponentially more generous percentage-wise than G.W. Bush's two tax cuts together were, it eliminates the estate tax, and it gives massive tax cuts to corporations, including yuge ones.

    Two billionaire Hamptons-based hedge funders, Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, have been funding a super PAC for Trump and since late spring have met with Trump and handed him policy proposals and suggestions for administrative agency heads and judicial appointments. Other yuge funders are members of the Ricketts family, including Thomas Ricketts, CEO of TD Ameritrade and a son of its founder.

    Two other billionaires funding Trump: Forrest Lucas, founder of Lucas Oil and reportedly Trump's choice for Interior Secretary if you and the working class and lower middle class folks whose interests Trump has at heart get their way.

    And then there's Texas oil billionaire Harold Hamm, Trump's very first billionaire mega-donor.

    One of my recurring pet peeves about Clinton and her campaign is her failure to tell the public that these billionaires are contributing mega-bucks to help fund Trump's campaign, and to tell the public who exactly they are. As well as her failure to make a concerted effort to educate the public about the the specifics of Trump's fiscal and deregulatory agenda as he has published it.

    As for your belief that I idealize Clinton, you obviously are very new to Angry Bear. I was a virulent Sanders supporter throughout the primaries, to the very end. In 2008 I originally supported John Edwards during the primaries and then, when it became clear that it was a two-candidate race, supported Obama. My reason? I really, really, REALLY did not want to see another triangulation Democratic administration. That's largely what we got during Obama's first term, though, and I was not happy about it.

    Bottom line: I'm not the gullible one here. You are.

    likbez, October 23, 2016 2:37 pm

    You demonstrate complete inability to weight the gravity of two dismal, but unequal in their gravity options.

    All your arguments about Supreme Court justices, taxes, inheritance and other similar things make sense if and only if the country continues to exist.

    Which is not given due to the craziness and the level of degeneration of neoliberal elite and specifically Hillary ("no fly zone in Syria" is one example of her craziness). Playing chickens with a nuclear power for the sake of proving imperial dominance in Middle East is a crazy policy.

    Neocons rule the roost in both parties, which essentially became a single War Party with two wings. Trump looks like the only chance somewhat to limit their influence and reach some détente with Russia.

    Looks like you organically unable to understand that your choice in this particular case is between the decimation of the last remnants of the New Deal and a real chance of WWIII.

    This is not "pick your poison" situation. Those are two events of completely difference magnitude: one is reversible (and please note that Trump is bound by very controversial obligations to his electorate and faces hostile Congress), the other is not.

    We all should do our best to prevent the unleashing WWIII even if that means temporary decimation of the remnants of New Deal.

    Neoliberalism after 2008 entered zombie state, so while it is still strong, aggressive and bloodthirsty it might not last for long. And in such case the defeat of democratic forces on domestic front is temporary.

    That means vote against Hillary.

    [Oct 23, 2016] The 30 Seconds After The Last Debate That CNN Would Rather You Did not See

    Notable quotes:
    "... And continued and constant propaganda-peddling that the race is over because Trump's sexual assault allegations are "sucking all the air out of the room" compared to Hillary's stream of WikiLeaks facts. ..."
    "... CNN made the mistake of asking its focus group of real Americans who won the final debate... and instantly regretted it... ..."
    "... The media is just going to claim a winner on election night no matter what happens. You can't know otherwise. ..."
    "... I know that in my day to day dealings, as a businessman and as a private individual, I am taking every opportunity to fuck over the main stream media and anyone that works in it, hard and without mercy. ..."
    "... As Trump said CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Wash Post, NYT working hard to elect Hillary Rodent. ..."
    "... Rep Sheila Jackson (D) continues to embarrass herself by denouncing Wikipedia for engaging in espionage. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    And continued and constant propaganda-peddling that the race is over because Trump's sexual assault allegations are "sucking all the air out of the room" compared to Hillary's stream of WikiLeaks facts.

    CNN made the mistake of asking its focus group of real Americans who won the final debate... and instantly regretted it...

    Catullus Oct 22, 2016 5:30 PM ,

    The media is just going to claim a winner on election night no matter what happens. You can't know otherwise.
    hedgeless_horseman Catullus Oct 22, 2016 5:39 PM ,

    I know that in my day to day dealings, as a businessman and as a private individual, I am taking every opportunity to fuck over the main stream media and anyone that works in it, hard and without mercy.

    These opportunities are many and significant. I am enjoying it. Consequences, bitchezzz!!!

    Chris Dakota Crisismode Oct 22, 2016 8:43 PM ,
    As Trump said CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Wash Post, NYT working hard to elect Hillary Rodent.

    Rep Sheila Jackson (D) continues to embarrass herself by denouncing Wikipedia for engaging in espionage.

    She is the congresswoman from Mars

    Claimed we sent a man to Mars

    We won the Vietnam war

    Hurricanes need more diverse names

    Wore a gold Hillary Clinton campaign pin Wednesday to a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the FBI investigation into Clinton's private email server.

    http://tammybruce.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/sheila-jackson-lee-1.png

    [Oct 23, 2016] Trump Unloads in Pennsylvania Speech Hillary Clinton Should Be in Prison - Breitbart

    Oct 23, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    In a lengthy speech on Saturday night in Manheim, Pennsylvania, Republican nominee for president Donald J. Trump lambasted his opponent Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton for a secret tape recording of her bashing supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont-and even called for Clinton to be placed in prison and questioned as to whether she has been loyal to her husband former President Bill Clinton.

    Trump said in the speech on Saturday night:

    A new audio tape that has surfaced just yesterday from another one of Hillary's high roller fundraisers shows her demeaning and mocking Bernie Sanders and all of his supporters. You know, and I'll tell you something we have a much bigger movement that Bernie Sanders ever had. We have much bigger crowds than Sanders ever had. And we have a more important movement than Bernie Sanders ever had because we're going to save our country, okay? We're going to save our country. But I can tell you Bernie Sanders would have left a great, great legacy had he not made the deal with the devil. He would have really left a great legacy. Now he shows up and 120 people come in to hear him talk. Bernie Sanders would have left a great legacy had he not made the deal, had he held his head high and walked away. Now he's on the other side perhaps from us and we want to get along with everybody and we will-we're going to unite the country-but what Bernie Sanders did to his supporters was very, very unfair. And they're really not his supporters any longer and they're not going to support Hillary Clinton. I really believe a lot of those people are coming over and largely because of trade, college education, lots of other things-but largely because of trade, they're coming over to our side-you watch, you watch. Especially after Hillary mocks him and mocks all of those people by attacking him and his supporters as 'living in their parents' basements,' and trapped in dead-end careers. That's not what they are.

    Also in his speech on Saturday night, Trump summed up exactly what came out in the latest Hillary Clinton tapes in which she mocks Sanders supporters:

    She describes many of them as ignorant, and [that] they want the United States to be more like Scandinavia but that 'half the people don't know what that means' in a really sarcastic tone because she's a sarcastic woman. To sum up, and I'll tell you the other thing-she's an incompetent woman. She's an incompetent woman. I've seen it. Just take a look at what she touches. It never works out, and you watch: her run for the presidency will never ever work out because we can't let it work out. To sum up, Hillary Clinton thinks Bernie supporters are hopeless and ignorant basement dwellers. Then, of course, she thinks people who vote for and follow us are deplorable and irredeemable. I don't think so. I don't think so. We have the smartest people, we have the sharpest people, we have the most amazing people, and you know in all of the years of this country they say, even the pundits-most of them aren't worth the ground they're standing on, some of that ground could be fairly wealthy but ground, but most of these people say they have never seen a phenomenon like is going on. We have crowds like this wherever we go.

    WATCH THE FULL SPEECH:

    Later in the speech, Trump came back to the tape again and hammered her once more for it.

    "Hillary Clinton all but said that most of the country is racist, including the men and women of law enforcement," Trump said. "She said that the other night. Did anybody like Lester Holt? Did anybody question her when she said that? No, she said it the other night. [If] you're not a die hard Clinton fan-you're not a supporter-from Day One, Hillary Clinton thinks you are a defective person. That's what she's going around saying."

    In the speech, Trump questioned whether Clinton has the moral authority to lead when she considers the majority of Americans-Trump supporters and Sanders supporters-to be "defective" people. And he went so far as saying that Clinton "should be in prison." He went on:

    How on earth can Hillary Clinton try to lead this country when she has nothing but contempt for the people who live in this country? She's got contempt. First of all, she's got so many scandals and she's been caught cheating so much. One of the worst things I've ever witnessed as a citizen of the United States was last week when the FBI director was trying so hard to explain how she away with what she got away with, because she should be in prison. Let me tell you. She should be in prison. She's being totally protected by the New York Times and the Washington Post and all of the media and CNN-Clinton News Network-which nobody is watching anyway so what difference does it make? Don't even watch it. But she's being protected by many of these groups. It's not like do you think she's guilty? They've actually admitted she's guilty. And then she lies and lies, 33,000 emails deleted, bleached, acid-washed! And then they take their phones and they hammer the hell out of them. How many people have acid washed or bleached a Tweet? How many?

    He returned to the secret Clinton tape a little while later:

    Hillary Clinton slanders and attacks anyone who wants to put America First, whether they are Trump Voters or Bernie Voters. What she said about Bernie voters amazing. Like the European Union, she wants to erase our borders and she wants to do it for her donors and she wants people to pour into country without knowing who they are.

    Trump later bashed the media as "dishonest as hell" when calling on the reporters at his event to "turn your cameras" to show the crowd that came to see him.

    "If they showed the kind of crowds we have-which people can hear, you know it's interesting: you can hear the crowd when you hear the television but if they showed the crowd it would be better television, but they don't know much about that. But it would actually be better television," Trump said.

    Trump also questioned whether Hillary Clinton has been loyal to her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton has been known to cheat on Hillary Clinton with a variety of mistresses and has been accused of rape and sexual assault by some women.

    "Hillary Clinton's only loyalty is to her financial contributors and to herself," Trump said. "I don't even think she's loyal to Bill, if you want to know the truth. And really, folks, really: Why should she be, right? Why should she be?"

    Throughout the speech, Trump weaved together references to his new campaign theme about Clinton-"Follow The Money"-with details about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. He said:

    We're going to take on the corrupt media, the powerful lobbyists and the special interests that have stolen your jobs, your factories, and your future-that's exactly what's happened. We're going to stop Hillary Clinton from continuing to raid the industry from your state for her profit. Hillary Clinton has collected millions of dollars from the same global corporations shipping your jobs and your dreams to other countries. You know it and everybody else knows it. That's why Clinton, if she ever got the chance, would 100 percent approve Trans Pacific Partnership-a total disastrous trade deal. She called the deal the 'gold standard.' The TPP will bring economic devastation to Pennsylvania and our campaign is the only chance to stop that and other bad things that are happening to our country. She lied about the Gold Standard the other night at the debate. She said she didn't say it-she said it. We want to stop the Trans Pacific Partnership and if we don't-remember this, if we don't stop it, billions and billions [of dollars] in jobs and wealth will be vacuumed right out of Pennsylvania and sent to these other countries. Just like NAFTA was a disaster, this will be a disaster. Frankly I don't think it'll be as bad as NAFTA. It can't get any worse than that-signed by Bill Clinton. All of us here in this massive room here tonight can prevent this from happening. Together we can stop TPP and we can end the theft of American jobs and prosperity.

    Trump praised Sanders for being strongly opposed to the TPP:

    I knew one man-I'm not a big fan-but one man who knew the dangers of the TPP was Bernie Sanders. Crazy Bernie. He was right about one thing, only one thing, and that was trade. He was right about it because he knew we were getting ripped off, but he wouldn't be able to do anything about it . We're going to do a lot about it. We're going to have those highways running the opposite direction. We're going to have a lot of trade, but it's going to come into our country. We are going to start benefitting our country because right now it's one way road to trouble. Our jobs leave us, our money leaves us. With Mexico, we get the drugs-they get the cash-it's that simple.

    Hillary Clinton, Trump noted, is "controlled by global special interests."

    "She's on the opposite side of Bernie on the trade issue," Trump said. "She's totally on the opposite side of Bernie."

    He circled back to trade a bit later in the more-than-hour-long speech, hammering TPP and Clinton cash connections. Trump continued:

    Three TPP member countries gave between $6 and $15 million to Clinton. At least four lobbyists who are actively lobbying for TPP passage have raised more than $800,000 for her campaign. I'm just telling you Pennsylvania, we're going to make it. We're going to make it. We're going to make it if we have Pennsylvania for sure. It'll be easy. But you cannot let this pass. NAFTA passed. It's been the worst trade deal probably ever passed, not in this country but anywhere in the world. It cleaned out New England. It cleaned out big portions of Pennsylvania. It cleaned out big portions of Ohio and North Carolina and South Carolina-you can't let it happen.

    Trump even called the politicians like Clinton "bloodsuckers" who have let America be drained out of millions upon millions of jobs.

    "These bloodsuckers want it to happen," Trump said. "They're politicians that are getting taken care of by people that want it to happen. Other countries want it to happen because it's good for them, but it's not good for us. So hopefully you're not going to let it happen. Whatever Hillary's donors want, they get. They own her. On Nov. 8, we're going to end Clinton corruption. Hillary Clinton, dishonest person, is an insider fighting for herself and for her friends. I'm an outsider fighting for you. And by the way, just in case you're not aware, I used to be an insider but I thought this was the right thing to do. This is the right thing to do, believe me."

    [Oct 23, 2016] Mark Ames Why Finance Is Too Important to Leave to Larry Summers naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... The oligarchy has spent decades on a project to "defund the Left," and they've succeeded in ways we're only just now grasping. "Defunding the Left" doesn't mean denying funds to the rotten Democratic Party; it means defunding everything that threatens the 1%'s hold on wealth and power. ..."
    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Yves here. Mark Ames wrote this post for our fundraiser five years ago. We've turned into a fundraiser staple, since as long as Larry Summers is with us, this is the sort of classic worth reading regularly. Think of it as our analogue to Christmas perennials like The Grinch That Stole Christmas or It's a Wonderful Life. But not to worry, Ames being Ames and NC being NC, this is the antithesis of sappy. (Mark, you are on notice that if by some miraculous bit of good fortune, Summers retreats from the public sphere, we'll need you to provide an updated slant on elite venality).

    And in the spirit of Christmas come a couple months early, we hope you'll leave something nice in our stocking, um, Tip Jar -- We are raising our donor target to 1350 (Lambert has yet to update our thermometer) to help us reach our final financial target for original reporting.

    By Mark Ames, author of Going Postal: Rage, Murder and Rebellion from Reagan's Workplaces to Clinton's Columbine who writes regularly at Pando .

    If you've been reading Naked Capitalism for any period of time without giving back in donations-and most of us have been hooked from the time we discovered Yves Smith's powerful, sharp voice and brilliant mind-then you you've been getting away with murder. Naked Capitalism is that rare blog that makes you smarter. Smarter about a lot of things, but primarily about Yves' area of expertise, finance.

    By a quirk of historical bad luck, the American Left has gone two generations without understanding finance, or even caring to understand. It was the hippies who decided half a century ago that finance was beneath them, so they happily ceded the entire field-finance, business, economics, money-otherwise known as "political power"-to the other side. Walking away from the finance struggle was like that hitchhiker handing the gun back to the Manson Family. There's a great line from Charles Portis's anti-hippie novel, "Dog of the South" that captures the Boomers' self-righteous disdain for "figures":

    He would always say-boast, the way those people do-that he had no head for figures and couldn't do things with his hands, slyly suggesting the presence of finer qualities.

    That part about the hands-that would refer to the hippies' other great failure, turning their backs on Labor, because Labor didn't groove with the Hippies' Culture War. So the Left finds itself, fifty years later, dealing with the consequences of all those years of ruinous neglect of finance and labor-the consequences being powerlessness and political impotence.

    That's why Yves Smith is so important to anyone who cares about politics and the bad direction this country is taking. In 2008, the Left suddenly discovered that although it could bray with the best of 'em about how bad foreign wars are, and how wrong racism and sexism an homophobia are, it was caught completely and shamefully by surprise by the financial collapse of 2008. The ignorance was paralyzing, politically and intellectually. Even the lexicon was alien. Unless of course you were one of the early followers of Yves Smith's blog.

    It wasn't always this way.

    Back in the 1930s, the Left was firmly grounded in economics, money and finance; back then, the Left and Labor were practically one. With a foundation in finance and economics, the Left understood labor and political power and ideology and organization much better than the Left today, which at best can parry back the idiotic malice-flak that the Right specializes in spraying us with. We're only just learning how politically stunted and ignorant we are, how much time and knowledge we've lost, and how much catching up we have to do.

    Which is why Yves Smith's Naked Capitalism is one of the 99%'s most valuable asset in the long struggle ahead: She is both analyst and educator, with a rare literary talent (especially for finance). One thing that's protected the financial oligarchy is the turgid horrible prose that they camouflage their toxic ideas and concepts in. Yves is one of the rare few who can make reading finance as emotionally charged as it needs to be.

    Naked Capitalism is our online university in finance and politics and ideology. Whereas other online universities are set up to turn millions of gullible youths into debt-shackled Wall Street feeding cows, Naked Capitalism is the opposite: Completely free, consistently brilliant, vital, and necessary, making us smarter, teaching us how we might one day overthrow the financial oligarchy. One other difference between Naked Capitalism and online university swindles: (Stanley Kaplan cough-cough!) Your donations won't end up paying Ezra Klein's salary.

    Which brings me back to my whole "Shame on you!" point I was trying to make earlier. When it comes to fundraising, nothing works like shaming. That's how those late-night commercials work: You're sitting there in your nice comfortable home, and then suddenly there's this three-legged dog hobbling into its cage, with big wet eyes, and then some bearded pedophile comes on and says, "Poor Rusty has endured more abuse and pain than you can ever imagine, and tomorrow, he will be gassed to death in a slow, horrible poison death chamber. And you-look at you, sitting there with your Chunky Monkey and your central heating, what kind of sick bastard are you? Get your goddamn Visa Mastercard out and send money to Rusty, or else his death is on your head. I hope you sleep well at night."

    Now I know that this sort of appeal wouldn't work on the Naked Capitalism crowd-too many economists here, and as everyone knows, you can't appeal to economists' hearts because, well, see under "Larry Summers World Bank Memo"… I can imagine Larry watching that late night commercial with the three-legged dog, powering a 2-liter bottle of Diet Coke and devouring a bag of Kettle Salt & Vinegar potato chips, calculating the productive worth of the three-legged dog, unmoved by the sentimental appeal. Larry grabs a dictaphone: "Item: How to end dog-gassings? Solution: Ship all three-legged stray dogs to sub-Saharan Africa. Africans won't even notice. Dogs saved. Private capital freed up. Problem solved."

    So some of you have no hearts, and some of us have no shame. But we all do understand how vital Naked Capitalism has been in educating us. I'm sure that the other side knows how dangerous a site like this is, because as we become more educated and more political, we become more and more of a threat.

    The oligarchy has spent decades on a project to "defund the Left," and they've succeeded in ways we're only just now grasping. "Defunding the Left" doesn't mean denying funds to the rotten Democratic Party; it means defunding everything that threatens the 1%'s hold on wealth and power.

    One of their greatest successes, whether by design or not, has been the gutting of journalism, shrinking it down to a manageable size where its integrity can be drowned in a bathtub. It's nearly impossible to make a living as a journalist these days; and with the economics of the journalism business still in free-fall like the Soviet refrigerator industry in the 1990s, media outlets are even less inclined to challenge power, journalists are less inclined to rock the boat than ever, and everyone is more inclined to corruption (see: Washington Post, Atlantic Monthly). A ProPublica study in May put it in numbers: In 1980, the ratio of PR flaks to journalists was roughly 1:3. In 2008, there were 3 PR flaks for every 1 journalist. And that was before the 2008 shit hit the journalism fan.

    This is what an oligarchy looks like. I saw the exact same dynamic in Russia under Yeltsin: When he took power in 1991, Russia had the most fearless and most ideologically diverse journalism culture of any I've ever seen, a lo-fi, hi-octane version of American journalism in the 1970s. But as soon as Yeltsin created a class of oligarchs to ensure his election victory in 1996, the oligarchs snapped up all the free media outlets, and forced out anyone who challenged power, one by one. By the time Putin came to power, all the great Russian journalists that I and Taibbi knew had abandoned the profession for PR or political whoring. It was the oligarchy that killed Russian journalism; Putin merely mopped up a few remaining pockets of resistance.

    The only way to prevent that from happening to is to support the best of what we have left. Working for free sucks. It can't hold, and it won't.

    There are multiple ways to give. The first is here on the blog, the Tip Jar , which takes you to PayPal. There you can use a debit card, a credit card or a PayPal account (the charge will be in the name of Aurora Advisors).

    You can also send a check (or multiple post dated checks) in the name of Aurora Advisors Incorporated to

    Aurora Advisors Incorporated
    903 Park Avenue, 8th Floor
    New York, NY 10075

    Please also send an e-mail to [email protected] with the headline "Check is in the mail" (and just the $ en route in the message) to have your contribution included in the total number of donations.

    So donate now to Naked Capitalism . If you can't afford much, give what you can. If you can afford more, give more. If you can give a lot, give a lot. Whether you can contribute $5 or $5,000, it will pay for itself, I guarantee you. This isn't just giving, it's a statement that you are want a different debate, a different society, and a different culture.

    Who knows, maybe we'll win; maybe we'll even figure out a way to seal Larry Summers in a kind of space barge, and fire him off into deep space, to orbit Uranus for eternity. Yves? Could it be financed?

    susan the other October 22, 2016 at 10:30 am

    thanks – i forgot how funny this one was

    rusti October 22, 2016 at 10:51 am

    And you-look at you, sitting there with your Chunky Monkey and your central heating, what kind of sick bastard are you? Get your goddamn Visa Mastercard out and send money to Rusty, or else his death is on your head. I hope you sleep well at night.

    I'd already shelled out for the NC fundraiser, but this one got me to pull out the MasterCard and finally get around to becoming a subscriber to Ames' fantastic Radio War Nerd podcast, which I discovered thanks to the NC commentariat.

    JTMcPhee October 22, 2016 at 11:19 am

    Interesting how people become the Other over time. Go back to the videos of crowds taunting and attacking black kids being escorted by federal marshals into "white" schools, and you see clean-shaven crew cuts and perms and wife-beater t-shirts and pegged pants and real boots. Go look at the videos of redneck activity now, NASCAR and "mudding" (pickups with huge tires and engines slogging through pits of slimy red Georgia mud" and gatherings of motorboats on Southern lakes, and it's all beards and pony tails (on guys and gals? Says Jeff Foxworthy) and tie-died clothing (along with the Confederate battle flags and gunz and all.

    I got my BA in history from Lake Forest College, in a snotty sick-wealthy northern suburb of Chicago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Forest_College My years there, '69-72, after my volunteer "service" in the US Army and a year doing "Racket" duty in Vietnam, were a "hippie" tour de force. All social concerns and "anti-war" (actually "escape the draft" by young people who were largely those who could not get into the really prestigious Ivy League facilities, despite great family wealth, or who had been booted from the same. Heavy drug use, supine administration ("laissez faire"), endless debates over Marxism Leninism Trotskyism etc. Ineffectual "peace marches," to do stuff like "blocking" an unused entrance to Ft. Sheridan, just down the road - a few TV reporters to document the tomfoolery - "Stop The War Machine!" Motions toward communes, DOA when the practicalities of sharing, comity, ran up against the selfish consumerism of the privileged: ""I don't get my own room and stereo? I get to copulate with others, but you, my steady, must remain my sole property!" It helped the transformation that the daughter of the Dean did a Janis Joplin at the very end of my matriculation there - all of a sudden the local police were invited in, to search student rooms and cars and engage in all the funsies of "drug enforcement" with stings, etc.

    Lake Forest very quickly morphed, once the draft ended, into a very much focused "business school," to teach the young budding not-ready-for-MIT-or-Wharton capitalists the rudiments of their craft. Graduating about 450 looting-ready young folks a year. ?(Not all of them, of course…) Pretty amazing, not surprising.

    Neither the rednecks nor the "hippies" were much interested in what the parasites were doing to "FIRE" over those decades and generations. That's the thing about parasites: most of what they do is invisible until the infection gets severe and vital organs are damaged, while the host goes about generating the nutrition that feeds the critters until whooops! Time to shed some segments into the water supply, lay some eggs, encyst, find another host…

    [Oct 23, 2016] analysis of nationalism, religion, and ethnicity by Zerocalcare

    Oct 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    DJG October 21, 2016 at 5:11 pm

    Monitoring tweets to see who can get into our walled garden.

    Recently, Zerocalcare, one of Italy's best young graphic novelists, whose politics can be described as anarchist but jokey, Roman but semi-serious, was denied a visa to attend Comicon in New York. The grounds are that his passport showed recent travel in Syria and Iraq. Our minders didn't have to read tweets. They only had to read his most recent book, Kobane Calling, in which he illustrates a trip by a group of anarchistic Italians to Iraqi Kurdistan and Rojava in Syria. His analysis of nationalism, religion, and ethnicity is quite subtle. Plenty of highly amusing uses of Roman dialect, which is known for "lewdness." Also, many bathroom jokes–but that's an Italian national characteristic (don't call anyone a stronzo, ne).

    Meanwhile, Zerocalcare was also nominated for a Strega Prize last year in narrative for his graphic novel, Dimentica il Mio Nome, about his mother and grandmother and their mysterious family. He is the first Italian graphic novelist to be nominated for one of the major prizes.

    Obvious an undesirable alien. Peter Thiel is so much more acceptable, as is Henry Kissinger.

    RWood October 21, 2016 at 7:29 pm

    https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/5403378.Zerocalcare

    [Oct 23, 2016] Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts.

    Notable quotes:
    "... From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the basement"? ..."
    "... When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most Russians led miserable lives. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    From The Hague | Oct 22, 2016 12:48:39 PM | 8

    Option two: Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the basement"?

    When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most Russians led miserable lives.

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-us-is-about-to-face-the-worst-crisis-of-its-history-and-how-putins-example-might-inspire-trump/

    [Oct 23, 2016] One less or fewer alphabet evil conglomerate name to remember.

    Oct 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    US Telecommunications giant AT&T, Inc. has agreed in principle to purchase media conglomerate Time Warner Inc., which is one of the country's largest film and television companies, for more than $80 billion, major US media outlets reported Saturday, adding that a formal announcement of the deal could come later in the day.
    http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/10/23/490262/US-Republican-Presidential-nominee-Donald-Trump-ATT-Time-Warner-purchase-deal-media-power-structure

    Posted by: schlub | Oct 22, 2016 9:19:11 PM | 39

    [Oct 23, 2016] Seems UK is moving into full war-propaganda-lying mode, check this whopper:

    Oct 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3851326/Finland-sees-propaganda-attack-former-master-Russia.html

    Their "Russian" they quote, works at, get this, the neocon *Cato Institute* in Wash DC (you would be correct in assuming they don't mention that) try SourceWatch to get some info on them

    The icing on the cake is they refer to the "Balkan Sea" throughout the article, and still haven't corrected it, they just don't give a hoot anymore about the plebs they make up the dross for :D
    Someone want to grab a copy of the page before they trash it?

    Posted by: land_of_the_few | Oct 22, 2016 7:55:04 PM | 30

    @30 lotf, 'Their "Russian" they quote, works at, get this, the neocon *Cato Institute* in Wash DC'

    Andrei Illarionov

    Cato Institute

    The real story of the "Balkan Sea" 'aggression'.


    'It also aims to make citizens suspicious about the European Union, and to warn Finland over not joining NATO.'

    Posted by: jfl | Oct 22, 2016 9:16:45 PM | 38

    [Oct 23, 2016] An Establishment in Panic

    Notable quotes:
    "... Establishment panic is traceable to another fear: its [neoliberal] ideology, its political religion, is seen by growing millions as a golden calf, a 20th-century god that has failed. ..."
    "... After having expunged Christianity from our public life and public square, our establishment installed "democracy" as the new deity, at whose altars we should all worship. And so our schools began to teach. ..."
    "... Today, Clintons, Obamas, and Bushes send soldiers and secularist tutors to "establish democracy" among the "lesser breeds without the Law." ..."
    "... By suggesting he might not accept the results of a "rigged election," Trump is committing an unpardonable sin. But this new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of diversity, democracy, and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow roots. ..."
    "... For none of the three-diversity, equality, democracy-is to be found in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, or the Pledge of Allegiance. In the pledge, we are a republic. ..."
    "... Among many in the silent majority, Clintonian democracy is not an improvement upon the old republic; it is the corruption of it. ..."
    "... Consider: six months ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton bundler, announced that by executive action he would convert 200,000 convicted felons into eligible voters by November. ..."
    "... Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in "Points of Rebellion": "We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution." ..."
    "... Baby-boomer radicals loved it, raising their fists in defiance of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. But now that it is the populist-nationalist right that is moving beyond the niceties of liberal democracy to save the America that they love, elitist enthusiasm for "revolution" seems more constrained. ..."
    The American Conservative
    What explains the hysteria of the establishment? In a word, fear. The establishment is horrified at the Donald's defiance because, deep within its soul, it fears that the people for whom Trump speaks no longer accept its political legitimacy or moral authority. It may rule and run the country, and may rig the system through mass immigration and a mammoth welfare state so that Middle America is never again able to elect one of its own. But that establishment, disconnected from the people it rules, senses, rightly, that it is unloved and even detested.

    Having fixed the future, the establishment finds half of the country looking upon it with the same sullen contempt that our Founding Fathers came to look upon the overlords Parliament sent to rule them.

    Establishment panic is traceable to another fear: its [neoliberal] ideology, its political religion, is seen by growing millions as a golden calf, a 20th-century god that has failed.

    Trump is "talking down our democracy," said a shocked Clinton.

    After having expunged Christianity from our public life and public square, our establishment installed "democracy" as the new deity, at whose altars we should all worship. And so our schools began to teach.

    Half a millennia ago, missionaries and explorers set sail from Spain, England, and France to bring Christianity to the New World.

    Today, Clintons, Obamas, and Bushes send soldiers and secularist tutors to "establish democracy" among the "lesser breeds without the Law."

    Unfortunately, the natives, once democratized, return to their roots and vote for Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood, using democratic processes and procedures to reestablish their true God. And Allah is no democrat.

    By suggesting he might not accept the results of a "rigged election," Trump is committing an unpardonable sin. But this new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of diversity, democracy, and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow roots.

    For none of the three-diversity, equality, democracy-is to be found in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, or the Pledge of Allegiance. In the pledge, we are a republic.

    When Ben Franklin, emerging from the Philadelphia convention, was asked by a woman what kind of government they had created, he answered, "A republic, if you can keep it."

    Among many in the silent majority, Clintonian democracy is not an improvement upon the old republic; it is the corruption of it.

    Consider: six months ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton bundler, announced that by executive action he would convert 200,000 convicted felons into eligible voters by November.

    If that is democracy, many will say, to hell with it. And if felons decide the electoral votes of Virginia, and Virginia decides who is our next U.S. president, are we obligated to honor that election?

    In 1824, Gen. Andrew Jackson ran first in popular and electoral votes. But, short of a majority, the matter went to the House. There, Speaker Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams delivered the presidency to Adams-and Adams made Clay secretary of state, putting him on the path to the presidency that had been taken by Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Adams himself. Were Jackson's people wrong to regard as a "corrupt bargain" the deal that robbed the general of the presidency? The establishment also recoiled in horror from Milwaukee Sheriff Dave Clarke's declaration that it is now "torches and pitchforks time."

    Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in "Points of Rebellion": "We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution."

    Baby-boomer radicals loved it, raising their fists in defiance of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. But now that it is the populist-nationalist right that is moving beyond the niceties of liberal democracy to save the America that they love, elitist enthusiasm for "revolution" seems more constrained.

    What goes around comes around.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.

    [Oct 22, 2016] Congress does not declare war, which is its constitutional responsibility. Instead, a few buttons are pressed and, with only a brief and quickly forgotten spurt of news stories that obscure more than they reveal, we are at war

    Oct 22, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Northern Star ,

    October 20, 2016 at 11:44 am
    Succinct exposure of continuing American psycho militaristic aggression in ME:
    "The United States no longer enters wars as we did in earlier eras. Our president does not announce that we have taken up a new cause in a distant land. Congress does not declare war, which is its constitutional responsibility. Instead, a few buttons are pressed and, with only a brief and quickly forgotten spurt of news stories that obscure more than they reveal, we are at war."
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/10/19/plunges-into-war-with-yemen/STkGyrSwoHiCvIeP2gm6CM/story.html
    yalensis , October 20, 2016 at 5:55 pm
    But we have always been at war with Eastasia.
    Or was that Oceania?
    I forget marknesop , October 20, 2016 at 10:17 pm
    That's a good piece; reasonable, and well-substantiated. I think a lot of Americans today do not realize what a deliberate and considered process becoming involved in war is supposed to be. He's absolutely correct that the doctrine has evolved from 'advise and consent' to 'it's easier to obtain forgiveness than permission'.

    [Oct 22, 2016] Andrew Mitchell was not alone in rattling the rusty sabre by suggesting we shoot down Russian jets over Syria. We also had Boris Johnson, our Foreign Secretary, demanding - in the manner of a clownish ayatollah - that people should protest outside the Russian embassy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Boris said this in response to the Russian and Syrian government air attacks upon Aleppo, which were certainly brutal. Then, about a week later, the West began, with clinical precision, to identify people in the last Iraqi Isis stronghold of Mosul with really radical beards and bomb them to smithereens, mercifully and humanitarianly sparing the local, decent, democratically minded citizens, who of course escaped the bombardment without so much as a graze. ..."
    "... In Ukraine, Russia was the designated fall-guy for having NATO snuggled right up against its cheek, an overtly hostile military alliance which has advertised itself as Russia's enemy. ..."
    "... In Crimea, similarly, Russia was looking at the probability of a NATO naval base right next door. The reasons for Russia's intervention in Syria are more complicated and were both geostrategic and economic, but had nothing whatever to do with belligerence. The USA was never invited into Syria, yet had been bombing in Syria – ostensibly against ISIS, but making no secret of Washington's desire that Assad be overthrown – for nearly two years before Russia stepped in, and few suggested the USA was being belligerent. ..."
    "... The problem, then, is not that they are spreading misinformation, but that Russia Today is spreading truthful information which the UK government finds extremely unhelpful. Is it non-biased and non-partisan, does it always give balance and right of reply? No, no and thrice no. Does the BBC? ..."
    Oct 22, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Jeremn , October 20, 2016 at 8:16 am

    Oh, this is good. And the comments.

    "Andrew Mitchell was not alone in rattling the rusty sabre by suggesting we shoot down Russian jets over Syria. We also had Boris Johnson, our Foreign Secretary, demanding - in the manner of a clownish ayatollah - that people should protest outside the Russian embassy.

    Boris said this in response to the Russian and Syrian government air attacks upon Aleppo, which were certainly brutal. Then, about a week later, the West began, with clinical precision, to identify people in the last Iraqi Isis stronghold of Mosul with really radical beards and bomb them to smithereens, mercifully and humanitarianly sparing the local, decent, democratically minded citizens, who of course escaped the bombardment without so much as a graze."

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/stop-this-stupid-sabre-rattling-against-russia/

    marknesop , October 20, 2016 at 8:03 pm
    Still full of shite, of course – Britain cannot seem to write anything which is not, and it's only a matter of degree. Putin is neither overtly homophobic (I have no idea what his personal beliefs are, which is as it should be, you should not be able to tell) nor belligerent. In Ukraine, Russia was the designated fall-guy for having NATO snuggled right up against its cheek, an overtly hostile military alliance which has advertised itself as Russia's enemy.

    This was meant to be brought about by means of a political coup, because NATO did not want to risk putting it to a vote, although it deliberately exaggerated the broadness of Ukrainian enthusiasm for a European future.

    In Crimea, similarly, Russia was looking at the probability of a NATO naval base right next door. The reasons for Russia's intervention in Syria are more complicated and were both geostrategic and economic, but had nothing whatever to do with belligerence. The USA was never invited into Syria, yet had been bombing in Syria – ostensibly against ISIS, but making no secret of Washington's desire that Assad be overthrown – for nearly two years before Russia stepped in, and few suggested the USA was being belligerent.

    yalensis , October 20, 2016 at 5:42 pm

    The problem, then, is not that they are spreading misinformation, but that Russia Today is spreading truthful information which the UK government finds extremely unhelpful. Is it non-biased and non-partisan, does it always give balance and right of reply? No, no and thrice no. Does the BBC?

    Ha ha – This is a good writing!

    [Oct 22, 2016] The only way Hillary could be stopped would be if the Republican Party elite stood with Trump, so Soros and the other donor who owns voting machines could be blocked from flipping/fractionalizing votes.

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    The only way Hillary could be stopped would be if the Republican Party elite stood with Trump, so Soros and the other donor who owns voting machines could be blocked from flipping/fractionalizing votes. But that isn't happening. Soros machines are in key swing states like Colorado and Pennsylvania, and we already have data from the primary that a good 15% (at least) can be flipped, compared to exit polls/hand counts/paper trail or non-donor machines.

    I guess it's still possible, like what happened in the Michigan Democratic primary, that the real numbers are more like a 10% lead for Trump and they come out in force in unexpected locations, and Clinton's small, unenthusiastic base stays home, thus making it too difficult to successfully flip. But I'm trying not to count on something like that, because it seems too close optomism bias driven "poll unskewing" – I mean, the polls clearly ARE skewed in favor of Hillary, but I doubt they're off by 15%.

    Stein could never take over the Democratic Party. It isn't even clear to me that the Greens could replace the Democrats, although I do think their massive increase in ballot access this year is a credit to the party and to Stein. That shows real organizing and management effectiveness.

    I started this campaign season advocating for purging Clintonians out of the now hollow Democratic Party and taking it over. That still seems like the most efficient path to an actual left national party, in part because our current system is so corrupted and calcified. But I'm not sure it's possible. At this point, I can imagine a cataclysmic revolution happening during Clinton's term more easily than a reformed, citizen friendly Democratic Party.

    Is it gin o'clock yet?

    [Oct 22, 2016] Israel doesn't have to worry about a stand up fight with the Syrian Army. No, they have to worry about small unit and irregular warfare, inside Israel. That's the kind of spillover a hotted up Syrian "Civil War" would produce

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ambrit October 21, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    Notice that Netanyahu is suddenly "mending fences" with Russia. Could someone have whispered in his ear; "Low yield nuke over Tel Aviv?" It needn't be Russia directly. Say Hizbullah is 'gifted' a Pakistani warhead through some devious back channels. America is running a proxy war in Syria. Nothing says that Russia, or China cannot do something similar.
    I see no discussion of spillover effects to Libya's neighbors. Think of the spillover effects attendant to major chaos in Syria!

    cocomaan October 21, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    It is definitely interesting to me how quiet Israel has been for awhile now.

    Spillover from Syria has definitely already begun, right? Just today, the protests in Paris are, I believe, a result of the influx of immigrants.

    What the heck is it going to look like when HRC starts bombing and Syria falls into even further disrepair?

    ambrit October 21, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    Israel doesn't have to worry about a stand up fight with the Syrian Army. No, they have to worry about small unit and irregular warfare, inside Israel. That's the kind of spillover a hotted up Syrian "Civil War" would produce. Say, the Syrians and Russians establish their own "No Fly Zone" over southern Syria, and enforce it against all comers, including the Israeli Air Force. Then supply convoys to Hizbullah in Lebanon would really ramp up. Voila! The Lebanon Israel border heats up by orders of magnitude.
    I am convinced that H Clinton does not understand the forces she wants to juggle with.
    Where in America would you resettle the millions of refuges from the destruction of Israel?

    craazyboy October 21, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    Miami. Jewish Heaven. We even overbuilt the condos for this very eventuality.

    [Oct 22, 2016] The No Fly Zone was the strategy used to destroy Gaddafi. It's HRC's telegraph for invasion.

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    cocomaan October 21, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    I respect Juan Cole as a scholar, but his political commentary got so muddled in apologizing for the Libyan disaster. I wrote him several times about problems in the Sahel, particularly among Tuareg, resulting from the Libyan invasion, but he wriggled out of it, going to Libya and talking about how great it was there and otherwise excusing the massacre.

    Why suggest a no fly zone in Syria that can't be implemented. It is baffling.

    Is it really that baffling? Read her emails. The No Fly Zone was the strategy used to destroy Gaddafi. It's HRC's telegraph for invasion.

    Cole misses that when Wallace asked her if she'd shoot down a Russian plan that violated the no-fly zone, she dodged.

    Not surprising, as it's the Libya playbook.

    [Oct 22, 2016] We have to build an anti-neoliberal culture.

    Oct 22, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Denis Drew : October 21, 2016 at 01:47 PM
    Culture, culture, culture. We have to build an anti-neoliberal culture. How? Unions, unions, unions.

    Full scale re-unionization (I don't say "massive" which implies extraordinary -- what is extraordinary is 5% union density in private business; that's like 20/10 BP) will create a broad and deep consensus for (let's call it what it is) normal, grownup economics.

    [cut-and-paste]
    States can add to federal labor protections but not subtract (e.g., minimum wage). In the absence of actually working protection of organizing (not just organizers) states should feel free to impose certification elections where labor market warping is found.

    Union busting should be a felony (taken at least as seriously as taking a movie in the movies ;-]) - but mandating elections could be the most direct remedy for union blocking.

    Intimidating union organizing is illegal everywhere - and nowhere/nowhere practicably. If caught firing an organizer, then, at most you must rehire her. Doesn't matter if you fully compensate her income loss and never fire her again - you got away with the real bank robbery money; you barred the certification election.

    Remedy that would make the clearest economic logic: a finding of union busting should lead to a mandatory certification election. Most would expect this sanction needs to take place at the federal level (NLRB preemption). This could be possible if Hillary pulls enough reps and senators with her. Perfect issue to attract Donald's AND BERNIE'S blue collar workers.

    I believe this sanction could be done at the state level because the federal setup protects organizers (in theory if not so much in reality) but offers no protection for the act of organizING itself (except for categorizing it as illegal). If there is no DIRECT protection for organizing to preempt (not in any SUBSTANTIVE way), then I would argue that the states could mandate an election (upon the finding union blocking).

    There may even be a tricky (as in convoluted) First Amendment argument: the federal setup cannot constitutionally void state protection of the First Amendment right to associate commercially by the imposition of a setup that provides no (as in zero) protection of it's own.

    likbez -> Denis Drew ...

    "...neoliberalism not as some kind of coherent political philosophy, but more as a set of interconnected ideas that have become commonplace in much of our discourse. "

    Neoliberalism is an eclectic mix of ideas which like Marxism includes an economics doctrine (neoclassical economics) and some flavour of Nietzschean of philosophy ( Randism ).

    Like Marxism postulates the coming dominance of proletariat as a new social class (via socialist transformation of the society), neoliberalism postulates the rule of global financial oligarchy as new dominant social class (disguised as "creative class" ). That's why sometimes it is called Trotskyism for rich.

    In this sense it is somewhat different both from socialism and capitalism. On top level it is more like 'corporate socialism' as multinationals control the state, while on the lower level it is more like jungle capitalism ("greed is good", "homo homini lupus est", demonization of poor, decimation/privatization of Social programs, etc).

    Or a mutation of corporatism (Italian model) with some elements of Falangism such as claim of the nonexistence of social classes and replacement of charismatic dictator and mass mobilization with inverted totalitarism.

    The idea of "shrinking the state" is just a neoliberal propaganda trick. Under neoliberalism it is applicable only to vassal states to allow larger share of wealth to be grabbed by transnational corporations.

    The USA as the center of global neoliberal empire needs constantly expanding state apparatus to deal with imperial governance, and, especially, military to deal with dissent and fight the wars of the expansion of neoliberal empire such as in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Just look at the Pentagon and State Department growth dynamics.

    Also as the financial oligarchy is the ruling class and, as such, owns the government under the neoliberalism, any talk about possibility of not bailing out the banks is a little bit naive. As Senator Durbin observed:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/dick-durbin-banks-frankly_n_193010.html
    === quote ===
    "And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place," he said on WJJG 1530 AM's "Mornings with Ray Hanania." Progress Illinois picked up the quote.
    == end of quote ==

    If most of Washington politicians including Obama and Clinton can be viewed as puppets of financial oligarchy, who exactly would revolt in Congress against the bailout? What social forces? Neocons? They are just neoliberals with the gun. Media-military-industrial complex ? They are well integrated with financial oligarchy via so called "deep state".

    Squeezing the 99% was the only viable political option. Which in a decade produced the dramatic rise of social protest (aka "populism" as it is called by neoliberal presstitutes) that we now observe with Trump and Brexit.

    But Brexit might be more of an exception then the rule: "one swallow does not a summer make".

    Much depends on the rate of depletion of oil reserves which constitute the grave danger to neoliberal globalization.

    likbez -> Denis Drew ... , October 21, 2016 at 09:39 PM
    In other words an important stage of building anti-neoliberal culture is to understand what neoliberalism is, and what are avenues of social protest in the current conditions.

    Re-creation of union power will be opposed with all available means (including neoliberal brainwashing) as the key idea of neoliberalism is an atomization of workforce. In other words each workers is an independent sellers of his "unit of labor" as a marketable good in "labor market" on the conditions dictated, of course, by the owners of the market.

    As Margaret Thatcher said in 1987:

    == quote ==
    "I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

    <

    [Oct 22, 2016] Clinton re Russia: Is it hubris, stupidity, or conspiracy, or some combination of the three?

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    WJ October 21, 2016 at 4:03 pm

    So what are people's sense of Clinton re Russia? Is it hubris, stupidity, or conspiracy, or some combination of the three? I ask because her Wall Street speeches and foreshadowed Grand Bargain are clearly conspiratorial; while her nonchalant violation of every security protocol seems pure hubris; I guess I don't see how war with Russia could really benefit her that much, unless she thinks it's the one thing that can keep her from being impeached; is that it, or is it something else that's driving this, or just stupidity?

    Harry October 21, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    All the very serious people know the Russians are gonna cave. Who would fight a nuclear war for Syria/ukraine? They can't match the US conventionally so we can just bleed them till they let go.

    What could go wrong?

    LifelongLib October 22, 2016 at 3:27 am

    "They can't match the U.S. conventionally "

    It's been pointed out here that wargame scenarios of Russia vs NATO usually come out with Russia winning. Why wouldn't that apply to other areas as well?

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 21, 2016 at 5:50 pm

    It's much simpler: it's money.

    The War on Terra is getting tiresome and as pointed out above doesn't justify the really big hardware, aircraft carriers, tanks etc.

    They need a bigger enemy to keep the $$$ flowing from the chump taxpayer's pockets to billionaire Raytheon shareholders' accounts in Panama. She serves Money and Death, and does a really good job of it. You'd even say she's an expert.

    And one point: GE owns NBC, and GE makes billions from war machines. Can't have a president who might slow down the revenue stream, better yet to get a woman to put a friendly face on WW III and why we need it so badly. Kinda like getting a young African American to sell health care extraction and bank crimes and how they're really good, if just more young people would sign up and if people would just stop "peddling fiction" about how awesome the economy is.

    Sandy October 21, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    GE has not owned NBC for almost six years now.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 21, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    Oops! Good news then, I guess we really do have a diverse and unbiased press with no interest is furthering the prospects of one candidate over another.

    aab October 21, 2016 at 7:37 pm

    Comcast owns NBC Universal now.

    Its CEO golfs with Obama on the regular.

    Roland October 21, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    WJ wrote about Clinton on Russia: " Is it hubris, stupidity, or conspiracy, or some combination of the three?"

    Or is it that she thinks that the USA can fight a war against Russia, and win?

    I suspect that a lot of the US foreign policy establishment are feeling bullish about their BMD systems. They feel sure that they have finally escaped the toils of MAD. In other words, they feel convinced, if it comes down to it, the USA can affordably prevail over Russia in a war at any level of escalation, even though that would demand that the USA launch first strike.

    If you want to see arrogance, just wait to see how that US elite behaves after they win a major war, and come to enjoy truly unchecked power.

    Pat October 21, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    I'm sure. Luckily odds are most of us will be dead before that happens. Because it will either be a long long time from now OR most of the country will be destroyed before victory can be declared long enough to gloat.

    If it weren't for the fact that it is a such a godawful idea for everyone BUT the elites, I'd almost like to see the latter possibility which includes the loss of a whole lot of very expensive "toys". But there are still humans attached to those toys, it will take a lot for them to get they aren't winning, and even then they won't take responsibility for the massive amounts of damage their hubris and sociopathy have caused – see Clinton in re either Honduras or Libya or both.

    craazyboy October 21, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    I'm pretty sure the Pentagon does NOT believe that our BMD systems can protect against a full scale Russian ICBM attack on the US mainland. I would hope if any foreign policy types believed so, they would be quickly garroted from behind with piano wire.

    Then again, maybe they did go ahead and convert a bunch of West Virginia coal mines to luxury condos, like Dr. Strangelove suggested.

    Harry October 21, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    And that's why a first strike is so important!

    Let's hope the Russians havnt worked this out.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 21, 2016 at 8:16 pm

    Russia has re-stated their policy not to strike first. By contrast, in 2012 Obama reversed America's long-standing commitment not to do so.
    That we are even discussing this shows just how far the War Party and their money pig-men have descended into true clinical mental illness territory, Dr. Strangelove has nothing on the levels of reality-bending criminal insanity of our Dear Leaders.

    Wj October 21, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    No idea if this is accurate or not, but Wikipedia states that BMD systems are not effective against ICBMs, which can now travel at hypersonic (Mach 5-6) speeds delivering up to eight separate warheads (!) with pinpoint accuracy. So that's something to look forward to.

    jo6pac October 21, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    True and amazing enough Russia can take ours out before reenter.

    ewmayer October 21, 2016 at 8:14 pm

    That depends on whether one's definition of "effective" refers to actual antimissile defense or, say, raking in buttloads of $ in DoD contracts.

    uncle tungsten October 21, 2016 at 11:17 pm

    I do like the piano wire remedy :-{). There are a bunch of people in the State Department that signed a memo recently that clearly fit the requisite description for its use.

    [Oct 22, 2016] People see the elite lying over the Iraq war - which Trump brags he opposed - and then they see the elite Hillary and DNC using Russia interference as a way to distract for the content of the leaked emails

    Oct 22, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. -> EMichael... October 22, 2016 at 09:44 AM

    "In the run up to the Iraq War when false intelligence abounded and dominated the discussion,"

    The problem is that you see everything through a Donkey vs Elephant prism in stark Manichean terms.

    People see the elite lying over the Iraq war - which Trump brags he opposed - and then they see the elite Hillary and DNC using Russia interference as a way to distract for the content of the leaked emails.

    They don't see Hillary as their champion, just another lying elite.

    Obama's NSA chief blatantly lied to the American people and said they weren't spying on us en masse.

    Why should we trust them about anything?

    If (when) Hillary is elected I'm sure she'll make Russia pay if it's behind these hacks. Otherwise Russia is an excuse not to discuss the hacked email.

    Maybe Putin is that stupid and he feels threatened over the way Hillary championed the democratic opposition in a recent election, but it seems to me to be colossally stupid for Russia to pick a fight with the U.S.

    You don't think Hillary is going to push back if (when) she's elected? Given that she's a hawk and was courting the support of hawks like Paul Wolfowitz during the election she was probably going to push Russia anyway no matter the hacking.

    Dan Kervick -> Peter K.... , October 22, 2016 at 09:54 AM
    I think many Americans are deeply skeptical by now of the competence, aims and basic good will of much of the US foreign policy establishment. Faced with a choice between the Putin approach to global security and stability, and that represented by the zealot, neocon-tilting HRC wing of the US establishment, it's a tough call.

    Clinton has had abundant opportunity to attempt to distance herself from the many Iraq-era neocons who are embracing her campaign. She hasn't. That is telling and worrisome.

    Dan Kervick -> Dan Kervick... , October 22, 2016 at 09:56 AM
    And yeah, just to redouble Peter's point, few citizens instinctively trust the US government when they say, "We have intelligence that ..."
    ilsm -> EMichael... , October 22, 2016 at 10:21 AM
    WW III is major part of Hillary job creation plan.
    anne -> Julio ... , October 22, 2016 at 10:31 AM
    The crazily prejudiced disdain * that folks at the Economist have for Russia by the way extends to China. The Economist reflects perfectly the British regret that China is no longer part of what was a sun-never-sets empire. As for Russia, the prejudiced disdain that has been fostered by the foreign policy establishment is blinding.

    What was the position of the economist on invading Iraq? Right.

    * Precisely so.

    [Oct 22, 2016] HRC and her cronies think it is a good idea to stir up trouble with Russia! Talk about opportunity cost at the very least.

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Pat October 21, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    Someone who a few months ago told me "no one is stupid enough to want war with Russia", just this week changed that to "no one wants a hot war" and "we don't have the troops for a hot war" because well it turns out that Clinton knows the no fly zone will mean war with Russia.
    Sadly this is one of the many who think that Clinton is the sane one.

    Everything tells me that whatever the real goal (and no it is not obvious what that is) Hillary Rodham Clinton is stupid enough to not care about war with Russia, doesn't understand that we don't have the troops for a hot war, and frankly is perfectly willing to play chicken with a nuclear power killing this country in the process. So far, Putin has been far saner than Hillary Clinton has ever been, but I'm pretty damn sure his patience is wearing out. I can only hope that Europe begins to wake up and realize that America following the wishes of SA and Israel are causing their refugee problems NOT Russia. And sanely decide that following America further down the rat hole is a loser for them and the world, because that might be the only thing that wakes them up from their fevered dream.

    Pavel October 21, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    Luckily (for the planet) I suspect Putin is content to play the long game - increase the alliance (especially economic) with China, build up relationships with e.g. Iran and Turkey (and now cf Philippines), and most of all court the EU states who are most terrified of increased sabre-rattling by the US.

    It is so bizarre that in such an unstable world with such critical issues - global warming, horrific global debt and faltering bubble-based economies, Mideast chaos - HRC and her cronies think it is a good idea to stir up trouble with Russia! Talk about "opportunity cost" at the very least.

    Mark P. October 21, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    The War on Terror has never really been profitable enough for the military-industrial complex, and anyway may be approaching its sell-by date. The MIC wanted a return to big-platform - aircraft carriers, big ships, enormously expensive new planes, and missile systems, big artillery - programs and spending.

    For big-platform spending you need a big-platform enemy to justify it. Hence, the Russkies. Patrick Cockburn is good on this.

    Not incidentally, the arms industry of the early 20th century was a big reason for WWI; probably including in July 1914 being behind the assassination of Jean Jaurčs, a top French socialist, who was blocking it.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 21, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    The fun one to watch today is the US Army versus the CIA (Milo Minderbinder would be thrilled).
    In Iraq the US Army is supporting the government against al-Qaeda in Mosul. In Syria of course the CIA is backing al-Qaeda in Aleppo against the government.

    So the breathless press coverage of the son et lumiere of the Mosul push is turning into a dud. Why? Because al-Qaeda is slinking away out of Mosul. But where are they going? Oh, look, the US is helpfully providing buses to take 6000 of them to the fight in Syria, once they cross that imaginary line known as "the border" they magically turn into good guys again.

    Cue John McCain high-fiving! And cue Lurch our Secretary of State, telling the UN and the world that Russia is the one that is guilty of war crimes. LOLOLOLOL

    [Oct 22, 2016] Hillarys Puppet Screed

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    What a nasty, corrupt and dishonest woman is running for PORUS...

    The American Conservative

    For months she had only intimated it, or delegated the real dirty work to her surrogates and campaign staff, but at the final televised debate this week Hillary Clinton finally let loose: Donald Trump is "a puppet" of the Kremlin, she declared.

    It's worth pausing to consider just how extreme and incendiary that allegation is. For Trump to be a "puppet" of a hostile foreign power-especially Russia, arguably America's oldest continuous adversary-would be an event of earth-shaking magnitude, unrivaled in all U.S. history. It would mean that by some nefarious combination of subterfuge and collusion, the sinister Russian leader Vladimir Putin had managed to infiltrate our political system at its very core, executing a Manchurian Candidate -style scheme that would've been dismissed as outlandish in even the most hyperbolic 1960s-era espionage movie script.

    Trump is often accused of violating the "norms" that typically govern the tenor of U.S. presidential campaigns. And these accusations very often have validity: at the same debate, he declined to preemptively endorse the legitimacy of the election outcome, which appears to be without precedent. As everyone is now keenly aware, he's unleashed a constant torrent of brash histrionics that defy discursive standards and violate "norms" of many kinds-You're rigged! I'm rigged! We're all rigged!

    But Hillary too violated a longstanding norm this week with her "puppet" screed, which was the culmination of her campaign's months-long effort to tarnish Trump as a secret Russian lackey using the kind of retrograde nomenclature ("Puppet"? Really?) that would've made even the most hardened old-time Cold Warrior blush. Because of Hillary's barb, there will henceforth be a precedent for accusing a rival major-party nominee of being a stealth agent of a fearsome foreign power, based on only the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence.

    Extrapolating from Trump's stated belief that cooperation, rather than antagonism, with nuclear-armed Russia is desirable, Hillary's boosters have long surmised that he must therefore be under the spell of a devious foreign spymaster: it can't be that he genuinely prefers to be friendly with Russia and forge an alliance with their military. The only tenable explanation by their lights is this harebrained mind-control conspiracy theory.

    One central irony to all this is that Trump basically has the same position vis-ŕ-vis Russia as Barack Obama. As Trump pointed out in the Wednesday night debate, Obama attempted to broker a military alliance with Putin's Russia only a few weeks ago; it fell through after American forces in Syria bombed soldiers loyal to Assad in direct contravention of the terms of the agreement. But it was an instance of deal-making nevertheless, so if Trump is guilty of accommodating the dastardly Russian menace, Obama must be similarly guilty.

    Hillary's increasingly hostile rhetoric on the homefront also likely contributed to "nuking" the accord with Russia, as she's repeatedly accused Putin of subverting the American electoral process by way of hacks, as well as lambasting him as the "grand godfather'' of global extremist movements-including the U.S. "alt-right."

    It would be one thing if these fantastic claims were ever substantiated with ample evidence, but they're just not. At the debate, Hillary attributed her theory regarding the Russian orchestration of recent hacks on her campaign and the Democratic National Committee to unnamed "intelligence professionals." These unspecified individuals have also failed to produce tangible evidence linking Russia to Trump, or Russia to the hacks. They are also the same sorts of people whose proclamations about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq were uncritically parroted by media allies.

    She launched into the "puppet" rant after moderator Chris Wallace quoted an excerpt from one of her speeches delivered to a foreign bank, which had been published by WikiLeaks. It should be reiterated that Hillary had actively concealed these speech transcripts over the course of the entire presidential campaign, and the only reason the American public can now view them is thanks to WikiLeaks. But in an effort to change the subject from her newly revealed (and damning) comments before admiring cadres of financial elites, Hillary accused the rogue publishing organization of being party to a Russian plot. "This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government, clearly, from Putin himself," Hillary proclaimed.

    What evidence has been furnished that demonstrates "Putin himself" directed such efforts? Absolutely none that we are yet aware of. One could feasibly posit that such a blithe willingness to launch baseless attacks against foreign leaders is indicative of a poor temperament on Hillary's part; it's exactly the kind of bluster that could escalate into hot conflict, and will likely sour the U.S.-Russia bilateral relationship for years to come under a prospective Clinton Administration.

    In addition to accusing Putin of hacking the U.S. election, Hillary again announced her staunch support for a "no-fly zone" in Syria, which would necessitate the deployment of thousands more U.S. ground troops to the war-torn country and provoke direct, hostile confrontation with Russia, which is sustaining its client Assad. When asked by Wallace if she would authorize the shoot-down of Russian warplanes, Hillary evaded the question. (A simple "no" would've been nice.)

    It's long been known that Hillary is a hawk; she is supported by many of the same neoconservatives who once gravitated to George W. Bush. But her bellicosity toward Russia, which climaxed with the "puppet" diatribe, demonstrates that her hawkish tendencies are far from conventional; they are extreme. Hillary seems to be at her most animated (and one might say, perhaps even crazed) when she is aiming ire at supposed foreign adversaries, which of late has almost entirely been Russia, Russia, Russia. (Russia was the number-one topic broached at all this year's debates, according to a tally by Adam Johnson of the media-watchdog organization FAIR.)

    The tenor of the international situation has gotten exceptionally dire. Last Friday it was reported that the CIA is preparing to launch an "unprecedented" cyberattack on Russia; relations between the two states are at a dangerous nadir not seen in decades, to the point that former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has warned that a nuclear exchange is perilously likely.

    Trump, for all his faults, has long advocated a sort of détente .

    So why aren't these developments front-and-center in media coverage of the campaign? Instead, it's still a relentless focus on Trump's many foibles, notwithstanding what appears to be Hillary's steady sleepwalk into a potentially catastrophic war.

    Michael Tracey is a journalist based in New York City.

    [Oct 22, 2016] Trump We Wish the Problem Was Fascism

    Notable quotes:
    "... I find the spectacle of liberals heroically mounting the barricades against Trump-fascism rather amusing. ..."
    "... Second thing is, Trump isn't fascist. In my opinion, Trump's an old-fashioned white American nativist, ..."
    "... Tagging him as "fascist" allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years and predate the formulation of fascism by several decades if not a century. Those nasty vetting/exclusion things he's proposing are as American as apple pie. For those interested in boning up on the Know Nothings and the Chinese Exclusion Act, I have this piece for you . ..."
    "... Real fascism, in theory, is a rather interesting and nasty beast. In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life. ..."
    "... In both fascism and bolshevism, democratic outcomes lack inherent legitimacy. National legitimacy resides in the party, which embodies the essence of a threatened race or class in a way that Hegel might appreciate but Marx probably wouldn't. Subversion of democracy and seizure of state power are not only permissible; they are imperatives. ..."
    "... The purest fascism movement I know of exists in Ukraine. I wrote about it here , and it's a piece I think is well worth reading to understand what a political movement organized on fascist principles really looks like. And Trump ain't no fascist. He's a nativist running a rather incompetent campaign. ..."
    "... The most interesting application of the "fascist" analysis, rather surprisingly, applies to the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, when considering the cultivation of a nexus between big business and *ahem* racially inflected politics. ..."
    "... White labor originally had legal recourse to beating back the challenge/threat of African-American labor instead of accommodating it as a "class" ally; it subsequently relied on institutional and customary advantages. ..."
    "... The most reliable wedge against working class solidarity and a socialist narrative in American politics used to be white privilege which, when it was reliably backed by US business and political muscle, was a doctrine of de facto white supremacy. ..."
    "... The perception of marginalized white clout is reinforced by the nomination of Hillary Clinton and her campaign emphasis on the empowerment of previously marginalized but now demographically more important groups. ..."
    "... The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -actually, the overarching and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties-"identity politics." ..."
    "... The most calculated and systematic employment of racial politics was employed by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the Democratic primary to undercut the socialist-lite populist appeal of Bernie Sanders. ..."
    "... My personal disdain for the Clinton campaign was born on the day that John Lewis intoned "I never saw him" in order to dismiss the civil rights credentials of Bernie Sanders ..."
    "... In the primary, this translated into an attack on Sanders and the apparently mythical "Bernie bro" as racist swine threatening the legacy of the first black president, venerated by the African American electorate, Barack Obama. In the general, well, Donald Trump and his supporters provided acres more genuine grist for the identity warrior mill. ..."
    "... Trump's ambitions to gain traction for a favorable American/populist/outsider narrative for his campaign have been frustrated by determined efforts to frame him as anti-Semitic, racist against blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled-and ready to hold the door while Pepe the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right– into the ovens. ..."
    "... That campaign pretty much went by the wayside (as did Black Lives Matter, a racial justice initiative partially funded by core Clinton backer George Soros; interesting, no?) as a) black nationalists started shooting policemen and b) Clinton kicked off a charm campaign to help wedge the black-wary GOP establishment away from Trump. ..."
    "... "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism. ..."
    "... Clinton's enduring and grotesque loyalty to her family's charitable foundation, an operation that in my opinion has no place on the resume of a public servant, as a font of prestige, conduit for influence, and model for billionaire-backed global engagement. ..."
    "... By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests. ..."
    "... Clintonism's core identity is not, in other words, as a crusade for groups suffering from the legacy and future threat of oppression by Trump's white male followers. It is a full-court press to keep the wheels on the neoliberal sh*twagon as it careens down the road of globalization, and it recognizes the importance in American democracy of slicing and dicing the electorate by identity politics and co-opting useful demographics as the key to maintaining power. ..."
    "... Trump has cornered the somewhat less entitled and increasingly threatened white ethnic group, some of whom are poised to make the jump to white nationalism with or without him. ..."
    "... Clinton has cornered the increasingly entitled and assertive global billionaire group, which adores the class-busting anti-socialist identity-based politics she practices. ..."
    Oct 22, 2016 | www.unz.com

    I find the spectacle of liberals heroically mounting the barricades against Trump-fascism rather amusing.

    For one thing, liberals don't crush fascism. Liberals appease fascism, then they exploit fascism. In between there's a great big war, where communists crush fascism. That's pretty much the lesson of WWII.

    Second thing is, Trump isn't fascist. In my opinion, Trump's an old-fashioned white American nativist, which is pretty much indistinguishable from old-fashioned racist when considering the subjugation of native Americans and African-Americans and Asian immigrants, but requires that touch of "nativist" nuance when considering indigenous bigotry against Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants and citizens.

    Tagging him as "fascist" allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years and predate the formulation of fascism by several decades if not a century. Those nasty vetting/exclusion things he's proposing are as American as apple pie. For those interested in boning up on the Know Nothings and the Chinese Exclusion Act, I have this piece for you .

    And for anybody who doesn't believe the US government does not already engage in intensive "extreme" vetting and targeting of all Muslims immigrants, especially those from targeted countries, not only to identify potential security risks but to groom potential intelligence assets, I got the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you right here:

    Real fascism, in theory, is a rather interesting and nasty beast. In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life.

    In both fascism and bolshevism, democratic outcomes lack inherent legitimacy. National legitimacy resides in the party, which embodies the essence of a threatened race or class in a way that Hegel might appreciate but Marx probably wouldn't. Subversion of democracy and seizure of state power are not only permissible; they are imperatives.

    The need to seize state power and hold it while a fascist or Bolshevik agenda is implemented dictates the need for a military force loyal to and subservient to the party and its leadership, not the state.

    The purest fascism movement I know of exists in Ukraine. I wrote about it here , and it's a piece I think is well worth reading to understand what a political movement organized on fascist principles really looks like. And Trump ain't no fascist. He's a nativist running a rather incompetent campaign.

    It's a little premature to throw dirt on the grave of the Trump candidacy, perhaps (I'll check back in on November 9), but it looks like he spent too much time glorying in the adulation of his white male nativist base and too little time, effort, and money trying to deliver a plausible message that would allow other demographics to shrug off the "deplorable" tag and vote for him. I don't blame/credit the media too much for burying Trump, a prejudice of mine perhaps. I blame Trump's inability to construct an effective phalanx of pro-Trump messengers, a failure that's probably rooted in the fact that Trump spent the primary and general campaign at war with the GOP establishment.

    The only capital crime in politics is disunity, and the GOP and Trump are guilty on multiple counts.

    The most interesting application of the "fascist" analysis, rather surprisingly, applies to the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, when considering the cultivation of a nexus between big business and *ahem* racially inflected politics.

    It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen . It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism.

    That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness.

    That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. The North's abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War had more to do a desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from the competition of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.

    White labor originally had legal recourse to beating back the challenge/threat of African-American labor instead of accommodating it as a "class" ally; it subsequently relied on institutional and customary advantages.

    If anyone harbors illusions concerning the kumbaya solidarity between white and black labor in the post-World War II era, I think the article The Problem of Race in American Labor History by Herbert Hill ( a freebie on JSTOR ) is a good place to start.

    The most reliable wedge against working class solidarity and a socialist narrative in American politics used to be white privilege which, when it was reliably backed by US business and political muscle, was a doctrine of de facto white supremacy.

    However, in this campaign, the race wedge has cut the other way in a most interesting fashion. White conservatives are appalled, and minority liberals energized, by the fact that the white guy, despite winning the majority white male vote, lost to a black guy not once but twice, giving a White Twilight/Black Dawn (TM) vibe to the national debate.

    The perception of marginalized white clout is reinforced by the nomination of Hillary Clinton and her campaign emphasis on the empowerment of previously marginalized but now demographically more important groups.

    The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -actually, the overarching and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties-"identity politics."

    The most calculated and systematic employment of racial politics was employed by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the Democratic primary to undercut the socialist-lite populist appeal of Bernie Sanders.

    My personal disdain for the Clinton campaign was born on the day that John Lewis intoned "I never saw him" in order to dismiss the civil rights credentials of Bernie Sanders while announcing the Black Congressional Caucus endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Bear in mind that during the 1960s, Sanders had affiliated his student group at the University of Chicago with Lewis' SNCC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; during the same era, Hillary Clinton was at Wellesley condemning "the snicks" for their excessively confrontational tactics.

    Ah, politics.

    To understand the significance of this event, one should read Fracture by the guru of woke Clintonism, Joy Reid. Or read my piece on the subject . Or simply understand that after Hillary Clinton lost Lewis's endorsement, the black vote, and the southern Democratic primaries to Barack Obama in 2008, and she was determined above all to secure and exploit monolithic black support in the primaries and, later on, the general in 2016.

    So, in order to prevent Sanders from splitting the black vote to her disadvantage on ideological/class lines, Clinton played the race card. Or, as we put it today when discussing the championing of historically disadvantaged a.k.a. non white male heterosexual groups, celebrated "identity politics".

    In the primary, this translated into an attack on Sanders and the apparently mythical "Bernie bro" as racist swine threatening the legacy of the first black president, venerated by the African American electorate, Barack Obama. In the general, well, Donald Trump and his supporters provided acres more genuine grist for the identity warrior mill.

    Trump's populism draws its heat from American nativism, not "soak the rich" populism of the Sandernista stripe, and it was easily submerged in the "identity politics" narrative.

    Trump's ambitions to gain traction for a favorable American/populist/outsider narrative for his campaign have been frustrated by determined efforts to frame him as anti-Semitic, racist against blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled-and ready to hold the door while Pepe the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right– into the ovens.

    As an indication of the fungible & opportunistic character of the "identity politics" approach, as far as I can tell from a recent visit to a swing state, as the Clinton campaign pivoted to the general, the theme of Trump's anti-black racism has been retired in favor of pushing his offenses against women and the disabled. Perhaps this reflects the fact that Clinton has a well-advertised lock on the African-American vote and doesn't need to cater to it; also, racism being what it is, playing the black card is not the best way to lure Republicans and indies to the Clinton camp.

    The high water mark of the Clinton African-American tilt was perhaps the abortive campaign to turn gun control into a referendum on the domination of Congress by white male conservatives. It happened a few months ago, so who remembers? But John Lewis led a sit-in occupation of the Senate floor in the wake of the Orlando shootings to highlight how America's future was being held hostage to the whims of Trump-inclined white pols.

    That campaign pretty much went by the wayside (as did Black Lives Matter, a racial justice initiative partially funded by core Clinton backer George Soros; interesting, no?) as a) black nationalists started shooting policemen and b) Clinton kicked off a charm campaign to help wedge the black-wary GOP establishment away from Trump.

    There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to screw Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism.

    In my view, a key tell is Clinton's enduring and grotesque loyalty to her family's charitable foundation, an operation that in my opinion has no place on the resume of a public servant, as a font of prestige, conduit for influence, and model for billionaire-backed global engagement.

    By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests.

    Clintonism's core identity is not, in other words, as a crusade for groups suffering from the legacy and future threat of oppression by Trump's white male followers. It is a full-court press to keep the wheels on the neoliberal sh*twagon as it careens down the road of globalization, and it recognizes the importance in American democracy of slicing and dicing the electorate by identity politics and co-opting useful demographics as the key to maintaining power.

    In my view, the Trump and Clinton campaigns are both protofascist.

    Trump has cornered the somewhat less entitled and increasingly threatened white ethnic group, some of whom are poised to make the jump to white nationalism with or without him.

    Clinton has cornered the increasingly entitled and assertive global billionaire group, which adores the class-busting anti-socialist identity-based politics she practices.

    But the bottom line is race. U.S. racism has stacked up 400 years of tinder that might take a few hundred more years, if ever, to burn off. And until it does, every politician in the country is going to see his or her political future in flicking matches at it. And that's what we're seeing in the current campaign. A lot. Not fascism.

    (Reprinted from China Matters by permission of author or representative)

    [Oct 22, 2016] Race-specific programs are a wedge issues and belong to identity politics as they will create great resentment

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment, but universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving the U.S. racial situation. ..."
    "... And it prevents the constant attacks on recipients of benefits as being unworthy, criminal, drug-taking, undeserving folk who should be drug-tested, monitored, controlled, suspected. ..."
    "... Privileges like the selection of judges or the creation of special loopholes in the tax law, or other privileges only a political donation of the right amount might purchase. And it should be plain that some of the privileges described are not privileges at all but basic rights of human kind borne within any notion of the just. ..."
    "... I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment, but universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving the U.S. racial situation. ..."
    "... When the BLM (I think) asked Bernie about reparations, he said he didn't think it was a good idea, that free college etc would help everyone. ..."
    Oct 21, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    SpringTexasn October 21, 2016 at 10:45 am

    PlutoniumKun is 100% on-target. Moreover, non-universal benefits have tremendous overhead cost in terms of paperwork, qualifications, etc., while a universal benefit can be minimally bureaucratic.

    I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment, but universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving the U.S. racial situation.

    On the baby bonds, it's foolish to have a "$50 endowment for a child of Bill Gates". Instead it would be better to just provide $50,000 to ALL babies including Bill Gates' child, and tax Bill Gates more.

    As the saying goes, "programs for the poor are poor programs." Bill Gates' child should be allowed to use the same public libraries, go to the same (free) public universities, etc. etc. I doubt Bill Gates' child will need to take up the guaranteed job, but if he needs or wants to (perhaps because of a quarrel with his parent) he should be able to.

    And it prevents the constant attacks on recipients of benefits as being unworthy, criminal, drug-taking, undeserving folk who should be drug-tested, monitored, controlled, suspected.

    Jeremy Grimm October 22, 2016 at 1:06 am

    Universality removes many of the privileges the rich enjoy - $50K for all babies including Bill Gates child - and as privileges are dismantled in this way the remaining privileges of the rich will stand all the more glaring for their unfairness - to all. Privileges like the selection of judges or the creation of special loopholes in the tax law, or other privileges only a political donation of the right amount might purchase. And it should be plain that some of the privileges described are not privileges at all but basic rights of human kind borne within any notion of the just.

    HotFlash October 22, 2016 at 6:38 am

    I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment, but universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving the U.S. racial situation.

    I've been thinking about this bit a lot. When the BLM (I think) asked Bernie about reparations, he said he didn't think it was a good idea, that free college etc would help everyone.

    I don't recall any elaboration on his part, but I wondered at the time, how would they be allocated? Full black, one-half black, one quarter, quadroon, octoroon, mulatto, 'yaller'? That's wholly back to Jim Crow, or worse. I refer, of course to the artificial division of Huttus and Tutsis which, you may recall, did not work out so well . Barack Obama, would he qualify? None of his ancestors were slaves.

    I am looking forward to the book by Darity and Muller, but they would have to do a lot of persuading to get me to get comfy with reparations.

    Oh, and re Yves' remark about the baby box, that would be Finland, there's a BBC article here , and one from the Atlantic, "Finland's 'Baby Box': Gift from Santa Claus or Socialist Hell?" America, jeesh!

    Stratos October 21, 2016 at 10:58 am

    The country that gives every expecting mother a new baby package is Finland. They started the practice in the 1930's when their infant mortality rate was at ten percent. Now they have one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.

    [Oct 22, 2016] The alternative to trump is not a progressive candidate. It is a corrupt neocon warmonger with health problems

    Oct 22, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm : , -1
    The alternative to trump is not progressive.

    A theme among trump supporters is "lack of trust". Who knows what Hillary* stands for and how the dnc spins.

    The distrust flows with the progressive alliance with librul morals.

    * aside from more bombing than bushco.

    marcus nunes : , October 22, 2016 at 03:55 AM
    Kocherlakota:"Another possibility, highlighted in Yellen's speech, is that the recovery engineered by the Fed was so slow that it did (possibly reversible) damage to the supply side -- for example, as long-term unemployment eroded the skills and motivation of workers"
    Unfortunately they won´t give up their favorite Phillips Curve Model:
    https://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/the-fomc-its-forecasts/
    anne -> marcus nunes ... , October 22, 2016 at 05:35 AM
    Really nice argument with which I agree, however I have also been wondering just how damage to the supply side has been done by these years of war:

    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

    September, 2016

    US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
    Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
    By Neta C. Crawford

    ilsm -> anne... , October 22, 2016 at 06:00 AM
    The sovereign could blow things up to assure a fiction called 'security' or it could build things that are real.

    Bastiat wrote about this 160 years ago, when Frances was building fortresses that failed 3 times from 1870.

    marcus nunes -> anne... , October 22, 2016 at 06:35 AM
    Anne, wars are certainly "destructive", but why should this one damage the supply side so much more than all the other wars?
    anne -> marcus nunes ... , -1
    Anne, wars are certainly "destructive", but why should this one damage the supply side so much more than all the other wars?

    [ I would argue that the unprecedented amount of time taken by the wars, the important actual spending and what was not spent as a result of the constraint of spending on the wars. Also, while there was spending on the wars which bolstered the economy, I would argue this spending did relatively little to build a productive base for the economy.

    We could properly argue that digging ditches and filling them in provides needed work and support for the economy in a recession, but we were lots better off productively because of New Deal ditch digging and filling designed for the Tennessee Valley Authority. ]

    anne -> Global Famine Cannibalism... , October 22, 2016 at 08:14 AM
    But just think what all of our pre-emptive invasions did to the global environment....

    [ A refrain that I have often read, but have no reference just now, is that American militarism has been the price of economic advance or well-being. Likely because I am bothered by militarism and such a generality, I have never set down a reference. But, I have not thought about the environmental effects of war since 2001. ]

    JohnH -> anne... , October 22, 2016 at 08:44 AM
    The other problem with foreign wars is that, to the extent that money is spent abroad and stays there, they represent leakage to the US economy...IOW they are a contractionary force. Of course, there is no reporting on how much of the DOD budget gets spent abroad and stays there. However, leasing alone of 800 plus military bases can't be cheap...

    OTOH digging ditches and filling them in keeps money in the economy and probably even has a positive multiplier.

    anne -> JohnH... , -1
    The money spent abroad argument is faulty as such, since dollars spent in abroad on development programs will in turn be spent in the United States. China has begun a "one belt, one road" program in which large, large sums will be spent on infrastructure from Russia and Mongolia to Laos and Cambodia to Pakistan and Bangladesh... to build an Asian trading network.

    Money spent abroad on fighting however is another matter.

    anne -> marcus nunes ... , -1
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105628

    November, 2003

    The Most Technologically Progressive Decade of the Century
    By Alexander J. Field

    Abstract

    There is now an emerging consensus that over the course of U.S. economic history, multifactor productivity grew fastest over a broad plateau between 1905 and 1966, and within that period, in the two decades following 1929. This paper argues that the bulk of the achieved productivity levels in 1948 had already been attained before full scale war mobilization in 1942. It was not principally the war that laid the foundation for postwar prosperity. It was technological progress across a broad frontier of the American economy during the 1930s.

    Ghost of Christmas Future : , -1
    $800 billion trade deficit still not a major topic in economics. This is incredible. The US has only 5% of the world's population yet we are absorbing more than a third of the global trade surplus of surplus economies.

    Is it easier for 5% of the world to absorb $800 billion a year in annual trade deficits or would it be easier for 95% of the world able to do that? A trade surplus for the US of $800 billion is much more reasonable. A swing of $1.6 trillion in aggregate demand would have enormous consequences for US development, stability and unemployment levels. A commitment to industry, combined with low interest loans, government contracts and high tariffs would lead to a boom in industrial investment rather than its virtual absence. The working class could actually find jobs working again rather than being forced into the drug trade and prison - even people in the destroyed cities of Camden, Chicago and Buffalo could find hope again. We could get 10-14% annual GDP growth as 25-50 factories were built a day. (We lost 15 a day from 2000-2010 with our economists not noticing or caring) Why does the US settle for economic destruction when Vietnam, Singapore, China, Israel etc. etc. show that growth and development are easy? Why must we accept poverty and deindustrialization? Why do Americans need to be forced to return to stone age subsistence agriculture, street commerce, prostitution, begging, the drug trade?

    The pointless destruction of the US as an economy, center of wealth and technology continues apace without attracting any attention from our serious economists. Trump should continue to focus on his message - Clinton won't fix anything, and things may very well collapse between now and November 2020. At which point Trump will be ideally positioned to champion the 40-70% of the population that is "new poor". Our last hope is that Trump wins in November 2016 or Nov. 2020 and as soon as he takes office both disbands all economics departments and raises tariffs to the necessary 300-400% range. Anything else is continued insane economic suicide.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Hegemon needs all the tools it can scrape up to perpetrate its evil.

    Obama was going to end Iraghistan, now US has done Libya, is doing Syria and still losing lives and wasting treasure in Iraghistan.

    Obama advocated a nuclear free world until someone offered a reason to add $30B a year to the pentagon trough.

    Safety and reliability is a sham in the pentagon trough.

    The only use of nuclear weapons is extending the terror bpmbing which Le May and Bomber Harris perfected.

    Smaller nuclear yields add the the useless but very expensive read profitable strategy of bombing them "into the stone age".

    If the only strategy is count body bags then small nukes fit.

    Bottom line hegemon war is immoral.

    Adding $30B a year is adding opportunity cost to the immoral!

    Love of "security" (cash for the trough) is the root of all evil.

    ilsm -> anne... , -1
    $30B a year for nuclear arms modifications on top of the spending keeping the existing A-bombs ready to blow away the world for the hege0mon!!!!!

    Russia and China spending less than half the pentagon core budgets which do not include the munificent war supplements.

    Between Russia's $78B a year and China's $140B per year they have a long way to go with the US putting $500B a year in the core pentagon trough and adding plus ups for bombing Assad.

    However, if China is as efficient in war as in manufactures the $500B riddled with waste and welfare is concerning.

    [Oct 22, 2016] Russia has very obvious strategic interests in Syria. Among other things, it is trying to prevent the takeover of another country on its doorstep by Islamic jihadists, to halt the further

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    destabilization of the Middle East, and to prop up a key ally in Russia's front against US expansionism.
    Carolinian October 21, 2016 at 7:29 pm

    Adam Curtis and his limitations–here's a taste from a review of new Beeb documentary

    Conversely, Curtis concludes with an assertion of such stunning political puerility that it undermines almost everything that has gone before. He argues of Putin's involvement in Syria: "The Russians are still there – and no one really knows what they want." Curtis does not know what "the Russians want" only because his perceptions have been carefully managed by the western media. Russia has very obvious strategic interests in being there. Among other things, it is trying to prevent the takeover of another country on its doorstep by Islamic jihadists, to halt the further destabilization of the Middle East, and to prop up a key ally in Russia's front against US expansionism.

    Perhaps Curtis' limitation is that he's on the BBC. Apparently you aren't allowed to say anything nice about Russia on Auntie. The review says Curtis also grants too many good intentions to our western imperial overlords.

    http://original.antiwar.com/cook/2016/10/20/adam-curtis-another-manager-perceptions/

    JCC October 21, 2016 at 8:30 pm

    Well worth listening to, particularly starting at approximately the 49 minute mark.

    Thanks for the link, it's all very good.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 22, 2016 at 2:32 am

    Yikes! Adam Curtis kidnapped and replaced by a pod person?

    Steve H. October 22, 2016 at 8:29 am

    "and no one really knows"

    'Hypernormalization' also contained false absolutes. However, Curtis is an artist, in that he has implicit messages contained within juxtapositions that aren't necessarily consciously constructed. It's valid but inadequate to criticize parts out of context of the whole piece.

    Probably best to watch it and judge for yourself.

    [Oct 22, 2016] Our American b.s. pretense of righteous conduct is seriously interfering with the political ability to arrive at a deliberately chosen policy likely to achieve strategically chosen objectives, to cooperate efficiently within the policy-making hierarchy, to cooperate with allies and rivals (like Russia, which probably does not see the U.S. as particularly trustworthy or even entirely rational in negotiation), and to generate public support and general legitimacy

    Oct 22, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Layman 10.19.16 at 12:06 pm 391

    @LFC

    FFS, it was almost their first response! And the fact that they changed the story in less than 24 hrs, to blame the Afghan security forces instead, tells you the likely source of this story: their ass.

    'The US-led military coalition in Afghanistan issued a statement on Sunday that said US forces conducted an airstrike at 2:15am local time on Saturday "against insurgents who were directly firing upon US service members advising and assisting Afghan Security Forces in the city of Kunduz."'

    https://news.vice.com/article/msf-denies-taliban-fired-from-hospital-before-suspected-us-bombing

    Rich Puchalsky 10.19.16 at 12:37 pm

    Even as we write this, forces are advancing on Mosul to recapture the city from ISIL: the reason they can do this is because of U.S. airstrikes and troops. Refugee organizations expect something like 200,000-700,000 refugees from the city. The city was captured a couple of years ago when 1,000 Daesh fighters routed something like 60,000 defenders, mostly because the defenders weren't strongly motivated to defend: people in the city now have a counter-assassination resistance against ISIL executions.

    That is our intervention. Our bombs will not kill civilians in the city: the disparate groups of fighters that we support certainly won't commit the usual atrocities of war: the refugee crisis will no doubt be handled responsibly and will be fully resourced: when the city is recaptured, the ISIL fighters will be defeated once and for all and we'll never hear from them again.

    The people who support this are crazy. They are insane and I can only talk to them in the jocular way that you'd talk to people who are suffering from such severe mental illness that there is no way to rationally convince them that their delusions are not real. But these people have not been institutionalized: they are running our institutions.

    bruce wilder 10.19.16 at 1:41 pm 393

    LFC: Deliberately targeting noncombatants is a clear violation of law and norms, and it cannot be justified by saying: "well, we have to eliminate the violent rebels in this city, and we've offered a pause to allow the rebels to leave, but the rebels have declined the offer, and therefore the lives of the civilians [whether they be 30,000 or 200,000] in the city are of no particular concern to us, . . .

    The laws of war are a very particular and even peculiar species of bullshit. I am not a lawyer, let alone a military lawyer or specialist in such things, but from casual reading of news reporting, I think you are actually wrong in the above assertion. Giving a warning and an opportunity for combatants or civilians to vacate an area actually does open up a broad exception. "Exception" is probably the wrong term, technically, but in operation, . . . The offering of a warning, a pause and opportunities to vacate are all the laws of war require, in order to excuse the collateral damage that follows from combat operations against targets that are believed to shelter enemies among civilians.

    Layman 10.19.16 at 1:46 pm 394

    One need only ask two questions: How many non-combatants have been killed accidentally as 'collateral damage'? And how many military commanders have been punished for violating the 'laws of war' for killing non-combatants? The laws of war usually only apply to the losers. The winners seldom if ever apply them to themselves.
    bruce wilder 10.19.16 at 2:31 pm 395

    If you don't see any point in distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants (yes, the lines are sometimes blurry, but they are often very clear), and if you don't think that intentions are of any relevance - that is, if you think there's no difference whatsoever, for instance, between (1) deliberately blowing up a hospital and (2) accidentally bombing a hospital in a culpably negligent act of misidentification in the middle of a nighttime battle (as happened in a highly publicized case in Afghanistan a while back), then we can't have a conversation b.c we are operating in different universes of discourse.

    Do I think intentions are relevant? Maybe. Do I think statements of intention are relevant? Harder. I do not have any reliable way of sorting or confirming actual intentions, as distinguished from propaganda.

    I am afraid we are stuck with this universe of discourse. No one can offer LFC a corridor of safe flight to a more morally certain world.

    In my mind, I keep coming back to that NYT Mag profile of Ben Rhodes, the White House speechwriter (Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications) trying to manage U.S. foreign policy with rapid fire narratives. This is the world we live in. And, yes, it is one where it is not possible to distinguish between deliberately blowing up a hospital and accidentally in a culpable act of negligence blowing up a hospital. Not because there are not relevant moral distinctions, but because any story is built around those putative distinctions without much regard for facts. As Layman points out, the "information" given out by officials is dictated by a desire to manipulate public perceptions and deflect criticism and follows a predictable pattern unrelated to facts of a case.

    This discourse has become delusive, as Rich P says above. Sarcasm or mockery may be rude, but appropriate.

    Layman 10.19.16 at 3:10 pm 396

    "Do I think intentions are relevant? Maybe. "

    I don't think you can grant even this. Belligerents know full well that they will kill non-combatants with their preferred tactics, but they use those tactics anyway because 1) they deem it a fair trade off for achieving their objective while reducing the risk to their own combatants, and 2) they know there is little likelihood they will be called to account, and if they are they know they can rely on the 'intentions' defense.

    This is evident in their responses. Have they bombed a hospital, a school, a bomb shelter, a refugee center? Well, yes, but it was OK because someone was shooting at them from that place. Have they killed several hundred members of a wedding party? Well, it seems so, but they were just trying to kill a few people, and those few were hiding in a wedding party, the dastardly cowards! What else could they have done?

    OK be

    LFC 10.19.16 at 4:35 pm 404

    Bruce W.
    No one can offer LFC a corridor of safe flight to a more morally certain world.

    Actually Bruce you are the one who has hopped on the plane to a morally certain world, a world in which it is never possible to distinguish 'intentions' from 'propaganda' and thus a world in which one can rest secure in the certainty that judgments, however tentative, should never be attempted.

    bruce wilder 10.19.16 at 6:18 pm 405

    My phrase, "morally certain world" was poor. It doesn't denote what I meant.

    I think an objective observer, weighing the balance of likelihood, would conclude that the U.S. military targeted the MSF hospital and most probably did so, because the MSF hospital was only facility in the area where Taliban fighters could seek sophisticated medical treatment. That the choice of target originated in the U.S. chain of command was confirmed, so there is no dispute really that this choice was made, though the motivation and objective have been obscured and can only be surmised. No one was disciplined specifically for initiating the attack - we know this because no one was named let alone court martialled and sent to Leavenworth as would be nominally appropriate for such an unauthorized(?) act of murder and mayhem. The only discipline handed out was essentially administrative and only for the negligence and general snafus that allowed the rest of the chain of command to execute the attack without objection. Again, a reasonable and objective observer would wonder whether the initiator of the attack might not have had a hand in arranging things so that the attack went ahead and wasn't short-circuited by the ordinary and routine controls put in place to prevent such "mistakes".

    Presumably, this balance of likelihood is why the MSF wanted an investigation independent of the U.S. military's own self-examination.

    "Blaming the victim" should not be the primary issue, here, though, of course, in the prolonged sequence of contradictory explanations in an incident that attracted international attention at the highest levels, the U.S. did at various times officially claim that the Taliban were firing from the compound and that the MSF complex was not properly marked. There is no particular reason to think that the sequence of explanations arrived at anything resembling the truth; only a defensible redoubt of apologia.

    Whether the attack on the MSF hospital in Kunduz constituted a "war crime" isn't the issue I want to raise either. I think it was a war crime, but the U.S. has a general policy of committing war crimes while denying that policy, so unless you think denial is itself a singular virtue is, I do not understand the argument. If the problem is whether Russia is the bad guy and the U.S. is the good guy, I don't think the U.S. has much the better argument, at least on the face of it. Pretty much every "bad guy" atrocity in the record books has a corresponding atrocity with an American signature. Shoot down a passenger airliner? Check. Unprovoked aggressive war? Check. And so on.

    The thing that troubles me - the thing I want to draw attention to - is the delusive effect of letting moral narrative dominate all policy discussion.

    In the case of the Kunduz MSF hospital incident, the effect of moral-narrative-domination is that we do not know who in the U.S. chain-of-command decided MSF should clear out and the MSF hospital should close down (and people should be killed and maimed to achieve that objective). The civilian leadership presumably is not willing to own this policy choice, and they are willing to let the military bear the costs of demoralization, by disciplining, however mildly proportionate to the consequences for the dead and maimed victims, those in the chain of command responsible for the "negligence" which was ultimately trotted out as an excuse for "poor performance" (after several other explanations failed to stymie high-level criticism).

    Our American b.s. pretense of righteous conduct is seriously interfering with the political ability to arrive at a deliberately chosen policy likely to achieve strategically chosen objectives, to cooperate efficiently within the policy-making hierarchy, to cooperate with allies and rivals (like Russia, which probably does not see the U.S. as particularly trustworthy or even entirely rational in negotiation), and to generate public support and general legitimacy.

    I would submit that the ordinary purpose of international law is not to mandate just conduct per se, but to establish conventions that allow for political coordination, even between rivals, as well as facilitate hierarchical control of the state's forces for the centralized control of policy. And, domination-by-moral-narrative has become a serious handicap, a source of American foreign policy palsy cum dementia.

    I'm not taking the position that morality and ethical conduct do not matter. (I think long-time readers will realize I am something of an impractical idealist.) What I am trying to draw attention to is the effect of bull shit justifications: the narratives are drawn up in disregard for their factual truth value. (Disregard for truth value is kind of the definition of bull shit).

    In short, I think judgments should be attempted, even in the face of the obscuring propaganda, but I think we have to confront the propaganda as propaganda and the doubts and uncertainties it engenders, as well as the semi-deranged social climate of opinion it engenders, as Rich P points out.

    [Oct 22, 2016] I keep trying to imagine what special interest is so invested in the no-fly zone that they can force Hillary to keep proposing it, even though it is obviously no longer feasible

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Procopius October 22, 2016 at 10:06 am

    I keep trying to imagine what special interest is so invested in the no-fly zone that they can force Hillary to keep proposing it, even though it is obviously no longer feasible. Is it just inertia? She is so used to pushing the idea that she brings it up without thinking, and then has to dodge out of the way? But the whole situation has passed out of the realm of rational thought. It reminds me of Vietnam.

    The idea the South and North Vietnam were separate countries was never true, but John Foster Dulles insisted on repeating the lie at every opportunity and after a while the Village all started to believe it.

    None of the stated goals in Syria make any sense any longer (if the ever did), but we keep pursuing them. Scary.

    [Oct 22, 2016] We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution.

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Katharine October 21, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    Democrats can beat populists, and usually have, by attending to what underlies the surface ugliness.

    This offends me so deeply! The suggestion that Democrats should defeat populists dishonors the history of the term and, perhaps inadvertently, betrays what the Democratic "leadership" has sunk to.

    jash October 21, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    "We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution."

    Justice William O. Douglas wrote in "Points of Rebellion":

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 21, 2016 at 4:26 pm

    Subliminally, this is what we get (it took me a while, but I think I have deciphered):

    Populists = surface ugliness.

    It's superficial, surface.

    It's ugly.

    Clive October 21, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    Unfortunately members of Japan's congress (the Diet) do from time to time put in hammy displays of slanging matches and even the kind of stagey fisticuffs that would have pro wrestling "competitors" complaining about bad acting. Perhaps it is the Japanese people's way of reminding themselves and even outsiders that one of their indisputable contributions to the performance arts is Kabuki.

    The main audience is the constituents of the Diet members in question, and certainly not signifying an attempt to steer policy responses (much to my chagrin if they do it in relation to the TPP debates).

    [Oct 22, 2016] Nationalists and Populists Poised to Dominate European Balloting

    Oct 21, 2016 | www.bloomberg.com

    As Europeans assess the fallout from the U.K.'s Brexit referendum , they face a series of elections that could equally shake the political establishment. In the coming 12 months, four of Europe's five largest economies have votes that will almost certainly mean serious gains for right-wing populists and nationalists. Once seen as fringe groups, France's National Front, Italy's Five Star Movement, and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands have attracted legions of followers by tapping discontent over immigration, terrorism, and feeble economic performance. "The Netherlands should again become a country of and for the Dutch people," says Evert Davelaar, a Freedom Party backer who says immigrants don't share "Western and Christian values."

    ... ... ....

    The populists are deeply skeptical of European integration, and those in France and the Netherlands want to follow Britain's lead and quit the European Union. "Political risk in Europe is now far more significant than in the United States," says Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of macro research at Barclays.

    ... ... ...

    ...the biggest risk of the nationalist groundswell: increasingly fragmented parliaments that will be unable or unwilling to tackle the problems hobbling their economies. True, populist leaders might not have enough clout to enact controversial measures such as the Dutch Freedom Party's call to close mosques and deport Muslims. And while the Brexit vote in June helped energize Eurosceptics, it's unlikely that any major European country will soon quit the EU, Morgan Stanley economists wrote in a recent report. But they added that "the protest parties promise to turn back the clock" on free-market reforms while leaving "sclerotic" labour and market regulations in place. France's National Front, for example, wants to temporarily renationalise banks and increase tariffs while embracing cumbersome labour rules widely blamed for chronic double-digit unemployment. Such policies could damp already weak euro zone growth, forecast by the International Monetary Fund to drop from 2 percent in 2015 to 1.5 percent in 2017. "Politics introduces a downside skew to growth," the economists said.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Those who vote for Hillary for the sake of stability need to be reminded that according to the Minsky Theory stability sometimes can be very destabilizing

    Oct 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs... October 21, 2016 at 02:12 PM

    Please note that Hillary's path to the top was marked by proved beyond reasonable doubt DNC fraud. With information contained in recent email leaks some DNC honchos probably might go to jail for violation of elections laws. So for them this is a death match and people usually fight well when they are against the wall. The same in true about Obama and his entourage.

    And while this Nobel Peace Price winner managed to bomb just eight countries, Hillary might improve this peace effort, which was definitely insufficient from the point of view of many diplomats in State Department. Also the number of humanitarian bombs could be much greater. Here Hillary election can really help.

    From the other point of view this might well be a sign of the crisis of legitimacy of the US ruling neoliberal elite (aka financial oligarchy).

    After approximately 50 years in power the level of degeneration of the US neoliberal elite reached the level when the quality of candidates reminds me the quality of candidates from the USSR Politburo after Brezhnev death. Health-wise Hillary really bear some resemblance to Andropov and Chernenko. And inability of the elite to replace either of them with a more viable candidate speaks volumes.

    The other factor that will not go away is that Obama effectively pardoned Hillary for emailgate (after gentle encouragement from Bill via Loretta Lynch). Otherwise instead of candidate to POTUS, she would be a viable candidate for orange suit too. Sure, the rule of law is not applicable to neoliberal elite, so why Hilary should be an exception? But some naive schmucks might think that this is highly improper. And be way too much upset with the fruits of neoliberal globalization. Not that Brexit is easily repeatable in the USA, but vote against neoliberal globalization (protest vote) might play a role.

    Another interesting thing to observe is when (and if) the impeachment process starts, if she is elected. With some FBI materials in hands of the Congress Republicans she in on the hook. A simple majority of those present and voting is required for each article of impeachment, or the resolution as a whole, to pass.

    All-in-all her win might well be a Pyrrhic victory. And the unknown neurological disease that she has (Parkinson?) makes her even more vulnerable after the election, then before. The role of POTUS involves a lot of stress and requires substantial physical stamina as POTUS is the center of intersection of all important government conflicts, conversations and communications. That's a killing environment for anyone with Parkinson. And remember she was not able to survive the pressure of the role of the Secretary of State when she was in much better health and has an earlier stage of the disease.

    POTUS essentially does not belong to himself/herself for the term of the office (although Obama managed to slack in this role; was he on drugs the night of Benghazi killings ? http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/plausible-theory-was-president-obama-high-on-coke-while-benghazi-burned-video)

    Another interesting question, if the leaks continue after the election. That also can contribute to the level of stress. Just anticipation is highly stressful. I do not buy the theory about "evil Russians." This hypothesis does not survive Occam razor test. I think that there some anti-Hillary forces within the USA ruling elite, possibly within the NSA or some other three letter agency that has access to email boxes of major Web mail providers via NSA.

    If this is a plausible hypothesis, that makes it more probable that the leaks continue. To say nothing about possible damaging revelations about Bill (especially related to Clinton Foundation), who really enjoyed his retirement way too much.

    Those who vote for Hillary for the sake of stability need to be reminded that according to the Minsky Theory stability sometimes can be very destabilizing

    Jay : October 21, 2016 at 01:36 PM , 2016 at 01:36 PM
    When Krugman is appointed to a top government post by Hillary Clinton we will be able to FOIA his pay and attach a value to all the columns "electioneering" Krugman has written.
    likbez -> anne...
    Anne,

    "An intolerably destructive essay that should never have been posted, and I assume no such essay will be posted again on this blog. Shameful, shameful essay."

    You mean that voting for the female warmonger with some psychopathic tendencies ("We came, we saw, he died") is not shameful ?

    An interesting approach I would say.

    I am not fun of Trump, but he, at least, does not have the blood of innocent women and children on his hands. And less likely to start WWIII unlike this completely out of control warmonger.

    With the number of victims of wars of neoliberal empire expansion in Iraq, Libya and Syria, you should be ashamed of yourself as a women.

    Please think about your current position Anne. You really should be ashamed.

    [Oct 21, 2016] I wonder if Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney vote for Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... which may be the story one wishes for. But if there were a spread to compare her win against, it was Bernie who massively beat the spread. I'll leave it as an exercise to others to determine if her unfair advantages were as large as the winning margin. ..."
    "... He makes a good point and you dismiss it. You bashed Bernie Sanders and "Bernie Bros" during the primary. Then you lie about it. That's why you're the worst. Dishonest as hell. ..."
    "... Remember one thing anne, America is not a country. It is an idea. You cannot arrest it, murder it, or pretend it isn't there. We as a people are not perfect. But Mr Putin is stabbing directly at our democracy, not Hillary Clinton and not Paul Krugman. Time to be a little more objective, of which you are even more capable of than me. ..."
    "... It is not exactly McCarthyism as stated (although kthomas with his previous Putin comments looks like a modern day McCarthyist). I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the credo of American Exceptionalism -- a flavor of nationalism adapted to the realities of the new continent. ..."
    "... And Robert Kagan explained it earlier much better ... I wonder if Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney vote for Hillary too. ..."
    Oct 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    point said...

    Krugman says:

    "...Mrs. Clinton won the Democratic nomination fairly easily..."

    which may be the story one wishes for. But if there were a spread to compare her win against, it was Bernie who massively beat the spread. I'll leave it as an exercise to others to determine if her unfair advantages were as large as the winning margin.

    Peter K. -> kthomas... , October 21, 2016 at 11:46 AM

    "Why do people like you pretend to love Sen Sanders so much!?"

    Why do you say he is pretending? What did he write to make you think that?

    Are you just a dishonest troll centrist totebagger like PGL.

    Peter K. -> to pgl...

    What does that have to do with anything?

    He makes a good point and you dismiss it. You bashed Bernie Sanders and "Bernie Bros" during the primary. Then you lie about it. That's why you're the worst. Dishonest as hell. Are most New Yorkers as dishonest as you, Trump, Guiliani, Christie, etc?

    kthomas -> anne... , October 21, 2016 at 10:59 AM
    No. I am a fan of Sen Sanders, and not even he would believe your nonsense. History will not remember it that way. What it will remember is how Putin Comrade meddled. And there is a price for that.

    Sen Sanders wanted one, stated thing: to push the narrative to the left. He marginally accomplished this. What he did succeed in was providing an opportunity for false-lefties like you and Mr Putin who seem to think that America is the root of all evil.

    Remember one thing anne, America is not a country. It is an idea. You cannot arrest it, murder it, or pretend it isn't there. We as a people are not perfect. But Mr Putin is stabbing directly at our democracy, not Hillary Clinton and not Paul Krugman. Time to be a little more objective, of which you are even more capable of than me.

    Peter K. -> kthomas... , October 21, 2016 at 11:48 AM
    I agree with Anne and completely disagree with those like you have drunk the Kool Aid. You're not objective at all.
    anne -> kthomas... , October 21, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    Sen Sanders wanted one stated thing: to push the narrative to the left. He marginally accomplished this. What he did succeed in was providing an opportunity for false-lefties like --- and -- ----- who seem to think that America is the root of all evil....

    [ Better to assume such an awful comment was never written, but the McCarthy-like tone to a particular campaign has been disturbing and could prove lasting. ]

    Julio -> kthomas... , -1
    "America is not a country. It is an idea. You cannot ...murder it..."

    [You're trying, with your McCarthyist comments.]

    likbez -> Julio ... , October 21, 2016 at 05:24 PM
    Julio,

    It is not exactly McCarthyism as stated (although kthomas with his previous Putin comments looks like a modern day McCarthyist). I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the credo of American Exceptionalism -- a flavor of nationalism adapted to the realities of the new continent.

    cal -> anne... , October 21, 2016 at 11:28 AM
    BS, a remarkable.
    No, I am sure he will be remembered more than that.

    Bernard Sanders, last romantic politician to run his campaign on an average of $37 from 3,284,421 donations (or whatever Obama said at The Dinner). Remarkable but ineffectual. A good orator in empty houses means he was practicing, not performing.

    Why does Obama succeed and Sanders fail? Axelrod and co.

    Peter K. -> cal... , -1
    He was written off by the like of Krugman, PGL, you, KThomas etc.

    He won what 13 million votes. Young people overwhelmingly voted for Sanders. He won New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, etc. etc. etc. And now the "unromantic" complacent people have to lie about the campaign.

    pgl : , October 21, 2016 at 10:05 AM
    Josh Barro explains why he used to be a Republican but is now a Democrat:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/why-i-left-republican-party-register-democrat-2016-10

    He seems to have had it with Paul Ryan and Rubio.

    pgl -> pgl... , October 21, 2016 at 10:12 AM
    I was enjoying this until:

    "I have voted Republican, for example, in each of the past three New York City mayoral races."

    Joe Llota was racist Rudy Guiliani's minnie me. How on earth did Josh think he should be mayor of my city.

    likbez -> pgl...
    And Robert Kagan explained it earlier much better ... I wonder if Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney vote for Hillary too.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Dennis Kucinich FBI Investigation of Hillary Clinton Was Fixed in Her Favor

    Notable quotes:
    "... Instead of the investigative process being focused on achieving justice, Kucinich says it was "a very political process" that had "everything to do with the 2016 presidential election" in which Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Kucinich elaborates that "the executive branch of government made an early determination that no matter what came up that there was no way that Hillary Clinton was going to have to be accountable under law for anything dealing with the mishandling of classified information." ..."
    Oct 18, 2016 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

    Speaking Monday on Fox News with host Neil Cavuto, former Democratic presidential candidate and United States House of Representatives Member from Ohio Dennis Kucinich opined that, from early on, the US government's investigation of Hillary Clinton for mishandling confidential information while she was Secretary of State was fixed in her favor.

    Instead of the investigative process being focused on achieving justice, Kucinich says it was "a very political process" that had "everything to do with the 2016 presidential election" in which Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Kucinich elaborates that "the executive branch of government made an early determination that no matter what came up that there was no way that Hillary Clinton was going to have to be accountable under law for anything dealing with the mishandling of classified information."

    Watch Kucinich's complete interview here: watch-v=K00frqv-XI8

    [Oct 21, 2016] The capitalist crisis and the radicalization of the working class in 2012 - World Socialist Web Site by David North

    Its from World Socialist Web Site by thier analysys does contain some valid points. Especially about betrayal of nomenklatura, and, especially, KGB nomenklatura,which was wholesale bought by the USA for cash.
    Note that the author is unable or unwilling to use the tterm "neoliberalism". Looks like orthodox Marxism has problem with this notion as it contradict Marxism dogma that capitalism as an economic doctrine is final stage before arrival of socialism. Looks like it is not the final ;-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia Since 1980 ..."
    "... History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men ..."
    "... The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing in 1990, aptly known as catastroika. ..."
    "... In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. ..."
    "... The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required access to the resources of the world economy. ..."
    "... For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. ..."
    "... In other words, the integration of the USSR into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy, but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. ..."
    "... The Fourth International ..."
    "... The End of the USSR, ..."
    "... The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class defense. ..."
    "... Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism and Karl Marx. [p. 25] ..."
    Jan 30, 2012 | www.wsws.org

    ... ... ...

    This analysis has been vindicated by scholarly investigations into the causes of the Soviet economic collapse that facilitated the bureaucracy's dissolution of the USSR. In Russia Since 1980, published in 2008 by Cambridge University Press, Professors Steven Rosefielde and Stefan Hedlund present evidence that Gorbachev introduced measures that appear, in retrospect, to have been aimed at sabotaging the Soviet economy. "Gorbachev and his entourage," they write, "seem to have had a venal hidden agenda that caused things to get out of hand quickly." [p. 38] In a devastating appraisal of Gorbachev's policies, Rosefielde and Hedlund state:

    History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men. [p. 40]

    Instead of displaying due diligence over personal use of state revenues, materials and property, inculcated in every Bolshevik since 1917, Gorbachev winked at a counterrevolution from below opening Pandora's Box. He allowed enterprises and others not only to profit maximize for the state in various ways, which was beneficial, but also to misappropriate state assets, and export the proceeds abroad. In the process, red directors disregarded state contracts and obligations, disorganizing inter-industrial intermediate input flows, and triggering a depression from which the Soviet Union never recovered and Russia has barely emerged. [p. 47]

    Given all the heated debates that would later ensue about how Yeltsin and his shock therapy engendered mass plunder, it should be noted that the looting began under Gorbachev's watch. It was his malign neglect that transformed the rhetoric of Market Communism into the pillage of the nation's assets.

    The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing in 1990, aptly known as catastroika.

    In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. [p. 49]

    The analysis of Rosefielde and Hedlund, while accurate in its assessment of Gorbachev's actions, is simplistic. Gorbachev's policies can be understood only within the framework of more fundamental political and socioeconomic factors. First, and most important, the real objective crisis of the Soviet economy (which existed and preceded by many decades the accession of Gorbachev to power) developed out of the contradictions of the autarkic nationalist policies pursued by the Soviet regime since Stalin and Bukharin introduced the program of "socialism in one country" in 1924. The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required access to the resources of the world economy. This access could be achieved only in one of two ways: either through the spread of socialist revolution into the advanced capitalist countries, or through the counterrevolutionary integration of the USSR into the economic structures of world capitalism.

    For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. This second course, moreover, opened for the leading sections of the bureaucracy the possibility of permanently securing their privileges and vastly expanding their wealth. The privileged caste would become a ruling class. The corruption of Gorbachev, Yeltsin and their associates was merely the necessary means employed by the bureaucracy to achieve this utterly reactionary and immensely destructive outcome.

    On October 3, 1991, less than three months before the dissolution of the USSR, I delivered a lecture in Kiev in which I challenged the argument-which was widely propagated by the Stalinist regime-that the restoration of capitalism would bring immense benefits to the people. I stated:

    In this country, capitalist restoration can only take place on the basis of the widespread destruction of the already existing productive forces and the social- cultural institutions that depended upon them. In other words, the integration of the USSR into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy, but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. When one examines the various schemes hatched by proponents of capitalist restoration, one cannot but conclude that they are no less ignorant than Stalin of the real workings of the world capitalist economy. And they are preparing the ground for a social tragedy that will eclipse that produced by the pragmatic and nationalistic policies of Stalin. ["Soviet Union at the Crossroads," published in The Fourth International (Fall- Winter 1992, Volume 19, No. 1, p. 109), Emphasis in the original.]

    Almost exactly 20 years ago, on January 4, 1992, the Workers League held a party membership meeting in Detroit to consider the historical, political and social implications of the dissolution of the USSR. Rereading this report so many years later, I believe that it has stood the test of time. It stated that the dissolution of the USSR "represents the juridical liquidation of the workers' state and its replacement with regimes that are openly and unequivocally devoted to the destruction of the remnants of the national economy and the planning system that issued from the October Revolution. To define the CIS [Confederation of Independent States] or its independent republics as workers states would be to completely separate the definition from the concrete content which it expressed during the previous period." [David North, The End of the USSR, Labor Publications, 1992, p. 6]

    The report continued:

    "A revolutionary party must face reality and state what is. The Soviet working class has suffered a serious defeat. The bureaucracy has devoured the workers state before the working class was able to clean out the bureaucracy. This fact, however unpleasant, does not refute the perspective of the Fourth International. Since it was founded in 1938, our movement has repeatedly said that if the working class was not able to destroy this bureaucracy, then the Soviet Union would suffer a shipwreck. Trotsky did not call for political revolution as some sort of exaggerated response to this or that act of bureaucratic malfeasance. He said that a political revolution was necessary because only in that way could the Soviet Union, as a workers state, be defended against imperialism." [p. 6]

    I sought to explain why the Soviet working class had failed to rise up in opposition to the bureaucracy's liquidation of the Soviet Union. How was it possible that the destruction of the Soviet Union-having survived the horrors of the Nazi invasion-could be carried out "by a miserable group of petty gangsters, acting in the interests of the scum of Soviet society?" I offered the following answer:

    We must reply to these questions by stressing the implications of the massive destruction of revolutionary cadre carried out within the Soviet Union by the Stalinist regime. Virtually all the human representatives of the revolutionary tradition who consciously prepared and led that revolution were wiped out. And along with the political leaders of the revolution, the most creative representatives of the intelligentsia who had flourished in the early years of the Soviet state were also annihilated or terrorized into silence.

    Furthermore, we must point to the deep-going alienation of the working class itself from state property. Property belonged to the state, but the state "belonged" to the bureaucracy, as Trotsky noted. The fundamental distinction between state property and bourgeois property-however important from a theoretical standpoint-became less and less relevant from a practical standpoint. It is true that capitalist exploitation did not exist in the scientific sense of the term, but that did not alter the fact that the day-to-day conditions of life in factories and mines and other workplaces were as miserable as are to be found in any of the advanced capitalist countries, and, in many cases, far worse.

    Finally, we must consider the consequences of the protracted decay of the international socialist movement...

    Especially during the past decade, the collapse of effective working class resistance in any part of the world to the bourgeois offensive had a demoralizing effect on Soviet workers. Capitalism assumed an aura of "invincibility," although this aura was merely the illusory reflection of the spinelessness of the labor bureaucracies all over the world, which have on every occasion betrayed the workers and capitulated to the bourgeoisie. What the Soviet workers saw was not the bitter resistance of sections of workers to the international offensive of capital, but defeats and their consequences. [p. 13-14]

    The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class defense.

    In every part of the world, including the advanced countries, the workers are discovering that their own parties and their own trade union organizations are engaged in the related task of systematically lowering and impoverishing the working class. [p. 22]

    Finally, the report dismissed any notion that the dissolution of the USSR signified a new era of progressive capitalist development.

    Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism and Karl Marx. [p. 25]

    The aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR: 20 years of economic crisis, social decay, and political reaction

    According to liberal theory, the dissolution of the Soviet Union ought to have produced a new flowering of democracy. Of course, nothing of the sort occurred-not in the former USSR or, for that matter, in the United States. Moreover, the breakup of the Soviet Union-the so-called defeat of communism-was not followed by a triumphant resurgence of its irreconcilable enemies in the international workers' movement, the social democratic and reformist trade unions and political parties. The opposite occurred. All these organizations experienced, in the aftermath of the breakup of the USSR, a devastating and even terminal crisis. In the United States, the trade union movement-whose principal preoccupation during the entire Cold War had been the defeat of Communism-has all but collapsed. During the two decades that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the AFL-CIO lost a substantial portion of its membership, was reduced to a state of utter impotence, and ceased to exist as a workers' organization in any socially significant sense of the term. At the same time, everywhere in the world, the social position of the working class-from the standpoint of its influence on the direction of state policy and its ability to increase its share of the surplus value produced by its own labor-deteriorated dramatically.

    Certain important conclusions flow from this fact. First, the breakup of the Soviet Union did not flow from the supposed failure of Marxism and socialism. If that had been the case, the anti-Marxist and antisocialist labor organizations should have thrived in the post-Soviet era. The fact that these organizations experienced ignominious failure compels one to uncover the common feature in the program and orientation of all the so-called labor organizations, "communist" and anticommunist alike. What was the common element in the political DNA of all these organization? The answer is that regardless of their names, conflicting political alignments and superficial ideological differences, the large labor organizations of the post-World War II period pursued essentially nationalist policies. They tied the fate of the working class to one or another nation-state. This left them incapable of responding to the increasing integration of the world economy. The emergence of transnational corporations and the associated phenomena of capitalist globalization shattered all labor organizations that based themselves on a nationalist program.

    The second conclusion is that the improvement of conditions of the international working class was linked, to one degree or another, to the existence of the Soviet Union. Despite the treachery and crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy, the existence of the USSR, a state that arose on the basis of a socialist revolution, imposed upon American and European imperialism certain political and social restraints that would otherwise have been unacceptable. The political environment of the past two decades-characterized by unrestrained imperialist militarism, the violations of international law, and the repudiation of essential principles of bourgeois democracy-is the direct outcome of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

    The breakup of the USSR was, for the great masses of its former citizens, an unmitigated disaster. Twenty years after the October Revolution, despite all the political crimes of the Stalinist regime, the new property relations established in the aftermath of the October Revolution made possible an extraordinary social transformation of backward Russia. And even after suffering horrifying losses during the four years of war with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union experienced in the 20 years that followed the war a stupendous growth of its economy, which was accompanied by advances in science and culture that astonished the entire world.

    But what is the verdict on the post-Soviet experience of the Russian people? First and foremost, the dissolution of the USSR set into motion a demographic catastrophe. Ten years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Russian population was shrinking at an annual rate of 750,000. Between 1983 and 2001, the number of annual births dropped by one half. 75 percent of pregnant women in Russia suffered some form of illness that endangered their unborn child. Only one quarter of infants were born healthy.

    The overall health of the Russian people deteriorated dramatically after the restoration of capitalism. There was a staggering rise in alcoholism, heart disease, cancer and sexually transmitted diseases. All this occurred against the backdrop of a catastrophic breakdown of the economy of the former USSR and a dramatic rise in mass poverty.

    As for democracy, the post-Soviet system was consolidated on the basis of mass murder. For more than 70 years, the Bolshevik regime's dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918-an event that did not entail the loss of a single life-was trumpeted as an unforgettable and unforgivable violation of democratic principles. But in October 1993, having lost a majority in the popularly elected parliament, the Yeltsin regime ordered the bombardment of the White House-the seat of the Russian parliament-located in the middle of Moscow. Estimates of the number of people who were killed in the military assault run as high as 2,000. On the basis of this carnage, the Yeltsin regime was effectively transformed into a dictatorship, based on the military and security forces. The regime of Putin-Medvedev continues along the same dictatorial lines. The assault on the White House was supported by the Clinton administration. Unlike the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the bombardment of the Russian parliament is an event that has been all but forgotten.

    What is there to be said of post-Soviet Russian culture? As always, there are talented people who do their best to produce serious work. But the general picture is one of desolation. The words that have emerged from the breakup of the USSR and that define modern Russian culture, or what is left of it, are "mafia," "biznessman" and "oligarch."

    What has occurred in Russia is only an extreme expression of a social and cultural breakdown that is to be observed in all capitalist countries. Can it even be said with certainty that the economic system devised in Russia is more corrupt that that which exists in Britain or the United States? The Russian oligarchs are probably cruder and more vulgar in the methods they employ. However, the argument could be plausibly made that their methods of plunder are less efficient than those employed by their counterparts in the summits of American finance. After all, the American financial oligarchs, whose speculative operations brought about the near-collapse of the US and global economy in the autumn of 2008, were able to orchestrate, within a matter of days, the transfer of the full burden of their losses to the public.

    It is undoubtedly true that the dissolution of the USSR at the end of 1991 opened up endless opportunities for the use of American power-in the Balkans, the Middle East and Central Asia. But the eruption of American militarism was, in the final analysis, the expression of a more profound and historically significant tendency-the long-term decline of the economic position of American capitalism. This tendency was not reversed by the breakup of the USSR. The history of American capitalism during the past two decades has been one of decay. The brief episodes of economic growth have been based on reckless and unsustainable speculation. The Clinton boom of the 1990s was fueled by the "irrational exuberance" of Wall Street speculation, the so-called dot.com bubble. The great corporate icons of the decade-of which Enron was the shining symbol-were assigned staggering valuations on the basis of thoroughly criminal operations. It all collapsed in 2000-2001. The subsequent revival was fueled by frenzied speculation in housing. And, finally, the collapse in 2008, from which there has been no recovery.

    When historians begin to recover from their intellectual stupor, they will see the collapse of the USSR and the protracted decline of American capitalism as interrelated episodes of a global crisis, arising from the inability to develop the massive productive forces developed by mankind on the basis of private ownership of the means of production and within the framework of the nation-state system.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Syria War 2016 - GoPro POV Footage Of Turkish Backed Turkmen Fighters In Heavy Clashes With The Syrian Army In Latakia

    Oct 21, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    schlub | Oct 20, 2016 2:07:30 PM | 40

    debate is over!
    Back to the real world.
    Anyone here care to give a more detailed view of this mess, who is allied with who where, etc?
    OCT 20
    Syria War 2016 - GoPro POV Footage Of Turkish Backed Turkmen Fighters In Heavy Clashes With The Syrian Army In Latakia

    First Person point of view GoPro footage of Turkish backed Turkmen fighter groups in heavy clashes with the Syrian Arab Army in the border region between Turkey and Syria.

    The fighters you see here are part of the so called Syrian Turkmen Brigades an informal armed opposition structure composed of Syrian Turkmen primarily fighting against the Syrian Army, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and the Syrian Democratic Forces (YPG+FSA).

    They are aligned with the Syrian opposition and are heavily supported by Turkey, who provides funding and military training along with artillery and aerial support.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15f_1476976485

    [Oct 21, 2016] Its funny when neo-liberals and libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing to do collective bargaining

    Oct 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    urban legend : October 21, 2016 at 12:27 PM
    It's funny when neo-liberals/libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing to do collective bargaining -- while think it is perfectly OK -- indeed, so "natural" that any question wouldn't even occur to them -- for owners of capital to organize themselves under the special protections of the state-created corporation.

    It's understandable, though, that they would consider the corporation to be ordained by natural law: the Founding Fathers, after all, were dedicated to the proposition that all men and corporations are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. (Never mind that the creator of the corporations is the state.)

    JohnH :

    Robert Reich: "Hillary Clinton won't be the only winner when Donald Trump and his fellow haters are defeated on Election Day...Another will be Paul Ryan, who will rule the Republican roost...the ascendance of Ryan and Clinton will mark a win for big business and Wall Street."
    http://robertreich.org/post/151920926970

    Fortunately, the left will not roll over and play dead like they did during the Obama years...most likely to Krugman's dismay.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Hillary is running against locker room talk and the Russians

    Notable quotes:
    "... criminal record had to be suppressed by the Obama regime in order to move the oligarchs' candidate in the direction of the White House. So here we are on the verge of nuclear war with Russia and China, and the important issue before the American people is Trump's lewd comments with Billy Bush about sexually attractive women. ..."
    "... why is lewd talk about women more important than military conflict with Russia, which could mean nuclear war and the end of life on earth? ..."
    "... For Killary-Hillary the Russian issue is the unsupported and false allegation that the Russian government, in league with Donald Trump, hacked her emails and released them to WikiLeaks. The purpose of this absurd claim is to focus voters' attention away from the damning content of the emails. ..."
    "... The real issue is that the idiots in Washington have convinced the Russian government that Russia is going to be the target of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Once a nation is convinced of this, it is unlikely that they will just sit there waiting, especially a powerful nuclear power like Russia, which appears to have a strategic alliance with another major nuclear power-China. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | Information Clearing House

    Russia's very able Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, said that the US presidential campaign is "simply some sort of a global shame" unworthy of the American people. She certainly hit the nail on the head.

    Hitlery's criminal record had to be suppressed by the Obama regime in order to move the oligarchs' candidate in the direction of the White House. So here we are on the verge of nuclear war with Russia and China, and the important issue before the American people is Trump's lewd comments with Billy Bush about sexually attractive women.

    I mean really. Men's talk about women is like their fish and hunting stories. It has to be taken with a grain of salt. But this aside, why is lewd talk about women more important than military conflict with Russia, which could mean nuclear war and the end of life on earth?

    Trump has declared that he sees no point in conflict with Russia and that he sees no point in NATO a quarter century after the demise of the Soviet Union.

    Is Trump's lewd talk about women worse than Hitlery's provocative talk about Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom Hitlery calls "the new Hitler"? What kind of utter fool would throw gratuitous insults at the President of a country that can wipe the US and all of Western Europe off of the face of the earth in a few minutes?

    Would you rather face a situation in which a few women were groped, or be vaporized in nuclear war? If you don't know the correct answer, you are too stupid to be alive.

    Are the American women really going to elect Hillary as a rebuff to Trump's lewd talk? If so, they will confirm that it was a mistake to give women the vote, although there will be no one left alive to record the mistake in the history books.

    Hitlery, with the aid of the presstitutes-the whores who lie for a living and who constitute the American print and TV media-have succeeded in focusing America's election of a president on issues irrelevant to the dangerous situation with which Hitlery and her neoconservative colleagues confront the world.

    For Killary-Hillary the Russian issue is the unsupported and false allegation that the Russian government, in league with Donald Trump, hacked her emails and released them to WikiLeaks. The purpose of this absurd claim is to focus voters' attention away from the damning content of the emails.

    The real issue is that the idiots in Washington have convinced the Russian government that Russia is going to be the target of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Once a nation is convinced of this, it is unlikely that they will just sit there waiting, especially a powerful nuclear power like Russia, which appears to have a strategic alliance with another major nuclear power-China.

    A vote for the crazed killer bitch Hitlery is a vote for the end of life on earth.

    Dr. Paul Craig Roberts editor of was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are Dissolution of The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Neoliberals take demands for economic fairness and try to give us identity politics instead

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton says publically she believes that. Meanwhile supposedly smart economists like Tyler Cowen say they don't. Boston Fed President Rosengren says there are too many jobs. We need more unemployed. I'm Fed Up with regional Fed Presidents like him. ..."
    "... Class issues are now a tough nut to crack, partly I think because the Democrats and some liberals take demands for economic fairness and try to give us identity politics instead, ..."
    "... The meritocratic class who Krugman speaks for and centrist politicians like Clinton will slow-walk class issues like how Tim Geithner slow-walked financial reform. It's part of their job description and milieu. ..."
    "... It's funny when neo-liberals/libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing to do collective bargaining -- while think it is perfectly OK -- indeed, so "natural" that any question wouldn't even occur to them -- for owners of capital to organize themselves under the special protections of the state-created corporation. ..."
    "... It's understandable, though, that they would consider the corporation to be ordained by natural law: the Founding Fathers, after all, were dedicated to the proposition that all men and corporations are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. (Never mind that the creator of the corporations is the state.) ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K: October 21, 2016 at 10:14 AM
    I liked how Hillary said in the third debate that she was for raising the minimum wage because people who work full time shouldn't live in poverty. And "Donald" is against it. That's why people are voting for her.

    That's an ethical or moral notion, combined with "morally neutral" economics. People who work hard full time, play by the rules and pay their dues shouldn't live in poverty.

    Clinton says publically she believes that. Meanwhile supposedly smart economists like Tyler Cowen say they don't. Boston Fed President Rosengren says there are too many jobs. We need more unemployed. I'm Fed Up with regional Fed Presidents like him.

    Think about the debate between the centrists and progressives over Trump supporters. The centrists argue Trump supporters (nor anyone else besides a few) aren't suffering from economic anxiety - that it's racism all of the way down. Matt Yglesias. Dylan Matthews. Krugman. Meyerson. Etc.

    The progressives admit there's racism, but there's a wider context. The Nazis were racists, but there was also the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression. And Germany got better in the decades after the war just as the American South is better than it once was. Steve Randy Waldman and James Kwak discussed in blog post how the wider context should be taken into consideration.

    On some "non-economic issues" there has been progress even though the recent decades haven't been as booming as the post-WWII decades were with rising living standards for all.

    A black President. Legalized gay marriage. Legalized pot. I wouldn't have thought these things as likely to happen when I was a teenager because of the bigoted authoritarian nature of many voters and elites. During the Progressive era and when the New Deal was enacted, racism and sexism and bigotry and anti-science thinking was virulent. Yet economic progress was made on the class front.

    Class issues are now a tough nut to crack, partly I think because the Democrats and some liberals take demands for economic fairness and try to give us identity politics instead, not that the latter isn't worthwhile. Partly b/c of what Mike Konczal discussed in his recent Medium piece.

    If we can just apply the morality and politics of electing a black President and legalizing gay marriage and pot, to class issues. The meritocratic class who Krugman speaks for and centrist politicians like Clinton will slow-walk class issues like how Tim Geithner slow-walked financial reform. It's part of their job description and milieu.

    But Clinton did talk to it during the third debate when she said she'd raise the minimum wage because people who work full time shouldn't live in poverty. That is a morale issue as the new Pope has been talking about.

    Hillary should have joked last night about what God's Catholic representative here on Earth had to say about Trump.

    urban legend said...
    It's funny when neo-liberals/libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing to do collective bargaining -- while think it is perfectly OK -- indeed, so "natural" that any question wouldn't even occur to them -- for owners of capital to organize themselves under the special protections of the state-created corporation.

    It's understandable, though, that they would consider the corporation to be ordained by natural law: the Founding Fathers, after all, were dedicated to the proposition that all men and corporations are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. (Never mind that the creator of the corporations is the state.)

    [Oct 21, 2016] This Election Circus Is A Disservice To The People

    Notable quotes:
    "... Once again, during the last hour of the third debate, Clinton reiterated her position on a 'no fly zone' and 'safe zones' in Syria. She is absolutely committed to this policy position which aligns with the anonymous 50+ state dept lifers and Beltway neocons stance. ..."
    "... Trump's candidacy = sovereignty - NO War. Clinton's candidacy = Globalism - WAR. Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple... ..."
    "... Simply incredible the borg,and all those who say she is a lock are in for a big surprise,as Americans don't believe the serial liars anymore. ..."
    "... It will be a 'fuck you' vote more than a vote for The Don. ..."
    "... The dems forgot to switch off the internet. The anti-Trump MSM campaign is so total and over the top because it has to be --> CNN is so last century. No one is getting out of bed to vote Hillary. ..."
    "... Step away from your TVs, smartphones and computers with your brains in the air. Let them breathe freely. ..."
    "... Clinton seems to have had some of the questions ahead of time. She seemed to be reading the answers off a telepromter in her lecturn. ..."
    "... He should declare that Hillary helped arm Al Qaeda to topple Assad for her banker buddies (cant mention the Jewishness/Israeli Firsterism of the 'neocons' of course, not because false but because true) and will be happy to send African Americans and Latinos to die for 'oil companies' and her 'banker friends' and after decades of establishment Dems promising the sky, maybe they dont need an inveterate liar who arms Islamic terrorists. ..."
    "... Hillary armed Al Qaeda and possibly ISIS - both AngloZionist proxies. How in the fuck is she not in jail??? ..."
    "... As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, duopolistic elections are merely mechanisms of manufactured consent. When each of the major parties are controlled by the different factions of the oligarchy, there is only afforded the option to vote for the ideology put forth by each oligarchic group. ..."
    "... What fascinates me is how Obama went all public about Trumps assertions of rigged elections. It appears the puppet masters are very afraid of a "cynical" (realistic) population. Manufactured consent only works if people play the game. As evidenced in South Africa when no one showed up to vote, the government collapsed. ..."
    "... "Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple." Is this being lost sight off amongst all the noise? I hope not, for the sake of the Ukrainians and the Syrians. And for the sake of the countries yet to be destabilised. ..."
    "... A vote for Clinton = War and a vote for Trump = NO war ..."
    "... Don't know when WH was created but the whitehelmets.org domain name was registered (in Beirut not Syria) in August 2014 and it is hosted on Cloudflare in Texas. Maybe it took some time get the brand recognition going? ..."
    "... she also tends to repeat the same talking points 900 times so i knew what she'd say before she said it. did catch her whining about imaginary "russian rigging". again; no surprise there. ..."
    "... as for trump, he mentioned abortion stuff more than usual in what i'm guessing is an attempt to win back any jesus freaks he lost with the billy bush tape. ..."
    "... For the first time I listened to a Trump speech - delivered in Florida on the 13th of this month. What struck me is how much the media attacks on him and his family have got to him. He mentions how he could have settled for a leisurely retirement, but that he felt he had to do something for his country. ..."
    "... perhaps he hadn't quite realized the array of power that is lined up against him. They are not going to let one dude wreck their party. ..."
    "... It examines Trump through the prism as a likely "Jacksonian Conservative", who are not dissimilar to traditional conservatives but are not non-interventionists as such, just far more honest about their interventionism (as they are unburdened by the neocon bullshit about "killing them to make them barbarians more civilised") and really only likely to want to apply aggression where they feel that fundamental American interests are threatened. ..."
    "... Getting Julian Assange's internet connection cut off just makes the Obama regime look even more stupid and pathetic now. The document dumps keep on coming. Did they really think they would stop that by shutting off the LAN in the Ecuadoran embassy? ..."
    "... The underlying problem seems to be that John Podesta bought into the marketing bullshit about The Cloud. So he kept all his very sensitive correspondence at his Gmail account, apparently using it as the archive of his correspondence. ..."
    "... I don't know if we'll ever know who hacked his account. It is not that hard to do, so it doesn't really require a "state actor". Google only gives you a few tries at entering your password, so Podesta's account couldn't have been hacked by randomly trying every possibility. Somehow, the hacker got the actual password. Either it was exposed somewhere, or it was obtained by spear phishing . That involves sending your target an email that directs him to a Web page that asks him to enter his password. All that's required to do that is being able to write a plausible email, and setting up a Web site to mimic the Web site where the account you want to hack resides, Gmail in this case. ..."
    "... Nearly all information technology security breaches are insider jobs, genuine crackers/hackers are rare. Wikileaks is by far the most likely being fed from the inside of the DNC etc. and/or from their suppliers or security detail by people that are disgusted, have personal vendettas, and so on. It's the real Anonymous, anyone anywhere, not the inept CIA stooges or the faux organized or ideological pretenders. In addition any analyst at the NSA with access to XKeyScore can supply Wikileaks with all the Podesta emails on a whim in less than half an hour of "work" and the actual data to be sent would be gotten with a single XKeyScore database query. That sort of query is exactly what the XKeyScore backend part was built to do as documented by Snowden and affirmed by Binney and others. ..."
    "... Duterte may well be flawed but he has a keen nose for where things are heading, Filipinos should be proud of him. ..."
    "... 'Hillary "We will follow ISIS to Raqqa to take it "back"' (take Raqqa back from the Syrians?) ..."
    "... The crazy hyper-entitled White Supremacist bi*ch is beyond any belief. ..."
    "... Jesus Christ, Adolf F. Hitler would've blushed if he said some of her shit. This woman admits she is a war criminal in real time. ..."
    "... If Hillary is elected, she will be haunted by her 'mistakes' and by the exposure of her double face by Wikileaks. She is stigmatized as 'crooked Hillary' and as an unreliable decision maker. From now on, all her decisions will be tainted with suspicion. I doubt that she'll be able to lead the country properly during the 4 years she hopes to stay in power. ..."
    "... the United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots to become a banking and corporate plutocracy. ..."
    Oct 21, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Via Adam Johnson:

    "Total mentions all 4 debates:

    The candidates are not the first to blame for this. The first to blame are the moderators of such debates, the alleged journalists 8and their overlords) who do not ask questions that are relevant for the life of the general votes and who do not intervene at all when the debaters run off course. The second group to blame are the general horse-race media who each play up their (owner's) special-interest hobbyhorses as if those will be the decisive issue for the next four years. The candidates fight for the attention of these media and adopt to them.

    I didn't watch yesterday's debate but every media I skimmed tells me that Clinton was gorgeous and Trump very bad. That means she said what they wanted to hear and Trump didn't. It doesn't say what other people who watched though of it. Especially in the rural parts of the country they likely fear the consequences of climate change way more than Russia, ISIS and Iran together.

    Another reason why both candidates avoided to bring up the issues low in the list above is that both hold positions that are socially somewhat liberal and both are corporatists. None of those low ranked issues is personally relevant to them. No realistic answer to these would better their campaign finances or their personal standing in the circles they move in. Personally they are both east coast elite and don't give a fu***** sh** what real people care about.

    As far as I can discern it from the various reports no new political issues were touched. Clinton ran her usual focus group tested lies while Trump refrained from attacking her hard. A huge mistake in my view. He can beat her by attacking her really, really hard, not on issues but personality. Her disliked rate (like Trump's) is over -40%. She is vulnerable on many, many things in her past. Her foreign policy is way more aggressive than most voters like. Calling this back into mind again and again could probably send her below -50%. Who told him to leave that stuff alone? Trump is a major political disruption . He should have emphasized that but he barely hinted at it for whatever reason.

    The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was.

    rg the lg | Oct 20, 2016 10:19:53 AM | 10
    I watched a couple of minutes of the Hillary&Donald show. Then got a book and read instead.

    Granted the Queen of Chaos will now have an empire to rule over ... but there will be no honeymoon - there are a lot of issues that will dog her heels irrespective of the so-called press trying to help cover-up. The good news in that is the probability of political gridlock. The bad news is that the QoC will have almost no control over her neo-con handlers, the military nor the CIA ...

    It's going to be a helluva ride. The DuhMurriKKKan people have little to do with anything ... and it is possible the economy may show a slight increase as the DuhMurriKKKan people do what they've been trained to do: go on a shopping spree for shit they don't need on the grounds that it'll make them feel better.

    Plus, the DNC bus did dump shit in the street in Georgia ... a fitting symbol for politics in Dumb-shit-MurriKKKah. Doh!

    chipnik | Oct 20, 2016 10:41:32 AM | 12

    "In this venue, your honours, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States," Duterte said to applause at a Chinese forum in the Great Hall of the People attended by Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli. "Both in military, not maybe social, but economics also. America has lost."

    Obviously, TheRealDonald's missing Minot nuke will be visiting the Duterte presidential compound shortly after the Trump-Clinton fraud selection, then Der Decider, whoever plays that 'hope and chains' spox role for Deep State, will announce it was a 'Russian strike', against US 'peace-keeping' forces in the Western Pacific, and then proceed accordingly to attack and occupy Crimea, to 'protect our BFF in the Middle East, Israel'.

    Deep State has already cued up a SCOTUS decision on Citizens United Ultra for 2017. QEn+ already cued up to support junk T-bonds for 'The Wall' or 'The Infrastructure'. US national 'debt' (sic) will hit $25,000,000,000,000 by 2020, then it's game over.

    Diana | Oct 20, 2016 10:42:18 AM | 13
    Suggestion: never report on a debate you didn't watch. Trump came out very strongly against abortion.
    Danny801 | Oct 20, 2016 10:47:48 AM | 15
    as an American citizen, I am truly terrified of this election. Hillary Clinton will most likely start WW3 to serve her masters in Saudi Arabia which seek to eliminate Iran and Russia. Most of us who read this page see Russia as the country fighting terrorist and the US as the one supporting terrorism. Not good. The problem is Trump does himself no favors with the women voters. This election I think also put the world and the normally clueless and self centered American citizens that we are in alot of trouble. The fact that these are the two candidates means we are in serious decline. The world has known that for a while and to be honest, a multi polar world is a good thing
    dahoit | Oct 20, 2016 10:48:48 AM | 16
    And the Russian stuff, Trump had to be somewhat combative vs Russia, as the meme is Russia is helping him. So simple to read.
    SmoothieX12 | Oct 20, 2016 10:55:06 AM | 17
    @15, Danny801
    Hillary Clinton will most likely start WW3 to serve her masters in Saudi Arabia which seek to eliminate Iran and Russia

    Saudis are dumb, it was about them, now famous, Lavrov's phrase--debily, blyad' (fvcking morons), but even they do understand that should the shit hit the fan--one of the first targets (even in the counter-force mode) will be Saudi territory with one of the specific targets being Saudi royal family and those who "serve" them. It is time to end Wahhabi scourge anyway.

    rg the lg | Oct 20, 2016 11:12:29 AM | 18
    For the Eric Zeuss haters amongst the commentariat - give him hell: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/10/20/realists-view-us-presidential-contest.html

    For the open minded, This is an article worth mulling: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/10/20/realists-view-us-presidential-contest.html

    PokeTheTruth | Oct 20, 2016 11:43:56 AM | 22

    Neither candidate is even remotely qualified to be the executive. Declare "None of The Above" and stay home and don't vote on November 8th.
    Qoppa | Oct 20, 2016 11:50:24 AM | 23
    I watched, it was boring. And I agree, Trump should have been more on the offensive, but with more precision, not just his usual rambling.

    jdmckay | Oct 20, 2016 10:26:19 AM | 11
    He tried to distance himself from Putin, oddly the only thing he had going for him in my book (realization Putin's got things done right, things we should have done, and US has lied about it). Trump backed off...
    YES, major point.

    Here is a good take
    http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/trumps-lonely-moment-of-truth/

    h | Oct 20, 2016 11:56:00 AM | 24
    Once again, during the last hour of the third debate, Clinton reiterated her position on a 'no fly zone' and 'safe zones' in Syria. She is absolutely committed to this policy position which aligns with the anonymous 50+ state dept lifers and Beltway neocons stance.

    This irresponsible, shortsighted, deadly position alone disqualifies her completely from serving as Commander in Chief.

    Imagine, if you will, she wins. She convenes her military advisors and they discuss how to implement this policy - no fly zone. Dunsford tells her, again, if said policy were to be implemented we, the US, would risk shooting down a Russian fighter jet(s) who is safeguarding, by invitation, the air space of the sovereign state of Syria. She says that is a risk we must take b/c our 'clients' Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel are demanding such action and Assad must go.

    Kaboom - we either have a very real WWIII scenario on our hands OR a complete revolt by our armed forces...nobody in their right mind wants to go to war with Russia...and I'm no longer convinced she's in her right mind.

    So, what if Hillary wants WWIII?

    What if this is in her and her fellow travelers long-term game 'Global' plan?

    What if she's insane enough to believe the U.S. and our allies could beat Russia and their allies?

    What if she gets back into the WH and we spend the next four years poking, taunting, propagandizing pure hate and fear at the bear all the while brainwashing the American psyche to hate, loathe and fear all things Russian? How maddening will that be? Haven't we already been through enough psychological warfare?

    What if one of the next steps in the New World Order or Global governments game plan is to untether the U.S. military from the shores of the U.S. and grow it into a Global government military force? You know, the world's police force.

    What if they scenario'd out WWIII plans and the implementation of a no fly zone in Syria is where it all begins?

    What if this is the reason Clinton isn't budging from her 'no fly zone' position? She wants war. She believes we can win the war. If we win the war the American Globalists morph into 'World' leaders.

    Who in the hell would want this other than those that are quietly leading and championing this monster. I don't. Do you?

    This election is about one thing and one thing only. The people of the United States, our founding documents, our sovereignty vs the American Globalist class, their control and their Global government wet dream.

    Trump's candidacy = sovereignty - NO War. Clinton's candidacy = Globalism - WAR. Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple...

    MadMax2 | Oct 20, 2016 12:18:04 PM | 26
    Simply incredible the borg,and all those who say she is a lock are in for a big surprise,as Americans don't believe the serial liars anymore.

    dahoit | Oct 20, 2016 10:47:07 AM | 14

    I believe your assertion is correct. A low turn out, monster win is out there. It will be a 'fuck you' vote more than a vote for The Don. I would imagine a lot of people are in for a shock - and a bigger shock than the public backlash against austerity that Brexit was, where 'respected' polling was off by 10 points by election day.

    The dems forgot to switch off the internet. The anti-Trump MSM campaign is so total and over the top because it has to be --> CNN is so last century. No one is getting out of bed to vote Hillary.

    ArthurGilroy | Oct 20, 2016 12:34:11 PM | 27
    Scylla and Charybdis. Does it really matter much which one wins? I await the collapse of this empire and pray that it does not totally explode. What we say and/or think will make absolutely no difference to the final result. The controllers are in control and have been so since the assassination '60s.

    Step away from your TVs, smartphones and computers with your brains in the air. Let them breathe freely.

    May you be born(e) into interesting times.

    AG

    PokeTheTruth | Oct 20, 2016 12:43:53 PM | 28
    @27 I completely agree, Arthur.

    The Strait of Messina is dangerous waters so the American public's only logical recourse is to steer the ship of democracy towards sense and sensibility and let go the anchor of "None of The Above". The people must demand new candidates who are worthy of holding the Office of the President. The federal bureaucracy will continue to run the government through September of 2017, plenty of time for a new election.

    Declare Tuesday, November 8th a national day of voter independence and stay home!

    chipnik | Oct 20, 2016 12:44:41 PM | 29
    24

    That's a simply ludicrous position to take! Trump's 'The Wall' together with 'Defeat ISIS' together with 'Stand with Israel' is EXACTLY the same Yinon Plan as Clinton's, although it probably spares the poor folks in Crimea, now under the Russian Oligarchy, and does nothing at all for the poor folks of Ukraine, now under the Israeli Junta Coup.

    Either candidate is proposing soon $TRILLION Full Battle Rattle NeoCon DOD-DHS-NSA-CIA There's zero daylight between them. The only difference is Trump will make sure that the Exceptionals are relieved of any tax burden, while Clinton will make sure the burden falls on the Middle Class. Again, there is zero daylight between them. For every tax increase, Mil.Gov.Fed.Biz receives the equivalent salary increase or annual bonus.

    This whole shittery falls on the Middle Class, and metastasizes OneParty to Stage Five.

    Trump won't win in any case. His role was to throw FarRightRabbinicals off the cliff, and make Hillary appear to voters to be a Nice Old Gal Centrist. She's not. The whole thing was rigged from the 1998 and 9/11 coup, from Bernie and Donald, on down the rabbit hole.

    Piotr Berman | Oct 20, 2016 12:58:10 PM | 31
    Debates are to convince, not to illuminate. What a person did not figure out before the debates, it is rather hopeless to explain.

    Thus the stress on issues that are familiar even to the least inquisitive voters, heavily overrepresented among the "undecided voters" who are, after all, the chief target. Number one, who is, and who is not a bimbo?

    The high position of Putin on the topic list is well deserved. This is about defending everything we hold pure and dear. We do not want our daughters and our e-mail violated, unless we like to read the content. Daughters are troublesome enough, but the threat to e-mails is something that is hard to understand, and that necessitates nonsense. Somehow Putin gets in the mix, rather than Microsoft, Apple, Google and other companies that destroyed the privacy of communications with crappy software.

    But does it matter? It is like exam in literature or history. It does not matter what the topic is, but we want to see if the candidates can handle it to our satisfaction. For myself, I like Clinton formula: "You will never find me signing praises of foreign dictators and strongmen who do not love America". It is so realistic! First, given her age and fragile throat, I should advise Mrs. Clinton to refrain from singing. And if she does, the subject should be on the well vetted list, "leaders who love America". That touches upon some thorny issues, like "what is love", but as long as Mrs. Clinton does not sing, it is fine.

    Trump, if I understand him, took a more risky path, namely, the he is more highly regarded by people who count, primarily Putin, than schwartzer Obama and "not so well looking chick" Clinton. Why primarily Putin? It is a bit hard to see who else. The person should have some important leadership position. And he/she should be on the record saying something nice about Trump. At that point the scope of name-dropping is narrow.

    Nur Adlina | Oct 20, 2016 1:00:32 PM | 32
    Wasn't ''PEOPLES GET THE GOVERNMENT THEY DESERVE'',the regime change war cry of so called ''US''?.Dont see why Madame ''we came we saw he died'' become POTUS approves ''no fly'' wet dream of war mongers gets shot down by ''evil '' putin and aliies from the skies of Syria onto the ground in pieces.Than discrimination for hundreds of years while ''americans'' figure out what happened withdrawing into a shell like a wounded animal leaving the rest of the world to live in peace!
    Blue | Oct 20, 2016 1:11:34 PM | 34
    Clinton seems to have had some of the questions ahead of time. She seemed to be reading the answers off a telepromter in her lecturn.
    mike k | Oct 20, 2016 1:15:02 PM | 35
    What Trump should say?:

    He should declare that Hillary helped arm Al Qaeda to topple Assad for her banker buddies (cant mention the Jewishness/Israeli Firsterism of the 'neocons' of course, not because false but because true) and will be happy to send African Americans and Latinos to die for 'oil companies' and her 'banker friends' and after decades of establishment Dems promising the sky, maybe they dont need an inveterate liar who arms Islamic terrorists.

    Hillary armed Al Qaeda and possibly ISIS - both AngloZionist proxies. How in the fuck is she not in jail???

    Michael | Oct 20, 2016 1:16:58 PM | 36
    As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, duopolistic elections are merely mechanisms of manufactured consent. When each of the major parties are controlled by the different factions of the oligarchy, there is only afforded the option to vote for the ideology put forth by each oligarchic group.

    Each party defines their ideology to distinguish itself from the other to assure a divided population. They also manipulate the population via identity politics and state it in such a way that voters decisions are not rationally resolved but emotionally so, to assure that sufficient cognitive dissonance is developed to produce a risky shift to a make a decision in favor of a candidate that would otherwise be unacceptable.

    Rigged from the get go is definitely true.

    What fascinates me is how Obama went all public about Trumps assertions of rigged elections. It appears the puppet masters are very afraid of a "cynical" (realistic) population. Manufactured consent only works if people play the game. As evidenced in South Africa when no one showed up to vote, the government collapsed.

    EnglishOutsider | Oct 20, 2016 1:41:59 PM | 37

    h, 24

    "Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple." Is this being lost sight off amongst all the noise? I hope not, for the sake of the Ukrainians and the Syrians. And for the sake of the countries yet to be destabilised.

    h | Oct 20, 2016 1:49:33 PM | 38
    29

    My position is not ludicrous!

    Where has Trump once advocated for a no fly zone let alone war? Links and sources please. Enlighten me.

    The only candidate who has been steadfast in support of a no fly zone in Syria is Clinton. Trump avoids the entire Syrian mess like the plague. Have you not heard him attack Hillary on her Iraq vote, Libyan tragedy, Syria etc? He's not only attacking her for her incompetence and dishonesty, but b/c he finds these wars/regime changes abominable. As do I.

    A vote for Clinton = War and a vote for Trump = NO war

    TG | Oct 20, 2016 2:00:36 PM | 39
    I share your frustration. In my opinion televised 'debates' should be banned, and we should go back to the time-honored technique of looking at the record. Whether Clinton is smooth or has a weird smile, or Trump is composed or goes on a rant, makes no difference to me.

    I know what Hillary Clinton will do, which is, what she has done for the past 20+ years. She will aggressively fight even more wars, maybe even attacking Russian forces in Syria (!). She will spend trillions on all this 'nation-destroying' folly, and of course, that will necessitate gutting social security because deficits are bad. She will throw what's left of our retirement funds to the tender mercies of Wall Street, and after they are through with us we will be lucky to get pennies on the dollar. She will open the borders even more to unchecked third-world immigration, which will kill the working class. She will push for having our laws and judiciary over-ruled by foreign corporate lawyers meeting in secret (TPP etc. are not about trade - tariffs are already near zero - they are about giving multinational corporations de-facto supreme legislative and judicial power. Really). She will remain the Queen of Chaos, the candidate of Wall Street and War, who never met a country that she didn't want to bomb into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

    Trump? He says a lot of sensible things, and despite his mouthing off in public, he has a track record of amicably cooperating with people on long-term projects. But he has no track record in governance, so of course, I don't really know. He's a gamble.

    But right now I am so fed up with the status quo that I am willing to roll the dice. Trump 2016.

    Erelis | Oct 20, 2016 2:08:01 PM | 41
    I agree Trump has had chance after chance to effectively attack Clinton. But here is the problem. Much of that attack would have had to be done from a leftist angle. Outside of Russia, Trump looks to be as much a militarist as Obama at least. The gop money daddies are just as militarist as the democratic party money daddies. The gop is pro-war just they don't want democrats running them.

    Benghazi is a perfect example. They refuse to attack Clinton on her pro-war, destroy everybody policies, so they they make up attacks about the handling of the Benghazi attacks, rather than the reason why Americans were there--to send arms to jihadist terrorists in Syria. (By the way this is why silence on Obama letting criminal banksters go--they would have done the same thing.)

    Trump is intellectually challenged. He could have seen what was happening and brought along his base to an anti-war position and attracted more people. His base was soft clay in his hands as even he noticed. However he had no skills as political leader to understand nor the ability to sculpt his base and win the election, which was given Clinton's horrible numbers, his to lose.

    Mike | Oct 20, 2016 2:11:46 PM | 42
    h, 29

    Q: Where you are on the question of a safe zone or a no-fly zone in Syria?

    TRUMP: I love a safe zone for people. I do not like the migration. I do not like the people coming. What they should do is, the countries should all get together, including the Gulf states, who have nothing but money, they should all get together and they should take a big swath of land in Syria and they do a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country, go back to where they came from.

    Q: Does the U.S. get involved in making that safe zone?

    TRUMP: I would help them economically, even though we owe $19 trillion.

    Source: CBS Face the Nation 2015 interview on Syrian Refugee crisis , Oct 11, 2015

    http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Foreign_Policy.htm#Political_Hotspots

    john | Oct 20, 2016 2:25:23 PM | 43
    Michael says:

    As evidenced in South Africa when no one showed up to vote, the government collapsed

    bingo!

    boycott, divest(disinvest), sanction(ratify)

    h | Oct 20, 2016 2:44:42 PM | 45
    42

    Thanks for the resource, Mike.

    I don't know about your read of Trump's response, but I don't think he's talking about the same kind of safe zone the Brookings Institute has in mind aka carving up Syria. His answer suggests he's thinking a 'safe zone' as more in terms of a temporary refugee zone/space/camp...'they do a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country, go back to where they came from.'

    39

    Awesome comment!

    Qoppa | Oct 20, 2016 3:01:33 PM | 46
    Here is an excellent overview on the White Helmets: http://theduran.com/the-continuing-story-of-the-white-helmets-hoax

    .... while Mr Raed Saleh has a truely humanistic piece in the NYT
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/opinion/we-have-tried-every-kind-of-death-possible.html
    (comments disallowed, I wonder why)

    btw, does anyone know which exact month in 2013 the WH were founded?
    It´s a minor detail, but it would fit so neatly if it is after the first week of September '13 when the "humanitarian" airstrike for the false-flag Ghouta attack was called off. Demonstrating it was conceived as Project R2P Intervention 2.0 after the first one failed.

    ben | Oct 20, 2016 3:14:41 PM | 47
    Wizzy @ 2: Ditto!

    Not only a disservice b, but, by design, a distraction. All hail the empire's newest pawn, HRC.

    Yonatan | Oct 20, 2016 3:23:53 PM | 49
    Qoppa @46.

    Don't know when WH was created but the whitehelmets.org domain name was registered (in Beirut not Syria) in August 2014 and it is hosted on Cloudflare in Texas. Maybe it took some time get the brand recognition going?

    Le Mesurier claims that he persoanlly trained the first group of 20 volunteers in early 2013. It seems these 20 'carefully vetted moderate rebels' each went on to train further groups of 20. So, if we allow 1-2 months training, it looks like mid-late 2013 might be a reasonable date for them to take an effective role in the PR business.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/qa-syria-white-helmets-150819142324132.html

    jfl | Oct 20, 2016 3:24:25 PM | 50
    b, 'The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was.'

    No 'maybe' ... the 'political' process in the US is a complete fraud. The present political class must be removed and replaced. People term 3rd Party/Write-in votes as 'protest votes' but they can - must in my view - be more than that. They must be the first step taken to simply seize power and control of the USA by US citizens. We cannot have a democracy - anywhere - without an engaged demos. That's just the way it is. No to Clinton, no to Trump . No to the elephants and the jackasses and the menagerie. It will take a decade/a dozen years. If we had begun in 2004 we'd be there by now.

    ben | Oct 20, 2016 3:26:18 PM | 51
    P.S.---As Wizzy alluded to, Trump, for whatever reason, is the only candidate almost guaranteed to funnel votes to HRC, the empire's choice.
    the pair | Oct 20, 2016 3:59:45 PM | 53
    downloaded it from youtube late last night. that gave me the option of skimming past hillary and her WASPy passive aggressive act. she also tends to repeat the same talking points 900 times so i knew what she'd say before she said it. did catch her whining about imaginary "russian rigging". again; no surprise there.

    as for trump, he mentioned abortion stuff more than usual in what i'm guessing is an attempt to win back any jesus freaks he lost with the billy bush tape. the fact that he supposedly went so far down in the polls from that tape makes the whole thing seem pointless ("who can pander to uptight morons with moronic priorities more") but saying silly stuff about overturning roe v wade seemed desperate. even if he got to appoint more than the one judge replacing the fat dead greaseball he probably won't get another. and even in that case he would need approval from a congress that agrees on nothing but their hatred for him.

    even the things that got more mentions didn't matter. all i saw on the screeching MSM (especially CliNtoN) was "oh mah gerd he said he's waiting until election day to comment on the election! that means riots and bloodshed cuz that's what goes on in our dumb fuck heads all day!"

    at least canada will be spared all the rich whining hipster pieces of trash like lena dunham. small consolation.

    jo6pac | Oct 20, 2016 4:59:42 PM | 54
    Did someone say pawn.

    https://www.sott.net/article/331606-The-woman-behind-the-curtain-WikiLeaks-show-Lynn-Forester-de-Rothschild-helped-groom-Killary-for-Presidency

    Then no reason to vote because GS is going to do it for you. http://theduran.com/rigged-election-george-soros-controls-voting-machines-16-us-states/

    jo6pac | Oct 20, 2016 5:00:54 PM | 55
    Pawn

    https://www.sott.net/article/331606-The-woman-behind-the-curtain-WikiLeaks-show-Lynn-Forester-de-Rothschild-helped-groom-Killary-for-Presidency

    Voting
    http://theduran.com/rigged-election-george-soros-controls-voting-machines-16-us-states/

    I hope this doesn't double post

    Lochearn | Oct 20, 2016 5:29:04 PM | 56
    For the first time I listened to a Trump speech - delivered in Florida on the 13th of this month. What struck me is how much the media attacks on him and his family have got to him. He mentions how he could have settled for a leisurely retirement, but that he felt he had to do something for his country.

    It's almost as if he'd already decided to back off, convincing himself that maybe he can do more outside the White House. There is a resigned tone to his voice especially the way he finishes sentences. Maybe he just knows, or was told, that he'd be assassinated if he ever got elected. Or perhaps he hadn't quite realized the array of power that is lined up against him. They are not going to let one dude wreck their party.

    Here is the link to the speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3hJjWTLRB0

    jdmckay | Oct 20, 2016 6:41:56 PM | 60
    Good, substantive interview with Jill Stein . Includes insightful discussion on ME, Syria & relations with Putin/Russia. Especially for those not familiar with her may find this interesting. Conducted yesterday (10/19).
    rufus magister | Oct 20, 2016 7:43:23 PM | 65
    in re 38 --

    Nah, it's ludicrous. 'Cuz this is like the gazillionth time I posted this. And will sadly have to do it a few more times in the next three weeks. The Donald Trump dove myth dies hard.

    In the past five years, Trump has consistently pushed one big foreign policy idea: America should steal other countries' oil....

    "In the old days when you won a war, you won a war. You kept the country," Trump said. "We go fight a war for 10 years, 12 years, lose thousands of people, spend $1.5 trillion, and then we hand the keys over to people that hate us on some council." He has repeated this idea for years, saying during one 2013 Fox News appearance, "I've said it a thousand times."

    ....To be clear: Trump's plan is to use American ground troops to forcibly seize the most valuable resource in two different sovereign countries. The word for that is colonialism.

    Trump wants to wage war in the name of explicitly ransacking poorer countries for their natural resources - something that's far more militarily aggressive than anything Clinton has suggested.

    This doesn't really track as "hawkishness" for most people, mostly because it's so outlandish. A policy of naked colonialism has been completely unacceptable in American public discourse for decades, so it seems hard to take Trump's proposals as seriously as, say, Clinton's support for intervening more forcefully in Syria....

    He also wants to bring back torture that's "much tougher" than waterboarding. "Don't kid yourself, folks. It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work," he said at a November campaign event. But "if it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway, for what they're doing."

    ....The problem is that Trump's instincts are not actually that dovish. Trump... has a consistent pattern of saying things that sound skeptical of war, while actually endorsing fairly aggressive policies.

    ....In a March 2011 vlog post uncovered by BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski and Christopher Massie, Trump full-throatedly endorsed intervening in the country's civil war - albeit on humanitarian grounds, not for its oil.

    "Qaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we're sitting around," Trump said. "We should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives." In a later interview, he went further, endorsing outright regime change: "if you don't get rid of Gaddafi, it's a major, major black eye for this country."

    Shortly after the US intervention in Libya began in March 2011, Trump criticized the Obama administration's approach - for not being aggressive enough. Trump warned that the US was too concerned with supporting the rebels and not trying hard enough to - you guessed it - take the oil.

    "I would take the oil - and stop this baby stuff," Trump declared. "I'm only interested in Libya if we take the oil. If we don't take the oil, I'm not interested."

    Throw in a needy, fragile ego -- the braggadocio is overcompensation -- and a hairtrigger temper, and the invasion scenarios write themselves.

    And by the way, he's apparently not really that good a businessman either. Riches-to-Riches Trump Spins Fake Horatio Alger Tale . If he'd put his money into S&P 500 index fund, he'd be worth about eight times what he likely is now. Which is very likely substantially less than what he says he is. Good reason to withhold the tax returns, no?

    So I guess his only recommendation is a reality show with the tagline "You're fired!" All surface, no depth, the ultimate post-modernist candidate. No fixed mean to that text, alright, he both invites you to write your interpretation but polices "the other" outside of it.

    Interesting that the first post-modern candidate is a bloodthirsty fascist (given his refusal to accept the electoral results, I would now consider this not wholly inappropriate).

    But then again, someone as innocent as Chauncey Gardiner was unlikely to emerge from the media.

    stumpy | Oct 20, 2016 8:31:10 PM | 66

    Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
    " Obama: Vote Rigging Is Impossible - If In Favor Of Hillary Clinton | Main
    October 20, 2016
    This Election Circus Is A Disservice To The People

    Via Adam Johnson:

    "Total mentions all 4 debates:

    Russia/Putin 178
    ISIS/terror 132
    Iran 67
    ...
    Abortion 17
    Poverty 10
    Climate change 4
    Campaign finance 3
    Privacy 0"
    The candidates are not the first to blame for this. The first to blame are the moderators of such debates, the alleged journalists 8and their overlords) who do not ask questions that are relevant for the life of the general votes and who do not intervene at all when the debaters run off course. The second group to blame are the general horse-race media who each play up their (owner's) special-interest hobbyhorses as if those will be the decisive issue for the next four years. The candidates fight for the attention of these media and adopt to them.

    I didn't watch yesterday's debate but every media I skimmed tells me that Clinton was gorgeous and Trump very bad. That means she said what they wanted to hear and Trump didn't. It doesn't say what other people who watched though of it. Especially in the rural parts of the country they likely fear the consequences of climate change way more than Russia, ISIS and Iran together.

    Another reason why both candidates avoided to bring up the issues low in the list above is that both hold positions that are socially somewhat liberal and both are corporatists. None of those low ranked issues is personally relevant to them. No realistic answer to these would better their campaign finances or their personal standing in the circles they move in. Personally they are both east coast elite and don't give a fu***** sh** what real people care about.

    As far as I can discern it from the various reports no new political issues were touched. Clinton ran her usual focus group tested lies while Trump refrained from attacking her hard. A huge mistake in my view. He can beat her by attacking her really, really hard, not on issues but personality. Her disliked rate (like Trump's) is over -40%. She is vulnerable on many, many things in her past. Her foreign policy is way more aggressive than most voters like. Calling this back into mind again and again could probably send her below -50%. Who told him to leave that stuff alone? Trump is a major political disruption. He should have emphasized that but he barely hinted at it for whatever reason.

    The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was.

    Posted by b on October 20, 2016 at 09:11 AM | Permalink

    Comments
    I didn't watch too.

    Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 20, 2016 9:22:12 AM | 1

    I don't follow US elections closely, but my take on this - Trump had made a deal. He pretends to be fighting, but he is not. Dunno what was that - either he was intimidated, blackmailed, bought off, or any combination of thereof, and it doesn't matter actually.
    Hail to the first Lady President of the United States. Best luck to Middle East, Eastern Europe and SE Asia - they all gonna need it. Oh, and dear US voters - don't blame yourself, you don't have any influence on the election, so it's not your fault. You'll pay the price too, though.

    Posted by: Wizzy | Oct 20, 2016 9:27:47 AM | 2

    "But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was"

    It was when the League of Women Voters ran the show but when they wouldn't agree to selling out the citizens in Amerika is when we got this dog and phoney show.

    I didn't watch and I'll be Voting Green.

    rg the lg | Oct 20, 2016 10:19:53 AM | 10

    Strictly speaking, if the voters aren't getting what they want from the politicians in a democracy, and they're too chickenshit to demand reform or else - then they should blame themselves because it IS their fault.

    We're getting really, really sick of the bullshit that passes for politics in 2 Party Oz. We sent them a subtle message in 2015 by voting for independents and splinter groups and the "Government" governs with a majority of 1 seat. Next election there will either be a responsive non-traitorous Government, or a revolution. Some of them are starting to wake up and others are pretending not to notice. But the writing is on the wall...

    Quadriad | Oct 20, 2016 8:31:16 PM | 67
    #65 Doofus Minister

    I've had a good look at your "The Donald Trump dove myth" article and I must admit that its quality far exceeds your own verbal rubbish.

    It examines Trump through the prism as a likely "Jacksonian Conservative", who are not dissimilar to traditional conservatives but are not non-interventionists as such, just far more honest about their interventionism (as they are unburdened by the neocon bullshit about "killing them to make them barbarians more civilised") and really only likely to want to apply aggression where they feel that fundamental American interests are threatened.

    To me, that's a big step up from the NEOCON/NEOLIB false pretense garbage. I'd far rather have an honest RATIONAL and RISK ASSESSING thug than a two faced snake, which better describes your C**tory and her Kissenger/Albright gang of perfectly murderable certified war criminals. You can call him a "fascist" if you like. You obviously prefer the 1984 thuggery to more honest, above the table varieties. To each one his own.

    One last note. Those goons that the Dems kept sending to Trump's rallies to stir violence up, there's now the fucking Himalayas of evidence that it's entirely real and beyond any doubt.

    Guess who was the historical king of criminal spamming of shit stirring goons at political adversaries' rallies? The Bolsheviks and your own fixated Fascists/Nazis. Looks like your Hillary learned from the best, inspired by the best, via her fascist mentor Klitsinger et num al.

    So, enjoy your Clintory, dear Pom, and good luck as you and yer Britannia're gonna need it if that discard of a dementia stricken half-human wins the elections.

    Demian | Oct 20, 2016 8:32:32 PM | 69
    Wikileaks has now progressed to emails sent to Obama:

    Wikileaks Releases Barack Obama's 'Binders of Women,' Minorities

    Getting Julian Assange's internet connection cut off just makes the Obama regime look even more stupid and pathetic now. The document dumps keep on coming. Did they really think they would stop that by shutting off the LAN in the Ecuadoran embassy?

    The underlying problem seems to be that John Podesta bought into the marketing bullshit about The Cloud. So he kept all his very sensitive correspondence at his Gmail account, apparently using it as the archive of his correspondence.

    I don't know if we'll ever know who hacked his account. It is not that hard to do, so it doesn't really require a "state actor". Google only gives you a few tries at entering your password, so Podesta's account couldn't have been hacked by randomly trying every possibility. Somehow, the hacker got the actual password. Either it was exposed somewhere, or it was obtained by spear phishing . That involves sending your target an email that directs him to a Web page that asks him to enter his password. All that's required to do that is being able to write a plausible email, and setting up a Web site to mimic the Web site where the account you want to hack resides, Gmail in this case.

    Outsider | Oct 20, 2016 8:50:36 PM | 70
    Nearly all information technology security breaches are insider jobs, genuine crackers/hackers are rare. Wikileaks is by far the most likely being fed from the inside of the DNC etc. and/or from their suppliers or security detail by people that are disgusted, have personal vendettas, and so on. It's the real Anonymous, anyone anywhere, not the inept CIA stooges or the faux organized or ideological pretenders. In addition any analyst at the NSA with access to XKeyScore can supply Wikileaks with all the Podesta emails on a whim in less than half an hour of "work" and the actual data to be sent would be gotten with a single XKeyScore database query. That sort of query is exactly what the XKeyScore backend part was built to do as documented by Snowden and affirmed by Binney and others.

    The powers that be can cheat but people can ignore their efforts, it's what happens in every revolution and civil war. It's hard to see how a second Clinton presidency will have any shred of legitimacy in the US or in the world.

    Duterte may well be flawed but he has a keen nose for where things are heading, Filipinos should be proud of him.

    Don't believe anyone who says what you do or don't do doesn't matter.

    Quadriad | Oct 20, 2016 8:57:12 PM | 71
    @Stumpy - 'Hillary "We will follow ISIS to Raqqa to take it "back"' (take Raqqa back from the Syrians?)

    The crazy hyper-entitled White Supremacist bi*ch is beyond any belief.

    I blame Trump's old age and slow wit for not noticing this verbal Nazism and pointing it directly back at that brown-shirt ad hoc.

    Jesus Christ, Adolf F. Hitler would've blushed if he said some of her shit. This woman admits she is a war criminal in real time.

    stumpy | Oct 20, 2016 10:46:59 PM | 76
    Again I apologize for reposting the whole thread--

    Anyway, here is link to the most disturbing quote from HRC, imo ...

    https://youtu.be/84cJdY8wkV8?t=1h10m10s


    CLINTON: Well, I am encouraged that there is an effort led by the Iraqi army, supported by Kurdish forces, and also given the help and advice from the number of special forces and other Americans on the ground. But I will not support putting American soldiers into Iraq as an occupying force. I don't think that is in our interest, and I don't think that would be smart to do. In fact, Chris, I think that would be a big red flag waving for ISIS to reconstitute itself.

    The goal here is to take back Mosul. It's going to be a hard fight. I've got no illusions about that. And then continue to press into Syria to begin to take back and move on Raqqa, which is the ISIS headquarters.

    I am hopeful that the hard work that American military advisers have done will pay off and that we will see a real - a really successful military operation. But we know we've got lots of work to do. Syria will remain a hotbed of terrorism as long as the civil war, aided and abetted by the Iranians and the Russians, continue.

    I'll be quiet, now.

    Piotr Berman | Oct 20, 2016 11:26:04 PM | 79
    From the link of jo6pac:

    Considering Lynn Forester de Rothschild's apparent hand in potential President Hillary Clinton's economic policy, such theories don't appear so far from the truth - and only further prove the United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots to become a banking and corporate plutocracy.

    This is a bit misinformed conclusion. Some of you may know "Wizard of Oz". It is a famous novel for children that was used for the screenplay of an adorable movie with the same title. Not everybody knows that it was also a novel for the adults, with a key: a political satire against banking and corporate plutocracy that controlled the government of USA around 1900. If I recall, the title figure of the Wizard was Mark Hanna, and Wicked Witch of the East stood for eastern banks which at that time included the largest banks that were behind Mark Hanna (who in turn was the puppeteer of the President). Certain things change in the last 120 years, for example, the rich and famous largely abandoned the mansions in Rhode Island, but New York remains the financial capital. I somewhat doubt that Rothschild secretly have the sway over this crowd, if one would have to point to the most powerful financial entity I would pick Goldman Sachs. Yes, it helped that Lady de Rothschild was sociable, amiable and communicated well with Hillary and numerous gentlemen who could drop 100,000 on a plate to please the hostess, but at the end of the day, things were quite similar when Rothschild largely sticked to Europe.

    The structural problem is not a conspiracy, but simply, capitalism. Any way you cut it, democracy relies on convincing the citizens what is good and what is bad for them, and that still requires money. Money can come from numerous small donors or few large ones, or some combination. Unfortunately, large donors have disproportional influence, until a politician creates his/her brand, too few small donors would know about him/her. Nice thing about Sanders was that he operates largely outside the circle of large donors. That said, both Clintons and Obama entered the political scene as "outsiders".

    I met rich people only few times in my life, and I must admit, it is a pleasant experience. Sleeping is comfortable, food is good, when you go to restaurant the owner greets your party very politely and explains the best dishes of the day and so on. In politics, there are reactionary fat cats and progressive fat cats, but needless to say, they tend to share certain perspective and they skew the media, the academia and the policies in a certain direction.

    virgile | Oct 20, 2016 11:31:02 PM | 80
    If Hillary is elected, she will be haunted by her 'mistakes' and by the exposure of her double face by Wikileaks. She is stigmatized as 'crooked Hillary' and as an unreliable decision maker. From now on, all her decisions will be tainted with suspicion. I doubt that she'll be able to lead the country properly during the 4 years she hopes to stay in power.
    psychohistorian | Oct 21, 2016 12:26:22 AM | 82
    @ Piotr Berman who wrote: The structural problem is not a conspiracy, but simply, capitalism.

    I heartily disagree. Capitalism is a myth created to cover for decisions made by those who own private finance.....part of my undergraduate degree is in macro economics. Your assertion that the Rothschild influence is restricted to Europe is laughable.

    Joe6pac has it right......the United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots to become a banking and corporate plutocracy.

    I believe that it is Piotr Berman that is misinformed.

    blues | Oct 21, 2016 12:31:59 AM | 83
    People Who Control America ? Mind Blowing Documentary HQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzrYMEvAEyw

    The Only Realistic Democracy:
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/10/obama-vote-rigging-is-impossible-if-in-favor-of-hillary-clinton.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c8a4a821970b

    With single-bid ("plurality") voting you only have two candidates to choose from.

    I have described the strategic hedge simple score election method all over the Internet. It is simple in the sense that does not require easily hackable voting machines, and can easily work with hand counted paper ballots at non-centralized voting places. It is not hampered by any requirement to cater to so-called "sincere," "honest" (actually artless and foolish) voters. It easily thwarts both the spoiler effect and the blind hurdle dilemma (the "Burr Dilemma"). It just works.

    Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore them as though they did not exist), or strategically cast from five to ten votes for any number of candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit of, say, twelve candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.

    Both IRV-style and approval voting methods suffer from the blind hurdle dilemma, which can be overcome with the hedge voting strategy. An example of usage of the hedge strategy, presuming the case of a "leftist" voter, would be casting ten votes for Ralph Nader, and only eight or nine for Al Gore. This way, the voter would only sacrifice 20 or 10 percent of their electoral influence if Nader did not win.

    Don't be fooled by fake "alternatives like "IRV" and "approval voting".

    And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers".

    TheRealDonald | Oct 21, 2016 12:44:45 AM | 84
    35

    Reagan delivered Stingers to the Northern Alliance and Taliban, why is Reagan not in prison? Because of people like Ollie North and Dick Armitage. Because the Deep State is in control under Continuance of Government, ever since the 2001 military coup.

    Trump may have gone to Catholic prep school, but he's no choir boy either.

    TheRealDonald | Oct 21, 2016 12:51:20 AM | 85
    80

    Hillary will win, it's in the bag, and she won't be haunted by anything at all, she doesn't have an introspective bone in her hagsack. She will be our Nero for 21st C.

    "We came, we saw, he died, haww, haww, haww."

    Should have been bodybagged and tagged and disposed of at sea, her, not M.

    [Oct 21, 2016] The main issue in this election is that the Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have abandoned the pretense of 2 party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests, with WikiLeaks detailing the gory bits of their corruption and malfeasance

    Notable quotes:
    "... Point being that not only would The Clintons have the Democratic Party machine to rely on for potential vote rigging in this stage of the process (distinguishing vs. primaries simply for rhetorical focus), ..."
    "... but with the clear reality of the Republican Party elite also backing her, she can rely on at least some of the Republican Party machine also being available for potential vote rigging, and who have their experience in Florida, Ohio, etc to bring to the table. ..."
    "... The longer term issue is the Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have abandoned the pretense of 2 party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests, with WikiLeaks detailing the gory bits of their corruption and malfeasance. And everybody in the system is tainted by that, both parties, media, etc. It has overtly collapsed to the reality of a single Party of Power (per the term Oligarch media like to use re: Russia for example). ..."
    "... the Clinton faction is 100% "bi-partisan" and about confluence of both Oligarchic parties. ..."
    "... I would say the Democratic primary was even a mirror of this, I would guess that Clinton had hoped to win more easily vs Sanders without rigging etc... essentially between Sanders and Trump turning anything but "radical status quo" into boogymen. ..."
    "... That just reveals how close to the line the Imperial Oligarchy feels compelled to play... and, I suppose, how confident they are in the full spectrum of tools at their disposal to manipulate democracy. ..."
    "... But that is also shown merely by the situation we are in, with the collapse of the two party system in order to maintain the strength of Imperial Oligarchy. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    yup yeah uh huh | Oct 19, 2016 8:12:06 PM | 96

    Point being that not only would The Clintons have the Democratic Party machine to rely on for potential vote rigging in this stage of the process (distinguishing vs. primaries simply for rhetorical focus),

    but with the clear reality of the Republican Party elite also backing her, she can rely on at least some of the Republican Party machine also being available for potential vote rigging, and who have their experience in Florida, Ohio, etc to bring to the table.

    The longer term issue is the Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have abandoned the pretense of 2 party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests, with WikiLeaks detailing the gory bits of their corruption and malfeasance. And everybody in the system is tainted by that, both parties, media, etc. It has overtly collapsed to the reality of a single Party of Power (per the term Oligarch media like to use re: Russia for example).

    And the craziest thing of course is not that this all happened by accident because some "scary clown" appeared, but that this was nearly exactly planned BY The Clinton faction themselves (promoting Trump in order to win vs. "scary clown"). Most notably, not simply as a seizure of power by Democratic Party "against" Republicans... They are very clear the Clinton faction is 100% "bi-partisan" and about confluence of both Oligarchic parties.

    I would say the Democratic primary was even a mirror of this, I would guess that Clinton had hoped to win more easily vs Sanders without rigging etc... essentially between Sanders and Trump turning anything but "radical status quo" into boogymen. Only surprise was how well Sanders did, necessitating fraud etc, with polls in fact showing Sanders was BETTER placed to defeat Trump than Clinton.

    That just reveals how close to the line the Imperial Oligarchy feels compelled to play... and, I suppose, how confident they are in the full spectrum of tools at their disposal to manipulate democracy.

    But that is also shown merely by the situation we are in, with the collapse of the two party system in order to maintain the strength of Imperial Oligarchy.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Washington moves to silence WikiLeaks

    Washington forgot his role in color revolutions in Ukraine, Russia, Serbia and other countries, when Washington controlled neoliberal media served as air support for local fifth column. Now boomerang returned...
    www.wsws.org

    On Tuesday, the Foreign Ministry of Ecuador confirmed WikiLeaks' charge that Ecuador itself had ordered the severing of Assange's Internet connection under pressure from the US government. In a statement, the ministry said that WikiLeaks had "published a wealth of documents impacting on the US election campaign," adding that the government of Ecuador "respects the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states" and "does not interfere in external electoral processes." On that grounds, the statement claimed, the Ecuadorian government decided to "restrict access" to the communications network at its London embassy.

    [Oct 21, 2016] The Bellingcat research collective War propaganda masquerading as "citizen journalism"

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Atlantic Council is a leading US geopolitical strategy think tank, which last month published a document outlining advanced preparations underway for the United States to fight "major and deadly" wars between "great powers," which will entail "heavy casualties" and "high levels of death and destruction." The document, titled "The Future of the Army," roots the likelihood of such a war in what it calls "Russia's resurgence." ..."
    "... Higgins is one of five authors of an Atlantic Council report released earlier this year, "Distract, Deceive, Destroy," on Russia's role in Syria. The report concludes by calling for US missile strikes in Syria. ..."
    "... Despite having no background in weapons analysis beyond that supposedly derived from computer gaming and, in Higgins' own words, "what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo [films]," he was quickly identified by the international media as a ready source of quotes that could be palmed off as "independent," while hewing to the anti-Russian line of the US and its NATO allies. ..."
    "... By 2014, Higgins was able to raise the finance to create Bellingcat, a more professionally produced web site backed by up to 15 staff and volunteers. Bellingcat was launched days before MH17 was shot down and quickly expanded its area of study to include Ukraine. ..."
    "... How closely allied to the operations of the US state and intelligence network Higgins was by this time can be gauged from an article he wrote in July of this year, "New generation of digital detectives fight to keep Russia honest." ..."
    "... In the article on MH17 published on the Atlantic Council web site, Higgins wrote that following the downing of the plane, "With renewed interest in the conflict in Ukraine, Bellingcat began to look at other aspects of the conflict, where claims of Russian involvement were met with blanket denials." He continued, " Together with our colleagues at the Atlantic Council ..."
    "... Proving that MH17 was shot down by Russian forces was a major focus of Bellingcat's efforts. As early as July 28, 2014, Higgins wrote, "The Buk That Could--An Open Source Odyssey," which was based on poor quality videos, stills and quotes from Ukrainian counterterrorism chief Vitaly Nayda. Citing communications intercepts he would not release, Nayda claimed that the "launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck." ..."
    "... By 2015, Higgins' propaganda operation had become so discredited that the German news magazine Der ..."
    "... In other words, Higgins/Bellingcat is useful for pumping out propaganda masquerading as "citizen journalism." The so-called "research collective" is an Internet and social media adjunct of the US government and NATO. The conclusions of its "research" are determined by Higgins' politics, which serve the interests of the imperialist powers as they gear up for war against Russia. ..."
    "... I notice that on the cable behemoth HBO they are the showing the above mentioned "news program" Vice News, which is slick and slimy.Great example of very stealthy imperialist propaganda . ..."
    www.wsws.org
    In its report, released last month, on the 2014 downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) blamed Russia. The JIT, in which the authorities of the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine are collaborating, stated that the missile that downed the plane "was brought from the territory of the Russian Federation and, after launch, subsequently returned to the Russian Federation territory."

    The JIT noted, "[M]any journalists carried out their own investigations, as did research collectives like Bellingcat. This resulted in different scenarios and theories being raised, both in the media and on the Internet."

    The JIT report is cursory and based largely on Ukrainian sources. It does not provide definitive evidence to back up its conclusions, leaving unresolved the question of who shot down MH17.

    This reference to Bellingcat, however, is significant. The speculative scenario sketched out by the JIT, utilizing animation, images, un-sourced mobile phone recordings and references to unavailable satellite and radar data, is almost identical to that advanced by Bellingcat.

    The Bellingcat "research collective" is a web site established in July 2014 by Eliot Higgins. Originally from Leicester in the UK, Higgins is, as of February, a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab and Future Europe Initiative.

    The Atlantic Council is a leading US geopolitical strategy think tank, which last month published a document outlining advanced preparations underway for the United States to fight "major and deadly" wars between "great powers," which will entail "heavy casualties" and "high levels of death and destruction." The document, titled "The Future of the Army," roots the likelihood of such a war in what it calls "Russia's resurgence."

    Higgins is one of five authors of an Atlantic Council report released earlier this year, "Distract, Deceive, Destroy," on Russia's role in Syria. The report concludes by calling for US missile strikes in Syria.

    From 2012, Higgins maintained a blog, "Brown Moses," which became notorious for its pro-imperialist coverage of the Syria conflict. Higgins trawled social media posts--primarily Facebook, Twitter and YouTube--for images and clips that purported to reveal the many types of both homemade and industrially manufactured weaponry in use in the bloodbath provoked by US imperialism.

    Despite having no background in weapons analysis beyond that supposedly derived from computer gaming and, in Higgins' own words, "what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo [films]," he was quickly identified by the international media as a ready source of quotes that could be palmed off as "independent," while hewing to the anti-Russian line of the US and its NATO allies.

    In 2013, Brown Moses became embroiled in allegations by the main imperialist powers that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians in the Ghouta suburb of Damascus. By "studying" social media posts of damaged rockets embedded in the ground, the angle of shadows cast and satellite images of the area, Higgins claimed to be able to show that rockets, alleged to contain sarin, had been fired by the Syrian army.

    Higgins' efforts were recycled by the world media. At the time, the US government and NATO were on the brink of a major military escalation in Syria, with the alleged chemical attacks meant to provide the pretext.

    Later that year, veteran US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh debunked the chemical attack allegations, pointing out that numerous forces in the Syrian conflict, including US-backed "rebel" groups fighting the Syrian government, such as the Al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front, had "mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and [were] capable of manufacturing it in quantity."

    Higgins' work was rubbished by a group of Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists, led by Professor Theodore Postol, a professor of science, technology, and international security. Postol told Mint Press, "It's clear and unambiguous this munition could not have come from Syrian government-controlled areas as the White House claimed." Higgins, he added, "has done a very nice job collecting information on a website. As far as his analysis, it's so lacking any analytical foundation, it's clear he has no idea what he's talking about."

    By 2014, Higgins was able to raise the finance to create Bellingcat, a more professionally produced web site backed by up to 15 staff and volunteers. Bellingcat was launched days before MH17 was shot down and quickly expanded its area of study to include Ukraine.

    How closely allied to the operations of the US state and intelligence network Higgins was by this time can be gauged from an article he wrote in July of this year, "New generation of digital detectives fight to keep Russia honest."

    In the article on MH17 published on the Atlantic Council web site, Higgins wrote that following the downing of the plane, "With renewed interest in the conflict in Ukraine, Bellingcat began to look at other aspects of the conflict, where claims of Russian involvement were met with blanket denials." He continued, " Together with our colleagues at the Atlantic Council, we explored Russia's involvement in the conflict in Ukraine in the report 'Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine,' which led VICE News to track down one of the Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine who had been identified in the report." [Emphasis added]

    The 2014 civil war in Ukraine, which included the Russian annexation of Crimea, was triggered by the far-right US- and EU-backed coup in Kiev earlier that year. It brought Russia and the US closer to a military conflict than at any time since the end of the Cold War, and served to transform Ukraine into a platform from which provocations and operations could be launched against Russia.

    MH17 was shot down over territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists but contested by the Ukrainian government and far-right Ukrainian militias. From the first moment, prior to any investigation, the crash was seized upon by the US and its allies to denounce Russia as the world's main aggressor and isolate the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Proving that MH17 was shot down by Russian forces was a major focus of Bellingcat's efforts. As early as July 28, 2014, Higgins wrote, "The Buk That Could--An Open Source Odyssey," which was based on poor quality videos, stills and quotes from Ukrainian counterterrorism chief Vitaly Nayda. Citing communications intercepts he would not release, Nayda claimed that the "launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck."

    In contrast with Bellingcat's hack work, a 2015 report by the Dutch Safety Board into the MH17 crash is a sober piece of work. The Dutch investigators concluded that the most likely missile was a Buk of the 9M38 series with a 9N314M warhead. The investigators identified the potential launch site, based on a 320 square kilometre area, but made no attempt to further define the location or draw conclusions as to who controlled it.

    By 2015, Higgins' propaganda operation had become so discredited that the German news magazine Der Spiegel was forced to apologise for its uncritical recycling of Bellingcat allegations that the Russian Defense Ministry manipulated satellite image data to support its position on MH17. According to Jens Kreise, an expert in digital image forensics, Bellingcat's technique of "error correction analysis" was "subjective and not based entirely on science." He added, "This is why there is not a single scientific paper that addresses it." Kreise went on to describe Bellingcat's work as "nothing more than reading tea leaves."

    Immediately after the JIT's MH17 report was released, Higgins took part in an online Atlantic Council panel discussion. Commenting on Higgins' work, VICE journalist Simon Ostrovsky noted that Bellingcat gave "a view into the evidence that we wouldn't have understood otherwise... imagine if there hadn't been that narrative and the lies that were being produced by the Russian MoD [Ministry of Defence] had a fertile soil in which to grow, in which there wasn't this very public counterweight."

    In other words, Higgins/Bellingcat is useful for pumping out propaganda masquerading as "citizen journalism." The so-called "research collective" is an Internet and social media adjunct of the US government and NATO. The conclusions of its "research" are determined by Higgins' politics, which serve the interests of the imperialist powers as they gear up for war against Russia.

    Red_Mariner
    I notice that on the cable behemoth HBO they are the showing the above mentioned "news program" Vice News, which is slick and slimy.Great example of very stealthy imperialist propaganda .
    thucydide
    Thanks for this much needed review of Higgins' work and evolution. It is not surprising that he's been picked up by a big pro-war thinktank, and now works hard every day engineering new conflict and untold suffering.

    A quick correction. While Seymour Hersh did publish a piece describing al-Nusra's chemical weapons and sarin production capability, this fact cannot properly be attributed to Hersh. In his piece, Hersh attributes this information to a joint U.S. intelligence assessment, provided to him by a senior US intelligence official. The fact must be attributed to US intelligence, not Hersh himself.

    Bob Beal
    Thank you for helping detail the mechanics of propaganda. Perhaps editors will open their eyes and question more their reporters' sources, be they think tanks or PR operations.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Trump booed as he rips into Clinton at Catholic charity dinner

    Looks like Yahoo commentariat is definitely anti-Hillary and did not buy the Yahoo story. the first pro-hillary comment was in the second dozen of comments by ratings from Yahoo readers.
    www.yahoo.com

    [Oct 21, 2016] A Desperate Obama Administration Resorts To Lying And Maybe More by Moon of Alabama

    Oct 08, 2016 | ronpaulinstitute.org
    On September 28 the French mission to the UN claimed that two hospitals in east-Aleppo had been bombed. It documented this in a tweet with a picture of destroyed buildings in Gaza. The French later deleted that tweet.

    It is not the first time such false claims and willful obfuscations were made by "western" officials. But usually they shy away from outright lies.

    Not so the US Secretary of State John Kerry. In a press event yesterday, before talks with the French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault about a new UN resolution, he said (vid @1:00) about Syria:

    Last night, the regime attacked yet another hospital, and 20 people were killed and 100 people were wounded. And Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women.These are acts that beg for an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be held accountable for these actions.
    No opposition group has claimed that such an extremely grave event happened. None. No press agency has a record of it. The MI-6 disinformation outlet SOHR in Britain, which quite reliably notes every claimed casualty and is frequently cited in "western" media", has not said anything about such an event anywhere in Syria.

    The grave incident Kerry claimed did not happen. Kerry made it up. (Was it supposed to happen, got canceled and Kerry missed the memo?) Kerry used the lie to call for war crime investigations and punishment. This in front of cameras, at an official event with a foreign guest in the context of a United Nations Security Council resolution.

    This is grave. This is nearly as grave as Colin Powell's false claims of WMD in Iraq in front of the UN Security Council.

    Early reports, like this one at CBSNEWS, repeat the Kerry claim:

    Kerry said Syrian forces hit a hospital overnight, killing 20 people and wounding 100, describing what would be the latest strike by Moscow or its ally in Damascus on a civilian target.
    But the New York Times write up of the event, which includes Kerry's demand for war crime investigations, does not mention the hospital bombing claim. Not at all. For the self-acclaimed "paper of record", Kerry's lie did not happen. Likewise the Washington Post which in its own write up makes no mention of the false Kerry claim.

    The latest AP write up by Matthew Lee also omits the lie. This is curious as Matt Lee is obviously aware of it. The State Departments daily press briefing yesterday had a whole section on it. Video (@3:30) shows that it is Matt who asks these questions:

    QUESTION: Okay. On to Syria and the Secretary's comments earlier this morning, one is: Do you know what strike he was talking about in his comments overnight on a hospital in Aleppo?

    MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary's referring actually to a strike that we saw happen yesterday on a field hospital in the Rif Dimashq Governorate. I'm not exactly positive that that's what he was referring to, but I think he was referring to actually one that was --

    QUESTION: Not one in Aleppo?

    MR KIRBY: I believe it was – I think it was – I think he – my guess is – I'm guessing here that he was a bit mistaken on location and referring to one --
    ...
    QUESTION: But you don't have certainty, though?

    MR KIRBY: I don't. Best I got, best information I got, is that he was most likely referring to one yesterday in this governorate, but it could just be an honest mistake.

    QUESTION: If we could – if we can nail that down with certainty what he was talking about --

    MR KIRBY: I'll do the best I can, Matt.
    ...

    This goes on for a while. But there was no hospital attack in Rif Dimashq nor in Aleppo. Later on DoS spokesman Kirby basically admits that Kerry lied: "I can't corroborate that."

    It also turns out that Kerry has no evidence for any war crimes and no plausible way to initiate any official international procedure about such. And for what? To bully Russia? Fat chance, that would be a hopeless endeavor and Kerry should know that.

    Kerry is desperate. He completely lost the plot on Syria. Russia is in the lead and will do whatever needs to be done. The Obama administration has, apart from starting a World War, no longer any way to significantly influence that.

    Kerry is only one tool of the Obama administration. Later that day the US Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, made other accusations against Russia:

    The US Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directedthe recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
    Translation: "WE DO NOT KNOW at all ("we are confident", "we believe", "directed") who did these hacks and WE DO NOT HAVE the slightest evidence ("consistent with","based on the scope and sensitivity") that Russia is involved, so let me throw some chaff and try to bamboozle you all."

    The former British ambassador Craig Murray calls it a blatant neocon lie. It was obviously the DNC that manipulated the US election by, contrary to its mandate, promoting Clinton over Sanders. The hackers only proved that. It is also easy to see why these accusations are made now. Murray:

    That the Obama administration has made a formal accusation of Russia based on no evidence is, on one level, astonishing. But it is motivated by desperation. WikiLeaks have already announced that they have a huge cache of other material relating to Hillary's shenanigans. The White House is simply seeking to discredit it in advance by a completely false association with Russian intelligence.
    The Obama administration is losing it. On Syria as well as on the election it can no longer assert its will. Trump, despite all dirty boy's club talk he may do, has a significant chance to catch the presidency. He (-44%) and Clinton (-41%) are more disliked by the U.S electorate, than Putin (-38%). Any solution in Syria will be more in Russia's than the Washington's favor.

    Such desperation can be dangerous. Kerry is gasping at straws when he lies about Russia. The president and his colleagues at the Pentagon and the CIA have more kinetic means to express themselves. Could they order up something really stupid?

    [Oct 20, 2016] Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course. ..."
    "... While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region. ..."
    "... Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq. ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    ... ... ...

    Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Clinton in a 2013 speech to the Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner (via The Intercept ):

    [Arming moderates has] been complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons-and pretty indiscriminately-not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future, ...

    Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course.

    The following was written by Podesta, a well connected former White House Chief of Staff, in an 2014 email to Clinton. As introduction Podesta notes: "Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.":

    While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

    Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq.

    [Oct 20, 2016] US Allies are Funding ISIS (and Hillary Knew All Along)

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furor over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton . Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo , dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria. ..."
    "... The memo says: "We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region." ..."
    "... An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan]." But Saudi complicity with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not? ..."
    "... The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support to Saudi positions. ..."
    "... Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they paid up. ..."
    "... Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump's demagoguery, she has never had to answer for it. ..."
    "... A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly overturned a presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furor over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton. Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo, dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

    At the time, the US government was not admitting that Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies were supporting Isis and al-Qaeda-type movements. But in the leaked memo, which says that it draws on "western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region" there is no ambivalence about who is backing Isis, which at the time of writing was butchering and raping Yazidi villagers and slaughtering captured Iraqi and Syrian soldiers.

    The memo says: "We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region." This was evidently received wisdom in the upper ranks of the US government, but never openly admitted because to it was held that to antagonise Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, Turkey and Pakistan would fatally undermine US power in the Middle East and South Asia.

    For an extraordinarily long period after 9/11, the US refused to confront these traditional Sunni allies and thereby ensured that the "War on Terror" would fail decisively; 15 years later, al-Qaeda in its different guises is much stronger than it used to be because shadowy state sponsors, without whom it could not have survived, were given a free pass.

    It is not as if Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and the US foreign policy establishment in general did not know what was happening. An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan]." But Saudi complicity with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not?

    The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support to Saudi positions.

    The real views of senior officials in the White House and the State Department were only periodically visible and, even when their frankness made news, what they said was swiftly forgotten. Earlier this year, for instance, Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic wrote a piece based on numerous interviews with Barack Obama in which Obama "questioned, often harshly, the role that America's Sunni Arab allies play in fomenting anti-American terrorism. He is clearly irritated that foreign policy orthodoxy compels him to treat Saudi Arabia as an ally".

    It is worth recalling White House cynicism about how that foreign policy orthodoxy in Washington was produced and how easily its influence could be bought. Goldberg reported that "a widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. I've heard one administration official refer to Massachusetts Avenue, the home of many of these think tanks, as 'Arab-occupied territory'."

    Despite this, television and newspaper interview self-declared academic experts from these same think tanks on Isis, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf are wilfully ignoring or happily disregarding their partisan sympathies.

    The Hillary Clinton email of August 2014 takes for granted that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding Isis – but this was not the journalistic or academic conventional wisdom of the day. Instead, there was much assertion that the newly declared caliphate was self-supporting through the sale of oil, taxes and antiquities; it therefore followed that Isis did not need money from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. The same argument could not be made to explain the funding of Jabhat al-Nusra, which controlled no oilfields, but even in the case of Isis the belief in its self-sufficiency was always shaky.

    Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they paid up. The Iraqi and Kurdish officials never produced proof of this, but it seemed unlikely that men as tough and ruthless as the Isis leaders would have satisfied themselves with taxing truck traffic and shopkeepers in the extensive but poor lands they ruled and not extracted far larger sums from fabulously wealthy private and state donors in the oil producers of the Gulf.

    Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. But there has always been bizarre discontinuity between what the Obama administration knew about Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and what they would say in public. Occasionally the truth would spill out, as when Vice-President Joe Biden told students at Harvard in October 2014 that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates "were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war. What did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world". Biden poured scorn on the idea that there were Syrian "moderates" capable of fighting Isis and Assad at the same time.

    Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump's demagoguery, she has never had to answer for it. Republican challenges have focussed on issues – the death of the US ambassador in Benghazi in 2012 and the final US military withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 – for which she was not responsible.

    A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly overturned a presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government.

    Another development is weakening Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies. The leaked memo speaks of the rival ambitions of Saudi Arabia and Qatar "to dominate the Sunni world". But this has not turned out well, with east Aleppo and Mosul, two great Sunni cities, coming under attack and likely to fall. Whatever Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the others thought they were doing it has not happened and the Sunni of Syria and Iraq are paying a heavy price. It is this failure which will shape the future relations of the Sunni states with the new US administration.

    [Oct 20, 2016] US Allies are Funding ISIS (and Hillary Knew All Along)

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furor over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton . Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo , dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria. ..."
    "... The memo says: "We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region." ..."
    "... An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan]." But Saudi complicity with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not? ..."
    "... The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support to Saudi positions. ..."
    "... Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they paid up. ..."
    "... Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump's demagoguery, she has never had to answer for it. ..."
    "... A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly overturned a presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furor over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton. Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo, dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

    At the time, the US government was not admitting that Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies were supporting Isis and al-Qaeda-type movements. But in the leaked memo, which says that it draws on "western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region" there is no ambivalence about who is backing Isis, which at the time of writing was butchering and raping Yazidi villagers and slaughtering captured Iraqi and Syrian soldiers.

    The memo says: "We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region." This was evidently received wisdom in the upper ranks of the US government, but never openly admitted because to it was held that to antagonise Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, Turkey and Pakistan would fatally undermine US power in the Middle East and South Asia.

    For an extraordinarily long period after 9/11, the US refused to confront these traditional Sunni allies and thereby ensured that the "War on Terror" would fail decisively; 15 years later, al-Qaeda in its different guises is much stronger than it used to be because shadowy state sponsors, without whom it could not have survived, were given a free pass.

    It is not as if Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and the US foreign policy establishment in general did not know what was happening. An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan]." But Saudi complicity with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not?

    The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support to Saudi positions.

    The real views of senior officials in the White House and the State Department were only periodically visible and, even when their frankness made news, what they said was swiftly forgotten. Earlier this year, for instance, Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic wrote a piece based on numerous interviews with Barack Obama in which Obama "questioned, often harshly, the role that America's Sunni Arab allies play in fomenting anti-American terrorism. He is clearly irritated that foreign policy orthodoxy compels him to treat Saudi Arabia as an ally".

    It is worth recalling White House cynicism about how that foreign policy orthodoxy in Washington was produced and how easily its influence could be bought. Goldberg reported that "a widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. I've heard one administration official refer to Massachusetts Avenue, the home of many of these think tanks, as 'Arab-occupied territory'."

    Despite this, television and newspaper interview self-declared academic experts from these same think tanks on Isis, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf are wilfully ignoring or happily disregarding their partisan sympathies.

    The Hillary Clinton email of August 2014 takes for granted that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding Isis – but this was not the journalistic or academic conventional wisdom of the day. Instead, there was much assertion that the newly declared caliphate was self-supporting through the sale of oil, taxes and antiquities; it therefore followed that Isis did not need money from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. The same argument could not be made to explain the funding of Jabhat al-Nusra, which controlled no oilfields, but even in the case of Isis the belief in its self-sufficiency was always shaky.

    Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they paid up. The Iraqi and Kurdish officials never produced proof of this, but it seemed unlikely that men as tough and ruthless as the Isis leaders would have satisfied themselves with taxing truck traffic and shopkeepers in the extensive but poor lands they ruled and not extracted far larger sums from fabulously wealthy private and state donors in the oil producers of the Gulf.

    Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. But there has always been bizarre discontinuity between what the Obama administration knew about Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and what they would say in public. Occasionally the truth would spill out, as when Vice-President Joe Biden told students at Harvard in October 2014 that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates "were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war. What did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world". Biden poured scorn on the idea that there were Syrian "moderates" capable of fighting Isis and Assad at the same time.

    Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump's demagoguery, she has never had to answer for it. Republican challenges have focussed on issues – the death of the US ambassador in Benghazi in 2012 and the final US military withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 – for which she was not responsible.

    A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly overturned a presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government.

    Another development is weakening Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies. The leaked memo speaks of the rival ambitions of Saudi Arabia and Qatar "to dominate the Sunni world". But this has not turned out well, with east Aleppo and Mosul, two great Sunni cities, coming under attack and likely to fall. Whatever Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the others thought they were doing it has not happened and the Sunni of Syria and Iraq are paying a heavy price. It is this failure which will shape the future relations of the Sunni states with the new US administration.

    [Oct 20, 2016] The end of US-Russia detente

    Notable quotes:
    "... President Obama acknowledged that danger at the end of the Nuclear Security Summit meeting in Washington early this month. He warned of the potential for "ramping up new and more deadly and more effective systems that end up leading to a whole new escalation of the arms race." ... ..."
    "... United States' first 'smart' nuclear bomb signals new arms race with China and Russia: analysts South China Morning Post - August 18 ..."
    "... Washington's green light for a new generation of steerable and smart tactical nuclear weapons may signal the start of a new US nuclear arms race with China and Russia, military analysts say. ..."
    "... Russia and China are believed to have been developing similar weapons for decades, but Chinese experts are apparently keen to learn the lessons of the former Soviet Union's failed attempt to keep up with the United States in the cold war. ..."
    "... Tactical nuclear weapons, known as non-strategic nuclear weapons, are designed to support naval, land and air forces in areas close to friendly forces and perhaps even on contested friendly territory. ..."
    "... The new US weapon, the B61-12, is America's first guided, or "smart" nuclear bomb. It weighs 350kg and can penetrate fortified structures several metres underground. ..."
    "... These nuclear happenings are why I think Hillary Clinton's labeling of Donald Trump as 'Putin's Puppet' is the more important takeaway for last night's debate, much more so than Trump's refusal to go on record as accepting the results of the election. ..."
    "... The American Voting Public has 19 days to discover the loss of detente, the three way nuclear weapon build up ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc : October 20, 2016 at 09:13 AM

    The end of US-Russia detente

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-says-russia-broke-nuclear-missile-treaty-2016-10-19

    " U.S. says Russia broke nuclear missile treaty"

    By Paul Sonne & Julian E. Barnes & Gordon Lubold...Oct 19, 2016...5:47 p.m. ET

    "The U.S. has summoned Russia to a mandatory meeting before a special treaty commission to answer accusations that Moscow has violated a Cold War-era pact that bans the production, maintenance or testing of medium-range missiles, according to U.S. and Western officials.

    The U.S. for years has alleged that Russia is breaching the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF Treaty, an agreement Washington and Moscow signed in 1987 to eliminate land-based nuclear and conventional missiles with ranges from 500 to 5,500 kilometers, as well as their launchers.

    Russia, in turn, has accused the U.S. of violating the pact.

    Now the U.S. is convening the treaty's so-called Special Verification Commission to press its case against Russia, triggering the compliance body's first meeting in 16 years, according to the U.S. and Western officials. They said the SVC meeting would take place in the coming weeks."

    Reply Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 09:13 AM pgl -> im1dc... , October 20, 2016 at 09:24 AM
    And yet Trump trusts Putin.
    likbez -> pgl... , -1
    Putin is one of the few sane politicians left in Europe. I would not object importing him and putting him as a POTUS here instead of one psychically debilitated neocon warmonger (who is definitely in the pocket of Wall Street, if not Russians, due to the amount of "compromat" on her and Bill floating around) and another bombastic know-nothing billionaire who is unable to neither clearly articulate, no capitalize on his winning anti-globalization position against such a compromised, widely hated opponent.

    Especially after the dirty details of her sinking Sanders became known. Why on the Earth he can't just de-legitimize her by stressing that she obtained her position as the candidate from Democratic Party by proven fraud by DNC is beyond me.

    Looks like you might not understand that and the fact that neocons have had driven the US into another useless war in Syria to protect not so much our own but Israeli and Saudi interests (the key idea is partitioning of Syria and establishing a Sunni state as the counterweight the loss of Iraq to Shiites, which means Iran) .

    Fred C. Dobbs -> im1dc... , October 20, 2016 at 09:27 AM
    Looks like a new Arms Race is *on*.
    Fred C. Dobbs -> im1dc... , October 20, 2016 at 09:37 AM
    Race for Latest Class of Nuclear Arms Threatens
    to Revive Cold War http://nyti.ms/268HJT6
    NYT - WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER - APRIL 16, 2016

    The United States, Russia and China are now aggressively pursuing a new generation of smaller, less destructive nuclear weapons. The buildups threaten to revive a Cold War-era arms race and unsettle the balance of destructive force among nations that has kept the nuclear peace for more than a half-century.

    It is, in large measure, an old dynamic playing out in new form as an economically declining Russia, a rising China and an uncertain United States resume their one-upmanship.

    American officials largely blame the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, saying his intransigence has stymied efforts to build on a 2010 arms control treaty and further shrink the arsenals of the two largest nuclear powers. Some blame the Chinese, who are looking for a technological edge to keep the United States at bay. And some blame the United States itself for speeding ahead with a nuclear "modernization" that, in the name of improving safety and reliability, risks throwing fuel on the fire.

    President Obama acknowledged that danger at the end of the Nuclear Security Summit meeting in Washington early this month. He warned of the potential for "ramping up new and more deadly and more effective systems that end up leading to a whole new escalation of the arms race." ...

    ---

    United States' first 'smart' nuclear bomb signals new arms race with China and Russia: analysts South China Morning Post - August 18

    http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2005491/united-states-first-smart-nuclear-bomb-signals-new-arms

    Washington's green light for a new generation of steerable and smart tactical nuclear weapons may signal the start of a new US nuclear arms race with China and Russia, military analysts say.

    Russia and China are believed to have been developing similar weapons for decades, but Chinese experts are apparently keen to learn the lessons of the former Soviet Union's failed attempt to keep up with the United States in the cold war.

    Tactical nuclear weapons, known as non-strategic nuclear weapons, are designed to support naval, land and air forces in areas close to friendly forces and perhaps even on contested friendly territory.

    The new US weapon, the B61-12, is America's first guided, or "smart" nuclear bomb. It weighs 350kg and can penetrate fortified structures several metres underground.

    Unlike banned weapons of mass destruction, the B61-12 is designed to be carried by high-speed stealth fighter jets to hit targets precisely with limited damage to structures and lives nearby. ...

    im1dc -> im1dc... , -1
    These nuclear happenings are why I think Hillary Clinton's labeling of Donald Trump as 'Putin's Puppet' is the more important takeaway for last night's debate, much more so than Trump's refusal to go on record as accepting the results of the election.

    The American Voting Public has 19 days to discover the loss of detente, the three way nuclear weapon build up , and connect Trump to Putin as Putin's Puppet.

    This is far more important going forward than Trump being seen as a whiner and sore loser.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Russian comments on US elections

    www.defenddemocracy.press

    Defend Democracy Press

    Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said she believes the US presidential campaign is not worthy of the nation's people, calling it a "catastrophe" and "simply some sort of a global shame" during a meeting with students on Tuesday.

    Commenting on the heated 2016 presidential race in the US, Zakharova lamented that by accusing Moscow of mounting cyber-attacks with an alleged aim of meddling in American politics, Washington has turned Russia into a "real, serious factor of pre-election rhetoric."

    They are constantly saying that Russia is carrying out cyber-attacks on certain US facilities," she said. Zakharova stressed that the US side provided no proof or any other data on the alleged hackers' links to Moscow, which she says makes the allegations appear to be a "smokescreen" to cover up serious domestic issues.

    According to the spokeswoman, this "public bickering on Russia"as well as "locker-room jokes" are "unworthy of a great power, [and] great people" of America.

    "I simply believe that this campaign is not worthy of their people. As a person who was engaged in information technologies when studying at the university, I believe that this is a catastrophic campaign. May the colleagues of all kinds and countries forgive me, but I believe that this is simply some sort of a global shame," Zakharova said at a meeting with students at the Moscow Aviation Institute, Life.ru reported.

    Earlier in October, the US government claimed it was "confident" that Russia was behind the hacking attacks on US officials and organizations, alleging that revelations by WikiLeaks, DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0. were directly authorized by the Russian government with the intention to "interfere with the US election process."

    "We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities," read the report, published by the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The accusations were based on the fact that attacks "in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company."

    Moscow, for its part, completely dismissed the allegations, denying any involvement in the attacks. Commenting on the report, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov labeled the accusations "yet another fit of nonsense,"adding that while many cyber-attacks Russia faces on a daily basis can be traced back to US services, Russia refrains from calling US government responsible for cybercrimes.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Hillary Clinton Putin, WikiLeaks, Trump Plot to Hack the Election

    This crazy warmonger Hillary Insists Putin Wants a 'Puppet' as US President. The truth is that with the amount of "compromat" against her she is a puppet.
    Oct 19, 2016 | news.antiwar.com

    It didn't take long for the final presidential debate in the US to be shifted to the Clinton campaign's favorite topic: accusing the Trump campaign of being involved in a Russian plot to hack the US election to his benefit. Indeed, it didn't even wait until the brief foreign policy segment.

    During questions about immigration, the moderator asked a question of Hillary Clinton regarding her comments at a closed-door speech to a Brazilian bank about open borders. Clinton quickly and dramatically changed focus, noting that the quote came from WikiLeaks and declaring "what's really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans."

    She went on to declare that it was "clearly" Russian President Vladimir Putin behind the WikiLeaks releases, and insisted that the entire intelligence community had confirmed Putin was doing so "to influence our election." She then demanded Republican nominee Donald Trump "admit" to it.

    When Trump noted that Clinton has "no idea" who was behind the hacks, and that he'd never even met Putin, Clinton declared that Putin wanted Trump elected to be his puppet as US president. Trump insisted it was Clinton, by contrast, who was the puppet.

    Trump went on to say he'd condemn any foreign interference in the US election, no matter who it was, but did say that he thought if the US and Russia got along it "wouldn't be so bad." Clinton accused him of spouting "the Putin line."

    The Clinton campaign has been accusing Russia of trying to hack the election since their summer convention, blaming them for materially every leak that proved embarrassing to her campaign. Since then, the allegations have gone hand-in-hand with claims that Trump is in on the matter. Russia denies any involvement in the hacking, and has noted there is no public evidence to support the claims.

    Beyond continuing to advance these allegations, the debate touched on foreign policy in a limited fashion, with Clinton reiterating promises to impose a no fly zone in Syria to "gain some leverage on the Russians." When asked about the possibility of that starting a war with Russia, she shifted focus again to her confidence the no-fly zone would "save lives."

    [Oct 20, 2016] Washington Post says bipartisan foreign policy elite glad Obama leaving because hes not assertive enough as he bombed just eight countries

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post says "bipartisan foreign policy elite" glad Obama leaving because he's not "assertive" enough (he bombed 8 countries) ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne said ... October 20, 2016 at 11:59 AM

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/789168107956731905

    Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald

    Washington Post says "bipartisan foreign policy elite" glad Obama leaving because he's not "assertive" enough (he bombed 8 countries)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/washington-foreign-policy-elites-not-sorry-to-see-obama-go/2016/10/20/bd2334a2-9228-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html

    Washington's foreign policy elite breaks with Obama over Syrian bloodshed

    [Oct 20, 2016] Obama Vote Rigging Is Impossible - Unless In Favor Of Hillary Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is high time for the U.S. to return to paper-ballots and manual vote counting. The process is easier, comprehensible, less prone to manipulations and reproducible. Experience in other countries show that it is also nearly as fast, if not faster, than machine counting. There is simply no sensible reason why machines should be used at all. ..."
    "... There is simply no sensible reason why machines should be used at all." Of course there is - to rig elections. What do you think they are used for. ..."
    "... The price to pay is the ability to be alerted when vote rigging is going on. Bush won in 2000 because his people controlled the processes that mattered in Florida. ..."
    "... There are the same allegations about 2004 in regards to Ohio. ..."
    "... Here's the best statistical analysis of US vote count irregularities to date. Not a pretty picture. ..."
    "... There is more needed than just paper ballots. A proportional system, a limit on donations and partisan/donor government posts, a stop to the corporate and lobbyist revolving doors. ..."
    "... At present the US seem to be on their way to a one party system. Any democratic process will take place within this "private" club including a very small part of the population. ..."
    "... for the 1 percent the system is not rigged, they have a preferred globalization candidate, and a police state fall back should the peasants rebell. ..."
    "... US citizens are reduced to vote in a block to this power in the Senate and the House in continuous cycles. In the end that blocks any political progress there might be. ..."
    "... There's lots of evidence that the 2004 election was stolen for Bush in Ohio. ..."
    "... "smartmatic" is obviously the right choice. it's a name we know and trust. Like Deibold, Northrup, KBR, and Bellingcat. The integrity stands for itself. ..."
    "... Just think of how many residents of graveyards will be voting their consciences (or lack thereof) this year. Remember Chicago advise - vote early, vote often. ..."
    "... obomber has a friend in the vote rigging business. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-18/robert-creamer ..."
    "... Concerted media campaign (scripted) against Trump portrays him as hysterical. Recall the trumped-up "(Howard) Dean Scream". ..."
    "... Hillary is as nasty and hysterical as Trump or worse. She uses the F bomb regularly. Screams at her subordinates and she annihilated several countries worth of women and children. ..."
    "... We should all be aware of what occurred in the two Baby Bush elections as far as voter machine tabulations and judicial fraud in his becoming president in both elections and the likely murder(s) to cover the fraud up. Small plane crashes being almost untraceable. ..."
    "... paper vote or bust. Everything else hides an attempt at control and ultimately fraud. ..."
    "... How does that help Trump? Most DNC *and* RNC Deep State insiders favor Hillary. ..."
    "... Who is leaking all this stuff so well-timed together? Might just be the FBI, finding itself unable to prosecute officially, not only for fear of retribution, but also because the heap of shit that would get uncovered could be enough for the rest of the world to declare war on the US. ..."
    "... In Vietnam, as in Iraq, the U.S. government pushed hard to get an election to sanctify its puppet regime. Ellsberg, who spent two years in Vietnam after his time in the Pentagon, aided some of the key U.S. officials in this effort who sought an honest vote. But when U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge heard their pitch, he replied, "You've got a gentleman in the White House right now [Johnson] who has spent most of his life rigging elections. I've spent most of my life rigging elections. I spent nine whole months rigging a Republican convention to choose Ike as a candidate rather than Bob Taft." Lodge later ordered, "Get it across to the press that they shouldn't apply higher standards here in Vietnam than they do in the U.S." ..."
    "... Why is policy discussion absent from this election cycle? Its all Trump bashing,wo one iota of his policies being broadcast? ..."
    "... Obomba, the most un-criticised POTUS in American history, is a laughable pos concerned about his terrible corrupt legacy of death war and division which Trump will reveal, once in. ..."
    "... Election Fraud within the Outlaw US Empire has a long history. One very intrepid investigator and expert on this is Brad Friedman who runs the Brad Blog, whose current lead item is about this very topic. ..."
    "... The Vote 'No Confidence' movement is growing. It's being actively discussed on FB and ZH now ..."
    "... Trump say the election is rigged ? Obama's setting up a straw mam by changing the story to election fraud. There may well be fraud in the voting process but we are unlikely to ever know how much. But as to the election being rigged , that's so plainly obvious it's painful. ..."
    "... And Germany doesn't allow electronic voting machines. Gotta be a clue there somewhere. ..."
    "... There is ample evidence of election fraud, vote fraud, and various types of 'rigging' or 'organising' in the US it is just too long to go into in a short post. ..."
    "... Poll Pro-HRC results are not trustworthy. They aren't necessarily outright fabricated (is easy to do and very hard to detect / prosecute), nor even fraudulently carried out, but 'arranged' to give the desired result, which might even, in some cases, be perfectly unconscious, just following SOP. (I could outline 10 major problems / procedures that twist the results.) ..."
    "... Then, the media take it up, and cherry-pick the results, pro HRC. That includes internet sites like real clear politics, which I noticed recently is biased (paid?) in favor of HRC. ..."
    "... It is amazing to me, yet very few ppl actually dig into the available info about the polls. (Maybe 300 ppl in the world?) HRC needs these fakelorum poll results because they will 'rig' the election as best as they can, they need to point back to them: "see we were winning all the time Trump deplorables yelling insults who cares" - Pathetic. Also, of course, controlling the polls while not the same as 'riggin' the election is part of the same MO. (See Podesta e-mails from Wikileaks.) ..."
    "... I think things could get pretty ugly on Nov 9 if Trump wins because i don't see Hillary going quietly into the night and the dems have seeded "putin is rigging" the election idea to contest the results. Plus the establishment that wants Hillary controls the media and the executive office. ..."
    "... Trump's delegitimizing the election before it takes place is definitely color revolution stuff - the carrot revolution? ..."
    "... "Hillary Clinton now says her "number one priority" in Syria is the removal of Bashar al-Assad, putting us on the path of war with Syria and Russia next year. ..."
    "... no-fly zone" over Syria will certainly be followed by the shooting down of both Russian and U.S. jets, in an unpredictable escalation that could easily spread ..."
    "... Note the sums are shards of chewed peanuts and their shells. MSM are bought, controlled and are put in a lowly position, and pamper to power, any.… They will go where the money is but it takes them a long time to figure out who what where why etc. and what they are supposed to do. They cannot be outed as completely controlled, so have to do some 'moves' to retain credibility, and their clients/controllers understand that. Encouraging a corrupt 4th Estate has its major downsides. ..."
    "... Rigged. Right. Let me tell you about rigged. The US system is rigged in a far larger sense than any Americans realize. It's rigged to blow off the Constitution. ..."
    "... the idea of the Electoral College was that every four years communities vote for a local person who could be trusted to go to Washington and become part of the committee that chooses a president and vice-president. ..."
    "... The process is "supposed" to be more akin to the Holy See choosing a pope. The electors were to meet in Washington, debate the possibilities, come up with short list, go to the top person on the list and ask if they would be willing to be president (or vice-president, as the case may be), and if they agreed, the deal was done. If not, go to the second person. ..."
    "... And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers". It's called simple score because it is almost the same as other well-known forms of score (and "range") voting, except it's optimized for hand counted paper ballots (i.e. no machines). ..."
    "... Need to comb through the propositions carefully. Against big business and self serving liberals.. BTW, I'm a Californian from the Central Valley. Oh! How I wish there is a proposition. Should Hussein Obomo II charge for crimes against humanity? ..."
    "... it is absolutely evident that Donald Trump is not only facing the mammoth Clinton political machine, but, also the combined forces of the viciously dishonest Mainstream Media." ..."
    "... "When was the last time the media threw 100% of its support behind one party's presidential candidate? What does that say about the media?" ..."
    "... Do you feel comfortable with the idea that a handful of TV and print-news executives are inserting themselves into the process and choosing our leaders for us?" ..."
    "... It looks like ALL of the Neocon war criminals and architects of the mass slaughters in Iraq (Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc) are standing with Hillary Clinton: ..."
    "... Here's a partial list of neocon war criminals supporting Miss Neocon: Paul Wolfowitz (aka, the Prince of Darkness), Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, Dov Zakheim, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Marc Grossman, David Frum, Michael Chertoff, John Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, Alan Dershowitz, etc ..."
    "... All neocons stand with the CrookedC*nt because there hasn't been nearly enough pointless war, slaughter, dismemberment, death or trauma, it needs to go on FOREVER. ..."
    "... To be blunt. It is not only MSM who are prostitutes of oligarchic ruling elite but all or most even so called left-leaning or independent media are all under guise of phony "opposition" or diversity of opinion where there is none. ..."
    "... MSM even lacks this basic foundation of a rational thought and must be dismissed entirely. ..."
    "... The freedom of speech and press, democracy and just simple decency are simply not allowed in these US under penalty of social marginalizing or even death as Assange and Manning are facing. The entire message of MSM propaganda false flag soldiers is fear. ..."
    "... The US Elections themselves are regularity defrauded (read Greg Palast) for decades in thousands of well-documented different and additional ways to polls such as: ..."
    "... No independent verification of the vote or serious reporting by international observers about violations, or independent exit polls, and many, many more ways every election is stolen as anybody who opens eyes can see. ..."
    "... "The individual loses his substance by voluntarily bowing to an overpowering and distant oligarchy, while simultaneously "participating" in sham democracy." ..."
    "... Remember this is a person that actually publicly admits he took 6 months off (from what?) to campaign for Mr Changey Hopey, The drone Bombing Nobel Peace Prize winner, so it's not like he could ever 5have any political insights worth listening to, now is it? ..."
    "... Oddly, I looked to Russia for inspiration. RF believes in international law so greatly that she strives mightily at every turn to make it the way nations interact. And what we can see if we choose, is that this effort is paying off. The world is changing because of what Russia believes in. ..."
    "... Although Clinton Won Massachusetts by 2%, Hand Counted Precincts in Massachusetts Favored Bernie Sanders by 17% ..."
    "... Massachusetts, one of the participating states for the Super Tuesday election results, may need further scrutiny to allay concerns over election fraud using electronic voting machines. 68 out of the state's 351 jurisdictions used hand counted ballots and showed a much larger preference of 17% for Bernie Sanders than the rest of the jurisdictions tabulated by electronic voting machine vendors ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Massachusetts by 1.42 %. ..."
    "... In the Dominican Republic's last elections (May 2016) voters forced the Electoral Office to get rid of the electronic count in favor of paper ballots, which were counted both, by scanner and by hand, one by one, in front of delegates from each party. This action avoided a credibility crisis and everything went smooth. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Is rigging the U.S. election possible?

    Obama says it is not possible:

    Obama was asked about Trump's voter fraud assertions on Tuesday [..] He responded with a blistering attack on the Republican candidate, noting that U.S. elections are run and monitored by local officials, who may well be appointed by Republican governors of states, and saying that cases of significant voter fraud were not to be found in American elections.

    Obama said there was "no serious" person who would suggest it was possible to rig American elections , adding, "I'd invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes."

    That is curious. There are a lot of "non serious" persons in the Democratic Party who tell us that Russia is trying to manipulate the U.S. elections. How is it going to that when it's not possible?

    Moreover - Obama himself suggested that Russia may interfere with the U.S. elections: Obama: 'Possible' Russia interfering in US election

    Is rigging the election only impossible when it is in favor of Hillary Clinton? This while rigging the elections in favor of Donald Trump, by Russia or someone else, is entirely possible and even "evident"?

    Curious.

    That said - I do believe that the U.S. election can be decided through manipulation. We have evidently seen that in 2000 when Bush was "elected" by a fake "recount" and a Supreme Court decision.

    The outcome of a U.S. presidential election can depend on very few votes in very few localities. The various machines and processes used in U.S. elections can be influenced. It is no longer comprehensible for the voters how the votes are counted and how the results created. *

    The intense manipulation attempts by the Clinton camp, via the DNC against Sanders or by creating a Russian boogeyman to propagandize against Trump, lets me believe that her side is well capable of considering and implementing some vote count shenanigan. Neither are Trump or the Republicans in general strangers to dirty methods and manipulations.

    It is high time for the U.S. to return to paper-ballots and manual vote counting. The process is easier, comprehensible, less prone to manipulations and reproducible. Experience in other countries show that it is also nearly as fast, if not faster, than machine counting. There is simply no sensible reason why machines should be used at all.

    * (The German Constitutional Court prohibited the use of all voting machines in German elections because for the general voters they institute irreproducible vote counting which leads to a general loss of trust in the democratic process. The price to pay for using voting machines is legitimacy.)

    Posted by b on October 19, 2016 at 01:54 AM | Permalink

    wj2 | Oct 19, 2016 2:00:43 AM | 1
    I just found out that many states in the US use electronic voting systems made by Smartmatic which is part of the SGO Group. Lord Mark Malloch-Brown is the chairman of SGO. This man is heavily entangled with Soros. Hillary is Soros' candidate. You simply can't make this sh*t up
    Blue | Oct 19, 2016 2:27:24 AM | 2
    " There is simply no sensible reason why machines should be used at all." Of course there is - to rig elections. What do you think they are used for.
    Erast Fandorin | Oct 19, 2016 2:40:48 AM | 4
    So much for Smartmatic: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06CARACAS2063_a.html
    Julian | Oct 19, 2016 2:50:37 AM | 5
    No. The price to pay is the ability to be alerted when vote rigging is going on. Bush won in 2000 because his people controlled the processes that mattered in Florida.

    There are the same allegations about 2004 in regards to Ohio.

    Adjuvant | Oct 19, 2016 3:36:40 AM | 6
    Here's the best statistical analysis of US vote count irregularities to date. Not a pretty picture.
    http://www.electoralsystemincrisis.org/

    And here's a broader analysis of voting integrity issues this year.
    http://electionjustice.net/democracy-lost-a-report-on-the-fatally-flawed-2016-democratic-primaries-table-of-contents/

    But don't worry: the Department of Homeland Security wants to step in to protect our elections -- with a new Election Cybersecurity Committee that has no cybersecurity experts, but plenty of people embroiled in election fraud lawsuits!
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160902/06412735425/dhss-new-election-cybersecurity-committee-has-no-cybersecurity-experts.shtml
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrloTS3p-fY

    somebody | Oct 19, 2016 5:09:02 AM | 7
    There is more needed than just paper ballots. A proportional system, a limit on donations and partisan/donor government posts, a stop to the corporate and lobbyist revolving doors.

    And diverse political parties that present voters with a choice. At present the US seem to be on their way to a one party system. Any democratic process will take place within this "private" club including a very small part of the population.

    But democracy never meant the power of the poor. So, no, for the 1 percent the system is not rigged, they have a preferred globalization candidate, and a police state fall back should the peasants rebell.

    And in the end, this is the way things are run in Russia and China, with a lot less media circus.

    somebody | Oct 19, 2016 5:20:28 AM | 8
    Posted by: somebody | Oct 19, 2016 5:09:02 AM | 7

    Add - a limit to presidential power for one person. US citizens are reduced to vote in a block to this power in the Senate and the House in continuous cycles. In the end that blocks any political progress there might be. The US are the oldest modern democracy. It is like being stuck in the age of steam engines.

    nmb | Oct 19, 2016 5:51:09 AM | 9
    Stein: this so-called debate is a sad commentary on what our political system has become
    Seamus Padraig | Oct 19, 2016 6:44:12 AM | 10
    @ wj2 (Oct 19, 2016 2:00:43 AM | 1):

    Good one, wj2! Here's some more info on Lord Malloch-Brown and George Soros, courtesy of WikiPedia:

    Malloch Brown has been closely associated with billionaire speculator George Soros. Working for Refugees International, he was part of the Soros Advisory Committee on Bosnia in 1993–94, formed by George Soros. He has since kept cordial relations with Soros, and rented an apartment owned by Soros while working in New York on UN assignments. In May 2007, Soros' Quantum Fund announced the appointment of Sir Mark as vice-president. In September 2007, The Observer reported that he had resigned this position on becoming a government minister in the UK. Also in May 2007, Malloch Brown was named vice-chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute, two other important Soros organisations.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Malloch_Brown,_Baron_Malloch-Brown#Association_with_George_Soros

    lysias | Oct 19, 2016 8:10:37 AM | 11
    There's lots of evidence that the 2004 election was stolen for Bush in Ohio.
    shh | Oct 19, 2016 8:50:59 AM | 14
    DOOOOOOOOOM! "smartmatic" is obviously the right choice. it's a name we know and trust. Like Deibold, Northrup, KBR, and Bellingcat. The integrity stands for itself. With a population so gleefully ignorant and self centered as D'uhmerica, you should be lowering your expectations significantly.
    Ken Nari | Oct 19, 2016 8:57:45 AM | 15
    Are honest elections even legal in Texas and Louisiana? How about Massachusetts and New York? They may be legal there but it would be dangerous to try to enforce that.
    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 19, 2016 9:06:36 AM | 16
    Just think of how many residents of graveyards will be voting their consciences (or lack thereof) this year. Remember Chicago advise - vote early, vote often.
    jo6pac | Oct 19, 2016 9:19:36 AM | 17
    obomber has a friend in the vote rigging business. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-18/robert-creamer

    Voting Green in Calif.

    fastfreddy | Oct 19, 2016 9:45:56 AM | 18
    PB 13 "Concerning attacks from both sides, Trump is definitely more hysterical."

    Concerted media campaign (scripted) against Trump portrays him as hysterical. Recall the trumped-up "(Howard) Dean Scream".

    Trump's hysterical rants (and the smear campaign) are played up in a organized attempt to knock him out. People are getting kneecapped (Billy Bush) to demonstrate to others the wrath that may be visited upon them for supporting the wrong candidate.

    Take Bill O'Reilly for example, He told a subordinate female employee (documented court record) that he wanted to "get a few wines in her and soap up her tits in the shower with a loofah and falafel. There was a settlement and the story was under-reported. Forgotten and forgiven. In fact Bill O stands as an arbiter of moral virtue.

    Hillary is as nasty and hysterical as Trump or worse. She uses the F bomb regularly. Screams at her subordinates and she annihilated several countries worth of women and children.

    It is simply "not in the script" to malign Hillary with her own words and obnoxious behavior. By the way, she is also a drunk.

    john | Oct 19, 2016 10:06:05 AM | 19
    rufus magister says: Y'all keep on diggin' well, there's this , and i didn't even have to break ground.
    BRF | Oct 19, 2016 10:16:56 AM | 20
    We should all be aware of what occurred in the two Baby Bush elections as far as voter machine tabulations and judicial fraud in his becoming president in both elections and the likely murder(s) to cover the fraud up. Small plane crashes being almost untraceable. https://spectregroup.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/bushs-it-guy-killed-in-plane-crash/
    Northern Observer | Oct 19, 2016 10:21:48 AM | 21
    paper vote or bust. Everything else hides an attempt at control and ultimately fraud.
    dumbass | Oct 19, 2016 10:22:18 AM | 22
    >> "The vast majority of battleground states have Republicans overseeing their election systems," These officials actually count the votes,

    How does that help Trump? Most DNC *and* RNC Deep State insiders favor Hillary.

    > and they, like Ohio's Husted, have criticized the Day-Glo Duckhead.

    Yes.

    persiflo | Oct 19, 2016 10:29:06 AM | 23
    Here's another one: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/17/politico-reporter-sends-story-to-hillary-aide-for-approval-admits-hes-a-hack/

    Who is leaking all this stuff so well-timed together? Might just be the FBI, finding itself unable to prosecute officially, not only for fear of retribution, but also because the heap of shit that would get uncovered could be enough for the rest of the world to declare war on the US.

    lysias | Oct 19, 2016 10:54:38 AM | 25
    Daniel Ellsberg, in his book Secrets , recounts what he had learned during his government service about the honesty of U.S. elections. As reported in Counterpunch :
    In Vietnam, as in Iraq, the U.S. government pushed hard to get an election to sanctify its puppet regime. Ellsberg, who spent two years in Vietnam after his time in the Pentagon, aided some of the key U.S. officials in this effort who sought an honest vote. But when U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge heard their pitch, he replied, "You've got a gentleman in the White House right now [Johnson] who has spent most of his life rigging elections. I've spent most of my life rigging elections. I spent nine whole months rigging a Republican convention to choose Ike as a candidate rather than Bob Taft." Lodge later ordered, "Get it across to the press that they shouldn't apply higher standards here in Vietnam than they do in the U.S."

    But Lodge's comments were downright uplifting compared with a meeting that Ellsberg attended with former Vice President Richard Nixon, who was visiting Vietnam on a "fact-finding mission" to help bolster his presidential aspirations. Former CIA operative Edward Lansdale told Nixon that he and his colleagues wanted to help "make this the most honest election that's ever been held in Vietnam." Nixon replied, "Oh, sure, honest, yes, honest, that's right … so long as you win!" With the last words he did three things in quick succession: winked, drove his elbow hard into Lansdale's arm, and slapped his own knee.

    dahoit | Oct 19, 2016 11:00:42 AM | 26
    12,13,will you clowns keep your zippers closed? Your propaganda is unseemly, and we'll see just whose victory will be huge Nov.8,won't we? Why does anyone put any credence in serial liar polls? Why is policy discussion absent from this election cycle? Its all Trump bashing,wo one iota of his policies being broadcast?

    That is his vote rigging angle, that the MSM is corrupt and is politically assassinating him daily,not the polls themselves being a major factor in the rigging accusations.

    Obomba, the most un-criticised POTUS in American history, is a laughable pos concerned about his terrible corrupt legacy of death war and division which Trump will reveal, once in. And only commie morons would oppose that.

    karlof1 | Oct 19, 2016 11:46:58 AM | 27
    Election Fraud within the Outlaw US Empire has a long history. One very intrepid investigator and expert on this is Brad Friedman who runs the Brad Blog, whose current lead item is about this very topic. I suggest those interested in learning more take the time to investigate his site and its many years of accumulated evidence proving Election Fraud a very big problem, http://bradblog.com/
    TheRealDonald | Oct 19, 2016 11:50:32 AM | 28
    The Vote 'No Confidence' movement is growing. It's being actively discussed on FB and ZH now. A bloviating bunko artist vers a grifting crypto neocon is not a 'choice', it's a suicide squad lootfest it's taking America down.

    ... ... ..

    Nobody | Oct 19, 2016 12:17:59 PM | 30
    In Humboldt County California we still use paper ballots. Our polling place also has one electronic voting machine sitting in a corner for voters who can't use the paper ballots. I have never seen it being used. There was a transparency program that I think they still do where all ballots were scanned and the images made available online for the public to double check results. I'm no wiz with machine vision but I think I could knock together enough code to do my own recount.

    I'm not paying much attention but doesn't Trump say the election is rigged ? Obama's setting up a straw mam by changing the story to election fraud. There may well be fraud in the voting process but we are unlikely to ever know how much. But as to the election being rigged , that's so plainly obvious it's painful.

    And Germany doesn't allow electronic voting machines. Gotta be a clue there somewhere.

    Noirette | Oct 19, 2016 12:43:09 PM | 31
    There is ample evidence of election fraud, vote fraud, and various types of 'rigging' or 'organising' in the US it is just too long to go into in a short post. (See for ex. Adjuvant @ 6, john @ 18)

    Ideally, one would have to divide it into different types. It is also traditional, which some forget, I only know about that from 'realistic' novels, I recently read Dos Passos' Manhattan Transfer, and was amazed how little things change (despite horse-drawn carriages, rouge, spitoons, cigars, sauerkraut, etc.) - see karlof1 @ 25.

    Poll Pro-HRC results are not trustworthy. They aren't necessarily outright fabricated (is easy to do and very hard to detect / prosecute), nor even fraudulently carried out, but 'arranged' to give the desired result, which might even, in some cases, be perfectly unconscious, just following SOP. (I could outline 10 major problems / procedures that twist the results.)

    Then, the media take it up, and cherry-pick the results, pro HRC. That includes internet sites like real clear politics, which I noticed recently is biased (paid?) in favor of HRC.

    It is amazing to me, yet very few ppl actually dig into the available info about the polls. (Maybe 300 ppl in the world?) HRC needs these fakelorum poll results because they will 'rig' the election as best as they can, they need to point back to them: "see we were winning all the time Trump deplorables yelling insults who cares" - Pathetic. Also, of course, controlling the polls while not the same as 'riggin' the election is part of the same MO. (See Podesta e-mails from Wikileaks.)

    This is also the reason for the mad accusations of Putin interference in US elections - if somebody is doing illegit moves it is Trump's supporter Putin and so the 'bad stuff' is 'foreign take-over' and not 'us', and btw NOT the Republicans, or Trump circle, which is very telling.

    I didn't see the O Keefe, Project Veritas, vids mentioned. Here the first one. There is a second one up and more coming.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

    alaric | Oct 19, 2016 12:49:20 PM | 32
    I think things could get pretty ugly on Nov 9 if Trump wins because i don't see Hillary going quietly into the night and the dems have seeded "putin is rigging" the election idea to contest the results. Plus the establishment that wants Hillary controls the media and the executive office.

    Oh boy.

    somebody | Oct 19, 2016 1:05:09 PM | 33
    Posted by: jdmckay | Oct 19, 2016 12:11:35 PM | 27

    Trump's delegitimizing the election before it takes place is definitely color revolution stuff - the carrot revolution?

    It is an interesting experiment if you can make people vote for a candidate they don't like by it being the only way to prevent a candidate they dislike even more. You just showed you aren't able to.

    Petri Krohn | Oct 19, 2016 1:49:49 PM | 37
    My link collection on the elections is here: US presidential elections - ACLOS

    Topics discussed:

    anon | Oct 19, 2016 2:03:32 PM | 39

    "Hillary Clinton now says her "number one priority" in Syria is the removal of Bashar al-Assad, putting us on the path of war with Syria and Russia next year.

    Any "no-fly zone" over Syria will certainly be followed by the shooting down of both Russian and U.S. jets, in an unpredictable escalation that could easily spread

    Russia will not back down if we start shooting down its aircraft. Is Hillary willing to risk nuclear war with Russia in order to protect al-Qaeda in Syria?

    Mina | Oct 19, 2016 2:07:19 PM | 40
    latest fisk
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/saudi-arabia-human-rights-imprisonment-every-decent-man-who-speaks-out-in-jail-robert-fisk-a7369276.html
    Noirette | Oct 19, 2016 2:32:17 PM | 46
    96% of disclosed campaign contributions from journalists went to the Clinton campaign. From the MSM: TIME.

    Note the sums are shards of chewed peanuts and their shells. MSM are bought, controlled and are put in a lowly position, and pamper to power, any.… They will go where the money is but it takes them a long time to figure out who what where why etc. and what they are supposed to do. They cannot be outed as completely controlled, so have to do some 'moves' to retain credibility, and their clients/controllers understand that. Encouraging a corrupt 4th Estate has its major downsides.

    http://time.com/money/4533729/hillary-clinton-journalist-campaign-donations/

    Denis | Oct 19, 2016 2:53:54 PM | 48
    Rigged. Right. Let me tell you about rigged. The US system is rigged in a far larger sense than any Americans realize. It's rigged to blow off the Constitution.

    If you want to know how badly rigged, ask any voter when they leave the voting venue: "What is the name of the elector you just voted for?" You'll get either: 1) a dumb stare; 2) a laugh, or 3) a "WTF is an elector?"

    Under the Constitution, Americans vote for electors. They do not vote for presidents, and there's a reason for that. It's called "mass stupidity."

    The Fondling Fathers were smart enough to know that the people are too stupid to choose their own leader. So the idea of the Electoral College was that every four years communities vote for a local person who could be trusted to go to Washington and become part of the committee that chooses a president and vice-president.

    There is not "supposed" to be any campaign, candidates, or polls. The process is "supposed" to be more akin to the Holy See choosing a pope. The electors were to meet in Washington, debate the possibilities, come up with short list, go to the top person on the list and ask if they would be willing to be president (or vice-president, as the case may be), and if they agreed, the deal was done. If not, go to the second person. Pretty much how the CEO of a large corporation is chosen.

    Having the people of a community vote for the local person who would be the most trustworthy to deliberate on who should be president is a reasonable objective. I mean, essentially the question for the voter would be reduced to: "What person in our community would be least likely to be bought off?" But having a gang-bang of 60 million voting Americans who don't really know shit about the morons they are voting into office . . . that, on its face, is a sign of mass self-deception and insanity. It is mass stupidity perpetuating itself.

    The circus that the US presidential election has turned into – including the grotesque primaries – just goes to show how fucking stupid Americans are. The system is an embarrassment to the entire country. And it is an act of flipping-off the Fondling Fathers and their better judgment every four years. But worst of all, the present system is virtually certain to eventually produce the most powerful person in the world who is a complete moron, and who will precipitate a global catastrophe – economic, or military, or both.

    Two names come immediately to mind.

    blues | Oct 19, 2016 2:59:19 PM | 50

    ... ... ...

    And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers". It's called simple score because it is almost the same as other well-known forms of score (and "range") voting, except it's optimized for hand counted paper ballots (i.e. no machines).

    Jack Smith | Oct 19, 2016 3:09:23 PM | 52
    Hey MoA,

    Just got my mail-in ballots from the postman. Voting against all Democrats except, for POTUS. Take a few days and vote either Jill Stein or Donald Trump.

    Need to comb through the propositions carefully. Against big business and self serving liberals.. BTW, I'm a Californian from the Central Valley. Oh! How I wish there is a proposition. Should Hussein Obomo II charge for crimes against humanity?

    anon | Oct 19, 2016 3:16:23 PM | 53

    "For any minimally conscious American citizen, it is absolutely evident that Donald Trump is not only facing the mammoth Clinton political machine, but, also the combined forces of the viciously dishonest Mainstream Media."

    -Boyd D. Cathey, "The Tape, the Conspiracy, and the Death of the Old Politics", Unz Review

    "When was the last time the media threw 100% of its support behind one party's presidential candidate? What does that say about the media?"

    Do you feel comfortable with the idea that a handful of TV and print-news executives are inserting themselves into the process and choosing our leaders for us?"

    from Mike Whitney, Counterpunch

    To read more:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/19/trump-unchained/

    Bruno Marz | Oct 19, 2016 3:26:32 PM | 54
    If Jill Stein needs 5% of the vote in order to be considered a legitimate candidate (or to bring the Green party up to legitimate third-party status for the 2020 election), then you can rest assured that no matter how many votes she actually gets, her percentage will never be above 4.99%. Just like when Obama swept into office in 2008, the powers-that-be made sure the Democrats never had a filibuster-proof majority. Give 'em just enough to believe that the system works, but never enough to create a situation where the lack of change can't be explained away by "gridlock". Brilliant in its malevolence, really.
    anon | Oct 19, 2016 3:32:17 PM | 55

    It looks like ALL of the Neocon war criminals and architects of the mass slaughters in Iraq (Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc) are standing with Hillary Clinton:

    Here's a partial list of neocon war criminals supporting Miss Neocon: Paul Wolfowitz (aka, the Prince of Darkness), Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, Dov Zakheim, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Marc Grossman, David Frum, Michael Chertoff, John Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, Alan Dershowitz, etc

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2016/10/15/neocon-architects-of-illegal-war-in-iraq-stand-with-hillary-clinton/

    All neocons stand with the CrookedC*nt because there hasn't been nearly enough pointless war, slaughter, dismemberment, death or trauma, it needs to go on FOREVER.

    Kalen | Oct 19, 2016 3:35:05 PM | 56
    To be blunt. It is not only MSM who are prostitutes of oligarchic ruling elite but all or most even so called left-leaning or independent media are all under guise of phony "opposition" or diversity of opinion where there is none.

    Actually MOA is one of few, more or less independent, aligning itself with any sane ideology, a welcome island of order in the ocean of media cacophony and I often disagreed with MOA but I appreciate its logical consistency and integrity, hard facts based journalism,no matter from what moral stand MOA writings are coming from. MSM even lacks this basic foundation of a rational thought and must be dismissed entirely.

    But there is much, much more rigging going on, on massive, even global scale. The fraud is so massive and so visible that blinds people from the truth about it. From the truth of how massively they are being controlled in their opinions and thoughts.

    The freedom of speech and press, democracy and just simple decency are simply not allowed in these US under penalty of social marginalizing or even death as Assange and Manning are facing. The entire message of MSM propaganda false flag soldiers is fear.

    It may seem shocking for people under spell of overwhelming propaganda, but this government run by Global oligarchs is dangerous to our physical and mental health and must be eradicated as a matter of sanitary emergency.

    Let's sweep all those political excretions into the sewage pipes where they belong. But first we have to recognize the scale of their influence and their horrifying daily routine subversion of social order, gross malfeasance or even horrendous crimes also war crimes covered up by MSM.

    Only after we get rid of this abhorrent, brutal regime, cut the chains of enslavement we can have decent democracy or voting, not before.

    John Stuart Mill - "Government shapes our character, values, and intellect. It can affect us positively or negatively. When political institutions are ill constructed, "the effect is felt in a thousand ways in lowering the morality and deadening the intelligence and activity of the people"

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "I had come to see that everything was radically connected with politics, and that however one proceeded, no people would be other than the nature of its government.

    And here we are, believing the shit those mofos and feeding us about freedom and democracy citing bought and sold lies as "scientific research" concocted for one reason alone, to fuck us up , exploit and discard when not needed.

    Here is, in a small part, about how they do it, starting from phony polls that suppose to sway you one way or another into following supposed projected winner anointed by the establishment.

    Polls are routinely skewed, even MSM pundits say use polls they can trust i.e. which give them results their bosses seek.

    Now over hundred top newspapers and media outlets endorsed Hillary so you can safely remove them from your list of polls you can rely on.

    Anyway most polls are rigged even more than elections themselves, mostly by skewing the content of a poling sample like in the above example. If you poll Dems about Reps that exactly you get what you seek. But they are more insidious like doubling or tripling polling sample and then pick an choose what answers they like, or focus sample on the area you know there is overall support for your thesis or assertion of candidate regardless of official affiliation, and many more down to raw rigging by fixing numbers or adjustments.

    The US Elections themselves are regularity defrauded (read Greg Palast) for decades in thousands of well-documented different and additional ways to polls such as:

    By limiting selection of possible candidates and their access to statewide or national ballot box via rigged undemocratic caucuses and primaries and other unreasonable requirements, goal-seeking ad-hoc rules. by eliminating and/or confusing voters about voting at proper physical location often changed in last moments, forcing into never counted provisional vote by purposely hiding registered lists, purging made up "felons" from voter lists, requiring expensive or unavailable or costly to obtain due to extensive travel, identifying documents, threatening citizen (of color) with deportation, accusing them of voter fraud [baseless challenging that automatically pushes voter into provisional vote], or strait offering meaningless provisional ballots instead of proper ballot for people who can't read (English) well, eliminating students and military vote when needed on phony registration issues, signature, pictures, purposefully misspelled names, mostly non-British names etc., reducing number of polling places where majority votes for "rouge" candidate, forcing people to stand in line for hours or preventing people from voting al together.

    Selecting remote polling locations with obstructed public access by car or transit, paid parking, exposed to weather elements, cold, wind and rain in November.

    Hacking databases before and after vote, switching votes, adding votes for absent voters, and switching party affiliations and vote at polling places as well up in the data collating chain, county, state, filing in court last minute frivolous law suits aimed to block unwanted candidates or challenging readiness of the polling places in certain neighborhoods deemed politically uncertain, outrageous voting ON a WORKING DAY (everywhere else voting is on Sunday or a day free of work) skewing that way votes toward older retired people.

    Massive lying propaganda of whom we vote for, a fraudulent ballot supposedly voting for "candidates" but in fact voting on unnamed electors, party apparatchiks instead, violating basic democratic principle of transparency of candidates on the ballot and secrecy of a voter, outrageous electorate college rules design to directly suppress democracy. Requirement of approval of the electoral vote by congress is an outrageous thing illegal in quasi-democratic western countries due to division of powers.

    Outrageous, voting day propaganda to discourage voting by phony polling and predictions while everywhere else there is campaigning ban, silence for two to three days before Election Day.

    No independent verification of the vote or serious reporting by international observers about violations, or independent exit polls, and many, many more ways every election is stolen as anybody who opens eyes can see.

    All the above fraud prepared by close group of election criminals on political party payroll, months/years before election date often without any contribution from ordinary polling workers who believe that nothing is rigged.

    If somebody thinks that they would restrain themselves this time, think again. The regime, in a form of mostly unsuspecting county registrars are tools of the establishment and will do everything, everything they can and they can a lot, to defraud those elections and push an establishment candidate down to our throats, without a thought crossing their comatose minds. "Just doing their jobs like little Eichmanns of NAZI regime".

    One way or another your vote will be stolen or manipulated up and down the ticket at will and your participation would mean one thing legitimizing this abhorrent regime.

    We must reject those rigged elections and demand that establishment must go, all of them GOP, DNC and that including Hillary before any truly democratic electoral process worth participating may commence.

    "The individual loses his substance by voluntarily bowing to an overpowering and distant oligarchy, while simultaneously "participating" in sham democracy."
    C. Wright Mills,"The Power Elite" (1956)

    and here is why:
    https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2016/09/17/faux-elections-and-american-insanity-of-fear/

    Any sane person must thus conclude that an act of voting in the current helplessly tainted and rigged political system is nothing but morally corrupting tool that divides us, conflicts us, extorts from us an approval for the meaningless political puppets of the calcified, repugnant oligarchic US regime, in a surrealistic act of utter futility aimed just to break us down, to break our sense of human dignity, our individual will and self-determination since no true choice is ever being offered to us and never will.

    Idea of political/electoral boycott, unplugging from the system that corrupts us and ALTERNATIVE POLITICAL PROCESS designed, developed and implemented for benefit of 99% of population is the only viable idea to express our political views that are absent from official regime candidates' agendas and from the rigged ballots. Let's not be afraid, it was already successfully done in the past. It works." Without courage there is only slavery.

    jdmckay | Oct 19, 2016 3:50:06 PM | 57
    Bo Dacious @ 41
    Remember this is a person that actually publicly admits he took 6 months off (from what?) to campaign for Mr Changey Hopey, The drone Bombing Nobel Peace Prize winner, so it's not like he could ever 5have any political insights worth listening to, now is it?

    Grow up.

    I took the time off (I'm a software engineer) after the primaries (having supported neither BO or HRC) because that's who get got. We were coming off 8 years of BushCo which was, in summary... a horror. The republicans were 100% unrepentant, and McCain was a far louder and steadfast supporter of Iraq then Hillary... wasn't even close. McCain burried his Abramhoff investigation, sealed their findings for 50 years. And his running mate was not just bereft of any policy expertise, she was a loudmouth loon... even FOX canceled her post election show.

    I was well aware of BO's questions/limitations. He didn't put his time in as a Senator and sponsored no meaningful legislation. He played it safe. He had no real policy track record. And as a Senator he quietly slipped away and hob-nobbed with Bush several times (no other Dem Senator at the time did this that I was aware). So yeah, Obama was on open question.

    But he was the guy we got....

    ALAN | Oct 19, 2016 4:20:32 PM | 65
    The Best of Joachim Hagopian https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/10/joachim-hagopian/war-us-russia/
    Grieved | Oct 19, 2016 4:27:54 PM | 66
    I was going to pass on this election, but I've read a lot here about it and started to consider what as a US voter I might do.

    Oddly, I looked to Russia for inspiration. RF believes in international law so greatly that she strives mightily at every turn to make it the way nations interact. And what we can see if we choose, is that this effort is paying off. The world is changing because of what Russia believes in.

    I believe in voting. I believe in multiple parties. I believe the game is totally rigged but sometimes you can win, except that you have to play for this to happen. I believe that you have to be the thing you want.

    I believe in a Green Party and I admire the sanity that comes from Dr. Jill Stein every time I encounter her position. This is the world I believe in. This is the world I'll vote for and support, with all tools that comes to hand, forever.

    ~~

    I don't believe in the view that aspiring for betterment is foolish or naive, or the view that current status cannot change or be changed. Such views fail to acknowledge the physical reality of a new universe manifesting in each moment, always different in some way from that of the previous moment. Such views are lost, bewildered, behind the curve, forever.

    blues | Oct 19, 2016 4:45:09 PM | 69
    Term limits are useless. There could never be a Cynthia McKinney or a Dennis Kucinich -- Ever! Term limited representatives would by definition be track record-free representatives. If you really would like positive change, you simply need to get strategic hedge simple score voting:
    SHSV

    Nothing else can possibly help.

    Jackrabbit | Oct 19, 2016 4:58:09 PM | 72
    The Donald describes what this election is about (ht Saker)
    lysias | Oct 19, 2016 5:19:33 PM | 74
    I am disappointed in how critical of Assange Glenn Greenwald and Naomi Klein are in this piece: IS DISCLOSURE OF PODESTA'S EMAILS A STEP TOO FAR? A CONVERSATION WITH NAOMI KLEIN .
    Wat | Oct 19, 2016 6:07:24 PM | 77
    http://sweetremedy.tv/electionnightmares/archives/278

    Although Clinton Won Massachusetts by 2%, Hand Counted Precincts in Massachusetts Favored Bernie Sanders by 17%

    Mar 06 2016

    J.T. Waldron

    Massachusetts, one of the participating states for the Super Tuesday election results, may need further scrutiny to allay concerns over election fraud using electronic voting machines. 68 out of the state's 351 jurisdictions used hand counted ballots and showed a much larger preference of 17% for Bernie Sanders than the rest of the jurisdictions tabulated by electronic voting machine vendors ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Massachusetts by 1.42 %.

    Malvin | Oct 19, 2016 6:15:15 PM | 78
    In the Dominican Republic's last elections (May 2016) voters forced the Electoral Office to get rid of the electronic count in favor of paper ballots, which were counted both, by scanner and by hand, one by one, in front of delegates from each party. This action avoided a credibility crisis and everything went smooth.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Theres a reason Trumps rigged election claims resonate. Heres why

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think that Trump is referring to Clinton's use of her private, insecure server for confidential e-mails of which she ordered 30,000 to be deleted and had Obama intervene to stop an FBI investigation. Honest and transparent, I think not. ..."
    "... In "normal" circumstances she would have been disqualified as a candidate and possibly be facing criminal proceedings. Let's face it, neither candidate is at all suitable as leader of the western world. ..."
    "... The current bedrocks of the capitalist system are at breaking point. Parliamentary democracy and the nation state are crumbling under various pressures. They may be saves but I think we are entering the period when they will be replaced. I have no idea what with though. ..."
    "... Remember when U.S. NGOs were "respected" bodies around the world. Now we know they were spies and subverters, now banned from all self respecting countries around the world. ..."
    "... Remember how the U.S. went into Iraq for De4mocracy. Now we know it was oil and deliberate mayhem. ..."
    "... Ditto Afghanistan, Libya, and their failed attempt to lay waste Syria. ..."
    "... Ukraine is just a stand alone shithole created by the U.S., lied about by them, down to the downing of MH17 ..."
    "... If you want lies and deceit, look at the U.S ..."
    "... Not to be too critical, but most of what you mentioned was perpetrated under a single presidential administration. Cheney was dividing Iraqi oilfields way before the "invasion". Bush was just a puppet. You know, the kind of guy you would like to have a beer with. Just a good ole'boy. ..."
    "... Is Hillary trying to stir up her own counter revolution in case she loses too? It seems like a fatally flawed attempt. People barely have the energy to turn out to vote for her, let alone take up arms for her. ..."
    "... The DNC rigged the vote to nominate Clinton over Sanders. Why wouldn't they employ the same tricks in the election itself? ..."
    "... Any individual with a shred of decency should be extremely disturbed by the actions of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. They privately discussed methods of discrediting Sanders based SOLELY on his religious affiliation. ..."
    "... Despite having a tonne of shit thrown at him and the msm and big money donors squarely in Clinton's corner, Trump's still standing. Polls released today: LA Times +2 Trump; NBC +6 Clinton; Rasmussen +1 Clinton ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Kate Aronoff

    The fight over vote rigging in 2016 is a proxy war for a much deeper crisis: the legitimacy of American democracy

    Nearly 90% of Trump supporters agreed with a Rand Corporation survey statement that "people like me don't have any say about what the government does." The irony here is that Trump voters are historically some of the most enfranchised, with some of his strongest support coming from white protestant men. A study done during the primaries also found that Trump backers make an average of $72,000 per year, compared with a $61,000 average among likely Clinton voters.

    ... ... ...

    Corporate citizens – as defined by Citizens United – now have an easier time getting a hold of their elected representative than just about any other American. In other words, money talks in Washington, and Super Pacs have spend just under $795m this election cycle. Because lobbying money courses through every level of politics, the most successful candidates are the best at making friends in the Fortune 500.

    Meanwhile, just six in 10 Americans are confident their votes will be accurately cast and counted. And unlike in systems based on proportional representation, our winner-take-all electoral model creates some of the highest barriers to entry for political outsiders of any democracy on earth.

    Americans' distrust of politics is about more than just elections, though. Congressional approval ratings have declined steadily since 2009 , and now sit at just 20% – a high in the last few years. Unions – which used to cudgel Democrats into representing working people's interests – are at their weakest point in decades, and lack the sway they once held at the highest levels of government.

    Declines in organized labor have been paired with the disappearance of steady and well-paid work, either succumbed to automation or shipped overseas by free trade agreements. A jobless recovery from the financial crisis has left many adrift in the economy, while executives from the firms that drove it got golden parachutes courtesy of the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve.

    On the table now are to very different responses to these crises. Using an apocryphal quote from Frederich Engels, Rosa Luxemburg once wrote : "Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism."


    SmartestRs 2d ago

    I think that Trump is referring to Clinton's use of her private, insecure server for confidential e-mails of which she ordered 30,000 to be deleted and had Obama intervene to stop an FBI investigation. Honest and transparent, I think not.

    In "normal" circumstances she would have been disqualified as a candidate and possibly be facing criminal proceedings. Let's face it, neither candidate is at all suitable as leader of the western world.

    furiouspurpose

    When Mrsfuriouspurpose got a gig as a poll clerk on the EU referendum she offered everyone who came through the door a pencil to write their cross.

    Many brought their own pens and a fair few explained that they were concerned that pencil could be rubbed out and wanted to make sure – just in case.

    It ain't only the yanks who are getting suspicious about how honest our democracy has become.

    davidc929 -> furiouspurpose

    The current bedrocks of the capitalist system are at breaking point. Parliamentary democracy and the nation state are crumbling under various pressures. They may be saves but I think we are entering the period when they will be replaced. I have no idea what with though.


    Kholrabi

    Remember when U.S. NGOs were "respected" bodies around the world. Now we know they were spies and subverters, now banned from all self respecting countries around the world.

    Remember how the U.S. went into Iraq for De4mocracy. Now we know it was oil and deliberate mayhem.

    Ditto Afghanistan, Libya, and their failed attempt to lay waste Syria.

    Ukraine is just a stand alone shithole created by the U.S., lied about by them, down to the downing of MH17.

    If you want lies and deceit, look at the U.S.

    Trump is right in his accusations. Idle chatter is just that, wasteful of time and distracting idle chatter,

    Thomas Hosking -> Kholrabi

    Not to be too critical, but most of what you mentioned was perpetrated under a single presidential administration. Cheney was dividing Iraqi oilfields way before the "invasion". Bush was just a puppet. You know, the kind of guy you would like to have a beer with. Just a good ole'boy.

    DaanSaaf -> Kholrabi

    Ukraine is just a stand alone shithole created by the U.S.,

    tbf, that was as much the handiwork of the EU as it ever was the US

    leadale

    For better or for worse, the 2016 presidential campaign was all about him.

    Not about his policies. Not about calm analysis of what was wrong and how it could be fixed.

    It was always about him. And now, the nation's attention is still focused on him and his peccadillos…rather than Ms Clinton and her scams, corruptions, and Deep State flimflams.

    'Remember, it's a rigged system. It's a rigged election,' said the candidate over the weekend.

    Is the election really rigged? Probably not in the way Mr Trump intends listeners to believe. But the 'system' is so rigged that the election results hardly matter.
    A real conservative would shift the debate away from fanny pinching and other ungentlemanly comportment to how it is rigged. Americans want to know. How come the economy no longer grows as it used to? How come most Americans are poorer today than they were in 1999? How come we no longer win our wars?

    He would explain to listeners that much of the rigging took place while Hillary and Bill Clinton were collecting more than $150 million in speaking fees, telling us how to improve the world!

    Then, he would help listeners put two and two together - explaining how the fake dollar corrupted the nation's economy…and its politics, too.

    And he would offer real solutions. As it is, nobody seems to care. Not the stock market. Not the bond market. Not commentators. Not Hillary. Not Donald. Nobody.

    Bill Bonnar - Daily reckoning


    Ken Weller -> leadale

    Actually, he did address those issues quite frequently, including during the debate. It's the media that is trying to dictate what the important issues are.

    Ken Weller

    I recall that in previous elections, notably the 2004 presidential, progressive voices rightly pointed to possible election rigging. I even remember DNC chair Howard Dean interviewing Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org about how this could be achieved. Now that Trump's people are concerned about the issue, it's suddenly crazy.

    Meanwhile, Clinton's camp has put forth there own conspiracy theory that Russia may somehow rig it for Trump, never mind that that the voting machines are disconnected from the internet and thus hackers.

    Brett Hankinson -> Ken Weller

    Is Hillary trying to stir up her own counter revolution in case she loses too? It seems like a fatally flawed attempt. People barely have the energy to turn out to vote for her, let alone take up arms for her.

    Trump is far more effective and newsworthy because he's inciting violence during the US election and it actually seems plausible that violence could result. He doesn't even need to win the popular vote to wreck the place.


    Whodeaux Brett Hankinson

    It's win/win for Trump and his ilk. Or rather, if he wins then obviously he wins. If he loses he can just say he won, his fanbois will take over bird sanctuaries left and right, and when FBI and National Guard inevitably kill some of them he can screech about how Real Mericans® are being picked on by those nasty Globalist Bankers and the Entitlement Class, those two terms being the current dog whistles for what the John Birchers used to call Jews and Blacks.

    Trump doesn't seem to realize actual people are going to be actually dead before this is all over. One cannot untoast bread.

    MountainMan23

    The DNC rigged the vote to nominate Clinton over Sanders. Why wouldn't they employ the same tricks in the election itself?
    Our voting machines & tabulators are insecure - that's a known fact.
    So the concern among all voters (not just Trump supporters) is real & justified.

    HiramsMaxim MountainMan23

    If I were a Sanders supporter I would be furious.

    Hell, I'm not a Sanders supporter, and I am still furious. What matters an individual's vote, if the outcome has already been determined by The Powers That Be?

    Todd Owens HiramsMaxim

    Any individual with a shred of decency should be extremely disturbed by the actions of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. They privately discussed methods of discrediting Sanders based SOLELY on his religious affiliation.

    "It might may (sic) no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist," Bradley Marhsall, former CFO of the DNC.

    This is identity politics at its absolute worst.

    HiramsMaxim ButtChocolate

    Its a little more sophisticated than that.

    In the Podesta email dumps, there is plenty of evidence of particular members of the Press actively colluding with the Clinton campaign, and even submitting articles for review by the campaign before publishing.

    So, he is taking what are, at the very least, journalistic standards lapses, and spins it into something larger. He takes a little fear, and makes a big story out of it. And, because these media organisations cannot admit what they are doing, or deny the generally accepted verity of the Wikileaks dumps, he gets a free shot.

    Remember, to all the good progressives out there, Trump is not trying to appeal to you, convince you, or make you like him. In fact, the more you hate him, the more "ideologically pure" he looks to his supporters.

    Example: Look at The Guardian reporting of the firebombing at the Republican office here in NC. Any reasonable person would agree that firebombing is wrong. But, TG could not even use that word. The article they published bent over backwards to minimise the action, and blame it on Trump.

    Sure, that plays well to The Guardian readership. But, it just confirms (well, at least it appears to confirm) the loud cries of media bias that Trump and his supporters rail against. The irony is that when the same types of things happen domestically, by a Press that thinks it is "helping" their preferred candidate, it only confirms the worst suspicions of the opposition. And, it only taked one or two examples to give Trump room to condemn all media.

    Trump has one overwhelming skill on display here. He is able to bait the media, and they cannot resist rising to that bait. He is, for lack of a better term, a World Class Troll.

    Harryy

    "as his support slips"

    Despite having a tonne of shit thrown at him and the msm and big money donors squarely in Clinton's corner, Trump's still standing. Polls released today: LA Times +2 Trump; NBC +6 Clinton; Rasmussen +1 Clinton

    HiramsMaxim Harryy

    It is facinating that the last two weeks of ugliness on both sides has had just about zero effect on people.

    Its as if both sides have already made up their minds, and refuse to pay attention to the Media.

    [Oct 20, 2016] The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is notable for its deliberately bizarre policies and it effectively exists to satirise British politics

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is a registered political party established in the United Kingdom in 1983 by the musician David Sutch, better known as "Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow" or simply "Screaming Lord Sutch". It is notable for its deliberately bizarre policies and it effectively exists to satirise British politics, and to offer itself as an poignant alternative for protest voters, especially in constituencies where the party holding the seat is unlikely to lose it and everyone else's vote would be quietly wasted. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    EMichael : , October 20, 2016 at 08:31 AM

    Meanwhile, for those who are considering voting third party, perhaps this information would be useful.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/see-john-oliver-expose-third-party-platforms-huge-problems-w445178

    pgl -> EMichael... , October 20, 2016 at 08:36 AM
    I watched that yesterday. Funny and a complete take down of Jill Stein. How come a British comedian knows more about our issues than one of our candidates for the White House? Oh wait - even Jill Stein knows more than Donald Trump. If it were not for that Constitutional matter, I'd say Oliver for President.
    Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl... , -1
    All politics is 'wacky',
    the third-party kind is
    the wackiest of all.

    Maybe the UK does it best.

    The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is a registered political party established in the United Kingdom in 1983 by the musician David Sutch, better known as "Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow" or simply "Screaming Lord Sutch". It is notable for its deliberately bizarre policies and it effectively exists to satirise British politics, and to offer itself as an poignant alternative for protest voters, especially in constituencies where the party holding the seat is unlikely to lose it and everyone else's vote would be quietly wasted.
    (Wikipedia)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frivolous_political_parties

    [Oct 20, 2016] One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness

    Notable quotes:
    "... a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF) the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly even WWIII. ..."
    "... One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness. ..."
    "... Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of TBTF to rip people another four years. ..."
    "... The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers, who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism to survive. ..."
    "... And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the elections. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Adamski -> Peter K.... , October 20, 2016 at 07:35 AM
    Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials do. That plus voter suppression may hand this to Trump yet. There was an LA Times poll this month that showed a small Trump lead. An outlier, sure, but the same poll was right about Obama in 2012 when other polls were wrong. Just saying
    likbez -> Adamski... , -1
    > "Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials do."

    Yes. Thank you for making this point.

    Also people over 50 have more chances to understand and reject all the neoliberal bullshit MSM are pouring on Americans.

    As well as a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF) the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly even WWIII.

    One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness.

    Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of TBTF to rip people another four years.

    Not that Trump is better, but on warmongering side he is the lesser evil, for sure.

    The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers, who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism to survive.

    And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the elections.

    That's why they supposedly pump Hillary with drugs each debate :-).

    [Oct 20, 2016] Donald Trump accuses Hillary Clinton of being given the debate questions

    Notable quotes:
    "... claims that the election is rigged, putting officials on the defense weeks before most voters head to the polls. ..."
    "... Why didn't Hillary Clinton announce that she was inappropriately given the debate questions - she secretly used them! Crooked Hillary. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | www.bostonglobe.com

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump added one more accusation against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton: "inappropriately" getting the debate questions.

    Trump's tweet with the latest allegation comes the day after the final presidential debate in which he refused to commit to the outcome of the Nov. 8 election.

    Why didn't Hillary Clinton announce that she was inappropriately given the debate questions - she secretly used them! Crooked Hillary.
    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2016

    Less than two hours after sending the tweet, the real estate mogul told a rally in Ohio that he would accept the results of the election - if he wins.

    "I would like to promise and pledge . . . that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election if I win."

    Trump later said in the rally that he would accept a clear result but reserves the right to contest a questionable outcome.

    Trump's comments about the election results during the debate were blasted by politicians on both sides of the aisle, including Governor Charlie Baker and Libertarian vice presidential candidate Bill Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts. Weld called the debate remarks "the death knell for [Trump's] candidacy."

    Senator John McCain of Arizona, a top Republican who withdrew his support of Trump earlier this month, said he conceded defeat "without reluctance" in 2008 when then-Senator Barack Obama won the presidential election. McCain said the loser has always congratulated the winner, calling the person "my president."

    "That's not just the Republican way or the Democratic way. It's the American way. This election must not be any different," McCain said in a statement.

    Trump and his supporters have been making unsubstantiated claims that the election is rigged, putting officials on the defense weeks before most voters head to the polls. Civil rights activists have called some of the accusations a thinly veiled racist attack.

    Fred C. Dobbs said... October 20, 2016 at 10:37 AM
    (As if!)

    Trump accuses Clinton of being
    secretly given debate questions
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/20/donald-trump-accuses-hillary-clinton-being-given-debate-questions/ilt6tiNdDQxRsB7jldMB2I/story.html?event=event25
    via @BostonGlobe - Nicole Hernandez - October 20, 2016

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump added one more accusation against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton: "inappropriately" getting the debate questions.

    Trump's tweet with the latest allegation comes the day after the final presidential debate in which he refused to commit to the outcome of the Nov. 8 election.

    Donald J. Trump ✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump

    Why didn't Hillary Clinton announce that she was inappropriately given the debate questions - she secretly used them! Crooked Hillary.

    10:55 AM - 20 Oct 2016

    Less than two hours after sending the tweet, the real estate mogul told a rally in Ohio that he would accept the results of the election - if he wins.

    "I would like to promise and pledge ... that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election if I win."

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...

    (But he didn't want the job anyway.)

    President? It would be a demotion, says
    Donald Trump Jr http://dailym.ai/2eJLQ71
    via @MailOnline - Oct 20

    Donald Trump Jr said last night moving into the White House would be a 'step down' for his father.

    Trump Jr was being interviewed on Fox News after the third presidential debate in Las Vegas and was asked how he thought the Republican candidate had performed during the final presidential debate. ...

    [Oct 20, 2016] The Ruling Elite Has Lost the Consent of the Governed

    Notable quotes:
    "... As I have tirelessly explained, the U.S. economy is not just neoliberal (the code word for maximizing private gain by any means available, including theft, fraud, embezzlement, political fixing, price-fixing, and so on)--it is neofeudal , meaning that it is structurally an updated version of Medieval feudalism in which a top layer of financial-political nobility owns the engines of wealth and governs the marginalized debt-serfs who toil to pay student loans, auto loans, credit cards, mortgages and taxes--all of which benefit the financiers and political grifters. ..."
    "... The media is in a self-referential frenzy to convince us the decision of the century is between unrivaled political grifter Hillary Clinton and financier-cowboy Donald Trump. Both belong to the privileged ruling Elite: both have access to cheap credit, insider information ( information asymmetry ) and political influence. ..."
    "... If you exit the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc. at a cushy managerial rank with a fat pension and lifetime benefits and are hired at a fat salary the next day by a private "defense" contractor--the famous revolving door between a bloated state and a bloated defense industry--the system works great. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    Information Clearing House - ICH

    Brimming with hubris and self-importance, the ruling Elite and mainstream media cannot believe they have lost the consent of the governed.

    Every ruling Elite needs the consent of the governed: even autocracies, dictatorships and corporatocracies ultimately rule with the consent, however grudging, of the governed.

    The American ruling Elite has lost the consent of the governed. This reality is being masked by the mainstream media, mouthpiece of the ruling class, which is ceaselessly promoting two false narratives:

    1. The "great divide" in American politics is between left and right, Democrat/Republican
    2. The ruling Elite has delivered "prosperity" not just to the privileged few but to the unprivileged many they govern.

    Both of these assertions are false. The Great Divide in America is between the ruling Elite and the governed that the Elite has stripmined. The ruling Elite is privileged and protected, the governed are unprivileged and unprotected. That's the divide that counts and the divide that is finally becoming visible to the marginalized, unprivileged class of debt-serfs.

    The "prosperity" of the 21st century has flowed solely to the ruling Elite and its army of technocrat toadies, factotums, flunkies, apparatchiks and apologists. The Elite's army of technocrats and its media apologists have engineered and promoted an endless spew of ginned-up phony statistics (the super-low unemployment rate, etc.) to create the illusion of "growth" and "prosperity" that benefit everyone rather than just the top 5%. The media is 100% committed to promoting these two false narratives because the jig is up once the bottom 95% wake up to the reality that the ruling Elite has been stripmining them for decades.

    As I have tirelessly explained, the U.S. economy is not just neoliberal (the code word for maximizing private gain by any means available, including theft, fraud, embezzlement, political fixing, price-fixing, and so on)--it is neofeudal , meaning that it is structurally an updated version of Medieval feudalism in which a top layer of financial-political nobility owns the engines of wealth and governs the marginalized debt-serfs who toil to pay student loans, auto loans, credit cards, mortgages and taxes--all of which benefit the financiers and political grifters.

    The media is in a self-referential frenzy to convince us the decision of the century is between unrivaled political grifter Hillary Clinton and financier-cowboy Donald Trump. Both belong to the privileged ruling Elite: both have access to cheap credit, insider information ( information asymmetry ) and political influence.

    The cold truth is the ruling Elite has shredded the social contract by skimming the income/wealth of the unprivileged. The fake-"progressive" pandering apologists of the ruling Elite--Robert Reich, Paul Krugman and the rest of the Keynesian Cargo Cultists--turn a blind eye to the suppression of dissent and the looting the bottom 95% because they have cushy, protected positions as tenured faculty (or equivalent). They cheerlead for more state-funded bread and circuses for the marginalized rather than demand an end to exploitive privileges of the sort they themselves enjoy.

    Consider just three of the unsustainably costly broken systems that enrich the privileged Elite by stripmining the unprivileged:

    While the unprivileged and unprotected watch their healthcare premiums and co-pays soar year after year, the CEOs of various sickcare cartels skim off tens of millions of dollars annually in pay and stock options. The system works great if you get a $20 million paycheck. If you get a 30% increase in monthly premiums for fewer actual healthcare services--the system is broken.

    If you're skimming $250,000 as under-assistant dean to the provost for student services (or equivalent) plus gold-plated benefits, higher education is working great. If you're a student burdened with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt who is receiving a low-quality, essentially worthless "education" from poorly paid graduate students ("adjuncts") and a handful of online courses that you could get for free or for a low cost outside the university cartel--the system is broken.

    If you exit the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc. at a cushy managerial rank with a fat pension and lifetime benefits and are hired at a fat salary the next day by a private "defense" contractor--the famous revolving door between a bloated state and a bloated defense industry--the system works great.

    If you joined the Armed Forces to escape rural poverty and served at the point of the spear somewhere in the Imperial Project--your perspective may well be considerably different.

    Unfortunately for the ruling Elite and their army of engorged enablers and apologists, they have already lost the consent of the governed.

    They have bamboozled, conned and misled the bottom 95% for decades, but their phony facade of political legitimacy and "the rising tide raises all boats" has cracked wide open, and the machinery of oppression, looting and propaganda is now visible to everyone who isn't being paid to cover their eyes. Brimming with hubris and self-importance, the ruling Elite and mainstream media cannot believe they have lost the consent of the governed. The disillusioned governed have not fully absorbed this epochal shift of the tides yet, either. They are aware of their own disillusionment and their own declining financial security, but they have yet to grasp that they have, beneath the surface of everyday life, already withdrawn their consent from a self-serving, predatory, parasitic, greedy and ultimately self-destructive ruling Elite.

    Charles Hugh Smith, new book is #8 on Kindle short reads -> politics and social science: Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition) For more, please visit the book's website . http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.mx

    [Oct 20, 2016] Guest-post-essential-rules-tyranny

    Notable quotes:
    "... At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect threats to their personal safety. ..."
    "... The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process of centralization. ..."
    "... People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful, and easily overthrown. ..."
    "... They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner, whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently culled. ..."
    "... The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized forms of activism. ..."
    "... In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state. ..."
    "... Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything resembling a solution, even despotism. ..."
    "... Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them. ..."
    "... When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile. ..."
    "... Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses. ..."
    "... Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone. ..."
    "... Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities. ..."
    "... Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think ..."
    "... Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace". Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt Market

    The Essential Rules Of Tyranny

    As we look back on the horrors of the dictatorships and autocracies of the past, one particular question consistently arises; how was it possible for the common men of these eras to NOT notice what was happening around them? How could they have stood as statues unaware or uncaring as their cultures were overrun by fascism, communism, collectivism, and elitism? Of course, we have the advantage of hindsight, and are able to research and examine the misdeeds of the past at our leisure. Unfortunately, such hindsight does not necessarily shield us from the long cast shadow of tyranny in our own day. For that, the increasingly uncommon gift of foresight is required…

    At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect threats to their personal safety. They must abandon all responsibility for their destinies, and lose all respect for their own humanity. They must, indeed, become domesticated and mindless herd animals without regard for anything except their fleeting momentary desires for entertainment and short term survival. For a lumbering bloodthirsty behemoth to actually sneak up on you, you have to be pretty damnably oblivious.

    The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process of centralization. Once dishonest governments accomplish an atmosphere of inaction and condition a sense of frailty within the citizenry, the sky is truly the limit. However, a murderous power-monger's day is never quite done. In my recent article 'The Essential Rules of Liberty' we explored the fundamentally unassailable actions and mental preparations required to ensure the continuance of a free society. In this article, let's examine the frequently wielded tools of tyrants in their invariably insane quests for total control…

    Rule #1: Keep Them Afraid

    People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful, and easily overthrown. Brute strength is calculable. It can be analyzed, and thus, eventually confronted and defeated.

    Thriving tyrants instead utilize not just harm, but the imminent THREAT of harm. They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner, whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently culled.

    In other cases, our fear is evoked and directed towards engineered enemies. Another race, another religion, another political ideology, a "hidden" and ominous villain created out of thin air. Autocrats assert that we "need them" in order to remain safe and secure from these illusory monsters bent on our destruction. As always, this development is followed by the claim that all steps taken, even those that dissolve our freedoms, are "for the greater good". Frightened people tend to shirk their sense of independence and run towards the comfort of the collective, even if that collective is built on immoral and unconscionable foundations. Once a society takes on a hive-mind mentality almost any evil can be rationalized, and any injustice against the individual is simply overlooked for the sake of the group.

    Rule #2: Keep Them Isolated

    In the past, elitist governments would often legislate and enforce severe penalties for public gatherings, because defusing the ability of the citizenry to organize or to communicate was paramount to control. In our technological era, such isolation is still used, but in far more advanced forms. The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized forms of activism.

    Through co-option, modern day tyrant's can direct and manipulate opposition movements. By creating and administrating groups which oppose each other, elites can then micromanage all aspects of a nation on the verge of revolution. These "false paradigms" give us the illusion of proactive organization, and the false hope of changing the system, while at the same time preventing us from seeking understanding in one another. All our energies are then muted and dispersed into meaningless battles over "left and right", or "Democrat versus Republican", for example. Only movements that cast aside such empty labels and concern themselves with the ultimate truth of their country, regardless of what that truth might reveal, are able to enact real solutions to the disasters wrought by tyranny.

    In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state.

    Rule #3: Keep Them Desperate

    You'll find in nearly every instance of cultural descent into autocracy, the offending government gained favor after the onset of economic collapse. Make the necessities of root survival an uncertainty, and people without knowledge of self sustainability and without solid core principles will gladly hand over their freedom, even for mere scraps from the tables of the same men who unleashed famine upon them. Financial calamities are not dangerous because of the poverty they leave in their wake; they are dangerous because of the doors to malevolence that they leave open.

    Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything resembling a solution, even despotism.

    Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them.

    Rule #4: Send Out The Jackboots

    This is the main symptom often associated with totalitarianism. So much so that our preconceived notions of what a fascist government looks like prevent us from seeing other forms of tyranny right under our noses. Some Americans believe that if the jackbooted thugs are not knocking on every door, then we MUST still live in a free country. Obviously, this is a rather naďve position. Admittedly, though, goon squads and secret police do eventually become prominent in every failed nation, usually while the public is mesmerized by visions of war, depression, hyperinflation, terrorism, etc.

    When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile.

    As tyranny grows, this behavior is encouraged. Good men are filtered out of the system, and small (minded and hearted) men are promoted.

    At its pinnacle, a police state will hide the identities of most of its agents and officers, behind masks or behind red tape, because their crimes in the name of the state become so numerous and so sadistic that personal vengeance on the part of their victims will become a daily concern.

    Rule #5: Blame Everything On The Truth Seekers

    Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses.

    All disasters, all violent crimes, all the ills of the world, are hoisted upon the shoulders of activist groups and political rivals. They are falsely associated with fringe elements already disliked by society (racists, terrorists, etc). A bogus consensus is created through puppet media in an attempt to make the public believe that "everyone else" must have the same exact views, and those who express contrary positions must be "crazy", or "extremist". Events are even engineered by the corrupt system and pinned on those demanding transparency and liberty. The goal is to drive anti-totalitarian organizations into self censorship. That is to say, instead of silencing them directly, the state causes activists to silence themselves.

    Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone.

    Rule #6: Encourage Citizen Spies

    Ultimately, the life of a totalitarian government is not prolonged by the government itself, but by the very people it subjugates. Citizen spies are the glue of any police state, and our propensity for sticking our noses into other peoples business is highly valued by Big Brother bureaucracies around the globe.

    There are a number of reasons why people participate in this repulsive activity. Some are addicted to the feeling of being a part of the collective, and "service" to this collective, sadly, is the only way they are able to give their pathetic lives meaning. Some are vindictive, cold, and soulless, and actually get enjoyment from ruining others. And still, like elites, some long for power, even petty power, and are willing to do anything to fulfill their vile need to dictate the destinies of perfect strangers.

    Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities. People who lean towards citizen spying are often outwardly and inwardly unimpressive; physically and mentally inept. For the average moral and emotional weakling with persistent feelings of inadequacy, the allure of finally being given fifteen minutes of fame and a hero's status (even if that status is based on a lie) is simply too much to resist. They begin to see "extremists" and "terrorists" everywhere. Soon, people afraid of open ears everywhere start to watch what they say at the supermarket, in their own backyards, or even to family members. Free speech is effectively neutralized.

    Rule #7: Make Them Accept The Unacceptable

    In the end, it is not enough for a government fueled by the putrid sludge of iniquity to lord over us. At some point, it must also influence us to forsake our most valued principles. Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think. If they can mold our very morality, they can exist unopposed indefinitely. Of course, the elements of conscience are inborn, and not subject to environmental duress as long as a man is self aware. However, conscience can be manipulated if a person has no sense of identity, and has never put in the effort to explore his own strengths and failings. There are many people like this in America today.

    Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace". Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it.

    All tyrannical systems depend on the apathy and moral relativism of the inhabitants within their borders. Without the cooperation of the public, these systems cannot function. The real question is, how many of the above steps will be taken before we finally refuse to conform? At what point will each man and woman decide to break free from the dark path blazed before us and take measures to ensure their independence? Who will have the courage to develop their own communities, their own alternative economies, their own organizations for mutual defense outside of establishment constructs, and who will break under the pressure to bow like cowards? How many will hold the line, and how many will flee?

    For every American, for every human being across the planet who chooses to stand immovable in the face of the very worst in mankind, we come that much closer to breathing life once again into the very best in us all.

    [Oct 20, 2016] The third debate wrapup

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Now we have the three [Goldman] transcripts. Everyone can read them, and everyone should. What they show is Clinton's extraordinary understanding of our world - its leaders and their politics, terrorist groups and their vulnerabilities, the interplay of global forces, and the economic well-being of Americans" ..."
    "... I think this debate especially was "priced in" - any Trump supporter at this stage has lost the capacity for changing minds, especially as so much of it is anti-Hillary. ..."
    "... It is astounding that with all her money and MSM support/collusion HRC is only a few digits ahead in the polls. I still see a slim chance that Trump will win, if his hidden and shy voters go out and some of Hillary's stay home (lazy and complacent). ..."
    "... Having said that, the establishment is terrified of a Trump win, and so many of those voting machines don't leave an audit trail… ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Days until: 18.

    Debate Wrapup

    I can tell what how the press stories will read from the headlines and the writers, so I won't bother to link to them. See the NC debate live blog for a rice bowl-free discussion.

    "Trump had done well, delivering his best prepared and most substantive performance, but it wasn't nearly good enough to reshape the race. He came into Las Vegas trailing big time, and surely leaves the same way" [ New York Post ]. "Absent an unforeseeable black swan event that tips the table in his favor, Hillary Clinton is headed to the White House." Although I'd bet the terrain is quite different today from the terrain Clinton imagined back when she was influence peddling at Goldman in 2015.

    ... ... ..

    And then there's this, which does seem to under cut the bizarre "our electoral system is perfection itself" narrative that Democrat loyalists are pushing:

    ... ... ...

    UPDATE "But the negativity in this campaign has been something else, and the debates have been very heavy on character attacks. In terms of the overall impact on the health of American democracy, I think there's one thing that's particularly concerning: These two candidates, whose personal conduct and character have been impugned over and over, both went through competitive primaries. There were other candidates. Clinton and Trump both won their nominations, fairly and decisively. But for people who might tune in sporadically, the conclusion that this is the best we can do might produce real dismay." [ FiveThirtyEight ]. Yes, it's called a legitimacy crisis.

    "The stream posted on his Facebook wasn't anything different than what people saw on CNN or Fox News or MSNBC, just a livestream of the debate, but more than 170,000 watched it at once. By the time the broadcast ended, more than 8.7 million had tuned in at some point. Compare that to the half a million views Time posted for its debate lifestream, or the nearly 900,000 who watched BuzzFeed News'" [ Independent Journal Review ]. "Welcome to the first broadcast of Trump TV."

    War Drums

    "Anyone who believes the United States is not fighting enough wars in the Middle East can be happy this week. We have just plunged into another one. Twice in recent days, cruise missiles fired from an American destroyer have rained down on Yemen. The Pentagon, a practiced master of Orwellian language, calls this bombing 'limited self-defense'" [ Boston Globe ]. "American forces were already involved in Yemen's civil war. Since 2002, our drone attacks have reportedly killed more than 500 Yemenis, including at least 65 civilians. We are also supplying weapons and intelligence to Saudi Arabia, which has killed thousands of Yemenis in bombing raids over the last year and a half - including last week's attack on a funeral in which more than 100 mourners were killed." But I'm sure none of the mourners were women or people of color. So that's alright, then.

    Wikileaks

    "Now we have the three [Goldman] transcripts. Everyone can read them, and everyone should. What they show is Clinton's extraordinary understanding of our world - its leaders and their politics, terrorist groups and their vulnerabilities, the interplay of global forces, and the economic well-being of Americans" [ RealClearPolitics ].

    This is the line the Moustache of Understanding took. Which is all you need to know, really Although this writer is a little vague on just how they are "extraordinary."

    "Walmart, Wendy Clark, Target and Apple: More WikiLeaked Clinton Campaign Messaging Secrets" [ Advertising Age ].

    The Trail

    "Trump Holds On To 1-Point Lead As Debate Sparks Fly - IBD/TIPP Poll" [ Investors Business Daily ]. Incidentally, IBD sounds like the sort of publication Trump would read.

    allan October 20, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    Washington's foreign policy elite breaks with Obama over Syrian bloodshed [WaPo]

    There is one corner of Washington where Donald Trump's scorched-earth presidential campaign is treated as a mere distraction and where bipartisanship reigns. In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama's departure from the White House - and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton - is being met with quiet relief.

    The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American foreign policy via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House. …

    This consensus is driven by broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly stressed the dangers of overreach and the limits of American power, especially in the Middle East. "There's a widespread perception that not being active enough or recognizing the limits of American power has costs," said Philip Gordon, a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama until 2015. "So the normal swing is to be more interventionist." …

    Smart investors will go long producers of canned food and manufacturers of fallout shelter materials.

    Bunk McNulty October 20, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    Who Are All These Trump Supporters? (New Yorker)

    George Saunders strives mightily to have us believe our economic situation has nothing to do with the attractiveness of The Donald to certain constituencies. But even he has to acknowledge what people are angry about (emphasis added):

    "All along the fertile interstate-highway corridor, our corporations, those new and powerful nation-states, had set up shop parasitically, so as to skim off the drive-past money , and what those outposts had to offer was a blur of sugar, bright color, and crassness that seemed causally related to more serious addictions. Standing in line at the pharmacy in an Amarillo Walmart superstore, I imagined some kid who had moved only, or mostly, through such bland, bright spaces, spaces constructed to suit the purposes of distant profit, and it occurred to me how easy it would be, in that life, to feel powerless, to feel that the local was lame, the abstract extraneous, to feel that the only valid words were those of materialism ("get" and "rise")-words that are perfectly embodied by the candidate of the moment.

    Something is wrong, the common person feels, correctly: she works too hard and gets too little; a dulling disconnect exists between her actual day-to-day interests and (1) the way her leaders act and speak, and (2) the way our mass media mistell or fail entirely to tell her story. What does she want? Someone to notice her over here, having her troubles. "

    Pavel, October 20, 2016 at 4:06 pm

    I blissfully ignored the televised "debate" last night though I followed the comments here at NC and on Twitter for a while. Not sure my blood pressure would survive 90 mins of Hillary's voice and smug smile or anything about Trump.

    It is amusing to note the OUTRAGE that Trump might dare question the election results. Jesus H Christ the media are just taking us all for amnesiac idiots, aren't they?

    I think this debate especially was "priced in" - any Trump supporter at this stage has lost the capacity for changing minds, especially as so much of it is anti-Hillary.

    It is astounding that with all her money and MSM support/collusion HRC is only a few digits ahead in the polls. I still see a slim chance that Trump will win, if his hidden and shy voters go out and some of Hillary's stay home (lazy and complacent).

    Having said that, the establishment is terrified of a Trump win, and so many of those voting machines don't leave an audit trail…

    [Oct 20, 2016] I thought we were pretty sure that the US had attacked Yemen, were just not sure that Yemen had attacked the US ship.

    Oct 20, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    hemeantwell October 20, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    Twice in recent days, cruise missiles fired from an American destroyer have rained down on Yemen.

    Whoaaa. There may still be doubts about this. After all, what do the Houthis gain, especially right after the Saudis have outdone themselves in atrocities.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/15/politics/uss-mason-fired-on-again/

    Officials Saturday night were uncertain about what exactly happened, if there were multiple incoming missiles or if there was a malfunction with the radar detection system on the destroyer.

    frosty zoom October 20, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    that's quite a bold statement.

    Harry October 20, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    I thought we were pretty sure that the US had attacked Yemen, we're just not sure that Yemen had attacked the US ship.

    Plenue October 20, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    Even if the Yemenis did, I fail to see why this is considered shocking and unacceptable. I get that decades of kowtowing to Israel has conditioned the United States to not understand that a blockade is inherently an act of war, but quite aside from starving the people of Yemen we've been directly supporting the Saudi bombing. We've been belligerents in this conflict from the start.

    NotTimothyGeithner October 20, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    The Russian FM, Lavrov put it best when he described the U.S. as only desiring vassals.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Van Jones Can Empathize With Trump Voters

    Yet another attempt to explain Trump success... and Democratic Party disintegration because Dems lost working class voters and substantial part of middle class voters.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I have a great deal of empathy for the Donald Trump voters. ..."
    "... The elites have failed the people so thoroughly that tens of millions of people, on any side of any issue, can legitimately say they don't think the system is working for them anymore, if it ever did. ..."
    "... There are elements of racism, xenophobia and misogyny in the Trump movement, and there's also all kinds of legitimate of anxieties. ..."
    "... The rise of Trump is a judgment on the progressive movement that has adopted a style that doesn't leave much room for a 55-year-old heterosexual white Republican living in a red state to feel that he has any place of honor or dignity in the world progressives are trying to create. We see the disrespect coming from them, but there's a subtle disrespect coming from us, the NPR crowd, that is intolerant of intolerance. Nobody wants to feel as though they don't count. ..."
    www.nytimes.com
    I also believe that people are fundamentally good, but this election cycle has tried that hypothesis for me.

    I have a great deal of empathy for the Donald Trump voters. When you listen to them talk about feeling hurt, scared and left behind, they sound like the Black Lives Matter activists.

    How so? The elites have failed the people so thoroughly that tens of millions of people, on any side of any issue, can legitimately say they don't think the system is working for them anymore, if it ever did. ...

    ... ... ...

    A lot of people are mocking the idea that you can explain the bigotry at a Trump rally by writing it off as simply a response to economic anxiety.

    There are elements of racism, xenophobia and misogyny in the Trump movement, and there's also all kinds of legitimate of anxieties.

    The rise of Trump is a judgment on the progressive movement that has adopted a style that doesn't leave much room for a 55-year-old heterosexual white Republican living in a red state to feel that he has any place of honor or dignity in the world progressives are trying to create. We see the disrespect coming from them, but there's a subtle disrespect coming from us, the NPR crowd, that is intolerant of intolerance. Nobody wants to feel as though they don't count.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Absentee Ownership and its Discontents: Critical Essays on the legacy of Thorstein Veblen

    Notable quotes:
    "... Headed by Lenin, Marx's followers discussed finance capital mainly in reference to the drives of imperialism. ..."
    "... It was left to Veblen to deal with the rentiers' increasingly dominant yet corrosive role, extracting their wealth by imposing overhead charges on the rest of society. ..."
    "... Veblen described how the rentier classes were on the ascendant rather than being reformed, taxed out of existence or socialized. His Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) emphasized the divergence between productive capacity, the book value of business assets and their stock-market price (what today is called the Q ratio of market price to book value). He saw the rising financial overhead as leading toward corporate bankruptcy and liquidation. Industry was becoming financialized, putting financial gains ahead of production. Today's financial managers use profits not to invest but to buy up their company's stock (thus raising the value of their stock options) and pay out as dividends, and even borrow to pay themselves. Hedge funds have become notorious for stripping assets and loading companies down with debt, leaving bankrupt shells in their wake in what George Ackerlof and Paul Romer have characterized as looting. ..."
    "... In emphasizing how financial "predation" was hijacking the economy's technological potential, Veblen's vision was as materialist and culturally broad as that of Marxists ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RGC : October 20, 2016 at 08:26 AM

    Edited excerpt from Michael Hudson and Ahmet Oncu, eds.,

    Absentee Ownership and its Discontents: Critical Essays on the legacy of Thorstein Veblen .................... From Marx to Veblen

    Early (and most non-Marxist) socialism aimed to achieve greater equality mainly by taxing away unearned rentier income and keeping natural resources and monopolies in the public domain. The Marxist focus on class conflict between industrial employers and workers relegated criticism of rentiers to a secondary position, leaving that fight to more bourgeois reformers. Financial savings were treated as an accumulation of industrial profits, not as the autonomous phenomenon that Marx himself emphasized in Volume 3 of Capital.

    Headed by Lenin, Marx's followers discussed finance capital mainly in reference to the drives of imperialism. The ruin of Persia and Egypt was notorious, and creditors installed collectors in the customs houses in Europe's former Latin American colonies. The major problem anticipated was war spurred by commercial rivalries as the world was being carved up. It was left to Veblen to deal with the rentiers' increasingly dominant yet corrosive role, extracting their wealth by imposing overhead charges on the rest of society. The campaign for land taxation and even financial reform faded from popular discussion as socialists and other reformers became increasingly Marxist and focused on the industrial exploitation of labor.

    Veblen described how the rentier classes were on the ascendant rather than being reformed, taxed out of existence or socialized. His Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) emphasized the divergence between productive capacity, the book value of business assets and their stock-market price (what today is called the Q ratio of market price to book value). He saw the rising financial overhead as leading toward corporate bankruptcy and liquidation. Industry was becoming financialized, putting financial gains ahead of production. Today's financial managers use profits not to invest but to buy up their company's stock (thus raising the value of their stock options) and pay out as dividends, and even borrow to pay themselves. Hedge funds have become notorious for stripping assets and loading companies down with debt, leaving bankrupt shells in their wake in what George Ackerlof and Paul Romer have characterized as looting.

    In emphasizing how financial "predation" was hijacking the economy's technological potential, Veblen's vision was as materialist and culturally broad as that of Marxists, and as rejecting of the status quo. Technological innovation was reducing costs but breeding monopolies as the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sectors joined forces to create a financial symbiosis cemented by political insider dealings – and a trivialization of economic theory as it seeks to avoid dealing with society's failure to achieve its technological potential. The fruits of rising productivity were used to finance robber barons who had no better use of their wealth than to reduce great artworks to the status of ownership trophies and achieve leisure class status by funding business schools and colleges to promote a self-congratulatory but deceptive portrayal of their wealth-grabbing behavior.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/10/the-return-of-the-repressed-critique-of-rentiers-veblen-in-the-21st-century.html

    Reply Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 08:26 AM anne -> RGC... , -1
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/10/the-return-of-the-repressed-critique-of-rentiers-veblen-in-the-21st-century.html

    2016

    Absentee Ownership and its Discontents: Critical Essays on the legacy of Thorstein Veblen By Michael Hudson and Ahmet Oncu

    From Marx to Veblen

    Early (and most non-Marxist) socialism aimed to achieve greater equality mainly by taxing away unearned rentier income and keeping natural resources and monopolies in the public domain. The Marxist focus on class conflict between industrial employers and workers relegated criticism of rentiers to a secondary position, leaving that fight to more bourgeois reformers. Financial savings were treated as an accumulation of industrial profits, not as the autonomous phenomenon that Marx himself emphasized in Volume 3 of Capital.

    Headed by Lenin, Marx's followers discussed finance capital mainly in reference to the drives of imperialism. The ruin of Persia and Egypt was notorious, and creditors installed collectors in the customs houses in Europe's former Latin American colonies. The major problem anticipated was war spurred by commercial rivalries as the world was being carved up.

    It was left to Veblen to deal with the rentiers' increasingly dominant yet corrosive role, extracting their wealth by imposing overhead charges on the rest of society. The campaign for land taxation and even financial reform faded from popular discussion as socialists and other reformers became increasingly Marxist and focused on the industrial exploitation of labor.

    Veblen described how the rentier classes were on the ascendant rather than being reformed, taxed out of existence or socialized. His Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) emphasized the divergence between productive capacity, the book value of business assets and their stock-market price (what today is called the Q ratio of market price to book value). He saw the rising financial overhead as leading toward corporate bankruptcy and liquidation. Industry was becoming financialized, putting financial gains ahead of production. Today's financial managers use profits not to invest but to buy up their company's stock (thus raising the value of their stock options) and pay out as dividends, and even borrow to pay themselves. Hedge funds have become notorious for stripping assets and loading companies down with debt, leaving bankrupt shells in their wake in what George Ackerlof and Paul Romer have characterized as looting.

    In emphasizing how financial "predation" was hijacking the economy's technological potential, Veblen's vision was as materialist and culturally broad as that of Marxists , and as rejecting of the status quo. Technological innovation was reducing costs but breeding monopolies as the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sectors joined forces to create a financial symbiosis cemented by political insider dealings – and a trivialization of economic theory as it seeks to avoid dealing with society's failure to achieve its technological potential.

    The fruits of rising productivity were used to finance robber barons who had no better use of their wealth than to reduce great artworks to the status of ownership trophies and achieve leisure class status by funding business schools and colleges to promote a self-congratulatory but deceptive portrayal of their wealth-grabbing behavior.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Foreign Affairs Fight Populism With Even Bigger Government Zero Hedge

    Oct 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Via: The Daily Bell Foreign Affairs: Fight Populism With Even Bigger Government

    Populism on the March Why the West Is in Trouble … Trump is part of a broad populist upsurge running through the Western world. It can be seen in countries of widely varying circumstances, from prosperous Sweden to crisis-ridden Greece. In most, populism remains an opposition movement, although one that is growing in strength; in others, such as Hungary, it is now the reigning ideology. But almost everywhere, populism has captured the public's attention. What is populism? It means different things to different groups, but all versions share a suspicion of and hostility toward elites, mainstream politics, and established institutions. -Foreign Affairs

    The "populism versus globalism" meme is gradually yielding the predictable result: "Enlightened" government needs to take an active role in alleviating the "frustration" felt by those attracted to "populism."

    The next phase of this meme can be seen, among other places, in this extensive article in Foreign Affairs magazine entitled, "Populism on the March."

    Foreign Affairs is the mouthpiece for the the Council on Foreign Relations that provides globalist instructions and legislation for US industrial and political leadership.

    Since DB's focus is on elite memes, we follow the larger one on a regular basis and have predicted that "populism vs. globalism" constitutes serious propaganda. It may even rise to the level of "global warming" aka "climate change."

    Elite memes are not necessarily false in their entirety but they are at least partially fake. Populism, for instance, in both Europe and America, has more to do with cultural self-protection than the mindless "me first" approach the nomenclature suggests.

    Populism is really an outgrowth of greater awareness of how elites have targeted middle classes in order to destroy them as part of globalism's implantation.

    Elite, mainstream media won't explain the reality of what's going on. Instead, the mainstream takes the rightful anger created by elite targeting and characterizes it as a political movement.

    Additionally, the explanation for this anger is that certain segments of Western populations are being "left out" of rising world-wide prosperity.

    More:

    Immigration is the final frontier of globalization. It is the most intrusive and disruptive because as a result of it, people are dealing not with objects or abstractions; instead, they come face-to-face with other human beings, ones who look, sound, and feel different.

    And this can give rise to fear, racism, and xenophobia. But not all the reaction is noxious. It must be recognized that the pace of change can move too fast for society to digest.

    The ideas of disruption and creative destruction have been celebrated so much that it is easy to forget that they look very different to the people being disrupted.

    Western societies will have to focus directly on the dangers of too rapid cultural change. That might involve some limits on the rate of immigration and on the kinds of immigrants who are permitted to enter.

    It should involve much greater efforts and resources devoted to integration and assimilation, as well as better safety nets. Most Western countries need much stronger retraining programs for displaced workers, ones more on the scale of the GI Bill: easily available to all, with government, the private sector, and educational institutions all participating.

    We can see here a tired litany of government responses to the initial false premise. So-called middle classes in the US reportedly have $1,000 in savings and perhaps $100,000 or more in debt. The same forces that have virtually bankrupted Western middle classes are now somehow supposed to rectify the ruin.

    The article even states that in addition to government activism, an effort must be made to "highlight realities of immigration so that the public is dealing with facts and not phobias."

    How is this to be done? Via"enlightened leadership … that "appeals to their better angels. Eventually, we will cross this frontier as well."

    We've already called "populism versus globalism" a "textbook meme" and indicated that it provides ample opportunity for the kind of directed history that we can see suggested in this article.

    The next step will surely involve legislation to implement these suggestions. We are already seeing this with "extremists" as reported by The Washington Post:

    The White House announced a plan Wednesday to help prevent Americans from falling prey to violent ideologies of the sort that drove mass killings in New York, San Bernardino, Calif., Chattanooga, Tenn., and Orlando in the past year. The effort ... seeks to mobilize teams of teachers, mental health professionals and community leaders to deal with a problem that offers few easy solutions.

    Conclusion: The "populism versus globalism" meme has a long way to travel but implemented fully it has a chance to broadly affect a variety of Western institutions and behaviors. It provides justification for a signficant array of authoritarian intrusions and justifies this action on numerous levels.

    Foreign Affairs: Fight Populism With Even Bigger Government GreatUncle Oct 20, 2016 9:34 AM ,
    Globalism is mututally exclusive to popularism ... if anything globalism is growing the popularism.

    By more globalist government you mean slavery, removal of voice and right to object to all the shit you are forced to live because the globalist government forces you into that position for itself.

    The globalist government no longer serves the people it serves itself and all manner of horrors it does to ensure you know you place but it you protest or worse turn to violence you are called terrorists.

    One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and the only terrorist here is government as it enforces servitude and slavery.

    Ohne Deckung Oct 20, 2016 4:17 AM ,
    It is the ranking of money and its unabated influence history is lingering to come clear with.

    Globalism means make the dictatorial power of money perfect.

    Populism then, no. Not that perfect, and here a is broad range of adoption to consider on how much its influence should be lamp posted.

    You can try it with nationalism, right-wing-ism, genderism should do it well too and the like.

    All this efforts can be cast as directed toward the inegalité business the power of money is generating.

    There they are fighting. In nightgowns or in tanks without to lay hands on the master of the ranks.

    The money order.

    The fights then only can turn about the question who is allowed to issue it.

    The holy cow of the game. The ultimate power of money, finally in your hand.

    If the ranking of money is not perceived as what it is, stays untouched of all the shit what fans can disseminate about the matter, then those with the most money will always stay in power.

    And what we can expect of the coming is a clearance up to this question.

    What money is allowed to claim.

    You'll see there are no border issues to negotiate in dealing with that difficulty nor any folklore is begged for a stunt on the political theater.

    Just common sense about the question why someone is pulling of his clothes because another is paying for.

    jeff montanye JohnG Oct 20, 2016 1:00 AM ,
    i'm not sure that globalists is the best name for what we've got here. i think it is far too kind.

    the (foreign policy) wars are started (and intentionally lost) by the likud/mossad zionists who did 9-11, that seems clear enough with general clark's seven countries in five years revelation.

    the (domestic) "economic team" is headed by the too big to jail banksters (some overlap with above) and crony capitalists generally who are globalists in gang territory only.

    but yes.

    however first laugh at them:

    http://www.punkjob.com/HillaryShittersFull.jpg

    [Oct 20, 2016] This is the smoking gun behind the corruption of the Fed during the 2008 crisis

    Oct 20, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    psychohistorian | Oct 19, 2016 8:29:29 PM | 99

    I just read this posting at ZH and believe that this information when fully grokked will take the market down.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-19/never-seen-secret-memo-aig-bailout-feds-tarullo-obama-revealed-podesta-emails

    This is the smoking gun behind the corruption of the Fed during the 2008 crisis. I want to see how they tell the world that this was all legal.

    END PRIVATE FINANCE! The folks that own private finance also own the US and many other governments.....with or without vote rigging as one of their tools.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Clinton Aide Asks If Hillary Should Return The Money To Banks If She Loses Badly

    Money for speeches were simultaneously a bribe and a bank's contributions to Hillary campaign, which Hillary "privatized".
    Oct 20, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    In the latest, 13th daily Podesta email release, one particular email sticks out : on February 2, 2016 Neera Tanden, a close confidante of Hillary Clinton and according to many one of the key organizers of her presidential campaign asks John Podesta a question which may be interpreted that banker money received by Hillary can be deemed equivalent to a bribe.

    Specifically, Tanden asks Podesta that " speaking at the banks... don't shoot me but if we lose badly maybe she should just return the money ." To which she then adds "say she gets the anger and moves on. Feels a little like an open wound."

    The exchange may be one of the more clear indications of a tentative "quid-pro-quo" arrangement, in which cash is provided in exchange for 'services' which naturally would not be rendered if Hillary were to "lose badly."

    Luckily for Tanden and Podesta, not to mention Hillary, at least according to the latest scientific polls, losing badly is not a contingency that should be a major consideration, at least not as of this moment.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Trump Brings Large Scale Voter Fraud To Forefront As Media Bashes Threat To Democracy Zero Hedge

    Oct 20, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Who won or lost last night's debate doesn't really matter. What matters is that Trump wasn't able to score the knock-out blows required to impact his declining polling numbers in a meaningful way. Meanwhile, of all the points made in last night's debate, the only one that seems to matter to the mainstream media this morning is that Trump is somehow plotting to overthrow our democracy by refusing to accept election results on November 8th.

    Of course, facts do seem to support Trump's claim that the election is rigged and not just as a result of a biased mainstream media that refuses to cover Hillary's various scandals. In fact, according to research conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2012, the capacity for voter fraud in the U.S. is substantial with nearly 2mm dead people found to be registered voters and nearly 3mm people registered in multiple states.

  • Approximately 24 million -one of every eight- voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate
  • More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters
  • Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state
  • Add to that the recent Project Veritas videos showing democratic operatives paying people to incite violence at republican rallies and actually bragging about "bussing" in out-of-state voters to commit massive voter fraud and Trump's claims of "election rigging" seem hard to deny.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/5IuJGHuIkzY

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/hDc8PVCvfKs

    After watching those videos, does this tweet really seem all that inaccurate?

    Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!

    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2016

    Of course, according to The Hill , republicans this morning are jumping at the opportunity to bash their own party's nominee with Lindsey Graham saying that "Trump is doing the party and our country a great disservice."

    Many Republicans were tired of Trump's talk about a rigged election before his remarks on Wednesday night that he would not commit to accepting the legitimacy of the vote count on Election Day.

    Trump said there are "millions of people" who are registered to vote illegally, alleged that the media has "poisoned the minds of the voters," and pledged to keep the nation in "suspense" over whether he'd concede the race to Clinton.

    Trump's critics seized on his remarks after the debate, and Republicans down the ballot will be forced to weigh in over the coming days.

    Several jumped at the chance.

    "Mr. Trump is doing the party and our country a great disservice by continuing to suggest the outcome of this election is out of his hands and 'rigged' against him," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). "It will not be because the system is 'rigged' but because he failed as a candidate."

    . @realDonaldTrump saying that he might not accept election results is beyond the pale

    - Jeff Flake (@JeffFlake) October 20, 2016

    Of course, other topics were discussed during the debate with Trump seemingly scoring points during the abortion scuffle, the supreme court discussion and Hillary's various FBI, email and foundation scandals. That said, we suspect none of it really matters and is already forgotten.

    The GOP nominee ably defended the conservative position against abortion and stayed on the attack against Clinton on her biggest vulnerabilities, raising questions about the FBI's investigation into her private email server, donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation and revelations from the WikiLeaks email dumps.

    Regardless, as we said in the beginning of this post, none it really matters as the key takeaway from last night was that "Trump needed a campaign-altering moment, and it didn't happen."

    He will enter the final three weeks before Election Day trailing badly and with his support teetering on the edge of full collapse, stirring Republican fears that they could lose the House majority.

    The days of Trump boasting about his polling numbers and his prospects in blue states are long gone.

    Trump's attacks against Clinton and the message that turned him into a winner in the GOP primaries won't be enough to get him back to that place.

    So, outside of some new bombshell development from WikiLeaks or wherever, we suspect this one is in the bag.

    Dutti Son of Loki Oct 20, 2016 10:16 AM ,
    Trump is right, the election is rigged. Not necessarily as in voting or vote counting fraud, but in more subtle ways. The MSM is doing it's best to be completely one sided in "reporting" about the candidates. A billionaire supporter is welcome to support Hillary, but if he is supporting Trump, he will be facing thinly veiled threats: The NYT for example went after Peter Thiel by writing this:

    "In Silicon Valley, technology executives are having to explain why they continue to do business with the billionaire investor Peter Thiel, who donated $1.25 million to Mr. Trump's campaign.

    Mr. Thiel will address the controversy in a speech in Washington this month. But executives with ties to him have had to explain why they have not cut them.
    And they have faced criticism.

    "We agree that people shouldn't be fired for their political views, but this isn't a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence," wrote Ellen Pao, the head of Project Include, an organization that aims to increase diversity in the tech industry. Project Include has severed ties with Y Combinator, where Mr. Thiel is a part-time partner, because of his involvement."

    The message is: If you support Trump, shut up or face negative consequences to your business and private life.

    So, yes, the election is RIGGED!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/business/dealbook/trump-thiel-sofi-ste...

    Above is the answer to these hypocrites at the NYT who also wrote the following:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/business/dealbook/trumps-a-businessman...

    [Oct 20, 2016] Christopher R Barron: 'Trump stuck to the issues and forced Hillary to talk policy'

    Oct 20, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Christopher Barron
    Donald Trump came to this behind in the polls and reeling after weeks of negative media coverage. He needed a big night – and he got one.

    For a campaign that prides itself on its mastery of policy, Hillary spent much of the night trying trying to get Trump to take the bait on sideshow issues.

    In previous debates, Trump took the bait. Tonight, however, we saw a much more disciplined candidate. Trump stuck to the issues and forced Hillary to talk policy and – quite frankly – she had her worst debate performance.

    Unlike previous moderators, Chris Wallace was willing to properly challenge both Trump and Clinton. His line of questioning, particularly when it came to the Clinton Foundation, kept Hillary off balance.
    Clinton also found herself on the defensive on foreign policy, where she seemed more like a George W Bush Republican than a Democrat.

    As a result, this ended up being Trump's best debate. For far too long, the Republican candidate has let the campaign be about the circus and not about policy. If this race is about the circus then Hillary Clinton wins. If its about policy then Trump has a shot. It's frustrating for me, as a Trump supporter, that it has taken this long for him to focus on where his opponent stands on the issues.

    [Oct 19, 2016] Internal Anger At The FBI Over Clinton Investigation Continues To Grow

    Oct 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Michael Krieger via Liberty Blitzbrieg blog,

    This is a story that refuses to go away. Recall the post from earlier this month, Backlash Grows Months After the FBI's Sham Investigation Into Hillary Clinton , in which we learned:

    Feeling the heat from congressional critics, Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, "So if I blew it, they blew it, too."

    But agents say Comey tied investigators' hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.

    "In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews," said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI's computer investigations unit.

    Instead of going to prosecutors and insisting on using grand jury leverage to compel testimony and seize evidence, Comey allowed immunity for several key witnesses, including potential targets.

    What's more, Comey cut a deal to give Clinton a "voluntary" witness interview on a major holiday, and even let her ex-chief of staff sit in on the interview as a lawyer, even though she, too, was under investigation.

    Agreed retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello: "Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization."

    Comey made the 25 agents who worked on the case sign nondisclosure agreements. But others say morale has sunk inside the bureau.

    "The director is giving the bureau a bad rap with all the gaps in the investigation," one agent in the Washington field office said. "There's a perception that the FBI has been politicized and let down the country."

    While the above article focused on the opinions of retired agents, today's article zeros in on the growing frustrations of current agency employees.

    The Daily Caller reports:

    FBI agents say the bureau is alarmed over Director James Comey deciding not to suggest that the Justice Department prosecute Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.

    According to an interview transcript given to The Daily Caller, provided by an intermediary who spoke to two federal agents with the bureau last Friday, agents are frustrated by Comey's leadership.

    "This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have convened but was not. That is appalling," an FBI special agent who has worked public corruption and criminal cases said of the decision. "We talk about it in the office and don't know how Comey can keep going."

    Another special agent for the bureau that worked counter-terrorism and criminal cases said he is offended by Comey's saying: "we" and "I've been an investigator."

    After graduating from law school, Comey became a law clerk to a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan and later became an associate in a law firm in the city. After becoming a U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Comey's career moved through the U.S. Attorney's Office until he became Deputy Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration.

    After Bush left office, Comey entered the private sector and became general counsel and Senior Vice President for Lockheed Martin, among other private sector posts. President Barack Obama appointed him to FBI director in 2013 replacing out going-director Robert Mueller.

    "Comey was never an investigator or special agent. The special agents are trained investigators and they are insulted that Comey included them in 'collective we' statements in his testimony to imply that the SAs agreed that there was nothing there to prosecute," the second agent said. "All the trained investigators agree that there is a lot to prosecuted but he stood in the way."

    Indeed, there were many red flags surrounding Comey from the beginning. So much so that I wrote an article in 2013 titled, So Who is James Comey, Obama's Nominee to Head the FBI?

    In light of the latest revelations that the NSA is spying on the communications of millions of Verizon customers courtesy of information provided by the FBI, it probably makes sense to know a little more about Obama's nominee to head that Bureau. That man is James Comey, and he was a top Department of Justice attorney under John Ashcroft during the George W. Bush Administration (since then he has worked at Lockheed Martin and at the enormous Connecticut hedge fund Bridgewater Associates). This guy defines the revolving door cancer ruining these United States.

    Now back to The Daily Caller.

    According to Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova, more FBI agents will be talking about the problems at bureau and specifically the handling of the Clinton case by Comey when Congress comes back into session and decides to force them to testify by subpoena.

    DiGenova told WMAL radio's Drive at Five last week, "People are starting to talk. They're calling their former friends outside the bureau asking for help. We were asked to day to provide legal representation to people inside the bureau and agreed to do so and to former agents who want to come forward and talk. Comey thought this was going to go away."

    He explained, "It's not. People inside the bureau are furious. They are embarrassed. They feel like they are being led by a hack but more than that that they think he's a crook. They think he's fundamentally dishonest. They have no confidence in him. The bureau inside right now is a mess."

    He added, "The most important thing of all is that the agents have decided that they are going to talk."

    Corruption in the USA has now reached the level where it starts destroying the entire fabric of society itself. This is a very dangerous moment.

    hedgeless_horseman , Oct 18, 2016 3:54 PM

    Is this the same FBI that released the 5 dancing israelis?

    fleur de lis -> wombats , Oct 18, 2016 7:38 PM
    It's already been done. After the Boston Marathon false flag, a number of FBI agents were assigned to the case. Two in particular probably got too close to the hoax because suddenly they were sent on a naval training assignment. The FBI on a naval training assignment in the middle of an investigation?

    ... ... ...

    Debt-Is-Not-Money -> fleur de lis , Oct 18, 2016 9:04 PM
    Comey said not to call him a "weasel". "He is not a weasel"! He's right, he is not a weasel. That would be an insult to all weasels!
    Bay Area Guy -> pods , Oct 18, 2016 5:17 PM
    Excellent post pods. These agents are using the Nazi excuse of "just following orders". We'll, a corrupt order is corrupt.....and so are you if you blindly follow it.
    gmrpeabody -> Bay Area Guy , Oct 18, 2016 5:23 PM
    "There's a perception that the FBI has been politicized and let down the country."

    Perception, my ass.., try reality.

    The Billy Blaze -> pods , Oct 18, 2016 8:06 PM
    The NDAs were obviously procured through fraud thereby nullifying their binding nature. Dirty hands all over the Washington D.C. cesspool. Are we ready to clean house yet?
    CheapBastard -> StychoKiller , Oct 18, 2016 11:26 PM
    The FBI has lost total street cred first after failing to indict Crooked Hillary, and then granting immunity to her co-conspirators. the icing on the cake was Comey blaming other FBI.

    When I was wanering thru the sports store yesterday, the feeling of animosity toward the FBI was very high. Once they were highly respected...Comey has trashed that agency badly...People like John Malone 9who once heade the NYC FBI office), Tompkins in the louisville area, etc would be revolted by Crooked Comey.

    Occident Mortal -> BaBaBouy , Oct 18, 2016 4:32 PM
    If I was in the FBI and anywhere near this cover up, I would be worried about landing up in jail.

    Even if she wins this isn't going away. The Dems don't have congress.

    PrayingMantis -> BaBaBouy , Oct 18, 2016 4:37 PM

    ... I'm sure the FBI agents have been angry <nudge, wink> since June 1996 >>> https://epic.org/privacy/databases/fbi/filegate/ >>> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/fbi.files/index.orig.html >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy ...

    ... I'm not implying that those 900(?) FBI files of prominent Americans given by the FBI to the Klinton Krime Kartel were being used for blackmail ... and perhaps the reason why the dynamic duo keeps getting "get-out-of-jail-free" cards whenever they need it ...

    Omen IV -> jcaz , Oct 18, 2016 7:38 PM
    The personnel are "angry" but no whistleblowers and therefore no one wants to do their job

    Cops double up in Chicago sit on the sidelines and let the gangs kill each other and the FBI let's the Clintons steal everything and rape the citizens

    This is a ...... Movie script

    Dabooda -> SomethingSomethingDarkSide , Oct 18, 2016 4:43 PM
    @hedgeless horseman: The FBI did not release the "Dancing Israelis." It was Judge Michael Chertoff. He was in charge of the Criminal Division in the Justice Department on 9/11. Essentially responsible for the 9/11 non-investigation. He let hundreds of Israeli spies who were arrested prior to and on 9/11 go back home to Israel. He was also a prosecuting judge in the first terrorist attack on the WTC in 1993. Chertoff purportedly holds dual citizenship with the US and Israel. His family is one of the founding families of the state of Israel and his mother was one of the first ever agents of the Mossad, Israel's spy agency. His father and uncle are ordained rabbis and teachers of the Talmud.

    He was subsequently named head of the Dept of Homeland Security. His company arranged for placement of Rapascan nude scanners in American airports. Who says crime doesn't pay?

    brain_glitch -> Dabooda , Oct 18, 2016 4:48 PM
    "and co-author of the USA PATRIOT Act"
    Creative_Destruct -> InjectTheVenom , Oct 18, 2016 4:03 PM

    ..... Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, "So if I blew it, they blew it, too."

    ...... agents say Comey tied investigators' hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.

    ...... In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews," said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI's computer investigations unit.

    Time for Comey, Bill, Hillary, Lynch, Obama, MSM Media, and on, and on, to ALL

    DANCE ON THE FUCKING AIR !!!

    (Method of neck suspension, NOT rope.....piano wire..)

    chubbar -> InjectTheVenoM , Oct 18, 2016 6:52 PM
    I get a kick out of these career FBI agents worrying that Comey has sullied the reputation of the FBI (he has). Here is a fucking news flash for you assholes, if Clinton gets elected there is an almost certain chance that she starts a fucking thermo nuclear war with Russia. You, your families and the precious FBI won't exist 30 minutes after that starts seeing that you are sitting at ground zero. Does that do anything to get you off your asses and perhaps do your fucking jobs?

    There is now about 30 minutes of video that proves the Clinton campaign conspired to incite violence at Trump rallys. How about you fuckers get off your ass and start investigating this and the "pay to play" shit the Podesta tapes came out with? Or, how about the email that indicates POTUS illegally influenced the Supreme Court Justice on ACA??? Christ, it's a target rich environment for felony convictions out there and you guys are doing what????

    fishpoeM -> hedgeless_horseman , Oct 18, 2016 5:14 PM
    Allegedly, there was a much larger contingent of Mossad agents that were detained immediately after 9/11. An additional 100 or so were in the States "studying art" and similar cover stories when in fact they were carefully casing various buildings including banks and Federal sites. For reasons never made public, the FBI let them all go back to Israel. Without waterboarding Dick Cheney, the public will never know the truth.
    Mustafa Kemal -> Calmyourself , Oct 18, 2016 4:38 PM
    " Sorry, intentions are one thing actions another at least among adults."

    Actually, it can also be part of the game. Eisenhower is well known for his MIC warning on TV just as he was leaving office. However, if you look at what he did, and what he allowed Allen Dulles to do, he was part of it. Making fake apologies after the fact provides some balm but doesnt undo the damage.

    Dr. Bonzo , Oct 18, 2016 3:58 PM
    I'm tellin ya.... rank-and-file aren't sitting around giggling that this fucking cunt is walking on water on shit they would be hung out to dry for. The Podesta leaks are NSA standard intercepts. Anyone could have grabbed them from a standard intercept. Tja, that's the problem when you go hooovering up the entire internet. Pretty fucking hard to compartmentalize collection efforts on that scale.

    We applaud and support the members of our armed forces and intelligence community who take their oath of office seriously and refuse to let these murderous internationalists tear down our country without a fucking fight.

    Bay of Pigs -> Dr. Bonzo , Oct 18, 2016 4:23 PM
    Agreed. I emailed Trey Gowdy with the James Okeefe DNC video.

    Somebody in Wash DC needs to grow a set of balls and get on that story now, including the FBI.

    PS I just had my cousin ask me if I had "fact checked" the Okeefe video. I was like, WTF are you talking about?

    Joebloinvestor , Oct 18, 2016 3:58 PM
    Evidently, the National Enquirer is doing Hillary like they did Edwards.

    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/hillary-clinton-lesbian-sex-cl...

    Rainman , Oct 18, 2016 3:59 PM
    When Hillary gets in there all these old FBI white boyz will be shown the door and replaced with pussylesbo power. These are the good old days,be afraid.

    [Oct 19, 2016] Toxic Politics Versus Better Economics by Mohamed A. El-Erian

    This guy is die hard neoliberal. That's why he is fond of Washington consensus. He does not understand that the time is over for Washington consensus in 2008. this is just a delayed reaction :-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... after years of unusually sluggish and strikingly non-inclusive growth, the consensus is breaking down. Advanced-country citizens are frustrated with an "establishment" – including economic "experts," mainstream political leaders, and dominant multinational companies – which they increasingly blame for their economic travails. ..."
    "... Anti-establishment movements and figures have been quick to seize on this frustration, using inflammatory and even combative rhetoric to win support. They do not even have to win elections to disrupt the transmission mechanism between economics and politics. ..."
    "... They also included attacks on "international elites" and criticism of Bank of England policies that were instrumental in stabilizing the British economy in the referendum's immediate aftermath – thus giving May's new government time to formulate a coherent Brexit strategy. ..."
    "... The risk is that, as bad politics crowds out good economics, popular anger and frustration will rise, making politics even more toxic. ..."
    "... At one time, the people's government served as a check on the excesses of economic interests -- now, it is simply owned by them. ..."
    "... The defects of the maximalist-globalist view were known for years before the "consensus began to break down". ..."
    "... In at least some of these cases, the "transmission" of the consensus involved more than a little coercion and undermining local interests, sovereignty, and democracy. This is an central feature of the "consensus", and it is hard to see how it can by anything but irredeemable. ..."
    "... However it is not bad politics crowding out out good economics, for the simple reason that the economic "consensus" itself, in embracing destructive and destabilizing economic policy crowded out the ostensibly centrist politics... ..."
    "... The Inclusive Growth has remained only a Slogan and Politicians never ventured into the theme. In the changed version of the World.] essential equal opportunity and World of Social media, perspective and social Political scene is changed. Its more like reverting to mean. ..."
    Oct 19, 2016 | www.project-syndicate.org

    In the 1990s and 2000s, for example, the so-called Washington Consensus dominated policymaking in much of the world...

    ... ... ...

    But after years of unusually sluggish and strikingly non-inclusive growth, the consensus is breaking down. Advanced-country citizens are frustrated with an "establishment" – including economic "experts," mainstream political leaders, and dominant multinational companies – which they increasingly blame for their economic travails.

    Anti-establishment movements and figures have been quick to seize on this frustration, using inflammatory and even combative rhetoric to win support. They do not even have to win elections to disrupt the transmission mechanism between economics and politics. The United Kingdom proved that in June, with its Brexit vote – a decision that directly defied the broad economic consensus that remaining within the European Union was in Britain's best interest.

    ... ... ...

    ... speeches by Prime Minister Theresa May and members of her cabinet revealed an intention to pursue a "hard Brexit," thereby dismantling trading arrangements that have served the economy well. They also included attacks on "international elites" and criticism of Bank of England policies that were instrumental in stabilizing the British economy in the referendum's immediate aftermath – thus giving May's new government time to formulate a coherent Brexit strategy.

    Several other advanced economies are experiencing analogous political developments. In Germany, a surprisingly strong showing by the far-right Alternative für Deutschland in recent state elections already appears to be affecting the government's behavior.

    In the US, even if Donald Trump's presidential campaign fails to put a Republican back in the White House (as appears increasingly likely, given that, in the latest twist of this highly unusual campaign, many Republican leaders have now renounced their party's nominee), his candidacy will likely leave a lasting impact on American politics. If not managed well, Italy's constitutional referendum in December – a risky bid by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi to consolidate support – could backfire, just like Cameron's referendum did, causing political disruption and undermining effective action to address the country's economic challenges.

    ... ... ...

    The risk is that, as bad politics crowds out good economics, popular anger and frustration will rise, making politics even more toxic. ...

    john zac OCT 17, 2016

    Mr El-Erian, I know you are a good man, but it seems as though everyone believes we can synthetically engineer a way out of this never ending hole that financial engineering dug us into in the first place.

    Instead why don't we let this game collapse, you are a good man and you will play a role in the rebuilding of better system, one that nurtures and guides instead of manipulate and lie.

    The moral suasion you mention can only appear by allowing for the self annihilation of this financial system. This way we can learn from the autopsies and leave speculative theories to third rate economists

    Curtis Carpenter OCT 15, 2016

    It is sadly true that "the relationship between politics and economics is changing," at least in the U.S.. At one time, the people's government served as a check on the excesses of economic interests -- now, it is simply owned by them.

    It seems to me that the best we can hope for now is some sort of modest correction in the relationship after 2020 -- and that the TBTF banks won't deliver another economic disaster in the meantime.

    Petey Bee OCT 15, 2016
    1. The defects of the maximalist-globalist view were known for years before the "consensus began to break down".

    2. In at least some of these cases, the "transmission" of the consensus involved more than a little coercion and undermining local interests, sovereignty, and democracy. This is an central feature of the "consensus", and it is hard to see how it can by anything but irredeemable.

    In the concluding paragraph, the author states that the reaction is going to be slow. That's absolutely correct, the evidence has been pushed higher and higher above the icy water line since 2008.

    However it is not bad politics crowding out out good economics, for the simple reason that the economic "consensus" itself, in embracing destructive and destabilizing economic policy crowded out the ostensibly centrist politics...

    Paul Daley OCT 15, 2016
    The Washington consensus collapsed during the Great Recession but the latest "consensus" among economists regarding "good economics" deserves respect.
    atul baride OCT 15, 2016
    The Inclusive Growth has remained only a Slogan and Politicians never ventured into the theme. In the changed version of the World.] essential equal opportunity and World of Social media, perspective and social Political scene is changed. Its more like reverting to mean.

    [Oct 19, 2016] Emails Show Hillary Struggled To Draft Bribery Corruption Reforms - She May Be So Tainted She is Really Vulnerable

    Notable quotes:
    "... The news was released that Hillarnazi had lesbian lovers, paid for sexual encounters, has had memory issues so severe going back to 2009 that her own people aren't sure if she knows what planet she is on, can't walk without getting massively fatigued, a new rape victim came forward, the Clinton Foundation stole over $2 billion in Haitian relief funds, the Clinton Foundation has a pay gap between men and women of $190,000 and she referred to blacks repeatedly as the dreaded "n" word . ..."
    "... Again, that is from YESTERDAY Yet there has been no movement in the polls. She is the most criminal and unethical candidate in the history of America, and is likely to win. There is no greater indictment about our citizens than her candidacy. if thise was 1920, she would be in front of a firing squad. ..."
    "... But we have 2016. This is not breaking news at the main media outlets. Only people actively digging know this. All this pales in comparison with the fact of bussing people around different states to vote. If elections can be rigged then nothing else actually matters. Nothing will change because the only tool to repair the country is the election. ..."
    "... The ballot box is not the last remedy to fix things. Just saying. Voting is more to bring you into the system than you changing the system. What better way to keep you happy inside the system than to give you the ability to "vote the bums out" at the next (s)election? ..."
    "... Europe is also facing the problem of not enough breeding to keep up the exponential expansion of their currency (debt issued with interest) so they import people to keep the ponzi going. Not going to work as the people you bring in are not going to be expanding it at the rate that someone born into that system is going to. ..."
    "... Sucks to be them - the humillatiion and embarrassment of the cockroaches as they all scurry for cover. Not to mention the career nose-dives en masse for all the selfsame scum floating around the turd herself. I'm surprised Hillary hasn't told Podesta to eat a bullet (or nail-gun) yet, given the damage he has caused by being hacked. Err...rewind, eh Hillary? Because it is not as if you are an angel in this respect, you dumb fucking senile cunt. ..."
    "... Neocons are IT illiterate, and this must be their primary weakness, given how fucking useless they are at securing their insidious evil shit (now in the public domain - eh, Poddy, old chum, you evil CUNT). It must be a fucking disease given how utterly bereft of intelligence with respect to IT security they collectively are. ..."
    "... It definitely sucks to be Hillary when even the help knows you're crooked. It sucks to be the help too. HILLARY FOR PRISON 2017!!!! ..."
    "... As if. Former Lousiana Governor Edwin Edwards in 1983 said "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy." In 2016, neither of those conditions is a bar to election to the presidency. ..."
    "... Evidently the rats have been assured the ship isn't sinking. Besides it's insured if crossing is successful. ..."
    "... Americans have the attention span of a gnat these days. The hypocrisy is stunning and has no bounds. ..."
    "... The best part of waking up is realizing that TPTB had been pissing in our cup while we weren't looking. ..."
    "... Another body to add to the Clinton Death List, this time the doctor who treated her for a concussion and knew about her glioma. A devout Hindu, this doctor supposedly committed suicide after threatening to reveal Hillary medical information if prosecutors continued to go after him for bogus criminal charges. http://www.govtslaves.info/clinton-doctor-who-confirmed-hillarys-brain-t... ..."
    "... Neera Tanden must be suicidal by now. She probably doesn't even realise it yet. ..."
    "... I was thinking the same thing. With so many on the "team" having such critical positions on their own "leader", why the fuck are they supporting her, and why do they still have jobs? ..."
    "... Power. Money. The belief that they will be able to run things themselves once she goes full brain clot. One thing I do know, Hillary would be very unwise to let any of them pick her nursing home for her. ..."
    "... Neera Tanden: "It worries me more that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment." https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18353 ..."
    "... I imagine cankle's inner circle are gobling a lot off drugs about now. Their paranoia is no doubt palpable. I hope they devour one another. ..."
    "... It ain't just the US where free press is extinct. Had Wiki dropped the lot, it would simply have sunk without a trace with respect to the MSM reporting it to the sheeple, as we have seen in the last 12 days. ..."
    "... Free Shit and open borders and speaking well while lying. The stupidity of the average person, particularly those who only get their news from the corporate controlled media, is fuckin' amazing. Only a military coup could hunt down and arrest the Deep State... The Kagans and Powers and Jarretts and every cunt who has given HRC money. ..."
    "... Short of a coup, massive desertion would be very helpful. ..."
    "... you hit the nail on the head - "speaking well while lying". Middle class English people speak very well - appear attractive to Americans - when in fact they have zero monopoly on honesty, brains or ability ..."
    "... just because someone speaks well does not mean they are legal, decent, honest and truthful - in fact clinton fails on all four of these positives and is illegal, indecent, crooked and a liar ..."
    "... The no fly zone doesn't like questions not preprogrammed. I hope his brother gets a chance to rip Obama a new asshole. ..."
    "... rule by criminals REQUIRES deep knowledge and primary experience with criminal exploits. She is the ONLY candidate who is qualified to run Gov-Co. ..."
    "... Comey is a Dirty Cop – Former US Attorney. How Crooked Clinton Got Off. ..."
    "... Juan Williams email to John Podesta found here: https://twitter.com/hashtag/DrainTheSwamp?src=hash ..."
    "... How does it feel working for a total scumbag just to get a paycheck? ..."
    Oct 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    The latest WikiLeaks dump reveals yet another bombshell from the outspoken, an likely soon to be unemployed, Neera Tanden. The email chain comes from March of this year and begins when Neera distributes a memo on proposals for reform policies relative to bribery and corruption of public officials . That said, apparently the folks within the Hillary campaign were aware that this was a very dicey topic for their chosen candidate as even Tanden admits " she may be so tainted she's really vulnerable. "

    Meanwhile, Hillary advisor Jake Sullivan provided his thoughts that he really liked the following proposal on strengthening bribery laws...

    "Strengthen bribery laws to ensure that politicians don' change legislation for political donations."

    ...but subsequently admits that it might be problematic given Hillary's history.

    "The second idea is a favorite of mine, as you know, but REALLY dicey territory for HRC, right?"

    Even a month before these internal campaign discussions, Stan Greenberg, a democrat strategist of Democracy Corps, wrote to Podesta highlighting that "reform of money and politics is where she is taking the biggest hit." That said, Stan was quick to assure Podesta that there was no reason for concern as a specially crafted message and a little help from the media could make the whole problem go away.

    "We are also going to test some messages that include acknowledgement of being part of the system , and know how much has to change. "

    Finally, perhaps no one has better summarized why the Clinton camp may be worried about corruption charges than Obama:

    Syrin PrayingMantis Oct 19, 2016 12:58 PM ,
    The news was released that Hillarnazi had lesbian lovers, paid for sexual encounters, has had memory issues so severe going back to 2009 that her own people aren't sure if she knows what planet she is on, can't walk without getting massively fatigued, a new rape victim came forward, the Clinton Foundation stole over $2 billion in Haitian relief funds, the Clinton Foundation has a pay gap between men and women of $190,000 and she referred to blacks repeatedly as the dreaded "n" word .

    Again, that is from YESTERDAY Yet there has been no movement in the polls. She is the most criminal and unethical candidate in the history of America, and is likely to win. There is no greater indictment about our citizens than her candidacy. if thise was 1920, she would be in front of a firing squad.

    WTFRLY Syrin Oct 19, 2016 1:04 PM ,
    2 Years After This American Journalist Was Killed, Her 'Conspiracy Theories' on Syria are Proven as Facts
    nibiru WTFRLY Oct 19, 2016 1:05 PM ,
    But we have 2016. This is not breaking news at the main media outlets. Only people actively digging know this. All this pales in comparison with the fact of bussing people around different states to vote. If elections can be rigged then nothing else actually matters. Nothing will change because the only tool to repair the country is the election.

    In Europe they ship people from Africa and the Middle East to become multicultural societies ( look at Blair multicultural effort, Swedish no-go zones and Merkel's last effort with immigration crisis) . We are in deep shit here and the processes to repair the state are not there anymore. Now we only have Wikileaks doing the job of media - watching politicians' hands.

    pods nibiru Oct 19, 2016 1:16 PM ,
    The ballot box is not the last remedy to fix things. Just saying. Voting is more to bring you into the system than you changing the system. What better way to keep you happy inside the system than to give you the ability to "vote the bums out" at the next (s)election?

    Europe is also facing the problem of not enough breeding to keep up the exponential expansion of their currency (debt issued with interest) so they import people to keep the ponzi going. Not going to work as the people you bring in are not going to be expanding it at the rate that someone born into that system is going to.

    But, it is a plausible explanation for why they are trying it. The moneychangers have their very lives depending on keeping this going, so they have to try it.

    pods

    CuttingEdge pods Oct 19, 2016 1:21 PM ,
    All I know is, most the cunts behind the curtain have been completely compromised pre-election.

    Sucks to be them - the humillatiion and embarrassment of the cockroaches as they all scurry for cover. Not to mention the career nose-dives en masse for all the selfsame scum floating around the turd herself. I'm surprised Hillary hasn't told Podesta to eat a bullet (or nail-gun) yet, given the damage he has caused by being hacked. Err...rewind, eh Hillary? Because it is not as if you are an angel in this respect, you dumb fucking senile cunt.

    The fucking irony is palpable.

    Neocons are IT illiterate, and this must be their primary weakness, given how fucking useless they are at securing their insidious evil shit (now in the public domain - eh, Poddy, old chum, you evil CUNT). It must be a fucking disease given how utterly bereft of intelligence with respect to IT security they collectively are.

    Theosebes Goodfellow CuttingEdge Oct 19, 2016 2:17 PM ,
    It definitely sucks to be Hillary when even the help knows you're crooked. It sucks to be the help too. HILLARY FOR PRISON 2017!!!!
    junction Syrin Oct 19, 2016 1:05 PM ,

    As if. Former Lousiana Governor Edwin Edwards in 1983 said "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy." In 2016, neither of those conditions is a bar to election to the presidency.

    Arnold Syrin Oct 19, 2016 1:09 PM ,
    Evidently the rats have been assured the ship isn't sinking. Besides it's insured if crossing is successful.
    Bay of Pigs PrayingMantis Oct 19, 2016 1:01 PM ,
    Americans have the attention span of a gnat these days. The hypocrisy is stunning and has no bounds.
    PTR erkme73 Oct 19, 2016 1:43 PM ,
    The best part of waking up is realizing that TPTB had been pissing in our cup while we weren't looking.
    junction PrayingMantis Oct 19, 2016 1:30 PM ,
    Another body to add to the Clinton Death List, this time the doctor who treated her for a concussion and knew about her glioma. A devout Hindu, this doctor supposedly committed suicide after threatening to reveal Hillary medical information if prosecutors continued to go after him for bogus criminal charges. http://www.govtslaves.info/clinton-doctor-who-confirmed-hillarys-brain-t...
    Croesus PrayingMantis Oct 19, 2016 1:31 PM ,
    ZH Readers in Germany: Read this: https://file.wikileaks.org/file/angela-merkel.pdf Merkel trying to hide money in offshore accounts! Print it, spread it, and wreck that bitch.
    whatamaroon Oct 19, 2016 12:53 PM ,
    Lock her up!!
    medium giraffe Oct 19, 2016 12:54 PM ,
    Neera Tanden must be suicidal by now. She probably doesn't even realise it yet.
    ShrNfr medium giraffe Oct 19, 2016 12:58 PM ,
    Don't worry, for her it will just be a walk in the park.
    Ranger4564 -> medium giraffe Oct 19, 2016 12:59 PM ,
    I was thinking the same thing. With so many on the "team" having such critical positions on their own "leader", why the fuck are they supporting her, and why do they still have jobs?
    tarabel -> Ranger4564 Oct 19, 2016 1:18 PM ,

    Power. Money. The belief that they will be able to run things themselves once she goes full brain clot. One thing I do know, Hillary would be very unwise to let any of them pick her nursing home for her.

    medium giraffe -> Occams_Chainsaw Oct 19, 2016 1:13 PM ,
    Neera Tanden: "It worries me more that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment." https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18353
    pine_marten -> medium giraffe Oct 19, 2016 2:00 PM ,
    I imagine cankle's inner circle are gobling a lot off drugs about now. Their paranoia is no doubt palpable. I hope they devour one another.
    CuttingEdge -> indaknow Oct 19, 2016 1:34 PM ,
    Assange has played a blinder, and all those who bitched about him "not dropping everything at once" give some thought to the fact that even in the UK barely one reference to the deluge of shit landing on Hillary thus far has been reported in the MSM. They have killed virtually everything, and are mainlining Trump the mad man (for insinuating election fraud) shit.

    It ain't just the US where free press is extinct. Had Wiki dropped the lot, it would simply have sunk without a trace with respect to the MSM reporting it to the sheeple, as we have seen in the last 12 days.

    Better a death by a thousand cuts to build up momentum, and give EVERYONE the chance to absorb the full criminallity of this fundamentally evil bitch and her cohorts. There is way too much to take in one hit.

    War Machine Oct 19, 2016 1:02 PM ,
    sadly, most Americans are going to vote based on which candidate they think is least 'offensive' to them, and ISMism prevails in the corporate MSM and Regressive Left:
    • For secure borders and controlled immigration: RACIST
    • Against set asides for women or think rosie o'donnell could lose a few: MISOGYNIST.
    • But voting for a banker owned duplicitous warmonger who is the crooked politician par excellance of this millenium, one who will pursue more neocon/zionist wars and involve arming and aiding Al Qaeda and worse.... : 'PROGRESSIVE'.

    Why?

    Free Shit and open borders and speaking well while lying. The stupidity of the average person, particularly those who only get their news from the corporate controlled media, is fuckin' amazing. Only a military coup could hunt down and arrest the Deep State... The Kagans and Powers and Jarretts and every cunt who has given HRC money.

    Short of a coup, massive desertion would be very helpful.

    hooligan2009 -> War Machine Oct 19, 2016 1:39 PM ,
    you hit the nail on the head - "speaking well while lying". Middle class English people speak very well - appear attractive to Americans - when in fact they have zero monopoly on honesty, brains or ability

    just because someone speaks well does not mean they are legal, decent, honest and truthful - in fact clinton fails on all four of these positives and is illegal, indecent, crooked and a liar

    SharkBit Oct 19, 2016 1:02 PM ,
    Anyone else disgusted to hear Obozo speak anymore? What an embarrassment.
    Atomizer SharkBit Oct 19, 2016 1:13 PM ,
    The no fly zone doesn't like questions not preprogrammed. I hope his brother gets a chance to rip Obama a new asshole.
    Mango327 Oct 19, 2016 1:04 PM ,
    If Donald Trump Acted Like Hillary Clinton... http://youtu.be/K8JUpM97VZE
    Madcow Oct 19, 2016 1:05 PM ,
    Authoritarian rule by criminals REQUIRES deep knowledge and primary experience with criminal exploits. She is the ONLY candidate who is qualified to run Gov-Co.
    SidSays Oct 19, 2016 1:07 PM ,
    Comey is a Dirty Cop – Former US Attorney. How Crooked Clinton Got Off.
    Miss Expectations Oct 19, 2016 1:11 PM ,
    Juan Williams email to John Podesta found here: https://twitter.com/hashtag/DrainTheSwamp?src=hash
    vegas Oct 19, 2016 1:13 PM ,
    Is this from "The Onion"? Seriously, these people are so fucking tone deaf and out of touch it's amazing. Throw 'em all in prison. How does it feel working for a total scumbag just to get a paycheck?

    [Oct 19, 2016] Wikileaks Releases Another 1803 Podesta Emails In Part 12 Of Data Dump; Total Is Now 18953

    Notable quotes:
    "... Among the initial emails to stand out is this extensive exchange showing just how intimiately the narrative of Hillary's server had been coached. The following September 2015 email exchange between Podesta and Nick Merrill, framed the "core language" to be used in response to questions Clinton could be asked about her email server, and the decision to "bleach" emails from it. The emails contain long and short versions of responses for Clinton. ..."
    Oct 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    The daily dump continues. In the now traditional daily routine, one which forces the Clinton campaign to resort to ever more stark sexual scandals involving Trump to provide a media distraction, moments ago Wikileaks released yet another 1,803 emails in Part 12 of its ongoing Podesta Email dump, which brings the total number of released emails to 18,953.

    RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 12 https://t.co/wzxeh70oUm #HillaryClinton #imWithHer #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails12 pic.twitter.com/druf7WQXD5

    - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 19, 2016

    As a reminder among the most recent revelations we got further insights into Hillary's desire to see Obamacare " unravel" , her contempt for "doofus" Bernie Sanders, staff exchanges on handling media queries about Clinton "flip-flopping" on gay marriage, galvanizing Latino support and locking down Clinton's healthcare policy. Just as notable has been the ongoing revelation of just how "captured" the so-called independent press has been in its "off the record" discussions with John Podesta which got the head Politico correspondent, Glenn Thrush, to admit he is a "hack" for allowing Podesta to dictate the content of his article.

    The release comes on the day of the third and final presidential campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and as a result we are confident it will be scrutinized especially carefully for any last minute clues that would allow Trump to lob a much needed Hail Mary to boost his standing in the polls.

    As there is a total of 50,000 emails, Wikileaks will keep the media busy over the next three weeks until the elections with another 30,000 emails still expected to be released.

    * * *

    Among the initial emails to stand out is this extensive exchange showing just how intimiately the narrative of Hillary's server had been coached. The following September 2015 email exchange between Podesta and Nick Merrill, framed the "core language" to be used in response to questions Clinton could be asked about her email server, and the decision to "bleach" emails from it. The emails contain long and short versions of responses for Clinton.

    "Because the government already had everything that was work-related, and my personal emails were just that – personal – I didn't see a reason to keep them so I asked that they be deleted, and that's what the company that managed my server did. And we notified Congress of that back in March"

    She was then presented with the following hypothetical scenario:

    * "Why won't you say whether you wiped it?"

    "After we went through the process to determine what was work related and what was not and provided the work related emails to State, I decided not to keep the personal ones."

    "We saved the work-related ones on a thumb drive that is now with the Department of Justice. And as I said in March, I chose not to keep the personal ones. I asked that they be deleted, how that happened was up to the company that managed the server. And they are cooperating fully with anyone that has questions."

    * * *

    Another notable email reveals the close relationship between the Clinton Foundation and Ukraine billionaire Victor Pinchuk, a prominent donor to the Clinton Foundation , in which we see the latter's attempt to get a meeting with Bill Clinton to show support for Ukraine:

    From: Tina Flournoy < [email protected] >
    Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 9:58:55 AM
    To: Amitabh Desai
    Cc: Jon Davidson; Margaret Steenburg; Jake Sullivan; Dan Schwerin; Huma Abedin; John Podesta
    Subject: Re: Victor Pinchuk

    Team HRC - we'll get back to you on this

    > On Mar 30, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Amitabh Desai < [email protected] > wrote:
    >
    > Victor Pinchuk is relentlessly following up (including this morning) about a meeting with WJC in London or anywhere in Europe. Ideally he wants to bring together a few western leaders to show support for Ukraine, with WJC probably their most important participant. If that's not palatable for us, then he'd like a bilat with WJC.
    >
    > If it's not next week, that's fine, but he wants a date. I keep saying we have no Europe plans, although we do have those events in London in June. Are folks comfortable offering Victor a private meeting on one of those dates? At this point I get the impression that although I keep saying WJC cares about Ukraine, Pinchuk feels like WJC hasn't taken enough action to demonstrate that, particularly during this existential moment for the county and for him.
    >
    > I sense this is so important because Pinchuk is under Putin's heel right now, feeling a great degree of pressure and pain for his many years of nurturing stronger ties with the West.
    >
    > I get all the downsides and share the concerns. I am happy to go back and say no. It would just be good to know what WJC (and HRC and you all) would like to do, because this will likely impact the future of this relationship, and slow walking our reply will only reinforce his growing angst.
    >
    > Thanks, and sorry for the glum note on a Monday morning...

    * * *

    We find more evidence of media coordination with Politico's Glenn Thrush who has an off the record question to make sure he is not "fucking anything up":

    From: [email protected]
    To: [email protected]
    Date: 2015-04-30 17:06
    Subject: Re: sorry to bother...

    Sure. Sorry for the delay I was on a plane.
    On Apr 30, 2015 9:44 AM, "Glenn Thrush" < [email protected] > wrote:

    > Can I send u a couple of grafs, OTR, to make sure I'm not fucking
    > anything up?

    * * *

    Another notable moment emerges in the emails, involving Hillary Clinton's selective memory. Clinton's description of herself as a moderate Democrat at a September 2015 event in Ohio caused an uproar amongst her team. In a mail from Clinton advisor Neera Tanden to Podesta in the days following the comment she asks why she said this.

    "I pushed her on this on Sunday night. She claims she didn't remember saying it. Not sure I believe her," Podesta replies. Tanden insists that the comment has made her job more difficult after "telling every reporter I know she's actually progressive". " It worries me more that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment ," she adds.

    * * *

    We also get additional insight into Clinton courting the Latino minority. A November 2008 email from Federico Peńa , who was on the Obama-Biden transition team, called for a "Latino media person" to be added to the list of staff to appeal to Latino voters. Federico de Jesus or Vince Casillas are seen as ideal candidates, both of whom were working in the Chicago operations.

    "More importantly, it would helpful (sic) to Barack to do pro-active outreach to Latino media across the country to get our positive message out before people start spreading negative rumors," Peńa writes.

    * * *

    Another email between Clinton's foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan and Tanden from March 2016 discussed how it was "REALLY dicey territory" for Clinton to comment on strengthening "bribery laws to ensure that politicians don't change legislation for political donations." Tanden agrees with Sullivan:

    " She may be so tainted she's really vulnerable - if so, maybe a message of I've seen how this sausage is made, it needs to stop, I'm going to stop it will actually work."

    * * *

    One email suggested, sarcastically, to kneecap bernie Sanders : Clinton's team issued advise regarding her tactics for the "make or break" Democratic presidential debate with Sanders in Milwaukee on February 11, 2016. The mail to Podesta came from Philip Munger, a Democratic Party donor. He sent the mail using an encrypted anonymous email service.

    "She's going to have to kneecap him. She is going to have to take him down from his morally superior perch. She has done so tentatively. She must go further," he says.

    Clearly, the desire to get Sanders' supporters was a key imperative for the Clinton campaign. In a September 2015 email to Podesta , Hill columnist Brent Budowsky criticized the campaign for allegedly giving Clinton surrogates talking points to attack Bernie Sanders. "I cannot think of anything more stupid and self-destructive for a campaign to do," he says. "Especially for a candidate who has dangerously low levels of public trust," and in light of Sanders' campaign being based on "cleaning up politics."

    Budowsky warns voters would be "disgusted" by attacks against Sanders and says he wouldn't discourage Podesta from sharing the note with Clinton because "if she wants to become president she needs to understand the point I am making with crystal clarity."

    "Make love to Bernie and his idealistic supporters, and co-opt as many of his progressive issues as possible."

    Budowsky then adds that he was at a Washington university where " not one student gave enough of a damn for Hillary to open a booth, or even wear a Hillary button. "

    * * *

    One email focused on how to address with the topic of the TPP. National Policy Director for Hillary for America Amanda Renteria explains, "The goal here was to minimize our vulnerability to the authenticity attack and not piss off the WH any more than necessary."

    Democratic pollster Joel Benenson says, "the reality is HRC is more pro trade than anti and trying to turn her into something she is not could reinforce our negative [sic] around authenticity. This is an agreement that she pushed for and largely advocated for."

    * * *

    While claiming she is part of the people, an email exposes Hillary as being " part of the system ." Clinton's team acknowledges she is "part of the system" in an email regarding her strategies. As Stan Greenberg told Podesta:

    " We are also going to test some messages that include acknowledgement of being part of the system, and know how much has to change ,"

    * * *

    Some more on the topic of Hillary being extensively coached and all her words rehearsed, we find an email which reveals that Clinton's words have to be tightly managed by her team who are wary of what she might say. After the Iowa Democratic Party's presidential debate in November 2015 adviser Ron Klain mails Podesta to say, "If she says something three times as an aside during practice (Wall Street supports me due to 9/11), we need to assume she will say it in the debate, and tell her not to do so." Klain's mail reveals Sanders was their biggest fear in the debate. "The only thing that would have been awful – a Sanders break out – didn't happen. So all in all, we were fine," he says.

    The mail also reveals Klain's role in securing his daughter Hannah a position on Clinton's team. "I'm not asking anyone to make a job, or put her in some place where she isn't wanted – it just needs a nudge over the finish line," Klain says. Hannah Klain worked on Clinton's Surrogates team for nine months commencing in the month after her father's mail to Podesta, according to her Linkedin.

    CuttingEdge X_in_Sweden Oct 19, 2016 9:18 AM

    Is Podesta authorised to be privy to confidential information?

    Only Hillary sends him a 9-point assessment of the ME with this at the top:

    Note: Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.

    I would assume Intelligence Services intel based assessments would be a bit confidential, Mr Comey? Given their source? Nothing to see here, you say?

    Fuck Me.

    https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18917

    Bubba Rum Das samjam7 Oct 19, 2016 9:02 AM

    I love this...Assange is incommunicado, yet the data dumps keep coming!
    Horse face looks like such a fool to the world as a result; & due to John Kerry's stupidity which is drawing major attention to the whole matter; Americans are finally beginning to wake up & pay attention to this shit!

    Looks like the Hitlery for Prez ship is starting to take on MASSIVE amounts of water!

    I believe they are beyond the point where any more news of 'pussy grabbing' will save them from themselves (and Mr. Assange)!

    Oh, yeah...-And THANK YOU, MR. O'KEEFE!

    css1971 Oct 19, 2016 9:04 AM

    Dems!! Dems!! Where are you. You need 2 more bimbos to accuse Trump of looking at them!!

    • You have more paedophile charges to lay on Assange.
    • You have violence to cause at Trump, Stein and Johnson rallys.
    • You have mass vote rigging campaigns to orchestrate!!!

    DEMS you need to get that nose to the grindstone!!

    Hobbleknee GunnerySgtHartman Oct 19, 2016 8:48 AM

    Fox is controlled opposition. They dropped the interview with O'Keefe after he released the latest undercover report on Democrat voter fraud.

    JackMeOff Oct 19, 2016 10:16 AM

    Wonder what "docs" they are referring?

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/17978

    monad Oct 19, 2016 1:14 PM The FBI had no difficulty convicting Obugger's crony Rod Blagegovitch.

    The new lowered expectations federal government just expects to get lucre + bennies for sitting on their asses and holding the door for gangsters. Traitors. Spies. Enemies foreign and domestic. Amphisbaegenic pot boiling.

    california chrome Oct 19, 2016 11:03 AM

    With Creamer's tricks effective in Obama's re-election, it now makes sense why Obama was so confident when he said Trump would never be president.

    Trump is still ahead in the only poll I track. But i conduct my own personal poll on a daily basis and loads of Trump supporters are in the closet and won't come out until they pull the lever for Trump on election day.

    http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

    whatamaroon Oct 19, 2016 1:04 PM https://pageshot.net/qLjtSLje2gBJ1Mlp/twitter.com ,

    This supposedly directly implicates Podesta and voter fraud. If it will open here

    [Oct 19, 2016] Hillary Clinton Linked To Mysterious Front Associated with Julian Assange Pedophile Smear

    Oct 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    The DailyKos put out a report on Oct. 17 that WikiLeaks describes as a "smear campaign plot to falsely accuse Julian Assange of pedophilia."

    "An unknown entity posing as an internet dating agency prepared an elaborate plot to falsely claim that Julian Assange received US$1M from the Russian government and a second plot to frame him sexually molesting an eight year old girl," WikiLeaks said in a press release Tuesday.

    The press release went on: "The second plot includes the filing of a fabricated criminal complaint in the Bahamas, a court complaint in the UK and laundering part of the attack through the United Nations. The plot happened durring WikiLeaks' Hillary Clinton related publications, but the plot may have its first genesis in Mr. Assange's 16 months litigation against the UK in the UN system, which concluded February 5 (Assange won. UK and Sweden lost & US State Dept tried to pressure the WGAD according to its former Chair, Prof. Mads Andenas)."

    The DailyKos reported that a Canadian family holidaying in the Bahamas reported to the police that their 8-year-old daughter was "sexually molested online" by Assange on Toddandclare.com.

    Julian Assange's legal team provided a timeline in the press release which showed that the self-claimed dating agency ToddAndClare.com contacted WikiLeaks' defense team offering one million dollars for Assange to appear in a video advertisement for the "dating agency".

    Assange's defense wrote back, stating that the proposal appeared to be an "elaborate scam designed to entrap Mr. Assange's reputation into unwanted and unwarranted publicity."

    WikiLeaks was able to trace down the address of the front, posting an image on twitter of what appears to be a warehouse or garage.

    Here is the "headquarters" of the front (PAC?) behind the Assange "took US$1M from Russia" plot

    More: https://t.co/xOjTy15Mkf pic.twitter.com/ukcZ6O9URv

    - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 19, 2016

    Internet sleuths from Reddit were able to dig up some information about the dating service pushing the attacks on Assange, finding that the company shares the address with a private intelligence corporation named Premise Data Corporation.

    Interestingly, Larry Summers, who is connected to the Clinton Campaign , is on the board of directors of Premise Data Corporation.

    Here is the Reddit post that lays out the findings:

    As other Redditors point out, the Center for American Progress was founded by Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and was funded by billionaire and pro-Clintonite George Soros.

    Connecting the front to Clinton further, co-founder of Premise Data David Soloff has met with both Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine this year.

    Internet sleuths connect Clinton to mysterious intelligence contractor associated with Assange false accusations https://t.co/NhOyO5xbZ7 pic.twitter.com/Np8yW1ckDT

    - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 19, 2016

    Internet sleuths connect Clinton to mysterious intelligence contractor associated with Assange false accusations 2 https://t.co/idKuVC1BoD pic.twitter.com/ueX2JKhpOw

    - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 19, 2016

    With Julian Assange spearheading the Podesta leaks, which have revealed and highlighted many shady dealings of both the Clinton campaign and Clinton Foundation , it is highly unlikely that it's a coincidence a Clinton connected group shares the same address of the smear pushing front.

    As one Redditor so laughably put it, "If this was merely a coincidence, then I'm the queen of England."

    As we reported yesterday , Fox News had told its audience Tuesday morning that Assange would be arrested "maybe in a matter of hours," leading to the speculation that there could have been a plot to arrest Assange over the pedophilia accusations.

    WikiLeaks revealed yesterday that multiple U.S. sources had told them that Secretary of State John Kerry demanded that Ecuador stop Wikileaks from publishing documents damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign back in September, which, if true, proves that there has been previous attempt to silence Assange by the U.S. establishment.

    [Oct 18, 2016] In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots

    Notable quotes:
    "... zero suggestion in the article, let alone evidence, that any WikiLeaks email was doctored ..."
    "... wants to believe that this is true: ..."
    theintercept.com
    But come January, Democrats will continue to be the dominant political faction in the U.S. - more so than ever - and the tactics they are now embracing will endure past the election, making them worthy of scrutiny. Those tactics now most prominently include dismissing away any facts or documents that reflect negatively on their leaders as fake, and strongly insinuating that anyone who questions or opposes those leaders is a stooge or agent of the Kremlin, tasked with a subversive and dangerously un-American mission on behalf of hostile actors in Moscow.

    To see how extreme and damaging this behavior has become, let's just quickly examine two utterly false claims that Democrats over the past four days - led by party-loyal journalists - have disseminated and induced thousands of people, if not more, to believe. On Friday, WikiLeaks published its first installment of emails obtained from the account of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. Despite WikiLeaks' perfect, long-standing record of only publishing authentic documents, MSNBC's favorite ex-intelligence official, Malcolm Nance, within hours of the archive's release, posted a tweet claiming - with zero evidence and without citation to a single document in the WikiLeaks archive - that it was compromised with fakes:

    As you can see, more than 4,000 people have re-tweeted this "Official Warning." That includes not only random Clinton fans but also high-profile Clinton-supporting journalists, who by spreading it around gave this claim their stamp of approval, intentionally leading huge numbers of people to assume the WikiLeaks archive must be full of fakes, and its contents should therefore simply be ignored. Clinton's campaign officials spent the day fueling these insinuations, strongly implying that the documents were unreliable and should thus be ignored. Poof: Just like that, unpleasant facts about Hillary Clinton disappeared, like a fairy protecting frightened children by waving her magic wand and sprinkling her dust over a demon, causing it to scatter away.

    Except the only fraud here was Nance's claim, not any of the documents published by WikiLeaks. Those were all real. Indeed, at Sunday night's debate, when asked directly about the excerpts of her Wall Street speeches found in the release, Clinton herself confirmed their authenticity. And news outlets such as the New York Times and AP reported - and continue to report - on their contents without any caveat that they may be frauds. No real print journalists or actual newsrooms (as opposed to campaign operatives masquerading as journalists) fell for this scam, so this tactic did not prevent reporting from being done.

    But it did signal to Clinton's most devoted followers to simply ignore the contents of the release. Anyone writing articles about what these documents revealed was instantly barraged with claims from Democrats that they were fakes, by people often pointing to "articles" like this one.

    That article was shared almost 22,000 times on Facebook alone. In Nance's defense, it is true that some unknown, random person posted a doctored email on the internet and claimed it was real, but that did not come from the WikiLeaks archive and has nothing to do with assessing the reliability of the archive (any more than fake NYT stories on the internet impugn the reliability of articles in that paper). Not one person has identified even a single email or document released by WikiLeaks of questionable authenticity - that includes all of the Clinton officials whose names are listed as their authors and recipients - yet these journalists and "experts" deliberately convinced who knows how many people to believe a fairy tale: that WikiLeaks' archive is pervaded with forgeries.

    More insidious and subtle, but even worse, was what Newsweek and its Clinton-adoring writer Kurt Eichenwald did last night. What happened - in reality, in the world of facts - was extremely trivial. One of the emails in the second installment of the WikiLeaks/Podesta archive - posted yesterday - was from Sidney Blumenthal to Podesta. The sole purpose of Blumenthal's email was to show Podesta one of Eichenwald's endless series of Clinton-exonerating articles, this one about Benghazi. So in the body of the email to Podesta, Blumenthal simply pasted the link and the full contents of the article. Although the purpose of Eichenwald's article (like everything he says and does) was to defend Clinton, one paragraph in the middle acknowledged that one minor criticism of Clinton on Benghazi was possibly rational.

    Once WikiLeaks announced that this second email batch was online, many news organizations (including The Intercept, along with the NYT and AP) began combing through them to find relevant information and then published articles about them. One such story was published by Sputnik, the Russian government's international outlet similar to RT, which highlighted that Blumenthal email. But the Sputnik story inaccurately attributed the text of the Newsweek article to Blumenthal, thus suggesting that one of Clinton's closest advisers had expressed criticism of her on Benghazi. Sputnik quickly removed the article once Eichenwald pointed out that the words were his, not Blumenthal's. Then, in his campaign speech last night, Trump made reference to the Sputnik article (hours after it was published and spread on social media), claiming (obviously inaccurately) that even Blumenthal had criticized Clinton on Benghazi.

    That's all that happened. There is zero suggestion in the article, let alone evidence, that any WikiLeaks email was doctored: It wasn't. It was just Sputnik misreporting the email. Once Sputnik realized that its article misattributed the text to Blumenthal, it took it down. It's not hard to imagine how a rushed, careless Sputnik staffer could glance at that email and fail to realize that Blumenthal was forwarding Eichenwald's article rather than writing it himself. And while nobody knows how this erroneous Sputnik story made its way to Trump for him to reference in his speech, it's very easy to imagine how a Trump staffer on a shoddy, inept campaign - which has previously cited InfoWars and white supremacist sites, among others - would have stumbled into a widely shared Sputnik story that had been published hours earlier on the internet and then passed it along to Trump for him to highlight, without realizing the reasons to be skeptical.

    In any event, based on the available evidence, this is a small embarrassment for Trump: He cited an erroneous story from a non-credible Russian outlet, so it's worth noting. But that's not what happened. Eichenwald, with increasing levels of hysteria, manically posted no fewer than three dozen tweets last night about his story, each time escalating his claims of what it proved. By the time he was done, he had misled large numbers of people into believing that he found proof that: 1) the documents in the WikiLeaks archive were altered; 2) Russia put forgeries into the WikiLeaks archive; 3) Sputnik knew about the WikiLeaks archive ahead of time, before it was posted online; 4) WikiLeaks coordinated the release of the documents with the Russian government; and 5) the Russian government and the Trump campaign coordinated to falsely attribute Eichenwald's words to Blumenthal.

    In fact, Eichenwald literally has zero evidence for any of that. The point is not that his evidence for these propositions is inconclusive or unpersuasive; the point is that there is zero evidence for any of it. It's all just conspiracy theorizing and speculation that he invented. Worse, the article, while hinting at these claims and encouraging readers to believe them, does not even expressly claim any of those things. Instead, Eichenwald's increasingly unhinged tweets repeatedly inflated his insignificant story from what it was - a misattribution of an email by Sputnik that Trump repeated - into a five-alarm warning that an insidious Russian plot to subvert U.S. elections had been proven, with Trump and fake WikiLeaks documents at the center.

    By itself, this is not so notable: All journalists are tempted to hype their stories. But Eichenwald went way, way beyond that, including - as demonstrated below - demonstrable lies. But what makes it so significant is how many reasoned, perfectly smart journalists - just as they did with Nance's "Official Warning" - started falling prey to the dual hysteria of Twitter group dynamics and election blinders, to the point where CNN featured Eichenwald this morning to highlight his major scoop linking Putin, Trump, and WikiLeaks in the plot to feed Americans heaps of Russian disinformation.

    Just watch how this warped narrative played out in a very short period of time, with nobody wanting to get in the way of the speeding train for fear of being castigated as a Trump supporter or Putin stooge (accusations that are - yet again - inevitably on their way as a result of this article):

    To call all this overwrought deceit is to understate the case. In particular, the repeated claim that his story has anything to do with, let alone demonstrates, that "wikileaks is working w/Putin" or "wikileaks is compromised" is an outright fraud. The assertion in the second tweet - that "only those two [Trump and Russia] knew" about the article - is an outright lie, since by the time Trump cited it, it had been published hours earlier on the internet and shared widely on social media. Moreover, none of the documents released by WikiLeaks have yet to be identified as anything but completely authentic.

    But look at his tweets: Each has been re-tweeted by close to 1,000 people, and in the case of the most sensationalistic ones, many more. And they were quickly hyped by people who should know better because anyone supporting Hillary Clinton wants to believe that this is true:

    Literally none of that happened. Or at least there is zero evidence that it did. These are smart, rational people falling for a scam. Why? It's in part because Twitter fosters this group-think and lack of critical thought - you just click a button and, with little effort, you've spread whatever you want people to believe - but it's also because they're so convinced of the righteousness of their cause (electing Clinton/defeating Trump) that they have cast all limits and constraints to the side, believing that any narrative or accusation or smear, no matter how false or conspiratorial, is justified in pursuit of it.

    But while Donald Trump's candidacy poses grave dangers, so does group-think righteousness, particularly when it engulfs those with the greatest influence. The problem is that none of this is going to vanish after the election. This election-year machine that has been constructed based on elite unity in support of Clinton - casually dismissing inconvenient facts as fraudulent to make them disappear, branding critics and adversaries as tools or agents of an Enemy Power bent on destroying America - is a powerful one. As is seen here, it is capable of implanting any narrative, no matter how false; demonizing any critic, no matter how baseless; and riling up people to believe they're under attack.

    For a long time, liberals heralded themselves as part of the "reality-based community" and derided conservatives as faith-based victims of "epistemic closure." The dynamics seen here are anything but byproducts of reason.

    [Oct 18, 2016] For starters, many Americans are economically worse off* than they were a quarter-century ago. The median income of full-time male employees is lower than it was 42 years ago, and it is increasingly difficult for those with limited education to get a full-time job that pays decent wages

    Notable quotes:
    "... If you insist on focusing on individuals, you may miss the connection, because the worst off within communities - actual chronic discouraged workers, addicts - are likely to express no opinion to the degree they can be polled at all. Trump primary voters are white Republicans who vote, automatically a more affluent baseline* than the white voters generally. ..."
    Oct 18, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. : October 17, 2016 at 10:13 AM

    EMichael quotes Steve Randy Waldman and Dylan Matthews in today's links:

    ""Trump voters, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver found, had a median household income of $72,000, a fair bit higher than the $62,000 median household income for non-Hispanic whites in America."

    ...

    ""But it is also obvious that, within the Republican Party, Trump's support comes disproportionately from troubled communities, from places that have been left behind economically, that struggle with unusual rates of opiate addiction, low educational achievement, and other social vices."

    I followed the link and failed to find any numbers on the "troubled communities" thing. It seems strange to me that the two comments above are in conflict with each other."

    It seems like you are missing the point of Waldman's blog post (and Stiglitz and Shiller)

    You didn't quote this part:

    "... If you insist on focusing on individuals, you may miss the connection, because the worst off within communities - actual chronic discouraged workers, addicts - are likely to express no opinion to the degree they can be polled at all. Trump primary voters are white Republicans who vote, automatically a more affluent baseline* than the white voters generally.

    * [ http://election.princeton.edu/2016/05/07/among-republican-voters-trump-supporters-have-the-lowest-income/

    "Among Republicans, Trump supporters have slightly lower incomes. But what really differentiates them?"]

    "At the community level**, patterns are clear. (See this*** too.) Of course, it could still all be racism, because within white communities, measures of social and economic dysfunction are likely correlated with measures you could associate with racism."

    [** http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/upshot/the-geography-of-Trump_vs_deep_state.html?_r=1

    "The Geography of Trump_vs_deep_state"

    *** http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

    "How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind"]

    Of course, it could still all be racism, because within white communities, measures of social and economic dysfunction are likely correlated with measures you could associate with racism. Social affairs are complicated and the real world does not hand us unique well-identified models. We always have to choose our explanations,**** and we should think carefully about how and why we do so. Explanations have consequences, not just for the people we are imposing them upon, but for our polity as a whole. I don't get involved in these arguments to express some high-minded empathy for Trump voters, but because I think that monocausally attributing a broad political movement to racism when it has other plausible antecedents does real harm....

    **** http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6602.html

    [Oct 18, 2016] The Clinton Goldman Speeches No Smoking Guns, but a Munitions Dump Instead

    Notable quotes:
    "... First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market" rather than "single payer"; ..."
    "... Clinton frames solutions exclusively ..."
    "... Policy Sciences ..."
    "... Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is the palace. ..."
    "... SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that includes Wall Street and Main Street. ..."
    "... Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution. ..."
    "... One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework instead of building her own ideas with it. ..."
    "... What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know? Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You know! ..."
    "... I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing. No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate. But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring Wall St. is one method for getting money – large, large amounts of money. ..."
    "... A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid." ..."
    "... in that context ..."
    "... So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016, and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open question, but this post argues not. ..."
    "... Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at 100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k for a single speech… ..."
    "... Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction of her speeches as mindless drivel. ..."
    "... Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and that was not the case, either. ..."
    "... Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompsky–all those used to seem like bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people. ..."
    "... What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan B" Obama is pursuing in Syria? ..."
    "... The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards. ..."
    "... But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding little… ..."
    "... Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large, however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility. A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article ..."
    "... both of which present a clinical assessment that Hillary suffers from Parkinson's. Seems like an elephant in the room. ..."
    "... The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory "so no quid pro quo ..."
    "... The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades - that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake." ..."
    "... basically, every real world policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem ..."
    "... Most noticeable thing is her subservience to them like a fresh college grad afraid of his boss at his first job ..."
    Oct 18, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    As readers know, WikiLeaks has released transcripts of the three speeches to Goldman Sachs that Clinton gave in 2013, and for which she was paid the eyewatering sum of $675,000. (The link is to an email dated January 23, 2016, from Cllinton staffer Tony Carrk , Clinton's research director, which pulls out "noteworthy quotes" from the speeches. The speeches themselves are attachments to that email.)

    Readers, I read them. All three of them. What surprises - and when I tell you I had to take a little nap about halfway through, I'm not making it up! - is the utter mediocrity of Clinton's thought and mode of expression[1]. Perhaps that explains Clinton's otherwise inexplicable refusal to release them. And perhaps my sang froid is preternatural, but I don't see a "smoking gun," unless forking over $675,000 for interminable volumes of shopworn conventional wisdom be, in itself, such a gun. What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they were paying for?

    WikiLeaks has, however, done voters a favor - in these speeches, and in the DNC and Podesta email releases generally - by giving us a foretaste of what a Clinton administration will be like, once in power, not merely on policy (the "first 100 days"), but on how they will make decisions. I call the speeches a "munitions dump," because the views she expresses in these speeches are bombs that can be expected to explode as the Clinton administration progresses.

    With that, let's contextualize and comment upon some quotes from the speeches

    The Democrats Are the Party of Wall Street

    Of course, you knew that, but it's nice to have the matter confirmed. This material was flagged by Carrk (as none of the following material will have been). It's enormously prolix, but I decided to cut only a few paragraphs. From Clinton's second Goldman speech at the AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium:

    MR. O'NEILL: Let's come back to the US. Since 2008, there's been an awful lot of seismic activity around Wall Street and the big banks and regulators and politicians.

    Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now , what would be your advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important decisions?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it, but I do - I think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating, and they had repercussions throughout the world.

    That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of '09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere. Now, that's an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom [really?!].

    And I think that there's a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing [!] what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening? You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time .

    And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that came later .

    I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you know, get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being reached.

    There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry .

    And we need banking. I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where the banks are not doing what they need to do because they're scared of regulations , they're scared of the other shoe dropping, they're just plain scared, so credit is not flowing the way it needs to to restart economic growth.

    So people are, you know, a little - they're still uncertain, and they're uncertain both because they don't know what might come next in terms of regulations, but they're also uncertain because of changes in a global economy that we're only beginning to take hold of.

    So first and foremost, more transparency, more openness, you know, trying to figure out, we're all in this together , how we keep this incredible economic engine in this country going. And this [finance] is, you know, the nerves, the spinal column.

    And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political reasons , if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.

    And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through it all.

    And, of course, I don't, you know, I know that banks and others were worried about continued liability [oh, really?] and other problems down the road, so it would be better if we could have had a more open exchange about what we needed to do to fix what had broken and then try to make sure it didn't happen again, but we will keep working on it.

    MR. O'NEILL: By the way, we really did appreciate when you were the senator from New York and your continued involvement in the issues (inaudible) to be courageous in some respects to associated with Wall Street and this environment. Thank you very much.

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that includes Wall Street and Main Street.

    And there's a big disconnect and a lot of confusion right now. So I'm not interested in, you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers , but I am interested in trying to figure out how we come together to chart a better way forward and one that will restore confidence in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment rate [five years into the recession!].

    So it's something that I, you know, if you're a realist, you know that people have different roles to play in politics, economics, and this is an important role, but I do think that there has to be an understanding of how what happens here on Wall Street has such broad consequences not just for the domestic but the global economy, so more thought has to be given to the process and transactions and regulations so that we don't kill or maim what works, but we concentrate on the most effective way of moving forward with the brainpower and the financial power that exists here.

    "Moving forward." And not looking back. (It would be nice to know what "continued liability" the banks were worried about; accounting control fraud ? Maybe somebody could ask Clinton.) Again, I call your attention to the weird combination of certainty and mediocrity of it; readers, I am sure, can demolish the detail. What this extended quotation does show is that Clinton and Obama are as one with respect to the role of the finance sector. Politico describes Obama's famous meeting with the bankster CEOs:

    Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying high salaries to their employees - and, by extension, to themselves.

    "These are complicated companies," one CEO said. Offered another: "We're competing for talent on an international market.".

    But President Barack Obama wasn't in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public's reaction to such explanations. "Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that.".

    "My administration," the president added, "is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."

    And he did! He did! Clinton, however, by calling the finance sector the "the nerves, the spinal column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did.

    So, from the governance perspective, we can expect the FIRE sector to dominate a Clinton administration, and the Clinton administration to service it. The Democrats are the Party of Wall Street. The bomb that could explode there is corrupt dealings with cronies (for which the Wikileaks material provides plenty of leads).

    Clinton Advocates a "Night Watchman" State

    The next quotes are shorter, I swear! Here's a quote from Clinton's third Goldman speech (not flagged by Carrk, no doubt because hearing drivel like this is perfectly normal in HillaryLand):

    SECRETARY CLINTON: And I tell you, I see any society like a three-legged stool. You have to have an active free market that gives people the chance to live out their dreams by their own hard work and skills. You have to have a functioning, effective government that provides the right balance of oversight and protection of freedom and privacy and liberty and all the rest of it that goes with it . And you have to have an active civil society. Because there's so much about America that is volunteerism and religious faith and family and community activities. So you take one of those legs away, it's pretty hard to balance it. So you've got to get back to getting the right balance.

    Apparently, the provision of public services is not within government's remit -- What are Social Security and Medicare? "All the rest of it"? Not only that, who said the free market was the only way to "live out their dreams"? Madison, Franklin, even Hamilton would have something to say about that! Finally, which one of those legs is out of balance? Civil society? Some would advocate less religion in politics rather than more, including many Democrats. The markets? Not at Goldman? Government? Too much militarization, way too little concrete material benefits, so far as I'm concerned, but Clinton doesn't say, making the "stool" metaphor vacuous.

    From a governance perspective, we can expect Clinton's blind spot on government's role in provisioning servies to continue. Watch for continued privatization efforts (perhaps aided by Silicon Valley). On any infrastructure projects, watch for "public-private partnerships." The bomb that could explode there is corrupt dealings with a different set of cronies (even if the FIRE sector does have a finger in every pie).

    Clinton's Views on Health Care Reflect Market Fundamentalism

    From Clinton's second Goldman Speech :

    MR. O'NEILL: [O]bviously the Affordable Care Act has been upheld by the supreme court. It's clearly having limitation problems [I don't know what that means]. It's unsettling, people still - the Republicans want to repeal it or defund it. So how do you get to the middle on that clash of absolutes?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is not the first time that we rolled out a big program with the limitation problems [Clinton apparently does].

    I was in the Senate when President Bush asked and signed legislation expanding Medicare benefits, the Medicare Part D drug benefits. And people forget now that it was a very difficult implementation.

    As a senator, my staff spent weeks working with people who were trying to sign up, because it was in some sense even harder to manage because the population over 65, not the most computer-literate group, and it was difficult. But, you know, people stuck with it, worked through it.

    Now, this is on - it's on a different scale and it is more complex because it's trying to create a market. In Medicare, you have a single market , you have, you know, the government is increasing funding through government programs [sic] to provide people over 65 the drugs they needed.

    And there were a few variations that you could play out on it, but it was a much simpler market than what the Affordable Care Act is aiming to set up.

    Now, the way I look at this, Tim, is it's either going to work or it's not going to work.

    First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market" rather than "single payer"; but then Clinton erases single payer whenever possible . Second, Clinton frames solutions exclusively in terms of markets (and not the direct provision of services by government); Obama does the same on health care in JAMA , simply erasing the possibility of single payer. Third, rather than advocate a simple, rugged, and proven system like Canadian Medicare (single payer), Clinton prefers to run an experiment ("it's either going to work or it's not going to work") on the health of millions of people (and, I would urge, without their informed consent).

    From a governance perspective, assume that if the Democrats propose a "public option," it will be miserably inadequate. The bomb that could explode here is the ObamaCare death spiral.

    The Problems Are "Wicked," but Clinton Will Be Unable to Cope With Them

    Finally, this little passage from the first Clinton Goldman speech caught my eye:

    MR. BLANKFEIN: The next area which I think is actually literally closer to home but where American lives have been at risk is the Middle East, I think is one topic. What seems to be the ambivalence or the lack of a clear set of goals - maybe that ambivalence comes from not knowing what outcome we want or who is our friend or what a better world is for the United States and of Syria, and then ultimately on the Iranian side if you think of the Korean bomb as far away and just the Tehran death spot, the Iranians are more calculated in a hotter area with - where does that go? And I tell you, I couldn't - I couldn't myself tell - you know how we would like things to work out, but it's not discernable to me what the policy of the United States is towards an outcome either in Syria or where we get to in Iran.

    MS. CLINTON: Well, part of it is it's a wicked problem , and it's a wicked problem that is very hard to unpack in part because as you just said, Lloyd, it's not clear what the outcome is going to be and how we could influence either that outcome or a different outcome.

    (I say "cope with" rather than "solve" for reasons that will become apparent.) Yes, Syria's bad, as vividly shown by Blankfein's fumbling question, but I want to focus on the term "wicked problem," which comes from the the field of strategic planning, though it's also infiltrated information technology and management theory . The concept originated in a famous paper by Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber entitled: "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning" (PDF), Policy Sciences 4 (1973), 155-169. I couldn't summarize the literature even if I had the time, but here is Rittel and Webber's introduction:

    There are at least ten distinguishing properties of planning-type problems, i.e. wicked ones, that planners had better be alert to and which we shall comment upon in turn. As you will see, we are calling them "wicked" not because these properties are themselves ethically deplorable. We use the term "wicked" in a meaning akin to that of "malignant" (in contrast to "benign") or "vicious" (like a circle) or "tricky" (like a leprechaun) or "aggressive" (like a lion, in contrast to the docility of a lamb). We do not mean to personify these properties of social systems by implying malicious intent. But then, you may agree that it becomes morally objectionable for the planner to treat a wicked problem as though it were a tame one, or to tame a wicked problem prematurely, or to refuse to recognize the inherent wickedness of social problems.

    And here is a list of Rittel and Webber's ten properties of a "wicked problem" ( and a critique ):

    There is no definite formulation of a wicked problem Wicked problems have no stopping rule Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan. Every wicked problem is essentially unique. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another [wicked] problem. The causes of a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution. [With wicked problems,] the planner has no right to be wrong.

    Of course, there's plenty of controversy about all of this, but if you throw these properties against the Syrian clusterf*ck, I think you'll see a good fit, and can probably come up with other examples. My particular concern, however, is with property #3:

    Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad

    There are conventionalized criteria for objectively deciding whether the offered solution to an equation or whether the proposed structural formula of a chemical compound is correct or false. They can be independently checked by other qualified persons who are familiar with the established criteria; and the answer will be normally unambiguous.

    For wicked planning problems, there are no true or false answers. Normally, many parties are equally equipped, interested, and/or entitled to judge the solutions, although none has the power to set formal decision rules to determine correctness. Their judgments are likely to differ widely to accord with their group or personal interests, their special value-sets, and their ideological predilections. Their assessments of proposed solutions are expressed as "good" or "bad" or, more likely, as "better or worse" or "satisfying" or "good enough."

    (Today, we would call these "many parties" "stakeholders.") My concern is that a Clinton administration, far from compromising - to be fair, Clinton does genuflect toward "compromise" elsewhere - will try to make wicked planning problems more tractable by reducing the number of parties to policy decisions. That is, exactly, what "irredeemables" implies[2], which is unfortunate, especially when the cast out amount to well over a third of the population. The same tendencies were also visible in the Clinton campaigns approach to Sanders and Sanders supporters, and the general strategy of bringing the Blame Cannons to bear on those who demonstrate insufficient fealty.

    From a governance perspective, watch for many more executive orders acceptable to neither right nor left, and plenty of decisions taken in secret. The bomb that could explode here is the legitimacy of a Clinton administration, depending on the parties removed from the policy discussion, and the nature of the decision taken.

    Conclusion

    I don't think volatility will decrease on November 8, should Clinton be elected and take office; if anything, it will increase. A ruling party in thrall to finance, intent on treating government functions as opportunities for looting by cronies, blinded by neoliberal ideology and hence incapable of providing truly universal health care, and whose approach to problems of conflict in values is to demonize and exclude the opposition is a recipe for continued crisis.

    NOTES

    [1] Matt Taibbi takes the view that "Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she came off as relaxed, self-doubting, reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and unafraid to admit she lacked all the answers." I don't buy it. It all read like the same old Clinton to me, and I've read a lot of Clinton (see, e.g., here , here , here , here , here , and here ).

    [2] One is irresistibly reminded of Stalin's "No man, no problem," although some consider Stalin's methods to be unsound.

    oho October 17, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Slow motion coup. Wish I was being histrionic.

    Vatch October 17, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    Your notion is a lot like Simon Johnson's thoughts about the Quiet Coup from 2009:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/307364/

    ocop October 17, 2016 at 3:40 pm

    Oh my god.

    I had never read this article before. Near perfect diagnosis and even more relevant today than it was then. For everyone's benefit, the central thesis:

    Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason-the powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit-and, most of the time, genteel-oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are the controlling shareholders.

    Of course, the U.S. is unique. And just as we have the world's most advanced economy, military, and technology, we also have its most advanced oligarchy.

    In a primitive political system, power is transmitted through violence, or the threat of violence: military coups, private militias, and so on. In a less primitive system more typical of emerging markets, power is transmitted via money: bribes, kickbacks, and offshore bank accounts. Although lobbying and campaign contributions certainly play major roles in the American political system, old-fashioned corruption-envelopes stuffed with $100 bills-is probably a sideshow today, Jack Abramoff notwithstanding.

    Instead, the American financial industry gained political power by amassing a kind of cultural capital-a belief system. Once, perhaps, what was good for General Motors was good for the country. Over the past decade, the attitude took hold that what was good for Wall Street was good for the country. The banking-and-securities industry has become one of the top contributors to political campaigns, but at the peak of its influence, it did not have to buy favors the way, for example, the tobacco companies or military contractors might have to. Instead, it benefited from the fact that Washington insiders already believed that large financial institutions and free-flowing capital markets were crucial to America's position in the world.

    A hypothesis (at least for "Main Street") proven true between 2009 and 2016:

    Emerging-market countries have only a precarious hold on wealth, and are weaklings globally. When they get into trouble, they quite literally run out of money -- or at least out of foreign currency, without which they cannot survive. They must make difficult decisions; ultimately, aggressive action is baked into the cake. But the U.S., of course, is the world's most powerful nation, rich beyond measure, and blessed with the exorbitant privilege of paying its foreign debts in its own currency, which it can print. As a result, it could very well stumble along for years-as Japan did during its lost decade-never summoning the courage to do what it needs to do, and never really recovering.

    Lastly, the "bleak" scenario from 2009 that today looks about a decade too early, but could with minor tuning (Southern instead of Eastern Europe, for example) end up hitting in a big way:


    It goes like this: the global economy continues to deteriorate, the banking system in east-central Europe collapses, and-because eastern Europe's banks are mostly owned by western European banks-justifiable fears of government insolvency spread throughout the Continent. Creditors take further hits and confidence falls further. The Asian economies that export manufactured goods are devastated, and the commodity producers in Latin America and Africa are not much better off. A dramatic worsening of the global environment forces the U.S. economy, already staggering, down onto both knees. The baseline growth rates used in the administration's current budget are increasingly seen as unrealistic, and the rosy "stress scenario" that the U.S. Treasury is currently using to evaluate banks' balance sheets becomes a source of great embarrassment.

    The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump "cannot be as bad as the Great Depression." This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression-because the world is now so much more interconnected and because the banking sector is now so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries, a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances. If our leadership wakes up to the potential consequences, we may yet see dramatic action on the banking system and a breaking of the old elite. Let us hope it is not then too late.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:34 am

    That's a good reminder to us at NC that not all our readers have been with us since 2009 and may not be familiar with the great financial crash and subsequent events. I remember reading the Johnson article when it came out. And now, almost eight years later…

    There's a reason that there's a "Banana Republic" category. Every time I read an article about the political economy of a second- or third-world country I look for how it applies to this country, and much of the time, it does, particularly on corruption.

    Synoia October 17, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    She told them what they wanted to hear. "No surprises."

    craazyboy October 17, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    We truly must consider the possibility Goldman wrote the 3 speeches, then paid Hillary to give them.

    Next, leak them to Wiki. Everything in them is pretty close to pure fiction – but it is neolib banker fiction. Just makes it all seem more real when they do things this way.

    Yike's, I'm turning into a crazy conspiracy theorist.

    ambrit October 17, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    Don't fall for the 'status quo's' language Jedi mind trick crazyboy. I like to call myself a "sane conspiracy theorist." You can too!
    As for H Clinton's 'slavish' adherence to the Bankster Ethos; in psychology, there is the "Stockholm Syndrome." Here, H Clinton displays the markers of "Wall Street Syndrome."

    Praedor October 17, 2016 at 1:22 pm

    Ugh. Mindless drivel. Talking points provided by Wall St itself would sound identical.

    Then there's this: She did NOT represent Wall St and the Banks while a Senator. They cannot vote. They are not people. They are not citizens. She represented the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE that can VOTE. You cannot represent a nonexistent entity like a corporation as an ELECTED official. You can ONLY represent those who actually can, or do, vote. End of story.

    Portia October 17, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    You cannot represent a nonexistent entity like a corporation

    you are forgetting, of course, that Corporations are people, too. And a corporation's voting is done with a corporation's wallet.

    Roger Smith October 17, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    I saw a video in high school years back that mentioned a specific congressional ruling that gave Congress the equivalent to individual rights. I swear it was also in the 30s but I cannot recall and have never been able to find what it was I saw. Do you have any insight here?

    Portia October 17, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    could this be related?

    Historical Background and Legal Basis of the Federal Register / CFR Publications System

    Why was the Federal Register System Established ?

    New Deal legislation of the 1930's delegated responsibility from Congress to agencies to regulate complex social and economic issues
    Citizens needed access to new regulations to know their effect in advance
    Agencies and Citizens needed a centralized filing and publication system to keep track of rules
    Courts began to rule on "secret law" as a violation of right to due process under the Constitution

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/tutorial/online-html.html

    Antoine October 17, 2016 at 1:22 pm

    Third paragraph : WikiLeaks, not Wikipedia :)

    Lambert Strether Post author October 17, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    Thanks, fixed!

    Roger Smith October 17, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    tl;dr - Clinton has terrible judgement

    But don't forget. She is the most qualified candidate… EVER . Remind me again how this species was able to bring three stranded Apollo 13 astronauts back from the abyss, the vacuum of space with some tape and tubing.

    This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.

    john October 17, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is the palace.

    The show is disappointing, the debaters play at talking nuclear policy, but have *nothing* to say about Saudi Arabia's new arsenal.

    When politicos talk nuclear, they only mean to allege a threat to Israel, blame Russia, or fear-monger the North Koreans.

    We're in the loop, but only the quietest whispers of the conflict in Pakistan are available. It sounds pretty serious, but there is only interest in attacking inconvenient Arabs.

    On Trump, what an interesting study in communications. The no man you speak of. Even himself caught between his own insincerity towards higher purpose and his own ego as 'the establishment' turns on him.

    The proles of his support are truely a silent majority. The Republicans promised us Reagan for twenty years, and it's finally the quasi-Democrat Trump who delivers.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:37 am

    > This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.

    +100

    With a wall of American flags waving in the background as the smoke and flames rise.

    optimader October 17, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that includes Wall Street and Main Street.

    this all reads like a cokehead's flow of consciousness on some ethereal topic with no intellectual content on the matter to express. I would have said extemporaneous, but you know it was all scripted, so that's even worse.

    Her rap kinda reminds me of a banal form of the photojournalist in
    http://hartzog.org/j/apocalypsenowtranscript.html

    PHOTOJOURNALIST
    "Do you know what the man is saying? Do you? This is dialectics.
    It's very simple dialectics. One through nine, no maybes, no
    supposes, no fractions - you can't travel in space, you can't go out
    into space, you know, without, like, you know, with fractions - what
    are you going to land on, one quarter, three-eighths - what are you
    going to do when you go from here to Venus or something - that's
    dialectic physics, OK? Dialectic logic is there's only love and hate, you
    either love somebody or you hate them."

    Andy October 17, 2016 at 11:42 pm

    NICE ref. Always like's me that redux.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:42 am

    "Da5id's voice is deep and placid, with no trace of stress. The syllables roll off his tongue like drool. As Hiro walks down the hallway he can hear Da5id talking all the way. 'i ge en i ge en nu ge en nu ge en us sa tu ra lu ra ze em men….'" –Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash

    ambrit October 17, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    H Clinton's speaking 'style' reeks. Partial thoughts follow half baked pronouncements, all lacking clarity or coherence, you know?

    grayslady October 17, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    Completely agree. When I first read excerpts from her speeches, I was appalled at the constant use of "you know" peppering most of her sentences. To me, people who constantly bifurcate sentences with "you know" are simply blathering. They usually don't have any in-depth knowledge of the subject matter on which they are opining. Compare Hillary being asked to comment on a subject with someone such as Michael Hudson or Bill Black commenting on a subject and she simply sounds illiterate. I have this feeling that her educational record is based on an ability to memorize and parrot back answers rather than someone who can reach a conclusion by examining multiple concepts.

    Arizona Slim October 17, 2016 at 4:03 pm

    Here's what I don't understand: The lady (and her husband) have LOADS of money. Yet this is the best that she can do?

    Really?

    Heck, if I had half the Clintons' money, I'd be hiring the BEST speechwriters, acting coaches, and fashion consultants on the planet. And I'd be taking their advice and RUNNING with it. Sheesh. Some people have more money than sense.

    uncle tungsten October 18, 2016 at 12:23 am

    Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution.

    Its in the culture: Podesta does it, Blumenthal does it

    And now they blame the Russians!!!! Imagine the lunacy within the white house if this fool is elected.

    fajensen October 18, 2016 at 12:33 am

    I think she is just not that smart. Maybe intelligent but not flexible enough to do much with it.

    Smart people seek the advice of even smarter people and knowing that experts disagree, they make sure that there is dissent on the advisory team. Then they make up their mind.

    One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework instead of building her own ideas with it.

    Code Name D October 17, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    I don't think so. The "you know" has a name, it's called a "verbal tick" and is one of the first things that is attacked when one learns how to speak publicly. Verbal ticks come in many forms, the "ums" for example, or repeating the last few words you just said, over and over again.

    The brain is complex. The various parts of the brain needed for speech; cognition, vocabulary, and vocalizations, actually have difficulty synchronizing. The vocalization part tends to be faster than the rest of the brain and can spit out words faster than the person can put them together. As a result, the "buffer" if you will runs empty, and the speech part of the brains simply fills in the gaps with random gibberish.

    You can train yourself out of this habit of course – but it's something that takes practice.

    So I take HRC's "you know" as evidence that these are unscripted speeches and is directly improvising.

    David Carl Grimes October 17, 2016 at 10:07 pm

    How come her responses during the debates are not peppered with these verbal ticks. At least, I don't recall her saying you know so many times. Isn't she improvising then?

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:43 am

    No, she's not improvising in the debates. It's all scripted, all gamed out.

    Code Name D October 18, 2016 at 7:57 am

    As Lambert said, HRC doesn't do unscripted. The email leaks even sends us evidence that her interviews were scripted and town hall events were carful staged. Even sidestepping that however, dealing with verbal ticks is not all that difficult with a bit of practice and self-awareness.

    Vatch October 17, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    You know, you could have a point there! :-)

    Optimader October 17, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    "You know" is an insidious variation on "like" and "andum", the latter two being bias neutral forms of mental vapor lock of tbe speech center pausing for higher level intellectual processes to refill the speech centers tapped out RAM.

    The "you know" variant is an end run on the listener's cognitive functions logic filters. Is essence appropriating a claim to the listener.

    I detest "you knows" immediately with "no i dont know, please explain."
    The same with "they say" i will always ask "who are they?"
    I think this is important to fo do to ppl for no ofher reason thanto nake them think critically even if it is a fleeting annoyance.

    Back on HRC, i have maintai we that many people overrate her intellectual grasp. Personally I think she is a hea ily cosched parrot. "The US has achieved energy independence"…. TILT. Just because you state things smugly doesnt mean its reality.

    Rhondda October 17, 2016 at 11:13 pm

    I think what I call the lacunae words are really revealing in people's speech. When she says "you know" she is emphasizing that she and the listener both know what she is "talking around." Shared context as a form of almost - encryption, you could say. "This" rather than '"finance" Here rather than at Goldman.I don't know what you'd call it exactly- free floating referent? A habit, methinks, of avoiding being quoted or pinned down. It reminds me of the leaked emails…everyone is very careful to talk around things and they can because they all know what they are talking about. Hillary is consistently referred to, in an eerie H. Rider Haggard way, as "her" - like some She Who Must Not Be Named.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:46 am

    That would be interesting. A list of all the "you knows" in context. Maybe I should do that.

    clarky90 October 17, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know? Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You know!

    sharonsj October 17, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    This election cycle just proves how bad things have become. The two top presidential candidates are an egotistical ignoramus and the quintessential establishment politician and they are neck and neck because the voting public is Planet Stupid. Things will just continue to fall apart in slow motion until some spark (like another financial implosion) sets off the next revolution.

    flora October 17, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    "Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what would be your advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important decisions?

    "SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you [Wall St] for eight years."

    I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing. No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate. But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring Wall St. is one method for getting money – large, large amounts of money.

    ekstase October 17, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    I heard similar impressions of her at the time, from women who had dealt with her: Book smart. Street smart. Likeable. But what might have been the best compromise you could get in one decade, may have needed re-thinking as you moved along in time. The cast of players changes. Those who once ruled are now gone. Oh, but the money! And so old ideas can calcify. I'm not suggesting that Trump is even in the ballpark in terms of making compromises, speeches, life changes or anything else to have ever been proud of. Still, the capacity to grow and change is important in a leader. So where are we going now?

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:54 am

    A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid."

    I've said this once, but I'll say it again: After the 2008 caucus debacle, Clinton fired the staff and rejiggered the campaign. They went to lots of small venues, like high school gyms - in other words, "deplorables" territory - and Clinton did her detail, "I have a plan" thing, which worked really well in that context because people who need government to deliver concrete material benefits like that, and rightly. They also organized via cheap phones, because that was how to reach their voters, who weren't hanging out at Starbucks. And, history being written by the winners, we forget that using that strategy, Clinton won all the big states and (if all the votes are counted) a majority of the popular vote. So, good decision on her part. And so from that we've moved to the open corruption of the Clinton Foundation and Clinton campaign apparatus that takes 11 people to polish and approve a single tweet.

    So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016, and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open question, but this post argues not.

    allan October 17, 2016 at 1:52 pm

    "Apparently, the provision of public services is not within government's remit! What are Social Security and Medicare? "

    What is the US Post Office? Rumor has it that the PO is mentioned in the US Constitution, a fact that is conveniently forgotten by Strict Constructionists.

    Vatch October 17, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    There's a book with a great title that I haven't read, but maybe some Naked Capitalism readers have read: How the Post Office Created America: A History , by Winifred Gallagher.

    Anne October 17, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    With respect to regulation, I think it should be less a case of quantity, and more one of quality, but Clinton seems to want to make it about finding the sweet spot of exactly how many regulations will be the right amount.

    In general, when companies are willing to spot you $225,000 to speak for some relatively short period of time, willing to meet your demands regarding transportation, hotel accommodations, etc., why would you take the chance of killing the goose that's laying those golden eggs by saying anything likely to tick them off?

    I'd like to think she's kind of embarrassed to have people see how humdrum/boring her speeches were for how much she was paid to give them, but I think there's got to be more "there" somewhere that she didn't want people to be made aware of – and it doesn't necessarily have to be Americans, it could be something to do with foreign governments, foreign policy, trade, etc.

    After learning how many people it takes to send out a tweet with her name on it, I have no idea how she managed this speech thing, unless one of her requirements was that she had to be presented with all questions in advance, so she could be prepared.

    I am more depressed by the day, as it's really beginning to sink in that she's going to be president, and it all just makes me want to stick needles in my eyes.

    Will there even be a debate on Wednesday?

    Roger Smith October 17, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    Also the "Wicked Problems" definitions are very, very interesting. Thank you for bringing those in! I would add that these wicked problems lead to more wicked problems. It is basically dishonesty, and to protect the lie you double down with more, and more, and more…. Most of Clinton's decisions and career seem to be knots of wicked problems.

    The wicked problem is quickly becoming our entire system of governance. Clinton has been described as the malignant tumor here before, but even she is a place holder for the rot. One head of the Hydra that I feel Establishment players would generally be okay with sacrificing if it came to it (and maybe I am wrong there–but it seems as if a lot of the push fro her comes from her inner circle and others play along).

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:59 am

    Hail Hydra! Immortal Hydra! We shall never be destroyed! Cut off one limb and two more shall take its place! We serve the Supreme Hydra, as the world shall soon serve us!

    JohnnyGL October 17, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    Re: your conclusion,

    I've heard/read in some places Hillary Clinton described as a "safe pair of hands". I don't understand where this characterization comes from. She's dangerous.

    If she wins with as strong of an electoral map as Obama in '08, she'll take it as a strong mandate and she'll have an ambitious agenda and likely attempt to overreach. I've been meaning to call my congressional reps early and say "No military action on Syria, period!"

    She might use a "public option" as an ACA stealth bailout scheme, but I don't think the public has much appetite to see additional resources being thrown at a "failed experiment". I worry that Bernie's being brought on board for this kind of thing. He should avoid it.

    Is she crazy enough to go for a grand bargain right away? That seems nutty and has been a "Waterloo" for many presidents.

    Remember how important Obama's first year was. Bailouts and ACA were all done that first year. How soon can we put President Clinton II in lame duck status?

    philmc October 17, 2016 at 2:06 pm

    Not really surprised by the intellectual and rhetorical poverty demonstrated by these speeches. Given the current trajectory of our politics, the bar hasn't really been set very high. In fact it looks like we're going to reach full Idiocracy long before originally predicted.

    Jim Thomson October 17, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    You ask, " What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they were paying for? "

    But I think you know. Corruption has become so institutionalized that it is impossible to point to any specific Quid Pro Quo. The Quo is the entire system in which GS operates and the care and feeding of which the politicians are paid to administer.

    We focus on HRC's speeches and payments here but I wonder how many other paid talks are given to GS each year by others up and down the influence spectrum. As Bill Black says, a dollar given to a politician provides the largest possible Return on Investment of any expenditure. It is Wall Street's long-term health insurance plan.

    Thank you for slogging through all of this.

    Rory October 17, 2016 at 6:20 pm

    It seems to me that the message of these speeches is straightforward: "I'm bought and willing to stay bought for the right price."

    DolleyMadison October 17, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    Yeah we know which part of the "stool" we'll be getting.If the finance sector is "the nerves, the spinal column" of the country, I suggest the country find a shallow pool in which to shove it – head first.

    Foppe October 17, 2016 at 2:14 pm

    I skimmed the /. comments on a story about this yesterday; basically everyone missed the obvious and went with vox-type responses ("she's a creature of the system / in-fighter / Serious Person").

    Gee October 17, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    Care to know what they are buying? This :

    "So I'm not interested in, you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers, but I am interested in trying to figure out how we come together to chart a better way forward and one that will restore confidence in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment rate [five years into the recession!]."

    Basically, even better than a get out of jail free card, in that it is rather a promise that we won't go back and ever hold you responsible, and we have done the best we could so far to avoid having you own up to anything or be held accountable in any way beyond some niggling fines, which of course, you are happy to pay, because in the end, that is simply a handout to the legal industry, who are your best drinking buddies.

    The latter part of that quote is just mumbo jumbo non-sequitir blathering. Clinton appears to know next to nothing about finance, only that it generates enormous amounts of cash for the oh so deserving work that God told them to do.

    uncle tungsten October 18, 2016 at 12:35 am

    +1 exactly: There will be no retrospective prosecutions and none in the future either, trust me! Not the she is any better than Eric Holder but she is certain she should be paid more than him.

    PapaBear October 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    "What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they were paying for?"

    Influence, plain and simple

    shinola October 17, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at 100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k for a single speech…

    I've only skimmed through the speech transcripts; did I miss something of substance?

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 1:00 am

    That was irony…

    phred October 17, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction of her speeches as mindless drivel.

    However, you may be overthinking the "wicked problem" language. While it is certainly possible that she is familiar with the literature that you cite, nothing else in her speeches suggests that she commands that level of intellectual detail. This makes me think that somewhere along the line she befriended someone from the greater Boston area who uses "wicked" the way Valley Girls use "like". When I first heard the expression decades ago, I found it charming and incorporated it into my own common usage. And I don't use it anything like you describe. To me it is simply used for emphasis. Nothing more or less than that, but I am amused to see an entire literature devoted to the concept of a "wicked problem".

    I remain depressed by this election. No matter how it turns out, it's going to wicked suck ; )

    Michael Fiorillo October 17, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    I think the inarticulateness/cliche infestation is a ploy and a deflection; this is a very intelligent woman who can effectively marshall language when she feels the need. That need was more likely felt in private meetings with the inner cabal at Goldman.

    Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and that was not the case, either.

    Finally, as a thought experiment, I'd like to suggest that, granting that Clintonismo will privilege those interests which best fortify their arguments with cash, it's also true that Bill and Hillary are all about Bill and Hillary. In other words, it could be that she has the same hustler's disregard toward the lumpen Assistant Vice Presidents filling that room at GS as she does for the average voter. Thus, the empty, past-their-expiration-date calories.

    Sure, she'll take their money and do their bidding, but why even bother to make any more effort than necessary? On a very primal level with these two, it's all about the hustle and the action, and everyone's a potential rube.

    Big River Bandido October 17, 2016 at 8:27 pm

    As in, when Bill put his presidency on the line, the base were expected to circle the wagons. As in, "I'm With Her". Not "She's With Us", natch. It's *always* about the Clintons.

    pretzelattack October 17, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    "Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she came off as relaxed, self-doubting, reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and unafraid to admit she lacked all the answers."

    seriously, matt taibbi? next, i would like to hear about the positive, feelgood, warmfuzzy qualities of vampire squids (hugs cthulhu doll).

    jgordon October 17, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompsky–all those used to seem like bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people.

    hreik October 17, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    agree w you except about Bernie. he always said he'd support the nominee. the suddenness of his capitulation has led many of us to believe he was threatened. somewhere I read something about "someone" planting kiddieporn on his son's computer if he didn't do…… I dunno. I reserve judgement on Sanders until I learn more,…. if i ever do

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 1:01 am

    Let's see what happens after November 8, which is not far away.

    Edward October 17, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    Clinton's remarks were typically vague, as one might expect from a politician; she doesn't want to be pinned down. This may be part of the banality of her remarks.

    What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan B" Obama is pursuing in Syria?

    In the Russian press every day for a long time now they have been discussing the prospect of a conflict. Russia has been conducting civil defense drills in its cities and advised its citizens to recall any children living abroad. This is never reported in our press, which only presents us with caricatures of Putin. Russians are not taken seriously.

    Ché Pasa October 17, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war must not be allowed.

    No it wasn't. Far from it. By some miracle, the globe escaped instant incineration but only barely. The Soviets, to their credit, were not about to risk nuclear annihilation to get one up on the US of Perfidy. Our own Dauntless Warriors were more than willing, and I believe it's only through dumb luck that a first strike wasn't launched deliberately or by deliberate "accident."

    Review the Cold War concept of Brinkmanship.

    The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards.

    But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding little…

    Edward October 17, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large, however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility. A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article

    http://www.williampolk.com/assets/the-cuban-missile-crisis-in-reverse.pdf

    that a war with Russia would escalate.

    Starveling October 17, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    If high finance is our nervous system, does the American body politic have a terminal case of Parkinsons?

    oho October 17, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    With some CJD/mad cow disease.

    Oregoncharles October 17, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    " "the nerves, the spinal column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did."

    But this description is technically true. That is finance's proper function, co-ordinating the flow of capital and resources, especially from where they're in excess to where they're needed. It's a key decision-making system – for the economy, preferably not for society as a whole. That would be the political system.

    So on this basic level, the problem is that finance, more and more, has put its own institutional and personal interests ahead of its proper function. It's grown far too huge, and stopped performing its intended function – redistributing resources – in favor of just accumulating them, in the rather illusory form of financial instruments, some of them pure vapor ware.

    So yes, this line reflects a very bad attitude on Hillary's part, but by misappropriating a truth – pretty typical propaganda.

    Yves Smith October 17, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    No, finance does NOT "channel resources". Wash your mouth out. This is more neoliberal cant.

    Financiers do not make investments in the real economy. The overwhelming majority of securities trading is in secondary markets, which means it's speculation. And when a public company decides whether or not to invest in a new project, it does not present a prospectus on that new project to investors. It runs the numbers internally. For those projects, the most common source of funding is retained earnings.

    Sluggeaux October 17, 2016 at 6:39 pm

    Clinton shows that she is either a Yale Law grad who does not have the slightest idea that Wall Street does very little in the economy but fleece would-be investors, or that she is an obsequious flatterer of those from whom she openly takes bribes.

    Or both.

    aab October 18, 2016 at 1:25 am

    Both.

    DolleyMadison October 17, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    Wash your mouth out! Hahaaa I love you Yves…

    timotheus October 17, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    Having heard Hillary, Chelsea (yes, she's being groomed) and many, many other politicians over the years, including a stint covering Capitol Hill, Mme C's verbal style does not surprise to me at all but rather strikes me as perfectly serviceable. It is a mellifluous drone designed to lull the listener into thinking that she is on their side, and the weakness of the actual statements only becomes clear when reading them on the page later (which rarely happens). The drowsy listener will catch, among the words strung together like Christmas lights, just the key terms and concepts that demonstrate knowledge of the brief and a soothing layer of vague sympathy. Those who can award her $600K can assume with some confidence that, rhetoric aside, she will be in the tank when needed. The rest of us have to blow away the chaff and peer into the yawning gaps lurking behind the lawyerly parsing. In all fairness, this applies to 90% of seekers of public office.

    xformbykr October 17, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    has the commentariat seen these from paul craig roberts?
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/10/15/is-hillary-well-enough-for-the-job/

    it doesn't say anything but contains links to these:
    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wikileaks-just-dropped-bombshell-hillarys-health-truth-revealed/

    https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-revelation-isnt-hillary-clinton

    both of which present a clinical assessment that Hillary suffers from Parkinson's. Seems like an elephant in the room.

    polecat October 17, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    There's so many elephants in the room, i'd be willing to call it a herd …..

    Sluggeaux October 17, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory "so no quid pro quo here" bribe.

    Who on earth gives up their vote to a politician who is so shameless an corrupt that she openly accepts bribes from groups who equally shamelessly and corruptly are looting the commons? Apparently many, but not me.

    LT October 17, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    "Public-private partnerships"
    That's higher taxes for pleebs to subsidize corporations.
    Mussolini would be proud.

    Ché Pasa October 17, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    Nothing like making lemons out of lemonade, is there?

    There really is a question why she didn't do this doc dump herself when Bernie asked. Yeah, sure, she would have been criticized ("damned if you do, damned if you don't") but because of who she is she'll be criticized no matter what. There is nothing she can do to avoid it.

    Not only is there no smoking gun, it's almost as if she's trying to inject a modicum of social conscience into a culture that has none. And no, she isn't speaking artfully; nor is she an orator.

    Oh. Not that we didn't know already.

    The most galling aspect is her devotion to the neoLibCon status quo. Steady as she goes. Apparently a lot of people find the status quo satisfactory. Feh.

    

    Anon October 17, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    If this document dump came out during the primary campaign, then HRC may have lost. Even Black, Southern ladies can smell the corrupting odor clinging to these "speeches".

    Ché Pasa October 18, 2016 at 6:11 am

    Given the way DNC protected her during the primaries, and what looked like a pretty light touch by Bernie and (who? O'Malley was it?) toward her, I doubt these speeches would have been her undoing.

    Dull and relatively benign, and policy-wise almost identical to Obama's approach to the bankers' role in the economic unpleasantness. "Consensus" stuff with some hint of a social conscience. 

    Not effective and not enough to do more than the least possible ("I told them they ought to behave better. Really!") on behalf of the Rabble.

    But not a campaign killer. Even so, by not releasing transcripts during the primary, she faced - and still faces - mountains of criticism over it. No escape. Not for her.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 1:04 am

    > Steady as she goes

    I'm not sure that's an appropriate strategy for dealing with multiple interlocking wicked problems, but I'm not sure why. Suppose we invoke the Precautionary Principle - is incremental change really the way to avoid harm?

    Ché Pasa October 18, 2016 at 6:14 am

    The Consensus (of Opinions That Matter) says it is. On the other hand, blowing up the System leads to Uncertainty, and as we know, we can't have that. Mr. Market wouldn't like it…

    aab October 18, 2016 at 2:32 am

    The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades - that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake."

    So while I think you are wrong that the speeches wouldn't have hurt her in the primary, I also think Huma would have had to knock her out and tie her up (not in a fun way) to get those speeches released.

    I can't imagine a worse temperament to govern, particularly under the conditions she'll be facing. But she'll be fully incompetent before too long, so I don't suppose it matters that much. I'm morbidly curious to see how long they can keep her mostly hidden and propped up for limited appearances, before having to let Kaine officially take over. Will we be able to figure out who's actually in power based on the line-up on some balcony?

    Ché Pasa October 18, 2016 at 6:24 am

    Fair points, though the "temperament" issue may be one that follows from the nature of the job - even "No Drama Obama" is said to have a fierce anger streak, and secrecy, controlling behavior, and refusing to admit error is pretty typical of presidents, VPs, and other high officials. The King/Queen can do no wrong, dontchaknow. (cf: Bush, GW, and his whole administration for recent examples. History is filled with them, though.)

    As for Hillary's obvious errors in judgment, I think they speak for themselves and they don't speak well of her.

    Blurtman October 17, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    Wall Street fraud = "bad decisions"

    Alex morfesis October 17, 2016 at 7:25 pm

    TINA vs WATA (we are the alternative)…the next two years are gonna be interesting…evil is often a cover for total incompetence and exposure…our little tsarina will insist brigades that dont exist move against enemies that are hardly there…when she & her useless minions were last in/on the seat of power(j edger version of sop) the netizens of the world were young and dumb…now not so much…

    Don Midwest USA October 17, 2016 at 10:44 pm

    I got into wicked problems 35 years ago in the outstanding book by Ian Mitroff and R. O. Mason, "Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions." First page of Chapter One has subsection title COMPLEXITY, followed by "A Little Experiment" Lets try the experiment with current problems.

    One could come up with a list of major problems, but here is the one used by C. West Churchman mentioned along with Horst Riddle. Churchman back in the 80's said that the problems of the world were M*P**3, or M, P cubed, or M * P * P *P with the letters standing for Militarism, Population, Poverty and Pollution.

    Here is how they ran the exercise

    1. Suppose there were a solution to any of these 4 problems, would that solution be related to the other problems. Clearly.

    2. Thus 'whenever a policy maker attempts to solve a complex policy problem, it is related to all the others

    Repeated attempts in other contexts give the same result: basically, every real world policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem

    This is from page 4, the second page of the book.

    I ran this exercise for several years in ATT Bell Labs and ATT.

    1. List major problems
    2. How long have they been around? (most for ever except marketing was new after breakup in '84
    3. If one was solved, would that solution be related in any way to the other ones?
    4. Do you know of any program that is making headway? (occasionally Quality was brought up)

    This could be done in a few minutes, often less than 5 minutes

    5. Conclusion: long term interdependent problems that are not being addressed

    Thus the only grade that matters in this course on Corporate Transformation that now begins is that you have new insights on these problems. This was my quest as an internal consultant in ATT to transform the company. I failed.

    Moby October 18, 2016 at 1:27 am

    Most noticeable thing is her subservience to them like a fresh college grad afraid of his boss at his first job

    Phil October 18, 2016 at 1:35 am

    I was a Sanders supporter. Many here will disagree, but if Clinton wins I don't think she's going to act as she might have acted in 2008, if she had won.

    Clinton is a politician, and *all* politicians dissemble in private, unless they're the mayor of a small town of about 50 people – and even then! Politicians – in doing their work – *must* compromise to some degree, with the best politicians compromising in ways that bring their constituents more benefit, than not.

    That said, Clinton is also a human being who is capable of change. This election cycle has been an eye opener for both parties. If Clinton wins (and, I think she will), the memory of how close it was with Sanders and the desperate anger and alienation she has experienced from Trump supporters (and even Sanders' supporters) *must* have already gotten her thinking about what she is going to have to get done to insure a 2020 win for Democrats, whether or not she is running in 2020.

    In sum, I think Clinton is open to change, and I don't believe that she is some deep state evil incarnate; sge's *far* from perfect, and she's not "pure" in her positioning – thank god!, because in politics, purists rarely accomplish anything.

    If Clinton reverts to prior form (assuming she makes (POTUS), 2020 will make 2016 look like a cakewalk, for both parties – including the appearance of serious 3rd party candidates with moxy, smarts, and a phalanx of backers (unlike the current crop of two – Johnson and Stein).

    [Oct 17, 2016] Get lost Moscow to keep counter sanctions other highlights from Putins BRICS presser

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia's president was not surprised with US Vice President Joe Biden's recent threats towards Moscow, and said that it's not the first time Russian-American relations have been "sacrificed" for the sake of a US presidential campaign. "One can expect anything from our American friends. What has he revealed that is new? Don't we already know that US officials snoop and eavesdrop on everyone," ..."
    "... Creating an enemy out of Russia is a means by which to distract attention from domestic problems during election campaign season, according to Putin. "There are many problems [in the US], and in these circumstances, many choose to resort to the tried and tested system of diverting voters' attention from their own problems. That's what we are currently witnessing, I think." ..."
    "... "Portraying Iran and the Iranian nuclear threat as an enemy didn't work. [Portraying] Russia [as an enemy] seems more interesting. In my opinion, this particular card is now being actively played," Putin said. ..."
    "... Putin has an uncanny knack for saying it as it is; that's one reason why US leaders hate him - they believe that honesty does not belong in politics. ..."
    "... I cant believe this is actually happening. Putin is obviously speaking about blatant manipulations the US hide behind using media and tricks. People are dodging bullets to save their children in Syria at this very moment! But the BBC hide the bigger truth with isolated incidents of 'a cat up a tree', when there's a car crash down the road. ..."
    "... "We are not against this country, but we oppose that decisions are made on a unilateral basis and are not thought through considering historic, cultural and religious peculiarities of one country or another," even if there is a conflict within the affected nation" This is why a global government will never work. That government will only do what is in their best interests, not in the best interests of each country. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | www.rt.com

    Deteriorating Russia-US relations: 'It all started from Yugoslavia'

    Relations between Moscow and Washington did not deteriorate because of or during the Syrian conflict, Putin said in a remark to a journalist, adding: "Just remember what was going on about Yugoslavia, it all started from there." The Russian leader said that it's not about any third side in particular, but relations worsen because "one country" wants to impose its policy and decisions upon the rest of the world.

    "We are not against this country, but we oppose that decisions are made on a unilateral basis and are not thought through considering historic, cultural and religious peculiarities of one country or another," even if there is a conflict within the affected nation, Putin said.

    While meeting the media in Goa, southwest India, the Russian president was asked to comment on hot issues as the US elections, the situation in Ukraine and Syria, and his refusal to visit France, rather than Moscow's relations with its BRICS partners.

    Deteriorating Russia-US relations: 'It all started from Yugoslavia'

    Relations between Moscow and Washington did not deteriorate because of or during the Syrian conflict, Putin said in a remark to a journalist, adding: "Just remember what was going on about Yugoslavia, it all started from there." The Russian leader said that it's not about any third side in particular, but relations worsen because "one country" wants to impose its policy and decisions upon the rest of the world.

    "We are not against this country, but we oppose that decisions are made on a unilateral basis and are not thought through considering historic, cultural and religious peculiarities of one country or another," even if there is a conflict within the affected nation, Putin said.

    'Sanctions aim to suppress Russia's strength'

    The US does not accept compromises, which is necessary to solve issues in world politics. Rather, it chooses a "counterproductive" policy of sanctions, Putin said. "Apparently, they don't want to compromise, they only want to dictate. Such a style has formed over the past 15-20 years in the US, and they still can't deviate from it," Putin said, adding that restrictive measures never achieve the aims that those who impose them hope for.

    "Regarding sanctions against Russia, whatever they are said to be linked to, be it events in Ukraine or Syria, I assure you, the aims of those who formulate such a policy [of restrictions] do not solve any concrete problem," Putin told the media. Saying that "sanctions are aimed not at solving anything, but at suppressing Russia's strengthening" as a robust participant in international affairs, the president said that such intentions against Russia would never be fulfilled.

    Moscow, in turn, does not plan to ease its retaliatory measures, caused by western policies, the Russian leader told the journalists in Goa. "No way, they can get lost," he said.

    'US officials snoop and eavesdrop on everyone'

    Russia's president was not surprised with US Vice President Joe Biden's recent threats towards Moscow, and said that it's not the first time Russian-American relations have been "sacrificed" for the sake of a US presidential campaign. "One can expect anything from our American friends. What has he revealed that is new? Don't we already know that US officials snoop and eavesdrop on everyone," Putin said, adding that Washington "spends billions of dollars" on its secret services "spying not only on its potential opponents, but on its closest allies as well."

    Russia portrayed as US enemy to divert voters' attention from domestic problems

    Meanwhile, Russia is not going to meddle in the American presidential elections in any way, the president told reporters, adding that Moscow has no idea what could happen after a new US leader is elected. So far Hillary Clinton has chosen "an aggressive stance on Russia," and Donald Trump has called for cooperation, "at least in fighting terrorism," but "no one knows what it will be like after the elections," according to Putin, who said that both candidates might change their rhetoric.

    Creating an enemy out of Russia is a means by which to distract attention from domestic problems during election campaign season, according to Putin. "There are many problems [in the US], and in these circumstances, many choose to resort to the tried and tested system of diverting voters' attention from their own problems. That's what we are currently witnessing, I think."

    "Portraying Iran and the Iranian nuclear threat as an enemy didn't work. [Portraying] Russia [as an enemy] seems more interesting. In my opinion, this particular card is now being actively played," Putin said.

    Olive Magnet

    Putin has an uncanny knack for saying it as it is; that's one reason why US leaders hate him - they believe that honesty does not belong in politics.

    WinstonSmithLeader -> Olive Magnet

    Putin hijacked the process of Russian integration into the West and its political-economy - no more "free market" plundering and auctioning of Russia. The greedy US/UK-led terrorists were had. The sore losers can barely hide it.

    Olive Lobster

    He is one of those rare leaders who do not have to read from a teleprompter as he speaks his mind

    Cyan Bullhorn -> Olive Lobster

    I cant believe this is actually happening. Putin is obviously speaking about blatant manipulations the US hide behind using media and tricks. People are dodging bullets to save their children in Syria at this very moment! But the BBC hide the bigger truth with isolated incidents of 'a cat up a tree', when there's a car crash down the road.

    Yuri Ivanovich

    "We are not against this country, but we oppose that decisions are made on a unilateral basis and are not thought through considering historic, cultural and religious peculiarities of one country or another," even if there is a conflict within the affected nation" This is why a global government will never work. That government will only do what is in their best interests, not in the best interests of each country.

    [Oct 17, 2016] FBI Agents Angry at Comey for Not Charging Clinton

    EUTimes.net

    The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

    The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said Obama appointee FBI Director James Comey's dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General's office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ's National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

    "No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute - it was a top-down decision," said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

    A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, "It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton's] security clearance yanked."

    "It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted," the senior FBI official told Fox News. "We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said 'but we are doing nothing,' which made no sense to us."

    The FBI declined to comment directly, but instead referred Fox News to multiple public statements Comey has made in which he has thrown water on the idea that politics played a role in the agency's decision not to recommend charges.

    [Oct 17, 2016] CNN is telling viewers it is illegal to read the Podesta Wikileaks.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Everything Wikileaks is putting out on this simply continues to CONFIRM the verifiable existence of this vast network of Clinton MSM Media Mafia that Hill-Billery have constructed over the years. The MSM is absolutely IN THE TANK for the war-whore. ..."
    "... AMAZING how the "Objective", "Fact-Checking" MSM is shown to be totally tainted, but the very stranglehold that the MSM mafia have on the information flow prevents these clear facts form being widely disseminated to the (sometimes willfully) stupid masses. ..."
    "... George H.W. Bush - Potus - CIA, Bill Clinton - Potus - CIA, George W. Bush - Potus - CIA, Barack Obama - Potus - CIA, Hillary Clinton - CIA Is Trump toast or what? ..."
    "... As an aside, the sheeples are easily persuaded by simple catchy headlines and seldom read deeper into the articles to separate fact from fiction. Look at how many facts have been released proving the massive widespread fraud by Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, yet there is not one indictment...yet. ..."
    "... As corporate control of media outlets has tightened, the Democrats have become the party of hot-money Corporate America. As our economy disintegrates, most corporate interests are moving to finance as their main activity. The Clinton Democrats realized this faster than the Republicans did, and pivoted to represent Finance above all other sectors of the economy. So the Clintons have safely positioned themselves in alignment with the interests that control the media, and any opponents have to take on the media to get to the Clintons. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Creative_Destruct MagicHandPuppet Oct 16, 2016 6:20 PM

    Everything Wikileaks is putting out on this simply continues to CONFIRM the verifiable existence of this vast network of Clinton MSM Media Mafia that Hill-Billery have constructed over the years. The MSM is absolutely IN THE TANK for the war-whore.

    AMAZING how the "Objective", "Fact-Checking" MSM is shown to be totally tainted, but the very stranglehold that the MSM mafia have on the information flow prevents these clear facts form being widely disseminated to the (sometimes willfully) stupid masses.

    Loftie Creative_Destruct Oct 16, 2016 8:31 PM

    George H.W. Bush - Potus - CIA, Bill Clinton - Potus - CIA, George W. Bush - Potus - CIA, Barack Obama - Potus - CIA, Hillary Clinton - CIA Is Trump toast or what?

    Son of Loki Robert Trip Oct 16, 2016 3:31 PM

    As an aside, the sheeples are easily persuaded by simple catchy headlines and seldom read deeper into the articles to separate fact from fiction. Look at how many facts have been released proving the massive widespread fraud by Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, yet there is not one indictment...yet. Add to that the corrupt FBI cheif 0Comey) and DOJ AG (Lowrenta) and Americans are royally screwed unless they read deeper and thoughtfully AND vote!

    I will admit I used to be that simply way (pretty stupid) and seldom read analytically ... when I was 6 years old. But a person needs to educate themselves for their own survival and read and listen critically.

    swmnguy y3maxx Oct 16, 2016 1:05 PM

    Simple. Two reasons, actually. As corporate control of media outlets has tightened, the Democrats have become the party of hot-money Corporate America. As our economy disintegrates, most corporate interests are moving to finance as their main activity. The Clinton Democrats realized this faster than the Republicans did, and pivoted to represent Finance above all other sectors of the economy. So the Clintons have safely positioned themselves in alignment with the interests that control the media, and any opponents have to take on the media to get to the Clintons.

    Also, the Clintons have had to face the weakest and least media-attractive opponents available. Trump is a little different, as he's a complete media creation and probably the most media-savvy public figure out there, but what the media create, they can tear down also. When the media have to choose between their paymasters and their creations, their paymasters win every time.

    Global Hunter y3maxx Oct 16, 2016 1:06 PM "In layman's terms...how have the clintons been so successful controlling MSM?"

    Clinton's are the public and political front and in return they have been given license to loot whatever they can. The people the Clinton's represent control the MSM and pretty much all the people who work in the MSM will do or say anything for not only money but esteem of their peers (or to feel superior or better than their peers).

    IMO.

    Bay of Pigs y3maxx Oct 16, 2016 1:14 PM

    There are six big corporations that own 90% of the MSM, including Time Warner, Comcast and Disney. Thus, they tightly control the CONTENT asnd FLOW of the news. They work together controlling the NARRATIVE for the candidate they wish to promote.

    sushi y3maxx Oct 16, 2016 2:53 PM Look at her advertising budget. It is in the hundreds of millions. Look at Trumps advertising budget. It is the cost of his Twitter account.

    The corporate media are bleeding. Advertisers are leaving for new media. The Clinton ad money is manna from heaven. Would you risk being cut off the gravy train by running a negative story? No way. This is why NBC holds a negative tape on Clinton but happily releases a negative tape on Trump.

    This campaign shows the 1% all talking to themselves and assuring each other they are victorius. Outside the 1% who counts? Nobody. They are all deplorable. I think the results on November 8th could be shocker.

    opport.knocks sushi Oct 16, 2016 9:36 PM

    The world's biggest harvester of Ad revenue is Google, and they are in bed with the Democrats.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close-relationshi...

    There will be none of those pesky anti-trust lawsuits, like the ones in Europe, as long as Google plays along.

    Whoa Dammit 38BWD22 Oct 16, 2016 1:09 PM

    CNN is telling viewers it is illegal to read the Podesta Wikileaks.

    AtATrESICI Whoa Dammit Oct 16, 2016 2:25 PM

    FUCK CNN SHILLS, SEE BELOW TAKEN FROM THE FOLLOWING LINK https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/465/case.html

    United States, 232 U. S. 383 ; Johnson v. United States, 228 U. S. 457 ; Perlman v. United States, 247 U. S. 7 ; Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385 ; Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298 .

    The Fourth Amendment gives protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and, as shown in the previous cases, its protection applies to governmental action. Its origin and history clearly show that it was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies; as against such authority, it was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to secure the citizen in the right of unmolested occupation of his dwelling and the possession of his property, subject to the right of seizure by process duly issued.

    In the present case, the record clearly shows that no official of the federal government had anything to do with the wrongful seizure of the petitioner's property or any knowledge thereof until several months after the property had been taken from him and was in the possession of the Cities Service Company. It is manifest that there was no invasion of the security afforded by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, as whatever wrong was done was the act of individuals in taking the property of another. A portion of the property so taken and held was turned over to the prosecuting officers of the federal government. We assume that petitioner has an unquestionable right of redress against those who illegally and wrongfully took his private property under the circumstances herein disclosed, but with such remedies we are not now concerned.

    The Fifth Amendment, as its terms import, is intended to secure the citizen from compulsory testimony against himself. It protects from extorted confessions, or examinations in court proceedings by compulsory methods.

    The exact question to be decided here is: may the

    Page 256 U. S. 476

    government retain incriminating papers coming to it in the manner described with a view to their use in a subsequent investigation by a grand jury where such papers will be part of the evidence against the accused, and may be used against him upon trial should an indictment be returned?

    We know of no constitutional principle which requires the government to surrender the papers under such circumstances. Had it learned that such incriminatory papers, tending to show a violation of federal law, were in the hands of a person other than the accused, it having had no part in wrongfully obtaining them, we know of no reason why a subpoena might not issue for the production of the papers as evidence. Such production would require no unreasonable search or seizure, nor would it amount to compelling the accused to testify against himself.

    The papers having come into the possession of the government without a violation of petitioner's rights by governmental authority, we see no reason why the fact that individuals, unconnected with the government, may have wrongfully taken them should prevent them from being held for use in prosecuting an offense where the documents are of an incriminatory character.

    It follows that the district court erred in making the order appealed from, and the same is

    Reversed.

    MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS dissenting with whom MR. JUSTICE HOLMES concurs.

    Plaintiff's private papers were stolen. The thief, to further his own ends, delivered them to the law officer of the United States. He, knowing them to have been stolen, retains them for use against the plaintiff. Should the court permit him to do so?

    Page 256 U. S. 477

    That the court would restore the papers to plaintiff if they were still in the thief's possession is not questioned. That it has power to control the disposition of these stolen papers, although they have passed into the possession of the law officer, is also not questioned. But it is said that no provision of the Constitution requires their surrender, and that the papers could have been subpoenaed. This may be true. Still I cannot believe that action of a public official is necessarily lawful because it does not violate constitutional prohibitions and because the same result might have been attained by other and proper means. At the foundation of our civil liberty lies the principle which denies to government officials an exceptional position before the law and which subjects them to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. And, in the development of our liberty, insistence upon procedural regularity has been large factor. Respect for law will not be advanced by resort, in its enforcement, to means which shock the common man's sense of decency and fair play.

    [Oct 17, 2016] All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another monster before he destroys all the peace and stability we bring to the region

    Notable quotes:
    "... The trees, the forest and pretty much the entire landscape are screaming 2000 and 2004 didn't matter a damn. ..."
    "... All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another 'monster' before he destroys all the peace and stability we bring to the region. ..."
    "... This time, of course, there's no Bush/Cheney in charge. But no matter, the decisions and the rationale are identical. Democracy will flower in the region once America and the UK kill enough of the bad guys and install their own puppets (I mean 'good guys') ..."
    "... Hillary and the democrats are in charge of the killing, so all the death must be both necessary and humanitarian. The possibility that more death and more wars and more invasions and more regime change is pretty much built into the 'solution' is unthinkable. ..."
    "... Watching all the cheering for 'victory in Mosul' and over the 'hold-outs' in Libya has actually driven me to turn off the nets ..."
    "... Violent regime-change is 'unavoidable' regardless of which party is in power. And the current war is always better, safer, and less prone to blow-back than all those other earlier stupid wars ..."
    Oct 17, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 2:31 pm 240

    Clinton meets impartial press to discuss repackaging Hillary over cocktails hosted by Diane Sawyer:

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/10/your-moral-and-380.html

    bruce wilder 10.15.16 at 3:39 pm 244
    ks @ 240:

    Reading thru the link, my favorite part was the stated purpose of the cocktail party for elite NY reporters: "Give reporters their first thoughts . . ."

    kidneystones 10.17.16 at 1:06 pm 339
    @244 Good eye, Bruce. The trees, the forest and pretty much the entire landscape are screaming 2000 and 2004 didn't matter a damn.

    All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another 'monster' before he destroys all the peace and stability we bring to the region.

    This time, of course, there's no Bush/Cheney in charge. But no matter, the decisions and the rationale are identical. Democracy will flower in the region once America and the UK kill enough of the bad guys and install their own puppets (I mean 'good guys') .

    Hillary and the democrats are in charge of the killing, so all the death must be both necessary and humanitarian. The possibility that more death and more wars and more invasions and more regime change is pretty much built into the 'solution' is unthinkable.

    Watching all the cheering for 'victory in Mosul' and over the 'hold-outs' in Libya has actually driven me to turn off the nets .

    Violent regime-change is 'unavoidable' regardless of which party is in power. And the current war is always better, safer, and less prone to blow-back than all those other earlier stupid wars .

    I learned that reading the pro-Hillary 'liberal' press.

    [Oct 16, 2016] In a way Hillary laments about Russia interference are what is typically called The pot calling the kettle black as she is exactly the specialist in this area. BTW there is a documented history of the US interference into Russian elections of 2011-2012

    Notable quotes:
    "... Most establishment news reporting has taken note that no evidence has been offered by the U.S. officials making the attribution. Clearly, someone thinks it matters, because the attribution is being made. I doubt that getting hold of Podesta's email password required the mysterious skillz of Russian super hackers, but sure ymmv. Why does the NSA spend billions and billions again? I mock because it is impossible to make sense of any of it. ..."
    "... Yes, apparently, you think that the U.S. should be in there blowing up hospitals and civilians instead. The Russians just cannot handle the job, while the U.S. has its Afganistan and Iraq training and experience in bringing an end to those horrific civil wars in a few short Friedman units. Proven expertise! ..."
    "... The history of humanitarian intervention is long and glorious. Only just last week, America's great and good ally, the Saudi monarchy, was blowing up a funeral in Yemen with American munitions, killing over 100. But, I indulge in irrelevancies, the better to mock you. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 10.16.16 at 12:43 pm 305

    LFC: We do have Bruce Wilder mocking the notion that the Russians hacked into the DNC email. Cyber specialists think it was the Russians to a 90 percent certainty, but of course Wilder knows better. Anyway, who cares whether the Russians hacked the ******* email?

    Most establishment news reporting has taken note that no evidence has been offered by the U.S. officials making the attribution. Clearly, someone thinks it matters, because the attribution is being made. I doubt that getting hold of Podesta's email password required the mysterious skillz of Russian super hackers, but sure ymmv. Why does the NSA spend billions and billions again? I mock because it is impossible to make sense of any of it.

    LFC: I'm more concerned w the fact that Russian planes are deliberately blowing up hospitals and civilians.

    Yes, apparently, you think that the U.S. should be in there blowing up hospitals and civilians instead. The Russians just cannot handle the job, while the U.S. has its Afganistan and Iraq training and experience in bringing an end to those horrific civil wars in a few short Friedman units. Proven expertise!

    Oh, I'm so sorry I mocked you again, didn't I?

    The history of humanitarian intervention is long and glorious. Only just last week, America's great and good ally, the Saudi monarchy, was blowing up a funeral in Yemen with American munitions, killing over 100. But, I indulge in irrelevancies, the better to mock you.

    Follow events in Syria day by day if you like, but don't pretend you are a humanitarian cheering for the underdog rather than a voyeur entertained by mass tragedy.

    likbez 10.16.16 at 2:43 pm
    @305
    bruce wilder 10.16.16 at 12:43 pm
    LFC: We do have Bruce Wilder mocking the notion that the Russians hacked into the DNC email. Cyber specialists think it was the Russians to a 90 percent certainty, but of course Wilder knows better. Anyway, who cares whether the Russians hacked the ******* email?

    Most establishment news reporting has taken note that no evidence has been offered by the U.S. officials making the attribution.

    It looks like LFC is completely clueless about such notion as Occam's razor.
    Why we need all those insinuations about Russian hackers when we know that all email boxes in major Web mail providers are just a click away from NSA analysts.

    Why Russians and not something like "Snowden II".

    And what exactly Russians will get politically by torpedoing Hillary candidacy. They probably have tons of "compromat" on her, Bill and Clinton Foundation. Trump stance on Iran is no less dangerous and jingoistic then Hillary stance on Syria. Aggressive protectionism might hurt Russian exports. And as for Syria, Trump can turn on a dime and became a second John McCain anytime. Other then his idea of avoiding foreign military presence (or more correctly that allies should pay for it) and anti-globalization stance he does not have a fixed set of policies at all.

    Also you can elect a dog as POTUS and foreign policy will be still be the same as it is now controlled by "deep state" ( http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-deep-state/ ):

    Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an "establishment." All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.

    In view of all this, LFC anti-Russian stance looks extremely naďve and/or represents displaced anti-Semitism.

    likbez 10.16.16 at 4:18 pm 311
    In a way Hillary laments about Russia interference are what is typically called "The pot calling the kettle black" as she is exactly the specialist in this area. BTW there is a documented history of the US interference into Russian elections of 2011-2012.

    In which Hillary (via ambassador McFaul and the net of NGOs) was trying to stage a "color revolution" (nicknamed "white revolution") in Russia and prevent the re-election of Putin. The main instrument was claiming the fraud in ballot counting.

    Can you imagine the reaction if Russian ambassador invited Trump and Sanders to the embassy and offered full and unconditional support for their noble cause of dislodging the corrupt neoliberal regime that exists in Washington. With cash injections to breitbart.com, similar sites, and especially organizations that conduct polls after that.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/europe/observers-detail-flaws-in-russian-election.html

    And RT covered staged revelations of "Hillary campaign corruption" 24 x 7. As was done by Western MSM in regard to Alexei Navalny web site and him personally as the savior of Russia from entrenched corruption ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny )

    http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-duma-elections-navalny-pamfilova-resignation/28007404.html

    Actually the USA has several organizations explicitly oriented on interference in foreign elections and promotion of "color revolutions", with functions that partially displaced old functions of CIA (as in Italian elections of 1948). For example, NED.

    Why Russia can't have something similar to help struggling American people to have more honest elections despite all the blatantly undemocratic mechanisms of "first to the post", primaries, state based counting of votes, and the United States Electoral College ?

    It would be really funny if Russians really resorted to color revolution tricks in the current presidential elections :-)

    Here is a quote that can navigate them in right direction (note the irony of her words after DNC throw Sanders under the bus ;-)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/world/europe/russian-parliamentary-elections-criticized-by-west.html?_r=0

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized what she called "troubling practices" before and during the vote in Russia. "The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," she said in Bonn, Germany.

    With 99.9 percent of ballots processed, election officials said that United Russia had won 238 seats in Parliament, or about 53 percent, from 315 seats or 70 percent now. The Communist Party won 92 seats; Just Russia, a social democratic party, won 64 seats and the national Liberal Democratic Party won 56 seats.

    bruce wilder 10.16.16 at 4:35 pm 312
    RP: I mean, people pretty much have to take its effects seriously.

    Do they? LFC can probably lecture us on our "complete lack of understanding that the world contains moral ambiguities and that not everything is black-and-white and open-and-shut" while hypernormalizing anything with imperative non sequiters.

    @ 307, he apparently thinks my use of the Saudi attack in Yemen in my mockery of him is due to a failure of reading comprehension on my part. He thinks he had criticized U.S. support for the Saudi's war against Yemen, while arguing that American "standing to object . . . when blatant, obvious war crimes are being committed" is unaffected when America itself or American allies commit blatant obvious war crimes. He took the futility express, Rich, and arrived ahead of you, don't you see? Things are complicated and we must not let our committing blatant obvious war crimes prevent us from acting to intervene where we can stop blatant obvious war crimes with blatant obvious war crimes of our own!

    Hopefully, this little addendum to my previous mockery is not even worth a response. What are the chances?

    [Oct 16, 2016] The shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I want to

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...Trump referred explicitly to "the disenfranchisement of working people" ..."
    "... Trump denounced the "global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities." ..."
    "... He continued: "Just look at what this corrupt establishment has done to our cities like Detroit and Flint, Michigan-and rural towns in Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and across our country. They have stripped these towns bare, and raided the wealth for themselves and taken away their jobs." ..."
    "... He went on to cite internal Clinton campaign emails published by WikiLeaks this week, documenting how, as Trump put it, "Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of US sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers." ..."
    "... The Clinton campaign, warned of the impending release of masses of politically incriminating documents by WikiLeaks, sought to preempt this exposure by denouncing the leaks as a conspiracy engineered by Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. ..."
    "... Clinton is appealing for support from sections of the Republican Party, above all the neo-conservatives of the George W. Bush administration, responsible for the war in Iraq, the widespread use of torture and other crimes. ..."
    "... The anti-Russian campaign has been combined with an effort to demonize Trump for a series of purported sexual offenses, with a barrage of video and audio recordings, together with the testimony of alleged victims. ..."
    "... The Democratic campaign and its media allies are using methods similar to those the ultra-right employed in its efforts to oust Bill Clinton from the White House in the 1990s. They are seeking to stampede public opinion with increasingly sensationalized material. These methods degrade political discussion and distract popular consciousness from the real issues in the election. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | www.wsws.org
    In a speech delivered by Donald Trump to an audience of thousands in West Palm Beach, Florida, the Republican candidate turned his campaign in a more distinctly fascistic direction. Presenting himself as both the savior of America and the victim of a ruthless political and economic establishment, Trump sought to connect deep-seated social anger among masses of people with an "America First" program of anti-immigrant xenophobia, militarism, economic nationalism and authoritarianism.

    Responding to the latest allegations of sexual abuse, Trump proclaimed that he is being targeted by international bankers, the corporate-controlled media and the political establishment who fear that his election will undermine their interests.

    He offered as an alternative his own persona-the strong-man leader who is willing to bear the burden and make the sacrifices necessary for a pitiless struggle against such powerful adversaries. Trump warned that the November 8 election would be the last opportunity for the American people to defeat the powerful vested interests that are supporting Hillary Clinton.

    The clear implication of the speech is that if Trump loses the election, the struggle against the political establishment will have to be carried forward by other means...

    ...

    ...Trump referred explicitly to "the disenfranchisement of working people" -with racist, chauvinist and dictatorial solutions. This includes not only the demand for jailing Hillary Clinton, now a refrain of every speech, but his calls for his supporters to prevent a "rigged" election by blocking access to the polls for voters in "certain communities."

    Trump denounced the "global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities."

    He continued: "Just look at what this corrupt establishment has done to our cities like Detroit and Flint, Michigan-and rural towns in Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and across our country. They have stripped these towns bare, and raided the wealth for themselves and taken away their jobs."

    He went on to cite internal Clinton campaign emails published by WikiLeaks this week, documenting how, as Trump put it, "Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of US sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers."

    After the top congressional Republican, House Speaker Paul Ryan, publicly broke with Trump Monday, declaring that he would neither campaign for him nor defend him, Trump responded with the declaration, "It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I want to."

    ... ... ...

    The Clinton campaign, warned of the impending release of masses of politically incriminating documents by WikiLeaks, sought to preempt this exposure by denouncing the leaks as a conspiracy engineered by Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.

    Clinton is appealing for support from sections of the Republican Party, above all the neo-conservatives of the George W. Bush administration, responsible for the war in Iraq, the widespread use of torture and other crimes.

    The anti-Russian campaign has been combined with an effort to demonize Trump for a series of purported sexual offenses, with a barrage of video and audio recordings, together with the testimony of alleged victims.

    The Democratic campaign and its media allies are using methods similar to those the ultra-right employed in its efforts to oust Bill Clinton from the White House in the 1990s. They are seeking to stampede public opinion with increasingly sensationalized material. These methods degrade political discussion and distract popular consciousness from the real issues in the election.

    [Oct 16, 2016] Clinton denounces Russian interference in US elections, calls for escalation in Syria

    Clinton is converting Democratic Party into party of war with Russia...
    Hillary was the Secretary of State when the USA tried to implement color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Clinton told a press conference Monday there were now "credible reports about Russian interference in our elections," adding, "I want everyone-Democrat, Republican, Independent-to understand the real threat that this represents." ..."
    "... Clinton's suggestion of a Trump-Putin axis was followed up Tuesday in a speech in North Carolina by her vice-presidential running mate, Senator Tim Kaine, which was billed as a "major national security address" by the Democratic campaign. ..."
    "... Clinton appeared Monday at several Labor Day rallies, but she chose to focus her attack on Trump on national security issues, where she has consistently attacked the billionaire real estate speculator from the right. ..."
    "... Asked by a reporter if the alleged Russian actions amounted to a cyberwar, Clinton replied, "I'm not comfortable using the word 'war'." This demurral was only to disguise her intentions from the American people. However, in a speech last week to the American Legion convention, Clinton declared that cyberattacks on the United States should be answered by military force. ..."
    "... Clinton claimed that Putin had all but confirmed Russia's role in the hacking of the DNC-a flat-out lie-adding, "The team around him certainly believe that there is some benefit to them to doing this." She then declared that the prospect of additional hacking into the state government systems used to conduct the November 8 elections represented "a threat from an adversarial foreign power." ..."
    "... The Democratic candidate also criticized the role of the Russian government in Syria, in backing the regime of President Bashar al-Assad against Islamist forces armed and financed by the United States and the Gulf monarchies. She denounced "the refusal of the Russians and the Iranians to put the kind of pressure on Assad that is necessary " ..."
    "... The article published Monday by the Washington Post ..."
    "... As in previous reports by the Post ..."
    "... Meanwhile, the claims of Russian hacking are being used to whip up a crisis atmosphere about the administration of the election itself. Earlier this summer the FBI issued a "flash" alert to election officials in all 50 states over the threat of cyber intrusions. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson suggested that the entire US election system, including 9,000 polling places and 50 separate state election authorities, should be declared "critical infrastructure" subject to the same counterterrorism efforts as nuclear power plants and electrical power grids. ..."
    Sep 01, 2007 | www.wsws.org

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton this week publicly accused the Russian government of intervening in the American election on behalf of her Republican opponent Donald Trump.

    She cited an investigation by US intelligence agencies, first reported Monday night by the Washington Post , into alleged Russian government hacking into the computer systems of the state election officials in the United States.

    Clinton told a press conference Monday there were now "credible reports about Russian interference in our elections," adding, "I want everyone-Democrat, Republican, Independent-to understand the real threat that this represents."

    Clinton referred both to the Post report about hacking into state government computers in Arizona and Illinois, and to the alleged Russian hacking of the emails of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which revealed backroom efforts by top DNC officials to ensure Clinton's victory.

    Clinton's suggestion of a Trump-Putin axis was followed up Tuesday in a speech in North Carolina by her vice-presidential running mate, Senator Tim Kaine, which was billed as a "major national security address" by the Democratic campaign.

    Kaine contrasted Clinton's going "toe-to-toe with Putin" as US secretary of state, to Trump's suggestion that NATO was outmoded and that he could negotiate more successfully with Russia. He then raised the question "why Trump seems to support Russian interests at the expense of American ones," suggesting that the billionaire real estate speculator was keeping his tax returns secret because they might shed light on his financial ties to Russia. He concluded by citing the claim of former acting CIA Director Michael Morell that Trump is an "unwitting agent" of the Russian intelligence services.

    Clinton appeared Monday at several Labor Day rallies, but she chose to focus her attack on Trump on national security issues, where she has consistently attacked the billionaire real estate speculator from the right.

    Asked by a reporter if the alleged Russian actions amounted to a cyberwar, Clinton replied, "I'm not comfortable using the word 'war'." This demurral was only to disguise her intentions from the American people. However, in a speech last week to the American Legion convention, Clinton declared that cyberattacks on the United States should be answered by military force.

    Clinton claimed that Putin had all but confirmed Russia's role in the hacking of the DNC-a flat-out lie-adding, "The team around him certainly believe that there is some benefit to them to doing this." She then declared that the prospect of additional hacking into the state government systems used to conduct the November 8 elections represented "a threat from an adversarial foreign power."

    The Democratic candidate also criticized the role of the Russian government in Syria, in backing the regime of President Bashar al-Assad against Islamist forces armed and financed by the United States and the Gulf monarchies. She denounced "the refusal of the Russians and the Iranians to put the kind of pressure on Assad that is necessary "

    Clinton reiterated her support for imposing a no-fly zone over parts of Syria held by the US-backed "rebels," which would require US air strikes against Syrian anti-aircraft positions and could lead to confrontations between Russian and American warplanes, which both conduct air strikes in the country.

    "I think we need leverage," she said. "I've always believed that if that were on the table and it were clear we were going to pursue it, that would give us the leverage we don't have now." Coming just after the well-publicized failure of talks last weekend between Obama and Putin at the G20 summit in China, Clinton was clearly seeking to stake out a more aggressive position on Syria than that of the Obama administration.

    The Democrat's claim to have discovered a Trump-Putin axis has two purposes: first, to cement Clinton's standing as the consensus choice of the US military-intelligence apparatus; and second, to integrate the election campaign itself into the war preparations by US imperialism, both in the Middle East and against Russia (as well as China).

    If Clinton wins the November 8 election over Trump, she will claim this to be a mandate for the escalation of US military operations in Iraq and Syria, as well as the continued NATO military buildup throughout Eastern Europe, openly aimed at preparing for war with Russia, a country with the world's second-largest nuclear arsenal.

    In her complaints about Russian interference in the US elections, Clinton is joining in the campaign waged by the Pentagon and CIA to prepare US public opinion for such a conflict.

    The article published Monday by the Washington Post is little more than a handout from the intelligence agencies. It reports that the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and Department of Homeland Security have started an investigation, led by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, into a "broad covert Russian operation in the United States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in US political institutions."

    In addition to discrediting the election among the American people-hardly necessary given that the entire political system is deeply despised and the two main candidates hated-Russian officials allegedly seek to "provide propaganda fodder to attack US democracy-building policies around the world," the Post claimed.

    As in previous reports by the Post and the New York Times about alleged Russian hacking of the DNC, no evidence of any kind is cited in the article, only the unsupported claims of intelligence officials, who even the Post reporters admit lack "definitive proof" of either cyberattacks or even plans for cyberattacks.

    Apparently the public is expected to treat such claims as the gospel, despite the decades of lying by these agencies to cover up assassinations, coup plots and other conspiracies abroad, and the systematic violation of the democratic rights of the American people at home.

    Meanwhile, the claims of Russian hacking are being used to whip up a crisis atmosphere about the administration of the election itself. Earlier this summer the FBI issued a "flash" alert to election officials in all 50 states over the threat of cyber intrusions. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson suggested that the entire US election system, including 9,000 polling places and 50 separate state election authorities, should be declared "critical infrastructure" subject to the same counterterrorism efforts as nuclear power plants and electrical power grids.

    [Oct 16, 2016] Hillary laments about Russia interference are what is typically called The pot calling the kettle black as she is the specialist in fixing election and was instrumental in organizing color revolution in Russia to prevent reelection of Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Can you imagine the reaction if Russian ambassador invited Trump and Sanders to the embassy and offered full and unconditional support for their noble cause of dislodging the corrupt neoliberal regime that exists in Washington. With cash injections to breitbart.com, similar sites, and especially organizations that conduct polls after that. ..."
    "... Why Russia can't have something similar to help struggling American people to have more honest elections despite all the blatantly undemocratic mechanisms of "first to the post", primaries, state based counting of votes, and the United States Electoral College ? ..."
    "... It would be really funny if Russians really resorted to color revolution tricks in the current presidential elections :-) ..."
    "... Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized what she called "troubling practices" before and during the vote in Russia. "The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," she said in Bonn, Germany. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    likbez 10.16.16 at 4:18 pm 310

    In a way Hillary laments about Russia interference are what is typically called "The pot calling the kettle black" as she is exactly the specialist in this area. BTW there is a documented history of the US interference into Russian elections of 2011-2012.

    In which Hillary (via ambassador McFaul and the net of NGOs) was trying to stage a "color revolution" (nicknamed "white revolution") in Russia and prevent the re-election of Putin. The main instrument was claiming the fraud in ballot counting.

    Can you imagine the reaction if Russian ambassador invited Trump and Sanders to the embassy and offered full and unconditional support for their noble cause of dislodging the corrupt neoliberal regime that exists in Washington. With cash injections to breitbart.com, similar sites, and especially organizations that conduct polls after that.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/europe/observers-detail-flaws-in-russian-election.html

    And RT covered staged revelations of "Hillary campaign corruption" 24 x 7. As was done by Western MSM in regard to Alexei Navalny web site and him personally as the savior of Russia from entrenched corruption ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny )

    http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-duma-elections-navalny-pamfilova-resignation/28007404.html

    Actually the USA has several organizations explicitly oriented on interference in foreign elections and promotion of "color revolutions", with functions that partially displaced old functions of CIA (as in Italian elections of 1948). For example, NED.

    Why Russia can't have something similar to help struggling American people to have more honest elections despite all the blatantly undemocratic mechanisms of "first to the post", primaries, state based counting of votes, and the United States Electoral College ?

    It would be really funny if Russians really resorted to color revolution tricks in the current presidential elections :-)

    Here is a quote that can navigate them in right direction (note the irony of her words after DNC throw Sanders under the bus ;-)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/world/europe/russian-parliamentary-elections-criticized-by-west.html?_r=0

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized what she called "troubling practices" before and during the vote in Russia. "The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," she said in Bonn, Germany.

    With 99.9 percent of ballots processed, election officials said that United Russia had won 238 seats in Parliament, or about 53 percent, from 315 seats or 70 percent now. The Communist Party won 92 seats; Just Russia, a social democratic party, won 64 seats and the national Liberal Democratic Party won 56 seats.

    [Oct 16, 2016] There is world of difference between harassing woman and killing women and children.

    Groupinggate was essentially an attempt to distract votes from a more serious issue, especially Hillary warmongering, her role in mass rape of women in Syria and Libya, and latest Podesta emails leaks. This was a defensive strike with material that was specifically reserved for this purpose.
    Notable quotes:
    "... there are many more than two sides in Syria's civil war. First of all the civil war is not limited to Syria. ISIL, Hezbollah, and arguably Kurdish Rojava are belligerents not particularly invested in the borders of long defunct Mandate Syria. ..."
    "... The rebel forces arrayed against or for Assad in any particular area are various in their motivations and political identities and they never divide neatly into two opposed camps. ..."
    "... In short, you either support US violent regime change in the ME, or you do not. ..."
    "... All who are voting for Hillary Clinton are voting for US violent regime change in Syria. That's been the stated policy of the Obama administration for some years, Hillary was played a key role in formulating that policy as Secretary of State. Now, as candidate for President she has explicitly promised more US violent regime change in Iraq. ..."
    "... Violent regime change in Syria is the stated policy of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate most US members of the CT community plan to vote for in November. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    bruce wilder 10.15.16 at 7:35 am
    intervene in a civil war on the side of the rebels

    I apologize if anyone feels I am harping on this too much, but there are many more than two sides in Syria's civil war. First of all the civil war is not limited to Syria. ISIL, Hezbollah, and arguably Kurdish Rojava are belligerents not particularly invested in the borders of long defunct Mandate Syria.

    The rebel forces arrayed against or for Assad in any particular area are various in their motivations and political identities and they never divide neatly into two opposed camps.

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 8:06 am
    @ 190 There aren't many times you're this wrong, Bruce. There are only two sides. The side that holds a UN seat; votes or abstains on UN resolutions; borrows or does not borrow from the World Bank; has the authority to sign, or abrogate international treaties along, for example, the Golan heights – and the forces not aligned with the government.

    The CT community evidently wants to 'confuse itself' and the issues. You are either in favor of the US using US military power to unilaterally intercede in a civil war against the Assad government, which as you and Peter T note, is inextricably linked to Iraq and other regional disputes, or you oppose the unilateral use of US military power to topple governments in the ME.

    In short, you either support US violent regime change in the ME, or you do not.

    All who are voting for Hillary Clinton are voting for US violent regime change in Syria. That's been the stated policy of the Obama administration for some years, Hillary was played a key role in formulating that policy as Secretary of State. Now, as candidate for President she has explicitly promised more US violent regime change in Iraq.

    Violent regime change in Syria is the stated policy of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate most US members of the CT community plan to vote for in November.

    [Oct 16, 2016] Donald Trumps Fall and Rise

    Notable quotes:
    "... Regarding Clinton, the revelation was the latest batch of WikiLeaks disclosures. It included excerpts of her speeches before Wall Street audiences, which she had refused to make public. Now we know why. They show her making nice-nice with her billionaire benefactors-no surprise there. After all, they paid her a standard fee of $225,000 per speech, for 92 speeches between 2013 and 2015, earning her $21.6 million in less than two years. How many of us could resist being nice-nice to nice people like that? ..."
    "... Stop the presses! Trump is a misogynist! ..."
    "... Friends of mine know that I am no fan, at all, of Ted Cruz. But he is the only person I've seen so far, before the second debate, who has stated the obvious. He tweeted: "NBC had tape 11 yrs. Apprentice producer says they have more & worse. So why not release in 2015? In March? Why wait till October? #MSMBias" ..."
    "... As the saying goes, "Give me a break!" Presidents like Kennedy and Clinton did more than talk about groping women, they practiced it-and worse. But now people who voted for, or defended, these Presidents-and other politicians like the woman-killing Ted Kennedy-can strike poses of shock and horror at Trump's words. Politically correct philanderers and models of progressive sexual attitudes like Arnold Schwarzenegger can refuse to endorse the scoundrel. Politics is indeed a hothouse of fertilizer for hypocrisy. ..."
    "... The difference in this debate, however, is that Trump fought back with passion, limiting her advantage with both zingers and policy contrasts. His policy positions are muddled, but hers are disingenuous at best. And with the possible exception of college and high-school debate contests, debates are rarely won on points. They are won with passion and-especially in the case of presidential debates-how you motivate your backers. And here Trump won the debate hands-down. ..."
    "... Above all, we must remember that the election is mostly bread and circuses to distract us from issues that aren't being discussed-the disposition of over $150 trillion in sovereign state debt, the largest bubble in the history of the world; how our own $20 trillion in debt is exploding at a rate that is unsustainable; the role of the Deep State in making the concept of "democracy" a joke; and how the neocons' (Hillary included) policy of perpetual war is threatening us not only with national bankruptcy but the risk of a nuclear World War III. As Mark Twain or Emma Goldman said (take your pick as to who the real author was), "If voting made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it." ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Regarding Clinton, the revelation was the latest batch of WikiLeaks disclosures. It included excerpts of her speeches before Wall Street audiences, which she had refused to make public. Now we know why. They show her making nice-nice with her billionaire benefactors-no surprise there. After all, they paid her a standard fee of $225,000 per speech, for 92 speeches between 2013 and 2015, earning her $21.6 million in less than two years. How many of us could resist being nice-nice to nice people like that?

    But the excerpts from her speeches also show her saying she is for "open borders," which will not endear her to the majority of American voters. They show her admitting she often has a private position on issues (one satisfactory to her benefactors) different from her public position on those issues, which does nothing to repair her reputation as a liar (though it could not have come as a surprise to her benefactors, who are used to paying off two-faced politicians).

    These and other revelations were potentially damning to Clinton's chances in a deadlocked race, so the leftist media did what it had to do under the circumstances: it ignored the Clinton revelations and went unhinged on the Trump "revelation." As a result, about the only place in the mainstream media where you will find discussion of the Clinton speeches is Fox News. Thankfully, as many people watch that cable news network as watch its two competitors combined, that is, the Clinton News Network (CNN) and MSDNC.

    Stop the presses! Trump is a misogynist!

    ... ... ...

    Friends of mine know that I am no fan, at all, of Ted Cruz. But he is the only person I've seen so far, before the second debate, who has stated the obvious. He tweeted: "NBC had tape 11 yrs. Apprentice producer says they have more & worse. So why not release in 2015? In March? Why wait till October? #MSMBias"

    ... ... ...

    As the saying goes, "Give me a break!" Presidents like Kennedy and Clinton did more than talk about groping women, they practiced it-and worse. But now people who voted for, or defended, these Presidents-and other politicians like the woman-killing Ted Kennedy-can strike poses of shock and horror at Trump's words. Politically correct philanderers and models of progressive sexual attitudes like Arnold Schwarzenegger can refuse to endorse the scoundrel. Politics is indeed a hothouse of fertilizer for hypocrisy.

    ... ... ...

    Hillary Clinton will always be able to out-point Donald Trump on policy matters. That is the advantage of being a politician for more than 30 years. "Slick Willie" has now been supplanted by slick Hillary. But most Americans expected that.

    The difference in this debate, however, is that Trump fought back with passion, limiting her advantage with both zingers and policy contrasts. His policy positions are muddled, but hers are disingenuous at best. And with the possible exception of college and high-school debate contests, debates are rarely won on points. They are won with passion and-especially in the case of presidential debates-how you motivate your backers. And here Trump won the debate hands-down.

    ... ... ...

    Above all, we must remember that the election is mostly bread and circuses to distract us from issues that aren't being discussed-the disposition of over $150 trillion in sovereign state debt, the largest bubble in the history of the world; how our own $20 trillion in debt is exploding at a rate that is unsustainable; the role of the Deep State in making the concept of "democracy" a joke; and how the neocons' (Hillary included) policy of perpetual war is threatening us not only with national bankruptcy but the risk of a nuclear World War III. As Mark Twain or Emma Goldman said (take your pick as to who the real author was), "If voting made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it."

    David Franke was a founder of the conservative movement in the late 1950s and early 1960s. He is currently writing his magnum opus on the trajectory of conservatism and American politics during his lifetime.

    [Oct 16, 2016] I dont buy the left neoliberal hysteria over Trump as the scariest reactionary dude evah

    Notable quotes:
    "... I don't buy the left neoliberal hysteria over Trump as the scariest reactionary dude evah. I think that's just to prevent the dissatisfaction that Trump has tapped into blending with the dissatisfaction Sanders tapped into. ..."
    "... And, I tend to think that strategy has been successful in keeping the left v right neoliberal monopoly of power intact. The Republicans may take a hit, but it will only result in a slight shuffling among the seats of power. The left neoliberals will keep the right neoliberal seats warm for them. ymmv ..."
    "... This really is another post 9/11 moment for the chattering classes. All their claims of expertise, clear eyed analysis, logic above emotion, has come crashing down around their hysterical, emotion driven response to the current political situation. There is, at this stage, basically zero willingness among these groups to do their Job of explaining the world, all they want to achieve is a combination of political signalling and intense personal satisfaction. ..."
    "... The best analyses I've read were a couple of essays from 2015 comparing Trump to Berlusconi. Those interested will need to insert 2015 into the search string to skip past the more breathless 2016 versions. The 2015 essays are largely free of tbe breathless need to stop Trump cold that mar 2016 comparisons. ..."
    "... middle-class unhappy with the rapine corruption and self-serving nature of the elites. ..."
    "... The problem is that Trump is an entertainer/marketer and his product is him. Van Jones remains the single best pundit on Trump because Jones understands that the elections are about stagecraft, more than politics. ..."
    "... the college-educated white new middle class (professionals and managers), is approximately 30 percent of the population, but are overrepresented, at 40 percent, among Trump supporters. Not surprisingly, the median household income of Trump voters is around $70,000 annually. ..."
    "... More importantly, the category "non-college educated whites" includes both wage workers and the self-employed - the traditional middle class. The Economist found that "better-paid and better-educated voters have always formed as big a part of Mr. Trump's base as those at the lower end of the scale for income and education." ..."
    "... 'I don't know, so I assume' is kind of the defining characteristic of reactions to the Trump Candidacy. Maybe he will, continue with neoliberalism. Or maybe he will go full communism now, or perhaps at least anti-imperialism, as one prolific poster here repeatedly claims. It all depends on which 10% of his statements you believe are not lies, and what you project into the gap left by the rest. ..."
    "... But it could equally plausibly lead to a stable regime that would have European political scientists in lively debate as to whether or not it is most accurately called fascist. ..."
    "... Clearly, Trump's right-wing opposition to neoliberal trade and tax policies resonates with a minority of older, white workers, including a minority of union members." ..."
    "... these sectors have experiencing declining living standards and are fearful about their children's prospects of remaining in the middle class." ..."
    "... The developments of late capitalism have to do with the transition of these decisions from the elite capitalist class as such to a group of managers. These managers can not and do not go against the traditional interests of capital as such. But their decisions characteristically favor their class in ways that a traditional class analysis can not fathom, and their ideology appeals to a group variously called "professionals", "technocrats", "the 10%" etc. who more broadly control the levers of power in society. ..."
    "... The managerial class operates a world system - the system of trade agreements, monetary agreements, etc. This system keeps the world economy going as it is going through the cooperation of American economists, Eurocrat bureaucratic appointees, Chinese Communist Party higher-ups, important people in the financial industry (whether bankers or at central banks), CEOs of multinationals, and even the leaders of important NGOs. These interactions are observable and not a matter of conspiracy theory. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 10.14.16 at 9:15 pm

    soru: "Precisely because it is not left neoliberalism versus right neoliberalism, but left neoliberalism versus something that is:

    a: worse
    b: a predictable consequence of neoliberalism.

    I think there is something to the thesis that Trump ripped the scab off the place where Luttwak's "perfect non-sequitur" had rubbed the skin off the connection between the tax-cut loving Republican establishment leadership and the Republican electoral base of male reactionary ignoramuses.

    But, I don't know what actual policy follows from Trump_vs_deep_state, if not Mike Pence brand right neoliberalism. A little light flavoring of theocracy on the tax cuts in other words.

    I don't buy the left neoliberal hysteria over Trump as the scariest reactionary dude evah. I think that's just to prevent the dissatisfaction that Trump has tapped into blending with the dissatisfaction Sanders tapped into.

    And, I tend to think that strategy has been successful in keeping the left v right neoliberal monopoly of power intact. The Republicans may take a hit, but it will only result in a slight shuffling among the seats of power. The left neoliberals will keep the right neoliberal seats warm for them. ymmv

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 8:49 am 200
    Some food for thought: Trump tied LA Times poll.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/14/why_pay_attention_to_the_la_times_poll.html

    " The national polls (though not so much the state polls) were off in 2012. During the closing month of the campaign, they showed, on average, a 0.3 point Romney lead. The RAND poll [LA Times], by contrast, showed a 3.8 point Obama lead – which was almost exactly correct."

    Sean Trende throws a big bucket of salt on the LA Times poll, before getting to the accuracy of the poll in 2012.

    Ronan(rf) 10.15.16 at 12:11 pm 208
    This really is another post 9/11 moment for the chattering classes. All their claims of expertise, clear eyed analysis, logic above emotion, has come crashing down around their hysterical, emotion driven response to the current political situation. There is, at this stage, basically zero willingness among these groups to do their Job of explaining the world, all they want to achieve is a combination of political signalling and intense personal satisfaction.
    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 12:42 pm 214
    @208 I generally agree. Thanks for the link to the Nation piece. I earlier skimmed this Guardian piece by JJ which features an extended essay from the reviewed text. John has been beating this drum for more than a year trying to wear his two hats: partisan Dem and serious social critic. The first serious undermines the second.

    The best analyses I've read were a couple of essays from 2015 comparing Trump to Berlusconi. Those interested will need to insert 2015 into the search string to skip past the more breathless 2016 versions. The 2015 essays are largely free of tbe breathless need to stop Trump cold that mar 2016 comparisons.

    The Judis essay marries Trump too closely to George Wallace, another populist, but critically also a professional politician, a Democrat, and a New Dealer.

    Judis has a good quote, or two, from Wallace that definitely fit the Tea Party/Silent Majority profile – rule followers, middle-class unhappy with the rapine corruption and self-serving nature of the elites.

    The problem is that Trump is an entertainer/marketer and his product is him. Van Jones remains the single best pundit on Trump because Jones understands that the elections are about stagecraft, more than politics. Both the Nation and the Guardian piece function as much as thinly disguised GOTV arguments as academic assessments of the Trump phenomena.

    What both get right, along with many others, is that removing Trump from the equation removes nothing from the masses of ordinary folks who a/will not apologize for who they are and in fact celebrate themselves and their values b/aren't interested in the approval, or the explications of elites c/are completely determined to burn down this mess irrespective of whether Trump is elected, or not.

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 12:43 pm
    And the link: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/13/birth-of-populism-donald-trump?CMP=fb_us
    Ronan(rf) 10.15.16 at 12:48 pm 217
    Thanks for the link kidneystones, I'll check.it out. I'm working through Judis' book at the moment and find larger parts, of it convincing.
    Who. Is van Jones? Is it this lad?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/magazine/van-jones-can-empathize-with-trump-voters.html

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 1:12 pm 220
    Tell me this isn't better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNk3Jdck7nY Two minutes should do it, but the rest is great, too.
    engels 10.15.16 at 1:13 pm 221
    The people v. the 'global managerial class'

    …while approximately 55 percent of Trump supporters do not have a bachelor's degree, this demographic makes up approximately 70 percent of the US population - they are underrepresented among Trump voters. However, the college-educated white new middle class (professionals and managers), is approximately 30 percent of the population, but are overrepresented, at 40 percent, among Trump supporters. Not surprisingly, the median household income of Trump voters is around $70,000 annually.

    More importantly, the category "non-college educated whites" includes both wage workers and the self-employed - the traditional middle class. The Economist found that "better-paid and better-educated voters have always formed as big a part of Mr. Trump's base as those at the lower end of the scale for income and education."

    A systematic review of Gallup polling data demonstrates, again, that most Trump supporters are part of the traditional middle class (self-employed) and those sectors of the new middle class (supervisors) who do not require college degrees. They tend to live in "white enclaves"…

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/10/trump-gop-republicans-tea-party-populism-fascism/

    Ronan(rf) 10.15.16 at 1:33 pm 226
    Kidney stones I'll check out the link above when by a laptop.

    Personally I don't know how j feel about the managerial class argument (I still have to read both Hayes and Frank ) but it's becoming quite clear that large parts of the left and right "establishment" (which is just a shorthand way of saying those with high profile journalistic, political and cultural positions) are going out of their way to not acknowledge what is right in from of their eyes, that there are political and economic (as well as racial and cultural) reasons behind the rise of right wing populism.

    RichardM 10.15.16 at 1:34 pm 227
    > But, I don't know what actual policy follows from Trump_vs_deep_state, if not Mike Pence brand right neoliberalism.

    'I don't know, so I assume' is kind of the defining characteristic of reactions to the Trump Candidacy. Maybe he will, continue with neoliberalism. Or maybe he will go full communism now, or perhaps at least anti-imperialism, as one prolific poster here repeatedly claims. It all depends on which 10% of his statements you believe are not lies, and what you project into the gap left by the rest.

    If he was elected, things would be different from what they are, or at least are understood to be. And things being different, they would continue to be so, taking a different path from the continuation of a status quo. My personal evidence-free assumption is that this would likely take the nature of a decade-long crisis that would end with a return to a weakened version of the pre-Trump regime. A pale echo of the rosy days of Obama, Bush and Clinton.

    But it could equally plausibly lead to a stable regime that would have European political scientists in lively debate as to whether or not it is most accurately called fascist.

    Ronan(rf) 10.15.16 at 1:38 pm 228
    For those not wager to read the link, here are the bits engels cut. From the beginning.

    "Who are Trump's voters? Despite claims that he has won the "white working class," the vast majority of Trump's supporters, like those of the Tea Party, are drawn from the traditional and new middle classes, especially the older, white male and less well-off strata of these classes. Clearly, Trump's right-wing opposition to neoliberal trade and tax policies resonates with a minority of older, white workers, including a minority of union members."

    And after enclave

    "isolated from immigrants and other people of color, have worse health than the average US resident, and are experiencing low rates of intergenerational mobility. While not directly affected either by the decline of industry in the Midwest or by immigration, these sectors have experiencing declining living standards and are fearful about their children's prospects of remaining in the middle class."

    engels 10.15.16 at 1:40 pm 229
    Roman, I already said I broadly agreed with you (is it the case you literally zzzzzzzzzzz)- I'm delighted that via Luttwak you're groping towards a class analysis of fascism that has been standard on the left since at least Trotsky…
    Rich Puchalsky 10.15.16 at 1:45 pm 231
    Ronan(rf): "Personally I don't know how j feel about the managerial class argument"

    There are certain decision makers who make all of the important decisions, or who at least get a tremendously inordinate amount of power over those decisions. If they aren't making a decision in a positive sense, their power often controls decisions in a negative sense by restricting the available choices to those that are all acceptable to them.

    The developments of late capitalism have to do with the transition of these decisions from the elite capitalist class as such to a group of managers. These managers can not and do not go against the traditional interests of capital as such. But their decisions characteristically favor their class in ways that a traditional class analysis can not fathom, and their ideology appeals to a group variously called "professionals", "technocrats", "the 10%" etc. who more broadly control the levers of power in society.

    The managerial class operates a world system - the system of trade agreements, monetary agreements, etc. This system keeps the world economy going as it is going through the cooperation of American economists, Eurocrat bureaucratic appointees, Chinese Communist Party higher-ups, important people in the financial industry (whether bankers or at central banks), CEOs of multinationals, and even the leaders of important NGOs. These interactions are observable and not a matter of conspiracy theory.

    [Oct 16, 2016] Muller was especially hard on the two tics of liberal commentary heard on Americas coasts: psychologizing populism as a symptom of resentment or the authoritarian personality, and dismissing populists as irresponsible rubes who dont understand the tenets of sound economic and social policy

    Oct 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Ronan(rf) 10.15.16 at 12:08 pm 207

    "One strength of Müller book is that he spends some time parrying bad arguments about populism, which have flourished in a variety of intellectually useless and actively pernicious think pieces. He is especially hard on the two tics of liberal commentary heard on America's coasts: psychologizing populism as a symptom of resentment or the "authoritarian personality," and dismissing populists as irresponsible rubes who don't understand the tenets of sound economic and social policy.

    These criticisms, Müller points out, are really refusals to take political disagreement seriously-which, after all, is precisely the political sin of antipluralists like Trump. A major problem with the horrified response to Trump's campaign-however appropriate in other respects-has been its self-serving imprecision. Whether by sweeping the very different Sanders campaign into the same all-inclusive condemnation of "irresponsible" and "angry" movements, or by lumping Trump's views on trade policy (a legitimate argument to make in a democratic contest) with his xenophobia (which should be considered beyond the pale), the liberal response has often created cartoons out of both left and right populism. It also misses, in Müller's view, what is so dangerous about populism's discontents."

    https://www.thenation.com/article/the-two-populisms/

    [Oct 16, 2016] Clinton meets impartial press to discuss repackaging Hillary over cocktails hosted by Diane Sawyer:

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's coastal urban elites, many of whom went to the same schools, often Ivy league talking about all the others who didn't. It's far from surprising they're so profoundly out of touch and ignorant. ..."
    "... Trump enjoys/has enjoyed substantially better support among African-Americans than most Republican candidates. His populism and calls for border controls is at least partially designed to appeal to minorities on economic terms. ..."
    "... Clinton meets impartial press to discuss repackaging Hillary over cocktails hosted by Diane Sawyer: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/10/your-moral-and-380.html ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 1:53 pm 23 3

    @226 It's coastal urban elites, many of whom went to the same schools, often Ivy league talking about all the others who didn't. It's far from surprising they're so profoundly out of touch and ignorant.

    @227 If you're referring to me, and that's a big if, I can't remember using the term anti-imperialist ever (not that I've never said it, I just can't imagine why I would). As I've tried to make clear, I supported Sanders, can't support Hillary for reasons I've made quite clear and regard Trump as a clue free buffoon. To suggest he's 'lying' suggests he's actually thought through his 'arguments' when he's almost always riffing. I hope he wins.

    @228 Yes. But Trump enjoys/has enjoyed substantially better support among African-Americans than most Republican candidates. His populism and calls for border controls is at least partially designed to appeal to minorities on economic terms.

    That's what Jones pointed out a long time ago. There's a substantial subset of African-American voters who feel they've been extremely badly served despite consistently supporting Democrats.

    Jones claims that Trump wins if 3/20 succumb to the siren song of Trump's populist boasts.

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 2:31 pm 239
    Clinton meets impartial press to discuss repackaging Hillary over cocktails hosted by Diane Sawyer: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/10/your-moral-and-380.html

    [Oct 16, 2016] The Deep State

    Notable quotes:
    "... "deep state" - the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment - is a far greater threat to liberty than you think ..."
    "... Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. ..."
    "... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." ..."
    Feb 28, 2014 | The American Conservative

    Steve Sailer links to this unsettling essay by former career Congressional staffer Mike Lofgren, who says the "deep state" - the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment - is a far greater threat to liberty than you think. The partisan rancor and gridlock in Washington conceals a more fundamental and pervasive agreement.

    Excerpts:

    These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi's regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 million to keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least Ł100m to the United Kingdom's Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and access to that country's intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same period of time, the government spent $1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined. A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every single trace of your electronic life.

    Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an "establishment." All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.

    More:

    Washington is the most important node of the Deep State that has taken over America, but it is not the only one. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect the town to other nodes. One is Wall Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the status quo, Wall Street floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember their own best interests. The executives of the financial giants even have de facto criminal immunity. On March 6, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following: "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy." This, from the chief law enforcement officer of a justice system that has practically abolished the constitutional right to trial for poorer defendants charged with certain crimes. It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative beyond the dreams of avarice - certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee. [3]

    The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. Not all the traffic involves persons connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General David Petraeus joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance. General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State do not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior fellow at theBelfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.

    Lofgren goes on to say that Silicon Valley is a node of the Deep State too, and that despite the protestations of its chieftains against NSA spying, it's a vital part of the Deep State's apparatus. More:

    The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the Deep State, and its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited by its overweening sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face."

    Read the whole thing.

    ... I would love to see a study comparing the press coverage from 9/11 leading up to the Iraq War with press coverage of the gay marriage issue from about 2006 till today. Specifically, I'd be curious to know about how thoroughly the media covered the cases against the policies that the Deep State and the Shallow State decided should prevail. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy here, not at all. I'm only thinking back to how it seemed so obvious to me in 2002 that we should go to war with Iraq, so perfectly clear that the only people who opposed it were fools or villains. The same consensus has emerged around same-sex marriage. I know how overwhelmingly the news media have believed this for some time, such that many American journalists simply cannot conceive that anyone against same-sex marriage is anything other than a fool or a villain. Again, this isn't a conspiracy; it's in the nature of the thing. Lofgren:

    Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

    A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. Government life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it's 11:00 in the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist. After a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles off steel plate: "You mean the number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?" No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it.

    When all you know is the people who surround you in your professional class bubble and your social circles, you can think the whole world agrees with you, or should. It's probably not a coincidence that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, the two cities that were attacked on 9/11, and whose elites - political, military, financial - were so genuinely traumatized by the events.

    Anyway, that's just a small part of it, about how the elite media manufacture consent. Here's a final quote, one from the Moyers interview with Lofgren:

    BILL MOYERS: If, as you write, the ideology of the Deep State is not democrat or republican, not left or right, what is it?

    MIKE LOFGREN: It's an ideology. I just don't think we've named it. It's a kind of corporatism. Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization. And they believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it's our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war.

    This can't last. We'd better hope it can't last. And we'd better hope it unwinds peacefully.

    [Oct 16, 2016] The Cathedral -- The self-organizing ideological consensus represented by the universities, the media, and the civil service by Rod Dreher

    Notable quotes:
    "... The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. ..."
    "... General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known and valued commodity. ..."
    "... Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy. ..."
    "... The Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil. ..."
    "... "you believe that morality has been essentially solved, and all that's left is to work out the details." ..."
    "... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. ..."
    "... A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. ..."
    "... No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it. ..."
    "... It's probably not a coincidence that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, ..."
    "... It's a kind of corporatism. ..."
    "... They pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization. ..."
    "... And they believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it's our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war. ..."
    Feb 28, 2014 | The American Conservative

    From: The Deep State By Rod Dreher

    The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others.

    Not all the traffic involves persons connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General David Petraeus joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance. General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State do not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.

    Lofgren goes on to say that Silicon Valley is a node of the Deep State too, and that despite the protestations of its chieftains against NSA spying, it's a vital part of the Deep State's apparatus. More:

    The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the Deep State, and its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited by its overweening sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face."

    Read the whole thing.

    Steve Sailer says that the Shallow State is a complement to the Deep State. The Shallow State is, I think, another name for what the Neoreactionaries call "The Cathedral," defined thus:

    The Cathedral - The self-organizing consensus of Progressives and Progressive ideology represented by the universities, the media, and the civil service. A term coined by blogger Mencius Moldbug. The Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil. Community writers have enumerated the platform of Progressivism as women's suffrage, prohibition, abolition, federal income tax, democratic election of senators, labor laws, desegregation, popularization of drugs, destruction of traditional sexual norms, ethnic studies courses in colleges, decolonization, and gay marriage. A defining feature of Progressivism is that "you believe that morality has been essentially solved, and all that's left is to work out the details." Reactionaries see Republicans as Progressives, just lagging 10-20 years behind Democrats in their adoption of Progressive norms.

    You don't have to agree with the Neoreactionaries on what they condemn - women's suffrage? desegregation? labor laws? really?? - to acknowledge that they're onto something about the sacred consensus that all Right-Thinking People share. I would love to see a study comparing the press coverage from 9/11 leading up to the Iraq War with press coverage of the gay marriage issue from about 2006 till today. Specifically, I'd be curious to know about how thoroughly the media covered the cases against the policies that the Deep State and the Shallow State decided should prevail. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy here, not at all. I'm only thinking back to how it seemed so obvious to me in 2002 that we should go to war with Iraq, so perfectly clear that the only people who opposed it were fools or villains. The same consensus has emerged around same-sex marriage. I know how overwhelmingly the news media have believed this for some time, such that many American journalists simply cannot conceive that anyone against same-sex marriage is anything other than a fool or a villain. Again, this isn't a conspiracy; it's in the nature of the thing. Lofgren:

    Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

    A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. Government life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it's 11:00 in the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist.

    After a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles off steel plate: "You mean the number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?" No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it.

    When all you know is the people who surround you in your professional class bubble and your social circles, you can think the whole world agrees with you, or should. It's probably not a coincidence that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, the two cities that were attacked on 9/11, and whose elites - political, military, financial - were so genuinely traumatized by the events.

    Anyway, that's just a small part of it, about how the elite media manufacture consent. Here's a final quote, one from the Moyers interview with Lofgren:

    BILL MOYERS: If, as you write, the ideology of the Deep State is not democrat or republican, not left or right, what is it?

    MIKE LOFGREN: It's an ideology. I just don't think we've named it. It's a kind of corporatism. Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization.

    And they believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it's our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war.

    This can't last. We'd better hope it can't last. And we'd better hope it unwinds peacefully.

    I, for one, remain glad that so many of us Americans are armed. When the Deep State collapses - and it will one day - it's not going to be a happy time.

    Questions to the room: Is a Gorbachev for the Deep State conceivable? That is, could you foresee a political leader emerging who could unwind the ideology and apparatus of the Deep State, and not only survive, but succeed? Or is it impossible for the Deep State to allow such a figure to thrive? Or is the Deep State, like the Soviet system Gorbachev failed to reform, too entrenched and too far gone to reform itself? If so, what then?

    [Oct 15, 2016] Kremlin Russia faces unprecedented cyber-threats from the US - RT News

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The fact is, US unpredictability and aggression keep growing, and such threats against Moscow and our country's leadership are unprecedented, because the threat is being announced at the level of the US Vice President," ..."
    "... "Of course, given such an aggressive, unpredictable line, we have to take measures to protect our interests, somehow hedge the risks," ..."
    "... such unpredictability is dangerous for the whole world." ..."
    "... "Why haven't we sent a message yet to Putin," ..."
    "... "We are sending a message [to Putin] We have a capacity to do it, and " ..."
    "... "He'll known it?" ..."
    "... "He'll know it. It will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact," ..."
    "... current and former officials," ..."
    "... "clandestine" ..."
    "... "wide-ranging operation" ..."
    "... embarrass" ..."
    "... clandestine ..."
    "... "If the US 'clandestine' pending cyberwar on Russia was serious: 1) it would not have been announced 2) it would be the NSA [National Security Agency] and not the CIA," ..."
    "... Podesta emails, ..."
    "... "tens of thousands of hackers" ..."
    Oct 15, 2016 | www.rt.com
    US aggressiveness is growing, and threats to carry out cyberattacks against Russia are unprecedented, presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, adding that Russia will take "precautionary measures." "The fact is, US unpredictability and aggression keep growing, and such threats against Moscow and our country's leadership are unprecedented, because the threat is being announced at the level of the US Vice President," Peskov told RIA Novosti. "Of course, given such an aggressive, unpredictable line, we have to take measures to protect our interests, somehow hedge the risks," he said, adding that " such unpredictability is dangerous for the whole world." Read more CIA working on 'clandestine' cyberattack against Russia – report

    US Vice President Joe Biden said on Friday that Washington is ready to respond to hack attacks allegedly conducted by Russia and designed to interfere with the upcoming US elections.

    "Why haven't we sent a message yet to Putin," Chuck Todd, host of the "Meet the Press" show on NBC, asked Joe Biden.

    "We are sending a message [to Putin] We have a capacity to do it, and "

    "He'll known it?" Todd interfered.

    "He'll know it. It will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact," the US vice president replied.

    His threats coincided with an NBC News report citing " current and former officials," claiming that the CIA is planning a "clandestine" cyberattack on Russia in retaliation for its alleged efforts to influence the US elections against Hillary Clinton. The "wide-ranging operation" is meant to " embarrass" Russia's leadership, NBC News reported.

    The report claimed to have direct knowledge of the situation, saying the CIA had been tasked with providing options to the White House.

    WikiLeaks, however, has expressed doubt over the seriousness of the report about the " clandestine " cyberwar on Russia.
    "If the US 'clandestine' pending cyberwar on Russia was serious: 1) it would not have been announced 2) it would be the NSA [National Security Agency] and not the CIA," WikiLeaks wrote on Twitter.

    Accusations against Russia have become louder in recent days with WikiLeaks releasing thousands of the so called " Podesta emails, " exposing Hillary Clinton's connections to Wall Street and controversial views on Syria, among other things. Some mainstream media outlets were quick to accuse the Kremlin of teaming up with WikiLeaks, allegedly providing it with massive amounts of inside scoops to post. The evidence-free allegations have been denied both by Moscow and by WikiLeaks.

    Responding to accusations last week, the Russian presidential press secretary mentioned that "tens of thousands of hackers" try to break into the sites of Russian officials on a daily basis, but this never prompted Moscow to point a finger at Washington.

    READ MORE: 'Obama cyber saber-rattling against Russia possible ploy to boost Clinton camp' (Op-Ed)

    READ MORE: US gov't officially accuses Russia of political hacks; Moscow calls it 'nonsense'

    [Oct 15, 2016] Obama Tells CIA To Prepare For Cyber War With Russia Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Vice President Joe Biden told "Meet the Press" moderator Chuck Todd on Friday that "we're sending a message" to Putin and that "it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact." ..."
    "... Former CIA officers interviewed by NBC said that there is a long history of the White House plotting potential cyber attacks against Russia. That said, none of them were ultimately carried out because "none of the options were particularly good, nor did we think that any of them would be particularly effective." ..."
    "... All these senior government twerps are either life-long political suck-ups or ivory-tower dwelling posers. They have lived their whole lives in a virtual world of talking with absolutely no consequences to them or responsibility for their actions. ..."
    "... They are confident that they can talk/lie/cheat or bluff their way out of any situation they get into - or force it off to someone else like the military and then blame them for the fallout. ..."
    "... They are supported by junior suck-ups that are kept in terror over losing their cushy jobs in government or contracting who are paid over twice what anyone else would pay their sorry ass and justify their sellout by complaining how they have to "pay the mortgage". They have never been slapped side the head like they deserve. Absolute foolish arrogance. ..."
    "... They want to distract from Hillary's WikiLeak fiasco. ..."
    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    In what is looking more and more like a season finale of the HBO series "House of Cards" with each passing day, the Obama administration is now literally threatening a cyber war with Russia over allegations it was behind the hacking of Clinton's emails. According to an exclusive NBC report, the Obama administration "is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action" (though it's unclear how exactly it's covert if Biden is announcing it to the world via an interview with Chuck Todd) against Russia, in "retaliation for alleged " interference in the American presidential election, and has asked the CIA to draft plans for a "wide-ranging "clandestine" cyber operation designed to harass and "embarrass" the Kremlin leadership."

    So now the Obama administration is overtly leveraging the full power of the United States to intimidate foreign governments, and most likely Julian Assange, in order to maintain control of the Executive Branch of the government. Does anyone within the mainstream media see any problems with this? Certainly Chuck Todd and NBC do not. And notice that even the NBC article refers to " alleged " Russian interference because not a shred of evidence has been presented to prove that senior Russian officials were actually behind the hacking of Hillary's emails...but who needs facts when you have a complicit media eager to advance whatever propaganda is necessary to maintain power?

    The Obama administration is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election, U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

    Current and former officials with direct knowledge of the situation say the CIA has been asked to deliver options to the White House for a wide-ranging "clandestine" cyber operation designed to harass and "embarrass" the Kremlin leadership.

    The sources did not elaborate on the exact measures the CIA was considering, but said the agency had already begun opening cyber doors, selecting targets and making other preparations for an operation. Former intelligence officers told NBC News that the agency had gathered reams of documents that could expose unsavory tactics by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Vice President Joe Biden told "Meet the Press" moderator Chuck Todd on Friday that "we're sending a message" to Putin and that "it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact."

    When asked if the American public will know a message was sent, the vice president replied, "Hope not."

    Former CIA officers interviewed by NBC said that there is a long history of the White House plotting potential cyber attacks against Russia. That said, none of them were ultimately carried out because "none of the options were particularly good, nor did we think that any of them would be particularly effective."

    Two former CIA officers who worked on Russia told NBC News that there is a long history of the White House asking the CIA to come up with options for covert action against Russia, including cyber options - only to abandon the idea.

    A second former officer, who helped run intelligence operations against Russia, said he was asked several times in recent years to work on covert action plans, but "none of the options were particularly good, nor did we think that any of them would be particularly effective," he said.

    Others warned that the White House has always caved on plans to follow through with cyber attacks because anything the U.S. can do against Russia, they can also do in response. As one of the former CIA officers said, "if you are looking to mess with their networks, we can do that, but then the issue becomes, they can do worse things to us in other places."

    "We've always hesitated to use a lot of stuff we've had, but that's a political decision," one former officer said. "If someone has decided, `We've had enough of the Russians,' there is a lot we can do. Step one is to remind them that two can play at this game and we have a lot of stuff. Step two, if you are looking to mess with their networks, we can do that, but then the issue becomes, they can do worse things to us in other places."

    Putin is almost beyond embarrassing, he said, and anything the U.S. can do against, for example, Russian bank accounts, the Russian can do in response.

    "Do you want to have Barack Obama bouncing checks?" he asked.

    Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell expressed skepticism that the U.S. would go so far as to attack Russian networks.

    "Physical attacks on networks is not something the U.S. wants to do because we don't want to set a precedent for other countries to do it as well, including against us," he said. "My own view is that our response shouldn't be covert -- it should overt, for everybody to see."

    Here is a brieg clip of Biden discussing the "covert" planning with NBC's Chuck Todd.

    If the Obama administration is willing to go to such great lengths, literally escalating tensions with another superpower, to protect their candidate from whatever it is that she's hiding then we suspect whatever WikiLeaks has yet to release could be really good.

    Fed Supporter philipat Oct 15, 2016 1:33 AM

    I believe like the article suggests Obummer is going to use the full force of the CIA to hack Assange, or shut him down before the real embarrassing shit hits the net. Assange needs to drop it all now.

    OR

    It could be Obummer uses it as a pretext to say the Ruskies hacked the election in case the donald wins and nullify the results.

    Or

    It could be an internal NSA and CIA war. NSA is actually behind email dumps to make sure hillary does not win and expect to drop the juiciest emails from CLinton herself and possibly the 18 obummer emails as well right before the election. Maybe the CIA is working for obummer and NSA has gone rogue. I hope some real americans still work for the NSA and the CIA and rescue this country from 4 more progressive socialist marxist cultural degredation years that are a certainty under hillary the shape shifting candidate that would sell out america for a case of beer and another 250 million dollars.

    Or

    the mofos may actually be crazy as batshit and want to turn us all to ashes and glass.

    hongdo Fed Supporter Oct 15, 2016 10:14 AM

    All these senior government twerps are either life-long political suck-ups or ivory-tower dwelling posers. They have lived their whole lives in a virtual world of talking with absolutely no consequences to them or responsibility for their actions.

    They are confident that they can talk/lie/cheat or bluff their way out of any situation they get into - or force it off to someone else like the military and then blame them for the fallout.

    Their objective is to appear important, further their career, and gain power to look more important. They are supported by junior suck-ups that are kept in terror over losing their cushy jobs in government or contracting who are paid over twice what anyone else would pay their sorry ass and justify their sellout by complaining how they have to "pay the mortgage". They have never been slapped side the head like they deserve. Absolute foolish arrogance.

    munched55 Occident Mortal Oct 15, 2016 10:05 AM

    They want to distract from Hillary's WikiLeak fiasco.

    [Oct 15, 2016] Individual working lives cannot be dislocated without damaging families, elective affiliations and communities – the entire moss of human relations which can only grow over the stones of economic stability

    Notable quotes:
    "... I was never outraged by the Kennedy clan. I simply felt that despite being rich etc., their Catholicism and their willingness to do something other than turn a blind Democrat eye to the civil rights movement earned them, as a family, a certain amount of good will. ..."
    "... That reservoir started to run very dry right around the US decided that invading Iraq was a good idea and pretty much disappeared by 2008, when it became clear that the Democrats figured the Cheney security state worked pretty well for their needs, too. Learning that Bill Clinton had effectively guaranteed a massive rape of consumer borrowers didn't help. ..."
    "... Between Democratic administration wars, pork, and collusion to disenfranchise anyone not on board for donor class needs made me utterly indifferent to political branding. I don't think Trump has a clear clue of what he'll do should he be elected. I find that far more comforting than the prospect of HRC and her cabal and their plans for the rest of us. ..."
    "... Many here seem quite comfortable with the 'no more press conferences' gas-lighted as the new normal. ..."
    "... BW: "gas-lighting the new normal is the new normal" Here's the latest short three act play if anyone missed it from the end of the last thread. ..."
    "... I mean this was pretty obvious even looking at the occupational make up of the Trump fans from the start (middle, lower middle class business owners, self employed etc) It was obvious looking at what Trump supporters were saying on questions about social mobility, hope for the future, whether they saw their economic and social position as declining etc. ..."
    "... I mean, Edward Luttwak mentioned it two decades ago: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v16/n07/edward-luttwak/why-fascism-is-the-wave-of-the-future ..."
    "... The 50-55 year old male, white, college-educated former exemplar of the American Dream, still perhaps living in his lavishly-equipped suburban house, with two or three cars in the driveway, one or two children in $20,000 per annum higher education (tuition, board and lodging – all extras are extra) and an ex-job 're-engineered' out of existence, who now exists on savings, second and third mortgages and scant earnings as a self-described 'consultant', has become a familiar figure in the contemporary United States. ..."
    "... Needless to say, individual working lives cannot be dislocated without damaging families, elective affiliations and communities – the entire moss of human relations which can only grow over the stones of economic stability. Finally, it is entirely certain that what has already happened in the United States is happening or will happen in every other advanced economy, because all of them are exposed to the same [neoliberal] forces. ..."
    "... In this situation, what does the moderate Right – mainstream US Republicans, British Tories and all their counterparts elsewhere – have to offer? Only more free trade and globalisation, more deregulation and structural change, thus more dislocation of lives and social relations. It is only mildly amusing that nowadays the standard Republican/Tory after-dinner speech is a two-part affair, in which part one celebrates the virtues of unimpeded competition and dynamic structural change, while part two mourns the decline of the family and community 'values' that were eroded precisely by the forces commended in part one. Thus at the present time the core of Republican/Tory beliefs is a perfect non-sequitur. ..."
    "... the completely unprecedented personal economic insecurity of working people, from industrial workers and white-collar clerks to medium-high managers. None of them are poor and they therefore cannot benefit from the more generous welfare payments that the moderate Left is inclined to offer. Nor are they particularly envious of the rich, and they therefore tend to be uninterested in redistribution. Few of them are actually unemployed, and they are therefore unmoved by Republican/Tory promises of more growth and more jobs through the magic of the unfettered market: what they want is security in the jobs they already have – i.e. precisely what unfettered markets threaten. ..."
    "... And that is the space that remains wide open for a product-improved Fascist party, dedicated to the enhancement of the personal economic security of the broad masses of (mainly) white-collar working people. Such a party could even be as free of racism as Mussolini's original was until the alliance with Hitler, because its real stock in trade would be corporativist restraints on corporate Darwinism, and delaying if not blocking barriers against globalisation. It is not necessary to know how to spell Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft to recognise the Fascist predisposition engendered by today's turbocharged capitalism." ..."
    "... Reading both, you really start to get a sense of how invisible it is to what I've called the global managerial class that they are actually a class, and how professionals (a lower but affiliated rung) can keep demanding things in their class interest while justifying them as in everyone's interest. ..."
    "... Economic security is no longer a benefit that international corporations are willing to concede to workers because the new transnational mobility of technologies and investment has eliminated the need to negotiate job protection or to depend on site-specific workforces. International capital now aspires to the conditions of an ideal global market for the purchase of labour – unlimited access to the world's population as a vast pool of temporary employees to hire and dismiss at will. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism has mobilized a fun-house mirror version of fascism: what Sheldon Wolin called inverted totalitarianism. Soru @ 126 provided a link to Adam Curtis explaining how the propaganda of this neoliberal inverse of totalitarianism works, not to mobilize the masses, but to demobilize us all thru confusion, demoralization and atomization. ..."
    "... The date of the Luttwak piece and McMurty's letter - 1994 - is significant I think. We've been at this since at least 1980 and had every opportunity to be fully cognizant for more than 20 years. And, yet, we have Vox decontextualizing all, to create the new normal. ..."
    "... BW: "Soru @ 126 ( provided a link to Adam Curtis explaining how the propaganda of this neoliberal inverse of totalitarianism works, not to mobilize the masses, but to demobilize us all thru confusion, demoralization and atomization." ..."
    Oct 14, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    kidneystones 10.14.16 at 10:44 am, 144
    @142 "Post-truth politics is boring."

    I don't know about that – the post-truth part certainly is.

    @143 Actually, I was never outraged by the Kennedy clan. I simply felt that despite being rich etc., their Catholicism and their willingness to do something other than turn a blind Democrat eye to the civil rights movement earned them, as a family, a certain amount of good will.

    That reservoir started to run very dry right around the US decided that invading Iraq was a good idea and pretty much disappeared by 2008, when it became clear that the Democrats figured the Cheney security state worked pretty well for their needs, too. Learning that Bill Clinton had effectively guaranteed a massive rape of consumer borrowers didn't help.

    Non-US citizens from US friendly nations such as Canada have a natural affinity with political parties that support education, minority rights, etc. Minorities in the US want charter schools, however, but because the Democrats need the teachers' unions, minorities are just going to have to 'accept' the current political realities.

    Between Democratic administration wars, pork, and collusion to disenfranchise anyone not on board for donor class needs made me utterly indifferent to political branding. I don't think Trump has a clear clue of what he'll do should he be elected. I find that far more comforting than the prospect of HRC and her cabal and their plans for the rest of us.

    Many here seem quite comfortable with the 'no more press conferences' gas-lighted as the new normal.

    Once a year, or maybe less is plenty. Nobody expects a word of truth from any of them.

    bruce wilder 10.14.16 at 3:44 pm 145
    when it comes to end-of-the-Republic stuff, it's worse when your own intelligence guys are trying to manipulate the election than when their intelligence guys are.

    gas-lighting the new normal is the new normal

    as a rhetorical gambit, normalizing is more important and has more lasting effects I suspect than charging unreasoning dictator love or America hate. The context-free hyperbole is just the artillery bombardment before invasion and occupation; the critically important part is normalizing and making boring

    Rich Puchalsky 10.14.16 at 3:54 pm 146
    BW: "gas-lighting the new normal is the new normal" Here's the latest short three act play if anyone missed it from the end of the last thread.
    Ronan(rf) 10.14.16 at 4:11 pm 150
    I mean this was pretty obvious even looking at the occupational make up of the Trump fans from the start (middle, lower middle class business owners, self employed etc) It was obvious looking at what Trump supporters were saying on questions about social mobility, hope for the future, whether they saw their economic and social position as declining etc.

    All of this evidence and logic, though, was discarded for the nonsensical, 'they arent literally searching through bins for their next meal, so cumon'

    I mean, Edward Luttwak mentioned it two decades ago: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v16/n07/edward-luttwak/why-fascism-is-the-wave-of-the-future

    Ronan(rf) 10.14.16 at 4:23 pm 153
    ie here's Zack Beauchamp speaking about his much quoted essay

    https://twitter.com/zackbeauchamp/status/778670747577413634

    Zack has the truth, don't you know, Because there's no uncertainty in provisional pol sci research, and Zack (unlike his critics) has no biases, and is certainly not finding evidence to fit his story.

    Ronan(rf) 10.14.16 at 4:31 pm 154
    Last thing I'll say, in case people don't want to read the Luttwak link, I'll highlight his prescience

    "Even bigger news is the dislocation of managerial lives. That is the latest trend in the always progressive United States – and it is most definitely a structural trend, rather than merely cyclical.

    Now that the dull-safe 'satisficing' corporation (moderate dividends, moderate salaries, steady, slow growth) is almost extinct, top managers as a class earn very much more than before, rank-and-file managers who can keep their jobs earn rather less, and it is very difficult for those managers who are forced out to find any comparable jobs elsewhere. Few are destined to grace the pages of business journals as entrepreneurial wonders, not born but made by unemployment. Some adjust undramatically if painfully, by accepting whatever middle-class jobs they can get, normally with reduced pay.

    Others are much worse off. The 50-55 year old male, white, college-educated former exemplar of the American Dream, still perhaps living in his lavishly-equipped suburban house, with two or three cars in the driveway, one or two children in $20,000 per annum higher education (tuition, board and lodging – all extras are extra) and an ex-job 're-engineered' out of existence, who now exists on savings, second and third mortgages and scant earnings as a self-described 'consultant', has become a familiar figure in the contemporary United States.

    They still send out résumés by the dozen. They still 'network' (i.e. beg for jobs from whomever they know). They still put on their business suits to commute to 'business' lunches with the genuine article or to visit employment agencies, but at a time when more than 10 per cent of the Harvard graduates of the class of 1958 are unemployed, lesser souls in the same position have little to hope for.

    Just in case the sentimental anecdotage is unpersuasive, or seems absurdly disproportionate as compared to the plight of, say, indebted Indian peasants, there are now statistics that quantify the downward slide of the entire population from which the class of middle managers is drawn. The median earnings of all males in the 45-54 age bracket with four years of higher education – some two million Americans, all but 150,000 of them white – actually peaked in 1972 at some $55,000 in 1992 dollars; they stagnated through three downward economic cycles until 1989, before sharply declining to $41,898 by 1992. From other evidence we know that those numbers average out two phenomena that are equally unprecedented in the American experience: in that same population, the combined total income of the top 1 per cent of all earners increased sensationally, and the combined total of the bottom 80 per cent declined sharply.

    Again, that implies in one way or another a more-than-proportionate quantum of dislocation. Needless to say, individual working lives cannot be dislocated without damaging families, elective affiliations and communities – the entire moss of human relations which can only grow over the stones of economic stability. Finally, it is entirely certain that what has already happened in the United States is happening or will happen in every other advanced economy, because all of them are exposed to the same [neoliberal] forces.

    In this situation, what does the moderate Right – mainstream US Republicans, British Tories and all their counterparts elsewhere – have to offer? Only more free trade and globalisation, more deregulation and structural change, thus more dislocation of lives and social relations. It is only mildly amusing that nowadays the standard Republican/Tory after-dinner speech is a two-part affair, in which part one celebrates the virtues of unimpeded competition and dynamic structural change, while part two mourns the decline of the family and community 'values' that were eroded precisely by the forces commended in part one. Thus at the present time the core of Republican/Tory beliefs is a perfect non-sequitur.

    And what does the moderate Left have to offer? Only more redistribution, more public assistance, and particularist concern for particular groups that can claim victim status, from the sublime peak of elderly, handicapped, black lesbians down to the merely poor.

    Thus neither the moderate Right nor the moderate Left even recognises, let alone offers any solution for, the central problem of our days: the completely unprecedented personal economic insecurity of working people, from industrial workers and white-collar clerks to medium-high managers. None of them are poor and they therefore cannot benefit from the more generous welfare payments that the moderate Left is inclined to offer. Nor are they particularly envious of the rich, and they therefore tend to be uninterested in redistribution. Few of them are actually unemployed, and they are therefore unmoved by Republican/Tory promises of more growth and more jobs through the magic of the unfettered market: what they want is security in the jobs they already have – i.e. precisely what unfettered markets threaten.

    A vast political space is thus left vacant by the Republican/Tory non-sequitur, on the one hand, and moderate Left particularism and assistentialism, on the other. That was the space briefly occupied in the USA by the 1992 election-year caprices of Ross Perot, and which Zhirinovsky's bizarre excesses are now occupying in the peculiar conditions of Russia, where personal economic insecurity is the only problem that counts for most people (former professors of Marxism-Leninism residing in Latvia who have simultaneously lost their jobs, professions and nationalities may he rare, but most Russians still working now face at least the imminent loss of their jobs).

    And that is the space that remains wide open for a product-improved Fascist party, dedicated to the enhancement of the personal economic security of the broad masses of (mainly) white-collar working people. Such a party could even be as free of racism as Mussolini's original was until the alliance with Hitler, because its real stock in trade would be corporativist restraints on corporate Darwinism, and delaying if not blocking barriers against globalisation. It is not necessary to know how to spell Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft to recognise the Fascist predisposition engendered by today's turbocharged capitalism."

    Rich Puchalsky , 10.14.16 at 4:55 pm 155
    Ronan(rf): "This has added some much needed complexity to the VOX narrative [link to article about _Twilight of the Elites_]"

    _Listen, Liberal_ is like Chapter 2, or some kind of companion volume, to _Twilight of the Elites_ .

    Reading both, you really start to get a sense of how invisible it is to what I've called the global managerial class that they are actually a class, and how professionals (a lower but affiliated rung) can keep demanding things in their class interest while justifying them as in everyone's interest.

    As for the people who write that CT threads around the election have become a complete waste of time (LFC being one): it's a highly contested election. That is what happens to public discussion around a highly contested election. If you don't think it's valuable, please just don't participate in it: don't keep commenting that it's a waste of time to people who are actually interested in it.

    bruce wilder, 10.14.16 at 4:59 pm 156
    Luttwak's prescience was answered, I see at the link (LRB, Letters May 26 1994) by John McMurtry:
    There is, however, an alternative conclusion more consistent with the geo-economic pattern of facts Luttwak exposes. Economic security is no longer a benefit that international corporations are willing to concede to workers because the new transnational mobility of technologies and investment has eliminated the need to negotiate job protection or to depend on site-specific workforces. International capital now aspires to the conditions of an ideal global market for the purchase of labour – unlimited access to the world's population as a vast pool of temporary employees to hire and dismiss at will.

    If we keep in mind that Fascism must rely on the co-operation or support of big business to achieve state power, we have to ask why the rootless, globe-roaming international capital of today would ever support any party which promised 'full secure employment' to workers.

    Any such programme would undo capital's new global leverage over workers' livelihoods, wage-levels and employment conditions – all of which are already being rapidly and successfully brought by relentless international competition for jobs to an ever lower common denominator. International capital can already discipline a country's workforce overnight by moving around the world at the speed of an electronic signal to another society where its cutback wages and insecure jobs will be welcomed.

    And it can do it cost-free, selling the products it makes back to the very communities it has disemployed under the protection of international trade regimes which rule out any control over its actions by elected governments. Why would corporate capital ever permit the 'full secure employment' policies of the old Fascism in exchange for gaining popular support? This would undermine its greater new power, which is to be free of the needs or demands of any working class anywhere.

    Neoliberalism has mobilized a fun-house mirror version of fascism: what Sheldon Wolin called inverted totalitarianism. Soru @ 126 provided a link to Adam Curtis explaining how the propaganda of this neoliberal inverse of totalitarianism works, not to mobilize the masses, but to demobilize us all thru confusion, demoralization and atomization.

    The date of the Luttwak piece and McMurty's letter - 1994 - is significant I think. We've been at this since at least 1980 and had every opportunity to be fully cognizant for more than 20 years. And, yet, we have Vox decontextualizing all, to create the new normal.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.14.16 at 5:15 pm 158
    BW: "Soru @ 126 ( provided a link to Adam Curtis explaining how the propaganda of this neoliberal inverse of totalitarianism works, not to mobilize the masses, but to demobilize us all thru confusion, demoralization and atomization."

    And, when need be, to blame us for recognizing this condition. Look at all of the verbiage on the last thread about defeatism, nihilism, lack of a plan to fix everything and so on.

    One proud defender of [New] UK Labour called it a therapy session or some such. I am confused about how "We should stop killing people: I think that is very important" turned into "nihilism", but then I guess that acknowledging this confusion is for sissies.

    [Oct 15, 2016] Whats Behind a Rise in Ethnic Nationalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... 'End of Growth' Sparks Wide Discontent By Alastair Crooke (October 14, 2016, consortiumnews): The global elites' false promise that neoliberal economics would cure all ills through the elixir of endless growth helps explain the angry nationalist movements ripping apart the West's politics. ..."
    "... Yes, that would seem transparently obvious to anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in defending the neoliberal programme. ..."
    "... The last thing that powerful elites and their court economists want to talk about is the relationship between an increasingly unequal distribution of income and wealth and the rise of ethnic nationalism...it might force the elites to do something about it. One would think that that would entail redistribution. Unfortunately, increasing militarization of the police seems to be a far cheaper solution...for the short term. ..."
    "... The elites used religious, tribal and ethnic, conflict to keep a lid on the rabble for thousands of years. They are supremely comfortable with this, it's part of the toolbox. ..."
    "... However I think they are overly complacent because it appears to me that in an industrial society such conflicts now involve a lot more than a few hundred peasants going after each other with random farm implements. ..."
    "... The media is shocked -- just shocked -- that a foreign government would tamper with US elections...such behavior is supposed to be off limits to anyone but the CIA and National Endowment for Democracy or their deputies... ..."
    "... I'm not sure that Putin has a preference. It may be enough for him to show that Russia can play the destabilization card as well as NED. Displaying the profound corruption of the US political system also serves to undermine the US abroad, since much of its standing is based on the myth of its taking the moral high ground. International elites will have a harder time garnering support for pro-US policies, if those policies are seen as morally bankrupt. ..."
    "... Establishment economists are making excuses for slow growth and poor policy by pointing at things like demographics and technology. Excuse-making isn't going to stem the rising tide of ethnic nationalism. Thomas Friedman's Flat World is turning into Tribalistic World. ..."
    "... Many of the "Rich" love to push the dialectics of "ethnic nationalism" where none is to be found in reality ..."
    "... the pointless destruction of the manufacturing sector of Western economies because of their decision to have private banking systems and eschew tariffs - no surprises here folks ..."
    "... Of course economy plus consequences of the state of the economy, i.e. many people being treated like shit, without recourse, except turning away from mainstream politics (which isn't much of a recourse usually). ..."
    "... external factors are much more significant in determining success or lack of it than any personal virtues or failings the individual may have. It is not even luck. ..."
    "... People do not blame the actual causes of their lack of success. Instead, they seek and find scapegoats. Most Trumpista have heard all their lives from people they respect that black and latino people unfairly get special treatment. That overrides the reality. ..."
    "... The comment started with: "When things aren't going as you expect or want, people always have to find someone to blame... since the ego works to prevent you blaming yourself." ..."
    Oct 15, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Robert Shiller:
    What's Behind a Rise in Ethnic Nationalism? Maybe the Economy : Global economic weakness and a rise in inequality appear to be causing a disturbing growth in ethnic nationalism. ...

    In the United States, despite his attempts to woo minority voters, Donald J. Trump appears to derive support from such sentiment. In Moscow, Vladimir V. Putin has used Russian nationalist sentiment to inspire many of his countrymen. And we see growing ethnic political parties inspired by national identity in countless other countries.

    It is natural to ask whether something so broad might have a common cause, other than the obvious circumstantial causes like the gradual fading of memories about the horrors of ethnic conflict in World War II or the rise in this century of forms of violent ethnic terrorism.

    Economics is my specialty, and I think economic factors may explain at least part of the trend. ...

    anne : Friday, October 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM

    'End of Growth' Sparks Wide Discontent By Alastair Crooke (October 14, 2016, consortiumnews): The global elites' false promise that neoliberal economics would cure all ills through the elixir of endless growth helps explain the angry nationalist movements ripping apart the West's politics.

    drb48 -> anne... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:06 PM
    Yes, that would seem transparently obvious to anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in defending the neoliberal programme.
    JohnH -> anne... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:37 PM
    The last thing that powerful elites and their court economists want to talk about is the relationship between an increasingly unequal distribution of income and wealth and the rise of ethnic nationalism...it might force the elites to do something about it. One would think that that would entail redistribution. Unfortunately, increasing militarization of the police seems to be a far cheaper solution...for the short term.
    Gibbon1 -> JohnH... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 11:32 PM
    The elites used religious, tribal and ethnic, conflict to keep a lid on the rabble for thousands of years. They are supremely comfortable with this, it's part of the toolbox.

    However I think they are overly complacent because it appears to me that in an industrial society such conflicts now involve a lot more than a few hundred peasants going after each other with random farm implements.

    pgl : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 11:45 AM
    Trump is now saying Mexican Carlos Slim wants to control our election. No worries Donald - Putin the Russian is trying really hard for you.
    JohnH -> pgl... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 02:02 PM
    Putin is just returning the favor...

    The media is shocked -- just shocked -- that a foreign government would tamper with US elections...such behavior is supposed to be off limits to anyone but the CIA and National Endowment for Democracy or their deputies...

    pgl -> JohnH... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 03:31 PM
    Thank so much for the Pravda insights.
    likbez -> pgl... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 07:43 PM
    Paradoxically Pravda in old times did have real insights into the US political system and for this reason was widely read by specialists. Especially materials published by the Institute of the USA and Canada -- a powerful Russian think tank somewhat similar to the Council on Foreign Relations.

    As for your remark I think for many people in the USA Russophobia is just displaced Anti-Semitism.

    JohnH remark is actually very apt and you should not "misunderestimate" the level of understanding of the US political system by Russians. They did learn a lot about machinations of the neoliberal foreign policy, especially about so called "color revolutions." Hillary&Obama has had a bloody nose when they tried to stage a "color revolution" in 2011-2012 in Russia (so called "white revolution). A typical US citizen probably never heard about it or heard only about "Pussy riot", Navalny and couple of other minor figures. At the end poor ambassador Michael McFaul was recalled. NED was expelled. Of course Russia is just a pale shadow of the USSR power-wise, so Obama later put her on sanctions using MH17 incident as a pretext with no chances of retaliation. They also successfully implemented regime change in Ukraine -- blooding Putin nose in return.

    But I actually disagree with JohnH. First of all Putin does not need to interfere in a way like the USA did in 2011-2012. It would be a waist of resources as both candidates are probably equally bad for Russia (and it is the "deep state" which actually dictates the US foreign policy, not POTUS.)

    The US political system is already the can of worms and the deterioration of neoliberal society this time created almost revolutionary situation in Marxists terms, when Repug elite was not able to control the nomination. Democratic establishment still did OK and managed to squash the rebellion, but here the level of degeneration demonstrated itself in the selection of the candidate.

    Taking into account the level of dysfunction of the US political system, I am not so sure the Trump is preferable to Hillary for Russians. I would say he is more unpredictable and more dangerous. The main danger of Hillary is Syria war escalation, but the same is true for Trump who can turn into the second John McCain on a dime.

    Also the difference between two should not be exaggerated. Both are puppets of the forces the brought them to the current level and in their POTUS role will need to be subservient to the "deep state". Or at least to take into account its existence and power. And that makes them more of prisoners of the position they want so much.

    Trump probably to lesser extent then Hillary, but he also can't ignore the deep state. Both require the support of Republican Congress for major legislative initiatives. And it will very hostile to Hillary. Which is a major advantage for Russians, as this excludes the possibility of some very stupid moves.

    Again, IMHO in no way any of them will control the US foreign policy. In this area the deep state is in charge since Allen Dulles and those who try to deviate too much might end as badly as JFK. I think Obama understood this very well and did not try to rock the boat. And there are people who will promptly explain this to Trump in a way that he understands.

    In other words, neither of them will escape the limit on their power that "deep state" enforces. And that virtually guarantee the continuity of the foreign policy, with just slight tactical variations.

    So why Russians should prefer one to another? You can elect a dog as POTUS and the foreign policy of the USA will be virtually the same as with Hillary or Trump.

    In internal policy Trump looks more dangerous and more willing to experiment, while Hillary is definitely a "status quo" candidate. The last thing Russians needs is the US stock market crush. So from the point of internal economic policy Hillary is also preferable.

    A lot of pundits stress the danger of war with Russia, and that might be true as women in high political position try to outdo men in hawkishness. But here Hillary jingoism probably will be tightly controlled by the "deep state". Hillary definitely tried to be "More Catholic then the Pope" in this area while being the Secretary of State. That did not end well for her and she might learn the lesson.

    But if you think about the amount of "compromat" (Russian term ;-) on Hillary and Bill that Russians may well already collected, in "normal circumstances" she might be a preferable counterpart for Russians. As in "devil that we know". Both Lavrov and Putin met Hillary. Medvedev was burned by Hillary. Taking into account the level of greed Hillary displayed during her career, I would be worried what Russians have on her, as well as on Bill "transgressions" and RICO-style actions of Clinton Foundation.

    And taking into account the level of disgust amount the government officials with Hillary (and this is not limited to Secret Service) , new leaks are quite possible, which might further complicate her position as POTUS. In worst case, the first year (or two) leaks will continue. Especially if damaging DNC leaks were the work of some disgruntled person within the USA intelligence and not of some foreign hacker group. That might be a plus for Russians as such a constant distraction might limit her possibility to make some stupid move in Syria. Or not.

    As you know personal emails boxes for all major Web mail providers are just one click away for NSA analysts. So "Snowden II" hypothesis might have the right to exist.

    Also it is quite probably that impeachment process for Hillary will start soon after her election. In the House Republicans have enough votes to try it. That also might be a plus for s for both Russia and China. Trump is extremely jingoistic as for Iran, and that might be another area were Hillary is preferable to Russians and Chinese over Trump.

    Also do not discount her health problems. She does have some serious neurological disease, which eventually might kill her. How fast she will deteriorate is not known but in a year or two the current symptoms might become more pronounced. If Bill have STD (and sometime he looks like a person with HIV; http://joeforamerica.com/2016/07/bill-clinton-aids/) that further complicates that picture (this is just a rumor, but he really looks bad).

    I think that all those factors make her an equal, or even preferable candidate for such states as Russia and China.

    JohnH -> likbez... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 09:46 PM
    I'm not sure that Putin has a preference. It may be enough for him to show that Russia can play the destabilization card as well as NED. Displaying the profound corruption of the US political system also serves to undermine the US abroad, since much of its standing is based on the myth of its taking the moral high ground. International elites will have a harder time garnering support for pro-US policies, if those policies are seen as morally bankrupt.

    Procopius -> likbez... October 16, 2016 at 05:01 AM

    Your analysis does give me some comfort. My greatest fear is that the Deep State seems to currently be in disarray. Their actions in Syria are divided, contradictory, foolish, counterproductive, and without direction.

    Obama has mostly obviously obeyed the Deep State but has seemed to sometimes "nudge" them in a direction that seems to me better for the country. The deal with Iran is an exception. It's significant, but it is both sensible and pragmatic. It's hard to believe anything as important as that was not sanctioned by the Deep State, in defiance of Israel, and yet it is quite uncharacteristic of the Deep State's behavior over the last fifteen years.

    DrDick : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:05 PM
    The existing research literature on ethnonationalism would generally support this, though rising inequality around the world is at least as important.
    likbez -> to anne...
    Anne,

    You probably can start with

    https://www.amazon.com/Ethnonationalism-Walker-Connor/dp/0691025630

    There are useful pages on the Web related to particular flavors, for example Ukrainian nationalism.

    The term "American exceptionalism" is a politically correct term for American nationalism so any literature on that will give you overview too.

    anne -> likbez...

    https://www.amazon.com/Ethnonationalism-Walker-Connor/dp/0691025630

    1993

    Ethnonationalism
    By Walker Connor

    Walker Connor, perhaps the leading student of the origins and dynamics of ethnonationalism, has consistently stressed the importance of its political implications. In these essays, which have appeared over the course of the last three decades, he argues that Western scholars and policymakers have almost invariably underrated the influence of ethnonationalism and misinterpreted its passionate and nonrational qualities....

    [ I do appreciate the reference, which strikes me as fine since I would like to read older essays or essays extending over a few decades for perspective on the matter. I will begin here. ]

    JohnH -> anne... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:43 PM
    I think that the rise of Nazi Germany would be ample proof of the power of ethnic nationalism during an economic crisis. Now we get Trump...
    Peter K. : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 01:05 PM
    Brexit. Theresa May's recent speeches at the Conservative conference was very nationalistic and Little Englander. See Benjamin Friedman's book The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth.

    Establishment economists are making excuses for slow growth and poor policy by pointing at things like demographics and technology. Excuse-making isn't going to stem the rising tide of ethnic nationalism. Thomas Friedman's Flat World is turning into Tribalistic World.

    kthomas -> Peter K.... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 01:32 PM
    Your usual theatrics, but I largely agree with you lattermost statement. Things are always best when we share. Tribesman can be especially selfish, even amongst themselves.
    Ben Groves : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 01:50 PM
    Frankly, I am not seeing it. Many of the "Rich" love to push the dialectics of "ethnic nationalism" where none is to be found in reality or manipulated like half-jew Donald Trump, who is being run by the rothschild flank in Russia due to his disaster when he went with fellow jews during the post-Soviet Oligarch scam. Much like all his businesses, it flopped. He owes the bank of russia(owned by rothschild) 100's of millions of dollars. They own him.

    The point? The "monied elite" tell you what they want you to believe. The dialectical illusion and collision of the duelism is how they stay in power. I feel bad for Trump supporters, most are old and not very smart. But I also feel bad for Trump opposition who refuse to bring this up, mainly because they are financed by the same crowd(aka the Clinton have worked with Rothschild as well, they come from the same cloth).

    Growth adjusted for population was not overly impressive in the 70's or 90's. Yet...............

    likbez : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 02:47 PM
    Neoliberalism creates an impulse for nationalism in several ways:

    1. It destroys human solidarity. And resorting to nationalism in a compensational mechanism to restore it in human societies. that's why the elite often resorts to foreign wars if it feels that it losing the control over peons.

    2. Neoliberalism impoverishes the majority of population enriching top 1% and provokes the search for scapegoats. Which in the past traditionally were Jews. Now look like MSM are trying to substitute them for Russians

    3. Usually the rise of nationalism is correlated with the crisis in the society. There is a crisis of neoliberalsm that we experience in the USA now: after 2008 neoliberalism entered zombie state, when the ideology is discredited, but forces behind it are way too strong for any social change to be implemented. Much like was the case during "Brezhnev socialism" in the USSR.

    So those who claim that we are experiencing replay of late 1920th on a new level might be partially right. With the important difference that it does not make sense to establish fascist dictatorship in the USA. Combination of "Inverted totalitarism" and "national security state" already achieved the same major objectives with much less blood and violence.

    spirit of forgotten American protectionism : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 09:46 PM
    the pointless destruction of the manufacturing sector of Western economies because of their decision to have private banking systems and eschew tariffs - no surprises here folks
    cm -> cm... , -1
    Of course economy plus consequences of the state of the economy, i.e. many people being treated like shit, without recourse, except turning away from mainstream politics (which isn't much of a recourse usually).

    cm -> Longtooth... October 15, 2016 at 02:19 PM

    This analysis totally misses the point that often external factors are much more significant in determining success or lack of it than any personal virtues or failings the individual may have. It is not even luck.

    Procopius -> cm... October 16, 2016 at 05:22 AM

    I think you miss Longtooth's point. You are, of course, right that personal virtues or failings usually have no effect on success or lack of it, but if I understand Longtooth correctly, he is saying that's irrelevant. People do not blame the actual causes of their lack of success. Instead, they seek and find scapegoats. Most Trumpista have heard all their lives from people they respect that black and latino people unfairly get special treatment. That overrides the reality.

    cm -> Procopius...

    The comment started with: "When things aren't going as you expect or want, people always have to find someone to blame... since the ego works to prevent you blaming yourself."

    [Oct 15, 2016] The US plays chicken with the Russians in Syria with the proposal of no fly zones using anti-russian hysteria as tool to attack votes to Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... Is the solution supposed to be that HRC's foreign policy team will be much better than Obama's? ..."
    "... The US will unilaterally determine to seize sovereignty of Syrian airspace, intervene in a civil war on the side of the rebels, and shoot down Syrian government and Russian planes. ..."
    "... Shooting down Russian planes is the plan. ..."
    "... If anyone has any doubt how little Hillary and company have learned from invading Iraq, violent regime change in Iraq, and removing inconvenient one-time friends at will, we're living through it real time all over again. ..."
    "... This is a community of adults: LFC, Lee, W Berry et al who lecture the rest of us for wankery, emotionalism etc. and who are now fully behind the candidate who is promising a 'do-over' of Iraq with the promise to this time get it right. ..."
    "... Trump, whatever his real deficiencies is openly ready to cede Syrian air-space to Assad. Most informed observers I've read argue that the civil war in Syria has been extended by years thanks to US and UK wankery. ..."
    "... At some point, the US may decide not to proceed with violent regime-change. Not yet, however, or so it seems. ..."
    "... All the responsible US diplomats and generals who brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria are lined-up to support the only candidate who is running on 4-8 years of violent regime change. ..."
    "... With regard to Aleppo, the eastern part of the city has been under the control of the rebels for some years. The majority of the population is in western Aleppo, under government control. Eastern Aleppo is now cut off, and under attack by various pro-government forces supported by the Russian air force. Rebel forces in eastern Aleppo are estimated to be around half al-Qaeda linked Islamists and half local Sunnis. They regularly bombard the western part, as the government does the rebel enclave. ..."
    "... The government has opened seven exit corridors for civilians to leave, and repeatedly offered the rebels evacuation to other areas (several similar offers have been accepted and carried through for rebel enclaves around Damascus). The latest news is that the rebels are reported to have mined the exits to prevent civilians leaving. ..."
    "... A good foreign policy maxim is to choose a side that has a reasonable chance of winning and stick with it. Anything else prolongs the suffering without changing the outcome. US policy in the Middle East, as earlier in South-East Asia, seems unable to grasp this basic. ..."
    "... Obviously you must want to turn a helpless population over to the evil Assad instead of the good(?) Islamists or the nonexistent moderates. Anything that equates to letting Assad win would be the ultimate proof of a love of dictators. ..."
    "... I've often noticed that opponents of humanitarian intervention are cast as the ones peddling a simplistic, unrealistic set of fantasies - nonsense, in short. But whenever an actual case comes up, it appears that the reverse is true. The people calling for war are peddling fantastical nonsense. ..."
    Oct 15, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    Rich Puchalsky 10.15.16 at 2:29 am 181
    ...I purposefully haven't addressed anything about the recent history of American involvement in war in Syria, because that would lead to the same old accusations that this is about hating America.

    But now we're talking about the present as a guide to the future. Does anything about the known history of recent American involvement in Syria indicate that there are detailed expert analyses available that will do any good once filtered through policy? Is the solution supposed to be that HRC's foreign policy team will be much better than Obama's?

    ... ... ...

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 3:25 am 183
    What crap-for-brains doesn't seem to appreciate is that there are only two sets of pilots and planes for the US to shoot down: pilots flying under the Syrian flag and those flying under the Russian flag. There will be no 'random' misunderstandings and miscommunications for Hillary to hide behind. And that's before Russia decides to flex in the Crimea, the Ukraine, and the Baltic states.

    The US will unilaterally determine to seize sovereignty of Syrian airspace, intervene in a civil war on the side of the rebels, and shoot down Syrian government and Russian planes.

    Shooting down Russian planes is the plan.

    If anyone has any doubt how little Hillary and company have learned from invading Iraq, violent regime change in Iraq, and removing inconvenient one-time friends at will, we're living through it real time all over again.

    This time we have the CT majority in favor of Bush III and her invasions.

    ... ... ...

    kidneystones 10.15.16 at 3:57 am 184
    @180 I'm extremely grateful, btw, to see you gaming out how the US plays chicken with the Russians who 'back down' as a 'reason to vote for Hillary.'

    This is a community of adults: LFC, Lee, W Berry et al who lecture the rest of us for wankery, emotionalism etc. and who are now fully behind the candidate who is promising a 'do-over' of Iraq with the promise to this time get it right.

    Trump, whatever his real deficiencies is openly ready to cede Syrian air-space to Assad. Most informed observers I've read argue that the civil war in Syria has been extended by years thanks to US and UK wankery.

    At some point, the US may decide not to proceed with violent regime-change. Not yet, however, or so it seems.

    All the responsible US diplomats and generals who brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria are lined-up to support the only candidate who is running on 4-8 years of violent regime change.

    You're voting in favor of invading Iraq all over again. Thanks!!!

    Peter T 10.15.16 at 4:10 am 185
    The Syrian/Iraqi wars are …complicated. But they are both – from the viewpoint of the major combatants – the same war, a contest between the two current major streams of political thought in the Islamic Middle East. Iraqi and Lebanese Shi'a militias are active in support of the regime in Damascus, as are Sunni Palestinian ones and the Druze. Christian and Yezidi groups and Kurdish nationalists have lined up behind both Baghdad and Damascus. One the other side is a loose grouping of Salafi Islamists – ISIS, an-Nusra, the many groups under the FSA umbrella. There are, of course, a few politiques in the middle, too small to count in the fighting, but much courted by the press, and always trotted out as the "moderate opposition". Any intervention that tries to slice across the broad lines of division soon gets hopelessly tangled diplomatically and militarily. As the US has found out.

    With regard to Aleppo, the eastern part of the city has been under the control of the rebels for some years. The majority of the population is in western Aleppo, under government control. Eastern Aleppo is now cut off, and under attack by various pro-government forces supported by the Russian air force. Rebel forces in eastern Aleppo are estimated to be around half al-Qaeda linked Islamists and half local Sunnis. They regularly bombard the western part, as the government does the rebel enclave.

    The government has opened seven exit corridors for civilians to leave, and repeatedly offered the rebels evacuation to other areas (several similar offers have been accepted and carried through for rebel enclaves around Damascus). The latest news is that the rebels are reported to have mined the exits to prevent civilians leaving.

    A good foreign policy maxim is to choose a side that has a reasonable chance of winning and stick with it. Anything else prolongs the suffering without changing the outcome. US policy in the Middle East, as earlier in South-East Asia, seems unable to grasp this basic.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.15.16 at 4:40 am 186
    Peter T: "A good foreign policy maxim is to choose a side that has a reasonable chance of winning and stick with it. Anything else prolongs the suffering without changing the outcome. US policy in the Middle East, as earlier in South-East Asia, seems unable to grasp this basic."

    Obviously you must want to turn a helpless population over to the evil Assad instead of the good(?) Islamists or the nonexistent moderates. Anything that equates to letting Assad win would be the ultimate proof of a love of dictators.

    I've often noticed that opponents of humanitarian intervention are cast as the ones peddling a simplistic, unrealistic set of fantasies - nonsense, in short. But whenever an actual case comes up, it appears that the reverse is true. The people calling for war are peddling fantastical nonsense.

    [Oct 15, 2016] Support for Trump is concentrated in the middle-income categories

    Oct 15, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Ronan(rf) 10.14.16 at 4:02 pm 148

    This has added some much needed complexity to the VOX narrative

    http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/13/13259860/twilight-elites-trump-meritocracy

    this part seems to support those of us who have been saying that those adopting a blinkered class/income based argument to 'disprove' the economic insecurity arguments are not even trying to get at the truth(imo, theyre purposely working backwards from their conclusions towards a conventional answer)

    "Hayes argues that the angriest voters are not going to be the people at the bottom, but the people in the middle, who used to expect that they and their kids could do well through enterprise and don't believe that anymore. Experts have disagreed over whether Trump supporters are richer or poorer than the average. Yet emerging evidence is beginning to portray a more nuanced portrait of Trump's supporters than those earlier takes.

    Jonathan Rothwell, a senior economist at Gallup, has used survey data on nearly 113,000 Americans to ask what really drives Trump support. He finds that support for the mogul turned politician is concentrated in the middle-income categories; in contrast, those who are relatively rich and those who are relatively poor are less likely to support him. Furthermore, economic insecurity is a huge factor – those who worry about their economic future are much more likely to vote for Trump. Rothwell builds on work by Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren at Harvard to find that people in living in areas with weak mobility for kids from middle-class families are more likely to vote for Trump.

    These findings are only the start of what is likely to be a long debate. Nonetheless, they support Hayes's argument. People seem to be more likely to support an anti-system candidate like Donald Trump when they have a middling income, when they feel economically insecure, and when they live in places where middle-class kids have worse prospects for getting ahead."

    Ronan(rf) 10.14.16 at 4:04 pm

    towards a *convenient* answer (ie an answer they want to be true, as it supports their worldview ).

    [Oct 15, 2016] What's Behind a Rise in Ethnic Nationalism? Maybe the Economy by ROBERT J. SHILLER

    Robert Shiller is a talented guy who is pretty sleazy. Note that he never mentions neoliberalism as the real reason we got into the current situation.
    "Substantial fiscal stimulus might be helpful, but it has been blocked." Blocked by whom? Elves and fairies? Klingons?
    Instead he tried deceive along the lines of behavioral economics: " If they realize that they are doing less well than their forebears, they become anxious... Ethnic nationalism creates an ego-preserving excuse for self-perceived personal failure: Other groups are blamed for bad behavior and conspiracies.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The rise in inequality in our time represents a seismic shift in economic power away from the working class. Its cause is many-faceted, including globalization, the decline of labor unions, changes in political alignments and advancing information technology that is replacing jobs. ..."
    "... A 2015 study published in The American Economic Review by Michael Kumhof of the Bank of England, Romain Rancičre of the International Monetary Fund and Pablo Winant of the Bank of England found that both the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of 2007-9 had their origins, in part, in rising inequality. ..."
    "... Both were accompanied by increases in borrowing by low- to middle-income people, who tried to maintain their standards of living. High-income people, described by the authors as desiring wealth for its own sake, did the lending. The loans attracted investors because high rates of interest compensated them for the risk of default. ..."
    Oct 14, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    Global economic weakness and a rise in inequality appear to be causing a disturbing growth in ethnic nationalism. Leaders today often do not openly declare themselves to be ethnic nationalists - in which identity is defined by perceived genetic, religious or linguistic heritage rather than democratic ideals or principles. But political appeals to such forms of identity are nevertheless widespread.

    In the United States, despite his attempts to woo minority voters, Donald J. Trump appears to derive support from such sentiment. In Moscow, Vladimir V. Putin has used Russian nationalist sentiment to inspire many of his countrymen. And we see growing ethnic political parties inspired by national identity in other countries.

    It is natural to ask whether something so broad might have a common cause, other than the obvious circumstantial causes like the gradual fading of memories about the horrors of ethnic conflict in World War II or the rise in this century of forms of violent ethnic terrorism. Economics is my specialty, and I think economic factors may explain at least part of the trend.

    Yet economic growth continues, though at a reduced pace, and not just in the United States. According to the International Monetary Fund , real world gross domestic product was 29 percent higher in 2015 than it was just before the recession, in 2007. It has just grown at a lower rate than before, 3.2 percent a year in the eight years after 2007 compared with 4.5 percent a year in the eight years ending in 2007. Perhaps that doesn't sound like a big enough difference to affect political outcomes.

    But the modest slowdown could be a big part of the explanation for the apparent rise of ethnic nationalism, if combined with another factor: rising inequality, along with considerable fear about future inequality.

    The numbers are stark. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, earnings have been basically static. In the bureau's language, "median usual weekly earnings - in constant (1982-84) dollars (employed full time)" has hardly grown in a generation. The total increase since this data series began in 1979 has been only 1.2 percent, or 0.03 percent a year. The increase has been less than 1 percent since 2007. Even such paltry economic growth is going to the very top, not to the median wage earner. That means that roughly half of full-time wage earners are doing less well in real terms than their parents were.

    Benjamin M. Friedman of Harvard University, in his book "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth" (Knopf, 2005) , said that at a deep level people make judgments about the economic progress that they see in their own lifetimes, and in comparison with the progress made by the previous generation, especially their own parents. Few people study economic growth statistics. But nearly everyone knows what they are being paid. If they realize that they are doing less well than their forebears, they become anxious. And if they can't see themselves and others in their cohort as progressing over a lifetime, their social interactions often become angry, resentful and even conspiratorial.

    Ethnic nationalism creates an ego-preserving excuse for self-perceived personal failure: Other groups are blamed for bad behavior and conspiracies. Often, ethnic, racial or religious conflict follows. Among the horrific examples are the atrocities committed in the name of nationalism during World War II - not coincidentally following the Great Depression . Mr. Friedman provides other such instances from the last two centuries in which ethnic conflict followed slow economic growth.

    He does point out many exceptions to these generalizations: Some poor and unequal societies experience very little violence. But it appears that a sense of falling behind economically among a substantial segment of a population does encourage ethnic nationalism and conflict.

    The rise in inequality in our time represents a seismic shift in economic power away from the working class. Its cause is many-faceted, including globalization, the decline of labor unions, changes in political alignments and advancing information technology that is replacing jobs.

    Even those who have not lost out yet in terms of economic power are fearful that they might. The causes of inequality, particularly advances in information technology, are not going away soon. These perceptions have damaged people's sense of economic security, even beyond what economic data reveal to be objectively true.

    A 2015 study published in The American Economic Review by Michael Kumhof of the Bank of England, Romain Rancičre of the International Monetary Fund and Pablo Winant of the Bank of England found that both the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of 2007-9 had their origins, in part, in rising inequality.

    Both were accompanied by increases in borrowing by low- to middle-income people, who tried to maintain their standards of living. High-income people, described by the authors as desiring wealth for its own sake, did the lending. The loans attracted investors because high rates of interest compensated them for the risk of default.

    This model described purely rational people, who don't really exist. It could be made more realistic with some reference to psychology: Borrowing produced a sense of personal shame. A desperate optimism arose from wishful thinking bias , distorting judgment. This led to profound social consequences and anger after the bubbles burst.

    Linking these causes to the rise of ethnic nationalism is imprecise; these factors reflect a long-term loss of confidence. Such fears are often vague and ill formed, but their effects are powerful.

    There are some remedies, even if they are not popular or easily executed.

    Hillary Clinton's proposals to raise taxes on those with the very highest incomes to fund programs for lower-income people, for example, may not generate much enthusiasm from those whose incomes have not grown as expected and who may be doing less well than their parents. That is because many people do not like the sound of a proposed handout even if it might help them; they aspire to prove their own worth by earning a good income, and yet that prospect eludes them.

    But something has to be done about the two trends of rising inequality and weak economic growth, for if they continue we may see more unhappiness, discontent and political disruption. Substantial fiscal stimulus might be helpful, but it has been blocked. Making the tax system progressive enough to break the trend toward ever greater income inequality has also been beyond our grasp, yet it may be the best option we have.

    [Oct 14, 2016] 18 US 2071: Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    hooligan2009 Oct 14, 2016 9:18 AM

    still no mention of the clincher - that proves the entire democrat party has no respect for the office of president - or any other government office for that matter..

    stay on target!!!

    (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be

    disqualified from holding any office under the United States .

    As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States."
    (Source: 18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally )

    [Oct 14, 2016] The plan amounted to a reverse Ponzi scheme where unsuspecting employers expecting to buy affordable policies instead bought costly reinsurance requiring them to cover

    Notable quotes:
    "... Breakaway, with about 300 employees, accused Berkshire and Applied of "siphoning" premiums through a web of illegal shell companies, with diverted premiums going to unlicensed out-of-state insurers, the wire agency said. ..."
    "... The plan amounted to a "reverse Ponzi scheme" where unsuspecting employers expecting to buy affordable policies instead bought costly "reinsurance" requiring them to cover each other's losses, leaving taxpayers on the hook for shortfalls when too many workers are injured on the job, Breakaway said. ..."
    Oct 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    each other's losses

    Cry Shop September 13, 2016 at 1:11 am

    Class Warfare:
    http://www.ejinsight.com/20160913-buffett-flagship-sued-over-workers-compensation-siphoning/

    Breakaway, with about 300 employees, accused Berkshire and Applied of "siphoning" premiums through a web of illegal shell companies, with diverted premiums going to unlicensed out-of-state insurers, the wire agency said.

    The plan amounted to a "reverse Ponzi scheme" where unsuspecting employers expecting to buy affordable policies instead bought costly "reinsurance" requiring them to cover each other's losses, leaving taxpayers on the hook for shortfalls when too many workers are injured on the job, Breakaway said.

    [Oct 14, 2016] American intelligence claims (without providing evidence) that Russian intelligence is behind the Clinton email hacks is nothing less that attempts of American intelligence to manipulate the election

    Notable quotes:
    "... the danger that he presents is shaking the rats from under the carpet. ..."
    "... Yet the NYT keeps reporting that American intelligence asserts (without providing evidence) that Russian intelligence is behind the Clinton email hacks, and this is nothing less that attempts of American intelligence to manipulate the election. ..."
    "... I'm afraid, when it comes to end-of-the-Republic stuff, it's worse when your own intelligence guys are trying to manipulate the election than when their intelligence guys are. ..."
    Oct 14, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    dax 10.14.16 at 7:52 am 141

    I'll begin with the necessary avowal that I think Trump is a clown, and dangerous, and I hope he goes down to a record defeat.

    But still… the danger that he presents is shaking the rats from under the carpet.

    How many times have I read that Russian intelligence is trying to manipulate the American election? And that this is a Very Bad Thing?

    Yet the NYT keeps reporting that American intelligence asserts (without providing evidence) that Russian intelligence is behind the Clinton email hacks, and this is nothing less that attempts of American intelligence to manipulate the election.

    And I'm afraid, when it comes to end-of-the-Republic stuff, it's worse when your own intelligence guys are trying to manipulate the election than when their intelligence guys are.

    [Oct 14, 2016] An unbiased media is essential to maintaining a free republic and minimizing corruption at all levels of government. The media is now just as corrupt as our government is.

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    richsob Oct 14, 2016 10:12 AM Trump's biggest opponent is his own damn ego. He needs to simply say "I'm not responding to these allegations and aspersions on my character any longer. I am only going to make this important point one time. Whoever keeps making these allegations and aspersions should stop immediately. If they don't, then they better lawyer up". And then he should shut the hell up and only talk about jobs, immigation and trade policy. Fuck his sensitive ego; it's going to cost him the election and us the nation if he doesn't wise up. He can still win this thing. And after the election he can either sue the living shit out of some people or find another way to get even with those who he wants to go after.

    Not My Real Name richsob Oct 14, 2016 11:38 AM Yes, Trump has a very big ego. But saying that his ego is a bigger detriment to his success than our corrupt media is ludicrous.

    An unbiased media is essential to maintaining a free republic and minimizing corruption at all levels of government. The media is now just as corrupt as our government is.

    [Oct 14, 2016] People tend to switch off with constant negatve messages.

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    PrivetHedge Oct 14, 2016 9:26 AM People tend to switch off with constant negatve messages.

    In a way, the obvious response to the media is 'if that's all they have on him, he's cleaner than every other politician'.

    The blanket coverage of her/she/it/that will also make many people become sick of the sight of her/she/it/that, particularly as Trump has now let the cat out of the bag regarding the rapes - all the undecided voters who watched that bit of the debate will be thinking seriously about who is the greater evil here, even if they remain ignorant of her/she/it/that's central role in smashing up Libya and Syria, and trying to goad Russia into WWIII, her dream legacy to us peasants.

    Dark star Oct 14, 2016 9:31 AM America's media have betrayed the Nation.

    The rest of the world in general, and world leaders in particular know that Clinton is a crook and a liar; nothing she says can be believed, her word is worthless, and she cannot be trusted in any respect whatever.

    A President Clinton would earn the same respect abroad as would Caligula's horse had it been sent abroad to represent the Roman Empire. The crowds would queue up to point their fingers, throw tomatoes and laugh at her.

    0hedgehog Oct 14, 2016 9:36 AM I was in the business, (TV) and witnessed right around 20 years or so ago, the entire concept of news was shifted over to entertainment, almost overnight. Investigating and reportng solid news and information, which the electorate needs in order to make sound decisions, went right out the window. I am not entertained.
    moneybots Oct 14, 2016 9:38 AM "As Strassel points out, it's almost impossible to turn on the TV without hearing about Trump's "lewd" comments while coverage of Hillary "uniformly ignores the flurry of bombshells" inherent in the various WikiLeaks, FOIA releases and FBI interviews.

    It is impossible not to see media bias. The media is a traitor to the American people.

    Yes We Can. But... rejected Oct 14, 2016 12:33 PM One could make a pretty solid case that the biggest problem - Problem #1 - this country faces at this moment is the mountain of propaganda fed the masses. In the darkness of the widespread shadow cast by Problem #1, other problems difficult to discern and come to understand much less attempt to solve.

    Barack Obama pushes Problem #1, and his notion of 'curating' the news represents a furtherance of Problem #1. Getting the gubmint involved in 'curating' the news would turn unofficial organs of the state - the MSNBCs of the world - into official organs of the state.

    Barack Obama's wet dream, and John Harwood's too.

    We Are The Priests Downtoolong Oct 14, 2016 10:20 AM It's the bedrock of their political strategy. They have no real policies to tout, certainly none that any rational, independent thinking human being would endorse, so they produce massive and relentless waves of derision aimed at their opponents to keep the focus off themselves.

    However, as we've seen this election cycle, the Internet has changed everything and the tactics of the Clinton political machine, wholly dependent on a subservient mockingbird print and television media to shape and direct national narratives, just don't work when you have a global, de-centralized iformation medium freely accessible to all.

    That said, say good-bye to the Internet as we now know it.

    NobodyNowhere Oct 14, 2016 10:00 AM The media has betrayed America in the most blatant manner conceivable. This has enormous implications for America, and millions of upright Americans have a task cut out for themselves. America is the foremost yardstick of freedom, free thought, progress and innovation that man has ever seen, a model of civilization and advancement for centuries to come. The task is much bigger than just "take our country back" - the task is to hunt and punish the entities that have struck at the very foundation of the republic so that no one tries the same as long as memory lasts.
    gmak Oct 14, 2016 10:02 AM Who owns the WSJ? That billionaire has had enough, I guess. - or he didn't get the entree he wanted at the $6million a plate pay-for-play. (hint: Rupert Murdoch. Maybe Fox News will fall in line).
    vegas Oct 14, 2016 10:13 AM Oh, this is rich; the WSJ pretending like they aren't part of the MSM, and have "all of a sudden" discovered much to there shock ... SHOCK I TELL YOU ... that news coverage is biased in favor of Cankles. Hmmm, this self reflection must have been painfull.

    www.traderzoogold.blogspot.com

    Er Wang Dong Oct 14, 2016 10:14 AM The Wall Street Journal?

    Weren't these the same guys who teamed up with NBC to issue that absurd poll right after the last debate, the one purporting to show Clinton up by 14 points? The one that only used a two day average and about 300 RVs? The one that was splashed all over the internet, at the top of every mainstream media webpage? The one that has now disappeared nearly as fast as it was posted, after having accomplished it's purpose ("Trump can't win, it's all over, stick a fork in it)?

    Just how stupid are the people in this country?

    Occams_Razor_Trader Er Wang Dong Oct 14, 2016 10:23 AM How stupid? Two words- Obama Presidency!

    The man didn't have the qualifications to run your average convenience store. Kina Oct 14, 2016 10:19 AM OH and Russia is now advising its people to prepare for nuclear war.

    Well done Obama, neocons, Carlos Slim, NY Times, Washington Post, The Guardian - maybe you just fried all your children, for what? A pat on the head from some Oligarch.

    847328_3527 Oct 14, 2016 10:19 AM I copied this from a previous poster since it is truly shocking:

    The media are misleading the public on Syria

    Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason why.

    For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: "Don't send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin." Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.

    This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular electricity may soon be restored. The militants' hold on the city could be ending.

    This does not fit with Washington's narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a "liberated zone" for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.

    Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the "moderate opposition" will win.

    This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.
    Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on "an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva." The precise opposite is true.

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are-misleading-p...

    We Are The Priests 847328_3527 Oct 14, 2016 10:30 AM The media has been misleading the public on everything for decades. This is nothing new or shocking. What appears to be new is a sudden and dangerous epidemic of healthy skepticism, critical independent thinking, a willingness to question authority, and massive distrust of traditional power structures. Not My Real Name We Are The Priests Oct 14, 2016 11:40 AM Yes, but they were much more subtle about it. Now they no longer care about appearances ... which tells me they are comfortable in knowing that the overthrow of America from the inside is now all but complete.
    replaceme Oct 14, 2016 10:33 AM I was listening to Breitbart this am, talked about a statute I had not heard of - access fraud? Basically, it's illegal to sell government resources - the idea of pay for play is patently illegal, something akin to bribery. I always knew it was unethical, but the guy on had just done 4 years in a a federal pound you in the ass prison for it. I'd say Hillary has something to fear if The Donald does win. We Are The Priests replaceme Oct 14, 2016 10:39 AM Pay to Play is not akin to bribery. It is bribery. It's just that Pay to Play doesn't sound illegal and is much more innoquous--play doesn't sound like a bad thing, right?
    Son of Captain Nemo Oct 14, 2016 11:23 AM Question:

    Why doesn't the Wall Street Journal "up the ante" by drawing the line officially in the sand and putting across the front page of their paper that Any American voting for Hillary Clinton should be declared a war criminal and guilty of treason !....

    Should have happened in the last two Administration(s) but didn't -but given the coronation that is about to unfold no time like the present for the editors at that "news organization" to attempt the retrieval of what is left of there souls!!!

    heretical Oct 14, 2016 11:03 AM THIS COULD BE THE SKINNY ON MDB -- HE'S A SINGULARLY INEPT EMPLOYEE OF THE CLINTON CAMP!

    From Stream.Org:

    A significant portion of online support for Hillary Clinton is manufactured by paid "astroturf" trolls: a large team of supporters who spend long hours responding to negative news on the internet about her. The Clinton SuperPAC Correct the Record, which is affiliated with her campaign, acknowledged in an April press release that it was spending $1 million on project "Breaking Barriers" to pay people to respond to negative information about Clinton on social media sites like Facebook, Reddit, Instagram and Twitter. That amount has since increased to over $6 million. The trolls create a false impression that Clinton has more support than she really does, because one supporter will frequently create multiple anonymous accounts.

    Libby Watson of The Sunlight Foundation observed that the astroturf effort goes far beyond merely defending Clinton, to targeting and intimidating those who criticize her. She told The Daily Beast, "This seems to be going after essentially random individuals online."

    Brian Donahue, chief executive of the consulting firm Craft Media/Digital, explained the troll operation to The Los Angeles Times, "It is meant to appear to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid and highly tactical." He went on, "That is what the Clinton campaign has always been about. It runs the risk of being exactly what their opponents accuse them of being: a campaign that appears to be populist but is a smokescreen that is paid and brought to you by lifetime political operatives and high-level consultants."

    conraddobler Oct 14, 2016 11:18 AM Everyone should vote Trump because of the two he's obviously better for the people.

    However I have no doubt all of this is all part of a larger plan so whatever happens, was suppossed to happen.

    Ultimately mankind needs to wake up to the fact that the battle against evil is never ending you only get brief periods of calm to enjoy life, the rest of it is a ceaseless struggle against the forces of darkness.

    However it's really not what you think it is.

    It's your own choices that is all it ever is.

    The most heroic act on earth is to take unkindness and let it end with you. To not pass it on but to let it wash over you and send in kindness in return.

    That is the most powerful act in the universe which nothing can defeat and unto which evil has no possible hold on.

    withglee conraddobler Oct 14, 2016 11:44 AM Your average American glued to the TV and their smart phones will NEVER have a clue about what's really going on using these sources of information.

    Is our battle against evil easier if we are organized globally ... or if we are organized in small enclaves of like minded people?

    Iterative secession. conraddobler withglee Oct 14, 2016 12:05 PM If that is what is suppossed to happen that is what will happen.

    Ultimately mankind can NOT survive without adherence to a higher moral code, it's simply impossible.

    Modern secularists are missing the fundamental spirit of mankind and I'm not talking about religion, the Native American's had it, far from perfect, they did have it. That is what is lost and what is being made to come back and that is the ultimate goal or point. There is no reason a majority of mankind can't be taught that, should be taught that, because without it, there is no hope for anyone.

    Small enclaves are easily overrun by bigger enclaves. You run towards gunfire because if you don't, it will come to you. You can't hide from this even though that would be preferable. They'd love to divide us all up and have us hide. Then we'd be easy to pick off.

    With technology today you have to get on top of all that are you are under it and under it, you have no hope.

    MAD used to serve as a deterent but it's obsolete now, because the unthinkable is now thinkable made possible by underground bunkers. The folishness of this was pointed out in one of my other posts.

    Elites are elite because of their position on earth, if they destroy earth, they destroy the source of their own power.

    It will go how it goes to teach what needs to be taught.

    [Oct 14, 2016] Wall Street Journal Finally Lashes Out The Press Is Burying Hillary Clinton's Sins Zero Hedge

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Wall Street Journal Finally Lashes Out "The Press Is Burying Hillary Clinton's Sins"

    by Tyler Durden Oct 14, 2016 9:06 AM 0 SHARES Even the Wall Street Journal is now fed up with the biased media coverage of the 2016 Presidential election as revealed by a scathing article written by Kimberly Strassel, a member of their editorial board. As Strassel points out, it's almost impossible to turn on the TV without hearing about Trump's "lewd" comments while coverage of Hillary "uniformly ignores the flurry of bombshells" inherent in the various WikiLeaks, FOIA releases and FBI interviews.

    If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they know that Donald Trump made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.

    But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven't heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.

    It comes from hacked emails dumped by WikiLeaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, and accounts from FBI insiders. The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Trump story. So let's review what amounts to a devastating case against a Clinton presidency.

    Of course, the list of Hillary scandals is becoming way to long to remember though one of the biggest has been her establishment of the now infamous private email server and the subsequent intentional destruction of federal records despite the existence of a Congressional subpoena.

    Start with a June 2015 email to Clinton staffers from Erika Rottenberg, the former general counsel of LinkedIn. Ms. Rottenberg wrote that none of the attorneys in her circle of friends "can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents." She added: "It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I've either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc."

    A few months later, in a September 2015 email, a Clinton confidante fretted that Mrs. Clinton was too bullheaded to acknowledge she'd done wrong. "Everyone wants her to apologize," wrote Neera Tanden, president of the liberal Center for American Progress. "And she should. Apologies are like her Achilles' heel."

    Clinton staffers debated how to evade a congressional subpoena of Mrs. Clinton's emails-three weeks before a technician deleted them. The campaign later employed a focus group to see if it could fool Americans into thinking the email scandal was part of the Benghazi investigation (they are separate) and lay it all off as a Republican plot.

    Meanwhile, as Fox News reported yesterday, according to an anonymous source within the FBI the "vast majority" of the people that worked on Hillary's case thought she should be prosecuted adding that "it was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton's] security clearance yanked."

    The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey's dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General's office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ's National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

    "No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision," said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

    A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, "It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton's] security clearance yanked."

    "It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted," the senior FBI official told Fox News. "We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said 'but we are doing nothing,' which made no sense to us."

    Moreover, the Wall Street Journal points out that the Obama administration was seemingly "working as an extension of the Clinton campaign" with both the State Department and DOJ providing frequent updates to Hillary staffers about a confidential criminal investigation into her misconduct.

    The Obama administration-the federal government, supported by tax dollars- was working as an extension of the Clinton campaign. The State Department coordinated with her staff in responding to the email scandal, and the Justice Department kept her team informed about developments in the court case.

    Worse, Mrs. Clinton's State Department, as documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show, took special care of donors to the Clinton Foundation. In a series of 2010 emails, a senior aide to Mrs. Clinton asked a foundation official to let her know which groups offering assistance with the Haitian earthquake relief were "FOB" (Friends of Bill) or "WJC VIPs" (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs) . Those who made the cut appear to have been teed up for contracts. Those who weren't? Routed to a standard government website.

    The leaks show that the foundation was indeed the nexus of influence and money. The head of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Ira Magaziner, suggested in a 2011 email that Bill Clinton call Sheikh Mohammed of Saudi Arabia to thank him for offering the use of a plane. In response, a top Clinton Foundation official wrote: "Unless Sheikh Mo has sent us a $6 million check, this sounds crazy to do."

    Strassel also takes direct aim at the press and admits that the "leaks also show that the press is in Mrs. Clinton's pocket." While the WikiLeaks emails reveal substantial coordination between Clinton and the press perhaps none are more disturbing than when Donna Brazile, now DNC chair, sent the exact wording of a CNN town hall question to Hillary ahead of a scheduled debate.

    The leaks also show that the press is in Mrs. Clinton's pocket. Donna Brazile, a former Clinton staffer and a TV pundit, sent the exact wording of a coming CNN town hall question to the campaign in advance of the event. Other media allowed the Clinton camp to veto which quotes they used from interviews, worked to maximize her press events and offered campaign advice.

    Mrs. Clinton has been exposed to have no core, to be someone who constantly changes her position to maximize political gain. Leaked speeches prove that she has two positions (public and private) on banks; two positions on the wealthy; two positions on borders; two positions on energy. Her team had endless discussions about what positions she should adopt to appease "the Red Army"-i.e. "the base of the Democratic Party."

    Finally, Strassle concludes by saying that "Voters might not know any of this, because while both presidential candidates have plenty to answer for, the press has focused solely on taking out Mr. Trump. And the press is doing a diligent job of it."

    FireBrander TeamDepends Oct 14, 2016 9:14 AM NY Times:

    "Death Toll From War in Syria Now 470,000, Group Finds"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/world/middleeast/death-toll-from-war-i...

    ~~~~~

    "Your word is your bond....and Barack Obama and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and pass them on to the next generations....Because we want our children, and all children in this nation, to know that the only limit to the height of your"

    FAILURES, is the level of your arrogance, evilness and psychopathy.

    HelluvaEngineer TahoeBilly2012 Oct 14, 2016 9:30 AM The WSJ can take the moral high ground, because all they've done is slam Trump and fake their polls. tmosley HelluvaEngineer Oct 14, 2016 9:34 AM WSJ knows which way the wind is blowing. The rest of the media save for those directly controlled will line up soon after. The ones who are directly controlled might stand with Hillary, until her other backers abandon her.

    It's over. Trump will take every state, losing only DC. Book it. NoDebt tmosley Oct 14, 2016 9:44 AM I like your enthusiasm but it's not going to be that easy. This is trench warfare and that never goes quickly.

    What Trump is fucking with is the entire power structure of the Oligarchy. Hillary being only one of it's manifestations. Quick and easy? Unlikely. (Still worth doing? Absolutely!) HopefulCynical NoDebt Oct 14, 2016 9:50 AM It will take us decades to recover from the Magical Marxist Mulatto.

    Hanging him for treason, after a proper trial, would be a start. Shemp 4 Victory HopefulCynical Oct 14, 2016 10:13 AM It will take us decades to recover from the US policy of fucking the world since the end of WW2. Obama is one of many parts in that machine.

    The machine is afraid of Trump. This is why Western MSM tries to stretch an owl on the globe over any minor incident in the last 50 years which is even tangentially related to Trump. In the meantime, Hillary has a litany of crime and corruption which would make Nixon blush, and it's treated like a couple of unpaid parking tickets. Occident Mortal Shemp 4 Victory Oct 14, 2016 10:53 AM Don't you guys get it yet?

    The Aramco IPO is going to be a $2 - 5 trillion transaction. If they pay 3% fees that's could be $150 bn payday for the banksters.

    All of these pipeline wars, making Russia a bogeyman to keep them out of EU, making Elon Musk look credible, Saudi 2030...

    It's all geared to the mother of all IPO's.

    tbone654 The Saint Oct 14, 2016 12:17 PM "The truth is that the newspaper is not a place for information to be given,
    rather it is just hollow content, or more than that, a provoker of content.
    If it prints lies about atrocities, real atrocities are the result."

    Karl Kraus, 1914

    WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

    1984

    We are the world, we are exceptional, we cannot fail. The elite will lie, and the people will pretend to believe them. Heck about 20 percent of the American public will believe almost anything if it is wrapped with the right prejudice and appeal to passion. Have a pleasant evening.

    jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com, Feb 04, 2015

    Journalists manipulate us in the interest of the Powerful Bay of Pigs SPONGE Oct 14, 2016 11:21 AM His speech yesterday was unbelieveable. I never thought Id hear someone running for POTUS saying these kinds of things to a cheering American crowd.

    A mass awakening in the USA has begun...

    SoilMyselfRotten foodstampbarry Oct 14, 2016 9:50 AM The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Trump story

    The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, dutifully devoting its front pages to the Trump story

    There, fixed it for ya

    847328_3527 JRobby Oct 14, 2016 10:36 AM Hillary is cracking up and becoming paranoid:

    Clinton Tells DeGenerate: Trump 'Stalked' Me During Debate

    https://gma.yahoo.com/clinton-tells-degeneres-trump-stalked-during-debat...

    Max Cynical VinceFostersGhost Oct 14, 2016 9:45 AM As soon as the Clinton campaign hears about this editorial, 404 page not found coming in 3...2...1
    Renfield VinceFostersGhost Oct 14, 2016 10:19 AM << WOW......did the WSJ suddenly grow a pair of balls or something? >>

    Most assuredly, no.

    I think the extent of the MSM revulsion effect is starting to hit them - in terms of readership, advertising dollars, circulation, or something.

    After all, when you are continually 'scooped' by even the smallest, most podunk blogs on the internet, b/c you insisted on ignoring the last, oh, 500 biggest stories of the year so that you can pretend they are not happening... well... people are going to find their news from SOMEWHERE, and it isn't gonna be you. I was wondering when the MSM would begin to grok this. When you choose to be a PR mouthpiece, you also choose to give up journalism (and relevance). Can't really serve both masters. Which can become a bit of a problem when your job is technically 'journalism'. Especially when the subjects you're avoiding are as news-generating as the Clintons and their Foundation. Wikileaks 'scoops' have gone from weekly to every single day, lately!

    You might figure out - eventually - that it's very difficult to 'shape the narrative' when you're gagged from even mentioning the REAL NEWS.

    Either that, or they're trying to get out in front of some inevitable Clinton-related REAL investigation that they got wind was about to go down. But I think it's more likely the former.

    knukles VinceFostersGhost Oct 14, 2016 11:50 AM Finally, a refugee attempting to hedge their position in the event of a Trump win OR a Hillbillary Disaster.
    It was inevitable that Some MSM Outlet would Defend their franchise.

    If Hillary is elected, at least half of Americans are going to believe that the Election is Rigged by the State electing the next Head of State.

    Note the operative phrase "The State electing the next Head of State"

    From this it seems that dictatorships are established

    And for a Great PS, I'd suggest reading the first 164 or so pages of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich . Only the names and dates have been changed to shield the guilty.
    The financial enablers of Adolph thought that they too could control him.
    Once in power with the tool of the spear at one's disposal in an environment of no laws (essentially) the New leader doesn't need the financial types. The New Leader just takes what they want from the bankers and if they bitch, they can go to a reeducation facility

    Dig?

    AlaricBalth FireBrander Oct 14, 2016 9:22 AM The media is easier to control ever since consolidation and cross-ownership was allowed. That translates to fewer companies owning more media outlets, increasing the concentration of ownership. In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by fifty companies; today, 90% is controlled by just six companies. All one needs is a few friends in high places and the narrative is massaged to influence the uninformed masses.

    Comcast Holdings include: NBCUniversal, NBC and Telemundo, Universal Pictures, Focus Features, DreamWorks Animation, 26 television stations in the United States and cable networks USA Network, Bravo, CNBC, The Weather Channel, MSNBC, Syfy, NBCSN, Golf Channel, Esquire Network, E!, Cloo, Chiller, Universal HD and the Comcast SportsNet regional system. Comcast also owns the Philadelphia Flyers through a separate subsidiary.

    The Walt Disney Company Holdings include: ABC Television Network, cable networks ESPN, the Disney Channel, A&E and Lifetime, approximately 30 radio stations, music, video game, and book publishing companies, production companies Touchstone, Marvel Entertainment, Lucasfilm, Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios, the cellular service Disney Mobile, Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media, and theme parks in several countries. Also has a longstanding partnership with Hearst Corporation, which owns additional TV stations, newspapers, magazines, and stakes in several Disney television ventures.

    21st Century Fox Holdings include: the Fox Broadcasting Company; cable networks Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, National Geographic, Nat Geo Wild, FX, FXX, FX Movie Channel, and the regional Fox Sports Networks ; film production companies 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures and Blue Sky Studios.

    Time Warner Formerly the largest media conglomerate in the world, with holdings including: CNN, the CW (a joint venture with CBS), HBO, Cinemax, Cartoon Network/Adult Swim, HLN, NBA TV, TBS, TNT, truTV, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Bros. Pictures, Castle Rock, DC Comics, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, and New Line Cinema.

    CBS Corporation Holdings include: CBS Television Network and the CW (a joint venture with Time Warner), cable networks CBS Sports Network, Showtime, Pop; 30 television stations; CBS Radio, Inc., which has 130 stations; CBS Television Studios; book publisher Simon & Schuster.

    Viacom Holdings include: MTV, Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite, VH1, BET, Comedy Central, Paramount Pictures, and Paramount Home Entertainment.

    [Oct 14, 2016] Donald Trump tells Ohio crowd that Hillary Clinton, media threaten nation

    Notable quotes:
    "... "This is a struggle for the survival of our nation. This election will determine whether we are a free nation, or whether we have only the illusion of democracy but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system." ..."
    "... "Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe and morally deformed," Trump said. "They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy your career and reputation. And they will lie, lie and lie even more." ..."
    "... "It is not coincidence that these attacks come at the exact same moment, and all together at the same time, as the WikiLeaks documents expose the massive international corruption of the Clinton machine," he said. ..."
    "... Before thousands in U.S. Bank Arena in Cincinnati, Trump said the email leaks have shown that Clinton and the Democrats "raped the system" to keep Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders from getting the nomination. ..."
    "... The enthusiastic crowd responded loudly as Trump repeated his pledge to seek a special prosecutor on Clinton if he becomes president - a move constitutional experts have said would be dubious - to "investigate the investigation" of Clinton by the FBI. ..."
    "... "A vote for me is a vote for you, and it's a vote for change," he said. "I honestly believe this is the last chance we'll ever get. … Either we win this election or we lose this country." ..."
    The Columbus Dispatch

    After describing this year's election in apocalyptic terms earlier in the day, Donald Trump was down to merely alleging Hillary Clinton is a criminal by the time he made a pair of stops Thursday in Ohio.

    "This is not simply another four-year election. This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization," Trump said early Thursday afternoon in Palm Beach, Fla.

    "This is a struggle for the survival of our nation. This election will determine whether we are a free nation, or whether we have only the illusion of democracy but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system."

    Trump said Clinton and media co-conspirators are at the heart of the effort against him.

    "Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe and morally deformed," Trump said. "They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy your career and reputation. And they will lie, lie and lie even more."

    In the Florida speech, Trump elaborated for the first time on both an 11-year-old video of him describing his sexual advances and new allegations that he groped women.

    "It is not coincidence that these attacks come at the exact same moment, and all together at the same time, as the WikiLeaks documents expose the massive international corruption of the Clinton machine," he said.

    "These claims about me of inappropriate conduct with women are totally and absolutely false - and the Clinton machine knows it is. It's all fabricated. It's pure fiction and outright lies. These events never happened …

    "We already have substantial evidence to dispute these lies, and it will be made public in the appropriate way and at the appropriate time."

    In Columbus, Trump told about 500 young adults and college students at the Renaissance Columbus Downtown, "The greatest weapon wielded by crooked Hillary is the media. She has nothing else."

    When the crowd began chanting "Lock her up, lock her up!" Trump chuckled. "So young and jaded already," he said. "You understand life at a young age."

    Before thousands in U.S. Bank Arena in Cincinnati, Trump said the email leaks have shown that Clinton and the Democrats "raped the system" to keep Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders from getting the nomination.

    The enthusiastic crowd responded loudly as Trump repeated his pledge to seek a special prosecutor on Clinton if he becomes president - a move constitutional experts have said would be dubious - to "investigate the investigation" of Clinton by the FBI.

    But the biggest response from the Queen City audience came after this Trump pledge: "I am going to keep radical Islamic terrorists the hell out of our country."

    The crowd in heavily Republican southwestern Ohio was probably Trump's largest rally in the Buckeye State. Three days earlier, Clinton had her biggest crowd of the entire campaign on the South Oval of Ohio State University.

    Near the end of his 45-minute talk, Trump said, "You are going to remember this rally for the rest of your life."

    And once he wins the election, Trump said, his supporters will look back and regard it as the most important vote ever because that's when the country started turning around.

    "A vote for me is a vote for you, and it's a vote for change," he said. "I honestly believe this is the last chance we'll ever get. … Either we win this election or we lose this country."

    ... ... ....

    [Oct 14, 2016] Just imagine the kind of damage he could have done if he'd been wicked smart

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Renfield Dien Bien Poo Oct 14, 2016 10:51 AM << But Trump is a fucking moron .>>

    Yes, yes he is. That's why he's pretty much single-handedly 1) multiplied his large inheritance into a much larger fortune; 2) broken the Bush political machine (Jeb!); 3) repeatedly humiliated the MSM news for its US election coverage; 4) broken the careers of 16 status-quo RNC pretenders and certain ex-pretenders such as Romney; 5) split the establishment Repub party itself and driven out several of its worst offenders (now voting Democrat!); 6) raised probably the biggest army of citizen supporters since Reagan; 7) dominated news stories for free coverage that tends to bring him more support; and 8) spent relatively little money doing it.

    All totally and completely by accident! Beginner's luck!

    Thank God he's such a fucking moron, right? Just imagine the kind of damage he could have done if he'd been wicked smart!

    Renfield WillyGroper Oct 14, 2016 12:58 PM << herd redirection. any press is good press. jerry springer reality show politics. if this was the real deal he'd have been ron paul'd in the press from the beginnning. ZERO time. >>

    Could well be. I have no strong opinion on Trump since he has no record in office yet, so since I'm not an American citizen & cannot vote in those elections anyway I have to sit back and wait, see what the truth turns out to be. I apologise for commenting on your elections, and normally I'd keep out of it, but there's this:

    The reason I have lately become a foreign 'Trump supporter' is that the alternative is Hillary, a known war criminal. Living next door to you guys I stand a much better chance of seeing old age if the Washington string-puller for Canada's subsidiary of the Corporation isn't, you know, already a known war criminal with a hard-on for Russia. Not that thrilled with the prospect of an immediate & 'voter-supported' nuclear WW3. Hence, I'm a Trump supporter now... as a foreign commenter the only current US pollies I've a really strong opinion on are Jeb!, Barky, and Cankles. That's b/c people (or in Jeb's case their immediate families) who've already demonstrated their willingness to commit war crimes become very relevant to those even outside American borders, especially when they call the shots for my own, err, 'leaders'. (I know, that's our own damn fault, too.)

    I am very, very FOR your remaining non-war-criminal candidate since it prevents Hillary as getting in as CEO of the US corporate office, with "nuclear war" as her first order of business.

    So here, just pointing out that DT, while he is and may be a lot of things, is certainly not stupid! That particular MSM myth always makes me giggle and reply flippantly (as above). Whether he's also evil, in my foreigner's eyes, still remains to be seen from his record in office, if he gets one. (Back to lurking, and let you better-informed Americans get on with things!)

    [Oct 14, 2016] leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    FireBrander pazmaker Oct 14, 2016 9:13 AM Hillary Clinton: 'Smart Power' and a Dictator's Fall

    The consequences (of Hillary's Libya decision as Secretary of State) would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's questions have come to pass.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html

    [Oct 14, 2016] The well deserved hatred for Hillary and the globalists is so great, that at least 40% of the males in this country would back anyone who went up against the Clintons.

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    dsty balolalo Oct 14, 2016 11:53 AM Thank You Vladimir Putin

    The Hillary Clinton campaign says the hackers behind the leaked email evidence of their collusion with the major media are from Russia and linked to the Russian regime. If so, I want to publicly thank those Russian hackers and their leader, Russian President Vladimir Putin, for opening a window into the modern workings of the United States government-corporate-media establishment.

    We always knew that the major media were extensions of the Democratic Party. But the email evidence of how figures like Maggie Haberman of The New York Times, Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post, and John Harwood of CNBC worked hand-in-glove with the Democrats is important. The Daily Caller and Breitbart have led the way in digging through the emails and exposing the nature of this evidence. It is shocking even to those of us at Accuracy in Media who always knew about, and had documented, such collusion through analysis and observation.

    The Clinton campaign and various intelligence officials insist that the purpose of the Russian hacking is to weaken the confidence of the American people in their system of government, and to suggest that the American system is just as corrupt as the Russian system is alleged to be. Perhaps our confidence in our system should be shaken. The American people can see that our media are not independent of the government or the political system and, in fact, function as an arm of the political party in control of the White House that wants to maintain that control after November 8.

    In conjunction with other evidence, including the ability to conduct vote fraud that benefits the Democrats, the results on Election Day will be in question and will form the basis for Donald J. Trump to continue to claim that the system is "rigged" against outsiders like him.

    The idea of an American system of free and fair elections that includes an honest press has been terribly undermined by the evidence that has come to light. We are not yet to the point of the Russian system, where opposition outlets are run out of business and dissidents killed in the streets. That means that the Russians have not completely succeeded in destroying confidence in our system. But we do know that federal agencies like the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are poised to strike blows against free and independent media. Earlier this year the three Democrats on the FEC voted to punish filmmaker Joel Gilbert for distributing a film critical of President Barack Obama during the 2012 campaign.

    The New York Times is reporting that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta has been contacted by the FBI about the alleged Russian hackers behind the leaks of his emails. This is what Podesta and many in the media want to talk about.

    But the Russians, if they are responsible, have performed a public service. And until there is a thorough house-cleaning of those in the major media who have made a mockery of professional journalism, the American people will continue to lack confidence in their system. The media have been caught in the act of sabotaging the public's right to know by taking sides in the presidential contest. They have become a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, coordinating with the Hillary Clinton for president campaign, which apparently was being run out of Georgetown University, where John Podesta was based. Many emails carry the web address of [email protected] , a reference to the Georgetown University position held by the chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Podesta is a Visiting Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. His other affiliations include the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress and the United Nations High Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda.

    Podesta and the other members of this U.N. panel had proposed " A New Global Partnership for the World ," which advocated for a "profound economic transformation" of the world's economic order that would result in a new globalist system. Shouldn't the American people be informed about what Podesta and his Democratic allies have planned for the United States should they win on November 8?

    That Podesta would serve the purposes of the U.N. is not a surprise. But it is somewhat surprising that he would use his base at Georgetown University to run the Hillary campaign. On the other hand, Georgetown, the nation's oldest Catholic and Jesuit university, describes itself as preparing "the next generation of global citizens to lead and make a difference in the world."

    In a previous column, "The Sad Demise of a Once-Catholic University," we noted that the university launched a " Hillary Rodham Clinton Fellowship Program ," and that Mrs. Clinton is the Honorary Founding Chair of the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security . Georgetown is even giving awards named after the former Secretary of State, designated the " Hillary Rodham Clinton Awards for Advancing Women in Peace and Security ."

    When a Catholic university serves as the base for the election of a Democratic Party politician committed to taxpayer-funded abortion on demand and transgender rights, you know America's political system and academia are rotten to the core. The disclosure from WikiLeaks that Podesta used his Georgetown email to engage in party politics only confirms what we already knew.

    If the Russians are ultimately responsible for the release of these emails, some of which show an anti-Catholic animus on the part of Clinton campaign officials, we are grateful to them. The answer has to be to clean out the American political system of those who corrupt it and demonstrate to the world that we can achieve higher standards of integrity and transparency.

    For its part, Georgetown University should be stripped of its Catholic affiliation and designated as an official arm of the Democratic Party.

  • Read more: " Thank You Vladimir Putin http://americasurvival.org/2016/10/thank-you-vladimir-putin.html#ixzz4N4iiqCrc

    Paul Kersey balolalo Oct 14, 2016 12:02 PM The well deserved hatred for Hillary and the globalists is so great, that at least 40% of the males in this country would back anyone who went up against the Clintons. That's just not the same thing as "BUYING TRUMPS BULLSHIT HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER".

    Trump is exposing the corruption and the hypocrisy of the Clintons in a way that no one has ever had the guts to do in the past. He's doing it on national TV with a large national audience. With Trump we may get anarchy, but with the Clintons, Deep State is guaranteed. It is Deep State that is working overtime to finish building the expressway to neofeudalism.

    [Oct 14, 2016] why are all these suckers using gmail anyway?

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Lumberjack Oct 14, 2016 9:18 AM Wikileaks dump #7 has arrived:

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?new&q=&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=...

    Lumberjack Lumberjack Oct 14, 2016 9:26 AM Has it leaked yet?

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9252

    Tom Servo Lumberjack Oct 14, 2016 9:47 AM why are all these cocksuckers using gmail anyway?

    [Oct 14, 2016] Hillary Clinton asks for landslide victory to rebuke Trumps bigotry and bullying

    Killary only can beg that voters hold their noses and vote for her. Guardian neoliberal presstitutes still don't want to understand that Hillary is more dangerous then trump, Sge with her attempt that she is more militant then male neocons can really provoke a confrontation with Russia or China.
    Notable quotes:
    "... War at home versus another foreign war, nothing will get through Congress, and either will get impeached...so third party all the way for me. ..."
    "... Keep in mind, the election is not over and that drip, drip, drip of Hillary emails may push more people towards Trump. ..."
    "... Shameless. Absolutely shameless, Guardian. This is not-even-disguised Clinton sycophancy... ..."
    "... Clinton has everything going for her. The media, the banks, big business, the UN, foreign leaders, special interest lobbyists, silicon valley, establishment Republicans. How can she not win in an landslide?! ..."
    "... We came, we saw, and he grabbed some pussy. ..."
    "... It seems nobody wants to talk about what is really going on here - instead we are fed this bilge from both sides about 'sexual misconduct' and other fluff ..."
    "... The stagnation of middle-class incomes in the West may last another five decades or more. ..."
    "... This calls into question either the sustainability of democracy under such conditions or the sustainability of globalization. ..."
    "... These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its continuation. ..."
    "... But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization. ..."
    Oct 14, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Julian Kelley , 14 Oct 2016 02:47

    The vast majority of her support comes from people that will be holding their noses as they vote for her. Seems to me that convincing those same people that you have it in the bag will just cause them to think voting isn't worth their time since they don't want to anyway.

    I know Trump's supporters, the real ones, and the anyone-but-Hillary club will show up as well. Funny if this backfires and he wins.

    I won't be voting for either one and couldn't care less which one wins. War at home versus another foreign war, nothing will get through Congress, and either will get impeached...so third party all the way for me.

    Apache287 -> Julian Kelley , 14 Oct 2016 02:57

    War at home versus another foreign war

    Yes because War in the US will be so great.

    ... ... ...

    AQuietNight -> playloro , 14 Oct 2016 02:56
    "Trump has to be the limit, and there has to be a re-alignment"

    Trump has shown one must fight fire with fire. The days of the meek and mild GOP are over. Twice they tried with nice guys and failed. Trump has clearly shown come out with both fists swinging and you attract needed media and you make the conversation about you. Trump's mistake was not seeking that bit of polish that leaves your opponent on the floor.

    Keep in mind, the election is not over and that drip, drip, drip of Hillary emails may push more people towards Trump.

    taxhaven , 14 Oct 2016 02:50
    Shameless. Absolutely shameless, Guardian. This is not-even-disguised Clinton sycophancy...
    tugend49

    For every woman that's been sexually harassed, bullied, raped, assaulted, catcalled, groped, objectified, and treated lesser than, a landslide victory for Clinton would be an especially sweet "Fuck You" to the Trumps of this world.

    DJROM -> tugend49 , 14 Oct 2016 03:17

    Tell that to Juanita Brodrick, Katherine Willie, or Paula Jones
    SwingState , 14 Oct 2016 02:53

    Clinton has everything going for her. The media, the banks, big business, the UN, foreign leaders, special interest lobbyists, silicon valley, establishment Republicans. How can she not win in an landslide?!

    It might be a reaction against Trump, but it's also a depressing example of the power of the establishment, and their desire for control in democracy. Just look at how they squealed at Brexit.

    chuckledog -> SwingState , 14 Oct 2016 03:06
    Rather low opinion of people's ability to decide for themselves.
    AlvaroBo -> chuckledog , 14 Oct 2016 03:13
    That low opinion is justified. See also: Asch experiment.
    Kieran Brown -> SwingState , 14 Oct 2016 03:52
    "squealed at Brexit" hahaha...hasnt happened yet and your currency is in the toilet. the squealing from england gonna be deafening...
    Boojay , 14 Oct 2016 02:54
    It takes a horrible man to make Clinton look good. We came, we saw, and he grabbed some pussy.
    SeenItAlready , 14 Oct 2016 02:55
    It seems nobody wants to talk about what is really going on here - instead we are fed this bilge from both sides about 'sexual misconduct' and other fluff

    There is a report from two years ago, July 2014, before the candidates had even been selected, by the economist Branko Milanovic for Yale 'Global' about the impact of Globalisation on the Lower Middle Classes in the West and how this was basically going to turn into exactly the choice the American electorate is facing now

    http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/tale-two-middle-classes

    Why won't the media discuss these issues instead of pushing this pointless circus?

    These are the penultimate paragraphs of the article on the report (there is a similar one for the Harvard Business Review here ):

    The populists warn disgruntled voters that economic trends observed during the past three decades are just the first wave of cheap labor from Asia pitted in direct competition with workers in the rich world, and more waves are on the way from poorer lands in Asia and Africa. The stagnation of middle-class incomes in the West may last another five decades or more.

    This calls into question either the sustainability of democracy under such conditions or the sustainability of globalization.

    If globalization is derailed, the middle classes of the West may be relieved from the immediate pressure of cheaper Asian competition. But the longer-term costs to themselves and their countries, let alone to the poor in Asia and Africa, will be high. Thus, the interests and the political power of the middle classes in the rich world put them in a direct conflict with the interests of the worldwide poor.

    These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its continuation.

    But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization.

    Martin51 -> SeenItAlready , 14 Oct 2016 09:19
    Globalisation will continue to happen. It has pulled a large part of the world population out of poverty and grown the global economy.

    Sure on the downside it has also hugely benefitted the 1%, while the western middle classes have done relatively less well and blue collar workers have suffered as they seek to turn to other types (less well paid) of work.

    The issue is the speed of change, how to manage globalisation and spread the wealth more equitably. Maybe it will require slowing but it cannot and should not be stopped.

    ozbornzadick , 14 Oct 2016 02:56
    Ah, the lesser of two evils.

    [Oct 14, 2016] The real deplorable are US neoliberal press corps and Hillarys fellow financial, political, economic, and military elites who wrecked the economy, got us mired in endless unwinnable foreign wars

    Notable quotes:
    "... Meanwhile, between journalism's insiders and outsiders-between the ones who are rising and the ones who are sinking-there is no solidarity at all. Here in the capital city, every pundit and every would-be pundit identifies upward, always upward. ..."
    "... We cling to our credentials and our professional-class fantasies, hobnobbing with senators and governors, trading witticisms with friendly Cabinet officials, helping ourselves to the champagne and lobster ..."
    "... "The real "deplorables" generally aren't the people whom Hillary denounced as wholly "irredeemable," or at whom economically secure commentators fulminate on a regular basis. More obviously "deplorable" are Hillary's fellow financial, political, economic, and military elites who wrecked the economy, got us mired in endless unwinnable foreign wars, and erected a virtually impenetrable cultural barrier between everyday Americans trying to live fruitful lives and their pretentious, well-heeled superiors ensconced in select coastal enclaves. It is thanks to the actions of this "basket of deplorables" that we're in the situation we're in" ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Vatch October 13, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    I skimmed the Harpers article by Thomas Frank on the media's extermination of Bernie Sanders. It's a good article about an unpleasant topic. One point that is not clear from the blurb is that Frank isn't writing about the media's treatment of Sanders, but rather about the Washington Post's treatment of Sanders. Occasionally other media outlets are mentioned (I saw a reference to the Associated Press), but it's almost all about the Bezos Washington Post's unfairness to Sanders. A lot of other newspapers mistreated him as well.

    PlutoniumKun October 13, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    The article is excellent, but if anyone doesn't have the time to read it, I'd suggest going straight to the last page, its a brilliant demolition of modern punditry journalism. The last two paragraphs in particular:

    Meanwhile, between journalism's insiders and outsiders-between the ones who are rising and the ones who are sinking-there is no solidarity at all. Here in the capital city, every pundit and every would-be pundit identifies upward, always upward.

    We cling to our credentials and our professional-class fantasies, hobnobbing with senators and governors, trading witticisms with friendly Cabinet officials, helping ourselves to the champagne and lobster. Everyone wants to know our opinion, we like to believe, or to celebrate our birthday, or to find out where we went for cocktails after work last night.

    Until the day, that is, when you wake up and learn that the tycoon behind your media concern has changed his mind and everyone is laid off and that it was never really about you in the first place. Gone, the private office or award-winning column or cable-news show. The checks start bouncing. The booker at MSNBC stops calling. And suddenly you find that you are a middle-aged maker of paragraphs-of useless things-dumped out into a billionaire's world that has no need for you, and doesn't really give a damn about your degree in comparative literature from Brown. You start to think a little differently about universal health care and tuition-free college and Wall Street bailouts. But of course it is too late now. Too late for all of us.

    Chauncey Gardiner October 13, 2016 at 5:06 pm

    Yes, thanks for the link to Thomas Frank's essay in Harpers about the efforts of corporate media, particularly the Washington Post and New York Times, to kill Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign for the presidency.

    Yesterday NC linked to an article from the American Conservative by Michael Tracey titled "The Real Deplorables". In his article Tracey observed: …

    "The real "deplorables" generally aren't the people whom Hillary denounced as wholly "irredeemable," or at whom economically secure commentators fulminate on a regular basis. More obviously "deplorable" are Hillary's fellow financial, political, economic, and military elites who wrecked the economy, got us mired in endless unwinnable foreign wars, and erected a virtually impenetrable cultural barrier between everyday Americans trying to live fruitful lives and their pretentious, well-heeled superiors ensconced in select coastal enclaves. It is thanks to the actions of this "basket of deplorables" that we're in the situation we're in"

    Clearly Michael Tracey overlooked a group. But what is particularly troubling me was Thomas Frank's observation: …"for the sort of people who write and edit the opinion pages of the Post, there was something deeply threatening about Sanders and his political views. He seems to have represented something horrifying, something that could not be spoken of directly but that clearly needed to be suppressed."

    I find myself wondering why this is so?

    [Oct 13, 2016] Statement of September 11th Advocates Regarding Saudia Arabia Support of ISIS

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    human October 13, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Statement of September 11th Advocates Regarding Saudia Arabia Support of ISIS
    October 12, 2016

    "Aren't the Saudis your friends?" Obama smiled. "It's complicated," he said. "My view has never been that we should throw our traditional allies"-the Saudis-"overboard in favor of Iran." President Barack Obama

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

    "We have as solid a relationship, as clear an alliance and as strong a friendship with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia as we have ever had." Secretary of State John Kerry

    http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2016-01-24/kerry-says-us-saudi-friendship-stronger-than-ever

    "I think it's important to the United States to maintain as good a relationship with Saudi Arabia as possible." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-21/saudi-arabia-s-clout-in-washington-isn-t-what-it-used-to-be

    "The strategic partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia is based on mutual interests and a longstanding commitment to facing our common threats together." Speaker of the House Paul Ryan

    http://www.speaker.gov/general/continuing-dialogue-regional-security-partners-ryan-delegation-travels-riyadh

    "I think Saudi Arabia is a valuable partner in the war on terror. If you want to lose Saudi Arabia as an ally, be careful what you wish for." Senator Lindsey Graham

    "There is a public relations issue that exists. That doesn't mean that it's in our national interest to not have an alliance with them - I mean they're an important part of our efforts in the Middle East." said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/21/saudi-arabia-is-facing-unprecedented-scrutiny-from-congress/

    "Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar, and for our Qatari friends." Senator John McCain

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/

    Citing Western Intelligence, U.S. Intelligence, and Intelligence from the Region, that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia-not just its rich donors– was providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups, we would like to know why President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Senator Bob Corker, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Senator John McCain, would EVER consider the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia our ally.

    Markedly, this is not complicated, nor is it a friendship, a special relationship, a valuable partnership, a clear alliance, a strategicpartnership, or a public relations issue.

    The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sponsor of terrorism.

    According to Western Intelligence, U.S. Intelligence and Intelligence from the region, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia clandestinely funds and logistically supports ISIS.

    How could a nation like Saudi Arabia (or Qatar) that funds or logistically supports ISIS be considered an ally of the United States in the fight against ISIS?

    The Saudis (and the Qataris) are funding and logistically supporting our enemy.

    The United States Government should not condone, enable, or turn a blind eye to that fact.

    As 9/11 family members whose husbands were brutally murdered by 19 radical Sunni terrorists, we strongly request these appointed and elected officials immediately explain their indefensible positions with regard to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its now clearly evident role in underwriting and logistically supporting radical Sunni terror groups worldwide.

    We also look forward to these appointed and elected officials immediately explaining to the American public why they oppose JASTA or want to re-write JASTA anti-terrorism legislation specifically designed to hold the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia accountable for its funding and logistical support of radical Sunni terror groups that kill Americans.

    Finally, we would like to, once again, wholeheartedly thank all those members of Congress who saw the wisdom in making JASTA law. Clearly, this new evidence further validates your vote and support for JASTA. Furthermore, this evidence proves that JASTA was not a political vote, but rather a vote to keep Americans safer from terrorism.

    Keep Americans Safe From Radical Sunni Terrorists

    Hold The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Accountable

    Keep JASTA The Law of The Land

    http://www.salon.com/2016/10/11/leaked-hillary-clinton-emails-show-u-s-allies-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-supported-isis/

    # # #

    September 11th Advocates

    Kristen Breitweiser
    Monica Gabrielle
    Mindy Kleinberg
    Lorie Van Auken

    (edited to clean up white space and high bit characters. links tested. any errors are mine)

    [Oct 13, 2016] Social Democracy, the Third Way, and the Crisis of Europe, Part 3

    The author does not use the term "neoliberalism". This makes the article pretty superficial.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Financial Times ..."
    "... The reconstruction of a meaningful anti-capitalist politics in Europe faces two enormous challenges: First is the reconstruction of the working class's capacity for struggle. ..."
    "... The weakness of working-class movements is also evidenced in income trends. Real wages in high-income capitalist countries have stagnated in recent decades. As productivity has increased, and employers have captured most of the income gains, workers have seen their shares of national income erode. ..."
    "... See original post for sources ..."
    "... Social democracy is the idea that the state needs to provide security and equality for its people and should actively reorder society in a way that is conducive to such developments, but that such changes should be brought about gradually, legitimated by a democratically-elected majority. ..."
    "... Social democrats typically regard government intervention as a force for good, constraining markets and engaging in redistributive efforts for the benefit of the lower classes in order to establish a more equitable society. ..."
    "... Somewhat confusingly, social democracy is not the same thing as democratic socialism, nearly-identical names notwithstanding. Modern social democrats believe in maintaining the capitalist system - democratic socialists (in fact, all socialists) do not. ..."
    "... There are perfectly good reasons why western society has become what it is. Disenfranchised citizens because direct democracy cannot function in super states of tens of millions of people. Indifference because we are all materially so much better off than a century ago. Dying union movements because the reasons unions came into being no longer exist. Child labour/life threatening labour/72 hour work weeks are long gone. ..."
    "... The deal with the global economy is pretty simple. Our elites get to run everything for themselves and their friends. So long as they provide the 99% with enough material things and entertainment(sport is the opium of the people) they will continue to do so. When they fail in this, they will then play off factions of the 99% against each other or use nationalism to redirect anger away from themselves. Get people blaming anyone perceived as different and buy off enough of the 99% to defend the 1% in case some direct their anger at the correct culprits. I just don't see any room for a social democratic revolution in all this. Do you really think you can get the 99% to agree on anything? ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Social Democratic Revivalism?

    A deep crisis of global capitalism, its seeds sown in part by a dramatic deregulation of finance, Wolfgang Münchau of the Financial Times notes, would seem tailor-made for a revival of the "centre-left." Why has this not happened? "The deep reason," Münchau argues, "lies in its absorption of the policies of the centre-right, going back almost three decades: the acceptance of free trade agreements, the deregulation of everything, and (in the eurozone) of binding fiscal rules and the most extreme version of central bank independence on earth. They are all but indistinguishable from their opponents." For the most part, however, this has led neither to a general collapse of these parties, nor to a rejection of "Third Way" politics and sharp turn back toward a full-throated social democratic reformism.

    The main exceptions, among relatively large countries, are Greece and Spain-the two countries hit hardest by the crisis, and the two which saw the most explosive mass protest movements against austerity. On the electoral front, voters punished the mainstream social democratic parties-the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) in Greece and the Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) in Spain-for their administration of austerity policies. These parties' former supporters have gravitated to new political entities promising to resist austerity measures

    .... ... ...

    The reconstruction of a meaningful anti-capitalist politics in Europe faces two enormous challenges: First is the reconstruction of the working class's capacity for struggle.

    It is not only in the United States that the power of the workers' movement has eroded in recent years. The decline in union membership as a percentage of employed workers (or "union density") serves as a quick, rough indicator. High-income countries are divided into basically two groups, those where union density has declined significantly and those that are treading water. Between 1999 and 2012-2014 (using the most recent year for which data are available), out of 21 high-income OECD countries, not one had experienced a substantial increase, six were treading water (with a change of less than 10%, e.g., for a country with a union density of 25% in 1999, a changes of less than 2.5 percentage points in either direction), while fifteen had experienced substantial decline.

    Strike rates, too, are down across the capitalist world. In principle, a decline in the most visible form of conflict between capital and labor could have any of several explanations: a trend toward more amicable relations between capital and labor, a substitution of alternative means of struggle by workers and unions, or a preponderance of power on one side or the other (so that the weaker side does not dare engage in a frontal confrontation). It's quite obvious, in the current period, which of these is the case.

    The weakness of working-class movements is also evidenced in income trends. Real wages in high-income capitalist countries have stagnated in recent decades. As productivity has increased, and employers have captured most of the income gains, workers have seen their shares of national income erode. Economist Jayati Ghosh, summarizing the findings of a recent McKinsey Global Institute report, describes the trends as follows: "From 1970 to 2014-with the brief exception of a spike during the 1973–74 oil crisis-the average wage share across the six countries studied in depth (United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden) fell by 5 percentage points. In the most extreme case of the United Kingdom, it declined by 13 percentage points."

    ... ... ...

    See original post for sources

    By Alejandro Reuss, historian, economist, and co-editor of Triple Crisis blog and Dollars & Sense magazine. This is the final part of a three-part series on the historical trajectory of European social democracy towards the so-called "Third Way"-a turn away from class-struggle politics and a compromise with neoliberal capitalism-and its role in the shaping of the Economic and Monetary Union of the EU. (See Part 1 and Part 2 .) It is a continuation of his earlier series "The Eurozone Crisis: Monetary Union and Fiscal Disunion" ( Part 1 and Part 2 ). His related article "An Historical Perspective on Brexit: Capitalist Internationalism, Reactionary Nationalism, and Socialist Internationalism" is available here . Originally published at Triple Crisis

    Skippy October 13, 2016 at 7:22 am

    Social democracy is the idea that the state needs to provide security and equality for its people and should actively reorder society in a way that is conducive to such developments, but that such changes should be brought about gradually, legitimated by a democratically-elected majority. It is native to Europe, where social democrats regularly feature as one of the major parties and have led (or at least participated in) governments in most states at some point in time, most notably in Scandinavia (up to being nicknamed the "Nordic model"). Social democrats typically regard government intervention as a force for good, constraining markets and engaging in redistributive efforts for the benefit of the lower classes in order to establish a more equitable society.

    Somewhat confusingly, social democracy is not the same thing as democratic socialism, nearly-identical names notwithstanding. Modern social democrats believe in maintaining the capitalist system - democratic socialists (in fact, all socialists) do not.

    Disheveled Marsupial . the major sticking point is a level playing field wrt capitalism unlike the libertarian or neoliberal model which seeks to tilt the playing field to the advantage of a small cohort and resulting stratification of wealth and power over others .

    PS. you might also be disturbed by the commie use of lamarckian theory to inform such activities such as you describe and their unfortunate out comes for all involved

    EoinW October 13, 2016 at 9:43 am

    Interesting read. Yet I can't help think that any article quoting Trotsky is simply an exercise in Left nostalgia.

    There are perfectly good reasons why western society has become what it is. Disenfranchised citizens because direct democracy cannot function in super states of tens of millions of people. Indifference because we are all materially so much better off than a century ago. Dying union movements because the reasons unions came into being no longer exist. Child labour/life threatening labour/72 hour work weeks are long gone.

    As horrible as things are said to be in Greece, it amazes me that anarchy has not taken hold. Kill a politician a day would seem to be the least extreme response for people who can't feed their families or get life saving medicine. Yet the public just rolls over and takes it. Is that a credit to social conditioning? Lack of courage to fight back? Or are the majority still living comfortable lives and have too much to lose?

    The deal with the global economy is pretty simple. Our elites get to run everything for themselves and their friends. So long as they provide the 99% with enough material things and entertainment(sport is the opium of the people) they will continue to do so. When they fail in this, they will then play off factions of the 99% against each other or use nationalism to redirect anger away from themselves. Get people blaming anyone perceived as different and buy off enough of the 99% to defend the 1% in case some direct their anger at the correct culprits. I just don't see any room for a social democratic revolution in all this. Do you really think you can get the 99% to agree on anything?

    We are in for a period of neo-feudalism. Until the 1% eventually screw up, end up bickering amongst themselves, and it all falls apart. Hopefully such a nihilistic outcome will lead to a push for freedom with small state democracies, open borders and free trade. Social democracy can come later when such freedoms lead to abuses and inequalities that will need regulated in order to be fair for all. If today's society has one great flaw it is that regulation exists to serve special interest groups and creates greater inequality. Therefore the last thing I want to see is the global economy immediately replaced by social democracy – 1% parasites replaced by the new leftest parasites. Perhaps my bias is based on 18 years of paying thousands of dollars in union dues and getting next to nothing back in return. Still, isn't that the stage we've reached in the global economy, too many people on the right and the left earning good money at the expense of the real workers while actually providing little to benefit society?

    [Oct 13, 2016] Dangerous idiots: how the liberal media elite failed working-class Americans

    See also Propaganda
    This election is about the backlash against neoliberalism that became the dominant ideology of the ruling elite in the USA since 1980th. At this point blue color workers became sick of Demorats (aka Neoliberal Democrats) who are betraying them after each elections ("Change we can believe in" in worlds of the king of "bait and switch" Obama) and expecting still they will vote for Democratic as they have nowhere to go (Clinton strategy). They want to show middle finger to Clinton and other neoliberal criminals who deprived them of work, of dignity, of health (heroine epidemic is hitting the USA really hard). It's a class war all over again. Note how neoliberal media tried to misrepresent it accusing Trump supporters of racism, bigotry, and all other sins to mask anti-neoliberal backlash of the US population, and the revolutionary situation in the county, when the elite lost the control of the population. Which really somewhat reminds me the last days of the USSR when communist propaganda stopped working and people start seeing the "Politburo" as "naked king" -- a bunch of corrupt priests of obscure religion, who do not believe in the ideology they promote for "shmucks", only with their own and their families well-being. that their sons and daughters attend Western universities and their wives are shopping in Paris.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Last month, results of 87,000 interviews conducted by Gallup showed that those who liked Trump were under no more economic distress or immigration-related anxiety than those who opposed him. ..."
    "... Earlier this year, primary exit polls revealed that Trump voters were, in fact, more affluent than most Americans, with a median household income of $72,000 – higher than that of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders supporters. ..."
    "... These facts haven't stopped pundits and journalists from pushing story after story about the white working class's giddy embrace of a bloviating demagogue. ..."
    "... stories about the Democratic lawmakers who in recent decades ended welfare as we knew it, hopped in the sack with Wall Street and forgot American labor in their global trade agreements. ..."
    "... Countless images of working-class progressives, including women such as Betty, are thus rendered invisible by a ratings-fixated media that covers elections as horse races and seeks sensational b-roll. ..."
    "... This media paradigm created the tale of a divided America – "red" v "blue"– in which the 42% of Kansans who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 are meaningless. ..."
    "... In lieu of such coverage, media makers cast the white working class as a monolith and imply an old, treacherous story convenient to capitalism: that the poor are dangerous idiots. ..."
    "... I'm hard-pressed to think of a worse slight than the media figures who have disregarded the embattled white working class for decades now beseeching the country to have sympathy for them. We don't need their analysis, and we sure don't need their tears. What we need is to have our stories told, preferably by someone who can walk into a factory without his own guilt fogging his glasses. ..."
    "... Zaitchik wisely described those he met as a "blue-collar middle class"– mostly white people who have worked hard and lost a lot, whether in the market crash of 2008 or the manufacturing layoffs of recent decades. He found that their motivations overwhelmingly "started with economics and ended with economics". The anger he observed was "pointed up, not down" at those who forgot them when global trade deals were negotiated, not at minority groups. ..."
    "... When Hillary Clinton recently declared half of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables", Zaitchik told another reporter, the language "could be read as another way of saying 'white-trash bin'." ..."
    "... It wasn't poor whites who criminalized blackness by way of marijuana laws and the "war on drugs". Nor was it poor whites who conjured the specter of the black "welfare queen". These points should not minimize the horrors of racism at the lowest economic rungs of society, but remind us that those horrors reside at the top in different forms and with more terrible power. ..."
    "... The main reason that national media outlets have a blind spot in matters of class is the lack of socioeconomic diversity within their ranks. Few people born to deprivation end up working in newsrooms or publishing books. ..."
    "... American [neoliberal] journalism has been willfully obtuse about the grievances on Main Streets for decades – surely a factor in digging the hole of resentment that Trump's venom now fills. That the term "populism" has become a pejorative among prominent liberal commentators should give us great pause. A journalism that embodies the plutocracy it's supposed to critique has failed its watchdog duty and lost the respect of people who call bullshit when they see it. ..."
    "... What a balanced, engaging and informative read! She just blew away my stereotype of Trump supporters and illuminated the conundrum of why/how Trump has indeed gotten this far in spite of all the foul language, insults, etc. while still maintaining an impressive base of supporters -- obviously not the "white trash" to whom his success has been conveniently attributed by elite thinkers. ..."
    "... I love how Republican/neocons explain the economy for past 8 years: GWB's tenure had nothing to do with how bad the economy got (America during each Presidential administration exists in a vacuum, wholly separate from the preceding one); Obama gets no credit for any improvement (he's so weak and pathetic that anything good that happened was because of brave Republicans forcing legislation through over his hysterical objections); Obama is fully to blame for whatever slow and unevenly-felt recovery the economy has been making (he never passes any Republican-backed legislation that would make it all better and ninja-wizards it so the Republicans can't override him) ..."
    "... I'm a little confused by the title of this article that is supposedly describing the liberal media elite and it's failings concerning the working-class. Two of the "liberal media elite" are conservative David Brooks and National Review's Kevin Williamson who are as far from liberal as you can get. ..."
    "... This year, more Kansans caucused for Bernie Sanders than for Donald Trump – a newsworthy point I never saw noted in national press, who perhaps couldn't fathom that "flyover country" might contain millions of Americans more progressive than their Clinton strongholds. ..."
    "... The self-congratulatory [neo]liberal media has done such a terrible disservice to such a huge group of people by trivializing their concerns. It seems that anyone who disagrees with the media's perspective can glibly be insulted. What the media doesn't seem to get is that insulting people, after a while, only creates rage. ..."
    "... The New Yorker's excellent economic writer James Surowiecki has an essay in this week's mag. noting that if Trump gets in and enacts his tax "plan" the richest Americans will receive a 10-11% tax cut and the rest of us get a walloping . 05%. He excoriated the notion that this makes him an "outsider," a claim many of us have been deriding from the onset. This suggests moneyed interests, which invariably are powerful interests, stand to gain a literal fortune if Trump wins, a sobering thought about who and what may truly be fueling his race. ..."
    "... The US is different to Europe, even the UK, and the conflict between 'the land of the free', and everyone has an opportunity to make it big time, with the patent impact of raw capitalism on workers has been around since the eighteenth century. That it has got worse since Reagan and Thatcher opened up neo-liberal economics to full throttle is a catalyst for dissatisfaction, not the total cause. There already was an intolerance in the US in the same way as in the UK but the cycle of time has taken us from the inception of the welfare state to the stirrings of populism and the sort of nationalism that troubled the world in the '30s. ..."
    "... One must also remember that the seeds were sown for Trump's brand of intolerance by the 'Tea Party' movement and Republican intransigence since 2008. ..."
    "... One thing that is not considered is how it can impact on two party politics. There's plenty here who say there are only two choices - Clinton or Trump, and that any failure to vote for Clinton is de facto a vote for Trump. They never appear to consider the converse. There's only two choices, and that a vote for Clinton is a vote for more of the same, therefore voting for anyone but Trump is a de facto vote for more of the same. ..."
    "... Great piece, was the same with brexit. Are you racist or do you support remain? Having successfully framed the question as such it's not surprising that polls turned out to be wrong. This paper in particular became/fostered an outlet for hatred of those inferior to the left, so fair play for publishing this article. ..."
    "... The problem is that the Liberal Elite media isn't liberal any more. The Guardian is in full support of big business and banks, and their unwavering support of any politician who wants to keep the status quo. ..."
    "... It isn't liberal or conservative. It lives in a [neoliberal] fantasy land where your station in life is merit based. If you are poor, it's a personal failing. Rich, you earned every penny. ..."
    "... They incorrectly believe the American Dream is something more than a fairytale rich people tell themselves to justify the misery they inflict on the poor. It's pro technocrat; "we have a perfect solution if it would just get implemented.... It won't rock the apple cart and will have minimum benefits but it makes us look like we care." ..."
    "... That problem is rooted in the notion that higher class means higher integrity. As journalist Lorraine Berry wrote last month, "The story remains that only the ignorant would be racist. Racism disappears with education we're told." As the first from my family to hold degrees, I assure you that none of us had to go to college to learn basic human decency. ..."
    "... People support trump because they see through the BS and propaganda that the MSM have been serving up all these years, and they are tired of it. Nobody wants what the establishment is selling. That anyone supports Hillary is a testament to the power of propaganda. That half the population supports trump is proof that the propaganda is losing its effectiveness. ..."
    "... It's said that towards the end of the Soviet empire, it was the same. ..."
    "... From my own worm's eye perspective, I can see the comparisons with British society and the high handed attitudes of our own liberal-left social elites who bemoan the masses for voting for Brexit. The damned uneducated and unwashed masses eh, look at what they've done the poor fools! ..."
    "... you no longer get to hide behind it because we are rejecting you and the Democratic Party as unreliable partners. ..."
    "... Besides the polling, one only needs to look at the number of people attending Trump rallies versus Hillary Clintons'. Trump is filling arena with 10 to 20,000 seats with people still lined up outside trying to get in. Whereas Hillary is barely filling a high school gymnasium. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism has failed the poor, disadvantaged and disabled. Making these people pay for the mistakes, corruption of our banks and major institutions is indicative of the greedy rich and elite who don't give a toss for their suffering. ..."
    "... Trump is a dispicable human being...but he has touched those who are desperate for a change. Unfortunately for them, Trump could never be the change they need - whilst Clinton is just more of the same sh*t as we've had for the last 40 years or more. Bernie was the best hope for change...but the establishment made sure he could not win by the manipulation of the "super delegate vote"! ..."
    "... American journalism has been willfully obtuse about the grievances on Main Streets for decades – surely a factor in digging the hole of resentment that Trump's venom now fills. ..."
    "... That the term "populism" has become a pejorative among prominent liberal commentators should give us great pause. A journalism that embodies the plutocracy it's supposed to critique has failed its watchdog duty and lost the respect of people who call bullshit when they see it. ..."
    "... I see a kernel of truth. Many I know well who support Trump are middle class who are not racists, bigots, and do not fit the profile attached to Trump. They are religious, social and fiscal conservatives who are furious that they are unfairly labeled by the media. ..."
    "... They are voting for him because he stuck a finger in the eye of the complacent Republican hierarchy who believe and practice "business as usual" while the middle class is stagnating in place. ..."
    "... The Democrats attract the rich and elitist voters (and this includes the main stream media) on one hand and the poor and uneducated on the other hand. ..."
    "... The middle class feels betrayed - and will sadly turn to ANYBODY who projects their anger and rage, even if that anybody is a charlatan and con artist. ..."
    "... New York Times: Hillary is a congenital liar. Except that was 1996: "Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar." ..."
    "... Trump represents change, and it doesn't matter if it's good or bad. Trump is the man with the bulldozer who'll knock everything down so perhaps something new can be rebuilt upon the ashes. America is unsalvageable at this point, so continuing on with a status quo president, represented perfectly by Hillary Clinton, is totally pointless. ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    ... Hard numbers complicate, if not roundly dismiss, the oft-regurgitated theory that income or education levels predict Trump support, or that working-class whites support him disproportionately. Last month, results of 87,000 interviews conducted by Gallup showed that those who liked Trump were under no more economic distress or immigration-related anxiety than those who opposed him.

    According to the study, his supporters didn't have lower incomes or higher unemployment levels than other Americans. Income data misses a lot; those with healthy earnings might also have negative wealth or downward mobility. But respondents overall weren't clinging to jobs perceived to be endangered. "Surprisingly", a Gallup researcher wrote, "there appears to be no link whatsoever between exposure to trade competition and support for nationalist policies in America, as embodied by the Trump campaign."

    Earlier this year, primary exit polls revealed that Trump voters were, in fact, more affluent than most Americans, with a median household income of $72,000 – higher than that of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders supporters. Forty-four percent of them had college degrees, well above the national average of 33% among whites or 29% overall. In January, political scientist Matthew MacWilliams reported findings that a penchant for authoritarianism – not income, education, gender, age or race –predicted Trump support.

    These facts haven't stopped pundits and journalists from pushing story after story about the white working class's giddy embrace of a bloviating demagogue.

    In seeking to explain Trump's appeal, proportionate media coverage would require more stories about the racism and misogyny among white Trump supporters in tony suburbs. Or, if we're examining economically driven bitterness among the working class, stories about the Democratic lawmakers who in recent decades ended welfare as we knew it, hopped in the sack with Wall Street and forgot American labor in their global trade agreements.

    But, for national media outlets comprised largely of middle- and upper-class [neo]liberals, that would mean looking their own class in the face.

    The faces journalists do train the cameras on – hateful ones screaming sexist vitriol next to Confederate flags – must receive coverage but do not speak for the communities I know well. That the media industry ignored my home for so long left a vacuum of understanding in which the first glimpse of an economically downtrodden white is presumed to represent the whole.

    Part of the current glimpse is JD Vance, author of the bestselling new memoir Hillbilly Elegy . A successful attorney who had a precariously middle-class upbringing in an Ohio steel town, Vance wrote of the chaos that can haunt a family with generational memory of deep poverty. A conservative who says he won't vote for Trump, Vance speculates about why working-class whites will: cultural anxiety that arises when opioid overdose kills your friends and the political establishment has proven it will throw you under the bus. While his theories may hold up in some corners, in interviews coastal media members have repeatedly asked Vance to speak for the entire white working class.

    ... ... ...

    One-dimensional stereotypes fester where journalism fails to tread. The last time I saw my native class receive substantial focus, before now, was over 20 years ago – not in the news but on the television show Roseanne , the fictional storylines of which remain more accurate than the musings of comfortable commentators in New York studios.

    Countless images of working-class progressives, including women such as Betty, are thus rendered invisible by a ratings-fixated media that covers elections as horse races and seeks sensational b-roll.

    This media paradigm created the tale of a divided America – "red" v "blue"– in which the 42% of Kansans who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 are meaningless.

    This year, more Kansans caucused for Bernie Sanders than for Donald Trump – a newsworthy point I never saw noted in national press, who perhaps couldn't fathom that "flyover country" might contain millions of Americans more progressive than their Clinton strongholds.

    In lieu of such coverage, media makers cast the white working class as a monolith and imply an old, treacherous story convenient to capitalism: that the poor are dangerous idiots.

    Poor whiteness and poor character

    The two-fold myth about the white working class – that they are to blame for Trump's rise, and that those among them who support him for the worst reasons exemplify the rest – takes flight on the wings of moral superiority affluent Americans often pin upon themselves. I have never seen them flap so insistently as in today's election commentary, where notions of poor whiteness and poor character are routinely conflated.

    In an election piece last March in the National Review, writer Kevin Williamson's assessment of poor white voters – among whom mortality rates have sharply risen in recent decades – expressed what many conservatives and liberals alike may well believe when he observed that communities ravaged by oxycodone use " deserve to die ".

    "The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles," Williamson wrote. "Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin."

    For confirmation that this point is lost on most reporters, not just conservative provocateurs, look no further than a recent Washington Post series that explored spiking death rates among rural white women by fixating on their smoking habits and graphically detailing the "haggard face" and embalming processes of their corpses . Imagine wealthy white woman examined thusly after their deaths. The outrage among family and friends with the education, time, and agency to write letters to the editor would have been deafening.

    A sentiment that I care for even less than contempt or degradation is their tender cousin: pity. In a recent op-ed headlined Dignity and Sadness in the Working Class , David Brooks told of a laid-off Kentucky metal worker he met. On his last day, the man left to rows of cheering coworkers – a moment I read as triumphant, but that Brooks declared pitiable. How hard the man worked for so little, how great his skills and how dwindling their value, Brooks pointed out, for people he said radiate "the residual sadness of the lonely heart".

    I'm hard-pressed to think of a worse slight than the media figures who have disregarded the embattled white working class for decades now beseeching the country to have sympathy for them. We don't need their analysis, and we sure don't need their tears. What we need is to have our stories told, preferably by someone who can walk into a factory without his own guilt fogging his glasses.

    One such journalist, Alexander Zaitchik, spent several months on the road in six states getting to know white working-class people who do support Trump. His goal for the resulting new book, The Gilded Rage , was to convey the human complexity that daily news misses. Zaitchik wrote that his mission arose from frustration with "'hot takes' written by people living several time zones and income brackets away from their subjects".

    Zaitchik wisely described those he met as a "blue-collar middle class"– mostly white people who have worked hard and lost a lot, whether in the market crash of 2008 or the manufacturing layoffs of recent decades. He found that their motivations overwhelmingly "started with economics and ended with economics". The anger he observed was "pointed up, not down" at those who forgot them when global trade deals were negotiated, not at minority groups.

    Meanwhile, the racism and nationalism that surely exist among them also exist among Democrats and higher socioeconomic strata. A poll conducted last spring by Reuters found that a third of questioned Democrats supported a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States. In another, by YouGov, 45% of polled Democrats reported holding an unfavorable view of Islam, with almost no fluctuation based on household income. Those who won't vote for Trump are not necessarily paragons of virtue, while the rest are easily scapegoated as the country's moral scourge.

    When Hillary Clinton recently declared half of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables", Zaitchik told another reporter, the language "could be read as another way of saying 'white-trash bin'." Clinton quickly apologized for the comment, the context of which contained compassion for many Trump voters. But making such generalizations at a $6m fundraiser in downtown New York City, at which some attendees paid $50,000 for a seat, recalled for me scenes from the television political satire Veep in which powerful Washington figures discuss "normals" with distaste behind closed doors.

    ... ... ...

    Many people recommended to me the bestselling new history book White Trash , for instance, without registering that its title is a slur that refers to me and the people I love as garbage. My happy relief that someone set out to tell this ignored thread of our shared past was squashed by my wincing every time I saw it on my shelf, so much so that I finally took the book jacket off. Incredibly, promotional copy for the book commits precisely the elitist shaming Isenberg is out to expose: "(the book) takes on our comforting myths about equality, uncovering the crucial legacy of the ever-present, always embarrassing – if occasionally entertaining –poor white trash."

    The book itself is more sensitively wrought and imparts facts that one hopes would dismantle popular use of its titular term. But even Isenberg can't escape our classist frameworks.

    When On the Media host Brooke Gladstone asked Isenberg, earlier this year, to address long-held perceptions of poor whites as bigots, the author described a conundrum: "They do subscribe to certain views that are undoubtedly racist, and you can't mask it and pretend that it's not there. It is very much a part of their thinking." Entertain a parallel broad statement about any other disenfranchised group, and you might begin to see how rudimentary class discussion is for this relatively young country that long believed itself to be free of castes. Isenberg has sniffed out the hypocrisy in play, though.

    "The other problem is when people want to blame poor whites for being the only racist in the room," she told Gladstone. " as if they're more racist than everyone else."

    That problem is rooted in the notion that higher class means higher integrity. As journalist Lorraine Berry wrote last month, "The story remains that only the ignorant would be racist. Racism disappears with education we're told." As the first from my family to hold degrees, I assure you that none of us had to go to college to learn basic human decency.

    Berry points out that Ivy-League-minted Republicans shepherded the rise of the alt-right. Indeed, it was not poor whites – not even white Republicans – who passed legislation bent on preserving segregation, or who watched the Confederate flag raised outside state capitols for decades to come.

    It wasn't poor whites who criminalized blackness by way of marijuana laws and the "war on drugs". Nor was it poor whites who conjured the specter of the black "welfare queen". These points should not minimize the horrors of racism at the lowest economic rungs of society, but remind us that those horrors reside at the top in different forms and with more terrible power.

    Among reporters and commentators this election cycle, then, a steady finger ought be pointed at whites with economic leverage: social conservatives who donate to Trump's campaign while being too civilized to attend a political rally and yell what they really believe.

    Mainstream media is set to fail the ordinary American

    Based on Trump's campaign rhetoric and available data, it appears that most of his voters this November will be people who are getting by well enough but who think of themselves as victims. One thing the media misses is that a great portion of the white working class would align with any sense before victimhood. Right now they are clocking in and out of work, sorting their grocery coupons, raising their children to respect others, and avoiding political news coverage.

    ... ... ...

    Media fascination with the hateful white Trump voter fuels the theory, now in fashion, that bigotry is the only explanation for supporting him. Certainly, financial struggle does not predict a soft spot for Trump, as cash-strapped people of color – who face the threat of his racism and xenophobia, and who resoundingly reject him, by all available measures – can attest. However, one imagines that elite white liberals who maintain an air of ethical grandness this election season would have a harder time thinking globally about trade and immigration if it were their factory job that was lost and their community that was decimated.

    Affluent analysts who oppose Trump, though, have a way of taking a systemic view when examining social woes but viewing their place on the political continuum as a triumph of individual character. Most of them presumably inherited their political bent, just like most of those in "red" America did. If you were handed liberalism, give yourself no pats on the back for your vote against Trump.

    Spare, too, the condescending argument that disaffected Democrats who joined Republican ranks in recent decades are "voting against their own best interests," undemocratic in its implication that a large swath of America isn't mentally fit to cast a ballot.

    Whoever remains on Trump's side as stories concerning his treatment of women, racism and other dangers continue to unfurl gets no pass from me for any reason. They are capable of voting, and they own their decisions. Let's be aware of our class biases, though, as we discern who "they" are.

    Journalist? Then chances are you're not blue collar

    A recent print-edition New York Times cutline described a Kentucky man:

    "Mitch Hedges, who farms cattle and welds coal-mining equipment. He expects to lose his job in six months, but does not support Mr Trump, who he says is 'an idiot.'"

    This made me cheer for the rare spotlight on a member of the white working class who doesn't support Trump. It also made me laugh – one can't "farm cattle". One farms crops, and one raises livestock. It's sometimes hard for a journalist who has done both to take the New York Times seriously.

    The main reason that national media outlets have a blind spot in matters of class is the lack of socioeconomic diversity within their ranks. Few people born to deprivation end up working in newsrooms or publishing books. So few, in fact, that this former laborer has found cause to shift her entire writing career to talk specifically about class in a wealth-privileged industry, much as journalists of color find themselves talking about race in a whiteness-privileged one.

    This isn't to say that one must reside among a given group or place to do it justice, of course, as good muckrakers and commentators have shown for the past century and beyond. See On the Media's fine new series on poverty, the second episode of which includes Gladstone's reflection that "the poor are no more monolithic than the rest of us."

    I know journalists to be hard-working people who want to get the story right, and I'm resistant to rote condemnations of "the media". The classism of cable-news hosts merely reflects the classism of privileged America in general. It's everywhere, from tweets describing Trump voters as inbred hillbillies to a Democratic campaign platform that didn't bother with a specific anti-poverty platform until a month out from the general election.

    The economic trench between reporter and reported on has never been more hazardous than at this moment of historic wealth disparity, though, when stories focus more often on the stock market than on people who own no stocks. American [neoliberal] journalism has been willfully obtuse about the grievances on Main Streets for decades – surely a factor in digging the hole of resentment that Trump's venom now fills. That the term "populism" has become a pejorative among prominent liberal commentators should give us great pause. A journalism that embodies the plutocracy it's supposed to critique has failed its watchdog duty and lost the respect of people who call bullshit when they see it.

    ... ... ...

    DonnaU, 8m ago

    What a balanced, engaging and informative read! She just blew away my stereotype of Trump supporters and illuminated the conundrum of why/how Trump has indeed gotten this far in spite of all the foul language, insults, etc. while still maintaining an impressive base of supporters -- obviously not the "white trash" to whom his success has been conveniently attributed by elite thinkers. I am humbled. This writer deserves a Pulitzer!
    alikatt , 14 Oct 2016 14:10)
    What an amazing piece of journalism. It challenged most of my prejudices and presumptions not just about Trump voters, but also similar groups here in Australia.
    Thanks for writing and to guardian for publishing it.
    OblateSpheroid , 14 Oct 2016 14:00)
    A few nights ago a neighbor described to me how Bill Clinton reaped the rewards of all the great stuff that Reagan and GHWB did.
    He could not explain how, exactly, Bill Clinton reversed all the great stuff that Reagan and GHWB did, thereby explaining why our/the global economy contracted severely from start-->finish of the GWB administration, nor the great stuff that GWB did that allowed Obama to preside during a period of recovery.

    I love how Republican/neocons explain the economy for past 8 years: GWB's tenure had nothing to do with how bad the economy got (America during each Presidential administration exists in a vacuum, wholly separate from the preceding one); Obama gets no credit for any improvement (he's so weak and pathetic that anything good that happened was because of brave Republicans forcing legislation through over his hysterical objections); Obama is fully to blame for whatever slow and unevenly-felt recovery the economy has been making (he never passes any Republican-backed legislation that would make it all better and ninja-wizards it so the Republicans can't override him)

    KilgoreTrout2012 , 14 Oct 2016 12:34)
    I'm a little confused by the title of this article that is supposedly describing the liberal media elite and it's failings concerning the working-class. Two of the "liberal media elite" are conservative David Brooks and National Review's Kevin Williamson who are as far from liberal as you can get.
    Mkjaks , 14 Oct 2016 12:16)
    This year, more Kansans caucused for Bernie Sanders than for Donald Trump – a newsworthy point I never saw noted in national press, who perhaps couldn't fathom that "flyover country" might contain millions of Americans more progressive than their Clinton strongholds.

    In lieu of such coverage, media makers cast the white working class as a monolith and imply an old, treacherous story convenient to capitalism: that the poor are dangerous idiots.

    Thank you so much for this article. Really felt inspired to learn that more Kansans caucused for Bernie Sanders than Donald Trump. The self-congratulatory [neo]liberal media has done such a terrible disservice to such a huge group of people by trivializing their concerns. It seems that anyone who disagrees with the media's perspective can glibly be insulted. What the media doesn't seem to get is that insulting people, after a while, only creates rage.

    Roger Dafremen , 14 Oct 2016 11:26)
    Smug elitists love to brag about their college educations and compare price tags. I much prefer the company of those educated by experience rather than institutions.

    In my experience as a software engineer, I found the college educated to be entirely too sure of themselves for their ability level. They cost us more time, more frustration, had a greater chance of making the customer experience a negative one, etc. Experience was always the deciding factor and why, in at least two cases, our company chose non-degreed computer geeks over college graduates.

    Again and again the ineptitude and ignorant selfishness of the privileged and acutely privileged burdens the working class. Especially in politics and business. We're doing everything anyway, no need for useless, stuck up freeloaders.

    We should drop this cold potato and see what happens.

    AhBrightWings , 14 Oct 2016 11:22)
    The New Yorker's excellent economic writer James Surowiecki has an essay in this week's mag. noting that if Trump gets in and enacts his tax "plan" the richest Americans will receive a 10-11% tax cut and the rest of us get a walloping . 05%. He excoriated the notion that this makes him an "outsider," a claim many of us have been deriding from the onset. This suggests moneyed interests, which invariably are powerful interests, stand to gain a literal fortune if Trump wins, a sobering thought about who and what may truly be fueling his race.

    The most valuable part of this Guardian essay is that it also dismantles the myth that Trump's followers are the poor and working class, though that message seems a bit lost here as it gets tangled up in the effort to blame a supposedly liberal press (some of the writers she quotes, who often aren't saying what she claims, aren't liberals).

    zavaell , 14 Oct 2016 11:13)
    "...political scientist Matthew MacWilliams reported findings that a penchant for authoritarianism – not income, education, gender, age or race –predicted Trump support."

    This is a good article with plenty from which to abstract many complex issues. I am a Brit (who wants to remain in the EU) but have had a six decade fascination with the US; even with some background from reading and visiting I think the author has to realize that my quote from her article is one that resonates outside the States.

    The US is different to Europe, even the UK, and the conflict between 'the land of the free', and everyone has an opportunity to make it big time, with the patent impact of raw capitalism on workers has been around since the eighteenth century. That it has got worse since Reagan and Thatcher opened up neo-liberal economics to full throttle is a catalyst for dissatisfaction, not the total cause. There already was an intolerance in the US in the same way as in the UK but the cycle of time has taken us from the inception of the welfare state to the stirrings of populism and the sort of nationalism that troubled the world in the '30s.

    One must also remember that the seeds were sown for Trump's brand of intolerance by the 'Tea Party' movement and Republican intransigence since 2008. You cannot ride the tiger.

    DrMcNounVerber , 14 Oct 2016 11:09)
    This is really rather good. Certainly far better then most of the regulars.

    One thing that is not considered is how it can impact on two party politics. There's plenty here who say there are only two choices - Clinton or Trump, and that any failure to vote for Clinton is de facto a vote for Trump. They never appear to consider the converse. There's only two choices, and that a vote for Clinton is a vote for more of the same, therefore voting for anyone but Trump is a de facto vote for more of the same.

    To be clear I doubt I could a lower opinion of the effect Trump could have on the States, and I fully acknowledge the tendency to place entire sections of society in boxes (and sneer at them) in this article, but in a choice between government and opposition that's what you've got.

    hum9ol , 14 Oct 2016 09:44)
    Great piece, was the same with brexit. Are you racist or do you support remain? Having successfully framed the question as such it's not surprising that polls turned out to be wrong. This paper in particular became/fostered an outlet for hatred of those inferior to the left, so fair play for publishing this article.

    People are more complex than clickbait.

    Epivore hum9ol , 14 Oct 2016 10:54)
    "was the same with Brexit'. No, it wasn't. And your accusation that the Guardian promoted hatred of your self-categorised Brexit-supporting white working class is utter nonsense. Go read the comments going back months before the referendum and all the hatred and bile is flowing from Brexit supporters who decamped from the Daily Mail and Sun to pour scorn on the 'latte-sipping metropolitan leftie SJW metrosexual elite' here. And when Leave won the referendum, the Brexiters were here again telling everyone else to shut up and accept it, accusing people who dissented of being traitors etc. Trying to paint them as victims is laughable when it was a Labour MP and campaigner for refugees rights who was assassinated in broad daylight by a racist who clearly felt empowered to act by the same racist, xenophobic propaganda you'd like to pretend never existed.

    SirWillis , 14 Oct 2016 10:54)

    The problem is that the Liberal Elite media isn't liberal any more. The Guardian is in full support of big business and banks, and their unwavering support of any politician who wants to keep the status quo. As soon as a candidate comes along that actually wants to take away the power large banks and businesses have over governments, they immediately attack them. Bernie sanders and Jeremy Corbyn being perfect examples.
    sharpydufc , 14 Oct 2016 09:21)
    Is the media in America liberal though? Bloomberg and Fox certainly are not.
    UserFriendlyyy sharpydufc , 14 Oct 2016 09:46)
    It isn't liberal or conservative. It lives in a [neoliberal] fantasy land where your station in life is merit based. If you are poor, it's a personal failing. Rich, you earned every penny.

    They incorrectly believe the American Dream is something more than a fairytale rich people tell themselves to justify the misery they inflict on the poor. It's pro technocrat; "we have a perfect solution if it would just get implemented.... It won't rock the apple cart and will have minimum benefits but it makes us look like we care."

    UserFriendlyyy sharpydufc , 14 Oct 2016 09:49)
    If you want to see the bias at play check out this: http://harpers.org/archive/2016/11/swat-team-2/1/

    alpykog , 14 Oct 2016 09:10)

    Your hero Reagan killed off working class representation i.e. unions as Thatcher did in the UK. Then he enriched his friends. Geddit?
    daffyddw , 14 Oct 2016 08:47)
    Difficult and timely truth. Thanks for this article.

    That problem is rooted in the notion that higher class means higher integrity. As journalist Lorraine Berry wrote last month, "The story remains that only the ignorant would be racist. Racism disappears with education we're told." As the first from my family to hold degrees, I assure you that none of us had to go to college to learn basic human decency.

    So well and directly put and made me feel ashamed (the first of a generation of our family to go to gain degrees) of my own stupidity and detachment.
    MrIncredlous , 14 Oct 2016 08:44)
    People support trump because they see through the BS and propaganda that the MSM have been serving up all these years, and they are tired of it. Nobody wants what the establishment is selling. That anyone supports Hillary is a testament to the power of propaganda. That half the population supports trump is proof that the propaganda is losing its effectiveness.

    It's said that towards the end of the Soviet empire, it was the same.

    KikideMontparnasse , 14 Oct 2016 08:42)

    Despite that most people watch news rather than read, they see very little or nothing. The reason is that the media has become the theatre for talking heads. We see the same pictures ad nauseum, the footage of few dangerous hours (let's say from Syria) edited to few seconds; too many Americans have absolutely no chance to see anything from the outside world and yet they feel competent to judge immigrant crisis, the Middle East, Europe (Paris under siege, no go zones...) just because some big mouth told them what to think. And Trump being of that world was ready, set to go.
    We know that the media is the most powerful designer of public opinion, and they are shit (pardon my French).
    ravioliollie KikideMontparnasse , 14 Oct 2016 10:14)
    To find objective news and rational opinions go to your local library. Legitimate news is non existent on the t.v. Any legitimate reporter either writes a book or works for such pubs as The Atlantic, Harper's, New Yorker, and believe it or not Rolling Stone. There are countless other news sources that won't go near MSM and its slanted 30 seconds news AND consumption driven commercials.
    JWBARR6119 , 14 Oct 2016 08:29)
    Excellent article. No one likes to be told how it is and I'm surprised this article even got to be printed in the Guardian. From my own worm's eye perspective, I can see the comparisons with British society and the high handed attitudes of our own liberal-left social elites who bemoan the masses for voting for Brexit. The damned uneducated and unwashed masses eh, look at what they've done the poor fools!

    fireangel , 14 Oct 2016 08:15)

    This article is very good ,thanks.
    The bit about Maher making a joke about "check your bread" after the seven died in the grain silo,
    was very much to the point. And says a lot about Maher and his grinning smugness.
    marxmarv HerLao , 14 Oct 2016 09:36)
    Title suggests such a thing only if you are committed to the corporate party duopoly. There is a left, and you no longer get to hide behind it because we are rejecting you and the Democratic Party as unreliable partners.

    Trump4Prez2016 HerLao , 14 Oct 2016 10:55)

    Well don't be surprised and have a total nervous breakdown when Trump actually does win in a landslide. Here's the thing about polls. Polls are great at making people feel good when they reinforce something that a person believes in. However polls are too easily manipulated by the pollsters conducting them by varying the sample size or ending the poll when a predetermined prefered outcome is reached. Here's the thing though, I can tell you the last time I was ever called up on the telephone by a pollster-NEVER. Will go a step further and tell you that out of the couple hundred people I know located throughout the US no one has ever been called by a pollster. If in fact they were: A.) They did not know it was a pollster; B.) They did not answer the phone and C.) They did not know what the poll entailed

    Besides the polling, one only needs to look at the number of people attending Trump rallies versus Hillary Clintons'. Trump is filling arena with 10 to 20,000 seats with people still lined up outside trying to get in. Whereas Hillary is barely filling a high school gymnasium.

    Finally when you consider that all main stream media is protecting their darling Empress Hillary and only reporting positive spin pieces on her and broadcasting negative press for Trump, they, the MSM, is in the tank for Hillary. Shame on them for picking sides when they are supposed to be fair and objective. Also shame on them for thinking that people are either blind or too stupid to see thru this nonsense. Shame on you for buying into it hook, line and sinker. Please repeat after me: President Donald J Trump-45th President of the United States of America. One more thing, he will Make America Great Again.

    boo321 , 14 Oct 2016 07:53)
    Neoliberalism has failed the poor, disadvantaged and disabled. Making these people pay for the mistakes, corruption of our banks and major institutions is indicative of the greedy rich and elite who don't give a toss for their suffering.

    Trump is a dispicable human being...but he has touched those who are desperate for a change. Unfortunately for them, Trump could never be the change they need - whilst Clinton is just more of the same sh*t as we've had for the last 40 years or more. Bernie was the best hope for change...but the establishment made sure he could not win by the manipulation of the "super delegate vote"!

    On a public vote basis, Bernie won hands down!

    TomMcKinley , 14 Oct 2016 05:56)
    What a great paragraph:

    "The economic trench between reporter and reported on has never been more hazardous than at this moment of historic wealth disparity, though, when stories focus more often on the stock market than on people who own no stocks.

    American journalism has been willfully obtuse about the grievances on Main Streets for decades – surely a factor in digging the hole of resentment that Trump's venom now fills.

    That the term "populism" has become a pejorative among prominent liberal commentators should give us great pause. A journalism that embodies the plutocracy it's supposed to critique has failed its watchdog duty and lost the respect of people who call bullshit when they see it."

    Samuel Dauner , 14 Oct 2016 05:56)
    Fantastic read. Even though I'm a world away, the sentiments resonate well over here in Australia. We too have our own issues with race and class, spurred on by the talking heads and op-ed columnists who are far too removed from the reality of working class whites. Especially from those of the left (which I am on the whole sympathetic, this media outlet is one of my faves). But there is quite honestly a stench of holier than thou, elitist and consistently derogatory smugness in some commentary that shames the blue collar, more often than not white, lower socioeconomic class with xenephobic, racist, misogynistic and downright cruel dispositions that are prevelant through all cross sections of society. To heap all of these nationalistic and ignorant views on the white working class is just as troublesome as the views that the media purports to be so dangerous. Trump and his sympathisers across the right wing politics of the are deeply disturbing and dangerous but to blame this phenomena all on one section of society is just as, if not worse.
    Alg2013 , 14 Oct 2016 05:56)
    I see a kernel of truth. Many I know well who support Trump are middle class who are not racists, bigots, and do not fit the profile attached to Trump. They are religious, social and fiscal conservatives who are furious that they are unfairly labeled by the media.
    zeetubes Alg2013 , 14 Oct 2016 05:21)
    I could (but probably won't) vote in the US elections. If I did, I would definitely vote for Trump. I would have voted for Bernie but that option was taken away from me. I just want to avoid at all costs allowing that war-mongering hag to become president.

    tsforcertain OblateSpheroid , 14 Oct 2016 05:21)

    They are voting for him because he stuck a finger in the eye of the complacent Republican hierarchy who believe and practice "business as usual" while the middle class is stagnating in place.

    The Democrats attract the rich and elitist voters (and this includes the main stream media) on one hand and the poor and uneducated on the other hand. No one is representing the average working stiff who is struggling with a mortgage, car payments, rising insurance costs for his family while scrimping to save enough for the kids' college education.

    The middle class feels betrayed - and will sadly turn to ANYBODY who projects their anger and rage, even if that anybody is a charlatan and con artist.

    The John Boehners and Mitch McConnells of rarified, isolated Washington DC gifted this crisis of trust to the Republican Party, leaving us in the US having the election options of Mussolini or Lady Macbeth. Ugh.

    zeetubes , 14 Oct 2016 05:21)

    New York Times: Hillary is a congenital liar. Except that was 1996: "Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar."

    I somehow can't imagine the NYT printing anything like that now.

    Shatford Shatford , 14 Oct 2016 05:21)

    Many Trump supporters are mad at the government, at its institutions, and at the current state of America. It is nothing like the America of their parent's generation. Long dead is the American dream.

    Trump represents change, and it doesn't matter if it's good or bad. Trump is the man with the bulldozer who'll knock everything down so perhaps something new can be rebuilt upon the ashes. America is unsalvageable at this point, so continuing on with a status quo president, represented perfectly by Hillary Clinton, is totally pointless.

    ... ... ...

    Make no mistake: it isn't.

    [Oct 13, 2016] PUSSY has been rediscovered and resurrected by the Democrat Digital Archaeologists

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    clarky90 October 13, 2016 at 3:44 pm

    Now that the most terrifyingly potent word in the English language, "PUSSY" has been rediscovered and resurrected by the Democrat Digital Archaeologists, it is time for reflection. "Pussy" has been detonated over the Trump campaign. Hillary Clinton will be elected. Nuclear War with Russia and China now seems likely.

    War may break out after Hillary's election but before she takes office (think June 22, 1941)

    I am recommending downloading and securely storing as many recipes and photos of meals as possible! Also war movies and series (Band of Brothers etc). Digital survivalists, the new reality.

    Also, we MUST organize battalions of Social Justice Warriors
    to pull the dead and dying from the smoking rubble, rebuild the electricity grid, maintain social order and establish food supplies.

    Most likely, the "deplorables" and the "irredeemables" will be otherwise occupied in their own communities (that probably were not directly targeted)

    [Oct 13, 2016] New evidence that the hacks were not carried out by an elite team of state-sponsored cyber experts

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ggm October 13, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    Podesta's twitter account and i-devices were hacked yesterday using a password found in the emails. See here .

    That is pretty good evidence that the emails are authentic, unless you believe the hackers managed to guess his password by an astronomically lucky coincidence.

    I think this is also evidence that the hacks were not carried out by an elite team of state-sponsored cyber experts. Podesta was emailing his password in plain text, using a simple password, using that password across multiple accounts. Further, he didn't bother to change his password despite his mailbox being hacked and the contents spreading all over the internet!

    This man is a dingbat on computer security matters. Literally anyone could have hacked him using very simple techniques. That password (Hunter4567) could have been brute forced quickly using tools available to everyone.

    Have to go with Occam's razor and say this was probably not a massive Russian plot to influence the election and install Trump, just an incompetent person getting caught with their pants down by someone poking around.

    OIFVet October 13, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    The Putin doctored the email to include Podesta's password. Duh! Debunked in a nanosecond! /Sarc

    [Oct 13, 2016] Lies recast and repeated enough times by establishment democrats and their presstitutes become facts.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Recast and repeated enough times, and they become facts. ..."
    "... Trump has lost it. ..."
    "... Voters are deserting him ..."
    "... "Hillary will win ..."
    "... The news organizations have (or used to have) a duty not to report lies. And remember, all it takes is one phone call from the DNC. So, if they are reporting it, the emails are legitimate. Wiki can leak, but they can ignore. ..."
    "... If the MSM wanted to find out whether the emails were genuine or doctored or forgeries, all they have to do is ask Podesta for the authentic emails. The MSM hasn't done so, because the results would spoil their narrative. ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    aliteralmind October 13, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/in-the-democratic-echo-chamber-inconvenient-truths-are-recast-as-putin-plots/

    A discussion by people in the know:

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/1699656706954539/permalink/1768207876766088/

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 13, 2016 at 3:40 pm

    Recast and repeated enough times, and they become facts.

    • "Trump has lost it."
    • "Voters are deserting him."
    • "Hillary will win."
    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 13, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    The news organizations have (or used to have) a duty not to report lies. And remember, all it takes is one phone call from the DNC. So, if they are reporting it, the emails are legitimate. Wiki can leak, but they can ignore.

    Here is your proof.

    sid_finster October 13, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    If the MSM wanted to find out whether the emails were genuine or doctored or forgeries, all they have to do is ask Podesta for the authentic emails. The MSM hasn't done so, because the results would spoil their narrative.

    Benedict@Large October 13, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    The best I've heard is that not a single person in the From/To addresses is denying a single e-mail where they are so listed.

    [Oct 13, 2016] Debate Wrapup

    Notable quotes:
    "... +A large part of the uproar over the Trump tapes is driven not by the fact that Trump's comments are shocking but because they are so familiar. We've heard similar, perhaps even more rancid, things from our fathers, uncles, brothers, coaches, teachers, pastors, teammates, and friends. Perhaps we've even made similar comments ourselves. Now the public wants to project its own shame onto Trump. His humiliation serves as a kind catharsis for the nation's own systemic sexism. Perhaps NOW will give him a medal one day for his "sacrifice"… ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Until a second Hunter Thompson comes along, the appropriately jaded Jeffrey St. Clair will have to do [ Counterpunch ].

    +A large part of the uproar over the Trump tapes is driven not by the fact that Trump's comments are shocking but because they are so familiar. We've heard similar, perhaps even more rancid, things from our fathers, uncles, brothers, coaches, teachers, pastors, teammates, and friends. Perhaps we've even made similar comments ourselves. Now the public wants to project its own shame onto Trump. His humiliation serves as a kind catharsis for the nation's own systemic sexism. Perhaps NOW will give him a medal one day for his "sacrifice"…

    Cf. Luke 18:11 .

    [Oct 13, 2016] You can bet that from the intelligence community to querying everyone hes ever been in contact with has been covered. The best they could come up with was an 11 year old video of him preening his feathers

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    williambanzai7 tbd108 Oct 12, 2016 4:14 AM

    I got news for you, Trump has enough enemies that if there was anything that could be pinned on him he would have been in the slammer long ago; competitors , ex-wives, casino regulators, you name it.

    All they can come up with is Miss Universe, locker room banter and net operating loss carryforwards.

    The Jackal williambanzai7 Oct 12, 2016 5:05 AM
    Absolutely spot on assessment. You can bet that from the intelligence community to querying everyone he's ever been in contact with has been covered. The best they could come up with was an 11 year old video of him preening his feathers.

    There's nothing to be found.

    ImGumbydmmt williambanzai7 Oct 12, 2016 12:39 PM
    +1000 Banzai! logged in just to upvote your coment.

    Was thinking the same thing. is this the best dirt they got on him?

    I see Trump's warts, I'm not blind.He's not Ron Paul, ok ok, we get it. and still I will vote for Trump becasue i see how much opposition is being hurled at him everyday.

    PLUS we see what a vile menace, murdering sack of fecal matter wrapped in corruption that "Die Furher Hitlery" is.

    And Because i've got two little kids that i dont want to die in Hitlery's nuclear war.

    Stanley Lord tbd108 Oct 12, 2016 7:39 AM
    I dont think the Neocon pounding is working at all.
    kellys_eye Rodders75 Oct 12, 2016 5:34 AM
    The Trump vs Clinton debacle seems to follow the UK's own pre-Brexit debate where the 'evil' (leavers) were on the wrong end of a constant onslaught by the 'good' (remainers).

    What was disregarded by the media and establishment alike was the undercurrent of disillusionment of the PEOPLE with the system that was widely perceived to be betraying the public for the good of a few - corporates, politicians, banksters et al - and they almost took it for granted that remain would win the day.

    Look how THAT turned out. The establishment line, backed by virtually all the media and the apallingly corrupt BBC, were bitch-slapped the morning after the vote and it was a pleasure to watch!

    Parallels - right up to the 'bitch slapping' - this is what you may yet see.

    Fireman Oct 12, 2016 3:36 AM
    Rape, pillage and plunder; it's as amerikan as apple pie. So whether you be a chump on da stump for oligarch Trump or a psychopathic moron into the Clinton Crime Organization of sexual deviants and murderers, in the end one of these bums is the real face of the USSAN thug state. Like NAZI Germany before it (that other anglozionazi project) USSA will be "cured" from the outside and that process is already well underway.

    Onward to the inevitable mushroom clouds.

    froze25 Fireman Oct 12, 2016 7:28 AM
    Besides having money why is Trump an "Oilgarch"?
    SillySalesmanQu... froze25 Oct 12, 2016 7:50 AM
    Good point. The Don has only "gamed the system," by using the rules and laws available to him. He plays the press like a fiddle, therefore, generating free publicity, he would otherwise have to pay for. The perpetual smirk, sneer, arrogance and disdain he has, is for many others, who have done far worse, for far less, than he has.
    poeg froze25 Oct 12, 2016 9:22 AM
    Because the average citizen sees the term as a "Russian" one and the Russians are "bad men" like Trump. It plays to the morons.
    chindit13 Oct 12, 2016 3:40 AM
    Watching the video, I am reminded of one of George Orwell's famous quotes:

    Before age forty, your face is up to God; after age forty, your face is up to you.

    Fluorideinthewater chindit13 Oct 12, 2016 7:07 AM

    At 50, everyone has the face he deserves. -George Orwell

    [Oct 13, 2016] Hillary Clinton is stanch neoliberal who has nocompattion for displayed workers in the USA

    Notable quotes:
    "... When Hillary Clinton recently declared half of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables", Zaitchik told another reporter, the language "could be read as another way of saying 'white-trash bin'." ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    When Hillary Clinton recently declared half of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables", Zaitchik told another reporter, the language "could be read as another way of saying 'white-trash bin'." Clinton quickly apologized for the comment, the context of which contained compassion for many Trump voters. But making such generalizations at a $6m fundraiser in downtown New York City, at which some attendees paid $50,000 for a seat, recalled for me scenes from the television political satire Veep in which powerful Washington figures discuss "normals" with distaste behind closed doors.

    [Oct 13, 2016] 'Anonymous' Remembers Hillary Clinton, Career Criminal Zero Hedge

    Oct 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Unlike Reuters' political "reporters" , it seems the hacker collective "Anonymous" is less impressed by Hillary Clinton's awesomeness. Following Wikileaks' recent release of leaks, Anonymous reminds Americans of the 'career criminal' in a video containing a well researched list of wrong-doings, exposing the actions of Hillary over her career .

    This includes things like:

  • fraud investigations
  • conflicts of interest
  • political corruption
  • wrongful pardons
  • campaign and finance law violations
  • business & political scandals
  • This is only a small list of what is explored in the video below...

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/wK2K5v5bm0Q

    AnoNews explains Why This Matters

    With so much exposed already, why do we continue to follow, allow, and accept people like Hillary and Trump as potentials to be country leaders? Truly think about it. Can we even take a system that puts these two so high up in the ranks seriously?

    Is this not the perfect storm to allow us to wake up to the reality of our current state? We should be thankful that this is going on so we can help wake up the world and begin a conversation about what we can legitimately do next.

    This isn't about Trump vs Clinton. That is merely the illusion we are being invited to believe. This is about awakening to the fact that our system is absurd and that it's time to do something different. What is the answer? That is what we must discuss instead of playing this broken political game of dividing and choosing who to "vote" for.

    Occident Mortal Kidbuck Oct 12, 2016 3:41 AM Any journalist should feel enormous professional humilation and deep personal shame at the fact a bunch of teenagers are offering more scrutiny on this presidential candidate than the entire press industry.

    What a pathetic weak press this country has. All bought, every last one of them. CuttingEdge Occident Mortal Oct 12, 2016 4:12 AM Its not a matter of tolerance, it is a matter of wilfull ignorance.

    Guided and also manufactured to a great degree by an MSM-fabricated matrix of misinformation at the behest of the fuckers pulling the strings. The disinterest in the morals of policy and action and their effect on millions of people both at home and abroad is quite jaw-dropping, and a sad reflection on how low society (not just in the US) has fallen.

    However Brexit proved all hope is not lost and sheeple can develop an awareness (probaly as a result of the intimidating bullshit they were being fed).

    Vote Trump 2016 sun tzu Occident Mortal Oct 12, 2016 6:00 AM Presstitutes have no shame or morals quadraspleen Occident Mortal Oct 12, 2016 6:17 AM Anonymous aren't any single bunch of anything, let alone a bunch of teenagers. That's the point. They are everyone and no-one. Lots of milsec white hats use their cover. Hell, a few of them are deep NSA and .gov peeps just pissed at the way their erstwhile "honourable" (yeah, right) agencies have been co-opted by crooks like her We no longer have statesmen. We have technocrats or "temporarily displaced bankers." Stranger_in_a_S... crazzziecanuck Oct 12, 2016 11:00 AM

    I wish you could say that was happening. I just don't see it at all. I see things getting worse, and it's this "business" mentality that is sucking the rest of us all down beneath the waves to drown.

    I tend to agree.

    Though just personal anecdote, in my career, I've seen this 'business mentality' at work, and it can be ugly.

    For instance, I was in the room, to hear the CFO and COO discuss how to 'reach the numbers' so that the COO would get his bonus. The decision in this case was to rid 100+ employees, many with decades of experience and accumulated skillsets, to reduce costs, hit the 'correct' bottom line for a quarter or two, and voila! Company 'hit the numbers' and COO gets his bonus...in addition to the already lucrative salary, well beyond what most would 'need'. Within a week of the bonus, he drives up in a flashy, new, red sportscar. Should have witnessed the rage many of the remaining, spared employees that had watched their friends/coworkers get axed and still remain unemployed; there were literally conversations about lighting that car on fire in the parking lot.

    There were similar decisions to gobble up local and other national competitor shops. Some were immediately shut down and everyone axed, but some with more glowing numbers that could be used to pad forecasts, were kept on for a short while. After saddling the company with immense debt to cover the acquisitions, boosting the sales and forecast figures 'on paper' for the foreseeable near future, he penned himself a nice, shiny résumé about 'increasing sales 4x in just a year' landed himself a different COO job in California and left. Soon thereafter, when the weight of everything crashed down (scarce employees, with little skill left to efficiently accomplish a quality product...both measures suffering/declining), those acquisitions were shut down and the original company is now scarcely a shadow of what it was, thereby causing more layoffs and terminations. Now the $150 million +/year company, with 900 employees, is a $10 million/year company, with 200 employees.

    But that COO? He's living it up in CA, several companies later, and my periodic checkup on the 'net shows he's done similarly a few more times, yet entrenched in the network of corporate boards/COOs that still perpetuate this scheme. Contrary to 'building' anything, they construct a false narrative and tear everyone down in the process. But he and his cohorts get rich.

    No, not everyone at that level does this, but the incentives are such that it is very tempting to follow suit and a review of corporate history in this nation shows it is/was quite typical over many decades...because it works for those that engage this behavior.

    Sound familiar to U.S. policy abroad? michelp luckylongshot Oct 12, 2016 10:37 AM "The answer is to start studying what it takes to apply power productively and use the findings to select and train appropriate leaders."

    Sorry but! In the currupt USA run by zio and war machines any 'appropriate leader' is DOA (Dead on Arrival.) Donald J. Trump tbd108 Oct 12, 2016 3:58 AM As I'm sure there are some that put Ttump on a high horse, I think most Trump supporters are supporting him because of the exact reason they are fed up with system as aanonymous says. Trump is a big middle finger to the status quo of Washington politics. I for one hope he does as he says he will do to hopefully right the ship of the US. He may even sink the ship but it's going down already, he's our only chance to right it. What he's done takes a certain level of celebrity, balls, and money, and I can't think of another person who could do what he has done. As great a cure Trump may be for our country, there are some side effects so talk to your doctor to see if Trump is right for you. Dial 1(844)LIB-TARD or (855)LIB-TARD for a free sample of Trump.

    Btw- those phone numbers are available if someone could actually make a good use for it. I'm also interested if the other exchanges that are already taken have anything to with libtards.

    [Oct 13, 2016] Sexism and bigotry is probably ALL wrapped up in peoples economic plights

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    jrs October 12, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    of course sexism and bigotry is probably ALL wrapped up in people's economic plights. Back in the real world women put up with sexual harassment at work etc. because they need the income. Yes it's illegal, but it's not always enforced especially in the blue collar workplace. And yes Trumps comments were mostly about consensual stuff and if so arent' harassment. But sexism as such isn't actually separable from economics.

    ggm October 12, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    I heard it as consensual, too. Women "let me" grab them. Maybe I am more forgiving than others because I worked for a famous musician when I was younger and witnessed women throwing themselves at him constantly. Are we taking away the agency of women by assuming this was unwanted attention? Is it possible there are women who might have enjoyed the contact with him? Assuming he was even telling the truth in his statements.

    Monist Lisa October 13, 2016 at 12:46 am

    jrs and ggm
    +1000

    (didn't see yours before I posted above)

    hunkerdown October 12, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    You want people to be more concerned with sexism and bigotry than they are with their own economic plight.

    In other words, evangelicals starving people in order that they pray correctly for a bearable afterlife. Frankly, I'm getting sick of them too.

    [Oct 13, 2016] Will, Aggression and Plenty of Ignorance is exactly what it takes to put a good scar on the face of the most organized, high-level, well-connected, mob-operation run by the US government since the Shah of Iran

    Notable quotes:
    "... Do you want the willfully, aggressively ignorant on your side? ..."
    "... Would you choose purposely to select the most willfully wrong person to do any task for you for pay? ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    fajensen October 13, 2016 at 4:10 am

    Do you want the willfully, aggressively ignorant on your side?

    Would you choose purposely to select the most willfully wrong person to do any task for you for pay?

    1)Certainly: Will, Aggression and Plenty of Ignorance is *exactly* what it takes to put a good scar on the face of the most organized, high-level, well-connected, mob-operation run by the US government since the Shah of Iran.

    Trump "going over the top", thus attracting all the "fire", has set in motion a flood of leaks. Soon we will see defections when the rats see that the ship is indeed leaking and the water is getting close to their nest. Then there will be congress hearings, the hyenas sizing up which parts of the carcass they like to have when it dies, impeachment, several years of some progress for the little folks while the new management rebuilds the enterprise and re-tune the neglected Engine of Looting at the core.

    2)The only people doing any task for *me* *for pay* are the carpenter and the guy cleaning the drain. We have a deal: I don't care about their opinions and they don't complain over my coffee.

    You are a bit naive if you think any kind of leadership works for you. In the best situation, your interests are aligned with theirs, it looks like "working together". And since one does not look in the mouth of a gift horse, everyone are happy. Right now, "our interests" and "theirs" are blatantly opposed.

    [Oct 13, 2016] Anyone that says that Trump can not be in the White House better vote for Stein or Johnson otherwise they are giant hypocrites. Bill Clinton is a rapist and Hillary Clinton aided and abetted his history of abuse

    Notable quotes:
    "... I've never heard anyone say "grab them by the pussy" but I have heard young college males talk about porn in a college library loud enough for me to hear them 2 tables over. I've heard detail accounts of what they want to do w/ girls they no. I just stared out them for a few minutes but it was clear that they did not care about my opinion or that they were in the library. ..."
    "... St. Claire is right. Anyone that says that Trump can not be in the White House better vote for Stein or Johnson otherwise they are giant hypocrites. Bill Clinton is a rapist and Hillary Clinton aided and abetted his history of abuse. ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    AnEducatedFool October 12, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    Who has said that it was right?

    I've never heard anyone say "grab them by the pussy" but I have heard young college males talk about porn in a college library loud enough for me to hear them 2 tables over. I've heard detail accounts of what they want to do w/ girls they no. I just stared out them for a few minutes but it was clear that they did not care about my opinion or that they were in the library.

    I spent much of my childhood around athletes. The higher you go up the food chain the more crass the comments. I was never in a football locker room but baseball and basketball were pretty terrible. I played at the national level in AAU and spent a lot of time around traveling baseball players. They were into drugs and girls. The comments were reprehensible and they have not changed much behind closed doors. I'm 34 now.

    My brother is older and his friends have all said horrible things when no women were around. I was typically the voice of reason which made me a target for gay bashing. I'm straight but since I did not see the need to devalue women I was asked if I was gay.

    St. Claire is right. Anyone that says that Trump can not be in the White House better vote for Stein or Johnson otherwise they are giant hypocrites. Bill Clinton is a rapist and Hillary Clinton aided and abetted his history of abuse.

    [Oct 13, 2016] Were the US intelligence agencis the source of grabbing pussy tape for Clinton compaign as a way to protect funding

    Notable quotes:
    "... 2018 and 2020 will be interesting indeed, assuming HRC hasn't started WW3 by then. ..."
    "... Speaking of which, Ray McGovern warns against the sabre-rattling over Syria and the calls for "no fly zones" in CounterPunch today: ..."
    "... For instance, Russian defense spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov warned on Oct. 6 that Russia is prepared to shoot down unidentified aircraft – including any stealth aircraft – over Syria. It is a warning that I believe should be taken seriously ..."
    "... It's true that experts differ as to whether the advanced air defense systems already in Syria can bring down stealth aircraft, but it would be a mistake to dismiss this warning out of hand. Besides, Konashenkov added, in a telling ex-ante-extenuating-circumstance vein, that Russian air defense "will not have time to identify the origin" of the aircraft. ..."
    "... In other words, U.S. aircraft, which have been operating in Syrian skies without Syrian government approval, could be vulnerable to attack with the Russian government preemptively warning that such an incident won't be Moscow's fault. ..."
    "... Bush & Cheney & Co were horrific enough with their neocon games in the Mideast, but their actions seem mild compared with the latest anti-Russian lunatic talk by Clinton and her neocon pals. Really scary. ..."
    "... Yes the entire situation with out-of-touch imperialist aristocrats blindly blundering their way to Sarajevo Aleppo has a very reminiscent feel to it…an easy chapter to write in the future history books. ..."
    "... This should terrify everyone. I wish we would elect someone who says we should sit down and talk to our biggest rivals, not just provoke them to world war. But oh I forgot he said vulgar things about women 15 years ago. ..."
    "... sexual misconduct in the oval office-while president ..."
    "... while being the leader of our country! ..."
    "... I have a hierarchy of reactions to issues and I just can't seem to put vulgar language above the ultimate vulgarity of world war for profit. ..."
    "... I can't seem to care more about people with hurt feelings than people with their heads blown off because a Saudi billionaire or arms manufacturer just had to have some more ka-ching. There is nothing more vulgar than that. ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Bush family tranditionaly is very well connnected with CIA and they are not fund of Trump, that's for sure...

    Pavel October 12, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    re WikiLeaks: adding to the endless hypocrisy and double standards over Trump's "grabbing pussy" remarks and HRC & Co's behaviour:

    * Hillary herself wondered about extrajudicially killing Assange by droning. In what world is that considered permissible?

    * It seems that the Clinton campaign's Catholic "outreach" person was involved in a prostitution ring. So that's all good.

    I'm starting to think Trump might yet pull this off. The Clinton camp must be terrified and trying desperately to see what else might come out. If only Bernie had agreed to run with Jill Stein… I honestly think they might have won. In any case the Republican party is going down in flames, and after the Podesta leaks the Dems will have absolutely ZERO credibility and not much of a mandate. 2018 and 2020 will be interesting indeed, assuming HRC hasn't started WW3 by then.

    Speaking of which, Ray McGovern warns against the sabre-rattling over Syria and the calls for "no fly zones" in CounterPunch today:

    We analysts were responsible for picking up warnings from Moscow and other key capitals that the U.S. news media often missed or downplayed, much as the major news outlets today are ignoring the escalation of warnings from Russia over Syria.

    For instance, Russian defense spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov warned on Oct. 6 that Russia is prepared to shoot down unidentified aircraft – including any stealth aircraft – over Syria. It is a warning that I believe should be taken seriously .

    It's true that experts differ as to whether the advanced air defense systems already in Syria can bring down stealth aircraft, but it would be a mistake to dismiss this warning out of hand. Besides, Konashenkov added, in a telling ex-ante-extenuating-circumstance vein, that Russian air defense "will not have time to identify the origin" of the aircraft.

    In other words, U.S. aircraft, which have been operating in Syrian skies without Syrian government approval, could be vulnerable to attack with the Russian government preemptively warning that such an incident won't be Moscow's fault.

    –Russian Throws Down the Gauntlet: Fly at Your Own Risk

    Bush & Cheney & Co were horrific enough with their neocon games in the Mideast, but their actions seem mild compared with the latest anti-Russian lunatic talk by Clinton and her neocon pals. Really scary.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 12, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    Yes the entire situation with out-of-touch imperialist aristocrats blindly blundering their way to Sarajevo Aleppo has a very reminiscent feel to it…an easy chapter to write in the future history books.

    This should terrify everyone. I wish we would elect someone who says we should sit down and talk to our biggest rivals, not just provoke them to world war. But oh I forgot he said vulgar things about women 15 years ago.

    Jess October 12, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    "Why do so many men claim that's what men do typically (not universally)?"

    Because it's usually true of most men at one time or another in their lives. For all the talk (and the reality) about women being treated as second rate, they do have enormous power; the power to reject. And reject they do. You can be the nicest guy in the world, but if you're not her type, if there's no chemistry or you're not her "caliber", down in flames you go. It's not necessarily mean on her part, it's just reality. And it's not just looks or money that is a consideration. You can be a nice, successful guy at a time in her life when she's attracted to the rebellious, slightly "dangerous", exciting "bad boy".

    This can be frustrating. And it's magnified when you grow up being taught that you can do anything if you just try hard enough. But that's just it; you can't. Guys want to be rich and successful (like Trump) or rich/successful/famous, because that's the inside track to the most elite women. Except that even then, it's no guarantee. Look at all the women who wouldn't get involved with Trump if they were marooned on an island and he was the only man. All his fame, all his money, and They. Just. Aren't. Interested. And it's the same with virtually every guy whose name isn't Tom Brady. So like I said, it breeds frustration - sometimes soul-crushing frustration - which is displayed in crude anger.

    hunkerdown October 12, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    Jess, and, thanks to political correctness, there are a dwindling number of venues where one might seek to build lateral relationships, especially of the romantic or life partner sort, and a dwindling amount of discretionary time to spend in those venues. Never mind the most elite women - ten-year-olds with bottle-blonde updos and optional silicone-enhanced "chopped chicken parts" are actually kinda gross - the less elite but still very aspirational Modern woman's standards and policies are too high (unrealistic, as the less aspirational might put it) for the life partner market to clear without externalizing something.

    "Because it's usually true of most men at one time or another in their lives."

    And therefore SIN, or whatever the symbol manipulators might prefer to call it, and therefore PENANCE (payable in 3 easy installments), and THEN absolution. We do know how path dependence cramps the American liberal's style and their group narcissism.

    "When we're an empire, we create our own reality."

    crittermom October 12, 2016 at 9:27 pm

    Jess–
    It works both ways. Men also have the power to reject, & they do.

    Your own wording of "that's the inside track to the most elite women" (my emphasis) seems to say that a woman must be beautiful in figure and face to attract a man.
    So what's different about a woman wanting a man who is nice looking with a nice body?
    None.
    It's just two different views, depending on gender.

    Regarding what Trump supposedly said/did many years ago, even as a woman, I still find the fact Hellary's husband was engaged in sexual misconduct in the oval office-while president -even more disgusting.

    I saw/see that as a huge slap in the face and a big FU to the entire nation that he would conduct himself in such a way while being the leader of our country!
    He couldn't even keep it zipped while sitting in the WH? How dare he!

    At least Trump wasn't our freakin' PRESIDENT when he said/did those things.

    Yet Bill's behavior is still a 'hush-hush' subject because he's a Clinton, it seems. (Or because people don't want to be on that 'Clinton' list and disappear?)

    No, I do not support Trump or his actions or manners or ego.
    But since it's being made such a big deal, then I'd like to see all the facts about Bill brought up again in the way he acted while leading this country.

    THEN maybe all these 'distractions' would end and we could get down to policies!
    Until then, which it appears will never happen, this 'election' is a sick joke, at best.

    JTMcPhee October 12, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    Just for fun and some context, "Philandering Presidents": http://www.funtrivia.com/en/World/Philandering-Presidents-13741.html

    human October 12, 2016 at 4:52 pm

    It's a great big, diverse world out there. Saudi women can be beheaded for saying, "no," and western women are castigated for saying, "yes."

    Once again, it's all about the distraction.

    Pavel October 12, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Yes, but at least Hillary has come out boldly against the Saudi persecution of women, gays, and other races, has denounced the Saudi genocide in Yemen, and fought vigorously as Secretary of State to ensure arms including cluster bombs and white phosphorus were not sold to a regime with such a dreadful human rights record. And the Clinton Foundation displayed their "whiter than white" sense of ethics by returning the millions of dollars of Saudi donations.

    And Trump's words from 11 years ago were much worse than anything the Saudis did, in any case.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 12, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    I have a hierarchy of reactions to issues and I just can't seem to put vulgar language above the ultimate vulgarity of world war for profit.

    Try as I might, I can't seem to care more about people with hurt feelings than people with their heads blown off because a Saudi billionaire or arms manufacturer just had to have some more ka-ching. There is nothing more vulgar than that.

    [Oct 13, 2016] I am surprised that Trump is not making the Podesta Wikileaks into a major story.

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ProNewerDeal October 12, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    I am surprised that Trump is not making the Podesta Wikileaks into a major story. Perhaps Trump is not earnestly trying to actually win, or Trump is a Bush43/Palin level low IQ person.

    Trump & his media spokeshacks could repeat "Podesta Wikileaks show HClinton's actual 'private position' is cut SS & MC, & pro-TPP. Trump will not cut SS & MC, & will veto TPP. Vote for Trump". Even if Trump is lying, Trump could "pull an 0bama 2008 on NAFTA" & privately tell PRyan/Trump BigFunders/Owners Trump's actual plan.

    IMHO Trump could possibly win if he took such an approach. Why isn't he doing so?

    [Oct 12, 2016] NSA whistleblower says DNC hack was not done by Russia, but by US intelligence

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Stated Binney: "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
    "... "Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there." ..."
    "... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails. ..."
    "... GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | theduran.com
    Binney also proclaimed that the NSA has all of Clinton's deleted emails, and the FBI could gain access to them if they so wished. No need for Trump to ask the Russians for those emails, he can just call on the FBI or NSA to hand them over.

    Breitbart reports further

    Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists."

    Stated Binney: "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails."

    "So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated of Clinton's emails as well as DNC emails.

    Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the deleted correspondence, Binney replied in the affirmative.

    "Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there."

    Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.

    And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails.

    The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:

    GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).

    Zerohedge has some background on Binney , who is about as rock solid a security analyst as you could get.

    Over a year before Edward Snowden shocked the world in the summer of 2013 with revelations that have since changed everything from domestic to foreign US policy but most of all, provided everyone a glimpse into just what the NSA truly does on a daily basis, a former NSA staffer, and now famous whistleblower, William Binney, gave excruciating detail to Wired magazine about all that Snowden would substantiate the following summer.

    We covered it in a 2012 post titled " We Are This Far From A Turnkey Totalitarian State" – Big Brother Goes Live September 2013." Not surprisingly, Binney received little attention in 2012 – his suggestions at the time were seen as preposterous and ridiculously conspiratorial. Only after the fact, did it become obvious that he was right. More importantly, in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, what Binney has to say has become gospel.

    Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency. He referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists."

    [Oct 12, 2016] The French are major proliferisers of modern weapon systems. They and the Russians have put a lot of weapons out there which are affordable for small States but have the potential even to worry the biggest militaries

    Notable quotes:
    "... into the field of battle ..."
    "... Nirvana in Fire ..."
    "... Game of Thrones ..."
    "... "The drama was a commercial and critical success, surpassing ten million views by its second day,[4] and receiving a total number of daily internet views on iQiyi of over 3.3 billion by the end of the series.[5][6] Nirvana in Fire was considered a social media phenomenon, generating 3.55 billion posts on Sina Weibo that praised its characters and story-line." ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Science Officer Smirnoff October 12, 2016 at 11:58 am

    As you recall the French Exocet , a souped-up V1 in respects, has been "out there" a long time.

    . . . In the years after the Falklands War, it was revealed that the British government and the Secret Intelligence Service had been extremely concerned at the time by the perceived inadequacy of the Royal Navy's anti-missile defenses against the Exocet and its potential to tip the naval war decisively in favor of the Argentine forces. A scenario was envisioned in which one or both of the force's two aircraft carriers (Invincible and Hermes) were destroyed or incapacitated by Exocet attacks, which would make recapturing the Falklands much more difficult.

    Actions were taken to contain the Exocet threat. A major intelligence operation was also initiated to prevent the Argentine Navy from acquiring more of the weapons on the international market.[16]

    The operation included British intelligence agents claiming to be arms dealers able to supply large numbers of Exocets to Argentina, who diverted Argentina from pursuing sources which could genuinely supply a few missiles. France denied deliveries of Exocet AM39s purchased by Peru to avoid the possibility of Peru giving them to Argentina, because they knew that payment would be made with a credit card from the Central Bank of Peru. British intelligence had detected the guarantee was a deposit of two hundred million dollars from the Andean Lima Bank, an owned subsidiary of the Banco Ambrosiano.[17][18] wiki

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 1:09 pm

    Yes, and it was an Exocet that put a big hole in the side of the USS Stark in 1987 .

    The French are major proliferisers of modern weapon systems. They and the Russians have put a lot of weapons out there which are affordable for small States but have the potential even to worry the biggest militaries.

    Much of world history depends on the relative availability of defensive/offensive weaponry. Back when the castle was the apex of military might any local thug with the money to build one could become a lord and rule his little kingdom. Then when cannons became powerful enough to reduce them to rubble empires came back into vogue. When battleships ruled the waves, this allowed the great seagoing nations to dominate, but the invention of the torpedo along with submarines and long range bombers levelled things up for smaller nations such as Japan. Then the aircraft carrier swung things back to empires in the post war years. But now I think high speed sea skimming and ballistic missiles along with long distance torpedoes have swung things back to 'weaker' nations. Even the Houthi's in Yemen seem to have obtained missiles capable of knocking out an ex-US combat vessel.

    Mark P. October 12, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    The democratization of missile technology is the big military story of the last three decades. Look at, for instance, at how Hezbollah's Sheik Nasrullah kicked off the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict by striking an Israeli warship during a TV presentation. Very slick.

    In fac, talking of the USS Stark, all those ships with their big aluminum superstructures will burn down to their waterline when hit. The Emirates even recently banned aluminum in tower buildings recently.

    Aluminum's vulnerability didn't matter during the decades of the Cold War when if the Big One started the surface navy wouldn't really do any fighting because it would all be up anyway, and meanwhile smaller groups and nations - especially those with brown skins - didn't have access to serious missile technology.

    The big transition point came with the Falklands War when the UK's admirals smartly stood their aircraft carriers beyond range till Margaret Thatcher phoned to Mitterand and intimated that the British might use their Polaris submarine to nuke Buenos Aires unless Mitterand gave up the Exocet codes. Think I'm kidding? Thatcher got the codes; they didn't call her Mad Maggie for nothing.

    As for why they're still building surface warships with aluminum superstructures, it's military Keynesianism and everybody would have to be submariners otherwise, which wouldn't be fun..

    JohnnyGL October 12, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    +1 to this

    I think the Pentagon did an analysis under GW Bush about attacking Iran and buried the idea.

    I believe this is why Iran made a big dash for surface-to-surface missiles to defend themselves, and DID NOT have to go for nukes. If you've got anti-ship missiles, you can push those carriers far enough out to sea which limits the ability to launch airstrikes.

    Plus, with anti-ship missiles, you can put the Persian Gulf on total lockdown and watch the Saudis suffocate. Iran has already been dealing with sanctions for years, so it's no sweat to them!

    If the USA ever has an aircraft carrier sunk, the unipolar moment is indisputably over.

    Felix_47 October 12, 2016 at 4:59 am

    I suspect that for the money put out the Chinese get a lot more defense. In fact, if they are spending 200 billion and we are spending 600 billion we can be sure that they are close to parity. Of course, we are spending a lot more than 600 billion when you add in VA, disability and retirement costs as well as current war outlays. The entire defense industry in both China and the US is obsolete given modern communications and immigration trends anyway. How are you going to bomb Yemen when the excess population in Yemen ends up driving taxis in Washington D.C. or why bomb Syria when all it does is encourage the Syrians to move to the west? What is the difference between a Syrian or Afghan in Idaho or Berlin and one in Damascus or Kabul? The national state is becoming obsolete and military action is powerless against demography.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 6:40 am

    The key paradox for the US military is that wars are won not by who has the greatest number of tanks, ships or aircraft, but by the country that can put the greatest number of tanks, ships and aircraft into the field of battle . The US has by far the biggest military in the world, but it has also put itself in the position of needing a military a multiple of everyone elses because of the sheer geographical spread of commitments. China's military is tiny and primitive compared to the US, but in reality any war is likely to be geographically limited – to (for example) the South China Sea. China has every chance of being able to match the US in this kind of war.

    As for China's blue sea commitments, I actually doubt they have any intention of really pursuing a long range war capacity. The Chinese know their history and know that a military on this scale can be economically ruinous. But there is a naval military concept known as fleet in being , which essentially means that even a theoretical threat can force an enemy to pour resources into trying to neutralise it. China I think is using this concept – continually setting off rumours of new strike missiles, long range attack aircraft, new aircraft carriers, etc., to force the US (aided and abetted by the defence industry) to spent countless billions on phantom threats. Some of these rumours may be true – many I suspect are simply deliberate mischief making by the Chinese, with the serious aim of dissipating America's military strength.

    Colonel Smithers October 12, 2016 at 8:09 am

    A new theatre for that mischief and dissipation is Africa. My parish has a Nigerian priest. When he's away, we usually get another Nigerian. At supper for the Bishop last Saturday, our priest, an Ibo, and another, a Hausa from Kano, said that many, if not, most Nigerians think Boko Haram is assisted by the US and, to a lesser extent, France as it gives the pair an excuse to maintain troops in the region and keep their client state governments in line.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Whether or not its true, the fact that intelligent people think that way shows everything you need to know about how US and Western soft power has been frittered away the past few years through stupidity and cynicism.

    JohnnyGL October 12, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    I recall a NYT or WaPo article saying those Iraqis were convinced the US was in bed with ISIS, too.

    Is there a pattern here?

    readerOfTeaLeaves October 12, 2016 at 11:25 am

    +10

    Yes, and I still take taxis, so I hear a fair amount of Amharic and other African dialects.

    Unsure what the Uber drivers speak.

    lyman alpha blob October 12, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    Why bomb? Because then Uncle Sugar gets to take their stuff after they all leave their war torn countries. If some of the refugees are pissed off and blow up some people in their new homelands, why that's just a little collateral damage and when has the establishment ever cared about that? It just gives them an excuse to surveil everyone.

    Ka-ching! – that's why the bombs.

    Mark P. October 12, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road?

    The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated.

    The worst is atomic war.

    The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.

    Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

    This world in arms in not spending money alone.

    It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

    The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

    It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

    It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

    It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

    We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

    We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

    This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

    This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

    - that crazy commie madman, Dwight Eisenhower, in 1953 on military Keynesianism.

    Christopher Fay October 12, 2016 at 5:17 am

    ClubOrlov argues that the difference in military spending between the U. S. and Russia is lessened as our spending is bloated and misspent due to corruption.

    The Russians are treating spending as a scarce natural resource. In the U. S. we spend as McCain says like drunken sailors.

    http://cluborlov.blogspot.tw/2016/08/a-thousand-balls-of-flame.html#more

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 7:24 am

    I'd be very sceptical that the Russian military somehow avoids the rampant corruption in other parts of the Russian economy.

    By necessity, the Russian military has always been parsimonious and has had to get more firepower for its rouble than other wealthier countries. Much of their weaponry is very simple, effective and robust, and Russian tactics are as good if not better than any other major military. However, they've had their white elephants too – their new Yasen Class attack submarines are far too expensive as an example, and poor quality control in manufacturing has meant that many of their more advanced weapons have dubious real world utility. Their large ships are generally a disaster, a complete waste of money (this is why they were buying assault ships from France).

    Cry Shop October 12, 2016 at 5:49 am

    USA military power is just as great as it has ever been, if not greater. What's changed is the traction it had in forcing alignment from partners who held very little cultural/common ground with the USA.

    Biggest factor in that loss of traction is that Russia (and to a lesser extent China) is not exporting revolution anymore. Both China and Russia engage in real politic with limited military power that makes them a far less threatening partner than the USA for any state that is willing to transfer some of the wealth to them that the USA formerly extracted (and usually these new players pay much better price with less interference). Even Vietnam, which has real historical reasons to be Sinophobic, probably fears China less than it does a US Government which attempts to subvert Vietnam's economy through currency dependency. How so Russia, which is no threat to any of Vietnam's interests.

    What constrains Russia's power isn't the military, but it's relatively minuscule consumer market. Similarly, China's trade protectionism for semi-finished and finished goods has constrained it's ability to project power to those nations, like Australia, Argentina & Russia, which subsist primarily on raw material exports. China is in a better situation than Russia to change this situation and expand it's power into Europe, though I doubt Xi is the man for it.

    fajensen October 12, 2016 at 6:45 am

    What's changed is the traction it had in forcing alignment from partners who held very little cultural/common ground with the USA.

    I'd claim that the alignment came not so much from US military might but rather from the US offering better terms – at least to "white countries"; plenty of brutal regime change and CIA skulduggery was applied on brown folks, still is, in fact.

    Now, it seems to the world that the US have become so bloated with it's own military and perceived cultural/economic superiority that the US offers pretty much nothing in return to anyone, regardless of the favors asked. Everyone are treated as colonies and vassals, except perhaps a few leaders and decision makers (Or maybe it was always like that but now we got the Internet and we know).

    This state of affairs pisses people off.

    In addition, people are beginning to understand that what is applied to brown people abroad today can happen to them also tomorrow. That in the US world order, everyone who is not an American have no value compared to an American* and can be killed, tortured, disappeared with no consequences what so ever. Because fuck Nürenberg.

    Therefore, everyone else being in some way enemies of the US merely by belonging to another tribe than America, has realized that there is no good thing coming from aligning with America, sooner or later the "military option" or "the regime change" will come out and we will be knifed in the back. Those who can actively resist, those who have the option aligns with other powers, those who cannot do this, will drag their feet and try to avoid direct confrontation, maybe something will show up?

    Stupid, weak, nations like Denmark and Sweden go all in with 110% effort on the fantasy that they will be seen as good people with an American core, struggling to claw it's way out, from inside their unworthy un-American bodies and therefore they will be protected – at least for a while*.

    *)
    Americans themselves are beginning to realize that anyone who isn't rich & covered in lawyers can be fined, jailed or even killed right in the street by the police for basically nothing at all. This is beginning to grate on their understanding of their place in the pecking order. But, everyone still blame Whites, Latinos, Blacks, Feminists identity politics works, keeps the contraption from falling off the road.

    This also shows why the silly idea of escape by being super-American will not work: Americans are treated like shit too.

    Colonel Smithers October 12, 2016 at 10:04 am

    Thank you. I like your point about "stupid, weak nations". French is my second language. English is my third. I watch French TV news most days and visit the place regularly, business and pleasure, and studied there. I am surprised, but may be should not be, at how American France has become / is becoming. Hollande and Sarko, who has American connections by way of his stepmother and half brothers, have made the country a poodle in a way that de Gaulle and Chirac would not. Most French people I know seem ok or indifferent to that. Part of that Americanisation seems to be the English / Americanised English forenames given to French children. I have observed that trend in (western) Germany and even francophone communities well away from the French mainland.

    Synoia October 12, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    I am reminded of a friend of mine in South Africa, who was somewhat older than s 20 years Olds.

    Adolf, my friend, was born before WW II, and the name was quite popular then. It became less popular of after WW II.

    OIFVet October 12, 2016 at 11:26 am

    Bravo! Sorry but I can't resists linking to an old comment of mine to reinforce the point about stupid and weak nations. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/links-101215.html#comment-2501325 .

    And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the best example of what being a loyal US "ally" entails: corrupt local elites working against their country's own best interests lest they become a target for a color revolution. Meanwhile their much-suffering subjects don't know which way to turn to hide their collective embarrassment.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    More current samples for your file sir:
    (1)
    Hungary: MP Questioned Over Fraud Allegations
    https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/5715-hungary-mp-questioned-over-fraud-allegations
    Published: Wednesday, 12 October 2016 12:31
    (2)
    Ukrainian Top Officials Involved in Secret Offshore Deals
    Published: Tuesday, 04 October 2016 09:00
    by Graham Stack
    https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/5691-ukrainian-top-officials-involved-in-secret-offshore-deals
    ======================
    OCCRP: (MORE ARTICLES) https://www.occrp.org/index.php
    ORGANIZED CRIME and CORRUPTION REPORTING PROJECT

    OIFVet October 12, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    My files are bulging to the bursting point. The latest fiasco in Colonia Bulgaria was the election of the new GenSec of the UN. Bulgaria had a leading candidate, until Merkel decided that she wanted Germany to play an outsized role in the UN, and bring EU politics into the UN. Disaster ensued:

    So the initial Bulgarian candidate Bokova looked like the ideal choice. Here was a chance for little old Bulgaria to shine on the world stage for the first time in over a millenium, possibly since the Bulgars burst out of Central Asia on horseback. Add this to the background context: it is unprecedented for a country to nominate a candidate officially, a front-runner no less, and then do a public switcheroo before the world's eyes. But that's exactly what Bulgaria did just a week ago. Bokova was dumped and Georgieva spooned up. Disaster ensued, as I predicted it would in previous columns .

    Bulgaria lost its once-in-a-millenium chance at shaping the world. As the record shows, Gutteres won.

    If Bulgaria were a normal healthy country, the Prime Minister would now resign and the government would fall. Because, it was the Prime Minister's decision to switch candidates. He did so despite knowing that two-thirds of Bulgarian citizens preferred his first candidate. Boyko Borissov is his name, a deeply underachieving dull-witted schemer-survivor in the wooden tradition of the region. A short-fingered Bulgarian if ever there was one. He first came to the fore as the bodyguard of the last Bulgarian Communist leader. That should give you a clue to the man's qualities. So why did Boyko 'switch horses'? Why did he do it?

    Brutal, just brutal kick in the butt from the ally's MSM. And that's only one of many reactions. Because even the bosses don't like grovelling toadies. They want to control them, but they will never invite them for an afternoon tea. Particularly a marionette whose mafia ties the Congressional Quarterly wrote about. Not that these organized crime ties are a disqualifier, if anything the US likes that because it makes Borissov easy to control.

    At least Merkel's scheming and Bulgaria's humiliation had an unexpected positive effect: Power and Churkin managed to put on a BFF act in front of the cameras and allied to get Gutteres elected as SecGen, while delivering a massive kick in Merkel's ample backside. Takes some doing to get the US and Russia to not only see eye to eye on anything, but to also work in concert. Bravo!

    PS This also proves a historical truth: doing Germany's bidding never ends well for Bulgaria. Or for any other nation.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    OIFVet (compliments) You may need a new file
    Somewhere over / under the rainbow
    (orchestrated social media unrest)
    (1)
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-secretly-created-cuban-twitter-stir-unrest
    By ALBERTO ARCE and DESMOND BUTLER and JACK GILLUM Apr. 4, 2014 4:25 AM EDT
    WASHINGTON (AP) - In July 2010

    (2)
    White House denies 'Cuban Twitter' ZunZuneo programme was covert
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/03/white-house-cuban-twitter-zunzuneo-covert
    Paul Lewis and Dan Roberts in Washington
    Thursday 3 April 2014 14.26 EDT
    --------------–

    hemeantwell October 12, 2016 at 8:36 am

    global scenario that the down-to-earth presidents of China and Russia seem to have in mind resembles the sort of balance of power that existed in Europe.

    The article floats away here. China and Russia might want to have something that "resembles" that time, but the analogy overlooks the fact that the relatively calm state of affairs - Franco-Prussian war? - on the European continent after Napoleon coexisted with savage colonial expansion. The forms of superexploitation thereby obtained did much to help stabilize Europe, even as competition for colonial lands became more and more destabilizing and were part of what led to WW1.

    Now we're in a situation in which superexploitation options are largely gone. Routine profit generation has become difficult due to global productive overcapacity, leading to behavioral sinkish behavior like the US cannibalizing its public sector to feed capital. Since the late 19th century US foreign policy has been organized around the open markets mantra. It may be possible for the Chinese, with their greater options for economy manipulation, to avoid the crashes the US feared from lack of market access. But the current situation on its face does not have anything like the colonial escape valve available in the 19th century.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    Of course,duplicitous political COPORATISM means systems over a systemic characterized by marked or even intentional deception that is now sustained and even spearheaded by state systems. Many contemporary liberal idealists living in urban strongholds of market mediated comfort zones will not agree to assigning such strong description to an Obama administration. It is too distant and remote to assign accountability to global international finance and currency wars that have hegemonic hedge funds pumping and dumping crisis driven anarchy over global exploit (ruled by market capital fright / fight and flight). To the extent that colonialism or neocolonialism does not actually hold fixed boundary ground is irrelevant, since assets are more differential and flexible needing only corporate law to sustain strict boundaries on possession or instruments that convert to the same power over assets. No one, of course, wants to assess stocks and bonds as instruments of global oppression or exploitation that far exceeds 19th century's crude colonial rule. Recall, however, how "joint stock" corporations first opened chartered exploit at global levels under East and West Trading power aggregates that were profit driven enter-prize. So in reality the current cross border market system of neoliberal globalization is, in fact, a stealth colonialism on steroids. TPP is part of that process in all its stealthy dimensions.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    (TPP In a Nutshell http://labornotes.org/2016/09/october-all-hands-deck-stop-tpp )

    "The TPP is a corporate power grab, a 5,544-page document that was negotiated in secret by big corporations while Congress, the public, and unions were locked out.
    Multinationals like Google, Exxon, Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, UPS, FedEx, Apple, and Walmart are lobbying hard for it. Virtually every union in the U.S. opposes it. So do major environmental, senior, health, and consumer organizations.
    The TPP will mean fewer jobs and lower wages, higher prices for prescription drugs, the loss of regulations that protect our drinking water and food supply, and the loss of Internet freedom. It encourages privatization, undermines democracy, and will forbid many of the policies we need to combat climate change."

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/09/30/ttp-ttip-map-shows-
    how-trade-deals-would-enable-polluter-power-grab
    TTP & TTIP: Map Shows How Trade Deals Would Enable 'Polluter Power-Grab'
    by Andrea Germanos
    The new, interactive tool 'gives people a chance to see if toxic trade is in their own backyard'

    John Rose October 12, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    From a long range view, 19th Century compitition using black and brown property and lives was an improvement over battling face to face with neighbors. It was an expansion of tribal boundaries, somewhat.
    Now, few argue openly (except in presidential debates) against those boundaries encompassing brown and black members of the human race. We engage our ruthlessness less openly in covert operations, corporate predations and financial hegemony.
    Even awful behavior can be seen as an advance.

    Dead Squashed Kissinger October 12, 2016 at 8:54 am

    This is very handy, thanks. However the conclusion stops short of what the SCO is saying and doing. They have no interest in an old-time balance of power. They want rule of law, a very different thing. Look at Putin's Syria strategy: he actually complies with the UN Charter's requirement to pursue pacific dispute resolution. That's revolutionary. When CIA moles in Turkey shot that Russian jet down, the outcome was not battles and state-sponsored terror, as CIA expected. The outcome was support for Turkey's sovereignty and rapprochement. Now when CIA starts fires you go to Russia to put them out.

    While China maintains its purist line on the legal principle of non-interference, it is increasingly vocal in urging the US to fulfill its human rights obligations. That will sound paradoxical because of intense US vilification of Chinese authoritarianism, but when you push for your economic and social rights here at home, China is in your corner. Here Russia is leading by example. They comply with the Paris Principles for institutionalized human rights protection under independent international oversight. The USA does not.

    When the USA goes the way of the USSR, we'll be in good hands. The world will show us how developed countries work.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    "RULE OF LAW" up front and personal (again?)
    Now why would the USA be worried about global rule of law?
    An Interesting ideal. No country above the law.

    " US President Barack Obama has vetoed a bill that would have allowed the families of the victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks to sue the government of Saudi Arabia.

    In a statement accompanying his veto message, Obama said on Friday he had
    "deep sympathy" for the 9/11 victims' families and their desire to seek justice for
    their relatives.

    The president said, however, that the bill would be "detrimental to US national interests" and could lead to lawsuits against the US or American officials for actions taken by groups armed, trained or supported by the US.

    "If any of these litigants were to win judgements – based on foreign domestic laws as applied by foreign courts – they would begin to look to the assets of the US government held abroad to satisfy those judgments, with potentially serious financial consequences for the United States," Obama said."
    -----------------------
    To the tune of "Moma said " by The Shirelles –
    .Oh don't you know Obama said they be days like this,
    ..they would be days like this Obama said

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    One interesting irony is that in Obama's TPP "The worst part is an Investor-State Dispute Settlement provision, which allows a multinational corporation to sue to override any U.S. law, policy, or practice that it claims could limit its future profits."
    (source: http://labornotes.org/2016/09/october-all-hands-deck-stop-tpp )
    "Though the Obama administration touts the pact's labor and environmental protections, the official Labor Advisory Committee on the TPP strongly opposes
    it, arguing that these protections are largely unenforceable window dressing."

    Braden Smith October 12, 2016 at 10:07 am

    I think you're overstating the Russian military advantage in Syria and Ukraine, while ignoring the real dysfunction in US foreign policy. Key policy thinkers at State and Defense still believe that it's worth the time and effort for the US to project military influence in Syria. This is a policy position entirely driven by Israel's existential concern over Iran. There are no substantial US interests in Syria right now. We aren't actually fighting ISIS, because if we were, we would be targeting the foreign funding coming from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. As a consequence, if we simply withdrew from Syria, Russia would be left propping up a regime that would be fighting an ongoing insurgency against foreign jihadists.

    In other words, it would be wasting its time and resources on a pointless fight to build a state in the Middle East (sounds familiar). Russia is the one with a military base in Syria that they need to protect. Let them waste the time and energy defending their military assets.

    Instead, the US should be reducing its Middle East footprint and selectively engaging in key diplomatic efforts. The Saudis and the Gulf States are committed to fighting it out with Iran for Middle East influence. There's no reason for us to pick sides in this fight. Let them engage in proxy wars without US military assistance and then, when the time is right, we can offer our role as a neutral broker and negotiate terms that actually benefit our strategic interests.

    The reason we can't play this role in the region is because we are so myopically focused on policies that are pro-Israeli. Eliminate Israel's interests from the calculations, and our policies would change dramatically.

    NotSoSure October 12, 2016 at 10:37 am

    It's a good thing. The US has become that quote in The Dark Knight: "you die a hero or live long enough to become the villain."

    Adams October 12, 2016 at 11:43 am

    Great article and comments. Surprised there has been no speculation here about what HRC will do with the geopolitical hash created by neo-lib economics and neo-con foreign and military policies. We know what Obama did (not) do with what was really a political mandate. Certainly he has been constrained politically and, perhaps, personally ( shame what happened to those nice Kennedy boys, they had so much "promise.") However, as has been ably pointed out in comments above, his actions where he was not constrained are the flag in the wind. You don't have to be a weatherman .

    Hillary, of course, has already shown her colors. There will be no Nobel based on promises and high expectations. She will relentlessly pursue the PNAC programme and the "exceptional, essential nation" fantasy, contra the analysis above. You can take the girl out of the Goldwater, but you can't take the Goldman out of the girl.All that glitters ..

    readerOfTeaLeaves October 12, 2016 at 12:05 pm

    Fascinating thread, thanks.
    I stream a lot of Korean dramas, and lately Chinese dramas have also been showing up in my video feeds; it is clear that Taiwan and China are trying to access eyeballs globally, as a means to gain soft power – and revenue.

    The earlier Chinese dramas seeking a global audience seemed shrill, melodramatic, and approximately the production quality of the old static BBC costume dramas of the 1970s. I found them unwatchable.

    However, China has recently put out something that is quite possibly a masterpiece of storytelling. " Nirvana in Fire " [NiF] is an epic story of betrayal, treachery, loyalty, and trust, with some incredible martial arts into the mix. NiF is described as the Chinese Game of Thrones . (I am unable to make a good comparison, as I have not watched GoT). However, I'd argue that NiF is every bit as good as the BBC's brilliant " The Tudors " (2007, with Jonathon Rhys Meyers).

    I take NiF as a sign that despite what sounds like a hideous housing bubble, China's cultural endeavors are developing at a level that is as outstanding as anything that any nation can produce. And in a world where the Internet seems to be morphing into a vast, global video distribution service (woohoo!!), that is no small thing. Judging from social media stats, it appears to be quite formidable.

    This new Silk Road is often spoken of as physical, and I do not take it lightly; nevertheless, the silkier threads are probably the telecom infrastructure carrying subtitled dramas to mobiles, desktops, and smart TVs around the world.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_In_Fire
    From the wiki page: "The drama was a commercial and critical success, surpassing ten million views by its second day,[4] and receiving a total number of daily internet views on iQiyi of over 3.3 billion by the end of the series.[5][6] Nirvana in Fire was considered a social media phenomenon, generating 3.55 billion posts on Sina Weibo that praised its characters and story-line."
    I searched for 'Facebook posts on GoT' but could not get any results that I trusted enough to include here. It's a fair guess, however, they did not amount to 3,550,000,000 comments. Whoever gets to stream their dramas across Africa and S. America will develop a formidable 'soft power' resource.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    That series sounds very interesting, I must look for it.

    I think the Chinese are quite serious about using film and TV as soft power, but they face a paradox in that it is hard to promote quality drama while also indulging in heavy censorship. The Chinese are very good at using carrots and sticks to 'tame' artists – just look at how a formerly great film maker like Zhang Yimou has gone from making beautiful and subtle allegories about Chinese society to now just making big empty commercial epics which are little more than propaganda pieces. I doubt Chinese film makers will ever have the freedom to make the sort of challenging work that Korean film makers do all the time (Japanese film makers once did this too, but seem to have given up). But they probably have enough talent to make plenty of entertaining fantasy TV and film, but whether it will travel so well I'm not sure.

    NotSoSure October 12, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    LOL, I watched that drama too, and I'd agree. Most Chinese dramas are unwatchable, but as NiF showed, it's not because there are no capable series makers, etc, because there are plenty of those in China. The problem is rather the producers for whatever reason think that local audiences are only interested in melodramas and idols dressed in ridiculous costumes.

    And please, NiF is better than GoT. I am a big fan of the books, and the TV series to me is laughable.

    sgt_doom October 12, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    I just find this difficult to believe that America's diplomatic power is in decline.

    After all, is the great-grandson of what was once the top dope dealer on the planet, Francis Blackwell Forbes, now the SecState (that would be John "Forbes, Winthrop, Dudley" Kerry)?

    Color me confused . . .

    [Oct 12, 2016] Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Oct 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    (Busy with nurturing some illness, please bear with me.)

    Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Clinton in a 2013 speech to the Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner (via The Intercept ):

    [Arming moderates has] been complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons-and pretty indiscriminately-not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future, ...

    Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course.

    The following was written by Podesta, a well connected former White House Chief of Staff, in an 2014 email to Clinton. As introduction Podesta notes:"Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.":

    While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

    Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq.

    [Oct 12, 2016] US Intelligence meddles in US Presidential election: backs Hillary Clinton, tries to stop Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... for example ..."
    "... Moreover since the DNC hack is a criminal offence, it is a statement of opinion made about a matter which is presumably being investigated by the police. ..."
    "... If the statement is merely a statement of opinion based on inference of which guesses about Russian "motivations" apparently form a major part, and one which moreover concerns a matter which is or ought to be the subject of investigation by the police and not therefore the subject of this sort of comment, why was it published at all? ..."
    "... The short answer is in order to help Hillary Clinton win the US Presidential election. ..."
    "... To that end the statement fulfils two purposes: firstly, it discredits the content of any leaks that might otherwise damage Hillary Clinton's campaign by lending credence to her claim that they are part of a Russian 'dirty tricks' campaign against her; and secondly, it lends credence to the claim popularised by Hillary Clinton's campaign and by Hillary Clinton's supporters in the media that Donald Trump is Putin's candidate and that Putin is trying to help him win the election. ..."
    "... That the second is one of the purposes of statement is proved by its reference to US intelligence's "belief" that the leak was authorised by "Russia's senior-most officials ". This is clearly intended to refer to Putin, and is intended to give the impression that Putin himself personally authorised the DNC leak in order to damage Hillary Clinton and to help Trump win the election and become President. ..."
    "... US intelligence has meddled in elections in other countries on numerous occasions starting with the Italian parliamentary elections of 1948 ..."
    "... To my knowledge this is however the first occasion that US intelligence has directly and publicly meddled in a US national election, acting to help one candidate defeat another. ..."
    "... It matters not whether this was done by US intelligence on its own initiative, or whether it was pressured to do so by officials of the Obama administration or of Hillary Clinton's campaign. ..."
    "... Either way the disturbing truth must now be faced: the practice of US intelligence meddling in and trying to influence national elections has now been imported home to the US. ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | theduran.com

    The single most important event of the US Presidential election took place last week and to my knowledge it has gone completely unreported.

    This was not the video tape of Donald Trump's grotesque and deeply offensive sexual banter from 2005.

    It was the public confirmation that an intelligence agency is directly interfering in an ongoing US Presidential election.

    The intelligence agency in question is not however that of Russia as is being reported. It is that of the United States itself.

    To understand why this is so, consider the statement US intelligence published last week on the subject of alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and of other US agencies involved in the election. It reads as follows :

    "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example , to influence public opinion there . We believe , based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

    (bold italics added)

    The statement is an implicit admission that US intelligence has no evidence to back its allegations of Russian hacking.

    It is merely "confident" – not "sure" – that it is the Russians who are behind the hacking, and it is clear from the statement that it arrived at this conclusion purely through inference: because the hacks supposedly were "consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts".

    US intelligence assumes the Russians were behind the hack not because it knows this to be so but in part because of what it believes Russian motives to be.

    The statement backs its claim with a textual trick. It says "the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia". It then immediately follows these words with the words "for example".

    These lead to the expectation that an actual example of such Russian "tactics and techniques" is about to follow. Instead what is provided are the fact free words "to influence public opinion there".

    The words "for example" lend nothing to the meaning of the statement, which would be exactly the same without them. These two words as used in the statement are actually meaningless. That is a sure sign that their presence in the statement is intended to confuse the casual reader, and that this is true of the statement as a whole.

    The words are designed to create a subliminal impression to a casual reader that the Russians have been caught doing this sort of thing before, without however providing a single actual example when this was the case.

    Demonstrating how thin the case of Russian government actually is, the statement then goes on to say

    "Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government ."

    (bold italics added)

    In other words US intelligence admits the mere fact servers operated by a Russian company may have been used for "scanning and probing" – and presumably also for hacking – is not in itself proof of the involvement of the Russian government.

    This is consistent with what I have heard, which is that skilled and well-resourced hackers can use compromised machines to carry out hacks by remote access, and that the mere discovery that a particular machine has been used in a hack does not in and of itself implicate the owner. (I should stress I am not an expert in this field and I may have misunderstood this. However it appears to be what US intelligence is saying).

    This part of the statement seems to me intended to prevent challenges to the eventual outcome of the election based on US intelligence's claims of Russian hacking. US intelligence does not want to be drawn into post-election arguments about the validity of the election outcome, which might lead to demands that it make public its "evidence" of Russian hacking. In the process US intelligence however casts doubt on what is almost certainly the only actual evidence it has of Russian state involvement in the hacking.

    In summary, the statement is a mere statement of opinion, it is not a statement of fact, and the evidence upon which it is based is threadbare.

    Moreover since the DNC hack is a criminal offence, it is a statement of opinion made about a matter which is presumably being investigated by the police.

    The relevant police agency is presumably the FBI, which significantly is not a co-author of the statement.

    That in turn begs a host of questions: has the FBI been shown the "evidence" upon which US intelligence expresses its opinion and has made the statement? Has it asked to see this "evidence"? Was it invited to co-author the statement? What does the FBI think of the public involvement of US intelligence in a domestic criminal matter which falls within the FBI's exclusive competence?

    If the statement is merely a statement of opinion based on inference of which guesses about Russian "motivations" apparently form a major part, and one which moreover concerns a matter which is or ought to be the subject of investigation by the police and not therefore the subject of this sort of comment, why was it published at all?

    The short answer is in order to help Hillary Clinton win the US Presidential election.

    To that end the statement fulfils two purposes: firstly, it discredits the content of any leaks that might otherwise damage Hillary Clinton's campaign by lending credence to her claim that they are part of a Russian 'dirty tricks' campaign against her; and secondly, it lends credence to the claim popularised by Hillary Clinton's campaign and by Hillary Clinton's supporters in the media that Donald Trump is Putin's candidate and that Putin is trying to help him win the election.

    That the second is one of the purposes of statement is proved by its reference to US intelligence's "belief" that the leak was authorised by "Russia's senior-most officials ". This is clearly intended to refer to Putin, and is intended to give the impression that Putin himself personally authorised the DNC leak in order to damage Hillary Clinton and to help Trump win the election and become President.

    US intelligence has meddled in elections in other countries on numerous occasions starting with the Italian parliamentary elections of 1948 .

    To my knowledge this is however the first occasion that US intelligence has directly and publicly meddled in a US national election, acting to help one candidate defeat another.

    It matters not whether this was done by US intelligence on its own initiative, or whether it was pressured to do so by officials of the Obama administration or of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

    Either way the disturbing truth must now be faced: the practice of US intelligence meddling in and trying to influence national elections has now been imported home to the US.

    [Oct 12, 2016] There are so many pussies around your presidential campaigns on both sides that I prefer not to comment.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Lavrov: Well, I don't know whether this would ... English is not my mother's tongue and I don't know whether - I don't know - whether I would sound - I mean - decent. There are so many pussies around your presidential campaigns on both sides that I prefer not to comment. ..."
    "... Reflecting different national usages, cunt is described as "an unpleasant or stupid person" in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, whereas Merriam-Webster indicates that it is a "usually disparaging and obscene" term for a woman[1] or an "offensive way to refer to a woman" in the United States. ..."
    "... So Lavrov's not only a diplomat, he knows a little comedy too. :) He's one of the most interesting people in government today. ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    ... ... ...

    The Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov in a recent interview with CNN's Amanpour:

    Amanpour: Russia had its own Pussy Riot moment. What do you think of Donald Trump's pussy riot moment?

    Lavrov: Well, I don't know whether this would ... English is not my mother's tongue and I don't know whether - I don't know - whether I would sound - I mean - decent. There are so many pussies around your presidential campaigns on both sides that I prefer not to comment.

    Ghostship | Oct 12, 2016 1:22:10 PM | 11

    CitizenKane123 | Oct 12, 2016 12:02:27 PM | 4
    Pussies are soft, warms and comfortable. I think what Lavrov really meant was:
    There are so many cunts around your presidential campaigns on both sides that I prefer not to comment.
    It should be noted that British English and American English have different definitions for the C word, and I suspect Lavrov understands that. From Wikipedia:
    Reflecting different national usages, cunt is described as "an unpleasant or stupid person" in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, whereas Merriam-Webster indicates that it is a "usually disparaging and obscene" term for a woman[1] or an "offensive way to refer to a woman" in the United States.
    Although I would suggest that the OED does understate the strength of the word somewhat.
    Qoppa | Oct 12, 2016 1:23:23 PM | 12
    PS I really start liking Lavrov. He has class!
    JethroZeppelin | Oct 12, 2016 2:18:52 PM | 19
    "There are so many pussies around your presidential campaigns on both sides that I prefer not to comment."

    So Lavrov's not only a diplomat, he knows a little comedy too. :) He's one of the most interesting people in government today.

    bbbb | Oct 12, 2016 2:35:12 PM | 22
    Podesta - what a clown! Is there some rulebook about Presidents having to be protestant, while all the shady puppetmasters are zionist catholics or zionist zionists?

    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-podesta-left-wing-activist-plot-catholic-spring/

    [Oct 12, 2016] The perfect Trojan Horse Obama was the betrayer in both domestic and foreign policy.

    Notable quotes:
    "... There seems plenty of evidence in the Pacific in particular that many countries, from Myanmar and Philippines to Australia are trying to follow a strategy of neutrality, playing the big powers off each other, rather than attaching themselves to the US or China. I suspect we'll see more of this in the Middle East and Europe and even South America. ..."
    "... In Obama's case, he seems to bang on about American Exceptionalism more than anyone I can remember. Is Obama worried in case Joe Sixpack questions his background? ..."
    "... Nobody forced Obama to continue drone strikes over much of the muslim world. Nobody forced him to put known ideological neocons into key positions of influence and power in State and the Pentagon. Nobody forced him to give Israel a free hand in Gaza and the occupied strip. Nobody forced him to help the French and British destroy the wealthiest country in Africa (Libya) and turn it into an Isis stronghold. ..."
    "... Nobody forced him to encourage Ukrainian Nazi's to attack ethnic Russians without consequence. ..."
    "... Nobody forced him to pursue a 'tilt to the Pacific' aimed at isolating China with the inevitable blow-back that we are now seeing. Nobody forced him to interfere in Syria with the aim of getting rid of Assad. Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America. ..."
    "... He's proven very good at giving the notion that all these things 'just happened' as he sat back looking on sadly. I don't buy it. ..."
    "... I suspect his judgment is not that he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit. ..."
    "... I believe he made it to President because he was a Neolib who could make the population believe there would be change. ..."
    "... The fact that Trump is actually a thing shows how screwed up the US is. I can't imagine a president making decisions without dissonance, conflicts or contradictions. ..."
    "... Many view Obama as a type of Manchurian candidate , sleeper agent or otherwise not who he has been crafted to be. ..."
    "... As plausible deniability goes, Obama merges statecraft with tradecraft seamlessly between overt and covert political propaganda. Charming and disarming to democrats and ideals, his passive stances are often a buffer to the more dangerous background signal being sent as a lurking threat. ..."
    "... Moneta is correct. The TBTB knew what was coming. So much as Bernanke with his academic expertise on QE and the Great Depression was preemptively put in place in 2006 at the Fed, Obama was heavily backed by Wall Street under conditions that would have been made clear to him in the 2006-2008 period. ..."
    "... The most important element of TPTB 's program in backing Obama was the installation of Eric Holder as Attorney General, after Holder had been a primary architect of MERS and mortgage securitization at Covington Burling. Again, a preemptive move to protect Wall Street and forestall any prosecution of those at the top there (and Holder furthermore was conveniently a POC to continue the apparent Change!Hope! pitch). ..."
    "... I think of it as the Eric Holder administration in retrospect, actually. ..."
    "... What made him rise to the "top" were a multitude of promises made to his party and independents, which he later failed to fulfill. And his failure is almost 100%. He gained the nomination and beat Clinton, who was and is a neo-con, by promising to be different. Instead, he outdid Bush in his war mongering. The promises he made were in part why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in advance of him actually having done anything, the award of which is sorely regretted now by those who made it. PlutoniumKun listed some of the things Obama could have avoided but did anyway. One item he failed to mention was the US support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen which has now resulted in the US possibly being liable for the war crimes committed there. ..."
    "... the perfect Trojan Horse. and could not be criticized for the longest time because he is a minority. now we have a woman who will "make history". never mind what they get up to while in office. ..."
    "... Not only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up. ..."
    "... In March of 2009, I recall an FT editorial by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times asking if Obama was already a failure. I had a nagging feeling he was right, and he was. ..."
    "... On Foreign Policy, Obama's got the thawing of relations with Cuba and the Iran deal. We'll see if those are consolidated as a legacy or rolled-back by his successor. ..."
    "... With regard to pretty much everything else Obama tried to do, he's failed pretty badly. But supplying weapons to Al Nusra in Syria takes the cake for me. What happened to "don't do stupid stuff?" ..."
    "... Obama can and has accomplished a great deal in his presidency. The problem is he was accomplishing what he promised to his other supporters - not us. ..."
    "... Obama has always been in thrall to his paymasters as demonstrated by his actions during his administrations. ..."
    "... What is larger, 200,000 or 6,000. The first nnumber is the number of people who attended candidate 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2008. Heady, hopey changey times they were. The latter number is the number of people who attended president 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2013. ..."
    "... It is amusing to portray 0bama as a limp-wristed impotent figurehead. He isn't, he believes in American exceptionalism with "every fiber" of his body. ..."
    "... 0bama surpassed Bush in creating a number of calamities, and has been heavy handed with our supposed allies, thus destroying the myth of about the supposed "partnership." ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Not only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 4:46 am

    Not mentioned, of course, is that TPP etc., are central to the US's strategy to counter Russia and China, and it seems these Pacts are on the verge of failing miserably.

    There seems plenty of evidence in the Pacific in particular that many countries, from Myanmar and Philippines to Australia are trying to follow a strategy of neutrality, playing the big powers off each other, rather than attaching themselves to the US or China. I suspect we'll see more of this in the Middle East and Europe and even South America.

    Also, militarily its worth pointing out that Russia and China etc., do not have to match the US's fleets to gain equality on the oceans. They just have to have the technology for areal denial – i.e. sufficient long range missiles to make the US reluctant to send aircraft carriers within striking distance. This is similar to the early 20th Century situation where relatively cheap submarines allowed weaker countries to prevent the traditional great Naval Powers from having things their own way. Although in its own way, this proved very destabilising.

    The other factor not mentioned is that the the neocons have squandered the US's greatest single strength – its 'soft' power. The US is simply not respected and liked around the world the way it was even in the Cold War. I think the hysteria around Obama's election was at least partly based around the worlds longing for a US they could like. Among other things, Obama squandered that and left everyone with a choice between two detestable individuals, both of which are sure to make things worse.

    Colonel Smithers October 12, 2016 at 5:39 am

    Thank you. Well said. Area denial is also cheaper and, probably, less corrupt.

    That is such a good point about the soft power squandered by Obama. I wonder if that will come to be seen as a failure on the scale that Kennan thought about Slick Willie's reversal of policy towards Russia.

    A question for readers based in the US. I am the child of immigrants who came to the UK from a colony mentioned by Hiro in the mid-1960s, although we have ancestors who left these islands for that francophone colony in the early 19th century. Most, but not all immigrants in the UK and their children take tales of British superiority (vide why the UK will make Brexit a success) with a bucket of salt.

    Do our US peers do that? Obama seems like these British ministers of immigrant stock who need to prove that they belong and so adopt these positions that others / natives rarely bother with or express. In Obama's case, he seems to bang on about American Exceptionalism more than anyone I can remember. Is Obama worried in case Joe Sixpack questions his background?

    On another note, thank you (to PK) for the anecdote about RC churchgoers. I was away on Monday evening and unable to say so.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 8:11 am

    I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can argue this with regard to foreign policy where (unlike domestic policy) the president has a much freer hand.

    Nobody forced Obama to continue drone strikes over much of the muslim world. Nobody forced him to put known ideological neocons into key positions of influence and power in State and the Pentagon. Nobody forced him to give Israel a free hand in Gaza and the occupied strip. Nobody forced him to help the French and British destroy the wealthiest country in Africa (Libya) and turn it into an Isis stronghold.

    Nobody forced him to encourage Ukrainian Nazi's to attack ethnic Russians without consequence.

    Nobody forced him to pursue a 'tilt to the Pacific' aimed at isolating China with the inevitable blow-back that we are now seeing. Nobody forced him to interfere in Syria with the aim of getting rid of Assad. Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America.

    He's proven very good at giving the notion that all these things 'just happened' as he sat back looking on sadly. I don't buy it.

    Synoia October 12, 2016 at 11:55 am

    The list from PuKIm IS his list of accomplisments.

    Apologies to PuKim, I suspect your list is incomplete :-), one significant omission is the Expansion of Warrantless Surveillance of all Peoples.

    This by a constitutional scholar apparently more interested in exploiting perceived holes in the constitution than upholding its grand principles.

    Oops, that's a second great Obama accomplishment that was accidentally omitted form you list above.

    Moneta October 12, 2016 at 8:36 am

    I don't believe Obama could have done otherwise. Without a neolib ideology he would not have made it to President.

    So you are asking him to drop what made him rise to the top.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 8:51 am

    I agree that he has demonstrated a neoliberal-lite ideology, although its a little complicated by the fact that he has several times seemed to have shown that he 'gets' that current policy is wrong headed, but he has consistently shown little or no indication to stand up to the hard liners within the administration. I don't believe he has any foreign policy ideology other than his famous 'don't do stupid' policy, and as such will always go with establishment groupthink.

    I suspect his judgment is not that he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit.

    moneta October 12, 2016 at 9:34 am

    I believe he made it to President because he was a Neolib who could make the population believe there would be change. 10 years ago most of the population probably did not even know the word neolib existed. And most of the population thought helocs were God's gift to the USA.

    The fact that Trump is actually a thing shows how screwed up the US is. I can't imagine a president making decisions without dissonance, conflicts or contradictions.

    The us was based on a frontier mentality yet liberals think one Neolib president who spoke of change could change course.

    It's going to take a few presidents because society determines individuals' roles. When someone is very different, society might accept one eccentric touch but not multiple all at once.

    For example, maybe the us needs to go single payer but the golf from private to nationalized is so vast that you can only get there by iteration unless there is a huge shock that permits the leaders to do it in one scoop.

    Ivy October 12, 2016 at 10:51 am

    Many view Obama as a type of Manchurian candidate , sleeper agent or otherwise not who he has been crafted to be. Combine that with a deep distrust by much of the populace, to the extent that they pay attention , of the media, as the latter as a group have largely demonstrated a profound disregard for truth and objectivity.

    Politicians at least swear an oath upon taking office, even if many immediately ignore it, while so-called journalists no longer attempt to self-police or maintain integrity. The media seem to want to act as unelected officials with a seat at the top table.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 11:45 am

    As plausible deniability goes, Obama merges statecraft with tradecraft seamlessly between overt and covert political propaganda. Charming and disarming to democrats and ideals, his passive stances are often a buffer to the more dangerous background signal being sent as a lurking threat.

    good guy / bad guy writ large. It can be argued that he has used the same role play domestically where most of his constitutional prejudices have been corporate and most of his financial policies equally republican.

    See:

    Obama Resists Hawks As U.S., Russia Step Up War Threats Over Syria

    Posted: 10 Oct 2016 04:25 AM PDT

    http://www.justice-integrity.org/faq/1122-obama-resists-hawks-as-u-s-russia-step-up-war-threats-over-syria
    -----------------
    http://www.justice-integrity.org/

    "Nobody forced Obama…" is a formidable listing while apologists are generally sympathetic to his charm and graceful very likeable personality.
    In fact, (after all is said and done) Obama (as world leaders go) may well go down in history as even a great president and world shaker where amoral realism is counted after all the smoke and mirrors clear.

    History is written by the victor as Napoleon stated succinctly. I suggest to you that his "legacy" that is currently being groomed so carefully, includes some items that researchers and historians will also have to explain more comprehensively than any cult of personality will cover.:
    see:
    https://www.stpete4peace.org/obama-fact-sheet
    http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html

    Mark P. October 12, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    PK wrote: 'he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit.'

    Moneta is correct. The TBTB knew what was coming. So much as Bernanke with his academic expertise on QE and the Great Depression was preemptively put in place in 2006 at the Fed, Obama was heavily backed by Wall Street under conditions that would have been made clear to him in the 2006-2008 period.

    The most important element of TPTB 's program in backing Obama was the installation of Eric Holder as Attorney General, after Holder had been a primary architect of MERS and mortgage securitization at Covington Burling. Again, a preemptive move to protect Wall Street and forestall any prosecution of those at the top there (and Holder furthermore was conveniently a POC to continue the apparent Change!Hope! pitch).

    I think of it as the Eric Holder administration in retrospect, actually.

    Jack October 12, 2016 at 10:10 am

    What made him rise to the "top" were a multitude of promises made to his party and independents, which he later failed to fulfill. And his failure is almost 100%. He gained the nomination and beat Clinton, who was and is a neo-con, by promising to be different. Instead, he outdid Bush in his war mongering. The promises he made were in part why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in advance of him actually having done anything, the award of which is sorely regretted now by those who made it. PlutoniumKun listed some of the things Obama could have avoided but did anyway. One item he failed to mention was the US support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen which has now resulted in the US possibly being liable for the war crimes committed there.

    Portia October 12, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    the perfect Trojan Horse. and could not be criticized for the longest time because he is a minority. now we have a woman who will "make history". never mind what they get up to while in office.

    sinbad66 October 12, 2016 at 8:48 am

    Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America.

    A point rarely mentioned. Well said!

    pretzelattack October 12, 2016 at 8:54 am

    maybe cause he talked a lot about change? you know, closing guantanamo, appointing liberals to the bench, prosecuting war criminals and financial criminals, stuff like that. not starting any more wars in the middle east. more will come to me if i think about it. oh yeah, marching with striking union workers. trying to get the public option. taking a hard look at the fisa court. sorry, running out of time here.

    Jack October 12, 2016 at 10:18 am

    Of course it was doable. You are apparently overlooking the fact that for the first 2 years of the Obama presidency he pretty much had a free hand. Both houses of Congress were in the hands of democrats. Only later did the excuse of Republican vitriol have any weight. And lest you forget, the voters weighed Obama in the 2010 mid-terms and found him lacking. Most analysts point to the Democrat losses in that election as a result of Obama's failure to carry out his promised agenda.

    Moneta October 12, 2016 at 10:37 am

    In an alternate universe. Maybe it's because I'm in Canada, but I did not think he would accomplish much. Hard to stop a slow moving train.

    sid_finster October 12, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    Not only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up.

    JohnnyGL October 12, 2016 at 3:17 pm

    In March of 2009, I recall an FT editorial by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times asking if Obama was already a failure. I had a nagging feeling he was right, and he was.

    On Foreign Policy, Obama's got the thawing of relations with Cuba and the Iran deal. We'll see if those are consolidated as a legacy or rolled-back by his successor.

    With regard to pretty much everything else Obama tried to do, he's failed pretty badly. But supplying weapons to Al Nusra in Syria takes the cake for me. What happened to "don't do stupid stuff?"

    Jeremy Grimm October 12, 2016 at 1:34 pm

    It's really about acting like Hillary's idea of Lincoln. Obama had the nation behind him and Congress, the Bully Pulpit mentioned below, the power to appoint and request the resignations of the leaders of the Executive Branch arms of power, he could have lobbied for changing Rule 22 in the Senate his first year and changed the Senate rules for filibuster, and if Congress sends him a bill he doesn't like he can NOT sign it, and if there is a bill he does like he can actually get behind that bill and twist a few Congressional arms to get what he wants.

    Obama can and has accomplished a great deal in his presidency. The problem is he was accomplishing what he promised to his other supporters - not us.

    human October 12, 2016 at 9:25 am

    This is the very purpose of the bully pulpit presented to Obama in '08. Obama has always been in thrall to his paymasters as demonstrated by his actions during his administrations.

    OIFVet October 12, 2016 at 11:13 am

    What is larger, 200,000 or 6,000. The first nnumber is the number of people who attended candidate 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2008. Heady, hopey changey times they were. The latter number is the number of people who attended president 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2013.

    It is amusing to portray 0bama as a limp-wristed impotent figurehead. He isn't, he believes in American exceptionalism with "every fiber" of his body.

    The results are clear, most regular everyday Euros are quite cynical about the US. 0bama surpassed Bush in creating a number of calamities, and has been heavy handed with our supposed allies, thus destroying the myth of about the supposed "partnership."

    [Oct 12, 2016] NYT, WaPo, CNN and friends are not press . They are propaganda outlets of the neoliberal elite

    Notable quotes:
    "... They were in active collusion with the 1990s Clinton campaigns too, but I didn't have Wikileaks around to confirm it, or the internets for alternative sources of information. I suspected it anyway. I finally cut the cord after 2002. ..."
    "... Well the NYT, WaPo, CNN et al have shot themselves in the foot with this blatant collusion with the Clinton campaign. They've pissed off their most intelligent readers & viewers, shown themselves to be knaves and fools, and what are they going to say when HRC is president and investigated up the wazoo for corruption? ..."
    "... If you defeat Trump, you prevail over one guy. When Clinton is defeated, you win over all those 'with her.' ..."
    "... Yes… But leverage much higher than 100:1… Not just MSM, but banks, neocons, corrupt ceo's, and all these alphabet groups keeping us safe… Hopefully he'd be vindictive against all the elites trying to defeat him. ..."
    "... Some combination of "it's a Russian plot" and "we told you so." The MSM - they know everything. ..."
    "... NEVER overestimate the intelligence of the American public. If Hillary can get an 11 point lead over a salacious story that affects almost nobody and yet get no drop in popularity over revelations that will affect everyone's lives, I don't think there is much hope that the NYT, WaPo, CNN, et al, will get their comeuppance. But Americans who drink in what these MSM sites are feeding them WILL get the President they so obviously deserve, won't they? ..."
    "... Yes, it's the public's fault… despite being subject to the most brutal propaganda campaign in history and being assaulted by years of neoliberalism that barely gives them time to breathe between their three zero-hour contract jobs, it's their fault and they deserve a president who will grand-bargain away their social security benefits, TPP away the few remaining good jobs and start a civilisation-threatening war with Russia. ..."
    "... And just for the record (/sarc), HRC only has an 11-point lead because most people won't be voting anyway, as they've correctly surmised that the system is completely rigged against them. ..."
    "... I have not seen the data on that poll but I doubt that it is a "scientific poll". Many of the polls that I have taken the time to look at the data shows that they avoid asking 35 and under voters and heavily skew the data set to democrats. Lee Camp from Redacted Tonight has also shown this on his TV show on RT. Those even ruskies. ..."
    "... Stupid Bloomberg headlines I never clicked on: The Trump Video Would Get Most CEOs Ousted. No doubt. But so would running their own private server outside the company system, then destroying emails in response to a Congressional subpoena. ..."
    Oct 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 7:05 am

    Stupid NYT headlines I never clicked on:

    Trump's Bluster Erodes Democracy, Experts Say

    When I hear the trigger word "experts," I reach for my revolver.

    jgordon October 11, 2016 at 7:45 am

    NYT: the toilet paper of record. In yet another Wikileaks dump it's come out that they're in active collusion with Hillary's campaign. How anyone is still dumb enough to believe the lies they're alwaus putting out is beyond me.

    Really, it's fine to be biased lackeys for the rich and powerful as long as you're honest about it. Pretending to be unbiased arbiters of truth while doing that though is pathetic.

    These media presstitutes are so rancidly despicable that I want to throw up whenever I think of them. Newspapers and the rest of the media: want to know why you're going bankrupt? It's not the internet–it's because every day more and more people are clued into the fact that you are pathetic lying scum. In my mind these media people are in the same exact category as child molesters.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 7:52 am

    If it were a little softer, yeah, it would work for that. But it's disgusting getting ink on your butt.

    Ed October 11, 2016 at 8:32 am

    They were in active collusion with the 1990s Clinton campaigns too, but I didn't have Wikileaks around to confirm it, or the internets for alternative sources of information. I suspected it anyway. I finally cut the cord after 2002.

    Pavel October 11, 2016 at 9:51 am

    Well the NYT, WaPo, CNN et al have shot themselves in the foot with this blatant collusion with the Clinton campaign. They've pissed off their most intelligent readers & viewers, shown themselves to be knaves and fools, and what are they going to say when HRC is president and investigated up the wazoo for corruption?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 11, 2016 at 10:06 am

    If you defeat Trump, you prevail over one guy. When Clinton is defeated, you win over all those 'with her.'

    For any leverage kind of person, that's a potential 100-bagger right there.

    John k October 11, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    Yes… But leverage much higher than 100:1… Not just MSM, but banks, neocons, corrupt ceo's, and all these alphabet groups keeping us safe…
    Hopefully he'd be vindictive against all the elites trying to defeat him.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 10:07 am

    Some combination of "it's a Russian plot" and "we told you so." The MSM - they know everything.

    justanotherprogressive October 11, 2016 at 10:23 am

    NEVER overestimate the intelligence of the American public. If Hillary can get an 11 point lead over a salacious story that affects almost nobody and yet get no drop in popularity over revelations that will affect everyone's lives, I don't think there is much hope that the NYT, WaPo, CNN, et al, will get their comeuppance. But Americans who drink in what these MSM sites are feeding them WILL get the President they so obviously deserve, won't they?

    RabidGandhi October 11, 2016 at 11:54 am

    Yes, it's the public's fault… despite being subject to the most brutal propaganda campaign in history and being assaulted by years of neoliberalism that barely gives them time to breathe between their three zero-hour contract jobs, it's their fault and they deserve a president who will grand-bargain away their social security benefits, TPP away the few remaining good jobs and start a civilisation-threatening war with Russia.

    And just for the record (/sarc), HRC only has an 11-point lead because most people won't be voting anyway, as they've correctly surmised that the system is completely rigged against them.

    AnEducatedFool October 11, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    I have not seen the data on that poll but I doubt that it is a "scientific poll". Many of the polls that I have taken the time to look at the data shows that they avoid asking 35 and under voters and heavily skew the data set to democrats. Lee Camp from Redacted Tonight has also shown this on his TV show on RT. Those even ruskies.

    polecat October 11, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    'Little Big Horn' (Wurlitzer) Syndrome …..

    ggm October 11, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    Just watched a documentary on the murder of Kitty Genovese. It sure made me think there has been a culture of corruption at the New York Times for decades, enabled by outside journalists refusing to question them for whatever reason (intimidation, careerism…).

    beth October 11, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    jgordon, did I miss a link above or could you give me a link to the Wikileaks reference? Thanks. I need to pass this along to a friend.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 7:49 am

    Stupid Bloomberg headlines I never clicked on: The Trump Video Would Get Most CEOs Ousted. No doubt. But so would running their own private server outside the company system, then destroying emails in response to a Congressional subpoena.

    [Oct 12, 2016] If only Frank Sinatra had had the foresight to record the conversations we could now enjoy the lasting record of Senator John F.Kennedys attitudes toward poontang . Meanwhile, nary a word about we came, we saw, he died , as it apparently is just peachy to destroy a country if you want to tick killing an autocrat who is not in the USs pocket off your bucket-list.

    Notable quotes:
    "... If only Frank Sinatra had had the foresight to get a hidden tape spool running, we could now enjoy the lasting record of Senator John F.Kennedy's attitudes toward "poontang". ..."
    "... Anyway, if HRC actually broke the law… shouldn't she face prosecution? I know some people (at amconmag, as it happens) have called for members of the Bush administration to be put on trial. Over here, the demand for Blair to be tried at the Hague for war crimes is now a tired old Left cliche. Obviously, it would be new to demand punishment for the loser just for losing, but that isn't the context here. ..."
    "... Looking at the FB timelines of my 'professional class' milquetoast 'progressive' acquaintances in the US (who all gravitas/te towards Vox), who have since this weekend become unglued, this is very much a case of people deliberately goading themselves into frenzies, tumbling over one another in their attempts to win an apparent virtue-signalling-contest. ..."
    Oct 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    casmilus 10.11.16 at 8:59 am 17
    "For months, I've been beating the drum of the non-novelty of Donald Trump, but try as I might, even I can't remember a presidential candidate caught on tape bragging about assaulting women and grabbing pussy."

    If only Frank Sinatra had had the foresight to get a hidden tape spool running, we could now enjoy the lasting record of Senator John F.Kennedy's attitudes toward "poontang".

    Anyway, if HRC actually broke the law… shouldn't she face prosecution? I know some people (at amconmag, as it happens) have called for members of the Bush administration to be put on trial. Over here, the demand for Blair to be tried at the Hague for war crimes is now a tired old Left cliche. Obviously, it would be new to demand punishment for the loser just for losing, but that isn't the context here.

    Foppe 10.11.16 at 9:39 am 19
    Looking at the FB timelines of my 'professional class' milquetoast 'progressive' acquaintances in the US (who all gravitas/te towards Vox), who have since this weekend become unglued, this is very much a case of people deliberately goading themselves into frenzies, tumbling over one another in their attempts to win an apparent virtue-signalling-contest.

    Meanwhile, nary a word about "we came, we saw, he died", as it apparently is just peachy to destroy a country if you want to tick 'killing an autocrat who is not in the US's pocket' off your bucket-list.

    Foppe 10.11.16 at 10:14 am 20
    To put it bluntly, looking away and excusing evils one "understands" and thinks one can "contain" (except insofar as it affects non-nationals and the bottom 30-40% , anyway, but who cares about them) because the "other side" is perceived to be "more" evil/disruptive/threatening to the status quo is a pattern of behavior that disturbs me far more than the behavior of the other side, however nasty that may be.

    [Oct 12, 2016] Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Oct 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    (Busy with nurturing some illness, please bear with me.)

    Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Clinton in a 2013 speech to the Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner (via The Intercept ):

    [Arming moderates has] been complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons-and pretty indiscriminately-not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future, ...

    Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course.

    The following was written by Podesta, a well connected former White House Chief of Staff, in an 2014 email to Clinton. As introduction Podesta notes:"Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.":

    While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

    Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq.

    [Oct 12, 2016] Neoliberal presstitutes promoting Hillary wont be fighting in any of Hillarys wars. They arent going to be drafted and they arent going to be bombed

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yes, on all points, especially this: "I don't know whether this obfuscation is due to the journalists themselves believing that Clinton is a crook and therefore shouting "Thief, thief!" to distract attention from this, or whether they're just being opportunistic and throwing raw meat to the rubes. But it's not a good sign for the future of American civil society either way." I say both . The donor class 1% that own the media, especially the new media, are solidly behind Hillary to an extent that I wonder whether we can call any of the media 'liberal.' Trump correctly noted that to even refer to the 33,000 documents she destroyed after receiving a federal subpoena as 'email' clouds the key facts: the FBI and government inspectors had to have access to all the documents to determine their status. ..."
    "... In the short term, it's all upside. They won't be fighting in any of Hillary's wars. They aren't going to be drafted and they aren't going to be bombed. The are almost all staunchly and proudly anti-Republican and that's the sole metric by which actions are judged both morally and legally. ..."
    "... When the elephant starts to take heat for the crap effect of donor class policies, the donor class simply pour money into donkey coffers to ensure the continuation of the donor class crap policies. ..."
    "... JournOlism 101, or wishful thinking? ..."
    "... I wouldn't ordinarily link to the NR, but on the topic of banana republics, this piece is quite good. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440917/donald-trump-special-prosecutor-hillary-clinton-debate ..."
    "... Like so much of the media they have the ideological and cultural diversity of a clan rally, (though with better politics, obviously) and at this stage there's little to be gained intellectually from re litigating liberal dogma for the nth time. ..."
    "... And then there's the inability to deal with uncertainty or not knowing. Everything has to have a neat explanation and convenient conclusion. ..."
    "... I You see, one thing, is I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. ..."
    "... The only way we're going to arrive at a rough approximation of the truth is to leave these ideological bubbles and embrace our enemies. This is the only way truth will emerge. And it's not going to come from the regurgitated conventional wisdom of the anglosphere chattering classes ..."
    "... Ezra did not forget about the earlier chants at the RNC. Ezra *pretended* to forget about the earlier chants at the RNC, because he saw that the debate had created a new opportunity to create momentum behind an anti-Trump message. To make the message maximally powerful, and to get a larger segment of the press and punditry behind the message, it was useful to pretend that a new red line had been crossed, a new outrage had been perpetrated, unlike any other. ..."
    "... Look, it was strategically useful, and it seems to have worked in mobilizing a lot of sentiment to converge on one line of attack: lots and lots of people are saying "Trump is a tin-pot dictator!" who were not saying it before. ..."
    "... Remember when Captain Renault was shocked to discover that gambling was going on at Rick's? Were you shocked to discover that he had not been aware of it previously? Were you appalled at his historical amnesia? ..."
    "... Agree vox's self-definition as "explain the news" is misleading, and their reality is closer to "interpret the news from a moderate-left/technocrat POV" ..."
    "... There's a bumper crop of new email on the topic of the press and debate moderators colluding with the Hillary campaign to: screw Sanders (Boston Herald – also on board for anti-Trump), minimize damage from the email fallout, and best of all (for me) John Harwood (neutral debate moderator) providing written evidence that even that venue was tilted to damage Trump and protect Hillary. ..."
    "... It's never the crime, always the cover-up. http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/nytcnbcs-john-harwood-advises-clinton-campaign-gloats-about-provoking-trump-at-debate/ ..."
    "... And for the win: Youtube puts a warning on a Trump ad featuring Hillary coughing and tipping over. Take that as confirmation the ad can change votes: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/youtube-hides-slaps-warning-new-trump-ad-hillarys-health/ ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.11.16 at 4:34 am 9

    @5 MFB Yes, on all points, especially this: "I don't know whether this obfuscation is due to the journalists themselves believing that Clinton is a crook and therefore shouting "Thief, thief!" to distract attention from this, or whether they're just being opportunistic and throwing raw meat to the rubes. But it's not a good sign for the future of American civil society either way."

    I say both . The donor class 1% that own the media, especially the new media, are solidly behind Hillary to an extent that I wonder whether we can call any of the media 'liberal.' Trump correctly noted that to even refer to the 33,000 documents she destroyed after receiving a federal subpoena as 'email' clouds the key facts: the FBI and government inspectors had to have access to all the documents to determine their status.

    The press understands all this, of course. They are neither forgetful, or entirely stupid. They, however, quite blind to the damage they are doing to institutions they claim to care about.

    In the short term, it's all upside. They won't be fighting in any of Hillary's wars. They aren't going to be drafted and they aren't going to be bombed. The are almost all staunchly and proudly anti-Republican and that's the sole metric by which actions are judged both morally and legally.

    Which makes them the perfect dupes of the donor class.

    When the elephant starts to take heat for the crap effect of donor class policies, the donor class simply pour money into donkey coffers to ensure the continuation of the donor class crap policies.

    Ezra and Ryan and their ilk are all aspiring VSPs. They'll get their 'one-on-one' interviews to boost clicks and Hillary will simply forget to schedule more than one actual press conference per year.

    Liberals will clap and high five each other over the goofus they helped remove.

    kidneystones 10.11.16 at 6:11 am 12
    TPM Headline: It Begins: Trump Takes Swipe At Ryan After He Essentially Concedes To Clinton

    Buried at bottom of piece: "…one Republican congressman who spoke to TPM on background said that some members were criticizing Ryan openly for not standing by Trump. One member, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) blasted Ryan for essentially ceding the election to Hillary Clinton."

    One congressmen clearly identified as Dana Rohrabacher "blasted Ryan for essentially ceding the election to Hillary Clinton" becomes in the TPM land "He (Trump) concedes to Clinton", or the almost equally implausible "He (Ryan) concedes to Clinton." OK.

    JournOlism 101, or wishful thinking?

    Both.

    kidneystones 10.11.16 at 8:22 am 16
    I wouldn't ordinarily link to the NR, but on the topic of banana republics, this piece is quite good. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440917/donald-trump-special-prosecutor-hillary-clinton-debate
    Ronan(rf) 10.11.16 at 10:41 am 24
    I'm reluctant enough to say anything too mean spirited about vox, as they all genuinely seem like decent sorts, and can provide quite useful information at times.

    But I really can't read it anymore.

    Like so much of the media they have the ideological and cultural diversity of a clan rally, (though with better politics, obviously) and at this stage there's little to be gained intellectually from re litigating liberal dogma for the nth time.

    And then there's the inability to deal with uncertainty or not knowing. Everything has to have a neat explanation and convenient conclusion. This was most recently personified by beauchamps white riot article, which couldn't just be a useful and interesting perspective , but was sold (literally) as "the truth", with no complications or alternatives acceptable. Whatever happened to following Feynmans dictum:

    " I You see, one thing, is I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and then many things I don't know anything about….

    But I don't have to know an answer, I don't have to…i don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell possibly. It doesn't frighten me."

    Beyond that though, what we should aspire towards is surrounding ourselves with people we find morally and politically awful. Literally, by reprehensible assholes (no offence to anyone here ; ) )

    The only way we're going to arrive at a rough approximation of the truth is to leave these ideological bubbles and embrace our enemies. This is the only way truth will emerge. And it's not going to come from the regurgitated conventional wisdom of the anglosphere chattering classes

    oldster 10.11.16 at 12:45 pm 35
    Complaining about naďveté at Vox is a sign of naďveté in the complainer.

    Ezra did not forget about the earlier chants at the RNC. Ezra *pretended* to forget about the earlier chants at the RNC, because he saw that the debate had created a new opportunity to create momentum behind an anti-Trump message. To make the message maximally powerful, and to get a larger segment of the press and punditry behind the message, it was useful to pretend that a new red line had been crossed, a new outrage had been perpetrated, unlike any other.

    So Ezra, and the Clinton campaign, and lots of other media types, all coordinated on a story: what Trump had just said was a shocking new violation of norms, worse than anything that had occurred before.

    Look, it was strategically useful, and it seems to have worked in mobilizing a lot of sentiment to converge on one line of attack: lots and lots of people are saying "Trump is a tin-pot dictator!" who were not saying it before.

    And Ezra's putting on the appearance of historical naďveté helps to counter a genuine structural problem in dealing with Trump: Trump's own constant, slow, incremental ratcheting up of offensive statements. He does not start out by saying the unsayable himself: first he has audience plants say it, and he ignores it.

    So that's not the time to confront him, because he hasn't said it himself. Then he says, "a lot of people are saying [unsayable thing]," but that's not the time to confront him, either, because by then it is literally true. And so on as he normalizes the unsayable by small degrees.

    It's like the frog-boiling story (pretend it were true), in that if you want to stop the temperature rise, it may be strategically useful for everyone to agree that 75C is the temp at which they will all say, in a coordinated way, "the burner is on!" And then of course someone could accuse them of amnesia for forgetting that the burner has been on for a long time. But that person would be failing to understand how a coordinated media push works.

    Remember when Captain Renault was shocked to discover that gambling was going on at Rick's? Were you shocked to discover that he had not been aware of it previously? Were you appalled at his historical amnesia?

    If so, then by all means condemn Ezra.

    kent 10.11.16 at 7:24 pm 83
    Agree vox's self-definition as "explain the news" is misleading, and their reality is closer to "interpret the news from a moderate-left/technocrat POV"

    But I really, really, really don't get the point of the OP's final lines. Trump as ringmaster and vox as clowns? Huh?

    Trump is a risk to our future and vox is pointing that out - which they take (I think rightly) to be their job. They point it out over and over again, and attach the point to every possible news hook? Good for them!

    How is vox's response to Trump different/worse than, say, the MSM's response to Watergate? (Or any other journalist's response to any other perceived abuse of power?) Serious question.

    kidneystones 10.12.16 at 1:23 am 105
    Back to the OP. There's a bumper crop of new email on the topic of the press and debate moderators colluding with the Hillary campaign to: screw Sanders (Boston Herald – also on board for anti-Trump), minimize damage from the email fallout, and best of all (for me) John Harwood (neutral debate moderator) providing written evidence that even that venue was tilted to damage Trump and protect Hillary.

    It's never the crime, always the cover-up. http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/nytcnbcs-john-harwood-advises-clinton-campaign-gloats-about-provoking-trump-at-debate/

    kidneystones 10.12.16 at 7:59 am 114
    And for the win: Youtube puts a warning on a Trump ad featuring Hillary coughing and tipping over. Take that as confirmation the ad can change votes:
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/youtube-hides-slaps-warning-new-trump-ad-hillarys-health/
    kidneystones 10.12.16 at 8:00 am 115
    Here's the ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTylz2WToXw

    [Oct 12, 2016] Crash: how computers are setting us up for disaster

    Oct 12, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Guardian (resilc). Today's must read.

    [Oct 12, 2016] Yes, Trump Has Destroyed The GOP

    Rod Dreher hysterics became pretty annoying. He dooes not want to understand that Hillary Clinton is a stuach neocon warmonger, has poor helath, can be impeached even after winning due to emailgate and her platform is actually more of a moderate republican, then a democrat. She is completly in the pcket of major Walll street bank and enjoys this status.
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Back in May, Michael Lind penned what I still think is the most insightful essay describing what's happening, and what is going to happen, in US politics after this year. With the Left having won the culture war, the parties of the future will be a nationalist GOP vs. a multiculturalist, globalist Democratic Party. Excerpt:

    The outlines of the two-party system of the 2020s and 2030s are dimly visible. The Republicans will be a party of mostly working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort-programs like Social Security and Medicare. But they will tend to oppose means-tested programs for the poor whose benefits they and their families cannot enjoy.

    They will oppose increases in both legal and illegal immigration, in some cases because of ethnic prejudice; in other cases, for fear of economic competition. The instinctive economic nationalism of tomorrow's Republicans could be invoked to justify strategic trade as well as crude protectionism. They are likely to share Trump's view of unproductive finance: "The hedge-fund guys didn't build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky."

    The Democrats of the next generation will be even more of an alliance of upscale, progressive whites with blacks and Latinos, based in large and diverse cities. They will think of the U.S. as a version of their multicultural coalition of distinct racial and ethnic identity groups writ large. Many younger progressives will take it for granted that moral people are citizens of the world, equating nationalism and patriotism with racism and fascism.

    The withering-away of industrial unions, thanks to automation as well as offshoring, will liberate the Democrats to embrace free trade along with mass immigration wholeheartedly. The emerging progressive ideology of post-national cosmopolitanism will fit nicely with urban economies which depend on finance, tech and other industries of global scope, and which benefit from a constant stream of immigrants, both skilled and unskilled.

    [Oct 12, 2016] If only Frank Sinatra had had the foresight to get a hidden tape spool running, we could now enjoy the lasting record of Senator John F.Kennedy's attitudes toward "poontang". Meanwhile, nary a word about "we came, we saw, he died", as it apparently is just peachy to destroy a country if you want to tick 'killing an autocrat who is not in the US's pocket' off your bucket-list.

    Oct 12, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    casmilus 10.11.16 at 8:59 am 17

    "For months, I've been beating the drum of the non-novelty of Donald Trump, but try as I might, even I can't remember a presidential candidate caught on tape bragging about assaulting women and grabbing pussy."

    If only Frank Sinatra had had the foresight to get a hidden tape spool running, we could now enjoy the lasting record of Senator John F.Kennedy's attitudes toward "poontang".

    Anyway, if HRC actually broke the law… shouldn't she face prosecution? I know some people (at amconmag, as it happens) have called for members of the Bush administration to be put on trial. Over here, the demand for Blair to be tried at the Hague for war crimes is now a tired old Left cliche. Obviously, it would be new to demand punishment for the loser just for losing, but that isn't the context here.

    Foppe 10.11.16 at 9:39 am 19

    Looking at the FB timelines of my 'professional class' milquetoast 'progressive' acquaintances in the US (who all gravitas/te towards Vox), who have since this weekend become unglued, this is very much a case of people deliberately goading themselves into frenzies, tumbling over one another in their attempts to win an apparent virtue-signalling-contest.

    Meanwhile, nary a word about "we came, we saw, he died", as it apparently is just peachy to destroy a country if you want to tick 'killing an autocrat who is not in the US's pocket' off your bucket-list.

    Foppe 10.11.16 at 10:14 am 20

    To put it bluntly, looking away and excusing evils one "understands" and thinks one can "contain" (except insofar as it affects non-nationals and the bottom 30-40% , anyway, but who cares about them) because the "other side" is perceived to be "more" evil/disruptive/threatening to the status quo is a pattern of behavior that disturbs me far more than the behavior of the other side, however nasty that may be.

    [Oct 12, 2016] The Case for a Two-Faced Hillary Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick … we're both innocent." ..."
    "... Even the liberal Harvard Law School … ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    The New Republic

    "In an election in which one of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll deliver everything under the sun, without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically possible-there's something bold, even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political deal-making.

    Maybe it's not a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being honest."

    timbers October 11, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    The Trail

    "The Case for a 'Two-Faced' Hillary Clinton" [The New Republic]. "In an election in which one of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll deliver everything under the sun, without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically possible-there's something bold, even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political deal-making. Maybe it's not a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being honest."

    I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick … we're both innocent."

    Yikes:

    "We therefore hold that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured,' the court said" … PHH said the law creating the CFPB gave an unaccountable director too much authority."

    Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any case brought regarding NSA spyiny?

    allan October 11, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    "Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any case brought regarding NSA spyiny?"

    Unfortunately, this very same judge has a long history on those issues,
    including time in the Bush Cheney White House before getting a lifetime appointment on the bench,
    and for the most part it's not pretty. Emptywheel has an entire archive devoted to him.

    Vatch October 11, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    This segues into an argument in favor of voting for Hillary Clinton that I can't rebut: Republicans appoint bad people to both the Executive branch and to the Judiciary, but Democrats only appoint bad people to the Executive branch. Therefore, one should vote for Hillary Clinton, Democrat. I've oversimplified the argument, but in general, that's what some people have told me, and I don't have a good counter argument.

    That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Clinton. She's a crook. I'll either leave the Presidential part of the ballot blank, or vote for Stein, despite my great annoyance over some of the things that Ajamu Baraka has said.

    nippersmom October 11, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    Merrick Garland, Obama's latest nominee, is pro-Ciizen's United, so not sure how "good" he is. Conventional wisdom about Democratic vs. Republican appointees to the bench would seem suspect to me in a day when the Overton window has shifted so far to the right that the Democratic candidate for President is more conservative, more pro-business, more hawkish, and less environmentally responsible than Richard Nixon,

    Vatch October 11, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    I challenge you to find any Democratic judicial appointments of the past 3 decades that are as bad as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, or Samuel Alito.

    As for Garland, he's not good, but he's certainly not as bad as any Republican nominee would be. And he hasn't even been confirmed.

    nippersmom October 11, 2016 at 5:01 pm

    Hillary is surrounding herself with exactly the same cast of characters as those who appointed the judges you name. Why do you think her taste in justices will be any different than her taste in policy advisors or potential cabinet members?

    After Clinton signs the TPP, the Supreme Court will be moot anyway.

    Vatch October 11, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Obama's Executive branch appointments have been dismal, but his judicial appointments seem to be better - Sotomayor and Kagan. Bill Clinton appointed Breyer and Ginsburg. None of these 4 judges is remotely like Scalia.

    I strongly suspect that Hillary Clinton would nominate similar judges.

    We definitely don't want the TPP to pass. We need to keep the pressure on Congress, so we don't have to worry about what a President might do.

    I reiterate: there are many things wrong with Clinton, and I will not vote for her.

    I appreciate the feedback.

    allan October 11, 2016 at 5:17 pm

    Sotomayor has been great, but Kagan has been a mixed bag. She voted (in a losing dissent, along with Scalia, Kennedy and Silent Clarence) , to allow Sarbanes-Oxley to be used against a fisherman for throwing his catch overboard. She was to the right of Roberts on this one.
    Even the liberal Harvard Law School …

    marym October 11, 2016 at 3:44 pm

    Clinton's first "appointment," first in the line of succession, Tim Kaine, is pro-TPP, pro-Hyde Amendment, anti-labor (pro-right-to-work-for-nothing), and pro-intervention in Syria.

    Vatch October 11, 2016 at 4:51 pm

    Tim Kaine would be in the Executive branch, not the Judiciary.

    timbers October 11, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    Know what you mean but try asking people who bring up judges as the reason to vote blue, why should we believe that when Dems can't even deliver on judges when their nominee is a REPUBLICAN for goodness sakes? Then take exaggerated offense at being expected to settle for so LITTLE .

    Just a suggestion.

    Vatch October 11, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    I appreciate the feedback. However, I don't think it's clear that Garland is a Republican. Prior to nominating him, there were trial balloons from the White House suggesting that Republican Brian Sandoval of Nevada would be chosen.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 11, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    A good counter argument is this: Hillary is a Republican.

    WJ October 11, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    The New Republic piece is a festering pile of shit, and I intend that phrase as purely descriptive account of the object.

    This is a woman who with her husband earned over $139 MILLION DOLLARS in paid speeches to the .1%–the OLIGARCHY–between 2007-2014 ALONE!

    And yet the cretin of a human being calling himself the author of this "piece" [of shit] chooses to insult my intelligence–yea, even perpetrate fraud upon the species!–by pretending as if this UNQUESTIONABLE FACT is simply IRRELEVANT to Clinton's "nuanced"–[insert sounds of my heaving vomit]–distinction between her public and private position. A DISTINCTION THAT WOULD ITSELF HAVE BEEN WITHHELD FROM THE PUBLIC RECORD IF IT HAD NOT BEEN LEAKED BY WIKILEAKS, THE FOUNDER OF WHOM SHE HAS PROPOSED BE MURDERED BY DRONE STRIKE!!

    No, MY PROBLEM, YOUR PROBLEM, ANYBODY'S PROBLEM with this avaricious sociopathic warmongering ulcerous wretch is–MUST BE–that she is a WOMAN?!

    "As substantively defensible-even virtuous-as dealmaking can be, taking this tack runs the risk of confirming the public's worst fears about Clinton: that she's dishonest and lacking in core conviction. That notion, which has a gendered element to it…." [but might also perhaps not be unrelated to her long history of manipulation, lying, stealing, backstabbing, fraud, embezzlement, fraud, more lying, murder, more murder, more fraud]…

    Fuck it. The oligarchy doesn't even have to be good at "public relations" anymore. Might as well get ahead of the curve and move to Brazil.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 4:06 pm

    The "gendered element" canard hyperlinks to a WaPo article containing this statement from one of the interviewees:

    "Research on gender stereotypes has shown that women are often perceived as more honest than their male counterparts."

    Meaning that even with a head start thanks to favorable bias, Hillary is still perceived as deceitful.

    Heckuva job, Hillary.

    Prufrock October 11, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    PHH is horrible. They purchased my mortgage last year, and started forclosure proceedings within the 60 day grace period while my autopayment was still going to the previous servicer (as allowed by law). Their customer support in Asia lied repeatedly, and when I starting informing them that I would record the calls, they would hang up or refuse to talk to me.

    They finally acknowledged their error after 3-4 calls (particularly once I found out I had to keep asking for a supervisor until I was connected to the US), but it was a huge waste of my time.

    john k October 11, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    It was actually a great investment of your time.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    Four legs good, two legs bad - photo of a fetching young centaur from Comic Con in NYC:

    http://tinyurl.com/zyujq3q

    Not to be confused with COMECON, the trade pact among the eastern bloc during Soviet days.

    allan October 11, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Nor to be confused with ECOMCON .

    ambrit October 11, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Nor the 'Necrotelecomnicon.' The handy guide to contacting H Clinton's core advisor circle. As for which precise 'circle' (of H-,) H Clintons advisors come from; opinions are divided.

    [Oct 12, 2016] Neoliberal presstitutes promoting Hillary won't be fighting in any of Hillary's wars. They aren't going to be drafted and they aren't going to be bombed

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yes, on all points, especially this: "I don't know whether this obfuscation is due to the journalists themselves believing that Clinton is a crook and therefore shouting "Thief, thief!" to distract attention from this, or whether they're just being opportunistic and throwing raw meat to the rubes. But it's not a good sign for the future of American civil society either way." I say both . The donor class 1% that own the media, especially the new media, are solidly behind Hillary to an extent that I wonder whether we can call any of the media 'liberal.' Trump correctly noted that to even refer to the 33,000 documents she destroyed after receiving a federal subpoena as 'email' clouds the key facts: the FBI and government inspectors had to have access to all the documents to determine their status. ..."
    "... In the short term, it's all upside. They won't be fighting in any of Hillary's wars. They aren't going to be drafted and they aren't going to be bombed. The are almost all staunchly and proudly anti-Republican and that's the sole metric by which actions are judged both morally and legally. ..."
    "... When the elephant starts to take heat for the crap effect of donor class policies, the donor class simply pour money into donkey coffers to ensure the continuation of the donor class crap policies. ..."
    "... I You see, one thing, is I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. ..."
    "... The only way we're going to arrive at a rough approximation of the truth is to leave these ideological bubbles and embrace our enemies. This is the only way truth will emerge. And it's not going to come from the regurgitated conventional wisdom of the anglosphere chattering classes ..."
    "... So Ezra, and the Clinton campaign, and lots of other media types, all coordinated on a story: what Trump had just said was a shocking new violation of norms, worse than anything that had occurred before. ..."
    "... Look, it was strategically useful, and it seems to have worked in mobilizing a lot of sentiment to converge on one line of attack: lots and lots of people are saying "Trump is a tin-pot dictator!" who were not saying it before. ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.11.16 at 4:34 am 9

    @5 MFB Yes, on all points, especially this: "I don't know whether this obfuscation is due to the journalists themselves believing that Clinton is a crook and therefore shouting "Thief, thief!" to distract attention from this, or whether they're just being opportunistic and throwing raw meat to the rubes. But it's not a good sign for the future of American civil society either way."

    I say both . The donor class 1% that own the media, especially the new media, are solidly behind Hillary to an extent that I wonder whether we can call any of the media 'liberal.' Trump correctly noted that to even refer to the 33,000 documents she destroyed after receiving a federal subpoena as 'email' clouds the key facts: the FBI and government inspectors had to have access to all the documents to determine their status.

    The press understands all this, of course. They are neither forgetful, or entirely stupid. They, however, quite blind to the damage they are doing to institutions they claim to care about.

    In the short term, it's all upside. They won't be fighting in any of Hillary's wars. They aren't going to be drafted and they aren't going to be bombed. The are almost all staunchly and proudly anti-Republican and that's the sole metric by which actions are judged both morally and legally.

    Which makes them the perfect dupes of the donor class.

    When the elephant starts to take heat for the crap effect of donor class policies, the donor class simply pour money into donkey coffers to ensure the continuation of the donor class crap policies.

    Ezra and Ryan and their ilk are all aspiring VSPs. They'll get their 'one-on-one' interviews to boost clicks and Hillary will simply forget to schedule more than one actual press conference per year.

    Liberals will clap and high five each other over the goofus they helped remove.

    kidneystones 10.11.16 at 6:11 am 12

    TPM Headline: It Begins: Trump Takes Swipe At Ryan After He Essentially Concedes To Clinton

    Buried at bottom of piece: "…one Republican congressman who spoke to TPM on background said that some members were criticizing Ryan openly for not standing by Trump. One member, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) blasted Ryan for essentially ceding the election to Hillary Clinton."

    One congressmen clearly identified as Dana Rohrabacher "blasted Ryan for essentially ceding the election to Hillary Clinton" becomes in the TPM land "He (Trump) concedes to Clinton", or the almost equally implausible "He (Ryan) concedes to Clinton." OK.

    JournOlism 101, or wishful thinking?

    Both.

    kidneystones 10.11.16 at 8:22 am 16

    I wouldn't ordinarily link to the NR, but on the topic of banana republics, this piece is quite good.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440917/donald-trump-special-prosecutor-hillary-clinton-debate

    Ronan(rf) 10.11.16 at 10:41 am 24

    I'm reluctant enough to say anything too mean spirited about vox, as they all genuinely seem like decent sorts, and can provide quite useful information at times. But I really can't read it anymore. Like so much of the media they have the ideological and cultural diversity of a klan rally, (though with better politics, obviously) and at this stage there's little to be gained intellectually from re litigating liberal dogma for the nth time. And then there's the inability to deal with uncertainty or not knowing. Everything has to have a neat explanation and convenient conclusion. This was most recently personified by beauchamps white riot article, which couldn't just be a useful and interesting perspective , but was sold (literally) as "the truth", with no complications or alternatives acceptable. Whatever happened to following Feynmans dictum:

    " I You see, one thing, is I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and then many things I don't know anything about….

    But I don't have to know an answer, I don't have to…i don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell possibly. It doesn't frighten me."

    Beyond that though, what we should aspire towards is surrounding ourselves with people we find morally and politically awful. Literally, by reprehensible assholes (no offence to anyone here ; ) )

    The only way we're going to arrive at a rough approximation of the truth is to leave these ideological bubbles and embrace our enemies. This is the only way truth will emerge. And it's not going to come from the regurgitated conventional wisdom of the anglosphere chattering classes

    oldster 10.11.16 at 12:45 pm 35

    Complaining about naďveté at Vox is a sign of naďveté in the complainer.

    Ezra did not forget about the earlier chants at the RNC. Ezra *pretended* to forget about the earlier chants at the RNC, because he saw that the debate had created a new opportunity to create momentum behind an anti-Trump message. To make the message maximally powerful, and to get a larger segment of the press and punditry behind the message, it was useful to pretend that a new red line had been crossed, a new outrage had been perpetrated, unlike any other.

    So Ezra, and the Clinton campaign, and lots of other media types, all coordinated on a story: what Trump had just said was a shocking new violation of norms, worse than anything that had occurred before.

    Look, it was strategically useful, and it seems to have worked in mobilizing a lot of sentiment to converge on one line of attack: lots and lots of people are saying "Trump is a tin-pot dictator!" who were not saying it before.

    And Ezra's putting on the appearance of historical naďveté helps to counter a genuine structural problem in dealing with Trump: Trump's own constant, slow, incremental ratcheting up of offensive statements. He does not start out by saying the unsayable himself: first he has audience plants say it, and he ignores it. So that's not the time to confront him, because he hasn't said it himself. Then he says, "a lot of people are saying [unsayable thing]," but that's not the time to confront him, either, because by then it is literally true. And so on as he normalizes the unsayable by small degrees.

    It's like the frog-boiling story (pretend it were true), in that if you want to stop the temperature rise, it may be strategically useful for everyone to agree that 75C is the temp at which they will all say, in a coordinated way, "the burner is on!" And then of course someone could accuse them of amnesia for forgetting that the burner has been on for a long time. But that person would be failing to understand how a coordinated media push works.

    Remember when Captain Renault was shocked to discover that gambling was going on at Rick's? Were you shocked to discover that he had not been aware of it previously? Were you appalled at his historical amnesia?

    If so, then by all means condemn Ezra.

    kent 10.11.16 at 7:24 pm 83

    Agree vox's self-definition as "explain the news" is misleading, and their reality is closer to "interpret the news from a moderate-left/technocrat POV"

    But I really, really, really don't get the point of the OP's final lines. Trump as ringmaster and vox as clowns? Huh? Trump is a risk to our future and vox is pointing that out - which they take (I think rightly) to be their job. They point it out over and over again, and attach the point to every possible news hook? Good for them!

    How is vox's response to Trump different/worse than, say, the MSM's response to Watergate? (Or any other journalist's response to any other perceived abuse of power?) Serious question.

    kidneystones 10.12.16 at 1:23 am 105

    Back to the OP. There's a bumper crop of new email on the topic of the press and debate moderators colluding with the Hillary campaign to: screw Sanders (Boston Herald – also on board for anti-Trump), minimize damage from the email fallout, and best of all (for me) John Harwood (neutral debate moderator) providing written evidence that even that venue was tilted to damage Trump and protect Hillary.

    It's never the crime, always the cover-up.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/nytcnbcs-john-harwood-advises-clinton-campaign-gloats-about-provoking-trump-at-debate/

    kidneystones 10.12.16 at 7:59 am 114

    And for the win: Youtube puts a warning on a Trump ad featuring Hillary coughing and tipping over. Take that as confirmation the ad can change votes:
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/youtube-hides-slaps-warning-new-trump-ad-hillarys-health/
    kidneystones 10.12.16 at 8:00 am 115

    Here's the ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTylz2WToXw

    [Oct 11, 2016] The US Surrendered Its Right To Accuse Russia Of War Crimes A Long Time Ago

    Looks like Obama in working overclock to ensure the election of Trump ... anti-Russian hysteria might have results different that he expects. Whether we are to have a world of sovereign nation-states or one in which a single imperial superpower contends with increasingly fragmentary post-national and sub-national threats around the globe will depend on the decisions that are made in the near future: in the next few years.
    Oct 11, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Darius Shahtahmasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Renowned journalist Glenn Greenwald recently tweeted the three rules of American exceptionalism :

    3 rules of US Exceptionalism: 1) Our killing is better than theirs; 2) Nothing we do can be "terrorism"; 3) Only enemies are "war criminals"

    - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 6, 2016

    Greenwald's astute observations were presumably made in response to Secretary of State John Kerry's recent remarks that both Russia and Syria should face war crimes investigations for their recent attacks on Syrian civilians.

    "Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting hospitals, and medical facilities, and women and children," Mr. Kerry said in Washington, where he spoke alongside French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, as reported by the Independent .

    Unsurprisingly, Russia responded by urging caution regarding allegations of war crimes considering the United States has been waging wars in a number of countries since the end of World War II. It has picked up a number of allegations of war crimes in the process.

    Kerry's continuous accusations that Russia bombed hospital infrastructure are particularly hypocritical in light of the fact the United States has bombed hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan on more than one occasion over past decade.

    Further, former congressman Ron Paul's Institute for Peace and Prosperity hit back at Kerry, accusing him of completely fabricating the most recent alleged hospital attack. As the Institute noted :

    " In a press event yesterday, before talks with the French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault about a new UN resolution, he said ( vid @1:00) about Syria:

    "'Last night, the regime attacked yet another hospital, and 20 people were killed and 100 people were wounded. And Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women. These are acts that beg for an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be held accountable for these actions.'

    " No opposition group has claimed that such an extremely grave event happened. None. No press agency has a record of it. The MI-6 disinformation outlet SOHR in Britain, which quite reliably notes every claimed casualty and is frequently cited in 'western media,' has not said anything about such an event anywhere in Syria. "

    However, the most disturbing aspect of Kerry's allegation is that the accusations against Russia run in tandem with Saudi Arabia's brutal assault on Yemen. Saudi Arabia, with the aid of a few regional players - and with ongoing American and British assistance (not to mention billion dollar arms sales ) - has been bombing Yemen back into the Stone Age without any legal basis whatsoever. Often, the Saudi-led coalition has completely decimated civilian infrastructure, which has led a number of groups to accuse the coalition of committing war crimes in the process.

    Civilians and civilian infrastructure have been struck so routinely that the world has become increasingly concerned the actual targets of the coalition strikes are civilians (what could be a greater recruitment tool for al-Qaeda and ISIS in Yemen?) As noted by Foreign Policy :

    "The Houthis and their allies - armed groups loyal to Saleh - are the declared targets of the coalition's 1-year-old air campaign. In reality, however, it is the civilians, such as Basrallah and Rubaid, and their children, who are predominantly the victims of this protracted war. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in airstrikes while asleep in their homes, when going about their daily activities, or in the very places where they had sought refuge from the conflict. The United States, Britain, and others, meanwhile, have continued to supply a steady stream of weaponry and logistical support to Saudi Arabia and its coalition."

    Yemen is the poorest , most impoverished nation in the Arab world . The Saudi-led coalition has been striking refugee camps , schools , wedding parties and well over 100 hospitals to date . The coalition has been strongly suspected of using banned munitions such as cluster bombs. The country now has more than half a million children at serious risk of malnutrition . More than 21 million out of the total population of 25 million are in serious need of basic humanitarian assistance .

    Just take one example of the cruel and disproportionate use of force that Saudi Arabia has used in Yemen (using American-made and supplied aircraft and weapons) - against Judge Yahya Rubaid and his family. As Foreign Policy reported in March of this year:

    "According to family members, Rubaid was a judge on a case against Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, for treason in absentia. It is unclear whether his house was attacked for this reason. What is clear, however, is that there was no legally valid basis for bombing his home, as he and his family were civilians and under international law should not have been deliberately targeted."

    At the time this article's publication, over 140 Yemenis had been killed and another 500 injured in a Saudi-coalition aerial attack on a funeral over the weekend. The civilian death toll continues to rise in Yemen, completely unchallenged by any major players at the U.N. When the U.N. does attempt to quell Saudi actions , the Saudis threaten severe economic retaliation.

    How Kerry can accuse Russia of committing war crimes in Syria with a straight face is unclear, as reports of atrocious crimes committed in Yemen continue to surface.

    This is not to say Russia and Syria should not be investigated for war crimes – but maybe, just maybe, we could live in a world where everyone responsible for committing these gross acts could be held accountable, instead of just those who pose an economic threat to the West . Mango327 38BWD22 Oct 11, 2016 3:47 PM

    If Russia Acted Like The USA...
    http://youtu.be/uhqZFWDeaB4
    SidSays 38BWD22 Oct 11, 2016 3:50 PM
    All wars are, well...

    All wars are banker's wars .

    Katos 38BWD22 Oct 11, 2016 4:35 PM
    Madeline Albright, "Yes, I think the death of 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 years old by US sanctions, was a good price that had to be paid so we could get to Sadam Hussein "??? This bitch along with Kissinger, Soros, Rice, Clinton, Obama, Kerry, and all the news organizations who have been cheerleaders for the slaughter of innocents should all be charged with Crimes against humanity and SHOT!
    PrayingMantis Oct 11, 2016 3:39 PM

    ... US: "Who you gonna believe, us or your own eyes" ~ Groucho Marx

    Ignatius PrayingMantis Oct 11, 2016 3:58 PM

    "Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -- John Kerry, 197x

    That was the supposed anti-war Kerry speaking of the Vietnam War, who rode such comments into a congressional seat. We didn't know then that he was Skull and Bones or what it might mean. Now we know it in spades.

    Now it's clear he's just a lying sack of war mongering, deep state shit.

    crazybob369 Oct 11, 2016 3:45 PM
    To quote Goebbels:

    "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie."

    Chupacabra-322 crazybob369 Oct 11, 2016 4:44 PM
    Goebbels used "Gas Lighting" as a form of Psychological manipulation on a population on a mass scale. Operation Mocking Bird. It continues on today. 365 days a year, 24hrs a day, 7 days a week. The Psyche Warefare / PsyOp War does not clos
    Felix da Kat Oct 11, 2016 4:03 PM
    There is an assumption that Russia would never go to war with the US over the Syrian dispute. But yet, Russia is preparing for war. It has both first-strike and counter-strike capability in the event the west (US State Dept.) continues with its bullying tactics and further escalates its hostility. Russia is a sovereign nation; it has both the right and the power to do what is in the best interests of its citizenry and its allies (Assad).

    The US used to be that way until it was over-run in a silent, but effective liberal-coup that has taken full control and stupidly re-newed the cold war with Russia.

    And now America has been left more vulnerable that it ever has been. A simple shut-down of the electric grid for several months, will, by itself, cut the population in half.

    Ultra-liberalism is ultra self-destructive... we're about to see just how destructive that really is.

    Kyddyl Oct 11, 2016 4:07 PM
    Well this is a refreshing start, but only a start. Russia certainly had nothing to do with the gunships that bombed the hospitals in Afghanistan into powder, killing patients including children, doctors, nurses and other personell.

    I for one would like to know who it was who flew those planes and have them explain to all of us why they did not refuse orders? What sort of morals have Americans got to behave ths way? The hospitals bombed in Syria, ditto. The Saudis are the beasts they are and somebody needs to bomb them into oblivion. (Perhaps take out some other smug financial centers too!) But Yemen is a very poor sandy country to begin with and Saudi must think there's oil or something there. If some of the weapons used there weren't tactical nukes they sure looked like them. Gee. Wonder where they got them?

    . . . _ _ _ . . . Oct 11, 2016 4:16 PM
    Chomsky's been saying it for decades, "If they do it, they're terrorists; if we do it, we're freedom fighters."

    My take is that if you are the head of a government, you are a psychopath and any categorization beyond this is moot.

    Clinton / Trump, Obama / Putin, Assad / Erdogan, UN / Nationalism, whoever it may be, they're all playing the same game, and we're not even allowed to watch, much less comment.

    The only thing trickling-down (through a historical perspective) should be blood.

    taketheredpill Oct 11, 2016 4:26 PM

    A cynical person might suggest that the volume of US War Drums is inversely proportional to the strength of the US economy.

    It's as if the boys at the top

    1) know the economy is already in the toilet

    2) know that the next financial meltdown is going to be a real hum-dinger

    3) know that the unwashed masses will need a really big distraction when the next meltdown hits

    [Oct 11, 2016] On the ongoing demise of globalisation

    Notable quotes:
    "... But if the third globalisation wave is mostly about taking advantage of cheap labour not commodities - whilst simultaneously reducing industrial capacity at home - today's global imbalances could result in a very different type of correction (something which may or may not be happening now). ..."
    "... The immediate consequence may be the developed world's desire to engage in significant industrial on-shoring. ..."
    "... I'm not convinced the end of globalization and the retrenchment of banking industry are the same thing. There are some things that can't be exp/imported. Maybe we just got to the point where it didn't make sense to order moules marinieres from Brussels!? ..."
    "... You forget the third leg - reducing the price of labour for services via immigration of labour from poorer countries. On top of the supply-and-demand effects, it reduces social solidarity (see Robert Putnam) - of which trades union membership and activity is one indicator. It's a win-win for capital. ..."
    Oct 11, 2016 | ftalphaville.ft.com
    10 comments
    According to strategists Bhanu Baweja, Manik Narain and Maximillian Lin the elasticity of trade to GDP - a measure of wealth creating globalisation - rose to as high as 2.2. in the so-called third wave of globalisation which began in the 1980s. This compared to an average of 1.5 since the 1950s. In the post-crisis era, however, the elasticity of trade has fallen to 1.1, not far from the weak average of the 1970s and early 1980s but well below the second and third waves of globalisation.

    ... ... ...

    The anti-globalist position has always been simple. Global trade isn't a net positive for anyone if the terms of trade relationships aren't reciprocal or if the trade exists solely for the purpose of taking advantage of undervalued local resources like labour or commodities whilst channeling rents/profits to a single central beneficiary. That, they have always argued, makes it more akin to an imperialistic relationship than a reciprocal one.

    If the latest wave of "globalisation" is mostly an expression of American imperialism, then it does seem logical it too will fade as countries wake-up to the one-sided nature of the current global value chains in place.

    Back in the first wave of globalisation, of course, much of the trade growth was driven by colonial empires taking advantage of cheap commodity resources abroad in a bid to add value to them domestically. When these supply chains unravelled, that left Europe short of commodities but long industrial capacity - a destabilising imbalance which coincided with two world wars.

    Simplistically speaking, resource rich countries at this point were faced with only two options: industrialising on their own autonomous terms or be subjugated by even more oppressive imperialist forces, which had even grander superiority agendas than their old colonial foes. That left those empires boasting domestic industrial capacity but lacking natural resources of their own, with the option of fighting to defend the rights of their former colonies in the hope that the promise of independence and friendly future knowledge exchanges (alongside military protection) would be enough to secure resource access from then on. But if the third globalisation wave is mostly about taking advantage of cheap labour not commodities - whilst simultaneously reducing industrial capacity at home - today's global imbalances could result in a very different type of correction (something which may or may not be happening now).

    The immediate consequence may be the developed world's desire to engage in significant industrial on-shoring.

    But while reversing the off-shoring trend may boost productivity in nations like the US or even in Europe, it's also likely to reduce demand for mobile international capital as a whole. As UBS notes, global cross border capital flows are already decelerating significantly as a share of GDP post-crisis, and the peak-to-trough swing in capital inflows to GDP over the past ten years has been much more dramatic in developed markets than in emerging ones:

    Related likes:
    How do you solve a problem like de-globalisation? – FT Alphaville
    As goes correspondent banking, so goes globalisation – FT Alphaville
    There is a war for capital coming, says UBS – FT Alphaville
    Prepare for the Post Pax-Americana era, says Citi – FT Alphaville

    Refractious

    To note, in China trade as a % of GDP fell from 65% in 2006 to 42% in 2014. The relationship between trade and GDP is in reality more variable than is usually claimed.

    Knockmacool

    I'm not convinced the end of globalization and the retrenchment of banking industry are the same thing. There are some things that can't be exp/imported. Maybe we just got to the point where it didn't make sense to order moules marinieres from Brussels!?

    labantall

    "if the third globalisation wave is mostly about taking advantage of cheap labour not commodities - whilst simultaneously reducing industrial capacity at home"

    You forget the third leg - reducing the price of labour for services via immigration of labour from poorer countries. On top of the supply-and-demand effects, it reduces social solidarity (see Robert Putnam) - of which trades union membership and activity is one indicator. It's a win-win for capital.

    Terra_Desolata 5pts Featured
    11 hours ago

    The simple problem with globalization is that it was based off economic views which looked at things in aggregate - but people are individuals, not aggregates. "On average, GDP per person has gone up" doesn't do anything for the person whose income has gone down. "Just think about all the people in China who are so much better off than they used to be" isn't going to do much for an American or European whose standard of living has slipped from middle class to working class to government assistance.

    "Redistribution" is routinely advertised as the solution to all of this. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out how to redistribute wealth from the areas that have prospered the most (Asia, particularly China) to the individuals (primarily in the West) who have lost the most. In the absence of any viable redistribution scheme, though, I suspect the most likely outcome will be a pulling back on globalization.

    Meh... 5pts Featured
    11 hours ago

    @ Terra_Desolata The aggregates also do apply to countries - i.e. the US on aggregate has benefited from globalisation, but median wages have been stagnant in real terms, meaning that the benefits of globalisation have not been well distributed across the country (indeed, companies like Apple have benefited hugely from reducing the costs of production, while you could make the case that much of the benefits of lower production costs have been absorbed into profit margins).

    That suggests that redistribution can occur at the country level, rather than requiring a cross-border dimension.

    Terra_Desolata 5pts Featured
    8 hours ago
    @ Meh... @ Terra_Desolata Yes, there has been uneven distribution of income within countries as well as between them - but as the Panama Papers revealed, in a world of free movement of capital, incomes can also move freely between borders. (See: Apple.) While the U.S. has lower tolerance than Europe and Asia for such games, any attempts at redistribution would necessarily include an effort to keep incomes from slipping across national borders, which would have the same effect: a net reduction in globalization.

    [Oct 11, 2016] NYT, WaPo, CNN and friends are not press . They are propaganda outlets of the neoliberal elite

    Oct 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 7:05 am

    Stupid NYT headlines I never clicked on:

    Trump's Bluster Erodes Democracy, Experts Say

    When I hear the trigger word "experts," I reach for my revolver.

    jgordon October 11, 2016 at 7:45 am

    NYT: the toilet paper of record. In yet another Wikileaks dump it's come out that they're in active collusion with Hillary's campaign. How anyone is still dumb enough to believe the lies they're alwaus putting out is beyond me.

    Really, it's fine to be biased lackeys for the rich and powerful as long as you're honest about it. Pretending to be unbiased arbiters of truth while doing that though is pathetic.

    These media presstitutes are so rancidly despicable that I want to throw up whenever I think of them. Newspapers and the rest of the media: want to know why you're going bankrupt? It's not the internet–it's because every day more and more people are clued into the fact that you are pathetic lying scum. In my mind these media people are in the same exact category as child molesters.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 7:52 am

    If it were a little softer, yeah, it would work for that.

    But it's disgusting getting ink on your butt.

    Ed October 11, 2016 at 8:32 am

    They were in active collusion with the 1990s Clinton campaigns too, but I didn't have Wikileaks around to confirm it, or the internets for alternative sources of information. I suspected it anyway. I finally cut the cord after 2002.

    Pavel October 11, 2016 at 9:51 am

    Well the NYT, WaPo, CNN et al have shot themselves in the foot with this blatant collusion with the Clinton campaign. They've pissed off their most intelligent readers & viewers, shown themselves to be knaves and fools, and what are they going to say when HRC is president and investigated up the wazoo for corruption?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 11, 2016 at 10:06 am

    If you defeat Trump, you prevail over one guy.

    When Clinton is defeated, you win over all those 'with her.'

    For any leverage kind of person, that's a potential 100-bagger right there.

    John k October 11, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    Yes… But leverage much higher than 100:1…
    Not just MSM, but banks, neocons, corrupt ceo's, and all these alphabet groups keeping us safe…
    Hopefully he'd be vindictive against all the elites trying to defeat him.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 10:07 am

    Some combination of "it's a Russian plot" and "we told you so."

    The MSM - they know everything.

    justanotherprogressive October 11, 2016 at 10:23 am

    NEVER overestimate the intelligence of the American public. If Hillary can get an 11 point lead over a salacious story that affects almost nobody and yet get no drop in popularity over revelations that will affect everyone's lives, I don't think there is much hope that the NYT, WaPo, CNN, et al, will get their comeuppance. But Americans who drink in what these MSM sites are feeding them WILL get the President they so obviously deserve, won't they?

    RabidGandhi October 11, 2016 at 11:54 am

    Yes, it's the public's fault… despite being subject to the most brutal propaganda campaign in history and being assaulted by years of neoliberalism that barely gives them time to breathe between their three zero-hour contract jobs, it's their fault and they deserve a president who will grand-bargain away their social security benefits, TPP away the few remaining good jobs and start a civilisation-threatening war with Russia.

    And just for the record (/sarc), HRC only has an 11-point lead because most people won't be voting anyway, as they've correctly surmised that the system is completely rigged against them.

    AnEducatedFool October 11, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    I have not seen the data on that poll but I doubt that it is a "scientific poll". Many of the polls that I have taken the time to look at the data shows that they avoid asking 35 and under voters and heavily skew the data set to democrats. Lee Camp from Redacted Tonight has also shown this on his TV show on RT. Those even ruskies.

    polecat October 11, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    'Little Big Horn' (Wurlitzer) Syndrome …..

    ggm October 11, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    Just watched a documentary on the murder of Kitty Genovese. It sure made me think there has been a culture of corruption at the New York Times for decades, enabled by outside journalists refusing to question them for whatever reason (intimidation, careerism…).

    beth October 11, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    jgordon, did I miss a link above or could you give me a link to the Wikileaks reference? Thanks. I need to pass this along to a friend.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 7:49 am

    Stupid Bloomberg headlines I never clicked on:

    The Trump Video Would Get Most CEOs Ousted

    No doubt. But so would running their own private server outside the company system, then destroying emails in response to a Congressional subpoena.

    [Oct 10, 2016] Why is the electorate seemingly more concerned with someone who is antagonistic towards certain women than someone whose policies are antagonistic to whole nations and regions

    Notable quotes:
    "... If nothing else, the I'm-with-her whole hog approach of the media to this election should put the lie to the notion that we have anything resembling a functioning press. ..."
    "... Additionally, the blind adherence by the press to Hillary's spin that Trump would put her in jail amounts to a dictatorship ignores the fact that previous to that statement Trump had said he would push for a special prosecutor. IOW, a completely legalized, judicially approved criminal investigation. ..."
    "... I agree about the press becoming so bought over by Hillary. Watched some speech Trump was giving a month or so ago and he talked about Iraq as I recall and the press totally spun it into some different meaning altogether. Funny thing was the next day Trump was giving another speech which I also happened to see and made mention of what he said the day before and what the press turned his comment into – from that point on I became very leery of believing anything they tell me. I too was amazed that almost immediately last night the press began reporting that Trump was talking to a dictatorship by saying he wanted her in jail when in fact that was completely taken out of context as well (as you mentioned above). ..."
    "... I think the press has become very scary with all the power it has to twist the truth or what has been said as easily and quickly as they do. They must be very frightened by Trump. ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    David Carl Grimes October 10, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    Why is the electorate seemingly more concerned with someone who is antagonistic towards certain women than someone whose policies are antagonistic to whole nations and regions. Why aren't the Wikileaks email revelations getting more traction or generating more outrage?

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 10, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    Um do you think the fact that Pravda CNN is extolling the virtues of the One Party Candidate nonstop has anything to do with it?

    pretzelattack October 10, 2016 at 7:04 pm

    oh i thought the post was pravda and the nyt izvestia. but then there's the guardian and cnn and the rest of the sad industry.

    OIFVet October 10, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    That's capitalism for ya :)

    ProNewerDeal October 10, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    True. BigMedia is barely covering the Wikileaks story. My summary is that HClinton has a fake "public position" & a genuine private position, that is pro-Grand Ripoff SS & MC cuts, & pro-TPP. It should be a huge story, in that it calls as questionable any of HClinton's stated policies, & given that Sanders repeatedly made the Wall $treet transcripts a major issue in the Primaries.

    It takes a USian with intellectual curiosity, some free time, & enough critical thinking to go to one of the few internet sources like nakedcapitalism or SecularTalk that actually will cover the Wikileaks story honestly. IMHO sadly this is a small minority of the US eligible voter population.

    BTW for Sanders to maintain my respect, he needs to "make news" in BigMedia by saying something like "my support of HClinton is contingent on her 'public position' the approves the 2016 D party platform, which is anti-TPP & anti-SS & MC cuts. If HClinton is elected & signs the TPP or SS/MC cuts, she will be strongly primary challenged in 2020, & I will not support her if the Rs ever impeach her"

    sleepy October 10, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    If nothing else, the I'm-with-her whole hog approach of the media to this election should put the lie to the notion that we have anything resembling a functioning press.

    Just one example–I listened to some Clinton operative on msnbc radio today who was giving his weaselly spin on Hillary's private position v. public position statement and who said that it was only a few sentences out of an entire speech and needed to be viewed in context. Chuck Todd, I think it was, never made note of the fact that there is no context to those statements since the speeches have not and will not be released. There is no available context and Chuck just muttered uh huh and let it pass.

    Additionally, the blind adherence by the press to Hillary's spin that Trump would put her in jail amounts to a dictatorship ignores the fact that previous to that statement Trump had said he would push for a special prosecutor. IOW, a completely legalized, judicially approved criminal investigation.

    Susan C October 10, 2016 at 8:12 pm

    I agree about the press becoming so bought over by Hillary. Watched some speech Trump was giving a month or so ago and he talked about Iraq as I recall and the press totally spun it into some different meaning altogether. Funny thing was the next day Trump was giving another speech which I also happened to see and made mention of what he said the day before and what the press turned his comment into – from that point on I became very leery of believing anything they tell me. I too was amazed that almost immediately last night the press began reporting that Trump was talking to a dictatorship by saying he wanted her in jail when in fact that was completely taken out of context as well (as you mentioned above).

    I think the press has become very scary with all the power it has to twist the truth or what has been said as easily and quickly as they do. They must be very frightened by Trump.

    [Oct 10, 2016] Where were the questions to Hillary?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Chekov said something like: "If you show a gun in Act One, make sure it goes off in Act Three." So, Act One was bringing in Bill Clinton's accusers. But then nothing. Odd. ..."
    "... * Interesting comment from the analyst after, something like: "I was talking to Trump voters in Ohio. They say they know exactly who he is" (and from the analyst's tone, that wasn't positive with respect to his character. I think a lot of voters, across the spectrum, are appalled by the choices, which is what the trust/likeability numbers are telling us) ..."
    "... In retrospect, all the media questioning whether or not Trump would be effective in this kind of venue seems silly. Of course Trump can work a room. ..."
    "... When Trump says he will put Hillary in jail, what do you think his kids and wife see regarding a Clinton presidency? Will she go after her enemies? ..."
    "... Media going blatantly in the tank prob boosts turnout for trump. Cnn concedes trump did pretty well. Fox seems contented with him. Glad to see him break with pence on russia. Glad to see him say get isis, not assad. Aleo enjoyed him zinging clinton. ..."
    "... With all the Russian efforts to undermine our democracy I can only hope we return to paper ballots hand counted in front of skeptical witnesses to the process. ..."
    "... No mention of any laws broken by any previous presidents. No concerns about droning us citizens, no sweating any wars of opportunity. ..."
    "... Trump absolutely dominated this debate. Hillary was on the ropes all night. The moderation was pretty good too. ..."
    "... CNN directs us dweebs that this was a "contentious, nasty debate". It was contentious but aren't most debates like that? Nasty? Not that much. Sometimes but not as much as I thought it could be. ..."
    "... HuffPo headline: "Don in Flames" I think, all things considered, he did fine. Neither one is offering any serious or meaningful solutions to anything we need. ..."
    "... On the other had, HRC kept treating the debate like the white-shoe lawyer she is. "Refer to my website" = "I filed a brief on this." No one reads either. Too much relying on subtle distinctions. Worst of all, most of the time she speaks with no passion or genuineness. This is death to a lawyer speaking to a jury. ..."
    "... She wants the debate to be like a federal class action case with multiple motions and lengthy affidavits and briefs that the Judge's top-of-their-law-school-class clerks will dissect and recommend a decision upon. ..."
    "... The genius of this is that Trump is the device through which all of the real arguments against Clinton, the ones relating to criminal conduct and atrocious policy, are symbolically cleansed, ritually bled out. Trump as the public's cry for contrition and oh, how she has suffered for her vanity! Yet she is redeemed through him. She has crossed the pit of burning hard drives and she is sorry for her sins, but after all, America is nothing if not a forgiving nation. ..."
    "... Once again we see America will get the president it deserves. The world? Not so much. ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    John October 9, 2016 at 10:40 pm

    Where were the questions about the 30 million illegals?
    About the H-1B sand Greencard foreigners taking our jobs?
    About health care we can't afford?
    About corporations paying no taxes?
    About people killing themselves with heroin because they have no hope,
    no way out of poverty?

    Kurt Sperry October 9, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    Trump did better than the first debate, where I thought he was destroyed. I'm not sure who won, both were pretty repulsive. I really, really dislike the both of them, whether on policies or on personality.

    RUKidding October 9, 2016 at 10:44 pm

    Agree. Both are liars. Trump handled himself better than expected.

    justanotherprogressive October 9, 2016 at 10:45 pm

    It doesn't matter who won. The pundits will spend several days telling you who won and that your eyes and ears are lying again….
    Frankly, from the comments above, it is pretty obvious America was embarrased again……glad I didn't watch it……

    Lambert Strether Post author October 9, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    No contrition from Trump, either, even though that's what the establishment wants (not that any amount of contrition would work).

    Which makes sense: 1) His base doesn't care 2) Backing down would be worse than gutting it out, because backing down would make him look weak, destroying his brand.*

    Chekov said something like: "If you show a gun in Act One, make sure it goes off in Act Three." So, Act One was bringing in Bill Clinton's accusers. But then nothing. Odd.

    * Interesting comment from the analyst after, something like: "I was talking to Trump voters in Ohio. They say they know exactly who he is" (and from the analyst's tone, that wasn't positive with respect to his character. I think a lot of voters, across the spectrum, are appalled by the choices, which is what the trust/likeability numbers are telling us).

    John October 9, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    It was to rattle Hillary. And she did look uncomfortable, uneasy, all night. Didn't help her.

    relstprof October 9, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    Once the crowd reacted positively to his "33K emails" attacks, he calmed down. I got the sense he decided he didn't have to go low, since there were some in the room still on his side.

    In retrospect, all the media questioning whether or not Trump would be effective in this kind of venue seems silly. Of course Trump can work a room.

    I'd score it a tie, though.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 9, 2016 at 11:45 pm

    When Trump says he will put Hillary in jail, what do you think his kids and wife see regarding a Clinton presidency? Will she go after her enemies?

    Is that kabuki or profile in courage?

    Kim Kaufman October 9, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    NPR doing "fact check." They hate Trump.

    johnnygl October 9, 2016 at 10:51 pm

    Media going blatantly in the tank prob boosts turnout for trump. Cnn concedes trump did pretty well. Fox seems contented with him. Glad to see him break with pence on russia. Glad to see him say get isis, not assad. Aleo enjoyed him zinging clinton.

    He's still an idiot and has terrible policy ideas.

    Jeremy Grimm October 9, 2016 at 11:30 pm

    With all the Russian efforts to undermine our democracy I can only hope we return to paper ballots hand counted in front of skeptical witnesses to the process.

    crittermom October 10, 2016 at 12:34 am

    With all the talk about 'the Russians did it", I'm tempted to write in Putin just to p*ss off the Dems! (but I won't) Both candidates suck worse than a tornado.

    johnnygl October 9, 2016 at 11:10 pm

    Cnn people very much on edge. Dana bash breathless at trump saying he'd put her in jail. Said that's what makes us different than African dictators, stalin and hitler. I'm not kidding.

    No mention of any laws broken by any previous presidents. No concerns about droning us citizens, no sweating any wars of opportunity.

    RUKidding October 9, 2016 at 11:17 pm

    You expected truth from CNN? Good effen luck w that.

    Roger Smith October 9, 2016 at 11:10 pm

    Trump absolutely dominated this debate. Hillary was on the ropes all night. The moderation was pretty good too.

    RUKidding October 9, 2016 at 11:20 pm

    CNN directs us dweebs that this was a "contentious, nasty debate". It was contentious but aren't most debates like that? Nasty? Not that much. Sometimes but not as much as I thought it could be.

    megamike48 October 9, 2016 at 11:24 pm

    The clearest indication of character is what people find laughable. J.W. von Goethe

    Kim Kaufman October 9, 2016 at 11:36 pm

    HuffPo headline: "Don in Flames" I think, all things considered, he did fine. Neither one is offering any serious or meaningful solutions to anything we need. It was, unfortunately, just some lame entertainment and both remain equally unlikable and untrustworthy and unhelpful.

    Sammy Maudlin October 10, 2016 at 12:02 am

    Watching this I kept thinking that Trump has been working with trial lawyers to prepare.

    He used a lot of tricks trial lawyers use to influence juries. One, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story (i.e. Why didn't you as one of 100 senators change the tax code? Answer: "if she was an effective senator she could have"). Another is make the jury think the judge is biased against you. The main one is put the black hat on your opponent and keep it there. Jury trials are pretty simple affairs that way, the big thing is to make the other side the bad guy.

    On the other had, HRC kept treating the debate like the white-shoe lawyer she is. "Refer to my website" = "I filed a brief on this." No one reads either. Too much relying on subtle distinctions. Worst of all, most of the time she speaks with no passion or genuineness. This is death to a lawyer speaking to a jury.

    She wants the debate to be like a federal class action case with multiple motions and lengthy affidavits and briefs that the Judge's top-of-their-law-school-class clerks will dissect and recommend a decision upon.

    But it's not. It's an afternoon trial in front of a bunch of bored people sitting in a jury box in a hot county courthouse. "Smart" lawyers get creamed by savvy ones in that situation all the time. That's what I saw tonight.

    Fiver October 10, 2016 at 12:26 am

    Some low-watt bulb writing tomorrow is going to say 'This is how America does politics, does democracy. We let it all hang out. A big old barn burner. A national catharsis, a venting of pent-up emotion and frustration at some things in America and the world that just haven't worked out for everybody, no matter how hard we try. This is good for America, even necessary, in fact it's what makes us Americans. We deal with things and move on. Let all that poison out. And we move on. I'm inclined to think the third debate will be a much more civil affair.'

    The genius of this is that Trump is the device through which all of the real arguments against Clinton, the ones relating to criminal conduct and atrocious policy, are symbolically cleansed, ritually bled out. Trump as the public's cry for contrition and oh, how she has suffered for her vanity! Yet she is redeemed through him. She has crossed the pit of burning hard drives and she is sorry for her sins, but after all, America is nothing if not a forgiving nation.

    Raise your right hand, Mrs. Clinton, and repeat after me….no, your right hand, please…

    Tertium Squid October 10, 2016 at 1:17 am

    Once again we see America will get the president it deserves. The world? Not so much.

    [Oct 10, 2016] There's a lawsuit out there accusing Trump of raping somebody with known pederast Jeff Epstein

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    NY Union Guy October 10, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Not sure if this has made the rounds on NC yet, but there's a lawsuit out there accusing Trump of raping somebody with known pederast Jeff Epstein.

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/30/rape-allegations-refiled-against-trump.htm

    Will there be a November surprise in addition to the customary October surprise?

    Pat October 10, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    Possibly, it will be interesting to see if the Clinton camp is going to use this, and if so how Bill will be protected. Could be a case of Mutually Assured Destruction.

    Kim Kaufman October 10, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Don't think Clinton can use this:

    The One Percent

    The Billionaire Pedophile Who Could Bring Down Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton

    "Trump's supporters have long wondered whether he'd use billionaire sicko Jeffrey Epstein as ammo against the Clintons-until a lurid new lawsuit accused The Donald of raping one of Epstein's girls himself."

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/30/the-billionaire-pedophile-who-could-bring-down-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton.html

    There's plenty other stuff if you google "Jeff Epstein" and "Bill Clinton"

    It's all pretty vile but not at all surprising for what these overage, entitled "stars" do behind the scenes.

    I never got a chance to respond to Yves' comment to my comment about Schwarzenegger a few days ago. Three women came forward to accuse him of groping (or whatever – I, mercifully, forget the details now). Arnold, with Maria standing dutifully by his side, publicly apologized and it all went away.

    My contention is that: 1) there were many, many more women who didn't come forward (the threat of never working again in Hollywood is very real – Arnold was represented by one of the most powerful and nastiest law firms) and 2) it all disappeared quickly from the media because Arnold was able to buy off and intimidate the media.

    But the stories I read in alternate media at the time were pretty awful. I can only imagine the lewd bragging Arnold did behind the scenes. Don't forget that Arnold was screwing the nanny and sired a child with her while the nanny was living under the same roof as him and Maria. "The rich are different than you and I."

    [Oct 10, 2016] DNC cronies bullying (that is the Democrat buzzword right?) Rep.Tulsi Gabbard

    Notable quotes:
    "... "You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign." ..."
    "... "How DARE you not give our Crown Princess the respect she deserves!" ..."
    "... financially squeeze those not with status quo… guess they object to woman patriots that want to serve "all the people"??…..telling ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Roger Smith October 10, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    DNC cronies bullying (that is the Democrat buzzword right?) Rep.Tulsi Gabbard for deciding to support Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. Dated February 29th, 2016

    "For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton."

    "You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign."

    Plenue October 10, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    "How DARE you not give our Crown Princess the respect she deserves!"

    Kim Kaufman October 10, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    How DARE you have an independent thought.

    Pat October 10, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    I sort of enjoy the typo in Podesta's intro to the forward, if not the sentiment aka gloating that a couple of CAA agents decided to punish Gabbard for supporting the better candidate. I mean they are clearly a couple of pigs.

    Roger Smith October 10, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    What was he trying to say? I was not familiar with that expression.

    Pat October 10, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    First off I got it wrong, it was Storm who forwarded his own email to Podesta and Clinton,
    but what he was trying to say was "Hammer dropped!"

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=drop%20the%20hammer

    But like I said Hammed as in hams works for me.

    Roger Smith October 10, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    Oooooh! now that makes sense! I was wondering where the heck "Ham" came in haha

    rich October 10, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    financially squeeze those not with status quo… guess they object to woman patriots that want to serve "all the people"??…..telling

    [Oct 10, 2016] Now that we have in writing that Hillary has 2 positions on issues which she called a public and private position

    Notable quotes:
    "... For example, IMO now that we have in writing that Hillary has 2 positions on issues (a public and private position) it is 100% fair that debate moderators and the media ask Clinton aggressively which position she is giving in her responses – her public or private position? ..."
    "... If the media won't focus on the public/private position issue (and Obama did the same in 2008 regarding NAFTA, I recall), then Trump can force them to by putting that front and center in the debate. ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    timbers October 9, 2016 at 11:31 am

    Not surprised, no. But IMO has definite implications.

    For example, IMO now that we have in writing that Hillary has 2 positions on issues (a public and private position) it is 100% fair that debate moderators and the media ask Clinton aggressively which position she is giving in her responses – her public or private position?

    Won't happen with our media, but IMO this should now be standard operating procedure for the media with regard to Hillary and would be completely fair, prudent, and necessary to inform the public and voters.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 9, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    The debate is setting up to be the mother of all debates.

    If the media won't focus on the public/private position issue (and Obama did the same in 2008 regarding NAFTA, I recall), then Trump can force them to by putting that front and center in the debate.

    [Oct 10, 2016] An Election Of Leaks And Counter-Leaks

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's an election for and among the ruling class. ..."
    "... Scott Adams who has been right so far says Trump still has a clear path to victory. The media is just trying to blackpill everyone. Why should we believe them? They are saying Trump can't win because they said he can't win. ..."
    "... Somehow Clinton bragging about getting a pedophile off the hook is OK? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDzRtZLUkc CLinton will start WW III. Trump may do so. What a choice. ..."
    "... For nearly a generation now there have been decent candidates for US president who would, to a greater or lesser degree, have opposed our increasingly corrupt and violent oligarchy. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, Jill Stein, Rick Santorum ... and many more you haven't heard of. The elites have perfected a system of taking them down, with no messy assassination. Ridicule them in the press, don't cover their positions, just their style, find a flaw or mis-statement and hammer hammer hammer until people believe that they are ridiculous, then ban them from the media. ..."
    "... now the establishment is doubling down on the only thing it knows how to do. They are 'reporting' that Trump is finished. ..."
    "... Donald Trump has said unfortunate off-the-cuff things. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, has actually DONE some things so crazy that if I wrote her up as a character in a work of fiction my editor would reject it as unbelievable. ..."
    "... The Podesta e-mails show Killary in her true colors (see b.) The few I read though were unsurprising and boring, because she is mentally challenged, as is her staff, they are in a bubble. The leaks re. her speeches to Banksters ditto, and anyway the speeches are immaterial, they are just empty, fakelorum, performances carried out to legitimise bribery in a completely corrupt circuit. ..."
    "... I concur with the very first post...it will be a Trump landslide. The silent majority- the plurality of voters who are neither D nor R. We have no voice in politics and no voice in the media. We already see through the lies and the hypocracy. That is Trumps target audience. Even if it is just a show at least Trump talks about policies ..."
    "... Trump and his supporters must henceforth be more vigilant and pull no punches in exposing the Clintons' perfidy. ..."
    "... And on other fronts - the Vice News vid I just watched was titled 'the US/Russia Proxy War in Ukraine'. I was shocked. Their prior coverage was 200% neocon blather. (Aka Simon Otrovsky IIRc) Could it be a beginning of a revolt by the MSM? If CNN begins to refer to Syria and Ukraine as proxy wars, it means the Empire's control of MSM is slipping. And that would spell the end for them. ..."
    "... "This is a very dangerous game given that Russia, being in Syria at the invitation of the legitimate government of this country and having two bases there, has got air defense systems there to protect its assets," Lavrov said, according to Reuters. ..."
    "... IMO Sanders is worst among all the POTUS hopefuls. He lied repeatedly, In a debate with Hillary on Edward Snowden "He broke the law … but what he did [exposing the NSA surveillance] should be taken into consideration," Edward Snowden wanna fair trial, but can he get it? Dun Forget Assange afraid of assassinated, to speak from Ecuador embassy balcony to exposed Hillary. Can you trust Obomo's Justice Dept. or anyone in his administration? ..."
    "... Outrage Can No Longer Be Ignored. The elections methods enterprise consists of an imposing compilation of distracting, unworkable feints, erroneously purported to constitute viable election methods. Get strategic hedge simple score voting. No More Two-Party!!! No more!!! ..."
    "... The social theorist Zygmunt Bauman argues that the age of nations states, which was born with the treaty that ended the Thirty Years War, and which we all take for granted, is now over. Nation States made decisions through politics and then used power to implement their wishes. Now, however, power no longer resides with the state, but instead is in the hands of international entities -- corporations, banks, criminal enterprises -- that are above, beyond and indifferent to any nation's political decisions. ..."
    "... Although American presidents, the congress, the courts still pretend otherwise, it's pretty clear they know they have no real power, and so go through charades of legislating meaningless issues. Allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia, for example, when there's not the slightest chance of pinning 911 on the Saudis. ..."
    "... The election is a circus meant to distract and entertain a powerless public. Might as well enjoy it. The Dems and Repugs like to strut and posture, rake in dollars and enjoy prestige, and try to make us believe they can still shape the future, but really it out of their control. ..."
    "... Of course the U.S. has tremendous military power, but the "elected" government has no control over it, how it is used or where. JFK's murder ended that era, ..."
    "... Many here think the U.S., and hence the U.S. military, is controlled by Israel, but Israel too is a nation state, and supra-national institutions ($$$$) seem to be running it as well, ..."
    "... My take as an outsider. Use Trump to take down the elite. His foreign policy basics are consistent and solid - non intervention, pull back of US military to the US, protection of local manufacturing. ..."
    "... US involvement in Libya began at Hillary's urging shortly after Hillary received this advice from her confidante Sidney Blumenthal. Note that the advice that the overthrow of Qaddafi needed to be connected with "an identifiable rebellion" in Syria means that it needs to be connected with civil war in Syria. US involvement in Libya was, of course, coordinated out of Benghazi, as the advice to Hillary suggested. ..."
    "... Once the fall of Qaddafi was a fait accompli, Hillary's State Department advocated the overthrow of Bashar Assad as a critical component for calming Israel so that President Barrack Obama could accomplish his legacy nuclear pact with Iran without Israel blowing Iran up before the deal was sealed. ..."
    "... No. Planning for overthrow of Assad - and use of extremists as a weapon of State - was begun in earnest in 2006; as described by Seymour Hersh in "The Redirection". ..."
    "... Anyone else notice that Hillary couldn't remember what she did while in office? Major mistake. ..."
    "... Clinton insisted she had retired from the government by the time that happened. Not so: Obama dared Assad to cross his line in August 2012, six months before Clinton's term ended. ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The tape of Trump talking dirty was released just in time to sidetrack from the release of more of Clinton's dirty secrets by Wikileaks. Trump's talk was juvenile and sexist bragging in front of other "boys". Surprising it was not. There will more releases like that, all timed to run cover for Clinton.

    The just released emails of her campaign chairman John Podesta about Clinton's talk to Wall Street and other Clinton related issues are indeed revealing. She is the sell-out you would expect her to be:

    *CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY*

    Clinton: "But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position."

    It is funny how the U.S. electorate has a deeper "very negative" view of Trump (-44%) and Clinton (-41%) than of the much vilified Russian President Putin (-38%).

    When Trump will come back in the polls (not "if"), it will be a devious fight with daily "leaks" followed by counter leaks and a lot of dirty laundry washed in front of the public. Good.

    Many of the people who will vote will vote against a candidate, not for the one that they will mark on their ballot. I expect a very low turn out election, barely giving a mandate, to whomever may win or get selected to have won. Elwood | Oct 9, 2016 9:26:03 AM | 1

    Uh no. The silent majority that swept Reagan into office will speak again this year.
    Ron Showalter | Oct 9, 2016 9:37:47 AM | 2
    Please stick to geo-politics and quit embarrassing yourself re: domestic US politics. Trump is done and the longer it takes for you and the rest of the fake-left - both domestically and abroad - to get their heads around that fact, the longer the rest of us have to witness the frightfully shameful mental contortions your Trump-love takes.

    Please stop. It's one thing to have to deal with shallow and inaccurate fake-left analysis without a healthy dose of butt-hurt b/c Hillary will be POTUS.

    Grow up and quit being a victim of the US propaganda arsenal.

    tsuki | Oct 9, 2016 9:40:53 AM | 3
    In other words, I shall lie to the "Deplorables" to keep you safe from regulation and incarceration. Give me money. I am a corrupt and experienced liar.
    Rich | Oct 9, 2016 9:52:39 AM | 5
    I had a home inspector come to my place last week, intelligent and skilled working class guy, who didn't even know who Trump was. He knew Clinton was running and hates her. But had zero clue who her opponent was. And he's never voted before. There are very few election signs on yards. It's an election for and among the ruling class.
    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 9, 2016 9:54:09 AM | 7
    This may become the most transparent election - ever. May necessitate the most outrageous vote counting schemes also.
    Take Me | Oct 9, 2016 9:57:39 AM | 8
    BURN. IT. DOWN. That was the WHOLE point of Trump voters from the get-go. And his slide toward zionist scumbags was a HUUUGE problem. To me at least. Now he SEES. And he won't be shut down by the fukwits. And regardless of what happens. He is likely carefully considering having his son-in-law fall down a VERY deep hole. His daughter and grandchildren will thank him one day. Et tu Brutus?

    Here's what the Deplorables will be doing. On election day. 1) Bring black sharpie. 2) Demand PAPER ballot. 3) Vote Trump. 4) Vote I or D down-ballot. 5) Fill in all blanks.

    And by-the-way. To #2 Ron. We do this for Syria. And Yemen. And all the OTHER people the USG, MIC, MSM ZIOthugs have been murdering and enslaving for the past 50+ years. Not just for ourselves and our children. It's the absolute LEAST we can do. But its a start.

    lemur | Oct 9, 2016 9:57:44 AM | 9
    Scott Adams who has been right so far says Trump still has a clear path to victory. The media is just trying to blackpill everyone. Why should we believe them? They are saying Trump can't win because they said he can't win.

    Ron is obviously a Clinton groupie.

    Btw, how is what Trump said sexist? It's just real dude talk with the lads. Plenty of people say that behind closed doors.

    Blk | Oct 9, 2016 10:00:28 AM | 10
    @2. I happen to think Trump is another wolf in a sheep's clothe and won't deliver any significant part of his promises, so like you, I am baffled that someone like b could actually buy into this. However unlike you, I don't think the election is predictable, I think it actually bodes well for Trump, why? It seems clear from the polls, that Hillary isn't a preferred choice for majority of the voters. If he was, she should be polling close to the 50 point mark by now, yet she's in the low 40s, someone with her resume running against a political light weight like Trump should be doing much better. So what does that mean? It means (at lest to me) voters have rejected Hillary as a firs choice, she may be second or third but she's definitely not most voters first choice. So Trump has a chance, although he's working his darnes to ruin it, Imagine if it was someone else had Trumps message without the baggage?

    The polls wouldn't be close, I think the undecided (who don't have Hillary has their first choice) will decide this election at the last minute, if Trump has more recordings leaked (not about his tryst) but for instance the NYT interview where he supposedly said he's not going to build a wall? ( I think that will be leaked soon if the polls don't move in Hillary's favor, the establishment clearly has their preference). If there are no more damages to Trump, he may very well win this thing, but I suspect the empire has more leaks coming.

    I for one thinks a third party candidate is where its at, but what do I know?

    From The Hague | Oct 9, 2016 10:10:49 AM | 13
    Breaking: A photo has surfaced of Donald Trump grabbing a pussy.

    https://twitter.com/Writeintrump/status/784811133370667008

    The MSM, social medias and Internet are making any election a new Pokemon game but dirtier. Is this the 21th century "exercise of democracy?"

    Davis | Oct 9, 2016 10:44:30 AM | 18

    Want to read some original observations? (1) The Pence-Is-So-Presidential vp debate win was a complete set-up, with the DNC complicit in instructing Tim Kaine to play the obvious heavy, a movie caricature villian, complete with raised eyebrows, crazy expressions, and interrupting 70+ times. Made Pence a new hero. Reason? (2) GOP Rinos and DNC have been co-ordinating for months on "perfect time" to release Trump's Naughty Audio Tape (sharp ears can also detect it was edited), and this was reported by DC Whispers and journalists Mr/Mrs Bill & Beth Still in a recent video. (3) Media had their 'talking points' to conclude with NBC's Chuck Todd yesterday: "The election is over. Hillary has won." (4) GOP Paul Ryan did high-profile dis-invitation of Trump to Wisconsin; and then Pence substitution at event (vetoed by Trump) was to support GOP Establishment plot to replace Trump with Pence on the ticket, which they will still try to do when the DNC floats false pedophile charges against Trump w/o Oct. 9 (DNC whistleblowers gave full plan to Alex Jones because even there, some people are too disgusted with all this dirt to 'carry on camping'). Pence was in on the conspiracy from the very beginning. Another smiling choirboy.
    Yonatan | Oct 9, 2016 10:53:03 AM | 19
    Somehow Clinton bragging about getting a pedophile off the hook is OK? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDzRtZLUkc CLinton will start WW III. Trump may do so. What a choice.
    TG | Oct 9, 2016 10:53:58 AM | 20
    For nearly a generation now there have been decent candidates for US president who would, to a greater or lesser degree, have opposed our increasingly corrupt and violent oligarchy. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, Jill Stein, Rick Santorum ... and many more you haven't heard of. The elites have perfected a system of taking them down, with no messy assassination. Ridicule them in the press, don't cover their positions, just their style, find a flaw or mis-statement and hammer hammer hammer until people believe that they are ridiculous, then ban them from the media.

    Trump's big mouth and complete lack of shame has, for now, made him relatively immune to this treatment. So now the establishment is doubling down on the only thing it knows how to do. They are 'reporting' that Trump is finished. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But it would be wise to remember that the corporate press doesn't report the news any more, it is attempting to create the news, out of whole cloth. Remember how many times they said that Trump was 'finished' during the primary?

    I mean, how come what Trump said ten years ago in a private conversation, is headline news, while Hillary Clinton's decision to ALLY THE UNITED STATES WITH AL QAEDA AND RISK WAR WITH RUSSIA TO DEFEND THEM is somehow a minor detail? It's crazy when you think about it.

    Donald Trump has said unfortunate off-the-cuff things. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, has actually DONE some things so crazy that if I wrote her up as a character in a work of fiction my editor would reject it as unbelievable.

    So I am voting for Trump even if the New York Times says he is doomed. We don't really know what he will do as president, but in the business world he has proven the ability to actually get along with disparate people in a constructive way. Hillary Clinton is a bona fide monster who should scare any sane person. We know exactly what she will do as president, and attacking Russian forces in Syria will be just the start...

    Better a chance on a wildcard, then certain doom. IMHO.

    Noirette | Oct 9, 2016 11:11:29 AM | 21
    The Podesta e-mails show Killary in her true colors (see b.) The few I read though were unsurprising and boring, because she is mentally challenged, as is her staff, they are in a bubble. The leaks re. her speeches to Banksters ditto, and anyway the speeches are immaterial, they are just empty, fakelorum, performances carried out to legitimise bribery in a completely corrupt circuit.

    One e-mail (idk who wrote it and can't find it back): a campaign manager who had his head screwed on stated that most likely one needs to add 10 points to Trump re. polls. Details were a bit bizarre and convoluted...no matter...

    It reminded me that in France all the 'official' polls use an 'algorithm' based on 'hunches dressed up in fancy pyscho-babble verbiage' that add between 2 and 5% to NF votes (depending on election, region, first/second round, etc.) Necessary for maintaining their credibility, to come closer to what the real results will show.

    As for Trump's locker-room bragaddacio, not one single Trump supporter will flip, and undecideds etc. may switch to Trump, finding such an 'attack' illegit, frivolous, etc. It throws light on the fact that what Killary is being accused of - e-mails, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, pay to play, etc. - is extremely serious, whereas smutty chat is part-o-life.

    Imho the underlying aim of the release (first, serving to create buzzz! to cover over the leaks natch) was to furnish a reason for segments of the PTB establishment base, nominally Repubs., to come forward and support HRC, after they were subjected to pressure, arm-twisting, possibly even blackmail.

    McCain withdraws his support for DT:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/presidential-election.html

    Paul Ryan annouced Friday that Trump was no longer welcome at the rally after a recording was released… and he gets heckled:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/paul-ryan-heckled-by-trump-supporters-in-his-district/ar-BBxbeIT

    The Atlantic gives some kind of mealy-mouthed overview:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/where-republicans-stand-on-donald-trump-a-cheat-sheet/481449/

    The 'duopoly' power-structure has been exposed.

    Phodges | Oct 9, 2016 11:49:07 AM | 24
    I concur with the very first post...it will be a Trump landslide. The silent majority- the plurality of voters who are neither D nor R. We have no voice in politics and no voice in the media. We already see through the lies and the hypocracy. That is Trumps target audience. Even if it is just a show at least Trump talks about policies
    Steve | Oct 9, 2016 12:11:25 PM | 28
    Trump is still going to "win" the election. I put the win in quotations because that will not mean that he would be declared winner. The plan to rig the election has always been part of the plan, what this leak provides is a way to persuade the gullible people that the tape cost Trump the election. The oligarchs in both parties and all over the Western world are truly terrified of a Trump presidency but equally terrified of the reaction of the masses, should the election be brazenly rigged with no plausible reasons. They have tried to manipulate the polls and it is not succeeding. But now they can go back to their pseudo pollsters and start dishing out dubious polls until the election. That would appear credible to the credulous voters who by and large are, frankly, dim. The two parties and the global oligarchs and their media shoeshine crew have now found a convenient talking point to prepare the ground for an eventual rigging of the election. Trump and his supporters must henceforth be more vigilant and pull no punches in exposing the Clintons' perfidy.
    NoOneYouKnow | Oct 9, 2016 12:14:23 PM | 30
    #22 I'd say "war criminals who rule us" is Hillary's job title to a T. So many Hillary supporters are giving off the scent of mixed rage and panic these days.
    O'Coner | Oct 9, 2016 12:33:07 PM | 31
    And on other fronts - the Vice News vid I just watched was titled 'the US/Russia Proxy War in Ukraine'. I was shocked. Their prior coverage was 200% neocon blather. (Aka Simon Otrovsky IIRc) Could it be a beginning of a revolt by the MSM? If CNN begins to refer to Syria and Ukraine as proxy wars, it means the Empire's control of MSM is slipping. And that would spell the end for them.
    Take Me | Oct 9, 2016 12:52:20 PM | 35
    To 31. Nah. It's not the end of 'em. Just controlled opposition. Cuz thru all this miasma. LOTS of decent folks are hip to what's happening in Yemen and Syria. The muppets are rubbing sleep from their tired little eyes. And SEE what the MSM has been neglecting to tell them. The MSM aren't stupid. They hope feeding the muppets some bit of truthiness, we'll fall back into an MSM-stupor. Sadly. The MSM has lost too many muppets. Gone for good. This CIVIL WAR won't be fought carnally. But it will be just as bloody. Cuz metaphysical warfare is something for which they are NOT prepared to battle.
    schlub | Oct 9, 2016 1:20:57 PM | 39
    I think the term used here refers to any form of modern mass release of bombs or missiles.
    Each B-52 which of course can refuel so fly from anywhere, & is ponderously slow, can release about 24 cruise missiles, serially, from a rotary dispenser inside, from standoff distances.

    So the problem becomes "How many 'rounds' do the russians have for each & every one of their missile batteries there?"

    "This is a very dangerous game given that Russia, being in Syria at the invitation of the legitimate government of this country and having two bases there, has got air defense systems there to protect its assets," Lavrov said, according to Reuters.
    http://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2016/10/09/1208996/russia-says-can-protect-its-syria-assets-if-us-carpet-bombs

    dumbass | Oct 9, 2016 1:32:44 PM | 40
    >> Scott Adams

    Except that he didn't inherit or steal his money, he demonstrated he's nearly perfect example of the 1% when he mocked any voter who has a opinion about anything except for his own opinion that estate taxes are theft (though so would be Trump's inflation-based tax -- thereby demonstrating Mr. Scott 1%-er Adams is less informed than he is rich) and that (according to Scott Adams himself) is far and away the issue that matters to Scott Adams in this election.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-25/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-explains-why-he-switched-his-endorsement-trump

    I've not chuckled over a Dilbert in a while. Now that I know how Scott prioritizes the issues of the world, it'll be even more difficult.

    Jack Smith | Oct 9, 2016 2:43:45 PM | 51
    @Michael | Oct 9, 2016 11:49:08 AM | 25

    Who gave you or the Democrats the right to demand changes after the Primaries? .....believe Gallup's polls and anyone who happen to disagree with you a troll?

    IMO Sanders is worst among all the POTUS hopefuls. He lied repeatedly, In a debate with Hillary on Edward Snowden "He broke the law … but what he did [exposing the NSA surveillance] should be taken into consideration," Edward Snowden wanna fair trial, but can he get it? Dun Forget Assange afraid of assassinated, to speak from Ecuador embassy balcony to exposed Hillary. Can you trust Obomo's Justice Dept. or anyone in his administration?

    Sanders said "Well, as somebody who spent many months of my life when I was a kid in Israel, who has family in Israel, of course Israel has a right not only to defend themselves, but to live in peace and security without fear of terrorist attack." Did you look at Google's Palestine map (taken down after protests)?

    Your comments are flaws and an apologist!

    blues | Oct 9, 2016 2:51:34 PM | 53
    You have, perhaps, heard me mention "strategic hedge simple score voting" here before. Here are two short pieces I have posted at the website "The Center for Election Science", at:
    https://electology.org/forums/theory

    /~~~~~~~~~~
    They tend to fall back on a Google+ Groups "site" which I do not use since I refuse to join (corporate) "social media" at:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/electionscience
    Outrage Can No Longer Be Ignored. The elections methods enterprise consists of an imposing compilation of distracting, unworkable feints, erroneously purported to constitute viable election methods. Get strategic hedge simple score voting. No More Two-Party!!! No more!!!

    ... ... ...

    Ken Nari | Oct 9, 2016 5:55:42 PM | 75
    Giving Americans a choice of candidates no one wants is a way of humiliating them, of showing them they have no say in how they are ruled. It's much like Caligula appointing his horse to the Roman Senate to show his power and his contempt for the senators who might still have thought they had a say in running Rome.

    The social theorist Zygmunt Bauman argues that the age of nations states, which was born with the treaty that ended the Thirty Years War, and which we all take for granted, is now over. Nation States made decisions through politics and then used power to implement their wishes. Now, however, power no longer resides with the state, but instead is in the hands of international entities -- corporations, banks, criminal enterprises -- that are above, beyond and indifferent to any nation's political decisions.

    Although American presidents, the congress, the courts still pretend otherwise, it's pretty clear they know they have no real power, and so go through charades of legislating meaningless issues. Allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia, for example, when there's not the slightest chance of pinning 911 on the Saudis.

    If WW3 or anything else is in the cards it will happen no matter who is elected, Clinton, Trump or someone else.

    The election is a circus meant to distract and entertain a powerless public. Might as well enjoy it. The Dems and Repugs like to strut and posture, rake in dollars and enjoy prestige, and try to make us believe they can still shape the future, but really it out of their control.

    Indeed, according to Bauman, things may be spinning out of anyone's control. That's everywhere, not just in the U.S.

    Ken Nari | Oct 9, 2016 7:45:45 PM | 82
    The Hague @ 77

    Of course the U.S. has tremendous military power, but the "elected" government has no control over it, how it is used or where. JFK's murder ended that era,

    Many here think the U.S., and hence the U.S. military, is controlled by Israel, but Israel too is a nation state, and supra-national institutions ($$$$) seem to be running it as well,

    Recently there have been plenty of posts here pointing out the contradictions and inexplicable behavior of American leaders concerning Syria -- is the military opposing the State Department? Is the "CIA" opposing both and calling the shots? I think Bauman would agree (?) that in the final analysis, none of them are running things. Americans, including their supposed leaders, have lost control of their destiny and can only do as they are told.

    I'm not qualified to judge Bauman's assertion. I'm only suggesting it gives a plausible explanation for the current insanity we're living through. "The State of Crisis" (2014). A great work (only 150 pages) that you'll be glad to read if you haven't already read it.

    Peter AU | Oct 9, 2016 9:17:48 PM | 90
    My take as an outsider. Use Trump to take down the elite. His foreign policy basics are consistent and solid - non intervention, pull back of US military to the US, protection of local manufacturing.
    These are the two best policies to break the globalised elite, US would go through some hard times for a bit re-adjusting, then take off again as part of this world rather than wannabe ruler of this world.
    stumpy | Oct 9, 2016 10:45:06 PM | 98
    Trump's line about Gens. Macarthur and Patton rolling over in their graves was masterful. Telling Hil that she doesn't know who Isis is. Declaring Aleppo lost. Scored some points. The Trump of yesterday's news is not the Trump in the debate. I find this strangely reassuring. Got her on the 3:00AM phone call in res Benghazi. Whoever ran Trump's prep gets a free drink on me.
    schlub | Oct 9, 2016 11:17:57 PM | 100
    WackyLeaks latest analysis on $hitlary:

    US involvement in Libya began at Hillary's urging shortly after Hillary received this advice from her confidante Sidney Blumenthal. Note that the advice that the overthrow of Qaddafi needed to be connected with "an identifiable rebellion" in Syria means that it needs to be connected with civil war in Syria. US involvement in Libya was, of course, coordinated out of Benghazi, as the advice to Hillary suggested.

    Once the fall of Qaddafi was a fait accompli, Hillary's State Department advocated the overthrow of Bashar Assad as a critical component for calming Israel so that President Barrack Obama could accomplish his legacy nuclear pact with Iran without Israel blowing Iran up before the deal was sealed.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-09/hillary%E2%80%99s-wars-pt-2-wikileaks-proves-syria-about-iran-israel

    Jackrabbit | Oct 9, 2016 11:45:58 PM | 101
    shlub @100:
    Once the fall of Qaddafi was a fait accompli, Hillary's State Department advocated the overthrow of Bashar Assad as a critical component for calming Israel.
    No. Planning for overthrow of Assad - and use of extremists as a weapon of State - was begun in earnest in 2006; as described by Seymour Hersh in "The Redirection".
    Perimetr | Oct 10, 2016 12:11:18 AM | 103
    Anyone else notice that Hillary couldn't remember what she did while in office? Major mistake.

    Trump recalled that Clinton was secretary of state when President Barack Obama drew his now-infamous rhetorical 'red line' in Syria, ineffectively warning Bashar al-Assad not to use chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians.

    Clinton insisted she had retired from the government by the time that happened. Not so: Obama dared Assad to cross his line in August 2012, six months before Clinton's term ended.

    She can't even remain standing during a presidential debate, and can't remember what she did, either.

    Temporarily Sane | Oct 10, 2016 1:19:44 AM | 106
    @ 31 Vice "news" is a bad joke. All their Syria and Libya coverage is 200% pro al-Qaeda/DoS policy. They even had a "journalist" embedded with al-Nusra in Aleppo in 2014 and portrayed them in a favourable light. It doesn't surprise me that their Ukraine coverage follows a similar pattern.

    [Oct 10, 2016] Trump is the first non-establishment presidential candidate to get this far, and he landed lots of painful punches on Hillary during this debate.

    Notable quotes:
    "... He hit on her every issue he wanted to. Repeatedly and strongly. ..."
    "... On that, his taking on one of the hardest gigs in the business/political world tonight after the last few days, and dealing with it, and winning, he may have convinced a swathe of undecideds that he has what it takes. ..."
    "... Sad for all Trump haters, but he demolished the incredibly boring HRC. Trump says it how it is, even if he mixes in fibs and exaggerations. ..."
    "... The Guardian's view of the debate is a predictable one, considering the complete lack of objectivity in covering the election. ..."
    "... There has been no questioning of the fact that Hillary has received millions of dollars, for "speeches" given to Wall st banks. And of course, no questioning of the millions spent by the Clintons as "hush money" to women, in order that they keep quiet about Bill's sexual proclivities. Yep, no objectivity and little attempt at unbiased reporting here. ..."
    "... Do you want to know why Trump won tonight? It's because all Hillary has to offer is the same pre-canned answers over and over again. She comes off as less genuine than any other candidate in history and it's dispicable. ..."
    "... Saddam Hussein was a leader who did not have WMDs and whose orchestrated removal and subsequent murder opened the door to the biggest infestation of mass-murderers and islamic terrorism in the history of the world; Gadaffi was a popular leader who had turned Libya into the most prosperous and the only truly independent Arab nation in Africa, and Putin is the democratically elected leader of his country with a wide national mandate. Neither of the three can hold the candle to the menagerie of tyrannical and maniacal baboons and banana republic chipmonks who paraded and goose-stepped through Obama White House over the past eight years. ..."
    "... I'm no fan of the United States since their criminal actions around the globe post '9-11' but I actually feel some pity for it at this point. ..."
    "... Many of us are sickened more than you may realize. The unfortunate part is the entire system in the US is rigged against its own people. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton in favour of a no-fly zone in Syria, which basically means a hot war with Russia. Now, rebels are armed by Saudi Arabia amongst others. And Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest donors Clinton Foundation. Coincidence? ..."
    "... This is terrifying. Hillary might put sons and husbands of American women in harm's way on behalf of interests of Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... hillary's biggest weakness in my opinion is that she is the "goldman sachs candidate" ..."
    "... Then the debate switched to other topics and Trump landed blow after punishing blow. Hillary's non-answer to the question about whether she had public positions and private ones was (for her) uncharacteristically bizarre and rambling. Trump's Honest Abe retort was gold. ..."
    "... On tax issues he noted she had 30 years to do something about the tax code and did nothing. Why? Because all of her billionaire donors use the same tax loopholes she accuses Trump of using, which is also why it won't change if she is elected. ..."
    "... Trump is the first non-establishment presidential candidate to get this far, and he landed lots of painful punches on Hillary during this debate. ..."
    "... The current administration has repeatedly taken unrealistic positions based on ideology and clung to them until the reality on the ground made them utterly untenable to hold onto. As exhibit one, does anyone remember Obama's big speech to the nation when he announced his plan to arm moderate Syrian rebels? That turned out to be one of the most ineffective flops in history, a complete waste of time, money, and resources. ..."
    "... Instead of a debate that was focused on Trump's vulgar comments, the debate was focused on policy issues, and despite all of Clinton's "preparation" when it came to the nuts and bolts of policy, Trump managed to not only go toe-to-toe with Clinton, he often got the best of her. ..."
    "... Finally, finally someone actually asked the question that had to be asked on Syria, despite all the pointless hand wringing. Those rebels, what do we actually know about them, that we are willing to go to war for them? Are they islamists? How will they govern? Do they have any popular support of any kind? ..."
    "... And its not even the whole of Alleppo we are talking about. 2/3rds is already in govt control, Sorry but there is the bitter truth about civil wars. IF they cant come to an agreement, then the best thing that can happen is if one part wins and the fighting stops. ..."
    "... Not many people could face off against a highly skilled politician like Hillary, and win - especially when all the media and grandees have extrapolated from a "locker room" recording to woman-hater/sex pervert. ..."
    "... Trump showed up HRC as unexciting and mediocre. DT could still win. ..."
    "... I fear the Presidency of Hillary Clinton as I believe that she is VERY capable of initiating a nuclear war with Russia. I truly believe that for Donald Trump, this would be a last alternative and that he would insist upon speaking, rather than acting, as HRC would. ..."
    "... I just can not believe a word she utters. She has proven me correct with her "one position for public, and one position for private" quote. Two-faced liar. On the other hand is Trump. There are many laws or positions he endorses which would NEVER survive the two houses of Congress needed to implement them. ..."
    "... You may like or loathe Trump, but it's impressive what he achieved tonight. They had him on the ropes, it was the middle of this fight and he knocked his opponent out tonight. ..."
    "... Here's why. her record! She boasts of so many sponsored bills as senator, yet when you actually look at what she ACHIEVED - 3 meaningless bills - named a museum, a road and a post office! As for her SOS "achievements" are there any? The only things we can say for certain she did, ultimately she has admitted they were mistakes - experience is meaningless if you have poor judgement, and she has prove to have terrible judgement. ..."
    "... And ultimately at the end of the day, IF the will is there, Trump can be prevented from causing ANY damage. Clinton on the other hand has openly stated that she will cooperate with the republicans, thus only right wing conservative bills will get passed! ..."
    "... So she has proven poor judgement, a proven record of incompetence, and is desperate to raise the stakes with the Russians! Can anyone explain to me how she is better in any way. Remember Trump is disgusting, but she is a war criminal - her actions should have put her in the hague yet alone the whitehouse! ..."
    "... Hillary's tough talk against Russia and regime change in Syria scare the crap out of me. She's talking nuclear war, and she and the media lie about Russia. ..."
    "... Modern politics is all about have media houses in your pocket to promote your side of the story. For the life of me i cannot believe the presidential race is still so close even though there is a clear bias against trump. ..."
    "... It's been rather stunning as to how far the Guardian has gone to blanket it's news with pro-hilly propaganda. The most shameful moments came when Bernie was running in the primary. ..."
    "... of the two, Hillary represents the most acute, immediate threat to humanity with her calling for a no fly zone over Syria and her neo-McCarthy Russia bashing, demonizing Putin. ..."
    "... The the recent events in Syria witness this threat, with the US openly protecting (supplying) the misogynist, stoneage Al Nusra in Eastern Alleppo, bombing Syrian soldiers who are actively engaged in combat against ISIS, and now bombing bridges leading to the ISIS capital of Raqqa thus preventing the advancing Syrian army from attacking ISIS. ..."
    "... She is backed by the debt slavery banksters, the planet destroying fossil fuel parasites, the fascist military industrial security prison complex and the whole corporate fascist shadow state, not to mention the MSM (including this journal). At least Trump has said this, which is much saner than any of HIlliary's comments regarding Syria, (not to mention Lybia): ..."
    "... Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. Iran is killing ISIS. And those three have now lined up together because of our weak policy," he said. ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    newyorkred , 10 Oct 2016 04:45)>
    Terrible summary by Tom McCarthy of the debate completely omits the main event, namely Trump promising to prosecute Clinton should he become President. WTF.

    There's a job waiting for him at the NYT, the number 1 newspaper for anyone who wants to miss what's actually going on in this election.

    BlueberryCompote , 10 Oct 2016 04:48)>
    Trump won this debate because Clinton wanted to make the issue personal and the fact is that even though Trump is disgusting, she hasn't got a great record to defend. It's shameful that the Democrats chose her and the Republicans chose him.
    Uncle Putin -> jrakoske001 , 10 Oct 2016 05:35)>
    I agree with you to a point, but to be entirely honest, I don't think any of the politicians have more than a surface level knowledge of any of these issues. They rely on experts and advisors to come up with solutions to complex problems and then they make decisions after weighing the options presented. Politicians who have been in the game a long time know all the generic buzzwords and slogans to use, whereas Trump doesn't have the lingo down. It's actually part of his charm. Obama had almost no real world experience with any of this stuff and especially when it comes to foreign policy it would be hard to argue that anyone could do much worse (and Hillary was part of his administration).
    samuraiblue , 10 Oct 2016 04:51)>
    Success of debates can only be based on their effectiveness or otherwise in improving a candidate's position. Trump`s position was almost untenable before the debate. He`s now in an election. By any standards that is a massive win for him.

    Given that the only relevant audience are undecideds (and consider the politics of people as yet undecided about voting for Trump), Trump played a blinder. He hit on her every issue he wanted to. Repeatedly and strongly.

    On that, his taking on one of the hardest gigs in the business/political world tonight after the last few days, and dealing with it, and winning, he may have convinced a swathe of undecideds that he has what it takes.

    I am non-partisan. But I can`t see how anybody can conclude he didn`t win that big time. His position now V before the debate? Answers itself.

    Still don`t see an electoral path to victory for him. That was monumental television. Ugly America. But it is ugly, that`s the reality.

    DomesticExtremist , 10 Oct 2016 04:54)>
    She should be in jail.
    finalcurtain , 10 Oct 2016 04:58)>
    Sad for all Trump haters, but he demolished the incredibly boring HRC. Trump says it how it is, even if he mixes in fibs and exaggerations.

    Unless evidence comes to light of rape or attempted rape by Trump, I can definitely accept the "locker room" dismissal by DT.

    Go Trump --

    MustafaFart , 10 Oct 2016 04:58)>
    The Guardian's view of the debate is a predictable one, considering the complete lack of objectivity in covering the election. Much has been made of Trump's sexist comments, yet not even a raised eyebrow at the Clinton foundation receiving tens of millions in "donations" from Saudi Arabia, a nation that bans women from driving, voting or having human freedoms.

    There has been no questioning of the fact that Hillary has received millions of dollars, for "speeches" given to Wall st banks. And of course, no questioning of the millions spent by the Clintons as "hush money" to women, in order that they keep quiet about Bill's sexual proclivities. Yep, no objectivity and little attempt at unbiased reporting here.

    SNAFU5001 -> BG Davis , 10 Oct 2016 05:05)>
    Not everyone is a political junky and not everyone lives in a black and white world.

    Telling people they are not qualified to vote because they haven't made up their minds yet is an elitist statement. One of the main reasons I refuse to vote for Hillary or Bernie is because of all the elitist people who like to demean others simply because they disagree with the progressive or neo-liberal talking points.

    BehindBlurredLines , 10 Oct 2016 04:59)>
    Do you want to know why Trump won tonight? It's because all Hillary has to offer is the same pre-canned answers over and over again. She comes off as less genuine than any other candidate in history and it's dispicable. It was bad in the Democratic debates and it is atrocious in the presidential debates. Is it really so hard to just speak what she is actually thinking that she just robots out the same rhetoric over and over again? It seems so.

    I was going to vote for her but after this debate, the level of disgust with her is too much. Be a damn person for a change instead of this thing that makes me shudder when she opens her mouth. I just can't do it, Bernie, sorry. Trump repulses me to think of voting for but she makes me physically sick to think about voting for. They say I will be throwing my vote away to vote for a third party candidate but I just don't care. To throw it away is better than to cast it for someone I would forever regret voting for the rest of my like. That goes for the both of them.

    HerrPrincip -> Stetson Meyers , 10 Oct 2016 07:59)>
    Saddam Hussein was a leader who did not have WMDs and whose orchestrated removal and subsequent murder opened the door to the biggest infestation of mass-murderers and islamic terrorism in the history of the world; Gadaffi was a popular leader who had turned Libya into the most prosperous and the only truly independent Arab nation in Africa, and Putin is the democratically elected leader of his country with a wide national mandate. Neither of the three can hold the candle to the menagerie of tyrannical and maniacal baboons and banana republic chipmonks who paraded and goose-stepped through Obama White House over the past eight years.

    Stay on topic. This thread is about alleged Trump's camaraderie with dictators which is now totally and permanently debunked.

    RickyBastardo , 10 Oct 2016 05:17)>
    It was an awful display from any conceivable point of view. There were no winners; none at all.

    I'm no fan of the United States since their criminal actions around the globe post '9-11' but I actually feel some pity for it at this point. The fact that most Americans appear not to be completely sickened and ashamed by their farce of an election speaks volumes about how far their country as fallen on so very many fronts.

    A very sad night for the world, but none more so than for the United States and their people.

    Rich LD -> RickyBastardo , 10 Oct 2016 05:27)>
    Many of us are sickened more than you may realize. The unfortunate part is the entire system in the US is rigged against its own people. We're fucked, we know it, if we try to do anything, they shit all over us with lies and propaganda and wave their corruption in our faces like a damn battle flag. It won't be long before the people finally stand up to this. Trouble is, it may already be too late...
    mike_johnston , 10 Oct 2016 05:21)>
    Hillary Clinton in favour of a no-fly zone in Syria, which basically means a hot war with Russia. Now, rebels are armed by Saudi Arabia amongst others. And Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest donors Clinton Foundation. Coincidence?

    This is terrifying. Hillary might put sons and husbands of American women in harm's way on behalf of interests of Saudi Arabia.

    This is terrifying.

    merle2006 , 10 Oct 2016 05:22)>
    hillary's biggest weakness in my opinion is that she is the "goldman sachs candidate". and trump was able to exploit that. trump said that he was only taking advantage of the same tax laws that hillary's campaign-financing friends take advantage of. and he said that it had been within hillary's powers to change those laws but she wouldn't because of her friends. all hillary has to do is declare that she will stop big tax avoidance and claw bag these avoided taxes and she would have the bernie sanders'
    Uncle Putin , 10 Oct 2016 05:22)>
    Christopher R Barron is not too far off the mark in scoring this one. Trump started the debate with the same awkward and uncomfortable manner as he finished the last one. Hillary's line of attack about Trump being unfit to be president was delivered with maximum skill and effectiveness, and Donald's rebuttal was a bit flat and floundering. Things were looking gloomy in Trumpville.

    Then the debate switched to other topics and Trump landed blow after punishing blow. Hillary's non-answer to the question about whether she had public positions and private ones was (for her) uncharacteristically bizarre and rambling. Trump's Honest Abe retort was gold. He killed her on Obamacare, a real sore spot with middle class voters, pointing out that the premiums and deductibles are so high you have to get hit by a Mack truck before it actually pays off. Foreign policy, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria--all he had to do was point to 8 years of Obama and her own tenure as Secretary of State leading to the present unmitigated disaster. Our friends don't trust us and our enemies don't fear us.

    On tax issues he noted she had 30 years to do something about the tax code and did nothing. Why? Because all of her billionaire donors use the same tax loopholes she accuses Trump of using, which is also why it won't change if she is elected. You can argue pro or con on everything Trump said, but there is no question that this was a much stronger debate performance from him than the first and the final question in which he complimented Hillary actually helped soften his image quite a bit and ended the night on a perfect note.

    wing and some credibility truly back on her side.

    finalcurtain 10h ago
    Trump is the first non-establishment presidential candidate to get this far, and he landed lots of painful punches on Hillary during this debate.

    Hillary hardly touched Trump.

    If no more serious revelations come to light, don't be surprised if he gets a Brexit victory in one month: Americans are sick of polished elite politicians like the Clintons and Bush's.

    tangibletruth 10h ago
    I disagree with everyone here, every poll I've seen has had Trump on top in that debate by a majority. I'd like to see links to other polls, always welcome! I have read the CNN poll was a majority Democrat demographic, which many have stated render that poll biased. I don't know if this is still the case?

    The key thing is - IS TRUMP a lesser of two evils?

    Simply, in my view, YES. Because I believe a less aggressive US foreign policy is essential for global well-being in general The current war party in the white house, whose views Clinton clearly espoused tonight in her accusations, denigration and aggressive stance toward Russia, can only lead one way. It is archaic, medieval and dangerous.

    If there can possibly be a turnaround in attitude from the barbaric, 1980s-style foreign policy hysterically issuing forth from US Military officials atm I would very much recommend we encourage it.

    Trump did not fudge his words regarding the middle east and ISIS. He praised Russian and Syrian combat of ISIS, he stated he did not hate Russia, unlike his rival. His message was altogether one of more solidarity.

    I am not a Trump butt-monkey, Putinbot or an idiot. But Clinton and her War Party are openly arming moderate rebels in Syria, fighting a two-faced phoney war in order to unseat Assad - causing a massive humanitarian disaster out there. The moderate rebels and, at one time, ISIS (I get the impression they've gone out of control now) are nothing more than mercenaries, paid for and armed out of US coffers. Can we wake up to the implications of this? Russia threatened to shoot down US aircraft in Syrian airspace the other day! Are you not alarmed by Clintons gung-ho attitude in this climate?

    This is not a perspective much agreed on in the MSM, but I happen to believe it is the single most important thing in the world today.

    Uncle Putin -> 123Anderson 9h ago
    "He also obviously has no idea what is going on in Syria."

    He said Allepo is probably already lost. There is a reality check for you.

    The current administration has repeatedly taken unrealistic positions based on ideology and clung to them until the reality on the ground made them utterly untenable to hold onto. As exhibit one, does anyone remember Obama's big speech to the nation when he announced his plan to arm moderate Syrian rebels? That turned out to be one of the most ineffective flops in history, a complete waste of time, money, and resources.

    The sad thing is that I remember numerous military commentators in the media who immediately predicted it would be an utter failure and they were right.

    Commentator6 9h ago

    Instead of a debate that was focused on Trump's vulgar comments, the debate was focused on policy issues, and despite all of Clinton's "preparation" when it came to the nuts and bolts of policy, Trump managed to not only go toe-to-toe with Clinton, he often got the best of her.

    Trump needed to win tonight to stay alive. Clinton did not. Trump won, and he lives to fight another day. This race is far from over.

    An accurate analysis.

    The CNN Democrat commentators were shell-shocked after the debate and were trying to convince themselves and the viewers that it was a tie.

    StrategyKing 9h ago
    Neither Richard nor Jessica have actually given an analysis of who one the debate. Both are just rehashing their own personal opinions about Trump, and Jessica, as she usually does, threw in some complaints about men in general. Terrible journalism.

    Hillary won on temperament but Trump won on the issues. He is an awful candidate, and it sucks that such a terrible candidate is the message bearer but that is what it is.

    Finally, finally someone actually asked the question that had to be asked on Syria, despite all the pointless hand wringing. Those rebels, what do we actually know about them, that we are willing to go to war for them? Are they islamists? How will they govern? Do they have any popular support of any kind?

    He should have also shouted out loudly when asked what are the consequences of Alleppo falling. The answer is none! There is nothing in Alleppo that is worth a single American life. If anything there might be good consequences. The civil war will end, people will go back to work and rebuilding will begin. Alleppo falling could be the best thing that happens to Syria.

    And its not even the whole of Alleppo we are talking about. 2/3rds is already in govt control, Sorry but there is the bitter truth about civil wars. IF they cant come to an agreement, then the best thing that can happen is if one part wins and the fighting stops.

    Trump is a desperately poor candidate, but you lot on the left are not making it easy to defeat him.
    And he should have shouted

    finalcurtain 10h ago
    Not many people could face off against a highly skilled politician like Hillary, and win - especially when all the media and grandees have extrapolated from a "locker room" recording to woman-hater/sex pervert.

    Trump showed up HRC as unexciting and mediocre. DT could still win.

    Timothy Everton 10h ago
    This was actually a reasonably decent debate, as far as these two candidates are concerned. Trump maintained his composure, Clinton came close to losing hers. And yes, I DID watch it.

    I fear the Presidency of Hillary Clinton as I believe that she is VERY capable of initiating a nuclear war with Russia. I truly believe that for Donald Trump, this would be a last alternative and that he would insist upon speaking, rather than acting, as HRC would.

    I just can not believe a word she utters. She has proven me correct with her "one position for public, and one position for private" quote. Two-faced liar.
    On the other hand is Trump. There are many laws or positions he endorses which would NEVER survive the two houses of Congress needed to implement them.

    HRC, on the other hand, has the "connections" which would give her the ability to do so. That scares me. She is someone. two-faced, who can not be trusted.

    Puro 10h ago
    You may like or loathe Trump, but it's impressive what he achieved tonight. They had him on the ropes, it was the middle of this fight and he knocked his opponent out tonight.

    It was the "rumble in the jungle" all over again - Trump absorbed all kinds of punishment, he absorbed it all and then ended up in triumph. "Trump bomaye! Trump bomaye! :-)

    Paul Marston 10h ago
    What I found amusing was her line about keeping the high ground - immediately after making several low blows and saying he was unqualified! She claimed she never says that about other candidates, yet said it about both Obama and Sanders - and no doubt every other opponent she has faced!

    This is the fundamental problem with Clinton. Because so many people despise her, she has always campaigned negatively, and apart from the virtually uncontested NY senate positions (bought by her wall street donors), she has lost each time! Now you can sling all the charges at Trump, and I will not disagree with any other them. Trump is indeed unfit to be president. However Clinton is infinitely less qualified.

    Here's why. her record! She boasts of so many sponsored bills as senator, yet when you actually look at what she ACHIEVED - 3 meaningless bills - named a museum, a road and a post office! As for her SOS "achievements" are there any? The only things we can say for certain she did, ultimately she has admitted they were mistakes - experience is meaningless if you have poor judgement, and she has prove to have terrible judgement.

    And ultimately at the end of the day, IF the will is there, Trump can be prevented from causing ANY damage. Clinton on the other hand has openly stated that she will cooperate with the republicans, thus only right wing conservative bills will get passed!

    And as for SCOTUS picks, Obama has proven there is no guarantee of progressive picks, and AGAIN if Trump picks an awful SCOTUS judge he CAN be blocked!

    So she has proven poor judgement, a proven record of incompetence, and is desperate to raise the stakes with the Russians! Can anyone explain to me how she is better in any way. Remember Trump is disgusting, but she is a war criminal - her actions should have put her in the hague yet alone the whitehouse!

    But this is all moot as Clinton shills simply refuse to be honest with themselves and refuse to look at her record. I have asked elsewhere dozens of times to Clinton supporters to name a crime / charge against Trump that cannot be said against Clinton - STILL waiting.

    Frankly it matters not who you vote for as they are both ubfit, but Clinton has a proven record of incompetence and war crimes whereas Trump has not. Personally it is way over time to stuff the 2 party nonsense and vote 3rd party - if they get 5% they get funding next time. Personally I

    Eric Batt 10h ago
    Trump today had to show that he, not the GOP leadership, was master of his base. And his base is by far the largest component of Republican voters so he is master of the party in the month before an election. He is not going to drop out and if the party wants to push that fight, Donald is going to decisively win it. His base wanted Hillary's blood and he gave it to them. In that sense he won. But winning undecideds, no. In that sense he lost.

    Hillary was addressing mainly women voters according to a statistical demographic profile. Don't confront too much, stay calm and collected, and let him have it on his 2005 tape. She saw the debate as a means to finally move women, maybe especially white women, to her side. She absolutely did not need to nail down her actual base, and was out to decisively pick up undecided voters. She probably succeeded. In that sense she won. And it is by far the bigger victory. And mostly because it was already mission accomplished in the 48 hours before the debate.

    In a week we will see the polling for the tape and for the debate. Hillary is going to increase her lead by 2 points if not more. And that includes the battlegrounds. And Trump will very definitely still be the candidate.

    DJoandark 10h ago
    Hillary's tough talk against Russia and regime change in Syria scare the crap out of me. She's talking nuclear war, and she and the media lie about Russia.

    Trump was correct to point out that if the US really wanted to knock out ISIS, they'd have to join forces with Russia. That was the most intelligent thing he said all night. I will not vote for either of them. Because as much as Trump is offensive, she has a sh*t eating grin which makes me sick. I think I'll write in Vladimir Putin, as he is 'currently' along with Xi in China working to make their countries true super-powers with science and technology.

    juascar 9h ago
    A "pearl" from Hilarious : "Russia (when not) is hacking our mails". Then again, she kill the messenger, but don't say 'what' was the contents of those e-mails. Especially those of the pre-campaign against Sanders.
    HindsightMe 9h ago
    Modern politics is all about have media houses in your pocket to promote your side of the story. For the life of me i cannot believe the presidential race is still so close even though there is a clear bias against trump. As an observer i am curious to know why?
    joeblow9999 9h ago
    It's been rather stunning as to how far the Guardian has gone to blanket it's news with pro-hilly propaganda. The most shameful moments came when Bernie was running in the primary.

    Guardian bias is bordering on the bizarre. There are few news sites reporting that Hillary won. So Trump won this debate and didn't take Anderson Coopers bate..... big deal.

    I think an article on how this late comeback won't help Trump at this late stage in the election would be more interesting.

    LitlBludot 9h ago
    They are both disgusting human beings. Though, of the two, Hillary represents the most acute, immediate threat to humanity with her calling for a no fly zone over Syria and her neo-McCarthy Russia bashing, demonizing Putin.

    The the recent events in Syria witness this threat, with the US openly protecting (supplying) the misogynist, stoneage Al Nusra in Eastern Alleppo, bombing Syrian soldiers who are actively engaged in combat against ISIS, and now bombing bridges leading to the ISIS capital of Raqqa thus preventing the advancing Syrian army from attacking ISIS.

    Then you have her history -to name just a few of her callous, inhumane, and cruel in the name of the 1%- of starving hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to death, her admiration of Henry Kissinger, her recent coup of a progressive, honest and legitimate president in Honduras and its replacement with corporate controlled puppets using death squads to kill environmentalists, journalists, etc.

    She is backed by the debt slavery banksters, the planet destroying fossil fuel parasites, the fascist military industrial security prison complex and the whole corporate fascist shadow state, not to mention the MSM (including this journal). At least Trump has said this, which is much saner than any of HIlliary's comments regarding Syria, (not to mention Lybia):

    ""Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. Iran is killing ISIS. And those three have now lined up together because of our weak policy," he said.

    "I think it would be great if we got along with Russia. We could fight ISIS together," Trump had said earlier in the evening."

    https://www.rt.com/usa/362184-trump-pence-syria-disagree

    [Oct 10, 2016] Trump Defies Critics, Signals Attack On Bill Clinton Ahead Of Crucial Debate Zero Hedge

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    While the Trump Tape scandal may end up far less damaging to the Trump campaign than many pundits predicted, confirmed by several polls this morning which showed rank-and-file Trump supporters barely changed their opinion of the candidate in the aftermath of the hot mic recording leaked on Friday afternoon, he will have to pull off a strong debate performance while ignoring loud calls from both the press and top elected republicans to step aside, in order to offset a decline in polls has suffered since the first debate.

    That may be easier said than done, especially since over the past 24 hours Trump has seen a barrage of attacks not only from the left but also from his own party, with dozens of GOP lawmakers calling for him to stand down. As Fox wrote earlier , Trump was already struggling through a tough couple of weeks, after the first debate with Clinton, in which she argued Trump was verbally abusive to a 1996 Miss Universe winner. Still, trying to appear unfazed, Trump struck a defiant tone on Sunday in the face of calls for him to abandon the U.S. presidential race, attacking prominent Republicans and saying he has "tremendous support."

    As he so often has done in times of campaign stress, Trump took to social media to try to squelch any speculation that he could leave the race. "Tremendous support (except for some Republican leadership"). Thank you," Trump wrote on Twitter.

    "So many self-righteous hypocrites. Watch their poll numbers - and elections - go down!" Trump tweeted, apparently referring to Republican lawmakers seeking re-election who have withdrawn their support for him over a 2005 video that emerged on Friday.

    The negative speculation over the fate of Trump's campaign was the bulk of Saturday's news cycle, and continued on Sunday.

    As Reuters writes, Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri told reporters on Clinton's campaign plane: "We understand that this is uncharted territory ... to face an opponent that is in the grips of a downward spiral in terms of his own party belatedly walking away from him." A source close to the campaign of Trump's vice presidential running mate, Mike Pence, dismissed talk among some political analysts the Indiana governor might bolt the ticket in the uproar over Trump's comments. "Absolutely not," the source told Reuters.

    Meanwhile, as noted above, with Republican Party leaders in crisis mode and doubts emerging over Trump's ability to draw support from crucial undecided voters, it appeared that many of Trump's core supporters would remain loyal despite the hot mic incident. A public opinion poll by POLITICO/Morning Consult, taken just after news broke of the video, found 39 percent of voters thought Trump should withdraw, and 45 percent said he should stay. Of those who said Trump should leave, only 12 percent identified themselves as Republicans.

    Suggesting blowback may be in store for some Republicans who attacked Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan was heckled by Trump supporters at a rally in his congressional district in Wisconsin on Saturday, after having disinvited Trump following the release of the recording of Trump making lewd remarks. "You better back Trump!" they yelled. "You turned your back on him!" "Shame on you!"

    But while there has been much verbal speculation about the future of the Trump campaign, now one month ahead of the election, in practice it would be virtually impossible to replace Trump. As we reported previously, in what have been largely symbolic moves, at least two Republican governors, 10 senators and 11 House of Representatives members withdrew their support of Trump, with some advising him to drop out of the race, including John Thune of South Dakota, a member of the Senate Republican leadership. But, as Reuters notes, any attempt to replace Trump on the ballot would face huge legal and logistical hurdles. The Trump campaign fought back, circulating "talking points" to a core of high-profile Republicans who promote Trump in the news media. The points sought to undermine establishment Republicans who have abandoned Trump.

    "They are more concerned with their political future than they are about the future of the country," said a copy of the talking points, described to Reuters by two sources close to the campaign.

    It might work: as we noted previously, Trump has made his battle against the establishment a central campaign theme: what better way of underscoring that than by showcasing that not only do Democrats hate his brand, as of this moment a vast majority of Republicans do too.

    "Phones have been blowing up for the past 24 hours," said a prominent Republican political operative in Washington, referring to a heavy volume of calls among party officials and Republican members of Congress.

    There could be financial complications for Trump however. As we reported last night , Trump's troubles could steer campaign donations away from him and to Republican candidates for Congress and other down-ballot offices.

    But money may be the least of Trump's worries if he is unable to keep his head in tonight's debate.

    What should one expect?

    According to one Reuters source, Trump could help himself if he himself quickly addressed the video and the Oct. 1 New York Times report that he took so substantial a tax deduction on a declared $916 million loss in 1995 that he could legally have avoided paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years.

    Altternatively, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Trump adviser, told Sunday talk shows that at the debate Trump might choose to go on the offensive against Clinton by bringing up past infidelities of her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Interviewed on NBC's "Meet the Press," Giuliani said both presidential contenders were flawed but that Trump feels he owes it to his supporters to stay in the race. Republicans have attacked Clinton, 68, over what they say is her role in trying to discredit women who accused her husband of sexual misconduct decades ago, and have wondered why Trump ignored to approach the topic during the first debate.

    According to the WSJ, which writes that " Trump Signals Attack on Bill Clinton in Coming Days " a taste of what may be to come was unveiled on Saturday when Bill Clinton was midway through a remark about climate change Saturday when a heckler gave a taste of what he and his wife's presidential campaign might get from Republican Donald Trump in coming days. "Nobody can dispute the fact..." Mr. Clinton started to say at a rally in a union hall, "... that you're a rapist!" the protester shouted, finishing the sentence for the 42nd president.

    Bill Clinton responds after heckler calls him a "rapist" during rally in Wisconsin pic.twitter.com/eTJxMeKqOK

    - NBC News (@NBCNews) October 9, 2016

    Previewing a hard-line attack on Clintons' sexual past, Trump on Sunday morning tweeted an interview given by Juanita Broaddrick, who claimed Mr. Clinton sexually assaulted her in the late 1970s.... Ms. Broaddrick tearfully recounts the episode in the videotaped interview and said "I'm afraid of him."

    As the WSJ adds, "Trump, facing fierce blowback for his lewd comments about women, is signaling that he will target Mr. Clinton's behavior as he tries to stabilize a campaign coping with its biggest crisis to date."

    In weekend apologies for his remarks, the Republican nominee invoked Mr. Clinton repeatedly, saying he had "abused women" and talked about them in ways that were more offensive than his own in a 2005 video in which he boasted of sexual aggression.

    He also claimed Mrs. Clinton attacked the women who accused her husband of sexual misconduct.

    "I've said some foolish things, but there's a big difference between the words and actions of other people," Mr. Trump said in a Saturday morning video. "Bill Clinton has actually abused women and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed and intimidated his victims. We will discuss this more in the coming days."

    That line of attack threatens to yank Mr. Clinton directly into the campaign scrum, a space the former two-term president has largely avoided since his wife launched her campaign a year and half ago.

    The WSJ notes that according to strategists in both parties, a tactic where Trump goes for Clinton's past infidelities may backfire.

    Rudolph Giuliani, a Trump campaign surrogate, said Sunday on NBC that he didn't expect his candidate to raise Mr. Clinton's past during an evening presidential town hall meeting in St. Louis, Missouri.

    Additionally, the WSJ notes that Bill Clinton remains a popular figure, outshining his wife and her Republican opponent.

    A recent Wall Street Journal/ NBC News poll found that 45% of voters said they have very positive or somewhat positive feelings about the former president, compared with 38% who have very negative or somewhat negative feelings.

    The same survey found that 37% of voters have positive feelings about Mrs. Clinton, while 52% have negative feelings. Meanwhile, just 28% of voters have very positive or somewhat positive feelings about Mr. Trump; 61% have very negative or somewhat negative feelings about him.

    Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster, said Mr. Trump would be playing to his base of hard-core supporters by attacking Mr. Clinton, but he isn't winning over any new voters. "If he were running a Republican primary race, this could be an effective strategy," Mr. Newhouse said. Now, "it's a failed strategy to try to bring Bill Clinton to this." Lashing out at the former president and saying that he has done something worse is "like an argument that a third-grader might make," Mr. Newhouse said. " When you use an apology to turn around and attack your opponent, you lose ground," he said.

    A democratic strategist, Joe Trippi, believes that "there's no way out for him other than to be humble and apologize", which on the other hand some say would show weakness and give Hillary the offensive. He also pointed out that Trump now needs to somehow win over women and college-educated white voters and that "taking aim at Mr. Clinton is only going to "repulse them further."

    * * *

    While nobody has any idea what Trump's best angle of attack may be, or what the republican presidential contender will say in under three hours when the townhall-styled debate begins, it is certain that following a brief courteous open, the mudslinging on both sides will promptly escalate, resulting in one of the most memorable, "deplorable" yet entertaining slow-motion trainwrecks observed in primetime history. The biggest unknown, however, is how America will respond to it: and for Trump that particular gamble could mean the difference between victory and defeat.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Ukraine Is Going to Be a Big Problem for the Next U.S. President by Mark Pfeifle

    That was all about debt slavery and a successful attempt to encircle Russia with a belt of hostile state. Standard of living dropped more then twice since Maydan. Nationalist proved to be reliable neoliberal tools who can fooled again and again based on their hate of Russia and help to enslave their own people ("fool me once"...) Classic divide and conquer. Nothing new. Yatsenyuk was despicable corrupt neoliberal with fake flair of nationalism from the very beginning. he helped to sell country assets for pennies on the a dollar and completely destroyed economic relations with Russia (why you need to love the county to trade with it is beyond any sane person comprehension; capitalism is actually about the ability to trade with people we hate and that's one of its strong points). Emigrant community in Canada and USA (due to typical for emigrants heightened level of nationalism) also played a role in destruction of economics of Ukraine. this is a very sad story of creating an African country in Europe where many people live of less then a dollar a day and pensioners starve.
    foreignpolicy.com

    Ukraine has faded from the American national consciousness as other, even more recent and far more spectacular foreign policy fiascos - Syria, Libya and the Islamic State - overwhelm our capacity to catalog them.

    ... ... ...

    Obama's delicate carrot-and-stick approach hasn't worked, and the long-simmering Ukrainian kettle threatens to boil into the worst crisis in relations between Moscow and Washington since the Cold War.

    ... ... ...

    The optimism created by the 2013-2014 "EuroMaidan" street demonstrations was short-lived. Prime Minister Arseniy Petrovych Yatsenyuk was forced to resign in April against a backdrop of permanent political crisis and high-profile charges of corruption.

    ... ... ...

    Perhaps most dispiriting of all, even those Ukrainian activists, politicians, and journalists who are portrayed as true reformers appear likewise unable to resist the temptation to engage in the systemic looting of the Ukrainian economy.

    In early September, the New Yorker magazine dedicated several thousand words to three citizen-journalists who now serve in the Ukrainian Parliament. Like other western media outlets, the New Yorker portrayed Sergei Leshchenko, Svitlana Zalishchuk, and Mustafa Nayem as dedicated journalists - new faces who sought election to parliament as part of President Poroshenko's bloc in the wake of the Maidan street protests, which Nayem helped organize.

    Now, however, Leshchenko's post-election acquisition of high-end housing has attracted the attention of the Anti-Corruption Agency of Ukraine, an investigatory body that was established at the urging of the United States. Last week, the Anti-Corruption Agency forwarded the Leshchenko file to the special prosecutor's office tasked with corruption fighting. Leshchenko could not explain the source of the income that allowed him to buy the residence, loan documents are missing, and the purchase price was allegedly below market

    The owner of the building, according to Ukrainian media accounts, is Ivan Fursin, the partner of mega-oligarch Dmytro Firtash.

    Recent reports have revealed that Leshchenko's expenses for attending international forums were paid for by the oligarch Viktor Pinchuk who also contributed $8,6 million to the Clinton Foundation While Leshchenko remains the toast of the western media and Washington think tanks, back at home, his fellow reformers in the Parliament are calling on him to resign until his name is cleared.

    Meanwhile, the next president is sure to find Ukraine besieged on all sides: With Russian troops and pro-Russian rebels at its throat and corruption destroying it from within -and as the Leshchenko scandal suggests, not all in Ukraine is what it appears to be.

    The new president must learn to discern Ukraine's true reformers from those who made anti-corruption crusades into a lucrative business, and be able to distinguish real action from empty words.

    If not, the two and a half decades-long Ukrainian experiment with independence may boil over completely.

    [Oct 09, 2016] The people that run your company wont change a thing because they need to pay for their Lear Jets and screwing their customers is the only way they can do it.

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Paid Minion October 7, 2016 at 4:26 pm

    Yeah, the usefulness/entertainment value of Sirius/XM is close to being offset by the costs of the subscription, and the PITA when dealing with their "Customer Service" (an oxymoron if I every saw one).

    Renewed my subscription earlier this year, then bought a new car that came with one year free. Called them to roll over the existing contract onto the new car, was supposedly "no problem". I should be good for the next 21 months or so. We'll see next spring.

    The new way of doing business in the USA isn't by creating "growth" with satisfied customers. Now, the plan is to sign up the customer for indefinite, automatically renewed (and billed) contracts that are impossible to cancel, no matter how crappy the product is/becomes.
    Exhibit "A" McAfee AntiVirus.

    "Automatic Renewal" is harder to kill than cockroaches.

    My last cellphone "Contract" (contract? WTF?) generated more paperwork than my first home mortgage.

    NY Union Guy October 7, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    the people that run your company won't change a thing because they need to pay for their Lear Jets and screwing their customers is the only way they can do it.

    Exactly! All this shadyness, dishonesty, and BS is so some asshole can fly around in a learjet.

    What really boggles my mind and has almost completely eroded my faith in humanity, is just how much pain and suffering we inflict on one another just so some gaping asshole rich guy can own 5 houses and jet-set around the world on his own private plane.

    reslez October 7, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    Comcast reps do this as well. So do the other cable monopolists. Their CS reps sign you up for services you don't want, lie to you about it, and when you call back to cancel and demand a refund, they lie again and the refund never actually appears. It's so bad even our deaf, dumb, and blind Congress held a hearing about it over the summer.

    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/167078/20160628/comcast-and-charter-pledge-to-improve-customer-service-in-senate-hearings.htm

    JohnnyGL October 7, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Yep, there's a reason Comcast is always on or around the top of the list of "most hated companies".

    I remember seeing a list where they beat out Monsanto. That's gotta be tough to do since Monsanto kills and sues people.

    NY Union Guy October 7, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    the people that run your company won't change a thing because they need to pay for their Lear Jets and screwing their customers is the only way they can do it.

    Exactly! All this shadyness, dishonesty, and BS is so some butthole can fly around in a learjet.

    What really boggles my mind and has almost completely eroded my faith in humanity, is just how much pain and suffering we inflict on one another just so some gaping butthole rich guy can own 5 houses and jet-set around the world on his own private plane.

    (Got moderated, had to remove a cussword)

    hreik October 7, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    try misspelling, like: e.g. phuck

    beth October 7, 2016 at 9:00 pm

    So the upshot is that Sirius/XM does the exact same thing as Wells Fargo

    and AT&T.
    With a few words changed, that sounds like my former annual calls to AT&T. Once it took me 4 calls to try to get the different speed levels they were selling. Then 2-3 to find someone I thought would put me into a middle level speed. Was told I would not pay a change-over fee.
    Opps, when I got the bill I was charged $300 for the switch and put into the highest residential speed at the time.

    Jim Haygood October 7, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    My stance is that the etymology of the word "phony" derives directly from telcos.

    And I'm sticking to it.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Class Warfare links Oct 9 2016

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    From: Links 10-9-16 naked capitalism

    [Oct 09, 2016] The way DNC handling the public v. private comments by Hillary Clinton is to declare all the leaked material suspect because it is postmarked Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... the DNC is handling the public v. private comments of one Hillary Clinton is to declare all the leaked material suspect because it's "postmarked Russia," according to Donna Brazile, whom I just watched on This Week – so she says she hasn't read them, and is advising that no one read them. If you don't read them, that ends the discussion, which obviously was her goal. ..."
    "... And it worked, as near as I can tell. Brazile hammered the public remarks only, so there you have it: just like the DNC hack that showed the games being played with the Sanders candidacy, the Wikileaks release on the paid speeches is delegitimized with one word: Russia. ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Anne October 9, 2016 at 10:33 am

    Well, and just so you know, the way the DNC is handling the public v. private comments of one Hillary Clinton is to declare all the leaked material suspect because it's "postmarked Russia," according to Donna Brazile, whom I just watched on This Week – so she says she hasn't read them, and is advising that no one read them. If you don't read them, that ends the discussion, which obviously was her goal.

    And it worked, as near as I can tell. Brazile hammered the public remarks only, so there you have it: just like the DNC hack that showed the games being played with the Sanders candidacy, the Wikileaks release on the paid speeches is delegitimized with one word: Russia.

    Not that Stephanopolous seemed all that reluctant to let her off the hook – he can say he brought it up, but we all know today isn't about Clinton, it's once again about Trump.

    I will say this: the town hall debate could be pretty interesting.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Russia Responds To Formal Cyberattack Accusations, Calls Them Unprecedented Anti-Russian Hysteria

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Following the first official accusation lobbed at Russia on Friday by the Department of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence on Election Security, in which US intelligence services formally stated they were "confident" that the Russian government "directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations", today Russia responded to this latest diplomatic escalation by saying that U.S. accusations that Russia was responsible for cyber attacks against Democratic Party organizations lack any proof and are an attempt by Washington to fan "unprecedented anti-Russian hysteria", the Foreign Ministry in Moscow said.

    After late on Friday the Kremlin called the U.S. allegations "nonsense", on Saturday Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, cited by Reuters , said on the ministry's website that "this whipping up of emotions regarding 'Russian hackers' is used in the U.S. election campaign, and the current U.S. administration, taking part in this fight, is not averse to using dirty tricks."

    "There is no proof whatsoever for such grave accusations," Ryabkov said. "(They are) ...fabricated by those who are now serving an obvious political order in Washington, continuing to whip up unprecedented anti-Russian hysteria."

    Ryabkov reiterated an offer to Washington, first made last year, to hold consultations on fighting cyber crime together, but he also criticized John Kerry after the U.S. Secretary of State said late on Friday that Russian and Syrian actions in the Syrian civil war, including bombings of hospitals, "beg for" a war crimes investigation.

    Such remarks are unacceptable and Moscow is disappointed to hear "new typically U.S. claims for being a global judge", Ryabkov said in comments to Interfax news agency published on Saturday.

    As Reuters adds, referring to a resolution on Syria proposed by France for debate at the United Security Council later on Saturday, he said: "Unfortunately, we see less and less common sense in the actions of Washington and Paris". The draft resolution demands an end to air strikes and military flights over Aleppo. Moscow has already said this draft is unacceptable.

    So with hopes of any joint Syrian action in tatters, and the US formally accusing Russia of being a state sponsor of cyber attacks against the US, with the chairman of the US senate cyber hacking subcommittee going so far as introducing a bill imposing sanctions on Russia after the political hacking allegations, which Russia has duly denied, the ball is now again in Obama's court, where the next step is most likely to be even more diplomatic tensions, and military escalations.

    pods: Oct 8, 2016 11:00 AM

    US policy: "When did you stop beating your wife?"

    jcaz -> RagaMuffin: Oct 8, 2016 11:14 AM

    Don't sweat it, Vlad- real America knows what this is about, and who did what.....

    [Oct 09, 2016] Banner of Russias Putin hung from New York City bridge

    Notable quotes:
    "... paging the late Sen. Joe McCarthy, we have a fifth-column crisis! I blame the Donald for mollycoddling evil commies like the Putin. ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ewmayer October 7, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    Banner of Russia's Putin hung from New York City bridge | Reuters

    Ha, the article actually uses 'the Putin', as in ' featuring the Putin dressed in a suit in front of the Russian flag with the word "Peacemaker" in capital letters' paging the late Sen. Joe McCarthy, we have a fifth-column crisis! I blame the Donald for mollycoddling evil commies like the Putin.

    polecat October 7, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    VOTE PUTIN . 'Cause he'll DO IT !'

    ewmayer October 7, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    Update on the "banner day for the Putin" – Russian friend notes similar banner was hung in Dresden, and the occasion is the Putin's birthday, 64th years young today.

    Jay M October 7, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    Hillary: Huma dear, pour me another double Stoli & tonic, stat!
    Huma: What if the schlubs hear you drink Stoli, maybe we should switch to Skyy?
    Hillary: It's what Blankfein serves, only the best.
    Huma: Maybe we should reconsider first strike, considering the caviar situation. Some VIP donors will be sucking their thumbs.
    Hillary: Memo to Blumenthal, we need a strategic caviar stockpile to last until the rubble is sorted out.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Economic Recovery Feels Weak Because the Great Recession Hasnt Really Ended

    Notable quotes:
    "... The banking and corporate elites certainly have a problem. The agenda for many decades has been to steal and rape enough from the 99% to maintain positive balance sheets and earnings per share. ..."
    "... Fewer and fewer of the 99% can now afford to pay for the promoted goods and services. It has reached a tipping point. Name one major bank that could afford to mark-to-mark its balance sheet assets. Name one S&P corporation that has shown solid earnings growth absent stock buybacks. And from here on, it only gets worse. ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    cnchal October 9, 2016 at 9:11 am

    Global debt has now reached about a hundred and fifty-two trillion dollars . This includes government debt, household debt, non-financial firms' debt. What does all this debt mean for the global financial system and for everyday people here, Michael?

    That works out to only USD $20,540 for every man, woman and child on the planet. I'm sure the debt serfs can take double or triple that.

    a different chris October 9, 2016 at 10:03 am

    Yup, barely over 2 million dollars per 1 percenter. You can barely buy a passable vacation mansion for that, let alone staff it with peons. C'mon, guys, work harder for (and borrow more from) your betters!

    apber October 9, 2016 at 9:50 am

    The banking and corporate elites certainly have a problem. The agenda for many decades has been to steal and rape enough from the 99% to maintain positive balance sheets and earnings per share.

    It has worked too well, but pure math has a way of biting the 1% in the ass.

    Fewer and fewer of the 99% can now afford to pay for the promoted goods and services. It has reached a tipping point. Name one major bank that could afford to mark-to-mark its balance sheet assets. Name one S&P corporation that has shown solid earnings growth absent stock buybacks. And from here on, it only gets worse.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Saw less than a dozen Trump Signs. Not a single Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... Saw less than a dozen Trump Signs. Not a single Hillary. And this one that I meant to steal, but we came back a different route: 2016 EVERYONE SUCKS ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    DWD October 7, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Lambert,

    Last week we spent a couple of days in Traverse City, MI (Red Wing's Camp) and I noted the yard signs in the 150 miles or so we traveled.

    Saw less than a dozen Trump Signs. Not a single Hillary. And this one that I meant to steal, but we came back a different route: 2016 EVERYONE SUCKS

    Katharine October 7, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    Don't steal it, reproduce it!

    [Oct 09, 2016] All your ISP's have been carrying NSA gear within their infrastructure for how long now

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    poeg -> junction: Oct 8, 2016 2:30 PM

    You cats haven't had end to end encryption for more than 5 years and while not at all difficult to accomplish, the resistance to using such code has amazed all in the ITSEC community not feeding at the .gov trough. All your ISP's have been carrying NSA gear within their infrastructure for how long now? Juniper's back door in their gear wasn't to push firmware updates. The whole system has been left open for a number of reasons, none of which would be capitalism, free markets or satisfied consumers.

    Kirk2NCC1701 -> junction •Oct 8, 2016 2:59 PM

    Well, if you use Yahoo, Outlook or Google mail, then you're the Village Idiot, if you use those free services for anything other than harmless, boring stuff. You know, Yoga and Cooking recipes -- like Hillary.

    IF you're serious about email privacy, use an email service that is OUTSIDE the US.

    As you know, I use Hushmail.me for my Kirk2NCC1701 handle and ZH friends. Hushmail is in Canada and after speaking with them in person, I am confident that they take their customer's Privacy seriously, especially for their paying customers. Now, I may have used a Yahoo alt-persona account, but only for "Trumping". I also may have used Google and Outlook for "vanilla" stuff, and I may have used other offshore emails for "secure" purposes where lawful business and personal privacy matters were involved (but No illegal activities, as I'm not an "illegal" type. Devious, curious, inquiring, opinionated? Hell yes. Illegal? No.)

    "Trunping" (copyright 2016, Kirk2NCC1701) -- behaving Trump-like: bombastic, pleasure-seeking, pussy-seeking, pussy-pleasuring

    Dugald -> Kirk2NCC1701 •Oct 8, 2016 5:35 PM

    Been using Pidgeon and Forked stick for years for private stuff.....

    as for my Gmail account, I don't give a shit.....

    Parrotile -> Kirk2NCC1701 •Oct 8, 2016 8:46 PM

    I very rarely need to send anything particularly confidential. My employers expect me to use the systems they provide for all "Medical in Confidence" stuff, and so since that requirement is part of my Contract, they are entirely liable for any failures, not me.

    EMail - Outlook. It works and again nothing of "interest" is ever sent. If I DO need to send information that's "Sensitive", I have one of these: -

    http://thumbs.picclick.com/00/s/OTAwWDExMTk=/z/GWMAAOSw3YNXbDD6/$/Canon-typestar-10-ii-portable-electronic-typewriter-_57.jpg

    - Which works very well, and the cartridges are easily available. Person-to-Person, or Recorded Delivery mail. Works just fine and of course NO "electronic paper trail" . . . .

    [Oct 09, 2016] tomorrow, their subscription office will be flooded with cancellations

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    John Zelnicker October 9, 2016 at 10:13 am

    BREAKING: The Alabama Media Group, publisher of the Mobile Press-Register, The Birmingham News, The Huntsville Times and other publications, as well as one of the most right wing publishers in the South, has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.

    For those who are familiar with Alabama politics (Yves?) this is yuuge.

    http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/10/endorsement_hillary_clinton.html#incart_2box

    NotTimothyGeithner October 9, 2016 at 10:50 am

    And tomorrow, their subscription office will be flooded with cancellations. The GOP hive mind simply doesn't work this way.

    When people buy newspapers for the op-eds, they want to read what they already think. The newspapers themselves are largely purchased as local papers of record or status symbols. The Union Leader endorsed Hillary, and New Hampshire isn't breaking for Hillary. The Union Leader is a huge deal.

    I know Team Blue is excited, but Palin, McCain (Team Blue seems to love his deranged positions), Shrub, Jeb, Reagan, Nixon, Rick Scott, Graham, Thurmond, Helms, Mittens…do you see where I am going?…haven't destroyed the GOP. Partisan politics matters, believe it or not. By the end of the week, every Republican outside of the ones close to retirement will have apologized and declare war on "micro aggressions."

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:56 am

    John Zelnicker
    October 9, 2016 at 10:13 am

    Once you get past the BRANDING (repub versus dem) isn't it just obvious that Hillary would have been to the comfortable with most of the repub candidates, on most issues, except for a very, very few social issues, and even there not significantly outside repub suburban norms???

    The parties in my view are the biggest impediment to critical thinking there is – their downfall can't happen soon enough.

    But I agree – this is YUUGE! Its kinda like the death of Sears.

    lyman alpha blob October 9, 2016 at 11:39 am

    I get where you coming from but is it really that surprising that an ultra right wing paper endorses an ultra right winger?

    Also breaking: water wet

    Do we still need more proof that Nader was right?

    And isn't it ironic that it took a master of kayfabe reality TV star like Trump to get so many of these supposedly partisan hacks to play it straight?

    [Oct 09, 2016] Donald Trump lewd tape is just words, while Hillary defense of 40 year old rapist of 12 girl girl is a fact

    Notable quotes:
    "... Citizens United ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Donald Trump Says Campaign Not in Crisis, and There Is 'Zero Chance I'll Quit' WSJ. Trump: "Go behind closed doors of the holier-than-thou politicians and pundits and see what they're saying. I look like a baby."

    Sex, Dice, and the Trump Tapes Corey Robin

    Can You Believe Donald Trump Did That Thing? McSweeney's

    Many men talk like Donald Trump in private. And only other men can stop them. WaPo. The difference between these many men (at least the elite ones) and Trump is that Trump aspired to political power. The implicit Democrat narrative that Trump is a uniquely pernicious outlier is ludicrous on its face, as indeed this article urges.

    Lewd Donald Trump Tape Is a Breaking Point for Many in the G.O.P. NYT. Except… This is the Republican establishment that (a) fielded 17 candidates none of whom could be bothered to do oppo even to the extent of listening to Trump's public tapes on Howard Stern, that (b) failed to fund or unify behind a candidate to stop Trump when they had the chance, and that (c) is hated by the most powerful factions in its own base. I think they're going to have to carry Trump to term.

    GOP repudiation of Trump before 11/8? If so, then what? PrawfsBlog

    Analysis: Republicans dropping Trump must answer: Why now? AP

    RNC lawyers look at options for replacing Trump Politico and RNC halts Victory project work for Trump Politico

    Paul Ryan heckled at Wisconsin festival over criticism of Trump Yahoo News.

    Donald Trump, Ohio & the GOP meltdown Cincinatti Enquirier

    Donald Trump's pastor problem: 40 percent of Protestant ministers are still undecided WaPo

    How the Golden State Became the Intellectual Capital of Trump's GOP The American Interest (Re Silc).

    Clinton-Trump battle too close to call in four swing states McClatchy. This is before Trump's hot mike eruption; in terms of peeling off Trump voters, I would like to whether non-college-educated white women have shifted.

    TV Ad Spending Reveals the States Where Trump and Clinton Are Fighting Hardest Bloomberg

    Bernie Sanders Packs Schedule With Campaign Stops for Hillary Clinton Wall Street Journal

    Hillary Clinton Is in Her Own Form of Climate Denial In These Times
    The Disastrous Failure of Lesser Evilism Counterpunch

    Howard Dean: How to Move Beyond the Two-Party System NYT. Oh, Hoho

    AP Exclusive: Job hunt substantial part of Bayh's last year AP. "Evan Bayh spent substantial time during his last year in the Senate searching for a private sector job even as he voted on issues of interest to his future corporate bosses, according to the former Indiana lawmaker's 2010 schedule." So what? Both party establishments accept the central doctrine of Citizens United , that absent a showing of quid pro quo , there's no corruption. Move along, people, move along. There's no story here.

    The Last 100 Days: Obama's Nobel Peace Prize edition Yahoo News

    temporal October 9, 2016 at 8:31 am

    I'm shocked that Trump would say rude things in private. Men (and women, don't fool yourself) being rude. Huh. Never would have seen that coming. An entire entertainment industry called comedy, especially standup, based on levels of rudeness. Can't be.

    World leaders like LBJ watching movies of animals copulating in the White House or bragging about having a Senator doing his bidding indicated by having the man's p*cker in his pocket.

    Shocked.

    Tom Denman October 9, 2016 at 9:12 am

    Yesterday John McCain again showed that he is a national treasure when he assailed Donald Trump's "demeaning comments about women." This voice of decency and reason in 1998 told a meeting of Republicans: "Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father." [1]

    McCain was joined in withdrawing support from Trump by his fellow neocon Condoleezza Rice. Rice demonstrated her superior judgement during the summer of 2001 when she systematically devalued intel that explicitly warned of an impending major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

    The Republican hawks repudiating Trump are motivated not by his attitude towards women but by his refusal to kowtow to a War Machine that has bought and paid for Hillary Clinton.

    And given that it was already universally known that Trump is a despicable lout, these defections look a lot more like part of a larger orchestrated outrage than a spontaneous reaction to the Trump tape.

    [1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/02/women.johnmccain

    mad as hell. October 9, 2016 at 9:21 am

    That is a good find! If only it would go viral!

    hreik October 9, 2016 at 9:30 am

    And then there's this:

    Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/07/report-mccains-profane-ti_n_95429.html

    Jim Haygood October 9, 2016 at 10:23 am

    So where's Ann Kirkpatrick, McCain's opponent? She hasn't even tweeted for a couple of days:

    https://twitter.com/RepKirkpatrick?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Enews%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    Nothing there but policy wonkery. *yawn*

    McShame is not even mentioned.

    clinical wasteman October 9, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair ran a great demolition series on MCain during his presidential campaign, with a lot about his disgusting behaviour towards his wife and general gilded misogyny. No link here because the theme recurred through too many articles, a lot of them the late Cockburn's wonderful Friday 'Diary' column (if you missed those at the time, look them up and start reading anywhere; also St Clair has lately revived the tradition, and his diary is almost as good), but they should be easily searchable in the Counterpunch archive. Or you could find them in AC's final book, 'A Colossal Wreck'.

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:22 am

    Tom Denman
    October 9, 2016 at 9:12 am

    I could go all Plato and shadows on the cave walls, but everything we see is filtered. Or emphasized.
    Very, very rich people, with very, very specific agendas, do the filtering and decide what you see, but more IMPORTANTLY, what you don't.

    jrs October 9, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    maybe they are just repudiating for a reason Trump if anyone on earth would understand. They don't want to be seen with a loser (when Trump loses the election).

    Robert Hahl October 9, 2016 at 8:33 am

    Re: Badgers. From Hunter S. Thompson's Rolling Stone obituary for Richard Nixon"

    "It was Richard Nixon who got me into politics, and now that he's gone, I feel lonely. He was a giant in his way. As long as Nixon was politically alive - and he was, all the way to the end - we could always be sure of finding the enemy on the Low Road. There was no need to look anywhere else for the evil bastard. He had the fighting instincts of a badger trapped by hounds. The badger will roll over on its back and emit a smell of death, which confuses the dogs and lures them in for the traditional ripping and tearing action. But it is usually the badger who does the ripping and tearing. It is a beast that fights best on its back: rolling under the throat of the enemy and seizing it by the head with all four claws.

    "That was Nixon's style - and if you forgot, he would kill you as a lesson to the others. Badgers don't fight fair, bubba. That's why God made dachshunds.

    mad as hell. October 9, 2016 at 8:53 am

    I haven't watched him in a while but I gotta feel concerned for CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Having to acknowledge the Russian punk band Pussy Riot on the air a couple of years ago. Now he has to acknowledge " grab them by the pussy" has to be causing him some anguish. Because I'm sure he has never heard that before. Then again a seven figure salary will undoubtedly sooth some of that faux disgust.

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 9:56 am

    mad as hell.
    October 9, 2016 at 8:53 am

    You know, on PBS Gwen Ifil's Washington Week in Review, a woman correspondent ACTUALLY quoted the audio tape that has Trump saying he grabs a women's "P" – except she SAID, apparently to "clean it up" a woman's "kitty cat."
    I spit up my Cabernet!!!

    Language – funny how the common name we use to name that small mammalian predator, star of countless Youtube videos, that we keep as pets also refers to womens's sexual organs – except apparently the other name we use for the small mammalian predator can also be used (at least in hip hop videos), but isn't as DIRTY…yet

    (hmmm, I thought you could only say kitty cat if you were actually referring to a…."cat" but you can't say "kitty cat" if your referring to a "P" – odd…)

    I imagine I could saaaaay any word in such a way to make it sound dirty…

    Angry Panda October 9, 2016 at 8:57 am

    Quick hits on the Trump thing.

    a) Trump's comments are, of course, deplorable. But I do not see how they are at all unexpected or out of character for Trump, especially given all the preceding stories about how he behaved on the set of The Apprentice, etc. I mean, what's next, Breaking News – Sun Rises in East as Previously Thought?

    b) If you look at the electoral map (e.g. at RealClearPolitics) and make some reasonable poll-based assumptions (e.g. Virginia and Indiana break for Kaine and Pence, respectively), you end up with exactly three contested areas of the country.

    The Southwest – Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada. Let's say those are split 50/50, although so long as Trump keeps flogging the "illegal brown rapists" horse, who knows.

    The Rust Belt-ish – the Pennsylvania-to-Wisconsin arc around the Great Lakes (Penn, Ohio, Michigan, WI, MN, minus Indiana).

    Florida.

    So basically you're looking at something like six states that are likely going to decide the whole contest, because everything else breaks 200-180 or 210-170 or some combination thereof.

    Are Trump's comments going to have any influence whatsoever on his Rust Belt vote? Or are those people voting for him because of anti-trade, anti-establishment, anti-Clinton, whatever other factors? More bluntly, are the pro-Trump women in those states going to shriek in horror at his latest crudeness, or say something like "boys will be boys, but Clinton is still worse"? I don't know. I doubt anyone in the media knows either. Maybe we'll have an inkling in 1-2 weeks with fresh sets of polls.

    Are Trump's comments going to really change the Florida-white-senior-citizen vote, or whatever bloc over there is (reportedly, per Politico) breaking 2:1 for him? I don't know. I doubt anyone in the world knows. Maybe we'll have a better view in 1-2 weeks (again).

    c) Given (a) and (b), as well as the similarly-timed Wikileaks release, as well as the similarly-timed "evil Russians are evil" release by the White House, as well as the upcoming debate…nah, I'm just going to call the whole thing a big set of coincidences and say the media is rightly focusing on the most important story of the hour and not at all willfully ignoring anything else of substance.

    NotTimothyGeithner October 9, 2016 at 10:38 am

    Lambert noted Trump is already an ugly billionaire who has made horrid statements and noted it's likely this is priced in.

    Three issues stand put:
    -it's a claim from a very bizarre person with a history of ugly statements not an accusation
    -Bill is a serial predator. Lewinsky was an intern under his power. Hillary has been part of smear campaigns and is a purveyor of violence to boot. I recall Gaddafi was widely seen being raped before his death which produced laughter. Also how many people laughed at Shrub's correspondents video where he looks for WMDs. First hand accounts of the occupations and wars have been spread for a long time now.
    -the glee from the uni-party and msm can only backfire when they are widely distrusted.

    Virginia is breaking for military contracts. Northern Virginia is largely "military Keynesianism" run amok. The vote there will break for whoever is least likely to move federal spending to other locations. They have to lay the mortgage on government salaries. Northern Virginia outside of a few small enclaves is such a dump. Without the spending, no industry will relocate there.

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 11:31 am

    British blogger John Ward (self-exiled to France, I believe) made similar and useful points today:

    * The recording is eleven years old.

    * It takes place in a locker room, where 97% of those mouthing off this morning have never been in their lives. It was the sort of male fantasy-boasting I listened to every Saturday before getting changed into my footie kit.

    * Nobody died. The US Ambassador wasn't anally raped and dragged through the streets to a grisly demise. No whistleblower was taken out with a drone.

    * It didn't take place in the offices of Goldman Sachs, it didn't take place in the Oval Office, and there were no cigars involved.

    * If American men are shocked by this kind of talk, they're either deaf or just never played sports.

    * From the day he first opened his mouth in this campaign, anyone with an iota of sensitivity could discern what kind of bloke he is: crude, narcissistic and misogynist. This tape is, therefore, not news.

    * The behaviour of his running mate evokes suspicion, I think. Mike Pence voted for Cruz in his home State, and is renowned for his nose being able to sniff a populist soundbite. Both he and Ryan (another Trump-hater in private) were quick to condemn Trump's remarks unequivocally. Senior GOP movers, however, are reputed to have told the Vice-Presidential nominee that if he dumped Trump, they would make him the Republican candidate "by acclamation".

    * The source of the story – the Washington Post – is the biggest non-surprise of all of all: the journalist involved there, David Fahrenthold, has written several stories about Trump's charitable foundation (but ignored the infinitely more septic Clinton Foundation) while casting aspersions on his mental capacity to be President (while ignoring Clinton's consistent inability to stand upright unaided.

    * Fellow Washpost blogger Richard Cohen wrote two months ago (with remarkable prescience) 'The way to hurt Trump is to ridicule him. He is a man of immense pride, a pompous bloviator and a locker-room towel-snapper. Either ignore him or ridicule him.'

    * According to the Post, Farenthold knows the identity of the person who leaked the video to him, but will not disclose it. It seems the person works for NBC, who had a team working full-time to find lewd tapes of Trump during production of their programming featuring him. I understand, however, that NBC were going to leave airing the featured extract until Monday – after the Second TV Debate – and so an activist Democrat supporter downloaded the tape and gave it to Farenthold.

    –FARENTHOLD 451: Trump's bonfire of vanities, or smoke blown in our eyes?

    I just cannot believe the level of outrage over this comments compared to the real outrages and crimes going on in the world today. Ironically, if Trump implodes, HRC will go on to win but more voters - assuming she has it safely in the bag - may vote 3rd party. In any case the victory will be a poisoned chalice. The most corrupt, dishonest, and disliked candidate as POTUS?

    Jim Haygood October 9, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Probably the best political analogy is "Bill's" Monica moment. The institutional D party reaction was, "It's just about sex."

    As for "Bill," so for Trump. If it's "just about sex," Trump's supporters (including women) will rationalize it away, just as their Democratic sisters did for "Bill."

    Those for whom it's a deal killer were opponents anyway. So nothing has really changed, except that the Clintons could end up getting hoisted on their own petard if the counterattack includes some really damning fresh dirt.

    Baby Gerald October 9, 2016 at 9:01 am

    Incredible set of links, as always and nice work by our own Richard Smith. SLPs being used to front illegal operations– who would've thought? Excellent investigative work.

    The revelations being sussed-out from the Goldman Sachs speeches could be the last straw for Hillary's campaign, tipping undecideds and ex-Sanders supporters further away from her. Public and private position, indeed. It's also an apt term to describe people who answer polls and tell their friends and colleagues they're voting for candidate A, while in fact voting for B,C, or D.

    The Trump hot-take comes as another deflection, but it seems that his base supporters could care less.

    On a lighter note, the Onion hits the nail on the head once again:

    Poll Finds 30% Of Americans Still Undecided Whether To Vote Out Of Fear Or Spite

    Tom October 9, 2016 at 9:43 am

    The selective outrage regarding Trump's boorish behavior and Hillary Clinton's bloodthirtsy and dangerous policy stances is profound.
    In 2013, Clinton says,

    "To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defenses, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk- you're going to kill a lot of Syrians," Clinton admitted. She then expressed concern that would make that "intervention that people talk about so glibly" a full-fledged "American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians."

    3 days ago, a Rueters report says:

    "In a departure from the Obama administration, [Clinton] supports the establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria and has called for an intensified air campaign by the U.S.-led coalition."

    See, it's okay when Clinton 'glibly' advocates for military escalation that is guaranteed - by her own admission - to kill innocent civilians. Like a Hindu goddess of death, she is in her rights to decide when it is acceptable to "take" civilians.

    But god forbid Trump mentions wanting to f*ck someone who he thinks is attractive. There is no place for that kind of talk in Hillary's civilized world!

    voteforno6 October 9, 2016 at 9:59 am

    Hillary Clinton said something rather vile about Gaddafi's death:

    "We Came, We Saw, He Died"

    katiebird October 9, 2016 at 10:03 am

    And this is why I will vote out of spite against her and the DNC for nominating her

    ProNewerDeal October 9, 2016 at 10:04 am

    Trump admitted to past sexual assualts, "hitting on married women by kissing them & grabbing their p***y".

    Far worse than expressing sexual desire towards another person. Agreed that HClinton is worse. Trump sexually assaulting 10s of women, is lower on the scale of moral atrocities than killing 1000s of innocent civilians.

    Speaking of killing innocent civilians, your friendly reminder that the entire Real Basket of Deplorables cohort of US politicians, including 0bama, P Ryan, HClinton, Trump; kill 45K USians/yr per Harvard Public Health Profs, by their continual blockage of Canada-style MedicareForAll, e.g. another ANNUAL killing of 1000 of innocent (USian) civilians.

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 11:35 am

    I believe part of the context is that Trump is boasting how his fame gets him a lot of beautiful women and sex. This is undoubtedly true - just look at Rupert Murdoch's recent marital history. The boasting (and vulgarity) are such a part of his personality. It's odious and I wouldn't want any of my female friends to associate with him, but compared to killing 500,000 kids with Iraqi sanctions, I'd say it's relatively unimportant in the scheme of things.

    JTMcPhee October 9, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    Henry Kissinger: "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." He got to screw Jill St. John, and a whole lot of Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, and me and my fellow troops, among others.

    We're all screwed, us ordinary people. Don't even have the option of "laying back and enjoying it." Too bad we don't have an organizing principle we can coalesce around, to defeat the parasites and mass murderers and enable a world of decency and comity and viable stability…

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 9:47 am

    So I just went to the NY Times "Politics" page at 9:30AM (Eastern Time). Here is a list of the articles, in order. For your reading pleasure or convenience, I have bolded the articles not about Donald Trump. Note their position in the list.

    Lewd Donald Trump Tape Is a Breaking Point for Many in the G.O.P.
    By JONATHAN MARTIN, MAGGIE HABERMAN and ALEXANDER BURNS

    Inside Trump Tower in Manhattan. Donald J. Trump is facing increasing pressure in his own party to end his candidacy.
    Pressure built on the candidate to withdraw from the presidential campaign as party leaders urged the G.O.P. to shift its focus to down-ballot contests.

    Donald J. Trump waves to supporters outside Trump Tower in New York on Saturday.
    NEWS ANALYSIS

    Donald Trump's Conduct Was Excused Again and Again. But Not This Time.
    By MICHAEL BARBARO and PATRICK HEALY
    It turns out that even the most self-interested members of the political class, the true weather vanes swinging in the wind, have their limits.

    Why Republicans Are Probably Stuck With Donald Trump
    By ALAN RAPPEPORT
    Unless he becomes incapacitated or quits, getting rid of him is, legally and logistically, "the equivalent of a triple bank shot."

    Donald Trump the Showman, Now Caught in the Klieg Lights
    By JIM RUTENBERG 5:00 AM ET
    Donald J. Trump deftly used the blending of news and entertainment to build a brand, and then a campaign. But all that drama has turned into a big, messy show.

    Graphic: More Than 150 Republican Leaders Don't Support Donald Trump. Here's When They Reached Their Breaking Point.
    By KAREN YOURISH, LARRY BUCHANAN and ALICIA PARLAPIANO
    Which statements caused Republicans to bail on Donald Trump.

    Presidential Debate: What to Watch For
    By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE 5:00 AM ET
    To achieve anything resembling a victory, Donald J. Trump needs to focus on the most compelling parts of his message: trade, the threat of terrorism, and the creation of jobs.

    Women React With Fury to Donald Trump's Remarks, but Some Offer Support
    By ABBY GOODNOUGH and WINNIE HU
    What to tell a 10-year-old daughter? Why hasn't Mr. Trump outgrown the locker-room talk? These are among the questions being asked across the country.

    Men Say Trump's Remarks on Sex and Women Are Beyond the Pale
    By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEŃA
    Men of many backgrounds and parts of the country had varied opinions on how men talk, but they agreed that Mr. Trump's version was unacceptable.

    Donald Trump's Long Record of Degrading Women
    By THE NEW YORK TIMES
    The candidate has a history of insulting or unwelcome conduct that goes back several decades, The New York Times has found.

    John McCain Withdraws Support for Donald Trump After Disclosure of Recording
    By ALAN RAPPEPORT
    Mr. McCain became the latest party leader to distance himself from the nominee after a recording showed Mr. Trump speaking about women in lewd and degrading terms.

    Paul Ryan, Reluctant Supporter, Weighs Response to Donald Trump's Remarks
    By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
    Mr. Ryan uninvited Mr. Trump from a rally on Saturday, and said he was "sickened" by Mr. Trump's remarks about women. But he did not withdraw his support.

    Graphic: Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell Reject Donald Trump's Words, Over and Over, but Not His Candidacy
    By LARRY BUCHANAN, ALICIA PARLAPIANO and KAREN YOURISH
    How the two top Republicans in Congress have responded to Mr. Trump's comments.

    Donald Trump Apology Caps Day of Outrage Over Lewd Tape
    By ALEXANDER BURNS, MAGGIE HABERMAN and JONATHAN MARTIN
    A vulgar discussion recorded in 2005 on a soap opera set added to evidence that Mr. Trump has a record of sexist behavior.

    Donald Trump's Apology That Wasn't
    By MAGGIE HABERMAN
    In a video expressing regret over his lewd comments, Mr. Trump remained defiant, calling the disclosure a "distraction" and used it to renew political and personal attacks on Hillary Clinton.

    Donald Trump: King of the Old Boys' Club, and Perhaps Its Destroyer
    By SUSAN DOMINUS
    A taped conversation involving the Republican nominee shows a world women rarely see, and may not forget before Election Day.

    Can't Find a Plan on HealthCare.gov? One May Be Picked for You.
    By ROBERT PEAR
    Under a new policy to make sure people maintain insurance coverage in 2017, the government may automatically enroll them.

    What Options Does the U.S. Have After Accusing Russia of Hacks?
    By DAVID E. SANGER and NICOLE PERLROTH
    Pentagon and intelligence officials have been debating how to deter future attacks while controlling the potential escalation of a cyberconflict.

    To Redefine Homestretch, Hillary Clinton Cues the Children
    By NICK CORASANITI
    "Measure," a new ad that begins with girls checking their heights against wall rulers, aims to stand out near the end of a negative campaign season.

    Leaked Speech Excerpts Show a Hillary Clinton at Ease With Wall Street
    By AMY CHOZICK, NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MICHAEL BARBARO
    According to documents posted online by WikiLeaks, Mrs. Clinton displayed an easy comfort with business and embraced unfettered trade in paid speeches to financial firms.

    Newly Released Hillary Clinton Emails Offer Glimpse at Husband's Advice
    By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ERIC LICHTBLAU
    The State Department began releasing emails the F.B.I. collected during its investigation into her use of a private email server.

    Billy Bush, a cousin of former President George W. Bush, in August.
    Billy Bush Says He's Ashamed by Lewd Talk With Donald Trump
    By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM and JOHN KOBLIN
    Mr. Bush, a cousin of President George W. Bush, said he was "less mature, and acted foolishly" in a 2005 conversation with Mr. Trump about women.

    http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/

    Imagine if the sexual harassment and rape claims against Bill Clinton were given the same amount of exposure? We know Trump is a lewd, sexist, buffoon, but it was Bill who lied for six months about getting blowjobs from a 20 year old intern in the Oval Office.

    The Guardian this morning has a huge front page spread about Trump but not a mention of the Wikileaks release of the Podesta emails.

    The MSM just don't give a shit about their credibility.

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:10 am

    Pavel
    October 9, 2016 at 9:47 am

    I just have to note this. I remember how well argued and coordinated the defense of Bill Clinton was. I believed it at first. Do you remember that he couldn't have possibly had sex in the oval office because it is sooooo busy??? (I still think the most outrageous lie is trying to convince people that the president works hard). I could imagine the president having a tryst…but in the Oval office!?!!?? don't be ridiculous.

    That people come in and out (dirty side long glance) of the oval office all day unexpectedly????
    And of course, the despicable character assassination of Monica …by "pro women" people.

    HBE October 9, 2016 at 10:44 am

    Guess what every single one of those trump articles have in common. Comments are turned off.

    Wouldn't want the plebs muddying the narrative or bringing up bill clinton would we now NYT.

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 11:37 am

    I noticed that as well. Same at the Guardian - their main anti-Trump pieces today have comments turned off. Mustn't have the "plebs" mention Bill Clinton's past or bring up the Wikileaks Podesta emails!

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 9, 2016 at 11:46 am

    Like a school lecture.

    You listen until the class is over.

    Only when you're lucky do you get a chance to ask some questions.

    [Oct 09, 2016] And why is it that all the r2p humanitarians are calling for a no-fly zone? To protect Syrians. Obviously the most humane way to do that is to 'kill a lot of Syrians'

    Notable quotes:
    "... To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk-you're going to kill a lot of Syrians. ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    tgs October 9, 2016 at 9:44 am

    Hillary: To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk-you're going to kill a lot of Syrians.

    And why is it that all the r2p humanitarians are calling for a no-fly zone? To protect Syrians. Obviously the most humane way to do that is to 'kill a lot of Syrians'.

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:12 am

    we had to destroy the village in order to save the village…

    Tom October 9, 2016 at 11:19 am

    Or to put it in Hillary-ese: It takes a village to destroy a village.

    tgs October 9, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    At least she won't use the dreaded barrel bombs. We will ensure that they die humanely via high-tech weapons.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Clinton and Podesta Wikileaks Release

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    by Lambert Strether

    naked capitalism


    From: Links 10-9-16 naked capitalism

    The WikiLeaks material is highly relevant to how Clinton would actually govern, as opposed to how she says she will govern. Because of the oddly timed release of the Trump hot mike tape, this story seems to be getting buried, so I'll go into it in some detail. First some links:

    Hillary Clinton's Wall St speeches published by Wikileaks BBC. "Published," and not "allegedly published," or "appear to reveal" (WaPo) .

    In paid speeches, Hillary Clinton said she "represented" and "had great relations" with Wall Street Salon

    Sanders supporters seethe over Clinton's leaked remarks to Wall St. Reuters

    Contradicting FBI view, Clinton's leaked speeches portray her as computer savvy McClatchy

    How the Clinton campaign decisions get made Politico

    And now some quotes. Just to underline what we aleady know :

    *CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY*

    *Clinton: "But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position."*

    (The email is a compilation of quotes from Clinton's paid speeches, not otherwise available. It begins: "Attached are the flags from HRC's paid speeches we have from HWA." The asterisked material is how the Clinton campaign staffer "flagged" the quotes they considered dangerous.) Since these quotes are from paid speeches, we can expect Clinton's private position - expect, that is, if we assume that Clinton isn't cheating her clients by failing to deliver value for money in terms of services to be rendered - to be a more accurate representation of her views than her public one. In other words, we're looking at a pitch to the donor class, when Clinton was laying the groundwork for her campaign. In an oligarchy , this would be natural.

    I believe I've mentioned to readers that my vision of the first 100 days of a Clinton administration includes a Grand Bargain, the passage of TPP, and a new war. So you can read the following as confirmation bias, if you will.

    On the Grand Bargain and Social Security (Morgan Stanley, 2013):

    But Simpson-Bowles - and I know you heard from Erskine earlier today - put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending , we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It's a three-part formula. The specifics can be negotiated depending upon whether we're acting in good faith or not [!!].

    Readers will of course be aware that the fiscal views intrinsic to Simpson-Bowles have been the perennial justification for Social Security cuts ( "the progressive give-up formula" ) and austerity generally. And if you think Democrat orthodoxy on SImpson Bowles has changed, see Robert Rubin today (below). If you buy Simpson-Bowles, you buy Social Security cuts. The policy is bad enough, but "depending upon whether we're acting in good faith or not" is, to me, the real mind-boggler.

    On trade (Banco Itau, 2013):

    Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. *"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders , some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."

    On "green," see Clinton below on climate change. On trade, anybody with a "dream" like that will not surrender TPP lightly.

    On war , Clinton said (Goldman Sachs, 2013):

    Hillary Clinton Said One Of The Problems With A No Fly Zone Would Be The Need To Take Out Syria's Air Defense, And "You're Going To Kill A Lot Of Syrians." "So we're not as good as we used to be, but we still-we can still deliver, and we should have in my view been trying to do that so we would have better insight. But the idea that we would have like a no fly zone-Syria, of course, did have when it started the fourth biggest Army in the world. It had very sophisticated air defense systems. They're getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian imports. To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk-you're going to kill a lot of Syrians. So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians." [ Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo Annual Conference, 6/4/13]

    Not that there's anything wrong with that .

    And speaking of beating the war drums, there's this gobsmacking quote on climate change (tinePublic, 2014):

    Clinton Talked About "Phony Environmental Groups" Funded By The Russians To Stand Against Pipelines And Fracking. "We were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I'm a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you, and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia." [Remarks at tinePublic, 6/18/14]

    Wowsers. I wonder what 350.org thinks about that?

    Avoiding Viruses in DNC/DCCC/CF Excel Files Another Word For It. For readers playing alone at home.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Bernie Sanders Supporters Furious Over Hillarys Leaked Wall Street Speeches

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    With the media exclusively attuned to every new, or 11-year-old as the case may be, twist in the Trump "sex tape" saga, it appeared that everyone forgot that a little over 24 hours ago, Wikileaks exposed the real reason why Hillary was keeping her Wall Street speech transcripts - which we now know had always been within easy reach for her campaign - secret. In her own words : "if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position." In other words, you have to lie to the general public while promising those who just paid you $250,000 for an hour of your speaking time something entirely different, which is precisely what those accusing Hillary of hiding her WS transcripts had done; and as yesterday's hacked documents revealed, they were right.

    The Clinton campaign refused to disavow the hacked excerpts, although it quickly tired to pin the blame again on Russia: "We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange, who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton," spokesman Glen Caplin said in a prepared statement. Previous releases have "Guccifer 2.0 has already proven the warnings of top national security officials that documents can be faked as part of a sophisticated Russian misinformation campaign."

    Ironically, it was literally minutes before the Wikileaks release of the "Podesta Files" that the US formally accused Russia of waging a hacking cyber attack on the US political establishment, almost as if it knew Wikileaks was about to make the major disclosure, and sought to minimize its impact by scapegoating Vladimir Putin.

    And while the Trump campaign tried to slam the leak, with spokesman saying "now we finally get confirmation of Clinton's catastrophic plans for completely open borders and diminishing America's influence in the world. There is a reason Clinton gave these high-paid speeches in secret behind closed doors - her real intentions will destroy American sovereignty as we know it, further illustrating why Hillary Clinton is simply unfit to be president", Trump's campaign had its own raging inferno to deal with.

    So, courtesy of what Trump said about some woman 11 years ago, in all the din over the oddly coincident Trump Tape leak, most of the noise created by the Hillary speeches was lost.

    But not all.

    According to Reuters , supporters of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Saturday " seethed ", and "expressed anger and vindication over leaked comments made by Hillary Clinton to banks and big business that appeared to confirm their fears about her support for global trade and tendency to cozy up to Wall Street. "

    Clinton, who last it emerged had slammed Bernie supporters as "basement dwellers" in a February fundraiser, with virtually no media coverage, needs Sanders' coalition of young and left-leaning voters to propel her to the presidency, pushes for open trade and open borders in one of the speeches, and takes a conciliatory approach to Wall Street , both positions she later backed away from in an effort to capture the popular appeal of Sanders' attacks on trade deals and powerful banks.

    Needless to say, there was no actualy "backing away", and instead Hillary did what he truly excels in better than most: she told the public what they wanted to hear, and will promptly reneg on once she becomes president.

    Only now, this is increasingly obvious to America's jilted youth: " this is a very clear illustration of why there is a fundamental lack of trust from progressives for Hillary Clinton," said Tobita Chow, chair of the People's Lobby in Chicago, which endorsed Sanders in the primary election.

    " The progressive movement needs to make a call to Secretary Clinton to clarify where she stands really on these issues and that's got to involve very clear renunciations of the positions that are revealed in these transcripts," Chow said.

    Good luck that, or even getting a response, even though Hillary was largely spared from providing one: as Reuters correctly observes, the revelations were immediately overshadowed by the release of an 11-year-old recording of Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, making lewd comments about women. In fact, the revelations were almost entirely ignored by the same prime time TV that has been glued to the Trump slow-motion trainwreck over the past 24 hours.

    Still, the hacked speeches could lead to further erosion in support from the so very critical to her successful candidacy, young American voter.

    Clinton has worked hard to build trust with so-called progressives, adopting several of Sanders' positions after she bested him in the primary race. The U.S. senator from Vermont now supports his former rival in the Nov. 8 general election against Trump. Still, Clinton has struggled to win support from young "millennials" who were crucial to Sanders' success, and some Democrats expressed concern that the leaks would discourage those supporters from showing up to vote.

    "That is a big concern and this certainly doesn't help," said Larry Cohen, chair of the board of Our Revolution, a progressive organization formed in the wake of Sanders' bid for the presidency, which aims to keep pushing the former candidate's ideas at a grassroots level. "It matters in terms of turnout, energy, volunteering, all those things."

    Still, despite the Trump media onslaught, the message appeared to filter through to those who would be most impacted by Hillary selling out her voters if she were to win the presidency.

    "Bernie was right about Hillary," wrote Facebook user Grace Tilly cited by Rueters, "she's a tool for Wall Street."

    "Clinton is the politicians' politician - exactly the Wall Street insider Bernie described," wrote Facebook user Brian Leach.

    Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf said progressive voters would still choose the former first lady, even with misgivings. "I'd like to meet the Bernie Sanders supporter who is going to say, 'Well I'm a little worried about her on international trade, so I'm going to vote for Donald Trump'," he said.

    He just may meet a few, especially if Bernie's supporters ask themselves why Bernie's support for Hillary remained so unwavering despite a leak confirming that Hillary was indeed all he had previously railed against.

    In a statement earlier, Sanders responded to the leak by saying that despite Hillary's paid speeches to Wall Street in which she expressed an agenda diametrically opposite to that espoused by the Vermont socialist, he reiterated his his support for the Democratic Party platform.

    "Whatever Secretary Clinton may or may not have said behind closed doors on Wall Street, I am determined to implement the agenda of the Democratic Party platform which was agreed upon by her campaign," he said in a statement.

    "Among other things, that agenda calls for breaking up the largest financial institutions in this country, re-establishing Glass-Steagall and prosecuting those many Wall Street CEOs who engaged in illegal behavior. "

    In retrospect we find it fascinating that in the aftermath of October's two big surprises served up on Friday, Sanders actually believes any of that having read through Hillary's Wall Street speeches, certainly far more fascinating than the staged disgust with Trump who, the media is suddenly stunned to find, was no more politically correct 11 year ago than he is today.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Disgusting as Trump is, I am sure not looking forward to the howls of misogyny that will be coming from the Clinton camp

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Kokuanani October 7, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    I'm surprised not to see anything here about the "political bombshell" of Trump's latest sexist remarks.

    As I listen to the talking heads bloviate about what a "death blow" this is to the Trump campaign, it occurs to me that if the Repubs could engineer Trump's withdrawal from the top of the ticket, they could probably beat Hillary with Pence. They would have to arrange it so that Trump goes agreeably - should not be too hard to do, since many doubt if he WANTS to be president - and Pence could pledge that he would carry forward all of Trump's wonderful Screw the Establishment policies. Trump without the messy Trump_vs_deep_states.

    Disgusting as Trump is, I'm sure not looking forward to the howls of misogyny that will be coming from the Clinton camp. And, just another distraction from talking about policy.

    Waldenpond October 7, 2016 at 6:41 pm

    1. Clinton is corrupt (again), liar (still), dishonest (again), warmonger (still) etc. Trump is racist(still), bigot (again), misogynist (still), Hitler (Putin, Ahmedinejad)…. gets tedious after the 20th time.

    2. I think Trump does it on purpose as a response to a Clinton dump. It looks like her GS speeches are out today so the networks can cover Trump's latest bigoted statement and ignore Clinton insulting the voters and sucking up to the oligarchs.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Trump angst looms over economic elite at IMF meetings

    Notable quotes:
    "... "In my lifetime I cannot remember anything like the scepticism about these values that we see today," said Suma Chakrabarti, president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. ..."
    "... There was much discussion this week about the underlying causes of that scepticism - low growth, stagnant wages and other scars of the 2008 global financial crisis - together with calls for governments to do more to ensure the benefits of globalisation are distributed more widely. ..."
    "... Lou Jiwei, China's finance minister, told reporters on Friday, the current "political risks" would in the immediate future lead only to "superficial changes" for the global economy. But underlying them was a deeper trend of "deglobalisation". ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.ft.com
    The world's economic elite spent this week invoking fears of protectionism and the existential crisis facing globalisation

    .... ... ...

    Mr Trump has raised the possibility of trying to renegotiate the terms of the US sovereign debt much as he did repeatedly with his own business debts as a property developer. He also has proposed imposing punitive tariffs on imports from China and Mexico and ripping up existing US trade pacts.

    ... ... ...

    "Once a tariff has been imposed on a country's exports, it is in that country's best interest to retaliate, and when it does, both countries end up worse off," IMF economists wrote.

    It is not just angst over Mr Trump. There are similar concerns over Brexit and the rise of populist parties elsewhere in Europe. All present their own threats to the advance of the US-led path of economic liberalisation pursued since Keynes and his peers gathered at Bretton Woods in 1944.

    "In my lifetime I cannot remember anything like the scepticism about these values that we see today," said Suma Chakrabarti, president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

    There was much discussion this week about the underlying causes of that scepticism - low growth, stagnant wages and other scars of the 2008 global financial crisis - together with calls for governments to do more to ensure the benefits of globalisation are distributed more widely.

    Lou Jiwei, China's finance minister, told reporters on Friday, the current "political risks" would in the immediate future lead only to "superficial changes" for the global economy. But underlying them was a deeper trend of "deglobalisation".

    ... ... ...

    [Oct 09, 2016] The Week Globalists Started to Panic

    Notable quotes:
    "... Weak global trade, fears that the U.K. is marching towards a hard Brexit , and polls indicating that the U.S. election remains a tighter call than markets are pricing in have led a bevy of analysts to redouble their warnings that a backlash over globalization is poised to roil global financial markets-with profound consequences for the real economy and investment strategies. ..."
    "... From the economists and politicians at the annual IMF meeting in Washington to strategists on Wall Street trying to advise clients, everyone seems to be pondering a future in which cooperation and global trade may look much different than they do now. ..."
    "... "The main risk with potentially tough negotiating tactics is that trade partners could panic, especially if global coordination evaporates." ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.bloomberg.com
    Weak global trade, fears that the U.K. is marching towards a hard Brexit , and polls indicating that the U.S. election remains a tighter call than markets are pricing in have led a bevy of analysts to redouble their warnings that a backlash over globalization is poised to roil global financial markets-with profound consequences for the real economy and investment strategies.

    From the economists and politicians at the annual IMF meeting in Washington to strategists on Wall Street trying to advise clients, everyone seems to be pondering a future in which cooperation and global trade may look much different than they do now.

    Brexit

    Suggestions that the U.K. will prioritize control over its migration policy at the expense of open access to Europe's single market in negotiations to leave the European Union-a strategy that's being dubbed a "hard Brexit"-loomed large over global markets. The U.K. government is "strongly supportive of open markets, free markets, open economies, free trade," said Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond during a Bloomberg Television interview in New York on Thursday. "But we have a problem-and it's not just a British problem, it's a developed-world problem-in keeping our populations engaged and supportive of our market capitalism, our economic model."

    Trade

    Citing the rising anti-trade sentiment, analysts from Bank of America Merrill Lynch warned that "events show nations are becoming less willing to cooperate, more willing to contest," and a backlash against inequality is likely to trigger more activist fiscal policies. Looser government spending in developed countries-combined with trade protectionism and wealth redistribution-could reshape global investment strategies, unleashing a wave of inflation, the bank argued, amid a looming war against inequality.

    U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew did his part to push for more openness. During an interview in Washington on Thursday, he said that efforts to boost trade, combined with a more equitable distribution of the fruits of economic growth, are key to ensuring U.S. prosperity. Rolling back on globalization would be counterproductive to any attempt to boost median incomes, he added.

    Trump

    Without mentioning him by name, Lew's comments appeared to nod to Donald Trump, who some believe could take the U.S. down a more isolationist trading path should he be elected president in November. "The emergence of Donald Trump as a political force reflects a mood of growing discontent about immigration, globalization and the distribution of wealth," write analysts at Fathom Consulting, a London-based research firm. Their central scenario is that a Trump administration might be benign for the U.S. economy. "However, in our downside scenario, Donald Dark, global trade falls sharply and a global recession looms. In this world, isolationism wins, not just in the U.S., but globally," they caution.

    Analysts at Standard Chartered Plc agree that the tail risks of a Trump presidency could be significant. "The main risk with potentially tough negotiating tactics is that trade partners could panic, especially if global coordination evaporates." They add that business confidence could take a big hit in this context. "The global trade system could descend into a spiral of trade tariffs, reminiscent of what happened after the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 , and ultimately a trade war, possibly accompanied by foreign-exchange devaluations; this would be a 'lose-lose' deal for all."

    Market participants are also concerned that populism could take root under a Hillary Clinton administration. "We believe the liberal base's demands on a Clinton Administration could lead to an overly expansive federal government with aggressive regulators," write analysts at Barclays Plc. "If the GOP does not unify, Clinton may expand President Obama's use of executive authority to accomplish her goals."

    [Oct 09, 2016] Some of Clintons pledges sound great. Until you remember whos president

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton and husband Bill will turn the White House and the U.S. Government into their personal bank. ..."
    "... If the American electorate selects Hillary as their commander and chief she will immediately demand a No-Fly Zone over Syria. She will impose more economic sanctions on Russia, including an increase in NATO strength on Russia's western borders, just to show she is the Queen bitch. She will give israHell carte blanche to increase and expand further abuse in the Gaza strip. She is a woman scorned. And a very dangerous one. ..."
    "... [neo]Liberalism is in terminal decline, and not a moment too soon. ..."
    "... Hillary does not have any creative spark at all. She, like Obama is a dud, but one thing is for sure, she is not Donald. ..."
    "... These same americans should go back, for once, to his 2008 campaign to defeat first Hillary in the primaries and then the republican McCain. ..."
    "... The climate was dominated by the financial meltdown, which really started in the summer of 2007 and was evident by early spring of 2008. Hillary was the candidate of Wall Street, according to Obama, the republicans were one and the same with Wall Street and all the big corporate world, he was Hope and Change. ..."
    "... Hope? What hope? And even more: change, what change? There has been little change, if almost half of the nation is now ready to accept Trump as a promise of change. Obama's main financial support came in 2008 from Wall Street, hedge funds in particular, and they were right because nobody like the first Afro-American president, himself inevitably the incarnation of progressivism, could save their ass after all the criminal finance they indulged in. ..."
    "... So, Obama's inheritance is a problem, and Hillary is running on Obama's inheritance. ..."
    "... Robert Kagan, ringleader of the cabal of neo-cons has endorsed Hillary, who is Roberts wife? why bless me if it isn't Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland, ..."
    "... Samantha Powers is a neo-con acolyte, Ashton Carter is too, the State Dept. and the council of foreign relations is riddled with their people, all the horror figures of Dubya's days are lurking there and pulling strings, ..."
    "... Kerry isn't really a neo-con, but the Pentagon and CIA sabotage anything half decent he tries to do, ..."
    "... Basically Hillary is as genuine, left leaning and honest as Tony Blair.... ..."
    "... Also remember the lack of believability of Hillary. She is a politician that has been caught in lies so often that people just don't believe her. She pushed the soda tax in Philly until Coca-Cola complained that they gave too much money to the Foundation to be treated that way. Hillary backed off. She made millions from speaking to Big Banks. So we really believe she will go after Wells Fargo? She is beholden to them (unless Goldman Sachs gets to choose). She says raise taxes to pay fair share, but her biggest supporters are Apple, Google, and their executives that keep billions of income overseas to avoid the highest corporate income tax in the world. Do we really think she will hurt the contributors to the Foundation? And the more the email saga plays out, the longer the untrustworthy issue remains in everyone's mind. MonotonousLanguor , 2016-10-07 20:58:06 Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton will hold anyone on Wall Street accountable??? She is bought and paid for by Wall Street, starting with all the green backs Hillary and Bill stuffed in their pockets from the those speaking fees. Obama's Justice Department motto was, Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail. The Democrats are not going to bite their masters on Wall Street, and of course neither will the Republicans. IanB52 -> NoctilucentGinswig , 2016-10-07 20:41:06 Prosecuting bankers, prosecuting torturers, stopping white collar crime, wars, assassinations, warrantless spying and even scheduling of Marijuana are all under the control of the Executive Branch. Find even one of these where the President did the right thing. Uncle Putin , 2016-10-07 20:26:49 This is exactly what I was thinking during the first presidential debate. Hillary is an old pro at saying all the right things, pushing all the right buttons to get the votes she needs, but can you believe much of what she says? ..."
    "... This is why, despite a poor debate performance overall, I thought Trump was spot on when he simply said she was a typical politician--all talk, no action, sounds great, none of it will ever happen. He's correct. ..."
    "... What Frank seldom writes of but remains extremely important to many people on the left in the US is that Obama has governed as the effective prisoner of the Pentagon and security establishment. His wars (including on whistleblowers), nuclear build-up, and confrontation with Russia have given added momentum to growing neoconservative bipartisan consensus that will likely see a new President Clinton start a war with Russia in Syria and/or Ukraine. ..."
    "... The Democrats are now both so neoliberal and so neoconservative that the only thing that differentiates them from Republicans is social progressivism. Given a choice between the latter and greatly increased likelihood of nuclear war, I have to confess to preferring that Trump win. Trump has been consistent in wanting to lessen tensions with Russia. ..."
    "... Not even social progressivism, so much as a set of captive client constituencies whom they name-drop and weaponize. ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Thomas Frank

    The Guardian

    The puzzle that is currently frustrating the pundit minds of America is this: why is Hillary Clinton not simply clobbering Donald Trump? How is this ranting, seething buffoon still competitive with her? Trump has now stumbled through a series of the kind of blunders that break ordinary political campaigns – the sort of deadly hypocrisies that always kill the demagogue in old movies – and yet this particular demagogue keeps on trucking. Why?

    Let us answer that burning pundit question of today by jumping to what will undoubtedly be the next great object of pundit ardor: the legacy of President Barack Obama. Two months from now, when all the TV wise men are playing historian and giving their estimation on where Obama ranks in the pantheon of the greats, they will probably neglect to mention that his legacy helped to determine Hillary's fortunes in this election cycle.

    "As a beloved figure among Democrats, for example, Obama was instrumental in securing the nomination for her. As a president who has accomplished little since 2011, however, Obama has pretty much undermined Clinton's ability to sell us on another centrist Democratic presidency. His legacy has diluted her promise

    …. Or take this headline from just a few days ago: "Clinton promises to hold Wells Fargo accountable". Go get 'em, Hillary! To see a president get tough with elite bankers and with CEOs in general – that's something we can all cheer for. But then that nagging voice piped up again: if Democrats think it is so critical to get tough with crooked banksters, why oh why didn't Barack Obama take the many, many opportunities he had to do so back in the days when it would have really mattered?"

    Senator Elizabeth Warren pronounced on the current state of middle America as follows:

    Look around. Americans bust their tails, some working two or three jobs, but wages stay flat. Meanwhile, the basic costs of making it from month to month keep going up. Housing, healthcare, child care – costs are out of sight. Young people are getting crushed by student loans. Working people are in debt. Seniors can't stretch a social security check to cover the basics.

    It was a powerful indictment of what Warren called a "rigged" system – except for one thing: that system is presided over by Barack Obama, a man that same Democratic convention was determined to apotheosize as one of the greatest politicians of all times.

    The larger problem facing them is the terminal irrelevance of their great, overarching campaign theme. Remember the "man from Hope"? "Hope is on the way"? "Keep hope alive"? Well, this year "hope" is most assuredly dead. Thanks to Obama's flagrant hope-dealing in the dark days of 2008 – followed up by his failure to reverse the disintegration of the middle class – this favorite Democratic cliché has finally become just that: an empty phrase.

    dalepues , 2016-10-08 03:43:57
    Hillary Clinton and husband Bill will turn the White House and the U.S. Government into their personal bank.
    ID8737013 , 2016-10-08 03:12:16
    If the American electorate selects Hillary as their commander and chief she will immediately demand a No-Fly Zone over Syria. She will impose more economic sanctions on Russia, including an increase in NATO strength on Russia's western borders, just to show she is the Queen bitch. She will give israHell carte blanche to increase and expand further abuse in the Gaza strip. She is a woman scorned. And a very dangerous one.
    marxmarv , 2016-10-08 01:14:18
    [neo]Liberalism is in terminal decline, and not a moment too soon. It's far past time we redeveloped a politics of interests rather than this Christianised values sham.
    bobkolker , 2016-10-08 00:16:15
    Hillary will win because she is not Trump. If she wins it is another 4 Obama like years and it is Bill's Third Term in Office. Hillary does not have any creative spark at all. She, like Obama is a dud, but one thing is for sure, she is not Donald.
    cilina2011 , 2016-10-07 22:16:45
    I find Thomas Frank's piece very good.

    Too many americans are mesmerized by the fact that Obama is young and articulate, plays well the presidential role, is generally speaking what is called a nice person or at least behaves formally as if he were one, has but only of late (thanks to Hillary and Trump perhaps, by contrast) a fairly high popularity score.

    These same americans should go back, for once, to his 2008 campaign to defeat first Hillary in the primaries and then the republican McCain.

    The climate was dominated by the financial meltdown, which really started in the summer of 2007 and was evident by early spring of 2008. Hillary was the candidate of Wall Street, according to Obama, the republicans were one and the same with Wall Street and all the big corporate world, he was Hope and Change.

    Hope? What hope? And even more: change, what change? There has been little change, if almost half of the nation is now ready to accept Trump as a promise of change. Obama's main financial support came in 2008 from Wall Street, hedge funds in particular, and they were right because nobody like the first Afro-American president, himself inevitably the incarnation of progressivism, could save their ass after all the criminal finance they indulged in.

    And Obama did save their skin, as everybody knows. Obama took on board plenty of Clinton (and Wall Street) people, starting in June 2008, when Hillary was finished. You cannot change that much after the financial crisis if you take Lawrence Summers as economic top advisor and you install young Geithner at the Treasury. Paul Volcker, who inspired so many good and useful judgements for candidate Obama, was put in the closet.

    Obama is a lawyer by education and he knows who is the best customer. That's not the man or the woman of Main Street. To them, some of them, he gave Obamacare, which is not all bad and something of it will remain, I think, but it's not at all that major reform he has been boasting about. By november 8 everybody will know that Obamacare has serious problems.

    So, Obama's inheritance is a problem, and Hillary is running on Obama's inheritance.

    And Thomas Frank is right.

    MattThePleb , 2016-10-07 22:05:27
    nice to see the Guardian have a moment of clarity!

    I do feel sympathy for Obama, he, and his family, have effectively spent 8 years held hostage in the White House by those perfidious neo-conservatives,

    they existed in Ronnie Raygun's day but he laughed at them, G H Bush referred to them as 'the crazies in the basement' and kept close tabs on them,

    they were happily meddling away during Bill Clintons era helping destroy Yugoslavia and furiously planning their 'Project for a New American Century' PNAC basically a blueprint and justification for every shitty thing done since,

    G W Bush let loose the neo-cons of war and we know what they've done,

    Barack Obama's greatest folly was to not round them up on the first day of his presidency, put them in a sack with a brick and throw them in the river,

    they have infested his government and followed their own agenda whilst laughing at him, so the story goes, at a private dinner party Barack was asked why he wasn't doing anything to thwart these shits and his reply was 'you saw what they did to MLK'

    now at the transition to Clinton these neo-cons are actively endorsing her, they consider her 'their girl' Clinton may well turn out to be George 'Dubya' with tits,

    Robert Kagan, ringleader of the cabal of neo-cons has endorsed Hillary, who is Roberts wife? why bless me if it isn't Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland,

    Samantha Powers is a neo-con acolyte, Ashton Carter is too, the State Dept. and the council of foreign relations is riddled with their people, all the horror figures of Dubya's days are lurking there and pulling strings,

    Kerry isn't really a neo-con, but the Pentagon and CIA sabotage anything half decent he tries to do,

    Elizabeth Warren as VP would have given Hillary great credibility but she is explicitly not a neo-conservative,

    Basically Hillary is as genuine, left leaning and honest as Tony Blair....

    and people wonder why they pin their last tatter of hope Donald 'Mr Bombastic' Trump?

    much as I find Trump and his hardcore supporters loathsome I have to point out that he has:

    expressed interest in talking with and working with Putin as opposed to starting WW3

    accepted the concept of climate change (massive move for a Republican) but pointed out nuclear war is an even greater and more immediate threat,

    pointed out the expenditure of 5-6 Trillion dollars on pointless wars whilst the country crumbles to ruins, basically a third of the US national debt run up in 15 years,

    the fact he wants to make America great again is because he acknowledges that it isn't great atm,

    he's pointed out that Hillary makes all these pledges but has been in a position of power for decades and has done sod all about it,

    and the establishment , especially the neo-cons absolutely hate him...

    if you're going to hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil maybe chauvinism and casual racism are those lesser evils,

    LGBT rights will not defend you from nuclear bombs, the heat flash that vaporises you is fairly indifferent to skin colour or religion,

    lvtaxman , 2016-10-07 22:01:35
    Also remember the lack of believability of Hillary. She is a politician that has been caught in lies so often that people just don't believe her. She pushed the soda tax in Philly until Coca-Cola complained that they gave too much money to the Foundation to be treated that way. Hillary backed off.

    She made millions from speaking to Big Banks. So we really believe she will go after Wells Fargo? She is beholden to them (unless Goldman Sachs gets to choose).

    She says raise taxes to pay fair share, but her biggest supporters are Apple, Google, and their executives that keep billions of income overseas to avoid the highest corporate income tax in the world. Do we really think she will hurt the contributors to the Foundation?

    And the more the email saga plays out, the longer the untrustworthy issue remains in everyone's mind.

    MonotonousLanguor , 2016-10-07 20:58:06
    Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton will hold anyone on Wall Street accountable??? She is bought and paid for by Wall Street, starting with all the green backs Hillary and Bill stuffed in their pockets from the those speaking fees.

    Obama's Justice Department motto was, Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail. The Democrats are not going to bite their masters on Wall Street, and of course neither will the Republicans.

    IanB52 -> NoctilucentGinswig , 2016-10-07 20:41:06
    Prosecuting bankers, prosecuting torturers, stopping white collar crime, wars, assassinations, warrantless spying and even scheduling of Marijuana are all under the control of the Executive Branch. Find even one of these where the President did the right thing.
    Uncle Putin , 2016-10-07 20:26:49
    This is exactly what I was thinking during the first presidential debate. Hillary is an old pro at saying all the right things, pushing all the right buttons to get the votes she needs, but can you believe much of what she says?

    This is why, despite a poor debate performance overall, I thought Trump was spot on when he simply said she was a typical politician--all talk, no action, sounds great, none of it will ever happen. He's correct.

    Hillary is promising all sorts of things that she knows will never come to fruition. I voted for Obama twice, but I'm chomping at the bit to vote for Trump, for no other reason then the fact that he is the true outsider here. It's a gamble for sure, but with the right advisors he could potentially institute some major changes that will never happen under a cautious Hillary who will be obsessed with re-election the minute she starts her first term.

    Wayne Waxman , 2016-10-07 20:02:39
    What Frank seldom writes of but remains extremely important to many people on the left in the US is that Obama has governed as the effective prisoner of the Pentagon and security establishment. His wars (including on whistleblowers), nuclear build-up, and confrontation with Russia have given added momentum to growing neoconservative bipartisan consensus that will likely see a new President Clinton start a war with Russia in Syria and/or Ukraine.

    The Democrats are now both so neoliberal and so neoconservative that the only thing that differentiates them from Republicans is social progressivism. Given a choice between the latter and greatly increased likelihood of nuclear war, I have to confess to preferring that Trump win. Trump has been consistent in wanting to lessen tensions with Russia.

    As a voter, of course, I could vote for neither, and so am voting for Jill Stein.

    marxmarv Wayne Waxman , 2016-10-08 01:26:45
    Not even social progressivism, so much as a set of captive client constituencies whom they name-drop and weaponize.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Why I Am Having Nightmares About the Coming Election

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    The American Conservative

    Thus my nightmares about the coming election. Consider:

    Trump: He promises to "make America great again." ("Deutschland uber alles," anyone?) He rants against immigrants and Muslims and conniving foreign nations like Mexico and China. (Jews and gypsies get a pass this time.) He is a bully. He promises hope to those who have been left behind economically and socially. He attracts huge and very devoted crowds at his rallies. He has no coherent program, at least yet-you have to believe in him as a great leader.

    Whom does he remind you of, at least vaguely?

    Clinton: She is secretive to a fault, perhaps paranoid in her pursuit of power. There are hints of hidden illnesses, so reminiscent of Uncle Joe. An unhidden lust for money at any cost. Considering "two for the price of one" (Bill and Hill), there are the key operatives who conveniently die when in disfavor. They do not hesitate to use the Justice Department, and especially the IRS, to persecute opponents. She runs a tight operation, as secretive as she is personally, and has an ideological platform for totally transforming America.

    Whom does she remind you of, at least vaguely?

    Again, let me be clear. I do not think Trump has a holocaust in mind; he is just an opportunist using "the other" both domestically and abroad to gain power. And I do not think Clinton has the stamina for sustained great purges and great gulags. Yes, she has a lust for power, but she has even more lust for getting rich through politics. She can be bought, and has been, constantly.

    It is these characteristics, however, that are so disturbing. They build on what has come before, but suggest a revolutionary escalation. Every president during my lifetime has added to the power of the American empire and the deep state, but now we seem to be at an unprecedented and transformative junction.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Stop the presses: Donald has no problem with acting like a classless pig!

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    cwaltz October 7, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/ar-BBx95Fw?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

    Just in case anyone was disabused of the idea that Donald has no problem with acting like a classless pig!

    NY Union Guy October 7, 2016 at 8:44 pm

    This may actually help the Donald mobilize his base of pissed-off white guys. I mean, how do you think they talk about women in their locker rooms, truck stops, and on the unemployment line?

    polecat October 7, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    ..And of course women NEVER engage in harsh or lewd conversations ….. when referencing the male of the species .. am I right ?

    cwaltz October 7, 2016 at 9:21 pm

    I don't recall those women actually being on the ballot for president.

    Good to know you wouldn't be offended to hear a bunch of women treat you like a piece of meat and brag about how they attempted to "nail you" even ignoring the fact that you were married? Nothing offensive there right? You'd love it if women spent their time looking at your pants straining to figure out the size of the bulge so they can discuss it in detail instead of I don't know, actually listening to you? It's classy and professional behavior(and yes Donald was there for work).

    Hey, I do have to respect that you've adopted his strategy also of excusing his behavior by making this all about everyone else too- incredibly adult. The "mommy they did it first" defense utilized by Donald Trump, his defenders and 3 to 7 year olds throughout the US.

    *shakes head at the immaturity*

    cwaltz October 7, 2016 at 9:24 pm

    Women are half the electorate. He already had the male vote. He needs the female vote.

    I'd like to congratulate him for showing the female half of the species how absolutely disrespectful and creepy he is.

    Otis B Driftwood October 7, 2016 at 9:45 pm

    Right. Stop the presses. Trump is lascivious. That's news to who, exactly?

    And what's next? We learn that Trump sometimes farts in public? Or worse, lets go the occasional SBD? "Revealed" to deflect the latest revelation of Clinton greed and corruption, I'm sure.

    Sheesh … what a low, debased and sad spectacle all around.

    [Oct 09, 2016] But for all Trump's many faults and flaws, he saw things that were true and important-and that few other leaders in his party have acknowledged in the past two decades

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.theatlantic.com

    "But for all Trump's many faults and flaws, he saw things that were true and important-and that few other leaders in his party have acknowledged in the past two decades" [David Frum, The Atlantic ].

    Trump saw that Republican voters are much less religious in behavior than they profess to pollsters. He saw that the social-insurance state has arrived to stay. He saw that Americans regard healthcare as a right, not a privilege. He saw that Republican voters had lost their optimism about their personal futures-and the future of their country. He saw that millions of ordinary people who do not deserve to be dismissed as bigots were sick of the happy talk and reality-denial that goes by the too generous label of "political correctness." He saw that the immigration polices that might have worked for the mass-production economy of the 1910s don't make sense in the 2010s. He saw that rank-and-file Republicans had become nearly as disgusted with the power of money in politics as rank-and-file Democrats long have been. He saw that Republican presidents are elected, when they are elected, by employees as well as entrepreneurs. He saw these things, and he was right to see them.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Hillary is not clobbering Donald because we have a moribund democracy

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    hreik October 7, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Lol. Hillary isn't clobbering Donald b/c we have a moribund democracy.
    http://ahtribune.com/us/2016-election/1232-hillary-clinton-democracy.html?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default

    shinola October 7, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    Thanks for the link. Interesting and depressing. A snippet:

    " Oligarchy is rule by the few. Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy. Corporatocracy is a society governed or controlled by corporations. We have all three."

    [Oct 09, 2016] Litany of lies, corruption, deceit and infamy

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Kathleen Lake 9m ago 1 2 Hillary, we believe Assange not you and you have earned out contempt. It's sickening to know isn't it, that almost ANY anonymous hacker has more credibility than she who pretends to the throne (and in Clinton's case it is a monarchy not a democracy as thev"line of succession" was determined long before even one vote was cast). Thanks for allowing your (lack of) character to give us one more entry into you litany of lies, corruption, deceit and infamy.", hillary. I will not vote for corruption, lies and oil wars, so I will not vote you... ever. David Stalker 11m ago 0 1 Well what with Bill Clinton gaining the presidency and Hillary the secretary of state position along with the wealth they have generated how could they be none other than establishment for those not familiar with that phrase. and i quote from wikipedia. The Establishment generally denotes a dominant group or elite that holds power or authority in a nation or organization. The Establishment may be a closed social group which selects its own members or specific entrenched elite structures, either in government or in specific institutions. And as such my view is she will get the job as President. eldudeabides 14m ago 1 2 In public we hear her yarn about being against TTIP.....in private, the opposite.

    She is not to be believed on any issue.

    she is the puppet of her neoliberalist masters. centerline 16m ago 1 2 The wikileaks release here
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release
    The Podesta Emails; Part One

    ....In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.

    As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.

    sblejo 1h ago 3 4 How can anyone trust Clinton and CO. when they undermined Bernie Sanders, of their own party, because he was winning??? Despicable, disreputable, dishonest, power hungry, corrupt. What else can be said about her and her ilk. And then they blame Russia for exposing the treachery, Americans, so easily led, ignored the truth of the situation. Americans, still do not admit the ugly truth, voting for power rather than ethics. Incredible, she is the other side of the Trump coin. Confucion 2h ago 3 4

    "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally here.

    No difference between Trump and Hillary. They are pathological liars, sociopath and extremely sick minds.

    They can be caught constantly in their bad deeds but yet they still US presidential candidates.

    Time ago people will reject slavery, injustice and abuse. Today it is laissez faire, laissez passer because US people became zombies. Hopeless of hopeless. europeangrayling 2h ago 8 9 It does not matter, people who support Hillary they support Hillary. Does not matter, either they don't believe it, it's right wing conspiracy, or it's OK, nothing wrong with it.

    She has a 'private and public position', that's Hillary, she is so smart and experienced. She is for TPP, then against TPP in the primary, now we see 'her private position' is as many 'free trade' deals as we can, they are fine with it. There was survey that says over 70% of Americans don't know what the TPP is, so that makes sense. She even said she supports cutting SS and raising retirement age in a speech, called it 'sensible'.

    Hillary's support for the Iraq war, Libya, supporting the Saudis in Yemen and Syria, LIkud in Israel, the Honduras coup of a democratic government helped greatly by the US, that she admitted and advocated for in her book, but then took it out in the new paper back version.

    Where now environmental Native American activists and regime critics are being killed by the new regime, and there's a lot more violence in general, but the new regime is friendly' to western corporate interests and Hillary donors, so Hillary loves it, still says there was no coup at all. Even as the EU and our ambassador to Honduras said it was a coup.

    I don't know why, but that Honduras thing really hit me, and Berta Cáceres's murder. I mean Hillary is ruthless, or is so detached from reality of life and what these policies and politics do to regular people, I don't know. Just like Cheney, so it makes sense that Wolfowitz and the neocons support her too. But the Honduras things alone, I can't vote for all that.

    [Oct 09, 2016] A Real Life House of Cards - The Most Striking WikiLeaks Revelations From The Podesta Files Zero Hedge

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Yesterday we pointed out the many amazing one-liners offered up by Hillary as she was out collecting millions of dollars for her "Wall Street speeches." Here is an expanded sample:

    Hillary Clinton: "I'm Kind Of Far Removed" From The Struggles Of The Middle Class "Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy." "And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it." [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]

    Hillary Clinton Said There Was "A Bias Against People Who Have Led Successful And/Or Complicated Lives," Citing The Need To Divese Of Assets, Positions, And Stocks. "SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that. He said, you know, when he came to Washington, he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he had a small -- MR. BLANKFEIN: That's how you have a small fortune, is you go to Washington. SECRETARY CLINTON: You go to Washington. Right. But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]

    Hillary Clinton Noted President Clinton Had Spoken At The Same Goldman Summit Last Year, And Blankfein Joked "He Increased Our Budget." "SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, thanks for having me here and giving me a chance to know a little bit more about the builders and the innovators who you've gathered. Some of you might have been here last year, and my husband was, I guess, in this very same position. And he came back and was just thrilled by- MR. BLANKFEIN: He increased our budget. SECRETARY CLINTON: Did he? MR. BLANKFEIN: Yes. That's why we -- SECRETARY CLINTON: Good. I think he-I think he encouraged you to grow it a little, too. But it really was a tremendous experience for him, so I've been looking forward to it and hope we have a chance to talk about a lot of things." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]

    Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees "Were Not Mostly Permitted To Have Handheld Devices." "You know, when Colin Powell showed up as Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn't even have computers on their desks. When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have handheld devices. I mean, so you're thinking how do we operate in this new environment dominated by technology, globalizing forces? We have to change, and I can't expect people to change if I don't try to model it and lead it." [Clinton Speech For General Electric's Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]

    Clinton Joked It's "Risky" For Her To Speak To A Group Committed To Futures Markets Given Her Past Whitewater Scandal. "Now, it's always a little bit risky for me to come speak to a group that is committed to the futures markets because -- there's a few knowing laughs -- many years ago, I actually traded in the futures markets. I mean, this was so long ago, it was before computers were invented, I think. And I worked with a group of like-minded friends and associates who traded in pork bellies and cotton and other such things, and I did pretty well. I invested about a thousand dollars and traded up to about a hundred thousand. And then my daughter was born, and I just didn't think I had enough time or mental space to figure out anything having to do with trading other than trading time with my daughter for time with the rest of my life. So I got out, and I thought that would be the end of it." [Remarks to CME Group, 11/18/13]

    Hillary Clinton Said Jordan Was Threatened Because "They Can't Possibly Vet All Those Refugees So They Don't Know If, You Know, Jihadists Are Coming In Along With Legitimate Refugees." "So I think you're right to have gone to the places that you visited because there's a discussion going on now across the region to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by extremism and particularly with Syria which has everyone quite worried, Jordan because it's on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can't possibly vet all those refugees so they don't know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason." [Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon, 10/28/13]

    Hillary Clinton Said The Saudis Opposed The Muslim Brotherhood, "Which Is Kind Of Ironic Since The Saudis Have Exported More Extreme Ideology Than Any Other Place On Earth Over The Course Of The Last 30 Years." "And they are getting a lot of help from the Saudis to the Emiratis-to go back to our original discussion-because the Saudis and the Emiratis see the Muslim Brotherhood as threatening to them, which is kind of ironic since the Saudis have exported more extreme ideology than any other place on earth over the course of the last 30 years." [2014 Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner, 10/28/13]

    Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

    Meanwhile, there are plenty of other great email exchanges as well.

    The following exchange comes from the President of the Soros-funded " Open Society Foundation " (we previously wrote about the society's plan to "Enlarge electorate by at least 10 million voters" here ) who offers some advice on "police reform." The email points Podesta to an article previously written by the Open Society Foundation , ironically titled " Get the Politics Out of Policing ." Surprisingly, Stone points out that the problem isn't a lack of independence by police but by politicians:

    The problem is not a lack of independence just from the police , but independence from city politics. Since 2007, Chicago has had an agency separate from the police to investigate officer-involved shootings, but the "independent" agency (the Independent Police Review Authority, or IPRA) is still under the mayor, and generally retreats from any investigation that might lead to criminal charges. Until we get investigations of cases like this out of the hands of politicians, even the best policies a police chief can impose won't change the culture.

    Well that seemed to backfire. To summarize, Stone says don't do exactly what the FBI did in its investigation of Hillary's email scandal.

    [Oct 08, 2016] the rate of increase of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide

    Oct 07, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> anne... October 07, 2016 at 03:48 PM

    Correcting:

    Again, I am especially struck by the rate of increase of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The rate of increase has been growing.

    Looking to the data even casually points out the growing rate of increase of atmospheric concentrations of CO2. This year, in this regard, looks as alarming as last, in which the rate of increase was at a record high. Why this should be, through a time of relatively slow international economic growth and increasingly broad efforts to limit CO2 emissions, has to be an especially important question.

    nikbez -> anne... October 08, 2016 at 04:01 PM

    Anne,

    Not to discourage you, but to talk intelligently about CO2 in atmosphere you as a minimum need a degree in geophysics.

    This is mind-bogglingly complex porblem with many factors beyond ordinary human comprehension. For example "How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?"

    Fractal Hurricane -> anne...

    As the population increases the first derivative of CO2 concentration increases, roughly speaking. Even if all humans opt for universal vasectomy, population expansion will not stop for another 9 months. Population shrinkage will be slow at first and will take roughly 4 generations to bring CO2 expansion back to 1960 levels. Shrinkage of CO2 concentrations will take even longer.

    Even with forest replanting and careful management of our energy choices, the humanity is probably doomed forever. Still, we have to

    give it a
    shot --

    [Oct 08, 2016] Ignorance and Dishonesty Trump, Hillary, and Nuclear Genocide

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's shameful that this country hasn't rejected the first use of nuclear weapons. It's also shameful that instead of working to eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. is actually planning to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next 30 years to upgrade that arsenal. For what possible strategic purpose, one must ask? America's current nuclear deterrent is the most powerful and survivable in the world. No other country comes close. There's no rational reason to invest more money in nuclear weapons, unless you count the jobs and money related to building new nuclear submarines, weaponry, bombs, and all the other infrastructure related to America's nuclear triad of Trident submarines, land-based bombers, and fixed missile silos. ..."
    "... Next time, Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton, let's have some rigor, some honesty, and some wisdom on the issue of nuclear weapons. Not only America deserves it – the world does. ..."
    Antiwar.com

    ... ... ...

    It's shameful that this country hasn't rejected the first use of nuclear weapons. It's also shameful that instead of working to eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. is actually planning to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next 30 years to upgrade that arsenal. For what possible strategic purpose, one must ask? America's current nuclear deterrent is the most powerful and survivable in the world. No other country comes close. There's no rational reason to invest more money in nuclear weapons, unless you count the jobs and money related to building new nuclear submarines, weaponry, bombs, and all the other infrastructure related to America's nuclear triad of Trident submarines, land-based bombers, and fixed missile silos.

    Neither Trump nor Hillary addressed this issue. Trump was simply ignorant. Hillary was simply disingenuous. Which candidate was worse? When you're talking about nuclear genocidal death, it surely does matter. Ignorance is not bliss, nor is a lack of forthrightness and honesty.

    Next time, Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton, let's have some rigor, some honesty, and some wisdom on the issue of nuclear weapons. Not only America deserves it – the world does.

    William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views. He can be reached at [email protected]. Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author's permission.

    [Oct 08, 2016] The United States as Destroyer of Nations by Daniel Kovalik

    www.counterpunch.org
    In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 – an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for "nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.

    The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again – e.g., in Yugoslavia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine – the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.

    More

    Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

    [Oct 08, 2016] The United States as Destroyer of Nations by Daniel Kovalik

    www.counterpunch.org
    In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 – an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for "nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.

    The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again – e.g., in Yugoslavia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine – the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.

    More

    Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

    [Oct 08, 2016] As the Surveillance Expands, Best Way to Resist is to Bury the NSA in Garbage

    Notable quotes:
    "... Waihopai, INFOSEC, Information Security, Information Warfare, IW, IS, Priavacy, Information Terrorism, Terrorism Defensive Information, Defense Information Warfare, Offensive Information, Offensive Information Warfare, National Information Infrastructure, InfoSec, Reno, Compsec, Computer Terrorism, Firewalls, Secure Internet Connections, ISS, Passwords, DefCon V, Hackers, Encryption, Espionage, USDOJ, NSA, CIA, S/Key, SSL, FBI, Secert Service, USSS, Defcon, Military, White House, Undercover, NCCS, Mayfly, PGP, PEM, RSA, Perl-RSA, MSNBC, bet, AOL, AOL TOS, CIS, CBOT, AIMSX, STARLAN, 3B2, BITNET, COSMOS, DATTA, E911, FCIC, HTCIA, IACIS, UT/RUS, JANET, JICC, ReMOB, LEETAC, UTU, VNET, BRLO, BZ, CANSLO, CBNRC, CIDA, JAVA, Active X, Compsec 97, LLC, DERA, Mavricks, Meta-hackers, ^?, Steve Case, Tools, Telex, Military Intelligence, Scully, Flame, Infowar, Bubba, Freeh, Archives, Sundevil, jack, Investigation, ISACA, NCSA, spook words, Verisign, Secure, ASIO, Lebed, ICE, NRO, Lexis-Nexis, NSCT, SCIF, FLiR, Lacrosse, Flashbangs, HRT, DIA, USCOI, CID, BOP, FINCEN, FLETC, NIJ, ACC, AFSPC, BMDO, NAVWAN, NRL, RL, NAVWCWPNS, NSWC, USAFA, AHPCRC, ARPA, LABLINK, USACIL, USCG, NRC, ~, CDC, DOE, FMS, HPCC, NTIS, SEL, USCODE, CISE, SIRC, CIM, ISN, DJC, SGC, UNCPCJ, CFC, DREO, CDA, DRA, SHAPE, SACLANT, BECCA, DCJFTF, HALO, HAHO, FKS, 868, GCHQ, DITSA, SORT, AMEMB, NSG, HIC, EDI, SAS, SBS, UDT, GOE, DOE, GEO, Masuda, Forte, AT, GIGN, Exon Shell, CQB, CONUS, CTU, RCMP, GRU, SASR, GSG-9, 22nd SAS, GEOS, EADA, BBE, STEP, Echelon, Dictionary, MD2, MD4, MDA, MYK, 747,777, 767, MI5, 737, MI6, 757, Kh-11, Shayet-13, SADMS, Spetznaz, Recce, 707, CIO, NOCS, Halcon, Duress, RAID, Psyops, grom, D-11, SERT, VIP, ARC, S.E.T. Team, MP5k, DREC, DEVGRP, DF, DSD, FDM, GRU, LRTS, SIGDEV, NACSI, PSAC, PTT, RFI, SIGDASYS, TDM. SUKLO, SUSLO, TELINT, TEXTA. ELF, LF, MF, VHF, UHF, SHF, SASP, WANK, Colonel, domestic disruption, smuggle, 15kg, nitrate, Pretoria, M-14, enigma, Bletchley Park, Clandestine, nkvd, argus, afsatcom, CQB, NVD, Counter Terrorism Security, Rapid Reaction, Corporate Security, Police, sniper, PPS, ASIS, ASLET, TSCM, Security Consulting, High Security, Security Evaluation, Electronic Surveillance, MI-17, Counterterrorism, spies, eavesdropping, debugging, interception, COCOT, rhost, rhosts, SETA, Amherst, Broadside, Capricorn, Gamma, Gorizont, Guppy, Ionosphere, Mole, Keyhole, Kilderkin, Artichoke, Badger, Cornflower, Daisy, Egret, Iris, Hollyhock, Jasmine, Juile, Vinnell, B.D.M.,Sphinx, Stephanie, Reflection, Spoke, Talent, Trump, FX, FXR, IMF, POCSAG, Covert Video, Intiso, r00t, lock picking, Beyond Hope, csystems, passwd, 2600 Magazine, Competitor, EO, Chan, Alouette,executive, Event Security, Mace, Cap-Stun, stakeout, ninja, ASIS, ISA, EOD, Oscor, Merlin, NTT, SL-1, Rolm, TIE, Tie-fighter, PBX, SLI, NTT, MSCJ, MIT, 69, RIT, Time, MSEE, Cable & Wireless, CSE, Embassy, ETA, Porno, Fax, finks, Fax encryption, white noise, pink noise, CRA, M.P.R.I., top secret, Mossberg, 50BMG, Macintosh Security, Macintosh Internet Security, Macintosh Firewalls, Unix Security, VIP Protection, SIG, sweep, Medco, TRD, TDR, sweeping, TELINT, Audiotel, Harvard, 1080H, SWS, Asset, Satellite imagery, force, Cypherpunks, Coderpunks, TRW, remailers, replay, redheads, RX-7, explicit, FLAME, Pornstars, AVN, Playboy, Anonymous, Sex, chaining, codes, Nuclear, 20, subversives, SLIP, toad, fish, data havens, unix, c, a, b, d, the, Elvis, quiche, DES, 1*, NATIA, NATOA, sneakers, counterintelligence, industrial espionage, PI, TSCI, industrial intelligence, H.N.P., Juiliett Class Submarine, Locks, loch, Ingram Mac-10, sigvoice, ssa, E.O.D., SEMTEX, penrep, racal, OTP, OSS, Blowpipe, CCS, GSA, Kilo Class, squib, primacord, RSP, Becker, Nerd, fangs, Austin, Comirex, GPMG, Speakeasy, humint, GEODSS, SORO, M5, ANC, zone, SBI, DSS, S.A.I.C., Minox, Keyhole, SAR, Rand Corporation, Wackenhutt, EO, Wackendude, mol, Hillal, GGL, CTU, botux, Virii, CCC, Blacklisted 411, Internet Underground, XS4ALL, Retinal Fetish, Fetish, Yobie, CTP, CATO, Phon-e, Chicago Posse, l0ck, spook keywords, PLA, TDYC, W3, CUD, CdC, Weekly World News, Zen, World Domination, Dead, GRU, M72750, Salsa, 7, Blowfish, Gorelick, Glock, Ft. Meade, press-release, Indigo, wire transfer, e-cash, Bubba the Love Sponge, Digicash, zip, SWAT, Ortega, PPP, crypto-anarchy, AT&T, SGI, SUN, MCI, Blacknet, Middleman, KLM, Blackbird, plutonium, Texas, jihad, SDI, Uzi, Fort Meade, supercomputer, bullion, 3, Blackmednet, Propaganda, ABC, Satellite phones, Planet-1, cryptanalysis, nuclear, FBI, Panama, fissionable, Sears Tower, NORAD, Delta Force, SEAL, virtual, Dolch, secure shell, screws, Black-Ops, Area51, SABC, basement, data-haven, black-bag, TEMPSET, Goodwin, rebels, ID, MD5, IDEA, garbage, market, beef, Stego, unclassified, utopia, orthodox, Alica, SHA, Global, gorilla, Bob, Pseudonyms, MITM, Gray Data, VLSI, mega, Leitrim, Yakima, Sugar Grove, Cowboy, Gist, 8182, Gatt, Platform, 1911, Geraldton, UKUSA, veggie, 3848, Morwenstow, Consul, Oratory, Pine Gap, Menwith, Mantis, DSD, BVD, 1984, Flintlock, cybercash, government, hate, speedbump, illuminati, president, freedom, cocaine, $, Roswell, ESN, COS, E.T., credit card, b9, fraud, assasinate, virus, anarchy, rogue, mailbomb, 888, Chelsea, 1997, Whitewater, MOD, York, plutonium, William Gates, clone, BATF, SGDN, Nike, Atlas, Delta, TWA, Kiwi, PGP 2.6.2., PGP 5.0i, PGP 5.1, siliconpimp, Lynch, 414, Face, Pixar, IRIDF, eternity server, Skytel, Yukon, Templeton, LUK, Cohiba, Soros, Standford, niche, 51, H&K, USP, ^, sardine, bank, EUB, USP, PCS, NRO, Red Cell, Glock 26, snuffle, Patel, package, ISI, INR, INS, IRS, GRU, RUOP, GSS, NSP, SRI, Ronco, Armani, BOSS, Chobetsu, FBIS, BND, SISDE, FSB, BfV, IB, froglegs, JITEM, SADF, advise, TUSA, HoHoCon, SISMI, FIS, MSW, Spyderco, UOP, SSCI, NIMA, MOIS, SVR, SIN, advisors, SAP, OAU, PFS, Aladdin, chameleon man, Hutsul, CESID, Bess, rail gun, Peering, 17, 312, NB, CBM, CTP, Sardine, SBIRS, SGDN, ADIU, DEADBEEF, IDP, IDF, Halibut, SONANGOL, Flu, &, Loin, PGP 5.53, EG&G, AIEWS, AMW, WORM, MP5K-SD, 1071, WINGS, cdi, DynCorp, UXO, Ti, THAAD, package, chosen, PRIME, SURVIAC ..."
    Oct 08, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org
    by Dave Lindorff

    Word that Yahoo! last year, at the urging of the National Security Agency, secretly developed a program that monitored the mail of all 280 million of its customers and turned over to the NSA all mail from those who used any of the agency's thousands of keywords, shows that the US has become a total police state in terms of trying to monitor every person in the country (and outside too).

    With the courts, especially at the appellate and Supreme Court level, rolling over and supporting this massive evisceration of basic freedoms, including the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure and invasion of privacy, perhaps the best way for us to fight back is to overload the spy system. How to do this? Just copy and paste random fragments of the following list (a bit dated, but useable), provided courtesy of the publication Business Insider, and include them in every communication - email, social media, etc. - that you send out.

    The secret Yahoo! assault (reported on here by Alfredo Lopez in yesterday's article ), works by searching users' emails for keywords on an NSA list of suspected words that might be used by alleged terrorists or anti-government activists, and then those suspect communications are forwarded to the NSA, where humans eventually have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Too much chaff (and they surely have too much chaff anyhow!) and they will be buried with work and unable to read anything.

    In fact, critics of the government's metastasizing universal surveillance program, including former FBI agents and other experts, have long criticized the effort to turn the US into a replica of East Germany with its Stazi secret police, cannot work and is actually counter-productive, because with spy agencies' limited manpower looking at all the false leads provided by keyword monitoring, they are bound to miss the real dangerous messages. In fact, this was also the argument used against the FBI's program of monitoring mosques and suspecting every Muslim American who expressed criticism of the US. Most are just people saying what a lot of us say: that the US wars in the Middle East are wrong or even criminal, but they are just citizens or immigrants exercising their free speech when they do this, not terrorists, and spying on them is and has been a huge waste or time and resources.

    ... ... ...

    a sample of the NSA's keyword list:

    Waihopai, INFOSEC, Information Security, Information Warfare, IW, IS, Priavacy, Information Terrorism, Terrorism Defensive Information, Defense Information Warfare, Offensive Information, Offensive Information Warfare, National Information Infrastructure, InfoSec, Reno, Compsec, Computer Terrorism, Firewalls, Secure Internet Connections, ISS, Passwords, DefCon V, Hackers, Encryption, Espionage, USDOJ, NSA, CIA, S/Key, SSL, FBI, Secert Service, USSS, Defcon, Military, White House, Undercover, NCCS, Mayfly, PGP, PEM, RSA, Perl-RSA, MSNBC, bet, AOL, AOL TOS, CIS, CBOT, AIMSX, STARLAN, 3B2, BITNET, COSMOS, DATTA, E911, FCIC, HTCIA, IACIS, UT/RUS, JANET, JICC, ReMOB, LEETAC, UTU, VNET, BRLO, BZ, CANSLO, CBNRC, CIDA, JAVA, Active X, Compsec 97, LLC, DERA, Mavricks, Meta-hackers, ^?, Steve Case, Tools, Telex, Military Intelligence, Scully, Flame, Infowar, Bubba, Freeh, Archives, Sundevil, jack, Investigation, ISACA, NCSA, spook words, Verisign, Secure, ASIO, Lebed, ICE, NRO, Lexis-Nexis, NSCT, SCIF, FLiR, Lacrosse, Flashbangs, HRT, DIA, USCOI, CID, BOP, FINCEN, FLETC, NIJ, ACC, AFSPC, BMDO, NAVWAN, NRL, RL, NAVWCWPNS, NSWC, USAFA, AHPCRC, ARPA, LABLINK, USACIL, USCG, NRC, ~, CDC, DOE, FMS, HPCC, NTIS, SEL, USCODE, CISE, SIRC, CIM, ISN, DJC, SGC, UNCPCJ, CFC, DREO, CDA, DRA, SHAPE, SACLANT, BECCA, DCJFTF, HALO, HAHO, FKS, 868, GCHQ, DITSA, SORT, AMEMB, NSG, HIC, EDI, SAS, SBS, UDT, GOE, DOE, GEO, Masuda, Forte, AT, GIGN, Exon Shell, CQB, CONUS, CTU, RCMP, GRU, SASR, GSG-9, 22nd SAS, GEOS, EADA, BBE, STEP, Echelon, Dictionary, MD2, MD4, MDA, MYK, 747,777, 767, MI5, 737, MI6, 757, Kh-11, Shayet-13, SADMS, Spetznaz, Recce, 707, CIO, NOCS, Halcon, Duress, RAID, Psyops, grom, D-11, SERT, VIP, ARC, S.E.T. Team, MP5k, DREC, DEVGRP, DF, DSD, FDM, GRU, LRTS, SIGDEV, NACSI, PSAC, PTT, RFI, SIGDASYS, TDM. SUKLO, SUSLO, TELINT, TEXTA. ELF, LF, MF, VHF, UHF, SHF, SASP, WANK, Colonel, domestic disruption, smuggle, 15kg, nitrate, Pretoria, M-14, enigma, Bletchley Park, Clandestine, nkvd, argus, afsatcom, CQB, NVD, Counter Terrorism Security, Rapid Reaction, Corporate Security, Police, sniper, PPS, ASIS, ASLET, TSCM, Security Consulting, High Security, Security Evaluation, Electronic Surveillance, MI-17, Counterterrorism, spies, eavesdropping, debugging, interception, COCOT, rhost, rhosts, SETA, Amherst, Broadside, Capricorn, Gamma, Gorizont, Guppy, Ionosphere, Mole, Keyhole, Kilderkin, Artichoke, Badger, Cornflower, Daisy, Egret, Iris, Hollyhock, Jasmine, Juile, Vinnell, B.D.M.,Sphinx, Stephanie, Reflection, Spoke, Talent, Trump, FX, FXR, IMF, POCSAG, Covert Video, Intiso, r00t, lock picking, Beyond Hope, csystems, passwd, 2600 Magazine, Competitor, EO, Chan, Alouette,executive, Event Security, Mace, Cap-Stun, stakeout, ninja, ASIS, ISA, EOD, Oscor, Merlin, NTT, SL-1, Rolm, TIE, Tie-fighter, PBX, SLI, NTT, MSCJ, MIT, 69, RIT, Time, MSEE, Cable & Wireless, CSE, Embassy, ETA, Porno, Fax, finks, Fax encryption, white noise, pink noise, CRA, M.P.R.I., top secret, Mossberg, 50BMG, Macintosh Security, Macintosh Internet Security, Macintosh Firewalls, Unix Security, VIP Protection, SIG, sweep, Medco, TRD, TDR, sweeping, TELINT, Audiotel, Harvard, 1080H, SWS, Asset, Satellite imagery, force, Cypherpunks, Coderpunks, TRW, remailers, replay, redheads, RX-7, explicit, FLAME, Pornstars, AVN, Playboy, Anonymous, Sex, chaining, codes, Nuclear, 20, subversives, SLIP, toad, fish, data havens, unix, c, a, b, d, the, Elvis, quiche, DES, 1*, NATIA, NATOA, sneakers, counterintelligence, industrial espionage, PI, TSCI, industrial intelligence, H.N.P., Juiliett Class Submarine, Locks, loch, Ingram Mac-10, sigvoice, ssa, E.O.D., SEMTEX, penrep, racal, OTP, OSS, Blowpipe, CCS, GSA, Kilo Class, squib, primacord, RSP, Becker, Nerd, fangs, Austin, Comirex, GPMG, Speakeasy, humint, GEODSS, SORO, M5, ANC, zone, SBI, DSS, S.A.I.C., Minox, Keyhole, SAR, Rand Corporation, Wackenhutt, EO, Wackendude, mol, Hillal, GGL, CTU, botux, Virii, CCC, Blacklisted 411, Internet Underground, XS4ALL, Retinal Fetish, Fetish, Yobie, CTP, CATO, Phon-e, Chicago Posse, l0ck, spook keywords, PLA, TDYC, W3, CUD, CdC, Weekly World News, Zen, World Domination, Dead, GRU, M72750, Salsa, 7, Blowfish, Gorelick, Glock, Ft. Meade, press-release, Indigo, wire transfer, e-cash, Bubba the Love Sponge, Digicash, zip, SWAT, Ortega, PPP, crypto-anarchy, AT&T, SGI, SUN, MCI, Blacknet, Middleman, KLM, Blackbird, plutonium, Texas, jihad, SDI, Uzi, Fort Meade, supercomputer, bullion, 3, Blackmednet, Propaganda, ABC, Satellite phones, Planet-1, cryptanalysis, nuclear, FBI, Panama, fissionable, Sears Tower, NORAD, Delta Force, SEAL, virtual, Dolch, secure shell, screws, Black-Ops, Area51, SABC, basement, data-haven, black-bag, TEMPSET, Goodwin, rebels, ID, MD5, IDEA, garbage, market, beef, Stego, unclassified, utopia, orthodox, Alica, SHA, Global, gorilla, Bob, Pseudonyms, MITM, Gray Data, VLSI, mega, Leitrim, Yakima, Sugar Grove, Cowboy, Gist, 8182, Gatt, Platform, 1911, Geraldton, UKUSA, veggie, 3848, Morwenstow, Consul, Oratory, Pine Gap, Menwith, Mantis, DSD, BVD, 1984, Flintlock, cybercash, government, hate, speedbump, illuminati, president, freedom, cocaine, $, Roswell, ESN, COS, E.T., credit card, b9, fraud, assasinate, virus, anarchy, rogue, mailbomb, 888, Chelsea, 1997, Whitewater, MOD, York, plutonium, William Gates, clone, BATF, SGDN, Nike, Atlas, Delta, TWA, Kiwi, PGP 2.6.2., PGP 5.0i, PGP 5.1, siliconpimp, Lynch, 414, Face, Pixar, IRIDF, eternity server, Skytel, Yukon, Templeton, LUK, Cohiba, Soros, Standford, niche, 51, H&K, USP, ^, sardine, bank, EUB, USP, PCS, NRO, Red Cell, Glock 26, snuffle, Patel, package, ISI, INR, INS, IRS, GRU, RUOP, GSS, NSP, SRI, Ronco, Armani, BOSS, Chobetsu, FBIS, BND, SISDE, FSB, BfV, IB, froglegs, JITEM, SADF, advise, TUSA, HoHoCon, SISMI, FIS, MSW, Spyderco, UOP, SSCI, NIMA, MOIS, SVR, SIN, advisors, SAP, OAU, PFS, Aladdin, chameleon man, Hutsul, CESID, Bess, rail gun, Peering, 17, 312, NB, CBM, CTP, Sardine, SBIRS, SGDN, ADIU, DEADBEEF, IDP, IDF, Halibut, SONANGOL, Flu, &, Loin, PGP 5.53, EG&G, AIEWS, AMW, WORM, MP5K-SD, 1071, WINGS, cdi, DynCorp, UXO, Ti, THAAD, package, chosen, PRIME, SURVIAC

    [Oct 08, 2016] If Trump is all talk, why are all the establishment neocons as hysterical over him

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's because they couldn't get assurances from him that his anti-globalization talk was just talk, unlike Hillary whom they have gotten assurances that the outsourcing bloodbath will continue unabated. ..."
    "... If Trump tears up NAFTA and the TPP then Americans will, at least, have gotten SOMETHING out of "their" government over the past 35 years. Some little morsel of democratic representation. Something that can be marked as a turning point from 35 years of escalating political and economic corruption that has put civilization on the verge of implosion into fascist revolutions and world war repeating, verbatim, the history of the 1920s and 30s. ..."
    "... For a $10-million donation to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary gave the thumbs up for the use of child soldiers in South Sudan as SoS. A shady businessman had an eye on African mining rights and regime change. (Hillary data-shredded "business" related emails on an illegal private server; smashed her smartphones with a hammer; to destroy evidence.) ..."
    "... Really? Stiffing his employees. Stiffing his creditors. Stiffing the tax man. All "perfectly legal". ..."
    "... Is not this is what neoliberalism is about? Especially for the employees part ..."
    Oct 07, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Ron Waller -> Ben Groves... October 07, 2016 at 12:58 PM , October 07, 2016 at 12:58 PM
    If Trump is all talk, why are all the establishment neocons as hysterical over him as the PC pearl clutchers?

    It's because they couldn't get assurances from him that his anti-globalization talk was just talk, unlike Hillary whom they have gotten assurances that the outsourcing bloodbath will continue unabated.

    If Trump tears up NAFTA and the TPP then Americans will, at least, have gotten SOMETHING out of "their" government over the past 35 years. Some little morsel of democratic representation. Something that can be marked as a turning point from 35 years of escalating political and economic corruption that has put civilization on the verge of implosion into fascist revolutions and world war repeating, verbatim, the history of the 1920s and 30s.

    Ron Waller -> pgl... , -1
    Trump is a weasel of a businessman and a weasel of a politician (par for the course on the latter.) But he made all his money legally.

    The concept of pure corruption, however, might suit the Clintons, given they have pocketed over $100-million in bribe-related wealth.

    They deregulated the banks for kickbacks from Wall Street. Set the stage for the 2000s Bust Out - a complex web of fraud among all manner of banker including cheerleading central banker - that culminated in global economic collapse.

    For money from the burgeoning private prison industry, they labeled African American youth "super predators" with "no conscience; no empathy" (a most vicious of racist dog whistle that blows anything Trump has said out of the water.) Hillary called for a police crackdown ("we can talk about how they ended up that way, but they first must be brought to heel") that kicked off the era of mass incarceration; produced a militant police force filled with racist thugs and cowards; and created the Black Lives Matter movement.

    For a $10-million donation to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary gave the thumbs up for the use of child soldiers in South Sudan as SoS. A shady businessman had an eye on African mining rights and regime change. (Hillary data-shredded "business" related emails on an illegal private server; smashed her smartphones with a hammer; to destroy evidence.)

    All this (and MOAR) might not be pure corruption. But something around 99.99% pure. Like Ivory soap, except evil.

    pgl -> Ron Waller ... , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 02:37 PM
    "But he made all his money legally."

    Really? Stiffing his employees. Stiffing his creditors. Stiffing the tax man. All "perfectly legal".

    Ron Waller -> pgl... , Friday, October 07, 2016 at 05:38 PM
    Trump is small potatoes compared to what the real Wolves of Wall Street did to the global economy. But if he did break the law he should be thrown in jail, right along with the Clintons and all the other bribe-taking criminals.
    nikbez -> pgl... , -1
    Is not this is what neoliberalism is about? Especially for the employees part

    [Oct 08, 2016] Strategic timing of release of Trump sex tapes

    Oct 08, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Tom aka Rusty : Saturday, October 08, 2016 at 07:01 AM
    HRS'c speech transcripts should be front page news today.

    However.....

    The Donald certainly took care of that!

    [Oct 08, 2016] The United States as Destroyer of Nations by Daniel Kovalik

    www.counterpunch.org
    In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 – an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for "nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.

    The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again – e.g., in Yugoslavia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine – the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.

    More

    Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

    [Oct 08, 2016] this interview with Nasrallah from Hezbollah from links this morning, but it's a real eye-opener

    Oct 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    JohnnyGL October 7, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7w20p8r6bE

    I think I got this interview with Nasrallah from Hezbollah from links this morning, but it's a real eye-opener. Very interesting to hear the other side's point of view. Worth your 10 min if you got time.

    [Oct 08, 2016] Barry and the spooks make it official today – Putin did it! re: the DNC email leaks.

    Oct 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    lyman alpha blob October 7, 2016 at 5:59 pm

    Barry and the spooks make it official today – Putin did it! re: the DNC email leaks.

    But as you note, the Dems are not coming off as particularly trustworthy. Checking the comments of that article, the dogs aren't eating the dogfood and seem to have noticed the claims are still based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

    [Oct 08, 2016] Democrat Email Hairballs

    Oct 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Wikileaks' Julian Assange to release 'significant' documents on US election, Google, arms trading over next 10 weeks" [ International Business Times ]. Oh, not the next 31 days?

    PhilU October 7, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    Wikileaks dumped #ThePodestaEmails. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/

    Complete with a copy of everything problematic in her wall street spaces.
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927#efmAIuAMKAViAXv
    THEY ARE BAD
    "But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position ."
    -100% pro trade
    -Shits on single payer
    -Wall Street should regulate itself… sigh.

    And her Uranium One cover might have just died.
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release

    Titus Pullo October 7, 2016 at 9:11 pm

    Don't worry, the CTR shills are already on Reddit and social media framing this as another "nothing burger," or that it is actually good for her. The campaign's pals in the MSM are sure to follow, especially considering the reprehensible recording of Trump that was released earlier today (granted, as a man, I have heard many men say things as bad or worse than Trump has said at various stages in my life) gives them a foil to wrap this hot potato in.

    [Oct 07, 2016] The media are misleading the public on Syria by Stephen Kinzer

    Notable quotes:
    "... For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: "Don't send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin." Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it. ..."
    "... Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. "Turkish-Saudi backed 'moderate rebels' showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars," one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, "The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS - so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?" ..."
    "... This does not fit with Washington's narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a "liberated zone" for three years but is now being pulled back into misery. ..."
    "... Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the "moderate opposition" will win. This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media. ..."
    "... Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus. ..."
    "... Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on "an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva." The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan's UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her. ..."
    "... The truth is that Kinzer is right. We have no idea what is going on in Syria. For the elites in Washington and their press lackeys to report that one side is moderate and the other is not is ludicrous. ..."
    Feb 18, 2016 | The Boston Globe

    Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason why.

    For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: "Don't send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin." Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.

    This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular electricity may soon be restored. The militants' hold on the city could be ending.

    Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. "Turkish-Saudi backed 'moderate rebels' showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars," one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, "The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS - so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?"

    This does not fit with Washington's narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a "liberated zone" for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.

    Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the "moderate opposition" will win. This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.

    Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, and think tank "experts." After a spin on that soiled carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for news about Syria.

    Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.

    Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of "rebels" or "moderates," not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for years been running a "rat line" for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but because the United States wants to stay on Turkey's good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who are doing it - and because that is the official line in Washington.

    Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on "an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva." The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan's UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her.

    Politicians may be forgiven for distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused for promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism, however, is supposed to remain apart from the power elite and its inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.

    Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many Americans - and many journalists - are content with the official story. In Syria, it is: "Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!" This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.

    Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. Follow him on Twitter @stephenkinzer.


    kaisy 02/18/16 03:38 PM

    The truth is that Kinzer is right. We have no idea what is going on in Syria. For the elites in Washington and their press lackeys to report that one side is moderate and the other is not is ludicrous.

    When the uprising against Assad began three years ago, initially we were on the side of the angels, that is until we found out that they were mostly Al Queda. Fast forward and now we have ISIS, the sworn enemy of the US and anybody else that disagrees with them. So now, remarkably, some are looking at Assad as the voice of moderation. This is so akin to Afghanistan and, decades ago, Vietnam. When you don't understand the players and their ulterior motives, best to not get involved. Me, I'd leave this to the Saudis and Iran to fight over. Cruz talks about carpet bombing Syria until the sand glows (btw, real Christianlike there). I say defer to those over there. Eventually they'll run out of people to do the fighting (happening already with ISIS), then, and only then, we can go in and pick up the pieces.


    jkupie02/19/16 07:16 AM

    "Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of "rebels" or "moderates," not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise."

    I don't know enough about the area to confirm or disprove most of Mr. Kinzer's points but I DO KNOW that this claim is false.

    tyfox"n" 02/19/16 07:40 PM

    jkupiue I absolutley agree. I have never read or heard al-Nusra described as anything but an al-Qaeda group, and it is stated every time al-Nusra is mentioned.

    pegnva 02/19/16 07:58 AM

    Hard to know the truth...but it is interesting Kinzer was able to QUOTE former Sec'ty of State, now presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at the recent Milwaukee debate for falsely taking credit, some might say lying to the Am public.

    kaisy 02/19/16 11:24 AM

    Hillary is on the wrong side of this. She wants a no fly zone in Syria, just the Repubs. She doesn't speak to the consequences of the policy. Unfortunately Bernie has not challenged her on this. He really needs to.

    NH-Repub 02/19/16 09:22 AM

    Leftout is right and Hillary is the Queen of Doublespeak. Obama and his minions would like nothing better than to mislead the masses and keep them in the dark about everything. That way they control the media and by proxy - us!

    [Oct 06, 2016] Policies that raise the costs of reallocating profits maybe be effective suppressing the use of tax havens

    Notable quotes:
    "... Multinational firms may invest in tax havens to avoid taxation in non-haven countries, but other motives, such as business opportunities in these countries, may also drive such investment. ..."
    "... Policies that raise the costs of reallocating profits maybe be effective in attenuating firms' use of tax havens ..."
    Oct 06, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    pgl : Thursday, October 06, 2016 at 01:34 AM

    "Multinational firms may invest in tax havens to avoid taxation in non-haven countries, but other motives, such as business opportunities in these countries, may also drive such investment. This column uses data on German firms to investigate the motives for tax haven investment. Tax avoidance does appear to be a motive, particularly for manufacturing firms.

    Policies that raise the costs of reallocating profits maybe be effective in attenuating firms' use of tax havens."

    VoxEU also notes that not every multinational uses tax havens to massively evade taxes. Rudy G. would have their shareholders sue over this. Of course Rudy G. is an idiot. Of course multinationals source production in regions with low costs as in "always low wages".

    But I have a question - how many factories are located in the Cayman Islands?

    [Oct 06, 2016] My dilemma with the corporate world today is that as you go higher up the ladder you are very well paid to do things that the perma-optimists see as fine and the realists see

    Oct 06, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    as illegal. Clive October 6, 2016 at 8:29 am

    In my opinion any corporate drone type of position which gives the possibility of climbing the greasy pole is infinitely preferable if you are just starting out or have dependents such as a young family to support (with the smallest possible exception that you're physically or mentally under a severe strain for a medium term length of time - 6 months or more - corporate landscapes are endlessly shifting and you can easily find that there has been two re structures in a year) than any self-employed or "entrepreneurial" alternative.

    But another societal shift which has betrayed younger people is the notion that you "don't have to take any cr@p from anyone". No, no-one should have to take any poor treatment of any description if they don't want to, but big corporate meal-ticket jobs an the enterprises that offer them are fully aware that they offer a trade-off between treatment that is degradation in all but name and reasonably reliable and not-that-bad renumeration. Everyone knows the deal, or should do.

    But what only exists on a unicorn level of frequency are stable corporate greasy pole climbing opportunities combined with good pay and being treated really nicely. Parents, high school counsellors, the media and so on should be far more honest about the realities of the modern workplace with those entering that workplace rather than pretending there's some non-existent Halcyon idyll.

    Moneta October 6, 2016 at 9:16 am

    My dilemma with the corporate world today is that as you go higher up the ladder you are very well paid to do things that the perma-optimists see as fine and the realists see as illegal.

    Up to now the perma-optimist view has prevailed but if the winds turn, there could be a lot of scapegoats.

    Clive October 6, 2016 at 9:30 am

    You are unfortunately entirely correct there. Either outright unlawful or illegal conduct is increasingly demanded by large corporations of their workforce (and even not-so-large ones) or, if not outright illegally, then you have to best-case go along with an orchestrated cover-up or even, worse-case, design and run the cover-up itself. Wells Fargo is a case in point.

    But that still doesn't mean you have to run for the exit and throw yourself on the cruel mercies of trying to start up and then run your own business. You can plan your exit from the criminal enterprise and ensure you have another similar position to go to or even a better one. You can play along with the unlawful activities but make absolutely sure you get the goods if ever the fateful day comes when you have to try to get a pay-off from the company or even cut a deal with law enforcement. You can even subtly signal that you know what is afoot is wrong, you know they know, you know they know that you know, and can we all benefit from this by promotion, raises or whatever. That, regrettable it is to say it, is likely a far more profitable set of entrepreneurial activity than trying to survive in the gig economy.

    Note though that I am conveniently skirting around the inherent amorality here; but that, miserable reflection of our times it may be, is the world we live in.

    [Oct 06, 2016] When vast amounts of wealth, particularly government wealth in the form of tax breaks, is flowing to a tiny elite its hard to see how the current system can be sustained

    Oct 06, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    philnc October 6, 2016 at 9:18 am

    Staples came on the scene in 1986, well into the "Reagan Recovery" when then young boomers faced stiff competition for decent-paying jobs in an economy that had been shedding them for awhile. I can recall pinning my newly printed business card on the "wall of hope" at my local store in 1987, as I embarked on my own journey into "self-unemployment". Staples fed the dream of success as an entrepreneur.

    Unfortunately most of us didn't have the luck to do more than hang on by the skin of our teeth. Fast forward to the mid-nineties when the brief boom in domestic tech jobs (before it was cut short by offshoring) finally put many of us into the middle class, although we had to go through intensive retraining to get there (mostly on our own dime).

    When vast amounts of wealth, particularly government wealth in the form of tax breaks, is flowing to a tiny elite it's hard to see how the current system can be sustained. I know if I were a Millennial I'd be looking overseas for someplace to make a fresh start. The US has become a trap, and a hostile one at that, where they not only shoot the wounded, but the able-bodied as well.

    PhilU October 6, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    Now picture trying to do that with student debt that you can't discharge no matter what.

    [Oct 06, 2016] Plant closing threats and actual plant closings are extremely pervasive and effective components of U.S. employer anti-union strategies.

    Oct 06, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> anne... October 06, 2016 at 06:21 AM , October 06, 2016 at 06:21 AM

    http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=cbpubs

    March, 1997

    We 'll Close! Plant Closings, Plant-Closing Threats, Union Organizing and NAFTA
    By Kate Bronfenbrenner

    PLANT-CLOSING THREATS and actual plant closings are extremely pervasive and effective components of U.S. employer anti-union strategies. From 1993 to 1995, employers threatened to close the plant in 50 percent of all union certification elections and in 52 percent of all instances where the union withdrew from its organizing drive ("withdrawals"). In another 18 percent of the campaigns, the employer threatened to close the plant during the first-contract campaign after the election was won.

    Nearly 12 percent of employers followed through on threats made during the organizing campaign and shut down all or part of the plant before the first contract was negotiated. Almost 4 percent of employers closed down the plant before a second contract was reached.

    This 15 percent shutdown rate within two years of the certification election victory is triple the rate found by researchers who examined post-election plant-closing rates in the late 1980s, before the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect.

    These overall percentages actually underestimate the extent employers use plant-closing threats, since they include industries and sectors of the economy where threats to shut down and move facilities are much less likely and carry less weight because the industry or product is less mobile. In mobile industries such as manufacturing, transportation and warehouse/distribution, the percentage of campaigns with plant-closing threats is 62 percent, compared to only 36 percent in relatively immobile industries such as construction, health care, education, retail and other services. Where employers can credibly threaten to shut down or move their operations in response to union activity, they do so in large numbers.

    [Oct 06, 2016] Former Miss Universe Alicia Machado says shes done talking about Trump Daily Mail Online

    Oct 06, 2016 | dailymail.co.uk

    A former Miss Universe who says Donald Trump 'fat-shamed' her and called her 'Miss Piggy' says she's done battling the billionaire.

    Alicia Machado will not give any more interviews on the way Trump treated her, representatives for the Venezuelan-born beauty queen told DailyMail.com.

    'We will not be discussing the Trump subject any further,' an email from her reps at Anderson Public Relations Group said.

    A statement from Machado that accompanied to the message blasted Trump and his campaign for 'launching insults and are attempting to revive slanders and false accusations about my life, in order to humiliate, intimidate, and unbalance me.

    'These attacks are cheap lies with bad intentions,' she said.

    A former Miss Universe who says Donald Trump 'fat-shamed' her and called her 'Miss Piggy' says she's done battling the billionaire. Alicia Machado says she will not give any more interviews on the way Trump treated her

    Machado blasted Trump in a statement for 'launching insults and are attempting to revive slanders and false accusations about my life, in order to humiliate, intimidate, and unbalance me.' She's pictured fighting off the press on Oct. 1 at a Fashion Week event in California

    After Hillary Clinton put a spotlight on Machado's strife with Trump in the first general election debate, the 39-year-old's dirty laundry spilled out into the public.

    Video from a Spanish reality TV show Machado participated in showed her having sex with another contestant while she was engaged to baseball star Bobby Abreu.

    It was further revealed that she was listed as an accomplice in an attempted murder in 1998, two years after she carried the Miss Universe crown.

    Machado allegedly drove the getaway car and threatened to kill the judge overseeing the case. Her then-boyfriend was indicted in the criminal case.

    Clinton's campaign has been unwilling to admit to knowing, or not knowing, about Machado's past.

    'I don't think that in any way excuses what Trump has said about her,' Clinton's national press secretary, Brian Fallon, told DailyMail.com.

    Alicia Machado appears topless on reality show The Farm Loaded:

    ROLE (IN THE HAY) MODEL: Machado had sex in front of the cameras – and moaned about Spanish TV host Fernando Acaso's 'p***a' – during a 2005 episode of 'La Granja'

    Trump last week accused Machado of making a 'sex tape' as he lashed out at Clinton in a 3 AM Twitter rant for propping her up.

    That was a reference to a 2005 reality TV show modeled after 'Big Brother,' in which Machado was filmed having intercourse on camera with a fellow contestant.

    In the 2005 episode of 'La Granja,' she had sex in front of the cameras with Spanish TV host Fernando Acaso.

    Machado was engaged to Philadelphia Phillies right fielder Abreu at the time. The Venezuelan major-leaguer called off the wedding after clips of the show appeared online.

    The broadcast showed Acaso on top of her, with Machado whispering in Spanish about his manhood.

    'Oh your d***, my love, what a tasty d***! Your d*** is divine,' she moans while they go at it.

    Later during the broadcast replay, the show's host read aloud what Machado had written about the man.

    CRINGE: Machado's sex scene in the reality-show fun house was relived frame by frame complete with mortified squirming, and her fiancé Bobby Abreu later called off their engagement

    Interviewed about sex scene: Machado was interviewed about what she did in bed with Fernando Acaso, appearing to be embarrassed as an interviewer revealed she had said: 'He f***s me like a b****.'

    'Really, that guy is cute, he loves me, he understands me, he accepts me, he protects me, he supports me, he respects me,' read her testimonial.

    'He treats me like a goddess, he f***s me like a b****!'

    Machado told Univision when she returned to Miami that 'I felt fine as a person, as a human being.'

    'It was a very strong experience, very difficult in all senses, and I feel very happy with the events in Spain. I had people's support once more and I gained respect for what I am as a person and that was the purpose.'

    Trump has also suggested that Clinton's campaign obtained U.S. citizenship for Machado. The Democrat's aides say that's not true. Machado became a citizen on her own.

    The scrutiny appears to have taken a toll on the actress and mother.

    RELATED ARTICLES Share this article

    Share 1.3k shares

    Hillary Clinton made Machado's strife with Trump over her weight the focal point of her charge in last week's general election debate that the Republican is a sexist

    In response to DailyMail.com's request for an interview, Machado's representatives said: 'Thank you for reaching out regarding Alicia. At this point in time Alicia has said her comments about the trump situation (please see her statement below) and we are no longer discussing the subject.

    'If you are interested in talking about Alicia's career, her businesses and her philanthropy we are open to discussing, however we will not be discussing the Trump subject any further.'

    A long statement from Machado said Trump is 'attempting to distract from his campaign's real problems and his inability to be the leader of this great country' by 'discrediting her.'

    'When I was young, the now candidate, humiliated me, insulted me, disrespected me both publicly and privately in the cruelest way. The same way this happened to me, it's clear that throughout the years, he's continued his actions and behavior with other women.

    'Therefore, I will continue to stand on my feet, sharing my story and my absolute support for Secretary Clinton, on behalf of all women.'

    Machado's commitment to spreading the word about the public humiliation she says the Republican presidential nominee caused her does not, apparently, extend to interviews on the topic, however.

    As of Wednesday evening, Hillary Clinton was still using Machado as an example of her opponent's 'lack of respect for women.'

    'The list is long. He insulted Alicia Machado, the former Miss Universe. He said that pregnancy is an inconvenience for a woman's employer,' Clinton said at a Women's Leadership Forum in Washington, D.C..

    She said, 'Recently, more than 20 people who worked on his TV show have come forward to say he was frequently inappropriate with the cast and crew members – another reason why he is temperamentally unfit to be president.'

    Clinton was referring to an Associated Press report from Monday in which contestants and crew members from The Apprentice claimed the married Trump rated participants by the size of their breasts and talked about having sex with them.

    Trump's campaign spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, said in response, 'These outlandish, unsubstantiated, and totally false claims fabricated by publicity hungry, opportunistic, disgruntled former employees, have no merit whatsoever.'

    Defending his comments about women's looks Wednesday in a TV interview with Las Vegas channel KSNV Trump said 'a lot of that was done for the purpose of entertainment.'

    'I can tell you this: There is nobody – nobody,' he said, that has more respect for women than I do.'

    A spokesman for Clinton's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Machado's decision to stop doing interviews on Trump and how that might affect the Democratic candidate's own speeches.

    Clinton has no public events on her schedule between now and Sunday's presidential debate. Her next rally is on Monday in Michigan.

    FULL ALICIA MACHADO STATEMENT ON DONALD TRUMP

    'The Republican candidate and his campaign are, once again launching attacks, insults and are attempting to revive slanders and false accusations about my life, in order to humiliate, intimidate, and unbalance me. These attacks are cheap lies with bad intentions. This, of course, is not the first time the candidate insists on discrediting someone or insists on demoralizing women, minorities, and people of certain religions through his hateful campaign. This is definitely one of his most frightful characteristics. Through his attacks, he's attempting to distract from his campaign's real problems and his inability to be the leader of this great country.

    When I was young, the now candidate, humiliated me, insulted me, disrespected me both publicly and privately in the cruelest way. The same way this happened to me, it's clear that throughout the years, he's continued his actions and behavior with other women. Therefore, I will continue to stand on my feet, sharing my story and my absolute support for Secretary Clinton, on behalf of all women -- my sisters, aunts, grandmothers, cousins, women within the community. I want to thank all of my Latinas and those who have supported me and given me love and respect for my career, and as a human being. I became a United States citizen because my daughter was born here and because I wanted to exercise my rights, among them, I wanted to vote.

    I will continue standing firm in my lived experience as Miss Universe and even stronger with your support. I've been so pleased and honored by so many kind and heartfelt words. I'm focusing on my career and my work as a mother, and I will continue taking positive steps for the Latino community. I will continue being an activist for women's rights and fighting for the respect we deserve. I appreciate all your love and thank you again for your support.'

    [Oct 06, 2016] Neoliberal MSM bottomfeeders try to damage Trump calaiming he insulted voters while in reality Democrat did is in cold blood

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's a pattern not just for the Clinton campaign, but liberals generally: the "irredeemable" "basket of deplorables"; the basement dwelling millenials. ..."
    "... Worse, the Democrat approach is calculated: As Bernard Shaw says: "A blow in cold blood neither can nor should be forgiven." ..."
    "... It's difficult to convince someone whose life is objectively worse that their life is better. And it's disengenuous to try. ..."
    "... Neoliberal capitalism is not sustainable for these people. ..."
    "... Neither party seems to be aligned with the interests of my union brothers and sisters. I'm sick and tired of hearing the kayfabe crap every election season about how I should vote dem to keep the evil GOPers from busting unions, when in reality both parties seem more or less committed to the corporate agenda of employment crapification. ..."
    "... I believe in union's, but part of the decline can be directly laid at the feet of leadership that either knowingly or stupidly help elect people who aren't with their union members in any meaningful fashion. ..."
    "... Some of the unions are straight out sell outs (I'm looking at you AFL/CIO – but the AFL kind of always has been, that's it's history, but now it's pretty appalling the positions being taken). Not sure about Teamsters and smaller unions are hit and miss I guess only a few are radical. The unions were defanged long ago in order to have un-threatening corporate unions and of course labor was the loser. But that still doesn't excuse their horrible political choices. ..."
    "... Why in the hell are the Democrats parading around like they are the default? Oh my! The Republicans could get the White House snatched from the Dems! Why should an independent give a damn if the Democrats lose? If they are so freaking important, change your policies to win their votes legitimately you HACKs! ..."
    Oct 06, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Debate Wrapup

    Next presidential debate: Sunday, October 9.

    "Fact-checking the vice-presidential debate between Kaine and Pence" [ WaPo ]. On the "insult-driven campaign" back-and-forth, where WaPo proffers a lovingly compiled list of Trump's insults: If smearing an entire cohort of disfavored voters as racist and sexist #BernieBros isn't an insult, I don't know what is. And that approach isn't isolated: It's a pattern not just for the Clinton campaign, but liberals generally: the "irredeemable" "basket of deplorables"; the basement dwelling millenials.

    Worse, the Democrat approach is calculated: As Bernard Shaw says: "A blow in cold blood neither can nor should be forgiven." So miss me with the insult discussion.

    ... ... ...

    "I Listened to a Trump Supporter" [ Extra News Feed ]. The foreclosure crisis destroyed her landscraping business. Then she lost her own house. "She told me that every week, it seemed there was another default letter, another foreclosure, another bank demanding more blood from her dry veins. To her, that pile of default notices and demands for payment looked suspiciously similar to Hillary Clinton's top donor list." And she's not wrong.

    "The Trump candidacy succeeded because of a massive revolt among rank-and-file Republicans against their leaders. Should the Trump candidacy fail, as now seems likely, those leaders stand ready to deny that the revolt ever happened. Instead, they'll have a story of a more or less normal Republican undone only because (as Pence said last night) 'he's not a polished politician.' The solution for 2020? Bring back the professionals-and return to business as usual" [David Frum, The Atlantic ]. "It's unlikely to work. But you can understand why it's an attractive message to a party elite that discovered to its horror that it had lost its base and lost its way."

    "Trump faces new battleground threat from steelworkers: The United Steelworkers union is pledging to make sure every one of its workers in make-or-break states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio are well aware that the Republican presidential candidate may have circumvented U.S. laws to import Chinese steel" [ Politico ].

    Roger Smith October 5, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    "I Listened to a Trump Supporter" [Extra News Feed].

    Thank the heavens the Banks made it out okay though. All those nice people might have had to go through the same thing.

    "It's difficult to convince someone whose life is objectively worse that their life is better. And it's disengenuous to try. You can break down the specifics, sure.

    What is the author talking about? Their lives ARE NOT better.

    "Neoliberal capitalism is not sustainable for these people."

    It is not sustainable period! What do you think will happen when all these people disappear?

    dcblogger October 5, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    Since The Beltway Democratic Establishment Refuses To Back Progressives Candidates, Why Should Grassroots Dems Unite Behind Their Crap Candidates?

    NY Union Guy October 5, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    EXACTLY!!!

    My primary political concern is labor so why should I get behind a dem or a GOPer?

    Neither party seems to be aligned with the interests of my union brothers and sisters. I'm sick and tired of hearing the kayfabe crap every election season about how I should vote dem to keep the evil GOPers from busting unions, when in reality both parties seem more or less committed to the corporate agenda of employment crapification.

    Pat October 5, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    My union's bulletin arrived yesterday with a full color cover of Hillary touting how they are with her.

    I believe in union's, but part of the decline can be directly laid at the feet of leadership that either knowingly or stupidly help elect people who aren't with their union members in any meaningful fashion.

    jrs October 5, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    Some of the unions are straight out sell outs (I'm looking at you AFL/CIO – but the AFL kind of always has been, that's it's history, but now it's pretty appalling the positions being taken). Not sure about Teamsters and smaller unions are hit and miss I guess only a few are radical. The unions were defanged long ago in order to have un-threatening corporate unions and of course labor was the loser. But that still doesn't excuse their horrible political choices.

    Higgs Boson October 5, 2016 at 8:35 pm

    Leaked Audio of Hillary Speaking to "the Grown Ups"

    Maybe HRC should ask Seattle CM Kshama Sawant what the problem is.

    Roger Smith October 5, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    Al Gore: "The former vice president, a climate activist, will speak about not just Clinton's plan to address global warming, but also the idea that voting for an independent presidential candidate could deliver the White House to Republicans in the same way that Ralph Nader's candidacy helped undermine his presidential bid in 2000."

    Why in the hell are the Democrats parading around like they are the default? Oh my! The Republicans could get the White House snatched from the Dems! Why should an independent give a damn if the Democrats lose? If they are so freaking important, change your policies to win their votes legitimately you HACKs!

    Nah, just parade around an old loser… that will get those kids and independents invigorated for sure! He made a movie! - ARGHH!!!! (this infuriates me).

    [Oct 06, 2016] Some atypical pro Trump comments from Guardian

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Military Industrial Complex with the Saudi/Qatari/Gulf Mafia in cahoots with The Religious Cult We're No Longer Allowed To Mention, have it in the bag. ..."
    "... Expect another war in the Middle East shortly after she's crowned. ..."
    "... Oh please. Yeah I'd sooner eat a cyanide sandwich than vote for that corrupt witch. ..."
    "... It's amusing to see the Guardian claim that it has "no bias", like when Marxists argue that their doctrine is a 'science' instead of a set of political beliefs. ..."
    "... Do the 1%ers and biased media believe that even if Clinton wins that the Trump supporters will just shrug their shoulders? Not a chance. ..."
    "... 2020 is going to be the most epic fought POTUS election in the history of America, that's if CLinton can stay upright and read the teleprompter for 4 years. ..."
    "... The only winner here will be globalist bankers and mega multinationals, the losers will, as usual, be all of the common people. ..."
    "... The Guardian will be 3 times a loser, despite it's supersonic propaganda campaign. 1) Brexit vote 2) Corbyn re-elected 3) Trump will win ..."
    "... In terms of comparing how much they are working Trump is simply working harder. He was campaigning yesterday and is today as well. It shows how dedicated he is for this whilst Hillary is in hiding and no doubt will be until Sunday !!! ..."
    "... At a townhall two days ago in Pennsylvania the Hillary Clinton campaign used a child actor, a daughter of a democrat state senator from Pennsylvania, to further her narrative. ..."
    "... The American people are like a sleeping elephant, sedated by a tame and corrupt media, yet when awoken with the truth they will trample everything in their path. Clinton is running out of tranquilisers. ..."
    Oct 06, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    ID4352889 1h ago
    The Warmonger Candidate will win.

    The Military Industrial Complex with the Saudi/Qatari/Gulf Mafia in cahoots with The Religious Cult We're No Longer Allowed To Mention, have it in the bag.

    AgentC ID4352889 1h ago

    The Warmonger Candidate will win.
    ...

    Expect another war in the Middle East shortly after she's crowned.
    Bitty31985 1h ago
    Oh please. Yeah I'd sooner eat a cyanide sandwich than vote for that corrupt witch. Go Jill Stein!! Defeat The She Devil!!
    cato8203 2h ago

    The Guardian is an independent voice in this year's election. That means no bias

    It's amusing to see the Guardian claim that it has "no bias", like when Marxists argue that their doctrine is a 'science' instead of a set of political beliefs.

    Thebrexiteer1234 2h ago
    Do the 1%ers and biased media believe that even if Clinton wins that the Trump supporters will just shrug their shoulders? Not a chance.

    2020 is going to be the most epic fought POTUS election in the history of America, that's if CLinton can stay upright and read the teleprompter for 4 years.

    Trump and Sanders supporters are just getting started.

    imperviouspizza 3h ago
    The only winner here will be globalist bankers and mega multinationals, the losers will, as usual, be all of the common people.
    MikeHuntByrnes 3h ago
    A link to Donald Trump's new plan to make America Great Again: Read and weep, all you Hillary-lovers! Trump 4 President!

    http://tinyurl.com/2fcpre6

    Alex J Campbell 4h ago
    The Guardian will be 3 times a loser, despite it's supersonic propaganda campaign. 1) Brexit vote 2) Corbyn re-elected 3) Trump will win
    rosey011 4h ago
    In terms of comparing how much they are working Trump is simply working harder. He was campaigning yesterday and is today as well. It shows how dedicated he is for this whilst Hillary is in hiding and no doubt will be until Sunday !!!
    fedback 4h ago
    At a townhall two days ago in Pennsylvania the Hillary Clinton campaign used a child actor, a daughter of a democrat state senator from Pennsylvania, to further her narrative.

    Unfortunately all about Hillary is fake and as the media don't even pretend to practice journalism concerning Hillary Clinton, citizen researchers have to do the media's job. Here is a video explaining what took place.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEqU71k0zAc

    ThomasFareye 4h ago
    The American people are like a sleeping elephant, sedated by a tame and corrupt media, yet when awoken with the truth they will trample everything in their path. Clinton is running out of tranquilisers.

    [Oct 06, 2016] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/06/could-italys-renzi-be-next-victim-of-an-unwanted-referendum

    Notable quotes:
    "... the issue of the elite against the people. ..."
    Oct 06, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    The other European referendum, soon to be known as the Italian Job. Interesting the way the article touches on the issue of the elite against the people.

    [Oct 06, 2016] Kasparov never has a chance to become president of RU, especially after he became an obvious puppet of the West

    Notable quotes:
    "... Even with the outside help, even if all US Department Of State budget will be spent on Kasparov's campaign, even with the help of 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions, chances of Kasparov becoming PM or President of Russia are approaching zero. ..."
    "... Unless ofc US manages coup in Russia like in Ukraine and elsewhere, which is nearly impossible at this point. ..."
    "... He never had those chances in the first place and it has very little to do with his support from the West. Western "liberalism" in the form it is preached by Kasparov or his ilk simply has no chances in Russia, period. And it is all for the better. Basically what is known as Russian "westernizing" liberalism is dead. Good riddance. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    SmoothieX12 | Oct 3, 2016 11:49:13 AM | 57

    @Carl D, 55
    What do you think of Kasparov? Can he ever be PM or President of the Russian Federation without outside Help?

    Even with the outside help, even if all US Department Of State budget will be spent on Kasparov's campaign, even with the help of 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions, chances of Kasparov becoming PM or President of Russia are approaching zero.

    Harry | Oct 3, 2016 12:02:39 PM | 58
    Kasparov ruined his chances to become president of RU by being an obvious puppet of the West, much like nobody in Syria would vote for whatever "opposition president" for the day is. Unless ofc US manages coup in Russia like in Ukraine and elsewhere, which is nearly impossible at this point.

    SmoothieX12 | Oct 3, 2016 12:37:02 PM | 59
    @58, Harry
    Kasparov ruined his chances to become president of RU by being an obvious puppet of the West

    He never had those chances in the first place and it has very little to do with his support from the West. Western "liberalism" in the form it is preached by Kasparov or his ilk simply has no chances in Russia, period. And it is all for the better. Basically what is known as Russian "westernizing" liberalism is dead. Good riddance.

    CarlD | Oct 3, 2016 1:41:30 PM | 63
    Re Kasparov

    I believe the Duma should strip him of Russian citizenship. In the debate of reference, he is siding with enemies of Russia and shows no patriotism at all. Ambition blinds him.

    SmoothieX12 | Oct 3, 2016 3:05:09 PM | 66
    @63, CarlD.
    I believe the Duma should strip him of Russian citizenship.

    No, it shouldn't. He has to be regularly shown on TV and has his views propagated. Not that he wasn't a freak before, let him completely discredit himself (I wonder if it is even possible) and meanwhile complete a cycle of immunization of Russians against "values" he preaches.

    [Oct 05, 2016] The VP Debate and Syria The American Conservative

    Oct 05, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    The vice presidential debate was an irritating and boring event. One notable part was when Mike Pence outlined his views of what the U.S. should do in Syria:

    Asked how a Trump-Pence administration would stop the civil war carnage in Aleppo, Pence said that he, at least, "truly believe(s) that what America ought to do right now is immediately establish safe zones, so that families and children can work out of those areas," and "work with our partners [to] make that happen. Provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength." If Russia "continues to be involved" in airstrikes along with the Syrian government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, he said, "the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military forces of the Assad regime" and "prevent this crisis in Aleppo."

    Trump has said very little about Syria's civil war–and advocated none of the measures Pence outlined.

    That last part is not really true. Trump has endorsed creating safe zones in Syria on more than one occasion . While I don't believe Trump has a clear idea of what establishing a safe zone requires, he has had no problem voicing support for the idea several times. The fact that Pence felt comfortable outlining a very aggressive Syria policy in tonight's debate suggests that Trump doesn't really have a problem with what his running mate proposed. As I said when I was watching the debate, Pence's answer on Syria was deranged. He more or less threatened to initiate hostilities with Russia, and he seemed oblivious to the serious negative consequences this would have. He kept invoking "American leadership" and "American strength," as if uttering these phrases was all that mattered. Pence's advocacy for much more U.S. involvement in Syria could have been an easy target for Kaine, but of course he and Clinton have no disagreements with the Republican ticket on this issue. For all the quarreling between the two campaigns, both tickets apparently support U.S. escalation in Syria. As bad as the moderator for the debate was, she did at least manage to get both candidates to take positions on an issue that was completely ignored in the first presidential debate.

    Overall, Kaine's performance was shaky and didn't seem all that impressive to anyone that didn't know much about him. Despite arguably having better foreign policy experience than Pence, he did a worse job of demonstrating his readiness to be president if needed. His constant interruptions of Pence were jarring and off-putting, and created the impression of being an overly loyal terrier trying to defend his master. Pence's repeated failure to come to Trump's defense in response to Kaine's many jabs presumably hurt Trump, but it also made Pence seem much less agitated and rattled. Neither VP nominee significantly harmed his running mate, but Pence did a better job of making the case for his party's ticket.

    Who Stole The Strawberries?, says: October 4, 2016 at 11:48 pm
    " it also made Pence seem much less agitated and rattled"

    I agree. Kaine's nervousness, grimacing, and non-stop interruptions were annoying and a bit flaky. Pence seemed more composed and stable, even if some of what he said was a lot of nonsense straight out of the Interventionist Handbook.

    Temperamentally, Pence is the guy you'd want a heartbeat away from taking that 3:00AM call Kaine looked like he'd still be awake, jabbering into a dictaphone while vacuuming the Oval Office for the fifth time.

    Dakarian , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:13 am
    As far as Syria, and the middle east in general, this is sort of why I glossed over the statements that Hillary is a hawk: because I don't see any doves (that don't have far too many other problems to support). Trump started out sounding like he was but as time went on it sounded more and more like the regular republican "more money to the military. World Police! WIN!" talk.

    So at this point it sounds like both are going to keep us in the middle east. Though it seems Trump may mess with the Iran deal (though it might be less attacking it as it is just poking at the administration any chance you get).

    As far as the debate, Pence wanted a debate about policy while Kaine wanted a debate about Trump. if this was a presidential debate Pence probably would've been in a better standing.

    But I think Kaine wasn't even fighting him. He wasn't after policy. Beyond stating his points and a token defense his primary purpose was one thing, to say "remember, you aren't voting for Pence, but for Trump." He's picturing the public saying "Oh, Pence seems pretty coo..oh yeah, but he's with Trump..ewww."

    It pretty much sums up the entire deal with the republican side of the campaign. Take Trump out of it and you have a strong platform and an actual attempt at trying to extend somewhat past the old GOP mindset while evoking that Need For Change that pushed democrats back in '08. It's an actual strong case.

    The issue is that it's all on the hopes of Trump. And THAT is the hard sell. I don't even see many supporters defending him. It's like Pence: they bypass him and either focus on the dream or the enemy.

    Which leads to something interesting: If the roles were reversed: same platform, same general message, but Pence as President and Trump as VP, would it be hard for folks not two-feet in the Democratic ticket to vote R? Would there be a questioin as to who would win?

    I have a feeling that many would say : " I don't know. But I would have liked that campaign I would have liked that campaign very much.

    Old Dominionite , says: October 5, 2016 at 2:51 am
    If you'd told me that one of the two gentlemen debating last night was a Virginian and asked me who it was, I would have said Pence, solely because of his demeanor.

    Pence's thoughts on Syria were dumb (and dangerous), but I find it hard to hold that against run-of-the-mill politicians these days because they're getting such rotten information and advice from establishment "experts" and mainstream pundits. The country needs a changing of the guard when it comes to "experts".

    Kaine struck me as a third stringer trying to compensate for his own weaknesses by poking a stick in the other fellow's spokes. And no better on Syria, that's certain.

    furbo , says: October 5, 2016 at 7:29 am
    The way the question was phrased, evoking endangered children and the classic what should America 'do' .doesn't really allow a candidate to say 'nothing – we have no vital interests in Syria'.
    VikingLS , says: October 5, 2016 at 8:40 am
    If Pence is pushing that same "get tough with Russia and Assad" idea he's taking the opposite tack than Trump. Either they aren't communicating, the campaign figured that they could get away with completely altering their position from one debate to the next, or Pence doesn't really care what Trump thinks and is an unreformed GOP hawk.

    Either way this is very disappointing and stupid.

    collin , says: October 5, 2016 at 8:52 am
    Isn't the joke here Pence had a great debate running for President? In reality, it is very likely Pence does all the real work and all Donald really wants is the national audience to take the credit. So it was a goo debate for Pence that has minimal effect on the polls because the headliners personality are dominant this cycle.

    Tim Kaine was overly-aggressive and appeared to be not ready for Prime time.

    Nestor , says: October 5, 2016 at 8:54 am
    Take Trump out of it and you have a strong platform

    Idiotic.

    Take Trump out of it, and you have more of the same GOP neoconservatism as ever:

    -more pretend-resistance-but-actual-enabling of illegal immigration
    -more wars-on-behalf-of-Israel neocon interventionism
    -more manufacturing-base-killing free trade

    Trump is the ONLY reason these three toxic policies are even being challenged.

    EliteCommInc. , says: October 5, 2016 at 9:04 am
    "The fact that Pence felt comfortable outlining a very aggressive Syria policy in tonight's debate suggests that Trump doesn't really have a problem with what his running mate proposed. As I said when I was watching the debate, Pence's answer on Syria was deranged. He more or less threatened to initiate hostilities with Russia, and he seemed oblivious to the serious negative consequences this would have. He kept invoking"

    I didn't watch the debate. This morning, when I was asked about it - I didn't think it would be a contest. Gov. Pence, should have no issues.

    But if I had watched and heard the above comments. I might have had conniptions. I am not going to say more at the moment. I would sound like I am abandoning my candidate. I like Gov. Pence, but that response is rife with campaign and policy self inflicting damages - good grief.

    Steve in Ohio , says: October 5, 2016 at 10:22 am
    Pence is a fine Christian man and I'm glad he did well last night. However, his hawkishness was disturbing. Somebody who is pro life should be wary of policies that lead to wars and thousands dying.

    As somebody who wants our borders secured, I don't feel I have a choice on Nov. 8. I will be praying, though, that Trump doesn't delegate the FP heavy lifting to his vice president as Bush 43 did to his.

    Uncle Billy , says: October 5, 2016 at 10:35 am
    "Safe Zones" sound all well and good, but the only way to guarantee a safe zone is to have US troops on the ground in Syria. You cannot enforce a safe zone from the air.

    So, it sounds like both parties are willing to commit US ground troops to Syria and risk a possible confrontation with Russian troops who are already there.

    This is more Neocon nonsense being foisted on the American people by politicians who do not really understand the ramifications of their actions.

    LHM , says: October 5, 2016 at 10:50 am
    Jesus. Very disappointed in Pence's answer on Syria. War against russia would cost thousands of american lives. We need to stay out of Syria plain and simple. Pence's statememt also goes completely against "we need to beat ISIS" rant that trump goes on every two sentences. To beat ISIS we would have to be on the same side as Syria/Russia. This whole election is cluster .How the heck did we end up with these two choices?
    RadicalCenter2 , says: October 5, 2016 at 11:21 am
    LHM: exactly. I'd just add that war with Russia conventionally would probably costs hundreds of thousands of us soldier lives and could cripple our military for subsequent actual DEFENSE against the country that actually will have the means to threaten the very existence or freedom of the USA:

    China, with an economy vastly bigger and more diversified than Russia's, a population eight times as numerous as Russia's, and for that matter a far, far larger diaspora to influence politics, culture, and economics in the formerly white western countries (USA, Canada (especially "British" Columbia), and Australia, in particular).

    Also, as pointed out in columns on Unz and elsewhere, conventional war could escalate to nuclear exchange more easily than many people think. God help us.

    Anonne , says: October 5, 2016 at 11:34 am
    Pence did a better job selling his party because Pence thoroughly invented a different running mate.
    Chris Chuba , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:06 pm
    How many safe zones do we need in Syria, we already have 3.
    1. Govt held areas (unless we bomb them).
    2. Kurdish territory (unless Turkey bombs them).
    3. The Turkish zone in N. Syria.

    In fact weren't we begging Turkey to establish a zone just for this purpose?

    Of course, what we really want is an Assad free zone that covers all of Syria and filled with Al Qaeda groups that we pretend are moderates.

    EdK , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:56 pm
    Trump needs to state clearly that he is not in agreement with Pence position on Russia & Syria. To beat ISIS we need to be on the same side as Russia. If Pence is a fine Christian, how can he be so carless to be on side of ISIS in Syria like Obama is, and have hand in destroying Syria the cradle of Christianity.
    Dakarian , says: October 5, 2016 at 1:18 pm
    @LHM

    "Jesus. Very disappointed in Pence's answer on Syria. War against russia would cost thousands of american lives. We need to stay out of Syria plain and simple. Pence's statememt also goes completely against "we need to beat ISIS" rant that trump goes on every two sentences. To beat ISIS we would have to be on the same side as Syria/Russia."

    it's the problem with being involved with the entire middle east without a firm desire of exactly what we want from there. We started out fighting Sunni threats, then took out the big Sunni country that we earlier set up to hold back the big Shi'a country we felt was a threat. So when said Shi'a country gained power we stood against them. And..well, that sort of ended up with us fighting both sides at the same time depending on the location.

    It's much more complicated than that, which is why jumping in there without really understanding the region was a bad idea.

    " This whole election is cluster .How the heck did we end up with these two choices?"

    My belief.

    Democratic voters are used to 'playing it safe' instead of going for more Left choices since "liberal" triggers a BIG backlash in this country. Thus why you get candidates like Clinton instead of candidates like Sanders and why you keep getting things like Obamacare's quasi-private insurance instead of single-payer.

    Republican voters are sick of the GOP and wanted someone, anyone, who wasn't a democrat but wasn't holding the GOP platform. Remember how, other than Trump, the other Republican candidates were all trying to "Out Right" each other? Trump was the only one that did more than outright ignore them.

    So in a way, the GOP caused it all by putting so much hate against the Left that the Left always plays it safe and caring so little about their base that they eloped to the first man that told them they were pretty and deserved better.

    Clinton was the 'safe pick'. Trump smiled. And here we are.

    It actuslly sounds less stupid when you see it that way. It's less that we're all idiots and more just a set of unfortunate events caused by a political scene that looked a lot like a youtube comment section.

    DES , says: October 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm
    I tend to discount Pence's comments on Syria in the debate. If Trump manages to win, he rather than Pence will be calling the shots on foreign policy. And to the extent that Trump has any coherent ideas on foreign policy, how could he come down hard on the mistake of invading Iraq and support getting deeply involved in Syria?

    In fact, Trump may have welcomed Pence's statement on Syria, since it may have attracted the votes of some establishment and neocon types without binding him to any particular policy if he becomes president.

    the danger of reinfestation , says: October 5, 2016 at 1:37 pm
    "In fact, Trump may have welcomed Pence's statement on Syria, since it may have attracted the votes of some establishment and neocon types without binding him to any particular policy if he becomes president."

    Altogether too close to the Bush-Cheney parallel for comfort. The last thing we want is for the neocons to come creeping back in through the Blair House back door.

    Paul Asay , says: October 5, 2016 at 3:35 pm
    Thought Pence was the superior of the two. Considering the options in Syria while running for President/VP you have to show a position of strength. My thought is that Trump wants to play nice with Putin for a while and eventually will pull out of Syria. You just can't say that during an election or you look weak.
    Steve in Ohio , says: October 5, 2016 at 4:30 pm
    @EdK

    Pence is a fine Christian -- I admire his courage in bringing up abortion in such an important debate. Unfortunately, most conservatives have a blind spot toward Christians in the Mideast. Part of it might be bias–Orthodox Christians aren't "true" Christians. Also many Evangelicals have been brain washed into believing that support of Israel is the only thing that counts.

    rayray , says: October 5, 2016 at 5:29 pm
    @Paul Asay

    "My thought is that Trump wants to play nice with Putin for a while and eventually will pull out of Syria."

    One thing Trump has successfully done is to launch a campaign so free of any real policy that anything you want to believe can be projected onto him. Play nice with Putin and then pull out? Sure! He's never said that, and in fact he's said the exact opposite but why not?

    [Oct 05, 2016] Time for Real Answers on War

    Small countries are just pawns in a bigger Washington geopolitical game, the game conducted with the level of determination and cruelty that would bestow on them an approving nod from Mussolini. And actually they do not shun allies in far right forces. As long as they promote pro-American pro-neoliberalism policies. As in saying "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch " (attributed to FDR about Somoza). Since the dissolution of the USSR the US has been the world hegemon, sponsoring a world order on neoliberal principles and making the world safe for an often rapacious multinationals. Political disinterest in foreign military adventures at home due to absence of draft allowed hijacking the US military for racketeering abroad. The privatizing of the military-industrial complex has converted it into formidable political force: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates perpetual war as a marketing tool. American foreign policy has long been the special province of transnational corporations, which were allowed to use US naval and military power for penetration into markets of the countries without paying for it.
    Notable quotes:
    "... With regard to the issue of "first use," every president since Harry Truman has subscribed to the same posture: the United States retains the prerogative of employing nuclear weapons to defend itself and its allies against even nonnuclear threats. ..."
    "... Yet whatever reassurance was to be found in Trump's vow never to order a first strike-not the question Lester Holt was asking-was immediately squandered. The Republican nominee promptly revoked his "no first strike" pledge by insisting, in a cliché much favored in Washington , that "I can't take anything off the table." ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton chose a different course: she changed the subject. She would moderate her own debate. Perhaps Trump thought Holt was in charge of the proceedings; Clinton knew better. ..."
    "... What followed was vintage Clinton: vapid sentiments, smoothly delivered in the knowing tone of a seasoned Washington operative. During her two minutes, she never came within a country mile of discussing the question Holt had asked or the thoughts she evidently actually has about nuclear issues. ..."
    "... It was as if Clinton were already speaking from the Oval Office. Trump had addressed his remarks to Lester Holt. Clinton directed hers to the nation at large, to people the world over, indeed to history itself. Warming to her task, she was soon rolling out the sort of profundities that play well at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment, or the Council on Foreign Relations, causing audiences to nod-or nod off. ..."
    "... With that, she reverted to platitudes. "So we need to be more precise in how we talk about these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and in accordance with our values? That's what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they're abroad or at home." ..."
    "... In contrast to Trump, however, Clinton did speak in complete sentences, which followed one another in an orderly fashion. She thereby came across as at least nominally qualified to govern the country, much like, say, Warren G. Harding nearly a century ago. And what worked for Harding in 1920 may well work for Clinton in 2016. ..."
    "... Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on. ..."
    "... Trump was incredibly naďve or stupid for even answering that question. He should have asked Holt to state what he understood "the nation's longstanding policy" to be and define the term "first use." Rule one in debating: If you don't fully understand the question, demand a definition of any premises essential to the question. ..."
    "... I note, however, that Trump is a builder and Clinton is a destroyer. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton authorized bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 to divert attention away from his sex scandals in a 'wag-the-dog' operation for gratuitous purposes. Hillary supported the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt in a rigged election in 2012 after the Brotherhood murdered countless police, prosecutors, judges and Coptic Priests and children and has enriched herself from advance bribes through her Foundation. The Clintons indisputably use "evil" for gratuitous purposes and have sold out the interests of the nation. ..."
    "... Trump advocates waterboarding and stop and frisk as necessary policies to protect lives. But this is what a leader is elected to do – to use power and coercion to protect the people. He does not advocate torture or aggressive policing for political or egotistical purposes or to intimidate the public into totalitarian submission. He opposes political correct and totalitarian control of speech. ..."
    "... So Bacevich can say Trump is unqualified but based purely on empirical grounds, the Clintons have disqualified themselves from the presidency by their gratuitous use of power and influence peddling; while Trump prefers to do deals (treaties) but would use aggressive tactics to protect the public but only when absolutely necessary as a last resort. ..."
    "... So it is Bacevich who is unqualified to render an opinion that helps us judge which candidate is qualified for the presidency because he believes he has greater knowledge on issues such as nuclear proliferation. Bacevich is another know-it-all elite who knows better based on his superior knowledge. But no one has such God like knowledge. What would Bacevich do if he could drop an A-bomb and save countless lives on both sides of a war? He doesn't tell us and instead prefers to bash the candidates as to not telling the truth to the American public. The records of the candidates, summarized above, give us a glimpse of how they would use "evil". ..."
    "... The irony is Bacevich lost a son in a war Trump opposed but Hillary voted for. He is to be respected for his loss but not for his unqualified opinion as to which candidate would use evil-for-good or evil-for-ill. ..."
    Oct 05, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    You may have missed it. Perhaps you dozed off. Or wandered into the kitchen to grab a snack. Or by that point in the proceedings were checking out Seinfeld reruns. During the latter part of the much hyped but excruciating-to-watch first presidential debate, NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt posed a seemingly straightforward but cunningly devised question. His purpose was to test whether the candidates understood the essentials of nuclear strategy.

    A moderator given to plain speaking might have said this: "Explain why the United States keeps such a large arsenal of nuclear weapons and when you might consider using those weapons."

    What Holt actually said was: "On nuclear weapons, President Obama reportedly considered changing the nation's longstanding policy on first use. Do you support the current policy?"

    The framing of the question posited no small amount of knowledge on the part of the two candidates. Specifically, it assumed that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton each possess some familiarity with the longstanding policy to which Holt referred and with the modifications that Obama had contemplated making to it.

    If you will permit the equivalent of a commercial break as this piece begins, let me explain why I'm about to parse in detail each candidate's actual answer to Holt's question. Amid deep dives into, and expansive punditry regarding, issues like how "fat" a former Miss Universe may have been and how high an imagined future wall on our southern border might prove to be, national security issues likely to test the judgment of a commander-in-chief have received remarkably little attention. So indulge me. This largely ignored moment in last week's presidential debate is worth examining.

    With regard to the issue of "first use," every president since Harry Truman has subscribed to the same posture: the United States retains the prerogative of employing nuclear weapons to defend itself and its allies against even nonnuclear threats.

    In other words, as a matter of policy, the United States rejects the concept of "no first use," which would prohibit any employment of nuclear weapons except in retaliation for a nuclear attack. According to press reports, President Obama had toyed with but then rejected the idea of committing the United States to a "no first use" posture. Holt wanted to know where the two candidates aspiring to succeed Obama stood on the matter.

    Cruelly, the moderator invited Trump to respond first. The look in the Republican nominee's eyes made it instantly clear that Holt could have been speaking Farsi for all he understood. A lesser candidate might then have begun with the nuclear equivalent of " What is Aleppo? "

    Yet Trump being Trump, he gamely-or naively-charged headlong into the ambush that Holt had carefully laid, using his allotted two minutes to offer his insights into how as president he would address the nuclear conundrum that previous presidents had done so much to create. The result owed less to early Cold War thinkers-of-the-unthinkable like Herman Kahn or Albert Wohlstetter, who created the field of nuclear strategy, than to Dr. Strangelove. Make that Dr. Strangelove on meth.

    Trump turned first to Russia, expressing concern that it might be gaining an edge in doomsday weaponry. "They have a much newer capability than we do," he said. "We have not been updating from the new standpoint." The American bomber fleet in particular, he added, needs modernization. Presumably referring to the recent employment of Vietnam-era bombers in the wars in Afghanistan , Iraq , and Syria, he continued somewhat opaquely, "I looked the other night. I was seeing B-52s, they're old enough that your father, your grandfather, could be flying them. We are not - we are not keeping up with other countries."

    Trump then professed an appreciation for the awfulness of nuclear weaponry. "I would like everybody to end it, just get rid of it. But I would certainly not do first strike. I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it's over."

    Give Trump this much: even in a field that tends to favor abstraction and obfuscating euphemisms like "fallout" or "dirty bomb," classifying Armageddon as the "nuclear alternative" represents something of a contribution.

    Still, it's worth noting that, in the arcane theology of nuclear strategy, "first strike" and "first use" are anything but synonymous. "First strike" implies a one-sided, preventive war of annihilation. The logic of a first strike, such as it is, is based on the calculation that a surprise nuclear attack could inflict the "nuclear alternative" on your adversary, while sparing your own side from suffering a comparable fate. A successful first strike would be a one-punch knockout, delivered while your opponent still sits in his corner of the ring.

    Yet whatever reassurance was to be found in Trump's vow never to order a first strike-not the question Lester Holt was asking-was immediately squandered. The Republican nominee promptly revoked his "no first strike" pledge by insisting, in a cliché much favored in Washington , that "I can't take anything off the table."

    Piling non sequitur upon non sequitur, he next turned to the threat posed by a nuclear-armed North Korea, where "we're doing nothing." Yet, worrisome as this threat might be, keeping Pyongyang in check, he added, ought to be Beijing's job. "China should solve that problem for us," he insisted. "China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea."

    If China wouldn't help with North Korea, however, what could be more obvious than that Iran, many thousands of miles away, should do so-and might have, if only President Obama had incorporated the necessary proviso into the Iran nuclear deal. "Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran has power over North Korea." When the Obama administration "made that horrible deal with Iran, they should have included the fact that they do something with respect to North Korea." But why stop with North Korea? Iran "should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places," he continued, wandering into the nonnuclear world. U.S. negotiators suitably skilled in the Trumpian art of the deal, he implied, could easily have maneuvered Iran into solving such problems on Washington's behalf.

    Veering further off course, Trump then took a passing swipe at Secretary of State John Kerry: "Why didn't you add other things into the deal?" Why, in "one of the great giveaways of all time," did the Obama administration fork over $400 million in cash? At which point, he promptly threw in another figure without the slightest explanation-"It was actually $1.7 billion in cash"-in "one of the worst deals ever made by any country in history."

    Trump then wrapped up his meandering tour d'horizon by decrying the one action of the Obama administration that arguably has reduced the prospect of nuclear war, at least in the near future. "The deal with Iran will lead to nuclear problems," he stated with conviction. "All they have to do is sit back 10 years, and they don't have to do much. And they're going to end up getting nuclear." For proof, he concluded, talk to the Israelis. "I met with Bibi Netanyahu the other day," he added for no reason in particular. "Believe me, he's not a happy camper."

    On this indecipherable note, his allotted time exhausted, Trump's recitation ended. In its way, it had been a Joycean performance.

    Bridge Over Troubled Waters?

    It was now Clinton's turn to show her stuff. If Trump had responded to Holt like a voluble golf caddy being asked to discuss the finer points of ice hockey, Hillary Clinton chose a different course: she changed the subject. She would moderate her own debate. Perhaps Trump thought Holt was in charge of the proceedings; Clinton knew better.

    What followed was vintage Clinton: vapid sentiments, smoothly delivered in the knowing tone of a seasoned Washington operative. During her two minutes, she never came within a country mile of discussing the question Holt had asked or the thoughts she evidently actually has about nuclear issues.

    "[L]et me start by saying, words matter," she began. "Words matter when you run for president. And they really matter when you are president. And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them."

    It was as if Clinton were already speaking from the Oval Office. Trump had addressed his remarks to Lester Holt. Clinton directed hers to the nation at large, to people the world over, indeed to history itself. Warming to her task, she was soon rolling out the sort of profundities that play well at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment, or the Council on Foreign Relations, causing audiences to nod-or nod off.

    "It is essential that America's word be good," Clinton continued. "And so I know that this campaign has caused some questioning and worries on the part of many leaders across the globe. I've talked with a number of them. But I want to - on behalf of myself, and I think on behalf of a majority of the American people, say that, you know, our word is good."

    Then, after inserting a tepid, better-than-nothing endorsement of the Iran nuclear deal, she hammered Trump for not offering an alternative. "Would he have started a war? Would he have bombed Iran?" If you're going to criticize, she pointed out, you need to offer something better. Trump never does, she charged. "It's like his plan to defeat ISIS. He says it's a secret plan, but the only secret is that he has no plan."

    With that, she reverted to platitudes. "So we need to be more precise in how we talk about these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and in accordance with our values? That's what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they're abroad or at home."

    Like Trump, she offered no specifics. Which bullies? Where? How? In what order? Would she start with Russia's Putin? North Korea's Kim Jong-Un? Perhaps Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines? How about Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan? Or Bibi?

    In contrast to Trump, however, Clinton did speak in complete sentences, which followed one another in an orderly fashion. She thereby came across as at least nominally qualified to govern the country, much like, say, Warren G. Harding nearly a century ago. And what worked for Harding in 1920 may well work for Clinton in 2016.

    Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on.

    The National Security Void

    If I've taxed your patience by recounting this non-debate and non-discussion of nuclear first use, it's to make a larger point. The absence of relevant information elicited by Lester Holt's excellent question speaks directly to what has become a central flaw in this entire presidential campaign: the dearth of attention given to matters basic to U.S. national security policy.

    In the nuclear arena, the issue of first use is only one of several on which anyone aspiring to become the next commander-in-chief should be able to offer an informed judgment. Others include questions such as these:

    • What is the present-day justification for maintaining the U.S. nuclear "triad," a strike force consisting of manned bombers and land-based ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles?
    • Why is the Pentagon embarking upon a decades-long, trillion-dollar program to modernize that triad, fielding a new generation of bombers, missiles, and submarines along with an arsenal of new warheads ? Is that program necessary?
    • How do advances in non-nuclear weaponry-for example, in the realm of cyberwarfare-affect theories of nuclear deterrence devised by the likes of Kahn and Wohlstetter during the 1950s and 1960s? Does the logic of those theories still pertain?

    Beyond the realm of nuclear strategy, there are any number of other security-related questions about which the American people deserve to hear directly from both Trump and Clinton, testing their knowledge of the subject matter and the quality of their judgments. Among such matters, one in particular screams out for attention. Consider it the question that Washington has declared off-limits: What lessons should be drawn from America's costly and disappointing post-9/11 wars and how should those lessons apply to future policy?

    With Election Day now merely a month away, there is no more reason to believe that such questions will receive serious consideration than to expect Trump to come clean on his personal finances or Clinton to release the transcripts of her handsomely compensated Goldman Sachs speeches.

    When outcomes don't accord with his wishes, Trump reflexively blames a "rigged" system. But a system that makes someone like Trump a finalist for the presidency isn't rigged. It is manifestly absurd, a fact that has left most of the national media grasping wildly for explanations (albeit none that tag them with having facilitated the transformation of politics into theater).

    I'll take a backseat to no one in finding Trump unfit to serve as president. Yet beyond the outsized presence of one particular personality, the real travesty of our predicament lies elsewhere-in the utter shallowness of our political discourse, no more vividly on display than in the realm of national security.

    What do our presidential candidates talk about when they don't want to talk about nuclear war? The one, in a vain effort to conceal his own ignorance, offers rambling nonsense. The other, accustomed to making her own rules, simply changes the subject.

    The American people thereby remain in darkness. On that score, Trump, Clinton, and the parties they represent are not adversaries. They are collaborators.

    Andrew Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is the author, most recently, of America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History , which has been longlisted for the National Book Award.

    Copyright 2016 Andrew J. Bacevich

    ek ErilaR, says: October 4, 2016 at 1:20 pm
    Trump was incredibly naďve or stupid for even answering that question. He should have asked Holt to state what he understood "the nation's longstanding policy" to be and define the term "first use." Rule one in debating: If you don't fully understand the question, demand a definition of any premises essential to the question.

    For God's sake, most Americans generally believe that the nation's police on nukes is that we won't use them first. Introducing this kind of mixture of jargon and terms of art is good and sufficient reason for rejecting the format of these awful "debates."

    LarryS , says: October 4, 2016 at 1:23 pm
    Dr. Bacevich is always insightful and worth reading. I wish we had a better choice of candidates. I note, however, that Trump is a builder and Clinton is a destroyer.
    Steve in Ohio , says: October 4, 2016 at 2:18 pm
    Sounds like the Colonel will be voting for the Democrat for the third time in a row (maybe fourth, he probably voted for Kerry, too). Although the Democrats have been marginally better on foreign policy, they totally devoted to open borders.

    Mass immigration will lead to more attacks at home which will lead to more wars overseas. Invite the world/invade the world go hand in hand.

    edr , says: October 4, 2016 at 6:36 pm
    "Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. "

    Very funny! Thank you

    Anonymous , says: October 4, 2016 at 10:17 pm
    Clinton's approach makes sense. She knows that the general public knows little and cares less about nuclear minutiae, so she laid out her platitudes-which the public does understand-and raised legitimate doubts about whether Trump would adopt a foreign policy as Joycean as his reply.
    Wayne Lusvardi , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:31 am
    What did Bacevich tell us other than he is an expert in nuclear proliferation policy but the two presidential candidates aren't. So what? We don't elect presidents to be nuclear war policy experts.

    We elect them on how they use the monopoly that government grants them for the legitimate use of power, coercion, deception and violence (we might call this "evil") . Do they use "evil" gratuitously or for partisan purposes or self gain; or do they only use "evil" only as a last resort when there is no other choice such as when Truman authorized dropping A-bombs on Japan? The self righteous and arrogant Bacevich doesn't tell us which candidate would use evil-for-good or evil-for-bad or gratuitous outcomes.

    Bill Clinton authorized bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 to divert attention away from his sex scandals in a 'wag-the-dog' operation for gratuitous purposes. Hillary supported the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt in a rigged election in 2012 after the Brotherhood murdered countless police, prosecutors, judges and Coptic Priests and children and has enriched herself from advance bribes through her Foundation. The Clintons indisputably use "evil" for gratuitous purposes and have sold out the interests of the nation.

    Trump advocates eminent domain but offered a widow four times the market value of her property and lifetime occupancy in one of his luxury condos. The property was a rooming house the widow never lived in on commercial zoned land. The property was foreclose on 20 years later for half of what Trump offered her and the property was never acquired. Trump shows he does not use evil gratuitously and is a generous person who nevertheless advocates the legal use of eminent domain where necessary as a last resort.

    Trump advocates waterboarding and stop and frisk as necessary policies to protect lives. But this is what a leader is elected to do – to use power and coercion to protect the people. He does not advocate torture or aggressive policing for political or egotistical purposes or to intimidate the public into totalitarian submission. He opposes political correct and totalitarian control of speech.

    In sum, the Clintons put no limits on their use of "evil" for self gain or selling out to other nations interests; while Trump wants to use soft power and voluntary market deals where possible (eminent domain) or would use aggressive tactics to protect the public but in a limited and lawful way.

    So Bacevich can say Trump is unqualified but based purely on empirical grounds, the Clintons have disqualified themselves from the presidency by their gratuitous use of power and influence peddling; while Trump prefers to do deals (treaties) but would use aggressive tactics to protect the public but only when absolutely necessary as a last resort.

    So it is Bacevich who is unqualified to render an opinion that helps us judge which candidate is qualified for the presidency because he believes he has greater knowledge on issues such as nuclear proliferation. Bacevich is another know-it-all elite who knows better based on his superior knowledge. But no one has such God like knowledge. What would Bacevich do if he could drop an A-bomb and save countless lives on both sides of a war? He doesn't tell us and instead prefers to bash the candidates as to not telling the truth to the American public. The records of the candidates, summarized above, give us a glimpse of how they would use "evil".

    The irony is Bacevich lost a son in a war Trump opposed but Hillary voted for. He is to be respected for his loss but not for his unqualified opinion as to which candidate would use evil-for-good or evil-for-ill.

    [Oct 05, 2016] How Trump and Clinton Gave Bad Answers on US Nuclear Policy and Why You Should Be Worried

    Notable quotes:
    "... I usually remark that one must look at the 'second tier' of a political cabal to predict future actions by a 'candidate.' The people surrounding the 'candidate' and their track records on issues in their sphere of expertise tell the mind sets that 'drive' policy. Trump comes from the business world, where delegation of responsibility is standard for larger enterprises. His 'advisors' are key to future performance. Clinton seems to be encapsulated in a bubble of sycophants. So, the same rationale applies to her as applies to Trump. Who are her main 'advisors?' ..."
    "... As anyone possessed of discernment would have noticed in the 2008 campaign, Obama surrounded himself with 'less than progressive' advisors. His subsequent governance followed suit so that we find the nation in the mess it is in today. ..."
    "... Finally, all signs are that the Russians are not taking this slide towards bellicosity lightly. The Russians are demonstrating a clear sighted view of Americas dysfunctions. For the Russians to hold massive Civil Defense drills now is a clear message; "We are preparing for the worst. How about you?" ..."
    "... The tone of this piece is remarkably similar to a long article Bacevich headed in a recent Harper's article on US foreign policy. Presented as a roundtable discussion, it centered on the dogged insistence of some State Department-tied clown that Russia is The Aggressor, while Bacevich and a two other participants nicked away at her position, largely, as I recall, by granting the Russians some right to a regional interest. While they slowed her down, the great missing element was a characterization of global aims of the US her position reflected. ..."
    "... In short, Bacevich, a good liberal, will not name the beast of US imperialism. As a result he makes it seem as though any policy can be judged on a truncated logic of its own, and so policy debates fragment into a disconnected series of arguments that bid for "fresh thinking" without daring to consider the underlying drivers. It's one of the reasons Eisenhower, with his criticism of the military-industrial complex, still comes across as a guiding light. ..."
    "... I'll put it out there: We have too many upper-middle-class white women who claim to understand foreign policy who should have been subject to a draft to concentrate their minds on what happens when a person is forced into the military and sent off to drive around with a rifle as people lob bombs at them. Madeleine Albright is the classic case: "What good is our exquisite military, if I, a compassion-challenged expert, can't waste a lot of lives on my follies?" Bacevich's personal history means that he knows what war is about (as did Gen. Sherman). ..."
    "... Perry is forthright when he says: "Today, the danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War and most people are blissfully unaware of this danger." He also tells us that the nuclear danger is "growing greater every year" and that even a single nuclear detonation "could destroy our way of life." ..."
    "... Perry does not use his memoir to score points or settle grudges. He does not sensationalize. But, as a defense insider and keeper of nuclear secrets, he is clearly calling American leaders to account for what he believes are very bad decisions, such as the precipitous expansion of NATO, right up to the Russian border,* and President George W. Bush's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, originally signed by President Nixon. ..."
    "... Interesting comments by Mr. Perry who had a starring role in 1979's "First Strike" propaganda film where he advocated for the MX ICBM system. ..."
    "... So what's a voter to do? ..."
    "... Well, I would hope that informed voters who have a healthy fear of the military-industrial-political complex will vote to keep the scariest of the two re: nuclear war out of office. This particular concern is the reason why I will in all likelihood be voting for the man I've been ridiculing for most of the past year, simply because I am terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton as Commander-in-Chief. ..."
    "... Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, but the most outrageous things he has proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a significant number of people from his own party. ..."
    "... But when it comes to the President's ability to put American 'boots on the ground' vs. some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull it off. ..."
    "... What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times revealed that she always ..."
    "... All of her experience re: foreign policy that she's been touting is actually the scariest thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The "No Fly Zone" she's been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly, as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia. ..."
    "... Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear ..."
    "... How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton-and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief, Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between Trump and Clinton. Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a threat to the United States and 2) is able/willing to question the rationality of America's continued participation in NATO. ..."
    "... Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on. ..."
    "... At least Harding was aware of the damage his friends caused to him: "I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights! " ..."
    "... As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harding had the political courage to pardon, and free from prison, Eugene V. Debs for his crime of giving an anti-war speech the Wilson administration did not like. ..."
    "... Harding did not believe in foreign involvements and was never personally implicated in the financial corruption of his administration. ..."
    "... If Clinton is to be compared to Harding, it would be to view Clinton as a "new" Harding who now believes she is well qualified to be President, wants to do much foreign military involvement, perhaps resulting in war, who is now trusting of her sycopathic friends to give her good advice, and who is personally involved in selling government favors (via the Clinton foundation) ..."
    "... HRC is more dangerous because she is the 1st woman to become a serious contender for a position that has traditionally been considered a "man's job". Therefore she believes she must not, in any way, be perceived as "soft" or lacking "toughness" or aggressiveness. She feels compelled to "out-macho" the macho guys. ..."
    "... The only bright spot in the prospect of a Hellary Klinton presidency is the probability that she may not survive long enough to start a war with Russia. I wonder how the training for the Mark I body double is coming? ..."
    "... On the other hand, why should anyone think that a bubble-headed blowhard like Trumpet has the intelligence or gumption to have any effect upon the operations of the Warfare State? When the opinion makers of his own party and the neoliberal leaders of Klinton's party are all riding on the Military-Industrial gravy train looking for the next enemy to keep business booming? ..."
    "... And how can anyone with a functioning brain cell think that anything a politician says or promises during an election has any connection to how they will act once elected? Remember Obama, Mr. "Audacity of Hope?" ..."
    Oct 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ambrit October 5, 2016 at 4:08 am

    Prof. Bacevitch has bought up the one overriding problem with this election cycle: Lack of substance.

    I usually remark that one must look at the 'second tier' of a political cabal to predict future actions by a 'candidate.' The people surrounding the 'candidate' and their track records on issues in their sphere of expertise tell the mind sets that 'drive' policy. Trump comes from the business world, where delegation of responsibility is standard for larger enterprises. His 'advisors' are key to future performance. Clinton seems to be encapsulated in a bubble of sycophants. So, the same rationale applies to her as applies to Trump. Who are her main 'advisors?'

    As anyone possessed of discernment would have noticed in the 2008 campaign, Obama surrounded himself with 'less than progressive' advisors. His subsequent governance followed suit so that we find the nation in the mess it is in today.

    Finally, all signs are that the Russians are not taking this slide towards bellicosity lightly. The Russians are demonstrating a clear sighted view of Americas dysfunctions. For the Russians to hold massive Civil Defense drills now is a clear message; "We are preparing for the worst. How about you?"

    As always, Prof. Bacevitch is a joy to read. Live long, prosper, and hope those in positions of power take his message to heart.

    hemeantwell October 5, 2016 at 8:52 am

    The tone of this piece is remarkably similar to a long article Bacevich headed in a recent Harper's article on US foreign policy. Presented as a roundtable discussion, it centered on the dogged insistence of some State Department-tied clown that Russia is The Aggressor, while Bacevich and a two other participants nicked away at her position, largely, as I recall, by granting the Russians some right to a regional interest. While they slowed her down, the great missing element was a characterization of global aims of the US her position reflected.

    That's pretty much what's going on here. "Do we really need a trillion dollar upgrade to US nuclear capability?" Good question. But why, oh why, Andrew is it being proposed in the first place? (Actually O has been pursuing the preliminaries for some time.) There's nothing about feeding a military-industrial complex, nothing about trying to further distort the Russian economy to promote instability, nothing about trying to capitalize on the US' military superiority as its economic hegemony slips away.

    In short, Bacevich, a good liberal, will not name the beast of US imperialism. As a result he makes it seem as though any policy can be judged on a truncated logic of its own, and so policy debates fragment into a disconnected series of arguments that bid for "fresh thinking" without daring to consider the underlying drivers. It's one of the reasons Eisenhower, with his criticism of the military-industrial complex, still comes across as a guiding light.

    DJG October 5, 2016 at 9:48 am

    The round-table in Harper's, for background. One of the "takeaways" that I had is that both of the women who participated are gratuitously hawkish. I am now tending to favor a universal draft.

    I'll put it out there: We have too many upper-middle-class white women who claim to understand foreign policy who should have been subject to a draft to concentrate their minds on what happens when a person is forced into the military and sent off to drive around with a rifle as people lob bombs at them. Madeleine Albright is the classic case: "What good is our exquisite military, if I, a compassion-challenged expert, can't waste a lot of lives on my follies?" Bacevich's personal history means that he knows what war is about (as did Gen. Sherman).

    http://harpers.org/archive/2016/09/tearing-up-the-map/

    hemeantwell October 5, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    Knowing what war's all about doesn't help much with knowing why wars come about, I'm afraid. Bacevich is not helpful here. This reminds me of a great article by Graham Allison on bureaucratic drivers in the Cuban Missile crisis, set out as three competing/complementary theories. Within its mypoic scope, excellent, but as far as helping with the Cold War context, nada. He went on to scotomize away in a chair at Harvard, gazing out his very fixed Overton window of permissible strategic critique.

    Wow. I just went to the TomDispatch site to look at Bacevich's work there. He does have a piece criticizing Trump and HRC in light of Eisenhower, but slaps Eisenhower, appropriately, for various crap, including the military-industrial complex takeoff. Why is it missing from this article? At least Eisenhower criticized it.

    Science Officer Smirnoff October 5, 2016 at 9:01 am

    Surprised that Bacevitch omits the thrust of Jerry Brown's important review:

    My Journey at the Nuclear Brink
    by William J. Perry, with a foreword by George P. Shultz
    Stanford Security Studies, 234 pp., $85.00; $24.95 (paper)

    I know of no person who understands the science and politics of modern weaponry better than William J. Perry, the US Secretary of Defense from 1994 to 1997. When a man of such unquestioned experience and intelligence issues the stark nuclear warning that is central to his recent memoir, we should take heed. Perry is forthright when he says: "Today, the danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War and most people are blissfully unaware of this danger." He also tells us that the nuclear danger is "growing greater every year" and that even a single nuclear detonation "could destroy our way of life."

    [emphasis added]

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/07/14/a-stark-nuclear-warning/

    Science Officer Smirnoff October 5, 2016 at 9:16 am

    Further down a nugget from the review:

    Perry does not use his memoir to score points or settle grudges. He does not sensationalize. But, as a defense insider and keeper of nuclear secrets, he is clearly calling American leaders to account for what he believes are very bad decisions, such as the precipitous expansion of NATO, right up to the Russian border,* and President George W. Bush's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, originally signed by President Nixon.

    *"The descent down the slippery slope began, I believe, with the premature NATO expansion, and I soon came to believe that the downsides of early NATO membership for Eastern European nations were even worse than I had feared" (p. 152).

    [emphasis added]

    hemeantwell October 5, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    Good catch, thanks. It's good to see establishment figures trying to build up a headwind against this stupidity/insanity.

    NY Union Guy October 5, 2016 at 7:39 pm

    Interesting comments by Mr. Perry who had a starring role in 1979's "First Strike" propaganda film where he advocated for the MX ICBM system.

    James Kroeger October 5, 2016 at 8:02 am

    So what's a voter to do?

    Well, I would hope that informed voters who have a healthy fear of the military-industrial-political complex will vote to keep the scariest of the two re: nuclear war out of office. This particular concern is the reason why I will in all likelihood be voting for the man I've been ridiculing for most of the past year, simply because I am terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton as Commander-in-Chief.

    Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, but the most outrageous things he has proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a significant number of people from his own party.

    But when it comes to the President's ability to put American 'boots on the ground' vs. some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull it off.

    What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited.

    All of her experience re: foreign policy that she's been touting is actually the scariest thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The "No Fly Zone" she's been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly, as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia.

    Her willingness to roll the dice, to gamble with other people's lives, is ingrained within her political personality, of which she is so proud.

    Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear . That fear is what drives her to the most extreme of war hawk positions, since her foundational strategy is to get out in front of the criticism she anticipates.

    It is what we can count on. She will most assuredly get America into a war within the first 6-9 months of her Presidency, since she will be looking forward to the muscular response she will order when she is 'tested', as she expects.

    How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton-and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief, Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between Trump and Clinton. Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a threat to the United States and 2) is able/willing to question the rationality of America's continued participation in NATO.

    These differences alone are enough to move me to actually vote for someone I find politically detestable, simply because I fear that the alternative is a high probability of war, and a greatly enhanced risk of nuclear annihilation-through miscalculation-under a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

    Quite simply, she scares the hell out of me.

    Lupemax October 5, 2016 at 8:09 am

    Vote for Green Party this time and hope we make it to 2018 and 2020. http://www.jill2016.com/plan

    Otis B Driftwood October 5, 2016 at 8:18 am

    Yep. In the meantime, you have to wonder just how bad the false choice between the GOP / Dem has to be before people vote in numbers for a better third-party candidate? Really, can it possible get any worse than Trump v. Clinton?

    Wait don't answer that.

    Anyway, I'm voting for Jill Stein, too.

    Jeremy Grimm October 5, 2016 at 1:15 pm

    Between this post and the VP debate I am growing comfortable with a decision to vote Green and will probably continue voting Green in future elections.

    Foppe October 5, 2016 at 4:25 am

    Not that this isn't an important issue, but I disagree on the desirability of posing wonkish questions in presidential debates, in the hopes of proving that someone didn't do enough homework. Far too much policy is hidden by the constant recourse to bureaucratic language, which often rests on other policy positions that remain undiscussed. One example: "chained CPI". Talking about it / taking it seriously presupposes that you subscribe to the notion that poor people may be told to eat cardboard if some economist / committee member designated such an adequate replacement for food. Yet most listeners will not catch on to that fact, were it ever to even come up in a debate.

    jgordon October 5, 2016 at 6:57 am

    Words are just words, especially for politicians. If you want an idea of how they would govern, go by what they did in the past. Right now we have the choice between a touchy blowhard with bad hair and a mendacious conniver with bad judgement; you'd be foolish take anything either says too seriously, even aside from the fact that they're wannabe politicians.

    George Dawson October 5, 2016 at 8:03 am

    The response to why the nuclear arsenals need to be so large and constantly updated would have been an interesting one if it had materialized. The fact is even a fairly limited exchange between other nuclear powers with much smaller arsenals has the potential for rapid climate change that renders Earth unlivable.

    The Cold War notion that you just have to hole up a few days to avoid fallout doesn't really make any more sense than using these weapons in the first place.

    nowhere October 5, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    Just along these line, I did some order of magnitude calculations based on the US SLBM fleet. Since the MIRV warheads are dial a yield, I calculated a range of 1210 – 1915 Megatons.

    I know your point is more on the limited exchange scenario; just wanted to point out the destructive potential of one country's submarine nuclear capability.

    DJG October 5, 2016 at 9:39 am

    Thanks just for this:

    Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on.

    And when a person keeps pointing out the importance of keeping one's word, it almost always means that he or she is lying.

    John Wright October 5, 2016 at 10:30 am

    If only Clinton could be like Warren G. Harding.

    At least Harding was aware of the damage his friends caused to him: "I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights! "

    As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harding had the political courage to pardon, and free from prison, Eugene V. Debs for his crime of giving an anti-war speech the Wilson administration did not like.

    Harding did not believe in foreign involvements and was never personally implicated in the financial corruption of his administration.

    The Presidency was pushed on him, and he admitted felt he was not qualified.

    I believe Harding gets a bad rap because he was not the leader of bold actions (wars) and the corruption of people in his administration was well-documented.

    His death was widely mourned in the USA.

    As far as long term harm to the country, the do-nothing Harding was not bad for the country.

    If Clinton is to be compared to Harding, it would be to view Clinton as a "new" Harding who now believes she is well qualified to be President, wants to do much foreign military involvement, perhaps resulting in war, who is now trusting of her sycopathic friends to give her good advice, and who is personally involved in selling government favors (via the Clinton foundation)

    Clinton is probably well coached by well paid advisors in her oratory.

    Probably Harding wrote his own..

    I would prefer Clinton to be like the old Harding, and the country would muddle through.

    polecat October 5, 2016 at 11:18 am

    All it would take would be for a couple of strategically placed EMPs over the north american continent ..
    and poof . nothing functions anymore . while we get to stand and watch our 'supreme' military launch their roman candles .

    shinola October 5, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    When it comes to war & nukes, I believe that HRC is the more dangerous of the two.

    Before I explain, I would like to invite Yves or any female NC reader to consider & give their POV on what I'm about say.

    HRC is more dangerous because she is the 1st woman to become a serious contender for a position that has traditionally been considered a "man's job". Therefore she believes she must not, in any way, be perceived as "soft" or lacking "toughness" or aggressiveness. She feels compelled to "out-macho" the macho guys.

    Obviously this could have serious implications in any situation involving escalating tensions. Negotiation or compromise would be off the table if she thought it could be perceived as soft or weak (and she contemplates being a 2 term pres.)

    What say you NC readers? Is this a justified concern or am I letting male bias color my view?

    BecauseTradition October 5, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    My own misgivings too, but I'm a male also.

    polecat October 5, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    Just like obama HAD to show everyone that he was 'the man' ..

    and to think our lives are in the hands of these psychopaths

    duck and cover --

    Thor's Hammer October 5, 2016 at 8:13 pm

    The only bright spot in the prospect of a Hellary Klinton presidency is the probability that she may not survive long enough to start a war with Russia. I wonder how the training for the Mark I body double is coming?

    On the other hand, why should anyone think that a bubble-headed blowhard like Trumpet has the intelligence or gumption to have any effect upon the operations of the Warfare State? When the opinion makers of his own party and the neoliberal leaders of Klinton's party are all riding on the Military-Industrial gravy train looking for the next enemy to keep business booming?

    And how can anyone with a functioning brain cell think that anything a politician says or promises during an election has any connection to how they will act once elected? Remember Obama, Mr. "Audacity of Hope?"

    [Oct 05, 2016] Special Interests Create The Good, The Bad And The Compelling Story - The Media Tell It

    Notable quotes:
    "... Dear B: the style of reporting the Western MSM engages in isn't intended to appeal to people's intelligence, it's designed to appeal to their emotions. It's all part of a package that includes Hollywood films and TV shows, and their followers in other countries (the current British film industry engaging in historical revisionism of aspects of modern British history is a good example) reinterpreting news events as dramatic stories with a simplistic narrative of good versus evil. The propaganda follows the pattern set by notorious PR spinmeister Ed Bernays who wrote a book "Propaganda" in the late 1920s based on his manipulations of his uncle Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theories about the unconscious mind. The book was later a favourite textbook manual of Joseph Goebbels. Bernays switched from advertising to shilling outright on behalf of the US government in the 1950s by selling the US public the idea that a tiny country called Guatemala posed an existential threat to the US and had to be invaded. When the US invaded Guatemala in 1954 and threw out the government there, it had full or near-full public support. ..."
    "... I've never seen this level of pure propaganda and almost complete avoidance of facts, reality, reason or whatever on the part of the mainstream media--and I go back a long way. ..."
    "... Even during the Iraq lead-up, I did not see quite this level of very obvious BS coming out of the mainstream. Even though many people know how corrupt the media is they will still accept the basic Narrative because humans need a conceptual framework no matter how deficient and the moguls and oligarchs know this so there is almost no chance this will change until a tipping point is reached and we're still a ways off of that time. ..."
    "... Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy. ... Henry Kissinger ..."
    "... There is no doubt that the media (MSM) is propaganda. To pretend that this is something new is little more than assuming the past was something other than what it was. ..."
    "... Propaganda stimulated participation in the colonization of the world by Europeans ... and the history of the US is rife with examples ... at the outset of each war we've ever been involved in, the role of propaganda is manifest: the alleged revolution; war with the Barbary pirates; 1812; the so-called Mexican War ... even the Civil War ... to say nothing of the on-going 'Indian Wars' ... ..."
    "... What all of our wars have had in common is hubris and justification for expansion. We, as a nation, still believe in manifest destiny. We us a newer set of code words, but the concept is the same from the first 'settlers/colonists' to the present. ..."
    "... Reporting does not depend on the existence of good and bad or the existence of a compelling story. Such thinking is just idealized nonsense. It is the media that creates the (often artificial) sides of a war on behalf of the interests. Good and bad are not inherent, they are constructs. A real compelling story is not needed. One can be created any time though it will likely not be a true one. ..."
    "... Its only going to get worse as they shut down one side of the debate ...maybe a better word would be the other opinion as alternative views will be labeled as extremist views ..."
    "... "But why are people so easily manipulated?" Yes, consensus matters. But that does not explain why people stick with Hillary (or Trump) when they know they are backing evil. Backing evil is really no more than a hope for the status quo, or that things won't get worse. Better the devil(s) we know than the devil(s) we don't. ..."
    "... Al-Nusra Shariah spokesperson endorses White Helmets as mujahideen ..."
    "... I have much more hope for the younger generation, they seem to have a slightly higher grasp as to the nature and mechanisms of power/control, but I fear their dissent and awareness will not manifest quick enough to avert the massive disasters the media are complicit in pushing. Scary and strange times surely ..."
    "... Ponder the possibilities. It's certainly no accident - a decider (like Dubya) decides what gets reported, when, how, and with what intent. The decider is of course controlled by other deciders. ..."
    "... The People, meaning everyone, especially common people can learn ALL they want to know about Sports. Any sport. All the games, teams, stats, players, trades, salaries, owners, stadiums, and etc. ..."
    "... The MSM is by design propaganda, disinformation, obfuscation and entertainment with a lot of information about sports (entities like war which also just so happens to make rich men richer). ..."
    "... We, that is the USA, are not the "good guys". "We" wage war to enrich individuals and multi-national corporations which "act and plan in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state". ..."
    "... The biggest problem with Taub's article is that it assumes that "American interests" are the same as the interests of ordinary citizens. The notion that the US is a classless, 'post-racial' society is a 'big lie'. The interests of "the 99%" differ markedly from the interests of "the 1%". Its the interests of 1%-ers that are threatened in Syria and that's why the media pushes covers it. ..."
    "... The main reason why the propaganda is this time XXL compared to 2003 is that US/UK methods have been applied to many more countries. Add the financial crisis and you get why journalists are unanimous in their submission: they want to keep their job rather than ending up a new homeless in their own neighborhood. ..."
    "... A 3-year old is being exposed to a dumbed-down pampered subset of reality by their loving parents unless they live on the street, slum shacks or in a landfill. Our children are exposed to a for-profit education institution populated largely by women with limited knowledge of STEM, history or politics, that just the actual teacher demographics/ ..."
    "... So it's really not about the 'media'. MSM is really tinsel and glitter bullshit for the Elites, just polishing the brass spittoons, and spritzing some cologne on their whores. ..."
    "... "But I think there is a commercial/quasi commercial angle as well. To belong is profitable [to an] organization and so to its employees. The commercial angle is obvious for operations like Netfliks and the Intercept, and Democracy Now and Code Pink are NGOs, with their own little piglets nursing at their paps, just as do the employees of the commercial operations. Toeing the 'correct' line pays. Careerism is careerism, commercial or NGO no matter. Corporate structure is what counts." ..."
    "... The metastasizing expanding universe of lies is somewhat explained by the need to lie further to cover the lie, and so on. Here we use the word 'lie' broadly to include censorship - missing important information - and psyops. ..."
    "... There are still very powerful and influential politicians and oligarchs in Russia who like liberalism or West in general, and Putin isn't going to be in power forever either. Even today, Putin still has to pay attention to their interests and balance it with his ruling, his hands may be more free than Obamas, but not as free as some thinks. ..."
    "... Situational awareness is a bitch, isn't it? The only barrier which stands between overwhelming majority of Russian people and so called "western liberals" hanging from the lamp posts or being strung on pitch forks is none other than Putin. ..."
    "... We live in a universe of stories, symbols, conventions, arbitrary ways-of-doing. We have to listen and integrate the narratives, the templates, the glorious aims, the way-forward. This is not primarily a question of belief in, and bowing down to authority (powerful of course; and coercion either violent or insidious works, as does ejection of refusniks, pariahs, etc.), but a matter of acting in concert, of being in tune, to dominate and exploit the plant/ animal/ various ressource etc. of Earth. ..."
    "... In a largely globalised world, where most of the information outside of the local, individual grasp of the person or tiny group, is regulated by the State (education .. ) and the Media, and comes in the form of prop speech / prose and shock / other visuals, which makes humans very vulnerable to, or even entirely dependent on, world-views that are engineered somehow for small-group or personal gain. Add in, when things go to sh*t, competition and rapine or just killing as some solution (war..) override collaboration and cooperation. Not 'new' but the scale (weapons, etc.) is. ..."
    "... Awesome take on what our media is feeding us. Yes, the way the Syrian story is told there's nothing going on in Aleppo but guys with white helmets and children who play in buildings. Russians and Syrians are (oxymoron alert) indiscriminately targeting hospitals and buildings with children in them. But Yemen? Nothing going on there. South America and the Colombian vote on FARC? never heard of it. ..."
    Oct 05, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    A thoughtful analysis by Amanda Taub of the New York Times describes why some wars get more "western" public attention than others:

    Conflicts gain sustained American attention only when they provide a compelling story line that appeals to both the public and political actors, and for reasons beyond the human toll. That often requires some combination of immediate relevance to American interests , resonance with American political debates or cultural issues, and, perhaps most of all, an emotionally engaging frame of clearly identifiable good guys and bad guys.
    ...
    Yemen's death toll is lower than Syria's, and although Al Qaeda does operate there, Yemen's conflict has not had the kind of impact on American and European interests that Syria's has. There is no obvious good-versus-evil story to tell there: The country is being torn apart by a variety of warring factions on the ground and pummeled from the air by Saudi Arabia, an American ally . There is no camera-ready villain for Americans to root against.

    Those are good observations. But they themselves are part of the process they describe. They artificially create "good" and "bad" and are driven by "interests". (Side note: I doubt the sweeping claim "Yemen's death toll is lower than Syria's". The famine in northwest Yemen is very severe . The number of dead is simply not known yet but like in the hundred-thousands.)

    Reporting does not depend on the existence of good and bad or the existence of a compelling story. Such thinking is just idealized nonsense. It is the media that creates the (often artificial) sides of a war on behalf of the interests. Good and bad are not inherent, they are constructs. A real compelling story is not needed. One can be created any time though it will likely not be a true one.

    Cont. reading: Special Interests Create The "Good", The "Bad" And The "Compelling" Story - The Media Tell It

    Posted by b at 03:34 PM | Comments (83)

    anitele'a | Oct 2, 2016 3:58:29 PM | 1

    MSM gets very excited about the build up to the Iraqi forces liberating Mosul from ISIS. The Times of London recently did a double page spread on what forces were arranged where and how the battle would be won. Can no-one see the glaring hypocrisy when Aleppo, also a battle against jihadi terrorists, is described as an obscenity of slaughtering civilians ? People are so dumb. They have such short memories.
    nmb | Oct 2, 2016 4:10:19 PM | 2
    The widespread phenomenon of modern Propaganda
    Jen | Oct 2, 2016 4:42:20 PM | 4
    Dear B: the style of reporting the Western MSM engages in isn't intended to appeal to people's intelligence, it's designed to appeal to their emotions.

    It's all part of a package that includes Hollywood films and TV shows, and their followers in other countries (the current British film industry engaging in historical revisionism of aspects of modern British history is a good example) reinterpreting news events as dramatic stories with a simplistic narrative of good versus evil. The propaganda follows the pattern set by notorious PR spinmeister Ed Bernays who wrote a book "Propaganda" in the late 1920s based on his manipulations of his uncle Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theories about the unconscious mind. The book was later a favourite textbook manual of Joseph Goebbels.

    Bernays switched from advertising to shilling outright on behalf of the US government in the 1950s by selling the US public the idea that a tiny country called Guatemala posed an existential threat to the US and had to be invaded. When the US invaded Guatemala in 1954 and threw out the government there, it had full or near-full public support.

    Banger | Oct 2, 2016 4:44:22 PM | 5
    I've never seen this level of pure propaganda and almost complete avoidance of facts, reality, reason or whatever on the part of the mainstream media--and I go back a long way.

    Even during the Iraq lead-up, I did not see quite this level of very obvious BS coming out of the mainstream. Even though many people know how corrupt the media is they will still accept the basic Narrative because humans need a conceptual framework no matter how deficient and the moguls and oligarchs know this so there is almost no chance this will change until a tipping point is reached and we're still a ways off of that time.

    Brad | Oct 2, 2016 5:06:26 PM | 6
    During Lam Son 719, the U.S. planners had believed that any North Vietnamese forces that opposed the incursion would be caught in the open and decimated by the application of American aerial might, either in the form of tactical airstrikes or airmobility, which would provide ARVN troops with superior battlefield maneuvering capability. Firepower, as it turned out, was decisive, but "it went in favor of the enemy...

    Airpower played an important, but not decisive role, in that it prevented a defeat from becoming a disaster that might have been so complete as to encourage the North Vietnamese army to keep moving right into Quang Tri Province."[86]

    The number of helicopters destroyed or damaged during the operation shocked the proponents of U.S. Army aviation and prompted a reevaluation of basic airmobile doctrine. The 101st Airborne Division alone, for example, had 84 of its aircraft destroyed and another 430 damaged. Combined U.S./ARVN helicopter losses totaled 168 destroyed and 618 damaged.[87]Wiki

    Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy. ... Henry Kissinger

    Empire hides it's crimes by sneaking Coffins in to Andrew's AFB at night with no press.
    Since retreat from Chosin Korea.....Empire has turned media coverage into
    Rally the Flag. ....or don't ask don't tell.

    Some Veterans from the past and some at present do present the real
    On goings of conflicts....which regular MSN will not.
    If one does access the world Media. ..say on Syria.
    It is pushed back as being biased propoganda.

    rg the lg | Oct 2, 2016 6:16:25 PM | 8
    There is no doubt that the media (MSM) is propaganda. To pretend that this is something new is little more than assuming the past was something other than what it was.

    Propaganda stimulated participation in the colonization of the world by Europeans ... and the history of the US is rife with examples ... at the outset of each war we've ever been involved in, the role of propaganda is manifest: the alleged revolution; war with the Barbary pirates; 1812; the so-called Mexican War ... even the Civil War ... to say nothing of the on-going 'Indian Wars' ...

    What all of our wars have had in common is hubris and justification for expansion. We, as a nation, still believe in manifest destiny. We us a newer set of code words, but the concept is the same from the first 'settlers/colonists' to the present.

    Whether western imperialism ( http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/10/syrias-heroic-fight-against-western-imperialism/)

    or the techniques of empire
    http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/10/propaganda-techniques-of-empire/

    the goal has always been the same: Take what we want and to hell with any people in the way!

    And, please, don't give me that crap that there is good along with the bad. Of course you can find some good ... but the issue isn't good vs evil ... it is greed, pure lust.

    dh | Oct 2, 2016 6:26:41 PM | 9
    But why are people so easily manipulated? Consensus of course. And group think. Everybody wants to belong. For a simple test try saying something like 'Maybe Assad isn't so bad' at the water cooler.
    MRW | Oct 2, 2016 6:32:24 PM | 10
    b,

    Utterly brilliant and concise statement:

    Reporting does not depend on the existence of good and bad or the existence of a compelling story. Such thinking is just idealized nonsense. It is the media that creates the (often artificial) sides of a war on behalf of the interests. Good and bad are not inherent, they are constructs. A real compelling story is not needed. One can be created any time though it will likely not be a true one.
    Would that journalists learn it. The old ones did but they're not working anymore.
    Jack Smith | Oct 2, 2016 6:39:27 PM | 11
    @dh | Oct 2, 2016 6:26:41 PM | 9

    Sorrie, rephrase and direct to the Democrats. But why are people so easily manipulated? Consensus of course. And group think. Everybody wants to belong.

    For a simple test try saying something like 'Maybe Hillary isn't so bad compare to Trump' at the water cooler.

    Terry | Oct 2, 2016 7:50:46 PM | 17
    Its only going to get worse as they shut down one side of the debate ...maybe a better word would be the other opinion as alternative views will be labeled as extremist views . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4RkiiW-gtc
    Cortes | Oct 2, 2016 7:59:27 PM | 18
    Jen @ 4

    The campaign against Arbenz in Guatemala was conducted via radio broadcasts perhaps modelled on Welles's "The War of the Worlds" (Gee, thanks Orson) directed at a tiny mestizo, aspiring to be white, urbanised elite.

    That was the template for Colour Revolution, I believe. The complete disaster of the Bogotazo in 1948, witnessed by Fidel Castro, was a precursor to radicalisation of L America and later MENA. Hey, and hey nonny no, "We Meant Well" as Peter van Buren puts it.

    chipnik | Oct 2, 2016 10:32:42 PM | 20
    4

    The US 7-Day War with the nefarious dark-skinned Grenadians, (shudder), under Reagan yielded more than 1,000 service medals and countless ribbons, which goes towards higher service pay, which goes towards higher pensions for life. Naturally, the Pentagon was reluctant to state who got those medals.

    "Army officials said today that about 50 of the achievement medals went to personnel who got no closer to the fighting than the Pentagon lawn.

    Other awards were given to staff and rear-area support troops at Fort Bragg, N.C., home of the 82d Airborne Division; at Fort Stewart, Ga., and Fort Lewis, Wash., bases for Army Rangers; and the headquarters of the Army's Forces Command in Atlanta.

    Asked for an explanation, the Army defended its awards system as a ''valuable and effective leadership tool to build unit morale and esprit.''

    Esprit is the reason for Syria. Esprit is behind Libya. Esprit drives Yemen. Esprit of the valiant Four Horsemen of Government, Military, Fed Bank and Corporate. Greed is good.

    rg the lg | Oct 2, 2016 10:57:38 PM | 22
    "But why are people so easily manipulated?" Yes, consensus matters. But that does not explain why people stick with Hillary (or Trump) when they know they are backing evil. Backing evil is really no more than a hope for the status quo, or that things won't get worse. Better the devil(s) we know than the devil(s) we don't.

    Aside from that, most Americans think we are exceptional and therefore that the world should do as we say for our benefit because we are indispensable. In other words, we DESERVE it and those that won't give it up simply don't deserve to keep it from us.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 2, 2016 11:14:40 PM | 23
    Citing a semi-confession from a NYT scribe was a brilliantly inspired way to introduce the subject of MSM complicity in Judaeo-Christian Colonial-style malfeasance, mass murder, and profiteering, b.

    When I read your headline and intro, I couldn't help speculating on whether Ms Traub is the tip of an iceberg - made up of ppl who have woken up one morning and realised that MSM Cloud Cuckoo Land may not be the best vantage point from which to detect, anticipate, and escape from, the Backlash when the patience of the deceived "consumers" expires.

    Jack Smith | Oct 2, 2016 11:39:58 PM | 25
    @rg the lg | Oct 2, 2016 10:57:38 PM | 22
    @dh | Oct 2, 2016 6:26:41 PM | 9

    "But why are people so easily manipulated?"

    Many a time urban words blow my mind, ie "breed apart" and "standoffish" What the hell dh toking? Check online dictionary, OK it's harmless.

    Being a retired, breed apart and standoffish, at time in public can't understands what ppl toking!

    Quadriad | Oct 3, 2016 12:38:26 AM | 27
    #20 chipnik

    Maybe it's time to go Bobbitt on that Esprit of the Obelisk.

    Just don't forget a big umbrella - gonna need it!

    Secret Agent | Oct 3, 2016 1:22:56 AM | 29
    The news coverage is appalling but the human interest stuff can be OK. It's like that everywhere nowadays.
    GoraDiva | Oct 3, 2016 2:04:22 AM | 30
    Worth watching - after a visit to Damascus - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8JppJyVxYU
    (I never see this in the news reports - but I think it is important to note that Damascus is one of the oldest, continually inhabited cities on earth, at least four thousand years old. Leave it to the US to obliterate all remains of the cradle of the civilization.)
    jfl | Oct 3, 2016 4:17:29 AM | 33
    That often requires ... perhaps most of all, an emotionally engaging frame of clearly identifiable good guys and bad guys.
    Others commenting here at MoA have pointed up the nomination of ...
    the "White Helmets", the fake "Syrian Civil Defense" created by the New Yorker PR company Purpose Inc., to make and distribute pictures and movies that show the Islamic insurgency in Syria as "good" and the Syrian government and its allies as "bad".
    ... for the Nobel Peace Prize (if the Nobel Peace Prize is not yet considered an albatross to be hung around the necks of frauds of the most cynical, worst sort since Obama mocked his) and the participation of Democracy Now (Amy Goldman), Code Pink (Medea Benjamin), and the Intercept (Glenn Greenwald) and Netfliks in pushing the nomination.

    This is surely the creation of "good guys" (jihadist mercenaries) and of course corresponding "bad guys" (Assad and others who oppose the destruction and devastation of Syria).

    There has got to be at least the whiff of being used to monstrously evil purpose at these organizations. There are no starry-eyed innocents here. And they are 'journalists' ... if they haven't discovered the truth about the White Helmets, what hope is there for the babes who suck their paps?

    I can recommend Malooga's The Feckless Left , second from the top under 'Current Top Picks' on the title page at MoA for some treatment of ... well, the feckless left.

    There is nothing new under the sun.

    But why are people so easily manipulated? Consensus of course. And group think. Everybody wants to belong. @9

    But I think there is a commercial/quasi commercial angle as well. To belong is profitable ton organization and so to its employees. The commercial angle is obvious for operations like Netfliks and the Intercept, and Democracy Now and Code Pink are NGOs, with their own little piglets nursing at their paps, just as do the employees of the commercial operations. Toeing the 'correct' line pays. Careerism is careerism, commercial or ngo no matter. Corporate structure is what counts.

    I don't think the folks that patronize those four will be mailing b any contributions.

    virgile | Oct 3, 2016 4:47:46 AM | 34
    Inside the Shadowy PR Firm That's Lobbying for Regime Change in Syria

    Posing as a non-political solidarity organization, the Syria Campaign leverages local partners and media contacts to push the U.S. into toppling another Middle Eastern government.

    somebody | Oct 3, 2016 5:28:37 AM | 35
    I'd avoid talking politics in most professional contexts.

    The MSM has lost power, young people stopped watching. But the Donald has managed to succeed in traditional media - by ratings and clicks.

    Why Donald Trump is so outrageous

    jfl | Oct 3, 2016 6:13:45 AM | 36
    @33

    @74 gs , Al-Nusra Shariah spokesperson endorses White Helmets as mujahideen

    In the latest video, an al-Nusra spokesman endorses the Nobel Peace prize candidates, the White Helmets, as mujahideen.
    FecklessLeft | Oct 3, 2016 6:44:51 AM | 38
    Our 'free press' - this institution has become so rotten I wonder if anything much can be done to redeem it at this point without some MAJOR social upheaval. I hate to take these nihilistic positions but even when the media is caught time after time pushing aggression and defending the indefensible, there is zero repercussions - monetarily, socially, legally or otherwise. Nor is there any gained perspective by the audience as a result, maybe that is what's most ironic.

    I have much more hope for the younger generation, they seem to have a slightly higher grasp as to the nature and mechanisms of power/control, but I fear their dissent and awareness will not manifest quick enough to avert the massive disasters the media are complicit in pushing. Scary and strange times surely

    fast freddy | Oct 3, 2016 7:07:22 AM | 40
    Ponder the possibilities. It's certainly no accident - a decider (like Dubya) decides what gets reported, when, how, and with what intent. The decider is of course controlled by other deciders.

    The People, meaning everyone, especially common people can learn ALL they want to know about Sports. Any sport. All the games, teams, stats, players, trades, salaries, owners, stadiums, and etc.

    Yet, they know almost nothing about current US "activities" in the world.

    The MSM is by design propaganda, disinformation, obfuscation and entertainment with a lot of information about sports (entities like war which also just so happens to make rich men richer).

    xyz | Oct 3, 2016 8:32:22 AM | 41
    And heres another one for u:

    http://www.activistpost.com/2016/10/white-helmet-save-aleppo-protest-proves-easy-dress-actors-war-victims.html

    xyz | Oct 3, 2016 8:48:23 AM | 42
    And 3 more:
    fastfreddy | Oct 3, 2016 8:58:49 AM | 43
    We, that is the USA, are not the "good guys". "We" wage war to enrich individuals and multi-national corporations which "act and plan in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state".

    These ppl are so enriched with money and power that they are stateless insofar as they can live in any number of places in absolute comfort. They covet the world's resources and they use the state's military to kill to get these resources.

    Nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state. - Brzezinski in 1981

    This is not to say that Russia or any other state is the "good guy". Russia also is interested in resources.

    Of course, The US (NATO) has been antagonizing Russia for years.

    Jackrabbit | Oct 3, 2016 9:13:04 AM | 44
    The biggest problem with Taub's article is that it assumes that "American interests" are the same as the interests of ordinary citizens. The notion that the US is a classless, 'post-racial' society is a 'big lie'. The interests of "the 99%" differ markedly from the interests of "the 1%". Its the interests of 1%-ers that are threatened in Syria and that's why the media pushes covers it.
    Enrico Malatesta | Oct 3, 2016 9:48:03 AM | 45
    ff @43

    Russia has most of the resources it needs for "expansion" within its own borders, unlike the USSA. In fact Russia stands to improve its Food Security while the rest of the world suffers from Climate Change.

    Mina | Oct 3, 2016 10:09:51 AM | 46
    The main reason why the propaganda is this time XXL compared to 2003 is that US/UK methods have been applied to many more countries. Add the financial crisis and you get why journalists are unanimous in their submission: they want to keep their job rather than ending up a new homeless in their own neighborhood.
    somebody | Oct 3, 2016 10:16:08 AM | 48
    Posted by: Mina | Oct 3, 2016 10:09:51 AM | 46
    Homeless might not be the worst of it.

    To silence Wikileaks secretary of state clinton proposed drone strike on Julian Assange

    The collective fear was the context of the secret cables would hamper U.S. intelligence gathering and compromise private correspondences and intelligence shared with foreign governments and opposition leaders. Splashing such juicy details on television news shows and the front pages of major newspapers in the country was great for the media but lousy for intelligence and foreign policy.
    chipnik | Oct 3, 2016 10:25:01 AM | 49
    31

    To be entirely fair, the media and the medium should not be confused.

    A 3-year old is being exposed to a dumbed-down pampered subset of reality by their loving parents unless they live on the street, slum shacks or in a landfill. Our children are exposed to a for-profit education institution populated largely by women with limited knowledge of STEM, history or politics, that just the actual teacher demographics/

    Teenagers are scrambling around in a for-profit education and consumerist tidal wave, everyone stepping on everyone climbing the ladder up from the steerage compartment where the discarded elderly are starved, abused, tortured and drowned. We used to live across from an elderly couple and their adult son who was poaching their SS checks. One morning the mother scrawled 'HELP US' on the fogged-up airshaft window. There are millions like her, and tens of millions of stories like this, you can see it every day...if you look.

    So it's really not about the 'media'. MSM is really tinsel and glitter bullshit for the Elites, just polishing the brass spittoons, and spritzing some cologne on their whores.

    Brad | Oct 3, 2016 10:41:18 AM | 50
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/category/interviews/

    Will we exist tomorrow & The US Constitution has been Murdered. Both extensive coverage current events where controlled media push
    War and deception on the public.

    h | Oct 3, 2016 10:53:01 AM | 51
    b - Back in 2013, congress amended and passed under the NDAA Smith-Mundt Modernization of 2012 - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130715/11210223804/anti-propaganda-ban-repealed-freeing-state-dept-to-direct-its-broadcasting-arm-american-citizens.shtml
    "The Broadcast Board of Governors, which produces programming like the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, has been prevented from aiming its programming at Americans since the 1970's when the Smith-Mundt Act (which authorized the State Dept. to communicate with foreign audiences via many methods, radio being one of them) was amended to prohibit domestic dissemination of the BBG's broadcasts. This was done to distance the State Department's efforts from the internal propaganda machine operated by the Soviet Union."

    "Now, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (part of the National Defense Authorization Act) has repealed the domestic prohibition, allowing the government's broadcasting to be directed at/created for Americans for the first time in over 40 years."

    What this amendment achieved is the fact that all of MSM may now use State's 'talking points' in their reports. Once upon a time, the press used field reporters to report the news. When was the last time anyone saw a CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS journalist reporting from say Syria or Yemen or Iraq or ...? The 'modernization' of the act has achieved one thing, that is, alt news, like MoA, are indeed taking the place of what journalism once used to be in this country b/c few who wish to truly know what is happening in a war theater do not want to read the same pro State Dept talking points from one mainstream outlet to another.

    Yonatan | Oct 3, 2016 10:57:24 AM | 53
    In Jan 2014, the carefully vetted moderate headchoppers aka the FSA drove two large VBIEDs towards the Kindi hospital north of Aleppo. The two explosions more or less totally destroyed the hospital. The explosions were sufficiently massive that they created mushroom clouds.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad-vjfyhdqU

    or via login bypass

    http://www.nsfwyoutube.com/watch?v=ad-vjfyhdqU

    There was total MSM silence over that.

    dahoit | Oct 3, 2016 11:09:49 AM | 54
    22;Can't let the BS pass;Just what evil has Donald Trump committed?The HB has a documented trail of evil,lies and corruption, while Trumps biggest alleged crime is he had his tax returns illegally published by Zion, showing he had a billion dollar loss.
    Really now.

    Its all lies from Zion,gang.Saudi Arabia is an ally of Israel,which makes it bulletproof.Same with IsUS,Alciada,and Al nUSrA.
    Which points to US being nothing other than their tool in hegemony,which is why Donald Trump is necessary for the world and US to escape this insanity of a minute % of the worlds population controlling and manipulating every nation into idiocy.

    Nice article delineating the Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich at CP.

    The Guardian; Brentwood LI NY teens killed because of gangs.

    Saw nothing in the lying times(paywall?)as the news only boosts Trump, as the perps are MS 13. Same with the Turk Washington state assassin story,gone with the breeze.San Bernadino,Orlando and even the recent NYC bomb story,all non stories,except for that one about the 2 Egypt air guys finding the suitcase and leaving the bomb.

    Actually I saw no follow up today to that disconcerting report.What were the odds of those 2 finding that in a city of 8 million?Like throwing pennies off the WTC(gone of course) and landing in a dixie cup.(Lotto odds)

    Copeland | Oct 3, 2016 11:47:25 AM | 56
    Posted by: jfl | Oct 3, 2016 4:17:29 AM | 33

    "But I think there is a commercial/quasi commercial angle as well. To belong is profitable [to an] organization and so to its employees. The commercial angle is obvious for operations like Netfliks and the Intercept, and Democracy Now and Code Pink are NGOs, with their own little piglets nursing at their paps, just as do the employees of the commercial operations. Toeing the 'correct' line pays. Careerism is careerism, commercial or NGO no matter. Corporate structure is what counts."

    This kind of comparison may not be just or correct. NGOs are, in the sense that counts, agents of the government, and willing conduits of governmental projects, psyops, and covert military actions within a foreign country. One has to go back to definitions and the meaning of words, in order to proceed correctly in an argument. Media Benjamin, Any Goodman, Glenn Greenwald are being slandered by such a comparison. Are you saying that based on their contributions, their participation in protest and journalism, they are acting on behalf of the government?

    In person, I have seen Code Pink in action, in Dallas, at the protest of the opening of the hideous G. W. Bush Library and "Museum". These women are for real and I trust them and believe their motivations are sincere.

    These people and their organizations have done a great deal to educate people, to expose acts of injustice, and have risked punishment and even their lives, in the process. Amy Goodman is someone who has stuck her neck out in the non-pixel world. It's people like her who sometimes get knocked around and detained, who are sometimes abused and beaten by uniformed goons, or who have run the risk of a government suppression that potentially could shatter their careers and their families.

    Democracy Now is not the fucking NED, for crying out loud!

    canuck | Oct 3, 2016 12:54:57 PM | 60
    The metastasizing expanding universe of lies is somewhat explained by the need to lie further to cover the lie, and so on. Here we use the word 'lie' broadly to include censorship - missing important information - and psyops.

    More specifically, basic problems include:

    • the CIA via its ambitious attempt to control global communications via operation Mockingbird and its progeny, which includes university texts and various 'alternative' media;
    • the disproportionate media domination - 'by way of deception' - by Talmudic warped minds, who revel in scamming and destroying 'the other', is death to integrity;
    • concentrated corporate media control that in any case disappears any effective oppositional narrative;
    • a conglomeration of financial, military and corporate juggernauts conjoined with political, media and institutional corruption (the latter includes FBI, FDA, etc) who have the financial means to concoct any manner of bs;
    • 'reporters' who are schooled since birth in iniquity and bs and who place a paycheck above all else;
    • a massive paid-to-manipulate advertising industry that has spawned subsidiaries like the 'crisis actor' industry, though the flunkee Sandy Hook actors will not win any legit acting awards, but maybe if they work on it, tomorrow....?;
    • a public that is poisoned, demoralized, manipulated and lied to from birth.

    But the omnipresent problem for the bs is this: the universe does not play let's pretend, and on the whole, by a wide margin, people still prefer integrity. The truth can be bitter, or sweet, or bitter-sweet. But it is not bs.

    Harry | Oct 3, 2016 1:26:52 PM | 61
    @ SmoothieX12 | 59

    Your nationalism gets the better of you, Western liberalism in Russia isn't as dead as you would like it to be. It was very much alive not so long ago, and just because Putin swung scales the other way, doesn't mean its permanent, or without a danger of setbacks.

    There are still very powerful and influential politicians and oligarchs in Russia who like liberalism or West in general, and Putin isn't going to be in power forever either. Even today, Putin still has to pay attention to their interests and balance it with his ruling, his hands may be more free than Obamas, but not as free as some thinks.

    bbbb | Oct 3, 2016 1:40:20 PM | 62
    MSM operates under certain rules. I'd recommend watching Colin Flaherty on youtube. You may or may not consider him racist, but he exposes the operating procedures when it comes to crime reporting (He focuses on Black on White/Asian/Hispanic crime.)
    rg the lg | Oct 3, 2016 2:08:42 PM | 64
    Must have hit a nerve in my previous post (#22 above).

    There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding the citizens of the US. It seems that something needs to be blamed for the way the American people react: poor leadership, the MSM, the education system ... whatever.

    I aver: is it not possible that leadership, the MSM and the education system ARE exactly what the people of the US want? That the greed and insistence on exceptionally indispensable is what we want to hear, and therefore our leaders, the MSM and the educational system are actually on target for the typical Americans interests and desires?

    I suspect so ... doncha know?

    SmoothieX12 | Oct 3, 2016 2:56:29 PM | 65
    @61, Harry
    Your nationalism gets the better of you, Western liberalism in Russia isnt as dead as you would like it to be. It was very much alive not so long ago, and just because Putin swung scales the other way, doesnt mean its permanent, or without a danger of setbacks. There are still very powerful and influential politicians and oligarchs in Russia who like liberalism or West in general, and Putin isnt going to be in power forever either

    Situational awareness is a bitch, isn't it? The only barrier which stands between overwhelming majority of Russian people and so called "western liberals" hanging from the lamp posts or being strung on pitch forks is none other than Putin.

    What my "nationalism" has anything to do with the cultural reality of Russia where today a vast majority of people look at Europe and USA not only with disdain but with contempt.

    The fact of those "liberals" still being around in the corridors of power is not due to the will of Russian people but due to their executive appointments by powers that be. The combined West has committed a cultural suicide in Russia but than again, how would I know this.

    You also, evidently, do not understand the scale of what is happening in Ukraine and I mean "scale" as in much larger context than some economic or military numbers.

    Noirette | Oct 3, 2016 5:27:35 PM | 68
    But why are people so easily manipulated?

    We are social animals, live in groups, and must do so to survive. We get a huge proportion of our world-view, or information, simply from what other ppl tell us, and not directly from our senses (to take up a sorta old distinction), or our own experience - our actions, what happened next, i.e. from accomodation, adjustement to real-world perceivable interactions with other living beings and/or the physical world.

    We are tribal members and follow laid-down, ingrained, agreed-on, beliefs and ideologies, or 'theories' - 'interpretative lenses' and so on.

    Read some trivial study (bowlderized here) where older babies and dogs were shown how to use a lever and open a box to get a treat - as demonstrated by an adult human. The lever was purely for show, inoperative, the trick was to hedge off/up the lid of the box in xyz way. The dogs learnt quickly to open the box and ignored the lever, did not action it. The kiddos always pulled the lever and also went on to open the box with success: they adopted and performed a magical and arbitrary act without question, in a more complex 2-step process.

    We live in a universe of stories, symbols, conventions, arbitrary ways-of-doing. We have to listen and integrate the narratives, the templates, the glorious aims, the way-forward. This is not primarily a question of belief in, and bowing down to authority (powerful of course; and coercion either violent or insidious works, as does ejection of refusniks, pariahs, etc.), but a matter of acting in concert, of being in tune, to dominate and exploit the plant/ animal/ various ressource etc. of Earth.

    In a largely globalised world, where most of the information outside of the local, individual grasp of the person or tiny group, is regulated by the State (education .. ) and the Media, and comes in the form of prop speech / prose and shock / other visuals, which makes humans very vulnerable to, or even entirely dependent on, world-views that are engineered somehow for small-group or personal gain. Add in, when things go to sh*t, competition and rapine or just killing as some solution (war..) override collaboration and cooperation. Not 'new' but the scale (weapons, etc.) is.

    Cheers! Drinks on me.

    Curtis | Oct 3, 2016 7:19:55 PM | 71
    Awesome take on what our media is feeding us. Yes, the way the Syrian story is told there's nothing going on in Aleppo but guys with white helmets and children who play in buildings. Russians and Syrians are (oxymoron alert) indiscriminately targeting hospitals and buildings with children in them. But Yemen? Nothing going on there. South America and the Colombian vote on FARC? never heard of it.

    I read Amusing Ourselves To Death a few years ago. One major point Postman made was that when the news media becomes entertainment or newstainment, all bets are off on the people being informed.

    Here's part of an interview.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRabb6_Gr2Y

    and he's right. In the US, we throw insane amounts of money at the entertainment/media industry so we do have the best. But is it good for you especially when you intake so much of it or your news gets so skewed? A year or so ago, some journalist locked himself in a room to watch Russian TV networks for a long period of time. He skewered them. But Russians do not throw so much at what is produced on the tube - or as my mother once called it, "the idiot box."

    jfl | Oct 3, 2016 9:51:32 PM | 73
    @56 copeland 'Media Benjamin, Any Goodman, Glenn Greenwald are being slandered by such a comparison. Are you saying that based on their contributions, their participation in protest and journalism, they are acting on behalf of the government?'

    No, I'm saying that Code Pink, Democracy Now, the Intercept are all corporate structures and that Media Benjamin, Any Goodman, Glenn Greenwald are their employees. Let's say that each of them are better than the average corporate employee. That all of them are better men/women than I am. Yet none of them runs the corporation to which they belong, or are just associated with, but they each draw their sustenance from their respective corp.

    All organizations take on a life of their own. If you are drawing your sustenance - financial, emotional, whatever - from a corporation, you are working in the interests of that corporation ... wily, nily ... whether that corporation is governmental, non-governmental, 'spiritual', or 'for profit'. Your present arrangements derive from the corporation: what's good for the corporation is good for you.

    It is the corporate body in each case that has decided publicly to place its sympathies with the White Helmets in this particular case. I maintain that Media Benjamin, Any Goodman, Glenn Greenwald should be aware of the actual provenance of the White Helmets, if they are not. (b is, and he's not associated with a high-powered corporate NGO. Perhaps for exactly that reason?) Yet they all remain associated with the stance of their particular employer.

    Complicit or incompetent? Take your pick. Or perhaps they're just 'too busy' ... doing good, or doing well? ... to check out the positions of the corporations they work for? are 'unwilling' dupes? "If I knew then what I know now ...".

    It's not hard to imagine the incentives for a corporation to conform to the master corporate line of the US/NATO/the 'international community', nor is it difficult to imagine the disincentives for not conforming. People choose their battles.

    The White Helmets 'save children's lives and are above the fray'. Not unlike your own corporation, no? No one - but b and other 'free lance' media - is rocking that boat, in fact your corporation will add critical mass to the popular misconception, sort of a self-fulfilling insurance policy. And you'll just be going along to get along.

    Check out Malooga . I'm sure you have. Organization, the ongoing act, is our only means of effecting change. The organization, the fossilized embodiment of hierarchy and resources, our shoes of clay.

    Piotr Berman | Oct 4, 2016 10:48:09 AM | 78
    Chipnik: The US 7-Day War with the nefarious dark-skinned Grenadians, (shudder), under Reagan yielded more than 1,000 service medals and countless ribbons, which goes towards higher service pay, which goes towards higher pensions for life. Naturally, the Pentagon was reluctant to state who got those medals.

    NYT, March 30 1984. In response to questions, the Army said it awarded 275 decorations for valor, for combat deaths or wounds.

    Beyond that, it said, it gave out 8,337 medals for individual performance. These included 4,581 commendation medals, 2,495 achievement medals, 681 Bronze Stars and a variety of other decorations.

    ''Many support and staff personnel received these awards for their support of the Grenada operation outside of the actual combat zone or for service in Grenada after hostilities had ceased,'' the Army said. Awards by Unit Commanders

    It indicated that the decisions on awards were made by unit commanders. The 82d Airborne Division led with 6,708 individual awards.

    ====

    Grenada invasion remains the finest hour of US armed forces. One could also add a peacekeeping effort in Lebanon, also under Reagan, where all participants were decorated, but, alas, posthumously. Lebanon remains a mess, while Grenada remains a stable ally. Thus I would recommend search for small island nations where most of the populations are Protestants, know English etc. Tuvalu was not supportive of American interests, so one could downgrade them to a "hostile regime".

    Piotr Berman | Oct 4, 2016 10:51:57 AM | 79
    Sorry for incomplete research. Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps also participated in the Grenada operation (I am not sure about the Coast Guard and National Park rangers), so the total count of decorations is higher.
    Piotr Berman | Oct 5, 2016 3:36:51 AM | 80
    The Guardian has an article on Yemen . Somehow there is quite a bit more on the topic in UK than in USA, and more MPs oppose selling weapons to the "coalition".

    Of course, I do not expect the starving Yemeni baby to be plastered on cover pages of newspapers around the world like "Aleppo boy" (not the boy whose decapitation was proudly taped by the moderate rebels). And given the magnitude of the human-engineered humanitarian crisis, the article is very scant on judgment, unlike articles on Syria. Not a word on the role of USA which provides full diplomatic support (UK too, of course) and pockets enormous amounts of blood money for weapons that cause and enforce starvation. Or what kind of "legitimate president" demands such fate on his ungrateful citizens -- the whole tragedy is allegedly upholding the principle of "legitimate government".

    I often ponder the logic of such pieces. Is it a journalistic effort to provide "true news" within the straightjacket imposed by the media owners? Or from the beginning, the strategy of "brand maintenance", to mix utter propaganda with enough seasoning of "objectivity and facing inconvenient news" to improve digestibility of the propaganda? Kind of like "whole wheat bread" that is barely better than the nutritional and taste-wise wasteland of "sliced white bread" but nevertheless has a more interesting color, a bit more fiber and an occasional molecule of a vitamin. When you order "whole wheat" (or read The Guardian) you are sophisticated, health conscious etc as befits the member of the liberal tribe.

    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 5, 2016 7:21:37 AM | 82
    |•b•

    Interesting revelations from ZeroHedge today:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-04/inside-shadowy-pr-firm-thats-lobbying-regime-change-syria

    What a web we weave when …

    [Oct 05, 2016] You know the rats are in real trouble when the MSM starts talking about humanitarian intervention.

    Notable quotes:
    "... In other news, the "save Aleppo" propaganda's gone into overdrive. BBC and their assorted media houses have all got their marching orders to spew the usual nonsense. Good thing is, nobody gives a sh*t about them anymore. Years of one-sided BS about "moderate rebels" blah blah blah is finally wearing thin. ..."
    "... You know the rats are in real trouble when the msm starts talking about "humanitarian" intervention.. All I hear on the news are Russia this, Russia that, Assad this Assad that, backeries, last hospital here/there, white helmets etc etc. ..."
    "... Quite interesting listening to the leaks. It shows a divided government with different factions working for the highest bidder. Also shows the US does not have much control over their Saudi/Turkish "allies".. ..."
    "... There is one country on the Arabian peninsula that is somewhat hostile to Saudia Arabia and has reasonably good relations with Iran, so I suspect they're quite happy to see Saudi Arabia bogged down in a Yemeni quagmire as no doubt are the Russians. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Zico | Oct 1, 2016 4:44:47 PM | 13
    In other news, the "save Aleppo" propaganda's gone into overdrive. BBC and their assorted media houses have all got their marching orders to spew the usual nonsense. Good thing is, nobody gives a sh*t about them anymore. Years of one-sided BS about "moderate rebels" blah blah blah is finally wearing thin.

    You know the rats are in real trouble when the msm starts talking about "humanitarian" intervention.. All I hear on the news are Russia this, Russia that, Assad this Assad that, backeries, last hospital here/there, white helmets etc etc.

    Bottom line: taking back Aleppo will be the end of the fake revolution and the architects of this dirty war know it!!!

    Laguerre | Oct 1, 2016 4:51:13 PM | 14
    re 10, and indeed 11
    These Oil Sheikhs are way too retarded to know wtf they're doing in Yemen and the amount of sh*t they've gotten themselves into.
    You guys evidently haven't understood. This is a war of Sunnis, of Wahhabi style, against the Shi'a, represented by the Houthis. In which the UAE participates, although not directly threatened.

    There've been remarks by Saudi princes about how how they want Shi'a to disappear from the world, a direct threat of genocide. That is why the war in Yemen.

    Why this powerful sentiment? It's quite simple. The population of the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia is Shi'a mainly (not quite sure on the figures). It is also the only area of Saudi with oil. If the Shi'a rebel, it's all over for the revenues of Saudi princes.

    A second case is Bahrain. Majority Shi'a population suppressed by Sunni dynasty. Bahraini oil in danger.

    The GCC operates together, though no Shi'a in UAE. That's why Emiratis in Yemen.

    wendy davis | Oct 1, 2016 4:56:31 PM | 15
    'Leaked Kerry comments prove US involvement in Syrian crisis from onset' RT,
    1 Oct, 2016 14:59

    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/361313-syria-kerry-leaked-tapes/

    Who leaked them, and do they mean what Jamal Wakeem concludes?

    Jen | Oct 1, 2016 5:18:33 PM | 16
    Zico @ 1:

    ' "Someone" gave the Houthis anti-ship missiles ...'

    I've been seeing Internet news and rumours that hundreds of Saudi soldiers have been defecting to the Yemeni side. At the very least they've been going AWOL but one assumes they must be going somewhere to escape Saudi authorities. Defecting to the Yemenis seems the simplest explanation and could also explain how the Houthis have been able to acquire sophisticated weapons.

    https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/cem-45188/

    http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940405000535

    Zico | Oct 1, 2016 5:31:38 PM | 19
    wendy davis @ 15

    Quite interesting listening to the leaks. It shows a divided government with different factions working for the highest bidder. Also shows the US does not have much control over their Saudi/Turkish "allies"..

    The Syrian 5-star opposition had hoped the Americans will invade Syria and get rid of Assad for them and parachute them into Damascus like the CIA did Hamid Karzai...It'll make for a lovely comedy script if it wasn't so tragic!!!

    Ghostship | Oct 1, 2016 7:40:06 PM | 25
    Jen | Oct 1, 2016 5:18:33 PM | 16
    There is one country on the Arabian peninsula that is somewhat hostile to Saudia Arabia and has reasonably good relations with Iran, so I suspect they're quite happy to see Saudi Arabia bogged down in a Yemeni quagmire as no doubt are the Russians.

    It's one of two countries that have a land border with Yemen so, I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard to smuggle weapons across their shared border, i.e., as about as difficult as it is for al Nusrah or ISIS to smuggle weapons across Syria's border with Turkey.

    A friend of a friend works as a nursing practitioner in a military hospital in that country and all her patients have battlefield wounds even though that country is not at war internally or externally.

    Ghostship | Oct 1, 2016 7:58:00 PM | 27
    Laguerre | Oct 1, 2016 6:57:21 PM | 24

    My guess is that it was an Iranian knockoff of the C-802 that flies at 3-5 metres off the sea during the attack phase at mach 0.9 (~690 mph), so you might not see it given its speed and altitude.

    When the missile is launched, the solid rocket propellant booster accelerates the speed of the missile to Mach 0.9 in a few seconds. After the booster burns out, it detaches from the missile body and the missile's turbojet engine starts.
    This missile is semi-armoured piercing while the boat has an aluminium (alloy) hull and superstructure so the missile would punch through the skin like a hot knife through butter and explode inside the ship.
    The missile uses a 165 kg semi-armor-piercing anti-personnel blast warhead which relies on the missile's kinetic energy to pierce the deck of a ship, penetrate into and explode in the ship's interior. The YJ-82 might have a higher single hit probability than the YJ-8/YJ-81..

    [Oct 05, 2016] They took one Saddam, but got us many more

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I am not satisfied [with the Chilcot report]," ..."
    "... . "It won't bring me back my family; it won't bring me back my arms or it won't bring me back my country. My country Iraq is destroyed because of this invasion." ..."
    "... "when the missile hit my home." ..."
    "... "I was still young, living with my family. At 12:00 o'clock in the night I suddenly heard a very big blast hitting my home, the house collapsed on us. There was a lot of fire and I heard my family screaming and shouting," ..."
    "... "We were farmers. We had sheep and cows outside. There wasn't a military base near to my home," ..."
    "... "There are lots of people like me who lost some members of their family. So we have no answer for this: why they have done it – we don't know." ..."
    "... "Yes, Saddam [Hussein] was a terrible person and a dictator, but what's happening now is much worse than it was under Saddam. They took one Saddam and they got us many more Saddams," ..."
    "... "inadequate" ..."
    "... "deeply sorry for the loss of life" ..."
    "... "good faith". ..."
    "... "This makes me angry. He just said 'sorry' and he also said he would do the same thing again. They have caused so many deaths and so much suffering […]," ..."
    "... "to say 'sorry' and just walk away with it – it's not justice." ..."
    "... "I want to ask him if he wants to come back with me to Iraq and tell the Iraqi people that he will do the same thing again…" ..."
    "... "presented with a certainty that was not justified." ..."
    "... "chaos" ..."
    "... "Before the war started we knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We knew that they're only coming for economic reasons and to have power in this part of the world. And you can see what's happening today in the Middle East. Iraq, Syria – it's all linked to the 2003 invasions of Iraq," ..."
    "... "There's was violence but now there's hundreds of more violence than before…If you want to rebuild Iraq again you need probably another hundred years to do this…I go back to Iraq and I see the country is destroyed," ..."
    Jul 08, 2016 | www.rt.com

    RT UK

    Published time: 02:03 Edited time: 8 Jul, 2016 02:55 Get short URL

    Blair's apology for the Iraq invasion is not going to bring the "destroyed" country and dead people back, a disabled Iraqi man, who lost his whole family, told RT. He demands justice for those whose actions only created "many more Saddams". "I am not satisfied [with the Chilcot report]," 25-year-old Ali Abbas said . "It won't bring me back my family; it won't bring me back my arms or it won't bring me back my country. My country Iraq is destroyed because of this invasion."

    Thirteen years ago, Abbas lost his mother, father, and a little brother as well as 13 other members of their family in the UK-US allied 2003 invasion.

    Now residing in London, he recounts terrors of the war, saying he can vividly remember the day and time "when the missile hit my home."

    "I was still young, living with my family. At 12:00 o'clock in the night I suddenly heard a very big blast hitting my home, the house collapsed on us. There was a lot of fire and I heard my family screaming and shouting," Abbas said.

    That attack left the young man disabled – having suffered burns to 60 percent of his body, he lost his arms amputated due to severe burns.

    The one thing that Abbas does not understand is why the militants had to target his home and family of peaceful farmers.

    "We were farmers. We had sheep and cows outside. There wasn't a military base near to my home," he said. "There are lots of people like me who lost some members of their family. So we have no answer for this: why they have done it – we don't know."

    Abbas says that the Iraq's 2003 invasion and the following regime change brought the country leaders much worse than Saddam Hussein.

    "Yes, Saddam [Hussein] was a terrible person and a dictator, but what's happening now is much worse than it was under Saddam. They took one Saddam and they got us many more Saddams," he said.

    The so-called Chilcot inquiry released by Sir John Chilcot criticized former UK government led by Tony Blair for "inadequate" planning and underestimation of the Iraq invasion's consequences. It also found that Britain's choice to support the Iraq war unjustified.

    Speaking in light of the Chilcot inquiry release, Tony Blair said he was "deeply sorry for the loss of life" , but stressed that he acted in "good faith".

    "This makes me angry. He just said 'sorry' and he also said he would do the same thing again. They have caused so many deaths and so much suffering […]," Abbas said, adding that "to say 'sorry' and just walk away with it – it's not justice."

    "I want to ask him if he wants to come back with me to Iraq and tell the Iraqi people that he will do the same thing again…" he says.

    The Chilcot report also showed that Britain's decision to bomb Iraq was not clearly evaluated as one of the major arguments for the campaign – Iraq's weapons of mass destruction – was "presented with a certainty that was not justified."

    Abbas agrees that the WMD was just a pretext for the UK and US to initiate war which resulted in total "chaos" in the Middle East and proliferation of terrorism.

    "Before the war started we knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We knew that they're only coming for economic reasons and to have power in this part of the world. And you can see what's happening today in the Middle East. Iraq, Syria – it's all linked to the 2003 invasions of Iraq," Abbas said.

    He says that the 2003 invasion unleashed terrorists that Iraq did not know of before.

    "There's was violence but now there's hundreds of more violence than before…If you want to rebuild Iraq again you need probably another hundred years to do this…I go back to Iraq and I see the country is destroyed," he added.

    Read more:

    Following the Chilcot Report, time for a proper reckoning 7/7 London bombings, 11yrs on: Iraq War raised terror threat, Chilcot suggests British military equipment 'wholly inadequate' in Iraq, says Chilcot

    [Oct 05, 2016] Does the One Percent Deserve What it Gets

    Oct 05, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Economist's View

    Ron Waller -> Sandwichman ... , Tuesday, October 04, 2016 at 05:26 PM

    Donald J. Deadbeat got rich working the system. I.e. legally. The Clintons, on the other hand, got all their riches from betraying the people, liquidating the public trust and selling off American government to oligarchs domestic and foreign. They made over $100-million in speaking fees alone cashing in on promissory bribes.

    For every criticism against Trump there exists one worse against Hillary.

    Whichever bottom-feeder ends up president it will be bad news for the party they captured. Better for progressives if Trump blows up the Republican party than the Goldwater Girl destroying the Democratic party (saddling it with a 12-year Great Recession by 2020.)

    The former will produce a New Deal revolution led by someone like Elizabeth Warren in 2020, which will usher in a new era for civilization.

    The latter will kick the New Deal can down the road to 2024 with something like a Ted Cruz presidency in 2020. Given the state of the global economy, which is teetering on the verge of collapse into fascist revolutions and world war, that will probably mean just kicking the can.

    ilsm -> Ron Waller ... , -1
    Willie Horton may be worse than no convictions Clintons.

    Trump has no blood on his hands like both Clintons.

    [Oct 05, 2016] The computers and the internet sped outsourcing to countries like China

    Notable quotes:
    "... Average US wages rose 350% in the 40 years between 1932 and 1972, but only 22% over the next 40 years. The pattern holds similar across the developed world. In other words, for all their hype, the computer and the internet have done less to lift economic growth than the flush toilet. ..."
    "... ahem… the computer and the internet sped outsourcing to countries like China. Ask China or India how their economic growth has been since 1972. The author is mixing up several things at once. ..."
    "... When so many of our jobs, technology and investment is offshored to China (and elsewhere), the future for innovation is certainly not bright, and this should be obvious to everyone, including the author. ..."
    Oct 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    flora October 4, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    " Average US wages rose 350% in the 40 years between 1932 and 1972, but only 22% over the next 40 years. The pattern holds similar across the developed world. In other words, for all their hype, the computer and the internet have done less to lift economic growth than the flush toilet."

    ahem… the computer and the internet sped outsourcing to countries like China. Ask China or India how their economic growth has been since 1972. The author is mixing up several things at once.

    sgt_doom October 4, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    Great comments, and please allow me to piggyback off them:

    When so many of our jobs, technology and investment is offshored to China (and elsewhere), the future for innovation is certainly not bright, and this should be obvious to everyone, including the author.

    When so many have contributed so much, only to see their jobs and livelihoods offshored again and again and again, that great jump the others have will then zero out OUR innovation!

    [Oct 04, 2016] Should the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a museum of savage stupidity and war crimes ?

    Notable quotes:
    "... The potential threats both candidates pose are real. Those advocating Hillary as the better, safer choice cannot offer any reliable assurances that she will be able, or willing, to pursue policies that increase the well-being and security of any but the already affluent and secure. ..."
    "... Hillary's long and unhappy history of war-mongering has not, imho, received anything like the media scrutiny it deserves, and won't until she's correctly identified in the minds of most as an advocate of 'liberal interventionism'/violent regime change and on an equal footing of imbecility and irresponsibility in the minds of the public as Bush, Cheney, and Blair. ..."
    "... When the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a Mt. Rushmore of savage stupidity for all to see and all school children studying the early 21st-century American-UK wars recognize the monument as such, that task of 'highlighting' her role in this enormously costly and damaging humanitarian and political disaster will be at least part way done. ..."
    "... Obama, as Stevenjohnson notes, has not entirely surrendered his dream of forcing 'democracy' on Syria. There is abundant evidence, however, the US and a number of other nations have been arming Syrian rebels (ISIL and Al Quaida) since 2011, at least. ..."
    "... The result of Obama and Hillary's love of violent regime change has been an increase in the suffering of millions in North Africa and the Middle East, the collapse of basic services such as fresh water and hospitals, and a new flood of refugees seeking to escape the beneficence of Hillary Clinton and her boss. ..."
    "... If you are supporting Hillary you are supporting violent regime change in the Middle East and the love of violence of Bush and Cheney, not too mention drone strikes, the surveillance state. That's who you are. ..."
    "... Dealing first with Libya and Syria, Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy, and certainly the most important administration official after Obama responsible for foreign policy. Facts which place the burden of proof regarding her involvement in US foreign policy formation and execution squarely on you. ..."
    "... HRC's involvement in Iraq is less well-understood, and that's likely no accident either, given the mileage democrats have generated out of pinning the entire bi-partisan debacle on Bush and Cheney. From the linked dialogue above featuring Robert Wright and Max Abrahms (Northeastern) http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/43967?in=01:10&out=12:21 ..."
    "... The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. ..."
    "... One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.01.16 at 10:48 pm 284

    @ 278 There's nothing quite so amusing as advocates of free speech 'commanding' the comments section of somebody else's blog and then issuing permissions to comment, or instructions to how and what to post. (fn, rich, colin, TM in one form, or another)

    Merian is quite right that in the artificially and arbitrarily limited universe of a one-time choice between just two options, everything written can be seen as pro/con against one or the other if everything that is written has only one meaning and will be read and understood by all as having the same meaning.

    The fact is that a great many people inside the US and outside the US may well lack any/much understanding of the decision-making processes that led up to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, not to mention America's long history with Iran, and America's support of Evil Axis bad guy number 1 Saddam Hussein. The dynamics are complex even for those familiar with the basic topography.

    The rhetorical parallels leading up to the Iraq invasions and the presidential elections are striking and easy to identify. Facts don't matter, the urgency and severity of the threat demands uniform action, and the enemy is a once in an eon threat of epic proportion to the physical and moral existence of the known universe.

    The potential threats both candidates pose are real. Those advocating Hillary as the better, safer choice cannot offer any reliable assurances that she will be able, or willing, to pursue policies that increase the well-being and security of any but the already affluent and secure.

    Hillary's long and unhappy history of war-mongering has not, imho, received anything like the media scrutiny it deserves, and won't until she's correctly identified in the minds of most as an advocate of 'liberal interventionism'/violent regime change and on an equal footing of imbecility and irresponsibility in the minds of the public as Bush, Cheney, and Blair.

    When the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a Mt. Rushmore of savage stupidity for all to see and all school children studying the early 21st-century American-UK wars recognize the monument as such, that task of 'highlighting' her role in this enormously costly and damaging humanitarian and political disaster will be at least part way done.

    kidneystones 10.01.16 at 10:54 pm 286
    For Merian and others: a timely post from Matt Welch at Reason on Gary Johnson via the o'l perfessor who sees the coverage of Hillary and Trump as you.

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/245272/

    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 3:22 am
    @ 300 "Assad Must Go" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34385354
    • 28 September 2015 "Obama tells the UN Assad must go."
    • 18 August 2011 "Assad Must Go Obama Says" (Wapo) (no links to follow to avoid moderation)
    • 1 August 2012 "Obama Authorizes Secret US Support for Syrian Rebels" (Reuters)

    Obama, as Stevenjohnson notes, has not entirely surrendered his dream of forcing 'democracy' on Syria. There is abundant evidence, however, the US and a number of other nations have been arming Syrian rebels (ISIL and Al Quaida) since 2011, at least.

    The result of Obama and Hillary's love of violent regime change has been an increase in the suffering of millions in North Africa and the Middle East, the collapse of basic services such as fresh water and hospitals, and a new flood of refugees seeking to escape the beneficence of Hillary Clinton and her boss.

    All this after the 'lessons' of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    If you are supporting Hillary you are supporting violent regime change in the Middle East and the love of violence of Bush and Cheney, not too mention drone strikes, the surveillance state. That's who you are.

    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 3:58 am
    ZM@ 303. The linked dialogue above explores the role Hillary and Obama, in particular, played in providing the arms and support to a rebellion that Assad, like Gaddafi, could have ended years ago.

    Like Gaddafi, Assad is not being attacked by moderate democrats keen to legalize gay marriage, but rather Sunni militias deeply sympathetic to ISIL and Al Quaida, or those forces operating in Syria and western Iraq.

    You're right to point out that the only result of US support of ISIL related Sunnis has been the prolonging of the civil war and the promulgation of the delusion that violent-regime change brings peace and security. Yes, five years of US arms, threats, and intimidation has destroyed Syria, in much the same was as the Hillary promoted war in Libya destroyed that regime.

    The pro-Hillary-Obama media is extremely reluctant in the run-up to the election to point out explicitly what a spectacular FP failure the US has created for itself right now, with Russian jets flying over Aleppo and Assad about to finally humiliate the insurgents and all those like Hillary and Obama who encouraged the bloodshed.

    The Obama-Hillary policy has been a five-year bloodbath and there's no sign Hillary wants to do anything but press for a no-fly zone over Syria in order for the US to continue to funnel more death and destruction into the already devastated moonscape.

    It ain't like anyone she knows is dying over there. Syrians can't vote in November.

    The attitude of her supporters seems be: fuck it – Syria is on the other side of the world, so what's the big deal?

    Mitt Romney tied the family dog to the roof of his car. What about that ?

    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 4:05 am
    @ 305 Hi Merian.

    Go tell your students that you're supporting the candidate who voted for the Iraq invasion (biggest mistake in modern US history), persuaded plenty of other Democrats and ordinary Americans to suspend their judgment and do the same. And who also played an instrumental role in destroying Libya, promotes violent regime-change in Syria and enjoys the support of all the same neocon warmongers who've made the US into a pariah state. Play the 'We came, we saw, he died – ha-ha-ha" Hillary CBS video for them.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-07/we-came-we-saw-he-died-%E2%80%93-revisiting-incredible-disaster-libya

    Then explain to them that Hillary is the better candidate.

    See what happens.

    Omega Centauri 10.02.16 at 4:40 am 314
    I don't see HRC as a prime mover in either Iraq or Libya. In the first case Iraq was a neocon/Bush project, and they were threatening to extract a terrible price from anyone who used their position to block their ambitions. Libya was primarily a Arab-league cum French-British project. Not supporting it could have potentially damaged our relationship with key allies France and Britain. Of course Libya was a slippery slope, once started it soon became obvious there was no solution where Qaddafi survived and the Libyan people wouldn't end up paying dearly. Not that her acquiescence in either case demonstrated either good long term judgement or courage, but it also doesn't demonstrate that she was a principle architect of either project.
    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 5:15 am 316
    314@ "I don't see HRC as a prime mover in either Iraq, or Libya."

    That's probably a great comfort to the grifters keen to see her elected. The facts, however, suggest otherwise. Dealing first with Libya and Syria, Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy, and certainly the most important administration official after Obama responsible for foreign policy. Facts which place the burden of proof regarding her involvement in US foreign policy formation and execution squarely on you.

    HRC's involvement in Iraq is less well-understood, and that's likely no accident either, given the mileage democrats have generated out of pinning the entire bi-partisan debacle on Bush and Cheney. From the linked dialogue above featuring Robert Wright and Max Abrahms (Northeastern) http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/43967?in=01:10&out=12:21

    bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 7:49 pm
    Anarcissie @ 239: We basically have a whole class of people, at the top of the social order, who seem devoid of a moral sense - a problem which the upcoming election isn't going to touch, much less solve. I don't blame Clinton for this . . .

    JimV @ 317: I am sorry if I mischaracterized BW as implying that HRC is evil, . . .

    Peter T @ 320: Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess [the multi-sided regional civil war engulfing Syria and northern Iraq]

    stevenjohnson @ 324: The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war.

    LFC @ 330: I disagree w the notion that the pt of nuclear 'modernization' is to make plausible the threat of "imminent general nuclear war." If U.S. military planners took hallucinogenic drugs and went nuts, they could "plausibly" threaten "imminent general nuclear war" right now with the US nuclear arsenal as currently configured. They don't need to upgrade the weapons to do that. The program is prob more the result of rigid, unimaginative thinking at top levels of Pentagon and influence of outside companies (e.g. Boeing etc) that work on the upgrades.

    I don't know if that seems like a somewhat random collection of precursors to assemble as preface to a comment. I was thinking of picking out a few upthread references to climate change and the response to it (or inadequacy thereof) as well.

    I am a little disturbed by the idea of leaving the impression that I think Hillary Clinton is "evil". What I think is that American politics in general is not generating realistic, adaptive governance.

    I am using that bloodless phrase, "realistic, adaptive governance", deliberately, to emphasize wanting to step outside the passions of the Presidential election. I think the Manichean narrative where Trump is The Most Horrible Candidate Evah and Everyone Must Line Up Behind Clinton as an Ethical Imperative of a High Order is part of the process of propaganda and manipulation that distorts popular discussion and understanding and helps to create a politics that cannot govern realistically and adaptively. This is not about me thinking Trump is anything but a horrible mess of a candidate who ought to be kept far from power.

    I see Clinton as someone who is trapped inside the dynamics of this seriously deranged politics qua political process. I don't see her as entirely blameless. Politicians like Obama and either Clinton, at the top of the political order, are masters (keeping in mind that there are many masters working to some extent in opposition to one another as rivals, allies, enemies and so on) of the process and create the process by the exercise of their mastery, as much as they are mastered by it. I see them as trapped by the process they have helped (more than a little opportunistically) to create, but trapped as Dr Frankenstein is by his Creature.

    Clinton must struggle with the ethical contradictions of governance at the highest levels of leadership: she must, in the exercise of power in office and out, practice the political art of the possible in relation to crafting policy that will be "good" in the sense of passably effective and efficient - this may involve a high degree of foresightful wonkery or a lethally ruthless statesmanship, depending upon circumstances. Beside this business of making the great machinery of the state lumber forward, she must strive to appear "good", like Machiavelli's Prince, even while playing an amoral game of real politick, gathering and shepherding a complex coalition of allies, supporters, donors and cooperative enemies.

    Machiavelli, when he was considering the Princely business of appearing "good", was contending with the hypocrisies and impossible idealism of authoritarian Catholic morality. He barely connected with anything that we would recognize as democratic Public Opinion and could scarcely conceive of what Ivy Lee or Edward Bernays, let alone Fox News, Vox and the world wide web might do to politics.

    We are trapped, just as Clinton is trapped, in the vast communication nightmare of surrealistic news and opinion washing in upon us in a tide that never ebbs. We are trapped by the politics of media "gotchas" and Kinsley Gaffes (A Kinsley gaffe occurs when a political gaffe reveals some truth that a politician did not intend to admit.)

    I don't think Clinton lacks a moral sense. What I think is that Clinton's moral sense is exhausted calculating what to say or do within the parameters of media-synthesized conventional wisdom policed by people who are themselves exhausted trying to manage it. Matt Lauer's interview with Clinton was notorious for the relentless and clueless questioning about the email server, although I, personally, was shocked when he asked her a question that seemed premised on the idea that veterans should be offended by admitting the Iraq War was a mistake.

    I would think it is easy to see that the media circus is out of control, especially when a clown like Trump graduates from The Apprentice to the Republican nomination. YMMV, but I think this is a serious problem that goes beyond vividly imagined sepia-toned parodies of Trump's candidacy as the second coming of Mussolini.

    While we're getting ourselves agitated over Trump's racism or threats to bar Muslims from entry, apparently the Military-Industrial Complex, left on autopilot, is re-designing the nation's nuclear arsenal to make the outbreak of nuclear war far more likely. And, the closest Clinton gets to a comment, campaign commitment or public discussion, let alone an exercise of power, is a PR "leak"!!!

    The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. Clinton offered up a sound-bite last year, saying that she favored imposing a "no-fly" zone, which was exposed as kind of crazy idea, given that the Russians as well as Assad's government are the ones flying, not to mention the recent experience with a no-fly zone in Libya. One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. What's most alarming to me is that we cannot count on personal character to put the brakes on that process, which is now the process of governance. I am writing now of the process of governance by public relations that was has been exposed a bit in profiles of the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes.

    In Syria, it has become almost comical, if you can overlook the bodies piling up, as the U.S. has sought a the mythical unicorn of Syrian Moderate Democrats whom the Pentagon or the CIA can advise, train and arm. This is foreign policy by PR narrative and it is insanely unrealistic. But, our politics is trapped in it, and, worse, policy is trapped in it. Layer after layer of b.s. have piled up obscuring U.S. interests and practical options. Recently, U.S. forces supporting the Turks have come dangerously close to blowing up U.S. forces supporting the Kurds. When you find yourself on opposing sides of a civil war like Charles I you may be in the process of losing your head. Some of the worst elements opposing Assad have been engaged in a transparent re-branding exercise aimed at garnering U.S. aid. And, U.S. diplomats and media face the high challenge of explaining why the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

    But, hey, Clinton will get Robert Kagan's vote and a better tomorrow is only a Friedman unit away, so it is all good.

    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 9:24 pm
    @328 stevenjohnson and Peter T cover the details. As an outsider supportive of negotiated settlements in all cases, rather than unilateral military action and violent regime change, I'm interested principally in ensuring that partisan political preferences do not obscure the historical record. Bluntly put, dictators routinely abuse bomb their own civilians as the 'need' arises. Nor is the US the only state actor keen to profit in the broadest sense of the term from political division.

    The UN was formed, in large part, to provide a forum/mechanism for peaceful conflict resolution. Each time state actors such as Russia, China, the US, France, and the UK either bypass the UN, or use the UN to sanction attacks by larger states on smaller states, the entire edifice becomes a little weaker.

    Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th president of the US.

    bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 9:54 pm
    Rich Puchalsky @ 334

    People are in information overload most of the time, and where politics are concerned, they really just want to know who to root for. They ask, "who is the good guy? who is the bad guy?" "Whose right?" "What should be done?" And, people like the opinions they have, whatever those opinions may be; they use their political opinions to feed their sense of self-esteem and social belonging, for better and for worse.

    I have some friends, who are really into a particular sport as fans, not participants. One guy knows everything about baseball. It is fun to watch a game with him, because he knows when someone is about to try to steal a base and stuff like that and he can explain the manager's strategy and has gossip about the players careers and personal lives. And, apparently, he has an encyclopedic knowledge of baseball history - appears to, anyway: what dramatic thing happened in game 3 of the 1967 World Series and so on and exactly why everyone hated Ty Cobb.

    No one like that shows up at CT to talk politics. Maybe it is just as well. Sports guys can wield that knowledge and remain affable, but political guys tend to be arrogant and off-putting. But, I do think we could use more of that spirit sometimes.

    I was thinking about what a brilliant innovation the Clinton Foundation is, how well it is designed to solve the problems of Machiavelli's Prince. But, we would struggle to discuss it in those terms; the partisan contest means that the CF is either horribly corrupt or prosaically innocent. The pressure to evaluate it is so high, that seeing the functional details is hard. I've seen some articles that attempt to understand the CF as a means to the political ambitions of the Clintons, but they seldom grasp the awesome accomplishment it is in ways that also fully understand why enemies of the Clintons are keen to attack it and why it so reliably produces the neoliberal pablum that Thomas Franks despises. If we could imagine a Marx tackling the CF as a vehicle of class interest, that would be pretty interesting.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Derailing The Trump Revolution

    Oct 04, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    cheech_wizard Oct 4, 2016 6:24 PM The proper comparison, the one Trump should be using...

    I took a $915 million loss on my taxes in 1995, while you, Hillary CLinton, lost $6 billion in taxpayer's money during your tenure as Secretary of State.

    grunk Oct 4, 2016 7:52 PM

    Clinton Son-in-Law's Firm Is Said to Close Greece Hedge Fund

    "two years later, the Greece-focused fund is shutting down, after losing nearly 90 percent of its value..."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/business/dealbook/clinton-son-in-laws-...

    Last paragraph of the article:

    " The one silver lining for the fund's investors from all of this is that they will have a somewhat larger tax loss on investments to claim next year. "

    Further...

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/03/clinton-sought-secret-info-on...

    "During 2011, Secretary of State Clinton lobbied the leaders of European governments to bail out the Greek financial system. She advocated imposing austerity measures on Greece-raising taxes, cutting public employee salaries and eliminating social welfare programs-to make the investors holding the debt happy." are we there yet Oct 4, 2016 9:09 PM Interesting, google is highly opinionated in its search engine about Hillary and trump. Google trump news and Hillary news. Its selection is heavily slanted to Hillary is great, Trump is falling off a cliff. Alternate reality.

    [Oct 04, 2016] The Class Dynamics in the Rise of Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... The elites believe they are privileged because they are convinced they are the smartest, most creative, most talented and hardest working. They cap this grotesque narcissism with a facade of goodness and virtue. They turn their elitism into a morality play. ..."
    "... National Review ..."
    "... National Review ..."
    "... divide-and-rule ..."
    "... the reach and powerful ..."
    "... Ismael Hossein-zadeh ..."
    "... is Professor Emeritus of Economics (Drake University). He is the author of ..."
    "... Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Financial Crisis ..."
    "... (Routledge 2014), ..."
    "... The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism ..."
    "... (Palgrave–Macmillan 2007), and the ..."
    "... Soviet Non-capitalist Development: The Case of Nasser's Egypt ..."
    "... (Praeger Publishers 1989). He is also a contributor to ..."
    "... Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion ..."
    Oct 03, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org

    The elites believe they are privileged because they are convinced they are the smartest, most creative, most talented and hardest working. They cap this grotesque narcissism with a facade of goodness and virtue. They turn their elitism into a morality play.

    - Thomas Frank (paraphrased by Chris Hedges)

    The powerful establishment interests vested in the continuation of the status quo and, therefore, the election of Hillary Clinton, have created a campaign narrative that tends to stereotype and stigmatize the white working class as racist, sexist and xenophobic. This was most colorfully expressed recently by Clinton herself when in an unguarded moment before her wealthy donors in Manhattan she stated that half of all Trump supporters consisted of a "basket of deplorables." Those backing Trump, she continued, were "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic-you name it."

    Implicit in this narrative is that support for Donald Trump is driven largely by innate, primordial prejudices and personal characters; and that economics or class issues have nothing or very little to do with his ascendance. Accordingly, the narrative maintains that to the extent that economic conditions of the white working Americans have steadily deteriorated in recent years they have no one to blame but themselves: their laziness, their lack of drive, their moral failures, their sense of entitlement, and the like.

    Commenting on this narrative, Conner Kilpatrick of the Jacobin magazine writes, "Somehow liberal pundits have gotten it into their heads that white workers . . . are just an aggrieved, pissed off, outnumbered minority" [1].

    The narrative is propagated by both Republican and Democratic elites and operatives. For example, Anthony DiMaggio, a purported liberal political scientist supporter of Hillary Clinton at Lehigh University writes, "Hillary Clinton caught a lot of flak for referring to half of Trump Supporters as 'the deplorables.' She was being far too generous. Public opinion surveys over the last year or so suggest that the white supremacist contingent of Trump voters is even larger." DiMaggio further writes, "The ascendance of Donald Trump tells us much about the quality of American character – particularly about our enduring and toxic legacy of hate, ignorance, bigotry, and white-supremacy" [2].

    Likewise, Jonathan Chait, another liberal intellectual, writes:

    "Then there are the voters, whose behavior provided the largest surprise. . . . As low as my estimation of the intelligence of the Republican electorate may be, I did not think enough of them would be dumb enough to buy his [Trump's] act. And, yes, I do believe that to watch Donald Trump and see a qualified and plausible president, you probably have some kind of mental shortcoming. . . . His appeal operates not at a low intellectual level but at a sub-intellectual level" [3].

    Conservative elitists are even more indignant of Trump supporters. Writing in the avowedly conservative National Review magazine, Kevin Williamson writes:

    "It is immoral because it perpetuates a lie: that the white working class that finds itself attracted to Trump has been victimized by outside forces. It hasn't. . . . Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor white America. . . . The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. . . . The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn't analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul" [4].

    Williamson's colleague and conservative co-thinker David French (also writing in the National Review ) similarly explains how some poor white people he had known were utterly lazy, irresponsible and obnoxious:

    "If they couldn't find a job in a few days-or perhaps even as little as a few hours-they'd stop looking. If they got angry at teachers or coaches, they'd drop out of school. If they fought with their wife, they had sex with a neighbor. And always - always - there was a sense of entitlement" [5].

    These kinds of statements, disparaging and dismissing the white working class, are the name of the game for the establishment elites and courtiers. The problem with this line of argument is that it is not just vulgar and elitist, it is also untrue. The considerable support that the white wage-earning voters in

    States such as West Virginia and Indiana gave the self-described socialist Bernie Sanders showed that they do, indeed, vote for a progressive populist agenda (more on this later). Their substantial support for Sanders revealed that many Trump voters do not necessaritly subscribe to his bigoted and demagogic agenda, but that they are so disgusted with the status quo that they nonetheless vote for him, largely as an act of revenge or protest. They seem to be instinctively cognizant of the fact that "Trump is the Symptom, Clinton is the Disease," as Roger Harris put it.

    Are Trump's Supporters Driven by Racism and Xenophobia?

    In a real sense, the juxtaposition between economic and non-economic factors in the rise of Trump is a false dichotomy: both evidence and logic point to the fact that high levels of unemployment and economic hardship are breeding grounds for the escalation of racism and xenophobia.

    It was no accident that the classic European fascism rose in conjunction with the harrowing economic conditions of the Great Depression. Nor is it altogether fortuitous that fascistic manifestations have become rampant in many core capitalist countries that are grappling with the ongoing financial turbulence that was set off by the 2008 financial implosion in the U.S., and has since spread to many other countries.

    This is not to say that racist or xenophobic sentiments are always or altogether precipitated by economic factors. It is rather to point out that to the extent that there exist such prejudices they tend to remain largely latent during periods of high employment and economic prosperity. Many Trump supporters have economic difficulties that they misguidedly view through the prism of racism and xenophobia. Certainly, xenophobic rhetoric has played an important role in the rise of Donald Trump but, as Daniel Denvir of the Salon magazine put it, "it is the admixture of economic populism, however phony, that makes him so potent" [6].

    The claim that Trump owes his electoral victory mainly to non-economic factors such as racism xenophobia lust much of its credibility when Bernie Sanders won handily against Hillary Clinton in States such as Indiana and West Virginia. According to this claim, as a self-described socialist who advocated a multiracial, multicultural, inclusive and relatively equitable society, Sanders was not supposed to win in places like West Virginia, the whitest (93.7 percent) of all states. But there he was, winning big against Clinton among men, women, young, and old.

    The outcome of such primaries, indicating that large numbers of white working Americans voted for Sanders was quite discomforting to the powerful interests vested in the status quo. Not surprisingly, the Clinton campaign (and the elitist courtiers of the establishment in general) became childishly creative: claiming that somehow West Virginia's vote for a Jewish socialist Brooklyn native was prompted by racism!

    "Instead of acknowledging the size and importance of this part of the electorate, Democratic Party elites have simply constructed a new narrative to suit their interests-a narrative that was on display after West Virginia. Following Sanders's win, a significant chunk of the punditocracy came to the conclusion, mostly by abusing the hell out of exit polls, that a vote for the Jewish socialist was actually a vote for white supremacy. . . . After decades of being told white workers would never support socialism because they're racist, we're now told that they support the socialist candidate because they are racist. Yes, this is where liberals are in the year 2016" [7].

    To downplay the role of the white working voters in Trump's campaign, some proponents of the status quo have gone as far as arguing that Trump supporters are not actually working class because the median household income of his supporters is above the national median household income [8].

    This is a highly misleading argument. Since black, Latino and other non-white workers/households are more marginalized economically, and still make significantly less than white people, the median income of Trump voters would, accordingly, show a higher figure than the median national income. Furthermore, better-off-than average does not necessarily translate into economic security. A snapshot or static picture of median income does not tell us much; more importantly, it is the trend or change in people's economic conditions over time that matters most.

    Median household income and wealth have drastically fallen in recent years. Wages have been stagnant, and in many cases fallen in real terms. At the same time, healthcare, childcare, higher education, housing, and retirement costs have escalated. A recent Pew Research Center survey shows that in 1971 about 61 percent of American households were categorized as middle class. Today, that number is barely 50% [9]. As a number of observers have pointed out, Trump support is highly correlated to areas where the death rates of middle-aged white people, fueled by opioid overdoses, are spiking [10].

    Why Are the Establishment Elites so Eager to Reject Economic/Class Explanations?

    The establishment elites and corporate media pundits tend to stigmatize the white working Americans in order to sanitize the brutal neoliberal policies of austerity economics of the past four decades. The plan and the hope is that in so doing they can exonerate the policy-makers of the establishment-both Republican and Democratic-of the responsibility for the unsavory state of affairs that has given rise to Donald Trump. When racism and bigotry can be blamed capitalism is exonerated.

    U.S. economic policy of the past 40 years or so has consisted of a steady escalation of neoliberal austerity economics while its foreign policy has consisted of a steady escalation of war and militarism. Neither Bill Clinton deviated from Ronald Reagan's policies of supply-side economics at home and military aggressions abroad, nor has Barak Obama deviated from those of George W. Bush.

    Indeed, masterfully masquerading as liberals, Bill Clinton and Barak Obama have proven to be much more effective engineers of demolishing the New Deal Economics, of substituting corporate welfare for public welfare, and of deregulating and strengthening the parasitic financial sector than their Republican counterparts. Likewise, using harebrained pretexts such as
    "humanitarian intervention" and/or "responsibility to protect," Clinton and Obama have proven to be more successful architects of "regime change" in more countries than Reagan and Bush ever were.

    This explains why the liberal elites of the Democratic Party (like their conservative counterparts in the Republican Party) are promoting the obfuscationist narrative that sidesteps the decades-long policies of neoliberalism and militarism, or the fundamental injustices of capitalism, and instead blame the rise of Donald Trump on "moral failures" or "personal characters" of the white working Americans. As Daniel Denvir points out, "If there is no economic context, and Trump's supporters are just mired in primordial racism, then they are forever lost in the morass of right-wing politics . . . [and] progressives can forget about the angry white guys" [11].

    Concluding Remarks

    Capitalism has always employed the age-old tactic of divide-and-rule to pit various strata of the working class against each other in order to keep them docile. This tactic has especially been used more effectively in the United States because as a country of immigrants it has always benefitted from the flow of successive waves of migrant workers who, due to the vulnerability of their circumstances, could easily be exploited more compared to the workers who had arrived before them.

    Not only has U.S. capitalism handsomely benefitted from this perennial competition between successive generations of migrant workers, between the old and new migrants, but also elite politicians have often taken advantage of this competition for their own nefarious political and economic purposes. "Slave owners did this by getting laws passed that required white indentured servants and black slaves to be treated differently. Richard Nixon did it by employing the cynical 'Southern strategy.' Now Trump is following in this long tradition by pitting struggling white people against immigrants and Muslims" [12].

    Hillary Clinton has employed a different tack in pitting the working people against each other: while Trump is guilty of peddling racism and xenophobia, she is guilty of touting moralities, identity politics and wedge issues. Feigning an artificial moral high ground, she (and other elites of the establishment) argues that the worsening of the economic conditions of the white working Americans is mainly the result of their own personal and/or moral failures: laziness, racism, sexism and xenophobia.

    While often misplaced or misdirected, the white working Americans' economic grievances are real. Hillary Clinton and the powerful by-partisan supporters of her campaign tend to dismiss this reality because acknowledging it would be tantamount to acknowledging their own guilt: the fact that their economic policies of the past four decades have been disastrous for working Americans.

    Blaming white American workers (as Clinton does) or migrant workers (as Trump does) for the sins of neoliberal austerity economic policies of the past forty years or so represent a blatant effort on the part of the two presidential candidates to scapegoat the working class in order to sanitize the capitalist class. Despicable as these attempts at deflection and deception are, however, one cannot really blame Clinton or Trump for pursuing such self-serving policies of diversion and obfuscation in the service of their class, the reach and powerful .

    The real blame goes, instead, to the bureaucratic labor/union leaders who have betrayed the working class by supporting the capitalist class, largely through their support for Hillary Clinton and, more generally, the Democratic Party. The combined number of voters for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump is much higher the number of voters for Hillary Clinton-perhaps 50% higher. This is an obvious indication that a clear majority of the American electorate are ready for radical changes; they prefer anti-establishmentarian candidates to the establishment candidate, even when one of the alternative candidates is a self-described socialist and the other is an avowed bigot.

    This is also an indication that were the bureaucratic labor leaders really committed to the interests of the working class, and entered the election contests with their own candidates at both local and Federal levels, independent of the two corporate parties, such independent labor/grassroots candidates could win unimaginable victories in the interest of the overwhelming majority of the people, the so-called 99%.

    Political lessons for the working class and other dispossessed masses are unmistakable: To challenge and (ultimately) change the status quo, the labor and other grassroots need to decisively break with the two-party system and the bureaucratic labor leaders. What is needed to reverse the weakening of labor and the declining living standards of the overwhelming majority of the people is a new type of labor organization, a new labor movement and new labor politics.

    The new labor/grassroots politics would aim at exposing the lies and deceptions of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Champions of the new politics would explain that both migrant workers and white workers, which essentially means migrant workers of today and yesterday, are victims, first and foremost, of the woes and vagaries of the capitalist system-of neoliberalism and militarism. They would further explain that the workers and other grassroots need to extricate themselves from the divisive setups of the fraudulent two-part system and, instead, forge an alliance that would safeguard their interests against the ills and injustices of neoliberal economics, and chart a political course that would, ultimately, supplant the crisis-prone and unjust capitalist system with a more humane civilization. Fighting against the ills of capitalism is crucial to labor and other social layers suffering from them. But it makes little sense to fight symptoms without challenging the system that produces them.

    References

    Ismael Hossein-zadeh is Professor Emeritus of Economics (Drake University). He is the author of Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Financial Crisis (Routledge 2014), The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave–Macmillan 2007), and the Soviet Non-capitalist Development: The Case of Nasser's Egypt (Praeger Publishers 1989). He is also a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion . More articles by: Ismael Hossein-Zadeh next - Plan Colombia Vindicated: Colombia Rejects Peace, previous - The Poisoned Chalice: From Eurozone to Dead Zone,

    [Oct 04, 2016] How strange it is that somehow Americans are the decider of military intervention everywhere and how American exceptionalism is part of our imperial setup

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th president of the US." ..."
    "... The danger of Hillary is the danger of yet another neocon administration in power for the next four years. We probably need to think in term of Cheney and Rumsfeld, because this is the policies that Hillary will bring to the table. ..."
    "... I think that experience with US neocons in Ukraine also makes Russia position on Syria quite different and less accommodating for the US neoliberal empire expansion projects. ..."
    "... One of the things that Lupita likes to point out is how strange it is that somehow Americans are the decider of military intervention everywhere (LFC again) and how American exceptionalism is part of our imperial setup. ..."
    "... Americans may like empire, but for the people who actually have to fight, very few of them really like being foot soldiers for empire. ..."
    "... Left agitation in the early part of the 20th century and in the 60s was in large part anti-war agitation, and it was one of the main reasons why the government actually crushed left organizations. One of the main reasons why you can tell that HRC supporters are not really on the left in any important sense is the easy way that they switched from opposing Bush's war to approving of Democratic "humanitarian" wars. ..."
    "... So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments that we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these have any meaning outside of an imperial context? ..."
    "... Russian foreign policy IMHO is mostly reactive and defensive. It is directed mainly on preservation of (currently rapidly shrinking) Russia's economic and political and cultural influence in xUSSR space. ..."
    "... Obama administration was very aggressive toward Russia and attempted to implement "regime change" in 2011-2012 to prevent Putin re-election (so called "White revolution" with McFaul as the key player and the network on NGO as the coordination / training / recruiting / propaganda centers). This attempt to stage a "color revolution" in Russia backfired making Russian political establishment more hostile to the USA. It also led to expulsion of several NGO from Russia. Later events in Ukraine led to deterioration of political standing of Russian neoliberals as a political force. They lost all the legitimacy among the population and now viewed by-and-large as US stooges. ..."
    "... Hillary as the Secretary of State was even more jingoistic neocon then Obama and has during her term in the office an outsize influence on the US foreign policy including the attempt to stage a "white revolution" in Russia in which State Department played an outsize role, essentially taking many functions formerly performed by CIA ..."
    "... It also tried to oppose the "encirclement" - the creation of the belt of hostile states around Russia with US or NATO forces/bases - Ukraine is just the most recent example of this policy. Missile defense bases in Rumania and Poland belong to the same script. Actually the US Department of Defense on those issues has its own outsize influence on the US foreign policy and works in close coordination with the State Department (alliance started under Bush II and forged under Hillary Clinton). ..."
    "... ZM: "But I wish there was some sort of international protocol about it." There was supposed to be one - the whole apparatus of U.N. intervention. We've seen how that played out. ..."
    "... The sentiments have certainly been a useful pretext for imperial interventions, going well beyond 'interest' to intimations of existential crisis, etc. I remember when, if we did not 'help' the Vietnamese by bombing them back into the Stone Age, bad people from there were going to invade California. So it was both to 'our' interest and theirs to kill millions of them. You see the same thinking in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, and the rest of the list. ..."
    "... Well with technology there is the possibility of that, Australia is part of the Five Eyes alliance with the USA, which is where the English speaking countries all share intelligence, then there is a larger group that gets a bit less intelligence, and maybe others like an onion or something. ..."
    "... To me this is the wierdest and most hypocritical aspect of the whole "Putin stooge!" narrative, since part of the core ethos of US-aligned liberal discourse in settings like this is precisely a willingness and eagerness to voluntarily assume the role of stooge for whatever ruling-class figure one has decided to back. Look at the core message liberals here seem to be trumpeting: we may not like the faction of the ruling class embodied in someone like Hillary Clinton, but since we've decided to back this faction over another faction we consider worse, we'll suspend our earnest search for truth and understanding so we can add our voices into the fight. ("We know Hillary is bad, but save it for after Trump!") ..."
    "... But the kicker re: Putin is that somehow, these same liberals can't fathom the idea that ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad but save it for after Syria!") especially when it comes to nationalist fervor stirred up by global military/economic power struggles. ..."
    "... And to the extent that they see such people not as the Russian ideological equivalents of themselves but as literal agents of the Kremlin, precisely the way one might imagine all the Hillary defenders on this thread as COINTELPRO plants and/or paid Clinton campaign PR operatives, they're able to see this obsequious defense of ruling-class power for the creepy authoritarian servility it is. One could call the double standards closed-minded or even xenophobic, but I'll settle for just calling it bizarre. ..."
    "... American foreign policy has long been the special province of deeply interested portions of the elite, which were allowed to use U.S. naval and military power without paying for it. ..."
    "... Since the First World War, the U.S. has been the hegemon, sponsoring a world order on liberal principles in theory and making the world safe for an often rapacious commercial order in practice. Popular disinterest at home has preserved the tradition of hijacking the U.S. military for racketeering abroad, but the privatizing of the military-industrial complex has converted it from sideline into a reason for being: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates perpetual war as a marketing tool. ..."
    "... ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world" I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy that demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis. ..."
    "... Americans seem to have some difficulty understanding just how competent Putin has been. Putin is a consummately gifted gambler, who has played a weak hand aggressively at home and abroad. He is popular in Russia, because he has been successful by being phenomenally good at his job - so good that any Russian who isn't dead stupid is worried about what comes after. ..."
    "... Obama, the most gifted politician I've seen in my lifetime, has played his hand very conservatively. I rail against him, because I think he should have taken much bigger chances on a radical reform agenda, using the crisis he was gifted to take apart the oligarchies choking the American political economy. ..."
    "... Both Americans and Russians, I think, are inclined to see their roles in the world as more benign than they are. The Americans, though, have better PR and a lot of people abroad still want to believe. ..."
    "... Ch. 1: The Advent of Semiwar. ..."
    "... Ch. 2: Illusions of Flexibility and Control ..."
    "... Ch. 3: The Credo Restored. ..."
    "... "In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all." ..."
    "... The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds that falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit. ..."
    "... Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves. ..."
    "... Putin is popular I think largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism. He's falsely sold himself as the corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist restoration. Now, Putin is just business as usual. ..."
    "... It's the insidious ideology of the Uncle Sam poster, where a slightly-less-evil form of ruling-class power needs you not just to passively submit to its dictates but to actively defend its position against its slightly-more-evil ideological enemies, even at the expense of your own independent moral compass and political thought. ..."
    "... If you need an eloquent summary of how the dysfunction of the American political system has become manifest in a foreign policy of perpetual and costly failure . ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    likbez 10.03.16 at 3:13 am 343

    kidneystones,

    Thank you for your insightful comments.

    @336

    "Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th president of the US."

    Very true. The danger of Hillary is the danger of yet another neocon administration in power for the next four years. We probably need to think in term of Cheney and Rumsfeld, because this is the policies that Hillary will bring to the table.

    But I think it is a mistake to view Syria regime change actions of US neocons in isolation from the same actions in Ukraine. Those are closely interconnected events.

    And Nuland action in Ukraine for the installation of far right nationalist regime (and virtual occupation of the rest of Ukraine by Western Ukrainian nationalists) virtually guarantee economic and military alliance of China and Russia. Russia will not forget and will not forgive Nuland's valiant efforts of installing far right nationalists in Kiev instead of corrupt Yanukovich regime, despite the fact that they were not very sympathetic to Yanukovich (and refused to play the card of "legitimate president in exile", which they easily can making US position in Kiev untenable).

    I think that experience with US neocons in Ukraine also makes Russia position on Syria quite different and less accommodating for the US neoliberal empire expansion projects.

    IMHO with the level of dysfunction of Obama administration there is some level of threat of direct military confrontation in case one of three competing arms of US government overstep the boundaries. Quite possible in case of CIA and supported by them al Qaeda affiliated groups (which are mercilessly wiped out by Syrians army), probably less possible for Pentagon with their Kurds militia.

    And I think that any direct confrontation in Syria will automatically lead to confrontation in Ukraine, were large part of Eastern regions might greet Russians as liberators.

    If you add to China-Russia alliance cemented by events in Ukraine Pakistan, where anti-American feelings are also quite strong you can see the net result of Barack foreign policy efforts.

    Actually I think that one on key ideas of Trump foreign policy agenda is to reverse this alliance and split Russia from China by treating it differently then Obama administration (bad cop, good cop approach).

    LFC 10.03.16 at 3:34 am 344
    I'm starting to believe that there may be a Putin troll operation and that with the commenter Ze K gone, the operation has sent commenter likbez to the Crooked Timber plate as pinch-hitter. (Sorry for the baseball metaphor. Turning off computer now.)
    ZM 10.03.16 at 7:17 am 346
    likbez,

    "IMHO with the level of dysfunction of Obama administration there is some level of threat of direct military confrontation in case one of three competing arms of US government overstep the boundaries. Quite possible in case of CIA and supported by them al Qaeda affiliated groups (which are mercilessly wiped out by Syrians army), probably less possible for Pentagon with their Kurds militia.

    And I think that any direct confrontation in Syria will automatically lead to confrontation in Ukraine, were large part of Eastern regions might greet Russians as liberators."

    I don't really understand Russian foreign policy at the moment. I think the Obama foreign policy has been an improvement on the Bush government's foreign policy, and Obama inherited a very bad situation if you look at him coming to the Presidency in 2008.

    What does Russian foreign policy want now that the Cold War is over? America power is on the decline with the rise of other countries, and Russian power is on the decline too. Both countries had a lot of power due to the Cold War after WWII ended and the lack of development in many countries, and Europe needing to rebuild so much after the war.

    But why does Syria need to be a proxy war between America and Russia when the Cold War is over? Someone from Afghanistan was telling me recently that in Afghanistan they consider they have had war ongoing for 50 years now, since they had the wars with Russia years ago, and then they have had the wars with America now, plus the country is riven by splits now after wars for so long.

    The Middle East is going to need a lot of help to rebuild after these wars, they don't need Russia and America fighting over power in the region.

    ZM 10.03.16 at 7:25 am 347
    "Actually I think that one on key ideas of Trump foreign policy agenda is to reverse this alliance and split Russia from China by treating it differently then Obama administration (bad cop, good cop approach)."

    Also, I live in Australia so we have more coverage of Asian politics, and Obama has been pretty good with China overall I think. China got cross about the pivot to Asia, and gave The Philippines a very sharp warning in the official newspaper, and gave Australia a caution in the newspaper, since then its all gone reasonably well I think.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 12:51 pm 348
    Ah, foreign policy. I think that LFC should consider that while some commenter may well be a Putin troll operation, the style is pretty much indistinguishable from strongly held local ethnic commitments, and LFC's own writing sounds similarly weird and overcommitted to someone who doesn't share LFC's assumptions.

    I'll write some more about populism. One of the things that Lupita likes to point out is how strange it is that somehow Americans are the decider of military intervention everywhere (LFC again) and how American exceptionalism is part of our imperial setup.

    One of the things that people forget about populism is that it's generally a revolt against that - Americans may like empire, but for the people who actually have to fight, very few of them really like being foot soldiers for empire.

    Left agitation in the early part of the 20th century and in the 60s was in large part anti-war agitation, and it was one of the main reasons why the government actually crushed left organizations. One of the main reasons why you can tell that HRC supporters are not really on the left in any important sense is the easy way that they switched from opposing Bush's war to approving of Democratic "humanitarian" wars.

    So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments that we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these have any meaning outside of an imperial context?

    likbez 10.03.16 at 1:32 pm 350
    ZM,

    "I don't really understand Russian foreign policy at the moment. "

    Russian foreign policy IMHO is mostly reactive and defensive. It is directed mainly on preservation of (currently rapidly shrinking) Russia's economic and political and cultural influence in xUSSR space.

    Obama administration was very aggressive toward Russia and attempted to implement "regime change" in 2011-2012 to prevent Putin re-election (so called "White revolution" with McFaul as the key player and the network on NGO as the coordination / training / recruiting / propaganda centers). This attempt to stage a "color revolution" in Russia backfired making Russian political establishment more hostile to the USA. It also led to expulsion of several NGO from Russia. Later events in Ukraine led to deterioration of political standing of Russian neoliberals as a political force. They lost all the legitimacy among the population and now viewed by-and-large as US stooges.

    The USA also try to play Islamic insurgence card via proxies and hurt economics of Russia via sanctions and low oil prices (which simultaneously decimated US own shale/LTO oil industry). Obama actually bragged about the latter.

    My impression is that this is just a part of the more general plan of expansion of global neoliberal empire led by the USA, enforcing neoliberal globalization and crushing all opposing regimes (including "resource nationalists" like Russia ) that Obama administration is hell bent on (neocon vision of "Pax Americana"). Obama (or, more correctly, forces behind him) proved to be a staunch neoliberal (and neocon) on par with Bush II and Bill Clinton and he essentially continued Bush II "muscular" foreign policy.

    Hillary as the Secretary of State was even more jingoistic neocon then Obama and has during her term in the office an outsize influence on the US foreign policy including the attempt to stage a "white revolution" in Russia in which State Department played an outsize role, essentially taking many functions formerly performed by CIA

    I think that Russia foreign policy can be understood as not always successful attempts to counter the attempts of the USA to subdue it and survive in the situation when then the major power using affiliated with it states tries to deny its sovereignty and wants to convert into vassal state (and Russia were the US vassal under Yeltsin regime), or, if possible, to dismember it into smaller and weaker states using the rising wave of nationalism in the regions.

    It also tried to oppose the "encirclement" - the creation of the belt of hostile states around Russia with US or NATO forces/bases - Ukraine is just the most recent example of this policy. Missile defense bases in Rumania and Poland belong to the same script. Actually the US Department of Defense on those issues has its own outsize influence on the US foreign policy and works in close coordination with the State Department (alliance started under Bush II and forged under Hillary Clinton).

    As Russophobia replaced anti-Semitism for the US elite, I see nothing good for Russia in this respect in the future.

    So the rearmament attempts and the attempts to develop alternatives to Western strategic products and services (which at any time can be included under sanctions) as well as more deep political and military alliance with China might well be their only options.

    But China has its own geopolitical aspirations in xUSSR region and wants to play a leading role in this alliance using Russia's difficult situation for its own advantage.

    So Russian situation is not enviable and might soon became worse, in Hilary is elected.

    Moreover, Putin in not eternal, and at some point needs to leave his position and that, taking into account the amount of power he concentrated in his hands, might create the leadership vacuum that will be very dangerous taking into consideration the level of hostility of the USA. Coming to power of more nationalistically oriented politicians on the wave of anti-American sentiments produced by sanctions also can't be excluded.

    I am not a specialist in Russian affairs, so please take those considerations with a grain of salt.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 1:39 pm 351
    ZM: "But I wish there was some sort of international protocol about it." There was supposed to be one - the whole apparatus of U.N. intervention. We've seen how that played out.
    Anarcissie 10.03.16 at 1:59 pm 352
    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 12:51 pm @ 348:

    'So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments that we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these have any meaning outside of an imperial context?'

    The sentiments have certainly been a useful pretext for imperial interventions, going well beyond 'interest' to intimations of existential crisis, etc. I remember when, if we did not 'help' the Vietnamese by bombing them back into the Stone Age, bad people from there were going to invade California. So it was both to 'our' interest and theirs to kill millions of them. You see the same thinking in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, and the rest of the list.

    But on the other side, at the business end of the stick:

    Cet animal est trčs méchant;
    Quand on l'attaque, il se défend.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 2:14 pm 354
    "No one wants one country to rule the world as if its Lord Of The Rings"

    Oh, come on. I'd completely vote for Sauron. That all-seeing eye would spy out all foreign armies and spies, except for hobbits of course. Regretfully, in our own defense, we'd have to bomb all hobbit terrorist villages.

    ZM 10.03.16 at 2:28 pm 355
    Well with technology there is the possibility of that, Australia is part of the Five Eyes alliance with the USA, which is where the English speaking countries all share intelligence, then there is a larger group that gets a bit less intelligence, and maybe others like an onion or something.

    But its not really what anyone hardly wants as far as I can tell.

    I had no idea there even was that much information collected by the government on people until the Snowdon whistleblower revelations about the NSA.

    Will G-R 10.03.16 at 2:34 pm 356
    Rich @ 348: "I think that LFC should consider that while some commenter may well be a Putin troll operation, the style is pretty much indistinguishable from strongly held local ethnic commitments, and LFC's own writing sounds similarly weird and overcommitted to someone who doesn't share LFC's assumptions."

    To me this is the wierdest and most hypocritical aspect of the whole "Putin stooge!" narrative, since part of the core ethos of US-aligned liberal discourse in settings like this is precisely a willingness and eagerness to voluntarily assume the role of stooge for whatever ruling-class figure one has decided to back. Look at the core message liberals here seem to be trumpeting: we may not like the faction of the ruling class embodied in someone like Hillary Clinton, but since we've decided to back this faction over another faction we consider worse, we'll suspend our earnest search for truth and understanding so we can add our voices into the fight. ("We know Hillary is bad, but save it for after Trump!")

    There's probably a lot more that can be said about this, but at least as far as the non-ruling-class public is concerned, what Americans call "partisanship" in this Inside-Baseball sense can be read as a political analogue of the apocryphal Steinbeck line about temporarily embarrassed millionaires, absurdly overinflating the importance of their own little Machiavellian calculations to maintain a pathetically optimistic political self-image, not as the depoliticized and socially atomized ideological consumers they actually are, but as temporarily embarrassed technocratic insiders.

    But the kicker re: Putin is that somehow, these same liberals can't fathom the idea that ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad but save it for after Syria!") especially when it comes to nationalist fervor stirred up by global military/economic power struggles.

    And to the extent that they see such people not as the Russian ideological equivalents of themselves but as literal agents of the Kremlin, precisely the way one might imagine all the Hillary defenders on this thread as COINTELPRO plants and/or paid Clinton campaign PR operatives, they're able to see this obsequious defense of ruling-class power for the creepy authoritarian servility it is. One could call the double standards closed-minded or even xenophobic, but I'll settle for just calling it bizarre.

    bruce wilder , 10.03.16 at 2:51 pm
    American foreign policy has long been the special province of deeply interested portions of the elite, which were allowed to use U.S. naval and military power without paying for it.

    Early in the 19th century, it was Yankee traders in China and South America paddling their boats in the British Empire's wake. The Americans were there, junior partners and useful instruments of British foreign policy: Monroe Doctrine, founding Hong Kong, opening Japan and Korea, disciplining unruly or bankrupt Latin American states. The U.S. nearly matched the British in the race to build Dreadnoughts before the First World War, proclaimed the Open Door in China, neutralized the German Navy in Morocco and in the Venezuela Crisis, and finally settled the First World War.

    Since the First World War, the U.S. has been the hegemon, sponsoring a world order on liberal principles in theory and making the world safe for an often rapacious commercial order in practice. Popular disinterest at home has preserved the tradition of hijacking the U.S. military for racketeering abroad, but the privatizing of the military-industrial complex has converted it from sideline into a reason for being: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates perpetual war as a marketing tool.

    ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world" I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy that demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis.

    bruce wilder, 10.03.16 at 3:25 pm 358
    Will G-R: liberals can't fathom the idea that ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad but save it for after Syria!")

    I'm not sure that's the relevant analogue.

    Americans seem to have some difficulty understanding just how competent Putin has been. Putin is a consummately gifted gambler, who has played a weak hand aggressively at home and abroad. He is popular in Russia, because he has been successful by being phenomenally good at his job - so good that any Russian who isn't dead stupid is worried about what comes after.

    Obama, the most gifted politician I've seen in my lifetime, has played his hand very conservatively. I rail against him, because I think he should have taken much bigger chances on a radical reform agenda, using the crisis he was gifted to take apart the oligarchies choking the American political economy. But, he chose not to play the game at that level of risk, and I think history will judge him to be weak because of the consequences, though he has not been politically weak and he has been remarkably successful in terms of his chosen agenda.

    Both Americans and Russians, I think, are inclined to see their roles in the world as more benign than they are. The Americans, though, have better PR and a lot of people abroad still want to believe. No one believes the Russians are a benign force, especially in Russia's Near Abroad.

    The scary thing is that Americans have been propagandized into thinking Clinton is competent, that she will be the adult in the room, the experienced leader who will take the call at 3 am (and not tweet out some link to a porn tape).

    In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all.

    That Clinton is so cavalier about making Putin the scapegoat for her email problems is an early indication that she doesn't know what she is doing.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 3:26 pm 359
    I know that it's a digression, but I really should write some more about hobbits. The one thing that would shake my convictions as an anarchist would be a political leader who promises to wipe out their barbaric "mathom culture".

    First of all, they never can get ahead economically because of this premodern habit of putting their economic surplus into items that they pass around aimlessly. And the way they waste food - has anyone seen the depravity of their so-called wedding parties? I know that drones are a harsh remedy, but really.

    And of course the feminist case for bombing hobbits is as strong as it ever was. Has anyone even heard of a female hobbit? Of course you haven't, because they keep them in those primitive holes, and they only appear in brief cameos when the hobbits have to conceal their unadmitted homosocial orientation. Strong hobbit women will be much better off if we kill the men keeping them down as well as some of their children.

    And lastly, genocide. Are their even any members of other racial groups living in the Shire? Where did they all go? Hobbit society is deeply racist, and those holes are dumping groups for bodies as well as potential storehouses for chemical weapons. I know that some people say that we shouldn't bomb them, but that's only because those people can't even imagine what it's like not to have the privilege that they do.

    likbez 10.03.16 at 3:48 pm
    Bruce,

    @ 358

    "ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world" I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy that demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis."

    This line of thinking is very close to Professor Bacevich concept of "New American Militarism". See, for example, his book "Washington Rules" (2010). A good synopsis by Mark K. Jensen can be found at https://www.scribd.com/document/38192715/Bacevich-Washington-Rules-2010-Synopsis

    === quote ===

    Ch. 1: The Advent of Semiwar.

    As president, Barack Obama's efforts to change the U.S.'s exercise of power "have seldom risen above the cosmetic"(20). He made clear he subscribes to the "catechism of American statecraft," viz. that 1) the world must be organized, 2)only the U.S. can do it, 3) this includes dictating principles, and 4) not to accept this is to be a rogue or a recalcitrant (20-21).

    It follows that the U.S. need not conform to the norms it sets for others and that it should maintain a worldwide network of bases (22-23).

    Imagine if China acted in a comparable manner (23-25). The extraordinary American military posture in the world (25-27). To call this into question puts one beyond the pale(27). James Forrestal called this a permanent condition of semiwar, requiring high levels of military spending(27-28).

    American citizens are not supposed to concern themselves with it (29-30). As to how this came about, the "standard story line" presents as the result of the decisions of a "succession of presidential administrations," though this conceals as much as it reveals (30-32).

    Eisenhower's 1961 Farewell Address on the "military-industrial complex" was a rare exception (32-34). More important than presidents were Allen Dulles [1893-1969] and Curtis Lemay [1906-1990] (34-36).

    Bacevich attributes the vision for an American-dominated post-World War II world with the CIA playing an active role to the patrician Dulles (36-43). The development of the U.S. military into a force capable of dominating the world, especially in the area of strategic weapons, he attributes to the hard-bitten Curtis LeMay, organizer of the StrategicAir Command (SAC) (43-52). Dulles and LeMay shared devotion to country, ruthlessness, a certain recklessness (52-55). They exploited American anxieties and insecurities in yin (Dulles's CIA) yang(LeMay's SAC) fashion, leaving the mainstay of American military power, the U.S. Army, in a relatively weak position(55-58).

    Ch. 2: Illusions of Flexibility and Control

    Kennedy kept Dulles and LeMay to signal continuity, but there was a behind-the-scenes struggle led by Gen. Maxwell Taylor to reassert the role of the U.S. Army by expanding and modernizing conventional forces that was "simultaneously masked by, and captured in, the phrase flexible response " (60; 59-63).
    This agenda purported to aim at "resisting aggression" but really created new options for limited aggressive warfare by the U.S. (63-66).
    McNamara engaged in a struggle with LeMay to control U.S. policy on nuclear weapons, but he embraced the need for redundancy based on a land-sea-air attack "triad" and LeMay et al. "got most of what they wanted" (66-72).
    In the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy instituted the morally and legally "indefensible" Operation Mongoose," in effect, a program of state-sponsored terrorism" against Cuba (80; 72-82 [but Bacevich is silent on its wilder elements, like Operation Northwoods]).

    U.S. recklessness caused the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to his credit Kennedy acknowledged this (albeit privately) and "suspended the tradition" in defusing the crisis (82-87).

    Bacevich rejects as a romantic delusion the view that in the aftermath of this crisis Kennedy turned against the military-industrial complex and the incipient Vietnam war and shows no interest in Kennedy's assassination itself (87-92).

    He sees a parallel between escalation in Vietnam and post-9/11 aggression as "fought to sustain the Washington consensus" (107; 92-107).

    Ch. 3: The Credo Restored.

    William Fulbright's The Arrogance of Power (1966) urged a rethinking of the Washington rules (109-15). A radicalized David Shoup, a Medal of Honor winner and former commandant of the MarineCorps, argued in "The New American Militarism" (Atlantic, April 1969) that the U.S. had become "a militaristic and aggressive nation" (120; 115-21). The 1960s Zeitgeist shift made LeMay "an embarrassment, mocked and vilified rather than venerated," which showed that the Washington rules had incurred serious damage in Vietnam; the Army was in dire shape (122; 121-27).

    Yet astonishingly, in the subsequent decade the "sacred trinity" (cf. 11-15) was "fully restored" (127). As in post-1918 Germany, élites looked for scapegoats and worked to reverse "the war's apparent verdict" (128). The Council on Foreign Relations 1976 volume entitled The Vietnam Legacy: The War, American Society, and the Future of American Foreign Policy is an expression of élite consensus that the Vietnam war was insignificant, an anomaly (129-34).

    By 1980, Democrats and Republicans were again on the same page (134-36).Reagan's election "sealed the triumph of Vietnam revisionism" (136; 136-38). And the end of the Cold War posed no challenge to the Washington rules, as Madeleine Albright's pretentious arrogance exemplifies (138-45).

    stevenjohnson 10.03.16 at 3:55 pm

    "In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all."

    Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get the vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint.

    The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds that falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit.

    Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves.

    Putin is popular I think largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism. He's falsely sold himself as the corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist restoration. Now, Putin is just business as usual.

    Will G-R 10.03.16 at 4:06 pm 364
    Bruce, I meant "bad" in a good/evil sense, not a competent/incompetent sense. Clinton partisans may be fairly unanimous in waxing rhapsodic about her competence, but plenty of them are willing to cop to her position as a defender of an ultimately evil form of ruling-class power, they simply think it shouldn't be talked about (see Collin Street @ 184 for an exemplary specimen).

    It's the insidious ideology of the Uncle Sam poster, where a slightly-less-evil form of ruling-class power needs you not just to passively submit to its dictates but to actively defend its position against its slightly-more-evil ideological enemies, even at the expense of your own independent moral compass and political thought. The point of this facade isn't what the lemming-like hordes of Clinton defenders (or Putin defenders, if they're Russian) are actually accomplishing, which is essentially nothing; the point is what they're not accomplishing, which is any meaningfully subversive reflection about how ruling-class power works in general and how the governed classes might effectively counter it.

    bruce wilder 10.03.16 at 5:33 pm 365
    Will G-R @ 364

    I am with you completely on that much.

    bruce wilder 10.03.16 at 5:58 pm 366
    stevenjohnson @ 363: Putin is weak.

    Russia is weak; Putin calculates.

    bruce wilder 10.03.16 at 6:00 pm 367
    likbez @ 362

    Thanks. I like Bacevich's take.

    bruce wilder 10.03.16 at 6:01 pm 368
    I don't think there's any question that the U.S. has to take action on the Hobbit threat.
    bruce wilder 10.03.16 at 6:12 pm 369
    If you need an eloquent summary of how the dysfunction of the American political system has become manifest in a foreign policy of perpetual and costly failure .

    [Oct 04, 2016] Americas War for the Greater Middle East A Military History by Andrew J. Bacevich

    Notable quotes:
    "... The strongest part of "America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the thirteenth chapter, where Bacevich dissects Bush 43's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. While I have previously argued that American war aims in the Iraq war were unidentifiable Bacevich's formulation of said aims (namely, that our overarching aim was to force everyone in the region to bend to our will) is plausible. The weakest part of the book is the very limited discussion (limited basically to chapter 16) of the US special relationship with Israel, a pariah state based on an obsolete ideology, which in my opinion is the real driver of the war. If this relationship could be ended or redefined, we would in one stroke go most of the way towards a rational policy in the Middle East. ..."
    "... He cites many examples of Americans deceiving themselves about what constitutes terrorism and who is a terrorist and why they do it. ..."
    "... He also makes a convincing case for the war having begun with Carter and never stopping, even in periods between more known wars; much of the action was American use of air power in Iraq, but also tensions with Iran in the Persian Gulf, what was once very strong US support of jihadis fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan (1979-89). ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | www.amazon.com
    Jason Galbraith

    Blocking Consensus: A Critical View of "America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History" , April 15, 2016

    "America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the third book I have read by Andrew Bacevich, who has unique authority to speak on the subject as the war claimed his son's life. Unfortunately, this book lacks the power of the first two books, "The Limits of Power" and "Breach of Trust." The overall indictment of American society that it delivers was more convincing in "Breach of Trust," or perhaps I am simply blinded by the very ideology that Bacevich decries in this book. I have bought into the status quo in this respect: I believe some, if not most, of the goods recognized by Americans are indeed universal. I am unwilling to concede that the millions of Afghan girls and women who got an education in the years after the Taliban's control of that country were first challenged would be better off if we had never gone in. I also believe that the number of casualties we are now sustaining in CENTCOM and AFRICOM is low enough that what we are doing is sustainable indefinitely, unless the Muslim world gets so angry at us that it unites into a new superpower to challenge us globally. This will disappoint a lot of people and isn't necessarily consistent with what I have argued at other times but the absence of even one critical review on Amazon was something I couldn't stomach anymore.

    Per Bacevich, the first American lives lost in America's War for the Greater Middle East were the fatalities of the aircraft collision as special operators were queuing up to leave Desert One after the mission was called off. I think it does a disservice to President Carter to imply that sending troops for a rescue mission committed the United States to perpetual war for unachievable aims, or even to call it the Poland of this war. Bacevich's position that the Carter Doctrine calling for the free transit of Saudi and other Gulf Arab oil through the Straits of Hormuz made Desert One and other interventions inevitable is somewhat more supportable.

    The strongest part of "America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the thirteenth chapter, where Bacevich dissects Bush 43's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. While I have previously argued that American war aims in the Iraq war were unidentifiable Bacevich's formulation of said aims (namely, that our overarching aim was to force everyone in the region to bend to our will) is plausible. The weakest part of the book is the very limited discussion (limited basically to chapter 16) of the US special relationship with Israel, a pariah state based on an obsolete ideology, which in my opinion is the real driver of the war. If this relationship could be ended or redefined, we would in one stroke go most of the way towards a rational policy in the Middle East.

    lyndonbrecht

    Incoherence combined with self-deception means the war may last decades longer. Extraordinarily good. Deeply disturbing. on September 24, 2016

    This book is headed for some Books of the Year lists and maybe some awards. It's well researched, unusually well-written and deeply disturbing. It is not an easy read; there are hundreds of names, locations and events over four decades. It deals with how we got into the mess, how we kept at it and how we're not going to get out. That's the disturbing point, the number of factors that indicate that we are going to continue with what the book calls the War for the Greater Middle East. I wish he was wrong, but his case is overwhelming and logically developed. Rather than describe this book as other reviews have done, I'll consider some details that struck me and add a couple of quotes to give the flavor. Note: the author has strong opinions, and has ample criticism for all presidents from Carter to Obama, and strong criticism of many generals, but Republican readers will not like some of his comments, one cited below. His overall view is rather similar to the famed quote from World War 1, about lions led by donkeys.

    "...combined incoherence with self-deception, both to become abiding hallmarks of America's evolving War for the Greater Middle East." (44).

    "Like the present-day GOP, the Northern Alliance was a loose coalition of unsavory opportunists, interested chiefly in acquiring power." (227)

    "Instead of intimidating, US military efforts have annoyed, incited and generally communicated a lack of both competence and determination." (367).

    He cites many examples of Americans deceiving themselves about what constitutes terrorism and who is a terrorist and why they do it. The book covers in considerable detail the Carter actions in Iran, Reagan's Marines in Lebanon, the Bush's wars in Iraq, Clinton's actions in Somalia--in considerable detail, these actions involved 38,000 US troops at one point, and resulted quite simply in defeat. He notes that US actions in Bosnia and Kosovo rescued Muslims, who now are enlisting in considerable numbers as jihadis in the Middle East. In Kosovo he notes that US protection resulted in a Kosovar state that promptly engaged in an ethnic cleansing of Serbs. He notes that US troops defeated Iraq's military but the numbers were too small to effectively deal with Baghdad (a city of 5 million at the time), leading to the collapse of law and order. He thinks the point of defeat is the incident of Abu Ghraib.

    He also makes a convincing case for the war having begun with Carter and never stopping, even in periods between more known wars; much of the action was American use of air power in Iraq, but also tensions with Iran in the Persian Gulf, what was once very strong US support of jihadis fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan (1979-89). Putting situations that tend to be forgotten about in succession with larger events makes it obvious that the war began under Carter and has simmered ever since, with periodic intensifications.

    And near the book's end he discusses several reasons why the war is going to continue. One, there is no anti-war or effective anti-interventionist party. Two, electoral expediency means major party candidates will continue to support military actions. Three, some individuals and organizations (and companies) benefit from continued war (jobs, military contracts). Four, Americans largely seem oblivious to the war. There's more, but these are main reasons.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense of racism and imperialism on many levels

    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 3:26 pm 359

    I know that it's a digression, but I really should write some more about hobbits. The one thing that would shake my convictions as an anarchist would be a political leader who promises to wipe out their barbaric "mathom culture".

    First of all, they never can get ahead economically because of this premodern habit of putting their economic surplus into items that they pass around aimlessly. And the way they waste food - has anyone seen the depravity of their so-called wedding parties? I know that drones are a harsh remedy, but really.

    And of course the feminist case for bombing hobbits is as strong as it ever was. Has anyone even heard of a female hobbit? Of course you haven't, because they keep them in those primitive holes, and they only appear in brief cameos when the hobbits have to conceal their unadmitted homosocial orientation. Strong hobbit women will be much better off if we kill the men keeping them down as well as some of their children.

    And lastly, genocide. Are their even any members of other racial groups living in the Shire? Where did they all go? Hobbit society is deeply racist, and those holes are dumping groups for bodies as well as potential storehouses for chemical weapons. I know that some people say that we shouldn't bomb them, but that's only because those people can't even imagine what it's like not to have the privilege that they do.

    Will G-R 10.04.16 at 1:41 pm 389

    In all seriousness, Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense of racism and imperialism on many levels - everything from the noble white monarch rallying "men of the West" to stand against the dark hordes of the East and South, to the depiction of preindustrial peasant life as an idyllic paradise disturbed not by Western nobles themselves but by the malign influence of Eastern/Southern foreigners, to details as small as the relationship between Frodo and Sam modeled on an ideal Victorian-era relationship between a lower-aristocratic British army officer and his commoner manservant. (Juxtapose the imagery this video at the timestamp side by side with this one.) As people of the left, we shouldn't bring that particular story into our discourse as an allegory without this point being made explicitly at least once.

    That said, when considering our doctrines on liberty, it's clear that we may leave out of consideration those backward states of hobbit society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage. The early difficulties in the way of spontaneous progress are so great, that there is seldom any choice of means for overcoming them; and a ruler full of the spirit of improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will attain an end, perhaps otherwise unattainable. Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with hobbits, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when hobbitkind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to a Sharkey or a Wormtongue, if they are so fortunate as to find one.

    Ogden Wernstrom 10.04.16 at 5:11 pm 400
    @389, Will G-R 10.04.16 at 1:41 pm:

    In all seriousness, Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense of racism and imperialism on many levels…

    Once the US establishes American-Style Democracy in The Shire, a new timeline begins. First, the ethnic cleansing and establishment of enclaves for the survivors. After about a hundred years they'll have to end slavery. About fifty years after that, they'll have to let women vote.

    Apologies to Vonnegut.

    Guy Harris 10.04.16 at 5:28 pm
    The Lord of the Rings is history written by the winners .

    [Oct 04, 2016] Vertical mobility can not be completely suppressed without system losing the social stability and thats was true for classic aristocracy as well as modern neoliberal elite

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the same time traditional aristocracy is not fixed either and always provided some "meritocratic" mechanisms for entering its ranks. Look, for example, at British system where prominent scientists always were awarded lordship. Similar mechanism was used in many countries where low rank military officers, who displayed bravery and talent in battles were promoted to nobility and allowed to hold top military positions. Napoleonic France probably is one good example here. ..."
    "... Neoliberal elite like traditional aristocracy also enjoys the privilege of being above the law. And like in case of traditional aristocracy the democratic governance is limited to members of this particular strata. Only they can be viewed as political actors. ..."
    "... The USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to neoliberal elite, that the transition in 1991 was almost seamless. ..."
    "... vertical mobility can't be completely suppressed without system losing the social stability and that's was true for classic aristocracy as well as modern neoliberal elite ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    likbez 10.04.16 at 10:22 pm 415

    Re: Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 7:52 pm.371

    A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy.

    This is an interesting observation. BTW other aspect of the same is related to the "Iron law of oligarchy". Also both aristocracy and meritocracy are just variants of oligarchy. The actual literal translation from the Greek is the "rule of the few".

    At the same time traditional aristocracy is not fixed either and always provided some "meritocratic" mechanisms for entering its ranks. Look, for example, at British system where prominent scientists always were awarded lordship. Similar mechanism was used in many countries where low rank military officers, who displayed bravery and talent in battles were promoted to nobility and allowed to hold top military positions. Napoleonic France probably is one good example here.

    Neoliberal elite like traditional aristocracy also enjoys the privilege of being above the law. And like in case of traditional aristocracy the democratic governance is limited to members of this particular strata. Only they can be viewed as political actors.

    The USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to neoliberal elite, that the transition in 1991 was almost seamless.

    In other words, vertical mobility can't be completely suppressed without system losing the social stability and that's was true for classic aristocracy as well as modern neoliberal elite (actually vertical mobility is somewhat higher in European countries then in the USA; IMHO it is even higher in former Eastern block).

    [Oct 04, 2016] By 60th the isea of self-determination and national independence became too powerful to resist by old colonial powers and a new mode of colonization via debt slavery was invented

    Notable quotes:
    "... Self-determination and national independence were powerful ideas, and many Western politicians, at least in certain countries, recognized that the "winds of change," in Macmillan's words, were blowing, and that they had best try to adjust and accommodate them. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    LFC 10.04.16 at 4:51 pm 399

    @Anarcissie
    The [U.S.] leadership wisely declined to support any attempt to restore the British, French, Dutch, Belgian etc. empires because they had a new model in mind. Thus these empires had to be wound down and dissolved, and so they were.

    British and French decolonization(s) were different in that France fought two protracted wars (Indochina and Algeria) in an effort to hang on to its colonies, and in the former war (Indochina) France did so with US financial support (so much for your argument about the US dictating all outcomes). Britain, by contrast, left most (though not all - e.g. Kenya ) of its colonies relatively peacefully.

    Self-determination and national independence were powerful ideas, and many Western politicians, at least in certain countries, recognized that the "winds of change," in Macmillan's words, were blowing, and that they had best try to adjust and accommodate them.

    A quote from R.H. Jackson, "The Weight of Ideas in Decolonization"[*]:

    Something besides declining military power or economic disinterest on the part of the imperial powers was involved in decolonization - certainly British decolonization. The cabinet and colonial papers on which this judgment is based make reference not to any fundamental alteration in Britain's military posture or economic interests but rather to "the large body of opinion in this country, in Africa, and internationally," which by the late 1940s was already demanding "more rapid political, economic and social development" and by 1960 would accept nothing less than complete decolonization…. [There was] a fundamental shift of normative ideas and a corresponding change of mind on the part of most sovereign governments and the public opinion influencing them concerning the right to sovereign statehood.

    [*] In Judith Goldstein and R.O. Keohane, eds., Ideas and Foreign Policy (1993), pp. 128-29.

    Anarcissie 10.04.16 at 4:15 pm
    Will G-R 10.04.16 at 3:24 pm @ 394 -
    The analogy between wives (in purdah, though) and prostitutes in business on the street it apt. The latter would have a certain freedom of life and action, like slaves or serfs being tuned loose to become the proles of a social order. They would still be subordinated to masters, but it would be harder for them to identify and act against their masters.

    But as to racism and sexism, these mostly inhibit production and consumption, so, given its fetishization of production, capitalism should war against them.

    As Uncle Karl notes in the Manifesto, 'Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air….'

    In short, capitalism destroys all culture and relations that it encounters and replaces them with its own culture and set of relations. The irrationalities of racial and sexual peculiarity and segregation are replaced by an atomized, degendered, deracinated, atomized population who relate to each other through money, markets, employment, consumption patterns. Or they did. Now that employment and production are in decline, something else may be happening.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Neoliberal intelligencia as neoliberal compradors

    Notable quotes:
    "... First of all, for all extents and purposes they *are* the governing class, and they aren't simply failing to be subversive, they are defending their class interest. I know that this will cue any number of remarks about how someone is a college professor and isn't governing anything - as if someone in corporate upper management somewhere is really governing anything either - but what holds the neoliberal order in place is that it serves the interests of the managerial class, which includes professionals and other symbolic-manipulation people as its lower tier. ..."
    "... I'm not sure about the merits of the whole Manufacturing Consent line of critique, but defending elite opinion as the only respectable opinion sort of is accomplishing something ..."
    "... A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy. ..."
    "... Look at how much effort people put into ensuring that their children are high-status, degreed, good job holders just like themselves, and how successful that generally is. ..."
    "... ...Rich: to the extent that the people parroting this line are professional-class hangers -- on of the global financial elite and neoliberalism serves their class interests ( at least until academic/media sinecures are next in line for outsourcing ), their aversion to subversive radical politics makes perfect sense as a simple matter of vested interest. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 7:31 pm 370

    Will G-R: "The point of this facade isn't what the lemming-like hordes of Clinton defenders (or Putin defenders, if they're Russian) are actually accomplishing, which is essentially nothing; the point is what they're not accomplishing, which is any meaningfully subversive reflection about how ruling-class power works in general and how the governed classes might effectively counter it."

    Not quite right, I think. First of all, for all extents and purposes they *are* the governing class, and they aren't simply failing to be subversive, they are defending their class interest. I know that this will cue any number of remarks about how someone is a college professor and isn't governing anything - as if someone in corporate upper management somewhere is really governing anything either - but what holds the neoliberal order in place is that it serves the interests of the managerial class, which includes professionals and other symbolic-manipulation people as its lower tier.

    Second, I'm not sure about the merits of the whole Manufacturing Consent line of critique, but defending elite opinion as the only respectable opinion sort of is accomplishing something .

    Sure, individual votes are meaningless, and any one person's contribution negligible. But there is a recurring trope of people wondering whether someone is a paid troll because people are actually paid - whether by David Brooks or by Putin - to do exactly this kind of thing. And they are paid to do it because it works, or at any rate people think that it works. Even better if people do it on a volunteer basis.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 7:52 pm 371
    A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy.

    Look at how much effort people put into ensuring that their children are high-status, degreed, good job holders just like themselves, and how successful that generally is.

    I'll quote wiki:

    "One study […] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation."

    That's not perfect, but it's getting better.

    Will G-R 10.03.16 at 9:33 pm 373
    ...Rich: to the extent that the people parroting this line are professional-class hangers -- on of the global financial elite and neoliberalism serves their class interests ( at least until academic/media sinecures are next in line for outsourcing ), their aversion to subversive radical politics makes perfect sense as a simple matter of vested interest.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Neither HRC nor Trump has said much of anything about the worldwide network of U.S. bases

    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    LFC 10.04.16 at 2:41 am 37 9

    Afaict, neither HRC nor Trump has said much of anything about the worldwide network of U.S. bases. HRC doesn't talk about (this aspect of) the U.S. global military footprint, and while Trump rambles on about making S Korea and Japan shoulder more (or all) of their own security (and ponders aloud whether it might be a good idea for both to acquire their own nuclear weapons), I haven't heard him address the issue of bases: a question is whether Trump even knows that the base network exists.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Debate microphone problem was probably intentional

    See also Girl Talk at Trump Tower MoDo, NYT. "After working with psychologists to figure out how to goad Trump into an outburst in the first debate, the commanding Hillary saved the Machado provocation until the end."
    Oct 04, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Swb Roger Smith October 2, 2016 at 9:25 am

    Re: Trump Was Apparently Right About the Debate Microphone The Atlantic

    This was such garbage from the get go. Anyone with minor audio production experience would have known that was a mic problem. It isn't the kind of thing I would wonder if someone did intentionally. They certainly could have tried to correct the problem at the soundboard as the debate went on.

    Jim Haygood October 2, 2016 at 10:12 am

    At the soundboard, Bryan Pagliano and Paul Combetta were frantically posting for advice on Reddit.

    But all the Reddit readers were watching the debate. :-(

    [Oct 04, 2016] Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess.

    Notable quotes:
    "... As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in Syria. The Defense Dept supports the largely Kurdish YPG against ISIS, the CIA works with Gulf backers to support the Free Syrian Army – an amalgam of mostly ineffective "moderate" rebels and effective, but murderous, Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda, and State hovers around making noises about Assad, variously placating and irritating the Turks and dickering with the Russians. Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess. stevenjohnson , 10.02.16 at 12:59 pm LFC @300 It is unclear to me how a change from an independent secular national state in Syria to a patchwork of sectarian statelets wholly dependent upon foreign support is anything but a regime change. Unless of course, the phrase "regime change" merely means the murder of a designated leader and his replacement by someone acceptable to the regime changers. ..."
    "... CIA of course, as more or less the President's Praetorian Guard over humanity at large, is no more under the Secretary of State than the Pentagon. ..."
    "... It seems to have been forgotten that the democratic rebels were lynching black Africans within days of their glorious uprising. Barack Obama is too tan for the Klan, thus it was advisable for a loyal servant to provide an excuse for a half-Kenyan man to support the mass murder of darker skinned people. ..."
    "... She repeated the performance in the Benghazi affair, where she loyally excused the murder of Stevens as a religious mob, instead of a falling out with his jihadi employees ..."
    "... Lee A. Arnold is sort of correct there was once a genuine democratic Syrian opposition, largely inspired by the economic liberalization (neoliberalization according to many CTers,) in the face of the stresses of the world economic downturn and the prolonged Syrian droughts. Nonetheless there was from almost the very beginning an organized Islamist element that relied on violence, and refused to negotiate any reforms whatsoever, despite the Assad government's attempt to do so. Whether he was sincere is moot. ..."
    "... Arnold's other point that Trump's professed plans are not for peace but victory is correct. Whether he has any real ideas how to achieve this other than firing generals until he gets a winner is anybody's guess. Like Nixon, Trump has a secret plan. ..."
    "... The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher ups. (It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.) ..."
    "... I firmly believe!…most ordinary people don't vote interests, they vote the national good. It's the rich and their favored employees who vote their interests. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Peter T 10.02.16 at 10:49 am 320

    As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in Syria. The Defense Dept supports the largely Kurdish YPG against ISIS, the CIA works with Gulf backers to support the Free Syrian Army – an amalgam of mostly ineffective "moderate" rebels and effective, but murderous, Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda, and State hovers around making noises about Assad, variously placating and irritating the Turks and dickering with the Russians.

    Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess.

    stevenjohnson, 10.02.16 at 12:59 pm
    LFC @300 It is unclear to me how a change from an independent secular national state in Syria to a patchwork of sectarian statelets wholly dependent upon foreign support is anything but a regime change. Unless of course, the phrase "regime change" merely means the murder of a designated leader and his replacement by someone acceptable to the regime changers.

    @306 "And (Clinton) also played an instrumental role in destroying Libya…"
    @316 "Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy…"

    It was NATO which attacked Libya. The prime "architects" were well known, namely, Cameron and Sarkozy. The US role in this matter was conducted largely through NATO, the CIA and international diplomacy. In the US, relations with Cameron and Sarkozy would be conducted largely by either Obama personally, with other diplomatic duties taken up by the UN ambassador Samantha Power, a figure that has always been in an ambiguous relationship with the Secretary of State. CIA of course, as more or less the President's Praetorian Guard over humanity at large, is no more under the Secretary of State than the Pentagon.

    It seems to have been forgotten that the democratic rebels were lynching black Africans within days of their glorious uprising. Barack Obama is too tan for the Klan, thus it was advisable for a loyal servant to provide an excuse for a half-Kenyan man to support the mass murder of darker skinned people. Enter that dutiful public servant, able to suffer undeserved ignominy in service to her country. (She repeated the performance in the Benghazi affair, where she loyally excused the murder of Stevens as a religious mob, instead of a falling out with his jihadi employees.)

    Lee A. Arnold is sort of correct there was once a genuine democratic Syrian opposition, largely inspired by the economic liberalization (neoliberalization according to many CTers,) in the face of the stresses of the world economic downturn and the prolonged Syrian droughts. Nonetheless there was from almost the very beginning an organized Islamist element that relied on violence, and refused to negotiate any reforms whatsoever, despite the Assad government's attempt to do so. Whether he was sincere is moot.

    Arnold's other point that Trump's professed plans are not for peace but victory is correct. Whether he has any real ideas how to achieve this other than firing generals until he gets a winner is anybody's guess. Like Nixon, Trump has a secret plan.

    Peter T @320 "As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in Syria…Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess." Skipping over the question of how obvious it is to CT and its regular commentariat that the military has a semi-independent policy, the idea of Presidential leadership does sort of include a vague notion that the President sets the policy, not the generals. The facts being otherwise show how the US is a deeply militaristic polity. I would add the CIA is very much the President's army. State is more or less, Other, on the multiple choice exam. Trump's hint he would fire generals til he finds a winner suggests he more or less agrees that the military is an independent enterprise in the political market (which is what US governance seems to be modeled on.)

    The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher ups. (It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.)

    The fact that these kinds of issues are ignored in favor of twaddle about Clinton Foundation, emails and the actions of the Secretary State, an office whose relevance has been dubious for decades, says much about the level of democratic discourse.

    Rich Puchalsky, the primary reason so many white workers vote Republican is because they are voting values, which are religious, not policies. Even more to the point, the notion that voting is like a market transaction (a very liberal idea) founders on the fact…

    I firmly believe!…most ordinary people don't vote interests, they vote the national good. It's the rich and their favored employees who vote their interests.

    As to the religious bigotry, well, once it was necessary to say or write "racial bigotry," because everyone knew bigotry to be an expression of religious belief. Today, the very notion of religious bigotry is more or less forbidden as some sort of expression of anti-religious fanaticism.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy.

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...First of all, for all extents and purposes they *are* the governing class, and they aren't simply failing to be subversive, they are defending their class interest. I know that this will cue any number of remarks about how someone is a college professor and isn't governing anything - as if someone in corporate upper management somewhere is really governing anything either - but what holds the neoliberal order in place is that it serves the interests of the managerial class, which includes professionals and other symbolic-manipulation people as its lower tier. ..."
    "... A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy. ..."
    "... I'll quote wiki: "One study […] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation." That's not perfect, but it's getting better. ..."
    "... to the extent that the people parroting this line are professional-class hangers-on of the global financial elite and neoliberalism serves their class interests ( at least until academic/media sinecures are next in line for outsourcing ), their aversion to subversive radical politics makes perfect sense as a simple matter of vested interest. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 10.03.16 at 6:12 pm 369

    If you need an eloquent summary of how the dysfunction of the American political system has become manifest in a foreign policy of perpetual and costly failure .
    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 7:31 pm 370

    ...First of all, for all extents and purposes they *are* the governing class, and they aren't simply failing to be subversive, they are defending their class interest. I know that this will cue any number of remarks about how someone is a college professor and isn't governing anything - as if someone in corporate upper management somewhere is really governing anything either - but what holds the neoliberal order in place is that it serves the interests of the managerial class, which includes professionals and other symbolic-manipulation people as its lower tier.

    Second, I'm not sure about the merits of the whole Manufacturing Consent line of critique, but defending elite opinion as the only respectable opinion sort of is accomplishing something. Sure, individual votes are meaningless, and any one person's contribution negligible. But there is a recurring trope of people wondering whether someone is a paid troll because people are actually paid - whether by David Brooks or by Putin - to do exactly this kind of thing. And they are paid to do it because it works, or at any rate people think that it works. Even better if people do it on a volunteer basis.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 7:52 pm 371
    A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy.

    Look at how much effort people put into ensuring that their children are high-status, degreed, good job holders just like themselves, and how successful that generally is.

    I'll quote wiki: "One study […] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation." That's not perfect, but it's getting better.

    Will G-R 10.03.16 at 9:33 pm
    You're right, Rich: to the extent that the people parroting this line are professional-class hangers-on of the global financial elite and neoliberalism serves their class interests ( at least until academic/media sinecures are next in line for outsourcing ), their aversion to subversive radical politics makes perfect sense as a simple matter of vested interest.

    But I like to think of my point as less Chomskian and more Žižekian, in that while Chomsky's manufactured consent is presented as a simple way to cover other people's interests with ideological mystification, Žižek's fetishism (like Marx's before him) is presented as a way for people to cover their own interests by imagining their mystification as itself a demystification. It's not that professional-class liberals don't realize the truth that they should be fighting against oppression - they do realize this, but it's false realization concealing from them the deeper truth that they're actually fighting for oppression.

    [Oct 04, 2016] MH17 How investigators were able to prove rebels shot down plane with missile from Russia

    I would understand that launcher can be transported from Russia. But how it can be transported back after the tragedy so that nobody saw, despite huge interest in its detection of USA, its allies and honchos from Provisional government (which probably has a network of spies in the Donetsk territory) it is much more difficult undertaking, which fails Occam razor. Ukrainian Buks were at the place -- and Russian need to be transported back and forth.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Maria Zakharova, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry in Moscow, claimed Russian officials had been prevented from playing a full role in the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team's (JIT) work. "To arbitrarily designate a guilty party and dream up the desired results has become the norm for our Western colleagues," she said. "The investigation to this day continues to ignore incontestable evidence from the Russian side despite the fact that Russia is practically the only one sending reliable information to them." ..."
    "... Ms Zakharova also suggested that the Ukrainian government had been able to influence the inquiry using fabricated evidence. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | independent.co.uk
    Investigators have released footage showing the missile system used to down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 being transported from Russia by rebels.

    International prosecutors found separatists were responsible for shooting down the Boeing 777 and killing all 298 people on board on 17 July 2014, during the conflict in eastern Ukraine .

    A report by the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) said there was "no doubt" the missile that downed the plane was brought in from Russia and fired from rebel-controlled territory as militants sought to fend off attacks by the Ukrainian air force.

    Investigators pinpointed the launch site atop a hill in farmland west of Pervomaiskyi, having traced the convoy carrying the Buk from the Russian border through Donetsk, Torez, Snizhne and on to the launch site in the hours before MH17 was downed.

    6-Ukraine.jpg Image of Buk-M1 launcher in the vicinity of the MH17 crash

    The JIT has reconstructed the weapon's journey using data from rebels' mobile phones, as well as photos and videos showing it being escorted by pro-Russian rebels wearing unspecified uniforms.

    In several tapped phone calls, men's voices are heard discussing the transport of the Buk missile system from and back to Russia, while audio previously released by Ukrainian officials appears to show a panicked militant saying MH17 was shot down in the mistaken belief it was a military plane.

    He tells a superior: "It was 100 per cent a passenger aircraft…there are civilian items, medicinal stuff, towels, toilet paper."

    Journalists arriving at the scene of the missile launch the following day found a scorched patch of earth measuring 30m by 30m, which could also be seen on satellite images showing caterpillar tracks nearby.

    Hours after MH17 was downed, the Buk was seen being driven back towards the Russian border - missing one of its four missiles - before the convoy left Ukraine overnight. Shortly after MH17's disappearance, a post attributed to separatist leader Igor Girkin, a Russian army veteran known as Strelkov, claimed rebels had shot down a Ukrainian military transport plane.

    The swiftly-deleted post on Russian social network VKontakte was accompanied by a video of rising smoke and said: "We warned them - don't fly in our sky."

    Much of the footage cited by the JIT had already been analysed for a report released in February by investigative citizen journalists in the Bellingcat group.

    Its analysis concluded the Buk missile system used to down MH17 was transported into Ukraine by Russian soldiers with "high-level" authorisation, although it was unclear whether Russian or separatist fighters operated the weapon after it crossed the border.

    An extended and uncensored version of the report was sent to JIT investigators in December, including the full names and photographs of soldiers said to be involved.

    "Although it is likely that the head officials of Russia's Ministry of Defence did not explicitly decide to send a Buk missile launcher to Ukraine, the decision to send military equipment (with or without crew) from the Air Defence Forces to Ukraine was likely made at a very high level and, therefore, the Russian Ministry of Defence bears the main responsibility for the downing of MH17," Bellingcat's report concluded.

    "This responsibility is shared with separatist leaders of the Donetsk People's Republic and (to a lesser extent) the Luhansk People's Republic…ultimately, responsibility for the downing of MH17 from a weapon provided and possibly operated by the Russian military lies with its two head commanders: Minister of Defence Sergey Shoigu and President Vladimir Putin ."

    Separatist groups have denied any involvement in the disaster, while Russian officials have continually dismissed allegations of soldiers or equipment being deployed in Ukraine.

    The Russian government refuted the JIT's findings and accused the report of being "biased and politically motivated".

    Maria Zakharova, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry in Moscow, claimed Russian officials had been prevented from playing a full role in the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team's (JIT) work.

    "To arbitrarily designate a guilty party and dream up the desired results has become the norm for our Western colleagues," she said. "The investigation to this day continues to ignore incontestable evidence from the Russian side despite the fact that Russia is practically the only one sending reliable information to them."

    Ms Zakharova also suggested that the Ukrainian government had been able to influence the inquiry using fabricated evidence.

    In its own investigation, Russian Buk manufacturer Almaz Antey claimed the deadly missile was fired from Zaroschenskoye and that Ukrainian forces were stationed there.

    "We investigated this and have been able to establish that this was not the launch location, and moreover that it was controlled by pro-Russian rebels at the time," said Wilbert Paulissen, head of the Dutch Central Crime Investigation Department.

    The JIT said it had only received partial responses to its requests for information from Russian authorities and had not yet been sent primary radar data cited by officials at the Kremlin.

    Comprising prosecutors from the countries with the most passengers on board the flight – the Netherlands, Australia, Malaysia and Belgium – and Ukraine, the JIT previously said it would "ensure the independence of the investigation".

    The body has primary responsibility for establishing the case for prosecutions after the UN Security Council failed to adopt a resolution that would have established an international tribunal for prosecuting those responsible for downing MH17 at a meeting in July 2015.

    When questioned by journalists, members of the JIT would not specifically name the militia or faction responsible for firing the missile but said they were investigating around 100 people linked to the downing of MH17 or the transport of the Buk missile.

    A spokesperson said officials are also looking at the chain of command that led to the disaster, adding: "Who gave the order to bring the BUK-TELAR into Ukraine and who gave the order to shoot down flight MH17? Did the crew decide for themselves or did they execute a command from their superiors?"

    Read more

    [Oct 02, 2016] The limits of easy money

    Jul 16, 2011 | lbo-news.com
    [I delivered a condensed version of this as my July 16 radio commentary. It's a rewrite, with some additional material, of the easy money vs. jobs program debate presented in fragments below.]

    I've been involved in some internet polemics-remember internet polemics, back before the Facebook "like" button made everyone sweet and nice?-that I thought might be worth recounting here. It all started when my friend (and occasional Behind the News guest) Corey Robin , a professor of political science at Brooklyn College, asked for comments on a piece by the liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias , a contribution to a debate hosted by The Atlantic magazine's website on the single-best thing we can do to spark job creation. (For Corey's own thoughts on the issue, along with links to other disputants, see here .) The "debate" itself was a remarkable collection of tiny little "ideas"-expand the R&D tax credit, offer entrepreneurs the welcome mat (I'm surprised they were treated any other way in this very capital-friendly country), increase the amount of money in circulation, fire the bad teachers (that from former DC schools chief Michelle Rhee, who didn't put it exactly that way, but that's what she meant), offer a tax credit to employers for hiring the long-term unemployed), and so on. Yglesias' contribution was suggesting that the Federal Reserve should adopt a higher inflation target, which although not explicitly stated, is now probably 2%. This suggestion is all wet.

    Raising the inflation target implies that the Fed has been too tight, when in fact it's been anything but. It's been pumping like crazy since the financial crisis broke out. We've gone through two rounds of quantitative easing (which basically means the Fed bought gobs of long-term Treasury bonds, which it usually doesn't do). This extended program of indulgence has set the loons of the right aflame, leading them to fulminate about currency debasement and hyperinflation, when in fact it's done little but encourage commodity speculation.

    In fact, the BLS released the June inflation numbers on Friday morning, and they provide an interesting perspective on all this. The headline CPI number was down for the month, because energy prices have been falling. The year-to-year rate was 3.4%, the highest it's been in three years, just before the Great Recession and the collapse in oil prices took it down below 0. Leaving out food and energy, core inflation is running just under 2%, also the highest it's been in three years. Despite this modest rise in inflation, which is what you'd expect from a commodity price spike and something of a recovery from utter collapse, the economy is losing steam, not strengthening.

    Hating jobs programs

    Back to the more theoretical level. Orthodox types-and I'm including Yglesias, who describes his political leanings as "neoliberal" on his Facebook profile page-usually prefer monetary to fiscal remedies. Why? Because they operate through the financial markets and don't mess with labor or product markets or the class structure. A jobs program and other New Deal-ish stuff would mess with labor and product markets and the class structure, and so it's mostly verboten to talk that way. From an elite point of view, the primary problem with a jobs program-and with employment-boosting infrastructure projects-is that they would put a floor under employment, making workers more confident and less likely to do what the boss says, and less dependent on private employers for a paycheck. It would increase the power of labor relative to capital. I'm not sure that Yglesias understands that explicitly, but it's undoubtedly part of his unexamined "common sense" as a semi-mainstream pundit.

    Jobs programs and infrastructure investment can be very potent economic tools. Economists use the concept of a multiplier to estimate the effects of fiscal policy on the economy. For example, a multiplier of 1.5 means that for every dollar the government spends, GDP would increase by $1.50. The multipliers on jobs programs and infrastructure are quite high. According to Economy.com , such spending has a mulitplier of about 1.6 to 1.7-meaning that for every $1.00 spent on such programs, GDP increases about about $1.60-1.70. (Economy.com is run by Mark Zandi of Economy.com, who advised John McCain during the 2008 campaign, so these multipliers are not from some pinko source.)

    The multipliers on tax cuts are much much lower – under $0.40 for extending the Bush tax cuts or giving corporations tax breaks (meaning that they increase GDP by less than half what they cost). The multiplier on the payroll tax holiday is higher -- around $1.20 -- because the working class spends all it gets, but the upper brackets don't. Infrastructure spending has a big kick not just because workers spend so much of what they get, it also involves buying lots of raw materials and equipment, meaning large spillover effects beyond the site of the initial spending.

    So aside from putting the unemployed to work, a compellingly humane goal in itself, and spiffing up our rotting environment, jobs programs and infrastructure investment would boost broad economic growth dramatically. But we can't do that, because the yahoos don't like it (high-speed rail = Europe = fags) and because jobs programs might lead the working class to develop an attitude, and we can't have that. Therefore, respectable people don't suggest such things.

    Populism

    There's also a strain of populist thought, prominent in U.S. political history, that embraces inflation and easy money as some sort of curative strategy. I don't agree. Easy money is really a cowardly substitute for redistribution-over the long term, Milton Friedman was more or less right that loose money can't change the economic fundamentals. It can't spark much growth, it can't raise real wages-it's mostly just froth. To spark growth and raise wages you need serious spending, better labor laws, and stronger and more pervasive unions. Or, to put it another way, the best that loose money can give us is more of the same; jobs programs and infrastructure spending can give us child care and high-speed rail, and not just more consumer goods and carbon dioxide emissions.

    The embrace of inflation and easy money as good things has a long tradition in American populism-which makes sense, given its roots in a petty bourgeois love of small business, which wants easy money without higher wages, tighter regulation, and unions that might come with a more class-conscious agenda. Or, as I said earlier, it leaves the structure of class relations largely untouched.

    Sure, we need a central bank that doesn't tighten to make sure that unemployment doesn't get too low, as the Fed has done in the past. But that's about it. I don't want a monetary policy that encourages inflation. It doesn't work as a stimulus, and it can have bad results. Over time, people find inflation very destabilizing, and can lead to a taste for an authoritarian solution, to counter the sense that things are out of control. That was an important part of the rightward turn during the 1970s-and not just in elite opinion, but popular opinion as well. It contributed mightily to the election of Reagan and Thatcher.

    Redistribution?

    Some partisans of the loose money/higher inflation view (e.g. Josh Mason ) argue that such policies could be redistributionist-shifting wealth from richer creditors to poorer debtors by eroding the real value of the debt over time. But that position assumes that high personal debt levels are desirable and/or eternal. Debt has been used to offset stagnant wages and, up until a few years ago, inflated housing prices. Permanent inflation can't increase real incomes and it can't improve the quality of life.

    Josh also argues that high real interest rates-market interest rates less the inflation rate-are hallmarks of neoliberalism, so presumably low real rates would be anti-neoliberal. Yes, high real interest rates were part of the early days of neoliberalism, but they haven't been so much since. Real rates on 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds averaged 4.9% from 1983-95-but from 1996-2006, they averaged 2.6%, not much higher than they were in the 1960s, 2.3%. Since 2006, real long rates have averaged 1.6%.

    Things were surprisingly not so different in a real social democracy, Sweden. Real long rates averaged 4.8% from 1983-95, just 0.1 point lower than the U.S., and they were 4.1% from 1996-2006, 1.6 points *higher* than the U.S. Real long rates in Sweden during the 1960s were 2.0%, just 0.3 point lower than the U.S. Yet for just about every period in modern history, Sweden's real hourly earnings have grown faster than the U.S.: 1.3 points faster in the 1960s, 1.2 points faster during the early neoliberal era (1983-95, when Swedish real interest rates were almost identical to the U.S.'s), and 1.6 points faster during the later neoliberal era (1996-2006, a period during which Swedish real rates *exceeded* U.S. rates).

    The Swedish central bank, the oldest in the world, is a pretty tough customer. But what made the difference in Sweden-why their wages increased while ours stagnated-were all the other, real sector institutions, like redistributive fiscal policies (tax-funded welfare state benefits), active labor market policies (which promote employment aggressively), and union-friendly labor law.

    Finally, the politics of loose money are intriguing. Proponents act as if the bourgeoisie won't notice if the value of their bonds is being eaten away by rising inflation. Or if they notice, they won't care. So it'd take considerable political strength to push a central bank into actively inflationary policies. But if you have that sort of strength, why not go for the stuff that can really make a difference-the social democratic package I mentioned for Sweden? Or, in the context of this original debate, a jobs program and serious infrastructure investment rather than loose money?

    [Oct 02, 2016] The Limits of Left Neo-Liberalism - Crooked Timber

    Notable quotes:
    "... "it's hard for me to see how left-leaning neo-liberalism can generate any self-sustaining politics." ..."
    "... It seems to me that "left" neoliberalism has long discarded unions as a positive political force, thus speeding up their demise in American politics. In other words, [where] Henry sees an error where I assume a deliberate choice. ..."
    "... I think it should be made substantially easier to organize labor unions in the United States. I do doubt that this is the political or economic panacea that some people seem to think it is, but it's nonetheless a fundamental social and political right that far too many people are denied. ..."
    "... You also think that managers and executives should be able to ignore or break labor contracts at will – for example, with teachers' unions – which renders the concept of "organizing a labor union" somewhat meaningless. ..."
    "... I can't believe the price of Raymond Plant's Neo-Liberal State, doubtless the most important political theoretic work on neo liberal politics. But it's a book that this site should probably feature, and its political theorists doubtless know. It is the political theory of social democracy robustly defended. ..."
    "... The Neoliberal State ..."
    "... Being a neoliberal involves signaling a willingness to go along and get along by playing the game - ignoring empirical evidence and showing a willingness to engage in outright lying on certain key issues. It's a sine qua non of politics. ..."
    Oct 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    by Henry on July 18, 2011 Doug Henwood has a go at Matthew Yglesias.

    Orthodox types-and I'm including Yglesias, who describes his political leanings as "neoliberal" on his Facebook profile page-usually prefer monetary to fiscal remedies. Why? Because they operate through the financial markets and don't mess with labor or product markets or the class structure. A jobs program and other New Deal-ish stuff would mess with labor and product markets and the class structure, and so it's mostly verboten to talk that way. From an elite point of view, the primary problem with a jobs program-and with employment-boosting infrastructure projects-is that they would put a floor under employment, making workers more confident and less likely to do what the boss says, and less dependent on private employers for a paycheck. It would increase the power of labor relative to capital. I'm not sure that Yglesias understands that explicitly, but it's undoubtedly part of his unexamined "common sense" as a semi-mainstream pundit.

    This is wrong in the particulars – as a correspondent has pointed out to me, Yglesias has repeatedly called for employment-boosting infrastructure projects and the like. But – getting away from the polemics and the specific personalities – I think that Doug is onto something significant here. I'd frame it myself in a more wishy-washy way. There is a real phenomenon that you might describe as left neo-liberalism in the US - liberals who came out of the experience of the 1980s convinced that the internal interest group dynamics of the Democratic party were a problem. These people came up with some interesting arguments (but also: Mickey Kaus), but seem to me to have always lacked a good theory of politics.

    To be more precise – Neo-liberals tend to favor a combination of market mechanisms and technocratic solutions to solve social problems. But these kinds of solutions tend to discount politics – and in particular political collective action, which requires strong collective actors such as trade unions. This means that vaguely-leftish versions of neo-liberalism often have weak theories of politics, and in particular of the politics of collective action. I see Doug and others as arguing that successful political change requires large scale organized collective action, and that this in turn requires the correction of major power imbalances (e.g. between labor and capital). They're also arguing that neo-liberal policies at best tend not to help correct these imbalances, and they seem to me to have a pretty good case. Even if left-leaning neo-liberals are right to claim that technocratic solutions and market mechanisms can work to relieve disparities etc, it's hard for me to see how left-leaning neo-liberalism can generate any self-sustaining politics. I'm sure that critics can point to political blind spots among lefties (e.g. the difficulties in figuring out what is a necessary compromise, and what is a blatant sell-out), but these don't seem to me to be potentially crippling, in the way that the absence of a neo-liberal theory of politics (who are the organized interest groups and collective actors who will push consistently for technocratic efficiency?) is. Of course I may be wrong – and look forward to some pushback in comments

    Update: Brad DeLong writes a reply , largely replicating a comment below, which says that I believe things that I actually don't believe at all. My response to the original claim can be found in comments below.

    Matthew Yglesias 07.18.11 at 3:15 pm

    I wonder what J Quiggin thinks about this. But to me, the self-assurance that there's some non-neoliberal miracle formula for political sustainability seems refuted by the fact that the pre-neoliberal paradigm in the United States was not, in fact, politically sustainable. So while I think the critique has force, it applies pretty broadly across the board. I
    Chris Bertram 07.18.11 at 3:19 pm
    I particularly liked the following para in Henwood:

    bq. There's also a strain of populist thought, prominent in U.S. political history, that embraces inflation and easy money as some sort of curative strategy. I don't agree. Easy money is really a cowardly substitute for redistribution-over the long term, Milton Friedman was more or less right that loose money can't change the economic fundamentals. It can't spark much growth, it can't raise real wages-it's mostly just froth. To spark growth and raise wages you need serious spending, better labor laws, and stronger and more pervasive unions. Or, to put it another way, the best that loose money can give us is more of the same; jobs programs and infrastructure spending can give us child care and high-speed rail, and not just more consumer goods and carbon dioxide emissions.

    Tom Bach 07.18.11 at 3:22 pm
    If you ignore the fact that labor unions have been under attack at least since Reagan, Matthew Yglesias might have a point. B
    AcademicLurker 07.18.11 at 3:25 pm
    the pre-neoliberal paradigm in the United States was not, in fact, politically sustainable.

    And the neoliberal paradigm has proven itself sustainable?

    Indeed. No massive economic collapse, no signs that ~10% unemployment is the new normal. Nothing to see here folks, move along

    Henri Vieuxtemps 07.18.11 at 3:29 pm
    @1, what are you replying to; who said anything about 'sustainability'?
    roac 07.18.11 at 3:29 pm
    I haven't seen Yglesias talk about unions much, if at all, but surely sees them as interfering coercively with the proper way of determining income levels: the Market. While Yglesias deplores income inequality in general, whenever he looks at a particular lower-middle-class occupation, he invariably concludes that its members are overpaid. Barbers are the classic example, but he also had a post, not long ago, deploring the fact that bus drivers in the Washington area make $50K a year (or whatever the number is), when there are hordes of unemployed people out there who would work much cheaper.

    (I quit cold turkey on Yglesias when CAP went to this new comment system which you can only access through Facebook; it was like being forced to give up cigarettes. But I can't believe he's changed.)

    Rob Hunter 07.18.11 at 3:30 pm
    I'm puzzled as to what "the pre-neoliberal paradigm in the United States" might refer to, and whether or not it really stands in direct opposition to a "neoliberal paradigm," inasmuch as Henry and Henwood have a strong claim that neoliberalism, particularly in its left-technocratic strain, conspicuously lacks an articulation of the kind of mass politics that might support it.
    Matthew Yglesias 07.18.11 at 3:30 pm
    "If you ignore the fact that labor unions have been under attack at least since Reagan, Matthew Yglesias might have a point."

    US labor union density peaked in the mid-1950s so it's hard to see Reagan specifically as the cause of unions' decline. I think it's more plausible to say that the policy environment has grown more hostile to unions as a result of unions' decline.

    Sebastian H 07.18.11 at 3:31 pm
    I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "weak theories of politics, and in particular the politics of collective action". Are you using the terms in some technical sense or in their normal meaning? Because in their normal meaning it would seem that neo-liberals have a theory of politics, they just see it as largely instrumental. And they have theories of collective action, but they mistrust populist movements (which is how many large scale unions function and see also the Tea Party). Technocratic and populist don't always go well together. So to the extent that "neoliberal" suggests "technocratic" it may very well be for serious spending, better labor laws, job programs and infrastructure spending depending on what is seen as the cost/benefit analysis, but it will be at least slightly mistrustful of populist appeals i.e–racial group appeals, nationalist appeals, and class based populism.
    Matthew Yglesias 07.18.11 at 3:33 pm
    @5 Henry wrote "it's hard for me to see how left-leaning neo-liberalism can generate any self-sustaining politics."

    I'm agreeing that this is a problem, but doubting whether there's a clearly superior non-neoliberal alternative.

    Red 07.18.11 at 3:36 pm
    It seems to me that "left" neoliberalism has long discarded unions as a positive political force, thus speeding up their demise in American politics. In other words, [where] Henry sees an error where I assume a deliberate choice.
    Bruce Baugh 07.18.11 at 3:37 pm
    As a good neighbor to this post and Doug's remarks, Doctor Science has an excellent post about why many people have a perfectly rational fear of inflation . She makes some darned good points, I think.
    Matthew Yglesias 07.18.11 at 3:38 pm
    @6

    I think it should be made substantially easier to organize labor unions in the United States. I do doubt that this is the political or economic panacea that some people seem to think it is, but it's nonetheless a fundamental social and political right that far too many people are denied.

    Cranky Observer 07.18.11 at 3:43 pm
    > Matthew Yglesias 07.18.11 at 3:38 pm
    > I think it should be made substantially easier to organize
    > labor unions in the United States.

    You also think that managers and executives should be able to ignore or break labor contracts at will – for example, with teachers' unions – which renders the concept of "organizing a labor union" somewhat meaningless.

    Cranky

    hartal 07.18.11 at 3:46 pm
    I can't believe the price of Raymond Plant's Neo-Liberal State, doubtless the most important political theoretic work on neo liberal politics. But it's a book that this site should probably feature, and its political theorists doubtless know. It is the political theory of social democracy robustly defended.
    *
    Yet the question of QE3 is on the table. Who's for it? Who's against it?
    *
    The case against ultra-low rates has been made best by Raghu Rajan, a pretty conservative guy. He argues that they hurt small savers, don't stimulate investment, create property bubbles at home and turn the US into an unstable hedge fund (low Fed rates leads to capital making risky investments abroad leads to foreign governments reversing currency appreciation by buying US debt–so that US investments abroad are financed by short-term liabilities as in a hedge fund).

    Krugman has said that the solution for this is not ultra-low rates but anti-bubble policies abroad.

    Stiglitz has warned that ultra low US Fed rates move the world towards currency wars.

    Russell Arben Fox 07.18.11 at 3:48 pm
    the pre-neoliberal paradigm in the United States was not, in fact, politically sustainable

    Going along with what AcademicLurker (#4) just said, I would really like to see Matt–or any other member of what Chris Bertram (and I ) called the "technocratic neoliberal left"–unpack what they mean, historically speaking, by labeling the pre-neoliberal paradigm "political unsustainable". Is it a claim that unions and other populist/nationalist demands for jobs and economic security were really premised upon some form of white supremacy, and thus wouldn't survive politically as forces for egalitarian reform once the civil rights movement arose? Is it a claim that New Dealish-type programs had at their heart a (however muted) moralistic/communalistic sensibility, and thus couldn't endure as politically acceptable goads to greater justice once various technological revolutions made possible enormous expansions of individual lifestyle liberation and wealth? Or is it just a structural party argument, claiming that the pre-neoliberal paradigm couldn't organize itself for some conceptual reason in the context of American politics? Serious, what is it exactly? WHY does the technocratic neoliberal left assume that it is simply "obvious" that the pre-neoliberal paradigm was a hopeless model after the 1970s/1980s?

    temp 07.18.11 at 3:51 pm

    I've never understood this criticism of "technocratic solutions". Successful social programs generate their own constituency. Nations which implement universal healthcare programs tend not to abandon them. In the US, social security and medicare have proven far more resilient than private sector unions. It is much harder to attack broad-based social programs in which the average citizen can see tangible benefits from government that a union movement that can always be accused of looking out for the interests of its members at the expense of everyone else.
    bob mcmanus 07.18.11 at 3:55 pm

    Neo-liberals tend to favor a combination of market mechanisms and technocratic solutions to solve social problems.

    Not the social problems of misogyny, racism, or homophobia etc (immigration, colonialism, war?) which the left neo-liberals do advocate and advance through various kinds of collective action politics. Or not, if people think this is incorrect.

    liberals who came out of the experience of the (1970s) 1980s convinced that the internal interest group dynamics of the Democratic party taxes were a problem.

    The core principle of neo-liberal Barack Obama is that he will not (overtly) raise taxes on 95% of the US population. I think that dating from the Jarvis California experience of the 70s, and "Reagan Democrats" in the 80s, left neo-liberals believe that whatever coalitions are possible on the left would be fractured over any kind of economic populism or real redistribution.

    Sebastian H 07.18.11 at 3:56 pm

    "You also think that managers and executives should be able to ignore or break labor contracts at will – for example, with teachers' unions – which renders the concept of "organizing a labor union" somewhat meaningless."

    I don't think he says that. He says that we shouldn't cave to teacher's union demands for pure seniority hiring for example. And quite probably, the way teacher's unions have functioned in the US education establishment provides excellent examples of why populist movements aren't trusted by neo-liberals.

    Rob Hunter 07.18.11 at 3:56 pm

    @ Russell Arben Fox (#16)

    Perhaps part of the explanation is found in the last sentence of your comment, in a self-fulfilling kind of way: the more that one comes to believe that neoliberal policies are the solution, the more that "traditional" left-liberal political approaches come to be seen themselves as the problem?

    bob mcmanus 07.18.11 at 3:57 pm

    16: Is it a claim that unions and other populist/nationalist demands for jobs and economic security were really premised upon some form of white supremacy

    I believe many young Democrats believe exactly this, with additions for sexism and homophobia etc.

    imajoebob 07.18.11 at 4:00 pm

    Using the US to try to prove or disprove either of the sides of this argument is sham economics. There is NO "neoliberal" class or labor infrastructure to challenge "Capital." The US is a retrograde society where ALL the power rests in the hands of a small minority. While not as obvious as North Korea, or China, or Russia, or Saudi Arabia, it's just as powerful, just as embedded, and just as pernicious. The best argument mitigating this absolute power is the occasional fracture in the edifice (usually between the political and financial class, as we're seeing on the debt), and the ability of the powerful to convince most Americans that they are at worst "benevolent despots."

    If you take this argument to other countries, especially in Europe, you see that where the effect of money on politics is buffered, the "neoliberal masses" have much more influence on the economic policy. At the same time, we see in Greece that when the full, unfettered force of Capital is brought to bear – in this case by the IMF, USA, UK, and Germany, they have much more influence than even the Greek citizens.

    Which takes us back to the Marxist debates of the past few days. In Western economies the power wielded by Capital is so overreaching that the "natural" revolutions envisioned by Marx can be controlled, usually with false promises and faux "victories" on matters of no actual import (see the teabaggers for the best example of the ability of Capital to co-opt the masses). Forty years ago the greek government would be in jail or in hiding by now, and a new "Social Democratic" party would be negotiating with the generals about holding elections.

    You decide if today's system where the banks protect the wealthy, who then loot the treasury and leave the middle class to pay the bills, is any better.

    Steve LaBonne 07.18.11 at 4:01 pm

    WHY does the technocratic neoliberal left assume that it is simply "obvious" that the pre-neoliberal paradigm was a hopeless model after the 1970s/1980s?

    Because it's very convenient for them to ignore the fact that their ideological soulmates of earlier eras were actively attacking that "paradigm" from the time of Kennedy (when the political bargains that ultimately resulted in shipping massive numbers of manufacturing jobs overseas had their roots), let alone Reagan (and by the way, Carter, the first openly neoliberal Democratic President, broke a lot of the ground that Reagan continued to work.) Why, it's just a fact of nature, nobody could have known, etc. The patient just died of natural causes, you see.

    Russell Arben Fox 07.18.11 at 4:06 pm

    Rob (#19),

    the more that one comes to believe that neoliberal policies are the solution, the more that "traditional" left-liberal political approaches come to be seen themselves as the problem?

    There's probably more than a little truth to this. After more than 30 years telling one another that traditional/redistributive/populist left stuff is hogwash, it probably seems pretty obvious to many that those old solutions were actually part of the problem.

    Bob (#20),

    I believe many young Democrats believe exactly this [that unions and other populist/nationalist demands for jobs and economic security were really premised upon some form of white supremacy], with additions for sexism and homophobia etc.

    If so, then that is 1) screamingly unfortunate, because 2) it's only partly true, and 3) it's a kind of "sins of the fathers" thinking that has lead many a young millennial liberal to assume that in our new technologically liberated/economically globalized world, the left really doesn't have that much at all to learn from blue-collar union stiffs, public school teachers, and hayseeds out on the farm.

    Chris Bertram 07.18.11 at 4:09 pm

    In the absence of an actual argument, I think MY is probably just inferring "unsustainable" from "wasn't actually sustained", which is clearly fallacious. Could a different political strategy have sustained the New Deal settlement for longer? I don't know. But given that other countries have done a better job of sustaining some kind of welfare-state capitalism, I remain unconvinced of its impossibility even for the US.
    Cranky Observer 07.18.11 at 4:15 pm

    >> "You also think that managers and executives should be able
    >> to ignore or break labor contracts at will – for example, with
    >> teachers' unions – which renders the concept of "organizing a
    >> labor union" somewhat meaningless."

    > I don't think he says that. He says that we shouldn't cave
    > to teacher's union demands for pure seniority hiring for
    > example. And quite probably, the way teacher's unions have
    > functioned in the US education establishment provides
    > excellent examples of why populist movements aren't
    > trusted by neo-liberals.

    Three points here:

    1) The way (some) teachers' unions behave is a direct result of the way their members have been treated whenever their boards and principals have been allowed to run riot with Calvinball rules and favoritism (now disguised as "incentive pay"). Starting the the late 1800s, brutally so during the Great Depression, and continuing through the 1950s (fired for getting married; fired for having a baby) and early 1960s (disciplined for having "radical" ideas – such as teaching modern poetry[1]). The UFT in New York and AFT nationally were specifically formed because the NEA's "let's have tea and cookies with the School Board" approach led to the teachers being trampled to death, not being treated like professionals. But this time, despite that fact that our economy is now much more stratified, things will be /different/ with the neoliberals in charge. Sheesh – the phrase useful idiots comes to mind.

    2) Neither Yglesias nor any of his ilk have ever taught a day of school. Yglesias has specifically stated that he has never and will never volunteer for a single day in his local DC public school. He is approximately 30, unmarried, no children, no involvement with schools, communities, parents, children, or real teachers, has never attended a public school. Yet he is a leading "expert" on how to "reform" teaching. That is the McKinsey/Accenture/Bain "strategic management consulting" model that has served our economy so well over the last 30 years, eh?

    3) The vast majority of US schools are not in dense inner cities – they are in exurbs. The vast majority of US schools, school districts, and teachers are doing well and providing great education to their students (albeit with current budget cuts ). The vast majority of US teachers do NOT belong to and AFT-affiliated trade union, but to an NEA-affiliated union-cum-professional association. Yet the "reforms" that Yglesias & Co. would so dearly love to bring down on the heads of unionized urban teachers also have the unintended side-effect of damaging the successful suburban pubic schools. Probably unintended by the honest neoliberals that is, but not unintended by the Republicans who support them.

    All of this has been discussed extensively in Yglesias' comments section (under the old comment system, at least), but he no longer deigns to respond to any criticism not expressed by an A-list blogger.

    Cranky

    [1] Which happened to one of the most militant teacher labor leaders of the 1970s and 80s

    Cranky Observer 07.18.11 at 4:19 pm

    > Yglesias @10
    > I'm agreeing that this is a problem, but doubting whether there's
    > a clearly superior non-neoliberal alternative.

    Would be interested to hear exactly what positive, "going forward" [1] positions neoliberals DO hold. I fear that in the 2 years since a number of A-list juicebox bloggers converted to this line of analysis I have been put in mind of the definition of a libertarian: a Republican who wants to date liberal women.

    Cranky

    [1] I apologize for the consultant-speak phrase; neoliberals love that stuff though.

    Russell Arben Fox 07.18.11 at 4:23 pm

    In the absence of an actual argument, I think MY is probably just inferring "unsustainable" from "wasn't actually sustained", which is clearly fallacious.

    Well said, Chris.

    dsquared 07.18.11 at 4:32 pm

    Easy money is really a cowardly substitute for redistribution

    Otoh, as cowardly substitutes for redistribution go, it's distinctly better than nothing.

    hartal 07.18.11 at 4:33 pm

    Oops garbled my own 15 as I was rushing out the door

    The case against ultra-low rates has been made best by Raghu Rajan, a pretty conservative guy. He argues that they hurt small savers, don't stimulate investment, create property bubbles ABROAD and turn the US into an unstable hedge fund (low Fed rates leads to capital making risky investments abroad leads to foreign governments reversing currency appreciation by buying US debt-so that US investments abroad are financed by short-term liabilities as in a hedge fund).

    Krugman has said that the solution for this is not ENDING ultra-low rates but anti-bubble policies abroad.

    Stiglitz has warned that ultra low US Fed rates move the world towards currency wars. There is also some concern that the real wage would be reduced by price inflation.

    ADDITIONAL: I am bit confused by the point Henwood and Corey Robin are making. Surely they are not against ultra-low rates or QE 3 or are they? That would be hard to square with Henwood's own past tough-minded and empirically grounded calls for loose monetary policy? When did he start becoming such a skeptic?

    Aren't Henwood and Robin for loose monetary policy, coupled with more deficit spending? Are they warning us against settling only for loose monetary policy? Or are they opposing loose monetary policy even if there is complementary fiscal stimulus? That is, are are they on the same side as former chief IMF economist Rajan in being opposed to ultra low rates and QE3? That would be interesting, no?

    SamChevre 07.18.11 at 4:37 pm

    Could a different political strategy have sustained the New Deal settlement for longer? I don't know. But given that other countries have done a better job of sustaining some kind of welfare-state capitalism, I remain unconvinced of its impossibility even for the US.

    And from a more-to-the-right perspective, I don't see that. If you take the New Deal settlement to be the salient features of the 1950's-1960's job market–plenty of work at one-income-can-support-a-family wages, upward mobility for the working class, and social goods provided primarily to the (white) working class–I don't see any of the Western economies sustaining that since 1980.

    They've broken at different points; the US focus has been on plenty of work, the French focus on good wages, the Dutch focus on redistribution mainly to the working class–but in all of the US and Western Europe, there is a strong sense that the wroking class has gotten worse off relative to all 3 of: the upper class, the unemployed or marginally employed, and people in other countries. I'd argue that the last two of those were not legitimately avoidable.

    Shane Taylor 07.18.11 at 4:38 pm

    Like #15, I found Raymond Plant's book The Neoliberal State enlightening and relevant to this debate. Here was a review by John Gray.
    Lee A. Arnold 07.18.11 at 4:39 pm

    This absolutely galls me but I don't want to be a troll so I will just write this once because I have to go to work and run new water lines to a laundry sink anyhow.

    To me this is like a discussion of what sort of world we need, so that the politics we prefer should be effective.

    Henry you write, "I'm sure that critics can point to political blind spots among lefties (e.g. the difficulties in figuring out what is a necessary compromise, and what is a blatant sell-out), but these don't seem to me to be potentially crippling, in the way that the absence of a neo-liberal theory of politics is."

    I cannot begin to EXHAUST political blind spots among lefties! They were demonstrated continuously throughout the healthcare reform debate.

    And lefties are not paying attention, right now.

    Look at what should happen, RIGHT NOW: Obama should insist upon his "big deal" on the budget, which includes long-term tax increases, because that would compel the Republican leadership to whip the Tea Party House to vote in FAVOR of taxes.

    And the Tea Party will do it but they are going to hate it, and THAT would destroy the Republican Party.

    Why? Because it has put McConnell and Boehner on the horns of a terrible dilemma. They must either choose (1) default, which will destroy the GOP brand with voters, or else they must (2) whip the Tea House Party into a vote to increase taxes which the Teas will hate and it will cause a major and lasting split within the GOP.

    (Please don't respond with the gibberish that the Tea House Party is an uncontrollable monster that is intractable to Boehner. That is what he wants you to think. He wants you to feel "fear of default".)

    Either way it would mean the weakening and perhaps the destruction of the GOP, and make both life and policy considerably easier for several years to come.

    So what are the liberals and progressives throughout Bloggonia doing? Whining as usual, about how Obama is selling them out.

    What should they be doing? Leaning on members of Congress RIGHT NOW to reject McConnell's alternative deal, and insist upon Obama's grand plan.

    Why? Because McConnell's deal is a face-saving measure to save the Republican leadership from the Tea Party's electoral wrath. What is McConnell's plan?

    Here is the Washington Post, today: "Washington Post, today (July 18) –"Under the plan, Obama would be able to raise the debt ceiling three times over the next year for a total of $2.5 trillion. Congress could also vote on a resolution of disapproval each time, assigning blame to Obama for increasing the nation's debt .The plan would also create a new congressional panel that would, by the end of the year, seek to come up with a way of reducing the deficit potentially by trillions more through cuts in entitlements and other new tax revenue While the debt-limit plan has broad support in the Senate, the prospects in the House are less clear and rely largely on whether House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) will bring the proposal up for a vote and how many House Democrats would support it since few Republicans are expected to get behind it."

    You can disregard that last phrase, you can bet that Boehner will bring it up for a vote in a heartbeat.

    Do you understand the politics of this? Do you understand that the reason that the Senate Dems may throw McConnell and Boehner a face-saving lifeline (by accepting McConnell's deal) isn't because of some ridiculous neoclassical capitalist conspiracy but is simply because of the the tradition of collegiality among the Congressional leaders of both parties? Do you see that the only way to counteract this is to put pressure right now on Congressional Dems so they can turn to their colleagues across the aisle and say, "Sorry, but my constituents don't want it?"

    Now tell me what definition of the word "politics" are we talking about here? In the netherworld of "political sustainable" (because god knows you don't like to work for it), - or in this world?

    christian_h 07.18.11 at 4:45 pm

    I don't think we should let Sebastian get away with calling labour unions a "populist movement". This use of "populist" as a catch-all for "non-elite political organization I don't like" is really tiresome.
    Tom Bach 07.18.11 at 4:45 pm

    Matthew Yglesias when I wrote "at least since Reagan," I meant, oddly enough, that the assault most likely came earlier.
    Sebastian H 07.18.11 at 4:47 pm

    "The way (some) teachers' unions behave is a direct result of the way their members have been treated whenever their boards and principals have been allowed to run riot with Calvinball rules and favoritism (now disguised as "incentive pay"). "

    I'm not sure this is the best place to get deep into teacher's union history, but so far as it goes, you seem to be forgetting the ~40 year period, the most recent one, where school boards in such rather large states as Florida and California were almost completely dominated by the teacher's union supported candidates, and as such were getting exactly what they wanted (with the possible exception of only getting their way on taxes about 3/4 of the time). This is the teacher's union that young and middle aged Democrats are used to dealing with, and it isn't pretty.

    "Yet the "reforms" that Yglesias & Co. would so dearly love to bring down on the heads of unionized urban teachers also have the unintended side-effect of damaging the successful suburban pubic schools."

    I don't see it. Successful suburban schools aren't successful because of seniority pay scales, last in layoffs, and a lack of accountability via testing. Hell, they have quite a bit of accountability through testing via the PSAT and SAT–suburban parents are completely intolerant of teaching that doesn't get good results there. Tinkering around the edges of seniority pay, young-teacher layoffs and testing isn't *threatening* the suburban schools. And again the suburban school boards are well in the pocket of the unions anyway, so it isn't as if the unions are suddenly going to be shut out of anything.

    Cranky Observer 07.18.11 at 4:51 pm

    Replying to Lee A. Arnold's #32 would derail the thread on the definition of neoliberalism, so I won't. But to me it is one of the most naive pieces of political analysis I have seen on a blog of the nature of CT in many years.

    Cranky

    bianca steele 07.18.11 at 4:54 pm

    I thought Yglesias was calling himself progressive. Whatever "progressive means, I don't see how one can be both. And whether we are all neoliberals economically or not, what is "neoliberal" in political terms? This is my own idiosyncratic–even subjective–take, but "neoliberal" at times seems to mean something like technocratic (something almost but not quite technocratic) and thus excluding politics, not just as the OP says collective action but any kind of action to make a change outside normal/technocratic channels.
    roac 07.18.11 at 4:57 pm

    Re Yglesias and schoolteachers: He does think that schoolteachers should make more money, even much more money. This is only an apparent exception to the rule I stated way back there somewhere, as he does not think anyone currently teaching school should make more money; he thinks they should all be fired and replaced by recent honor graduates of Ivy League universities. (Those fired can cut hair, a job for which anyone is qualified.)

    There is an unstated assumption here that there is no job for which the best possible candidate would not be the valedictorian of the last graduating class at Harvard.

    hartal 07.18.11 at 5:05 pm

    at 2 Bertram quotes Henwood as saying

    "Easy money is really a cowardly substitute for redistribution-over the long term, Milton Friedman was more or less right that loose money can't change the economic fundamentals. It can't spark much growth, it can't raise real wages-it's mostly just froth."

    Well the point is not to raise the real wage but lower it. Indeed that is exactly how Keynes' theory has often been received. Given stickiness of nominal wages, the only way to reduce the real wage to the unemployed workers' actual marginal productivity is through inflation caused by loose money.

    There is a Keynes who breaks incompletely from such an interpretation of his theory. Some debate he had with Dunlop, I believe.

    bianca steele 07.18.11 at 5:11 pm

    Thought maybe there is a special "Harvard" definition of "neoliberal," it occurs to me? It's a word the Harvard alums at n+1 like to throw around a lot, and tho they're not exactly pro-business, pro-commercializing tendencies, they aren't exactly pro-democratic tendencies either.
    Steve LaBonne 07.18.11 at 5:14 pm

    bianca, if one came to Harvard from a privileged background in the first place, it will certainly do less than nothing to develop one's appreciation of democracy.
    bianca steele 07.18.11 at 5:25 pm

    Steve,
    My point (sorry, I am typing quickly because my laptop keeps crashing at inopportune times) was that they do not seem entirely sure whether there is a difference between "liberal" in the sense of "hippie" and "neoliberal." It seems possible that they've heard a lot of neoliberal-bashing and have adopted the same from the right, though what they say is very like the neoliberal-bashing you get in progressive and left forums of various kinds.
    salacious 07.18.11 at 5:27 pm

    "Easy money is really a cowardly substitute for redistribution-over the long term, Milton Friedman was more or less right that loose money can't change the economic fundamentals. It can't spark much growth, it can't raise real wages-it's mostly just froth."

    Except Yglesias is only advocating to get the economy back on trend demand-wise in the short term. Even Keynes would agree that over the long run easy money is "just froth" but, in the long run, we're all dead etc. etc.

    Chris Bertram 07.18.11 at 5:29 pm

    SamChevre:

    I had something a little more generic in mind, which is why I also referred to welfare-state capitalism, which has basically survived (though not unaltered) in lots of countries. I'm not sure I understand your metric about working-class well-being anyway. Why would it be a bad think for the working class if people in _other countries_ secured a higher standard of living and therefore closed the gap? Why is it definitive of welfare-state capitalism as a model that the gap be maintained? I don't see it.

    (Yglesias had a bit of weirdness on this today (or yesterday) also, or so I read him, by referring to China closing the living-standards gap as something people might "worry" about. I don't think the worry was about the environmental impacts of higher consumption, either.)

    Sweden 07.18.11 at 5:32 pm

    I would love to hear Yglesias comment on the nothern european social democratic welfare-states, countries combining a competitive economy, extensive universalistic and highly redistributive social institutions, extremely high levels of social trust AND some of the highest degrees of extensive labour union influence in the set of democratic countries.
    Brad DeLong 07.18.11 at 5:38 pm

    Ah. It seems to me that Yglesias badly needs some backup here

    Henry's theory of politics is that successful and beneficial long-run politics can only be accomplished by a political party that is the political arm of a *universal class*–of a self-confident, organized group whose collective material interest is in fact the public interest.

    Adam Smith saw the improving landlords of Britain as the universal class. The merchants and manufacturers each had an interest in monopoly–they should be kept as far from power as possible. The urban and rural laboring classes were short-sighted and uneducated–they would sacrifice the future for the present. The crown, the aristocracy, and the executive were too interested in playing the negative-sum game of imperialist war and conquest–they needed to be curbed. Only the landlords, whose rents rose with general prosperity and fell with general penury, had the brains, the organization, the far-sightedness, and the material interest to pursue policies to better the condition of Great Britain. Thus the landlords should rule.

    Karl Marx, of course, saw the industrial proletariat as the *universal class* in embryo.

    Henry Farrell doesn't say what his alternative proposed universal class is. Perhaps it is composed of, in rough order:

    - Unions
    - Public employees
    - Technologists
    - Celebrity entertainers
    - Trial lawyers

    But the argument that the Democratic Party should adopt the strategy of pursuing policies to enrich those six groups and hope that it all adds up to (a) the public interest and (b) long-run political dominance seems to me to be relatively weak.

    Left neoliberal policies may well not produce.

    But it is not clear to me that Henry's alternative would produce either

    William Timberman 07.18.11 at 5:44 pm

    Left neoliberal policies may well not produce.

    Everybody wants to be a comedian .

    Cranky Observer 07.18.11 at 5:46 pm

    > doesn't say what his alternative proposed universal class is. Perhaps
    > it is composed of, in rough order:

    Another possible set:

    - academic economists - Wall Street economists - Princes of Wall Street - Secretary/Asst Secretaries of the Treasury - salaried CEOs - the US Chamber of Commerce

    This is fun!

    Cranky

    LeeEsq 07.18.11 at 5:50 pm

    I think that neo-liberals lack a grand theory of politics because they hate politics, in the sense of organizing, rallying, making speeches, getting people into office, wheeling and dealing, etc. What they want to be is philosopher-kings that can implement policies to help the mass of people but not really have to deal with the mass of people. This is one reason why Yglesias thinks that parlimentary systems are better than Presidential ones. He thinks that parliamentary systems are less political because once you win a majority in the legislative assemby, no more politics is needed. Just have a technocratic cabinet write the laws/policy and parliament will pass it. This is wrong, especially in multi-party parliamentary democracies but its how Yglesias views them.

    American politics has had grops of liberal/progressive educated, middle class people who disdained party politics since at least the Gilded Age. Many progressive reformers really didn't want to have to work with either labor unions or party polticians, especially those associated with Democratic machines like Tammany Hall. The neo-liberals are the current manisfestation of this group.

    hartal 07.18.11 at 5:52 pm

    Interesting indeed.

    While he would not accept it, Raghuram Rajan seems to think the real universal class is composed of Hegelian disinterested civil servants (like him), sufficiently immunized from democratic pressures so that they can make investments for long-term growth in human capital above all else, instead of give in to the populist solution of easy credit.

    Obviously he does not think the Fed is free from populist pressure.

    Really like this interpretation of Adam Smith as the voice for improving landlords. It allows me to see the continuity in the Scottish Enlightenment from Smith to Richard Jones.

    ezra abrams 07.18.11 at 5:52 pm

    deleted – as noted, I really do not want to see this thread degenerate into a set of personally specific accusations, and this comment very definitely moved those accusations up into another gear. Feel free to comment again – but please try to stick to the substance. HJF
    L2P 07.18.11 at 5:53 pm

    "I'm not sure this is the best place to get deep into teacher's union history, but so far as it goes, you seem to be forgetting the ~40 year period, the most recent one, where school boards in such rather large states as Florida and California were almost completely dominated by the teacher's union supported candidates, and as such were getting exactly what they wanted (with the possible exception of only getting their way on taxes about 3/4 of the time). This is the teacher's union that young and middle aged Democrats are used to dealing with, and it isn't pretty."

    Seriously?

    Can you even describe how California schools are funded, and how local school boards can have any meaningful control over that? I mean, without immediately going to Wikipedia and looking up the relevant RTC sections and the many confusing and facially contradictory constitutional amendments. I doubt your one of the 20 or so people who can. So I seriously doubt you're one of the people who could possibly say, with any authority, that teachers unions got what they wanted on taxes "3/4 of the time." Because I am one of those 20 or so people, and I was there there for the past decade, and they sure as hell didn't.

    Whenever I hear guys like you and Matty talking about the hordes of high-priced, high skilled teachers that are going to turn education around I throw up in my mouth a little bit. When you pull up with a Brinks truck full of money (and for some perspective, Gates' entire fortune is enough for two years – so keep looking), let me know. Until then, shut the hell up.

    Tom Bach 07.18.11 at 5:56 pm

    Ah. It seems to me that Yglesias badly needs some backup here
    Unless, of course, he's wrong, in which case he doesn't and, as he is, you oughtn't.
    medrawt 07.18.11 at 6:01 pm

    I'm pretty sure Yglesias began describing himself as "neoliberal" semi-ironically, in response to the fact that that's what everyone else started calling him. My Google skills are not offering up the half-imagined post in which he threw up his hands and went with the flow on this one.

    In general, I think there are enough specific things to disagree with Yglesias about that I'm baffled that he seems so routinely misinterpreted (usually through some sort of tortuous "reading between the lines" which divines his underlying intent). Doesn't mean he doesn't get stuff wrong, but the whole "I know what he REALLY cares about and doesn't care about" thing is weird.

    Alex 07.18.11 at 6:16 pm

    I think that comment is one of the worst things Brad DeLong has ever written. It actually makes it worse that it begins with an intelligent comment about Adam Smith before descending into a hippie-punching assault on a flagrant straw-man. (John Barleycorn must die?)
    Russell Arben Fox 07.18.11 at 6:20 pm

    LeeEsq (#49),

    This is one reason why Yglesias thinks that parlimentary systems are better than Presidential ones. He thinks that parliamentary systems are less political because once you win a majority in the legislative assembly, no more politics is needed. Just have a technocratic cabinet write the laws/policy and parliament will pass it. This is wrong, especially in multi-party parliamentary democracies but its how Yglesias views them.

    I think this gets Ygelsias and parliamentary systems quite wrong. Matt has made it pretty clear over the years that it frustrates him to see people thinking that politics consists of grand compromises/consensuses; democratic politics for him–and I think he is absolutely correct here–is a matter of fairly constant partisan contestations. The virtue of parliamentary systems is that, in principle (and to a lesser degree, even in practice), they actually allow elected parties to rule , as opposed to having even clear majorities be stymied by special interests that can make use of numerous veto points whose defenders will dress them up as constitutionally sacrosanct "checks and balances" (e.g., "without aggressive judicial review/an effective supermajority requirement in the Senate/the undemocratic electoral college/etc., all will descend into tyranny!"). Parliamentary systems of democratic government empower majority-winning parties and coalitions to move their agenda forward, which gives their opposite numbers something clear to run against, as opposed to generating desperate accusations and conspiracies out of mid-air. Again, I realize–as I'm sure Matt realizes; he's definitely not stupid–that parliaments rarely manage all this but still, the idea is that parliamentary governance is a tool for making democratic politics more legitimate and responsible, not that they are a way to get away from politics entirely.

    MPAVictoria 07.18.11 at 6:21 pm

    "-Unions-Public employees-Technologists-Celebrity entertainers-Trial lawyers"
    Wow .
    Did a blue collar worker steal candy from you as a child or something?
    Henry 07.18.11 at 6:23 pm

    bq. Henry's theory of politics is that successful and beneficial long-run politics can only be accomplished by a political party that is the political arm of a universal class-of a self-confident, organized group whose collective material interest is in fact the public interest.

    Brad – I'm not at all sure where you're getting this from, but it's about as far from my theory of politics as one can get. If you can point to somewhere where I make an argument that even _hints_ at this, I would love to see it. My ideal of politics is one in which power asymmetries between different classes of actors are as minimal as possible, so as to forestall the development of systematic inequalities of outcome in the marketplace, in society, and in politics. In actually-existing-capitalism, as we see it in the US today, we see an enormous disparity of influence between a small group of elite actors (with the financial industry being particularly important) and the vast majority of the public (who endure stagnant real incomes, have minimal influence on politics etc etc). The traditional way of trying to right this imbalance (or at least prevent it from tilting as badly as it does) is to have large organized interests with some rough interest in catering to the working and lower middle classes – most prominently unions. These can server as a counterbalancing force. Here, Hacker/Pierson and others are probably right in arguing that the destruction of unions over the last few decades has been one of the key factors explaining the dramatic increase in inequality.

    None of this involves some kind of 'universal class' or even hints at it. The lesson that one can take from e.g. the work of Adam Przeworski is that social democracy was politically successful only when it gave up on the workers-as-universal-class stuff, in favor of constructing alliances with other actors (as in the Swedish agrarian-reds coalition). But it does suggest that figuring out ways to strengthen the collective organization of broad interests is a necessary precondition for healthy politics. And here, social democrats and 'countervailing interests' liberals like J.K. Galbraith are singing from the same hymnsheet.

    This may be a tough order as Matthew Yglesias suggests above – no-one has any very convincing solution. But it also suggests that there should be at the least a 'first do no harm' principle to any policy decisions – at the _very_ least, left debate over any proposed major policy initiative should look at whether it is likely to help, or to hurt, the potential for beneficial organized collective action. And neo-liberals don't even begin to get there, I don't think, because they don't have any very good theory of politics (while the leftwing version cannot tell you how to get to a better American politics in any time span under a couple of decades, it can at least give some guidance about what policies are likely to make things even worse than they are).

    BJN 07.18.11 at 6:23 pm

    MY is a cypher for all the strands among democratic leaning commentary that we don't like (or rather the "left neoliberal" strand Henry was trying to defend), whether or not he actually embodies them. I disagree with him on a lot of things, but he is not the paradigm of the snotty elitist liberal that hates any and all working people that it is tempting to paint him as.

    I think Henry is right that we need to find a good definition of what the left neoliberal thought is, and what we disagree with, rather than just pinning our anxieties on one person who isn't the best example of it. Then he can go back to just being "liberal blogger who is wrong about education reform" and we can all calm down about where he went to college.

    Castorp 07.18.11 at 6:26 pm

    "But the argument that the Democratic Party should adopt the strategy of pursuing policies to enrich those six groups and hope that it all adds up to (a) the public interest and (b) long-run political dominance seems to me to be relatively weak."

    Even if you like left neoliberal solutions to what you perceive are the country's problems then you still have a collective action problem and a massive power asymmetry. In a contest between the imagery "public good" against the Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street, etc. We know who will win. Unions aren't the only answer, of course, but I think if left-neoliberal really understood that politics was a struggle for power, then they would accept that unions were an irreplaceable ally and try to stop the policy drift that has helped destroy them. (Of course, there would still be the problems stemming from globalization and the move to the service sector as well as the competition among states, but surely the left should at least but supporting policies such as card check to ameliorate the problem.)

    It seems to me that Delong's and Yglesias' implicit assumption about politics is that it consists of (should consist of?) a kind of Habermasian public debate that, if it weren't disturbed by the Tea Party or crazy Republicans who keep distracting the public, would come to a reasonable accomodation between left neoliberals and right neoliberals–with the former having the upper hand due to their superior arguments. I say this even though I know that in certain contexts both have an excellent sense of the politics of, say, the debt crisis etc., but I really see no other way to explain this refusal to look at how power affects politics.

    lemmy caution 07.18.11 at 6:28 pm

    Yglesias was a philosophy major and his weak spot for economics 101 derives from its ability to easily generate rhetorical arguments from first principles. He is in general not anti union. He is anti-school union as a part of his ivy league disdain for real teachers and love "teach for america" types though.
    Castorp 07.18.11 at 6:28 pm

    (The above was written before Henry's reply)
    Chris Bertram 07.18.11 at 6:30 pm

    Well as usual, Brad is busy constructing boxes to put people in. Those who read his blog will know that when he isn't sneering at those to his left, he is sighing and groaning at all those policymakers who fail to grasp that _reason dictates_ the adoption of his preferred solution which is in the best interest of everyone. I wonder why they don't adopt his policies then? What could the explanation be? Oh Henry may be right and the fact is that he doesn't have any grasp of political power and mobilization.

    Anyway, universal classes . Readers of Crooked Timber may be aware that a few weeks ago in a post linked to by Russell above, I tried to open a discussion of how we might build a progressive coalition (workers plus hippies if you want to caricature – which I'm sure you will) in the light of the disintegration of the working class as an effective agent for social change (as argued by Jerry Cohen). (Brad put up a post sneering, as usual!) Subsequently, John Q wrote a post on Marx and class which visited some of the same ground. Some people weren't happy with the heterodoxies on display here, but, hey, that's life. At least we were giving it a go.

    And Brad? Well it's back to the impotent shaking of the head and deploring the sheer lack of intelligence of those in government and the journalists that write about them. Why oh why don't they understand?

    (Actually, I'm being unfair to Brad. He _does_ have a theory of politics. It is that people _would_ see the pure light of wisdom radiating from people like him, if only those pesky people to his left would shut up and stop frightening the horses.)

    Henry 07.18.11 at 6:30 pm

    Also – as BJN suggests – this comments thread would be rather better if it got away from the "polemics and specific personalities" as the original post suggested, and concentrated on the underlying questions. I'm actually not trying to defend 'left neoliberalism' here, but instead to try to figure out why it seems to me to be _systematically_ blind about a lot of stuff, regardless of the personal merits or demerits of its various proponents.
    Tom Bach 07.18.11 at 6:30 pm

    Left neoliberalism: people who say that they want nice things and then make it impossible to have them

    Right neoliberalism: people who admit that they don't want nice things and then make it impossible to have them.

    Sebastian H 07.18.11 at 6:32 pm

    "Seriously?"

    Quite. It is a fact that the teacher's unions have dominated California school boards for almost 40 years (and were strong even before that). They get what they want on the school board level, which is the level of union contracts, collective bargaining, and all the things you could want out of local union power. They have also been an enormously powerful force on the state level, being one of the very very very few entities who got their taxes pushed through the CA initiative system in multiple elections in the 1980s and 1990s. The fact that they got what they wanted for decades and decades and still want more is not really worth whining about no matter how much appeal to authority you want to make about the budget structure. Yes *now* that CA's budget is completely falling apart, the teacher's union can't squeeze everything it still wants out of the budget. But that doesn't mean that they haven't completely dominated the education field for 40 years. They have. And if you aren't happy with education in CA, there has to be an enormous heap of blame for the union–it has been as fully in charge as you could plausibly hope for–and for decades. Neo-liberals generally aren't thrilled with the state of education in places like CA, so it is perfectly natural that they would be highly skeptical of the powers that have been in charge of education for 40 years–which in CA is definitely the teachers union.

    Myles 07.18.11 at 6:35 pm

    I'm agreeing that this is a problem, but doubting whether there's a clearly superior non-neoliberal alternative.

    I think Matt has a point with this one. The labour unions of the post-war U.S. socio-political paradigms managed to rely, for their power, on things as insane as banning direct city-to-city trucking. (Basically, before Jimmy Carter liberalized trucking routes in the U.S., you can only truck via specific routes in a specific way, or else incur a much larger expense.) If that kind of thing was the basis of union power, it is clearly not a power that is sustainable.

    It is also notable that American unions cooperated in entrenching enormous utility monopolies such as Ma Bell, from which part of their economic power derived. Again, not necessarily sustainable. When you are relying on things like getting a share of monopoly rents to solidify your position, it builds dissent into the system.

    Chris Bertram 07.18.11 at 6:35 pm

    Castorp:

    bq. It seems to me that Delong's and Yglesias' implicit assumption about politics is that it consists of (should consist of?) a kind of Habermasian public debate that, if it weren't disturbed by the Tea Party or crazy Republicans who keep distracting the public, would come to a reasonable accomodation between left neoliberals and right neoliberals-with the former having the upper hand due to their superior arguments.

    Me:

    bq. He does have a theory of politics. It is that people would see the pure light of wisdom radiating from people like him, if only those pesky people to his left would shut up and stop frightening the horses.

    Actually, I think both of us are right.

    Cranky Observer 07.18.11 at 6:36 pm

    > I'm pretty sure Yglesias began describing himself as "neoliberal"
    > semi-ironically, in response to the fact that that's what everyone
    > else started calling him. My Google skills are not offering up the
    > half-imagined post in which he threw up his hands and went with
    > the flow on this one.

    As far as one could tell from his posts he was pretty angry about it for a while anyway. Somehow he wanted to still be considered a Democrat and progressive while suddenly posting simplistic Microeconomics 101-style explanations of how unfettered perfect markets can solve ever social problem.

    > In general, I think there are enough specific things to disagree
    > with Yglesias about that I'm baffled that he seems so routinely
    > misinterpreted (usually through some sort of tortuous "reading
    > between the lines" which divines his underlying intent).

    Since one of the standard tropes of the juicebox generation bloggers is to "unpack" what others say and decide which subparts are doing the "heavy lifting", I don't see how either you or MY could object to others doing the same to his work. And since the neoliberal analysis – both in general and MY's specifically – contains ginormous unstated assumptions and unexplored chains of consequences IMHO it is quite fair to do so.

    Cranky

    Cranky Observer 07.18.11 at 6:46 pm

    > Henry 07.18.11 at 6:30 pm
    > Also – as BJN suggests – this comments thread would be rather
    > better if it got away from the "polemics and specific personalities" as
    > the original post suggested, and concentrated on the underlying questions.
    > I'm actually not trying to defend 'left neoliberalism' here, but instead to
    > try to figure out why it seems to me to be systematically blind about
    > a lot of stuff, regardless of the personal merits or demerits of its
    > various proponents.

    Henry,
    I agree, but it might help if some of the A-list blogger/analysts who are self-proclaimed neoliberals could provide a thorough (and, one hopes, convincing) definition of what neoliberalism /is/ and a general theory of what its positive policy prescriptions are or are not. "Use markets, outsource government, and unions are OK as long as they don't ask for wages benefits or work rules" is basically just mildly regulated libertarianism[1] which we already have plenty of without it attempting to colonize progressive space or the entire Democratic Party.

    Cranky

    [1] Remember that John Galt carried a union card at the 20th Century Motor; it wasn't until the union "went too far" that he revolted.

    SamChevre 07.18.11 at 6:47 pm

    Chris Bertram:

    Why would it be a bad think for the working class if people in other countries secured a higher standard of living and therefore closed the gap?

    It may not need to be, but it definitely seems universally to have been. (I can come up with a just-so-story as to why, but fundamentally I just say look at Buffalo and Liverpool and the Ruhr and Lille.)

    Russell Arben Fox 07.18.11 at 6:50 pm

    Chris (#64),

    Readers of Crooked Timber may be aware that a few weeks ago in a post linked to by Russell above, I tried to open a discussion of how we might build a progressive coalition (workers plus hippies if you want to caricature – which I'm sure you will) in the light of the disintegration of the working class as an effective agent for social change (as argued by Jerry Cohen).

    I'm still waiting for your promised follow-up to this, by the way!

    geo 07.18.11 at 6:56 pm

    Myles @68: things as insane as banning direct city-to-city trucking

    Myles, what would you estimate is the proportion of all the social damage ever wrought by all the union featherbedding in history as compared with, say, the net social damage wrought by deregulating (or not employing existing regulations on) the financial industry? Subsidizing the energy and transportation industries? Privatizing national security and the corrections system? Allowing concentrated ownership of media? Deferring to the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies? Etc? As one to a million, perhaps? One to ten million? And then, how would you estimate the proportion of all the energy you've expended complaining about abuses that favor unions versus the energy you've expended complaining about abuses that favor business?

    Now do you understand why many others on CT (not me, I emphasize) consider you a heartless and brainless twit?

    Cranky Observer 07.18.11 at 7:00 pm

    > Now do you understand why many others on CT (not me, I
    > emphasize) consider you a heartless and brainless twit?

    Not to mention so often wrong-by-omission; local teamster unions may well have assisted but the primary force behind regulations on inter-city trucking were the railroad executives and the capital behind them. The railroads lost economic and political power throughout the 1960s and 70s; then up pops deregulation of trucking in 1978. What a coinkydinks!

    Cranky

    Myles 07.18.11 at 7:01 pm

    Daily quota exceeded.
    K. Williams 07.18.11 at 7:03 pm

    "In actually-existing-capitalism, as we see it in the US today, we see an enormous disparity of influence between a small group of elite actors (with the financial industry being particularly important) and the vast majority of the public (who endure stagnant real incomes, have minimal influence on politics etc etc). "

    Henry, if the financial industry is, in fact, the most influential player in American politics, how is it that TARP, the most important piece of legislation dealing with the industry in the last decade, was killed by the House of Representatives the first time around, and killed precisely because the vast majority of the public was against it? The initial defeat of TARP erased well over a trillion dollars in equity values, sent bank stocks spiraling downward, and put numerous firms on the edge of bankruptcy. If the financial industry is, in fact, the fundamental arbiter of what happens in Washington, how did it fail so miserably in a task that was so important to it?

    It's remarkable that you can critique Yglesias for having a weak theory of politics when your own is really just a crude updating of the idea that the state is the handmaiden of the capitalist elite, and is almost comically indifferent to the actual political views of most Americans.

    Chris Bertram 07.18.11 at 7:05 pm

    Russell #73 – sorry, I've a conference to organize and an insane list of writing deadlines to meet this summer, hence not so much blogging.
    Myles 07.18.11 at 7:06 pm

    Exceeded again.
    Henry 07.18.11 at 7:11 pm

    bq. Henry, if the financial industry is, in fact, the most influential player in American politics, how is it that TARP, the most important piece of legislation dealing with the industry in the last decade, was killed by the House of Representatives the first time around, and killed precisely because the vast majority of the public was against it? The initial defeat of TARP erased well over a trillion dollars in equity values, sent bank stocks spiraling downward, and put numerous firms on the edge of bankruptcy. If the financial industry is, in fact, the fundamental arbiter of what happens in Washington, how did it fail so miserably in a task that was so important to it?

    There's a very good recent book by Pepper Culpepper, "Quiet Politics and Business Power," that I really need to review properly, which speaks to this. Short version is that business lobbying power is extremely effective, except on those rare occasions when there is genuine public controversy for exogenous reasons, when we may expect to see action taken against business (but quietly undermined again after public attention has drifted away). This seems to me to be a rather good model of what happens – and one that fits well with the TARP story. And while there is no _necessary reason_ that the state should be the handmaiden of the capitalist elite, and almost comically different to the actual political views of most citizens, that surely seems to be the state of American democracy today. I would recommend you read e.g. Larry Bartels – who is nobody's idea of a Marxist firebrand – on the evidence involving US politicians' responsiveness to their constituents.

    roger 07.18.11 at 7:14 pm

    Bob at 18 has a point. Surely one of the easier political issues of our time is taxes. Raise taxes tremendously on the rich, and use the revenue to lower taxes tremendously on the below 250 thou crowd – the 80 percent. A nice, majoritarian solution to the tax problem which runs into the fact that most neo-lib technocrats are among the targets of that movement. Naturally, I don't expect them to welcome it.
    Still, treating taxes as though it were an all up or down proposition is, in fact, what makes Dem policies as unpalatable as GOP ones. The old calculation by red staters, before, was not at all stupid: they could pretty much foresee that the meateating conservatives they would elect would not, in actuality, shrink government. This was simply moral pablum. Enough Dems and GOPers of all stripes would veto any serious inroad into these areas. But they did see that the GOP could get taxes lowered. And they noticed that the Dem reply was to raise taxes not on those who benefited most from our absurdly unequal distribution of wealth, but on the middle and wage class. A tax policy in combination with other government policies to actually shave, say, 10 percent of the wealth from the top 20 percent – who own 75 percent of it – and shift it to the bottom 80 would, among other things, have been a perfectly logical response to the great Recession. Instead, the technocracy mounted the largest welfare operation in history for precisely those top 20, culminating in a truly absurd program of loaning +6 trillion dollars, via the Federal Reserve's 'special' programs, to those with incomes and assets within that top 20. This policy held steady under Bush and Obama, often with the same players facilitating it. There was no excuse for it, and it stuck a knife in the back of the middle and wage class. In compensation, they got a terrible healthcare insurance program that will probably not work when it comes on line, as the Democrats start cutting social security benefit increases and finding ways to carve away on Medicare.
    This is not some unexpected result of a benificent intention. The new class takes care of itself. Yglesias is a product of that new class, dallying with libertarian economic doctrine – for instance, about the American auto company bailouts – and finding in Obama the kind of ruler who he once supported, on his own account , in Mass.: Romney. These poeple many not destroy the Democratic party,but they will hollow it out until it is meaningless.
    chrismealy 07.18.11 at 7:15 pm

    It's been a while since I've read Yglesias but back when I did his marketianism only amounted to advocating liberalizing DC bar licenses and building heights (That's why I gave up on him, enough with the bar licenses already). Atrios says pretty much the same thing about parking mandates and nobody calls him neoliberal. And a weird affection for Scott Sumner. But Henry is onto something, and it's not just Yglesias. Anybody who should have been a socialist and takes econ in an American university gets all the fight sucked out them. That's what happened to me. Mainstream econ induces something somewhere between fatalism and nihilism. Like, it'd be nice to help people but mumble mumble deadweight loss.

    Anyway, I'd be a lot happier with Yglesias if he stopped sucking up to Tyler Cowen and started kicking him in the balls. Cowen is an asshole.

    medrawt 07.18.11 at 7:16 pm

    Since one of the standard tropes of the juicebox generation bloggers is to "unpack" what others say and decide which subparts are doing the "heavy lifting", I don't see how either you or MY could object to others doing the same to his work. And since the neoliberal analysis – both in general and MY's specifically – contains ginormous unstated assumptions and unexplored chains of consequences IMHO it is quite fair to do so.

    I'm not objecting to analysis, I'm objecting to analysis proposing that, say, Yglesias' affection for parliamentary systems (which I'm not qualified to assess, since I don't know anything about them, and you'd be perfectly fair to snark that neither does he) stems from antidemocratic sympathies rather than, say, frustration that the popularly elected POTUS can't get the Senate to confirm anybody, or that individual Senators can, quite undemocratically, enforce chokeholds on the process of government. Cherrypicking comments sections is generally unfair, but mostly I have in mind a variety of "I bet he also thinks [horrible thing] is great!" when, in fact, he's on the record as saying "I think we need to focus attention on trying to alleviate [horrible thing]."

    But I think this side discussion is a good illustration of why in the post Henry suggests moving away from discussion of specific personalities. Personally, I don't think "liberal" or "progressive" vs. "neoliberal" is a helpful way to think about the dynamic here, in part because those terms are, as seen, so loaded as to preemptively color the discussion.

    roger 07.18.11 at 7:17 pm

    PS – some of the beneficiaries of the loan programs were nicely profiled in a past Matt Taibbi piece in the RS:
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411
    Kevin 07.18.11 at 7:17 pm

    The limit of neo-liberalism is liberty. Neo-liberals are nothing more than fascist war mongers with a D in front of their names. So much so I bet you all make ole GW Bush quite jealous. Liberty will win, statist war monger, mass murders will lose.
    hartal 07.18.11 at 7:18 pm

    It's great to see Chris B come out against sneering at people to the left of you!

    Chris B speaks of "the disintegration of the working class as an effective agent for social change (as argued by Jerry Cohen)."

    But the home equity that gave so many Americans the illusion of being middle class has gone up in smoke. Now they suffer all the precarity of the proletarian condition–enduring a bout of unemployment without resources of your own, not having savings for retirement, not being able to pay for your kids' education, and–in the US–having to go without health care even if you do get a job.

    I would like to hear Cohen's actual argument, or even be given the citation.

    Henry seems to agree with an argument by Pierson and Hacker that the juridical de-collectivization of the working class, as Poultanzas would have put it, is the primary cause of the absence of countervailing forces.

    And that points in the direction of focusing politics on the working class. So perhaps Henry and Chris disagree.

    A captured NRLB, employer domination of the secret ballot process and the threat of relocation have conspired to make less than 10% of the private workforce non unionized.

    Henri Vieuxtemps 07.18.11 at 7:19 pm

    Personally, I don't see how these neoliberal technocrats deserve the prefix "left". Surely someone advocating, say, humane treatment of slaves in 1850's South can't be called 'left slavery advocate'? They are correctly identified as 'center-right' everywhere, except of the US, for some reason.
    hartal 07.18.11 at 7:23 pm

    Oh bloody hell. That's enough distracted commenting. Less than 10% unionized. More than 90% of the private workforce deunionized. Hope the point was still clear.
    Gotta go grade papers.
    Cranky Observer 07.18.11 at 7:29 pm

    > medrawt @83
    > Personally, I don't think "liberal" or "progressive" vs. "neoliberal" is a helpful
    > way to think about the dynamic here, in part because those terms are, as seen,
    > so loaded as to preemptively color the discussion.

    I appreciate your #83; I agree with much and disagree with some.

    For the specific quoted point, this is a standard talking point of neoliberals when they come under criticism from progressives or actual liberals. The problem being that it isn't clear to the liberals why they should abandon their principles, goals, and politics to help the move to a gently-regulated libertarianism just because those who have abandoned liberalism to take up the neoliberal mantle say it is a "more optimal" state. Remember that many of the neoconservatives were originally strong leftists; their departure to form a new wing of Republicanism didn't work out very well for anyone on the planet.

    Cranky

    bianca steele 07.18.11 at 7:29 pm

    Ooh, just saw Cranky Observer @ 27: What do you call a libertarian who wants to date rightwing women, though?
    hartal 07.18.11 at 7:31 pm

    re 80 "And while there is no necessary reason that the state should be the handmaiden of the capitalist elite, and almost comically different to the actual political views of most citizens, that surely seems to be the state of American democracy today."

    The state needs tax revenue; there is no taxable income unless business invests; state is therefore structurally subordinate to the interests of private capital.

    The state must do what it can to get private financial actors to make credit flow again, and industrialists to invest again. This is the first policy priority of the state, and it must accomplish it within the property rights regime.

    Henry, this is a really old argument. You'll find it in Poulantzas and the writings of a couple of Stanford academics–Martin Carnoy's book on the state and Joshua Cohen's On Democracy.

    geo 07.18.11 at 7:32 pm

    roger @81: Raise taxes tremendously on the rich, and use the revenue to lower taxes tremendously on the below 250 thou crowd – the 80 percent. A nice, majoritarian solution to the tax problem which runs into the fact that most neo-lib technocrats are among the targets of that movement.

    Two factual questions: 1) aren't a lot more than 80 percent of in the "below 250 thou crowd"? and 2) doesn't that include most neo-lib technocrats? If the neo-libs were indeed rich, then understanding their resistance to majoritarian solutions would be easy. But most of them aren't; there's something else going on. Like the original Progressives, the Lippmannites, and New Republic liberals in every age, they seem to dread the great populist beast and to have committed themselves instead to working with enlightened members of the ruling class. It's a fantasy, of course, in practice, they always wind up working for, rather than with, the ruling class. But it's a persistent one. You might almost call it a zombie fantasy.

    James Reffell 07.18.11 at 7:34 pm

    He is anti-school union as a part of his ivy league disdain for real teachers and love "teach for america" types though.

    So, Teach for America folks aren't "real teachers"? Wonder what they're doing in those classrooms, then. Playing parcheesi?

    Henry 07.18.11 at 7:37 pm

    hartal – haven't read the Carnoy. Josh Cohen is of course very interesting on this, and perhaps the Poulantzas who seemed to be starting to emerge from the Althusserian maze in State-Power-Socialism would have been interesting too had he survived, but his theory of the state was too bound up in structuralist abstractions for me ever to buy fully. Ada Przeworski has a lovely little book, long out of print, on theories of the state, which I remember as having been particularly good and concise on the Poulantzas-Milliband debate. And speaking of the generational move from leftism to neo-liberalism
    Gordon Henderson 07.18.11 at 7:37 pm

    Matthew Yglesias: I think it's more plausible to say that the policy environment has grown more hostile to unions as a result of unions' decline.

    The graph you linked to shows that from around 1937 to 1980, 25% or more of the labor force was unionized. Since 1980, less than 25% of the labor force has been unionized. Once could fairly say that "Since Ronald Reagan became President, the share of the workforce that is unionized has dropped to pre-New Deal levels." Attributing decline in union power to Reagan is more about the drop to pre-New deal levels of union membership since 1980 than it is about union density in itself. Do you think that Reagan's economic policies had no impact on union membership?

    Gordon Henderson 07.18.11 at 7:46 pm

    Actually, I take that back. Other than disrupting the air traffic controller's strike, I can't find any evidence of Reagan having any anti-union policies. It appears Matthew Yglesias is right!
    Castorp 07.18.11 at 7:46 pm

    "What do you call a libertarian who wants to date rightwing women, though?"

    A conservative?

    medrawt 07.18.11 at 7:47 pm

    Cranky @88:

    Well, I don't think I'm a neoliberal myself, but who knows, I might be! What I really mean by the comment you quoted is that I think there are multiple dynamics of argument here: the fiscal v. monetary dispute discussed in the post by Mr. Henwood, the broader ideological conflict between "gently regulated libertarianism" and real liberalism/progressivism, and the dispute over how to politically resolve (or win) the actual current fights going on in government, generally between actors who are hopelessly disappointing to everyone participating in this comment thread. I don't think you can reliably depend on a binary that will usefully pick out how people who feel about one of those disputes feels about the others.

    K. Williams 07.18.11 at 7:55 pm

    "The state needs tax revenue; there is no taxable income unless business invests; state is therefore structurally subordinate to the interests of private capital."

    Actually, the state can print whatever money it needs, at least in the case of the US. It chooses not to, but it is not, in any sense, dependent on business for taxable income. Voters, by contrast, are very much dependent on business investment for their livelihoods, since capitalism is the only system that has proven capable of generating high living standards for the vast majority of a country's population. Which may have something to do with why a politics based on pitting labor v. capital has never come close to being a majoritarian politics in the US.

    Cahal 07.18.11 at 7:58 pm

    I'm happy to see this, because over the last week I have been discussing the UK austerity drive with Scott Sumner in his comments, and it went a little something like this:

    Me: 'I hate austerity.'

    Scott: 'NGDP is high.'

    Me: 'But only because of regressive tax increases. People are seeing huge erosion of living standards, especially the poor.'

    Scott: 'NGDP is high.'

    Me: 'But what about the halving of child disability benefit at a time when corporation taxes are being decreased.'

    Scott: 'Britain has high government expenditure as % of GDP.'

    This is obviously a characture – Scott said plenty of substantial things. But he seemed unable to contemplate anything other than aggregates. It remind some of a post where Brad Delong called out Milton Friedman for basically conceding the macroeconomy had to be managed, but trying to 'hide' it away as a 'natural', constant growth of the money supply.

    Similarly, blaming CBs for the GD/LD is like saying 'well you do actually need to manage the economy, because it is unstable', but then trying to frame it as a failure of governments.

    Netbrian 07.18.11 at 7:59 pm

    On Matt Y's twitter feed, he seemed to be looking for specific areas of policy disagreement between him and people more sympathetic to the old left-wing coalition. I would say some major examples would be -

    a) Private provision of public service
    b) Trade
    c) Immigration
    d) Degree of regulation of business practices (for instance, regulatory limits on returned check fees.)

    Tom Bach 07.18.11 at 8:09 pm

    Reagan was anti- labor .
    roger 07.18.11 at 8:17 pm

    k.williams, in the 50s, the marginal tax rate for millionaires was about 90 percent. The last time wealth disparity was as high as it is right now was in 1929. So, basically, I'd say Americans are very content to use their majoritarian power to soak the rich, knowing that the rich do nothing but manage and invest, and that they will continue to do so in the U.S. – as they have done through the 20th century – with much grumbling, but without really pouting or taking Ayn Rand's solution seriously. Contemporary capitalism doesn't mean aberrant inequality – this is more characteristic of such less developed countries as Turkey and Mexico.
    However, at the moment, there is no party mechanism for even trying to achieve a majoritarian solution. Both parties, for instance, heartily approved of what the Fed lending program was all about. Both parties have designed an industrial policy for the U.S. that de-favors manufacturing and favors finances. At the moment, it looks like the policy elites are simply going to continue down that path for a while. But I'd bet Americans will surprise you if that policy continues to produce a lowering of their standard of living. Then 'ideals' like capitalism will go right out the window. Socialism is an ideal, but capitalism will always simply be a vehicle.
    John Quiggin 07.18.11 at 8:17 pm

    Coming in v late, and responding to MY@1, one of my many incomplete and ongoing series of posts (on "Hope") is aimed at dealing with precisely the question: given that the political divide is now between various versions of technocratic rationality on the left (this isn't just a problem for neoliberalism as its usually defined*) and a politics of tribalism and top-1 per cent class interest on the right, how can the left motivate the kind of political mobilisation that is needed? The answer I've sketched out is the need for a renewal of a positive kind of utopianism, looking behind day-do-day political realities to what might feasibly be achieved in the future.

    * It's possible that I'm using technocratic rationality more broadly than others, but support for large-scale job creation, restoration of progressive taxation, attempts to improve the position of unions and so on all seem to me to fit this label, whereas nothing in the rhetoric of the US Republican Party does so.

    LeeEsq 07.18.11 at 8:29 pm

    Attn medrawt at 83: I think the mistake that Yglesias makes frequently is that he believing that if things were a little different than policy would go the way he wanted to more often. Recently he had a post that basically pointed out that the cost of building a continental high-speed rail network is slightly less than what was spent in Afghanistan and Iraq. Factually this is true, if the United States government did not spend so much bad/stupid on things like the War on Terror or the War on Drugs than there would be more money to spend on better things.

    However, Yglesias seems to assume that the United States government would spend more on things he likes, and that most of the readers of this blog would like, if it did not spend money on the bad/stupid things. I think this is a mistaken assumption. Without an actual grassroots movement/demand for a continental high-speed railnetwork than it would most likely not happen even if the money. If a trillion dollars is suddenly made available for trnasportation, most of it would go to road contruction/repair or air travel rather than bus/rail transit.

    This is why I'm not really much of a fan of Yglesias' advoacy for parliamentary government. Its one of his if things were a little different than things would go my way more often desires. Without a grassroots demand/movement for something, whether it would be desegregation, labor rights, welfare state programs, or the Second Avenue subway than they won't happen.

    Chris Bertram 07.18.11 at 8:33 pm

    Matt Yglesias is complaining on twitter that his critics don't really have any policy alternatives. I've tweeted back that Juliet Schor's Plenitude represents one kind of alternative, and it does. Building a coalition to support that is hard, and maybe for Yglesias it is outside the "Overton Window" so doesn't count as an alternative.
    K. Williams 07.18.11 at 8:41 pm

    "k.williams, in the 50s, the marginal tax rate for millionaires was about 90 percent. The last time wealth disparity was as high as it is right now was in 1929. So, basically, I'd say Americans are very content to use their majoritarian power to soak the rich, knowing that the rich do nothing but manage and invest, and that they will continue to do so in the U.S. – as they have done through the 20th century – with much grumbling, but without really pouting or taking Ayn Rand's solution seriously."

    The marginal tax rate on millionaires in the 1950s has little or nothing to do with what I was talking about (the lack of majoritarian support for a labor v. capital politics), and, for that matter, has nothing to do with the left v. neoliberalism question. Yglesias is in favor of higher taxes on millionaires. Delong is. I am. More important, it's a profound mistake to see the high marginal tax rate as in some way an expression, in any sense, of anticapitalist sentiment. In the first place, the number of people who were actually subject to that tax was vanishingly small. Second, most of the investment that was done then was done by corporations, not private investors - companies generally funded investments out of earnings, rather than relying on capital markets. So there was no conflict between taxing a few really rich people at high rates and being friendly to business.

    Finally, the often-unnoticed truth of the postwar years in America is that while those years were very good for workers, they were just as good for corporations. American companies have never enjoyed profit margins as high as they did in the 1950s and 1960s, and corporate income never constituted a greater share of GDP than it did in the early 1960s. (The corporate share in the middle of this decade equaled that of the earlier period, but once you account for the fact that a hefty chunk of the "profits" earned by the financial industry during the bubble were in fact illusory, the earlier period retains its title.) The magic of the postwar era was not that it somehow exalted the interests of labor over business, but rather that labor and business were able to happily prosper together. I'll just say it again - there's never been a time in American history when an anti-capitalist, anti-market project had a hope of being majoritarian.

    Ben Alpers 07.18.11 at 8:51 pm

    I'm coming late to this discussion. Though I have a lot I feel like saying, I'll limit myself to addressing two very separate points.

    1) temp argues @17 (in defense of MY's technocratic tendencies) that "successful social programs generate their own constituency." What's missing from that statement is a single word: eventually. Eventually, a successful social program builds it own constituency. But one cannot create the political capital to pass such a program based on a future constituency that sees its benefits. And major social programs take time to take full effect and can be derailed en route to implementation. This may, still, be the story of the ACA. Whether or not it would eventually build its own constituency is a question that we may never get an answer to. But I think it's fair to say that a more thoroughgoing and successful reform of our healthcare access system would require the support of precisely the sort of populist coalition that the technocrats disdain.

    2) There is, or at least was, an idiosyncratic, American use of the word "neoliberal" that was common in the 1980s and had little or nothing to do with the more standard, international use of that word. It was a political construction parallel to "neoconservatism" and made relative to the (New Deal) conception of liberalism, in part in part in response to the perceived collapse of liberalism in the wake of the rise of Reaganism. This usage was more-or-less coined by Charles Peters at The Washington Monthly and later received a lot of airplay at The New Republic . For those interested in this issue, see my post on the "Strange, Transatlantic Career of 'Neoliberalism"'over on the U.S. Intellectual History Blog . (I did some follow up posts to it, too, but I don't want to put this comment in moderation by linking to them. Just hit the "neoliberalism" tag under the linked post and they should come up.)

    The Raven 07.18.11 at 8:54 pm

    I want to draw people's attention to the following sentence in
    From an elite point of view, the primary problem with a jobs program-and with employment-boosting infrastructure projects-is that they would put a floor under employment, making workers more confident and less likely to do what the boss says, and less dependent on private employers for a paycheck.

    I think this applies with even greater force to health care. Even though a universal health-care plan in the USA would save most businesses money and improve their international competitiveness, the opposition has been intense, and this may be because it makes people independent of employers for their very health; in some cases their lives.

    Jim Harrison 07.18.11 at 8:55 pm

    We're not supposed to go in for remarks about personalities, but after all the scholastic discussions about universal classes, isn't Yglesias finally just a young man on the make who has embraced with enthusiasm the moral and intellectual compromises needed to secure and keep a good job and substantial income? Or if you must generalize, isn't a good bit of the appeal of neoliberalism to academics simply a function of needing to retain some claim to independent judgment while basically sucking up to the interests with the money?

    I think the smarter conservative strategists understand how this all works more clearly than people on the left or even the center. They are taking their cue from how the Counterreformation succeeded. The church didn't have to burn Lutherans at the stake, and it certainly wasn't take meaningful steps to correct its ingrained corruption. It simply had to make sure that the good bureaucratic jobs were only available to the faithful.

    elm 07.18.11 at 8:59 pm

    K. Williams @99

    capitalism is the only system that has proven capable of generating high living standards for the vast majority of a country's population

    When and where did that occur?

    Also, what version of "capitalism" are you talking about? I assume you mean something like post-WWII (watered-down) Social Democracy with economic regulation and a government-run pension/anti-poverty program like Social Security.

    medrawt 07.18.11 at 9:02 pm

    LeeEsq:

    I don't think the various things you're drawing together quite cohere the way you suggest. In particular, I happen to have the blog post you mention right here and I don't think it says what you think it does; I think he's making a rhetorical point that our political culture is very not-introspective about the value of the things we're purchasing, and particularly pointing out how ridiculous it is that the cost of building such an HSR system is supposed to be somehow beyond the pale when we've spent and continue to spend more on something that, I imagine most of us would agree, is worth significantly less. I believe somewhere in the archives you can find him citing similar examples and saying something like "look, I know that if we weren't spending money on [x] we wouldn't immediately turn around and spend it on [y]." I could be mistaken on this point.

    Actually, where I think he's used this model before is not in terms of infrastructure but in terms of foreign aid. If we'd taken the money we've spent on these wars and put it towards ensuring drinkable water or eradicating malaria, etc., how much further along would we be towards achieving some of the supposed goals of fighting the war? i.e., although there's an idealistic truth to what he's saying, I take it to mostly be a rhetorical club.

    elm 07.18.11 at 9:03 pm

    The Raven @ 109:

    I think that's right. Universal health care would significantly empower low and middle income households and make them less dependent on any particular employer. That's why I like it and, I have no doubt, why others dislike it.

    Russell Arben Fox 07.18.11 at 9:10 pm

    Chris (#106),

    Matt Yglesias is complaining on twitter that his critics don't really have any policy alternatives. I've tweeted back that Juliet Schor's Plenitude represents one kind of alternative, and it does. Building a coalition to support that is hard, and maybe for Yglesias it is outside the "Overton Window" so doesn't count as an alternative.

    I looked at Schor's Plenitude briefly as I was surveying several possible books to use for a class I'll be teaching in the fall on "Simplicity and Sustainability", and on first glance I wasn't too impressed. Which disappointed me, because I've really liked and learned from a lot of Schor's work in the past. Did I miss something about the book, do you think? Your comment suggest that her recommendations there were a good deal more comprehensive and serious than I initially took them to be.

    K. Williams 07.18.11 at 9:10 pm

    "When and where did that occur?

    "Also, what version of "capitalism" are you talking about? I assume you mean something like post-WWII (watered-down) Social Democracy with economic regulation and a government-run pension/anti-poverty program like Social Security."

    Well, relative to the standards of humanity, it happened in the United States in the first two decades of the 20th century, although it obviously took the postwar era to see its most vibrant flourishing. Japan did it beginning in the 1970s. South Korea did it beginning in the early 1990s. And most of Europe had done it by the 1960s.

    roac 07.18.11 at 9:12 pm

    It simply had to make sure that the good bureaucratic jobs were only available to the faithful.

    And offer free education to the children of the nobility.

    Chris Bertram 07.18.11 at 9:16 pm

    Russell #114 – well it may suffer a bit from trying to address a wide popular audience. I think it is making lots of the right noises though and serves as a counterexample to Yglesias's TINA.
    elm 07.18.11 at 9:25 pm

    K. Williams @115

    In all your instances, you're describing regulated economies (in the U.S. 1900-1920 falls right within the Progressive Era and includes the creation of the FTC, FDA, Department of Commerce, and Department of Labor). That said, capitalism wasn't doing much for women at the time.

    dbk 07.18.11 at 9:26 pm

    Coming to the discussion vv late:

    Chris Bertram@59 re: a viable politics for the 21st century:
    Given that capital is global, pushback needs to be global. Or rather, there needs to be pushback at the local level globally by the "wage" class against the "ruling" (financial) 1%. The folks protesting in Greece learned a great deal from Tahir Square and Madison, something little noted in the MSM. The problem seems to me to be persistent/residual nationalist loyalties – what does the unemployed university graduate in Cairo have to do with the teachers of Madison, and what do either have to do with impoverished pensioners in Athens? Quite a lot, actually, but how to overcome nationalist allegiances for global allegiances (as capital has so effortlessly done)? I don't think the answer lies in neo-liberal / technocratic approaches.

    John Quiggin @104. Hear, hear for hope.

    I'm very impressed – Brad DeLong and Mathew Yglesias both responding to this post! Doubtless both are convinced they're the Smartest People in Any Room They Enter , and they certainly make this humble commenter feel stupid (that's the point, right?). But I had the good fortune to meet someone smarter (bloggers on CT excepted, of course), namely Greece's new Minister of Finance, possibly the Smartest Person in Any Universe Imaginable. I would really, really like to see him debate DeLong

    Pithlord 07.18.11 at 9:44 pm

    Yglesias is obviously opposed to populism since if there is one thing everyone knows it is that no one in American history ever built a populist movement around libealizing monetary policy.
    John Quiggin 07.18.11 at 9:56 pm

    @Ben I've always assumed that both DeLong and Yglesias mean "neoliberal" in this sense, and not the standard international sense.
    roger 07.18.11 at 10:00 pm

    I'm not sure what point you are making, mr. K.W. First, you tell me that using majoritarian power to raise taxes on the rich is somehow anti-capitalist and Americans don't embrace anticapitalism. Then I point out that raising taxes on the rich is, in fact, very American. Then you say that it isn't anticapitalist. This is a very confusing argument. Who denies that corporations were profitable in the 50s? In fact, this was one of Galbraith's points at the time – corporations don't necessarily operate to maximize profit if they can find stability.
    I don't know what anti-capitalism or anti-market means, in your sense. Americans often embrace anti-market things – for instance, social security is a nice, anti-market means to retirement, embraced with fervor by Americans. What is the favorite institution in this country, far above corporations? The post office. The Gallop polls have consistently shown this. I do think that Americans would not embrace the welfare system for the banks that were devised by the technocrats if they knew about them in full. So does the Federal Reserve, which is why they want to hide that stuff.
    So, let some party embrace a simple platform – tax decreases for the majority, to be paid for by tax increases for the minority of the wealthy – and run with it a while, to the point that it gains some foothold in the media world, and I bet it would actually work very well. But the press and the political elite would, of course, oppose it.
    bianca steele 07.18.11 at 10:18 pm

    The only blog post I wrote that got more than a few comments on tried to support a definition of "neoliberal" that seems similar to the Ben Alpers mentions. His post at the US Intellectual History blog is the only time I have seem it defended. (I could have sworn the term was used in something like this sense in What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts? but Google Books says no.)

    I also see that the post was a response to a recent alumnus of Dartmouth, not of Harvard, though IIRC he was in or around the n+1 circle, and that he claimed the confusion between "neoliberal" and "liberal" was not his but Walter Benn Michaels'.

    Brad DeLong 07.18.11 at 10:25 pm

    Henry Farrell writes:

    >[Brad DeLong wrote:]

    >>Henry's theory of politics is that successful and beneficial long-run politics can only be accomplished by a political party that is the political arm of a universal class-of a self-confident, organized group whose collective material interest is in fact the public interest.

    >Brad – I'm not at all sure where you're getting this from, but it's about as far from my theory of politics as one can get. If you can point to somewhere where I make an argument that even hints at this, I would love to see it. My ideal of politics is one in which power asymmetries between different classes of actors are as minimal as possible, so as to forestall the development of systematic inequalities of outcome in the marketplace, in society, and in politics

    Oh. I got you wrong then.

    I thought that you thought that rational public policy was possible only within the Democratic coalition. Thus I thought you wanted our interest groups–Big Labor and Big Celebrity–to absolutely and completely stomp their interest groups so that our side could exercise political hegemony and make the world a better place.

    It turns out that what you want is for our Big Labor and Big Celebrity to neutralize and offset their Big Business and Big Fundamentalism, so that then the public interest can bubble up via grassroots democracy.

    I really don't think that is workable or desirable

    Tom Bach 07.18.11 at 10:31 pm

    I can make neither heads nor tales out of J. Bradford Delong's last post. As I understand the Farrell's ideal political system it is one in which money and position are neutralized so that various interest groups and individuals can discuss more or less rationally which policies and end points they'd like to implement in order to achieve. Of course, I could be wrong.

    What Delong hopes to achieve by being a horse's ass, or in any event writing like one, escapes me entirely.

    elm 07.18.11 at 10:39 pm

    It turns out that what you want is for our Big Labor and Big Celebrity to neutralize and offset their Big Business and Big Fundamentalism, so that then the public interest can bubble up via grassroots democracy.

    That's an extraordinary interpretation. Obviously Henry can write on his own behalf, but his prior post nowhere hints at "public interest" while it explicitly mentions class interest of the "working and lower middle classes".

    It's not obvious that any objective "public interest" exists, while it is obvious that individuals have specific interests and can organize around those interests and organizations can build coalitions on the basis of mutual support.

    shah8 07.18.11 at 11:07 pm

    Okay, I've generally internalized that the amount of polarization that goes on when the topic is Yglesias as some kind of exotic light antisemitism, but this is such a stupid thread. And Henry is unfathomably generous to Doug Henwood, because the link is to a screed that essentially has no comprehension of why Yglesias or anyone else would want inflation targeting (I am not saying Yglesias is right, here), and then drifts off to (for all intents and purposes) gold-buggery, and frankly weird interpretation of the monetary motives behind populism, and just keeps going on

    The big thing that's wrong with this thread is that there is almost zero interest in understanding how political systems work, despite all the people who think they're hip to it all. There's almost zero interest in past technocratic policies or the people involved in them. We have totally no idea who's a left technocrat or not? Shouldn't we be talking about Larry Summers and NAFTA? Or welfare reform, section 8 housing, drug decriminalization, LNCB, or any number of other technocratic projects, left or right?

    Instead it's all about how Matt's a weenie.

    *sigh*

    Matt's just is not as dumb as some of y'all think he is. He's wrong, a lot, and you do yourselves the favor of just arguing *that* instead of yelling at Matt. He's not your demagogue, okay? Moreover, he's usually arguing from a sequence of ideas and positions, i.e., he almost always makes fairly internally consistent arguments, and you have to work just a wee bit harder to noodle them (when it's not education, of course).

    Steve LaBonne 07.18.11 at 11:14 pm

    What Delong hopes to achieve by being a horse's ass, or in any event writing like one, escapes me entirely.

    It's the latest volley in his heroic one-man war against creeping social1sm. And he has to go on at length because on CT he doesn't get to just delete comments he doesn't like.

    K. Williams 07.18.11 at 11:48 pm

    "In all your instances, you're describing regulated economies (in the U.S. 1900-1920 falls right within the Progressive Era and includes the creation of the FTC, FDA, Department of Commerce, and Department of Labor)."

    Yes, I'm describing regulated economies - in the case of the 1900-1920 US economy, regulated by regulations proposed by the Progessives, who were the neoliberals of their day. I'm unaware of any neoliberals of note who oppose the FTC, the FDA, or the SEC. On the contrary, sensible regulation (as opposed to absurd regulation, like airline and trucking regulation pre-1978) is clearly an essential part of any healthy market economy. The difference between the Chris-Bertram left and the Yglesias/Delong neoliberals is not a difference over the proper scope of regulation, or marginal tax rates. It's a difference between people whose fundamental orientation is anticapitalist, and who view business primarily as a force to be opposed, and those who see markets and private enterprise as central, if flawed, elements in any healthy economy and polity. In that debate, American voters have always sided with the second group, which is why the Marxist/Marxisant left represented by Robin and Henwood has always had little or no influence on American politics.

    K. Williams 07.18.11 at 11:56 pm

    "I'm not sure what point you are making, mr. K.W. First, you tell me that using majoritarian power to raise taxes on the rich is somehow anti-capitalist and Americans don't embrace anticapitalism."

    Mysterious. Where, exactly, did I say that raising taxes on the rich is "somehow anti-capitalist"? On the contrary, I quite explicitly said that the high marginal rates on the rich of the 1950s were not an expression of anticapitalist sentiment. The thread is right in front of you. How can you misread this badly, or this deliberately?

    christian_h 07.19.11 at 1:20 am

    Okay, I've generally internalized that the amount of polarization that goes on when the topic is Yglesias as some kind of exotic light antisemitism

    WTF?

    MPAVictoria 07.19.11 at 1:27 am

    "Big Celebrity"
    Who the hell is big celebrity?
    andthenyoufall 07.19.11 at 1:29 am

    (Comment 1 of 2) People are making BDelong's comments out to be a little more mysterious than they are.

    MYglesias recommends certain (extremely sensible) policies. In fact, he does so frequently. Just as frequently, leftier-than-thou bloggerasters take him to task for it. Their policy critiques, however, are confused, garble details, and can be difficult to take seriously on the merits, even if there is something appealing about their indignation. HFarrell sees the angel in the marble: beneath the bloggerasters' apparent critique of the substance of MY's policy preferences lies an attack on his strategy. Specifically, liberal policies alienate and weaken the collective actors and organized interest groups who would make the left wing strong; the bloggerasters' counter-proposals are intended to unify and strengthen collective actors and organized interest groups around an energized left.

    Now, HF doesn't come out and say this next part, but obviously the bloggerasters' prescription, even after HF's charitable exegesis, makes no sense at all unless you assume that a Democratic Party controlled by unified and strengthened organized interest groups would actually advance the public good. And it would be naive to assume that this would happen, unless the interests of these interest groups were themselves quite close to the public good.

    This is where BD comes on the scene (today wearing his "massive erudition" hat rather than his loathsome "red-baiting" hat). We've heard this song before, BD reminds us, and we didn't like how it turned out. Adam Smith sang it first, and in retrospect it looks like a sad little apologetic for the petty fascism of the squirearchy. Marx sang it next, and that hasn't played out well, either. The theory behind the "universal class" approach to politics has always been impeccable. The problem is that it has never worked in practice.

    HF response to BD was that he didn't want just one class (farmers-workers ftw!), but I think that pluralistic interpretation of what a "universal class" is was explicit in BD's original comment. To reply that both sides have organized interest groups at their disposal doesn't seem germane to me. So I'm not sure why HF is acting baffled.

    I found BD's intellectual contextualization of HF's exegesis extremely enlightening. For better or for worse, I think I understand what the bloggerasters are after much better now.

    Cranky Observer 07.19.11 at 1:39 am

    > "Big Celebrity"
    > Who the hell is big celebrity?

    I believe that is a reference to the Democrats supposedly being the "party of Hollywood" and the decadent creative classes (both Los Angeles and NYC) in general.

    Cranky

    MPAVictoria 07.19.11 at 1:43 am

    "I believe that is a reference to the Democrats supposedly being the "party of Hollywood" and the decadent creative classes (both Los Angeles and NYC) in general."

    Thanks Cranky.
    What does Brad have against them? Did Al Pachino steal his lunch money as a kid or something?

    andthenyoufall 07.19.11 at 2:01 am

    (comment 2 of 2) I separated this comment from the previous one because the first one is meta and not germane to these points.

    First: It's really difficult to take a self-anointed champion of the left seriously when he's in thrall to 19th century illusions about how money works. We should be printing money until inflation kicks in, full stop. It's hard to believe that the commenters who don't understand macroeconomics have clever, subtle views about the intersection of class interests, collective action, and political sustainability.

    Second: There's nothing left-wing or politically savvy about conceptualizing public services as jobs programs. Thinking that the state can (and should) deliver huge benefits to the public by running various programs is the authentic left-wing position. If I think the state can and should deliver more benefits to the public than you do, my position is further to the left. (This is in response to all those who think public transit should be run more for the sake of the bus drivers, schools more for the sake of the teachers, than they currently are.)

    Third: There is apparently something "unsustainable" about "neo-liberalism". I believe that what people mean by this is "I wish the Democratic party were further to the left, and also the Democratic party isn't as successful as I want it to be." (Right? Is there any evidence that "neo-liberalism," whatever the heck that is, is unsustainable, beyond political reversals for the left during the alleged reign of neo-liberalism?) I wish that the Dems were further to the left too, but I'm under no illusions. There's nothing meaningful lurking beneath the fact that sometimes they win elections, and sometimes they lose them. So far no one has said anything here that puts the sustainability of political coalitions on a stronger footing that the dormitivity of opium.

    Castorp 07.19.11 at 2:06 am

    Shah: "Okay, I've generally internalized that the amount of polarization that goes on when the topic is Yglesias as some kind of exotic light antisemitism"

    That is really ridiculous. I think insofar as that is true that there is polarization–and I don't think it was manifested here–it is due to Matt's snarky dismissal of views he disagrees with. That tends to irritate those who disagree with him. His new FB comment system has largely fixed that problem though.

    Sigh: "Matt's just is not as dumb as some of y'all think he is."

    Who thinks he's dumb? I actually think that given Matt's committments, his focus on monetary policy is a really good and somewhat original idea. I would certainly sign on to it for now, given that nothing better seems possible in the short-term. That still begs the question of whether his or other left neoliberals' theory of politics is correct. I happen to think that there is failure to recognize that power must be grappled with in politics.

    shah8 07.19.11 at 2:27 am

    Didn't say it without reason. A permanent sense of controversy about the person? A prenumbra of shadowy suspicion about his so-called liberal cred? The fact that threads that involve Yglesias in some way tends towards a focus on the person and not the argument? Arguments that start from something that the person didn't say or do? Dude (ettes)s, this sort of thread is really common in threads about minority athletes where there's alot of white people commenting. That's usually people working out their self-esteem issue in cloaked fashion. There are versions of this for successful women, too.

    This is idiotic and unbecoming.

    no seriously, idiotic and unbecoming, alright?

    There is *nothing* there in Doug Henwood's post. It's a rant that wouldn't be out of place at Rense.com. There's nothing actually *real* to engage with! And you know what? Half the time, if not more, the thread is about a misinterpretation of what Yglesias said. And I'm fed up with it, so leave it, Castorp, and I don't mind the "he's the real response.

    DougJ 07.19.11 at 2:36 am

    unhelpful personal attack, and hence deleted.
    Henry 07.19.11 at 2:42 am

    shah8 – if you have any actual evidence that people who dislike Yglesias here, dislike him because he's Jewish, then show it. If you don't then I'd suggest you shut it. I'm neither particularly tolerant of actual anti-Semitism, nor of meritless accusations that others are anti-Semitic – both tend to disrupt discussion, and say more about the prejudices of the person misbehaving than anything else.
    Henry 07.19.11 at 2:46 am

    Also – since this thread seems to be degenerating, any further cp,,emts which are either (a) personal attacks on Matt Yglesias, or (b) personal attacks on people who are unhappy with Matt Yglesias, and which (c ) have no significant argumentative merit in my doubtless subjective opinion, are likely to be deleted.
    DougJ 07.19.11 at 2:47 am

    Nice comment policy here.
    Henry 07.19.11 at 2:48 am

    Yes. And that's the point, thanks.
    DougJ 07.19.11 at 2:48 am

    People are allowed to have idiotic rants back and forth about anti-Semitism, but it's unhelpful for me to point out that Yglesias (whom I like as a blogger) is compromised by his allegiances to fellow young pundits.
    Henry 07.19.11 at 3:00 am

    DougJ – as I hope was made clear above in #140, idiotic rants on anti-Semitism will actually not be tolerated. People who keep on engaging in rants of this variety tend to get permanent bans. And your own comment, while certainly not bannable, was rather more sweeping and ungenerous in the actuality than in the summarization that you present above. As noted well above in #65, I _really_ don't want this thread to degenerate into a "Matthew Yglesias: Love Him or Hate Him?" polemic back and forth, which doubtless would be satisfying to some of its participants, but would not provide much in the way of useful conversation or argument. So if you have specific criticisms of specific claims that he makes, go ahead – but drive-by's like the deleted comment aren't going to cut it.
    Lee A. Arnold 07.19.11 at 3:01 am

    Cranky Observer #37: "Replying to Lee A. Arnold's #32 would derail the thread on the definition of neoliberalism, so I won't. But to me it is one of the most naive pieces of political analysis I have seen on a blog of the nature of CT in many years."

    If you think that destroying the Republican Party is not a great way to start an era of "collective action", then you will never have anything like a valid theory of politics.

    You don't need a large, active interest group. Actually that would be a waste of effort, since you already have a pre-existing process of decision-making in Washington and other capitals. There are plenty of voters already worried about jobs, healthcare, retirement, the future. Their opinions already poll in the required way, and that fact is all you should need.

    Derail the definition of neoliberalism? Horrors!

    The question is how to secure gains in healthcare, retirement, education, the future. Because I love Doug Henwood. And he is absolutely correct in the top quote above. "New Dealish stuff" would "make workers more confident", in other words it would change workers' expectations, in other words it would give workers new PREFERENCES (a bit of gibberish from the economics argot, sorry to be so naive or perhaps it is "go naiveal on your ass".) Even so far as to changing how they price other things in markets and so on. Something the power structure is frightened of, because it is set to cause a regular implosion from within.

    It may never happen however, because it now is clear that liberals and progressives don't have any sense for tactical battle. So they fail on the whole praxis axis of a theory of politics.

    hartal 07.19.11 at 3:05 am

    Dear Shri shah8,

    I am not accusing Mr. Yglesias of being a rootless cosmopolitan bent on the destruction of Der Vaterland. I am saying that his inflation target is a thinly disguised mechanism for a retrograde nationalism.

    Look for example at how Joe Gagnon defends the inflation target. He himself notes that QE2 did not do much to get the banks to lend money out, so he defends it in terms of alternative routes: 'The basic channel is the bond market. The Fed is buying up long-term bonds and that pushes interest rates down on those bonds. That's what makes it attractive for people to borrow. The market then does some arbitrage. The equity market looks at the bond market and says "oh, well, long-term bond rates are low, so we are going to discount future dividends and profits differently." This makes the value of stocks more attractive and raises their values. And this encourages businesses to invest. Also, international investors look at rates of return in other countries, and they say "these other countries have higher rates of return than in the U.S.," so that pushes the dollar down. These aren't direct channels of monetary policy, but they are linked.'

    Yes QE eased worries about deflation, but it is being defended here primarily in terms of its effect on the dollar.

    An inflation target pursued through QE is really a form of competitive devaluation, a nationalist attempt to export one's way out of crisis.

    I am only making the point that Joe Stiglitz already has. Is Stiglitz a thinly disguised (self-hating) anti-Semite?

    See http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/nov/01/currency-war-no-winners

    Also, towards the end of increasing net exports the inflation target may increase the demand for labor here via real wage reductions effected through price inflation.

    This is an intervention aimed at winning the world market, increasing net exports on the backs of labor. It is precisely a politics of reactionary mercantilism masquerading under the benign name of an inflation target.

    Technocratic monetary Keynesianism points not to a better but a more gloomy future.

    The fact of the matter is that neither Robin nor Henwood understands what is fundamentally wrong with the inflation target. Stiglitz does.

    The Keynesianism that we have will end in tragedy; neo-classical economics is a farce.

    DougJ 07.19.11 at 3:06 am

    "And your own comment, while certainly not bannable, was rather more sweeping and ungenerous in the actuality than in the summarization that you present above."

    My point is this: a lot of people chalk Matt's occasional glibertarian tendencies to the fact he considers himself a neoliberal. I think this is wrong. Jon Chait and Brad DeLong are neoliberals too (and probably farther to the right on the social democrat/neoliberal spectrum than Matt is), but they don't write endless posts about the evils of barber licenses.

    Why don't they? I would posit that they don't because they don't hang around with the McSudermans. I think that's quite a valid point, given the context here.

    geo 07.19.11 at 3:32 am

    @136: This is in response to all those who think public transit should be run more for the sake of the bus drivers, schools more for the sake of the teachers, than they currently are

    This presumably generalizes to something like: "How self-evidently foolish to think that enterprises/workplaces should be run for the sake of those who work in them." A careless slur, eliding the fundamental and difficult question, "Shouldn't those who do most of the work of an enterprise have a say in running it, along with others who have a large stake, including those for whose sake the work is done (ie, the consumers) and also (though not exclusively, as at present) those who have invested money in it, along with their representatives, the management?" If you think you can dispose of the whole question of economic democracy by jeering at misbehaving unions well, it actually does seem to be a pretty effective tactic nowadays, but you can't retain your intellectual self-respect at the same time.

    shah8 07.19.11 at 4:27 am

    *hartal*, I don't think you actually understand what's going on, because Stiglitz advocates the same position that Yglesias, Krugman, Romer, Bernanke, pretty much what *every* honest economist would take. He just sez so near the bottom of the advocacy column that you linked to. This is bog standard macro 101 stuff. I made an argument on Yglesia's site talking about people not having the necessary economic rights to take advantage of inflation targeting. Doctor Science at Obsidian Wings made an argument (against Krugman's same advocacy) in that the resulting inflation would be lethal before any benefit would accrue, personally. These are sane arguments against what is a very conventional wisdom type policy. If you're in a situation where you have low interest rates, low utility of resources, and low demand (lower than long term trend–which indicates what is the natural rate of growth), you pump money into the economy until these factors aren't true.

    Assuming that the economics are right good things will happen. In practice, in the American economy, the issue is that Americans have declining wages, pay more in vital expenses like gas or health, and everyone who can rent-seek, does so with a vengeance. Inflation targeting more or less means that you pump money into the economy until a wage spiral happens. That also means that you're effectively making a very political decision on who is a winner, because you're destroying the favored people's control of labor, consumer activity, investment options, the like. You're creating the situation where people are *forced* to demand higher wages. Where people find their way to cash and move to a place with better jobs. Where people can creatively find business opportunities in a more money-rich environment. You're creating the situation where bond-holders can't keep money in stagnant holes, where corporations have to use those great mounds of cash for some kind of opportunity, where people can hire construction to build new apartment homes in booming N Dakota, make money and bring more people to jobs.

    Again, this is functionally a political decision, and however much a technocrat Japanese bankers or Bernanke is, they fundamentally can't make that sort of decision by themselves without their heads being put on pikes. Theoretically, they do have the power to do that, and the temptation to urge them to go around the political process and just go ahead and do it already is pretty big, given the deadlock in Congress.

    Look, we're basically headed towards some kind of coup. At this point, democracy is a side-show, and will remain so until Congress is lead to a room, with a person either in a sharp banker's suit, or a crisp military uniform, and is read the riot act. That simple.

    andthenyoufall 07.19.11 at 4:27 am

    @149 – I neither jeered at unions, nor claimed that they were misbehaving. It's a point about political orientation. If you think that the biggest impact we can make by spending an extra dollar on buses or schools is to improve the welfare of bus drivers and teachers, you're already a libertarian, you just don't know it yet. If, like me, you think that the biggest impact we can make with that extra dollar is to bring mobility and knowledge to the downtrodden, you'll be singing Soyuz nerushmy with the best of them when the revolution comes.

    As for your Fundamental Question, the only general answer can be "It depends/it all depends/on what you have to build with." I can look at a specific school district and, after long cerebration, tell you, out of the teachers, principals, superintendent, school board, and parents, what specific configuration of power would lead to the best result for everyone, but the exercise would be fruitless and you would still find something to complain about.

    eastern619 07.19.11 at 4:31 am

    This is probably too late, but I written something regarding the lack of pro labor progressive bloggers like myself.

    In defense of 20-something progressive bloggers like myself

    eastern619 07.19.11 at 4:35 am

    In defense of 20-something progressive bloggers like myself
    hartal 07.19.11 at 4:37 am

    Your standard econ class obviously do not go deeply into open economy questions, shah 8! I don't see Yglesias even addressing Stiglitz's point which you are just wishing away.

    Please give me the quote from the Stiglitz piece that you are talking about. After all, I read in the first paragraph:

    "Political gridlock and soaring debt have stymied an effective second stimulus, and monetary policy has not reignited investment. But weakening the dollar to boost exports is a risky strategy – it could result in exchange rate volatility and protectionism; worse, it invites a response from competitors. In this fragile global economic environment, a currency war will make everybody a loser."

    I also quoted Gagnon on the mechanism through which QE, presumably the means to achieve the higher inflation target, is meant to work, and he clearly said that it was through the devaluation of the dollar. It has not hitherto worked by increasing the flow of credit.

    After we address the consequences of that, then we can get to your blindly optimistic version of what would happen in a wage inflation spiral.

    shah8 07.19.11 at 4:54 am

    /me squints

    Inflation targeting is not the same thing as currency manipulation. There are consequential weakening of the currency, but you're not going to have a currency war if other countries can get US customers. The quote I note is this one:

    The answer to this seeming stalemate is simple: resume global growth, and appreciation of the currency will naturally follow. Restoring growth requires that all governments that have the capacity to expand aggregate demand do so. The US has a special responsibility, both because of its culpability in creating the global crisis and because it can borrow at low interest rates, an advantage partly derived from its status as the de facto reserve currency. This is the time for the US to make the high productivity investments it needs. Spending on things such as high speed rail and green technology would actually improve America's balance sheet. Higher growth would generate more tax revenue and lead to a lower long-run national debt. Such actions would not only help the US, but also have strong positive spillovers both in the short run (from the increased growth) and in the long run (from the technological improvements) for the rest of the world.

    And yes, Stiglitz is talking about fiscal measures, rather than monetary measures, and he prefers fiscal measures. However, the primate need of increasing aggregate demand, and the overall consequences of weaker currency as a consequence holds. We aren't talking about matching our currency (at a higher or lower rate) to some other country's currency as what goes on in subsidizing export and fueling currency wars. We're talking about making enough of our own currency for our own use. These are not the same things.

    Fred Brack 07.19.11 at 4:55 am

    Can't argue with Henry's ideal(ism): "My ideal of politics is one in which power asymmetries between different classes of actors are as minimal as possible . . ."

    But, Henry, is it possible in the real world, as opposed to the ideal world, to sustain any power asymmetry that is "minimal"? Doesn't "Give him an inch and he'll take a mile" describe real-world politics, at least in large, diverse countries lacking a dominant homogenous culture (religion, race, ethnicity, etc.)? Aren't vast political-power asymmetries in large, diverse countries usually corrected by uprisings of one sort or another that then temporarily create opposite asymmetries?

    hartal 07.19.11 at 5:01 am

    No shah8 you clearly don't understand what you are talking about. Yes the Stiglitz piece was saying what I said it said, not what you claimed. First point.

    Second, you don't think quantitative easing has effect on a currency? You don't realize that it's being explicitly defended for just that effect?

    Now third there are good counter-arguments to what Stiglitz has written and what I believe to be true.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/17/g20-globalrecession

    But that's where the debate is–between Stiglitz and Eichengreen.

    shah8 07.19.11 at 5:04 am

    Ah, then let's agree to disagree, hmm? And you can go find another sucker who won't catch on to you hedgehog sensibilities.
    LFC 07.19.11 at 5:37 am

    Haven't read every single word of the thread, but following up on JQ @121: I believe Henry's 'left neoliberalism' is (more or less) Ben Alpers's ' Washington Monthly neoliberalism'. They're talking about the same thing. (I express no opinion on whether Yglesias belongs in this category or not. I never read him.)

    I looked at The Washington Monthly occasionally in the 80s when Charles Peters was putting forward his neoliberal manifestos. IIRC and as the OP suggests, Peters and others were concerned that the Dem Party had become too closely aligned with a union agenda that caused Dems to oppose things like school vouchers and the sort of welfare reform that Clinton eventually got (this is probably all in Alpers's posts at USIH). The neoliberal critique became, politically, mostly a moot point after c.'84 or so as the power of organized labor continued to decline and as Clinton/DLC basically took over the Dem party in the 90s. Substantively, however, the weaknesses the OP identifies re the understanding of collective action were always there, I think, in Washington Monthly neoliberalism. A number of journalists began at the Monthly and then went on to larger-circulation mainstream outlets and successful (often very successful) careers (if I'm not mistaken, James Fallows and Jonathan Alter, to mention just two), so the influence of Charles Peters, at least in some attenuated way, lives on.

    Gordon Henderson 07.19.11 at 5:38 am

    Okay, so I was wrong in #96 and right in #95.

    Reagan did have anti-union policies.

    See: http://www.dickmeister.com/id89.html

    Given that, Matthew Yglesias, why isn't it the case that the drop to below 25% can arguably be connected causally to Reagan's anti-labor policies?

    geo 07.19.11 at 5:38 am

    andthenyoufall: Sorry, I must have misunderstood. Of course I agree with you that "the biggest impact we can make with that extra dollar is to bring mobility and knowledge to the downtrodden." But I couldn't imagine who you meant by "those who think public transit should be run more for the sake of the bus drivers [and] schools more for the sake of the teachers, than they currently are," if not people who defend unions as a step toward economic democracy. How do libertarians come into it?
    David 07.19.11 at 5:49 am

    Cranky Observer: Thanks.
    Lee A. Arnold 07.19.11 at 5:54 am

    Henry #80: "Short version is that business lobbying power is extremely effective, except on those rare occasions when there is genuine public controversy for exogenous reasons, when we may expect to see action taken against business (but quietly undermined again after public attention has drifted away). This seems to me to be a rather good model of what happens – and one that fits well with the TARP story."

    Yes, that is exactly right, with one important addition to complete the model: The Congress is less instructed in ideology, or less conformed to ideology, than most people here seem to think. What we see is cynicism and collegiality, defaulting to ideology.

    It's everybody and anybody at all. The ruling elite is on the other side of a porous membrane - if you have enough money or you win an election, then you pass through the membrane, too. On the other side, if you have any ideals, you will find that acting upon them is not always rewarded by your constituency. So you get cynical, and you realize that the eternal horse-trading gives you more in common with your colleagues across the aisle than with your constituents.

    There have been dozens of politicians who have expressed sentiments like this.

    Now you may say "Oh well they're just tools of capitalist ideology and Wall Street's influence and they need lots of money to get elected and re-elected" but then you just said that you cannot explain the counterexamples except by a more general theory of interest-group pressures that is occasionally not based on a single ideology.

    The reality is that Washington D.C. acts more like a mechanical game whose levers can be pushed by ANYONE on the outside who sees a vantage point. It isn't just interest groups or money, it may be a big idea or a common expectation or a power-broker like Grover Norquist. I would argue that according the Constitution, U.S. politics is almost neutral but it defaults to the loudest heaviest whiners - e.g. Wall Street on most days, but occasionally outrage at TARP the next day.

    So what do you want to achieve practically? The big fight to come is that government MUST GROW LARGER as a percentage of GDP to provide healthcare, with its cost increases, to a demographic bulge. It is a specific necessity and it is huge. It will also widen the passage to a more social democratic attitude.

    So I think the necessary theory of politics is going to be both mechanical and contingent. Don't bother putting together an interest group before you begin, if you already have one. You don't always need labor unions to move forward. In the current situation, if bad actors like the Republicans have maneuvered themselves onto the horns of a dilemma, then don't wait, make sure one or the other horn spears them through the belly. So what if it is about something stupid like the debt ceiling or taxes? It is going to be about something stupid because they are actually stupid. Make the public see it. If you wreck their name-brand, you make it much easier next time to elect people who are heading in the better direction. And the resulting protection of the provision of healthcare, retirement, better education CREATES constituencies that are future actors.

    So I think I will stay naive instead of engage in fruitless blabber about definitions and theories, and about where bloggers should be placed on the left/right spectrum. That last one is just an embarrassing facsimile of a real discussion.

    andthenyoufall 07.19.11 at 6:24 am

    geo: "People who defend unions as a step toward economic democracy" is extremely vague. Defend? How? (It's not as though the unions are cowering in a dark alley, the thugs circling around ) Whose unions? What economic democracy?

    Under some construals of "defending unions as a step toward economic democracy," such a defender could also be extremely hostile towards using public services as welfare for public servants. Under others, the only people who qualify as defenders of unions are those who hate MY for defending teacher firings, attacking protectionist licensing requirements, and preferring hiring more bus drivers over handing out raises (to mention three recurring themes).

    Scott - a union guy 07.19.11 at 6:24 am

    I would like to see Brad DeLong (#124), who I read regularly, actually advance the conversation. Henry likes Dahl's pluralist ideal (but surely doesn't believe it as an empirical model); Brad doesn't think that model is right, but doesn't say what model of politics is right or desirable. I've got to weigh in with a demand that Brad put up else stick to making unrealistic demands that major media outlets shut themselves down. (btw, I really do value BDeL posts, just not those ones )

    Now, I've got to go to work at 7 to try to do my part with the other people who go to work at 7 and try to figure out how to accumulate some of that countervailing power

    Chris Bertram 07.19.11 at 6:37 am

    K. Williams #129

    "The difference between the Chris-Bertram left and the Yglesias/Delong neoliberals is not a difference over the proper scope of regulation, or marginal tax rates. It's a difference between people whose fundamental orientation is anticapitalist, and who view business primarily as a force to be opposed, and those who see markets and private enterprise as central, if flawed, elements in any healthy economy and polity."

    It is always enlightening to be informed about what I believe, because otherwise, well, I just wouldn't know. Obviously, I can't know what counts as "central" for you, but I think both that any large and complex economy needs markets to function. I also don't think of "business primarily as a force to be opposed" unless that translates as "corporate power", in which case I do. Keeping some parts of human life beyond the reach of the market, yes, I believe in that. But that's about scope, not "centrality".

    K. Williams 07.19.11 at 7:33 am

    "It is always enlightening to be informed about what I believe, because otherwise, well, I just wouldn't know. "

    Chris, anyone who puts up a post consisting of a video of Jerry Cohen offering up a tired and poorly theorized critique of modern capitalism - a critique called, cleverly enough, "Against Capitalism" - with the appended comment "great stuff" is someone whose fundamental orientation is anticapitalist. If you don't recognize that, then, yes, you do need someone to inform you of what you believe.

    Chris Bertram 07.19.11 at 7:41 am

    Well yes, I do think that's a great video and makes (especially part 2) some terrific points in an accessible way to a popular audience. So how can I think that and also believe that we can't dispense with markets in a complex economy? Obviously I'm a simple-minded idiot! Thanks for making that clear to me.
    Michael Drew 07.19.11 at 7:59 am

    I guess what I am missing is where neo-liberals are claiming to have a rich theory of politics. Theirs I thought was more or less a prescription for governance in in the liberal states in the context of the global capitalist order that has emerged in the last four decades. It doesn't claim to be the political theory best able to deliver long-term fundamental political benefits to the broad interests of society. It just claims to offer guidance to policy makers on how to, mostly, avoid major disasters resulting from faulty governance, or perhaps to achieve somewhat more desirable conditions on the whole, again, in this political-economic context in which we live . I do think that in measuring the desirability of the conditions it sees as desirable, it has tended to overweight the interests of the economic elite (with exceptions among its exponents). But this is more a function of its basically peaceful, accommodative relationship with the global capitalist order than with the lack of a strong theory of politics. A strong theory of politics would simply be an irrelevance to what neo-liberalism (leftism being another question) aspires to be, which is an enterprise in study with the more or less explicit goal of discovering ways to make the global capitalist order marginally more beneficial to the greater mass of people (whether in a country or globally), accepting certain policy viewpoints as fixed starting points (preference for freer trade, liberal labor policy, etc.) Critiquing it for lacking a strong theory of politics of the kind described here seems to me to be akin to noting a socialite's breach of etiquette in failing to bring a jackhammer to an Upper East Side cocktail party.
    Henri Vieuxtemps 07.19.11 at 8:22 am

    It just claims to offer guidance to policy makers on how to, mostly, avoid major disasters resulting from faulty governance, or perhaps to achieve somewhat more desirable conditions on the whole, again, in this political-economic context in which we live.

    Well, if they aspire to ignore the structural problems, and discover better, more clever ways to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, they should be treated accordingly.

    sg 07.19.11 at 9:37 am

    I predict we'll see K Williams's comment at 77 again in a few years' time, along the lines of "if Rupert Murdoch was so powerful how come his whole empire fell apart over a mere phone-hacking affair?"
    Walt 07.19.11 at 12:00 pm

    I think K. Williams pretty well reflects that the predicament that we're in. He may be a millionaire slumming in the comment section, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that he's a member of the middle class. His comments show how the ability of the middle class to think about politics has been destroyed. We live in the richest society the world has ever known? How did this miracle occur? We did it. The hard-working and skilled working and middle classes did it, through a system that we call "capitalism". But capitalism gives rise to capitalists, and for 40 years the capitalists have been telling us that they did it. And from sheer repetition, the middle class now believes it. It's a staggering loss of self-confidence in a class that was instrumental in creating wealth undreamt of in earlier ages.

    Like Chris, I think a market economy is a necessary part of the world we live in. But also like Chris, I think we have no need to kow-tow to our supposed betters. There is only a conflict between "capital" and "labor" because capital is not satisfied with its fair share, but wants it all. And we're not going to give it to them.

    Henry 07.19.11 at 12:33 pm

    Brad DeLong@124 – since you understand the argument perfectly well when it's J.K. Galbraith talking about 'countervailing powers,' I can only presume that you've entered into that peculiar mental state of willed obtuseness that you get into when you decide that someone is too left-wing to engage with their ideas. Hence, I don't really see any possible value in further engagement with you on this.
    Sweden 07.19.11 at 12:45 pm

    andthenyoufall & numerous others: " unless you assume that a Democratic Party controlled by unified and strengthened organized interest groups would actually advance the public good. And it would be naive to assume that this would happen, unless the interests of these interest groups were themselves quite close to the public good."

    If you look to democratic welfare states elsewhere in the world that suffer from much less inequality compared to the US you'll see a strong correlation between (degree of) equality and (degree of) union power, collective bargaining and majoritarian class compromises. How do you explain that?

    In general, several defenders of neoliberalism here seems to engage in massive US exceptionalism on a methodological level. As if the world outside the US barely existed and there is nothing to be learned about political action from it.

    Cahal 07.19.11 at 12:55 pm

    'capitalism is the only system that has proven capable of generating high living standards for the vast majority of a country's population'

    Oh please. The living standards of the Western World sit on a moral hazard the size of the moon. Absolute poverty has actually increased in the developing world over the past few decades.

    The Raven 07.19.11 at 1:17 pm

    Brad Delong, #124: "It turns out that what you want is for our Big Labor and Big Celebrity to neutralize and offset their Big Business and Big Fundamentalism, so that then the public interest can bubble up via grassroots democracy."

    OK, Prof Delong. So what's your system? Who would you set in charge, if you had the choice? Or do you take the capitalist/aristocratic (and Randian position) that the cream will rise to the top?

    Brad DeLong 07.19.11 at 1:31 pm

    Re: "Brad DeLong@124 – since you understand the argument perfectly well when it's J.K. Galbraith talking about 'countervailing powers,' I can only presume that you've entered into that peculiar mental state of willed obtuseness that you get into when you decide that someone is too left-wing to engage with their ideas. Hence, I don't really see any possible value in further engagement with you on this."

    Oh. I understand the "countervailing power" we-want-our-interest-groups-to-balance-theirs-so-good-public-policy-bubbles-up-from-below-via-democratic-processes argument. I think it is interesting–which is why I quoted JKG. I just don't believe it. Collective action problems prohibit using elections to determine the public interest by adding up the votes of informed voters who understand their material and ideal interests and how they ought to translate those into economic policy.

    That's just not how it works.

    dsquared 07.19.11 at 1:48 pm

    Left-neoliberalism in theory: "Let's set up a new organisation to regulate consumer finance!"

    Left-neoliberalism in practice: "Let's write a load of blog posts about how awful the Republicans are for blocking appointments to our consumer finance organisation!"

    Left-neoliberalism in theory: "Social spending has nothing to do with campaign groups – it's determined by Obama and his budget team, so vote Democrat!"

    Left-neoliberalism in practice: "Obama had to cut social spending – the Republicans wouldn't let him pass the budget because of those damned Tea Partiers!"

    William Timberman 07.19.11 at 2:03 pm

    If knowing what doesn't work were the key to political wisdom, I suspect that we'd all be potential philosopher kings - which is nice work if you can get it, but if you lack a serviceable set of knee pads, it's damned difficult to find a capitalist willing to pay you for it.
    Watson Ladd 07.19.11 at 2:05 pm

    What a long thread! I'm just going to have to complicate the discussion of Reagan and the unions by noting that unions played a role in the political realignments of the 1960's. By organizing blacks and funding the New Left, labor unions were behind the 1960's New Left and the political disorientation it created. This was the last time the Marxist left was playing a major role in US politics. Would Reagan have been elected if the unions and the left was strong enough to oppose him?

    The advent of capitalist social relations is concurrent with the Glorious Revolution, the French Revolution, the ending of slavery in Europe, etc. It also lead to the largest expansion of wealth in history. The price of cloth tumbled first, as automated weaving reduced the amount of time one needed to weave. How exactly does this rob anyone of anything? The World Bank shows that the proportion of people living in absolute poverty has decreased in every region since 1990, again not what the story of theft would predict.

    The last strand I want to intersect is the story of the welfare state. In the US the welfare state was built on a politics of racial exclusion, and was unable to sustain itself. It did not crumble politically, but the politics followed a major fiscal crisis in the 1970's caused by structural features of the welfare state. David Harvey disagrees, but I think he's wrong because the welfare state still reproduced capitalist dynamics. The story of politics and economics is very tangled, and there we can't attribute one as the driver of the other.

    AndrewW 07.19.11 at 2:20 pm

    Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, and Brad DeLong have all at various times and in various places argued for the need for greater union viability. I take them at their word that they believe that. Nevertheless, they virtually always speak of unions elegiacally, as though they are vestigial instead of ever-present but latent. There's a kind of hardening of opinion in that that smacks of the right-wing cant "Unions had their place, but now we need to move on " I'm not claiming that the three men mentioned above are deliberately spouting right-wing orthodoxy, but I am suggesting that in perpetually looking for the new way, the novel way, they have a blind spot for the political efficacy of very old well-worn but necessary advocacies.

    I think the discussion isn't helped by the concept of "sustainability," and should instead shift to efficacy. Nothing in politics is sustainable, but certain things work at certain times.

    Cranky Observer 07.19.11 at 2:27 pm

    > By organizing blacks and funding the New Left, labor unions were behind
    > the 1960's New Left and the political disorientation it created.

    Some labor unions supported the civil rights struggles in the 1960s, some stayed neutral, some opposed them. I'd need to see a lot of documentation on the claim of "funding the New Left"; I grew up in an old-line union family and "dirty hippies" were not exactly welcome in the neighborhood or the union hall.

    > This was the last time the Marxist left was playing a major role in US
    > politics. Would Reagan have been elected if the unions and the left
    > was strong enough to oppose him?

    Reagan was elected in large part because many conservative Democrats, including large numbers of union members, abandoned Jimmy Carter for both economic and social reasons and voted for the person who opened his campaign with a speech on "states rights" delivered in Philadelphia Mississippi. By 1980 several unions openly endorsed Reagan over their own man Mondale. Not all; the teachers and paraprofessional unions generally stayed with the Democrats. But the heavy labor unions were not very happy with the Democratic Party and its candidates in 1976-1984.

    Cranky

    Henry 07.19.11 at 2:29 pm

    bq. Collective action problems prohibit using elections to determine the public interest by adding up the votes of informed voters who understand their material and ideal interests and how they ought to translate those into economic policy.

    But where do I say anything at all about "the public interest" (a numinous and, in my opinion, entirely imaginary notion)? Where do I say anything about "Big Celebrity"? It's quite hard indeed to argue constructively with someone who keeps on introducing imaginary claims and suppositions that they for some reason assume you 'must' be making.

    Cranky Observer 07.19.11 at 2:38 pm

    @180 – "by 1980" should be "by 1984".

    Cranky

    AndrewW 07.19.11 at 2:50 pm

    @36 I'd love to know where you find evidence for suburban school boards being in the pockets of the unions. The NEA (the union of most non-urban school districts) is kind of the powderpuff of teachers' unions–they don't exert much muscle and really don't get into bread and butter/salary wrangling. The flashpoint is almost strictly the AFT in the cities.
    Marc 07.19.11 at 3:08 pm

    The basic problem with folks such as Yglesias is that they are so steeped in a right-wing economic mindset that they don't even ask the proper questions. If you read someone like Yglesias, for example, you'll see many posts about licensing requirements, teacher's unions, building regulations, and so on. It's as if the biggest problem in the current era is that laissez-faire capitalism has too many cumbersome restraints, or that unions are too strong. People of his generation appear to have great difficulty in even grasping the idea that the Market God is not the answer to all problems, or that the most efficient economic solution is not always the most just, or the best, solution.

    This is amplified by an arrogant refusal to accept evidence that contradicts his ideology. A lot of bloggers develop a mindset where they are qualified by their wisdom to pronounce verdicts on all sorts of things, whether they know much about them or not. This is marginally tolerable if they are open to correction by people who actually know something. But it's infuriating when they simply dig in (MY is notorious for this) and refuse to even acknowledge substantive critiques of their work.

    For example, Matt is enthusiastic about dismantling some of the core elements of our higher education system in the name of "efficiency". He doesn't have any experience in the field, or any knowledge of how it works, or about the structure. And yet the solution is clear: online classes would equal more widgets per hour; general education classes are a waste of time; and so on. He has a systematic bias to the idea that what we need is to drive down the wages and credentials of professionals (dentists, doctors, professors, teachers, barbers ) because they are "protected" by credentialing systems which he can't be bothered to understand.

    He's written about how great it is to base K-12 teacher performance on "metrics". People point out that the metrics are noisy (e.g. teachers can go from getting bonuses in one year to being fired the next, basically from sample noise), or that there are power imbalances. They point out that teachers, unlike young bloggers, may well prefer to sacrifice higher salaries for more job security, or that it might be destructive on many levels to set up systems that favor firing teachers when they get too expensive (e.g. the entire concept of tenure.) He ignores these things.

    I could go on, but there is a pattern here: a fixation on broad ideological fixes, anchored in a conservative economic framework, and uninterested in engaging the actual objections of people who disagree with them. I really wish that Brad, and Matt, spent more time trying to fairly characterize the viewpoint of people who disagree with them and less time trying to make themselves look smart and their opponents foolish.

    Sebastian H 07.19.11 at 3:20 pm

    "By organizing blacks and funding the New Left, labor unions were behind
    the 1960's New Left and the political disorientation it created."

    Labor unions as a whole could at very best be said to be black civil rights neutral in the 1960s. And that is only if you count the unions which formally embraced civil rights at the national level while allowing the local chapters of the union to exclude black people. The idea that labor unions were generally a major force in the black civil rights movement is historical revisionism.

    Carl Weetabix 07.19.11 at 3:22 pm

    The problem with running all "standard of living" improvements through essentially a market solution is that those who benefit most, namely the owners and rentiers, regardless of their political persuasion, are likely to be ideologically co-opted (corrupted?) to prefer causes that benefit their class.

    So even someone who initially starts out caring about the working class is going to be presented a series of choices where the right thing to do does not potentially benefit themselves (or at least in an obvious fashion). Examples being – paying higher wages, paying their fair share of taxes, providing better benefits, etc. Over time naturally their views are likely to slowly migrate to what most benefits themselves (viewpoints in turn they are likely to pass down to their children, along with their class status).

    That is all assuming they even started from a position of caring about the working class.

    I don't know if unions are the answer – certainly they too have abused their power. However that's not to say new paradigms can't be created or old ones revived. At some point someone's got to advocate for policies that help the working class (even if that working class is wearing white collared shirts). Perhaps just a large series of Twitter initiated general strikes? I don't know.

    Right now what I do know, is at every level, including all "mainstream" political parties and all major news outlets there's endless propaganda that reiterates policies that are contrary to the best interest of the working class and the little guy. Moreover it has been so pervasive that even those who are most injured by these policies actually support them.

    It has been a masterful job of systematic and intentional public realignment, one that given who owns the keys to the media, I'm not sure is correctable. However I don't think doubling down on tired neo-liberal economic policies, at least without some huge advances in public awareness, is going to solve this.

    geo 07.19.11 at 4:28 pm

    funding the New Left

    Funds? As far as I can remember, the New Left had no funds. The New Right had unlimited funds. That's (mainly) why they won and we lost. No, don't even begin to suggest that it was because the Left had "tired old ideas" and the Right had "good new ideas." It's too fatuous

    roac 07.19.11 at 5:17 pm

    The advent of capitalist social relations is concurrent with the Glorious Revolution

    Wait, what? You mean the palace coup whereby James II's daughters kicked him off the throne? By taking advantage of (1) well-justified fears at all levels of English society that Dad intended to reverse the outcome of the Wars of Religion, and (2) the fact that the elder daughter was married to a guy with an army? That Glorious Revolution? Is there a school of history that believes that it caused or was caused by the growth of capitalism? Please tell me about that.

    Harold 07.19.11 at 9:28 pm

    I recall reading that Yglesias's uncle is an economist at MIT. Yglesias's positions are simply mystical dogma - whether he got them from is uncle or came up with them on his own. They have nothing to do with the real world. The fact that he advocates destroying the lives of thousands of people for the sake of abstract principles is deeply repugnant.
    Random lurker 07.20.11 at 10:18 am

    Wholly OT

    @roac 190
    To the degree that Protestantism can be linked to early or proto-capitalism, since the Glorious Revolution was a clash between Protestants and Catholics, the GR can be linked to (early or proto-) capitalism.

    Barry 07.20.11 at 2:30 pm

    Another: " He is anti-school union as a part of his ivy league disdain for real teachers and love "teach for america" types though."

    James Reffell: " So, Teach for America folks aren't "real teachers"? Wonder what they're doing in those classrooms, then. Playing parcheesi?"

    I imagine that what was meant by 'real teachers' was 'people who are going to spend more than a couple of years at it; people who will make a career at it; people who aren't passing through it on their way from an Ivy League university into their actual careers'.

    Harold 07.20.11 at 5:44 pm

    "Teaching turning into a rest stop on the MBA highway" (Fortune)
    http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/29/teaching-turning-into-a-rest-stop-on-the-mba-highway/#more-2508
    Harold 07.20.11 at 5:51 pm

    http://www.businessweek.com/careers/content/sep2007/ca20070913_229347.htm

    Teach for America has even forged partnerships in recent years with 100 graduate school programs and 15 employers, including Deloitte & Touche (No. 1 on this year's list), Google (GOOG) (No. 5), and General Electric (GE) (No. 12). These companies let students defer their job offers to spend two years teaching. Corporate Partner JPMorgan (JPM) (No. 17) gives students their signing bonuses before their two-year stints at Teach for America and offers summer programs to keep them involved with the company while they are teaching.

    Bob Corcoran, vice-president of Corporate Citizenship at General Electric, says that his company's partnership with Teach for America is a win-win. "We [GE and TFA] look for the same types of people, people who want to make a difference, people who have good leadership qualities and who truly want to jump in and lead something. Teachers do that everyday," Corcoran explains. "When these students come out of college and they defer to take on these roles, they learn how to lead. And Teach for America gets some great students who otherwise would have been nervous to jump out of their discipline and teach."

    Meanwhile, young workers view Teach for America as a valuable launching pad to an assortment of careers and paths. Former D.C. corps member Rachael Brown is amazed by the strong support network of alumni.

    Watson Ladd 07.20.11 at 5:53 pm

    And the Port Huron statement was drafted at Port Huron, a UAW center for activists.
    roac 07.20.11 at 6:26 pm

    @192: I have no idea what the current generation of historians think about the link between Protestantism and capitalism, so I'll shut up about that. But by that token Luther and the 95 Theses would do just as well.
    Random Lurker 07.20.11 at 9:00 pm

    @roac

    Nor do I.
    I was referring to the traditional link between "protestant ethic" and "capitalism", usually attributed to Weber.

    Harold 07.21.11 at 3:08 pm

    Being a neoliberal involves signaling a willingness to go along and get along by playing the game - ignoring empirical evidence and showing a willingness to engage in outright lying on certain key issues. It's a sine qua non of politics.
    Barry 07.22.11 at 2:11 pm

    Carl Weetabix 07.19.11 at 3:22 pm
    " I don't know if unions are the answer – certainly they too have abused their power. However that's not to say new paradigms can't be created or old ones revived. At some point someone's got to advocate for policies that help the working class (even if that working class is wearing white collared shirts). Perhaps just a large series of Twitter initiated general strikes? I don't know."

    This is actually part of the problem – people advocating for unions have to add lots of disclaimers as to their imperfections, while neoliberals (and neocons, and neoclassicals) don't feel any such need.

    Lee A. Arnold 07.23.11 at 11:10 pm
    Brad DeLong #177: "Collective action problems prohibit using elections to determine the public interest by adding up the votes of informed voters who understand their material and ideal interests and how they ought to translate those into economic policy."
    "That's just not how it works."

    Don't you mean "That's not how public choice theory works"? Because in reality, after voting, people accept the resulting compromises, if they are fair.

    Jim Harrison 07.24.11 at 12:22 am
    Neoliberals are simply wanta-be Josephs. Without pharaoh they are nothing and know they are nothing. Hence the preemptive surrender to real political power. (The classically educated may feel free to substitute Plato for Joseph and the tyrant of Syracuse for the pharaoh.)

    [Oct 02, 2016] Neoliberalism: Everything falls apart

    Notable quotes:
    "... From an elite point of view, the primary problem with a jobs program-and with employment-boosting infrastructure projects-is that they would put a floor under employment, making workers more confident and less likely to do what the boss says, and less dependent on private employers for a paycheck. It would increase the power of labor relative to capital. ..."
    "... In a neoliberal framework, people always tend to invest into something productive, this investment always leads to job growth, and, in turn, unemployment rate has little bearing on people's decision to invest. It just happens. However, in a real world, real companies quite often do not obviously have opportunities to invest; a farm in the 1910's, for example, could invest in some machinery, buy tractors in the 1930es or invest into IT in 1990es, but now there are no obvious things to improve. The cost of capital for a large number of not-so-big businesses is determined by their market prospects, not the general cost of capital; this is true even for relatively light on capital industries, like IT, but is a very big impact on anything that requires capital on machines and buildings. A lot of investment actually reduces employment, not increases it -- think automating away manual jobs or spending money on hostile takeovers. ..."
    Jul 18, 2011 | www.economist.com

    OVER at the Crooked Timber blog, Henry Farrell comments on Doug Henwood's response to Matthew Yglesias' argument for a higher, employment-boosting inflation target, which I endorsed in my last post . Mr Henwood dislikes Mr Yglesias' apparent "neoliberal" preference for monetary over fiscal remedies to high unemployment. He writes:

    From an elite point of view, the primary problem with a jobs program-and with employment-boosting infrastructure projects-is that they would put a floor under employment, making workers more confident and less likely to do what the boss says, and less dependent on private employers for a paycheck. It would increase the power of labor relative to capital.

    I think we're supposed to understand "elite" as roughly synonymous with "neoliberal" here. "Neoliberalism" has become something of a term of abuse on the left, though its denotation remains vague. It is something of which Mr Yglesias and I, despite our considerable ideological differences, are regularly accused. This newspaper is even denounced from time to time as a neoliberal rag. Anyway, as a sort of neoliberal (a neoclassical liberal ), let me say that from my point of view the problem with jobs programmes, as compared to textbook monetary policy, is not that they increase the power of labour relative to capital. It's that they do little to sustainably increase demand for labour. And nothing reduces the power of labour relative to capital more than low demand for labour. But I digress.

    Mr Farrell notes that Mr Yglesias is a better leftist than Mr Henwood gives him credit for, but thinks Mr Henwood is "on to something significant" in his complaints about Yglesian left-leaning neoliberalism.

    Neo-liberals tend to favor a combination of market mechanisms and technocratic solutions to solve social problems. But these kinds of solutions tend to discount politics – and in particular political collective action, which requires strong collective actors such as trade unions. This means that vaguely-leftish versions of neo-liberalism often have weak theories of politics, and in particular of the politics of collective action. I see Doug and others as arguing that successful political change requires large scale organized collective action, and that this in turn requires the correction of major power imbalances (e.g. between labor and capital). They're also arguing that neo-liberal policies at best tend not to help correct these imbalances, and they seem to me to have a pretty good case. Even if left-leaning neo-liberals are right to claim that technocratic solutions and market mechanisms can work to relieve disparities etc, it's hard for me to see how left-leaning neo-liberalism can generate any self-sustaining politics.

    The implied premise here seems to be that labour-union social democracy is an ideology that generates self-sustaining politics. But Mr Yglesias pops up in the comments to say:

    [T]he self-assurance that there's some non-neoliberal miracle formula for political sustainability seems refuted by the fact that the pre-neoliberal paradigm in the United States was not, in fact, politically sustainable.

    He goes on sensibly to note that the history of the decline in American unionisation, and the political heft of organised labour, does not seem to be some kind of right-wing or neoliberal plot:

    US labor union density peaked in the mid-1950s so it's hard to see Reagan specifically as the cause of unions' decline. I think it's more plausible to say that the policy environment has grown more hostile to unions as a result of unions' decline.

    I think he's right. None of this is to say that neoliberalism is especially self-reinforcing or stable. Mr Yglesias concedes that the unsustainability of neoliberalism "is a problem". I think this is a mistake. Mr Yglesias would do better to argue that no ideology generates a self-sustaining politics.

    The global economy's path of development, the future of technology, the evolution of culture and the changes it causes in social norms of work and consumption, not to mention the lines along which political coalitions coalesce, are essentially unpredictable. If you think your political theory generates a "self-sustaining politics", you're kidding yourself.

    Liberal and social-democratic political theory both are marked by a peculiar hopeful naivete about the possibility of one day arriving at some sort of ideal self-equilibrating politico-economic system. But it's never going to happen. Until the heat of all creation is spread evenly over the whole cold void, everything always will be unbalanced. Here in the hot human world, it's certain that sooner or later someone will invent or say something that will make comrades enemies and enemies friends. All we can do is our best for now. If sound technocratic, monetary policy (or neoliberalism, whatever that comes to) is the best we can do for now, it doesn't matter that it generates no long-run self-sustaining political constituency. Nothing does. So, for now, we should try to sustain it.

    You're going to die, but that's no reason to stop eating.

    Cornish expat Jul 18th 2011, 21:24
    The title of this article is right. Everything IS falling apart. But the body of the article is navel-gazing nonsense.
    • When the financial industry represents over 20% of global stock valuations, something is very wrong.
    • When the financial industry represents over 15% of the GDP of the United States and Britain, something is very wrong.
    • When the financial giants can operate risk-free, without moral hazard and with impunity, somethings is very wrong.
    • When insurance companies can speculate with accumulated premiums, knowing they can raise these premiums when their bets go bad, something is very wrong.
    • When banks can compensate for specific legislation by increasing fees on unrelated services (you might as well call them taxes since they are unavoidable), something is very wrong.
    • When financial institutions, aided and abetted by their governments, continue to encourage borrowing at low rates even though it is evident that said governments and their citizens are unsustainably over-extended, something is very wrong.

    Drastic measures are required. But instead of addressing these issues, the article argues about the best way to count angels on a pinhead. This also is very wrong.

    A revolution is needed and all sane people would spend their time better trying to work out what kind of revolution would best solve the long-term problem, short of killing all the capitalists.

    (If reducing government expenditures is assumed to be good for the economy, then it is surely reasonable to assume that down-sizing the financial sector, which represents a huge overhead to the real economy, must also be good. The current system is clearly unsustainable, so surely it is better to accept pain now rather than when the situation is even worse.)

    Sherbrooke , Jul 18th 2011, 20:52
    Well, let's have a look why in this case neoliberalism is targeted. Essentially, the argument of neoliberalism is: let's have an accommodative credit policy. Then people won't have incentive to save and will have all the incentives to invest. Investment leads to job creation and leaves us with the stuff that people actually want. I.e. pure supply side economics - people have jobs because somebody decided to invest and give them jobs, and people decide to invest if money markets are accommodative.

    Now let's have a look at money markets. Are they accommodative? You betcha! Is the economy growing? GDP figures say it does. Are people getting jobs? Hell no. Here's why.

    In a neoliberal framework, people always tend to invest into something productive, this investment always leads to job growth, and, in turn, unemployment rate has little bearing on people's decision to invest. It just happens. However, in a real world, real companies quite often do not obviously have opportunities to invest; a farm in the 1910's, for example, could invest in some machinery, buy tractors in the 1930es or invest into IT in 1990es, but now there are no obvious things to improve. The cost of capital for a large number of not-so-big businesses is determined by their market prospects, not the general cost of capital; this is true even for relatively light on capital industries, like IT, but is a very big impact on anything that requires capital on machines and buildings. A lot of investment actually reduces employment, not increases it -- think automating away manual jobs or spending money on hostile takeovers.

    An argument from the left is that if there's too much capital concentration then society gradually degenerates to something akin Latin America, where things get really centralized, competition evaporates, and the rich simply use capital to print money. Think about this: rather than spend money on employment, Ford shareholders simply take the profit and start acquiring competing companies to reduce the market competition, or start paying out dividends and go on a buying spree for antiques or prime real estate or something equally unproductive. At the same time a large amount of slack in labour markets mean that there's not much demand and that salaries are much lower than they should be, essentially reducing everyone's life standard but the very top. Competition should apply to companies, not only to workers, so giving too much power to large corporations (who benefit the most from monetary policy decisions, since their credit spreads are the lowest) creates a lose/lose situation for both capital and labour. To avoid this, some wealth redistribution needs to be done. While, yes, it does redistribute the wealth, it is typically healthy in small doses.

    Right now we are in a perfect neoliberal storm. While it is true that Fed doesn't target inflation of 3-4%, it might as well did, since they can't possibly lower the rates now. We have one country (USA) that decided to do it by monetary means alone, we have some other countries (most notably - China, but examples include Canada and Germany) that opted for what resembles labour programs. Currently, even comparing US and Canada can make the case; yes, OK, let's exclude Alberta, but relatively resource poor Ontario and Quebec have had their unemployment rates reduced significantly.

    So, no, I think neoliberalism needs some explaining to do.

    bampbs Jul 18th 2011, 23:42
    Things change, thank God. Every good idea gets pushed in time to an idiotic extreme by those who follow in its wake, and neither understand the idea nor have one of their own. Clean cups!

    Direct government jobs programs are needed when easy money and tax cuts don't work. They don't work when after a massive financial collapse wrecks confidence. The current unpleasantness is the first time since the '30s we've been in this particular trouble.

    It's the specific pack of Neoliberals who pushed good ideas to their reductio ad absurdum, particularly in financial prudential regulation and tax cuts, who ought to be hanged on the Mall on C-SPAN.

    Doug Pascover Jul 18th 2011, 20:29
    The Economist is a neoliberal rag...
    jouris - old account Jul 18th 2011, 22:52
    Yglesias says "US labor union density peaked in the mid-1950s so it's hard to see Reagan specifically as the cause of unions' decline." Perhaps he should consider that, in the mid-1950s, Reagan was a union leader -- president of the Screen Actor's Guild, in fact. So perhaps Reagan as a conservative President was a symptom, rather than a cause....
    Tzimisces Jul 18th 2011, 21:17
    Personally, I just find the whole thing as a really funny example of how some academics see all problems as relating to their specialty. How did Henwood get to writing about self-sustaining politics from Yglesias's post on the best way for the government to create employment in the first place? Not everything relates back to single root causes, while I'm guessing, I would think that Yglesias's suggestion on how to create a self-sustaining politics would differ from his suggestions on how to create employment (I don't really disagree with Henwood's statements about how fiscal policy can also create jobs, but I really see getting to the political aspects as a stretch, while I'm probably among the first to point out that politics is often underestimated and not used enough, a short term problem like high unemployment isn't really a proper problem to be bringing this problem up in, reminds me of the old adage regarding having a hammer and seeing nothing but nails).
    Pacer Jul 18th 2011, 22:16
    If jobs programs were done reasonably correctly, they'd not only keep people occupied, fed and shopping (somewhat), but we'd also get some important public works done and impart both skills and work ethic to a group that may need one or both. And if such programs were 'guaranteed issue' we'd conveniently be able to end the pay-to-breathe/breed programs that have enslaved swathes of the population with sustenance that fails to nourish any sense of worth.
    RestrainedRadical Jul 18th 2011, 23:21
    @shaun39, I thought about a similar guaranteed-work program. I would vary the hourly wage depending on household size. And the underemployed should receive similar opportunities to supplement their income. Add the substantial monitoring costs and the cost of actually creating zero-value-added jobs and it'll be very costly. It might be cheaper just to give them the money.
    Doug Pascover Jul 18th 2011, 23:03
    Jouris, I like it. Reagan the president of the union was the backlash against Reagan the union president? Man, would Newt Gingrich like to perfect that trick.
    RustyPen Jul 18th 2011, 20:04
    I enjoyed this post, but I think neoliberalism does have a definition: it basically amounts to privatise, deregulate, bust unions and cut (both taxes & spending). It also, however, assigns a role for macroeconomic management to the Central Bank, so it that sense it is potentially closer to Keynes than Austrianism.
    merch79 Jul 18th 2011, 20:59
    I think you might be misinterpreting "self-sustaining" to mean "eternally self-sustaining" rather than "self-sustaining for a long enough period of time to accomplish something in policy terms." Now maybe it's the case that even by the second definition there is no self-sustaining theory of politics, that we're all borne by the tide of events/technology/environmental change, but that's a pretty bleak point of view.

    I think the real point Farrell was trying to make is that there are many on the left who hold similar objectives -- reduced inequality, for instance, or universal health care -- but disagree on means, and that we should make macro evaluations of what the best means have been to accomplish these ends rather than merely examining the micro scale of what is the best practically achievable policy today. I agree with your skepticism about there being an obviously better non-neoliberal strategy, but it's ultimately an empirical question: Where have these goals actually been accomplished, either within the US or abroad? Which political coalitions accomplished these goals, and how? What are the obstacles institutionally to replicating that success here, and can they be overcome?

    Asking these kind of practical questions about means rather than ends seems like a sensible alternative to crying in one's beer over losing again and again.

    rewt66 Jul 18th 2011, 20:50
    Everybody thinks that their viewpoint is the last word, the end of history. Oddly, people even think that who have a philosophy based on the dialectic (I'm looking at you, Marx). If they really believed the dialectic, not only would they not believe that their viewpoint was the final word, they wouldn't belive that the dialectic is, either.

    [Oct 02, 2016] The absurdly high levels of executive pay under neoliberalism are disconnected with performance and encourage short-termism

    Oct 02, 2016 | www.ft.com

    Tommy Breen, the low profile boss of support services group DCC who earned a relatively modest €737,000 in the year to March 2016, offered the best value for money, according to rankings by consultants Mercer Kepler.

    Alison Cooper, chief executive of consumer goods group Imperial Brands, who was paid Ł3.58m in 2015, and George Weston, boss of international food group ABF, who earned Ł3.05m in 2015, were in second and third place.

    The total pay of all three is below the average pay of Ł5.5m for a FTSE 100 chief executive in 2015, according to the High Pay Centre.

    In contrast, only two of the top 10 best paid FTSE 100 CEOs in 2015 made the top 30 in the value for money rankings. This was Shire chief executive Flemming Ornskov, who earned Ł14.6m last year, and RELX boss Erik Engstrom, who was awarded Ł10.9m.

    None of the other top 10 best paid bosses last year, which included Sir Martin Sorrell, who earned Ł70.4m at WPP , Rakesh Kapoor, awarded Ł23.2m at Reckitt Benckiser , Jeremy Darroch, on Ł16.9m at Sky, or Bob Dudley, on Ł13.3m at BP , made the top 30 value for money list. The index only lists the top 30.

    Full details of Mrs May's plans will not be laid out until later in the autumn when BIS, the business department, launches a consultation. Some of the policies are already known: disclosure of pay ratios, annual binding shareholder votes on pay and having worker and consumer representatives on boards.

    Other investors and business groups have been critical of the planned government reforms, warning that they may force up pay levels. An annual binding vote, they warn, could create uncertainty, which in turn might prompt demands for extra compensation.

    The Mercer survey looks at the relationship between value created and money earned by a chief executive. The value is calculated by taking the company's total shareholder return relative to the FTSE and its sector.

    Money earned is the chief executive's three-year average realised pay figure, which is adjusted for the size of the company. Chief executive pay correlates strongly with company size as well as performance.

    Gordon Clark, partner at Mercer Kepler, said: "Our research puts all companies on a level playing field when comparing whether their executives offer value for money. It does this by controlling for differences in sector, size and complexity.

    "Executives who create the most value for shareholders relative to their peers, and relative to their pay, offer the best value for money."

    [Oct 02, 2016] Donald Trump is an American Ahmadinejad

    Guardian is firmly in Hillary camp. Neoliberal media defends neoliberal candidate. What can you expect?
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Some people insist on disguising this Great Satan as the savior angel." -- Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei, referring to the United States, 2015. ..."
    "... The US has already been doing that for a long time. Your country is currently allied with al Qaeda in Syria and other so called moderates whose intention is to create a sharia law fundamentalist society as aopposed to Assad who is euro centric and secular. ..."
    "... From the article: We know from Wikileaks that she believed privately in the past that Saudi Arabia was the largest source for terrorist funding worldwide, and that the Saudi government was not doing enough to stop that funding. ..."
    "... and yet the Clinton Foundation benefits massively from KSA donations ..."
    "... I heard that Donald Trump speaks out against the USA funding extremists to overthrow leaders like Assad, while they couldn't care about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Tourists are being shot in Tunisia from extremists in Libya since we became involved in killing Gaddafi. ..."
    "... The USA armed and trained extremists in Afghanistan to get one over on Russia, and despite more British troops and civilians being killed by USA friendly fire than the 'enemy' our media never make the same fuss about the USA. ..."
    "... The USA didn't care for years when the government they helped implement in Afghanistan made women walk around in blue tents and banned them from education. ..."
    "... Different political systems; two people who come from very different backgrounds with different views and experiences. Ahmadinejad was a social conservative with a populist economic agenda. Trump is all over the map, but in terms of his staff and advisers and his economic plans he's much more of a conventional Republican. David Duke's admiration is the main thing the two have in common. ..."
    "... Clinton is tripe. She, and her kin, have a ponderous history of talk, and either inaction, or actions that generate disastrous results. Zero accomplishments across the board. Those who'd vote for Hillary must have a "horse" in this race. ..."
    "... Yawn... The Guardian has Trump and Putin bashing on the brain. ..."
    "... John Bolton as possible Secretary of State? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/john-bolton-no-regrets-about-toppling-saddam/article/2564463 Unless you're not talking about the guy who looks like a dead ringer for Mr Pastry that is a really terrifying proposition. ..."
    "... USA and Britain are very directly responsible for Iran being ruled by the Islamic mafia which has been in power in Iran since 1979. Iran had a democratic government which for the benefit of its people and against the stealing of its oil by Britain, nationalised the oil. Britain then, desperate to carry on stealing the Iranian oil persuaded USA to collaborate with it to covertly organise a coup by MI5 and CIA to topple the legitimate democratic government and install a puppet dictatorship. ..."
    "... All that happened in 1953, and Britain and USA totally admitted to all that 30 years later when the official secrets were declassified. ..."
    "... ..., forgot to mention, Jimmy C1arter recently admitted that while he was the president, they contributed to the funding of the Khomeini gang against their own installed ally, the Shah in 1979 to topple him ..."
    "... Trump makes George W Bush seem like an intellectual heavyweight and Hillary Clinton makes Bush seem as honest and truthful as a Girl Scout! ..."
    "... What a shitty choice Americans have to make this time round. A compulsive liar warmonger or an ignorant buffoonish bigot.... ..."
    "... US hatred for Iran is hard to fathom. Other adversaries have been forgiven: Germany, Italy, Japan, Vietnam, China. Iran is an outlier. ..."
    "... I think it's mainly to keep US allies happy. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel regard Iran as their greatest enemy and the Syrian Civil War is largely a proxy conflict between the Saudis and the Iranians over their respective oil supplies, regional clout and religious affinity. ..."
    "... Vote Clinton and absolutely nothing changes or improves. Hillary might as well take golf lessons from Barack, and saxophone lessons from bonking Bill, every day of her presidency. ..."
    "... I wouldn't be at all surprised if the CIA and/or the US Armed Forces do that sort of thing too actually! The CIA, after all, toppled the then democratically elected PM of Iran in 1953, forcibly installing the Shah in his place, the CIA helped bring the Taliban and Saddam to power in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively in the first place, unleashing decades of death and destruction on the peoples of those two countries ..."
    "... When the Iraqi people rose up against Saddam's brutal dictatorship back in 1991, the US actually helped him crush the rebellion, thus ensuring he stayed in power. ..."
    "... One of Trump's top advisors John Bolton wrote an article for the New York Times titled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" calling for a joint US-Israel strike on Iran, including regime change. He could well end up being Sec. Of State if Trump wins. ..."
    "... Meanwhile Clinton is on record as saying that Iran are the world's main sponsor of terrorism and that if she became president she would obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel. Given that Hezbollah are always involved in tit for tat encounters with Israel, and Clinton feels Hezbollah is effectively the state of Iran, it wouldn't take much. ..."
    "... Bolton is a vile neocon of the lowest order, what a charade if he gets a senior post and they call Hillary a warmonger? Just wait for Bolton, you mugs ..."
    "... Let's hope the Saudis defeat the Houthi uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Yemen. Oh, sorry this is the Guardian: let's hope the Russians defeat the Sunni uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Syria... ..."
    "... Yes. Trump is going to steal ISIS's oil. Only slight hole in that theory is that ISIS doesn't own any phucking oil. They aren't a nation state, just thieves. Stealing a thief's stolen goods is still stealing. ..."
    "... I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. They were complicit in 9/11, they hate the west and despise us. ..."
    "... >I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. Oil. Oil. And more Oil. ..."
    "... There's nothing bizarre about working with Russia on Middle Eastern issues unless you're married to the idea of a new Cold War. Why Washington is so hell-bent on making Russians the enemies again is beyond me. ..."
    "... Russia - does it really need all that land? Wouldn't it be better if Vladivostok was Obamagrad and Ekaterinburg was Katemiddletown? ..."
    "... What exactly is the US now? a supplier of sophisticated weaponary to "rebels" or rather terrorists that the legitimate governnent ( with Russian help thankfully) is trying to defeat... ..."
    "... There is no moral equivalence here. Once you look at what western intel has been upto all these decades, nowhere could Russia be close to the evil that the US and UK are. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Gman13 2016-09-29

    Donny is the best chance for the lasting world peace and stability because he is more likely to work with Russians on key geopolitical issues.

    Hillary is the best chance for ww3 and nuclear anihilation of the mainland American cities because she is russophobic, demonizer of Russia, hell bent on messing with them and unexplicably encouraged to do so by supposedly "normal" people in mainstream media.

    vaclavers , 2016-09-29 01:12:44
    "Some people insist on disguising this Great Satan as the savior angel." -- Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei, referring to the United States, 2015.
    TruthOrBust , 2016-09-29 00:58:27
    Trump secretly encourages Muslim extremists. Trump is banking, and likely funding, ISIS, to propel him to WH out of fear.
    fragglerokk -> TruthOrBust , 2016-09-29 01:23:38
    The US has already been doing that for a long time. Your country is currently allied with al Qaeda in Syria and other so called moderates whose intention is to create a sharia law fundamentalist society as aopposed to Assad who is euro centric and secular.

    http://theduran.com/how-the-us-israel-al-qaeda-and-isis-work-together-in-the-war-against-syria/

    DogsLivesMatter , 2016-09-29 00:41:44
    From the article: We know from Wikileaks that she believed privately in the past that Saudi Arabia was the largest source for terrorist funding worldwide, and that the Saudi government was not doing enough to stop that funding.

    You know who else believes that about the KSA? Joe Biden.

    fragglerokk -> DogsLivesMatter , 2016-09-29 01:24:30
    and yet the Clinton Foundation benefits massively from KSA donations
    Charlie Lee , 2016-09-29 00:38:18
    I heard that Donald Trump speaks out against the USA funding extremists to overthrow leaders like Assad, while they couldn't care about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Tourists are being shot in Tunisia from extremists in Libya since we became involved in killing Gaddafi.

    The USA armed and trained extremists in Afghanistan to get one over on Russia, and despite more British troops and civilians being killed by USA friendly fire than the 'enemy' our media never make the same fuss about the USA. It wasn't long ago that many doctors were killed in a hospital by a USA bomb, but I only found out about it on the Doctors Without Borders facebook page.

    The USA didn't care for years when the government they helped implement in Afghanistan made women walk around in blue tents and banned them from education.

    JVRTRL , 2016-09-29 00:31:47
    The Ahmadinejad - Trump comparison is a weak comparison.

    Different political systems; two people who come from very different backgrounds with different views and experiences. Ahmadinejad was a social conservative with a populist economic agenda. Trump is all over the map, but in terms of his staff and advisers and his economic plans he's much more of a conventional Republican. David Duke's admiration is the main thing the two have in common.

    nicacio , 2016-09-29 00:10:06
    Clinton is tripe. She, and her kin, have a ponderous history of talk, and either inaction, or actions that generate disastrous results. Zero accomplishments across the board. Those who'd vote for Hillary must have a "horse" in this race.

    I won't be specific, but that horse, or horses, are generally the disenfranchised ones. What to say: I get their plight. But Hillary? Elected, she only make sure they stay that way so she'll be elected again. Time to wake up. There ain't no "pie in the sky", but with perserverance, all's possible, and likely. Trump's the guy.

    sokkynick , 2016-09-28 23:50:23
    Yawn... The Guardian has Trump and Putin bashing on the brain.
    ComradeSueII , 2016-09-28 23:41:21
    John Bolton as possible Secretary of State? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/john-bolton-no-regrets-about-toppling-saddam/article/2564463 Unless you're not talking about the guy who looks like a dead ringer for Mr Pastry that is a really terrifying proposition.
    oldsunshine , 2016-09-28 23:25:02
    USA and Britain are very directly responsible for Iran being ruled by the Islamic mafia which has been in power in Iran since 1979. Iran had a democratic government which for the benefit of its people and against the stealing of its oil by Britain, nationalised the oil. Britain then, desperate to carry on stealing the Iranian oil persuaded USA to collaborate with it to covertly organise a coup by MI5 and CIA to topple the legitimate democratic government and install a puppet dictatorship.

    All that happened in 1953, and Britain and USA totally admitted to all that 30 years later when the official secrets were declassified. One of the consequences of that criminal act was that it lead to the Islamic revolution which brought the Islam clergy to power which turned this most strategically, economically, and culturally important country of the region into an enemy of the west, supporter of terrorism, human rights abuser, arch enemy of Israel, total economic ruin, and eternal nuclear threat to the region- not to mention the Shia-Sunni sectarian division that it has perpetrated which to the large extent has contributed to the mighty mess that the Middle East is in now and potentially spreading to the outside of the region.

    oldsunshine -> oldsunshine , 2016-09-28 23:31:45
    ..., forgot to mention, Jimmy C1arter recently admitted that while he was the president, they contributed to the funding of the Khomeini gang against their own installed ally, the Shah in 1979 to topple him
    Carlb1501 -> oldsunshine , 2016-09-28 23:45:34
    Where do I find this reference?
    oldsunshine -> Carlb1501 , 2016-09-28 23:50:49
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
    Apollo2134 , 2016-09-28 23:22:17
    Trump makes George W Bush seem like an intellectual heavyweight and Hillary Clinton makes Bush seem as honest and truthful as a Girl Scout!

    What a shitty choice Americans have to make this time round. A compulsive liar warmonger or an ignorant buffoonish bigot....

    Fraxby , 2016-09-28 22:56:52

    Trump has said directly that the 2015 nuclear deal was "disastrous" and he would repudiate it, doubling and tripling sanctions

    He probably thinks he can point at it and tell it that it's fired.

    caravanserai , 2016-09-28 22:45:10
    US hatred for Iran is hard to fathom. Other adversaries have been forgiven: Germany, Italy, Japan, Vietnam, China. Iran is an outlier.
    ComradeSueII -> caravanserai , 2016-09-29 01:41:50
    I think it's mainly to keep US allies happy. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel regard Iran as their greatest enemy and the Syrian Civil War is largely a proxy conflict between the Saudis and the Iranians over their respective oil supplies, regional clout and religious affinity.

    Though the continuance of PNAC's schema shouldn't be discounted either. US policy hawks close to both Clinton and Trump still aim for dominance in Central Eurasia. I expect if they could press a button and magically summon up a new Shah for Iran they'd jump at the chance.

    Cuba spent over half a century living beneath the shadow of American wrath too for different reasons. Though perhaps burning revenge at the loss of a compliant puppet also played a role.

    finalcurtain , 2016-09-28 22:44:50
    Vote Clinton and absolutely nothing changes or improves. Hillary might as well take golf lessons from Barack, and saxophone lessons from bonking Bill, every day of her presidency.

    Vote Trump and things are going to change in America. No more pussyfooting around.

    HNS1684 -> UCManhattanP1945 , 2016-09-28 23:49:33
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if the CIA and/or the US Armed Forces do that sort of thing too actually! The CIA, after all, toppled the then democratically elected PM of Iran in 1953, forcibly installing the Shah in his place, the CIA helped bring the Taliban and Saddam to power in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively in the first place, unleashing decades of death and destruction on the peoples of those two countries.

    When the Iraqi people rose up against Saddam's brutal dictatorship back in 1991, the US actually helped him crush the rebellion, thus ensuring he stayed in power. So the US is arguably at least partly responsible for the crimes Saddam and the Taliban committed (in the case of Iraq, as well as murdering at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the US is probably also partly responsible for Saddam's DRAINING OF THE MARSHLANDS OF SOUTHER IRAQ).

    WalterCronkiteBot , 2016-09-28 21:49:48
    One of Trump's top advisors John Bolton wrote an article for the New York Times titled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" calling for a joint US-Israel strike on Iran, including regime change. He could well end up being Sec. Of State if Trump wins.

    Meanwhile Clinton is on record as saying that Iran are the world's main sponsor of terrorism and that if she became president she would obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel. Given that Hezbollah are always involved in tit for tat encounters with Israel, and Clinton feels Hezbollah is effectively the state of Iran, it wouldn't take much.

    Whoever wins Iran loses.

    jimcee33 -> WalterCronkiteBot , 2016-09-28 22:11:21
    Bolton is a vile neocon of the lowest order, what a charade if he gets a senior post and they call Hillary a warmonger? Just wait for Bolton, you mugs
    okthen , 2016-09-28 21:43:04
    Let's hope the Saudis defeat the Houthi uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Yemen. Oh, sorry this is the Guardian: let's hope the Russians defeat the Sunni uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Syria...
    StrangerInParadise -> okthen , 2016-09-28 21:46:13
    Have you ever actually read The Guardian? Look at Shaun Walker's Twitter if you think it is pro-Russian.
    nmccf -> okthen , 2016-09-28 22:21:51
    Yes. Trump is going to steal ISIS's oil. Only slight hole in that theory is that ISIS doesn't own any phucking oil. They aren't a nation state, just thieves. Stealing a thief's stolen goods is still stealing.
    wyngwili , 2016-09-28 21:31:27
    I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. They were complicit in 9/11, they hate the west and despise us.
    ID8701745 wyngwili , 2016-09-28 21:43:53
    >I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. Oil. Oil. And more Oil.
    PrinceVlad , 2016-09-28 21:23:25
    There's nothing bizarre about working with Russia on Middle Eastern issues unless you're married to the idea of a new Cold War. Why Washington is so hell-bent on making Russians the enemies again is beyond me.
    StrangerInParadise -> PrinceVlad , 2016-09-28 21:43:47
    Russia - does it really need all that land? Wouldn't it be better if Vladivostok was Obamagrad and Ekaterinburg was Katemiddletown?
    wallwoodgreen , 2016-09-28 21:22:07
    What exactly is the US now? a supplier of sophisticated weaponary to "rebels" or rather terrorists that the legitimate governnent ( with Russian help thankfully) is trying to defeat...
    Carlb1501 -> wallwoodgreen , 2016-09-28 22:39:01
    Both America and Russia have been supplying arms to terrorists or to destabilise elected Govts. Since the end of WW2. Neither country has a right to take the moral high ground especially not Russia at this time with the revelations coming out about shooting down passenger aircraft. You're both as bad as each other.
    GovernmentSin Carlb1501 , 2016-09-28 23:12:40
    There is no moral equivalence here. Once you look at what western intel has been upto all these decades, nowhere could Russia be close to the evil that the US and UK are.

    [Oct 02, 2016] 'Leaked Kerry comments prove US involvement in Syrian crisis from onset'

    Notable quotes:
    "... I believe that the Russians are aware of the fact that the war in Syria is a war by proxy directed against them and against their ally China. It is part of a bigger plan by the US to block Eurasia from having access to the maritime trade roots. In addition, I believe there was a mentioning of the presence of the representatives of the NGOs operating in insurgent territories. And this proves also that the US was using these NGOs as a tool of soft power in order to topple the Syrian regime. ..."
    www.rt.com

    RT Op-Edge

    Jamal Wakeem: I believe that this proves that the US was involved in the Syrian crisis since its onset and that it was collaborating with the so-called insurgents in order to topple the Syrian regime. In addition, it proves also that the Syrian crisis had its regional and international dimension since the beginning and it wasn't a revolution against an illegitimate regime, as the West claimed at one point.

    In addition, I believe that it also proves that the Obama administration didn't give priority to peaceful and political solution for the Syrian crisis. But it used this as an alternative to its inability to use force when it was confronted by a steadfast position by Russia who refused to be dragged into another trick by the US similar to what happened in Libya and topple the Syrian regime.

    I believe that the Russians are aware of the fact that the war in Syria is a war by proxy directed against them and against their ally China. It is part of a bigger plan by the US to block Eurasia from having access to the maritime trade roots. In addition, I believe there was a mentioning of the presence of the representatives of the NGOs operating in insurgent territories. And this proves also that the US was using these NGOs as a tool of soft power in order to topple the Syrian regime.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Peres stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran 2 years ago

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc : September 30, 2016 at 09:01 AM

    Peres stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran 2 years ago

    http://www.businessinsider.com/shimon-peres-netanyahu-iran-2016-9

    "Shimon Peres 2 years ago: I stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran, and you can talk about it when I'm dead"

    by Natasha Bertrand...9-30-2016...36m

    " Former Israeli president Shimon Peres, who died on Wednesday at the age of 93, told the Jerusalem Post two years ago that current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "was ready to launch an attack" on Iran, and "I stopped him."

    Peres, speaking to the Post's Steve Linde and David Brinn in a meeting at the Peres Center for Peace in Jaffa on August 24, 2014, apparently said he didn't want to go into details about the conversation he had had with Netanyahu..."

    [Oct 01, 2016] Peres stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran 2 years ago

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc : September 30, 2016 at 09:01 AM

    Peres stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran 2 years ago

    http://www.businessinsider.com/shimon-peres-netanyahu-iran-2016-9

    "Shimon Peres 2 years ago: I stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran, and you can talk about it when I'm dead"

    by Natasha Bertrand...9-30-2016...36m

    " Former Israeli president Shimon Peres, who died on Wednesday at the age of 93, told the Jerusalem Post two years ago that current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "was ready to launch an attack" on Iran, and "I stopped him."

    Peres, speaking to the Post's Steve Linde and David Brinn in a meeting at the Peres Center for Peace in Jaffa on August 24, 2014, apparently said he didn't want to go into details about the conversation he had had with Netanyahu..."

    [Oct 01, 2016] The new Cold Warriors went crazier and crazier threatening to go to war against Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... This is entirely wrong. Syria was governed secularly and what began as a secular protests against the government early on was taken control of by violent sectarians, increasingly violent sectarian insurgents. ..."
    "... Syria has been beset by a wildly violent sectarian insurgency which has been supported by surrounding countries and even under the guise of helping moderates by the United States. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs : September 30, 2016 at 01:54 PM , September 30, 2016 at 01:54 PM

    What Is Russia Up To, and Is It Time
    to Draw the Line? http://nyti.ms/2d05nut
    NYT - DAVID E. SANGER - SEPT. 29, 2016

    WASHINGTON - Escalating airstrikes in Syria. Sophisticated cyberattacks, apparently intended to influence the American election. New evidence of complicity in shooting down a civilian airliner.

    The behavior of Russia in the last few weeks has echoes of some of the uglier moments of the Cold War, an era of proxy battles that ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. President Obama, fresh from a meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin this month, wondered aloud whether the Russian leader was content living with a "constant, low-grade conflict." His reference was to Ukraine, but he could have been addressing any of the arenas where Mr. Putin has reveled in his new role as the great disrupter of American plans around the globe.

    "It seems to me we have Mr. Putin's answer," said Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of a coming book, "A World in Disarray." "He's answered in the affirmative. Low-grade conflict is his thing. And the question is how directly or indirectly we introduce costs."

    None of these conflicts have, in fact, cost Mr. Putin very much. Cyberpower in particular is tailor-made for a country in Russia's circumstances - a declining economy with the gross domestic product of Italy. It is dirt cheap, hard to trace to a specific aggressor and perfect for sowing confusion, which may be the limits of Mr. Putin's goals.

    The bigger question confronting American intelligence officials, though, is whether the Russian president has a grander scheme at work. So far, their conclusion is probably not. Mr. Putin's moves, they argue in background conversations, are largely tactical, intended to bolster his international image at a moment he has plenty of troubles back home. ...

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 01:58 PM
    What Is Russia Up To, and Is It Time to Draw the Line?

    [ Crazier and crazier and crazier, the new Cold Warriors that is. We could after all threaten to go to war against Russia, which would surely be line drawing. ]

    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 06:30 PM
    We could after all threaten to go to war against Russia, which would surely be line drawing.

    [ When I wrote this line, I had no idea the Secretary of State Kerry was essentially urging going to war or "backing diplomacy with force."

    http://www.nytimes.com/

    September 30, 2016

    What Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors
    By ANNE BARNARD

    In audio clips from a private meeting, the secretary of state is heard expressing frustration with Russia and the United States' failure to back diplomacy with force. ]

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 01:59 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/opinion/vladimir-putins-outlaw-state.html

    September 28, 2016

    Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State

    Mr. Putin's behavior in Ukraine and Syria violates not only rules designed to promote peace but common human decency.


    http://www.nytimes.com/

    September 30, 2016

    What Is Russia Up To, and Is It Time to Draw the Line?

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 02:00 PM
    Russia 'has an economy the size of Italy' http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/27/lindsey-graham/graham-russia-has-economy-size-italy/ via @PolitiFact

    ... Russia and Italy are very close to each other in terms of nominal gross domestic product, which is the standard unit used to measure the size of a country's economy. Nominal GDP is the total cost of all goods and services produced or sold in a country in within a certain time frame.

    Russia's 2013 nominal GDP was $2.1 trillion, and Italy's was $2.07 trillion, according to the World Bank.

    That's not the only way to measure a country's economy, of course, and this is where the two countries differ. Purchasing power parity takes nominal GDP a step further and shows the value of this level of economic activity if it took place in America. (The Economist explains it by showing how much a McDonald's Big Mac costs around the world.)

    Russia's GDP calculated for purchasing power parity was $3.5 trillion, while Italy's was $2.1 trillion. So in 2013, Russia had a higher level of economic activity than Italy, but because goods and services are more expensive in Italy, the overall value (nominal GDP) ended up the same.

    Also, Italy has more wealth relative to the size of its population than Russia does. Italy's 2013 GDP per capita (per person) was $34,619, and Russia's was $14,612. ...

    Russia "has an economy the size of Italy."
    - Lindsey Graham on Sunday, July 27th, 2014 in comments on CNN's "State of the Union"

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 02:01 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/

    September 30, 2016

    What Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors
    By ANNE BARNARD

    In audio clips from a private meeting, the secretary of state is heard expressing frustration with Russia and the United States' failure to back diplomacy with force.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 02:22 PM
    (Maybe we'll get back into this post-Election.)

    Meanwhile, study the following carefully.

    List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

    (There appear to be several hundred.)

    (To oversimplify, Syria has a Sunni majority,
    but their President Assad is an Alawi, which
    is a branch of Shia Islam.)

    See also: The Sunni-Shia Divide - InfoGuide
    http://on.cfr.org/1yizXEl via @CFR_org

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 03:57 PM
    This is entirely wrong. Syria was governed secularly and what began as a secular protests against the government early on was taken control of by violent sectarians, increasingly violent sectarian insurgents.

    Syria has been beset by a wildly violent sectarian insurgency which has been supported by surrounding countries and even under the guise of helping moderates by the United States.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 05:07 PM
    Hmmm. Iraq was unstable because a
    Shia majority was ruled by a Sunni
    tyrant (Saddam Hussein). Syria is
    unstable because a Sunni majority
    is ruled by a Alawi/Shia tyrant,
    if ophthalmologists can be tyrants.

    (Iraq was not *that* unstable,
    til we came along, after they
    invaded Kuwait. One Sunni country
    invading another, over oil. Go figure.)

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 05:45 PM
    Good grief, the violence in Syria was a sectarian insurgency supported by surrounding governments to destroy the government and take control of the country. Sectarianism in Syria was not an issue before the violent insurgency. The Syrian government was not sectarian.

    The reason the Syrian government survived for so long was that there was significant support for the government against the insurgency.

    [ Presidential name-calling, by the way, only detracts from trying to understand what has been happening in Syria. ]

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 06:02 PM
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/10/13/saudi-arabia-can-it-really-change/

    October 13, 2016

    In Saudi Arabia: Can It Really Change?
    By Nicolas Pelham

    The Other Saudis: Shiism, Dissent and Sectarianism
    by Toby Matthiesen

    Joyriding in Riyadh: Oil, Urbanism, and Road Revolt
    by Pascal Menoret

    Saudi Arabia: A Kingdom in Peril
    by Paul Aarts and Carolien Roelants

    Force and Fanaticism: Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and Beyond
    by Simon Ross Valentine

    Until the Wahhabi conquest of the Arabian peninsula at the turn of the last century, the mixture of sects there was as diverse as it was anywhere in the old pluralist Middle East. In its towns there lived, among others, Sufi mystics from the Sunni branch of Islam, members of the Zaidi sect, which is linked with the Shia branch of Islam, Twelver Shia traders, and seasonal Jewish farmhands from Yemen.

    From the eighteenth century onward, successive waves of warriors from the Wahhabi revivalist movement, formed from Sunni tribesmen in the hinterland, have struggled to enforce a puritanical uniformity on the cosmopolitan coast. Toby Matthiesen recounts in The Other Saudis that, a few years after taking the eastern shores of the peninsula from the reeling Ottomans in 1913, Wahhabi clerics issued a fatwa obliging local Shias to convert to "true Islam." In Hijaz, the western region that includes Mecca, Medina, and Jeddah, militant Wahhabi clerics and their followers ransacked the treasuries of the holy places in Mecca, lopped the dome off the House of the Prophet in Medina, and razed myriad shrines.

    But their success was only partial. In 1930, when the Wahhabi Brethren began raiding Iraq and Jordan and upsetting the region's British overlords, Abdulaziz al-Saud, the modern state's founder, reined them in, slaughtering the zealots by the hundred.

    Afterward, the peninsula regained much of its old tempo. Shia clerics applied their versions of Islamic law in the east. Jeddah's newspapers continued to publish listings of Western as well as Islamic New Year's Eve celebrations, cinema screenings, and concerts. Then, in 1979, apparently inspired by the Iranian overthrow of the Shah and the establishment of an Islamic republic earlier that year, Islamic militants stormed Mecca's Grand Mosque, the holiest place in Islam, and declared a new order under a leader who proclaimed himself the Mahdi-the redeemer-and sought to replace the Saudi monarchy. Wahhabi forces loyal to the monarchy counterattacked, saved the al-Sauds, and retook the mosque. But a crucial deal was made: loyalist clerics approved the removal of the militants by force; but in return demanded that Saudi royals cede them power to strictly control personal behavior. The last cinemas and concert halls shut down. Women were obliged to shroud themselves in black.

    Thirty-five years later, foreign descriptions of Saudi Arabia remain for the most part remarkably bleak....

    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 05:42 PM
    For long periods in history,
    Shia & Sunni have co-existed
    with much grace, but not always.
    It may be the influence of Sunni
    Wahhabism that has led to violence.
    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 05:51 PM
    It may be the influence of [Saudi]
    Wahhabism that has led to violence.

    [ I am led to believe in reading scholars of the history of the region that this is significantly so. ]

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 03:58 PM
    Notice the date:

    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/07/how-us-ensured-that-its-weapons-and.html

    July 22, 2012

    How the US ensures that its weapons and equipment don't fall into Al-Qa`idah hands

    "American and other Western intelligence officials have expressed concern that some of the more than 100 rebel formations fighting inside Syria may have ties to Al Qaeda that they could exploit as security worsens in the country or after the collapse of the government.... A small number of CIA officers have been operating secretly in southern Turkey for several weeks, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive weapons to fight the government." * I am assured that the US has a fool-proof system at hand. The CIA operatives ask the person in question: are you with Al-Qa`idah? If the person says no, he is told: take the weapons and money and run. If he says yes, he is told: not good. Take the money and weapons and run but don't use them against us one day, OK?

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/world/middleeast/us-to-focus-on-forcibly-toppling-syrian-government.html

    --- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 04:01 PM
    Notice the date:

    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-prophets-flag-or-al-qaidahs.html

    July 30, 2012

    The Prophet's Flag? or Al-Qa`idah's?

    "The groups demanded to raise the prophet's banner - solid black with 'There is no god but God.' " * Somebody needs to tell the New York Times that what it calls the "prophet's banner" is none other than the flag of Al-Qa`idah. What an informed paper.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/world/middleeast/as-syrian-war-drags-on-jihad-gains-foothold.html

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 04:02 PM
    Notice the date:

    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2013/05/in-raqqah-syria.html

    May 3, 2013

    In Raqqah, Syria

    This is from Raqqah in Syria. * The main square there has been renamed Prophet Muhammad Square, and a giant flag of Al-Qa`idah is posted. And do you still need a fortune teller to tell you how things are going in Syria?

    * http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-09/world/38405266_1_al-nusra-raqqah-oil-fields

    -- As'ad AbuKhalil

    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 06:23 PM
    The way in which Russia is being portrayed in the United States is shockingly crude and offensive and self-defeating and dangerous.
    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 06:25 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/opinion/vladimir-putins-outlaw-state.html

    September 28, 2016

    Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State

    Mr. Putin's behavior in Ukraine and Syria violates not only rules designed to promote peace but common human decency.


    http://www.nytimes.com/

    September 30, 2016

    What Is Russia Up To, and Is It Time to Draw the Line?


    http://www.nytimes.com/

    September 30, 2016

    What Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors
    By ANNE BARNARD

    In audio clips from a private meeting, the secretary of state is heard expressing frustration with Russia and the United States' failure to back diplomacy with force.

    RGC -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    The NY Times has now gone full neocon on us. It routinely prints lies and misinformation.

    [Oct 01, 2016] If civilians can sue sovereign states it should be obvious to everybody that the drone maniacal US would be on top of the list of targets for such suits

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    DeDude : September 30, 2016 at 07:38 AM

    Amazing how stupid congress can be. I know the politics that drove this mistake, but why did the leadership in congress allow this to be voted on?

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/politics/obama-911-veto-congressional-concerns/index.html

    If civilians can sue sovereign states it should be obvious to everybody that the drone maniacal US would be on top of the list of targets for such suits. Our government and soldiers would be the most vulnerable in the whole world.

    If our courts were to begin collections of judgments from sovereign states the results would be that no foreign government would want to hold assets in this country.

    I certainly sympathize with the 9/11 victim families, although they have been compensated for their loss with way more money than any of the foreign collateral damage victims of our military actions.

    The families may not understand this, but they will never collect a dime. On the other hand, this legislation to "help" them will do a lot of damage to the country and its soldiers.

    How did sympathy for these families let our congress members trap themselves in such a stupendous blunder. I guess election season is a time for that kind of stuff.

    reason -> DeDude... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 07:52 AM
    It is this sort of legislation that has made the US so hated around the world. The US just can't seem to internalize that being sovereign doesn't imply sovereignty over the rest of the world, that that sovereignty ends at the border.

    As far as I know, the US is the only country that taxes its non-resident citizens. This alone is nuts.

    The US is also as far as I know the only country that thinks it has the right to kill the citizens of other countries outside its borders.

    And then it seems that many US citizens seem to think they are not bound by the rules of physics, or logic or arithmetic.

    US exceptionalism has gone on long enough. It is about time the US came back to earth and decided it is just another country on earth.

    efcdons -> reason ... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 11:48 AM
    "As far as I know, the US is the only country that taxes its non-resident citizens. This alone is nuts."

    Why is that nuts? Do non-resident citizens no longer have access to consulate services? Does the citizenship lapse such that one can't come back to the US whenever they want?

    The US keeps going while the citizen is abroad. It's not outrageous to ask them to contribute something (not much, the credit for overseas taxes paid is pretty high).

    DeDude -> efcdons... , -1
    We are the only ones that assume people will come back unless they renounce their citizenship.

    It is only fair that you get taxed for the government services you receive. Therefore, you should be taxed in the country where you live. There is no justification for taxing income earned in a foreign country.

    The value of consulate services are so small that it cost more to recover them than deliver them. So the rest of the world does not use that lame excuse to tax citizens living abroad.

    [Oct 01, 2016] The Soviets are coming! Hammer Sickle strike again, courtesy of Clinton camp

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Progress for USA Political Action Committee" ..."
    "... "time bomb" ..."
    "... "We lost to the losing party, a unique case in history," ..."
    "... "tyrant." ..."
    "... The arguments presented are as light-weight as the production is heavy-handed. The Clinton side claims that Trump made millions selling Russian rights for Miss Universe. That may be true, but Trump owned the organization for 19 years and sold entitlements in dozens of other countries, holding the actual event in Russia only once during that time. ..."
    "... "Russian language promotional video (which) attracted people to buy Condos in Florida." ..."
    "... Then Mike Morrell appears and declares that someone who doesn't want to pursue an aggressive military policy toward Russia is an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
    "... Did Joseph McCarthy even go this far? ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Sometimes it is downright stunning to witness American election campaigners creating, and promoting, websites like " PutinTrump.org ." Paid for by the pro-Clinton "Progress for USA Political Action Committee" it collates media stories which connect the Republican candidate and the Russian president. That could be dismissed as merely slightly odd behavior, until you see the logo, which is drumroll a hammer and sickle!

    Yes, that eternally recognizable communist symbol. Reds in the Bed

    In case Team Clinton is reading this: it looks like it might be time for a bit of a world history refresher. Any person even moderately informed about Russian affairs can tell you that Putin's government is far from communist. Hell, most decently educated school children can tell you the same. The Russian government has promoted a pro-business agenda for well over a decade and has long maintained a flat income tax rate of 13 percent.

    Indeed, only this year, the Russian president has denounced socialist hero Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik government for their brutal repression and accused him of having placed a "time bomb" under the state. He also admonished the Bolsheviks for making Russia suffer defeat at the hands of Germany in the First World War. "We lost to the losing party, a unique case in history," the President said. Furthermore, Putin is no big fan of Stalin either. While recognizing his contribution to defeating the Nazis, he also described him as a "tyrant."

    It's just as doubtful that Trump – a man who just boasted about not paying any federal taxes! – is a fan of Karl Marx's theories. The idea of distributing wealth to labor, from financiers, is surely alien to a man who has essentially admitted to not paying people he has hired because he wasn't happy with their work.

    Put plainly, these commie associations are absurd. But of course, Team Clinton knows this. That's the big reveal. The idea is to conflate the fading memory of the 'Red Menace' of Soviet communism with modern Russia. The purpose of this is pretty obvious too: to instill fear of the 'Big Bad' Putin in vulnerable American hearts and minds.

    The Green Logo Menace

    You need to go no further for proof than Clinton campaign's official messaging. Take a look at this video, where Hillary's team flings Russia slanders like they going out of fashion.

    Cue the foreboding music - you could ask why they didn't just license the tunes from 'Jaws' and have done with it – multiple RT logos and, no joke, Russian mafia references. You know the clichés that Bond films have dropped for being too crude.

    The arguments presented are as light-weight as the production is heavy-handed. The Clinton side claims that Trump made millions selling Russian rights for Miss Universe. That may be true, but Trump owned the organization for 19 years and sold entitlements in dozens of other countries, holding the actual event in Russia only once during that time.

    The video also implies that Trump is bad because he produced a "Russian language promotional video (which) attracted people to buy Condos in Florida." Hold on here, what is so unusual about that? During the oil boom of the mid-to late 00's, Russians were well known for buying property all over the world. Indeed, if you walk around hot spots like London, Nice or Dubai, you will still see Russian language signs outside many high-end estate offices. Probably all homes for the sleeper agents, huh.

    Then Mike Morrell appears and declares that someone who doesn't want to pursue an aggressive military policy toward Russia is an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." And at this point, we probably reach peak preposterous. Essentially the message is that if you don't want to saber rattle with Moscow, you are working for it.

    Did Joseph McCarthy even go this far?

    Read more:

    [Oct 01, 2016] Clinton describes Sanders supporters as basement-dwellers baristas in leaked recording - RT America

    Notable quotes:
    "... "There's just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we've done hasn't gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don't know what that means, but it's something that they deeply feel," ..."
    "... "bewildered" ..."
    "... "populist, nationalist, xenophobic, discriminatory" ..."
    "... "I am occupying from the center-left to the center-right. And I don't have much company there. Because it is difficult when you're running to be president, and you understand how hard the job is – I don't want to overpromise," said Clinton, who has customarily eschewed political spectrum labels. ..."
    "... "understanding" ..."
    "... "Some are new to politics completely. They're children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents' basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don't see much of a future," ..."
    "... "If you're feeling like you're consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn't pay a lot, and doesn't have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing." ..."
    "... "listening to the concerns" of "the most diverse, open-minded generation in history." ..."
    "... People who have the TV on all day and watch the news from the mainstream media are naturally going to get hoodwinked. They aren't the brightest, but they're also distracted and mislead. ..."
    "... She is the definition of implicit bias. ..."
    "... After all, they are the deplorables. HRC is truly the most despicable, scandal ridden, lying war monger to ever grace American politics. ..."
    "... Shame on Sanders for supporting that Nazi witch. ..."
    "... Millions of people were adversely harmed by her misguided policies and her "pay-to-play" operations involving favors in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.rt.com

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made forthright remarks about Bernie Sanders' supporters during a private meeting with fundraisers, an audio from which has been leaked following an email hack.

    "There's just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we've done hasn't gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don't know what that means, but it's something that they deeply feel," Clinton said during a Q&A with potential donors in McLean in Virginia, in February, when she was still in a close primary race with Sanders.

    The frontrunner to become the next US President said that herself and other election observers had been "bewildered" by the rise of the "populist, nationalist, xenophobic, discriminatory" Republican candidates, presumably Donald Trump, on the one side, and the radical left-wing idealists on the other.

    Clinton painted herself as a moderate and realistic contrast to the groundswell.

    "I am occupying from the center-left to the center-right. And I don't have much company there. Because it is difficult when you're running to be president, and you understand how hard the job is – I don't want to overpromise," said Clinton, who has customarily eschewed political spectrum labels.

    According to the Washington Free Beacon, which posted the audio of Clinton's remarks, the recording was attached to an email sent out by a campaign staffer, which has been hacked. It is unclear if the leak is the work of the same hackers who got hold of a trove of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails in July.

    ... ... ...

    In the session, Clinton called for an "understanding" of the motives of Sanders' younger backers, while describing them in terms that fluctuate between patronizing and unflattering.

    "Some are new to politics completely. They're children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents' basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don't see much of a future," said Clinton, who obtained the support of about 2,800 delegates, compared to approximately 1,900 for Sanders, when the results were tallied in July.

    "If you're feeling like you're consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn't pay a lot, and doesn't have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing."

    Despite well-publicized tensions, particularly between the more vocal backers, Sanders endorsed Clinton at the Democratic National Convention two months ago, and the two politicians have campaigned together this week, sharing the stage.

    Following the leak, the Clinton campaign has not apologized for the audio, insisting that it shows that the nominee and is "listening to the concerns" of "the most diverse, open-minded generation in history."

    "As Hillary Clinton said in those remarks , she wants young people to be idealistic and set big goals," said her spokesman Glen Caplin. "She is fighting for exactly millennial generation cares more about – a fairer, more equal, just world."

    In other parts of the 50-minute recording, Clinton spoke about US capacity to "retaliate" against foreign hackers that would serve as a "deterrence" and said she would be "inclined" to mothball the costly upgrade of the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) missile program.

    Read more

    PurpleSeaMan87
    And more votes for Trump it seems. Good
    Olive Sailboat 2h

    The more she runs her mouth the more support she loses.

    Gold Carrot -> Olive Sailboat 6m

    Well if somebody is supported by Soros, Warren Buffet, Walmart family, Gates, Moskowitz, Pritzker, Saban and Session what do you expect. Give me 8 names of other Americans who can top their money worth. And even so called financial supporters of Republican party like Whitman and Koch brothers are not supporting Trump. Whitman actually donate to Clinton. In fact most of the donation for Trump campaign is coming from people who donate at average less than 200 dollars. Clinton represent BIG MONEY that... See more

    GA 2h

    Clinton has a supremacist problem, she considers all americans under deserving people, she thinks she is a pharaoh and we are little people. Reply Share 15

    Red Ducky -> GA 23m

    you think trump is different? ask yourself this question: Why do Rich people spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a job that only pays $400K a year?

    Rabid Rotty -> Red Ducky 9m

    And Trump has stated several times that he will not take the Presidential Salary

    pHiL SwEeT -> Rabid Rotty 8m

    Uh, yah, Red Ducky just explained how it's not about the money, they're already rich. It's about power, status, control and legacy.

    Green Weights 2h

    if Clinton sends her followers and their families to concentration camps, they'll still continue supporting her. yes, that's how stupid they really are.

    Olive Basketball -> Green Weights 55m

    People who have the TV on all day and watch the news from the mainstream media are naturally going to get hoodwinked. They aren't the brightest, but they're also distracted and mislead.

    Cyan Beer 2h

    She is the definition of implicit bias.

    Norm de Plume
    Sure enough. The real Americans. Not people, like her, who have dedicated their lives to aggrandizing themselves living effectively tax-free at the people's expense.
    Seve141 7m
    After all, they are the deplorables. HRC is truly the most despicable, scandal ridden, lying war monger to ever grace American politics.
    Tornado_Doom 12m
    Shame on Sanders for supporting that Nazi witch.
    Green Band Aid -> Tornado_Doom 12m
    Sanders will be getting paid. All he does is for money.
    Tornado_Doom -> Green Band Aid 11m
    Does an old rich man like him need money?
    Green Leaf 43m
    Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State during Barack Obama's first term was an unmitigated disaster for many nations around the world. The media has never adequately described how a number of countries around the world suffered horribly from HC's foreign policy decisions. Millions of people were adversely harmed by her misguided policies and her "pay-to-play" operations involving favors in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative.

    Countries adversely impacted by HC's foreign policy decisions include Abkhazia, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, Malaysia, Palestine, Paraguay, South Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Venezuela, Western Sahara, Yemen - one would think they had a visit from the anti-Christ instead of HC. Or is HC the anti-Christ in disguise?

    Green Leaf 45m
    The majority of American's will vote Trump for 3 primary reasons.

    1. National Security: They trust him when it comes to protecting national security and to stop illegal aliens from entering US boarders along with stopping the mass importation of un-vetted refugees from the middle east.

    2. Economy: They know he knows how to get things done under budget and ahead of schedule.. and he knows how to make money. They want a successful businessman in office, not another political who is out to enrich his or herself at their expense. In addition he knows how to create jobs and he has a major plan to cut taxes to help the poor - no tax for anyone earning less then $50,000 and

    3. Hillary's severe covered-up health problems: With all of the problems that the US is experience they don't want someone who passes out from a seizure in the middle of the day running the country. This is a severely ill woman is, evidently, of the rare kind that requires a permanent traveling physician and a "mystery man" who rushes to her side whenever she has one of her frequent and uncontrollable seizure "episodes" (or otherwise freezes up with a brain "short-circuit" during a speech). She has Parkinson's. The pneumonia was just a symptom for something much more serious. She even had a mini seizure during the debate for those with a medical background to see.

    [Oct 01, 2016] HillaryBots are misconstruing Trumps positions and framing his behaviour as the corrupt neoliberal media wishes to frame it.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I have noticed a pattern with you where you are misconstruing Trump's positions and framing his behaviour as the corrupt media wishes you to frame it. Trump is not great, but he's also not nearly as awful as you're thinking he is. Don't be so influenced by the propaganda coming from Hillary and her devoted lackeys in the MSM. ..."
    "... As a female voter I don't give a crap how bad he is, I'd still rather watch Congress go nuts impeaching him than I would Hillary taking us to war with Russia. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    cwaltz October 1, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    Uh that only happens if someone manages to duct tape Trump's mouth shut.

    Trump's got his own brand of offensive and apparently his goal this week was to alienate female voters even more with his antics.

    I hear that at the next debate his big idea is to blame Hillary for Bill's wandering penis. That should go over like a lead balloon (because believe it or not women don't like to be blamed for the times men act like dogs.)

    jgordon October 1, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    I have noticed a pattern with you where you are misconstruing Trump's positions and framing his behaviour as the corrupt media wishes you to frame it. Trump is not great, but he's also not nearly as awful as you're thinking he is. Don't be so influenced by the propaganda coming from Hillary and her devoted lackeys in the MSM.

    cwaltz October 1, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Spare me, I'm misconstruing nothing.

    You want to run on the fact the guy has no public record per se (Look! He didn't bomb anybody! Yeah, that's probably because he didn't have the means to do so either.). That's great.

    However, he does have a very real past and I refuse to wallpaper over that past. It's completely unacceptable and unprofessional to call your employees Miss Piggy. Acknowledge it. Move on.

    Romancing The Loan October 1, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    Oh like anyone is left who wasn't already aware that Trump's a misogynist gasbag. As a female voter I don't give a crap how bad he is, I'd still rather watch Congress go nuts impeaching him than I would Hillary taking us to war with Russia.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Trump would actually make all those issues you mention far worse

    Notable quotes:
    "... The race baiting has to stop. Krugman should travel to Camden, Rochester, East St. Louis or any of the thousands of towns and cities that were stripped of their wealth thanks to free trade policies he championed. ..."
    "... It is close because Trump offers hope. People remember that times were much, much better when their cities had factories before the so-called globalization hurricane just "naturally" swept everything away. ..."
    "... Twenty years of protectionism and an undervalued currency will turn the US into a star trek land like Singapore. 10 more years on our current free trade trajectory and we'll be Haiti, another free trade paradise. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Joseph Chamberlain's ghost : September 30, 2016 at 03:07 PM

    The race baiting has to stop. Krugman should travel to Camden, Rochester, East St. Louis or any of the thousands of towns and cities that were stripped of their wealth thanks to free trade policies he championed.

    It is close because Trump offers hope. People remember that times were much, much better when their cities had factories before the so-called globalization hurricane just "naturally" swept everything away.

    Twenty years of protectionism and an undervalued currency will turn the US into a star trek land like Singapore. 10 more years on our current free trade trajectory and we'll be Haiti, another free trade paradise.

    DrDick -> Joseph Chamberlain's ghost ... September 30, 2016 at 04:21 PM
    "It is close because Trump offers hope."

    Only to relatively prosperous, uneducated, old white men who are terrified by watching their privilege slip away. Trump would actually make all those issues you mention far worse.

    [Oct 01, 2016] David Brock (Hilary Super-PAC) apparently got access to FoxAcid, the top secret NSA software Snowden exposed.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Forget the Bernie hack, this one shows David Brock (Hilary Super-PAC) in action. Apparently they got access to FoxAcid, the top secret NSA software Snowden exposed. ..."
    "... Honey for the conspiracy bears but this does smell right, and if it's real it's a bombshell: ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 1, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Forget the Bernie hack, this one shows David Brock (Hilary Super-PAC) in action. Apparently they got access to FoxAcid, the top secret NSA software Snowden exposed.

    Honey for the conspiracy bears but this does smell right, and if it's real it's a bombshell:

    http://www.realtruenews.org/single-post/2016/09/27/Inside-Correct-the-Record-Post-Debate-PLOT

    [Oct 01, 2016] Did Trump Support The Iraq War Or Not

    www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    The way Lester Holt "corrected" Donald Trump at Monday's debate (as he was clearly instructed to do) regarding the Iraq War, you'd think the answer to whether he supported it or not was clear-cut. The truth is, it may not be that simple.

    Joe Concha (who has been doing some great work by the way), just wrote an excellent article at The Hill exploring the topic in detail. Here's what he found:

    Question: Did Donald Trump oppose or support the Iraq War?

    Before answering, a quick note on why providing clarity around a relatively simple question: It's rare that cooler heads can prevail in this media world we live in. Lines in the sand have never been drawn between blue and red media as vividly as they are now. And as a result, simple logic and lucidity is supplied less and less to drawing a verdict on whether a story is true or not.

    Exhibit A today is the aforementioned question: Did Trump - as he insists - oppose the Iraq War?

    At first, given that Trump wasn't a politician in 2002 and therefore had no official vote on the war authorization (as is the case with Hillary Clinton 's support of it), the press simply took him at his word on the matter with no evidence readily available to provide otherwise.

    Except there was evidence, albeit flimsy at best, thanks to the dogged work of Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski and Nathan McDermott in unearthing a 2002 interview Trump did with Howard Stern.

    Here's what Trump said when asked by Stern during a typically long interview (Howard can go more than an hour without taking a break) if he was for going into Iraq.

    "Yeah, I guess so," Trump responded. "I wish the first time it was done correctly."

    So to review, Trump, a businessman at that time, didn't broach the topic. There are no other public statements by him on the matter in 2002.

    "Yeah, I guess so" isn't what one would call someone absolutely advocating the invasion of another country.

    Instead, a reasonable person listening could only conclude that Trump probably hadn't given the matter even a passing thought and answered matter-of-factly. Because if Trump was so pro-Iraq War at the time, as he's being portrayed of being by the media in 2016, one would think he - who seemingly shares every perspective that enters his head - would be mentioning it every chance he got in other interviews, which never happens.

    Trump's next interview occurred with Fox's Neil Cavuto in February 2003, just weeks before the invasion occurred.

    In the video, Cavuto asks Trump how much time President Bush should spend on the economy vs. Iraq.

    "Well, I'm starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy," Trump said. "They're getting a little bit tired of hearing 'We're going in, we're not going in.' Whatever happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur? Either do it or don't do it."

    Trump continued: "Perhaps he shouldn't be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations."

    But during Monday night's debate, Lester Holt followed the lead of many in the media who had come to a definitive conclusion on Trump's (at first) apathetic-turned-ambiguous stance.

    "The record shows it," Lester Holt pushed back on Trump after the candidate challenged the moderator's assertion that Trump absolutely was for the Iraq War. The record also shows Trump cautioning that the United Nations needs to be on board.

    The Secretary-General of the United Nations at the time, Kofi Annan, said this when speaking on the invasion:

    "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the U.N. Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

    So if following Trump logic in his interview with Cavuto, if the U.S. and its allies had waited for U.N. approval, the war likely never happens.

    But here's an important nugget few are speaking about: On March 26, 2003, just one week after the invasion began, Trump says at an Academy Awards after-party, "The war's a mess," according to The Washington Post. One day earlier, a Gallup poll showed public support for the war at 72 percent.

    The "war's a mess" quote is even included in Politifact's verdict before coming to the conclusion that Trump is absolutely false in stating he opposed the war.

    In the end, the solution here is simple: Politifact needs to change its "False" rating on Trump's claim. That isn't to say it should be not characterized as "True" or "Mostly True" either.

    Instead, in a suggestion likely to send the usual suspects in our polarized media crazy, the rating of "Half True" needs to be applied here.

    The Hill reached out to Politifact for comment but did not get a response.

    As for media organizations (and this applies to almost every one), who keep insisting that Trump supported the Iraq War so definitively, not every situation lives in absolutes. Not every question has an absolute "yes" or "no" as a final verdict.

    In the case of businessman Donald Trump circa 2002 and 2003, chalk up his perspective on the Iraq War before it started as the following:

    - At first - months before it began to get any real traction in the American mindset - Trump's thought process was one of ambivalence via having not given it almost any thought before being asked about it by Stern, which was nothing more than a quick tangent in an interview focusing on 20 other things.

    - And then in January 2003, Trump's public "stance" was one of caution-before-proceeding by stating a need to wait for the United Nations before rushing in. Note: There weren't declarations around the threat of weapons of mass destruction, spreading democracy or the need to remove a brutal dictator. Trump never cites any of those common arguments for war even once, as Republicans and even some Democrats did.

    In March of 2003, as the war just began, Trump declares "the war's a mess."

    Bottom line: There's was nothing to indicate Trump supported the war, as the so-called record showed.

    He didn't seem 100 percent against it either.

    "On the fence" would be another apt way to describe it.

    Cooler heads need to prevail here.

    But "sanity," "media," and "this year's election" are five words rarely seen in the same sentence anymore.

    Meanwhile, we know for sure which candidate absolutely loves war and leaves a trail of death and destruction in her wake: Hillary Clinton.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State by THE EDITORIAL BOARD

    NYT is clearly a neocon outlet. Very clear demonstration of that it is essentially a part of Hillary campaign and Hillary made bet of demonizing Russia as a path to the victory in Presidential elections.
    Sep 29, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    President Vladimir Putin is fast turning Russia into an outlaw nation. As one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, his country shares a special responsibility to uphold international law. Yet, his behavior in Ukraine and Syria violates not only the rules intended to promote peace instead of conflict, but also common human decency.

    This bitter truth was driven home twice on Wednesday. An investigative team led by the Netherlands concluded that the surface-to-air missile system that shot down a Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine in July 2014, killing 298 on board, was sent from Russia to Russian-backed separatists and returned to Russia the same night. Meanwhile, in Syria, Russian and Syrian warplanes knocked out two hospitals in the rebel-held sector of Aleppo as part of an assault that threatens the lives of 250,000 more people in a war that has already claimed some 500,000 Syrian lives.

    [Oct 01, 2016] "They had somebody modulating the microphone, so when I was speaking, the mike would go up and down," Mr. Trump said. "I spent 50 percent of my thought process working the mike."

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs : September 30, 2016 at 05:36 PM

    (Aha!)

    Actually, a Malfunction Did Affect Donald Trump's
    Voice at the Debate http://nyti.ms/2cGN1m8
    NYT - NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and PATRICK HEALY - SEPT. 30

    The Commission on Presidential Debates said Friday that the first debate on Monday was marred by an unspecified technical malfunction that affected the volume of Mr. Trump's voice in the debate hall.

    Mr. Trump complained after the debate that the event's organizers had given him a "defective mike," contributing to his widely panned performance against Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Clinton lampooned Mr. Trump's claim, telling reporters on her campaign plane, "Anybody who complains about the microphone is not having a good night."

    Mr. Trump was clearly audible to the television audience. And there is no evidence of sabotage. But it turns out he was on to something.

    "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," the commission said in its statement.

    The commission, a nonprofit organization that sponsors the presidential debates, released no other information about the malfunction, including how it was discovered, which equipment was to blame, or why the problem was admitted to only on Friday, four days after the debate.

    Reached by phone, a member of the commission's media staff said she was not authorized to speak about the matter.

    Some members of the audience, held at Hofstra University in New York, recalled in interviews that the amplification of Mr. Trump's voice was at times significantly lower than that for Mrs. Clinton. And at times Mr. Trump appeared to be hunching down to get his face closer to his microphone.

    Zeke Miller, a reporter for Time Magazine who attended the debate, mentioned the difference on Monday in a report to the traveling press pool for Mr. Trump. From his vantage point, Mr. Miller wrote, Mr. Trump was sometimes "a little quieter" than Mrs. Clinton.

    In an interview, Mr. Trump said he had tested out the audio system two hours before the event and found it "flawless." Only during the debate did he notice the problem, Mr. Trump said, and he tried to compensate by leaning down more closely to the microphone. He complained that the changing volume had distracted him and alleged again that someone had created the problem deliberately.

    "They had somebody modulating the microphone, so when I was speaking, the mike would go up and down," Mr. Trump said. "I spent 50 percent of my thought process working the mike." ...

    [Oct 01, 2016] Oddly, after outsourcing jobs CEO pay never decreases.

    Oct 01, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    jellybelly21 5h ago 3 4 Why are Trump supporters under the illusion that DT can bring jobs back? Carrier will move production abroad because 'Most of its Indianapolis workers make about $26 an hour. Their Mexican replacements make $3 an hour'. DT products are manufactured overseas for the same reason: low production costs = higher profits. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Facebook Twitter | Pick Report WillKnotTell jellybelly21 3h ago 2 3 Oddly, CEO pay never decreases.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Doing what contemporary American economists suggest: eliminate tariffs, dont worry about huge capital inflows or a ridiculously overvalued dollar, has led the US from being the envy of the world to being a non-developed economy with worse roads than Cuba or Ghana.

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Friederich List : September 30, 2016 at 05:29 PM

    Doing what contemporary American economists suggest: eliminate tariffs, don't worry about huge capital inflows or a ridiculously overvalued dollar, has led the US from being the envy of the world to being a non-developed economy with worse roads than Cuba or Ghana.

    That US economists are still treated with any degree of credibility it totally appalling. They are so obviously bought-and-paid for snake oil salesmen that people are finally tuning them out.

    TRUMP 2016: Return America to Protectionism - Screw globalism

    [Oct 01, 2016] Get real! No alumni of the Peterson Institute and IMF is going to go all mushy on the down sides of globalization and wealth distribution.

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron : September 30, 2016 at 07:07 AM RE: The State of Advanced Economies and Related Policy Debates: A Fall 2016 Assessment

    https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/state-advanced-economies-and-related-policy-debates-fall-2016-assessment

    [There is a pdf at the link. Olivier Blanchard has surprised me again. As establishment economists go he is not so bad. There is plenty that he still glosses over but insofar as status quo establishment macroeconomics goes he is thorough and coherent. One might hope that those that do not understand either the debate for higher inflation targets or the debate for fiscal policy to accomplish what monetary policy cannot might learn from this article by Olivier Blanchard, but I will not hold my breath waiting for that. In any case the article is worth a read for anyone that can.] RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 07:07 AM

    Get real! No alumni of the Peterson Institute and IMF is going to go all mushy on the down sides of globalization and wealth distribution.
    anne -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 07:13 AM
    https://piie.com/system/files/documents/pb16-14.pdf

    September, 2016

    The State of Advanced Economies and Related Policy Debates: A Fall 2016 Assessment
    By Olivier Blanchard

    Perhaps the most striking macroeconomic fact about advanced economies today is how anemic demand remains in the face of zero interest rates.

    In the wake of the global financial crisis, we had a plausible explanation why demand was persistently weak: Legacies of the crisis, from deleveraging by banks, to fiscal austerity by governments, to lasting anxiety by consumers and firms, could all explain why, despite low rates, demand remained depressed.

    This explanation is steadily becoming less convincing. Banks have largely deleveraged, credit supply has loosened, fiscal consolidation has been largely put on hold, and the financial crisis is farther in the rearview mirror. Demand should have steadily strengthened. Yet, demand growth has remained low.

    Why? The likely answer is that, as the legacies of the past have faded, the future has looked steadily bleaker. Forecasts of potential growth have been repeatedly revised down. And consumers and firms-anticipating a gloomier future-are cutting back spending, leading to unusually low demand growth today....

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> anne... , -1
    THANKS!

    [Oct 01, 2016] How Donald Trump Set Off a Civil War Within the Right-Wing Media

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs : September 30, 2016 at 07:34 AM How Donald Trump Set Off a Civil War Within
    the Right-Wing Media http://nyti.ms/2cY543a
    NYT magazine - ROBERT DRAPER - SEPT. 29

    In recent years, one of the most important events on a prospective Republican presidential candidate's calendar was the RedState Gathering, a summer convention for conservative activists from across the nation. Its host was Erick Erickson, a round-faced, redheaded former election lawyer and city councilman in Macon, Ga., who began blogging in 2004 on a site called RedState.com.

    Erickson, who is now 41, is a conservative absolutist who made his name in the mid-2000s by "blowing up" - in the Twitter parlance he jovially employs - Republican leaders he viewed as insufficiently principled. In 2005, he played a role in torpedoing the Supreme Court nomination of the White House counsel Harriet Miers, publishing damaging admissions from White House sources that Miers had not been properly vetted. Five years later, he chided the National Rifle Association for being too willing to compromise, labeling it "a weak little girl of an organization." He was a sharp-tongued critic of John McCain and Mitt Romney during their presidential runs, characterizing the former as "an angry old jackass" and the latter as "the Harriet Miers of 2012."

    Along the way, Erickson became one of the new kingmakers of the Tea Party-era G.O.P. A little-known Florida legislator and Senate hopeful named Marco Rubio reached out to him in 2009 when he was at 3 percent in the polls. A former Texas solicitor general, Ted Cruz, did the same in 2011. Rick Perry announced his 2012 presidential candidacy at Erickson's gathering. By 2015, a number of the coming cycle's aspirants - Rubio, Cruz, Perry and Bobby Jindal - had given him their personal cellphone numbers, and he had traded emails with Jeb Bush. And two months before that August's convention in Atlanta, a New York-based Republican consultant named Sam Nunberg reached out to Erickson to ask if he could accommodate one more speaker: Donald Trump.

    Erickson watched coverage of Trump's stream-of-consciousness announcement at Trump Tower on June 16 and was not particularly impressed. On the syndicated radio show he broadcasts from Atlanta, he offered his assessment with a dismissive chuckle: "I guess he's ready to be spoiler, not president." He had met Trump once before, in July 2011, when he visited the 26th floor of Trump Tower to interview the businessman and reality-TV-show star. Trump had spent the past few months flirting with a presidential run only to decide, as he told Erickson that day, "I have a great show that's a big success, and it's hard to say, 'I'm gonna leave two hours of prime-time television in order to get beat up by people that don't know what they're doing.' "

    The hourlong conversation struck Erickson as pleasant but unmemorable. What did stick with him was their exchange as he was leaving Trump Tower. "Trump asked me if I played golf," Erickson told me recently. "And I said, 'Yeah, I'm terrible.' " Then, he said, Trump asked if he would be interested in coming to Mar-a-Lago, Trump's estate-turned-golf-club in West Palm Beach, Fla., to play. "I'm very flattered - I've never been to West Palm Beach before," Erickson recalled. "Several times, his office reached out. So finally I asked my wife, 'What do you think this is about?' She said, 'He wants to own your soul.' So I never went."

    Erickson did not see much of a political future for Trump, but he imagined that he might be good for ticket sales, if nothing else, at the RedState Gathering. He informed Nunberg that Trump could have a slot on the convention's second day.

    The evening before he was to speak in Atlanta, Trump went on CNN and denounced the Fox News host Megyn Kelly for her sharp questioning of him during a recent debate, speculating that Kelly had "blood coming out of her wherever." When Erickson saw the footage that evening, he called Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, and rescinded Trump's invitation on the grounds that he would be too much of a distraction. "And that was that," Erickson would later recall with a sheepish grin. "Until the next day, when he's blowing me up."

    On Twitter, Trump called Erickson "a major sleaze and buffoon" and said that the "small crowds" at the gathering were due to his absence. Trump's supporters soon piled on. This was to be expected, but what surprised Erickson were the attacks from people he regarded as his fellow bomb-throwers in the conservative revolution. On Twitter, the talk-radio host and Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham mocked "JebState." The author and right-wing provocateur Ann Coulter brought up some of Erickson's own crass utterances, like his characterization of the former Supreme Court justice David Souter in 2009 as a "goat-[expletive] child molester." The next week, 30,000 readers of Erickson's email newsletter canceled their subscriptions.

    Erickson dug in, writing that Trump was "out of his depth" and lacking in "common decency." But he was drowned out by Trump sympathizers with even bigger audiences than his own, like The Drudge Report and the online outlet Breitbart. It was one of the first salvos in what would open up in the year that followed into a civil war within the conservative media, dividing some of the loudest voices on the right. Days earlier, Erickson had unimpeachable credentials in the conservative movement. But by crossing Trump, he was now, in the eyes of his former allies, "a tool of the establishment."

    The conservative media has always been a playground for outsize personalities with even more outsize political ambitions. The National Review founder William F. Buckley fashioned much of the intellectual genetic code of the Reagan Revolution, while also writing fringe groups like the John Birch Society out of the conservative movement and, for good measure, running for mayor of New York against the liberal Republican John Lindsay. In 1996, the former Nixon media consultant Roger Ailes brought his attack-dog ethos to Rupert Murdoch's Fox News channel and built the network into a transformational power in Republican politics before his fall this year amid accusations of sexual harassment.

    But alongside the institution-builders like Buckley and Ailes, the conservative-media landscape has also produced a class of rowdy entrepreneurs who wield their influence in more personal, protean ways. The godfathers mostly came to power in the 1990s: Clinton-administration antagonists like Rush Limbaugh, who began broadcasting nationally in 1988 and became talk radio's hegemonic power in the Clinton years, and Matt Drudge, who started his pioneering Drudge Report online in 1996.

    If these figures defied the stuffy ceremony of the East Coast think tanks, opinion journals and bow-tied columnists who traditionally defined the conservative intelligentsia, they rarely challenged the ideological principles of conservatism as they had existed since the Reagan era: small government, low taxes, hawkish foreign policy and traditional social values. What they mostly did was provide the Republican Party with a set of exceptionally loud megaphones, which liberals have often envied and tried unsuccessfully to emulate. Conservative talk radio and Fox News now collectively reach an audience of as many as 50 million - most of them elderly white Republicans with a high likelihood of turning out in election years. And this isn't even counting the like-minded online outlets that have flourished during the Obama years, thanks to a growing internet-media economy and a presidency, particularly in the case of the Affordable Care Act, that gave conservatives common cause.

    Then came Trump. In a sense, the divide that he has opened up among conservative media figures is simply a function of the heartburn his ascent has caused among Republicans more generally, pitting voter against voter, congressman against congressman, Bob Dole against the Bushes. Some conservative media outlets threw themselves behind Trump from the beginning, explaining away his more radioactive statements and his uneven-at-best record as a conservative. Breitbart, whose former chairman, Steve Bannon, is now Trump's chief strategist, was an ardent early supporter, breathlessly covering Trump's ascent in the polls and his smackdowns of "low energy" Jeb Bush and "little Marco" Rubio. But as Trump expanded into more sacrosanct targets - Fox News's Kelly, George W. Bush's performance in the war on terror and Cruz - the dissenting chorus among conservatism's dons grew louder. The Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer warned in December that Trump "has managed to steer the entire G.O.P. campaign into absurdities." His Post colleague George Will predicted that a Trump nomination would mean the loss of conservatism "as a constant presence in U.S. politics." The Weekly Standard editor William Kristol floated the idea of a new "non-Trump non-Clinton party." And on the eve of the Iowa caucus, National Review devoted an entire issue to a single topic: "Against Trump."

    Since Trump clinched the nomination, the dividing lines have become starker, the individual dilemmas more agonizing. Mark Levin, an influential talk-radio host, complains that among conservative commentators, Trump's message is endlessly repeated by what he derisively refers to as "the Rockettes." But Levin, too, recently announced to his listeners that he intends to vote for Trump, if only to prevent another Clinton presidency. As he put it to me, "I'm not going to be throwing confetti in the air if Trump wins," adding that he viewed the candidate as "a liberal with some conservative viewpoints that he's not terribly reliable at sticking to."

    Others - Sean Hannity, Ingraham, the former Reagan official and "The Book of Virtues" author William Bennett - have thrown in for Trump with a brio that strikes some in the business as unseemly. "Look, we're in the opinion business, but there's a distinction between that and being a Sean Hannity fanboy," the Milwaukee-based talk-radio host Charlie Sykes told me. "It's been genuinely stunning to watch how they've become tools of his campaign and rationalizing everything he's done."

    "For 20 years I've been saying how it's not true that talk radio is all about ratings and we don't believe what we say," he went on. "Then you watch how the media types rolled over for him. Obviously Donald Trump is very good for ratings, and at some point it's hard not to conclude they decided the Trump train was the gravy train. I've been thoroughly disillusioned, and I'm not alone in that. It's like watching 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers': Oh, my God, they got another one!" ...

    [Oct 01, 2016] John Helmer Four MH17 Questions – The Answers to Which Prove the Dutch Police, Ukrainian Secret Service, and US Government Are

    Notable quotes:
    "... These are not, repeat not, the principles of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), a team of police, prosecutors, and spies from The Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Belgium, and Australia. They have committed themselves to proving that a chain of Russian military command intended to shoot down and was criminally responsible for the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on July 17, 2014, and for the deaths of all 298 people on board. ..."
    "... Paulissen may be right. To prove he's right all he has to do is to fill in the gap between the JIT version of what happened and the Russian version of what could not have happened by answering these questions. To convince a court and jury, Paulissen's answers to these questions must be beyond reasonable doubt. ..."
    "... Why that target, and not the other two targets, also civil aircraft flying above 10,000 metres within a few minutes of each other and within firing range? Why target an aircraft flying so high, at a constant, level altitude? ..."
    "... 20 pieces of shrapnel were recovered, including 2 bowties and 2 cubes ..."
    "... The spread or spray of the shrapnel after detonation is not more than 60 degrees. From mapping this spread from the impacts of metal fragments on aircraft panels it is possible to determine the angle of the missile to the aircraft at detonation. This in turn allows the tracking of the missile's approach trajectory and the firing position on the ground. Testing warhead detonation against aircraft panels will also reveal the number and type of shrapnel impacts which ought to be registered if the missile and warhead types have been correctly identified. ..."
    "... According to the latest JIT report this week, the number of bowties and cubes has dwindled from four identified in last October's Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report to two, one of each shape. How and why did the other two pieces of evidence disappear in The Netherlands over the past twelve months? How does the JIT explain there was no shrapnel at all in the bodies of the 295 people, crew and passengers, who were behind the cockpit, in the main cabin of the aircraft? ..."
    "... The discrepancy in shrapnel count is so large, Malishevsky draws two conclusions – that it was impossible for the missile to have approached from the east and struck head-on; and that the only trajectory consistent with the MH17 shrapnel damage pattern was one in which the missile flew parallel to the aircraft before exploding, and approached from the south, not from the east. ..."
    "... The key claim from the Russian side is that for the engine to be as damaged as it was, the warhead must have detonated on the starboard side. And for that to be the outcome, the missile must have approached MH17, and been fired, from the south. ..."
    "... Why does it appear that the MH17's port engine – left-side looking forward, compass north for the plane flying east - not impacted by warhead blast or shrapnel? Why are there shrapnel hits on the starboard engine (right-side looking forward , compass south) and why was it deformed so differently? Why has the JIT omitted to analyse the engine positions and report this evidence? ..."
    "... What is revealing is how discreet the mainstream mass media have been about the "definitive conclusion" that the "separatists did it with the help of Russia". At least in Europe, the topic was not presented prominently in the press and on the radio, and disappeared right afterwards. ..."
    "... It does not matter: the propaganda was intense and relentless right after the incident to blame the usual suspects - and silenced as soon as the gaps in the narrative became so large they could not be dissimulated. ..."
    "... without ever having been properly investigated and cleared up ..."
    "... Or, for that matter, the Kuwaiti babies tossed out of incubators by Saddam (story invented by a DC pr shop) or the Belgian babies speared by German bayonets in WW1 (British propaganda this time). In a mass media age propaganda is viewed as a vital component of war making which is why all claims from places like Syria and Ukraine should be treated with skepticism. For the R2P crowd represented by Hillary and the ridiculous Samantha Power this propaganda aspect is central, and their compliant allies in the MSM are more than willing to go along. ..."
    "... There is a major difference between then and now: the stories about babies tossed on bayonets or out of incubators (or the Serbian extermination camps in Bosnia, or the mass graves of Ceaucescu in Timisoara) were all complete fabrications. ..."
    "... proving or disproving a culpability is intrinsically more involved than showing that some major crime is a complete invention. ..."
    "... "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." ..."
    "... Now, I'll repeat the most damning, though admittedly non-scientific evidence of all: The U.S. and its lapdog allies were, for months after the event, shrieking about Russian culpability through compliant MSM outlets. Then, suddenly, radio silence. The topic virtually disappeared from the very same MSM outlets as if it were radioactive. ..."
    "... We are on trajectory for really bad things. Russia is being demonized – in all quarters: sports, politics, commerce – in a way reminiscent of the worst of the cold war. forget the handbags of the '80s, but the 50/60s. ..."
    "... Thank you for this careful analysis. The new Cold War-like hostility to Russia of American media has made objective evaluation especially difficult to come by: ..."
    "... It is blaring 24/7 at the NYTimes. Today's edition had a marvelously double-entendred piece on page one, "Hostile Russia looks familiar to Cold War veterans." Much hinges on whether the familiarity lies in properties of the object or, instead, the subject's perceptual grid, a grid the Times is trying very hard to propagate. ..."
    "... As far as "not seeing/mentioning a missile"? Yeah, so what? Visibility of targets coming at you from the low/front is limited in all commercial jets. And this assumes the crew was even looking, and not heads down playing with the radio or FMS. Pimping this line make the rest of their narrative immediately suspect. ..."
    "... Which is more likely? A giant conspiracy (by people who are demonstratably too stupid to pull it off) by the Ukraine and Nato, to come up with a plan to pin it on the Russians (while demonstrating prior to and subsequently that they really don't need an excuse), or……… ..."
    "... Addressing not the issue at hand but the conundrum of "reasonable doubt" (which Helmer invokes at the start of the essay) please read The origins of reasonable doubt : theological roots of the criminal trial by James Q. Whitman. Whitman is at Yale Law School. ..."
    "... The fundamental problem with the investigation is that the Dutch, as part of NATO, cannot possibly be expected to be impartial. In the American legal system you are entitled to a jury of your peers. Lawyers go to great lengths to strike individuals from the jury pool who might have biases one way or another. ..."
    "... In this case the investigators are acting more like a District Attorneys' office, but even there justice presumes that those in charge of making prosecutorial decisions don't have conflicts of interests. ..."
    "... I'd have a lot more faith in the process here if the whole thing were handed off to a neutral third party, assuming such a country could be found. And therein lies the rub … thanks to the neo-liberal program of turning every country into a vassal state for the US, there aren't many candidates left. ..."
    "... The only BUKs in the area were in Kiev's hands. Russia has them on radar and they were active at the time. The one supposedly seen from Lugansk was false–the photo they are using for "evidence" has a billboard in the background that has been located as in a Kiev-controlled area. The separatists never had one at all. The real problem here is that one of the prime suspects has veto power over the report. It can *never* be impartial with Ukraine on the investigation team. ..."
    "... He's obviously not knowledgeable in the field of aeronautics. A missile closing in on a passenger plane from below, at several thousand kilometers per hour, would be impossible to spot visually until immediately before impact, even if you were looking in the exact field of the visual area that it was occupying (which you wouldn't). ..."
    "... Moreover, MH17's cockpit damage shows that the warhead exploded above, portside. But don't let evidence get in the way of "expertise." ..."
    "... "everybody's gotta eat" ..."
    "... How does the JIT explain the missile trajectory if it was not seen by the pilots? ..."
    "... A BUK leaves a spectacular trail from ground to air. No one saw such a trail. And it *is* very spectacular. ..."
    "... Prior to Operation Desert Storm, it was reported that Sadam Hussein had amassed 250,000 troops and 1500 tanks on the Saudi Arabian border. Commercial satellite images proved otherwise. The Iraqi's where later accused of taking infants out of incubators and leaving them to die. We now know it was a fabrication courtesy of the PR firm Hill & Knowlton. ..."
    "... In 1999 and 2000, the United States would go on to bomb Iraq two to three times a week. The sanctions Bill Clinton imposed on Iraq cost the lives of half a million children under the age of five. When asked during an interview if the price was worth it, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it." ..."
    "... The second Iraq war brought us a new set of lies. The cooperation with al Qaeda, who we are now arming in Syria, the uranium yellow cake, the mobile biological weapons labs, the infamous weapons of mass destruction, etc. It estimated than more than a million Iraqi's have died as a result of this butchery. ..."
    "... As far as I am aware, the Ukraine and US have not released any of their radar data. The JIT also used information from Bellingcat, a discredited propaganda outlet. In light of all this information, you will have to pardon my "healthy skepticism". I also suggest that you use the term "useful idiot" more lightly. ..."
    "... But I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Dutch ..."
    "... And in so doing you are giving the benefit of the doubt to the Ukrainian SBU who the Dutch admit provided them with much of the 'evidence'. Kiev is hardly a disinterested party in this matter. ..."
    "... 3) The Ukrainian army did it during an exercise with poorly trained personnel and goofed up. ..."
    "... The problem that Helmer and others highlight is that the Dutch investigation is biased: all evidence and even hearsay is interpreted against Russia, all evidence that goes against the "Russia did it" scenario is ignored or minimized, major evidence that would conclusively settle matters is kept under wraps (USA surveillance logs, Ukrainian tower control logs, Russian radar logs). ..."
    "... The investigation does not pass the smell test. ..."
    "... JIT concluded a BUK TELAR was brought into Eastern Ukraine from Russia. But it did not blame the Russian Federation formaly of having shot down MH17. Dutch politics including Mark Rutte refuse to punish Russia on its role in downing MH17. Current EU sanctions are because the annexation of Crimea and not respecting Minsk agreement. ..."
    "... BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training for its crew to become truly proficient with it. ..."
    "... The surmise is that Kiev thought that was Putin's plane, which was in the air at the same time. There's also a report from a mechanic that defected to Russia, that he saw the pilot that did it return saying "it was the wrong plane." AFAIK, that wasn't investigated at all. Kiev has veto power over the report. A genuine investigation is not being conducted at all. ..."
    "... The Almaz-Antey presentation confirms MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile, burying once and for all the SU 25 theory, about which regular readers of Russia Insider will know I have always been skeptical. ..."
    "... A more credible scenario is that recruits of the Ukrainian army were going through an accelerated training of BUK deployment with inventory of USSR-era equipment, and goofed up. ..."
    "... any of the suspects ..."
    "... Still pondering why a civilian aircraft was anywhere near a combat zone with such armament present, especially considering some of the tenancies of the combatants involved. ..."
    "... Blame will be determined sometime in the future if there are any winners in the ongoing mini World War. The effective use of anti-aircraft weapons allowed the rebels who had no serviceable aircraft to control the air over the battlefield destroying the Ukraine armored attacks leading to the current stalemated trench warfare. A Ukraine military transport was shot down at altitude earlier but for political and monetary reasons civil air transportation continue over the battlefields. This is a classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. ..."
    "... BUK missile burns its engine out far sooner than what it takes for the missile to reach its target. Which means that there wouldn't have been Top Gun like smoke trail approaching the aircraft but just the missile gliding like a dart without power. ..."
    "... constant bearing, reducing range ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on September 30, 2016 by Yves Smith Yves here. Note that Robert Parry also has serious doubts about the latest MH17 report .

    By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears

    You don't need to be an expert in ground-to-air warfare, radar, missile ordnance, or forensic criminology to understand the three fundamental requirements for prosecuting people for crimes. The first is proof of intention to do what happened. The second is proof of what could not have happened amounts to proof that it didn't happen. The third is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

    These are not, repeat not, the principles of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), a team of police, prosecutors, and spies from The Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Belgium, and Australia. They have committed themselves to proving that a chain of Russian military command intended to shoot down and was criminally responsible for the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on July 17, 2014, and for the deaths of all 298 people on board.

    The JIT case for Russian culpability hinges on five elements occurring in sequence – that a BUK missile was launched to the east of the aircraft, and approached it head-on, before exploding on the port (left) side of the cockpit. Pause, rewind, then reread slowly in order to identify the elements of intention, causation, and culpability:

    1. the BUK missile was aimed with a target acquisition radar by operators inside a BUK vehicle at a target flying in the sky and ordered to fire;
    2. they fired from their vehicle parked on the ground facing east towards the aircraft's approach;
    3. the missile flew west and upwards to a height of 10,060 metres;
    4. the warhead detonated;
    5. the blast and the shrapnel tore the cockpit from the main fuselage; destroyed one of the aircraft engines; and caused the aircraft to catch fire, fall to the ground in pieces, and kill everyone.

    On Wednesday afternoon, in the small Dutch town of Nieuwegein, two Dutchmen, one a prosecutor, one a policeman, claimed they have proof that this is what happened. For details of the proof they provided the world's press, read this . Later the same day, in Moscow, a presentation by two Russians from the Almaz-Antei missile group, one a missile ordnance expert, the other a radar expert, presented their proof of what could not have happened. Click to watch .

    The enemies of Russia accept the Dutch proof and ignore the Russian proof. As Wilbert Paulissen, the Dutch policeman, claimed during the JIT briefing, "the absence of evidence does not prove [the BUK missile] was not there."

    Paulissen may be right. To prove he's right all he has to do is to fill in the gap between the JIT version of what happened and the Russian version of what could not have happened by answering these questions. To convince a court and jury, Paulissen's answers to these questions must be beyond reasonable doubt.

    Question 1. ... Why that target, and not the other two targets, also civil aircraft flying above 10,000 metres within a few minutes of each other and within firing range? Why target an aircraft flying so high, at a constant, level altitude?

    What evidence is there in the JIT presentation that the BUK and about one hundred men the Dutch claim to have been involved knew what they were aiming at and intended the result which occurred? A Russian military source asks: "did the BUK operators know where to direct their radar antenna? A 120-degree angle is not very large for target interception."

    Question 3. When a BUK warhead explodes, it releases about 7,800 metal fragments or shrapnel.

    Source: JIT presentation of NATO test-firing of BUK warhead in Finland -- https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-vliegramp/presentaties/presentation-joint/

    Unique to the BUK warhead, according to the Dutch investigations, as well as to the missile manufacturer Almaz-Antei, is a piece of metal shaped like a bowtie or butterfly. About one-third of the BUK warhead's shrapnel – that's about 2,600 pieces of metal – is bowtie or butterfly-shaped. Another third of the shrapnel is cube-shaped. According to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) papers issued in October 2015, 20 pieces of shrapnel were recovered, including 2 bowties and 2 cubes

    BUK WARHEAD SHRAPNEL – BOWTIES AND CUBES

    DUTCH SAFETY BOARD INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF MISSILE SHRAPNEL

    Source: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf -- page 92

    For more details, read this .

    The spread or spray of the shrapnel after detonation is not more than 60 degrees. From mapping this spread from the impacts of metal fragments on aircraft panels it is possible to determine the angle of the missile to the aircraft at detonation. This in turn allows the tracking of the missile's approach trajectory and the firing position on the ground. Testing warhead detonation against aircraft panels will also reveal the number and type of shrapnel impacts which ought to be registered if the missile and warhead types have been correctly identified.

    According to the latest JIT report this week, the number of bowties and cubes has dwindled from four identified in last October's Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report to two, one of each shape. How and why did the other two pieces of evidence disappear in The Netherlands over the past twelve months? How does the JIT explain there was no shrapnel at all in the bodies of the 295 people, crew and passengers, who were behind the cockpit, in the main cabin of the aircraft?

    According to Mikhail Malishevsky, the Almaz-Antei briefer in Moscow yesterday, test-bed detonations of the BUK missile at the port position, 1.5 metres from the cockpit, where the Dutch claim the missile detonated, show many more impact holes and evidence of bowties than the Dutch report they have recovered. Malishevsky records that in the Dutch analysis reported last year the shrapnel impacts had an average concentration of 80 per square metre. He says the Dutch are now reporting an average concentration of 250 per square metre, but with fewer of the BUK warhead's characteristic bowties.

    The discrepancy in shrapnel count is so large, Malishevsky draws two conclusions – that it was impossible for the missile to have approached from the east and struck head-on; and that the only trajectory consistent with the MH17 shrapnel damage pattern was one in which the missile flew parallel to the aircraft before exploding, and approached from the south, not from the east.

    "The hypothesis of a missile hitting the plane head-on was not credible. There is no way to explain the lack of fragments [shrapnel] as per the Dutch 3D model…" Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbIPo8dW9b0 -- minute 20:51.

    Question 4. ... The key claim from the Russian side is that for the engine to be as damaged as it was, the warhead must have detonated on the starboard side. And for that to be the outcome, the missile must have approached MH17, and been fired, from the south.

    So the question for Dutch prosecutor Fred Westerbeke (lead image, left) and Dutch policeman Paulissen, along with the 100 members of the JIT staff, is which engine is which in their evidence? Why does it appear that the MH17's port engine – left-side looking forward, compass north for the plane flying east - not impacted by warhead blast or shrapnel? Why are there shrapnel hits on the starboard engine (right-side looking forward , compass south) and why was it deformed so differently? Why has the JIT omitted to analyse the engine positions and report this evidence?

    A summary of these questions and the answers so far can be plotted on the map of the crash area.

    KEY
    Red line - MH 17.
    Blue line – firing point at Snizhne (in Russian Snezhnoe), according to the JIT version.
    Green line – firing point at Zaroshchenskoe (misspelled in the map), according to Almaz-Antei version.
    Source: http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68376.html

    Topographically, between Snizhne (Snezhnoe) in the east and Zaroshchenskoe to the southwest, there is a distance of less than 25 kilometres. Politically, between them as suspected missile-firing sites there is all the difference in the world

    visitor September 30, 2016 at 6:50 am

    What is revealing is how discreet the mainstream mass media have been about the "definitive conclusion" that the "separatists did it with the help of Russia". At least in Europe, the topic was not presented prominently in the press and on the radio, and disappeared right afterwards.

    It does not matter: the propaganda was intense and relentless right after the incident to blame the usual suspects - and silenced as soon as the gaps in the narrative became so large they could not be dissimulated.

    The MH17 shooting will join the numerous other cases ascribed to dastardly diplomatic opponents:

    1) the assassination of Rafi Hariri (blamed on Assad, but evidence implicating Israel not followed upon);
    2) the bungled terrorist attacks in Thailand (blamed on Iran, responsibility of Iranian opposition highly likely given the evidence);
    3) the bus bombing in Bulgaria (blamed on Hezbollah, investigation of involvement of Sunni jihadist groups abruptly cancelled);
    4) the chemical attack in Syria (blamed on Assad, convincingly demonstrated by Hersh to be an Al-Nusra false flag action);
    5) cyber-breach at Sony (blamed on North Korea, evidence points out at an insider job within Sony);
    6) cyberattack at OPM (blamed on China without proof);
    7) cyberattacks against the Democratic party (blamed on Russia without proof);

    Notice how those widely discussed, important cases have sunk into a news black-hole - without ever having been properly investigated and cleared up .

    We will probably never know for sure in our lifetime what happened in all those cases.

    Carolinian September 30, 2016 at 8:22 am

    Or, for that matter, the Kuwaiti babies tossed out of incubators by Saddam (story invented by a DC pr shop) or the Belgian babies speared by German bayonets in WW1 (British propaganda this time). In a mass media age propaganda is viewed as a vital component of war making which is why all claims from places like Syria and Ukraine should be treated with skepticism. For the R2P crowd represented by Hillary and the ridiculous Samantha Power this propaganda aspect is central, and their compliant allies in the MSM are more than willing to go along.

    visitor September 30, 2016 at 9:47 am

    There is a major difference between then and now: the stories about babies tossed on bayonets or out of incubators (or the Serbian extermination camps in Bosnia, or the mass graves of Ceaucescu in Timisoara) were all complete fabrications.

    Nobody denies that the MH17 was shot down, or that Hariri in Lebanon or Israeli tourists in Bulgaria were blown up, or that a chemical bomb exploded in Eastern Ghouta. This makes any debunking somewhat more arduous: proving or disproving a culpability is intrinsically more involved than showing that some major crime is a complete invention.

    human September 30, 2016 at 11:41 am

    "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

    He went on to explain:

    "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

    - David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle

    David Rockefeller born June 12, 1915 … likely the most powerful man in the world.

    sid_finster September 30, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    The alleged poisoning of V. Yuschenko.

    The murder of G. Gongadze.

    The alleged Russian invasion of South Ossetia.

    Tinky September 30, 2016 at 6:57 am

    Excellent work. Thank you.

    Now, I'll repeat the most damning, though admittedly non-scientific evidence of all: The U.S. and its lapdog allies were, for months after the event, shrieking about Russian culpability through compliant MSM outlets. Then, suddenly, radio silence. The topic virtually disappeared from the very same MSM outlets as if it were radioactive.

    That would never have happened had the anti-Russian alliance not discovered information that severely undercut their original, reflexive claims.

    Does anyone believe that this most recent report is other than a feeble attempt to keep the original, and quite obviously false narrative alive?

    Nelson Lowhim October 1, 2016 at 5:46 am

    I'm guessing it's always been like this? Screech hard and loud about imminent threats (to physical self or honor) and do so loud and often, claiming any moment to think is close to treason (or simply cowardice). Note that it will always be harder to refute (finding facts) than to come up with lies, of which there will be many (and if even a single is correct, it makes the next lie even better) and keep at it. until there is an actual punishment for doing this, there is no reason not to. Am I missing something?

    BringOnTheHotWar September 30, 2016 at 7:08 am

    We are on trajectory for really bad things. Russia is being demonized – in all quarters: sports, politics, commerce – in a way reminiscent of the worst of the cold war. forget the handbags of the '80s, but the 50/60s.

    And a complicit and/or childlike media is happy to swallow whatever official story comes their way. We know – as with any major power – that crazy shit is going down in, and with Russia (Putin ain't a saint). But poking, and prodding this nuclear bear – as a way to, among other things, justify $1 trillion in nuclear re-armament – is as foolish as it gets. DJT is a moron of nth degree. but i just don't believe he will drive us to armed conflict (whether by proxy or not) with russia. that, alone, would be enough for a vote against HRC. and with the mess the GOP is in, if HRC get in, she's in for 8 years. #untolddamage.

    ltr September 30, 2016 at 7:49 am

    Thank you for this careful analysis. The new Cold War-like hostility to Russia of American media has made objective evaluation especially difficult to come by:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/opinion/vladimir-putins-outlaw-state.html

    September 28, 2016

    Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State

    Mr. Putin's behavior in Ukraine and Syria violates not only rules designed to promote peace but common human decency.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 30, 2016 at 7:52 am

    Agree, if they really had the goods this would have been blaring 24/7 from Hilary's War Advancement & Promotion Team, oops I mean CNN. Even simpler though is just to note that when Obama/Hilary are pressed on what exactly Russia has done overall to deserve the "existential threat" label, they mumble and finally blurt out ""Crimea".

    So I guess a fair plebiscite where 96% voted to rejoin Russia and a peaceful transition without a single shot fired now qualifies as a threat to the US. And of course zero mention of the murderous Neo-Nazis we installed in Kiev.

    hemeantwell September 30, 2016 at 8:58 am

    It is blaring 24/7 at the NYTimes. Today's edition had a marvelously double-entendred piece on page one, "Hostile Russia looks familiar to Cold War veterans." Much hinges on whether the familiarity lies in properties of the object or, instead, the subject's perceptual grid, a grid the Times is trying very hard to propagate.

    Paid Minion September 30, 2016 at 8:17 am

    The Russians have a long history of lying their asses off when they (or their minions) eff up. They are much better at it, after watching Fox News for the past 30 years.

    Funny, but their surrogates didn't mind taking the credit for the half dozen or so Ukrainian jets zapped by missiles in the couple of months before this incident.

    As far as "not seeing/mentioning a missile"? Yeah, so what? Visibility of targets coming at you from the low/front is limited in all commercial jets. And this assumes the crew was even looking, and not heads down playing with the radio or FMS. Pimping this line make the rest of their narrative immediately suspect.

    And remember how they were pushing the "Ukrainian SU-25 Theory" before anyone who knows anything about airplanes shot that one full of holes.

    But whatever. Nobody is going to be able to prove anything, since the airplane crashed on Russian controlled territory

    If the conspiracy theorists think the airplane was shot down as a pretext to starting a war with Russia, answer me this……. Why zap a Malaysian airliner, with no US or British passengers? All you need is an Internet connection and Flightaware,to know what airplane you are shooting at.

    Which is more likely? A giant conspiracy (by people who are demonstratably too stupid to pull it off) by the Ukraine and Nato, to come up with a plan to pin it on the Russians (while demonstrating prior to and subsequently that they really don't need an excuse), or………

    A couple of yokels sitting inside a SAM launcher who effed up and zapped the wrong airplane, who subsequently were made to "disappear"?

    vidimi September 30, 2016 at 8:18 am

    more reasons why people shouldn't and no longer do trust 'experts'. it's a meaningless charade intended to make an agenda credible. when one of the main suspects is one of the lead investigators and the whole sham of an investigation is led by nato, it's only aim is to increase tensions with russia. well, it looks like they will finally get the war they have been wishing for when mrs clinton takes over the white house.

    Nikki September 30, 2016 at 8:23 am

    Addressing not the issue at hand but the conundrum of "reasonable doubt" (which Helmer invokes at the start of the essay) please read The origins of reasonable doubt : theological roots of the criminal trial by James Q. Whitman. Whitman is at Yale Law School. He published the chapters separately in various law reviews. Read the last chapter first for an overview and understanding that he is motivated to get rid of the bogus standard with medieval theological roots– after all, how many have been wrongly jailed due to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

    Bill Smith September 30, 2016 at 10:37 am

    The simplest explanation is that the rebels made a mistake and shot the wrong plane down.

    hunkerdown September 30, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    Bill Smith, and it's been pretty well debunked as inconsistent with the evidence, but toddlers need something to believe. Try again, this time with your fingers out of your ears.

    sid_finster September 30, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    While I don't pretend to know who shot mh17 down or why, an simpler explanation is that the junta government did so.

    They were known to have Buk anti-aircraft rockets in the area.

    So far, I have seen only conjecture that the rebels did.

    pictboy3 September 30, 2016 at 10:50 am

    This is one thread subject on this otherwise excellent site that I think is absolutely ridiculous. I can understand putting people to their proof on the evidence, but what exactly is the point of this article? To prove that the separatists didn't shoot down the plane? Considering that Strelkov actually bragged about shooting a plane down right after it happened (the post was quickly taken down, but luckily caching is a thing), and there were witness accounts of a missile battery being driven out of Luhansk at the same time, I think it's a bit much to suggest that the Ukrainians did it.

    Our policy towards Russia is stupid and short-sighted, as it has been for most of the past three decades, but our own failings don't make the Russians into saints. They're capable of stupid and evil decisions just as much as we are. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that weapons, whether given to proxies or used by the Russians themselves, can shoot the wrong target? There's a line between being a healthy skeptic and a useful idiot, and there's a lot of people here who need to look at which side of it they're standing on.

    ChrisFromGeorgia September 30, 2016 at 10:59 am

    The fundamental problem with the investigation is that the Dutch, as part of NATO, cannot possibly be expected to be impartial. In the American legal system you are entitled to a jury of your peers. Lawyers go to great lengths to strike individuals from the jury pool who might have biases one way or another.

    In this case the investigators are acting more like a District Attorneys' office, but even there justice presumes that those in charge of making prosecutorial decisions don't have conflicts of interests.

    I'd have a lot more faith in the process here if the whole thing were handed off to a neutral third party, assuming such a country could be found. And therein lies the rub … thanks to the neo-liberal program of turning every country into a vassal state for the US, there aren't many candidates left.

    Iceland, maybe?

    Vatch September 30, 2016 at 11:27 am

    Is it really that much of a stretch to think that weapons, whether given to proxies or used by the Russians themselves, can shoot the wrong target?

    Good comment. I don't think any reasonable person has implied that the separatists intentionally shot down a civilian plane. They thought it was a military plane, and it was a tragic mistake.

    I can't comment on all of Helmer's questions, but I can comment on #1. He says that newer BUK systems don't match what was seen on the ground. Well, it's possible the Russians did not provide the new variety of BUK systems to the separatists. Maybe they let the separatists use the older variety, and the Russians kept the newer systems on their own soil.

    Regarding question #2. Maybe the pilots didn't see the missile because it was below their field of vision until the very last second. Or maybe they weren't looking at that part of the sky, so they didn't see it right away. Or maybe they saw it, and briefly froze, wondering what the heck is that?

    hunkerdown September 30, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Almaz-Antey alleges that Russia hadn't had any older models in inventory to supply for some two years before the attack, but that the Ukrainian military hadn't upgraded yet.

    zapster September 30, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    The only BUKs in the area were in Kiev's hands. Russia has them on radar and they were active at the time. The one supposedly seen from Lugansk was false–the photo they are using for "evidence" has a billboard in the background that has been located as in a Kiev-controlled area. The separatists never had one at all. The real problem here is that one of the prime suspects has veto power over the report. It can *never* be impartial with Ukraine on the investigation team.

    Johan Telstad September 30, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Thank you!
    I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would listen to this John Helmer person.

    He's obviously not knowledgeable in the field of aeronautics. A missile closing in on a passenger plane from below, at several thousand kilometers per hour, would be impossible to spot visually until immediately before impact, even if you were looking in the exact field of the visual area that it was occupying (which you wouldn't).

    BTW, if you want a real expert on Russia, try someone like Mark Galeotti ( https://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com ).

    OIFVet September 30, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    And you are expert?!?! SAMs generally attack targets from above, and BUKs are specifically designed to do so. As an expert in "aeronautics" and ballistics you will no doubt explain to the audience why that is. Moreover, MH17's cockpit damage shows that the warhead exploded above, portside. But don't let evidence get in the way of "expertise."

    optimader September 30, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    Helmer spills a lot of ink as a kremlin mouthpiece, "everybody's gotta eat" I guess.

    How does the JIT explain the missile trajectory if it was not seen by the pilots?

    how can one assume anyone in the cockpit was looking out the window as it was on autopilot, no less in the relevant piece of sky?

    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/geopolitics-is-biggest-enemy-to-finding-truth-on-mh17/

    zapster September 30, 2016 at 7:56 pm

    A BUK leaves a spectacular trail from ground to air. No one saw such a trail. And it *is* very spectacular.

    Tobin Paz September 30, 2016 at 4:34 pm

    Prior to Operation Desert Storm, it was reported that Sadam Hussein had amassed 250,000 troops and 1500 tanks on the Saudi Arabian border. Commercial satellite images proved otherwise. The Iraqi's where later accused of taking infants out of incubators and leaving them to die. We now know it was a fabrication courtesy of the PR firm Hill & Knowlton.

    In 1999 and 2000, the United States would go on to bomb Iraq two to three times a week. The sanctions Bill Clinton imposed on Iraq cost the lives of half a million children under the age of five. When asked during an interview if the price was worth it, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it."

    The second Iraq war brought us a new set of lies. The cooperation with al Qaeda, who we are now arming in Syria, the uranium yellow cake, the mobile biological weapons labs, the infamous weapons of mass destruction, etc. It estimated than more than a million Iraqi's have died as a result of this butchery.

    Libya, the wealthiest country with the highest standard of living in Africa, was the next major target of more lies. From Gaddafi bombing his own people to the distribution of Viagra to his troops so that they could go on a raping spree. Little mention is made of the bombing of Libya's Great Man-made River project, the largest aqueduct and network of pipes that supplied water to %70 of the population. The water crisis created continues to this day.

    The illegal war of aggression on the sovereign state of Syria requires it's own discussion. I will only mention the allegation of Assad using sarin nerve gas. Seymour Hersh's reporting would later show that it was a false flag carried out to cross Obama's chemical weapons "red line".

    This brings us to Ukraine, a country in which the United States spent $5 billion on regime change. It was coup d'etat that brought in Svobada and Right Sector, both Neo-Nazi parties. From the fake Russian troop photo's presented by Senator Inhofe, to the invasion of Crimea, a peninsula that hosts Russia's Sevastopol naval base. If there is any doubt about it being an invasion or not, it should be noted that not only did Crimean's vote to secede with a 96% majority in 2014, they overwhelmingly voted for independence both in 1991 and 1994.

    As far as I am aware, the Ukraine and US have not released any of their radar data. The JIT also used information from Bellingcat, a discredited propaganda outlet. In light of all this information, you will have to pardon my "healthy skepticism". I also suggest that you use the term "useful idiot" more lightly.

    Expat September 30, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    The technical aspects of the two reports are not verifiable by me based on either account so I cannot say which is more likely based on this article. However I can say that disputing the shoot-down by a BUK based on the idea that it was unlikely the separatists would choose that plane and fire at it is about as valid as saying the shoot-down theory is impossible because everyone knows commercial airliners are shot down only once every decade. The plane WAS shot down. Perhaps the unsophisticated BUK system was the reason for a commercial airliner being struck.

    So we have the Dutch on one side with a potential bias because they are part of NATO and interested in crucifying the evil Soviets…whoops, Russians at any price. And on the other side we have the suppliers of the missile and sponsors/supporters of those accused of firing it. Which side is more likely to fabricate an explanation? Maybe both are lying. But I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Dutch.

    tgs September 30, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    But I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Dutch

    And in so doing you are giving the benefit of the doubt to the Ukrainian SBU who the Dutch admit provided them with much of the 'evidence'. Kiev is hardly a disinterested party in this matter.

    visitor September 30, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Perhaps the unsophisticated BUK system was the reason

    BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training for its crew to become truly proficient with it.

    There are currently three versions of the MH17 case:

    1) A motley crew of separatists did it with equipment provided by Russia.

    2) An Ukrainian oligarch with his own badly trained militia did it with equipment diverted from Ukrainian reserves.

    3) The Ukrainian army did it during an exercise with poorly trained personnel and goofed up.

    There is no incontrovertible evidence for any of those scenarios. Note that (3) would not be the first time that the Ukrainian army shot down a civilian airplane by mistake; it already did it in 2001 (look up Siberia Airlines 1812).

    The problem that Helmer and others highlight is that the Dutch investigation is biased: all evidence and even hearsay is interpreted against Russia, all evidence that goes against the "Russia did it" scenario is ignored or minimized, major evidence that would conclusively settle matters is kept under wraps (USA surveillance logs, Ukrainian tower control logs, Russian radar logs).

    The investigation does not pass the smell test.

    sid_finster September 30, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    Verily.

    optimader September 30, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/geopolitics-is-biggest-enemy-to-finding-truth-on-mh17/
    JIT concluded a BUK TELAR was brought into Eastern Ukraine from Russia. But it did not blame the Russian Federation formaly of having shot down MH17. Dutch politics including Mark Rutte refuse to punish Russia on its role in downing MH17. Current EU sanctions are because the annexation of Crimea and not respecting Minsk agreement.

    optimader September 30, 2016 at 7:21 pm

    BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training for its crew to become truly proficient with it.

    Requiring 6-12mnths of training is not exactly an endorsement of sophistication. That said, what I read (a couple years ago!) and recall about the buk systems is that there is at least one degraded permissive level that will allow the system to launch a missile, and several targeting radar/telemetry apparatus (remote/local) that allow the system to function in a degraded manner -- like if the systems truck with "the meat" in it gets blasted.

    My opinion remains that it was a BUK system supplied by the Russians to what was less than fully qualified separatists, or was subsequently put in the hands of less than qualified operators who launched on purpose thinking it was the ubiquitous Ukie cargo plane, not realizing it was a commercial airliners.

    Who would do that on purpose? really? This is EXACTLY the kind of idiocy that occurs in war

    zapster September 30, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    The surmise is that Kiev thought that was Putin's plane, which was in the air at the same time. There's also a report from a mechanic that defected to Russia, that he saw the pilot that did it return saying "it was the wrong plane." AFAIK, that wasn't investigated at all. Kiev has veto power over the report. A genuine investigation is not being conducted at all.

    optimader September 30, 2016 at 9:31 pm

    Zapster, even the BUK mfgr conceded it was shot down with a BUK missile over a year ago. Isnt it time to give up the imaginary SU-25 confabulation already?

    The Almaz-Antey presentation confirms MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile, burying once and for all the SU 25 theory, about which regular readers of Russia Insider will know I have always been skeptical.

    visitor October 1, 2016 at 7:06 am

    A more credible scenario is that recruits of the Ukrainian army were going through an accelerated training of BUK deployment with inventory of USSR-era equipment, and goofed up.

    (a) Because so far, all BUK systems in Ukraine, especially at the time of the MH17 downing, have been conclusively identified as Ukrainian ones. There are no conclusive images of the supposed separatist BUK battery before, during or after the MH17 incident. Despite all radars monitoring the battlefield…

    (b) Because being at war and given the dilapidated state of the Ukrainian army (going back to the early 1990s), there was an urgent need for personnel, and only fast training was possible. No careful year-long schooling when the next separatist offensive or much-touted Russian invasion can strike in a matter of weeks.

    (c) Because a training scenario explains the presence of Ukrainian SU25, serving as practice targets - but BUK radars locked onto the much larger signal corresponding to the MH17.

    (d) Because shooting actual missiles when one is not supposed to do, and aiming them at the wrong target is exactly the kind of error that "green" personnel may commit while stressed in time of war - but that experienced operators who had time to go through all possible scenarios recognizing various target types and locking the right ones after months of drill will avoid.

    Personally, I do not believe that any of the suspects ever deliberately fired at MH17.

    Crazy Horse September 30, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    Add two more suspects to the list:

    4- Putin did it. After all, the American mass media told us so almost before the airliner hit the ground.

    5- An American clandestine agency (CIA, NSA, Blackwater, etc. did it by supplying planning and logistical support to their client Ukrainians.

    A crime did take place. Since we are uncertain as to who the perpetrators were, let's apply crime scene logic:

    MOTIVE:
    Hard to conceive of a motive for Putin or the Russian Federation. The only conceivable result of such an attack would be to further the Western propaganda effort to demonize Putin and the separatists and to open the door to increased US military and economic support for Ukraine.

    On the other hand the USA (and the Ukrainian government) clearly had the motive to create a false flag situation to justify expanded intervention, and the US has a long history of doing so. Gulf of Tonkin, World Trade Center, Syrian gas attacks - to name but a few.

    MEANS:
    If the plane was downed by a Russian built BUK missile instead of by fighter jets as it first seemed, then all five suspects could have conceivably have been in possession of the missile and launch and fire control apparatus. Using an analysis of the attack direction to derive the launch site is plausible but far from convincing. Both the Russians and the US had their most sophisticated spy satellites focused on the region and probably knew exactly what happened in real time.

    OPPORTUNITY:
    The real smoking gun in this affair was the fact that the Ukrainians purposely re-routed the airliner far south of its normal route, and then disappeared the air traffic controller in charge. Without this diversion it would not have been possible to target the plane. Was this event planned and coordinated by one of the US spook agencies or mercenaries under contract or was it solely an Ukrainian operation? Did the sophisticated American communications ship stationed nearby assist with logistics?

    Somehow I can't buy the argument that it was all an accident.

    Optimader October 1, 2016 at 12:14 am

    Clouseau: Listen to me, Hercule, and you will learn something.

    Now then, the facts in this case are:

    the body of the chauffeur was found in the bedroom of the second maid. Fact!

    Cause of death:
    Four bullets in the chest. Fact!

    The bullets were fired at close range from a .25 caliber Beretta automatic. Fact!

    Maria Gambrelli was discovered with the murder weapon in her hand. Fact!

    The murder weapon was registered in the name of the deceased, Miguel Ostos, and was kept, mind you, in the glove compartment of the Ballon Rolls-Royce. Fact!

    Now then, members of the household staff have testified that Miguel Ostos beat…
    [snaps his pointing stick]

    Clouseau: You fool! You have broken my pointing stick! I have nothing to point with now!… have testified that Miguel Ostos beat Maria Gambrelli frequently.

    And now, finally comes the sworn statement of Monsieur and Madame Ballon, as well as all the members of the staff, each of them with perfect alibis.

    Now then, Hercule, What is the inescapable conclusion?

    Hercule LaJoy: Maria Gambrelli killed the chauffeur.

    Clouseau: What? You idiot! It's impossible. She's protecting someone.
    Hercule LaJoy: How do you know that?

    Clouseau: Instinct!

    Hercule LaJoy: But that facts…

    Clouseau: You are forgetting the most important fact – motive.

    Veri September 30, 2016 at 5:07 pm

    Why did this story on MH17 come out now?

    Al Nusra senior commander admits US is on Jihadis side.

    Reported in German Press.

    likbez September 30, 2016 at 8:00 pm

    Note: the previous variant of this comment went to moderation.

    You need to understand that after JFK assassination the notion that truth will eventually surface in such cases is open to review. So a plausible hypothesis might be all we can have. Yes, there is a line "between being a healthy skeptic and a useful idiot", but the evidence strongly suggests that in this particular case Western MSM promoted version has huge hole in it.

    The default suspects according to "quo bono" principle should be Ukraine and the USA, unless good counterarguments are provided. There are none so far.

    Of cause we do not know for sure (and might never get the real facts), but there are several chunks of evidence that strengthen this "accident into false flag" or "false flag from the very beginning" hypothesis:

    1. Why there were no reports of a smoke trail from the purported missile launch?

    2. Strange, never explained, story of Spanish aircontroler twits immediately after the tragedy. To whom belong pretty alarming twits in the Spanish blog from an air traffic controller working in Boryspil airport, which completely contradict official Ukrainian and Western MSM story?

    3. Testimony of a defector to Russians from Ukrainian air force (technician on the nearby military airfield I think), who suggested that it was a fighter jet that downed the airliner.

    4. The fact that SBU immediately confiscated all the evidence from air control towers and those records were never presented to international investigation commission.

    5. Why the agreement that was reached between Ukraine, Netherlands, Belgium and Australia to classify the results of investigation ?

    6. Strange resistance and procrastination with getting evidence from the crash site. Shelling of the crash site by the Ukrainian artillery.

    7. Why the normal route over Ukraine for the airliner was changed ?

    8. Attempts to provide proof of rebels involvement which later were discredited as fabrications (unverified phone intercepts that experts proved to be fragments of conversations stitched together to implicate rebels)

    9. Striking speed with which Ukrainian and Western MSM just after a few minutes after the plane disappeared from screens of radars, has started well coordinated and pretty vicious campaign

    10. Fake satellites maps at the time of the tragedy. Fake photo of BUK track which allegingly shoot down MH17.

    11. Attempts to capture the crash area, despite previous agreement for ceasefire in this area.

    Skippy September 30, 2016 at 8:18 pm

    Still pondering why a civilian aircraft was anywhere near a combat zone with such armament present, especially considering some of the tenancies of the combatants involved.

    Dishevled Marsupial…. its not like innocent people are not maimed or killed in gang turf wars day in and day out….

    VietnamVet September 30, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    Blame will be determined sometime in the future if there are any winners in the ongoing mini World War. The effective use of anti-aircraft weapons allowed the rebels who had no serviceable aircraft to control the air over the battlefield destroying the Ukraine armored attacks leading to the current stalemated trench warfare. A Ukraine military transport was shot down at altitude earlier but for political and monetary reasons civil air transportation continue over the battlefields. This is a classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Wargames between nuclear powers inevitably escalate to use of ICBMs. I am so old I remember the Civil Defense program that was made obsolete in 1953 when the Soviet Union exploded the first deployable hydrogen bomb. The USA is losing. Washington DC is befuddled. Western propaganda doesn't make any sense. There is no indication that there is any comprehension of the danger to mankind by the insane decision to start a war with Russia or that a miscalculation or accident could cause a nuclear holocaust not just a 777 shot down.

    Skippy September 30, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    Yeah its a wee bit like taking a Contiki tour through a combatant zone…..

    https://www.contiki.com/au/en?c3apiks=110690064669&contiki%20tours&e&gclid=CKHN-vnBuM8CFQQDvAodwYQAgw&kendelid=p.403.95c0db64-851a-46c8-b140-c9362dc078a4.cr2408100

    Disheveled Marsupial… Like the ad saez…. "One Life. One Shot. Make it Count‎"….

    Anonymous X October 1, 2016 at 5:24 am

    As to the questions…

    (i) Ukrainian aircraft (transport planes) tended to approach from that same direction so it wouldn't exactly be in any manner surprising that the BUK unit would be aligned to wait for them. 120 degree arc is huge when you already have some knowledge of the direction where the radar ought to point. Since TELAR unit can't tell what exactly it is that it is shooting (you would need TAR for that) the identification can't really be even expected to happen.

    (ii) BUK missile burns its engine out far sooner than what it takes for the missile to reach its target. Which means that there wouldn't have been Top Gun like smoke trail approaching the aircraft but just the missile gliding like a dart without power. Given the speed of the objects the missile would have approached the aircraft at around 1000 m per second – with the diameter of missile being around 40 cm it would have been difficult to see it just from 100 meters out – which would have left less time to react than in which human would have been able to react. So lack of reaction from the crew is exactly what there ought to have been.

    (iii) Homing method used in most missiles (including BUK) means that it never flies parallel to the its target. It is always flying on the basis of ' constant bearing, reducing range ' navigation (i.e. proportional navigation) – you may want to read about that. Also given the semi-active radar homing used in BUK if the radar (i.e. the launch vehicle) would have been on the side of the aircraft then it is very unlikely that the missile would have been headed for the nose either. Lack of found shrapnel is not particularly surprising either as site was unsecured for quite a while.

    And it wasn't like JIT would have ignored the Zaroshchenskoe possibility. It was investigated. But nothing to support it was found. Furthermore captured rebel communications made it clear that (i) the locality was either in partial or total rebel control and that (ii) no missile launch was witnessed. Given that the the launch plume (& burned field) has been located via several different images provided by JIT it is quite clear where the launch occurred.

    likbez October 1, 2016 at 11:59 am

    This concentration on Buk missile and exclusions of other possibilities has IMHO one serious problem: complete absence of witness reports of the missile launch. This is a pretty densely populated area and Buk missile launch produces dense smoke trace clearly visible from the ground. The supposed launch happened during daytime in fair weather conditions. Huge, dense smoke trace from Buk missile launch can't be hidden in such a conditions, can it ? It should be visible for at least ten minutes or more before dissipating.

    But there is no witness reports, no photos, nothing. I never head that launch site was located "via several different images provided by JIT" BBC tried soon after the tragedy and have a correspondent on the ground explicitly searching for it for a week or so. They failed.

    Fighter jet hypothesis is somehow swiped under the carpet despite the testimony of military aircraft technician who defected to Russians and Russian radar data that had shown a second (military, no transponder) plane in vicinity at the time of shooting.

    As for "Ukrainian aircraft (transport planes) tended to approach from that same direction so it wouldn't exactly be in any manner surprising that the BUK unit would be aligned to wait for them. " this is questionable explanation. There were multiple planes in this area flying at high altitudes the same day, so the selection of the target and timing looks bizarre. Why not an earlier plane, why not a later plane ?

    Anonymous X October 1, 2016 at 12:23 pm

    Had you familiarized yourself with the JIT report you would have noticed that they had witness reports, as well as photos depicting the smoke plume from several different angles. Also it is quite likely that the sound people believed at the time have heard as 'jet engine' noise was actually noise from the missile's rocket engine. So that kinda leaves your version full of holes. And it kinda depends on the prevailing weather as to how long the smoke trail will persist – link
    You can see (closer to the end) the trail starting to disperse immediately. And oddly enough for your story there were reporters who had no trouble locating the burned of patch of field following the photos and witness reports.

    The fighter jet theory is just nonsense. Belongs to the same category as the 'Spanish air traffic controller' story. There is nothing in Russian radar data that would hint of a presence of another aircraft. Only additional detection occurs after the incident has occurred which means that instead of being an aircraft it was likely just debris from the MH17. That Russians claimed it would have been an Su-25 was a rather dishonest act.

    As to why MH17 was shot down and not any of the others. In all likelyhood no one intended to shoot it down. So that falls to the category of bad luck (in part of the crew and passengers of MH17).

    Yves Smith Post author October 1, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    While your points about witnesses may have merit, the video falls in the category of "web evidence" as it may have been doctored and hence is not reliable.

    likbez October 1, 2016 at 5:25 pm
    Again, my point is that like in case of JFK assassination we might never know that truth. So your supreme confidence is very suspect.

    I see you as a hardened type of information warrior not a person who try to dig out the truth. You are fixed on a single version no matter what evidence is available and discard any conflicting "separatists did it" evidence.

    BTW I do not exclude any possibilities: it can be separatists, it can be Ukrainian Buk, it can be a fighter jet. But need to see all augments on the table, not a selective set supporting a single most convenient to the dominant parties in the investigation. And weight all three hypothesis.

    And Ukrainians and the USA should be considered primary suspects due to obvious benefits they got from the tragedy. Absence of Russian citizens among victims is for me a kind of alarming fact by itself as it allowed to exclude Russians from the investigation and pointing in the direction of "false flag".

    Moreover the whole investigation became essentially an exercise in proving "separatists did it", despite the fact that Ukrainian authorities were clear beneficiary of the event and Provisional government consisted of very dangerous and reckless people (especially Parubiy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Parubiy ) .

    BTW it was separatists that provided black boxes of the aircraft to investigators and much of the evidence were collected and guarded by them. And it was Ukrainians that shelled the area to prevent investigators from working after the tragedy.

    Also any investigation that uses Bellingcat materials should be automatically labeled as a propaganda exercise (or disinformation war, if you wish). Think about it…

    As for Su25 you are way to too quick to dismiss this possibility: IMHO there was some evidence of presence of the plane from Rostov airport radar telemetry. It was long ago and I do not remember details but there is a collection of materials on the Web with "week-by-week" selections at
    http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Propaganda/Tragedy_of_flight_MH17/Bulletin/mh17_bulletin0719.shtml

    Please compare your version with the selection.

    Also Parry points out that exact location of Ukrainian Buks at the moment of the tragedy were never revealed by investigators. If this is not a clear bias, I do not know what is.

    Where is the map with the location of Ukrainian units and radar on the day of the tragedy, I would like to ask you? Where are transcripts of communication of Ukrainian military and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic controllers for this day?

    https://www.sott.net/article/329653-The-JIT-MH17-report-Troubling-gaps-vague-evidence

    The JIT video report on the MH-17 case, which was released on Wednesday, also didn't address questions about the location of several Ukrainian Buk missile batteries that Dutch (i.e. NATO) intelligence placed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, the day that MH-17 was shot down. A finding from the Dutch intelligence service, MIVD, released last October, said the only high-powered anti-aircraft missile systems in eastern Ukraine at that time, capable of bringing down MH-17 at 33,000 feet and killing all 298 people onboard, belonged to the Ukrainian military, not the rebels.

    Dismissing 'Spanish air traffic controller' story shows your true colors, as this event happened just after the shooting, twits were in Spanish which would be atypical of Russian and Ukrainian three-letter agencies, and as such has less chances to be a planted disinformation.

    [Sep 30, 2016] Neoliberal media are just stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... This means the "default position" of the Clinton campaign and her friendly media is, "if there's something wrong in the world, criticize George W. Bush." ..."
    "... "Why not? It worked for Obama. Maybe it will work for her as well," Bolton said. "And I think the fact that the media are aiding and abetting this approach shouldn't surprise anybody. I think no matter who the Republican nominee was this year, the media were going to be – as the Wall Street Journal has so aptly called them – stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign. And that's exactly what they're doing." ..."
    "... Most people watching 90 minutes of a debate like that don't score it on this debating point, or that debating point. They look at the entire thing. They want to know about the character of the people. And I think the fact that Trump was there for 90 minutes and held his own, or more than, in a format that Hillary Clinton has been familiar with since she was in law school, accomplished what he needed to accomplish. ..."
    Sep 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    "I think it's entirely understandable that what Clinton will try to do is avoid criticizing Obama, because she desperately needs to recreate the Obama coalition on November the 8th," said Bolton. "She has gone out of her way, including in her 600-page-long tedious memoir about her days at the State Department, failing to distance herself from Obama."

    This means the "default position" of the Clinton campaign and her friendly media is, "if there's something wrong in the world, criticize George W. Bush."

    "Why not? It worked for Obama. Maybe it will work for her as well," Bolton said. "And I think the fact that the media are aiding and abetting this approach shouldn't surprise anybody. I think no matter who the Republican nominee was this year, the media were going to be – as the Wall Street Journal has so aptly called them – stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign. And that's exactly what they're doing."

    Bolton thought Trump "did what he needed to do" at the first presidential debate:

    Most people watching 90 minutes of a debate like that don't score it on this debating point, or that debating point. They look at the entire thing. They want to know about the character of the people. And I think the fact that Trump was there for 90 minutes and held his own, or more than, in a format that Hillary Clinton has been familiar with since she was in law school, accomplished what he needed to accomplish.

    My critique of his performance would be that he missed opportunities. For example, you mentioned the foreign policy section, when they were asked about cyber warfare, and the dangers to the United States of hacking, and that gave Clinton a chance to give a little college-type lecture on Russia – by the way, omitting China, Iran, North Korea, and others – I thought at that point Trump could have talked about her email homebrew server for his entire time, and just drilled that point home.

    But, you know, people at home aren't sitting there grading on that basis. I think the second debate, and the third debate, will be very different, and those – particularly in the media – who now confidently predict the outcome of the election, based on their take of this debate, are smoking something.

    ...Listen to the full audio of Bolton's interview above.

    [Sep 30, 2016] Neoliberal media are just stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... This means the "default position" of the Clinton campaign and her friendly media is, "if there's something wrong in the world, criticize George W. Bush." ..."
    "... "Why not? It worked for Obama. Maybe it will work for her as well," Bolton said. "And I think the fact that the media are aiding and abetting this approach shouldn't surprise anybody. I think no matter who the Republican nominee was this year, the media were going to be – as the Wall Street Journal has so aptly called them – stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign. And that's exactly what they're doing." ..."
    "... Most people watching 90 minutes of a debate like that don't score it on this debating point, or that debating point. They look at the entire thing. They want to know about the character of the people. And I think the fact that Trump was there for 90 minutes and held his own, or more than, in a format that Hillary Clinton has been familiar with since she was in law school, accomplished what he needed to accomplish. ..."
    Sep 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    "I think it's entirely understandable that what Clinton will try to do is avoid criticizing Obama, because she desperately needs to recreate the Obama coalition on November the 8th," said Bolton. "She has gone out of her way, including in her 600-page-long tedious memoir about her days at the State Department, failing to distance herself from Obama."

    This means the "default position" of the Clinton campaign and her friendly media is, "if there's something wrong in the world, criticize George W. Bush."

    "Why not? It worked for Obama. Maybe it will work for her as well," Bolton said. "And I think the fact that the media are aiding and abetting this approach shouldn't surprise anybody. I think no matter who the Republican nominee was this year, the media were going to be – as the Wall Street Journal has so aptly called them – stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign. And that's exactly what they're doing."

    Bolton thought Trump "did what he needed to do" at the first presidential debate:

    Most people watching 90 minutes of a debate like that don't score it on this debating point, or that debating point. They look at the entire thing. They want to know about the character of the people. And I think the fact that Trump was there for 90 minutes and held his own, or more than, in a format that Hillary Clinton has been familiar with since she was in law school, accomplished what he needed to accomplish.

    My critique of his performance would be that he missed opportunities. For example, you mentioned the foreign policy section, when they were asked about cyber warfare, and the dangers to the United States of hacking, and that gave Clinton a chance to give a little college-type lecture on Russia – by the way, omitting China, Iran, North Korea, and others – I thought at that point Trump could have talked about her email homebrew server for his entire time, and just drilled that point home.

    But, you know, people at home aren't sitting there grading on that basis. I think the second debate, and the third debate, will be very different, and those – particularly in the media – who now confidently predict the outcome of the election, based on their take of this debate, are smoking something.

    ...Listen to the full audio of Bolton's interview above.

    [Sep 30, 2016] increasing inequality is bad news for managing resource limits and externalities. The demands of the masses can be crammed down, but at a cost to social discipline as well as poverty. The power of the rich to marshal resources to mitigate the effects and externalize and socialise costs will exacerbate the main drivers.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ridiculing the anachronism of Marxism is a pastime, but what are to do with neoclassical economics? Even if I believed that world leaders ceremonially signing agreements were willing to act in (corrupt) principle, there is still the small matter of technocratic palsy among the economists. I mean, did you read the 5th IPCC summary? Responding will cost growth. ..."
    "... What I do get explicitly from Marxism which is mostly only implicit in neoclassical economics is that increasing inequality is bad news for managing resource limits and externalities. ..."
    "... The demands of the masses can be crammed down, but at a cost to social discipline as well as poverty. The power of the rich to marshal resources to mitigate the effects and externalize and socialise costs will exacerbate the main drivers. ..."
    Sep 30, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 09.29.16 at 4:07 pm ( 14 9 )

    Throwing around a Marxist accented capitalism label as all purpose explanator does not seem to me to providing much insight independent of what is projected onto it, and calling for Monty Python revolution proves as much, imho. That said, neoclassical economics is even less helpful.

    Quite apart from the impulses of sociopathic or philanthropic financiers - are they the same or different people? - the official doctrine of economic analysis, in which framework public policy must be drawn, has been remarkably unhelpful in developing a common understanding of what needs to be done, imho.

    Ridiculing the anachronism of Marxism is a pastime, but what are to do with neoclassical economics? Even if I believed that world leaders ceremonially signing agreements were willing to act in (corrupt) principle, there is still the small matter of technocratic palsy among the economists. I mean, did you read the 5th IPCC summary? Responding will cost growth.

    But, not to worry, we will be able to extract carbon at scale real soon and reverse overshoot.

    The optimistic reply seems to reject the need for an overarching framework of ideas to give context and orientation: apparently, solar electricity will keep getting cheaper - here is a price per kWh - problem solved. Which problem? . . .?

    What I do get explicitly from Marxism which is mostly only implicit in neoclassical economics is that increasing inequality is bad news for managing resource limits and externalities.

    The demands of the masses can be crammed down, but at a cost to social discipline as well as poverty. The power of the rich to marshal resources to mitigate the effects and externalize and socialise costs will exacerbate the main drivers.

    [Sep 30, 2016] Trump vs. the GOP Elite by Rep. John J. Duncan Jr.

    Sep 26, 2016 | The American Conservative

    ... ... ...

    2) Trade. With only 4 percent of the world's population, we buy almost one-fourth of the world's goods. Every country is champing at the bit to get into our markets. We have tremendous leverage on trade that we have not used. We do not want or need trade wars. But we should, in a friendly way, tell other countries-especially the Chinese-"We want to trade with you, but we can't sustain our huge trade deficit. You are going to have to find some things to buy from us, too."

    3) Immigration. With 58 percent of the world's population-almost 4 billion people-having to get by on $4 or less a day, hundreds of millions would come here over the next few years if we simply opened our borders. Our entire infrastructure-our schools, jails, sewers, hospitals, roads-and our economy as a whole could not handle such a massive, rapid influx of people. The American people are the kindest, most generous people in the world, and we have already allowed many millions more than any other country to immigrate here, legally and illegally. But we must do a much better job enforcing our immigration laws.

    4) Wars. I am now the only Republican left in Congress who voted against going to war in Iraq. For the first three of four years, it was the most unpopular vote I ever cast. I even once was disinvited to speak at a Baptist church. Now, it is probably the most popular vote I ever cast. The American people are tired of permanent, forever wars. While everyone wants a friendly relationship with Israel, I do not believe the American people will continue to support wars that primarily benefit Israel but cause thousands of young Americans to be killed or horribly maimed for life.

    5) Jobs. Almost any member of Congress, if asked what is the greatest need in their district, would probably say more good jobs. Radical environmentalists have caused many thousands of U.S. businesses to go to other countries or close for good. We have ended up with the best-educated waiters and waitresses in the world. When I was in Vietnam a few years ago, I was told if you wanted to start a business there, you just went out and did it. The place was booming. It is now apparently easier to start a small business in some former communist countries than in the supposedly free-enterprise U.S.

    ... ... ...

    Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. represents the 2nd district of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives.represents the 2nd district of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    [Sep 30, 2016] Myth that neoliberal globalization reduces poverty

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Over the last 25 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of humanity to under 10 percent." This is roughly true, according to World Bank data, but the story of how it happened goes against his whole speech - which argues that this progress is a result of the "globalization" that Washington leads and supports wherever it has influence in the developing world. In fact, the majority of the reduction in extreme poverty during this period (more than 1.1 billion people worldwide) took place in China. But during this period China was really the counterexample to the "principles of open markets" with which Obama insists "we must go forward, not backward." ..."
    "... If we go back a bit more and look at 1981–2012, China accounted for even more of the reduction of the world population in extreme poverty, about 70 percent. This would indicate that other parts of the developing world increased their economic and social progress during the 21st century, relative to China, and indeed many developing countries did (as compared to the last two decades of the 20th century). But China played an increasingly large role in reducing poverty in other countries during this period. ..."
    "... It was so successful in its economic growth and development - by far the fastest in world history - that it became the largest economy in the world, and pulled up many developing countries through its imports. Chinese imports went from a negligible 0.1 percent of other developing countries' exports to 3 percent, from 1980–2010. China also provided hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, loans, and aid to low- and middle-income countries in the 21st century. (In the last few years, Chinese growth has slowed, along with that of most countries, and that has contributed - although perhaps not as much as Europe has - to the global slowdown since 2011.) ..."
    "... the "principles of open markets" that Obama refers to is really code for "policies that Washington supports." ..."
    "... In his defense of a world economic order ruled by Washington and its rich country allies, President Obama also asserted that "we have made international institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more representative." But that is a gross exaggeration: the most recent reform of IMF voting shares left the US with an unchanged 16.7 percent share, enough to veto many important decisions (that require an 85 percent majority) by itself; and it left Washington and its traditional rich country allies with a solid majority of more than 60 percent of votes. Of course, it is the developing countries, especially poorer ones, that are most subject to IMF decisions. But the IMF is - by a gentleman's agreement among the rich country governments - headed by a European, and the World Bank by an American. It should not be surprising if these institutions do not look out for the interests of the developing world. ..."
    Sep 30, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne : September 30, 2016 at 04:55 AM

    http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/president-obama-inadvertently-gives-high-praise-to-china-in-un-speech

    September 29, 2016

    President Obama Inadvertently Gives High Praise to China in UN Speech
    By Mark Weisbrot

    President Obama's speech at the UN last week was mostly a defense of the world's economic and political status quo, especially that part of it that is led or held in place by the US government and the global institutions that Washington controls or dominates. In doing so, he said some things that were exaggerated or wrong, or somewhat misleading. It is worth looking at some of the things that media reports on this speech missed.

    "Over the last 25 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of humanity to under 10 percent." This is roughly true, according to World Bank data, but the story of how it happened goes against his whole speech - which argues that this progress is a result of the "globalization" that Washington leads and supports wherever it has influence in the developing world. In fact, the majority of the reduction in extreme poverty during this period (more than 1.1 billion people worldwide) took place in China. But during this period China was really the counterexample to the "principles of open markets" with which Obama insists "we must go forward, not backward."

    China's historically unprecedented economic growth in the past 25 years (or 35 years, or even more) was accomplished with state-owned enterprises and banks dominating the economy. State control over investment, technology transfer, and foreign exchange was vastly greater than in other developing countries. China rejected the neoliberal policies of an "independent central bank," indiscriminate opening to international trade and investment, and rapid privatization of state companies. Instead, it chose a gradual transition, over 35 years, from an overwhelmingly planned economy to a mixed economy in which the state still plays a leading role. Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016 (as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the economy.

    If we go back a bit more and look at 1981–2012, China accounted for even more of the reduction of the world population in extreme poverty, about 70 percent. This would indicate that other parts of the developing world increased their economic and social progress during the 21st century, relative to China, and indeed many developing countries did (as compared to the last two decades of the 20th century). But China played an increasingly large role in reducing poverty in other countries during this period.

    It was so successful in its economic growth and development - by far the fastest in world history - that it became the largest economy in the world, and pulled up many developing countries through its imports. Chinese imports went from a negligible 0.1 percent of other developing countries' exports to 3 percent, from 1980–2010. China also provided hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, loans, and aid to low- and middle-income countries in the 21st century. (In the last few years, Chinese growth has slowed, along with that of most countries, and that has contributed - although perhaps not as much as Europe has - to the global slowdown since 2011.)

    Of course, the "principles of open markets" that Obama refers to is really code for "policies that Washington supports." Some of them are the exact opposite of "open markets," such as the lengthening and strengthening of patent and copyright protection included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. President Obama also made a plug for the TPP in his speech, asserting that "we've worked to reach trade agreements that raise labor standards and raise environmental standards, as we've done with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, so that the benefits [of globalization] are more broadly shared." But the labor and environmental standards in the TPP, as with those in previous US-led commercial agreements, are not enforceable; whereas if a government approves laws or regulations that infringe on the future profit potential of a multinational corporation - even if such laws or regulations are to protect public health or safety - that government can be hit with billions of dollars in fines. And they must pay these fines, or be subject to trade sanctions.

    In his defense of a world economic order ruled by Washington and its rich country allies, President Obama also asserted that "we have made international institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more representative." But that is a gross exaggeration: the most recent reform of IMF voting shares left the US with an unchanged 16.7 percent share, enough to veto many important decisions (that require an 85 percent majority) by itself; and it left Washington and its traditional rich country allies with a solid majority of more than 60 percent of votes. Of course, it is the developing countries, especially poorer ones, that are most subject to IMF decisions. But the IMF is - by a gentleman's agreement among the rich country governments - headed by a European, and the World Bank by an American. It should not be surprising if these institutions do not look out for the interests of the developing world.

    "We can choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and integration," President Obama told the world at the UN General Assembly. "Or we can retreat into a world sharply divided, and ultimately in conflict, along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race and religion."

    But the rich country governments led by Washington are not offering the rest of the world any better model of cooperation and integration than the failed model they have been offering for the past 35 years. And that is a big part of the problem....

    RGC -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 06:57 AM

    Excellent commentary by Mark Weisbrot.
    anne -> RGC... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 07:09 AM
    Excellent commentary by Mark Weisbrot.

    [ Really so. ]

    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 09:23 AM
    http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/president-obama-inadvertently-gives-high-praise-to-china-in-un-speech

    September 29, 2016

    China's historically unprecedented economic growth in the past 25 years (or 35 years, or even more) was accomplished with state-owned enterprises and banks dominating the economy. State control over investment, technology transfer, and foreign exchange was vastly greater than in other developing countries. China rejected the neoliberal policies of an "independent central bank," indiscriminate opening to international trade and investment, and rapid privatization of state companies. Instead, it chose a gradual transition, over 35 years, from an overwhelmingly planned economy to a mixed economy in which the state still plays a leading role. Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016 (as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the economy....

    -- Mark Weisbrot

    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 10:04 AM
    http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/president-obama-inadvertently-gives-high-praise-to-china-in-un-speech

    September 29, 2016

    Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016 (as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the economy....

    -- Mark Weisbrot


    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/14/yale-professors-offer-economic-prescriptions/

    October 14, 2011

    Yale Professors Offer Economic Prescriptions
    By Brenda Cronin - Wall Street Journal

    Richard C. Levin, president of Yale - and also a professor of economics - moderated the conversation among Professors Judith Chevalier, John Geanakoplos, William D. Nordhaus, Robert J. Shiller and Aleh Tsyvinski....

    An early mistake during the recession, Mr. Levin said, was not targeting more stimulus funds to job creation. He contrasted America's meager pace of growth in gross domestic product in the past few years with China's often double-digit pace, noting that after the crisis hit, Washington allocated roughly 2% of GDP to job creation while Beijing directed 15% of GDP to that goal....

    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 10:13 AM
    Repeatedly there are warnings from Western economists that the Chinese economy is near collapse, nonetheless economic growth through the first 2 quarters this year is running at 6.7% and the third quarter looks about the same. The point is to ask and describe how after these last 39 remarkable years:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7uKv

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, 1976-2015

    (Percent change)

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7uKu

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, 1976-2015

    (Indexed to 1976)

    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 10:16 AM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7uKF

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, 1976-2014

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7uKE

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, 1976-2014

    (Indexed to 1976)

    jonny bakho : , -1
    Before the crash, complacent Democrats, ... tended to agree with them that the economy was largely self-correcting.

    Who is a complacent Democrat? Obama ran as a fiscal conservative and appointed a GOP as his SecTreas. Geithner was a "banks need to be bailed out" and the economy self corrects. Geithner was not in favor of cram down or mortgage programs that would have bailed out the injured little folks.

    Democrats like Romer and Summers were in favor a fiscal stimulus, but not enough of it. I expect to see the Clinton economic team include a lot more women and especially focus on economic policies that help working women and families.

    I have always thought that a big reason for the Bush jobless recovery was his lack of true fiscal stimulus. Bush had tax cuts for the wealthy, but the latest from Summers shows why trickle down does not work.

    Full employment may have been missing from the 1992 platform, but full employment was pursued aggressively by Bill Clinton. He got AG to agree to allow unemployment to drop to 4% in exchange for raising taxes and dropping the middle class tax cuts. Bill Clinton used fiscal policy to tax the economy and as a break so monetary policy could be accommodating.

    He should include raising the MinWage. Maybe that has not changed but it is a lynchpin for putting money in the pockets of the working poor.

    [Sep 30, 2016] Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free" market?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free" market? Are longer and stronger patent and copyright monopolies the results of a free market? ..."
    "... The NYT should up its game in this respect. It had a good piece on the devastation to millions of working class people and their communities from the flood of imports of manufactured goods in the last decade, but then it turns to hand-wringing nonsense about how it was all a necessary part of globalization. Actually, none of it was a necessary part of a free trade. ..."
    "... First, the huge trade deficits were the direct result of the decision of China and other developing countries to buy massive amounts of U.S. dollars to hold as reserves in this period. This raised the value of the dollar and made our goods and services less competitive internationally. This problem of a seriously over-valued dollar stems from the bungling of the East Asian bailout by the Clinton Treasury Department and the I.M.F. ..."
    "... The second point is political leaders are constantly working to make patents and copyrights stronger and longer. This raises the price that ordinary workers have to pay for everything from drugs to computer games. The result is lower real wages for ordinary workers and higher incomes for the beneficiaries of these rents. It also slows economic growth since markets are not smart enough to distinguish between a 10,000 percent price increase due to a tariff and a 10,000 percent price increase due to a patent monopoly. (In other words, all the bad things that "free trade" economists say about tariffs also apply to patents and copyrights, except the impact is far larger in the later case.) ..."
    Sep 30, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... September 30, 2016 at 05:30 PM

    Dean Baker:

    Why are none of the "free trade" members of Congress pushing to change the regulations that require doctors go through a U.S. residency program to be able to practice medicine in the United States? Obviously they are all protectionist Neanderthals.

    Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free" market? Are longer and stronger patent and copyright monopolies the results of a free market?

    The NYT should up its game in this respect. It had a good piece on the devastation to millions of working class people and their communities from the flood of imports of manufactured goods in the last decade, but then it turns to hand-wringing nonsense about how it was all a necessary part of globalization. Actually, none of it was a necessary part of a free trade.

    First, the huge trade deficits were the direct result of the decision of China and other developing countries to buy massive amounts of U.S. dollars to hold as reserves in this period. This raised the value of the dollar and made our goods and services less competitive internationally. This problem of a seriously over-valued dollar stems from the bungling of the East Asian bailout by the Clinton Treasury Department and the I.M.F.

    If we had a more competent team in place, that didn't botch the workings of the international financial system, then we would have expected the dollar to drop as more imports entered the U.S. market. This would have moved the U.S. trade deficit toward balance and prevented the massive loss of manufacturing jobs we saw in the last decade.

    The second point is political leaders are constantly working to make patents and copyrights stronger and longer. This raises the price that ordinary workers have to pay for everything from drugs to computer games. The result is lower real wages for ordinary workers and higher incomes for the beneficiaries of these rents. It also slows economic growth since markets are not smart enough to distinguish between a 10,000 percent price increase due to a tariff and a 10,000 percent price increase due to a patent monopoly. (In other words, all the bad things that "free trade" economists say about tariffs also apply to patents and copyrights, except the impact is far larger in the later case.)

    Finally, the fact that trade has exposed manufacturing workers to international competition, but not doctors and lawyers, was a policy choice, not a natural development. There are enormous potential gains from allowing smart and ambitious young people in the developing world to come to the United States to work in the highly paid professions. We have not opened these doors because doctors and lawyers are far more powerful than autoworkers and textile workers. And, we rarely even hear the idea mentioned because doctors and lawyers have brothers and sisters who are reporters and economists.

    Addendum:

    Since some folks asked about the botched bailout from the East Asian financial crisis, the point is actually quite simple. Prior to 1997 developing countries were largely following the textbook model, borrowing capital from the West to finance development. This meant running large trade deficits. This reversed following the crisis as the conventional view in the developing world was that you needed massive amounts of reserves to avoid being in the situation of the East Asian countries and being forced to beg for help from the I.M.F. This led to the situation where developing countries, especially those in the region, began running very large trade surpluses, exporting capital to the United States. (I am quite sure China noticed how its fellow East Asian countries were being treated in 1997.)

    [Sep 29, 2016] The Coming of the Post Neoliberal Era

    Notable quotes:
    "... The current US presidential election shows, perhaps better than anything else, just how far that decadence has gone. Hillary Clinton's campaign is floundering in the face of Trump's challenge because so few Americans still believe that the [neo]liberal shibboleths in her campaign rhetoric mean anything at all. ..."
    "... Even among her supporters, enthusiasm is hard to find, and her campaign rallies have had embarrassingly sparse attendance. Increasingly frantic claims that only racists, fascists, and other deplorables support Trump convince no one but true believers, and make the concealment of interests behind shopworn values increasingly transparent. Clinton may still win the election by one means or another, but the broader currents in American political life have clearly changed course. ..."
    "... Or one could take the idea that "Health" or "College" reform is merely funneling ever more resources to insurance companies and College administrations with precious little if any improvement in the real cost or quality to the users of the service. ..."
    Sep 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    fresno dan September 29, 2016 at 8:48 am

    The Coming of the Post[neo]liberal Era The Archdruid Report

    Ironies of this sort are anything but unusual in political history. It's astonishingly common for a movement that starts off trying to overturn the status quo in the name of some idealistic abstraction or other to check its ideals at the door once it becomes the status quo. If anything, American liberalism held onto its ideals longer than most and accomplished a great deal more than many, and I think that most of us-even those who, like me, are moderate Burkean conservatives-are grateful to the liberal movement of the past for ending such obvious abuses as chattel slavery and the denial of civil rights to women, and for championing the idea that values as well as interests deserve a voice in the public sphere. It deserves the modern equivalent of a raised hat and a moment of silence, if no more, as it finally sinks into the decadence that is the ultimate fate of every successful political movement.

    The current US presidential election shows, perhaps better than anything else, just how far that decadence has gone. Hillary Clinton's campaign is floundering in the face of Trump's challenge because so few Americans still believe that the [neo]liberal shibboleths in her campaign rhetoric mean anything at all.

    Even among her supporters, enthusiasm is hard to find, and her campaign rallies have had embarrassingly sparse attendance. Increasingly frantic claims that only racists, fascists, and other deplorables support Trump convince no one but true believers, and make the concealment of interests behind shopworn values increasingly transparent. Clinton may still win the election by one means or another, but the broader currents in American political life have clearly changed course.

    =====================================

    Great article IMHO – I certainly agree about the portion concerning immigration.

    And for an example of a contradiction – Police unions and big cities. Unions do much more than raise wages and pensions – many of the protections of police by hamstringing complaint investigations against the police are exposing a fissure that has reached the point of earthquake.

    Or one could take the idea that "Health" or "College" reform is merely funneling ever more resources to insurance companies and College administrations with precious little if any improvement in the real cost or quality to the users of the service.

    [Sep 29, 2016] Ann Coulter How to Avoid Immigration, Terrorism and Health Care for 90 Minutes - Breitbart

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ha ha! We prevented Trump from talking about issues that matter to the American people! ..."
    www.breitbart.com

    Hillary supporters, or "the media," had reason to be happy: She looked healthy! She probably could have kept reciting her snarky little talking points for another hour.

    In fact, it was the best I've ever seen Hillary. She avoided that honking thing she does, smiled a lot - a little too much, actually (maybe ease up on the pep pills next time) - and, as the entire media has gleefully reported, she managed to "bait" Trump.

    ... ... ...

    Hillary - with assists from the moderator - "baited" Trump on how rich he is, the loan from his father, a lawsuit in 1972, the birther claims, who he said what to about the Iraq War from 2001 to 2003, and so on.

    ... ... ...

    For the media, their gal was winning whenever precious minutes of a 90-minute debate were spent rehashing allegations about Trump. Ha ha! We prevented Trump from talking about issues that matter to the American people! That was scored as a "win."

    [Sep 29, 2016] It is unclear who is

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Rogue Mission: Did the Pentagon Bomb Syrian Army to Kill Ceasefire Deal? Counterpounch". IMO the wrong question keeps getting asked, except by the Russians: "Who's in charge – the White House or the Pentagon?" Is the media too afraid to ask this and is Obama afraid and embarrassed to let it be known? Has POTUS lost control of the military? Will it never by discussed or mentioned by MSM? ..."
    "... I think the Overton Window has been successfully shifted by the media since Obama came to power to ensure that any suggestion that he is not calling the shots in foreign policy can be filed under 'conspiracy theories'. Every success is his doing, every failure is due to Republican obstructionism or those dastardly Russians and Chinese. ..."
    "... Having said all that, its pretty obvious that Obama has minimal control and quite likes it that way. I think he sees himself as a sort of bored patriarch of a big family, letting them do their own thing with occasional speeches about good behaviour and disciplining only when they have done something outrageously stupid. ..."
    "... All those governmental fiefdoms established during the reign of Jr continue unhindered, in part because Obama had no interest in changing anything. So now after 16 years of running the store it probably feels like ownership. If they don't owe you anything then you are just in the way. In partial defense it's hard to see how it could be otherwise without bringing big changes from day one. ..."
    "... Obama may be trusting the TPP is postponed during his lame duck session for the same reason. This way he can be viewed as still a loyal "Battle of TPP" foot soldier for "Team Elite", with his future rewards to follow. If the TPP subsequently passes under a President Hillary, the delayed harmful TPP effects could then be attributed to her, not Obama. ..."
    "... "If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor) , and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)." ..."
    "... When in doubt, hide behind the troops. ..."
    Sep 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    timbers September 29, 2016 at 7:30 am

    "Rogue Mission: Did the Pentagon Bomb Syrian Army to Kill Ceasefire Deal? Counterpounch". IMO the wrong question keeps getting asked, except by the Russians: "Who's in charge – the White House or the Pentagon?" Is the media too afraid to ask this and is Obama afraid and embarrassed to let it be known? Has POTUS lost control of the military? Will it never by discussed or mentioned by MSM?

    PlutoniumKun September 29, 2016 at 7:57 am

    I think the Overton Window has been successfully shifted by the media since Obama came to power to ensure that any suggestion that he is not calling the shots in foreign policy can be filed under 'conspiracy theories'. Every success is his doing, every failure is due to Republican obstructionism or those dastardly Russians and Chinese.

    Having said all that, its pretty obvious that Obama has minimal control and quite likes it that way. I think he sees himself as a sort of bored patriarch of a big family, letting them do their own thing with occasional speeches about good behaviour and disciplining only when they have done something outrageously stupid.

    temporal September 29, 2016 at 8:15 am

    All those governmental fiefdoms established during the reign of Jr continue unhindered, in part because Obama had no interest in changing anything. So now after 16 years of running the store it probably feels like ownership. If they don't owe you anything then you are just in the way. In partial defense it's hard to see how it could be otherwise without bringing big changes from day one.

    Obama's lack of control extends far beyond having an independent military and military grade spy network. He couldn't even protect his buds living in the house of Saud from mean ole lawsuits. It was clear the veto wouldn't stand but that Obama Foundation isn't going to build itself. Taking one for "Team Elite".

    John Wright September 29, 2016 at 8:59 am

    Obama may be trusting the TPP is postponed during his lame duck session for the same reason. This way he can be viewed as still a loyal "Battle of TPP" foot soldier for "Team Elite", with his future rewards to follow. If the TPP subsequently passes under a President Hillary, the delayed harmful TPP effects could then be attributed to her, not Obama.

    Perhaps he fight for the TPP in the lame duck session just well enough to avoid having it on his record.

    JSM September 29, 2016 at 8:33 am

    Dunno, you decide:

    Here's the text of the DIA document:

    "If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor) , and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."

    The latter is the city in question. Here's the Daily Beast not disputing the text (though for far different reasons):

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/15/the-putin-trump-mind-meld-a-wondrous-enterprise.html

    Here's the document itself. The text is on page 4. I'd say the situation is 'unravel[ing]' to 'Western powers', though not Assad & Russia.

    NotTimothyGeithner September 29, 2016 at 7:53 am

    When in doubt, hide behind the troops.

    Kaepernick should respond if Obama worried about the troops when he put Shinseki in charge of the VA.

    [Sep 29, 2016] How Short-Termism Saps the Economy

    Sep 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron : , Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 04:00 AM
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-short-termism-saps-the-economy-1475018087

    How Short-Termism Saps the Economy

    Paying CEOs so much in stocks puts their focus on the share price instead of building for the long run.

    By
    Joe Biden
    Sept. 27, 2016 7:14 p.m. ET

    135 COMMENTS

    Short-termism-the notion that companies forgo long-run investment to boost near-term stock price-is one of the greatest threats to America's enduring prosperity. Over the past eight years, the U.S. economy has emerged from crisis and maintained an unprecedented recovery. We are now on the cusp of a remarkable resurgence. But the country can't unlock its true potential without encouraging businesses to build for the long-run.

    Private investment-from new factories, to research, to worker training-is perhaps the greatest driver of economic growth, paving the way for future prosperity for businesses, their supply chains and the economy as a whole. Without it robust growth is nearly impossible. Yet all too often, executives face pressure to prioritize today's share price over adding long-term value.

    The origins of short-termism are rooted in policies and practices that have eroded the incentive to create value: the dramatic growth in executive compensation tied to short-term share price; inadequate regulations that allow share buybacks without limit; tax laws that designate an investment as "long-term" after only one year; a subset of activist investors determined to steer companies away from further investment; and a financial culture focused on quarterly earnings and short-run metrics.


    Consider the evolution in the structure of CEO compensation. In the 1980s, roughly three-fourths of executive pay at S&P 500 companies was in the form of cash salary and bonuses, and the rest in investment options and stock, according to an article in the Annual Review of Financial Economics. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 included a provision to link executive pay to the performance of the company. But it didn't work as intended. By the time I became vice president, only 40% of executive pay was in cash, with the bulk being tied to investment options and stock. Now more than ever, there is a direct link between share price and CEO pay.

    Performance-based pay encourages executives to think in the short-term. Ever since the Securities and Exchange Commission changed the buyback rules in 1982, there has been a proliferation in share repurchases. Today buybacks are the norm. According to economist William Lazonick , from 2003-12, companies on the S&P 500 spent 37% of their earnings on dividends and a full 54% on buybacks-leaving less than 10% for reinvestment.

    This emphasis on returning profits to shareholders has led to a significant decline in business investment. Total investment as a share of the economy has fallen to about 11% today, down from a high of about 15% in the early 1980s, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. With interest rates at historically low levels, and business confidence in the U.S. far ahead of its economic competitors, there should be more investment, not less.

    I am not blaming CEOs. The business leaders I've met over the course of my career want to build their firms and contribute to the economy, not simply send checks to investors or buy back their own stock. Sometimes they succeed. Other times the pressures to lift the short-run share price are simply too great.

    As these short-term pressures mount, most of the harm is borne by workers. As any economist will tell you, productivity is typically the most important driver of increasing wages. But productivity will never flourish without businesses investing in endeavors like on-the-job training, new equipment, and research and development. In short, business investment boosts productivity, which lifts wages.

    A continued economic resurgence requires solving the short-termism puzzle. The federal government can help foster private enterprise by providing worker training, building world-class infrastructure, and supporting research and innovation. But government should also take a look at regulations that promote share buybacks, tax laws that discourage long-term investment and corporate reporting standards that fail to account for long-run growth. The future of the economy depends on it.

    [You go, Joe! He even references William Lazonick.

    Lazonick wrote about the new economy business model (NEBM) versus the old, but never really pinned down what changed in the taxation on returns to capital that caused it. Also, Lazonick seemed to believe that the rapid capital formation used in the NEBM justified the low taxation on capital gains. That was a big mistake. Scarce capital has never been a obstacle in the US since early in the 20th century except when a financial shock locked up capital allocation.

    Dividends payouts are sometimes seen as short term payouts to shareholders, but if not for the capital gains tax preference that would not be true. Paying dividends reduces a firms capital, but increases the desirability of its shares both as a source of income and as a performer which boost share price more than the underlying reduction of equity due to capital payout. So, dividends versus capital gains is not an either or in the short term. Over the longer term accumulated dividends from a firm that invests in itself are a better incentive for reinvestment than a capital gains windfall at some point in that longer term. The capital gains preference makes selling shares more desirable than holding shares and M&A more desirable than internal investment.

    In 1954 the dividends tax credit was rescinded in that year's tax act. It had been in effect since 1913 except for 1936-1939. I know that I should provide references, but since I started writing about this five years ago most of the evidence has been taking off the WWW.

    The dividends tax credit returned to the individual taxpayer the amount of their tax liability on their dividends income that had been paid in corporate taxes by the issuing firms. This served as an incentive to shareholders to prefer higher corporate tax rates with fewer loopholes. Higher effective corporate tax rates encourage firms to increase their expenses in wages and exempt reinvestments that lowers their taxable profits.

    If we wanted even less short termism then we should have higher capital gains tax rates with reductions per year of holding term along with the dividends tax credit. Rescinding the dividends tax credit might be considered desirable because it was a tax increase on the wealthy, but in 1954 both Congress and POTUS were Republican which is worth considering. Democrats had done it before in 1936, but reversed it in 1939. Joe Biden's article on short termism is probably a lot more significant than it will ever been given credit for which goes a long ways to explain how corporatism and globalization have had such devastating effects on jobs and wages. We not only do not know what we are doing, but we don't know what we have done either.]

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 04:27 AM
    Sure huge executive stock options have a perverse effect on corporate financial decisions, but "higher capital gains tax rates with reductions per year of holding term along with the dividends tax credit" would go a long ways to changing the incentives created by stock options as well. By higher capital gains tax rates I mean much higher, at least before holding term exclusions. Also, an inflation adjustment to the basis for capital gains calculation for each year of holding term equal to each year's SSA COLA would eliminate the pressure against SSA COLA that is exerted by agents of the wealthy against the interest of retired wage class seniors.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 04:29 AM
    It would be a much different world if rich people supported higher effective corporate tax rates and SSA COLA.
    Tom aka Rusty -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 05:06 AM
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/16/bill-clinton-tried-to-limit-executive-pay-heres-why-it-didnt-work/
    jonny bakho -> Tom aka Rusty... , Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 05:27 AM
    The only way to limit executive pay is to tax it at very high levels. Reagan blew up the top tax rate and set the stage for executive pay to skyrocket.
    pgl -> jonny bakho ... , Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 05:46 AM
    From that WaPo story: "According to a new paper from Temple University's Steven Balsam published by the Economic Policy Institute, the big flaw in 162(m) was its broad exemption of "performance-based" pay. The $1 million cap only applied to traditional salaries, bonuses and grants of company stock."

    Sort of a silly way of measuring compensation it seems. I agree that a higher tax rate on income would help but be careful to define income as total compensation.

    Of course the other thing one might consider is to have a Board of Directors that answers to shareholders and not upper management.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Tom aka Rusty... , Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 05:53 AM
    The tax incentives on dividends relative to capital gains work for executive pay, monopoly, investment, and wage worker channels. Dividends can be used for just taking profits but they produce more over the longer term from investment returns. Capital gains are never more than a one time windfall although stable share price is useful for equities as collateral.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , -1
    Since CEOs are usually the shareholders with the most power then affecting their incentives as shareholders can be very effective. Getting CEOs to not raise their own pay is futile. Changing the game for everyone to favor internal investment over M&A as a use for retained earnings is necessary. The downside of my recommendation is that IPOs will no longer make angel investors insanely rich over night. Boohoo!

    [Sep 29, 2016] If you're a geopolitical rival of the United States, Trump is a delight.

    Sep 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl... September 29, 2016 at 06:49 AM Last Night, Donald Trump Showed Why
    He's Dangerous http://bit.ly/2czfGEM
    Nat'l Review - David French - September 27

    ... in foreign policy, the modern American president has become a virtual monarch. He or she can launch military actions without congressional approval (just ask Presidents Clinton and Obama), reach agreements with foreign nations, and establish or rescind diplomatic relations. The Constitution is supposed to check the power of the president to declare war or to enter treaties, but presidents have been shedding those restraints for generations. The president holds the power of war and peace in his or her hands, and the entire world - including our enemies - pays attention to the president's every word and deed.

    If you're a geopolitical rival of the United States, Trump is a delight. He's America's leading Putin apologist, wasting several agonizing turns in the debate defending Russia from the charge of meddling in U.S. elections and bizarrely wondering if a "400-pound" man "sitting on their bed" hacked Democratic National Committee e-mails. He said he hasn't "given lots of thought to NATO" and then went ahead and proved the truth of that statement by fundamentally misunderstanding the alliance. He treats it as a glorified protection racket whereby NATO countries allegedly pay us to defend Europe and they're not paying what they owe. He even doubled down on his claim - an incredibly bizarre claim given Russia's military resurgence - that NATO "could be obsolete." ... Reply Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 06:49 AM pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 07:05 AM

    I agree Gary Johnson is not ready to be commander in chief but he is far more ready than Trump. A low bar.
    likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Why you are reproducing neocon garbage in this blog ?

    "He's America's leading Putin apologist"

    That's pretty idiotic statement, even taking into account the abhorrent level of Russophobia of the US elite for whom Russophobia by-and-large replaced anti-Semitism. .

    Anybody who blabber such things (and that includes Ms. Goldman Sachs) should not be allowed to approach closer then 10 miles to Washington, DC, to say nothing about holding any elected government position.

    [Sep 28, 2016] It is not that we do not trust the agents, we do not trust the FBI leadership

    Notable quotes:
    "... Only three references to Comey as a "Treas-Weasel" appear in a Google search. ..."
    "... Are there no longer any "deep throats" left at the FBI? Because now would be an excellent opportunity for one of them to start making phone calls – but to who? Greenwald maybe? He seems to be the only investigative journalist left but he doesn't even live in this country .. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Roger Smith September 28, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    Re: (Pop Goes the) Weasels

    "I knew there were going to be all kinds of rocks thrown, but this organization and the people who did this are honest, independent people."

    Well Comey, it is not that we do not trust the agents, we do not trust the leadership. If any of the underground reports I have seen are indications, the agents were trying and struggling to do their jobs.

    Reply
    Jim Haygood September 28, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Only three references to Comey as a "Treas-Weasel" appear in a Google search.

    All three are on naked capitalism in July 2016. And I know who did it.

    *peers out window for suspicious unmarked vehicles*

    Reply
    justanotherprogressive September 28, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Are there no longer any "deep throats" left at the FBI? Because now would be an excellent opportunity for one of them to start making phone calls – but to who? Greenwald maybe? He seems to be the only investigative journalist left but he doesn't even live in this country ..

    Jen September 28, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    Just do a data dump on Reddit. We already know the FBI won't look there.

    crittermom September 28, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    Roger Smith–

    " it is not that we do not trust the agents, we do not trust the leadership."

    Perfectly stated. Nailed it!

    Sooo ..I wonder how those low-ranking soldiers in the military are faring using the same defense?

    I remain infuriated that nothing happened to her. I now have yet another head (Comey) I want to see in my front yard guillotine. Grrrrrrr

    Reply
    cwaltz September 28, 2016 at 5:57 pm

    http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-693407.html

    Still seeing jail time ..they aren't super special snowflakes like Clinton.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Comey on Clinton email probe 'Don't call us weasels'

    Notable quotes:
    "... GOP lawmakers focused in particular on the Justice Department's decision to give a form of immunity to Clinton lawyers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to obtain computers containing emails related to the case. ..."
    "... Republicans also questioned why Mills and Samuelson were allowed to attend Clinton's July 2 interview at FBI headquarters as her attorneys, given that they had been interviewed as witnesses in the email probe. ..."
    "... "I don't think there's any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two immunized witnesses central to the prosecution and proving the case against her to sit in the room with the FBI interview of the subject of that investigation," said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), a former U.S. attorney. He said those circumstances signaled that the decision not to prosecute Clinton was already made when she sat down for the interview. ..."
    "... Ratcliffe said Clinton and the others should have been called to a grand jury, where no one is allowed to accompany the witness. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | POLITICO

    "You can call us wrong, but don't call us weasels. We are not weasels," Comey declared Wednesday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. "We are honest people and whether or not you agree with the result, this was done the way you want it to be done."

    ... ... ...

    "I would be in big trouble, and I should be in big trouble, if I did something like that," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). "There seems to be different strokes for different folks. I think there's a heavy hand coming from someplace else."

    Comey insisted there is no double standard, though he said there would be serious consequences - short of criminal prosecution - if FBI personnel handled classified information as Clinton and her aides did.

    ... ... ...

    Republicans suggested there were numerous potential targets of prosecution in the case and repeatedly questioned prosecutors' decisions to grant forms of immunity to at least five people in connection with the probe.

    "You cleaned the slate before you even knew. You gave immunity to people that you were going to need to make a case if a case was to be made," said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

    GOP lawmakers focused in particular on the Justice Department's decision to give a form of immunity to Clinton lawyers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to obtain computers containing emails related to the case.

    "Laptops don't go to the Bureau of Prisons," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said. "The immunity was not for the laptop, it was for Cheryl Mills."

    The FBI director repeated an explanation he gave for the first time at a Senate hearing Tuesday, that the deal to get the laptops was wise because subpoenaing computers from an attorney would be complex and time consuming.

    "Anytime you know you're subpoenaing a laptop from a lawyer that involved a lawyer's practice of law, you know you're getting into a big megillah," Comey said.

    Republicans also questioned why Mills and Samuelson were allowed to attend Clinton's July 2 interview at FBI headquarters as her attorneys, given that they had been interviewed as witnesses in the email probe.

    "I don't think there's any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two immunized witnesses central to the prosecution and proving the case against her to sit in the room with the FBI interview of the subject of that investigation," said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), a former U.S. attorney. He said those circumstances signaled that the decision not to prosecute Clinton was already made when she sat down for the interview.

    "I don't think there's any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two immunized witnesses central to the prosecution and proving the case against her to sit in the room with the FBI interview of the subject of that investigation," said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), a former U.S. attorney. He said those circumstances signaled that the decision not to prosecute Clinton was already made when she sat down for the interview.

    "If colleagues of ours believe I am lying about when I made this decision, please urge them to contact me privately so we can have a conversation about this," Comey said. "The decision was made after that because I didn't know what was going to happen during the interview. She would maybe lie in the interview in a way we could prove."

    Comey also said it wasn't the FBI's role to dictate who could or couldn't act as Clinton's lawyers. "I would also urge you to tell me what tools we have as prosecutors and investigators to kick out of the interview someone that the subject says is their lawyer," the FBI chief said, while acknowledging he'd never encountered such a situation before.

    Ratcliffe said Clinton and the others should have been called to a grand jury, where no one is allowed to accompany the witness.

    Comey did say there was no chance of charges against Mills or Samuelson by the time of the Clinton interview.

    [Sep 28, 2016] A simple linear trend suggests that by mid-century about a quarter of men between 25 and 54 will not be working at any moment

    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Oil and gas companies typically leave management of their sites to subcontractors, a practice that dilutes safety standards and protects companies from liability, making an already dangerous job even more so, a Denver Post investigation has found" [ Denver Post ]. "Workers' compensation laws give the site owners immunity from lawsuits brought by subcontracted workers injured on the job. Contracts between owners and subcontractors often contain a provision - so controversial that its use in the oil and gas industry is banned in several other high-producing states - in which the companies agree not to sue each other over accidents regardless of who is at fault."

    "Labor-force participation rate decline is mostly structural, Fed's Fischer says" [ MarketWatch ]. "On the participation rate, Fischer said some of the decline reflects the people who became discouraged after losing their job and not finding new ones. But he said "much" of the decline was due to the nation's aging population, as well as a trend since the mid-1960s for declining participation by prime-age males. As for the reason why prime-age male participation is falling, particularly for those with no more than a high school education, Fischer said there's a number of possibilities. He said some economists have said disability insurance and public assistance income has played a role, while others point out a decline in demand for lower-skilled labor, which is evidenced by the steep drop in wages in comparison with college graduates."

    "A simple linear trend suggests that by mid-century about a quarter of men between 25 and 54 will not be working at any moment" [ Larry Summers ].

    [Sep 28, 2016] I cant think of a single thing that would make Clinton appear more attractive, compared to pretty much anyone. But, I can think of at few things that make Trump more attractive to me in comparison to Clinton. One being his lack of interest in war with Russia, and his ability to understand that regime change has been a loser for American interests, and the other being that he gets that our current trade policy has been a loser

    Notable quotes:
    "... I can give you a list of things that I can't stand about Clinton – a long one – but given the likelihood that my state will be solidly in the tank for Clinton, I won't have to vote for her to save the world from President Trump. But where I am coming to is that, if that's what it came down to, I don't think I could participate in anything that aided his election. ..."
    "... Funny, I can think of at few things that make Trump more attractive to me in comparison to Clinton. One being his lack of interest in war with Russia, and his ability to understand that 'regime change' has been a loser for American interests, and the other being that he gets that our current trade policy has been a 'loser'. ..."
    "... That said, both are disastrous choices, it may be for different reasons, but both are despicable. Neither one of them should be allowed to enter the White House in a tour group, much less live there. And I for one do not want to participate in anything that elects Hillary Rodham Clinton or Donald Trump to dog catcher, much less President. I'm going to vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may. I would be doing it no matter where I live. See, there is a point where you figure out that you are going to lose out no matter what. There are no softer landings available. ..."
    "... One being his lack of interest in war with Russia ..."
    "... In contrast with the (admittedly horrific) Trump, HRC has surrounded herself with anti-Russia, neocon advisors. ..."
    "... I recognize that voting for him would be a knee jerk reaction. However, I do understand why I have that knee jerk reaction. For years now, average Americans, like myself, have seen the media collude with the DC insiders and watched as we've seen our standard of living decline. We've watched our children struggle with unaffordable college. We've watched our parents struggle with unaffordable health care. We've watched our neighbors struggle to afford housing. We've watched our work weeks increase to 60 hours to pay for basics and heard them tell us that we need to work from cradle to grave(and let's be clear for lower middle class and middle class 70 is until grave) with little to no respite(we don't even have a mandatory vacation or sick policy in this country.) With that in mind, why should I want their standard bearer of status quo to win? I DON'T. I want Hillary Clinton to lose, not because I like Trump, but because I hate what these people have done and will continue to do to this country if allowed to remain in power. That's his case. ..."
    "... I can't think of a single thing that would make Clinton appear more attractive, compared to pretty much anyone. ..."
    "... I find it ironic that the HRC supporters are now desperately pleading with third-party supporters to vote Hillary BECAUSE TRUMP. Let's not forget it was Hillary herself who tweeted to all "Vote your conscience". ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    curlydan September 28, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    Yes, the media and the DC insiders are all begging us to drag HRC across the finish line in an effort to defeat TRUMP. Normally, a candidate might inspire and give voters reasons to go the polls, but we've been asked to do all the work and heavy lifting this year to prevent TRUMP.

    Reply
    cwaltz September 28, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    The funny thing is because of WHO is asking, it makes Trump appear more attractive and almost makes me want to vote for the guy out of spite.

    After all, what exactly have the media or the DC insiders done for the American people? Ignored issues and blatantly supported policies that have harmed Americans? It's rather audacious of them to even bother asking most of us when most of us don't see the answer to the question of what has been done for us as a net positive. Most from the left and the right might even go so far as to say media and DC insiders have lined their pockets on the backs of average Americans' pain. Beg us to do something for them? They deserve to be kicked in the teeth in the same manner they've been doing it to average Americans for years.

    Reply
    FluffytheObeseCat September 28, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    Yes. As indicated by the telling finish of the quote above:

    " We need to think about information policies - including media literacy programs - that can offer urgently needed counterweights to the echo chambers and conspiracy factories of the internet."

    Gutless, hackneyed drivel topped off with an urgent plea to the policy-making class to up their propaganda game.

    Reply
    Anne September 28, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    I can't think of a single thing that would make Trump appear more attractive, outside of seeing the back of him slowly disappearing from view – forever. Yes, I get that it's totally galling to be inundated with begging pleas from the likes of Hillary Clinton and some of her cronies – I routinely mail back to her every last shred of paper she sends me, in the postage-paid envelope, so I know that teeth-clenching, migraine-inducing rush of ire that she can induce.

    I can give you a list of things that I can't stand about Clinton – a long one – but given the likelihood that my state will be solidly in the tank for Clinton, I won't have to vote for her to save the world from President Trump. But where I am coming to is that, if that's what it came down to, I don't think I could participate in anything that aided his election.

    I came away from that debate wanting to stick needles in my eyes. Trump is a thin-skinned, prevaricating, floridly egotistical, vindictive, bigoted, misogynistic bully whose flaws will only expand and possibly explode if he is elected.

    There is nothing even remotely attractive about Trump – I can't even contemplate just how bad Clinton would need to be to make him look like the better choice.

    Reply
    Pat September 28, 2016 at 4:23 pm

    Funny, I can think of at few things that make Trump more attractive to me in comparison to Clinton. One being his lack of interest in war with Russia, and his ability to understand that 'regime change' has been a loser for American interests, and the other being that he gets that our current trade policy has been a 'loser'.

    That said, both are disastrous choices, it may be for different reasons, but both are despicable. Neither one of them should be allowed to enter the White House in a tour group, much less live there. And I for one do not want to participate in anything that elects Hillary Rodham Clinton or Donald Trump to dog catcher, much less President. I'm going to vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may. I would be doing it no matter where I live. See, there is a point where you figure out that you are going to lose out no matter what. There are no softer landings available.

    Reply
    Pavel September 28, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    Thank you, Pat. From my POV this is key:

    One being his lack of interest in war with Russia

    In contrast with the (admittedly horrific) Trump, HRC has surrounded herself with anti-Russia, neocon advisors.

    Needless to say, Putin isn't perfect, but how does further upgrading the conflict and risking WW3 and global destruction help matters? The NATO exercises on the Russian border and Syrian escalations are truly scary.

    Reply
    cwaltz September 28, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Trump isn't attractive to me either. However, defeating the DC insiders and media that have brought us to this point in history where my choices are bad and worse is attractive to me

    I recognize that voting for him would be a knee jerk reaction. However, I do understand why I have that knee jerk reaction. For years now, average Americans, like myself, have seen the media collude with the DC insiders and watched as we've seen our standard of living decline. We've watched our children struggle with unaffordable college. We've watched our parents struggle with unaffordable health care. We've watched our neighbors struggle to afford housing. We've watched our work weeks increase to 60 hours to pay for basics and heard them tell us that we need to work from cradle to grave(and let's be clear for lower middle class and middle class 70 is until grave) with little to no respite(we don't even have a mandatory vacation or sick policy in this country.) With that in mind, why should I want their standard bearer of status quo to win? I DON'T. I want Hillary Clinton to lose, not because I like Trump, but because I hate what these people have done and will continue to do to this country if allowed to remain in power. That's his case.

    I live in a swing state and I'll be voting for Stein. Screw the pundits and their *begging*. They deserve this loss.

    Reply
    Pavel September 28, 2016 at 5:58 pm

    Excellent comment, thank you. I only wish the MSM pundits would grasp what you describe in just a paragraph or two.

    Reply
    nippersmom September 28, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    I can't think of a single thing that would make Clinton appear more attractive, compared to pretty much anyone. I'll be voting Stein, the only remaining candidate who aligns with my views and reflects my interests. If she hadn't made it onto the ballot here in Georgia, I would not be voting in the presidential election for the first time since I became eligible to vote in 1980. Neither of the two ruling-party sociopaths is at all palatable.

    Reply
    Pavel September 28, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    I find it ironic that the HRC supporters are now desperately pleading with third-party supporters to vote Hillary BECAUSE TRUMP. Let's not forget it was Hillary herself who tweeted to all "Vote your conscience".

    Jill Stein is anti-war, anti-greed, pro-environment. Rather the opposite of HRC.

    [Sep 28, 2016] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/sep/28/common-painkillers-linked-to-increase-risk-of-heart-failure-bmj-finds

    Sep 28, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Common painkillers such as ibuprofen used by millions of people in the UK are linked to an increased risk of heart failure, experts have said.

    Non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) could increase the risk of being admitted to hospital. Previous studies have linked the drugs to abnormal heart rhythm – which can cause heart failure – and an increased risk of heart attack and stroke if taken regularly.

    ADVERTISING

    The drugs, together with a subgroup of anti-inflammatories known as selective COX-2 inhibitors, are used to control pain and inflammation and are commonly taken by people with arthritis.

    The study, published in the British Medical Journal, used data for almost 10 million NSAIDs users from the UK, the Netherlands, Italy and Germany, who started treatment between 2000 and 2010. Overall, 92,163 hospital admissions for heart failure were identified among the group.

    The study found that people who had taken any NSAID in the previous 14 days had a 19% increased risk of hospital admission for heart failure compared with people who had used NSAIDs at any point in the past. The BMJ research was led by a team from the University of Milano-Bicocca in Italy.

    The risk of admission for heart failure increased for seven traditional NSAIDs (diclofenac, ibuprofen, indomethacin, ketorolac, naproxen, nimesulide, and piroxicam) and two COX 2 inhibitors (etoricoxib and rofecoxib). The increased risk of hospital admission ranged from 16% for naproxen to 83% for ketorolac.

    Researchers also found the risk of heart failure doubled for diclofenac, etoricoxib, indomethacin, piroxicam, and rofecoxib used at very high doses, although they stressed this should be interpreted with caution.

    Even medium doses of indomethacin and etoricoxib were associated with increased risk, the study said, but there was no evidence that celecoxib increased the risk of admission for heart failure at commonly-used doses.

    The experts said their study "offers further evidence that the most frequently used individual traditional NSAIDs and selective COX 2 inhibitors are associated with an increased risk of hospital admission for heart failure. Moreover, the risk seems to vary between drugs and according to the dose."

    In an accompanying editorial, two Danish health researchers said that because of the widespread use of NSAIDs, "even a small increase in cardiovascular risk is a concern for public health".

    Advertisement

    They said the fact they can be bought over the counter in supermarkets "further fuels the common misconception that NSAIDs are harmless drugs that are safe for everyone".

    Professor Peter Weissberg, medical director at the British Heart Foundation , said: "This large observational study reinforces previous research showing that some NSAIDs, a group of drugs commonly taken by patients with joint problems, increase the risk of developing heart failure. It has been known for some years now that such drugs need to be used with caution in patients with, or at high risk of, heart disease. This applies mostly to those who take them on a daily basis rather than only occasionally.

    "Since heart and joint problems often co-exist, particularly in the elderly, this study serves as a reminder to doctors to consider carefully how they prescribe NSAIDs, and to patients that they should only take the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time. They should discuss their treatment with their GP if they have any concerns."

    Figures from NHS Digital show that in 2015 there were 14,605,791 prescription items dispensed in England for NSAIDs.

    The Proprietary Association of Great Britain, the UK trade association representing manufacturers of branded over-the-counter medicines, stressed that the people in the study were given NSAIDs on prescription. Chief executive John Smith said: "This observational study analysed prescription-only NSAIDs, used long-term by people with an average age of 77 years to treat conditions such as arthritis.

    "Prescribed NSAIDs contain a higher dosage than medicines available over the counter, which the authors acknowledge would typically be used by younger people, at lower doses and for shorter durations than those prescribed.

    "The authors admit that the study has several limitations. The study does not provide data on absolute risk, therefore the probability of these people developing heart failure without the use of NSAIDs is unknown."

    [Sep 28, 2016] Battling Apple and the Giants naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reuters reports that an investigation conducted by it in 2013 found that around three-fourths of the 50 biggest U.S. technology companies use practices that are similar to Apple's to avoid paying tax. So Verstager has taken on not just one giant, but the worlds corporate elite. She should not lose. But even if she does this time, this is a battle well begun. ..."
    "... Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and from the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic conditions ..."
    "... Those who support globalisation support this power disparity. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    The case of Apple's Irish operations is an extreme example of such tax avoidance accounting. It relates to two Apple subsidiaries Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe. Apple Inc US has given the rights to Apple Sales International (ASI) to use its "intellectual property" to sell and manufacture its products outside of North and South America, in return for which Apple Inc of the US receives payments of more than $2 billion per year. The consequence of this arrangement is that any Apple product sold outside the Americas is implicitly first bought by ASI, Ireland from different manufacturers across the globe and sold along with the intellectual property to buyers everywhere except the Americas. So all such sales are by ASI and all profits from those sales are recorded in Ireland. Stage one is complete: incomes earned from sales in different jurisdictions outside the Americas (including India) accrue in Ireland, where tax laws are investor-friendly. What is important here that this was not a straight forward case of exercising the "transfer pricing" weapon. The profits recorded in Ireland were large because the payment made to Apple Inc in the US for the right to use intellectual property was a fraction of the net earnings of ASI.

    Does this imply that Apple would pay taxes on these profits in Ireland, however high or low the rate may be? The Commission found it did not. In two rather curious rulings first made in 1991 and then reiterated in 2007 the Irish tax authority allowed ASI to split it profits into two parts: one accruing to the Irish branch of Apple and another to its "head office". That "head office" existed purely on paper, with no formal location, actual offices, employees or activities. Interestingly, this made-of-nothing head office got a lion's share of the profits that accrued to ASI, with only a small fraction going to the Irish branch office. According to Verstager's Statement: "In 2011, Apple Sales International made profits of 16 billion euros. Less than 50 million euros were allocated to the Irish branch. All the rest was allocated to the 'head office', where they remained untaxed." As a result, across time, Apple paid very little by way of taxes to the Irish government. The effective tax rate on its aggregate profits was short of 1 per cent. The Commissioner saw this as illegal under the European Commission's "state aid rules", and as amounting to aid that harms competition, since it diverts investment away from other members who are unwilling to offer such special deals to companies.

    In the books, however, taxes due on the "head office" profits of Apple are reportedly treated as including a component of deferred taxes. The claim is that these profits will finally have to be repatriated to the US parent, where they would be taxed as per US tax law. But it is well known that US transnationals hold large volumes of surplus funds abroad to avoid US taxation and the evidence is they take very little of it back to the home country. In fact, using the plea that it has "permanent establishment" in Ireland and, therefore, is liable to be taxed there, and benefiting from the special deal the Irish government has offered it, Apple has accumulated large surpluses. A study by two non-profit groups published in 2015 has argued that Apple is holding as much as $181 billion of accumulated profits outside the US, a record among US companies. Moreover, The Washington Post reports that Apple's Chief Executive Tim Cook told its columnist Jena McGregor, "that the company won't bring its international cash stockpile back to the United States to invest here until there's a 'fair rate' for corporate taxation in America."

    This has created a peculiar situation where the US is expressing concern about the EC decision not because it disputes the conclusion about tax avoidance, but because it sees the tax revenues as due to it rather than to Ireland or any other EU country. US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew criticised the ruling saying, "I have been concerned that it reflected an attempt to reach into the U.S. tax base to tax income that ought to be taxed in the United States." In Europe on the other hand, the French Finance Minister and the German Economy Minister, among others, have come out in support of Verstager, recognizing the implication this has for their own tax revenues. Governments other than in Ireland are not with Apple, even if not always for reasons advanced by the EC.

    ... ... ...

    Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and from the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic conditions. The costs of garnering that difference are, therefore, often missed. Reuters reports that an investigation conducted by it in 2013 found that around three-fourths of the 50 biggest U.S. technology companies use practices that are similar to Apple's to avoid paying tax. So Verstager has taken on not just one giant, but the worlds corporate elite. She should not lose. But even if she does this time, this is a battle well begun.

    JEHR September 28, 2016 at 10:42 am

    Greed has no boundaries!

    Ranger Rick September 28, 2016 at 10:43 am

    I think the common misconception that multinational corporations exist because "they are big companies that happen to operate in more than one country" is one of the biggest lies ever told.

    From the beginning (e.g. Standard Oil, United Fruit) it was clear that multinational status was an exercise in political arbitrage.

    tegnost September 28, 2016 at 11:23 am

    " Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and from the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic conditions "

    Those who support globalisation support this power disparity.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Scan and go as surveillance tool

    Notable quotes:
    "... Another goal of course is to track even further every single purchase - what, and where, and when. And then sell the consumption data to the insurers perhaps… a packet of cigs per day? Or too many bottles of booze? ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    temporal September 25, 2016 at 9:08 am

    Scan and go.

    Swapping standing in line at the check-out for the line at the exit. And when there is an issue then the greeter calls in the check-out police thereby pissing off the customer. Brilliant.

    While Apple fanboys are willing to work for their iPhone's company for free by doing their own check-out I doubt that is likely for people going to Sam's Club. As well many customers, even if they have a smartphone, will not enjoy using up their data plan as they try to check and process the details online.

    All these smartphone apps have one major goal, besides collecting credit fees. Reduce store overhead by getting customers to do more of the work while eliminating employees. The winners are not the customers or people looking for a way to make ends meet.

    Pavel September 25, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Another goal of course is to track even further every single purchase - what, and where, and when. And then sell the consumption data to the insurers perhaps… a packet of cigs per day? Or too many bottles of booze?

    Of course they are already doing that with the store "fidelity cards", but the mobile apps will be more precise and less optional.

    [Sep 28, 2016] The root cause of Syria war is Baathists aligned with non Sunnis running a sector of land lusted after by the Saudis and GCC

    Notable quotes:
    "... Of course the root cause is Baathists aligned with non Sunnis running a sector of land lusted after by the Saudis and GCC. ..."
    "... That the US supported the Sunnis (since the Iranians ousted CIA puppets) against the Baathists did not start the civil war, it merely keeps it growing in lust for death and destruction. ..."
    "... While that Sep 2012 skirmish in Benghazi included CIA ground troops otherwise there securing the sea lanes supporting Syrian Al Qaeda with Qaddafi's arms, less stingers. ..."
    "... "Settle for the crooked, Wall St, war monger because real change is too hard and the other guy is insane, supported by racists and don't think Russia should praise American exceptionalism." ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    ilsm, August 31, 2016 8:21 am

    Bev,

    "As for Syria, here too I'm not sure why you think this country caused its civil war, but it did not."

    Of course the root cause is Baathists aligned with non Sunnis running a sector of land lusted after by the Saudis and GCC.

    That the US supported the Sunnis (since the Iranians ousted CIA puppets) against the Baathists did not start the civil war, it merely keeps it growing in lust for death and destruction.

    While that Sep 2012 skirmish in Benghazi included CIA ground troops otherwise there securing the sea lanes supporting Syrian Al Qaeda with Qaddafi's arms, less stingers.

    ilsm August 31, 2016 9:44 pm

    "Settle for the crooked, Wall St, war monger because real change is too hard and the other guy is insane, supported by racists and don't think Russia should praise American exceptionalism."

    Obama might as well have voted with Hillary for AUMF forever, he is running it.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Why I Switched My Endorsement from Clinton to...

    Notable quotes:
    "... To my untrained eyes and ears, Hillary Clinton doesn't look sufficiently healthy – mentally or otherwise – to be leading the country. If you disagree, take a look at the now-famous " Why aren't I 50 points ahead " video clip. Likewise, Bill Clinton seems to be in bad shape too, and Hillary wouldn't be much use to the country if she is taking care of a dying husband on the side. ..."
    "... So when Clinton supporters ask me how I could support a "fascist," the answer is that he isn't one. Clinton's team, with the help of Godzilla, have effectively persuaded the public to see Trump as scary. The persuasion works because Trump's "pacing" system is not obvious to the public. They see his "first offers" as evidence of evil. They are not. They are technique. ..."
    "... The battle with ISIS is also a persuasion problem. The entire purpose of military action against ISIS is to persuade them to stop, not to kill every single one of them. We need military-grade persuasion to get at the root of the problem. Trump understands persuasion, so he is likely to put more emphasis in that area. ..."
    "... Most of the job of president is persuasion. Presidents don't need to understand policy minutia. They need to listen to experts and then help sell the best expert solutions to the public. Trump sells better than anyone you have ever seen, even if you haven't personally bought into him yet. You can't deny his persuasion talents that have gotten him this far. ..."
    Sep 25, 2016 | blog.dilbert.com

    As most of you know, I had been endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, for my personal safety, because I live in California. It isn't safe to be a Trump supporter where I live. And it's bad for business too. But recently I switched my endorsement to Trump, and I owe you an explanation. So here it goes.

    1. Things I Don't Know: There are many things I don't know. For example, I don't know the best way to defeat ISIS. Neither do you. I don't know the best way to negotiate trade policies. Neither do you. I don't know the best tax policy to lift all boats. Neither do you. My opinion on abortion is that men should follow the lead of women on that topic because doing so produces the most credible laws. So on most political topics, I don't know enough to make a decision. Neither do you, but you probably think you do.

    Given the uncertainty about each candidate – at least in my own mind – I have been saying I am not smart enough to know who would be the best president. That neutrality changed when Clinton proposed raising estate taxes. I understand that issue and I view it as robbery by government.

    I'll say more about that, plus some other issues I do understand, below.

    ... ... ...

    4. Clinton's Health: To my untrained eyes and ears, Hillary Clinton doesn't look sufficiently healthy – mentally or otherwise – to be leading the country. If you disagree, take a look at the now-famous " Why aren't I 50 points ahead " video clip. Likewise, Bill Clinton seems to be in bad shape too, and Hillary wouldn't be much use to the country if she is taking care of a dying husband on the side.

    5. Pacing and Leading: Trump always takes the extreme position on matters of safety and security for the country, even if those positions are unconstitutional, impractical, evil, or something that the military would refuse to do. Normal people see this as a dangerous situation. Trained persuaders like me see this as something called pacing and leading . Trump "paces" the public – meaning he matches them in their emotional state, and then some. He does that with his extreme responses on immigration, fighting ISIS, stop-and-frisk, etc. Once Trump has established himself as the biggest bad-ass on the topic, he is free to "lead," which we see him do by softening his deportation stand, limiting his stop-and-frisk comment to Chicago, reversing his first answer on penalties for abortion, and so on. If you are not trained in persuasion, Trump look scary. If you understand pacing and leading, you might see him as the safest candidate who has ever gotten this close to the presidency. That's how I see him.

    So when Clinton supporters ask me how I could support a "fascist," the answer is that he isn't one. Clinton's team, with the help of Godzilla, have effectively persuaded the public to see Trump as scary. The persuasion works because Trump's "pacing" system is not obvious to the public. They see his "first offers" as evidence of evil. They are not. They are technique.

    And being chummy with Putin is more likely to keep us safe, whether you find that distasteful or not. Clinton wants to insult Putin into doing what we want. That approach seems dangerous as hell to me.

    6. Persuasion: Economies are driven by psychology. If you expect things to go well tomorrow, you invest today, which causes things to go well tomorrow, as long as others are doing the same. The best kind of president for managing the psychology of citizens – and therefore the economy – is a trained persuader. You can call that persuader a con man, a snake oil salesman, a carnival barker, or full of shit. It's all persuasion. And Trump simply does it better than I have ever seen anyone do it.

    The battle with ISIS is also a persuasion problem. The entire purpose of military action against ISIS is to persuade them to stop, not to kill every single one of them. We need military-grade persuasion to get at the root of the problem. Trump understands persuasion, so he is likely to put more emphasis in that area.

    Most of the job of president is persuasion. Presidents don't need to understand policy minutia. They need to listen to experts and then help sell the best expert solutions to the public. Trump sells better than anyone you have ever seen, even if you haven't personally bought into him yet. You can't deny his persuasion talents that have gotten him this far.

    In summary, I don't understand the policy details and implications of most of either Trump's or Clinton's proposed ideas. Neither do you. But I do understand persuasion. I also understand when the government is planning to confiscate the majority of my assets. And I can also distinguish between a deeply unhealthy person and a healthy person, even though I have no medical training. (So can you.)

    I will be live streaming my viewing of the debate Monday night, with my co-host and neighbor, Kristina Basham . Tune your television to the debate and use your phone or iPad with the Periscope app, and look for me at @ScottAdamsSays.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day Most important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with all reasonable people and nations

    Notable quotes:
    "... Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and with all nations. ..."
    "... No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously as this essay does. ..."
    Sep 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Katniss Everdeen

    RE: I Was RFK's Speechwriter. Now I'm Voting for Trump. Here's Why. Politico (RR)

    Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and with all nations.

    No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously as this essay does.

    But for anyone who is the slightest bit aware of how the maniac imperialists have hijacked the public means of persuasion for a generation to the detriment of countless foreign countries as well as our own, the obsession with turning Trump into a cartoon character with joke "policies" should sound an alarm.

    No "politician" was ever going to buck this system. Bernie Sanders, fiery and committed though he was, proved that. It was always going to take an over-sized personality with an over-sized ego to withstand the shit storm that a demand for profound change would create, and some "incivility" seems a small price to pay to break the vice grip of the status quo.

    I, for one, have no intention of squandering this opportunity to throw sand in the gears. There has never been a third candidate allowed to plead their case in a presidential "debate" since Ross Perot threw a scare into TPTB in 1992. Should clinton manage to pull this one out, the lesson of Trump will be learned, and we may not be "given" the opportunity to choose an "outsider" again for a very long time. It's worth taking a minute to separate the message from the messenger.

    subgenius September 25, 2016 at 11:33 am

    No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously as this essay does.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Managing the Economic Consequences of Nationalism - Mohamed El-Erian

    Sep 28, 2016 | www.project-syndicate.org

    [Sep 27, 2016] Globalization is gone as a main driving force, pan-European unity is gone, and whether the United States will stay united is far from a done deal

    Notable quotes:
    "... Global is gone as a main driving force, pan-European is gone, and whether the United States will stay united is far from a done deal. We are moving towards a mass movement of dozens of separate countries and states and societies looking inward. All of which are in some form of -impending- trouble or another. ..."
    "... And of course it's confusing that the protests against the 'old regimes' and the growth and centralization -first- manifest in the rise of faces and voices who do not reject all of the above offhand. That is to say, the likes of Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage may be against more centralization, but none of them has a clue about growth being over. They don't get that part anymore than Hillary or Hollande or Merkel do. ..."
    "... Dems in the US, Labour in the UK, and Hollande's 'Socialists' in France have all become part of the two-headed monster that is the political center, and that is (held) responsible for the deterioration in people's lives. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    fresno dan September 27, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    Why There is Trump ~Ilargi

    But nobody seems to really know or understand. Which is odd, because it's not that hard. That is, this all happens because growth is over. And if growth is over, so are expansion and centralization in all the myriad of shapes and forms they come in.

    Global is gone as a main driving force, pan-European is gone, and whether the United States will stay united is far from a done deal. We are moving towards a mass movement of dozens of separate countries and states and societies looking inward. All of which are in some form of -impending- trouble or another.

    What makes the entire situation so hard to grasp for everyone is that nobody wants to acknowledge any of this. Even though tales of often bitter poverty emanate from all the exact same places that Trump and Brexit and Le Pen come from too.

    That the politico-econo-media machine churns out positive growth messages 24/7 goes some way towards explaining the lack of acknowledgement and self-reflection, but only some way. The rest is due to who we ourselves are. We think we deserve eternal growth.

    And of course it's confusing that the protests against the 'old regimes' and the growth and centralization -first- manifest in the rise of faces and voices who do not reject all of the above offhand. That is to say, the likes of Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage may be against more centralization, but none of them has a clue about growth being over. They don't get that part anymore than Hillary or Hollande or Merkel do.

    So why these people? Look closer and you see that in the US, UK and France, there is nobody left who used to speak for the 'poor and poorer'. While at the same time, the numbers of poor and poorer increase at a rapid clip. They just have nowhere left to turn to. There is literally no left left.

    Dems in the US, Labour in the UK, and Hollande's 'Socialists' in France have all become part of the two-headed monster that is the political center, and that is (held) responsible for the deterioration in people's lives. Moreover, at least for now, the actual left wing may try to stand up in the form of Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders, but they are both being stangled by the two-headed monster's fake left in their countries and their own parties.
    ================================================
    This is from today's Links, but I didn't have a chance to post this snippet.
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RL1A225NBEA

    Long time since we had 5% – if the whole system is financial scheme is premised on growth, and there is less and less of it ever year, it doesn't look sustainable. How bad http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/09/200pm-water-cooler-9272016.html#comment-2676054does it have to get for how many before the model is chucked???

    In the great depression, even the bankers were having a tough time. If the rich are exempt from suffering, I think history has shown that a small elite can impose suffering on masses for a long time…

    'there is nobody left who used to speak for the 'poor and poorer'.

    Actually, there are plenty who SPEAK for the poor, there just is NONE who ACT.

    Reply
    jrs September 27, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    How would we measure this growth that is supposed to be over? Yes of course there are the conventional measurements like GDP, but it's not zero. Yes of course if inflation is understated it would overstate GDP, and yes GDP measurements may not measure much as many critics have said. But what about other measures?

    Is oil use down, are CO2 emissions down, is resource use in general down? If not it's growth (or groath). This growth is at the cost of the planet but that's why GDP is flawed. And the benefit of this groath goes entirely to the 1%ers, but that's distribution.

    The left failed, I don't know all the reasons (and it's always hard to oppose the powers that be, the field always tilts toward them, it's never a fair fight) but it failed. That's what we see the results of.

    fresno dan September 27, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    I agree

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 27, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    Someone very smart said "the Fed makes the economy more stable".
    He also quoted The Princess Bride: "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think".
    Definition of stable: firm; steady; not wavering or changeable.
    As in: US GDP growth of a paltry 1.22% per year.
    But hey it only took an additional trillion $ in debt per year to stay "stable".

    Softie September 27, 2016 at 5:42 pm

    there are plenty who SPEAK for the poor, there just is NONE who ACT.
    ========
    That's why in 1992 Francis Futurama refirmed the end of history that was predicted by Hegel some 150 years earlier.

    Lee September 27, 2016 at 5:58 pm

    Time to revisit Herman Daly's Steady-State Economy.

    [Sep 27, 2016] Bruce Springsteen calls Donald Trump a 'moron'

    Sep 27, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Springsteen, who has dramatised the plight of working-class Americans in his music, said he understands how Trump could seem "compelling" to people who are economically insecure.

    "The absurdity is beyond cartoon-like. But he's gotten close enough [to the White House] so it can make you nervous," he told the talk show Skavlan.

    "I don't think he's going to win, but even him running is a great embarrassment if you're an American," he said.

    Trump knows how to tell voters "some of the things they want to hear," he added, including to people "uncomfortable with the 'browning' of America."

    "We have certain problems in the United States – tremendous inequality of wealth distribution. That makes for ripe ground for demagoguery," Springsteen said.

    "He has a very simple answer to all these very, very complex problems."

    Springsteen recorded the interview with the talk show ahead of next week's release of his memoir, Born to Run, which describes his childhood in New Jersey and rise to fame.

    The singer, famous for his onstage stamina, has drawn a diverse field of devoted fans for decades, including New Jersey governor Chris Christie, one of Trump's most public backers.

    Springsteen insisted for years that he would let his music speak for him but has been more openly political since the election in 2004, when he campaigned for John Kerry in his unsuccessful bid to win the White House from George W Bush.


    370530e , 2016-09-26 08:04:36
    I like Springsteen but I don't look to pop stars for political insights.
    Mark Newman , 2016-09-26 07:23:30
    One hit wonder boy who climbed to fame on the back of his jingoistic melody 'Born in the USA.' What he knows about politics could be written on a stamp!
    Brian Wozniak , 2016-09-25 05:01:56
    Finally. Poverty in the US could have been wiped out completely by the amount of money Hilary spent on her campaign. 300 million dollars.

    Her priorities are already overspending, not conservative values.

    jaget80 Brian Wozniak , 2016-09-25 06:03:49
    Poverty in US could have been wiped out any year for 40 years if 1% of the military budget would have gone to creating jobs.
    ID4909056 Brian Wozniak , 2016-09-25 08:12:14
    By giving everyone in USA a $1 candy bar? = $300m.
    Brian Wozniak , 2016-09-25 05:00:10
    I don't know too about Hilary being the ebb and flow of this countrys future. She outspent Trump 3 to 1. She spent a wooping 360 million dollars on this campaign alone. The Libertarian party also spent it up up to 7 million for their parties choice of President.

    Some are saying that Hilary is not so popular with the vulture class. Those who feel that her 300,000 a plate dinners to raise huge wads of cash could be spent on the poor.

    PREP58 , 2016-09-25 02:47:14
    1. Springsteen is eminently qualified to comment on being in a moronic state. (Huh?)
    2. The issue doesn't revolve around the candidates' intelligence , but rather the ability to make sound, timely and balanced judgments on many things with which you may or may not have requisite familiarity. THOSE DECISIONS MUST BE MADE WITH COURAGE and sometimes almost instantly.
    3. Then, there is there are the issues of Trust, Honesty, Openness and the SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.
    But, then, I'm a Yank. (I hold 2 MBA's, I'm a Senior, a former executive with a major international corporation, a father and grandfather, and a Veteran.), so what do I know?
    Surrealistic PREP58 , 2016-09-25 04:42:32

    ... so what do I know?

    Very little about Trump by the sound of it. Trust? Honesty? Openness? You have a nerve using those words in the same sentence as Trump.
    hadeze242 , 2016-09-24 23:05:21
    against Sanders (who gave up far too soon) neither Hillary nor Trump would have a chance. But the DNC, in its corrupt establishment wisdom, cf. Mme Wassermann-Schultz... undermined his fair chances of raising real questions of why America is slipping economically, socially, morally.
    aucontraire2 , 2016-09-24 18:26:52
    Who of the two is going to be less destructive for the US and the world ?
    Well , I am not ready to say the lady is.
    A professional politician and a non professional one. By the look of what the present has to offer, I would be inclined to go for the non professional.
    ConBrio SidekickSimon , 2016-09-24 18:59:19
    SidekickSimon ConBrio 6m ago

    Goldman Sachs made Hillary's tie? Does she even wear a tie?
    ===============
    $675,000.00 says Goldman Sachs has her tied around their chubby greedy finger.

    Washingtonian , 2016-09-24 17:37:49
    Springsteen and Trump are alike in that they are both cowards when it came time for them to do their duty in Vietnam. Springsteen told his draft board he was homosexual (funny he hasn't been acting homosexual), whereas Trump got deferments for heel spurs. Dick Cheny is like Springsteen and Trump as well in this regard.
    ironlion Washingtonian , 2016-09-24 17:45:42
    A coward for not wanting to go and kill people eh? You're a goof buddy, stick your war mongering beliefs- moron
    Crot0001 Washingtonian , 2016-09-24 19:15:20
    I thought you Americans had finally decided that the Vietnam campaign was a bad error of political judgement. Nothing cowardly about saying "no" to a draft that included, inter alia, carpet bombing of innocents and applications of agent orange where the fall out is still happening.

    [Sep 27, 2016] TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century

    Sep 27, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com

    wumogang

    22h ago 12 13

    TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.

    [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
    "... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
    Sep 24, 2016 | www.antiwar.com
    A good friend passed along an article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible - even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.

    Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from the sales of weaponry to the army.

    As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.

    But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia? North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:

    #1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler all learned that lesson the hard way).

    #2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract the people from their parlous existence.

    #3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America, at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria

    Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.

    We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion on the shiny new and under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy, yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.

    The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.

    Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy.

    William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author's permission.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Population is the favoured red herring of genocidaires who wish to justify their consumption. 5% of the global populations consumption is responsible for 50% of the emissions.

    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Synoia September 25, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    Want to Slow Climate Change? Stop Having Babies Bloomberg

    The quickest mechanism to cutting population growth is promoting poor people to the middle class. This involves higher pay. It does not involve massive, increasing rent extraction by the wealthy.

    Do I note cognitive dissonance at work here?

    Aka: Copulating Peasants – It's all your fault?

    Indrid Cold September 25, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    "Bed is the poor mans opera"

    Paper Mac September 25, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    Population is the favoured red herring of genocidaires who wish to justify their consumption. 5% of the global population's consumption is responsible for 50% of the emissions.

    subgenius September 25, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    and by promoting people to the middle class, you massively increase their energy and material demands – thus negating any reduction in numbers in fact making them HUGELY more of an issue.

    John k September 25, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    Wanna slow climate change? Plus, we emit 3x more carbon per capita than Western Europe
    Some here say climate change is our biggest existential problem, and the real issue is too many people, So
    Guns kill, gun control bad?
    Wars kill, more wars good? Plus less breeding in war zones. (May affect your vote.)
    Starvation kills, stop food aid?
    Disease kills, stop research in deadly diseases?
    And it's past time to tell all the third worlders to stop all that dreaming about higher standard of living, they need to stay on their rice paddies.

    Yes, women's education/birth control would help in those countries lacking same, but as the world gallops towards 9 billion the US would need to pull out all the stops our country's massive per capita sinning mean we emit as if 1 billion or so live here. We have a lot of extra miles to go. Think about what we would have to do to cut emissions here 2/3 and get down to Western Europe levels.

    Of course people find the topic uncomfortable, who will step up and cut first? Or make the ultimate sacrifice and jump off? And now, back to the election, sex, action movies and other fun stuff.

    (Imagine we discover a large asteroid will hit us, but not for another 100 years

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef September 25, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    So, one middle class person consumes 3x a middle class western European.

    And one middle class European consumes ?X a poor Third World person?

    Hopefully, a middle class Third World person is wiser than a middle class western European, so when more Third World poor persons becomes middle class Third World person, there is no increase in carbon emission.

    I think we need to address inequality.

    Regarding climate change, those already in the middle and especially, the 1%, need to reduce consumption.

    subgenius September 25, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    Everybody in the first world needs to reduce energy use.

    To almost zero.

    If you want to really get down to reality

    [Sep 26, 2016] Human population as an ecosystem problem

    Notable quotes:
    "... These are unsustainable trends that cannot be ignored and part of the reason I absolutely hate all the "green energy" (which isn't really green) miracle cures. Even if 100% renewable carbon free energy existed, it would not matter, we would still face environmental and ecological collapse due to the pressures of unsustainable populations. ..."
    "... Population is the number one driver of global warming, in addition to decreasing arable topsoil at an unimaginably fast rate. Currently the world has between 60-200 years worth of topsoil left that will take 1000-2000 years to fully renew in "ideal" conditions. ..."
    "... Yes better more sustainable methods are important. but you are saying by implementing these we can have infinite population growth which is insane. 9 billion no problem, 12 billion no problem, 20 billion no problem, Ad infinitum, right? Do you really believe that? ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    HBE September 25, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Bloomberg population link

    Population is the number one driver of global warming, in addition to decreasing arable topsoil at an unimaginably fast rate. Currently the world has between 60-200 years worth of topsoil left that will take 1000-2000 years to fully renew in "ideal" conditions.

    In addition to acidification from population driven climate change, the oceans have faced so much demand as a food source that 85% of the world's oceans have been fully exploited as a food source.

    These are unsustainable trends that cannot be ignored and part of the reason I absolutely hate all the "green energy" (which isn't really green) miracle cures. Even if 100% renewable carbon free energy existed, it would not matter, we would still face environmental and ecological collapse due to the pressures of unsustainable populations.

    Honestly, (in a selfish sense) I am glad I was born when I was, it looks like nothing will ever be done about population and population driven Global warming, soil collapse and empty oceans will all likely make the perfect storm just after I kick it. That's not to say I don't practice personal sustainability; no car, local shopping only, limited meat, no fish etc. But that doesn't really matter on the macro level.

    HBE September 25, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Bloomberg population link

    Population is the number one driver of global warming, in addition to decreasing arable topsoil at an unimaginably fast rate. Currently the world has between 60-200 years worth of topsoil left that will take 1000-2000 years to fully renew in "ideal" conditions.

    In addition to acidification from population driven climate change, the oceans have faced so much demand as a food source that 85% of the world's oceans have been fully exploited as a food source.

    These are unsustainable trends that cannot be ignored and part of the reason I absolutely hate all the "green energy" (which isn't really green) miracle cures. Even if 100% renewable carbon free energy existed, it would not matter, we would still face environmental and ecological collapse due to the pressures of unsustainable populations.

    Honestly, (in a selfish sense) I am glad I was born when I was, it looks like nothing will ever be done about population and population driven Global warming, soil collapse and empty oceans will all likely make the perfect storm just after I kick it. That's not to say I don't practice personal sustainability; no car, local shopping only, limited meat, no fish etc. But that doesn't really matter on the macro level.

    HBE September 25, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    Here is another link on soil loss which is completely different from degradation.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/

    Nobody (the outcast) September 25, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    The too-many-humans argument is nihilistic and a deflection. Increased CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans is the number one driver. Poor farming methods, deforestation, over-consumption of fossil fuels (and everything else) are to blame, not numbers of humans per se. It is perfectly possible to feed the world and sequester carbon without destroying soil and destroying forests. Soil can be maintained as long as there are rocks for soil life to dissolve. It is perfectly possible for humanity to survive and prosper without turning insane amounts of energy into atmospheric carbon and heat. The argument amounts to humans are too ignorant and/or stupid to live with nature, so the amount of humans is the problem. No, it is human ignorance and/or stupidity that is the problem. It's not the numbers, it's how those numbers behave, and Western humans behave the worst and they are exporting their behavior all over the world. Yes, the negative behaviors are amplified by more humans doing them, but reducing the numbers does nothing to solve the negative behaviors. The economic system the west, and increasingly the world, lives under (exploitative "Capitalism") was designed to ignore thermodynamics, biosphere services and externalities. So is it any surprise that these negative behaviors have become accepted as normal and considered a birthright? We won't be screwed because there are too many of us, we will be screwed because we fail to challenge our assumptions and recognize and correct our mistakes.

    HBE September 25, 2016 at 3:08 pm

    Yes better more sustainable methods are important. but you are saying by implementing these we can have infinite population growth which is insane. 9 billion no problem, 12 billion no problem, 20 billion no problem, Ad infinitum, right? Do you really believe that?

    [Sep 26, 2016] Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game? ..."
    "... The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US. ..."
    "... And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture? ..."
    "... "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development. ..."
    "... And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits. ..."
    "... They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional. ..."
    "... "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help. ..."
    "... Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation. ..."
    "... "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid. ..."
    "... I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. ..."
    "... The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn. ..."
    "... By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight. ..."
    "... a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well ..."
    "... Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government. ..."
    "... America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced ..."
    "... The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well. ..."
    "... "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man". ..."
    "... The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity. ..."
    "... It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of. ..."
    "... Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia. ..."
    "... Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations". ..."
    "... Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy. ..."
    "... Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines ..."
    "... China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum. ..."
    "... TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations. ..."
    "... Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes. ..."
    "... Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip .... ..."
    "... They tell their employers what they want to hear. ..."
    "... Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering? ..."
    "... The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course. ..."
    "... What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football. ..."
    "... Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power. ..."
    "... Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US. ..."
    "... Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. ..."
    "... China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony. ..."
    "... The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China. ..."
    "... The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Vermithrax , 2016-09-26 18:48:09
    Before the pivot could even get underway the Saudis threw their rattle out of the pram and drew US focus back to the Middle East and proxy war two steps removed with Russia. Empires don't get to focus, they react to each event and seek to gain from the outcome so the whole pivot idea was flawed.

    Obama's foreign policy has been clumsy and amoral. It remains to be seen whether it will become more so in an effort to double down. Under Clinton it definitely will, under Trump who knows but random isn't a recommendation.

    Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game?

    Boyaca, 2016-09-26 18:41:19
    So the Rand Think Tank would sooner have war now than later. Who wouldda guessed that.

    The Chinese want to improve trade and business with the rest of the world. The US answer? destroy China militarily. so who best to lead the world. I think the article answers that question unintentionally. The rest of the world has had it up to the ears with American military invasions, regeime changes, occupations and bombing of the world. They are ready for China´s approach to international relations. it is about time the adults took over the leadership of the world. Europe and the USA and their offspring have clearly failed.

    AmyInNH, 2016-09-26 17:07:12
    China has been handed everything it needs to fly solo: money, factories, IP, etc. Fast forwarding into the western civic model limits (traffic, pollution, etc.), its best bet is to offload US "interests" and steer clear.

    No clear sign India's learned/recovered from British occupation, as they let tech create more future Kanpurs.

    Shein Ariely , 2016-09-26 17:06:51
    Obama failed worldwide. Next USA president either Democrat or Republican will have a difficult job fixing his colossal mistakes in ME- Euroep-Asia
    yermelai, 2016-09-26 10:12:58
    The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US.

    Was it really worth expanding NATO to Russia's borders instead of offering neutrality to former Soviet States and thus retain Russia's confidence in global matters that far out weigh the interests of the neo-cons?

    Hermanovic -> yermelai , 2016-09-26 10:50:07
    neutrality? Russia invaded non-NATO members Georgie, Ukraine, and Moldavia, and created puppet-states on their soil.

    The Jremlin-rules are simple: the former Sovjet states should be ruled by a pro-Russian dictator (Bella-Russia, Kazachstan, etc. etc...). Democracies face boycots, diplomatic and military support of rebels, and in the end simply a military invasion.

    The only reason why the baltic states are now thriving democracies, is that they are NATO members.

    Boyaca -> Hermanovic, 2016-09-26 18:57:23
    And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture?
    macel388, 2016-09-26 10:08:03
    "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development.
    MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 09:36:41
    When Obama took office his first major speech was in Cairo - where he said

    "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world," US President Barack Obama said to the sounds of loud applause which rocked not only the hall, but the world. "One based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

    He displayed a dangerous mix of innocence, foolishness, disregard for the truth and misunderstanding of the nature of Islamic regimes - does the West have common values with Lebanon which practices apartheid for Palestinians, Saudi, where women cannot drive a car, Syria, where over 17,000 have died in Assad's torture chambers, we can go on and on.

    And on China - Trump has it right - China has been manipulating its currency exchange rate for years, costing western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits and something needs to be done about it.

    ReinerNiemand -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 10:21:20
    " America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. "

    He spoke about the whole of Islam, not specific " Islamic regimes ". And he is correct on it. All religions share a great deal of values with the USAmerican constition and even each other .

    The overwhelming majority of USAmerican muslims have accepted the melting pot with their whole heart, second generation children have JOINED its fighting forces to protect the interest of the USA all over the world. Normally this full an integration is reached with the third generation.

    The west has won against those religious fanatics. How else to explain that exactly the people those claim to speak turn up with us?

    Calvert -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 11:21:45
    And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits.

    They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional.

    hartebeest, 2016-09-26 09:35:14
    "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help.

    Interesting in particular to see RAND is still in its Cold War mindset. There's famous footage of RAND analysts in the 60s (I think) discussing putative nuclear war with the USSR and concluding that the US was certain of 'victory' following a missile exchange because its surviving population (after hundreds of millions of deaths and the destruction of almost all urban centres) would be somewhat larger.

    China's island claims are all about a broader strategic aim- getting unencumbered access to the Pacific for its growing blue water navy. It's not aimed at Taiwan or Japan in any sort of specific sense and, save for the small possibility of escalation following an accident (ships colliding or something), there's very little risk of conflict in at least the medium term.

    It's crucial to remember just how much China and the US depend upon each other economically. The US is by far China's largest single export market, powering its manufacturing economy. In return, China uses the surplus to buy up US debt, which allows the Americans to borrow cheaply and keep the lights on. Crash China and you crash the US- and vice versa.

    For now, China is basically accepting an upgraded number 2 spot (along with the US acknowledging them as part of a 'G2'), but supporting alternative governance structures when it doesn't like the ones controlled by the US/Japan (so the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS etc.).

    This doesn't mean that the two don't see each other as long term strategic and economic rivals. But the risks to both of rocking the boat are gigantic and not in the interest of either party in the foreseeable future. Things that could change that:

    a. a succession of Trump-like US presidents (checks and balances are probably sufficient to withstand one, were it to come to that);
    b. a revolution in China (possible if the economy goes South- and what comes next is probably not liberal democracy but anti-Japanese or anti-US authoritarian nationalism);
    c. an unpredictable chain of events arising from N Korean collapse or a regional nuclear race (Japan-China is a more likely source of conflict than US-China).

    MrMeinung, 2016-09-26 09:13:57
    The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all.

    Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation.

    Time for a change of plan.

    freeandfair -> MrMeinung , 2016-09-26 14:29:49
    "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid.
    Zami99, 2016-09-26 08:30:36
    The writing is on the wall: the future is with China. All the US can do is make nice or reap the dire consequences. If China can clean up its human rights record, I would be happy to see them supplant or rival the US as a global hegemon. After all, looked at historically, haven't they earned it? - An American, born and bred, but no nationalist
    Calvert -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 11:24:26
    Well, that is naďve. Look at China and how the Chinese people are governed. Look at the US. And please don't tell me you don't see a difference. I'll take a world with the US as the global hegemon any day.
    Leandro Rodriguez -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 16:15:42
    The US never cleaned up their human rights record...
    Sven Ringling, 2016-09-26 08:16:37
    A regional counter balance is needed. Cooperation is hindered by Japan. They should be the center point of a regional alliance strong enough to contain China with US help, but it doesn't work: whilst everybody fears China, everybody hates Japan.

    The reason is they failed miserably to rebuild trust after WWII, rather than going cap in hand, acknowledging respondibility for atrocities and other crimes and injustice, and compensate victims, they kept their pride and isolation. They are now paying the price - possibly together with the rest of us.

    Maybe a full scale change after 7 decades of to-little-to-late diplomacy can still achieve sth.

    The ass the US should kick sits in Tokyo - something they failed to do properly after WWII, when they managed it well in West Germany (ok - they had help from the Brits there, who for all their failings understand foreign nations far better), where it facilitated proper integration into European cooperation.

    ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 07:28:26
    I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. Countries that do well don't need to crack down on dissidents to the point of kidnappings or spend millions of stupid man made islands that pisses everyone off but have all the military value of a threatening facial tattoo. The South China Sea tactics is partially Chinese "push until something pushes back" diplomacy but also stems from the harsh realisation that their resources can be easily choked of and even the CPC knows it can't hold down a billion plus Chinese people once the hunger sets it.

    China is facing the dilemna that as it brings people out of poverty it reduces the supply of the very cheap labor that makes it rich. You can talk about Lenovo all you want, no one is buying a Chinese car anytime soon. Nor is any airline outside of China going to buy one of their planes. Copyright fraud is one thing the West can retaliate easily upon and will if they feel China has gone too far. Any product found in a western court to be a blatant copy can effectively be banned. The next step is to refuse to recognize Chinese copyright on the few genuine innovations that come out of it.

    Plus the deal Deng Xiaoping made with the urban classes is fraying. It was wealth in exchange for subservience. The people in the cities stay out of direct politics but quality of life issues, safety, petty corruption and pollution are angering them and scaring them hence the vast amount of private Chinese money being sunk into global real estate.

    The military growth and dubious technobabble is just typical Chinese mianzi gaining. If you do have a brand new jet stealth jet fighter, you don't release pictures of it to the world press. They got really rattled when Shinzo Abe decided the JSDF can go and deliver slappings abroad to help their friends if needed. Because an army that spends a lot of time rigging up Michael Bayesque set maneuvers for the telly is not what you want to pit against top notch technology handled by obsessive perfectionists.

    No one plays hardball with China because we all like cheap shit. But once that is over then China is a very vulnerable country with not one neighbour they can call a friend. They know it. Obama hasn't failed.. It's the histrionics that prove it not the other way round.

    250022 -> ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 11:34:31
    Fundamentally incorrect.

    The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn.

    No-one is buying a Chinese car? Check the sales for Wuling. They produce the small vans that are the lifeblood of the small entrepreneur. BYD are already exporting electric buses to London. The likes of VW, BMW, Land Rover, are all in partnership with Chinese auto-makers and China is the largest car market in the world.

    Corruption has been actively attacked and over a quarter of a million officials have been brought to book in Xi's time in office. The pollution causing steel and coal industries are being rapidly contracted and billions spent on re-training.

    Plus the fact that while the Chinese are mianzi gazing, the last thing they think about is politics. They simply don't want to know.

    By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight.

    The conclusion is that bi-lateral talks, not US led pissing contests are the way forward.

    http://english.sina.com/china/s/2016-09-26/detail-ifxwevmf2233637.shtml

    alfredwong -> Jonathan Scott , 2016-09-26 05:44:58
    "What has happened is the ICA has ruled against China in the SCS..." Nothing new. The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf had also ruled against the UK and the International Court of Justice had ruled against the US.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/29/falkland-islands-argentina-waters-rules-un-commission

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-defiance-of-international-court-has-precedentu-s-defiance-1467919982

    "Also, China still has little force projection"

    A country only needs a lot of force projection if it seeks to dominate the world.

    "and a soon to collapse economy."

    You are entitled to have such dream.

    vidimi -> Jonathan Scott, 2016-09-26 09:41:28
    a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well
    ChristosHellas, 2016-09-26 04:17:59
    Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government.

    Just look at how gobsmacked the US Military & President were over such a stupidly undertaken sale by the LNP. This diplomatically lunatic sell off by the LNP of such a vital national asset has effectively taken-out any influence or impact Australia may have, or exert, over critical issues happening on our northern doorstep.

    If there was ever a case for buying back a strategic national asset, this is definitely the one. Oh, if folks are worried about the $Billions in penalties incurred, simple solution - just stop the $Billions of Diesel Fuel Rebates gifted to Miners for, say, 10 years..... Done!

    JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 04:05:15
    America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced.

    Europe is under siege by endless tides of refugees that are the direct consequence of America's neo-Conservative and militant foreign policy. Meanwhile, America's neo-liberal economic and trade policies have not only decimated her own manufacturing base and led to gross inequality but also massive dislocations in South America, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tired, irritated, frustrated, exhausted, cynical, violent, moral-less, deeply corrupt, and rudderless, America is effectively bankrupt and on the verge of becoming another Greece, if not for the saving grace of the petro-Dollar. Europe would be well-advised to keep the Yanks at arm's length so as to escape as much as possible the fallout from her complete collapse. As for Britain, soon to be divorced from the EU, time draws nigh to end the humiliating, one-sided servitude that is the 'Special Relationship' and forge an independent foreign policy. The tectonic plates of history is again shifting, and there nothing America can do to stop it.

    scss99 -> JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 05:14:43
    I don't know America probably occupies the most prime geographical spot on the planet, and buffered by two oceans. It doesn't have to worry about refugees and the other problems and ultimately they can produce enough food and meet all of its energy needs domestically. And it's the third most populous nation on earth and could easily grow its population with immigration.

    The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well.

    Given the facts it would be daft a write off America. Every European nation have lost their number one spot in history and they seem to be doing just fine. Is there some reason why this can't be America's destiny as well? Does it really have to end in flames?

    macel388 -> itsfridayiminlove, 2016-09-26 14:17:29
    "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man".
    CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 03:47:56
    The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity.

    Pivot to Asia is about one thing only, sending more war ships to encircle China. But for what purpose exactly? It does one thing though, it united china by posing as a threat.

    hobot CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 04:44:28
    It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of.
    Stieve, 2016-09-26 02:09:34
    Those blaming Obama most stridently for not keeping China in its box are those most responsible for China's rise. American and Western companies shafted their own people to make themselves more profit. They didn't care what the consequences might be, as long as the lmighty "Shareholder Value" continued to rise. Now they demand that the taxes from all those people whose jobs they let go be used to contain the new superpower that they created. As usual, Coroporate America messes things up then demands to know what someone else is going to do about it
    MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 01:49:38
    Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia.

    Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations".

    freeandfair -> MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 02:02:27
    The US doesn't know what the word "cooperation" means. To Americans "cooperation" means giving orders and others following them.
    LivingTruth, 2016-09-26 00:41:25
    America has this absurd notion that it must always be number 1 in world whatever that means world could be better when east is best
    Zhubajie1284, 2016-09-26 00:16:50
    Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy.
    thomasvladimir, 2016-09-26 00:11:36
    fuck his pivot.....this ain't syria.....having destroyed the middle east it was our turn.....this is americas exceptionalism........stay #1 by desabilising/destroying everyone else.....p.s. shove the TPP also..........
    Fabrizio Agnello, 2016-09-25 23:45:41
    The real question is why should not China be more dominant in Asia... i understands the USA tendency especially since the fall of the soviet union at seing themselves as the only world superpower. And i understand why China would like to balance tbat especially in her own neighborhood.

    Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines,... and considering that the chinese have a long memory of werstern gunboat diplomacy and naval for e projection, if i was them i would feel a little uncomfortable at how vulnerable my newfound trade is... especially when some western politician so clearly think that china needs to be contained...

    Bogoas81, 2016-09-25 23:44:41
    China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum.

    Much of this money has been funnelled into 'investments' that will never yield a return. The most almighty crash is coming. Which will be interesting to say the least.

    RodMcLeod -> Bogoas81, 2016-09-26 00:07:24
    Now that is interesting but odd. They are buying phuqing HUGE swathes of land in Africa, investing everywhere they can on rest of the planet. All seemingly on domestic debt then.
    Bogoas81 -> RodMcLeod, 2016-09-26 10:09:36
    Yes. The Japanese went on a spending spree abroad in the 1980s, while accumulating debt at home, and when that popped the economy entered 20 years of stagnation, as bad debts hampered the financial system.

    The Chinese bubble is far larger, and made worse by the fact that much of the debt has been taken on by inefficient state owned enterprises and local government, spending not because the figures make sense but to meet centrally-dictated growth targets. Much of the rest has been funnelled into real estate, which now makes up more than twice the share of the Chinese economy than is the case in the UK. Property prices in some major Chinese cities have reached up to 30 times local incomes, making London look cheap in comparison.

    There is also a huge 'shadow' banking system in China which means no-one really knows who owes money to whom, which will make it impossible to be confident in who remains creditworthy when the crisis occurs. Estimates are that bad debts (non-performing loans) by Chinese banks already total more than $2 trillion and are rising fast: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/22/fitch-warns-bad-debts-in-china-are-ten-times-official-claims-sta/

    wumogang, 2016-09-25 22:44:50
    TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
    Narapoia01 -> wumogang, 2016-09-26 01:53:17
    Don't believe for a second Hillary won't ram through a version of the TPP/IP if she wins. What she's actually said is that she's against it in its current form

    Remember she is part of an owned by the 0.1% that stand to benefit from the agreement, she will do their bidding and be well rewarded. A few cosmetic changes will be applied to the agreement so she can claim that she wasn't lying pre-election and we'll have to live with the consequences.

    sanhedrin, 2016-09-25 22:22:22
    I find the United States of America more frightening each day
    thomasvladimir -> sanhedrin, 2016-09-26 00:53:38
    failing flailing empire.......classic insanity
    Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 21:43:18
    Well done all you globalists for failing to spot the bleedin obvious...that millions of homes worldwide full of 'Made In China' was ultimately going to pay for the People's Liberation Army. Still think globalisation is wonderful ?
    kbg541 -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:31:38
    Quite. How can you believe in a liberal, global free market and then do business with the Socialist Republic of China, that is the antithesis of free markets. The name is above the door, so there's no use acting all surprised when it doesn't pan out the way you planned it.
    moderatejohn -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:40:32
    Anything good can be made evil, including globalization. Imagine fair trade completely globalized so very nation relies on every other nation for goods. That type of shared destiny is the only way to maintain peace because humans are tribalist to a fault. We evolved in small groups, our social dynamics are not well suited to large diverse groups. If nation has food but nation B does not, nation B will go to war with nation A, so hopefully both nations trade and alleviate that situation. Nations with high economic isolation are beset by famines and poverty. Germany usually beats China in total exports and Germany is a wonderful place to live. It's not globalization that is the problem, it's exploitation and failure of our leaders to follow and enforce the Golden Rule.
    BelieveItsTrue -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 23:00:58
    Roll out the barrel.....
    Well said and you are so right.
    15 years ago, I had a conversation in an airport with an American. I remarked that, by outsourcing manufacturing to China the US had sold its future to an entity that would prove to be their enemy before too long. I was derided and ridiculed. I wonder where that man is and whether he remembers our conversation.

    Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

    I despair of "normalcy bias" and the insulting term "conspiracy theorist". People have lost the ability to work things out for themselves and the majority knows nothing about Agenda 21 aka Sustainable Development Goals 2030, until the land grabs start and private ownership is outlawed.

    Heaven help us.

    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:33:12
    ... the study also suggests that, if war cannot be avoided, the US might be best advised to strike first, before China gets any stronger and the current US military advantage declines further ..

    Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip ....

    Zhubajie1284 -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:45:45
    They tell their employers what they want to hear.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:04:05
    Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering?
    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:24:54
    1. With respect, Mr Tidsall is badly off track in painting China as the one evil facing an innocent world.

    2. The fact is that US' belief in and repeated resort to force has created a huge mess in the Middle East, brought true misery to millions, and truly thrown Europe in turmoil in the bargain.

    3. Besides this Middle East mess, the US neoliberal economic policies have wreaked havoc, culminating in an unprecedented financial and economic crisis that has left millions all over the world without any hope for the future

    4. Hence Mr Tidsall's pronouncement:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive China without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.


    Ought to read:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive United States without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.

    5. US would be better advised to focus on its growing social problems, evident in the growing random killings, police picking on blacks, etc, and on its fast decaying infrastructure. We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    6. Mr Tidsall, may I request that you kindly focus on realities rather than come up with opinion that approaches science fiction

    5566hh -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 22:50:58
    I agree that Mr Tisdall's treatment of the US is somewhat naive and ignorant. However couldn't it be that both countries are capable of aggression and assertiveness? The US's malign influence is mainly focussed on the Middle East and North Africa region, while China's is on its neighbours. China's attitude to Taiwan is pure imperialism, as is its treatment of dissenting voices on the mainland and in Hong Kong. China's contempt for international law and the binding ruling by the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal is also deeply harmful to peace and justice in the region and worldwide.

    We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    Very superficial indeed - compare, just as one example, the number of Nobel prizes won by American scientists recently with those by Chinese. The US is still, in general, far ahead of China in terms of scientific research (though China is making rapid progress). (That is not intended to excuse US killing of course.)

    BelieveItsTrue -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:07:25
    Oh well said. At least someone understands how the it works.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:06:32
    The US follows the USSR path of increasingly ignoring the needs of its own population in order to retain global dominance. It will end the same as the USSR. That which cannot continue will not continue.
    wumogang, 2016-09-25 20:23:25

    Xi is not looking for a fight. His first-choice agent of change is money, not munitions. According to Xi's "One Belt, One Road" plan, his preferred path to 21st-century Chinese hegemony is through expanded trade, business and economic partnerships extending from Asia to the Middle East and Africa. China's massive Silk Road investments in central and west Asian oil and gas pipelines, high-speed rail and ports, backed by new institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, are part of this strategy, which simultaneously encourages political and economic dependencies. Deng Xiaoping once said to get rich is glorious. Xi might add it is also empowering.

    The most realistic assessment on Xi and China.

    The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course.

    A Grim and over-paranoid predicament: US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"; China is well aware it remains a poor nation compared to developed world and is decades behind of US in military, GDP per capital and science, that is not including civil liberty, citizen participation, Gov't transparency and so on. China is busy building a nation confident of its culture and history, military hegemony plays no part of its dream.
    BelieveItsTrue -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:14:42

    US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"

    Oh come on, $20 Trillion in debt and with Social Security running out of money, there will be no more to lend the government.

    China has forged an agreement with Russia for all its needs in oil ( Russia has more oil than Saudi Arabia) and payment will not be in US dollars. Russia will not take US$ for trade and the BRICS nations will squeeze the US$ out of its current situation as reserve currency. When the dollars all find their way back to the USA hyperinflation will cause misery.

    Zhubajie1284 -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:49:17
    The US sure looks in decline. Bridges falling into rivers, tens of millions homeless. Yet some how our elites can always find money for another war.
    Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 19:33:09
    Before the Chinese or anyone else gets any ideas, they should reflect on the size of the US defence budget, 600 billion dollars in 2015, and consider what that might imply in the event of conflict.
    fragglerokk -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:14:35
    a third of that budget goes in profit for the private companies they employ to make duds like the F35 - so you can immediately reduce that to 400 billion. The US have been fighting third world countries for 50 years, and losing, their military is bloated, out of date and full of retrograde gear that simply wont cut it against the Russians. Privately you would find that most top line military agree with that statement. They also have around 800 bases scattered world wide, spread way too thin. Its why theyve stalled in Ukraine and can't handle the middle east. The Russians spend less than $50 billion but have small, highly mobile forces, cutting edge missile defence systems (which will have full airspace coverage by 2017). The Chinese policy of A2D/AD or access denial has got the US surface fleet marooned out in the oceans as any attempt to get close enough to be effective would be met with a hail of multiple rocket shedding war heads. The only place where it is probable (but my no means certain) that the US still has the edge is in submarine warfare, although again if the Russians and Chinese have full coverage of their airspace nothing (or little) would get through.
    Two theorys are in current operation about the election and the waring factions in the NSA and the CIA 1) HRC wins but is too much of a warmonger and would push america into more wars they simply cannot win 2) there is a preference for Trump to win amongst the MIC because he would (temporarily) seek 'peace' with the Russians thus giving the military the chance to catch up - say in 3 or 4 years - plus all the billions and billions of dollars that would mean for them.

    Overwhelming fire power no longer wins wars, the US have proved that year in year out since the end of the second world war, theyve lost every war theyve started/caused/joined in. Unless you count that limited skirmish on British soil in Grenada - and I guess we could call Korea a score draw. The yanks are bust and they know it, the neocons are all bluster and idiots like Breedlove, Power and Nuland are impotent because they don't have right on their side or the might to back it up. The US is mired in the middle east, locked out of asia and would grind to halt in Europe against the Russians. (every NATO wargame simulation in the last 4 years has conclusively shown this) Add to that the fact that the overwhelming majority of US citizens dont have the appetite for a conventional war and in the event of a nuclear war the US would suffer at least as much as Europe and youve got a better picture of where we are at.

    goenzoy -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:48:37
    Well it is just ABOUT money.Also during Vietnam and Iraq war US was biggest spender.
    Nobody in US still thinks that Vietnam war was a good idea and the same applies to Iraq.Iraq war will be even in history books for biggest amount spend to achieve NOTHING.
    Mrpavado -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 21:30:20
    Chinese military spending is at least on a par with American. A huge part of American military money goes to personnel salary while China does NOT pay to Chinese soldiers for their service as China holds a compulsory military service system.
    Liang1a, 2016-09-25 19:24:05
    This article assumes China is evil and the US is the righteous protector of all nations in the SE Asian region against the evil China which is obviously out to destroy the hapless SE Asian nations. This assumption is obviously nonsense. The US itself is rife with racial problems. Everybody has seen what it had done to Vietnam. Nobody believes that a racist US that cares nothing for the welfare of its own black, Latino and Asian population will actually care for the welfare of the same peoples outside of the US and especially in SE Asia.

    The truth is China is not the evil destroyer of nations. The truth is the US is the evil destroyer of nations. The US has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to the SE Asian regions for the last 200 years. The US had killed millions of Filipinos during it colonial era. The US had killed millions of Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The US had incited pogroms against the ethnic Chinese unceasingly. The May 13 massacre in Malaysia, the anti-Chinese massacres in the 1960's and the 1990's in Indonesia, and many other discrimination and marginalization of ethnic Chinese throughout the entire SE Asia are all the works of the US. It is the US that is the killer and destroyer.

    Therefore, it is a good thing that the evil intents of the US had failed. With the all but inevitable rise of China, the influence of the Japanese and the americans will inevitably wane. The only danger to China is the excessive xenocentrism of the Dengist faction who is selling out China to these dangerous enemies. If the CPC government sold out China's domestic economy, then China will become a colony of the Japanese and americans without firing a single shot. And the Chinese economy will slide into depression as it had done in the Qing Dynasty and Chinese influence in the SE Asian region will collapse.

    Therefore, the task before the CPC government is to ban all foreign businesses out of China's domestic economy, upgrade and expand China's education and R&D, urbanize the rural residents and expand the Chinese military, etc. With such an independent economic, political and military policies, China will at once make itself the richest and the most powerful nation in the world dwarfing the Japanese and American economies and militaries. China can then bring economic prosperity and stability to the SE Asian region by squeezing the evil Japanese and americans out of the region.

    mark john Mcculloch , 2016-09-25 19:22:11
    Lets be honest what has Obama achieved,he got the Nobel peace prize for simply not being George Bush Jr he has diplayed a woeful lack of leadership with Russia over Syria Libya and the Chinese Simply being the first African American president will not be a legacy
    outfitter, 2016-09-25 18:54:08
    Do you know of one Leninist state that ever built a prosperous modern industrial nation? Therein lies the advantage and the problem with China. China is totally export dependant and therefore its customers can adversely affect its economy - put enough chinese out of work and surely political instability will follow. A threatened dictatorship with a large army, however, is a danger to its neighbors and the world.
    fragglerokk -> outfitter, 2016-09-25 20:26:17
    China are now net consumers. You need to read up on whats happening, not from just the western press. They are well on their way to becoming the most powerful nation on earth, they have access (much like Russia) to over two thirds of the population of the worlds consumers and growing (this is partially why sanctions against Russia have been in large part meaningless) China will never want for buyers of their products (the iphone couldnt be made without the Chinese) with the vast swaithes of unplumbed Russian resources becoming available to them its hard to see how the west can combat the Eurasians. The wealth is passing from west to east, its a natural cycle the 'permanant growth' monkies in the west have been blind to by their own greed and egotism. Above all the Chinese are a trading nation, always seeking win/win trading links. The west would be better employed trading and linking culturally with the Chinese rather than trying to dictate with military threats. The west comprises only 18% of the global population and our growth and wealth is either exhausted or locked away in vaults where it is doing no one any good. Tinme to wise up or get left behind.
    deetrump, 2016-09-25 18:17:06
    Tisdall...absolute war-monger and neo-con "dog of war". Is this serious journalism? The rise of China was as inevitable as the rise of the US in the last century..."no man can put a stop to the march of a nation". It's Asias century and it's not the first time for China to be the No 1 economy in the world. They have been here before and have much more wisdom than the west...for too long the tail has wagged the dog...suck it up Tisdall!
    Dante5, 2016-09-25 17:56:56
    The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.

    It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value- the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.

    IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army. If the US patched things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China- with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty in conducted a sustained conflict. It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony- similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with the knife.

    Advaitya, 2016-09-25 17:54:49
    America is reaping the fruits of what they sowed during the time of Reagan. It was never a good idea to outsource your entire manufacturing industry to a country that is a dictatorship and does not embrace western liberal democratic values. Now the Americans are hopelessly dependent on China - a country that does not play by the rules in any sphere - it censors free speech, it blatantly violates intellectual property, it displays hostile intent towards nearly all South East Asian countries, its friends include state sponsors of terror like Pakistan and North Korea, it is carefully cultivating the enemies of America and the west in general.

    In no way, shape or form does China fulfill the criteria for being a trustworthy partner of the west. And yet today, China holds all the cards in its relationship with the west, with the western consumerist economies completely dependent on China. Moral of the story - Trade and economics cannot be conducted in isolation, separate from geopolitical realities. Doing so is a recipe for disaster.

    Kamatron -> Advaitya, 2016-09-25 21:46:36
    The arrogance is breathtaking.

    Embrace western liberal values? Exactly what is that?

    A sense of moral and ethical superiority?

    Freedom to kill unarm black people?

    Right to invade other countries?

    Commit war crimes?

    That kind of Western liberal values?

    freeandfair -> Advaitya, 2016-09-26 01:15:38
    The Us is reaping the results of its arrogance, you got that part right.
    humdum, 2016-09-25 17:24:35
    Mr Tisdall should declare his affiliation, if any, with the military-industrial complex.
    It is surprising coming from a Briton which tried to contain Germany and fought two
    wars destroying itself and the empire. War may be profitable for military-industrial complex
    but disastrous for everyone else. In world war 2, USA benefited enormously by ramping
    up war material production and creating millions of job which led to tremendous
    prosperity turning the country around from a basket case in 1930s to a big prosperous power
    which dominated the world till 2003.
    Nuno Cardoso da Silva , 2016-09-25 17:16:24
    US insistence on being top cat in a changing world will end up by dragging us all into a WW III. Why can't the US leave the rest of the world alone? Americans do not need a military presence to do business with the rest of the world and earn a lot of money with such trade. And they are too ignorant, too unsophisticate and too weak to be able to impose their will on the rest of us. The (very) ugly Americans are back and all we want is for them to go back home and forever remain there... The sooner the better...
    HotPotato22, 2016-09-25 17:12:13
    The world is going to look fantastically different in a hundred years time.

    Points of world power will go back to where they was traditionally; Europe and Asia. America is a falling power, it doesn't get the skilled European immigrants it use to after German revolution and 2 world wars. And it's projected white population will be a minority by 2050. America's future lies with south America.

    Australia with such a massive country but with a tiny population of 20million will look very attractive to China. It's future lies with a much stronger commonwealth, maybe a united military and economic commonwealth between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

    Even without the EU, Europe is going to have to work together, including Russia to beat the Chinese militarily and economically. America will not be the same power in another 30-50 years and would struggle to beat them now.

    China are expansionists, always have been. War is coming with them and North Korea sometime in the future.

    Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 16:23:04
    From the article above, it is clear who is the more dangerous power. While China is aiming to be the hegemon through economic means like the neo silk road projects, the US is aiming to maintain its hegemon status through military power. The US think thank even suggest to preemptive strike against China to achieve that. This is also the problem with US pivot to Asia, it may fail to contain China, but it didn't fail to poison the atmosphere in Asia. Asia has never been this dangerous since the end of cold war, all thanks to the pivot.
    arbmahla -> Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 18:17:41
    Obama is trying to maintain the status quo. China and N. Korea are the ones pushing military intimidation. The key to the US plan is to form an alliance between countries in the region that historically distrust each other. The Chinese are helping that by threatening everybody at the same time. Tisdall sees this conflict strictly as between the US and China. Obama's plan is to form a group of countries to counter China. Japan will have a major role in this alliance but the problem is whether the other victims of WW2 Japanese aggression will agree to it.
    TheRealRadj -> arbmahla, 2016-09-25 18:23:24
    With dozens of bases surrounding Russia and China and you call this status quo.
    Fail.
    CygniCygni, 2016-09-25 16:21:39
    The US's disastrous foreign policy since 9/11 which has unleashed so much chaos in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc etc... is not exactly a commendation for credibility these days.
    CommieWealth, 2016-09-25 16:08:00
    A useful summary of the state of play in the Pacific and SCS. It is somewhat hawkish in analysis, military fantasists will always be legion, they should be listened to with extra large doses of salt, or discussion of arguments which favour peaceful cooperation and development, such as trade, cultural relations, and natural stalemates. American anxiety at its own perception of decline, is at least as dangerous for the world as the immature expression of rising Chinese confidence. But the biggest problem it seems we face, is finding a way to accommodate and translate the aspirations of rising global powers with the existing order established post-45, in incarnated in the UN and other international bodies, in international maritime law as in our western notions of universal human rights. Finding a way for China to express origination of these ideas compatible with its own history, to be able to proclaim them as a satisfactory settlement for human relations, is an ideal, but apparently unpromising task.
    BigPhil1959, 2016-09-25 15:46:39
    Perhaps Samuel P Huntingdon was broadly correct when he wrote "The Clash of Civilizations" in the late 90's. He was criticized for his work by neo-liberals who believed that after the Cold War the rest of the world would follow the west and US in particular.

    The problem with the neo-liberal view is that only their opinions on issues are correct, and all others therefore should be ridiculed. What has happened in Ukraine is a prime example. Huntingdon called the Ukraine a "cleft" country split between Russia and Europe. The EU and the US decided to stir up trouble in the Ukraine to get even with Putin over Syria. It was never about EU or NATO membership for the Ukraine which is now further away than ever.

    A Trump presidency is regarded with fear. The Obama presidency has been a failure with regard to foreign policy and a major reason was because Clinton was Secretary of State in the 1st four years. In many ways a Clinton presidency is every bit as dangerous as a Trump presidency.

    Certainly relations with Russia will be worse under Clinton than under Trump, and for the rest of the world that is not a good thing. To those that believe liek Clinton that Putin is the new Hitler, then start cleaning out the nuclear bunkers. If he is then WW3 is coming like it or not and Britain better start spending more on defence.

    markwill89, 2016-09-25 15:41:59
    Can people stop calling China a Communist state. It isn't. China is a corporatist dictatorship.
    yelzohy -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 16:19:47
    which serves only the top one tenth of one percent. Sounds familiar.
    markwill89 -> yelzohy, 2016-09-25 16:23:29
    The difference between the United States and China is striking. Try criticising the Chinese leadership in China and see where it gets you.
    humdum -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 17:44:03
    What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football.
    R_Ambrose_Raven, 2016-09-25 15:30:27
    Never mind that a general, high-intensity war in Northern Asia would be disastrous for all involved, whatever the outcome. Never mind that much of the discussion about containing China is by warmongers urging such a conflict.

    Never mind that very little depth in fact lies behind the shell of American and Japanese military strength, or that a competently-run Chinese government is well able to grossly outproduce "us" all in war materiel.

    Never mind that those same warmongers and neocons drove and drive a succession of Imperial disasters; they remain much-praised centres of attention, just as the banksters and rentiers that are sucking the life from Americans have never had it so good.

    Never mind that abbott encouraged violence as the automatic reaction to problems, while his Misgovernment was (while Turnbull to a lesser extent still is) working hard to destroy the economic and social strengths we need to have any chance of surmounting those problems.

    Yes, it is a proper precaution to have a military strength that can deny our approaches to China. Unfortunately that rather disregards that "we" have long pursued a policy of globalisation involving the destruction of our both own manufacturing and our own merchant navy. Taken together with non-existent fuel reserves, "our" military preparations are pointless, because we would have to surrender within a fortnight were China to mount even a partial maritime blockade of Australia.

    ID1726608, 2016-09-25 15:28:36
    What I don't quite understand is how all this comes as any surprise to those in the know. China has been on target to be the #1 economic power in the world in this decade for at least 30 years.

    And who made it so? Western capitalists. China is now not only the world's industrial heartbeat, it also owns a large proportion of Western debt - despite the fact that its differences with the West (not least being a one-party Communist state) couldn't be more obvious - and while I doubt it's in its interests to destabilise its benefactorrs at the moment, that may not always be the case.

    It also has another problem: In fifty or sixty years time it is due to be overtaken by India, which gives it very little time to develop ASEAN in its own image; but I suspect that it's current "silk glove" policy is far smarter and more cost-effective than any American "iron fist".

    heyidontknowman, 2016-09-25 15:18:23
    The US is just worried about losing out on markets and further exploitation. They should have no authority over China's interest in the South China Sea. If China do rise to the point were they can affect foreign governments, they will unlikely be as brutal as the United States. [Indonesia 1964, Congo 1960s, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Central America 1980s, Egyptian military aid, Saudi support, Iraq 2003, the Structural Adjustments of the IMF]
    Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:14:17
    Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power.

    While many Europeans and others including our current GOP party thinks we are the global empire and we should stick our nose everywhere, our people doesn't we are an empire or we should stick our nose in every trouble spot in the world spending our blood and treasure to fight others battles and get blame when everything goes wrong. President Obama doesn't think of himself as Julius Ceaser and America is not Rome.

    He will be remembered as one of our greatest president ever setting a course for this country's foreign policy towards trying to solve the world's problems through alliances and cooperation with like minded countries as the opposite of the war mongering brainless, trigger happy GOP presidents. However when lesser powers who preach xenophobia and destabilize their neighborhood through annexation as the Hitler like Putin has, he comes down with a hammer using tools other than military to punish the aggressor.

    All you need to do is watch what is happening to the Russian economy since he imposed sanctions to the Mafiso Putin.

    This article is completely misleading and the author is constricting himself in his statement that Obama's pivot to Asia is a failure. Since China tried to annex the Islands near the Philippines, countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, India, etc. has ask the US for more cooperation both military and economically these countries were moving away from US under Bush and others so I think this is a win for Obama not a loss. Unlike the idiotic Russians, China is a clever country and is playing global chess in advancing her foreign policy goals. While the US cannot do anything with China's annexation of these disputed Islands has costs her greatly because the Asian countries effected by China's moves are running towards the US, this is a win for the US. China's popularity around her neighborhood has taken a nose dive similar to Russian's popularity around her neighborhood. These are long term strategic wins for the US, especially if Hillary wins the white house and carry's on Obama's mantel of speaking softly but carry a big stick. Obama will go down as our greatest foreign policy president by building alliances in Europe to try stop Mafioso Putin and alliances in Asia to curtail China's foreign policy ambitions. This author's thesis is pure bogus, because he doesn't indicate what Obama should have done to make him happy? Threaten Chine military confertation?
    All you have to do is go back 8 years ago and compare our last two presidents and you can see where Obama is going.

    NowheretoHideQC -> Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:33:01
    For the allusion to Rome, I think they act like the old empire when they had to send their army to keep the peace....and it is an empire of the 21 first century, not like the old ones (Assange).
    Mormorola, 2016-09-25 15:06:09
    Obama and Hillary foreign country policies have been disasters one after the other:
    • - "Benign" neglect and lack of courage in Palestine on the "No new settlements" request.
    • - Disastrous interventions in Libya and Middle East resulting in hundred of thousand of "collateral damage".
    • - Russian "Reset" which was no more than spin, but continued to look at Russia as the right place to wipe your feet.
    • - Empty promises to Ukraine resulting into a civil war.
    • - Ill conceived "Pivot to Asia" with no meat, much wishful thinking and no understanding of local sensitivities.
    • - Continued support for bloody dictators like the Saudis and the Thai dictators (which Hillary once branded a "vibrant democracy").

    And you wish "that woman" to become your next president?

    ElZilch0, 2016-09-25 14:54:23
    China needs western consumerism to maintain its manufacturing base. If China's growth impacts the ability of the West to maintain its standard of consumerism, then China will need a new source of affluent purchaser. If China's own citizens become affluent, they will expect a standard of living commensurate with that status, accordingly China will not be able to maintain its manufacturing base.

    So the options for China are:

    a) Prop up western economies until developing nations in Africa and South America (themselves heavily dependent on the West) reach a high standard of consumerism.

    b) Divide China into a ruling class, and a worker class, in which the former is a parasite on the latter.

    The current tactic seems to be to follow option b, until option a becomes viable.

    However, the longer option a takes to develop, and therefore the longer option b is in effect, the greater the chances of counter-revolution (which at this stage is probably just revolution).

    The long and the short of it, is that China is boned.

    russian, 2016-09-25 14:35:09
    Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US.

    It's got it's hands full at home. As long as the West doesn't try to get involved in what China sees as its historical territory (i.e. The big rooster shaped landmass plus Hainan and Hong Kong and various little islands) there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

    Babeouf, 2016-09-25 14:32:26
    Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. There is absolutely nothing exceptional about a power not admitting publicly what is known to many,see the outpourings of the British elites during the end of its empire.
    Lafcadio1944, 2016-09-25 14:11:59
    As usual the Guardian is on its anti-China horse. Look through this article and every move China has made is "aggressive" or when it tries to expand trade (and produce win win economic conditions) it is "hegemonic" while the US is just trying to protect us all and is dealing with the "Chinese threat" -- a threat to their economic interests and global imperial hegemony is what they mean.

    The US still maintains a "one China" policy and the status quo is exactly that "one China" It would be great for someone in the west to review the historical record instead of arming Taiwan to the teeth. Additionally, before China ever started its island construction the US had already begun the "pivot to Asia" which now is huge with nuclear submarines patrolling all around China, nuclear weapons on the - two aircraft carrier fleets now threatening China - very rare for the US to have two aircraft carrier fleets in the same waters - the B-1 long range nuclear bombers now in Australia, and even more belligerent the US intends to deploy THAAD missals in South Korea - using North Korea as an excuse to further seriously threaten China.

    China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony.

    Just look around the world - where are the conflicts - the middle east and Africa - who is there with military and arms sales and bombing seven countries -- is it China?

    The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China.

    The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Clinton Campaign Manager Unable to Answer Questions on Hillary Coverup Operation

    It was a cover up operation. No questions about that. Such instruction by a person under any investigation clearly mean tha attempt of cover up...
    Notable quotes:
    "... There was a document dump on Friday, that we learned from the FBI that an IT contractor managing Hillary Clinton's private email server made reference to the "Hillary coverup operation" in a work ticket. He used those words after a senior Clinton aide asked him to automatically delete emails after 60 days. This IT worker certainly sounded like he was covering something up, no? ..."
    "... The FBI dumped another 189 pages of documents pertaining to Clinton's use of an unsecured private server during her time as Secretary of State online Friday, with one note about a "coverup" raising eyebrows: ..."
    "... After reviewing an email dated December 11, 2014 with the subject line 'RE: 2 items for IT support,' and a December 12, 2014 work ticket referencing email retention changes and archive/email cleanup, [redacted] stated his reference in the email to ' the Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation ' was probably due to the requested change to a 60 day email retention policy and the comment was a joke. ..."
    "... "The fact an IT staffer maintaining Clinton's secret server called a new retention policy designed to delete emails after 60 days a 'Hillary coverup operation' suggests there was a concerted effort to systematically destroy potentially incriminating information. It's no wonder that at least five individuals tied to the email scandal, including Clinton's top State Department aide and attorney Cheryl Mills, secured immunity deals from the Obama Justice Department to avoid prosecution," said Trump spokesman Jason Miller in a statement on Friday. ..."
    "... Comey told the House Oversight Committee on July 7 that the FBI "did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet that - the intent standard" while claiming that prosecuting Clinton for gross negligence would perpetuate a "double standard." ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | Breitbart
    CNN anchor Jake Tapper confronted Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook Sunday over an IT worker handling her private email server joking in a 2014 email about a "Hillary coverup operation," with Mook dodging the question and blaming Republicans for "selectively leaking documents."

    TAPPER: There was a document dump on Friday, that we learned from the FBI that an IT contractor managing Hillary Clinton's private email server made reference to the "Hillary coverup operation" in a work ticket. He used those words after a senior Clinton aide asked him to automatically delete emails after 60 days. This IT worker certainly sounded like he was covering something up, no?

    MOOK: Look, Jake, I'm - first of all I'm glad you asked that question. A lot of this stuff is swirling around in the ether. It's important to pull back and look at the facts here. The FBI did a comprehensive and deep investigation into this. And at the conclusion of that, FBI Director Comey came out and said to the world that there was no case here, that they have no evidence of wrongdoing on Hillary's part.

    TAPPER: So what's the "Hillary coverup operation" that the IT worker was referring to?

    MOOK: Well, well, but this is - but this is - this is the perfect example of what's going on here. Republicans on the House side are selectively leaking documents for the purpose of making Hillary look bad. We've asked the FBI to release all information that they've shared with Republicans so they can get the full picture. But again, I would trust the career professionals at the FBI and the Justice Department who looked into this matter, concluded that was no case, than I would Republicans who are selectively leaking information.

    The FBI dumped another 189 pages of documents pertaining to Clinton's use of an unsecured private server during her time as Secretary of State online Friday, with one note about a "coverup" raising eyebrows:

    After reviewing an email dated December 11, 2014 with the subject line 'RE: 2 items for IT support,' and a December 12, 2014 work ticket referencing email retention changes and archive/email cleanup, [redacted] stated his reference in the email to ' the Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation ' was probably due to the requested change to a 60 day email retention policy and the comment was a joke.

    The Trump campaign quickly leapt on the FBI's findings.

    "The fact an IT staffer maintaining Clinton's secret server called a new retention policy designed to delete emails after 60 days a 'Hillary coverup operation' suggests there was a concerted effort to systematically destroy potentially incriminating information. It's no wonder that at least five individuals tied to the email scandal, including Clinton's top State Department aide and attorney Cheryl Mills, secured immunity deals from the Obama Justice Department to avoid prosecution," said Trump spokesman Jason Miller in a statement on Friday.

    Comey told the House Oversight Committee on July 7 that the FBI "did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet that - the intent standard" while claiming that prosecuting Clinton for gross negligence would perpetuate a "double standard."

    [Sep 26, 2016] It was Obama who pardoned Hillary by exerting pressure on FBI

    Notable quotes:
    "... Were I advising Trump I would have him cite the two criminal codes the FBI decided not to pursue..... by title and section. The rest of the questioning is inconsequential in relation to the huge favor the FBI gave Mrs. Clinton. ..."
    "... Might be a wrong advice. This would be more directed at Obama, then Hillary. It was Obama who pardoned Hillary by exerting pressure on FBI. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 09:39 AM
    Were I advising Trump I would have him cite the two criminal codes the FBI decided not to pursue..... by title and section. The rest of the questioning is inconsequential in relation to the huge favor the FBI gave Mrs. Clinton.
    likbez -> ilsm... , -1
    ilsm,

    "...two criminal codes the FBI decided not to pursue....."

    Might be a wrong advice. This would be more directed at Obama, then Hillary. It was Obama who pardoned Hillary by exerting pressure on FBI.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Class War by Other Means: Tennessee, Volkswagen and the Future of Labor

    Notable quotes:
    "... The political logic is pretty clear: massive subsidies are just the price that the public is expected to pay in exchange for the limited number of jobs made available to them within the "free enterprise" system. ..."
    "... In fact, President Obama came to Chattanooga to join in on Tennessee's bi-partisan economic consensus. During his 2013 jobs tour, the President delivered a speech at the Chattanooga Amazon distribution facility, praising the company for doing its part to restore the middle class through "good jobs with good wages." The starting wage at the Chattanooga warehouse is $11.25 an hour. ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    In 2008, the governments of the city of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, the state of Tennessee, and the United States all collaborated to provide Volkswagen (VW) with a $577 million subsidy package, the largest taxpayer handout ever given to a foreign-headquartered automaker in U.S. history. The bulk of the subsidy package, $554 million, came from local and state sources. The federal government also threw in $23 million in subsidies, bringing the grand total of taxpayer money that VW received in 2008 to $577 million. According to the Subsidy Tracker at the website of watchdog group Good Jobs First, the package provided to VW included "$229 million from the state for training costs and infrastructure; $86 million in land and site improvements from the city and the county; state tax credits worth $106 million over 30 years; and local tax abatements worth $133 million over the same period." In exchange for this massive infusion of public wealth onto Volkswagen's corporate balance sheets, the company promised to create 2,000 jobs in Chattanooga, bringing the price tag for each promised job to $288,500.

    When asked to respond to concerns about VW's record-shattering subsidy package, then-Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, unabashedly replied, "I don't know whether it's fair that a Mercedes Benz costs $90,000, I just know if I want one that's what I've got to pay." Tennessee's U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander, a Republican, applauded the deal as another significant mile marker on the way towards "Tennessee's future" of becoming the "the No. 1 auto state in the country."

    The political logic is pretty clear: massive subsidies are just the price that the public is expected to pay in exchange for the limited number of jobs made available to them within the "free enterprise" system. The VW subsidy deal is just one example of how large corporations leveraged the widespread suffering caused by the Great Recession, the longest and deepest economic crisis since the 1930s, to bleed the funds of state governments in exchange for jobs. In a 2013 report studying the rise of "megadeals" -- subsidy deals with a local and state subsidy cost of $75 million or more -- Good Jobs First found that "since 2008, the average number of megadeals per year has doubled (compared to the previous decade) and their annual cost has roughly doubled as well, averaging around $5 billion." This was certainly the trend in Tennessee, where VW was the first of three separate megadeals negotiated in the state from 2008 to 2009. The same year that the VW deal was announced, Hemlock Semiconductor received over $340 million in government giveaways to develop a $1.2 billion polycrystalline silicon manufacturing plant in Clarksville, Tenn. By 2014, the plant was shuttered and all 500 promised jobs evaporated. Wacker Chemie received over $200 million in subsidies to build a billion-dollar plant in Bradley County, just outside of Chattanooga, to produce materials used in solar panels and semiconductors. Another megadeal was brokered with Amazon, which received over $100 million in local and state subsidies to build a distribution center in Chattanooga's industrial development park, which is shared with the Volkswagen plant.

    The Bipartisan Consensus

    The subsidy deals with Volkswagen, Hemlock, Wacker, and Amazon were all originally negotiated by Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, and U. S. Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, both Republicans, and was approved by the Tennessee General Assembly, which in 2008 came under Republican control for the first time since Reconstruction. These deals were drafted in collaboration between state politicians (both Democratic and Republican) and business elites in total secrecy. Tom Rowland, mayor of Cleveland City in Bradley County, the location for the Wacker plant just outside of Chattanooga, revealed the frequency of such secret meetings: "You don't know how many times we have slipped Gov. Bredesen, Sen. [Bob] Corker and [Tennessee Economic and Community Development commissioner] Matt Kisber into the Chamber office."

    By 2010, the state was firmly under the control of a Republican governor, Bill Haslam, and a Republican super-majority in the General Assembly. By 2012, the Republicans held over two-thirds of all state government offices in what they called a "super duper majority." The parties might have changed, but the love for corporate welfare did not, as the Republicans continued to build upon and extend all of the agreements from the previous governor's administration.

    In fact, President Obama came to Chattanooga to join in on Tennessee's bi-partisan economic consensus. During his 2013 jobs tour, the President delivered a speech at the Chattanooga Amazon distribution facility, praising the company for doing its part to restore the middle class through "good jobs with good wages." The starting wage at the Chattanooga warehouse is $11.25 an hour.

    "Good Jobs" and Concessionary Unionism

    According to a 2015 study by the Center for Automotive Research, auto workers at VW in Chattanooga had the lowest hourly pay and benefits of any employees in a U.S. car factory. The starting hourly wage rate for an assembly line worker at Volkswagen is about $15 an hour, or approximately $31,000 a year. A full-time production employee can top out their pay in seven years at a wage rate of $23 an hour, or about $48,000 a year. That makes the top pay at Volkswagen less than 80% of the estimated annual median income for Hamilton County. Third-party contractors hired by Volkswagen to work on the line in the plant and the network of auto suppliers servicing the factory pay even lower hourly wage rates. Yet U.S. Senator Corker describes production jobs at VW as "good paying," Hamilton County Mayor Jim Coppinger prefers the term "family-wage jobs," and Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke describes VW as providing "living-wage jobs" that are helping to "build our middle class."

    Tennessee's billionaire governor, Bill Haslam, who happens to be the richest politician in the country, has expressed little concern over whether or not the jobs brought to the state were high paying. In fact, it appears that he is proud that they are not. In official material directed to foreign companies by the Haslam administration, the governor touted a pro-business environment in which companies can exploit a "low-cost labor force" thanks to the state's "very low unionization rates." (That's alongside the boon of state and local taxes that are "some of the lowest in the region.")

    Since the Great Recession, the United Auto Workers (UAW) has been overseeing the erosion of gains made by auto workers in previous decades. The union has been able to maintain higher wages and benefits for the auto workers they represent when compared to manufacturing overall, but the difference has shrunk dramatically in recent years. According to the Detroit Free Press, "Back in 1960, a Detroit Three UAW autoworker was paid 16% more than the average U.S. manufacturing worker. By the early 2000s, that wage gap had grown to nearly 70% in favor of the UAW worker, but shrank back to 33% by this year."

    The union, to be sure, is operating under difficult conditions in the auto industry: trade deficits in manufacturing that were growing even prior to the Great Recession, the relative increase of jobs in parts plants that pay less than assembly plants, the growth in auto employment at nonunion "transplants" (belonging to non-U.S. headquartered companies like Volkswagen and Toyota), and the rise of temp agencies and "just in time" production as part of the overall lean production management processes in the industry. All of these changes, however, have taken place in the context of the UAW's top-down brand of business unionism, which has led to its deeply concessionary approach to collective bargaining and new organizing. For example, an Economic Policy Institute (EPI) report jointly authored by a former UAW leader, a former vice president from Ford, and an academic expert on "workplace innovation," lauded the UAW for being "a full partner for more than a decade in experimenting with innovations in work organization" and working with corporate management at the Big Three to reduce a "major portion" in the "cost differential" with non-union foreign-headquartered auto makers:

    In 2005, there was a gap of $3.62 between the average hourly wage of $27.41 at Ford and $23.79 for the transplants. When fringe benefits, legally required payments, pension benefits, retiree health care, and other post-employment labor costs are added in, the gap grew to $20.55 ($64.88 versus $44.33) .... In 2010, following the 2007 introduction of the entry wage and concessions made during the 2009 government bailout, the wage gap stood at $4 ($28 for Ford versus $24 for the transplants), and the gap when including fringe benefits and post-employment costs stood at $6 ($58 for Ford versus $52 for the transplants).

    Incredibly, the UAW leadership has continued to proudly highlight how contract concessions have induced an ever-closer wage convergence between transplants -- located largely in low-wage, Republican-dominated states in the southeastern United States -- and U.S.-headquartered automakers in historically union-dense strongholds, like Michigan. They hold this up as proof of their labor-management partnership credentials while simultaneously championing the auto industry as lifting up "good jobs" and "the middle class." Despite the reality of declining wages, benefits, and jobs, the public appears to believe the same. According to an analysis of several polls by the National Employment Law Project (NELP), a majority of the general public believes that "manufacturing is the most important job sector, in terms of strengthening the economy."

    At the Chattanooga VW plant, workers also face a brutal lean-production management model on the assembly-line floor that works to squeeze higher productivity from a scant and beleaguered workforce. The working conditions on the assembly line are so physically demanding that many production workers cannot see working at VW as a long-term career. Yet in 2013, when the UAW announced that they were seeking to organize the Chattanooga plant, the union decided against organizing around the salient issues in the plant and instead chose to frame their entire organizing campaign around collaboration with the company to form the first German-style "works council" in the history of the United States. The UAW's strategy was exclusively predicated on advancing what the union championed as an innovative form of labor-management partnership.

    The UAW even went so far as to sign a neutrality agreement with Volkswagen which committed the union to "maintaining and where possible enhancing the cost advantages and other competitive advantages that [Volkswagen] enjoys relative to its competitors." When pressed to account for why the union would make such a shocking concession, then-UAW president Bob King issued this reply:

    Our philosophy is, we want to work in partnership with companies to succeed. Nobody has more at stake in the long-term success of the company than the workers on the shop floor, both blue collar and white collar. With every company that we work with, we're concerned about competitiveness. We work together with companies to have the highest quality, the highest productivity, the best health and safety, the best ergonomics, and we are showing that companies that succeed by this cooperation can have higher wages and benefits because of the joint success.

    Continued Investments, Too-Big-to-Fail and Too-Big-to-Jail

    In July 2014, Volkswagen announced that it was planning to invest $600 million into expanding the Chattanooga plant, adding additional assembly lines for the production of an SUV for the North American market. According to local news reports:

    More than a third of that investment will initially come from state and local governments who agreed to pump more than $230 million of upfront tax dollars into the project to woo VW into expanding in Chattanooga rather than at its other major North American plant in Puebla, Mexico, where labor costs are far lower. Combined with other property tax breaks, TVA incentives, road projects and other potential tax credits, Volkswagen could qualify for more than $300 million of grants, credits and other government assistance over the next decade....

    The expansion of the Chattanooga plant brings the total subsidy package provided to Volkswagen up to about $877 million dollars. Following the official announcement of the expanded subsidy deal, Tennessee House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick, whose district includes Chattanooga, told the press, "I think it is a good investment and we will convince the Legislature of that because there are just so many ripple effects from this investment that will help so much of our state." The ripple effects of such an enormous single investment took on a completely different character with the announcement, in September 2015, that the EPA was fining Volkswagen for installing "defeat devices" on their automobiles, allowing the diesel cars produced at the Chattanooga plant to temporarily hide the emissions they produce.

    Since the EPA's announcement, VW has acknowledged that it produced over 11 million diesel vehicles worldwide that contained software allowing them to cheat nitrogen oxide tests. This software, installed on 2009–2015 diesel VWs, reduced emissions while the cars were hooked up to testing devices, only to let pollution "spill out of the tail pipe at up to 40 times the allowable level" when cars were on the road. An analysis performed by the Associated Press (AP) estimates that about 100 people in the United States have likely died as a result of the pollution produced by VW's diesel Passat over the last few years. AP's analysis estimates that the death toll in Europe is substantially higher, likely resulting in hundreds of deaths for every year the cars were on the road.

    After the EPA's announcement in September 2015; VW's stock price plummeted and VW Group CEO Martin Winterkorn resigned. Volkswagen Group of America President and CEO Michael Horn admitted, during his official testimony before Congress in October, that the defeat devices were installed for the express purpose of beating emissions tests. In November 2015, the Chattanooga VW plant stopped the production of the diesel Passat. More recently, VW has agreed to a partial settlement with federal and state authorities of over $15 billion as new lawsuits and government investigations from around the world continue to make headlines. How have the local and state government responded to the news of VW's rampant criminality and corruption? Speaking to reporters about VW and the scandal, Governor Haslam said, "We're married to them. We want this plant to be a success."

    Hamilton County Mayor Jim Coppinger, meanwhile, told reporters, "We need for the plant to be successful. It's important to our economy." The state is too invested in VW -- politically and financially -- to be in any position to truly hold the company accountable for its actions.

    A New Road Forward

    Put it all together and we have a formula for maximizing corporate profits that mixes equal parts political opportunism with class collaboration. Following the Great Recession, voters were desperate for jobs. Politicians, campaigning on bringing jobs to voters, are willing to provide massive subsidies to companies willing to locate in their voting districts. The union, desperate to organize new bargaining units from which to collect dues and to be seen as a legitimate partner with corporate and political elites, actually agrees to "maintain" and "enhance" the competitive advantages corporations gain by pushing private business costs off onto the public while providing jobs with lower wages, reduced benefits, and deteriorating working conditions. Meanwhile, the public believes they are getting "good jobs," while the actual quality of those jobs continues to decline. The companies laugh all the way to the bank. With their backs to the wall, unions like the UAW can no longer put off organizing auto makers and suppliers that choose to locate their plants in the South, but they will not succeed by promising to "work in partnership" with the companies. Labor organizers in the South will usually be working in an environment in which both business and government are hostile to unions. When the UAW narrowly lost the VW vote in 2014, the union should have learned a valuable lesson. The company might have formally committed to being "neutral," but the business and political elites in the South made no such agreement. If unions fail to win over the broader working class, they have no chance of winning representation elections -- especially in states like Tennessee, where only 6% of all workers belong to a union, and in cities like Chattanooga, where the unionization rate is even lower, at an abysmal 3.4% of all workers.

    To win, unions will not only have to jettison the pipedream of courting management with promises of maximizing worker productivity and containing costs. Rather, they will have to return to their militant roots: connecting shop-floor fights with community organizing. This approach has been successfully exemplified by the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) and the Grassroots Collaborative, a labor-community alliance that has become a permanent fixture in Chicago politics and generated immense public support for CTU's militant fights with the city's investor class and mayor. CTU's combination of bottom-up work-site organizing and authentic, non-transactional support for community organizations and their struggles were critical preludes to the union's relatively successful 2012 strike. A long-term strategy focused on this kind of organizing would go a long way towards building the kind of movement infrastructure that labor needs to win in the South.

    All of this is easier said than done. But we are currently faced with the atrocious working conditions and ever-diminishing wages and benefits of manufacturing jobs, the spread of poverty throughout our communities, the deep underfunding of public services, and the rising tide of anger and resentment (especially among young people) towards the economic and political elite. The time is ripe for organizers to begin harvesting the fruits of our exploited labor.

    Shouldering the Subsidy: Tennessee's Regressive Tax System

    Tennessee has one of the most regressive tax systems in the country. Currently, Tennessee has no state income tax and a constitutional amendment, passed by referendum in 2014, prevents the state government from ever establishing an income or payroll tax. Moreover, earlier this year the state legislature passed a bill to phase out the state's tax on dividends and income from bonds by 2022, resulting in millions of dollars in tax revenue being stripped from city budgets. This will likely result in city governments raising revenue by hiking property taxes, further shifting the burden of raising revenues for the state onto the working and middle classes.

    The lack of an income tax means that the Tennessee state government relies to a large degree on sales taxes to raise revenue. The sales tax is especially regressive due to the state's refusal to exempt essentials like groceries (though groceries are at least taxed at a lower rate than the overall sales tax), while completely exempting luxury goods such as "attorneys' fees, services such as haircuts and massages, and goods for horses and airplanes." Additionally, the state fails to offer any tax credits to low-income taxpayers to offset either sales or property taxes.

    This means that the primary form of wealth for the working and middle classes -- a family home -- is taxed to provide the vast majority of revenue for local governments. Meanwhile, major forms of wealth for the ruling class -- corporate stocks and bonds -- are not. Tennessee's working and middle classes are being squeezed under the highest average combined state-local sales tax rate in the country, while the owners of capital skirt any responsibility for paying their share.

    This regressive system is compounded with every tax abatement given to a large multinational corporation, such as Volkswagen. When the state increases its reliance on sales taxes to offset the holes punched into the budget by corporate tax breaks, this increases the overall tax burden on the poor and working class. The only other option to raising revenue through regressive taxes is for the state to cut services. Cuts to services, such as healthcare, public education, infrastructure, and transportation, are just another way to shift the burden onto the working class. While public services diminish, highly profitable multinational corporations, such as Volkswagen, benefit from direct state supports, like state-financed job training and capital-improvement grants, which improve their bottom-line and further entrench wealth inequality.

    The federal tax system, on the whole, is progressive, according to a 2016 Tax Policy Center report. Economists with the Federal Reserve Bank studied the impact of state taxes on income inequality and found that Tennessee's regressive tax system "reverses around one-third of the compression [in the income spread] caused by federal taxes" -- the most of any state in the country.

    Inequality's Racial Disparities

    According to the 2015 report "State of Black Chattanooga," by the Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies, the median wealth of white households in Tennessee bounced back in the years after the Great Recession, increasing by 2.4% between 2010 and 2013, to $141,900. Contrast that with the median wealth of Black households in the state, which continued to spiral down in the same time period, falling more than 33% to $11,000.

    The arrival of Volkswagen, Wacker, and Amazon has failed to fundamentally alter the overall low-wage economy in Chattanooga and Hamilton County. When these "megadeals" combine with the further subsidies provided to land developers for luxury condos and apartments in Chattanooga's urban core and the expanding priority placed by local governments on police and jails, the results are gentrification, displacement, and incarceration. Currently, 27% of Chattanoogans overall live in poverty, almost double the national average, and that number jumps to 36% in the city's Black community. In the eleven lowest-income neighborhoods in the city, in which about three-quarters of residents identify as Black, the poverty rate is 64%. Only 17% of the Tennessee population is Black, yet Black people are 44% of our state's prison population.

    Concerned Citizens for Justice, a grassroots organization dedicated to Black liberation in Chattanooga, describes this underlying systemic approach by politicians and business leaders as "an arrangement that is good for rich financiers and developers and bad for Chattanooga's working class and oppressed majority." The numbers certainly bear out their analysis.

    Sources:

    Frank Ahrens and Sholnn Freeman 2007. "GM, Union Agree on Contract to End Strike," Washington Post, Sept. 27, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092600155.html ; Associated Press, "TN touts 'low-cost labor force' to lure foreign business," Sept. 2, 2015 http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2015/09/02/tn-touts-low-cost-labor-force-lure-foreign-business/71617998/ ; Associated Press, "Volkswagen now under investigation for tax evasion," Nov. 24, 2015 http

    [Sep 26, 2016] Why would Putin want to get to the table when he knows very well the menu consists solely of a sh*t sandwich and the dinner host is calling you Hitler ?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Right there Clinton proves that she has absolutely no idea how basic diplomacy or negotiation (what the democrats like to call "compromise") works. You start from your best possible outcome (without treating your partner as a subhuman piece of trash or calling them by 3rd grade slanderous names) and work your way down to an agreement. You don't start from the worst possible outcome and work your way up like some crazy sadist. No wonder her judgement is so terrible. Her "success" measure is set just above " complete and utter failure, destruction". ..."
    "... "Get Russia to the table"? Why would Putin want to "get to the table" when he knows very well the menu consists solely of a sh*t sandwich and the dinner host is calling you "Hitler"? ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Roger Smith September 25, 2016 at 12:08 pm

    From the Clinton Foreign Policy article: From Reset to Realpolitik, Clinton's New Hard Line on Moscow

    "I'm trying to figure out what leverage we have to get Russia to the table. You know, diplomacy is not about getting to the perfect solution. It's about how you balance the risks."

    Right there Clinton proves that she has absolutely no idea how basic diplomacy or negotiation (what the democrats like to call "compromise") works. You start from your best possible outcome (without treating your partner as a subhuman piece of trash or calling them by 3rd grade slanderous names) and work your way down to an agreement. You don't start from the worst possible outcome and work your way up like some crazy sadist. No wonder her judgement is so terrible. Her "success" measure is set just above " complete and utter failure, destruction".

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 25, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    "Get Russia to the table"? Why would Putin want to "get to the table" when he knows very well the menu consists solely of a sh*t sandwich and the dinner host is calling you "Hitler"?

    [Sep 26, 2016] Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game? ..."
    "... The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US. ..."
    "... And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture? ..."
    "... "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development. ..."
    "... And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits. ..."
    "... They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional. ..."
    "... "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help. ..."
    "... Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation. ..."
    "... "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid. ..."
    "... I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. ..."
    "... The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn. ..."
    "... By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight. ..."
    "... a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well ..."
    "... Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government. ..."
    "... America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced ..."
    "... The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well. ..."
    "... "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man". ..."
    "... The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity. ..."
    "... It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of. ..."
    "... Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia. ..."
    "... Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations". ..."
    "... Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy. ..."
    "... Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines ..."
    "... China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum. ..."
    "... TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations. ..."
    "... Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes. ..."
    "... Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip .... ..."
    "... They tell their employers what they want to hear. ..."
    "... Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering? ..."
    "... The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course. ..."
    "... What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football. ..."
    "... Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power. ..."
    "... Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US. ..."
    "... Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. ..."
    "... China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony. ..."
    "... The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China. ..."
    "... The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Vermithrax , 2016-09-26 18:48:09
    Before the pivot could even get underway the Saudis threw their rattle out of the pram and drew US focus back to the Middle East and proxy war two steps removed with Russia. Empires don't get to focus, they react to each event and seek to gain from the outcome so the whole pivot idea was flawed.

    Obama's foreign policy has been clumsy and amoral. It remains to be seen whether it will become more so in an effort to double down. Under Clinton it definitely will, under Trump who knows but random isn't a recommendation.

    Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game?

    Boyaca, 2016-09-26 18:41:19
    So the Rand Think Tank would sooner have war now than later. Who wouldda guessed that.

    The Chinese want to improve trade and business with the rest of the world. The US answer? destroy China militarily. so who best to lead the world. I think the article answers that question unintentionally. The rest of the world has had it up to the ears with American military invasions, regeime changes, occupations and bombing of the world. They are ready for China´s approach to international relations. it is about time the adults took over the leadership of the world. Europe and the USA and their offspring have clearly failed.

    AmyInNH, 2016-09-26 17:07:12
    China has been handed everything it needs to fly solo: money, factories, IP, etc. Fast forwarding into the western civic model limits (traffic, pollution, etc.), its best bet is to offload US "interests" and steer clear.

    No clear sign India's learned/recovered from British occupation, as they let tech create more future Kanpurs.

    Shein Ariely , 2016-09-26 17:06:51
    Obama failed worldwide. Next USA president either Democrat or Republican will have a difficult job fixing his colossal mistakes in ME- Euroep-Asia
    yermelai, 2016-09-26 10:12:58
    The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US.

    Was it really worth expanding NATO to Russia's borders instead of offering neutrality to former Soviet States and thus retain Russia's confidence in global matters that far out weigh the interests of the neo-cons?

    Hermanovic -> yermelai , 2016-09-26 10:50:07
    neutrality? Russia invaded non-NATO members Georgie, Ukraine, and Moldavia, and created puppet-states on their soil.

    The Jremlin-rules are simple: the former Sovjet states should be ruled by a pro-Russian dictator (Bella-Russia, Kazachstan, etc. etc...). Democracies face boycots, diplomatic and military support of rebels, and in the end simply a military invasion.

    The only reason why the baltic states are now thriving democracies, is that they are NATO members.

    Boyaca -> Hermanovic, 2016-09-26 18:57:23
    And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture?
    macel388, 2016-09-26 10:08:03
    "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development.
    MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 09:36:41
    When Obama took office his first major speech was in Cairo - where he said

    "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world," US President Barack Obama said to the sounds of loud applause which rocked not only the hall, but the world. "One based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

    He displayed a dangerous mix of innocence, foolishness, disregard for the truth and misunderstanding of the nature of Islamic regimes - does the West have common values with Lebanon which practices apartheid for Palestinians, Saudi, where women cannot drive a car, Syria, where over 17,000 have died in Assad's torture chambers, we can go on and on.

    And on China - Trump has it right - China has been manipulating its currency exchange rate for years, costing western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits and something needs to be done about it.

    ReinerNiemand -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 10:21:20
    " America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. "

    He spoke about the whole of Islam, not specific " Islamic regimes ". And he is correct on it. All religions share a great deal of values with the USAmerican constition and even each other .

    The overwhelming majority of USAmerican muslims have accepted the melting pot with their whole heart, second generation children have JOINED its fighting forces to protect the interest of the USA all over the world. Normally this full an integration is reached with the third generation.

    The west has won against those religious fanatics. How else to explain that exactly the people those claim to speak turn up with us?

    Calvert -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 11:21:45
    And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits.

    They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional.

    hartebeest, 2016-09-26 09:35:14
    "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help.

    Interesting in particular to see RAND is still in its Cold War mindset. There's famous footage of RAND analysts in the 60s (I think) discussing putative nuclear war with the USSR and concluding that the US was certain of 'victory' following a missile exchange because its surviving population (after hundreds of millions of deaths and the destruction of almost all urban centres) would be somewhat larger.

    China's island claims are all about a broader strategic aim- getting unencumbered access to the Pacific for its growing blue water navy. It's not aimed at Taiwan or Japan in any sort of specific sense and, save for the small possibility of escalation following an accident (ships colliding or something), there's very little risk of conflict in at least the medium term.

    It's crucial to remember just how much China and the US depend upon each other economically. The US is by far China's largest single export market, powering its manufacturing economy. In return, China uses the surplus to buy up US debt, which allows the Americans to borrow cheaply and keep the lights on. Crash China and you crash the US- and vice versa.

    For now, China is basically accepting an upgraded number 2 spot (along with the US acknowledging them as part of a 'G2'), but supporting alternative governance structures when it doesn't like the ones controlled by the US/Japan (so the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS etc.).

    This doesn't mean that the two don't see each other as long term strategic and economic rivals. But the risks to both of rocking the boat are gigantic and not in the interest of either party in the foreseeable future. Things that could change that:

    a. a succession of Trump-like US presidents (checks and balances are probably sufficient to withstand one, were it to come to that);
    b. a revolution in China (possible if the economy goes South- and what comes next is probably not liberal democracy but anti-Japanese or anti-US authoritarian nationalism);
    c. an unpredictable chain of events arising from N Korean collapse or a regional nuclear race (Japan-China is a more likely source of conflict than US-China).

    MrMeinung, 2016-09-26 09:13:57
    The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all.

    Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation.

    Time for a change of plan.

    freeandfair -> MrMeinung , 2016-09-26 14:29:49
    "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid.
    Zami99, 2016-09-26 08:30:36
    The writing is on the wall: the future is with China. All the US can do is make nice or reap the dire consequences. If China can clean up its human rights record, I would be happy to see them supplant or rival the US as a global hegemon. After all, looked at historically, haven't they earned it? - An American, born and bred, but no nationalist
    Calvert -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 11:24:26
    Well, that is naďve. Look at China and how the Chinese people are governed. Look at the US. And please don't tell me you don't see a difference. I'll take a world with the US as the global hegemon any day.
    Leandro Rodriguez -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 16:15:42
    The US never cleaned up their human rights record...
    Sven Ringling, 2016-09-26 08:16:37
    A regional counter balance is needed. Cooperation is hindered by Japan. They should be the center point of a regional alliance strong enough to contain China with US help, but it doesn't work: whilst everybody fears China, everybody hates Japan.

    The reason is they failed miserably to rebuild trust after WWII, rather than going cap in hand, acknowledging respondibility for atrocities and other crimes and injustice, and compensate victims, they kept their pride and isolation. They are now paying the price - possibly together with the rest of us.

    Maybe a full scale change after 7 decades of to-little-to-late diplomacy can still achieve sth.

    The ass the US should kick sits in Tokyo - something they failed to do properly after WWII, when they managed it well in West Germany (ok - they had help from the Brits there, who for all their failings understand foreign nations far better), where it facilitated proper integration into European cooperation.

    ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 07:28:26
    I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. Countries that do well don't need to crack down on dissidents to the point of kidnappings or spend millions of stupid man made islands that pisses everyone off but have all the military value of a threatening facial tattoo. The South China Sea tactics is partially Chinese "push until something pushes back" diplomacy but also stems from the harsh realisation that their resources can be easily choked of and even the CPC knows it can't hold down a billion plus Chinese people once the hunger sets it.

    China is facing the dilemna that as it brings people out of poverty it reduces the supply of the very cheap labor that makes it rich. You can talk about Lenovo all you want, no one is buying a Chinese car anytime soon. Nor is any airline outside of China going to buy one of their planes. Copyright fraud is one thing the West can retaliate easily upon and will if they feel China has gone too far. Any product found in a western court to be a blatant copy can effectively be banned. The next step is to refuse to recognize Chinese copyright on the few genuine innovations that come out of it.

    Plus the deal Deng Xiaoping made with the urban classes is fraying. It was wealth in exchange for subservience. The people in the cities stay out of direct politics but quality of life issues, safety, petty corruption and pollution are angering them and scaring them hence the vast amount of private Chinese money being sunk into global real estate.

    The military growth and dubious technobabble is just typical Chinese mianzi gaining. If you do have a brand new jet stealth jet fighter, you don't release pictures of it to the world press. They got really rattled when Shinzo Abe decided the JSDF can go and deliver slappings abroad to help their friends if needed. Because an army that spends a lot of time rigging up Michael Bayesque set maneuvers for the telly is not what you want to pit against top notch technology handled by obsessive perfectionists.

    No one plays hardball with China because we all like cheap shit. But once that is over then China is a very vulnerable country with not one neighbour they can call a friend. They know it. Obama hasn't failed.. It's the histrionics that prove it not the other way round.

    250022 -> ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 11:34:31
    Fundamentally incorrect.

    The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn.

    No-one is buying a Chinese car? Check the sales for Wuling. They produce the small vans that are the lifeblood of the small entrepreneur. BYD are already exporting electric buses to London. The likes of VW, BMW, Land Rover, are all in partnership with Chinese auto-makers and China is the largest car market in the world.

    Corruption has been actively attacked and over a quarter of a million officials have been brought to book in Xi's time in office. The pollution causing steel and coal industries are being rapidly contracted and billions spent on re-training.

    Plus the fact that while the Chinese are mianzi gazing, the last thing they think about is politics. They simply don't want to know.

    By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight.

    The conclusion is that bi-lateral talks, not US led pissing contests are the way forward.

    http://english.sina.com/china/s/2016-09-26/detail-ifxwevmf2233637.shtml

    alfredwong -> Jonathan Scott , 2016-09-26 05:44:58
    "What has happened is the ICA has ruled against China in the SCS..." Nothing new. The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf had also ruled against the UK and the International Court of Justice had ruled against the US.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/29/falkland-islands-argentina-waters-rules-un-commission

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-defiance-of-international-court-has-precedentu-s-defiance-1467919982

    "Also, China still has little force projection"

    A country only needs a lot of force projection if it seeks to dominate the world.

    "and a soon to collapse economy."

    You are entitled to have such dream.

    vidimi -> Jonathan Scott, 2016-09-26 09:41:28
    a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well
    ChristosHellas, 2016-09-26 04:17:59
    Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government.

    Just look at how gobsmacked the US Military & President were over such a stupidly undertaken sale by the LNP. This diplomatically lunatic sell off by the LNP of such a vital national asset has effectively taken-out any influence or impact Australia may have, or exert, over critical issues happening on our northern doorstep.

    If there was ever a case for buying back a strategic national asset, this is definitely the one. Oh, if folks are worried about the $Billions in penalties incurred, simple solution - just stop the $Billions of Diesel Fuel Rebates gifted to Miners for, say, 10 years..... Done!

    JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 04:05:15
    America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced.

    Europe is under siege by endless tides of refugees that are the direct consequence of America's neo-Conservative and militant foreign policy. Meanwhile, America's neo-liberal economic and trade policies have not only decimated her own manufacturing base and led to gross inequality but also massive dislocations in South America, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tired, irritated, frustrated, exhausted, cynical, violent, moral-less, deeply corrupt, and rudderless, America is effectively bankrupt and on the verge of becoming another Greece, if not for the saving grace of the petro-Dollar. Europe would be well-advised to keep the Yanks at arm's length so as to escape as much as possible the fallout from her complete collapse. As for Britain, soon to be divorced from the EU, time draws nigh to end the humiliating, one-sided servitude that is the 'Special Relationship' and forge an independent foreign policy. The tectonic plates of history is again shifting, and there nothing America can do to stop it.

    scss99 -> JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 05:14:43
    I don't know America probably occupies the most prime geographical spot on the planet, and buffered by two oceans. It doesn't have to worry about refugees and the other problems and ultimately they can produce enough food and meet all of its energy needs domestically. And it's the third most populous nation on earth and could easily grow its population with immigration.

    The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well.

    Given the facts it would be daft a write off America. Every European nation have lost their number one spot in history and they seem to be doing just fine. Is there some reason why this can't be America's destiny as well? Does it really have to end in flames?

    macel388 -> itsfridayiminlove, 2016-09-26 14:17:29
    "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man".
    CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 03:47:56
    The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity.

    Pivot to Asia is about one thing only, sending more war ships to encircle China. But for what purpose exactly? It does one thing though, it united china by posing as a threat.

    hobot CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 04:44:28
    It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of.
    Stieve, 2016-09-26 02:09:34
    Those blaming Obama most stridently for not keeping China in its box are those most responsible for China's rise. American and Western companies shafted their own people to make themselves more profit. They didn't care what the consequences might be, as long as the lmighty "Shareholder Value" continued to rise. Now they demand that the taxes from all those people whose jobs they let go be used to contain the new superpower that they created. As usual, Coroporate America messes things up then demands to know what someone else is going to do about it
    MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 01:49:38
    Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia.

    Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations".

    freeandfair -> MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 02:02:27
    The US doesn't know what the word "cooperation" means. To Americans "cooperation" means giving orders and others following them.
    LivingTruth, 2016-09-26 00:41:25
    America has this absurd notion that it must always be number 1 in world whatever that means world could be better when east is best
    Zhubajie1284, 2016-09-26 00:16:50
    Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy.
    thomasvladimir, 2016-09-26 00:11:36
    fuck his pivot.....this ain't syria.....having destroyed the middle east it was our turn.....this is americas exceptionalism........stay #1 by desabilising/destroying everyone else.....p.s. shove the TPP also..........
    Fabrizio Agnello, 2016-09-25 23:45:41
    The real question is why should not China be more dominant in Asia... i understands the USA tendency especially since the fall of the soviet union at seing themselves as the only world superpower. And i understand why China would like to balance tbat especially in her own neighborhood.

    Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines,... and considering that the chinese have a long memory of werstern gunboat diplomacy and naval for e projection, if i was them i would feel a little uncomfortable at how vulnerable my newfound trade is... especially when some western politician so clearly think that china needs to be contained...

    Bogoas81, 2016-09-25 23:44:41
    China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum.

    Much of this money has been funnelled into 'investments' that will never yield a return. The most almighty crash is coming. Which will be interesting to say the least.

    RodMcLeod -> Bogoas81, 2016-09-26 00:07:24
    Now that is interesting but odd. They are buying phuqing HUGE swathes of land in Africa, investing everywhere they can on rest of the planet. All seemingly on domestic debt then.
    Bogoas81 -> RodMcLeod, 2016-09-26 10:09:36
    Yes. The Japanese went on a spending spree abroad in the 1980s, while accumulating debt at home, and when that popped the economy entered 20 years of stagnation, as bad debts hampered the financial system.

    The Chinese bubble is far larger, and made worse by the fact that much of the debt has been taken on by inefficient state owned enterprises and local government, spending not because the figures make sense but to meet centrally-dictated growth targets. Much of the rest has been funnelled into real estate, which now makes up more than twice the share of the Chinese economy than is the case in the UK. Property prices in some major Chinese cities have reached up to 30 times local incomes, making London look cheap in comparison.

    There is also a huge 'shadow' banking system in China which means no-one really knows who owes money to whom, which will make it impossible to be confident in who remains creditworthy when the crisis occurs. Estimates are that bad debts (non-performing loans) by Chinese banks already total more than $2 trillion and are rising fast: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/22/fitch-warns-bad-debts-in-china-are-ten-times-official-claims-sta/

    wumogang, 2016-09-25 22:44:50
    TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
    Narapoia01 -> wumogang, 2016-09-26 01:53:17
    Don't believe for a second Hillary won't ram through a version of the TPP/IP if she wins. What she's actually said is that she's against it in its current form

    Remember she is part of an owned by the 0.1% that stand to benefit from the agreement, she will do their bidding and be well rewarded. A few cosmetic changes will be applied to the agreement so she can claim that she wasn't lying pre-election and we'll have to live with the consequences.

    sanhedrin, 2016-09-25 22:22:22
    I find the United States of America more frightening each day
    thomasvladimir -> sanhedrin, 2016-09-26 00:53:38
    failing flailing empire.......classic insanity
    Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 21:43:18
    Well done all you globalists for failing to spot the bleedin obvious...that millions of homes worldwide full of 'Made In China' was ultimately going to pay for the People's Liberation Army. Still think globalisation is wonderful ?
    kbg541 -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:31:38
    Quite. How can you believe in a liberal, global free market and then do business with the Socialist Republic of China, that is the antithesis of free markets. The name is above the door, so there's no use acting all surprised when it doesn't pan out the way you planned it.
    moderatejohn -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:40:32
    Anything good can be made evil, including globalization. Imagine fair trade completely globalized so very nation relies on every other nation for goods. That type of shared destiny is the only way to maintain peace because humans are tribalist to a fault. We evolved in small groups, our social dynamics are not well suited to large diverse groups. If nation has food but nation B does not, nation B will go to war with nation A, so hopefully both nations trade and alleviate that situation. Nations with high economic isolation are beset by famines and poverty. Germany usually beats China in total exports and Germany is a wonderful place to live. It's not globalization that is the problem, it's exploitation and failure of our leaders to follow and enforce the Golden Rule.
    BelieveItsTrue -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 23:00:58
    Roll out the barrel.....
    Well said and you are so right.
    15 years ago, I had a conversation in an airport with an American. I remarked that, by outsourcing manufacturing to China the US had sold its future to an entity that would prove to be their enemy before too long. I was derided and ridiculed. I wonder where that man is and whether he remembers our conversation.

    Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

    I despair of "normalcy bias" and the insulting term "conspiracy theorist". People have lost the ability to work things out for themselves and the majority knows nothing about Agenda 21 aka Sustainable Development Goals 2030, until the land grabs start and private ownership is outlawed.

    Heaven help us.

    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:33:12
    ... the study also suggests that, if war cannot be avoided, the US might be best advised to strike first, before China gets any stronger and the current US military advantage declines further ..

    Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip ....

    Zhubajie1284 -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:45:45
    They tell their employers what they want to hear.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:04:05
    Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering?
    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:24:54
    1. With respect, Mr Tidsall is badly off track in painting China as the one evil facing an innocent world.

    2. The fact is that US' belief in and repeated resort to force has created a huge mess in the Middle East, brought true misery to millions, and truly thrown Europe in turmoil in the bargain.

    3. Besides this Middle East mess, the US neoliberal economic policies have wreaked havoc, culminating in an unprecedented financial and economic crisis that has left millions all over the world without any hope for the future

    4. Hence Mr Tidsall's pronouncement:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive China without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.


    Ought to read:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive United States without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.

    5. US would be better advised to focus on its growing social problems, evident in the growing random killings, police picking on blacks, etc, and on its fast decaying infrastructure. We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    6. Mr Tidsall, may I request that you kindly focus on realities rather than come up with opinion that approaches science fiction

    5566hh -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 22:50:58
    I agree that Mr Tisdall's treatment of the US is somewhat naive and ignorant. However couldn't it be that both countries are capable of aggression and assertiveness? The US's malign influence is mainly focussed on the Middle East and North Africa region, while China's is on its neighbours. China's attitude to Taiwan is pure imperialism, as is its treatment of dissenting voices on the mainland and in Hong Kong. China's contempt for international law and the binding ruling by the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal is also deeply harmful to peace and justice in the region and worldwide.

    We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    Very superficial indeed - compare, just as one example, the number of Nobel prizes won by American scientists recently with those by Chinese. The US is still, in general, far ahead of China in terms of scientific research (though China is making rapid progress). (That is not intended to excuse US killing of course.)

    BelieveItsTrue -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:07:25
    Oh well said. At least someone understands how the it works.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:06:32
    The US follows the USSR path of increasingly ignoring the needs of its own population in order to retain global dominance. It will end the same as the USSR. That which cannot continue will not continue.
    wumogang, 2016-09-25 20:23:25

    Xi is not looking for a fight. His first-choice agent of change is money, not munitions. According to Xi's "One Belt, One Road" plan, his preferred path to 21st-century Chinese hegemony is through expanded trade, business and economic partnerships extending from Asia to the Middle East and Africa. China's massive Silk Road investments in central and west Asian oil and gas pipelines, high-speed rail and ports, backed by new institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, are part of this strategy, which simultaneously encourages political and economic dependencies. Deng Xiaoping once said to get rich is glorious. Xi might add it is also empowering.

    The most realistic assessment on Xi and China.

    The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course.

    A Grim and over-paranoid predicament: US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"; China is well aware it remains a poor nation compared to developed world and is decades behind of US in military, GDP per capital and science, that is not including civil liberty, citizen participation, Gov't transparency and so on. China is busy building a nation confident of its culture and history, military hegemony plays no part of its dream.
    BelieveItsTrue -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:14:42

    US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"

    Oh come on, $20 Trillion in debt and with Social Security running out of money, there will be no more to lend the government.

    China has forged an agreement with Russia for all its needs in oil ( Russia has more oil than Saudi Arabia) and payment will not be in US dollars. Russia will not take US$ for trade and the BRICS nations will squeeze the US$ out of its current situation as reserve currency. When the dollars all find their way back to the USA hyperinflation will cause misery.

    Zhubajie1284 -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:49:17
    The US sure looks in decline. Bridges falling into rivers, tens of millions homeless. Yet some how our elites can always find money for another war.
    Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 19:33:09
    Before the Chinese or anyone else gets any ideas, they should reflect on the size of the US defence budget, 600 billion dollars in 2015, and consider what that might imply in the event of conflict.
    fragglerokk -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:14:35
    a third of that budget goes in profit for the private companies they employ to make duds like the F35 - so you can immediately reduce that to 400 billion. The US have been fighting third world countries for 50 years, and losing, their military is bloated, out of date and full of retrograde gear that simply wont cut it against the Russians. Privately you would find that most top line military agree with that statement. They also have around 800 bases scattered world wide, spread way too thin. Its why theyve stalled in Ukraine and can't handle the middle east. The Russians spend less than $50 billion but have small, highly mobile forces, cutting edge missile defence systems (which will have full airspace coverage by 2017). The Chinese policy of A2D/AD or access denial has got the US surface fleet marooned out in the oceans as any attempt to get close enough to be effective would be met with a hail of multiple rocket shedding war heads. The only place where it is probable (but my no means certain) that the US still has the edge is in submarine warfare, although again if the Russians and Chinese have full coverage of their airspace nothing (or little) would get through.
    Two theorys are in current operation about the election and the waring factions in the NSA and the CIA 1) HRC wins but is too much of a warmonger and would push america into more wars they simply cannot win 2) there is a preference for Trump to win amongst the MIC because he would (temporarily) seek 'peace' with the Russians thus giving the military the chance to catch up - say in 3 or 4 years - plus all the billions and billions of dollars that would mean for them.

    Overwhelming fire power no longer wins wars, the US have proved that year in year out since the end of the second world war, theyve lost every war theyve started/caused/joined in. Unless you count that limited skirmish on British soil in Grenada - and I guess we could call Korea a score draw. The yanks are bust and they know it, the neocons are all bluster and idiots like Breedlove, Power and Nuland are impotent because they don't have right on their side or the might to back it up. The US is mired in the middle east, locked out of asia and would grind to halt in Europe against the Russians. (every NATO wargame simulation in the last 4 years has conclusively shown this) Add to that the fact that the overwhelming majority of US citizens dont have the appetite for a conventional war and in the event of a nuclear war the US would suffer at least as much as Europe and youve got a better picture of where we are at.

    goenzoy -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:48:37
    Well it is just ABOUT money.Also during Vietnam and Iraq war US was biggest spender.
    Nobody in US still thinks that Vietnam war was a good idea and the same applies to Iraq.Iraq war will be even in history books for biggest amount spend to achieve NOTHING.
    Mrpavado -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 21:30:20
    Chinese military spending is at least on a par with American. A huge part of American military money goes to personnel salary while China does NOT pay to Chinese soldiers for their service as China holds a compulsory military service system.
    Liang1a, 2016-09-25 19:24:05
    This article assumes China is evil and the US is the righteous protector of all nations in the SE Asian region against the evil China which is obviously out to destroy the hapless SE Asian nations. This assumption is obviously nonsense. The US itself is rife with racial problems. Everybody has seen what it had done to Vietnam. Nobody believes that a racist US that cares nothing for the welfare of its own black, Latino and Asian population will actually care for the welfare of the same peoples outside of the US and especially in SE Asia.

    The truth is China is not the evil destroyer of nations. The truth is the US is the evil destroyer of nations. The US has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to the SE Asian regions for the last 200 years. The US had killed millions of Filipinos during it colonial era. The US had killed millions of Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The US had incited pogroms against the ethnic Chinese unceasingly. The May 13 massacre in Malaysia, the anti-Chinese massacres in the 1960's and the 1990's in Indonesia, and many other discrimination and marginalization of ethnic Chinese throughout the entire SE Asia are all the works of the US. It is the US that is the killer and destroyer.

    Therefore, it is a good thing that the evil intents of the US had failed. With the all but inevitable rise of China, the influence of the Japanese and the americans will inevitably wane. The only danger to China is the excessive xenocentrism of the Dengist faction who is selling out China to these dangerous enemies. If the CPC government sold out China's domestic economy, then China will become a colony of the Japanese and americans without firing a single shot. And the Chinese economy will slide into depression as it had done in the Qing Dynasty and Chinese influence in the SE Asian region will collapse.

    Therefore, the task before the CPC government is to ban all foreign businesses out of China's domestic economy, upgrade and expand China's education and R&D, urbanize the rural residents and expand the Chinese military, etc. With such an independent economic, political and military policies, China will at once make itself the richest and the most powerful nation in the world dwarfing the Japanese and American economies and militaries. China can then bring economic prosperity and stability to the SE Asian region by squeezing the evil Japanese and americans out of the region.

    mark john Mcculloch , 2016-09-25 19:22:11
    Lets be honest what has Obama achieved,he got the Nobel peace prize for simply not being George Bush Jr he has diplayed a woeful lack of leadership with Russia over Syria Libya and the Chinese Simply being the first African American president will not be a legacy
    outfitter, 2016-09-25 18:54:08
    Do you know of one Leninist state that ever built a prosperous modern industrial nation? Therein lies the advantage and the problem with China. China is totally export dependant and therefore its customers can adversely affect its economy - put enough chinese out of work and surely political instability will follow. A threatened dictatorship with a large army, however, is a danger to its neighbors and the world.
    fragglerokk -> outfitter, 2016-09-25 20:26:17
    China are now net consumers. You need to read up on whats happening, not from just the western press. They are well on their way to becoming the most powerful nation on earth, they have access (much like Russia) to over two thirds of the population of the worlds consumers and growing (this is partially why sanctions against Russia have been in large part meaningless) China will never want for buyers of their products (the iphone couldnt be made without the Chinese) with the vast swaithes of unplumbed Russian resources becoming available to them its hard to see how the west can combat the Eurasians. The wealth is passing from west to east, its a natural cycle the 'permanant growth' monkies in the west have been blind to by their own greed and egotism. Above all the Chinese are a trading nation, always seeking win/win trading links. The west would be better employed trading and linking culturally with the Chinese rather than trying to dictate with military threats. The west comprises only 18% of the global population and our growth and wealth is either exhausted or locked away in vaults where it is doing no one any good. Tinme to wise up or get left behind.
    deetrump, 2016-09-25 18:17:06
    Tisdall...absolute war-monger and neo-con "dog of war". Is this serious journalism? The rise of China was as inevitable as the rise of the US in the last century..."no man can put a stop to the march of a nation". It's Asias century and it's not the first time for China to be the No 1 economy in the world. They have been here before and have much more wisdom than the west...for too long the tail has wagged the dog...suck it up Tisdall!
    Dante5, 2016-09-25 17:56:56
    The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.

    It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value- the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.

    IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army. If the US patched things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China- with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty in conducted a sustained conflict. It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony- similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with the knife.

    Advaitya, 2016-09-25 17:54:49
    America is reaping the fruits of what they sowed during the time of Reagan. It was never a good idea to outsource your entire manufacturing industry to a country that is a dictatorship and does not embrace western liberal democratic values. Now the Americans are hopelessly dependent on China - a country that does not play by the rules in any sphere - it censors free speech, it blatantly violates intellectual property, it displays hostile intent towards nearly all South East Asian countries, its friends include state sponsors of terror like Pakistan and North Korea, it is carefully cultivating the enemies of America and the west in general.

    In no way, shape or form does China fulfill the criteria for being a trustworthy partner of the west. And yet today, China holds all the cards in its relationship with the west, with the western consumerist economies completely dependent on China. Moral of the story - Trade and economics cannot be conducted in isolation, separate from geopolitical realities. Doing so is a recipe for disaster.

    Kamatron -> Advaitya, 2016-09-25 21:46:36
    The arrogance is breathtaking.

    Embrace western liberal values? Exactly what is that?

    A sense of moral and ethical superiority?

    Freedom to kill unarm black people?

    Right to invade other countries?

    Commit war crimes?

    That kind of Western liberal values?

    freeandfair -> Advaitya, 2016-09-26 01:15:38
    The Us is reaping the results of its arrogance, you got that part right.
    humdum, 2016-09-25 17:24:35
    Mr Tisdall should declare his affiliation, if any, with the military-industrial complex.
    It is surprising coming from a Briton which tried to contain Germany and fought two
    wars destroying itself and the empire. War may be profitable for military-industrial complex
    but disastrous for everyone else. In world war 2, USA benefited enormously by ramping
    up war material production and creating millions of job which led to tremendous
    prosperity turning the country around from a basket case in 1930s to a big prosperous power
    which dominated the world till 2003.
    Nuno Cardoso da Silva , 2016-09-25 17:16:24
    US insistence on being top cat in a changing world will end up by dragging us all into a WW III. Why can't the US leave the rest of the world alone? Americans do not need a military presence to do business with the rest of the world and earn a lot of money with such trade. And they are too ignorant, too unsophisticate and too weak to be able to impose their will on the rest of us. The (very) ugly Americans are back and all we want is for them to go back home and forever remain there... The sooner the better...
    HotPotato22, 2016-09-25 17:12:13
    The world is going to look fantastically different in a hundred years time.

    Points of world power will go back to where they was traditionally; Europe and Asia. America is a falling power, it doesn't get the skilled European immigrants it use to after German revolution and 2 world wars. And it's projected white population will be a minority by 2050. America's future lies with south America.

    Australia with such a massive country but with a tiny population of 20million will look very attractive to China. It's future lies with a much stronger commonwealth, maybe a united military and economic commonwealth between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

    Even without the EU, Europe is going to have to work together, including Russia to beat the Chinese militarily and economically. America will not be the same power in another 30-50 years and would struggle to beat them now.

    China are expansionists, always have been. War is coming with them and North Korea sometime in the future.

    Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 16:23:04
    From the article above, it is clear who is the more dangerous power. While China is aiming to be the hegemon through economic means like the neo silk road projects, the US is aiming to maintain its hegemon status through military power. The US think thank even suggest to preemptive strike against China to achieve that. This is also the problem with US pivot to Asia, it may fail to contain China, but it didn't fail to poison the atmosphere in Asia. Asia has never been this dangerous since the end of cold war, all thanks to the pivot.
    arbmahla -> Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 18:17:41
    Obama is trying to maintain the status quo. China and N. Korea are the ones pushing military intimidation. The key to the US plan is to form an alliance between countries in the region that historically distrust each other. The Chinese are helping that by threatening everybody at the same time. Tisdall sees this conflict strictly as between the US and China. Obama's plan is to form a group of countries to counter China. Japan will have a major role in this alliance but the problem is whether the other victims of WW2 Japanese aggression will agree to it.
    TheRealRadj -> arbmahla, 2016-09-25 18:23:24
    With dozens of bases surrounding Russia and China and you call this status quo.
    Fail.
    CygniCygni, 2016-09-25 16:21:39
    The US's disastrous foreign policy since 9/11 which has unleashed so much chaos in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc etc... is not exactly a commendation for credibility these days.
    CommieWealth, 2016-09-25 16:08:00
    A useful summary of the state of play in the Pacific and SCS. It is somewhat hawkish in analysis, military fantasists will always be legion, they should be listened to with extra large doses of salt, or discussion of arguments which favour peaceful cooperation and development, such as trade, cultural relations, and natural stalemates. American anxiety at its own perception of decline, is at least as dangerous for the world as the immature expression of rising Chinese confidence. But the biggest problem it seems we face, is finding a way to accommodate and translate the aspirations of rising global powers with the existing order established post-45, in incarnated in the UN and other international bodies, in international maritime law as in our western notions of universal human rights. Finding a way for China to express origination of these ideas compatible with its own history, to be able to proclaim them as a satisfactory settlement for human relations, is an ideal, but apparently unpromising task.
    BigPhil1959, 2016-09-25 15:46:39
    Perhaps Samuel P Huntingdon was broadly correct when he wrote "The Clash of Civilizations" in the late 90's. He was criticized for his work by neo-liberals who believed that after the Cold War the rest of the world would follow the west and US in particular.

    The problem with the neo-liberal view is that only their opinions on issues are correct, and all others therefore should be ridiculed. What has happened in Ukraine is a prime example. Huntingdon called the Ukraine a "cleft" country split between Russia and Europe. The EU and the US decided to stir up trouble in the Ukraine to get even with Putin over Syria. It was never about EU or NATO membership for the Ukraine which is now further away than ever.

    A Trump presidency is regarded with fear. The Obama presidency has been a failure with regard to foreign policy and a major reason was because Clinton was Secretary of State in the 1st four years. In many ways a Clinton presidency is every bit as dangerous as a Trump presidency.

    Certainly relations with Russia will be worse under Clinton than under Trump, and for the rest of the world that is not a good thing. To those that believe liek Clinton that Putin is the new Hitler, then start cleaning out the nuclear bunkers. If he is then WW3 is coming like it or not and Britain better start spending more on defence.

    markwill89, 2016-09-25 15:41:59
    Can people stop calling China a Communist state. It isn't. China is a corporatist dictatorship.
    yelzohy -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 16:19:47
    which serves only the top one tenth of one percent. Sounds familiar.
    markwill89 -> yelzohy, 2016-09-25 16:23:29
    The difference between the United States and China is striking. Try criticising the Chinese leadership in China and see where it gets you.
    humdum -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 17:44:03
    What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football.
    R_Ambrose_Raven, 2016-09-25 15:30:27
    Never mind that a general, high-intensity war in Northern Asia would be disastrous for all involved, whatever the outcome. Never mind that much of the discussion about containing China is by warmongers urging such a conflict.

    Never mind that very little depth in fact lies behind the shell of American and Japanese military strength, or that a competently-run Chinese government is well able to grossly outproduce "us" all in war materiel.

    Never mind that those same warmongers and neocons drove and drive a succession of Imperial disasters; they remain much-praised centres of attention, just as the banksters and rentiers that are sucking the life from Americans have never had it so good.

    Never mind that abbott encouraged violence as the automatic reaction to problems, while his Misgovernment was (while Turnbull to a lesser extent still is) working hard to destroy the economic and social strengths we need to have any chance of surmounting those problems.

    Yes, it is a proper precaution to have a military strength that can deny our approaches to China. Unfortunately that rather disregards that "we" have long pursued a policy of globalisation involving the destruction of our both own manufacturing and our own merchant navy. Taken together with non-existent fuel reserves, "our" military preparations are pointless, because we would have to surrender within a fortnight were China to mount even a partial maritime blockade of Australia.

    ID1726608, 2016-09-25 15:28:36
    What I don't quite understand is how all this comes as any surprise to those in the know. China has been on target to be the #1 economic power in the world in this decade for at least 30 years.

    And who made it so? Western capitalists. China is now not only the world's industrial heartbeat, it also owns a large proportion of Western debt - despite the fact that its differences with the West (not least being a one-party Communist state) couldn't be more obvious - and while I doubt it's in its interests to destabilise its benefactorrs at the moment, that may not always be the case.

    It also has another problem: In fifty or sixty years time it is due to be overtaken by India, which gives it very little time to develop ASEAN in its own image; but I suspect that it's current "silk glove" policy is far smarter and more cost-effective than any American "iron fist".

    heyidontknowman, 2016-09-25 15:18:23
    The US is just worried about losing out on markets and further exploitation. They should have no authority over China's interest in the South China Sea. If China do rise to the point were they can affect foreign governments, they will unlikely be as brutal as the United States. [Indonesia 1964, Congo 1960s, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Central America 1980s, Egyptian military aid, Saudi support, Iraq 2003, the Structural Adjustments of the IMF]
    Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:14:17
    Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power.

    While many Europeans and others including our current GOP party thinks we are the global empire and we should stick our nose everywhere, our people doesn't we are an empire or we should stick our nose in every trouble spot in the world spending our blood and treasure to fight others battles and get blame when everything goes wrong. President Obama doesn't think of himself as Julius Ceaser and America is not Rome.

    He will be remembered as one of our greatest president ever setting a course for this country's foreign policy towards trying to solve the world's problems through alliances and cooperation with like minded countries as the opposite of the war mongering brainless, trigger happy GOP presidents. However when lesser powers who preach xenophobia and destabilize their neighborhood through annexation as the Hitler like Putin has, he comes down with a hammer using tools other than military to punish the aggressor.

    All you need to do is watch what is happening to the Russian economy since he imposed sanctions to the Mafiso Putin.

    This article is completely misleading and the author is constricting himself in his statement that Obama's pivot to Asia is a failure. Since China tried to annex the Islands near the Philippines, countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, India, etc. has ask the US for more cooperation both military and economically these countries were moving away from US under Bush and others so I think this is a win for Obama not a loss. Unlike the idiotic Russians, China is a clever country and is playing global chess in advancing her foreign policy goals. While the US cannot do anything with China's annexation of these disputed Islands has costs her greatly because the Asian countries effected by China's moves are running towards the US, this is a win for the US. China's popularity around her neighborhood has taken a nose dive similar to Russian's popularity around her neighborhood. These are long term strategic wins for the US, especially if Hillary wins the white house and carry's on Obama's mantel of speaking softly but carry a big stick. Obama will go down as our greatest foreign policy president by building alliances in Europe to try stop Mafioso Putin and alliances in Asia to curtail China's foreign policy ambitions. This author's thesis is pure bogus, because he doesn't indicate what Obama should have done to make him happy? Threaten Chine military confertation?
    All you have to do is go back 8 years ago and compare our last two presidents and you can see where Obama is going.

    NowheretoHideQC -> Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:33:01
    For the allusion to Rome, I think they act like the old empire when they had to send their army to keep the peace....and it is an empire of the 21 first century, not like the old ones (Assange).
    Mormorola, 2016-09-25 15:06:09
    Obama and Hillary foreign country policies have been disasters one after the other:
    • - "Benign" neglect and lack of courage in Palestine on the "No new settlements" request.
    • - Disastrous interventions in Libya and Middle East resulting in hundred of thousand of "collateral damage".
    • - Russian "Reset" which was no more than spin, but continued to look at Russia as the right place to wipe your feet.
    • - Empty promises to Ukraine resulting into a civil war.
    • - Ill conceived "Pivot to Asia" with no meat, much wishful thinking and no understanding of local sensitivities.
    • - Continued support for bloody dictators like the Saudis and the Thai dictators (which Hillary once branded a "vibrant democracy").

    And you wish "that woman" to become your next president?

    ElZilch0, 2016-09-25 14:54:23
    China needs western consumerism to maintain its manufacturing base. If China's growth impacts the ability of the West to maintain its standard of consumerism, then China will need a new source of affluent purchaser. If China's own citizens become affluent, they will expect a standard of living commensurate with that status, accordingly China will not be able to maintain its manufacturing base.

    So the options for China are:

    a) Prop up western economies until developing nations in Africa and South America (themselves heavily dependent on the West) reach a high standard of consumerism.

    b) Divide China into a ruling class, and a worker class, in which the former is a parasite on the latter.

    The current tactic seems to be to follow option b, until option a becomes viable.

    However, the longer option a takes to develop, and therefore the longer option b is in effect, the greater the chances of counter-revolution (which at this stage is probably just revolution).

    The long and the short of it, is that China is boned.

    russian, 2016-09-25 14:35:09
    Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US.

    It's got it's hands full at home. As long as the West doesn't try to get involved in what China sees as its historical territory (i.e. The big rooster shaped landmass plus Hainan and Hong Kong and various little islands) there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

    Babeouf, 2016-09-25 14:32:26
    Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. There is absolutely nothing exceptional about a power not admitting publicly what is known to many,see the outpourings of the British elites during the end of its empire.
    Lafcadio1944, 2016-09-25 14:11:59
    As usual the Guardian is on its anti-China horse. Look through this article and every move China has made is "aggressive" or when it tries to expand trade (and produce win win economic conditions) it is "hegemonic" while the US is just trying to protect us all and is dealing with the "Chinese threat" -- a threat to their economic interests and global imperial hegemony is what they mean.

    The US still maintains a "one China" policy and the status quo is exactly that "one China" It would be great for someone in the west to review the historical record instead of arming Taiwan to the teeth. Additionally, before China ever started its island construction the US had already begun the "pivot to Asia" which now is huge with nuclear submarines patrolling all around China, nuclear weapons on the - two aircraft carrier fleets now threatening China - very rare for the US to have two aircraft carrier fleets in the same waters - the B-1 long range nuclear bombers now in Australia, and even more belligerent the US intends to deploy THAAD missals in South Korea - using North Korea as an excuse to further seriously threaten China.

    China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony.

    Just look around the world - where are the conflicts - the middle east and Africa - who is there with military and arms sales and bombing seven countries -- is it China?

    The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China.

    The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US.

    [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
    "... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
    Sep 24, 2016 | www.antiwar.com
    A good friend passed along an article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible - even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.

    Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from the sales of weaponry to the army.

    As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.

    But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia? North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:

    #1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler all learned that lesson the hard way).

    #2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract the people from their parlous existence.

    #3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America, at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria

    Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.

    We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion on the shiny new and under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy, yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.

    The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.

    Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy.

    William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author's permission.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Berlin Election Outcome Signals Merkels Tenuous Grip on Chancellorship

    Notable quotes:
    "... Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East. ..."
    "... Yes. As many have said, critical thinking in DC went out the door with 9/11. Those in DC who shouldn't be in jail, probably should at most be mopping floors at McDonalds. ..."
    "... Let's note that pre-9/11 the foreign policy wasn't exactly just/moral/sane. ..."
    "... Who cares? Since when did we live in a democracy? How many people wanted the Syrian and Lybian conflicts? ..."
    "... Do we all have to die in poverty because our leaders (in the case of these wars, Zionist) pushed war clandestinely? ..."
    "... Funny how that logic is never applied to others who are attacked (victims of our foreign policy). They should act like saints and we should bomb more (or, rather, commit genocide). Maybe might makes right, but then say it and stop masquerading as some burdened savior. ..."
    "... At this year's celebration a couple of people were badly injured by Ukrainian rightists who reportedly fled back to the Ukraine, escaping justice. And, as I recall, there was a recent report of a French rightist who had received bomb materials from Ukrainians. ..."
    "... I recently read accounts of the rise of neo-nazi and right-wing extremist groups in the former DDR after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently they were substantially infiltrated by US and German intelligence services and, as a result, enjoyed a certain level of impunity and de facto ..."
    "... On the other hand, the link between US 'intelligence' and Ukrainian neo-nazis is reasonably well established and is unlikely to have sprung into existence moments before their Maidan mobilization. That they would now use their safe harbor in Ukraine as a base for operations across Europe should not be particularly shocking. ..."
    "... Okay, I have some serious problems with this. One, Israel is not just Jewish in its composition. Two, not all Jewish people live in Israel. Three, Jewish people lived along side Muslims and Christians for hundreds of years in that region before Britain, the USA and some useful idiot Zionists decided to make a geopolitical springboard in 1948. You may be right that every nation pursues its own agenda, but I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about the nation or nations pursuing their agenda(s) that have the most wealth and the biggest bombs. I'm concerned about the ones running the empire, and Israel is a useful servant to that empire. ..."
    "... Israel is a nation state. Identifying as Jewish is another matter altogether. Israel is a colony that was formed at the wrong place and the wrong time. They could have pulled it off in the 18th or 19th century (see USA, Canada, Australia, the entire Western Hemisphere), but doing so immediately after a global war that was largely the end result of nation's colonial ambitions was a big no-no. The window of opportunity for such shenanigans had passed and the British, US, and Zionist progenitors of Israel knew better. ..."
    "... If AfD opponents simplistically think that the AfD are a rabble of angry closet Neo-Nazis…..boy their moral/intellectual smugness is going to be shattered at the ballot box in the upcoming years. The core of AfD are the German equivalent of ol' time bottom 90% FDR Democrats. ..."
    "... FDR was probably the only American president who was not entirely the servant of the capitalist ruling class. His reforms were for the benefit of American workers and he dragged the Democratic party along with him in creating the American social welfare system. He truly favored cooperative competition with the Soviet Union. Believing his vision of liberalism to be superior to Soviet socialism he had none of the knee jerk fear and hatred of them that has always characterized the American ruling class' relationship with Russia – even now 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was entirely confident the working class would choose his vision. ..."
    "... "Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East." ..."
    "... I've always assumed the costs of the Syria intervention - geopolitical insecurity, refugees, etc. were seen as a useful collateral dampener on the rise of a Germany-dominated Europe. Perhaps not sought after, but when those costs were put in the calculus and were seen to affect the European states the most, the cost-shifting became a net enabler. ..."
    "... The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos's real agenda in Syria may be found in a 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year. ..."
    "... "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)". ..."
    "... It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka the Islamic State. ..."
    "... It's already in the public domain that by a willful decision, leaked by current Donald Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Washington allowed the emergence of the Islamic State – remember that gleaming white Toyota convoy crossing the open desert? – as a most convenient US strategic asset, and not as the enemy in the remixed, never-ending GWOT (Global War on Terra). ..."
    Sep 24, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Pavel September 24, 2016 at 7:13 am

    Yves: It's amazing how infrequently this point is made in any political debate or news coverage. (Jeremy Corbyn being one rare example of someone who brings it up.):

    Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East.

    If there were any justice, the refugees would be swamping the UK, US, and France in huge numbers, as those are the countries that cooked up the Libya failed state and also most active in Syria. Crazy or stupid (your choice) Hollande vowed to increase the French warfare in Syria after the recent terror attacks in Paris and elsewhere. As though MORE BOMBS ever managed to decrease terrorism, right?

    Though Merkel made her own bed with her "let them all come to Germany!" invitation, and now she is sleeping in it. Good riddance when and if she goes.

    Dirk77 September 24, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    Yes. As many have said, critical thinking in DC went out the door with 9/11. Those in DC who shouldn't be in jail, probably should at most be mopping floors at McDonalds.

    knowbuddhau September 24, 2016 at 8:31 pm

    Hey now. I mop floors. I know people who mop floors. Those perps, sir, are not fit to mop floors. Unless it's in prison. And even then I'm sure they'd suck. Takes integrity to do a humble job well.

    Nelson Lowhim September 25, 2016 at 5:01 am

    Let's note that pre-9/11 the foreign policy wasn't exactly just/moral/sane.

    Hayek's Heelbiter September 24, 2016 at 6:39 pm

    This quote is the "yang" to the "yin" of Yves' column posted on September 21, 2016: Negative Effects of Immigration on the Economy

    fds September 24, 2016 at 11:46 pm

    Who cares? Since when did we live in a democracy? How many people wanted the Syrian and Lybian conflicts? If I recall, war was averted in parliament and congress.

    Do we all have to die in poverty because our leaders (in the case of these wars, Zionist) pushed war clandestinely?

    Nelson Lowhim September 25, 2016 at 5:00 am

    Funny how that logic is never applied to others who are attacked (victims of our foreign policy). They should act like saints and we should bomb more (or, rather, commit genocide). Maybe might makes right, but then say it and stop masquerading as some burdened savior.

    as James Baldwin said: "aching, nobly, to wade through the blood of savages."

    hemeantwell September 24, 2016 at 8:13 am

    Thanks for posting this Grossman interview. One facet of the development of the far right that Grossman hints at, and maybe can only do so because there isn't much data, is its transnational quality. This summer we visited some lefty friends in Lund, Sweden where each year they hold a large May Day rally.

    At this year's celebration a couple of people were badly injured by Ukrainian rightists who reportedly fled back to the Ukraine, escaping justice. And, as I recall, there was a recent report of a French rightist who had received bomb materials from Ukrainians.

    As I think about, there's an ugly resonance with Yves' noting the refugees are substantially a result of US policies. The development of a rightist terrorist potential in the Ukraine has the same general source.

    Skip Intro September 24, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    I recently read accounts of the rise of neo-nazi and right-wing extremist groups in the former DDR after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently they were substantially infiltrated by US and German intelligence services and, as a result, enjoyed a certain level of impunity and de facto financial support from these governments. They were also linked to members of the 'stay behind' organizations (see Operation Gladio ), and were 'useful' in violently opposing left-wing groups as well as punk rockers. The modern AfD is strongest in the states of the former DDR, and are the ideological if not logistical heirs of these right-wing groups. But to conflate 15% of the electorate with semi-pro neo-nazis and racists is a bit of a stretch. While they are surely motivated by a strong nativist impulse and anti-immigrant fervor, their voters also represent the kind of disaffected and disenfranchised populations that carried the Brexit vote to victory.

    On the other hand, the link between US 'intelligence' and Ukrainian neo-nazis is reasonably well established and is unlikely to have sprung into existence moments before their Maidan mobilization. That they would now use their safe harbor in Ukraine as a base for operations across Europe should not be particularly shocking.

    fds September 24, 2016 at 11:47 pm

    No, the AfD is not linked to the CIA It is a pro-social welfare, anti-TPP group that also wants fair migrant exchanges, that is not just to Europe. It is pestered and censored in Germany. Just expressing support in ways a security agent deems 'offensive' gets you fined and ostracized.

    Norb September 24, 2016 at 10:07 am

    The fight over private property rights continues. Liberal Democracy has failed around the world due to the unholy alliance with corporate power. Unchecked corporate power has been unmasked as the destructive force that it truly is.

    The left needs to evolve into a political force that can shape the consciousness of the masses away from individual greed toward the undeniable benefit of cooperative action. The right will use fear to drive people into some sort of trembling mass and only by combating this fear can movement be made.

    The compromise the left needs to make is to use any means possible, not to seize the means of production form existing owners, but to start building alternative ones. It is all too easy for the right to bring out their tried and true methods to hold power. It is time to starve the beast, and one way is to not participate and build in another direction.

    Corporate power is what needs to be broken. From my limited view, the left has always been a reactionary force. It needs to evolve into a proactive one, literally building something in the real world. Another major mistake by the left is to reject and confuse the power of religion. Neoliberalism is a new religion and gains much power by the use of unquestioning faith. The left has failed to counteract this religious faith because they have not even tried to counter it with their own. Just as finance has evolved into a military weapon, it can be argued that religion, in essence, is a military force.

    The political landscape is being reshuffled into defining what we are willing to fight and die for. Until the left starts offering coherent answers to these questions, the status quo will continue to pick from the low hanging fruit.

    Rosario September 25, 2016 at 1:06 am

    Okay, I have some serious problems with this. One, Israel is not just Jewish in its composition. Two, not all Jewish people live in Israel. Three, Jewish people lived along side Muslims and Christians for hundreds of years in that region before Britain, the USA and some useful idiot Zionists decided to make a geopolitical springboard in 1948. You may be right that every nation pursues its own agenda, but I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about the nation or nations pursuing their agenda(s) that have the most wealth and the biggest bombs. I'm concerned about the ones running the empire, and Israel is a useful servant to that empire.

    Israel is a nation state. Identifying as Jewish is another matter altogether. Israel is a colony that was formed at the wrong place and the wrong time. They could have pulled it off in the 18th or 19th century (see USA, Canada, Australia, the entire Western Hemisphere), but doing so immediately after a global war that was largely the end result of nation's colonial ambitions was a big no-no. The window of opportunity for such shenanigans had passed and the British, US, and Zionist progenitors of Israel knew better.

    In addition, it is nonsense that we have normalized the formation of a nation state around a single ethnic or religious identity. Particularly after the Holocaust (the irony of this never ceases to amaze me). Would we have the same sympathies for the the countless indigenous ethnic groups in the Americas who, per capita, had even worse genocides inflicted on them, all documented, all accepted as inevitable or necessary in most histories of the Americas? Israel is a contorted hypocrisy that has to either embrace heterogeneity of disappear. Ideally as an inclusive country that is no longer a colony as it has been for hundreds of years. The fetish that is Israel has been an unfair burden to all people living in the Middle East and Jewish people the world over that are forced to (through the sheer force of political dogma) shackle their identities to a racist, rogue state.

    oho September 24, 2016 at 11:44 am

    " AfD stands for Alternative for Germany. It's a young party, about 2 years old. It's built basically on racism."

    Got more important things to do than rant about the above statement….

    Just will quote basic Sun Tzu via Star Trek-know your opponent, know yourself and victory will be yours.

    If AfD opponents simplistically think that the AfD are a rabble of angry closet Neo-Nazis…..boy their moral/intellectual smugness is going to be shattered at the ballot box in the upcoming years. The core of AfD are the German equivalent of ol' time bottom 90% FDR Democrats.

    Felix_47 September 24, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    And on the other side Sarah Wagenknecht, a leader in the left, hit a lot of flak from many in her party when she said there needs to be an "Obergrenze" or limit on the number of refugees. It would hard to call her racist since she is half Persian. It really is a conflict between those who cannot think realistically….those who are supported or secure enough not to have to take responsibility for anyone, and those who will need to make the world function. As a Socialist she apparently is aware that you cannot have a strong social net and combine that with open immigration from places that have astronomical birthrates that are outgrowing their resources without destroying that net. I recall Hillary and the open border people attacked Bernie on that as well. I thought it was unfair and it is this pandering, among other issues, that will keep me from voting for her. There is a lot of commonality between AfD and the Linke. Don`t forget that the notion of German population replacement had some currency during and after WW2 in order to permanently solve the German problem and we may just be actualizing it now.

    Ben Groves September 24, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    In fairness, US immigration policy has slowly been getting tougher over the last 16 years. Immigration policy in the US goes beyond dialect. I doubt Clinton would be overly "easy".

    fds September 24, 2016 at 11:55 pm

    It's easier. Apart from the new Obama rule to issue visas to H1b holders, effectively tripling the numbers issued but still under the cap, to a myriad of other programs, it's much easier.

    Of the several foreign students I've dated, it gets easier every year. Back in 03, one had to have an accountant degree with CPA certs, and even then, you often were slave labor in Chi-Town until you hooked up with an American company. Now the black market foreign industry is so large, that a mere B.A. is enough. The gov doesn't care. Everyone is approved, save the cap.

    bmeisen September 25, 2016 at 12:50 am

    spooky quatsch comment from oho – hard to tell what oho means with "90% bottom- line fdr dems". The very diverse FDR / Dem majority coalesced during and in response to economic crisis. The AfD has emerged during a German boom. It is successful in East Germany, which in the wake of economic collapse immediately following reunification has been the beneficiary of massive inner-German transfers. And it is successful in West Germany much of which is effectively at full-employment. Its core supporters are the 10% of any populazion that is racist, nationalist, and ignorant. You might try to argue that there is a uniquely irrational fear in Germany, something associated with its position on the left edge of Eurasia maybe, a heterogenous cultural unit without convincing access to the sea, trapped if you will and vulnerable to human flows. Sounds silly but it's hard to account for German fear.
    The AfD is using this irrational fear for political gain. FDR was supported largely by voters with very real fears.

    lin1 September 25, 2016 at 1:34 am

    FDR was probably the only American president who was not entirely the servant of the capitalist ruling class. His reforms were for the benefit of American workers and he dragged the Democratic party along with him in creating the American social welfare system. He truly favored cooperative competition with the Soviet Union. Believing his vision of liberalism to be superior to Soviet socialism he had none of the knee jerk fear and hatred of them that has always characterized the American ruling class' relationship with Russia – even now 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was entirely confident the working class would choose his vision.

    His reactionary political enemies, concentrated in finance capital, had no reason to be so confident. Their fear and loathing of the working class was/is legitimately earned.

    Plenue September 24, 2016 at 2:07 pm

    "Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East."

    That's typical of all MSM (not saying TRNN is mainstream) coverage of refugees. There's lots of discussion and hand-wringing about accepting refugees, but exactly zero about why they're refugees in the first place.

    Felix_47 September 24, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Yes the US has had a lot to do with destabilizing Asia and Africa but a lot of it has simply been a continuation of British policy after WW2. As Britain shrank its foreign involvement the US expanded. But the real cause is the inability of our politicians and leaders to face up to the reality that population growth is hitting the limits of resource availability in Asia and Africa and to institute realistic ways to control population. Absent the population explosion in these regions in the last decades we would not be seeing the poverty and anger and constant confllict because there would be enough for all. As much bad press as China has gotten for its population policy it is one of the few bright spots in world economic development. Interestingly China does not seem very interested in accepting millions of third world refugees.

    Vikas September 24, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    I've always assumed the costs of the Syria intervention - geopolitical insecurity, refugees, etc. were seen as a useful collateral dampener on the rise of a Germany-dominated Europe. Perhaps not sought after, but when those costs were put in the calculus and were seen to affect the European states the most, the cost-shifting became a net enabler.

    Micky9finger September 24, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    In my naďve point of view it hit me last year that it was a brilliant stroke of Angela Merkel to grab as many refugees as she could before any other country.
    They are a tremendous natural resource. One that many modern countries are beginning to see a coming shortage of. Many countries, like Germany, France, etc are looking at population shortages in the working age groups. Merkel's grab of this mass of human resource was maybe an accidentally brilliant idea.

    oho September 24, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    can't tell if the above comment is satire or astroturfing or naivety?

    Merkel's migrants have zero higher-level first-world skills. AfD is strong in ex-East Germany because there is popular resentment as ex-East Germans get austerity shoved down their throats while Merkel unfurls the red carpet for migrants.

    http://www.dw.com/en/germany-expects-migration-to-add-to-unemployment/a-19478546

    in der Frage nach festen Arbeitsplätzen für Flüchtlinge ruhen die Hoffnungen zunehmend auf mittelständischen Unternehmen und Handwerksbetrieben. Denn wie eine Umfrage dieser Zeitung ergab, hat die große Mehrzahl der im deutschen Aktienindex (Dax) notierten Konzerne noch keine Flüchtlinge eingestellt. Einzig die Deutsche Post gab an, bis Anfang Juni 50 Flüchtlinge und damit eine nennenswerte Größe fest angestellt zu haben.

    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/mittelstand-als-hoffnungstraeger-fuer-fluechtlinge-14323607.html

    Yves Smith Post author September 24, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    Not true. Syrians are very highly educated. Very good public education and high average attainment.

    But Merkel was an idiot if she actually did recognize that Syrians were high potential workers yet did nothing re how to integrate them, most important, acquisition of German and jobs matching.

    Ben Groves September 24, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    The fact capitalism is a ponzi scheme is a key here. When the Aristocracy bowed to the Sephardic bankers, they created this mess. They were the same idiots that bowed to the Christians 1500+ years before.

    Maybe it is time for a new aristocracy. If you want to build internally, you have to abolish capitalism and its market based scam. That is why "right wingers" won't last without the Sephardic banks via market expansion. They run the scheme and always have. From their immigration into the Iberian trails during the 15th century, to their financing and eventual leadership into the protestant reformation, to the first capitalists scheme at Amsterdam to bribing William the Orange into taking it into old England.

    S M Tenneshaw September 24, 2016 at 11:28 pm

    You mean "Sephardic" as in Wells Fargo? Cracka, please.

    Jeff September 24, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    Let me see if I understand this:

    1. Most of the refugees arriving in Europe are Syrian. The US did not act to topple the Syrian dictator and did not create a new Syrian government. The United States is responsible for these refugees.

    2. A portion of the refugees are Libyan. At the urging of its European allies (not just the UK), the US helped topple the Libyan government, but has not created a new government. The US is responsible for these refugees.

    3. A portion of the refugees are from Iraq or Afghanistan. The US toppled the old governments and installed new ones. The US is responsible for these refugees.

    4. A significant portion of the refugees are from African countries including Nigeria and Eritrea. I assume that these aren't included in the statement above as they are not Middle Eastern.

    So, in other words – the US is responsible whether or not we intervene and whether or not we then attempt to set up a government? I wonder under what circumstances you would not view the US as responsible?

    I would suggest, that given the situation in the Middle East and the fact that the results are similar regardless of US actions something more basic is at work. Most of the nations of the Middle East and Africa were artificial creations of primarily Britain and France; they are nations derived neither from ethnic homogeneity nor the consent or shared history of the governed. Whatever, the United States did or does, they would ultimately have shattered in one way or another and refugees would have headed for Europe.

    knowbuddhau September 24, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    Nope, you don't. The US and its Gulf state "allies" are indeed trying to oust Assad and, if not set up, at least allow the creation of a Salafist regime.

    The US Road Map To Balkanize Syria

    By Pepe Escobar

    September 22, 2016 "Information Clearing House" – "RT" – Forget about those endless meetings between Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry; forget about Russia's drive to prevent chaos from reigning in Syria; forget about the possibility of a real ceasefire being implemented and respected by US jihad proxies.

    Forget about the Pentagon investigating what really happened around its bombing 'mistake' in Deir Ezzor.

    The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos's real agenda in Syria may be found in a 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year.

    As you scroll down the document, you will find page 291, section C, which reads (in caps, originally):

    "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)".

    The DIA report is a formerly classified SECRET/NOFORN document, which made the rounds of virtually the whole alphabet soup of US intel, from CENTCOM to CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA and the State Department.

    It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka the Islamic State.

    It's already in the public domain that by a willful decision, leaked by current Donald Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Washington allowed the emergence of the Islamic State – remember that gleaming white Toyota convoy crossing the open desert? – as a most convenient US strategic asset, and not as the enemy in the remixed, never-ending GWOT (Global War on Terra).

    It's as clear as it gets; a "Salafist principality" is to be encouraged as a means to Divide and Rule over a fragmented Syria in perpetual chaos. Whether it's established by Jabhat al-Nusra – aka "moderate rebels" in Beltway jargon – or al-Baghdadi's "Califake" is just a pesky detail.

    It gets curioser and curioser as Hasaka and Deir Ezzor are named in the DIA report – and directly targeted by the 'mistaken' Pentagon bombing. No wonder Pentagon chief Ash 'Empire of Whining' Carter took no prisoners to directly sabotage what Kerry had agreed on with Lavrov.

    No one will ever see these connections established by US corporate media – as in, for instance, the neocon cabal ruling the Washington Post's editorial pages. But the best of the blogosphere does not disappoint.

    The rest is just blame-shifting that conveniently let's the US off the hook.

    Nelson Lowhim September 25, 2016 at 5:07 am

    Thanks. Let's not forget the initial peace talks which the US helped to scuttle.

    Yves Smith Post author September 24, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    Have you not read any press in the last 5 years, or do you just make a habit of making shit up? The US has been trying to topple Assad for God only knows how long. What, for instance, do you think the desperate fig leaf of trying to claim that we are supporting non-existant "moderate Syrian rebels" is about?

    Noonan September 24, 2016 at 9:55 pm

    "the danger of this right wing group mostly in the form of parties which is by the way it gets its votes by being anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner, and especially anti-Muslimism. That�'s their big call."

    Sounds like a winning platform to me.

    [Sep 26, 2016] It has been particularly infuriating to see the Chanel-suited Berkeley types be the ones to embrace imperial fascist war-making with such glee.

    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    HBE September 25, 2016 at 11:58 am

    Just watched Samantha Powers speak at the emergency UN security counsel meeting on Syria, how she managed to keep a straight face is completely beyond me.

    Basically Russia needs to take responsibility for its actions in Syria and the war would be over if those damn Russians would GTFO and quit disrupting the US and GCC regime change operations.

    It appears everything would be going swimmingly if Russia would just leave the "rebels" alone and let the US turn Syria into Libya, I mean is that so much to ask for? /S

    tgs September 25, 2016 at 12:37 pm

    The people Obama has chosen to represent him are almost all fanatics. Samantha Power and Ash Carter stand out as true psychopaths. Carter actually openly defied Obama on the Syria ceasefire.

    Robert Parry has an excellent piece out today on the rush to judgment about the attack on the humanitarian convoy.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 25, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    It has been particularly infuriating to see the Chanel-suited Berkeley types be the ones to embrace imperial fascist war-making with such glee.
    I happened to recognize Susan Rice travelling sans bodyguard with her girlfriend at the airport in Chiang Mai Thailand and had a delicious time giving her a full piece of my mind. Unedited truth to power with nowhere to hide, she reacted with a glaze that said "you are just an idiot peon" but I could see she was shaken.

    [Sep 26, 2016] heres an article that contradicts the notion that US policy in Syria was about the Qatari pipeline as that claim–put forth in a Politico article by Robert Kennedy Jr–was little more than a

    Notable quotes:
    "... Re the Oilprice link ( The Natural Gas War Burning Under Syria OilPrice (resilc)) , here's an article that contradicts the notion that US policy in Syria was about the Qatari pipeline as that claim–put forth in a Politico article by Robert Kennedy Jr–was little more than a poorly sourced rumor. ..."
    "... The US decision to support Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in their ill-conceived plan to overthrow the Assad regime was primarily a function of the primordial interest of the US permanent war state in its regional alliances. ..."
    "... In other words the MIC strikes again and seems to be directly challenging Obama policies with "accidents" like the recent bombing of the Syrian army. Time for movie fans to dust off old copies of Seven Days in May? ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    poorly sourced rumor.

    Carolinian September 25, 2016 at 9:09 am

    Re the Oilprice link ( The Natural Gas War Burning Under Syria OilPrice (resilc)) , here's an article that contradicts the notion that US policy in Syria was about the Qatari pipeline as that claim–put forth in a Politico article by Robert Kennedy Jr–was little more than a poorly sourced rumor.

    That claim has no credibility for a very simple reason: there was no Qatari proposal for Syria to reject in 2009. It was not until October 2009 that Qatar and Turkey even agreed to form a working group to develop such a gas pipeline project.

    Gareth Porter says that instead

    The US decision to support Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in their ill-conceived plan to overthrow the Assad regime was primarily a function of the primordial interest of the US permanent war state in its regional alliances. The three Sunni allies control US access to the key US military bases in the region, and the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Department and the Obama White House were all concerned, above all, with protecting the existing arrangements for the US military posture in the region[….]

    The massive, direct and immediate power interests of the US war state – not the determination to ensure that a pipeline would carry Qatar's natural gas to Europe – drove the US policy of participation in the war against the Syrian regime. Only if activists focus on that reality will they be able to unite effectively to oppose not only the Syrian adventure but the war system itself.

    In other words the MIC strikes again and seems to be directly challenging Obama policies with "accidents" like the recent bombing of the Syrian army. Time for movie fans to dust off old copies of Seven Days in May?

    http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2016/09/23/war-assad-regime-not-pipeline-war/

    tgs September 25, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    Porter may well be right about the pipeline. However, a piece that purports to account for our Syria operations and the obsession with the removal of Assad that does not mention Israel and the Israel Lobby cannot be the complete story. Breaking the 'Shia Crescent' is a major strategic aim of the friends of Israel.

    Carolinian September 25, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    Without a doubt the Lobby keeps the liberals–the "progressives except for Palestine"–supporting the fever dreams of the generals, but arguably it's this internal, and traditionally rather Waspy pressure group that is the real menace. As the following quite accurately points out, we have a WW2 military with nothing to do with itself unless they can invent a suitable enemy.

    http://original.antiwar.com/reed/2016/09/23/bombing-everything-gaining-nothing/

    We live in a military world fundamentally different from that of the last century. All-out wars between major powers, which is to say nuclear powers, are unlikely since they would last about an hour after they became all-out, and everyone knows it. In WWII Germany could convince itself, reasonably and almost correctly, that Russia would fall in a summer, or the Japanese that a Depression-ridden, unarmed America might decide not to fight. Now, no. Threaten something that a nuclear power regards as vital and you risk frying. So nobody does.

    Or, to sum up

    What is the relevance of the Pentagon? How do you bomb a trade agreement?

    The generals and admirals need a Russian foe to justify their absurd budgets and their very existence. It's ironic that our great victory in WW2–triumph of industrial America–may end up doing us more long term harm than those European and Asian nations that were bombed into ashes. You can rebuild cities but dismantling imperial hubris turns out to be harder.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 25, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    Occam would probably just say that the Cold War never ended for our geniuses-in-chief, despite dissolving away in 1989 our enemy is and always was and will be Russia uber alles. The simple fact that they back Assad is all it took, yes add in a sprinkle of Tehran and Tel Aviv and goose with a little juice from Riyadh but the overnight disappearance of our existential enemy was something up with which we could not put.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Oh no, our proxies are surrounded and being ground into dust. Human rights! Human rights! Please stop bombing!

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Syria conflict: UN chief 'appalled' by Aleppo escalation" Translation: "Oh no, our proxies are surrounded and being ground into dust. Human rights! Human rights! Please stop bombing!" ..."
    "... You mean there are Kurds in their Way? ..."
    "... Not sure what you're getting at. Kurds have little role in the battle for Aleppo. They have a small bit of territory in the north of the city and helped to secure the Castello road, but that's it. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Plenue September 25, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    "Syria conflict: UN chief 'appalled' by Aleppo escalation" Translation: "Oh no, our proxies are surrounded and being ground into dust. Human rights! Human rights! Please stop bombing!"

    Synoia September 25, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    You mean there are Kurds in their Way?

    Plenue September 25, 2016 at 6:10 pm

    Not sure what you're getting at. Kurds have little role in the battle for Aleppo. They have a small bit of territory in the north of the city and helped to secure the Castello road, but that's it.

    Jay M September 25, 2016 at 9:25 pm

    accept this application for illuminati posting: Plenue, excellence in Alleppo commentary

    [Sep 26, 2016] Neoliberal corruption is enhanced by 401K investors

    Sep 26, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. : September 25, 2016 at 07:01 AM This is a large problem for the left. (and I see the prospect of enacting "maximum wage laws" as pretty slim. Maybe I'm wrong.)

    You read progressive commenters like David and EMichael here pondering the returns on their investments. Not that there's anything fundamentally wrong with it. It's just a problem needed to be solved by public policy so everyone is facing the same rules.

    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/you-voted-to-pay-wells-fargo-ceo-john-stumpf-19-5-million

    You Voted to Pay Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf $19.5 Million
    by Dean Baker

    Published: 24 September 2016


    You don't remember casting that vote? Well, you didn't actually cast it, but if you have a 401(k) someone like Blackrock CEO Larry Fink cast the vote for you.

    Most middle income people have 401(k)s for their retirement and most of this money is in mutual funds. These mutual funds have control over the proxy votes for the shares they hold. This means that funds like Blackrock, which has more than $5 trillion in assets, have enormous say over the distribution of income in this country. And, as Gretchen Morgenson points out in her NYT column this morning, these folks almost always endorse outlandish pay packages for CEOs. As they say in Wall Street circles, what's a few million dollars between friends.

    So, if you're upset about an economy where the rich keep getting richer, just remember, you voted for it, sort of. Reply Sunday, pgl -> Peter K.... , Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 09:43 AM

    $19.5 million and zero accountability. Wells Fargo needs a new CEO now.
    Cray Singularity -> pgl... , Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:04 AM

    Folks need to keep their $$$$ out of mutual funds, keep their $$$$ out of 401(k). Plus you will avoid the load. When stocks fall your t-bonds will rise by virtue of their negative beta. Is that why investment bankers are contributing more to Clinton Dynasty Foundation? To Clinton election slush fund? Than to Trump University? Because the strongly suspect that stocks will collapse when the Donald moves into White House?

    Do you know where your assets are? When was the last

    time you saw
    Uranus
    ?

    pgl -> Cray Singularity... , Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:47 AM
    Gold may be a negative beta asset but government bonds? Don't think so.
    mrrunangun -> Peter K.... , Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:06 AM
    I hate to remark on so obvious a matter. A TBTF bank CEO bonus of $19.5million is a low bonus by industry standards. Back in the 90s and oughties a $2million bonus for a managing director was an insult or an indication that you were on your way out. $10million was a good bonus, $5 million was OK. A $20 million bonus was really good for an MD. CEOs and leaders of successful business units could see 9 figure bonuses, like Mr Blankfein's $130million 2010 bonus, and he was not the highest paid GS exec that year. A bonus below $20million for a current day CEO could be read as bad news and is probably read as such by his friends. He is probably on his way out.

    Bonuses today are not as sumptuous as they were in 2010 when the Obama bailout money was considered income and bonuses were paid out in proportion to the income of the business unit.

    pgl -> mrrunangun... , Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:48 AM
    OK, I bet Jamie Dimon makes more but I'd be really dismayed if he refused to take basic accountability for what Wells Fargo did.
    pgl -> mrrunangun... , Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:50 AM
    It seems Wells Fargo may have avoided the disasterous decline in stock valuations that BofA and Citigroup experienced but this is not exactly a large increase either:

    https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/WFC?ltr=1

    pgl -> pgl... , Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:52 AM
    JPMorgan has seen a 25% increase in stock prices.

    https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/JPM?ltr=1

    Wells Fargo fairly flat and big stock declines for BofA and Citigroup. And yet we here from JohnH some incessant spin about record bank profits.

    So many misconceptions so easily debunked.

    JohnH -> pgl... , -1
    More BS from pgl. Banks were able to take advantage of the Fed's historically low interest rates and post record profits in 2014 and 2015, while median real household income was back where it was a generation ago.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-02/u-s-banks-posted-record-profits-in-second-quarter-fdic-says

    Sad part, is that now pgl will tell us about the woes of one or two of his favorite banks and try to project that to the industry...or he'll put in a link showing declines in net interest margins...because he's a dissembling sleazebag.

    This dude is so confused that he doesn't even know the difference between net INCOME margin (profit) and net INTEREST margin!

    [Sep 26, 2016] http://time.com/4504004/men-without-work/

    Sep 26, 2016 | time.com

    "In 2015, the work rate (or employment-to-population ratio) for American males ages 25 to 54 was slightly lower than it had been in 1940, at the tail end of the Great Depression. If we were back at 1965 levels today, nearly 10 million additional men would have paying jobs. The collapse of male work is due almost entirely to a flight out of the labor force-and that flight has on the whole been voluntary. The fact that only 1 in 7 prime-age men are not in the labor force points to a lack of jobs as the reason they are not working."

    Uh Nick – thanks for telling us what we already knew – labor force participation is down. But do you realize how you just contradicted yourself. Keynesians like myself would agree that is due to a lack of jobs (aka low aggregate demand). So is this a voluntary thing?

    Let's read on:

    "these unworking men are floated by other household members (wives, girlfriends, relatives) and by Uncle Sam. Government disability programs figure prominently in the calculus of support for unworking men-ever more prominently over time."

    Since government provided benefits have not been scaled up by our policy makers – he must think the hard working ladies are cuddling young men for their good lucks or something. Uh Nick – come to NYC and you will see that the ladies here think this is so stupid. His next excuse is all those dudes in prison. Seriously? Does this AEI clown not realize crime is much lower than it was a generation ago? This piece was dumb even by AEI "standards". But at least he did not dwell on the Tyler Cowen porn thing.And at the risk of repeating myself (and Noah Smith) if their thesis that young men had suddenly decided to loaf, then the inward shift of the labor supply curve would mean higher real wages than we are seeing.
    Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 09:37 AM pgl said in reply to pgl... I decided to put these thoughts in the following Econospeak post which goes a little further debunking the misrepresentations from the AEI hack:

    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-new-men-without-jobs-conservative.html Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:43 AM RC AKA Darryl, Ron said... [A reply from Paine:

    "paine said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...


    Joe playing hill
    courtier

    Who knows what he thinks

    Reply Friday, September 23, 2016 at 01:29 PM"

    Reminded me of this entirely by accident or maybe incident:]

    http://unionsong.com/u017.html


    Joe Hill

    A song by Alfred Hayes, Music by Earl Robinson©1938 by Bob Miller, Inc.

    I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
    Alive as you or me
    Says I, But Joe, you're ten years dead
    I never died, says he
    I never died, says he

    In Salt Lake, Joe, says I to him
    Him standing by my bed
    They framed you on a murder charge
    Says Joe, But I ain't dead
    Says Joe, But I ain't dead

    The copper bosses killed you, Joe
    They shot you, Joe, says I
    Takes more than guns to kill a man
    Says Joe, I didn't die
    Says Joe, I didn't die

    And standing there as big as life
    And smiling with his eyes
    Joe says, What they forgot to kill
    Went on to organize
    Went on to organize

    Joe Hill ain't dead, he says to me
    Joe Hill ain't never died
    Where working men are out on strike
    Joe Hill is at their side
    Joe Hill is at their side

    From San Diego up to Maine
    In every mine and mill
    Where workers strike and organize
    Says he, You'll find Joe Hill
    Says he, You'll find Joe Hill

    I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
    Alive as you or me
    Says I, But Joe, you're ten years dead
    I never died, says he
    I never died, says he


    [More about Joe Hill and Alfred Hayes at the link.] Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:10 AM RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... Fortunately I will have very little spare time for idle or addle minded leisure now until well after the election and even well after the subsequent coronation save those days so rainy that outdoor activity is entirely impractical. Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:14 AM pgl said... I never liked Ross Douhart. The political right thinks he has written something very important:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/opinion/campaign-stops/clintons-samantha-bee-problem.html?_r=0

    "At the same time, outside the liberal tent, the feeling of being suffocated by the left's cultural dominance is turning voting Republican into an act of cultural rebellion - which may be one reason the Obama years, so good for liberalism in the culture, have seen sharp G.O.P. gains at every level of the country's government. This spirit of political-cultural rebellion is obviously crucial to Trump's act."

    Vote for a racist like Trump because liberals are suffocating. Did I say I really do not like Ross Douhart?
    Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:55 AM Peter K. said in reply to pgl... Again we agree. (Signs of the apocalypse? I guess Trump is going to win.)

    Douchehat is the worst hypocrite. He wants readers to believe he's an expert in morality and morale rectitude and that's what conservative should be known for when in reality Republicans chose Trump as their candidate, one grand example of immorality and dishonesty.

    And still Douthat turns on the liberals as behaving badly. Suffocating? Howabout the insanity of the Republican convention? That was suffocating.

    He even quotes Internet Troll Steve Sailor!!!

    *rubs eyes*

    "(The alt-right-ish columnist Steve Sailer made the punk rock analogy as well.)"

    It's like Douthat writing about JohnH or BINY. Every one of Sailor's Internet comments would be racist ones about immigration. He's mentally unhinged.

    "But it remains an advantage for the G.O.P., and a liability for the Democratic Party, that the new cultural orthodoxy is sufficiently stifling to leave many Americans looking to the voting booth as a way to register dissent."

    Clueless Douthat. The culture is getting better in certain ways because the TV executives just want to sell advertising and these performers are popular. It's capitalism at work.

    Kudos to John Oliver for winning an Emmy.

    "Among millennials, especially, there's a growing constituency for whom right-wing ideas are so alien or triggering, left-wing orthodoxy so pervasive and unquestioned, that supporting a candidate like Hillary Clinton looks like a needless form of compromise."

    Note the disdain for millennials. "Triggering."

    Conservative like Douthat and Bobo Brooks "trigger" the hate and anger centers of my brain.

    The fact is that Samantha Bee is right and NBC facilitated the rise of Trump with the Apprentice and treating him well on other shows like Jimmy Fallon and SNL.

    Here's the offending video.

    September 25, 2016 at 01:38 PM

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/samantha-bee-slams-jimmy-fallon-nbc-for-softball-donald-trump-interview_us_57e12dbbe4b0071a6e095c1f Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 01:38 PM anne said in reply to Peter K.... --------- is the worst hypocrite....

    [ Do not use sickening language on this blog. Never ever use such language here. ] Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 02:44 PM pgl said... I have provided this link to some of the papers by Michael Bruno – many co-authored by Jeffrey Sachs – for a couple of reasons:

    http://www.nber.org/authors/michael_bruno

    The minor reason is they have a nice paper on the Dutch Disease – something JohnH thinks he understands but he needs to read up on this topic. But the main reason has to do with a stupid comment from Paine on my Econospeak post, which goes to show how very little Paine actually learned in graduate school.

    I was try to paint a picture of some Real Business Cycle claim that Bruno and Sachs emphasized when I was in graduate school. I never truly bought their story as I was (and still am) a die hard Keynesian. But here is how it went as applied to the early 1980's (the period I was talking about). If a nation enjoys a massive real appreciation and if aggregate demand does not matter (the New Classical view which we Keynesians do not buy) then the real wages of its domestic workers rise. These workers supply more labor driving down wages relative to domestic prices. So domestic firms hire more workers.

    That is their story. I do not buy it as I was clearly mocking it. Alas Paine never learned this. And so he mocks someone who did. Just another day at the EV comment section. Aals.
    Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 12:24 PM anne said in reply to pgl... Just another day at the -- ------- section.

    [ I assume there will never again be such a comment. ] Reply Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 02:58 PM

    [Sep 26, 2016] Hug it out: Michelle Obama embraces George W Bush

    Notable quotes:
    "... 'Mission Accomplished' should be the name of the jail cells for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld convicted as war criminals. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    krissywilson87 PlumRadio , 2016-09-26 08:30:48
    I will never miss George Dubya Bush. It was truly scary to realise that the institutions of the US were so broken that a complete moron like that could become President because his daddy was. Then, just as Obama's election seemed to put things back on an even keel, here in Britain we elected Dave Cameron, an aristocratic ignoramus probably more out of touch with reality than Dubya ever was - and not a whole lot smarter.
    Chuck3 morbid , 2016-09-26 08:52:02
    Pretty straightforward unless you were an Iraqi with god knows how many tons of depleted uranium dropping on your children's heads. Or an innocent Afghan being tortured in one of the CIA's black sites.

    Bush is a war criminal who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

    He represents the worst of humanity and although Trump appears worse - we will have to wait to see what his legacy will be if he wins. As it stands Bush is the one who already has a disastrous and murderous legacy.

    WillKnotTell seedeevee , 2016-09-26 10:54:34
    "Obama has been at war longer than Bush."

    Considering he inherited the war Bubba Bush and Darth Bugsey Cheney started, you are correct. The fact they disbanded the Iraqi military, they provided skilled military leaders and troops to ISIL.

    Kentrel Jaydee23 , 2016-09-26 12:07:52
    That excuse is a bit hard to swallow 8 years later. Even Guantanamo Bay remains in use, as it ever was. As it turns out it was easier for Obama to provide weapons to rebel\terrorist groups in Libya and Syria than it was to give prisoners a fair trial under the American justice system and end torture. He's also cracked down on whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden in a way that Bush never did.
    1iJack , 2016-09-26 05:30:25
    Now get Hillary in there and the picture will be complete and could be titled...

    "the Globalists"

    Haytop , 2016-09-26 05:20:34
    war mongers converge?
    RedKrayola Joe Dert , 2016-09-26 06:44:56
    Bush signed agreement for a deadline to withdraw troops from Iraq. Obama tried to bully Iraq into disregarding that agreement. They refused. He then simply rechristened the troops 'advisors.' Obama never ended the war there, or anywhere. He's extended Bush's wars into several more countries throughout MENA.

    Please stop lying about Obama's record. He has pushed for never-ending, ever-expanding wars, and that's just what he's delivered.

    ponderwell RedKrayola , 2016-09-26 07:45:30
    The nightmare Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld & company left due to their manipulating lies and misinformation to ensure the USA bomb
    Iraq (thus destabilizing the ME) will
    at minimum bring a generation of leaders great misery.

    Each US leader will experiment with the
    possibilities to decrease terrorism, many more mistakes will be endured. No one seems to knows how to stop the hatred which underlies the destruction pledged
    by these sociopathic murderers.

    Gigi Trala La Joe Dert , 2016-09-26 08:25:25
    Obama promoted the same aggressive American policy as Bush, despite the early promise. Perhaps it makes little difference who is in power. To ignore the last 8 years of more bloodshed is a thing many round the world do not have the luxury you do.

    Eisenhower, more right as the years pass.

    seedeevee Joe Dert , 2016-09-26 09:42:04
    We call Obama a war monger because he has brought the American war effort to seven nations just this year. Brought war to Ukraine. Libya. Syria. Yemen. Honduras.

    Obama's Military is in over 150 nations on this planet.

    ETC.

    RedKrayola ponderwell , 2016-09-26 11:04:39
    Obama continue expanded the Bush/Cheney doctrine. He campaigned for office pledging to reverse it. He's now been president for nearly eight years; it's reasonable to hold him accountable for what he's done and stop pretending he bears no responsibility for what's happened under his watch as commander-in-chief.
    ponderwell RedKrayola , 2016-09-26 16:08:08
    Every leader including Obama carries the responsibility for their choices. Bush/Cheney
    violated and abused the trust of leaders and
    the public in many nations by misinforming,
    lying, and manipulative means to bomb
    a nation who had no dealings with the terrorism of 9/11. The USA is now in a war tangle in which every leader hence will be targeted negatively until the ME conflicts
    have no more US armed forces involved in the killings. Terrorism will plague many nations for the next generation at minimum.

    'Mission Accomplished' should be the name of the jail cells for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld convicted as war criminals.

    montevideo , 2016-09-26 21:27:57
    This picture kind of sums up why a whole load of people are voting Trump. Two apparently opposing politicians who ultimately led the US in the same self destructing direction. The illusion of democracy could never be clearer.
    James Lohe , 2016-09-26 12:54:13
    Bush 43 is arguably the most incompetent President ever. But no one would accuse him of being a bigot. Unlike Drumpf.
    Chuckman James Lohe , 2016-09-26 12:58:45
    Oh boy, do you lack history.

    Bush had a disgraceful record in every sphere.

    It would take too long to detail.

    Read a book, such as the one by the late Molly Ivins.

    backscratch Chuckman , 2016-09-26 13:41:33
    Afraid I would find it impossible to hug the president who with Blair has destabilised the Middle East for years to come...mind you the UK's history ain't so hot. Maybe I should stop going around hugging my fellow countrymen and women.
    OinkImSammy James Lohe , 2016-09-26 14:09:46
    I think they would because he was. The PNAC agenda did and does read like Mein Kampf.
    Chuckman , 2016-09-26 12:35:47
    Well, he's much like her husband, isn't he?

    Far more so than many think with superficial consideration.

    Both men did nothing for their people while spending unbelievable amounts of money on obscene mass killing abroad.

    They also share behaviors in the economic sphere. The 2008 Financial collapse happened under George Bush owing to a lack of adequate oversight of financial institutions and practices, a titanic financial equivalent to Bush's lackadaisical performance in New Orleans' Hurricane Katrina.

    The Obama response during eight years in office has been to avoid making any changes to correct the situation and prevent future occurrences, and he has done nothing but have vast quantities of money printed to keep the economy afloat.

    Chuckman Chuckman , 2016-09-26 12:55:10
    Actually, while Obama is more intelligent than Bush, he too is a weak and ineffective figure. He has marched without pause to the drumbeat of the Pentagon and CIA
    Chuckman djkbrown2001 , 2016-09-26 12:50:21
    Bush was never even a President.

    He understood at least his own lack of ability after a lifetime spent as an asinine frat-boy who never did anything on his own.

    He had Cheney and Rumsfeld along deliberately because he knew they were ready to run things for him.

    His lack of effective intelligence and lack of drive to do anything should have meant that Bush never be president.

    But he had money, tons of it, and heavy-duty political connections, and the real power men like the ruthless Cheney had him lined up from the start as their front man.

    The one thing Bush proved was that America doesn't even need a President. Any pathetic figure can sign the documents placed before him and read the speeches written for him.

    The establishment, with immense resources at its disposal, is quite capable of keeping the public believing that the face on the television is actually in charge.

    Actually, while Obama is more intelligent than Bush, he too is a weak and ineffective figure. He has marched without pause to the drumbeat of the Pentagon and CIA

    Tim Caulfield , 2016-09-26 11:45:44
    "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt-until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties." (Gore Vidal - "The State of the Union", 1975)
    Aldous0rwell , 2016-09-26 11:41:46
    "W" had one of the BEST track records of placing PoC in truly significant positions. Condoleeza Rice. Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzalez, etc. Bush was in no way, shape or form a racist - so long as you were an Uncle Tom willing to sell out your fellow citizens, bomb the crap out of foreigners, and kiss the asses of the 1%.
    robinhood2013 , 2016-09-26 11:29:37
    I see Obama has vetoed the chance for relatives of the victims of 9/11 to take the Saudi government to court. Despicable man!
    hdmiin robinhood2013 , 2016-09-26 13:21:18
    Maybe he didn't want to set a precedent - the relatives of dead Iraqis have an even better case for taking the US government to court.
    trevorgoodchild2 , 2016-09-26 10:56:31
    She is hugging him because he is voting for Clinton. Just annother of his long list of errors in judgement.
    Isaac_Blunt , 2016-09-26 10:33:25
    I Liked Dubbya. I've missed his amiable gaffs.

    "The trouble with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur..."

    Chris Moody freepedestrian , 2016-09-26 11:12:44
    Like making Bush's tax cuts permanent. Obama has many great qualities, but a strong principled belief in equality is not one of them. He's a neo-liberal corporatist through and through -hence frantically trying to push TTP through before the election, now that Hillary was forced to say she's against it. I'm sure there was a private conversation there - 'That f-ing Bernie is making me say I'm against TTP -can you get it through before the election, we can't trust Trump on it'
    imperfetto , 2016-09-26 10:06:39
    Michelle Obama embrases the criminal whose administration is responsible ( although we know that the foreign policy in the US is not decided by the president but by the NSA, CIA and occult lobbies ) for the death of over 1.500.000 million people in Iraq and Syria. Meanwhile the Guardian embraces the anti Russian propaganda by giving voice to the unpeakable lies about Russia's war crimes. Fortunately most media in the Continent (in France and Italy especially), are not follwing this dictats.
    ALLisVanity , 2016-09-26 09:27:01
    If the UN and the International Criminal Court were not mere tools of the US to punish anyone they don't like how on earth is this criminal not in jail? The only person that did worse than him is Hitler. He purposely lied to go into a war that destroyed thousands of innocent lives.
    Alan Jones , 2016-09-26 08:59:06
    I hope she washed her hands afterwards.
    SALSERO64 Alan Jones , 2016-09-26 09:22:17
    Why? They all are made of the same stuff.
    cvneuves , 2016-09-26 08:55:10
    I see, Bush (death toll 500,000+) and Obama (death toll 300,000+) are now closing ranks to avert Trump. Phew!!! This Trump guy must be really dangerous. I hope, our banks help finance an effective campaign against Trump!
    Ludek29 cvneuves , 2016-09-26 09:00:40
    Your Bush estimate is probably about 6 times lower its actual number.
    seedeevee Ludek29 , 2016-09-26 09:18:24
    and Obama has been at war longer. What a slacker!
    cvneuves Ludek29 , 2016-09-26 10:09:32
    John Tirman: Bush's War Dead: One Million , MIT, February 16, 2009.
    scss99 , 2016-09-26 08:33:42
    I think this is a good thing, Ronald Reagan used to have dinner with Tip O'Neill. As did many Republicans and Democrat presidents and senior members of Congress/Senate, that's stopped under Tom DeLay and Gingrich during the 90s when partisanship really took hold. It's been ugly ever since.

    Socializing with the opposition is good for a working relationship.

    Cessminster SickSwan , 2016-09-26 08:34:04
    Obama wasn't corrupted by office - operation Obama was planned well in advance. I would argue he was corrupted a long time ago. I see war criminal Bush Snr endorsed Clinton just last week - go figure. Not that I am a fan of Trump - far from it.

    Obama appeared out of nowhere and managed to scrape together the mega bucks to fund his campaign? Doesn't work like that - You don't currently get to be POTUS otherwise.

    AlfredHerring , 2016-09-26 08:08:53
    It seems like only 16 years ago that a bunch of Wall Street traders flew to Florida to stage a riot to stop the recount....and here's Obama and Bush looking forward to the election of the first President with her/his own hedge fund.....it brings tears to my eyes...
    domrice , 2016-09-26 08:06:40
    GW Bush refers to Hillary Clinton as his sister-in-law, now receives a hug from Michelle Obama. Further confirmation that the supposed political rivalry between the Reps and Wall St / TPP Dems is just noise.
    Christian Stevens , 2016-09-26 07:58:47
    The Obamas have become part of the firm. Anyone who has read vincent bugliosi book,The prosecution of George W BUsh for murder knows the last thing this guy needs is a hug. How can any of them be truly trusted
    MereMortal , 2016-09-26 07:34:22
    Politics is theater. They're all acting pretty much all the time, as politics is the art of managing perceptions.
    Everyone knows everyone. There is a front of house posturing and invective demanded by the job, and then the back of house, deals and horse-trading.
    Bill Clinton is a massive friend of both George Bushes and Donald Trump used be a good friend of the Clintons. But both the Clintons loathe Barack and Michelle Obama.
    So for me, the very worst picture was the one of Hillary being hugged by Barack during her stolen coronation.
    anonym101 , 2016-09-26 06:46:53
    Looks like the establishment is closing ranks. When was the last time the US had a real two party system and politicians were not controlled by Wall Street?

    [Sep 24, 2016] US started Ukraine civil war

    Jan 30, 2015 | english.pravda.ru
    30.01.2015

    US started Ukraine civil war. War in Donbass continues

    It has been over a year of blood, tears and destruction in Ukraine especially in SE Ukraine. The new country now called Novorossia, has been fighting the puppet government in Kiev, USA who is committing genocide in the Donbass region. America's new addition to its Empire is funded with billions and millions supported by NATO and other mercenaries. Yet, Kiev still cannot complete its mission the US trained it for. Oleg Tsarov warned about the impish activities the US was performing before the protests began in Kiev. America started the war in Ukraine but like Goliath was slain by little David.

    US Started Ukraine Civil War *PROOF* Nov 20, 2013

    Oleg Tsarov, who was then the People's Deputy of Ukraine, talks about US preparations for civil war in Ukraine, November 2013 in Kiev parliament. Major protests began the day after his speech. You can hear the paid protesters chanting "Ukraine" in the background trying to keep him from speaking the truth. Later, April 14, 2014, Oleg was beaten by a mob when he was running for president but fortunately survived. His face was badly beaten as shown here. Remember, his speech was the day before the Maidan Protests. See the Timeline. In his speech he said:

    "...activists of the organization 'Volya' turned to me providing clear evidence that within our territory with support and direct participation of the US EMBASSY (in Kiev) the 'Tech Camp' project is realized under which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine.

    The project is currently overseen and under the responsibility of the US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt. After the conversation with the organization 'Volya'. I have learned they succeeded to access the facilities of 'Tech Camp' disguised as a team of IT specialists. To their surprise, briefings on the peculiarities of modern media were held. AMERICAN instructors explained how social networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well as to activate protest potential to provoke violent unrest in the territory of Ukraine; radicalization of the population triggering infighting.

    American instructors presented examples of successful use of social networks used to organize protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Recent conference took place Nov 14-15, 2013, in the heart of Kiev in the Embassy of the United States of America!

    Is it conceivable that representatives of the US Embassy which organize the 'Tech Camp' conferences misuse their diplomatic mission? UN resolution of December 21, 1965 regulates inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of a state to protect its independence and its sovereignty in accordance with paragraphs 1,2 and 5. I ask you to consider this as an official supplication to pursue an investigation of this case."

    Well, no investigation was ever made especially by the "land of the free". Vladimir Putin has asked the UN for help but they drag their feet. The US embassies have caused more damage than the Soviet Union has ever done. In the video, we can see Oleg and others knew about America's interference in Ukraine affairs. He wanted to stop the civil war and courageously ran for president to stop the impending bloodshed. Thousands of deaths could have been avoided if people had listened to him. He could not fight the tide of billions of dollars from Obama and the US Congress. The Nazis in Kiev had their way while Poroshenko sent men to their deaths. What a waste into a whirlpool of misery.

    Obama and Poroshenko told the army they were going to fight terrorists. The "terrorists" were innocent civilians. Kiev POW's were later paraded in front of the bombarded people as they got a dose of REALITY. If only Obama or Poroshenko had told them the truth that they were bombing civilians they thought. The Ukrainian army is full of city boys who are inexperienced, fighting in unknown territory. The Novorossia militia is filled with coal miners and other blue collar workers with many who have had combat experience in Chechnya or older men with experience from the Soviet-Afghanistan war.

    The militia has seen their children, wives, Mothers, Fathers, grandparents and close friends killed but their faith, as this touching video shows, helps them defend their land. The Ukrainian army was drafted and sent by seedy Obama and Poroshenko under the penalty of 5 yrs in jail if they did not fight. If you feel sorry for them as POW's then I hope you see the bodies or graves of the thousands of civilians who were killed by them. It is a tragedy for everyone involved. Even for Soros, Obama, Poroshenko, Kerry, Nuland, members of US Congress who approved this, the Nazis in Kiev, all will suffer far worse on Judgment Day unless they repent.

    The civil war continues in Ukraine but despite Kiev's effort to mask the number of their dead soldiers and POW's, Novorossia continues victory after victory on the battlefield. Ukraine army focuses on shelling civilians while Novorossia kills Kiev's soldiers or captures them. Sometimes they are returned to their Mothers as seen in this film.

    Donetsk Republic Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko from Novorossia argues with Kiev army officer in this powerful video. He said that the Kiev army succumbed to the coup:

    "To give away our own country to be looted by Americans and other European countries"

    That video is by Graham Phillips who does the job that the impotent lame stream media won't do in America. Bravo Graham! Many thanks to Kazzura for her translation of most of the videos.

    Notice in the West the so called journalists are nowhere to be found on the battlefield in Ukraine as this man was here. I am certainly not addressing the media like CNN, FOX, CBS and the other court jesters who are paid clowns in the freak show called "US government". They dare tell America lies about the war. I would force them to dig the graves of the dead. How quickly the mainstream media goose steps in unison blaming Russia as Hitler did. Showing them the truth would be like showing a burnt building to a pyromaniac. The US media is in the business of making money not telling the truth. Peace and truth don't make billions of dollars they say. Were they bribed or are they true liars? "The liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else." - George Bernard Shaw

    Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland was back in the news recently. In her efforts to support the US program against "Russia Today". "Noodle Head Nuland" belittled RT by saying "RT's tiny, tiny audience in the United States". Remember her? The Benghazi gal was first talking about Democracy in Ukraine with Chevron. Their version of "democracy and freedom" means war to the rest of the world. She was seen handing out food to protesters and police in Kiev. How nice she is sounding so sweet and so kind. She was later caught on tape saying "Fuck the EU" when discussing the setup of the Ukraine government. Later she was grilled by Republican Dana Rohrabacher where she admitted there were Nazis on Maidan. Yeah, I really trust that evil witch who learned her craft from Hillary.

    It is obvious to the world, but not to the West, that Kiev was overthrown by the US and EU. Although the US propaganda blames Russia for everything the OSCE has already disproven their claims. We wanted to show in our main video that Kiev was actually warned before Pandora's Box was opened. The blame is clearly on the US as instigators. They sowed the devil's seed.

    Nevertheless, those who were deceived by the US or went along with the evil knowingly are also to blame and bear the responsibility of misleading Ukraine. Kiev has now become the newest suffering colony in America's empire. The only real "Hope and Change" for the people of Donbass is fighting against Obama's tyranny and becoming the independent country of Novorossia. "Let Freedom Ring!" America has forgotten its meaning.

    Xavier Lerma. Contact Xavier Lerma at [email protected]

    [Sep 24, 2016] UKRAINE Surrounded Donetsk- Ukraine General Staff applies experience of the Spanish Civil War

    Notable quotes:
    "... an operation to encircle Donetsk is nearly complete! ..."
    www.freerepublic.com

    Free Republic
    Browse · Search News/Activism
    Topics · Post Article

    Skip to comments.
    UKRAINE: Surrounded Donetsk- Ukraine General Staff applies experience of the Spanish Civil War
    http://hvylya.org/analytics/politics/okruzhennyiy-donetsk-genshtab-ukrainyi-primenyaet-opyit-grazhdanskoy-voynyi-v-ispanii.html ^ | 03.08.14, 18:06

    Posted on ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2014‎ ‎8‎:‎22‎:‎10‎ ‎PM by [email protected]

    Ukrainian Interior Ministry forces ATO Main news of recent days: an operation to encircle Donetsk is nearly complete!

    This radically changes the entire operational environment at the front. Let's already stop hiding behind a fig leaf is an abbreviation of ATU and will be referred to as a war-torn, and advanced-front.

    Many people ask how the war, which, by its type refers to the type of maneuver, formed wheel built? After all, in the civil wars there is no front line. What do the schemes that appear on the Internet, which clearly outline the front line?

    First, the schemes are not reflected front and border control zones. Please note that the scheme is not solid and dotted line .

    Secondly, in the civil wars of the twentieth century in key areas formed a solid front.

    Third, in these days we are recognizing a century of the First World War. This grand massacre marked by the fact that the war for the first time in human history has become a purely positional. On the western front rows of trenches stretched linear continuum from the North Sea to Switzerland. And before the war were maneuverable. However, the basic principles of the strategy work as a maneuver, and as the positional constructions. Therefore the environment in Donetsk - is now a decisive factor that will help determine the subsequent course of events.

    1919 defeat of Denikin. Future Marshal Yegorov spends quite a front operation at significantly discharged constructions than we are now seeing in the Donbas.

    But the most accurate historical analogy of what is happening in the East of the country, is the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, a rehearsal for WWII.

    Three months ago, when the ATO was just beginning, with Yuri Romanenko, we discussed what it will be for operation from a military point of view, with what does it compare? Spain! - Even then we came to this conclusion.

    One side holds successive offensives against disparate unsaturated builds on the other hand, in the end it all comes down to a struggle for basic megacities - Barcelona and Madrid in the years 1938-1939 and for the Donetsk and Lugansk in 2014. We see that during the Spanish Civil War also called the control zone - fronts.

    As then, leading the offensive side of the wire successive offensives in various sectors of the front. General Franco did not immediately come to such a strategy. But, he quickly enough proved its effectiveness.

    The Spanish Civil War

    Another connecting factor - and in Spain, and in the Donbass defensive side had and has the ability to constantly replenish their strength. I mean the International Brigades in Spain and Russian mercenaries in the Donbass. Just do not make direct analogies and remember Hemingway. Ideology, morality and culture here is not the point, only comparison is the strategic and military experience.

    Based on the study of the history of strategic decisions during the Spanish Civil War. The General staff of Ukraine has abandoned an ambitious but totally inappropriate, in terms of strategy, the plan of encirclement throughout the territory occupied by the enemy.

    General Staff of Ukraine refused ambitious but completely wrong, in terms of strategy, plan the environment throughout the territory To carry out such an operation is necessary to introduce martial law and full mobilization. The economic crisis - Ukraine needs to live and work. The President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko demanded to find less radical solutions. The General staff was to develop private operations against individual enemy factions. And immediately came to fruition!

    Today, we are seeing a decline IAF combat capability, as they are forced to operate in disparate groups. The actions of terrorists is completely dictated by the operational environment. Given the fact that the strategic initiative is fully on the side of the APU, the actions of illegal armed groups cropped, are predictable and can be controlled. While the IAF will not solve the problems with communications around Donetsk, they have no opportunity for meaningful operations on other sites.

    Maneuver warfare strategy can be compared to the battle in zero gravity, when one of the opponents, getting zubodrobilny kick gets a chance to continue the fight, that only lasts with some kind of support. In our case, this leg is large metropolitan areas. Having lost the strategic initiative, the IAF will be forced to pull their main forces in the Donetsk and Lugansk, allowing the APU, if necessary, to conduct the operation on the closure of the border with Russia. Everything is good in its season!

    [Sep 24, 2016] Hillary Emailgate How One Twitter User Proved The Intent That The FBI Missed After Months Investigating

    Sep 24, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Zero Hedge

    Earlier this week, a twitter user named " Katica " seemingly proved the "intent" of the Hillary campaign to destroy and/or tamper with federal records by revealing the Reddit thread of Paul Combetta (aka the "Oh Shit" guy; aka "stonetear"). But what's most crazy about this story is that "Katica" was able to discover the greatest "bombshell" of the entire Hillary email scandal with just a couple of internet searches while the FBI, with unlimited access to government records, spent months "investigating" this case and missed it all . The only question now is whether the FBI "missed" this evidence because of gross incompetence or because of other motivating factors ?

    Now, courtesy of an opinion piece posted on The Daily Caller , we know exactly how "Katica" pieced her "bombshell" discovery together... the folks at the FBI may want to take some notes.

    Per the twitter discussion below with @RepStevenSmith , "Katica" discovered Combetta's Reddit thread on September 16th. But while she suspected that Paul Combetta and the Reddit user known as "stonetear" were, in fact, the same person, she had to prove it...

    [Sep 24, 2016] US started Ukraine civil war

    Jan 30, 2015 | english.pravda.ru
    30.01.2015

    US started Ukraine civil war. War in Donbass continues

    It has been over a year of blood, tears and destruction in Ukraine especially in SE Ukraine. The new country now called Novorossia, has been fighting the puppet government in Kiev, USA who is committing genocide in the Donbass region. America's new addition to its Empire is funded with billions and millions supported by NATO and other mercenaries. Yet, Kiev still cannot complete its mission the US trained it for. Oleg Tsarov warned about the impish activities the US was performing before the protests began in Kiev. America started the war in Ukraine but like Goliath was slain by little David.

    US Started Ukraine Civil War *PROOF* Nov 20, 2013

    Oleg Tsarov, who was then the People's Deputy of Ukraine, talks about US preparations for civil war in Ukraine, November 2013 in Kiev parliament. Major protests began the day after his speech. You can hear the paid protesters chanting "Ukraine" in the background trying to keep him from speaking the truth. Later, April 14, 2014, Oleg was beaten by a mob when he was running for president but fortunately survived. His face was badly beaten as shown here. Remember, his speech was the day before the Maidan Protests. See the Timeline. In his speech he said:

    "...activists of the organization 'Volya' turned to me providing clear evidence that within our territory with support and direct participation of the US EMBASSY (in Kiev) the 'Tech Camp' project is realized under which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine.

    The project is currently overseen and under the responsibility of the US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt. After the conversation with the organization 'Volya'. I have learned they succeeded to access the facilities of 'Tech Camp' disguised as a team of IT specialists. To their surprise, briefings on the peculiarities of modern media were held. AMERICAN instructors explained how social networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well as to activate protest potential to provoke violent unrest in the territory of Ukraine; radicalization of the population triggering infighting.

    American instructors presented examples of successful use of social networks used to organize protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Recent conference took place Nov 14-15, 2013, in the heart of Kiev in the Embassy of the United States of America!

    Is it conceivable that representatives of the US Embassy which organize the 'Tech Camp' conferences misuse their diplomatic mission? UN resolution of December 21, 1965 regulates inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of a state to protect its independence and its sovereignty in accordance with paragraphs 1,2 and 5. I ask you to consider this as an official supplication to pursue an investigation of this case."

    Well, no investigation was ever made especially by the "land of the free". Vladimir Putin has asked the UN for help but they drag their feet. The US embassies have caused more damage than the Soviet Union has ever done. In the video, we can see Oleg and others knew about America's interference in Ukraine affairs. He wanted to stop the civil war and courageously ran for president to stop the impending bloodshed. Thousands of deaths could have been avoided if people had listened to him. He could not fight the tide of billions of dollars from Obama and the US Congress. The Nazis in Kiev had their way while Poroshenko sent men to their deaths. What a waste into a whirlpool of misery.

    Obama and Poroshenko told the army they were going to fight terrorists. The "terrorists" were innocent civilians. Kiev POW's were later paraded in front of the bombarded people as they got a dose of REALITY. If only Obama or Poroshenko had told them the truth that they were bombing civilians they thought. The Ukrainian army is full of city boys who are inexperienced, fighting in unknown territory. The Novorossia militia is filled with coal miners and other blue collar workers with many who have had combat experience in Chechnya or older men with experience from the Soviet-Afghanistan war.

    The militia has seen their children, wives, Mothers, Fathers, grandparents and close friends killed but their faith, as this touching video shows, helps them defend their land. The Ukrainian army was drafted and sent by seedy Obama and Poroshenko under the penalty of 5 yrs in jail if they did not fight. If you feel sorry for them as POW's then I hope you see the bodies or graves of the thousands of civilians who were killed by them. It is a tragedy for everyone involved. Even for Soros, Obama, Poroshenko, Kerry, Nuland, members of US Congress who approved this, the Nazis in Kiev, all will suffer far worse on Judgment Day unless they repent.

    The civil war continues in Ukraine but despite Kiev's effort to mask the number of their dead soldiers and POW's, Novorossia continues victory after victory on the battlefield. Ukraine army focuses on shelling civilians while Novorossia kills Kiev's soldiers or captures them. Sometimes they are returned to their Mothers as seen in this film.

    Donetsk Republic Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko from Novorossia argues with Kiev army officer in this powerful video. He said that the Kiev army succumbed to the coup:

    "To give away our own country to be looted by Americans and other European countries"

    That video is by Graham Phillips who does the job that the impotent lame stream media won't do in America. Bravo Graham! Many thanks to Kazzura for her translation of most of the videos.

    Notice in the West the so called journalists are nowhere to be found on the battlefield in Ukraine as this man was here. I am certainly not addressing the media like CNN, FOX, CBS and the other court jesters who are paid clowns in the freak show called "US government". They dare tell America lies about the war. I would force them to dig the graves of the dead. How quickly the mainstream media goose steps in unison blaming Russia as Hitler did. Showing them the truth would be like showing a burnt building to a pyromaniac. The US media is in the business of making money not telling the truth. Peace and truth don't make billions of dollars they say. Were they bribed or are they true liars? "The liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else." - George Bernard Shaw

    Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland was back in the news recently. In her efforts to support the US program against "Russia Today". "Noodle Head Nuland" belittled RT by saying "RT's tiny, tiny audience in the United States". Remember her? The Benghazi gal was first talking about Democracy in Ukraine with Chevron. Their version of "democracy and freedom" means war to the rest of the world. She was seen handing out food to protesters and police in Kiev. How nice she is sounding so sweet and so kind. She was later caught on tape saying "Fuck the EU" when discussing the setup of the Ukraine government. Later she was grilled by Republican Dana Rohrabacher where she admitted there were Nazis on Maidan. Yeah, I really trust that evil witch who learned her craft from Hillary.

    It is obvious to the world, but not to the West, that Kiev was overthrown by the US and EU. Although the US propaganda blames Russia for everything the OSCE has already disproven their claims. We wanted to show in our main video that Kiev was actually warned before Pandora's Box was opened. The blame is clearly on the US as instigators. They sowed the devil's seed.

    Nevertheless, those who were deceived by the US or went along with the evil knowingly are also to blame and bear the responsibility of misleading Ukraine. Kiev has now become the newest suffering colony in America's empire. The only real "Hope and Change" for the people of Donbass is fighting against Obama's tyranny and becoming the independent country of Novorossia. "Let Freedom Ring!" America has forgotten its meaning.

    Xavier Lerma. Contact Xavier Lerma at [email protected]

    [Sep 24, 2016] 9-11 Firefighter Blows WTC 7 Cover-Up Wide Open

    Impressive interview
    Notable quotes:
    "... That guy knows what he's talking about. It's about time someone came forward with what may be true according to what he saw and knows. ..."
    YouTube

    Infowars reporter Lee Ann McAdoo talks to Rudy Dent, 32 year veteran of NYC fire department and the NYPD, about his incredible first hand experience of the lies surrounding WTC 7.

    Jeanne O'Mara 13 hours ago

    This retired fireman feels that it was a a controlled demolition. He has never heard of a high rise being brought down by a fire. There were other bldgs that were hit by debris from the burning towers. He was also suspicious that all the evidence from WTC 7 was taken away and sent to china.

    The crime scene should have protected but wasn't. He believe as many now do that t was a "false Flag" operation to get people all riled up so they could get into react. He saw molten LAVA like pockets of steel which is like what you see when a volcano explodes. It's called pyroclastic flow. Thermite, a very special explosive was found and it can only be made a very specialized labs like Los Alamos.

    The bush family has a very creepy history. Prescott Bush had holdings in a bank that funded the Nazis (Union Bank). It was seized by the CONGRESS. The Harrimans were also involved w this bank.

    It's also clear that Bush Sr had a role in JFK's assassination. JFK had asked A. Harriman to negotiate w Vietnam and Harriman cross out that part. This was treason.

    lora savage 1 week ago

    That guy knows what he's talking about. It's about time someone came forward with what may be true according to what he saw and knows.

    [Sep 24, 2016] 9 11 John Kerry admits that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition!

    www.youtube.com
    al murphy 1 year ago
    9/11 is a cover-up and World Trade Center 7 collapse is the smoking gun. Why is that so?? WTC-7 fully collapsed in a manner that resembles a controlled demolition. For 2.25 seconds it collapsed at freefall and National Institute of Standards and Technology now admits this. In order for it to freefall for 2.25 seconds you need a uniform gap of approx. 80ft free of any physical impediments (equivalent of blowing out 7 floors almost instantaneously).

    Fire is not magic and cannot do that and only can be precisely done through human intervention. It takes the prepositioning of demolition components that are finely timed throughout the building to accomplish this. WTC-7 had GOV agencies as part of its tenant (US Secret Service, CIA, IRS, DOD...) With tenants like that it is impossible for an outsider to get access to the building to preposition demolition components. Whoever did had to have their consent!

    [Sep 24, 2016] The Meaning of the Trump Surge

    Notable quotes:
    "... telling pollsters that they now favor the Donald seems to be the only way many people have to tell Hillary and the people around her what they think of them. ..."
    Sep 24, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org

    And Jill Stein is eager to do so now. She could do a far better job than Sanders too, because her progressive vision, unlike his, doesn't end at the country's borders. She, unlike he, would at least try to take American imperialism on.

    But in the actual world, Jill Stein is still "Jill who?," and telling pollsters that they now favor the Donald seems to be the only way many people have to tell Hillary and the people around her what they think of them.

    [Sep 24, 2016] Income Inequality in a Globalising World

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Miguel Nińo-Zarazúa, Research Fellow, UNU-WIDE, Laurence Roope, Researcher, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, and Finn Tarp, Director, UNU-WIDER. Originally published at VoxEU ..."
    "... See original post for references ..."
    "... John Ross argues that the reduction in poverty has been pretty much all China. I'm also not convinced China is actually that much richer than before. A sweatshop worker has a higher income than a traditional farmer, but probably has a lower standard of living, and while the traditional farmer maintains the natural resource base, the industrial worker destroys it. ..."
    "... Globalization is an economic and ecological disaster. We have outsourced wealth creation to China and they do it in the most polluting way possible, turning their country into a toxic waste dump in the process. ..."
    "... The peasants slaving away in the cinder block hellholes of their factories churning out the crapola on Wal-Mart's shelves also get paid squat, while the leaders of the Chinese Criminal Party steal half of their effort for themselves and smuggle the loot out, to get away from the pollution. The other half gets stolen by the likes of Wal-Mart and Apple. ..."
    "... The elites sold globalization as something that would generate such a munificent surplus that those in harms way would be helped. It ends up as a lie, where the elites the world over help themselves to the stolen sweat of the lowest people in society, with nothing left over, except for a polluted planet. ..."
    "... Yes, those who "have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years" are indeed experiencing "considerable discontent." But this anodyne phrasing masks the reality of entire communities seeing their means of livelihood ripped out and shipped across the globe. This rhetoric makes it sound like, Oh those prosperous American workers can't buy as many luxuries now, boo hoo, when the standard practice from NAFTA on of globalization-as-corporate-welfare has meant real impoverishment for hundreds of thousands of individuals, entire cities and large chunks of whole states. As Lambert always says, Whose economy? ..."
    Sep 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ...if you look at absolute inequality, as opposed to relative inequality, inequality has increased around the world. This calls into question one of the big arguments made in favor of globalization: that the cost to workers in advanced economies are offset by gains to workers in developing economies, and is thus virtuous by lowering inequality more broadly measured.

    By Miguel Nińo-Zarazúa, Research Fellow, UNU-WIDE, Laurence Roope, Researcher, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, and Finn Tarp, Director, UNU-WIDER. Originally published at VoxEU

    Since the turn of the century, inequality in the distribution of income, together with concerns over the pace and nature of globalisation, have risen to be among the most prominent policy issues of our time. These concerns took centre stage at the recent annual G20 summit in China. From President Obama to President Xi, there was broad agreement that the global economy needs more inclusive and sustainable growth, where the economic pie increases in size and is at the same time divided more fairly. As President Obama emphasised, "[t]he international order is under strain." The consensus is well founded, following as it does the recent Brexit vote, and the rise of populism (especially on the right) in the US and Europe, with its hard stance against free trade agreements, capital flows and migration.

    ... ... ...

    The inclusivity aspect of growth is now more imperative than ever. Globalisation has not been a zero sum game. Overall perhaps more have benefitted, especially in fast-growing economies in the developing world. However, many others, for example among the working middle class in industrialised nations, have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years. It is unsurprising that this has bred considerable discontent, and it is an urgent priority that concrete steps are taken to reduce the underlying sources of this discontent. Those who feel they have not benefitted, and those who have even lost from globalisation, have legitimate reasons for their discontent. Appropriate action will require not only the provision of social protection to the poorest and most vulnerable. It is essential that the very nature of the ongoing processes of globalisation, growth, and economic transformation are scrutinised, and that broad based investments are made in education, skills, and health, particularly among relatively disadvantaged groups. Only in this way will the world experience sustained – and sustainable – economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come.

    See original post for references

    tony , September 23, 2016 at 7:20 am

    http://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2013/11/china-world-poverty.html

    John Ross argues that the reduction in poverty has been pretty much all China. I'm also not convinced China is actually that much richer than before. A sweatshop worker has a higher income than a traditional farmer, but probably has a lower standard of living, and while the traditional farmer maintains the natural resource base, the industrial worker destroys it.

    cnchal , September 23, 2016 at 7:32 am

    Only in this way will the world experience sustained – and sustainable – economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come.

    Globalization is an economic and ecological disaster. We have outsourced wealth creation to China and they do it in the most polluting way possible, turning their country into a toxic waste dump in the process.

    The peasants slaving away in the cinder block hellholes of their factories churning out the crapola on Wal-Mart's shelves also get paid squat, while the leaders of the Chinese Criminal Party steal half of their effort for themselves and smuggle the loot out, to get away from the pollution. The other half gets stolen by the likes of Wal-Mart and Apple.

    The elites sold globalization as something that would generate such a munificent surplus that those in harms way would be helped. It ends up as a lie, where the elites the world over help themselves to the stolen sweat of the lowest people in society, with nothing left over, except for a polluted planet.

    Sustainable economic growth is an oxymoron.

    Sally Snyder , September 23, 2016 at 7:35 am

    Here is an article that looks at the relationship between wealth and ethnicity/race in the United States:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/08/the-growing-ethnicracial-wealth-gap.html

    The notable presence of public policies that exacerbate racial and economic inequality and the lack of will by Washington to change the system mean that the ethnic/racial wealth gap is becoming more firmly entrenched in society.

    tegnost , September 23, 2016 at 10:15 am

    Good article but standard policy prescription…

    "broad based investments are made in education, skills, and health, particularly among relatively disadvantaged groups. Only in this way will the world experience sustained – and sustainable – economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come."

    …I guess if the skills were sustainable low chemical and diverse farming in 5 acre lots or in co-ops then I might have less complaint, however the skills people apparently are going to need are supervising robots and going to non jobs in autonomous vehicles and being fed on chemical mush shaped like things we used to eat, a grim dystopia.

    Yesterday I had the unpleasant experience of reading the hard copy nyt wherein kristof opined that hey it's not so bad, extreme poverty has eased (the same as in this article, but without this article's Vietnamese example where 1 v. 8 becomes 8 v. 80),ignoring the relative difference while on another lackluster page there was an article saying immigrants don't take jobs from citizens which had to be one of the most thinly veiled press releases of some study made by some important sounding acronym and and, of course a supposed "balance" between pro and anti immigration academics. because in this case, they claim we're relatively better off.

    So there you have it, it's all relative. Bi color bird cage liner, dedicated to the ever shrinking population of affluent/wealthy who are relatively better off as opposed to the ever increasing population of people who are actually worse off…There was also an article on the desert dwelling uighur and their system of canals bringing glacier water to farm their arid land which showed some people who were fine for thousands of years, but now thanks to fracking, industrial pollution and less community involvement (kids used to clean the karatz, keeping it healthy) now these people can be uplifted into the modern world(…so great…) that was reminiscent of the nyt of olde which presented the conundrum but left out the policy prescription which now always seems to be "the richer I get the less extreme poverty there is in the world so stop your whining and borrow a few hundred thousand to buy a PhD "

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/world/asia/china-xinjiang-turpan-water.html

    timotheus , September 23, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    Yes, those who "have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years" are indeed experiencing "considerable discontent." But this anodyne phrasing masks the reality of entire communities seeing their means of livelihood ripped out and shipped across the globe. This rhetoric makes it sound like, Oh those prosperous American workers can't buy as many luxuries now, boo hoo, when the standard practice from NAFTA on of globalization-as-corporate-welfare has meant real impoverishment for hundreds of thousands of individuals, entire cities and large chunks of whole states. As Lambert always says, Whose economy?

    sgt_doom , September 23, 2016 at 4:47 pm

    Great comments, timotheus , great comments!

    Three reading recommendations for anyone who doesn't grasp your sentiment, shared by millions: Sold Out , by Michelle Malkin Outsourcing America , by Ron Hira America: Who Stole the Dream? , by Donald L. Barlett Reply

    [Sep 23, 2016] Rise Of The Deplorables

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Deplorables! ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | strata-sphere.com
    Published by AJStrata under 2016 Elections , All General Discussions Update : Many more Proud Deplorables here – End Update

    Hillary just can't help herself. Her political instincts (and those of her campaign) are just plain stupid. Everything backfires on her, probably because she is living in a fantasy bubble called the Political Industrial Complex (PIC).

    The Political Industrial Complex encompasses all those elites whose livelihoods are predicated on central-control of resources and who determine who is allowed to succeed in society. It is a bipartisan exclusive club. It includes the Politicians and their career staffers. It includes crony donors and lobbyists who reap government windfalls and special treatment that average citizens cannot obtain. It includes the PIC industrial base of pollsters, consultants, etc. And it includes the pliant news media, whose success rest on access to those in power, and in return for access making sure no bad news will disrupt said power.

    This strange and bizarre parallel universe is where all the political elites hang out – isolated from Main Street America (and the commoner world as well). The denizens of the PIC are very wealthy, very cozy with each other and one of they live in the most dense echo chamber on the planet.

    Hillary is just the epitome of Political Correctness dripping from the center of the PIC.

    But now Hillary has created a massive movement in the country, outside the PIC. She has created " The Deplorables! ".

    It is becoming a badge of honor to be feared and attacked by the PIC. It is becoming fun to watch members of the PIC just collapse into lick-spittle rage, as the voters reject their self-anointed brilliance. For example :

    Hillary, you recently labeled me - and millions of Americans like me - "deplorable."

    I am not deplorable. What I am is your worst nightmare: a woman, a mother and a voter who sees right through you.

    In your remarks to an LGBT group, with liberal millionaire mouthpiece Barbra Streisand hosting your appearance, you waved your invisible scepter and banished millions of people from respectable society, just because you felt like it.

    "Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it," you said last Friday. "There are people like that, and [Trump] has lifted them up."

    Well, I'm concerned about national security, supportive of law enforcement, and a believer in traditional marriage. How does that make me "deplorable?"

    There is even a great riff on how to determine if you too are "A Deplorable!" (similar to Foxworthy's "you might be a redneck, if…")

    You may be a deplorable if you just got your car inspected.

    If you're deployable, you're definitely deplorable.

    If you wake before noon, if you call Islamic terrorists Islamic terrorists, if you don't have an Obamaphone and you don't believe that global warming is "settled science" - can you say deplorable?

    Or if while watching the second Monday night NFL game you were less irritated by the streaker than you were by all the fawning coverage of Colin Kaepernick on the pre-game show.

    You may be a deplorable if you resent training your H1-B replacement.

    Or the fact that the Earned Income Tax Credit is NOT earned.

    Nothing says deplorable like the National Rifle Association.

    Hillary wanted to brand Trump Voters as subhuman (well, at least below the standards of the PIC). But by giving them a name, she gave them a rallying point, a joint cause.

    Honestly, how could she have helped Trump even more? Given her political skills I am sure we will find out soon enough.

    Image from The Conservative Treehouse

    Tags: Clinton , Deplorable , Election 2016 , Trump

    [Sep 22, 2016] The Hidden Smoking Gun the Combetta Cover-Up Clinton Email Investigation Timeline

    This is a really outstanding article.
    Notable quotes:
    "... When Samuelson described the sorting process in her FBI interview , she said that her first step was to find all the emails to or from Clinton and the people she regularly worked with in the State Department, and put all of those emails in the "work-related" category. ..."
    "... But from the Abedin emails released so far, about 200 are previously unreleased emails between her and Clinton . Anyone who looks at these can see that the vast majority, if not all, of them are work-related. ..."
    "... The Abedin emails released so far are only a small percentage of all her emails that are going to be released on a monthly basis well into 2017 . It is likely that Clinton's supposed 31,000 "personal" emails contain thousands of work-related emails to and from Abedin alone. Consider that only about 15% of the 30,000 Clinton emails released so far were between her and Abedin. ..."
    "... It is further worth noting that these emails were not handed over with the rest of Clinton's 30,000 work-related emails, despite clearly being work-related, but were somehow uncovered by the State Department inspector general 's office. Those very emails are good examples of the kind of material Clinton may have tried to keep secret by controlling the sorting process. ..."
    "... How many more headlines like that would there be if all 31,000 deleted emails became public before the November 2016 presidential election? It's easy to imagine a political motive for Clinton wanting to keep some work-related emails secret. ..."
    "... on or around December 2014 or January 2015 , Mills and Samuelson requested that [Platte River Networks (PRN) employee Paul Combetta] remove from their laptops all of the emails from the July and September 2014 exports. [Combetta] used a program called BleachBit to delete the email-related files so they could not be recovered." ..."
    "... With the emails of Mills and Samuelson wiped clean, and the old version of the server wiped clean, that left just two known copies of the emails: one on the new server, and one on the back-up Datto SIRIS device connected to the new server. ..."
    "... Mills was interviewed by the FBI in April 2016 . She claimed that in December 2014 , Clinton decided she no longer needed access to any of her emails older than 60 days . Note that this came not long after the State Department formally asked Clinton for all of her work-related emails, on October 28, 2014 . Mills told the FBI that she instructed Combetta to modify the email retention policy on Clinton's clintonemail.com email account to reflect this change. Emails older than 60 days would then be overwritten several times, wiping them just as effectively as BleachBit. ..."
    "... So although the retention policy change sounds like a mere technicality, in fact, Clinton passed the message through Mills that she wanted all her emails from when she was secretary of state to be permanently wiped. ..."
    "... Think about Clinton wanting to delete all her old "personal" emails. As a politician with a wide network of contributors and supporters, the information in them could be highly valuable for her. For instance, if a major donor contacted her, she probably would want to review their past correspondence before responding. She'd preserved these emails for nearly two years, but just when investigators started to demand to see them, she decided she didn't want ANY of them, and all traces of them should be permanently wiped. And yet we're supposed to believe the timing is just a coincidence? ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... According to what Combetta later told the FBI, at some point between these two calls, he had an "Oh shit!" moment and remembered that he'd forgotten to make the requested retention policy change back in December . So, even though he told the FBI that he was aware of the emails from Mills mentioning the Congressional request to preserve all of Clinton's emails, he took action. ..."
    "... the Datto backups of the server were also manually deleted during this timeframe ." ..."
    "... Already, Combetta's behavior is damning. He didn't just change the data retention policy, as Mills had asked him to do, causing them to be permanently deleted 60 days later. He immediately deleted all of Clinton's emails and then wiped them for good measure, and almost certainly deleted them from the Datto back-up device too. ..."
    "... To make matters worse for Combetta, on March 20, 2015 , the House Benghazi Committee sent a letter to Clinton's lawyer Kendall , asking Clinton to turn her server over to a neutral third party so it could be examined to see if any work-related emails were still on it. This was reported in the New York Times ..."
    "... However, despite all these clear signs that the emails should be preserved, not only did Combetta confess in an FBI interview that "at the time he made the deletions in March 2015 , he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's email data on the [server]," he said that " he did not receive guidance from other PRN personnel, PRN's legal counsel or others regarding the meaning of the preservation request." So he confessed to obstruction of justice and other possible crimes, all to the apparent benefit of Clinton instead of himself! ..."
    "... The FBI interviewed PRN's staff in September 2015. This almost certainly included Combetta and Bill Thornton, because they were the only two PRN employees actively managing Clinton's server. ..."
    "... The fact that the FBI falsely claimed Combetta was only interviewed twice grows in importance given a recent New York Times ..."
    "... Then, in May 2016 , he completely changed his story. He said that in fact he did make the deletions in late March 2015 after all, plus he'd wiped her emails with BleachBit, as described earlier. He also confessed to being aware of the Mills email with the preservation request. ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... For the FBI to give Combetta an immunity deal and then still not learn if he had been told to delete the emails by anyone working for Clinton due to a completely legally indefensible "attorney-client privilege" excuse is beyond belief. It would make sense, however, if the FBI was actually trying to protect Clinton from prosecution instead of trying to find evidence to prosecute her. ..."
    "... In one Reddit post , he asked other server managers: "I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a .pst file. Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out. Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?" ..."
    "... Recall how Clinton allegedly claimed she didn't want to keep any of her deleted emails. It looks like that wasn't true after all. It sounds exactly as if Mills or someone else working for Clinton told him to make it look like all the "personal" emails were permanently deleted due to the 60 day policy change, while actually keeping copies of emails they still wanted. ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... First off, it's interesting that he said he did "a bunch" of "email filters and cleanup," because what has been reported by the FBI is that he only made a copy of all of Clinton's email and sent them off to be sorted in late July 2014 . That fits with his July 2014 Reddit post where he was trying to modify somebody's email address. ..."
    "... For now, let us turn back to events in the fall of 2015 . In mid-August 2015 , Senator Ron Johnson (R) asked for and got a staff-level briefing from PRN about the management of Clinton's server, as part of Republican Congressional oversight of the FBI's investigation. It seems very likely that Combetta was a part of that briefing, or at least his knowledge heavily informed the briefing, because again only two PRN employees actively managed her server, and he was one of them. ..."
    "... The dishonesty or ignorance of PRN in this time period can be clearly seen due to a September 12, 2015 Washington Post ..."
    "... Datto expressed a willingness to cooperate. But because Datto had been subcontracted by PRN to help manage Clinton's server, they needed PRN's permission to share any information relating to that account. When PRN was first asked in early October 2015 , they gave permission. But about a week later, they changed their mind , forcing Datto to stay quiet. ..."
    "... But more importantly, consider what was mentioned in an NBC News ..."
    "... In an August 18, 2015 email, Combetta expressed concern that CESC, the Clinton family company, had directed PRN to reduce the length of time backups, and PRN wanted proof of this so they wouldn't be blamed. But he said in the email, "this was all phone comms [communications]." ..."
    "... On September 2, 2016 , the FBI's final report of their Clinton email investigation was released (along with a summary of Clinton's FBI interview). This report revealed the late March 2015 deletions for the first time. Combetta's name was redacted, but his role, as well as his immunity deal, was revealed in the New York Times ..."
    "... Chaffetz also wants an explanation from PRN how Combetta could refuse to talk to the FBI about the conference calls if the only lawyers involved in the call were Clinton's. ..."
    "... PRN employees Combetta and Thornton were also given subpoenas on September 8 , ordering them to testify at a Congressional hearing on September 13, 2016 . Both of them showed up with their lawyers, but both of them pled the Fifth , leaving many questions unanswered. ..."
    "... In a Senate speech on September 12, 2016 , Senator Charles Grassley (R) accused the FBI of manipulating which information about the Clinton email investigation becomes public . He said that although the FBI has taken the unusual step of releasing the FBI's final report, "its summary is misleading or inaccurate in some key details and leaves out other important facts altogether." He pointed in particular to Combetta's deletions, saying: "[T]here is key information related to that issue that is still being kept secret, even though it is unclassified. If I honor the FBI's 'instruction' not to disclose the unclassified information it provided to Congress, I cannot explain why." ..."
    "... Regarding the FBI's failure to inform Congressional oversight committees of Combetta's immunity deal, Representative Trey Gowdy (R) recently commented, "If there is a reason to withhold the immunity agreement from Congress-and by extension, the people we represent-I cannot think of what it would be." ..."
    "... The behavior of the FBI is even stranger. Comey was a registered Republican most of his life, and it is well known that most FBI agents are politically conservative. Be that as it may, if Comey made a decision beforehand based on some political calculation to avoid indicting Clinton no matter what the actual evidence was, that the FBI's peculiar behavior specifically relating to the Combetta deletions make much more sense. It would be an unprecedented and bold move to recommend indicting someone with Hillary Clinton's power right in the middle of her presidential election campaign. ..."
    "... In this scenario, the FBI having Combetta take the fall for the deletions while making a secret immunity deal with him is a particularly clever move to prevent anyone from being indicted. Note that Combetta's confession about making the deletions came in his May 2016 FBI interview, which came after Mills' April 2016 interview in which she claimed she'd never heard of any deletions. Thus, the only way to have Combetta take the fall for the deletions without Mills getting caught clearly lying to the FBI is by dodging the issue of what was said in the March 31, 2015 conference with a nonsensical claim of "attorney-client privilege." ..."
    "... I believe that criminal behavior needs to be properly investigated and prosecuted, regardless of political persuasion and regardless of the election calendar. Combetta clearly committed a crime and he even confessed to do so, given what he admitted in his last FBI interview. If he got a limited immunity deal instead of blanket immunity, which is highly likely, it still would be possible to indict and convict him based on evidence outside of his interviews. That would help explain why he recently pled the Fifth, because he's still in legal danger. ..."
    "... But more importantly, who else is guilty with him? Logic and the available evidence strongly suggest that Clinton's lawyer Cheryl Mills at least knew about the deletions at the time they happened. Combetta has already confessed to criminal behavior-and yet somehow hasn't even been fired by PRN. If he didn't at least tell Mills and the others in the conference call about the deletions, there would be no logical reason to assert attorney-client privilege in the first place. Only the nonsensical assertion of this privilege is preventing the evidence coming out that should lead to Mills being charged with lying to the FBI at a minimum. And if Mills knew, can anyone seriously believe that Clinton didn't know too? ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.thompsontimeline.com
    To understand the 2015 deletions , we have to start further back in time, in June 2013 . Clinton had ended her four-year tenure as secretary of state earlier in 2013 , and she hired the Platte River Networks (PRN) computer company to manage her private email server. This was a puzzling hire, to say the least, because PRN was based in Denver, Colorado, far from Clinton's homes in New York and Washington, DC, and the company was so small that their office was actually an apartment in an ordinary apartment building with no security alarm system. The company wasn't cleared to handle classified information, nobody in it had a security clearance, and it hadn't even handled an important out of state contract before.

    PRN assigned two employees to handle the Clinton account: Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton . In late June 2013 , these two employees moved Clinton's server from her house in Chappaqua, New York, to an Equinix data center in Secaucus, New Jersey. They removed all the data from the server, moved it to a new server, and then wiped the old server clean. Both the new and old server were kept running at the data center. At the same time, PRN subcontracted Datto, Inc. , to back up the data on the new server. A Datto SIRIS S2000 was bought and connected to the server , functioning like an external hard drive to make periodic back-ups.

    ... ... ...

    Clinton's emails get sorted

    Fast forward to the middle of 2014 . The House Benghazi Committee was formed to investigate the US government's actions surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya , and soon a handful of emails were discovered relating to this attack involving Clinton's [email protected] email address. At this point, nobody outside of Clinton's inner circle of associates knew she had exclusively used that private email account for all her email communications while she was secretary of state, or that she'd hosted it on her own private email server.

    The Benghazi Committee began pressing the State Department for more relevant emails from Clinton. The State Department in turn began privately pressing Clinton to turn over all her work-related emails.

    Cheryl Mills (left) David Kendall (center) and Heather Samuelson (Credit: public domain)

    Cheryl Mills (left) David Kendall (center) and Heather Samuelson (Credit: public domain)

    Instead of turning over all her emails, Clinton decided to have them sorted into work-related and personal, and then only turn over the work-related ones. She gave this task to three of her lawyers : Cheryl Mills (Clinton's former chief of staff), David Kendall (Clinton's longtime personal lawyer), and Heather Samuelson (a relatively inexperienced State Department staffer during Clinton's tenure). It seems Samuelson did most of the sorting , even though she had no experience for this task nor any security clearance .

    It was decided that over 30,000 emails were work-related, and those were turned over to the State Department on December 5, 2014 . These have all since been publicly released, though with redactions. Another over 31,000 emails were deemed personal , and Clinton kept those. They were later deleted in controversial circumstances that this essay explores in detail.

    It has become increasingly clear in recent months that this sorting process was highly flawed. Clinton has said any emails that were borderline cases were given to the State Department, just to be on the safe side. But in fact, the FBI later recovered about 17,500 of Clinton's "personal" emails . It is probable no government agency has yet gone through all of these to officially determine which ones were work-related and which ones were not, but FBI Director James Comey has said that " thousands " were work-related.

    We can get a glimpse of just how flawed the sorting process was because hundreds of emails from Huma Abedin have been released in recent months, as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit . Abedin was Clinton's deputy chief of staff and still is one of her closest aides.

    When Samuelson described the sorting process in her FBI interview , she said that her first step was to find all the emails to or from Clinton and the people she regularly worked with in the State Department, and put all of those emails in the "work-related" category.

    But from the Abedin emails released so far, about 200 are previously unreleased emails between her and Clinton . Anyone who looks at these can see that the vast majority, if not all, of them are work-related. Many involve Abedin's state.gov government address, not her clintonemail.com private address, so how on Earth did Samuelson's sorting process miss those? It has even come to light recently that a small number of emails mentioning "Benghazi" have been found in the 17,500 recovered by the FBI, but Samuelson told the FBI she had specifically searched for all emails using that word.

    A sample of an email between Clinton and Abedin using her state.gove address. (Credit: public domain)

    A sample of an email between Clinton and Abedin using her state.gov address. (Credit: public domain)

    The Abedin emails released so far are only a small percentage of all her emails that are going to be released on a monthly basis well into 2017 . It is likely that Clinton's supposed 31,000 "personal" emails contain thousands of work-related emails to and from Abedin alone. Consider that only about 15% of the 30,000 Clinton emails released so far were between her and Abedin. If the rest of her deleted emails follow the same pattern as the Abedin ones, it is highly likely that the majority, and maybe even the vast majority, of Clinton's deleted "personal" emails in fact are work-related.

    ... ... ...

    FBI Director Comey has said he trusts that Clinton had made a sincere sorting effort, but the sheer number of work-related emails that keep getting discovered suggests otherwise. Furthermore, logic and other evidence also suggest otherwise. For instance, in home video footage from a private fundraiser in 2000 , Clinton talked about how she had deliberately avoided using email so she wouldn't leave a paper trail: "As much as I've been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I? I don't even want Why would I ever want to do email? Can you imagine?"

    Practical considerations forced her to start using email a few years later. But what if her exclusive use of a private email address on her own private server was not done out of " convenience " as she claims, but so she could retain control of them, only turning over emails to FOIA requests and later government investigators that she wanted to?

    Note also that in a November 2010 email exchange between Clinton and Abedin, Abedin suggested that Clinton might want to use a State Department email account due because the department computer system kept flagging emails from her private email account as spam. Clinton replied that she was open to some kind of change, but " I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible ." It is further worth noting that these emails were not handed over with the rest of Clinton's 30,000 work-related emails, despite clearly being work-related, but were somehow uncovered by the State Department inspector general 's office. Those very emails are good examples of the kind of material Clinton may have tried to keep secret by controlling the sorting process.

    Consider that out of the relatively small number of deleted emails that have been made public due to the Abedin monthly releases, a handful of them have created headlines about possible conflicts of interest between Clinton's secretary of state job and the Clinton Foundation . How many more headlines like that would there be if all 31,000 deleted emails became public before the November 2016 presidential election? It's easy to imagine a political motive for Clinton wanting to keep some work-related emails secret.

    ... ... ...

    The deletions begin

    Heather Samuelson (Credit: Getty Images)

    Heather Samuelson (Credit: Getty Images)

    This essay will explore this possibility more later. But if it is the case that she wanted to keep those 31,000 "personal" emails out of the public eye, she had obstacles to overcome. In 2014 , PRN had managerial control of both Clinton's new and old server. Thus, in July 2014 and again in September 2014 , PRN employee Combetta had to send copies of all the emails to the laptop of Clinton lawyer Cheryl Mills, and another copy to the laptop of Clinton lawyer Heather Samuelson, to be used for the sorting process.

    With the sorting done, if Clinton didn't want the public to ever see her deleted emails, you would expect all these copies of those emails to be permanently deleted, and that's exactly what happened. According to a later FBI report, " on or around December 2014 or January 2015 , Mills and Samuelson requested that [Platte River Networks (PRN) employee Paul Combetta] remove from their laptops all of the emails from the July and September 2014 exports. [Combetta] used a program called BleachBit to delete the email-related files so they could not be recovered."

    The FBI report explained, "BleachBit is open source software that allows users to 'shred' files, clear Internet history, delete system and temporary files, and wipe free space on a hard drive. Free space is the area of the hard drive that can contain data that has been deleted. BleachBit's 'shred files' function claims to securely erase files by overwriting data to make the data unrecoverable." BleachBit advertises that it can "shred" files so they can never be recovered again.

    With the emails of Mills and Samuelson wiped clean, and the old version of the server wiped clean, that left just two known copies of the emails: one on the new server, and one on the back-up Datto SIRIS device connected to the new server.

    Mills was interviewed by the FBI in April 2016 . She claimed that in December 2014 , Clinton decided she no longer needed access to any of her emails older than 60 days . Note that this came not long after the State Department formally asked Clinton for all of her work-related emails, on October 28, 2014 . Mills told the FBI that she instructed Combetta to modify the email retention policy on Clinton's clintonemail.com email account to reflect this change. Emails older than 60 days would then be overwritten several times, wiping them just as effectively as BleachBit.

    Clinton essentially said the same thing as Mills when she was interviewed by the FBI . Clinton also was interviewed by the FBI. According to the FBI summary of the interview, she claimed that after her staff sent the 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department on December 5, 2014 , "she was asked what she wanted to do with her remaining [31,000] personal emails. Clinton instructed her staff she no longer needed the emails."

    So although the retention policy change sounds like a mere technicality, in fact, Clinton passed the message through Mills that she wanted all her emails from when she was secretary of state to be permanently wiped.

    Think about Clinton wanting to delete all her old "personal" emails. As a politician with a wide network of contributors and supporters, the information in them could be highly valuable for her. For instance, if a major donor contacted her, she probably would want to review their past correspondence before responding. She'd preserved these emails for nearly two years, but just when investigators started to demand to see them, she decided she didn't want ANY of them, and all traces of them should be permanently wiped. And yet we're supposed to believe the timing is just a coincidence?

    But there was a problem with deleting them. Combetta later claimed that he simply forgot to make this change.

    More than two months passed, which meant all of Clinton's deleted emails should have been permanently wiped already. Meanwhile, the House Benghazi Committee and others were making more requests to see her emails . In January 2015 , a reporter even filed a FOIA request in court for all of her emails .

    Then, on March 2, 2015 , the headline on the front page of the New York Times was a story revealing that while Clinton was secretary of state, she had exclusively used a private email address hosted on her private server, thus keeping all of her email communications secret. This became THE big story of the month, and the start of a high-profile controversy that continues until today.

    On December 2, 2014 , the House Benghazi Committee had asked Clinton for all Benghazi-related emails from her personal email address. But one day after the New York Times blockbuster story, the committee sent Clinton a letter asking her to preserve ALL her emails from that address.

    Then, a day after that, on March 4, 2015 , the committee issued two subpoenas to her . One subpoena ordered her to turn over all emails relating to the Benghazi attack. The committee had already received about 300 such emails from the State Department in February 2015 , but after the Times story, the committee worried that the department might not have some of her relevant emails. (That would later prove to be the case, given the small number of Benghazi emails eventually recovered by the FBI.) The second subpoena ordered her to turn over documents it requested in November 2014 but still has not received from the State Department, relating to communications between Clinton and ten senior department officials.

    Cheryl Mills (Credit: Twitter)

    Cheryl Mills (Credit: Twitter)

    If Clinton had already deleted her emails to keep them from future investigators, these requests shouldn't have been a problem. On March 9, 2015 , Mills sent an email to PRN employees , including Combetta, to make sure they were aware of the committee's request that all of Clinton's emails be preserved. One can see this as a CYA ("cover your ass") move, since Mills would have believed all copies of Clinton's "personal" emails had been permanently deleted and wiped by this time. The Times story and the requests for copies of Clinton's emails that followed had seemingly come too late.

    But that wasn't actually the case, since Combetta had forgotten to make the deletions!


    Combetta deletes everything that is left

    Sitting behind Combetta is co-founder of Platte River Brent Allshouse (left) and PRN attorney, Ken Eichner. (Credit: CSpan)

    Sitting behind Combetta is co-founder of Platte River Brent Allshouse (left) and PRN attorney, Ken Eichner. (Credit: CSpan)

    According to a later Combetta FBI interview, he claimed that on March 25, 2015, there was a conference call between PRN employees , including himself, and some members of Bill Clinton's staff. (Hillary Clinton's private server hosted the emails of Bill Clinton's staff too, and one unnamed staffer hired PRN back in 2013 .) There was another conference call between PRN and Clinton staffers on March 31, 2015 , with at least Combetta, Mills, and Clinton lawyer David Kendall taking part in that later call.

    According to what Combetta later told the FBI, at some point between these two calls, he had an "Oh shit!" moment and remembered that he'd forgotten to make the requested retention policy change back in December . So, even though he told the FBI that he was aware of the emails from Mills mentioning the Congressional request to preserve all of Clinton's emails, he took action. Instead of simply making the retention policy change, which would have preserved the emails for another two months, he immediately deleted all of Clinton's emails from her server. Then he used BleachBit to permanently wipe them.

    The Datto SIRIS S2000 was used for back-up services. (Credit: Datto, Inc.)

    The Datto SIRIS S2000 was used for back-up services. (Credit: Datto, Inc.)

    However, recall that there was a Datto SIRIS back-up device connected to the server and periodically making copies of all the data on the server. Apparently, Combetta didn't mention this to the FBI, but the FBI found "evidence of these [server] deletions and determined the Datto backups of the server were also manually deleted during this timeframe ." The Datto device sent a records log back to the Datto company whenever any changes were made, and according to a letter from Datto to the FBI that later became public, the deletions on the device were made around noon on March 31, 2015 , the same date as the second conference call. (Although the server and Datto device were in New Jersey and Combetta was working remotely from Rhode Island, he could make changes remotely, as he or other PRN employees did on other occasions.)

    A recent Congressional committee letter mentioned that the other deletions were also made on or around March 31, 2015 . So it's probable they were all done at the same time by the same person: Combetta.

    Already, Combetta's behavior is damning. He didn't just change the data retention policy, as Mills had asked him to do, causing them to be permanently deleted 60 days later. He immediately deleted all of Clinton's emails and then wiped them for good measure, and almost certainly deleted them from the Datto back-up device too.

    The FBI's Clinton email investigation didn't formally begin until July 10, 2015 -more than two months after Combetta took those actions. However, State Department inspector general Steve Linick began investigating Clinton's email usage in April 2015 , and he could have given her an order to preserve all her documents-we don't know. Furthermore, CNN has reported that the FBI investigation actually began informally in late May 2015 , which is less than two months after the deletions. So Combetta could have prevented the State Department and/or the FBI from easily recovering all the emails in time.

    To make matters worse for Combetta, on March 20, 2015 , the House Benghazi Committee sent a letter to Clinton's lawyer Kendall , asking Clinton to turn her server over to a neutral third party so it could be examined to see if any work-related emails were still on it. This was reported in the New York Times and other media outlets.

    Then, on March 27, 2015 , Kendall replied to the committee in a letter that also was reported on by the Times and others that same day. Kendall wrote, "There is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server To avoid prolonging a discussion that would be academic, I have confirmed with the secretary's IT [information technology] support that no emails for the time period January 21, 2009 through February 1, 2013 reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server."

    David Kendall (Credit: Above the Law)

    David Kendall (Credit: Above the Law)

    When Kendall mentioned Clinton's IT support, that had to have been a reference to PRN. So what actually happened? Did Kendall or someone else working for Clinton ask Combetta and/or other PRN employees if there were any emails still on the server in the March 25, 2015 conference call, just two days before he sent his letter? Did Combetta lie in that call and say they were already deleted and then rush to delete them afterwards to cover up his mistake? Or did someone working for Clinton tell or hint that he should delete them now if they hadn't been deleted already? We don't know, because the FBI has revealed nothing about what was said in that conference call or the one that took place a week later.

    However, despite all these clear signs that the emails should be preserved, not only did Combetta confess in an FBI interview that "at the time he made the deletions in March 2015 , he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's email data on the [server]," he said that " he did not receive guidance from other PRN personnel, PRN's legal counsel or others regarding the meaning of the preservation request." So he confessed to obstruction of justice and other possible crimes, all to the apparent benefit of Clinton instead of himself!


    Investigations and cover-ups

    This is perplexing enough already, but it gets stranger still, if we continue to follow the behavior of Combetta and PRN as a whole.

    An inside look at the Equinix facility in Secaucus, NJ. (Credit: Chang W. Lee / New York Time)

    An inside look at the Equinix facility in Secaucus, NJ. (Credit: Chang W. Lee / New York Time)

    By August 2015 , the FBI's Clinton investigation was in full swing, and they began interviewing witnesses and confiscating equipment for analysis. Because the FBI never empanelled a grand jury, it didn't have subpoena power, so it had to ask Clinton for permission to seize her server. She gave that permission on August 11, 2015 , and the server was picked up from the data center in New Jersey the next day . But remember that there actually were two servers there, an old one and a new one. All the data had been wiped from the old one and moved to the new one, so the new one was the more important one to analyze. But the FBI only picked up the old one.

    According to the FBI's final report, "At the time of the FBI's acquisition of the [server], Williams & Connolly [the law firm of Clinton's personal lawyer David Kendall] did not advise the US government of the existence of the additional equipment associated with the [old server], or that Clinton's clintonemail.com emails had been migrated to the successor [server] remaining at [the] Equinix [data center]. The FBI's subsequent investigation identified this additional equipment and revealed the email migration." As a result, the FBI finally picked up the new server on October 3, 2015 .

    It was bad enough that Clinton's lawyer wasn't forthcoming about this, especially since Clinton and her staff had switched to using new email accounts located on a different server with a different domain name in late 2014 , so the servers in question weren't urgently needed anymore. But who else could have told the FBI about the data getting transferred to the new server? PRN.

    A snippet from the invoice published by Complete Colorado on October 19, 2015. (Credit: Todd Shepherd / Complete Colorado) (Used with express permission from CompleteColorado.com. Do not duplicate or republish.)

    The FBI interviewed PRN's staff in September 2015. This almost certainly included Combetta and Bill Thornton, because they were the only two PRN employees actively managing Clinton's server.

    It's particularly important to know if Combetta was interviewed at this time. The FBI's final report clearly stated that he was interviewed twice, in February 2016 and May 2016 , and repeatedly referred to what was said in his "first interview" and "second interview." However, we luckily know that he was interviewed in September 2015 as well, because of a PRN invoice billed to Clinton Executive Service Corp. (CESC), a Clinton family company, that was made public later in 2015 . The invoice made clear that Combetta, who was working remotely from Rhode Island, flew to Colorado on September 14, 2015, and then "federal interviews" took place on September 15 . Combetta's rental car, hotel, and return airfare costs were itemized as well. As this essay later makes clear, PRN was refusing to cooperate with anyone else in the US government but the FBI by this time, so "federal interviews" can only mean the FBI.

    Bryan Pagliano (Credit: public domain)

    Bryan Pagliano (Credit: public domain)

    The fact that the FBI falsely claimed Combetta was only interviewed twice grows in importance given a recent New York Times report that the Justice Department gave Combetta some form of legal immunity .

    One other person in the investigation, Bryan Pagliano, was given immunity as well. But his immunity deal was leaked to the media and had been widely reported on since March 2016 . By contrast, Combetta's immunity wasn't even mentioned in the FBI's final report, and members of Congress were upset to first read about it in the Times , because they had never been told about it either.

    The mystery of this situation deepens when one looks at the FBI report regarding what Combetta said in his February 2016 and May 2016 interviews. In February 2016 , he claimed that he remembered in late March 2015 that he forgot to make the change to the email retention policy on Clinton's server, but that was it. He claimed he never did make any deletions. He also claimed that he was unaware of the March 9, 2015 email from Mills warning of the Congressional request to preserve all of Clinton's emails.

    Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)

    Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)

    Then, in May 2016 , he completely changed his story. He said that in fact he did make the deletions in late March 2015 after all, plus he'd wiped her emails with BleachBit, as described earlier. He also confessed to being aware of the Mills email with the preservation request.

    It still hasn't been reported when Combetta's immunity deal was made. However, it seems probable that this took place between his February 2016 and May 2016 interviews, causing the drastic change in his account. Yet, it looks that he still hasn't been fully honest or forthcoming. Note that he didn't confess to the deletion of data on the Datto back-up device, even though it took place at the same time as the other deletions. The FBI learned that on their own by analyzing the device.


    Attorney-client privilege?!

    More crucially, we know that Combetta has not revealed what took place in the second conference call between PRN and Clinton employees. Here is all the FBI's final report has to say about that: "Investigation identified a PRN work ticket, which referenced a conference call among PRN, Kendall, and Mills on March 31, 2015. PRN's attorney advised [Combetta] not to comment on the conversation with Kendall, based upon the assertion of the attorney-client privilege ."

    Paul Combetta (left) Ken Eichner (right) (Credit: CSpan)

    Sitting behind Paul Combetta at the House Oversight Committee hearing on September 13, 2016, is Platte River Networks attorney Ken Eichner. (Credit: CSpan)

    This is extremely bizarre. What "attorney-client privilege"?! That would only apply for communications between Combetta and his lawyer or lawyers. It's clear that Combetta's lawyer isn't Mills or Kendall. The New York Times article about the immunity deal made a passing reference to his lawyer, and, when Combetta showed up for a Congressional hearing on September 12 , he was accompanied by a lawyer who photographs from the hearing make clear is Ken Eichner, who has been the legal counsel for PRN as a whole regarding Clinton's server.

    Even if Combetta's lawyer Eichner was participating in the call, there is no way that should protect Combetta from having to tell what he said to Clinton employees like Mills or Kendall. If that's how the law works, criminals could simply always travel with a lawyer and then claim anything they do or say with the lawyer present is inadmissible as evidence due to attorney-client privilege. It's absurd.

    For the FBI to give Combetta an immunity deal and then still not learn if he had been told to delete the emails by anyone working for Clinton due to a completely legally indefensible "attorney-client privilege" excuse is beyond belief. It would make sense, however, if the FBI was actually trying to protect Clinton from prosecution instead of trying to find evidence to prosecute her.


    Combetta's Reddit posts

    A side-by-side shot of Combetta at the House Oversight Committee hearing (left) and a captured shot of Combetta as Stonetear (right). (Credit: CSpan and public domain)

    A photo comparison of Combetta at the House Oversight Committee hearing (left) and a captured shot of Combetta as stonetear (right). (Credit: CSpan and public domain)

    Furthermore, how much can Combetta be trusted, even in an FBI interview? It has recently come to light that he made Reddit posts under the username "stonetear." There can be no doubt this was him, because the details match perfectly, including him signing a post "Paul," having another social media account for a Paul Combetta with the username "stonetear," having a combetta.com website mentioning his "stonetear" alias, and even posting a photo of "stonetear" that matches other known photos of Combetta.

    In one Reddit post , he asked other server managers: "I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a .pst file. Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out. Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?"

    The date of the post- July 24, 2014 -is very significant, because that was just one day after Combetta sent CESE (the Clinton family company) DVDs containing some of Clinton's emails , so Clinton's lawyers could start the sorting process. Also on July 23, 2014 , an unnamed PRN employee sent Samuelson and Mills the same emails electronically directly to their laptops.

    A response captured in the Reddit chat warning Combetta that what he wants to do is illegal. (Credit: Reddit)

    A response captured in the Reddit chat warning stonetear aka Combetta that what he wants to do could result in major legal issues. (Credit: Reddit)

    Popular software made by companies like Microsoft have tried to make it impossible for people to change email records, so people facing legal trouble can't tamper with emails after they've been sent. Thus, when Combetta posed his problem at Reddit, other Reddit users told him that what he wanted to do "could result in major legal issues." But that didn't deter him, and he kept asking for various ways to get it accomplished anyway.

    It isn't clear why Clinton would have wanted her email address removed from all her emails, since her exact address had already been exposed in the media back in March 2013 by the hacker known as Guccifer. One Gawker reporter even used it to email Clinton on March 20, 2013 : "[W] ere your emails to and from the [email protected] account archived according to the provisions of the President Records Act and Freedom of Information Act?" (Clinton never replied, maybe because it's clear in hindsight that an honest answer would have been "no.") But the fact that Combetta was willing to at least try to do this raises questions, especially his seeming willingness to do something illegal for his "VIP" customer Hillary Clinton.

    Combetta made another important Reddit post a few months later:

    "Hello- I have a client who wants to push out a 60 day email retention policy for certain users. However, they also want these users to have a 'Save Folder' in their Exchange folder list where the users can drop items that they want to hang onto longer than the 60 day window. All email in any other folder in the mailbox should purge anything older than 60 days (should not apply to calendar or contact items of course). How would I go about this? Some combination of retention and managed folder policy?"

    Another sample captured of Combetta as 'stonetear' asking Reddit users for help. (Credit: Reddit)

    Another question was captured of 'stonetear' aka Combetta asking Reddit users for technical help. (Credit: Reddit)

    Again, the timing is telling, because this post was made on December 10, 2014 . Recall that December 2014 (or January 2015 ) was when he deleted and then wiped Clinton's emails from the laptops of Mills and Samuelson. December also was the month that Mills asked him to change the retention policy on Clinton's server to 60 days , which is precisely the issue he was asking about in his Reddit post.

    A captured shot of Combetta's 'stonetear' GMail account with picture included. (Credit: public domain)

    A captured shot of Combetta's 'stonetear' Gmail account with picture included. (Credit: public domain)

    Recall how Clinton allegedly claimed she didn't want to keep any of her deleted emails. It looks like that wasn't true after all. It sounds exactly as if Mills or someone else working for Clinton told him to make it look like all the "personal" emails were permanently deleted due to the 60 day policy change, while actually keeping copies of emails they still wanted.

    Looking at Combetta's two Reddit posts detailed above, there are only two possibilities. One is that Combetta failed to disclose crucial information to the FBI, despite his immunity deal. The second is that he did, but the FBI didn't mention it in its final report. Either way, it's already clear that the FBI has failed to present the full story of Combetta's actions to the public. And how much of what Combetta has said can be trusted, even in his most recent and supposedly most forthcoming FBI interview?

    David DeCamillis (Credit: Twitter)

    David DeCamillis (Credit: Twitter)

    Remarkably, there is a hint that Combetta was being dishonest even before his late March 2015 deletions. On March 3, 2015 , one day after the front-page New York Times story revealing Clinton's use of a private server, PRN's vice president of sales David DeCamillis sent an email to some or all of the other PRN employees. The email has only been paraphrased in news reports so far, but he was already wondering what Clinton emails the company might be asked to turn over .

    Combetta replied to the email , "I've done quite a bit already in the last few months related to this. Her [Clinton's] team had me do a bunch of exports and email filters and cleanup to provide a .pst [personal storage file] of all of HRC's [Hillary Rodham Clinton's] emails to/from any .gov addresses. I billed probably close to 10 hours in on-call tickets with CESC related to it :)."

    First off, it's interesting that he said he did "a bunch" of "email filters and cleanup," because what has been reported by the FBI is that he only made a copy of all of Clinton's email and sent them off to be sorted in late July 2014 . That fits with his July 2014 Reddit post where he was trying to modify somebody's email address.

    But also, assuming that there aren't important parts to his email that haven't been mentioned by the media, consider what he didn't say. The topic was possibly turning over Clinton's emails, and yet by this time Combetta had already deleted and wiped all of Clinton's emails from the laptops of two Clinton lawyers and been asked to change the email retention policy on Clinton's server so that all her emails would be permanently deleted there too, and yet he didn't bother to mention this to anyone else at PRN. Why?

    We can only speculate based on the limited amount of information made public so far. But it seems as if Combetta was covering up for Clinton and/or the people working for her even BEFORE he made his late March 2015 deletions!


    Who knows about the deletions, and how?

    Senator Ron Johnson (Credit: John Shinkle / Politico)

    Senator Ron Johnson (Credit: John Shinkle / Politico)

    For now, let us turn back to events in the fall of 2015 . In mid-August 2015 , Senator Ron Johnson (R) asked for and got a staff-level briefing from PRN about the management of Clinton's server, as part of Republican Congressional oversight of the FBI's investigation. It seems very likely that Combetta was a part of that briefing, or at least his knowledge heavily informed the briefing, because again only two PRN employees actively managed her server, and he was one of them.

    Regardless of whether he was there or not, it is clear that PRN was not honest in the briefing. Almost nothing is publicly known about the briefing except that it took place. However, from questions Johnson asked PRN in later letters, one can see that he knew nothing about the March 2015 deletions by Combetta. In fact, just like the FBI, there is no indication he knew anything about the transfer of the data from the old server to the new in that time period, which would be a basic fact in any such briefing.

    Andy Boian (Credit: public domain)

    The dishonesty or ignorance of PRN in this time period can be clearly seen due to a September 12, 2015 Washington Post article. In it, PRN spokesperson Andy Boian said, " Platte River has no knowledge of the server being wiped ." He added, "All the information we have is that the server wasn't wiped." We now know that not only was this untrue, but a PRN employee did the wiping!

    This leads to two possibilities. One is that Combetta lied to his PRN bosses, so in September 2015 nobody else in PRN knew about the deletions he'd made. The other is that additional people at PRN knew, but they joined in a cover-up.

    At this point, it's impossible to know which of these is true, but one of them must be. PRN employees created work tickets and other documentary evidence of the work they made, so one would think the company leadership would have quickly learned about the deletions if they did any examination of their managerial actions to prepare for investigative briefings and interviews.

    But either way, PRN as a whole began acting as if there was something to hide. Although the company agreed to the briefing of Congressional staffers in mid-August 2015 , when Senator Johnson wanted to follow this up with interviews of individual PRN employees in early September, PRN said no . When Congressional committees began asking PRN for documents, they also said no, and kept saying no. Recently, as we shall see later, they've even defied a Congressional subpoena for documents.

    Austin McChord, founder and CEO of Datto, Inc. (Credit: Erik Traufmann / Hearst Connecticut Media)

    Austin McChord, founder and CEO of Datto, Inc. (Credit: Erik Traufmann / Hearst Connecticut Media)

    At the same time Congressional committees began asking PRN for documents and interviews, they made those requests to Datto as well.

    Datto expressed a willingness to cooperate. But because Datto had been subcontracted by PRN to help manage Clinton's server, they needed PRN's permission to share any information relating to that account. When PRN was first asked in early October 2015 , they gave permission. But about a week later, they changed their mind , forcing Datto to stay quiet.

    To make matters worse, in early November 2015 , PRN spokesperson Andy Boian gave a completely bogus public excuse about this, saying that PRN and Datto had mutually agreed it was more convenient for investigators to deal with just one company. Datto immediately complained in a letter sent to PRN and Senator Johnson that no such discussion or agreement between PRN and Datto had ever taken place.

    What is PRN hiding?


    The Datto cloud mystery

    There is another strange twist to Datto's involvement. Back in June 2013 when Datto was first subcontracted to help with backing up the server data, the Clinton family company CESC made explicit that they didn't want any of the data to be stored remotely . But due to some snafu or miscommunication, it turns out that in addition to local back-ups being stored on the Datto device connected to the server, Datto had been making periodic copies of the server data the whole time in the "cloud!" That means back-up copies of the data were being transferred over the Internet and stored remotely, probably on other servers controlled by Datto.

    Co-founders of PRN are Brent Allshouse (left) and Treve Suazo (right) (Credit: PRN)

    Co-founders of PRN are Brent Allshouse (left) and Treve Suazo (right) (Credit: PRN)

    PRN only discovered this in early August 2015 , around the time the roles of PRN and Datto had with the server began to be made public. PRN contacted Datto, told them to stop doing this, put all the data on a thumb drive, send it to them, and then permanently wipe their remote copies of the server data.

    It is unclear what happened after that. The FBI's final report mentions a Datto back-up made on June 29, 2013 , just after all the data had been moved from the old server to the new sever with the back-up, had been useful to investigators and allowed them to find some Clinton emails dating all the way back to the first two months of her secretary of state tenure. However, it isn't clear if this is due to the local Datto SIRIS device or the accidental Datto cloud back-up. Congressional committee letters show that they don't know either and have been trying to find out.

    Adding to the mystery, one would think that if Datto was making periodic back-ups either or both ways, the FBI would have been able to recover all of Clinton's over 31,000 deleted emails and not just 17,000 of them. Consider that when PRN employees sent Clinton's lawyers all of Clinton's emails to be sorted in July and September 2014 , they simply copied what was on the server at the time, which presumably was the same amount of emails from years earlier than had been there in June 2013 , and thus backed up by Datto many times.

    It's likely there are more twists to the cloud back-up story that have yet to be revealed.


    What did Clinton and her aides know about the deletions?

    Meanwhile, let's consider what Clinton and her aides may have known and when they knew it. When Mills was interviewed by the FBI in April 2016 , according to the FBI, "Mills stated she was unaware that [Combetta] had conducted these deletions and modifications in March 2015 ." Then, when Clinton was interviewed by the FBI in July 2016 , "Clinton stated she was unaware of the March 2015 email deletions by PRN."

    This is pretty hard to believe. Mills was and still is one of Clinton's lawyers, and even attended Clinton's FBI interview. So why wouldn't she have mentioned the deletions to Clinton between April and July 2016 , after she learned about them from the FBI's questions to her? One would think Clinton would have been extremely curious to know anything about the FBI's possible recovery of her deleted emails.

    Clinton making a joking wipe gesture while speaking at a town hall on August 18, 2015, in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Credit: John Locher / The Associated Press)

    Clinton making a joking wipe gesture while speaking at a town hall on August 18, 2015, in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Credit: John Locher / The Associated Press)

    But more importantly, consider what was mentioned in an NBC News report on August 19, 2015 . Clinton's campaign acknowledged "that there was an attempt to wipe [Clinton's] server before it was turned over last week to the FBI. But two sources with direct knowledge of the investigation told NBC News that the [FBI] may be able to recover at least some data."

    Is it plausible that people within Clinton's campaign knew this, and yet neither Mills nor Clinton did? How could that be? Note that just one day before the NBC News report, Clinton had been directly asked if her server had been wiped. She dodged the question by making the joke , " What-like with a cloth, or something?" Then she said she didn't "know how it works digitally at all." Despite the controversy at the time about the cloth joke, her spokesperson claimed one month later, "I don't know what 'wiped' means."

    It's highly likely the issue had to have been discussed with Clinton at the time, but there was a conscious effort not to have her admit to knowing anything, due to the on-going FBI investigation.

    But more crucially, how could anyone at all working for Clinton know about the deletions as far back as August 2015 ? Recall that this was within days of PRN giving a briefing to Congressional staffers and not telling them, and several weeks prior to a PRN public comment that there was no evidence the server had been wiped.

    Moreover, we have no evidence that the FBI knew about the deletions yet. Datto conducted an analysis of its device that had been attached to Clinton's new server, and in an October 23, 2015 email, told the FBI for the first time that deletions had taken place on that device on March 31, 2015 . Keep in mind that even in his February 2016 FBI interview, Combetta claimed that no deletions had taken place in that time frame. Does it make sense that he would have said that if he had reason to believe that PRN had been talking to Clinton's staff about it in the months before? (None of the interviews in the FBI"s investigations were done under oath, but lying to the FBI is a felony with a maximum five-year prison sentence.)

    A sample of the letter sent to the FBI by Datto attorney, Steven Cash on October 23, 2015. (Credit: House Science Committee)

    A sample of the email sent to the FBI by Datto attorney, Steven Cash on October 23, 2015. (Credit: House Science Committee)

    So, again, how could Clinton's campaign know about the wiping in August 2015 ? The logical answer is that it had been discussed in the conference call on March 31, 2015 , that took place within hours of the deletions.

    Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)

    Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)

    Perhaps Mills, Kendall, or someone else working for Clinton told Combetta to make the deletions, possibly during the first conference call on March 25, 2015 . If that is the case, there should be obstruction of justice charges brought against anyone involved. Or maybe Combetta did that on his own to cover his earlier mistake and then mentioned what he'd done in the second conference call. If either scenario is true, Mills should be charged with lying to the FBI for claiming in her FBI interview that she knew nothing about any of this. Clinton might be charged for the same if it could be proved what she knew and when.


    "Shady shit" and "Hillary's cover-up operation"

    But there's still more to this strange story. Somehow by October 5, 2015 , Senator Johnson got hold of a curious email exchange between Combetta and Thornton , and he mentioned it in a letter to PRN that got leaked to the public the next day. (Recall that Bill Thornton is the other PRN employee who actively managed Clinton's server.)

    Just as the email retention policy on the Clinton server was changed on the orders of people working for Clinton, so was the retention policy on the Datto device connected to the server, in the same time period.

    In an August 18, 2015 email, Combetta expressed concern that CESC, the Clinton family company, had directed PRN to reduce the length of time backups, and PRN wanted proof of this so they wouldn't be blamed. But he said in the email, "this was all phone comms [communications]."

    Paul Combetta (left) Bill Thornton (right) (Credit: AP)

    Paul Combetta (left) Bill Thornton (right) (Credit: The Associated Press)

    The next day , there was another email, this one written by Thornton to Combetta and possibly others in PRN . The email has the subject heading "CESC Datto." Thornton wrote: "Any chance you found an old email with their directive to cut the backup back in Oct-Feb. I know they had you cut it once in Oct-Nov, then again to 30 days in Feb-ish." (Presumably this refers to October 2014 through February 2015 .)

    Thornton continued: "If we had that email, then we're golden. [ ] Wondering how we can sneak an email in now after the fact asking them when they told us to cut the backups and have them confirm it for our records. Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shady shit. I just think if we have it in writing that they [CESC] told us to cut the backups, and we can go public with our statement saying we have had backups since day one, then we were told to trim to 30 days, it would make us look a WHOLE LOT better."

    Combetta replied: "I'll look again, but I'm almost positive we don't have anything about the 60 day cut. [ ] It's up to lawyer crap now, so just sit back and enjoy the silly headlines."

    As an aside, it's curious that Combetta made some unsolicited additional comments in that same email that was supportive of Clinton's position in the email controversy: "It wasn't the law to be required to use government email servers at the State Department, believe it or not. Colin Powell used an AOL address for communicating with his staff, believe it or not."

    If we take this email exchange at face value, then it appears that Clinton employees requested an email retention policy change that would result in more deletion of data on the Datto back-up device in the October to November 2014 time range. Keep in mind that the State Department formally asked Clinton for all of her work-related emails , on October 28, 2014 , after informally asking starting in July 2014 . Then, around February 2015 , Clinton employees asked for another change that would have resulted in more deletions. Plus, they did this on the phone, leaving no paper trail. Is it any wonder that Thornton wrote, "Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shady shit?"

    Details are lacking, but roughly around this time period, one unnamed PRN employee made a joke that they were "Hillary's cover-up operation ." That may have been much more accurate than they realized.


    The FBI speaks up, only raising more questions

    News about PRN went quiet for the first half of 2016 . Congressional committees kept asking PRN and Datto for more information (including another request for interviews in January 2016 ), and PRN kept saying no as well as not giving Datto permission to respond.

    James Comey (Credit: Fox News)

    James Comey (Credit: Fox News)

    Then, on July 5, 2016 , FBI Director James Comey gave a surprise public speech in which he announced he wouldn't recommend any criminal charges against Clinton or anyone else in the investigation. In the course of his speech, he said it was "likely" that some emails may have disappeared forever because Clinton's lawyers "deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery." But he said that after interviews and technical examination, "we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort."

    Trey Gowdy (Credit: Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images)

    Trey Gowdy (Credit: Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images)

    Two days later, on July 7, 2016 , Comey had to explain his decision in front of a Congressional committee. During that hearing, he was asked by Representative Trey Gowdy (R), "Secretary Clinton said neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account. Was that true?"

    Comey replied: "That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work-related emails in-on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or whether when the server was changed out, something happened to them. There's no doubt that the work-related emails were removed electronically from the email system."

    Consider that response. By the time Comey made those comments, the FBI's final report had already been finished, the report that detailed Combetta's confession of deliberately deleting and then wiping all of Clinton's emails from her server. Comey was explicitly asked if "anyone" had made such deletions, and yet he said he wasn't sure. Comey should be investigated for lying to Congress! Had he revealed even the rough outlines of Combetta's late March 2015 deletions in his July 5, 2016 public speech or his Congressional testimony two days later , it would have significantly changed the public perception of the results of the FBI investigation. That also would have allowed Congressional committees to start focusing on this two months earlier than they did, enabling them to uncover more in the limited time before the November presidential election.

    The SECNAP Logo (Credit: SECNAP)

    Despite the fact that the Combetta deletions were still unknown, Congressional committees began putting increasing pressure on PRN anyway. On July 12, 2016 , two committees jointly wrote a letter to PRN , threatening subpoenas if they still refused to cooperate. The letter listed seven PRN employees they wanted to interview, including Combetta and Thornton. Similar letters went out to Datto and SECNAP. (SECNAP was subcontracted by PRN to carry out threat monitoring of the network connected to Clinton's server.)

    On August 22, 2016 , after all three companies still refused to cooperate, Representative Lamar Smith (R), chair of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, issued subpoenas for PRN, Datto, and SECNAP .

    On September 2, 2016 , the FBI's final report of their Clinton email investigation was released (along with a summary of Clinton's FBI interview). This report revealed the late March 2015 deletions for the first time. Combetta's name was redacted, but his role, as well as his immunity deal, was revealed in the New York Times article published a few days later.


    Congressional investigators fight back

    160918ChanningPhillipspublic

    Channing Phillips (Credit: public domain)

    Since the report has been released, Congressional Republicans have stepped up their efforts to get answers about the Combetta mystery, using the powers of the committees they control. On September 6, 2016 , Representative Jason Chaffetz (R), chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote a letter to Channing Phillips , the US attorney for the District of Columbia. He asked the Justice Department to "investigate and determine whether Secretary Clinton or her employees and contractors violated statutes that prohibit destruction of records, obstruction of congressional inquiries, and concealment or cover up of evidence material to a congressional investigation." Clearly, this relates to the Combetta deletions.

    House Oversight Committee Chair Representative Jason Chaffetz. (Credit: Cliff Owen / The Associated Press)

    Representative Jason Chaffetz. (Credit: Cliff Owen / The Associated Press)

    On the same day , Chaffetz sent a letter to PRN warning that Combetta could face federal charges for deleting and wiping Clinton's emails in late March 2015 , due to the Congressional request to preserve them earlier in the month that he admitted he was aware of. Chaffetz also wants an explanation from PRN how Combetta could refuse to talk to the FBI about the conference calls if the only lawyers involved in the call were Clinton's.

    Chaffetz serves the FBI a subpoena during a House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee hearing on September 9, 2016. (Credit: ABC News)

    Chaffetz serves the FBI a subpoena during a House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee hearing on September 9, 2016. (Credit: ABC News)

    On September 9 , Chaffetz served the FBI a subpoena for all the unredacted interviews from the FBI's Clinton investigation, especially those of Combetta and the other PRN employees. This came after an FBI official testifying at a hearing remarkably suggested that Chaffetz should file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to get the documents, just like any private citizen can.

    On September 8, 2016 , Congressional committees served the subpoenas they'd threatened in August. PRN, Datto, and SECNAP were given until the end of September 12 to finally turn over the documents the committees had been requesting for year. Datto complied and turned over the documents in time. However, PRN and SECNAP did not.

    Representative Lamar Smith (Credit: public domain)

    Representative Lamar Smith (Credit: public domain)

    The next day, September 13 , Representative Lamar Smith (R) said , "just this morning SECNAP's [legal] counsel confirmed to my staff that the Clinton's private LLC [Clinton Executive Service Corp.] is actively engaged in directing their obstructionist responses to Congressional subpoenas."

    PRN employees Combetta and Thornton were also given subpoenas on September 8 , ordering them to testify at a Congressional hearing on September 13, 2016 . Both of them showed up with their lawyers, but both of them pled the Fifth , leaving many questions unanswered.


    An FBI cover-up?

    In a Senate speech on September 12, 2016 , Senator Charles Grassley (R) accused the FBI of manipulating which information about the Clinton email investigation becomes public . He said that although the FBI has taken the unusual step of releasing the FBI's final report, "its summary is misleading or inaccurate in some key details and leaves out other important facts altogether." He pointed in particular to Combetta's deletions, saying: "[T]here is key information related to that issue that is still being kept secret, even though it is unclassified. If I honor the FBI's 'instruction' not to disclose the unclassified information it provided to Congress, I cannot explain why."

    Senator Charles Grassley takes to the Senate floor on September 12, 2016. (Credit: CSpan))

    Senator Charles Grassley takes to the Senate floor on September 12, 2016. (Credit: CSpan)

    He also said there are dozens of completely unclassified witness reports, but even some of his Congressional staffers can't see them "because the FBI improperly bundled [them] with a small amount of classified information, and told the Senate to treat it all as if it were classified." The normal procedure is for documents to have the classified portions marked. Then the unclassified portions can be released. But in defiance of regulations and a clear executive order on how such material should be handled, "the FBI has 'instructed' the Senate office that handles classified information not to separate the unclassified information." As a result, Grassley claims: "Inaccuracies are spreading because of the FBI's selective release. For example, the FBI's recently released summary memo may be contradicted by other unclassified interview summaries that are being kept locked away from the public."

    He said he has been fighting the FBI on this, but without success so far, as the FBI isn't even replying to his letters.

    Thus, it seems that Comey failing to mention anything about the Combetta deletions in the July 7, 2016 Congressional hearing, even when directly asked about it, was no accident. Having the FBI report claim that Combetta was only interviewed twice when there is clear evidence of three interviews also fits a pattern of concealment related to the deletions.

    James Comey testifies to the House Benghazi Committee on July 7, 2016. (Credit: Jack Gruber / USA Today)

    James Comey testifies to the House Benghazi Committee on July 7, 2016. (Credit: Jack Gruber / USA Today)

    Regarding the FBI's failure to inform Congressional oversight committees of Combetta's immunity deal, Representative Trey Gowdy (R) recently commented, "If there is a reason to withhold the immunity agreement from Congress-and by extension, the people we represent-I cannot think of what it would be."

    Gowdy, who is a former federal prosecutor, also said on September 9 that there are two types of immunity Combetta could have received : use and transactional. "If the FBI and the Department of Justice gave this witness transactional immunity, it is tantamount to giving the triggerman immunity in a robbery case." He added that he is "stunned" because "It looks like they gave immunity to the very person you would most want to prosecute."

    This is as much as we know so far, but surely the story won't stop there. PRN has been served a new subpoena. It is likely the requested documents will be seized from them soon if they continue to resist.


    Taking the fall and running out the clock

    But why does PRN resist so much? Computer companies often resist sharing information with the government so their reputation with their clients won't be harmed. But defying a subpoena when there clearly are legitimate questions to be answered goes way beyond what companies normally do and threatens PRN's reputation in a different way. Could it be that PRN-an inexplicable choice to manage Clinton's server-was chosen precisely because whatever Clinton aide hired them had reason to believe they would be loyal if a problem like this arose?

    David DeCamillis (Credit: public domain)

    David DeCamillis (Credit: public domain)

    There is some anecdotal evidence to support this. It has been reported that PRN has ties to prominent Democrats . For instance, the company's vice president of sales David DeCamillis is said to be a prominent supporter of Democratic politicians, and once offered to let Senator Joe Biden (D) stay in his house in 2008 , not long before Biden became Obama's vice president. The company also has done work for John Hickenlooper, the Democratic governor of Colorado. And recall the email in which Combetta brought up points to defend Clinton in her email controversy, even though the email exchange was on a different topic.

    The behavior of the FBI is even stranger. Comey was a registered Republican most of his life, and it is well known that most FBI agents are politically conservative. Be that as it may, if Comey made a decision beforehand based on some political calculation to avoid indicting Clinton no matter what the actual evidence was, that the FBI's peculiar behavior specifically relating to the Combetta deletions make much more sense. It would be an unprecedented and bold move to recommend indicting someone with Hillary Clinton's power right in the middle of her presidential election campaign.

    It's naive to think that political factors don't play a role, on both sides. Consider that virtually every Democratic politician has been supportive of Clinton in her email controversy, or at least silent about it, while virtually every Republican has been critical of her about it or silent. Comey was appointed by Obama, and if the odds makers are right and Clinton wins in November , Comey will continue to be the FBI director under President Clinton. (Comey was appointed to a ten-year term, but Congress needs to vote to reappoint him after the election.) How could that not affect his thinking?

    Comey could be trying to run out the clock, first delaying the revelations of the Combetta's deletions as much as possible, then releasing only selected facts to diminish the attention on the story.

    In this scenario, the FBI having Combetta take the fall for the deletions while making a secret immunity deal with him is a particularly clever move to prevent anyone from being indicted. Note that Combetta's confession about making the deletions came in his May 2016 FBI interview, which came after Mills' April 2016 interview in which she claimed she'd never heard of any deletions. Thus, the only way to have Combetta take the fall for the deletions without Mills getting caught clearly lying to the FBI is by dodging the issue of what was said in the March 31, 2015 conference with a nonsensical claim of "attorney-client privilege."

    Unfortunately, if that is Comey's plan, it looks like it's working. Since the FBI's final report came out on September 2, 2016 , the mainstream media has largely failed to grasp the significance of Combetta and his deletions, focusing on far less important matters instead, such as the destruction of a couple of Clinton's BlackBerry devices with hammers-which actually was better than not destroying them and possibly letting them fall into the wrong hands.

    The House Benghazi Committee in session in 2015. (Credit: C-SPAN3)

    The House Benghazi Committee in session in 2015. (Credit: C-SPAN3)

    What happens next appears to largely be in the hands of Congressional Republicans, who no doubt will keep pushing to find out more, if only to politically hurt Clinton before the election. But it's also in the hands of you, the members of the general public. If enough people pay attention, then it will be impossible to sweep this controversy under the rug.

    I believe that criminal behavior needs to be properly investigated and prosecuted, regardless of political persuasion and regardless of the election calendar. Combetta clearly committed a crime and he even confessed to do so, given what he admitted in his last FBI interview. If he got a limited immunity deal instead of blanket immunity, which is highly likely, it still would be possible to indict and convict him based on evidence outside of his interviews. That would help explain why he recently pled the Fifth, because he's still in legal danger.

    Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton plead the Fifth on September 13, 2016. (Credit: CSpan)

    Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton plead the Fifth on September 13, 2016. (Credit: CSpan)

    But more importantly, who else is guilty with him? Logic and the available evidence strongly suggest that Clinton's lawyer Cheryl Mills at least knew about the deletions at the time they happened. Combetta has already confessed to criminal behavior-and yet somehow hasn't even been fired by PRN. If he didn't at least tell Mills and the others in the conference call about the deletions, there would be no logical reason to assert attorney-client privilege in the first place. Only the nonsensical assertion of this privilege is preventing the evidence coming out that should lead to Mills being charged with lying to the FBI at a minimum. And if Mills knew, can anyone seriously believe that Clinton didn't know too?

    As the saying goes, "it's not the crime, it's the cover up." This is an important story, and not just election season mudslinging. The public needs to know what really happened.

    Note to Readers!

    If you found this essay informative, check out the Clinton email investigation timeline , as well as the Clinton Foundation timeline , written and updated daily by the same author. Stay up to date with the newest timeline entries by checking out our Recently Added Entries page , and join our Facebook group for intelligent discussions about the latest breaking news throughout the day.

    [Sep 22, 2016] Deir ez-Zor bombings: What is US actual goal in Syria

    Sep 22, 2016 | atimes.com

    By Christina Lin on September 20, 2016

    Mother Agnes Mariam , a nominee for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize from Homs diocese, has some harsh words for the US war against Syria : "Shame on a coalition who pretends fighting ISIS while in reality is helping ISIS killing innocent soldiers whose mission is to protect civilians."

    This is in response to the September 17 US airstrikes in Deir ez-Zor that massacred 62 Syrian soldiers and injured 100 more who have been fighting ISIS. [1] According to a June 2015 Time magazine article, Deir ez-Zor with a population of 228,000 has been under siege by ISIS the past years, relying on the nightly arrival of a large Syrian air-force-operated cargo plane which has a payload of more than 46 tons and transports munitions, food and medical supplies.

    Starving babies in Deir ez-Zor

    This much needed aid is flown out from the military air base southeast of the city, the target of ISIS the past years and now bombed by US jet fighters. During the bombing, ISIS launched a simultaneous attack and threatened to overrun the air base as well as slaughter the over 200,000 civilians. Deir ez-Zor is also home to a large Christian population protected by the Syrian government, similar to most other Christian inhabited cities that are in government-controlled areas along the coast.

    Map of Christian population in Syria

    However, the Syrian army was able to repel the ISIS offensive and recover lost territory after the US "mistaken" attacks, but the incident has again left many wondering whether US goal is really to counter terrorism or to conduct regime change in Syria.

    Meanwhile, the Syrian people continue to face prolonged agony and suffering as regional and great powers use them as pawns for their geopolitical ambitions.

    E dward Dark , an activist in Aleppo , noted back in 2013 that Syrians watched how their peaceful revolution was hijacked by Turkey/Saudi and other Arab Gulf states, pouring in Salafists from over 100 countries that morphed into ISIS, Al Nusra, and others that care nothing for the norms of human rights, democracy, or justice for the Syrian nation. He admitted, "People here don't like the regime, but they hate the rebels even more."

    Now Dark sees Syria's only salvation is through reconciliation and a renunciation of violence, but lamented "that is not a view shared by the warmongers and power brokers who still think that more Syrian blood should be spilled to appease the insatiable appetites of their sordid aspirations."

    A girl helping her dad with his shoe

    Just as King Solomon determined the true mother of the baby is the one who refused to split her son in half, the champion of the Syrian people and human rights is the power that would place the Syrians' welfare above its own selfish ambitions.

    Nonetheless, Dark lamented that "Whatever is left of Syria at the end will be carved out between the wolves and vultures that fought over its bleeding and dying corpse, leaving us, the Syrian people to pick up the shattered pieces of our nation and our futures."

    Indeed, it seems US and its Salafist allies are bent on splitting the Syrian baby and cleansing it of ethnic and religious minorities with a Taliban-like regime and Shaira Law, and Deir ez-Zor is likely condemned to suffer the similar fate of Homs.

    In Homs, the pre-conflict population was more than 1 million people of mostly Sunni Muslims with substantial Christian and Alawite communities. Peter Crowley, senior foreign affairs correspondent at Politico , in August 2015 tweeted an extract from a 2008 Lonely Planet travel guide of Homs.

    "These days, its Christian neighborhood is one of Syria's most welcoming and relaxed, and Homs' citizens are some of the country's friendliest…That, combined with the city's myriad leafy parks and gardens, sprawling al fresco coffee shop, outdoor corn-on-the-cob stands and restored souq where artisans still work, make Homs a wonderful place to kick back for a couple of days."

    In eight years, Homs has changed from a "wonderful place" to a ruinous heap. With the ceasefire likely to break down as Salafist rebels rearm and regroup, US and Saudi/Qatar/Turkey are well on the march towards turning Syria into another Afghanistan in the Mediterranean.

    [1] Nancy A. Youssef, "Did the U.S. Just Slaughter Syrian Troops? The Daily Beast , September 18, 2016.

    Dr. Christina Lin is a Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS-Johns Hopkins University where she specializes in China-Middle East/Mediterranean relations, and a research consultant for Jane's Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Intelligence Centre at IHS Jane's.

    [Sep 22, 2016] A deep schism in the Republican Party: neocon and neolib wings of the Republican Party are adamantly anti-Trump by Michael Tracey

    The author fails to distinguish between two (intermixed) faction so of Repugs -- neocons and neolib.
    Neoconservatives and neoliberals are "enemy within" the Republican Party as they have nothing to do with either republicanism or conservatism. They are Empire builders. Neocons should be purged as they definitely do not belong. They already started moving to Democratic party (Robert Kagan is a typical case) ...
    Neoliberals are more complex and difficult case. They are the essence of the current republican establishment, the face of the party. Here a Stalin-type purge (Trotskyites were very influential before the purge) is necessary to get rid of this faction, in order to return the Party to Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt roots...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Only one outcome in November would forestall a complete, likely irreversible fracturing: the election of Hillary Clinton. Thus, many elite Republican operators-including lobbyists, elected officials, and pundits-are desperately hoping that Trump loses. Some are limited to expressing this desire privately, for fear of alienating the conservative voters on whom their continued electoral (or business) prospects depend. ..."
    "... Republicans who were especially devoted to Marco Rubio during the primary-whose interests align with the perpetuation of the party's status quo-are perhaps the most strident in their wish for a Trump defeat. ..."
    "... Under a President Trump, such establishmentarian actors would lose power. Maybe they'd retain some measure of influence within the administration, as Trump exerted his deal-making prowess to bring them into the fold, but their interests would no longer be paramount. Other forces would have propelled Trump to victory, and he would likely prioritize them in governance. ..."
    "... "True conservatives" of the Cruz variety could feasibly come to include the free marketeers and conventional national-security hawks who cannot countenance Trump. ..."
    "... It should also be noted that while this schism is especially pronounced among elites-such as those with sinecures at prestigious think tanks, or lobbyists with powerful clients to please-the divisions are far less evident at the voter level. Support for Trump among Republicans is around 90 percent , according to recent polling. ..."
    "... those whose livelihood depends on conservative-movement institutions have added incentive to root for a Trump loss. ..."
    "... In sum, Trump poses an existential threat to American movement [neo]conservatives. Hillary is their only hope. ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    From: Why Movement Conservatives Are Rooting for Hillary by Michael Tracey

    Obviously there is . It has been developing for years, and could be seen to some extent in earlier presidential cycles, but was opened fully and dramatically by the improbable candidacy of Donald Trump. Only one outcome in November would forestall a complete, likely irreversible fracturing: the election of Hillary Clinton. Thus, many elite Republican operators-including lobbyists, elected officials, and pundits-are desperately hoping that Trump loses. Some are limited to expressing this desire privately, for fear of alienating the conservative voters on whom their continued electoral (or business) prospects depend.

    Republicans who were especially devoted to Marco Rubio during the primary-whose interests align with the perpetuation of the party's status quo-are perhaps the most strident in their wish for a Trump defeat. (Recall that the few areas where Rubio prevailed earlier this year included Washington, D.C., and its Northern Virginia suburbs-locations that have profited immensely from the post-9/11 military-industrial buildup.)

    Under a President Trump, such establishmentarian actors would lose power. Maybe they'd retain some measure of influence within the administration, as Trump exerted his deal-making prowess to bring them into the fold, but their interests would no longer be paramount. Other forces would have propelled Trump to victory, and he would likely prioritize them in governance.

    After Trump's election, many conservative organs and their congressional allies would position themselves as Trump's enemies, coordinating with Democrats on key initiatives to block his agenda. At the same time, other conservative organs, in tandem with Trump-sympathetic factions of the Republican congressional caucus, would coalesce around the sitting president and support his agenda. Eventually, these factions' coexistence within the same movement would prove untenable, practically and philosophically.

    The result would be less overall leverage for traditional Republican institutions in Washington, the kind whose existence is premised on the maintenance of the decades-old "three-legged stool" formula-social conservatism, free markets, and hawkish foreign policy-for entrenching conservative political power. Trump would saw off one or two of the stool's legs, and there would be no replacing them, at least not in the short term.

    Though a Trump win would necessitate a realignment, it would not happen overnight. Think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation would not undergo a sudden ideological makeover; institutional inertia precludes such rapid transformation. Change would happen slowly, but surely. A president always influences the ideological composition of the body politic-within his own party and the opposition. For instance, Obama's eight-year term has reshaped the Democratic Party coalition, and also engendered commensurate shifts within internal Republican dynamics.

    Under a President Trump, the Republican congressional caucus and affiliated movement-conservative entities would be constantly wracked by internecine warfare of the type that was on vivid display during the GOP primaries. No doubt Ted Cruz would be at the forefront of whatever organized conservative opposition to Trump emerged as he positioned himself for a likely presidential primary challenge in 2020. Cruz would be well situated to pick up the mantle of "true conservatism"-however that ended up getting defined-and he would be able to (convincingly) blame establishment-GOP squishes for fostering the conditions that gave rise to Trump. "True conservatives" of the Cruz variety could feasibly come to include the free marketeers and conventional national-security hawks who cannot countenance Trump.

    Conversely, under a President Hillary, movement conservatives could comfortably unify the party in opposition to their longstanding enemy, papering over the ideological divisions exposed by Trump. Such divisions would still exist, but dealing with them would be subordinated to the overriding task of undermining Hillary. Movement conservatives could easily discount Trump's nomination and failed general-election run as an aberration, and revert more or less back to form. They'd probably proffer some superficial initiatives to address "Trump_vs_deep_state" at the urging of prominent columnists-the somber panel discussions would be manifold-but "Trump_vs_deep_state" as a political program is so ill-defined and malleable that, in practice, any remedial actions wouldn't amount to much.

    It should also be noted that while this schism is especially pronounced among elites-such as those with sinecures at prestigious think tanks, or lobbyists with powerful clients to please-the divisions are far less evident at the voter level. Support for Trump among Republicans is around 90 percent , according to recent polling. In addition to keeping the traditional movement-conservative coalition intact, a Trump loss would narrow the gap between ordinary Republican voters and conservative elites, who could unite in their disdain for Hillary. Thus, those whose livelihood depends on conservative-movement institutions have added incentive to root for a Trump loss.

    In sum, Trump poses an existential threat to American movement [neo]conservatives. Hillary is their only hope.

    Michael Tracey is a journalist based in New York City.

    [Sep 21, 2016] An interesting view on Russian intelligencia by the scientist and writer Zinoviev expressed during perestroika in 1991

    The intelligentsia (Latin: intellegentia, Polish: inteligencja, Russian: интеллигенция; IPA: [ɪntʲɪlʲɪˈɡʲentsɨjə]) is a social class of people engaged in complex mental labor aimed at guiding or critiquing, or otherwise playing a leadership role in shaping a society's culture and politics.[1] This therefore might include everyone from artists to school teachers, as well as academics, writers, journalists, and other hommes de lettres (men of letters) more usually thought of as being the main constituents of the intelligentsia.
    Intelligentsia is the subject of active polemics concerning its own role in the development of modern society not always positive historically, often contributing to higher degree of progress, but also to its backward movement.[2]... In pre-revolutionary Russia the term was first used to describe people possessing cultural and political initiative.[3] It was commonly used by those individuals themselves to create an apparent distance from the masses, and generally retained that narrow self-definition. [citation needed]
    en.wikipedia.org

    If intellectuals replace the current professional politicians as the leaders of society the situation would become much worse. Because they have neither the sense of reality, nor common sense. For them, the words and speeches are more important than the actual social laws and the dominant trends, the dominant social dynamics of the society. The psychological principle of the intellectuals is that we could organize everything much better, but we are not allowed to do it.

    But the actual situation is as following: they could organize the life of society as they wish and plan, in the way they view is the best only if under conditions that are not present now are not feasible in the future. Therefore they are not able to act even at the level of current leaders of the society, which they despise. The actual leaders are influenced by social pressures, by the current social situation, but at least they doing something. Intellectuals are unhappy that the real stream of life they are living in. They consider it wrong. that makes them very dangerous, because they look really smart, while in reality being sophisticated professional idiots.

    [Sep 21, 2016] When Capitalism Becomes an Act of War Alternet

    Notable quotes:
    "... traditional ways of life are dissolving as a new class of entrepreneur-warriors are wielding unprecedented power - and changing the global landscape. ..."
    "... It's a huge psychological dent in people's faith in the system. I think what's going to happen in the next few years is huge unemployment in the middle class in America because a lot of their jobs will be outsourced or automated. ..."
    Mar 04, 2015 | AlterNet

    Inside the trauma of globalization.

    Novelist Rana Dasgupta recently turned to nonfiction to explore the explosive social and economic changes in Delhi starting in 1991, when India launched a series of transformative economic reforms. In Capital: The Eruption of Delhi, he describes a city where the epic hopes of globalization have dimmed in the face of a sterner, more elitist world. In Part 1 of an interview with the Institute for New Economic Thinking, Dasgupta traces a turbulent time in which traditional ways of life are dissolving as a new class of entrepreneur-warriors are wielding unprecedented power - and changing the global landscape.

    Lynn Parramore: Why did you decide to move from New York to Delhi in 2000, and then to write a book about the city?

    Rana Dasgupta: I moved to be with my partner who lived in Delhi, and soon realized it was a great place to have landed. I was trying write a novel and there were a lot of people doing creative things. There was a fascinating intellectual climate, all linked to changes in society and the economy. It was 10 years since liberalization and a lot of the impact of that was just being felt and widely sensed.

    There was a sense of opportunity, not any more just on the part of business people, but everyone. People felt that things were really going to change in a deep way - in every part of the political spectrum and every class of society. Products and technology spread, affecting even very poor people. Coke made ads about the rickshaw drivers with their mobile phones -people who had never had access to a landline. A lot of people sensed a new possibility for their own lives.

    Amongst the artists and intellectuals that I found myself with, there were very big hopes for what kind of society Delhi could become and they were very interested in being part of creating that. They were setting up institutions, publications, publishing houses, and businesses. They were thinking new ideas. When I arrived, I felt, this is where stuff is happening. The scale of conversations, the philosophy of change was just amazing.

    LP: You've interviewed many of the young tycoons who emerged during Delhi's transformation. How would you describe this new figure? How do they do business?

    RD: Many of their fathers and grandfathers had run significant provincial businesses. They were frugal in their habits and didn't like to advertise themselves, and anyway their wealth remained local both in its magnitude and its reach. They had business and political associates that they drank with and whose weddings they went to, and so it was a tight-knit kind of wealth.

    But the sons, who would probably be now between 35 and 45, had an entirely different experience. Their adult life happened after globalization. Because their fathers often didn't have the skills or qualifications to tap into the forces of globalization, the sons were sent abroad, probably to do an MBA, so they could walk into a meeting with a management consultancy firm or a bank and give a presentation. When they came back they operated not from the local hubs where their fathers ruled but from Delhi, where they could plug into federal politics and global capital.

    So you have these very powerful combinations of father/son businesses. The sons revere the fathers, these muscular, huge masculine figures who have often done much more risky and difficult work building their businesses and have cultivated relationships across the political spectrum. They are very savvy, charismatic people. They know who to give gifts to, how to do favors.

    The sons often don't have that set of skills, but they have corporate skills. They can talk finance in a kind of international language. Neither skill set is enough on its own by early 2000's: they need each other. And what's interesting about this package is that it's very powerful elsewhere, too. It's kind of a world-beating combination. The son fits into an American style world of business and finance, but the thing about American-style business is that there are lots of things in the world that are closed to it. It's very difficult for an American real estate company or food company to go to the president of an African country and do a deal. They don't have the skills for it. But even if they did, they are legally prevented from all the kinds of practices involved, the bribes and everything.

    This Indian business combination can go into places like Africa and Central Asia and do all the things required. If they need to go to market and raise money, they can do that. But if they need to sit around and drink with some government guys and figure out who are the players that need to be kept happy, they can do that, too. They see a lot of the world open to themselves.

    LP: How do these figures compare to American tycoons during, say, the Gilded Age?

    RD: When American observers see these people they think, well, we had these guys between 1890 and 1920, but then they all kind of went under because there was a massive escalation of state power and state wealth and basically the state declared a kind of protracted war on them.

    Americans think this is a stage of development that will pass. But I think it's not going to pass in our case. The Indian state is never going to have the same power over private interests as the U.S. state because lots of things have to happen. The Depression and the Second World War were very important in creating a U.S. state that was that powerful and a rationale for defeating these private interests. I think those private interests saw much more benefit in consenting to, collaborating in, and producing a stronger U.S. state.

    Over time, American business allied itself with the government, which did a lot to open up other markets for it. In India, I think these private interests will not for many years see a benefit in operating differently, precisely because continents like Africa, with their particular set of attributes, have such a bright future. It's not just about what India's like, but what other places are like, and how there aren't that many people in the world that can do what they can do.

    LP: What has been lost and gained in a place like Delhi under global capitalism?

    RD: Undeniably there has been immense material gain in the city since 1991, including the very poorest people, who are richer and have more access to information. What my book tracks is a kind of spiritual and moral crisis that affects rich and poor alike.

    One kind of malaise is political and economic. Even though the poorest are richer, they have less political influence. In a socialist system, everything is done in the name of the poor, for good or for bad, and the poor occupy center stage in political discourse. But since 1991 the poor have become much less prominent in political and economic ideology. As the proportion of wealth held by the richest few families of India has grown massively larger, the situation is very much like the break-up of the Soviet Union, which leads to a much more hierarchical economy where people closest to power have the best information, contacts, and access to capital. They can just expand massively.

    Suddenly there's a state infrastructure that's been built for 70 years or 60 years which is transferred to the private domain and that is hugely valuable. People gain access to telecommunication systems, mines, land, and forests for almost nothing. So ordinary people say, yes, we are richer, and we have all these products and things, but those making the decisions about our society are not elected and hugely wealthy.

    Imagine the upper-middle-class guy who has been to Harvard, works for a management consultancy firm or for an ad agency, and enjoys a kind of international-style middle-class life. He thinks he deserves to make decisions about how the country is run and how resources are used. He feels himself to be a significant figure in his society. Then he realizes that he's not. There's another, infinitely wealthier class of people who are involved in all kinds of backroom deals that dramatically alter the landscape of his life. New private highways and new private townships are being built all around him. They're sucking the water out of the ground. There's a very rapid and seemingly reckless transformation of the landscape that's being wrought and he has no part in it.

    If he did have a say, he might ask, is this really the way that we want this landscape to look? Isn't there enormous ecological damage? Have we not just kicked 10,000 farmers off their land?

    All these conversations that democracies have are not being had. People think, this exactly what the socialists told us that capitalism was - it's pillage and it creates a very wealthy elite exploiting the poor majority. To some extent, I think that explains a lot of why capitalism is so turbulent in places like India and China. No one ever expected capitalism to be tranquil. They had been told for the better part of a century that capitalism was the imperialist curse. So when it comes, and it's very violent, and everyone thinks, well that's what we expected. One of the reasons that it still has a lot of ideological consensus is that people are prepared for that. They go into it as an act of war, not as an act of peace, and all they know is that the rewards for the people at the top are very high, so you'd better be on the top.

    The other kind of malaise is one of culture. Basically, America and Britain invented capitalism and they also invented the philosophical and cultural furniture to make it acceptable. Places where capitalism is going in anew do not have 200 years of cultural readiness. It's just a huge shock. Of course, Indians are prepared for some aspects of it because many of them are trading communities and they understand money and deals. But a lot of those trading communities are actually incredibly conservative about culture - about what kind of lifestyle their daughters will have, what kinds of careers their sons will have. They don't think that their son goes to Brown to become a professor of literature, but to come back and run the family business.

    LP: What is changing between men and women?

    RD: A lot of the fallout is about families. Will women work? If so, will they still cook and be the kind of wife they're supposed to be? Will they be out on the street with their boyfriends dressed in Western clothes and going to movies and clearly advertising the fact that they are economically independent, sexually independent, socially independent? How will we deal with the backlash of violent crimes that have everything to do with all these changes?

    This capitalist system has produced a new figure, which is the economically successful and independent middle-class woman. She's extremely globalized in the sense of what she should be able to do in her life. It's also created a set of lower-middle-class men who had a much greater sense of stability both in their gender and professional situation 30 years ago, when they could rely on a family member or fellow caste member to keep them employed even if they didn't have any marketable attributes. They had a wife who made sure that the culture of the family was intact - religion, cuisine, that kind of stuff.

    Thirty years later, those guys are not going to get jobs because that whole caste value thing has no place in the very fast-moving market economy. Without a high school diploma, they just have nothing to offer. Those guys in the streets are thinking, I don't have a claim on the economy, or on women anymore because I can't earn anything. Women across the middle classes - and it's not just across India, it's across Asia -are trying to opt out of marriage for as long as they can because they see only a downside. Remaining single allows all kinds of benefits – social, romantic, professional. So those guys are pretty bitter and there's a backlash that can become quite violent. We also have an upswing of Hindu fundamentalism as a way of trying to preserve things. It's very appealing to people who think society is falling apart.

    LP: You've described India's experience of global capitalism as traumatic. How is the trauma distinct in Delhi, and in what ways is it universal?

    RD: Delhi suffers specifically from the trauma of Partition, which has created a distinct society. When India became independent, it was divided into India and Pakistan. Pakistan was essentially a Muslim state, and Hindis and Sikhs left. The border was about 400 kilometers from Delhi, which was a tiny, empty city, a British administrative town. Most of those Hindis and Sikhs settled in Delhi where they were allocated housing as refugees. Muslims went in the other direction to Pakistan, and as we know, something between 1 and 2 million were killed in that event.

    The people who arrived in Delhi arrived traumatized, having lost their businesses, properties, friends, and communities, and having seen their family members murdered, raped and abducted. Like the Jewish Holocaust, everyone can tell the stories and everyone has experienced loss. When they all arrive in Delhi, they have a fairly homogeneous reaction: they're never going to let this happen to them again. They become fiercely concerned with security, physical and financial. They're not interested in having nice neighbors and the lighter things of life. They say, it was our neighbors that killed us, so we're going to trust only our blood and run businesses with our brother and our sons. We're going to build high walls around our houses.

    When the grandchildren of these people grow up, it's a problem because none of this has been exorcised. The families have not talked about it. The state has not dealt with it and wants to remember only that India became independent and that was a glorious moment. So the catastrophe actually becomes focused within families rather than the reverse. A lot of grandchildren are more fearful and hateful of Muslims than the grandparents, who remembered a time before when they actually had very deep friendships with Muslims.

    Parents of my generation grew up with immense silence in their households and they knew that in that silence was Islam - a terrifying thing. When you're one year old, you don't even know yet what Islam is, you just know that it's something which is the greatest horror in the universe.

    The Punjabi businessman is a very distinct species. They have treated business as warfare, and they are still doing it like that 70 years later and they are very good at it. They enter the global economy at a time when it's becoming much less civilized as well. In many cases they succeed not because they have a good idea, but because they know how to seize global assets and resources. Punjabi businessmen are not inventing Facebook. They are about mines and oil and water and food -things that everyone understands and needs.

    In this moment of globalization, the world will have to realize that events like the Partition of India are not local history anymore but global history. Especially in this moment when the West no longer controls the whole system, these traumas explode onto the world and affect all of us, like the Holocaust. They introduce levels of turbulence into businesses and practices that we didn't expect necessarily.

    Then there's the trauma of capitalism itself, and here I think it's important for us to re-remember the West's own history. Capitalism achieved a level of consensus in the second half of the 20th century very accidentally, and by a number of enormous forces, not all of which were intended. There's no guarantee that such consensus will be achieved everywhere in the emerging world. India and China don't have an empire to ship people off to as a safety valve when suffering become immense. They just have to absorb all that stuff.

    For a century or so, people in power in Paris and London and Washington felt that they had to save the capitalist system from socialist revolution, so they gave enormous concessions to their populations. Very quickly, people in the West forgot that there was that level of dissent. They thought that everyone loved capitalism. I think as we come into the next period where the kind of consensus has already been dealt a huge blow in the West, we're going to have to deal with some of those forces again.

    LP: When you say that the consensus on capitalism has been dealt a blow, are you talking about the financial crisis?

    RD: Yes, the sense that the nation-state - I'm talking about the U.S. context - can no longer control global capital, global processes, or, indeed, it's own financial elite.

    It's a huge psychological dent in people's faith in the system. I think what's going to happen in the next few years is huge unemployment in the middle class in America because a lot of their jobs will be outsourced or automated. Then, if you have 30-40 percent unemployment in America, which has always been the ideological leader in capitalism, America will start to re-theorize capitalism very profoundly (and maybe the Institute of New Economic Thinking is part of that). Meanwhile, I think the middle class in India would not have these kinds of problems. It's precisely because American technology and finance are so advanced that they're going to hit a lot of those problems. I think in places like India there's so much work to be done that no one needs to leap to the next stage of making the middle class obsolete. They're still useful.

    Lynn Parramore is contributing editor at AlterNet. She is cofounder of Recessionwire, founding editor of New Deal 2.0, and author of "Reading the Sphinx: Ancient Egypt in Nineteenth-Century Literary Culture." She received her Ph.D. in English and cultural theory from NYU. Follow her on Twitter @LynnParramore.

    [Sep 19, 2016] Trump Harbinger Of A New Age by Rod Dreher

    This set of principles in the core of "Trump_vs_deep_state" probably can be improved, but still are interesting: "... If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated. ..."
    Notable quotes:
    "... If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated. ..."
    "... These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided us toward, siren-like, since 1989. ..."
    "... if anti-Trumpers convince themselves that that's all ..."
    "... What is going on is that "globalization-and-identity-politics-speak" is being boldly challenged. Inside the Beltway, along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, there is scarcely any evidence of this challenge. There are people in those places who will vote for Trump, but they dare not say it, for fear of ostracism. ..."
    "... Out beyond this hermetically sealed bicoastal consensus, there are Trump placards everywhere, not because citizens are racists or homophobes or some other vermin that needs to be eradicated, but because there is little evidence in their own lives that this vast post-1989 experiment with "globalization" and identity politics has done them much good. ..."
    "... The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton. ..."
    "... Another page in the annals of American elite incompetence, only five days after the ceasefire in Syria was negotiated, we broke it by bombing a well-known Syrian position. After Russia took us to the woodshed, Samantha Power responds by basically saying, "We messed up, but Russia is a moralistic hypocrite because they support Assad and he is, like, really bad and stuff." ..."
    "... They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them. ..."
    "... The enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Trump can only be understood as an overdue awakening of voters--finally recognizing that voting for more of the same tools of the plutocrats and oligarchs (which was represented by all candidates other than Trump and Sanders) will only serve the war profiteers, neocons, and other beltway bandits--at the expense of every other voter. ..."
    "... Once the voters have awakened, they will not return to slumber or accept the establishment politics as usual. It is going to be a very interesting process to watch, and the political operatives who think we will return to the same old GOP and Democratic politics as usual should brace themselves for a rude awakening. ..."
    "... Trump vs. Clinton = Nationalism vs. Globalism ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Writing in Politico , Georgetown political scientist Joshua Mitchell has a long, important take on the deep meaning of Trump - and it's probably not what you think.

    ... ... ...

    More:

    If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated.

    These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided us toward, siren-like, since 1989.

    That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may at times be, leads us toward: A future where states matter. A future where people are citizens, working together toward (bourgeois) improvement of their lot. His ideas do not yet fully cohere. They are a bit too much like mental dust that has yet to come together. But they can come together. And Trump is the first American candidate to bring some coherence to them, however raucous his formulations have been.

    Mitchell goes on to say that political elites call Trump "unprincipled," and perhaps they're right: that he only does what's good for Trump. On the other hand, maybe Trump's principles are not ideological, but pragmatic. That is, Trump might be a quintessential American political type: the leader who gets into a situation and figures out how to muddle through. Or, as Mitchell puts it:

    This doesn't necessarily mean that he is unprincipled; it means rather that he doesn't believe that yet another policy paper based on conservative "principles" is going to save either America or the Republican Party.

    Also, Mitchell says that there are no doubt voters in the Trump coalition who are nothing but angry, provincial bigots. But if anti-Trumpers convince themselves that that's all the Trump voters are, they will miss something profoundly important about how Western politics are changing because of deep instincts emerging from within the body politic:

    What is going on is that "globalization-and-identity-politics-speak" is being boldly challenged. Inside the Beltway, along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, there is scarcely any evidence of this challenge. There are people in those places who will vote for Trump, but they dare not say it, for fear of ostracism.

    They think that identity politics has gone too far, or that if it hasn't yet gone too far, there is no principled place where it must stop. They believe that the state can't be our only large-scale political unit, but they see that on the post-1989 model, there will, finally, be no place for the state.

    Out beyond this hermetically sealed bicoastal consensus, there are Trump placards everywhere, not because citizens are racists or homophobes or some other vermin that needs to be eradicated, but because there is little evidence in their own lives that this vast post-1989 experiment with "globalization" and identity politics has done them much good.

    There's lots more here, including his prediction of what's going to happen to the GOP.
    Read the whole thing.

    Michael Guarino , September 18, 2016 at 10:41 am

    The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton.

    Another page in the annals of American elite incompetence, only five days after the ceasefire in Syria was negotiated, we broke it by bombing a well-known Syrian position. After Russia took us to the woodshed, Samantha Power responds by basically saying, "We messed up, but Russia is a moralistic hypocrite because they support Assad and he is, like, really bad and stuff."

    Which not only makes it seem more likely that we were targeting Assad's forces to anyone reasonably distrustful of American involvement in the war, but also shows the moral reasoning ability of nothing greater than a 6 year old.

    Seriously, accusing Russia of moralism, and then moralistically trying to hide responsibility by listing atrocities committed by Assad? It is self-parody.

    Red brick, September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.

    "thinly buried in his rhetoric:

    1. borders matter;
    2. immigration policy matters;
    3. national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter;
    4. entrepreneurship matters;
    5. decentralization matters;
    6. PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated."

    They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them.

    james, September 16, 2016 at 6:51 pm
    I cannot speak to what is best for conservative Christians, but change is definitely in the air. Since the start of this election, I have had a clear sense that we are seeing a beginning of a new political reality.

    The enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Trump can only be understood as an overdue awakening of voters--finally recognizing that voting for more of the same tools of the plutocrats and oligarchs (which was represented by all candidates other than Trump and Sanders) will only serve the war profiteers, neocons, and other beltway bandits--at the expense of every other voter.

    Too many voters have finally come to recognize that neither party serves them in any real way. This will forcibly result in a serious reform process of one or both parties, a third party that actually represents working people, or if neither reform or a new party is viable-–a new American revolution, which I fear greatly.

    Once the voters have awakened, they will not return to slumber or accept the establishment politics as usual. It is going to be a very interesting process to watch, and the political operatives who think we will return to the same old GOP and Democratic politics as usual should brace themselves for a rude awakening.

    T.S.Gay, September 16, 2016 at 6:57 pm
    Trump vs. Clinton = Nationalism vs. Globalism

    I'm certainly not the first to say this, but perhaps the first to post it on this blog. RD, perhaps rightfully, has steered this post toward the Benedict Option, but what should be debated is the repudiation of globalization and identity politics.

    Clint, September 16, 2016 at 7:03 pm
    Hillary Clinton,

    "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

    Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.

    [Sep 18, 2016] We Have to Deal With Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo? ..."
    "... Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years? ..."
    "... Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads? ..."
    "... Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets. ..."
    "... Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation ..."
    "... Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all. ..."
    "... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
    "... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
    "... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
    "... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
    "... Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused. ..."
    "... There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with. ..."
    "... Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. ..."
    "... As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now. ..."
    "... If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family. ..."
    "... Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice. ..."
    "... What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    ...Arriving on Capitol Hill to repair ties between Trump and party elites, Gov. Mike Pence was taken straight to the woodshed.

    • John McCain told Pence that Putin was a "thug and a butcher," and Trump's embrace of him intolerable.
    • Said Lindsey Graham: "Vladimir Putin is a thug, a dictator … who has his opposition killed in the streets," and Trump's views bring to mind Munich.
    • Putin is an "authoritarian thug," added "Little Marco" Rubio.

    What causes the Republican Party to lose it whenever the name of Vladimir Putin is raised?

    Putin is no Stalin, whom FDR and Harry Truman called "Good old Joe" and "Uncle Joe." Unlike Nikita Khrushchev, he never drowned a Hungarian Revolution in blood. He did crush the Chechen secession. But what did he do there that General Sherman did not do to Atlanta when Georgia seceded from Mr. Lincoln's Union?

    Putin supported the U.S. in Afghanistan, backed our nuclear deal with Iran, and signed on to John Kerry's plan have us ensure a cease fire in Syria and go hunting together for ISIS and al-Qaida terrorists.

    Still, Putin committed "aggression" in Ukraine, we are told. But was that really aggression, or reflexive strategic reaction? We helped dump over a pro-Putin democratically elected regime in Kiev, and Putin acted to secure his Black Sea naval base by re-annexing Crimea, a peninsula that has belonged to Russia from Catherine the Great to Khrushchev. Great powers do such things.

    When the Castros pulled Cuba out of America's orbit, we decided to keep Guantanamo, and dismiss Havana's protests?

    Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo?

    ... ... ...

    Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years?

    ... ... ...

    Is Putin's Russia more repressive than Xi Jinping's China? Yet, Republicans rarely use "thug" when speaking about Xi. During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it.

    Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads?

    ... ... ...

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority

    Tiktaalik , says: September 16, 2016 at 2:41 am

  • >>During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea
  • buttressed could be even more pertinent)
  • Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets.
  • bacon , says: September 16, 2016 at 5:29 am

    Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation whenever US forces are not actively engaged in combat somewhere. They are loud voices, yes, but irrational voices, too.

    Skeptic , says: September 16, 2016 at 9:13 am

    Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all.

    John Blade Wiederspan , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:18 am

    "Just" states the starvation of the Ukraine is a western lie. The Harvest of Sorrow by Robert Conquest refutes this dangerous falsehood. Perhaps "Just" believes The Great Leap Forward did not lead to starvation of tens of millions in China. After all, this could be another "western lie". So to could be the Armenian genocide in Turkey or slaughter of Communists in Indonesia.

    SteveM , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:23 am

    As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room".

    I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context.

    The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing.

    And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person in the room".

    P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage.

    blimbax , says: September 16, 2016 at 11:29 am

    John asks, "We also have to deal with our current allies. Whom would Mr. Buchanan like to favor?"

    Well, we could redouble our commitment to our democracy and peace loving friends in Saudi Arabia, we could deepen our ties to those gentle folk in Egypt, and maybe for a change give some meaningful support to Israel. Oh, and our defensive alliances will be becoming so much stronger with Montenegro as a member, we will need to pour more resources into that country.

    Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused.

    There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with.

    Joe the Plutocrat , says: September 16, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    "During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it (funny, you failed to mention Laos, South Vietnam, Nicaragua, Noriega/Panama, and everyone's favorite 9/11 co-conspirator and WMD developer, Saddam Hussein). either way how did these "alliances" work out for the US? really doesn't matter, does it? it is early 21st century, not mid 20th century. there is a school of thought in the worlds of counter-terrorism/intelligence operations, which suggests if you want to be successful, you have to partner with some pretty nasty folks. Trump is being "handled" by an experienced, ruthless (that's a compliment), and focused "operator". unless, of course, Trump is actually the superior operator, in which case, this would be the greatest black op of all time.

    Clint , says: September 16, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    "From Russia With Money - Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset and Cronyism,"

    "Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo, 17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors" or sponsored speeches by former President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The Post.

    http://nypost.com/2016/07/31/report-raises-questions-about-clinton-cash-from-russians-during-reset/

    WakeUp , says: September 16, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. Once you understand that then the (evil)actions of the Western elite make sense. Anyone who stands in the way of those things is an "enemy". This is how they determine an "enemy".

    As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now.

    If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family.

    Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice.

    What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us.

    [Sep 18, 2016] Brexit In America: Clinton vs. Trump

    You need to substitute PIC (a.k.a., The Elites or Political Class)) for neoliberal elite for the article to make more sense.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Our nation is in the grip of such poisonous thinking. The DNC with its "Super Delegates" already has a way to control who will be their candidate. In an irony to beat all ironies, the DNC's Super Delegates were able to stop Bernie Sanders... ..."
    "... The reason Trump is still rising (and I believe will win handily) is he clearly represents the original image of America: a self made success story based on capitalism and the free market. ..."
    strata-sphere.com

    This election cycle is so amazing one cannot help but think it has been scripted by some invisible, all-powerful, hand. I mean, how could we have two completely opposite candidates, perfectly reflecting the forces at play in this day and age? It truly is a clash between The Elites and The Masses!

    Main Street vs Wall & K Street.

    The Political Industrial Complex (PIC – a.k.a., The Elites or Political Class) is all up arms over the outsider barging in on their big con. The PIC is beside itself trying to stop Donald Trump from gaining the Presidency, where he will be able to clean out the People's House and the bureaucratic cesspool that has shackled Main Street with political correctness, propaganda, impossibly expensive health care, ridiculous taxes and a national debt that will take generations to pay off.

    The PIC has run amok long enough – illustrated perfectly by the defect ridden democrat candidate: Hillary Clinton. I mean, how could you frame America's choices this cycle any better than this --

    Back in July, Democratic presidential nominee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "there is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation."

    On Monday of this week, ABC's Liz Kreutzer reminded people of that statement, as a new batch of emails reveal that there was a connection, and it was cash .

    The Abedin emails reveal that the longtime Clinton aide apparently served as a conduit between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton while Clinton served as secretary of state. In more than a dozen email exchanges, Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In many instances, Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation throughout Hillary Clinton's tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin. In Abedin's June deposition to Judicial Watch, she conceded that part of her job at the State Department was taking care of " Clinton family matters ."

    This is what has Main Street so fed up with Wall & K street (big business, big government). The Clinton foundation is a cash cow for Clinton, Inc. So while our taxes go up, our debt sky rockets and our health care becomes too expensive to afford, Clan Clinton has made 100's of millions of dollars selling access (and obviously doing favors, because no one spends that kind of money without results).

    The PIC is circling the wagons with its news media arm shrilly screaming anything and everything about Trump as if they could fool Main Street with their worn out propaganda. I seriously doubt it will work. The Internet has broken the information monopoly that allowed the PIC in the not too distant past to control what people knew and thought.

    Now we have cracks in the PIC's media spin, through which we can see the ugly truth about our modern democracy :

    Massachusetts has a long history of using the power of incumbency to cripple political opponents. In fact, it's a leading state for such partisan gamesmanship. Dating back to 1812, when Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed into law a redistricting plan for state Senate districts that favored his Democratic-Republican Party, the era of Massachusetts rule rigging began. It has continued, unabated, ever since.

    Given the insider dealing and venality that epitomized the 2016 presidential primary process, I'd hoped that politicians would think twice before abusing the power of the state for political purposes. Galvin quickly diminished any such prospect of moderation in the sketchy behavior of elected officials. He hid his actions behind the thin veil of fiscal responsibility. He claimed to be troubled by the additional $56,000 he was going to have to spend printing ballots to accommodate Independent voters. He conveniently ignored the fact that thousands of these UIP members have been paying taxes for decades to support a primary process that excludes them.

    In my home state of Kansas, where my 2014 candidacy threatened to take a U.S. Senate seat from the Republicans, they responded predictably. Instead of becoming more responsive to voters, our state's highly partisan secretary of state, Kris Kobach, introduced legislation that would bring back one of the great excesses of machine politics: straight party-line voting – which is designed to discourage voters from considering an Independent candidacy altogether. Kobach's rationale, like Galvin's, was laughable. He described it as a "convenience" for voters.

    The article goes on to note these acts by the PIC are an affront to the large swath of the electorate who really choose who will win elections:

    In a recent Gallup poll, 60 percent of Americans said they do not feel well-represented by the Democrats and Republicans and believe a third major party is needed. Fully 42 percent of Americans now describe themselves as politically independent .

    That means the two main parties are each smaller in size than the independents (68% divided by 2 equals 34%), which is why independents pick which side will win. If the PIC attacks this group – guess what the response will look like?

    I recently had a discussion with someone from Washington State who is pretty much my opposite policy-wise. She is a deep blue democrat voter, whereas I am a deep purple independent who is more small-government Tea Party than conservative-GOP. She was lamenting the fact that her state has caucuses, which is one method to blunt Main Street voters from having a say. It was interesting that we quickly and strongly agreed on one thing above all else: open primaries. We both knew that if the voters had the only say in who are leaders would be, all sides could abide that decision easily. It is when PIC intervenes that things get ugly.

    Open primaries make the political parties accountable to the voters. Open primaries make it harder for the PIC to control who gets into office, and reduces the leverage of big donors. Open primaries reflect the will of the states and the nation – not the vested interests (read bank accounts) of the PIC.

    That is why you when you hear someone oppose open primaries , it is a clear sign they are from the Political Industrial Complex and not from Main Street. For example:

    Without doubt, one of the most troublesome aspects of the current system is its gross inefficiency. Whereas generations ago selecting a nominee took relatively little time and money , today's process has resulted in a near-permanent campaign. Because would-be nominees have to win primaries and open caucuses in several states, they must put together vast campaign apparatuses that spread across the nation, beginning years in advance and raising tens of millions of dollars.

    The length of the campaign alone keeps many potential candidates on the sidelines. In particular, those in positions of leadership at various levels of our government cannot easily put aside their duties and shift into full-time campaign mode for such an extended period.

    It is amazing how this kind of thinking can be considered legitimate. Note how independent voters are evil in the mind of the PIC, and only government leaders need apply. Not surprising, their answer is to control access to the ballot:

    During the week of Lincoln's birthday (February 12), the Republican Party would hold a Republican Nomination Convention that would borrow from the process by which the Constitution was ratified. Delegates to the convention would be selected by rank-and-file Republicans in their local communities , and those chosen delegates would meet, deliberate, and ultimately nominate five people who, if willing, would each be named as one of the party's officially sanctioned finalists for its presidential nomination. Those five would subsequently debate one another a half-dozen times.

    Brexit became a political force because the European Union was not accountable to the voters. The EU members are also selected by members of the European PIC – not citizens of the EU. Without direct accountability to all citizens (a.k.a. – voters) there is no democracy – just a variant of communism:

    During the Russian Civil War (1918–1922), the Bolsheviks nationalized all productive property and imposed a policy named war communism, which put factories and railroads under strict government control, collected and rationed food, and introduced some bourgeois management of industry . After three years of war and the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion, Lenin declared the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921, which was to give a "limited place for a limited time to capitalism." The NEP lasted until 1928, when Joseph Stalin achieved party leadership, and the introduction of the Five Year Plans spelled the end of it. Following the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks, in 1922, formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), or Soviet Union, from the former Russian Empire.

    Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Leninist parties were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as the broad base; they were made up only of elite cadres approved by higher members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party discipline .

    Emphasis mine. Note how communism begins with government control of major industries. The current con job about Global Warming is the cover-excuse for a government grab of the energy sector. Obamacare is an attempt to grab the healthcare sector. And Wall Street already controls the banking sector. See a trend yet?

    This is then followed by imposing a rigid hierarchy of "leaders" at all levels of politics – so no opposing views can gain traction. Party discipline uber alles!

    Our nation is in the grip of such poisonous thinking. The DNC with its "Super Delegates" already has a way to control who will be their candidate. In an irony to beat all ironies, the DNC's Super Delegates were able to stop Bernie Sanders...

    The reason Trump is still rising (and I believe will win handily) is he clearly represents the original image of America: a self made success story based on capitalism and the free market.

    His opponent is the epitome of the Political Industrial Complex – a cancer that has eaten away America's free market foundation and core strength. A person who wants to impose government on the individual.

    How could the choice be any starker, any clearer?

    [Sep 18, 2016] News Media Is Wearing Titanium Blinders This Election Cycle

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed But Normal Politician. Why Can't America See That? ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed But Typical Politician. Why Can't America See That? ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | strata-sphere.com

    by AJStrata

    Sep 09, 2016

    This is a "populist" election cycle.

    Coming on the heels of Brexit and in tandem with many other anti-globalist-cronyism movements, it is a societal reaction that has been building for years (since Bush 2, and definitely since the Tea Party before it was co-opted by the Political Elite). When the elite bend and break the rules to line their pockets, and the masses end up being severely financially impacted in return, then there is going to be a visceral response to those hoarding the nation's riches and opportunities.

    What is amazing is the depth of ignorance (or compliance) in the news media. Take Jonathan Chait at the New York Times, who has been in near constant apocalyptic fit since the "debate" on national security.

    His conniption hit a new level with a brilliantly self-projecting article entitled:

    Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed But Normal Politician. Why Can't America See That?

    My only quibble with Chait is I would title it:

    Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed But Typical Politician. Why Can't America See That?

    My only response is to inform Chait of the blatantly obvious: Of course we see Clinton as a typical and flawed politician!!

    So were the establisment GOP contenders in the primary. So are all the power brokers in the Political Industrial Complex (PIC). So is the pliant, PIC-suckling news media.

    Why do you think Clinton is sinking in the polls during an election cycle where the vast majority of voters on Main Street USA see the country heading in the wrong direction? Does this translate to "more of the same please?"!!

    Why would a swath of voters who sees their slice of the American Dream being trampled want more of the same policies from the "globalist" Political Elite sitting behind their gated communities in their posh mansions?

    Of course we see her that way. She is simply not what the country wants – nor deserves.

    The PIC should realize that when their best argument is "the worst of us is better than anyone from outside the PIC" – they have hit rock bottom. And it is sooooo obvious!

    [Sep 18, 2016] Global Financial Crisis, Neoliberal Newspeak and Digital Capitalism in Crisis

    Notable quotes:
    "... Paula Chakravartty, Dan Schiller ..."
    "... The increasing emphasis on features and infotainment at the expense of hard news has distracted public attention from the reality of global economies. ..."
    "... We believe that it is too early to know what, if anything, has changed in terms of the dominance of neoliberal newspeak and we contend that rigorous scrutiny of business media is vital to global economic health. ..."
    scribd.com
    Global Financial Crisis| Neoliberal Newspeak and Digital Capitalism in Crisis Paula Chakravartty, Dan Schiller
    Abstract
    Changes in the practice of business journalism are a key element in the current financial crisis. The increasing emphasis on features and infotainment at the expense of hard news has distracted public attention from the reality of global economies.

    In this article, we provide an overview of the dominant business and financial news media, primarily in the United States, but also in the urbanizing nations of China and India. We believe that it is too early to know what, if anything, has changed in terms of the dominance of neoliberal newspeak and we contend that rigorous scrutiny of business media is vital to global economic health.

    Full Text: PDF

    Global Financial Crisistextbar Neoliberal Newspeak and Digital Capitalism in Crisis Paula Chakravartty - Academia.edu

    [Sep 18, 2016] Guccifer 2.0 – 13Sept2016 Leak – A Readers Guide (Part 2) [Discarded Hard Drive?]

    Sep 15, 2016 | tm.durusau.net

    Guccifer 2.0 's latest release of DNC documents is generally described as:

    In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents. It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security experts attending the London conference. Guccifer 2.0 drops more DNC docs by Cory Bennett.

    The "600 megabytes of documents" is an attention grabber, but how much of that 600 megabytes is useful and/or interesting?

    The answer turns out to be, not a lot.


    Here's an overview of the directories and files:

    /CIR

    Financial investment data.

    /CNBC

    Financial investment data.

    /DNC

    Redistricting documents.

    /DNCBSUser

    One file with fields of VANDatabaseCode StateID VanID cons_id?

    /documentation

    A large amount of documentation for "IQ8," apparently address cleaning software. Possibly useful if you want to know address cleaning rules from eight years ago.

    /DonorAnalysis

    Sound promising but is summary data based on media markets.

    /early

    Early voting analysis.

    /eday

    Typical election voting analysis, from 2002 to 2008.

    /FEC

    Duplicates to FEC filings. Checking the .csv file, data from 2008. BTW, you can find this date (2008) and later data of the same type at: http://fec.gov .

    /finance

    More duplicates to FEC filings. 11-26-08 NFC Members Raised.xlsx (no credit cards) – Dated but 453 names with contacts, amounts raised, etc.

    /HolidayCards

    Holiday card addresses, these are typical:

    holiday_list_noproblems.txt
    holidaycards.mdb
    morethanonename.xls

    /jpegs

    Two jpegs were included in the dump.

    /marketing

    Lists of donors.

    DNC union_05-09.txt
    DNCunion0610.txt
    GDSA11A.CSV
    November VF EOC – MEYER.txt
    dem0702a[1].zip
    dem977.txt
    dem978.txt
    dem979.txt
    dem980.txt
    dem981.txt
    dem982.txt
    dem9A3_NGP.txt
    dem9A6_NGP.txt
    dnc_harris_eoc_nov09_canvass.zip – password protected
    dsg.txt
    gsi.txt
    harris.txt
    marketing_phones.txt
    ofa_actives_non-donor.csv
    tm_files.txt

    /May-FEC

    Grepping looks like May, 2009 data for the FEC.

    /newmedia

    More donor lists.

    20090715_new_synetech_emails.csv
    emails_w_contactinfo.txt
    ofa_email_export.zip

    /pdfs

    IT hosting proposals.

    /Reports for Kaine

    Various technology memos

    /security

    IT security reports

    /stuffformike/WH/

    Contacts not necessarily in FEC records

    Contact List-Complete List.xlsx – Contact list with emails and phone numbers (no credit cards)
    WH Staff 2010.xlsx – Names but no contact details


    The data is eight (8) years old . Do you have the same phone number you did eight (8) years ago?

    Guccifer 2.0 makes no claim on their blog for ownership of this leak.

    A "hack" that results in eight year old data, most of which is more accessible at http://fec.gov ?

    No, this looks more like a discarded hard drive that was harvested and falsely labeled as a "hack" of the DNC.

    Unless Guccifer 2.0 says otherwise on their blog, you have better things to do with your time.

    PS: You don't need old hard drives to discover pay-to-play purchases of public appointments. Check back tomorrow for: How-To Discover Pay-to-Play Appointment Pricing .

    Posted in Government , Politics | No Comments "

    Guccifer 2.0 – 13Sept2016 Leak – A Reader's Guide (Part 1)

    September 14th, 2016 Guccifer 2.0 dropped a new bundle of DNC documents on September 13, 2016! Like most dumps, there was no accompanying guide to make use of that dump easier. ;-) Not a criticism, just an observation.

    As a starting point to make your use of that dump a little easier, I am posting an ls -lR listing of all the files in that dump, post extraction with 7z and unrar . Guccifer2.0-13Sept2016-filelist.txt .

    I'm working on a list of the files most likely to be of interest. Look for that tomorrow.

    I can advise that no credit card numbers were included in this dump.

    Using:

    grep --color -H -rn --include="*.txt" '\([345]\{1\}[0-9]\{3\}\|6011\)\{1\}[ -]\?[0-9]\{4\}[ -]\?[0-9]\{2\}[-]\?[0-9]\{2\}[ -]\?[0-9]\{1,4\}'

    I checked all the .txt files for credit card numbers. (I manually checked the xsl/xslx files.)

    There were "hits" but those were in Excel exports of vote calculations. Funny how credit card numbers don't ever begin with "0." as a prefix.

    Since valid credit card numbers vary in length, I don't know of an easy way to avoid that issue. So inspection of the files it was.

    [Sep 18, 2016] How-To Discover Pay-to-Play Appointment Pricing

    Notable quotes:
    "... United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | tm.durusau.net

    You have seen one or more variations on:

    You may be wondering why CNN , the New York Time and the Washington Post aren't all over this story?

    While selling public offices surprises some authors, whose names I omitted out of courtesy to their families, selling offices is a regularized activity in the United States.

    So regularized that immediately following each presidential election , the Government Printing Office publishes the United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions 2012 (Plum Book) that lists the 9,000 odd positions that are subject to presidential appointment.

    From the description of the 2012 edition:

    Every four years, just after the Presidential election, " United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions " is published. It is commonly known as the "Plum Book" and is alternately published between the House and Senate.

    The Plum Book is a listing of over 9,000 civil service leadership and support positions (filled and vacant) in the Legislative and Executive branches of the Federal Government that may be subject to noncompetitive appointments, or in other words by direct appointment.

    These "plum" positions include agency heads and their immediate subordinates, policy executives and advisors, and aides who report to these officials. Many positions have duties which support Administration policies and programs. The people holding these positions usually have a close and confidential relationship with the agency head or other key officials.

    Even though the 2012 "plum" book is currently on sale for $19.00 (usual price is $38.00), given that a new one will appear later this year, consider using the free online version at: Plum Book 2012 .

    plum-book-2012-460

    The online interface is nothing to brag on. You have to select filters and then find to obtain further information on positions. Very poor UI.

    However, if under title you select "Chief of Mission, Monaco" and then select "find," the resulting screen looks something like this:

    monaco-chief-01-460

    To your far right there is a small arrow that if selected, takes you to the details:

    monaco-chief-02-460

    If you were teaching a high school civics class, the question would be:

    How much did Charles Rivkin have to donate to obtain the position of Chief of Mission, Monaco?

    FYI, the CIA World FactBook gives this brief description for Monaco :

    Monaco, bordering France on the Mediterranean coast, is a popular resort, attracting tourists to its casino and pleasant climate. The principality also is a banking center and has successfully sought to diversify into services and small, high-value-added, nonpolluting industries.

    Unlike the unhappy writers that started this post, you would point the class to: Transaction Query By Individual Contributor at the Federal Election Commission site.

    Entering the name Rivkin, Charles and select "Get Listing."

    Rivkin's contributions are broken into categories and helpfully summed to assist you in finding the total.

    • Contributions to All Other Political Committees Except Joint Fundraising Committees – $72399.00
    • Joint Fundraising Contributions – $22300.00
    • Recipient of Joint Fundraiser Contributions – $36052.00

    Caution: There is an anomalous Rivkin in that last category, contributing $40 to Donald Trump. For present discussions, I would subtract that from the grand total of:

    $130,711 to be the Chief of Mission, Monaco.

    Realize that this was not a lump sum payment but a steady stream of contributions starting in the year 2000.

    Using the Transaction Query By Individual Contributor resource, you can correct stories that claim:

    Jane Hartley paid DNC $605,000 and then was nominated by Obama to serve concurrently as the U.S. Ambassador to the French Republic and the Principality of Monaco.

    jane-hartley

    (from: This Is How Much It 'Costs' To Get An Ambassadorship: Guccifer 2.0 Leaks DNC 'Pay-To-Play' Donor List )

    If you run the FEC search you will find:

    • Contributions to Super PACs, Hybrid PACs and Historical Soft Money Party Accounts – $5000.00
    • Contributions to All Other Political Committees Except Joint Fundraising Committees – $516609.71
    • Joint Fundraising Contributions – $116000.00
    • Grand total: $637,609.71.

    So, $637,609.71, not $605,000.00 but also as a series of contributions starting in 1997, not one lump sum .

    You don't have to search discarded hard drives to get pay-to-play appointment pricing. It's all a matter of public record.

    PS: I'm not sure how accurate or complete Nominations & Appointments (White House) may be, but its an easier starting place for current appointees than the online Plum book.

    PPS: Estimated pricing for "Plum" book positions could be made more transparent. Not a freebie. Let me know if you are interested.

    Posted in Government , Politics | No Comments "

    [Sep 18, 2016] Last Chance for the 'Deplorables'

    Notable quotes:
    "... "You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" smirked Clinton to cheers and laughter. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it." They are "irredeemable," but they are "not America." ..."
    "... "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two baskets." First there are "the deplorables, the racists, and the haters, and the people who … think somehow he's going to restore an America that no longer exists. So, just eliminate them from your thinking." And who might be in the other basket backing Donald Trump? They are people, said Clinton, "who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them. … These are people we have to understand and empathize with." ..."
    "... Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of ..."
    "... and the author of book ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    The American Conservative

    Speaking to 1,000 of the overprivileged at an LGBT fundraiser, where the chairs ponied up $250,000 each and Barbra Streisand sang, Hillary Clinton gave New York's social liberals what they came to hear.

    "You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" smirked Clinton to cheers and laughter. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it." They are "irredeemable," but they are "not America."

    This was no verbal slip. Clinton had invited the press in to cover the LGBT gala at Cipriani Wall Street where the cheap seats went for $1,200. And she had tried out her new lines earlier on Israeli TV:

    "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two baskets." First there are "the deplorables, the racists, and the haters, and the people who … think somehow he's going to restore an America that no longer exists. So, just eliminate them from your thinking." And who might be in the other basket backing Donald Trump? They are people, said Clinton, "who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them. … These are people we have to understand and empathize with."

    In short, Trump's support consists of one-half xenophobes, bigots, and racists, and one-half losers we should pity.

    And she is running on the slogan "Stronger Together."

    Her remarks echo those of Barack Obama in 2008 to San Francisco fat cats puzzled about those strange Pennsylvanians.

    They are "bitter," said Obama, they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustration."

    In short, Pennsylvania is a backwater of alienated Bible-banging gun nuts and bigots suspicious of outsiders and foreigners.

    But who really are these folks our new class detests, sneers at, and pities? As African-Americans are 90 percent behind Clinton, it is not black folks. Nor is it Hispanics, who are solidly in the Clinton camp.

    Nor would Clinton tolerate such slurs directed at Third World immigrants who are making America better by making us more diverse than that old "America that no longer exists."

    No, the folks Obama and Clinton detest, disparage, and pity are the white working- and middle-class folks Richard Nixon celebrated as Middle Americans and the Silent Majority.

    They are the folks who brought America through the Depression, won World War II, and carried us through the Cold War from Truman in 1945 to victory with Ronald Reagan in 1989.

    These are the Trump supporters. They reside mostly in red states like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Middle Pennsylvania, and southern, plains, and mountain states that have provided a disproportionate share of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who fought and died to guarantee the freedom of plutocratic LGBT lovers to laugh at and mock them at $2,400-a-plate dinners.

    Yet, there is truth in what Clinton said about eliminating "from your thinking" people who believe Trump can "restore an America that no longer exists."

    For the last chance to restore America, as Trump himself told Christian Broadcasting's "Brody File" on Friday, September 9, is slipping away:

    "I think this will be the last election if I don't win … because you're going to have people flowing across the border, you're going to have illegal immigrants coming in and they're going to be legalized and they're going to be able to vote, and once that all happens, you can forget it."

    Politically and demographically, America is at a tipping point.

    Minorities are now 40 percent of the population and will be 30 percent of the electorate in November. If past trends hold, 4 of 5 will vote for Clinton.

    Meanwhile, white folks, who normally vote 60 percent Republican, will fall to 70 percent of the electorate, the lowest ever, and will decline in every subsequent presidential year.

    The passing of the greatest generation and silent generation, and, soon, the baby-boom generation, is turning former red states like Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada purple, and putting crucial states like Florida and Ohio in peril.

    What has happened to America is astonishing. A country 90 percent Christian after World War II has been secularized by a dictatorial Supreme Court with only feeble protest and resistance.

    A nation, 90 percent of whose population traced their roots to Europe, will have been changed by mass immigration and an invasion across its Southern border into a predominantly Third World country by 2042.

    What will then be left of the old America to conserve?

    No wonder Clinton was so giddy at the LGBT bash. They are taking America away from the "haters," as they look down in moral supremacy on the pitiable Middle Americans who are passing away.

    But a question arises for 2017.

    Why should Middle America, given what she thinks of us, render a President Hillary Clinton and her regime any more allegiance or loyalty than Colin Kaepernick renders to the America he so abhors?

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .

    28 Responses to Last Chance for the 'Deplorables'

  • Mac61 , says: September 13, 2016 at 12:28 am
    Good piece. I couldn't agree more. The sad thing is that many Mexican Catholics are voting against their own rights to free speech and freedom of religion by mindlessly sticking with the Leftist Democrat party. But it also raises the question–why was there not one single articulate conservative who can make the case for intelligent immigration reform? I teach in New Mexico near the border. We've discussed the election. To a person, my students will not forgive Trump for his "rapist" and "criminal" remarks. I don't blame them at all. Trump drove Hispanics away.
    Clint , says: September 13, 2016 at 12:56 am
    Then again, Hillary Clinton's camp appears to be attempting to divert attention away from her own Deplorable Basket of Emails.
    Kurt Gayle , says: September 13, 2016 at 1:26 am
    Many Democrats, too, are sickened by these insults that Hillary Clinton has hurled at tens of millions of Middle Americans - and among some Democrats there is growing talk of forcing Clinton off the Democratic ticket.

    "Cokie Roberts: Some Democrats "Nervously Beginning To Whisper" About Replacing Hillary"

    "[Yesterday] on NPR's Morning Edition, ABC News contributor and columnist Cokie Roberts said that Democrats are 'nervously beginning to whisper' about what might happen if their nominee for president Hillary Clinton has to step aside for health reasons."

    Cokie Roberts, Monday, September 12th: "…The polls are tightening and Democrats were already saying that Hillary was the only candidate who could not beat Trump, and [her health is] taking her off of the campaign trail, cancelling her trip to California today. It has them very nervously beginning to whisper about her stepping aside and finding another candidate…I think it's unlikely to be a real thing. I'm sure it's an overreaction about an already-skittish party, but you know, they have looked at what happens in that circumstance. The Democratic National Committee convenes the convention, and they vote. Ironically the candidate everyone looks at is Joe Biden, who is even older than Hillary, and then again, so is Donald Trump. But there is enough unhappiness that this kind of sotto voce stuff is going on."

    https://youtu.be/su_2wZaZbAQ

    libertarian jerry , says: September 13, 2016 at 3:22 am
    In the end its all economic. 100 years and more ago the great fear among the middle and upper classes in America was the influx of "foreign elements" such as Southern and Eastern Europeans mainly Italians,Jews and Slavs. Yet these immigrants,within 2 or 3 generations,became ensconced,by and large,in the Middle and Upper economic strata of the nation and thus tended to be more conservative in their economics and politics. The only difference today is not racial or ethnic but,instead,with the tremendous growth in the government and its inherent Welfare State,becoming a magnet for "3rd World" immigration. The Welfare State being something that hardly existed at the beginning of the 20th Century.
    In the end,the Left and especially the Democrat Party have gained political power with the creation of the "dependency class" which consists mainly of people riding the government gravy train either on one form of the Dole or another and or as large scale members of the government employee class. Do away with the Welfare State and you restore the traditional economic ladder of the past. No matter where the immigrants come from.
    mrscracker , says: September 13, 2016 at 10:32 am
    Mac61 ,
    I don't get it either. Immigration shouldn't be used to score political points on either side.
    Trump really missed the boat on that. He could have talked about national security needs rather than demean & permanently alienate a whole group of people.
    EliteCommInc. , says: September 13, 2016 at 11:01 am
    It doesn't really matter who they replace Sec Clinton with, her comments are their sentiments. They have been openly saying this for more than twenty years. Until the mess of 2003 which crumbled conservative credibility it was generally ignored. But since that time liberals have come out of the woodwork openly with their nasty "depersonalizations" of people like me.

    The level of filth that people have been willing to wade in openly - just seems to have no bounds. Her comments are no big deal. They represent what is the democratic prayer.

    People accuse me of not being respectful of the popular, the powerful, and even scripture says, one should fear them because they can make life miserable. Respect is hard to quantify these days. Because the people who are supposed to be the best and the brightest, among the elite, my better in every way - just on't have my faith as or admiration as they once did. If agreement is what is meant by respect, I am on shaky ground. It doesn't take much for people to create faux narratives and then hone in on the some tidbit to confirm it, so as to dismiss them.

    To follow the world is to follow folly in the end. And i just won't do it, this kind of characterizations minus any depth of background to make them plausible have been determining futures since men and women walked out of the garden. I chagrin it when Mr Trump does it as much s anyone else.

    I think of WWI and WWII men signed up to fight for a country right along side the deplorable. Being deplorable as I must be doesn't make my political position on issues wrong.

    I oppose open borders (shuld have been a temporary moratorium after 9/11 – say five years)

    I oppose same sex marriage, despite people I know and like choosing a same sex relational dynamic.

    I oppose wars that are not directly related to the threats against the US or her allies. Even Afghanistan was careless and unnecessary to the task - i care not which Harvard, Yale or Stanford grad calls me unpatriotic, a coward or something worse.

    I oppose bail outs when companies are deliberately careless and for which no benefit is to the bailiffs and no corrective action is place

    I oppose trade agreements that do not benefit the country – that is afterall the purpose of Us government

    I think killing children in the womb is worse than our slavery and its consequence though I suspect slavery helped create a rhetoric that made killing children doing so.

    government is a necessary evil, and should be held on a tight leash including the police, if you are going to whine about gov. unions, and exempt the police union, you're a bent reed

    I oppose inebriating substances

    The list of deplorable beliefs are many . . .

    I intend to keep them, including celibacy and sobriety

    Deplorables I could or should lose - bitterness and my occasional list of expletives

    Deplorable I am and deplorable I shall remain. Until that day I am fully known and fully know.

    jayneb , says: September 13, 2016 at 1:39 pm
    You can argue about the correct percentage all you want - but it is in fact a fact that many Trump supporters are "deplorable." Trump basically says so himself. What does it say when Trump announces he could shoot someone in downtown New York and HIS voters would still love him. I'd say he disrespect for his own followers is much greater than Hillary's.
    JonF , says: September 13, 2016 at 2:09 pm
    Re: A country 90 percent Christian after World War II has been secularized by a dictatorial Supreme Court with only feeble protest and resistance.

    This is a disastrous misdiagnosis of the problem. The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it. Nothing at any level of government does. If people are not going to church it's because they are deciding not to. One may deplore that trend (in fact, I do), but for sure misunderstanding its cause is no help if your goal is to reverse it.

    Re: The polls are tightening

    Polling did tighten a bit as Hillary's large convention bounce wore off. But now the polls have plateaued again about where they were before the conventions. See: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/polls-show-trumps-momentum-has-stalled-for-now/

    david helveticka , says: September 13, 2016 at 2:23 pm
    As an older guy whose politics were formed during the Vietnam War era, I can say the enemy of the counter-cultural left was the Nixon Silent Majority. These were the "new left"..the folks hiding out in the communities growing up around the universities and colleges.

    These folks were afraid to venture out among the working folks where they would be ostracized and attacked. So they hid out in the universities, and made careers as educators, and the politically oriented non-profits foundations. They got control of the big foundations like Ford Foundation, where they could twist these organizations to become major advocates for their counter-cultural ideas. In most cases, they were unable to really do anything productive, to feed or clothe or really help the poor. But they earned lucrative incomes and easy lives by basically attacking the mainstream working folk values they hated so much.

    Now these counter-cultural leftists have gotten the power to "change" America…and they elected Obama!

    Where was the "conservative" movement when this was happening…basically touting silly economic libertarian fantasies about a "free market", whose result has been the destruction of the industrial might of America, exported jobs and imported cheap labor, joining the counter-cultural left in their labor of destroying the economic security of the old "Nixon Silent Majority".

    The establishment Republicans and establishment "conservatives" like to bring up Ronald Reagan, but it was NIXON who created the political coalition on which Reagan appealed to.

    Sad as I go into retirement to know that the New Left controls the government, the economy, and it was all made possible by the establishment Republicans and their ilk that made it all possible.

    david helveticka , says: September 13, 2016 at 2:29 pm
    Basically, I've never disagreed with Pat Buchanan on much of anything, and especially the conclusions he makes in this column.

    But like Trump, poor Mr. Buchanan has been silenced and ostracized by the counter-cultural elite that elected OBAMA, and sadly aided and abetted by the "conservative" establishment which he labored for years to build with Reagan and Nixon.

    That is the real sadness about the end of America, it was made possible by people who claim to be "conservative"…

    Noreastern , says: September 13, 2016 at 2:58 pm
    I have nothing but respect for Pat Buchanan but he overlooks the fact that the US was built on the backs of immigrants. We accept anyone and integrate them into our society. The Irish Catholics who a century ago were outcasts in this society have become part of the backbone that makes the US great. People of Asian decent have become one of the highest productive demographics in this country. The way forward is not to shut off immigration but to incorporate immigrants quickly into our society. That has always been our way.
    jbd , says: September 13, 2016 at 4:05 pm
    This article assumes that (a) minorities are inevitably and monolithically antiRepublican, (b) Mexcans mostly come here to get free stuff rather than to work, and (c) the Republicans could never win or come close to breaking even with Latino voters. All three assumptions are demonstrably false. They only become true when Republicans play Buchanan/Trump-style politics. Mostly, Mexicans come here to work very hard for very little. They dream of owning their own contracting business, having their own little home, and maybe a shiny new truck. That's not to say we should let them all in; we should put our own citizens first. But let's not pretend they threaten our way of life the way Muslim migrants do in Europe. They should be so lucky as to have our immigration problems. And one day, if Republicans get their act together, Mexicans will vote Republican. Do you think they like paying for freeloaders? Transgender pronouns? And while we're at it, what do those Asians now voting D think of affirmative action quotas? I respect Mr Buchanan, but he doesn't see obvious opportunities and thinks like a political loser.
    Myron Hudson , says: September 13, 2016 at 4:52 pm
    Any small amount of time spent online will reveal language, behavior and attitude among Trump supporters that is truly deplorable. No getting around that. The shoe fits.

    Maybe not half, but you can't miss it even if you're not looking for it. But I guess it's not PC to call it out?

    JonF , says: September 13, 2016 at 5:02 pm
    Re: Now these counter-cultural leftists have gotten the power to "change" America…and they elected Obama!

    You are talking about majority of the electorate in both 2008 and 2012. Deal with it.

    Viriato , says: September 13, 2016 at 6:07 pm
    Noreastern wrote: "That has always been our way."

    That is demonstrably false.

    Clint , says: September 13, 2016 at 7:01 pm
    Re: The polls are tightening

    Many of the state battleground polls show that – as with the national polls – the race is narrowing into almost a dead heat.
    The polls were taken before Clinton's medical episode and pneumonia at the September 11 memorial; the first two national polls to come out that include September 11 as part of the period tested show Trump leading by 3 percent in the LA Times USC daily tracking poll and Clinton leading by 4. However, the latter poll, by NBC News/SurveyMonkey contained concerning signs for Clinton as it shows a narrowing in that online poll compared to previously and erosion in support for her among independents.

    kalendjay , says: September 13, 2016 at 7:04 pm
    The country has indeed been built on the backs of immigrants, but we are now dealing with the willfully unassimilateable generation, whose Hispanic roots on US soil go back to Cortez, and the legacy of encomiendas and material wastefulness. California is still heavily Hispanic, dirt poor, and violent. At some point this is no longer a quaint manifestation of colorful geographic particularism. Vast swathes of the Far West are holes of poverty and despair. Puerto Rico is depopulating as the residents take on the ghetto stigmatization of working. Hispanic males are actually setting as poor or poorer an example than whites or blacks against their female counterparts in work, self support, and childraising.

    So we now have perpetual immigrants in their own land, who cannot distinguish a migrant from an actual immigrant, and who take immigration quota busting as "immigration reform". So there are other deplorables than Ozark types who had the bad luck to sustain traditions that predated but also existed simultaneous to the Civil War, the 20's and the Great Society.

    Which is not to say that Hiilary isn't a tribalist, depicting disparate LGBT's as an oppressed, fighting class. Just read her entire speech.

    Intelliwriter , says: September 13, 2016 at 7:34 pm
    There was a time when it was common to see "Irish need not apply." Today it's Hispanics. I fail to see how they are any less worthy of the American Dream. Originally this country belonged to brown people. Maybe they'd like to have their country back.

    Trump's campaign is openly racist. Embracing it is deplorable.

    cdugga , says: September 13, 2016 at 8:34 pm
    Racist, sexist bigots that are homophobic, islamaphobic, ah, we left out misogynistic, are indeed deplorable. Are we defending those groups, or are we denying that a good percentage of trump supporters, maybe even a basket worth, are those types? Myself? I give trump supporters more credit and lean more towards describing them as just plain mad. Some probably have gone mad. If I pity them it is no more than the pity I have for all the other competing victims groups, with the caveat that crying white men should be an oxymoron. Of course, even while asking trump to make them great again as he panders to their victimhood, they will insist they are not to be pitied. And I agree. Oh, and I am a trump supporter. But I am not deplorable or pathetic. I'm just the devils advocate. We have to hit bottom before bouncing back up. Or bouncing somewhere. Back and forth for awhile, probably. With hillary we will be stuck in that same ole rut of gerry mandered temper tantrums of obstruction with concomitant executive over reach. Throw in some endless supreme court confirmations and the news will become as mundane and inane as an eleventh season of watching rotunda try to win being the biggest loser.
    Nate , says: September 13, 2016 at 9:42 pm
    "The Irish Catholics who a century ago were outcasts in this society have become part of the backbone that makes the US great."

    The Irish Catholics are a poor example as the areas of the country they heavily settled have become 'progressive' strongholds that have rejected both Catholic morality and the Protestant values that the nativists sought to protect. Progressivism isn't the backbone of America, it is the cancer killing America.

    John S , says: September 14, 2016 at 7:42 am
    "These are the Trump supporters."
    Mr. Buchanan neglects to mention the FSB via its cut-out Wikileaks.

    Mr. Buchanan once wrote in another context: "If we are now secretly pumping cash into the free elections of friendly countries, to dump leaders President Obama dislikes, Americans have a right to know why we are using Cold War tactics against democracies."

    Mr. Buchanan never asks why Russia is using Cold War tactics against the United States.

    Student , says: September 14, 2016 at 8:06 am
    Trump exposed much of the corruption and sleaze in the Republican leadership. We now know about the Ryans, the Romney's and their ilk. If he is elected, we could expect a massive housecleaning in the Federal agencies. This is one reason why he is he is being resisted so fiercely by Slims' NY Times, Bezos' Washington Post, and the entire establishment and media elite.
    I fear they are simply too strong…we learned about the collapse of empires in grade school. We are watching the process now.
    The Wet One , says: September 14, 2016 at 3:25 pm
    Just for the record, Kellyanne Conway's prior (as in February) views on Trump supporters:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/10/1568719/-Trump-s-campaign-manager-Kellyanne-Conway-called-his-supporters-downright-nasty-skeeze

    Ignore the source, listen to the audio clip of Ms. Conway words.

    Remember, this is straight from one of Trump's own chief insiders. Just listen to her words.

    ThaomasH , says: September 14, 2016 at 5:13 pm
    Mr. Trump's supporters are not deplorable, but about half do hold deplorable views, such that President Obama is a Muslim or that the President was not born in the United States.
    VikingLS , says: September 14, 2016 at 10:25 pm
    Having gone through the immigration process LEGALLY to all of you that can't understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration, try this, spend thousands of dollars and a year or two of your life waiting to see if a person you love can enter the country and NOT KNOW until you actually get said person to the border.

    You want to give me my money and my time back? And you want to do that for all the other people who went through this and followed the rules?

    We don't have open borders. Mexico doesn't have open borders. It's not unreasonable for the Mexicans to respect our borders, it's not racist, any more than it's racist for Mexico to expect it's neighbors to respect their borders.

    Or, if you think it is, you've got a lot of legal immigrants in this country you owe reparations.

    We could use a few bucks. Go for it.

    Edmund Wolsey , says: September 15, 2016 at 10:24 pm
    "A nation, 90 percent of whose population traced their roots to Europe, will have been changed by mass immigration and an invasion across its Southern border into a predominantly Third World country by 2042."

    Are you defining 'third-world' as 'non-white'?

    bacon , says: September 16, 2016 at 12:14 pm
    TAC comments provide a continuing chuckle for this Democrat and Obama voter. Hated because he's black, because he's a Democrat, because of his unruffled approach to his critics, the list could go on. Maddening that he was twice elected president and still has >50% approval ratings, eh?
    Jon R , says: September 16, 2016 at 3:31 pm
    The deplorable comment was generalizing and a political mis-step, but you're kidding yourself if you think there is not truth behind it. From the Washington Post:

    "A number of polls have revealed the depth of racial resentment among Trump's supporters, and more than half of them are in the proverbial basket. While 65 percent of his supporters think President Obama is a Muslim, only 13 percent think that he's a Christian. Fifty-nine percent think Obama was not born in the United States, and only 23 percent think he was. Twenty percent nationwide think it was a bad idea that slaves were emancipated, and 16 percent in South Carolina think that whites are a superior race."

    Those are deplorable views. I find it ironic that Trump has risen to popularity by bringing sentiments like this into the mainstream, and now Clinton might lose because she pointed out that these views are there.

  • [Sep 18, 2016] Drummed Out

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is clear that Mother Jones should do the proper thing and rename their magazine. Pro-corporate shill articles about the evils of lefties, populist values and the goodness of political corruption are the polar opposite of everything Mary Jones wanted to see. ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    temporal , September 16, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    It is clear that Mother Jones should do the proper thing and rename their magazine. Pro-corporate shill articles about the evils of lefties, populist values and the goodness of political corruption are the polar opposite of everything Mary Jones wanted to see.

    Admittedly none of these possible titles have that ring but a least there would be less cognitive dissonance.

    • Shills R US
    • It's Their Fault
    • Lefty's are Evil
    • I Got Mine Go Find Your Own
    • Clinton Foundation Pays Our Bill

    or stick with historical names

    • Andrew Carnegie
    • Barry Goldwater
    • Ayn Rand (personal favorite choice)

    [Sep 18, 2016] The dynamic interaction of neoliberalism and cultural nationalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. ..."
    "... In this form, cultural nationalism provides national ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation among thelower orders. ..."
    "... As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora – where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within the global and imperial hierarchy. ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | www.scribd.com

    Neoliberal Hegemony

    This is where cultural nationalism comes in. Only it can serve to mask, and bridge, the divides within the 'cartel of anxiety' in a neoliberal context.

    Cultural nationalism is a nationalism shorn of its civic-egalitarian and developmentalist thrust, one reduced to its cultural core. It is structured around the culture of thee conomically dominant classes in every country, with higher or lower positions accorded to other groups within the nation relative to it. These positions correspond, on the whole, to the groups' economic positions, and as such it organises the dominant classes, and concentric circles of their allies, into a collective national force. It also gives coherence to, and legitimises, the activities of the nation-state on behalf of capital, or sections thereof, in the international sphere.

    Indeed, cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy.

    Neoliberalism cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. The activities of the state on behalf of this or that capitalist interest necessarily exceed the Spartan limits that neoliberalism sets. Such activities can only be legitimised as being 'in the national interest.'

    Second, however, the nationalism that articulates these interests is necessarily different from, but can easily (and given its function as a legitimising ideology, it must be said, performatively) be mis-recognised as, nationalism as widely understood: as being in some real sense in the interests of all members of the nation. In this form, cultural nationalism provides national ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation among thelower orders.

    As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora – where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within the global and imperial hierarchy.

    Except for a commitment to neoliberal policies, the economic policy content of this nationalism cannot be consistent: within the country, and inter-nationally, the capitalist system is volatile and the positions of the various elements of capital in the national and international hierarchies shift constantly as does the economic policy of cultural nationalist governments. It is this volatility that also increases the need for corruption – since that is how competitive access of individual capitals to the state is today organised.

    Whatever its utility to the capitalist classes, however, cultural nationalism can never have a settled or secure hold on those who are marginalised or sub-ordinated by it. In neoliberal regimes the scope for offering genuine economic gains to the people at large, however measured they might be, is small.

    This is a problem for right politics since even the broadest coalition of the propertied can never be an electoral majority, even a viable plurality. This is only in the nature of capitalist private property. While the left remains in retreat or disarray, elec-toral apathy is a useful political resource but even where, as in most countries, political choices are minimal, the electorate as a whole is volatile. Despite, orperhaps because of, being reduced to a competition between parties of capital, electoral politics in the age of the New Right entails very large electoral costs, theextensive and often vain use of the media in elections and in politics generally, and political compromises which may clash with the high and shrilly ambitiou sdemands of the primary social base in the propertied classes. Instability, uncertainty ...

    [Sep 18, 2016] What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?

    Notable quotes:
    "... What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless. ..."
    "... As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose. ..."
    "... Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense). ..."
    "... Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions. ..."
    "... The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits. ..."
    "... If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation. ..."
    "... Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest. ..."
    "... With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade? ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Chauncey Gardiner

    What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless.

    As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose.

    diptherio

    Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense).

    Norb

    Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions.

    What folly. All this complexity and strident study of minutia to bring about what end? Human history on this planet has been about how societies form, develop, then recede form prominence. This flow being determined by how well the society provided for its members or could support their worldview. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

    The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits.

    Only by thinking, and communicating in the broader terms of political economy can we hope to understand our current conditions. Until then, change will be difficult to enact. Hard landings for all indeed.

    flora

    If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation.

    LA Mike September 17, 2016 at 8:15 pm

    While in traffic, I was thinking about that today. For some time now, I've viewed the traffic intersection as being a good example of the social contract. We all agree on its benefits. But today, I thought about it in terms of the Friedman Neoliberals.

    Why should they have to stop at red lights. Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest.

    sd

    Something I have wondered for some time, how does tourism fit into trade? With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade?

    I Have Strange Dreams

    Other things to consider:
    – negative effects of immigration (skilled workers leave developing countries where they are most needed)
    – environmental pollution
    – destruction of cultures/habitats
    – importation of western diet leading to decreased health
    – spread of disease (black death, hiv, ebola, bird flu)
    – resource wars
    – drugs
    – happiness
    How are these "externalities" calculated?

    [Sep 16, 2016] Whats The FBI Hiding That Triggered A Congressional Subpoena by Andrew Napolitano

    Notable quotes:
    "... Because many members of Congress do not believe that the FBI acted free of political interference, they demanded to see the full FBI files in the case, not just the selected portions of the files that the FBI had released. In the case of the House, the FBI declined to surrender its files, and the agent it sent to testify about them declined to reveal their contents. This led to a dramatic service of a subpoena by the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on that FBI agent while he was testifying - all captured on live nationally broadcast television. ..."
    "... According to Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI violated federal law by commingling classified and unclassified materials in the safe room, thereby making it unlawful for senators to discuss publicly the unclassified material. ..."
    "... Imposing such a burden of silence on U.S. senators about unclassified materials is unlawful and unconstitutional. What does the FBI have to hide? Whence comes the authority of the FBI to bar senators from commenting on unclassified materials? ..."
    "... What is going on here? The FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton has not served the rule of law. The rule of law - a pillar of American constitutional freedom since the end of the Civil War - mandates that the laws are to be enforced equally. No one is beneath their protection, and no one is above ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge (reprinted from LewRockwell.com )

    It is hard to believe that the FBI was free to do its work, and it is probably true that the FBI was restrained by the White House early on. There were numerous aberrations in the investigation. There was no grand jury; no subpoenas were issued; no search warrants were served. Two people claimed to have received immunity, yet the statutory prerequisite for immunity - giving testimony before a grand or trial jury - was never present.

    Because many members of Congress do not believe that the FBI acted free of political interference, they demanded to see the full FBI files in the case, not just the selected portions of the files that the FBI had released. In the case of the House, the FBI declined to surrender its files, and the agent it sent to testify about them declined to reveal their contents. This led to a dramatic service of a subpoena by the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on that FBI agent while he was testifying - all captured on live nationally broadcast television.

    Now the FBI, which usually serves subpoenas and executes search warrants, is left with the alternative of complying with this unwanted subpoena by producing its entire file or arguing to a federal judge why it should not be compelled to do so.

    On the Senate side, matters are even more out of hand. There, in response to a request from the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI sent both classified and unclassified materials to the Senate safe room. The Senate safe room is a secure location that is available only to senators and their senior staff, all of whom must surrender their mobile devices and writing materials and swear in writing not to reveal whatever they see while in the room before they are permitted to enter.

    According to Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI violated federal law by commingling classified and unclassified materials in the safe room, thereby making it unlawful for senators to discuss publicly the unclassified material.

    Imposing such a burden of silence on U.S. senators about unclassified materials is unlawful and unconstitutional. What does the FBI have to hide? Whence comes the authority of the FBI to bar senators from commenting on unclassified materials?

    Who cares about this? Everyone who believes that the government works for us should care because we have a right to know what the government - here the FBI - has done in our names. Sen. Grassley has opined that if he could reveal what he has seen in the FBI unclassified records, it would be of profound interest to American voters.

    What is going on here? The FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton has not served the rule of law. The rule of law - a pillar of American constitutional freedom since the end of the Civil War - mandates that the laws are to be enforced equally. No one is beneath their protection, and no one is above

    Short Squeeze •Sep 16, 2016 12:12 PM

    My theory is that when Comey stated "no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute", he already knew of her health issues. Would a prosecutor go after someone with 6 months to live?

    saloonsf •Sep 16, 2016 12:03 PM

    That's not FBI's responsibilities-exposing the elites cupabilities. The FBI primary objective is to protect the elites and the system that benefit them.

    Atomizer •Sep 16, 2016 12:10 PM

    The wagons are circling around the Clinton Foundation. Chelsea's husband is going to get nicked.

    withglee •Sep 16, 2016 12:25 PM

    Sen. Grassley has opined that if he could reveal what he has seen in the FBI unclassified records, it would be of profound interest to American voters.

    So what's keeping Grassley from asking that those unclassified documents be taken from the room and laid on his desk. He is not allowed to talk about what he saw in the room. But for sure he is allowed to talk about unclassified documents laid upon his desk ... even if they were once in the room. If that wasn't the case, the government would just run every document through the room ... to give it official immunity from inspection and exposure.

    [Sep 16, 2016] Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times. From your link, an individual email account on the server was breached

    Notable quotes:
    "... The State Deptartment had been using Blackberries since 2006, and diplomats overseas had been using them for just as long. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton didn't need to use a fancy NSA-approved smartphone to access classified data. Whenever she went overseas, she had a team of IT specialists who was able to provide her with ClassNet access, and they're able to do so without any technical support from a US Embassy. ..."
    "... The Exchange and BES software were likely purchased by Hillary '08, and properly licensed for that usage. But as far as after that.... ..."
    "... In a country where a standing governer running as VP could be found explicitly and intentionally using Yahoo email for the express purpose of avoiding FOIA on relevant government business, and there be no investigation whatsoever well. Let's just say there's an exceedingly strong whiff of double standards in the air. ..."
    "... Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times. From your link, an individual email account on the server was breached. ..."
    "... This happens all the time, for varying reasons, mostly due to a phishing compromise of the account, and occasionally due to password re-use and related vectors of compromise. While it's bad for the individual account's contents, it's absolutely irrelevant beyond that. ..."
    "... If that's the worst they can find then personally I'm actually impressed. I was expecting that the server(s) had been root/fully compromised at least once, given how they get perennially described. If that turns out to not be the case, then they've actually been run better and more securely than the State Department's [at least non-classified] servers, from all reports. ..."
    "... A 'breach' of an account is not a breach of the server. The account being access via TOR implies the user credentials were acquired through some means. Was this 'breached' account a classified account? ..."
    "... "multiple times" is 3 times in this case, and it wasn't the server that was breached, it was 1 person's email. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | arstechnica.com
    Ars Scholae -> Palatinae reply Sep 3, 2016 10:22 AM

    Hillary Clinton didn't need to use her own Blackberry. The State Deptartment had been using Blackberries since 2006, and diplomats overseas had been using them for just as long.

    Hillary Clinton didn't need to use a fancy NSA-approved smartphone to access classified data. Whenever she went overseas, she had a team of IT specialists who was able to provide her with ClassNet access, and they're able to do so without any technical support from a US Embassy.

    corsairmarks Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Sep 2, 2016 4:27 PM

    Quote: First, the Clintons had requested, according to a PRN employee interviewed by the FBI, that the contents of the server be encrypted so that only mail recipients could read the content. This was not done, largely so that PRN technicians could "troubleshoot problems occurring within user accounts," the FBI memo reports.

    Also, while the Clintons had requested only local backups, the Datto appliance initially also used Datto's secure cloud backup service until August of 2015. \

    Sounds like some of the problem was the contractor not following the procedures established by the client.

    Rommel102 Ars Praefectus et Subscriptor reply Sep 2, 2016 4:27 PM

    Popular Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.

    Sean Gallagher IT Editor reply Sep 2, 2016 4:39 PM

    vcsjones wrote: I wonder what the odds are that all of the OS / Exchange / BES CALs were actually licensed correctly.

    The Exchange and BES software were likely purchased by Hillary '08, and properly licensed for that usage. But as far as after that....

    diaphanein Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Sep 2, 2016 4:51 PM Uxorious wrote:

    Just to clarify, the move to a hosted solution - with requested encryption - was initiated after Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State (January 21, 2009 – February 1, 2013) was completed in February, 2013, and FOIA requests were no longer applicable as she was no longer a government employee.

    I think that would depend on the scope of the migration. Did they migrate all of the history over to the hosted solution? i.e. Did they migrate the OS, Exchange and BES servers into PRN's datacenter? Or, did they start from scratch with a clean slate, fresh install and no data migration. If it's the former and not the latter, I'd be pretty damned certain it'd still be subject to FOIA requests.

    • Sep 2, 2016 4:57 PM Popular

      In a country where a standing governer running as VP could be found explicitly and intentionally using Yahoo email for the express purpose of avoiding FOIA on relevant government business, and there be no investigation whatsoever well. Let's just say there's an exceedingly strong whiff of double standards in the air.

      I'm not fond of this private server crap. I think it's bullshit and it never should have been allowed in the first place. She should have simply been told that it's not permissible, whatsoever. But I also think the classified email issues are red herrings in the context of the use of private servers, as they would have been just as much an issue on State Department non classified servers.

      And I think that it's been made abundantly clear that the tools to do business over email and modern mobile computing were extremely lacking, outside of a solution like this, and what tools were available were purposefully withheld over what sounds like ridiculous political fighting under the guise of bureaucracy.

      None of this means what she did was ok, but it's also hard to not look askance at the relentless witchhunting when it's placed in that broader context.

      Personally I've reached a point where I'm done caring on the topic. There doesn't seem to be any kind of smoking gun, just a lot of hemming and hawing. Normally I would care about this, but honestly I'm a bit inured at this point. Where is the show of her using these specifically to avoid FOIA on work material actually relevant to FOIA?

      That's really the only true relevant question when it comes to moving to private servers. Classified material isn't supposed to be on unclassified government servers either, so the attempt to focus on that (mostly with retroactive or improperly labeled material and a few other issues) really seems awkward when we're supposed to care about the private servers as if they're damning.

    Rommel102 wrote:

    Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times. From your link, an individual email account on the server was breached.

    This happens all the time, for varying reasons, mostly due to a phishing compromise of the account, and occasionally due to password re-use and related vectors of compromise. While it's bad for the individual account's contents, it's absolutely irrelevant beyond that.

    If that's the worst they can find then personally I'm actually impressed. I was expecting that the server(s) had been root/fully compromised at least once, given how they get perennially described. If that turns out to not be the case, then they've actually been run better and more securely than the State Department's [at least non-classified] servers, from all reports.

    Look, getting all up in arms over crap like that link is why people like me are no longer convinced there's anything here worth paying attention to. I'm actually willing to listen if there's some kind of smoking gun, but that's some petty bullshit right there.

    taswyn Ars Tribunus Militum reply Sep 2, 2016 5:03 PM

    Popular ziegler wrote: Rommel102 wrote: Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.

    Not sure why you are being down voted on newly revealed information that seems to confirm that one of the servers email accounts was breached.

    If you're down voting him, perhaps an explanation as to why?

    Do you say that "google's servers got breached" every time an individual email account on them is compromised?

    What he said is factually incorrect. The server was not breached. An individual email account was accessed. They're not the same thing. Not even an OS user level account. An email account.

    omniron Ars Praefectus reply Sep 2, 2016 5:13 PM Popular

    Rommel102 wrote: Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.

    "multiple times" is 3 times in this case, and it wasn't the server that was breached, it was 1 person's email.

    Even if this person was clinton herself, we already know there was not much damaging information stored on this server. And considering this seems more like someone used a weak password or was phished, this is a vulnerability no matter what email provider you're using.

    aexcorp Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Sep 2, 2016 5:18 PM

    Danrarbc wrote: Rommel102 wrote: Danrarbc wrote: ziegler wrote: Rommel102 wrote: Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.

    Not sure why you are being down voted on newly revealed information that seems to confirm that one of the servers email accounts was breached.

    If you're down voting him, perhaps an explanation as to why?
    Probably because we know DOJ email servers have also been breached. He's implying that her servers were less secure and somehow put information in harms way. History seems to show us that it wasn't at any more risk.

    I didn't imply that at all. Here we have fairly solid evidence that a breach of Hillary's server happened. That seems to contradict the FBI's stance, Comey's statement and testimony, and is a first as far as I know.

    And in comparison, the DOJs non-classified email systems were hacked. There is no evidence that the classified system ever was.

    A 'breach' of an account is not a breach of the server. The account being access via TOR implies the user credentials were acquired through some means. Was this 'breached' account a classified account?

    I could be wrong, but I think that all classified emails from DoD and State have to go through SIPRNet.

    If this was strictly respected, then Clinton's server should contain no classified information. In real-life, we saw that a few classified things went through her personal email system, so it wasn't fully respected, or some of the info was not yet classified.

    Sean Gallagher IT Editor reply Sep 2, 2016 5:21 PM

    Story Author Popular omniron wrote: Rommel102 wrote: Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.

    "multiple times" is 3 times in this case, and it wasn't the server that was breached, it was 1 person's email.

    Even if this person was clinton herself, we already know there was not much damaging information stored on this server. And considering this seems more like someone used a weak password or was phished, this is a vulnerability no matter what email provider you're using.

    We're going to get into this in a story I'm currently writing (probably for next week, so it's not a Friday newsdumpster move). But it's worth noting THE ENTIRETY OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S UNCLAS EMAIL SYSTEM WAS PWNED FOR OVER A YEAR. I'm sorry, did I type that in all-caps? Also, between Chelsea Manning/ Wikileaks and the repeated hacks of State, the White House, etc between 2009 and 2014, it is highly likely that everything short of the TS/SAP stuff (and even some of that) that Clinton touched was already breached.

    This does not excuse Clinton and her staff's-I'm looking at you, Jake Sullivan-for the extreme error of passing Top Secret/ Special Access Program classified data back and forth over Blackberries and a non-governmental e-mail system. I would expect that Sullivan, at a minimum, will have his clearance revoked and he will not be getting a job as a national security adviser if Clinton wins the election. Or at least, I think that's a reasonable expectation.

    • LordDaMan Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius reply Sep 2, 2016 7:24 PM arcite wrote: She wanted to use her Blackberry, and she wanted all her accounts in one easy to access place. The solution was sloppy, but there was no ill-intent.

      Except she used multiple devices. She also ignored the repeated comments towards her to not to have a private server. The server was deliberately wiped violating the various laws about data retention. She used an alias to send e-mails to her daughter. She, despite being first lady. many years in congress, and sec. of state somehow didn't understand what classified material is or how even without marking some info is "born" classified. She lied multiple times under oath about all of this.

      How much more ill intent could she possibly have?

    • BMcComas Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Sep 2, 2016 8:10 PM vcsjones wrote: I wonder what the odds are that all of the OS / Exchange / BES CALs were actually licensed correctly.

      In an enterprise environment? 50/50. For some "side work" from an IT guy in the government? Id almost guarantee either CALs were missing, or the entire thing was running on images Pagliano "got" from his day job. Doubly so when the client is buying used servers and networking gear.

      Ok so that will be $2,900 for hardware, and it looks like it will be right around 9,000 for software licenses.

      Pfff, here is 3,000, just make it work and keep the change for yourself

    • tripodal Wise, Aged Ars Veteran reply Sep 2, 2016 9:53 PM taswyn wrote: ziegler wrote: Danrarbc wrote: ziegler wrote: Rommel102 wrote: Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.


      Not sure why you are being down voted on newly revealed information that seems to confirm that one of the servers email accounts was breached.

      If you're down voting him, perhaps an explanation as to why?
      Probably because we know DOJ email servers have also been breached. He's implying that her servers were less secure and somehow put information in harms way. History seems to show us that it wasn't at any more risk.

      Yeah, but the FBI is saying there was no evidence that the server was hacked.
      And then we find out that one of the email accounts was accessed over the TOR network and the user of the email account had never heard of TOR much less used it to access email.

      That seems like yet another skewing of the finding to put them in the best possible light. (EDIT: not saying she was or was not, but I would say that there was indicators that it was possibly compromised)

      DOJ, OPM, Pentagon, doesnt have any relevance on if she was irresponsible for having this whole set up. That same article states they werent even able to confirm if TLS was ever enabled. And Why? Because Clinton/IT took steps to make sure it couldnt be found out before turning over the equipment.

      You know, this level of twisting is why you and Rommel are not credible on the topic. You just come off sounding like a conspiracy nut when you can go from the article linked to "her servers got hacked."

      Let's be clear: if there had been a full breach, there would have been no need to be accessing an individual account over Exchange via TOR. You could just grab the whole thing directly, instead. This is, if anything, evidence of a lack of a full breach, at least by whatever actor was accessing the particular account in question.

      But, you know, why don't you two just keep shooting yourselves in the kneecaps over this. It's not like your hyperbolic approach to this is hurting your credibility at all. We can either assume you're both excessively biased or incompetent on the topic from how you're running with that story.

      Not that I'm calling you technically incompetent, mind. Unless you actually believe there's not a distinction between an email account being individually compromised and a "server being hacked." I expect you're just intentionally twisting what you're saying. But hey, maybe you don't actually know better?

      The way you two are trying to play this is why you have so many people turning away in disgust-not at Hillary, but at the ongoing digging for gold and related hyperbole and even outright lies in what is more and more clearly a dustbowl, with the only apparent motivation being a smear campaign rather than anything to do with actual justice or a real care about security.

      A perfectly valid reason for accessing Exchange via Tor is exactly to prevent the intrusion from being detected. Create yourself a valid account, access it as any other normal user would and your hack will look like normal user traffic.

      'grabbing the whole thing directly' has only a fleeting value; taking exchange offline to copy the mailboxes as you describe will certainly alert someone to your presence and encourage them to mediate the intrusion.

      Now, lets pretend you are Russia, and you have persistent access to her and other email systems.
      .
      Now when you need to claim some new land in Georgia or Ukraine.. we get reliable information about what the world police will actually do about it. Not merely what they say they will do.

    • BloodNinja Wise, Aged Ars Veteran reply
    • Sep 2, 2016 10:11 PM Popular Rommel102 wrote: if one random person was able to get into the server via TOR, that implies that the server was known to the hacking community.


      You're making it sound much more dramatic than reality.

      The one random person didn't "get into the server" in any meaningful way. They accessed an email account.

      As for the server being "known to the hacking community", DNS records are public, so in reality the server was "known" to the entire world. As are billions of others.

      For practical purposes, every device on the internet is "known" to everybody. Either DNS records point to it, or you can just scan IP address ranges to find it.

    • RAH Seniorius Lurkius reply Sep 2, 2016 10:18 PM New Poster Popular A missing piece of this whole conversation is what IT would be in place for the Secretary of State instead of personal email servers. Government servers that have been known to be all too easily hacked? And, just which department has the responsibility for government security? As with all bureaucracies, the responsibility is spread among many departments, including the FBI.

      It is NSA's responsibility to provide communications for the heads of departments, including the Secretary of State. Clinton supposedly asked for a secure Blackberry like Obama's, but the NSA refused, siting cost. The NSA seems to think the Secretary of State only needs the security found within the SCIF in the State Department offices, and not portable security. Really? No one travels more than the Secretary of State.

      John Kerry's mobile systems (now that they finally have them) were updated just weeks ago, and if you look at what he now has, you will find that those systems are five years behind the times.

      I am much more concerned about IT security within all departments of the federal government than I am what Clinton did or did not do.

    • ArchieG Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Sep 2, 2016 11:32 PM The question isn't whether State's email system was compromised. It was.

      The question is whether there was any intention to skirt the legal requirements for security and confidentiality. I don't believe Hillary had the technical savvy to even begin to think about that.

      Also, despite Comey's caustic remarks to Congress about recklessness, etc., let's remember that he's not exactly credible, either, when it comes to technology. I mean, he's the same guy who thinks the government should have a backdoor into what would otherwise be secure private systems.

    • Red Foreman Wise, Aged Ars Veteran reply Sep 3, 2016 12:32 AM RAH wrote: ...It is NSA's responsibility to provide communications for the heads of departments, including the Secretary of State. Clinton supposedly asked for a secure Blackberry like Obama's, but the NSA refused, siting cost. The NSA seems to think the Secretary of State only needs the security found within the SCIF in the State Department offices, and not portable security. Really? No one travels more than the Secretary of State...
      BREAKING NEWS: NSA Rejected Hillary Clinton's request for a Blackberry

      That's the headline I keep reading. And it looks like you've read it too. What they don't tell us is that instead they wanted her to use a General Dynamics Sectéra Edge. Which while NSA approved for mobile SCIF classified communication, it wasn't cool enough for Hillary.

      She simply had to have her Crackberry.

      This is the phone NSA suggested Clinton use: A $4,750 Windows CE PDA
      SME PED devices were only NSA-approved mobile phones for classified communications.
      http://arstechnica.com/information-tech ... ws-ce-pda/ 1

      Image

      Also if you can bear to read Brietbart it explains a lot...

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -ce-phone/

      Last edited by Red Foreman on Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:44 pm

    • Renzatic Wise, Aged Ars Veteran reply Sep 3, 2016 1:49 AM pl595 wrote: It's your position you or I wouldn't be facing charges for this?

      It's a breach of protocol. She mishandled classified information she otherwise had clearance to see. It's about equivalent to discussing state secrets over an unsecured phone line in a seedy motel, or leaving top secret information lying out on your kitchen table while you have your friends over for a BBQ. It was incredibly stupid of her, and she's lucky there's only theoretical evidence of a possibility of a leak, but it's not criminal.

      I agree with Comey's conclusion on the matter. It's something any "regular" person would've been fired over, probably blackballed from any sensitive government position for life, though it's nothing anyone would go to jail over.

      Last edited by Renzatic on Sat Sep 03, 2016 12:01 am

    • symphony3 Ars Centurion reply Sep 3, 2016 3:18 AM RAH wrote: A missing piece of this whole conversation is what IT would be in place for the Secretary of State instead of personal email servers. Government servers that have been known to be all too easily hacked? And, just which department has the responsibility for government security? As with all bureaucracies, the responsibility is spread among many departments, including the FBI.

      It is NSA's responsibility to provide communications for the heads of departments, including the Secretary of State. Clinton supposedly asked for a secure Blackberry like Obama's, but the NSA refused, siting cost. The NSA seems to think the Secretary of State only needs the security found within the SCIF in the State Department offices, and not portable security. Really? No one travels more than the Secretary of State.

      John Kerry's mobile systems (now that they finally have them) were updated just weeks ago, and if you look at what he now has, you will find that those systems are five years behind the times.

      I am much more concerned about IT security within all departments of the federal government than I am what Clinton did or did not do.

      I'm concerned about IT security, which makes me very concerned about finally funding IT so it can succeed. Every government organization I've worked with, even with top level universities, fund their landscaping better than their IT. And that means the buck stops with whatever boss determines funding.

      Please don't tell me this is about the taxpayer deciding funding for IT, because we know that Social Security was better prepared for Y2K than almost any other government department. If the unknown director of Social Security could wrangle a decent IT budget (past tense on that), then it can still be done by much bigger names & departments. (Not singling out one department, too many hacks to choose from)

    • dubyadeeem Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Sep 3, 2016 3:52 AM llama-lime wrote: taswyn wrote: ...

      None of this means what she did was ok, but it's also hard to not look askance at the relentless witchhunting when it's placed in that broader context.

      ...

      My personal evolution on this issue has gone from "having a privately controlled email server sounds really really bad, and was probably done to avoid monitoring! I'm really upset about this!" to "wow, these allegations sound extremely serious!" to "oh, those allegations were not really true at all" to "yikes, this again? how much more whining and knashing of the the teeth am I going to have to put up with?" If this had been any other politican, like, literally any other politician would we have heard more than a week or two about it? Would we have the FBI releasing their investigation documents to the public? Would all of Clinton's emails been open to the public like this? The amount of transparency, the lack of smoking guns, and the irrationally emotional anger have made me completely turn around on this issue.

      The reason it keeps coming back is that each new revelation seems to reveal more lies and more proof of lies by Hillary Clinton. You suggest if it was any other politician it would be instantly forgotten. Not exactly. Not if they stood a very good chance of being the next president of the United States. And certainly not if they had the same background of corruption, lying, and disastrous job performance as Clinton does (getting Americans killed in Benghazi and then lying to their families about it, her lies about being under sniper attack on the tarmac in the Balkans years ago, etc etc). Nixon was forced to resign for far less dishonesty than this woman has been caught in. So yes, it is a big deal, and it should be. Not only did she take the classified workflow outside of the secure state department infrastructure, she did it to avoid accountability and just exactly the kind of scandal that would ensue if it was ever found out, which it obviously was. She put national security at risk for her own political gain, and then lied about it repeatedly on many occasions and in all kinds of settings. Not only did she commit crimes and SHOULD have been charged by DOJ (her hubby's little illicit chit-chat w/ Lynch on the Phoenix tarmac notwithstanding), but she demonstrated by all she has done she doesn't have the one thing a real president needs: good judgement. Plenty of other things as well, honesty, etc, should also be requirements, but generally aren't, lately. But having better judgement than a 2 year old is crucial, and she's proven she hasn't got that.

      A recap ( Comey's testimony) of just some of the lies told by Clinton, to both the public, Congress, and the FBI, about her emails, server, etc :

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ 1

    • ArchieG Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Sep 3, 2016 6:37 AM Quote: The reason it keeps coming back is that each new revelation seems to reveal more lies and more proof of lies by Hillary Clinton. You suggest if it was any other politician it would be instantly forgotten. Not exactly. Not if they stood a very good chance of being the next president of the United States. And certainly not if they had the same background of corruption, lying, and disastrous job performance as Clinton does (getting Americans killed in Benghazi and then lying to their families about it, her lies about being under sniper attack on the tarmac in the Balkans years ago, etc etc). Nixon was forced to resign for far less dishonesty than this woman has been caught in. So yes, it is a big deal, and it should be. Not only did she take the classified workflow outside of the secure state department infrastructure, she did it to avoid accountability and just exactly the kind of scandal that would ensue if it was ever found out, which it obviously was. She put national security at risk for her own political gain, and then lied about it repeatedly on many occasions and in all kinds of settings. Not only did she commit crimes and SHOULD have been charged by DOJ (her hubby's little illicit chit-chat w/ Lynch on the Phoenix tarmac notwithstanding), but she demonstrated by all she has done she doesn't have the one thing a real president needs: good judgement. Plenty of other things as well, honesty, etc, should also be requirements, but generally aren't, lately. But having better judgement than a 2 year old is crucial, and she's proven she hasn't got that.

      Could you at least break your thoughts into paragraphs? Also, back up your whining with actual facts. Yeah, that would be nice.

    • bthylafh Ars Praefectus reply Sep 3, 2016 8:54 AM mat735 wrote: Wow. Not only is this article misleading and poorly composed, it is factually incorrect (pic being one example). At the time this happened was it uncommon for a company to manage their own email servers/hardware? What were BlackBerry recommendations on hosting? Who actually ordered the hardware? Who is PRN and what other clients do they represent?

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

    • adamsc Ars Scholae Palatinae et Subscriptor reply Sep 3, 2016 9:52 AM RAH wrote: I am much more concerned about IT security within all departments of the federal government than I am what Clinton did or did not do.

      This is the point anyone who cares about the country should be making, and I really wish Hillary had raised it early on. Federal IT is bad not because of the usual right-wing tropes about government workers but because there are too many barriers enshrined in federal law and policy. Things like procurement, hiring, and even the simple ability to deploy an application have slow, expensive processes full of counter-productive incentives. The pay-scale for federal staff tops out well below the private sector, there's been a couple decades of Congress trying to encourage outsourcing (I'm sure it's just a coincidence that large contracting companies can make campaign donations), and a lot of senior management and policy have tried to treat IT as a purchase rather than a skill to be developed, all of which means that the federal workforce is aging and the best people are routinely asking themselves whether they believe in their agency's mission enough to keep turning down a hefty pay raise. GitHub's Ben Balter, a former Presidential Innovation Fellow, has written a lot about this – see What's next for federal IT policy, IMHO , Three things you learn going from the most bureaucratic organization in the world to the least , Want to innovate government? Focus on culture , etc.

      This has already been a big deal during the Obama administration and I think it's going to become critical for the next president as both our dependencies on IT continue to increase – remember that due to decades of budget cuts, many agencies are still relatively early in the migration to fully electronic processes – and the demands increase, both for general worker productivity and especially for across-the-board security improvements as the sophistication of attacks has gone up. Security is one of the hardest parts of IT because it's not a commodity which you can purchase, requires broader skills and constant adjustment, and the field is full of hucksters peddling purchases or bureaucratic process as easy solutions. The low federal pay-scale is especially bad since there's so much private sector demand, which means that it's hard to keep skilled practitioners on staff and that reduces the pool of qualified people getting hired into management.

      This is the kind of thing people should be asking the candidates to talk about but due to the prolonged bad-faith attempts to trump up scandals from things like these emails it's really hard to see any sort of honest policy discussion breaking out. Every citizen should care about changing that dynamic since in addition to the areas where the failures are themselves major crises everywhere else they're behind the scenes making projects more expensive and less successful across the board.

    • Sep 3, 2016 11:01 AM roman wrote: mat735 wrote: Wow. Not only is this article misleading and poorly composed, it is factually incorrect (pic being one example). At the time this happened was it uncommon for a company to manage their own email servers/hardware? What were BlackBerry recommendations on hosting? Who actually ordered the hardware? Who is PRN and what other clients do they represent?

      During the "growing" age of the Internet but before cloud computing (I'd say early 1990's to mid 2000's) it was very easy/common to run your own servers. All you needed was a constant internet connection and a static IP addr.

      This was especially common among non-IT centric businesses in my experience – doctors, lawyers, non-profits, etc. would pay a consultant to set something up and give their front-office staff instructions about changing backup tapes, etc. but they didn't want to have to deal with the complexity and expense of a real data center operation, hiring staff, etc. You probably wanted a business cable/DSL connection anyway, buy a copy of Windows Small business Server or OS X Server depending on your tastes and you have everything "done" for a fixed up-front cost. A lot of consultants made good livings doing the same setup for a bunch of clients which weren't quite big enough to have IT staffing or balked at paying someone above desktop-support level.

      The biggest things which killed that market were security and disaster recovery, as maintaining an email server became a full-time job and stories about someone losing everything in a hack / fire / flood / etc. became fairly common, coupled with the availability of high-quality services ( Google Apps for Your Domain launched in 2006 ) at prices which were much less than you could match for things like spam filtering, user interface quality, and performance at a scale of less than hundreds of users. Things like PCI or HIPAA accelerated that process by telling entire fields it was no longer a good area to skimp.

      By now it's assumed most small operations will use a cloud provider but it took years to establish that the service quality and pricing would stick. By the time Hillary took office, however, that was still in transition. It doesn't surprise me at all that someone – especially someone mid-career or older – would go back to what was familiar when their boss asked them to get something done in a hurry. It's the same process you can find all over the business world where someone has a "mission critical" Access database, Excel file, PHP app on a shared host, etc. because they were told to get it done ASAP and didn't have time to learn something new, especially if this wasn't a core part of their job. It'll just be a temporary fix until we do things the right way

    • gbjbaanb Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Sep 3, 2016 2:11 PM Well it does get a little more interesting every day. Today the news is of a missing laptop and thumbdrive containing an archive of emails that were not handed over to the FBI (apparently they were forgotten).

      the Guardian (hardly anti-Clinton) has more on the story

      Quote: In early 2014, Hanley located the laptop at her home and tried to transfer the email archive to an IT company, apparently without success. It appears the emails were then transferred to an unnamed person's personal Gmail account and there were problems around Apple software not being compatible with that of Microsoft.

      "Neither Hanley nor [redacted] could identify the current whereabouts of the archive laptop or thumb drive containing the archive, and the FBI does not have either item in its possession."

      One thing, regardless of the political affiliation of the commenters and voters here, this is all sloppy IT work that should never be allowed to go unchallenged. If you're going to do this kind of thing, at least get someone who knows what they're doing to do it properly. As an IT professional, this kind of lackadaisical attitude to IT administration offends me.

    • z0phi3l Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Sep 3, 2016 3:46 PM omniron wrote: truthyboy15 wrote: PatrickBateman wrote: I read this article to say that Powell did the same thing decades ago and the only difference between now and then is that he didn't talk about.


      That doesn't make it OK and he should be under investigation as well.

      haven't you heard the law doesn't apply to republicans.


      They were no laws broken by clinton than we can tell, it's just a weird thing. Powell clearly used private email to skirt records requests (and IIRC the Bush admin lost millions of emails). But Clinton seemed aware information is public record no matter how it's sent.

      And if we compare the number of times this server was breached to government breaches, i don't know if this makes the idea of using your own server look like a bad idea. most intrusions are via social engineering, and there's probably a lot more weak points in the staff of gov email than this private one.

      What i find strange is that Clinton was secretary of state, and was probably handling classified information constantly. How is it after the FBI has reviewed 45,000 of the 60,0000 emails there are so few classified emails being sent around (only 1 was sent BY clinton). Does the government just not send classified information through email at all? I'm more interested, from a technological perspective, in how this is handled.

      She violated quite a few laws the press is willfully ignoring
      As someone who has gone through the hassle of trying to get a Security Clearance AND clearance to work on classified networks we were clearly told of the laws and penalties to be incurred for misuse of the resources

      Hillary went above and beyond to try and keep knowingly and marked classified documents out of the "secure" White House network, there is the violations of the laws. You notice how they handled the acquisition of the hardware? She and her minions KNEW what they were doing and purposely used Bills staff to hide it and keep the supplier in the dark to keep their illegal behavior as secret as possible

      But no, she didn't do anything wrong and definitely didn't violate a dozen or so laws, nope, just another "right wing conspiracy" she swears is always going on

    • peterp77 Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Sep 3, 2016 6:00 PM You've been brainwashed. She did nothing illegal. She violated policy.

      And it's the Democratic party, not the Democrat party.

      And she's not the Commander-in-Chief so I don't even know how you got the notion that she's responsible for American citizens getting killed. If we put government officials in jail according to how many people died under their watch, George W Bush would be in prison for hundreds and hundreds of years for all the dead in the 911 attack, the thousands of military service personnel that died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the millions of innocent civilian lives that were lost because of his stupidity, not to mention all the lies that were told to justify the war in the first place.

      Take your partisan bullshit somewhere else.

      Lol....she violated the espionage act! And she had every intent in doing so. If that's not illegal then I don't know what is.

      And yes, she may well be responsible for getting Americans killed. If her server was hacked then no doubt she put American lives at risk.

      Clearly, Crooked Hillary was more concerned about protecting her own secrets and the Clinton Foundation's secrets more than she was about protecting America's secrets.

      She's not fit for any government job, let alone president.

    • JaxMac Smack-Fu Master, in training et Subscriptor reply Sep 3, 2016 7:45 PM New Poster The Power Mac G4 was sold prior to the release of OS X. Thus it's operating system was the Classical Mac OS. The Classical Mac OS had no command line, thus it was practically unhackable remotely. I believe that this was also true of the Power Mac G5.

      If the Clinton email had been maintained on either of these two Macs there would be no questions about infiltration by anyone.

    • Andrew Norton Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Sep 3, 2016 11:42 PM davecadron wrote: Did everyone miss the part where hillary decided to wipe the server after foia requests were made and after records were subpoenaed by Congress?

      Obstruction of justice is a felony.
      Everything you say may be true.
      However the first paragraph has absolutely zero relevance to the last (separate) line.

      The stuff up top might get you 'contempt of congress', or violation of a court order that doesn't actually exist.

      Obstruction of justice is a whole 'nother matter and has nothing to do with FOIA's or congressional subpoenas.

    • Red Foreman Wise, Aged Ars Veteran reply Sep 4, 2016 10:19 AM Andrew Norton wrote: davecadron wrote: Did everyone miss the part where hillary decided to wipe the server after foia requests were made and after records were subpoenaed by Congress?

      Obstruction of justice is a felony.
      Everything you say may be true.
      However the first paragraph has absolutely zero relevance to the last (separate) line.

      The stuff up top might get you 'contempt of congress', or violation of a court order that doesn't actually exist.

      Obstruction of justice is a whole 'nother matter and has nothing to do with FOIA's or congressional subpoenas.
      As always seems to be the case the coverup is worse then the crime, certainly so with the Clintons given their history. If any the obstruction of justice hasn't been their attempting to conceal their public records from being properly archived, as required by law and thus being open to being disclosed under FOIA.

      Rather it's their efforts after the fact. And that would be potentially lying under oath to investigators and or destruction of/concealing of evidence, in an attempt to explain away the email scandal, and of course try to publicly cast it in the light of just another illegitimate "vast right-wing conspiracy" to get them. Because that's what the Clintons always do when they're backed into a corner.

    • Red Foreman Wise, Aged Ars Veteran reply Sep 4, 2016 10:07 PM Renzatic wrote: Red Foreman wrote: The Clinton email saga with it's oh-so-typical Clinton-esque coverup that's far worse then the original fuck-up isn't a non-story. And it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

      I've said this elsewhere, but I feel it bears repeating here.

      For roughly 30 years now, Hillary Clinton has been dogged by a party made up primarily of lawyers, judges, DAs, and others in the legal profession, with millions of dollars and all the institutions of government at their fingertips.

      In all this time, with all this knowledge, power and influence at their disposal, what have they discovered? That the Clintons tend to bend the rules if it benefits them, and like to scratch the backs of people who can and will scratch theirs. For all their efforts, they haven't discovered evidence of anything truly heinous or illegal. Rather, they've merely uncovered the fact they're a little seedy.

      ...so how are they any different than any other politician in Washington?
      How is it any different? This one it running for President of the United States at the moment. As such scrutinizing her dealings is fair game. After all, as you said the Clintons are a little seedy, tend to bend the rules if it benefits themselves, and like to scratch the backs of people who can and will scratch theirs.

      Speaking of which...

      Bill, Hillary, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and the emails
      Corruption in plain sight

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... nd-emails/

      "So, let's review what took place:

      Tuesday, June 28: Former President Bill Clinton suddenly appears to Attorney General Loretta Lynch in the cabin of her airplane parked on the tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona. Secret Service agents deny access to news photos and videos of the visit. They visit for 30 minutes.

      Thursday, June 29: Lynch denies that any discussion with Bill Clinton of the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's email scandal took place, and states that she expects to accept the recommendation of the FBI as to further actions in the Clinton case. She does not, however, recuse herself or appoint a Special Prosecutor. The FBI also announces that the Clinton interview will take place on this coming Saturday, during the holiday weekend.

      Friday, June 30: Hillary Clinton campaign leaks that Loretta Lynch may be retained in her present job under a Hillary Clinton administration.

      Saturday, July 1: Hillary Clinton's long-delayed interview with the FBI takes place. It lasts 3 1/2 hours. Clinton not under oath. FBI Director Comey does not attend, will not reveal who was in attendance.

      Tuesday, July 5: FBI Director Comey conducts a press conference without questions. Details a long list of Clinton's violations, but concludes that he met with prosecutors and decided not to make a criminal referral for either convening a Grand Jury or an indictment because she didn't mean to do anything bad. He cited "reasonable prosecutors" (presumably the ones he consulted) who would not want to prosecute the case.

      Tuesday, July 5: While Comey was making his announcement, President Barack Obama, in a previously scheduled appearance, was campaigning in North Carolina with Hillary Clinton.

      Wednesday, July 6: Attorney General Lynch announces that she accepts the recommendation of Comey and will not review the evidence herself.

      What really happened appears to be that Bill Clinton successfully conveyed to Loretta Lynch that she would keep her job if Hillary is elected. Lynch then successfully conveyed to Comey that she expected a clean referral from the FBI. Finally, Comey undertook a nearly unprecedented step by publicly announcing all the reasons for a criminal referral, then refusing to follow his own logic. In the meantime, Obama, boss of Lynch and Comey, obviously knew well in advance what the outcome of this charade would be and scheduled accordingly."

    [Sep 16, 2016] A large number of donors after their hefty donations received cushy ambassadorships?

    Notable quotes:
    "... What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships? ..."
    "... You gotta remember, [neo]liberals love to justify bad behavior, by pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior. ..."
    "... Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is? ..."
    "... So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in order to get favors from the government? Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships then? ..."
    "... The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Since any damning evidence in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't make any difference. ..."
    "... Under Obama's administration political considerations trump the law every time. ..."
    "... What are you talking about? Every media outlet except FOX is sucking at Hillary's big toes, and even at times FOX is sucking her toes and licking them. Whether it be in the US or Canada or the bloody UK. Hell NBC deleted a segment from a broadcast last night when Bill Clinton said Hillary "Frequently fainted" sorry I mean "occasionally fainted" that of course saved them all of 1.5 seconds from their 1hr broadcast time limit, which was their excuse. ..."
    "... It is like when the talking heads on one news program (CNN I believe) described New York City on Sunday as "Sweltering", when it was 78 Degrees out, in an attempt to make Hillary's lie about dehydration seem more legitimate. Obviously they are "pro-Trump". ..."
    "... Wouldn't surprise me. Here's the thing on CBC editing the news [thehill.com] earlier too. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | news.slashdot.org

    For the past several months, the hacker who calls himself "Guccifer 2.0" has been releasing documents about the Democratic National Committee. Today, he has released a new hoard of documents. Politico reports: The hacker persona Guccifer 2.0 has released a new trove of documents that allegedly reveal more information about the Democratic National Committee's finances and personal information on Democratic donors, as well as details about the DNC's network infrastructure. The cache also includes purported memos on tech initiatives from Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine's time as governor of Virginia, and some years-old missives on redistricting efforts and DNC donor outreach strategy. Most notable among Tuesday's documents may be the detailed spreadsheets allegedly about DNC fundraising efforts, including lists of DNC donors with names, addresses, emails, phone numbers and other sensitive details. Tuesday's documents regarding the DNC's information technology setup include several reports from 2010 purporting to show that the committee's network passed multiple security scans.

    In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents. It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security experts attending [a London cybersecurity conference].

    meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:09AM (#52885111) Journal

    Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Informative)

    What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships?

    Iconoc ( 2646179 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:12AM (#52885127)

    What, this? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... [zerohedge.com]

    Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:40AM (#52885673) Journal

    You gotta remember, [neo]liberals love to justify bad behavior, by pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior.

    It is as if they are four year olds getting in trouble, and saying "but Billy's Mom lets him drink beer/smoke dope". The problem is, nobody calls it "childish" behavior (which it is), because that is insulting to children.

    Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @04:28PM (#52888579) Journal

    Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Insightful)

    Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is?

    pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) writes: on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @11:11AM ( #52885921 )

    Re:Summary missing important piece... ( Score:4 , Informative)

    Ambassadorships to friendly countries, the UK in particular, have always been given as rewards to political friends. You could count the number of people who became UK ambassador on merit on one hand which had been run through a wood chipper.

    The reason you didn't know about this before is because it never became an issue. Tuttle made a bit of a kerfuffle a decade ago, but it takes a lot to start a diplomatic incident with a close ally and being ambassador to the UK or France or Australia really requires no great skill as a peacemaker. If you were being particularly charitable, you could even say that fundraisers and diplomats have a lot in common.

    Everyone has plenty of dirty laundry, including you and me. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is an excellent attitude in criminal court, but the attitude 'innocent until doxxed' skews our perceptions and gives power to doxxers. Honestly I'm a bit surprised these leaks haven't found more than 'omg, politics at political party!'

    Remember, parties are not obligated to be democratic or unbiased. Legally and constitutionally there's only one vote, the general election in November. Anyone* can be nominated as a candidate for that election, and if both parties decided to nominate whomever they pleased they might be breaking their own rules but not the law. Everything up to and including the conventions is just meant to give supporters a feel of involvement and to remove unpopular candidates without invoking the wrath of their supporters. But the parties want to win, and if one candidate seems more 'electable' you can bet the party will give then a leg up on the rest.

    * you know what I mean [wikipedia.org]

    meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @11:28AM (#52886055) Journal

    So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in order to get favors from the government? Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships then?

    meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @02:02PM (#52887279) Journal

    There's been plenty of interesting stuff in previous releases of Hillary's particular emails. I would say the most amazing was acknowledgment that the reason we backed the moderate beheaders in Syria against Assad was so the Israelis would feel better about a nuclear Iran without a stable Syria as a base of operations for Hezbollah. The 400,000 war dead, the creation of ISIS, the blowback attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, Nice, Orlando, and the refugee crisis that threatens to destabilize all of western Europe...no problem for Hillary and her supporters. It's unreal. But here we are.

    Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:38AM (#52885273)

    The last set showed laws broken by DNC (Score:5, Informative)

    The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Since any damning evidence in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't make any difference.

    Now, if a similar trove of documents from the RNC was dumped, you can bet the DOJ would be all over it. Under Obama's administration political considerations trump the law every time.

    DumbSwede ( 521261 ) <[email protected]> on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:31AM (#52885603) Homepage Journal

    I'd say Glass Houses is the real reason (Score:2)

    There is reluctance to take actions base on evidence uncovered by illegally hacked emails. Doing so would invite more entities with political motivations to just hack more...

    Mashiki ( 184564 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `ikihsam'> on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:25AM (#52885549) Homepage

    Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news (Score:4, Interesting)

    What are you talking about? Every media outlet except FOX is sucking at Hillary's big toes, and even at times FOX is sucking her toes and licking them. Whether it be in the US or Canada or the bloody UK. Hell NBC deleted a segment from a broadcast last night when Bill Clinton said Hillary "Frequently fainted" sorry I mean "occasionally fainted" that of course saved them all of 1.5 seconds from their 1hr broadcast time limit, which was their excuse. Nearly every site is sucking at her toes. Even on reddit from /r/politics to /r/news to /r/worldnews is deleting anti-Hillary stories, even when they use the exact title.

    Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:57AM (#52885797) Journal

    Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news (Score:4, Interesting)

    It is like when the talking heads on one news program (CNN I believe) described New York City on Sunday as "Sweltering", when it was 78 Degrees out, in an attempt to make Hillary's lie about dehydration seem more legitimate. Obviously they are "pro-Trump".

    Mashiki ( 184564 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `ikihsam'> on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @11:31AM (#52886073) Homepage

    Re: Slashdot censoring anti-Trump news (Score:2)

    Wouldn't surprise me. Here's the thing on CBC editing the news [thehill.com] earlier too.

    [Sep 16, 2016] More Passwords, Please: 98 Million Leaked From 2012 Breach Of 'Russia's Yahoo'

    Sep 16, 2016 | it.slashdot.org
    (arstechnica.com) 23 Posted by manishs on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @02:00PM from the security-woes dept. Sean Gallagher, writing for ArsTechnica: Another major site breach from four years ago has resurfaced. Today, LeakedSource revealed that it had received a copy of a February 2012 dump of the user database of Rambler.ru , a Russian search, news, and e-mail portal site that closely mirrors the functionality of Yahoo. The dump included usernames, passwords, and ICQ instant messaging accounts for over 98 million users. And while previous breaches uncovered by LeakedSource this year had at least some encryption of passwords, the Rambler.ru database stored user passwords in plain text -- meaning that whoever breached the database instantly had access to the e-mail accounts of all of Rambler.ru's users. The breach is the latest in a series of "mega-breaches" that LeakedSource says it is processing for release. Rambler isn't the only Russian site that has been caught storing unencrpyted passwords by hackers. In June, a hacker offered for sale the entire user database of the Russian-language social networking site VK.com (formerly VKontakte) from a breach that took place in late 2012 or early 2013; that database also included unencrypted user passwords, as ZDNet's Zach Whittaker reported.

    [Sep 16, 2016] Behind Saudi Arabias bluster is a country that feels under grave threat

    John Jenkins conveniently forgot export of Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia during Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the USA and GB role in creation of political Islam. I can't see any neo-Westphalian pragmatism of the Saudi state in its actions in Syria and support of Turkey slide into islamization. But his point that Iran does not represent a secular state either is well taken. It's just Shias fundamentalism instead of Sunni fundamentalism.
    Notable quotes:
    "... There is no clear link between economic deprivation and radicalization. But the former doesn't help if it leads to idle hands and claims of social injustice. ..."
    "... Sheikh Nimr advocated the destruction of the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and the secession of the Eastern Province. His version of a righteous Islamic state is not a thousand miles from that of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (and a long way from the non-takfiri, non-caliphal, neo-Westphalian pragmatism of the Saudi state). He called for wilayat al-faqih, the heterodox Guardianship of the Jurisprudent espoused by Khomeini. ..."
    "... The vengeful early years of the Islamic Republic, when clerics who previously would not have hurt a fly enthusiastically participated in the judicial murder of thousands in the name of righteousness, show some of the consequences. So does the arrest and humiliating mistreatment in 1982 of the venerable Ayatollah Shariatmadari, who stood up to Khomeini and dared to object to the implementation of any Islamic hudud punishments in the absence of the Hidden Imam. So does the continued rate of executions in Iran (nearly 700 by July last year, according to Amnesty International) and the Islamic Republic's own treatment of dissidents – and, indeed, of the ordinary protesters of 1999, 2009 and 2011. ..."
    "... To Iran it was: Saudi citizens owe loyalty in tribal fashion to their king, not to foreign religious leaders or to some ideal of transnational Islamism, and we shall not tolerate interference. To the rest of the world it was: we shall not bend in the face of the storms raging round the region, if necessary alone. ..."
    Jan 17, 2016 | www.newstatesman.com

    Now the Saudis face a period of sustained low energy prices at a time when the costs of a newly interventionist and expeditionary foreign policy are rising dramatically and when the need to restructure the economy to create perhaps an extra four million new jobs by 2020 has become urgent. At the same time they know that a small but significant section of the Sunni population of the kingdom is vulnerable to the dark seductions of Islamic State, because they regard it as more legitimately Islamic, or as the only organized Sunni group pushing back against Iran, the Shia, or both. There is no clear link between economic deprivation and radicalization. But the former doesn't help if it leads to idle hands and claims of social injustice.

    To cap it all, the Iranian nuclear deal angered the Saudis not because it was a nuclear deal but because it was simply a nuclear deal, failing in their view to address malign and subversive non-nuclear Iranian activities in Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, and rewarding Iran prematurely. They have felt very abandoned by the US and other Western states. And they believe the apparent pragmatism of the Rowhani government is a façade, offering privileged access in return for the suspension of any critical faculty. That makes the issue of the Vienna peace talks on Syria secondary. There will certainly be an impact. Yet it is not as if the Saudis had disguised their deep scepticism. They had been pressured to sit with the Iranians, but they had also insisted on continuing to support opposition forces in the field and have not wavered in their insistence that Assad needs to go.

    You might think this is all special pleading. But before you say that the matter is a straightforward one of a benighted justice system administering medieval punishments to dissidents, reflect on this. Sheikh Nimr advocated the destruction of the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and the secession of the Eastern Province. His version of a righteous Islamic state is not a thousand miles from that of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (and a long way from the non-takfiri, non-caliphal, neo-Westphalian pragmatism of the Saudi state). He called for wilayat al-faqih, the heterodox Guardianship of the Jurisprudent espoused by Khomeini.

    The vengeful early years of the Islamic Republic, when clerics who previously would not have hurt a fly enthusiastically participated in the judicial murder of thousands in the name of righteousness, show some of the consequences. So does the arrest and humiliating mistreatment in 1982 of the venerable Ayatollah Shariatmadari, who stood up to Khomeini and dared to object to the implementation of any Islamic hudud punishments in the absence of the Hidden Imam. So does the continued rate of executions in Iran (nearly 700 by July last year, according to Amnesty International) and the Islamic Republic's own treatment of dissidents – and, indeed, of the ordinary protesters of 1999, 2009 and 2011.

    The signals the Saudi state sought to send by executing 43 Saudi Sunnis convicted of terrorism at the same time as Sheikh Nimr and his three fellow Shias reflected all of this.

    • To their own citizens the message was: we shall enforce the judgment of the courts on all those who seek to undermine the stability of the kingdom and the legitimacy of its government, irrespective of sect, and on your behalf we shall resist Iranian expansionism and Islamic State predation with equal vigour.
    • To Iran it was: Saudi citizens owe loyalty in tribal fashion to their king, not to foreign religious leaders or to some ideal of transnational Islamism, and we shall not tolerate interference. To the rest of the world it was: we shall not bend in the face of the storms raging round the region, if necessary alone.

    John Jenkins is a former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq, Syria and Burma. He is now executive director (Middle East) of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and is based in Bahrain

    [Sep 15, 2016] Washington Center for Equitable Growth

    Sep 15, 2016 | equitablegrowth.org
    ]. "The researchers use data collected from a national sample of hourly retail workers at eight brick-and-morter companies, all of which are among the largest 15 retail employers in the United States." Readers will remember our recent post on sleep here .

    [Sep 15, 2016] Mark Blyth On Neoliberalism, Brexit, and the Global Revolt Against the One Percent and their Unelected

    Jun 28, 2016 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    "...a full 95% of the cash that went to Greece ran a trip through Greece and went straight back to creditors which in plain English is banks. So, public taxpayers money was pushed through Greece to basically bail out banks...So austerity becomes a side effect of a general policy of bank bailouts that nobody wants to own. That's really what happened, ok?

    Why are we peddling nonsense? Nobody wants to own up to a gigantic bailout of the entire European banking system that took six years. Austerity was a cover.

    If the EU at the end of the day and the Euro is not actually improving the lives of the majority of the people, what is it for? That's the question that they've brought no answer to.

    ...the Hamptons is not a defensible position. The Hamptons is a very rich area on Long Island that lies on low lying beaches. Very hard to defend a low lying beach. Eventually people are going to come for you.

    What's clear is that every social democratic party in Europe needs to find a new reason to exist. Because as I said earlier over the past 20 years they have sold their core constituency down the line for a bunch of floaters in the middle who don't protect them or really don't particularly care for them. Because the only offers on the agenda are basically austerity and tax cuts for those who already have, versus austerity, apologies, and a minimum wage."

    Mark Blyth

    Although I may not agree with every particular that Mark Blyth may say, directionally he is exactly correct in diagnosing the problems in Europe.

    And yes, I am aware that the subtitles are at times in error, and sometimes outrageously so. Many of the errors were picked up and corrected in the comments.

    No stimulus, no plans, no official actions, no monetary theories can be sustainably effective in revitalizing an economy that is as bent as these have become without serious reform at the first.

    This was the lesson that was given by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. There will be no lasting recovery without it; it is a sine qua non . One cannot turn their economy around when the political and business structures are systemically corrupt, and the elites are preoccupied with looting it, and hiding their spoils offshore.

    [Sep 15, 2016] Elizabeth Warren on Thursday requested a formal investigation into why the Obama administration did not bring criminal charges individuals and corporation involved in the 2008 financial crisis

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    L

    "Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren on Thursday requested a formal investigation into why the Obama administration did not bring criminal charges individuals and corporation involved in the 2007-2008 financial crisis" [International Business Times]. Why now? Liz edging her hat toward the ring if Clinton comes up lame?

    I can see two possible interpretations for this.

    First, as much as I hate to draw the analogy, she could be positioning herself to take the reigns after a loss in the way that Richard Nixon, Paul Ryan, and later Bill Clinton did. Richard Nixon sat back and concentrated on building up credibility as Barry Goldwater melted down and then quietly stepped in to take over the party after the loss to set up his eventual run. Paul Ryan quietly permitted or perhaps aided the coup against Boehner. And Bill Clinton, through the DLC teed up his control of the party after Dukakis lost.

    Second, with Wells-Fargo and bank fraud once again in the news she could be working to keep prior decisions current both to force better action this time or to nudge the Clinton and Trump into making promises of stronger action in the future.

    Lambert Strether Post author

    It seems to me that both those objectives would be served by continuing to hammer on Wells Fargo, so the question "Why now?" isn't really answered in your comment.

    But if you wanted to take out an option on running a full-throated populist campaign - and throwing bankers in jail would be wildly popular across the entire political spectrum (except Clinton's 10%-ers on up) - in the unhappy event that the party's candidate came up lame, then calling for an account of regulatory decision making in 2009 would be one way to signal that. Note also that would call Obama's "legacy" into question, too; the whole "stand between you and the pitchforks" thing. This is a big deal.

    [Sep 15, 2016] American Antitrust Is Having a Moment: Some Reactions to Commissioner Ohlhausen's Recent Views

    Sep 14, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Chris Sagers at ProMarket:
    American Antitrust Is Having a Moment: Some Reactions to Commissioner Ohlhausen's Recent Views : Over the summer, Federal Trade Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen took me and several others to task in a speech , subsequently published as a journal article ... The theme we'd all written about is whether we in the United States have a "monopoly problem," and whether federal policy should try to do something about it. ...

    Commissioner Ohlhausen had some pretty strong words. ... Specifically, she implies a very strong presumption against public interference in private markets, as indicated by her argument that there is not yet sufficient evidence that we have a monopoly problem. The argument seems to be that we must wait until we are very, very sure, beyond any reasonable econometric doubt, apparently, that there's something wrong before we step in. ...

    She is mistaken, and she ignores roughly a library-full of well-known..., sophisticated empirical work. ...

    In the end, the irony of these remarks is captured in this point: Commissioner Ohlhausen is pretty witheringly dismissive of a certain kind of evidence of market power, and implies that it would not support increased enforcement unless it can overcome a high methodological bar. But for her own countervailing evidence that in fact American markets are "fierce[ly] competiti[ve]," she says this: "Consider the new economy, which is a hotbed of technological innovation. That environment does not strike me as one lacking competition."

    In other words, the presumption against antitrust is so strong that evidence of harm must meet the most exacting standards of social science. To prove that markets are in fact competitive, however, needs nothing more than seat-of-the-pants anecdotes. Again, I mean no disrespect, and I think we have an honest difference of opinion. But this stance is not social science, and it is not good, empirically founded public policy. It is just ideology. ...

    It's definitely true that the agencies have brought a bunch of challenges to a bunch of nasty mergers, and perhaps total enforcement numbers have gone up a bit. But that is because we are in the midst of a merger wave in which parties have been proposing breathtakingly massive, overwhelmingly consolidating horizontal deals. While there is a track record to be proud of in the administration's enforcement, especially, as the commissioner observes, in the Commission's campaign against hospital mergers, reverse-payment deals, SEP problems, and patent trolls, and who knows how many other matters, the fact remains that by and large the administration has mostly not taken action that any administration would not have taken, including the Reagan and both Bush administrations. ...

    DrDick : , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:13 AM

    If we were actually serious about antitrust, which we very much should be, we would not only block most of these mergers, but break up many of existing behemoths (like the big banks, the media giants, Comcast, and many others).
    pgl -> DrDick... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM
    I'm all for breaking up the behemoths when they are indeed stifling competition. The Reagan Revolution to anti-trust was based on a contention that some mergers were about efficiency effects. I think this argument is sometimes overblown but it is not per se false. I do object (see below) to the weak evidence that goes like this. Collective shareholder value rose so ergo the merger is about efficiency effects. Anyone who argues that (see Don Luskin and the premium ice cream proposed merger) is not very bright.
    DeDude -> pgl... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:49 AM
    Exactly. Corporations being able to suck more profit out of the costumers (and as a result share prices rising) is the proof that anti-trust has failed. In a fully functional competitive market companies do not make much profit.
    pgl -> DeDude... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:07 PM
    Accounting profits? Maybe you should read that paper by the commissioner as she makes a very clear statement about what accounting profit would look like in a competitive market. And it is not zero. Return to capital? Hello?
    DeDude -> pgl... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:30 PM
    No if it was zero the whole thing breaks down. However, a small return on capital is an indication that companies are forced to cut prices because of competition- and that is a healthy market. So yes there is (some but) not much profit in a fully functional competitive market.
    pgl -> DeDude... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:36 PM
    Let's define "small return". Standard financial economics puts this at the risk-free rate plus a premium for bearing systematic risk. OK - the risk-free return now is quite small. Say 2%. But if the risk premium is say 4%, then we are talking about a 6% expected return to assets. If that is what you mean by small - cool.

    Of course I have seen a lot of "professionals" argue for much higher returns. Of course these professionals would flunk a Finance 101 class.

    DeDude -> pgl... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:49 PM
    I don't think the risk premium needs to be more than about 2% unless/until the economy enter a phase where demand outstrips supply (and more investment money needs to be attracted). If there is a glut of investment money then the price of it (=risk free returns) should go down.
    pgl -> DeDude... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 02:05 PM
    This is the kind of thinking that got Hassett and Glassman to tell us about DOW 36000. Some people overestimate the risk premium but 2% is what a regulated utility or a leasing company gets. And neither bears commercial risk. Dude - you can make up whatever number your heart desires but there is market evidence on these things.
    DeDude -> pgl... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 06:25 PM
    Exactly - even those are hugely overcompensated for this supposed risk.
    Gibbon1 -> DeDude... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 04:14 PM
    Ability to better suck profit out of a captive base of customers is an efficiency of a sort. Instead of investing in risky new business processes or technologies one merely has to buy out your competitors. This is practically risk free.
    pgl : , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:15 AM
    A comment about this:

    "Though she says that "[e]fficiencies are real"-citing no evidence for it in a speech critical of everyone else for failure to supply evidence-there is in fact no meaningful proof that consolidation generates social benefits. Especially in the case of mergers, a large and sophisticated empirical literature has been hunting for decades for evidence that mergers produce "efficiencies" or other benefits. The evidence has not been found. At least with respect to deals among publicly traded firms, the evidence tends to suggest that mergers do no good on average for shareholders of either acquiring or target firms, and if there were some efficiencies or larger social benefits, they should be measurable as benefits to shareholders. The empirical evidence has therefore confirmed the popular wisdom shared on Wall Street for years-that all this activity is not serving any good social purpose, though it might be helping executives and their bankers quite a lot."

    The conservative (Reagan) approach to anti-trust did indeed ask DOJ and FTC to consider whether the merger was about beneficial efficiency effects v. anti-competitive effects. But let's suppose two firms merged and their collective value did rise benefiting shareholders. That does not prove the efficiency effects dominate. No – mergers that lead to less competition will often raise shareholder value even if there are no efficiency effects. Those mergers should be disallowed.

    kurt : , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:21 AM
    Proof of Monopoly Power - Verizon and ATT's pricing and apparent lack of any interest in maintaining or even knowing where their physical plant is installed. Also - see directTV's recent price increases.
    pgl -> kurt... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:07 PM
    Can you hear me now? Oh wait - the Verizon dude now works for Sprint.
    El Epicúreo Del Taco : , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:26 AM
    American markets are "fierce[ly] competiti[ve]," she says this: "Consider the new economy, which is a hotbed of technological innovation. That environment does not strike me as one lacking competition."

    In other words, the presumption against antitrust is so strong
    "

    You are assumed properly competing until proved monopoly-based. The burden of proof is on the victims. Tell me something!

    Does the government always appear as crystal clear as the mirror of Alice? When we look at local, county, state, and federal rulers, do we always see ourselves? Our own bias? Our own agenda? The government apes its voters.

    Do you see how today's polity is begging for less competition? Less free trade from our trading partners? Do you see how we want to make a monopoly out of America? Build a fence around it so that nobody is allowed to buy anything from anyone other than our monopoly?

    " We have identified the enemy, ourselves. " ~~Pogo~

    DeDude : , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:46 AM
    Yes you need at least a dozen independent businesses delivering the same (substitutable) products to ensure that there is indeed a competitive market that will not be gamed against the consumers. This is not just needed to ensure that consumers will be offered a fair price, but also to ensure that companies will be forced to continue to innovate and offer better and better products. The oversight of mergers has been a scandal and needs to be tightened by new laws. Obviously we have to make the "dozen rule" a law rather than just common sense guidance.
    pgl -> DeDude... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:10 PM
    The dozen rule? Where did that come from? Depends on the market but I would hope we have more than 12 suppliers of beer. BTW - it would be nice to have 12 health insurance companies but we could break up this oligopoly with such one more - the government aka the public option.
    DeDude -> pgl... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:34 PM
    Yes some products can benefit from more variation, but at least with 12 suppliers you would not have anybody able to corner the market. The dozen rule is mine, that is how I get my eggs. If Ohlhausen can just make it up - so can I.
    pgl -> DeDude... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:37 PM
    Do you remember the 1970's? Something called OPEC? But yea - I buy my eggs by the dozen too.
    pgl -> DeDude... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:39 PM
    Speaking of breakfast, consider the maple syrup cartel:

    http://fortune.com/2016/02/26/maple-syrup-cartel

    DeDude -> pgl... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:52 PM
    Yes cartels (regardless of number of members) also have to be broken up - for markets and capitalism to work properly.
    Tom aka Rusty : , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:59 PM
    The FTC has ignored a many major health care mergers but has gone litigation guns a blazin' into small mergers in such less-than-major metro centers as Moscow Idaho and Toledo Ohio.

    Is there a "too big to litigate" standard?

    pgl -> Tom aka Rusty... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 02:06 PM
    Rusty calling for rational regulation as in the FTC doing its job. Stop the presses!
    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to pgl... , Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 04:53 AM
    I'm just asking for coherent policy, something often missing from the Obama administration.
    Anon : , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 08:30 PM
    The sad fact is that the right-wing Law and Economics scholars have literally been trained to believe that the only correct null hypothesis is "free markets are good". When the null is not rejected with a 95% confidence interval, they actually think they've won the argument, while you're sitting there scratching your head saying, but when the null hypothesis is "free markets are bad", we can't reject that either. I've never seen logic get much traction with this crowd, because they are literally willing to tell you that economics demonstrates that "free markets are good", so that's the correct null.

    It's very sad, but also very common when talking to lawyers. In fact, I often wonder whether the right-wing didn't create the "Law and Economics" movement in order to slow the exposure of the legal profession to the actual tools of modern economic analysis.

    reason : , -1
    It would be a start if we would simply stop seeing hostile takeovers as something positive (you know ex-ante efficiency improvements) and start seeing them for the interference in natural selection that they actually are (no 40-40 foresight exists).

    [Sep 15, 2016] How did the proud trade consensus crumble so quickly? by Thomas Frank

    Politico

    "But part of the answer lies in something Americans have a hard time talking about: class. Trade is a class issue. The trade agreements we have entered into over the past few decades have consistently harmed some Americans (manufacturing workers) while just as consistently benefiting others (owners and professionals). …

    To understand "free trade" in such a way has made it difficult for people in the bubble of the consensus to acknowledge the actual consequences of the agreements we have negotiated over the years."

    [Sep 15, 2016] The Dysfunctionality of Slavery and Neoliberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated with rapid technological change. ..."
    "... On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern libertarianism. ..."
    "... the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism both in economics and politics. ..."
    "... In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern "yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced racial superiority as their battle cry. ..."
    May 18, 2015 | michaelperelman.wordpress.com

    Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated with rapid technological change.

    ... ... ...

    On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern libertarianism. Responding to the colonists' complaint that taxation by the British was a form of tyranny, Samuel Johnson published his 1775 tract, "Taxation No Tyranny: An answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress," asking the obvious question, "how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" In The Works of Samuel Johnson, LL. D.: Political Tracts. Political Essays. Miscellaneous Essays (London: J. Buckland, 1787): pp. 60-146, p. 142.

    ... ... ...

    By the late 19th century, David A Wells, an industrial technician who later became the chief economic expert in the federal government, by virtue of his position of overseeing federal taxes. After a trip to Europe, Wells reconsidered his strong support for protectionism. Rather than comparing the dynamism of the northern states with the technological backward of their southern counterparts, he was responding to the fear that American industry could not compete with the cheap "pauper" labor of Europe. Instead, he insisted that the United States had little to fear from, the competition from cheap labor, because the relatively high cost of American labor would ensure rapid technological change, which, indeed, was more rapid in the United States than anywhere else in the world, with the possible exception of Germany. Both countries were about to rapidly surpass England's industrial prowess.

    The now-forgotten Wells was so highly regarded that the prize for the best economics dissertation at Harvard is still known as the David A Wells prize. His efforts gave rise to a very powerful idea in economic theory at the time, known as "the economy of high wages," which insisted that high wages drove economic prosperity. With his emphasis on technical change, driven by the strong competitive pressures from high wages, Wells anticipated Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction, except that for him, high wages rather than entrepreneurial genius drove this process.

    Although the economy of high wages remained highly influential through the 1920s, the extensive growth of government powers during World War I reignited the antipathy for big government. Laissez-faire economics began come back into vogue with the election of Calvin Coolidge, while the once-powerful progressive movement was becoming excluded from the ranks of reputable economics.

    ... ... ...

    With Barry Goldwater's humiliating defeat in his presidential campaign, the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism both in economics and politics. Symbolic of the narrowness of this new mindset among economists, Milton Friedman's close associate, George Stigler, said in 1976 that "one evidence of professional integrity of the economist is the fact that it is not possible to enlist good economists to defend minimum wage laws." Stigler, G. J. 1982. The Economist as Preacher and Other Essays (Chicago: University of Chicago Press): p. 60.

    In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern "yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced racial superiority as their battle cry.

    One final irony: evangelical Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement. Today, some of them are providing the firepower for the epidemic of neoliberalism.

    [Sep 15, 2016] Globalization and Neoliberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... the US has been successful in dictating neoliberal policies, acting partly through the IMF and World Bank and partly through direct pressure. ..."
    "... From roughly the mid 1930s to the mid 1970s a new "interventionist" approach replaced classical liberalism, and it became the accepted belief that capitalism requires significant state regulation in order to be viable. In the 1970s the Old Religion of classical liberalism made a rapid comeback, first in academic economics and then in the realm of public policy. ..."
    "... Neoliberal theory claims that a largely unregulated capitalist system (a "free market economy" not only embodies the ideal of free individual choice but also achieves optimum economic performance with respect to efficiency, economic growth, technical progress, and distributional justice. ..."
    "... The policy recommendations of neoliberalism are concerned mainly with dismantling what remains of the regulationist welfare state. ..."
    "... This paper argues that the resurgence and tenacity of neoliberalism during the past two decades cannot be explained, in an instrumental fashion, by any favorable effects of neoliberal policies on capitalist economic performance. On the contrary, we will present a case that neoliberalism has been harmful for long-run capitalist economic performance, even judging economic performance from the perspective of the interests of capital. It will be argued that the resurgence and continuing dominance of neoliberalism can be explained, at least in part, by changes in the competitive structure of world capitalism, which have resulted in turn from the particular form of global economic integration that has developed in recent decades. The changed competitive structure of capitalism has altered the political posture of big business with regard to economic policy and the role of the state, turning big business from a supporter of state-regulated capitalism into an opponent of it. ..."
    "... Second, the neoliberal model creates instability on the macroeconomic level by renouncing state counter-cyclical spending and taxation policies, by reducing the effectiveness of "automatic stabilizers" through shrinking social welfare programs,3 and by loosening public regulation of the financial sector. This renders the system more vulnerable to major financial crises and depressions. Third, the neoliberal model tends to intensify class conflict, which can potentially discourage capitalist investment.4 ..."
    "... The evidence from GDP and labor productivity growth rates supports the claim that the neoliberal model is inferior to the state regulationist model for key dimensions of capitalist economic performance. There is ample evidence that the neoliberal model has shifted income and wealth in the direction of the already wealthy. However, the ability to shift income upward has limits in an economy that is not growing rapidly. Neoliberalism does not appear to be delivering the goods in the ways that matter the most for capitalism's long-run stability and survival. ..."
    "... Once capitalism had become well established in the US after the Civil War, it entered a period of cutthroat competition and wild accumulation known as the Robber Baron era. In this period a coherent anti-interventionist liberal position emerged and became politically dominant. Despite the enormous inequalities, the severe business cycle, and the outrageous and often unlawful behavior of the Goulds and Rockefellers, the idea that government should not intervene in the economy held sway through the end of the 19th century. ..."
    "... Small business has remained adamantly opposed to the big, interventionist state, from the Progressive Era through the New Deal down to the present. This division between big and small business is chronicled for the Progressive Era in Weinstein (1968). In the decades immediately following World War II one can observe this division in the divergent views of the Business Roundtable, a big business organization which often supported interventionist programs, and the US Chambers of Commerce, the premier small business organization, which hewed to an antigovernment stance. ..."
    "... By contrast, the typical small business faces a daily battle for survival, which prevents attention to long-run considerations and which places a premium on avoiding the short-run costs of taxation and state regulation. This explains the radically different positions that big business and small business held regarding the proper state role in the economy for the first two-thirds of the twentieth century. ..."
    "... This long-standing division between big business and small business appeared to vanish in the US starting in the 1970s. Large corporations and banks which had formerly supported foundations that advocated an active government role in the economy, such as the Brookings Institution, became big donors to neoliberal foundations such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. As a result, such right-wing foundations, which previously had to rely mainly on contributions from small business, became very wealthy and influential.10 It was big business=s desertion of the political coalition supporting state intervention and its shift to neoliberalism that rebuilt support for neoliberal theories and policies in the US, starting in the 1970s. With business now unified on economic policy, the shift was dramatic. Big grants became available for economics research having a neoliberal slant. The major media shifted their spin on political developments, and the phrase "government programs" now could not be printed except with the word "bloated" before it. ..."
    "... Globalization is usually defined as an increase in the volume of cross-border economic interactions and resource flows, producing a qualitative shift in the relations between national economies and between nation-states (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 5; Kozul-Wright and Rowthorn, 1998, p. 1). Three kinds of economic interactions have increased substantially in past decades: merchandise trade flows, foreign direct investment, and cross-border financial investments. We will briefly examine each, with an eye on their effects on the competitive structure of contemporary capitalism. ..."
    "... By the close of the twentieth century, capitalism had become significantly more globalized than it had been fifty years ago, and by some measures it is much more globalized than it had been at the previous peak of this process in 1913. The most important features of globalization today are greatly increased international trade, increased flows of capital across national boundaries (particularly speculative short-term capital), and a major role for large TNCs in manufacturing, extractive activities, and finance, operating worldwide yet retaining in nearly all cases a clear base in a single nation-state. ..."
    "... Some analysts argue that globalization has produced a world of such economic interdependence that individual nation-states no longer have the power to regulate capital. However, while global interdependence does create difficulties for state regulation, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. Nation-states still retain a good deal of potential power vis-a-vis capitalist firms, provided that the political will is present to exercise such power. For example, even such a small country as Malaysia proved able to successfully impose capital controls following the Asian financial crisis of 1997, despite the opposition of the IMF and the US government. ..."
    "... Globalization appears to be one factor that has transformed big business from a supporter to an opponent of the interventionist state. It has done so partly by producing TNCs whose tie to the domestic markets for goods and labor is limited. ..."
    "... Globalization has produced a world capitalism that bears some resemblance to the Robber Baron Era in the US. Giant corporations battle one another in a system lacking well defined rules. Mergers and acquisitions abound, including some that cross national boundaries, but so far few world industries have evolved the kind of tight oligopolistic structure that would lay the basis for a more controlled form of market relations. Like the late 19th century US Robber Barons, today's large corporations and banks above all want freedom from political burdens and restraints as they confront one another in world markets.18 ..."
    "... The existence of a powerful bloc of Communist-run states with an alternative "state socialist" socioeconomic system tended to push capitalism toward a state regulationist form. It reinforced the fear among capitalists that their own working classes might turn against capitalism. It also had an impact on relations among the leading capitalist states, promoting inter-state unity behind US leadership, which facilitated the creation and operation of a world-system of state-regulated capitalism.19 The demise of state socialism during 1989-91 removed one more factor that had reinforced the regulationist state. ..."
    "... If state socialism re-emerged in one or more major countries, perhaps this might push the capitalist world back toward the regulationist state. However, such a development does not seem likely. Even if Russia or Ukraine at some point does head in that direction, it would be unlikely to produce a serious rival socioeconomic system to that of world capitalism. ..."
    Jul 05, 2016 | people.umass.edu
    Department of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute Thompson Hall University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 U.S.A. Telephone 413-545-1248 Fax 413-545-2921 Email [email protected] August, 2000 This paper was published in Rethinking Marxism, Volume 12, Number 2, Summer 2002, pp. 64-79.

    Research assistance was provided by Elizabeth Ramey and Deger Eryar. Research funding was provided by the Political Economy Research Institute of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Globalization and Neoliberalism 1 For some two decades neoliberalism has dominated economic policymaking in the US and the UK. Neoliberalism has strong advocates in continental Western Europe and Japan, but substantial popular resistance there has limited its influence so far, despite continuing US efforts to impose neoliberal policies on them. In much of the Third World, and in the transition countries (except for China), the US has been successful in dictating neoliberal policies, acting partly through the IMF and World Bank and partly through direct pressure.

    Neoliberalism is an updated version of the classical liberal economic thought that was dominant in the US and UK prior to the Great Depression of the 1930s. From roughly the mid 1930s to the mid 1970s a new "interventionist" approach replaced classical liberalism, and it became the accepted belief that capitalism requires significant state regulation in order to be viable. In the 1970s the Old Religion of classical liberalism made a rapid comeback, first in academic economics and then in the realm of public policy.

    Neoliberalism is both a body of economic theory and a policy stance. Neoliberal theory claims that a largely unregulated capitalist system (a "free market economy" not only embodies the ideal of free individual choice but also achieves optimum economic performance with respect to efficiency, economic growth, technical progress, and distributional justice. The state is assigned a very limited economic role: defining property rights, enforcing contracts, and regulating the money supply.1 State intervention to correct market failures is viewed with suspicion, on the ground that such intervention is likely to create more problems than it solves.

    The policy recommendations of neoliberalism are concerned mainly with dismantling what remains of the regulationist welfare state. These recommendations include deregulation of business; privatization of public activities and assets; elimination of, or cutbacks in, social welfare programs; and reduction of taxes on businesses and the investing class. In the international sphere, neoliberalism calls for free movement of goods, services, capital, and money (but not people) across national boundaries. That is, corporations, banks, and individual investors should be free to move their property across national boundaries, and free to acquire property across national boundaries, although free cross-border movement by individuals is not part of the neoliberal program. How can the re-emergence of a seemingly outdated and outmoded economic theory be explained? At first many progressive economists viewed the 1970s lurch toward liberalism as a temporary response to the economic instability of that decade. As corporate interests decided that the Keynesian regulationist approach no longer worked to their advantage, they looked for an alternative and found only the old liberal ideas, which could at least serve as an ideological basis for cutting those state programs viewed as obstacles to profit-making. However, neoliberalism has proved to be more than just a temporary response. It has outlasted the late 1970s/early 1980s right-wing political victories in the UK (Thatcher) and US (Reagan). Under a Democratic Party administration in the US and a Labor Party government in the UK in the 1990s, neoliberalism solidified its position of dominance.

    This paper argues that the resurgence and tenacity of neoliberalism during the past two decades cannot be explained, in an instrumental fashion, by any favorable effects of neoliberal policies on capitalist economic performance. On the contrary, we will present a case that neoliberalism has been harmful for long-run capitalist economic performance, even judging economic performance from the perspective of the interests of capital. It will be argued that the resurgence and continuing dominance of neoliberalism can be explained, at least in part, by changes in the competitive structure of world capitalism, which have resulted in turn from the particular form of global economic integration that has developed in recent decades. The changed competitive structure of capitalism has altered the political posture of big business with regard to economic policy and the role of the state, turning big business from a supporter of state-regulated capitalism into an opponent of it.

    The Problematic Character of Neoliberalism

    Neoliberalism appears to be problematic as a dominant theory for contemporary capitalism. The stability and survival of the capitalist system depends on its ability to bring vigorous capital accumulation, where the latter process is understood to include not just economic expansion but also technological progress. Vigorous capital accumulation permits rising profits to coexist with rising living standards for a substantial part of the population over the long-run.2 However, it does not appear that neoliberalism promotes vigorous capital accumulation in contemporary capitalism. There are a number of reasons why one would not expect the neoliberal model to promote rapid accumulation. First, it gives rise to a problem of insufficient aggregate demand over the long run, stemming from the powerful tendency of the neoliberal regime to lower both real wages and public spending. Second, the neoliberal model creates instability on the macroeconomic level by renouncing state counter-cyclical spending and taxation policies, by reducing the effectiveness of "automatic stabilizers" through shrinking social welfare programs,3 and by loosening public regulation of the financial sector. This renders the system more vulnerable to major financial crises and depressions. Third, the neoliberal model tends to intensify class conflict, which can potentially discourage capitalist investment.4

    The historical evidence confirms doubts about the ability of the neoliberal model to promote rapid capital accumulation. We will look at growth rates of gross domestic product (GDP) and of labor productivity. The GDP growth rate provides at least a rough approximation of the rate of capital accumulation, while the labor productivity growth rate tells us something about the extent to which capitalism is developing the forces of production via rising ratios of means of production to direct labor, technological advance, and improved labor skills.5 Table 1 shows average annual real GDP growth rates for six leading developed capitalist countries over two periods, 1950-73 and 1973-99. The first period was the heyday of state-regulated capitalism, both within those six countries and in the capitalist world-system as a whole. The second period covers the era of growing neoliberal dominance. All six countries had significantly faster GDP growth in the earlier period than in the later one.

    While Japan and the major Western European economies have been relatively depressed in the 1990s, the US is often portrayed as rebounding to great prosperity over the past decade. Neoliberals often claim that US adherence to neoliberal policies finally paid off in the 1990s, while the more timid moves away from state-interventionist policies in Europe and Japan kept them mired in stagnation. Table 2 shows GDP and labor productivity growth rates for the US economy for three subperiods during 1948-99.6 Column 1 of Table 2 shows that GDP growth was significantly slower in 1973-90 B a period of transition from state-regulated capitalism to the neoliberal model in the US B than in 1948-73. While GDP growth improved slightly in 1990-99, it remained well below that of the era of state-regulated capitalism. Some analysts cite the fact that GDP growth accelerated after 1995, averaging 4.1% per year during 1995-99 (US Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2000). However, it is not meaningful to compare a short fragment of the 1990s business cycle expansion to the longrun performance of the economy during 1948-73.7

    Column 2 of Table 1 shows that the high rate of labor productivity growth recorded in 1948- 73 fell by more than half in 1973-90. While there was significant improvement in productivity growth in the 1990s, it remained well below the 1948-73 rate, despite the rapid spread of what should be productivity-enhancing communication and information-management technologies during the past decade.

    The evidence from GDP and labor productivity growth rates supports the claim that the neoliberal model is inferior to the state regulationist model for key dimensions of capitalist economic performance. There is ample evidence that the neoliberal model has shifted income and wealth in the direction of the already wealthy. However, the ability to shift income upward has limits in an economy that is not growing rapidly. Neoliberalism does not appear to be delivering the goods in the ways that matter the most for capitalism's long-run stability and survival.

    The Structure of Competition and Economic Policy

    The processes through which the dominant economic ideology and policies are selected in a capitalist system are complex and many-sided. No general rule operates to assure that those economic policies which would be most favorable for capitalism are automatically adopted. History suggests that one important determinant of the dominant economic ideology and policy stance is the competitive structure of capitalism in a given era. Specifically, this paper argues that periods of relatively unconstrained competition tend to produce the intellectual and public policy dominance of liberalism, while periods of relatively constrained, oligopolistic market relations tend to promote interventionist ideas and policies.

    A relation in the opposite direction also exists, one which is often commented upon. That is, one can argue that interventionist policies promote monopoly power in markets, while liberal policies promote greater competition. This latter relation is not being denied here. Rather, it will be argued that there is a normally-overlooked direction of influence, having significant historical explanatory power, which runs from competitive structure to public policy. In the period when capitalism first became well established in the US, during 1800-1860, the government played a relatively interventionist role. The federal government placed high tariffs on competing manufactured goods from Europe, and federal, state, and local levels of government all actively financed, and in some cases built and operated, the new canal and rail system that created a large internal market. There was no serious debate over the propriety of public financing of transportation improvements in that era -- the only debate was over which regions would get the key subsidized routes.

    Once capitalism had become well established in the US after the Civil War, it entered a period of cutthroat competition and wild accumulation known as the Robber Baron era. In this period a coherent anti-interventionist liberal position emerged and became politically dominant. Despite the enormous inequalities, the severe business cycle, and the outrageous and often unlawful behavior of the Goulds and Rockefellers, the idea that government should not intervene in the economy held sway through the end of the 19th century.

    From roughly 1890 to 1903 a huge merger wave transformed the competitive structure of US capitalism. Out of that merger wave emerged giant corporations possessing significant monopoly power in the manufacturing, mining, transportation, and communication sectors. US industry settled down to a more restrained form of oligopolistic rivalry. At the same time, many of the new monopoly capitalists began to criticize the old Laissez Faire ideas and support a more interventionist role for the state.8 The combination of big business support for state regulation of business, together with similar demands arising from a popular anti-monopoly movement based among small farmers and middle class professionals, ushered in what is called the Progressive Era, from 1900-16. The building of a regulationist state that was begun in the Progressive Era was completed during the New Deal era a few decades later, when once again both big business leaders and a vigorous popular movement (this time based among industrial workers) supported an interventionist state. Both in the Progressive Era and the New Deal, big business and the popular movement differed about what types of state intervention were needed. Big business favored measures to increase the stability of the system and to improve conditions for profit-making, while the popular movement sought to use the state to restrain the power and privileges of big business and provide greater security for ordinary people. The outcome in both cases was a political compromise, one weighted toward the interests of big business, reflecting the relative power of the latter in American capitalism.

    Small business has remained adamantly opposed to the big, interventionist state, from the Progressive Era through the New Deal down to the present. This division between big and small business is chronicled for the Progressive Era in Weinstein (1968). In the decades immediately following World War II one can observe this division in the divergent views of the Business Roundtable, a big business organization which often supported interventionist programs, and the US Chambers of Commerce, the premier small business organization, which hewed to an antigovernment stance.

    What explains this political difference between large and small business? When large corporations achieve significant market power and become freed from fear concerning their immediate survival, they tend to develop a long time horizon and pay attention to the requirements for assuring growing profits over time.9 They come to see the state as a potential ally. Having high and stable monopoly profits, they tend to view the cost of government programs as something they can afford, given their potential benefits. By contrast, the typical small business faces a daily battle for survival, which prevents attention to long-run considerations and which places a premium on avoiding the short-run costs of taxation and state regulation. This explains the radically different positions that big business and small business held regarding the proper state role in the economy for the first two-thirds of the twentieth century.

    This long-standing division between big business and small business appeared to vanish in the US starting in the 1970s. Large corporations and banks which had formerly supported foundations that advocated an active government role in the economy, such as the Brookings Institution, became big donors to neoliberal foundations such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. As a result, such right-wing foundations, which previously had to rely mainly on contributions from small business, became very wealthy and influential.10 It was big business=s desertion of the political coalition supporting state intervention and its shift to neoliberalism that rebuilt support for neoliberal theories and policies in the US, starting in the 1970s. With business now unified on economic policy, the shift was dramatic. Big grants became available for economics research having a neoliberal slant. The major media shifted their spin on political developments, and the phrase "government programs" now could not be printed except with the word "bloated" before it.

    This switch in the dominant economic model first showed up in the mid 1970s in academic economics, as the previously marginalized Chicago School spread its influence far beyond the University of Chicago. This was soon followed by a radical shift in the public policy arena. In 1978- 79 the previously interventionist Carter Administration began sounding the very neoliberal themes B deregulation of business, cutbacks in social programs, and general fiscal and monetary austerity B that were to become the centerpiece of Reagan Administration policies in 1981. What caused the radical change in the political posture of big business regarding state intervention in the economy? This paper argues that a major part of the explanation lies in the effects of the globalization of the world capitalist economy in the post-World War II period.

    Globalization and Competition

    Globalization is usually defined as an increase in the volume of cross-border economic interactions and resource flows, producing a qualitative shift in the relations between national economies and between nation-states (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 5; Kozul-Wright and Rowthorn, 1998, p. 1). Three kinds of economic interactions have increased substantially in past decades: merchandise trade flows, foreign direct investment, and cross-border financial investments. We will briefly examine each, with an eye on their effects on the competitive structure of contemporary capitalism.

    Table 3 shows the ratio of merchandise exports to gross domestic product for selected years from 1820 to 1992, for the world and also for Western Europe, the US, and Japan. Capitalism brought a five-fold rise in world exports relative to output from 1820-70, followed by another increase of nearly three-fourths by 1913. After declining in the interwar period, world exports reached a new peak of 11.2% of world output in 1973, rising further to 13.5% in 1992. The 1992 figure was over fifty per cent higher than the pre-World War I peak.

    Merchandise exports include physical goods only, while GDP includes services, many of which are not tradable, as well as goods. In the twentieth century the proportion of services in GDP has risen significantly. Table 4 shows an estimate of the ratio of world merchandise exports to the good-only portion of world GDP. This ratio nearly tripled during 1950-92, with merchandise exports rising to nearly one-third of total goods output in the latter year. The 1992 figure was 2.6 times as high as that of 1913.

    Western Europe, the US, and Japan all experienced significant increases in exports relative to GDP during 1950-92, as Table 3 shows. All of them achieved ratios of exports to GDP far in excess of the 1913 level. While exports were only 8.2% of the total GDP of the US in 1992, exports amounted to 22.0% of the non-service portion of GDP that year (Economic Report of the President, 1999, pp. 338, 444).

    Many analysts view foreign direct investment as the most important form of cross-border economic interchange. It is associated with the movement of technology and organizational methods, not just goods. Table 5 shows two measures of foreign direct investment. Column 1 gives the outstanding stock of foreign direct investment in the world as a percentage of world output. This measure has more than doubled since 1975, although it is not much greater today than it was in 1913. Column 2 shows the annual inflow of direct foreign investment as a percentage of gross fixed capital formation. This measure increased rapidly during 1975-95. However, it is still relatively low in absolute terms, with foreign direct investment accounting for only 5.2 per cent of gross fixed capital formation in 1995.

    Not all, or even most, international capital flows take the form of direct investment. Financial flows (such as cross-border purchases of securities and deposits in foreign bank accounts) are normally larger. One measure that takes account of financial as well as direct investment is the total net movement of capital into or out of a country. That measure indicates the extent to which capital from one country finances development in other countries. Table 6 shows the absolute value of current account surpluses or deficits as a percentage of GDP for 12 major capitalist countries. Since net capital inflow or outflow is approximately equal to the current account deficit or surplus (differing only due to errors and omissions), this indicates the size of net cross-border capital flows. The ratio nearly doubled from 1970-74 to 1990-96, although it remained well below the figure for 1910-14.

    Cross-border gross capital movements have grown much more rapidly than cross-border net capital movements.11 In recent times a very large and rapidly growing volume of capital has moved back and forth across national boundaries. Much of this capital flow is speculative in nature, reflecting growing amounts of short-term capital that are moved around the world in search of the best temporary return. No data on such flows are available for the early part of this century, but the data for recent decades are impressive. During 1980-95 cross-border transactions in bonds and equities as a percentage of GDP rose from 9% to 136% for the US, from 8% to 168% for Germany, and from 8% to 66% for Japan (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 10). The total volume of foreign exchange transactions in the world rose from about $15 billion per day in 1973 to $80 billion per day in 1980 and $1260 billion per day in 1995. Trade in goods and services accounted for 15% of foreign exchange transactions in 1973 but for less than 2% of foreign exchange transactions in 1995 (Bhaduri, 1998, p. 152).

    While cross-border flows of goods and capital are usually considered to be the best indicators of possible globalization of capitalism, changes that have occurred over time within capitalist enterprises are also relevant. That is, the much-discussed rise of the transnational corporation (TNC) is relevant here, where a TNC is a corporation which has a substantial proportion of its sales, assets, and employees outside its home country.12 TNCs existed in the pre-World War I era, primarily in the extractive sector. In the post-World War II period many large manufacturing corporations in the US, Western Europe, and Japan became TNCs.

    The largest TNCs are very international measured by the location of their activities. One study found that the 100 largest TNCs in the world (ranked by assets) had 40.4% of their assets abroad, 50.0% of output abroad, and 47.9% of employment abroad in 1996 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 125). While this shows that the largest TNCs are significantly international in their activities, all but a handful have retained a single national base for top officials and major stockholders.13 The top 200 TNCs ranked by output were estimated to produce only about 10 per cent of world GDP in 1995 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 122).

    By the close of the twentieth century, capitalism had become significantly more globalized than it had been fifty years ago, and by some measures it is much more globalized than it had been at the previous peak of this process in 1913. The most important features of globalization today are greatly increased international trade, increased flows of capital across national boundaries (particularly speculative short-term capital), and a major role for large TNCs in manufacturing, extractive activities, and finance, operating worldwide yet retaining in nearly all cases a clear base in a single nation-state.

    While the earlier wave of globalization before World War I did produce a capitalism that was significantly international, two features of that earlier international system differed from the current global capitalism in ways that are relevant here. First, the pre-world War I globalization took place within a world carved up into a few great colonial empires, which meant that much of the so-called "cross-border" trade and investment of that earlier era actually occurred within a space controlled by a single state. Second, the high level of world trade reached before World War I occurred within a system based much more on specialization and division of labor. That is, manufactured goods were exported by the advanced capitalist countries in exchange for primary products, unlike today when most trade is in manufactured goods. In 1913 62.5% of world trade was in primary products (Bairoch and Kozul-Wright, 1998, p. 45). By contrast, in 1970 60.9% of world exports were manufactured goods, rising to 74.7% in 1994 (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 7).

    Some analysts argue that globalization has produced a world of such economic interdependence that individual nation-states no longer have the power to regulate capital. However, while global interdependence does create difficulties for state regulation, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. Nation-states still retain a good deal of potential power vis-a-vis capitalist firms, provided that the political will is present to exercise such power. For example, even such a small country as Malaysia proved able to successfully impose capital controls following the Asian financial crisis of 1997, despite the opposition of the IMF and the US government. A state that has the political will to exercise some control over movements of goods and capital across its borders still retains significant power to regulate business. The more important effect of globalization has been on the political will to undertake state regulation, rather than on the technical feasibility of doing so. Globalization has had this effect by changing the competitive structure of capitalism. It appears that globalization in this period has made capitalism significantly more competitive, in several ways. First, the rapid growth of trade has changed the situation faced by large corporations. Large corporations that had previously operated in relatively controlled oligopolistic domestic markets now face competition from other large corporations based abroad, both in domestic and foreign markets. In the US the rate of import penetration of domestic manufacturing markets was only 2 per cent in 1950; it rose to 8% in 1971 and 16% by 1993, an 8-fold increase since 1950 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 116).

    Second, the rapid increase in foreign direct investment has in many cases placed TNCs production facilities in the home markets of their foreign rivals. General Motors not only faces import competition from Toyota and Honda but has to compete with US-produced Toyota and Honda vehicles. Third, the increasingly integrated and open world financial system has thrown the major banks and other financial institutions of the leading capitalist nations increasingly into competition with one another.

    Globalization appears to be one factor that has transformed big business from a supporter to an opponent of the interventionist state. It has done so partly by producing TNCs whose tie to the domestic markets for goods and labor is limited. More importantly, globalization tends to turn big business into small business. The process of globalization has increased the competitive pressure faced by large corporations and banks, as competition has become a world-wide relationship.17 Even if those who run large corporations and financial institutions recognize the need for a strong nationstate in their home base, the new competitive pressure they face shortens their time horizon. It pushes them toward support for any means to reduce their tax burden and lift their regulatory constraints, to free them to compete more effectively with their global rivals. While a regulationist state may seem to be in the interests of big business, in that it can more effectively promote capital accumulation in the long run, in a highly competitive environment big business is drawn away from supporting a regulationist state.

    Globalization has produced a world capitalism that bears some resemblance to the Robber Baron Era in the US. Giant corporations battle one another in a system lacking well defined rules. Mergers and acquisitions abound, including some that cross national boundaries, but so far few world industries have evolved the kind of tight oligopolistic structure that would lay the basis for a more controlled form of market relations. Like the late 19th century US Robber Barons, today's large corporations and banks above all want freedom from political burdens and restraints as they confront one another in world markets.18

    The above interpretation of the rise and persistence of neoliberalism attributes it, at least in part, to the changed competitive structure of world capitalism resulting from the process of globalization. As neoliberalism gained influence starting in the 1970s, it became a force propelling the globalization process further. One reason for stressing the line of causation running from globalization to neoliberalism is the time sequence of the developments. The process of globalization, which had been reversed to some extent by political and economic events in the interwar period, resumed right after World War II, producing a significantly more globalized world economy and eroding the monopoly power of large corporations well before neoliberalism began its second coming in the mid 1970s. The rapid rise in merchandise exports began during the Bretton Woods period, as Table 3 showed. So too did the growing role for TNC's. These two aspects of the current globalization had their roots in the postwar era of state-regulated capitalism. This suggests that, to some extent, globalization reflects a long-run tendency in the capital accumulation process rather than just being a result of the rising influence of neoliberal policies. On the other hand, once neoliberalism became dominant, it accelerated the process of globalization. This can be seen most clearly in the data on cross-border flows of both real and financial capital, which began to grow rapidly only after the 1960s.

    Other Factors Promoting Neoliberalism

    The changed competitive structure of capitalism provides part of the explanation for the rise from the ashes of classical liberalism and its persistence in the face of widespread evidence of its failure to deliver the goods. However, three additional factors have played a role in promoting neoliberal dominance. These are the weakening of socialist movements in the industrialized capitalist countries, the demise of state socialism, and the long period that has elapsed since the last major capitalist economic crisis. There is space here for only some brief comments about these additional factors.

    The socialist movements in the industrialized capitalist countries have declined in strength significantly over the past few decades. While Social Democratic parties have come to office in several European countries recently, they no longer represent a threat of even significant modification of capitalism, much less the specter of replacing capitalism with an alternative socialist system. The regulationist state was always partly a response to the fear of socialism, a point illustrated by the emergence of the first major regulationist state of the era of mature capitalism in Germany in the late 19th century, in response to the world=s first major socialist movement. As the threat coming from socialist movements in the industrialized capitalist countries has receded, so too has to incentive to retain the regulationist state.

    The existence of a powerful bloc of Communist-run states with an alternative "state socialist" socioeconomic system tended to push capitalism toward a state regulationist form. It reinforced the fear among capitalists that their own working classes might turn against capitalism. It also had an impact on relations among the leading capitalist states, promoting inter-state unity behind US leadership, which facilitated the creation and operation of a world-system of state-regulated capitalism.19 The demise of state socialism during 1989-91 removed one more factor that had reinforced the regulationist state.

    The occurrence of a major economic crisis tends to promote an interventionist state, since active state intervention is required to overcome a major crisis. The memory of a recent major crisis tends to keep up support for a regulationist state, which is correctly seen as a stabilizing force tending to head off major crises. As the Great Depression of the 1930s has receded into the distant past, the belief has taken hold that major economic crises have been banished forever. This reduces the perceived need to retain the regulationist state.

    Concluding Comments

    If neoliberalism continues to reign as the dominant ideology and policy stance, it can be argued that world capitalism faces a future of stagnation, instability, and even eventual social breakdown.20 However, from the factors that have promoted neoliberalism one can see possible sources of a move back toward state-regulated capitalism at some point. One possibility would be the development of tight oligopoly and regulated competition on a world scale. Perhaps the current merger wave might continue until, as happened at the beginning of the 20th century within the US and in other industrialized capitalist economies, oligopoly replaced cutthroat competition, but this time on a world scale. Such a development might revive big business support for an interventionist state. However, this does not seem to be likely in the foreseeable future. The world is a big place, with differing cultures, laws, and business practices in different countries, which serve as obstacles to overcoming the competitive tendency in market relations. Transforming an industry=s structure so that two to four companies produce the bulk of the output is not sufficient in itself to achieve stable monopoly power, if the rivals are unable to communicate effectively with one another and find common ground for cooperation. Also, it would be difficult for international monopolies to exercise effective regulation via national governments, and a genuine world capitalist state is not a possibility for the foreseeable future.

    If state socialism re-emerged in one or more major countries, perhaps this might push the capitalist world back toward the regulationist state. However, such a development does not seem likely. Even if Russia or Ukraine at some point does head in that direction, it would be unlikely to produce a serious rival socioeconomic system to that of world capitalism.

    A more likely source of a new era of state interventionism might come from one of the remaining two factors considered above. The macro-instability of neoliberal global capitalism might produce a major economic crisis at some point, one which spins out of the control of the weakened regulatory authorities. This would almost certainly revive the politics of the regulationist state. Finally, the increasing exploitation and other social problems generated by neoliberal global capitalism might prod the socialist movement back to life at some point. Should socialist movements revive and begin to seriously challenge capitalism in one or more major capitalist countries, state regulationism might return in response to it. Such a development would also revive the possibility of finally superceding capitalism and replacing it with a system based on human need rather than private profit.

    [Sep 15, 2016] Whats Behind The Revolt Against Global Integration?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending existing integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted. On the evidence of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have run its course. ... ..."
    "... I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848 ..."
    "... Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers. ..."
    "... The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they are smarter than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies. ..."
    "... And what about neocolonialism and debt slavery ? http://historum.com/blogs/solidaire/245-debt-slavery-neo-colonialism-neoliberalism.html ..."
    "... International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no armies are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of enslavement, the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers, and its enforcers are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist governments (and totalitarian regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials. ..."
    "... Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious, planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan? ..."
    "... The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm .... ..."
    "... The only trade that is actually free is trade not covered by laws and/or treaties. All other trade is regulated trade. ..."
    "... Here's a good rule to follow. When someone calls something the exact opposite of what it is, in all probability they are trying to hustle your wallet. ..."
    "... ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's group, just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them. ..."
    "... Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel safe, secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has to offer. Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do. ..."
    "... To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something you should not forget. ..."
    "... I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose some rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people, including me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not "free trade", but removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem. ..."
    "... TPP is not free trade. It is protectionism for the rich. ..."
    "... All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose is agreements which impoverish them and enrich capital. ..."
    "... More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have seen the results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and now they are guessing we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we have to put all of our environmental laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition with backward countries. ..."
    "... progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY, MD) could simply treat union busting the same way any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of the free market is treated: make it a felony. ..."
    "... Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the goods and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under such a negotiated trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate private enterprise incentives to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god can't tolerate. ..."
    "... Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either increased global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick which to believe. ..."
    Apr 11, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Larry Summers:
    What's behind the revolt against global integration? : Since the end of World War II, a broad consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity has been a pillar of the international order. ...

    This broad program of global integration has been more successful than could reasonably have been hoped. ... Yet a revolt against global integration is underway in the West. ...

    One substantial part of what is behind the resistance is a lack of knowledge. ...The core of the revolt against global integration, though, is not ignorance. It is a sense - unfortunately not wholly unwarranted - that it is a project being carried out by elites for elites, with little consideration for the interests of ordinary people. ...

    Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending existing integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted. On the evidence of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have run its course. ...

    Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing its consequences. This would mean a shift from international trade agreements to international harmonization agreements, whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central, while issues related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would also mean devoting as much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation or evade regulation through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And it would mean an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but still hope desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.

    Tom aka Rusty : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:15 AM
    Is Summers really this naive?
    Jedgar Mihelic : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:21 AM
    I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848
    pgl -> Jedgar Mihelic ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:28 AM
    Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers.
    pgl : Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:32 AM
    A large part of the concern over free trade comes from the weak economic performances around the globe. Summers could have addressed this. Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker - both sensible economists - for example recently called on the US to do its own currency manipulation so as to reverse the US$ appreciation which is lowering our net exports quite a bit.

    What they left out is the fact that both China and Japan have seen currency appreciations as well. If we raise our net exports at their expense, that lowers their economic activity. Better would be global fiscal stimulus. I wish Larry had raised this issue here.

    Peter -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:12 AM
    The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they are smarter than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies.
    likbez -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 04:48 PM
    pgl,

    And what about neocolonialism and debt slavery ? http://historum.com/blogs/solidaire/245-debt-slavery-neo-colonialism-neoliberalism.html

    === quote ===

    One of the most fundamental reasons for the poverty and underdevelopment of Africa (and of almost all "third world" countries) is neo-colonialism, which in modern history takes the shape of external debt.

    When countries are forced to pay 40,50,60% of their government budgets just to pay the interests of their enormous debts, there is little room for actual prosperity left.

    International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no armies are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of enslavement, the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers, and its enforcers are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist governments (and totalitarian regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials.

    In reality, not much has changed since the fall of the great colonial empires. In paper, countries have gained their sovereignty, but in reality they are enslaved to the international credit system.

    The only thing that has changed, is that now the very colonial powers of the past, are threatened to become debt colonies themselves. You see, global capitalism and credit system has no country, nationality, colour; it only recognises the colour of money, earned at all cost by the very few, on the expense of the vast, unsuspected and lulled masses.

    Debt had always been a very efficient way of control, either on a personal, or state level. And while most of us are aware of the implementations of personal debt and the risks involved, the corridors of government debt are poorly lit, albeit this kind of debt is affecting all citizens of a country and in ways more profound and far reaching into the future than those of private debt.

    Global capitalism was flourishing after WW2, and reached an apex somewhere in the 70's.

    The lower classes in the mature capitalist countries had gained a respectable portion of the distributed wealth, rights and privileges inconceivable several decades before. The purchasing power of the average American for example, was very satisfactory, fully justifying the American dream. Similar phenomena were taking place all over the "developed" world.

    Kgaard : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:32 AM
    Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious, planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan?
    anne -> Kgaard... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:44 AM
    There is of course no reasonable answering to prejudice, since prejudice is always unreasonable, but should there be a question, when was the last time that, say, the United States or the territory that the US now covers was a homogeneous society?

    Before the US engulfed Spanish peoples? Before the US engulfed African peoples? Before the US engulfed Indian peoples? When did the Irish, just to think of a random nationality, ruin "our" homogeneity?

    I could continue, but how much of a point is there in being reasonable?

    Kgaard -> anne... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 11:21 AM
    The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm ....

    Also ... What is your definition of prejudice?

    Benedict@Large -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:56 AM
    The only trade that is actually free is trade not covered by laws and/or treaties. All other trade is regulated trade.

    Here's a good rule to follow. When someone calls something the exact opposite of what it is, in all probability they are trying to hustle your wallet.

    Has anyone been trying to hustle the wallets of the people who became ISIS? Oh please. That's a stupid question to even ask.

    So is free trade, as in regulated trade that is called the opposite of what it is, responsible for ISIS? Of course it is.

    Ben Groves -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:10 AM
    ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's group, just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them.

    It is like using the internet to think you are "edgy". Some dudes like psuedo-science scam artist Mike Adams are uncovering secrets to this witty viewer............then you wonder why society is degenerating. What should happen with Mike Adams is, he should be beaten up and castrated. My guess he would talk then. Boy would his idiot followers get a surprise and that surprise would have results other than "poor mikey, he was robbed".

    This explains why guys like Trump get delegates. Not because he uses illegal immigrants in his old businesses, not because of some flat real wages going over 40 years, not because he is a conman marketer.........he makes them feel safe. That is purely it. I think its pathetic, but that is what happens in a emasculated world. Safety becomes absolute concern. "Trump makes me feel safe".

    Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel safe, secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has to offer. Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do.

    To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something you should not forget.

    DrDick : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:35 AM
    I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose some rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people, including me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not "free trade", but removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem.
    pgl -> DrDick ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:57 AM
    OK - some substance finally. TPP is not free trade. It is protectionism for the rich.
    DrDick -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 11:10 AM
    Actually, this is my first actual response to the post itself, but you were too busy being and a*****e to notice. All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose is agreements which impoverish them and enrich capital.
    Dan Kervick -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:33 PM
    This has become a popular line, and it's not exactly false. But so what if it were a "free trade" agreement? More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have seen the results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and now they are guessing we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we have to put all of our environmental laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition with backward countries.
    Denis Drew : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:38 AM
    " The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. "

    " ... whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central ... "

    +1

    Now if we could just adopt that policy internally in the United States first we could then (and only then) support it externally across the world.

    Easy approach: (FOR THE TEN MILLIONTH TIME!) progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY, MD) could simply treat union busting the same way any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of the free market is treated: make it a felony. FYI (for those who are not aware) states can add to federal labor protections, just not subtract.

    A completely renewed, re-constituted democracy would be born.

    Biggest obstacle to this being done in my (crackpot?) view: human males. Being instinctive pack hunters, before they check out any idea they, first, check in with the pack (all those other boys who are also checking in with the pack) -- almost automatically infer impossibility to overcome what they see (correctly?) as wheels within wheels of inertia.

    Self-fulfilling prophecy: nothing (not the most obvious, SHOULD BE easiest possible to get support for actions) ever gets done.

    Peter : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:31 AM
    http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/new_path_forward/

    I'm not the only one seeking a new path forward on trade.

    by Jared Bernstein

    April 11th, 2016 at 9:20 am

    "...

    Here's Larry's view of the way forward:

    "The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing its consequences. This would mean a shift from international trade agreements to international harmonization agreements, whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central, while issues related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would also mean devoting as much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation or evade regulation through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And it would mean an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but still hope desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.

    Good points, all. "Bottom-up" means what I've been calling a more representative, inclusive process. But what's this about "international harmonization?""

    It's a way of saying that we need to reduce the "frictions" and thus costs between trading partners at the level of pragmatic infrastructure, not corporate power. One way to think of this is TFAs, not FTAs. TFAs are trade facilitation agreements, which are more about integrating ports, rail, and paperwork than patents that protect big Pharma.

    It's refreshing to see mainstreamers thinking creatively about the anger that's surfaced around globalization. Waiting for the anger to dissipate and then reverting back to the old trade regimes may be the preferred path for elites, but that path may well be blocked. We'd best clear a new, wider path, one that better accommodates folks from all walks of life, both here and abroad."

    anne : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 09:12 AM
    "What's Behind The Revolt Against Global Integration?" -- Washington Post editors title.

    "Global trade should be remade from the bottom up" -- Lawrence Summers title.

    I find the difference in titles important in showing just how slanted Washington Post editors are.

    Longtooth : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 01:41 PM
    Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the goods and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under such a negotiated trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate private enterprise incentives to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god can't tolerate.
    pgl -> Longtooth... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 01:46 PM
    Imagine a trade deal negotiated by the AFL-CIO. Labor wins a lot and capital owners lose a little. We can all then smile and say to the latter - go get your buddies in Congress more serious about the compensation principle. Turn the table!
    kthomas -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:01 PM
    Not being rude, but I fail to understand your response.

    AFL-CIO? turn the table?

    Peter -> kthomas... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:51 PM
    It's okay. He's drunk again.
    New Deal democrat : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:07 PM
    "consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity " -- "The Great Illusion" ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion )
    That increased trade is a bulwark against war rears its ugly head again. The above book which so ironically delivered the message was published in 1910.

    Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either increased global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick which to believe.

    George H. Blackford :
    Our problems began back in the 1970s when we abandoned the Bretton Woods international capital controls and then broke the unions, cut taxes on corporations and upper income groups, and deregulated the financial system. This eventually led a stagnation of wages in the US and an increase in the concentration of income at the top of the income distribution throughout the world: http://www.rwEconomics.com/Ch_1.htm

    The export-led growth model that began in the 1990s seriously exacerbated this problem as it proved to be unsustainable: http://www.rwEconomics.com/htm/WDCh_2.htm

    When combined with tax cuts and financial deregulation it led to increasing debt relative to income in the importing countries that caused the financial catastrophe we went through in 2008, the economic stagnation that followed, and the social unrest we see throughout the world today. This, in turn, created a situation in which the full utilization of our economic resources can only be maintained through an unsustainable increase in debt relative to income: http://www.rwEconomics.com/htm/WDCh3e.htm

    This is what has to be overcome if we are to get out of the mess the world is in today, and it's not going to be overcome by pretending that it's just going to go away if people can just become educated about the benefits of trade. At least that's not the way it worked out in the 1930s: http://www.rwEconomics.com/LTLGAD.htm

    [Sep 15, 2016] How neoliberalism created an age of activism by Juan Cole

    Notable quotes:
    "... From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to Oakland, a new generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state that has dominated the world ever since the Cold War ended. ..."
    "... young rebels are reacting to a single stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting. They have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against the resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the impunity ..."
    "... In the "glorious thirty years" after World War II, North America and Western Europe achieved remarkable rates of economic growth and relatively low levels of inequality for capitalist societies, while instituting a broad range of benefits for workers, students and retirees. From roughly 1980 on, however, the neoliberal movement, rooted in the laissez-faire economic theories of Milton Friedman, launched what became a full-scale assault on workers' power and an attempt, often remarkably successful, to eviscerate the social welfare state. ..."
    "... "Washington consensus" meant that the urge to impose privatisation on stagnating, nepotistic postcolonial states would become the order of the day. ..."
    "... While neoliberalism has produced more unequal societies throughout the world, nowhere else has the income of the poor declined quite so strikingly. The concentration of wealth in a few hands profoundly contradicts the founding principles of Israel's Labour Zionism, and results from decades of right-wing Likud policies punishing the poor and middle classes and shifting wealth to the top of society. ..."
    "... Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and the director of the Centre for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan. His latest book, ..."
    "... Engaging the Muslim World , is just out in a revised paperback edition from Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the Informed Comment website. ..."
    "... A version of this article was first published on Tom Dispatch . ..."
    "... The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. ..."
    Nov 15, 2011 | aljazeera.com

    Decades of neoliberal economic policies have concentrated wealth and are now spurring a global backlash.

    Politics, US & Canada, Latin America, Chile, Egypt

    ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN - From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to Oakland, a new generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state that has dominated the world ever since the Cold War ended. The massive popular protests that shook the globe this year have much in common, though most of the reporting on them in the mainstream media has obscured the similarities.

    Whether in Egypt or the United States, young rebels are reacting to a single stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting. They have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against the resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the impunity

    ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN - From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to Oakland, a new generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state that has dominated the world ever since the Cold War ended. The massive popular protests that shook the globe this year have much in common, though most of the reporting on them in the mainstream media has obscured the similarities.

    Whether in Egypt or the United States, young rebels are reacting to a single stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting. They have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against the resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the impunity of the white-collar criminals who have run riot in societies everywhere. They are objecting to high rates of unemployment, reduced social services, blighted futures and above all the substitution of the market for all other values as the matrix of human ethics and life.

    Pasha the Tiger

    In the "glorious thirty years" after World War II, North America and Western Europe achieved remarkable rates of economic growth and relatively low levels of inequality for capitalist societies, while instituting a broad range of benefits for workers, students and retirees. From roughly 1980 on, however, the neoliberal movement, rooted in the laissez-faire economic theories of Milton Friedman, launched what became a full-scale assault on workers' power and an attempt, often remarkably successful, to eviscerate the social welfare state.

    Neoliberals chanted the mantra that everyone would benefit if the public sector were privatised, businesses deregulated and market mechanisms allowed to distribute wealth. But as economist David Harvey argues, from the beginning it was a doctrine that primarily benefited the wealthy, its adoption allowing the top one per cent in any neoliberal society to capture a disproportionate share of whatever wealth was generated.

    In the global South, countries that gained their independence from European colonialism after World War II tended to create large public sectors as part of the process of industrialization. Often, living standards improved as a result, but by the 1970s, such developing economies were generally experiencing a levelling-off of growth. This happened just as neoliberalism became ascendant in Washington, Paris and London as well as in Bretton Woods institutions like the International Monetary Fund. This "Washington consensus" meant that the urge to impose privatisation on stagnating, nepotistic postcolonial states would become the order of the day.

    Egypt and Tunisia, to take two countries in the spotlight for sparking the Arab Spring, were successfully pressured in the 1990s to privatise their relatively large public sectors. Moving public resources into the private sector created an almost endless range of opportunities for staggering levels of corruption on the part of the ruling families of autocrats Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunis and Hosni Mubarak in Cairo. International banks, central banks and emerging local private banks aided and abetted their agenda.

    It was not surprising then that one of the first targets of Tunisian crowds in the course of the revolution they made last January was the Zitouna bank, a branch of which they torched. Its owner? Sakher El Materi, a son-in-law of President Ben Ali and the notorious owner of Pasha, the well-fed pet tiger that prowled the grounds of one of his sumptuous mansions. Not even the way his outfit sought legitimacy by practicing "Islamic banking" could forestall popular rage. A 2006 State Department cable released by WikiLeaks observed, "One local financial expert blames the [Ben Ali] Family for chronic banking sector woes due to the great percentage of non-performing loans issued through crony connections, and has essentially paralysed banking authorities from genuine recovery efforts." That is, the banks were used by the regime to give away money to his cronies, with no expectation of repayment.

    Tunisian activists similarly directed their ire at foreign banks and lenders to which their country owes $14.4bn. Tunisians are still railing and rallying against the repayment of all that money, some of which they believe was borrowed profligately by the corrupt former regime and then squandered quite privately.

    Tunisians had their own one per cent, a thin commercial elite, half of whom were related to or closely connected to President Ben Ali. As a group, they were accused by young activists of mafia-like, predatory practices, such as demanding pay-offs from legitimate businesses, and discouraging foreign investment by tying it to a stupendous system of bribes. The closed, top-heavy character of the Tunisian economic system was blamed for the bottom-heavy waves of suffering that followed: cost of living increases that hit people on fixed incomes or those like students and peddlers in the marginal economy especially hard.

    It was no happenstance that the young man who immolated himself and so sparked the Tunisian rebellion was a hard-pressed vegetable peddler. It's easy now to overlook what clearly ties the beginning of the Arab Spring to the European Summer and the present American Fall: the point of the Tunisian revolution was not just to gain political rights, but to sweep away that one per cent, popularly imagined as a sort of dam against economic opportunity.

    Tahrir Square, Zuccotti Park, Rothschild Avenue

    The success of the Tunisian revolution in removing the octopus-like Ben Ali plutocracy inspired the dramatic events in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and even Israel that are redrawing the political map of the Middle East. But the 2011 youth protest movement was hardly contained in the Middle East. Estonian-Canadian activist Kalle Lasn and his anti-consumerist colleagues at the Vancouver-based Adbusters Media Foundation were inspired by the success of the revolutionaries in Tahrir Square in deposing dictator Hosni Mubarak.

    Their organisation specialises in combatting advertising culture through spoofs and pranks. It was Adbusters magazine that sent out the call on Twitter in the summer of 2011 for a rally at Wall Street on September 17, with the now-famous hash tag #OccupyWallStreet. A thousand protesters gathered on the designated date, commemorating the 2008 economic meltdown that had thrown millions of Americans out of their jobs and their homes. Some camped out in nearby Zuccotti Park, another unexpected global spark for protest.

    The Occupy Wall Street movement has now spread throughout the United States, sometimes in the face of serious acts of repression, as in Oakland, California. It has followed in the spirit of the Arab and European movements in demanding an end to special privileges for the richest one per cent, including their ability to more or less buy the US government for purposes of their choosing. What is often forgotten is that the Ben Alis, Mubaraks and Gaddafis were not simply authoritarian tyrants. They were the one per cent and the guardians of the one per cent, in their own societies - and loathed for exactly that.

    Last April, around the time that Lasn began imagining Wall Street protests, progressive activists in Israel started planning their own movement. In July, sales clerk and aspiring filmmaker Daphne Leef found herself unable to cover a sudden rent increase on her Tel Aviv apartment. So she started a protest Facebook page similar to the ones that fuelled the Arab Spring and moved into a tent on the posh Rothschild Avenue where she was soon joined by hundreds of other protesting Israelis. Week by week, the demonstrations grew, spreading to cities throughout the country and culminating on September 3 in a massive rally, the largest in Israel's history. Some 300,000 protesters came out in Tel Aviv, 50,000 in Jerusalem and 40,000 in Haifa. Their demands included not just lower housing costs, but a rollback of neoliberal policies, less regressive taxes and more progressive, direct taxation, a halt to the privatisation of the economy, and the funding of a system of inexpensive education and child care.

    Many on the left in Israel are also deeply troubled by the political and economic power of right-wing settlers on the West Bank, but most decline to bring the Palestinian issue into the movement's demands for fear of losing support among the middle class. For the same reason, the way the Israeli movement was inspired by Tahrir Square and the Egyptian revolution has been downplayed, although "Walk like an Egyptian" signs - a reference both to the Cairo demonstrations and the 1986 Bangles hit song - have been spotted on Rothschild Avenue.

    Most of the Israeli activists in the coastal cities know that they are victims of the same neoliberal order that displaces the Palestinians, punishes them and keeps them stateless. Indeed, the Palestinians, altogether lacking a state but at the complete mercy of various forms of international capital controlled by elites elsewhere, are the ultimate victims of the neoliberal order. But in order to avoid a split in the Israeli protest movement, a quiet agreement was reached to focus on economic discontents and so avoid the divisive issue of the much-despised West Bank settlements.

    There has been little reporting in the Western press about a key source of Israeli unease, which was palpable to me when I visited the country in May. Even then, before the local protests had fully hit their stride, Israelis I met were complaining about the rise to power of an Israeli one per cent. There are now 16 billionaires in the country, who control $45bn in assets, and the current crop of 10,153 millionaires is 20 per cent larger than it was in the previous fiscal year. In terms of its distribution of wealth, Israel is now among the most unequal of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Since the late 1980s, the average household income of families in the bottom fifth of the population has been declining at an annual rate of 1.1 per cent. Over the same period, the average household income of families among the richest 20 per cent went up at an annual rate of 2.4 per cent.

    While neoliberalism has produced more unequal societies throughout the world, nowhere else has the income of the poor declined quite so strikingly. The concentration of wealth in a few hands profoundly contradicts the founding principles of Israel's Labour Zionism, and results from decades of right-wing Likud policies punishing the poor and middle classes and shifting wealth to the top of society.

    The indignant ones

    European youth were also inspired by the Tunisians and Egyptians - and by a similar flight of wealth. I was in Barcelona on May 27, when the police attacked demonstrators camped out at the Placa de Catalunya, provoking widespread consternation. The government of the region is currently led by the centrist Convergence and Union Party, a moderate proponent of Catalan nationalism. It is relatively popular locally, and so Catalans had not expected such heavy-handed police action to be ordered. The crackdown, however, underlined the very point of the protesters, that the neoliberal state, whatever its political makeup, is protecting the same set of wealthy miscreants.

    Spain's "indignados" (indignant ones) got their start in mid-May with huge protests at Madrid's Puerta del Sol Plaza against the country's persistent 21 per cent unemployment rate (and double that among the young). Egyptian activists in Tahrir Square immediately sent a statement of warm support to those in the Spanish capital (as they would months later to New York's demonstrators). Again following the same pattern, the Spanish movement does not restrict its objections to unemployment (and the lack of benefits attending the few new temporary or contract jobs that do arise). Its targets are the banks, bank bailouts, financial corruption and cuts in education and other services.

    Youth activists I met in Toledo and Madrid this summer denounced both of the country's major parties and, indeed, the very consumer society that emphasised wealth accumulation over community and material acquisition over personal enrichment. In the past two months Spain's young protesters have concentrated on demonstrating against cuts to education, with crowds of 70,000 to 90,000 coming out more than once in Madrid and tens of thousands in other cities. For marches in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement, hundreds of thousands reportedly took to the streets of Madrid and Barcelona, among other cities.

    The global reach and connectedness of these movements has yet to be fully appreciated. The Madrid education protesters, for example, cited for inspiration Chilean students who, through persistent, innovative, and large-scale demonstrations this summer and fall, have forced that country's neoliberal government, headed by the increasingly unpopular billionaire president Sebastian Pinera, to inject $1.6bn in new money into education. Neither the crowds of youth in Madrid nor those in Santiago are likely to be mollified, however, by new dorms and laboratories. Chilean students have already moved on from insisting on an end to an ever more expensive class-based education system to demands that the country's lucrative copper mines be nationalised so as to generate revenues for investment in education. In every instance, the underlying goal of specific protests by the youthful reformists is the neoliberal order itself.

    The word "union" was little uttered in American television news coverage of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, even though factory workers and sympathy strikes of all sorts played a key role in them. The right-wing press in the US actually went out of its way to contrast Egyptian demonstrations against Mubarak with the Wisconsin rallies of government workers against Governor Scott Walker's measure to cripple the bargaining power of their unions.

    The Egyptians, Commentary typically wrote, were risking their lives, while Wisconsin's union activists were taking the day off from cushy jobs to parade around with placards, immune from being fired for joining the rallies. The implication: the Egyptian revolution was against tyranny, whereas already spoiled American workers were demanding further coddling.

    The American right has never been interested in recognising this reality: that forbidding unions and strikes is a form of tyranny. In fact, it wasn't just progressive bloggers who saw a connection between Tahrir Square and Madison. The head of the newly formed independent union federation in Egypt dispatched an explicit expression of solidarity to the Wisconsin workers, centering on worker's rights.

    At least, Commentary did us one favour: it clarified why the story has been told as it has in most of the American media. If the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya were merely about individualistic political rights - about the holding of elections and the guarantee of due process - then they could be depicted as largely irrelevant to politics in the US and Europe, where such norms already prevailed.

    If, however, they centered on economic rights (as they certainly did), then clearly the discontents of North African youth when it came to plutocracy, corruption, the curbing of workers' rights, and persistent unemployment deeply resembled those of their American counterparts.

    The global protests of 2011 have been cast in the American media largely as an "Arab Spring" challenging local dictatorships - as though Spain, Chile and Israel do not exist. The constant speculation by pundits and television news anchors in the US about whether "Islam" would benefit from the Arab Spring functioned as an Orientalist way of marking events in North Africa as alien and vaguely menacing, but also as not germane to the day to day concerns of working Americans. The inhabitants of Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan clearly feel differently.

    Facebook flash mobs

    If we focus on economic trends, then the neoliberal state looks eerily similar, whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship, whether the government is nominally right of centre or left of centre. As a package, deregulation, the privatisation of public resources and firms, corruption and forms of insider trading and interference in the ability of workers to organise or engage in collective bargaining have allowed the top one per cent in Israel, just as in Tunisia or the US, to capture the lion's share of profits from the growth of the last decades.

    Observers were puzzled by the huge crowds that turned out in both Tunis and Tel Aviv in 2011, especially given that economic growth in those countries had been running at a seemingly healthy five per cent per annum. "Growth", defined generally and without regard to its distribution, is the answer to a neoliberal question. The question of the 99 per cent, however, is: Who is getting the increased wealth? In both of those countries, as in the US and other neoliberal lands, the answer is: disproportionately the one per cent.

    If you were wondering why outraged young people around the globe are chanting such similar slogans and using such similar tactics (including Facebook "flash mobs"), it is because they have seen more clearly than their elders through the neoliberal shell game.

    Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and the director of the Centre for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan. His latest book, Engaging the Muslim World, is just out in a revised paperback edition from Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the Informed Comment website.

    A version of this article was first published on Tom Dispatch.

    The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

    [Sep 15, 2016] Global Capitalism Crisis of Humanity and the Specter of 21st Century Fascism

    Yet another response [ to globalization] is that I term 21stcentury fascism. The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.
    Notable quotes:
    "... over-accumulation ..."
    "... Cyclical crises ..."
    "... . Structural crises ..."
    "... systemic crisis ..."
    "... social reproduction. ..."
    "... crisis of humanity ..."
    "... 1984 has arrived; ..."
    "... The crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society. ..."
    "... In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class ..."
    "... It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. ..."
    "... Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic. ..."
    May 27, 2014 | The World Financial Review

    World capitalism is experiencing the worst crisis in its 500 year history. Global capitalism is a qualitatively new stage in the open ended evolution of capitalism characterised by the rise of transnational capital, a transnational capitalist class, and a transnational state. Below, William I. Robinson argues that the global crisis is structural and threatens to become systemic, raising the specter of collapse and a global police state in the face of ecological holocaust, concentration of the means of violence, displacement of billions, limits to extensive expansion and crises of state legitimacy, and suggests that a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward to the poor majority of humanity is the only viable solution.

    The New Global Capitalism and the 21st Century Crisis

    The world capitalist system is arguably experiencing the worst crisis in its 500 year history. World capitalism has experienced a profound restructuring through globalisation over the past few decades and has been transformed in ways that make it fundamentally distinct from its earlier incarnations. Similarly, the current crisis exhibits features that set it apart from earlier crises of the system and raise the stakes for humanity. If we are to avert disastrous outcomes we must understand both the nature of the new global capitalism and the nature of its crisis. Analysis of capitalist globalisation provides a template for probing a wide range of social, political, cultural and ideological processes in this 21st century. Following Marx, we want to focus on the internal dynamics of capitalism to understand crisis. And following the global capitalism perspective, we want to see how capitalism has qualitatively evolved in recent decades.

    The system-wide crisis we face is not a repeat of earlier such episodes such as that of the the 1930s or the 1970s precisely because capitalism is fundamentally different in the 21st century. Globalisation constitutes a qualitatively new epoch in the ongoing and open-ended evolution of world capitalism, marked by a number of qualitative shifts in the capitalist system and by novel articulations of social power. I highlight four aspects unique to this epoch.1

    First is the rise of truly transnational capital and a new global production and financial system into which all nations and much of humanity has been integrated, either directly or indirectly. We have gone from a world economy, in which countries and regions were linked to each other via trade and financial flows in an integrated international market, to a global economy, in which nations are linked to each more organically through the transnationalisation of the production process, of finance, and of the circuits of capital accumulation. No single nation-state can remain insulated from the global economy or prevent the penetration of the social, political, and cultural superstructure of global capitalism. Second is the rise of a Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC), a class group that has drawn in contingents from most countries around the world, North and South, and has attempted to position itself as a global ruling class. This TCC is the hegemonic fraction of capital on a world scale. Third is the rise of Transnational State (TNS) apparatuses. The TNS is constituted as a loose network made up of trans-, and supranational organisations together with national states. It functions to organise the conditions for transnational accumulation. The TCC attempts to organise and institutionally exercise its class power through TNS apparatuses. Fourth are novel relations of inequality, domination and exploitation in global society, including an increasing importance of transnational social and class inequalities relative to North-South inequalities.

    Cyclical, Structural, and Systemic Crises

    Most commentators on the contemporary crisis refer to the "Great Recession" of 2008 and its aftermath. Yet the causal origins of global crisis are to be found in over-accumulation and also in contradictions of state power, or in what Marxists call the internal contradictions of the capitalist system. Moreover, because the system is now global, crisis in any one place tends to represent crisis for the system as a whole. The system cannot expand because the marginalisation of a significant portion of humanity from direct productive participation, the downward pressure on wages and popular consumption worldwide, and the polarisation of income, has reduced the ability of the world market to absorb world output. At the same time, given the particular configuration of social and class forces and the correlation of these forces worldwide, national states are hard-pressed to regulate transnational circuits of accumulation and offset the explosive contradictions built into the system.

    Is this crisis cyclical, structural, or systemic? Cyclical crises are recurrent to capitalism about once every 10 years and involve recessions that act as self-correcting mechanisms without any major restructuring of the system. The recessions of the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and of 2001 were cyclical crises. In contrast, the 2008 crisis signaled the slide into astructural crisis. Structural crises reflect deeper contradictions that can only be resolved by a major restructuring of the system. The structural crisis of the 1970s was resolved through capitalist globalisation. Prior to that, the structural crisis of the 1930s was resolved through the creation of a new model of redistributive capitalism, and prior to that the structural crisis of the 1870s resulted in the development of corporate capitalism. A systemic crisis involves the replacement of a system by an entirely new system or by an outright collapse. A structural crisis opens up the possibility for a systemic crisis. But if it actually snowballs into a systemic crisis – in this case, if it gives way either to capitalism being superseded or to a breakdown of global civilisation – is not predetermined and depends entirely on the response of social and political forces to the crisis and on historical contingencies that are not easy to forecast. This is an historic moment of extreme uncertainty, in which collective responses from distinct social and class forces to the crisis are in great flux.

    Hence my concept of global crisis is broader than financial. There are multiple and mutually constitutive dimensions – economic, social, political, cultural, ideological and ecological, not to mention the existential crisis of our consciousness, values and very being. There is a crisis of social polarisation, that is, of social reproduction. The system cannot meet the needs or assure the survival of millions of people, perhaps a majority of humanity. There are crises of state legitimacy and political authority, or of hegemony and domination. National states face spiraling crises of legitimacy as they fail to meet the social grievances of local working and popular classes experiencing downward mobility, unemployment, heightened insecurity and greater hardships. The legitimacy of the system has increasingly been called into question by millions, perhaps even billions, of people around the world, and is facing expanded counter-hegemonic challenges. Global elites have been unable counter this erosion of the system's authority in the face of worldwide pressures for a global moral economy. And a canopy that envelops all these dimensions is a crisis of sustainability rooted in an ecological holocaust that has already begun, expressed in climate change and the impending collapse of centralised agricultural systems in several regions of the world, among other indicators.

    By a crisis of humanity I mean a crisis that is approaching systemic proportions, threatening the ability of billions of people to survive, and raising the specter of a collapse of world civilisation and degeneration into a new "Dark Ages."2

    Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way as to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the known history of life on earth.

    This crisis of humanity shares a number of aspects with earlier structural crises but there are also several features unique to the present:

    1. The system is fast reaching the ecological limits of its reproduction. Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way as to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the known history of life on earth.3 This mass extinction would be caused not by a natural catastrophe such as a meteor impact or by evolutionary changes such as the end of an ice age but by purposive human activity. According to leading environmental scientists there are nine "planetary boundaries" crucial to maintaining an earth system environment in which humans can exist, four of which are experiencing at this time the onset of irreversible environmental degradation and three of which (climate change, the nitrogen cycle, and biodiversity loss) are at "tipping points," meaning that these processes have already crossed their planetary boundaries.
    2. The magnitude of the means of violence and social control is unprecedented, as is the concentration of the means of global communication and symbolic production and circulation in the hands of a very few powerful groups. Computerised wars, drones, bunker-buster bombs, star wars, and so forth, have changed the face of warfare. Warfare has become normalised and sanitised for those not directly at the receiving end of armed aggression. At the same time we have arrived at the panoptical surveillance society and the age of thought control by those who control global flows of communication, images and symbolic production. The world of Edward Snowden is the world of George Orwell; 1984 has arrived;
    3. Capitalism is reaching apparent limits to its extensive expansion. There are no longer any new territories of significance that can be integrated into world capitalism, de-ruralisation is now well advanced, and the commodification of the countryside and of pre- and non-capitalist spaces has intensified, that is, converted in hot-house fashion into spaces of capital, so that intensive expansion is reaching depths never before seen. Capitalism must continually expand or collapse. How or where will it now expand?
    4. There is the rise of a vast surplus population inhabiting a "planet of slums,"4 alienated from the productive economy, thrown into the margins, and subject to sophisticated systems of social control and to destruction – to a mortal cycle of dispossession-exploitation-exclusion. This includes prison-industrial and immigrant-detention complexes, omnipresent policing, militarised gentrification, and so on;
    5. There is a disjuncture between a globalising economy and a nation-state based system of political authority. Transnational state apparatuses are incipient and have not been able to play the role of what social scientists refer to as a "hegemon," or a leading nation-state that has enough power and authority to organise and stabilise the system. The spread of weapons of mass destruction and the unprecedented militarisation of social life and conflict across the globe makes it hard to imagine that the system can come under any stable political authority that assures its reproduction.

    Global Police State

    How have social and political forces worldwide responded to crisis? The crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society. Both right and left-wing forces are ascendant. Three responses seem to be in dispute.

    One is what we could call "reformism from above." This elite reformism is aimed at stabilising the system, at saving the system from itself and from more radical responses from below. Nonetheless, in the years following the 2008 collapse of the global financial system it seems these reformers are unable (or unwilling) to prevail over the power of transnational financial capital. A second response is popular, grassroots and leftist resistance from below. As social and political conflict escalates around the world there appears to be a mounting global revolt. While such resistance appears insurgent in the wake of 2008 it is spread very unevenly across countries and regions and facing many problems and challenges.

    Yet another response is that I term 21stcentury fascism.5 The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.

    The need for dominant groups around the world to secure widespread, organised mass social control of the world's surplus population and rebellious forces from below gives a powerful impulse to projects of 21st century fascism. Simply put, the immense structural inequalities of the global political economy cannot easily be contained through consensual mechanisms of social control. We have been witnessing transitions from social welfare to social control states around the world. We have entered a period of great upheavals, momentous changes and uncertainties. The only viable solution to the crisis of global capitalism is a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward towards the poor majority of humanity along the lines of a 21st century democratic socialism, in which humanity is no longer at war with itself and with nature.

    About the Author

    William I. Robinson is professor of sociology, global and international studies, and Latin American studies, at the University of California-Santa Barbara. Among his many books are Promoting Polyarchy (1996), Transnational Conflicts (2003), A Theory of Global Capitalism (2004), Latin America and Global Capitalism (2008), and Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity (2014).

    [Sep 15, 2016] On Views Of The War On Syria by Debs is Dead>

    A pretty devious scheme -- creating difficulty for the government neoliberal wanted to depose by pushing neoliberal reforms via IMF and such. They channeling the discontent into uprising against the legitimate government. Similar process happened with Yanukovich in Ukraine.
    Notable quotes:
    "... the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians ..."
    "... it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt. ..."
    "... President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison. ..."
    "... Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. ..."
    "... No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi, but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing what they preached. ..."
    "... According to the European model of diplomacy imposed upon the globe, countries have interests not friends. ..."
    "... A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting. ..."
    "... Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist. ..."
    "... On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. ..."
    "... This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed. ..."
    "... you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting firearms. ..."
    "... The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited by (((foreign powers))) ..."
    "... This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years ago Syria was a peaceful country. ..."
    "... Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick countries do sick things. ..."
    "... no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate on this naked truth. ..."
    "... when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all other rights. ..."
    "... This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch with US, Saudi etc $$$s. ..."
    "... I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against humanity, crimes of war. ..."
    "... As one of the bloggers rightly stated Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. ..."
    "... If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually a compliment to Assad. Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective power around. Russia was still busy recovering. ..."
    "... As demeter said Posted by: Demeter @14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money. Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started, if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils, and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition. ..."
    "... Salafism is Racism. It de-egitimizes the entire anti Assad revolution. ..."
    "... Wesley Clark's "seven countries in five years" transcript for anyone who has forgotten: http://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated ..."
    "... the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments to use extremists as a weapon. ..."
    "... Furthermore, Debsisdead sets up the same "binary division" that he says he opposes by tarnishing those who oppose using extremists as a weapon of state as Assad loving racists. The plot was described by Sy Hersh in 2007 in "The Redirection" . ..."
    "... The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels, or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional, diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish. ..."
    "... "the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree. ..."
    "... It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years, from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau, in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually had. ..."
    "... It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style religious dictatorship on Syria. ..."
    "... The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial problem. ..."
    "... All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing. If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes upon each other. We've not evolved here. ..."
    "... t in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries. ..."
    "... Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory, the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place. ..."
    "... Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government. ..."
    "... There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil. But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's government would have won this war quite a while ago. ..."
    "... And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live. ..."
    "... Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire! ..."
    "... I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient' and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and articles have been written explicitly defining it. ..."
    "... American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus and let the market run things. ..."
    "... The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice. The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative. ..."
    "... The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock news. ..."
    "... The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein. ..."
    "... I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971 to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do not know. ..."
    "... Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well. ..."
    "... I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism" when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. ..."
    "... Manifest Destiny is fundamentalism. ..."
    "... "Full Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in nature. ..."
    "... I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started. Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls in the vice and all. ..."
    "... He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know this very well. ..."
    "... Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors know that as a fact. ..."
    "... if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly. ..."
    "... If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without foreign help. ..."
    "... OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and who initially joined the "rebels". http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097 ..."
    "... And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari ..."
    "... of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files", assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof). ..."
    "... i seriously doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings. they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance of how the region is. ..."
    "... also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european "powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary. ..."
    "... Look I know the MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and contributors. ..."
    "... The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful). ..."
    "... Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism besides the Kurds. ..."
    "... There's no way to a solution for the Syrian people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control. ..."
    "... As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people. In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc. ..."
    "... So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil", corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved, nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter. ..."
    "... Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem. This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist form of Islam. ..."
    "... Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control. People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired on police and civilians. ..."
    "... I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government. ..."
    "... There were a lot of people posting how Bashar al Assad was doing full neoliberalism. And at was true. ..."
    "... So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA, pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife' (sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.) ..."
    Sep 15, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    lifted from a comment

    It is sad to see so many are so locked into their particular views that they see any offering of an alternative as 'neoliberal' or laughable or - if it weren't so serious - Zionist.

    1/ I do not see the Syrian civil war as racist or race based, I do believe however that the rejection of all Islamic fundamentalism as being entirely comprised of 'headchoppers' is racist down to its core. It is that same old same old whitefella bullshit which refuses to consider other points of view on their own terms but considers everything through the lens of 'western' culture which it then declares wanting and discards.

    2/ Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked off the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians. I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue - mostly because he is seen to be standing up to American imperialism. That is a virtuous position but it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt.

    3/ President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison.

    4/ These Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

    5/ My Syrians friends are an interesting bunch drawn from a range of people currently living inside and outside of Syria. Some longer term readers might recall that I'm not American, don't live in America and nowadays don't visit much at all. The first of the 'refugee' Syrians I got to know, although refugee is a misnomer since my friend came here on a migrant's visa because his skills are in demand, is the grandchild of Palestinian refugees - so maybe he is a refugee but not in the usual sense. Without going into too many specifics as this is his story not mine, he was born and lived in a refugee camp which was essentially just another Damascus suburb. As he puts it, although a Palestinian at heart, he was born in Syria and when he thinks of home it is/was Damascus. All sides in the conflict claimed to support Palestinian liberation, yet he and his family were starved out of their homes by both Syrian government militias and the FSA.

    When he left he was initially a stateless person because even though he was born in Syria he wasn't entitled to Syrian citizenship. He bears no particular grudge against the government there but he told me once he does wish they were a lot smarter.

    On the other hand he also understands why the people fighting the government are doing so. I'm not talking about the leadership of course (see above - pols are pols) but the Syrians who just couldn't take the fading future and the petty oppression by assholes any longer.

    6/ No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi, but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing what they preached.

    I really despair at the mindset which reduces everything to a binary division - if group A are the people I support they must all be wonderful humans and group B those who are fighting Group A are all evil assholes.

    If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even though they have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause) then everyone in Group B must be pro-Zionist even though I don't know what they say about it (the leadership of the various resistance groups are ME politicians and therefore most claim to also support Palestinian independence). Yes assholes in the opposition have done sleazy deals with Israel over Golan but the Ba'ath administration has done similar opportunist sell outs over the 40 years when the situation demanded it.

    I fucking hate that as much as anyone else who despises the ersatz state of Israel, but the reality is that just about every ME leader has put expedience ahead of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only leader I'm aware of who didn't. Why do they? That is what all pols and diplomats do not just Arab ones. According to the European model of diplomacy imposed upon the globe, countries have interests not friends.

    As yet no alternative to that model has succeeded since any attempt to do so has been rejected with great violence. The use of hostages offered by each party to guarantee a treaty was once an honorable solution, the hostages were well treated and the security they afforded reduced conflict - if Oblamblam had to put up one of his daughters to guarantee a deal does anyone think he would break it as easily as he currently does? Yet the very notion of hostages is considered 'terrorism' in the west. But I digress.

    The only points I wanted to make was the same as those I have already made:

    • A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting.
    • Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
    • On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or foreign mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
    • Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are too stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.

    If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever it was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure in the knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination and Zionism but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?

    Posted by b on September 12, 2016 at 03:33 AM | Permalink

    papa | Sep 12, 2016 3:51:57 AM | 1
    Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are too stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.

    why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling, i see exactly the same.

    This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.

    lemur | Sep 12, 2016 4:30:41 AM | 2
    you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting firearms.

    The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited by (((foreign powers)))

    ash123 | Sep 12, 2016 5:43:53 AM | 3
    If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
    This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years ago Syria was a peaceful country.

    Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick countries do sick things.

    john | Sep 12, 2016 5:47:26 AM | 4

    Debsisdead says:

    If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago

    no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate on this naked truth.

    If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even though they have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause)...

    when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all other rights.

    so thanks, b, for headlining this obfuscatory drivel. thus, for posterity.

    Felicity | Sep 12, 2016 6:04:27 AM | 5
    This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch with US, Saudi etc $$$s.

    Here again is the reality of where this all started, article from 2012 (below.). And never forget Wesley Clark's Pentagon informant after 9/11 of attacking "seven countries in five years." Those in chaos through US attacks or attempted "liberation" were on the list, a few more to go and they are a bit behind schedule. All responsible for this Armageddon should be answering for their actions in shackles and yellow jump suits in The Hague.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596

    Formerly T-Bear | Sep 12, 2016 6:23:51 AM | 6
    |~b~ Thank you for putting Debsisdead's comment @ 135 prior post into readable form. Failing eyesight made the original in its extended format difficult to read.

    Reference Debsisdead comment:

    Your definition of neoliberal would be nice to have. Usually it is used as ephemerally as a mirage, to appear in uncountable numbers of meaning.

    Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity? Neoliberal seems best used as the reactionary faux historic liberalism as applied to economic agendas (neocon is the political twin for neoliberal, libertarian had been previously been co-opted).

    Instead of F•UK•US•i, maybe a F•UK•UZoP would suffice (France•United Kingdom•United Zionist occupied Palestine) given the spheres of influence involved.

    Agree with your observations about the limited mentality of dualism; manichaeism is a crutch for disabled minds unaware and blind to subtle distinctions that comprise spectrums.

    Though not paying close attention to Syrian history, it was Hafez al-Assad who became master of the Syrian Ba'athist coup d'état and politically stabilised Syria under Ba'athist hegemony. In the midst of the 'Arab-spring' zeitgeist, an incident involving a child with security forces led to a genuine public outcry being suppressed by state security forces. This incident, quickly settled became cause célčbre for a subsequent revolt, initially by SAA dissidents but soon thereafter by external interests having the motive of regime overthrow of Syrian Ba'athists and their leadership. Other narratives generally make little sense though may contain some factors involved; the waters have been sufficiently muddied as to obscure many original factors - possibly Bashar al-Assad's awareness of his security forces involvement in US rendition and torture as to compromise his immediately assuming command of his security forces in the original public protest over the child. Those things are now well concealed under the fogs of conflict and are future historians to sort.

    I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against humanity, crimes of war.

    The opinions expressed are my own.

    falcemartello | Sep 12, 2016 6:41:48 AM | 7
    Classic western sheeple disconnect. As one of the bloggers rightly stated Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. This total disconnect with global realities is a massive problem in the west cause the 86000 elite /oligarchs r pushing for a war with both the bears/ Russian and Chinese along with Iran. These countries have blatantly stated they will not be extorted by fascism. All western countries r all living a Corporate state. Just look all around every facet of our society is financialised. Health ,education , public services.
    Wake up cause if we dont we will be extinct Nuclear winter
    Mikael | Sep 12, 2016 6:41:56 AM | 8
    I am of syrian origin, born in Beirut Lebanon. My family lived a happy life there, but shortly after I was born, Israel invaded Lebanon, and my family fled and emigrated to Europe, I was 1 year old. I call major bullshit on your piece.
    Demeter | Sep 12, 2016 8:00:26 AM | 9
    If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually a compliment to Assad. Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective power around. Russia was still busy recovering.

    What do you think would have happened had Assad not pretended he would go along? Syria would have been bombed to pieces right then. Why did Assad change his mind later and refused to cooperate with Qatar, Saudi and US? Because the balance of power was about to change. Iran and Russia were rising powers (mainly in the military field).

    I could say so much more. I stopped reading your post when you mentioned that your Palestinian friend ( I know the neighbourhood in Damascus, it is called Yarmouk and it is indeed a very nice suburb) does not have Syrian citizenship. Do you know why Palaestinians don't get Syrian citizenship? Because they are supposed to return to their homeland Palestine.

    And they can only do that as Palestinians and not as Syrians. That is why.

    And that so many (not all!) Palestinians chose to backstab the country that has hosted them and fed them and gave them a life for so many years, and fought side by side with islamist terrorists and so called Free Syrian Army traitors is a human error, is based on false promises, is lack of character and honour and understanding of the broader context and interests. How will some of these fools and misguided young men feel when they realise that they have played right into the hand of their biggest enemy, the Zionists.

    I would like to remind some of you who might have forgotten that famous incident described by Robert Fisk years ago, when a Syrian Officer told him upon the capture of some of these "freedom fighters' on Syrian soil, one of them said: "I did not know that Palestine was so beautiful", not realising that he was not fighting in Palestine but in Syria.

    And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live.

    Here is racism for you debsisdead.

    AtaBrit | Sep 12, 2016 8:00:59 AM | 10
    Though reluctant to get involved in what seems to be for some a personal spat, I would like to point out one fundemental point that renders the above published and counter arguments difficult to comprehend which is that they lack a time frame.
    The 'Syrian opposition' or what ever you wish to call it is not now what it was 6 years ago. Thus, for me, at least, it is not possible to discuss the make up of the opposition unless there are some time frames applied.

    An example is a Syrian who was an officer in the FSA but fled to Canada last year. He fled the Syrian conflict over 3 years ago to Turkey -which is how I know him - where he did not continue ties with any group. He simply put his head down and worked slavishly living at his place of work most of the time to escape to Canada - he feared remaining in Istanbul. He claimed that he and others had all been taken in by promises and that the conflict had been usurped by extremists. He was not a headchopper, he was not the beheader of 12 year old children. He was and is a devout Muslim. He was a citizen of Aleppo city. I know him and of him through other local Syrians in Istanbul and believe his testimony. I mention him only to highlight that the conflict is not what it was, not what some intended it to be ... Nor is it what some paint it to be. There are many who fight whomever attacks their community be they pro / anti Government. - Arabs especially have extended village communities/ tribes and pragmatically they 'agree' to be occupied as long as they are allowed to continue their lives in peace. If conflict breaks out they fight whomever is necessary.

    DebIsDead makes some very excellent points in his/her comments. They deserve appraisal and respectful response. It is also clear thar he/she is writing defensively in some parts and those detract from what is actually being said.

    Cresty | Sep 12, 2016 8:41:04 AM | 12
    The piece suffers from several errors. As demeter said Posted by: Demeter @14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money. Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started, if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils, and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition.

    You can't change the fact that it took less than 2 years for the opposition to be dominated by both foreign and domestic takfiris who wanted to impose saudi style culture on an open relatively prosperous cosmopolitan country. They've succeeded in smashing it to pieces. Snuff your balanced account and your bold anti racism

    Northern Observer | Sep 12, 2016 8:52:18 AM | 14
    Salafism is Racism. It de-egitimizes the entire anti Assad revolution.
    Felicity | Sep 12, 2016 9:22:01 AM | 15
    Wesley Clark's "seven countries in five years" transcript for anyone who has forgotten: http://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated
    Jackrabbit | Sep 12, 2016 10:06:55 AM | 17
    Debsisdead sets up a strawman - racism against Islamic fundamentalists and validity of opposition against Assad - and uses this to sidestep that the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments to use extremists as a weapon.

    Furthermore, Debsisdead sets up the same "binary division" that he says he opposes by tarnishing those who oppose using extremists as a weapon of state as Assad loving racists. The plot was described by Sy Hersh in 2007 in "The Redirection" .

    ruralito | Sep 12, 2016 10:10:18 AM | 18
    "If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever it was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure in the knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination and Zionism but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?" Passive-aggressive much?

    The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels, or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional, diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish.

    TG | Sep 12, 2016 10:22:59 AM | 20
    "the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree.

    It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years, from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau, in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually had.

    No the issue was not 'climate change'. The aquifers in Syria had been falling for years, even when rainfall was above normal. Don't blame the weather.

    "The more the merrier" - tell me exactly how people having more children than they can support creates wealth? It doesn't and it never has.

    Whenever governments treat their people as if they were cattle, demanding that they breed the 'correct' number of children rather than making the decision based on their own desires and judgement of how many they can support, the result is always bad.

    Assad treated the people of Syria as if they were cattle. Surely this deserves mention?

    Diana | Sep 12, 2016 10:23:43 AM | 21
    Cultural "left" bullshit at its best. Cultural "leftists" don't need to know any hostory or have any understanding of a political issue: it's sufficient to pull out a few details from the NATO press and apply their grad school "oppression" analysis.
    juliania | Sep 12, 2016 10:26:32 AM | 22
    Thanks to b for posting the comment of Debs is Dead. The point I would take issue with is where he states "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue. . ."

    I don't believe this is a correct realization. I think the many to whom he refers know very well that any person in leadership of a country can be found to have flaws, major and minor, and even to have more of such than the average mortal. The crucial counterpoint, however, which used to be raised fairly often, is that it is the acceptance of the majority of the people governed by such leaders that ought to be the international norm for diplomatic relations.

    I respect the knowledge DiD has gained from his Syrian friends and contacts. But I also remember a man called Chilabi and am very leery of destabilization attempts this country has been engaged in lo these many generations, using such displaced persons as surrogates. And rather than properly mourn the 9/11 victims and brave firemen and rescuers of that terrible day, I find myself mourning the larger tragedy of unnecessary wars launched as a consequence of our collective horror at that critical moment in our history.

    Can we please stop doing this?

    Wizzy | Sep 12, 2016 10:35:49 AM | 23
    After making sound point about black-and-white worldview being unrealistic, the guy goes full retard. Position towards Palestinians as the one and only criteria to judge ME developments... C'mon, it's not even funny.

    And while started from a "My Syrian friends" then he goes on reasoning on behalf of one single ex-Palestinian ex-Syrian guy...
    Looks like self-revelation of a kind. Some guy, sitting in Israel, or whatever, waging informational warfare for the Mossad/CIA/NGO who pays his rent.

    ruralito | Sep 12, 2016 10:38:01 AM | 24
    "The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids."

    Cite?

    fairleft | Sep 12, 2016 10:58:51 AM | 25
    DiD: "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue. . ." The big reveal is that DiD can't name a single contributor here who has written that Assad is "some sort of model of virtue."

    It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style religious dictatorship on Syria.

    The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial problem.

    Krollchem | Sep 12, 2016 11:35:06 AM | 28
    @ rg the lg 33

    Thanks for addressing the problem of angry comments by some posters who just want to throw verbal grenades is unacceptable. I hope this site continues to be a great source for sharing information and ideas.

    paul | Sep 12, 2016 11:40:49 AM | 29
    Why in God's name was this pointless comment by Debs is Dead promoted this way?!!! The only point being made, that I can see, is that the war in Syria does have some legitimate issues at its root. WELL OF COURSE IT DOES. The Hegemon rarely to never makes up civil unrest in countries it wants to overthrow out of whole cloth. They take some dispute that is already there and ramp it up; this process escalates until it turns into some form of a proxy war or coup. In other words, the domestic political process is DISTORTED until it is no longer remotely recognizable as a domestic process.

    So sure, if the US and its allies had not stoked political factionism in Syria into a global proxy war, we could discuss the fine details of the Syrian domestic process very usefully. At this point, though, IT IS IRRELEVANT.

    I do agree on one point: Assad joins the horrendous list of overlords who thought they could make a deal with the Hegemon on their own terms. Assad will pay for that mistake with his life very soon I would guess and I think that Putin will too, though that might take a little longer. If they had chosen to stand on principle as Chavez did, maybe they would be dead as Chavez is (possibly done in, who knows), but they'd be remembered with honor as Chavez is.

    MadMax2 | Sep 12, 2016 12:16:07 PM | 33
    It is a shame no one stood up for Libya, for a surviving Gaddafi would have emerged considerably stronger - as Assad eventually will.

    Whatever genuine opposition there was has long been hijacked by opportunistic takfiris, wahabbists and there various paymasters. And so as ruralito says @25: "The fight IS "binary...". The fight is indeed binary, the enemy is plural. Assad versus the many appearances of both the first and fourth kind.

    Appearances to the mind are of four kinds.
    Things either are what they appear to be;
    or they neither are, nor appear to be;
    or they are, and do not appear to be;
    or they are not, and yet appear to be.
    Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task.

    ~Epictetus

    Where there is obfuscation lay the enemy, hence Russia's long game of identification.

    FecklessLeft | Sep 12, 2016 12:54:18 PM | 36
    Does anyone remember the essay posted on this site a while back titled "The Feckless Left?" I don't believe B posted it, but if memory serves it's posted front and centre on the navigation bar beside this piece?

    It really hammers those people like Tariq Ali, who while surely having legitimate grievances against the Assad govt, opened the door for legitimation of foreign sponsored war. They thought that funneling millions of dollars worth of training, weapons and mercs would open the door for another secular govt, but this time much 'better.' Surely.

    No one thinks Assad is great. I really have trouble understanding where that notion comes from. It's just that the alternative is surely much worse. Lots of people didn't like Ghaddafi but jesus, I'm sure most Libyans would wish they could turn back the clock (at the risk of putting words in their mouths). It's not binary, no one sees this as good vs evil, its just that its become so painfully obvious at this point that if the opposition wins Syria will be so fucked in every which way. Those with real, tangible grievances are never going to have their voices heard. It will become the next Libya, except the US and it's clients will actually have a say in what's left of the political body in the country if you could even label it that at that point (which is quite frightenening in my eyes. Libya is already a shit show and they don't have much of a foothold there besides airstrikes and that little coastal base for the GNA to have their photo ops).

    I find it ironic that when criticisms are levelled at Assad from the left they usually point out things that had he done more of, and worse of, he probably would be free of this situation and still firmly in power. If he had bowed down to Qatar and the KSA/USA I wonder if the 'armed opposition' would still have their problems with him? That's the ultimate irony to me. If he had accepted the pipelines, the privatization regimes, etc. would they still be hollering his name? It's very sad that even with the balancing act he did his country has been destroyed. Even if the SAA is able to come out on top at this point, the country is wholly destroyed. What's even the point of a having a 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate' opposition when they're essentially fighting over scraps now. I'd be surprised if they could rebuild the country in 120 years. Libya in my eyes will never be what it once was. It'll never have the same standards of living after being hit with a sledgehammer.

    I don't mean to be ironic or pessimistic, its just a sad state of affairs all around and everyday it seems more and more unlikely that any halfway decent solution for the POPULATION OF SYRIA, not Assad, will come out of this.. It's like, I'm no nationalist, but in many countries I kind of would rather that than the alternative. Ghaddafi wasn't great but his people could've been a lot worse of - and ARE a lot worse of now. I'm no Assad fan, but my god look what the alternative is here. If it wasnt 95% foreign sponsored maybe id see your point.

    Read the essay posted on the left there. "Syria, the Feckless Left" IIRC. I thought that summed up my thoughts well enough.

    And guys, even if you agree with me please refrain from the name calling. It makes those of you with a legitimate rebuttal seem silly and wrong. I've always thought MoA was so refreshing because it was (somewhat) free of that. At least B is generating discussion. I kind of appreciate that. It's nice to hear ither views, even if they are a little unrealistic and pro violent and anti democratic.

    FecklessLeft | Sep 12, 2016 1:01:58 PM | 37
    QUICK DOUBLE POST

    An example of an armed opposition with legitimate grievances that is far from perfect but still very sympathetic (in my eyes) is hizbollah. They have real problems to deal with. While they recieve foreign sponsorship they aren't a foreign group the way the Syrian opposition is. And they will be all but destroyed when their supply lines from Syria are cut off. I wonder how that fits in with OPs post.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 12, 2016 1:02:25 PM | 38
    What makes Debs is Dead's turgid comment so irrational is that it endorses Regime Change in Syria as an ongoing, but necessary and inevitable, "good". But in doing so it tip-toes around the fact that it doesn't matter how Evil an elected President is, or is not, it's up to the the people who elected him to decide when they've had enough. It most certainly is NOT Neoconned AmeriKKKa's concern.

    Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single individual.

    It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and counting) hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.

    ruralito | Sep 12, 2016 1:07:59 PM | 39
    @Shh, since you're so conveniently ensconced above the fray, perhaps you can see something we "nattering fuck wits" can't. Do tell.
    Stillnottheonly1 | Sep 12, 2016 1:47:35 PM | 40
    Whatever happened to the age old expression that one has to walk in someone else's shoes to understand their walk in life?

    In an all too obvious fashion, another arm chair expert is blessing the world with his/her drivel.

    To make it as concise as possible:

    What would you have done in Assad's position? The U.S. is trying to annex Syria since 1948 and never gave up on the plan to convert it to what the neo-fascists turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and the Republic of Yugoslavia - whereas Yemen is still in the making, together with Ukraine, Turkey and Africa as a whole.

    In the light of U.S. 'foreign policy', the piece reeks of the stench of obfuscation.

    MadMax2 | Sep 12, 2016 2:02:43 PM | 41
    @47 Hoarsewhisperer

    Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single individual.

    We shouldn't be surprised. Even a basic pragmatic approach to this conflict has been lost by many in the one sided, over the top shower of faeces that is the western MSM.

    It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and counting) hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.

    All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing. If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes upon each other. We've not evolved here.

    Copeland | Sep 12, 2016 3:26:34 PM | 43
    It is impossible for any one of us to possess the whole picture, which is why we pool our experience, and benefit from these discussions. The thing I see at the root of the Syrian war is the process of ethnic cleansing. In many cases that involve murderous prejudice, it erupts as civil war; but in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries.

    Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory, the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place.

    The objectives of the perpetrators have nothing to do with the convictions of the fundamentalists who do the dirty work; and the sectarian and mercenary troops are merely the tools of those who are creating hell on earth.

    I agree with what papa wrote at the top of this thread:

    why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling,[?] i see exactly the same. This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.
    Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government.

    Debsisdead has always brought much food for thought to this watering hole. I have always respected him, and I think he has a fine mind. Nonetheless, despite the valuable contribution of this piece as a beginning place, in which we might reevaluate some of our presumptions, I maintain there are a few errors which stand out, and ought to be discussed.

    I call into question these two points:

    (1) Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
    Up thread @14, we were reminded of Robert Fisk's report about misdirected, misinformed "freedom fighters" naively wandering around in Syria, while thinking that they were fighting in Palestine. In this ruin of Syria, where the well-intentioned are captured, or co-opted into evil acts against the civilian population, --is it really incumbent upon us, --from where we sit, to agonize over the motives of those who are committing the actual atrocities against the defenseless? What is the point?
    (2) On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or foreign mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.

    There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil. But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's government would have won this war quite a while ago.

    Copeland | Sep 12, 2016 4:01:33 PM | 46
    I very much agree with what Demeter wrote @ 14:
    And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live.
    Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire!
    Kuma | Sep 12, 2016 4:05:35 PM | 47
    @9
    I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient' and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and articles have been written explicitly defining it.

    "Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity?"

    American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus and let the market run things.

    Laguerre | Sep 12, 2016 4:11:58 PM | 48
    I usually enjoy DiD's rants (rant in the nice sense), but in this case he is wrong. His remarks are out of date.

    No doubt he has Syrian friends in NZ, including the Syro-Palestinian he mentions. They will have been living their past vision of Syria for some time. Yes, back in 2011, there was a big vision of a future democratic Syria among the intellectuals. However those who fight for the rebellion are not middle class (who left) but rural Islamist Sunnis, who have a primitive al-Qa'ida style view.

    The Syrian civil war is quite like the Spanish civil war. It started with noble republicans, including foreigners like Orwell, fighting against nasty Franco, but finished with Stalin's communists fighting against Nazi-supported fascists.

    The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice. The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative.

    john | Sep 12, 2016 4:18:12 PM | 50
    james says:

    must be a '''slow''' news day...

    yeah, did you read that the American Imperium bombed 6 Muslim countries last Saturday?

    Laguerre | Sep 12, 2016 4:51:42 PM | 51
    Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked off the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians.
    The Ba'thist regime is a mafia of the family, not a dictatorship of Bashshar. Evidently their own interest plays a premier role, but otherwise why not in favour of the Syrian people? There's lot of evidence in favour of Syrian peace.
    fast freddy | Sep 12, 2016 4:53:30 PM | 52
    The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock news.

    The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein.

    Islam and its backward dictates, and Christianity with its backward dictates and Manifest Destiny are problematic.

    Curtis | Sep 12, 2016 7:22:18 PM | 55
    I may be white and I may be a fella but don't believe I'm in the fold as described. Fundamentalists of any sort are free to believe as they will but when they force it on others via gun, govt, societal pressures, violence there's trouble. I've seen comparisons to the extremes from Christianity's past with the excuse of Islam as being in its early years. No excuses. Fundies out. But we don't see that in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Facts on the ground rule. Iran had a bit more moderation but only under the tyrant Shah. A majority may have voted for the Islamic Republic and all that entails but what of the minority?
    BTW, where are the stories (links) that show Bashar has embraced neoliberalism? In the end, DiD reduced to pointing to two evils (with multi-facets) and it looks like Assad is the lesser. But who can come up with a solution for a country so divided and so infiltrated by outsiders? And here in the US, look at the choice of future leaders that so many do not want. Where is the one who will lead the US out of its BS? And who will vote for him/her?
    Jen | Sep 12, 2016 7:39:57 PM | 57
    Thanks to B for republishing the comment from Debsisdead. The comment raises some issues about how people generally see the war in Syria, if they know of it, as some sort of real-life video game substitute for bashing one side or another.

    I am not sure though that Debsisdead realises the full import of what s/he has said and that much criticism s/he makes about comments in MoA comments forums could apply equally to what s/he says and has said in the past.

    I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971 to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do not know.

    Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well.

    But one thing that Debsisdead has overlooked is the fact that Bashar al Assad is popular among the Syrian public, who returned him as President in multi-candidate direct elections held in June 2014 with at least 88% of the vote (with a turnout of 73%, better than some Western countries) and who confirmed his popularity in parliamentary elections held in April 2016 with his Ba'ath Party-led coalition winning roughly two-thirds of seats.

    The fact that Syrians themselves hold Assad in such high regard must say something about his leadership that has endeared him to them. If as Debsisdead suggests, Assad practises self-interested "realpolitik" like so many other Middle Eastern politicians, even to the extent of offering reconciliation to jihadis who lay down their weapons and surrender, how has he managed to survive and how did Syria manage to hold off the jihadis and US-Turkish intervention and supply before requesting Russian help?

    fairleft | Sep 12, 2016 8:03:18 PM | 59
    Copeland @58: I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism" when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. Admittedly it's tough to 'name' the problem. I'm sure I speak for most here that the problem isn't fundamentalism but 'warring imperialist fundamentalist and misogynist Sunni Islam' that is the problem.

    It'd be nice to have a brief and accurate way of saying what this is: 'Saudi Arabia violently exporting its worst form of Islam'.

    Copeland | Sep 12, 2016 8:28:41 PM | 60
    fairleft, @75

    When people refer to Christian fundamentalism they use the broad term as well. Nothing is otherwise wrong with denominational belief, if past a certain point it is not fundamentalist. You say the problem is not fundamentalism, but something else. Indeed, the problem is fundamentalism.

    Manifest Destiny is fundamentalism. There are even atheist fundamentalists. "Full Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in nature. We are awash in fundamentalism, consumerist fundamentalism, capitalist fundamentalism. If we are unlucky and don't succeed in changing the path we are on; then we will understand too late the inscription that appeared in the Temple of Apollo: "Nothing too much".

    Kalen | Sep 12, 2016 8:31:13 PM | 61
    They say that the first casualty of war is truth and from what I read in comments such a mental state prevails among readers, they see Assad, quite reasonably, as the only one who can end this horrible war and the only one who is really interested in doing so while US and even seemingly Russia seems to treat this conflict as a instrument of global geopolitical struggle instigated by US imperial delusions.

    But of course one cannot escape conclusion that although provoked by the CIA operation Bashir Assad failed years befor 2011 exactly because, living in London, did not see neoliberalism as an existential threat ad his father did but a system that has its benefits and can be dealt with, so for a short while Saddam, Gaddafi and Mubarak thought while they were pampered by western elites.

    Now Assad is the only choice I'd Syrians want to keep what would resemble unified Syrian state since nobody else seems to care.

    Another interesting element that was touched upon is attitude to Israel and its US perceived role, but for that one needs deeper background starting from before 1948.
    https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/history-revisited/

    Quadriad | Sep 12, 2016 8:42:29 PM | 62
    I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started. Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls in the vice and all.

    He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know this very well.

    Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors know that as a fact.

    Which is precisely why he "must go" prior to any such elections. He would be invincible.

    redrooster | Sep 12, 2016 9:01:21 PM | 63
    Dear Debs is Dead,

    you wrote:

    "This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago."

    Question to you:

    if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly.

    If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without foreign help.

    Quadriad | Sep 12, 2016 10:00:23 PM | 65
    #46 FecklessLeft

    And that, my friend, may be the biggest oft ignored cui bono of the entire Syrian war.

    If Assad goes:

    1. Syria falls apart. Western Golan has no more debtor nation to be returned to as far as the UN go. It immediately becomes fee simple property of the occupying entity, for as long as the occupier shall exist (and, with Western Golan included, that might be a bit longer perchance...).
    2. Hizbullah loses both its best supply line and all the strategic depth it might have as well as the only ally anywhere close enough to help. It becomes a military non-entity. Who benefits?

    I think this cui bono (and a double one at that!) is a $100 difficulty level question, although it feels like a $64k one.

    Bill Hicks | Sep 12, 2016 10:31:21 PM | 66
    Best opinion post I've yet read on this site. "Binary division," also very much affects the U.S. election. If you hate Hillary, you must just LOVE Trump, even though many of the best reasons to hate her--her arrogance, her incompetence, her phoniness, her lies, her and Bill's relentless acquisition of great wealth, etc.--are also reasons to hate Trump. Assad is a bastard, Putin is a bastard, Saddam was a bastard--but so are Obama, Netanyahu, Hollande, etc. Is it REALLY that hard to figure out?
    james | Sep 12, 2016 11:09:45 PM | 67
    @ 62 john... we'll have to wait for debs to explain how all that (in your link) adds up, so long as no one calls him any name/s.... i'd like to say 'the anticipation of debs commenting again is killing me', but regardless, killing innocent people in faraway lands thanks usa foreign policy is ongoing..
    Jen | Sep 13, 2016 1:17:04 AM | 71
    OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and who initially joined the "rebels".
    http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097

    And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari

    the pair | Sep 13, 2016 2:12:09 AM | 72
    not even sure where to begin...this article is barely worthy of a random facebook post and contains a roughly even mix of straw men and stuff most people already know and don't need dictated to them by random internet folks.

    of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files", assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof).

    i seriously doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings. they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance of how the region is.

    and then there's "just about every ME leader has put expedience ahead of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only leader I'm aware of who didn't". that might be a surprise to nasrallah and a fair share of iran's power base. i'd also say "expedience" is an odd way to describe the simple choice of avoiding israeli/saudi/US aggression in the short term since the alternative would be what we're seeing in syria and libya as we speak. again, not an endorsment of their relative cowardice. just saying i understand the urge to avoid salfist proxy wars.

    [also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european "powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary.]

    as for "calling all islamic fundamentalism" "headchopping" being "racist", be sure not to smoke around all those straw men. never mind the inanity of pretending that all islamic "fundamentalism" is the same. never mind conflating religion with ethnicity. outside of typical western sites that lean to the right and are open about it few people would say anything like that. maybe you meant to post this on glenn beck's site?

    whatever. hopefully there won't be more guest posts in the future.

    bigmango | Sep 13, 2016 2:20:54 AM | 73
    I read this site regularly and give thanks to the numerous intelligent posters who share their knowledge of the middle east and Syria in particular. Still, I do try to read alternative views to understand opposition perspectives no matter how biased or damaging these might they appear to the readers of this blog. So in the wake of recent agreements, I try find out what the mainstream media is saying about the Ahrar al-Sham refusal to recognize the US/Russia sponsored peace plan....and type that into google.......and crickets. All that comes up is a single Al-Masdar report.

    Look I know the MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and contributors.

    Harry | Sep 13, 2016 2:28:44 AM | 74
    The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful).

    The other ironic point, Debs is guilty of many things he blames other for, hence comments about his hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness.

    FecklessLeft | Sep 13, 2016 3:11:57 AM | 77
    The essay I refered to earlier at 45/46 from this site I'll post below. I think it has a lot of bearing on what DiD is implying here. It's DEFINITELY worth a read and is probably the reason why I started appreciating this site in the first place.

    Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism besides the Kurds. But now that we understand the makeup and texture of these groups much more and to continue support, even just in the most minor of ways, is really disheartening.

    There's no way to a solution for the Syrian people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control.

    WORTH A READ. ONE OF THE BEST THINGS EVER POSTED ON MoA.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/05/syria-the-feckless-left-.html

    Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79
    The problem with this post is simple: all this might have been true back when the insurgency STARTED. TODAY it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.

    As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people. In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc.

    So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil", corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved, nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter.

    I don't know and have never read ANYONE who is a serious commenter on this issue - and by that I mean NOT the trolls that infest every comment thread on every blog - who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At this point it does not matter. He personally does not matter. What matters is that Syria is not destroyed, so that Hizballah is not destroyed, so that Iran is not destroyed, so that Israel rules a fragmented Middle East and eventually destroys the Palestinians and that the US gets all the oil for free. This is what Russia is trying to defend, not Assad.

    And if this leaves a certain percentage of Syrian citizens screwed over by Assad, well, they should have figured that out as much as Assad should have figured out that he never should have tried to get along with the US.

    Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.

    somebody | Sep 13, 2016 5:07:06 AM | 80
    Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79

    In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc.

    This obviously is not the case. A recent take of the BBC with some real information on the realities of the war .

    "We had to be fighters," he said, "because we didn't find any other job. If you want to stay inside you need to be a part of the FSA [Free Syrian Army, the group that has closest relations with the West]. Everything is very expensive. They pay us $100 a month but it is not enough.

    "All this war is a lie. We had good lives before the revolution. Anyway this is not a revolution. They lied to us in the name of religion.

    "I don't want to go on fighting but I need to find a job, a house. Everything I have is here in Muadhamiya."

    Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 13, 2016 5:18:29 AM | 81
    ...
    .. who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At this point it does not matter. He personally does not matter.
    ...
    Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.
    Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79

    Well, according to RSH, who specialises in being wrong...

    Assad does matter because he is the ELECTED leader chosen by the People of Syria in MORE THAN ONE election.
    Did you forget?
    Did you not know?
    Or doesn't any of that "democracy" stuff matter either?

    AtaBrit | Sep 13, 2016 5:24:44 AM | 82
    @TG | 20

    "It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger ..."
    And yet you fail to mention the Muslim Brotherhood or the Turkish water wars ...

    okie farmer | Sep 13, 2016 6:34:41 AM | 84
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-syria-idUSKCN11J0EY

    Israel said its aircraft attacked a Syrian army position on Tuesday after a stray mortar bomb struck the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, and it denied a Syrian statement that a warplane and drone were shot down.

    The air strike was a now-routine Israeli response to the occasional spillover from fighting in a five-year-old civil war, and across Syria a ceasefire was holding at the start of its second day.

    Syria's army command said in a statement that Israeli warplanes had attacked an army position at 1 a.m. on Tuesday (2200 GMT, Monday) in the countryside of Quneitra province.

    The Israeli military said its aircraft attacked targets in Syria hours after the mortar bomb from fighting among factions in Syria struck the Golan Heights. Israel captured the plateau from Syria in a 1967 war.

    The Syrian army said it had shot down an Israeli warplane and a drone after the Israeli attack.

    Denying any of its aircraft had been lost, the Israeli military said in a statement: "Overnight two surface-to-air missiles were launched from Syria after the mission to target Syrian artillery positions. At no point was the safety of (Israeli) aircraft compromised."

    The seven-day truce in Syria, brokered by Russia and the United States, is their second attempt this year by to halt the bloodshed.

    fairleft | Sep 13, 2016 9:33:38 AM | 89
    Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem. This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist form of Islam. T

    here are of course many fundamentalists (the Amish and some Mennonites are examples from Christianity) that are not evangelical, or put severe (no violence, no manipulation, no kidnapping, stop pushing if the person says 'no') limits on their evangelism.

    Only the Saudis, or pushers of their version of Islam, seem to put no limits at all on their sect's crusade.

    brian | Sep 13, 2016 9:55:45 AM | 90
    president Assad is a 'decent ruler' and thats the view of most syrians
    papillonweb | Sep 13, 2016 10:01:56 AM | 92
    Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control. People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired on police and civilians.

    There are plenty of people in the United States right now who are just as oppressed - I would wager more so - than anyone in Syria. Immigrants from the south are treated horribly here. There are still black enclaves in large cities where young men are shot by the police on a daily basis for suspicious behavior and minor driving infractions. And then there are the disenfranchised white folks in the Teaparty who belong to the NRA and insist on 'open carry' of their weapons on the street and train in the back woods for a coming war. Tell me what would happen if there were a guarantor these people found believable who promised them that if they took up arms against the government (and anyone else in the country they felt threatened by) they would be guaranteed to win and become the government of a 'New America'. What if that foreign guarantor were to pay them and improve their armaments while providing political cover.

    I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government.

    TheRealDonald | Sep 13, 2016 10:08:27 AM | 93
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/un-condemns-assad-syria-abuse_us_57d7c49ce4b0fbd4b7bb50d8?section=&

    Now look what you've done, Debs.

    On to Sebastopol for the One Party!

    fairleft | Sep 13, 2016 10:25:10 AM | 94
    OT, but that was an interesting Sunni Islam conference in Grozny , because it excluded and then 'excommunicated' Salafism and Wahabbism. Amazing!

    "All of the petrodollars Saudi Arabia spends to advance this claim of leadership and the monopolistic use of Islam's greatest holy sites to manufacture a claim of entitlement to Muslim leadership were shattered by this collective revolt from leading Sunni Muslim scholars and institutions who refused to allow extremism, takfir, and terror ideology to be legitimized in their name by a fringe they decided that it is even not part of their community. This is the beginning of a new era of Muslim awakening the Wahhabis spared no efforts and no precious resources to ensure it will never arrive."

    okie farmer | Sep 13, 2016 11:04:04 AM | 96
    Josh Landis Syria Comment
    There were a lot of people posting how Bashar al Assad was doing full neoliberalism. And at was true.
    Noirette | Sep 13, 2016 12:25:52 PM | 99
    Assad (=> group in power), whose stated aim was to pass from a 'socialist' to a 'market' economy. Notes.
    • *decreased public sector employment.* -- was about 30%, went far lower (1) - was a staple: one 'smart' graduate in the family guaranteed a good Gvmt job, could support many.
    • *cut subsidies* (energy, water, housing, food, etc.) drought (2005>) plus these moves threw millions into cities with no jobs.. pre-drought about 20% agri empl. cuts to agri subsidies created the most disruption.
    • …imho was spurred by the sharply declining oil revenues (peak oil..) which accounted for ?, 15% GDP in 2002 for ex to a few slim points edging to nil in 2012, consequences:

    > a. unemployment rose 'n rose (to 35-40% youth? xyz overall?), and social stability was affected by family/extended f/ district etc. organisation being smashed. education health care in poor regions suffered (2)

    > b. small biz of various types went under becos loss of subs, competition from outsiders (free market policy), lack of bank loans it is said by some but idk, and loss of clients as these became impoverished. Syria does not have a national (afaik) unemployment scheme. Assad to his credit set up a cash-transfer thingie to poor families, but that is not a subsitute for 'growing employment..'

    *opened up the country's banking system* (can't treat the details..)

    So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA, pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife' (sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.)

    1. all nos off the top of my head.

    2. Acceptance of a massive refugee pop. (Pals in the past, Kurds, but numerically important now, Iraqis) plus the high birth rate

    2011> 10 year plan syria in arabic (which i can't read) but look at images and 'supporters' etc.

    http://www.planning.gov.sy/index.php?page=show&ex=2&dir=docs&lang=2&ser=2&cat=172&

    [Sep 14, 2016] Trump pledges big US military expansion

    The pressure of Trump from GOP establishment to adopt neocon policies is probably tremendous...
    Notable quotes:
    "... "What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy." ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | www.bbc.com

    Commenter Man , September 7, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    "What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy."

    But today we have this: Trump pledges big US military expansion . Trump doesn't appear to have any coherent policy, he just says whatever seems to be useful at that particular moment.

    [Sep 14, 2016] the motives of which are transparently political and actually create disinformation around veritable realities

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's unclear how a jetliner is [more] powerful than an earthquake, and how, if such requirements failed to save the WTC towers, preparing for even more powerful earthquakes is going to prevent a recurrence of the same. ..."
    "... The heavy, black smoke emanating from the structures belies your premise. ..."
    Sep 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    JSM September 12, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    No offense is meant but fewer articles from Ms. Scofield, please, with transparent, dubious, questionable, or propagandistic angles. The article 'How building design changed after 9/11' has been written annually for fifteen years.

    "In fact, for years building codes from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Institute of Steel Construction and the American Concrete Institute have required structural supports to be designed with high enough ductility to withstand a major earthquake so rare its probability of happening is once every 2,000 years. "

    It's unclear how a jetliner is [more] powerful than an earthquake, and how, if such requirements failed to save the WTC towers, preparing for even more powerful earthquakes is going to prevent a recurrence of the same.

    This would also go for any articles entitled 'How the US Can Win the War in Syria' in which no objectives are articulated, non-evidential articles entitled 'U.S. Could Pay a High Price for Suing the Saudis,' any more New Yorker articles, the motives of which are transparently political and actually create disinformation around veritable realities, about 'Trump and the Truth', e.g. 'The Unemployment Rate Hoax,' etc. I'm sure posting links is largely a thankless job, but if I wanted to I could turn on CNN and 'learn' these very things.

    Jess , September 12, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    "In fact, for years building codes from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Institute of Steel Construction and the American Concrete Institute have required structural supports to be designed with high enough ductility to withstand a major earthquake so rare its probability of happening is once every 2,000 years."

    Hate to break it to you, but earthquake forces - seismic events - are considerably different than thermal events. Granted, fire often erupt as a result of severed gas and electric lines caused by an earthquake, but an earthquake is a brief, violent, hard shaking or rolling. A high-rise fire of sustained intensity sits in one place and does its work within a confined setting. In the case of the multiple floors damaged by the impact of the planes in 9-11, that confined setting bore a striking resemblance to a combination blast furnace and chimney. (People tend to forget that skyscrapers tend to create their own wind patterns, in this case well over 500 feet high. Just like air being pumped into a fire by a bellows.

    human -> Jess , September 12, 2016 at 8:47 pm

    The heavy, black smoke emanating from the structures belies your premise.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 12, 2016 at 10:17 pm

    The second order partial differentiation equation* governing structure responding during a dynamic event like an earthquakes shows that the force on the structure is related to its mass.

    The heavier a structure, the bigger force it is subjected to, going through the same quake.

    The force of an impacting plane is same regardless of the building size, all else being equal.

    *(mass x acceleration) + (damping coefficient x velocity) + (stiffness modulus x displacement) = zero.

    [Sep 14, 2016] WaPo neocons Russians poison Hillary dezo is a sign of necons desperation

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nevertheless, the ludicrous Washington Post, beloved rag of the neocons who have now flocked to Clinton's campaign, have seen fit to run the story above, which has even less evidential backing than the typical Enquirer or Prison Planet piece. ..."
    "... I don't care about Clinton's swoon and its various medical causes. ..."
    "... What I do care about is that the Washington Post is publishing crackpot paranoid conspiracy theories with potentially dangerous foreign policy consequences. ..."
    Sep 13, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Dan Kervick said...
    Yesterday, I sardonically commented here that I was surprised the Putin-paranoid Clintonites had not tried blaming Putin for Hillary Clinton's pneumonia.

    Little did I know that Putimonia theory was already out there!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/12/the-man-who-discovered-cte-thinks-hillary-clinton-may-have-been-poisoned/

    The sad, sad, sad continuing decline of the American mind.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to pgl...

    It was 80 degrees. There have been many far hotter days here in the northeast this summer. Clinton didn't pass out because it was hot and humid. She passed out because she has pneumonia. It happens; people get sick.

    Nevertheless, the ludicrous Washington Post, beloved rag of the neocons who have now flocked to Clinton's campaign, have seen fit to run the story above, which has even less evidential backing than the typical Enquirer or Prison Planet piece.

    America has jumped the shark. You fools will have to launch WW III on the strength of your own votes, since you won't have mine.

    Dan Kervick -> DeDude...

    I don't care about Clinton's swoon and its various medical causes.

    What I do care about is that the Washington Post is publishing crackpot paranoid conspiracy theories with potentially dangerous foreign policy consequences.

    DeDude said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    "potentially dangerous foreign policy consequences"

    Hmmmmm - are we a little overheated this morning? May I suggest sitting down and drinking some gatorade.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to DeDude...

    It is indeed dangerous when one of the most prominent newspapers in America floats a cuckoo conspiracy theory - without even a tiny shred of evidence - to the effect that a prominent foreign leader might have poisoned a presidential candidate.

    Democrats are now plunging en masse down these various rabbit holes because they see a short-term political edge in them, and because their anxiety.

    Partisanship is a terrible mental illness. It makes previously sane people lose their bearings.

    DeDude said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    Omalu was previously sane???? Must have been before my time. Seriously Dan - Gatorade!!!

    Dan Kervick said in reply to DeDude...

    I'm talking about you people. Also, the editors of the Washington Post.

    If you think that Omalu is not sane then don't you agree it is irresponsible to publish his ravings?

    [Sep 14, 2016] Why Russia is Discrediting American Democracy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | nationalinterest.org

    According to a front-page story in the Washington Post , U.S. agencies are investigating what they perceive as "a broad covert Russian operation in the United States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in U.S. political institutions". The story is vague and short on details.

    ... ... ...

    One of several unfortunate truths regarding the weakening integrity of American democracy involves the destruction of campaign finance laws and making electoral outcomes reflect the wallets of a few at least as much as the minds of many. Another unattractive and undemocratic element is the extensive gerrymandering in which both major parties indulge, thereby subordinating popular will to the crude power of incumbency. Even more of an affront to democracy in the last few years has been the blatant use of legislative power at the state level by members of one party to impede the ability of followers of the other party to exercise their right to vote, with the rationale for this power play being prevention of a form of voter fraud that has been so rare as to be almost nonexistent. American democracy is looking less and less distinct from the rickety versions of democracy in much of the less developed world, in which the bending of rules by incumbents to frustrate challenges to their rule is common.

    Most recently we have the presidential nominee of one major party, Donald Trump, declaring preemptively that if he loses it will be because the process was rigged. This also sounds a lot like many of those unstable political systems that purport to be democracies, and in which non-acceptance of electoral results is common. (See Gabon for a recent example .)

    American democracy is less of a shining, distinctive exemplar of political fairness and popular sovereignty than it once was...

    Meanwhile, Norman Birnbaum has good advice for Hillary Clinton in urging her "to shelve her devotion to extending democracy to the rest of the world to concentrate on rescuing it for ourselves."

    [Sep 14, 2016] Yes, Donald Trump is wrong about unemployment. But he's not the only one

    Spirited defense of the establishment from one of financial oligarchy members. " The economy overall is doing just fine." Does this include QE? If the Fed is pouring billions of new money into the economy, how accurate is it to say that the economy is doing just fine?
    Notable quotes:
    "... "That was a number that was devised, statistically devised, to make politicians - and in particular, presidents - look good. And I wouldn't be getting the kind of massive crowds that I'm getting if the number was a real number." ..."
    "... In the 1950s and 1960s, for instance, organized labor was fairly convinced that the government was purposely underestimating inflation and the cost of living to keep Social Security payments low and wages from rising. George Meany, the powerful head of the American Federation of Labor at the time, claimed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiled both employment and inflation numbers, had "become identified with an effort to freeze wages and is not longer a free agency of statistical research." ..."
    "... Employment figures are sometimes seen as equally suspect. Jack Welch, the once-legendary former CEO of GE, blithely accused the Obama administration of manipulating the final employment report before the 2012 election to make the economic recovery look better than it was. "Unbelievable jobs numbers … these Chicago guys will do anything … can't debate so change numbers," he tweeted ..."
    "... His arguments were later fleshed out by New York Post columnist John Crudele , who went on to charge the Census Bureau (which works with BLS to create the samples for the unemployment rate) with faking and fabricating the numbers to help Obama win reelection. ..."
    "... The chairman of the Gallup organization, Jim Clifton, sees so many flaws with the way unemployment is measured that he has called the official rate a "Big Lie." In the Democratic presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders has also weighed in, saying the real unemployment rate is at best above 10 percent. ..."
    "... What a useless article. The author explains precisely nothing about what the official statistics do and do not measure, what they miss and what they capture. ..."
    "... I had the same impression as well. Notice he does not mention that the Gallop number is over 10% and is based on their polling data. ..."
    "... But never mentioned that Reagan changed how Unemployment was figured in the early 80's. He included all people in the military service, as employed. Before that, they was counted neither way. He also intentionally left out that when Obama, had the unemployed numbers dropped one month before the election, from 8.1% to 7.8% --because it was believed that no one could be reelected if it was above 8%. ..."
    "... U6 is 9.8% for March 2016. We still have 94 million unemployed and you want to say its 5 % what journalistic malpractice. ..."
    "... Trump has emphasized that he is looking at the percent of the population that is participating in the workforce - and that this participation rate is currently at historical lows -- and Trump has been clear that his approach to paying down the national debt is based on getting the participation rates back to historical levels ..."
    "... "The government can't lie about a hundred billion dollars of Social Security money stolen for the Clinton 'balanced budget', that would be a crime against the citizens, they would revolt. John, come one now. " ..."
    "... I didn't say it first, Senator Ernest Hollings did, on the Senate floor. ..."
    "... And here is how they did it: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 ..."
    "... There is plenty of evidence the figures are cooked, folks, enough to fill a book: Atlas Shouts. Don't believe trash like this article claims. GDP, unemployment and inflation are all manipulated numbers, as Campbell's Law predicts. ..."
    "... I can't believe the Washington Post prints propaganda like this. ..."
    "... I do remember when the officially-announced unemployment rate stopped including those who were no longer looking for work. That *was* a significant shift, and there's no doubt it made politicians (Reagan, I think it was) look better; of course, no President since then has reversed it, as it would instantly make themselves look worse. ..."
    "... Working one hour a week, at minimum wage, is 'employed', according to the government. No wonder unemployment is at 5%. ..."
    "... Add in people who are working, but want and need full time jobs, add in people who have dropped out of the labor market and/or retired earlier than they wanted to, and unemployment is at least 10%. Ten seconds on Google will show you that. ..."
    "... The writer should be sacked for taking a very serious issue and turning it into a piece of non-informative fluff. Bad mouthing Trump and Sanders is the same as endorsing Hilly. ..."
    Apr 08, 2016 | The Washington Post
    Yes, Donald Trump is wrong about unemployment. But he's not the only one. - The Washington Post

    Listen to President Obama, and you'll hear that job growth is stronger than at any point in the past 20 years, and - as he said in his final State of the Union address - "anyone claiming that America's economy is in decline is peddling fiction."

    Listen to Donald Trump and you'll hear something completely different. The billionaire Republican candidate for president told The Washington Post last week that the economy is one big Federal Reserve bubble waiting to burst, and that as for job growth, "we're not at 5 percent unemployment. We're at a number that's probably into the 20s if you look at the real number." Not only that, Trump said, but the numbers are juiced: "That was a number that was devised, statistically devised, to make politicians - and in particular, presidents - look good. And I wouldn't be getting the kind of massive crowds that I'm getting if the number was a real number."

    It's easy enough to dismiss - as a phalanx of economists and analysts did - Trump's claims as yet another one of his all-too-frequent campaign lines that have little to do with reality. But with this one, at least, Trump is tapping into a deep and mostly overlooked well of popular suspicion of government numbers and a deeply held belief that what "we the people" are told about the economy by the government is lies, damn lies and statistics designed to benefit the elite at the expense of the working class. The stubborn persistence of these beliefs should be a reminder that just because the United States is doing well in general, that doesn't mean everyone in the country is. It's also a warning to experts and policymakers that in the real world, there is no "the economy," there are many, and generalizations have a way of glossing over some very rough patches.

    Since the mid-20th century, when the U.S. government began keeping and compiling our modern suite of economic numbers, there has been constant skepticism of the reports, coming from different corners depending on economic trends and the broader political climate. In the 1950s and 1960s, for instance, organized labor was fairly convinced that the government was purposely underestimating inflation and the cost of living to keep Social Security payments low and wages from rising. George Meany, the powerful head of the American Federation of Labor at the time, claimed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiled both employment and inflation numbers, had "become identified with an effort to freeze wages and is not longer a free agency of statistical research."

    Over the decades, those views hardened. Throughout the 1970s, as workers struggled with unemployment and stagflation, the government continually tweaked its formulas for measuring prices. By and large, these changes and new formulas were designed to make the figures more accurate in a fast-changing world. But for those who were already convinced the government was trying to paint a deliberately false picture, the tweaks and innovations were interpreted as a devious way to avoid spending money to help the ailing middle class, not trying to measure what was actually happening to design policies to help address it. The commissioner of BLS at the time, Janet Norwood, dismissed those concerns in testimony to Congress in the late 1970s, saying that when people don't get the number they want, "they feel there must be something wrong with the indicator itself."

    Employment figures are sometimes seen as equally suspect. Jack Welch, the once-legendary former CEO of GE, blithely accused the Obama administration of manipulating the final employment report before the 2012 election to make the economic recovery look better than it was. "Unbelievable jobs numbers … these Chicago guys will do anything … can't debate so change numbers," he tweeted after that last October report showed better-than-expected job growth and lower-than-anticipated unemployment rate. His arguments were later fleshed out by New York Post columnist John Crudele, who went on to charge the Census Bureau (which works with BLS to create the samples for the unemployment rate) with faking and fabricating the numbers to help Obama win reelection.

    These views are not fringe. Type the search terms "inflation is false" into Google, and you will get reams of articles and analysis from mainstream outlets and voices, including investment guru Bill Gross (who referred to inflation numbers as a "haute con job"). Similar results pop up with the terms "real unemployment rate," and given how many ways there are to count employment, there are legitimate issues with the headline number.

    The cohort that responds to Trump reads those numbers in a starkly different light from the cohort laughing at him for it. Whenever the unemployment rate comes out showing improvement and hiring, those who are experiencing dwindling wages and shrinking opportunities might see a meticulously constructed web of lies meant to paint a positive picture so that the plight of tens of millions who have dropped out of the workforce can be ignored. The chairman of the Gallup organization, Jim Clifton, sees so many flaws with the way unemployment is measured that he has called the official rate a "Big Lie." In the Democratic presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders has also weighed in, saying the real unemployment rate is at best above 10 percent.

    Beneath the anger and the distrust - which extend to a booming stock market that helps the wealthy and banks flush with profit even after the financial crisis - there lies a very real problem with how economists, the media and policymakers discuss economics. No, the bureaucrats in the Labor and Commerce departments who compile these numbers aren't a cabal engaged in a cover-up. And no, the Fed is not an Illuminati conspiracy. But the idea that a few simple big numbers that are at best averages to describe a large system we call "the economy" can adequately capture the stories of 320 million people is a fiction, one that we tell ourselves regularly, and which millions of people know to be false to their own experience.

    It may be true that there is a national unemployment rate measured at 5 percent. But it is also true that for white men without a college degree, or white men who had worked factory jobs until the mid-2000s with no more than a high school education, the unemployment reality is much worse (though it's even worse for black and Hispanic men, who don't seem to be responding by flocking to Trump in large numbers). Even when those with these skill sets can get a job, the pay is woefully below a living wage. Jobs that don't pay well still count, in the stats, as jobs. Telling people who are barely getting by that the economy is just fine must appear much more than insensitive. It is insulting, and it feels like a denial of what they are experiencing.

    The chords Trump strikes when he makes these claims, therefore, should be taken more seriously than the claims themselves. We need to be much more diligent in understanding what our national numbers do and do not tell us, and how much they obscure. In trying to hang our sense of what's what on a few big numbers, we risk glossing over the tens of millions whose lives don't fit those numbers and don't fit the story. "The economy" may be doing just fine, but that doesn't mean that everyone is. Inflation might be low, but millions can be struggling to meet basic costs just the same.

    So yes, Trump is wrong, and he's the culmination of decades of paranoia and distrust of government reports. The economy overall is doing just fine. But people are still struggling. We don't have to share the paranoia or buy into the conspiratorial narrative to acknowledge that. A great nation, the one Trump promises to restore, can embrace more than one story, and can afford to speak to those left out of our rosy national numbers along with those whose experience reflect them.

    the3sattlers, 4/8/2016 1:05 PM EDT

    " The economy overall is doing just fine." Does this include QE? If the Fed is pouring billions of new money into the economy, how accurate is it to say that the economy is doing just fine?

    james_harrigan, 4/8/2016 10:14 AM EDT

    What a useless article. The author explains precisely nothing about what the official statistics do and do not measure, what they miss and what they capture.

    Derbigdog, 4/8/2016 11:40 AM EDT

    I had the same impression as well. Notice he does not mention that the Gallop number is over 10% and is based on their polling data.

    captdon1, 4/8/2016 5:51 AM EDT

    Not reported by WP
    The first two years of Obama's presidency Democrats controlled the house and Senate. The second two years, Republicans controlled the Senate. The last two years of Obama's term, the Republicans controlled house and Senate. During this six years the national debt increase $10 TRILLION and the Government collected $9 TRILLION in taxes and borrowed $10 TRILLION. ($19 Trillion In Six Years!!!) (Where did our lovely politicians spend this enormous amount of money??? (Republicans and Democrats!)

    reussere, 4/8/2016 1:43 AM EDT

    Reading the comments below it strikes me again and again how far out of whack most people are with reality. It's absolutely true that using a single number for the employment rate reflects the overall average of the economy certainly doesn't measure how every person is doing, anymore than an average global temperature doesn't measure any local temperatures.

    One thing not emphasized in the article is that there is a number of different statistics. The 5% figure refers to the U-3 statistic. Nearly all of the rest of the employment statistics are higher, some considerably so because they include different groups of people. But when you compare U-3 from different years, you are comparing apples and apples. The rest of the numbers very closely track with U-3. That is when U-3 goes up and down, U-6 go up and down pretty much in lockstep.

    It is unfortunate that subpopulations of Americans are doing far worse (and some doing far better) than average. But that is the nature of averages after all. It is simply impossible for a single number (or even a group of a dozen different employment measurements) to accurately reflect a complex reality.

    Smoothcountryside, 4/8/2016 12:04 PM EDT

    The alternative measures of labor underutilization are defined as U-1 through U-6 with U-6 being the broadest measure and probably the closes to the "true" level of unemployment. Otherwise, all the rest of your commentary is correct.

    southernbaked, 4/7/2016 11:02 PM EDT

    Because this highly educated writer is totally bias, he left out some key parts, I personally lived though. He referred back to the late 70's twice. But never mentioned that Reagan changed how Unemployment was figured in the early 80's. He included all people in the military service, as employed. Before that, they was counted neither way. He also intentionally left out that when Obama, had the unemployed numbers dropped one month before the election, from 8.1% to 7.8% --because it was believed that no one could be reelected if it was above 8%.

    Then after he was sworn in--- in January, they had to readjust the numbers back up. They blamed it on one employees mistakes-- PS. no one was fired or disciplined for fudging. Bottom line is, for every 1.8 manufacturing job, there are 2 government jobs, that is disaster. Because this writer is to young to have lived in America when it was great. When for every 1 government job, you had 3 manufacturing jobs.

    I will enlighten him. I joined the workforce -- With no higher education -- when you merely walked down the road, and picked out a job. Because jobs hang on trees like apples. By 35 I COMPLETELY owned my first 3 bedroom brick house, and the 2 newer cars parked in the driveway. Anyone care to try that now ??

    As for all this talk about education-- I have a bit of knowledge about that subject-- because I paid in full to send all under my roof through it. Without one dime of aide from anyone. The above writer is proof-- you can be heavily educated, and DEAD WRONG. There is nothing good about this economy. Signed, UN-affiliated to either corrupted party

    Bluhorizons, 4/7/2016 9:43 PM EDT

    "we're not at 5 percent unemployment. We're at a number that's probably into the 20s if you look at the real number." Trump is correct. The unemployment data is contrived from data about people receiving unemployment compensation but the people who's unemployment has ended and people who have just given up is invisible.

    "It may be true that there is a national unemployment rate measured at 5 percent. But it is also true that for white men without a college degree, or white men who had worked factory jobs until the mid-2000s with no more than a high school education, the unemployment reality is much worse "

    The author goes on and on about the legitimate distrust of government unemployment data and then tells us Trump is wrong. But the article convinces us Trump is right! So, this article its not really about the legitimate distrust of government data is is about the author's not liking Trump. Typical New Left bs

    Aushax, 4/7/2016 8:24 PM EDT

    Last jobs report before the 2012 election the number unusually dropped then was readjusted up after the election. Coincidentally?

    George Mason, 4/7/2016 8:15 PM EDT

    U6 is 9.8% for March 2016. We still have 94 million unemployed and you want to say its 5 % what journalistic malpractice.

    F mackey, 4/7/2016 7:57 PM EDT

    hey reporter,Todays WSJ, More than 40% of the student borrowers aren't making payments? WHY? easy,they owe big $ money$ & cant get a job or a well paying job to pay back the loans,hey reporter,i'd send you $10 bucks to buy a clue,but you'd probably get lost going to the store,what a %@%@%@,another reporter,who doesn't have a clue on whats going on,jmo

    SimpleCountryActuary, 4/7/2016 7:57 PM EDT

    This reporter is a Hillary tool. Even the Los Angeles Times on March 6th had to admit:

    "Trump is partly right in saying that trade has cost the U.S. economy jobs and held down wages. He may also be correct - to a degree - in saying that low-skilled immigrants have depressed salaries for certain jobs or industries..."

    If this is the quality of reporting the WaPo is going to provide, namely even worse than the Los Angeles Times, then Bezos had better fire the editorial staff and buy a new one.

    Clyde4, 4/7/2016 7:34 PM EDT [Edited]

    This article dismissing Trump is exactly what is wrong with journalism today - all about creating a false reality for people instead of investigating and reporting

    Trump has emphasized that he is looking at the percent of the population that is participating in the workforce - and that this participation rate is currently at historical lows -- and Trump has been clear that his approach to paying down the national debt is based on getting the participation rates back to historical levels

    The author completely ignored the big elephant in the room -- that is irresponsible journalism

    The author may want to look into how the unemployment rate shot up in 2008 when the government extended benefits and then the unemployment rate plummeted again when unemployment benefits were decrease (around 2011, I believe) - if I were the author I would do a little research into whether the unemployment rate correlates with how much is paid out in benefits or with unemployment determined through some other approach (like surveys

    dangerbird1225, 4/7/2016 7:25 PM EDT

    Bunch of crap. If you stop counting those that stop looking for a job, your numbers are wrong. Period. Why didn't this apologist for statistics mention that?

    watchkeptoverthewatcher, 4/7/2016 6:27 PM EDT

    Ya with a labor participation rate of 63%

    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

    AtlasRocked, 4/7/2016 5:12 PM EDT

    "The government can't lie about a hundred billion dollars of Social Security money stolen for the Clinton 'balanced budget', that would be a crime against the citizens, they would revolt. John, come one now. "

    I didn't say it first, Senator Ernest Hollings did, on the Senate floor.

    "Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000." - Senate speech, Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?c3319676 at 5:30

    And here is how they did it: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

    rgengel, 4/7/2016 5:03 PM EDT

    Go to New Orleans Chicago Atlanta Los Angeles Detroit stop anybody on the street and ask if unemployment is 5% and that there is a 95% chance a guy can get a job.

    Then you will have a statistic reference point. Its not a Democratic or republican issue because both of them have manipulated the system for so long its meaningless. Go Trump 2016 and get this crap sorted out with common sense plain English

    AtlasRocked, 4/7/2016 4:37 PM EDT

    There is plenty of evidence the figures are cooked, folks, enough to fill a book: Atlas Shouts. Don't believe trash like this article claims. GDP, unemployment and inflation are all manipulated numbers, as Campbell's Law predicts.

    I can't believe the Washington Post prints propaganda like this.

    TimberDave, 4/7/2016 2:23 PM EDT

    I do remember when the officially-announced unemployment rate stopped including those who were no longer looking for work. That *was* a significant shift, and there's no doubt it made politicians (Reagan, I think it was) look better; of course, no President since then has reversed it, as it would instantly make themselves look worse.

    astroboy_2000, 4/7/2016 1:28 PM EDT

    This would be a much more intelligent article if the writer actually said what the government considers as 'employed'.

    Working one hour a week, at minimum wage, is 'employed', according to the government. No wonder unemployment is at 5%.

    Add in people who are working, but want and need full time jobs, add in people who have dropped out of the labor market and/or retired earlier than they wanted to, and unemployment is at least 10%. Ten seconds on Google will show you that.

    The writer should be sacked for taking a very serious issue and turning it into a piece of non-informative fluff. Bad mouthing Trump and Sanders is the same as endorsing Hilly.

    Manchester0913, 4/7/2016 2:12 PM EDT

    The number you're referencing is captured under U6. However, U3 is the traditional measure.

    Son House, 4/7/2016 2:24 PM EDT

    The government doesn't claim that working one hour a week is employed. Google U 3 unemployment. Then google U 6 unemployment. You can be enlightened.

    Liz in AL, 4/7/2016 7:21 PM EDT

    I've found this compilation of all 6 of the "U-rates" very useful. It encompasses the most restrictive (and thus smallest) U-1 rate, though the most expansive U-6. It provides brief descriptions of what gets counted for each rate, and (at least for more recent years) provides the ability to compare at the monthly level of detail. U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

    [Sep 14, 2016] The Global Economic Crisis and the Future of Neoliberal Globalization Rupture Versus Continuity by Ali Burak Güven, Ziya Öni

    papers.ssrn.com

    This article outlines the main elements of rupture and continuity in the global political economy since the global economic crisis of 2008-2009. While the current calamity poses a more systemic challenge to neoliberal globalization than genetically similar turbulences in the semi-periphery during the 1990s, we find that evidence for its transformative significance remains mixed. Efforts to reform the distressed capitalist models in the North encounter severe resistance, and the broadened multilateralism of the G-20 is yet to provide effective global economic governance. Overall, neoliberal globalization looks set to survive, but in more heterodox and multipolar fashion. Without tighter coordination between old and emerging powers, this new synthesis is unlikely to inspire lasting solutions to pressing global problems such as an unsustainable international financial architecture and the pending environmental catastrophe, and may even fail to preserve some modest democratic and developmental gains of the recent past.

    [Sep 14, 2016] Trump pledges big US military expansion

    The pressure of Trump from GOP establishment to adopt neocon policies is probably tremendous...
    Notable quotes:
    "... "What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy." ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | www.bbc.com

    Commenter Man , September 7, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    "What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy."

    But today we have this: Trump pledges big US military expansion . Trump doesn't appear to have any coherent policy, he just says whatever seems to be useful at that particular moment.

    [Sep 14, 2016] Bill Black: Thomas Friedmans Big Idea for Hillary – Embrace Wall Street and Deregulation

    Notable quotes:
    "... Interesting stories. Your anecdote about the telecom 'entrepreneur' reminds me of what i read about roman abhramovitz who owns chelsea fc in england. From what i read, his big break came from stealing oil from the russian state and selling it on the side. He just happened to be in a convenient spot to pull off this scam without getting caught. Then, when the big privatization loans-for-shares deal arrived, he really cashed in. ..."
    "... Friedman's job is sales. Selling to the public policies which will only benefit the rich, and in the process telling the rich what they want to hear. ..."
    "... A few years back I opined that Friedman exists to tell rich people what they want to hear in a way that makes them feel clever, right, and good. He's excellent at this. He also writes like a bright but smug, undisciplined undergrad, pitching at exactly the mental level of the average corporate executive or real estate developer (moderately educated but without depth or polish). ..."
    "... Like the products of Mills Power Elite, he doesn't need to conspire, as he functions completely within the norms of the system, believing what it is necessary to believe and defining his goals in perfect alignment with those of the system: a true android. ..."
    "... Why are people angry at bankers, Mr. Friedman? Maybe because even in advertisements they call the general population rubes to their faces. ..."
    "... Friedman MUST be aware enough of the variations in economic outcomes with risky leveraged behavior if he looks at his wife's Bucksbaum family company,,General Growth Properties. ..."
    "... Little chance of that. The last things the Clintons want in their cabinet are regulators and peaceniks. The Clintons have been kissing asses up and down Wall Street for three decades, so it's tres ..."
    "... Bottom line: Friedman was trained at Brandeis and Oxford in Middle Eastern Studies and he subsequently served as a reporter in that region including Israel bureau chief for the NYT. He seems to have no training in economics whatsoever. At the NYT he is officially the Foreign Affairs columnist. ..."
    "... Friedman's conceit is legendary. "I have won not one, but two Pulitzer prizes, and I won't stand for being called a liar by the next president," George Stephanopoulos recalls in his memoir Friedman as shouting down the phone during the Clinton transition in early 1993. ..."
    "... Banks do not lend to startups. They only lend to going businesses with "callable" assets like real-estate, inventory, and accounts-receivables. ..."
    "... Startups get funded by founders, friends and family, and if you're lucky (or unlucky, depending on the details) by VCs. Friendman needs to stop listening to his in-laws (who filed one of the biggest commercial bankruptcies after the real-estate crash but are still billionaires, I'm sure) and also stop listening to John Doerr (Kleiner Perkins). ..."
    "... Friedman is himself a form of rent in this corrupt society. ..."
    "... No problem being shamelessly wrong about predictions, as long as you guide public opinion as needed on a day-to-day basis. No one remembers a week back anyway. ..."
    "... This fool has answers for everything every other day. Like all true believers in any religion, his answer is more of the same. Idiot. ..."
    "... Hillary doesn't need a "knock out punch". Elites have to support her whether she panders to them or not. ..."
    "... I worry that Hillary will pander anyway. She's been doing this too long and doesn't know any other way. If Obama couldn't embrace an opportunity for progressive change when liberals controlled the executive and legislature, I doubt that Hillary can. ..."
    "... Once upon a time Tom Friedman was a pretty astute NYT reporter in the Middle East, but that was back in those bygone days now lost in the amnesia of history when the NYT was mostly a serious newspaper not just a propaganda delivery device. Between then and now Friedman must have been body-snatched by aliens. Or, perhaps, he was always a double agent. ..."
    Aug 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    The Clintons are convinced of their divine right to rule. And they play hardball and have no shame.
    Yes, "Embrace of Wall Street " and deregulation are two key ideas of Hillary economic platform which not that different from Bill Clinton economics platform -- pure neolineral, pure hardcore neoliberalism to be exact.
    32 Comments "

    ... ... ...

    By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published with New Economic Perspectives

    Thomas Friedman's economic illiteracy and sycophancy for Wall Street "elites" have never been in doubt, but he has (unknowingly) plumbed new depths in his columns advising Hillary Clinton to remake the Democratic Party in Bill's image – by embracing Wall Street's dream of deregulation. Friedman has literally learned nothing from the three great epidemics of accounting control fraud ("liar's" loans, inflated appraisals, and fraudulent resale of these fraudulently originated mortgages) that drove the financial crisis and the Great Recession.

    In other columns in this series on Friedman's columns advising Hillary on moving the Democratic Party well to the right of the Republican Party on economic issues, I show that Friedman has literally learned nothing from the successes of stimulus, education, and infrastructure, the horrific failures of austerity and deregulation, or his repeated distortion of "capitalism" and "socialism.". Friedman gives no indication that he realizes that (1) his economic dogmas were all falsified by our recurrent financial crises and (2) the policies implemented on the basis of those dogmas proved disastrous.

    Friedman advises Hillary to embrace Wall Street elites and adopt the deregulatory, desupervisory, and de facto decriminalization (the three "de's") policies that Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush implemented. The three de's have created the "criminogenic environments" that led to the epidemics of accounting control fraud that drove the savings and loan debacle, the Enron-era accounting control fraud scandals, and the most recent crisis. Friedman urges Hillary to use Bill as her model and embrace elite bankers and financial deregulation because, what could go wrong?

    In his column entitled How Clinton Could Knock Trump Out , Friedman bemoans "the anti-bank sentiment of the Democratic Party."

    Friedman's only implicit recognition that bank CEOs were the problem rather than the solution was a trademark Friedman slogan that he uses as his substitute for analysis and proposing an actual policy.

    We need to prevent recklessness, not risk-taking.

    This slogan was a punchier version of the one he had auditioned in his column a week earlier.

    Web People also understand that while we want to prevent another bout of recklessness on Wall Street, we don't want to choke off risk-taking, which is the engine of growth and entrepreneurship.

    Friedman tried out the "web people" label in his column entitled "Web People vs. Wall People." Web people are good people – like Friedman – who embrace the rigged financial system, while "wall people" are whiny people who complain that the system is rigged by Wall Street elites with the aid of their political cronies to ensure that Wall Street elites will be the winners at the expense of their fellow citizens. It escapes Friedman's attention that rather than being the "engine of growth," the rigged banking system of "capitalist" nations was the engine of the mass destruction of wealth. The rigged system produced deeply negative growth and was saved only by what Friedman derides as "socialism."

    "Recklessness" by CEOs had nothing to do with the U.S. financial crisis. The three fraud epidemics have everything to do with driving the financial crisis. No one serious doubts that the second phase of the savings and loan debacle and the Enron-era accounting scandals were driven by elite frauds. But Friedman will not use the "f" word for the most obvious of reasons – he wants Hillary to go full-Bill and return to openly embracing bank CEOs' cash and deregulatory dreams. In his "knock out" column, Friedman made his pitch that promising financial deregulation was the KO punch Clinton could deliver to Trump.

    Clinton should be reaching out to [business Republicans] with a real pro-growth, start-up, deregulation, entrepreneurship agenda and give them a positive reason to vote for her.

    In his homage to "web people," Friedman told Hillary to repeat Bill's disastrous embrace of Wall Street elites.

    Having been secretary of state, Clinton has been touching the world. She knows America has to build its future on a Web People's platform, which was first articulated by Bill Clinton, and, to this day, is best articulated by him. But Hillary has not always shown the courage of her own, or her husband's, convictions.

    Yes, the word that comes to mind when one thinks of Bill is "courage."

    Friedman says "It scares me that people are so fed up with elites…." People are not "fed up" with the Wall Street elites – they are furious and disgusted. They realize that the distinguishing characteristics that are "elite" about Wall Street bankers are their egos and pay. Our greatest reason for hoping that we will not repeat for the fourth time the disaster of implementing the three "de's" is that people are so fed up" with financial "elites." It is a mystery to me how even Friedman could be so out of touch with reality that he is "scared" because people are fed up with Wall Street elites. Friedman may be the only person in the world who isn't a Wall Street press flack – wait, that's exactly what Friedman is – who is not "fed up" with Wall Street elites. Indeed, "fed up" does not begin to capture what people rationally feel about Wall Street's purported "elites."

    The regulatory and supervisory actions that a competent financial regulator takes to reduce fraud would also reduce recklessness if that were the problem. Friedman does not even attempt to explain how he would make his slogan into a policy and why his adoption of the three de's would not produce our fourth financial disaster of the modern era – as it has the last three times our politicians made real the bankers' dreams.

    "Bubble" Bill Clinton did not bring the Nation economic success. His bubbles facilitated two catastrophic episodes and those bubbles were hyper-inflated by elite frauds made possible by his embrace of the bankers' greatest dream – the three de's. He set the stage for catastrophe.

    Clive , August 8, 2016 at 7:44 am

    I've found it interesting to compare the outcomes for people who I know in a range from vaguely well to very well and how they have fared in their various approaches to risk taking. My admittedly small sample size also illustrates how those who take risks to start up enterprises often begin on what is a not-particularly sound legal footing.

    The most spectacular success story was with someone who used to work for a large telecoms provider. He was a fairly low level (but not bottom-rung junior) manager who was in charge of a team who did street works (basically digging holes in the roads and sidewalks to lay, replace or maintain cabling). He allocated the capitally intensive equipment (Caterpillar diggers etc.) and the labour force to operate them, plus your basic spade-and-wheelbarrow manual work. In the cable TV boom of the early 1990's he subcontracted to the companies who (being debt financed) were, erm, rather eager to cable up as many households as possible. But these cable companies did not have regional operations actually capable of performing this task. So they placed sub-contracts with anyone and everyone in the hope that some kind of progress might be made. My acquaintance hit upon the idea of, on a weekend, "borrowing" the diggers, tipper trucks, tarmac mixers and so on (without the knowledge or permission of the telco who owned them!) and paying his mates cash-in-hand to do the ditch (trench) digging. I'm presuming that, where needed, he paid off any superior in the telco who might have spotted what was going on. But I suspect that they didn't know anything about it. Eventually, he earned enough (several hundreds of thousands) to lease the equipment and (with a successful track record) bid for bigger and bigger contracts. He formed a company to do this sort of installation and maintenance which he later sold for Ł10M+. I'd call him a rough diamond, but that makes him sound better than he is.

    But for every one of him there are 5 or 6 who tried starting their own businesses, operating with varying degrees of illegitimacy and morality (neither one approach is guaranteed either success of failure, it is much more to do with luck and being in the right, or wrong, place and the right time) who ended in failure, bankruptcy, significant personal setbacks and on one all-too-memorable incidence, suicide.

    Set against those sorts are people who've adopted an approach more similar to my own risk-averseness when it comes to careers and entrepreneurship. Those who became public employees or who worked for large relatively secure commercial enterprises and who stuck at climbing the corporate (or civil service) greasy pole have by-and-large prospered. Those who had the luck to place reasonably leveraged, but not in-over-your-head scale, bets on the UK's outrageously backstopped housing markets have net worth of Ł1M+. Almost all have realised that once they got appreciably over 50, they will be edged out but they have got sufficient cushions in place to either retire early or take much lower paid jobs between the age of 50 and 60 without decimating their lifestyles.

    By far the worse outcomes, when looked at in terms of predictability and consistency, are those who took a gamble on extensive but specialised formal educations and then job-hopped amongst smaller companies or joined start-ups. Architects, marketing/advertising, legal ("solicitors" in the UK), accountancy grunt-work and similar. None of them have, unlike the entrepreneurs, made it big or even had any hope of doing so. Where they have stepped on career landmines (job loss due to downsizing or business failures where they worked), they have often found it difficult-to-impossible to get back into a new position at the same level. Some who refused to take lower level positions were unemployed for 2 years and had to rely on a spouse's income to tide them over. Others who either wouldn't do that or didn't even have that option have ended up going from Ł50-60k positions to Ł25k ones and had to try to work their ways back up. It is arguable that they've not done as badly as the failed entrepreneurs, but, typically, the failed entrepreneurs quickly learned how to protect accumulated wealth against bankruptcy and didn't seem to mind picking themselves up, dusting themselves off, shrugging their shoulders and starting again. Only in one isolated incident did they end up in what I would call a disastrous outcome.

    Conversely, the niche-skilled job-hoppers ended up being founder members of the precariat but are the ones who are, mentally, least able to deal with it.

    As Yves mentions in the intro, our culture needs a profound shake-up in how it views risk taking, who the real risk takers are, what makes them "tick" and how capriciously risk taking gets rewarded and, where the risks go bad, who really pays.

    johnnygl , August 8, 2016 at 9:22 am

    Interesting stories. Your anecdote about the telecom 'entrepreneur' reminds me of what i read about roman abhramovitz who owns chelsea fc in england. From what i read, his big break came from stealing oil from the russian state and selling it on the side. He just happened to be in a convenient spot to pull off this scam without getting caught. Then, when the big privatization loans-for-shares deal arrived, he really cashed in.

    Lambert Strether , August 8, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime" - Balzac

    Except (via Quote Investigator ) what Balzac really wrote was:

    The secret of a great success for which you are at a loss to account is a crime that has never been found out, because it was properly executed.

    Which is truer to what Clive wrote.

    KYrocky , August 8, 2016 at 8:32 am

    Why wasn't Friedman suggesting this in 2010? Oh wait, he was.

    Friedman typifies everything about conservatism. He has been consistently wrong about every significant policy he has opined on (Friedman units anyone), yet continues to hold onto one of the most significant perches in commentary journalism. Friedman's purpose at the Times is not to inform readers or to ever actually be correct about what posits.

    Friedman's job is sales. Selling to the public policies which will only benefit the rich, and in the process telling the rich what they want to hear.

    James Levy , August 8, 2016 at 9:19 am

    A few years back I opined that Friedman exists to tell rich people what they want to hear in a way that makes them feel clever, right, and good. He's excellent at this. He also writes like a bright but smug, undisciplined undergrad, pitching at exactly the mental level of the average corporate executive or real estate developer (moderately educated but without depth or polish).

    That he married a heiress yet still refuses to think for himself or engage the world as it is speaks volumes about the internalization of aspirational values even in a man who need no longer aspire. Like the products of Mills Power Elite, he doesn't need to conspire, as he functions completely within the norms of the system, believing what it is necessary to believe and defining his goals in perfect alignment with those of the system: a true android.

    FriarTuck , August 8, 2016 at 9:45 am

    Anecdote: On the way in to work this morning, I was listening to the Eric and Cathy show, a popular Chicago morning radio program. They regularly play advertisements targeted at wide swaths of people.

    The ad that caught my attention this morning was one of, I think, First American bank. It had the traditional character "son" talking to his "granny" (which have appeared in many ads before) about how great banking at First American was. And it was advertising home equity loans – and it was doing this through granny wanting to take out an equity loan to buy a horse for the horse races.

    While the ad was cleverly written and the actors amusing, the overall tone was, I thought, odious. "Hey bank with us and we'll give you home equity loans to do anything , including blowing it on racing horses, just because . The terms are reasonable, you don't have to worry. Despite granny probably never being able to pay it back. Despite not reasonably ever getting anything back out of the horse.

    The son character went along with it quite cheerfully, in a bemused "granny will be granny" sort of way.

    Why are people angry at bankers, Mr. Friedman? Maybe because even in advertisements they call the general population rubes to their faces.

    John Wright , August 8, 2016 at 10:38 am

    Some years ago I went to a hiking book lecture given by the author, a former Silicon Valley tech worker.

    He mentioned, "They say follow your dreams and the money will follow, well, my wife is waiting for it to catch up."

    I remember reading that Bill Hewlett, of the 20th century success story Hewlett-Packard, mentioned that HP could have gone broke in the early years, so it wasn't always up and to the right for this wildly successful company.

    Friedman MUST be aware enough of the variations in economic outcomes with risky leveraged behavior if he looks at his wife's Bucksbaum family company,,General Growth Properties.

    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Growth_Properties

    "Starting in 1993, GGP expanded its portfolio dramatically by acquiring existing properties and constructing new malls. In 1995, it acquired Homart Development Company, the mall development subsidiary of Sears.[10] On November 13, 2004, GGP acquired The Rouse Company, including its Howard Hughes Corporation land development subsidiary, in the largest retail real estate merger in American history. GGP grew to be the nation's second-largest mall operator."

    "GGP reported in excess of $25 billion in debt (mostly mortgages) as of September 30, 2008. In late November 2008, GGP missed a deadline to repay $900 million in loans backed by two Las Vegas retail properties. This meant that GGP lenders could issue a notice of default, which would make GGP seek protection from its creditors under Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

    "In December 2008 the Wall Street Journal reported that GGP would seek bankruptcy protection if it could not renegotiate its loans.[12] Its share price had fallen by 97% over the previous six months."

    If ONLY GGP had listened to their wise in-law Tom Friedman and been able to distinguish "reckless behavior" from "prudent risk".

    BTW, maybe more Times readers are starting to catch on,

    A reader commented (and it gathered 102 readers' recommends):

    "Mr. Friedman has outdone himself in issuing a totally moronic column. Not since he urged us into the Iraq War has he published such a total piece of drek."

    I hope to see the day the NY Times gives Friedman an "opportunity to be entrepreneurial" by finding a robotic replacement and showing TF the door..

    montag47 , August 8, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    Little chance of that. The last things the Clintons want in their cabinet are regulators and peaceniks. The Clintons have been kissing asses up and down Wall Street for three decades, so it's tres doubtful they're going to want Bill Black around in any capacity. Black is the skunk at the Robber Barons' Picnic.

    Carolinian , August 8, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Since the Mustache has been around so long his resume seems lost in the mists of history I consulted Wikipedia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman

    Bottom line: Friedman was trained at Brandeis and Oxford in Middle Eastern Studies and he subsequently served as a reporter in that region including Israel bureau chief for the NYT. He seems to have no training in economics whatsoever. At the NYT he is officially the Foreign Affairs columnist.

    Here's the late Alex Cockburn, quoted in the above link

    Friedman exhibits on a weekly basis one of the severest cases known to science of Lippmann's condition, named for the legendary journalistic hot-air salesman, Walter Lippmann, and alluding to the inherent tendency of all pundits to swell in self-importance to zeppelin-like dimensions. Friedman's conceit is legendary. "I have won not one, but two Pulitzer prizes, and I won't stand for being called a liar by the next president," George Stephanopoulos recalls in his memoir Friedman as shouting down the phone during the Clinton transition in early 1993.

    Cockburn goes on to describe how Friedman stole an incident that happened to Cockburn's brother Patrick and pretended it happened to him. It says all you need to know about the elites that they take this guy seriously (yes you Charlie Rose).

    http://nypress.com/i-and-i-the-world-according-to-tom-friedman/

    phichibe , August 8, 2016 at 1:54 pm

    The following is the comment I submitted to the NYT after reading the Friedman column in question. IT would have been substantially longer except for the NYT limit on comments' wordcounts . To Bill Black, all I can add is "amen"

    ------–

    This is the true Tom Friedman. A country-club Republican by virtue of his membership-by-marriage into the Simon family, one of the biggest commercial property owners (indoor shopping malls) in the country. The fact of the matter is that the "growth" that we've had in this country since the 1970s has largely gone to the capital-gains crowd who have not even "trickled" it down except to their realtors, their art galleries, and their Ferrari dealers.

    I'm an entrepreneur and have started multiple companies, all in tech. I could write a book on what Friedman gets wrong about the tech world since his forays in the 90s like "The World is Flat", "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", etc, but that's for another day/Friedman column. What I'll say here is that Friedman knows as much about bank loans and startups as he does about quantum computing. Banks do not lend to startups. They only lend to going businesses with "callable" assets like real-estate, inventory, and accounts-receivables. I'm not saying it's the wrong policy – banks need to have collateral they can repossess if loans go wrong. But that fact excludes 99% of startups.

    Startups get funded by founders, friends and family, and if you're lucky (or unlucky, depending on the details) by VCs. Friendman needs to stop listening to his in-laws (who filed one of the biggest commercial bankruptcies after the real-estate crash but are still billionaires, I'm sure) and also stop listening to John Doerr (Kleiner Perkins).

    paul hirschman , August 8, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    Friedman is himself a form of rent in this corrupt society.

    DarkMatters , August 8, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    Friedman role is to show us the correct way to think about things. He only sprinkles in enough facts or anecdotes to make the imperative plausible. That's his main qualification. Otherwise, with so many others to choose from, why else would the NYT have selected him? Just look at all his failures .

    No problem being shamelessly wrong about predictions, as long as you guide public opinion as needed on a day-to-day basis. No one remembers a week back anyway.

    St Thomas , August 8, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    This fool has answers for everything every other day. Like all true believers in any religion, his answer is more of the same. Idiot.

    Patrick , August 8, 2016 at 5:50 pm

    Friedman is actually lamenting the fact that there is no need to turn to spineless "moderates" like himself in an election as one sided as this one. Hillary doesn't need a "knock out punch". Elites have to support her whether she panders to them or not.

    I worry that Hillary will pander anyway. She's been doing this too long and doesn't know any other way. If Obama couldn't embrace an opportunity for progressive change when liberals controlled the executive and legislature, I doubt that Hillary can.

    mrtmbrnmn , August 9, 2016 at 12:37 am

    Once upon a time Tom Friedman was a pretty astute NYT reporter in the Middle East, but that was back in those bygone days now lost in the amnesia of history when the NYT was mostly a serious newspaper not just a propaganda delivery device. Between then and now Friedman must have been body-snatched by aliens. Or, perhaps, he was always a double agent.

    Thanks, as usual, is due Bill Black for his keen analysis of our current berserk world.

    ps: Yves, though I was unable to speak with you and could hardly hear you at last week's NYC meetup, it was, nonetheless, the best of recent vintages. And the presence of Michael Hudson was a yuuuuge bonus. So thnx.

    [Sep 14, 2016] Money cant buy me love DNC can sell you a high diplomatic position for mere 600 thousands

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some of the other – possible – position purchases were a little disturbing, though, such as Julius Genachowski's FCC Chairmanship or Tony West's appointment as Deputy Attorney General. If true that donations were the clincher, then it does smell a little like corruption. ..."
    "... In addition to Jim Haygood's report above I would flag Lee Fang's Twitter bulletin, which includes emails (you click on the actual emails imaged in the tweet to read the original) that reveal Colin Powell and Jeffrey Leeds discussing how much the Clintons hate Obama ("that man"), and how questionable Hillary's health is. This appears to be from a separate DNC Leaks hack of Powell's emails unrelated to the Guccifer 2.0 release. ..."
    "... But the quote of the evening so far is from a Colin Powell email complaining about how Hillary is responsible for the whole email debacle at State and was trying to scapegoat him for her mess despite his protestations. Boy, was Powell pissed off, and to the point: " Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris. " ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jim Haygood , September 13, 2016 at 9:28 pm

    New leak from Guccifer 2.0: ambassadorships for sale - some for a very affordable $600K:

    http://magafeed.com/new-clinton-leaks-reveals-donor-list-big-donors-awarded-federal-positions/

    " Money can't buy me love " - John, Paul, George & Ringo

    But a black diplomatic passport is a decent consolation prize. :-)

    JCC , September 13, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    I saw that too, earlier today and at first I thought "another example!". Then I stepped back and realized that other than an inflation gauge, so what? That has been a perk for donors in this country (and many other I assume) for over 200 years… at least as far as the ambassadorships are concerned.

    Some of the other – possible – position purchases were a little disturbing, though, such as Julius Genachowski's FCC Chairmanship or Tony West's appointment as Deputy Attorney General. If true that donations were the clincher, then it does smell a little like corruption.

    Buttinsky , September 13, 2016 at 11:39 pm

    I was away from the computer for a few hours and all leak-hell has broken loose. Unfortunately, the actual dumps are not being made as easy to access directly as in prior releases - the Guccifer 2.0 release requires a "torrent" download and DNCLeaks.org seems to have been vaporized. And there's a lot of it, so we're having to rely on piecemeal, secondhand reports at the moment.

    In addition to Jim Haygood's report above I would flag Lee Fang's Twitter bulletin, which includes emails (you click on the actual emails imaged in the tweet to read the original) that reveal Colin Powell and Jeffrey Leeds discussing how much the Clintons hate Obama ("that man"), and how questionable Hillary's health is. This appears to be from a separate DNC Leaks hack of Powell's emails unrelated to the Guccifer 2.0 release.

    https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/775846049009197057

    But the quote of the evening so far is from a Colin Powell email complaining about how Hillary is responsible for the whole email debacle at State and was trying to scapegoat him for her mess despite his protestations. Boy, was Powell pissed off, and to the point: " Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris. "

    https://theintercept.com/2016/09/13/colin-powell-emails/

    Daryl , September 13, 2016 at 11:05 pm

    Was checking the polls in Texas and surprised to see that it has Johnson at 10% and Stein at 6%.

    Also googling for more of them, all the articles talked about Hillary "might win" Texas, no mention of third party candidates. Blech

    [Sep 14, 2016] September 13, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    Notable quotes:
    "... MSM has really obliterated their credibility this election cycle. ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Our Famously Free Press

    "Why Are The Media Objectively Pro-Trump?" [Paul Krugman, The New York Times ]. He's got a point. After all, the press systematically suppressed stories about Sanders, who would have been a stronger opponent for Trump than Clinton.

    rich , September 13, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    Krugman fails…

    The Death of Mainstream Media

    At the end of the day, I have concluded that my focus on Hillary as of late (vs. Trump) has as much to with my disgust for the mainstream media as anything else.
    To see these organs, which have destroyed this country by keeping the people uninformed for decades, now rally around a sickly, corrupt, oligarch coddling politician as the empire enters the collapse stage is simply too much to stomach. Although I'm still voting 3rd party, it's now become obvious that if my sentiments are widely reflected across the country, Donald Trump will win the election handily. As I tweeted earlier today:

    The only positive thing to happen during this election season is the death of mainstream media. With their insufferable propaganda fully exposed, there is no coming back.

    http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/09/13/the-death-of-mainstream-media/#more-37561

    MSM has really obliterated their credibility this election cycle.

    Quentin , September 13, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    Another positive thing is the demise of the Bush dynasty. And if Donald Trump pulls it off, the Clinton dynasty. I can't decide with is worse though I tend to detest the Clinton dynasty more especially now the its present star is mucking the place up.

    Quentin , September 13, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    Another positive thing is the demise of the Bush dynasty. And if Donald Trump pulls it off, the Clinton dynasty. I can't decide with is worse though I tend to detest the Clinton dynasty more especially now the its present star is mucking the place up.

    Pavel , September 13, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    Speaking of losing credibility… here is a real shocker via The Hill:

    CBS News edited a video clip and transcript to remove former President Bill Clinton's comment during an interview that Hillary Clinton, now the Democratic presidential nominee, "frequently" fainted in the past.

    Bill Clinton sat down with CBS's Charlie Rose on Monday to try to clear the air around questions regarding his wife's health after she collapsed while getting into a van at a 9/11 memorial ceremony on Sunday.

    "Well, if it is, then it's a mystery to me and all of her doctors," Bill Clinton said when Rose asked him if Hillary Clinton was simply dehydrated or if the situation was more serious. "Frequently - well, not frequently, rarely, on more than one occasion, over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing's happened to her when she got severely dehydrated, and she's worked like a demon, as you know, as secretary of State, as a senator and in the year since."
    But the "CBS Evening News" version cut Clinton's use of "frequently" out. And a review by The Hill of the official transcript released by the network shows that Clinton saying "Frequently - well, not frequently," is omitted as well.

    The Hill: CBS News edits transcript, video clip of Bill Clinton discussing Hillary's health

    Can it get any more blatant?

    BTW Rich I read the LibertyBlitz post earlier and it is spot on.

    Left in Wisconsin , September 13, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    MSM has really obliterated their credibility this election cycle.

    Is there a reason why that matters? Worse now compared to covering for Reagan's Alzheimer's for how many years?

    Daryl , September 13, 2016 at 10:01 pm

    Their credibility has eroded constantly with the rise of alternative methods of communication…it's just the election cycle that lays it bare, like rain washing away a bunch of soil where roots have already died.

    [Sep 14, 2016] The Veeps on War They are both hawkish

    Notable quotes:
    "... So what of Trump and Clinton's vice-presidential picks? For starters, they are both hawkish. ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos September 14, 2016

    According to evolving campaign lore, Donald Trump's son called failed Republican candidate John Kasich ahead of Trump's VP pick in July and told him he could be "the most powerful vice president" ever-in charge of foreign policy, and domestic too-if he agreed to come on board.

    While Trump's people have denied such a lavish entreaty ever occurred, it has become a powerful political meme: the Republican nominee's lack of experience would force him to default to others, particularly on the international front, which is a never-ending series of flash points dotting Europe, Asia, and the Middle East like a child's Lite Brite.

    On the Democratic side there is no such concern-Hillary Clinton has plenty of experience as a senator and secretary of state, and was a "two-for-one" first lady who not only took part (unsuccessfully) in the domestic health-care debate, but passionately advocated (successfully) for the bombing campaigns in Bosnia and Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

    So what of Trump and Clinton's vice-presidential picks? For starters, they are both hawkish.

    Indiana Gov. Mike Pence was an apt pupil of Bush and Cheney during the neoconservative years, voting for the Iraq War in 2002 and serving as one of David Petraeus's cheerleaders in favor of the 2007 surge. He has since supported every intervention his fellow Republicans did, even giving early praise to Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration for the 2011 intervention in Libya.

    On the other side, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine is as far from the Bernie Sanders mold as they come: a centrist Democrat who supports a muscular, liberal-interventionist foreign policy, and who has been pushing for greater intervention in Syria, just like Hillary Clinton.

    If veeps do matter-and as we saw with Dick Cheney , in many ways they can, bigtime-the non-interventionists can expect nothing but the status quo when it comes to war policy and the war machine at home for the next four years. Under the right conditions, Pence would help drag Trump to the right on war and defense, and Kaine would do nothing but bolster Clinton's already hawkish views on a host of issues, including those involving Syria, Russia, the Middle East, and China.

    If anything, Pence could end up having more influence in the White House, said Bonnie Kristian, a writer and fellow at Defense Priorities , in an interview with TAC . "With these two campaigns, I would predict that Pence would have more of a chance of playing a bigger role [in the presidency] than Tim Kaine does," she offered. Pence could bring to bear a dozen years of experience as a pro-war congressman, including two years on the foreign-affairs committee. "He's been a pretty typical Republican on foreign policy and has a lot of neoconservative impulses. I don't think we could expect anything different," she added.

    For his part, Trump "has been all over the place" on foreign policy, she said, and while his talk about restraint and Iraq being a failure appeals to her and others who would like to see America's overseas operations scaled back, his bench of close advisors is not encouraging. Walid Phares , Gen. Michael Flynn , Chris Christie , Rudy Giuliani : along with Pence, all could fit like neat little pieces into the Bush-administration puzzle circa 2003, and none has ever expressed the same disregard for the Bush and Obama war policies as Trump has on the campaign trail.

    "On one hand, [Trump] has referred to the war in Iraq and regime change as bad and nation-building as bad, but at the same time he has no ideological grounding," said Jack Hunter, politics editor at Rare . If Trump leaves the policymaking up to others, including Pence, "that doesn't bode well for those who think the last Republican administration was too hawkish and did not exhibit restraint."

    Pence, Kristian reminds us , gave a speech just last year at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in which he called for a massive increase in military spending. "It is imperative that conservatives again embrace America's role as leader of the free world and the arsenal of democracy," Pence said, predicting then that 2016 would be a "foreign-policy election."

    "He embraces wholeheartedly a future in which America polices the world-forever-refusing to reorient our foreign policy away from nation-building and toward restraint, diplomacy and free trade to ensure U.S. security," Kristian wrote in The Hill back when Pence accepted his place on the Trump ticket in July. Since then, he has muted his support for Iraq (Trump has said Pence's 2003 vote doesn't matter, even calling it "a mistake" ). Clearly the two men prefer to meet on the issue of Islamic threats and the promise of "rebuilding the military," areas where they have been equally enthusiastic.

    Meanwhile, former Bernie Sanders supporters should be rather underwhelmed with Kaine on national-security policy. On one hand, writers rush to point out that Kaine split with President Obama and Hillary Clinton just a few years ago, arguing the administration could not continue to use the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria. He also proposed legislation with Sen. John McCain to update the War Powers Act; the bill would have required the president to consult with Congress when starting a war, and Congress to vote on any war within seven days of military action. That would tighten the constitutional responsibilities of both branches, the senators said in 2013.

    On the War Powers Act, Kaine gets points with constitutionalists like University of Texas law professor Steven Vladeck, who said Kaine's effort "recognizes, as we all should, the broader problems with the War Powers Resolution as currently written-and with the contemporary separation of war powers between Congress and the executive branch." But on the issue of the AUMF, Vladeck and others have not been so keen on Kaine.

    Kaine has made two proposals relating to the AUMF, and both would leave the door open to extended overseas military combat operations-including air strikes, raids, and assassinations-without a specific declaration of war. The first directs the president to modify or repeal the 2001 AUMF "by September 2017"; the second, authored with Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, keeps the 2001 AUMF but updates the 2002 AUMF used to attack Iraq to include ISIS.

    As Rosa Brooks said in 2013 :

    A revised AUMF is likely to do precisely what the Bush administration sought to do in the run-up to the Iraq War: codify a dangerous unilateral theory of preemptive war, and provide a veneer of legality for an open-ended conflict against an endlessly expanding list of targets.

    While he might be applauded for trying to strengthen "the rule of law on foreign policy," said Kristian, it's not clear he wants to do it "to scale back these interventions." As a member of both the armed-services and foreign-relations committees, he has already argued for greater intervention in Syria, calling for "humanitarian zones"-which, like "no-fly zones" and "no-bombing zones," mean the U.S. better be ready to tangle with the Syrian president and Russia as well as ISIS.

    Plus, when Kaine was running for his Senate seat in 2011, and Obama-with Clinton's urging-was in the midst of a coalition bombing campaign in Libya, Kaine was much more noncommittal when it came to the War Powers Act, saying Obama had a "good rationale" for going in. When asked if he believed the War Powers Act legally bound the president to get congressional approval to continue operations there, he said, "I'm not a lawyer on that."

    If anything, Kaine will serve as a reliable backup to a president who is perfectly willing to use military force to promote "democracy" overseas. He neither softens Clinton's edges on military and war, nor is necessary to sharpen them. "Does Tim Kaine change [any dynamic]? I don't think so," said Hunter, adding, "I can't imagine he is as hawkish as her on foreign policy-she is the worst of the worst."

    So when it comes to veep picks, the value is in the eye of the beholder. "If you are a conservative and you don't think Trump is hawkish enough, you will like it that Pence is there," notes Hunter. On the other hand, if you like Trump's attitude on the messes overseas-preferring diplomacy over destruction, as he said in his speech Wednesday -Pence might make you think twice, added Kristian. "I'm not sure Pence is going to further those inclinations, if indeed they do exist."

    To make it more complicated, the American public is unsure how it wants to proceed overseas anyway. While a majority favor airstrikes and sending in special-operations groups to fight ISIS in Syria, only a minority want to insert combat troops or even fund anti-Assad groups, according to an August poll . A slim majority-52 percent-want to establish no-fly zones. Yet only 31 percent want to to see a deal that would keep Bashar Assad in power.

    A tall order for any White House.

    Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance reporter.

    [Sep 14, 2016] If you can not beat Trump it is time to enlist help of Russians as a convenient scapegoats

    Notable quotes:
    "... If Donald Trump really is doing Presidential Campaign as performance art, it may turn out that his Doctor's letter about his awesome health is the most brilliant aspect of it. Call me wild and crazy but I'm beginning to think that item with its sheer obvious level of BS was a fairly brilliant parody of what we have seen and probably will see from Clinton. ..."
    "... The Putin-did-it comments on that article are depressing and ..."
    "... Romeo and Juliet ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    1% , September 12, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    If you can't beat 'em, call 'em anti-semites!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/opinion/anti-semitism-and-the-british-left.html

    Jerri-Lynn Scofield Post author , September 12, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    https://www.ft.com/content/377f08c2-78f0-11e6-a0c6-39e2633162d5?ftcamp=crm/email//nbe/WorldNews/product . Link to FT piece headlined Long line of US presidents who concealed ill health.

    Pat , September 12, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    If Donald Trump really is doing Presidential Campaign as performance art, it may turn out that his Doctor's letter about his awesome health is the most brilliant aspect of it. Call me wild and crazy but I'm beginning to think that item with its sheer obvious level of BS was a fairly brilliant parody of what we have seen and probably will see from Clinton.

    Of course, he isn't and that means it is just taking the BS to the nth degree at least until we see the new Clinton release.

    Jen , September 12, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Speaking of parody. LOOK! RUSSIANS!
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/12/the-man-who-discovered-cte-thinks-hillary-clinton-may-have-been-poisoned

    Bezos Daily may as well start calling themselves the weekly world news.

    Pat , September 12, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    It really is all a plot of those evil Russians…

    Buttinsky , September 12, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    The Putin-did-it comments on that article are depressing and laughable. Tomorrow's story: Putin tripped Hillary on her way to the van.

    Of course, Hillary has been poisoned. But not by some Russian apothecary:

    There is thy gold, worse poison to men's souls,
    Doing more murders in this loathsome world,
    Than these poor compounds….

    Romeo, Romeo and Juliet

    Pat , September 12, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    I really want someone to Photoshop Boris and Natasha helping Hillary into the van…

    Buttinsky , September 12, 2016 at 9:04 pm

    The Russians did it!!! (Though I'm it's sure not quite what you pictured.)

    https://s21.postimg.org/9sxzqtwif/boris_natasha_hillary.jpg

    JTMcPhee , September 12, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    RE: poisoning - gee, who is next in line behind Hillary? I mean, on the Dem side? This whole "political season" is looking more like something out of the Borgia era. And there is no history of one part or another of the CIA poisoning people like Fidel Castro or whatever, and how many parts of the CIA and the other bits of runaway Empire would like Clinton gone so maybe they could slide a Biden into the slot…

    polecat , September 12, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    maybe, in the future, the'll be an opera made of this kerfuffle of an election ..!

    GeorgeM , September 12, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    Clinton has been having coughing fits since 2009. A quick trip to youtube ends all speculation that this is pneumonia since Friday.

    Anyone interested in the truth of this need only see the fits… over and over and over again.. with dates.

    It's Parkinsons…. or so says my neighbor – a neurosurgeon… who hates her by the way

    but he is not rabid…. just conservative and unhappy with the Bush/Clinton/Obama crime syndicate

    Plenue , September 12, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    "Questions for the presidential candidates on nuclear terrorism, proliferation, weapons policy, and energy"

    Can we first stop talking about nuclear terrorism like it's actually a thing? If no terrorists managed to get the bomb during the deluge of corruption and broken bureaucracy that was the collapse of the USSR (yes, NATO and Pentagon, the Soviet Union also isn't a thing anymore), then none ever are.

    No nuclear country, be it Pakistan or anyone else, is dumb enough to hand over a nuke. Can you imagine the witch hunt that would ensue if someone turned a city into a mushroom cloud? Assuming WW3 didn't just start right then and there. No amount of money would make the certain risk of getting caught worth it.

    All that leaves is a dirty bomb, which is actually a whole lot of effort for something that is no better than an infinitely easier fertilizer bomb.

    Roger Smith , September 12, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    No. 3 Senate Democrat Schumer discloses pneumonia diagnosis [ AP ]. OMG It is the new Zika!!

    Jim Haygood , September 12, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Pneumonia is the new gout [afflictions of the posh].

    Jen , September 12, 2016 at 8:30 pm

    OMG – call the Washington Post! Another Democrat poisoned by the Russians!

    polecat , September 12, 2016 at 9:26 pm

    Ha --

    [Sep 14, 2016] Its not hard to see the thinking behind BIG from the Silicon Valley, elite perspective

    Notable quotes:
    "... A growing body of research indicates that the financial and psychological damage from a period of joblessness can be significant and long-lasting, especially for people who remain out of work for an extended period. ..."
    "... Friedman is just doing his job. The Saddam's WMDs paper endorsed Hillary on Jan 31st, and is part of the campaign of lies, deceptions and cover-ups. ..."
    "... As with television, it's healthier not to pollute one's mind with NYT propaganda. Reading the idiotic headlines is enough to realize that the "content" is crap. ..."
    "... Predictably, the comments on the NYT op-ed (by the "Suck on this, Iraq!" Friedman) are more thoughtful and reality-based than the author's column. ..."
    "... Libya and Syria and Ukraine were NOT just bad judgment calls. However, they were three consecutive bad judgment calls, with no good ones to offset. That still matters. ..."
    "... Libya and Syria and Ukraine were also lies, coming from the mouth of Hillary, and harming the country by tossing us into more wars. ..."
    "... I really wonder how Friedman and the other NYT Iraq war cheerleaders can look at themselves in the mirror each morning. And excellent point about Snowden, of course. ..."
    Jun 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    diptherio , June 1, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    It's not hard to see the thinking behind BIG from the Silicon Valley, elite perspective. They understand that putting everybody out of work from robotics or out-sourcing is a sure-fire way to create massive discontent. They think this is a clever way of keeping the losers contented (enough to not revolt) while maintaining their elevated position within the system. They don't care what the system looks like, really, just so long as they get to sit on top. They think this is a way to avert the revolution that they know, from reading Marx and thinking about it a little, their actions are sure to lead to, ceteris paribus .

    However, I think they underestimate the extent to which our continual trade deficits are predicated on the US dollar being the world's reserve currency. That status may not be in danger in the short term, but I think it's doomed to extinction over the medium term, as the BRICS and other countries maneuver their way out from under the thumb of the petro-dollar.

    But the up-side is that they're mainstreaming an MMT understanding of macroeconomics and, as old John used to say, "ideas have a way of taking on a life of their own." Also, some poor people might actually end up being benefited as a side-effect of the elites trying to keep the lower orders manageable. I mean, that's really what the New Deal was about, no? FDR wasn't fighting for the working man, he just realized that exploiting them too much could crash the whole system and be much worse for his class, the elites, than a little Social Security was. FDR wasn't looking to overturn class relations, but maintain them. He just had a more nuanced understanding of self-interest than many of his class peers (that oughta get some people fuming). Still, whatever the motivation, the programs had the practical effect of making a lot of people's lives better. Why shouldn't it be the same in this situation?

    Lambert Strether Post author , June 1, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Not that I'm foily, but if you combine the abolition of cash, BIG in the form of a digital deposit, retail tracking everywhere, and the precedent (from ObamaCare) of a mandate to participate in certain markets, you can concoct quite a dystopia….

    diptherio , June 1, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Yeah, the "BIG Brother" jokes are just too easy.

    I think we need to have a movement to defend cash. Small business owners should lead the charge, since card fees hit them the hardest. I see a possible coalition…anti-surveillance activists and guys like the owner of the pizza joint I frequent whose register bears a sign that reads "Cards accepted, Cash preferred."

    diptherio , June 1, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    Also, a BIG would be a great excuse to start-up the Postal Bank. Everybody will get an account tied to their SSN that their BIG gets deposited in, accessible (in cash) at any post office. It might just be sell-able…at least to the public, if not to Wall Street.

    Romancing the Loan , June 1, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    Take it another step and have "consumer choice" in lieu of voting. I like it; a good sci-fi writer needs to get on this.

    ChiGal , June 1, 2016 at 4:51 pm

    Whenever I hear about TPTB doing away with cash I am reminded of Margaret Atwood's prescient (from the 80s I think!) novel about a patriarchal dystopian future, The Handmaid's Tale – freezing the bank accounts is how it all started.

    aletheia33 , June 1, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    "A growing body of research indicates that the financial and psychological damage from a period of joblessness can be significant and long-lasting, especially for people who remain out of work for an extended period."

    quelle surprise! are poor, working, and middle-class people's well-being actually closely tied to how many days in their lives they can work? hoocoodanode?

    jrs , June 1, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    I hear they have really low well being in Europe with their 6 weeks vacations and way more holidays and stuff. They throw themselves off bridges at the start of every vacation season. Nah it's tied to having an income or not, not how many days they work.

    aletheia33 , June 1, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    right, thanks!

    i always forget about that because i've always worked as in independent contractor, staying sane by pretending benefits and paid holidays and vacations are not all that important in life. and i must say, lately i do see TPTB cashing in on my idea, bigtime. i should have placed some bets on that happening…

    polecat , June 1, 2016 at 9:50 pm

    I haven't worked a paying job for about 14 years….the wife works the day gig, while I maintain the abode, do household repairs, garden, tend to the bees & chickens…..etc. …… I'm 'working' my way on the downslope of collapse…'avoiding the rush' as John M Greer is fond of saying…..

    ….still sane!

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , June 1, 2016 at 3:26 pm

    That only happens to Sapiens humans.

    A cat's well-being is rarely tied to how many days it is out of work.

    Thus, I suspect either 1. we are not that superior or 2. we have been brainwashed.

    Or both.

    aletheia33 , June 1, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    i meant, in our current industrialized, work-ethic-based western society. which not coincidentally has had a lousy mental and physical health outcome for millions of people over time.
    but never mind. a rising water floats all boats.
    until it doesn't.

    C , June 1, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    'Hillary's fibs or lack of candor are all about bad judgments she made on issues that will not impact the future of either my family or my country. Private email servers? Cattle futures? Goldman Sachs lectures? All really stupid, but my kids will not be harmed by those poor calls. Debate where she came out on Iraq and Libya, if you will, but those were considered judgment calls, and if you disagree don't vote for her" [The Moustache of Understanding, New York Times]. You tell 'em, Tommy! Who cares about corruption? Corruption had nothing to do with Iraq!

    Of course they won't. You are well-off, well-connected, and work for a virtual organ of the state that has backed her every move. You and your framily are on the inside track and will of course be protected.

    It is everyone else that will be screwed.

    Jim Haygood , June 1, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    Friedman is just doing his job. The Saddam's WMDs paper endorsed Hillary on Jan 31st, and is part of the campaign of lies, deceptions and cover-ups.

    Journo-hos … the only surprise is that you can buy them so cheap.

    As with television, it's healthier not to pollute one's mind with NYT propaganda. Reading the idiotic headlines is enough to realize that the "content" is crap.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , June 1, 2016 at 3:44 pm

    Sounds like everyone should work for an organ (or a virtual organ, either way) of the state. Just make sure you're well-connected (the importance of being social – don't just bury yourself in books).

    Pavel , June 1, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Predictably, the comments on the NYT op-ed (by the "Suck on this, Iraq!" Friedman) are more thoughtful and reality-based than the author's column. Here is a sample:

    Thomas Friedman on lies that hurt the country? Let's start that with the Iraq War.

    I agree that the emails probably didn't hurt the country, even if they were illegal and even if she does lie about them. However, Snowden did not hurt the country either, he told the truth, and Hillary goes after him with a vengeance for doing that in ways that benefited the country, that the NYT of Pentagon Papers days should support. She does that even while she lies about her emails, and that is a relevant character issue for the power she seeks.

    Libya and Syria and Ukraine were NOT just bad judgment calls. However, they were three consecutive bad judgment calls, with no good ones to offset. That still matters.

    Libya and Syria and Ukraine were also lies, coming from the mouth of Hillary, and harming the country by tossing us into more wars.

    –NYT comment by Mark Thomason

    I really wonder how Friedman and the other NYT Iraq war cheerleaders can look at themselves in the mirror each morning. And excellent point about Snowden, of course.

    [Sep 14, 2016] Bill Black We Send Teachers to Prison for Rigging the Numbers, Why Not Bankers

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published with New Economic Perspectives ..."
    "... he's pursued abroad many also intuitively believe that there's no one who will hit back harder. There's some of that 'he may be a son-of-a-bitch but he's our son-of-a-bitch' quality to the president's support on national security issues. ..."
    "... Hence teachers weren't divisive enough and therefore are/were seen as part of the "problem". ..."
    Apr 02, 2015 | naked capitalism

    Yves here. One has to wonder if the prosecutorial investment in bringing down a public school test-cheating ring has less to do with concern about the students and more to do with charter schools.

    By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published with New Economic Perspectives

    The New York Times ran the story on April Fools' Day of a jury convicting educators of gaming the test numbers and lying about their actions to investigators.

    ATLANTA - In a dramatic conclusion to what has been described as the largest cheating scandal in the nation's history, a jury here on Wednesday convicted 11 educators for their roles in a standardized test cheating scandal that tarnished a major school district's reputation and raised broader questions about the role of high-stakes testing in American schools.

    On their eighth day of deliberations, the jurors convicted 11 of the 12 defendants of racketeering, a felony that carries up to 20 years in prison. Many of the defendants - a mixture of Atlanta public school teachers, testing coordinators and administrators - were also convicted of other charges, such as making false statements, that could add years to their sentences.

    This was complicated trial that took six months to present and required eight days of jury deliberations. It was a major commitment of investigative and prosecutorial resources. But it was not investigated and prosecuted by the FBI and AUSAs, but by state and local officials. In addition to the trial success, the prosecutors secured 21 guilty pleas.

    Atlanta's public schools, of course, did not engage in "the largest cheating scandal in the nation's history." The big banks' cheating scandals left the Atlanta educators in the dust.

    The two obvious questions are why the educators cheated and how they got caught. "High-stakes testing" cannot explain the scandal because we have had such tests for over 50 years. The article explains the real drivers – compensation, promotions, fear, and ego (aka "reputation").

    "Officials said the cheating allowed employees to collect bonuses and helped improve the reputations of both Dr. Hall and the perpetually troubled school district she had led since 1999.

    Investigators wrote in the report that Dr. Hall and her aides had 'created a culture of fear, intimidation and retaliation' that had permitted "cheating - at all levels - to go unchecked for years."

    Any reader familiar with my work should be running over in their mind Citigroup's vastly larger cheating frauds that senior managers produced by using exactly the same tactics to produce hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud.

    How did people become suspicious and decide to conduct a real investigation? They realized that the reported results were too good to be true. That too is directly parallel to Citi, where massive purchases of "liar's" loans known to be 90% fraudulent supposedly led to massive profits.

    The dozen educators who stood trial, including five teachers and a principal, were indicted in 2013 after years of questions about how Atlanta students had substantially improved their scores on the Criterion-Referenced Competency Test, a standardized examination given throughout Georgia.

    In 2009, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution started publishing a series of articles that sowed suspicion about the veracity of the test scores, and Gov. Sonny Perdue ultimately ordered an investigation.

    Wow, a newspaper did a series of articles, and documented a scandal built on deceit. Imagine if the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal were to do an "unsparing" investigation into banking fraud – and into Attorney General Eric Holder's refusal to prosecute. What if they actually looked at culpability in the C-suites?

    The inquiry, which was completed in 2011, led to findings that were startling and unsparing: Investigators concluded that cheating had occurred in at least 44 schools and that the district had been troubled by "organized and systemic misconduct." Nearly 180 employees, including 38 principals, were accused of wrongdoing as part of an effort to inflate test scores and misrepresent the achievement of Atlanta's students and schools.

    The investigators wrote that cheating was particularly ingrained in individual schools - at one, for instance, a principal wore gloves while she altered answer sheets - but they also said that the district's top officials, including Superintendent Beverly L. Hall, bore some responsibility.

    Dr. Hall, who died on March 2, insisted that she had done nothing wrong and that her approach to education, which emphasized data, was not to blame. "I can't accept that there's a culture of cheating," Dr. Hall said in an interview in 2011. "What these 178 are accused of is horrific, but we have over 3,000 teachers."

    But a Fulton County grand jury later accused her and 34 other district employees of being complicit in the cheating. Twenty-one of the educators reached plea agreements; two defendants, including Dr. Hall, died before they could stand trial.

    Of course, Hall's "approach to education" did not "emphasize data" – it emphasized faux data – like Citi's accounting alchemists under Robert Rubin who transmuted fraudulent net liabilities (liar's loans) into supposedly wondrously valuable assets that had zero risk (Super Senior CDO tranches).

    A more general point is in order. Atlanta is the culmination of destructive national trends and failing to mention Houston in the story was unfortunate. First, the "reinventing government" movement decided the public sector was bad and the private sector was magnificent and said that the public sector should adopt private sector approaches including quite specifically "performance pay" based on quantitative measures. This brought to the public sector the perverse incentives that were ruining the private sector and about to bring on Enron-era fraud epidemic and then the most recent three fraud epidemics. Second, we were assured by proponents of the change that a concern for "reputation" would trump any perverse incentives. What the proponents failed to see, of course, was that in both the private and public sectors the way to create a superb reputation was to report inflated data.

    Reputation, instead of the "trump" ensuring good conduct, was a leading motive to engage in bad conduct. Third, we were told that giving public administrators far more power to squash teachers was the key to success in education. Lord Acton warned that absolute power leads to absolute corruption whether in Atlanta or Citi's C-suite.

    Houston should have been mentioned because the modern movement toward educational fraud began in Houston under Rod Paige – who became Secretary of Education based on massive fraudulent misrepresentation of data. Paige kicked off the testing insanity, claiming it would produce objective, fact-based policies based on what educational measures actually worked. As a famous takedown of Paige's claims ends – the lesson is that it was too good to be true. President Bush, however, bought it hook, line, sinker, bobber, rod, and the boat Paige rowed out in.

    In any event, if Fulton County, Georgia can jail educators who lie and gimmick the data, Holder can send the elite bankers to prison on the same grounds.

    lakewoebegoner, April 2, 2015 at 10:41 am

    *** One has to wonder if the prosecutorial investment in bringing down a public school test-cheating ring has less to do with concern about the students and more to do with charter schools. ***

    I believe it's even simpler than that…..prosecuting teachers is perfect fodder for the local 11 o'clock news-you're prosecuting publiclly paid low-hanging fruit, the crime is understandable (versus explaining accounting fraud or intentional misvaluation of assets) and of course-my gosh, think of the children!

    NotTimothyGeithner, April 2, 2015 at 11:07 am

    Local DAs have incentive to prosecute large cases, and Holder made sure to make token plea deals with the banks. A successful state AG who brought down a major financial player would destroy the Obama Administration just by existing two years into the first term because there would be no excuse. Plenty of loyal Team Blue voters if pressed will explain the lack of prosecution as a GOP plot, but with a counter example in the papers they would be more demoralized than they are.

    RUKidding, April 2, 2015 at 12:11 pm

    Neither Team Blue or Team Red voters want to confront reality and truly see and acknowledge what's going on. The crooks in the District of Criminals have perfected their Kabuki Show of "hiding" behind each other's skirts and blaming the other side for all kinds of ills and perfidy. Tribalistic authoritarians can be lazy and not have to think for themselves and really DO something; just pass the clicker; lets all watch some "reality" tv show instead. Talk about the matrix….

    An example is my rightwing family members just recently celebrating quite a bit that Harry Reid has announced his retirement – as IF that'll be this amazingly good thing. Like: what will happen then? HOW, exactly, will "things get better" just bc they can't kick Harry Reid around anymore.

    Disclaimer: no love lost on my part vis Harry Reid. He's as much of a crook and worthless waste of space as all of the others, no matter which Team Jacket they wear. My take? What possible difference will it make if Reid retires or stays in the Senate indefinitely?

    RUKidding, April 2, 2015 at 10:59 am

    Teachers have no money. Bankers have a TON of money. Sucks to be in the 99s.

    Good comments. Right now, too, teachers have been deliberately painted to be the evilest of the vile because unions! get paid too much! can't be fired! blah de blah…. it's something easy for the masses to grasp – all those dreadful overpaid teachers who can't be fired "robbing" us of our taxes, while allegedly doing a totally shitty job. Yeah right. Of course privatized school teachers would most definitely do a "better" jawb.

    It's all "look over there!!!!!" while the bankers are the ones robbing us blind deaf dumb stupid etc.

    And yes, Charter Schools! Another way for the crooks at the top to rip off the 99s! woot!

    And the beat down goes on…..

    djrichard, April 2, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    I remember back when the Supreme Court was debating W vs Gore, I put it to my neighbors that W would be under the influence of big oil and other powers that be. One of my neighbors countered that Gore would be under the influence of teachers. I was the minority opinion in that conversation.

    RUKidding, April 2, 2015 at 12:14 pm

    No love lost on my part vis Gore, but seriously??? LIke Gore is "under the influence" of teachers??? Yeah, unions, but really? Like it's just so ridiculous. Teachers v Big Oil. Uh, er, that's pretty much like David v Goliath, but in this case Goliath/BigOil has totally crushed David/the 99s.

    djrichard, April 2, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    I'm surprised I found this, but I think this captures it.

    Bush's bully-boy campaign tactics play to his strengths, albeit unstated and unlovely ones. Many of the polls of the president have shown that while people don't necessarily agree with the specific policies he's pursued abroad many also intuitively believe that there's no one who will hit back harder. There's some of that 'he may be a son-of-a-bitch but he's our son-of-a-bitch' quality to the president's support on national security issues.

    This was from W v Kerry days. But I think the same principle was operating during W v Gore. During 2004, the idea was to continue to inflict W on the middle east. During 2000, I think the idea was to inflict W on the "deserving elements" inside the US (whatever those deserving elements are/were at the time).

    Teachers if anything represent a "big tent" mind-set, one in which there are no losers, or vice-versa one in which everyone is deserving of winning. Hence teachers weren't divisive enough and therefore are/were seen as part of the "problem".

    [Sep 13, 2016] Croatias election is a warning about the return of nationalism to the Balkans

    Far right nationalism is essentially an externality caused of neoliberal globalization. that means that neoliberalism inevitably produces a splash of virulent far right nationalism in countries were the standard of living dropped considerably and unemployment hit high marks.
    The author failed to mention neoliberalism and the crisis of neoliberal globalization even once. What a sucker. Very few of Guardian commenter realized that this we are now facing with a strong, driven by nationalism, backlash to neoliberal globalization. In this case with neoliberals represented by EU bureaucrats.
    Notable quotes:
    "... There goes Mason again -- spouting his pro-global fascist bile as though he were some Socialist hero. ..."
    "... Sovereign nations are the ONLY bulwark against the banking cartel's now-obvious global tyranny of debt servitude. ..."
    "... I always seems hypocritical to slate nationalism in one breath and celebrate cultural diversity in the next. Given that most cultures in existence are very much defined by national identity...you have only to look at how people define themselves...'progressives' find themselves constantly having to square the circle of protecting cultures whilst trying to eliminate nations. ..."
    "... conservative and middle of the road parties (and for a long time this included Labour) pushed an agenda that favoured the rich, and left the middle class by the wayside. If you want to find the cheerleaders of globalism you don't have to look much further than most of the world's conservative parties. Far right (or far left) parties aren't very successful in democracies in which people come before profit. ..."
    "... Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state, undermining ethnic unity, using well meaning liberal fools to make true government impossible and preventing people from achieving their natural greatness. ..."
    "... Funny stuff to read. There is no Croatia as a independent state. It is owned by multinational companies. Everything is foreign except forests and drinking water. The is no Croatian independent army - Croatian army is a part of NATO. ..."
    "... There is no independent government left or right since everything they do is to listen to their masters from Brussels who are slaping then while they are amassing wealth by means of corruption. ..."
    "... Now that the global economy is shaken, the olden demons have crawled out of the woodwork ..."
    "... They also seem a bit lost on Mussolini, a man they compare to Trump on an incessant basis (I cringe a little each time I read it). This a man who, in his Fascist Manifesto, advocated in favour of the minimum wage, pandering to the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and abolishing the upper-chamber. Does that sound 'far-right' to you? ..."
    "... Adolf Hitler, 1927: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." ..."
    "... perhaps it's a case of the EU reaping what it's sowed? let's face the leading members of the eu at the time - in particular Germany - did all they could to hasten the break up of Yugoslavia. The 'state' of Croatia was a construct of the nazis in the first place ..."
    "... in 1992, before the war in Bosnia started, Europe sent Jose Cutilleiro to broker a peace deal. He did it and all three sides (Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims) signed it and the collective sigh of relief could be heard on the Moon. But then Warren Zimmerman, US diplomat, called the leader of Bosnian Muslims for a talk that lasted five days and after that, Alija Izetbegovic retracted his signature, a Muslim killed a Serb in Sarajevo, the first shots were fired after that and the war started...you were saying something about Americans imposing peace? ..."
    "... The huge elephant in the room is NATO. A highly corrupt, highly undemocratic institution that has long acted like the world police, meddling everywhere and funding tyrants which won't stop until it completes its aim of full globalisation. It actively aims to flood Europe with migrants without giving democratic elected governments a say. You think Juncker is bad, well he is, but read up on Peter Sutherland and other shady characters in NATO. Until NATO is somehow brought under control nationalism will continue to rise. ..."
    Sep 12, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    kaboobly , 2016-09-13 00:46:42
    There goes Mason again -- spouting his pro-global fascist bile as though he were some Socialist hero.

    Sovereign nations are the ONLY bulwark against the banking cartel's now-obvious global tyranny of debt servitude.

    The more sovereign nations and centres of sovereign power we have, the more insulated we are from the kind of global fascism that Mason, being the snake oil salesman he is, peddles.

    Ubermensch1 , 2016-09-13 00:26:03
    I always seems hypocritical to slate nationalism in one breath and celebrate cultural diversity in the next. Given that most cultures in existence are very much defined by national identity...you have only to look at how people define themselves...'progressives' find themselves constantly having to square the circle of protecting cultures whilst trying to eliminate nations.

    Perhaps the resultant cultural homelessness is just as much a cause of issues as is nationalism in itself.

    AndrewJB -> hugodegauche , 2016-09-13 01:26:36
    For me the reason nationalist parties are doing well is that conservative and middle of the road parties (and for a long time this included Labour) pushed an agenda that favoured the rich, and left the middle class by the wayside. If you want to find the cheerleaders of globalism you don't have to look much further than most of the world's conservative parties. Far right (or far left) parties aren't very successful in democracies in which people come before profit.

    As for Weimar, since you brought it up. Fascism wasn't voted into power. A group of bankers and industrialists (conservatives) persuaded the German president to make Hitler the chancellor. The rest is history. As a darkly humorous coda, one of the high ups in the Reichsbank was interviewed after the war and asked why he helped do this - considering the awful things Hitler had been saying. His answer was along the lines of; 'we didn't think he was serious about that...'

    ArabinPatson , 2016-09-13 01:02:58
    Mason is right of course. I do fear a repeat of history. One thing that strikes me looking at the nationalist conspiracy theorists is how familiar it is. I've been looking a lot recently at the far right since the end of the 19th century up to World War 2. It's basically the same guff that Ukippers spout.

    Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state, undermining ethnic unity, using well meaning liberal fools to make true government impossible and preventing people from achieving their natural greatness.

    The only real difference is that at the time the bastards used the Jews to personify a global conspiracy of the wealthy and now they use the more malleable "elite". It's a much more flexible term. Disagree with me and using facts? You are part of a metropolitan bubble or academic ivory tower etc...Also big difference is that at the time they did have to stand on a street corner to spout their bile and risk a scrap. Now it's swamping the comments section of a left wing newspaper. Much safer if a bit more cowardly.

    Marko Tom , 2016-09-13 09:44:17
    Funny stuff to read. There is no Croatia as a independent state. It is owned by multinational companies. Everything is foreign except forests and drinking water. The is no Croatian independent army - Croatian army is a part of NATO.

    There is no independent government left or right since everything they do is to listen to their masters from Brussels who are slaping then while they are amassing wealth by means of corruption.

    Result is 53% of turnout in elections. People don't care or try to chance something that is impossible to change.

    We are a nation of 4 million - a great threat to core values of EU where everything is great. Kick us out and enjoy your multiculturalism - I will rather take my dog for a walk not having to the lock the door in my house...

    Moreni , 2016-09-13 03:32:43
    Now that the global economy is shaken, the olden demons have crawled out of the woodwork and the inherently Fascist nations (the ones who chose militarist authoritarianism or totalitarianism on their own before WWII) are reverting to type. Croatia, Poland, Hungary, Finland, the Baltic states.
    We can only hope Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Germany, Romania, and Bulgaria can find the inner strength to resist this temptation to regress.
    PrivatiseMorality , 2016-09-13 06:20:41
    Just once, I'd love for a Guardian 'journalist' to define what 'far-right' means; it's, by some distance, their most commonly used slur. I know they think it's a pejorative term, but what alludes them is it's the precise definition of anarchism or extreme individualism. They seem to think it's a synonym for 'racist.'

    It probably has something to do with the fact they've been taught history's worst tyrant was 'far-right' because, well, 'he was waycist.' Except, what they've failed to notice is

    1. the name of his party
    2. the fact he was a ruthless statist and advocated supreme state-control
    3. he despised laissez-faire capitalism
    4. he hated liberal individualism.
    5. racism isn't a political policy and the left doesn't oppose racism, it merely opposes racism against non-white people 6. he was a self-avowed socialist!

    They also seem a bit lost on Mussolini, a man they compare to Trump on an incessant basis (I cringe a little each time I read it). This a man who, in his Fascist Manifesto, advocated in favour of the minimum wage, pandering to the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and abolishing the upper-chamber. Does that sound 'far-right' to you?

    His manifesto reads like the manifesto of a modern progressive party (which is why the progressives of the 20's championed him). It just demonstrates how utterly narrative driven progressive politics is; then again, those who live by narrative die by narrative.

    PrivatiseMorality -> Omniscience , 2016-09-13 06:36:12
    Adolf Hitler, 1927: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

    He basically sounds like your modern-day progressive.

    Leigh Richards , 2016-09-13 06:36:12
    perhaps it's a case of the EU reaping what it's sowed? let's face the leading members of the eu at the time - in particular Germany - did all they could to hasten the break up of Yugoslavia. The 'state' of Croatia was a construct of the nazis in the first place FFS!
    nishville , 2016-09-13 11:29:15
    It was, ultimately, US diplomacy that imposed the peace of 1995.

    in 1992, before the war in Bosnia started, Europe sent Jose Cutilleiro to broker a peace deal. He did it and all three sides (Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims) signed it and the collective sigh of relief could be heard on the Moon. But then Warren Zimmerman, US diplomat, called the leader of Bosnian Muslims for a talk that lasted five days and after that, Alija Izetbegovic retracted his signature, a Muslim killed a Serb in Sarajevo, the first shots were fired after that and the war started...you were saying something about Americans imposing peace?

    twiglette , 2016-09-12 22:04:44
    They used to say of the Balkans that it is like tectonic plates building up pressure one against the other. Eventually they will explode again. This seems likely.
    Huddsblue -> ArabinPatson , 2016-09-13 01:10:27
    "Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state, undermining ethnic unity"

    That's not a conspiracy theory, that's the truth. The far-right are opportunistic vultures of course but people's concerns are very real, even if most of them don't know the full facts. Who does?

    Huddsblue , 2016-09-13 01:01:53
    The huge elephant in the room is NATO. A highly corrupt, highly undemocratic institution that has long acted like the world police, meddling everywhere and funding tyrants which won't stop until it completes its aim of full globalisation. It actively aims to flood Europe with migrants without giving democratic elected governments a say. You think Juncker is bad, well he is, but read up on Peter Sutherland and other shady characters in NATO. Until NATO is somehow brought under control nationalism will continue to rise. Chilling.
    DanijelS, 2016-09-13 11:20:21
    It is not true that announced referendum in Republika Srpska is about independence. It is actually to check people's opinion about constitutional court that forbidding Serbs to celebrate 09 January as National Day - just one more decision in a row made exclusively to further lower Serb autonomy in region guaranteed by peace agreement.
    nishville, 2016-09-13 11:17:51
    Just across the mountains lies Republika Srpska – the Serb enclave created in the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Dayton Agreement in 1995, after a bitter civil war. Republika Srpska's leaders are threatening to hold a referendum on independence, which would blow up the deal that has brought peace to the region for 20 years.

    In response, Croatia's politicians have upped the rhetoric..

    Three paragraphs, that is how long I had to wait for the first "It's actually Serbs' Fault" bit. Croatia has no interest in Republika Srpska at the moment, and if it does, it is observing its moves to eventually copy them and get out of the very uncomfortable partnership with Bosnian Muslims whom they see as a much greater threat, so mr. Mason completely missed the mark - I would have a word with the researchers if I was him, this is quite embarrassing.

    Croatia is silently desensitizing EU for a very long time: a mass for fascist leader Pavelic here, a monument to an ustasha terrorist there, a nazi minister yesterday, releasing a war criminal today - little by little, Croatia is being nazified under the nose of EU officials.

    It all started in 1990 and never stopped. Imagine the German Jews waking up one morning discovering the German constitution has been altered to exclude them from sharing the equal rights with the rest and that Nazi money, flags and other symbols are reinstated and that even some old Nazi politicians are brought from abroad to take positions in the government - all that happened to Croatian Serbs in 1990, the regime that killed 200 000 of them in 1941 seemed to be resurrected. Worse even, nobody in Europe minded that Croatian defense minister Susak openly uses Nazi salute and the rest of them lionizes the Nazi Independent State of Croatia.

    It is happening again, in Croatia, Hungary and Poland and again EU doesn't react so I start to think that EU actually doesn't mind Nazis at all.

    KaeruJim , 2016-09-13 11:17:18
    I think some countries are just more susceptible to nationalism than others. It's no accident that among the activist demographic, Paul is citing 40% unemployment.

    Nationalism and fascism are growing forces across the world.

    It is a highly complex issue, but the source of hatred towards others and the exultation of the "you and yours" is fear and insecurity. It is an animalistic response, a tribalism within our DNA.

    To my mind, there are some simple pillars of resistance. Education, of course. A significant reduction in inequality, and the reintroduction of hope particularly to young men. A fair crack of the whip for all.

    But the big point for me that people miss is the complete lack of a narrative from the developed world, except dog-eat-dog, individualism, selfishness and false utopia of wealth generation. Nationalism and fascism have a story, have a decisive message. It is seductive to those who are lost.

    Until the developed world can find what it really stands for (and don't tell me it's "democracy and freedom" because neither is fully true), our society will continue to fracture and the next world war will edge ever closer.

    Miljenko Šimić , 2016-09-13 11:08:48
    This article gets it wrong. There is not a single Member of the Croatian Parliament, who could be labeled as "far right", or anybody resembling Farrage, the BNP, Marine Le Pen, or the Italian Right, where memorial services for Mussolini are casually being held. Croatian politics has no right wing, period.
    MisterBreeze -> Miljenko Šimić , 2016-09-13 11:14:45
    Bullshit dude, you're flat out lying. There are Pavelić and Ustaša memorials all over the country, masses held, za dom spremni ustaša in football stands without any action by the police or politics. There are proponents of this policy in the Sabor, luckily less now than before, so if you're trying to preach to the British, you lose. Delete your account.
    Leigh Richards -> MisterBreeze , 2016-09-13 11:24:04
    um with all due respect Zlatko Hasanbegović is certainly someone in the Croat parliament with fascist and ustashe sympathies.
    jibs , 2016-09-13 11:02:57
    Shows exactly how 'European values' repetitively thrown at us as the founding blocks of the EU, are pretty meaningless in reality. The standards to which Turkey must adhere according to EU whims are far different to those of Balkan entities (nicely 'Christian' and unlike Cyprus, unequivocally 'European' in geography).

    OK to low standards from member states, but not OK to higher standards than some members from Turkey. And yet this is all about 'values', such as fundamental rights, justice, education, which have to be anchored in perceived religion and the paranoia of those who don't know who they are unless a national identity is legislated for them.

    Marko Topolnik , 2016-09-13 10:30:18
    This article completely ignores the fact that the right-wing HDZ leader, Karamarko, is now long and gone. The new leader Plenkovic has 180-degree opposite rhetoric, which is typical of HDZ in general, a party without a consistent left-right positioning. It arose as a populist movement to form independent Croatia.
    MisterBreeze -> Marko Topolnik , 2016-09-13 11:16:51
    The new leader of the HDZ was elected with the same majority of the same people as the previous Karamarko. Plenković is a facade behind the same pro-fascist, criminal organization as before. HDZ has from the outset been positioned right, and surprisingly the least right during Tuđman, former Tito general and communist.
    Sevenfold1 scliffe , 2016-09-13 11:04:00
    Utter tosh - Britain voted for Brexit as it is sick & tired of being dictated to be unelected undemocratic Brussels bureaucrats & the ECJ. The United States of Europe project is an corpse that has not the intelligence to realise it is dying & the sooner the better. If the EU reverted in being purely a trading arrangement rather than a supra-national political ideal it may still have a miniscule chance of survival but with cretins like Juncker, Tusk et al in charge - no chance. The sooner we exercise Article 50 & begin the divorce proceedings the better.
    MissSarajevo , 2016-09-13 08:51:36
    So out of touch, Mr. Mason or is it a slow day at the office? Where to start?!? Perhaps go back to the nineties when Franjo Tudjman spoke to the crowds and declared "thank God my wife is neither a Serb or a Jew". Europe praised him and supported his ethnic cleansing of more than 250.000 Serbs from the Krajina. Successive Croat governments have rehabilitated war criminals from WWII and renamed squares and streets after racist butchers. In the meantime Europe has aided and abetted whether by actively participating or by ignoring what is going on. You need to read a lot more about the situation and stop weaving the Russians into this mess. It is the EU and US mess. The solution should e looked for st their door!
    everyusernamiinuse , 2016-09-13 07:53:10
    Xenophobic croatians? They are trying to uphold those millions of demanding invaders so you can peacefully write bull like this in your north london garden. They were happy to recover from the war and now they are cracking again under the financial burden of the illegal immigrant crisis. Rampant corruption in Croatia? Your whole elite is in bed with Saudies and Russian oligarchs. London is the moneylaundering capital of the world a safehaven for crooks.
    Sorry4Soul , 2016-09-13 06:03:53
    Didn't graun know this ? Croatia has long been a 'frontier post' of European 'civilisation'. Fascist tendency is well known trait in Croatian society(just as Nationalism has in Serbia). Anyone with the basic knowledge on Balkans is aware of this.

    Anyway to be honest I am not at all surprised with such 'articles' where the author gets sos surprised after similar things happen. It occurred in -
    1. In post Qaddafi Libya graun was 'surprised' to know that rebels have islamist leaning (leaning my a**, they ARE hardcore islamists)
    2. In post Yanukovich Ukraine when after so many failed attempts to cover things up they had to publish some articles saying battalions like Aidar, Azov 'like' to use fascist symbols(it's expected from fascists, isn't it ? )
    3. They still haven't admitted that 'moderates' in Syria are not exactly moderates. I guess they will admit it only if Assad is overthrown.

    Madranon , 2016-09-13 04:26:51
    Democracy is like asking a question that you don't want to know the answer.
    Martin Ven Moreni , 2016-09-13 03:40:31
    Don't forget the UK.
    Corto Maltese , 2016-09-13 03:31:43
    "Russian money has poured not just into Serbia but into Republika Srpska, too, together with increased diplomatic influence." Yes, but more investments are coming from the West (Fiat, Michelin, Mondelez, Microsoft, etc.) with substantial governments sponsored infrastructure projects coming from UAE and EU. Why is successful nationhood of Balkan states almost explicitly linked with complete alignment with either East or West? Why is not normal to trade freely and be "politically and diplomatically influenced" by both sides? Or, it could be exclusively reserved right for, for example, Britain that now looks to China as a post-Brexit alternative. No matter how media is trying to portrait the Russian influence in the region, the fact is that Balkan countries are well seated in the heart of Europe, with no intention to pack and leave.

    What is cosmetically used as a divisive material by the local political parties in the Balkans for their daily use, is usually propelled by the media as an undeniable proof that "old Balkan ghosts" are back. The ordinary people are tired of political rhetoric, amplified by sensations hungry media. By looking for the change, they might be ending with the same result, election after election, but nations of the region are not interested in yet another geostrategic trap, full of sacrifices for the sake of big players. They want peace and a chance to make a dignified living.

    philipsiron , 2016-09-13 02:15:43
    This is actually we fear from the neolib hype of their attention to the young generation =

    Meanwhile, young people across the region try to live in a cannabis-softened, networked dreamworld – where electronic dance music or Pokémon Go replace the national and political identities formed 20 years ago.

    ZeleznaSparta , 2016-09-13 01:46:46
    I remember during the various Balkan wars the region was frequently described as an 'historical fault-line'. There was then something of a revisionist backlash that disputed that such a thing existed and asserted that the antagonism between various groups went back no further than the rise of romantic nationalism in the 1800s.

    Actually, there is a fault-line, but not the one that many people imagine (i.e Christian/Muslim or Occidental/Oriental). The division is between different Slav groups; one the one hand, those like the Slovenes and Croats who are traditionally Catholic and consider themselves part of the West, and on the other the Serbs, Macedonians and Montenegrins who generally see themselves as part of an Orthodox, 'authentically' Slavic community with Russia at its head. Much the same division is found further North and is fed by both Russian historiography that sees the country as the guardian of Slavdom - the big brother to various smaller nations - and by the instinctive Western view that the 'other' is fundamentally uncivilised (or at least un-modern).

    My own country (the Czech Republic) is a good example of this. Far from seeing ourselves as part of some great Slav family except in the most abstract sense, most Czechs take their cues from Berlin, Paris, London and Washington and see Russians as somewhat backward and uncouth (an impression reinforced by the presence of the Red Army here for nearly 50 years. Believe me, if you'd seen the poor bastards up close, you wouldn't fear them so much as pity them). But go to Minsk or even parts of Eastern Slovakia and you'll find opinions that are the polar opposite of the above. For various historical reasons, the same attitudes are amplified in the Balkans so that you have a situation where peoples who are ethnically almost identical end up hating each other to the point of violence.

    On a different note, it is strange that the legacy of colonialism is used to excuse almost anything in the developing world but Turkish domination of the Balkans and the impact that that had on the cultural development and outlook of the various peoples there - the Serbs in particular - is virtually never factored in as a reason for people killing each other in large numbers. It is almost as if some people think that Europeans should know better...

    MdNvS1 Huddsblue , 2016-09-13 01:56:37
    Globalization is happening with or without NATO. Technology and science progressed, the world is connected, the differences are melting. Isolation never ends well. On topic: Croatia is in NATO and there are no refugees here.
    SpeedyWeasel , 2016-09-13 01:01:28
    The EU is Balkanising Europe with a helping hand from Merkel. Ethnic and geopolitical conflict is our future, simply look at the polls in western European states. "Nationalism" is the modern lefts boogie man. Maybe if the left (and let's be honest, center right) stopped with their ludicrous immigration policies there would be less hardline national sentiment. Multiculturalism is not some sort of human right, it's a political ideology, and it will come apart.
    naiverealist , 2016-09-13 00:10:05
    The EU is doing great things for all the med countries, building strong economies with good prospects for young people and promoting peace and democracy on its borders, why the concern?
    ashinkar naiverealist , 2016-09-13 00:15:49
    "...promoting peace and democracy..." LOL
    naiverealist ashinkar , 2016-09-13 00:20:59
    Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, the Balkans, Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, they are being imbued with the spirit of European free thought and values, the sort of liberal tolerance you will only find in great countries like France, why are you laughing?
    Buckquoy781 , 2016-09-13 00:05:01
    It is disturbing that here as in the UK with Farage and Brexit and lePen in France etc(long list of nasty pieces of work) nationalism is resurgent.It differs little from the Fascism of the 30s in its glorification of the nation state and hatred of foreigners. Europe has to face this down in any way it can or we will repeat the mistakes of last century and get embroiled in a conflict that only the pedlars of hate would welcome.
    pithea Buckquoy781 , 2016-09-13 00:15:50
    How do you work out that an appreciation of your own culture and national identity equates to a hatred of foreigners? Why would it?
    maias , 2016-09-13 00:03:53
    If nationalism is bad then what do the Olympics and the World Cup do every four years except inspire nationalism?
    Riverside61 , 2016-09-13 00:00:10
    On this issue the guardian ,Mason and below the line comment are out of their depth by a mile, far to complicated/sensitive an issue, which demands a great deal of historical knowledge and cultural /political /religious/ethnic awareness .
    RoseSelavyyy , 2016-09-12 23:50:48
    A lot of points here raised, none of them expanded on.

    Croatia is in the title, yet, you mention Bosnia, Republika Srpska, Macedonia... the Balkans, as you like to call this region, is a complex, many layered thing... Puting Republika Srpska together with Macedonia or Croatia is something like comparing Tunisia, Syria and Pakistan (not that these two regions are of the same relevance, just making the point that garbling these countries together and explaining each in a few sentences isn't doing any of them justice).

    Some things pointed out are plain wrong. For instance: "...the likely outcome is a coalition of the same old "centrist" parties – nationalists and social democrats." Not gonna happen. The so-called nationalists have never ever formed a coalition with the so called social democrats, nor will they in the near future.

    And last, but not the least: "If Europe wants to make the Balkans work, it needs to understand the limits of its current approach." What does that even mean? What Europe? You seem to label Croatia as nationalist, and leaning in a fascist direction, and yet you name Europe as the one to control us? Who? Hungary? Poland? Germany with its rise of AFD? I don't think Europe has the moral high ground to meddle here, and I don't see what would even be accomplished by it. Unless there are gross human rights violations all of sudden, of course.

    For the time being, I think everyone should concentrate on sorting out their own countries.

    People in Croatia are fed up with the status quo. Same old politicians for years, with same old policies, and if someone seemingly new pops up it turns out it was the same old garbage all over again. That is the reason behind low turnout. And whenever there is a low turnout in Croatia, the right parties gain ground, because they have a very disciplined electorate. They tell then to vote for God and country and so they do.

    wellmyword , 2016-09-12 23:47:52
    Sadly or more like, quite fortunately, this piece is not about Russia.

    It is a piece aimed at asserting the rational over certain ingrained ethnic rivalries. Good.

    We have seen enough of nationalism and inter racial ethnic division. It bought all those peoples nothing but bad.

    Yes. Membership of the EU should not be taken for granted. There should be certain criteria which the political leaders of applicant states ahould adhere and adhere they must. There should be no compromise. No compromise! ("No Surrender").

    If they want the advantages which membership of the single market can bestow, then they must accept the civil rights which are bestowed on it's newly adopted citizens.

    If the Croats under rheir nationaliatic and chauvanistic government ignore this general perspective, rhen they are indeed, unfit. If they can't respect former adversaries. If they refuse to acknowledge their past, well, don't let them join (Never, never, never!).

    mishkoyu , 2016-09-12 23:32:34
    Macedonia's political elite is indeed corrupt to the bone but the country is certainly not "mired in ethnic conflict" whatever that means Paul. Do some bloody research.

    And your implicit assumption that national chauvinism is somehow a typically Balkan event says a lot about your thought process. Know that the EU will not do anything about Croatia's hard right because it's nice to have someone to do your dirty work on the border zones while you play the honest liberal. It takes a genuine left! wing government to really upset someone in Brussels.

    KikideMontparnasse mishkoyu , 2016-09-12 23:50:54
    Well, some of the nasty rethoric like calling Serbs "misery" actually came from the popular leader on the left this time, who lost. It's too confusing to put it all in one article.
    But, in Macedonia, there were problems, right? Between Macedonians and Albanians, only last year.
    Aheadoftime SimonBrennock , 2016-09-13 00:16:53
    Those who lend the money can smell the global rise in socialism a mile off - no wonder they are driving the wars the wars in Middle East - which drives the desperate and displaced into Europe - which starts the rise in hard right politics... It's so obvious and yet it happens every time.
    loopool KikideMontparnasse , 2016-09-13 00:09:00
    Well if the US (Clinton) hadn't directed the EU to get involved in Ukraine and incite a revolution then Putin wouldn't have had to get involved to protect his naval base and the ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Then the US wouldn't have had a cause to start trade sanctions and piss of Mr Putin. In which case Mr Putin wouldn't probably have had the motivation to start cold war games again.

    Anyway I am sure Mrs Clinton has had a very large cheque from the US defense industry who are the ultimate sponsors of US war games.

    Gort Roxx , 2016-09-12 23:18:07
    What about Ukraine Paul, we've seen open nazism there since the day the Americans coopted the Maiden coup, oh I forgot that nasty Mr Putin made them do it ...
    Michael Pavel Kuchkovsky KikideMontparnasse , 2016-09-13 00:01:50
    Their fascist rhetoric comes straight from them with no need of a Russian proxy. Talented bunch.
    happystory , 2016-09-12 23:16:57
    HOW THE MEDIA REPORTS THE NEWS:

    Austrian far right nationalist win with anti-EU, anti-refugee, anti-immigration campaign = Austrian right-wing party wins.

    German far right nationalist win with anti-EU, anti-refugee, anti-immigration campaign = German right-wing party wins.

    Danish far right nationalist win with anti-EU, anti-refugee, anti-immigration campaign = Danish right-wing party wins.

    Swedish far right nationalist win with anti-EU, anti-refugee, anti-immigration campaign = Swedish right-wing party wins.

    French far right nationalist win with anti-EU, anti-refugee, anti-immigration campaign = French right-wing party wins.

    Croatian right-wing party wins = NATIONALISM ON THE RISE IN THE BALKANS AGAIN.

    CAN ANYBODY SPOT A FLAW HERE???????

    Akkarrin , 2016-09-12 23:13:34
    Guardian cried nationalism at Scots who just wanted rid of the tories and Westminster government

    its difficult for me to trust any article from guar which includes the word nationalism

    it could well be nationalism which is driving this.... but guar has a history of demonstrating that it does not even come close to grasping the basic meaning of the word

    pithea Akkarrin , 2016-09-12 23:31:44
    The Guardian is 'multiculturalist'. Multiculturalism means absolutely nothing at all and is a thoroughly discredited idea/l. IMO it is a vehicle for the alienation of individuals from each other and the destruction of the bond, i.e. culture, that holds them together and, in most cases, has been constructed over thousands of years. Destruction of culture and language has always been the weapon of choice in the imperialists' subjection project. People will fight back.
    bonkthebonk , 2016-09-12 23:04:26
    Nationalism, as the, increasingly centralised, distant, authoritarian, democratically deficient EU becomes more and more politically focused and powerful, will simply grow and grow.

    Political and financial elites across the EU live in mortal fear of referenda for a very good reason.

    DonJuan , 2016-09-12 22:59:57
    Supporting the break up of Yugoslavia was the worse mistake the European powers ever made since 1945. And approving the independence of Kosovo probably the second. On what grounds do they think now they can oppose the independence of Republika Srpska? The continued harassment and gratuitous confrontation of certain EU states against Russia won't help either.
    loopool DonJuan , 2016-09-12 23:30:44
    Europe is tending towards break up as countries start to align back to their historical roots. Look at a map of Europe now compared with 30 years ago. Don't forget all the regional tensions, the Basques, Catalans, and I hear 20 other similar situations across Europe. Meanwhile Project EU thinks it can create a single Europe. It's laughable.
    MasalBugduv DonJuan , 2016-09-13 00:05:03
    The break up of Yugoslavia looks stupider by the day.
    loopool Warpfactor10 , 2016-09-12 23:41:12
    We have no influence or control over the EU. It is run by Germany and their puppets in Brussels. The actual purpose of the euro politicians is to create a single country called Europe. One currency, one legal system, one army, open borders, etc. Sovereign control will be gradually stripped from individual countries and passed to Brussels. But of course it is completely corrupt and mismanaged and it is only a matter of time before it collapses. At least we had the balls to brexit.
    AlexSpy , 2016-09-12 22:21:31
    These things are really serious and they are happening all over the democratic world. We can end up with Trump on one end and myriad far right or crypto far right governments in Europe. It is a complete failure of our political economic and educational system.
    I honestly believe that representational democracy as we know it is on its last breath.
    LiviaDrusilla AlexSpy , 2016-09-12 22:28:34
    "The truth is that men are tired of liberty." - Benito Mussolini.

    And he should know.

    PrivatiseMorality JezzasBaconButtie , 2016-09-12 22:24:07
    Why do you create a distinction between the left and fascism? Fascism, as advocated by The National Socialist German Workers Party and Mussolini, adored statism (state-control).

    The left is about ever-increasing state power, the right is about individualism ('far-right', a term used as a pejorative, actually means anarchy, Hitler was a megalomaniacal control freak). The fascists are on record time and time again expressing their hatred of laissez-faire capitalism and liberal individualism.

    Mussolini's manifesto - which advocates the minimum wage, pandering to the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and abolishing the upper-chamber - reads like a manifesto for a modern-day progressive party. Why? Because it was self-proclaimed 'progressives', in the 20s, who supported it.

    Steiger , 2016-09-12 22:13:54
    The EU has made small regions feel powerless and provoked more nationalism, just look at the tensions within the UK, Spain, Italy before you even start with the Balkans. The Balkans have been forced to be the frontline in a blockade for a mismanaged German refugee crisis. All these eastern european economies are mostly basket cases that joining the EU won't save. Indeed with EU free movement of labour they'll find all their young talent gone looking for opportunities abroad but maybe that's what they want?
    PrivatiseMorality , 2016-09-12 22:10:28
    Why does the Guardian conflate every expression of nationalism with fascism? It's a bit like conflating an instance of one white police officer shooting one black person with systemic racism - it doesn't fit. It's childlike.

    We are nationalist. It's not whether we should be, we are. We have a border, we unite behind symbols, we have a national anthem, a national Parliament, a national health service and a national language. I don't believe 'Britishness' is quantifiable, however I also, unlike The Guardian, realise it exists; much in the same way 'love' can't quantified, but many accept it (it is our national religion).

    'Britishness' is merely the collective will of the British people. While we can't quantify it per se, it exists. It's the collective moral obligation held by the citizens of this country towards free healthcare at the point of delivery; it's a moral obligation which doesn't exist in the majority of countries the world over. It's a very British moral obligation, and one which is in danger of being eroded by the left's worst policy: open borders.

    I know in Guardian-land criticism of its national religions, ie, diversity, open borders, globalism, feminism, etc., is tantamount to blasphemy, but can we please get a handle on reality? There are nearly 200 nation-states in the world and only a tiny handful of them are in a political union; the nation-state is now, and will continue to be, the primary actor in international relations.

    That in your arrogance you forget this is what has led to your spectacular fall from grace all over the western world. The people don't want globalism; the people are tribal, and they always will be. The people extend trust to outsiders with a great deal of caution; they don't do so because they are bad, they do so because of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

    What's more, it's not just 'British people' who adopt these attitudes; it's everyone; it's every group. It's why Bangladeshis congregate together in Tower Hamlets, it's why Pakistanis congregate together in Govanhill; it's why black people congregate together in Chicago.

    You can't just unwind 200,000 years of evolution with 30 years of progressive politics; you certainly can't achieve that when you determine that the in-group is the problem.

    If you want real progress, be liberal. At this stage, I don't believe progressives are even opposed to racism; they merely oppose racism against non-white people. I don't believe progressives favour equality; they merely favour equality for women (or x group). These aren't liberal attitudes, these are bigoted attitudes.

    They are just reinforcing group-based dynamics (ethnocentrism, tribalism, gynocentrism, etc.), the very dynamics you criticise in the context of other groups (ie, white heterosexual males).

    liveandletlve PrivatiseMorality , 2016-09-12 22:19:59
    Excellent comment. Isn't it strange that repressive ideologies are called 'progressive' by the Marxists and Globalists that spread the word, the fear and the idiocy.
    Ponkbutler PrivatiseMorality , 2016-09-12 22:21:59
    It's simple: nationalism is neurotic and built on defining oneself by the virtue of one's difference, to the exclusion of similarities and debasement of the other. It's the reverse of the Good Samaritan.
    tomasin PrivatiseMorality , 2016-09-12 22:25:07
    All that is very nice indeed, problem is when 'in the name of my nation' someone ends up laying dead and beaten to pulp on the streets .... and that, sorry, ain't so nice.

    [Sep 13, 2016] Paul Krugman Thugs and Kisses

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is not wise to demonize foreign leaders or worship them. Foreign policy needs sometimes to work with even some of the worst actors. ..."
    "... We need to support institutions that work to guarantee and protect human rights for all. A personality cult that worships leaders promotes intolerance and the abuse of human rights. ..."
    "... Krooogman is jus a useful moralistic idiot aiding and abetting [hillary compaigh] with humanist [neo]liberal anathemas. A policy of Russia constriction by uncle S and his posse ..."
    "... [It would be better if] Current neocon democrats "display an ounce of statesmanship" and use any before they send out the aircraft carriers, bombers, drones and CIA arms for the next ISIL. ..."
    "... Yes, Kerry talks while the DoD and CIA do the murdering. ..."
    "... You are just a political writer, paid to reflect your bosses views. A proper journalist would at least provide a minimally balanced view. In your case we know your answer before we open the newspaper. ..."
    "... No leftist calls krooogman a leftist. He is a a status quo elitist. An enlightenment humanist [interventionist neo]liberal. A convinced self-deluded neo-classical economist. A major political ignoramus... And a very decent little tabby cat. All rolled up into one pint sized ambitious. Self assured. Nassau county bright boy now aged but undaunted anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:38 AM http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/david-brooks-snap-out-of-it.html September 22, 2014 Snap Out of It By David Brooks President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a lone thug sitting atop a failing regime.... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/thomas-friedman-putin-and-the-pope.html October 21, 2014 Putin and the Pope By Thomas L. Friedman One keeps surprising us with his capacity for empathy, the other by how much he has become a first-class jerk and thug.... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-whos-playing-marbles-now.html December 20, 2014 Who's Playing Marbles Now? By Thomas L. Friedman Let us not mince words: Vladimir Putin is a delusional thug.... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html December 21, 2014 Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion By Paul Krugman Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug.... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/thomas-friedman-czar-putins-next-moves.html January 27, 2015 Czar Putin's Next Moves By Thomas L. Friedman ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be in danger.... anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:38 AM http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/world/middleeast/white-house-split-on-opening-talks-with-putin.html September 15, 2015 Obama Weighing Talks With Putin on Syrian Crisis By PETER BAKER and ANDREW E. KRAMER WASHINGTON - Mr. Obama views Mr. Putin as a thug, according to advisers and analysts.... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/opinion/mr-putins-mixed-messages-on-syria.html September 20, 2015 Mr. Putin's Mixed Messages on Syria Mr. Obama considers Mr. Putin a thug, his advisers say.... ilsm -> anne... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 03:18 PM Putin might ask why us army jihadis fought with cia jihadis in Assad's country? a subject one thug can raise with a bigger thug. ..."
    "... Thug. I wonder if these bright liberals consider the word they like to use so much ? u can feel their thrill every time they hurl it at a target. Long live the self righteous [neo]Liberal goon squad ..."
    "... thugs -- A target of colonial masters ..."
    "... if your candidate cannot go to a hospital.... looks like a serious neurolgic issue to me. Let the spin begin is trump's Putin or Clinton neuopathy? ..."
    "... I remember reading John Kenneth Galbraith describe how when he was being threatened by the original McCarthy, the strategy he chose was to name McCarthy using every name he could think of. The strategy worked, and Galbraith was forgotten by McCarthy. I suspect the strategy will work again. ..."
    "... In the name of plain old fashion reasonable ness let's not turn krooogman the self righteous [neo] liberal " crusader" into a new kold war reactionary liberal just yet ..."
    "... innuendo see as much deplorable assassination in moscow as folks dying at Clinton hands. And those 250k killed in 5 years of CIA blundering in Syria are Obama Clinton not Putin. ..."
    "... Ok, so on your planet the civil war in Syria was caused entirely by CIA intervention? That's what you're going with? ..."
    "... No of course not! The CIA is 'playing' 1300 year old schism in Islam. It is Sunni versus Shiite, the rest in funding, equipping, cheerleading by GCC royal, US and Israel. ..."
    "... Official Washington's "group think" on the Ukraine crisis now has a totalitarian feel to it as "everyone who matters" joins in the ritualistic stoning of Russian President Putin and takes joy in Russia's economic pain, with liberal economist Paul Krugman the latest to hoist a rock. ..."
    "... The anti-war left sees the demonization of foreign leaders as clearing the way for war and invasion. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisers Are a "Who's Who" of the Warfare State ..."
    "... The list of key advisers - which includes the general who executed the troop surge in Iraq and a former Bush homeland security chief turned terror profiteer - is a strong indicator that Clinton's national security policy will not threaten the post-9/11 national-security status quo that includes active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at home. ..."
    Sep 13, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    jonny bakho :

    It is not wise to demonize foreign leaders or worship them. Foreign policy needs sometimes to work with even some of the worst actors.

    For example, Russia is in Syria and can either promote more violence or work to end the civil war. Right now, they have agreed with the US to support a cease fire.

    Demonization of Russia led directly to the Vietnam War, the Cambodian horror, the Taliban and a lot of bad outcomes.

    We need to support institutions that work to guarantee and protect human rights for all. A personality cult that worships leaders promotes intolerance and the abuse of human rights. We need a strategy of building and strengthening institutions that are committed to protecting ethnic minorities and offer a change alternative to violent acting out.

    Dan Kervick -> jonny bakho ... ,

    Well said. One can debate the virtues and vices of Vladimir Putin indefinitely, and historians will do so, but throwing the lives and security of young Americans into the mill of short term political opportunism, at the service of the campaign meme of the week, is not responsible.

    Of course, Trump has also behaved like a nincompoop in discussing Putin and Russia in ways that do no display an ounce of statesmanship.

    sanjait -> Dan Kervick... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 01:15 PM
    I lost track here.

    Who is "throwing the lives and security of young Americans into the mill of short term political opportunism"?

    I'm guessing you are saying Hillary is doing that by criticizing Putin or something, but I can't fathom how you connect those dots.

    Dan Kervick -> sanjait...
    No, Krugman.

    Krugman obediently parrots and amplifies whatever attack theme the campaign decides to promote on any given week, and is clearly coordinating with a number of other hyper-partisan "journalists" and apparatchiks, who sing in harmony from the same hymn books. The man is a certifiable political hack.

    I'm surprised that Team D had not yet floated the charge that Putin gave Clinton pneumonia with some infected umbrella pellet gun.

    Paine -> sanjait...
    No no

    Krooogman is jus a useful moralistic idiot aiding and abetting [hillary compaigh] with humanist [neo]liberal anathemas. A policy of Russia constriction by uncle S and his posse

    Paine -> Paine ...
    Will Hillary take a forward policy stance on mother Russia. Out do Barry- Kerry. I'm still hoping she's capable of evolution to good POTUS. My best friends ardent fury at her bloody pals. Has tempered me some. Nothing ever confirms convictions grounded in personal loathing

    I've learned to love her since Bernie burned out over Pennsylvania or was it Ohio ?

    Paine -> Paine ...
    However nothing about loving her requires me to support her legacy or her entourage
    Or like too many thin skinned compromises here. Attack those who can not find in their heart. Any love for such a compromised saint
    As dear Hill
    ilsm -> Dan Kervick...
    [It would be better if] Current neocon democrats "display an ounce of statesmanship" and use any before they send out the aircraft carriers, bombers, drones and CIA arms for the next ISIL.
    ilsm -> Dan Kervick...
    Yes, Kerry talks while the DoD and CIA do the murdering.
    gh : ,
    Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner. How is it possible that you remain so leftist, in spite of all the evidence ? You are just a political writer, paid to reflect your bosses views. A proper journalist would at least provide a minimally balanced view. In your case we know your answer before we open the newspaper.

    What a shame.

    Paine -> djb...
    Tempest in a tea pot. No leftist calls krooogman a leftist. He is a a status quo elitist. An enlightenment humanist [interventionist neo]liberal. A convinced self-deluded neo-classical economist. A major political ignoramus...

    And a very decent little tabby cat. All rolled up into one pint sized ambitious. Self assured. Nassau county bright boy now aged but undaunted

    anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:38 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/david-brooks-snap-out-of-it.html

    September 22, 2014

    Snap Out of It
    By David Brooks

    President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a lone thug sitting atop a failing regime....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/thomas-friedman-putin-and-the-pope.html

    October 21, 2014

    Putin and the Pope
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    One keeps surprising us with his capacity for empathy, the other by how much he has become a first-class jerk and thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-whos-playing-marbles-now.html

    December 20, 2014

    Who's Playing Marbles Now?
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    Let us not mince words: Vladimir Putin is a delusional thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html

    December 21, 2014

    Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion
    By Paul Krugman

    Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/thomas-friedman-czar-putins-next-moves.html

    January 27, 2015

    Czar Putin's Next Moves
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be in danger....

    anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:38 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/world/middleeast/white-house-split-on-opening-talks-with-putin.html

    September 15, 2015

    Obama Weighing Talks With Putin on Syrian Crisis
    By PETER BAKER and ANDREW E. KRAMER

    WASHINGTON - Mr. Obama views Mr. Putin as a thug, according to advisers and analysts....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/opinion/mr-putins-mixed-messages-on-syria.html

    September 20, 2015

    Mr. Putin's Mixed Messages on Syria

    Mr. Obama considers Mr. Putin a thug, his advisers say....

    ilsm -> anne... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 03:18 PM
    Putin might ask why us army jihadis fought with cia jihadis in Assad's country? a subject one thug can raise with a bigger thug.
    anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:40 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/opinion/thugs-and-kisses.html

    September 11, 2016

    Thugs and Kisses
    By Paul Krugman

    First of all, let's get this straight: The Russian Federation of 2016 is not the Soviet Union of 1986. True, it covers most of the same territory and is run by some of the same thugs....

    Paine -> anne... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:55 AM
    Thug. I wonder if these bright liberals consider the word they like to use so much ? u can feel their thrill every time they hurl it at a target. Long live the self righteous [neo]Liberal goon squad
    Paine -> Paine ... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 05:09 AM
    " historical -- a member of a religious organization of robbers and assassins in India. Devotees of the goddess Kali, the Thugs waylaid and strangled their victims, usually travelers, in a ritually prescribed manner. They were suppressed by the British in the 1830s."
    Paine -> Paine ... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 05:10 AM
    thugs -- A target of colonial masters
    ilsm -> Paine ... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 03:19 PM
    they bayoneted cary grant, too!
    Cal -> Paine ...
    Dat is about as much heavy liftin as the lettered folk can handle: hurling insults. Take dat. "Geeves, send them a message!" Message: Thugs! Mission accomplished and now we must rest.
    ilsm -> Paine ...
    if your candidate cannot go to a hospital.... looks like a serious neurolgic issue to me. Let the spin begin is trump's Putin or Clinton neuopathy?
    anne :
    Paul Krugman terrifies me, simply terrifies me. A pusher of a Cold War, a pusher of McCarthyism, a person who is obviously collecting a list of names and only waiting to name names. I however will be no Krugman martyr and am also collecting names and will name names even before being ordered to and I have already decided who I will be naming first.

    [ I remember reading John Kenneth Galbraith describe how when he was being threatened by the original McCarthy, the strategy he chose was to name McCarthy using every name he could think of. The strategy worked, and Galbraith was forgotten by McCarthy. I suspect the strategy will work again. ]

    anne -> anne...
    I need to find the Galbraith reference, and I also remember that Krugman was attacking Galbraith before, well, "the line forms on the right."
    Paine -> anne...
    Anne,

    In the name of plain old fashion reasonable ness let's not turn krooogman the self righteous [neo] liberal " crusader" into a new kold war reactionary liberal just yet

    The conversion of one section of new dealers into that rumpus of uncle hegomony.'s Dupes
    Was awful enough. Not to contemplate yet another wholesale herd like. Transduction of their "liberal values" In the name of individual liberty and the rights of humanity

    anne -> anne...
    http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/evolute.html

    November, 1996

    What Economists Can Learn From Evolutionary Theorists
    By Paul Krugman - European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy

    I guess it is no secret that even John Kenneth Galbraith, still the public's idea of a great economist, looks to most serious economists like an intellectual dilettante who lacks the patience for hard thinking....

    ilsm -> Pinkybum...
    innuendo see as much deplorable assassination in moscow as folks dying at Clinton hands. And those 250k killed in 5 years of CIA blundering in Syria are Obama Clinton not Putin.
    sanjait -> ilsm... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:08 PM
    Ok, so on your planet the civil war in Syria was caused entirely by CIA intervention? That's what you're going with?

    So, not the tyranny of the Assad regime, supported by Russia. And not the emergence of ISIS. Those, by your accounting, are not primary causes of the conflict, but instead it was the meager support the CIA offered the FSA alliance, according to you. Pfft.

    ilsm -> sanjait...
    No of course not! The CIA is 'playing' 1300 year old schism in Islam. It is Sunni versus Shiite, the rest in funding, equipping, cheerleading by GCC royal, US and Israel.

    A lot more than 5 years!

    anne -> anne...
    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/19/krugman-joins-the-anti-putin-pack/

    December 19, 2014

    Krugman Joins the Anti-Putin Pack By Robert Parry

    Official Washington's "group think" on the Ukraine crisis now has a totalitarian feel to it as "everyone who matters" joins in the ritualistic stoning of Russian President Putin and takes joy in Russia's economic pain, with liberal economist Paul Krugman the latest to hoist a rock.

    anne -> anne... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 09:19 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/opinion/paul-krugman-putins-bubble-bursts.html

    December 18, 2014

    Putin's Bubble Bursts
    By Paul Krugman

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/opinion/donald-trump-the-siberian-candidate.html

    July 21, 2016

    Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate
    By Paul Krugman

    anne -> anne... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 09:22 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html

    December 21, 2014

    Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion
    By Paul Krugman

    Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug....

    anne -> anne...
    Right, I will be no Krugman martyr, I am collecting names and I will relish naming names. Call me, just call me.
    Lord :
    They admire him because of his power. Kiss ups at heart.
    anne -> anne...
    http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/04/must-read-i-do-not-understand-china-but-it-now-looks-more-likely-than-not-to-me-that-xi-jinpings-rule-will-lose-china.html

    April 5, 2016

    I do not understand China. But it now looks more likely than not to me that Xi Jinping's rule will lose China a decade, if not half a century... *

    * http://www.economist.com/news/china/21695923-his-exercise-power-home-xi-jinping-often-ruthless-there-are-limits-his

    -- Brad DeLong

    [ Notice how the scapegoating of a people, no matter how many people, can be focused in a particular person. ]

    anne -> anne...
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-delong/china-market-crash-5-years_b_8045742.html?1440772415

    August 28, 2015

    China's Market Crash Means Chinese Supergrowth Could Have Only 5 More Years to Run
    By Brad DeLong

    Ever since I became an adult in 1980, I have been a stopped clock with respect to the Chinese economy. I have said -- always -- that at most, Chinese supergrowth likely has five more years to run.

    Then there will come a crash -- in asset values and expectations, if not in production and employment. After the crash, China will revert to the standard pattern of an emerging market economy without successful institutions that duplicate or somehow mimic those of the North Atlantic. Its productivity rate will be little more than the 2 percent per year of emerging markets as a whole; catch-up and convergence to the North Atlantic growth-path norm will be slow if at all; and political risks that cause war, revolution or merely economic stagnation rather than unexpected booms will become the most likely surprises.

    I was wrong for 25 years straight -- and the jury is still out on the period since 2005. Thus, I'm very hesitant to count out China and its supergrowth miracle. But now "a" crash -- even if, perhaps, not "the" crash I was predicting -- is at hand....

    [ Twenty-five years of wrongness, why not another 25? Never ever ask why such wrongness, however. ]

    Peter K. -> sanjait...
    "The weird existence of people who somehow loved Bernie Sanders while also being apologists for Putin continues to defy the notion of cognitive dissonance."

    The anti-war left sees the demonization of foreign leaders as clearing the way for war and invasion.

    The center-left Demcocrats' anti-democratic practices during the primary were hypocritical. At leas Debbie Wasserman-Shultz was ousted as chair of the DNC.

    Dan Kervick -> sanjait...
    The context is that a murderers row of 2002/3 vintage neocons has now adopted the Clinton campaign as its preferred vehicle for its further murderous adventures and interventionist follies. Apparently only the (very) elder neocon leader Norman Podhoretz is not in yet.
    ilsm -> sanjait...
    Somehow Putin is weak on plundering his country.

    Bush and Obama are $4,000B in WAR waste on Iraghistan and Yemen.

    anne :
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

    McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism." The term has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression against supposed communists, as well as a campaign spreading fear of their influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of Republican U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, "McCarthyism" soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.

    anne :
    https://theintercept.com/2016/09/08/hillary-clintons-national-security-advisors-are-a-whos-who-of-the-warfare-state/

    September 8, 2016

    Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisers Are a "Who's Who" of the Warfare State
    By Zaid Jilani, Alex Emmons, and Naomi LaChance

    HILLARY CLINTON IS meeting with a new national security "working group" that is filled with an elite "who's who" of the military-industrial complex and the security deep state.

    The list of key advisers - which includes the general who executed the troop surge in Iraq and a former Bush homeland security chief turned terror profiteer - is a strong indicator that Clinton's national security policy will not threaten the post-9/11 national-security status quo that includes active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at home.

    It's a story we've seen before in President Obama's early appointments. In retrospect, analysts have pointed to the continuity in national security and intelligence advisers as an early sign that despite his campaign rhetoric Obama would end up building on - rather than tearing down - the often-extralegal, Bush-Cheney counterterror regime. For instance, while Obama promised in 2008 to reform the NSA, its director was kept on and its reach continued to grow.

    Obama's most fateful decision may have been choosing former National Counterterrorism Center Director John Brennan to be national security adviser, despite Brennan's support of Bush's torture program. Brennan would go on to run the president's drone program, lead the CIA, fight the Senate's torture investigation, and then lie about searching Senate computers.

    That backdrop is what makes Clinton's new list of advisers so significant.

    It includes Gen. David Petraeus, the major architect of the 2007 Iraq War troop surge, which brought 30,000 more troops to Iraq. Picking him indicates at partiality to combative ideology. It also represents a return to good standing for the general after he pled guilty to leaking notebooks full of classified information to his lover, Paula Broadwell, and got off with two years of probation and a fine. Petraeus currently works at the investment firm KKR & Co.

    Another notable member of Clinton's group is Michael Chertoff, a hardliner who served as President George W. Bush's last secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and who since leaving government in 2009 has helmed a corporate consulting firm called the Chertoff Group that promotes security-industry priorities. For example, in 2010, he gave dozens of media interviews touting full-body scanners at airports while his firm was employed by a company that produced body scanning machines. His firmalso employs a number of other ex-security state officials, such as former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden. It does not disclose a complete list of its clients - all of whom now have a line of access to Clinton.

    Many others on the list are open advocates of military escalation overseas. Mike Morell, the former acting director of the CIA, endorsed Clinton last month in a New York Times opinion piece that accused Trump of being an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." The Times was criticized for not disclosing his current employment by Beacon Global Strategies, a politically powerful national-security consulting firm with strong links to Clinton. Three days later, Morell told Charlie Rose in a PBS interview that the CIA should actively assassinate Russians and Iranians in Syria.

    During his time at the CIA, Morell was connected to some of the worst scandals and intelligence failures of the Bush administration. In his book, he apologizes for giving flawed intelligence to Colin Powell about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, but defends the CIA torture program as legal and ethical.

    Jim Stavridis, a former NATO supreme allied commander Europe on Clinton's advisory group, told Fox News Radio in July, when he was being vetted by Clinton as a possible vice presidential nominee, that "we have got to get more aggressive going into Syria and Iraq and go after [ISIS] because if we don't they're going to come to us. It's a pretty simple equation." He said he would "encourage the president to take a more aggressive stance against Iran, to increase our military forces in Iraq and Syria, and to confront Vladmir Putin" over his moves in Crimea.

    The New York Times reported in 2011 that Michael Vickers, a former Pentagon official on Clinton's new list, led the use of drone strikes. He would grin and tell his colleagues at meetings, "I just want to kill those guys."

    Others on the list played a role in the targeted killing policies of the Obama administration, including Chris Fussell, a top aide to Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and now a partner with him at his lucrative consulting firm, the McChrystal Group....

    [Sep 13, 2016] Pressitutes from NPR are fully in bed with Hillary campaign managers

    Notable quotes:
    "... I want to throw a chair at the elitist propaganda coming from the radio. ..."
    "... Their political coverage is truly awful - horse race analysis cheerleading for HRC, no substantive talk about issues just a constant human interest sideshow anecdotal. ..."
    "... They also seem to have exactly the same stories as same day's NYT - makes one wonder who's actually disseminating all the talking points. ..."
    "... Yah I know but I also learned from NPR Trump is bad because he likes Putin who keeps invading nations and killing a bunch of folks and gives govt contracts to his friends – unlike good USA. All stated matter of factly by NPR analysts. ..."
    "... It's amazing how everything has to get sloppy around Clinton. People, news papers, news shows, whatever. As soon as they decide to sign on with Camp Clinton, they all have to start making excuses for her. Sloppy excuses. Excuses with a smell of skunk to them. ..."
    "... They should loose those donors, it would be a cleansing act that might result in more creative and honest programming. ..."
    Sep 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Cocomaan , September 12, 2016 at 8:09 am

    It's npr, what do you expect? Their morning and evening shows are a joke.

    I completely stopped listening to them after how they handled Bernies campaign.

    johnnygl , September 12, 2016 at 8:17 am

    They were unreal during the primaries. I was yelling at the radio during my commute. Now they're on full-time trump hate-fest.

    Steve C , September 12, 2016 at 9:04 am

    Used to have NPR going from wakey until bedtime. Now, I read about roses and meditate. Much more serenity. Now, my agitation comes from NC. And it's because world affairs are agitating, not because I want to throw a chair at the elitist propaganda coming from the radio.

    Schnormal , September 12, 2016 at 9:32 am

    ^ +100

    Bubba_Gump , September 12, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    Their political coverage is truly awful - horse race analysis cheerleading for HRC, no substantive talk about issues just a constant human interest sideshow anecdotal. The Bernie coverage was a disgrace. I was raised on a steady diet of NPR, and realized the headlines are all the same as when I was a kid: Middle East "violence," Israeli politics, poor person suffering anecdote, refugee porn.

    I tune in from time to time just to make sure it hasn't changed. What change there has been seems to be ever more shrill neoliberal pablum spoon-fed with small words as though to eight-graders. They also seem to have exactly the same stories as same day's NYT - makes one wonder who's actually disseminating all the talking points.

    hemeantwell , September 12, 2016 at 4:38 pm

    I stopped listening to them after they did a long, sympathetic piece on how Israeli soldiers were traumatized by the injuries they inflicted on Palestinian kids during the first Intifada. The idea that they should suffer from implacable guilt was not not discussed.

    Lord Koos , September 12, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    I started to lose interest after hearing them propagandize the Iraq war effort.

    timbers , September 12, 2016 at 8:19 am

    Yah I know but I also learned from NPR Trump is bad because he likes Putin who keeps invading nations and killing a bunch of folks and gives govt contracts to his friends – unlike good USA. All stated matter of factly by NPR analysts.

    EndOfTheWorld , September 12, 2016 at 8:45 am

    Yes, "hold on for the ride." Now even the MSM is split on whether to all of a sudden be skeptical of the stuff Camp Clinton puts out re Hill's health. If she quits due to ill health, can she keep her campaign contributions?
    She's got Parkinson's disease, or at least severe aftershocks from her earlier brain trouble. She's not gonna get better.

    john , September 12, 2016 at 9:14 am

    NPR had two stories on it last hour. The both used the term conspiracy theory. One used it twice!

    RabidGandhi , September 12, 2016 at 10:44 am

    Even Democracy Now used the term "conspiracy theory". I'm usually a huge fan of DN! but their Election coverage has been sloppy since the conventions.

    Benedict@Large , September 12, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    It's amazing how everything has to get sloppy around Clinton. People, news papers, news shows, whatever. As soon as they decide to sign on with Camp Clinton, they all have to start making excuses for her. Sloppy excuses. Excuses with a smell of skunk to them.

    And once they give in, it sticks to them. They can no longer be trusted. Whatever you thought of them before is now forever clouded. They are ruined.

    Donald , September 12, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    I don't know about Democracy Now - haven't listened lately. But Krugman went from a columnist I respected to idiotic Clinton shill starting this year. His attacks on Sanders and his supporters and his excuse making for Clinton's Iraq vote totally destroyed his credibility for me. Maybe he is worth reading if he stays far away from the subject of Clinton, but I no longer care enough to find out.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 12, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    Even Sanders has gone into the Twilight Zone post conventions.

    Whatever they did to him to get him to endorse and campaign for her, they will do more before replacing Hillary with Bernie.

    Sarah Connor , September 12, 2016 at 11:52 am

    This morning on NPR, Cokie Roberts "went there." She described the "socco voce" discontent behind the scenes of a very skittish DNC.

    NYPaul , September 12, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    And, all this on top of the constant, daily, weekly, and monthly, never ending, stream of rancid revelations being unearthed regarding her shady public/private financial juggling act. Like, simply running for President isn't stressful enough.

    Stress, Baby. It's a killer!!

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 12, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    Maybe this explains the lack of press conferences, even just for one hour.

    To go through a presidential debate – that'd be like enduring eternity.

    diptherio , September 12, 2016 at 9:48 am

    I stopped listening after Bush, Jr. was elected and immediately cut-off aid to foreign family planning orgs that mentioned mentioned abortion as an option to their patients. Ol' Cokie assured NPR listeners it was no big thing, nothing to see here, move along people. I tore the radio out of the dash and threw it out the window…

    Spring Texan , September 12, 2016 at 11:06 am

    I can't stand Cokie Roberts!!!

    aliteralmind , September 12, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    Me too. I won't turn the radio on in my car at all anymore, except to distract my arguing boys.

    neo-realist , September 12, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    I gave up on NPR when I got sick and tired of Cokie Roberts condescending republican talking points. It is very much a megaphone for center right elites.

    I've read that people who work there say that if they did not do the center right slant, they would lose a vast majority of their big donor funding.

    Optimader , September 12, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    They should loose those donors, it would be a cleansing act that might result in more creative and honest programming.

    I only listen to local public radio and tune away if there is NPR news content.

    Chicago Public Radio (WBEZ) is an exception on local public radio. It is awful and I will not listen to it, their programming has devolved to whining elitist **** talk radio. It is insufferable.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Syria decision the latest blow to Obamas Middle East legacy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. ..."
    "... Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen. ..."
    "... After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy! ..."
    "... I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. ..."
    "... amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience. ..."
    "... Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons. ..."
    "... The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies. ..."
    "... The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny.. ..."
    "... There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. ..."
    "... With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light. ..."
    "... The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy. ..."
    "... What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have. ..."
    "... Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes? ..."
    "... That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time. ..."
    "... Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation? ..."
    "... The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes. ..."
    "... Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions. ..."
    "... I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated. ..."
    "... Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR? ..."
    "... Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion. ..."
    "... You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly. ..."
    "... Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore. ..."
    "... There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene. ..."
    "... You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both? ..."
    "... ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense??? ..."
    "... Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts! ..."
    "... ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. ..."
    "... The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now. ..."
    "... Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. ..."
    "... Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc. ..."
    "... The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard ..."
    "... See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR. ..."
    "... But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country. ..."
    "... Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country. ..."
    "... Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's. ..."
    "... Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil? ..."
    "... Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law. ..."
    "... Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law ..."
    "... As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change. ..."
    "... You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively. ..."
    "... However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings. ..."
    "... What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law? ..."
    Oct 30, 2015 | The Guardian

    willpodmore 1 Nov 2015 10:30

    NATO and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .... they make a desert and call it peace.

    ID7582903 1 Nov 2015 06:19

    "Credibility"? Beware and be aware folks. This isn't a monopoly game being played here; it's for real.

    2015 Valdai conference is Societies Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict in Tomorrow's World. In the period between October 19 and 22, experts from 30 countries have been considering various aspects of the perception of war and peace both in the public consciousness and in international relations, religion and economic interaction between states. Videos w live translations and english transcripts (a keeper imho)
    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548

    30 Oct, 2015 - The day US announces Ground troops into Syria, and the day before the downing/crash of the Russian Airbus 321 in the Sinai, this happened: Russia has conducted a major test of its strategic missile forces, firing numerous ballistic and cruise missiles from various training areas across the country, videos uploaded by the Ministry of Defense have shown.

    A routine exercise, possibly the largest of its kind this year, was intended to test the command system of transmitting orders among departments and involved launches from military ranges on the ground, at sea and in the air, the ministry said Friday.

    https://www.rt.com/news/320194-russia-missiles-launch-training/

    30.10.2015 Since the beginning of its operation in Syria on September 30, Russian Aerospace Forces have carried out 1,391 sorties in Syria, destroying a total of 1,623 terrorist targets, the Russian General Staff said Friday.

    In particular, Russian warplanes destroyed 249 Islamic State command posts, 51 training camps, and 131 depots, Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff Main Operations Directorate said.

    "In Hanshih, a suburb of Damascus, 17 militants of the Al-Ghuraba group were executed in public after they tried to leave the combat area and flee to Jordan," he specified. "The whole scene was filmed in order to disseminate the footage among the other groups operating in the vicinity of Damascus and other areas", the General Staff spokesman said. In the central regions of the country, the Syrian Army managed to liberate 12 cities in the Hama province, Kartapolov said. "The Syrian armed forces continue their advance to the north," the general added.

    http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151030/1028992570/russian-airstrikes-syria-friday.html

    fairviewplz 1 Nov 2015 04:47

    Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. What an insult to our intelligence! We are well aware that the US provides the logistical and technical support, and refuelling of warplanes to the Saudi coalition illegal war in Yemen. Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen.

    After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy!

    Barmaidfromhell -> WSCrips 1 Nov 2015 03:52

    Well said.

    I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. Obviously carefully selected to follow any line given them and amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience.

    Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons.

    Michael Imanual Christos -> Pete Piper 1 Nov 2015 00:28

    Pete Piper

    In brief;

    The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies.

    ... ... ...

    midnightschild10 31 Oct 2015 21:35

    When Obama denounced Russia's actions in Syria, and blamed them for massive loss of civilian lives, Russia responded by asking them to show their proof. The Administration spokesperson said they got their information from social media. No one in the Administration seems to realize how utterly stupid that sounds. Marie Harf is happily developing the Administration's foreign policy via Twitter. As the CIA and NSA read Facebook for their daily planning, Obama reads the comments section of newspapers to prepare for his speech to the American public in regard to putting boots on the ground in Syria, and adding to the boots in Iraq. If it didn't result in putting soldiers lives in jeopardy, it would be considered silly. Putin makes his move and watches as the Obama Administration makes the only move they know, after minimal success in bombing, Obama does send in the troops. Putin is the one running the game. Obama's response is so predictable. No wonder the Russians are laughing. In his quest to outdo Cheyney, Obama has added to the number of wars the US is currently involved in. His original claim to fame was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which then resulted in starting Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2.0. Since helping to depose the existing governments in the Middle East, leading not only to the resurgence of AlQuaeda, and giving birth to ISIS, and leaving chaos and destruction in his wake, he decided to take down the last standing ruler, hoping that if he does the same thing over and over, he will get a different result. Obama's foreign policy legacy had been considered impotent at best, now its considered ridiculous.

    SomersetApples 31 Oct 2015 20:03

    We bombed them, we sent armies of terrorist in to kill them, we destroyed their hospitals and power plants and cities, we put sanctions on them and we did everything in our power to cut off their trading with the outside world, and yet they are still standing.

    The only thing left to do, lets send in some special military operatives.

    This is so out of character, or our perceived character of Obama. It must be that deranged idiot John McCain pulling the strings.

    Rafiqac01 31 Oct 2015 16:58

    The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny....having just watched CNNs Long Road to Hell in Iraq....and the idiots advising Bush and Blair you have to wonder the extent to which these are almighty balls ups or very sophisticated planning followed up by post disaster rationalisation....

    whatever the conclusion it proves that the intervention or non interventions prove their is little the USA has done that has added any good value to the situation...indeed it is an unmitigated disaster strewn around the world! Trump is the next generation frothing at the mouth ready to show what a big John Wayne he is!!

    DavidFCanada 31 Oct 2015 13:56

    There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. That US legacy will forever remain, burnt into skins and bodies of the living and dead, together with a virtually unanimous recognition in the ME of the laughable US pretexts of supporting democracy, the rule of law, religious freedom and, best of all, peace. Obama is merely the chief functionary of a nation of lies.

    Informed17 -> WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:47

    Are you saying that there was no illegal invasion of Iraq? No vial of laundry detergent was presented at the UN as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs? No hue and cry from "independent" media supported that deception campaign? Were you in a deep coma at the time?

    Informed17 -> somethingbrite 31 Oct 2015 13:36

    No. But the US trampled on the international law for quite a while now, starting with totally illegal interference in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

    WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:18

    Hey Guardian Editors.....and all those who worshipped Obama....In America, there were folks from the older generation that warned us that this Community Organizer was not ready for the Job of President of the United States....it had nothing to do with his color, he just was not ready.....he was a young, inexperienced Senator, who never, ever had a real job, never had a street fight growing up pampered in Hawaii, was given a pass to great universities because his parents had money, and was the dream Affirmative Action poster boy for the liberal left. Obama has not disappointed anyone who tried to warn us......and now we will reap what he has sowed:

    1. 8 Trillion to our debt
    2. Nightmare in the Middleast (how is that Arab Spring)
    3. Polarized America....Dems and Republicans hate each other....hate each other like the Irish and English...10 x over.
    4. War on Cops
    5. War with China
    6. Invasion from Central America

    I see a great depression and World War IV on the horizon....and I am being positive!

    SaveRMiddle 31 Oct 2015 12:47

    Nothing Obama says has any value. We've watched the man lie with a grin and a chuckle.

    Forever Gone is all trust.

    His continued abuse of Red Line threats spoke volumes about the lawyer who Reactively micromanages that which required and deserved an expert Proactive plan.

    Let History reflect the horrific death CIA meddling Regime Change/Divide and Conquer creates.

    HeadInSand2013 31 Oct 2015 12:45

    Liberal activists were in little doubt that Obama has failed to live up to his commitment to avoid getting dragged directly into the war.

    With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex.

    Liberal activists are stupid enough to think that M. Obama is actually in charge of the US military or the US foreign policy. Just go back and count how many times during the last 6 years M. Obama has made a declaration and then - sometimes the next day - US military has over-ruled him.


    Mediaking 31 Oct 2015 10:00

    Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light.

    USA forces coming to the aid of their 5 individuals... yes 1,2,3,4,5 ( stated by US command- there are only that amount of FSA fighters left - the rest have gone over to ISIL with their equipment -- ) the local population all speak of ISIL/Daesh being American/Israeli ,they say if this is a civil war how come all the opposition are foreigners -- I think perhaps it's like the Ukraine affair... a bunch of CIA paid Nazi thugs instigating a coup ... or like Venezuela agents on roof tops shooting at both sides in demonstrations to get things going. The usual business of CIA/Mossad stuff in tune with the mass media with their engineered narratives -- Followed by the trolls on cyber space... no doubt we shall see them here too.

    All note that an Intervention in Syria would be "ILLEGAL" by Int. law and sooner than later will be sued in billions for it...on top of the billions spent on having a 5 person strong force of FSA...spent from the American tax payers money . Syria has a government and is considered a state at the UN . Iran and Russia are there at the request and permission of Syria .

    Russia and Iran have been methodically wiping out Washington's mercenaries on the ground while recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. Now that the terrorists are getting wiped out the west and the Saudis are are screaming blue murder !

    I for one would have Assad stay , as he himself suggests , till his country is completely free of terrorists, then have free elections . I would add , to have the Saudis and the ones in the west/Turkey/Jordan charged for crimes against humanity for supplying and creating Daesh/ISIS . This element cannot be ignored . Also Kurdistan can form their new country in the regions they occupy as of this moment and Mosul to come. Iran,Russia,Iraq, Syria and the new Kurdistan will sign up to this deal . Millions of Syrian refugees can then come back home and rebuild their broken lives with Iranian help and cash damages from the mentioned instigators $400 billion . The cash must be paid into the Syrian central bank before any elections take place ... Solved...

    My consultancy fee - 200ml pounds sterling... I know ... you wish I ruled the world (who knows !) - no scams please or else -- ( the else would be an Apocalypse upon the western equity markets via the Illuminati i.e a 49% crash )... a week to pay , no worries since better to pay for a just solution than to have million descend upon EU as refugees . It is either this or God's revenge with no mercy .

    amacd2 31 Oct 2015 09:52

    Obama, being more honest but also more dangerous than Flip Wilson says, "The Empire made me do it",

    Bernie, having "reservations" about what Obama has done, says nothing against Empire, but continues to pretend, against all evidence, that this is a democracy.

    Hillary, delighting in more war, says "We came, we bombed, they all died, but the Empire won."

    Talk about 'The Issue' to debate for the candidates in 2016?

    "What's your position on the Empire?"

    "Oh, what Empire, you ask?"

    "The friggin Empire that you are auditioning to pose as the president of --- you lying tools of both the neocon 'R' Vichy party and you smoother lying neoliberal-cons of the 'D' Vichy party!"

    lightstroke -> Pete Piper 31 Oct 2015 09:41

    Nukes are not on the table. Mutually Assured Destruction.

    The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy.

    It's not necessary to win wars to exercise that power. All they have to do is start them and keep them going until the arms industry makes as much dough from them as possible. That's the only win they care about.

    What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have.

    Taku2 31 Oct 2015 09:26

    Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes?

    How stupid can a President get?

    Obama does need to pull back on this one, even though it will make his stupid and erroneous policy towards the Syrian tragedy seem completely headless. If this stupid and brainless policy is meant to be symbolic, its potential for future catastrophic consequences is immeasurable.

    phillharmonic -> nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:56

    That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time.

    nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:35

    Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State

    And who are those then? Do they exist, do we have any reliable source confirming they are really simultaneously fighting IS and Syrian Army or is it yet another US fairy tale?

    Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation?

    phillharmonic 31 Oct 2015 08:33

    The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes.

    amacd2 -> Woody Treasure 31 Oct 2015 08:31

    Woody, did you mean "Obama is a foil (for the Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire--- which he certainly is), or did you mean to say "fool" (which he certainly is not, both because he is a well paid puppet/poodle for this Global Empire merely HQed in, and 'posing' as, America --- as Blair and Camron are for the same singular Global Empire --- and because Obama didn't end his role as Faux/Emperor-president like JFK), eh?

    Nena Cassol -> TonyBlunt 31 Oct 2015 06:48

    Assad's father seized power with a military coup and ruled the country for 30 years, before dying he appointed his son, who immediately established marshal law, prompting discontent even among his father's die-hard loyalists ...this is plain history, is this what you call a legitimate leader?

    Cycles 31 Oct 2015 06:41

    Forced to go in otherwise the Russians and Iranians get full control. Welcome to the divided Syria a la Germany after WW2.

    TonyBlunt -> Nena Cassol 31 Oct 2015 06:36

    "It does not take much research to find out that Assad is not legitimate at all"

    Please share your source with us Nena. But remember Langley Publications don't count.

    TonyBlunt -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 06:29

    The Americans do not recognise international law. They do not sign up to any of it and proclaim the right to break it with their "exceptionalism".

    Katrin3 -> herrmaya 31 Oct 2015 05:27

    The Russians, US, Iran etc are all meeting right now in Vienna. The Russians and the US military do communicate with each other, to avoid attacking each other by mistake.

    The Russians are in the West and N.West of Syria. The US is going into the N. East, near IS headquarters in Raqqa, to support the Kurdish YPG, who are only a few kilometers from the city.

    Katrin3 -> ID6693806 31 Oct 2015 05:15

    Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions.

    I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated.

    centerline ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:48

    The Kurds are the fabled moderate opposition who are willing to negotiate, and who have also fought with the Syrian government against US backed ISIS and al Nusra so called moderate opposition.

    Pete Piper -> Verbum 31 Oct 2015 04:47

    @Verbum
    Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR?

    Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion.

    gabriel90 -> confettifoot 31 Oct 2015 04:46

    ISiS is destroying Syria thanks to the US and Saudi Arabia; its an instrument to spread chaos in the Middle East and attack Iran and Russia...

    ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:21

    So, on the day peace talks open, the US unilaterally announces advice boots on the ground to support one of the many sides in the Syrian War, who will undoubtedly want self determination, right on Turkey's border, as they always have, and as has always been opposed by the majority of the Syrian population. What part of that isn't completely mad?

    Great sympathy for the situation of the Kurds in Syria under Assad, but their nationalism issue and inability to work together with the Sunni rebels, was a major factor in the non formation of a functioning opposition in Syria, and will be a block to peace, not its cause. It's also part of a larger plan to have parts of Turkey and Iraq under Kurdish control to create a contingent kingdom. Whatever the merits of that, the US deciding to support them at this stage is completely irrational, and with Russia and Iran supporting Assad will lengthen the war, not shorten it.

    MissSarajevo 31 Oct 2015 04:21

    Just a couple of things here. How does the US know who the moderates are?!? Is this another occasion that the US is going to use International law as toilet paper? The US will enter (as if they weren't already there, illegally. They were not invited in by the legitimate leader of Syria.

    gabriel90 31 Oct 2015 04:19

    Warbama is just trying to save his saudi/qatari/turk/emirati dogs of war... they will be wiped out by Russia and the axis of resistance...

    Pete Piper -> Michael Imanual Christos 31 Oct 2015 04:08

    Does anyone see anything rational in US foreign policy? When I hear attempts to explain, they vary around .. "it's about oil". But no one ever shows evidence continuous wars produced more oil for anyone. So, are we deliberately creating chaos and misery? Why? To make new enemies we can use to justify more war? We've now classified the number of countries we are bombing. Why? The countries being bombed surely know.

    Pete Piper -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 03:50

    You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly.

    Only the US routinely violates other nations' sovergnity. Since Korea, the only nation that has ever used military force against a nation not on its border is the US.

    Can anyone find rationality in US foreign policy? We are supposed to be fighting ISIL, but Saudi Arabia and Israel appear to be helping ISIL to force Syrian regime change. And the US is supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia that are routed to ISIL. Supposedly because eliminating President Asad is more important than fighting ISIL? The US public is being misled into thinking we are NOW fighting ISIL. After Asad is killed, then we will genuinely fight ISIL? Russia, Iran, and more(?) will fight to keep Asad in power and then fight ISIL? THIS IS OBVIOUS BS, AND ALSO FUBAR.

    By all means, get everyone together for some diplomacy.

    oldholbornian -> lesmandalasdeniki 31 Oct 2015 03:36

    Well lets look at Germany the centre of christian culture and the EU

    http://www.infowars.com/this-is-our-future-germany-may-soon-have-8-million-muslims/

    CAPLAN -> Lunora 31 Oct 2015 03:33

    reminds me of emporer franz josef in europe about 100 years ago .. meant well but led to ruination ..i dont think that there has been an american president involved in more wars than obama

    obama by his cairo speech kicked of the arab spring ..shows that words can kill

    however.. the experience he now has gained may lead to an avoidance of a greater sunni shia war in syria if the present vienna talks can offer something tangible and preserve honour to the sunnis .. in the mid east honour and macho are key elements in negotiations

    iran however is a shia caliphate based regime and unless it has learnt the lesson from yemen on the limitations of force may push for further success via army and diplomacy and control in syria and iraq

    oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 02:42

    But Obama's latest broken promise to avoid an "open-ended action" in Syria could lead to a full-blown war with Russia considering that Russian military has been operating in Syria for weeks.

    " For the first time ever, the American strategists have developed an illusion that they may defeat a nuclear power in a non-nuclear war," Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin told AP. "It's nonsense, and it will never happen."

    http://www.infowars.com/flashback-obama-says-no-boots-on-the-ground-in-syria-before-sending-troops/

    Any US / terrorist engagement with the Syrian security forces will include engaging with its allies Russia

    Once the firing starts Russia will include the US as terrorists with no rights to be in Syrian and under the UN RULES have the right to defend themselves against the US

    HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:32

    Hmm Foreign snipers on rooftops ( not in the control of the government) how many times is this scenario going to be played out before the 'press' twigs it than something is not making sense.

    HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:29

    Though in one demonstration there was snipers on rooftops shooting both deconstratirs and the police - far more police were killed than demonstrators - what does this reming you of? Was these actions seemingly out of the control of the government a preliminary to what happened in Kiev during the maidan - practices get the technics right I suppose. - outside forces were obviously at work ' stirring the pot.

    Anna Eriksson 31 Oct 2015 02:24

    Let's hope that the US will help out with taking in some refugees as well! In Germany, and Sweden locals are becoming so frustrated and angry that they set refugee shelters on fire. This is a trend in both Sweden and Germany, as shown in the maps in the links. There have almost been 90 arsons in Germany so far this year, almost 30 in Sweden.

    Map of Sweden fire incidents: http://bit.ly/1MiaMX9

    Map of Germany arson incidents: http://bit.ly/1LZzEUh

    betrynol 31 Oct 2015 01:56

    Nobody tells the American people and nobody else really cares, but these 40-something guys being sent to Syria are possibly there as:

    • cannon fodder: to deter the Russians from bombing and Iranians from attacking on the ground the American friendly anti-Assad militant groups;
    • to collect and report more accurate intel from the front line (again about the Russian/Iranian troops deployment/movement).

    The Russian and Iranian troops on the ground will soon engage and sweep anti-Assad forces in key regions in Western Syria. This will be slightly impeded if Americans are among them. But accidents do happen, hence the term "cannon fodder".

    The Russians and Iranians will likely take a step back militarily though for the duration of talks, so the American plan to protect Saudi backed fighters is likely to work.

    I never involved or mentioned ISIS because this is NOT about fighting ISIS. It's about counteracting the Russian/Irania sweep in the area, and ultimately keeping the Americans in the game (sorry, war).

    petervietnam 31 Oct 2015 01:13

    The world's policeman or the world's trouble maker?

    Austin Young -> Will D 31 Oct 2015 00:34

    But he's the "change we can believe in" guy! Oh right... Dem or republican, they spew anything and everything their voters want to hear but when it comes time to walk the walk the only voice in their head is Cash Money.

    lesmandalasdeniki -> Bardhyl Cenolli 30 Oct 2015 23:34

    It frustrates me, anyone who will be the problem-solver will be labeled as dangerous by the Western political and business leaders if the said person or group of people can not be totally controlled for their agenda.

    This will be the first time I will be speaking about the Indonesian forest fires that started from June this year until now. During the period I was not on-line, I watched the local news and all channels were featuring the same problem every day during the last two-weeks.

    US is also silent about it during Obama - Jokowi meeting, even praising Jokowi being on the right track. After Jokowi came back, his PR spin is in the force again, he went directly to Palembang, he held office and trying to put up an image of a President that cared for his people. He couldn't solve the Indonesian forest fires from June - October, is it probably because Jusuf Kalla has investment in it?

    My point is, US and the Feds, World Bank and IMF are appointing their puppets on each country they have put up an investment on terms of sovereign debt and corporate debt/bonds.

    And Obama is their puppet.

    Will D 30 Oct 2015 23:30

    Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore.

    He has turned out to be a massive disappointment to all those who had such high hopes that he really would make the world a better place. His failure and his abysmal track record will cause him to be remembered as the Nobel Peace prize wining president who did exactly the opposite of what he promised, and failed to further the cause of peace.

    Greg_Samsa -> Greenacres2002 30 Oct 2015 23:07

    Consistency is at the heart of logic, all mathematics, and hard sciences.

    Even the legal systems strive to be free of contradictions.

    I'd rather live in world with consistency of thought and action as represented by the Russian Federation, then be mired in shit created by the US who have shed all the hobgoblins pestering the consistency of their thoughts and actions.

    Never truly understood the value of this stupid quote really...

    Phil Atkinson -> PaulF77 30 Oct 2015 22:28

    There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene.

    You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both?

    MainstreamMedia Propaganda 30 Oct 2015 22:03

    ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense???

    2012 DIA Document (R050839Z) - Defense Intelligence Agency
    Public Affairs Office: 202-231-5554 or [email protected]
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/media-blacks-out-pentagon-report-exposing-u-s-role-in-isis-creation/206187/
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/

    DarrenPartridge 30 Oct 2015 22:03

    I think blatant policy changes like this show just how ineffectual the US president actually is. The hand over between Bush and Obama has been seamless. Gitmo still going, patriot act renewed, Libya a smoldering ruin (4 years down the line), no progress on gun control, troops in Afganistan and Iraq... it goes on...

    HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:58

    "It's really hard to see how this tiny number of troops embedded on the ground is going to turn the tide in any way."

    Or the U.S. could carry out air strikes against Hezbollah which has been fighting ISIS for a while now. They could also supply weapons to ISIS (who are dubbed 'moderates') to counter Russian airstrikes and Iranian man power.

    Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts!

    Phil Atkinson -> Harry Bhai 30 Oct 2015 21:57

    Fuck the al-Sauds and their oil. If the US wants their oil (and there's plenty of other oil sellers in the world) then just take it. Why not be consistent?

    templeforjerusalem 30 Oct 2015 21:51

    IS has shown itself to be deeply hateful of anything that conflicts with their narrow religious interpretations. Destroying Palmyra, murdering indiscriminately, without any clear international agenda other than the formation of a new Sunni Sharia State, makes them essentially enemies of everybody. Although I do agree that belligerent secular Netanyahu's Israel sets a bad example in the area, Israel does not tend to murder over the same primitive values that IS uses, although there's not much difference in reality.

    IS uses extermination tactics, Israel used forced land clearance and concentration camp bombing (Gaza et al), while the US in Iraq used brutal force. None of this is good but nothing justifies the shear barbarism of IS. Is there hope in any of this? No. Is Russian and US involvement a major escalation? Yes.

    Ultimately, this is about religious identities refusing to share and demand peace. Sunni vs Shia, Judeo/Catholic/Protestant West vs Russian Orthodox, secular vs orthodox Israel. No wonder people are saying Armageddon.

    HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:50

    ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. The only countries and groups that have been successfully fighting ISIS - Assad's forces, Iranians, Hezbollah, Russians, and Kurds are in fact enemies of either the U.S., Saudis, Israelis, or Turks. Isn't that strange? The countries and peoples that have suffered the most and that have actually fought against ISIS effectively are seen as the enemy. Do the powers that be really want to wipe out ISIS at all costs? No, especially if it involves the Iranians and Russians.

    VengefulRevenant 30 Oct 2015 21:44

    "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on [a] completely trumped up pretext. It's an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, wilful choice by [President Obama] to invade another country. [The US] is in violation of the sovereignty of [Syria. The US] is in violation of its international obligations."

    Verbum -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:41

    How are Russian boots on the ground - of which there have been many for some time - ok and American boots bad?

    The difference is that of a poison and the antidotum. The American/NATO meddling in Iraq, Libya and Syria created a truly sick situation which needs to be fixed. That's what the Russians are doing. Obviously, they have their own objectives and motives for that and are protecting their own interests, but nevertheless this is the surest way to re-establish semblance of stability in the Middle East, rebuilt Syria and Iraq, stop the exodus of the refugees, and mend relations in the region.

    The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now.

    I feel sorry for Mr Obama, and indeed America, because he is a decent person, yet most of us are unaware what forces he has to reckon with behind the scenes. It is clear by now that interests of corporations and rich individuals, as well as a couple of seemingly insignificant foreign states, beat the national interest of America all time, anytime. It is astonishing how a powerful, hard working and talented nation can become beholden to such forces, to its own detriment.

    In the end, I do not think the situation is uniquely American. Russia or China given a chance of total hegemony would behave the same. That's why we need a field of powers/superpowers to keep one another in check and negotiate rather than enforce solutions.

    ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:02

    Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. Yes, the me has its own problems, including rival versions of Islam and fundamentalism as well as truly megalomaniac leaders. But in instances (Libya for example) they did truly contribute to the country's destruction (and I am not excusing Gaddafi, but for the people there sometimes having these leaders and waiting for generational transformations may be a better solution than instant democracy pills.)


    ID7582903 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:00

    Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc.

    The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard

    Obama and the "regime" that rules the United Snakes of America have all gone over the edge into insanity writ large.

    ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 20:55

    To clarify, I meant that all these groups are funded by these Arabic sheikhdoms and it increasingly appears that th us of a is not as serious in eradicating all of them in the illusion that the so called softer ones will over through Assad and then it will be democracy, the much misused and fetishised term. Meanwhile we can carve up the country, Turkey gets a bite and our naughty bloated allies in Arabia will be happy with their influence. Only if it happened that way...

    There is much more than this short and simplified scenario, and yes Russia played its hand rather well taking the west off guard. And I am not trying to portray Putin as some liberation prophet either. So perhaps you could say that yes, maybe I have looked into it deep...

    BlooperMario -> RedEyedOverlord 30 Oct 2015 20:52

    China and Russia are only responding to NY World Bank and IMF cheats and also standing up to an evil empire that has ruined the middle east.
    Time you had a rethink old chap and stopped worshipping Blair; Bush; Rumsfeld etc as your heros.

    See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR.

    Silly Sailors provoking Chinese Lighthouse keepers.

    RoyRoger 30 Oct 2015 19:30

    Their Plan B is fucked !!

    But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country.

    Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country.

    The real battle/plan for the Corporate corrupt White House is to try and get a foothold in Syria and establish a military dictator after a coup d'etat'. As we know it's what they, the West, do best.

    Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's.

    In the interest of right is right; Good Luck Mr Putin !! I'm with you all the way.

    weematt 30 Oct 2015 19:25

    War (and poverty too) a consequence, concomitant, of competing for markets, raw materials and trade routes or areas of geo-political dominance, come to be seen as 'natural' outcomes of society, but are merely concomitants of a changeable social system.

    ... ... ...

    Greg_Samsa 30 Oct 2015 19:21

    Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil?

    This gives a whole new dimension to the term 'blue-on-blue'.

    Kevin Donegan 30 Oct 2015 18:59

    Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law.

    "Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War, in which the major continental European states – the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic – agreed to respect one another's territorial integrity. As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and to the prevailing world order.[1]"

    foolisholdman 30 Oct 2015 18:41

    As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change.

    If ever there was a government hat had lost its legitimacy the present US government is it.

    foolisholdman -> Johnny Kent 30 Oct 2015 18:31

    Johnny Kent

    The slight question of legality in placing troops in a sovereign country without permission or UN approval is obviously of no importance to the US...and yet they criticise Russia for 'annexing Crimea...

    Yes, but you see: the two cases are not comparable because the USA is exceptional.

    You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively.

    However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings.

    WalterCronkiteBot 30 Oct 2015 17:11

    What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law?

    Noone seems to even raise it as an issue, its all about congressional approval. Just like the UK drone strikes.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Syria decision the latest blow to Obamas Middle East legacy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. ..."
    "... Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen. ..."
    "... After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy! ..."
    "... I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. ..."
    "... amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience. ..."
    "... Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons. ..."
    "... The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies. ..."
    "... The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny.. ..."
    "... There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. ..."
    "... With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light. ..."
    "... The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy. ..."
    "... What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have. ..."
    "... Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes? ..."
    "... That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time. ..."
    "... Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation? ..."
    "... The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes. ..."
    "... Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions. ..."
    "... I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated. ..."
    "... Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR? ..."
    "... Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion. ..."
    "... You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly. ..."
    "... Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore. ..."
    "... There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene. ..."
    "... You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both? ..."
    "... ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense??? ..."
    "... Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts! ..."
    "... ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. ..."
    "... The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now. ..."
    "... Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. ..."
    "... Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc. ..."
    "... The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard ..."
    "... See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR. ..."
    "... But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country. ..."
    "... Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country. ..."
    "... Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's. ..."
    "... Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil? ..."
    "... Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law. ..."
    "... Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law ..."
    "... As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change. ..."
    "... You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively. ..."
    "... However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings. ..."
    "... What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law? ..."
    Oct 30, 2015 | The Guardian

    willpodmore 1 Nov 2015 10:30

    NATO and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .... they make a desert and call it peace.

    ID7582903 1 Nov 2015 06:19

    "Credibility"? Beware and be aware folks. This isn't a monopoly game being played here; it's for real.

    2015 Valdai conference is Societies Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict in Tomorrow's World. In the period between October 19 and 22, experts from 30 countries have been considering various aspects of the perception of war and peace both in the public consciousness and in international relations, religion and economic interaction between states. Videos w live translations and english transcripts (a keeper imho)
    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548

    30 Oct, 2015 - The day US announces Ground troops into Syria, and the day before the downing/crash of the Russian Airbus 321 in the Sinai, this happened: Russia has conducted a major test of its strategic missile forces, firing numerous ballistic and cruise missiles from various training areas across the country, videos uploaded by the Ministry of Defense have shown.

    A routine exercise, possibly the largest of its kind this year, was intended to test the command system of transmitting orders among departments and involved launches from military ranges on the ground, at sea and in the air, the ministry said Friday.

    https://www.rt.com/news/320194-russia-missiles-launch-training/

    30.10.2015 Since the beginning of its operation in Syria on September 30, Russian Aerospace Forces have carried out 1,391 sorties in Syria, destroying a total of 1,623 terrorist targets, the Russian General Staff said Friday.

    In particular, Russian warplanes destroyed 249 Islamic State command posts, 51 training camps, and 131 depots, Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff Main Operations Directorate said.

    "In Hanshih, a suburb of Damascus, 17 militants of the Al-Ghuraba group were executed in public after they tried to leave the combat area and flee to Jordan," he specified. "The whole scene was filmed in order to disseminate the footage among the other groups operating in the vicinity of Damascus and other areas", the General Staff spokesman said. In the central regions of the country, the Syrian Army managed to liberate 12 cities in the Hama province, Kartapolov said. "The Syrian armed forces continue their advance to the north," the general added.

    http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151030/1028992570/russian-airstrikes-syria-friday.html

    fairviewplz 1 Nov 2015 04:47

    Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. What an insult to our intelligence! We are well aware that the US provides the logistical and technical support, and refuelling of warplanes to the Saudi coalition illegal war in Yemen. Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen.

    After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy!

    Barmaidfromhell -> WSCrips 1 Nov 2015 03:52

    Well said.

    I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. Obviously carefully selected to follow any line given them and amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience.

    Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons.

    Michael Imanual Christos -> Pete Piper 1 Nov 2015 00:28

    Pete Piper

    In brief;

    The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies.

    ... ... ...

    midnightschild10 31 Oct 2015 21:35

    When Obama denounced Russia's actions in Syria, and blamed them for massive loss of civilian lives, Russia responded by asking them to show their proof. The Administration spokesperson said they got their information from social media. No one in the Administration seems to realize how utterly stupid that sounds. Marie Harf is happily developing the Administration's foreign policy via Twitter. As the CIA and NSA read Facebook for their daily planning, Obama reads the comments section of newspapers to prepare for his speech to the American public in regard to putting boots on the ground in Syria, and adding to the boots in Iraq. If it didn't result in putting soldiers lives in jeopardy, it would be considered silly. Putin makes his move and watches as the Obama Administration makes the only move they know, after minimal success in bombing, Obama does send in the troops. Putin is the one running the game. Obama's response is so predictable. No wonder the Russians are laughing. In his quest to outdo Cheyney, Obama has added to the number of wars the US is currently involved in. His original claim to fame was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which then resulted in starting Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2.0. Since helping to depose the existing governments in the Middle East, leading not only to the resurgence of AlQuaeda, and giving birth to ISIS, and leaving chaos and destruction in his wake, he decided to take down the last standing ruler, hoping that if he does the same thing over and over, he will get a different result. Obama's foreign policy legacy had been considered impotent at best, now its considered ridiculous.

    SomersetApples 31 Oct 2015 20:03

    We bombed them, we sent armies of terrorist in to kill them, we destroyed their hospitals and power plants and cities, we put sanctions on them and we did everything in our power to cut off their trading with the outside world, and yet they are still standing.

    The only thing left to do, lets send in some special military operatives.

    This is so out of character, or our perceived character of Obama. It must be that deranged idiot John McCain pulling the strings.

    Rafiqac01 31 Oct 2015 16:58

    The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny....having just watched CNNs Long Road to Hell in Iraq....and the idiots advising Bush and Blair you have to wonder the extent to which these are almighty balls ups or very sophisticated planning followed up by post disaster rationalisation....

    whatever the conclusion it proves that the intervention or non interventions prove their is little the USA has done that has added any good value to the situation...indeed it is an unmitigated disaster strewn around the world! Trump is the next generation frothing at the mouth ready to show what a big John Wayne he is!!

    DavidFCanada 31 Oct 2015 13:56

    There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. That US legacy will forever remain, burnt into skins and bodies of the living and dead, together with a virtually unanimous recognition in the ME of the laughable US pretexts of supporting democracy, the rule of law, religious freedom and, best of all, peace. Obama is merely the chief functionary of a nation of lies.

    Informed17 -> WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:47

    Are you saying that there was no illegal invasion of Iraq? No vial of laundry detergent was presented at the UN as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs? No hue and cry from "independent" media supported that deception campaign? Were you in a deep coma at the time?

    Informed17 -> somethingbrite 31 Oct 2015 13:36

    No. But the US trampled on the international law for quite a while now, starting with totally illegal interference in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

    WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:18

    Hey Guardian Editors.....and all those who worshipped Obama....In America, there were folks from the older generation that warned us that this Community Organizer was not ready for the Job of President of the United States....it had nothing to do with his color, he just was not ready.....he was a young, inexperienced Senator, who never, ever had a real job, never had a street fight growing up pampered in Hawaii, was given a pass to great universities because his parents had money, and was the dream Affirmative Action poster boy for the liberal left. Obama has not disappointed anyone who tried to warn us......and now we will reap what he has sowed:

    1. 8 Trillion to our debt
    2. Nightmare in the Middleast (how is that Arab Spring)
    3. Polarized America....Dems and Republicans hate each other....hate each other like the Irish and English...10 x over.
    4. War on Cops
    5. War with China
    6. Invasion from Central America

    I see a great depression and World War IV on the horizon....and I am being positive!

    SaveRMiddle 31 Oct 2015 12:47

    Nothing Obama says has any value. We've watched the man lie with a grin and a chuckle.

    Forever Gone is all trust.

    His continued abuse of Red Line threats spoke volumes about the lawyer who Reactively micromanages that which required and deserved an expert Proactive plan.

    Let History reflect the horrific death CIA meddling Regime Change/Divide and Conquer creates.

    HeadInSand2013 31 Oct 2015 12:45

    Liberal activists were in little doubt that Obama has failed to live up to his commitment to avoid getting dragged directly into the war.

    With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex.

    Liberal activists are stupid enough to think that M. Obama is actually in charge of the US military or the US foreign policy. Just go back and count how many times during the last 6 years M. Obama has made a declaration and then - sometimes the next day - US military has over-ruled him.


    Mediaking 31 Oct 2015 10:00

    Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light.

    USA forces coming to the aid of their 5 individuals... yes 1,2,3,4,5 ( stated by US command- there are only that amount of FSA fighters left - the rest have gone over to ISIL with their equipment -- ) the local population all speak of ISIL/Daesh being American/Israeli ,they say if this is a civil war how come all the opposition are foreigners -- I think perhaps it's like the Ukraine affair... a bunch of CIA paid Nazi thugs instigating a coup ... or like Venezuela agents on roof tops shooting at both sides in demonstrations to get things going. The usual business of CIA/Mossad stuff in tune with the mass media with their engineered narratives -- Followed by the trolls on cyber space... no doubt we shall see them here too.

    All note that an Intervention in Syria would be "ILLEGAL" by Int. law and sooner than later will be sued in billions for it...on top of the billions spent on having a 5 person strong force of FSA...spent from the American tax payers money . Syria has a government and is considered a state at the UN . Iran and Russia are there at the request and permission of Syria .

    Russia and Iran have been methodically wiping out Washington's mercenaries on the ground while recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. Now that the terrorists are getting wiped out the west and the Saudis are are screaming blue murder !

    I for one would have Assad stay , as he himself suggests , till his country is completely free of terrorists, then have free elections . I would add , to have the Saudis and the ones in the west/Turkey/Jordan charged for crimes against humanity for supplying and creating Daesh/ISIS . This element cannot be ignored . Also Kurdistan can form their new country in the regions they occupy as of this moment and Mosul to come. Iran,Russia,Iraq, Syria and the new Kurdistan will sign up to this deal . Millions of Syrian refugees can then come back home and rebuild their broken lives with Iranian help and cash damages from the mentioned instigators $400 billion . The cash must be paid into the Syrian central bank before any elections take place ... Solved...

    My consultancy fee - 200ml pounds sterling... I know ... you wish I ruled the world (who knows !) - no scams please or else -- ( the else would be an Apocalypse upon the western equity markets via the Illuminati i.e a 49% crash )... a week to pay , no worries since better to pay for a just solution than to have million descend upon EU as refugees . It is either this or God's revenge with no mercy .

    amacd2 31 Oct 2015 09:52

    Obama, being more honest but also more dangerous than Flip Wilson says, "The Empire made me do it",

    Bernie, having "reservations" about what Obama has done, says nothing against Empire, but continues to pretend, against all evidence, that this is a democracy.

    Hillary, delighting in more war, says "We came, we bombed, they all died, but the Empire won."

    Talk about 'The Issue' to debate for the candidates in 2016?

    "What's your position on the Empire?"

    "Oh, what Empire, you ask?"

    "The friggin Empire that you are auditioning to pose as the president of --- you lying tools of both the neocon 'R' Vichy party and you smoother lying neoliberal-cons of the 'D' Vichy party!"

    lightstroke -> Pete Piper 31 Oct 2015 09:41

    Nukes are not on the table. Mutually Assured Destruction.

    The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy.

    It's not necessary to win wars to exercise that power. All they have to do is start them and keep them going until the arms industry makes as much dough from them as possible. That's the only win they care about.

    What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have.

    Taku2 31 Oct 2015 09:26

    Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes?

    How stupid can a President get?

    Obama does need to pull back on this one, even though it will make his stupid and erroneous policy towards the Syrian tragedy seem completely headless. If this stupid and brainless policy is meant to be symbolic, its potential for future catastrophic consequences is immeasurable.

    phillharmonic -> nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:56

    That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time.

    nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:35

    Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State

    And who are those then? Do they exist, do we have any reliable source confirming they are really simultaneously fighting IS and Syrian Army or is it yet another US fairy tale?

    Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation?

    phillharmonic 31 Oct 2015 08:33

    The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes.

    amacd2 -> Woody Treasure 31 Oct 2015 08:31

    Woody, did you mean "Obama is a foil (for the Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire--- which he certainly is), or did you mean to say "fool" (which he certainly is not, both because he is a well paid puppet/poodle for this Global Empire merely HQed in, and 'posing' as, America --- as Blair and Camron are for the same singular Global Empire --- and because Obama didn't end his role as Faux/Emperor-president like JFK), eh?

    Nena Cassol -> TonyBlunt 31 Oct 2015 06:48

    Assad's father seized power with a military coup and ruled the country for 30 years, before dying he appointed his son, who immediately established marshal law, prompting discontent even among his father's die-hard loyalists ...this is plain history, is this what you call a legitimate leader?

    Cycles 31 Oct 2015 06:41

    Forced to go in otherwise the Russians and Iranians get full control. Welcome to the divided Syria a la Germany after WW2.

    TonyBlunt -> Nena Cassol 31 Oct 2015 06:36

    "It does not take much research to find out that Assad is not legitimate at all"

    Please share your source with us Nena. But remember Langley Publications don't count.

    TonyBlunt -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 06:29

    The Americans do not recognise international law. They do not sign up to any of it and proclaim the right to break it with their "exceptionalism".

    Katrin3 -> herrmaya 31 Oct 2015 05:27

    The Russians, US, Iran etc are all meeting right now in Vienna. The Russians and the US military do communicate with each other, to avoid attacking each other by mistake.

    The Russians are in the West and N.West of Syria. The US is going into the N. East, near IS headquarters in Raqqa, to support the Kurdish YPG, who are only a few kilometers from the city.

    Katrin3 -> ID6693806 31 Oct 2015 05:15

    Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions.

    I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated.

    centerline ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:48

    The Kurds are the fabled moderate opposition who are willing to negotiate, and who have also fought with the Syrian government against US backed ISIS and al Nusra so called moderate opposition.

    Pete Piper -> Verbum 31 Oct 2015 04:47

    @Verbum
    Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR?

    Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion.

    gabriel90 -> confettifoot 31 Oct 2015 04:46

    ISiS is destroying Syria thanks to the US and Saudi Arabia; its an instrument to spread chaos in the Middle East and attack Iran and Russia...

    ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:21

    So, on the day peace talks open, the US unilaterally announces advice boots on the ground to support one of the many sides in the Syrian War, who will undoubtedly want self determination, right on Turkey's border, as they always have, and as has always been opposed by the majority of the Syrian population. What part of that isn't completely mad?

    Great sympathy for the situation of the Kurds in Syria under Assad, but their nationalism issue and inability to work together with the Sunni rebels, was a major factor in the non formation of a functioning opposition in Syria, and will be a block to peace, not its cause. It's also part of a larger plan to have parts of Turkey and Iraq under Kurdish control to create a contingent kingdom. Whatever the merits of that, the US deciding to support them at this stage is completely irrational, and with Russia and Iran supporting Assad will lengthen the war, not shorten it.

    MissSarajevo 31 Oct 2015 04:21

    Just a couple of things here. How does the US know who the moderates are?!? Is this another occasion that the US is going to use International law as toilet paper? The US will enter (as if they weren't already there, illegally. They were not invited in by the legitimate leader of Syria.

    gabriel90 31 Oct 2015 04:19

    Warbama is just trying to save his saudi/qatari/turk/emirati dogs of war... they will be wiped out by Russia and the axis of resistance...

    Pete Piper -> Michael Imanual Christos 31 Oct 2015 04:08

    Does anyone see anything rational in US foreign policy? When I hear attempts to explain, they vary around .. "it's about oil". But no one ever shows evidence continuous wars produced more oil for anyone. So, are we deliberately creating chaos and misery? Why? To make new enemies we can use to justify more war? We've now classified the number of countries we are bombing. Why? The countries being bombed surely know.

    Pete Piper -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 03:50

    You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly.

    Only the US routinely violates other nations' sovergnity. Since Korea, the only nation that has ever used military force against a nation not on its border is the US.

    Can anyone find rationality in US foreign policy? We are supposed to be fighting ISIL, but Saudi Arabia and Israel appear to be helping ISIL to force Syrian regime change. And the US is supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia that are routed to ISIL. Supposedly because eliminating President Asad is more important than fighting ISIL? The US public is being misled into thinking we are NOW fighting ISIL. After Asad is killed, then we will genuinely fight ISIL? Russia, Iran, and more(?) will fight to keep Asad in power and then fight ISIL? THIS IS OBVIOUS BS, AND ALSO FUBAR.

    By all means, get everyone together for some diplomacy.

    oldholbornian -> lesmandalasdeniki 31 Oct 2015 03:36

    Well lets look at Germany the centre of christian culture and the EU

    http://www.infowars.com/this-is-our-future-germany-may-soon-have-8-million-muslims/

    CAPLAN -> Lunora 31 Oct 2015 03:33

    reminds me of emporer franz josef in europe about 100 years ago .. meant well but led to ruination ..i dont think that there has been an american president involved in more wars than obama

    obama by his cairo speech kicked of the arab spring ..shows that words can kill

    however.. the experience he now has gained may lead to an avoidance of a greater sunni shia war in syria if the present vienna talks can offer something tangible and preserve honour to the sunnis .. in the mid east honour and macho are key elements in negotiations

    iran however is a shia caliphate based regime and unless it has learnt the lesson from yemen on the limitations of force may push for further success via army and diplomacy and control in syria and iraq

    oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 02:42

    But Obama's latest broken promise to avoid an "open-ended action" in Syria could lead to a full-blown war with Russia considering that Russian military has been operating in Syria for weeks.

    " For the first time ever, the American strategists have developed an illusion that they may defeat a nuclear power in a non-nuclear war," Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin told AP. "It's nonsense, and it will never happen."

    http://www.infowars.com/flashback-obama-says-no-boots-on-the-ground-in-syria-before-sending-troops/

    Any US / terrorist engagement with the Syrian security forces will include engaging with its allies Russia

    Once the firing starts Russia will include the US as terrorists with no rights to be in Syrian and under the UN RULES have the right to defend themselves against the US

    HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:32

    Hmm Foreign snipers on rooftops ( not in the control of the government) how many times is this scenario going to be played out before the 'press' twigs it than something is not making sense.

    HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:29

    Though in one demonstration there was snipers on rooftops shooting both deconstratirs and the police - far more police were killed than demonstrators - what does this reming you of? Was these actions seemingly out of the control of the government a preliminary to what happened in Kiev during the maidan - practices get the technics right I suppose. - outside forces were obviously at work ' stirring the pot.

    Anna Eriksson 31 Oct 2015 02:24

    Let's hope that the US will help out with taking in some refugees as well! In Germany, and Sweden locals are becoming so frustrated and angry that they set refugee shelters on fire. This is a trend in both Sweden and Germany, as shown in the maps in the links. There have almost been 90 arsons in Germany so far this year, almost 30 in Sweden.

    Map of Sweden fire incidents: http://bit.ly/1MiaMX9

    Map of Germany arson incidents: http://bit.ly/1LZzEUh

    betrynol 31 Oct 2015 01:56

    Nobody tells the American people and nobody else really cares, but these 40-something guys being sent to Syria are possibly there as:

    • cannon fodder: to deter the Russians from bombing and Iranians from attacking on the ground the American friendly anti-Assad militant groups;
    • to collect and report more accurate intel from the front line (again about the Russian/Iranian troops deployment/movement).

    The Russian and Iranian troops on the ground will soon engage and sweep anti-Assad forces in key regions in Western Syria. This will be slightly impeded if Americans are among them. But accidents do happen, hence the term "cannon fodder".

    The Russians and Iranians will likely take a step back militarily though for the duration of talks, so the American plan to protect Saudi backed fighters is likely to work.

    I never involved or mentioned ISIS because this is NOT about fighting ISIS. It's about counteracting the Russian/Irania sweep in the area, and ultimately keeping the Americans in the game (sorry, war).

    petervietnam 31 Oct 2015 01:13

    The world's policeman or the world's trouble maker?

    Austin Young -> Will D 31 Oct 2015 00:34

    But he's the "change we can believe in" guy! Oh right... Dem or republican, they spew anything and everything their voters want to hear but when it comes time to walk the walk the only voice in their head is Cash Money.

    lesmandalasdeniki -> Bardhyl Cenolli 30 Oct 2015 23:34

    It frustrates me, anyone who will be the problem-solver will be labeled as dangerous by the Western political and business leaders if the said person or group of people can not be totally controlled for their agenda.

    This will be the first time I will be speaking about the Indonesian forest fires that started from June this year until now. During the period I was not on-line, I watched the local news and all channels were featuring the same problem every day during the last two-weeks.

    US is also silent about it during Obama - Jokowi meeting, even praising Jokowi being on the right track. After Jokowi came back, his PR spin is in the force again, he went directly to Palembang, he held office and trying to put up an image of a President that cared for his people. He couldn't solve the Indonesian forest fires from June - October, is it probably because Jusuf Kalla has investment in it?

    My point is, US and the Feds, World Bank and IMF are appointing their puppets on each country they have put up an investment on terms of sovereign debt and corporate debt/bonds.

    And Obama is their puppet.

    Will D 30 Oct 2015 23:30

    Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore.

    He has turned out to be a massive disappointment to all those who had such high hopes that he really would make the world a better place. His failure and his abysmal track record will cause him to be remembered as the Nobel Peace prize wining president who did exactly the opposite of what he promised, and failed to further the cause of peace.

    Greg_Samsa -> Greenacres2002 30 Oct 2015 23:07

    Consistency is at the heart of logic, all mathematics, and hard sciences.

    Even the legal systems strive to be free of contradictions.

    I'd rather live in world with consistency of thought and action as represented by the Russian Federation, then be mired in shit created by the US who have shed all the hobgoblins pestering the consistency of their thoughts and actions.

    Never truly understood the value of this stupid quote really...

    Phil Atkinson -> PaulF77 30 Oct 2015 22:28

    There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene.

    You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both?

    MainstreamMedia Propaganda 30 Oct 2015 22:03

    ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense???

    2012 DIA Document (R050839Z) - Defense Intelligence Agency
    Public Affairs Office: 202-231-5554 or [email protected]
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/media-blacks-out-pentagon-report-exposing-u-s-role-in-isis-creation/206187/
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/

    DarrenPartridge 30 Oct 2015 22:03

    I think blatant policy changes like this show just how ineffectual the US president actually is. The hand over between Bush and Obama has been seamless. Gitmo still going, patriot act renewed, Libya a smoldering ruin (4 years down the line), no progress on gun control, troops in Afganistan and Iraq... it goes on...

    HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:58

    "It's really hard to see how this tiny number of troops embedded on the ground is going to turn the tide in any way."

    Or the U.S. could carry out air strikes against Hezbollah which has been fighting ISIS for a while now. They could also supply weapons to ISIS (who are dubbed 'moderates') to counter Russian airstrikes and Iranian man power.

    Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts!

    Phil Atkinson -> Harry Bhai 30 Oct 2015 21:57

    Fuck the al-Sauds and their oil. If the US wants their oil (and there's plenty of other oil sellers in the world) then just take it. Why not be consistent?

    templeforjerusalem 30 Oct 2015 21:51

    IS has shown itself to be deeply hateful of anything that conflicts with their narrow religious interpretations. Destroying Palmyra, murdering indiscriminately, without any clear international agenda other than the formation of a new Sunni Sharia State, makes them essentially enemies of everybody. Although I do agree that belligerent secular Netanyahu's Israel sets a bad example in the area, Israel does not tend to murder over the same primitive values that IS uses, although there's not much difference in reality.

    IS uses extermination tactics, Israel used forced land clearance and concentration camp bombing (Gaza et al), while the US in Iraq used brutal force. None of this is good but nothing justifies the shear barbarism of IS. Is there hope in any of this? No. Is Russian and US involvement a major escalation? Yes.

    Ultimately, this is about religious identities refusing to share and demand peace. Sunni vs Shia, Judeo/Catholic/Protestant West vs Russian Orthodox, secular vs orthodox Israel. No wonder people are saying Armageddon.

    HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:50

    ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. The only countries and groups that have been successfully fighting ISIS - Assad's forces, Iranians, Hezbollah, Russians, and Kurds are in fact enemies of either the U.S., Saudis, Israelis, or Turks. Isn't that strange? The countries and peoples that have suffered the most and that have actually fought against ISIS effectively are seen as the enemy. Do the powers that be really want to wipe out ISIS at all costs? No, especially if it involves the Iranians and Russians.

    VengefulRevenant 30 Oct 2015 21:44

    "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on [a] completely trumped up pretext. It's an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, wilful choice by [President Obama] to invade another country. [The US] is in violation of the sovereignty of [Syria. The US] is in violation of its international obligations."

    Verbum -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:41

    How are Russian boots on the ground - of which there have been many for some time - ok and American boots bad?

    The difference is that of a poison and the antidotum. The American/NATO meddling in Iraq, Libya and Syria created a truly sick situation which needs to be fixed. That's what the Russians are doing. Obviously, they have their own objectives and motives for that and are protecting their own interests, but nevertheless this is the surest way to re-establish semblance of stability in the Middle East, rebuilt Syria and Iraq, stop the exodus of the refugees, and mend relations in the region.

    The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now.

    I feel sorry for Mr Obama, and indeed America, because he is a decent person, yet most of us are unaware what forces he has to reckon with behind the scenes. It is clear by now that interests of corporations and rich individuals, as well as a couple of seemingly insignificant foreign states, beat the national interest of America all time, anytime. It is astonishing how a powerful, hard working and talented nation can become beholden to such forces, to its own detriment.

    In the end, I do not think the situation is uniquely American. Russia or China given a chance of total hegemony would behave the same. That's why we need a field of powers/superpowers to keep one another in check and negotiate rather than enforce solutions.

    ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:02

    Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. Yes, the me has its own problems, including rival versions of Islam and fundamentalism as well as truly megalomaniac leaders. But in instances (Libya for example) they did truly contribute to the country's destruction (and I am not excusing Gaddafi, but for the people there sometimes having these leaders and waiting for generational transformations may be a better solution than instant democracy pills.)


    ID7582903 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:00

    Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc.

    The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard

    Obama and the "regime" that rules the United Snakes of America have all gone over the edge into insanity writ large.

    ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 20:55

    To clarify, I meant that all these groups are funded by these Arabic sheikhdoms and it increasingly appears that th us of a is not as serious in eradicating all of them in the illusion that the so called softer ones will over through Assad and then it will be democracy, the much misused and fetishised term. Meanwhile we can carve up the country, Turkey gets a bite and our naughty bloated allies in Arabia will be happy with their influence. Only if it happened that way...

    There is much more than this short and simplified scenario, and yes Russia played its hand rather well taking the west off guard. And I am not trying to portray Putin as some liberation prophet either. So perhaps you could say that yes, maybe I have looked into it deep...

    BlooperMario -> RedEyedOverlord 30 Oct 2015 20:52

    China and Russia are only responding to NY World Bank and IMF cheats and also standing up to an evil empire that has ruined the middle east.
    Time you had a rethink old chap and stopped worshipping Blair; Bush; Rumsfeld etc as your heros.

    See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR.

    Silly Sailors provoking Chinese Lighthouse keepers.

    RoyRoger 30 Oct 2015 19:30

    Their Plan B is fucked !!

    But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country.

    Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country.

    The real battle/plan for the Corporate corrupt White House is to try and get a foothold in Syria and establish a military dictator after a coup d'etat'. As we know it's what they, the West, do best.

    Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's.

    In the interest of right is right; Good Luck Mr Putin !! I'm with you all the way.

    weematt 30 Oct 2015 19:25

    War (and poverty too) a consequence, concomitant, of competing for markets, raw materials and trade routes or areas of geo-political dominance, come to be seen as 'natural' outcomes of society, but are merely concomitants of a changeable social system.

    ... ... ...

    Greg_Samsa 30 Oct 2015 19:21

    Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil?

    This gives a whole new dimension to the term 'blue-on-blue'.

    Kevin Donegan 30 Oct 2015 18:59

    Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law.

    "Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War, in which the major continental European states – the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic – agreed to respect one another's territorial integrity. As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and to the prevailing world order.[1]"

    foolisholdman 30 Oct 2015 18:41

    As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change.

    If ever there was a government hat had lost its legitimacy the present US government is it.

    foolisholdman -> Johnny Kent 30 Oct 2015 18:31

    Johnny Kent

    The slight question of legality in placing troops in a sovereign country without permission or UN approval is obviously of no importance to the US...and yet they criticise Russia for 'annexing Crimea...

    Yes, but you see: the two cases are not comparable because the USA is exceptional.

    You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively.

    However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings.

    WalterCronkiteBot 30 Oct 2015 17:11

    What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law?

    Noone seems to even raise it as an issue, its all about congressional approval. Just like the UK drone strikes.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Rile the masses up against the Commie Threat, as it worked so well in the 50s - 60s

    Red bating worked before and works now...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Rile the masses up against the Commie Threat, as it worked so well in the 50's - 60's. Save us the expense of rewriting the playbook. Sure. Duck and cover. ..."
    "... But the first place I would look is inside the DNC, if I were in charge. Russian intel releasing to wikileaks? Not much profit in that. ..."
    "... By the way, whatever became of dearest FBI frontman Comey? ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    stumpy | Aug 11, 2016 6:13:33 PM | 30
    "It might have well been an insider who copied the material and handed them to Wikileaks for publication"

    Why this idea gets no traction, obviously -- without an admission of authenticity from DNC, they have it both ways, the ability to ascribe guilt to Russia, and plausible deniability vis a vis Sanders. Let's not rule out a purposeful leak as a gloating advertisement for DNC sponsors/donors, or just as likely as a forgery using wikileaks as conduit for disinformation by anti-DNC ops. The Guccifer blip is just as believable valid as any of these theories, upo.

    Rile the masses up against the Commie Threat, as it worked so well in the 50's - 60's. Save us the expense of rewriting the playbook. Sure. Duck and cover.

    But the first place I would look is inside the DNC, if I were in charge. Russian intel releasing to wikileaks? Not much profit in that.

    By the way, whatever became of dearest FBI frontman Comey?

    [Sep 12, 2016] Methinks the lady doth protest overmuch

    Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing. Only Jedi Knights can stop him. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/23/pers-j23.html
    Notable quotes:
    "... Look over there! Putin is all over the place these days, he is doing Brexit, supporting Trump, and Corbyn I think, he is hacking Hillary, wow. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    europeangrayling , 2016-07-24 17:23:08
    Look over there! Putin is all over the place these days, he is doing Brexit, supporting Trump, and Corbyn I think, he is hacking Hillary, wow. And he still has time to ride horses and play with tigers and invade Europe. I see why he is popular.

    But it's nice to be Russian, I like Russia, it's a beautiful country. Until now the Bernie people were all sexists, racists, privileged homeless idiots who lived in basements, but now we are Russians. Much better. See that's the Hillary outreach to the bros.

    trholland1 , 2016-07-24 16:50:29
    Them pesky Russkys! Now they are exerting mind control over Debbie Wasserman Schultz!
    whyohwhy1 trholland1 , 2016-07-24 16:53:07
    Clinton will protect America's bodily fluids against!
    whyohwhy1 trholland1 , 2016-07-24 16:53:45
    against* Putin and other Soviet leaders.
    morseldoc trholland1 , 2016-07-24 17:39:52
    LOL. The best comment for a good guffaw!

    [Sep 12, 2016] We should remember the prejudice of the DNC toward Sanders and criminal tricks they played to derail his candidacy

    Now in view of recent Hillary health problems actions of Wasserman Schultz need to be revisited. She somehow avoided criminal prosecution for interfering with the election process under Obama administration. That's clearly wrong. The court should investigate and determine the level of her guilt.
    Moor did his duty, moor can go. This is fully applicable to Wasserman Schultz. BTW it was king of "bait and switch" Obama who installed her in this position. And after that some try to say that Obama is not a neocon. Essentially leaks mean is that Sander's run was defeated by the Democratic Party's establishment dirty tricks and Hillary is not a legitimate candidate. It's Mission Accomplished, once again.
    "Clinton is a life-long Republican. She grew up in an all-white Republican suburb, she supported Goldwater, and she supported Wall Street banking, then became a DINO dildo to ride her husband's coattails to WH, until the NYC Mob traded her a NY Senator seat for her husband's perfidy. She never said one word about re-regulating the banks."
    How could this anti-Russian hysteria/bashing go on in a normal country -- the level of paranoia and disinformation about Russia and Putin is plain crazy even for proto-fascist regimes.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Wasserman Schultz reluctantly agreed to relinquish her speaking role at the convention here, a sign of her politically fragile standing. ..."
    "... Democratic leaders are scrambling to keep the party united, but two officials familiar with the discussions said Wasserman Schultz was digging in and not eager to vacate her post after the November elections. ..."
    "... Sanders on Sunday told CNN's Jake Tapper the release of DNC emails that show its staffers working against him underscore the position he's held for months: Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go. ..."
    "... "I don't think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC not only for these awful emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don't think her leadership style is doing that," Sanders told Tapper ..."
    "... But again, we discussed this many, many months ago, on this show, so what is revealed now is not a shock to me." ..."
    Jul 24, 2016 | cnn.com

    Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz will not have a major speaking role or preside over daily convention proceedings this week, a decision reached by party officials Saturday after emails surfaced raising questions about the committee's impartiality during the Democratic primary.
    The DNC Rules Committee on Saturday named Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, as permanent chair of the convention, according to a DNC source. She will gavel each session to order and will gavel each session closed.

    "She's been quarantined," another top Democrat said of Wasserman Schultz, following a meeting Saturday night. Wasserman Schultz faced intense pressure Sunday to resign her post as head of the Democratic National Committee, several party leaders told CNN, urging her to quell a growing controversy threatening to disrupt Hillary Clinton's nominating convention.

    Wasserman Schultz reluctantly agreed to relinquish her speaking role at the convention here, a sign of her politically fragile standing. But party leaders are now urging the Florida congresswoman to vacate her position as head of the party entirely in the wake of leaked emails suggesting the DNC favored Clinton during the primary and tried to take down Bernie Sanders by questioning his religion. Democratic leaders are scrambling to keep the party united, but two officials familiar with the discussions said Wasserman Schultz was digging in and not eager to vacate her post after the November elections.

    ... ... ...

    One email appears to show DNC staffers asking how they can reference Bernie Sanders' faith to weaken him in the eyes of Southern voters. Another seems to depict an attorney advising the committee on how to defend Hillary Clinton against an accusation by the Sanders campaign of not living up to a joint fundraising agreement.

    Sanders on Sunday told CNN's Jake Tapper the release of DNC emails that show its staffers working against him underscore the position he's held for months: Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go.

    "I don't think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC not only for these awful emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don't think her leadership style is doing that," Sanders told Tapper on "State of the Union," on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

    "I am not an atheist," he said. "But aside from all of that, it is an outrage and sad that you would have people in important positions in the DNC trying to undermine my campaign. It goes without saying, the function of the DNC is to represent all of the candidates -- to be fair and even-minded."

    He added: "But again, we discussed this many, many months ago, on this show, so what is revealed now is not a shock to me."

    ... ... ...

    Several Democratic sources told CNN that the leaked emails are a big source of contention and may incite tensions between the Clinton and Sanders camps heading into the Democratic convention's Rules Committee meeting this weekend.

    "It could threaten their agreement," one Democrat said, referring to the deal reached between Clinton and Sanders about the convention, delegates and the DNC. The party had agreed to include more progressive principles in its official platform, and as part of the agreement, Sanders dropped his fight to contest Wasserman Schultz as the head of the DNC.

    "It's gas meets flame," the Democrat said.

    Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesman, had no comment Friday.

    The issue surfaced on Saturday at Clinton's first campaign event with Tim Kaine as her running mate, when a protester was escorted out of Florida International University in Miami. The protester shouted "DNC leaks" soon after Clinton thanked Wasserman Schultz for her leadership at the DNC.

    [Sep 12, 2016] I told him it would not have surprised me in the least if it was Israeli and Bush who were instrumental in demolishing of building 7

    Notable quotes:
    "... millions of people in the Islamic world have reached their own conclusion about responsibility. ..."
    "... Deeply distrusting anything coming from Washington, many are buying into a theory based not on facts or evidence but the assumption that the West and Israel are capable of anything. ..."
    "... When I was in Iraq in 2004 I had a Turkish contractor I worked with there (he owned a generator maintenance/repair shop) tell me it was unfortunate that Bush did not understand that the Israelis paid for and helped to execute the WTC blowup. ..."
    "... To be perfectly frank, I told him it would not have surprised me in the least if it were true. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    RabidGandhi , September 13, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    Washington Post: Dumb Muslims Love Conspiracy Theories

    While Western leaders declare they have incontrovertible, if not yet public, proof that Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks, millions of people in the Islamic world have reached their own conclusion about responsibility.

    Deeply distrusting anything coming from Washington, many are buying into a theory based not on facts or evidence but the assumption that the West and Israel are capable of anything.

    It's only a conspiracy theory if you have a deerstalker turban.

    JCC , September 13, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    This story has been circulating in various forms over there for years. When I was in Iraq in 2004 I had a Turkish contractor I worked with there (he owned a generator maintenance/repair shop) tell me it was unfortunate that Bush did not understand that the Israelis paid for and helped to execute the WTC blowup.

    To be perfectly frank, I told him it would not have surprised me in the least if it were true.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Wikileaks released 19K emails from the DNC burying Debbie Wasserman Schultz and hurting Hillary

    DNC is just a cesspool of neocon sharks. No decency whatsoever. What a bottom feeders. Will Sanders supporters walk out ?
    Notable quotes:
    "... They made Craigslist posts on fake Trump jobs talking about women needing to be hot for the job and "maintain hotness" https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803 ..."
    "... DNC and Hillary moles inside the Bernie campaign https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4776 ..."
    m.reddit.com

    This post will be updated. For bios on some of the people mentioned in these emails, please see /u/MrLinderman 's awesome post below.

    People copying this post across Reddit have had their posts removed on /r/politics and even was removed on /r/SandersForPresident .

    If you have one to add, either message me or post below. Contributors so far have been credited. I appreciate their help.

    Regarding Trump

    Regarding Bernie

    Media Collaboration

    GENERAL

    [Sep 12, 2016] Caught red handed and still deflecting: the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions

    The real question is whether the email are authentic or not. They are. Neoliberal propaganda honchos just decided to use a smoke screen to conceal this fact using Russia as a bogeyman. Russian might be guilty of many things, but in no way it is responsible for corruption of DNC and this subversive actions/covert operations used for installing Hillary Clinton as a candidate from the Democratic Party. .
    Notable quotes:
    "... Is it OK to cheat, lie and deceive - as Clintons and DNC did - and then defend themselves by saying that "nobody would know, if it wasn't for those damn Russians"? Even the idea is preposterous: how we find out about this corruption is irrelevant, the point is there was corruption and cheating. ..."
    "... So the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions. ..."
    "... [Under Clintons] democracy has become conspiracy ..."
    "... Are you constipated? Blame it on Russia. ..."
    "... Oh and blaming Russia for revealing the truth. The truth was not attacked, but who revealed the truth is suddenly the bad guy. So desperate and out of sorts. :) ..."
    "... There's no proof, besides an unsourced article in the Washington Post form 'security experts', that Russia had anything to do with this. What we do know is that immediately after the leaks became public various news outlets produced obviously planted hit pieces claiming some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin, and again with precisely zero evidence as back up. It's gob smacking that the Clinton campaign would risk an international incident with a nuclear power to cover for their shitty behaviour, but then again it's Hillary Clinton so perhaps not. ..."
    "... It may indeed be Russian hackers who gained access to the emails which confirm the DNC was all along in the tank for Clinton, and was actively placing a thumb on the scale from day one in the primary process. ..."
    "... But the bottom line here is that if the DNC had not so conspired, there would be no emails to leak, now would there? For Mook and others to now be placing blame on the hackers, rather than on those who produced the embarrassing material that the hackers exposed, is diversionary and inexcusable. ..."
    "... The funniest thing is, they don't even deny the authenticity of the emails. Basically, DNC says that someone is guilty of revealing the truth. You can hardly stoop any lower. Blaming Russia is just a cherry on the cake. ..."
    "... How nice to have an eternal scapegoat: TheRussiansAreComing!TheRussiansAreComing! This will obviously be RodHam's theme as President. Perhaps to the point of annihilation. Neo-Conne! ..."
    "... My biggest issue with Hillary from the start has been her continued nonchalance when it comes to matters of national security. She acts as if she is above the need to keep sensitive information safe from potential enemies, both foreign and domestic. That's a pretty scary attitude coming from someone who is likely to be this nation's next leader. ..."
    "... It's amazing. Caught red handed and still deflecting. Take responsibility for Christ sak ..."
    "... ".....Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced, in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize his support. ..."
    "... The more interesting part is that this blame is just a distraction from the larger issue, that the entire political system is corrupted and broken. This is just business as usual, only this instance was revealed. ..."
    From comments to: Clinton campaign blames Russia for leaked DNC emails about Sanders
    trholland1 , 2016-07-24 16:52:36
    Methinks the lady doth protest overmuch;
    NorthDakotan , 2016-07-24 16:46:50
    I honestly can't wait for when the pro-clinron commentors arrive. I can see it now "this doesn't matter if you vote 3rd party you're voting for trump." It won't matter that this is all the fault of the DNC, it will be on us. I'm calling it now ;)
    Beckow , 2016-07-24 16:42:09
    Is it OK to cheat, lie and deceive - as Clintons and DNC did - and then defend themselves by saying that "nobody would know, if it wasn't for those damn Russians"? Even the idea is preposterous: how we find out about this corruption is irrelevant, the point is there was corruption and cheating.

    Interestingly, this is a favorite defense of all authoritarians. They always claim that if it benefits the "enemy", it is ok to suppress it. Stalin had a concept of "objectively aiding the enemy" - it meant that maybe the person was not a conscious traitor, but his/her actions helped the enemy - and that was enough. Is Guardian and Clintons now marching down this road of extreme "us versus them" ideology?

    What's is next? Will Clintons ban Bernie from speaking because it would "aid Trump"? (and by extension in their paranoid thinking, it would aid Russia).

    calderonparalapaz , 2016-07-24 17:19:02
    "Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."

    So the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions.

    Another reason on the list as to why I won't be voting for Hillary. Why did DNC act very anti-democratic?

    A vote for Hillary is a vote for continued corruption.

    qqqqqqmn , 2016-07-24 17:15:14
    [Under Clintons] democracy has become conspiracy
    silverbeech , 2016-07-24 17:11:46
    Rather than blaming they ought to be taking responsibility for their own words. But they'd have to be adults with integrity to do that. The tragedy and travesty of it is the willful, routine, nonchalant effort to subvert the Constitution and the will of the people. These kinds of machinations have always gone on within both parties and should always be exposed. The SuperPACS, the dark money, the secret maneuverings, the totally broken primary system, all designed to stop our having our say. People elsewhere often wonder about "our" choices for the White House. Now they can see how much of that free choice has been wrested away over time, and how imperative it is that we ordinary people start working on positive change within the elective system. In my opinion all the DNC participants should lose their jobs and be made to cool their heels in jail a while, because without consequences we may as well just burn the Constitution and Bill of Rights right now and be done with it, for all the respect these documents are given by our politicians. What a revolting mess it all is on both sides, with ordinary people the losers, as always.
    Lorenzo68 , 2016-07-24 17:10:03
    Are you constipated? Blame it on Russia.
    farright -> Lorenzo68 , 2016-07-24 17:22:05
    Bad haircut? Blame Russia?
    Puro , 2016-07-24 17:09:52
    Oh and blaming Russia for revealing the truth. The truth was not attacked, but who revealed the truth is suddenly the bad guy. So desperate and out of sorts. :)
    furminator -> Puro , 2016-07-24 17:20:53
    There's no proof, besides an unsourced article in the Washington Post form 'security experts', that Russia had anything to do with this. What we do know is that immediately after the leaks became public various news outlets produced obviously planted hit pieces claiming some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin, and again with precisely zero evidence as back up. It's gob smacking that the Clinton campaign would risk an international incident with a nuclear power to cover for their shitty behaviour, but then again it's Hillary Clinton so perhaps not.
    JVRTRL , 2016-07-24 17:09:24
    A big part of the problem is that Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) is still in her position. If the Democratic Party place a value on performance, she should have been fired after the 2014 mid-terms.

    Part of the problem is that the DNC is too closely aligned with the interests of one political family. Competence and other considerations count for a lot less than loyalty. DWS kept her position because of the ties to Clinton and Clintons donors, not because she did a good job and grew the party. The opposite has happened.

    Frankly, Obama bears some degree of responsibility for this because he's the one who canned Howard Dean, who actually had a track record of success at winning elections and growing the party through two election cycles. Instead Obama replaced him with a guy like Tim Kaine, who wasn't up to the task either. Dean also did a good job of navigating the very difficult 2008 election. Kaine and DWS did poorly in the capacity as DNC Chair.

    As president, Obama has done a lot right. But his neglect of the DNC is part of his legacy, and it isn't a good one.

    Lester Smithson , 2016-07-24 17:08:20
    That's nice that those damn Russians 'stole' their email. However, those damn Russians didn't write them. I dislike and distrust Hillary and DWS more now that I did a week ago, and that takes some doing. Hillary is Nixon. Paranoid. Dishonest. Devious.
    qqqqqqmn , 2016-07-24 17:04:21
    how in the name of god can the overly compensated chairwoman of the democratic party conspire against a candidate supported by nearly half of democratic primary voters ???
    kcma79 qqqqqqmn , 2016-07-24 17:11:10
    Arrogance, power, support, money. Her overpowering arrogance has been a problem for a long time.
    mrmetrowest Haigin88 , 2016-07-24 17:13:27
    Kaine is in the same boat as Clinton on the TPP - the Good Ship Hypocrite. Both hope like hell that TPP gets passed in the lame duck so they can make a show of being against it to gain some progressive cred. If Obama and his colleagues Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan can't get TPP done before his term ends, Clinton and Kaine's reservations re TPP will disappear faster than a snowflake in July. It's like Clinton's about face on the Keystone pipeline - she got a heads up from Obama that he wasn't going to approve it anyway, so she came out against it.
    monteverdi1610 , 2016-07-24 16:57:30
    I love the irony of the comment from the Clinton Campaign..... '' This is further evidence the Russian Government is trying to influence the outcome of an election ''.

    Heavens forbid that the USA would ever stoop so low as to try and influence the outcome of other Countries elections !!!
    It of course being totally above Americians to indulge such devious behaviour .

    europeangrayling monteverdi1610 , 2016-07-24 17:06:33
    Very true, and Hillary was happy to support the violent Honduras coup of an elected government and still very much supports that new violent regime. And the new regime is very friendly to western big corporate 'interests'. Of course. Hillary is old-school.
    beenheretoolong , 2016-07-24 16:54:41
    Doesn't matter who did it, the Russians, Anonymous, Edward Snowden. The point is that the DNC is revealed as partisan and rigged. In addition to minimizing her role at the convention, I believe Wasserman Schultz should be dumped from any position of leadership, along with other DNC leaders. No wonder people are fed up with politics as usual.
    Anonymot , 2016-07-24 16:57:05
    "Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
    And Mook is the expert who whispered that lie in his own ear.

    Great photo, Mook the Spook, her lover, a few bigtime aids. They got caught like Nixon's plumbers at Watergate. So they would like to blame the Russians for their writing calumnies and antiSemitic slanders against Sanders. They look pretty stupid!

    gunnison , 2016-07-24 16:54:09

    Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."

    It may indeed be Russian hackers who gained access to the emails which confirm the DNC was all along in the tank for Clinton, and was actively placing a thumb on the scale from day one in the primary process.

    Sanders knew it, and we as his supporters also knew it and made reference to that very issue repeatedly in countless comment threads here at the Guardian and elsewhere.

    But the bottom line here is that if the DNC had not so conspired, there would be no emails to leak, now would there?
    For Mook and others to now be placing blame on the hackers, rather than on those who produced the embarrassing material that the hackers exposed, is diversionary and inexcusable.

    The Clinton campaign is moving closer and closer to blowing this election completely and allowing the most dangerous candidacy I've ever seen in my lifetime actually win this thing.

    They've already selected a VP pick which effectively thumbs their nose at the very progressives whose enthusiasm they will need at the voting booths, and now here they are trying to deflect blame for unconscionable skullduggery in the primary process onto foreign actors.
    Debbie Wassermann Schultz should have been fired long ago, so blatant and obvious were her shenanigans.

    This kind of tone-deaf ineptitude could see all of us paying an unimaginable price in November. All it will take at this point is a few more mass shootings (at which we here in the US have a particular talent) to feed into Trump's narrative and we'll all be waking up in January in a country we don't even recognize.

    ZombieMessiah -> gunnison , 2016-07-24 17:03:26
    That's pretty much how I see things playing out, but with the DNC blaming the progressives for not being enthusiastic enough about Hillary.
    Informed17 -> CarlosDaaanger , 2016-07-24 16:57:03
    The funniest thing is, they don't even deny the authenticity of the emails. Basically, DNC says that someone is guilty of revealing the truth. You can hardly stoop any lower. Blaming Russia is just a cherry on the cake.
    newjerseyboi , 2016-07-24 17:34:38
    Just saw Bernie on CNN basically saying the Nr1 priority is to defeat D. Trump, then keep fighting the good fight from within the Democratic Party trying to reform it from within.
    A big thing he misses here that the top honcho Mrs Hillary Clinton is one of the main reasons of what the Democratic Party has become. She will be a huge obstruction to anything resembling reform. You might as well pack up and go 3rd party and show the Dems that way what American voters want.

    4 years of Trump might actually be a lot better to shake up the corrupt DNC then 4-8 years of Hillary and who knows how many years of Republicans 2 follow (and believe me, Hillary will do a lot of damage to the democratic brand!)

    AfinaPallada , 2016-07-24 17:34:20
    Clinton is desperate to lurk voters by anything, then let it be those Russians that hacked her mail. A Russian proverb to the point - "A bad dancer always blames his balls that hamper him".
    furminator , 2016-07-24 17:31:47
    If they'd backed off, allowed their MSM protectors to bury the story, this whole thing would have died down in a week. A few angry Bernie Bros notwithstanding there's nothing in the emails that we didn't know already. Yes the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign were one and the same....shock! Yes sections of the corporate owned media are colluding with the Democratic Party....wowsers!! But no, they couldn't help themselves. Now we've got the Democratic nominee for the Presidency alleging, with zero proof, that her opponent is engaged in a conspiracy to commit criminal acts with a foreign power! Seriously who thought this was a good idea?
    mijkmijld , 2016-07-24 17:31:26
    How nice to have an eternal scapegoat: TheRussiansAreComing!TheRussiansAreComing! This will obviously be RodHam's theme as President. Perhaps to the point of annihilation. Neo-Conne!
    smokinbluebear , 2016-07-24 17:31:25
    Sanders should demand that Tulsi Gabbard replace DWS at the convention (or as VP)
    PottyPants , 2016-07-24 17:31:20
    My biggest issue with Hillary from the start has been her continued nonchalance when it comes to matters of national security. She acts as if she is above the need to keep sensitive information safe from potential enemies, both foreign and domestic. That's a pretty scary attitude coming from someone who is likely to be this nation's next leader.
    Janosik53 , 2016-07-24 17:29:59
    Hillary Wasserman Clinton Kaine--the same democratic corruptocracy; plus ça change, plus c'est la męme chose.

    Putin is waiting to release Hillary's SoS emails. October Surprise, anyone? Bwah-ha-ha-ha.

    BigL64 , 2016-07-24 17:29:20
    It's amazing. Caught red handed and still deflecting. Take responsibility for Christ sake!
    HenneyAndPizza , 2016-07-24 17:27:56
    lol

    Putin ate my homework (TM). What Debbie and the gang did is worse, much worse than this sorry article tries to portray. For example, what sort of Democratic Party tries to use Bearnie's religion agsinst him ?!?

    ".....Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced, in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize his support.

    ****"It might may [sic] no difference, but for KY and WA can we get someone to ask his belief," Brad Marshall, CFO of DNC, wrote in an email on May 5, 2016. "Does he believe in God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage.

    I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My southern baptist peeps woudl draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."****

    "Amy Dacey, CEO of the DNC, subsequently responded "AMEN," according to the email"

    Yikes!

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/emails-released-wikileaks-show-dnc-aid-hillary-clinton/story?id=40815253

    And this is the "democracy" they keep telling you is the 'better of two evils'.

    Hilarious

    JelloBeyonce , 2016-07-24 16:53:50
    The more interesting part is that this blame is just a distraction from the larger issue, that the entire political system is corrupted and broken. This is just business as usual, only this instance was revealed.

    Has anyone here worked, I mean truly worked in the pre-election process, behind the scenes, witnessing the dirty business that is gathering electoral votes during caucuses and primaries? It is a total sham. It is where under-the-table deals are made for promised loyalties to certain candidates, where those that have the most, bribe others to vote a certain way, where quid pro quo rules over democracy or a candidates stance on issues and/or policies. It is where future cabinet positions are secured, based on allegiance to party hierarchy and strong-arming. Your vote means nothing, only a small select group determines candidates, and ultimately the president.

    DNC Chair Wasserman is just one cog in a massive political machine, one run rampantly out of control. And this happens on both sides, among both parties. It is where the personal selfish love of money, power, and fame outstrip the will of the people.

    Long live hackers for keeping a check on an obviously corrupted system. The mainstream media isn't doing their jobs anymore, someone has to. The media have merely become the pretorian band for the super class, those elite that truly control this country from behind the scenes, pulling the puppet strings attached to the soulless politicians.

    We are again presented with two candidates whom have each proven their desire to negate the will of the nation, for purely selfish reasons. Neither is truly qualified for this office.

    "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to trust no [hu]man living with the power to endanger the public liberty".
    -John Adams-

    "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters"
    -Ben Franklin-

    [Sep 12, 2016] Reducing the election to personalities is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism in which corporatations seized all of the political levers

    This short article contains several very deep observations. Highly recommended...
    Notable quotes:
    "... There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. ..."
    "... This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over. ..."
    "... First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form. ..."
    "... So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. ..."
    "... I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign. ..."
    "... Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children. ..."
    "... Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile ..."
    Aug 06, 2016 | www.democracynow.org

    CHRIS HEDGES : Well, reducing the election to personalities is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism. It's a system where corporate power has seized all of the levers of control. There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. We've seen the executive branch misinterpret the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving itself the right to assassinate American citizens, including children. I speak of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son. We have bailed out the banks, pushed through programs of austerity. This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over.

    I just came back from Poland, which is a kind of case study of how neoliberal poison destroys a society and creates figures like Trump. Poland has gone, I think we can argue, into a neofascism.

    First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form.

    So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. We've got to break away from political personalities and understand and examine and critique the structures of power. And, in fact, the Democratic Party, especially beginning under Bill Clinton, has carried water for corporate entities as assiduously as the Republican Party. This is something that Ralph Nader understood long before the rest of us, and stepped out very courageously in 2000. And I think we will look back on that period and find Ralph to be an amazingly prophetic figure. Nobody understands corporate power better than Ralph. And I think now people have caught up with Ralph.

    And this is, of course, why I support Dr. Stein and the Green Party. We have to remember that 10 years ago, Syriza, which controls the Greek government, was polling at exactly the same spot that the Green Party is polling now-about 4 percent. We've got to break out of this idea that we can create systematic change within a particular election cycle. We've got to be willing to step out into the political wilderness, perhaps, for a decade. But on the issues of climate change, on the issue of the destruction of civil liberties, including our right to privacy-and I speak as a former investigative journalist, which doesn't exist anymore because of wholesale government surveillance-we have no ability, except for hackers.

    I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign.

    The fact is, Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children.

    This debate over -- I don't like Trump, but Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile, maybe Ted Cruz.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

    Sep 12, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Brad DeLong:
    Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression' : ... Back before 2008, I used to teach my students that during a disturbance in the business cycle, we'd be 40 percent of the way back to normal in a year. The long-run trend of economic growth, I would say, was barely affected by short-run business cycle disturbances. There would always be short-run bubbles and panics and inflations and recessions. They would press production and employment away from its long-run trend -- perhaps by as much as 5 percent. But they would be transitory.
    After the shock hit, the economy would rapidly head back to normal. The equilibrium-restoring logic and magic of supply and demand would push the economy to close two-fifths of the gap to normal each year. After four years, only a seventh of the peak disturbance would remain.
    In the aftermath of 2008, Stiglitz was indeed one of those warning that I and economists like me were wrong. Without extraordinary, sustained and aggressive policies to rebalance the economy, he said, we would never get back to what before 2008 we had thought was normal.
    I was wrong. He was right. ...

    [Sep 12, 2016] The rise of the American conspiracy theory by Damon Linker

    Notable quotes:
    "... a vast array of websites (including The Drudge Report ..."
    "... The New Republic ..."
    "... The Theocons ..."
    "... The Religious Test ..."
    Aug 30, 2016 | theweek.com

    America's presidential politics have become a dizzying scrum of insults and gossip that frequently veers into outright and angry conspiracy theorizing.

    Blame democracy. It has killed our faith in "experts" peddling "truth."

    The democratizing urge to tear down established authorities and institutions in the name of equality, begun a half-century ago and accelerated by technological innovations in the decades since, has undeniably empowered a new form of post-rational authoritarian politics. The reigning liberal institutions of the postwar era, which strove for objectivity and fairness (while frequently, and inevitably, falling short of them), first came under assault during the 1960s from both the right and left. Though the left did more damage at first by attacking the liberal establishment on civil rights and the Vietnam War, the right (empowered by the very excesses encouraged by the left) soon got the upper hand.

    The right's early forays into radio, TV, and book and magazine publishing, artfully recounted in Nicole Hemmer's new history of conservative media, began to expand greatly in the 1970s. The idea was to build a more democratic counter-establishment to tear down and replace the liberal establishment, which kept conservatives out of positions of political and cultural power.

    Over the coming decades, right-wing talk radio programs proliferated, Fox News was founded, and a vast array of websites (including The Drudge Report and Breitbart) began serving as an alternative source of news and information for millions of disaffected Republicans. These outlets trained continuous artillery fire on the mainstream media, credentialized "experts," and other members of the [neo]liberal establishment, relentlessly calling them out for apparent double standards, hypocrisy, and other signs of untrustworthiness.

    ... ... ...

    Damon Linker is a senior correspondent at TheWeek.com. He is also a consulting editor at the University of Pennsylvania Press, a former contributing editor at The New Republic, and the author of The Theocons and The Religious Test.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Why were there no reports of a smoke trail from the purported missile launch?

    thesaker.is

    T1 on October 14, 2015 · at 9:04 pm UTC

    I get confused easily so perhaps someone can explain to me: why were there no reports of a smoke trail from the purported missile launch?

    Little things like that make me suspicious.

    Peter, on October 14, 2015 · at 11:17 pm UTC

    That there is no witnesses is odd. A couple of factors though.

    I think the rocket engine has a 14 second burn time (depending on model) 14 seconds at Mach 2.7 is approximately 12.8 km though it would be slightly less due to the acceleration stage.

    So if a BUK missile was launched more than 12/13 kilometres from the target there would be no smoke plume as it gets close to the target.

    According to the original investigation report there was heavy cloud to the south of the crash site and showers. I think that weather report was for midday on the 17th.

    But showers and cloud would greatly reduce viability as far as the smoke plume.

    In the original report put out by Almaz-Antey the possible launch site at that time may have been covered by heavy cloud and showers.

    [Sep 11, 2016] The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7

    Is this a plan of the elite to introduce national security state in action. Are they afraid of the collapse of neoliberal social order and try to take precautions?
    Notable quotes:
    "... These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness. ..."
    "... the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. ..."
    "... Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse. ..."
    "... A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." ..."
    "... Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants. Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories : ..."
    "... Why would the Insiders bother blowing Building 7? Indeed, why would the Insiders bother with WTC at all? Exactly what were the motivations of the Insiders supposed to be? ..."
    "... Larry Silverstein had a magic ball that told him to insure the buildings for "terrorist attacks". In February of 2002, Silverstein was awarded $861,000,000 for his insurance claims from Industrial Risk Insurers. His initial investment in WTC 7 was only $386,000,000. ..."
    "... Perhaps after the first couple of attempted attacks on the WTC in the 90's they had a good look at what would happen if an attack was successful. Perhaps they then decided that the massive collateral damage from a partial or messy collapse could be greatly reduced by having the buildings ready to be brought down in a controlled way. ..."
    "... All this would have to be kept secret as noone would work in a building lined with explosives. However the insurance companies, and the owner of the building would know, and this would explain the comments made by silverstein (comments that he himself never clarified). ..."
    "... This may all be completely wrong, but lets face it, explosives did bring these buildings down. ..."
    "... http://topdocumentaryfilms.com ...How about a 5 hour video that methodically refutes and explains the flaws of virtually every aspect of the 'official story', in particular the shamefully flawed NIST report ..."
    "... There were no pyroclastic flows at WTC. That's obvious by the fact that pieces of intact paper lay everywhere, something that would be impossible if a hot cloud covered the area. ..."
    "... The reason that you have to resort to esoteric explanations for what happened at WTC is that you believe lies about what happened at WTC. ..."
    "... If you really believe that this was done by hydrocarbon based fires begun by burning jet fuel you are beyond hopeless. ..."
    "... Why do you trust the government so much? That to me is idiotic. History has proven pretty much every government to be corrupt. It's sheep like you that allow them to get away with it. Just keep walking sheep, don't want to fall back from the mob. ..."
    "... The "accepted scholarship" is conducted almost entirely by government shills for the benefit of dumbed down Americans whose information intake is limited to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. ..."
    Sep 15, 2012 | WashingtonsBlog

    ... ... ...

    What Do the Experts Say?

    What does the evidence show about the Solomon Brothers Building in Manhattan?

    Numerous structural engineers – the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents – say that the official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates the law of physics":

    The collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the original investigation

    • Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience:

      From videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out, and reveal smoke from those explosions. This occurs in a vertical line in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one can see the similarities

    • Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience, says:

    Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition

    • Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry:

      World Trade Center 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Buildings do not suddenly fall straight down by accident

    • Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings:

      I agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings [please ignore any reference in this essay to the Twin Towers. This essay focuses solely on Building 7]. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were imploded

    • Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, writes:

      Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day [i.e. on September 11th]? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust

    • Graham John Inman points out:

      WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?

    • Paul W. Mason notes:

    In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation

    Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . .

    How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective.

    ***

    Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames-just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

    Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, "if" the structure in the vicinity started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse.

    For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse .

    We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

    The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?

    Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings [Again, please ignore any reference to the Twin Towers this essay focuses solely on WTC7]. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise

    The symmetrical "collapse" due to asymmetrical damage is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics

    It is virtually impossible for WTC building 7 to collapse as it did with the influence of sporadic fires. This collapse HAD to be planned

    • Travis McCoy, M.S. in structural engineering
    • James Milton Bruner, Major, U.S. Air Force, instructor and assistant professor in the Deptartment of Engineering Mechanics & Materials, USAF Academy, and a technical writer and editor, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
    • Christopher Michael Bradbury:

    It is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire. This is very suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living

    The above is just a sample. Many other structural engineers have questioned the collapse of Building 7, as have numerous top experts in other relevant disciplines, including:

    • The top European expert on controlled building demolition, Danny Jowenko (part 1, part 2, part 3)
    • A demolition loader for the world's top demolition company (which is based in the United States), Tom Sullivan
    • The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that Building 7 collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world's leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere)
    • Harry G. Robinson, III – Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Architecture and Design, Howard University. Past President of two major national architectural organizations – National Architectural Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 1992. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global / Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies. Veteran U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam – says:

    The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to implode as they did

    Watch this short video on Building 7 by Architects and Engineers (ignore any reference to the Twin Towers, deaths on 9/11, or any other topics other than WTC7):

    Fish In a Barrel

    Poking holes in the government's spin on Building 7 is so easy that it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

    As just one example, the spokesman for the government agency which says that the building collapsed due to fire said there was no molten metal at ground zero:


    The facts are a wee bit different:

    Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants. Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories:

    Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 .

    The spraying continued for months afterward (the 10 day period was simply the timeframe in which the DOE was sampling). Enormous amounts of water were hosed on Ground Zero continuously, day and night:

    "Firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

    This photograph may capture a sense of how wet the ground became due to the constant spraying:

    murphy Arguments Regarding the Collapse of the World Trade Center Evaporate Upon Inspection
    In addition, the fires were sprayed with thousands of gallons of high tech fire-retardants.

    The fact that there were raging fires and molten metal even after the application of massive quantities of water and fire retardants shows how silly the government spokesman's claim is.

    Again, this has nothing to do with "inside job" no one was killed in the collapse of Building 7, no wars were launched based on a rallying cry of "remember the Solomon Brothers building", and no civil liberties were lost based on a claim that we have to prevent future WTC7 tragedies.

    It is merely meant to show that government folks sometimes lie even about issues tangentially related to 9/11.

    Pooua > Wolfen Batroach • 2 years ago

    Why would the Insiders bother blowing Building 7? Indeed, why would the Insiders bother with WTC at all? Exactly what were the motivations of the Insiders supposed to be?

    JusticeFor911 > Pooua

    Larry Silverstein had a magic ball that told him to insure the buildings for "terrorist attacks". In February of 2002, Silverstein was awarded $861,000,000 for his insurance claims from Industrial Risk Insurers. His initial investment in WTC 7 was only $386,000,000.

    I'd say nearly half of $1,000,000,000.00 was the primary cause to include this building with the towers. Keep in mind that President Bush's brother Marvin was a principal in the company Securacom that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. Are dots connecting yet?

    Pooua > JusticeFor911

    If you buy a new car, you take out full coverage insurance on it. Insuring billion-dollar buildings is standard procedure, especially when one had already suffered a terrorist attack. You insinuation is nothing but gossip and suggestion.

    No, Securacom did not provide security for WTC; that's the job of the Port Authority of NY & NJ. Securacom had a contract to perform a limited service for PANYNJ, and Marvin Bush was only a bit player (he was on the board of directors) in the company. Your paranoid ramblings are lies.

    IBSHILLIN > Pooua

    Perhaps after the first couple of attempted attacks on the WTC in the 90's they had a good look at what would happen if an attack was successful. Perhaps they then decided that the massive collateral damage from a partial or messy collapse could be greatly reduced by having the buildings ready to be brought down in a controlled way.

    All this would have to be kept secret as noone would work in a building lined with explosives. However the insurance companies, and the owner of the building would know, and this would explain the comments made by silverstein (comments that he himself never clarified).

    This may all be completely wrong, but lets face it, explosives did bring these buildings down.

    Pooua > IBSHILLIN

    I find it amazing that you consider yourself such an unquestionable expert that you not only feel qualified to insist that explosives brought down the WTC buildings, even in contradiction to scores of scientists, engineers and investigators of NIST, FEMA, FBI and MIT who say otherwise, and you do so without offering any evidence at all to support your bizarre claim.

    No building the size of any of the WTC buildings has ever been brought down by controlled demolition, but of those that come closest, the planning took years, and the rigging took months of hard work by teams of experts working around the clock. This is not something that can be hidden.

    Your suggestion is entirely preposterous and without merit.

    ihaveabrain > Pooua

    explain this? You are smarter than these experts? http://www.hulu.com/watch/4120...

    NIST, FEMA, FBI and MIT are worthless entities! What about the experts in that documentary? Nanothermite brought them down smart guy!

    Pooua > ihaveabrain • 25 days ago

    You posted a 1.5-hour video. I am not here to watch a 1.5-hour video; I'm here to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC 7. If you have something to say, say it here.

    NIST has been the premier standards body used by the US government for a century, covering virtually every aspect of engineering and public safety in this country. It employes thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians. For you to claim that it is a worthless entity is idiocy on your part.

    linked1 > Pooua • 24 days ago

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com ...How about a 5 hour video that methodically refutes and explains the flaws of virtually every aspect of the 'official story', in particular the shamefully flawed NIST report

    You claim to want to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC-7 but you can't be bothered to watch painstakingly researched documentaries that include thousands of witnesses, victims, scientists, and structural professionals.

    You ought to educate yourself before calling other's claims 'worthless idiocy'. You are wrong, and history will prove you wrong.

    Pooua > linked1

    I've been reading arguments about 9/11 for two years. I've been arguing about other issues for the last 25 years, at least since I took a class in classical logic. What you need to understand is, you aren't arguing anything when you send me off to listen to someone else. The other guy might be arguing something, but you aren't doing anything. And, the fact that I've spent two years reading everything I could find on the subject makes me strongly suspect that this five-hour video would be just a waste of my time.

    If you want to discuss this matter, then discuss it. Don't send me off to spend hours of my time listening to someone else. You explain it. If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it, and you are wasting everyone's time.

    mulegino1 . > Pooua

    The levels of energy required to turn most of the Twin Towers and WTC7 into nanoparticles (thus the pyrocastic flow which only occurs in volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations) would be thousands of orders of magnitude greater than airliner impacts and hydrocarbon based office fires, which are claimed to have initiated a "gravity collapse".

    How could a "gravity collapse" perfectly mimic the detonation of a small tactical nuclear device or devices-electromagnetic pulse, molten lava and a mushroom cloud?

    Pooua > mulegino1

    I want you to look at this image from the WTC on 9/11. It shows the debris after the Towers collapsed. Does this look like nanoparticles to you? Most of the debris was bigger than a man's fist.

    Thumbnail

    There were no pyroclastic flows at WTC. That's obvious by the fact that pieces of intact paper lay everywhere, something that would be impossible if a hot cloud covered the area.

    The reason that you have to resort to esoteric explanations for what happened at WTC is that you believe lies about what happened at WTC.

    mulegino1 . > Pooua

    If you really believe that this was done by hydrocarbon based fires begun by burning jet fuel you are beyond hopeless.

    There was indeed a pyroclasticas flow as anyone with youtube can determine for themselves.

    Pooua > WilliamBinney • a year ago

    It is your job to do more than make idiotic, speculative assertions and pretend that constitutes a reason for disregarding the government's account of the event. Yet, you all have completely failed to do anything except expose your own inability to account for the events of that day.

    Dizzer13 > Pooua • a year ago

    Why do you trust the government so much? That to me is idiotic. History has proven pretty much every government to be corrupt. It's sheep like you that allow them to get away with it. Just keep walking sheep, don't want to fall back from the mob.

    mulegino1 . > Pooua • 2 years ago

    The "accepted scholarship" is conducted almost entirely by government shills for the benefit of dumbed down Americans whose information intake is limited to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.

    The official narrative is so ludicrous from any standpoint that the "debunkers" resort to wildly implausible scenarios in order to convince the above cited demographic that the government and the major national media were reporting factual information when in fact they were reading from a script. And it was a very poorly written script. The Bin Laden bogeyman was already being invoked before the buildings exploded.

    What you've got here is a pseudo-religious narrative designed to so enrage the dumbed down sheeple that they will lash out in their fury against virtually anyone designated by the powers that be as the enemy- a Sorelian myth.

    Like any false narrative, the official story breaks down at the level of discrete facts and can only survive as a holistic mythologized, meta-historical events.

    [Sep 11, 2016] Trump is afraid the neoliberal imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs ..."
    "... Much has been written about the internet revolution, about the impact of people having access to much more information than before. The elite does not recognize this and is still organizing political and media campaigns as if it were 1990, relying on elder statesmen like Blair, Bush, Mitterrand, Clinton, and Obama to influence public opinion. They are failing miserably, to the point of being counterproductive. ..."
    "... I don't think something as parochial as racism is sustaining Trump, but rather the fear of the loss of empire by a population with several orders of magnitude more information and communication than in 2008, even 2012. ..."
    "... No one has literally argued that people should be glad to lose employment: that part was hyperbole. But the basic argument is often made quite seriously. See e.g. outsource Brad DeLong . ..."
    "... The same thing has happened in Mexico with neoliberal government after neoliberal government being elected. There are many democratically elected neoliberal governments around the world. ..."
    "... In the case of Mexico, because Peńa Nieto's wife is a telenovela star. How cool is that? It places Mexico in the same league as 1st world countries, such as France, with Carla Bruni. ..."
    "... To the guy who asked- poor white people keep voting Republican even though it screws them because they genuinely believe that the country is best off when it encourages a culture of "by the bootstraps" self improvement, hard work, and personal responsibility. They view taxing people in order to give the money to the supposedly less fortunate as the anti thesis of this, because it gives people an easy out that let's them avoid having to engage in the hard work needed to live independently. ..."
    "... The extent to which "poor white people" vote against their alleged economic interests is overblown. To a large extent, they do not vote at all nor is anyone or anything on the ballot to represent their interests. And, yes, they are misinformed systematically by elites out to screw them and they know this, but cannot do much to either clear up their own confusion or fight back. ..."
    "... The mirror image problem - of elites manipulating the system to screw the poor and merely middle-class - is daily in the news. Both Presidential candidates have been implicated. So, who do you recommend they vote for? ..."
    "... I think you're missing Patrick's point. These voters are switching from one Republican to another. They've jettisoned Bush et. al. for Trump. These guys despise Bush. ..."
    "... They've figured out that the mainstream party is basically 30 years of affinity fraud. ..."
    "... My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income. ..."
    "... Layman - Why are these voters switching from Bush et al to Trump? Once again, Corey's whole point is that there is very little difference between the racism of Trump and the mainstream party since Nixon. Is Trump just more racist? Or are the policies of Trump resonating differently than Bush for reasons other than race? ..."
    "... Eric Berne, in The Structures and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups, proposed that among the defining characteristics of a coherent group is an explicit boundary which determines whether an individual is a member of the group or not. (If there is no boundary, nothing binds the assemblage together; it is a crowd.) The boundary helps provide social cohesion and is so important that groups will create one if necessary. Clearly, boundaries exclude as well as include, and someone must play the role of outsider. ..."
    "... For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations. ..."
    Aug 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Lupita 08.04.16 at 4:23 am 167

    I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs .

    Much has been written about the internet revolution, about the impact of people having access to much more information than before. The elite does not recognize this and is still organizing political and media campaigns as if it were 1990, relying on elder statesmen like Blair, Bush, Mitterrand, Clinton, and Obama to influence public opinion. They are failing miserably, to the point of being counterproductive.

    I don't think something as parochial as racism is sustaining Trump, but rather the fear of the loss of empire by a population with several orders of magnitude more information and communication than in 2008, even 2012.

    Layman 08.04.16 at 11:59 am

    Rich P: "Neoliberals often argue that people should be glad to lose employment at 50 so that people from other countries can have higher incomes "

    I doubt this most sincerely. While this may be the effect of some neoliberal policies, I can't recall any particular instance where someone made this argument.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.04.16 at 12:03 pm

    "I can't recall any particular instance where someone made this argument."

    No one has literally argued that people should be glad to lose employment: that part was hyperbole. But the basic argument is often made quite seriously. See e.g. outsource Brad DeLong .

    engels 08.04.16 at 12:25 pm

    While this may be the effect of some neoliberal policies, I can't recall any particular instance where someone made this argument

    Maybe this kind of thing rom Henry Farrell? (There may well be better examples.)

    Is some dilution of the traditional European welfare state acceptable, if it substantially increases the wellbeing of current outsiders (i.e. for example, by bringing Turkey into the club). My answer is yes, if European leftwingers are to stick to their core principles on justice, fairness, egalitarianism etc

    http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/31/talking-turkey-over-welfare/

    Lupita 08.04.16 at 2:42 pm

    Large numbers of low-income white southern Americans consistently vote against their own economic interests. They vote to award tax breaks to wealthy people and corporations, to cut unemployment benefits, to bust unions, to reward companies for outsourcing jobs, to resist wage increases, to cut funding for health care for the poor, to cut Social Security and Medicare, etc.

    The same thing has happened in Mexico with neoliberal government after neoliberal government being elected. There are many democratically elected neoliberal governments around the world.

    Why might this be?

    In the case of Mexico, because Peńa Nieto's wife is a telenovela star. How cool is that? It places Mexico in the same league as 1st world countries, such as France, with Carla Bruni.

    Patrick 08.04.16 at 4:32 pm

    To the guy who asked- poor white people keep voting Republican even though it screws them because they genuinely believe that the country is best off when it encourages a culture of "by the bootstraps" self improvement, hard work, and personal responsibility. They view taxing people in order to give the money to the supposedly less fortunate as the anti thesis of this, because it gives people an easy out that let's them avoid having to engage in the hard work needed to live independently.

    They see it as little different from letting your kid move back on after college and smoke weed in your basement. They don't generally mind people being on unemployment transitionally, but they're supposed to be a little embarrassed about it and get it over with as soon as possible. They not only worry that increased government social spending will incentivize bad behavior, they worry it will destroy the cultural values they see as vital to Americas past prosperity. They tend to view claims about historic or systemic injustice necessitating collective remedy because they view the world as one in which the vagaries of fate decree that some are born rich or poor, and that success is in improving ones station relative to where one starts. Attempts at repairing historical racial inequity read as cheating in that paradigm, and even as hostile since they can easily observe white people who are just as poor or poorer than those who racial politics focuses upon. Left wing insistence on borrowing the nastiest rhetoric of libertarians ("this guy is poor because his ancestors couldn't get ahead because of historical racial injustice so we must help him; your family couldn't get ahead either but that must have been your fault so you deserve it") comes across as both antithetical to their values and as downright hostile within the values they see around them.

    All of this can be easily learned by just talking to them.

    It's not a great world view. It fails to explain quite a lot. For example, they have literally no way of explaining increased unemployment without positing either that everyone is getting too lazy to work, or that the government screwed up the system somehow, possibly by making it too expensive to do business in the US relative to other countries. and given their faith in the power of hard work, they don't even blame sweatshops- they blame taxes and foreign subsidies.

    I don't know exactly how to reach out to them, except that I can point to some things people do that repulse them and say "stop doing that."

    bruce wilder 08.04.16 at 5:50 pm

    The extent to which "poor white people" vote against their alleged economic interests is overblown. To a large extent, they do not vote at all nor is anyone or anything on the ballot to represent their interests. And, yes, they are misinformed systematically by elites out to screw them and they know this, but cannot do much to either clear up their own confusion or fight back.

    The mirror image problem - of elites manipulating the system to screw the poor and merely middle-class - is daily in the news. Both Presidential candidates have been implicated. So, who do you recommend they vote for?

    There is serious deficit of both trust and information among the poor. Poor whites hardly have a monopoly; black misleadership is epidemic in our era of Cory Booker socialism.


    bruce wilder 08.04.16 at 7:05 pm

    Politics is founded on the complex social psychology of humans as social animals. We elevate it from its irrational base in emotion to rationalized calculation or philosophy at our peril.


    T 08.04.16 at 9:17 pm

    @Layman

    I think you're missing Patrick's point. These voters are switching from one Republican to another. They've jettisoned Bush et. al. for Trump. These guys despise Bush.

    They've figured out that the mainstream party is basically 30 years of affinity fraud.

    So, is your argument is that Trump even more racist? That kind of goes against the whole point of the OP. Not saying that race doesn't matter. Of course it does. But Trump has a 34% advantage in non-college educated white men. It just isn't the South. Why does it have to be just race or just class?


    Ronan(rf) 08.04.16 at 10:35 pm

    "I generally don't give a shit about polls so I have no "data" to evidence this claim, but my guess is the majority of Trump's support comes from this broad middle"

    My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income.

    This would make some sense as they are generally in economically unstable jobs, they tend to be hostile to both big govt (regulations, freeloaders) and big business (unfair competition), and while they (rhetorically at least) tend to value personal autonomy and self sufficiency , they generally sell into smaller, local markets, and so are particularly affected by local demographic and cultural change , and decline. That's my speculation anyway.

    T 08.05.16 at 3:12 pm

    @patrick @layman

    Patrick, you're right about the Trump demographic. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/

    Layman - Why are these voters switching from Bush et al to Trump? Once again, Corey's whole point is that there is very little difference between the racism of Trump and the mainstream party since Nixon. Is Trump just more racist? Or are the policies of Trump resonating differently than Bush for reasons other than race?

    Are the folks that voted for the other candidates in the primary less racist so Trump supporters are just the most racist among Republicans? Cruz less racist? You have to explain the shift within the Republican party because that's what happened.

    Anarcissie 08.06.16 at 3:00 pm

    Faustusnotes 08.06.16 at 1:50 pm @ 270 -

    Eric Berne, in The Structures and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups, proposed that among the defining characteristics of a coherent group is an explicit boundary which determines whether an individual is a member of the group or not. (If there is no boundary, nothing binds the assemblage together; it is a crowd.) The boundary helps provide social cohesion and is so important that groups will create one if necessary. Clearly, boundaries exclude as well as include, and someone must play the role of outsider. While Berne's theories are a bit too nifty for me to love them, I have observed a lot of the behaviors he predicts. If one wanted to be sociobiological, it is not hard to hypothesize evolutionary pressures which could lead to this sort of behavior being genetically programmed. If a group of humans, a notably combative primate, does not have strong social cohesion, the war of all against all ensues and everybody dies. Common affections alone do not seem to provide enough cohesion.

    In an earlier but related theory, in the United States, immigrants from diverse European communities which fought each other for centuries in Europe arrived and managed to now get along because they had a major Other, the Negro, against whom to define themselves (as the White Race) and thus to cohere sufficiently to get on with business. The Negro had the additional advantage of being at first a powerless slave and later, although theoretically freed, was legally, politically, and economically disabled - an outsider who could not fight back very effectively, nor run away. Even so, the US almost split apart and there continue to be important class, ethnic, religious, and regional conflicts. You can see how these two theories resonate.

    It may be that we can't have communities without this dark side, although we might be able to mitigate some of its destructive effects.

    bruce wilde r 08.06.16 at 4:28 pm

    I am somewhat suspicious of leaving dominating elites out of these stories of racism as an organizing principle for political economy or (cultural) community.

    Racism served the purposes of a slaveholding elite that organized political communities to serve their own interests. (Or, vis a vis the Indians a land-grab or genocide.)

    Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying hierarchy like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with ersatz status. The ugly prejudices and resentful arrogance of working class whites is thus a component of how racism works to organize a political community to serve a hegemonic master class. The business end of racism, though, is the autarkic poverty imposed on the working communities: slaves, sharecroppers, poor blacks, poor whites - bad schools, bad roads, politically disabled communities, predatory institutions and authoritarian governments.

    For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations.

    engels 08.07.16 at 1:02 am

    But how did that slavery happen

    Possible short answer: the level of technological development made slavery an efficient way of exploiting labour. At a certain point those conditions changed and slavery became a drag on further development and it was abolished, along with much of the racist ideology that legitimated it.

    Lupita 08.07.16 at 3:40 am

    But how did that slavery happen

    In Mesoamerica, all the natives were enslaved because they were conquered by the Spaniards. Then, Fray Bartolomé de las Casas successfully argued before the Crown that the natives had souls and, therefore, should be Christianized rather than enslaved. As Bruce Wilder states, this did not serve the interests of the slaveholding elite, so the African slave trade began and there was no Fray Bartolomé to argue their case.

    It is interesting that while natives were enslaved, the Aztec aristocracy was shipped to Spain to be presented in court and study Latin. This would not have happened if the Mesoamericans were considered inferior (soulless) as a race. Furthermore, the Spaniards needed the local elite to help them out with their empire and the Aztecs were used to slavery and worse. This whole story can be understood without recurring to racism. The logic of empire suffices.

    [Sep 11, 2016] The concept of the unbiased political reporter is difficult to accept today.

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    RBHoughton

    The concept of the unbiased political reporter is difficult to accept today. The financial and commercial systems require us all to be economic animals responding to self-advantage. It is only that handful of people with more loot than they can spend who can step off the treadmill and act honestly.

    Can any of the political reporters be financially qualified in that way? Seems highly unlikely.

    The only thing that might produce an honest pollster is the fear of the owners of the polling company that their venality will be exposed and they will have to start another biz.

    Congrats to Lambert for focusing his attention where it matters and not on the prima donnas.

    [Sep 11, 2016] "Equity," an intelligent and enthralling thriller set in a shark tank of New York investment bankers, hedge-fund executives and tech entrepreneurs,

    Notable quotes:
    "... The film, directed by Meera Menon and written by Amy Fox , is as ruthless and hypnotic a study of a cutthroat species as the documentary I saw about the carnivorous fish. Maybe it is even more so, as it is a story of alpha females, as well as males. ..."
    "... a movie implicitly critical of Wall Street and explicitly damning of hedge funds. ..."
    truthdig.com

    Not long ago, I saw a documentary about sharks in the wild. The male bites the frisky female on her flank, both to show his interest and to subdue her as he attempts penetration. Initially the female resists; one was filmed wriggling free of a series of circling males until she becomes exhausted and an alpha male has his way with her.

    According to the narrator, shark reproduction favors the most powerful males and strongest females. Over time, the female evolves tougher skin to endure, or perhaps elude, the male love bite.

    If that's what happens in the open sea, what must it be like in tighter quarters?

    "Equity," an intelligent and enthralling thriller set in a shark tank of New York investment bankers, hedge-fund executives and tech entrepreneurs, imagines just that.

    The film, directed by Meera Menon and written by Amy Fox, is as ruthless and hypnotic a study of a cutthroat species as the documentary I saw about the carnivorous fish. Maybe it is even more so, as it is a story of alpha females, as well as males.

    This female-driven production about driven females stars Anna Gunn ("Breaking Bad") as banker Naomi Bishop, the firm rainmaker lately experiencing a drought. Sarah Megan Thomas is Erin Manning, her assistant, and Alysia Reiner ("Orange is the New Black") plays Samantha, an assistant U.S. attorney investigating Gunn's firm. That storyline provides one of the plot's conflicts. Another is that banker and assistant each want promotions and are denied.

    At the outset, it's hard to like Naomi. She announces herself as the female Gordon Gekko (the character Michael Douglas played in "Wall Street"). While he exhorted that "greed is good," she forthrightly admits that she "likes money." She likes the numbers, likes the adrenaline rush of risking it on a new venture and, most of all, she likes the power it represents.

    She makes few concessions to femininity and none to glamor. Her body is womanly, rather than girlish, her clothes purely functional. Naomi lets off steam by slipping into boxing gloves and taking the stuffing out of the punching bag. She is in control of her emotions.

    At the outset, it's easy to like Erin and Samantha, both model-slim and flirty (even though both are married). From Erin's perspective, Naomi is the boss from hell. From Samantha's, the banker is insufficiently idealistic. "Equity" asks us at first to align with the younger women because, well, they look like the sexy creatures of most Hollywood films. But as it continues, the movie asks us to question our first impressions. It's a film about not making snap judgments, in business, in love or in life.

    Is there a difference when women are behind both the camera and the story? In this case, yes and no. It's no surprise that this movie features a trio of three-dimensional women at its center. For the most part, though, its male characters are generic and cardboard-flat. There's entitled hedge-fund guy Michael (James Purefoy), Naomi's mentor and boyfriend, all about the money and the game. There's the entitled tech entrepreneur Ed (Samuel Roukin), who is all about the money and the sex. The one good guy is a warm and supportive U.S. attorney who steers Samantha toward remaining in her ethical lane. Here is a movie implicitly critical of Wall Street and explicitly damning of hedge funds.

    Despite the one-dimensional men, I was surprised by the film's deceptions and detours. The greatest asset of "Equity" is Gunn, whose face is a Kabuki mask and whose skin is impenetrable as that of a female shark. While watching her I thought once or twice that hers was a one-note performance. But by movie's end, I realized it was a symphony of invincibility and vulnerability.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Apparently the Russian government has decided to drop Kudrin type monetarist economics

    Notable quotes:
    "... "President Putin has clearly realized that the neo-liberal "experiment" has failed. More likely, is that he was forced to let economic reality unfold under the domination of the liberals to the point it was clear to all internal factions that another road was urgently needed. Russia, like every country, has opposing vested interests and now clearly the neo-liberal vested interests are sufficiently discredited by the poor performance of the Kudrin group that the President is able to move decisively. In either case, the development around the Stolypin Group is very positive for Russia." ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    kirill , August 12, 2016 at 4:10 pm
    Apparently the Russian government has decided to drop Kudrin type monetarist economics http://journal-neo.org/2016/08/02/putin-nyet-to-neo-liberals-da-to-national-development/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_List

    I never knew about his existence. He was dead right about national economics and free trade. The Smithian BS has been the root of much pain and suffering over the last 200 years.

    marknesop , August 12, 2016 at 6:10 pm

    "President Putin has clearly realized that the neo-liberal "experiment" has failed. More likely, is that he was forced to let economic reality unfold under the domination of the liberals to the point it was clear to all internal factions that another road was urgently needed. Russia, like every country, has opposing vested interests and now clearly the neo-liberal vested interests are sufficiently discredited by the poor performance of the Kudrin group that the President is able to move decisively. In either case, the development around the Stolypin Group is very positive for Russia."

    This is indeed big news, and the above paragraph is the money shot. Kudrin is a tool, but Putin wisely did not make a martyr out of him by kicking him to the curb until he had shown everyone that he was a tool. Now nobody will dare intervene, "But what about Kudrin's plan?" And another western voice stilled.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Globalization, Rise of Neo-Nationalism and the Bankruptcy of the Left

    Notable quotes:
    "... On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries. ..."
    "... The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. ..."
    "... In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves. ..."
    "... The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites. ..."
    "... In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. ..."
    "... Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process; ..."
    "... Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands. ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". ..."
    "... by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement. ..."
    "... it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. ..."
    "... "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage" ..."
    "... It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria) ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left ..."
    "... the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. ..."
    Jul 07, 2016 | www.liveleak.com
    On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries.

    The huge expansion of the anti-globalization movement over the past few years was under control, for the time being, and the EU elites would not have to resort to sanctions against a country at the core of the Union – such as those which may soon be imposed against Poland.

    In fact, the only reason they have not as yet been imposed is, presumably, the fear of Brexit, but as soon as the British people finally submit to the huge campaign of intimidation ("Project Fear") launched against them by the entire transnational elite, Poland's – and later Hungary's – turn will come in earnest.

    The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. The interesting thing, however, is that in the Greek case it was the so-called "NewLeft" represented by SYRIZA, which not only accepted the worst package of measures imposed on Greece (and perhaps any other country) ever,[ii] but which is also currently busy conducting a huge propaganda campaign (using the state media, which it absolutely controls, as its main propaganda tool) to deceive the exhausted Greek people that the government has even achieved some sort of victory in the negotiations! At the same time, the working class – the traditional supporters of the Left – are deserting the Left en masse and heading towards the neo-nationalist parties: from Britain and France to Austria. So how can we explain these seemingly inexplicable phenomena?

    Nationalism vs. neo-nationalism

    As I tried to show in the past,[iii] the emergence of the modern nation-state in the 17th-18th centuries played an important role in the development of the system of the market economy and vice versa. However, whereas the 'nationalization' of the market was necessary for the development of the 'market system' out of the markets of the past, once capital was internationalized and therefore the market system itself was internationalized, the nation state became an impediment to further 'progress' of the market system. This is how the NWO emerged, which involved a radical restructuring not only of the economy, with the rise of Transnational Corporations, but also of polity, with the present phasing out of nation-states and national sovereignty.

    Inevitably, the phasing out of the nation-state and national sovereignty led to the flourishing of neo-nationalism, as a movement for self-determination. Yet, this development became inevitable only because the alternative form of social organization, confederalism, which was alive even up to the time of the Paris Commune had in the meantime disappeared.

    In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves.

    The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites.

    This globalist culture is based on the globalization ideology of multiculturalism, protection of human rights etc., which in fact is an extension of the classical liberal ideology to the NWO. In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. It is not therefore accidental that globalist ideologists characterize the present flourishing of what I called neo-nationalism, as the rise of 'illiberalism'.'[iv] It is therefore clear that we have to distinguish between old (or classical) nationalism and the new phenomenon of neo-nationalism. To my mind, the main differences between them are as follows:

    a) Nationalism developed in the era of nation-states as a movement for uniting communities with a common history, culture and usually language under the common roof of nation-states that were emerging at the time but also even in the 20th century when national liberation movements against colonialist empires were fighting for their own nation states. On the other hand, neo-nationalism developed in the era of globalization with the aim of protecting the national sovereignty of nations which was under extinction because of the integration of their states into the NWO;

    b) Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process;

    c) Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands.

    Naturally, given the origin of many neo-nationalist parties and their supporters, elements of the old nationalist ideology may penetrate them, such as the Islamophobic and anti-immigration trends, which provide the excuse to the elites to dismiss all these movements as 'far right'. However, such demands are by no means the main reasons why such movements expand. Particularly so, as it can easily be shown that the refugee problem is also part and parcel of globalization and the '4 freedoms' (capital, labor, goods and services) its ideology preaches.

    The rise of the neo-nationalist movement

    Therefore, neo-nationalism is basically a movement that arose out of the effects of globalization, particularly as far as the continuous squeezing of employees' real incomes is concerned––as a result of liberalizing labor markets, so that labor could become more competitive. The present 'job miracle', for instance, in Britain, (which is characterized as "the job creation capital of the western economies"), hides the fact that, as an analyst pointed out, "unemployment is low, largely because British workers have been willing to stomach the biggest real-terms pay cut since the Victorian era".[v]

    The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". Of course, given the political and economic power that the elites have concentrated against these neo-nationalist movements, it is possible that neither Brexit nor any of these movements may take over, but this will not stop of course social dissent against the phasing out of national sovereignty.

    The same process is repeated almost everywhere in Europe today, inevitably leading many people (and particularly working class people) to turn to the rising neo-nationalist Right. This is not of course because they suddenly became "nationalists" let alone "fascists", as the globalist "NewLeft" (that is the kind of Left which is fully integrated into the NWO and does not question its institutions, e.g. the EU) accuses them in order to ostracize them. It is simply because the present globalist "NewLeft" does not wish to lead the struggle against globalization, while, at the same time, the popular strata have realized that national and economic sovereignty is incompatible with globalization. This is a fact fully realized, for example, by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement.

    But, it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. As Le Pen stressed, (in a way that the "NewLeft" has abandoned long ago!):

    "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage".[vi]

    In fact, the French National Front is the most important neo-nationalist party in Europe and may well be in power following the next Presidential elections in 2017, unless of course a united front of all globalist parties (including the "NewLeft" and the Greens), supported by the entire TE and particularly the Euro-elites and the mass media controlled by them, prevents it from doing so (exactly as it happens at present in Britain with respect to Brexit). This is how Florian Philippot the FN's vice-president and chief strategist aptly put its case in a FT interview:

    "The people who always voted for the left, who believed in the left and who thought that it represented an improvement in salaries and pensions, social and economic progress, industrial policies  . these people have realized that they were misled."[vii]

    As the same FT report points out, to some observers of French politics, the FN's economic policies, which include exiting the euro and throwing up trade barriers to protect industry, read like something copied from a 1930s political manifesto, while Christian Saint-Étienne, an economist for Le Figaro newspaper, recently described this vision as "Peronist Marxism".[viii] In fact, in a more recent FT interview, Marine Le Pen, the FN president went a step further in the same direction and she called, apart from exiting from the Euro––that she expects to lead to the collapse of the Euro, if not of the EU itself, (which she-rightly–welcomes)––for the nationalization of banks. At the same time she championed public services and presented herself as the protector of workers and farmers in the face of "wild and anarchic globalization which has brought more pain than happiness ".[ix]

    For comparison, it never even occurred to SYRIZA (and Varoufakis who now wears his "radical" hat) to use such slogans before the elections (let alone after them!) Needless to add that her foreign policy is also very different from that of the French establishment, as she wants a radical overhaul of French foreign policy in which relations with the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would be restored and those with the likes of Qatar and Turkey, which she alleges support terrorism, reviewed. At the same time, Le Pen sees the US as a purveyor of dangerous policies and Russia as a more suitable friend.

    Furthermore, as it was also stressed in the same FT report, "the FN is not the only supposedly rightwing European populist party seeking to draw support from disaffected voters on the left. Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party has adopted a similar approach and has been discussing plans "to ring-fence the National Health Service budget and lower taxes for low earners, among a host of measures geared to economically vulnerable voters who would typically support Labor".[x]

    Similar trends are noticed in other European countries like Finland, where the anti-NATO and pro-independence from the EU parties had effectively won the last elections,[xi] as well as in Hungary, where neo-nationalist forces are continuously rising,[xii] and Orban's government has done more than any other EU leader in protecting his country's sovereignty, being as a result, in constant conflict with the Euro-elites. Finally, the rise of a neo-nationalist party in Poland enraged Martin Schulz, the loudmouthed gatekeeper of the TE in the European Parliament, who accused the new government as attempting a "dangerous 'Putinization' of European politics."[xiii]

    However, what Eurocrats like Martin Schulz "forget" is that since Poland joined the EU in 2004, at least two million Poles have emigrated, many of them to the UK. The victory of the Law and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc, PiS) in October 2015 was due not just to a backlash by traditional Polish voters to the bulldozing of their values by the ideology of globalization but also to the fact, as Cédric Gouverneur pointed out, that "the nationalist, pro-religion, protectionist, xenophobic PiS has attracted these disappointed people with an ambitious welfare programme: a family allowance of 500 zloty ($130) a month per child, funded through a tax on banks and big business; a minimum wage; and a return to a retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men (PO had planned to raise it to 67 for both).[xiv] In fact, PiS used to be a conservative pro-EU party when they were in power between 2005 and 2007, following faithfully the neoliberal program, and since then they have become increasingly populist and Eurosceptic. As a result, in the last elections they won the parliamentary elections in both the lower house (Sejm) and the Senate, with 37.6% of the vote, against 24.1% for the neoliberals and 8.8% for the populist Kukiz while the "progressive" camp failed to clear the threshold (5% for parties, 8% for coalitions) and have no parliamentary representation at all!

    The bankruptcy of the Left

    It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria).

    Furthermore, there is little doubt anymore that it was the intellectual failure of the Left to grasp the real significance of a new systemic phenomenon, (i.e. the rise of the Transnational Corporation that has led to the emergence of the globalization era) and its consequent political bankruptcy, which were the ultimate causes of the rise of a neo-nationalist movement in Europe. This movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left, whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order. In fact, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization, thanks mainly to the activities of the globalist Left, it was left to the neo-nationalist movement to fight against globalization in general and against the EU in particular.

    Almost inevitably, in view of the campaigns of the TE against Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria), worrying Islamophobic trends have developed within several of these neo-nationalist movements, some of them turning their old anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, supported on this by Zionists themselves![xv] Even Marine Le Pen did not avoid the temptation to lie about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, stressing that "there is no Islamophobia in France but there is a rise in anti-Semitism".

    Yet, she is well aware of the fact that Islamophobia was growing in France well before Charlie Hebdo,[xvi] with racial attacks against Islamic immigrants, (most of whom live under squalid conditions in virtual ghettos) being very frequent. At the same time, it is well known that the Jewish community is mostly well off and shares a very disproportionate part of political and economic power in the country to its actual size, as it happens of course also––and to an even larger extent–– in UK and USA. This is one more reason why Popular Fronts for National and Social Liberation have to be built in every country of the world to fight not only Eurofascism and the NWO-which is of course the main enemy––but also any racist trends developing within these new anti-globalization movements, which today take the form of neo-nationalism. This would also prevent the elites from using the historically well-tested 'divide and rule' practice to divide the victims of globalization.

    Similarly, the point implicitly raised by the stand of the British "NewLeft" in general on the issue of Brexit cannot just be discussed in terms of the free trade vs. protectionism debate, as the liberal (or globalist) "NewLeft" does (see for instance Jean Bricmont[xvii] and Larry Elliott[xviii] of the Guardian). Yet, the point is whether it is globalization itself, which has led to the present mass economic violence against the vast majority of the world population and the accompanying it military violence. In other words, what all these "NewLeft" trends hide is that globalization is a class issue. But, this is the essence of the bankruptcy of the "NewLeft" , which is reflected in the fact that, today, it is the neo-nationalist Right which has replaced the Left in its role of representing the victims of the system in its globalized form , while the Left mainly represents those in the middle class or the petty bourgeoisie who benefit from globalization. Needless to add that today's bankrupt "NewLeft" promptly characterized the rising neo-nationalist parties as racist, if not fascist and neo-Nazis, fully siding with the EU's black propaganda campaign against the rising movement for national sovereignty.

    This is obviously another nail in the coffin of this kind of "NewLeft" , as the millions of European voters who turn their back towards this degraded "NewLeft" are far from racists or fascists but simply want to control their way of life rather than letting it to be determined by the free movement of capital, labor and commodities, as the various Soroses of this world demand!

    The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left,[xix] whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. In the Austrian elections, it became once more clear that the Left expresses now the middle class, while the neo-nationalists the working class. As the super-globalist BBC presented the results:

    Support for Mr Hofer was exceptionally strong among manual workers – nearly 90%. The vote for Mr Van der Bellen was much stronger among people with a university degree or other higher education qualifications. In nine out of Austria's 10 main cities Mr Van der Bellen came top, whereas Mr Hofer dominated the rural areas, the Austrian broadcaster ORF reported (in German).[xx]

    The process of the NewLeft's bankruptcy has been further enhanced by the fact that, faced with political collapse in the May 2014 Euro-parliamentary elections, it allied itself with the elites in condemning the neo-nationalist parties as fascist and neo-Nazi. However, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization (mainly through the World Social Forum, thanks to the activities of the globalist "NewLeft" ),[xxi] it is up to the neo-nationalist movement to fight globalization in general and the EU in particular. It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties which are, in fact, all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements that have simply filled the huge gap created by the globalist "NewLeft" . Thus, this "NewLeft" , Instead of placing itself in the front line among all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty, it has indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, supposedly founded on Marxism.

    On the other side, as one might expect, most members of the Globalist "NewLeft" have joined the new 'movement' by Varoufakis to democratize Europe, "forgetting" in the process that 'Democracy' was also the West's propaganda excuse for destroying Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Today, it seems that the Soros circus is aiming to use exactly the same excuse to destroy Europe, in the sense of securing the perpetuation of the EU elites' domination of the European peoples and therefore the continuation of the consequent economic violence involved. The most prominent members of the globalist "NewLeft" who have already joined this new DIEM 'movement' range from Noam Chomsky and Julian Assange to Suzan George and Toni Negri, and from Hillary Wainwright of Red Pepper to CounterPunch and other globalist "NewLeft" newspapers and journals all over the world. In this context, it is particularly interesting to refer to Slavoj Žižek's commentary on the 'Manifesto' that was presented at the inaugural meeting of Varoufakis's new movement in Berlin on February 2016.[xxii]

    Neo-nationalism and immigration

    So, the unifying element of neo-nationalists is their struggle for national sovereignty, which they (rightly), see as disappearing in the era of globalization. Even when their main immediate motive is the fight against immigration, indirectly their fight is against globalization, as they realize that it is the opening of all markets, including the labor markets, particularly within economic unions like the EU, which is the direct cause of their own unemployment or low-wage employment, as well as of the deterioration of the welfare state, given that the elites are not prepared to expand social expenditure to accommodate the influx of immigrants. Yet, this is not a racist movement but a purely economic movement, although the TE and the Zionist elites, with the help of the globalist "NewLeft" , try hard to convert it into an Islamophobic movement––as the Charlie Hebdo case clearly showed[xxiii]–––so that they could use it in any way they see fit in the support of the NWO.

    But, what is the relationship of both neo-nationalists and Euro-fascists to historical fascism and Nazism? As I tried to show elsewhere,[xxiv] fascism, as well as National Socialism, presuppose a nation-state, therefore this kind of phenomenon is impossible to develop in any country fully integrated into the NWO, which, by definition, cannot have any significant degree of national sovereignty. The only kind of sovereignty available in the NWO of neoliberal globalization is transnational sovereignty, which, in fact, is exclusively shared by members of the TE. In other words, fascism and Nazism were historical phenomena of the era of nation-state before the ascent of the NWO of neoliberal globalization, when states still had a significant degree of national and economic sovereignty.

    However, in the globalization era, it is exactly this sovereignty that is being phased out for any country fully integrated into the NWO. Therefore, the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. However, as there is overwhelming evidence of the full support they have enjoyed by the Transnational Elite and (paradoxically?) even by the Zionist elite,[xxv] they should more accurately be called Euro-fascists.

    It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties, which are all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements that simply filled the huge gap left by the globalist Left, which, instead of placing itself in the front line of all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty,[xxvi] indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, developed a hundred years ago or so. The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy.

    National and Social Liberation Fronts everywhere!

    So, at this crucial historical juncture that will determine whether we shall all become subservient to neoliberal globalization and the transnational elite (as the DIEM25 Manifesto implies through our subordination to the EU) or not, it is imperative that we create a Popular Front in each country which will include all the victims of globalization among the popular strata, regardless of their current political affiliations.

    In Europe, in particular, where the popular strata are facing economic disaster, what is urgently needed is not an "antifascist" Front within the EU, as proposed by the 'parliamentary juntas' in power and the Euro-elites, also supported by the globalist "NewLeft" (such as Diem25, Plan B in Europe, Die Linke, the Socialist Workers' Party in the UK, SYRIZA in Greece and so on), which would, in fact, unite aggressors and victims. An 'antifascist' front would simply disorient the masses and make them incapable of facing the real fascism being imposed on them[xxviii] by the political and economic elites, which constitute the transnational and local elites. Instead, what is needed is a Popular Front for National and Social Liberation, which that could attract the vast majority of the people who would fight for immediate unilateral withdrawal from the EU – which is managed by the European part of the transnational elite – as well as for economic self- reliance, thus breaking with globalization.

    To my mind, it is only the creation of broad Popular Fronts that could effect each country's exit from the EU, NAFTA and similar economic unions, with the aim of achieving economic self-reliance. Re-development based on self-reliance is the only way in which peoples breaking away from globalization and its institutions (like the EU) could rebuild their productive structures, which have been dismantled by globalization. This could also, objectively, lay the ground for future systemic change, decided upon democratically by the peoples themselves. Therefore, the fundamental aim of the social struggle today should be a complete break with the present NWO and the building of a new global democratic community, in which economic and national sovereignty have been restored, so that peoples could then fight for the ideal society, as they see it.

    Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher, editor of Society & Nature/ Democracy and Nature/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. He has also been a columnist for the Athens Daily Eleftherotypia since 1990. Between 1969 and 1989 he was Senior Lecturer in Economics at the University of North London (formerly Polytechnic of North London). He is the author of over 25 books and over 1,500 articles, many of which have been translated into various languages.

    This article is based on Ch. 4 of the book to be published next month by Progressive Press, The New World Order in Action, vol. 1: The NWO, the Left and Neo-Nationalism. This is a major three-volume project aiming to cover all aspects of the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization http://www.progressivepress.com/book-listing/new-world-order-action

    Notes:

    Bruno Waterfield, "Juncker vows to use new powers to block the far-right", [i]The Times, 24/5/2016

    The original source of this article is Global Research. Copyright © Takis Fotopoulos , Global Research, 2016

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/globalization-the-massive-rise-of-neo-nationalism-and-the-bankruptcy-of-the-left/5527157

    [Sep 10, 2016] Poroshenko is the richest among the leaders of Europe, while he leads what must be just about Europes poorest country

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Anastasia Krasnosilska of the Anti-Corruption Action Center of Ukraine, said Poroshenko has only tackled abuses because of foreign pressure and then only after lengthy foot-dragging. ..."
    "... "All recent successes in the fight against corruption were made possible because of pressure from the EU, IMF, and civil society," she said to CBC News. "If it weren't for the conditionalities the foreign donors and lenders imposed, and the feeling that the eye of foreign governments is on Ukraine, there would have been no reform." ..."
    "... "According to the Kyiv Post, the IMF is planning to reduce a loan to Ukraine from a planned $1.7 billion to $1 billion over corruption concerns. ..."
    "... Valeria Gontareva, Poroshenko's Porsche-driving political ally and business partner who now heads the National Bank of Ukraine, says she isn't concerned. "It's not a big deal for us," she told the publication, although the shortfall is equal to the total amount Canada has given to Ukraine since the Maidan rebellion ended in February 2014." ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    marknesop , July 24, 2016 at 8:05 pm
    Wow; there's still endemic corruption in Ukraine – who knew? And Poroshenko is the richest among the leaders of Europe, while he leads what must be just about Europe's poorest country. Ordinarily, the press would be all over a dichotomy like that. I guess reporting on Ukraine requires a suspension of curiosity.

    "Anastasia Krasnosilska of the Anti-Corruption Action Center of Ukraine, said Poroshenko has only tackled abuses because of foreign pressure and then only after lengthy foot-dragging.

    "All recent successes in the fight against corruption were made possible because of pressure from the EU, IMF, and civil society," she said to CBC News. "If it weren't for the conditionalities the foreign donors and lenders imposed, and the feeling that the eye of foreign governments is on Ukraine, there would have been no reform."

    And it's starting to have an effect.

    "According to the Kyiv Post, the IMF is planning to reduce a loan to Ukraine from a planned $1.7 billion to $1 billion over corruption concerns.

    Valeria Gontareva, Poroshenko's Porsche-driving political ally and business partner who now heads the National Bank of Ukraine, says she isn't concerned. "It's not a big deal for us," she told the publication, although the shortfall is equal to the total amount Canada has given to Ukraine since the Maidan rebellion ended in February 2014."

    And yet the Ukrainian government still keeps on mouthing it up to the country's most likely saviour – Russia. Although things have probably gone too far for that now, thanks to the west trying to muscle into a position where whatever Russia does to benefit Ukraine benefits the west.

    [Sep 10, 2016] I didnt pay 700 dollars for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine

    Buying iPhone is mistake in itself. but as for neocon propaganda machine do you thing that Google or Yahoo are better? they are not.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Anyone else notice that their apple iphone has turned into a raging anti-trump propaganda machine? I'm talking about the news headlines apple pushes to you when you slide your home screen all the way to the right. ..."
    "... I didn't pay $700 for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine. ..."
    "... I have never actually read the anti trump stories that apple feeds my iphone because i didn't want to set up a preference for such things. I just see the headlines and they are quite negative. This is not the phone responding to my preference. It is content that is being deliberately pushed by Apple to my phone sans any info suggesting that i want it. ..."
    "... Paying $700 for a $200 phone says unflattering things about i-Phone owners. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    alaric | Aug 6, 2016 2:41:59 PM | 3

    Anyone else notice that their apple iphone has turned into a raging anti-trump propaganda machine? I'm talking about the news headlines apple pushes to you when you slide your home screen all the way to the right.

    I didn't pay $700 for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 6, 2016 4:22:11 PM | 6

    Sometimes you get something extra with no additional cost. For 700 bucks you should get hourly updates from the Lord of the Universe, so neocon urgent news are perhaps a step in this direction :-)

    More seriously, this is the fault of the browser and evil business model. Some click is cheerfully interpreted as your request to get bombarded from some source, and sometimes it is clear how to undo it, sometimes not.

    Browsers should not have such features, but this is what makes them profitable.

    Coming in near future: discount versions of cars that are steered by a computer. Every few minutes the car stops and restarts only after you confirmed with clicks that you have seen another ad.

    alaric | Aug 6, 2016 5:13:45 PM | 14

    "More seriously, this is the fault of the browser and evil business model. Some click is cheerfully interpreted as your request to get bombarded from some source"

    I have never actually read the anti trump stories that apple feeds my iphone because i didn't want to set up a preference for such things. I just see the headlines and they are quite negative. This is not the phone responding to my preference. It is content that is being deliberately pushed by Apple to my phone sans any info suggesting that i want it.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 6, 2016 11:26:13 PM | 30

    I didn't pay $700 for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine.

    alaric | Aug 6, 2016 2:41:59 PM | 3

    Paying $700 for a $200 phone says unflattering things about i-Phone owners.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Removing a governments control over currency would prevent nasty little elected officials from using Keynesian monetary and fiscal juice to pull a nation out of recession

    Notable quotes:
    "... The euro would really do its work when crises hit, Mundell explained. Removing a government's control over currency would prevent nasty little elected officials from using Keynesian monetary and fiscal juice to pull a nation out of recession. ..."
    "... He cited labor laws, environmental regulations and, of course, taxes. All would be flushed away by the euro. Democracy would not be allowed to interfere with the marketplace ..."
    "... Mundell was also the driving force for Reagan's supply side economics. ..."
    Jun 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Pookah Harvey , June 26, 2016 at 10:21 pm

    According to investigative journalist Greg Palast; Nobel winning economist Robert Mundell, who is thought to be the father of the Euro, designed the EU to take macroeconomics away from elected politicians and forcing deregulation were part of the plan .

    The euro would really do its work when crises hit, Mundell explained. Removing a government's control over currency would prevent nasty little elected officials from using Keynesian monetary and fiscal juice to pull a nation out of recession.

    "It puts monetary policy out of the reach of politicians," he said. "[And] without fiscal policy, the only way nations can keep jobs is by the competitive reduction of rules on business."

    He cited labor laws, environmental regulations and, of course, taxes. All would be flushed away by the euro. Democracy would not be allowed to interfere with the marketplace

    Mundell was also the driving force for Reagan's supply side economics.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Be afraid, Donald Trump. Were about to see the best of Barack Obama

    All this discussion missed the most important point: Obama is neocon and neoliberal and he did what he was supposed to do. "Change we can believe is" was a masterful "bait and switch" operation to full the gullible electorate. he was just a useful puppet for globalist. They used him and they will threw him to the dust bin of history sweetened with $200k speeches.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people! ..."
    "... So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes? ..."
    "... Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency. ..."
    "... Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328 ..."
    "... 'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with???? ..."
    "... Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy! ..."
    "... Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder. ..."
    "... Obama's presidency: 1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up. 2. Record # of people living on food stamps. 3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it) 4. Stagnant income for average family 5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income. 6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up. 7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore. ... ... Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over. ..."
    "... Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed. ..."
    "... Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts. ..."
    "... Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary? Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement. ..."
    "... "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries. ..."
    "... "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter? ..."
    "... Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians. ..."
    "... Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined. ..."
    "... Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
    "... Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.) ..."
    "... Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did. ..."
    "... Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed). ..."
    "... Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence. ..."
    "... Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states. ..."
    "... Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street. ..."
    "... Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color, ..."
    "... Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state. ..."
    "... Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen ..."
    "... Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons. ..."
    "... Which of these things make you "so proud?" ..."
    "... You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it. ..."
    "... To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd. ..."
    "... This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on. ..."
    "... Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world. ..."
    "... Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-). ..."
    "... TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    slorter

    The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people!

    kittehpavolvski

    So, if we're about to see the best of Obama, what have we been seeing hitherto?

    waitforme

    So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes?

    ForestTrees

    Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency.

    ForestTrees -> Glenn J. Hill 31m ago

    Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

    HelenPatterson

    'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with????

    What a fatuous article about the world's leading terrorist.

    And of course we shouldn't forget that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined.

    Let's not forget that he claims and has exercised his 'right' to murder his own citizens on the basis of secret evidence - one being a 16 year old boy. And when the White House spokesman was asked why the boy was murdered by drone, he said 'He should have had a more responsible father'.

    He sings off on his 'Kill List' of domestic and foreign nationals every Tuesday, dubbed 'Terror Tuesday' by his staff.

    Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy!

    ID7715785

    Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder.

    ninjamia

    Oh, I know. He'll repeat the snide and nasty remarks about Trump that he gave at the Press Club dinner. Such style and grace - not.

    J.K. Stevens -> ninjamia

    Sit back and weep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

    fflambeau

    Casting Donald Trump as the Big Bad Wolf doesn't bring about real change.

    And sadly, in his almost 8 years in office (2 years with absolute control over the Congress) Barack Obama has brought about little real change. For him it is a slogan.

    Larry Robinson

    Obama's presidency:
    1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up.
    2. Record # of people living on food stamps.
    3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it)
    4. Stagnant income for average family
    5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income.
    6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up.
    7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore.
    ... ...

    Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over.

    shinNeMIN -> Larry Robinson

    $500 million worth of arm supply?

    hadeze242 -> Major MajorMajor

    while Obama's messy military interventions become more and more confused, chaotic and tragic his personal appearance gets ever more Hollywood: perfect attire, smile and just the right words. I would prefer the inverse, less tailoring and neat haircuts, but more honesty and transparency. e.g., Obama lied about the NSA for how long in this first term. Answer: all four years long and beyond into the 2nd term.

    BostonCeltics

    Six more months until he goes into the dustbin of history. Small minded people in positions of power who take things personally are the epitome of incompetence.

    Mats Almgren

    Obama became a worse president than Bush. Endless moneyprinting, bombing nine countries, created a operation Condor 2.0 with interventions in Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina, didn't withdraw any troops from Afghanistan, lifted the weapon embargo on Vietnam to sell US weapons and at the same time forcing Vietnam to not do trade deals with China, intimidating the Phillipines from doing trade with China, restarted the cold war which had led to biggest military ramp up in Eastern Europe since 1941, drone bombed weddings and hospitals and what not, supported islam militants in Libya, Syria and Iraq which has led to total devastation in these countries. And there has been an increase in the constant US interventionism regarding European elections and referendums. And has continuously protected the dollar hegemony causing death and destruction thoughout the world.

    With that track record it's easy to say that Obama might be worst US president ever. And there has been hardly any critism and critical thinking in the more and more propagandistic and agenda driven western media.

    It's like living in the twilight zone reading the media in Sweden and Britain.

    Jose Sanchez -> Mats Almgren

    Blame a president for trying to sell what we still manufacture are you?

    Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed.

    NewWorldWatcher

    The new leader of the Republican party thinks that that it was stupid to go into Iraq and Afghanistan but it would be good to carpet bomb ISIS. He IS a great Republican. No wonder this party is on the fringe of extinction.

    Mats Almgren -> NewWorldWatcher

    Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts.

    trundlesome1

    Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary?

    Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement.

    zootsuitbeatnick

    "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries.

    That's as hyper-competitive as Trump is selfless.
    Try to be at least a little reality-based.

    hadeze242

    the best of Pres. Obama? Perhaps only someone living a life in the UK could dream this strange dream? Great, compared to whom, to what? Never since WW2 has the US & world seen such a weak, openly-prejudiced, non-performing Pres. Remember O's plan to save Afghanistan? Lybia? Then, working (bombing) with Putin's Russia to collaterally bomb the beautiful, developed, cultural nation of Syria. To what end I ask? To create refugees? Obama has never been at his best, always only at his worst. Ah, yes, his smooth-lawyered sentences come with commas & periods and all that, but there is no feeling inside the man. This man is a great, oratory actor. His promises are well-written & endless, but delivery is never coming. Yes, we can .. was his electoral phrase. No, we can't ... after 8 long, wasted yrs was his result.

    NewWorldWatcher

    In Las Vegas they are gaming on how many votes will Trump lose by not who will win. A Trump loss will be in excess of 10 Million votes.......5to2 odds. The worse loss in recent history!

    Janet Re Johnson -> NewWorldWatcher

    From your mouth to God's ears. But I'm a big baseball fan, so I know it ain't over till it's over.

    Larry Robinson

    Also it's when Obama talks out of outburst rather than from a teleprompter that you can tell his true capability as a leader or lack thereof.

    Notice that Obama said ... not once has an advisor tells him to use the term "radical Islam" ... . Well Mr Obama, it's your own call to decide what term to use on this issue so why are you bringing your advisors out for credence. Right or wrong that's your own decision so you should stand behind it. When you bring advisors in to defend what should be your own call it shows WEAKNESS.

    Obama basically tells everyone that he needs his advisors to tell him what do b/c he does NOT know how to handle it by himself. So who's the leader here, Obama or his advisors? Is Obama just a puppet that needs his advisors to pull the string constantly? Ouch.

    It's the prompter-free moment like this that the truth about Obama comes out. I wonder why Trump has not picked this clear hole up yet.

    raffine

    The POTUS will crush Mr Trump like a 200 year old peanut.

    Carolyn Walas Libbey -> raffine

    The POTUS is about as useful as an old condom.

    PortalooMassacre

    Exposed to the toxic smugness of Richard Wolffe, I'm beginning to see what people find attractive about Donald Trump's refreshing barbarism.

    guy ventner -> synechdoche

    "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter?

    Ron Shuffler

    "Greatest President since Lincoln" "I am proud - so proud! - to say that this man is MY President! Personally, I am ashamed that this man is my President.
    But anyway, here's what Richard Wolffe and y'all are so proud of:

    Here's what your favorite President actually did:

    1. Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians.
    2. Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined.
    3. Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    4. Deported at least 2.8 million "illegal" immigrants
    5. Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.)
    6. Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did.
    7. Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed).
    8. Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence.
    9. Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states.
    10. Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street.
    11. Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color,
    12. Left Guantanamo open (though as Commander-in-Chief he could have closed it down with a phone call).
    13. Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state.
    14. Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen
    15. Sent billions of dollars to the new military rulers of Egypt
    16. Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons.

    Which of these things make you "so proud?"

    BG Davis -> Ron Shuffler

    You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it.
    At the same time, you overestimate the simplicity of just closing Guantanamo prison with "a phone call." So he makes the phone call; then what happens to the prisoners? They aren't all innocent non-entities who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Larry Robinson

    It's only in the mind of die hard liberals that Obama has been strong against terrorists. Just look at how he handles Syria situation. Asad - a Shiite govt - is a sworn enemy to ISIS - a Sunni organization so if you are serious about ISIS you should utilize Asad, right? Well no, Obama is so hell-bent on unseating Asad that he supports those rebels that are also Sunni-based and cozy with ISIS. To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd.

    Lafcadio1944

    What part of Obama's criminal acts in office do think are the best? For me the very best of Obama is how he can project power so suavely while standing before the world as a prima facia criminal. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!! Under the law those who order and/or carry out torture MUST be prosecuted. THAT IS INTERNATIONAL, TREATY AND DOMESTIC US LAW.

    The oh so great and powerful Obama he of such dignity in office has SHOWN UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE RULE OF LAW!!!

    But that's OK he will say bad things about Trump.

    This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on.

    I want to vomit when the press acts so hypocritically ready to jump all over Putin or China in a heart beat - but challenge US officials who openly violate the law - not a chance.

    babymamaboy

    Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world.

    It would be really easy for him to call it like it is -- we don't care who you worship, just don't mess with our oil. But he actively feeds the narrative while chiding Trump for being too enthusiastic about it. I guess that's what passes for US leadership these days.

    urgonnatrip

    Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex.

    How has Barack done? He's held them in check and avoided an escalation to WW3. I wish I could say the next president was going to continue the trend but somehow I doubt it.

    KerryB -> urgonnatrip

    You had me right up until the last line. I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-).

    zolotoy -> KerryB

    Yeah, just ignore Hillary Clinton's actual record, right?

    AgnosticKen

    TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Oil and gas crunch pushes Russia closer to fiscal crisis

    It is pretty interesting and educational to read such articles one year after they are published.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia is already in dire straits. The economy has contracted by 4.9pc over the past year and the downturn is certain to drag on as oil prices crumble after a tentative rally. Half of Russia's tax income comes from oil and gas. ..."
    "... Core inflation is running at 16.7pc and real incomes have fallen by 8.4pc over the past year, a far deeper cut to living standards than occurred following the Lehman crisis. ..."
    "... This man "forecasted" Russia's demise last year. He has to show that that forecast is still liable to happen ..."
    "... What Colby said is palpably true. That is why we don't hear real news and instead we are bombarded with news about their "celebs" ..."
    "... He should know. And certainly, Western media coverage of the Ukraine crisis demonstrated to many millions of people in the West that major Western media is almost all controlled by the US neocons. Anyone with half a brain can see that - but clearly not you. ..."
    "... Russia is not interested in invading anyone. The US has tried to force Russia to invade Ukraine in an iraq style trap but it didn't work. So they had to invent an invasion, the first in living memory without a single satellite, video or photo image of any air campaign, heavy armour, uniformed soldiers, testimony from friends & family of servicemen they could pay to get a statement, not even a mobile photo of a Russian sitting on a tank. ..."
    "... As the merkins tell us a devalued dollar is your problem.. the devalued rouble is the EUs problem! ..."
    "... So the political sanctions are bankrupting Russia because they dared to challenge EU expansion. Result millions of poor Russians will start to flow West and the UK will have another flood of Eastern Europeans. But at least we showed them our politicians are tough. ..."
    "... Spelling it out for Russia (or Britain) that would mean giving up Byzantine based ambitions and prospering through alliances with the Muslim Nation or Countries, including Turkey. In the short term such a move would quell internal dissent of the 11m immigrants in Russia, reduce unsustainable security expenditure with its central Asian neighbours, open and expand market for Russian goods in the Middle East, Far East and North Africa, and eventually form and provide a military-commercial -political alliance (like NATO) for the Muslim nations with Russia (with partner strength based upon what is mostly commercial placed on the table (see the gist in the Vienna Agreement between P5+1 and Iran). ..."
    "... The formation of such an alliance would trump Russia's (or Britain's) opponents ambitions and bring prosperity. ..."
    "... Propaganda. Laughable coming from the UK hack when the UK has un-payable debt and Russia has little external debt plus we have no Gold and Russia has probably 20,000 tonnes. NATO surrounds Russia yet they are the aggressors. ..."
    "... In the end, Ambrose is too ideological to be credible on the issue. Sure, Russia has couple lean years ahead, but it will come out of this ordeal stronger, not weaker. There are already reports of mini boomlets gathering steam under the surface. ..."
    Jul 23, 2015 | Telegraph

    Russia is already in dire straits. The economy has contracted by 4.9pc over the past year and the downturn is certain to drag on as oil prices crumble after a tentative rally. Half of Russia's tax income comes from oil and gas.

    Core inflation is running at 16.7pc and real incomes have fallen by 8.4pc over the past year, a far deeper cut to living standards than occurred following the Lehman crisis. This time there is no recovery in sight as Western sanctions remain in place and US shale production limits any rebound in global oil prices.

    "We've seen the full impact of the crisis in the second quarter. It is now hitting light industry and manufacturing," said Dmitri Petrov from Nomura.

    "Russia is going to be in a very difficult fiscal situation by 2017," said Lubomir Mitov from Unicredit. "By the end of next year there won't be any money left in the oil reserve fund and there is a humongous deficit in the pension fund. They are running a budget deficit of 3.7pc of GDP but without developed capital markets Russia can't really afford to run a deficit at all."

    A report by the Higher School of Economics in Moscow warned that a quarter of Russia's 83 regions are effectively in default as they struggle to cope with salary increases and welfare costs dumped on them by President Vladimir Putin before his election in 2012. "The regions in the far east are basically bankrupt," said Mr Mitov.

    Russian companies have to refinance $86bn in foreign currency debt in the second half of this year. They cannot easily roll this over since the country is still cut off from global capital markets, so they must rely on swap funding from the central bank.

    Dave Hanson

    For once, Flimflambrose paints a fairly accurate picture. His formula is to take a few facts and stretch them to their illogical conclusion to create a story that sells subscriptions to the Telegraph. Sort of like the National Enquirer. He does that well. He only mentions the other side of the story in a sentence or two, usually at the end of his column. The scary headline at the top comes true perhaps one in a thousand times, just enough to keep readers from totally dismissing him as a fruitcake. Not yellow journalism. Clever journalism.

    steph borne

    jezzam steph borne •a day ago

    ''Under Putin Russia has progressed from a respectable rank 60 on the transparency international corruption index to an appalling rank 140. It is now one of the most corrupt countries in the world, entirely due to Putin.'' http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
    .
    jezzam is using the Corruption Perceptions Index as fact?
    but it is ''Perceptions''???
    ''The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring absolute levels of corruption.[8]'' Wiki
    Just more nonsense from Jezzam

    soton

    my wife is russian, she speak's to her mother on the phone every day, from what she tell's me nothing has changed economically for the "average joe" no doubt some of the abramovich types have seen the value of their properties plunge

    Rosbif2

    So if Russia is financially sinking below the waves, how come AEP in other articles claimed that Russia could buy themselves into Greece and menace Europe?
    It seems like Greece & Russia are two drowning men who would grab onto each other & drown even faster
    AEP seems to lack "joined up thinking" in his articles

    giltedged

    This man "forecasted" Russia's demise last year. He has to show that that forecast is still liable to happen

    What Colby said is palpably true. That is why we don't hear real news and instead we are bombarded with news about their "celebs"

    Real news to show that a new world economy is being built totally outside the control of US Neocons and Globalists, that the world is now multi-polar, that for example this journalist's capital city, London, now has officially a majority of the population not merely non-British in origin, but non-European, that his own country survives because of London property sales

    Richard N

    And isn't AEP rubbing his hands with glee at this supposedly desperate situation of Russia!

    Colby, the ex-boss of the CIA, said in retirement that there is no journalist of consequence or influence in the Western media that the CIA 'does not own'.

    I often find myself remembering that, when I read Ambrose pumping out the US neocon / CIA propaganda standard lines about 'Russian aggression' in Ukraine, and so on - choosing to ignore the fact that Russia's action in Crimea was in direct response and reaction to the US Neocons' coup in Ukraine, which overthrew an elected government in a sovereign state, to replace it with the current US puppet regime in Kiev.

    Of course, this collapse of oil and gas prices are no accident at all - but are part of America's full-scale economic war against Russia, aiming to get Putin overthrown, and replaced by someone controlled by the US Globalists, leaving then
    China as the only major power centre in the world outside the Globalists' control.

    Richard N > jezzam • a day ago

    If you bothered to read what I wrote carefully, you would see that, with reference to journalists, I was simply repeating what ex-head of the CIA Mr. Colby said.

    He should know. And certainly, Western media coverage of the Ukraine crisis demonstrated to many millions of people in the West that major Western media is almost all controlled by the US neocons. Anyone with half a brain can see that - but clearly not you.

    steph borne

    ''Russian bear will roar once more, says World Bank''

    01 Jun 2015

    ''Russia economy forecast to grow by 0.7pc next year, reversing negative growth
    forecast''

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...

    steph borne > TheBoggart

    Do you understand what a trade surplus is?

    Russia recorded a trade surplus of 15309 USD Million in May of 2015 http://www.tradingeconomics.co...

    Halou > steph borne

    Carried on to the absurd extreme at which all the dollars are held outside of America, the US simply prints more money thus devaluing it's currency and favoring exports (which are then cheaper to produce and cheaper buy) people giving their currency to the US in return for goods and services and restoring economic balance.

    I can understand that Russia doesn't have much experience with the 'boom and bust' cycles of market economies. They've had less than 20 years experience at it.

    Did you know that in the 19th century China's trade surplus with Europe was so vast that Europe almost went bankrupt and ran out of precious metals buying Chinese goods, surely by your thinking it was truly a golden age of eastern supremacy, western failure. Ask any Chinese person what the 19th century means to them, you might be surprised.

    steph borne > Halou

    Shame you can't provide a link or two to back up your thoughts on trade surpluses.. altho I know amongst bankrupt countries they tell you that money/assets leaving the country is a good thing....

    Strange that the Germans don't agree --

    ''Germany recorded a trade surplus of 19600 EUR Million in May of 2015. Balance ...reaching an all time high of 23468.80 EUR Million in July of 2014...'' http://www.tradingeconomics.co...

    Obviously another country heading for financial self-destruction

    steph borne

    02 Oct 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... 02 Oct 2014
    Russias-economy-is-being-hit-hard-by-sanctions.html

    01 Sept 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... 01 Sept 2014 Cameron-we-will-permanently-damage-Russias-economy.html
    cameron says.??? Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

    29 Dec 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 29 Dec 2014 /Recession-looms-for-Russia-as-economy-shrinks-for-first-time-since-2009.html

    24 Nov 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 24 Nov 2014 Russia-faces-recession-as-oil-crash-and-sanctions-cost-economy-90bn.html

    22 Dec 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 22 Dec 2014 Russia-starts-bailing-out-banks-as-economy-faces-full-blown-economic-crisis.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 29 Apr 2015
    Ukraines-conflict-with-Russia-leaves-economy-in-ruins.htm
    .
    Still going!!!

    Graham Milne

    Russia has physical assets (oil, minerals and so on); we don't. It is the UK which is toast, not Russia.

    billsimpson > Graham Milne

    Russia is way too big & resource rich to ever be total toast. And the people are educated, even if they do drink a lot. But they could get a bit hungry in another economic collapse. All the nukes they have is the real problem. Those need to be kept secure, should another revolution occur, or the country break apart after an economic collapse.
    The US & Canada would never sit back and watch the UK melt down. Witness the Five Eyes communal global spying system.
    Electrify all the rail system that you can, so people can still get around on less oil. Some oil is essential for growing and transporting food.

    Sal20111

    Russia can't just blame it on sanctions, or price wars in oil and gas. They have not reinvested the proceeds of their prodigous fossil fuel sales smartly and neither have they diversified quickly enough - the gas sales to China was an afterthought after Ukraine.

    Putin cracked down on some of the oligarchs but not all - national wealth has clearly been sucked out by a few. Nepotism and favouritism seem to be rife. They should have learnt the lesson from their communist history not to concentrate power in state contriolled organisations. Not sure whether there is much of a small to medium business culture.

    With the amount of natural resources it has, and a well educated public, particularly in math and technical skills, Russia should be doing much better.

    rob22

    Russia is not interested in invading anyone. The US has tried to force Russia to invade Ukraine in an iraq style trap but it didn't work. So they had to invent an invasion, the first in living memory without a single satellite, video or photo image of any air campaign, heavy armour, uniformed soldiers, testimony from friends & family of servicemen they could pay to get a statement, not even a mobile photo of a Russian sitting on a tank.

    Russia is too busy building up an independent agriculture and import substitution, not to mention creating economic and trade links with its Eurasian neighbours like China & India via the silk road, BRICS, Eurasian Ecconomic Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

    A total nightmare for the US which once hoped to divide & dominate the region (see new American century doc)

    Putin enjoys about 85% approval ratings (independent foreign stats) because it knows to surrender to the US means a return to the 90`s where the nations oil revenue went to wall st and everything else

    If things get bad they`ll just devalue the ruble, get paid in dollars and spend in rubles.

    This is why most Russians are willing to dig in and play the long game.

    Londonmaxwell

    Over the top with Ambrose, as usual. Words like "depression", "crisis", "plummet", and "shrivels"; and these only in the first two paragraphs! Moscow looks absolutely normal to me: traffic jams, packed malls and restaurants, crowded airports and train stations. Unemployment is low, inflation is tolerable.

    Ambrose misses some key points.

    • First, if Gazprom's revenues fell from $146bn to $106bn, then this implies (drumroll) a revenue increase from RUB 5.1 trillion to RUB 5.8 trillion. Since Gazprom/Lukoil/Rosneft et al have USD revenues but RUB expenses, they are all doing quite nicely, as is the Russian treasury.
    • Second, while Russian companies do have foreign debt to pay back, I suspect much of this "debt" is owed to (drumroll) Russian-controlled companies in BVI, Cyprus, Luxie, Swissie, and the other usual suspects. Third, if the oil price declines more in 2015, the Kremlin will simply let the ruble slide, and the biggest losers will again be (drumroll) European exporters.

    Russia's present situation is not glorious, but it is not as precarious as Ambrose portrays it to be. Be wary of writing off Russia. The great game is just beginning.

    energman58 > Londonmaxwell

    Except that the slack has to be taken up by inflation and declining living standards - Russia isn't unique; in Zimbabwe dollar terms almost every company there did splendidly but the place is still bust. The problem is that most of the debt is USD denominated and without the investment blocked by sanctions they are looking at a declining production, low oil prices and an increasing debt service burden. Presumably they could revert to the traditional model of starving the peasants that has served them so well in the past but I am not sure if the people with the real stroke will be quite so happy to see their assets wither away...

    Londonmaxwell > energman58

    Comparing Russia with Mugabeland is a stretch, but I see your point. If the sanctions stay and the oil price goes south permanently, then Moscow has problems. But I question both assumptions. Merkel/Hollande/Renzi already face huge pressure from their business leaders to resume normal relations with Russia; i.e., drop the sanctions. As for oil prices, the USA's shale sector is already in trouble. Russia's debt burden (both public and private) is manageable and can scarcely worsen since it is cut off from the credit markets. While the oil price slump certainly hurts Russia's economy, I don't see the wheels falling off anytime soon.

    AEP writes well and is always thought-provoking, but his view that Russia is facing Armageddon because of oil prices and sanctions is way off the mark.

    steph borne

    Here come the Ukrainian Nazis.. You lot must be very happy
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/e... 18 minutes in..
    Maidan number 3 on the way as I predicted a year ago.

    midnightrambler

    Amazing how the narrative for military action is being fostered by articles such as this one.

    So many people eager for something they have no intention of getting involved in themselves

    snotcricket

    It is rather odd the posts on this thread accusing any & all who question the obvious US gov line in such articles.

    Could it be that some have better memories ie the Ukrainian crisis was in fact created by the support of the US & EU for but a few thousand sat in Independence Sq just two years after the country had voted in the target with a majority the likes of Cameron, Obama could only dream of.

    Only an idiot could not have seen the Russki response to a situation that could in but a very short timescale see NATO troops & kit but a literal footstep from Russki soil....while the ports used by the Russki fleets would be lost overnight usurped no doubt by a 'NATO' fleet of US proportions.....plainly the US knew the likely outcome to the deposing of the elected leader & replaced by the EU puppets....the Russki's had little option.....Putin or no Putin this would have been the outcome.

    With regard to the US led attack on the Russki economy with sanctions....well those sanctions hurt the UK too...but of course not the US (they have lobbyist for such matters) our farmers were hurting afore the sanctions....that became a damn sight worse after the imposition.

    The US attempts to turn off the oil/gas taps of Putin has done damage to the Russkis, similarly its done damage to W. Europe thus ourselves as oil prices are now held at a level by the sanctions reducing world supplies (the US have lobbyists for such matters) thus the god of the US, the market is skewed & forecourt prices too sighed Osborne as the overall taxation gathers 67% of what goes through the retailers till.

    This has been rumbling for over 3 years since the BRICS held their meeting to create a currency that would challenge the $ in terms of the general w.w economy but specifically oil. They did mistime the threat & should have kept their powder dry as the US economy like our own lives on borrowed time & money.....but they made the mistake the US was in such decline they couldn't respond....of course the US have the biggest of all responses to any threat....its armed forces & their technology that advances far more rapidly than any economy.

    Incidentally I write this sat at my laptop in the North of England in between running my own business & contacting clients etc..........I suspect my politics would make Putin wince.....however the chronology, actions/outcomes & the general logic of the situation has now't to do with supporting one or t'other.......& do remember the US grudgingly acknowledge without the Russkis the er, er agreement with Iran & non-proliferation would still be a can yet to be kicked down the road.

    Personally I'd be more worried that Putin has made fools of the US/EU leaders so many times thus wonder just what is the intent in assisting the brokering of any deal? With the West & Iran.

    steph borne

    If Russia was worried about the oil price they would not have been so helpful in getting the usa & Iran together on a deal which will put more downward pressure on the oil price! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... Barack Obama praises Putin for help clinching Iran deal

    oleteo

    Reading this article I saw only one message to be sent to the Russians:"Russians,surrender!" The rumours about the desease and the ongoing decease of the Russian economy are greatly exaggerated.

    steph borne

    June 17, 2015 at 1:44 pm Boeing said it struck a $7.4 billion deal to sell 20 of its 747-8 freighters to Russia's Volga-Dnepr Group, providing a much-needed boost to the jumbo-jet program amid flagging demand for four-engine aircraft. http://www.seattletimes.com/bu...
    MOSCOW, Russia (May 26, 2015) – Bell Helicopter,
    a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, announced today an agreement with
    JSC Ural Works of Civil Aviation (UWCA) for the development of final
    assembly capabilities by UWCA for the Bell 407GXP in order to support
    UWCA in obtaining Russian registry to facilitate their operations. http://www.bellhelicopter.com/...
    .
    Oh business as normal at Bell looks like sanctions only to be paid heed by the useful idiots in the EU

    snotcricket > steph borne

    Yes the sanctions do seem to TTIP more in the US favour than their Western, er, er partners

    Sonduh

    Just like Brown Osborne is reducing borrowing but encouraging consumer debt which is close to 120% GDP. By the end of next year household debt will be 172% of earnings.Once household debt reaches saturation point and they start defaulting on their debt as they did in 2008 -- Game over. I hear the Black Sea is nice this time of year.

    steph borne

    A report by Sberbank warned that Gazprom's revenues are likely to drop by almost a third to $106bn this year from $146bn in 2014, seriously eroding Russia's economic base.''

    Last year $146 billion bought 4672 billion pybs this year $106 billion will buy 6148 Billion pybs
    Gazprom alone generates a tenth of Russian GDP and a fifth of all budget revenues. the Pyb devaluation vs. $ has led to a 31% increase in revenues..

    Something Salmond should take notice of should the SNP want to go for independence again. Inflation at 16% may well be but its the price of imported stuff pushing up the prices.. mainly EU goods for sale .. that won't be bought!

    As the merkins tell us a devalued dollar is your problem.. the devalued rouble is the EUs problem!

    Nikki Santoro

    What is happening is the Anglo-Muricuns are actively provoking the Chinese and Russkies into a war. However once it is all said and done, they are going to need a cover story. People are going to ask why the Russkies attacked. And then the Anglo-Muricuns are going to say that Putin put all his eggs in one basket. Yeah that is what happened but really if Putin does attack, it will be because of the endless Anglo-Muricun provocations. Just as they provoked Hilter to no end and Imperial Japan as well.

    steph borne

    Russian companies have to refinance $86bn....''

    So what are you going to do if they default.. go in and repossess..You and who's army? They are struggling trying to get Greece to comply..

    Russia's trade surplus is still in the Billions of Dollars while the usa's & UKs is mired in deficit.. Russia recorded a trade surplus of 17.142 USD Billion in May of 2015 http://www.tradingeconomics.co....

    Debt public/ external debt ratios

    U. K..................92%........317%
    usa...................74%......... 98%
    And
    Russia...............8%..........40%

    ''And while UK growth could reach 3pc this year, our expansion is far too reliant on rising personal and government debt. ''
    ''The UK, with an external deficit now equal to 6pc of GDP, the second-largest in half a century,''
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...
    As ever the west points to Russia and says Look over there (for God's sake don't look here!)

    Sonduh > steph borne

    And don't forget all their gold reserves. And all their natural resources.

    Skalla

    Prosperous countries are usually benevolent (the US being the exception to the rule). Hungry countries get to be greedy and aggressive. The US with its economic and financial manipulations will turn a sleepy bear into a very awake and ravenous one, and after hibernation, the first thing bears do is FEED --

    vandieman

    A cynic could say that the US is driving the oil prices down to push Russia into a war.

    Anth2305 > vandieman

    Wait until Iranian oil comes fully on stream, which I heard some pundit on TV say could drive the cost down to < $30 a barrel, forcing the Saudis into having to eat massively into their foreign reserves.

    gardiner

    When the old USSR 'collapsed', what we call the 'Oligarchs' ( a collection of the most highly influential State officials who pocketed practically all the old State assets) corruption was at the very highest level, and society was at its weakest.

    The economy became dependant on resource exports.

    Because the country's capital was so concentrated, there was practically no 'middle class' of entrepreneurs who could invest capital in job creating, internationally competitive industry.
    Although a lot further down this road than the UK - the warning is stark!

    beatonthedonis > gardiner

    Abramovich wasn't a state official, he was a rubber-duck salesman. Berezovsky wasn't a state official, he was an academic. Khodorkovsky wasn't a state official, he was a PC importer. Gusinsky wasn't a state official, he was an unlicensed cab driver. Smolensky wasn't a state official, he was a blackmarketeer. Fridman wasn't a state official, he was a ticket tout.

    daddyseanicus

    So the political sanctions are bankrupting Russia because they dared to challenge EU expansion. Result millions of poor Russians will start to flow West and the UK will have another flood of Eastern Europeans.

    But at least we showed them our politicians are tough.

    Busufi > Jonathan

    In the East there is a saying: Why use poison when sugar delivers the same result. Or say as Deng said, It doesn't matter whether the Cat is black or white, so long it catches the mice.

    Spelling it out for Russia (or Britain) that would mean giving up Byzantine based ambitions and prospering through alliances with the Muslim Nation or Countries, including Turkey. In the short term such a move would quell internal dissent of the 11m immigrants in Russia, reduce unsustainable security expenditure with its central Asian neighbours, open and expand market for Russian goods in the Middle East, Far East and North Africa, and eventually form and provide a military-commercial -political alliance (like NATO) for the Muslim nations with Russia (with partner strength based upon what is mostly commercial placed on the table (see the gist in the Vienna Agreement between P5+1 and Iran).

    The formation of such an alliance would trump Russia's (or Britain's) opponents ambitions and bring prosperity.


    Sonduh

    " They are running a budget deficit of 3.7pc of GDP but without developed capital markets Russia can't really afford to run a deficit at all."
    We are able to have a budget deficit of 4.8% and 90% national debt, 115% non financial corporate debt , 200% financial corporate debt and 120% household debt due to voodoo economics ie. countries can print money to buy your debt.

    PS we also have unfunded liabilities like pensions which amounts to many hundred pc of GDP.
    The results showed the extraordinary sums that Britain has committed to pay its future retirees. In total, the UK is committed to paying Ł7.1 trillion in pensions to people who are currently either already retired or still in the workforce.

    This is equivalent to nearly five times the UK's total economic output. Such a figure may be hard to put into proportion, as a trillion – a thousand billion – is obviously a huge number.

    And we think Russia is in a bad state.

    georgesilver

    Propaganda. Laughable coming from the UK hack when the UK has un-payable debt and Russia has little external debt plus we have no Gold and Russia has probably 20,000 tonnes. NATO surrounds Russia yet they are the aggressors.

    Laughable but idiots still believe the propaganda.

    tarentius > georgesilver

    The entire world combined has 32,000 tonnes of gold reserves. Russia has 1,200 tonnes.

    Russia has government debt of 18% to GDP, a contracting GDP. It is forced to pay interest of 15% on any newly issued bonds, and that's rising. And it has a refinancing crisis on existing debt on the horizon.

    Russia's regions are heavily in debt and about 25% of them are already bankrupt. The number is rising.

    And we haven't even gotten into the problem with Russian business loans.

    Turn out the lights, the party's over for Russia.

    Bendu Be Praised > mrsgkhan

    The issue is the medias portrayal of Putin .. If the UK media was straight up with the people and just said .. "our friends in the US hate the Russians .. The Russians are growing too big and scary therefore we are going to join in destroying the Russian economy before they become uncatchable " the people would back them ..

    Lets be honest .. The Russians don't do anything that we don't .. Apart from stand up to the US that is

    Jim0341

    Yesterday, AEP spread the gloom about China, today it is Russia. As ever, he uses quotes from leading figures in banks and finance houses, which are generally bemoaning low returns on investments, rather than the wellbeing, or otherwise, of the national economy..
    Whose turn is it tomorrow, AEP? My bet is Taiwan.

    Bendu Be Praised > FreddieTCapitalist

    I think you will find that the UK are just pretending the sanctions and wars are not hurting us ..

    Just look at the budget .. 40% cuts to public services .. America tried to destroy the Russian economy by flooding the market with cheap oil but it will come back to bite them ..

    The UK should just back off .. lift sanctions against Russia and let the US squabble with them by themselves ..

    I sick of paying taxes for the US governments "War on the terror and the rest of the world"

    alec bell

    This article makes no sense. First of all, there is no way that Gazprom is responsible for 1/10th of Russia's GDP. That is mathematically impossible. 1/20th is more like it. Second, if push comes to shove, Russians are perfectly capable of developing their own vitally-important technologies. Drilling holes in the ground cannot be more complicated than conquering space.

    Whatever problems Russia has, engineering impotence is not one of them.

    And third, if Russians' reliance on resourses' exports has led to "the atrophy of their industry" as AEP rightly points out, then it must logically follow that disappearance of that revenue will inevitably result in their industrial and agricultural renaissance.

    In the end, Ambrose is too ideological to be credible on the issue. Sure, Russia has couple lean years ahead, but it will come out of this ordeal stronger, not weaker. There are already reports of mini boomlets gathering steam under the surface.

    alec bell > vlad

    vlad, JFYI: According to research conducted by the World Economic Forum (which excludes China and India due to lack of data), Russia leads the way, producing an annual total of 454,000 graduates in engineering, manufacturing and construction. The United States is in second position with 237,826 while Iran rounds off the top three with 233,695. Developing economies including Indonesia and Vietnam have also made it into the top 10, producing 140,000 and 100,000 engineering graduates each year respectively.

    Nikki Santoro

    Don't mess with the Anglo-Muricuns. They will jack you up bad. Unless you are thousands of miles away and posting anonymously. But even still they can lens you out and cleanse you out should you take it too far. However their dominance is not some much because of their brilliance. They don't have any despite their propaganda. But rather the depths they are willing to stoop to in order to secure victory. Like blowing up an airliner and then pinning it on you for instance. Or poisoning their own farmland.

    steve_from_virginia

    Futures' traders got burned earlier this year betting that oil prices would rise right back to where they were a year previously. Now they have 'gotten smart'. They know now the problem isn't Saudi Arabia but billions of bankrupt consumers the world around.

    Customers are bankrupt b/c of QE and other easing which shifts purchasing power claims from customers to drillers -- and to the banks. As the customers go broke so do the banks: instead of gas lines there are ATM lines.

    At the same time, ongoing 'success' at resource stripping is cannibalizing the purchasing power faster than ever before. Soon enough, the claims will be worthless! When the resource capital is inaccessible, so is the purchasing power -- which is the ability to obtain that resource capital.

    Business has caught itself in the net of its own propaganda; that there is such a thing as material progress out of waste ... that a better future will arrive the day after tomorrow.

    Turns out tomorrow arrives and things get worse. Who could have thunk it?

    Brabantian

    If AEP is as right about Russia as he was about the Yank shale gas 'boom' - now collapsing into a pile of toxic bad debt -

    Then our Russian friends have nothing to worry about

    midnightrambler > Guest

    The largest military spend - the US - bigger than the next 20 countries combined
    The most bases - the US with 800, including many in Germany
    Nobody wants war - but the US needs it as their largest industry is defence - apart from manipulative banking.
    We are heading for a point of rupture between those who are peaceful and those whose main aim is control and conflict.
    Take your pick
    A few leaders choose war - most people (who will fight those wars) choose peace.
    And of course all wars are bankers' wars - it is only they who profit

    Timothy D. Naegele

    Both Putin and Russia are in a spiral, from which they will not recover.

    See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.... ("Putin Meets Economic Collapse With Purges, Broken Promises")

    Tony Cocks > Timothy D. Naegele

    "Both Putin and Russia are in a spiral, from which they will not recover."

    This from someone whose former President and gang of criminal henchmen lied to the world on a monumental scale about WMD in Iraq , and waged an illegal war on that country killing hundreds of thousands in the process . Following that it was Libyas turn , then Syrias . Now its Russia the US neo con warmongers are hounding, the difference being that Russia holds the worlds biggest nuclear arsenal.
    The US forces had their kicked out of Vietnam and were thoroughly beaten despite throwing everything they had at the conflict save the nuclear option.
    Imagine what will happen if it eventually comes to armed conflict with Russia.

    midnightrambler > Timothy D. Naegele

    A yank lawyer advocating killing.
    From the land of citizen killers
    What a surprise
    Stay away

    stephenmarchant

    Instead of demonising Putin and banging on about the problems of the Russian economy the MSM should be worried about indebted Western economies including the UK and US. Russian Govt finances are not burdened with nearly Ł2trn of debt that has funded unsustainable nominal growth. Here in the UK the real GDP growth per capita is declining at over 3% per anum so as a nation the UK is continuing its decline:-

    Govt deficit at 5% per anum
    Govt debt at about 80% GDP
    Private debt and corporate debt each of a similar order
    Record current account deficit of about 5% per anum
    A deteriorating NIIP (Net International Investment Position)
    Uncontrolled immigration

    Our whole debt based fiat system is on the brink but few can see it whilst they party with asset and property bubbles. A few of us foresaw the first crash of 2007/8 but we now face a systemic collapse of our fiat system because of the resulting 'extend and pretend' policy of Govts and central bankers.

    In the final analysis the true prosperity of a nation will depend upon its natural resources, infrastructure, skills of its workforce and social cohesion.

    Graham Milne > JabbaTheCat

    The scale of Russian kleptocracy pales into vanishing insignificance beside the criminality of western banks (and the government who 'regulate' them). Europe and the USA are regimes run by criminals; worse than that, they are run by traitors. At least Putin isn't a traitor to his country.

    Busufi

    The best way for Russia to beat the downturn in it's oil and gas is to invest in down-stream strategic production of petroleum products that would give Russia a competitive advantage on a global scale.

    Selling raw natural resources is the Third World way of exports. Not smart.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Sanders is now backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Whether he plays Gorbachov or this is Stockholm syndrome shame on him!

    Notable quotes:
    "... That means backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Shame on him! He told his followers to think of pie in the sky in the decades it will take to take over the Democratic Party from below, from school boards, etc. ..."
    "... What on earth is revolution if it doesn't include either remove the rot in the Democratic Party, the Wall Street control, or start another party? It had to be one or the other. Here was his chance. I think he missed it. ..."
    "... He did miss his chance. Some people were suggesting that he should walk and form his own party. Particularly how the party treated him. ..."
    "... The Democrats and the Republicans together have made it almost impossible for a third party to get registered in every state. To run in every state. To get just all of the mechanics you need because of all the lawsuits against them. The Green Party is the only party that had already solved that. Apart from the Libertarian Party. ..."
    "... The oligarchs have joined the Republicans and the Democrats are now seen to be the same party, called the Democratic Party. Here was his chance to make an alternative. ..."
    "... I believe Hillary's the greater evil, not Trump, because Trump is incompetent and doesn't have the staff around him, or the political support that Hilary has. ..."
    "... I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care. ..."
    "... I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight! ..."
    "... Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. ..."
    "... I agree with Hudson that HRC is the greater threat. I also agree with him that Bernie makes no sense. What the hell did Bernie have to lose? He could have accepted the prez nomination with the Greens. In fact, he should have run third party from the git-go. By sucking up to the dems that politically raped him, Bernie is exhibiting a variation of Stockholm syndrome. ..."
    "... Bernie's problem in the end is that he couldn't see that in order to gain power in the Democratic Party (i.e., in order to dislodge the Clintons), the Left might (probably would) have to lose an election. ..."
    "... The Democratic PoC (Party of Clinton) had to be shown as a party that could not win an election without its left half. He wrongly saw the powerless Trump as the greater threat, something that could only be done if he still at least marginally trusted Hillary to ever keep her word on anything. He will come to see that as his greatest mistake of all. ..."
    "... Bernie reminds me of Gorbachev. Both clearly saw what the problem was with their respective societies, but still thought that things could be fixed by changing their respective parties. Bernie it seems, like Gorbachev before him, can not intellectually accept that effective reforms require radical action on the existing power structures. Gorbachev could not break with the Communist system and Bernie can not break with the Democratic party. ..."
    "... I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care. ..."
    "... I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight! ..."
    "... Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. ..."
    Aug 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    PERIES: Let's turn to Sanders's strategy here. Now, Sanders is, of course, asking people to support Hillary. And if you buy into the idea that she is the lesser of two evils candidate, then we also have to look at Bernie's other strategy – which is to vote as many people as we possibly can at various other levels of the elections that are going on at congressional levels, Senate level, at municipal levels. Is that the way to go, so that we can avoid some of these choices we are offered?

    HUDSON: Well, this is what I don't understand about Sanders's strategy. He says we need a revolution. He's absolutely right. But then, everything he said in terms of the election is about Trump. I can guarantee you that the revolution isn't really about Trump. The way Sanders has described things, you have to take over the Democratic Party and pry away the leadership, away from Wall Street, away from the corporations.

    Democrats pretend to be a party of the working class, a party of the people. But it's teetering with Hillary as it's candidate. If ever there was a time to split it, this was the year. But Bernie missed his chance. He knuckled under and said okay, the election's going to be about Trump. Forget the revolution that I've talked about. Forget reforming the Democratic Party, I'm sorry. Forget that I said Hillary is not fit to be President. I'm sorry, she is fit to be President. We've got to back her.

    That means backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Shame on him! He told his followers to think of pie in the sky in the decades it will take to take over the Democratic Party from below, from school boards, etc.

    Labor unions said this half a century ago. It didn't work. Bernie gave up on everything to back the TPP candidate, the neocon candidate.

    What on earth is revolution if it doesn't include either remove the rot in the Democratic Party, the Wall Street control, or start another party? It had to be one or the other. Here was his chance. I think he missed it.

    PERIES: I think there's a lot of people out there that agree with that analysis, Michael. He did miss his chance. Some people were suggesting that he should walk and form his own party. Particularly how the party treated him. But there is another choice out there. In fact, we at the Real News is out there covering the Green Party election as we are speaking here, Michael. Is that an option?

    HUDSON: It would have been the only option for him. He had decided that you can't really mount a third party, because it's so hard. The Democrats and the Republicans together have made it almost impossible for a third party to get registered in every state. To run in every state. To get just all of the mechanics you need because of all the lawsuits against them. The Green Party is the only party that had already solved that. Apart from the Libertarian Party.

    So here you have the only possible third party he could have run on this time, and he avoided it. I'm sure he must of thought about it. He was offered the presidency on it. He could of used that and brought his revolution into that party and then expanded it as a real alternative to both the Democrats and the Republicans. Because the Republican Party is already split, by the fact that the Tea Party's pretty much destroyed it. The oligarchs have joined the Republicans and the Democrats are now seen to be the same party, called the Democratic Party. Here was his chance to make an alternative.

    I don't think there will be a chance like this again soon. I believe Hillary's the greater evil, not Trump, because Trump is incompetent and doesn't have the staff around him, or the political support that Hilary has. I think Bernie missed his chance to take this party and develop it very quickly, just like George Wallace could have done back in the 1960s when he had a chance. I think Chris Hedges and other people have made this point with you. I have no idea what Bernie's idea of a revolution is, if he's going to try to do it within the Democratic Party that's just stamped on him again and again, you're simply not going to have a revolution within the Democratic party.

    Butch In Waukegan ,, August 10, 2016 at 9:51 am

    Sanders' convention endorsement:

    I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care.

    I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled.

    Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight!

    Sanders' campaign was premised on exactly the opposite. How can anyone now take Bernie seriously?

    Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

    crittermom ,, August 10, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    Okay. I know this comment will bring forth much backlash, but I'm gonna put it out there anyway since my 'give-a-shitter' was severely cracked over 4 yrs ago (when 2 sheriff's deputies evicted me from my home while I had been current on my pymts when the bank foreclosed and the response from EVERY govt agency I contacted told me to "hire a lawyer", which I couldn't afford, with one costing much more than I owed on my home of 20 yrs). I had bought my first house by the time I graduated h.s. and had owned one ever since until now.

    My 'give-a-shitter' completely shattered this year with the election, so here goes:

    So it seems we are offered 3 choices when we vote. Trump, Hillary or Green.

    To someone who is among the 8-10 MILLION (depending on whose figures you believe) whose home was illegally taken from them by the banksters, I would welcome a 4th choice since none of the 3 offered will improve my life before I die.

    The consensus seems to be that it'll take decades to create change through voting.

    I'm a divorced woman turning 65. I don't feel I have decades to wait, while I am forced to live in a place that doesn't even have a flush toilet because it's all I can afford. To someone my age with no degrees or special skills, the job market is nonexistent, even if I lived in a big city (where I couldn't afford the rent).

    When I see reports of an increase in new homes being built, I'd love to see a breakdown showing exactly how many of those homes will be primary residences and how many are second (or third, or fourth) homes.

    There are 4 new custom homes being built within a half mile of me.
    None will be primary residences. All will be 'vacation' homes.

    Yet if we're to believe the latest figures, "the housing market is improving!"
    For whom?

    Yes, I'm extremely disappointed that Bernie bailed on us. I doubt either of us will live long enough to see the change required to change this govt and save the planet with our current choices this election.

    I fear the only thing that this election has given me was initially great hope for my future, before being plunged into the darkness of the same ol', same ol' as my only choices.

    I was never radical or oppositional in my life but I would now welcome a revolution. I don't see me living long enough to welcome that change by voting. Especially with the blatant voter suppression and all else that transpired this election.

    While the govt and political oligarchs may fear Russia & ISIS, if they met 8-10 million of us victims of the banksters, they would come to realize real fear, from those within their homeland.

    Most are horrified when I offer this view, saying I'd be thrown in prison.
    Hmmm…considering that…I'd be fed, clothed, housed-and I'd have a flush toilet!

    Gads, I'd love to see millions of us march on Washington & literally throw those in power out of their seats onto the lawn, saying "enough is enough"!

    So I guess my question is, does anyone else feel as 'at the end of their rope' as I do?
    Can you even truly imagine being in my position and what you would do or how you would feel?

    Yes. I screamed, cried, and wrote Bernie's campaign before his endorsement speech was even completed, expressing my disappointment, after foregoing meals to send him my meager contributions.

    My hopes were shattered and I'm growing impatient for change.

    backwardsevolution ,, August 10, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    crittermom/Bullwinkle – here's one of the articles by Chris Hedges on Bernie Sanders:

    "Because the party is completely captive to corporate power," Hedges said. "And Bernie has cut a Faustian deal with the Democrats. And that's not even speculation. I did an event with him and Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein and Kshama Sawant in New York the day before the Climate March. And Kshama Sawant ,the Socialist City Councilwoman from Seattle and I asked Sanders why he wanted to run as a Democrat. And he said - because I don't want to end up like Nader."

    "He didn't want to end up pushed out of the establishment," Hedges said. "He wanted to keep his committee chairmanships, he wanted to keep his Senate seat. And he knew the forms of retribution, punishment that would be visited upon him if he applied his critique to the Democratic establishment. So he won't."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/15/chris-hedges-on-bernie-sanders-and-the-corporate-democrats/

    Lambert Strether ,, August 10, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    I don't get what's wrong with not ending up like Nader.

    And if Sanders saved the left from another two decades of "Nader Nader neener neener!" more power to him, say I.

    backwardsevolution ,, August 10, 2016 at 8:55 pm

    Fair enough. I don't know enough about Nader to care. To me, it was just the about-face that Bernie did, going from denouncing Hillary (albeit not very strongly) to embracing her. I think if I had been one of his supporters who cheered him on, sent him money, got my hopes raised that he would go all the way, I would have been very disappointed. Almost like a tease.

    crittermom ,, August 10, 2016 at 8:51 pm

    Thanks for that link.

    I'd wanted Bernie to run as an Independent more than anything, but I can understand him wanting to keep his Senate seat and chairs. Without them, he has no power to bring change.
    I had believed he had a good chance to win, whipping a big Bernie Bird to both parties and changing things in my lifetime, running Independent.

    I now realize just how completely corrupt our political system is. Far worse than I ever could have imagined. Wow, have my eyes been opened!

    I'm beginning to think this election may just come down to who has the bigger thugs, Trump or HRC.

    EndOfTheWorld , August 10, 2016 at 5:04 am

    I agree with Hudson that HRC is the greater threat. I also agree with him that Bernie makes no sense. What the hell did Bernie have to lose? He could have accepted the prez nomination with the Greens. In fact, he should have run third party from the git-go. By sucking up to the dems that politically raped him, Bernie is exhibiting a variation of Stockholm syndrome.

    Benedict@Large , August 10, 2016 at 7:26 am

    Bernie's problem in the end is that he couldn't see that in order to gain power in the Democratic Party (i.e., in order to dislodge the Clintons), the Left might (probably would) have to lose an election.

    The Democratic PoC (Party of Clinton) had to be shown as a party that could not win an election without its left half. He wrongly saw the powerless Trump as the greater threat, something that could only be done if he still at least marginally trusted Hillary to ever keep her word on anything. He will come to see that as his greatest mistake of all.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 11:34 am

    Very well stated++

    Another Anon , August 10, 2016 at 7:27 am

    Bernie reminds me of Gorbachev. Both clearly saw what the problem was with their respective societies, but still thought that things could be fixed by changing their respective parties. Bernie it seems, like Gorbachev before him, can not intellectually accept that effective reforms require radical action on the existing power structures. Gorbachev could not break with the Communist system and Bernie can not break with the Democratic party.

    diptherio , August 10, 2016 at 11:33 am

    Bernie is too nice for his own good. He should have used the DNC machinations as an excuse to go back on his promise to endorse. "I made that promise on the assumption that we would all be acting in good faith. Sadly, that has proved not to be the case."

    But no, he's too much of a politician, or too nice, or has too much sense of personal pride…or had his life and his family threatened if he didn't toe the line (not that I'm foily). Whatever his motivations, we don't get a "Get out of Responsibility Free" card just because one dude made some mis-steps. If that's all it takes to derail us, we're so, so screwed.

    Reply
    perpetualWAR , August 10, 2016 at 11:42 am

    No, Bernie is exhibiting behavior of a man whose family was theatened. There's no other explanation for his pained face at the convention.

    Griffith W Jones , August 10, 2016 at 5:30 am

    I also agree with Hudson and EndOfTheWorld that HRC is the greater threat and that Sanders makes no sense.

    Sure, the Dems probably threatened to kick him off of Congressional Committees and to back a rival in Vermont.

    So what! With his tenure and at his age, what's really to lose? If he couldn't face off someone in his home state, it's probably time to retire anyway. And it's not like he was ever in it for the money.

    The best he gets now is mild tolerance from his masters. "Give me your followers and lick my boots." What a coward, could have made history, now he's a goat.

    Fortunately, his "followers" have more integrity…

    Eman , August 10, 2016 at 5:33 am

    It's actually not so surprising given his long history of working within the mainstream system, simply along its fringes. I think many may have been falling into the '08 Obama trap of seeing what they wanted to see in him.

    As a senator he's had plenty of opportunities to grandstand, gum up the works, etc, and he really never does. Even his "filibuster" a few years back wasn't all that disruptive.

    Reply
    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 5:37 am

    EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie. Diametrically opposed to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces her! What? I will never understand that.

    "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."

    He's right too. I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals.

    She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again said she wants to take out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just hope that there's a big Clinton Foundation email leak to finish her off.

    Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of course, if war wasn't making so many people rich, it would be stopped tomorrow). He's questioning why NATO is necessary, never mind its continual expansion, and he wants to stop the TPP.

    God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP, more NATO, more war, and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails hanging around, now is the time!

    Butch In Waukegan , August 10, 2016 at 9:51 am

    Sanders' convention endorsement:

    I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care.

    I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled.

    Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight!

    Sanders' campaign was premised on exactly the opposite. How can anyone now take Bernie seriously?

    Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she now? Here's a good quote on how she felt about universal health care:

    "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)

    "David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary Clinton's weary and exasperated response – as head of the White House's health reform initiative – to Harvard medical professor David Himmelstein in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health Program. He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive, single-payer "Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds of the U.S. public. Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/27/feel-the-hate/

    That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care.

    Perhaps Yves could highlight Hillary's disdain for single-payer healthcare on another post. Thanks.

    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen CBS

    [Sep 09, 2016] Deep roots of the chaos in Ukraine

    Notable quotes:
    "... I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine ( Review , 21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide a realistic synopsis of the background to current events. ..."
    "... the process was deliberately sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and a democratic Russia would pose a major threat to American long-term economic interests. ..."
    "... (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire ..."
    Feb 25, 2015 | The Guardian

    I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine (Review, 21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide a realistic synopsis of the background to current events.

    The real ending of the cold war was in 1986, when the USSR leadership resolved on a five-year programme to move to parliamentary democracy and a market economy. The intention in Moscow was to use that period to achieve a progressive convergence with the EU.

    There could have been huge benefits to Europe in such convergence, but the process was deliberately sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and a democratic Russia would pose a major threat to American long-term economic interests.

    The chaos that we now have, and the distrust of America which motivates Russian policy, stems primarily from decisions taken in Washington 30 years ago.

    Martin Packard
    (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire

    [Sep 09, 2016] All candidates in 2016 Presidential elections with the possible exception of Trump, are neocons

    All candidates with the possible exception of Trump, are either neocons or neocon stooges: "Most revealing are their policies concerning war and peace. Despite minor differences, all three (and those to come) want more military spending. Each thinks the United States can and should manage stability in the Middle East, on Russia's border, etc. All three demonize Russia and Iran, countries that do not threaten us. Thus they would risk war, which would bolster government power while harming the American people and others."
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master." ..."
    "... "The state - or, to make matters more concrete, the government - consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting 'A' to satisfy 'B'. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods." ..."
    "... Do the four declared candidates really fit this picture? You can judge for yourself. Hillary Clinton, the sole Democrat so far, is long associated with activist government across the range of issues domestic and foreign. Her newfound rhetorical populism can't obscure her association with elitist social engineering. ..."
    "... What about Republicans Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio? Are they "men of system"? Despite their talk about reining in government, I think the answer is yes. ..."
    "... Most revealing are their policies concerning war and peace. Despite minor differences, all three (and those to come) want more military spending. Each thinks the United States can and should manage stability in the Middle East, on Russia's border, etc. All three demonize Russia and Iran, countries that do not threaten us. Thus they would risk war, which would bolster government power while harming the American people and others. ..."
    May 01, 2015 | http://www.insidesources.com/laymans-early-guide-presidential-election/

    From Opinion: A Layman's Early Guide to the Presidential Election

    Posted to Politics As you may have heard, the 2016 presidential campaign is underway. Let's not miss the forest for the trees. While the candidates will make promises to help the middle class or this or that subgroup, remember this: each aspirant wants to govern, that is, rule, you – even those whose rhetoric might suggest otherwise.

    George Washington supposedly said:

    "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master."

    Although no evidence links the quotation to the first president, its truth is indisputable. Like it or not, government's distinguishing feature, beginning with its power to tax, is its legal authority to use force against even peaceful individuals minding their own business. Ultimately, that's what rule means, even in a democratic republic, where each adult gets a vote in choosing who will rule.

    As that keen observer of the American political scene, H. L. Mencken, put it years ago,

    "The state - or, to make matters more concrete, the government - consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting 'A' to satisfy 'B'. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods."

    If you keep that perspective during the coming campaign, you'll be in a much better position to judge the candidates than if you take their solemn pronouncements at face value.

    Do the four declared candidates really fit this picture? You can judge for yourself. Hillary Clinton, the sole Democrat so far, is long associated with activist government across the range of issues domestic and foreign. Her newfound rhetorical populism can't obscure her association with elitist social engineering.

    In The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), Adam Smith described such a politician as

    "the man of system [who] seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it."

    Has Clinton ever considered that we're not chess pieces in her grand schemes? We might like to make our own decisions.

    What about Republicans Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio? Are they "men of system"? Despite their talk about reining in government, I think the answer is yes. At best they propose only to tinker with the welfare-regulatory-warfare state without challenging the institutional privileges that enrich the well-connected or the institutional barriers that impede the marginalized in improving their lives.

    One can see their obeisance toward government power in their support for the "war on drugs," the presumption that government should monitor what we ingest and punish us for violating its prohibitions. Another sign is the candidates' views on immigration. If people have natural rights, why do they need the government's permission to live and work here? A third indicator is their position on world trade. Can you imagine any of them advocating a laissez-faire trade policy with no role for government?

    Most revealing are their policies concerning war and peace. Despite minor differences, all three (and those to come) want more military spending. Each thinks the United States can and should manage stability in the Middle East, on Russia's border, etc. All three demonize Russia and Iran, countries that do not threaten us. Thus they would risk war, which would bolster government power while harming the American people and others.

    Appearances can deceive: they're persons of system all.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Americas True Role in Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... In January, the New York Times finally reported on a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama's orders, provides organizational support and training. ..."
    "... What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis, Turks, Qataris, and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What is the role of US troops, air cover, and other personnel in the war? The US government isn't answering these questions, and mainstream media aren't pursuing them, either. ..."
    "... Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America's allies in the anti-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise sums are not reported. ..."
    "... To those at the center of the US military-industrial complex, this secrecy is as it should be. Their position is that a vote by Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against those culpable for the 9/11 attack gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret wars in the Middle East and Africa. Why should the US explain publicly what it is doing? That would only jeopardize the operations and strengthen the enemy. The public does not need to know. ..."
    "... I subscribe to a different view: wars should be a last resort and should be constrained by democratic scrutiny. This view holds that America's secret war in Syria is illegal both under the US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the United Nations Charter, and that America's two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts to topple Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the battleground. ..."
    "... The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America's proxy warriors imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia's behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict. ..."
    "... This is the main reason why the US security state refuses to tell the truth. The American people would call for peace rather than perpetual war. Obama has a few months left in office to repair his broken legacy. He should start by leveling with the American people. ..."
    www.defenddemocracy.press

    - Defend Democracy Press

    Syria's civil war is the most dangerous and destructive crisis on the planet. Since early 2011, hundreds of thousands have died; around ten million Syrians have been displaced; Europe has been convulsed with Islamic State (ISIS) terror and the political fallout of refugees; and the United States and its NATO allies have more than once come perilously close to direct confrontation with Russia.

    Unfortunately, President Barack Obama has greatly compounded the dangers by hiding the US role in Syria from the American people and from world opinion. An end to the Syrian war requires an honest accounting by the US of its ongoing, often secretive role in the Syrian conflict since 2011, including who is funding, arming, training, and abetting the various sides. Such exposure would help bring to an end many countries' reckless actions.

    A widespread – and false – perception is that Obama has kept the US out of the Syrian war. Indeed, the US right wing routinely criticizes him for having drawn a line in the sand for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over chemical weapons, and then backing off when Assad allegedly crossed it (the issue remains murky and disputed, like so much else in Syria). A leading columnist for the Financial Times, repeating the erroneous idea that the US has remained on the sidelines, recently implied that Obama had rejected the advice of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to arm the Syrian rebels fighting Assad.

    Yet the curtain gets lifted from time to time. In January, the New York Times finally reported on a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama's orders, provides organizational support and training.

    Unfortunately, the story came and went without further elaboration by the US government or follow up by the New York Times. The public was left in the dark: How big are the ongoing CIA-Saudi operations? How much is the US spending on Syria per year? What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis, Turks, Qataris, and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What is the role of US troops, air cover, and other personnel in the war? The US government isn't answering these questions, and mainstream media aren't pursuing them, either.

    On more than a dozen occasions, Obama has told the American people that there would be "no US boots on the ground." Yet every few months, the public is also notified in a brief government statement that US special operations forces are being deployed to Syria. The Pentagon routinely denies that they are in the front lines. But when Russia and the Assad government recently carried out bombing runs and artillery fire against rebel strongholds in northern Syria, the US notified the Kremlin that the attacks were threatening American troops on the ground. The public has been given no explanation about their mission, its costs, or counterparties in Syria.

    Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America's allies in the anti-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise sums are not reported.

    The US public has had no say in these decisions. There has been no authorizing vote or budget approval by the US Congress. The CIA's role has never been explained or justified. The domestic and international legality of US actions has never been defended to the American people or the world.

    To those at the center of the US military-industrial complex, this secrecy is as it should be. Their position is that a vote by Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against those culpable for the 9/11 attack gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret wars in the Middle East and Africa. Why should the US explain publicly what it is doing? That would only jeopardize the operations and strengthen the enemy. The public does not need to know.

    I subscribe to a different view: wars should be a last resort and should be constrained by democratic scrutiny. This view holds that America's secret war in Syria is illegal both under the US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the United Nations Charter, and that America's two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts to topple Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the battleground.

    The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America's proxy warriors imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia's behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict.

    These are issues that should be subject to legal scrutiny and democratic control. I am confident that the American people would respond with a resounding "no" to the ongoing US-led war of regime change in Syria. The American people want security – including the defeat of ISIS – but they also recognize the long and disastrous history of US-led regime-change efforts, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Central America, Africa, and Southeast Asia.

    This is the main reason why the US security state refuses to tell the truth. The American people would call for peace rather than perpetual war. Obama has a few months left in office to repair his broken legacy. He should start by leveling with the American people.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Benghazi Just a Symptom; Interventionism Is the Disease

    Notable quotes:
    "... the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering cost or consequence ..."
    "... as Tim Carney rightly argues at The Washington Examiner , and the "useful lesson from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war." ..."
    "... And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass. Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives' all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint, minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our own. ..."
    "... Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism. ..."
    Jun 30, 2016 | Reason.com

    ... ... ...

    And the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering cost or consequence.

    Indeed, the "2012 attack that killed four Americans was a consequence of the disorder and violence the administration left in the wake of its drive-by war," as Tim Carney rightly argues at The Washington Examiner, and the "useful lesson from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war."

    Unfortunately, that is a lesson too few in Washington are willing to learn. Clinton herself maintains in the face of overwhelming evidence that her handiwork in Libya is an example of "smart power at its best"-a phrase whose blatant inaccuracy should haunt her for the rest of her political career. With arguments in favor of Libya, round two already swirling and Clinton's poll numbers holding strong, it is not difficult to imagine a Clinton White House dragging America back to fiddle with a country it was never particularly interested in fixing by this time next year.

    And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass. Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives' all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint, minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our own.

    Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism. That's the real story here, and it's a bipartisan failure of judgment which shows all the signs of running on repeat.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Deep roots of the chaos in Ukraine

    Notable quotes:
    "... I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine ( Review , 21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide a realistic synopsis of the background to current events. ..."
    "... the process was deliberately sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and a democratic Russia would pose a major threat to American long-term economic interests. ..."
    "... (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire ..."
    Feb 25, 2015 | The Guardian

    I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine (Review, 21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide a realistic synopsis of the background to current events.

    The real ending of the cold war was in 1986, when the USSR leadership resolved on a five-year programme to move to parliamentary democracy and a market economy. The intention in Moscow was to use that period to achieve a progressive convergence with the EU.

    There could have been huge benefits to Europe in such convergence, but the process was deliberately sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and a democratic Russia would pose a major threat to American long-term economic interests.

    The chaos that we now have, and the distrust of America which motivates Russian policy, stems primarily from decisions taken in Washington 30 years ago.

    Martin Packard
    (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire

    [Sep 09, 2016] Some thoughts on the DNC email hacking scandal

    Notable quotes:
    "... Cybersecurity company FireEye first discovered APT 29 in 2014 and was quick to point out a clear Kremlin connection. "We suspect the Russian government sponsors the group because of the organizations it targets and the data it steals. because of evidence from FireEye." ..."
    "... FireEye is also interesting as it, along with the US Department of Defense, funds the CEPA (publishers of Ed Lucas's and Pomerantsev's screed on fighting Kremlin influence): ..."
    "... I recall the FireEye story well – they used the exact same logic; the code was written on Cyrillic-keyboard machines and during Moscow working hours. Their conclusion was "It just looks so much like something the Russians would do that it must be them". No allowance for the possibility that someone else did it who wanted the USA to arrive at exactly that conclusion. Someone who has done it before, lots of times, and who makes a science out of picking fights on Uncle Sam's behalf. ..."
    "... Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear? Is there proof that they actually exist? I mean real proof, not WADA proof. ..."
    "... They are just code names given by a particular security outfit. Different outfits will use different names for the same entities, much in the same way that a given virus/trojan/etc will be given different names by different AV corporations. The names reflect observable characteristics such as threat type, coding style, code structure, distribution network, similar earlier threats, etc rather than a specific single person. ..."
    Aug 07, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Jeremn , August 5, 2016 at 2:53 am
    Some thoughts on the hacking "scandal". This article

    http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/07/how-putin-weaponized-wikileaks-influence-election-american-president/130163/

    blames the Russians thus:

    "On June 14, cybersecurity company CrowdStrike, under contract with the DNC, announced in a blog post that two separate Russian intelligence groups had gained access to the DNC network. One group, FANCY BEAR or APT 28, gained access in April. The other, COZY BEAR, (also called Cozy Duke and APT 29) first breached the network in the summer of 2015. Cybersecurity company FireEye first discovered APT 29 in 2014 and was quick to point out a clear Kremlin connection. "We suspect the Russian government sponsors the group because of the organizations it targets and the data it steals. because of evidence from FireEye."

    Crowdstrike – their Co-Founder, Alperovitch, is an Atlantic Council fellow. The other firm, FireEye, has the CIA as a stakeholder:

    http://venturebeat.com/2009/11/18/cias-in-q-tel-funds-fireeye-anti-botnet-security-firm/

    Should give pause to thought that the intelligence services are interfering in US democracy?

    No?

    FireEye is also interesting as it, along with the US Department of Defense, funds the CEPA (publishers of Ed Lucas's and Pomerantsev's screed on fighting Kremlin influence):

    marknesop , August 5, 2016 at 9:56 am
    I recall the FireEye story well – they used the exact same logic; the code was written on Cyrillic-keyboard machines and during Moscow working hours. Their conclusion was "It just looks so much like something the Russians would do that it must be them". No allowance for the possibility that someone else did it who wanted the USA to arrive at exactly that conclusion. Someone who has done it before, lots of times, and who makes a science out of picking fights on Uncle Sam's behalf.

    In the case of both FireEye and Crowdstrike, they would stop looking as soon as they arrived upon a conclusion which suited them anyway.

    ucgsblog , August 5, 2016 at 12:58 pm
    Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear? Is there proof that they actually exist? I mean real proof, not WADA proof.
    Yonatan , August 5, 2016 at 3:04 pm
    They are just code names given by a particular security outfit. Different outfits will use different names for the same entities, much in the same way that a given virus/trojan/etc will be given different names by different AV corporations. The names reflect observable characteristics such as threat type, coding style, code structure, distribution network, similar earlier threats, etc rather than a specific single person.
    marknesop , August 5, 2016 at 3:23 pm
    Yes, 'APT' stands for something, I forget what it was but they said it. Advanced Persistent Threat, something like that. Reply

    [Sep 09, 2016] Americas True Role in Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... In January, the New York Times finally reported on a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama's orders, provides organizational support and training. ..."
    "... What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis, Turks, Qataris, and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What is the role of US troops, air cover, and other personnel in the war? The US government isn't answering these questions, and mainstream media aren't pursuing them, either. ..."
    "... Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America's allies in the anti-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise sums are not reported. ..."
    "... To those at the center of the US military-industrial complex, this secrecy is as it should be. Their position is that a vote by Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against those culpable for the 9/11 attack gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret wars in the Middle East and Africa. Why should the US explain publicly what it is doing? That would only jeopardize the operations and strengthen the enemy. The public does not need to know. ..."
    "... I subscribe to a different view: wars should be a last resort and should be constrained by democratic scrutiny. This view holds that America's secret war in Syria is illegal both under the US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the United Nations Charter, and that America's two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts to topple Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the battleground. ..."
    "... The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America's proxy warriors imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia's behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict. ..."
    "... This is the main reason why the US security state refuses to tell the truth. The American people would call for peace rather than perpetual war. Obama has a few months left in office to repair his broken legacy. He should start by leveling with the American people. ..."
    www.defenddemocracy.press

    - Defend Democracy Press

    Syria's civil war is the most dangerous and destructive crisis on the planet. Since early 2011, hundreds of thousands have died; around ten million Syrians have been displaced; Europe has been convulsed with Islamic State (ISIS) terror and the political fallout of refugees; and the United States and its NATO allies have more than once come perilously close to direct confrontation with Russia.

    Unfortunately, President Barack Obama has greatly compounded the dangers by hiding the US role in Syria from the American people and from world opinion. An end to the Syrian war requires an honest accounting by the US of its ongoing, often secretive role in the Syrian conflict since 2011, including who is funding, arming, training, and abetting the various sides. Such exposure would help bring to an end many countries' reckless actions.

    A widespread – and false – perception is that Obama has kept the US out of the Syrian war. Indeed, the US right wing routinely criticizes him for having drawn a line in the sand for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over chemical weapons, and then backing off when Assad allegedly crossed it (the issue remains murky and disputed, like so much else in Syria). A leading columnist for the Financial Times, repeating the erroneous idea that the US has remained on the sidelines, recently implied that Obama had rejected the advice of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to arm the Syrian rebels fighting Assad.

    Yet the curtain gets lifted from time to time. In January, the New York Times finally reported on a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama's orders, provides organizational support and training.

    Unfortunately, the story came and went without further elaboration by the US government or follow up by the New York Times. The public was left in the dark: How big are the ongoing CIA-Saudi operations? How much is the US spending on Syria per year? What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis, Turks, Qataris, and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What is the role of US troops, air cover, and other personnel in the war? The US government isn't answering these questions, and mainstream media aren't pursuing them, either.

    On more than a dozen occasions, Obama has told the American people that there would be "no US boots on the ground." Yet every few months, the public is also notified in a brief government statement that US special operations forces are being deployed to Syria. The Pentagon routinely denies that they are in the front lines. But when Russia and the Assad government recently carried out bombing runs and artillery fire against rebel strongholds in northern Syria, the US notified the Kremlin that the attacks were threatening American troops on the ground. The public has been given no explanation about their mission, its costs, or counterparties in Syria.

    Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America's allies in the anti-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise sums are not reported.

    The US public has had no say in these decisions. There has been no authorizing vote or budget approval by the US Congress. The CIA's role has never been explained or justified. The domestic and international legality of US actions has never been defended to the American people or the world.

    To those at the center of the US military-industrial complex, this secrecy is as it should be. Their position is that a vote by Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against those culpable for the 9/11 attack gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret wars in the Middle East and Africa. Why should the US explain publicly what it is doing? That would only jeopardize the operations and strengthen the enemy. The public does not need to know.

    I subscribe to a different view: wars should be a last resort and should be constrained by democratic scrutiny. This view holds that America's secret war in Syria is illegal both under the US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the United Nations Charter, and that America's two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts to topple Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the battleground.

    The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America's proxy warriors imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia's behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict.

    These are issues that should be subject to legal scrutiny and democratic control. I am confident that the American people would respond with a resounding "no" to the ongoing US-led war of regime change in Syria. The American people want security – including the defeat of ISIS – but they also recognize the long and disastrous history of US-led regime-change efforts, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Central America, Africa, and Southeast Asia.

    This is the main reason why the US security state refuses to tell the truth. The American people would call for peace rather than perpetual war. Obama has a few months left in office to repair his broken legacy. He should start by leveling with the American people.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Missing Clinton E-Mail Claims Saudis Financed Benghazi Attacks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement? ..."
    "... Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation? These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed to prevent. ..."
    "... Do you really expect Obama's DOJ will do anything against Hitlery Clinton? It is one criminal gangster racket. ..."
    "... The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too. ..."
    "... The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge. BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution. ..."
    "... Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground." ..."
    "... Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified, then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't see either one of them getting into over these particular emails. ..."
    "... If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground before she gives up her dream. ..."
    "... It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily pissed. ..."
    "... Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each campaign speech. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by William Reynolds via Medium.com,

    Something that has gone unnoticed in all the talk about the investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mails is the content of the original leak that started the entire investigation to begin with. In March of 2013, a Romanian hacker calling himself Guccifer hacked into the AOL account of Sidney Blumenthal and leaked to Russia Today four e-mails containing intelligence on Libya that Blumenthal sent to Hillary Clinton.

    For those who haven't been following this story, Sidney Blumenthal is a long time friend and adviser of the Clinton family who in an unofficial capacity sent many "intelligence memos" to Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State . Originally displayed on RT.com in Comic Sans font on a pink background with the letter "G" clumsily drawn as a watermark, no one took these leaked e-mails particularly seriously when they came out in 2013. Now, however, we can cross reference this leak with the e-mails the State Department released to the public .

    The first three e-mails in the Russia Today leak from Blumenthal to Clinton all appear word for word in the State Department release. The first e-mail Clinton asks to have printed and she also forwards it to her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan. The second e-mail Clinton describes as "useful insight" and forwards it to Jake Sullivan asking him to circulate it. The third e-mail is also forwarded to Jake Sullivan . The fourth e-mail is missing from the State Department record completely.

    This missing e-mail from February 16, 2013 only exists in the original leak and states that French and Libyan intelligence agencies had evidence that the In Amenas and Benghazi attacks were funded by "Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia." This seems like a rather outlandish claim on the surface, and as such was only reported by conspiracy types and fringe media outlets. Now, however, we have proof that the other three e-mails in the leak were real correspondence from Blumenthal to Clinton that she not only read, but thought highly enough of to send around to others in the State Department. Guccifer speaks English as a second language and most of his writing consists of rambling conspiracies, it's unlikely he would be able to craft such a convincing fake intelligence briefing. This means we have an e-mail from a trusted Clinton adviser that claims the Saudis funded the Benghazi attack, and not only was this not followed up on, but there is not any record of this e-mail ever existing except for the Russia Today leak.

    Why is this e-mail missing? At first I assumed it must be due to some sort of cover up, but it's much simpler than that. The e-mail in question was sent after February 1st, 2013, when John Kerry took over as Secretary of State, so it was not part of the time period being investigated. No one is trying to find a copy of this e-mail. Since Clinton wasn't Secretary of State on February 16th, it wasn't her job to follow up on it.

    So let's forget for a minute about the larger legal implications of the e-mail investigation. How can it be that such a revelation about Saudi Arabia was made public in a leak that turned out to be real and no one looked into it? Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement?

    Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation? These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed to prevent.

    Another E-Mail Turns Up Missing

    Guccifer uncovered something else in his hack that could not be verified until the last of the e-mails were released by the State Department last week. In addition to the four full e-mails he released, he also leaked a screenshot of Sidney Blumenthal's AOL inbox. If we cross reference this screenshot with the Blumenthal e-mails in the State Department release, we can see that the e-mail with the subject "H: Libya security latest. Sid" is missing from the State Department e-mails.

    This missing e-mail is certainly something that would have been requested as part of the investigation as it was sent before February 1st and clearly relates to Libya. The fact that it is missing suggests one of two possibilities:

    1. The State Department does have a copy of this e-mail but deemed it top secret and too sensitive to release, even in redacted form. This would indicate that Sidney Blumenthal was sending highly classified information from his AOL account to Secretary Clinton's private e-mail server despite the fact that he never even had a security clearance to deal with such sensitive information in the first place. If this scenario explains why the e-mail is missing, classified materials were mishandled.
    2. The State Department does not have a copy, and this e-mail was deleted by both Clinton and Blumenthal before turning over their subpoenaed e-mails to investigators, which would be considered destruction of evidence and lying to federal officials. This also speaks to the reason why the private clintonemail.com server may have been established in the first place. If Blumenthal were to regularly send highly sensitive yet technically "unclassified" information from his AOL account to Clinton's official government e-mail account, it could have been revealed with a FOIA request. It has already been established that Hillary Clinton deleted 15 of Sidney Blumenthal's e-mails to her, this discrepancy was discovered when Blumenthal's e-mails were subpoenaed, although a State Department official claims that none of these 15 e-mails have any information about the Benghazi attack. It would seem from the subject line that this e-mail does. And it is missing from the public record.

    In either of these scenarios, Clinton and her close associates are in violation of federal law. In the most generous interpretation where this e-mail is simply a collection of rumors that Blumenthal heard and forwarded unsolicited to Clinton, it would make no sense for it to be missing. It would not be classified if it was a bunch of hot air, and it certainly wouldn't be deleted by both Blumenthal and Clinton at the risk of committing a felony. In the least generous interpretation of these facts, Sidney Blumenthal and Hillary Clinton conspired to cover up an ally of the United States funding the assassination of one of our diplomats in Libya.

    Why A Grand Jury Is Likely Already Convened

    After the final e-mails were released by the State Department on February 29th, it has been reported in the last week that:

    • Clinton's IT staff member who managed the e-mail server, Bryan Pagliano, has been given immunity by a federal judge which suggests that he will be giving testimony to a grand jury about evidence that relates to this investigation and implicates himself in a crime. Until now, Pagliano has been pleading the fifth and refusing to cooperate with the investigation.
    • The hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazar Lehel) just had an 18-month temporary extradition order to the United States granted by a Romanian court , despite being indicted by the US back in 2014. Is Guccifer being extradited now in order to testify to the grand jury that the screengrab with the missing e-mail is real?
    • Attorney General Loretta Lynch was interviewed by Bret Baier and she would not answer whether or not a grand jury has been convened in this case. If there was no grand jury she could have said so, but if a grand jury is meeting to discuss evidence she would not legally be allowed to comment on it.

    This scandal has the potential to completely derail the Clinton campaign in the general election . If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. This is not a right wing conspiracy, it is a failure by one of our highest government officials to uphold the laws that preserve government transparency and national security. It's time for us to ask Secretary Clinton to tell us the truth and do the right thing. If the United States government is really preparing a case against Hillary Clinton, we can't wait until it's too late.

    strannick

    F.U., cowardly, corrupt, politically aligned Department Of Justice. Big tough cops afraid of a power craving sociopath in a pantsuit.

    Vint Slugs, |

    Mrs. Clinton, and let's call her by her proper name Hillary Clinton - not the familiar "Hillary" that even the most right-of-the-aisle commentators use - is a compulsive liar.

    Rhetorically: how can anyone give even a shred of credence to anything that she might utter? She lies so much that the only conclusion that an objectively observant informed person can reach is that she has permanently lost touch with reality. Given that fact, she therefore is a psychotic personality. I am amazed that no one in the medical profession, assuming that there are independent minds within that group, has spoken out about this psychological affliction of Mrs. Clinton's.

    Mrs. Clinton is a blight upon the Nation. Seriously, I work and associate with people who whole-heartedly support her candidacy for president. After all that has been revealed since 2014 I can only conclude that continuing political support for Mrs. Clinton can only stem from a profound anti-intellectualist philosophy.

    o r c k , |

    We snuck a planeload of Bin-Ladens back to SA on 9-11. That makes this lower than a traffic ticket.

    Money Boo Boo ,

    Clitilda is betting TPTB will make this all go away so that Drumpf doesn't become President, simple as that!

    wildbad ,

    so let me get this straight....the saudis took down the twin towers on 911 2001 and then paid for the benghazi attacks and ambassador murders on 911 2012 and the Bush and Clinton families knew about this but made up stories to protect their saudi pals?

    ok, got it. whats the problem?

    strannick ,

    "If the lawmakers would just do their job, Hilary Clinton won't be running for President" -D.T., March 8

    3.7.77 ,

    She's pure evil, unbelievable people don't see this.

    Goliath Slayer ,

    BUSH killed 2 million people in Iraq for WMD he never found, but this piece of brilliant journalism focuses on "missing" emails that "somehow" should prove that the Saudis did it and hypothetically crucifies Hillary who was just Secretary of State taking orders from Obama who's not mentioned in this again brilliant piece. I guess the Saudis financed the American Iraq invasion too.

    WOW! I'm sold. NOT.

    Guess what, if that's all you got, Hillary Next POTUS >>> http://bit.ly/1p1jKnr

    caconhma ,

    Do you really expect Obama's DOJ will do anything against Hitlery Clinton? It is one criminal gangster racket.

    Slomotrainwreck,

    If the United States government is really preparing a case against Hillary Clinton, we can't wait until it's too late.

    It's too confusing. Time for O'Bozo to declare himself and his handlers Kings of everything everywhere.

    Freddie ,

    The Bushes and Clintons have been best friends and See Eye Aye drug runners going back to Mena, Arkansas.

    The Romneys are also Bush best buddies. The Romneys and Bushes are best friends with the Mormon hinckley family very well connected to Mormon Church and their John Jr. tried to kill Reagan.

    The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too.

    Chumly, |

    We're a Banana Republic pure and simple. Yes, we're the most powerful Banana Republic to ever exist in the history of the world too.

    The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge. BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution.

    And yes, there is so much more. it's deep, dark and dirty.

    gregga777,

    Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground."

    That said, there is zero probability that the United States Department of Injustice will indict her. Anyone expecting the Feral Bureau of Intimidation and Department of Injustice to enforce equal application of the Law are going to be disappointed. Again. The Rule of Law doesn't apply to the Oligarchs who own the Feral government and their LOYAL political parasites.

    willwork4food ,

    I wouldn't be so sure about that dude. Have you seen Bill lately? He looks beaten to a pulp. The dark side tends to eat their own when it benefits their ultimate goals. Hillary might be that one, of many to (yet) come.

    gregga777,

    Hillary Rodham Clinton was bribed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabian to cover up their role in the assassination of Ambassador Stevens. All United States Secretary's of State take bribes to cover up attacks by foreign governments on United States diplomatic and Armed Forces personnel. At this point what difference does it make?

    Demdere ,

    Why would the Saudis fund that? Stevens was CIA working on arming the jihadis in Syria against Assad. Some of which the US Army screwed up with obsolete shit weapons, I think.

    So lovely, the largest Israeli-Neocon ally being responsible for the loss of Clinton, their main candidate other than Jeb.

    God does work in mysterious way, explained by the great Discordian religious principle : "Imposing order creates disorder". The greeks grokked it first.

    Pancho Villa,|

    Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified, then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't see either one of them getting into over these particular emails.

    As server-gate progresses it will be interesting to see whether Hillary learned anything from Watergate where Nixon got in trouble not because he ordered the Watergate breakins, but because he tried to cover them up.

    The Iconoclast,

    If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground before she gives up her dream.

    Demdere,

    No, there are many political interests in the Democratic party, just like the Republican Party. Same interests, in most cases, overlapping sets of funding. That must be what the parties so contend over, more contributions?

    Contending power centers, mafia rules, courtier rules, an ecosystem of parasites specialized in their evolution for extracting carbon and energy from the government. Parasites divert metabolic energy to their own uses, and the host may die as a result.

    thebigunit,

    A very good point:

    If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate.

    It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily pissed.

    How do you feel these days?

    Don Smith,|

    Anyone notice how the email says "Islamists in Saudi Arabia" but the article hints that "The Saudis" funded it? I'm not an HRC fan, but I think she gets a pass on this one. Like if David Duke gave a bunch of money to Hezbollah and the papers said "The Americans are funding Hezbollah"...

    wildbad,

    BLumenthal and Killary need to be waterboarded until they give up their sources. Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each campaign speech.

    They are living in the real world, we are their slaves.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Clintons Libyan War and the Delusions of Interventionists

    Notable quotes:
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. ..."
    "... Interventionists usually can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action. That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that wreck the lives of millions of people. ..."
    "... This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive, militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy. ..."
    "... This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. ..."
    "... It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support for the war was in making it happen. ..."
    The American Conservative
    The New York Times reports on Hillary Clinton's role in the Libyan war. This passage sums up much of what's wrong with how Clinton and her supporters think about how the U.S. should respond to foreign conflicts:

    Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders "said all the right things about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off," said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. "They gave us what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe." [bold mine-DL]

    It's not surprising that rebels seeking outside support against their government tell representatives of that government things they want to hear, but it is deeply disturbing that our officials are frequently so eager to believe that what they are being told was true. Our officials shouldn't "want to believe" the self-serving propaganda of spokesmen for a foreign insurgency, especially when that leads to U.S. military intervention on their behalf. They should be more cautious than normal when they are hearing "all the right things." Not only should our officials know from previous episodes that the people saying "all the right things" are typically conning Washington in the hopes of receiving support, but they should assume that anyone saying "all the right things" either doesn't represent the forces on the ground that the U.S. will be called on to support or is deliberately misrepresenting the conditions on the ground to make U.S. involvement more attractive.

    "Wanting to believe" in dubious or obviously bad causes in other countries is one of the biggest problems with ideologically-driven interventionists from both parties. They aren't just willing to take sides in foreign conflicts, but they are looking for an excuse to join them. As long as they can get representatives of the opposition to repeat the required phrases and pay lip service to the "right things," they will do their best to drag the U.S. into a conflict in which it has nothing at stake. If that means pretending that terrorist groups are democrats and liberals, that is what they'll do. If it means whitewashing the records of fanatics, that is what they'll do. Even if it means inventing a "moderate" opposition out of thin air, they'll do it. This satisfies their desire to meddle in other countries' affairs, it provides intervention with a superficial justification that credulous pundits and talking heads will be only too happy to repeat, and it frees them from having to come up with plans for what comes after the intervention on the grounds that the locals will take care of it for them later on.

    The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. If one takes for granted that there must be sympathetic liberals-in-waiting in another country that will take over once a regime is toppled, one isn't going to worry about the negative and unintended consequences of regime change. Because interventionists have difficulty imagining how U.S. intervention can go awry or make things worse, they are also unlikely to be suspicious of the motives or goals of the "good guys" they want the U.S. to support. They tend to assume the best about their would-be proxies and allies, and they assume that the country will be in good hands once they are empowered. The fact that this frequently backfires doesn't trouble these interventionists, who will have already moved on to the next country in "need" of their special attentions.

    The article continues:

    The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's questions have come to pass.

    If the article is referring to anyone in the administration, this might be true, but as a general statement it couldn't be more wrong. Many skeptics and opponents of the intervention in Libya warned about many of the things that the Libyan war and regime change have produced, and they issued these warnings before and during the beginning of U.S. and allied bombing. Interventionists usually can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action. That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that wreck the lives of millions of people.

    The report goes on to quote Anne-Marie Slaughter referring to Clinton's foreign policy inclinations:

    "But when the choice is between action and inaction, and you've got risks in either direction, which you often do, she'd rather be caught trying."

    This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive, militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy.

    Maybe the most striking section of the report was the description of the administration's initial reluctance to intervene, which Clinton then successfully overcame:

    France and Britain were pushing hard for a Security Council vote on a resolution supporting a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from slaughtering his opponents. Ms. Rice was calling to push back, in characteristically salty language.

    "She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud, now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said, 'We'll be obliged to follow and support you, and we don't want to.'

    This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. It also shows how confused everyone in the administration was about the obligations the U.S. owed to its allies. The U.S. isn't obliged to indulge its allies' wars of choice, and it certainly doesn't have to join them, but the administration was already conceding that the U.S. would "follow and support" France and Britain in what they chose to do. As we know, in the end France and Britain definitely could and did drag the U.S. into their "shitty war," and in that effort they received a huge assist from Clinton.

    It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support for the war was in making it happen.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Libyas Chaos Theory Undercuts Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. ..."
    "... After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte, U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious glee and declared , "we came, we saw, he died." ..."
    "... Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base. (Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?) ..."
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    "... Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a very very dangerous woman. ..."
    "... Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff. ..."
    "... In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya, they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested and sympathetic listeners. ..."
    "... It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom they were associated. ..."
    "... Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good against evil. ..."
    "... My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course their agenda. ..."
    "... Authoritarians with a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power. ..."
    "... The mass media are truly enemies of the people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be utterly destroyed in their ability to do ..."
    Jun 04, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    The Obama administration is hoping that it can yet salvage Hillary Clinton's signature project as Secretary of State, the "regime change" in Libya, via a strategy of funneling Libya's fractious politicians and militias – referred to by one U.S. official as chaotic water "droplets" – into a U.S.-constructed "channel" built out of rewards and punishments.

    ...In recent days, competing militias, supporting elements of the three governments, have converged on Sirte, where the Islamic State jihadists have established a foothold, but the schisms among the various Libyan factions have prevented anything approaching a coordinated attack. Indeed, resistance to the U.S.-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) appears to be growing amid doubts about the political competence of the hand-picked prime minister, Fayez Sirraj.

    ...Thus far, however, many Libyan political figures have been unwilling to jump into the "channel," which has led the Obama administration to both impose and threaten punishments against these rogue water "droplets," such as financial sanctions and even criminal charges.

    ...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    After the 9/11 attacks and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Belhadj was tracked by the CIA and captured in Malaysia in 2004 before being renditioned back to Libya, where he was imprisoned until 2010. In 2011, after Secretary of State Clinton convinced President Obama to join an air war against the Gaddafi regime on "humanitarian" grounds, Belhadj pulled together a jihadist force that helped spearhead the decisive attack on Tripoli.

    After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte, U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious glee and declared, "we came, we saw, he died."

    Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base. (Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?)

    ... ... ...

    Summing up the confusing situation, The New York Times reported on June 2, "One Western official who recently visited the country said the political mood in Libya had become increasingly confrontational during recent months as the United Nations, acting under pressure from the United States and its allies, has struggled to win acceptance for the unity government."

    ... ... ...

    Now, the Obama administration is trying to re-impose order in the country via a hand-picked group of new Libyan officials and by building a "channel" to direct the flow of the nation's politics in the direction favored by Washington. But many Libyan water "droplets" are refusing to climb in.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

    Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    American Foreign Policy: Dumbed Down

    Since the Cold War there has been a narrowing of foreign policy debate. Does this explain why Washington blunders from one fiasco to another?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAFGswEYC0Q

    Susan Raikes Sugar, June 4, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a very very dangerous woman.

    Erik, June 5, 2016 at 7:17 am

    While the narrowing of debate may be attributed to control by economic concentrations of the elections and mass media tools of democracy, it is also due to a poorly structured government. Congress has never been able to debate meaningfully due to politics, and the executive has stolen almost all power of Congress over wars, and runs them continually to get campaign contributions from military industry.

    For example, Congress utterly failed to debate the Civil War issues from 1820 to 1860, producing nothing but tactical compromises, never bringing the sides to common terms and recognition of the rights and interests of each other. It never seriously debated the issues of Vietnam, nor the wars since.

    This is why I advocate a College of policy analysis as a fourth branch of the federal government, to both analyze and debate the issues of each region, preserving the minority viewpoint and the inconvenient solution. It would make available commented summaries of history and fact, analyses of current situations by each discipline and functional area, and debated syntheses of anticipated developments, potential changes due to events human or natural, and the impact of policy alternatives, with comments reflecting the various viewpoints or possibilities. Not many of the uneducated would read the results, but politicians and vocal citizens could more readily be shown to violate what the experts generally agree is workable,

    The College would be conducted largely by internet with experts at the universities, applying expert analysis of every region with a broad range of skills and disciplines, and moderated textual debate with the broadest range of viewpoints.

    Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    Robert has done a good job, and made the point again, which needs repeating until it becomes common gospel.

    Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff.

    The fact that the spinmeisters were directed to tell us that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are dead only tells us that they have some other means of "justifying" the wars and what is going to happen next, which will lead the sheeple into following them right over the edge of the cliff, and when the time is right, run out the new and bigger version to carry the lie onward to…. what?

    One of the reasons I find it so difficult to write lately, is that I feel I am repeating the same thing again, and again. Which does not inspire the best of efforts.

    Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 5:53 pm

    The theme of Hillary's blunders may be addressed constantly, but for many of us the variations almost always reveal an aspect or element of which we were not aware and another nail that should be driven into HRC's "coffin." This person and her enablers and accomplices are a threat to countless people around the world justifying a constant chorus of criticism until the polls close on November 8th. The great tragedy is that her Republican opponent is probably as perilous as she is.

    Zachary Smith, June 4, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    Publishing variations and new information and/or conclusions is useful to interested current readers as well as those who are new to the site. If an essay title doesn't appeal to me I don't always examine it at all.

    After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte, U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious glee and declared, "we came, we saw, he died."

    In any event, this one just can't be republished too often. The murderous ***** Hillary will – if allowed to become POTUS – be a disaster beating out Bush the Dumber.

    Obama had a job when he entered the White House – coddling and greasing the skids for the lawless Bankers. He has done that very, very well. So far as I can tell he merely outsourced the rest of the Presidency to the neocons and neoliberals. How else can you explain Hillary and Victoria Nuland and the TPP?


    SFOMARCO, June 4, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    "So what we're doing with the Government of National Accord is we're trying to create a channel, for national unity and reconciliation, and for building the institutions Libya needs, for building enough stability so the economy can come back, so they can pump oil, which Libya needs for Libyans, distribute the wealth fairly, equitably, in a way that brings people in, and take advantage of Libya's natural resources to rebuild the country. …" Seems like the status quo ante, sans Ghaddafi. Another expectation a la "topple Saddam and the people will throw flowers and sweets at the liberators"? And now a fluid mechanics metaphor to put Libya back to where it was in 2011?

    Bob Van Noy, June 4, 2016 at 7:46 pm

    I totally agree with your thought SFOMARCO. As I read this I was thinking, so now it's a channel. It seems that coming up with a good metaphor is the basis of American Foreign Policy. This is a hang-up of mine. Back in the Vietnam War all we heard was about dominoes falling which makes such an impressive mental "image." Several years ago I was stunned when I watched Errol Morris' "Fog of War." When Morris sat Robert McNamara down with a North Vietnamese contingent, and he was asked what the War was all about, he started to explain The Domino Theory, and the Vietnamese became agitated and basically told him that that was poor theory, and that he hadn't bothered to educate himself on Vietnamese history or he would know better. I was dumbfounded by that insight. 58,000 casualties because McNamara apparently didn't have the time to understand Vietnamese History!

    How many wars do we have going on now? What do we know of the countries we're dealing with? We really need to get out of the Empire business once and for all. I've watched Hillary enough to realize that regardless of her Wellesley education; she's not that bright.

    dahoit, June 5, 2016 at 11:18 am

    Totally agree;She is an idiot,who just follows the current memes of her Zionist masters. Not one damn evidence of critical thinking ever emanating from her crooked mouth. Imagine if the moron hadn't gotten on the crazy train of Iraq, and shown astute thinking, as every other astute thinker realized (Zionists and toads excluded of course)that its destabilization would bring chaos throughout the region.

    Of course,this might have been purposeful, but only her Ziomasters knew that, she is incapable.

    Susan Raikes Sugar, June 4, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Yes, Debbie, you're probably right about the hands pulling the strings in this devastating - and also demented - picture. The latter because I've listened to people who were in Libya before we pulled our shenanigans there a la Saddam and Iraq. It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US governing circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong. Could it be arrogance?

    In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya, they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested and sympathetic listeners.

    Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US governing circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong. Could it be arrogance?

    It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom they were associated.

    In the United States and its satrapies, miscreants are much more "pragmatic." They enlist public relations fabricators to hoodwink the people into believing their naked emperor or empress is dressed in the finest of raiments so they can continue to commit more travesties.

    Abe, June 4, 2016 at 5:54 pm
    What started out as an attempt to divide and destroy Iran's arc of influence across the region has galvanized it instead.

    Moving the mercenary forces of IS out of the region is instrumental in ensuring they "live to fight another day." By placing them in Libya, Washington and its allies hope they will be far out of reach of the growing coalition truly fighting them across the Levant. Further more, placing them in Libya allows other leftover "projects" from the "Arab Spring" to be revisited, such as the destabilization and destruction of Algeria, Tunisia and perhaps even another attempt to destabilize and destroy Egypt.

    IS' presence in Libya could also be used as a pretext for open-ended and much broader military intervention throughout all of Africa by US forces and their European and Persian Gulf allies. As the US has done in Syria, where it has conducted operations for now over a year and a half to absolutely no avail, but has managed to prop up proxy forces and continue undermining and threatening targeted nations, it will likewise do so regarding IS in Libya and its inevitable and predictable spread beyond.

    Despite endless pledges by the US and Europe to take on IS in Libya, neither has admitted they themselves and their actions in 2011 predictably precipitated IS' rise there in the first place. Despite the predictable danger destabilizing and destroying Libya posed to Europe, including a deluge of refugees fleeing North Africa to escape the war in Libya, predicted by many prominent analysts at the time even before the first of NATO's bombs fell on the country, the US and Europe continued forward with military intervention anyway.

    One can only surmise from this that the US and Europe sought to intentionally create this chaos, planning to fully exploit it both at home and abroad to continue its campaign to geopolitically reorder MENA.

    Washington's Fake War on ISIS "Moves" to Libya
    By Ulson Gunnar
    https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2016/04/washingtons-fake-war-on-isis-moves-to.html


    Pablo Diablo, June 4, 2016 at 8:13 pm

    OIL=MONEY.

    Peter GarciaWebb, June 4, 2016 at 10:13 pm

    Of note is that the unity government is not of Libya nor of the Libyan people. It is imposed by the US and is simply yet another example of US Corpocracy (read control of democracy by US corps and banks). That the UN gives it support demonstrates yet again that the UN has become an extension of the 0.01%

    rosemerry, June 5, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    All those years of Gaddaffi being a friend, an enemy, a friend once more, and all the time he worked effectively for Libyans and other Africans, building giant works for water and agriculture in Libya, providing services, listening to the people (!!!! who would do that in the USA?) and working to extend communications to all Africa. Removing him, with all the other destruction, was completely unforgivable and as we see has ruined yet another country. Hillary's sins are many-no need to repeat it.

    Zahid Kramet, June 5, 2016 at 4:06 am

    Regime change, as envisaged by the US, will not survive.And neither will capitalism in its present unregulated form.This is what the Arab Spring was and is all about.The US 'plants' in the Middle East have no future, thus the Clinton doctrine is doomed to fail.Trump, for all his inane ways of expressing it, has the better idea:he wants to compete on the consumer products front with an American label.The option is proxy wars led by the Pentagon and military industrial complexes of the world's three great powers, which will eventually lead to World War 111and the destruction of all mankind.

    Susan Raikes Sugar, June 5, 2016 at 4:17 am
    Here is a YouTube video from a series on Hillary's uncharmed life. Relevant here because it treats the subject of Libya Before, and Libya After. That we purposefully targeted this country in the same way we have targeted Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine, Honduras, Iran (multiple pointless and unfounded threats), as well as most recently Argentina, planted unrest and then pointed to our dirty deeds as the reason our vaunted Secretary of State was compelled to carry out regime-change - that's the story here. But for what reason? She's an egomaniac whose rationale rests mostly on: Because we can, could, will - and no one will dare stop us.

    Evil? Wicked? It's hard to know how best to characterize someone like this, but the repelling revelations are endless… If she becomes President of the United States, the tragic end may be that there will be no more stories. Someone with an incriminating past like Hillary's may not care about just blowing the entire Earth away one day. I suspect she could be just that selfish. She seems to be endowed with the mindset of a serial killer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m8efcUhvDA

    F. G. Sanford, June 5, 2016 at 4:39 am

    Channeling drops and running psy-ops, the machine Clinton helped set in motion,
    Is digging a ditch, the drainage from which, will accumulate sooner or later.
    All will work out, though Republicans pout, and the pundits refute attribution-
    The "A Team" is ready to lend a hand steady, and Clinton will calm this commotion!

    Now that Ukraine has become the refrain for successful destabilized mayhem,
    The mission complete is a model replete with the fruits of a policy triumph.
    The same in Brazil was achieved with good will, and the populace has been preempted,
    Chaos resulting through lack of consulting has adequately served to co-opt them.

    Those financial vultures and big-banking cultures will send in their thieves for a banquet-
    Behind those closed doors, the corporate whores are assembling cohorts adapted:
    They'll get Saakashvili, he's touchy and feely, Jaresko will also be drafted-
    They'll subvert with abandon inserted to stand-in, and as government puppets they'll crank it.

    Now that Brazil's got some corporate shills, and those cronies avoided indictment,
    Michel Temer may serve, because we observe, he's been banned for his acts of corruption.
    He'll now volunteer, and Wall Street will cheer, because Roussef got no help from Clinton,
    Touting motives progressive she's quite the obsessive 'til real women garner excitement!

    If Haftar gets sloppy, some bin Laden copy will step in to the fray and replace him.
    The margin of error for counterfeit terror is large, so there's no need to worry,
    The engineered fraud of a threat from abroad will be stoked by those waves of migration.
    If they run out of boats they'll use rubber tube floats, the Atlantic is such a quick swim!

    The only thing left, and the choice must be deft, is a foreign-born finance advisor.
    They're in ready supply, though Heaven knows why, and their provenance seems quite consistent-
    Like the one in Brazil, who gave banksters a thrill, he'll insure that the Dinar will prosper.
    Austerity measures will save all those treasures Gadaffi retained like a miser!

    Yes, that Neocon panel is digging a channel, that seems more akin to a ditch,
    But the "A Team" will fix it, and Haftar won't nix it, a Jihadi safe-zone will emerge,
    They'll be launching more strikes, we ain't seen the likes, that excrescence will flow unabated.
    The channel will capture to Neocon rapture all that spume and there won't be a hitch.

    But they'll need a Team Leader, a channeling seeder, with clandestine skills leaner and meaner,
    He'll have to have guts, not some amateur klutz, because courage will make him or break him,
    He'll be thrown in that ditch on behalf of the witch whose nefarious schemes spew that stench:
    A shadowy stranger they call "Carlos Danger", they can't trust just any old wiener!

    His fedora pulled low, and that trench-coat bestow a clandestine and camouflaged perch.
    He'll emerge from the mist, a cell phone in his fist, standing by to tweet classified selfies,
    If he opens that coat anywhere near the moat, it won't matter if boxers or briefs,
    The whole White House staff will get a good laugh, but he's got no image to smirch.

    He'll monitor droplets insuring the witch gets real-time situation reports.
    As the channel gets filled with that sewage distilled from another R2P disaster,
    She'll be watching the screen with her friend Abba Dean as intelligence analysts squirm,
    Classified pictures could compromise strictures if emails were found in his shorts.

    As drops coalesce, she'll rely on the press to obscure any overflow drama.
    Suave Carlos Danger will make like a stranger, awaiting his next big assignment.
    If the press were to ask us, that could be Damascus, but secrecy rules must prevail.
    There's no need to flaunt, he'll remain nonchalant, to prevent any legacy trauma.

    The Syrian gambit might be just a scam, but the Russians could really get spooked.
    Then something could drop with an ominous flop, and it won't be a laugh or a cackle.
    Engaged on that spectrum twixt knife and the the rectum may arise an indelible quote:
    "We spoke with a voice, but you gave us no choice. We came, and we saw, and we nuked."

    Joe Tedesky, June 5, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    Muammar Gaddafi's biggest mistake was his believing he could govern a sovereign nation. I use to think that it was all about oil. I believe that the U.S. is largely carrying out Israel's Yinon plan, but there is more. It's not so much a U.S. plan, as it is a U.S./London/Zionist conquest for world hegemony. I realize how most of you who frequent this site, already know this, but the majority of Americans I'm afraid don't have a clue. The western media has promoted the narrative that America is fighting against radical Muslims, and that by winning this war in the Middle East democracy will soon follow. By Robert Parry keeping this Libyian story alive is a good thing. Our MSM is papering over the real reason for all this war, by reporting as much as they can the childish antics of our presidential candidates.

    Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good against evil.

    My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course their agenda.

    Bill Bodden, June 5, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    Beyond death and taxes there are two constants. Authoritarians with a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power.

    This nation has always been fortunate to have courageous people rise to oppose malicious power – Thomas Paine, Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman, Mother Jones, Muhammad Ali, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Robert Parry, Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, etc. – but they have had limited success against the plutocrats and their puppets in the political oligarchies. That failure is due, in part, to an ill-informed and apathetic populace.

    Joe B, June 6, 2016 at 8:00 am

    Very true and well said. The mass media are truly enemies of the people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be utterly destroyed in their ability to do so.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Hillary Clintons Libya

    The failed Libyan policy was one of the key sources of hundred of thousand refugees in Europe now. As well as Syrian events (where all this hired for overthrowing Gaddafi fighters went next)
    Notable quotes:
    "... a proper tally of the ideological culprits who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in Libya ..."
    "... Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect regime change in a third Middle East country. ..."
    "... Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney. ..."
    "... Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political choice not an intelligent one. ..."
    "... She has been a failure at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. ..."
    "... Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the Iraq war is to have a plan for after?" ..."
    "... A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure" of classified information. ..."
    "... She is either lying or totally incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government. ..."
    "... This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. ..."
    "... Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and will neolib us. ..."
    "... The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington ..."
    Nov 19, 2015 | www.huffingtonpost.com

    Some of the better-informed commentators on the recent terrorist attacks by ISIS have noticed the reassertion of the 2002-2003 understanding of the Middle East: that all-out war is the only sensible policy and Israel is our most faithful ally in the region. It is an opportunist line, and it is being pushed hardest by opportunists on the far right. But a proper tally of the ideological culprits who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in Libya. In the Democratic debate on November 14, Clinton got away with saying this unchallenged:

    CLINTON: Well, we did have a plan, and I think it's fair to say that of all of the Arab leaders, Gaddafi probably had more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else. And when he moved on his own people, threatening a massacre, genocide, the Europeans and the Arabs, our allies and partners, did ask for American help and we provided it. And we didn't put a single boot on the ground, and Gaddafi was deposed. The Libyans turned out for one of the most successful, fairest elections that any Arab country has had. They elected moderate leaders. Now, there has been a lot of turmoil and trouble as they have tried to deal with these radical elements which you find in this arc of instability, from north Africa to Afghanistan. And it is imperative that we do more not only to help our friends and partners protect themselves and protect our own homeland, but also to work to try to deal with this arc of instability, which does have a lot of impact on what happens in a country like Libya.

    In response, Martin O'Malley said that Libya was "a mess" and Bernie Sanders said that Iraq had produced half a million PTSD casualties among Americans who served there. Neither showed the slightest indication of having mastered what happened in Libya: the centrality of Clinton's influence in the catastrophic decision to overthrow the government, and the proven consequences -- civil war in Libya itself and the opening of an Islamist pipeline from Libya to Syria and beyond.

    Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect regime change in a third Middle East country.

    Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney.

    ... ... ...

    David Bromwich is a Professor of Literature, Yale University

    Mike Rodriguez · Jacksonville, Florida

    Hillary no. Sanders yes. The US political establishment of both parties no.

    Lybia is the least of these "mistakes" . Bush and Obama and Congress never had a clue what they were doing in the Middle East. We are paying a price for a weak and spiritless political system characterized by voter apathy and ignorance.

    Hillary? Why is she running? Why are the Republicans all running? Man alive we have got little or nothing really. But one of these is going to win no matter how small the voter turnout.

    Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political choice not an intelligent one.

    Goethe Gunther · Las Cruces, New Mexico

    Thank you for this piece. Hillary Clinton and Richard Perle drink from the same neo-con/neo-liberal global political well. I CAN NOT vote for this person. Gaddafi was murdered as a matter of personal vendetta to avoid exposing allege monies he offered Sarkozy's campaign, amongst other issues that will take too much space to elucidate.

    But Obama and Hillary, because of their actions in Libya, made the world a more dangerous place.
    And herer is Hillary on the brutal murder of Gadaffi: https://youtu.be/mlz3-OzcExI

    Gero Lubovnik · Belarus Polyteknik University

    How does Hillary continually escape the truth and proper vetting? She has been a failure at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. Libya and the rest of the middle east, her "Reset Button" with Russia (how's that workin' out?) who blitzkreiged Crimea and screwed Ukraine entirely, working toward parity of trade with China (who is building a military base in the South China Sea). Abject failure. And then one has to wonder how she and Bill amassed a personal fortune, providing no goods or products, nor services of meaningful value? [Answer: Clinton Foundation money laundering machine- where magic happens in past, present and future quid pro quo]?

    AND YOU WANT TO CORONATE HER AS PRESIDENT [EMPRESS], completel with pen and phone??? And then you wonder why America is becoming a second or third world nation.

    Charles Hill · Clifton High School

    This was a HUGE error. Gaddafi used to say "the West would never overthrow him because they did not want a Somalia on the Mediterranean coast". I guess Hillary and Obama did.

    And you can not blame this on Bush. Bush got Gaddafi to give up his WMD and Gaddafi was causing no trouble. He was only fighting the Islamists inside his country that Hillary and Obama decided to support. Now ISIS is running things there.

    Brian Donahue · New York, New York

    The US has a habit of destabilizing these countries (Iraq and Libya). Chaos results. Hillary will be very dangerous as president. She is too quick to use force with no end strategy at all.

    Clarc King · Bronx, New York

    A fair representation of the reality of American foreign policy taken over by the satanic, elitist, neoliberal mob. Libya, once an ally and most progressive state in Africa, was destroyed and is now governed, if you can call it that, by a CIA asset. No wonder people resist American Regime Change. Hillary, a warmonger for Imperialism, cannot possibly be considered for the US presidency. The US citizenry must act quickly and form a new presidential platform.

    Linda LaRoque · Odessa College

    If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you're over 50, you lived through it, so share it with those under 50.

    Amazing to me how much I had forgotten! When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn't even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

    Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood - both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.

    Next she chose Janet Reno - husband Bill described her selection as "my worst mistake." Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco , Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

    Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier's radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

    Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.

    Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

    Many younger votes will have no knowledge of "Travelgate." Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson - and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

    Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.
    Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

    Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:

    • She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.
    • She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. Hillary's devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives. Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times while under oath.
    • After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.
      Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation - we have no idea what shoe will fall next.

    #DonaldTrumpForPresident #StandUpForTrump #donaldjtrump.com

    Martin Gill · Cabrillo College

    That's all well and good, and probably all true and then some, but the candidates running against her, even with all their clearance for viewing information, have NO IDEA what Clinton and her State Depertment were doing then. Only she and MAYBE Obama does. It has become clear that the State Department was running rogue, just like the IRS and the AG's office were.

    Terry Lee · Telgar

    The State Department was running rogue?! Only she and MAYBE Obama knows what was going on? It seems that you know what was going on, too. LOL!

    Elizabeth Fichtl

    The country is waking up.

    Question put to HRC during the debate.

    Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the Iraq war is to have a plan for after?"

    Leslie Ware · Preston High School

    Just a few reasons to take Clinton to trial:

    1.Under 18 USC 793 subsection F, the information does not have to be classified to count as a violation. The intelligence source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity of the ongoing probe, said the subsection requires the "lawful possession" of national defense information by a security clearance holder who "through gross negligence," such as the use of an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper, secure location.

    Subsection F also requires the clearance holder "to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. "A failure to do so "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

    The source said investigators are also focused on possible obstruction of justice. "If someone knows there is an ongoing investigation and takes action to impede an investigation, for example destruction of documents or threatening of witnesses, that could be a separate charge but still remain under a single case," the source said. Currently, the ongoing investigation is led by the Washington Field Office of the FBI.

    2. A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure" of classified information. … "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation," the agreement states.

    Moreover, the agreement covers information of lesser sensitivity. ("In addition to her SCI agreement, Clinton signed a separate NDA for all other classified information. It contains similar language, including prohibiting 'negligent handling of classified information,' requiring her to ascertain whether information is classified and laying out criminal penalties.") Well, that is awkward, as the FBI continues its investigation into potential negligent handling of classified information.

    3. 18 U.S. Code § 1001
    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-
    (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
    (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
    (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
    shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
    (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
    (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to-
    (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
    (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

    Its time to escalate this investigation and show the Country how unethical and criminal this pretender to the presidency really is.

    Clinton also should be totally disqualified from a Security Clearance, simply because of her previous behavior and nonchalant lack of safeguarding of classified information. All the while saying she did not recognize the information was CLASSIFIED. She is either lying or totally incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government.

    Clinton for Trial 2016.

    Mike Kelly

    OK, we get it. You don't like HRC.

    The rest of this is a crock. There's simply no evidence that HRC Actually did any of the dire things you are claiming in your long and tiresome post. Virtually all of the classified information was classified by the State Department or CIA AFTER it was received and sent by HRC. As a result, your allegations do not hold water. Certainly much different from outing a CIA agent for political purposes, as was done during the previous administration.

    David Auner · Springfield, Missouri

    This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. The point about repubs being sharper is just wrong - they have honed absurd talking points with Luntz while wasting tax dollars on Benghazi. O'Malley's mess comment was adequate - debate prep can not prepare for every oddly crafted rewrite of history. Rebutting Clinton's narrative would involve hours of pointing out the failures of State's and Obama's narratives in most of their tenure. Sanders knows more than what this article has put forward but a vigorous debate would touch on classified information about the CIA station in Benghazi and their disastrous activities - which candidates must avoid for now. Debates fail easily - the author of this article fails with adequate time for a deeper analysis.

    Elvin B. Ross · University of Idaho

    Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and will neolib us.

    Paul Mountain · Works at Love_Unlimited

    US politicians aren't paid to think, they're paid to follow the leader, and when it comes to Middle Eastern policy that's Israel, the Bible, and the Congressional Military Industrial Complex.

    Michael Rinella · Works at State University of New York Press

    The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington - and then when globalization destablized his economy (foreign workers in eastern Libya taking jobs from the locals) they fell over themselves to put a knife in his back.

    James Charles O'Donnell III

    Why is the institutional American left so frantic to nominate Sec. Clinton, the candidate who is A) unquestionably THE LEAST PROGRESSIVE choice; and B) by far THE LEAST VIABLE contender in a general election, with a cornucopia of baggage, not all of which is imaginary?

    Hillary Clinton has managed DECADES of poor polling, with consistently high negative favorability ratings, especially among independents -- and a huge "trustability" problem. That "dodging sniper fire" fabrication she repeatedly told ON VIDEO will probably be exploited in the general election to cement the American people's (accurate) perception that Ms. Clinton is dishonest, and that will sink her electoral chances for good -- and the LEFT, too, unfortunately (so much for those SCOTUS seats!).

    With Bernie Sanders, AN ACTUAL PROGRESSIVE, looking for all the world like a national winner, inspiring record-breaking crowds and grass-roots donations, the liberal establishment is bizarrely (corruptly) pushing for the coronation of the ONLY Democrat who could possibly lose in 2016 -- and the one who, on policy, is an open neoconservative war hawk and Wall Street champion, a career enemy of the 99%... UNBELIEVABLE.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Hillarys Huge Libya Disaster

    Jun 15, 2016 | The National Interest

    Before the revolution, Libya was a secure, prospering, secular Islamic country and a critical ally providing intelligence on terrorist activity post–September 11, 2001. Qaddafi was no longer a threat to the United States. Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly advocated and succeeded in convincing the administration to support the Libyan rebels with a no-fly zone, intended to prevent a possible humanitarian disaster that turned quickly into all-out war.

    ... ... ...

    Despite valid ceasefire opportunities to prevent "bloodshed in Benghazi" at the onset of hostilities, Secretary Clinton intervened and quickly pushed her foreign policy in support of a revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood and known terrorists in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. One of the Libyan Rebel Brigade commanders, Ahmed Abu Khattala, would later be involved in the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Articulating her indifference to the chaos brought by war, Secretary Clinton stated on May 18, 2013, to the House Oversight Committee and the American public, "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?"

    ... ... ...

    U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Charles R. Kubic served worldwide for over 32 years as a Navy Seabee, and retired in 2005. He served as a senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House, and was appointed in March 2016 as a National Security Policy Advisor to Donald Trump.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Hillary Clintons Likely Defense Secretary Wants More US Troops Fighting ISIS and Assad

    Notable quotes:
    "... Michele Flournoy, formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under President Barack Obama, called for "limited military coercion" to help remove Assad from power in Syria, including a "no bombing" zone over parts of Syria held by U.S.-backed rebels. ..."
    Jun 22, 2016 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    okie farmer | Jun 23, 2016 1:07:53 AM | 58

    "Information Clearing House" - "Defense One" - The woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar al-Assad's forces out of southern Syria and would send more American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region.

    Michele Flournoy, formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under President Barack Obama, called for "limited military coercion" to help remove Assad from power in Syria, including a "no bombing" zone over parts of Syria held by U.S.-backed rebels.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Hillary Clinton lied about not receiving email subpoena, Benghazi chair claims

    According to Gowdy, "the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them."
    Notable quotes:
    "... According to Gowdy, "the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them." ..."
    "... Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. The Republicans chant while Rome burns. How about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.... ..."
    "... Did Clinton say she's never had a subpoena? Yes. Did a subpoena get issued? Yes. Was the whole interview at that point discussing a point in time months before the subpoena got issued? Yes. ..."
    "... Karl Rove has so often said that it is who DOES NOT vote that determines the outcome, and now we have the Tea Party. ..."
    "... The Clintons ARE very close personal family friends with the entire Bush clan. When the TV cameras are off and the reporters are gone, they are a very tight group who see the world thru like greedy eyes. Check this out. ..."
    "... Having someone who is the brother of one former president and the son of another run against the wife of still another former president would be sweetly illustrative of all sorts of degraded and illusory aspects of American life, from meritocracy to class mobility. ..."
    "... Wall Street has long been unable to contain its collective glee over a likely Hillary Clinton presidency. ..."
    "... the matriarch of the Bush family (former First Lady Barbara) has described the Clinton patriarch (former President Bill) as a virtual family member, noting that her son, George W., affectionately calls his predecessor "my brother by another mother." ..."
    "... If this happens, the 2016 election would vividly underscore how the American political class functions: by dynasty, plutocracy, fundamental alignment of interests masquerading as deep ideological divisions, and political power translating into vast private wealth and back again. ..."
    "... Most of our presidents were horn dogs. Their wives know about it in many cases, but they knew that it was part of the package. The only difference was that before Clinton, the press would never think of reporting about sexual dalliances. ..."
    "... Clinton is not materially different to many GOP candidates outside the loons. ..."
    "... She has stiff competition: Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power, Carly Fiorina, etc. She might win the title, though. ..."
    "... So after years of trying to turn Benghazi into a scandal, the email thing is mostly meaningless to Democrats. So congratulations Republicans, you blew your chance. ..."
    Jul 09, 2015 | The Guardian

    In a statement on Wednesday, Republican congressman Trey Gowdy accused the former secretary of state of making an "inaccurate claim" during an interview on Tuesday. Responding to a question about the controversy surrounding her email server while at the US state department, Clinton had told CNN: "I've never had a subpoena."

    But Gowdy said: "The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not sought to make them public. I would not make this one public now, but after Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy."

    Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told the Guardian that Gowdy's accusation itself was inaccurate, insisting that the congressman had not issued a subpoena until March.

    "She was asked about her decision to not to retain her personal emails after providing all those that were work-related, and the suggestion was made that a subpoena was pending at that time. That was not accurate," Merrill wrote in an email.

    Gowdy also posted a copy of the subpoena on the Benghazi committee's website.

    According to Gowdy, "the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them."


    Lester Smithson 9 Jul 2015 16:00

    Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. The Republicans chant while Rome burns. How about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq....

    kattw 9 Jul 2015 12:41

    Gotta love when people say they have no choice but to do something absurd, then choose to do something absurd rather than not.

    Did Clinton say she's never had a subpoena? Yes. Did a subpoena get issued? Yes. Was the whole interview at that point discussing a point in time months before the subpoena got issued? Yes.

    Yes, Mr. Legislator: you DID subpoena Clinton. Several months AFTER she did the thing in question, which the interviewer wanted to know why she did in light of subpoenas. And really, what was she thinking? After all, a subpoena had already been issued, ummm, 3 months into the future! Why was she not psychic? Why did she not alter her actions based on something that congress would do eventually? How DARE she not know what the fates had decried!

    Mr. Legislator, you were given the opportunity to not spin this as a political issue, and to be honest about the committee's actions. You chose to do otherwise. Nobody forced you to do so. You had plenty of choices - you made one. Don't try to shift that onto a lie Clinton never told. She's got plenty of lies in her closet, many stupidly obvious - calling one of her truths a lie just shows how much of an ideological buffoon you really are.

    ExcaliburDefender -> Dan Wipper 8 Jul 2015 23:47

    Whatever. Dick Cheney should have been tried in the Hague and incarcerated for 50 lifetimes. Most voters have decided to vote party lines, the next 16 months is for the 10% undecided and a few that can be swayed.

    Karl Rove has so often said that it is who DOES NOT vote that determines the outcome, and now we have the Tea Party.

    Plenty of time for outrage, faux or real. We haven't had a single debate yet. Still get to hear from Chafee on the metric system and whether evolution is real or not from the GOP.

    Jill Stein for President <-------|) Paid for by David Koch and Friends


    Herr_Settembrini 8 Jul 2015 23:25

    Quite frankly, I've long since passed the point of caring about Benghazi, and the reason why is extremely simple: this has been a nakedly partisan investigation, stretching on for years now, that has tried to manufacture a scandal and fake outrage in order to deny Obama re-election in 2012, and now (since that didn't work) to deny Clinton the election in 2016.

    The GOP doesn't have one shred of credibility left about this issue-- to the point that if they were able to produce photographs of Obama and Clinton personally storming the embassy, America would collectively shrug (except of course for the AM talk radio crowd, who are perpetually angry anyway, so nobody would notice).


    TET68HUE -> StevePrimus 8 Jul 2015 23:08

    The Clintons ARE very close personal family friends with the entire Bush clan. When the TV cameras are off and the reporters are gone, they are a very tight group who see the world thru like greedy eyes. Check this out.

    JEB BUSH V. HILLARY CLINTON: THE PERFECTLY ILLUSTRATIVE ELECTION
    BY GLENN GREENWALD

    @ggreenwald
    12/17/2014

    Jeb Bush yesterday strongly suggested he was running for President in 2016. If he wins the GOP nomination, it is highly likely that his opponent for the presidency would be Hillary Clinton. Having someone who is the brother of one former president and the son of another run against the wife of still another former president would be sweetly illustrative of all sorts of degraded and illusory aspects of American life, from meritocracy to class mobility. That one of those two families exploited its vast wealth to obtain political power, while the other exploited its political power to obtain vast wealth, makes it more illustrative still: of the virtually complete merger between political and economic power, of the fundamentally oligarchical framework that drives American political life.

    Then there are their similar constituencies: what Politico termed "money men" instantly celebrated Jeb Bush's likely candidacy, while the same publication noted just last month how Wall Street has long been unable to contain its collective glee over a likely Hillary Clinton presidency. The two ruling families have, unsurprisingly, developed a movingly warm relationship befitting their position: the matriarch of the Bush family (former First Lady Barbara) has described the Clinton patriarch (former President Bill) as a virtual family member, noting that her son, George W., affectionately calls his predecessor "my brother by another mother."

    If this happens, the 2016 election would vividly underscore how the American political class functions: by dynasty, plutocracy, fundamental alignment of interests masquerading as deep ideological divisions, and political power translating into vast private wealth and back again. The educative value would be undeniable: somewhat like how the torture report did, it would rub everyone's noses in exactly those truths they are most eager to avoid acknowledge. Email the author: [email protected]

    StevePrimus 8 Jul 2015 22:33

    Clinton's nomination as a democratic candidate for president is a fait accompli, as is Bush's nomination on the GOP card. The amusing side show with Rubio, Trump, Sanders, Paul, Walker, Perry, Cruz, et al can be entertaining, but note that Clinton and Bush seem much closer aligned with each other than either sueems to be to Sanders on the left and Graham on the right.


    MtnClimber -> CitizenCarrier 8 Jul 2015 20:41

    Read some history books and learn.

    Most of our presidents were horn dogs. Their wives know about it in many cases, but they knew that it was part of the package. The only difference was that before Clinton, the press would never think of reporting about sexual dalliances.

    Among those that cheated are:

    Washington
    Jefferson
    Lincoln
    Harding
    FDR
    Eisenhower
    JFK
    LBJ
    Clinton

    Not bad company, but they all cheated. It seems like greater sexual drive is part of the package for people that choose to be president.

    RossBest 8 Jul 2015 20:24

    There is an obvious possible explanation here. She was talking about things in the past and ineptly shifted in effect into the "historical present" or "dramatic present" and didn't realize she was creating an ambiguity.

    That is, she was talking about the times when she set up the email system and used it and later deleted personal emails and she intended to deny having received any relevant subpoenas AT THOSE TIMES.

    I'm not a Clinton supporter but this seems plausible. But inept.

    zchabj6 8 Jul 2015 20:10

    The state of US politics...

    Clinton is not materially different to many GOP candidates outside the loons.

    CitizenCarrier -> Carambaman 8 Jul 2015 17:54

    My personal favorite was when as 1st Lady during a trip to New Zealand she told reporters she'd been named in honor of Sir Edmund Hillary.

    She was born before he climbed Everest. He was at that time an obscure chicken farmer.

    BorninUkraine -> duncandunnit 8 Jul 2015 17:44

    You mean, she lies, like Bill? But as snakes go, she is a lot more dangerous than him.

    BorninUkraine -> Barry_Seal 8 Jul 2015 17:40

    She has stiff competition: Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power, Carly Fiorina, etc. She might win the title, though.

    Dennis Myers 8 Jul 2015 16:30

    This sort of thing is exactly why anything they throw at her won't stick. Like the boy who cried wolf, when the wolf actually came, no one was listening anymore. So after years of trying to turn Benghazi into a scandal, the email thing is mostly meaningless to Democrats. So congratulations Republicans, you blew your chance.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Best of British Values is hypocrisy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Even the normally supportive rightwing British media appears to be taken aback by the Conservative government's hypocritical fawning. ..."
    "... Forget the British pomp and ceremony, gun salutes and royal indulgence. The bottom line is to secure billions of dollars-worth of investment that the British government is counting on the Chinese president to deliver. ..."
    "... The showpiece investments being chased by Britain are those in nuclear energy and high-speed rail transport. "Investment in infrastructure tops the UK government's list of desired outcomes from this week's state visit by Xi Jinping," reports the Financial Times. ..."
    "... Certainly, Beijing seems to have warmly accepted the offer of a new strategic relationship in which Britain has placed itself as "the most important Western partner". President Xi praised the British government for its wise choice of offering Beijing a strategic partnership. ..."
    "... As the Financial Times quoted one former "influential" US official as saying: "What we are seeing is a case study in kowtow. It's not just [British Chancellor] Osborne, it's the whole Cameron government that is bending over incredibly backwards and this will definitely create problems for Great Britain in the future." ..."
    "... Cameron has said there is "no conflict of interests" but it is unlikely that Washington will view Britain's coddling of China in such an insouciant way. ..."
    "... For its part China has its own strategic calculations. By engaging with Britain, the Chinese government is no doubt happy to avail of new investment opportunities overseas at a time when its domestic economy is slowing. It also tends to mitigate American attempts at isolating Beijing. Good luck to China. ..."
    "... But when it comes to China, the same British government evidently has no such concerns or scruples. Because billions of dollars of Chinese investment are being courted by Britain to shore up its crumbling infrastructure and pump up its financial centre in the City of London. ..."
    Feb 20, 2016 | sputniknews.com

    Britain's lavish state reception for Chinese President Xi Jinping is a dash-for-cash that shows how desperate the crumbling former empire is for foreign investment.

    British Prime Minister David Cameron is laying on the finest trappings of the state to impress his Asian visitor – even as it causes misgivings within British society and tensions in Britain's "special relationship" with Washington. But Cameron has no choice. Britain is broke and badly needs capital investment.

    Even the normally supportive rightwing British media appears to be taken aback by the Conservative government's hypocritical fawning.

    The Daily Express reported how premier David Cameron and his Tory government are "rolling out the red carpet to beg for cash" during the Chinese leader's first state visit to Britain. Meanwhile, the Financial Times gave prominence to critics accusing Britain of "kowtowing" to China.

    President Xi and his wife were this week treated to a state banquet at Buckingham Palace, where the couple stayed as special guests of Queen Elizabeth. Throughout the visit, Cameron and his Chancellor George Osborne are to accompany the Chinese guests during the four-day itinerary.

    Forget the British pomp and ceremony, gun salutes and royal indulgence. The bottom line is to secure billions of dollars-worth of investment that the British government is counting on the Chinese president to deliver.

    "About 150 deals are expected to be sealed this week in areas such as healthcare, aircraft manufacturing and energy… Britain hopes to advance efforts to turn London into a key trading centre for China's currency, the renminbi, and to boost trade with the world's second largest economy," according to the Guardian

    The showpiece investments being chased by Britain are those in nuclear energy and high-speed rail transport.

    "Investment in infrastructure tops the UK government's list of desired outcomes from this week's state visit by Xi Jinping," reports the Financial Times.

    Some might say that this lavish reception is just the best of British hospitality afforded to the leader of the world's second biggest economy. There's nothing wrong, they say, with Cameron calling for a "golden era" in relations between Britain and China.

    Certainly, Beijing seems to have warmly accepted the offer of a new strategic relationship in which Britain has placed itself as "the most important Western partner". President Xi praised the British government for its wise choice of offering Beijing a strategic partnership.

    Nevertheless, the dramatic appeal to China by British leaders has the unerring whiff of unscrupulous money-grubbing. Human rights campaigners and readers of Britain's liberal Guardian newspaper are displeased at what they say is the Conservative government's "hypocrisy" on the issue of human rights. Critics point to an alleged crackdown by Beijing authorities on media and civic groups, as well as the repression of dissent in Hong Kong.

    We don't have to agree with these critics in order to see that the British government is being far from principled, according to its own much-vaunted "British values".

    Previously, Britain has made protests about human rights and over Hong Kong in particular. Now, however, all that is being hushed up during President Xi's visit – to the dismay of British rights campaigners.

    Ironically, while Queen Elizabeth was entertaining President Xi, her son Prince Charles stayed away from the banquet at Buckingham Palace.

    It has been speculated that he was making a veiled protest over China's relations with Tibet, where Charles is a keen supporter of the Dalai Lama.

    Even more fraught is Britain's balancing act with the United States.

    Just as Washington is sending a convoy of warships towards Chinese islands in the South China Sea, London is rolling out the red carpet for the Chinese leader.

    As the Financial Times quoted one former "influential" US official as saying: "What we are seeing is a case study in kowtow. It's not just [British Chancellor] Osborne, it's the whole Cameron government that is bending over incredibly backwards and this will definitely create problems for Great Britain in the future."

    This is the second time that Britain has defied Uncle Sam over Chinese relations. Last year, Britain signed up to the newly launched Beijing-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, defying Washington's efforts at isolating China.

    Cameron has said there is "no conflict of interests" but it is unlikely that Washington will view Britain's coddling of China in such an insouciant way.

    For its part China has its own strategic calculations. By engaging with Britain, the Chinese government is no doubt happy to avail of new investment opportunities overseas at a time when its domestic economy is slowing. It also tends to mitigate American attempts at isolating Beijing. Good luck to China.

    The point is that the whole affair shows a hypocritical expedience by the British state. Cameron and his government have been foremost in criticising Russia over alleged violations in Ukraine and human rights. On that score, London has been a cheerleader for imposing Western economic sanctions against Moscow, and dragging the rest of Europe to back Washington in a counterproductive stand-off.

    But when it comes to China, the same British government evidently has no such concerns or scruples. Because billions of dollars of Chinese investment are being courted by Britain to shore up its crumbling infrastructure and pump up its financial centre in the City of London.

    So when David Cameron pontificates about the "best of British values", we should know that chief among those "values" is hypocrisy. Followed by duplicity and unscrupulousness.

    Cameron and his government no doubt think they are being really "smart" by playing such double-games. But in doing so, Britain exposes itself as being bereft of any principles. On the world stage, it is just a broken-down imperial has-been that now gets by with an oversized begging bowl and a posh accent.

    The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Brexit and Americas Growing Nationalism Movement

    Looks like now line in 1920th the global pendulum moves toward nationalism. So in a way neoliberalism breeds nationalism and transnational elite paves the way for dictators like Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin in the past. Transnational elites start to recognize the danger, but they can do nothing about it as Trump has shown so vividly in the USA.
    High unemployment logically lead to nationalism and all those neoliberal politicians understood that they are destroying the county but continue to plunder it anyway. Biden already cried uncle about the danger of far right nationalism on CNN. But reality in the USA is not then different from the reality in Britain.
    Notable quotes:
    "... No wonder Donald Trump's campaign has ignited a growing nationalism movement. We're creating jobs and giving them away. We've let globalization get away from us. It's abundantly clear that we don't have the right public policies in place to incentivize corporations to keep Americans gainfully employed. ..."
    "... Grove's bold piece was embraced by some, panned by others and largely ignored. Whether he or Trump have exactly the right solution to the globalization and immigration problems plaguing free-market economies throughout the western world doesn't matter. What matters is that they've identified a problem that needs to be solved before it's too late. So did the British people when they voted to exit the EU. ..."
    "... Economic prosperity and security must trump political correctness and ideology. The Brits got it right. Will we? ..."
    Jul 04, 2016 | Fox Business
    Just five weeks ago, polling indicated that Brits overwhelmingly favored remaining in the European Union by an 18-point margin, 57% to 39%. What changed? Maybe it was a startling report showing that 80% of new jobs over the past year had gone to foreign-born workers taking advantage of the EU's free movement policy.

    It's hard to say if that was the wakeup call that led to a sharp reversal and Thursday's historic vote to leave the EU, but it was nevertheless a stunning realization that Prime Minister David Cameron had failed to stem the tide of immigrant workers flooding the UK's job market, as he had promised to do.

    Meanwhile, a laundry list of commentators from the Washington Post and Esquire to Vox and the New York Times chalked it all up to millions of racist xenophobes who are terrified of immigrants mucking up their pristine white privileged world. If that sounds at all similar to the anti-Trump rhetoric, you can sort of see where this is going.

    The thing is, there's nothing even remotely irrational or bigoted about the alarming transformation of Britain's job market. Since 1997, the number of foreign-born workers has doubled to one in six. And since 2014, three EU migrants have found jobs for every Brit, according to official government figures. And, as we'll see in a minute, there are concerning parallels on this side of the pond, as well.

    I hear from college grads and experienced professionals looking for jobs all the time, but a recent inquiry from a 27-year-old Edinburgh, Scotland woman with a BS in microbiology and excellent grades got my attention. She has applied for more than 400 jobs without managing to secure an interview. Not a single one.

    ... ... ...

    While the situation in America isn't nearly as bad, there are clear parallels. In 1970, foreign-born workers accounted for just 5% of the U.S. civilian labor force, but that number has since more than tripled to one in six – identical to the UK figure.

    More concerning is that the workforce itself has continued to shrink over the same period. Whether that reflects increasing competition, lack of in-demand skillsets or both doesn't really matter. The net result is that foreigners are getting more of our jobs, and that's as true of offshore jobs as it is of onshore jobs.

    Think about it. Apple has created well over a million jobs, but 90% of them are outsourced to China. Google may not make phones and tablets, but the vast majority of Android-enabled mobile devices are manufactured in Asia. Of course, that's true of nearly every industry, old or new.

    We may not face the identical migrant worker problem that the UK has, but the net result is the same: By giving up more and more jobs we create to foreign-born immigrants and offshore contractors, that leaves fewer and fewer jobs and increasing competition for American citizens.

    No wonder Donald Trump's campaign has ignited a growing nationalism movement. We're creating jobs and giving them away. We've let globalization get away from us. It's abundantly clear that we don't have the right public policies in place to incentivize corporations to keep Americans gainfully employed.

    Back in 2010, former Intel chairman Andy Grove penned How America Can Create Jobs. The front-page Bloomberg BusinessWeek feature clearly outlined the perils of losing our manufacturing muscle and declared the need for public policy that puts jobs first, even if it does means constraining free trade with tariffs, trade war be damned.

    Grove's bold piece was embraced by some, panned by others and largely ignored. Whether he or Trump have exactly the right solution to the globalization and immigration problems plaguing free-market economies throughout the western world doesn't matter. What matters is that they've identified a problem that needs to be solved before it's too late. So did the British people when they voted to exit the EU.

    Economic prosperity and security must trump political correctness and ideology. The Brits got it right. Will we?

    [Sep 05, 2016] Gli Usa e la guerra fredda il prezzo della vittoria - rivista italiana di geopolitica

    Bill Clinton was a regular neoliberal bottom feeder (in essence not that different from drunkard Yeltsin) without any strategical vision or political courage, He destroyed the golden possibility of rapprochement of the USA and Russia (which would require something like Marshall plan to help Russia). Instead he decided to plunder the country. It's sad that now Hillary will continue his policies, only in more jingoistic, dangerous fashion. She learn nothing.
    Notable quotes:
    "... However, according to Simes in the years immediately following the dissolution of the USSR, Washington has made perhaps the greatest error of a winner: sold for complacency. ..."
    "... Russia simply ceased to be a U.S. geopolitical variable in the equation, Moscow was irrevocably excluded from the strategic horizon. ..."
    "... The result was that the former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott called at the time the policy of "eat and shut up": the Russian economy was collapsing, the Red Army reduced the ghost of the past and Yeltsin's entourage welcomed with open arms of the IMF aid. In short, Russia is a power failure and as such was treated by administering liberal economic recipes and submitting its projection to a geopolitical drastic weight loss. Everything apart from the feeling of the Russian leadership. ..."
    "... This approach found its full realization, between 1999 and 2004, the expansion of NATO eastward: they were including Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Together with the U.S. intervention in Serbia during the Kosovo war (1999), this move Russia convinced that the cost of the American loans -- a dramatic and permanent reduction of the area of ​​security and its own geopolitical ambitions - was too high . ..."
    Dec 12, 2011 | temi.repubblica.it

    07/12/2011

    America won the Cold War. But in addition to the USSR, has it defeated Russia? This question, which is still in the nineties sounded absurd to most people, began to appear in the last decade, thanks to the work of historians such as Dimitri Simes, John Lewis Gaddis, or in Italy, Adriano Roccucci.

    In the United States is widely believed that the collapse of the Soviet Union was caused in large part by strategic decisions of the Reagan administration. Surely the military and economic pressure exerted by these contributed to the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact and then the final crisis of the Soviet system. However, according to Simes in the years immediately following the dissolution of the USSR, Washington has made perhaps the greatest error of a winner: sold for complacency.

    This has resulted, in retrospect, in an overestimation of U.S. policy choices in the mid-eighties onwards, and in a parallel underestimation of the role played by the Soviet leadership. Gorbachev came to power in 1985 determined to solve the problems left behind by Brezhnev: overexposure military in Afghanistan and subsequent explosion of spending on defense, imposed on an economy tremendously inefficient. But if Reagan pushed the USSR on the edge of the precipice, Gorbachev was disposable, albeit unwittingly, triggering reforms that escaped the hands of his own theorist.

    That fact has been largely removed from public debate and U.S. historiography which has led America in the second mistake: underestimating the enemy defeated, confusing the defunct Soviet Union with what was left of his heart - Russia.

    In fact, Reagan and Bush Sr. after him fully understand the dangers inherent in the collapse of the superpower enemy, dealing with Gorbachev touch, even without discounts: the Soviet leader was refused the pressing demands for economic aid, incompatible with the military escalation Reagan once to crush the Soviet Union under the weight of war spending.

    Even the first Gulf War (1990-91), who saw the massive American intervention in a country (Iraq) at the time near the borders of the USSR, did not provoke a diplomatic rupture between the two superpowers. This Soviet weakness undoubtedly was the result of an empire in decline, but remember that even in 1990 no one - least of all, the leadership in Moscow - the Soviet Union finally gave up on us yet.

    Despite an election campaign played on the charge to GH Bush to focus too much on foreign policy, ignoring the economics (It's the economy, stupid), newly installed in the White House Bill Clinton was not spared aid to Russia, agreeing to this line of credit to be logged on to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), from June 1992. Clinton's support was directed mainly toward the figure of Yeltsin and his policies, with the exception of waging war against Chechen separatism, in 1994.

    If Clinton with these moves proved to understand, like its two predecessors, the importance of "accompany" the Russian transition, avoiding - or at least contain - the chaos following the collapse of a continental empire, the other part of his administration demonstrated sinful paternalism and, above all, acquired the illusion of omnipotence that he saw in the "unipolar moment" end not only the U.S. opposed the US-USSR, but also of any power ambitions of Russia. Russia simply ceased to be a U.S. geopolitical variable in the equation, Moscow was irrevocably excluded from the strategic horizon.

    The result was that the former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott called at the time the policy of "eat and shut up": the Russian economy was collapsing, the Red Army reduced the ghost of the past and Yeltsin's entourage welcomed with open arms of the IMF aid. In short, Russia is a power failure and as such was treated by administering liberal economic recipes and submitting its projection to a geopolitical drastic weight loss. Everything apart from the feeling of the Russian leadership.

    This went hand in hand with growing resentment for the permanent position of inferiority which they were relegated by Washington. To the point that even the then Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, known by the nickname "Yes sir" for his acquiescence to the dictates of Americans, showed growing impatience with the brutal Russian downgrading by America.

    Indeed, the United States administration did not lack critics: former President Nixon, a number of businessmen and experts of Russia expressed skepticism or opposition to the Clinton administration attitude that did not seem to pay particular attention to wounded pride and the strategic interests of a nation that continued to think of itself as empire. However, these positions does not affect the dominant view in the administration of the establishment and much of the U.S., where consencus was that Russia in no longer entitled to have an independent foreign policy.

    This approach found its full realization, between 1999 and 2004, the expansion of NATO eastward: they were including Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Together with the U.S. intervention in Serbia during the Kosovo war (1999), this move Russia convinced that the cost of the American loans -- a dramatic and permanent reduction of the area of ​​security and its own geopolitical ambitions - was too high .

    [Sep 05, 2016] Hillary Clinton email investigation: FBI notes reveal laptop and thumb drive missing

    Everything, absolutely everything demonstrates really terrifying level of incompetence: the transfer of emails to Apple laptop, to Gmail account, then transfer back to window system, handing of USB drive. Amazing level of incompetence. This is really devastating level of incompetence for the organization that took over a lot of CIA functions. Essentially Hillary kept the position which is close to the role of the director of CIA What a tragedy for the country...
    Notable quotes:
    "... It is painfully clear that she traded access and favors for money and reciprocal favors. It is painfully clear that she made little distinction between working for the State Department, the Clinton foundation and her family and tried to keep the records of what was going on inaccessible. The more honest defense would be, all politicians do it, and you have to suck it up because Trump is worse. Which is true. But trying to downplay this and explain it away is offensive, not all of the public are complete idiots. ..."
    "... Her brazen air of arrogance and entitlement is about to fade as she comes to realise, that albeit Comey having been got at, he has still succeeded in striking a severe blow against her, and in addition, at the not-so-tin-hat conspiracy of inappropriate, and increasingly overt, institutional support. ..."
    "... All this in the face of documented lies, in your face hypocrisy, and unbridled corruption, oozing from every orifice of a maverick administration. ..."
    "... Clinton is the one waging war in the middle east. She is the one being bullish and provocative with Russia. Trump has only been conciliatory with these issues, he has been against the war on Iraq ..."
    "... HRC is still likely to be the next President, but this scandal does have legs. She put herself in a corner by claiming lack of recall due to a medical condition (i.e., the concussion). This leaves two possibilities, neither of which is helpful to her cause, to wit: either she was being dishonest or she was (and could still be) cognitively impaired. ..."
    "... Reagan was certainly not someone I admired but at least he tried to reduce the chance of nuclear war. Clinton is an out and out Hawke with the blood of many innocent people on her hands in both Syria and Libya. She is hiding her communications because she does not want to be exposed for the role she played in The destruction of Libya and the gun running of weapons to terrorists in Syria. That is to Al Qaeda and ISIS. World War 3 is more likely under Clinton than any other world leader. Even Trump. ..."
    "... Not forgetting that she was key in making sure the US didn't side with Assad. Had the US done at the beginning, instead of being at the behest of the Saudis and the petrodollar, then the whole thing would have been over in 6 months and IS would never have got more than a dusty district of northern Iraq. ..."
    "... So the applicant to the US presidency does not know what (c) stands for in her emails, archives high security data on a laptop and then losses it for years, uploads same emails on Google's gmail account and then losses devices again. She does not recall many things, not even the training she received on handling the confidential and secure communication. She couldn't recall the procces of drone strikes. (Will she be killing people at a whim, without an accountable protocol?) She is either demented or dangerously reckless or lying. All of these conditions disbar her form her candidacy. ..."
    "... If she could only manage a couple of hours a day because of concussion and a blood clot she should have temporarily stood down until she recovered fully, and had a senior official take over her duties until she was well. You can't have a brain-damaged person in charge of the US's affairs - even though there is a long history of nutters the State Dept. ( ie the Military Industrial Complex HQ). ..."
    "... the clinton foundation does not pay taxes..and dont forget that slick willie has been on the paedophile plane more times than the pilot ..."
    "... She failed to keep up with recordkeeping she agreed to, then when asked to turn over records, somebody destroyed them, but Clinton did not order destruction, or does not remember having done so. Turned over all records-oops I thought WE did! She either lied or has alzheimers ..."
    "... Political baggage is a bitch. If this election cycle has demonstrated anything it is that the leadership of both parties is totally out of touch with the voters and really has no interest except supporting the Neoliberal tenet of fiscal nonintervention. This laissez-faire attitude toward corporate interests is paralysing the American government. ..."
    "... I cannot believe Clinton has got this far in the election, I believe Obama wants her in to hide many of his embarrassing warmongering mistakes. ..."
    "... Today of all days Hillary Clinton puts out a tweet with the following: 'America needs leadership in the White House, not a liability' -- As we have to assume she's not referring to herself it confirms people's suspicion that the person who writes Hillary's tweets is a hostile to her campaign. The tweets are often completely off the mark. ..."
    "... Either Comey is on their payroll, or they have threatened his family. Either way it is business as usual. The NWO decided a long time ago that Hillary was their next puppet PONTUS. ..."
    "... I was a low-level officer at US Embassies and Consulates in various foreign countries. Clinton's claim that she didn't know what (C) was, or that she "she did not pay attention to the difference between top secret, secret and confidential" and "could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information." Are beyond ridiculous. Any fool knows enough to be aware of different levels of classified info, and the obvious fact that you don't get sloppy with classified info. ..."
    "... to paraphrase Leona Helmsley's comment about paying taxes, "security is for little people." So in that respect Hillary is no different from the rest of them. ..."
    "... You'd better hope she's lying, because if the incompetence is genuine she shouldn't be allowed near any confidential information ever again. I hate to admit it but Trump is right on this one. Jesus wept. ..."
    "... The fact that the Sec State could have an email server built at her home and operate with such laughable gross negligence when it comes to national security is surreal and appalling. ..."
    "... If the FBI were not themselves co-conspirators and hopelessly corrupt, they would indict some of the lower level actors and offer them immunity. They could start with the imbecile who put that laptop in the mail and couldn't remember if it was UPS or USPS. ..."
    "... Caddell has voiced an interesting concern that others are beginning to share: that the news media has crawled so far in bed with Hillary Clinton they won't be able to get back out. That the news media in America has lost its soul. Even Jake Tapper started asking this question several weeks ago in the middle of his own show. ..."
    "... The pyramid scheme of created debt has destroyed capitalism and democracy within 40 years of full operation. Captured Govt has bailed out incompetence and failure at every turn, and in so doing, inverted the yield curve and destroyed the future. It is for this reason alone I cannot respect these financial paedophiles or support anything they do. In this contest for the White House, Clinton is the manifestation of the establishment. ..."
    "... "The documents provided a number of new details about Mrs. Clinton's private server, including what appeared to be a frantic effort by a computer specialist to delete an archive of her emails even after a congressional committee had requested they be preserved." -NY Times ..."
    "... Hillary's treatment of top-secret US documents was willful and uncorrected. If she had done the same thing with medical records, the individuals whose medical records had been mishandled could have filed charges and Hillary would have been personally liable for up to $50,000 fine per incident. ..."
    "... Clinton is an absolute liability. Apart from this scandal she's a status quo candidate for a status quo that no longer exists. She stands for neo-liberalism, US hegemony and capitalist globalization all of which are deader than the dodo. That makes her very dangerous in terms of world peace and of course she will do absolutely nothing for the millions of Americans facing joblessness, hunger, bankruptcy and homelessness except make things worse ..."
    "... The entire corrupt establishment want Clinton at all cost, so that they can continue fleecing the future and enslaving the entire world in created debt. All right minded individuals should this as a flashing red light to turn round and vote the other way. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    A Clinton Foundation laptop and a thumb drive used to archive Hillary Clinton's emails from her time as secretary of state are missing, according to FBI notes released on Friday.

    The phrase "Clinton could not recall" litters the summary of the FBI's investigation, which concluded in July that she should not face charges. Amid fierce Republican criticism of the Democratic presidential candidate, the party's nominee, Donald Trump released a statement which said "Hillary Clinton's answers to the FBI about her private email server defy belief" and added that he did not "understand how she was able to get away from prosecution".

    he FBI documents describe how Monica Hanley, a former Clinton aide, received assistance in spring 2013 from Justin Cooper, a former aide to Bill Clinton, in creating an archive of Hillary Clinton's emails. Cooper provided Hanley with an Apple MacBook laptop from the Clinton Foundation – the family organisation currently embroiled in controversy – and talked her through the process of transferring emails from Clinton's private server to the laptop and a thumb drive.

    "Hanley completed this task from her personal residence," the notes record. The devices were intended to be stored at Clinton's homes in New York and Washington. However, Hanley "forgot" to provide the archive laptop and thumb drive to Clinton's staff.

    In early 2014, Hanley located the laptop at her home and tried to transfer the email archive to an IT company, apparently without success. It appears the emails were then transferred to an unnamed person's personal Gmail account and there were problems around Apple software not being compatible with that of Microsoft.

    The unnamed person "told the FBI that, after the transfer was complete, he deleted the emails from the archive laptop but did not wipe the laptop. The laptop was then put in the mail, only to go missing. [Redacted] told the FBI that she never received the laptop from [redacted]; however, she advised that Clinton's staff was moving offices at the time, and it would have been easy for the package to get lost during the transition period.

    "Neither Hanley nor [redacted] could identify the current whereabouts of the archive laptop or thumb drive containing the archive, and the FBI does not have either item in its possession."

    ... ... ...

    The FBI identified a total of 13 mobile devices associated with Clinton's two known phone numbers that potentially were used to send emails using clintonemail.com addresses.

    The 58 pages of notes released on Friday, several of which were redacted, also related that Hanley often purchased replacement BlackBerry devices for Clinton during Clinton's time at the state department. Hanley recalled buying most of them at AT&T stores in the Washington area. Cooper was usually responsible for setting them up and synching them to the server.

    Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and Hanley "indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device", the documents state. "Cooper did recall two instances where he destroyed Clinton's old mobile devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer."

    The notes also contain a string of admissions by Clinton about points she did not know or could not recall: "When asked about the email chain containing '(C)' portion markings that state determined to currently contain CONFIDENTIAL information, Clinton stated that she did not know what the '(C)' meant at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order."

    Clinton said she did not pay attention to the difference between top secret, secret and confidential but "took all classified information seriously". She did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not have been on an unclassified system. She also stated she received no particular guidance as to how she should use the president's email address.

    In addition, the notes say: "Clinton could not recall when she first received her security clearance and if she carried it with her to state via reciprocity from her time in the Senate. Clinton could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information."

    Clinton was aware she was an original classification authority at the state department, but again "could not recall how often she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by state. Clinton could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined."

    ... ... ...

    The House speaker, Paul Ryan, said: "These documents demonstrate Hillary Clinton's reckless and downright dangerous handling of classified information during her tenure as secretary of state. They also cast further doubt on the justice department's decision to avoid prosecuting what is a clear violation of the law. This is exactly why I have called for her to be denied access to classified information."

    Reince Priebus, chair of the Republican National Committee, said: "The FBI's summary of their interview with Hillary Clinton is a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency. Clinton's answers either show she is completely incompetent or blatantly lied to the FBI or the public.

    "Either way it's clear that, through her own actions, she has disqualified herself from the presidency."

    The Clinton campaign insisted that it was pleased the notes had been made public. Spokesman Brian Fallon said: "While her use of a single email account was clearly a mistake and she has taken responsibility for it, these materials make clear why the justice department believed there was no basis to move forward with this case."

    Terrence James 3h ago

    This is the equivalent of the dog ate my homework. This woman could not utter an honest sentence if her life depended on it. She is a corrupt and evil person, I cannot stand Trump but I think I hate her more. Trump is just crazy and cannot help himself but she is calculatingly evil. We are doomed either way, but he would be more darkly entertaining.


    Smallworld5 3h ago

    Has any of Clinton's state department employees purposely built their own server in their basement on which to conduct official government business, in gross violation of department policy, protocols, and regulations, they would have been summarily fired at a minimum and, yes, quite possibly prosecuted. That's a fact.

    The issue at hand is why Clinton sycophants are so agreeable to the Clinton Double Standard.

    The presumptive next president of the U.S. being held to a lower standard than the average U.S. civil servant. Sickening.


    Laurence Johnson 8h ago

    Hillary's use of gender has no place in politics. When it comes to the top job, the people need the best person for the job, not someone who is given a GO because they represent a group that are encouraged to feel discriminated against.


    foggy2 9h ago

    For the FBI's (or Comey's) this is also a devastating indictment of their or his judgment, honesty and basic competency.

    YANKSOPINION 10h ago

    Perhaps she has early onset of Alzheimers and should not be considered for the job of POTUS. Or maybe she is just a liar.


    AlexLeo 10h ago

    It is painfully clear that she traded access and favors for money and reciprocal favors. It is painfully clear that she made little distinction between working for the State Department, the Clinton foundation and her family and tried to keep the records of what was going on inaccessible. The more honest defense would be, all politicians do it, and you have to suck it up because Trump is worse. Which is true. But trying to downplay this and explain it away is offensive, not all of the public are complete idiots.

    KaleidoscopeWars

    Actually, after you get over all of the baffooning around Trump has done, he actually would make an ideal president. He loves his country, he delegates jobs well to people who show the best results, he's good at building stuff and he wants to do a good job. I'm sure after he purges the terribly corrupted system that he'll be given, he'll have the very best advisors around him to make good decisions for the American people. I'm sure Theresa May and her cabinet will be quick to welcome him and re-solidify the relationship that has affected British politics so much in the past decade. Boris Johnson is perfect for our relations with America under a Trump administration. Shame on you Barack and Hillary. Hopefully Trump will say ''I came, I saw, they died!''

    Ullu001 12h ago

    Ah, The Clintons. They have done it all: destruction of evidence, witness tampering, fraud, lying under oath, murder, witness disappearance. Did I leave anything? Yet, they go unpunished. Too clever, I guess too clever for their own good!

    samwoods77 12h ago

    Hillary wants to be the most powerful person on earth yet claims she doesn't understand the classification system that even the most most junior secretary can....deeply troubling.

    Mistaron 13h ago

    The 'masters' in the shadows are about to throw the harridan under the bus. Her brazen air of arrogance and entitlement is about to fade as she comes to realise, that albeit Comey having been got at, he has still succeeded in striking a severe blow against her, and in addition, at the not-so-tin-hat conspiracy of inappropriate, and increasingly overt, institutional support.

    All this in the face of documented lies, in your face hypocrisy, and unbridled corruption, oozing from every orifice of a maverick administration.

    The seeds have been planted for a defense of diminished responsibility. Don't fall for it! Hillary, (and her illustrious spouse), deserve not a smidgen of pity.

    ''We came, we saw, he died'', she enthusiastically and unempathically cackled.

    Just about sums her up.


    wtfbollos 14h ago

    hiliary clinton beheaded libya and created a hell on earth. here is the proof:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/?page=all#pagebreak

    jean2121 -> ken711 13h ago

    Again, total misunderstanding about what is going on. Clinton is the one waging war in the middle east. She is the one being bullish and provocative with Russia. Trump has only been conciliatory with these issues, he has been against the war on Iraq. So far all evidences point to the fact that the Clintons want another big war and all evidence points to the fact that Trump wants co operation. This has totally escape your analysis. It is a choice between the Plague and the Cholera, I agree, but FGS try to be a little less biased.


    ungruntled 15h ago

    The best case for HC looks pretty grim.
    She has no recollection of......??
    Laptops and Thumb drives laying about unattended
    Total lack of understanding about even the most basic of Data Securit arrangements

    All of these things giver her the benefit of the doubt....That she wasnt a liar and a corrupted politician manipulating events and people to suit her own ends.
    So, with the benefit of the doubt given, ask yourself if this level of incompetance and unreliabilty makes a suitable candidate for office?
    In both cases, with and without BOTD, she shouldnt be allowed anywhere near the corridors of power, let alone the White House.

    IAtheist 17h ago

    Mrs Clinton is deeply divisive. Bought out since her husbands presidency by vested interests in Wall Street and the HMO's (private healthcare insurance management businesses) and having shown lamentable judgement, Benghazi, private Email server used for classified documents and material.

    She has failed to motivate the Democrats white and blue collar working voters male and female. These are the voting demographic who have turned to Trump is significant numbers as he does address their concerns, iniquitous tax rules meaning multi millionaires pay less tax on capital gains and share dividends than employees do on their basic wages, immigration and high levels of drug and gun crime in working class communities Black, White and Hispanic, funding illegal immigrants and failed American youth living on a black economy in the absence of affordable healthcare or a basic welfare system.

    Trump may very well win and is likely to be better for the US than Hilary Clinton.

    digamey 18h ago

    I sympathize with the American electorate - they have to choose between the Devil and the deep blue sea. Given their situation, however, I would definitely choose the Devil I know over the Devil I don't! And that Devil is - - - ?

    MoneyCircus -> digamey 10h ago

    That willful ignorance is your choice! A public businessman can be examined more closely than most.

    Besides, there is a long history of "placemen" presidents whose performance is determined by those they appoint to do the work. Just look in the White House right now.

    As for the Clinton record (they come, incontrovertibly, as a package) from Mena, Arkansas, to her husband's deregulation of the banks which heralded the financial crash that devastated millions of lives... the same banks that are currently HRC's most enthusiastic funders... is something that any genuine Democrat should not be able to stomach...

    ID9761679 19h ago

    My feeling is that she had more to worry about than the location of a thumb drive (I can't recall how many of those I've lost) or even a laptop. When a Secretary of State moves around, I doubt that look after their own appliances. Has anyone asked her where the fan is?

    Karega ID9761679 18h ago

    Problem is she handled top secret and classified information which would endanger her country's security and strategic interests. She was then US Secretary of State. That is why how she handled her thumb drive, laptop nd desktops matter. And there lies the difference between your numerous lost thumb drives and hers. I thought this was obvious?

    EightEyedSpy 23h ago

    HRC is still likely to be the next President, but this scandal does have legs. She put herself in a corner by claiming lack of recall due to a medical condition (i.e., the concussion). This leaves two possibilities, neither of which is helpful to her cause, to wit: either she was being dishonest or she was (and could still be) cognitively impaired.

    1iJack -> EightEyedSpy 22h ago

    either she was being dishonest or she was (and could still be) cognitively impaired.

    Its entirely possible its both.

    Dick York 24h ago

    California survived Arnold Schwarzenegger, the U.S. survived Ronald Reagan, Minnesota survived Jesse "The Body" Ventura and I believe that we will survive Donald Trump. He's only one more celebrity on the road.

    providenciales -> Dick York 23h ago

    You forgot Al Franken.

    antipodes -> Dick York 21h ago

    Reagan was certainly not someone I admired but at least he tried to reduce the chance of nuclear war. Clinton is an out and out Hawke with the blood of many innocent people on her hands in both Syria and Libya. She is hiding her communications because she does not want to be exposed for the role she played in The destruction of Libya and the gun running of weapons to terrorists in Syria. That is to Al Qaeda and ISIS. World War 3 is more likely under Clinton than any other world leader. Even Trump. The Democrats must disendorse her because the details of her criminality are now becoming available and unless she can stop it Trump will win. Get rid of her Democrats and bring back Bernie Sanders.

    Sam3456 1d ago

    We cannot afford a lying, neo-liberal who is more than willing to make her role in government a for profit endeavor.

    Four years of anyone else is preferable to someone who is more than willing for the right contribution to her foundation, sell out the American worker and middle class.

    MakeBeerNotWar 1d ago

    I'm more interested $250k a pop speeches HRC gave to the unindicted Wall St bankster felon scum who nearly took down their country and the global economy yet received a taxpayer bailout and their bonuses paid for being greedy incompetent crooks. How soon we forget....

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/

    sorrentina -> MakeBeerNotWar 22h ago

    even worse is her support for the military coup in Honduras- and her blatant lies in defense of that coup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS-tDVwSHlA

    trow 1d ago

    Its seems there is just one scandal after another with this women but she seems to be bullet proof mainly because the msm media will not go after her for reasons best known to themselves this is causing them to lose credibility and readers who are deserting them for alternative media .

    bashh1 1d ago

    Finally today in an article in The NY Times we learn where Clinton has been for a good part of the summer. In the Hamptons and elsewhere at receptions for celebrities and her biggest donors like Calvin Klein and Harvey Weinstein, raking in the millions for her campaign. Trump on the other hand has appeared in towns in Pennsylvania like Scranton, Erie and Altoona where job are disappearing and times can be tough. Coronations cost money I guess.

    chiefwiley -> bashh1 1d ago

    She is doing what she does best --- raise money.

    ksenak 1d ago

    Not forgetting that she was key in making sure the US didn't side with Assad. Had the US done at the beginning, instead of being at the behest of the Saudis and the petrodollar, then the whole thing would have been over in 6 months and IS would never have got more than a dusty district of northern Iraq.

    ksenak 1d ago

    Hillary is humiliated woman. Humiliated to the core by her cheating hubby she would rather kill than let him go. She is paying her evil revenge to the whole world. As a president of USA Hillary Clinton would destabilise the world and lead it to conflicts that threaten to be very heavy.

    As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was part of the "Arab Spring" (also part of the "Jasmine Revolution), which overthrew leaders such as Gaddafi to Mubarak. Before Gaddafi was overthrown he told the US that without him IS will take over Libya. They did.
    -Benghazi Scandal which ended up killing a US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other Americans.
    The Arab Spring destabilized the Middle East, contributed to the Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS and the exodus of Middle Eastern Muslims.

    Sam3456 OXIOXI20 1d ago

    Meh. Obama characterized ISIS as the "JV Team" and refused to acknowledge the threat. I assume he was acting on information provided by his Secretary of State, Clinton.

    Michael109 1d ago

    It's quite possible that Clinton, because she had a fall in 2012 and bonked her head, believes she is telling the truth when she is lying, except that it is not lying when you believe you are telling the truth even though you are lying.

    She said she did not recall 30 times in her interviews with the FBI. She could be suffering from some sort of early degeneration disease. Either way, between her health and the lying and corruption she should be withdrawn as the Dem frontrunner.

    1iJack -> LakumbaDaGreat 1d ago

    She's going to blow it.

    I think she already did. Its like all the shit in her life is coming back on her at once.

    Early on, when it was announced she would run again, I remember one Democrat pundit in particular that didn't think she could survive the existence of the Internet in the general election (I can't remember who it was, though). But it has turned out to be a pretty astute prediction.

    When asked what he meant by that remark, he went on to say "the staying power of the Internet will overwhelm Clinton with her dirty laundry once she gets to the general election. The Clintons were made for the 24 hour news cycles of the past and not the permanent unmanaged exposure of the digital world. Everything is new again on the internet. Its Groundhog Day forever on the Internet."

    That's my best paraphrase of his thoughts. He felt Clinton was the last of the "old school" politicians bringing too much baggage to an election. That with digital "bread crumbs" of some kind or another (email, microphones and cameras in phones, etc) the new generation of politicians will be a cleaner lot, not through virtue, but out of necessity.

    I've often thought back to his remarks while watching Hillary head into the general.

    ImperialAhmed 1d ago

    So the applicant to the US presidency does not know what (c) stands for in her emails, archives high security data on a laptop and then losses it for years, uploads same emails on Google's gmail account and then losses devices again.
    She does not recall many things, not even the training she received on handling the confidential and secure communication.
    She couldn't recall the procces of drone strikes. (Will she be killing people at a whim, without an accountable protocol?)
    She is either demented or dangerously reckless or lying. All of these conditions disbar her form her candidacy.


    AudieTer
    1d ago

    If she could only manage a couple of hours a day because of concussion and a blood clot she should have temporarily stood down until she recovered fully, and had a senior official take over her duties until she was well. You can't have a brain-damaged person in charge of the US's affairs - even though there is a long history of nutters the State Dept. ( ie the Military Industrial Complex HQ). And in the White House for that matter ...Nurse -- nurse -- Dubya needs his meds!

    thedingo8 -> Lenthelurker 1d ago

    the clinton foundation does not pay taxes..and dont forget that slick willie has been on the paedophile plane more times than the pilot

    Littlefella 1d ago

    She destroyed devices and emails after they were told that all evidence had to be preserved. There are then two issues and the FBI and DOJ have not taken any action on either.

    It's no longer just about the emails, it's the corruption.

    DaveG123 1d ago

    Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and Hanley "indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device"
    -------------
    Probably in the hands of a foreign government. Pretty careless behaviour. Incompetent. Part of a pattern of incompetance that includes bad foreign policy decisions (Libya) and disrespect for rules surrounding conflict of interest (Clinton Foundation).

    YANKSOPINION -> HansB09 1d ago

    She failed to keep up with recordkeeping she agreed to, then when asked to turn over records, somebody destroyed them, but Clinton did not order destruction, or does not remember having done so. Turned over all records-oops I thought WE did! She either lied or has alzheimers

    Andy White 1d ago

    In addition, the notes say:

    "Clinton could not recall when she first received her security clearance and if she carried it with her to state via reciprocity from her time in the Senate. Clinton could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information."

    Clinton was aware she was an original classification authority at the state department, but again "could not recall how often she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by state. Clinton could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined." ...................secretary of state and could not recall basic security protocols???

    ....and people complain about trump....this basic security was mentioned in the bloody west wing series for god's sake.....in comparison even trump is a f'ing genius.......love him or hate him trump has to win over clinton,there is something very,very wrong with her....she should NEVER be in charge of a till at asda......and she is a clinton so we all know a very practised liar but this beggers belief,i can see why trump is angry if that was him he would have been publicly burnt at the stake.....this clinton crap just stink's of the political elite....a total joke cover up and a terrible obvious one to....clinton is just a liar and mentally i think she is very unstable....makes the DON look like hawking lol.....

    namora 1d ago

    Political baggage is a bitch. If this election cycle has demonstrated anything it is that the leadership of both parties is totally out of touch with the voters and really has no interest except supporting the Neoliberal tenet of fiscal nonintervention. This laissez-faire attitude toward corporate interests is paralysing the American government.

    duncandunnit 1d ago

    I cannot believe Clinton has got this far in the election, I believe Obama wants her in to hide many of his embarrassing warmongering mistakes.

    fedback 1d ago

    Today of all days Hillary Clinton puts out a tweet with the following: 'America needs leadership in the White House, not a liability' -- As we have to assume she's not referring to herself it confirms people's suspicion that the person who writes Hillary's tweets is a hostile to her campaign. The tweets are often completely off the mark.

    Hercolubus 1d ago

    Either Comey is on their payroll, or they have threatened his family. Either way it is business as usual. The NWO decided a long time ago that Hillary was their next puppet PONTUS.

    BG Davis 2d ago

    Clinton has always been a devious weasel, but this reveals a new low. I was a low-level officer at US Embassies and Consulates in various foreign countries. Clinton's claim that she didn't know what (C) was, or that she "she did not pay attention to the difference between top secret, secret and confidential" and "could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information." Are beyond ridiculous. Any fool knows enough to be aware of different levels of classified info, and the obvious fact that you don't get sloppy with classified info.

    That said, over the past few years the entire handling of classified info has become beyond sloppy - laptops left in taxis, General Petraeus was sharing classified info with his mistress, etc. I guess nowadays, to paraphrase Leona Helmsley's comment about paying taxes, "security is for little people." So in that respect Hillary is no different from the rest of them.

    Scaff1 2d ago

    You'd better hope she's lying, because if the incompetence is genuine she shouldn't be allowed near any confidential information ever again. I hate to admit it but Trump is right on this one. Jesus wept. I said it before: Clinton is the only candidate who could possibly make a tyrant like Trump electable.


    charlieblue -> gizadog 2d ago

    Where are you getting "looses 13 devices"? (Try loses, nobody is accusing Sec.Clinton of making things loose) I actually read the article, so my information might not be as exciting as yours, but this article states that from the 13 devices that had access to the Clinton server, two (a laptop and a thumb drive) used by one of her aids, are missing. This article doesn't specify whether any "classified" information was on either of them. The FBI doesn't know, because, well... they are missing.

    What the fuck is it with you people and your loose relationship with actual facts? Do you realize that just making shit up undermines whatever point you imagine you are trying to make?

    gizadog 2d ago

    Also: Clinton told FBI she thought classified markings were alphabetical paragraphs

    "When asked what the parenthetical 'C' meant before a paragraph ... Clinton stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the FBI wrote in notes from its interview with her."

    Wow...and there are people that want her to be president.

    Casey13 2d ago

    In my job as a government contractor we are extremely vigilant about not connecting removable devices to work computers, no work email access outside of work, software algorithms that scan our work mails for any sensitive information, and regular required training on information security. The fact that the Sec State could have an email server built at her home and operate with such laughable gross negligence when it comes to national security is surreal and appalling. I could never vote for her and neither could I vote for Trump.

    MonotonousLanguor 2d ago

    >>> A Clinton Foundation laptop and a thumb drive used to archive Hillary Clinton's emails from her time as secretary of state are missing, according to FBI notes released on Friday.<<<

    Oh golly gee, what a surprise. Should we offer a reward??? Maybe Amelia Earhart has the laptop and thumb drive. Were these missing items taken by the Great Right Wing Conspiracy???

    Dani Jenkins 2d ago

    Wtf, from the sublime to the ridiculous, springs to mind..

    Time to get a grip of the gravity involved, here at the Guardian.. This is a total whitewash of the absurd kind.. That leaves people laughing in pure unadultered astonishment..

    SHE lost not just a MacBook & thumb drive with such BS..

    So Trump it is then , like many of us have stated ALL ALONG. Sanders was the only serious contender.. A complete mockery of democracy & the so called Democrats have made the way for Trump to cruise all the way to the Whitewash House..

    Well done Debbie , did the Don pay you?

    chiefwiley -> Lenthelurker 2d ago

    Because the revelations are essentially contradicting all of Hillary's defenses regarding her handling of highly classified information. None of the requirements of the State Department mattered to her or her personal staff. It won't go away --- it will get worse as information trickles out.

    Casey13 2d ago

    Being President of the USA used to be about communicating a vision and inspiring Americans to get behind that dream . Think Lincoln abolishing slavery or JFK setting a goal to put man on the moon. Hillary is boring,has no charisma,and no vision for her Presidency beyond using corruption and intimidation to secure greater power for her and her cronies . Nobody wants to listen to her speeches because she is boring, uninspiring, and has no wit beyond tired cliches. Trump has a vision but that vision is a nightmare for many Americans.

    imperfetto 2d ago

    Clinton is a dangerous warmonger. She is a danger to us Europeans, as she might drag us into a conflict with Russia. We must get rid of her, politically, and re-educate the Americas to respect other nations, and give up exporting their corrupting values.

    Tom Voloshen 2d ago

    Liar liar liar....give her a chance, and another and another and another and another...
    .
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/cnn-stunned-fact-checkers-confirm-clinton-phones-destroyed-hammers/

    JCDavis 2d ago

    "After reading these documents, I really don't understand how she was able to get away from prosecution."

    If the FBI were not themselves co-conspirators and hopelessly corrupt, they would indict some of the lower level actors and offer them immunity. They could start with the imbecile who put that laptop in the mail and couldn't remember if it was UPS or USPS. Or did he actually send it to the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK by accident?

    1iJack 2d ago

    "The job of the media historically, in terms of the First Amendment – what I call the unspoken compact in the First Amendment – is that the free press, without restraint, without checks and balances, is there in order to protect the people from power. Its job is to be a check on government, and those who rule the country, and not to be their lapdogs, and their support system. That's what we're seeing in this election.

    There is an argument to make that the major news media in this country, the mainstream media, is essentially serving against the people's interest. They have made themselves an open ally of protecting a political order that the American people are rejecting, by three quarters or more of the American people. That makes them a legitimate issue, in a sense they never have been before, if Trump takes advantage of it."

    Pat Caddell, 2 Sept 2016

    Caddell has voiced an interesting concern that others are beginning to share: that the news media has crawled so far in bed with Hillary Clinton they won't be able to get back out. That the news media in America has lost its soul. Even Jake Tapper started asking this question several weeks ago in the middle of his own show.

    Will the American press ever have credibility with Americans again? Even Democrats see it and will remember this the next time the press turns against them. There was a new and overt power grab in this election that is still being processed by the American people: the American press "saving" America from Donald Trump. They may never recover from this.

    It even scares my Democrat friends.

    ConBrio 2d ago

    "An unknown individual using the encrypted privacy tool Tor to hide their tracks accessed an email account on a Clinton family server, the FBI revealed Friday.

    "The incident appears to be the first confirmed intrusion into a piece of hardware associated with Hillary Clinton's private email system, which originated with a server established for her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

    The FBI disclosed the event in its newly released report on the former secretary of state's handling of classified information.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/clinton-email-server-tor-227697

    fanUS 2d ago

    Clinton is a very dodgy character and cannot be trusted.

    Boris Johnson, UK Foreign Secretary on Clinton: "She's got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital"

    CleanPool330 2d ago

    The collective mind of the establishment is mentally ill and spinning out of control. In all rites they should be removed but their arrogance, corruption and self-entitlement mean they are incapable of admitting guilt. They have corrupted the weak minds of the majority and will take everybody down with them.

    The pyramid scheme of created debt has destroyed capitalism and democracy within 40 years of full operation. Captured Govt has bailed out incompetence and failure at every turn, and in so doing, inverted the yield curve and destroyed the future. It is for this reason alone I cannot respect these financial paedophiles or support anything they do. In this contest for the White House, Clinton is the manifestation of the establishment.

    unusedusername 2d ago

    If I understand this correctly a laptop and a flashdrive full of classified emails was put in a jiffy bag and stuck in the post and now they're missing and this is, apparently, just one of those things? Amazing!

    Blair Hess 2d ago

    I'm in the military. Not a high rank mind you. It defies all common logic that HRC has never had a briefing, training, or just side conversation about classified information handling when i have about 50 trainings a year on it and i barely handle it. Sheeple wake up and stop drinking the kool aid

    Ullu001 2d ago

    The Clintons have always operated on the edge of the law: extremely clever and dangerous lawyers they are.

    USADanny -> Ullu001

    Hillary may be criminally clever but legally: not so much. You do know that she failed the Washington DC bar exam and all of her legal "success" after that was a result of being very spouse of a powerful politician.

    calderonparalapaz 2d ago

    "The documents provided a number of new details about Mrs. Clinton's private server, including what appeared to be a frantic effort by a computer specialist to delete an archive of her emails even after a congressional committee had requested they be preserved." -NY Times

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi.html?_r=0

    USADanny -> Lee Knutsen 2d ago

    Virtually every American healthcare worker has to take annual HIPAA training, pass a multiple-choice test and signed a document attesting that they have taken the training and are fully aware of the serious consequences of inadvertent and willful violations of HIPAA. Oh the irony – HIPAA is a Clinton era law.

    Hillary's treatment of top-secret US documents was willful and uncorrected. If she had done the same thing with medical records, the individuals whose medical records had been mishandled could have filed charges and Hillary would have been personally liable for up to $50,000 fine per incident.

    http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/hipaahealth-insurance-portability-accountability-act/hipaa-violations-enforcement.page?

    Other than Hillary negligently handling top-secret documents, having a head injury that by her own admission has impaired her memory and using her relationship with the Clinton foundation when she was Secretary of State to extort hundreds of millions of dollars, she is an excellent candidate for the president.

    oeparty 2d ago

    Clinton is an absolute liability. Apart from this scandal she's a status quo candidate for a status quo that no longer exists. She stands for neo-liberalism, US hegemony and capitalist globalization all of which are deader than the dodo. That makes her very dangerous in terms of world peace and of course she will do absolutely nothing for the millions of Americans facing joblessness, hunger, bankruptcy and homelessness except make things worse.

    And yet, and yet, we must vote Clinton simply to Stop Trump. He is a proto-fascist determined to smash resistance to the 1% in America and abroad via military means. He is a realist who realises capitalism is over and only the purest and most overwhelming violence can save the super rich and the elites now. Certainly their economy gives them nothing any more. The American Dream is toast. The Green Stein will simply draw a few votes from Clinton and give Trump the victory and it is not like she is a genuinely progressive candidate herself being something of a Putin fan just like Trump. No, vote Clinton to Stop Trump but only so that we can use the next four years to build the revolutionary socialist alternative. To build the future.

    dongerdo 2d ago

    The Americans are screwed anyways because both easily are the most despicable and awful front runners I can think of in any election of a western democracy in decades (and that is quite an achievement in itself to be honest), the only thing left to hope for is a winner not outright horrible for the rest of the world on which front Clinton loses big time: electing her equals pouring gasoline over half the world, she is up for finishing the disastrous job in the Middle East and North Africa started by her as Secretary of State. Her stance on relations with Russia and China are utterly horrific, listening to her makes even the die-hard GOP neo-cons faction sound like peace corps ambassadors.
    If the choice is between that and some isolationist dimwit busy with making America great again I truly hope for the latter.

    Who would have thought that one day world peace would depend on the vote of the American redneck.....

    Michael109 2d ago

    Clinton's "dog ate my server", I can't (30 times) remember, didn't know what C meant on top of emails - why it means Coventry City, M'amm - excuses are the Dems trying to stagger over the line, everyone holding their noses. But even if she is elected, which is doubtful, this is not going away and she could be arrested as USA President.

    The FBI will rue the day they did not recommend charges against her when they had the chance. She's make Tony Soprano look like the Dalia Lama.

    CleanPool330 2d ago

    The entire corrupt establishment want Clinton at all cost, so that they can continue fleecing the future and enslaving the entire world in created debt. All right minded individuals should this as a flashing red light to turn round and vote the other way.

    [Sep 05, 2016] Trump predicts landslide support from black voters if he gets to seek a second term as president

    [Dec 05, 2016] | latimes.com

    "You're living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58% of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose" by voting for Trump? the candidate asked. "At the end of four years, I guarantee I will get over 95% of the African American vote."

    The statement – highly unlikely given how poorly Republicans fare among black voters – continues a theme the GOP presidential nominee has pounded this week as he courted African American voters. He said Democrats take black voters for granted and have ignored their needs while governing cities with large African American populations.

    "America must reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton, who sees communities of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future," he said of his Democratic opponent.

    ... ... ...

    Trump argued that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's policies on issues such as immigration and refugee resettlement harm African Americans.

    [Sep 05, 2016] The power of neoliberal brainwashing and indoctrination of population via MSM, schools and universities.

    [Dec 05, 2016] | economistsview.typepad.com

    nikbez: August 28, 2016 at 10:06 AM

    That's simply naďve:

    === quote ===
    It has recently become commonplace to argue that globalization can leave people behind, and that this can have severe political consequences. Since 23 June, this has even become conventional wisdom. While I welcome this belated acceptance of the blindingly obvious, I can't but help feeling a little frustrated, since this has been self-evident for many years now. What we are seeing, in part, is what happens to conventional wisdom when, all of a sudden, it finds that it can no longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had been staring it in the face for a long time.
    === end of quote ==

    This is not about "conventional wisdom". This is about the power of neoliberal propaganda, the power of brainwashing and indoctrination of population via MSM, schools and universities.

    And "all of a sudden, it finds that it can no longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had been staring it in the face for a long time." also has nothing to do with conventional wisdom.

    This is about the crisis of neoliberal ideology and especially Trotskyism part of it (neoliberalism can be viewed as Trotskyism for the rich). The following integral elements of this ideology no longer work well and are starting to cause the backlash:

    1. High level of inequality as the explicit, desirable goal (which raises the productivity). "Greed is good" or "Trickle down economics" -- redistribution of wealth up will create (via higher productivity) enough scrapes for the lower classes, lifting all boats.

    2. "Neoliberal rationality" when everything is a commodity that should be traded at specific market. Human beings also are viewed as market actors with every field of activity seen as a specialized market. Every entity (public or private, person, business, state) should be governed as a firm. "Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as learning, dating, or exercising-in market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with market techniques and practices." People are just " human capital" who must constantly tend to their own present and future market value.

    3. Extreme financialization or converting the economy into "casino capitalism" (under neoliberalism everything is a marketable good, that is traded on explicit or implicit exchanges.

    4. The idea of the global, USA dominated neoliberal empire and related "Permanent war for permanent peace" -- wars for enlarging global neoliberal empire via crushing non-compliant regimes either via color revolutions or via open military intervention.

    5. Downgrading ordinary people to the role of commodity and creating three classes of citizens (moochers, or Untermensch, "creative class" and top 0.1%), with the upper class (0.1% or "Masters of the Universe") being above the law like the top level of "nomenklatura" was in the USSR.

    6. "Downsizing" sovereignty of nations via international treaties like TPP, and making transnational corporations the key political players, "the deciders" as W aptly said. Who decide about level of immigration flows, minimal wages, tariffs, and other matters that previously were prerogative of the state.

    So after 36 (or more) years of dominance (which started with triumphal march of neoliberalism in early 90th) the ideology entered "zombie state". That does not make it less dangerous but its power over minds of the population started to evaporate. Far right ideologies now are filling the vacuum, as with the discreditation of socialist ideology and decimation of "enlightened corporatism" of the New Deal in the USA there is no other viable alternatives.

    The same happened in late 1960th with the Communist ideology. It took 20 years for the USSR to crash after that with the resulting splash of nationalism (which was the force that blow up the USSR) and far right ideologies.

    It remains to be seen whether the neoliberal US elite will fare better then Soviet nomenklatura as challenges facing the USA are now far greater then challenges which the USSR faced at the time. Among them is oil depletion which might be the final nail into the coffin of neoliberalism and, specifically, the neoliberal globalization.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Our Warped Debates About War by Daniel Larison

    Notable quotes:
    "... Our leaders are shallow on the subject of war. No, worse than shallow-they're silent. Which is one reason they will likely not be fully trusted should they make rough decisions down the road on Syria, or Iran, or elsewhere. ..."
    "... War is terrible. That should be said over and over, not because it's a box you ought to check on the way to the presidency but because you're human and have a brain. ..."
    "... War is always terrible, and it is made even more so when it is waged when it doesn't have to be. Most wars are avoidable and unnecessary, and yet most of our political leaders are reliably in favor of every U.S. military intervention around the world when it matters. Some may later say they regret their support for a previous war, especially if it was a much costlier one than they expected, but at the time the "safe" and "smart" position for ambitious politicians to take is to be for bombing and/or invading. Almost all of the political incentives at least since Desert Storm have flowed in the direction of supporting military action, and so most of the people that seek the presidency have learned not to be an early opponent of any proposed intervention. ..."
    "... While there is near-constant U.S. warfare somewhere in the world, hardly anyone in politics talks about the need for peace. Just as our candidates don't express their hatred of war, they typically don't profess their desire for peace for fear that they will be pilloried as "weak." ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    August 30, 2016, 11:13 AM

    Peggy Noonan wrote a thoughtful column on the horrors of war last week:

    Our leaders are shallow on the subject of war. No, worse than shallow-they're silent. Which is one reason they will likely not be fully trusted should they make rough decisions down the road on Syria, or Iran, or elsewhere.

    War is terrible. That should be said over and over, not because it's a box you ought to check on the way to the presidency but because you're human and have a brain.

    War is always terrible, and it is made even more so when it is waged when it doesn't have to be. Most wars are avoidable and unnecessary, and yet most of our political leaders are reliably in favor of every U.S. military intervention around the world when it matters. Some may later say they regret their support for a previous war, especially if it was a much costlier one than they expected, but at the time the "safe" and "smart" position for ambitious politicians to take is to be for bombing and/or invading. Almost all of the political incentives at least since Desert Storm have flowed in the direction of supporting military action, and so most of the people that seek the presidency have learned not to be an early opponent of any proposed intervention.

    Noonan recounts a telling exchange with a politician in which she asked him if he hated war. After being reassured that he wasn't walking into a trap, he said yes, but still qualified the answer by saying that war is sometimes necessary. The trouble is that most of our politicians, and almost all of our presidential candidates, have never seen a war that they thought was unnecessary. Reflexive interventionists may sometimes include the caveat that they don't want war, but in the next breath they are keen to tell you why "action" is imperative. Sometimes they dress this up with euphemisms. They don't talk about going to war, but say that that the U.S. shouldn't be standing "on the sidelines" or that the U.S. needs to "lead," but invariably this amounts to a demand that force be used in another country. Sometimes they dress up calls for war with technical terms, such as the much-abused "no-fly zone" phrase, that obscure what they are talking about. At other times, they simply acquiesce in a policy of lending support to a client state's horrific war, and that way they don't have to say anything and can pretend to have nothing to do with it.

    It is in this environment that relatively dovish candidates have to emphasize their readiness to use force while hawkish candidates are under much less pressure to prove that they aren't warmongers. While there is near-constant U.S. warfare somewhere in the world, hardly anyone in politics talks about the need for peace. Just as our candidates don't express their hatred of war, they typically don't profess their desire for peace for fear that they will be pilloried as "weak."

    Despite the fact that U.S. forces have been engaged in hostilities for Obama's entire presidency, the loudest and most frequent criticisms of his foreign policy are that he is supposedly too reluctant to use force and didn't bomb Syria. If one of the most activist, militarized presidencies in modern U.S. history is being portrayed in the media as insufficiently aggressive, we aren't likely to hear our leaders regularly condemning the evils of war.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Under my definiton of sociopath , Hillary Clinton qualifies on just her laugh about death Muammar Gaddafi, who was sodomized with a bayonet

    Notable quotes:
    "... As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction? ..."
    "... "We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap. ..."
    "... Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale. This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria. And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    Zachary Smith / August 30, 2016 2:24 p.m.

    As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction?

    "We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

    Under my definiton of "sociopath", Hillary Clinton qualifies on that one alone. Of course there are others….

    *** My father, too, turned bribes into gifts. ***

    I know some saintly people myself, and have no difficulty accepting this claim at face value. Stretching the analogy to the Clinton Foundation is, in my opinion, a stretch too far. If Hillary was as pure as the driven snow, why did she work so hard to ensure her communications were beyond the reach of the Freedom Of Information Act? Why has the State department refused to release her meeting schedules until after the election?

    Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale. This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria. And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Obama golfs with celebrities, Hillary parties with them and takes their cash

    Notable quotes:
    "... This who Hillary Clinton is. It's all about money and access. You know I'm not a Trump supporter, but I absolutely can see why people would vote for him to throw a rock through these people's collective window. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Aug 20, 2016

    From Eating Cake With Hillary Clinton By Rod Dreher

    Check out this 2007 Hillary Clinton for President radio ad , in which she rips into George W. Bush, saying that Katrina victims were "invisible" to him, but aren't invisible to her. How times change.

    Here's why Hillary Clinton cannot be bothered to come to Louisiana: she's got a slew of fundraising events set up with coastal elites . From CNN:

    What do Cher, Leonardo DiCaprio, Magic Johnson and Jimmy Buffett all have in common? They're with her.

    Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, buoyed by rising poll numbers and a sputtering Donald Trump campaign, are using August to raise tens of millions of dollars in cash before the fall sprint.

    Clinton will embark on a three-day, eight-fundraiser trip to California next week, headlining a mix of star studded events with tech icons, athletes and movie stars.

    On Monday, August 22, Clinton will headline a top dollar fundraiser at the Beverly Hills home of Cheryl and Haim Saban, the billionaire owner of Univision and one of Clinton's wealthiest backers.

    Clinton and her aides will then head down the street to another fundraiser at the Beverly Hills home of Hall of Fame basketball player and businessman Magic Johnson. That event, which according to Clinton donors in California is expected to raise millions of dollars, will also be hosted by Willow Bay and Bob Iger, the CEO of The Walt Disney Company, and Marilyn and Jeffrey Katzenberg, the CEO of DreamWorks Animation.

    The next day, Clinton will headline two events in Laguna Beach, including a $33,400-per-person event hosted by Stephen Cloobeck, the CEO of Diamond Resorts.

    Later in the day, according to invites obtained by CNN, Clinton will headline a fundraiser at the home of Leonardo DiCaprio, the Oscar-winning actor known for his roles in Titanic, The Revenant and The Wolf of Wall Street.

    Scooter Braun, the agent that discovered Justin Beiber, and Tobey Maguire, the actor known for his roles in the Spider-Man series, will also host the star-studded event.

    Sounds like fun for those celebrities and rich people, flooding the Democratic Party nominee's coffers with campaign cash. Meanwhile, here in flood-ravaged Louisiana, preliminary estimates claim that as many as 110,000 people lost their homes (or at least suffered enormous damage to them), suffering nearly $21 billion in losses.

    Obama golfs with celebrities, Hillary parties with them and takes their cash.

    This should not be forgotten. These are the oligarchs who rule us. It's despicable. Do not believe for one second that there's any reason why Hillary Clinton cannot get here. Donald Trump got here, spent a few hours, then left. So could she, if she wanted to. But she would di$appoint her donor$.

    This who Hillary Clinton is. It's all about money and access. You know I'm not a Trump supporter, but I absolutely can see why people would vote for him to throw a rock through these people's collective window.

    Eamus Catuli , says: August 22, 2016 at 12:29 pm
    M_Young:

    You might want to study up. (Actually, that could be said to you on many, many issues.) Perjury is lying on a point that is "material" to the case. The judge in the Paula Jones lawsuit ruled that Bill's relationship with Monica was not material to it, hence, no perjury.

    But yeah, if it had been perjury, of course it's every bit as bad as a president ordering federal agencies to break the law and obstruct a criminal investigation in order to cover up his subordinates' illegal eavesdropping on political opponents. Yep. Sure is.

    JonF , says: August 22, 2016 at 12:46 pm
    Re: Bill Clinton was clearly guilty of both. That, not 'sex with an intern' is why he was impeached.

    In what way was Bill Clinton guilty of "Obstruction of justice"? I am unaware of any criminal investigation he interfered in.
    Also, Clinton was not even guilty of perjury in a the purely legal sense of the term, since the lies he told (yes, they were lies) were not germane to the matter on which he was testifying. A perjury charge requires that to be true.

    Eamus Catuli , says: August 22, 2016 at 12:48 pm
    Sorry, should have acknowledged @Chris 1 on this as well:

    And the denial continues in denying that there's anything anyone can do, so let's do nothing. If you lived your moral life this way you'd be a wreck.

    It's a classic example of the "Futility" argument. Seriously, Albert O. Hirschman's book explains a vast amount of conservative rhetoric. Here's the Amazon link:

    https://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Reaction-Perversity-Futility-Jeopardy/dp/067476868X

    Another of his books, Exit, Voice and Loyalty (see further link on that Amazon page), is also important and could helpfully explain, for instance, different responses to the Catholic abuse scandals.

    Siarlys Jenkins , says: August 22, 2016 at 10:54 pm
    I agree that "political pundits, talk radio hosts, blog writers and blog commenters who are complaining about a lack of tweets and visits" are "pathetic, whiny, insecure, self-absorbed and a host of other bad things." I also agree that nobody should be questioning the motives of people who are in the midst of mucking out their homes, no matter what they are saying.

    If President Obama is smart, he will give very little in the way of speeches, or impromptu talks. He will simply ask as many people as possible, what do you need, what is still lacking, what can we do to help you? If he talks to the press, he will begin by saying "There are times when a visit from the President of the United States is not going to make things better, and might even distract from essential work. I came as soon as people on the ground told me it would be acceptable, and would do more good than harm."

    M_Young , says: August 23, 2016 at 5:58 pm
    LGC led me astray with his 'facts'.

    The perjury for which Clinton was had nothing to do with the Paula Jones suit (a civil case in a state court, presided over by a former Clinton student). He was impeached for lying to a federal grand jury. Same goes for the obstruction of justice charge, nothing to do with Paula Jones or civil cases, everything to do with the Federal investigation of Clinton's doings.

    I was out of the country, in Bosnia in fact, at the time, so my ignorance is excusable. My failing to check up the 'facts' presented by a Lefty isn't.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Neoliberalism is every bit the wellspring of neofascism

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions. ..."
    "... If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles, and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth. ..."
    "... Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal constitution. ..."
    "... It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism. ..."
    "... he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order, Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments and politics in the crisis that followed. ..."
    "... What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Cranky Observer 09.03.16 at 6:28 pm

    = = = I am actually honestly suggesting an intellectual exercise which, I think, might be worth your (extremely valuable) time. I propose you rewrite this post without using the word "neoliberalism" (or a synonym). = = =

    It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions.

    bruce wilder 09.03.16 at 7:47 pm
    In the politics of antonyms, I suppose we are always going get ourselves confused.

    Perhaps because of American usage of the root, liberal, to mean the mildly social democratic New Deal liberal Democrat, with its traces of American Populism and American Progressivism, we seem to want "liberal" to designate an ideology of the left, or at least, the centre-left. Maybe, it is the tendency of historical liberals to embrace idealistic high principles in their contest with reactionary claims for hereditary aristocracy and arbitrary authority.

    If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles, and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth.

    All of that is by way of preface to a thumbnail history of modern political ideology different from the one presented by Will G-R.

    Modern political ideology is a by-product of the Enlightenment and the resulting imperative to find a basis and purpose for political Authority in Reason, and apply Reason to the design of political and social institutions.

    Liberalism doesn't so much defeat conservatism as invent conservatism as an alternative to purely reactionary politics. The notion of an "inevitable progress" allows liberals to reconcile both themselves and their reactionary opponents to practical reality with incremental reform. Political paranoia and rhetoric are turned toward thinking about constitutional design.

    Mobilizing mass support and channeling popular discontents is a source of deep ambivalence and risk for liberals and liberalism. Popular democracy can quickly become noisy and vulgar, the proliferation of ideas and conflicting interests paralyzing. Inventing a conservatism that competes with the liberals, but also mobilizes mass support and channels popular discontent, puts bounds on "normal" politics.

    Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal constitution.

    I would put the challenges to liberalism from the left and right well behind in precedence the critical failures and near-failures of liberalism in actual governance.

    Liberalism failed abjectly to bring about a constitutional monarchy in France during the first decade of the French Revolution, or a functioning deliberative assembly or religious toleration or even to resolve the problems of state finance and legal administration that destroyed the ancient regime. In the end, the solution was found in Napoleon Bonaparte, a precedent that would arguably inspire the fascism of dictators and vulgar nationalism, beginning with Napoleon's nephew fifty years later.

    It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism. And, this was especially true in the wake of World War I, which many have argued persuasively was Liberalism's greatest and most catastrophic failure. T he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order, Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments and politics in the crisis that followed.

    If liberals invented conservatism, it seems to me that would-be socialists were at pains to re-invent liberalism, and they did it several times going in radically different directions, but always from a base in the basic liberal idea of rationalizing authority. A significant thread in socialism adopted incremental progress and socialist ideas became liberal and conservative means for taming popular discontent in an increasingly urban society.

    Where and when liberalism actually was triumphant, both the range of liberal views and the range of interests presenting a liberal front became too broad for a stable politics. Think about the Liberal Party landslide of 1906, which eventually gave rise to the Labour Party in its role of Left Party in the British two-party system. Or FDR's landslide in 1936, which played a pivotal role in the march of the Southern Democrats to the Right. Or the emergence of the Liberal Consensus in American politics in the late 1950s.

    What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success.

    It is almost a rote reaction to talk about the Republican's Southern Strategy, but they didn't invent the crime wave that enveloped the country in the late 1960s or the riots that followed the enactment of Civil Rights legislation.

    Will G-R's "As soon [as] liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have . . .overcome the socialist and fascist challenges [liberals] are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism" doesn't seem to me to concede enough to Clinton and Blair entrepreneurially inventing a popular politics in response to Reagan and Thatcher, after the actual failures of an older model of social democratic programs and populist politics on its behalf.

    Rich Puchalsky 09.03.16 at 11:09 pm
    I write more about this over at my blog (in a somewhat different context).
    John Quiggin 09.04.16 at 6:57 am
    RW @113 I wrote a whole book using "market liberalism" instead of "neoliberalism", since I wanted a term more neutral and less pejorative. So, going back to "neoliberalism" was something I did advisedly. You say
    The word is abstract and has completely different meanings west and east of the Atlantic. In the USA it refers to weak tea center leftisms. In Europe to hard core liberalism.
    Well, yes. That's precisely why I've used the term, introduced the hard/soft distinction and explained the history. The core point is that, despite their differences soft (US meaning) and hard (European meaning) neoliberalism share crucial aspects of their history, theoretical foundations and policy implications.
    likbez 09.04.16 at 4:18 pm
    I would say that neoliberalism is closer to market fundamentalism, then market liberalism. See, for example:
    http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/Articles/definitions_of_neoliberalism.shtml

    === quote ===
    Neoliberalism is an ideology of market fundamentalism based on deception that promotes "markets" as a universal solution for all human problems in order to hide establishment of neo-fascist regime (pioneered by Pinochet in Chile), where militarized government functions are limited to external aggression and suppression of population within the country (often via establishing National Security State using "terrorists" threat) and corporations are the only "first class" political players. Like in classic corporatism, corporations are above the law and can rule the country as they see fit, using political parties for the legitimatization of the regime.

    The key difference with classic fascism is that instead of political dominance of the corporations of particular nation, those corporations are now transnational and states, including the USA are just enforcers of the will of transnational corporations on the population. Economic or "soft" methods of enforcement such as debt slavery and control of employment are preferred to brute force enforcement. At the same time police is militarized and due to technological achievements the level of surveillance surpasses the level achieved in Eastern Germany.

    Like with bolshevism in the USSR before, high, almost always hysterical, level of neoliberal propaganda and scapegoating of "enemies" as well as the concept of "permanent war for permanent peace" are used to suppress the protest against the wealth redistribution up (which is the key principle of neoliberalism) and to decimate organized labor.

    Multiple definitions of neoliberalism were proposed. Three major attempts to define this social system were made:

    1. Definitions stemming from the concept of "casino capitalism"
    2. Definitions stemming from the concept of Washington consensus
    3. Definitions stemming from the idea that Neoliberalism is Trotskyism for the rich. This idea has two major variations:
      • Definitions stemming from Professor Wendy Brown's concept of Neoliberal rationality which developed the concept of Inverted Totalitarism of Sheldon Wolin
      • Definitions stemming Professor Sheldon Wolin's older concept of Inverted Totalitarism - "the heavy statism forging the novel fusions of economic with political power that he took to be poisoning democracy at its root." (Sheldon Wolin and Inverted Totalitarianism Common Dreams )

    The first two are the most popular.

    likbez 09.04.16 at 5:03 pm

    bruce,

    @117

    Thanks for your post. It contains several important ideas:

    "It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism."

    "What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success."

    Moreover as Will G-R noted:

    "neoliberalism will be every bit the wellspring of fascism that old-school liberalism was."

    Failure of neoliberalism revives neofascist, far right movements. That's what the rise of far right movements in Europe now demonstrates pretty vividly.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Lesse evilism as in those f*ckers from trade unions will vote for Dems anyway, they have nowhere to go no longer works

    Notable quotes:
    "... Lesse evilism that Bill Clinton used for moving Democratic Party into neoliberal camp (as in "those f*ckers from trade unions will vote for Dems anyway, they have nowhere to go") no longer works. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    John Quiggin 09.03.16 at 6:36 am

    @111 The obvious explanation for union endorsements of Clinton is that they expected her to win the Democratic nomination, as she did. And of course they would endorse her against any Republican. What else could they do>

    The most obvious test case is the teachers unions. Obama's administration was clearly hostile to the (think of Rahm Emanuel!), but they nonetheless endorsed him, as the lesser evil.

    likbez 09.04.16 at 7:29 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    John,

    @112

    "The most obvious test case is the teachers unions. Obama's administration was clearly hostile to the (think of Rahm Emanuel!), but they nonetheless endorsed him, as the lesser evil."

    Lesse evilism that Bill Clinton used for moving Democratic Party into neoliberal camp (as in "those f*ckers from trade unions will vote for Dems anyway, they have nowhere to go") no longer works.

    Far right will absorb those working class and lower white collar votes. And they became a political force to recon with, which disposed neocons from the Republican establishment (all those Jeb!, Kasich, Cruz, and Rubio crowd ) despite all efforts of the party brass. Welcome to the second reincarnation of Weimar republic.

    Trade union management, which endorsed Hillary, now expects that more than half of union members will probably vote against Hillary. In some cases up to 2/3.

    So Dem neolibs became a party that is not supported by the working class and if identity politics tricks fail to work, they might get a a blowback in November. They can rely only on a few voting blocks that benefitted from globalization, such as "network hamsters" (programmers, system administrators, some part of FIRE low level staff, and such) and few other mass professionals. That's it.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Gowdy FBI barely probed Clinton about intent on emails

    Aug 25, 2016 | TheHill

    FBI officials failed to aggressively question Hillary Clinton about her intentions in setting up a private email system, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) claimed this week, exposing a potential key vulnerability in the bureau's investigation.

    "I didn't see that many questions on that issue," Gowdy told Fox News's "The Kelly File" on Wednesday evening.

    The detail could be crucial for Republican critics of the FBI's decision not to recommend charges be filed against the former secretary of State for mishandling classified information.

    ... ... ...

    "I looked to see what witnesses were questioned on the issue of intent, including her," he said on Fox News. "I didn't see that many questions on that issue."

    House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz(R-Utah) has called for the FBI to create unclassified versions of the Clinton case file that it gave to Congress, so that the material can be released publicly. Gowdy reiterated the call on Fox News.

    "There's no reason in the world you could not and should not be able to look at the same witness interviews that I had to go to Washington and look at in a classified setting," he said.

    [Sep 03, 2016] The Class Warfare article about St. Louis seemed folksy but is a light shining on the plundering of Middle America

    Notable quotes:
    "... In hindsight; the consolidation, monopolization and then seizure of power by the International Multi-Corps is obvious. $600 EpiPins or the Oxy epidemic are examples of anything goes rip-offs since corporate crooks got a get out of jail card from the Obama Administration. ..."
    "... This is perhaps the last year that identity politics will work. ..."
    "... Just as the military corporations exploit the conflicts between mountain Kurds and lowland Sunni tribes in the Fertile Crescent that go back to the founding of civilization to sell weapons; the racial and ethnic conflicts in the USA are being primed to explode. ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    For your consideration:

    o What Rail Freight Volume just Said about China | Wolf Street

    o "If You Own a Home in Palo Alto, CA, Sell it Now" | Wolf Street

    o Senators press Mylan on 'exorbitantly expensive' EpiPen | Reuters

    o No "Free Money for All," only for Corporations & Governments; Consumers Need Not Apply: ECB's Nowotny | Wolf Street

    VietnamVet , September 2, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    The Class Warfare article about St. Louis seemed folksy but is a light shining on the plundering of Middle America.

    In hindsight; the consolidation, monopolization and then seizure of power by the International Multi-Corps is obvious. $600 EpiPins or the Oxy epidemic are examples of anything goes rip-offs since corporate crooks got a get out of jail card from the Obama Administration.

    This is perhaps the last year that identity politics will work.

    Just as the military corporations exploit the conflicts between mountain Kurds and lowland Sunni tribes in the Fertile Crescent that go back to the founding of civilization to sell weapons; the racial and ethnic conflicts in the USA are being primed to explode.

    At some point, American Mountaineers (also known as Hillbillies) are going to take their measure of the urbanized Cosmopolitans exploiting them and the splintering apart will start.

    [Sep 03, 2016] The USA neoliberal elite considers Russia to be an obstacle in the creation of the USA led global neoliberal empire. So Carthago delenda est is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin. ..."
    "... The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of the orders from Washington. ..."
    angrybearblog.com

    likbez , September 3, 2016 9:42 pm

    All this anti-Russian warmongering from esteemed commenters here is suspect. And should be taken with a grain of salt.

    The USA neoliberal elite considers Russia to be an obstacle in the creation of the USA led global neoliberal empire (with EU and Japan as major vassals),

    So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin.

    The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of the orders from Washington.

    That means that as bad as Trump is, he is a safer bet than Hillary, because the latter is a neocon warmonger, which can get us in the hot war with Russia. And this is the most principal, cardinal issue of the November elections.

    All other issues like climate change record (although nuclear winter will definitely reverse global warming), Supreme Court appointments, etc. are of secondary importance.

    As John Kenneth Galbraith said, "Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."

    [Sep 03, 2016] Putin on DNC breach Does it even matter who hacked this data

    It is amazing how partisan and brainwashed commenters are. Reminds me "letter of workers and peasants to Pravda" type of mails.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "There's no need to distract the public's attention from the essence of the problem by raising some minor issues connected with the search for who did it," Putin said in an interview with Bloomberg . ..."
    "... The DNC is desperate to put the focus on who hacked their email rather than on the email's content. The story is in what the Democrats really think and how it's different then their public persona. ..."
    "... I hate to admit it but .... Putin Dropped The Truth Bomb! ..Look at the content ..."
    "... Who cares where the TRUTH comes from? as long as it is the truth! The real SHAME is that our own press has been out to lunch on finding the truth. Putin , Assage, Snowden...I'll take truth from them over HRC lies any day! ..."
    "... It doesn't matter either way. There's no law anyone's willing to prosecute and no law enforcement agency who will investigate. This is all for nothing more than archival purposes. But it won't change anything. Hillary could be caught trading Cartel drugs for sex slaves in order to generate cash to give to Iran to pay the US government secretly to procure an atomic weapon and it would make no difference. ..."
    "... The US politicos always need a bogeyman to blame. Today, it's Russia. ..."
    "... It was Russia yesterday too. ..."
    "... Yea, we are familiar with using Russia. It's an old playbook. ..."
    "... To quote the democratic nominee ... 'what difference, at this point, does it make?" ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | TheHill

    Russian leader Vladimir Putin denied that his country had any involvement in the email hacks and WikiLeaks releases that led to the resignations of several Democratic Party officials.

    "There's no need to distract the public's attention from the essence of the problem by raising some minor issues connected with the search for who did it," Putin said in an interview with Bloomberg.

    "But I want to tell you again, I don't know anything about it, and on a state level Russia has never done this."

    Addison Jacobs

    The DNC is desperate to put the focus on who hacked their email rather than on the email's content. The story is in what the Democrats really think and how it's different then their public persona.

    Hard Little Machine • a day ago
    Perfect retort to Hillary's Retards.
    only1j > Hard Little Machine • a day ago
    I hate to admit it but .... Putin Dropped The Truth Bomb! ..Look at the content
    lostinnm > Hard Little Machine • a day ago
    Who cares where the TRUTH comes from? as long as it is the truth! The real SHAME is that our own press has been out to lunch on finding the truth. Putin , Assage, Snowden...I'll take truth from them over HRC lies any day!

    Hard Little Machine > lostinnm • a day ago

    It doesn't matter either way. There's no law anyone's willing to prosecute and no law enforcement agency who will investigate. This is all for nothing more than archival purposes. But it won't change anything. Hillary could be caught trading Cartel drugs for sex slaves in order to generate cash to give to Iran to pay the US government secretly to procure an atomic weapon and it would make no difference.

    Depending on how old you are - this is not the country or A country you're familiar with. That one was shot in the head and buried in a shallow grave.

    KhadijahMuhammad • a day ago

    The US politicos always need a bogeyman to blame. Today, it's Russia.

    BecauseReasons > KhadijahMuhammad • a day ago

    It was Russia yesterday too.

    KhadijahMuhammad > BecauseReasons • a day ago

    Yea, we are familiar with using Russia. It's an old playbook.

    Rich Dudley

    To quote the democratic nominee ... 'what difference, at this point, does it make?"

    [Sep 03, 2016] After more then a year non-stop running anti-trump hysteria is losing its grip with the voters

    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    timbers , September 3, 2016 at 12:25 pm

    Something's not working:

    Trump Leads Clinton In Latest Reuters Poll

    http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM651Y15_DS_13/filters/LIKELY:1/dates/20160601-20160831/type/day

    One headline suggests Team Clinton might whip another conflict (Ukraine?) to help her poll numbers.

    Clinton polling like this after spending so much $ attacking Trump with the media on her side while Trump spent nearly nothing – WOW.

    Roger Smith , September 3, 2016 at 12:45 pm

    Where does it show him leading? When I went just now he was down 36 to 41.

    timbers , September 3, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    Hmm…not sure why you're getting that…I see 41-40. Dated 8-31 maybe it's too old?

    Steve H. , September 3, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    The numbers on the right change depending on where your cursor is, that's probably what happened.

    allan , September 3, 2016 at 12:58 pm

    Impossible. Let me Krug-splain that to you:

    If you are still on the fence in the Democratic primary, or still persuadable, you should know that Vox interviewed a number of political scientists about the electability of Bernie Sanders, and got responses ranging from warnings about a steep uphill climb to predictions of a McGovern-Nixon style blowout defeat. …

    On electability, by all means consider the evidence and reach your own conclusions. But do consider the evidence - don't decide what you want to believe and then make up justifications. The stakes are too high for that, and history will not forgive you.

    From February.

    timbers , September 3, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    Well ok then obviously Putin is now hacking the Reuters polls now, too.

    From the always apocalyptic ZeroHedge:

    Trump's rise in popularity began when he started reaching out to the black and hispanic communities and Hillary's slide began as more and more disturbing facts were exposed of Hillary's time as Secretary of State.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 3, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Clinton is the Fool-Me-Twice candidate here.

    First, Bill. Then, Hillary.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 3, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    The money raised in August will come in handy.

    I suggest more phone calls from the DNC to more media executives.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Why on the night of August 6, in front of 24 million people, the Fox pressitutes (sorry moderators) peppered Trump with hard-hitting questions

    Notable quotes:
    "... Do it her way, or wish you had. ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Steve H. , September 3, 2016 at 9:20 am

    – "Murdoch told Ailes he wanted Fox's debate moderators - Kelly, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace - to hammer Trump on a variety of issues. Ailes, understanding the GOP electorate better than most at that point, likely thought it was a bad idea. "Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee," Ailes told a colleague around this time. But he didn't fight Murdoch on the debate directive.

    On the night of August 6, in front of 24 million people, the Fox moderators peppered Trump with harder-hitting questions." [Roger's Angels]

    Fascinating article, including tactics on taking down the powerful. "It took 15 days to end the mighty 20-year reign of Roger Ailes at Fox News, one of the most storied runs in media and political history."

    Robert Hahl , September 3, 2016 at 11:51 am

    "Making things look worse for Ailes, three days after Carlson's suit was filed, New York published the accounts of six other women who claimed to have been harassed by Ailes over the course of three decades. " 6 More Women Allege That Roger Ailes Sexually Harassed Them

    So, who had that story cooking and ready to serve? Call me a conspiracy nut, but one of Hillary's big problems is (or was) her husband's womanizing. Now right wingers are worse!

    Robert Hahl , September 3, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    p.s. I am working on campaign slogans for Hillary how about this one:

    Do it her way, or wish you had.

    Maybe that one should wait until after the election.

    fresno dan , September 3, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    Steve H.
    September 3, 2016 at 9:20 am

    My comment is in moderation limbo – how similar to Catholic limbo, I have no idea…
    Anyway, the point I always make is that Murdoch is not ideologically and/or repub conservative – other than he believes he should be able to make as much money as possible. His interest in Ailes was always primarily the ability of Ailes to bring in great profits for Fox.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Trump and Fox news

    Notable quotes:
    "... The prospect of Trump TV is a source of real anxiety for some inside Fox. The candidate took the wedge issues that Ailes used to build a loyal audience at Fox News - especially race and class - and used them to stoke barely containable outrage among a downtrodden faction of conservatives. ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    fresno dan , September 3, 2016 at 7:48 am

    Also, Ailes has made the Murdochs a lot of ­money - Fox News generates more than $1 billion annually, which accounts for 20 percent of 21st Century Fox's profits - and Rupert worried that perhaps only Ailes could run the network so successfully. "Rupert is in the clouds; he didn't appreciate how toxic an environment it was that Ailes created," a person close to the Murdochs said. "If the money hadn't been so good, then maybe they would have asked questions."

    What NBC considered fireable offenses, Murdoch saw as competitive advantages. He hired Ailes to help achieve a goal that had eluded Murdoch for a decade: busting CNN's cable news monopoly. Back in the mid-'90s, no one thought it could be done. "I'm looking forward to squishing Rupert like a bug," CNN founder Ted Turner boasted at an industry conference. But Ailes recognized how key wedge issues - race, religion, class - could turn conservative voters into loyal viewers.
    ….
    The prospect of Trump TV is a source of real anxiety for some inside Fox. The candidate took the wedge issues that Ailes used to build a loyal audience at Fox News - especially race and class - and used them to stoke barely containable outrage among a downtrodden faction of conservatives.

    Where that outrage is channeled after the election - assuming, as polls now suggest, Trump doesn't make it to the White House - is a big question for the Republican Party and for Fox News. Trump had a complicated relationship with Fox even when his good friend Ailes was in charge; without Ailes, it's plausible that he will try to monetize the movement he has galvanized in competition with the network rather than in concert with it. Trump's appointment of Steve Bannon, chairman of Breitbart, the digital-media upstart that has by some measures already surpassed Fox News as the locus of conservative energy, to run his campaign suggests a new right-wing news network of some kind is a real possibility. One prominent media executive told me that if Trump loses, Fox will need to try to damage him in the eyes of its viewers by blaming him for the defeat.
    =======================================
    Just to reiterate a point I have made time and again, with Murdoch it is all about the money.
    It will indeed be ironic if Fox news collapses because the ultimate outcome of their brand of "conservatism" failed to become president.
    I can see the new "network" questioning whether that Australian, an internationalist, really wants whats best for America…

    Robert Hahl , September 3, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    It looks like Roger Ailes will be available to run Trump TV, starting Wednesday, November 9, 2016. Does he have a non-compete to worry about?

    [Sep 03, 2016] September 3, 2016 at 8:17 am

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is worth quoting US Senator Tom Hayden about the CIA's involvement in Hollywood… ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Cultural Imperialism and Perception Management: How Hollywood Hides US War Crimes Strategic Culture

    Movies are used to identify which individuals, groups, peoples, and nations are heroes, victims, aggressors, and villains. In this regard Hollywood vilifies countries like Iran, China, Russia, Cuba, and North Korea while it lionizes the United States. Hollywood also warps historical narratives and reifies revisionist narratives of history. In a far stretch from the historical facts and reality, this is why most US citizens and many Western Europeans believe that the outcome of the Second World War in Europe was decided in the Atlantic by the US and not in Eastern Europe and Central Asia by the Soviet Union.

    =======================================================
    I would posit that Hollywood is culturally "liberal" (like dems, as a "brand") but operationally "conservative" – that is Hillary liberalism that holds that America is "exceptional" and that the motives of the country are always good. And "conservative" in the Murdochian view – the media is too make money, and if people want to believe in "Merica, and the Easter Bunny, than a movie with a machine gun welding Easter bunny freeing Syrians will be made… (and of course the bunny will have as an ally a wise ass 12 year old hip hop spouting Syrian male teenager who saves the day by calling in an air strike using his I-phone, as well as a sexy female middle eastern woman who keeps her head covered but her decolettage uncovered as much as possible while keeping a PR-13 rating…..)

    Steve H. , September 3, 2016 at 8:41 am

    – The recognized establishment of ties between Hollywood and the US government began with the production of the silent war movie Wings in 1927.

    Wings won the first Academy Award for Best Picture.

    'Hollywood, where they talk like hippies and act like gangsters.'

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 3, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    Hollywood has been busy building more and more walls between the exceptional ones and the rest of the world.

    They probably resent very much Trump or anyone else encroaching on their monopoly.

    RabidGandhi , September 3, 2016 at 8:48 am

    Nice article, in desperate need of proofreading/fact checking. For example:


    It is worth quoting US Senator Tom Hayden about the CIA's involvement in Hollywood…

    On the other hand, now that we've dispensed with elections, it doesn't really matter if one is a state senator or a US senator.

    Jim Haygood , September 3, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Once I emerged from the Old Ebbitt Grill in D.C. and was accosted by a well-groomed but temporarily disheveled man in a tailored grey suit, who appeared to be quite drunk.

    "Hey Senator … hey Senator!" he called out, following a few steps behind on the sidewalk.

    You too can be Senator for a day. On the other hand, no one picked up the bar tab for my night as a solon. :-(

    RabidGandhi , September 3, 2016 at 9:17 am

    Next day he was sober, but unfortunately you were still a senator.

    fresno dan , September 3, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    Jim Haygood
    September 3, 2016 at 9:07 am

    On the other hand, no one picked up the bar tab for my night as a solon. :-(

    Shocking! The US would be a far, far better place were it run under the precepts of Jim Haygood. And should I ever have the pleasure of meeting you, I certainly will buy you a beer….tomorrow…

    JTMcPhee , September 3, 2016 at 10:34 am

    Anyone interested in "history" and scope of involvement of not just Hollywood but pretty much every part of the intellectual and entertainment sectors might want to read "The Cultural Cold War." By France's Stonor Saunders.

    Here's a couple of briefer links that help "paint the picture" (and write the prose and poetry and screenplays and the rest) of how the Really Smart and Evil People that aggregated in the CIA to "advance American (sic) interests" went about it:

    https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/saunders-cold.html

    http://libcom.org/history/articles/cultural-cold-war

    On Project MUSE, the "initiative" of this war front in Europe, there's this: http://muse.jhu.edu/article/210100

    No, there's no such thing as a "deep state," maybe, but there sure are a whole lot of critters that all seem to be pushing and pulling the political economy in the same direction, all while us mopes who are dragged along, and sometimes help to our short-term poorly perceived chimerical "gain" and actual disadvantage are along for the ride. Because of the nature of humans in their individual and collective capacities.

    Seems to me the "outcomes" that the larger political economy produces, the concentration of wealth, the destruction for profit and looting we call so unadvisedly "war," may be an engineering error in our genome. All this in service of the desire of a very few to do what? Maximize their personal and class pleasure? Still scratching my head, to the point of raising wheals, over why the Few who inherit the genes coded for accumulation and destruction also manage to lead the most of us toward the cliff.

    Most species, I believe, have an instinctual drive to survive (occasionally confused, as with the male English crossbill, whose sexual success depends on the female getting hot at the sight of a bigger bill than the next wiener, thanks to genetic wiring, on developing over generations ever larger crossed bills, to the point that the species survival is threatened because the dumb birds can screw but not eat.) We have runaway "tech" that has Really Smart Technologists building New! Improved! Generations of nuclear weapons, autonomous war machines, and now I read that some set of ass%%%%%s has sequenced and reproduced Y. pestis, particularly the worst version responsible for enormous plagues, and that is just one of the many "revivals" of human and animal disease organisms that are underway as so blandly described in the language of "science:" http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3412127 And of course the many scary stories reported here of how vulnerable the grand Internet and all our data and algomoney and personal information and tech-dependent infrastructure from dams and power grids to code-driven cars and communicators to "lifesaving" (and profit-generating) devices like pacemakers (but not Dick Cheney's, or maybe since he got a new heart he doesn't need one any more).

    So not that it matters an infinitesimal bit what my personal state of knowledge and awareness is, I am completely puzzled at what the goal(s) of all the churning and burning and droning and scientizing might happen to be.

    What drives the very small bit of the species to keep ginning up threats, up to and including serial financial collapses and global climate disaster and nuclear war and a "Terminator" future," to do what they do?

    hunkerdown , September 3, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    I would posit that Hollywood is culturally "liberal" (like dems, as a "brand") but operationally "conservative"

    Liberalism - and again, I draw a distinction between noblesse oblige liberalism (modulo the darkies) that people seem to project onto FDR, and liberalism as a school of thought - is aspirational and competitive, and therefore intrinsically and inevitably produces (and reproduces) the very inequities to which it styles itself the solution. Championing inequity as a force for good, regardless of the tendentiously self-serving rationalizations required, is no different than putting the poor on the Gaza Strip Diet to "help" them, i.e. inherently, not operationally, conservative.

    [Sep 03, 2016] September 2, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    Notable quotes:
    "... The article on the difficulty of taking over the Democratic Party hits the nail on the head, but it misses the Michels-ian problem: organizations have a tendency (but not this is a tendency, not a rule or fate) towards increasing oligarchy over time, and organizational members are socialized to trust and obey party leadership. ..."
    "... if you and a faction entered and created a "Destroy the Dems" faction you'd be ignored or hunted out of the party, especially if you pointedly attacked the Dems oligarchy and were openly hostile to their officials, platform and the president – though I would argue you'd need exactly a "Destroy the Dems" faction to succeed in smashing the party oligarchy and changing the culture. ..."
    "... Lack of democracy is a persistent theme in studies of parties for the last century. ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    The article on the difficulty of taking over the Democratic Party hits the nail on the head, but it misses the Michels-ian problem: organizations have a tendency (but not this is a tendency, not a rule or fate) towards increasing oligarchy over time, and organizational members are socialized to trust and obey party leadership. Factional dissidents within the Dems have to contend not only with the party oligarchy and its formidable resources, the decentralized and sprawling nature of the organization, but with a membership that barely participates but, when it does, turns out when and how the leadership wants.

    The Militant Labour tendency example isn't perfect – entryism into a Parliamentary party is easier than our party system – but it speaks volumes. To get a hearing from the party membership you can only criticize so much of the organization itself; if you and a faction entered and created a "Destroy the Dems" faction you'd be ignored or hunted out of the party, especially if you pointedly attacked the Dems oligarchy and were openly hostile to their officials, platform and the president – though I would argue you'd need exactly a "Destroy the Dems" faction to succeed in smashing the party oligarchy and changing the culture.

    Keep in mind I do say this as a Green and a person who did his PhD on inner-party democracy (or lack thereof). Lack of democracy is a persistent theme in studies of parties for the last century.

    It would make more sense to really unite the left around electoral reform in the long run and push for proportional representation at the state/local level for legislatures and city councils. While it would probably be preferable for democracy's sake to have one big district elected with an open-list vote, in the US context we'd probably go the German route of mixed-member proportional that combines geographical single-member districts with proportional voting.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Top 7 ways America Has Alienated Vladimir Putin Information Clearing House - ICH

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Vladimir Putin and Russian Statecraft," ..."
    "... "In a bold decision… Putin made Russia the most important U.S. ally in the war against the Taliban," ..."
    "... "Among other things, he accelerated deliveries of weapons to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan so that when the Alliance marched into Kabul it did so with Russian, not American, weapons and vehicles. He encouraged the governments of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to allow American military bases on their territory." ..."
    "... "He opened Russian airspace for American overflights to bases in Central Asia so that the US could conduct search and rescue operations for U.S. airmen ..."
    "... "there is no such thing as gratitude in politics" ..."
    "... According to Stephen Cohen, the US repaid Putin for his "extraordinary assistance" by "further expanding NATO to Russia's borders and by unilaterally withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which Moscow regarded as the linchpin of its nuclear security." ..."
    "... With friends like this who needs enemies? ..."
    "... "red line" ..."
    "... "within one week". ..."
    "... "It absolutely is a diplomatic win by Putin right now," ..."
    "... "If we think about this as judo, which is of course Mr. Putin's favorite sport, this is just one set of moves," ..."
    "... "And right now, he's managed to get Obama off the mat, at least, and get the terms set down that play to his advantage." ..."
    "... "scrap" ..."
    "... "neutralize Russia's nuclear potential" ..."
    "... "The US is attempting to achieve strategic military superiority, with all the consequences that entails," ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
    Putin provides 'extraordinary assistance' to 'War on Terror'

    It is no secret that following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 against the US, Putin was the first global leader to telephone US President George W. Bush. And he didn't call collect. Moreover, the Russian leader offered more than just words of condolence. He pushed through a raft of legislation to assist the US in the fight against terrorism.

    In his 2011 book, "Vladimir Putin and Russian Statecraft," Allen C. Lynch documented Putin's contributions to America's endless 'War on Terror'.

    "In a bold decision… Putin made Russia the most important U.S. ally in the war against the Taliban," Lynch wrote. "Among other things, he accelerated deliveries of weapons to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan so that when the Alliance marched into Kabul it did so with Russian, not American, weapons and vehicles. He encouraged the governments of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to allow American military bases on their territory."

    And here is my personal favorite: "He opened Russian airspace for American overflights to bases in Central Asia so that the US could conduct search and rescue operations for U.S. airmen (Please imagine the howl of pain that would echo across Washington if any US president allowed Russian military overflights across US territory into South America!).

    Despite Putin's extreme generosity bestowed upon the US military and intelligence apparatus, Washington proved Graham Greene's adage "there is no such thing as gratitude in politics" by ratcheting up pressure against Russia for no good reason whatsoever.

    According to Stephen Cohen, the US repaid Putin for his "extraordinary assistance" by "further expanding NATO to Russia's borders and by unilaterally withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which Moscow regarded as the linchpin of its nuclear security."

    With friends like this who needs enemies?

    6. Putin gives Washington a chance to pass on war (for a change)

    After spending prodigious amounts of money, material and manpower fighting fundamentalists in the desert, some might be tempted to think the US would relish any opportunity to avoid another military misadventure. If you believed that, you haven't been paying attention to what's been occurring in the Middle East since 2002 with the US invasion of Afghanistan.

    Future historians (that is, assuming there is a future where historians may ponder the past) may one day mark August 29, 2013 as the day when the American Empire first started showing signs of wear and tear. That was when UK Prime Minister David Cameron failed to secure approval in the House of Commons to join yet another US-led serial killing, this time in Syria, after President Bashar Assad purportedly crossed Obama's whimsical "red line" and used chemical weapons against the Syrian opposition (an assertion that was never proven).

    This placed the Obama administration in a bind, eventually leading to a 'slip of the tongue' by US Secretary of State John Kerry, who remarked that Syria could avoid an American blitzkrieg if it agreed to surrender its chemical weapons "within one week". Infuriatingly for the US neocons, Putin successfully convinced Damascus to remove its chemical weapons with all due haste.

    NATO missile defense goes live in Europe, isolating Russia not the goal – Stoltenberg https://t.co/hzCkN3l7yw #WSEF16

    - RT (@RT_com) July 9, 2016

    Predictably, however, US media and thinktankdom portrayed Putin's eleventh-hour diplomacy, which delayed the obliteration of yet another Middle East state, as some sort of geopolitical ploy.

    "It absolutely is a diplomatic win by Putin right now," Fiona Hill, director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution, told CNN.

    I was almost expecting Fiona to employ some sort of judo analogy next. Oh wait, she did.

    "If we think about this as judo, which is of course Mr. Putin's favorite sport, this is just one set of moves," she said. "And right now, he's managed to get Obama off the mat, at least, and get the terms set down that play to his advantage."

    Think about that. If that was the best press Putin could get when he helped America to avoid yet another military smash-up, chances are negligible that he would ever get positive reviews under normal circumstances. And therein, dear reader, lies the rub: America has come to the psychotic point in its foreign policy when avoiding military conflict is actually viewed as a setback.

    5. Putin offers cooperation on US missile defense system in Eastern Europe

    In May, the US put the finishing touches on its Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System in Romania , the culmination of a decades-worth of disingenuous negotiations with Moscow.

    Washington's determination to build this system, which Moscow naturally views as a major security threat smoking on its doorstep, has completely upset the strategic balance in the region. Russia is now forced to respond to this system with more powerful and elusive ballistic missiles. In other words, our tiny, fragile planet, thanks to the surrogate mother of global upheaval and chaos, Lady Liberty, is experiencing the birth pains of another arms race between the world's two nuclear superpowers. This did not have to be.

    Early in his presidency, Obama announced he would "scrap" the Bush administration's defense system, slated for Poland and the Czech Republic, after it was determined that Iran was not the existential threat to Eastern Europe that his predecessor had touted it as.

    This seemed to indicate an open window of opportunity for Russia-US cooperation (in fact, the fate of the New START nuclear disarmament treaty, signed into force between Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama on April 8, 2010, hinged on bilateral cooperation). Russia even proposed the two countries share the Qabala Radar in Azerbaijan, which Russia leased at the time, but the US rejected the proposal even though it made more tactical sense.

    Eventually, it became maddeningly apparent that the US was bluffing, dangling the carrot of mutual cooperation with Russia at the same time a new missile defense system was moving forward.

    In November, Putin rightly accused the US of attempting to "neutralize Russia's nuclear potential" by camouflaging their real designs behind Iran and North Korea.

    "The US is attempting to achieve strategic military superiority, with all the consequences that entails," he said.

    Obama's failure to cooperate with Putin on this game-changing system has been the real source of bad blood between the two nuclear superpowers.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Samir Amin How to Defeat the Collective Imperialism of the Triad

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Triad is the United States, Western and Central Europe, and Japan. This group of countries has become a single imperialist power, the leader of which is the US. This has led to the deepening of the depth of the crisis. The crisis is in the shape of an "L". The normal crisis is in the shape of a "U", the economy rises up after the decline. But this crisis is different. There is no way out of the crisis; the only way to get out is to move out of capitalism. There is no other possible solution. Capitalism should be considered as a moribund system. In order to survive it is moving to destruction and to wars. ..."
    "... Maybe Russia is moving in this direction, but not as much as China, because it has paid a very big price for the destruction of the shock therapy from Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Those leaders have led Russia to a private oligarchy, closely related to the international financial capitalism of the US, Germany and others. This has reduced Russian capacity of control. But now Russia is moving gradually towards reestablishing control of the state over its own economy. ..."
    "... The world now is in serious danger. The collective imperialism of the US, Western Europe and Japan are run by US leadership. In order to keep their exclusive control over the whole planet, they do not accept independence of other countries. They do not respect the independence if China and Russia. That is why we are about to face continuous wars all over the world. The radical Islamists are the allies of imperialism, because they are supported by the US in order to carry out destabilization. This is permanent war. I do believe that the best response to it is the Eurasian project. Russia should unite with China, Central Asian countries, Iran and Syria. This alliance could be also very attractive for Africa and good parts of Latin America. In such a case, imperialism would be isolated. ..."
    Feb 09, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press
    Samir Amin, world-known economist, explains the reason of decadent condition of the modern economy and gives the recipe of the salvation from global imperialism. An exclusive interview for Katehon

    I can sum my point of view on the situation over the modern economy in the following way. We have been in a long systemic crisis of capitalism, which has started in 1975 with the end of the convertibility of the Dollar in gold. It is not a like the famous financial crisis in 2008. No, it is a long systematic crisis of monopoly capitalism which started forty years ago and it continues. The capitalists reacted to the crisis with the sets of measures. The first one was to strengthen centralization of control over the economy by the monopolies. An oligarchy is ruling all capitalist countries – the United States, Germany, France, Great Britain and Russia as well. The second measure was to convert all economic activity productions into subcontractors of monopoly capital. I mean, they have not even a hint of freedom. Competition is just rhetoric, there is no competition. There is an oligarchy which is controlling the whole economic system. Now, we are facing a united front of imperialist powers, which are forming a Collective imperialism of the Triad.

    The Triad is the United States, Western and Central Europe, and Japan. This group of countries has become a single imperialist power, the leader of which is the US. This has led to the deepening of the depth of the crisis. The crisis is in the shape of an "L". The normal crisis is in the shape of a "U", the economy rises up after the decline. But this crisis is different. There is no way out of the crisis; the only way to get out is to move out of capitalism. There is no other possible solution. Capitalism should be considered as a moribund system. In order to survive it is moving to destruction and to wars.

    We have an alternative which is the socialism. I know that it is not very popular to say, but the only solution is socialism. It is a long road which starts from reducing the power of the oligarchy, reinforcing the state control and establish a state-capitalism, which should replace private capitalism. It doesn't mean that private capitalism will not survive, but it should be subordinated to state control. The state control should be used also in order to support a social progressive policy. This should guarantee good full-employment, social services, education, transport, infrastructure, security etc.

    The role of China is very big, because it is, perhaps, the only country in the world today, which has a sovereign project. That means that it is trying to establish a pattern of modern industry, in which of course, private capital has a wide place, but it is under the strict control of the state. Simultaneously it gives a view of the present to the culture. The other pattern of Chinese economy culture is based on family producers. China is walking on two legs: following the traditions and participating globalization. They accept foreign investments, but keep independence of their financial system. The Chinese bank system is exclusively state-controlled. The Yuan is convertible only to a certain extent, but under the control of the bank of China. That is the best model that we have today to respond to the challenge of globalists imperialism.

    Maybe Russia is moving in this direction, but not as much as China, because it has paid a very big price for the destruction of the shock therapy from Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Those leaders have led Russia to a private oligarchy, closely related to the international financial capitalism of the US, Germany and others. This has reduced Russian capacity of control. But now Russia is moving gradually towards reestablishing control of the state over its own economy.

    The world now is in serious danger. The collective imperialism of the US, Western Europe and Japan are run by US leadership. In order to keep their exclusive control over the whole planet, they do not accept independence of other countries. They do not respect the independence if China and Russia. That is why we are about to face continuous wars all over the world. The radical Islamists are the allies of imperialism, because they are supported by the US in order to carry out destabilization. This is permanent war. I do believe that the best response to it is the Eurasian project. Russia should unite with China, Central Asian countries, Iran and Syria. This alliance could be also very attractive for Africa and good parts of Latin America. In such a case, imperialism would be isolated.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Dont Underestimate How Much Steve Bannon Can Damage Hillary Clinton

    Aug 29, 2016 |

    Years ago, Seinfeld royalties freed Steve Bannon, the new CEO of Trump's presidential campaign, from needing to work for a living, allowing him to throw himself into extremist and racist alt-right politics.

    Working in the film business, I briefly met the Donald Trump Republican presidential campaign's new CEO, Steve Bannon, during the 1990s when he was a Hollywood investment banker. As one producer whom Bannon helped raise capital for told me, even back then he was an angry, racist, egregiously aggressive, and inappropriately temperamental character.

    Bannon was also whip smart with a sophisticated understanding of how the media works.

    Inside the liberal bubble, Democrats may be taking Bannon's appointment to help run Trump's campaign as a something of a joke. But, at their peril, they underestimate Bannon's ability to harm Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee.

    Bannon was one of the early Harvard MBA-type financial pirates who realized that Wall Street money could be tapped to finance film and television, often with disastrous results for the investors but with great results for the Hollywood studios and the financial engineers like Bannon who brokered the deals.

    In the late '80s-early '90s, Wall Street discovered that intellectual property like movies and television and the companies that owned them could be bought, sold and traded just like hard assets such as real estate and commodities. Bannon engineered some of those transactions, first as a specialist at Goldman Sachs, then at his own boutique investment bank Bannon & Co., and briefly in partnership with a volatile manager Jeff Kwatinetz (whose first claim to fame was discovering the heavy metal band Korn and managing The Backstreet Boys).

    Bannon was tough and merciless. It was Bannon who personally stuck the shiv in the heart of former superagent and Disney President Michael Ovitz, effectively ending the career of the man who had been known as the most powerful person in Hollywood.

    After being fired by Disney, Ovitz set out to create a powerful new entertainment company called the American Management Group, with clients like Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz, in which Ovitz invested over $100 million of his own money. (I remember visiting AMG's new offices, the most expensive and lavish in Beverly Hills, with millions of dollars in art by the likes of Mark Rothko and Jasper Johns adorning the walls.) But AMG was an abject failure, bleeding millions of dollars a month, while Ovitz desperately sought a buyer. Finally, the only available buyer was Kwatinetz and Bannon.

    According to Vanity Fair , Bannon went alone to see Ovitz and offered him $5 million, none in cash. After a moment of silence, Ovitz told Bannon, "If I didn't know you personally, I'd throw you out of the room." But out of options, Ovitz ended up selling to Kwatinetz and Bannon's company, effectively ending Ovitz's legendary Hollywood career. (Remember that, Hillary.)

    Bannon's smartest (or luckiest) deal was brokering the sale of Rob Reiner's company, Castle Rock Entertainment, to Ted Turner. In lieu of part of its brokerage fee, Bannon & Co. agreed to take a piece of the future syndication revenues from five TV shows, one of which turned out to be "Seinfeld." The rest is history.

    The Seinfeld royalties freed Bannon (with a reported net worth of $41 million) from needing to work for a living, allowing him to try his hand at producing (including the Sean Penn-directed "Indian Runner" and a number of right-wing documentaries) and then to throw himself into extremist and racist alt-right politics.

    He invested $1 million in a laudatory film about Sarah Palin and became a close confidante. He then attached himself to Andrew Breitbart and took over Breitbart News after Andrew Breitbart's sudden death at 43, moving the already far-right website closer to the openly white nationalist alt-right. There he became a major advocate for Trump before being tapped to help run his campaign.

    But Bannon's real danger doesn't come so much from his work with Breitbart News, which plays mostly to the angry, racist white base. It comes more from the Bannon-funded Government Accountability Institute, a research institute staffed with some very smart and talented investigative journalists, data scientists and lawyers.

    GAI's staff does intensive and deep investigative research digging up hard-to-find, but well-documented dirt on major politicians and then feeding it to the mainstream media to disseminate to the general public.

    Among other things, its staff has developed protocols to access the so-called "deep web," which consists of a lot of old or useless information and information in foreign languages which don't show up in traditional web searches, but often contains otherwise undiscoverable and sometimes scandalous information which Bannon then feeds to the mainstream media.

    For example, Bannon is responsible for uncovering former liberal New York congressman Anthony Weiner (husband of Hillary Clinton's personal aide Huma Abedin) tweeting photos of his crotch to various women. Bannon hired trackers to follow Weiner's Twitter account 24 hours a day until they eventually uncovered the infamous crotch shots. They released them to the mass media, effectively ending Weiner's political career. (Remember that, Hillary.)

    Bannon's mantra for GAI is "Facts get shares, opinions get shrugs." GAI's strategy is to feed damaging, fact-based stories that will get headlines in the mainstream media and change mass perceptions. According to Bloomberg , "GAI has collaborated with such mainstream media outlets as Newsweek, ABC News, and CBS's "60 Minutes" on stories ranging from insider trading in Congress to credit card fraud among presidential campaigns. It's essentially a mining operation for political scoops."

    One of Bannon's key insights is that economic imperatives have caused mainstream media outlets to drastically cut back budgets for investigative reporting. "The modern economics of the newsroom don't support big investigative reporting staffs," says Bannon. "You wouldn't get a Watergate, a Pentagon Papers today, because nobody can afford to let a reporter spend seven months on a story. We can. We're working as a support function."

    So GAI's strategy is to spend weeks and months doing the fact-based research that investigative reporters in the mainstream media no longer have the resources to do, creating a compelling story line, and then feeding the story to investigative reporters who, whatever their personal political views, are anxious in their professional capacity to jump on. As a key GAI staffer says, "We're not going public until we have something so tantalizing that any editor at a serious publication would be an idiot to pass it up and give a competitor a scoop."

    It's likely no accident that in the week since Bannon officially joined the Trump campaign, media attention has shifted from focusing primarily on Trump's gaffes to potential corrupting contributions to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for access to Secretary of State Clinton.

    GAI's biggest, and most effective project has been to uncover the nexus between Bill and Hillary's paid speeches, contributions to the Clinton Foundation by corrupt oligarchs and billionaires, and access to the State Department by donors. The research culminated in the book "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweitzer, president of GAI, and published by mainstream publisher Harpers.

    The back cover of "Clinton Cash" summarizes its premise:

    "The Clintons typically blur the lines between politics, philanthropy, and business. Consider the following: Bill flies into a Third World country where he spends time in the company of a businessman. A deal is struck. Soon after, enormous contributions are made to the Clinton Foundation, while Bill is commissioned to deliver a series of highly paid speeches. Some of these deals require approval or review by the US government and fall within the purview of a powerful senator and secretary of state. Often the people involved are characters of the kind that an American ex-president (or the spouse of a sitting senator, secretary of state, or presidential candidate) should have nothing to do with."

    Bannon and Schweitzer have so far failed to prove any explicit quid pro quo. But they're highly successful at making the nexus between the Clinton Foundation, Bill and Hillary Clinton's paid speeches, and special access for donors feel dirty and unseemly.

    Before and after its publication, "Clinton Cash" got considerable play in the mainstream media. The New York Times ran a front-page story with the headline, "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal," drawing on research from "Clinton Cash."

    In an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, Larry Lessig, Harvard Law professor and progressive crusader against money in politics concluded, "On any fair reading, the pattern that Schweitzer has charged is corruption." And it seems that Bannon and Schweitzer have more damaging research on the Clintons that they will drip out through the campaign. Schweitzer has warned that more emails are coming showing Clinton's State Department doing favors for foreign oligarchs.

    Bannon's strategy may not be enough to win the White House for Trump. But it will almost certainly do further damage to Clinton. Voters already think Clinton is less trustworthy than Trump. According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, 53 percent of likely voters say Trump is not honest (with 42 percent saying he is honest). But a huge 66 percent of voters say Clinton is not honest, compared to 29 percent who say she is.

    Bannon's work for Trump could drive Clinton's honesty score even lower. Clinton's core strategy has been to disqualify Trump as a potential president and commander-in-chief among a majority of voters. Bannon's strategy is to do the same for Clinton.

    Faced with a choice between two presidential candidates whom a large swath of voters find untrustworthy and distasteful, Trump's outrageousness may still enable Clinton to grind out a victory from a sullen electorate. But it's going to get even uglier. And even if Clinton wins, popular distrust could harm her ability to govern.

    In that context, it would be a huge mistake for Democrats and the Clinton campaign to underestimate Steve Bannon. This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

    Miles Mogulescu Miles Mogulescu is an entertainment attorney/business affairs executive, producer, political activist and writer. Professionally, he is a former senior vice president at MGM. He has been a lifelong progressive since the age of 12 when his father helped raise money for Dr. Martin Luther King, who was a guest in his home several times. More recently, he organized a program on single-payer health care at the Take Back America Conference, a two-day conference on Money in Politics at UCLA Law School, and "Made in Cuba," the largest exhibition of contemporary Cuban art ever held in Southern California. He co-produced and co-directed Union Maids , a film about three women union organizers in Chicago in the 1930s and '40s, which was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Russia's False Hopes

    Notable quotes:
    "... The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status. ..."
    "... Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia. ..."
    "... Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe. Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe. ..."
    "... Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put their war planes into the air. ..."
    "... Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional, indispensable" country. No other country has this rank ..."
    "... A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of" any such country. ..."
    "... If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government is out to lunch. ..."
    "... Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington can be a partner. ..."
    "... These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony. ..."
    "... Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World Hegemony ..."
    09, 2015 | Defend Democracy Press

    Russia so desperately desires to be part of the disreputable and collapsing West that Russia is losing its grip on reality.

    Despite hard lesson piled upon hard lesson, Russia cannot give up its hope of being acceptable to the West. The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status.

    Russia miscalculated that diplomacy could solve the crisis that Washington created in Ukraine and placed its hopes on the Minsk Agreement, which has no Western support whatsoever, neither in Kiev nor in Washington, London, and NATO.

    Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia.

    Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe. Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe.

    Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put their war planes into the air.

    This is the failure of diplomacy, not its success. Diplomacy cannot succeed when only one side believes in diplomacy and the other side believes in force.

    Russia needs to understand that diplomacy cannot work with Washington and its NATO vassals who do not believe in diplomacy, but rely instead on force. Russia needs to understand that when Washington declares that Russia is an outlaw state that "does not act in accordance with international norms," Washington means that Russia is not following Washington's orders. By "international norms," Washington means Washington's will. Countries that are not in compliance with Washington's will are not acting in accordance with "international norms."

    Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional, indispensable" country. No other country has this rank.

    A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of" any such country.

    Russia, China, and Iran are in Washington's crosshairs. Treaties and "cooperation" mean nothing. Cooperation only causes Washington's targets to lose focus and to forget that they are targets. Russia's foreign minister Lavrov seems to believe that now with the failure of Washington's policy of war and destruction in the Middle East, Washington and Russia can work together to contain the ISIS jihadists in Iraq and Syria. This is a pipe dream. Russia and Washington cannot work together in Syria and Iraq, because the two governments have conflicting goals. Russia wants peace, respect for international law, and the containment of radical jihadists elements. Washington wants war, no legal constraints, and is funding radical jihadist elements in the interest of Middle East instability and overthrow of Assad in Syria. Even if Washington desired the same goals as Russia, for Washington to work with Russia would undermine the picture of Russia as a threat and enemy.

    Russia, China, and Iran are the three countries that can constrain Washington's unilateral action. Consequently, the three countries are in danger of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. If these countries are so naive as to believe that they can now work with Washington, given the failure of Washington's 14-year old policy of coercion and violence in the Middle East, by rescuing Washington from the quagmire it created that gave rise to the Islamic State, they are deluded sitting ducks for a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

    Washington created the Islamic State. Washington used these jihadists to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent them to overthrow Assad in Syria. The American neoconservatives, everyone of whom is allied with Zionist Israel, do not want any cohesive state in the Middle East capable of interfering with a "Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates."

    The ISIS jihadists learned that Washington's policy of murdering and displacing millions of Muslims in seven countries had created an anti-Western constituency for them among the peoples of the Middle East and have begun acting independently of their Washington creators.

    The consequence is more chaos in the Middle East and Washington's loss of control.

    Instead of leaving Washington to suffer at the hands of its own works, Russia and Iran, the two most hated and demonized countries in the West, have rushed to rescue Washington from its Middle East follies. This is the failure of Russian and Iranian strategic thinking. Countries that cannot think strategically do not survive.

    The Iranians need to understand that their treaty with Washington means nothing. Washington has never honored any treaty. Just ask the Plains Indians or the last Soviet President Gorbachev.

    If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government is out to lunch.

    Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington can be a partner.

    These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony.

    Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World Hegemony.

    Only Russia and China can save the world from Armageddon, but are they too deluded and worshipful of the West to save Planet Earth?

    [Sep 02, 2016] FBI Releases Full Report Into Hillary Clinton Email Probe Zero Hedge

    Sep 02, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Just as we predicted on a sleepy Friday afternoon ahead of a long weekend, The FBI has released a detailed report on its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, as well as a summary of her interview with agents, providing, what The Washington Post says is the most thorough look yet at the probe that has dogged the campaign of the Democratic presidential nominee.

    Official FBI Statement:

    Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure .

    We also are releasing a factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter. We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

    Appropriate redactions have been made for classified information or other material exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Additional information related to this investigation that the FBI releases in the future will be placed on The Vault, the FBI's electronic FOIA library.

    As The Washington Post adds, the documents released total 58 pages, though large portions and sometimes entire pages are redacted.

    FBI Director James B. Comey announced in July that his agency would not recommend criminal charges against Clinton for her use of a private email server. Comey said that Clinton and her staffers were "extremely careless" in how they treated classified information, but investigators did not find they intended to mishandle such material. Nor did investigators uncover exacerbating factors - like efforts to obstruct justice - that often lead to charges in similar cases, Comey said.

    The FBI turned over to several Congressional committees documents related to the probe and required they only be viewed by those with appropriate security clearances, even though not all of the material was classified, legislators and their staffers have said.

    Those documents included an investigative report and summaries of interviews with more than a dozen senior Clinton staffers, other State Department officials, former secretary of state Colin Powell and at least one other person. The documents released Friday appear to be but a fraction of those.

    ...

    Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon has said turning over the documents was "an extraordinarily rare step that was sought solely by Republicans for the purposes of further second-guessing the career professionals at the FBI."

    But he has said if the material were going to be shared outside the Justice Department, "they should be released widely so that the public can see them for themselves, rather than allow Republicans to mischaracterize them through selective, partisan leaks."

    Though Fallon seems to have gotten his wish, the public release of the documents will undoubtedly draw more attention to a topic that seems to have fueled negative perceptions of Clinton . A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found 41 percent of Americans had a favorable impression of Clinton, while 56 percent had an unfavorable one.

    Key Excerpts...

  • *CLINTON DENIED USING PRIVATE EMAIL TO AVOID FEDERAL RECORDS ACT
  • *CLINTON KNEW SHE HAD DUTY TO PRESERVE FEDERAL RECORDS: FBI
  • *COLIN POWELL WARNED CLINTON PRIVATE E-MAILS COULD BE PUBLIC:FBI
  • *FBI SAYS CLINTON LAWYERS UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY OF 13 DEVICES
  • *AT LEAST 100 STATE DEPT. WORKERS HAD CLINTON'S E-MAIL ADDRESS
  • CLINTON SAID SHE NEVER DELETED, NOR INSTRUCTED ANYONE TO DELETE, HER EMAIL TO AVOID COMPLYING WITH FEDERAL RECORDS LAWS OR FBI OR STATE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
  • CLINTON AIDES SAID SHE FREQUENTLY REPLACED HER BLACKBERRY PHONE AND THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE OLD DEVICE WOULD "FREQUENTLY BECOME UNKOWN"
  • CLINTON CONTACTED POWELL IN JANUARY 2009 TO INQUIRE ABOUT HIS USE OF A BLACKBERRY WHILE IN OFFICE; POWELL ADVISED CLINTON TO 'BE VERY CAREFUL
  • Hillary Clinton used 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads to access clintonemail.com. The FBI only had access to 2 of the iPads and The FBI found no evidence of hacking on those 2...

    And here is the email from Colin Powell telling her that emails would need to be part of the "government records" ...

    And here is Clinton denying that she used a private server to "avoid [the] Federal Records Act" as she just assumed that "based on her practice of emailing staff on their state.gov accounts, [that] communications were captured by State systems." Yes, well what about the "official" communications had with people outside of the State Department? Did retention of those emails ever cross Hillary's mind? * * * Full Report below...

    Hillary Clinton FBI Part 1 of 2

    [Sep 02, 2016] The [Neoliberal] Presss Vendetta Against Trump Is Real and Unscrupulous

    Notable quotes:
    "... Is Donald Trump really as stupid as the press seems to think? And if not, how do we explain the press's version of countless Trumpian controversies lately? ..."
    "... What is not in doubt is that if the election were to revolve around fundamental policy proposals (what an innovation!), it would be Trump's to lose. As Patrick Buchanan has observed, "on the mega-issue, America's desire for change, and on specific issues, Trump holds something close to a full house." ..."
    "... On out-of-control immigration and gratuitously counterproductive foreign military adventures, he has seriously wrong-footed Hillary Clinton. He has moreover made remarkable progress in focusing attention on America's trade disaster. Thanks in large measure to his plain talk, the Clintons have finally been forced into ignominious retreat on their previous commitment to blue-sky globalism. For more on Hillary Clinton's trade woes, click here . ..."
    "... Trump's hawkish stance not only packs wide popular appeal but, as I know from more than two decades covering the global economy from a vantage point in Tokyo, it addresses disastrous American policy-making misconceptions going back generations. ..."
    "... Smith based his intellectual edifice on the rather pedestrian observation that rainy England was good at raising sheep, while sunny Portugal excelled in growing grapes. What could be more reasonable than for England to trade its wool for Portugal's wine? But, while Smith's case is a charming insight into eighteenth century simplicities, the fact is that climate-based agricultural endowments have long since ceased to play a decisive role in First World trade. Today the key factor is advanced manufacturing. By comparison, not only is agriculture a negligible force but, as I documented in a book some years ago, even such advanced service industries as computer software are disappointing exporters. ..."
    "... In theory China should be a great market for, for instance, the U.S. auto industry – and it is, sort of. The Detroit companies have been told that while their American-made products are not welcome, they can still make money in China provided only they manufacture there AND bring their most advanced production know-how. ..."
    "... Corporate America's Chinese subsidiaries moreover are expected almost from the get-go to export. In the early days they sell mainly to Africa and Southern Asia but then, as they approach state-of-the-art quality control, they come under increasing pressure to export even to the United States – with all that that implies for the job security of the very American workers and engineers who developed the advanced production know-how in the first place. ..."
    "... Naturally all this has gone unnoticed in such reflexively anti-Trump media as the Washington Post . (A good account , however, is available at the pro-Trump website, Breitbart.com.) ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Chicago Tribune ..."
    Aug 19, 2016 | www.unz.com

    Is Donald Trump really as stupid as the press seems to think? And if not, how do we explain the press's version of countless Trumpian controversies lately?

    Take, for instance, the Kovaleski affair. According to a recent Bloomberg survey, no controversy has proven more costly to Trump.

    The episode began when, in substantiating his erstwhile widely ridiculed allegation that Arabs in New Jersey had publicly celebrated the Twin Towers attacks, Trump unearthed a 2001 newspaper account in which law enforcement authorities were stated to have detained "a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river." This seemed to settle the matter. But the report's author, Serge Kovaleski, demurred. Trump's talk of "thousands" of Arabs, he alleged, was an exaggeration.

    Trump fired back. Flailing his arms wildly in an impersonation of an embarrassed, backtracking reporter, he implied that Kovaleski had bowed to political correctness.

    So far, so normal for this election cycle. But it turned out that Kovaleski is no ordinary Trump-dissing media liberal. He suffers from arthrogryposis, a malady in which the joints are malformed.

    For Trump's critics, this was manna from heaven. Instead of merely accusing the New York real estate magnate of exaggerating a minor, if disturbing, sideshow in U.S.-Arab relations, they could now arraign him on the vastly more damaging charge of mocking a disabled person.

    Trump pleaded that he hadn't known Kovaleski was handicapped. This was undermined, however, when it emerged that in the 1980s the two had not only met but Kovaleski had even interviewed Trump in Trump Tower. Trump was reduced to pleading a fading memory, something that those of us of a certain age can sympathize with, but, of course, it didn't wash with Trump's accusers.

    In responding directly to the charge of mocking a disabled person, Trump commented: "I would never do that. Number one, I have a good heart; number two, I'm a smart person." Setting aside point one (although to the press's chagrin, many of Trump's acquaintances have testified that a streak of considerable private generosity underlies his tough-guy public image), it is hard to see how anyone can question point two. Even if he really is the sort of unspeakable buffoon who might mock someone's disability, he surely has enough political smarts to know that there is no profit in doing so in a public forum.

    There has to be something else here, and, as we will see, there is. Key details have been swept under the rug. We will get to them in a moment but first let's review the wider context. Candidate Trump's weaknesses are well-known. He is unusually thin-skinned and can readily be lured into tilting at windmills. His reality-television persona is sometimes remarkably abrasive. His penchant for speaking off-the-cuff has resulted in a series of exaggerations and outright gaffes.

    All that said, if he ends up losing in November, it will probably be less because of his own shortcomings than the amazing lengths to which the press has gone in misrepresenting him – painting him by turns weird, erratic, and downright sinister.

    What is not in doubt is that if the election were to revolve around fundamental policy proposals (what an innovation!), it would be Trump's to lose. As Patrick Buchanan has observed, "on the mega-issue, America's desire for change, and on specific issues, Trump holds something close to a full house."

    On out-of-control immigration and gratuitously counterproductive foreign military adventures, he has seriously wrong-footed Hillary Clinton. He has moreover made remarkable progress in focusing attention on America's trade disaster. Thanks in large measure to his plain talk, the Clintons have finally been forced into ignominious retreat on their previous commitment to blue-sky globalism. For more on Hillary Clinton's trade woes, click here .

    Trump's hawkish stance not only packs wide popular appeal but, as I know from more than two decades covering the global economy from a vantage point in Tokyo, it addresses disastrous American policy-making misconceptions going back generations.

    The standard Adam Smith/David Ricardo case for free trade, long considered holy writ in Washington, has in the last half century become ludicrously anachronistic.

    Smith based his intellectual edifice on the rather pedestrian observation that rainy England was good at raising sheep, while sunny Portugal excelled in growing grapes. What could be more reasonable than for England to trade its wool for Portugal's wine? But, while Smith's case is a charming insight into eighteenth century simplicities, the fact is that climate-based agricultural endowments have long since ceased to play a decisive role in First World trade. Today the key factor is advanced manufacturing. By comparison, not only is agriculture a negligible force but, as I documented in a book some years ago, even such advanced service industries as computer software are disappointing exporters.

    For nations intent on improving their manufacturing prowess (and, by extension, their standing in the world incomes league table), a key gambit is to manipulate the global trading system. Japan and Germany were the early leaders in intelligent mercantilism but in recent years the most consequential exemplar has been China.

    In theory China should be a great market for, for instance, the U.S. auto industry – and it is, sort of. The Detroit companies have been told that while their American-made products are not welcome, they can still make money in China provided only they manufacture there AND bring their most advanced production know-how.

    While such an arrangement may promise good short-term profits (nicely fattening up those notorious executive stock options), the trade-deficit-plagued American economy is immediately deprived of badly needed exports. Meanwhile the long-term implications are devastating. In industry after industry, leading American corporations have been induced not only to move jobs to China but to transfer their most advanced production technology. In many cases moreover, almost as soon as a U.S. company has transferred its production secrets to a Chinese subsidiary, these "migrate" to rising Chinese competitors. Precisely the sort of competitively crucial technology that in an earlier era ensured that American workers were not only by far the world's most productive but the world's best paid have been served up on a silver salver to America's most formidable power rival.

    Corporate America's Chinese subsidiaries moreover are expected almost from the get-go to export. In the early days they sell mainly to Africa and Southern Asia but then, as they approach state-of-the-art quality control, they come under increasing pressure to export even to the United States – with all that that implies for the job security of the very American workers and engineers who developed the advanced production know-how in the first place.

    Almost alone in corporate America, the Detroit companies have hitherto baulked at shipping their Chinese-made products back to the United States but their resolve is weakening. Already General Motors has announced that later this year it will begin selling Chinese-made Buicks in the American, European, and Canadian markets. It is the thin end of what may prove to be a very large wedge.

    Naturally all this has gone unnoticed in such reflexively anti-Trump media as the Washington Post . (A good account , however, is available at the pro-Trump website, Breitbart.com.)

    For the mainstream press, the big nation-defining issues count as nothing compared to Trump's personal peccadillos, real or, far too often, imagined.

    This brings us back to Kovaleski. Did Trump really mean to mock a handicapped person's disability? On any fair assessment, the answer is clearly No. As the Catholics 4 Trump website has documented, the media have suppressed vital exonerating evidence.

    The truth is that Trump's frenetic performance bore no resemblance to the rigid look of arthrogryposis victims. Pointing out that Kovaleski conducted no on-camera interviews in the immediate wake of the Trump performance, Catholics 4 Trump has commented:

    Shouldn't the media have been chomping at the bit to get Kovaleski in front of their cameras to embarrass Trump and prove to the world Trump was clearly mocking his disability? If the media had a legitimate story, that is exactly what they would have done and we all know it. But the media couldn't put Kovaleski in front of a camera or they'd have no story…..But, if they showed video of Trump labeled "Trump Mocks Disabled Reporter," then put up a still shot of Kovaleski, they knew you, the viewer, would assume Kovaleski's disability must make his arms move without control.

    According to Catholics 4 Trump, in the same speech in which he presented his Kovaleski cameo, Trump acted out similar histrionics to portray a flustered U.S. general. Meanwhile, on another occasion, he used the same wildly flapping hand motions to lampoon Ted Cruz's rationalizations on waterboarding. Thus as neither the flustered general nor Ted Cruz are known to be physically handicapped, we have little reason to assume that Trump's Kovaleski routine represented anything other than an admittedly eccentric portrayal of someone prevaricating under political pressure.

    Perhaps the ultimate smoking gun in all this is the behavior of the Washington Post . On August 10, it published a particularly one-sided account by Callum Borchers. When someone used the reader comments section to reference the alternative Catholics 4 Trump explanation, the links were deleted almost immediately. As Catholics 4 Trump pointed out, the Post 's hidden agenda suddenly stood revealed for all to see:

    This demonstrates that the Washington Post is aware of evidence existing that contradicts their conclusions, and that they are willfully attempting to conceal it from their readers. If Borchers and WaPo were honest and truly wanted to report ALL of the evidence for and against and let the readers decide, they would have to include the video of Kovaleski and the video of Trump impersonating a flustered General and a flustered Cruz. Any objective report would include both evidence for and against a certain interpretation of the Trump video.

    What are we to make of the various other press controversies that have increasingly dogged the Trumpmobile? For the most part, not much.

    One recurring controversy concerns how rich Trump really is. The suggestion is that his net worth is way short of the $10 billion he claims.

    He has come in for particular flak from the author Timothy O'Brien, who a decade ago pronounced him worth "$250 million tops." Although O'Brien continues to pop up regularly in places like the Washington Post and Bloomberg, his methodology has been faulted by Forbes magazine, which, of course, has long been the ultimate authority in such matters.

    What can be said for sure is that even the best informed and most impartial calculation can only be tentative. The fact is that the Trump business is private and thus not subject to daily stock market assessment.

    There is moreover a special complication almost unique to the Trump business - the value of his brand. In Trump's own mind, he seems to think of himself as a latter-day Cesar Ritz – albeit he projects less an image of five-star discretion as high-rolling hedonism. That the brand is a considerable asset, however, is obvious from the fact that he franchises it to, among others, independent real-estate developers. That said, it is an intangible whose value moves up and down in the same elevator as The Donald's personal standing in global esteem.

    All that said, in a major assessment last year, Forbes editor Randall Lane put Trump's net worth at $4.5 billion. Although that is way short of Trump's own estimate, it still bespeaks world class business acumen.

    Another controversy concerns the country of origin of Trump campaign paraphernalia. After he disclosed that his ties were made in China, his criticism of America's huge bilateral trade deficit with China was denounced as hypocrisy.

    Again there is less here than meets the eye. It is surely not unprincipled for someone to argue for laws to be changed even while in the meantime he or she continues to benefit from the status quo.

    Warren Buffett, for instance, has often suggested that tax rates should be raised for plutocrats like himself. In the meantime, however, he continues to pay lower rates than many of his junior staff and nobody calls him a hypocrite. By the same token, many Ivy League-educated journalists privately criticize the legacy system under which their children and the children of other graduates of top universities enjoy preferential treatment in admissions. Few if any such parents, however, would stand in the way of their own children cashing in on the system. Should they?

    Perhaps Trump's most egregious experience of press misrepresentation was sparked when he archly urged Russia to hack into Clinton's personal server to discover her missing emails. "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," he said. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press!"

    This was sarcasm laid on with a trowel but the press, of course, wasn't buying it. Yet it is not as if sarcasm is new to American politics. No less a figure than Abraham Lincoln had a famously sarcastic tongue and the press laughed along with him. When someone complained of Ulysses Grant's drinking, for instance, Lincoln rushed to the defense of the Union's most successful general. "Can you tell me where he gets his whiskey," Lincoln asked. "Because, if I can only find out, I will send a barrel of this wonderful whiskey to every general in the army."

    Then there was Harry Truman, the man who declared himself in search of a one-handed economist. When he was not making fun of dismal scientists, he found plenty of other opportunities for caustic wit. After he was presented with the Chicago Tribune 's front page saying "Dewey Defeats Truman," for instance, he commented: "I knew I should have campaigned harder!"

    As for Trump, his wit is clearly a major draw with the ordinary voters who flock to his meetings. Yet little of it is ever recycled in the press. In the case of the Russia hacking joke indeed, many commentators were so humorless as to mutter darkly about a threat to national security. At Slate, Osita Nwanevu interviewed a lawyer to see what could be done to arraign Trump on treason charges. (The answer was nothing.) Meanwhile at Politico, Nahal Toosi and Seung Min Kim reported that Trump's crack had "shocked, flabbergasted, and appalled lawmakers and national security experts across the political spectrum." They quoted Philip Reiner, a former national security official in the Obama administration, describing Trump as a "scumbag animal." Reiner went on to comment: "Hacking email is a criminal activity. And he's asked a foreign government – a murderous, repressive regime – to attack not just one of our citizens but the Democratic presidential candidate? Of course it's a national security threat."

    Countless other examples could be cited of how the press has piled on in ways that clearly make a mockery of claims to fairness. All this is not to suggest that Trump hasn't made many unforced errors. His handling of the Khizr Khan affair in particular played right into the press's agenda. As Khan had lost a son in Iraq, his taunts should have been ignored. By challenging Khan, Trump was charging the cape, not the matador. The matador, of course, was Hillary, and she was actually highly exposed. Trump, after all, could have simply confined his riposte to the fact that but for her vote, and the votes of other Senators, the United States would never have entered Iraq, and Khan's unfortunate son would still be alive.

    Where does Trump go from here? Although it is probably too late to get the press to fall into line in observing traditional standards of fairness, Trump can make it harder for the press to deliver cheap shots.

    He needs to stake out the high ground and get a serious policy discussion going. The debates should help but the first one is still more than a month away. In the meantime one strategy would be to compile detailed, authoritative reports on trade, immigration, and other key issues. While such reports would not reach everyone, in these days of the internet they would find a useful readership among an influential, if no doubt relatively small, cadre of thoughtful constituents. They could thus work indirectly but powerfully to change the tone of the campaign. Certainly such an initiative would be hard for the mainstream press simply to ignore – and even harder completely to misrepresent.

    Eamonn Fingleton is the author of In the Jaws of the Dragon: America's Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony . He interviewed Trump for Forbes magazine in 1982.

    [Sep 02, 2016] The same morons that gave us "lean manufacturing" have also given us "lean logistics".

    Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Paid Minion , September 2, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    The same morons that gave us "lean manufacturing" have also given us "lean logistics".

    Redundancy is "money left on the table". Excess capacity in case of Black Swans and "Plan Bs"are a big waste of money. Any law that forces you to incorporate some redundancy (in spite of yourself) is "excess regulation"

    Of course, costs must be reduced and corners must be cut, when you are competing against bankster returns of 5-6%, with any losses made good by Uncle Sugar

    GF , September 2, 2016 at 4:12 pm

    Hanjin Shipping fiasco

    Since each modern container ship holds between 3,000 and 14,000 shipping containers, 98 ships stranded with cargo is a lot of freight. S. Korea should probably think twice about not bailing them out (unless all the cargo is from China and they want to do some damage??)

    geoff , September 2, 2016 at 4:58 pm

    Re the Hanjin bankruptcy, the "2.9% of world shipping trade" figure understates Hanjin's overall share in the market that matters most to US retailers and consumers: the transpacific trade, where Hanjin handles 7.8% of the volume per Forbes.

    http://fortune.com/2016/09/02/hanjin-shipping-ports-us-firms/

    So at the very least, we're looking at a significant reduction in already falling (US) intermodal rail traffic, and quite possibly a small reduction in the trade deficit as imports are reduced. Hanjin's bankruptcy also could not possibly have come at a worse time, as Sept./ Oct. is traditionally "peak season" for US imports ahead of the holiday retail season, which will probably also take a hit.

    Personally, I'm shocked that a carrier as large and dominant as Hanjin could go under.

    [Sep 02, 2016] Trump and the Scapegoat Effect

    There is a simpler explanation: Trump is hated and constantly vilified by neoliberal MSM because he threatens neoliberal establishment and imperial bureaucracy. Especially neocons. That's why they changed party affiliation and will vote for Hillary. They have found a new friend.
    Notable quotes:
    "... he is often mocked for having small hands and goofy orange hair; he eats profane food like McDonald's; ..."
    "... But Trump is a monster! Yes, but given the right circumstance, so are you. His ugliness is simply more apparent than that of other managers of the state's sacred violence. ..."
    "... Think his call to deport illegally undocumented workers is fascist? The Obama administration, garbed as it is with the shimmering rhetoric of victimhood, has already deported over 2,500,000 human beings-23 percent more than Bush. ..."
    "... How about his pledge to torture suspected terrorists? Clinton-Bush-Obama beat him to it. They just don't talk about it like he does. And let's not limit it to foreigners; Obama didn't bat an eye as elderly tax protester Irwin Schiff died of cancer chained to a prison bed far away from his family for breaking the sacred taboo against being too stingy in sharing his resources with the collective. ..."
    "... How about the time Trump promised to target terrorists' families? Obama, the great defender of Islam, already trumped that when he murdered people like U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, who hadn't seen his father for two years. This teen and his friends were blown apart by the Nobel prize winner while having a campfire dinner, apparently for the sinful dreams of his father. ..."
    "... From Buzzfeed to Vanity Fair , CNN, the New York Times , broadcast networks, Wall Street, Fortune 500 companies, academia, Hollywood, music stars, Silicon valley, and NPR, to both party establishments, everyone's united in this orgy of outrage. It's almost like the scapegoat purgings of yesteryear, but again, because of the cross of Christ scrambling people's tribal unity, there is always a counter-factional push-back. ..."
    "... Still, scapegoating partially unifies. Just why is it that old enemies like Romney, the DNC, and the media unite to expose Trump's shady timeshare-like university gimmick but offer deafening crickets for Hillary's use of the Haiti earthquake to secure an exclusive gold-mining contract for her brother? Trump's shamelessness reveals the banality of the establishment's passe violence. ..."
    "... The thing that drives this outrage mob mad is the mirror Trump's vulgar speech holds up to the state's violence-based unity. ..."
    "... In the popular imagination inspired by the mainstream media, Trump is a wolf whose fangs will bring violent chaos from which the lamb herd must unite to protect us. ..."
    "... But peel off the wool skins and you'll see the [neoliberal] herd is itself a wolf pack that wants to eat you too. Just in a way that gets them crooned about on late-night comedy and earns them Nobel prizes while they quietly blow up kids. ..."
    "... When Trump says the U.S. should have taken the oil in Iraq, he gets universal sneers from the established imperial class the way a drunken wingman is eliminated from the bar for loudly telling his friend to close the deal and "nail" the girl he's chatting up. ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | The American Conservative

    Reading René Girard helped me understand why so many hate the Donald.

    Donald Trump is the scapegoat supreme of our time.

    Don't kill the messenger. See, to have a scapegoat is to not know you have one. It is to unite in common cause with other actors in your community to purge a common monster to preserve peace and order. Trump, more than any other figure in our present culture, fits that bill. (Yes, Trump and his supporters scapegoat other groups as well.)

    Having dedicated his life to the study of scapegoating as the origin of culture, the late anthropologist René Girard is someone who should join every conservative's pantheon. He argues that human beings unconsciously stumbled upon a circuit breaker that kept violence from virally overwhelming our ancient communities: the common identification and expulsion of a common enemy. The catharsis and solidarity scapegoating provides led early people to mythologize their victims into gods.

    .... ... ...

    Trump even viscerally looks the part of the old scapegoat kings who would be ceremonially paraded before being sacrificed: he is often mocked for having small hands and goofy orange hair; he eats profane food like McDonald's; he loves gaudy decoration in an age of "shabby chic"; he calls himself a winner in a culture where people must offer faux humility to gain status. Trump, who has repeatedly said that were he not her father he would be dating his daughter, is even accused of breaking the age-old taboo against incestual lust.

    ... ... ...

    But Trump is a monster! Yes, but given the right circumstance, so are you. His ugliness is simply more apparent than that of other managers of the state's sacred violence. Let's be frank here: though his speech is scarily vulgar, the violence he promises is already occurring.

    Think his call to deport illegally undocumented workers is fascist? The Obama administration, garbed as it is with the shimmering rhetoric of victimhood, has already deported over 2,500,000 human beings-23 percent more than Bush.

    How about his pledge to torture suspected terrorists? Clinton-Bush-Obama beat him to it. They just don't talk about it like he does. And let's not limit it to foreigners; Obama didn't bat an eye as elderly tax protester Irwin Schiff died of cancer chained to a prison bed far away from his family for breaking the sacred taboo against being too stingy in sharing his resources with the collective.

    How about the time Trump promised to target terrorists' families? Obama, the great defender of Islam, already trumped that when he murdered people like U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, who hadn't seen his father for two years. This teen and his friends were blown apart by the Nobel prize winner while having a campfire dinner, apparently for the sinful dreams of his father.

    Let's not pretend it is avant-garde to vilify Trump. Everyone's doing it, especially the cool people, the ones, like us, preoccupied with social status but hiding it in speech always patronizingly preening about victims. From Buzzfeed to Vanity Fair, CNN, the New York Times, broadcast networks, Wall Street, Fortune 500 companies, academia, Hollywood, music stars, Silicon valley, and NPR, to both party establishments, everyone's united in this orgy of outrage. It's almost like the scapegoat purgings of yesteryear, but again, because of the cross of Christ scrambling people's tribal unity, there is always a counter-factional push-back.

    Still, scapegoating partially unifies. Just why is it that old enemies like Romney, the DNC, and the media unite to expose Trump's shady timeshare-like university gimmick but offer deafening crickets for Hillary's use of the Haiti earthquake to secure an exclusive gold-mining contract for her brother? Trump's shamelessness reveals the banality of the establishment's passe violence.

    The thing that drives this outrage mob mad is the mirror Trump's vulgar speech holds up to the state's violence-based unity. The one thing the crowd can't stand is a scapegoat's refusal to apologize for its sins. Look at how the old victors of history wrote of their witch hunts, with the victims admitting guilt.

    In the popular imagination inspired by the mainstream media, Trump is a wolf whose fangs will bring violent chaos from which the lamb herd must unite to protect us. He just needs to flinch and admit he's a wolf! But peel off the wool skins and you'll see the [neoliberal] herd is itself a wolf pack that wants to eat you too. Just in a way that gets them crooned about on late-night comedy and earns them Nobel prizes while they quietly blow up kids. Trump refuses to apologize for his rhetoric, and so there is no blood for the wolves to complete their feast.

    I'm not saying he hasn't promised to make grave violence. But look who writes history: the winning crowd. In the pagan world, Oedipus was cast as the scapegoat who accepts all guilt for his community's woes. Yet behind the mythic veil, it takes two to tango in the deadly dance of violent rivalry. Today's myth is being written by people who use victimism to hide the continuance of sacred violence. Watch out for the false catharsis they're trying to create in purging Trump. It will not satisfy.

    When Trump says the U.S. should have taken the oil in Iraq, he gets universal sneers from the established imperial class the way a drunken wingman is eliminated from the bar for loudly telling his friend to close the deal and "nail" the girl he's chatting up.

    ... ... ...

    David Gornoski is your neighbor-as well as an entrepreneur, speaker and writer. He recently launched a project called A Neighbor's Choice, which seeks to introduce Jesus' culture of nonviolence to both Christians and the broader public. A Florida promoter of local agriculture, he also writes for WND.com, FEE.org, AffluentInvestor.com, and AltarandThrone.com.

    [Sep 02, 2016] Clinton's base is cosmopolitan neoliberals who always support trade packs like TPP and if she say that she opposes it, she is lying.

    Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    TPP/TTIP/TISA

    TPP: "'It's very challenging to get people to commit the political capital to move forward when the doubts are so significant about what the United States will do," [Eric Altbach, a senior vice president at the Albright Stonebridge Group] said" [ Politico ].

    "Organizations including the Communications Workers of America, CREDO Action, Democracy for America and several others sent a letter to Clinton on Thursday asking her to make a 'clear, public and unequivocal statement' opposing any vote on TPP" [ Politico ]. It will be interesting to parse Clinton's next statement, if any. (Remember that Clinton's 10% base is cosmopolitan, and supports trade. She won't be punished for remaining "equivocal.")

    [Sep 02, 2016] James Carville: "Whatever weaknesses Clinton has, Trump constantly covers them up

    Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    The Voters

    James Carville: "Whatever weaknesses Clinton has, Trump constantly covers them up" [ Vanity Fair ]. Hmm. I'd love to see a timeline that combines Clinton corruption eruptions and Trump gaffes, if anybody knows of one. Although creating a timeline like that would be an awful lot of work.

    "Hillary Clinton's late-night panic " [ Chicago Tribune ]. Weapons-grade snark. Spoiler:

    Ready4Hillary : Think of it this way. If you asked someone, "Would you like to climb into an old scow full of garbage?" most people would say "No." But if you say, "Would you like to be saved at any cost from the apocalyptic flood that is rising to destroy your city?" most people would say "Yes." The trick is to focus on the second thing and not be too specific about the first thing. OK?

    Hillary : am I the garbage scow in that analogy?

    Ready4Hillary : the point is, less is more. OK?

    "Clinton's advisers tell her to prep for a landslide" [ Politico ]. "Revealing a level of confidence Clinton's inner circle has been eager to squash for weeks, outside advisers have now identified victories in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire as the path of least resistance, delivering for the Democratic nominee more than the 270 electoral votes needed to take the White House. And they are projecting increased confidence about her chances in Republican-leaning North Carolina, a state that could prove as critical as Ohio or Pennsylvania." I'd add a few grains of salt to this: First, Clinton is notoriously surrounded by sycophants. Second, I think this is messaging, and not reporting: The Clinton campaign wants early voters to go with a winner. Third, a massive electoral win doesn't necessarily translate to a popular vote landslide. Hence, an electoral landslide combined with a much closer popular vote will do nothing to help Clinton in a coming legitimacy crisis (and could even exacerbate it).

    "There's almost no chance our elections can get hacked by the Russians. Here's why" [ WaPo ].

    War Drums

    Putin on 2016: "All this should be more dignified" [ Bloomberg ]. Gotchyer casus belli right here…

    Realignment

    "So you think you can take over the Democrat Party?" [ South Lawn ]. Cogent points. On the other hand, what's sauce for the sheepdog is sauce for a century-long record of third-party #FAIL. Past results are no guarantee of future performance.

    "Downballot Republicans and top GOP leaders are dumping Trump" [ NBC ]. "[Y]esterday came this campaign video from John McCain, who's engaged in a tough re-election fight: "If Hillary Clinton is elected, Arizona will need a senator who will act as a check," he said, all but admitting that Trump is unlikely to win in November. And McCain won't be the last GOPer making this 'check on Hillary' argument.

    "Kissinger, George Schultz mull Clinton endorsement" [ The Hill ]. Can't we just be open about this and set up a war criminals PAC?

    [Sep 01, 2016] Crisis and Opportunity

    Notable quotes:
    "... For much of the last century the illusion of social progress sold through the New Deal, the Great Society and more recently through capitalist enterprise 'freed' from the bind of social accountability, ..."
    "... The Clinton's special gift to the people -- citizens, workers; the human condition as conceived through a filter of manufactured wants to serve the interests of an intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt 'leadership' class, lies in the social truths revealed by their actions. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, poses the greater-evilism of an ossified political class against the facts of its own creation now in dire need of resolution- wars to end wars, environmental crisis to end environmental crises, economic predation to end economic predation and manufactured social misery to end social misery. Hillary Clinton's roster of donors is the neoliberal innovation on Richard Nixon's enemies list- government as a shakedown racket where friend or foe and policies promoted or buried, are determined by 'donation' status rather than personal animus. ..."
    "... That is most ways conservative Republican Richard Nixon's actual policies were far Left of those of contemporary Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, is testament to the ideological mobility of political pragmatism freed from principle. ..."
    "... That Hillary Clinton is the candidate of officialdom links her service to Wall Street to America's wars of choice to dedicated environmental irresolution as the candidate who 'gets things done.' ..."
    "... As historical analog, the West has seen recurrent episodes of economic imperialism backed by state power; in the parlance, neoliberal globalization, over the last several centuries. ..."
    "... Left unstated in the competitive lesser-evilism of Party politics is the incapacity for political resolution in any relevant dimension. Donald Trump is 'dangerous' only by overlooking how dangerous the American political leadership has been for the last one and one-half centuries. So the question becomes: dangerous to whom? Without the most murderous military in the world, public institutions like the IMF dedicated to economic subjugation and predatory corporations that wield the 'free-choices' of mandated consumption, how dangerous would any politicians really be? And with them, how not-dangerous have liberal Democrats actually been? Candidates for political office are but manifestations of class interests put forward as systemic intent. ..."
    "... The liberals and progressives in the managerial class who support the status quo and are acting as enforcers to elect Hillary Clinton are but one recession away from being tossed overboard by those they serve within the existing economic order. ..."
    Aug 26, 2016 | store.counterpunch.org
    into political power. The structure of economic distribution seen through Foundation 'contributors;' oil and gas magnates, pharmaceutical and technology entrepreneurs of public largesse, the murder-for-hire industry (military) and various and sundry managers of social decline, makes evident the dissociation of social production from those that produced it.

    For much of the last century the illusion of social progress sold through the New Deal, the Great Society and more recently through capitalist enterprise 'freed' from the bind of social accountability, if not exactly from the need for regular and robust public support, served to hold at bay the perpetual tomorrow of lives lived for the theorized greater good of accumulated self-interest. The Clinton's special gift to the people -- citizens, workers; the human condition as conceived through a filter of manufactured wants to serve the interests of an intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt 'leadership' class, lies in the social truths revealed by their actions.

    Being three or more decades in the making, the current political season was never about the candidates except inasmuch as they embody the grotesquely disfigured and depraved condition of the body politic. The 'consumer choice' politics of Democrat versus Republican, Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, poses the greater-evilism of an ossified political class against the facts of its own creation now in dire need of resolution- wars to end wars, environmental crisis to end environmental crises, economic predation to end economic predation and manufactured social misery to end social misery. Hillary Clinton's roster of donors is the neoliberal innovation on Richard Nixon's enemies list- government as a shakedown racket where friend or foe and policies promoted or buried, are determined by 'donation' status rather than personal animus.

    That is most ways conservative Republican Richard Nixon's actual policies were far Left of those of contemporary Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, is testament to the ideological mobility of political pragmatism freed from principle. The absurd misdirection that we, the people, are driving this migration is belied by the economic power that correlates 1:1 with the policies put forward and enacted by 'the people's representatives', by the answers that actual human beings give to pollsters when asked and by the ever more conspicuous hold that economic power has over political considerations as evidenced by the roster of pleaders and opportunists granted official sees by the political class in Washington.

    To state the obvious, dysfunctional ideology- principles that don't 'work' in the sense of promoting broadly conceived public wellbeing, should be dispensable. But this very formulation takes at face value the implausible conceits of unfettered intentions mediated through functional political representation that are so well disproved by entities like the Clinton Foundation. Political 'pragmatism' as it is put forward by national Democrats quite closely resembles the principled opposition of Conservative Republicans through unified service to the economic powers-that-be. That Hillary Clinton is the candidate of officialdom links her service to Wall Street to America's wars of choice to dedicated environmental irresolution as the candidate who 'gets things done.'

    As historical analog, the West has seen recurrent episodes of economic imperialism backed by state power; in the parlance, neoliberal globalization, over the last several centuries. The result, in addition to making connected insiders rich as they wield social power over less existentially alienated peoples, has been the not-so-great wars, devastations, impositions and crimes-against-humanity that were the regular occurrences of the twentieth century. The 'innovation' of corporatized militarization to this proud tradition is as old as Western imperialism in its conception and as new as nuclear and robotic weapons, mass surveillance and apparently unstoppable environmental devastation in its facts.

    Left unstated in the competitive lesser-evilism of Party politics is the incapacity for political resolution in any relevant dimension. Donald Trump is 'dangerous' only by overlooking how dangerous the American political leadership has been for the last one and one-half centuries. So the question becomes: dangerous to whom? Without the most murderous military in the world, public institutions like the IMF dedicated to economic subjugation and predatory corporations that wield the 'free-choices' of mandated consumption, how dangerous would any politicians really be? And with them, how not-dangerous have liberal Democrats actually been? Candidates for political office are but manifestations of class interests put forward as systemic intent.

    The complaint that the Greens- Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka, don't have an effective political program approximates the claim that existing political and economic arrangements are open to challenge through the electoral process when the process exists to assure that effective challenges don't arise. The Democrats could have precluded the likelihood of a revolutionary movement, Left or Right, for the next half-century by electing Bernie Sanders and then undermining him to 'prove' that challenges to prevailing political economy don't work. The lack of imagination in running 'dirty Hillary' is testament to how large- and fragile, the perceived stakes are. But as how unviable Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are as political leaders becomes apparent- think George W. Bush had he run for office after the economic collapse of 2009 and without the cover of '9/11,' the political possibilities begin to open up.

    The liberals and progressives in the managerial class who support the status quo and are acting as enforcers to elect Hillary Clinton are but one recession away from being tossed overboard by those they serve within the existing economic order. The premise that the ruling class will always need dedicated servants grants coherent logic and aggregated self-interest that history has disproven time and again. A crude metaphor would be the unintended consequences of capitalist production now aggregating to environmental crisis.

    Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both such conspicuously corrupt tools of an intellectually and spiritually bankrupt social order that granting tactical brilliance to their ascendance, or even pragmatism given the point in history and available choices, seems wildly generous. For those looking for a political moment, one is on the way.

    Click here to listen to Chris Hedges' interview with Rob Urie on his new book, Zen Economics, now out in paperback (and digital format ) from CounterPunch Books.

    [Sep 01, 2016] Hillary, liberator of Libya, preaches to the American Legion choir in Ohio

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation," and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." ..."
    "... Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority, Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great. ..."
    "... Like Rome, we make a waste land and call it peace. ..."
    "... It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you choose as we wish if you will. Go America! ..."
    "... "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." LOL! ……Wha!/! she was serious!? Your sh*tting me! ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jim Haygood , August 31, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    Hillary, liberator of Libya, preaches to the American Legion choir in Ohio:

    The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation," and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress."

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-stress-american-exceptionalism-ohio-41764569

    Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority, Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great.

    Dick: " I'm with her! "
    Hillary: " Who knew? "

    http://tinyurl.com/jvaqryp

    Roger Smith , August 31, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Haha I am pretty sure that one does not force peace.

    jsn , August 31, 2016 at 3:54 pm

    Like Rome, we make a waste land and call it peace.

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you choose as we wish if you will. Go America!

    fresno dan , August 31, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." LOL! ……Wha!/! she was serious!? Your sh*tting me!

    [Sep 01, 2016] Tim Canova telling it like it is: I will concede Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a corporate stooge.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I will concede Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a corporate stooge." ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Roger Smith , August 31, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    Also, Tim Canova telling it like it is :

    "I will concede Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a corporate stooge."

    Clive , August 31, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    No shit, Sherlock.

    diptherio , August 31, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    Keep digging, Watson!

    jsn , August 31, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    Revelation in a blinding flash of coprolite

    Jim Haygood , August 31, 2016 at 4:34 pm

    Rain tight, priced right
    Sheath your home in Coprolite™

    ewmayer , August 31, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    Ha – now *that's* a concession speech. At the risk of running the Wrath of Lambert, would that Bernie had been similarly brass-balled.

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 8:47 pm

    Heh, maybe some of us figure the wrath beats the alternative to sitting through another presidential cycle of sternly worded letters and petitions from the left.

    *sigh*

    It would be so much easier if I could get an HMO approved frontal lobotomy than I could either join the GOp lynch mob who thinks everything is some liberal plot or be hunky dory with representation that tells you to your face that they've rigged the system to thwart you ever actually having an individual that you actually want representing you.

    [Sep 01, 2016] Sanders media consultants to work for Wasserman Schultz challenger

    They lost... Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was re-elected.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Tad Devine, Mark Longabaugh, and Julian Mulvey, who helped lead Sanders' campaign and drove his highly acclaimed media presence, will help Democrat Tim Canova's campaign in the closing days of his race against Wasserman Schultz in South Florida, where congressional primaries will be held Aug. 30. ..."
    "... While Wasserman Schultz is still the favorite in her race, people aligned with Sanders have seized on Canova's candidacy as a proxy for their disapproval of Wasserman Schultz's stewardship of the DNC, pouring money into his effort. The addition of DML signals an increasing professionalization of the anti-Wasserman Schultz effort. ..."
    Aug 01, 2016 | POLITICO
    The consulting firm that made Bernie Sanders' ads in the 2016 presidential race is going to work for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's primary challenger.

    Tad Devine, Mark Longabaugh, and Julian Mulvey, who helped lead Sanders' campaign and drove his highly acclaimed media presence, will help Democrat Tim Canova's campaign in the closing days of his race against Wasserman Schultz in South Florida, where congressional primaries will be held Aug. 30.

    It's the latest move from Sanders supporters to go after Wasserman Schultz, after their outrage stemming from leaked emails drove her to resign as chairman of the Democratic National Committee this week.

    The move is a concrete step forward in Sanders' attempt to spread his "political revolution" after the end of his presidential campaign and another boost to Canova, a previously little-known law professor who has raised millions of dollars for his run against Wasserman Schultz. It's also the first tangible sign of heavier involvement from his political circles in down-ballot races between now and November. Sanders had previously endorsed Canova and raised money online for him and a selection of other congressional candidates.

    While Wasserman Schultz is still the favorite in her race, people aligned with Sanders have seized on Canova's candidacy as a proxy for their disapproval of Wasserman Schultz's stewardship of the DNC, pouring money into his effort. The addition of DML signals an increasing professionalization of the anti-Wasserman Schultz effort.

    The consultants' firm, Devine Mulvey Longabaugh, was behind spots like the famous "America" ad that helped define Sanders' campaign as he rose to prominence against Hillary Clinton, and it has worked for a wide range of down-ballot campaigns this cycle. Canova's campaign was already working with Revolution Messaging, Sanders' digital firm, as well.

    [Sep 01, 2016] Clinton vs. Trump State of the Race

    Notable quotes:
    "... "We speak English in this country, not Spanish!" ..."
    www.strategic-culture.org

    . Rivals and challengers of the past whether it be the British Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union have all fall by the way side in the titanic struggle of nation states and Great Powers.

    So I asked Ms Rivlin, hypothetically, how she thought Americans would react if in a couple of decades to come a significant and visible economic gap opened up between the USA and China.\

    ... She failed to see, whether intentionally or not, that whatever one thinks about the merits of seriousness or silliness of such talk and concerns, a lot of people in America believe it is happening as encapsulated in Mr Trump's campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again". Clearly, a great deal of people in America think the country is in terminal decline and want something radical to reverse such decline. Hence their messenger Donald Trump and his rhetoric of America First.

    ...Part of what Trump represents is not only a deep seated anxiety that America is on a downward trajectory this century, hence his China bashing and protectionist rhetoric, his candidacy also represents a white backlash against the increasing and rapid demographic changes in America society. America is on course by the 2050s to no longer be a white majority country. The population growth of non-white ethnic minorities is over taking that of white Americans. Thus Trump's dog whistle racism with lines such as: "We speak English in this country, not Spanish!"

    [Sep 01, 2016] What will come out of neoliberalism destruction of the world economies

    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Ulysses , August 31, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    "I am the spirit that negates.
    And rightly so, for all that comes to be
    Deserves to perish wretchedly;
    'Twere better nothing would begin.
    Thus everything that that your terms, sin,
    Destruction, evil represent-
    That is my proper element."

    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

    diptherio , August 31, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    Switzerland to vote on "circular economy strategy"

    Reason enough for the Green Party of Switzerland to call for a fundamental change in the country's economic system. Its initiative gathered about 110,000 signatures within the required 18 months and was handed in to the authorities in 2012.

    It calls for a "circular economy strategy", including measures to adopt new product regulations, encourage recycling, and promote research and innovation, thereby reducing the country's ecological footprint by two-thirds.

    The proponents want Switzerland to play a pioneering role, promoting a sustainable model for the economy, including a tax policy tied to the use of natural resources. The government is asked to define sustainability targets both for a short and medium term and present a progress report every four years.

    What a Caring Organization Looks Like

    A Facebook friend (we're barely acquaintances really) asked this question on Friday:

    "What do you think are the most critical things (I'm talking specific processes, policies, and structures rather than values) that make up non-competitive and more collaborative and caring workplaces? Spaces where people are encouraged to really praise and acknowledge someone else's work rather than hide someone else's contribution, where people want to spend time on the collective good rather than next personal gain, and where the often invisible and gendered work of caring and 'organisation culture' is prioritised and publicly valued as critically important? What are some practical things you can implement, aside from the destruction of capitalism? Ideas, you wise group of souls?"

    I've spent the last couple of years working with an incredible bunch of people to build an organisation that is exactly like that: caring, collaborative, and non-competitive, a space where we praise and acknowledge each other, where the work of caring is shared equally, regardless of gender.

    Cripes I am a lucky dude, it rules. It is a total privilege, so I'm trying to figure out if there's something about our organisation that we can share with others.

    It's a subtle thing, so I'm not sure if I can totally nail it down with words. Let's try something…

    [Sep 01, 2016] Liqudity and 401K investor

    Notable quotes:
    "... So, what benefit does society get from all this secondary market trading, besides very rich and self-satisfied bankers like Blankfein? The bankers would tell you that we get "liquidity"–the ability for investors to sell their investments relatively quickly. The problem with this line of argument is that Wall Street is providing far more liquidity (at a hefty price-remember that half-trillion-dollar payroll) than investors really need. Most of the money invested in stocks, bonds, and other securities comes from individuals who are saving for retirement, either by investing directly or through pension and mutual funds. These long-term investors don't really need much liquidity, and they certainly don't need a market where 165 percent of shares are bought and sold every year. ..."
    "... In 1976, when the transactions costs associated with buying and selling securities were much higher, fewer than 20 percent of equity shares changed hands every year. Yet no one was complaining in 1976 about any supposed lack of liquidity. Today we have nearly 10 times more trading, without any apparent benefit for anyone (other than Wall Street bankers and traders) from all that "liquidity." ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Kim Kaufman , August 31, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    Wall Street Whistle-Blower Awarded $22 Million for Revealing the Truth About Monsanto
    by Emily Jane Fox
    August 31, 2016 9:49 am

    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/wall-street-whistle-blower-monsanto?mbid=nl_CH_57c711fb684596f3798768f7&CNDID=15621256&spMailingID=9444845&spUserID=MTMzMTgyMzgwODcwS0&spJobID=982928780&spReportId=OTgyOTI4NzgwS0

    "The easiest way to make a quick buck on Wall Street these days seems to be through loose lips."

    fresno dan , August 31, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    https://promarket.org/wall-street-gods-work-even-anything-useful/

    So, what benefit does society get from all this secondary market trading, besides very rich and self-satisfied bankers like Blankfein? The bankers would tell you that we get "liquidity"–the ability for investors to sell their investments relatively quickly. The problem with this line of argument is that Wall Street is providing far more liquidity (at a hefty price-remember that half-trillion-dollar payroll) than investors really need. Most of the money invested in stocks, bonds, and other securities comes from individuals who are saving for retirement, either by investing directly or through pension and mutual funds. These long-term investors don't really need much liquidity, and they certainly don't need a market where 165 percent of shares are bought and sold every year.

    They could get by with much less trading-and in fact, they did get by, quite happily. In 1976, when the transactions costs associated with buying and selling securities were much higher, fewer than 20 percent of equity shares changed hands every year. Yet no one was complaining in 1976 about any supposed lack of liquidity. Today we have nearly 10 times more trading, without any apparent benefit for anyone (other than Wall Street bankers and traders) from all that "liquidity."

    =====================================
    Thing of it is, the most thirsty never get a drink….

    [Sep 01, 2016] No wonder people are flocking to his speeches! You wont read about it.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The Democratic Party is the party of Slavery, Jim Crow and Opposition (to abolition)" ..."
    "... "The Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln.- Freedom, Equality, and Opportunity" says Donald Trump ..."
    "... No wonder people are flocking to his speeches! You won't read about it. ..."
    "... Investment psychology. If you invest in a candidate now, you might work to get them elected, even if it's a little bit. ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    clarky90 , August 31, 2016 at 3:54 pm

    "The Democratic Party is the party of Slavery, Jim Crow and Opposition (to abolition)"

    "The Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln.- Freedom, Equality, and Opportunity" says Donald Trump

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFoM_eACYWI

    "Against All Odds" Rally in Everett, Washington 8/30/16 WA at about 20 minutes in speech.

    Hmmmmmmmmm? No wonder people are flocking to his speeches! You won't read about it.

    kucha girl , August 31, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    At the rally in Everett, Guiliani asked rally-goers to get out their phone & text $$ to a certain address.

    I was shocked, what about "I'm funding my own campaign, I don't want your money." Guiliani said something about how it is about gaining a big number of people who are donating. Donate $1, if you want to, but just do it.

    I was trying to think of the reasoning behind this. It was certainly counter-messaging. I would suppose it is data-mining. Many people have multiple email addresses … it is easy to create an anonymous email address just to get a Trump rally ticket. I thought of it myself, to avoid spam. But most people only have one cell-phone number. Trump thanked Susan Hutchinson, head of the the state Republican Party. I would imagine she was asking the Trump campaign to get as much info about attendees as possible. That would explain why Guiliani and not Trump said this.

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 31, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    Investment psychology. If you invest in a candidate now, you might work to get them elected, even if it's a little bit.

    Obama had little pledge cards back in 07/08. Campaigns want people to commit or they can leave.

    Pat , August 31, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    There may be another explanation. Clinton and the DNC have been running pretty insistent fund raising campaign over the last couple of weeks as focused on number of donors as on money. Clearly this was another version of Clinton's popularity over Trump.

    As they are asking for $1 on the last day of this reporting period there could be a desire to head that one off at the pass.

    Or they could want your info, and to head that off at the pass.

    clarky90 , August 31, 2016 at 7:43 pm

    Sources and amounts of Donald Trump campaign Funds

    https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864

    Individual Contributions $56,486,064 (45%)
    – Small Individual Contributions$37,236,701 (30%)
    – Large Individual Contributions$19,370,699 (15%)

    PAC Contributions $17,700 (0%)
    Candidate self-financing $52,003,469 (42%)
    Federal Funds $0 (0%)

    There is a similar page listing Hillary Clinton's Sources and amounts.

    Please, do not click on the following link if you are eating or have a delicate disposition.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019

    [Sep 01, 2016] If defeating Clinton is becoming more important, then voting for Trump becomes more necessary.

    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    different clue , August 31, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    If defeating Clinton is becoming more important, then voting for Trump becomes more necessary.
    I am getting more inclined all the time to vote for Trump. A vote FOR Trump counts twice as hard aGAINST Clinton as a vote for some beautiful Third Party.

    Every ballot is a bullet on the field of political combat.

    Carla , August 31, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    I'd rather vote for someone I want and lose than vote for someone I don't want and "win."

    Remember if enough of us vote for the same third party it could get federal matching funds in 2020. That might be important.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , August 31, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    2020? To pick over the dry bones left by Bush Term 5?
    Some people say a Trump presidency would be a disaster. No. We already have a disaster.
    Trump is a ridiculous blowhard buffoon. He's also against more nation-building, questions NATO/Putin war mongering, thinks the mainstream media is completely corrupt, wants to put the ACA out of its misery, and actually opposes globalist trade deals. I couldn't care less if he said mean things about Rosie O'Donnell.

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    You know the Republicans could have picked a better candidate.

    Oh wait they didn't do that because their intent was to hand this to Hillary.

    I'm so tired of hearing how "I have to" do things after a small band of oligarchs chose the candidates I have to choose from.

    I don't have to vote for Trump the buffoon and I don't have to vote for Clinton the corrupt and I can continue to not vote for either of the duopoly. As long as you continue to play the lesser evil game you can be assured the oligarchy is going to continue to pick bad and worse for you.

    I'm opting out of the sick and twisted game the GOP and Democratic Party have going on and those of you who continually vote for the bad choices you are given can blame yourselves for the outcome(instead of projecting the outcome onto everyone who refuses to eat the oligarchy's dog food.)

    Jim Haygood , August 31, 2016 at 7:39 pm

    'their intent was to hand this to Hillary'

    The 8-year partisan alternation pattern structurally imposed by Amendment XXII indicates that it was the R party's "turn."

    Their intent was to hand this to Jeb! or Ted! or some other vetted insider to claim the R party's 8 years of spoils.

    As the howls of protest and invective from Ted! made clear, Trump's nomination was totally unplanned. Trump punked the R party. And they still haven't gotten over their butthurt.

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 8:40 pm

    Oh they left him in place because he is the perfect buffoon to run against Queen Hillary(after all they sat and debated whether or not to make him the nominee ad nauseaum) and he gives the double bonus of once he loses being able to allow them to wail, gnash their teeth and fundraise against the Democrats and Hillary Clinton. Don't kid yourself Clinton is interposable and will serve her purpose just as well as Ted! or Jeb! for the oligarchy. It's Her turn.

    This is a game and the electorate are chumps that just keep playing it.

    HotFlash , August 31, 2016 at 4:17 pm

    No matter who you vote for, or don't, the US will end up with either Clinton or Trump as prez, barring a catastrophic event, eg, death of one or t'other.

    So, you not only have to decide how you can live with who you vote for, but you have to think about how you will live with who you get. Maybe it won't be good enough to say, "Not the president of me."

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    They're both horrible choices and I intend to prepare myself to have to live with either of them.

    I also intend to remind people that vote for team bad or team worse that THEY are the ones who force this game to continue by insisting that only a Democrat or Republican can win.

    Carla , August 31, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    Thank you.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , August 31, 2016 at 7:00 pm

    There are two types of ethical demand here.

    1 One does one's best to elect the best candidate

    and furthermore

    2. One does one's best to prevent the worst candidate.

    To me, I believe it's not 'either or,' but that, the second demand is an addition call of duty…going beyond the first.

    "What have you done to stop the Foundation?"

    different clue , August 31, 2016 at 6:43 pm

    It won't matter if we don't live that long due to World War Clinton with Russia. If you think Clinton poses no more danger of nuclear annihilation than Trump would, then your logic is impeccable.

    But if you think a President Clinton poses a real and non-trivial risk of global nuclear extermination in a way that a President Trump just simply would not, then you might decide to defer "vote your dreams" for now, and "vote your survival" for Trump so you can live long enough to collect the Big Jackpot in 2024.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , August 31, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    I am confronted with the question: "Where were you when they laid the Foundation for the Thousand Year Reign?"

    "Did you do nothing to stop the Foundation?"

    Jeremy Grimm , August 31, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    Both Trump and Hillary are frightening alternatives for President - though Trump seems "the lesser of two evils". Hillary is starting to appear like a female anti-Christ - Damiena Thorn or Nicole Carpathia - the more I learn about her. Regardless which one wins I tend to agree with the commenter here who suggested one of the two VP candidates would be the acting executive.

    I am tempted to vote Green just on the possibility the Green Party might become a viable second party - especially if matching funds become available. But I can't get past viewing the Green Party as a clueless amalgam of underemployed ex-philosophy students.

    Writing-in Sanders is tempting - but I don't trust write-ins will be counted or reported in any meaningful way. As a last resort I can leave President an undercount and register a "No!" vote in what seems the best possible way to do that.

    I will vote. None of the relatively good choices choices offer much to realistically hope for and the bad choices are scary bad and horrifyingly bad.

    Ulysses , August 31, 2016 at 6:25 pm

    "But I can't get past viewing the Green Party as a clueless amalgam of underemployed ex-philosophy students."

    This made me chuckle, since many of my very best friends are actually underemployed Phil majors, along with a healthy cohort of underemployed art historians, medievalists etc.

    [Aug 30, 2016] So, Trumps crazy What about Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury ..."
    "... compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders. ..."
    "... "This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing American lives." ..."
    "... In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling "get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother." ..."
    "... "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent." ..."
    Aug 07, 2016 | www.wnd.com

    Hillary Clinton has indeed become well known as a serial liar, as fully two-thirds of Americans, 68 percent in a recent poll, said she was neither honest nor trustworthy. Not only does Clinton lie to protect herself, as she has regarding Benghazi and her private email server, but she lies when there appears to be no benefit to doing so.

    For example, she famously claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary for his conquering of Mt. Everest, even though that didn't happen until six years after Clinton was born. She also notoriously claim she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996, when newspaper and video accounts revealed exactly the opposite.

    "Robert Reich, M.D., a New York City psychiatrist and expert in psychopathology, says compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury," Dr. Gina Loudon, a political psychology and behavior expert, told WND. "Otherwise, compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders.

    "This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing American lives."

    In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling "get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother."

    These types of outbursts continued after Hillary left her office as secretary of state. An aide on her presidential campaign told the New York Post last October: "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent."

    [Aug 30, 2016] Hillary Clinton Piles Up Research in Bid to Needle Donald Trump at First Debate

    How Hillary can defend herself from two major and intermixed scandals: emailgate and Clinton cash is unclear to me. Also her strong reputation of a neocon warmonger represents serious weakness on any foreign policy discussion. Essentially she can be buried just with the list of her ;achievements". So Trump is deeply right when he said "It can be dangerous. You can sound scripted or phony - like you're trying to be someone you're not." Cards are on the table. They just need to be played.
    The New York Times

    "I believe you can prep too much for those things," Mr. Trump said in an interview last week. "It can be dangerous. You can sound scripted or phony - like you're trying to be someone you're not."

    she is searching for ways to bait him into making blunders. Mr. Trump, a supremely confident communicator, wants viewers to see him as a truth-telling political outsider and trusts that he can box in Mrs. Clinton on her ethics and honesty.


    He has been especially resistant to his advisers' suggestions that he take part in mock debates with a Clinton stand-in. At their first session devoted to the debate, on Aug. 21 at Mr. Trump's club in Bedminster, N.J., the conservative radio host Laura Ingraham was on hand to offer counsel and, if Mr. Trump was game, to play Mrs. Clinton, said Trump advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the debate preparations were supposed to be kept private. He declined.

    Instead, Mr. Trump asked a battery of questions about debate topics, Mrs. Clinton's skills and possible moderators, but people close to him said relatively little had been accomplished.

    ...

    "I know who I am, and it got me here," Mr. Trump said, boasting of success in his 11 primary debate appearances and in capturing the Republican nomination over veteran politicians and polished debaters. "I don't want to present a false front. I mean, it's possible we'll do a mock debate, but I don't see a real need."

    Mr. Trump is certain that he holds advantages here, saying Mrs. Clinton is likely to come across as a typical politician spouting rehearsed lines.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Corporate Guardian is part of Clinton election machine

    Aug 29, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    gwpriester , 2016-08-29 02:28:48
    Am I the only one who is totally disappointed in the Guardian for their completely one-sided coverage of Trump in this race? If you look at the home page, it is all Trump. Not even one mention of Hillary Clinton.

    I am a subscriber and supporter of the Guardian and I think they do a good job covering the news in a fairly objective manner. But this total lack of equal coverage of the Clinton campaign is seriously making me reconsider being a Guardian reader and supporter.

    Satans_Ballsack , 2016-08-29 02:21:00
    Smug agreement among Hillary's acolytes: "No way this man can win, it's all over, just sit back and watch him implode, and Mrs C win the election...this is in the bag." Blind panic among normal people..."Hillary voters, your candidate is revolting, and, the problem is, she's sufficiently horrible that people might just stay at home, or, worse still, vote for the lunatic Trump."
    Sam3456 Satans_Ballsack , 2016-08-29 02:40:28
    I think she will win the election by a landslide and usher in a new era for the eradication of the middle and working class and the destruction of personal freedom for the benefit of the corporation.

    She will be the guiding light that leads us back down the road to serfdom. And she'll turn a profit while doing it too!

    rberger Sam3456 , 2016-08-29 02:44:51
    No evidence as expected. Try reading the Democrat platform. Plenty of stuff to benefit the middle and working class, whereas Trump only has tax cuts for the rich. Trump wants to take away minimum wages and the right of people to join a union. Trump is all for privileges for the rich and slavery for the rest.
    Sam3456 rberger , 2016-08-29 03:05:39
    I think if you read the NDA she signed at State around handling and use of State Department material and her agreement with Obama around mixing Clinton Foundation with State business. I think if you read the Comey report and you read read the Federal Records Act you will see that the DNC platform and for that matter any written agreement, holds no water for HRC.
    gizadog , 2016-08-29 00:47:17
    Corrupt Hillary should NOT be able to run for president! Period!
    nbk46zh , 2016-08-29 00:21:54
    Corporate Guardian is part of Clinton election machine.
    Be Gold , 2016-08-28 23:55:04
    Days on end and not a word on from you people on Hillary and her own lies, flip-flops and pandering for votes. Trump is a chump but it looks like the DNC has the Guardian in its back pocket. Care to comment? (crickets....)
    ElPayo , 2016-08-28 23:07:07
    So, what's in it for all these sycophants and enablers this article refers to as DJ Trump's surrogates? Do they know what is happening? Are they going for broke? Is it because they have to pay a mortgage? Or because they like the attention of being interviewed, which they would not otherwise have? All of the above?

    And thanks to this colossal amount of malfeasance, HR Clinton is getting away with her own multidimensional hubris. Why is she still around?

    ToddElliottKoger , 2016-08-28 23:56:33
    The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's outreach to the black community . . .

    Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop" issue is minor at this point.

    What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black community that he needs their help.

    He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades of influence over the black community.

    He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities (and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump" campaign is he actually represents "racial unity."

    Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding president's popularity. He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on "winning" the support of "poor blacks."

    He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must make the black community understand "the opportunity presented."

    Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment political brokers) and make things "clear" that a "VOTE" for Trump is the black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.

    Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand the importance of "moving past" those things that have separated us. Mr. Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.

    THIS IS THE ONLY WAY MR. TRUMP CAN WIN . . . .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVEnw82HEvc

    Menger , 2016-08-28 22:58:13
    Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration and anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the debate.
    bcarey , 2016-08-28 22:42:59
    You are so silly.

    How many times has Hillary changed her mind on immigration?

    In fact, I am sure all of you recall a time when she suggested a fence and deportation.

    bcarey bcarey , 2016-08-28 22:50:54
    Here's Hillary in favor of a wall and deportations:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DckY2dRFtxc

    Sam3456 ViktorZK , 2016-08-28 22:57:11
    Agreed. TPP is way more dangerous to the middle and working class than any immigrant or wall...except maybe WALL STREET...the KKK of the financial world
    ViktorZK Sam3456 , 2016-08-28 23:49:06
    No way will TPP get out of Congress. It's dead and buried.

    Whatever happens to Trump's immigration policy is immaterial now. By flipflopping around it he's undermined what is a banner policy for him in front of his own core supporters.

    SysConfig , 2016-08-28 21:11:38
    Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time Hillarys plan for improving Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more .
    If they are so good why doesn't Europe take them for us..
    PaulDMorton , 2016-08-28 21:01:34
    What gets lost in all of this how the USA allowed Mexico to spiral into the corrupt, poor country they currently are.

    It's time for the US to get firm with Mexico and help them get on their feet - which their corrupt leaders will hate, but tough shit. There is no excuse to border the United States of America and have such poor living standards for their people.

    Although not ideal, a wall is a very direct message to Mexico's govt that the US will not tolerate their corrupt government and drug cartels.

    SysConfig , 2016-08-28 20:59:39
    http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/08/26/texas-new-black-panther-party-leader-blacks-pimped-like-prostitutes-democrats /

    HOUSTON, Texas – The leader of Houston's New Black Panther Party said blacks "are being pimped like prostitutes" by Democrats and should listen to the message from Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Trump reached out to members of the black community last week during a speech following riots in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

    Victover , 2016-08-28 20:55:29
    Most of the times Trump doesn't know what he's talking about
    SysConfig Victover , 2016-08-28 21:02:14
    Hillary has not had a public press conference in 280 days wassupup with dat!
    AnthonyFlack SysConfig , 2016-08-28 23:58:05
    People don't like her and she and her team are smart enough to know that the best thing for her campaign is to limit her public exposure while quietly watching the Trump campaign wrecking itself.

    Also she doesn't like dealing with the public either and would prefer to work behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny, so suits her.

    PaulDMorton , 2016-08-28 20:52:12
    What's wrong with Trump changing his stance? He listened to his supporters (most of whom think some type of amnesty is appropriate) and tweaked his immigration plan.. *gasp*
    It seems like a mature, reasonable move from an intelligent strong leader - which Trump is.
    He will be an excellent President.
    NickedTurpin , 2016-08-28 20:52:10
    One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of thousands of farm owners and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations.

    The trouble with both candidates is the Believability Factor. No mater what they may say, it's doubtful they will do what they say. There needs to be election laws that make ignoring campaign 'promises' once in office impeachable.

    legalimmigrant , 2016-08-28 20:34:59
    Hillary still ducking press conferences and any situation where her disgraceful record and malfeasance can be exposed. She is unable to give a straight answer to anything but this is hardly surprising given that this woman has been living in denial about everything for most of her adult life. Disturbing that she could be so close to power.
    Gman13 , 2016-08-28 20:33:59
    Donny T can't make America any worse than it is. Think about the competences of the institution of presidency - they are mostly in the area of foreign policy and trade. There, his ideas are more progressive than those of Hillary. We know that she is an interventionist ally of terrorists and a supporter of TTIP, a deal that is being negotiated in complete secrecy - for a good reason. Just look up what any credible economist, like Stiglitz, thinks about it.

    Donny T is neither an interventionistn or an enemy of secular states and/or great fighters against terrorism, like Mr Assad. He is also more moderate in regards to Palestinian - Israely issue, and so on. And of course, Donny T is not a Wall Street pawn like her.

    Oh yes, and he isn't hell bent on starting a confrontation with Russia that might end in nuclear war - very important thing to consider. Hillary is. Her camp is completely russophobic.

    In the domain of domestic policy (immigration, human rights, Mexico wall, blah, blah...) if he is breaking constitution - he can be easily stopped by legislative or judicial branches of govt.

    So, the choice is clear for any rational person. Vote for Mr Trump.

    fedback , 2016-08-28 19:59:04
    The violence and crime in Chicago are unfathomable yet the media don't seem to bother.
    Trump writes an 'insensitive' tweet after he has highlighted the problem for months and wants to tackle the problem, media freaks out.
    pfox33 , 2016-08-28 19:14:41
    Trump's original platform of deporting 11 million illegals isn't doable. That would involve round-ups and incarcerations last seen in Nazi Germany. I don't think the American people at large would stand for that.

    So the spiel has been morphing into something more palatable to Joe Average. He keeps trying to placate his base by having his surrogates assure them that nothing has changed but it obviously has.

    [Aug 29, 2016] The investor class promotes its interests by highlighting actual benefits, fabricating others, and marginalizing anyone who disagrees

    Aug 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    August 28, 2016 at 11:09 AM

    JohnH -> Paine... , August 28, 2016 at 11:09

    "Experts lie 50% of the time"...probably a low estimate, since those anointed as experts are those who carry water for the investor class. The investor class promotes its interests by highlighting actual benefits, fabricating others, and marginalizing anyone who disagrees.

    We see this not only in trade policy, but also in monetary policy and tax policy, where trickle down is portrayed as the only reasonable path...the backlash is building...

    ilsm -> JohnH... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:13 AM
    Some are encouraged by keeping their jobs others are cognitive dissonants.

    In either case it is necessary for job security.

    Humbug factories with the skilled application of unsound and invalid argument.

    JohnH -> ilsm... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:44 AM
    You don't get ahead by going against the grain. Rewards are showered on those who go with the grain, which is why there is such overt support for policies that help investors but hurt ordinary folks...
    ilsm -> JohnH... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19 PM
    Hidden ground rules and assumptions.

    GR 1: What is good for the sponsor required misapplied deduction.......

    Paine -> ken melvin... , -1
    Everyone read this on labor share over time

    https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/research-and-data/publications/business-review/2015/q3/brq315_a_bit_of_a_miracle_no_more.pdf

    It's very interesting

    [Aug 29, 2016] Spendings on labour force are decreasing while profits are increasing

    Aug 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ken melvin : August 28, 2016 at 10:22 AM

    What they were after:
    When labor's share was 50%, the capitalists looked about for ways getting a part of that 50%. They did this by going offshore, or as in the case of Gates and Co, they did this bringing workers in at half price. In either case, the nation would have been better off to have invested in our own people and used our own workers in the nations work force.

    pgl -> ken melvin, Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:00 AM

    50%? I think it is still higher than that. Labor share is far too low but let's get the facts right. BTW - corporations are indeed trying to capture more of labor's share even as it is right now too low.
    Paine -> pgl... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:48 AM
    What part of the non labor comp portion of our nat net income is the fruits of exploitation
    Paine -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:46 PM

    "We readily find out which part of the economy is behind the decline of the labor share once we look at the change in the labor share within manufacturing, which dropped almost 10 percentage points. Virtually all the major manufacturing subsectors saw their labor shares fall; for nondurable goods manufacturing it dropped from 62 percent to 40 percent. "
    JF -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 04:20 PM
    Dont see the term exploitation as having a helpful bright line meaning.

    But the Commerce Power can decide this and use it as a rational basis for economic policymaking.

    If economic flows shift below a benchmark rules change to get it back. 1965 a good benchmark year? We do not want to be thoughtless and silent again on this matter as became the case.

    The Commerce Power is solely residing in the Legislative Article and as a result has plenary scope to define all matters held back by the takings clause Amendment certainly but everyone needs to recognize what the finding of plenary scope means here.

    The public can and should govern here, this was an essential purpose at the time we framed the Nation and its republican form.

    pgl -> ken melvin... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:02 AM
    Leave it to Tim Taylor to present the actual facts:

    http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2015/08/falling-labor-share-measurement-issues.html

    Labor's share has been falling since 2001 but it still is a wee bit above 50%. Too low and falling. Alas.

    Paine -> pgl... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:42 PM
    "manufacturing, which dropped almost 10 percentage points. Virtually all the major manufacturing subsectors saw their labor shares fall; for nondurable goods manufacturing it dropped from 62 percent to 40 percent. The labor share within the service sector kept increasing, as it had before 1987, but very modestly, only enough to cancel the downward pressure from the shift across sectors. Indeed, had the labor share of income in manufacturing stayed constant, the overall labor share would have barely budged."

    https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/research-and-data/publications/business-review/2015/q3/brq315_a_bit_of_a_miracle_no_more.pdf

    Paine -> pgl... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:48 PM
    Tim Taylor
    Is a lolly pop progressive

    His hands wring some but he smiles a happy smile
    And where's a red clown nose

    Paine -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:49 PM
    A john candy character
    pgl -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 02:55 PM
    You do hate actual analysis. Babble on.
    anne -> pgl... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 03:13 PM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=6QWb

    January 30, 2016

    Compensation of Employees and After-Tax Corporate Profits as Shares of Gross Domestic Income, 2000-2015

    (Indexed to 2000)


    Decline in compensation of employees share of GDI:

    94 - 100 = - 6%


    Increase in profits share of GDI:

    175 - 100 = 75%

    George H. Blackford : ,
    "Free Trade can nowise guarantee the maintenance of industry, or of an industrial population upon any particular country, and there is no consideration, theoretic or practical, to prevent British capital from transferring itself to China, provided it can find there a cheaper or more efficient supply of labour, or even to prevent Chinese capital with Chinese labour from ousting British produce in neutral markets of the world. What applies to Great Britain applies equally to the other industrial nations which have driven their economic suckers into China. It is at least conceivable that China might so turn the tables upon the Western industrial nations, and, either by adopting their capital and organisers or, as is more probable, by substituting her own, might flood their markets with her cheaper manufactures, and REFUSING THEIR IMPORTS IN EXCHANGE MIGHT TAKE HER PAYMENT IN LIENS UPON THEIR CAPITAL, REVERSING THE EARLIER PROCESS OF INVESTMENT UNTIL SHE GRADUALLY OBTAINED FINANCIAL CONTROL OVER HER QUONDAM PATRONS AND CIVILISERS.

    This is no idle speculation. If China in very truth possesses those industrial and business capacities with which she is commonly accredited, and the Western Powers are able to have their will in developing her upon Western lines, it seems extremely likely that this reaction will result."
    John Atkinson Hobson, Imperialism, A Study, 1902. http://files.libertyfund.org/files/127/0052_Bk.pdf

    And what did today's experts think was going to happen? http://www.rweconomics.com/htm/WDCh_2.htm

    [Aug 29, 2016] So much propaganda, diversioning

    Notable quotes:
    "... White collars hell. They're just timid ..."
    "... It's the gold collar types, the wage mob needs to attack: Corporate suite insiders and their evil twins in private equity ..."
    "... upper level white collar = gold collar ..."
    "... I'd love to see the percent of " compensation" that goes to the executive suite cliques ..."
    "... The upper level white collars Gold collars rake off ten percent of earnings now. I think that's a low ball now ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm said in reply to Tom aka Rusty... Reply Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:20 AM

    so much propaganda, diversioning

    • racist vs neocon
    • anti TPP vs pro TPP
    • neolib vs anti Khan gold star con

    the choices are stark, which one is good for average joe?

    Paine said in reply to Tom aka Rusty...

    White collars hell. They're just timid

    It's the gold collar types, the wage mob needs to attack: Corporate suite insiders and their evil twins in private equity

    Right on the job

    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to Paine... August 28, 2016 at 04:01 PM

    upper level white collar = gold collar

    Paine said in reply to Tom aka Rusty...

    Great

    Then we agree

    I'd love to see the percent of " compensation" that goes to the executive suite cliques
    My old rule of thumb based on a now Forgotten research paper

    The upper level white collars Gold collars rake off ten percent of earnings now. I think that's a low ball now

    [Aug 29, 2016] The disregard of the winners towards the losers

    Aug 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Patricia Shannon :

    The disregard of the winners towards the losers helps to bring about the popularity of people like Trump. I am not at all surprised at the level of his popularity, even though I personally despise him. Reply Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 10:55 AM pgl -> Patricia Shannon ... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:07 AM
    Agreed. If those who lost from trade think Trump will help them - I have a bridge to sell them.
    ilsm -> pgl... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 04:13 PM
    If those who have not lost to trade think Hillary might help them.....

    I just wasted* 2+ hours with a bunch of Hilbots.... all I heard is Trump is so evil and his supports are so dumb or racist or anti Planned Parenthood.

    Not a word to defend Killary except she could not be evil she is watched so much. And Obama called off the DoJ.

    A room full of cognitive dissonance and brainwashed.

    *horts du orvees was okay!

    cm -> Patricia Shannon ... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:10 PM
    It is not only disregard, but active mockery and defamation - accusing the "losers" of hedonism, entitlement thinking, irresposibility, lack of virtue, merit, striving, intelligence, etc.
    cm -> cm... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:12 PM
    I.e. reverse puritanism of sorts - lack of success is always to be explained in terms of lack in virtue and striving.
    Paine -> cm... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:57 PM
    Yes

    This include the bulk of the liberal merit class winners too
    Their support for the tax and transfer system
    Humanist noblesse " oblige "


    The system of merit rewards is largely

    Firm but fair

    cm -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 03:41 PM
    "This include the bulk of the liberal merit class winners too"

    This is where the "limousine liberal" meme comes from (or more precisely gets it support and success from).

    Of course all the claimed demerits exist plenty among the people so accused (as well as among the winners) - though they always did, but I'm under the impression that beforeGlobalization_blowback/technology supported loss of leverage and thus prestige, it wasn't a *public* narrative (in private circles there has always been "if you don't make an effort in school you will end up sweeping the streets", and looking down on the "unskilled", etc. - with the hindsight irony that even street sweeping has been automated).

    Tom aka Rusty : , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:09 AM
    It will be a war of blue collar versus upper level white collar.

    The elites have the money and power, the grunts have the votes.

    In 2020, after the blue collar types are disappointed for four more years, the anger will have grown.

    ilsm -> Tom aka Rusty... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:20 AM
    so much propaganda, diversioning

    racist vs neocon

    anti TPP vs pro TPP

    neolib vs anti Khan gold star con

    the choices are stark, which one is good for average joe?

    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to ilsm... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 04:01 PM
    Neither.
    ilsm -> Tom aka Rusty... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 04:15 PM
    Unless joe wants to keep using the women's room.
    Paine -> Tom aka Rusty... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:59 PM
    White collars hell
    They're just timid


    It's the gold collar types the wage mob needs to attack

    Corporate suite insiders and their evil twins in private equity

    Right on the job

    Not in the ballot booth

    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 04:01 PM
    upper level white collar = gold collar
    Paine -> Tom aka Rusty... , -1
    Great

    Then we agree

    I'd love to see the percent of " compensation" that goes to the executive suite cliques. My old rule of thumb based on a now Forgotten research paper

    The upper level white collars Gold collars rake off ten percent of earnings now

    I think that's a low ball now

    [Aug 29, 2016] Middle East divides the Empire

    Looks like Israel count of IS to serve as a counterbalancing force able to weaken Hezbollah
    Notable quotes:
    "... A weak IS is, counterintuitively, preferable to a destroyed IS. IS is a magnet for radicalized Muslims in countries throughout the world. These volunteers are easier targets to identify, saving intelligence work. They acquire destructive skills in the fields of Syria and Iraq that are of undoubted concern if they return home, but some of them acquire shaheed ..."
    "... Furthermore, Hizballah – a radical Shiite anti-Western organization subservient to Iran – is being seriously taxed by the fight against IS, a state of affairs that suits Western interests. A Hizballah no longer involved in the Syrian civil war might engage once again in the taking of western hostages and other terrorist acts in Europe. ..."
    "... The West yearns for stability, and holds out a naive hope that the military defeat of IS will be instrumental in reaching that goal. But stability is not a value in and of itself. It is desirable only if it serves our interests. The defeat of IS would encourage Iranian hegemony in the region, buttress Russia's role, and prolong Assad's tyranny. Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus do not share our democratic values and have little inclination to help America and the West. ..."
    "... Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is professor emeritus of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum. ..."
    Defend Democracy Press
    The Destruction of Islamic State is a Strategic Mistake

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The West should seek the further weakening of Islamic State, but not its destruction. A weak but functioning IS can undermine the appeal of the caliphate among radical Muslims; keep bad actors focused on one another rather than on Western targets; and hamper Iran's quest for regional hegemony.

    US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter recently gathered defense ministers from allied nations to plan what officials hope will be the decisive stage in the campaign to eradicate the Islamic State (IS) organization. This is a strategic mistake.

    IS, a radical Islamist group, has killed thousands of people since it declared an Islamic caliphate in June 2014, with the Syrian city of Raqqa as its de facto capital. It captured tremendous international attention by swiftly conquering large swaths of land and by releasing gruesome pictures of beheadings and other means of execution.

    But IS is primarily successful where there is a political void. Although the offensives in Syria and Iraq showed IS's tactical capabilities, they were directed against failed states with weakened militaries. On occasions when the poorly trained IS troops have met well-organized opposition, even that of non-state entities like the Kurdish militias, the group's performance has been less convincing. When greater military pressure was applied and Turkish support dwindled, IS went into retreat.

    It is true that IS has ignited immense passion among many young and frustrated Muslims all over the world, and the caliphate idea holds great appeal among believers. But the relevant question is what can IS do, particularly in its current situation? The terrorist activities for which it recently took responsibility were perpetrated mostly by lone wolves who declared their allegiance to IS; they were not directed from Raqqa. On its own, IS is capable of only limited damage.

    A weak IS is, counterintuitively, preferable to a destroyed IS. IS is a magnet for radicalized Muslims in countries throughout the world. These volunteers are easier targets to identify, saving intelligence work. They acquire destructive skills in the fields of Syria and Iraq that are of undoubted concern if they return home, but some of them acquire shaheed status while still away – a blessing for their home countries. If IS is fully defeated, more of these people are likely to come home and cause trouble.

    If IS loses control over its territory, the energies that went into protecting and governing a state will be directed toward organizing more terrorist attacks beyond its borders. The collapse of IS will produce a terrorist diaspora that might further radicalize Muslim immigrants in the West. Most counter-terrorism agencies understand this danger. Prolonging the life of IS probably assures the deaths of more Muslim extremists at the hands of other bad guys in the Middle East, and is likely to spare the West several terrorist attacks.

    Moreover, a weak and lingering IS could undermine the attraction of the caliphate idea. A dysfunctional and embattled political entity is more conducive to the disillusionment of Muslim adherents of a caliphate in our times than an IS destroyed by a mighty America-led coalition. The latter scenario perfectly fits the narrative of continuous and perfidious efforts on the part of the West to destroy Islam, which feeds radical Muslim hatred for everything the West stands for.

    The continuing existence of IS serves a strategic purpose. Why help the brutal Assad regime win the Syrian civil war? Many radical Islamists in the opposition forces, i.e., Al Nusra and its offshoots, might find other arenas in which to operate closer to Paris and Berlin. Is it in the West's interests to strengthen the Russian grip on Syria and bolster its influence in the Middle East? Is enhancing Iranian control of Iraq congruent with American objectives in that country? Only the strategic folly that currently prevails in Washington can consider it a positive to enhance the power of the Moscow-Tehran-Damascus axis by cooperating with Russia against IS.

    Furthermore, Hizballah – a radical Shiite anti-Western organization subservient to Iran – is being seriously taxed by the fight against IS, a state of affairs that suits Western interests. A Hizballah no longer involved in the Syrian civil war might engage once again in the taking of western hostages and other terrorist acts in Europe.

    The Western distaste for IS brutality and immorality should not obfuscate strategic clarity. IS are truly bad guys, but few of their opponents are much better. Allowing bad guys to kill bad guys sounds very cynical, but it is useful and even moral to do so if it keeps the bad guys busy and less able to harm the good guys. The Hobbesian reality of the Middle East does not always present a neat moral choice.

    The West yearns for stability, and holds out a naive hope that the military defeat of IS will be instrumental in reaching that goal. But stability is not a value in and of itself. It is desirable only if it serves our interests. The defeat of IS would encourage Iranian hegemony in the region, buttress Russia's role, and prolong Assad's tyranny. Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus do not share our democratic values and have little inclination to help America and the West.

    Moreover, instability and crises sometimes contain portents of positive change. Unfortunately, the Obama administration fails to see that its main enemy is Iran. The Obama administration has inflated the threat from IS in order to legitimize Iran as a "responsible" actor that will, supposedly, fight IS in the Middle East. This was part of the Obama administration's rationale for its nuclear deal with Iran and central to its "legacy," which is likely to be ill-remembered.

    The American administration does not appear capable of recognizing the fact that IS can be a useful tool in undermining Tehran's ambitious plan for domination of the Middle East.

    PDF

    Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is professor emeritus of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

    BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family

    [Aug 29, 2016] Natsec and Cybersec firms want more money and are ready to fuel anti-Russian hysteria for thier private gains.

    You should take with the grain of slad any such companies declarations. They typically lie and exaggerate the treats. .
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    hunkerdown , August 29, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    I prefer /dev/random and three passes, if I have any intention of using the drive later. If I were involved in anything seriously malfeasant where using the drive later were not a consideration, I'd be following the established procedures of the masters of the art. (NSA)

    inode_buddha , August 29, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    Some article on Slashdot is going on about how the FBI has proof of foreign election tampering why is this NOW all of a sudden a problem???

    bob , August 29, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    More money for natsec/Cybersec firms.

    "we're under attack!"

    [Aug 29, 2016] Harry Reid Cites Evidence of Russian Tampering in U.S. Vote, and Seeks FBI Inquiry

    Hail Mary pass to save Hillary ? Or Las Vegas mafia style attempt to cry "chief" before stealing elections?
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, asked the F.B.I. on Monday to investigate evidence suggesting that Russia may try to manipulate voting results in November.

    In a letter to the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey Jr., Mr. Reid wrote that the threat of Russian interference "is more extensive than is widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results." Recent classified briefings from senior intelligence officials, Mr. Reid said in an interview, have left him fearful that President Vladimir V. Putin's "goal is tampering with this election."

    News reports on Monday said the F.B.I. warned state election officials several weeks ago that foreign hackers had exported voter registration data from computer systems in at least one state, and had pierced the systems of a second one.

    The bureau did not name the states, but Yahoo News , which first reported the confidential F.B.I. warning, said they were Arizona and Illinois. Matt Roberts, a spokesman for Arizona's secretary of state, said the F.B.I. had told state officials that Russians were behind the Arizona attack.

    After the F.B.I. warning, Arizona took its voter registration database offline from June 28 to July 8 to allow for a forensic exam of its systems, Mr. Roberts said.

    Advertisement Continue reading the main story

    The F.B.I., in its notice to states, said the voter information had been "exfiltrated," which means that it was shipped out of the state systems to another computer. But it does not mean that the data itself was tampered with.

    It is unclear whether the hackers intended to affect the election or pursued the data for other purposes, like gaining personal identifying information about voters. The F.B.I. warning referred to "targeting activity" against state boards of elections, but did not discuss the intent of the hackers.

    [Aug 29, 2016] The im migration issue is the democrats effort to distract Donald Trumps outreach to the black community

    Aug 29, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com

    ToddElliottKoger

    , 2016-08-29 01:18:06
    The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's outreach to the black community . . .

    Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop" issue is minor at this point.

    What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black community that he needs their help.

    He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades of influence over the black community.

    He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities (and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump" campaign is he actually represents "racial unity."

    Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding president's popularity. He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on "winning" the support of "poor blacks."

    He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must make the black community understand "the opportunity presented."

    Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment political brokers) and make things "clear" that a "VOTE" for Trump is the black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.

    Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand the importance of "moving past" those things that have separated us. Mr. Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.

    THIS IS THE ONLY WAY MR. TRUMP CAN WIN . . . .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVEnw82HEvc

    Aldythe ToddElliottKoger , 2016-08-29 02:05:35
    The immigration issue is how he won the primaries and it is the issue that has made him popular with his fans. It is typically the focus of his speeches. How can you suggest that the democrats are attempting to distract anyone on immigration? Trump is the one who talks about it constantly.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Trump and immigration

    Notable quotes:
    "... Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration and anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the debate. ..."
    "... You are so silly. How many times has Hillary changed her mind on immigration? In fact, I am sure all of you recall a time when she suggested a fence and deportation. ..."
    "... Here's Hillary in favor of a wall and deportations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DckY2dRFtxc ..."
    "... Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time Hillarys plan for improving Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more ..."
    "... One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of thousands of farm owners and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    ToddElliottKoger , 2016-08-28 23:56:33
    The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's outreach to the black community . . .

    Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop" issue is minor at this point.

    What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black community that he needs their help.

    He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades of influence over the black community.

    He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities (and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump" campaign is he actually represents "racial unity."

    Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding president's popularity. He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on "winning" the support of "poor blacks."

    He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must make the black community understand "the opportunity presented."

    Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment political brokers) and make things "clear" that a "VOTE" for Trump is the black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.

    Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand the importance of "moving past" those things that have separated us. Mr. Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.

    THIS IS THE ONLY WAY MR. TRUMP CAN WIN . . . .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVEnw82HEvc

    Menger , 2016-08-28 22:58:13
    Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration and anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the debate.
    bcarey , 2016-08-28 22:42:59
    You are so silly. How many times has Hillary changed her mind on immigration? In fact, I am sure all of you recall a time when she suggested a fence and deportation.
    bcarey -> bcarey , 2016-08-28 22:50:54
    Here's Hillary in favor of a wall and deportations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DckY2dRFtxc
    SysConfig , 2016-08-28 21:11:38
    Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time Hillarys plan for improving Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more . If they are so good why doesn't Europe take them for us..
    PaulDMorton , 2016-08-28 21:01:34
    What gets lost in all of this how the USA allowed Mexico to spiral into the corrupt, poor country they currently are. It's time for the US to get firm with Mexico and help them get on their feet - which their corrupt leaders will hate, but tough shit. There is no excuse to border the United States of America and have such poor living standards for their people.

    Although not ideal, a wall is a very direct message to Mexico's govt that the US will not tolerate their corrupt government and drug cartels.

    PaulDMorton , 2016-08-28 20:52:12
    What's wrong with Trump changing his stance? He listened to his supporters (most of whom think some type of amnesty is appropriate) and tweaked his immigration plan.. *gasp* It seems like a mature, reasonable move from an intelligent strong leader - which Trump is. He will be an excellent President.
    NickedTurpin , 2016-08-28 20:52:10
    One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of thousands of farm owners and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations.

    The trouble with both candidates is the Believability Factor. No mater what they may say, it's doubtful they will do what they say. There needs to be election laws that make ignoring campaign 'promises' once in office impeachable.

    pfox33 , 2016-08-28 19:14:41
    Trump's original platform of deporting 11 million illegals isn't doable. That would involve round-ups and incarcerations last seen in Nazi Germany. I don't think the American people at large would stand for that.

    So the spiel has been morphing into something more palatable to Joe Average. He keeps trying to placate his base by having his surrogates assure them that nothing has changed but it obviously has.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Exclusive - Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn Obama, Hillary Ignored Intelligence They Did Not Like About Middle East, Only Wanted Happy Ta

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Field of Fight ..."
    "... the one thing about intelligence is we should stand for truth to power-meaning we should always say what we believe, and lay the facts out, lay the tough right facts out and then you let the policymakers make the decisions that they have to make. What has happened in the last 10 years, frankly in the last 8 years, is we have seen a level of dishonesty coming out of both the policy and the decision making structure with the American people." ..."
    "... Because of the President's and the Secretary of State's-among other officials in the Obama administration-unwillingness to hear all the facts, including ones they needed to but didn't want to hear, Flynn says the President has presented a narrative to the American people about the war on terrorism and radical Islamism that is simply inaccurate. ..."
    "... The intelligence process starts really at the ground level, but the priorities-the priorities, Matt, for an intelligence system and the intelligence community in our country and that's the President of the United States. ..."
    "... "That means infiltrating into refugee populations, that means conducting of smart information operations," Flynn said. "Most people don't know but these guys have very sophisticated information operations going on, with publications of magazines and websites. They have leaders in their groups that have thousands and thousands-I'm talking tens of thousands of followers on social media and Instagram and Twitter. ..."
    "... Then I call for in the book a new 21st century alliance. This is where we really come to how we take the Arab community to task on how they plan to fix this cancerous disease inside of their own body that has metastasized and grown exponentially over the last five or six years and certainly actually over the last eight to 10 years. So it's one thing to go after the ideology, just like we went after Communism for 40 years ..."
    "... He is a street savvy strategic leader type person who has a vision for this country, and he's turned it into this phrase of 'Make America Great Again.'" ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    NEW YORK CITY, New York - Retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, who served for more than two years as the director of President Barack Obama's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), leveled explosive charges against the President and his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an exclusive hour-long interview with Breitbart News Daily on Friday.

    Specifically, during an exclusive interview about his book The Field of Fight , Flynn said that Obama and Clinton were not interested in hearing intelligence that did not fit their "happy talk" narrative about the Middle East. In fact, he alleged the administration actively scrubbed training manuals and purged from the military ranks any thinking about the concept of radical Islamism. Flynn argued that this effort by Obama, Clinton and others to reduce the intelligence community to gathering only facts that the senior administration officials wanted to hear-rather than what they needed to hear-helped the enemy fester and grow, while weakening the United States on the world stage.

    "The administration has basically denied the fact that we have this problem with 'Radical Islamists,'" Flynn said during the interview. "And this is a very vicious, barbaric enemy and I recognize in the book that there is an alliance of countries that are dedicated basically against our way of life and they support different groups in the Islamic movement, principally the Islamic State and formerly Al Qaeda-although Al Qaeda still exists. The administration denied the fact that this even existed and then told those of us in the government to basically excise the phrase 'radical Islamism' out of our entire culture, out of our training manuals, everything. That was a big argument I had internally and I talked a little bit about it in the Senate testimony that I gave two years back."

    Later in the interview, Flynn was even more specific, calling out Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for not wanting to hear all the facts about what was happening in the Middle East-only some of them.

    "There's a narrative that the President and his team, including Hillary Clinton, wanted to hear-instead of having the tough news or the bad news if you will that they needed to hear," Flynn said. "Now, there's a big difference. And the one thing about intelligence is we should stand for truth to power-meaning we should always say what we believe, and lay the facts out, lay the tough right facts out and then you let the policymakers make the decisions that they have to make. What has happened in the last 10 years, frankly in the last 8 years, is we have seen a level of dishonesty coming out of both the policy and the decision making structure with the American people."

    Because of the President's and the Secretary of State's-among other officials in the Obama administration-unwillingness to hear all the facts, including ones they needed to but didn't want to hear, Flynn says the President has presented a narrative to the American people about the war on terrorism and radical Islamism that is simply inaccurate.

    "The President has said they're jayvee, they're on the run, they're not that strong, what difference does it make what we call-that's being totally dishonest with the American public," Flynn said. "There's one thing that Americans are, and we're tough, resilient people but we have to be told the truth. I think what a lot of this is, in fact what I know a lot of it is. It's a lot of happy talk from a President who did not meet the narrative of his political ideology or his political decision-making process to take our country in a completely different direction and frankly that's why I'm sitting here talking to you here today, Matt. The intelligence process starts really at the ground level, but the priorities-the priorities, Matt, for an intelligence system and the intelligence community in our country and that's the President of the United States. "

    The Obama administration's refusal to take these threats seriously and his, Flynn said, "has allowed an enemy that is using very smart, savvy means to impact our way of life."

    "That means infiltrating into refugee populations, that means conducting of smart information operations," Flynn said. "Most people don't know but these guys have very sophisticated information operations going on, with publications of magazines and websites. They have leaders in their groups that have thousands and thousands-I'm talking tens of thousands of followers on social media and Instagram and Twitter. So we are not even allowed to go after these kinds of things right now. This is the problem-it's a big problem. In fact, if we don't change this we're going to see this strengthening in our homeland."

    Flynn also laid out how to defeat radical Islamism, a plan he has stated repeatedly that the Obama Administration has ignored.

    "The very first thing is we have to clearly define the enemy and we have to get our own house in order, which this administration has not done," Flynn said. "We have to figure out how are we going to organize ourselves. Then I call for in the book a new 21st century alliance. This is where we really come to how we take the Arab community to task on how they plan to fix this cancerous disease inside of their own body that has metastasized and grown exponentially over the last five or six years and certainly actually over the last eight to 10 years. So it's one thing to go after the ideology, just like we went after Communism for 40 years , but I also say in the book we have to crush this enemy wherever they exist. We cannot allow them to have any safe haven. We are dancing around the sort of head of a pin, when we know these guys are in certain places around the world and our military is not allowed to go in there and get them. The 'mother may I' has to go all the way back up to the White House."

    He said the fight has to be very similar to how the United States, over decades, thoroughly degraded Communism on the world stage.

    "There's no enemy that's unbeatable," Flynn said. "We can beat any enemy. We put our minds to it, we decide to do that, we can beat any enemy. And there's no ideology in the world that's better than the American ideology. We should not allow, because they mask themselves behind the religion of Islam, we should not allow our ideology, our way of life, our system of principles, our values that are based on a Judeo-Christian set that comes right out of our Constitution-we should not fear that. In fact, we should fight those that try to impose a different way of life on us. That's what we did against the Nazis, that's what we did against the Communists for the better part of a half a century-in fact, more than half a century. Now we are dealing with another Ism, and that's radical Islamism, and we're going to have to fight it-and we're going to be fighting it for some time. But tactically we can defeat this enemy quickly. Then what we have to do is we have to fight the ideology, and we can do that diplomatically, politically, informationally and we can do that in very, very smart ways much greater than we're doing right now."

    Flynn is a lifelong Democrat, and again served in this senior Obama administration position for more than two years, but is now publicly supporting Republican nominee Donald Trump for president. He spoke at the Republican National Convention in support of Trump, and has been publicly speaking out in favor of the GOP nominee for some time now.

    "My role as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency-that's almost a 20,000 person organization in 140 plus countries around the world," Flynn said. "I was also the senior military and intelligence officer not only for the Defense Department but for the country. So I mean I was basically told 'hey, you know what, what you're saying we don't like. So you're out.' To Donald Trump, though, and I haven't known him that long but I met him a year ago-in fact a year ago this month. The conversation that we had, which was an amazing conversation, I found a guy that like I to say, 'he gets it.' He gets it. He is a street savvy strategic leader type person who has a vision for this country, and he's turned it into this phrase of 'Make America Great Again.'"

    ... ... ...

    LISTEN TO LT. GEN. MICHAEL FLYNN ON BREITBART NEWS DAILY ON SIRIUSXM 125 THE PATRIOT CHANNEL:

    [Aug 29, 2016] Trump By a Landslide

    Notable quotes:
    "... If we believe the mainstream media and the Establishment it protects and promotes, Trump has no chance of winning the presidential election. For starters, Trump supporters are all Confederate-flag waving hillbillies, bigots, fascists and misogynists. In other words. "good people" can't possibly vote for Trump. Even cartoon character Mike Doonesbury is fleeing to Vancouver to escape Trump_vs_deep_state. (Memo to the Doonesbury family: selling your Seattle home will barely net the down payment on a decent crib in Vancouver.). For another, Trump alienates the entire planet every time he speaks. The list goes on, of course, continuing with his lack of qualifications. ..."
    "... But suppose this election isn't about Trump or Hillary at all. Suppose, as political scientists Allan J. Lichtman and Ken DeCell claimed in their 1988 book, Thirteen Keys to the Presidency , that all presidential elections from 1860 to the present are referendums on the sitting president and his party. ..."
    "... Author/historian Robert W. Merry sorts through the 13 analytic keys in the current issue of The American Conservative magazine and concludes they "could pose bad news for Clinton." ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.oftwominds.com

    ... ... ...

    Based on this analytic structure, Trump may not just win the election in November--he might win by a landslide.

    If we believe the mainstream media and the Establishment it protects and promotes, Trump has no chance of winning the presidential election. For starters, Trump supporters are all Confederate-flag waving hillbillies, bigots, fascists and misogynists. In other words. "good people" can't possibly vote for Trump. Even cartoon character Mike Doonesbury is fleeing to Vancouver to escape Trump_vs_deep_state. (Memo to the Doonesbury family: selling your Seattle home will barely net the down payment on a decent crib in Vancouver.). For another, Trump alienates the entire planet every time he speaks. The list goes on, of course, continuing with his lack of qualifications.

    But suppose this election isn't about Trump or Hillary at all. Suppose, as political scientists Allan J. Lichtman and Ken DeCell claimed in their 1988 book, Thirteen Keys to the Presidency , that all presidential elections from 1860 to the present are referendums on the sitting president and his party.

    If the public views the sitting president's second term favorably, the candidate from his party will win the election. If the public views the sitting president's second term unfavorably, the candidate from the other party will win the election.

    (Lichtman published another book on his system in 2008, The Keys to the White House: A Surefire Guide to Predicting the Next President .)

    Author/historian Robert W. Merry sorts through the 13 analytic keys in the current issue of The American Conservative magazine and concludes they "could pose bad news for Clinton."

    If five or fewer are negative for the incumbent, the incumbent party will win the election. If six or more are negative, the incumbent party loses the election. Merry counts eight negatives for President Obama's second term, which if true spells defeat for the Clinton ticket.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Trump's new aim Poison a Clinton presidency

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Clinton campaign has deliberately positioned its response as an offensive boomerang rather than a rebuttal: Don't defend against the attacks, just redirect fire at the messenger ..."
    "... But the politics are made harder amid the drip-drip revelations from the newly released emails demonstrating the messy overlap between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, which leave even many Clinton-inclined voters wondering what she was really up to and why it's so hard for her to explain it. ..."
    POLITICO

    The Clinton campaign has deliberately positioned its response as an offensive boomerang rather than a rebuttal: Don't defend against the attacks, just redirect fire at the messenger. "It holds up a mirror to Donald Trump and what his campaign is about, and says everything you need to know about Donald Trump and where these kinds of crazy conspiracy theories are coming from," as one campaign aide put it.

    ... ... ...

    But the politics are made harder amid the drip-drip revelations from the newly released emails demonstrating the messy overlap between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, which leave even many Clinton-inclined voters wondering what she was really up to and why it's so hard for her to explain it.

    [Aug 29, 2016] The media's obsession with reporting every drop of saliva to emerge from Donald Trump's mouth for the last year and a half

    Notable quotes:
    "... The media's obsession with reporting every drop of saliva to emerge from Donald Trump's mouth for the last year and a half, accompanied by requisite pearl clutching and gasps of offense, wasn't done by accident. Instead, it was a carefully planned campaign to set the bulk of the American populace up to automatically discard any criticism of the Clinton Cult without question ..."
    "... What all that does accomplish, however, is generate the mindset that is now terrifying in its willingness to completely ignore any and all facts that the Clinton Foundation is a huge money-laundering organization. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Elizabeth Burton , August 29, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Submitted for your consideration…

    The media's obsession with reporting every drop of saliva to emerge from Donald Trump's mouth for the last year and a half, accompanied by requisite pearl clutching and gasps of offense, wasn't done by accident. Instead, it was a carefully planned campaign to set the bulk of the American populace up to automatically discard any criticism of the Clinton Cult without question , because the Cultists use the language and connections that have been inserted into the national psyche as being Trump-related.

    So, having made a great fuss over how Trump admires Putin, and spreading the theme that Putin would love to have Trump in the Oval Office, they then embrace with enthusiasm the contention of the DNC that their databases were "hacked by Russians, probably at the behest of government agencies," even though there was no possible way that could have been determined if, as they contend, they weren't aware of the hack until just a few months ago. Oh, and it helps if you believe Russian intelligence agencies are going to hire hackers stupid enough to all but leave their names and addresses around to be "discovered."

    What all that does accomplish, however, is generate the mindset that is now terrifying in its willingness to completely ignore any and all facts that the Clinton Foundation is a huge money-laundering organization. I have seen people who take great pride in their skepticism dismiss the multiple articles exposing the corruption as "unfounded rubbish." I've been told the AP article is "a farce." Point them to articles by qualified professionals showing the utter absence of any proof the Clinton Foundation is a philanthropic organization for anyone but the people it's named for, and the dismissal is abrupt and total.

    I don't know if it's cultism or just that people know she's going to be elected and don't want to think about the consequences, but the vast number of those who won't even consider shenanigans is appalling. It's all part of that Republican conspiracy, and that's all they care to know.

    [Aug 29, 2016] NYT Laments Of Allegedly False Russian News Stories - With A False U.S. News Story

    Notable quotes:
    "... people need to realize what they read is not the truth.. words can and are used to deceive... propaganda seems to be one of the central roles of all media at this point in time... folks need to beware of this.. ..."
    "... Mark Twain said that if you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed. ..."
    "... Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other guy!" ..."
    "... Will we USAians ever wake up to 9/11 => Afghanistan => Iraq => Libya => Syria => Ukraine => Yemen ... ..."
    "... How many innocents have 'our' emperors - Bush XLI, Clinton XLII, Bush XLIII, Obama XLIV, coming soon? Clinton XLV - killed in the runup to and execution of series of criminal aggressions post-9/11? Two million? If Clinton sets the world on fire the numbers will rise by two orders of magnitude. ..."
    "... There have been rumours that the US government was helping to bankroll certain social media companies in return for access. I would say that the US government will step in and potentially rescue NYT and the like from being closed down. They serve an intrinsic and important service to the elite. They will not abandon it. ..."
    "... The CIA has bankrolled many startups ... maybe they could take out ads for Raytheon and General Atomic products, run US military/CIA recruitment ads? Pay for placement of articles like Mark Sleboda 's, 'The Turkish Invasion Of Syria As Path To "Regime Change"'? ..."
    "... The NYTimes going bellyup ... happened to the Washington Post and the WSJ. Maybe Eric Schmidt will buy it? Or Rupert Murdoch. ..."
    "... I wonder if the CIA bankrolled Rupert Murdoch? The CIA took out a $500 million data storage contract with Amazon just before Bezos bought the WaPo. Come to think of it, having control of the WaPo, WSJ, and NYTimes archives would be just what Dr. Orwell ordered. Mark Sleboda could then work for the MiniTrue, revising the past as required. ..."
    "... Like all psychopaths, they have a one-track mind that doesn't allow an effective strategy when it comes to bipedal meat units. Their answer to convincing you of their lies is to proffer more outrageous lies. It's kind of like the newspapers fighting declining advertising revenue by making the print smaller, stuffing the paper with more ads at higher rates and raising the price for a printed newspaper. Damn it, why won't you monkeys OBEY! ..."
    "... That's an excellent point, b. I don't even remember the last time I've read anything truthful in any western MSM outlet. Almost everything is a spin of various degree. NYT is one of worst offenders, so another lying piece is not at all surprising. ..."
    "... From the Wikipedia article Factoid : The term was coined in 1973 by American writer Norman Mailer to mean a "piece of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it's not actually true, or an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print." ..."
    "... This is a basic tool of Western mainstream propaganda. Sprinkle every article full of "factoids" or small lies. These lies are not about the core topic of article, so they are unlikely to be challenged. Their only purpose is to enforce the narrative and demonize the enemy. When small lies or "lielets" are repeated often enough, they become factoids, meaning that they are no longer recognized as lies. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The New York Times is desperate for new readers and therefore tries to branch into the realm of The Onion and other satirical sites. It attempts to show that allegedly Russia controlled media spread false stories for political purpose - by providing a false media story. The purpose of the NYT doing such is yours to guess.

    The sourcing of that Page 1 story is as weak as its content. It starts with claiming that opponents of Sweden joining NATO must be somehow Russia related and are spreading false stories:

    As often happens in such cases, Swedish officials were never able to pin down the source of the false reports.

    Duh! But it must have been Russia. Because Swedish internal opposition to joining NATO would be incapable of opining against it. Right? Likewise anti-EU reports and opposition to the EU within the Czech Republic MUST be caused by Russian disinformation and can in now way be related to mismanagement of the EU project itself.

    The sourcing for the whole long pamphlet is extremely weak:

    But they, numerous analysts and experts in American and European intelligence point to Russia as the prime suspect, noting that preventing NATO expansion is a centerpiece of the foreign policy of President Vladimir V. Putin, who invaded Georgia in 2008 largely to forestall that possibility.

    Whoa! "Experts in American and European intelligence" can of course be trusted not to ever spread false stories or rumors about Russia influencing "news". Such truth tellers they are and have always been.

    Then follows, in a claim about false stories(!) spread by Russia, that factually false claim that Russia "invaded Georgia in 2008". It was obvious in the very first hours of the Georgia war, as we then noted , that Georgia started it. A European Union commission later confirmed that it was Georgia, incited by the Bush government, that started the war. The NYT itself found the same . All Russia did was to protect the areas of South Ossetia and Abchazia that it was officially designated to protect by the United Nations! No invasion of Georgia took place.

    And what was the alleged reason that Russia "invaded" Georgia for? "Largely to forestall".."NATO expansion"? But it was NATO that rejected Georgia's membership in April 2008. Why then would Russia "invade" Georgia in August 2008 to prevent a membership that was surely not gonna happen?

    Utter a-historic nonsense.

    The who tale, written by Neil MacFarquhar , is a long list of hearsay where Russia is claimed to have influenced news but without ever showing any evidence.

    Not mentioned in the story are:

    • the systematic, extensive U.S government slanting of news through the Broadcasting Board of Governors and Voice of America and RFE/RL as well as through dozens of U.S. military financed "news" sites and social media fakes
    • the extensive cooperation between the New York Times and the CIA with spying as well as with manipulating foreign news
    • the acknowledged spreading of false stories about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq an behalf of the Bush administration by the NY Times itself.

    As Carl Bernstein described in his book about the CIA and the media:

    Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the [Central Intelligence] Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times , Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune.

    By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times , CBS and Time Inc.

    Bernstein shows that the NYT cooperation with the U.S. government and its intelligence agencies was very extensive and continues uninterrupted up to today.

    To lament about alleged Russian influence on some news outlets while writing a disinformation filled piece, based on "experts in American and European intelligence", for an outlet with proven CIA cooperation in faking news, is way beyond hypocrisy.

    Through this piece the NYT becomes its own parody. Did the author and editors recognize that? Or are they too self-unconscious for even such simple insight?

    Posted by b on August 29, 2016 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    james | Aug 29, 2016 11:48:02 AM | 1
    thanks b... people need to realize what they read is not the truth.. words can and are used to deceive... propaganda seems to be one of the central roles of all media at this point in time... folks need to beware of this..
    Steve | Aug 29, 2016 11:55:46 AM | 2
    Although, NYT, is bleeding and is losing audience, I am amazed that it is still in print. The Guardian is posting loss in millions of pounds, and that is what I expect NYT to be doing.
    WorldBLee | Aug 29, 2016 12:03:35 PM | 3
    "Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other guy!" That seems to be the official US opinion on Russia as expressed by the Clinton campaign, the NYT, and the other usual suspects purveying official US propaganda.
    IhaveLittleToAdd | Aug 29, 2016 12:11:46 PM | 4
    An amusing thing about the NYT's is the most-emailed/read lists, which are almost always well represented by articles such as "what to cook this weekend" and "48hrs in Tulsa." This is often despite the steady stream of heady world events. My take is that most readers of the Times want to be seen/known as Times readers, but would really prefer to be reading tabloids. The difference is becoming less obvious by the day.
    john | Aug 29, 2016 1:36:44 PM | 5
    Steve says:

    Although, NYT, is bleeding and is losing audience, I am amazed that it is still in print

    well, digital subscribers are apparently soaring. for sure CEO Mark Thompson doesn't seem too miffed about it.

    ToivoS | Aug 29, 2016 1:58:27 PM | 7
    One small quibble with this: But it was NATO that rejected Georgia's membership in April 2008. . That April meeting did not really reject Georgia's membership. The discussion was just postponed to a later meeting. It wasn't until after Russia thrashed Georgia in August that the US took the membership issue off the table.
    P Walker | Aug 29, 2016 2:02:56 PM | 8
    Mark Twain said that if you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed.
    jfl | Aug 29, 2016 2:08:59 PM | 9
    @3 wbl, "Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other guy!"

    That's the answer isn't it?

    Will we USAians ever wake up to 9/11 => Afghanistan => Iraq => Libya => Syria => Ukraine => Yemen ...

    How many innocents have 'our' emperors - Bush XLI, Clinton XLII, Bush XLIII, Obama XLIV, coming soon? Clinton XLV - killed in the runup to and execution of series of criminal aggressions post-9/11? Two million? If Clinton sets the world on fire the numbers will rise by two orders of magnitude.

    Don't look at Trump! Don't look at Me! Look at Vladimir, behind the tree!

    Ya gotta wanna believe. How many USAians still wanna believe?

    That is the question .

    Mina | Aug 29, 2016 2:10:00 PM | 10
    OT
    It's been two years now. They don't know where Raqqa is on the map? It's not like the Boko Haram hideouts in the jungle I would say.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3404894/The-saddest-thing-remember-little-girl-12-years-old-raped-without-mercy-Dressed-traditional-wedding-gowns-Yazidi-sex-slaves-relive-torture-ISIS.html

    P Walker | Aug 29, 2016 2:18:11 PM | 11
    @2

    There have been rumours that the US government was helping to bankroll certain social media companies in return for access. I would say that the US government will step in and potentially rescue NYT and the like from being closed down. They serve an intrinsic and important service to the elite. They will not abandon it.

    jsn | Aug 29, 2016 2:21:52 PM | 12
    It's been amusing to watch this electoral season as the Times has dropped all pretense of objectivity. While actual news accounts continue to lightly pepper the broadsheet, the headlines, article placement and, most importantly, what falls before and after the fold is so transparently partisan one is increasingly startled to find well reported and honest journalism.

    I remember back in the first Intifada when Abe Rosenthal had Palestinian youth throwing soviet made rocks while he glossed Sabra and Shatila massacres. The Times was pretty "Onion"y then, but the political coverage this year makes me weep for my country as what little good left in it chokes on growing torrents of BS, obfuscation, prevarication and bombast.

    jfl | Aug 29, 2016 2:33:50 PM | 13
    @11 pw

    The CIA has bankrolled many startups ... maybe they could take out ads for Raytheon and General Atomic products, run US military/CIA recruitment ads? Pay for placement of articles like Mark Sleboda 's, 'The Turkish Invasion Of Syria As Path To "Regime Change"'?

    The NYTimes going bellyup ... happened to the Washington Post and the WSJ. Maybe Eric Schmidt will buy it? Or Rupert Murdoch.

    I wonder if the CIA bankrolled Rupert Murdoch? The CIA took out a $500 million data storage contract with Amazon just before Bezos bought the WaPo. Come to think of it, having control of the WaPo, WSJ, and NYTimes archives would be just what Dr. Orwell ordered. Mark Sleboda could then work for the MiniTrue, revising the past as required.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 29, 2016 3:00:11 PM | 14
    jsn@12: do you really think that objectivity of NYT exhibits seasonal variation? Like neutral to positive stories about Russia between Easter and Passover, and a more usual dreck for the rest of the year?
    Piotr Berman | Aug 29, 2016 3:08:39 PM | 15
    There is still difference between NYT and tabloids. This is the most recent article in NY Post about Russia in NY Post:

    Putin is gobbling up whatever he can – while Obama does nothing

    By Benny Avni August 17, 2016 | 8:22pm.
    As Americans focus on who'll replace President Obama, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin marches around the globe unabated, rushing to gobble up anything and everything he can before the new president...

    Grieved | Aug 29, 2016 3:26:28 PM | 17
    Are we already in the second of the four stages to victory?

    I don't know much about the MSM, and even less about H. Clinton, but what was that all about with the speech she made concerning the "alt-right"? Who in their right mind would bring to the mainstream attention the existence of a body of contradictory writing?

    Is it the same thing here with NYT? Is the sheer prevalence of opposing opinion from its readers forcing the MSM - led by flagship NYT - to turn and address the phenomenon?

    I could not have dared to hope we could already be at stage 2:

    First they ignore you.
    Then they ridicule you.
    Then they fight you.
    Then you win.
    --Gandhi

    PavewayIV | Aug 29, 2016 4:53:23 PM | 18
    Grieved@17 - I'm going to argue we're at stage 2.5, Grieved. DDOS attacks on RT and Sputnik, 'managed' Google search rankings, censored tweets, NSA on your desktop/cellphone. The powers that be and western MSM are having a conniption fit and they are very angry.

    Like all psychopaths, they have a one-track mind that doesn't allow an effective strategy when it comes to bipedal meat units. Their answer to convincing you of their lies is to proffer more outrageous lies. It's kind of like the newspapers fighting declining advertising revenue by making the print smaller, stuffing the paper with more ads at higher rates and raising the price for a printed newspaper. Damn it, why won't you monkeys OBEY!

    jsn | Aug 29, 2016 5:06:49 PM | 20
    Piotr@14,
    The season to which I refer is, as I said, the electoral one!

    The Times blows (or is it sucks?) very much with the political weather, though regretfully our elections now blow for long enough to constitute multiple seasons proper.

    I've long suspected that light seasoning of truth they sprinkle beneath the fold or deep inside is there so that when the bogosity of one of their major narratives periodically explodes they can scrape thin truths from the back pages and later paragraphs to claim the've been reporting the truth all along!

    telescope | Aug 29, 2016 5:12:35 PM | 21
    That's an excellent point, b. I don't even remember the last time I've read anything truthful in any western MSM outlet. Almost everything is a spin of various degree. NYT is one of worst offenders, so another lying piece is not at all surprising.
    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 29, 2016 5:22:21 PM | 23
    NYT slogan is "All The News That's Fit To Print"

    Did good taste preclude "All The News That's Fit To Read"

    Petri Krohn | Aug 29, 2016 5:37:03 PM | 24
    Russia invading Georgia in 2008 fits the definition of factoid , as defined by Norman Mailer in 1973:
    From the Wikipedia article Factoid : The term was coined in 1973 by American writer Norman Mailer to mean a "piece of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it's not actually true, or an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print."

    This is a basic tool of Western mainstream propaganda. Sprinkle every article full of "factoids" or small lies. These lies are not about the core topic of article, so they are unlikely to be challenged. Their only purpose is to enforce the narrative and demonize the enemy. When small lies or "lielets" are repeated often enough, they become factoids, meaning that they are no longer recognized as lies.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Black Panther Party Leader said that Hillary Democrats are promising everything, giving nothing

    Notable quotes:
    "... We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests. ..."
    "... Barack Obama, our president, served two terms… the first black president ever… but did our condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically with education in our community… did things get better? Are our young people working more? ..."
    "... If having the Black working community start totally hammering the Dems becomes "cool" the Dem's are screwed for a long time. ..."
    "... Obama trashed all of America, blacks and whites, while transferring millions of jobs overseas to Bangladesh, China, Mexico, etc. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    ... following interview with New Black Panther Quanell X requires no further commentary – he breaks it down quite succinctly:

    Let me say this to the brothers and sisters who listened and watched that speech… We may not like the vessel [Donald Trump] that said what he said, but I ask us to truly examine what he said.

    Because it is a fact that for 54 years we have been voting for the Democratic Party like no other race in America. And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given them. We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests.

    ...

    I want to say and encourage the brothers and sisters… Barack Obama, our president, served two terms… the first black president ever… but did our condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically with education in our community… did things get better? Are our young people working more?

    The condition got worse.

    froze25 -> jcaz, Aug 29, 2016 10:30 AM
    If having the Black working community start totally hammering the Dems becomes "cool" the Dem's are screwed for a long time.
    847328_3527 -> MANvsMACHINE, Aug 29, 2016 10:36 AM
    Obama trashed all of America, blacks and whites, while transferring millions of jobs overseas to Bangladesh, China, Mexico, etc.
    CJgipper -> FireBrander, Aug 29, 2016 12:28 PM
    I've said that repeatedly. The question for hillary isn't what does the survey show, but how many will actually be motivated enough to go vote. They may not show up and pull the lever for trump this go round, but they may be curious enough to see what happens to just stay home and let things work themselves out to see what the result will be

    [Aug 29, 2016] Yet another instance of the pot calleng the cattle black

    Notable quotes:
    "... Mo Elleithee, who did tours separately as a top aide to Clinton and Tim Kaine and is now executive director of the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service, is nervous that the impact will be much deeper and long lasting. ..."
    "... In addition to the health questions and rigged election talk, Elleithee cited Trump's encouragement of Second Amendment voters to do something about a Clinton presidency's court appointments ..."
    "... Huma Abedin should be arrested, charged with espionage, and mis-handling of classified material, and imprisoned for a long long time, according to recent email releases. ..."
    "... It's deflection because she doesn't want to explain why her family foundation takes money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. ..."
    "... The Saudis are buying access--not funding Clinton Foundation initiatives to help women and children. ..."
    "... Horatio N. Fisk Are you saying she didn't delete e-mails and use bleaching software to try to hide her tracks? ..."
    "... Classic Clinton propaganda. Are you HONESTLY trying to say she did NOTHING wrong? Then WHY is she stopping doing what she is doing IF she steals the presidency. All along Clinton has denied everything and EVERY SINGLE TIME she has been PROVEN to be a liar! She claimed she NEVER sent a classified email - you called those that said she did lunatic conspiracy theorists - turns out YOU WERE LYING! ..."
    "... If ever a person was so obviously unfit to hold the office of POTUS - it's Clinton. Indeed James Comey said anyone else who did what she did would NEVER be able to hols ANY government office, and would either be in jail or minimum sacked. ..."
    "... SHAME ON YOU for doing your Josepg Goebbels act. The innocent blood she is GUARANTEED to spill will be on the hands of every single person who votes for that war criminal ..."
    "... Hillary is fit to be president? Based on what? Her accomplishments? Her ability to properly handle classified data? Her ability to lie? Being beholden to her big donors from Wall Street, Foreign Countries, shady sources, who made her a 1%er? ..."
    "... No one has to de-legitimize Clinton. She's done a fine job all by herself! She lied to the faces of geiving parents, infront of the coffins containing the remains of their loved ones. She lied to the American people, over and over, about her server and the emails she "turned over". She lied to Congress about those same subjects ..."
    "... She refuses to give a press conference where the questions are not scripted for her. She used her "Charitable Foundation" to sell access to the State Dep, let people like Bloomenthal decide what decisions she made as Sec State. She panders to blacks, treating them like children. You Go Hillary! Keep making the case for how unfit for office you are! ..."
    "... Sure, Mr Trump is not a polished highly trained politician, and ends up very often with foot in mouth disease. But Donald J Trump single-handedly defeated the totally corrupt Republican establishment, and ripped the nomination out of their hands. ..."
    "... Those treasonous RINO (especially the warmonger NeoCons) political hacks are still screaming, and the GOP is self-destructing before our eyes. They are fleeing in panic to the sinking, burning SS Clinton, as the establishment newsmedia desperately tries to hide the self-destructing, dying Hillary from the public. Good riddance; ..."
    "... Too funny...Hillary hides from the press and the only thing she has got is to make Trump look like a deranged psychopath. That's all she has. She has already waffled on TPP because of Trump. She has not been forced to reckon with her own immigration policies or how she will deal with the refugee crisis. ..."
    "... I'm an Independent, I march to my own beat. That said, as a US militay veteran and having served honorably in the United States Marine Corps, in a term I'm sure fellow veterans can understand... "Hillary Rodham Clinton is a scumbag." I'm voting for Dr. Jill Stein on November 8, 2016. ..."
    "... Donald Trump really doesn't have to do very much at this point to impune Hillary Clinton 's reputation. She has already done that to herself. Her actions are indefensible and all he has to do is remind people of it and convince the idiots who keep defending her and can't see her crimes that are right in front of their faces. She has lied to us and Congress, concealed her crimes and sold us out time and time again for her own personal gain. ..."
    www.politico.com

    From: Trump's new aim Poison a Clinton presidency - POLITICO

    The Clinton delegitimization project is now central to Donald Trump's campaign and such a prime component of right-wing media that it's already seeped beyond extremist chat rooms into "lock her up" chants on the convention floor, national news stories debating whether polls actually can be rigged, and voters puzzling over that photo they think they saw of her needing to be carried up the stairs.

    The Clinton campaign has deliberately positioned its response as an offensive boomerang rather than a rebuttal: Don't defend against the attacks, just redirect fire at the messenger. "It holds up a mirror to Donald Trump and what his campaign is about, and says everything you need to know about Donald Trump and where these kinds of crazy conspiracy theories are coming from," as one campaign aide put it.

    But the Democrat's team is aware of how this might factor in beyond November.

    "Some of the campaign and allies' conspiracies are designed to delegitimize her personally. Most are simply designed to spread fear and mistrust. And I am sure if she wins, the right wing will continue to spread these theories," said Clinton senior adviser Jennifer Palmieri. Palmieri is in favor of ignoring most of the wackiness but warned: "Just because they may have zero basis in truth doesn't mean they can't be corrosive. So in this cycle I believe you have to call out the truly destructive theories calmly, but aggressively, and in real time."

    ... ... ...

    For days, Clinton campaign officials purposefully ignored questions coming at them from the Trump-intertwined Breitbart News about her health, according to an aide. But after Fox News host Sean Hannity devoted an episode of his show to a Clinton rumor medical panel, complete with an eager-to-please urologist in a white coat, they shifted gears: a long release emailed to reporters two weeks ago with sourced debunkings of all the rumors and a statement from her doctor attesting that supposedly leaked medical records were forged.

    ... ... ...

    Mo Elleithee, who did tours separately as a top aide to Clinton and Tim Kaine and is now executive director of the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service, is nervous that the impact will be much deeper and long lasting.

    ... ... ...

    In addition to the health questions and rigged election talk, Elleithee cited Trump's encouragement of Second Amendment voters to do something about a Clinton presidency's court appointments and Trump adviser Roger Stone's suggestion of bloodshed if Trump loses.

    Original unedited comments. Red bold/italic emphasis is mine
    Mike Davis
    How does one poison a black widow spider? Hillary Clinton is already poison. She and Slick have been poison for four decades.

    It is Obama and Clinton wanting to bring radical Islam jihadists here to America. There is no possible way to screen them at present. Even HS has no clue how to screen terrorists out and admit so. Huma Abedin should be arrested, charged with espionage, and mis-handling of classified material, and imprisoned for a long long time, according to recent email releases. Of course, losing her radical Islam lover, might be too much for the sickened Hillary to withstand.

    Donald J Trump wants to keep radical Islam sharia law jihadists out, along with other criminals, drug dealers, who would endanger the innocent Americans. You liberals support the criminal dying Clinton; therefore you support her policies, including the middle-class wrecking ball TPP and NAFTA.

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BJkj25RD44E/

    Andreas Nettmayer
    I didn't go to highschool, I went to school high :D
    It's deflection because she doesn't want to explain why her family foundation takes money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Doing so would weaken her credibility as a human rights champion. The Saudis are buying access--not funding Clinton Foundation initiatives to help women and children. We should be scrutinizing our arms sales to oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia and standing up for human rights. Not taking money when it is convenient, selling our best weapons to dictatorships, and then pretending the rest of the world believes we are some City on a Hill human rights champions.
    Mike Moutain

    Thus the dilemma for the gutless Dems, attack the character of Trump while defending the 100% lack of character of the email deleting, ambassador murdering money laundering lying under oath criminal piece of shit..

    Good luck with that..

    Horatio N. Fisk · Works at Writer, Gadfly

    Good luck with proving any of what you said;. You can't

    David J. Lekse · Indianapolis, Indiana

    Horatio N. Fisk Are you saying she didn't delete e-mails and use bleaching software to try to hide her tracks?

    Paul Marston · Works at Self-Employed

    Classic Clinton propaganda. Are you HONESTLY trying to say she did NOTHING wrong? Then WHY is she stopping doing what she is doing IF she steals the presidency. All along Clinton has denied everything and EVERY SINGLE TIME she has been PROVEN to be a liar! She claimed she NEVER sent a classified email - you called those that said she did lunatic conspiracy theorists - turns out YOU WERE LYING!

    The sheer contempt you and all the other Clinton drones have for the American public is genuinely sickening. It has been PROVEN she rigged the primaries - and had to sack 5 staff for it, yet Clinton claims she did nothing wrong.

    If ever a person was so obviously unfit to hold the office of POTUS - it's Clinton. Indeed James Comey said anyone else who did what she did would NEVER be able to hols ANY government office, and would either be in jail or minimum sacked.

    SHAME ON YOU for doing your Josepg Goebbels act. The innocent blood she is GUARANTEED to spill will be on the hands of every single person who votes for that war criminal

    Bob Rousseau

    Pretty pathetic when the do nothing, low IQ Republicans have to resort to conspiracy theories and lies to win elected office. If their voters werent so stupid and toxic, conspiracy theories would be immediately identified for what they are; right wing garbage.

    Marlin Johnson

    Hillary is fit to be president? Based on what? Her accomplishments? Her ability to properly handle classified data? Her ability to lie? Being beholden to her big donors from Wall Street, Foreign Countries, shady sources, who made her a 1%er?

    Not securing the Mexican border so illegal aliens can continue to flood in to be exploited with low paying jobs, burdening social service budgets and taking American jobs? By allowing 550,000 unvetted Syrian refugees enter our country risking that some may be ISIS? Or having Bill back in the White House seeking sexual favors from young interns? Of course you would mind if it were your daughter working as an intern. And Hillary can launch vicious personal character attacks against the victims of Bill's sexual assaults.

    Wayne Barron

    No one has to de-legitimize Clinton. She's done a fine job all by herself! She lied to the faces of geiving parents, infront of the coffins containing the remains of their loved ones. She lied to the American people, over and over, about her server and the emails she "turned over". She lied to Congress about those same subjects.

    She refuses to give a press conference where the questions are not scripted for her. She used her "Charitable Foundation" to sell access to the State Dep, let people like Bloomenthal decide what decisions she made as Sec State. She panders to blacks, treating them like children. You Go Hillary! Keep making the case for how unfit for office you are!

    Mike Davis

    Sure, Mr Trump is not a polished highly trained politician, and ends up very often with foot in mouth disease. But Donald J Trump single-handedly defeated the totally corrupt Republican establishment, and ripped the nomination out of their hands.

    Those treasonous RINO (especially the warmonger NeoCons) political hacks are still screaming, and the GOP is self-destructing before our eyes. They are fleeing in panic to the sinking, burning SS Clinton, as the establishment newsmedia desperately tries to hide the self-destructing, dying Hillary from the public. Good riddance; thank you Mr Trump.

    Tammy McKinnon · Florida State University

    Too funny...Hillary hides from the press and the only thing she has got is to make Trump look like a deranged psychopath. That's all she has. She has already waffled on TPP because of Trump. She has not been forced to reckon with her own immigration policies or how she will deal with the refugee crisis.

    Not much about terror either. She released a tax plan but that is meaningless piece of paper that all candidates put out there..you must get Congress on your side and Republicans will not go for increases.

    Then there is her free public college plan. Obamacare is collapsing and voters are going to see it firsthand Nov 1st (if Obama doesn't delay it until after the election)

    Yeah, the wind is behind her(and the MSM)....it wasn't rosy for her at the end of July. We were told that didn't matter ...but now it does?

    Tammy McKinnon · Florida State University

    Bethsabe David,

    Dems have perfected unsubstantiated attacks in elections. Remember Reid saying that Romney's tax returns showed he had paid no taxes? Remember the commercial accusing Romney of murder and the crying husband? (big lie) Oh and the Hillary camp started the birther movement. All 'lies' are not created equal. Hillary is dangerous.

    Trump is not "loosing" (spell check is your friend Bethsabe) He was doing very well the end on July and we still have a ways to go.

    Benjamin Andrew Marine · American University

    Doug Perry,

    I'm an Independent, I march to my own beat. That said, as a US militay veteran and having served honorably in the United States Marine Corps, in a term I'm sure fellow veterans can understand... "Hillary Rodham Clinton is a scumbag." I'm voting for Dr. Jill Stein on November 8, 2016.

    Michael Iger

    Republicans demonize opponents its in their nature and the Clinton's have been on that long list of enemies now for decades. We see it too with Obama and Trump's birther charges and McConnell talking about not cooperating with the President at a price of hurting the country. Hilary, both as a Clinton and a Democrat, is going to get a double dose in her term of office. The real loser is the country that becomes stalemated and dysfunctional at the top which then permeates the society. We have a dysfunction group in this country with some power and until it changes must deal with it. With Trump's campaign of bigotry and racism that may change sooner than later as the country wakes up to reality of the mess and its done. With stalemate very little gets done and problems don't get solved.

    Michael Welby · Owner at Self-Employed

    Yeah, it is Republicans that demonize. That is why, in Reno, Hillary draped the KKK all over trump. YOu do it too: bigot, racist.

    With such warm greetings and suggesting of cooperation, what the hell do you expect. She may win the office. She will accomplish nothing. Nothing.

    Mark Daigle , Lamar University
    Donald Trump really doesn't have to do very much at this point to impune Hillary Clinton 's reputation. She has already done that to herself. Her actions are indefensible and all he has to do is remind people of it and convince the idiots who keep defending her and can't see her crimes that are right in front of their faces. She has lied to us and Congress, concealed her crimes and sold us out time and time again for her own personal gain.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Trump media feud moves from Megyn Kelly to 'Morning Joe'

    Notable quotes:
    "... there's an opportunity for Trump to draw a sharp contrast with Clinton, who also has issues engaging with the press as a whole. ..."
    "... "If Trump were to more broadly engage the broader media landscape, he can provide a clear contrast to Hillary Clinton, who is clearly playing a 'run out the clock' strategy with regard to the press," McCall said. ..."
    TheHill
    Jeff McCall, a professor of media studies at Depauw University, agrees there's an opportunity for Trump to draw a sharp contrast with Clinton, who also has issues engaging with the press as a whole.

    "If Trump were to more broadly engage the broader media landscape, he can provide a clear contrast to Hillary Clinton, who is clearly playing a 'run out the clock' strategy with regard to the press," McCall said.

    "Trump should speak to any and all news outlets and mention during each of those interviews that he is there to speak to the electorate while Hillary ducks the tough questioning and won't even hold a press conference."

    But a more exposed Trump, McCall said, only works if he stays on the narrative the campaign wishes to articulate.

    "If he expands his media range, but has flimsy or off-target messages, he will just contribute to the perception that his messaging and campaign are rather untethered," he said.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Commnets to the article Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us by Paul Verhaeghe

    Notable quotes:
    "... As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal' system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent. however crap that environment might be. ..."
    "... Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak. ..."
    "... There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. ..."
    "... I understand what you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else, but I do not personally know anyone like that. ..."
    "... .....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness. ..."
    "... I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members', charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon (especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course, constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'. ..."
    "... And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst in us. ..."
    "... Neo-liberalism has however killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility, the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity and the less poverty and social problems there are. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com

    Happytobeasocialist, 2014-09-29 09:07:21

    Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us

    Less of the 'us' please. there are plenty of people who are disgusted by neoliberalism and are determined to bring it down

    Pasdabong Happytobeasocialist , 2014-09-29 09:28:58
    As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal' system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent. however crap that environment might be.
    InconvenientTruths Happytobeasocialist , 2014-09-29 09:39:02
    Neo-Liberal Elephant

    There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture. Yet our norms and values make up an integral and essential part of our identity. So they cannot be lost, only chaned

    If you have no mandate for such change, it breeds resentment.

    For example, race & immigration was used by NuLabour in a blatant attempt at mass societal engineering (via approx 8%+ increase in national population over 13 years).

    It was the most significant betrayal in modern democratic times, non mandated change extraordinaire, not only of British Society, but the core traditional voter base for Labour.

    To see people still trying to deny it took place and dismiss the fallout of the cultural elephant rampaging around the United Kingdom is as disingenuous as it is pathetic.

    Labour are the midwives of UKiP.

    This cultural elephant has tusks.

    SaulZaentz , 2014-09-29 09:10:36
    It's a race to the bottom, and has lead to such "success stories" as G4S, Serco, A4E, ATOS, Railtrack, privatised railways, privatised water and so on.

    It's all about to get even worse with TTIP, and if that fails there is always TISA which mandates privatisation of pretty much everything - breaking state monopolies on public services.

    Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak.

    Happytobeasocialist , 2014-09-29 09:13:38

    A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents

    There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. In the UK things have gone backwards almost to the 1950s. Changes which were brought about by the expansion of universities have pretty much been reversed. The establishment - politics, media, business is dominated by the better=off Oxbridge elite.

    AntiTerrorist , 2014-09-29 09:16:42
    It is difficult for me to agree. I have grown up within Neoliberalism being 35, but you describe no one I know. People I know weigh up the extra work involved in a promotion and decide whether the sacrifice is worth the extra money/success.

    People I know go after their dreams, whether that be farming or finance. I understand what you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else, but I do not personally know anyone like that.

    JamesValencia AntiTerrorist , 2014-09-29 09:25:40
    He's saying people's characters are changed by their environment. That they aren't set in stone, but are a function of culture. And that the socio-cultural shift in the last few decades is a bad thing, and is bad for our characters. In your words: The dreams have changed.

    It's convincing, except it isn't as clear as it could be.

    AntiTerrorist JamesValencia , 2014-09-29 09:38:49
    I understand his principle but as proof, he sites very specific examples...

    A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?

    This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes no one I know. We, us, commenting here are society. I agree that there has been a shift in culture and those reaping the biggest financial rewards are the greedy. But has that not always been the way, the self interested have always walked away with the biggest slice, perhaps at the moment that slice has become larger still, but most people still want to have a comfortable life, lived their way. People haven't changed as much as the OP believes.

    The great lie is that financial reward is success and happiness.

    CityBoy2006 AntiTerrorist , 2014-09-29 09:52:05

    This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes no one I know

    Indeed even in the "sociopathic" world of fund management and investment banking, the vast majority of people establish a balance for how they wish to manage their work and professional lives and evaluate decisions in light of them both.

    GordonLiddle , 2014-09-29 09:17:21
    One could use another word or two, crony capitalism being a particularly good pair. Not what you know but who.
    SaulZaentz GordonLiddle , 2014-09-29 09:36:48
    Indeed. How come G4S keep winning contracts despite their behaviour being incompetent and veering on criminal, and the fact they are despised pretty much universally. Hardly a meritocracy.
    dreamer06 SaulZaentz , 2014-09-29 13:40:16
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article3862998.ece
    (paywall)

    You can add A4E to that list and now Capita who have recruited all of 61 part time soldiers in their contract to replace all the thousands of sacked professionals

    Pasdabong ElQuixote , 2014-09-29 09:33:20
    .....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness.
    KatieL dieterroth , 2014-09-29 09:58:16
    "Since the living standards of majority in this country are on a downward trend"

    The oil's running out. Living standards, on average, will continue to decline until either it stops running out or fusion power turns out to work after all.

    Whether you have capitalism or socialism won't make any difference to the declining energy input.

    dieterroth , 2014-09-29 09:19:32
    I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written. Economics and cultural environment is bound to have an effect on behaviour. We now live in a society that worships at the altar of the cult of the individual. Society and growth of poverty no longer matters, a lone success story proves all those people falling into poverty are lazy good for nothing parasites. The political class claims to be impotent when it comes to making a fairer society because the political class is made up of people who were affluent in the first place or benefited from a neo-liberal rigged economy. The claim is, anything to do with a fair society is social engineering and bound to fail. Well, neo-liberal Britain was socially engineered and it is failing the majority of people in the country.

    There is a cognitive dissonance going on in the political narrative of neo-liberalism, not everyone can make it in a neo-liberal society and since neo-liberalism destroys social mobility. Ironically, the height of social mobility in the west, from the gradual rise through the 50s and 60s, was the 70s. The 80s started the the downward trend in social mobility despite all the bribes that went along with introducing the property owning democracy, which was really about chaining people to capitalism.

    Johanni dieterroth , 2014-09-29 10:24:23

    I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written.

    Well, a transformation of human character was the open battle-cry of 1980s proponents of neoliberalism. Helmut Kohl, the German prime minister, called it the "geistig-moralische Wende", the "spiritual and moral sea-change" - I think people just misunderstood what he meant by that, and laughed at what they saw as empty sloganeering. Now we're reaping what his generation sowed.

    thebogusman Johanni , 2014-09-29 13:15:54
    Tatcher actually said that the goal of neoliberalism is not new economics but to "change the soul"!
    arkley dieterroth , 2014-09-29 18:10:04
    OK, now can you tell us why individual freedom is such a bad thing?

    The previous period of liberal economics ended a century ago, destroyed by the war whose outbreak we are interminably celebrating. That war and the one that followed a generation later brought in strict government control, even down to what people could eat and wear. Orwell's dystopia of 1984 actually describes Britain's wartime society continuing long after the real wars had ended. It was the slow pace of lifting wartime controls, even slower in Eastern Europe, and the lingering mindset that economies and societies could be directed for "the greater good" no matter what individual costs there were that led to a revival of liberal economics.

    Febo , 2014-09-29 09:21:28
    Neoliberalism is a mere offshoot of Neofeudalism. Labour and Capital - those elements of both not irretrievably bought-out - must demand the return of The Commons . We must extend our analysis back over centuries , not decades - let's strike to the heart of the matter!
    Febo undersinged , 2014-09-29 09:49:03
    Both neofeudalism - aka neocolonialism-abroad-and-at-home - and neoliberalism rest on the theft of the Commons - they both support monopoly.
    callaspodeaspode undersinged , 2014-09-29 10:11:05
    Collectivist ideologies including Fascism, Communism and theocracy are all similar to feudalism.

    I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members', charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon (especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course, constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'.

    'Collectivism' is not as incompatible with capitalism as you seem to think.
    You sound like one of those 'libertarians'. Frankly, I think the ideals of such are only realisable as a sole trader, or operating in a very small business.

    Progress is restricted because the people are made poor by the predations of the state

    Neoliberalism is firmly committed to individual liberty, and therefore to peace and mutual toleration

    It is firmly committed to ensuring that the boundaries between private and public entities become blurred, with all the ensuing corruption that entails. In other words, that the state becomes (through the taxpayers) a captured one, delivering a never ending, always growing, revenue stream for favoured players in private enterprise. This is, of course, deliberate. 'Individual liberties and mutual toleration' are only important insomuch as they improve, or detract, from profit-centre activity.

    You have difficulty in separating propaganda from reality, but you're barely alone in this.

    Lastly, you also misunderstand feudalism, which in the European context, flourished before there was a developed concept of a centralised nation state, indeed, the most classic examples occurred after the decentralisation of an empire or suchlike. The primary feudal relation was between the bondsman/peasant and his local magnate, who in turn, was subject to his liege.

    In other words a warrior class bound by vassalage to a nobility, with the peasantry bound by manorialism and to the estates of the Church.

    Apart from that though, you're right on everything.

    JamesValencia , 2014-09-29 09:21:56
    I completely agree with the general sentiment.
    The specifics aren't that solid though:

    - That we think our characters are independent of context/society: I certainly don't.
    - That statement about "bullying is more widespread" - lacks justification.

    The general theme of "meritocracy is a fiction" is compelling though.
    As is "We are free-er in many ways because those ways no longer have any significance" .

    And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst in us.

    UnironicBeard JamesValencia , 2014-09-29 10:39:08
    The Rat Race is a joke. Too many people waste their lives away playing the capitalist game. As long as you've got enough money to keep living you can be happy. Just ignore the pathetic willy-wavers with their flashy cars and logos on their shirts and all that guff
    CharlesII JamesValencia , 2014-09-29 13:27:30

    - That statement about "bullying is more widespread" - lacks justification.

    Absolutely. I stopped reading there. Bullying is noticed now, and seen as a 'bad thing'. In offices 30, 50, years ago, it was standard .

    JamesValencia UnironicBeard , 2014-09-29 13:42:50
    Preaching to the converted, there, Beard :)

    All we need is "enough" - Posession isn't that interesting. More a doorway to doing interesting stuff.
    I prefer to cut out the posession and go straight to "do interesting stuff" myself. As long as the rent gets paid and so on, obviously.

    Doesn't always work, obviously, but I reckon not wanting stuff is a good start to the good life (ref. to series with Felicity Kendall (and some others) intended :)
    That, and Epicurus who I keep mentioning on CIF.

    dieterroth undersinged , 2014-09-29 09:26:28
    Rather naive. History is full of brilliant individuals who made it. Neo-liberalism has however killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility, the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity and the less poverty and social problems there are.
    dieterroth undersinged , 2014-09-29 09:28:55
    "Collectivism gave us Communism, Nazism and universalist religions that try to impose uniformity through the method of mass murder."

    Capitalism and free markets gave us them as all were reactions to economic failure and having nothing to lose.

    Febo undersinged , 2014-09-29 09:34:05
    I agree - the central dilemma is that neither individualism nor collectiviism works.

    But is this dilemma real? Is there a third system? Yes there is - Henry George.

    George's paradigm in nothing funky, it is simply Classical Liberal Economics - society works best when individuals get to keep the fruits of thier labour, but pay rent for the use of The Commons.
    At present we have the opposite - labour and capital are taxed heavily and The commons are monopolised by the 1%.
    Hence unemployment
    Hence the wealth gap
    Hence the environmental crisis
    Hence poverty

    checkreakity , 2014-09-29 09:23:39
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    RidleyWalker , 2014-09-29 09:24:11
    So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?
    NinthLegion RidleyWalker , 2014-09-29 09:26:57
    But it's because these values and moralities are so wafer thin that the Right can swing them in precisely the direction they want to. Greed is good!
    LouSnickers RidleyWalker , 2014-09-29 09:28:35
    They dont like us!

    But then, I dont care for them, either!

    dieterroth RidleyWalker , 2014-09-29 09:32:10
    "Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?"

    Open your eyes and take a lokk at the world. There is enough wealth in the world for everyone to live free from poverty. Yet, the powerful look after themselves and allow poverty to not only exist but spread.

    yamba , 2014-09-29 09:30:07
    Reminds me very much of No Country for Old Men , by Cormac McCarthy.
    annabelle123 yamba , 2014-09-29 11:00:22
    That's a good description of the NHS.
    WinstonThatcher , 2014-09-29 09:30:58
    It's certainly brought out the worst in the Guardian, publishing as it does oodles of brainless clickbate.
    nishville WinstonThatcher , 2014-09-29 11:13:50
    >If you've ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. "The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds …".<
    paul643 , 2014-09-29 09:31:59

    Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.

    I don't believe that bullying is new to the workplace., in fact I'd imagine it was worse before the days of elf 'n' safety.

    vivientoft paul643 , 2014-09-29 13:05:01
    Why do you say that?
    annabelle123 , 2014-09-29 09:32:23
    I agree with much of this. Working in the NHS, as a clinical psychologist, over the past 25 years, I have seen a huge shift in the behaviour of managers who used to be valued for their support and nurturing of talent, but now are recognised for their brutal and aggressive approach to those beneath them. Reorganisations of services, which take place with depressing frequency, provide opportunities to clear out the older, experienced members of the profession who would have acted as mentors and teachers to the less experienced staff.
    saltash1920 annabelle123 , 2014-09-29 09:39:31
    I worked in local authority social care, I can certainly see the very close similarities to what you describe in the NHS, and my experience in the local authority.
    Davai annabelle123 , 2014-09-29 09:48:06
    Yes those were the days when you had people and personnel departments, rather than 'human resources' I suspect. You can blame the USA for that.

    Constant reorgs are a sure sign of inept management.

    They're also a sure sign of managers who want to 'hang out' with highly-paid, sexy management consultants and hopefully get offered a job.

    But you're a psychologist so you know that already!

    David Craig's books are worth a read.

    annabelle123 saltash1920 , 2014-09-29 10:58:42
    I can well imagine there are big similarities. Friends of mine who work in education say the same - there is a complete mismatch between the aims of the directors/managers and that of the professionals actually providing the teaching/therapy/advice to the public. When I go to senior meetings it is very rare that patients are even mentioned.
    StVitusGerulaitis , 2014-09-29 09:32:59

    Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.

    This is an incredibly broad generalisation. I remember my grandfather telling me about what went on in the mills he worked in in Glasgow before the war, it sounded like a pretty savage environment if you didn't fit in. It wasn't called bullying, of course.

    I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others.

    Isn't this true of pretty much any system? And human relationships in general? I cannot think of a system that is completely blind to the differences between people. If you happen to be lazy or have a problem with authority you will never do as "well" (for want of a better term).

    MickGJ StVitusGerulaitis , 2014-09-29 16:15:49

    Isn't this true of pretty much any system?

    Don't be silly my saintly chum: who ever heard of a psychopath rising to the top in any other system than neo-liberal capitalism?
    Socratese , 2014-09-29 09:33:25
    I have always said to people who claim they are Liberals that you must support capitalism,the free market,free trade, deregulation etc etc when most of them deny that, I always say you are not a Liberal then you're just cherry-picking the [Liberal] policies you like and the ones you don't like,which is dishonest.
    There is nothing neo about Liberalism,it has been around since the 19th century[?].People have been brainwashed in this country [and the USA] since the 1960's to say they are liberals for fear of being accused of being fascists,which is quite another thing.
    I have never supported any political ideology,which is what Liberalism is,and believe all of them should be challenged.By doing so you can evolve policies which are fair and just and appropriate to the issue at hand.
    pinniped Socratese , 2014-09-29 10:24:59
    Ah yes, No True Liberal.
    saltash1920 , 2014-09-29 09:34:32
    Neoliberalism has only benefited a minority. Usually those with well connected and wealthy families. And of course those who have no hesitation to exploit other's.

    In my view, it is characterized by corruption, exploitation and a total lack of social justice. Economically, the whole system is fully dependent on competition not co-operation. One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.

    rivendel saltash1920 , 2014-09-29 17:40:04
    One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.

    And if we keep consuming all our resources on this finite planet in pursuit of profit and more profit there will be no human race we will all be extinct.,and all that will be left is an exhausted polluted planet that once harbored a vast variety of life.
    Isent neolibral capitalism great.

    Highlights saltash1920 , 2014-09-29 21:52:03

    One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.

    Violence has already begun, in wars and protests, beheadings and wage cuts which leave people more and more desperate.

    PonyBoyUK , 2014-09-29 09:36:18

    We tend to perceive our identities as stable and largely separate from outside forces

    Which is exactly what we've been led to believe, by outside forces.

    For other related films, please see:

    The Corporation http://www.thecorporation.com/

    and

    The Century of the Self http://www.thecorporation.com/

    PonyBoyUK PonyBoyUK , 2014-09-29 10:09:55
    (doh!)

    The Century of the Self - http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/

    NinthLegion , 2014-09-29 09:40:58
    As Marx so often claimed, values, ethics, morality and behaviours are themselves determined by the economic and monetary system under which people live. Stealing is permitted if you are a banker and call it a bonus or interest, murder is permitted if your government sends you to war, surveillance and data mining is permitted if your state tells you there is a danger from terrorists, crime is overlooked if it makes money for the perpetrator, benefit claimants are justified if they belong to an aristocratic caste or political elite.......

    There is no universal right or wrong, only that identified as such by the establishment at that particular instance in history, and at that specific place on the planet. Outside that, they have as much relevance today as scriptures instructing that slaves can be raped, adulterers can be stoned or the hands of thieves amputated. Give me the crime and the punishment, and I will give you the time and the place.

    Jack3 NinthLegion , 2014-09-29 10:44:31
    For a tiny elite sitting on the top everything has been going exactly as it was initially planned.

    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men
    living together in Society, they create for themselves in the
    course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a
    moral code that glorifies it".
    F. Bastiat.

    Finn_Nielsen Jack3 , 2014-09-29 10:58:47
    Bastiat was closer to a neoliberal than a Marxist...
    skagway Jack3 , 2014-09-30 14:48:40
    very true.
    Pasdabong , 2014-09-29 09:41:24
    Excellent article.
    I'm amazed that more isn't made of the relationship between political environment/systems and their effect on the individual. Oliver James Affluenza makes a compelling case for the unhappiness outputs of societies who've embraced neo liberalism yet we still blindly pursue it.
    The US has long been world leader in both the demand and supply of psychotherapy and the relentless pursuit of free market economics. these stats are not unconnected.
    abugaafar , 2014-09-29 09:42:40
    I once had a colleague with the knack of slipping into his conversation complimentary remarks that other people had made about him. It wasn't the only reason for his rapid ascent to great heights, but perhaps it helped.
    ThroatWobblaMangrove abugaafar , 2014-09-29 22:58:31
    That's one of my favourite characteristics of David Brent from 'The Office'. "You're all looking at me, you're going, "Well yeah, you're a success, you've achieved you're goals, you're reaping the rewards, sure. But, OI, Brent. Is all you care about chasing the Yankee dollar?"
    crasspymctabernacle , 2014-09-29 09:42:47
    This description is, of course, a caricature taken to extremes

    Not when applied to IDS and other members of the cabinet.

    BlueBrightFuture , 2014-09-29 09:43:50
    Neoliberalism is another Social Darwinist driven philosophy popularised after leading figures of our times (or rather former times) decided Malthus was probably correct.

    So here we have it, serious growth in population, possibly unsustainable, and a growing 'weak will perish, strong will survive' mentality. The worst thing is I used to believe in neoliberal policies, until of course I understood the long term ramifications.

    PonyBoyUK BlueBrightFuture , 2014-09-29 10:11:45
    It's a really good idea, - until you start thinking about it...
    AlbertaRabbit BlueBrightFuture , 2014-09-29 10:27:02
    And then there's reality.

    And the reality is that "neoliberalism" has, in the last few decades, freed hundreds of millions in the developing word from a subsistence living to something resembling a middle class lifestyle.

    This has resulted in both plummeting global poverty statistics and in greatly reduced fecundity, so that we will likely see a leveling off of global population in the next few decades. And this slowing down of population growth is the most critical thing we could for increasing sustainability.

    BlueBrightFuture PonyBoyUK , 2014-09-29 10:33:06
    I suspect the logical conclusion of the free market is that the State will become formally superseded by an oligopoly - perhaps the energy sector.

    I also suspect at least one third of the population in over-developed countries will simply become surplus to requirement.

    Everybody wants an iPhone, nobody wants to work in Foxconn.

    jimcol , 2014-09-29 09:44:45
    It is rooted, I think, in the prevailing idea that what we own is more important than what we do. Consumerism grown and fostered by the greedy.
    vacuous jimcol , 2014-09-29 19:17:20
    The problem is a judeo-christian idea of "free choice" when experiments, undertaken by Benjamin Libet and since, indicate that it is near to unlikely for there to be volitionally controlled conscious decisions.

    http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html

    If we are not even free to intend and control our decisions, thoughts and ambitions, how can anyone claim to be morally entitled to ownership of their property and have a 'right' to anything as a reward for what decisions they made? Happening is pure luck: meaningful [intended] responsibility and accountability cannot be claimed for decisions and actions and so entitlement cannot be claimed for what acquisitions are causally obtained from those decisions and actions.There is no 'just desserts' or decision-derived entitlement justification for wealth and owning property unless the justifier has a superstitious and scientifically unfounded belief in free choice.

    CityBoy2006 , 2014-09-29 09:47:04

    Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace

    Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories, perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war decade when apparently everything was rosy?

    This whole article is a hodge podge of anecdote and flawed observations designed to shoehorn behaviour into a pattern that supports an economic hypothesis - it is factually groundless.

    Catonaboat CityBoy2006 , 2014-09-29 10:09:47
    Well I'd say he was spot on, when someone with the handle CityBoy2006 his a classic work place tantrum over the article.
    HarryTheHorse CityBoy2006 , 2014-09-29 11:13:24

    Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories

    Yes, but if it was left to people like you, children would still be working in factories. So please do not take credit for improvements that you would fight tooth and nail against

    perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war decade when apparently everything was rosy?

    They had wages coming to them and didn't need to rely on housing benefit to keep a roof over their head. Now people like you bitterly complain about poorly paid workers getting benefits to sustain them.

    Slapchips , 2014-09-29 09:47:28
    People who "work hard and play hard" are nearly always kidding themselves about the second bit.

    It seems to me that the trend in the world of neoliberalism is to think that "playing hard" is defined as "playing with expensive, branded toys" during your two week annual holiday.

    Davai Slapchips , 2014-09-29 09:52:24
    'Playing hard' in the careerist lexicon = getting blind drunk to mollify the feelings of despair and emptiness which typify a hollow, debt-soaked life defined by motor cars and houses.

    All IM(NVH)O, of course. DYOR.

    Sammy_89 Davai , 2014-09-29 09:56:06
    Pays for schools and hospitals, though
    Davai Sammy_89 , 2014-09-29 09:59:43
    Oh we had those before 1989.

    It isn't a binary 'naked selfish captalist/socialist decision'. There is middle ground.

    eldorado99 , 2014-09-29 09:49:50
    "support any political movement we like."

    Except those which have privacy from state surveillance as their core tenet.

    ID12345 , 2014-09-29 09:50:07
    Green Party: We need to fight Neoliberalism.
    Loadsofspace , 2014-09-29 09:51:42
    The "Max Factor" life. Selfishness and Greed. The compaction of life. Was it not in a scripture in text?. The Bible. We as humans and followers of "Faith" in christian beliefs and the culture of love they fellow man. The culture of words are a root to all "Evil. Depending on "Who's" the Author and Scrolling the words; and for what reason?. The only way we can save what is left on this planet and save man kind. Is eradicate the above "Selfishness and Greed" ?
    ForwardMarch , 2014-09-29 09:51:50

    We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference.

    These changes listed (and then casually dismissed) are monumental social achievements. Many countries in the world do not permit their 'citizens' such freedom of choice and I for one am very grateful to live in a country where these things are possible.

    Of course there is much more to be done. But I would suggest that to be born in Western Europe today is probably about as safe, comfortable, and free than at any time and any place in human history. I'm not being complacent about what we still have to achieve. But we won't achieve anything if we take such a flippant attitude towards all the amazing things that have been bequeathed to us.

    CityBoy2006 ForwardMarch , 2014-09-29 09:55:24
    Excellent observation, it's the same way that technology that has quite clearly changed our lives and given us access to information, opportunity to travel and entertainment that would have been beyond the comprehension of our grandparents is dismissed as irrelevant because its just a smart phone and a not a job for life in a British Leyland factory.
    Finn_Nielsen ForwardMarch , 2014-09-29 10:09:36
    It takes a peculairly spoilt and arrogant Westerner to claim that the freedom to criticise religion isn't significant or that we're only allowed to do so because it's no longer important. Tell that to a girl seeking to escape an arranged marriage in Bradford...
    HarryTheHorse CityBoy2006 , 2014-09-29 11:15:51
    So being able to have a smart phone compensates for not having a secure place to live? What an absurd bubble you metropolitan types live in.
    Harry Palmer , 2014-09-29 09:52:22
    OK. Now off you go and apply the same methodology to people living in statist societies, or just have a go at our own civil service or local government workers. Try social workers or the benefits agency or the police.

    Let us know what you find.

    WindTurbine , 2014-09-29 09:53:31
    The author makes some good points, although I wouldn't necessarily call our system a meritocracy.
    I guess the key one is how unaware we are about the influence of economic policy on our values.
    This kind of systems hurts everyday people and rewards psychopaths, and is damaging to society as a whole over the long term.
    Targetising everything is really insidious.
    jclucas , 2014-09-29 09:53:32
    That neoliberalism puts tremendous pressure on individuals to conform to materialistic norms is undeniable, but for a psychotherapist to disallow the choice of those individuals to nevertheless choose how to live is an admission of failure.

    In fact, many people today experience the shallowness and corrupt character of market society and elect either to be in it, but not of it, or to opt out early having made enough money, often making a conscious choice to relinquish the 'trappings' in return for a more meaningful existence. Some do selfless service to their fellow human beings, to the environment or both, and thereby find a degree of fulfillment that they always wanted.

    To surrender to the external demands of a superficial and corrupting life is to ignore the tremendous opportunity human life offers to all: self realization.

    WindTurbine jclucas , 2014-09-29 10:01:42
    It's not either-or, system or individual, but some combination of the two.
    Decision making may be 80% structure and 20% individual choice for the mainstream - or maybe the other way round for the rebels amongst us that try to reject the system.

    The theory of structuration (Giddens) provides one explanation of how social systems develop through the interactions between the system and actors in it.

    I partly agree with you but I think examples of complete self realisation are extremely rare. That means stepping completely out of the system and out of our own personality. Neither this nor that.

    jclucas WindTurbine , 2014-09-29 10:21:57
    The point is that the individual has the choice to move in the right direction. When and if they do make a decision to change their life, it will be fulfilling for them and for the system.
    AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-29 09:54:07

    Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is, "make" something of ourselves. You don't need to look far for examples. A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success.

    I have been in the private sector for generations, and know tons of people who have behaved precisely as described above. I don't know anyone who calls them crazy. In fact, I see the exact opposite tendency - the growing acceptance that money isn't everything, and that once one has achieved a certain level of success and financial security that it is fine to put other priorities first rather than simply trying to acquire ever more.

    arkley AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-29 09:59:50
    The ATL article is rather stuffed full of stereotypes.

    And speaking personally, I have turned down two offers of promotion to a management position in the last ten years and neither time did I get the sense people thought I was crazy. They might have done if I were in my late twenties rather than mid-fifties but that does reinforce the notion that people - even bosses - can accept that there is more to life than a career.

    Sammy_89 arkley , 2014-09-29 10:04:29
    I agree about the stereotypes. Also, has anyone ever seriously advised a primary school teacher that they need a masters degree of economics?! I highly doubt that that is the norm!
    MickGJ Sammy_89 , 2014-09-29 16:18:57

    Also, has anyone ever seriously advised a primary school teacher that they need a masters degree of economics?! I

    Sounds more like parents advising an exceptionally bright child to go as far as she can with her education before she starts work.

    I can't see why a primary school teacher should be dissuaded from doing a master's degree.

    arkley , 2014-09-29 09:55:46
    How does that navel look today?

    I hate to break it to you but no matter how you organise society the nasty people get to the top and the nice people end up doing all the work. "Neo-liberalism" is no different.

    Sammy_89 arkley , 2014-09-29 10:02:10
    Or you could put it another way - 'neoliberalism' is the least worst economic/social system, because most people are far more powerless and far more worse off under any other system that has ever been developed by man...
    TeddyFrench arkley , 2014-09-29 10:06:38
    For a start you need a system that is not based on rewarding and encouraging the worst aspects of our characters. I try to encourage my kids not to be greedy, to be honest and to care about others but in this day and age it's an uphill struggle.
    Finn_Nielsen Sammy_89 , 2014-09-29 10:11:42
    It's a funny kind of neoliberalism we're supposedly suffering under when you consider the ratio of state spending to GDP...
    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 09:57:13
    "A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents, meaning responsibility lies entirely with the individual and authorities should give people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal."

    In the UK we have nothing like a meritocracy with a privately educated elite.

    Success and failure are just about parental wealth.

    Willhelm123 , 2014-09-29 09:57:41
    I kind of see the point of this. What's the alternative though?
    MickGJ Willhelm123 , 2014-09-29 16:23:10

    I kind of see the point of this. What's the alternative though?

    Doing some research?
    gcarth , 2014-09-29 09:57:45
    "So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?"

    RidleyWalker, I can assue you that it is not the left but the right who consistently have a low opinion of humanity. Anyway, what has left and right got to do with this? There are millions of ordinary decent people whose lives are blighted by the obscentity that is neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism is designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor. Neo-liberalism is responsible for the misery for millions across the globe. The only happy ones are those at the top of the heap...until even their bloated selfish world inevitably implodes.
    Of course these disgusting parasites are primitive thinkers and cannot see that we could have a better, happier world for everyone if societies become more equal. Studies demonstrate that more equal societies are more stable and content than those with ever-widening gaps in wealth between rich and poor.

    injinoo gcarth , 2014-09-29 10:01:41
    Which studies and which equal societies are you referring to. It would be good to know in order to cheer us all up a bit.
    Sammy_89 gcarth , 2014-09-29 10:08:52
    Neoliberalism...disgusting parasites...primitive thinkers...misery of millions...bloated selfish world

    This reads like a Soviet pamphlet from the 1930's. Granted you've replaced the word 'capitalism' with 'neoliberalism' - in other words subsstituted one meaningless abstraction for another. It wasn't true then and it certainly isnt true now...

    injinoo , 2014-09-29 09:59:38
    Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much the same in the 1960's and 1970's. All that has changed is that instead of working on assembly lines in factories under the watchful gaze of a foreman we now have university degrees and sit in cubicles pressing buttons on keyboards. Micromanagement, bureaucracy, rules and regulations are as old as the hills. Office politics has replaced shop floor politics; the rich are still rich and the poor are still poor.
    Sammy_89 injinoo , 2014-09-29 10:10:20
    Well, except that people have more money, live longer and have more opportunities in life than before - most people anyway. The ones left behind are the ones we need to worry about
    rosemary152 injinoo , 2014-09-29 14:32:18

    Things were much the same in the 1960's and 1970's.

    There is a difference. We now have the psychopathic-tendency merchants in charge, both of the banks, multinationals and our government.

    MickGJ injinoo , 2014-09-29 16:24:51

    Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much the same in the 1960's and 1970's.

    And you can read far more excoriating critiques of our shallow materialistic capitalism, culture from those decades, now recast as some sort of prelapsarian Golden Age.
    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 10:00:59
    The psychopaths have congregated in Wall Street and the City.

    One of the problems with psychopaths is that they never learn form mistakes.

    Anyone that is watching will realise we are well on our way to the next Wall Street Crash - part 3.

    Wall Street Crash Part 1 - 1929
    Wall Street Crash Part 2 - 2008
    Wall Street Crash Part 3 - soon

    Each is bigger and better than the last - there may not be much left after Part 3.

    injinoo regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 10:03:58
    Actually, the 1929 crash was not the first by any means. The boom and bust cycle of modern economics goes back a lot further. When my grandparents talked about the "Great Depression" they were referring to the 1890's.
    regfromdagenham injinoo , 2014-09-29 10:05:24
    The financial psychopaths never learn!
    Isiodore injinoo , 2014-09-29 10:49:57
    The nineteenth century saw major financial crises in almost every decade, 1825, 1837, 1847, 1857, 1866 before we even get to the Great Depression of 1873-96.
    harrogateandrew , 2014-09-29 10:01:24
    And Socialism doesn't!

    Socialism seems to be happy home of corruption & nepotism. The old saw that Tory MP's are brought down by sex scandals whilst Labour MP's have issues with money still holds.

    Portman23 harrogateandrew , 2014-09-29 10:06:13
    Why is that relevant? This is a critique of neo liberalism and it is a very accurate one at that. It isn't suggesting that Socialism is better or even offers an alternative, just that neo liberalism has failed society and explores some of how and why.
    TeddyFrench , 2014-09-29 10:01:25
    The main problem is that neoliberalism is a faith dressed up as a science and any evidence that disproves the hypothesis (e.g. the 2008 financial collapse) only helps to reinforce the faith of the fundamentalists supporting it.
    AlbertaRabbit TeddyFrench , 2014-09-29 10:10:36
    The reason why "neoliberalism" is so successful is precisely because the evidence shows it does work. It has not escaped peoples' notice that nations where governments heavily curtail individual and commercial freedom are often rather wretched places to live.
    TeddyFrench AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-29 10:31:54
    You conflate individual freedom with corporate freedom.

    Also, what happened in 2008 then? Anything to do with the hubris over free markets and de-regulation or was it just a blip?

    JonPurrtree TeddyFrench , 2014-09-29 11:16:25
    It would be nice to curtail coprorate freedom without curtailing the freedom of individuals. I don't see how that might work.

    "hubris over free markets" might well be it.
    But I might be understanding that in a different way from you. People were making irrational decisions that didn't seem to take on basic logic of a free market, or even common sense. Such as "where is all this money coming from" (madoff, house ladder), "of course this will work" (fred goodwin and his takeovers) and even "will i get my money back" (sub-prime lending).

    hansen , 2014-09-29 10:02:14
    So why don't we do something about it....genuinely? There appears to be no power left in voting unless people are given an actual choice....Is it not time then to to provide a well grounded articulate choice? The research, in many different disciplines, is already out there.
    menedemus hansen , 2014-09-29 10:27:39
    What can we do? It appears we are stuck between the Labour party and the Conservatives. Is it even possible for another party to come to power with the next couple of elections?
    ElDanielfire menedemus , 2014-09-29 11:41:06
    The Lib Dems? ;)
    gandrew hansen , 2014-09-29 13:04:53
    the Greens, clearly.
    AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-29 10:03:31

    The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: "Never have we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference. Yet, on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.

    Verhaeghe begins by criticizing free markets and "neo-liberalism", but ends by criticizing the huge, stifling government bureaucracy that endeavours to micro-manage every aspect of its citizens lives, and is the opposite of true classic liberalism.

    Must be confusing for him.

    Oscar Mandiaz AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-30 01:37:24
    probably not as confusing as it seems to be for you.
    this is just the difference between neoliberalism in theory and in practise.
    like the "real existierende sozialismus" in eastern germany fell somewhat short of the brilliant utopia of the theorists.
    verhaeghe does not criticise the theoretical model, but the practical outcome. And the worst governmant and corporate bureaucracy that mankind has ever seen is part of it. The result of 30+ years of neoliberal policies.
    In my experience this buerocracy is gets worse in anglo saxon countries closest to the singularity at the bottom of the neolib black hole.
    I am aware that this is only a correlation, but correlations, while they do not prove causation, still require explanation.
    Bloreheath , 2014-09-29 10:03:35
    Some time ago, and perhaps still, it was/is fashionable for Toryish persons to denigrate the 1960s. I look back to that decade with much nostalgia. Nearly everyone had a job of sorts, not terribly well paid but at least it was a job. And now? You are compelled to toil your guts out, kiss somebody's backside, run up unpayable debts - and, in the UK, live in a house that in many other countries would have been demolished decades ago. Scarcely a day passes when I am not partly disgusted at what has overtaken my beloved country.
    LargeMarvin Bloreheath , 2014-09-29 11:25:19
    And scooters were 150s and 200s.
    capchaos , 2014-09-29 10:04:26
    An excellent article! The culture of the 80's has ruled for too long and its damage done.... its down to our youth to start to shape things now and I think that's beginning to happen.
    Davai capchaos , 2014-09-29 10:20:12
    Is it?

    I think the levels of debt amongst young 'consumers' would suggest otherwise.

    They are after all, only human. Prone to want the baubles dangled in front of them, as are we all.

    Gogoh , 2014-09-29 10:06:33
    Brilliant article.
    IGrumble , 2014-09-29 10:13:27
    Neo-Liberalism as operated today. "Greed is Good" and senior bankers and those who sell and buy money, commodities etc; are diven by this trait of humankind.

    But we, the People are just as guilty with our drives for 'More'. More over everything, even shopping at the supermarket - "Buy one & get ten free", must have.

    Designer ;bling;, clothes, shoes, bags, I-Pads etc etc, etc. It is never ending. People seem to be scared that they haven't got what next has, and next will think that they are 'Not Cool'.

    We, the people should be satisfied with what have got, NOT what what we havn't got. Those who "want" (masses of material goods) usually "Dont get!"

    The current system is unsustainable as the World' population rises and rises. Nature (Gaia) will take care of this through disease, famine, and of course the stupidity of Humankind - wars, destruction and general stupidity.

    pinniped , 2014-09-29 10:13:49
    What's a meritocracy? Oh, that's right - a fable that people who have a lot of money deserve it somehow because they're so much better than the people who work for a living.
    Keo2008 , 2014-09-29 10:13:54

    Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us

    Speak for yourself.

    Some of us are just as kind and tolerant as we have always been.

    Huples Keo2008 , 2014-09-29 10:37:19
    The world is nastier than it was before outsourcing and efficiencies.
    I am glad you have emerged unscathed

    However be happy he is speaking as it allows your natural tolerance to shine ;-)

    AlbertaRabbit Huples , 2014-09-29 11:34:05
    The world was an even nastier place before the current era. During the 1970s and early 1980s there was huge inflation which robbed people of their saving, high unemployment, and (shudder) Disco.

    People tend to view the past with rose-coloured glasses.

    Finn_Nielsen , 2014-09-29 10:15:28
    What neoliberalism? We've got a mixed economy, which seemingly upsets both those on the right who wish to cut back the state and those on the left who'd bolster it.
    Isiodore , 2014-09-29 10:16:21
    I work in a law firm specialising in M&A, hardly the cuddliest of environments, but I recognise almost nothing here as a description of my work place. Sure, some people are wankers but that's true everywhere.
    alazarin , 2014-09-29 10:16:26
    I'm enjoying watching the logical and conceptual contortions of Kippers on CiF attempting to positions themselves as being against neo-liberalism.
    Finn_Nielsen , 2014-09-29 10:17:26

    You don't need to look far for examples.

    Indeed not, you just made a few up.

    Babartov , 2014-09-29 10:19:39
    human socieity has always rewarded aggressive individuals willing to tread on others.

    it's how we roll

    pauledwards1000 , 2014-09-29 10:20:17

    "Bullying used to be confined to schools".

    That is patently untrue. Have you ever been outside your home and do you actually know anyone?

    PeteCW pauledwards1000 , 2014-09-29 10:32:52
    Have you ever been outside your home and do you actually know anyone?

    This sentence could usefully be applied to the entire article.

    Gogoh , 2014-09-29 10:20:46
    FDR, the Antichrist of the American Right, famously said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. And here we are with this ideology which in many ways stokes the fear. The one thing these bastards don't want most of us to feel is secure.
    freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 10:23:16
    There is no "free market" anywhere. That is a fantasy. It is a term used when corporations want to complain about regulations. What we have in most industrialized countries is corporate socialism wherein corporations get to internalize profits and externalize costs and losses. It has killed of our economies and our middle class.
    dr8765 freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 11:35:11
    True. All markets are constructs. Each simply operates according to the parameters put in place by those who have constructed it.

    Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor has almost become a cliche, but that doesn't make it any less true.

    iruka , 2014-09-29 10:26:05
    Socialism or barbarism -- a starker choice today than when the phrase was coined.

    So long, at least, as we have an evolved notion of what socialism entails. Which means, please, not the state capitalism + benign paternalism that it's unfortunately come to mean for most people, in the course of its parasitical relationship with capitalism proper, and so with all capitalism's inventions (the 'nation', the modern bureaucracy, ever-more-efficient exploitation to cumulatively alienating ends......)

    It's just as unfortunate, in this light, that the term 'self-management' has been appropriated by the ideologues of pseudo-meritocracy, in just the way the article describes..

    Because it's also a term (from the French autogestion) used to describe what I'd argue is the most nuanced and sophisticated collectivist alternative to capitalism -- an alternative that is at one and the same time a rejection of capitalism.... and of the central role of the state and 'nation' (that phony, illusory community that plays a more central role in empowering the modern state than does its monopoly on violence)... and of the ideology of growth, and of the ideal of monolithic, ruthlessly efficient economic totalities organised to this end....

    It's a rejection, in other words, of all those things contemplation of which reminds us just how little fundamental difference there is between capitalism and the system cobbled together on the fly by the Bolsheviks -- same vertical organisation to the ends of the same exploitation, same exploitation to the ends of expanding the scope and scale of vertical organisation, all of it with the same destructive effects on the sociabilities of everyday life....

    Self-management in this sense goes beyond 'workers control'; (I'd argue that) it envisions a society in which most aspects of life have been cut free from the ties that bind people vertically to sources of influence and control, however they're constituted (private and public bureaucracies, market pressures, the illusory narratives of nation, mass media and commodity...).

    The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default, and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating on a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances that actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires and necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present. 'Balance' because there really isn't any prospect of a utopian resolution of these conflicts -- they come with civilisation -- or with barbarism, for than matter, in any of its modern incarnations.

    Etc. etc.. Avoiding work again.....

    Finn_Nielsen iruka , 2014-09-29 10:44:27
    What about those who disagree with such a radical reordering of society? How would the collective deal with those who wished to exploit it?
    I'm genuinely interested, beats working...
    AlbertaRabbit iruka , 2014-09-29 11:18:41

    The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default, and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating on a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances that actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires and necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present.

    Why do socialists so often resort to such turgid, impenetrable prose? Could it be an attempt to mask the vacuity of their position?

    Catonaboat , 2014-09-29 10:26:13
    I read this article skeptically, but then realised how accurately he described my workplace. Most people I know on the outside have nice middle class lives, but underneath it suffer from anxiety, about 1 not putting enough into their careers 2 not spending enough time with their kids. When I decided to cut my work hours in half when I had a child, 2 of my colleagues were genuinely concerned for me over things like, I might be let go, how would I cope with the drop in money, I was cutting my chances of promotion, how would it look in a review. The level of anxiety was frightening.

    People on the forum seem to be criticizing what they see as the authors flippant attitude to sexual freedom and lack of religious hold, but I see the authors point, what good are these freedoms when we are stuck in the stranglehold of no job security and huge mortgage debt. Yes you can have a quick shag with whoever you want and don't need to answer to anyone over it on a Sunday, but come Monday morning its back to the the ever sharpening grindstone.

    Norfolk , 2014-09-29 10:26:18
    This reminds me of the world I started to work in in 1955. I accept that by 1985 it was ten times worse and by the time I retired in 2002, after 47 years, I was very glad to have what I called "survived". At its worst was the increasing difference between the knowledge base of "the boss" when technology started to kick in. I was called into the boss's office once to be criticised for the length of a report. It had a two page summery of the issue and options for resolving the problem. I very meekly inquired if he had decided on any of the options to resolve the problem. What options are you talking about? was his response, which told me that either he had not read the report or did not understand the problem. This was the least of my problems as I later had to spend two days in his office explaining the analysis we (I) were submitting to the Board.
    Fooster , 2014-09-29 10:26:35

    A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?

    Ladies, step away from the jobs.
    MissingInActon , 2014-09-29 10:27:29
    Speak for yourself.
    The current economic situation affects each of us as much as we allow it to. Some may well love neo-liberalism and the concomitant dog eat dog attitude, but there are some of us who regard it as little more than a culture of self-enrichment through lies and aggression. I see it as such, and want nothing to do with it.
    If you live by money and power, you'll die by money and power. I prefer to live and work with consensus and co-operation.
    I'll never be rich, but I'll never have many enemies.
    Jack3 MissingInActon , 2014-09-29 11:30:37

    I see it as such, and want nothing to do with it.

    Spot on. Neither I.

    fanofzapffe , 2014-09-29 10:28:07
    I have a book to promote against the 'success narrative'. I'm hoping it fails.
    slorter , 2014-09-29 10:30:18
    Hedge-fund and private-equity managers, investment bankers, corporate lawyers, management consultants, high-frequency traders, and top lobbyists.They're getting paid vast sums for their labors. Yet it seems doubtful that society is really that much better off because of what they do. They play zero-sum games that take money out of one set of pockets and put it into another. They demand ever more cunning innovations but they create no social value. High-frequency traders who win by a thousandth of a second can reap a fortune, but society as a whole is no better off. the games consume the energies of loads of talented people who might otherwise be making real contributions to society - if not by tending to human needs or enriching our culture then by curing diseases or devising new technological breakthroughs, or helping solve some of our most intractable social problems. Robert Reich said this and I am compelled to agree with him!
    nishville , 2014-09-29 10:33:03
    Brilliant article. It is not going to change anything, of course, because majority of people of this planet would cooperate with just about any psychopath clever enough not to take away from them that last bit of stinking warm mud to wallow in.

    Proof? Read history books and take a look around you. We are the dumbest animals on Earth.

    PeteCW nishville , 2014-09-29 10:38:25
    Yeah - people are stupid scum aren't they? 'Take a look around you' - wallowing in stinking warm mud all the time. Dumb animals.

    Elsewhere in this comment - being a clever psychopath is not nice.

    Finn_Nielsen PeteCW , 2014-09-29 10:45:42
    I'm not sure I want anything changed by those who hold humanity in contempt...
    petrolheadpaul nishville , 2014-09-29 11:22:14
    Rubbish. We are the most intelligent and successful creature that this planet has ever seen. We have become capable of transforming it, leaving it and destroying it.

    No other species has come close to any of those.

    SpursSupporter , 2014-09-29 10:34:29

    Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.

    I started work nearly 40 years ago and there were always some bullies in the workplace. Maybe there are more now, I don't know but I suspect it is more widely reported now. Workplace bullies were something of a given when I started work and it was an accepted part of the working environment.

    Be careful about re-inventing history to suit your own arguments.

    richiep40 , 2014-09-29 10:35:01
    I'm surprised the normalization of debt was not mentioned. If you are debt free you have more chance of making decisions that don't fit into the model.

    So what do we do now, we train nearly 50% of our young that having large amounts of debt is perfectly normal. When I was a student I lived off the grant and had a much lower standard of living than I can see students having now, but of course I had no debt when I graduated. I know student debt is administered differently, I'm talking about the way we are training them to accept debt of all sorts.

    Same applies to consumerism inducing the 'I want it and I want it now', increases personal debt, therefore forcing people to fit in, same applies to credit cards and lax personal lending.

    Although occasionally there are economic questions about large amounts of personal debt, politically high personal debt is ideal.

    PeteCW , 2014-09-29 10:35:45
    All this article proves is that you've read, and can quote from, books written by other academics that you agree with.
    TheKernel PeteCW , 2014-09-29 10:41:36
    Not sure if you're in the sector, in large parts that's kind of how academia works?

    This is also what's referred to in the trade as an opinion piece, where an author will be presenting his views and substantiating them with reference to the researches of others.

    Quite simple, really.

    Sputnikchaser , 2014-09-29 10:38:33
    There is no mystery to neoliberalism -- it is an economic system designed to benefit the 0.1% and leave the rest of us neck deep in shit. That's why our children will be paying for the bankers' bonuses to the day they die. Let's celebrate this new found freedom with all the rest of the Tory lickspittle apologists. Yippee for moral bankruptcy -- three cheers!
    Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 10:39:51
    David Harvey wrote the best book ever written on the subject.

    http://www.sok.bz/web/media/video/ABriefHistoryNeoliberalism.pdf

    It's only 200 pages but by god did he nail it.


    The Simple Summary is the state/ royality used to hold all the power over the merchants and the public for centuries. Bit by bit the merchants stripped that power away from royality, until eventually the merchants have now taken over everybody. The merchants hold all the power now and they will never give that up as there is nobody to take it from them. By owning the state the merchants now have everything that go with it. The army, police and the laws and the media.

    David Harvey puts it all under the microscope and explains in great detail how they've achieved their end game over the last 40 years.

    There are millions of economists and many economic theories in our universities. Unfortunately, the merchants will only fund and advertise and support economic theories that further their power and wealth.

    As history shows time and time again it will be the public who rip this power from their hands. If they don't give it up it is only a matter of time. The merchants may now own the army, the police, the laws and the parliament. They'll need all of that and more if the public decide to say enough is enough.

    Sidefill , 2014-09-29 10:40:51
    Bullying used to be confined to schools? Can't agree with that at all. Bullying is an ingrained human tendency which manifests in many contexts, from school to work to military to politics to matters of faith. It is only bad when abused, and can help to form self-confidence.

    I am not sure what "neo" means but liberal economics is the basis of the Western economies since the end of feudalism. Some countries have had periods of pronounced social democracy or even socialism but most of western Europe has reverted to the capitalist model and much of the former east bloc is turning to it. As others have noted in the CiF, this does not preclude social policies designed to alleviate the unfair effects of the liberal economies.

    But this ship has sailed in other words, the treaties which founded the EU make it clear the system is based on Adam Smith-type free market thinking. (Short of leaving the EU I don't see how that can be changed in its essentials).

    Finally, socialist countries require much more conformity of individuals than capitalist ones. So you have to look at the alternatives, which this article does not from what I could see.

    jet199 , 2014-09-29 10:42:40
    To be honest I don't think Neoliberalism has made much of a difference in the UK where personal responsibility has always been king. In the Victorian age people were quite happy to have people staving to death on the streets and before that people's problems were usually seen as either their own fault or an act of God (which would also be your own fault due to sin). If anything we are kinder to strangers now, than we have been, but are slipping back into our old habits.
    I think the best way to combat extreme liberalism is to be knowing about our culture and realise that liberalism is something which is embedded in British culture and is not something imposed on us from else where or by some -ism. It is strengthen not just by politics but also by language and the way we deal with personal and social issues in our own lives. We also need to acknowledge that we get both good and bad things out of living in a liberal society but that doesn't mean we have to put up with the bad stuff. We can put measures in place to prevent the bad stuff and still enjoy the positives even though some capitalists may throw their toys out of the pram.
    ForgottenVoice jet199 , 2014-09-29 10:46:38
    Personal responsibility is EXACTLY what neoliberalism avoids, even as it advocates it with every breath.

    What it means is that you get as much responsibility as you can afford to foist onto someone else, so a very wealthy person gets none at all. It's always someone else's fault.

    Neoliberalism has actually undermined personal responsibility at every single step, delegating it according to wealth or perceived worth.

    dairymaid jet199 , 2014-09-29 11:37:13
    If Liberalism is the mindset of the British how come we created the NHS, Legal Aid, universal education and social security? These were massive achievements of a post war generation and about as far removed from today's evil shyster politics as it is possible to be.
    NaturalOutswing , 2014-09-29 10:43:32
    "Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted citizens"

    What to people mean when they use the word "society" in this context?

    gjjwatson , 2014-09-29 10:46:23
    When we stopped having jobs and had careers instead, the rot set in. A career is the promotion of the self and a job the means to realise that goal at the expense of everyone else around you.
    The description of psychopathic behaviour perfectly describes a former boss of mine (female). I liked her but knew how dangerous she was. She went easy on me because she knew that I could do the job that she would claim credit for.
    The pressure and stress of, for example open plan offices and evaluation reports are all part of the conscious effort on behalf of employers to ensure compliance with this poisonous attitude.
    The greatest promoter of this philosophy is the Media, step forward Evan Davies, the slobbering lap dog of the rich and powerful.
    On the positive side I detect a growing realisation among normal people of the folly of this worldview.
    RamjetMan gjjwatson , 2014-09-29 10:53:56
    Self promoters are generally psychopaths who don't have any empathy for the people around them who carry them everyday and make them look good. We call these people show bags. Full of shit and you have to carry them all the time....
    anorak , 2014-09-29 10:46:37
    No shit Sherlock. Did you get a grant for this extensive research?
    ID8665572 , 2014-09-29 10:49:43
    "meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others..."
    I put to you the simple premsie that you can substitute "meritocratic neoliberalism" with any political system (communism, fascism, social democracy even) and it the same truism would emerge.
    Martyn Blackburn , 2014-09-29 10:50:06
    "Neoliberalism promotes individual freedom, limited government, and deregulation of the economy...whilst individual freedom is a laudable idea, neoliberalism taken to a dogmatic extreme can be used to justify exploitation of the less powerful and pillaging of the natural environment." - Don Ambrose.

    Contrast with this:

    "Neoliberal democracy, with its notion of the market uber alles ...instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralised and socially powerless." - Robert W. McChesney in Profit over People, Noam Chomsky.

    It is fairly clear that the neoliberal system is designed to exploit the less powerfull when it becomes dogmatic, and that is exactly what it has become: beaurocracy, deregulation, privatisation, and government power .

    ForgottenVoice , 2014-09-29 10:50:10
    Neoliberalism is a virus that destroys people's power of reason and replaces it with extra greed and self entitlement. Until it is kicked back to the insane asylum it came from it will only keep trying to make us it's indentured labourers. The only creeds more vile were Nazism and Apartheid. Eventually the neoliberals will kill us all, so they can have the freedom to have everything they think they're worth.
    pagey23 , 2014-09-29 10:50:48
    Liberal Socialism is what we have, how is 45% of the economy run by government and a 1 trillion pound debt economic liberalism
    RamjetMan pagey23 , 2014-09-29 10:57:08
    Yes we have big government and a finance system which prop each other up. Why it's called neoliberalism is beyond me.
    MSP1984 , 2014-09-29 10:51:35

    Yet, on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.

    Isn't a key feature of neo-liberalism that governments de-regulate? It seems you're willing to blame absolutely everything on neoliberalism, even those things that neoliberalism ostensibly opposes.

    Sandra Mae , 2014-09-29 10:52:53
    The Professor is correct. We have crafted a nightmare of a society where what is considered good is often to the detriment of the whole community. It is reflected in our TV shows of choice, Survivor, Big Brother, voting off the weakest or the greatest rival. A half a million bucks for being the meanest most sociopathic person in the group, what great entertainment.
    Jem Bo , 2014-09-29 10:53:35
    articulateness - not much fluency in a sentence when using that word is there?
    Choller21 Jem Bo , 2014-09-29 10:58:30
    Articulocity.
    illeist , 2014-09-29 10:54:39
    Always a treat to read your articles, Mr Verhaeghe; well written and supported with examples and external good links. I especially like the link to Hare's site which is a rich resource of information and current discussions and presentations on the subject.

    The rise of the psychopath in society has been noted for some time, as have the consequences of this behaviour in wider society and and a growing indifference and increased tolerance for this behaviour.

    But what are practical solutions? MRI brain scans and early intervention? We know that behaviour modification does not work, we know that antipsychotic and other psychiatric medication does not alter this behaviour, we know little of genetic causes or if diet and nutrition play a role.

    Maybe it is because successful psychopaths leverage themselves into positions of influence and power and reduce the voice, choices and influence of their victims that psychopathy has become such an unsolvable problem, or at least a problem that has been removed from the stage of awareness. It is so much easier to see the social consequences of psychopathy than it is to see the causal activity of psychopaths themselves.

    Jack3 illeist , 2014-09-29 11:54:12
    To deal with this problem is the most urgent and crucial for humanity if we hope for any future at all.
    dr8765 , 2014-09-29 10:54:46
    Great article. Thanks.
    tufsoft , 2014-09-29 11:00:33
    People are pretty much bound to behave this way when you replace the family with the individual as the primary unit of society
    quark007 , 2014-09-29 11:02:51
    Neoliberalism has entered centre stage politics not as a solution, it is just socialism with a crowd pleasing face. What could the labour party do to get voted in when the leadership consisted of self professed intellectuals in Donkey Jackets which they wore to patronise the working classes. Like the animal reflected in the name they became a laughing stock. Nobody understood their language or cared for it. The people who could understand it claimed that it was full of irrelevant hyperbole and patronising sentiment.

    It still is but with nice sounding buzz words and an endless sound bites, the face of politics has been transformed into a hollow shell. Neither of the party's faithful are happy with their leaders. They have become centre stage by understanding process more than substance. As long as your face fits, a person has every chance of success. Real merit on the other hand is either sadly lacking or non existant.

    gman1 , 2014-09-29 11:05:43
    banxters blah blah
    LargeMarvin , 2014-09-29 11:06:40
    As one who was a working class history graduate in 1970, this is not exactly news.
    Andyz , 2014-09-29 11:08:13
    Most people's personalities and behaviour are environment driven, they are moulded by the social context in which they find themselves. The system we currently inhabit is one which is constructed on behalf of the holders of capital, it is a construct of the need to create wealth through interest bearing debt.

    The values of this civilisation are consumer ones, we validate and actualise ourselves through ownership of goods, and also the middle-class norms of family life, which are in and of themselves constructs of a liberal consumer based society.

    We pride ourselves on tolerance, which is just veiled indifference to anything which we feel as no importance to our own desires. People are becoming automatons, directed through media devices and advertising, and also the implanted desires which the consumer society needs us to act upon to maintain the current system of economy.

    None of this can of course survive indefinitely, hence the constant state of underlying anxiety within society as it ploughs along on this suicidal route.

    Finn_Nielsen Andyz , 2014-09-29 11:13:15
    WAKE UP SHEEPLE
    Fence2 , 2014-09-29 11:09:28
    Good article, however I would just like to add that the new breed of 'business psychopath' you allude to are fairly easy to spot these days, and as such more people are aware of them, so they could be displaced quite soon, hopefully.
    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 11:10:22
    Cameron and the Conservatives have long been condemning the lazy and feckless at the bottom of society, but has Cameron ever looked at his aristocratic in-laws.

    His father-in-law, Sir Reginald Sheffield, can be checked out on Wikipedia.

    His only work seems to have been eight years as a conservative councillor (lazy).

    He is a member of three clubs, so he likes to go pissing it up with his rich friends (feckless).

    This seems to be total sum of his life's achievements.

    He also gets Government subsidies for wind turbines on his land (on benefits).
    His estate has been in the family since the 16th Century and the family have probably done very little since, yet we worry about the lower classes having two generations without work, in the upper classes this can go on for centuries.

    Wasters don't just exist at the bottom of society.

    Mr. Cameron have a closer look at your aristocratic in-laws.

    colddebtmountain , 2014-09-29 11:12:39

    This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and that fails to treat employees as adults.

    Fundamentally the whole concept is saying "real talent is to be hunted down since, if you do not destroy it, it will destroy you". As a result we have a whole army of useless twats in high positions with not an independent thought between them. The concept of the old boys network has really taken over except now the members are any mental age from zero upwards.

    And then we wonder why nothing is done prperly these days....

    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 11:13:44
    If you want to get into this in a bit more depth:

    "Status Anxiety" by Alain de Botton is worth a read.

    Also, a better insight into the psychopaths amongst us, including bankers, can be gained from Robert Hare's book:

    "Without Conscience"

    yoghurt2 , 2014-09-29 11:14:19
    Neoliberalism is fine in some areas of self-development and actualization of potential, but taken as a kind of religion or as the be-all and end-all it is a manifest failure. For a start it neglects to acknowledge what people have in common, the idea of shared values, the notion of society, the effects of synergy and the geo-biological fact that we are one species all inhabiting the same single planet, a planet that is uniquely adapted to ourselves, and to which we are uniquely adapted.

    Generally it works on the micro-scale to free up initiative, but on the macro-scale it is hugely destructive, since its goals are not the welfare of the entire human race and the planet but something far more self-interested.

    undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:14:37

    I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others.

    This is inevitable. All societies have this property. A warrior society rewards brave fighters and inspiring leaders, while punishing weaklings and cowards. A theocracy rewards those who display piety and knowledge of religious tradition, and punishes skeptics and taboo-breakers. Tyrannies reward cunning, ruthless schemers while punishing the squeamish and naive. Bureaucratic societies reward pernickety types who love rules and regulationsn, and punish those who are careless of jots and tittles. And so on.

    A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents

    It does. In fact, it does in all societies to some extent, even societies that strive to be egalitarian, and societies that try to restrict social mobility by imposing a rigid caste system. There are always individuals who fall or rise through society as a result of their abilities or lack thereof. The freer society is, the more this happens.

    For those who believe in the fairytale of unrestricted choice, self-government and self-management are the pre-eminent political messages, especially if they appear to promise freedom.

    Straw man. Even anarchists don't believe in completely unrestricted choice, let alone neoliberals. Neoliberalism accepts that people are inevitably limited by their abilities and their situation. Personal responsibility does not depend on complete freedom. It depends on there being some freedom. If you have enough freedom to make good or bad choices, then you have personal responsibility.

    Along with the idea of the perfectible individual, the freedom we perceive ourselves as having in the west is the greatest untruth of this day and age.

    The idea of the perfectible individual has nothing to do with neoliberalism. On the other hand, it is one of the central pillars of Marxism. In philosophy, Marx is noted as an example of thinker who follows a perfectionist ethical theory.
    undersinged undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:18:55
    One more: Socialist societies reward lazy and feckless people, and punish strivers who display initiative.
    gjjwatson undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:22:15
    You miss the point. Neoliberalism promotes negative values and is used consciously to control personal freedom and undermine positive individuality.
    Vanillaicetea undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:39:22
    An excellent demolition of this piece of whiny idiocy.
    variation31 , 2014-09-29 11:16:27
    A frightening article, detailing now the psychological strenngths of people are recruited, perverted and rotted by this rat-race ethic.

    Ironic that the photo, of Canary Wharf, shows one of the biggest "socialist" gifts of the country (was paid largely by the British taxpayer, if memory serves me correctly, and more or less gifted to the merchant bankers by Thatcher).

    66Applicationsperjob , 2014-09-29 11:16:34
    Meritocratic neoliberalism; superficial articulateness which I used to call 'the gift of the gab'. In my job, I was told to be 'extrovert' and I bucked against this, as a prejudice against anyone with a different personality and people wanting CLONES. Not sensible people, or people that could do a job, but a clone; setting the system up for a specific type of person as stated above. Those who quickly tell you, you are wrong. Those that make you think perhaps you are, owing to their confidence. Until your quietness proves them to be totally incorrect, and their naff confidence demonstrates the falseness of what they state.
    JonPurrtree 66Applicationsperjob , 2014-09-29 11:17:25
    I call it the bullshit based economy.
    undersinged JonPurrtree , 2014-09-29 11:23:55
    Most of the richest people in the world are not bullshitters. There are some, to be sure, but the majority are either technical or financial engineers of genius, and they've made their fortune through those skills, rather than through bullshit.
    JonPurrtree undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:30:52
    Plenty of bullshit keeping companies afloat.

    Apart from tetra brik. Thats a useful product.

    66Applicationsperjob , 2014-09-29 11:19:11
    Hague lied to the camera about GCHQ having permission to access anyone's electronic devices. He did not blush, he merely stated that a warrant was required. Only the night before we were shown a letter from GCHQ stating that they had access without any warrant.

    The ability to LIE has become a VIRTUE that all of us could well LIVE WITHOUT.

    undersinged 66Applicationsperjob , 2014-09-29 17:34:47

    The ability to LIE has become a VIRTUE

    That's not new. It has been widely held that rulers have a right (and sometimes a duty) to lie ever since Machiavelli's Prince was published some 500 years ago.
    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 11:19:34
    The thinking behind our age was covered in a three part BBC documentary "The Trap".

    It was made in 2006, before the financial crisis.

    http://thoughtmaybe.com/the-trap/

    Why was Iraq such a disaster?
    Find out in Part 3.

    seamuspadraig , 2014-09-29 11:26:02

    The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: "Never have we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference.

    Freedom's just another word for nothin' left lose.
    -Janice Joplin

    RaymondDance seamuspadraig , 2014-09-29 11:45:35

    Freedom's just another word for nothin' left lose.
    -Janice Joplin

    Kris Kristofferson actually,

    LargeMarvin seamuspadraig , 2014-09-29 14:46:09
    Actually it was written by Kris Kristofferson and, having a house, a job pension and an Old Age Pension, frankly, I disagree. The Grateful Dead version is better anyway.
    mjhunbeliever seamuspadraig , 2014-09-30 15:46:19
    This little video may throw some light on that for you, Paradox of Choice.
    dr8765 , 2014-09-29 11:26:23

    .... economic change is having a profound effect not only on our values but also on our personalities.

    I have long thought that introverts are being marginalised in our society. Being introvert seems to be seen by some as almost an illness, by others as virtually a crime.

    Not keen on attending that "team bonding" weekend? There must be something wrong with you. Unwilling to set out your life online for all to see? What have you got to hide?

    A few very driven and talented introverts have managed to find a niche in the world of IT and computers, earnig fortunes from their bedrooms. But for most, being unwilling or unable to scream their demands and desires across a crowded room is interpreted as "not trying" or being not worth listening to.

    seamuspadraig , 2014-09-29 11:28:28

    It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and feel little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.

    Perfectly describes our new ruling-class, doesn't it!

    Monchberter , 2014-09-29 11:30:05
    Neoliberalism:

    'Get on', or get f*****d.
    Be hard working, or be dispensable.

    Trilbey Monchberter , 2014-09-29 12:32:14
    Does neoliberalism = fascism = brutality?
    Vanillaicetea , 2014-09-29 11:30:29

    It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and feel little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.

    Sounds like a perfect description of newspaper columnists to me.

    illogicalcaptain , 2014-09-29 11:33:08
    It's just the general spirit of the place: it's on such a downer and no amount of theorising and talking will ever solve anything. There isn't a good feeling about this country anymore just a lot of tying everyone up in in repressive knots with a lot of hooey like talk and put downs. We need to find freedom again or maybe shove all the pricks into one part of the country and leave them there to fuck each other over so the rest of us can create a new world free of bullcrap. I don't know. Place is a superficial mess: 'look at me; look at what I own; I can cook Coq Au Vin and drink bottles of expensive plonk and keep ten cars on my driveway'
    Nah. Fortuneately there are still some decent people left but it's been like Hamlet now for quite some time - "show me an honest man and I'll show you one man in ten thousand" Sucks.
    chriskilby , 2014-09-29 11:33:17
    So it's official. We are ruled by psychopaths. Figures.
    Trilbey chriskilby , 2014-09-29 12:35:58
    Perhaps I can help out. There's some good research here:

    Are CEOs and Entrepreneurs psychopaths? Multiple studies say "Yes

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/drishtikone/2013/10/are-ceos-and-entrepreneurs-psychopaths-multiple-studies-say-yes/

    Menscheit11 , 2014-09-29 11:33:31
    This article is spot on and reflects Karl Marx's analysis regarding the economic base informing and determining the superstructure of a given society, that is, its social, cultural aspects. A neo-liberal, monetarist economy will shape and influence social and work relationships in ways that are not beneficial for the many but as the commentator states, will benefit those possessed of certain thrusting,domineering character traits. The common use of the word "loser" in contemporary society to describe those who haven't "succeeded" financially is in itself telling.
    Trilbey Menscheit11 , 2014-09-29 12:37:59
    Some people are brave enough to buck the system, I'm not, I just keep going to work everyday to get slaughtered.
    LargeMarvin Menscheit11 , 2014-09-29 14:48:16
    Freud's model of the mind is pretty good too, though psychoanalysis itself is controversial. The Krel forgot one thing.................
    qwertboi , 2014-09-29 11:34:29
    What an incisive article!

    It would be the perfect first chapter (foreword/introduction) in a best seller that goes on, chapter by chapter, to show that neoliberalism destroys everything it touches:

    Personal relationships;
    trust;
    personal integrity;
    trust;
    relationships;
    trust;
    transactions and trade;
    trust;
    market systems;
    trust;
    communities;
    trust;
    political relationships;
    trust;

    Etc., etc., etc..
    trust;
    society;
    trust;

    Menscheit11 , 2014-09-29 11:35:37
    This analysis can be found in Marx's critique of the economy published in 1859.
    lexcredendi , 2014-09-29 11:36:17
    James Meek seems to have nailed it in his recent book, where he pointed out that the socially conservative Thatcher, who wanted a society based on good old fashioned values, helped to create the precise opposite with her enthusiasm for the neoliberal model. Now we are sinking into a dog-eat-dog dystopia.
    Trilbey lexcredendi , 2014-09-29 12:53:48
    Many of the good old fashioned conservatives had time honoured values. They believed in taking care of yourself but they also believed in integrity and honesty. They believed in living modestly and would save much of their money rather than just spend it, and so would put some aside for a rainy day. They believed in the community and were often active about local issues. They cared about the countryside and the wildlife. They often recycled which went along with their thriftiness and hatred of waste.

    This all vanished when Thatcher came in with her selfish 'greed is good' brigade. Loads of money!

    LargeMarvin lexcredendi , 2014-09-29 14:49:34
    Even shampoo and sets have not come back, though unfortunately slickbacks have.
    PonyBoyUK , 2014-09-29 11:36:31

    We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer have any significance –

    Ha Ha!...

    Oh, wait, now I'm sad.... Damn it.

    freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 11:38:34
    There is nothing "neo" nor "liberal" about neoliberalism. It is a cover for corporations and the wealthy elite to get more corporate welfare .
    PonyBoyUK freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 12:28:59
    Take what you do, define it in a word or two and then use the most concise antonym. - That is what you will tell the public.

    State-protected oligopolies = "The Free Market"

    Aggressive wars on civilian populations = "The war on Terror" / "The Ministry of Defence"

    Age-old economic oppression = "Neoliberal economics"

    Public Manipulation = "Public Relations"

    Political Oppression = "Democracy"

    LargeMarvin freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 14:50:47
    In practice yes, but on the theoretical level the title is valid. It is the resurrection of policies from the 1860s.
    Toeparty , 2014-09-29 11:38:44
    Capitalist alienation is a daily practise. The daily practise of competing with and using people. This gives rise to the ideology that society and other people are but a means to an end rather than an end in themselves that is of course when they are not a frightening a existential competitive threat. Contempt and fear. That is what we are reduced to by the buying and selling of labour power and yes, only a psychopath can thrive under such conditions.
    Vanillaicetea , 2014-09-29 11:42:49
    According to the left if your only ambition is to watch Jeremy Kyle, pick up a welfare cheque once a week and vote for which ever party will promise to give you Ł10 a week more in welfare: you're an almost saint like figure.

    If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself, your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies" .

    Raymond Ashworth Vanillaicetea , 2014-09-29 11:49:07
    Strawman.
    Themiddlegound Vanillaicetea , 2014-09-29 11:49:49
    If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself, your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies".

    So how do you create a better community ?

    By paying your taxes on your wealth that so many of you try to avoid. Here lies the crux of the matter. There would be no deficit if taxes were paid.

    Some of the rich are so psychpathic they think jsut because they employ people they shouldn't pay any tax. They think the employees should pay thier tax for them.

    Why has tax become such a dirty word ? Think about it before you answer.

    RaymondDance Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 11:54:25

    There would be no deficit if taxes were paid.

    Of course there would.

    Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 11:45:14
    I've studied neoliberalism for nearly 20 years.

    The conclusion is for me is that it is a brilliant economic model. It is the sheer apathy of the voters and that they are cowards because they don't make it work for them. They allow the people who own the theory to run it for themselves and thus they get all the benefits from it.

    I'll try and explain.

    Their business plan.

    The truth is neoliberalism has infact made the rich western countries poorer and helped so many other poorer countries around the world get richer. Let's face facts here giving to charities would never have achieved this and something needed to be done to even up this world inequality. The only way you are ever going to achieve world peace is if everybody is equal. It's not by chance this theory was introduced by America. They are trying to bring that equality to everyone so that world peace can be achieved. How many more illegal wars and deaths this will take and for how long nobody knows. They are also very sinister and selfish and greedy because if the Americans do achieve what they are trying to do. They will own and countrol the world via washington and the dollar. The way the Americans see it is that the inequality created within each country is a bribe to each power structure within that country which helps America achieve it's long term goals. It creates inequality within each country but at the same time creates equality on the world stage. It might take 100 years to achieve and millions of deaths but eventually every country will be another state of America and look and act like any American state. Once that is achieved world peace will follow. America see it as a war and they also see millions of deaths as acceptable to achieve their end game. I of course disagree there must be a better way. How will history look at this dark period in history in 300 years time if it does achieve world peace in 150 years time ?

    In each country neoliberalism works but at the moment it only works for the few because the voters allow it. The voters allow them to get away with it through submission. They've allowed their parliaments to be taken over without a fight and allowed their brains to be brainwashed by the media controlled by the few. Which means the the whole story of neoliberalism has been skewed into a very narrow view which always suits and promotes the voices of the few.

    Why did the voters allow that to happen ?

    Their biggest success the few had over the many was to create an illusion that made tax a toxic word. They attacked tax with everything they had to form an illusion in the voters minds that paying tax was a bad thing and it was everybodys enemy. Then they passed laws to enhance that view and trotted out scare stories around tax and that if they had to pay it then everybody would leave that country. They created a world set up for them and ulitimately destroyed any chance at all, for the success of neoliberalism to be shared by the many. This was their biggest success to make sure the wealth of neoliberalism stayed with them.

    As the author of this piece says quite clearly. "An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities"

    One of these traits is that they believe they shouldn't pay tax because they are creating jobs and the tax their employees pay should be the amount of tax these companies pay. Again this makes sure that the wealth is not shared.

    Since they now own and control parliaments they also use the state to pay these wages in the way of tax credits and subsidies and grants as they refuse to pay their employees a living wage. It is our taxes they use to do this. Again this is to make sure that the wealth is not shared.

    There are too many examples to list of how they make sure that the wealth generated by neoliberalism is not shared. Then surely it is up to the voters to make sure it does. Neoliberalism works and it would work for everybody if the voters would just grow a set of balls. Tax avoidance was the battle that won the war for the few. It is time the voters revisited that battle and re write it so that the outcome was that the many won not just the few. For example there would be no deficit if the many had won that battle. Of course they wouldn't have left a market of 60 million people with money in their pockets, it would have been business suicide.

    This is a great example of how they created an illusion, a false culture, a world that does not exist. The focus is all on the deficit and how to fix it, as they socialise the losses and privatise the profits. There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance. It's time we changed that and made Neoliberlaism work for us. If we don't then we can't complain when it only works for the few.

    Neoliberlaism works. It's about time we owned it for ourselves. Otherwise we'll always be slaves to it. It's not the theory that is corrupt it is the people who own it.

    RaymondDance Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 11:53:29

    There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance.

    ... or because politicians have discovered that you can buy votes by giving handouts even to those who don't need them, thereby making everyone dependent on the largesse of the state and, by extension, promoting the interests of the most irresponsible politicians and the bureaucracies they represent.

    dr8765 Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 12:02:36
    You seem to regard what you call neoliberalism as a creator of wealth. You then claim that the reason for this wealth accruing almost entirely to an elite few is the "the voters" have prevented neoliberalism from distributing the wealth more equitably.

    I can't really follow the logic of your argument.

    Neoliberalism seems to be working perfectly for those few who are in a position to exploit it. It's doing what it's designed to do.

    I agree that the ignorance of "the voters" is allowing the elite to get away with it. But the voters should be voting for those who propose an alternative economic model. Unfortunately, in the western world at the present time, they have no viable alternative to vote for, because the neoliberals have captured all of the mainstream political parties and institutions.

    Themiddlegound RaymondDance , 2014-09-29 12:03:10
    That's all fine and dandy and I agree.

    However, you missed one of the main points. Our parliament has been taken over by the few.

    One man used to and probably still does strike fear into the government. Murdoch. Problem is there are millions like him that lobby and control policy and the media.

    foralltime , 2014-09-29 11:46:59
    ..."There are regulations about everything,"... Yes, but higher up the scale you go, the less this regulation is enforced, less individual accountability and less transparency. Neoliberalism has turned society on its head. We see ever growing corporate socialism subsidising the top 1% and heavily regulated hard nosed market capitalism for the rest of us resulting in massive inequality in wealth distribution. This inequality by design makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. We've created a society where people who were once valued as an individual part of that society are now treated as surplus to requirements and somehow need to be eliminated.
    RaymondDance , 2014-09-29 11:50:02

    Bullying used to be confined to schools

    Blimey - and people like this constantly accuse conservatives of being nostalgic for a past that never existed.

    LargeMarvin RaymondDance , 2014-09-29 14:54:59
    Fair comment. I went to a grammar school where there was, luckily, very little bullying. The bullying happened when I got back to the 'hood.
    zavaell , 2014-09-29 11:51:37
    All I know is that when I read the comments on cif, I cannot believe that these are people who would be expected to read the Guardian.
    RaymondDance zavaell , 2014-09-29 11:56:26

    I cannot believe that these are people who would be expected to read the Guardian.

    One of the best things about cif is that it allows a wider audience to see just how deluded and narcissistic Guardian readers are.

    busyteacher zavaell , 2014-09-29 12:23:12
    They're mostly tight g*ts who refuse to pay to use the Mail/Telegraph sites. This is just about the last free forum left now and it's attracting all kinds of undesirables. The level of personal insult has gone up enormously since they came here. Most of us traditional Ciffers don't bother with many posts here any more, it's too boring now.
    LargeMarvin zavaell , 2014-09-29 14:55:44
    It's called Revenge of the Killer Clerks.
    WarwickC , 2014-09-29 11:53:18

    Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is, "make" something of ourselves.

    That's always been the way, I think. It's life.
    We are all of us the descendants of a million generations of successful organisms, human and pre-human.
    The ones that didn't succeed fel by the wayside.
    We're the ones left to tell the tale.

    Stephen Porter WarwickC , 2014-09-29 12:34:35
    We're the ones left to tell the tale"

    and what a tale it will be for the last human standing!

    EstebanMurphy WarwickC , 2014-09-29 13:14:33

    That's always been th

    [Aug 29, 2016] [Aug 29, 2016]Commnets to the article Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us by Paul Verhaeghe

    Notable quotes:
    "... As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal' system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent. however crap that environment might be. ..."
    "... Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak. ..."
    "... There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. ..."
    "... I understand what you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else, but I do not personally know anyone like that. ..."
    "... .....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness. ..."
    "... I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members', charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon (especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course, constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'. ..."
    "... And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst in us. ..."
    "... Neo-liberalism has however killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility, the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity and the less poverty and social problems there are. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com

    Happytobeasocialist, 2014-09-29 09:07:21

    Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us

    Less of the 'us' please. there are plenty of people who are disgusted by neoliberalism and are determined to bring it down

    Pasdabong Happytobeasocialist , 2014-09-29 09:28:58
    As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal' system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent. however crap that environment might be.
    InconvenientTruths Happytobeasocialist , 2014-09-29 09:39:02
    Neo-Liberal Elephant

    There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture. Yet our norms and values make up an integral and essential part of our identity. So they cannot be lost, only chaned

    If you have no mandate for such change, it breeds resentment.

    For example, race & immigration was used by NuLabour in a blatant attempt at mass societal engineering (via approx 8%+ increase in national population over 13 years).

    It was the most significant betrayal in modern democratic times, non mandated change extraordinaire, not only of British Society, but the core traditional voter base for Labour.

    To see people still trying to deny it took place and dismiss the fallout of the cultural elephant rampaging around the United Kingdom is as disingenuous as it is pathetic.

    Labour are the midwives of UKiP.

    This cultural elephant has tusks.

    SaulZaentz , 2014-09-29 09:10:36
    It's a race to the bottom, and has lead to such "success stories" as G4S, Serco, A4E, ATOS, Railtrack, privatised railways, privatised water and so on.

    It's all about to get even worse with TTIP, and if that fails there is always TISA which mandates privatisation of pretty much everything - breaking state monopolies on public services.

    Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak.

    Happytobeasocialist , 2014-09-29 09:13:38

    A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents

    There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. In the UK things have gone backwards almost to the 1950s. Changes which were brought about by the expansion of universities have pretty much been reversed. The establishment - politics, media, business is dominated by the better=off Oxbridge elite.

    AntiTerrorist , 2014-09-29 09:16:42
    It is difficult for me to agree. I have grown up within Neoliberalism being 35, but you describe no one I know. People I know weigh up the extra work involved in a promotion and decide whether the sacrifice is worth the extra money/success.

    People I know go after their dreams, whether that be farming or finance. I understand what you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else, but I do not personally know anyone like that.

    JamesValencia AntiTerrorist , 2014-09-29 09:25:40
    He's saying people's characters are changed by their environment. That they aren't set in stone, but are a function of culture. And that the socio-cultural shift in the last few decades is a bad thing, and is bad for our characters. In your words: The dreams have changed.

    It's convincing, except it isn't as clear as it could be.

    AntiTerrorist JamesValencia , 2014-09-29 09:38:49
    I understand his principle but as proof, he sites very specific examples...

    A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?

    This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes no one I know. We, us, commenting here are society. I agree that there has been a shift in culture and those reaping the biggest financial rewards are the greedy. But has that not always been the way, the self interested have always walked away with the biggest slice, perhaps at the moment that slice has become larger still, but most people still want to have a comfortable life, lived their way. People haven't changed as much as the OP believes.

    The great lie is that financial reward is success and happiness.

    CityBoy2006 AntiTerrorist , 2014-09-29 09:52:05

    This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes no one I know

    Indeed even in the "sociopathic" world of fund management and investment banking, the vast majority of people establish a balance for how they wish to manage their work and professional lives and evaluate decisions in light of them both.

    GordonLiddle , 2014-09-29 09:17:21
    One could use another word or two, crony capitalism being a particularly good pair. Not what you know but who.
    SaulZaentz GordonLiddle , 2014-09-29 09:36:48
    Indeed. How come G4S keep winning contracts despite their behaviour being incompetent and veering on criminal, and the fact they are despised pretty much universally. Hardly a meritocracy.
    dreamer06 SaulZaentz , 2014-09-29 13:40:16
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article3862998.ece
    (paywall)

    You can add A4E to that list and now Capita who have recruited all of 61 part time soldiers in their contract to replace all the thousands of sacked professionals

    Pasdabong ElQuixote , 2014-09-29 09:33:20
    .....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness.
    KatieL dieterroth , 2014-09-29 09:58:16
    "Since the living standards of majority in this country are on a downward trend"

    The oil's running out. Living standards, on average, will continue to decline until either it stops running out or fusion power turns out to work after all.

    Whether you have capitalism or socialism won't make any difference to the declining energy input.

    dieterroth , 2014-09-29 09:19:32
    I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written. Economics and cultural environment is bound to have an effect on behaviour. We now live in a society that worships at the altar of the cult of the individual. Society and growth of poverty no longer matters, a lone success story proves all those people falling into poverty are lazy good for nothing parasites. The political class claims to be impotent when it comes to making a fairer society because the political class is made up of people who were affluent in the first place or benefited from a neo-liberal rigged economy. The claim is, anything to do with a fair society is social engineering and bound to fail. Well, neo-liberal Britain was socially engineered and it is failing the majority of people in the country.

    There is a cognitive dissonance going on in the political narrative of neo-liberalism, not everyone can make it in a neo-liberal society and since neo-liberalism destroys social mobility. Ironically, the height of social mobility in the west, from the gradual rise through the 50s and 60s, was the 70s. The 80s started the the downward trend in social mobility despite all the bribes that went along with introducing the property owning democracy, which was really about chaining people to capitalism.

    Johanni dieterroth , 2014-09-29 10:24:23

    I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written.

    Well, a transformation of human character was the open battle-cry of 1980s proponents of neoliberalism. Helmut Kohl, the German prime minister, called it the "geistig-moralische Wende", the "spiritual and moral sea-change" - I think people just misunderstood what he meant by that, and laughed at what they saw as empty sloganeering. Now we're reaping what his generation sowed.

    thebogusman Johanni , 2014-09-29 13:15:54
    Tatcher actually said that the goal of neoliberalism is not new economics but to "change the soul"!
    arkley dieterroth , 2014-09-29 18:10:04
    OK, now can you tell us why individual freedom is such a bad thing?

    The previous period of liberal economics ended a century ago, destroyed by the war whose outbreak we are interminably celebrating. That war and the one that followed a generation later brought in strict government control, even down to what people could eat and wear. Orwell's dystopia of 1984 actually describes Britain's wartime society continuing long after the real wars had ended. It was the slow pace of lifting wartime controls, even slower in Eastern Europe, and the lingering mindset that economies and societies could be directed for "the greater good" no matter what individual costs there were that led to a revival of liberal economics.

    Febo , 2014-09-29 09:21:28
    Neoliberalism is a mere offshoot of Neofeudalism. Labour and Capital - those elements of both not irretrievably bought-out - must demand the return of The Commons . We must extend our analysis back over centuries , not decades - let's strike to the heart of the matter!
    Febo undersinged , 2014-09-29 09:49:03
    Both neofeudalism - aka neocolonialism-abroad-and-at-home - and neoliberalism rest on the theft of the Commons - they both support monopoly.
    callaspodeaspode undersinged , 2014-09-29 10:11:05
    Collectivist ideologies including Fascism, Communism and theocracy are all similar to feudalism.

    I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members', charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon (especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course, constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'.

    'Collectivism' is not as incompatible with capitalism as you seem to think.
    You sound like one of those 'libertarians'. Frankly, I think the ideals of such are only realisable as a sole trader, or operating in a very small business.

    Progress is restricted because the people are made poor by the predations of the state

    Neoliberalism is firmly committed to individual liberty, and therefore to peace and mutual toleration

    It is firmly committed to ensuring that the boundaries between private and public entities become blurred, with all the ensuing corruption that entails. In other words, that the state becomes (through the taxpayers) a captured one, delivering a never ending, always growing, revenue stream for favoured players in private enterprise. This is, of course, deliberate. 'Individual liberties and mutual toleration' are only important insomuch as they improve, or detract, from profit-centre activity.

    You have difficulty in separating propaganda from reality, but you're barely alone in this.

    Lastly, you also misunderstand feudalism, which in the European context, flourished before there was a developed concept of a centralised nation state, indeed, the most classic examples occurred after the decentralisation of an empire or suchlike. The primary feudal relation was between the bondsman/peasant and his local magnate, who in turn, was subject to his liege.

    In other words a warrior class bound by vassalage to a nobility, with the peasantry bound by manorialism and to the estates of the Church.

    Apart from that though, you're right on everything.

    JamesValencia , 2014-09-29 09:21:56
    I completely agree with the general sentiment.
    The specifics aren't that solid though:

    - That we think our characters are independent of context/society: I certainly don't.
    - That statement about "bullying is more widespread" - lacks justification.

    The general theme of "meritocracy is a fiction" is compelling though.
    As is "We are free-er in many ways because those ways no longer have any significance" .

    And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst in us.

    UnironicBeard JamesValencia , 2014-09-29 10:39:08
    The Rat Race is a joke. Too many people waste their lives away playing the capitalist game. As long as you've got enough money to keep living you can be happy. Just ignore the pathetic willy-wavers with their flashy cars and logos on their shirts and all that guff
    CharlesII JamesValencia , 2014-09-29 13:27:30

    - That statement about "bullying is more widespread" - lacks justification.

    Absolutely. I stopped reading there. Bullying is noticed now, and seen as a 'bad thing'. In offices 30, 50, years ago, it was standard .

    JamesValencia UnironicBeard , 2014-09-29 13:42:50
    Preaching to the converted, there, Beard :)

    All we need is "enough" - Posession isn't that interesting. More a doorway to doing interesting stuff.
    I prefer to cut out the posession and go straight to "do interesting stuff" myself. As long as the rent gets paid and so on, obviously.

    Doesn't always work, obviously, but I reckon not wanting stuff is a good start to the good life (ref. to series with Felicity Kendall (and some others) intended :)
    That, and Epicurus who I keep mentioning on CIF.

    dieterroth undersinged , 2014-09-29 09:26:28
    Rather naive. History is full of brilliant individuals who made it. Neo-liberalism has however killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility, the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity and the less poverty and social problems there are.
    dieterroth undersinged , 2014-09-29 09:28:55
    "Collectivism gave us Communism, Nazism and universalist religions that try to impose uniformity through the method of mass murder."

    Capitalism and free markets gave us them as all were reactions to economic failure and having nothing to lose.

    Febo undersinged , 2014-09-29 09:34:05
    I agree - the central dilemma is that neither individualism nor collectiviism works.

    But is this dilemma real? Is there a third system? Yes there is - Henry George.

    George's paradigm in nothing funky, it is simply Classical Liberal Economics - society works best when individuals get to keep the fruits of thier labour, but pay rent for the use of The Commons.
    At present we have the opposite - labour and capital are taxed heavily and The commons are monopolised by the 1%.
    Hence unemployment
    Hence the wealth gap
    Hence the environmental crisis
    Hence poverty

    checkreakity , 2014-09-29 09:23:39
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    RidleyWalker , 2014-09-29 09:24:11
    So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?
    NinthLegion RidleyWalker , 2014-09-29 09:26:57
    But it's because these values and moralities are so wafer thin that the Right can swing them in precisely the direction they want to. Greed is good!
    LouSnickers RidleyWalker , 2014-09-29 09:28:35
    They dont like us!

    But then, I dont care for them, either!

    dieterroth RidleyWalker , 2014-09-29 09:32:10
    "Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?"

    Open your eyes and take a lokk at the world. There is enough wealth in the world for everyone to live free from poverty. Yet, the powerful look after themselves and allow poverty to not only exist but spread.

    yamba , 2014-09-29 09:30:07
    Reminds me very much of No Country for Old Men , by Cormac McCarthy.
    annabelle123 yamba , 2014-09-29 11:00:22
    That's a good description of the NHS.
    WinstonThatcher , 2014-09-29 09:30:58
    It's certainly brought out the worst in the Guardian, publishing as it does oodles of brainless clickbate.
    nishville WinstonThatcher , 2014-09-29 11:13:50
    >If you've ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. "The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds …".<
    paul643 , 2014-09-29 09:31:59

    Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.

    I don't believe that bullying is new to the workplace., in fact I'd imagine it was worse before the days of elf 'n' safety.

    vivientoft paul643 , 2014-09-29 13:05:01
    Why do you say that?
    annabelle123 , 2014-09-29 09:32:23
    I agree with much of this. Working in the NHS, as a clinical psychologist, over the past 25 years, I have seen a huge shift in the behaviour of managers who used to be valued for their support and nurturing of talent, but now are recognised for their brutal and aggressive approach to those beneath them. Reorganisations of services, which take place with depressing frequency, provide opportunities to clear out the older, experienced members of the profession who would have acted as mentors and teachers to the less experienced staff.
    saltash1920 annabelle123 , 2014-09-29 09:39:31
    I worked in local authority social care, I can certainly see the very close similarities to what you describe in the NHS, and my experience in the local authority.
    Davai annabelle123 , 2014-09-29 09:48:06
    Yes those were the days when you had people and personnel departments, rather than 'human resources' I suspect. You can blame the USA for that.

    Constant reorgs are a sure sign of inept management.

    They're also a sure sign of managers who want to 'hang out' with highly-paid, sexy management consultants and hopefully get offered a job.

    But you're a psychologist so you know that already!

    David Craig's books are worth a read.

    annabelle123 saltash1920 , 2014-09-29 10:58:42
    I can well imagine there are big similarities. Friends of mine who work in education say the same - there is a complete mismatch between the aims of the directors/managers and that of the professionals actually providing the teaching/therapy/advice to the public. When I go to senior meetings it is very rare that patients are even mentioned.
    StVitusGerulaitis , 2014-09-29 09:32:59

    Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.

    This is an incredibly broad generalisation. I remember my grandfather telling me about what went on in the mills he worked in in Glasgow before the war, it sounded like a pretty savage environment if you didn't fit in. It wasn't called bullying, of course.

    I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others.

    Isn't this true of pretty much any system? And human relationships in general? I cannot think of a system that is completely blind to the differences between people. If you happen to be lazy or have a problem with authority you will never do as "well" (for want of a better term).

    MickGJ StVitusGerulaitis , 2014-09-29 16:15:49

    Isn't this true of pretty much any system?

    Don't be silly my saintly chum: who ever heard of a psychopath rising to the top in any other system than neo-liberal capitalism?
    Socratese , 2014-09-29 09:33:25
    I have always said to people who claim they are Liberals that you must support capitalism,the free market,free trade, deregulation etc etc when most of them deny that, I always say you are not a Liberal then you're just cherry-picking the [Liberal] policies you like and the ones you don't like,which is dishonest.
    There is nothing neo about Liberalism,it has been around since the 19th century[?].People have been brainwashed in this country [and the USA] since the 1960's to say they are liberals for fear of being accused of being fascists,which is quite another thing.
    I have never supported any political ideology,which is what Liberalism is,and believe all of them should be challenged.By doing so you can evolve policies which are fair and just and appropriate to the issue at hand.
    pinniped Socratese , 2014-09-29 10:24:59
    Ah yes, No True Liberal.
    saltash1920 , 2014-09-29 09:34:32
    Neoliberalism has only benefited a minority. Usually those with well connected and wealthy families. And of course those who have no hesitation to exploit other's.

    In my view, it is characterized by corruption, exploitation and a total lack of social justice. Economically, the whole system is fully dependent on competition not co-operation. One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.

    rivendel saltash1920 , 2014-09-29 17:40:04
    One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.

    And if we keep consuming all our resources on this finite planet in pursuit of profit and more profit there will be no human race we will all be extinct.,and all that will be left is an exhausted polluted planet that once harbored a vast variety of life.
    Isent neolibral capitalism great.

    Highlights saltash1920 , 2014-09-29 21:52:03

    One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.

    Violence has already begun, in wars and protests, beheadings and wage cuts which leave people more and more desperate.

    PonyBoyUK , 2014-09-29 09:36:18

    We tend to perceive our identities as stable and largely separate from outside forces

    Which is exactly what we've been led to believe, by outside forces.

    For other related films, please see:

    The Corporation http://www.thecorporation.com/

    and

    The Century of the Self http://www.thecorporation.com/

    PonyBoyUK PonyBoyUK , 2014-09-29 10:09:55
    (doh!)

    The Century of the Self - http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/

    NinthLegion , 2014-09-29 09:40:58
    As Marx so often claimed, values, ethics, morality and behaviours are themselves determined by the economic and monetary system under which people live. Stealing is permitted if you are a banker and call it a bonus or interest, murder is permitted if your government sends you to war, surveillance and data mining is permitted if your state tells you there is a danger from terrorists, crime is overlooked if it makes money for the perpetrator, benefit claimants are justified if they belong to an aristocratic caste or political elite.......

    There is no universal right or wrong, only that identified as such by the establishment at that particular instance in history, and at that specific place on the planet. Outside that, they have as much relevance today as scriptures instructing that slaves can be raped, adulterers can be stoned or the hands of thieves amputated. Give me the crime and the punishment, and I will give you the time and the place.

    Jack3 NinthLegion , 2014-09-29 10:44:31
    For a tiny elite sitting on the top everything has been going exactly as it was initially planned.

    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men
    living together in Society, they create for themselves in the
    course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a
    moral code that glorifies it".
    F. Bastiat.

    Finn_Nielsen Jack3 , 2014-09-29 10:58:47
    Bastiat was closer to a neoliberal than a Marxist...
    skagway Jack3 , 2014-09-30 14:48:40
    very true.
    Pasdabong , 2014-09-29 09:41:24
    Excellent article.
    I'm amazed that more isn't made of the relationship between political environment/systems and their effect on the individual. Oliver James Affluenza makes a compelling case for the unhappiness outputs of societies who've embraced neo liberalism yet we still blindly pursue it.
    The US has long been world leader in both the demand and supply of psychotherapy and the relentless pursuit of free market economics. these stats are not unconnected.
    abugaafar , 2014-09-29 09:42:40
    I once had a colleague with the knack of slipping into his conversation complimentary remarks that other people had made about him. It wasn't the only reason for his rapid ascent to great heights, but perhaps it helped.
    ThroatWobblaMangrove abugaafar , 2014-09-29 22:58:31
    That's one of my favourite characteristics of David Brent from 'The Office'. "You're all looking at me, you're going, "Well yeah, you're a success, you've achieved you're goals, you're reaping the rewards, sure. But, OI, Brent. Is all you care about chasing the Yankee dollar?"
    crasspymctabernacle , 2014-09-29 09:42:47
    This description is, of course, a caricature taken to extremes

    Not when applied to IDS and other members of the cabinet.

    BlueBrightFuture , 2014-09-29 09:43:50
    Neoliberalism is another Social Darwinist driven philosophy popularised after leading figures of our times (or rather former times) decided Malthus was probably correct.

    So here we have it, serious growth in population, possibly unsustainable, and a growing 'weak will perish, strong will survive' mentality. The worst thing is I used to believe in neoliberal policies, until of course I understood the long term ramifications.

    PonyBoyUK BlueBrightFuture , 2014-09-29 10:11:45
    It's a really good idea, - until you start thinking about it...
    AlbertaRabbit BlueBrightFuture , 2014-09-29 10:27:02
    And then there's reality.

    And the reality is that "neoliberalism" has, in the last few decades, freed hundreds of millions in the developing word from a subsistence living to something resembling a middle class lifestyle.

    This has resulted in both plummeting global poverty statistics and in greatly reduced fecundity, so that we will likely see a leveling off of global population in the next few decades. And this slowing down of population growth is the most critical thing we could for increasing sustainability.

    BlueBrightFuture PonyBoyUK , 2014-09-29 10:33:06
    I suspect the logical conclusion of the free market is that the State will become formally superseded by an oligopoly - perhaps the energy sector.

    I also suspect at least one third of the population in over-developed countries will simply become surplus to requirement.

    Everybody wants an iPhone, nobody wants to work in Foxconn.

    jimcol , 2014-09-29 09:44:45
    It is rooted, I think, in the prevailing idea that what we own is more important than what we do. Consumerism grown and fostered by the greedy.
    vacuous jimcol , 2014-09-29 19:17:20
    The problem is a judeo-christian idea of "free choice" when experiments, undertaken by Benjamin Libet and since, indicate that it is near to unlikely for there to be volitionally controlled conscious decisions.

    http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html

    If we are not even free to intend and control our decisions, thoughts and ambitions, how can anyone claim to be morally entitled to ownership of their property and have a 'right' to anything as a reward for what decisions they made? Happening is pure luck: meaningful [intended] responsibility and accountability cannot be claimed for decisions and actions and so entitlement cannot be claimed for what acquisitions are causally obtained from those decisions and actions.There is no 'just desserts' or decision-derived entitlement justification for wealth and owning property unless the justifier has a superstitious and scientifically unfounded belief in free choice.

    CityBoy2006 , 2014-09-29 09:47:04

    Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace

    Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories, perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war decade when apparently everything was rosy?

    This whole article is a hodge podge of anecdote and flawed observations designed to shoehorn behaviour into a pattern that supports an economic hypothesis - it is factually groundless.

    Catonaboat CityBoy2006 , 2014-09-29 10:09:47
    Well I'd say he was spot on, when someone with the handle CityBoy2006 his a classic work place tantrum over the article.
    HarryTheHorse CityBoy2006 , 2014-09-29 11:13:24

    Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories

    Yes, but if it was left to people like you, children would still be working in factories. So please do not take credit for improvements that you would fight tooth and nail against

    perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war decade when apparently everything was rosy?

    They had wages coming to them and didn't need to rely on housing benefit to keep a roof over their head. Now people like you bitterly complain about poorly paid workers getting benefits to sustain them.

    Slapchips , 2014-09-29 09:47:28
    People who "work hard and play hard" are nearly always kidding themselves about the second bit.

    It seems to me that the trend in the world of neoliberalism is to think that "playing hard" is defined as "playing with expensive, branded toys" during your two week annual holiday.

    Davai Slapchips , 2014-09-29 09:52:24
    'Playing hard' in the careerist lexicon = getting blind drunk to mollify the feelings of despair and emptiness which typify a hollow, debt-soaked life defined by motor cars and houses.

    All IM(NVH)O, of course. DYOR.

    Sammy_89 Davai , 2014-09-29 09:56:06
    Pays for schools and hospitals, though
    Davai Sammy_89 , 2014-09-29 09:59:43
    Oh we had those before 1989.

    It isn't a binary 'naked selfish captalist/socialist decision'. There is middle ground.

    eldorado99 , 2014-09-29 09:49:50
    "support any political movement we like."

    Except those which have privacy from state surveillance as their core tenet.

    ID12345 , 2014-09-29 09:50:07
    Green Party: We need to fight Neoliberalism.
    Loadsofspace , 2014-09-29 09:51:42
    The "Max Factor" life. Selfishness and Greed. The compaction of life. Was it not in a scripture in text?. The Bible. We as humans and followers of "Faith" in christian beliefs and the culture of love they fellow man. The culture of words are a root to all "Evil. Depending on "Who's" the Author and Scrolling the words; and for what reason?. The only way we can save what is left on this planet and save man kind. Is eradicate the above "Selfishness and Greed" ?
    ForwardMarch , 2014-09-29 09:51:50

    We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference.

    These changes listed (and then casually dismissed) are monumental social achievements. Many countries in the world do not permit their 'citizens' such freedom of choice and I for one am very grateful to live in a country where these things are possible.

    Of course there is much more to be done. But I would suggest that to be born in Western Europe today is probably about as safe, comfortable, and free than at any time and any place in human history. I'm not being complacent about what we still have to achieve. But we won't achieve anything if we take such a flippant attitude towards all the amazing things that have been bequeathed to us.

    CityBoy2006 ForwardMarch , 2014-09-29 09:55:24
    Excellent observation, it's the same way that technology that has quite clearly changed our lives and given us access to information, opportunity to travel and entertainment that would have been beyond the comprehension of our grandparents is dismissed as irrelevant because its just a smart phone and a not a job for life in a British Leyland factory.
    Finn_Nielsen ForwardMarch , 2014-09-29 10:09:36
    It takes a peculairly spoilt and arrogant Westerner to claim that the freedom to criticise religion isn't significant or that we're only allowed to do so because it's no longer important. Tell that to a girl seeking to escape an arranged marriage in Bradford...
    HarryTheHorse CityBoy2006 , 2014-09-29 11:15:51
    So being able to have a smart phone compensates for not having a secure place to live? What an absurd bubble you metropolitan types live in.
    Harry Palmer , 2014-09-29 09:52:22
    OK. Now off you go and apply the same methodology to people living in statist societies, or just have a go at our own civil service or local government workers. Try social workers or the benefits agency or the police.

    Let us know what you find.

    WindTurbine , 2014-09-29 09:53:31
    The author makes some good points, although I wouldn't necessarily call our system a meritocracy.
    I guess the key one is how unaware we are about the influence of economic policy on our values.
    This kind of systems hurts everyday people and rewards psychopaths, and is damaging to society as a whole over the long term.
    Targetising everything is really insidious.
    jclucas , 2014-09-29 09:53:32
    That neoliberalism puts tremendous pressure on individuals to conform to materialistic norms is undeniable, but for a psychotherapist to disallow the choice of those individuals to nevertheless choose how to live is an admission of failure.

    In fact, many people today experience the shallowness and corrupt character of market society and elect either to be in it, but not of it, or to opt out early having made enough money, often making a conscious choice to relinquish the 'trappings' in return for a more meaningful existence. Some do selfless service to their fellow human beings, to the environment or both, and thereby find a degree of fulfillment that they always wanted.

    To surrender to the external demands of a superficial and corrupting life is to ignore the tremendous opportunity human life offers to all: self realization.

    WindTurbine jclucas , 2014-09-29 10:01:42
    It's not either-or, system or individual, but some combination of the two.
    Decision making may be 80% structure and 20% individual choice for the mainstream - or maybe the other way round for the rebels amongst us that try to reject the system.

    The theory of structuration (Giddens) provides one explanation of how social systems develop through the interactions between the system and actors in it.

    I partly agree with you but I think examples of complete self realisation are extremely rare. That means stepping completely out of the system and out of our own personality. Neither this nor that.

    jclucas WindTurbine , 2014-09-29 10:21:57
    The point is that the individual has the choice to move in the right direction. When and if they do make a decision to change their life, it will be fulfilling for them and for the system.
    AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-29 09:54:07

    Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is, "make" something of ourselves. You don't need to look far for examples. A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success.

    I have been in the private sector for generations, and know tons of people who have behaved precisely as described above. I don't know anyone who calls them crazy. In fact, I see the exact opposite tendency - the growing acceptance that money isn't everything, and that once one has achieved a certain level of success and financial security that it is fine to put other priorities first rather than simply trying to acquire ever more.

    arkley AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-29 09:59:50
    The ATL article is rather stuffed full of stereotypes.

    And speaking personally, I have turned down two offers of promotion to a management position in the last ten years and neither time did I get the sense people thought I was crazy. They might have done if I were in my late twenties rather than mid-fifties but that does reinforce the notion that people - even bosses - can accept that there is more to life than a career.

    Sammy_89 arkley , 2014-09-29 10:04:29
    I agree about the stereotypes. Also, has anyone ever seriously advised a primary school teacher that they need a masters degree of economics?! I highly doubt that that is the norm!
    MickGJ Sammy_89 , 2014-09-29 16:18:57

    Also, has anyone ever seriously advised a primary school teacher that they need a masters degree of economics?! I

    Sounds more like parents advising an exceptionally bright child to go as far as she can with her education before she starts work.

    I can't see why a primary school teacher should be dissuaded from doing a master's degree.

    arkley , 2014-09-29 09:55:46
    How does that navel look today?

    I hate to break it to you but no matter how you organise society the nasty people get to the top and the nice people end up doing all the work. "Neo-liberalism" is no different.

    Sammy_89 arkley , 2014-09-29 10:02:10
    Or you could put it another way - 'neoliberalism' is the least worst economic/social system, because most people are far more powerless and far more worse off under any other system that has ever been developed by man...
    TeddyFrench arkley , 2014-09-29 10:06:38
    For a start you need a system that is not based on rewarding and encouraging the worst aspects of our characters. I try to encourage my kids not to be greedy, to be honest and to care about others but in this day and age it's an uphill struggle.
    Finn_Nielsen Sammy_89 , 2014-09-29 10:11:42
    It's a funny kind of neoliberalism we're supposedly suffering under when you consider the ratio of state spending to GDP...
    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 09:57:13
    "A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents, meaning responsibility lies entirely with the individual and authorities should give people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal."

    In the UK we have nothing like a meritocracy with a privately educated elite.

    Success and failure are just about parental wealth.

    Willhelm123 , 2014-09-29 09:57:41
    I kind of see the point of this. What's the alternative though?
    MickGJ Willhelm123 , 2014-09-29 16:23:10

    I kind of see the point of this. What's the alternative though?

    Doing some research?
    gcarth , 2014-09-29 09:57:45
    "So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?"

    RidleyWalker, I can assue you that it is not the left but the right who consistently have a low opinion of humanity. Anyway, what has left and right got to do with this? There are millions of ordinary decent people whose lives are blighted by the obscentity that is neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism is designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor. Neo-liberalism is responsible for the misery for millions across the globe. The only happy ones are those at the top of the heap...until even their bloated selfish world inevitably implodes.
    Of course these disgusting parasites are primitive thinkers and cannot see that we could have a better, happier world for everyone if societies become more equal. Studies demonstrate that more equal societies are more stable and content than those with ever-widening gaps in wealth between rich and poor.

    injinoo gcarth , 2014-09-29 10:01:41
    Which studies and which equal societies are you referring to. It would be good to know in order to cheer us all up a bit.
    Sammy_89 gcarth , 2014-09-29 10:08:52
    Neoliberalism...disgusting parasites...primitive thinkers...misery of millions...bloated selfish world

    This reads like a Soviet pamphlet from the 1930's. Granted you've replaced the word 'capitalism' with 'neoliberalism' - in other words subsstituted one meaningless abstraction for another. It wasn't true then and it certainly isnt true now...

    injinoo , 2014-09-29 09:59:38
    Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much the same in the 1960's and 1970's. All that has changed is that instead of working on assembly lines in factories under the watchful gaze of a foreman we now have university degrees and sit in cubicles pressing buttons on keyboards. Micromanagement, bureaucracy, rules and regulations are as old as the hills. Office politics has replaced shop floor politics; the rich are still rich and the poor are still poor.
    Sammy_89 injinoo , 2014-09-29 10:10:20
    Well, except that people have more money, live longer and have more opportunities in life than before - most people anyway. The ones left behind are the ones we need to worry about
    rosemary152 injinoo , 2014-09-29 14:32:18

    Things were much the same in the 1960's and 1970's.

    There is a difference. We now have the psychopathic-tendency merchants in charge, both of the banks, multinationals and our government.

    MickGJ injinoo , 2014-09-29 16:24:51

    Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much the same in the 1960's and 1970's.

    And you can read far more excoriating critiques of our shallow materialistic capitalism, culture from those decades, now recast as some sort of prelapsarian Golden Age.
    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 10:00:59
    The psychopaths have congregated in Wall Street and the City.

    One of the problems with psychopaths is that they never learn form mistakes.

    Anyone that is watching will realise we are well on our way to the next Wall Street Crash - part 3.

    Wall Street Crash Part 1 - 1929
    Wall Street Crash Part 2 - 2008
    Wall Street Crash Part 3 - soon

    Each is bigger and better than the last - there may not be much left after Part 3.

    injinoo regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 10:03:58
    Actually, the 1929 crash was not the first by any means. The boom and bust cycle of modern economics goes back a lot further. When my grandparents talked about the "Great Depression" they were referring to the 1890's.
    regfromdagenham injinoo , 2014-09-29 10:05:24
    The financial psychopaths never learn!
    Isiodore injinoo , 2014-09-29 10:49:57
    The nineteenth century saw major financial crises in almost every decade, 1825, 1837, 1847, 1857, 1866 before we even get to the Great Depression of 1873-96.
    harrogateandrew , 2014-09-29 10:01:24
    And Socialism doesn't!

    Socialism seems to be happy home of corruption & nepotism. The old saw that Tory MP's are brought down by sex scandals whilst Labour MP's have issues with money still holds.

    Portman23 harrogateandrew , 2014-09-29 10:06:13
    Why is that relevant? This is a critique of neo liberalism and it is a very accurate one at that. It isn't suggesting that Socialism is better or even offers an alternative, just that neo liberalism has failed society and explores some of how and why.
    TeddyFrench , 2014-09-29 10:01:25
    The main problem is that neoliberalism is a faith dressed up as a science and any evidence that disproves the hypothesis (e.g. the 2008 financial collapse) only helps to reinforce the faith of the fundamentalists supporting it.
    AlbertaRabbit TeddyFrench , 2014-09-29 10:10:36
    The reason why "neoliberalism" is so successful is precisely because the evidence shows it does work. It has not escaped peoples' notice that nations where governments heavily curtail individual and commercial freedom are often rather wretched places to live.
    TeddyFrench AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-29 10:31:54
    You conflate individual freedom with corporate freedom.

    Also, what happened in 2008 then? Anything to do with the hubris over free markets and de-regulation or was it just a blip?

    JonPurrtree TeddyFrench , 2014-09-29 11:16:25
    It would be nice to curtail coprorate freedom without curtailing the freedom of individuals. I don't see how that might work.

    "hubris over free markets" might well be it.
    But I might be understanding that in a different way from you. People were making irrational decisions that didn't seem to take on basic logic of a free market, or even common sense. Such as "where is all this money coming from" (madoff, house ladder), "of course this will work" (fred goodwin and his takeovers) and even "will i get my money back" (sub-prime lending).

    hansen , 2014-09-29 10:02:14
    So why don't we do something about it....genuinely? There appears to be no power left in voting unless people are given an actual choice....Is it not time then to to provide a well grounded articulate choice? The research, in many different disciplines, is already out there.
    menedemus hansen , 2014-09-29 10:27:39
    What can we do? It appears we are stuck between the Labour party and the Conservatives. Is it even possible for another party to come to power with the next couple of elections?
    ElDanielfire menedemus , 2014-09-29 11:41:06
    The Lib Dems? ;)
    gandrew hansen , 2014-09-29 13:04:53
    the Greens, clearly.
    AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-29 10:03:31

    The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: "Never have we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference. Yet, on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.

    Verhaeghe begins by criticizing free markets and "neo-liberalism", but ends by criticizing the huge, stifling government bureaucracy that endeavours to micro-manage every aspect of its citizens lives, and is the opposite of true classic liberalism.

    Must be confusing for him.

    Oscar Mandiaz AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-30 01:37:24
    probably not as confusing as it seems to be for you.
    this is just the difference between neoliberalism in theory and in practise.
    like the "real existierende sozialismus" in eastern germany fell somewhat short of the brilliant utopia of the theorists.
    verhaeghe does not criticise the theoretical model, but the practical outcome. And the worst governmant and corporate bureaucracy that mankind has ever seen is part of it. The result of 30+ years of neoliberal policies.
    In my experience this buerocracy is gets worse in anglo saxon countries closest to the singularity at the bottom of the neolib black hole.
    I am aware that this is only a correlation, but correlations, while they do not prove causation, still require explanation.
    Bloreheath , 2014-09-29 10:03:35
    Some time ago, and perhaps still, it was/is fashionable for Toryish persons to denigrate the 1960s. I look back to that decade with much nostalgia. Nearly everyone had a job of sorts, not terribly well paid but at least it was a job. And now? You are compelled to toil your guts out, kiss somebody's backside, run up unpayable debts - and, in the UK, live in a house that in many other countries would have been demolished decades ago. Scarcely a day passes when I am not partly disgusted at what has overtaken my beloved country.
    LargeMarvin Bloreheath , 2014-09-29 11:25:19
    And scooters were 150s and 200s.
    capchaos , 2014-09-29 10:04:26
    An excellent article! The culture of the 80's has ruled for too long and its damage done.... its down to our youth to start to shape things now and I think that's beginning to happen.
    Davai capchaos , 2014-09-29 10:20:12
    Is it?

    I think the levels of debt amongst young 'consumers' would suggest otherwise.

    They are after all, only human. Prone to want the baubles dangled in front of them, as are we all.

    Gogoh , 2014-09-29 10:06:33
    Brilliant article.
    IGrumble , 2014-09-29 10:13:27
    Neo-Liberalism as operated today. "Greed is Good" and senior bankers and those who sell and buy money, commodities etc; are diven by this trait of humankind.

    But we, the People are just as guilty with our drives for 'More'. More over everything, even shopping at the supermarket - "Buy one & get ten free", must have.

    Designer ;bling;, clothes, shoes, bags, I-Pads etc etc, etc. It is never ending. People seem to be scared that they haven't got what next has, and next will think that they are 'Not Cool'.

    We, the people should be satisfied with what have got, NOT what what we havn't got. Those who "want" (masses of material goods) usually "Dont get!"

    The current system is unsustainable as the World' population rises and rises. Nature (Gaia) will take care of this through disease, famine, and of course the stupidity of Humankind - wars, destruction and general stupidity.

    pinniped , 2014-09-29 10:13:49
    What's a meritocracy? Oh, that's right - a fable that people who have a lot of money deserve it somehow because they're so much better than the people who work for a living.
    Keo2008 , 2014-09-29 10:13:54

    Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us

    Speak for yourself.

    Some of us are just as kind and tolerant as we have always been.

    Huples Keo2008 , 2014-09-29 10:37:19
    The world is nastier than it was before outsourcing and efficiencies.
    I am glad you have emerged unscathed

    However be happy he is speaking as it allows your natural tolerance to shine ;-)

    AlbertaRabbit Huples , 2014-09-29 11:34:05
    The world was an even nastier place before the current era. During the 1970s and early 1980s there was huge inflation which robbed people of their saving, high unemployment, and (shudder) Disco.

    People tend to view the past with rose-coloured glasses.

    Finn_Nielsen , 2014-09-29 10:15:28
    What neoliberalism? We've got a mixed economy, which seemingly upsets both those on the right who wish to cut back the state and those on the left who'd bolster it.
    Isiodore , 2014-09-29 10:16:21
    I work in a law firm specialising in M&A, hardly the cuddliest of environments, but I recognise almost nothing here as a description of my work place. Sure, some people are wankers but that's true everywhere.
    alazarin , 2014-09-29 10:16:26
    I'm enjoying watching the logical and conceptual contortions of Kippers on CiF attempting to positions themselves as being against neo-liberalism.
    Finn_Nielsen , 2014-09-29 10:17:26

    You don't need to look far for examples.

    Indeed not, you just made a few up.

    Babartov , 2014-09-29 10:19:39
    human socieity has always rewarded aggressive individuals willing to tread on others.

    it's how we roll

    pauledwards1000 , 2014-09-29 10:20:17

    "Bullying used to be confined to schools".

    That is patently untrue. Have you ever been outside your home and do you actually know anyone?

    PeteCW pauledwards1000 , 2014-09-29 10:32:52
    Have you ever been outside your home and do you actually know anyone?

    This sentence could usefully be applied to the entire article.

    Gogoh , 2014-09-29 10:20:46
    FDR, the Antichrist of the American Right, famously said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. And here we are with this ideology which in many ways stokes the fear. The one thing these bastards don't want most of us to feel is secure.
    freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 10:23:16
    There is no "free market" anywhere. That is a fantasy. It is a term used when corporations want to complain about regulations. What we have in most industrialized countries is corporate socialism wherein corporations get to internalize profits and externalize costs and losses. It has killed of our economies and our middle class.
    dr8765 freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 11:35:11
    True. All markets are constructs. Each simply operates according to the parameters put in place by those who have constructed it.

    Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor has almost become a cliche, but that doesn't make it any less true.

    iruka , 2014-09-29 10:26:05
    Socialism or barbarism -- a starker choice today than when the phrase was coined.

    So long, at least, as we have an evolved notion of what socialism entails. Which means, please, not the state capitalism + benign paternalism that it's unfortunately come to mean for most people, in the course of its parasitical relationship with capitalism proper, and so with all capitalism's inventions (the 'nation', the modern bureaucracy, ever-more-efficient exploitation to cumulatively alienating ends......)

    It's just as unfortunate, in this light, that the term 'self-management' has been appropriated by the ideologues of pseudo-meritocracy, in just the way the article describes..

    Because it's also a term (from the French autogestion) used to describe what I'd argue is the most nuanced and sophisticated collectivist alternative to capitalism -- an alternative that is at one and the same time a rejection of capitalism.... and of the central role of the state and 'nation' (that phony, illusory community that plays a more central role in empowering the modern state than does its monopoly on violence)... and of the ideology of growth, and of the ideal of monolithic, ruthlessly efficient economic totalities organised to this end....

    It's a rejection, in other words, of all those things contemplation of which reminds us just how little fundamental difference there is between capitalism and the system cobbled together on the fly by the Bolsheviks -- same vertical organisation to the ends of the same exploitation, same exploitation to the ends of expanding the scope and scale of vertical organisation, all of it with the same destructive effects on the sociabilities of everyday life....

    Self-management in this sense goes beyond 'workers control'; (I'd argue that) it envisions a society in which most aspects of life have been cut free from the ties that bind people vertically to sources of influence and control, however they're constituted (private and public bureaucracies, market pressures, the illusory narratives of nation, mass media and commodity...).

    The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default, and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating on a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances that actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires and necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present. 'Balance' because there really isn't any prospect of a utopian resolution of these conflicts -- they come with civilisation -- or with barbarism, for than matter, in any of its modern incarnations.

    Etc. etc.. Avoiding work again.....

    Finn_Nielsen iruka , 2014-09-29 10:44:27
    What about those who disagree with such a radical reordering of society? How would the collective deal with those who wished to exploit it?
    I'm genuinely interested, beats working...
    AlbertaRabbit iruka , 2014-09-29 11:18:41

    The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default, and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating on a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances that actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires and necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present.

    Why do socialists so often resort to such turgid, impenetrable prose? Could it be an attempt to mask the vacuity of their position?

    Catonaboat , 2014-09-29 10:26:13
    I read this article skeptically, but then realised how accurately he described my workplace. Most people I know on the outside have nice middle class lives, but underneath it suffer from anxiety, about 1 not putting enough into their careers 2 not spending enough time with their kids. When I decided to cut my work hours in half when I had a child, 2 of my colleagues were genuinely concerned for me over things like, I might be let go, how would I cope with the drop in money, I was cutting my chances of promotion, how would it look in a review. The level of anxiety was frightening.

    People on the forum seem to be criticizing what they see as the authors flippant attitude to sexual freedom and lack of religious hold, but I see the authors point, what good are these freedoms when we are stuck in the stranglehold of no job security and huge mortgage debt. Yes you can have a quick shag with whoever you want and don't need to answer to anyone over it on a Sunday, but come Monday morning its back to the the ever sharpening grindstone.

    Norfolk , 2014-09-29 10:26:18
    This reminds me of the world I started to work in in 1955. I accept that by 1985 it was ten times worse and by the time I retired in 2002, after 47 years, I was very glad to have what I called "survived". At its worst was the increasing difference between the knowledge base of "the boss" when technology started to kick in. I was called into the boss's office once to be criticised for the length of a report. It had a two page summery of the issue and options for resolving the problem. I very meekly inquired if he had decided on any of the options to resolve the problem. What options are you talking about? was his response, which told me that either he had not read the report or did not understand the problem. This was the least of my problems as I later had to spend two days in his office explaining the analysis we (I) were submitting to the Board.
    Fooster , 2014-09-29 10:26:35

    A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?

    Ladies, step away from the jobs.
    MissingInActon , 2014-09-29 10:27:29
    Speak for yourself.
    The current economic situation affects each of us as much as we allow it to. Some may well love neo-liberalism and the concomitant dog eat dog attitude, but there are some of us who regard it as little more than a culture of self-enrichment through lies and aggression. I see it as such, and want nothing to do with it.
    If you live by money and power, you'll die by money and power. I prefer to live and work with consensus and co-operation.
    I'll never be rich, but I'll never have many enemies.
    Jack3 MissingInActon , 2014-09-29 11:30:37

    I see it as such, and want nothing to do with it.

    Spot on. Neither I.

    fanofzapffe , 2014-09-29 10:28:07
    I have a book to promote against the 'success narrative'. I'm hoping it fails.
    slorter , 2014-09-29 10:30:18
    Hedge-fund and private-equity managers, investment bankers, corporate lawyers, management consultants, high-frequency traders, and top lobbyists.They're getting paid vast sums for their labors. Yet it seems doubtful that society is really that much better off because of what they do. They play zero-sum games that take money out of one set of pockets and put it into another. They demand ever more cunning innovations but they create no social value. High-frequency traders who win by a thousandth of a second can reap a fortune, but society as a whole is no better off. the games consume the energies of loads of talented people who might otherwise be making real contributions to society - if not by tending to human needs or enriching our culture then by curing diseases or devising new technological breakthroughs, or helping solve some of our most intractable social problems. Robert Reich said this and I am compelled to agree with him!
    nishville , 2014-09-29 10:33:03
    Brilliant article. It is not going to change anything, of course, because majority of people of this planet would cooperate with just about any psychopath clever enough not to take away from them that last bit of stinking warm mud to wallow in.

    Proof? Read history books and take a look around you. We are the dumbest animals on Earth.

    PeteCW nishville , 2014-09-29 10:38:25
    Yeah - people are stupid scum aren't they? 'Take a look around you' - wallowing in stinking warm mud all the time. Dumb animals.

    Elsewhere in this comment - being a clever psychopath is not nice.

    Finn_Nielsen PeteCW , 2014-09-29 10:45:42
    I'm not sure I want anything changed by those who hold humanity in contempt...
    petrolheadpaul nishville , 2014-09-29 11:22:14
    Rubbish. We are the most intelligent and successful creature that this planet has ever seen. We have become capable of transforming it, leaving it and destroying it.

    No other species has come close to any of those.

    SpursSupporter , 2014-09-29 10:34:29

    Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.

    I started work nearly 40 years ago and there were always some bullies in the workplace. Maybe there are more now, I don't know but I suspect it is more widely reported now. Workplace bullies were something of a given when I started work and it was an accepted part of the working environment.

    Be careful about re-inventing history to suit your own arguments.

    richiep40 , 2014-09-29 10:35:01
    I'm surprised the normalization of debt was not mentioned. If you are debt free you have more chance of making decisions that don't fit into the model.

    So what do we do now, we train nearly 50% of our young that having large amounts of debt is perfectly normal. When I was a student I lived off the grant and had a much lower standard of living than I can see students having now, but of course I had no debt when I graduated. I know student debt is administered differently, I'm talking about the way we are training them to accept debt of all sorts.

    Same applies to consumerism inducing the 'I want it and I want it now', increases personal debt, therefore forcing people to fit in, same applies to credit cards and lax personal lending.

    Although occasionally there are economic questions about large amounts of personal debt, politically high personal debt is ideal.

    PeteCW , 2014-09-29 10:35:45
    All this article proves is that you've read, and can quote from, books written by other academics that you agree with.
    TheKernel PeteCW , 2014-09-29 10:41:36
    Not sure if you're in the sector, in large parts that's kind of how academia works?

    This is also what's referred to in the trade as an opinion piece, where an author will be presenting his views and substantiating them with reference to the researches of others.

    Quite simple, really.

    Sputnikchaser , 2014-09-29 10:38:33
    There is no mystery to neoliberalism -- it is an economic system designed to benefit the 0.1% and leave the rest of us neck deep in shit. That's why our children will be paying for the bankers' bonuses to the day they die. Let's celebrate this new found freedom with all the rest of the Tory lickspittle apologists. Yippee for moral bankruptcy -- three cheers!
    Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 10:39:51
    David Harvey wrote the best book ever written on the subject.

    http://www.sok.bz/web/media/video/ABriefHistoryNeoliberalism.pdf

    It's only 200 pages but by god did he nail it.


    The Simple Summary is the state/ royality used to hold all the power over the merchants and the public for centuries. Bit by bit the merchants stripped that power away from royality, until eventually the merchants have now taken over everybody. The merchants hold all the power now and they will never give that up as there is nobody to take it from them. By owning the state the merchants now have everything that go with it. The army, police and the laws and the media.

    David Harvey puts it all under the microscope and explains in great detail how they've achieved their end game over the last 40 years.

    There are millions of economists and many economic theories in our universities. Unfortunately, the merchants will only fund and advertise and support economic theories that further their power and wealth.

    As history shows time and time again it will be the public who rip this power from their hands. If they don't give it up it is only a matter of time. The merchants may now own the army, the police, the laws and the parliament. They'll need all of that and more if the public decide to say enough is enough.

    Sidefill , 2014-09-29 10:40:51
    Bullying used to be confined to schools? Can't agree with that at all. Bullying is an ingrained human tendency which manifests in many contexts, from school to work to military to politics to matters of faith. It is only bad when abused, and can help to form self-confidence.

    I am not sure what "neo" means but liberal economics is the basis of the Western economies since the end of feudalism. Some countries have had periods of pronounced social democracy or even socialism but most of western Europe has reverted to the capitalist model and much of the former east bloc is turning to it. As others have noted in the CiF, this does not preclude social policies designed to alleviate the unfair effects of the liberal economies.

    But this ship has sailed in other words, the treaties which founded the EU make it clear the system is based on Adam Smith-type free market thinking. (Short of leaving the EU I don't see how that can be changed in its essentials).

    Finally, socialist countries require much more conformity of individuals than capitalist ones. So you have to look at the alternatives, which this article does not from what I could see.

    jet199 , 2014-09-29 10:42:40
    To be honest I don't think Neoliberalism has made much of a difference in the UK where personal responsibility has always been king. In the Victorian age people were quite happy to have people staving to death on the streets and before that people's problems were usually seen as either their own fault or an act of God (which would also be your own fault due to sin). If anything we are kinder to strangers now, than we have been, but are slipping back into our old habits.
    I think the best way to combat extreme liberalism is to be knowing about our culture and realise that liberalism is something which is embedded in British culture and is not something imposed on us from else where or by some -ism. It is strengthen not just by politics but also by language and the way we deal with personal and social issues in our own lives. We also need to acknowledge that we get both good and bad things out of living in a liberal society but that doesn't mean we have to put up with the bad stuff. We can put measures in place to prevent the bad stuff and still enjoy the positives even though some capitalists may throw their toys out of the pram.
    ForgottenVoice jet199 , 2014-09-29 10:46:38
    Personal responsibility is EXACTLY what neoliberalism avoids, even as it advocates it with every breath.

    What it means is that you get as much responsibility as you can afford to foist onto someone else, so a very wealthy person gets none at all. It's always someone else's fault.

    Neoliberalism has actually undermined personal responsibility at every single step, delegating it according to wealth or perceived worth.

    dairymaid jet199 , 2014-09-29 11:37:13
    If Liberalism is the mindset of the British how come we created the NHS, Legal Aid, universal education and social security? These were massive achievements of a post war generation and about as far removed from today's evil shyster politics as it is possible to be.
    NaturalOutswing , 2014-09-29 10:43:32
    "Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted citizens"

    What to people mean when they use the word "society" in this context?

    gjjwatson , 2014-09-29 10:46:23
    When we stopped having jobs and had careers instead, the rot set in. A career is the promotion of the self and a job the means to realise that goal at the expense of everyone else around you.
    The description of psychopathic behaviour perfectly describes a former boss of mine (female). I liked her but knew how dangerous she was. She went easy on me because she knew that I could do the job that she would claim credit for.
    The pressure and stress of, for example open plan offices and evaluation reports are all part of the conscious effort on behalf of employers to ensure compliance with this poisonous attitude.
    The greatest promoter of this philosophy is the Media, step forward Evan Davies, the slobbering lap dog of the rich and powerful.
    On the positive side I detect a growing realisation among normal people of the folly of this worldview.
    RamjetMan gjjwatson , 2014-09-29 10:53:56
    Self promoters are generally psychopaths who don't have any empathy for the people around them who carry them everyday and make them look good. We call these people show bags. Full of shit and you have to carry them all the time....
    anorak , 2014-09-29 10:46:37
    No shit Sherlock. Did you get a grant for this extensive research?
    ID8665572 , 2014-09-29 10:49:43
    "meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others..."
    I put to you the simple premsie that you can substitute "meritocratic neoliberalism" with any political system (communism, fascism, social democracy even) and it the same truism would emerge.
    Martyn Blackburn , 2014-09-29 10:50:06
    "Neoliberalism promotes individual freedom, limited government, and deregulation of the economy...whilst individual freedom is a laudable idea, neoliberalism taken to a dogmatic extreme can be used to justify exploitation of the less powerful and pillaging of the natural environment." - Don Ambrose.

    Contrast with this:

    "Neoliberal democracy, with its notion of the market uber alles ...instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralised and socially powerless." - Robert W. McChesney in Profit over People, Noam Chomsky.

    It is fairly clear that the neoliberal system is designed to exploit the less powerfull when it becomes dogmatic, and that is exactly what it has become: beaurocracy, deregulation, privatisation, and government power .

    ForgottenVoice , 2014-09-29 10:50:10
    Neoliberalism is a virus that destroys people's power of reason and replaces it with extra greed and self entitlement. Until it is kicked back to the insane asylum it came from it will only keep trying to make us it's indentured labourers. The only creeds more vile were Nazism and Apartheid. Eventually the neoliberals will kill us all, so they can have the freedom to have everything they think they're worth.
    pagey23 , 2014-09-29 10:50:48
    Liberal Socialism is what we have, how is 45% of the economy run by government and a 1 trillion pound debt economic liberalism
    RamjetMan pagey23 , 2014-09-29 10:57:08
    Yes we have big government and a finance system which prop each other up. Why it's called neoliberalism is beyond me.
    MSP1984 , 2014-09-29 10:51:35

    Yet, on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.

    Isn't a key feature of neo-liberalism that governments de-regulate? It seems you're willing to blame absolutely everything on neoliberalism, even those things that neoliberalism ostensibly opposes.

    Sandra Mae , 2014-09-29 10:52:53
    The Professor is correct. We have crafted a nightmare of a society where what is considered good is often to the detriment of the whole community. It is reflected in our TV shows of choice, Survivor, Big Brother, voting off the weakest or the greatest rival. A half a million bucks for being the meanest most sociopathic person in the group, what great entertainment.
    Jem Bo , 2014-09-29 10:53:35
    articulateness - not much fluency in a sentence when using that word is there?
    Choller21 Jem Bo , 2014-09-29 10:58:30
    Articulocity.
    illeist , 2014-09-29 10:54:39
    Always a treat to read your articles, Mr Verhaeghe; well written and supported with examples and external good links. I especially like the link to Hare's site which is a rich resource of information and current discussions and presentations on the subject.

    The rise of the psychopath in society has been noted for some time, as have the consequences of this behaviour in wider society and and a growing indifference and increased tolerance for this behaviour.

    But what are practical solutions? MRI brain scans and early intervention? We know that behaviour modification does not work, we know that antipsychotic and other psychiatric medication does not alter this behaviour, we know little of genetic causes or if diet and nutrition play a role.

    Maybe it is because successful psychopaths leverage themselves into positions of influence and power and reduce the voice, choices and influence of their victims that psychopathy has become such an unsolvable problem, or at least a problem that has been removed from the stage of awareness. It is so much easier to see the social consequences of psychopathy than it is to see the causal activity of psychopaths themselves.

    Jack3 illeist , 2014-09-29 11:54:12
    To deal with this problem is the most urgent and crucial for humanity if we hope for any future at all.
    dr8765 , 2014-09-29 10:54:46
    Great article. Thanks.
    tufsoft , 2014-09-29 11:00:33
    People are pretty much bound to behave this way when you replace the family with the individual as the primary unit of society
    quark007 , 2014-09-29 11:02:51
    Neoliberalism has entered centre stage politics not as a solution, it is just socialism with a crowd pleasing face. What could the labour party do to get voted in when the leadership consisted of self professed intellectuals in Donkey Jackets which they wore to patronise the working classes. Like the animal reflected in the name they became a laughing stock. Nobody understood their language or cared for it. The people who could understand it claimed that it was full of irrelevant hyperbole and patronising sentiment.

    It still is but with nice sounding buzz words and an endless sound bites, the face of politics has been transformed into a hollow shell. Neither of the party's faithful are happy with their leaders. They have become centre stage by understanding process more than substance. As long as your face fits, a person has every chance of success. Real merit on the other hand is either sadly lacking or non existant.

    gman1 , 2014-09-29 11:05:43
    banxters blah blah
    LargeMarvin , 2014-09-29 11:06:40
    As one who was a working class history graduate in 1970, this is not exactly news.
    Andyz , 2014-09-29 11:08:13
    Most people's personalities and behaviour are environment driven, they are moulded by the social context in which they find themselves. The system we currently inhabit is one which is constructed on behalf of the holders of capital, it is a construct of the need to create wealth through interest bearing debt.

    The values of this civilisation are consumer ones, we validate and actualise ourselves through ownership of goods, and also the middle-class norms of family life, which are in and of themselves constructs of a liberal consumer based society.

    We pride ourselves on tolerance, which is just veiled indifference to anything which we feel as no importance to our own desires. People are becoming automatons, directed through media devices and advertising, and also the implanted desires which the consumer society needs us to act upon to maintain the current system of economy.

    None of this can of course survive indefinitely, hence the constant state of underlying anxiety within society as it ploughs along on this suicidal route.

    Finn_Nielsen Andyz , 2014-09-29 11:13:15
    WAKE UP SHEEPLE
    Fence2 , 2014-09-29 11:09:28
    Good article, however I would just like to add that the new breed of 'business psychopath' you allude to are fairly easy to spot these days, and as such more people are aware of them, so they could be displaced quite soon, hopefully.
    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 11:10:22
    Cameron and the Conservatives have long been condemning the lazy and feckless at the bottom of society, but has Cameron ever looked at his aristocratic in-laws.

    His father-in-law, Sir Reginald Sheffield, can be checked out on Wikipedia.

    His only work seems to have been eight years as a conservative councillor (lazy).

    He is a member of three clubs, so he likes to go pissing it up with his rich friends (feckless).

    This seems to be total sum of his life's achievements.

    He also gets Government subsidies for wind turbines on his land (on benefits).
    His estate has been in the family since the 16th Century and the family have probably done very little since, yet we worry about the lower classes having two generations without work, in the upper classes this can go on for centuries.

    Wasters don't just exist at the bottom of society.

    Mr. Cameron have a closer look at your aristocratic in-laws.

    colddebtmountain , 2014-09-29 11:12:39

    This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and that fails to treat employees as adults.

    Fundamentally the whole concept is saying "real talent is to be hunted down since, if you do not destroy it, it will destroy you". As a result we have a whole army of useless twats in high positions with not an independent thought between them. The concept of the old boys network has really taken over except now the members are any mental age from zero upwards.

    And then we wonder why nothing is done prperly these days....

    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 11:13:44
    If you want to get into this in a bit more depth:

    "Status Anxiety" by Alain de Botton is worth a read.

    Also, a better insight into the psychopaths amongst us, including bankers, can be gained from Robert Hare's book:

    "Without Conscience"

    yoghurt2 , 2014-09-29 11:14:19
    Neoliberalism is fine in some areas of self-development and actualization of potential, but taken as a kind of religion or as the be-all and end-all it is a manifest failure. For a start it neglects to acknowledge what people have in common, the idea of shared values, the notion of society, the effects of synergy and the geo-biological fact that we are one species all inhabiting the same single planet, a planet that is uniquely adapted to ourselves, and to which we are uniquely adapted.

    Generally it works on the micro-scale to free up initiative, but on the macro-scale it is hugely destructive, since its goals are not the welfare of the entire human race and the planet but something far more self-interested.

    undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:14:37

    I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others.

    This is inevitable. All societies have this property. A warrior society rewards brave fighters and inspiring leaders, while punishing weaklings and cowards. A theocracy rewards those who display piety and knowledge of religious tradition, and punishes skeptics and taboo-breakers. Tyrannies reward cunning, ruthless schemers while punishing the squeamish and naive. Bureaucratic societies reward pernickety types who love rules and regulationsn, and punish those who are careless of jots and tittles. And so on.

    A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents

    It does. In fact, it does in all societies to some extent, even societies that strive to be egalitarian, and societies that try to restrict social mobility by imposing a rigid caste system. There are always individuals who fall or rise through society as a result of their abilities or lack thereof. The freer society is, the more this happens.

    For those who believe in the fairytale of unrestricted choice, self-government and self-management are the pre-eminent political messages, especially if they appear to promise freedom.

    Straw man. Even anarchists don't believe in completely unrestricted choice, let alone neoliberals. Neoliberalism accepts that people are inevitably limited by their abilities and their situation. Personal responsibility does not depend on complete freedom. It depends on there being some freedom. If you have enough freedom to make good or bad choices, then you have personal responsibility.

    Along with the idea of the perfectible individual, the freedom we perceive ourselves as having in the west is the greatest untruth of this day and age.

    The idea of the perfectible individual has nothing to do with neoliberalism. On the other hand, it is one of the central pillars of Marxism. In philosophy, Marx is noted as an example of thinker who follows a perfectionist ethical theory.
    undersinged undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:18:55
    One more: Socialist societies reward lazy and feckless people, and punish strivers who display initiative.
    gjjwatson undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:22:15
    You miss the point. Neoliberalism promotes negative values and is used consciously to control personal freedom and undermine positive individuality.
    Vanillaicetea undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:39:22
    An excellent demolition of this piece of whiny idiocy.
    variation31 , 2014-09-29 11:16:27
    A frightening article, detailing now the psychological strenngths of people are recruited, perverted and rotted by this rat-race ethic.

    Ironic that the photo, of Canary Wharf, shows one of the biggest "socialist" gifts of the country (was paid largely by the British taxpayer, if memory serves me correctly, and more or less gifted to the merchant bankers by Thatcher).

    66Applicationsperjob , 2014-09-29 11:16:34
    Meritocratic neoliberalism; superficial articulateness which I used to call 'the gift of the gab'. In my job, I was told to be 'extrovert' and I bucked against this, as a prejudice against anyone with a different personality and people wanting CLONES. Not sensible people, or people that could do a job, but a clone; setting the system up for a specific type of person as stated above. Those who quickly tell you, you are wrong. Those that make you think perhaps you are, owing to their confidence. Until your quietness proves them to be totally incorrect, and their naff confidence demonstrates the falseness of what they state.
    JonPurrtree 66Applicationsperjob , 2014-09-29 11:17:25
    I call it the bullshit based economy.
    undersinged JonPurrtree , 2014-09-29 11:23:55
    Most of the richest people in the world are not bullshitters. There are some, to be sure, but the majority are either technical or financial engineers of genius, and they've made their fortune through those skills, rather than through bullshit.
    JonPurrtree undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:30:52
    Plenty of bullshit keeping companies afloat.

    Apart from tetra brik. Thats a useful product.

    66Applicationsperjob , 2014-09-29 11:19:11
    Hague lied to the camera about GCHQ having permission to access anyone's electronic devices. He did not blush, he merely stated that a warrant was required. Only the night before we were shown a letter from GCHQ stating that they had access without any warrant.

    The ability to LIE has become a VIRTUE that all of us could well LIVE WITHOUT.

    undersinged 66Applicationsperjob , 2014-09-29 17:34:47

    The ability to LIE has become a VIRTUE

    That's not new. It has been widely held that rulers have a right (and sometimes a duty) to lie ever since Machiavelli's Prince was published some 500 years ago.
    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 11:19:34
    The thinking behind our age was covered in a three part BBC documentary "The Trap".

    It was made in 2006, before the financial crisis.

    http://thoughtmaybe.com/the-trap/

    Why was Iraq such a disaster?
    Find out in Part 3.

    seamuspadraig , 2014-09-29 11:26:02

    The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: "Never have we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference.

    Freedom's just another word for nothin' left lose.
    -Janice Joplin

    RaymondDance seamuspadraig , 2014-09-29 11:45:35

    Freedom's just another word for nothin' left lose.
    -Janice Joplin

    Kris Kristofferson actually,

    LargeMarvin seamuspadraig , 2014-09-29 14:46:09
    Actually it was written by Kris Kristofferson and, having a house, a job pension and an Old Age Pension, frankly, I disagree. The Grateful Dead version is better anyway.
    mjhunbeliever seamuspadraig , 2014-09-30 15:46:19
    This little video may throw some light on that for you, Paradox of Choice.
    dr8765 , 2014-09-29 11:26:23

    .... economic change is having a profound effect not only on our values but also on our personalities.

    I have long thought that introverts are being marginalised in our society. Being introvert seems to be seen by some as almost an illness, by others as virtually a crime.

    Not keen on attending that "team bonding" weekend? There must be something wrong with you. Unwilling to set out your life online for all to see? What have you got to hide?

    A few very driven and talented introverts have managed to find a niche in the world of IT and computers, earnig fortunes from their bedrooms. But for most, being unwilling or unable to scream their demands and desires across a crowded room is interpreted as "not trying" or being not worth listening to.

    seamuspadraig , 2014-09-29 11:28:28

    It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and feel little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.

    Perfectly describes our new ruling-class, doesn't it!

    Monchberter , 2014-09-29 11:30:05
    Neoliberalism:

    'Get on', or get f*****d.
    Be hard working, or be dispensable.

    Trilbey Monchberter , 2014-09-29 12:32:14
    Does neoliberalism = fascism = brutality?
    Vanillaicetea , 2014-09-29 11:30:29

    It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and feel little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.

    Sounds like a perfect description of newspaper columnists to me.

    illogicalcaptain , 2014-09-29 11:33:08
    It's just the general spirit of the place: it's on such a downer and no amount of theorising and talking will ever solve anything. There isn't a good feeling about this country anymore just a lot of tying everyone up in in repressive knots with a lot of hooey like talk and put downs. We need to find freedom again or maybe shove all the pricks into one part of the country and leave them there to fuck each other over so the rest of us can create a new world free of bullcrap. I don't know. Place is a superficial mess: 'look at me; look at what I own; I can cook Coq Au Vin and drink bottles of expensive plonk and keep ten cars on my driveway'
    Nah. Fortuneately there are still some decent people left but it's been like Hamlet now for quite some time - "show me an honest man and I'll show you one man in ten thousand" Sucks.
    chriskilby , 2014-09-29 11:33:17
    So it's official. We are ruled by psychopaths. Figures.
    Trilbey chriskilby , 2014-09-29 12:35:58
    Perhaps I can help out. There's some good research here:

    Are CEOs and Entrepreneurs psychopaths? Multiple studies say "Yes

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/drishtikone/2013/10/are-ceos-and-entrepreneurs-psychopaths-multiple-studies-say-yes/

    Menscheit11 , 2014-09-29 11:33:31
    This article is spot on and reflects Karl Marx's analysis regarding the economic base informing and determining the superstructure of a given society, that is, its social, cultural aspects. A neo-liberal, monetarist economy will shape and influence social and work relationships in ways that are not beneficial for the many but as the commentator states, will benefit those possessed of certain thrusting,domineering character traits. The common use of the word "loser" in contemporary society to describe those who haven't "succeeded" financially is in itself telling.
    Trilbey Menscheit11 , 2014-09-29 12:37:59
    Some people are brave enough to buck the system, I'm not, I just keep going to work everyday to get slaughtered.
    LargeMarvin Menscheit11 , 2014-09-29 14:48:16
    Freud's model of the mind is pretty good too, though psychoanalysis itself is controversial. The Krel forgot one thing.................
    qwertboi , 2014-09-29 11:34:29
    What an incisive article!

    It would be the perfect first chapter (foreword/introduction) in a best seller that goes on, chapter by chapter, to show that neoliberalism destroys everything it touches:

    Personal relationships;
    trust;
    personal integrity;
    trust;
    relationships;
    trust;
    transactions and trade;
    trust;
    market systems;
    trust;
    communities;
    trust;
    political relationships;
    trust;

    Etc., etc., etc..
    trust;
    society;
    trust;

    Menscheit11 , 2014-09-29 11:35:37
    This analysis can be found in Marx's critique of the economy published in 1859.
    lexcredendi , 2014-09-29 11:36:17
    James Meek seems to have nailed it in his recent book, where he pointed out that the socially conservative Thatcher, who wanted a society based on good old fashioned values, helped to create the precise opposite with her enthusiasm for the neoliberal model. Now we are sinking into a dog-eat-dog dystopia.
    Trilbey lexcredendi , 2014-09-29 12:53:48
    Many of the good old fashioned conservatives had time honoured values. They believed in taking care of yourself but they also believed in integrity and honesty. They believed in living modestly and would save much of their money rather than just spend it, and so would put some aside for a rainy day. They believed in the community and were often active about local issues. They cared about the countryside and the wildlife. They often recycled which went along with their thriftiness and hatred of waste.

    This all vanished when Thatcher came in with her selfish 'greed is good' brigade. Loads of money!

    LargeMarvin lexcredendi , 2014-09-29 14:49:34
    Even shampoo and sets have not come back, though unfortunately slickbacks have.
    PonyBoyUK , 2014-09-29 11:36:31

    We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer have any significance –

    Ha Ha!...

    Oh, wait, now I'm sad.... Damn it.

    freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 11:38:34
    There is nothing "neo" nor "liberal" about neoliberalism. It is a cover for corporations and the wealthy elite to get more corporate welfare .
    PonyBoyUK freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 12:28:59
    Take what you do, define it in a word or two and then use the most concise antonym. - That is what you will tell the public.

    State-protected oligopolies = "The Free Market"

    Aggressive wars on civilian populations = "The war on Terror" / "The Ministry of Defence"

    Age-old economic oppression = "Neoliberal economics"

    Public Manipulation = "Public Relations"

    Political Oppression = "Democracy"

    LargeMarvin freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 14:50:47
    In practice yes, but on the theoretical level the title is valid. It is the resurrection of policies from the 1860s.
    Toeparty , 2014-09-29 11:38:44
    Capitalist alienation is a daily practise. The daily practise of competing with and using people. This gives rise to the ideology that society and other people are but a means to an end rather than an end in themselves that is of course when they are not a frightening a existential competitive threat. Contempt and fear. That is what we are reduced to by the buying and selling of labour power and yes, only a psychopath can thrive under such conditions.
    Vanillaicetea , 2014-09-29 11:42:49
    According to the left if your only ambition is to watch Jeremy Kyle, pick up a welfare cheque once a week and vote for which ever party will promise to give you Ł10 a week more in welfare: you're an almost saint like figure.

    If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself, your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies" .

    Raymond Ashworth Vanillaicetea , 2014-09-29 11:49:07
    Strawman.
    Themiddlegound Vanillaicetea , 2014-09-29 11:49:49
    If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself, your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies".

    So how do you create a better community ?

    By paying your taxes on your wealth that so many of you try to avoid. Here lies the crux of the matter. There would be no deficit if taxes were paid.

    Some of the rich are so psychpathic they think jsut because they employ people they shouldn't pay any tax. They think the employees should pay thier tax for them.

    Why has tax become such a dirty word ? Think about it before you answer.

    RaymondDance Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 11:54:25

    There would be no deficit if taxes were paid.

    Of course there would.

    Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 11:45:14
    I've studied neoliberalism for nearly 20 years.

    The conclusion is for me is that it is a brilliant economic model. It is the sheer apathy of the voters and that they are cowards because they don't make it work for them. They allow the people who own the theory to run it for themselves and thus they get all the benefits from it.

    I'll try and explain.

    Their business plan.

    The truth is neoliberalism has infact made the rich western countries poorer and helped so many other poorer countries around the world get richer. Let's face facts here giving to charities would never have achieved this and something needed to be done to even up this world inequality. The only way you are ever going to achieve world peace is if everybody is equal. It's not by chance this theory was introduced by America. They are trying to bring that equality to everyone so that world peace can be achieved. How many more illegal wars and deaths this will take and for how long nobody knows. They are also very sinister and selfish and greedy because if the Americans do achieve what they are trying to do. They will own and countrol the world via washington and the dollar. The way the Americans see it is that the inequality created within each country is a bribe to each power structure within that country which helps America achieve it's long term goals. It creates inequality within each country but at the same time creates equality on the world stage. It might take 100 years to achieve and millions of deaths but eventually every country will be another state of America and look and act like any American state. Once that is achieved world peace will follow. America see it as a war and they also see millions of deaths as acceptable to achieve their end game. I of course disagree there must be a better way. How will history look at this dark period in history in 300 years time if it does achieve world peace in 150 years time ?

    In each country neoliberalism works but at the moment it only works for the few because the voters allow it. The voters allow them to get away with it through submission. They've allowed their parliaments to be taken over without a fight and allowed their brains to be brainwashed by the media controlled by the few. Which means the the whole story of neoliberalism has been skewed into a very narrow view which always suits and promotes the voices of the few.

    Why did the voters allow that to happen ?

    Their biggest success the few had over the many was to create an illusion that made tax a toxic word. They attacked tax with everything they had to form an illusion in the voters minds that paying tax was a bad thing and it was everybodys enemy. Then they passed laws to enhance that view and trotted out scare stories around tax and that if they had to pay it then everybody would leave that country. They created a world set up for them and ulitimately destroyed any chance at all, for the success of neoliberalism to be shared by the many. This was their biggest success to make sure the wealth of neoliberalism stayed with them.

    As the author of this piece says quite clearly. "An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities"

    One of these traits is that they believe they shouldn't pay tax because they are creating jobs and the tax their employees pay should be the amount of tax these companies pay. Again this makes sure that the wealth is not shared.

    Since they now own and control parliaments they also use the state to pay these wages in the way of tax credits and subsidies and grants as they refuse to pay their employees a living wage. It is our taxes they use to do this. Again this is to make sure that the wealth is not shared.

    There are too many examples to list of how they make sure that the wealth generated by neoliberalism is not shared. Then surely it is up to the voters to make sure it does. Neoliberalism works and it would work for everybody if the voters would just grow a set of balls. Tax avoidance was the battle that won the war for the few. It is time the voters revisited that battle and re write it so that the outcome was that the many won not just the few. For example there would be no deficit if the many had won that battle. Of course they wouldn't have left a market of 60 million people with money in their pockets, it would have been business suicide.

    This is a great example of how they created an illusion, a false culture, a world that does not exist. The focus is all on the deficit and how to fix it, as they socialise the losses and privatise the profits. There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance. It's time we changed that and made Neoliberlaism work for us. If we don't then we can't complain when it only works for the few.

    Neoliberlaism works. It's about time we owned it for ourselves. Otherwise we'll always be slaves to it. It's not the theory that is corrupt it is the people who own it.

    RaymondDance Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 11:53:29

    There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance.

    ... or because politicians have discovered that you can buy votes by giving handouts even to those who don't need them, thereby making everyone dependent on the largesse of the state and, by extension, promoting the interests of the most irresponsible politicians and the bureaucracies they represent.

    dr8765 Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 12:02:36
    You seem to regard what you call neoliberalism as a creator of wealth. You then claim that the reason for this wealth accruing almost entirely to an elite few is the "the voters" have prevented neoliberalism from distributing the wealth more equitably.

    I can't really follow the logic of your argument.

    Neoliberalism seems to be working perfectly for those few who are in a position to exploit it. It's doing what it's designed to do.

    I agree that the ignorance of "the voters" is allowing the elite to get away with it. But the voters should be voting for those who propose an alternative economic model. Unfortunately, in the western world at the present time, they have no viable alternative to vote for, because the neoliberals have captured all of the mainstream political parties and institutions.

    Themiddlegound RaymondDance , 2014-09-29 12:03:10
    That's all fine and dandy and I agree.

    However, you missed one of the main points. Our parliament has been taken over by the few.

    One man used to and probably still does strike fear into the government. Murdoch. Problem is there are millions like him that lobby and control policy and the media.

    foralltime , 2014-09-29 11:46:59
    ..."There are regulations about everything,"... Yes, but higher up the scale you go, the less this regulation is enforced, less individual accountability and less transparency. Neoliberalism has turned society on its head. We see ever growing corporate socialism subsidising the top 1% and heavily regulated hard nosed market capitalism for the rest of us resulting in massive inequality in wealth distribution. This inequality by design makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. We've created a society where people who were once valued as an individual part of that society are now treated as surplus to requirements and somehow need to be eliminated.
    RaymondDance , 2014-09-29 11:50:02

    Bullying used to be confined to schools

    Blimey - and people like this constantly accuse conservatives of being nostalgic for a past that never existed.

    LargeMarvin RaymondDance , 2014-09-29 14:54:59
    Fair comment. I went to a grammar school where there was, luckily, very little bullying. The bullying happened when I got back to the 'hood.
    zavaell , 2014-09-29 11:51:37
    All I know is that when I read the comments on cif, I cannot believe that these are people who would be expected to read the Guardian.
    RaymondDance zavaell , 2014-09-29 11:56:26

    I cannot believe that these are people who would be expected to read the Guardian.

    One of the best things about cif is that it allows a wider audience to see just how deluded and narcissistic Guardian readers are.

    busyteacher zavaell , 2014-09-29 12:23:12
    They're mostly tight g*ts who refuse to pay to use the Mail/Telegraph sites. This is just about the last free forum left now and it's attracting all kinds of undesirables. The level of personal insult has gone up enormously since they came here. Most of us traditional Ciffers don't bother with many posts here any more, it's too boring now.
    LargeMarvin zavaell , 2014-09-29 14:55:44
    It's called Revenge of the Killer Clerks.
    WarwickC , 2014-09-29 11:53:18

    Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is, "make" something of ourselves.

    That's always been the way, I think. It's life.
    We are all of us the descendants of a million generations of successful organisms, human and pre-human.
    The ones that didn't succeed fel by the wayside.
    We're the ones left to tell the tale.

    Stephen Porter WarwickC , 2014-09-29 12:34:35
    We're the ones left to tell the tale"

    and what a tale it will be for the last human standing!

    EstebanMurphy WarwickC , 2014-09-29 13:14:33

    That's always been th

    [Aug 29, 2016] How Trumps health smear of Clinton backfired by Dean Obeidallah

    Problems are undeniable, but severity of the condition can be assessed only by qualified doctors after studying all medical record. Which should be a requred stp for all US presidential candidates. CNN presstitutes do disservice to the nation downplaying the concerns.
    Notable quotes:
    "... So, will Hillary accept Trump's challenge to release her medical records? I think we all know the answer to that... ..."
    CNN.com

    ... reminds Americans about Trump's self-professed medical disability, which allowed him to avoid serving in the Vietnam War Second, this baseless attack on Clinton's health reeks of the same conspiracy theory junk we have heard before from him

    ...Even the way Trump's cheerleader-in-chief Rudy Giuliani recently tried to support his claim that Clinton was very ill smacked of typical conspiracy fare:

    ...

    CNN User

    So, will Hillary accept Trump's challenge to release her medical records? I think we all know the answer to that...

    Just like showing up for a press conference, she just has too much to lose by being open with voters.;

    [Aug 29, 2016] Transfere of technology with the help of three letter agencies

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some "American" companies and public research institutions are surely victims of espionage, but for the most part private industry has brought this on itself by building offshore offices and *actively* directing their workers to transfer the knowledge and "train their replacements", so that they can do the work instead of US workers who are let go (or not again hired) because their skills are now "irrelevant". ..."
    "... In "defense" or "national interest" related work, for the most part citizens of or even people originating from countries that are considered military or geopolitical adversaries are excluded from participation. This makes it much harder to infiltrate people in the US, as long as it is not offshored. But then the US govt and its contractors will pay higher rates for the product/service than US consumers who will have to do "more with less" (money). ..."
    "... Oh, China (public and private entities) surely engages in those things it is accused of, but this is by far outweighed by US business captains shoving the "free" know-how and innovation down their throats to enable the short term "cost savings" (which will in short order be compensated for by declining aggregate demand when the formerly well paid local staff can only buy the cheapest stuff, and retail adjusts and mostly orders the cheapest). ..."
    "... Likewise most "everybody else" also. I have a good number of colleagues from China and other Asian countries. Many of them take pride in coming up with their own solutions instead of copying stuff, like people everywhere. ..."
    "... A German language article where this and other cases are mentioned: http://www.zeit.de/1998/28/199828.spionage.neu_.xml Nobody is squeaky clean in this game. ..."
    "... At the time I was working in a tech company there, and new security protocols were instituted, like not sending certain confidential information by email or fax. There was even an anecdote (unverified) of how a foreign service (not US in that case) was allegedly intercepting business documents/negotiations that were conducted by fax, and making the information available to "their" own companies bidding for the same project. Whether true or not, that's what the management was concerned about. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    EMichael : August 28, 2016 at 11:14 AM

    "Transfer" has more than one meaning.

    " If spying is the world's second oldest profession, the government of China has given it a new, modern-day twist, enlisting an army of spies not to steal military secrets but the trade secrets and intellectual property of American companies. It's being called "the great brain robbery of America."

    The Justice Department says that the scale of China's corporate espionage is so vast it constitutes a national security emergency, with China targeting virtually every sector of the U.S. economy, and costing American companies hundreds of billions of dollars in losses -- and more than two million jobs.

    John Carlin: They're targeting our private companies. And it's not a fair fight. A private company can't compete against the resources of the second largest economy in the world."

    John Carlin: This is a serious threat to our national security. I mean, our economy depends on the ability to innovate. And if there's a dedicated nation state who's using its intelligence apparatus to steal day in and day out what we're trying to develop, that poses a serious threat to our country.

    Lesley Stahl: What is their ultimate goal, the Chinese government's ultimate goal?

    John Carlin: They want to develop certain segments of industry and instead of trying to out-innovate, out-research, out-develop, they're choosing to do it through theft.

    All you have to do, he says, is look at the economic plans published periodically by the Chinese Politburo. They are, according to this recent report by the technology research firm INVNT/IP, in effect, blueprints of what industries and what companies will be targeted for theft."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-great-brain-robbery-china-cyber-espionage/

    cm -> EMichael, August 28, 2016 at 12:38 PM

    Some "American" companies and public research institutions are surely victims of espionage, but for the most part private industry has brought this on itself by building offshore offices and *actively* directing their workers to transfer the knowledge and "train their replacements", so that they can do the work instead of US workers who are let go (or not again hired) because their skills are now "irrelevant".

    Likewise if a manufacturer outsources to an offshore supplier, they have to divulge some of their secret sauce and technical skill to their "partner" if they want the product to meet specs and quality metrics.

    In "defense" or "national interest" related work, for the most part citizens of or even people originating from countries that are considered military or geopolitical adversaries are excluded from participation. This makes it much harder to infiltrate people in the US, as long as it is not offshored. But then the US govt and its contractors will pay higher rates for the product/service than US consumers who will have to do "more with less" (money).

    Paine -> cm... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 02:02 PM
    Important

    We have a serious industry in dis info about china

    cm -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 03:47 PM
    Oh, China (public and private entities) surely engages in those things it is accused of, but this is by far outweighed by US business captains shoving the "free" know-how and innovation down their throats to enable the short term "cost savings" (which will in short order be compensated for by declining aggregate demand when the formerly well paid local staff can only buy the cheapest stuff, and retail adjusts and mostly orders the cheapest).
    cm -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 03:54 PM
    Likewise most "everybody else" also. I have a good number of colleagues from China and other Asian countries. Many of them take pride in coming up with their own solutions instead of copying stuff, like people everywhere.

    "Stealing" of ideas is practiced everywhere. I know an anecdote from a "Western" company where a high level engineering manager suggested inviting another academic/research group on the pretext of exploring a collaboration, only to get enough of an idea of their approach, and then dump them. Several of the present staff balked at this and it didn't go anywhere. But it was instructive.

    Paine -> cm... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 05:05 PM
    I'd suggest stolen " recipes " to use Paul Romers term
    Only encourage the parallel Han project
    You can't really build something significantly novel
    Simply out of specs
    Paine -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 05:05 PM
    Classic case
    The soviet a bomb project
    cm -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 05:43 PM
    There are two aspects of "stealing ideas":

    (1) How is it done (because we don't know)
    (2) Which approach has been proven to work (out of many that we would have to try)

    The focus in discussing the topic is often on (1), and it is certainly an important aspect, perhaps the most important one if the adversary is in bootstrapping mode.

    However once you are at a certain level, (2) becomes more important - the solution space is simply too large, and knowing what has already worked elsewhere can cut through a lot of failed experiments (including finding a better solution of course).

    (2) also relates somewhat to "best practices" - don't try to innovate and create yet another proprietary thing that only the people who created it understand, do what everybody else is doing, then you can hire more people who "already know it", or if "others" improve or build on the existing solution, that immediately applies to your version as well.

    The downside is that your solution is not "differentiated". But if it is cheaper it doesn't have to.

    ilsm -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 04:20 PM
    To sell F-35 the US gives everything needed to manufacture parts of the aircraft to the buying country...

    To do that or any other kind of manufacturing the processes with all drawings and accurate parts lists are in the plant.........

    If you can keep that stuff 'under wraps' you spend a lot, fill the plant with US personnel , endure inefficiencies, create bottlenecks....

    cm -> EMichael... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:05 PM
    Then there was a story about this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enercon#Patent_dispute

    where US electronic surveillance was allegedly involved in a business dispute. In this case there is no explicit claim about technology theft, but two companies were accusing each other of patent violations, and espionage techniques were used to "obtain evidence".

    cm -> cm... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:07 PM
    A German language article where this and other cases are mentioned: http://www.zeit.de/1998/28/199828.spionage.neu_.xml Nobody is squeaky clean in this game.
    cm -> cm... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 04:12 PM
    BTW note the date - this kind of stuff was going on in the 90's. It is not a recent invention. BTW this here was mentioned, you may have heard of it, in any case it was a big deal in Germany where the US had several operational bases:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

    At the time I was working in a tech company there, and new security protocols were instituted, like not sending certain confidential information by email or fax. There was even an anecdote (unverified) of how a foreign service (not US in that case) was allegedly intercepting business documents/negotiations that were conducted by fax, and making the information available to "their" own companies bidding for the same project. Whether true or not, that's what the management was concerned about.

    Paine -> EMichael... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 02:00 PM
    Pure propaganda

    You have a embark able tolerance for manipulation

    Paine -> EMichael... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 02:04 PM
    Trump talk modulated by the manhattan elites

    The same pokes that play the other end of the stick
    That de industrialized the rust belt

    [Aug 29, 2016] The Dumbed-Down New York Times

    Notable quotes:
    "... In a column mocking the political ignorance of the "dumbed-down" American people and lamenting the death of "objective fact," New York Times columnist Timothy Egan shows why so many Americans have lost faith in the supposedly just-the-facts-ma'am mainstream media. ..."
    "... Egan states [lies] as flat fact, "If more than 16 percent of Americans could locate Ukraine on a map, it would have been a Really Big Deal when Trump said that Russia was not going to invade it - two years after they had, in fact, invaded it." ..."
    "... But it is not a "fact" that Russia "invaded" Ukraine – and it's especially not the case if you also don't state as flat fact that the United States has invaded Syria, Libya and many other countries where the U.S. government has launched bombing raids or dispatched "special forces." Yet, the Times doesn't describe those military operations as "invasions." ..."
    "... The Times also played down the key role of neo-Nazis and extreme nationalists in killing police before the coup, seizing government building during the coup, and then spearheading the slaughter of ethnic Russian Ukrainians after the coup. If you wanted to detect the role of these SS-wannabes from the Times' coverage, you'd have to scour the last few paragraphs of a few stories that dealt with other aspects of the Ukraine crisis. ..."
    "... A growing public recognition of that mainstream bias explains why so much of the American population has tuned out supposedly "objective" news (because it is anything but objective). ..."
    "... Indeed, those Americans who are more sophisticated about Russia and Ukraine than Timothy Egan know that they're not getting the straight story from the Times and other MSM outlets. Those not-dumbed-down Americans can spot U.S. government propaganda when they see it. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.commondreams.org
    A New York Times columnist writes Americans are so "dumbed-down" that they don't know that Russia "invaded" Ukraine two years ago, but that "invasion" was mostly in the minds of Times editors and other propagandists, says Robert Parry.

    In a column mocking the political ignorance of the "dumbed-down" American people and lamenting the death of "objective fact," New York Times columnist Timothy Egan shows why so many Americans have lost faith in the supposedly just-the-facts-ma'am mainstream media.

    Egan states [lies] as flat fact, "If more than 16 percent of Americans could locate Ukraine on a map, it would have been a Really Big Deal when Trump said that Russia was not going to invade it - two years after they had, in fact, invaded it."

    But it is not a "fact" that Russia "invaded" Ukraine – and it's especially not the case if you also don't state as flat fact that the United States has invaded Syria, Libya and many other countries where the U.S. government has launched bombing raids or dispatched "special forces." Yet, the Times doesn't describe those military operations as "invasions."

    Nor does the newspaper of record condemn the U.S. government for violating international law, although in every instance in which U.S. forces cross into another country's sovereign territory without permission from that government or the United Nations Security Council, that is technically an act of illegal aggression.

    In other words, the Times applies a conscious double standard when reporting on the actions of the United States or one of its allies (note how Turkey's recent invasion of Syria was just an "intervention") as compared to how the Times deals with actions by U.S. adversaries, such as Russia.

    Biased on Ukraine

    The Times' reporting on Ukraine has been particularly dishonest and hypocritical. The Times ignores the substantial evidence that the U.S. government encouraged and supported a violent coup that overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 22, 2014, including a pre-coup intercepted phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who should lead the new government and how to "midwife this thing."

    The Times also played down the key role of neo-Nazis and extreme nationalists in killing police before the coup, seizing government building during the coup, and then spearheading the slaughter of ethnic Russian Ukrainians after the coup. If you wanted to detect the role of these SS-wannabes from the Times' coverage, you'd have to scour the last few paragraphs of a few stories that dealt with other aspects of the Ukraine crisis.

    While leaving out the context, the Times has repeatedly claimed that Russia "invaded" Crimea, although curiously without showing any photographs of an amphibious landing on Crimea's coast or Russian tanks crashing across Ukraine's border en route to Crimea or troops parachuting from the sky to seize strategic Crimean targets.

    The reason such evidence of an "invasion" was lacking is that Russian troops were already stationed in Crimea as part of a basing agreement for the port of Sevastopol. So, it was a very curious "invasion" indeed, since the Russian troops were on scene before the "invasion" and their involvement after the coup was peaceful in protecting the Crimean population from the depredations of the new regime's neo-Nazis. The presence of a small number of Russian troops also allowed the Crimeans to vote on whether to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which they did with a 96 percent majority.

    In the eastern provinces, which represented Yanukovych's political base and where many Ukrainians opposed the coup, you can fault, if you wish, the Russian decision to provide some military equipment and possibly some special forces so ethnic Russian and other anti-coup Ukrainians could defend themselves from the assaults by the neo-Nazi Azov brigade and from the tanks and artillery of the coup-controlled Ukrainian army.

    "... those Americans who are more sophisticated about Russia and Ukraine than Timothy Egan know that they're not getting the straight story from the Times and other MSM outlets."

    But an honest newspaper and honest columnists would insist on including this context. They also would resist pejorative phrases such as "invasion" and "aggression" – unless, of course, they applied the same terminology objectively to actions by the U.S. government and its "allies."

    That sort of nuance and balance is not what you get from The New York Times and its "group thinking" writers, people like Timothy Egan. When it comes to reporting on Russia, it's Cold War-style propaganda, day in and day out.

    And this has not been a one-off problem. The unrelenting bias of the Times and, indeed, the rest of the mainstream U.S. news media on the Ukraine crisis represents a lack of professionalism that was also apparent in the pro-war coverage of the Iraq crisis in 2002-03 and other catastrophic U.S. foreign policy decisions.

    A growing public recognition of that mainstream bias explains why so much of the American population has tuned out supposedly "objective" news (because it is anything but objective).

    Indeed, those Americans who are more sophisticated about Russia and Ukraine than Timothy Egan know that they're not getting the straight story from the Times and other MSM outlets. Those not-dumbed-down Americans can spot U.S. government propaganda when they see it.

    [Aug 29, 2016] One hunred percent of what are published by oligarch media suffer cognitive dissonance.

    Notable quotes:
    "... 100% are published by oligarch media and the other half suffer cognitive dissonance. ..."
    "... System Authorized experts lie half the time. And fake the rest ..."
    "... "Experts lie 50% of the time"...probably a low estimate, since those anointed as experts are those who carry water for the investor class. The investor class promotes its interests by highlighting actual benefits, fabricating others, and marginalizing anyone who disagrees. ..."
    "... Some are encouraged by keeping their jobs others are cognitive dissonants. In either case it is necessary for job security. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> pgl... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:10 AM
    100% are published by oligarch media and the other half suffer cognitive dissonance.
    likbez said in reply to ilsm... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:53 AM
    Hear! Hear!
    Paine -> pgl... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:09 AM
    I should have been more careful

    System Authorized experts lie half the time. And fake the rest

    ohnH -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:09 AM

    "Experts lie 50% of the time"...probably a low estimate, since those anointed as experts are those who carry water for the investor class. The investor class promotes its interests by highlighting actual benefits, fabricating others, and marginalizing anyone who disagrees.

    We see this not only in trade policy, but also in monetary policy and tax policy, where trickle down is portrayed as the only reasonable path...the backlash is building...

    ilsm -> JohnH... , -1
    Some are encouraged by keeping their jobs others are cognitive dissonants. In either case it is necessary for job security.

    Humbug factories with the skilled application of unsound and invalid argument.

    [Aug 29, 2016] The Trumpster Sends The GOP-Neocon Establishment To The Dumpster

    It is unclear to what extent Trump represents a threat to Washington establishment and how easily or difficult it would be to co-opt him. In any case "deep state" will stay in place, so the capabilities of POTUS are limited by the fact of its existence. But comments to the article are great !
    Notable quotes:
    "... It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914. ..."
    "... Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history. ..."
    "... And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet. ..."
    "... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
    "... Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan, had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in the Persian Gulf in 1991. ..."
    "... Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm". ..."
    "... There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet. ..."
    "... The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex. At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and the needs of veterans of past wars. ..."
    "... Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed states and economic rubble. ..."
    "... But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers they coddle. ..."
    "... But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction of a stable regime in Libya. ..."
    "... Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on day one in office. ..."
    "... Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO and ground forces in South Korea and Japan. ..."
    "... At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy. ..."
    "... Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken ..."
    "... Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced or dismantled that easily. ..."
    "... The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself due to being hollowed out :) ..."
    "... David, you are missing some fairly strong evidence that 911 was an inside job. ..."
    "... As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition. ..."
    "... I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American people to go to war. ..."
    "... So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power. This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war. ..."
    "... There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran. There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one) Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil. IMO ..."
    "... As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot. The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex. ..."
    "... In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control the perceived enemies of Capitalism. ..."
    "... Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving as his special envoy to the middle east. ..."
    "... @lloydholiday Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher. ..."
    "... As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil. ..."
    "... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
    "... Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS. ..."
    "... @FreeOregon It will shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment, centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control. ..."
    "... All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was Trump from here on in! ..."
    davidstockmanscontracorner.com
    Wow. Super Tuesday was an earthquake, and not just because Donald Trump ran the tables. The best thing was the complete drubbing and humiliation that voters all over America handed to the little Napoleon from Florida, Marco Rubio.

    So doing, the voters began the process of ridding the nation of the GOP War Party and its neocon claque of rabid interventionists. They have held sway for nearly three decades in the Imperial City and the consequences have been deplorable.

    It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914.

    Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history.

    Yet at that crucial inflection point there was absolutely nothing at stake with respect to the safety and security of the American people in the petty quarrel between Saddam Hussein and the Emir of Kuwait.

    The spate, in fact, was over directional drilling rights in the Rumaila oilfield which straddled their respective borders. Yet these disputed borders had no historical legitimacy whatsoever. Kuwait was a just a bank account with a seat in the UN, which had been created by the British only in 1899 for obscure reasons of imperial maneuver. Likewise, the boundaries of Iraq had been drawn with a straight ruler in 1916 by British and French diplomats in the process of splitting up the loot from the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

    As it happened, Saddam claimed that the Emir of Kuwait, who could never stop stuffing his unspeakably opulent royal domain with more petro dollars, had stolen $10 billion worth of oil from Iraq's side of the field while Saddam was savaging the Iranians during his unprovoked but Washington supported 1980s invasion. At the same time, Hussein had borrowed upwards of $50 billion from Kuwait, the Saudis and the UAE to fund his barbaric attacks on the Iranians and now the sheiks wanted it back.

    At the end of the day, Washington sent 500,000 US troops to the Gulf in order to function as bad debt collectors for three regimes that are the very embodiment of tyranny, corruption, greed and religious fanaticism.

    They have been the fount and exporter of Wahhabi fanaticism and have thereby fostered the scourge of jihadi violence throughout the region. And it was the monumental stupidity of putting American (crusader) boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia that actually gave rise to Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the tragedy of 9/11, the invasion and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act and domestic surveillance state and all the rest of the War Party follies which have followed.

    Worse still, George H.W. Bush's stupid little war corrupted the very political soul and modus operandi of Washington. What should have been a political contest over which party and prospective leader could best lead a revived 1920s style campaign for world disarmament was mutated into a wave of exceptionalist jingoism about how best to impose American hegemony on any nation or force on the planet that refused compliance with Washington's designs and dictates.

    And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet.

    Indeed, as the so-called OPEC cartel crumbles into pitiful impotence and cacophony and as the world oil glut drives prices eventually back into the teens, there can no longer be any dispute. The blazing oilfields of Kuwait in 1991 had nothing to do with domestic oil security and prosperity, and everything to do with the rise of a virulent militarism and imperialism that has drastically undermined national security.

    It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond.

    Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan, had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in the Persian Gulf in 1991.

    Yes, the wholly different Shiite branch of Islam centered in Iran had a grievance, too. But that wasn't about America's liberties and libertine ways of life, either. It was about the left over liability from Washington's misguided cold war interventions and, specifically, the 1953 CIA coup that installed the brutal and larcenous Shah on the Peacock Throne.

    The whole Persian nation had deep grievances about that colossal injustice--a grievance that was wantonly amplified in the 1980s by Washington's overt assistance to Saddam Hussein. Via the CIA's satellite reconnaissance, Washington had actually helped him unleash heinous chemical warfare attacks on Iranian forces, including essentially unarmed young boys who had been sent to the battle front as cannon fodder.

    Still, with the election of Rafsanjani in 1989 there was every opportunity to repair this historical transgression and normalize relations with Tehran. In fact, in the early days the Bush state department was well on the way to exactly that. But once the CNN war games in the gulf put the neocons back in the saddle the door was slammed shut by Washington, not the Iranians.

    Indeed at that very time, the re-ascendant neocons explicitly choose to demonize the Iranian regime as a surrogate enemy to replace the defunct Kremlin commissars. Two of the most despicable actors in the post-1991 neocon takeover of the GOP--Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz--actually penned a secret document outlining the spurious anti-Iranian campaign which soon congealed into a full-blown war myth.

    To wit, that the Iranian's were hell bent on obtaining nuclear weapons and had become an implacable foe of America and fountain of state sponsored terrorism.

    Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm".

    Whether he immediately signed off an all of its sweeping plans for junking the Oslo Accords and launching regime change initiatives against the Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria is a matter of historical debate. But there can be no doubt that shortly thereafter this manifesto became the operative policy of the Netanyahu government and especially its virulent campaign to demonize Iran as an existential threat to Israel. And that when the younger Bush took office and brought the whole posse of neocons back into power, it became Washington's official policy, as well.

    After 9/11 the dual War Party of Washington and Tel Aviv was off to the races and the US government began its tumble toward $19 trillion of national debt and an eventual fiscal calamity. That's because the neocon War Party sucked the old time religion of fiscal rectitude and monetary orthodoxy right out of the GOP in the name of funding what has in truth become a trillion dollar per year Warfare State.

    There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet.

    Right then and there the GOP was stripped of any fiscal virginity that had survived the Reagan era of triple digit deficits. Right on cue the contemptible Dick Cheney was quick to claim that Reagan proved "deficits don't matter", meaning from that point forward whatever it took to fund the war machine trumped any flickering Republican folk memories of fiscal prudence.

    The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex. At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and the needs of veterans of past wars.

    Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed states and economic rubble.

    The Bush era War Party also committed an even more lamentable error in the midst of all of its foreign policy triumphalism and its utter neglect of the GOP's actual purpose to function as an advocate for sound money and free markets in the governance process of our two party democracy. Namely, it appointed Ben Bernanke, an avowed Keynesian and big government statist who had loudly proclaimed in favor of "helicopter money", to a Federal Reserve system that was already on the verge of an economic coup d'état led by the unfaithful Alan Greenspan.

    That coup was made complete by the loathsome bailout of Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis. And the latter had, in turn, been a consequence of the massive speculation and debt build-up that had been enabled by the Fed's own policies during the prior decade and one-half.

    Now after $3.5 trillion of heedless money printing and 86 months of ZIRP, Wall Street has been transformed into an unstable, dangerous casino. Honest price discovery in the capital and money markets no longer exists, nor has productive capital been flowing into real investments in efficiency and growth.

    Instead, the C-suites of corporate America have been transformed into stock trading rooms where business balance sheets have been hocked to the tune of trillions in cheap debt in order to fund stock buybacks, LBOs and M&A deals designed to goose stock prices and the value of top executive options.

    Indeed, the Fed's unconscionable inflation of the third massive financial bubble of this century has showered speculators and the 1% with unspeakable financial windfalls that are fast creating not only an inevitable thundering financial meltdown, but, also, a virulent populist backlash. The Eccles Building was where the "Bern" that is roiling the electorate was actually midwifed.

    And probably even the far greater political tremblor represented by The Donald, as well.

    Yes, as a libertarian I shudder at the prospect of a man on a white horse heading for the White House, as Donald Trump surely is. His rank demoguery and poisonous rhetoric about immigrants, Muslims, refugees, women, domestic victims of police repression and the spy state and countless more are flat-out contemptible. And the idea of building a horizontal version of Trump Towers on the Rio Grande is just plain nuts.

    But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers they coddle.

    So even as The Donald's election would bring on a thundering financial crash on Wall Street and political upheaval in Washington-–the truth is that's going to happen anyway. Look at the hideous mess that US policy has created in Syria or the incendiary corner into which the Fed has backed itself or the fiscal projections that show we will be back into trillion dollar annual deficits as the recession already underway reaches full force. The jig is well and truly up.

    But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction of a stable regime in Libya.

    Even his bombast about Obama's bad deal with Iran doesn't go much beyond Trump's ridiculous claim that they are getting a $150 billion reward. In fact, it was their money; we stole it, and by the time of the next election they will have it released anyway.

    Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on day one in office.

    Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO and ground forces in South Korea and Japan.

    At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy.

    He might also come down with wrathful indignation on the Fed if its dares push toward the criminal zone of negative interest rates. As far as I know, The Donald was never mis-educated by the Keynesian swells at Brookings, either. No plain old businessman would ever fall for the sophistry and crank monetary theories that are now ascendant in the Eccles Building.

    When it comes to the nation's current economy wreckers-in-chief, Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer, he might even dust off on day one the skills he honed during 10-years on the Apprentice.

    Worse things could surely happen.

    bill5

    @Protogonus

    Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken

    The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. Its evil effects must be plain enough to everyone. ... There is, in fact, nothing about religious opinions that entitles them to any more respect than other opinions get. On the contrary, they tend to be noticeably silly. ... No, there is nothing notably dignified about religious ideas. They run, rather, to a peculiarly puerile and tedious kind of nonsense. At their best, they are borrowed from metaphysicians, which is to say, from men who devote their lives to proving that twice two is not always or necessarily four. At their worst, they smell of spiritualism and fortune telling. Nor is there any visible virtue in the men who merchant them professionally. Few theologians know anything that is worth knowing, even about theology, and not many of them are honest. ... But the average theologian is a hearty, red-faced, well-fed fellow with no discernible excuse in pathology. He disseminates his blather, not innocently, like a philosopher, but maliciously, like a politician. In a well-organized world he would be on the stone-pile. But in the world as it exists we are asked to listen to him, not only politely, but even reverently, and with our mouths open. H. L. Mencken

    Amen!

    Rich Lancaster
    Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced or dismantled that easily.

    The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself due to being hollowed out :)

    jimbob23

    David, you are missing some fairly strong evidence that 911 was an inside job.

    As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition.

    I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American people to go to war.

    Washington DC
    Rumor is Bloomberg is going to announce. As an Independent.
    Blackdog5555

    So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power. This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war.

    There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran. There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one) Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil. IMO

    BTW the Kuwaiti Royalty were friends of the Bushes.

    We also did Israel a favor as Saddam was funding suicide bombers in Palestine ($20,000.00 to the family for every suicide bomber) Arab mothers were happy to have their kids blown up for that Saddam "reward." Ever notice how the suicide bombs ended/slowed in Israel after Saddam was deposed. I did. Also Saddam was amassing his military on the Saudi's border at that time (Saddam wanted Saudi oil to pay off his war debt) and so as a favor the the Saudi King (Bush's buddy) we ended that threat. Yipee for us. This is never brought out in serious debate or news coverage. So if someone says it was not about the oil...It was about the oil and always has been. It is all about the oil. Oil is short for corporate cash cow money.

    SD is right, Osama hated the fact that Bush's infidels were in the land of Mecca, and that was one of the major instigators for the 9/11 attacks. Efing arrogant, ignorant Bush keeping "Merica" safe. Clinton could have done a much better job cleaning up those King George the 1st's foreign policy blunders, so I fault him to a degree too.

    There are some good web sites that talk about this..I don't have them handy.

    Don't you love history.

    Cheers.

    BD

    MPBadger

    You are absolutely right. As Chas Freeman, who was our ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War, has recounted, the stationing of American troops on Saudi soil in response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait presented a serious issue given that "[m]any Saudis interpret their religious tradition as banning the presence of non-Muslims, especially the armed forces of nonbelievers, on the Kingdom's soil." Shortly after the invasion, Freeman was present at a meeting between King Fahd and Vice-President Cheney at which the King, overruling most of the Saudi royal family, agreed to allow U.S. troops to be stationed in his country. This decision was premised on the clear understanding, stressed by Cheney, that the American forces would be removed from Saudi Arabia once the immediate threat from Saddam was over.

    When that did not happen, Fahd faced serious domestic problems. Several prominent Muslim clerics who objected to his policies were sent into exile, further inflaming the religious community. More significantly for us, Osama Bin Laden began to call for the overthrow of the monarchy and elevated his jihadist fight against the U.S. His Saudi passport was revoked for his anti-government rhetoric, and in April 1991, threatened with arrest, he secretly departed Saudi Arabia for the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, never to return. The result, ten years later, was 9-11.

    zee_point

    As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot. The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex.

    In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control the perceived enemies of Capitalism.

    Now, we talk 24/7 about the Islamic threat, while the Islamists are being supported by our closest allies and elements in the deep state in Washington.

    Diacro222

    We rarely hear about the Shah of Iran and OUR CIA back in 1953. Nor about OBL and his stated reason's for 9/11. Including the vengeful and childish bombardment of highlands behind Beirut by our terribly expensive recommissioned Battle Ship -- Imagine the thinking behind taking that 'thing' out of mothballs to Scare the A - rabs. Invading Grenada was Ollie North's idea to save face.

    cbaker0441

    Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving as his special envoy to the middle east.

    CALARISTOS

    @lloydholiday I lived in MPLS. You would be amazed at how sacrificially 'liberal' they are, much like Merkel and the deluded Germans. Minn let in thousands of Ethiopians and other Muslims who are now giving natives a major headache, much like Europe.

    The women over 30 are nearly fanatic over Black oppression, voted for Obama in droves, and appear to be willing to sacrifice the interests of their own children in favor of aliens and minorities (my own niece raised in Minn is a fanatic in this regard). Rubbero is a loser with a wind up tongue. They are easily impressed by patter however inarticulate.

    Protogonus

    @lloydholiday Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher.

    CALARISTOS

    As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil.

    bill5

    It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond.

    Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS.

    If the GOP disappears, there's always the brain dead Democrats. What we need is an end to both parties. The best way to accomplish that is to cancel the entirety of the Fed Gov. Just get rid of all of it. Let the states become countries and compete on the world stage. Let all those holding Federal paper (the national debt) use it in their bathroom as toilet paper. Cancel the debt - ignore it - lets start fresh with no central bank and real money based on something that the politicians can't conjure into existence. I suggest gold and silver as history has shown that they work well.

    hmkdpm

    @bill5 What I never hear anyone state is that if we had let the Russians alone in Afghanistan this whole mess would have never happened. Isn't that what originally allowed the Taliban and Obama bin Laden rise to power? I though Reagan was a great president but made a catastrophic error in aligning with the islamic insurgents against Russia . The Russians knew a radical Islamic state on their border would be a problem and the existing Afghan government, an ally of Russia, asked them to help quell the islamist civil war. The Russians would have ruthlessly eliminated the islamists without worrying about causing any greenhouse gas emissions or hurting anyones feelings.

    cbaker0441

    @FreeOregon It will shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment, centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control.

    Mugsy7777

    All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was Trump from here on in!

    @Mugsy7777

    He has his own plane, ground crew, flight crew, and body guards which I would guess make a heck of a lot more than the SS...Secret Service that is.

    I'm figuring the election will be rigged.

    @marcopolo2150 @Mugsy7777 one drone..........

    what a pathetic country America has become.

    [Aug 29, 2016] The Perfect GOP Nominee

    What is amazing is that such column was published is such a sycophantic for Hillary and openly anti-Trump rag as NYT. In foreign policy Hillary is the second incarnation of Cheney... Neocons rules NYT coverage of Presidential race and, of course, they all favor Hillary. Of course chances that some on neocons who so enthusiastically support her, crossing Party lines are drafted, get M16 and send to kill brown people for Wall Street interests now is close to zero. Everything is outsourced now. But still, it is simply amazing that even a lonely voice against neocon campaign of demonization of Trump got published in NYT ...
    MSM shilling for Hillary is simply overwhelming, so why this was in NYT is a mystery to me. But this article of Maureen Dowd in on spot. Simply amazing how she manage to publish it !!!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an establishment figure, after all? Her husband was president, and he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and got rid of those pesky welfare queens. ..."
    "... Hillary often seems more Republican than the Gotham bling king, who used to be a Democrat and donor to Democratic candidates before he jumped the turnstile. ..."
    "... Hillary is a reliable creature of Wall Street. Her tax return showed the Clintons made $10.6 million last year, and like other superrich families, they incorporated with the Clinton Executive Services Corporation (which was billed for the infamous server). Trump has started holding up goofy charts at rallies showing Hillary has gotten $48,500,000 in contributions from hedge funders, compared to his $19,000. ..."
    "... Unlike Trump, she hasn't been trashing leading Republicans. You know that her pals John McCain and Lindsey Graham are secretly rooting for her. There is a cascade of prominent Republicans endorsing Hillary, donating to Hillary, appearing in Hillary ads, talking up Hillary's charms. ..."
    "... Robert Kagan, a former Reagan State Department aide, adviser to the McCain and Mitt Romney campaigns and Iraq war booster, headlined a Hillary fund-raiser this summer. Another neocon, James Kirchick, keened in The Daily Beast , "Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the abyss." ..."
    "... The Democratic nominee put out an ad featuring Trump-bashing Michael Hayden, an N.S.A. and CIA chief under W. who was deemed "incongruent" by the Senate when he testified about torture methods. And she earned an endorsement from John Negroponte, a Reagan hand linked to American-trained death squads in Latin America. ..."
    "... Politico reports that the Clinton team sent out feelers to see if Kissinger, the Voldemort of Vietnam, and Condi Rice, the conjurer of Saddam's apocalyptic mushroom cloud, would back Hillary. ..."
    "... The Hillary team seems giddy over its windfall of Republicans and neocons running from the Trump sharknado. But as David Weigel wrote in The Washington Post, the specter of Kissinger, the man who advised Nixon to prolong the Vietnam War to help with his re-election, fed a perception that "the Democratic nominee has returned to her old, hawkish ways and is again taking progressives for granted." ..."
    "... Hillary is a safer bet in many ways for conservatives. Trump likes to say he is flexible. What if he returns to his liberal New York positions on gun control and abortion rights? ..."
    "... Trump is far too incendiary in his manner of speaking, throwing around dangerous and self-destructive taunts about "Second Amendment people" taking out Hillary, or President Obama and Hillary being the founders of ISIS ..."
    "... Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals. Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, don't shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone. ..."
    "... You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war. If you want to carry the GOP banner, your fabrications have to be more sneaky. ..."
    "... "You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war." ..."
    "... Anyone who believes Bill Clinton didn't know exactly what was going on is just kidding themselves. One clue, for example. They moved the WMD 'intelligence" investigation to the DOD under Paul Wolfowitz. LOL! ..."
    "... Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and "Listen Liberal: Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?" echoes Ms. Dowd's sentiments. In a recent column Frank says that with Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-elec... ..."
    "... "America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Come November, Clinton will have won her great victory – not as a champion of working people's concerns, but as the greatest moderate of them all." ..."
    "... We've also managed to select one of biggest dissemblers, enablers, war hawks, fungible flip-floppers, pay for play con artists, scandal mongerers candidates since Tricky Dicky. Congratulations America! We did it. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Wet get the government we deserve." ..."
    "... The reaction by many to Ms Dowd's column clearly shows that the "save the world" "lesser evil" argument only works is one is willing to suspend belief on the demonstrated evil of Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... Clinton could well take us to war against Russia. In Syria, Clinton is spoiling to give Russia a punch in the nose, on the theory that Russia will back down and the US will have a free hand there. She advocates a a no-fly zone for Russian jets in Syria. The idea there is to create a confrontation, shoot down a couple of Russian jets and teach them a lesson. There is also the CIA and Pentagon "Plan B" for the Syrian negotiations. ..."
    "... It's always wonderful to see when the truth comes out in the end: Hillary is the perfect Repulican candidate and this is also prove of the fact that on finance and economic issues Democrats and old mainstream Republicans have been in in the same pocket...even under Obama. ..."
    "... One night after the election on the Carson show Goldwater quipped that he didn't know how unpopular a president he would have been until Johnson adopted his policies... ..."
    "... All the things you say about Hillary are true. She is an establishment favorite. She did indeed vote to support Bush and his insane desire to invade Iraq. ..."
    "... Did we all forget the millions who went for Bernie and his direct and aggressive confrontation of Hillary's Wall Street/corporate ties? That was a contest between what used to be the Dem party of the people and the corporate friendly Dem party of today. We understood then that Hillary represented the Right; why the surprise now? (The right pointing arrow on the "H" logo is so appropriate.) ..."
    "... There are reasons Hillary is disliked and distrusted by nearly a majority of us. My reasons are she is of and for the oligarchs and deceitful enough to run as a populist. ..."
    "... America tried to liberalize in the 1960's and the response was swift and violent as three of the greatest liberal lions and voices the country has ever known - JFK, MLK and RFK - were gunned down. ..."
    "... While one can endlessly argue the specific details of those ghastly assassinations of America's liberal superstars, in my view, all three of those murders rest on the violent, nefarious right-wing shoulders and fumes of moneyed American 'conservatism' that couldn't stand to share the profits of their economic parasitism with society. ..."
    "... I truly believe that Congressional Republicans in the House are already drafting articles of impeachment should Hillary become President. Dowd may claim that Republicans are in lock step with her, but don't be surprised when the talk of impeachment starts soon after Jan 20, 2017. ..."
    "... We need a multi party system. With 2 parties dominating the politics, its like having a monopoly of liberalism or conservatism which just does not represent the width and depth of views our citizens resonate with. Having voted democrat all my life, to me Hillary does not represent my choice (Bernie does). ..."
    "... This annoys me..."like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history" Maureen is talking about Hillary, but she might as well be talking about her own newspaper. Hillary got it wrong, but so did the New York Times editorial board. ..."
    "... The Bush Administration hinted that the anti-war people were traitors and terrorist sympathizers and everybody got steamrolled. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/opinion/culture-war-with-b-2-s.html ..."
    "... HRC couldn't have asked for a better opponent if she'd constructed him out of a six-foot pile of mildewed straw. By running against Trump, the whole Trump and nothing but the Trump, and openly courting neocon war criminals and "establishment" Republicans, she's outrageously giving CPR to what should have been a rotting corpse of a political party by now. ..."
    "... By giving new life to the pathocrats who made Trump possible, Clinton is only making her own party weaker and more right-wing, only making it easier for down-ticket Republicans to slither their way back into power.... the better to triangulate with during the Clinton restoration. Grand Bargain, here we come. TPP, (just waiting for that fig leaf of meager aid for displaced American workers) here we come. Bombs away. ..."
    "... She'll have to stop hoarding her campaign cash and share it with the down-ticket Democrats running against the same well-heeled GOPers she is now courting with such naked abandon. ..."
    "... The Empress needs some new clothes to hide that inner Goldwater Girl. ..."
    Aug 13, 2016 | The New York Times

    All these woebegone Republicans whining that they can't rally behind their flawed candidate is crazy. The G.O.P. angst, the gnashing and wailing and searching for last-minute substitutes and exit strategies, is getting old. They already have a 1-percenter who will be totally fine in the Oval Office, someone they can trust to help Wall Street, boost the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cuddle with hedge funds, secure the trade deals beloved by corporate America, seek guidance from Henry Kissinger and hawk it up - unleashing hell on Syria and heaven knows where else.

    The Republicans have their candidate: It's Hillary. They can't go with Donald Trump. He's too volatile and unhinged. The erstwhile Goldwater Girl and Goldman Sachs busker can be counted on to do the normal political things, not the abnormal haywire things. Trump's propounding could drag us into war, plunge us into a recession and shatter Washington into a thousand tiny bits.

    Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an establishment figure, after all? Her husband was president, and he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and got rid of those pesky welfare queens.

    Pushing her Midwestern Methodist roots, taking advantage of primogeniture, Hillary often seems more Republican than the Gotham bling king, who used to be a Democrat and donor to Democratic candidates before he jumped the turnstile.

    Hillary is a reliable creature of Wall Street. Her tax return showed the Clintons made $10.6 million last year, and like other superrich families, they incorporated with the Clinton Executive Services Corporation (which was billed for the infamous server). Trump has started holding up goofy charts at rallies showing Hillary has gotten $48,500,000 in contributions from hedge funders, compared to his $19,000.

    Unlike Trump, she hasn't been trashing leading Republicans. You know that her pals John McCain and Lindsey Graham are secretly rooting for her. There is a cascade of prominent Republicans endorsing Hillary, donating to Hillary, appearing in Hillary ads, talking up Hillary's charms.

    Robert Kagan, a former Reagan State Department aide, adviser to the McCain and Mitt Romney campaigns and Iraq war booster, headlined a Hillary fund-raiser this summer. Another neocon, James Kirchick, keened in The Daily Beast , "Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the abyss."

    She has finally stirred up some emotion in women, even if it is just moderate suburban Republican women palpitating to leave their own nominee, who has the retro air of a guy who just left the dim recesses of a Playboy bunny club.

    The Democratic nominee put out an ad featuring Trump-bashing Michael Hayden, an N.S.A. and CIA chief under W. who was deemed "incongruent" by the Senate when he testified about torture methods. And she earned an endorsement from John Negroponte, a Reagan hand linked to American-trained death squads in Latin America.

    Politico reports that the Clinton team sent out feelers to see if Kissinger, the Voldemort of Vietnam, and Condi Rice, the conjurer of Saddam's apocalyptic mushroom cloud, would back Hillary.

    Hillary has written that Kissinger is an "idealistic" friend whose counsel she valued as secretary of state, drawing a rebuke from Bernie Sanders during the primaries: "I'm proud to say Henry Kissinger is not my friend."

    The Hillary team seems giddy over its windfall of Republicans and neocons running from the Trump sharknado. But as David Weigel wrote in The Washington Post, the specter of Kissinger, the man who advised Nixon to prolong the Vietnam War to help with his re-election, fed a perception that "the Democratic nominee has returned to her old, hawkish ways and is again taking progressives for granted."

    And Isaac Chotiner wrote in Slate, "The prospect of Kissinger having influence in a Clinton White House is downright scary."

    Hillary is a safer bet in many ways for conservatives. Trump likes to say he is flexible. What if he returns to his liberal New York positions on gun control and abortion rights?

    Trump is far too incendiary in his manner of speaking, throwing around dangerous and self-destructive taunts about "Second Amendment people" taking out Hillary, or President Obama and Hillary being the founders of ISIS. And he still blindly follows his ego, failing to understand the fundamentals of a campaign. "I don't know that we need to get out the vote," he told Fox News Thursday. "I think people that really wanna vote are gonna get out and they're gonna vote for Trump."

    Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals. Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, don't shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone.

    You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war. If you want to carry the GOP banner, your fabrications have to be more sneaky.

    As Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted on MSNBC, "the candidate in the race most like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a foreign policy perspective is in fact Hillary Clinton, not the Republican nominee."

    And that's how Republicans prefer their crazy - not like Trump, but like Cheney.

    JohnNJ, New jersey August 14, 2016

    For me, this is her strongest point:

    "You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war."

    There are still people who believe her excuse that she only voted for authorization, blah, blah, blah.

    Anyone who believes Bill Clinton didn't know exactly what was going on is just kidding themselves. One clue, for example. They moved the WMD 'intelligence" investigation to the DOD under Paul Wolfowitz. LOL!

    Red_Dog , Denver CO August 14, 2016

    Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and "Listen Liberal: Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?" echoes Ms. Dowd's sentiments. In a recent column Frank says that with Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-elec...

    "America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Come November, Clinton will have won her great victory – not as a champion of working people's concerns, but as the greatest moderate of them all."

    And great populist uprising of our times will be gone --- probably for many years.

    FDR Liberal , Sparks, NV August 14, 2016

    Spot on column Ms. Dowd.

    As Americans we are to blame that these two major party candidates are the only viable ones seeking the presidency. Yes, fellow citizens we are to blame because in the end we are the ones that voted for them in various primaries and caucuses. And if you didn't attend a caucus or vote in a primary, you are also part of problem.

    In short, it is not the media's fault, nor is it the top .1%, 1% or 10% fault, nor your kids' fault, nor your parents' fault, nor your neighbors' fault, etc.

    It is our fault because we did this together. Yes, we managed y to select a narcissist, xenophobe, anti-Muslim, racist, misogynist, and dare I say buffoon to the GOP ticket.

    We've also managed to select one of biggest dissemblers, enablers, war hawks, fungible flip-floppers, pay for play con artists, scandal mongerers candidates since Tricky Dicky. Congratulations America! We did it. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Wet get the government we deserve."

    Martin Brod, NYC August 14, 2016

    The reaction by many to Ms Dowd's column clearly shows that the "save the world" "lesser evil" argument only works is one is willing to suspend belief on the demonstrated evil of Hillary Clinton.

    The Green Party and Libertarian parties provide sane alternatives to the two most distrusted candidates of the major parties. As debate participants they
    would offer an alternative to evil at a time when the planets count-down clock is racing to mid-night.

    pathenry, berkeley August 14, 2016

    Clinton could well take us to war against Russia. In Syria, Clinton is spoiling to give Russia a punch in the nose, on the theory that Russia will back down and the US will have a free hand there. She advocates a a no-fly zone for Russian jets in Syria. The idea there is to create a confrontation, shoot down a couple of Russian jets and teach them a lesson. There is also the CIA and Pentagon "Plan B" for the Syrian negotiations.

    If the negotiations fail, give stingers to our "vetted allies". Who will those stingers be used against? Russia. At least the ones not smuggled to Brussels. And then there is the plan being bandied about by our best and brightest to organize, arm and lead our "vetted allies" in attacks on Russian bases in Syria. A Bay of Pigs in the desert. A dime to a dollar, Clinton is supportive of these plans.

    All of this is dangerous brinksmanship which is how you go to war.

    Mike A. , East Providence, RI August 14, 2016

    The second Pulitzer quality piece from the NYT op-ed columnists in less than a month (see Charles Blow's "Incandescent With Rage" for the first).

    heinrich zwahlen , brooklyn August 14, 2016

    It's always wonderful to see when the truth comes out in the end: Hillary is the perfect Repulican candidate and this is also prove of the fact that on finance and economic issues Democrats and old mainstream Republicans have been in in the same pocket...even under Obama.

    For real progressives it's useless to vote for her and high time to start a new party. Cultural issues are not the main issues that pain America, it's all about the money stupid.

    JohnD, New York August 14, 2016

    ... One night after the election on the Carson show Goldwater quipped that he didn't know how unpopular a president he would have been until Johnson adopted his policies...

    Lee Elliott , Rochester August 14, 2016

    You've written the most depressing column I've read lately. All the things you say about Hillary are true. She is an establishment favorite. She did indeed vote to support Bush and his insane desire to invade Iraq. But it was that vote kept her from being president in 2008. Perhaps that will convince her to keep the establishment a little more at arm's length. When there is no other behind for them to kiss, then you can afford to be a little hard to get.

    As for Trump, he is proving to be too much like Ross Perot. He looks great at first but begins to fade when his underlying lunacy begins to bubble to the surface.
    Speaking of Perot, I find it an interesting coincidence that Bill Clinton and now Hillary Clinton will depend on the ravings of an apparent lunatic in order to get elected.

    citizen vox, San Francisco August 14, 2016

    Why the vitriol against Dowd? Did we all forget the millions who went for Bernie and his direct and aggressive confrontation of Hillary's Wall Street/corporate ties? That was a contest between what used to be the Dem party of the people and the corporate friendly Dem party of today. We understood then that Hillary represented the Right; why the surprise now? (The right pointing arrow on the "H" logo is so appropriate.)

    Last week's article on how Hillary came to love money was horrifying; because Bill lost a Governor's race, Hillary felt so insecure she called all her wealthy friends for donations. Huh?! Two Harvard trained lawyers asking for financial help?! And never getting enough money to feel secure?! GIVE ME A BREAK (to coin a phrase).

    There are reasons Hillary is disliked and distrusted by nearly a majority of us. My reasons are she is of and for the oligarchs and deceitful enough to run as a populist.

    If readers bemoan anything, let it be that the populist movement of the Dem party was put down by the Dem establishment. We have a choice between a crazy candidate of no particular persuasion and a cold, calculating Republican. How discouraging.

    Thanks, Maureen Dowd.

    Chris, Louisville August 14, 2016

    Maureen please don't ever give up on Hillary bashing. It needs to be done before someone accidentally elects her as President. She is most like Angela Merkel of Germany. Take a look what's happening there. That is enough never to vote for Hillary.

    Susan e, AZ August 14, 2016

    I recall the outrage I, a peace loving liberal who despised W and Cheney, felt while watching the made for TV "shock and awe" invasion of Iraq. I recall how the"liberal Democrats" who supported that disaster with a vote for the IRW could never quite bring themselves to admit their mistake - and I realized that many, like Hillary, didn't feel it was a mistake. Not really. It was necessary for their political careers.

    For me, its not a vote for Hillary, its a vote for a candidate that sees killing innocent people in Syria (or Libya, or Gaza, etc.) as the only way to be viewed as a serious candidate for CIC. I'm old enough to remember another endless war, as the old Vietnam anti-war ballad went: "I ain't gonna vote for war no more."

    John, Switzerland August 14, 2016

    Maureen Dowd is not being nasty, but rather accurate. It is nasty to support and start wars throughout the ME. It is nasty to say (on mic) "We came, we saw, he died" referring to the gruesome torture-murder of Qaddafi.

    Will Hillary start a war against Syria? Yes or no? That is the the "six trillion dollar" question.

    Socrates , is a trusted commenter Downtown Verona, NJ August 13, 2016

    It's hard to a find a good liberal in these United States, not because there's anything wrong with liberalism or progressivism, but because Americans have been taught, hypnotized and beaten by a powerfully insidious and filthy rich right-wing to think that liberalism, progressivism and socialism is a form of fatal cancer.

    America tried to liberalize in the 1960's and the response was swift and violent as three of the greatest liberal lions and voices the country has ever known - JFK, MLK and RFK - were gunned down.

    While one can endlessly argue the specific details of those ghastly assassinations of America's liberal superstars, in my view, all three of those murders rest on the violent, nefarious right-wing shoulders and fumes of moneyed American 'conservatism' that couldn't stand to share the profits of their economic parasitism with society.

    The end result is that political liberals are forced to triangulate for their survival in right-wing America, and you wind up with Presidents like Bill Clinton and (soon) Hillary Clinton who know how to survive in a pool of right-wing knives, assassins and psychopaths lurking everywhere representing Grand Old Profit.

    ... ... ...

    Dotconnector, New York August 14, 2016

    The trickery deep within the dark art of Clintonism is triangulation. By breeding a nominal Democratic donkey with a de facto Republican elephant, what you get is a corporatist chameleon. There's precious little solace in knowing that this cynical political hybrid is only slightly less risky than Trumpenstein.

    And the fact that Henry Kissinger still has a seat at the table ought to chill the spine of anyone who considers human lives -- those of U.S. service members and foreign noncombatants alike -- to have greater value than pawns in a global chess game.

    Bj, is a trusted commenter Washington,dc August 13, 2016

    I truly believe that Congressional Republicans in the House are already drafting articles of impeachment should Hillary become President. Dowd may claim that Republicans are in lock step with her, but don't be surprised when the talk of impeachment starts soon after Jan 20, 2017. They didn't succeed with Bill. And they were chomping at the bit to try to impeach Obama over his use of executive orders and his decision not to defend an early same sex marriage case. They are just waiting for inauguration to start this process all over again - another circus and waste of taxpayer money.

    petey tonei, Massachusetts August 14, 2016

    Two party system is not enough for a country this big, with such a wide spectrum of political beliefs. We need a multi party system. With 2 parties dominating the politics, its like having a monopoly of liberalism or conservatism which just does not represent the width and depth of views our citizens resonate with. Having voted democrat all my life, to me Hillary does not represent my choice (Bernie does). Heard on NPR just today from on the ground reporters in Terre Haute, Indiana, the bellwether of presidential elections, the 2 names that were most heard were Trump and Bernie Sanders, not Hillary. Sadly, Bernie is not even the nominee but he truly represents the guts, soul of mid America

    Schrodinger, is a trusted commenter Northern California August 14, 2016

    This annoys me..."like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history" Maureen is talking about Hillary, but she might as well be talking about her own newspaper. Hillary got it wrong, but so did the New York Times editorial board.

    What about Ms Dowd herself? Of the four columns she wrote before the vote on October 11th, 2002, only two mentioned the war vote, and one of those was mostly about Hillary. Dowd said of Hillary that, "Whatever doubts she may have privately about the war, she is not articulating her angst as loudly as some of her Democratic colleagues. She knows that any woman who hopes to be elected president cannot have love beads in her jewelry case."

    In her column 'Culture war with B-2's', Dowd comes out as mildly anti-war. "Don't feel bad if you have the uneasy feeling that you're being steamrolled", Dowd writes, "You are not alone." Fourteen years later that column still looks good, and I link to it at the bottom. However, Dowd could and should have done a lot more. I don't think that anybody who draws a paycheck from the New York Times has a right to get on their high horse and lecture Hillary about her vote. They ignored the antiwar protests just like they ignored Bernie Sanders' large crowds.

    The Bush Administration hinted that the anti-war people were traitors and terrorist sympathizers and everybody got steamrolled. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/opinion/culture-war-with-b-2-s.html

    Karen Garcia , is a trusted commenter New Paltz, NY August 13, 2016

    HRC couldn't have asked for a better opponent if she'd constructed him out of a six-foot pile of mildewed straw. By running against Trump, the whole Trump and nothing but the Trump, and openly courting neocon war criminals and "establishment" Republicans, she's outrageously giving CPR to what should have been a rotting corpse of a political party by now.

    By giving new life to the pathocrats who made Trump possible, Clinton is only making her own party weaker and more right-wing, only making it easier for down-ticket Republicans to slither their way back into power.... the better to triangulate with during the Clinton restoration. Grand Bargain, here we come. TPP, (just waiting for that fig leaf of meager aid for displaced American workers) here we come. Bombs away.

    With three months to go before this grotesque circus ends, Trump is giving every indication that he wants out, getting more reckless by the day. And that's a good thing, because with her rise in the polls, Hillary will now have to do more on the stump than inform us she is not Trump. She'll have to ditch the fear factor. She'll have to start sending emails and Tweets with something other than "OMG! Did you hear what Trump just said?!?" on them to convince voters.

    She'll have to stop hoarding her campaign cash and share it with the down-ticket Democrats running against the same well-heeled GOPers she is now courting with such naked abandon.

    The Empress needs some new clothes to hide that inner Goldwater Girl.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Amazing chitzpah of NYT presstitutes: The pot calling the kettle black

    NYT is the cesspool of neoliberal propaganda and disinformation. Now serving as a part of Hillary campaign. And those pressitute have chutzpah to criticize others. Amazing...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The fundamental purpose of dezinformatsiya, or Russian disinformation, experts said, is to undermine the official version of events - even the very idea that there is a true version of events - and foster a kind of policy paralysis. ..."
    "... Another message, largely unstated, is that European governments lack the competence to deal with the crises they face, particularly immigration and terrorism, and that their officials are all American puppets. ..."
    "... Both depict the West as grim, divided, brutal, decadent, overrun with violent immigrants and unstable. "They want to give a picture of Europe as some sort of continent that is collapsing," Mr. Hultqvist, the Swedish defense minister, said in an interview --[that's exactly what western MSM do withRussia reporting ;-) ] . ..."
    "... Margarita Simonyan, RT's editor in chief, said the channel was being singled out as a threat because it offered a different narrative from "the Anglo-American media-political establishment." RT, she said, wants to provide "a perspective otherwise missing from the mainstream media echo chamber." ..."
    "... Speaking this summer on the 75th anniversary of the Soviet Information Bureau, Mr. Kiselyev said the age of neutral journalism was over. "If we do propaganda, then you do propaganda, too," he said, directing his message to Western journalists. ..."
    Aug 28, 2016 | The New York Times

    A Powerful Russian Weapon The Spread of False Stories By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

    ... ... ...

    "Moscow views world affairs as a system of special operations, and very sincerely believes that it itself is an object of Western special operations," said Gleb Pavlovsky, who helped establish the Kremlin's information machine before 2008. "I am sure that there are a lot of centers, some linked to the state, that are involved in inventing these kinds of fake stories."

    The planting of false stories is nothing new; the Soviet Union devoted considerable resources to that during the ideological battles of the Cold War. Now, though, disinformation is regarded as an important aspect of Russian military doctrine, and it is being directed at political debates in target countries with far greater sophistication and volume than in the past.

    The flow of misleading and inaccurate stories is so strong that both NATO and the European Union have established special offices to identify and refute disinformation, particularly claims emanating from Russia.

    The Kremlin's clandestine methods have surfaced in the United States, too, American officials say, identifying Russian intelligence as the likely source of leaked Democratic National Committee emails that embarrassed Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

    The Kremlin uses both conventional media - Sputnik, a news agency, and RT, a television outlet - and covert channels, as in Sweden, that are almost always untraceable.

    Russia exploits both approaches in a comprehensive assault, Wilhelm Unge, a spokesman for the Swedish Security Service, said this year when presenting the agency's annual report. "We mean everything from internet trolls to propaganda and misinformation spread by media companies like RT and Sputnik," he said.

    The fundamental purpose of dezinformatsiya, or Russian disinformation, experts said, is to undermine the official version of events - even the very idea that there is a true version of events - and foster a kind of policy paralysis.

    ... ... ...

    Moscow adamantly denies using disinformation to influence Western public opinion and tends to label accusations of either overt or covert threats as "Russophobia."

    "There is an impression that, like in a good orchestra, many Western countries every day accuse Russia of threatening someone," Maria Zakharova, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, said at a recent ministry briefing.

    Tracing individual strands of disinformation is difficult, but in Sweden and elsewhere, experts have detected a characteristic pattern that they tie to Kremlin-generated disinformation campaigns.

    "The dynamic is always the same: It originates somewhere in Russia, on Russia state media sites, or different websites or somewhere in that kind of context," said Anders Lindberg, a Swedish journalist and lawyer.

    "Then the fake document becomes the source of a news story distributed on far-left or far-right-wing websites," he said. "Those who rely on those sites for news link to the story, and it spreads. Nobody can say where they come from, but they end up as key issues in a security policy decision."

    Although the topics may vary, the goal is the same, Mr. Lindberg and others suggested. "What the Russians are doing is building narratives; they are not building facts," he said. "The underlying narrative is, 'Don't trust anyone.'"

    ... ... ...

    "The role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown, and, in many cases, they have exceeded the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness," Gen. Valery V. Gerasimov, the chief of the general staff of the Russian Armed Forces, wrote in 2013.

    A prime Kremlin target is Europe, where the rise of the populist right and declining support for the European Union create an ever more receptive audience for Russia's conservative, nationalistic and authoritarian approach under Mr. Putin. Last year, the European Parliament accused Russia of "financing radical and extremist parties" in its member states, and in 2014 the Kremlin extended an $11.7 million loan to the National Front, the extreme-right party in France.

    "The Russians are very good at courting everyone who has a grudge with liberal democracy, and that goes from extreme right to extreme left," said Patrik Oksanen, an editorial writer for the Swedish newspaper group MittMedia. The central idea, he said, is that "liberal democracy is corrupt, inefficient, chaotic and, ultimately, not democratic."

    Another message, largely unstated, is that European governments lack the competence to deal with the crises they face, particularly immigration and terrorism, and that their officials are all American puppets.

    ... ... ...

    In the Czech Republic, alarming, sensational stories portraying the United States, the European Union and immigrants as villains appear daily across a cluster of about 40 pro-Russia websites.

    During NATO military exercises in early June, articles on the websites suggested that Washington controlled Europe through the alliance, with Germany as its local sheriff. Echoing the disinformation that appeared in Sweden, the reports said NATO planned to store nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe and would attack Russia from there without seeking approval from local capitals.

    A poll this summer by European Values, a think tank in Prague, found that 51 percent of Czechs viewed the United States' role in Europe negatively, that only 32 percent viewed the European Union positively and that at least a quarter believed some elements of the disinformation.

    "The data show how public opinion is changing thanks to the disinformation on those outlets," said Jakub Janda, the think tank's deputy director for public and political affairs. "They try to look like a regular media outlet even if they have a hidden agenda."

    Not all Russian disinformation efforts succeed. Sputnik news websites in various Scandinavian languages failed to attract enough readers and were closed after less than a year.

    Both RT and Sputnik portray themselves as independent, alternative voices. Sputnik claims that it "tells the untold," even if its daily report relies heavily on articles abridged from other sources. RT trumpets the slogan "Question More."

    Both depict the West as grim, divided, brutal, decadent, overrun with violent immigrants and unstable. "They want to give a picture of Europe as some sort of continent that is collapsing," Mr. Hultqvist, the Swedish defense minister, said in an interview --[that's exactly what western MSM do withRussia reporting ;-) ] .

    RT often seems obsessed with the United States, portraying life there as hellish. Its coverage of the Democratic National Convention, for example, skipped the speeches and focused instead on scattered demonstrations. It defends the Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, as an underdog maligned by the established news media.

    Margarita Simonyan, RT's editor in chief, said the channel was being singled out as a threat because it offered a different narrative from "the Anglo-American media-political establishment." RT, she said, wants to provide "a perspective otherwise missing from the mainstream media echo chamber."

    Moscow's targeting of the West with disinformation dates to a Cold War program the Soviets called "active measures." The effort involved leaking or even writing stories for sympathetic newspapers in India and hoping that they would be picked up in the West, said Professor Mark N. Kramer, a Cold War expert at Harvard.

    The story that AIDS was a CIA project run amok spread that way, and it poisons the discussion of the disease decades later. At the time, before the Soviet Union's 1991 collapse, the Kremlin was selling communism as an ideological alternative. Now, experts said, the ideological component has evaporated, but the goal of weakening adversaries remains.

    In Sweden recently, that has meant a series of bizarre forged letters and news articles about NATO and linked to Russia.

    One forgery, on Defense Ministry letterhead over Mr. Hultqvist's signature, encouraged a major Swedish firm to sell artillery to Ukraine, a move that would be illegal in Sweden. Ms. Nyh Radebo, his spokeswoman, put an end to that story in Sweden, but at international conferences, Mr. Hultqvist still faced questions about the nonexistent sales.

    Russia also made at least one overt attempt to influence the debate. During a seminar in the spring, Vladimir Kozin, a senior adviser to the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, a think tank linked to the Kremlin and Russian foreign intelligence, argued against any change in Sweden's neutral status.

    "Do they really need to lose their neutral status?" he said of the Swedes. "To permit fielding new U.S. military bases on their territory and to send their national troops to take part in dubious regional conflicts?"

    Whatever the method or message, Russia clearly wants to win any information war, as Dmitry Kiselyev, Russia's most famous television anchor and the director of the organization that runs Sputnik, made clear recently.

    Speaking this summer on the 75th anniversary of the Soviet Information Bureau, Mr. Kiselyev said the age of neutral journalism was over. "If we do propaganda, then you do propaganda, too," he said, directing his message to Western journalists.

    "Today, it is much more costly to kill one enemy soldier than during World War II, World War I or in the Middle Ages," he said in an interview on the state-run Rossiya 24 network. While the business of "persuasion" is more expensive now, too, he said, "if you can persuade a person, you don't need to kill him."

    [Aug 28, 2016] Clinton bigotry against working with inconvenient facts. Read applicable US code one for security, one for federal records, Clinton gets away with calling law that protect security as spin.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton bigotry against working with inconvenient facts. Read applicable US code one for security, one for federal records, Clinton gets away with calling law that protect security as 'spin'. ..."
    Aug 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm, Friday, August 26, 2016 at 06:26 PM
    The burgeoning neolib dog whistle "alt-right" is short for "a$$hole who thinks Clinton should go to jail for 1000 times the misconduct that would get that a$$hole 10 years hard time".

    Neoliberals use the term "alt-right" as shorthand for those who don't drink the Clinton neocon Kool-Aid.

    The bigotry of warmongering neoliberals against anyone who disagrees. There isn't enough fascism going around?

    ilsm -> pgl... , Friday, August 26, 2016 at 04:36 PM
    Clinton bigotry against working with inconvenient facts. Read applicable US code one for security, one for federal records, Clinton gets away with calling law that protect security as 'spin'.
    ilsm -> Paine... , -1
    The 'soft bigotry of GLBT and war for fascist allies' types criticizing racists' morals.
    ilsm -> anne... , -1
    In the same category as Brooks and Friedman. I regard Dowd better!

    [Aug 28, 2016] The Childish Villain-ification Of Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization ..."
    "... Recall that the Obomber passed the legislation that legalized propaganda (lying to the public) and permits no remedy other than the ability to protest in fenced in free speech zones until the cops show up as head knockers or agents provocateurs. ..."
    "... You say that Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him. Anyone's economic policies will be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for Trump. That's baked into the political and economic structure of things. It is part of the natural order. ..."
    "... The difference with Trump is that after the economic catastrophe that will happen--is now happening , it may be possible under a Trump administration to pick things up and rebuild. Under any other likely regime, the aftermath of economic catastrophe will be limitless debt peonage and unlimited oligarchy. ..."
    "... The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, "the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air raids over the Golan Heights." ..."
    Aug 26, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    MadMax2 | Aug 27, 2016 5:04:48 PM | 103
    @okie farmer 80, hoarsewhisperer 85

    Some real beauties in there alright. Kerry giving himself yet another uppercut.

    "...U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President Bashar Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, ..."

    Not Assad must go. Not close. Yet, still blissfully ignorant of the fact their more extreme moderates are getting their jollies out of hacking sick 12 year old kids heads off with fishing knive. I wonder at what point does 'moderate' become a dirty word...?

    @Noirette Pt1

    Big crowds scare Hillary these days. Best not to shake her up too much. I wonder though, how she expects to compete with Trumps fervour... must be pretty happy that they can do a nice back door job on election day. When opening act Rudy G is getting pummelled with calls of 'does Rudy have Alzheimer's...?' you know you're doing something right - really, just...awesome political theatre.

    smarterthanyou | Aug 27, 2016 5:25:22 PM | 104
    vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization
    fast freddy | Aug 27, 2016 5:54:37 PM | 105
    The ZioMedia is in the tank for Hillary. Impossible for a candidate who cannot draw a crowd to be "ahead in the polls". And a candidate who packs 10K ppl into any given space at will to be "behind in the polls". Humiliatingly low turnout for the HBomb is stage-crafted by all ziomedia outlets to hide this embarrassing fact.

    Recall that Billy Blowjob ushered in Media Consolidation which gave 5 ziomedia corporations carte blanche to bullshit the public.

    Recall that the Obomber passed the legislation that legalized propaganda (lying to the public) and permits no remedy other than the ability to protest in fenced in free speech zones until the cops show up as head knockers or agents provocateurs.

    Curtis | Aug 27, 2016 6:27:05 PM | 106
    I was reading articles on the Turkish attack into Syria and there is no mention of the Syrian government nor whether/when/if Turkey will engage the Syrian Army. But then I found this chart from CNN:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/25/middleeast/syria-isis-whos-fighting-who-trnd/index.html

    For one thing, they pretend ISIS has no support. We all know differently. Also, it looks like every one is fighting ISIS except ..... Free Syrian Army and Saudi Arabia and Gulf Allies.

    Macon Richardson | Aug 27, 2016 7:57:39 PM | 108
    You say that Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him. Anyone's economic policies will be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for Trump. That's baked into the political and economic structure of things. It is part of the natural order.

    The difference with Trump is that after the economic catastrophe that will happen--is now happening , it may be possible under a Trump administration to pick things up and rebuild. Under any other likely regime, the aftermath of economic catastrophe will be limitless debt peonage and unlimited oligarchy.

    ALberto | Aug 27, 2016 7:58:07 PM | 109
    The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, "the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air raids over the Golan Heights."

    It was struck. An SA-9 from the Iftiraas Air Defense Base and an SA-2 near the Khalkhaala AB were fired. But, the technical wizardry was most on display when an S-300 (SA-10 "Grumble) super-air-defense missile was fired from the Republican Guard base near the Mazza AB at the foot of Qaasiyoon Mountain west of Damascus. This was done so that the F-16's electronic countermeasures would first fix on the SA-2 and SA-9 while the S-300 plowed forward to exterminate the vermin inside the Israeli aircraft. The S-300 vaporized the Israeli bomber. No evidence was seen of the pilot ejecting. Instead, eyewitness accounts described a ball of fire over the Golan and the remains scattering into the air over the Huleh Valley in Palestine.

    Also, the Israelis lost 2 helicopters while flying missions over the Golan Heights in an effort to bolster the sagging morale of the Takfiri rats of Nusra/Alqaeda and Al-Ittihaad Al-Islaami li-Ajnaad Al-Shaam. The 2 helicopters went down over the area near Qunaytra City and were reportedly shot down by shoulder fired, heat-seeking missiles deployed throughout the Syrian Army.

    source - http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-shoots-down-israeli-warplane-f-16-bomber-and-helicopters/5471009

    [Aug 28, 2016] Hillary Clintons Slanders on Trump, Putin Absurd, Dangerous - Ex-US Diplomat

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Of course Julian Assange is right. Hillary Clinton's harangue depicting Donald Trump as the enabler of some insidious 'Alt Right' movement whose Grand Dragon is Vladimir Putin is too absurd for words," Jatras said on Friday. "It would be just silly if it weren't so dangerous." ..."
    "... She and her surrogates have been banging the 'Kremlin agent' drum for some time. But when Trump asks rock-ribbed GOP [Republican] crowds if it wouldn't be a great thing to get along with Russia and team up with Moscow to fight ISIS [Islamic State], he gets thunderous approval, ..."
    "... Jatras suggested that Clinton's latest attacks on Trump as an alleged racist were meant to distract attention from the latest WikiLeaks documents exposing the leaked information related to "pay to play" between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. ..."
    "... He also argued that Clinton's attacks were meant to distract pubic attention from her own record of controversy and alleged corruption. "Any American worthy of the name hates her and the whole rotten Deep State she fronts for: the profiteers on endless wars, the globalist corporations that dump their American workers to import their foreign-made goods duty free and the driving down of wages due to a glut of imported foreign labor," he said. ..."
    "... Jatras suggested that these policies that Clinton as secretary of state and her husband, President Bill Clinton had implemented and supported were far more worthy of hate than the false accusations she was throwing against Trump. "Those are things all Americans, whether white, black, brown, red, or yellow should hate, and Hillary right along with them," he concluded. Jatras also formerly served as adviser to the Senate Republican leadership. ..."
    sputniknews.com
    US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's attempt to falsely portray her Republican opponent Donald Trump as a racist extremist is absurd, silly and dangerous, former US Department of State diplomat Jim Jatras told Sputnik.

    On Thursday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Fox News in an interview that Clinton's campaign was full of anti-Russia hysteria as the Democrats were trying to undermine the campaign of their opponent, Republican nominee Donald Trump.

    "Of course Julian Assange is right. Hillary Clinton's harangue depicting Donald Trump as the enabler of some insidious 'Alt Right' movement whose Grand Dragon is Vladimir Putin is too absurd for words," Jatras said on Friday. "It would be just silly if it weren't so dangerous."

    Jatras said he agreed with Assange's assessment that Clinton's increasingly wild charges against Trump were not based on any reality. "She should get some kind of tinfoil hat award for the finest piece of political paranoia totally divorced from facts in all of American history," Jatras said.

    Hillary Clinton's Anti-Russian Campaign May BackfireJatras also pointed out the falsity of Clinton's related claim that former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, who endorsed Trump this week was a racist. "Take her attack on Nigel Farage. Evidently now it is now 'racist' to believe citizens are shareholders of their own country and have a right to decide who gets in and who doesn't, and that dangerous people should be excluded," Jatras argued.

    However, Jatras expressed skepticism as to how effective Clinton's racist and Russophobic attacks would prove to be.

    "She and her surrogates have been banging the 'Kremlin agent' drum for some time. But when Trump asks rock-ribbed GOP [Republican] crowds if it wouldn't be a great thing to get along with Russia and team up with Moscow to fight ISIS [Islamic State], he gets thunderous approval," Jatras observed.

    Jatras suggested that Clinton's latest attacks on Trump as an alleged racist were meant to distract attention from the latest WikiLeaks documents exposing the leaked information related to "pay to play" between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.

    He also argued that Clinton's attacks were meant to distract pubic attention from her own record of controversy and alleged corruption. "Any American worthy of the name hates her and the whole rotten Deep State she fronts for: the profiteers on endless wars, the globalist corporations that dump their American workers to import their foreign-made goods duty free and the driving down of wages due to a glut of imported foreign labor," he said.

    Jatras suggested that these policies that Clinton as secretary of state and her husband, President Bill Clinton had implemented and supported were far more worthy of hate than the false accusations she was throwing against Trump. "Those are things all Americans, whether white, black, brown, red, or yellow should hate, and Hillary right along with them," he concluded. Jatras also formerly served as adviser to the Senate Republican leadership.

    Read more:

    Hillary Clinton's Anti-Russian Campaign May Backfire

    [Aug 27, 2016] Obama is back to his old game: Assad should go

    Notable quotes:
    "... russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms, it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons? that's the answer to that bs... ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80

    OT
    GENEVA - The United States and Russia say they have resolved a number of issues standing in the way of restoring a nationwide truce to Syria and opening up aid deliveries, but were unable once again to forge a comprehensive agreement on stepping up cooperation to end the brutal war that has killed hundreds of thousands.

    After meeting off-and-on for nearly 10 hours in Geneva on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov could point to only incremental progress in filling in details of a broad understanding to boost joint efforts that was reached last month in Moscow.

    Their failure to reach an overall deal highlighted the increasingly complex situation on the ground in Syria - including new Russian-backed Syrian government attacks on opposition forces, the intermingling of some of those opposition forces with an al-Qaida affiliate not covered by the truce and the surrender of a rebel-held suburb of Damascus - as well as deep divisions and mistrust dividing Washington and Moscow.

    The complexities have also grown with the increasing internationalization of what has largely become a proxy war between regional and world powers, highlighted by a move by Turkish troops across the Syrian border against Islamic State fighters this week.

    Kerry said he and Lavrov had agreed on the "vast majority" of technical discussions on steps to reinstate a cease-fire and improve humanitarian access. But critical sticking points remain unresolved and experts will remain in Geneva with an eye toward finalizing those in the coming days, he said.
    ```
    Lavrov echoed that, saying "we still need to finalize a few issues" and pointed to the need to separate fighters from the al-Nusra Front, which has ties to al-Qaida, from U.S.-backed fighters who hold parts of northwest Syria.

    "We have continued our efforts to reduce the areas where we lack understanding and trust, which is an achievement," Lavrov said. "The mutual trust is growing with every meeting."

    Yet, it was clear that neither side believes an overall agreement is imminent or even achievable after numerous previous disappointments shattered a brief period of relative calm earlier this year.

    The inability to wrest an agreement between Russia and the U.S. - as the major sponsors of the opposing sides in the stalled Syria peace talks - all but spells another missed deadline for the U.N. Syria envoy to get the Syrian government and "moderate" opposition back to the table.
    ```
    In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed the importance of keeping the details secret.
    ```
    And, underscoring deep differences over developments on the ground, Kerry noted that Russia disputes the U.S. "narrative" of recent attacks on heavily populated areas being conducted by Syrian forces, Russia itself and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia. Russia maintains the attacks it has been involved in have targeted legitimate terrorist targets, while the U.S. says they have hit moderate opposition forces.
    ~~~
    At the same time, the Obama administration is not of one mind regarding the Russians. The Pentagon has publicly complained about getting drawn into greater cooperation with Russia even though it has been forced recently to expand communication with Moscow. Last week, the U.S. had to call for Russian help when Syrian warplanes struck an area not far from where U.S. troops were operating.

    U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President Bashar Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, open humanitarian aid corridors, and concentrate any offensive action on the Islamic State group and other extremists not covered by what has become a largely ignored truce.

    For their part, U.S. officials say they are willing to press rebels groups they support harder on separating themselves from the Islamic State and al-Nusra, which despite a recent name change is still viewed as al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria.

    Those goals are not new, but recent developments have made achieving them even more urgent and important, according to U.S. officials. Recent developments include military operations around the city of Aleppo, the entry of Turkey into the ground war, Turkish hostility toward U.S.-backed Kurdish rebel groups and the presence of American military advisers in widening conflict zones.

    Meanwhile, in a blow to the opposition, rebel forces and civilians in the besieged Damascus suburb of Daraya were to be evacuated on Friday after agreeing to surrender the town late Thursday after four years of grueling bombardment and a crippling siege that left the sprawling area in ruins.

    The surrender of Daraya, which became an early symbol of the nascent uprising against Assad, marks a success for his government, removing a persistent threat only a few miles from his seat of power.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 27, 2016 11:06:17 AM | 85
    Posted by: okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80

    Re: Geneva negotiations...
    Love the goto clause:

    "In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed the importance of keeping the details secret."

    Yeah, keeping the details secret so that next time the Yankees backstab Russia, observers won't immediately realise that they were, in fact, just shooting themselves in the foot. Again.

    james | Aug 27, 2016 4:27:25 PM | 99
    @92 harrylaw...i agree with you..

    russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms, it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons? that's the answer to that bs...

    as for turkey, clearly the apk has a 'get rid of the kurds' agenda.. works well in their alliance with isis up to a point.. as for turkish/usa alliance and a no fly zone - if russia goes along with this, they better get a hell of a trade off out of it.. i can't see it, although i see the usa continuing on in their support of saudi arabia etc, using their mercenary isis army and saudi arabia to continue to funnel arms sales and weaponry... it is what they do best, bullshite artists that they are...

    james | Aug 27, 2016 4:32:33 PM | 100

    for the latest dose of bullshite - watch

    8 minute propaganda video.. one could flip it around to say the usa supports isis, al nusra, and all the other 'moderate' terrorists they are arming... amazing how these state dept. spokespeople can lie so continuously and not be called out on any of it by the corporate media journalists.. obviously those journalists are paid to go along with the lies, keep their mouth shut, and not ask any hard questions...

    [Aug 27, 2016] The union movements problem, in other words, isnt that workers dont want to fight; its that they dont want to lose

    Notable quotes:
    "... Union opponents think this quiescence means workers don't want to fight. Romantic union supporters, perhaps including the people at the conference, tend to think that workers are ready for a struggle but held back by conservative middle-class leadership. Neither account fully contemplates the idea that the struggle between labor and capital might more simply reflect the balance of power. The union movement's problem, in other words, isn't that workers don't want to fight; it's that they don't want to lose ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press

    "Milanovic and Roemer (2016) show that what seems a very positive development (that is, lower global inequality) when individuals are assumed to be concerned solely with their absolute incomes becomes much less positive when we also include in their welfare functions a concern with relative positions in national income distributions. Then the dominant feeling across the world, reflecting increasing national income inequalities, becomes one of a relative loss" [Branko Milanovic, Defend Democracy ]. Charts, with an analysis of the "elephant graph."

    "Who Works for the Workers?" [ n+1 ].

    "Union opponents think this quiescence means workers don't want to fight. Romantic union supporters, perhaps including the people at the conference, tend to think that workers are ready for a struggle but held back by conservative middle-class leadership. Neither account fully contemplates the idea that the struggle between labor and capital might more simply reflect the balance of power. The union movement's problem, in other words, isn't that workers don't want to fight; it's that they don't want to lose."

    Very interesting article, that overlaps with the movement vs. party discussion.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Wait a minute! They IDd the hacker and its a business in Israel? And it forced Apple to an emergency software upgrade. But I thought all the evil hackers were Russians working for the government

    Notable quotes:
    "... iPhone hacked by NSO Group based in Israel http://www.businessinsider.com/pegasus-nso-group-iphone-2016-8 ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Curtis | Aug 27, 2016 12:09:08 PM | 88
    iPhone hacked by NSO Group based in Israel http://www.businessinsider.com/pegasus-nso-group-iphone-2016-8

    http://www.businessinsider.com/nso-group-2016-8

    Wait a minute! They ID'd the hacker and it's a business in Israel? And it forced Apple to an emergency software upgrade. But I thought all the evil hackers were Russians working for the government.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Social Fragmentation Suits the Powers That Be

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Elites have successfully revolted against the political and economic constraints on their wealth and power, and now the unprivileged, unprotected non-Elites are rebelling in the only way left open to them: voting for anyone who claims to be outside the privileged Elites that dominate our society and economy. ..."
    Jul 29, 2016 | www.oftwominds.com

    The Elites have successfully revolted against the political and economic constraints on their wealth and power.

    Ours is an Age of Fracture (the 2011 book by Daniel Rodgers) in which "earlier notions of history and society that stressed solidity, collective institutions, and social circumstances gave way to a more individualized human nature that emphasized choice, agency, performance, and desire."

    A society that is fragmenting into cultural groups that are themselves fracturing into smaller units of temporary and highly contingent solidarity is ideal for Elites bent on maintaining political and financial control.

    A society that has fragmented into a media-fed cultural war of hot-button identity-gender-religious politics is a society that is incapable of resisting concentrations of power and wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the many.

    If we set aside the authentic desire of individuals for equal rights and cultural liberation and examine the political and financial ramifications of social fragmentation, we come face to face with Christopher Lasch's insightful analysis on The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (1996 book).

    "The new elites, the professional classes in particular, regard the masses with mingled scorn and apprehension.... Middle Americans, as they appear to the makers of educated opinion, are hopelessly shabby, unfashionable, and provincial, ill informed about changes in taste or intellectual trends, addicted to trashy novels of romance and adventure, and stupefied by prolonged exposure to television. They are at once absurd and vaguely menacing."

    Though better known for his book on the disastrous consequences of consumerism in an era of economic stagnation, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations , Lasch's The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy is the more politically profound analysis, as it links Elite dominance of the media, higher education and cultural narratives to the erosion of democracy as a functioning institution.

    Extreme concentrations of wealth and power are incompatible with democracy, as Elites buy political influence and promote cultural narratives that distract the citizenry with emotionally charged issues. A focus on individual liberation from all constraints precludes an awareness of common economic-political interests beyond the narrow boundaries of fragmenting culturally defined identities.

    In a society stripped of broad-based social contracts and narratives that focus on the structural forces dismantling democracy and social mobility, the Elites have a free hand to consolidate their own personal wealth and power and use those tools to further fragment any potential political resistance to their dominance.

    The Elites have successfully revolted against the political and economic constraints on their wealth and power, and now the unprivileged, unprotected non-Elites are rebelling in the only way left open to them: voting for anyone who claims to be outside the privileged Elites that dominate our society and economy.

    [Aug 27, 2016] DNC is doubling down on the Victory Fund scam

    Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "When the Democratic National Committee announced its $32 million fundraising haul last month, it touted the result as evidence of 'energy and excitement' for Hillary Clinton's nomination for the White House and other races down the ballot. The influx of money, however, also owes in part to an unprecedented workaround of political spending limits that lets the party tap into millions of dollars more from Clinton's wealthiest donors" [ Bloomberg ]. "At least $7.3 million of the DNC's July total originated with payments from hundreds of major donors who had already contributed the maximum $33,400 to the national committee, a review of Federal Election Commission filings shows. The contributions, many of which were made months earlier, were first bundled by the Hillary Victory Fund and then transferred to the state Democratic parties, which effectively stripped the donors' names and sent the money to the DNC as a lump sum. Of the transfers that state parties made to the DNC for which donor information was available, an overwhelming proportion came from contributions from maxed-out donors."

    Lovely. Doubling down on the Victory Fund scam. Word of the day: Effrontery.

    PlutoniumKun , August 26, 2016 at 3:22 pm

    Re: Clintons campaign possible strategy of making a vote for Clinton 'a vote for a winner'.

    I know its conventional opinion that when in doubt, people prefer to vote for who they perceive to be a 'winner', but I wonder if this really applies with two such disliked candidates. I've a theory that one reason Brexit won is that the polls beforehand saying it would be a narrow 'no', gave 'permission' for people to vote with their conscience rather than their pragmatism. In other words, presented with a 'pragmatic, but dirty' vote for X, but a 'fun, but risky' vote for Y', people will vote X if its very close or it looks like Y will win, but may be tempted to vote Y if they are pretty sure X will win.

    Part of me thinks the Clinton campaign would have tested the theory to the limit before going for a strategy like this, but the evidence from the nomination campaign is that they are all tactics, no strategy. It seems to me to be a very risky game to play, not least because promoting Clinton as a sure winner may make wavering progressives simply opt to stay at home.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    I don't even think you have to be a progressive for that to be a concern if you are the Clinton campaign.
    They know the public is not enthusiastic about voting for her for the most part, and yet they are setting up a meme where she is unbeatable. It isn't necessarily going to just keep Trump voters home. But how many people who don't want Clinton but really don't want Trump will be able to convince themselves that there is no need to go hold their nose and vote for her. Republicans who think she is too far left, but he is crazy for instance will be just as likely to stay home as the lefties who know she is lying Neoliberal War Criminal, but not fascist like Trump. (And I know the real fascism signs are all with Clinton, but some may have missed it).

    jsn , August 26, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    On fascism I had the exact same thought after reading Adolph Reeds "Vote For the Lying, NeoLiberal War-Monger, It's Important" link last week.

    Reed's critique was that communist leader Thallman failed to anticipate Hitler's liquidation of all opposition, but frankly with Hillary's and Donald's respective histories its hard for me to see how Trump is more dangerous on this: Hillary has a deep and proven lethal track record and wherever she could justify violent action in the past she has, she keeps an enemies list, holds grudges and acts on them, all thoroughly documented.

    I certainly won't speculate that Trump couldn't do the same or worse, given the state of our propaganda and lawlessness amongst the elite, but like all the other negatives in this campaign its hard to ascertain who really will be worse. Lambert's bet on gridlock in a Trump administration has the further advantage of re-activating the simulation of "anti-war, anti-violence" amongst Dem nomenklatura.

    pretzelattack , August 26, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    exactly, i'm not saying reed is a typical democrat apologist, but i'm not buying that trump is more dangerous than clinton.

    clarky90 , August 26, 2016 at 6:55 pm

    We have collectively known Donald Trump and much of his family for the last 30 or 40 years. Over the years, he has evoked different emotions in me. (Usually being appalled by his big-city, realestate tycoon posturing etc). However, I have never been frightened by him. To me, he is more like a bombastic, well loved, show-off uncle.

    Today I see Trump as a modern day prophet (spiritual teacher). A bringer of light (clarity) to the masses. We live in a rigged system that gives Nobel Peace Prizes to mass murderers; that charges a poor child $600 for a $1 lifesaving Epipen. Trump is waking up The People. Finalllyyyyyy!!

    clarky90 , August 26, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    In my experience, people usually do not change for the better as they age. However, it does happen!; peasant girl (Joan of Arc), patent inspector (Einstein)

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Maybe Trump is the Claudius of our time…..

    …now, as to whom are the Pretorians…..??

    Elizabeth Burton , August 26, 2016 at 7:51 pm

    It's not about what Trump will or won't do. It's about not handing all three branches of government over to the GOP, which has the Libertarian agenda of eliminating said government altogether. I find it interesting that so many people scornful of identity politics nevertheless seem to be as addicted as anyone to making this a horse race between two candidates that has no real far-reaching consequences beyond with each will or won't do in the Oval Office.

    Brindle , August 26, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    So true: "My view is that triumphalism from the Clinton campaign - which now includes most of the political class, including the press and both party establishments, and ignores event risk - is engineered to get early voters to "go with the winner."–Lambert
    I have noticed on Google News several "Clinton weighing cabinet choices" articles, to me there is whistling past the graveyard quality to all this. They want the election over now-the votes are just a formality.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    They really really do not have any short term memory do they? I mean it took sticking both thumbs on the scale and some handy dandy shenanigans with voters to get her past the Primary finish line. And her opponent there was much nicer about pointing out her flaws than her current opponent. It is true they won't have any obvious elections that disprove their position out there, but when you are spending millions and your opponent nothing and he is still within the margin of error with you in the states that people are watching the closest…

    Although that isn't considering the fears of what other shoes have to drop both in the world and in the news that could derail her victory parade, they may have more to fear from that.

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    It's possible they know.

    One of the problems Democrats have and the 50 state strategy addressed is voting in very Democratic precincts. Without constant pressure, many proud Democrats won't vote because they don't know any Republicans. It's in the bag. College kids are the worst voters alive. They will forget come election day or not be registered because they moved. Dean squeezed these districts. These districts are where Democrats , out in 2010 and 2014 and even a little in 2012. Mittens is a robber baron.

    If Democratic turnout is low and Hillary wins with crossover votes, what happens? It's very likely those Republicans vote for down ticket Republicans. Even for the people who have to vote against Trump, if they believe he is a special kind of super fascist will they bother to vote for the allies of a crook such as Hillary? It's possible Hillary wins and drops a seat in the Senate depending on turnout.

    I think it's clear Hillary isn't going to bring out any kind of voter activism. Judging from photos in Virginia where one would hope a commanding Hillary victory could jump start the Democrats for next year's governors and legislative races, the Democratic Party is dead or very close to it.

    What if Hillary wins but does the unthinkable and delivers a Republican pickup in the Senate? She needs to keep Republicans from coming out because she isn't going to drive Democratic turnout to a spot where that can win on its own.

    Hillary needs to win to keep the never Trump crowd in the GOP from voting because she knows the Democratic side which relies on very Democratic districts and transient voters will not impress. An emboldened GOP congress will be a tough environment for Hillary, and GOP voters won't tolerate bipartisanship especially for anyone suspected of not helping the party 100%. Those House Republicans have to face 2018 and the smaller but arguably more motivated electorate. They will come down hard on Hillary if she can't win the Senate which a literal donkey could do.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    Hell I don't want Clinton to win by any margin. But if anyone thinks that the bipartisan nature of her possible victory will mean anything but Republicans hunting her scalp, and dare I say getting it, they are not paying attention. As much as both the Benghazi and the email thing has them all flummoxed because the real crimes involved with both are crimes they either agree with or want to use. The Foundation on the other hand, not so much, they will make the case that this is a global slush fund because it is. And the McDonnell decision is not going to save her Presidency, much as it would if she were indicted in a Court.

    I should add, that is with or without winning the Senate. Much of the loyalty any Dems there have towards her will disappear when it is obvious that she keeps most of the money AND has no coattails. Oh, they might not vote to impeach her, but that is about it.

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    Hillary's only defense is to win the Senate and to be able to stifle investigations through the appearance of a mandate. 2018 is the 2012 cycle, and that is 2006 which should be a good year for the Republicans (a credit to Howard Dean). It's a tough map for Team Blue. If they don't win the Senate in November, they won't win it in 2018.

    With 2018 on its way, a weak Democratic situation will make the Democrats very jumpy as Hillary is clearly not delivering the coattails they imagined.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    She isn't going to have a mandate. Oh, the electoral college count might look good. But regardless of who wins this sucker, I'm betting this is going to be one of the lowest, if not the lowest, voter turnout for any Presidential election in the last century. I would not be surpised if more people stay home than vote. And that is not a mandate.

    The Senate isn't going to stifle investigations. She doesn't even have to help the Dems get a majority for that problem of conviction if impeached to rear its ugly head. No way is there going to be 2/3 of the Senate in one party or the other. That still won't stop the House. Just as it didn't for her husband.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous President before him. In 2014 he deported nine times more people than had been deported twenty years earlier. Some years it was nearly double the numbers under George W. Bush. And yes, I know it was not strict fillibuster proof majority in the Senate for his first two years, but damn close and the only thing we got was a half assed stimulus made up largely of tax stimulus AND that gift to for profit medicine and insurance, the ACA. With all their concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit centers.

    Trump says mean things, but the Democrats, well once again actions should speak louder than words but it isn't happening.

    Starveling , August 26, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves noble for empowering foreign nationals.

    I guess this is one way for a supposedly pro-labor party to liquidate its working class elements.

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:38 pm

    "hear, here" -- …1 googleplex %

    [Aug 27, 2016] Shepard Smith Tries To Get Reporter To Say Trump Is Racist

    Notable quotes:
    "... Grimaldi went on to explain that Trump "trades in hyperbole," giving Clinton more fodder to work with. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.westernjournalism.com
    Fox News' Shepard Smith appeared intent on having a guest on his program Thursday say that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is a racist.

    Wall Street Journal investigative reporter James Grimaldi joined Smith on Fox Reports immediately after Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's speech in Reno, Nev., during which she charged that Trump will "make America hate again."

    "He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party," she said.

    Smith said that "the problem with any attempt to rebut her" was that "she used Donald Trump's own words, what's historically accurate on his policies on all reviewed points."

    He turned to Grimaldi and said, "Where do you begin with this?"

    "I don't know. It was pretty extraordinary and pretty hard-hitting," the reporter replied.

    Grimaldi went on to explain that Trump "trades in hyperbole," giving Clinton more fodder to work with.

    Smith interjected: "He trades in racism, doesn't he?"

    The Wall Street Journal reporter was not willing to go that far. "Well, I'll leave that up to the commentators. … I'm not one to generally label people like that, so I would pass on that question."

    [Aug 27, 2016] Killary was apparently hours late but it will never be reported by neoliberal MSM

    Notable quotes:
    "... Here is the 'furthest back' shot. TV coverage did not show these. ..."
    "... Bizzaro event. Minuscule, there is almost nobody there. It was deliberatly set up in 'small space' for the cams. The only other important ppl present are one man (Head of the college or? idk) and the Mayor of Reno. The only signs shown say *USA* are not appropriate and are whipped out only when Killary comes onstage. Doesn't even look like a Democrat event! Never mind an important campaign rally for *drum rolls* the person anointed to become Prez. of the most powerful country on Earth, the World Queen or Hegemon. ..."
    "... The US is fracturing...Moreover the speech was perhaps the weakest from any pol I have ever heard. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    Noirette | Aug 27, 2016 10:50:52 AM | 84
    Part 1. ;) Got dragged into Killary's alt-right speech at Truckee Meadows Community College, Reno, Nevada, Aug 2016. Only content: 100% against Trump , as sidebars, Alex Jones, Nigel Farage, Putin, David Duke.

    The official MSM version is 31 mins - the frame is just her with a fixed cam centered nothing around. Sparse occasional clapping (real, one can see the clappers in other vids).. She speaks as one would to a parterre of 30-50 ppl, not as in a campaign rally. A longer version (MSM) is 45 mins and shows some of the preliminaries, some guy, then the Mayor of Reno, youngish blondine, introducing her. Killary was apparently hours late. (> youtube.) Killary is dressed in green.

    To the interesting part. She spoke at the same College in Feb. 2015. Note: red dress, the brick pillars typical of the college, and the big windows behind. A big hall…

    link This shot shows the other direction, see the small windows at the side and back

    link The event has all the hallmarks of a 'proper' pol show, no need to list. Note the Hall, quite large, is not full. The signs are blue and are for Hillary, for Women, for Nevada and so on.

    Noirette | Aug 27, 2016 11:25:41 AM | 86
    Part 2. The Aug. 2016 event took place at the College but either in a small part of the back of the big hall or another locale (similar in architecture obviously)

    link The widest shot Aug. 2016. AFGE (men with black Ts) = American Federation of Gvmt. Employees.

    link Here is the 'furthest back' shot. TV coverage did not show these.

    link The only shot I could find showing the audience facing her. Note the ppl behind her facing out, i.e. the cams (shown on TV etc.) are not identifiable.

    link Bizzaro event. Minuscule, there is almost nobody there. It was deliberatly set up in 'small space' for the cams. The only other important ppl present are one man (Head of the college or? idk) and the Mayor of Reno. The only signs shown say *USA* are not appropriate and are whipped out only when Killary comes onstage. Doesn't even look like a Democrat event! Never mind an important campaign rally for *drum rolls* the person anointed to become Prez. of the most powerful country on Earth, the World Queen or Hegemon.

    After the speech, vids show H.C. talking to a very few ppl, 25 at most, not answering "reporters" questions, two tiny trays of confections were offered. Bwwahhh. She ate one choc. There was also a stop at a Reno Coffee shop (10 ppl?) which made no sense. On these occasions she is accompanied by the Mayor in a cosy girly coffee thingie. (> youtube.)

    The US is fracturing...Moreover the speech was perhaps the weakest from any pol I have ever heard.

    Jackrabbit | Aug 27, 2016 11:35:36 AM | 87
    okie farmer @80

    Strike three for Russia.

    Strike 1: Talks with KSA - no result

    Strike 2: Turkish incursion into Syria (with US blessing)

    Strike 3: Geneva Talks with Kerry - no result

    harrylaw | Aug 27, 2016 1:10:56 PM | 92
    okie farmer@80 Lavrov is on a loser if he accepts this "moderate terrorist" BS from Kerry. Those "moderates" have replaced Islamic state in Jerablus, soon to be expanded to cover that huge area between Jerablus, Azaz and Al-bab,all without a fight and apparent agreement with IS. Next could be the area is controlled by Turkish and US "moderate" head choppers, which of course nobody will be allowed to attack. They should only be called moderate if they oppose Assad and do not carry arms, otherwise its just a case of changing labels, in which case the terrorists could never lose. I find it hard to believe that so soon after the so called normalization of ties and trade deals between Russia and Turkey, Turkey could do what they have threatened to do for years, invade Syria and set up prospective no fly zones. I suppose we must wait and see, but in my opinion, it does not look good.
    jfl | Aug 27, 2016 2:30:39 PM | 93

    @92 hl,

    I agree. Russia has been stabbed in the back by Turkey, and the US is backing Turkey ... of course they were backing the Kurds, too, until they weren't.

    Erdogan is utterly unreliable ... or he is utterly reliable if you're relying on duplicity and betrayal.

    Joaquin Flores observes Syria Violence to increase: Peace talks fail as situation deteriorates . It seems that the US is just all stall, all the time. Alternating with stabs in the back. No point in talking to them ... for 12 hours?!

    [Aug 27, 2016] The Childish Villain-ification Of Donald Trump

    vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization
    Notable quotes:
    "... "As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone, is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a tyrant's court " - ..."
    "... In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism. ..."
    "... Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000; Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen. ..."
    "... Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before voting commences. ..."
    "... In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The Donald.' Sad days for the Republic. ..."
    "... US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby. ..."
    "... The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/ ..."
    "... Paul Joseph Watson responds to Hillary's racism speech - The Truth About Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufkHt8dgG8I ..."
    "... But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities, he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding, the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword, waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull? ..."
    "... All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination. The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC ..."
    "... ...Hillary is a one woman criminal enterprise and she's the monster's mother. [a comment from the intercept] ..."
    "... It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence ..."
    "... Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till some dignity. ..."
    "... Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate just said no to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation. ..."
    "... "MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative, D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years. ..."
    "... [Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...] ..."
    "... Outside the two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ..."
    "... It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help. More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans where he lags. ..."
    "... it makes the msm look like what it actually is - propaganda tool for the 1% with jackass journalists in tow.. ..."
    "... As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of issues to sway voters. ..."
    "... It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this, as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care. ..."
    "... Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention, with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also facing off with the Russians. ..."
    "... Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine. ..."
    "... It may be that, despite his rethoric, and like Oboma before him, Trump will bring all those things too, should he win, but we DO know for sure what Killary intends, because we have already seen her handywork, and she has promised more of the same ..."
    "... The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any use? ..."
    "... "What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her only way out... ..."
    "... Shillary! Such refined thinking. Face it, the US has always been corrupt. ..."
    "... If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns. ..."
    "... The foreign policy of the American ruling class, in addition to the impoverishment of American society to fund the vast military apparatus, has had the most horrifying consequences for the peoples of the countries targeted. The war fomented by the United States in Syria has reduced the population of that country from 23 million to about 17 million, killed up to half a million people, and displaced over 13 million. ..."
    "... Returning to protectionism and fair trade will lift all American boats, not just the Wall Street Zionists ..."
    "... America, despite glowing MSM BS, is on the ropes of neoliberalism. As an older American,I remember a land of plenty, with good jobs for all, instead of fast food retail hell. ..."
    "... What is unbelievable is the fact that she corruptly stole the primary with the help of the DNC and the ziomedia, but no one cares. ..."
    "... For clear light on the positive relationship between a Trump presidency and the US economy, David Stockman offers wisdom. Take a look from time to time at his website to educate yourself: http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/ ..."
    "... Now it is time for people to start saying Roberts is a shill for Trump. If you've read what he has written about Trump, he's highly critical. His point is simple: Do you support those who are so blatantly against Trump? Or, put the other way around, are you in favor of continued oligarchic rule. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    This pic comparing a young Donald Trump with a child figure in some old Nazi propaganda was posted by Doug Saunders , supposedly a serious international-affairs columnist at the Canadian Globe and Mail.

    bigger

    It is illogical, childish nonsense. But Saunders is by far the only one disqualifying himself as serious commentator by posting such bullshit. Indeed, the villain-ification of Donald Trump is a regular feature which runs through U.S. and international media from the left to the right.

    A few examples:

    1. Pinochet . Chavez . Trump? - Politico
    2. Cher compares Donald Trump to Hitler at Clinton fundraiser - Foxnews
    3. Cher Slams Trump At Clinton Fundraiser; Likens Him To Stalin - CBS
    4. Cher Compares Trump to Mao - Newsbuster
    5. Trump is the GOP's Frankenstein monster - Washington Post
    6. Biden on Trump: 'He woulda loved Stalin ' - USAToday
    7. Huffington likens Trump to Kim Jong Un - MSN
    8. What Hugo Chávez and Donald Trump have in common - Reuters
    9. The best way to thwart Trump Vader - CNN
    10. Warning From the Syrian Border: Trump Reminds Us a Bit Too Much of Assad - Rolling Stone
    11. News Quiz: Trump Rally or Erdogan Event? - The Intercept
    12. Trump & Putin . Yes, It's Really a Thing - TPM
    13. Trump's not Hitler , he's Mussolini - Salon
    14. Media ethics writer compares Trump to Hitler - Politico
    15. Donald Trump's Insane Praise of Saddam Hussein - Daily Beast
    16. Trump and Lenin - Miami Herald
    17. Insult, provoke, repeat: how Donald Trump became America's Hugo Chávez - The Guardian
    18. The Unstoppable Trump Monster - The Atlantic
    19. Donald Trump is GOP's Dark Lord Voldemort - Townhall
    20. Donald Trump is The Joker : Forget Mussolini and Hitler - Salon
    21. Donald Trump's Mansions and Saddam Hussein 's Palaces Are Basically the Same - Vanity Fair
    22. Trump and Baghdadi Join Forces - Huffington Post
    23. Echoes of Joe McCarthy in Donald Trump's Rise - RealClearPolitics
    24. Donald Trump's bromance with Vladimir Putin - CNN
    25. Trump's flirtation with fascism - Washington Post
    26. The Maoism of Donald Trump - The New Yorker.

    Is there any villain in U.S. (political) culture Donald Trump has not been compare to? Let me know what to search for.

    I doubt that this assault on Trump's character is effective. (Hillary Clinton is a more fitting object .) Potential Trump voters will at best ignore it. More likely they will feel confirmed in their belief that all media and media people are anti-Trump and pro-Clinton.

    The onslaught only validates what himself Trump claims: that all media are again him, independent of whatever policies he may promote or commit to.

    ... ... ...

    Selected Skeptical Comments
    Fernando Arauxo | Aug 26, 2016 11:41:25 AM | 2
    The jokes on them. Older voters, smarter voters are voting for Trump. If he remains on message and points out those things that do matter then he can win. He has to stop the joking around and being nasty. Be serious and get to the point.

    Jack Smith | Aug 26, 2016 12:04:00 PM | 6
    @Fernando Arauxo | Aug 26, 2016 11:41:25 AM | 2

    Trump can joke and talk all the nonsense he want, still it won't change my mind. I know Hillary including Bernie Sanders - they're from the same pot of shit.

    The only question remain, should I vote for Jill Stein to bring her Green Party percentage up? Jill Stein spoke repeatedly she will stop all aids to any country and NOT only Israel if human right are abuse - not exact words.

    Further she is a strong support of BDS even as Canada Green Party leader not in favor "Canadian MP Elizabeth May told reporters on Monday that she will stay on as leader of Canada's Green Party after saying she was considering stepping down because of her opposition to the party's recently-adopted policy of endorsing the strategy of Boycott Divest and Sanction against Israel. "

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17070

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 12:20:49 PM | 7
    For decades, at least 40 years, it was a whisper that the international medias have been sitting in the lap of a certain 3 letter agency. The mission: Manufacturing Consent by Deception. Globalism, War & Chaos brought by The Establishment owners of Deep Shadow Government. This quote from Robert Faurisson who is tagged a Halocaust denier may offend those who cannot be criticized:

    "As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone, is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a tyrant's court " -

    An old article by John Pilger via PCR War by media and the triumph of propaganda http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/12/07/guest-article-john-pilger-war-media-triumph-propaganda/

    In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism.

    ~ ~ ~

    Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000; Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen.

    Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before voting commences.

    ... ... ....

    ALberto | Aug 26, 2016 12:38:22 PM | 10
    In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The Donald.' Sad days for the Republic.

    Jackrabbit | Aug 26, 2016 12:41:44 PM | 12
    People vote against their own self interests only because bought-and-paid-for MSM and political pundits SAY that a third-party can't win.

    If everyone would simply turn off toxic media and simply vote for their best interest the establishment would stop taking us all for granted.

    What is better: Trump is elected but Obama-Hillary Democratic "Third-Way" back-stabbing sell-outs are replaced by a real left opposition led by Greens? - OR -

    Obama-Hillary fake left squashes real opposition for another 8 years while extending and deepening the soul-crushing neolib/neocon disaster?

    crv | Aug 26, 2016 12:44:04 PM | 13
    "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him."

    US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby.

    h | Aug 26, 2016 12:50:22 PM | 15
    Trump vs. Hillary: A Summation - Paul Craig Roberts
    The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 12:52:04 PM | 17
    @ rm 5 @ JS 6 @ Jr 8

    The Polls: Recall summer 1980.

    Carter (D) = 39%
    Reagan (R) = 32%
    Anderson (I) = 21%

    Who took it? Polls are still unreliable. The poll sampling is key.

    I don't have a vote. On November 08, the real problem is one of the two will be (s)elected. Your decision does weigh heavily and guarantees the selection. Can you support another 4-8 years of the certified corrupt Clinton couple?

    h | Aug 26, 2016 12:53:23 PM | 18
    Paul Joseph Watson responds to Hillary's racism speech - The Truth About Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufkHt8dgG8I

    Formerly T-Bear | Aug 26, 2016 1:05:10 PM | 21
    There is a third way to effectively cast a ballot outside the two main party's candidates and that is not to vote at all. This is effective as a historical fact that some fraction of eligible voters did not participate (whatever the cause) and the winning candidate was enabled by some plurality rather than a majority of the eligible electorate. Throwing away one's vote in a fit of moral superiority is an effective way to throw away one's voting rights, but then the 'moral majority' that wrecked the Republic never realised their culpability and still haven't. Not one of the minority candidates became anything more than a sad footnote to history - not one.
    Piotr Berman | Aug 26, 2016 1:08:48 PM | 22
    I guess instead of violating Goodwin law, or complain one-sidedly, we should eschew "Hitlery" and "fascist Trump", and find some high-brow metaphors. My proposals: Hillary and Trump

    But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities, he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding, the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword, waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull?

    karlof1 | Aug 26, 2016 1:20:22 PM | 24
    All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination. The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal. The launching of the self-proclaimed "Our Revolution" website/organization is yet another DNC-based sham that studiously avoids any mention of the military or foreign policy on its "Issues" page, which again belies its nature since the #1 issue for all Genuine Progressives is War and being against it. Still have 10 weeks to go. Stein has earned all the votes within my household.
    mischi | Aug 26, 2016 1:29:27 PM | 25
    I'm not a big fan of Trump's but I find that people don't argue about his politics, but insult him and his wife on a personal basis.

    This makes me think that it's the turn of the 'Left' in the USA to become immature and resort to name calling. Remember when it was the 'Right' that made fun of Kerry's Purple Heart?

    Which also exposes the problem with politics worldwide - the Left and the Right have met at the extremes and we now see progressives arguing for burkinis and the right arguing for workers' rights by trying to prevent the TPP, etc.

    harrylaw | Aug 26, 2016 1:44:01 PM | 26
    ...Hillary is a one woman criminal enterprise and she's the monster's mother. [a comment from the intercept]

    Stillnottheonly1 | Aug 26, 2016 1:56:02 PM | 28
    It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence - no, not the one that is derived from fancy questionnaires, or adding numbers.

    Real intelligence includes the understanding that sitting in a glasshouse throwing rocks does not qualify to be such. It also includes the understanding to be inseparable part of one's environment - a shared environment indicating that there is only interdependence, not separation.

    Furthermore, real intelligence includes compassion, kindness and the will to walk in somebody else's shoes.

    This intelligence is sorely missing in the majority of people that are entrusted with 'journalistic' work, or working in public offices. The stench of being "holier that thou" is covering the U.S.A. and wafts to Europe were it is now also modus operandi.

    The best course of action would be to punish those who engage in this kind of demagoguery with nonobservance.

    Erelis | Aug 26, 2016 2:09:44 PM | 30
    It won't be Trump who brings us fascism as the images implies, but more likely Clinton if she wins and if the Democrats can win over one of the Houses of Congress. As the campaign goes on, these comparisons add up and create in the minds of anybody anti-Trump an actual equivalency to in particular Hitler. This is one half of the combustion needed to go down the road to fascism.

    There is something else that Trump given the Russian hysteria is being called--a traitor. The thing is, Hillary supports believe this to be true in a criminal sense. It is not just some throw away smear normal for any election. I have seen way too way postings in major democratic party sites calls for basically the resurrection of the House Un-American Activities Committee. These supporters are historically clueless on what they are asking for, and I would imagine the same with much of the democratic party lawmakers in Congress.

    I can see if Hillary wins, witch hunts against anti-war protesters, or people who believe we should have rapprochement with Russia and China. The goal will be to criminalize and punish dissenting views on foreign and war policies because the constant Putin/Trump/Hitler/Stalin/etc comparisons created the foundation for actual criminal accusations.

    And the witch hunts will spread beyond war and foreign policy. Look at what is going on in Europe. Literally, and I do mean literally, every problem is being attributed to Putin "weaponizing" some issue. Serious politicians accused Putin of using drunken Russian fans during the Euro futbol championships of starting fights to support Brexit. The Polish minister for internal security accused Putin of master minding the Paris terrorist attacks. And these guys get away with the most outlandish accusations. As the real Nazis understood, repetition of lies is the foundation of propaganda to move people into action.

    harrylaw | Aug 26, 2016 2:11:35 PM | 31
    Vapors@14 Its not Boris Yeltsin, its Boris Johnson http://oi64.tinypic.com/zno56o.jpg
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 2:14:21 PM | 32
    The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal.

    Well the resident Zio-Racist Hill-shill (rufus magister | Aug 26, 2016 11:47:38 AM | 5) likes to pretend he is some sort of progressive, but still can't keep from outing himself by banging on non-stop about the Zio-Racists favourite talking points (Heil hillary and "holocaustholocaustholocaut!!")

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 2:15:41 PM | 33
    @ Alberto 10

    She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff [.]

    Very interesting because I have been discussing with colleagues here the Don should be honing his debating skill sets as Hillary is a trained lawyer/politician.

    From The Hague | Aug 26, 2016 2:22:04 PM | 34
    MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots.
    virgile | Aug 26, 2016 2:36:44 PM | 35
    Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till some dignity.

    Johan Meyer | Aug 26, 2016 3:50:48 PM | 39
    Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate just said no to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation.
    xyz | Aug 26, 2016 4:05:16 PM | 40
    Those who see Trump as some kinda Messiah need a cold shower. An ice cold one. All in all still better than war criminal Hillary.
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 4:31:43 PM | 41
    FBI Admits Clinton Used Software Designed To "Prevent Recovery" And "Hide Traces Of" Deleted Emails

    . . .Clinton's use of BleachBit undermines her claims that she only deleted innocuous "personal" emails from her private server

    "If she considered them to be personal, then she and her lawyers had those emails deleted. They didn't just push the delete button, they had them deleted where even God can't read them.

    "They were using something called BleachBit You don't use BleachBit for yoga emails."

    "When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see."

    meok | Aug 26, 2016 4:37:40 PM | 43
    The Bilderbeg group meeting has already decided who should become president, the media has been ordered to get this person elected.
    rg the lg | Aug 26, 2016 4:51:43 PM | 44
    Wow!

    Vitriol galore! If the arguments made above ... either way ... are the best we can do then maybe electing Hillary and hoping for WW3 is the lessor of evils. As I've said before, not a bad idea.

    On the other hand, did anyone read what Eric Zuesse had to say: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/08/23/hellish-end-soon-record-high-likelihood-both-nuclear-burnout.html

    Kinda puts real hope in all of your scenarios.

    Stillnottheonly1 | Aug 26, 2016 5:07:58 PM | 45
    Posted by: From The Hague | Aug 26, 2016 2:22:04 PM | 34

    "MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative, D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years.

    To be bold here: a 'left' mother loves her child as much as a 'right' mother and even more so the grandparents. Any grandparent here that denies their grandchildren their love based on the fact that their children cling on to a different belief? And that it is in its entirety - made believe by the Plutocrats and the sheople throw shit at each other instead of UPWARDS .

    Oui | Aug 26, 2016 5:12:26 PM | 48
    Two Worst Possible Candidates Running for U.S. Presidency

    [Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...]

    Just yesterday, one of Britain's most prominent right-wing leaders, Nigel Farage, who stoked anti-immigrant sentiments to win the referendum on leaving the European Union, campaigned with Donald Trump in Mississippi. Farage has called for a ban on the children of legal immigrants from public schools and health services, has said women are quote "worth less" than men, and supports scrapping laws that prevent employers from discriminating based on race ― that's who Trump wants by his side.

    The godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    In fact, Farage has appeared regularly on Russian propaganda programs. Now he's standing on the same stage as the Republican nominee.

    Tim808 | Aug 26, 2016 5:29:02 PM | 51
    Hatred of Trump is nothing more than cloaked Jewish hatred of white Christians. Go ahead and take my comment down, but you are too smart to not know the truth deep down in your heart. This above all else, lie to yourself to protect the Jewish lies.
    Formerly T-Bear | Aug 26, 2016 5:31:02 PM | 52
    About the most successful 'breakaway political movement' ever was probably the Dixiecrats in the 1948 election which actually garnered a small fraction of the electoral college, but that was using the apparatus of an organised national political party existent regionally. Outside the two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ...Next time keep your idiot elections to yourselves - Please.
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 5:33:47 PM | 53
    Philip Giraldi• August 23, 2016 - http://www.unz.com/article/are-the-clintons-israeli-agents/

    On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled his New York Times op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the process whereby Trump had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career intelligence officer, is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities… In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.

    And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.

    =====

    So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.

    And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 26, 2016 6:03:50 PM | 54
    Tom @38: "Trump the racist Appealing to African-Americans was just a demented and sick desperate joke. "

    It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help. More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans where he lags.

    ... ... ...

    james | Aug 26, 2016 8:13:11 PM | 57
    @55 virgile.. either that, or it makes the msm look like what it actually is - propaganda tool for the 1% with jackass journalists in tow..
    Michael | Aug 26, 2016 8:32:03 PM | 58
    As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of issues to sway voters.

    It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this, as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care.

    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 8:57:05 PM | 59
    Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention, with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also facing off with the Russians.

    Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine.

    Make no mistake about that, these shitty Hillary-supporting people cannot claim that they do not know what that that is what they are doing, because she has been quite vocal in her support for more war and more murder (on behalf of Isreal naturally)

    It may be that, despite his rethoric, and like Oboma before him, Trump will bring all those things too, should he win, but we DO know for sure what Killary intends, because we have already seen her handywork, and she has promised more of the same

    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 9:43:14 PM | 61
    The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any use?

    When did it ever change anything? You going to have to come up with something a tad more effective than mere voting if you want it to change. Personally I think the US deserves a Trump presidency.

    ProPeace | Aug 26, 2016 10:37:23 PM | 66
    @jawbone | Aug 26, 2016 10:19:23 PM | 65

    "What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her only way out...

    Look what they did to Reagan and the pope JP2 - GHWB failed with his assassins, but after the attempts, both these puppets were basically doing what told, with only little freedom left to do some good things (served well for maintaining appearances).

    Which brings again that question to my mind - why did they let Hinckley the patsy out recently, what's he's being set up for..?

    rg the lg | Aug 26, 2016 11:35:54 PM | 67
    Oooo! Shillary! Such refined thinking. Face it, the US has always been corrupt. "The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry" reviewed here: http://www.chicagoreviewpress.com/american-slave-coast--the-products-9781613748206.php says it all. Thomas Jefferson, a hero? What about George Washington, the land owner? Trump and Clinton are only unusual in that most Duhmericans have finally no choice but to admit they are venal. Stein, who could NEVER win, seems honorable. Johnson may be a wacked out libertarian, but he is a well meaning wacko.

    Great choices for the great democracy, light of the world, exceptional nation! I agree, Duhmerican politics are stupid ... the dumbest people in the world make it so. Then again, is any place humans habitate NOT idiotically insane stupid?

    Peter AU | Aug 26, 2016 11:49:22 PM | 68
    "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him."

    If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns.

    jfl | Aug 27, 2016 5:37:15 AM | 76
    @71, hoarse

    The Godfather image is a popular one these days. The Godmother use it to deflect attention from her own role as cackling harridan, wailing banshee of DDD&D ... others note that "Godfather" Biden visits Turkey

    The foreign policy of the American ruling class, in addition to the impoverishment of American society to fund the vast military apparatus, has had the most horrifying consequences for the peoples of the countries targeted. The war fomented by the United States in Syria has reduced the population of that country from 23 million to about 17 million, killed up to half a million people, and displaced over 13 million.

    Thirteen years after the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of at least a million people, some 4.4 million Iraqis are internally displaced, with over a quarter million forced to flee the country.

    Questions of foreign policy are not decided, much less deliberated, within the framework of elections. Nowhere in the 2016 presidential race is there a serious debate, for instance, on the character of the US alliance with Turkey or the consequences of launching a de facto NATO invasion of Syria. Congress holds no hearings or votes. It neither seeks nor desires to play a serious role.

    As for the people, they simply have no say.

    The press plays a key role in the deception and disenfranchisement of the population. One tactic employed by the corporate-controlled media is simply to exclude "minor" developments such as a US-backed invasion of Syria from the so-called "news." The most remarkable feature of the media coverage to date of the Turkish incursion is its virtual non-existence. It is a good bet, due to the media's corrupt silence, that the percentage of the US population that is even aware of the invasion is in the single digits.

    dahoit | Aug 27, 2016 9:05:41 AM | 81
    Returning to protectionism and fair trade will lift all American boats, not just the Wall Street Zionists, so I am perplexed at b's comment.

    America, despite glowing MSM BS, is on the ropes of neoliberalism. As an older American,I remember a land of plenty, with good jobs for all, instead of fast food retail hell.

    I don't think b has any idea of the realities being endured by US, as the media refuses to give US reality ,instead rosy economic garbage where not once in Obombas terrible reign have they created enough jobs to keep up with the expanding population, and as DT says ,the inner cities are hellholes, witness the NBA star Dwayne Wades cousin shot in Chicago pushing a baby stroller.

    I had a nurse from Hempstead NY, when i had the big C, who said an old man in a wheelchair had a pit bull tied to it to ward off potential crooks. WTF?
    And now the antisemitism card is played by the serial liars, Bannon is accused of calling Jews whiny. Well ,as a longtime observer, he is spot on there.

    And the lying times says 90% chance for Hell bitch victory.

    Will saying it so often make it so? Nah.

    dahoit | Aug 27, 2016 9:28:45 AM | 82
    What is unbelievable is the fact that she corruptly stole the primary with the help of the DNC and the ziomedia, but no one cares.(her supporters) If not emblematic of the depravity of liberals, those who wish the death of others so they live in safety (which of course is poppycock) what is?

    And when Trump gets her in the debates, he'll destroy the MSM narrative of BS.

    Karl Pomeroy | Aug 27, 2016 12:29:37 PM | 90
    There is one villain Trump has not been compared to: Hillary Clinton.

    And don't be the kettle calling the pot black, whoever the author of this ill-researched piece is. Your own journalism strikes me as irresponsible when you claim, "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him." Catastrophic? Really? Who exactly is "most likely to vote for him" that would not benefit from better trade deals and more corporate incentives for domestic business? The global elite? They're the ones who definitely won't benefit, but they also definitely won't vote for him. Get your thinking straight.

    For clear light on the positive relationship between a Trump presidency and the US economy, David Stockman offers wisdom. Take a look from time to time at his website to educate yourself: http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/

    Jackrabbit | Aug 27, 2016 12:32:46 PM | 91
    Curis @88

    I linked to the full report in the Open Thread

    rg the lg | Aug 27, 2016 2:31:01 PM | 94
    Here's a thought:

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/

    Now it is time for people to start saying Roberts is a shill for Trump. If you've read what he has written about Trump, he's highly critical. His point is simple: Do you support those who are so blatantly against Trump? Or, put the other way around, are you in favor of continued oligarchic rule.

    Like Roberts, I am so opposed to Clinton that Trump seems (even ever so slightly) the lessor of evils.

    Unlike Roberts, I think Stein our best bet.

    AtaBrit | Aug 27, 2016 2:52:27 PM | 95
    @b
    Here's a couple for you ...

    1 "Donald Trump is worse than Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"
    www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12182955/Donald-Trump-is-worse-than-Irans-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad.html

    2 "Donald Trump Is America's Gift To Bin Laden"
    www.huffpost.com/us/entry/10445156

    [Aug 27, 2016] M of A - The Childish Villain-ification Of Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... "As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone, is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a tyrant's court " - ..."
    "... In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism. ..."
    "... Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000; Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen. ..."
    "... Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before voting commences. ..."
    "... In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The Donald.' Sad days for the Republic. ..."
    "... US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby. ..."
    "... The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/ ..."
    "... Paul Joseph Watson responds to Hillary's racism speech - The Truth About Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufkHt8dgG8I ..."
    "... But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities, he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding, the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword, waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull? ..."
    "... All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination. The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC ..."
    "... ...Hillary is a one woman criminal enterprise and she's the monster's mother. [a comment from the intercept] ..."
    "... It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence ..."
    "... Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till some dignity. ..."
    "... Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate just said no to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation. ..."
    "... "MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative, D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years. ..."
    "... [Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...] ..."
    "... Outside the two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ..."
    "... It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help. More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans where he lags. ..."
    "... it makes the msm look like what it actually is - propaganda tool for the 1% with jackass journalists in tow.. ..."
    "... As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of issues to sway voters. ..."
    "... It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this, as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care. ..."
    "... Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention, with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also facing off with the Russians. ..."
    "... Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine. ..."
    "... The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any use? ..."
    "... "What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her only way out... ..."
    "... If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    This pic comparing a young Donald Trump with a child figure in some old Nazi propaganda was posted by Doug Saunders , supposedly a serious international-affairs columnist at the Canadian Globe and Mail.

    bigger

    It is illogical, childish nonsense. But Saunders is by far the only one disqualifying himself as serious commentator by posting such bullshit. Indeed, the villain-ification of Donald Trump is a regular feature which runs through U.S. and international media from the left to the right.

    A few examples:

    1. Pinochet . Chavez . Trump? - Politico
    2. Cher compares Donald Trump to Hitler at Clinton fundraiser - Foxnews
    3. Cher Slams Trump At Clinton Fundraiser; Likens Him To Stalin - CBS
    4. Cher Compares Trump to Mao - Newsbuster
    5. Trump is the GOP's Frankenstein monster - Washington Post
    6. Biden on Trump: 'He woulda loved Stalin ' - USAToday
    7. Huffington likens Trump to Kim Jong Un - MSN
    8. What Hugo Chávez and Donald Trump have in common - Reuters
    9. The best way to thwart Trump Vader - CNN
    10. Warning From the Syrian Border: Trump Reminds Us a Bit Too Much of Assad - Rolling Stone
    11. News Quiz: Trump Rally or Erdogan Event? - The Intercept
    12. Trump & Putin . Yes, It's Really a Thing - TPM
    13. Trump's not Hitler , he's Mussolini - Salon
    14. Media ethics writer compares Trump to Hitler - Politico
    15. Donald Trump's Insane Praise of Saddam Hussein - Daily Beast
    16. Trump and Lenin - Miami Herald
    17. Insult, provoke, repeat: how Donald Trump became America's Hugo Chávez - The Guardian
    18. The Unstoppable Trump Monster - The Atlantic
    19. Donald Trump is GOP's Dark Lord Voldemort - Townhall
    20. Donald Trump is The Joker : Forget Mussolini and Hitler - Salon
    21. Donald Trump's Mansions and Saddam Hussein 's Palaces Are Basically the Same - Vanity Fair
    22. Trump and Baghdadi Join Forces - Huffington Post
    23. Echoes of Joe McCarthy in Donald Trump's Rise - RealClearPolitics
    24. Donald Trump's bromance with Vladimir Putin - CNN
    25. Trump's flirtation with fascism - Washington Post
    26. The Maoism of Donald Trump - The New Yorker.

    Is there any villain in U.S. (political) culture Donald Trump has not been compare to? Let me know what to search for.

    I doubt that this assault on Trump's character is effective. (Hillary Clinton is a more fitting object .) Potential Trump voters will at best ignore it. More likely they will feel confirmed in their belief that all media and media people are anti-Trump and pro-Clinton.

    The onslaught only validates what himself Trump claims: that all media are again him, independent of whatever policies he may promote or commit to.

    ... ... ...

    Selected Skeptical Comments
    Fernando Arauxo | Aug 26, 2016 11:41:25 AM | 2
    The jokes on them. Older voters, smarter voters are voting for Trump. If he remains on message and points out those things that do matter then he can win. He has to stop the joking around and being nasty. Be serious and get to the point.

    Jack Smith | Aug 26, 2016 12:04:00 PM | 6
    @Fernando Arauxo | Aug 26, 2016 11:41:25 AM | 2

    Trump can joke and talk all the nonsense he want, still it won't change my mind. I know Hillary including Bernie Sanders - they're from the same pot of shit.

    The only question remain, should I vote for Jill Stein to bring her Green Party percentage up? Jill Stein spoke repeatedly she will stop all aids to any country and NOT only Israel if human right are abuse - not exact words.

    Further she is a strong support of BDS even as Canada Green Party leader not in favor "Canadian MP Elizabeth May told reporters on Monday that she will stay on as leader of Canada's Green Party after saying she was considering stepping down because of her opposition to the party's recently-adopted policy of endorsing the strategy of Boycott Divest and Sanction against Israel. "

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17070

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 12:20:49 PM | 7
    For decades, at least 40 years, it was a whisper that the international medias have been sitting in the lap of a certain 3 letter agency. The mission: Manufacturing Consent by Deception. Globalism, War & Chaos brought by The Establishment owners of Deep Shadow Government. This quote from Robert Faurisson who is tagged a Halocaust denier may offend those who cannot be criticized:

    "As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone, is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a tyrant's court " -

    An old article by John Pilger via PCR War by media and the triumph of propaganda http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/12/07/guest-article-john-pilger-war-media-triumph-propaganda/

    In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism.

    ~ ~ ~

    Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000; Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen.

    Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before voting commences.

    ... ... ....

    ALberto | Aug 26, 2016 12:38:22 PM | 10
    In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The Donald.' Sad days for the Republic.

    Jackrabbit | Aug 26, 2016 12:41:44 PM | 12
    People vote against their own self interests only because bought-and-paid-for MSM and political pundits SAY that a third-party can't win.

    If everyone would simply turn off toxic media and simply vote for their best interest the establishment would stop taking us all for granted.

    What is better: Trump is elected but Obama-Hillary Democratic "Third-Way" back-stabbing sell-outs are replaced by a real left opposition led by Greens? - OR -

    Obama-Hillary fake left squashes real opposition for another 8 years while extending and deepening the soul-crushing neolib/neocon disaster?

    crv | Aug 26, 2016 12:44:04 PM | 13
    "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him."

    US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby.

    h | Aug 26, 2016 12:50:22 PM | 15
    Trump vs. Hillary: A Summation - Paul Craig Roberts
    The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 12:52:04 PM | 17
    @ rm 5 @ JS 6 @ Jr 8

    The Polls: Recall summer 1980.

    Carter (D) = 39%
    Reagan (R) = 32%
    Anderson (I) = 21%

    Who took it? Polls are still unreliable. The poll sampling is key.

    I don't have a vote. On November 08, the real problem is one of the two will be (s)elected. Your decision does weigh heavily and guarantees the selection. Can you support another 4-8 years of the certified corrupt Clinton couple?

    h | Aug 26, 2016 12:53:23 PM | 18
    Paul Joseph Watson responds to Hillary's racism speech - The Truth About Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufkHt8dgG8I

    Formerly T-Bear | Aug 26, 2016 1:05:10 PM | 21
    There is a third way to effectively cast a ballot outside the two main party's candidates and that is not to vote at all. This is effective as a historical fact that some fraction of eligible voters did not participate (whatever the cause) and the winning candidate was enabled by some plurality rather than a majority of the eligible electorate. Throwing away one's vote in a fit of moral superiority is an effective way to throw away one's voting rights, but then the 'moral majority' that wrecked the Republic never realised their culpability and still haven't. Not one of the minority candidates became anything more than a sad footnote to history - not one.
    Piotr Berman | Aug 26, 2016 1:08:48 PM | 22
    I guess instead of violating Goodwin law, or complain one-sidedly, we should eschew "Hitlery" and "fascist Trump", and find some high-brow metaphors. My proposals: Hillary and Trump

    But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities, he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding, the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword, waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull?

    karlof1 | Aug 26, 2016 1:20:22 PM | 24
    All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination. The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal. The launching of the self-proclaimed "Our Revolution" website/organization is yet another DNC-based sham that studiously avoids any mention of the military or foreign policy on its "Issues" page, which again belies its nature since the #1 issue for all Genuine Progressives is War and being against it. Still have 10 weeks to go. Stein has earned all the votes within my household.
    mischi | Aug 26, 2016 1:29:27 PM | 25
    I'm not a big fan of Trump's but I find that people don't argue about his politics, but insult him and his wife on a personal basis.

    This makes me think that it's the turn of the 'Left' in the USA to become immature and resort to name calling. Remember when it was the 'Right' that made fun of Kerry's Purple Heart?

    Which also exposes the problem with politics worldwide - the Left and the Right have met at the extremes and we now see progressives arguing for burkinis and the right arguing for workers' rights by trying to prevent the TPP, etc.

    harrylaw | Aug 26, 2016 1:44:01 PM | 26
    ...Hillary is a one woman criminal enterprise and she's the monster's mother. [a comment from the intercept]

    Stillnottheonly1 | Aug 26, 2016 1:56:02 PM | 28
    It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence - no, not the one that is derived from fancy questionnaires, or adding numbers.

    Real intelligence includes the understanding that sitting in a glasshouse throwing rocks does not qualify to be such. It also includes the understanding to be inseparable part of one's environment - a shared environment indicating that there is only interdependence, not separation.

    Furthermore, real intelligence includes compassion, kindness and the will to walk in somebody else's shoes.

    This intelligence is sorely missing in the majority of people that are entrusted with 'journalistic' work, or working in public offices. The stench of being "holier that thou" is covering the U.S.A. and wafts to Europe were it is now also modus operandi.

    The best course of action would be to punish those who engage in this kind of demagoguery with nonobservance.

    Erelis | Aug 26, 2016 2:09:44 PM | 30
    It won't be Trump who brings us fascism as the images implies, but more likely Clinton if she wins and if the Democrats can win over one of the Houses of Congress. As the campaign goes on, these comparisons add up and create in the minds of anybody anti-Trump an actual equivalency to in particular Hitler. This is one half of the combustion needed to go down the road to fascism.

    There is something else that Trump given the Russian hysteria is being called--a traitor. The thing is, Hillary supports believe this to be true in a criminal sense. It is not just some throw away smear normal for any election. I have seen way too way postings in major democratic party sites calls for basically the resurrection of the House Un-American Activities Committee. These supporters are historically clueless on what they are asking for, and I would imagine the same with much of the democratic party lawmakers in Congress.

    I can see if Hillary wins, witch hunts against anti-war protesters, or people who believe we should have rapprochement with Russia and China. The goal will be to criminalize and punish dissenting views on foreign and war policies because the constant Putin/Trump/Hitler/Stalin/etc comparisons created the foundation for actual criminal accusations.

    And the witch hunts will spread beyond war and foreign policy. Look at what is going on in Europe. Literally, and I do mean literally, every problem is being attributed to Putin "weaponizing" some issue. Serious politicians accused Putin of using drunken Russian fans during the Euro futbol championships of starting fights to support Brexit. The Polish minister for internal security accused Putin of master minding the Paris terrorist attacks. And these guys get away with the most outlandish accusations. As the real Nazis understood, repetition of lies is the foundation of propaganda to move people into action.

    harrylaw | Aug 26, 2016 2:11:35 PM | 31
    Vapors@14 Its not Boris Yeltsin, its Boris Johnson http://oi64.tinypic.com/zno56o.jpg
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 2:14:21 PM | 32
    The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal.

    Well the resident Zio-Racist Hill-shill (rufus magister | Aug 26, 2016 11:47:38 AM | 5) likes to pretend he is some sort of progressive, but still can't keep from outing himself by banging on non-stop about the Zio-Racists favourite talking points (Heil hillary and "holocaustholocaustholocaut!!")

    likklemore | Aug 26, 2016 2:15:41 PM | 33
    @ Alberto 10

    She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff [.]

    Very interesting because I have been discussing with colleagues here the Don should be honing his debating skill sets as Hillary is a trained lawyer/politician.

    From The Hague | Aug 26, 2016 2:22:04 PM | 34
    MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots.
    virgile | Aug 26, 2016 2:36:44 PM | 35
    Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till some dignity.

    Johan Meyer | Aug 26, 2016 3:50:48 PM | 39
    Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate just said no to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation.
    xyz | Aug 26, 2016 4:05:16 PM | 40
    Those who see Trump as some kinda Messiah need a cold shower. An ice cold one. All in all still better than war criminal Hillary.
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 4:31:43 PM | 41
    FBI Admits Clinton Used Software Designed To "Prevent Recovery" And "Hide Traces Of" Deleted Emails

    . . .Clinton's use of BleachBit undermines her claims that she only deleted innocuous "personal" emails from her private server

    "If she considered them to be personal, then she and her lawyers had those emails deleted. They didn't just push the delete button, they had them deleted where even God can't read them.

    "They were using something called BleachBit You don't use BleachBit for yoga emails."

    "When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see."

    meok | Aug 26, 2016 4:37:40 PM | 43
    The Bilderbeg group meeting has already decided who should become president, the media has been ordered to get this person elected.
    rg the lg | Aug 26, 2016 4:51:43 PM | 44
    Wow!

    Vitriol galore! If the arguments made above ... either way ... are the best we can do then maybe electing Hillary and hoping for WW3 is the lessor of evils. As I've said before, not a bad idea.

    On the other hand, did anyone read what Eric Zuesse had to say: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/08/23/hellish-end-soon-record-high-likelihood-both-nuclear-burnout.html

    Kinda puts real hope in all of your scenarios.

    Stillnottheonly1 | Aug 26, 2016 5:07:58 PM | 45
    Posted by: From The Hague | Aug 26, 2016 2:22:04 PM | 34

    "MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative, D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years.

    To be bold here: a 'left' mother loves her child as much as a 'right' mother and even more so the grandparents. Any grandparent here that denies their grandchildren their love based on the fact that their children cling on to a different belief? And that it is in its entirety - made believe by the Plutocrats and the sheople throw shit at each other instead of UPWARDS .

    Oui | Aug 26, 2016 5:12:26 PM | 48
    Two Worst Possible Candidates Running for U.S. Presidency

    [Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...]

    Just yesterday, one of Britain's most prominent right-wing leaders, Nigel Farage, who stoked anti-immigrant sentiments to win the referendum on leaving the European Union, campaigned with Donald Trump in Mississippi. Farage has called for a ban on the children of legal immigrants from public schools and health services, has said women are quote "worth less" than men, and supports scrapping laws that prevent employers from discriminating based on race ― that's who Trump wants by his side.

    The godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    In fact, Farage has appeared regularly on Russian propaganda programs. Now he's standing on the same stage as the Republican nominee.

    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 5:22:34 PM | 50
    Lol PRAVDA

    During a campaign rally in Nevada, US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke about the dangers of right-wing forces in power, as well as about problems of racism. "Clinton noted that her rival Donald Trump supported the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin. As for relations with Russia, the views of Donald Trump come contrary to the views of all American presidents, from "Truman to Reagan."

    "He talks casually of abandoning our NATO allies, recognizing Russia's annexation of Crimea, giving the Kremlin a free hand in eastern Europe. American presidents from Truman, to Reagan, to Bush, to Clinton, to Obama have rejected the kind of approach Trump is taking on Russia. And we should, too," Clinton said.

    "Vladimir Putin is the grand-godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism.", Hillary Clinton said", (while standing in front of a gigantic American Flag, without a trace of Irony detectable in her voice)

    Tim808 | Aug 26, 2016 5:29:02 PM | 51
    Hatred of Trump is nothing more than cloaked Jewish hatred of white Christians. Go ahead and take my comment down, but you are too smart to not know the truth deep down in your heart. This above all else, lie to yourself to protect the Jewish lies.
    Formerly T-Bear | Aug 26, 2016 5:31:02 PM | 52
    About the most successful 'breakaway political movement' ever was probably the Dixiecrats in the 1948 election which actually garnered a small fraction of the electoral college, but that was using the apparatus of an organised national political party existent regionally. Outside the two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ...Next time keep your idiot elections to yourselves - Please.
    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 5:33:47 PM | 53
    Philip Giraldi• August 23, 2016 - http://www.unz.com/article/are-the-clintons-israeli-agents/

    On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled his New York Times op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the process whereby Trump had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career intelligence officer, is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities… In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.

    And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.

    =====

    So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.

    And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 26, 2016 6:03:50 PM | 54
    Tom @38: "Trump the racist Appealing to African-Americans was just a demented and sick desperate joke. "

    It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help. More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans where he lags.

    However, a position that he is not racist is ... misguided, say. Through most of his life, Trump simply donated to all elected politicians in areas where he was doing business, as it is apparently necessary for every serious developer. But in recent years he became sort of Republican activists, and his premiere issue was "birthism". A conspiracy theory alleging that Obama was born abroad. Incidentally, Ted Cruz was born abroad, in Canada, of non-citizen father and American citizen mother, and, surprise, surprise, he is perfectly eligible to run for President, but simple legal arguments like that, not to mention actual documents from a hospital in Hawaii did not satisfy the insane crowd. The only motivation that is non-insane is ugly: harping on "otherness" of mix-race President with Muslim first name and African last name.

    Or Trump harping that he would be more successful in foreign policy because he would be "more respected" than a women or a Black boy.

    Trump supports police brutality, down to gunning down unarmed poor folks (to err on the side of caution) and death penalty, for innocently accused as it turned later. Somehow a white person killing poor women and refrigerating the corpses does not lead to conniptions and full page newspaper ads, unlike black youth accused of rape. This is really harking to good old time of lynch mobs. LITERALLY.

    And this: "Trump blamed financial difficulties partly on African American accountants.

    "I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza - black guys counting my money!" O'Donnell's book quoted Trump as saying. "I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else. . . . Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is; I believe that. It's not anything they can control."

    james | Aug 26, 2016 8:13:11 PM | 57
    @55 virgile.. either that, or it makes the msm look like what it actually is - propaganda tool for the 1% with jackass journalists in tow..
    Michael | Aug 26, 2016 8:32:03 PM | 58
    As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of issues to sway voters.

    It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this, as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care.

    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 8:57:05 PM | 59
    Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention, with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also facing off with the Russians.

    Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine.

    Make no mistake about that, these shitty Hillary-supporting people cannot claim that they do not know what that that is what they are doing, because she has been quite vocal in her support for more war and more murder (on behalf of Isreal naturally)

    It may be that, despite his rethoric, and like Oboma before him, Trump will bring all those things too, should he win, but we DO know for sure what Killary intends, because we have already seen her handywork, and she has promised more of the same

    Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 9:43:14 PM | 61
    The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any use?

    When did it ever change anything?

    You going to have to come up with something a tad more effective than mere voting if you want it to change.

    Personally I think the US deserves a Trump presidency.

    fairleft | Aug 26, 2016 9:51:02 PM | 62
    Rufus at 19: why link to irrelevant OT wikipedia?

    There's Hillary, whose delusion is that she has any political game. Certainly not enough to get elected President, even against a reality TV host. Then there's Donald, whose delusion is that he actually _is_ the person he plays on TV.

    In the midst of the insanity is Jill. JIILLLLLLL people!

    OT, but did Bill marry Hill as a firewall against any possibility he might act on his more than occasional human/humane instincts? She certainly would have none of that, he must've known. NOTHING must stand in the way of ambition.

    jawbone | Aug 26, 2016 10:19:23 PM | 65
    virgile | Aug 26, 2016 2:36:44 PM | 35 --

    What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign (or whatever verb works for this presidential nominee situation), Apologize to all the voters who chose her. Explain that she would probably be impeached and would be essentially neutered. She should then tell the public that Bernie Sanders would do the best for all the people of this nation.

    Like that will ever happen....

    ProPeace | Aug 26, 2016 10:37:23 PM | 66
    @jawbone | Aug 26, 2016 10:19:23 PM | 65

    "What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her only way out...

    Look what they did to Reagan and the pope JP2 - GHWB failed with his assassins, but after the attempts, both these puppets were basically doing what told, with only little freedom left to do some good things (served well for maintaining appearances).

    Which brings again that question to my mind - why did they let Hinckley the patsy out recently, what's he's being set up for..?

    rg the lg | Aug 26, 2016 11:35:54 PM | 67
    Oooo! Shillary! Such refined thinking. Face it, the US has always been corrupt. "The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry" reviewed here: http://www.chicagoreviewpress.com/american-slave-coast--the-products-9781613748206.php says it all. Thomas Jefferson, a hero? What about George Washington, the land owner? Trump and Clinton are only unusual in that most Duhmericans have finally no choice but to admit they are venal. Stein, who could NEVER win, seems honorable. Johnson may be a wacked out libertarian, but he is a well meaning wacko.

    Great choices for the great democracy, light of the world, exceptional nation!

    I agree, Duhmerican politics are stupid ... the dumbest people in the world make it so. Then again, is any place humans habitate NOT idiotically insane stupid?

    Peter AU | Aug 26, 2016 11:49:22 PM | 68
    "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him."

    If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns.

    fairleft | Aug 27, 2016 12:26:03 AM | 69
    Peter at 68: No, that's conventional economic thinking. Americans or any people will have good economic times if the government stimulates the economy in ways that grow high-paying jobs, restructures economic power toward workers, and massively redistributes income to the middle and working classes. Empire or no Empire.

    paul | Aug 27, 2016 1:44:53 AM | 70
    If only Trump were like Hugo Chavez, right?!

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 27, 2016 2:55:01 AM | 71
    ...
    "Vladimir Putin is the grand-godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism.", Hillary Clinton said, (while standing in front of a gigantic American Flag, without a trace of Irony detectable in her voice).
    Posted by: Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 5:22:34 PM | 50

    Yep. Dangerously stupid.
    Superficial and self-absorbed Hollywoodishness; the polar opposite of self-aware.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 27, 2016 3:06:01 AM | 72
    Clinton = Drama without empathy.

    Johan Meyer | Aug 27, 2016 3:10:47 AM | 73
    The best though in that photo is the wolfsangel---last I checked, it was Hillary that had the ties to pravyy sektor...

    harrylaw | Aug 27, 2016 3:13:03 AM | 74
    Paul@70 Even the "socialist" Sanders thought, Hugo Chávez is Just a Dead Communist Dictator.

    cahaba | Aug 27, 2016 4:29:09 AM | 75
    Blonde hair. Blue eyes.

    It's not "childish", b, it's straight-up racism.

    Do we really need to go into the whole "dumb blonde" meme that has permeated media for decades?

    jfl | Aug 27, 2016 5:37:15 AM | 76
    @71, hoarse

    The Godfather image is a popular one these days. The Godmother use it to deflect attention from her own role as cackling harridan, wailing banshee of DDD&D ... others note that "Godfather" Biden visits Turkey


    The foreign policy of the American ruling class, in addition to the impoverishment of American society to fund the vast military apparatus, has had the most horrifying consequences for the peoples of the countries targeted. The war fomented by the United States in Syria has reduced the population of that country from 23 million to about 17 million, killed up to half a million people, and displaced over 13 million.

    Thirteen years after the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of at least a million people, some 4.4 million Iraqis are internally displaced, with over a quarter million forced to flee the country.

    Questions of foreign policy are not decided, much less deliberated, within the framework of elections. Nowhere in the 2016 presidential race is there a serious debate, for instance, on the character of the US alliance with Turkey or the consequences of launching a de facto NATO invasion of Syria. Congress holds no hearings or votes. It neither seeks nor desires to play a serious role.

    As for the people, they simply have no say.

    The press plays a key role in the deception and disenfranchisement of the population. One tactic employed by the corporate-controlled media is simply to exclude "minor" developments such as a US-backed invasion of Syria from the so-called "news." The most remarkable feature of the media coverage to date of the Turkish incursion is its virtual non-existence. It is a good bet, due to the media's corrupt silence, that the percentage of the US population that is even aware of the invasion is in the single digits.

    TheRealDonald | Aug 27, 2016 6:12:11 AM | 77
    11

    You forgot to add: "anyone who willfully votes for either Red Donald or Blue Hillary is a moral leper, ...one who will still have to cough up a $4.5 TRILLION King's Ransom on April 15th for Mil.Gov.Fed metastasizing Technocracy, regardless, and still have to pay $650 BILLION a year of that YUUGE ransom in interest-only debt (sic) tithes to The Chosen."

    Shillary @50 -- Hillary Clinton is completely devoid of any sense of irony or humour. She's a complete emotional and, I would add, intellectual dud. She seems to be a good lawyer, though --- in the US lawyers as far as the eye can see.

    Posted by: Quentin | Aug 27, 2016 6:32:49 AM | 78

    Shillary @50 -- Hillary Clinton is completely devoid of any sense of irony or humour. She's a complete emotional and, I would add, intellectual dud. She seems to be a good lawyer, though --- in the US lawyers as far as the eye can see.

    Posted by: Quentin | Aug 27, 2016 6:32:49 AM | 78

    Stephane | Aug 27, 2016 8:15:02 AM | 79
    Typos:

    is by far the only one

    has not been compare to

    are again him

    would be more effect in

    okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80
    OT
    GENEVA - The United States and Russia say they have resolved a number of issues standing in the way of restoring a nationwide truce to Syria and opening up aid deliveries, but were unable once again to forge a comprehensive agreement on stepping up cooperation to end the brutal war that has killed hundreds of thousands.

    After meeting off-and-on for nearly 10 hours in Geneva on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov could point to only incremental progress in filling in details of a broad understanding to boost joint efforts that was reached last month in Moscow.

    Their failure to reach an overall deal highlighted the increasingly complex situation on the ground in Syria - including new Russian-backed Syrian government attacks on opposition forces, the intermingling of some of those opposition forces with an al-Qaida affiliate not covered by the truce and the surrender of a rebel-held suburb of Damascus - as well as deep divisions and mistrust dividing Washington and Moscow.

    The complexities have also grown with the increasing internationalization of what has largely become a proxy war between regional and world powers, highlighted by a move by Turkish troops across the Syrian border against Islamic State fighters this week.

    Kerry said he and Lavrov had agreed on the "vast majority" of technical discussions on steps to reinstate a cease-fire and improve humanitarian access. But critical sticking points remain unresolved and experts will remain in Geneva with an eye toward finalizing those in the coming days, he said.
    ```
    Lavrov echoed that, saying "we still need to finalize a few issues" and pointed to the need to separate fighters from the al-Nusra Front, which has ties to al-Qaida, from U.S.-backed fighters who hold parts of northwest Syria.

    "We have continued our efforts to reduce the areas where we lack understanding and trust, which is an achievement," Lavrov said. "The mutual trust is growing with every meeting."

    Yet, it was clear that neither side believes an overall agreement is imminent or even achievable after numerous previous disappointments shattered a brief period of relative calm earlier this year.

    The inability to wrest an agreement between Russia and the U.S. - as the major sponsors of the opposing sides in the stalled Syria peace talks - all but spells another missed deadline for the U.N. Syria envoy to get the Syrian government and "moderate" opposition back to the table.
    ```
    In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed the importance of keeping the details secret.
    ```
    And, underscoring deep differences over developments on the ground, Kerry noted that Russia disputes the U.S. "narrative" of recent attacks on heavily populated areas being conducted by Syrian forces, Russia itself and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia. Russia maintains the attacks it has been involved in have targeted legitimate terrorist targets, while the U.S. says they have hit moderate opposition forces.
    ~~~
    At the same time, the Obama administration is not of one mind regarding the Russians. The Pentagon has publicly complained about getting drawn into greater cooperation with Russia even though it has been forced recently to expand communication with Moscow. Last week, the U.S. had to call for Russian help when Syrian warplanes struck an area not far from where U.S. troops were operating.

    U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President Bashar Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, open humanitarian aid corridors, and concentrate any offensive action on the Islamic State group and other extremists not covered by what has become a largely ignored truce.

    For their part, U.S. officials say they are willing to press rebels groups they support harder on separating themselves from the Islamic State and al-Nusra, which despite a recent name change is still viewed as al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria.

    Those goals are not new, but recent developments have made achieving them even more urgent and important, according to U.S. officials. Recent developments include military operations around the city of Aleppo, the entry of Turkey into the ground war, Turkish hostility toward U.S.-backed Kurdish rebel groups and the presence of American military advisers in widening conflict zones.

    Meanwhile, in a blow to the opposition, rebel forces and civilians in the besieged Damascus suburb of Daraya were to be evacuated on Friday after agreeing to surrender the town late Thursday after four years of grueling bombardment and a crippling siege that left the sprawling area in ruins.

    The surrender of Daraya, which became an early symbol of the nascent uprising against Assad, marks a success for his government, removing a persistent threat only a few miles from his seat of power.

    dahoit | Aug 27, 2016 9:05:41 AM | 81
    Returning to protectionism and fair trade will lift all American boats,not just the Wall Street Zionists,so I am perplexed at b's comment.
    America,despite glowing MSM BS,is on the ropes of neoliberalism.As an older American,I remember a land of plenty,with good jobs for all,instead of fast food retail hell.I don't think b has any idea of the realities being endured by US,as the media refuses to give US reality,instead rosy economic garbage where not once in Obombas terrible reign have they created enough jobs to keep up with the expanding population,and as DT says,the inner cities are hellholes,witness the NBA star Dwayne Wades cousin shot in Chicago pushing a baby stroller.
    I had a nurse from Hempstead NY,when i had the big C,who said an old man in a wheelchair had a pit bull tied to it to ward off potential crooks.WTF?
    And now the antisemitism card is played by the serial liars,Bannon is accused of calling Jews whiny.Well,as a longtime observer,he is spot on there.
    And the lying times says 90% chance for Hell bitch victory.
    Will saying it so often make it so?Nah.

    dahoit | Aug 27, 2016 9:28:45 AM | 82
    What is unbelievable is the fact that she corruptly stole the primary with the help of the DNC and the ziomedia,but no one cares.(her supporters)If not emblematic of the depravity of liberals,those who wish the death of others so they live in safety(which of course is poppycock)what is?
    And when Trump gets her in the debates,he'll destroy the MSM narrative of BS.

    rufus magister | Aug 27, 2016 9:40:10 AM | 83
    in 29 --

    No facts? Pound the table.

    Pace yourself, though, the election is a long way off, and you won't want to burst into a conniption before then.

    Noirette | Aug 27, 2016 10:50:52 AM | 84
    Part 1. ;) Got dragged into Killary's alt-right speech at Truckee Meadows Community College, Reno, Nevada, Aug 2016. Only content: 100% against Trump , as sidebars, Alex Jones, Nigel Farage, Putin, David Duke.

    The official MSM version is 31 mins - the frame is just her with a fixed cam centered nothing around. Sparse occasional clapping (real, one can see the clappers in other vids).. She speaks as one would to a parterre of 30-50 ppl, not as in a campaign rally. A longer version (MSM) is 45 mins and shows some of the preliminaries, some guy, then the Mayor of Reno, youngish blondine, introducing her. Killary was apparently hours late. (> youtube.) Killary is dressed in green.

    To the interesting part. She spoke at the same College in Feb. 2015. Note: red dress, the brick pillars typical of the college, and the big windows behind. A big hall…

    link

    This shot shows the other direction, see the small windows at the side and back

    link

    The event has all the hallmarks of a 'proper' pol show, no need to list. Note the Hall, quite large, is not full. The signs are blue and are for Hillary, for Women, for Nevada and so on.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 27, 2016 11:06:17 AM | 85
    Posted by: okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80

    Re: Geneva negotiations...
    Love the goto clause:

    "In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed the importance of keeping the details secret."

    Yeah, keeping the details secret so that next time the Yankees backstab Russia, observers won't immediately realise that they were, in fact, just shooting themselves in the foot. Again.

    Noirette | Aug 27, 2016 11:25:41 AM | 86
    Part 2. The Aug. 2016 event took place at the College but either in a small part of the back of the big hall or another locale (similar in architecture obviously)

    link

    The widest shot Aug. 2016. AFGE (men with black Ts) = American Federation of Gvmt. Employees.

    link

    Here is the 'furthest back' shot. TV coverage did not show these.

    link

    The only shot I could find showing the audience facing her. Note the ppl behind her facing out, i.e. the cams (shown on TV etc.) are not identifiable.

    link

    Bizzaro event. Minuscule, there is almost nobody there. It was deliberatly set up in 'small space' for the cams. The only other important ppl present are one man (Head of the college or? idk) and the Mayor of Reno. The only signs shown say *USA* are not appropriate and are whipped out only when Killary comes onstage. Doesn't even look like a Democrat event! Never mind an important campaign rally for *drum rolls* the person anointed to become Prez. of the most powerful country on Earth, the World Queen or Hegemon.

    After the speech, vids show H.C. talking to a very few ppl, 25 at most, not answering "reporters" questions, two tiny trays of confections were offered. Bwwahhh. She ate one choc. There was also a stop at a Reno Coffee shop (10 ppl?) which made no sense. On these occasions she is accompanied by the Mayor in a cosy girly coffee thingie. (> youtube.)

    The US is fracturing...Moreover the speech was perhaps the weakest from any pol I have ever heard.


    Jackrabbit | Aug 27, 2016 11:35:36 AM | 87
    okie farmer @80

    Strike three for Russia.

    Strike 1: Talks with KSA - no result

    Strike 2: Turkish incursion into Syria (with US blessing)

    Strike 3: Geneva Talks with Kerry - no result

    Curtis | Aug 27, 2016 12:09:08 PM | 88
    iPhone hacked by NSO Group based in Israel
    http://www.businessinsider.com/pegasus-nso-group-iphone-2016-8

    http://www.businessinsider.com/nso-group-2016-8

    Wait a minute! They ID'd the hacker and it's a business in Israel? And it forced Apple to an emergency software upgrade. But I thought all the evil hackers were Russians working for the government.

    Gesine Hammerling | Aug 27, 2016 12:15:34 PM | 89
    A serious question: What would happen if Trump won the majority of the members of the Electoral College but they voted for Clinton?

    Karl Pomeroy | Aug 27, 2016 12:29:37 PM | 90
    There is one villain Trump has not been compared to: Hillary Clinton.

    And don't be the kettle calling the pot black, whoever the author of this ill-researched piece is. Your own journalism strikes me as irresponsible when you claim, "Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him." Catastrophic? Really? Who exactly is "most likely to vote for him" that would not benefit from better trade deals and more corporate incentives for domestic business? The global elite? They're the ones who definitely won't benefit, but they also definitely won't vote for him. Get your thinking straight.

    For clear light on the positive relationship between a Trump presidency and the US economy, David Stockman offers wisdom. Take a look from time to time at his website to educate yourself:

    http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/


    Jackrabbit | Aug 27, 2016 12:32:46 PM | 91
    Curis @88

    I linked to the full report in the Open Thread

    harrylaw | Aug 27, 2016 1:10:56 PM | 92
    okie farmer@80 Lavrov is on a loser if he accepts this "moderate terrorist" BS from Kerry. Those "moderates" have replaced Islamic state in Jerablus, soon to be expanded to cover that huge area between Jerablus, Azaz and Al-bab,all without a fight and apparent agreement with IS. Next could be the area is controlled by Turkish and US "moderate" head choppers, which of course nobody will be allowed to attack. They should only be called moderate if they oppose Assad and do not carry arms, otherwise its just a case of changing labels, in which case the terrorists could never lose. I find it hard to believe that so soon after the so called normalization of ties and trade deals between Russia and Turkey, Turkey could do what they have threatened to do for years, invade Syria and set up prospective no fly zones. I suppose we must wait and see, but in my opinion, it does not look good.

    jfl | Aug 27, 2016 2:30:39 PM | 93
    @88, curtis, 'But I thought all the evil hackers were Russians working for the government'

    Maybe they are ... Russian emigre hackers working for the Israeli government?

    @92 hl,

    I agree. Russia has been stabbed in the back by Turkey, and the US is backing Turkey ... of course they were backing the Kurds, too, until they weren't.

    Erdogan is utterly unreliable ... or he is utterly reliable if you're relying on duplicity and betrayal.

    Joaquin Flores observes Syria Violence to increase: Peace talks fail as situation deteriorates . It seems that the US is just all stall, all the time. Alternating with stabs in the back. No point in talking to them ... for 12 hours?!

    rg the lg | Aug 27, 2016 2:31:01 PM | 94
    Here's a thought:

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/

    Now it is time for people to start saying Roberts is a shill for Trump. If you've read what he has written about Trump, he's highly critical. His point is simple: Do you support those who are so blatantly against Trump? Or, put the other way around, are you in favor of continued oligarchic rule.

    Like Roberts, I am so opposed to Clinton that Trump seems (even ever so slightly) the lessor of evils.

    Unlike Roberts, I think Stein our best bet.

    AtaBrit | Aug 27, 2016 2:52:27 PM | 95
    @b
    Here's a couple for you ...

    1 "Donald Trump is worse than Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"
    www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12182955/Donald-Trump-is-worse-than-Irans-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad.html

    2 "Donald Trump Is America's Gift To Bin Laden"
    www.huffpost.com/us/entry/10445156

    PavewayIV | Aug 27, 2016 3:06:20 PM | 96
    Gesine Hammerling@89 - "...What would happen if Trump won the majority of the members of the Electoral College but they voted for Clinton?..."

    The Electoral College vote is absolute - the candidate that gets 270 of the 538 votes wins, so Clinton would be elected. If neither candidate gets that many, then an immediate vote by the House of Representatives decides. The popular vote that takes place at the same time is utterly meaningless other than to chose one of two bribe-funneling political parties who, in turn, chose their typically party-loyal electors. There's a bit more to it than that, but that sums it up. And, yes, the state political parties could chose electors who would jump ship and vote for the other party. That will be the way they will ensure Clinton is elected in November regardless of who the little people think they're voting for. Anyone who is familiar with the process knows this will happen, including the Republican Party. Trump obviously knows the fix is in.

    The paradox comes about because the political parties at the state level have slowly taken over the process of choosing who goes to the electoral college. The founders' original intent was to have (presumably) the best and the brightest citizens representing each state, making an informed decision that would produce the 'best' choice. There were no political parties to speak of when the Constitution was penned. In fact, the founders were rather suspicious of them in general but did not go so far as to prohibit them (to our eventual ruin). They never intended the rigged, two-party freak show popularity contest masquerading as an election that we have today.

    PavewayIV | Aug 27, 2016 3:13:19 PM | 97
    For a bit more nuance in the choice of state electors, their vote pledge and 'jumping ship' (if it's allowed by law in that state, see faithless electors .

    Curtis | Aug 27, 2016 3:46:24 PM | 98
    I check the CPI every now and then looking for the US to drop. The Corruption Perception Index depends on the perception which can be molded by the media. But as more people wake up, I expect the US ranking to drop. Our 2015 ranking is 16 (behind countries in north-east Europe and Canada and New Zealand).
    http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015

    Interesting that 72% say US Govt efforts against corruption are ineffective and 72% say the level of corruption increased from 2007 to 2010.
    http://www.transparency.org/country/#USA_PublicOpinion

    james | Aug 27, 2016 4:27:25 PM | 99
    @92 harrylaw...i agree with you..

    russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms, it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons? that's the answer to that bs...

    as for turkey, clearly the apk has a 'get rid of the kurds' agenda.. works well in their alliance with isis up to a point.. as for turkish/usa alliance and a no fly zone - if russia goes along with this, they better get a hell of a trade off out of it.. i can't see it, although i see the usa continuing on in their support of saudi arabia etc, using their mercenary isis army and saudi arabia to continue to funnel arms sales and weaponry... it is what they do best, bullshite artists that they are...

    james | Aug 27, 2016 4:32:33 PM | 100
    for the latest dose of bullshite - watch this/A> 8 minute propaganda video.. one could flip it around to say the usa supports isis, al nusra, and all the other 'moderate' terrorists they are arming... amazing how these state dept. spokespeople can lie so continuously and not be called out on any of it by the corporate media journalists.. obviously those journalists are paid to go along with the lies, keep their mouth shut, and not ask any hard questions...

    [Aug 27, 2016] Trump Clintons are 'the real predators'

    Clinton has a reasonably competitive opponent who has challenged her on her record of Wall Street support, her dismissal of the Glass-Steagall Act and her vote for war in Iraq. She should also be challenged vigorously on her role with the DLC.
    Circumstances have created a unique moment where Clinton has to answer these tough questions.
    www.politico.com
    POLITICO) Donald Trump dug deeper into the archives Friday to point out Hillary Clinton's complicated history of racially divisive politics, including her infamous "super-predators" comment from the 1990s.

    "The Clinton's are the real predators…" Trump wrote in a tweet linking to an Instagram video.

    The video begins with Hillary Clinton in 1996, defending her husband's controversial crime bill, which has long been criticized for its impact on minority communities with respect to mass incarceration.


    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/trump-clintons-are-the-real-predators/#hCaMDGFQDlFMqhZS.99

    [Aug 27, 2016] Clintons campaign strategy of making a vote for Clinton 'a vote for a winner'.

    Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    PlutoniumKun , August 26, 2016 at 3:22 pm

    Re: Clintons campaign possible strategy of making a vote for Clinton 'a vote for a winner'.

    I know its conventional opinion that when in doubt, people prefer to vote for who they perceive to be a 'winner', but I wonder if this really applies with two such disliked candidates. I've a theory that one reason Brexit won is that the polls beforehand saying it would be a narrow 'no', gave 'permission' for people to vote with their conscience rather than their pragmatism. In other words, presented with a 'pragmatic, but dirty' vote for X, but a 'fun, but risky' vote for Y', people will vote X if its very close or it looks like Y will win, but may be tempted to vote Y if they are pretty sure X will win.

    Part of me thinks the Clinton campaign would have tested the theory to the limit before going for a strategy like this, but the evidence from the nomination campaign is that they are all tactics, no strategy. It seems to me to be a very risky game to play, not least because promoting Clinton as a sure winner may make wavering progressives simply opt to stay at home.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    I don't even think you have to be a progressive for that to be a concern if you are the Clinton campaign.
    They know the public is not enthusiastic about voting for her for the most part, and yet they are setting up a meme where she is unbeatable. It isn't necessarily going to just keep Trump voters home. But how many people who don't want Clinton but really don't want Trump will be able to convince themselves that there is no need to go hold their nose and vote for her. Republicans who think she is too far left, but he is crazy for instance will be just as likely to stay home as the lefties who know she is lying Neoliberal War Criminal, but not fascist like Trump. (And I know the real fascism signs are all with Clinton, but some may have missed it).

    jsn , August 26, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    On fascism I had the exact same thought after reading Adolph Reeds "Vote For the Lying, NeoLiberal War-Monger, It's Important" link last week.

    Reed's critique was that communist leader Thallman failed to anticipate Hitler's liquidation of all opposition, but frankly with Hillary's and Donald's respective histories its hard for me to see how Trump is more dangerous on this: Hillary has a deep and proven lethal track record and wherever she could justify violent action in the past she has, she keeps an enemies list, holds grudges and acts on them, all thoroughly documented.

    I certainly won't speculate that Trump couldn't do the same or worse, given the state of our propaganda and lawlessness amongst the elite, but like all the other negatives in this campaign its hard to ascertain who really will be worse. Lambert's bet on gridlock in a Trump administration has the further advantage of re-activating the simulation of "anti-war, anti-violence" amongst Dem nomenklatura.

    pretzelattack , August 26, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    exactly, i'm not saying reed is a typical democrat apologist, but i'm not buying that trump is more dangerous than clinton.

    clarky90 , August 26, 2016 at 6:55 pm

    We have collectively known Donald Trump and much of his family for the last 30 or 40 years. Over the years, he has evoked different emotions in me. (Usually being appalled by his big-city, realestate tycoon posturing etc). However, I have never been frightened by him. To me, he is more like a bombastic, well loved, show-off uncle.

    Today I see Trump as a modern day prophet (spiritual teacher). A bringer of light (clarity) to the masses. We live in a rigged system that gives Nobel Peace Prizes to mass murderers; that charges a poor child $600 for a $1 lifesaving Epipen. Trump is waking up The People. Finalllyyyyyy!!

    clarky90 , August 26, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    In my experience, people usually do not change for the better as they age. However, it does happen!; peasant girl (Joan of Arc), patent inspector (Einstein)

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Maybe Trump is the Claudius of our time…..

    …now, as to whom are the Pretorians…..??

    Elizabeth Burton , August 26, 2016 at 7:51 pm

    It's not about what Trump will or won't do. It's about not handing all three branches of government over to the GOP, which has the Libertarian agenda of eliminating said government altogether. I find it interesting that so many people scornful of identity politics nevertheless seem to be as addicted as anyone to making this a horse race between two candidates that has no real far-reaching consequences beyond with each will or won't do in the Oval Office.

    aab , August 27, 2016 at 1:15 am

    The Republican elite is clearly and strongly aligned with Clinton, which reflects the status quo consensus.

    It is certainly possible that the elected Republicans in the House and the Senate will follow Trump or Trump will follow them. But right now, that seems no more possible than that elected Republican leadership (the ones most indebted to and aligned with the donors/rest of the elite) will rebel at Trump and his takeover of the party. Moreover, IF Trump's in, the Democrats will be forced to enact the roll of "Democrat," thus guaranteeing some obstacle somewhere.

    Clinton is a Republican. Claiming she won't govern like a Republican basically means relying on the Freedom Caucus to stop her. I would just as soon not have to count on those guys to keep throwing poop at the neoliberal walls - especially since they're all being directly targeted in this election.

    Brindle , August 26, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    So true: "My view is that triumphalism from the Clinton campaign - which now includes most of the political class, including the press and both party establishments, and ignores event risk - is engineered to get early voters to "go with the winner."–Lambert
    I have noticed on Google News several "Clinton weighing cabinet choices" articles, to me there is whistling past the graveyard quality to all this. They want the election over now-the votes are just a formality.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    They really really do not have any short term memory do they? I mean it took sticking both thumbs on the scale and some handy dandy shenanigans with voters to get her past the Primary finish line. And her opponent there was much nicer about pointing out her flaws than her current opponent. It is true they won't have any obvious elections that disprove their position out there, but when you are spending millions and your opponent nothing and he is still within the margin of error with you in the states that people are watching the closest…

    Although that isn't considering the fears of what other shoes have to drop both in the world and in the news that could derail her victory parade, they may have more to fear from that.

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    It's possible they know.

    One of the problems Democrats have and the 50 state strategy addressed is voting in very Democratic precincts. Without constant pressure, many proud Democrats won't vote because they don't know any Republicans. It's in the bag. College kids are the worst voters alive. They will forget come election day or not be registered because they moved. Dean squeezed these districts. These districts are where Democrats , out in 2010 and 2014 and even a little in 2012. Mittens is a robber baron.

    If Democratic turnout is low and Hillary wins with crossover votes, what happens? It's very likely those Republicans vote for down ticket Republicans. Even for the people who have to vote against Trump, if they believe he is a special kind of super fascist will they bother to vote for the allies of a crook such as Hillary? It's possible Hillary wins and drops a seat in the Senate depending on turnout.

    I think it's clear Hillary isn't going to bring out any kind of voter activism. Judging from photos in Virginia where one would hope a commanding Hillary victory could jump start the Democrats for next year's governors and legislative races, the Democratic Party is dead or very close to it.

    What if Hillary wins but does the unthinkable and delivers a Republican pickup in the Senate? She needs to keep Republicans from coming out because she isn't going to drive Democratic turnout to a spot where that can win on its own.

    Hillary needs to win to keep the never Trump crowd in the GOP from voting because she knows the Democratic side which relies on very Democratic districts and transient voters will not impress. An emboldened GOP congress will be a tough environment for Hillary, and GOP voters won't tolerate bipartisanship especially for anyone suspected of not helping the party 100%. Those House Republicans have to face 2018 and the smaller but arguably more motivated electorate. They will come down hard on Hillary if she can't win the Senate which a literal donkey could do.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    Hell I don't want Clinton to win by any margin. But if anyone thinks that the bipartisan nature of her possible victory will mean anything but Republicans hunting her scalp, and dare I say getting it, they are not paying attention. As much as both the Benghazi and the email thing has them all flummoxed because the real crimes involved with both are crimes they either agree with or want to use. The Foundation on the other hand, not so much, they will make the case that this is a global slush fund because it is. And the McDonnell decision is not going to save her Presidency, much as it would if she were indicted in a Court.

    I should add, that is with or without winning the Senate. Much of the loyalty any Dems there have towards her will disappear when it is obvious that she keeps most of the money AND has no coattails. Oh, they might not vote to impeach her, but that is about it.

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    Hillary's only defense is to win the Senate and to be able to stifle investigations through the appearance of a mandate. 2018 is the 2012 cycle, and that is 2006 which should be a good year for the Republicans (a credit to Howard Dean). It's a tough map for Team Blue. If they don't win the Senate in November, they won't win it in 2018.

    With 2018 on its way, a weak Democratic situation will make the Democrats very jumpy as Hillary is clearly not delivering the coattails they imagined.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    She isn't going to have a mandate. Oh, the electoral college count might look good. But regardless of who wins this sucker, I'm betting this is going to be one of the lowest, if not the lowest, voter turnout for any Presidential election in the last century. I would not be surpised if more people stay home than vote. And that is not a mandate.

    The Senate isn't going to stifle investigations. She doesn't even have to help the Dems get a majority for that problem of conviction if impeached to rear its ugly head. No way is there going to be 2/3 of the Senate in one party or the other. That still won't stop the House. Just as it didn't for her husband.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Clinton gets first classified national security briefing

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump's presidential campaign had seized on the news of Clinton's briefing to label her an "insider threat." The Trump campaign emailed reporters to point out the news that an Army training presentation previously identified Clinton as a threat ..."
    Washington Examiner
    Trump's presidential campaign had seized on the news of Clinton's briefing to label her an "insider threat." The Trump campaign emailed reporters to point out the news that an Army training presentation previously identified Clinton as a threat, as the Washington Examiner previously reported.

    Clinton was investigated by the FBI for mishandling classified information that appeared on a private email server she had set up, but agency chief James Comey decided not to recommend charges.

    [Aug 27, 2016] The More the Establishment Freaks Out Over Trump, the More Attractive He Becomes

    Aug 10, 2016 | Of Two Minds

    Trump is attractive precisely because the Establishment fears and loathes him because 1) they didn't pick him and 2) he might upset the neoconservative Empire that the Establishment elites view as their global entitlement.

    The Establishment is freaking out about Donald Trump for one reason: they didn't pick him. The Establishment is freaking out because the natural order of things is that we pick the presidential candidates and we run the country to serve ourselves, i.e. the financial-political elites.

    Donald Trump's candidacy upsets this neofeudal natural order, and thus he (and everyone who supports him) is anathema to the Establishment, heretics who must be silenced, cowed, marginalized, mocked and ultimately put back in their place as subservient debt-serfs.

    ... ... ...

    The utter cluelessness of the professional apologists and punditry would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic: the more you fume and rage that Trump is unqualified, narcissistic, singularly inappropriate, etc. etc. etc., the more appealing he becomes to everyone who isn't inside the protective walls of your neofeudal castle.

    The people outside the cozy walls of the protected elites don't care if he is unqualified (by the standards of those who get to pick our presidents for us) narcissistic, singularly inappropriate, and so on--they are cheering him on because you, the multitudes of water-carriers for the Imperial elites, the teeming hordes of well-paid, I-got-mine-so-shut-the-heck-up pundits, flacks, hacks, sycophants, apparatchiks, toadies, lackeys, functionaries, leeches and apologists, are so visibly afraid that your perks, wealth, influence and power might drain away if the 80% actually get a say.

    Dear pundits, flacks, hacks, sycophants, apparatchiks, toadies, lackeys, functionaries, leeches and apologists: we're sick of you, every one of you, and the neofeudal Empire you support. We want you cashiered, pushed outside the walls with the rest of us, scraping by on well-earned and richly deserved unemployment.

    [Aug 27, 2016] The history of the last forty five years of senior economic advisors to U.S. Presidents seems mostly a competition to see who could piss on Great Society and New Deal remedies in favor of market-based incentives fast enough.

    Notable quotes:
    "... from my perspective the history of the last forty five years of senior economic advisors to U.S. Presidents seems mostly a competition to see who could piss on Great Society and New Deal remedies in favor of "market-based incentives" fast enough. ..."
    "... This bunch has taken our economy and so our country from its position in 1976 to its position in 2016. If you have been among the educated 20% you have benefited from their policy prescriptions over the past 40 years. The rest not so much. This kind of WSJ establishment worship does not travel well outside of NYC, DC, SF, LA, and Boston. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Economist's View

    Bruce Webb : August 25, 2016 at 06:45 PM , August 25, 2016 at 06:45 PM

    "Economists Who've Advised Presidents Are No Fans of Donald Trump"

    Okay I am a guy that wouldn't piss on Trump if he was on fire but this lead gets a little too close to "Praising with Faint Damns" for my taste. I mean who on this list is supposed to impress?

    Okay Stiglitz. And I think Christine Romer had a medium level role as did maybe her husband. But from my perspective the history of the last forty five years of senior economic advisors to U.S. Presidents seems mostly a competition to see who could piss on Great Society and New Deal remedies in favor of "market-based incentives" fast enough.

    I am not saying that this unanimity doesn't mean something important. Just that as phrased we are talking kind of a low bar.

    mrrunangun : , -1
    This bunch has taken our economy and so our country from its position in 1976 to its position in 2016. If you have been among the educated 20% you have benefited from their policy prescriptions over the past 40 years. The rest not so much. This kind of WSJ establishment worship does not travel well outside of NYC, DC, SF, LA, and Boston.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Polls as an instrumnet to influence the elections

    Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Donald Trump now needs a swing of only 3 to 4 percentage points in key battleground states to win this election" [ MarketWatch ]. "according to a new poll in Michigan, one of the key states in play, as well as the latest polls in other key states… Meanwhile, Trump faces even smaller deficits in other key battleground states. According to the polling averages calculated by Real Clear Politics, Trump trails by just 5 points in Ohio, 4 points in Florida and 2 points in North Carolina. Recent polls have also put him level with Clinton in Nevada and Iowa." Lambert here: My view is that triumphalism from the Clinton campaign - which now includes most of the political class, including the press and both party establishments, and ignores event risk - is engineered to get early voters to "go with the winner."

    Our Revolution: "The senator hailed as a major accomplishment his delegates' work crafting what he called the "strongest and most progressive" platform in the Democratic Party's history. And he vowed to implement many of its planks" [ Seven Days ]. Sanders: "'If anybody thinks that that document and what is in that platform is simply going to be resting on a shelf somewhere accumulating dust, they are very mistaken,' he said. 'We are going to bring the platform alive and make it the blueprint for moving the Democrats forward in Congress and all across this country." So, more than "values." However, where there's less to hate in the Dem platform than usual, it's hardly adequate for the challenges facing the country. Now, if the operational definition of "bring the platform alive" means "incorporate all the Sanders planks the Dem establishment voted down," I'd be a lot happier. I haven't heard that yet.

    UPDATE From the Benjamin Dixon show:

    Previous Dixon interview with Reed here (just for anybody who thinks Reed is a Clinton Democrat).

    [Aug 27, 2016] Hillary Clinton The Neocon in Democrats Clothing

    Notable quotes:
    "... Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing. He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures. She used the terrible expression "superpredators," supported the crime bill and made a hash of health insurance reform . Liza Featherstone talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism , and she links her critique to class themes, which is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the rights of all women. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she sided with the rich and powerful , which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street. ..."
    "... On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died," she said and laughed loudly. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism. ..."
    "... Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations in general should exist at a much-reduced level. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive talk, but never really walked the progressive walk. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died" Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel or erase. ..."
    "... the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other to dismantle the New Deal ..."
    "... GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency ..."
    "... The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type. ..."
    "... She is a pro-business, Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the " Queen of Chaos ." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism ..."
    "... Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book, Dark Money ) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote for Hillary this time around. ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    ...Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing.

    Many authors have quoted a sentence by Bill Clinton:

    We're all Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?

    Eisenhower Republicans were, by today's standards, quite moderate. The quote refers to the 1990s, and already Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing. He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. And he was so "tough on crime" that during the 1992 presidential campaign season, he had gone back to his home state of Arkansas to witness the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, who was "mentally deficient." Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas.

    As we all know, Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures. She used the terrible expression "superpredators," supported the crime bill and made a hash of health insurance reform. Liza Featherstone talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism, and she links her critique to class themes, which is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the rights of all women.

    Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she sided with the rich and powerful, which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street. The really important question is how someone who has constantly sided with the rich can campaign as a progressive, as a friend of people of color and even as a feminist? Michelle Alexander exposed the hypocrisy of the situation in arguing that "Hillary Clinton doesn't deserve the black vote."

    On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died," she said and laughed loudly. This cruel statement does not take into account the mess and mayhem left behind after the intervention, something President Obama calls a "shit show" and his worst mistake. But it is the companion piece to her major fellow elite "feminist" Madeleine Albright declaring that killing half a million Iraqis is worth it.

    Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism.

    ... ... ...

    Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations in general should exist at a much-reduced level. In his book Listen, Liberal, Thomas Frank tells the story of a Clinton convention meeting he attended and what he witnessed was Hillary Clinton as "Ms. Walmart," pretending she cares about all women. Frank, who is genuinely worried about rising inequality in the United States and racial justice, suggests that elite feminism is worried about the glass ceiling for CEOs, but does not even worry about working-class women who have "no floors" under them. Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive talk, but never really walked the progressive walk.

    It would indeed be a symbolic change if the US elected a woman president, but for the symbol not to be empty, something more is needed. If a woman president does not improve the lot of the majority of women, then what is the good of a symbol?

    Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died" Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel or erase.

    ...the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other to dismantle the New Deal and the Great Society programs that Democrats had set up. Noam Chomsky argues that the GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency, for it has gone off the political cliff. The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type.

    So Hillary Clinton, the Republican, is poised to win in November, but her Republicanism is closer to George W. Bush's and even more conservative than Ronald Reagan's -- except on the societal issues that have now reached a kind of quasi-consensus like same-sex marriage. She is a pro-business, Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the "Queen of Chaos." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism, whose election will be made easier by her loutish, vulgar, sexist loudmouth of an opponent.

    In his book The Deep State, Mike Lofgren quotes H.L. Mencken, who gave away what explains the success of the political circus: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

    George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives were past masters at this creation of hobgoblins, but now Hillary Clinton, the opportunist, can outdo them and out-Republicanize them. I think Ike would not like her; she might now be even more reactionary than Goldwater. Indeed, Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book, Dark Money) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote for Hillary this time around.

    ... ... ...

    Pierre Guerlain is a professor of American studies at Université Paris Ouest, Nanterre, France.

    [Aug 27, 2016] The Deep States Catch-22

    www.oftwominds.com

    August 16, 2016 | Of Two Minds

    What happens if the Deep State pursues the usual pathological path of increasing repression? The system it feeds on decays and collapses.

    Catch-22 (from the 1961 novel set in World War II Catch-22) has several shades of meaning (bureaucratic absurdity, for example), but at heart it is a self-referential paradox: you must be insane to be excused from flying your mission, but requesting to be excused by reason of insanity proves you're sane.

    The Deep State in virtually every major nation-state is facing a form of Catch-22: the Deep State needs the nation-state to feed on and support its power, and the nation-state requires stability above all else to survive the vagaries of history.

    The only possible output of extreme wealth inequality is social and economic instability.

    The financial elites of the Deep State (and of the nation-state that the Deep State rules) generate wealth inequality and thus instability by their very existence, i.e. the very concentration of wealth and power that defines the elite.

    So the only way to insure stability is to dissipate the concentrated wealth and power of the financial Deep State. This is the Deep State's Catch-22.

    What happens when extremes of wealth/power inequality have been reached? Depressions, revolutions, wars and the dissolution of empires. Extremes of wealth/power inequality generate political, social and economic instability which then destabilize the regime.

    Ironically, elites try to solve this dilemma by becoming more autocratic and repressing whatever factions they see as the source of instability.

    The irony is they themselves are the source of instability. The crowds of enraged citizens are merely manifestations of an unstable, brittle system that is cracking under the strains of extreme wealth/power inequality.

    Can anyone not in Wall Street, the corporate media, Washington D.C., K Street or the Fed look at this chart and not see profound political disunity on the horizon?

    [Aug 26, 2016] Clinton emails - Proof that the West had lost control of the situation in Libya already since 2011

    Notable quotes:
    "... A letter from Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going to wrong hands through the black market. ..."
    "... (Source Comment: According to very sensitive sources, the Libyan rebels are concerned that AQIM may also obtain SPIGOTT wire-guided anti-tank missiles and an unspecified number of Russian anti-tank mines made of plastic and undetectable by anti-mine equipment. This equipment again was coming through Niger and Mali, and was intended for the rebels in Libya. They note that AQIM is very strong in this region of Northwest Africa.) ..."
    "... Yet, despite the absolute mess, the Western vultures are racing above the Libyan corpse to take as much as they can. ..."
    "... Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not a top priority issue for them. ..."
    Aug 23, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton.

    The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016.

    globinfo freexchange

    A letter from Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going to wrong hands through the black market.

    The Western clowns have failed, one more time, to bring stability and led another country to absolute chaos and destruction. Waves of desperate people are now trying to reach European shores to save themselves from the hell in Libya, as it happens in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.

    Key parts:

    • During the early morning of May 2, 2011 sources with access to the leadership of the Libyan rebellion's ruling Transitional National Council (TNC) stated in confidence that they are concerned that the death of al Qa'ida leader Osama Bin Laden will inspire al Qa'ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) to use weapons they have obtained, which were originally intended for the rebels in Libya, to retaliate against the United States and its allies for this attack in Pakistan. These individuals fear that the use of the weapons in this manner will complicate the TNC's relationship with NATO and the United States, whose support is vital to them in their struggle with the forces of Muammar al Qaddafi.
    • These individuals note that the TNC officials are reacting to reports received during the week of April 25 from their own sources of information, the French General Directorate for External Security (DGSE), and British external intelligence service (MI-6), stating that AQIM has acquired about 10 SAM 7- Grail/Streela man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS or MPADS) from illegal weapons markets in Western Niger and Northern Mali. These weapons were originally intended for sale to the rebel forces in Libya, but AQIM operatives were able to meet secretly with these arms dealers and purchase the equipment. The acquisition of these sophisticated weapons creates a serious threat to air traffic in Southern Morocco, Algeria, Northern Mali, Western Niger, and Eastern Mauritania.
    • (Source Comment: According to very sensitive sources, the Libyan rebels are concerned that AQIM may also obtain SPIGOTT wire-guided anti-tank missiles and an unspecified number of Russian anti-tank mines made of plastic and undetectable by anti-mine equipment. This equipment again was coming through Niger and Mali, and was intended for the rebels in Libya. They note that AQIM is very strong in this region of Northwest Africa.)
    • ... Libyan rebel commanders are also concerned that the death of Bin Laden comes at a time when sensitive information indicates that the leaders of AQIM are planning to launch attacks across North Africa and Europe in an effort to reassert their relevance during the ongoing upheavals in Libya, as well as the rest of North Africa and the Middle East. They believe the first step in this campaign was the April 30 bombing of a café in Marrakesh, Morocco that is frequented by Western tourists.

    Full letter:

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/13013

    Yet, despite the absolute mess, the Western vultures are racing above the Libyan corpse to take as much as they can.

    Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not a top priority issue for them.

    [Aug 26, 2016] How Think Tanks Generate Endless War by Todd E. Pierce

    Hillary election means new wars and death of the US servicemen/servicewomen. So Khan gambit is much more dangerous that it looks as it implicitly promoted militarism and endless "permanent war for permanent peace".
    Notable quotes:
    "... Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks. ..."
    "... There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover. ..."
    "... Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well. ..."
    "... Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically. ..."
    "... The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: " Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better. " ..."
    "... So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations. ..."
    "... Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States. ..."
    "... As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy. ..."
    "... That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. ..."
    Aug 21, 2016 | Defend Democracy Press

    U.S. "think tanks" rile up the American public against an ever-shifting roster of foreign "enemies" to justify wars which line the pockets of military contractors who kick back some profits to the "think tanks," explains retired JAG Major Todd E. Pierce.

    The New York Times took notice recently of the role that so-called "think tanks" play in corrupting U.S. government policy. Their review of think tanks "identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy."

    Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, while the Times investigation demonstrates well that the U.S. is even more corrupt – albeit the corruption is better disguised – than the many foreign countries which we routinely accuse of corruption, the Times failed to identify the most egregious form of corruption in our system. That is, those think tanks are constantly engaged in the sort of activities which the Defense Department identifies as "Information War" when conducted by foreign countries that are designated by the U.S. as an enemy at any given moment.

    Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks.

    There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover.

    Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well.

    The measure of success from such a disinformation and propaganda effort can be seen when the narrative is adopted by secondary communicators who are perhaps the most important target audience. That is because they are "key communicators" in PsyOp terms, who in turn become provocateurs in propagating the false narrative even more broadly and to its own audiences, and becoming "combat multipliers" in military terms.

    It is readily apparent now that Russia has taken its place as the primary target within U.S. sights. One doesn't have to see the U.S. military buildup on Russia's borders to understand that but only see the propaganda themes of our "think tanks."

    The Role of Rand

    A prime example of an act of waging information war to incite actual military attack is the Rand Corporation, which, incidentally, published a guide to information war and the need to condition the U.S. population for war back in the 1990s.

    A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union. A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

    Rand was founded by, among others, the war enthusiast, Air Force General Curtis LeMay, who was the model for the character of Gen. Buck Turgidson in the movie "Dr. Strangelove." LeMay once stated that he would not be afraid to start a nuclear war with Russia and that spirit would seem to be alive and well at Rand today as they project on to Vladimir Putin our own eagerness for inciting a war.

    The particular act of information warfare by Rand is shown in a recent Rand article: "How to Counter Putin's Subversive War on the West." The title suggests by its presupposition that Putin is acting in the offensive form of war rather than the defensive form of war. But it is plain to see he is in the defensive form of war when one looks at the numerous provocations and acts of aggression carried out by American officials, such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and General Philip Breedlove, and the U.S. and NATO military buildup on Russia's borders.

    Within this Rand article however can be found no better example of psychological projection than this propagandistic pablum that too many commentators, some witless, some not, will predictably repeat:

    "Moscow's provocative active measures cause foreign investors and international lenders to see higher risks in doing business with Russia. Iran is learning a similar, painful lesson as it persists with harsh anti-Western policies even as nuclear-related sanctions fade. Russia will decide its own priorities. But it should not be surprised if disregard for others' interests diminishes the international regard it seeks as an influential great power."

    In fact, an objective, dispassionate observation of U.S./Russian policies would show it has been the U.S. carrying out these "provocative active measures" as the instigator, not Russia.

    Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically.

    The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: "Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better."

    It begins: "The risk of outright conflict in Europe is higher than it has been for years and the confrontation between Russia and the West shows no sign of ending. To prevent misunderstandings and dangerous incidents, the two sides must improve their methods of communication."

    Unfortunately, that is now true. But the article's author suggests throughout that each party, Russia and the U.S./NATO, had an equal hand in the deterioration of relations. He wrote: "The West needs to acknowledge that the standoff with Russia is not merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," as if Western officials don't already know that that accusation was only a propaganda theme for their own populations to cover up the West's aggressiveness.

    Blaming Russia

    So Americans, such as myself, must acknowledge and confront that the standoff with Russia is not only not "merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," but it is rather, that the U.S. is "turning authoritarian, nationalistic," and even more "assertive," i.e., aggressive, toward the world.

    Suz Tzu wrote that a "sovereign" must know oneself and the enemy. In the case of the U.S. sovereign, the people and their elected, so-called representatives, there is probably no "sovereign" in human history more lacking in self-awareness of their own nation's behavior toward other nations.

    So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations.

    When that then generates a response from some nation with a tin-pot military relative to our own, with ours paid for by the privileged financial position we've put ourselves into post-WWII, our politicians urgently call for even more military spending from the American people to support even more aggression, all in the guise of "national defense."

    Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States.

    The Presidential Policy Guidance "establishes the standard operating procedures for when the United States takes direct action, which refers to lethal and non-lethal uses of force, including capture operations against terrorist targets outside the United States and areas of active hostilities."

    What other nation, besides Israel probably, has a governmental "Regulation" providing for assassinations outside "areas of active hostilities?"

    It should readily be evident that it is the U.S. now carrying out the vast majority of provocative active measures and has the disregard for others complained of here. At least for the moment, however, the U.S. can still hide much of its aggression using the vast financial resources provided by the American people to the Defense Department to produce sophisticated propaganda and to bribe foreign officials with foreign aid to look the other way from U.S. provocations.

    It is ironic that today, one can learn more about the U.S. military and foreign policy from the Rand Corporation only by reading at least one of its historical documents, "The Operational Code of the Politburo." This is described as "part of a major effort at RAND to provide insight into the political leadership and foreign policy in the Soviet Union and other communist states; the development of Soviet military strategy and doctrine."

    As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy.

    That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. That this U.S. MIC would turn against its own people, the American public, by waging perpetual information war against this domestic target just to enrich their investors, might have been even more than Eisenhower could imagine however.

    Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. [This article first appeared at http://original.antiwar.com/Todd_Pierce/2016/08/14/inciting-wars-american-way/]

    See also

    [Aug 26, 2016] Trump, Russia, and the Washington Post Reader Beware by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... an article loaded with innuendo has appeared on the front page of a major U.S. newspaper, located in Washington, DC, stating that Russia is engaged in widespread subversion in Europe and is trying to do the same on behalf of Donald Trump in the United States. But the evidence presented in the story does not support what is being suggested, and spreading tales about foreign-government misbehavior can have unintended consequences. It is particularly shortsighted and even dangerous in this case, as a stable relationship with a nuclear-armed and militarily very capable Moscow should rightly be regarded as critical. ..."
    "... It is almost as if some journalists believe that deliberately damaging relations with Russia is a price worth paying to embarrass and defeat Trump. If that is so, they are delusional. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | The American Conservative

    But there is a certain danger inherent in the media's slanting its coverage to such an extent as to be making the news rather than just reporting it. And when it comes to Russia, the way the stories are reported becomes critically important, as there is a real risk that media hostility toward Putin, even if deployed as a way to get at Trump, could produce a conflict no one actually wants-just as the Hearst and Pulitzer newspapers' yellow journalism, rife with "melodrama, romance, and hyperbole," more or less brought about the Spanish-American War.

    ... ... ...

    So an article loaded with innuendo has appeared on the front page of a major U.S. newspaper, located in Washington, DC, stating that Russia is engaged in widespread subversion in Europe and is trying to do the same on behalf of Donald Trump in the United States. But the evidence presented in the story does not support what is being suggested, and spreading tales about foreign-government misbehavior can have unintended consequences. It is particularly shortsighted and even dangerous in this case, as a stable relationship with a nuclear-armed and militarily very capable Moscow should rightly be regarded as critical.

    It is almost as if some journalists believe that deliberately damaging relations with Russia is a price worth paying to embarrass and defeat Trump. If that is so, they are delusional.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Aug 26, 2016] Clinton emails - Proof that the West had lost control of the situation in Libya already since 2011

    Aug 26, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    nmb | Aug 25, 2016 3:35:05 PM | 2
    Clinton emails - Proof that the West had lost control of the situation in Libya already since 2011
    james | Aug 25, 2016 4:10:01 PM | 3
    @ 1 rr.. i thought paveway described it best (his post below).. this is the little game that has been going on for some time and includes all the designations - moderates, isis, white helmets - you name it... this is the line of bs the usa is hoping dupes believe... ps, i also thought curtis comment from george carlin on the previous thread was great and what has come to typify usa foreign policy - " "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity."

    paveways comment :

    "A NATO country has just rolled tanks into Syria and sent in head-chopper ground forces - the same ones Syria, Russia and Iran have been trying to kill for months on end in Aleppo and Idlib. ISIS isn't putting up much resistance in Jarabulus because they're too busy trading their ISIS ID cards/flags for al Nusra or al Zenki ID cards/flags. Head-choppers need paychecks to feed their families, too:

    Headchopper #1: "Snackbar - somebody is shooting at us! What flag are we suppose to be flying today, brother?"

    Headchopper #2: "Look on your paycheck, brother..."

    Headchopper #1: "No good, brother - it's from ISIS. That was last week!"

    Headchopper #2: "I'll get on the radio - our leaders should know, God willing..."

    (a few minutes later...)

    Headchopper #2: "Nobody knows for sure, but put on this white helmet for now, brother. Soros' checks are clearing."

    Headchopper #1: "Does that mean I have to shave? Snackbar... can't we just be al Nusra this week?"

    Headchopper #2: "No flags yet.. But you have to shave anyway, brother. The CIA won't pay you for FSA Nusra if you look too Wahhabi head-chopperish. Have a Captagon and calm down. Our Turkish brothers will be here soon."

    Posted by: PavewayIV | Aug 24, 2016 11:41:49 AM | 78"

    okie farmer | Aug 25, 2016 4:21:11 PM | 5
    In this episode of Truth in Media, Ben Swann explores the origin of Daesh (ISIS) that has already been long forgotten by American media.

    Swann takes on the central issue of whether or not ISIS was created by "inaction" by the United States government or by "direct" action.

    https://youtu.be/o6kdi1UXxhY

    [Aug 26, 2016] No, Donald Trump, America Isn't a Hellhole

    economistsview.typepad.com
    Chris G Friday, August 26, 2016 at 03:28 PM
    > No, Donald Trump, America Isn't a Hellhole

    But if we roll up our sleeves and get to work we can turn it into one!

    What does it say about our country that The Onion accurately foresees the future?

    http://www.theonion.com/article/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros-464

    http://www.theonion.com/video/after-obama-victory-shrieking-white-hot-sphere-of--30284

    anne said in reply to Chris G
    Wildly funny:

    http://www.theonion.com/video/after-obama-victory-shrieking-white-hot-sphere-of--30284

    After Obama Victory, Shrieking White-Hot Sphere Of Pure Rage Early GOP Front-Runner For 2016

    Sources say the screaming orb might be the only potential candidate that would tap into Republicans' deep-seated, seething fury after this election. Friday, August 26, 2016 at 03:49 PM

    ilsm said in reply to Chris G
    Obama certainly did nothing to put US into the nightmare of peace and prosperity, while Killary will threw the US into perpetual war with bigger adversaries than Sunni goatherds.

    What are US "agents" doing on the ground in Syria?

    [Aug 26, 2016] How Think Tanks Generate Endless War by Todd E. Pierce

    Hillary election means new wars and death of the US servicemen/servicewomen. So Khan gambit is much more dangerous that it looks as it implicitly promoted militarism and endless "permanent war for permanent peace".
    Notable quotes:
    "... Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks. ..."
    "... There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover. ..."
    "... Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well. ..."
    "... Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically. ..."
    "... The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: " Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better. " ..."
    "... So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations. ..."
    "... Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States. ..."
    "... As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy. ..."
    "... That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. ..."
    Aug 21, 2016 | Defend Democracy Press

    U.S. "think tanks" rile up the American public against an ever-shifting roster of foreign "enemies" to justify wars which line the pockets of military contractors who kick back some profits to the "think tanks," explains retired JAG Major Todd E. Pierce.

    The New York Times took notice recently of the role that so-called "think tanks" play in corrupting U.S. government policy. Their review of think tanks "identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy."

    Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, while the Times investigation demonstrates well that the U.S. is even more corrupt – albeit the corruption is better disguised – than the many foreign countries which we routinely accuse of corruption, the Times failed to identify the most egregious form of corruption in our system. That is, those think tanks are constantly engaged in the sort of activities which the Defense Department identifies as "Information War" when conducted by foreign countries that are designated by the U.S. as an enemy at any given moment.

    Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks.

    There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover.

    Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well.

    The measure of success from such a disinformation and propaganda effort can be seen when the narrative is adopted by secondary communicators who are perhaps the most important target audience. That is because they are "key communicators" in PsyOp terms, who in turn become provocateurs in propagating the false narrative even more broadly and to its own audiences, and becoming "combat multipliers" in military terms.

    It is readily apparent now that Russia has taken its place as the primary target within U.S. sights. One doesn't have to see the U.S. military buildup on Russia's borders to understand that but only see the propaganda themes of our "think tanks."

    The Role of Rand

    A prime example of an act of waging information war to incite actual military attack is the Rand Corporation, which, incidentally, published a guide to information war and the need to condition the U.S. population for war back in the 1990s.

    A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union. A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

    Rand was founded by, among others, the war enthusiast, Air Force General Curtis LeMay, who was the model for the character of Gen. Buck Turgidson in the movie "Dr. Strangelove." LeMay once stated that he would not be afraid to start a nuclear war with Russia and that spirit would seem to be alive and well at Rand today as they project on to Vladimir Putin our own eagerness for inciting a war.

    The particular act of information warfare by Rand is shown in a recent Rand article: "How to Counter Putin's Subversive War on the West." The title suggests by its presupposition that Putin is acting in the offensive form of war rather than the defensive form of war. But it is plain to see he is in the defensive form of war when one looks at the numerous provocations and acts of aggression carried out by American officials, such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and General Philip Breedlove, and the U.S. and NATO military buildup on Russia's borders.

    Within this Rand article however can be found no better example of psychological projection than this propagandistic pablum that too many commentators, some witless, some not, will predictably repeat:

    "Moscow's provocative active measures cause foreign investors and international lenders to see higher risks in doing business with Russia. Iran is learning a similar, painful lesson as it persists with harsh anti-Western policies even as nuclear-related sanctions fade. Russia will decide its own priorities. But it should not be surprised if disregard for others' interests diminishes the international regard it seeks as an influential great power."

    In fact, an objective, dispassionate observation of U.S./Russian policies would show it has been the U.S. carrying out these "provocative active measures" as the instigator, not Russia.

    Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically.

    The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: "Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better."

    It begins: "The risk of outright conflict in Europe is higher than it has been for years and the confrontation between Russia and the West shows no sign of ending. To prevent misunderstandings and dangerous incidents, the two sides must improve their methods of communication."

    Unfortunately, that is now true. But the article's author suggests throughout that each party, Russia and the U.S./NATO, had an equal hand in the deterioration of relations. He wrote: "The West needs to acknowledge that the standoff with Russia is not merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," as if Western officials don't already know that that accusation was only a propaganda theme for their own populations to cover up the West's aggressiveness.

    Blaming Russia

    So Americans, such as myself, must acknowledge and confront that the standoff with Russia is not only not "merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," but it is rather, that the U.S. is "turning authoritarian, nationalistic," and even more "assertive," i.e., aggressive, toward the world.

    Suz Tzu wrote that a "sovereign" must know oneself and the enemy. In the case of the U.S. sovereign, the people and their elected, so-called representatives, there is probably no "sovereign" in human history more lacking in self-awareness of their own nation's behavior toward other nations.

    So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations.

    When that then generates a response from some nation with a tin-pot military relative to our own, with ours paid for by the privileged financial position we've put ourselves into post-WWII, our politicians urgently call for even more military spending from the American people to support even more aggression, all in the guise of "national defense."

    Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States.

    The Presidential Policy Guidance "establishes the standard operating procedures for when the United States takes direct action, which refers to lethal and non-lethal uses of force, including capture operations against terrorist targets outside the United States and areas of active hostilities."

    What other nation, besides Israel probably, has a governmental "Regulation" providing for assassinations outside "areas of active hostilities?"

    It should readily be evident that it is the U.S. now carrying out the vast majority of provocative active measures and has the disregard for others complained of here. At least for the moment, however, the U.S. can still hide much of its aggression using the vast financial resources provided by the American people to the Defense Department to produce sophisticated propaganda and to bribe foreign officials with foreign aid to look the other way from U.S. provocations.

    It is ironic that today, one can learn more about the U.S. military and foreign policy from the Rand Corporation only by reading at least one of its historical documents, "The Operational Code of the Politburo." This is described as "part of a major effort at RAND to provide insight into the political leadership and foreign policy in the Soviet Union and other communist states; the development of Soviet military strategy and doctrine."

    As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy.

    That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. That this U.S. MIC would turn against its own people, the American public, by waging perpetual information war against this domestic target just to enrich their investors, might have been even more than Eisenhower could imagine however.

    Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. [This article first appeared at http://original.antiwar.com/Todd_Pierce/2016/08/14/inciting-wars-american-way/]

    See also

    [Aug 25, 2016] Farage at Trump rally: I wouldnt vote for Clinton if you paid me

    Those who already think Clinton is too sleazy won't be voting for her, but those who think she is too sick, or that she will be impeached, might
    Notable quotes:
    "... I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street. ..."
    "... Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will become America's next President. ..."
    "... After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians - no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations. ..."
    "... Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying. ..."
    "... Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire. ..."
    "... Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history. ..."
    "... Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... The ethics pledge Hillary violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again... ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    philipsiron 46m ago
    I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street.
    shockrah 54m ago
    The real problem here is a political vacuum so huge you could fit trump's ego inside it. Just a guess but from what I've seen this last year about half of trump supporters are wwhat could be called die-hard racists. The one major failing of the workers movement that Sanders started in the US was an inability to pull off the 50% of trump supporters who are not fundamentally racist. T

    here was no major appeal to the more rural agricultural communities by Sanders that I ever heard. They may only represent 20% of the population but they are the backbone of the US as they are unable to compete with large scale corporate farming they suffer the same ideological loss that the rest of the working class suffer from. If the progressive movement cannot or will not appeal to this group through small farming and organic farming subsidies then they will go with someone like trump even though he promises them nothing. T

    hey will, in the absence of an alternative political path just choose 'f**k you' for their candidate. Probably too late this time around but in the future the progressive movement needs to include these people or they will be the 'third rail' the left dies on.

    Wynberg 1h ago
    Dear Dorothy,

    My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning and when I confront him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows he cheats on me. It's so humiliating.
    Also, since he lost his job 14 years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does all day is smoke cigars, play golf, cruise around and shoot ball with his buddies and has sex with hookers, while I work so hard to pay our bills.
    Since our daughter went away to college and then got married; he doesn't even pretend to like me, and hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do?
    Signed:
    Confused

    Answer..
    Dear Confused:
    Grow up and dump him.
    You don't need him anymore!
    Good grief woman, you're running for President of the United States!

    stoneshepherd 44m ago
    People here seem to be posting without thinking things through. Do they really want another Clinton in the White House? Especially this warmonger?

    Maybe they should try a dose of reality and read John Pilger's op ed over here https://www.rt.com/op-edge/356846-provoking-nuclear-war-media /

    We shouldn't be sleepwalking into another disastrous war just to please the shareholders and CEOs of the major armament manufacturing companies.

    [PS Please read Pilger's op ed before trolling this post]

    SerbCanada Ulmus Glabra 1h ago
    Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will become America's next President.

    Listen to his peaches - that would be time better spent than to spend time of defending Hillary, who soon be either behind the bars or forgotten.

    unlywnted kieran2698 1h ago

    After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians - no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations.

    thinlizzie mkevinf 1h ago
    Nigel is not making any threats to USA as Obama did in UK (you'll be in back of the queue). It was not Nigel who spoke about obama's ancestry. America has a tough choice Trump/Clinton. My brother lives in Florida - he says he wouldn't vote for Clinton.

    I voted UKIP and for LEAVE and think Nigel Farage will go down in history as one of the most important men in politics for a very long time. We supported him because he spoke for us and the other politicians stopped listening to us. These snidey nasty comments are typical of leftie guardian readers. After all - they're probably going to vote for Corby who hasn't a cat in hells chance of ever being PM!

    Maitreya2016 MrIncredlous 1h ago
    Yes, you're right. It's this sentiment that has pushed the proletariat into the arms of Trump and Farage. Funnily enough, during my time working with the EU there was a very strong push towards less democracy and more population management. Most of it is being done via education and other soft power platforms - reforming children's attitudes, self-awareness training, behavioral feedback and gender confusion. This is being done under the guise of tolerance, diversity and identity politics. It keeps the masses fighting amongst themselves while those in charge of them steal everything.
    DanBlues 3h ago
    Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying.

    Now hand me some of that racism juice and point me to the bandwagon!

    musolen 3h ago

    ... ... ...

    Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire.

    ... ... ...

    Karega 3h ago
    I see the Bremain crowd still out for some revenge. And who would Hillary invite from "Brits?" Let's face it most Americans have no clue about other foreign leaders unless they are being splashed across their TV screens as some evil incarnates ready to be bombed by American bombs. Thus Guardian cheap shot at Farage as unknown is just cheap.
    Indeed the whole reporting of that meeting between Farage and Trump is distasteful for a newsmedia like Guardian. Purely designed to belittle Farage and, of course, portray Trump as a non-starter in the race for White House.

    Btw, i was going through list of media giants that have contributed and donated to the Clinton Foundation. Let me confirm whether Guardian or its associates/affiliates are on the list!

    MelindaHaye 3h ago

    Alternative media is so valuable.

    The MSM is trying to make Hillary look popular at the few rallies she conducts when the reality is her crowds are tiny. You then have Trump doing multiple rallies a day where he regularly fills large sports stadiums.

    It just goes to show how corrupt the MSM is and how they manipulate footage to create false impressions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-VzSG-2oYI

    Lots of people are releasing stuff on this topic.

    Wobbly 4h ago
    Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history.
    camcitizen 4h ago
    Isn't it strange to see so much bile and bitterness being directed towards Mr Farage? We've had the referendum and Brexit won. Please can the many complainers here show some respect to the millions who voted and who did so of the own volition (and without the nonsense of being under some spell cast by imaginary bogeymen!). Can those complaining not accept that after 40 years of effort to make the EU work people are entitled to say - sorry, its over - but hopefully we can still be friends.
    inquisitor16 4h ago

    Farage was a good choice for a support speaker. He is the one person in Europe who has produced a stunning electoral upset and then quit the scene. All the pollsters got it wrong.

    It's distressing that some members of the audience knew nothing about the Brexit, despite efforts by The Guardian and many others to relieve their ignorance. However, might not the same criticism be applied to most American voters, of whatever ilk?

    Sailinghomeo 4h ago
    Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton.

    The ethics pledge Hillary violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again...

    [Aug 25, 2016] Economists Whove Advised Presidents Are No Fans of Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... And Mankiw was the economic adviser to Mitt Romney, the elitist Nazi who said 47% of the American people were his enemies and who was in favour of economic policies that would stripmine the country to put all its wealth in the offshore bank accounts of the kleptocrats. ..."
    "... Which btw makes you wonder how anyone can call Mankiw an "economist". The guy's a Republican buttboy and that's all he is. ..."
    "... Mankiw didn't enable the Republicans alone. Every two-bit intro macro prof who teaches from Mankiw has aided him. ..."
    "... Real Time whatever at wsj are looking for reasons to keep the GOPster/free trade type progress going! A reason to oppose Trump and vote for Hillary? ..."
    "... Trump is a very controversial figure, but he can be viewed as a disruptive politician and might put some pressure on neoliberal, and especially neocons, before they coopt him. Think of him as a proponent of Brexit II. Making the elections essentially a referendum on neoliberal globalization. ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Comments from the discussion in Economist's View

    Sandwichman :
    "who has broken with many of the GOP's traditional positions on economic policy"

    Not seeing much to like in "the GOP's traditional positions" where does this leave me? The truth is all 45 surviving former members of the CEA can be wrong without making Trump right.

    pgl -> Sandwichman, Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM
    Tax cuts for rich people as their "solution" to poverty. And balancing the budget with magic asterisks.
    ilsm -> Sandwichman
    Indeed, see how far the US has "progressed" with these guys' advising since Nixon!
    Decision Overload
    When the deeply established insider "advisers" are against him, you can bet that he is an angry outsider same as the rest of us. Look!

    The most inefficient thing in our taxation system is the taxing of poor folks. Do you recognize what that accomplishes? Poor folk taxation takes money away from the poor person's landlord, his power company, his telephone company and more much more -- just slows down the economy plus administrative overhead that is the cost of slamming on the brakes.

    The Donald has proposed a $25,000 standard deduction which will protect the low-rollers who have no deductions from tax-shelters. $50,000 for married couples! What a savings! What a relief from the churning that has evolved from smoke and mirror politics.

    Get
    it --

    Peter K., Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 09:29 AM
    "Harvard University economist Gregory Mankiw, who chaired the council under George W. Bush and has been mentioned as a possible future Fed chairman, said recently on his blog that he would not support Mr. Trump.

    "I have Republican friends who think that things couldn't be worse than doubling down on Obama policies under Hillary Clinton. And, like them, I am no fan of the left's agenda of large government and high taxes," Mr. Mankiw wrote. "But they are wrong: Things could be worse. And I fear they would be under Mr. Trump.""

    Mankiw and Krugman mini-me Pro Growth Liberal agree on something.

    Vic Twente -> Peter K
    And Mankiw was the economic adviser to Mitt Romney, the elitist Nazi who said 47% of the American people were his enemies and who was in favour of economic policies that would stripmine the country to put all its wealth in the offshore bank accounts of the kleptocrats.

    Which btw makes you wonder how anyone can call Mankiw an "economist". The guy's a Republican buttboy and that's all he is.

    Vic Twente -> Peter K
    Mankiw didn't enable the Republicans alone. Every two-bit intro macro prof who teaches from Mankiw has aided him.

    I laugh when I imagine undergrad econ ten years from now: the textbooks will be full of Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand, and undergrad sessional lecturers will be drowning in cognitive dissonance as they try to remain straight-faced while lecturing on the benefits of the gold standard and eliminating the Federal Reserve.

    pgl :
    Stiglitz supports Clinton over Trump. No surprise but this is:

    "I have known personally every Republican president since Richard Nixon," said Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein, who chaired the council under President Ronald Reagan. "They all showed a real understanding of economics and international affairs".

    OK - Reagan did get a degree in economics but Krugman - who worked for Feldstein a the CEA - tells a different story about this White House when it comes to macroeconomics, the role of monetary policy, and in particular what was happening with the international aspects of our economy during Reagan's first term. Volcker - once he was done with his damaging tight monetary policy - tried to make a deal where he would lower interest rates in exchange for a reversal of that 1981 tax cut. The Reagan White House had no clue what the FED chair was even proposing even though it would have been a very good idea.

    ilsm :
    Real Time whatever at wsj are looking for reasons to keep the GOPster/free trade type progress going! A reason to oppose Trump and vote for Hillary?

    Dowd is right! The best thuglican is a democrat.

    likbez :
    Hillary Clinton is dyed-in-wool neoliberal. So all she can do is to kick the can down the road. All her elections promises are not worth the cost of the electrical energy that is used to depict them on our screens.

    Trump is a very controversial figure, but he can be viewed as a disruptive politician and might put some pressure on neoliberal, and especially neocons, before they coopt him. Think of him as a proponent of Brexit II. Making the elections essentially a referendum on neoliberal globalization.

    If he wins, a lot of Washington neocon parasites might lose jobs (the cash for the neocons comes mostly from defense contractors), that's why they crossed the party lines and that's why neoliberal propaganda campaign against him is so vicious. Khan gambit was a nasty attempt to speedboat him. It failed.

    While Hillary gets a free pass from neoliberal press (ABC, CBS and NBC). Neoliberal presstitutes (like George Stephanopoulos ) are especially vicious, behave like rabid dogs. Just listen to his interview of Trump about Khan gambit at Democratic convention.

    http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/US_presidential_elections/Candidates/Trump/khan_gambit_at_democratic_convention.shtml

    There is another view on Trump that deserves attention:

    === quote ===
    Lupita 08.04.16 at 4:23 am 167

    I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs .

    Much has been written about the internet revolution, about the impact of people having access to much more information than before. The elite does not recognize this and is still organizing political and media campaigns as if it were 1990, relying on elder statesmen like Blair, Bush, Mitterrand, Clinton, and Obama to influence public opinion. They are failing miserably, to the point of being counterproductive.

    I don't think something as parochial as racism is sustaining Trump, but rather the fear of the loss of empire by a population with several orders of magnitude more information and communication than in 2008, even 2012.

    === end of quote ===

    But it is the deep state that dictates the course of the US, both in foreign policy and domestically, probably from 1963, so the president now is more of a ceremonial figure that adds legitimacy to the actual rule of deep state.

    In any case discussion Hillary vs. Trump and questions of economics (neoliberalism vs. some retrenchment in the direction of the New Deal) we should not miss the key, defining this election fact that Hillary is a war criminal (crimes against peace are war crimes). See http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/nuremberg-trials

    From this point of view voting for Hillary is highly undesirable as this is an implicit cooperation with the war criminal. That does not mean that people should vote for Trump. Who has his own set of warts.

    ilsm -> likbez... , Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 01:03 PM
    It has been suggested the appropriators owned by the war profiteers won't allocate money to fuel the transports that take America's Soldiers and Marines home.

    The lesser evil killed no one with a vote believing in fake WMD's. The lesser evil is not experienced in keeping the neocons happy.

    The lesser evil may decide body bags forever is not strategy.

    Trump is the lesser evil.

    Imagine what happens if the commander in chief says: stand down and steam for Pearl Harbor, San Diego and Alameda.

    What would all those US retirees do if the commander in chief shuttered those brigades in Germany?

    ilsm -> likbez... , Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 01:08 PM
    If the crooked DNC cared about families of US' slain.....

    The Khan con angered 5990 Gold Star families who are not Muslim and whose star are the result of Hillary voting for AUMF righteously and acting out since 2003.

    As well as veterans!

    Gold star families why not pick 1/5999 rather than 1/14 Muslims?

    [Aug 25, 2016] Some trump supportes belong to the alt-right . So what. Many Hillary supporters belong to Wall Street and military industiral complex.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some Stooges have expressed a preference for Trump over Killary ..."
    "... Bannon, personally, has not been accused of anti-Semitism, however. ..."
    "... He's just less likely to touch off a global war than Clinton is. What happens to the United States of America is not my concern, and if a series of catastrophic national-leadership decisions cause it to collapse, that is America's business. I'm not saying it would not affect me, because it most certainly would – the collapse of the world's largest (or second-largest) single economy would affect everyone. ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Northern Star , August 25, 2016 at 11:08 am
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/alt-beginners-guide-000000002.html?nhp=1

    Some Stooges have expressed a preference for Trump over Killary,…BUt iF–and I say IF -Trump embraces these "alt-right' vermin…then he is just as unfit to be POTUS as Killary..

    "There are, of course, many strains of thinking under the "alt-right" umbrella. Some factions are preoccupied with a return to "traditional values," while others espouse a philosophy called "Human Biodiversity": the belief that there are significant biological differences between people of different races, which justifies treating them differently. (The other name for this is "scientific racism.") Anti-Semitism is common, in various forms, ranging from Holocaust denial to full-bore denunciations of Jews as agents of the collapse of white Christian society. Bannon, personally, has not been accused of anti-Semitism, however.

    The common thread, however, that connects members of these different factions is a shared desire to protect Western civilization from what many refer to as "white genocide." This manifests in opposition to things like immigration and multiculturalism, as well as a steadfast aversion to political correctness and to establishment politics of all kinds, including Republican."

    The 'alt-right' need to be exterminated every bit as much as fascist warmonger vermin.

    EOS.

    marknesop , August 25, 2016 at 12:00 pm
    Absolutely. Trump would make a terrible president. He's just less likely to touch off a global war than Clinton is. What happens to the United States of America is not my concern, and if a series of catastrophic national-leadership decisions cause it to collapse, that is America's business. I'm not saying it would not affect me, because it most certainly would – the collapse of the world's largest (or second-largest) single economy would affect everyone.

    But it is up to Americans to determine their nation's course, and I'm sure they do not welcome meddling any more than any other country does. I will say their political crisis is appalling, and that their choice has come down to Trump or Clinton is beyond appalling, but in the end it is Americans who must take responsibility for that. That is America's business, and all of my disagreements with America stem from its activities outside its own borders.

    Also, all those rabbiting on about Russia showing a clear preference for Trump should take note of Europe's oft-expressed and extremely public endorsement of Clinton.

    Northern Star , August 25, 2016 at 1:48 pm
    Yes…this is a **real ** dilemma….super corrupt pathological lying (barking) warmonger psycho….OR….prone to be manipulated by white supremacist ideology nutjob…

    [Aug 25, 2016] The Real Scandal of Clintons Emails Conducting Foreign Policy In Secret

    Notable quotes:
    "... The clintons are a terminally vulgar and unethical couple ..."
    "... Mr. Clinton always had an easy, breezy relationship with wrongdoing. But the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul. ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    hreik , August 25, 2016 at 7:46 am

    Bob Herbert said it best 15 years ago

    The clintons are a terminally vulgar and unethical couple

    Out of order quotes:

    Mr. Clinton always had an easy, breezy relationship with wrongdoing. But the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.

    Link http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/26/opinion/in-america-cut-him-loose.html

    Jim Haygood , August 25, 2016 at 8:10 am

    "The clintons are a terminally vulgar and unethical couple "

    Wish this forum allowed signatures, so Bob Herbert's deep truth could appear with every post.

    hreik , August 25, 2016 at 8:23 am

    That's the money quote for me. Just those 9 words. Sums it up beautifully, perfectly even.

    [Aug 25, 2016] The Second Amendment Incident was artificially created by neoliberal media

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post, Salon, Slate, Think Progress ..."
    "... Trump never overtly used the word "assassinate." He says he was just suggesting that advocates of the Second Amendment vote, and was being sarcastic. A sarcastic invocation to vote would sound very different. A sarcastic invocation to vote might be, "The American way to change things is to vote. But maybe you care so much about shooting, you won't be able to organize to vote." ..."
    "... exaggeration, flattery, kidding, joking ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.commondreams.org
    From: Understanding Trump's Use of Language Common Dreams Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community by George Lakoff

    This piece is a follow-up of a Lakoff's article, Understanding Trump , published by Common Dreams last month.

    Responsible reporters in the media normally transcribe political speeches so that they can accurately report them. But Donald Trump's discourse style has stumped a number of reporters. Dan Libit, CNBC's excellent analyst is one of them. Libit writes:

    His unscripted speaking style, with its spasmodic, self-interrupting sentence structure, has increasingly come to overwhelm the human brains and tape recorders attempting to quote him.

    Trump is, simply put, a transcriptionist's worst nightmare: severely unintelligible, and yet, incredibly important to understand.

    Given how dramatically recent polls have turned on his controversial public utterances, it is not hyperbolic to say that the very fate of the nation, indeed human civilization, appears destined to come down to one man's application of the English language - and the public's comprehension of it. It has turned the rote job of transcribing into a high-stakes calling. […]

    Trump's crimes against clarity are multifarious: He often speaks in long, run-on sentences, with frequent asides. He pauses after subordinate clauses. He frequently quotes people saying things that aren't actual quotes. And he repeats words and phrases, sometimes with slight variations, in the same sentence.

    Some in the media ( Washington Post, Salon, Slate, Think Progress , etc.) have called Trump's speeches "word salad." Some commentators have even attributed his language use to "early Alzheimer's," citing "erratic behavior" and "little regards for social conventions." I don't believe it.

    I have been repeatedly asked in media interviews about such use of language by Trump. So far as I can tell, he is simply using effective discourse mechanisms to communicate what his wants to communicate to his audience. I have found that he is very careful and very strategic in his use of language. The only way I know to show this is to function as a linguist and cognitive scientist and go through details.

    Let's start with sentence fragments. It is common and natural in New York discourse for friends to finish one another's sentences. And throughout the country, if you don't actually say the rest of a friend's sentence out loud, there is nevertheless a point at which you can finish it in your head. When this happens in cooperative discourse, it can show empathy and intimacy with a friend, that you know the context of the narrative, and that you understand and accept your friend's framing of the situation so well that you can even finish what they have started to say. Of course, you can be bored with, or antagonistic to, someone and be able to finish their sentences with anything but a feeling of empathy and intimacy. But Trump prefers to talk to a friendly crowd.

    Trump often starts a sentence and leaves off where his followers can finish in their minds what he has started to say. That is, they commonly feel empathy and intimacy, an acceptance of what is being said, and good feeling toward the speaker. This is an unconscious, automatic reaction, especially when words are flying by quickly. It is a means for Trump to connect with his audience.

    The Second Amendment Incident

    Here is the classic case, the Second Amendment Incident. The thing to be aware of is that his words are carefully chosen. They go by quickly when people hear them. But they are processed unconsciously first by neural circuitry - and neurons operate on a thousandth-of-a-second time scale. Your neural circuitry has plenty of time to engage in complex forms of understanding, based on what you already know.

    Trump begins by saying, "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment." He first just says "abolish," and then hedges by adding "essentially abolish." But having said "abolish" twice, he has gotten across the message that she wants to, and is able to, change the Constitution in that way.

    Now, at the time the Second Amendment was written, the "arms" in "bear arms" were long rifles that fired one bullet at a time. The "well-regulated militia" was a local group, like a contemporary National Guard unit, regulated by a local government with military command structure. They were protecting American freedoms against the British.

    The Second Amendment has been reinterpreted by contemporary ultra-conservatives as the right of individual citizens to bear contemporary arms (e.g., AK-47's), either to protect their families against invaders or to change a government by armed rebellion if that government threatens what they see as their freedoms. The term "Second Amendment" activates the contemporary usage by ultra-conservatives. It is a dog-whistle term, understood in that way by many conservatives.

    Now, no president or Supreme Court could literally abolish any constitutional amendment alone. But a Supreme Court could judge that that certain laws concerning gun ownership could be unconstitutional. That is what Trump meant by "essentially abolish."

    Thus, the election of Hillary Clinton threatens the contemporary advocates of the 'Second Amendment.'

    Trump goes on:

    "By the way, and if she gets to pick [loud boos] - if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

    Here are the details.

    " By the way ," marks a parallel utterance, one that does not linearly follow from what was just said, but that has information relevant to what was just said.

    "And" here marks information that follows from what was just said.

    "If she gets to pick …" When said the first time, it was followed immediately by loud boos. The audience could finish the if-clause for themselves, since the word "pick" in context could only be about Hillary picking liberal judges. Trump goes on making this explicit, "if she gets to pick her judges…"

    "Gets to" is important. The metaphor here with "to" is that Achieving a Purpose Is Reaching a Destination" with the object of "to" marking the pick. The "get" in "get to" is from a related metaphor, namely, that Achieving a Purpose Is Getting a Desired Object. In both Purpose metaphors, the Achievement of the Purpose can be stopped by an opponent. The "if" indicates that the achievement of the purpose is still uncertain, which raises the question of whether it can be stopped.

    "Her judges" indicates that the judges are not your judges, from which it follows that they will not rule the way you want them to, namely, for keeping your guns. The if-clause thus has a consequence: unless Hillary is prevented from becoming president, "her judges" will change the laws to take away your guns and your Constitutional right to bear arms. This would be a governmental infringement on your freedom, which would justify the armed intervention of ultra-conservatives, what Sharon Angle in Nevada has called the "Second Amendment solution." In short, a lot is entailed - in little time on a human timescale, but with lots of time on a neural timescale.

    Having set this up, Trump follows the if-clause with "Nothing you can do, folks." This is a shortened version in everyday colloquial English of "There will be nothing you can do, folks." That is, if you let Hillary take office, you will be so weak that you will be unable to stop her. The "folks," suggests that he and the audience members are socially part of the same social group - as opposed to a distant billionaire with his own agenda.

    Immediately after "nothing you can do," Trump goes on: "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is."

    "Although" is a word used to contrast one possible course of events with an opposite possibility. Trump has just presented a possible course of events that is threatening to ultra-conservative Second Amendment advocates. "Although the Second Amendment people" calls up the alternative for those who would act violently to protect their Second Amendment right.

    "Maybe" brings up a suggestion. "Maybe there is" suggests that there is something the "Second Amendment People" can do to prevent Hillary from taking office and appointing liberal judges who would take away what they see as their Constitutional rights.

    "I don't know" is intended to remove Trump from any blame. But it acts unconsciously in the opposite way. It is like the title of the book I wrote, "Don't Think of an Elephant." The way the brain works is that negating a frame activates the frame. The relevant frame for "Second Amendment people" is use of arms to protect their rights against a government threatening to take away their rights. This is about the right to shoot, not about the right to vote. Second Amendment conservative discourse is about shooting, not about voting.

    The point here is that Trump's use of language is anything but "word salad." His words and his use of grammar are carefully chosen, and put together artfully, automatically, and quickly.

    Trump never overtly used the word "assassinate." He says he was just suggesting that advocates of the Second Amendment vote, and was being sarcastic. A sarcastic invocation to vote would sound very different. A sarcastic invocation to vote might be, "The American way to change things is to vote. But maybe you care so much about shooting, you won't be able to organize to vote."

    He didn't say anything like that. And he chose his words very, very carefully.

    Believe Me! Some People Say…

    People in the media have asked me about Trump's use of "Believe me!" and "Many people say" followed by a statement that is not true, but that he wants he audience to believe. Why does he use such expressions and how do they work in discourse? To understand this, one needs to look at the concept of lying. Most people will say that a lie is a false statement. But a study by linguists Linda Coleman and Paul Kay pointed out more than 30 years ago that the situation is more complex.

    If a statement happens to be false, but you sincerely believe that it is true, you are not lying in stating it. Lying involves a hierarchy of conditions defining worse and worse lies. Here is the hierarchy:

    1. You don't believe it.
    2. You are trying to deceive.
    3. You are trying to gain advantage for yourself.
    4. You are trying to harm.

    As you add conditions in the hierarchy, the lies get worse and worse.

    Though this is the usual hierarchy for lies, there are variations: A white lie is one that is harmless. A social lie is one where deceit is general helpful, as in, "Aunt Susie, that was such a delicious Jello mold that you made." Other variations include exaggeration, flattery, kidding, joking , etc.

    Lying is a form of uncooperative discourse. But most discourse is cooperative, and there are rules governing it that the philosopher Paul Grice called "maxims" in his Harvard Lectures in 1967. Grice observed that uncooperative discourse is created when the maxims are violated. Grice's maxims were extended in the 1970's by Eve Sweetser in a paper on lying.

    Sweetser postulated a Maxim of Helpfulness:

    In Cooperative Discourse, people intend to help to help one another.

    She then observed that there were two models used in helpful communication.

    Ordinary Communication
    If people say something, they are intending to help if and only if they believe it.
    People intend to deceive, if and only if they don't intend to help.

    Justified Belief
    People have adequate reasons for their beliefs.
    What people have adequate reason to believe is true.

    Though this model does not hold for all situations (e.g., kidding), they are models that are used by virtually everyone unconsciously all day every day. If I tell my wife that I saw my cousin this morning, there is no reason to deceive, so I believe it (Ordinary Communication). And since I know my cousin well, if I believe I saw him, then I did see him (Justified Belief). Such principles are part of our unconsciously functioning neural systems. They work automatically, unless they become conscious and we can attend to them and control them.

    Trump uses these communication models that are in your brain. When he says "Believe me!" he is using the principle of Justified Belief, suggesting that he has the requisite experience for his belief to be true. When those in Trump's audience hear "Believe me!", they will mostly understand it automatically and, unconsciously and via Justified Belief, will take it to be true.

    When Trump says, "Many people say that …" both principles are unconsciously activated. If many people say it, they are unlikely to all or mostly be deceiving, which means they believe it, and by Justified Belief, it is taken to be true.

    You have to be on your toes, listening carefully and ready to disbelieve Trump, to avoid the use of these ordinary cognitive mechanisms in your brain that Trump uses for his purposes.

    Is He "On Topic?"

    Political reporters are used to hearing speeches with significant sections on a single policy issue. Trump often goes from policy to policy to policy in a single sentence. Is he going off topic?

    So far as I can discern, he always on topic, but you have to understand what his topic is. As I observed in my Understanding Trump paper, Trump is deeply, personally committed to his version of Strict Father Morality. He wants it to dominate the country and the world, and he wants to be the ultimate authority in this authoritarian model of the family that is applied in conservative politics in virtually every issue area.

    Every particular issue, from building the wall, to using our nukes, to getting rid of inheritance taxes (on those making $10.9 million or more), to eliminating the minimum wage - every issue is an instance of his version of Strict Father Morality over all areas of life, with him as ultimately in charge.

    As he shifts from particular issue to particular issue, each of them activates his version of Strict Father Morality and strengthens it in the brains of his audience. So far as I can tell, he is always on topic - where this is the topic.

    Always Selling

    For five decades, Trump has been using all these techniques of selling and trying to make deals to his advantage. It seems to have become second nature for him to use these devices. And he uses them carefully and well. He is a talented charlatan. Keeping you off balance is part of his game. As is appealing to ordinary thought mechanisms in the people he is addressing.

    It is vital that the media, and ordinary voters, learn to recognize his techniques. When the media fails to grasp what he is doing, it gives him an advantage. Every time someone in the media claims his discourse is "word salad, " it helps Trump by hiding what he is really doing.

    "Regret" or Excuse

    One day after the above was written, Trump made a well-publicized statement of "regret."

    "Sometimes, in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don't choose the right words or you say the wrong thing.

    I have done that.

    And believe it or not, I regret it.

    And I do regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain.

    Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues. …"

    He did not give any specifics.

    What we have just seen is that he chooses his words VERY carefully. And he has done that here.

    He starts out with "sometimes," which suggests that it is a rare occurrence on no particular occasions - a relatively rare accident. He continues with a general, inescapable fact about being a presidential candidate, namely, that he is always "in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues." The words "heat" and "multitude" suggest that normal attention to details like word choice cannot operate in presidential campaign. In short, it is nothing that he could possibly be responsible for, and is a rare occurrence anyway.

    Then he uses the word "you." This shifts perspective from him to "you," a member of the audience. You too, if you were running for president, would naturally be in such uncontrollable situations all the time, when "you don't choose the right words or you say the wrong thing." It's just a matter of choosing "the right words." This means that he had the right ideas, but under natural, and inevitable attentional stress, an unavoidable mistake happens and could happen to you: "you" have the right ideas, but mess up on the "right words."

    He then admits to "sometimes" making an unavoidable, natural mistake, not in choosing the right ideas, but in word choice and, putting yourself in his shoes, "you say the wrong thing" - that is, you are thinking the right thing, but you just say it wrong - "sometimes."

    His admission is straightforward - "I have done that" - as if he had just admitted to something immoral, but which he has carefully described as anything but immoral.

    "And believe it or not, I regret it." What he is communicating with "believe it or not," is that you, in the audience, may not believe that I am a sensitive soul, but I really am, as shown by my statement of regret. He then emphasizes his statement of personal sensitivity: "And I do regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain." Note the "may have caused." No admission that he definitely DID "cause personal pain." And no specifics given. After all, they don't have to be given, because it is natural, unavoidable, accidental, and so rare as to not matter. He states this: "Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues." In short, it's a trivial matter to be ignored - because it is a natural, unavoidable, accidental mistake, only in the words not the thoughts, and is so rare as to be unimportant. All that in five well-crafted sentences!

    Note how carefully he has chosen his words. And what is the intended effect? He should be excused because inaccurate word choice is so natural that it will inevitably occur again, and he should not be criticized when the stress of the campaign leads inevitably to mistakes in trivial word choice.

    But there is a larger effect. Words have meanings. The words he carefully uses, often over and over, get across his values and ideas, which are all too often lies or promotions of racist, sexist, and other un-American invocations. When these backfire mightily, as with the Khans, there can be no hiding behind a nonspecific "regret" that they were just rare, accidental word choice mistakes too trivial for the public to be "consumed with." This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

    George Lakoff is the author of The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic (co-authored with Elizabeth Wehling). His previous books include Moral Politics , Don't Think of an Elephant! , Whose Freedom? and Thinking Points (with the Rockridge Institute staff). He is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, and a founding senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute .

    [Aug 25, 2016] Trump calls Clinton a 'bigot' at surreal rally with U.K. Independence Party leader by Holly Bailey

    Better late then never. That's bold attack we all need. After Khna gabmit, you need to nail Hillary who is trying to drive on anti-Russian sentiment and demonization by neoliberal press of the opponent. Bravo Trump !!!
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Hillary Clinton is a bigot who sees people of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future," the GOP presidential nominee declared at a rally here Wednesday night. "She's going to do nothing for African-Americans. She's going to do nothing for the Hispanics. She's only going to take care of herself, her husband, her consultants, her donors. These are the people she cares about." ..."
    "... he likened his own campaign against the European establishment to the brash developer's insurgent bid for the White House. ..."
    www.yahoo.com

    "Hillary Clinton is a bigot who sees people of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future," the GOP presidential nominee declared at a rally here Wednesday night. "She's going to do nothing for African-Americans. She's going to do nothing for the Hispanics. She's only going to take care of herself, her husband, her consultants, her donors. These are the people she cares about."

    ... ... ...

    Trump has repeatedly likened his own campaign to Brexit in arguing for "peaceful regime change" in the U.S. on Election Day. The mogul recently predicted that he would soon be known by the moniker "Mr. Brexit."

    Inviting the British politician to the stage at his Wednesday rally, the GOP nominee called it an "honor" to stand with Farage, who all but endorsed Trump as he likened his own campaign against the European establishment to the brash developer's insurgent bid for the White House.

    Speaking to audience members who appeared somewhat baffled at his presence, Farage spoke of how he and allies overcame opposition from the political establishment and even a set of foreign leaders that included U.S. President Obama. As the crowd here booed, Farage pointedly accused Obama of talking down to the British. "He treated us as if we were nothing," Farage said. "One of the oldest functioning democracies in the world, and here he was telling us to 'vote remain.'"

    As Trump stood over his shoulder, a smile on his face, Farage pointedly did not endorse Trump - but he came very, very close. "I could not possibly tell you how you should vote in this election," he said. "But I will say this, if I was an American citizen, I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton if you paid me!"

    Farage urged Trump supporters to take advantage of the "fantastic opportunity" they face in November. "You can go out. You can beat the pollsters. You can beat the commentators. You can beat Washington. And you'll do it by doing what we did for Brexit in Britain. We had our own people's army of ordinary citizens," he said. "Anything is possible if enough people are prepared to stand up against the establishment."

    Walking back to the podium, Trump nodded, calling Election Day a chance for the country to "re-declare" its independence. "It's time to recapture our destiny," he said.

    • Signpost 5 minutes ago

      Words mean very little really. The proof is in the pudding. These democrats are very skilled at saying slick words and calling others racists. That's basically a democrats main campaign slogan. "You're a racist!"

      But let's look for a moment at what they have accomplished. After 8 years of a democrat President black people are suffering. Look at the inner cities. Detroit, Milwaukee, ect. We see the anger and hopelessness. 58% of black youth are unemployed. Illegal aliens get treated better that black Americans. And the Hispanics only help their own once they get control of anything. Diversity isn't a Hispanic employers strong suit.

      95 million Americans are out of work. But Obama says the economy is thriving. The democrats know how to say the slick words. But it is only their elite who make any money. The rest of you are on food stamps. So, do we want 4 more years like the last 8? Someone like Clinton who will talk the bs while your families go without? Or do you want someone who can create jobs. As we can see by looking at the Clinton foundation emails, she got hers already. Wow. She was selling a possible future presidency while she was Secretary of State. She figured the American people would be too dumb to find out.

      Out with the democrats. Time to change the batter.

    • Greg Collins 5 minutes ago

      Where is Hillary Clinton can't give a press conference answer real question American can tell truth and you want to vote for a liar misstatements YouTube video and email poor judgment policy open border bring Syria Muslims terrorist will come in and attack kill your family this is what you are vote for and corrupt foundation no thanks

    • crosswalkuser 4 minutes ago

      With Hillary blatant corruption record it looks as though its Hillary who could shoot someone and still be elected as Americans are bent on having a new Pantygon where they see have the generals being women and the other half being gay men matching the current media.

    • still rockin' still rockin' 7 minutes ago

      While Trump is a idiot, he is correct that the only thing Hillary cares about with Blacks and Hispanics are their votes. After that she will keep them on the Democratic treadmill with no possible chance of advancement for the masses. For decades the Democrats have promised them prosperity and given them just enough to live a meager existence while lining their own pockets. Some of the wealthiest Congressional politicians are Democrats!

    • Ghassanids 1 hour ago

      As someone who is branded as "Hispanic" by the government, I am not looking to be taken care of by Clinton nor Trump. Where is all this language coming from? I'm just a normal citizen trying to live out my term on Earth. What's the deal?

    • James D James D 3 hours ago

      Any politician who talks about citizens as belonging to some biologically defined group, as if they all should think and vote alike based on that biological similarity, is a shallow bigot. It doesn't matter what biological feature they decide to focus on at the moment, whether it be gender, age, skin color, ethnicity, sexuality, ...... putting people into a box and stereotyping them is disgusting bigotry.

    • Richard 3 hours ago

      We have Nero and Caligula running for the American presidency. The question is which one is which?

    [Aug 25, 2016] It Is Time to Begin the Process of Rebuilding Our Middle-Class Economy

    Notable quotes:
    "... recently, the paper's former Washington bureau chief, the veteran journalist Hedrick Smith, asked an important question: ..."
    "... Smith, who traveled the country to write his latest book ..."
    "... also serves as the executive editor of the Reclaim the American Dream website, where he keeps a keen eye on efforts to revitalize politics closest to where people live. In his op-ed essay he answered his own question by reporting that "a broad array of state-level citizen movements are pressing for reforms… to give average voters more voice, make elections more competitive and ease gridlock in Congress." ..."
    "... There's a lot of energy stirring in the states, including efforts to create a fairer economy. Unlike our paralyzed and polarized Congress, state legislators - those with eyes to see and ears to hear - know the walking-wounded casualties from the long campaign against working people conducted by Big Business and rabid free-marketeers over the past three decades. Among the stunned and shell-shocked are millions of survivors barely hanging on after the financial crash of 2008 and the Great Recession that followed. They live down the street and around the corner, a mere few blocks from the state capitol. ..."
    "... Here at BillMoyers.com , just as Hedrick Smith's essay appeared last weekend, we were finishing a small book - 95 pages - by one of those state legislators: Minnesota's David Bly. After teaching in the public schools for 30 years he retired and ran for the Minnesota House of Representatives, where he is now serving his fourth term. What he's seen close-up prompted him to write ..."
    "... You can order a copy from the publisher's website . It is short in length but not of passion. Here, with permission, is an excerpt: ..."
    "... The Spirit Level ..."
    "... Capital in the 21 st Century ..."
    "... Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal ..."
    "... Winner-Take-All Politics ..."
    "... Who Stole the American Dream? ..."
    "... Citizen's United ..."
    "... The Minneapolis Star Tribune ..."
    "... Excerpted with permission from Levins Publishing. All rights reserved. ..."
    "... Moyers & Company ..."
    "... Bill Moyers Journal: The Conversation Continues , ..."
    "... Moyers on Democracy ..."
    "... Bill Moyers: On Faith & Reason ..."
    "... We All Do Better ..."
    www.commondreams.org
    Our collapse from an "opportunity for all" middle-class economy to a "winner-take-all," dog-eat-dog system is behind many problems we face as a society. 18 Comments

    An ice sculpture reading Middle Class is displayed as people gather to protest before the beginning of the Republican National Convention on August 26, 2012 in Tampa, Florida. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

    In The New York Times recently, the paper's former Washington bureau chief, the veteran journalist Hedrick Smith, asked an important question: "Can the States Save American Democracy?" Smith, who traveled the country to write his latest book, Who Stole the American Dream?, also serves as the executive editor of the Reclaim the American Dream website, where he keeps a keen eye on efforts to revitalize politics closest to where people live. In his op-ed essay he answered his own question by reporting that "a broad array of state-level citizen movements are pressing for reforms… to give average voters more voice, make elections more competitive and ease gridlock in Congress."

    There's a lot of energy stirring in the states, including efforts to create a fairer economy. Unlike our paralyzed and polarized Congress, state legislators - those with eyes to see and ears to hear - know the walking-wounded casualties from the long campaign against working people conducted by Big Business and rabid free-marketeers over the past three decades. Among the stunned and shell-shocked are millions of survivors barely hanging on after the financial crash of 2008 and the Great Recession that followed. They live down the street and around the corner, a mere few blocks from the state capitol.

    Here at BillMoyers.com, just as Hedrick Smith's essay appeared last weekend, we were finishing a small book - 95 pages - by one of those state legislators: Minnesota's David Bly. After teaching in the public schools for 30 years he retired and ran for the Minnesota House of Representatives, where he is now serving his fourth term. What he's seen close-up prompted him to write We All Do Better: Economic Priorities for a Land of Opportunity. You can order a copy from the publisher's website. It is short in length but not of passion. Here, with permission, is an excerpt:

    Not so long ago, the words "Land of Opportunity" really meant something for all Americans. We pretty much took it for granted that each and every one of us should have the opportunity to develop our God-given talents to reach our greatest potential. This didn't mean that everyone would choose to use that opportunity, or that anyone would be forced to use it. It did, however, mean that everyone had that opportunity…. As the late Sen. Paul Wellstone once said, "We all do better when we all do better."

    Things are changing, and not for the better. All too often, we hear stories of families evicted from their homes when unemployment runs out, or senior citizens who must choose between buying groceries and life-sustaining medications, or the single mother who can't get a job because she must spend her time nursing her invalid son. We open the paper to read yet another story about the achievement gap in our schools. We watch the news and are shocked to learn that the United States is the world's leader in putting its citizens behind bars.

    These kinds of thing don't happen, or at least shouldn't, when there is a nationwide commitment for everyone to have what they need to develop their potential. This commitment goes beyond lip service and political speeches. It involves deliberate policies that maintain what I call a "middle-class economy." A middle-class economy is not one in which every single person makes a certain amount of money. Even in a middle-class economy, some are rich and some are poor. But most of the people have most of the money. Most of the people can take care of themselves and fully develop their potential. Those that can't take care of themselves for any number of understandable reasons can count on the rest of us to get them through the rough spots.

    Right now we are in the process of losing our middle-class economy. We know this from news stories, and far too many of us know it from bitter personal experience. This loss of our middle-class economy and the resultant shift to a "winner-take-all" economy of rich and poor are behind most of the problems with which we struggle as a society.

    The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett helped me see how and why this is so. The authors demonstrate in powerful terms how growing inequality is crippling both our society and our economy in ways that will make it harder to address critical problems we face as a nation. Page after page of graphs illustrate how we have fallen behind other developed nations in the things a well-functioning economy must provide. Wilkinson and Pickett make a solid case that it is not so much the average income of a society that matters. More important is how that income is distributed. Countries that have the most equal income distribution do best on health and social indicators.

    According to Wilkinson and Pickett, who are epidemiologists, income inequality is related to "lower life expectancy, higher rates of infant mortality, shorter height, poor self-reported health, low birth weight, AIDS and depression." They collected data from dozens of other rich countries on health, level of trust, mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, life expectancy, infant mortality, teenage birth rates, obesity, children's educational performance, homicides, imprisonment and social mobility. "What is most exciting about our research is that it shows that reducing inequality would increase the well-being and quality of life for all of us," the authors say. Today we have a choice: use public investment to reduce inequality or pay for the social harm caused by inequality.

    Right now we are in the process of losing our middle-class economy.

    Wilkinson and Pickett also believe: "Modern societies will depend increasingly on being creative, adaptable, inventive, well-informed and flexible, able to respond generously to each other and to needs wherever they arise. Those are societies not in hock to the rich, in which people are driven by status insecurities, but of populations used to working together and respecting each other as equals." Any search for economic salvation that is motivated and driven by the greed of its individual participants is bound to fail.

    Ours is the oldest modern democracy, but present-day policies and court decisions are undermining our basic democratic principles. Immense power has been ceded to a cadre of financial elites who have figured out how to buy their way into control of our government. The past 30 years have seen two related trends: (1) an unraveling of benefits and opportunities for the vast majority of Americans, and (2) a massive increase in wealth for a relative handful of people. Leading economists assure us that if we don't take decisive action, we can expect more of the same. Economist Emmanuel Saez has carefully analyzed the shift toward a rich-and-poor economy. He says, "The market itself doesn't impose a limit on inequality, especially for those at the top." His partner in research, Thomas Piketty, has further documented and explained income inequality in his book Capital in the 21st Century. As I write this, the very wealthy are enjoying a good recovery from the recession of 2008 while the vast majority of Americans fall further behind.

    Our descent from an economy that provided for all of us to one that provides for only the few has been no accident. Nor was it inevitable. The story of how government has gone from limiting greed to encouraging it is chronicled in several recent books. Kim Phillips-Fein in Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal; Paul Pierson and Jacob S. Hacker in Winner-Take-All Politics; and Hedrick Smith in Who Stole the American Dream? tell much the same story in different ways. When the Supreme Court determined that money was speech in 1976, things began to change quickly. The super-rich suddenly gained an advantage in their campaign to silence the power of people and weaken our democracy. Today, with the Supreme Court decision on the Citizen's United case, corporations are "people," and even misinformation and lies spread by these strange new "people" are protected speech.

    Economic value is created by law. We often use the words "free market" to describe our current economic system, but that system, as much as any other, rests on a set of legal rules and a system to enforce those rules. So it matters who writes the laws or what interests those laws serve. Similarly, the distribution of wealth and the flow of capital can flow one way or the other with the stroke of an official pen. Property rights and the distribution of wealth can deny liberty to some just as easily as they bestow it on others. Amartya Sen, a Nobel Award-winning economist, argues that hunger is not a product of the shortage of food. Instead, hungry people lack rights (the entitlement) to eat. The law decides, or as Sen puts it, "The law stands between food availability and food entitlement. Starvation deaths can reflect legality with a vengeance."

    Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who served 1930-41, argued that the Constitution protects "liberty in a social organization which requires the protection of law against the evils which menace the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people." Beginning with the founding of our nation, we have a rich tradition of concern for equality and protection from the abuses that wealth, poorly distributed, can bring about. As America waged war with Britain for independence over 200 years ago, the revolutionary patriot and journalist super-patriot Tom Paine advocated that public employment be utilized to assist those needing work, that a system of social security should provide for retirement at age 60, and that the state should provide funds so that poor families could educate and care for their children. In another example, the end of the Civil War saw the passage of amendments to the Constitution that banned slavery and limited the degree to which states could discriminate against their citizens. These amendments, in turn, broadened democracy and set us on a path that eventually resulted in the establishment of voting rights for blacks and women.

    So, how do we build and maintain an enduring middle-class economy? In my judgment, every middle-class economy must be built on these five foundations:

    • Quality education for everyone
    • Health care for everyone
    • A world-class transportation system
    • Energy systems that maintain a clean and safe environment
    • Living wages for working people

    Each of these is being challenged today by anti-democratic forces. Budget cuts are wreaking havoc at all levels of education. College is harder to afford, increasingly results in crippling debt and does not guarantee job prospects

    The last 30 years have seen a corporate war against American workers.

    We hear that we have the best health care in the world, but the numbers tell us differently. Our health outcomes do not measure up to the rest of the developed world because our system, even with the advances made with the Affordable Care Act, does not assure universal access.

    Prosperous economies require that goods and people can move around easily. Investment in transportation infrastructure is essential. We all feel the cost as roads, bridges and public transportation are neglected.

    Environment, energy and land use go hand-in-hand in a middle-class economy. A clean, safe environment supports good health and quality of life for everyone. Instead of moving forward on clean energy and correcting harmful practices, we continue to rely on fossil fuels and to live with the economic and environmental consequences.

    The fifth foundation of a middle-class economy is living-wage jobs. Generations before us took for granted that hard-working Americans would share in our prosperity. We have abandoned that understanding. Wages for most Americans have flatlined in spite of continuing pressure from rising costs of life's essentials. In a 2014 survey by the Pew Foundation, over 10 times as many respondents said their incomes were falling behind the cost of living than said they were getting ahead.

    The last 30 years have seen a corporate war against American workers. Corporation after corporation shipped middle-class jobs to Third-World countries. Now, politicians across the country invariably meet out-of-work industrial workers who ask them what they can do about the sell-off of jobs in America. All too often, the politician has no response and no idea what to do. Some extreme free-market ideologues even say that what is happening to so many works is actually a good thing, something that in the long run will make our economy better off. Of course, many of those making such claims have high-paying jobs, stable jobs representing the interests of the financial elite.

    Here in Minnesota wages for new hires, adjusted for inflation, have been heading downward since 2006 and fell to $ll.64 in 2011. The minimum wage went from one of the lowest in the country to $9.50. A family three (the average family size in Minnesota) would need an hourly wage of $l6.34 to make it. How can anyone feel secure and support a family with that kind of discrepancy? People working full-time deserve the dignity of a living wage, but our policies are moving us in the opposite direction. The Minneapolis Star Tribune, for example, tells of a 59-year-old truck driver who lived well on the 4l-cents-a-mile he made 16 years ago, but now he is making the exact same amount in the face of much higher living costs. He works six days a week instead of the five he used to and still can barely make ends meet.

    These are by no means isolated cases in my home state or elsewhere. Economist Robert Reich wrote this about the battered middle class: "Having been roughed up, they face years of catch-up to get to where the once were. They feel poorer because they are poorer. They feel less secure because they are less secure. The crisis's severity - and the fact that it surprised most 'experts' - shocked them. The large income and wealth losses compounded their sense of vulnerability."

    How do those of us in public office respond?

    Former Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota tells the story of the working man who was standing in line to pay his last respects to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. "Did you know the president?" a reporter asked him. "No," the man said through tears, "but he knew me."

    That is our obligation today - to close the distance between the governed and the governing by rebuilding a middle-class economy. The five foundations of that economy have this in common: they are all "we" concepts. We all benefit when they are in place, and we all suffer when they crumble. When we work together toward our common good, we grow a middle-class economy. When we work against each other as individuals, we are on the road to becoming a Third World economy. As much as I hate to say it, this is exactly the path we are on.

    Much of my book is concerned with my home state of Minnesota, where I serve in the state legislature. But I'm sure you will also see that much of what I say about my home state applies just as much to yours. We are all in this together. We all need to get our state and federal spending priorities focused in a way that will make a difference. That way is the way of rebuilding our middle-class economy and opportunity for all.

    Excerpted with permission from Levins Publishing. All rights reserved.

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 License.

    Bill Moyers is the managing editor of Moyers & Company and BillMoyers.com. His previous shows on PBS included NOW with Bill Moyers and Bill Moyers Journal. Over the past three decades he has become an icon of American journalism and is the author of many books, including Bill Moyers Journal: The Conversation Continues, Moyers on Democracy, and Bill Moyers: On Faith & Reason. He was one of the organizers of the Peace Corps, a special assistant for Lyndon B. Johnson, a publisher of Newsday, senior correspondent for CBS News and a producer of many groundbreaking series on public television. He is the winner of more than 30 Emmys, nine Peabodys, three George Polk awards.

    David Bly is serving his fourth term in the Minnesota House of Representatives. He is the author of We All Do Better. He retired after teaching for 30 years in the Minnesota public school system. David Bly and his wife Dominique live in Northfield, Minnesota.

    [Aug 25, 2016] If shock market crashes we will get Trump in November, otherwise probably Hillary

    Aug 25, 2016 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    This market looks precarious. It may continue on higher as long as real, versus manufactured, volume remains unusually low.

    There are enough corporate buyback programs and sovereign entities, including central banks, willing to buy US equities at these levels. The general public and institutions seem to be sitting this one out.

    I suspect that when an event of sufficient magnitude or type occurs, as they do from time to time, a slide will be triggered, and the wash and rinse of the general public, their pensions and their savings, will begin once again.

    The longer this goes on, the broader the set of events that can trigger the unlikely slide of consequence seems to grow.

    Still, an outright crash would favor the orange-haired presidential contender, and not the poster child for the financial establishment. So that may be an unlikely bet to make before November. They seem to be going all out to sustain the unsustainable.

    This is exciting only if you can see the tensions growing beneath the surface, which is dullsville to the casual observer to say the least. I have to admit I have been growing jaded on this nonsense of late. But a whiff of Autumn is in the air, and after many a Summer, dies the swan.

    So let's see what happens.

    Have a pleasant evening.

    [Aug 25, 2016] So neoliberals with tacit blessing of US goverment spends 2 decades transferring our manufacturing capabilities to a communist state…so…now we need tools to cage the dragon we created?

    Notable quotes:
    "... This needs more play. I am a blue-collar refugee, and most of my circle are same. They all seem to be captive to the messaging of the business press, and Trump, that we have lost some "competition" with China, India, etc. for the manufacturing business. The corporations and their minions in gov. are guilty of the real "un-patriotic" acts. ..."
    "... The entire logic of how great globalization is is flawed at its heart. A. We have a much higher standard of living than other countries; so B. Let's "level the playing field" with those other countries. So A + B = a reversion of our country's standard of living to the global mean. ..."
    "... Cue globalists who insist the citizens benefit anyway because they get to buy cheap stuff…now that they're unemployed. Oops ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Marcum , August 24, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    RE NYT Prestowitz link

    "…the administration is absolutely right that America needs tools to counter China's growing influence in Asia and around the world…"

    So US industry with tacit blessing of US industrial policy spends 2 decades transferring our manufacturing capabilities to a communist state…so…now we need "tools" to cage the dragon we created? Not saying I would ever vote for Trump but this circular bullshit boggles the mind and sends me screaming into the night.

    ilporcupine , August 24, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    This needs more play. I am a blue-collar refugee, and most of my circle are same. They all seem to be captive to the messaging of the business press, and Trump, that we have lost some "competition" with China, India, etc. for the manufacturing business. The corporations and their minions in gov. are guilty of the real "un-patriotic" acts.

    I don't know that "communist" really is a qualifier, though. If an ostensibly "commie" country is "winning" at capitalism, what does that say about capitalism as a belief system? If a person thinks that a free market sorts all these issues, they would have to be willing to just not buy the goods produced in the cheap labor/dirty environment country, in order to make "losers" out of them…how feasible is this?

    Sorry, rambling, mine is not an organized mind…

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , August 24, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    The entire logic of how great globalization is is flawed at its heart. A. We have a much higher standard of living than other countries; so B. Let's "level the playing field" with those other countries. So A + B = a reversion of our country's standard of living to the global mean.

    Quick question: who thinks that is a good idea (pick one):

    1. The owners of the means of production since they get to dramatically lower their costs;
    or
    2. The citizens of the country.

    (Cue globalists who insist the citizens benefit anyway because they get to buy cheap stuff…now that they're unemployed. Oops.)

    afisher , August 24, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    Ask why Trump has his some clothing line manufactured in China. I don't believe that Trump could bully the Chinese Government in trade negotiations. We need them a whole lot more that they need us. Also of note: Trump tried to get into the mortgage business. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-22/donald-trump-the-mortgage-broker-was-in-trouble-from-moment-one

    From the Financial Times article 8/14/16, "during the first decade of this century" Trump worked with Bayrock. That was a shift away from his Real Estate business, the last? being his Trump Soho that failed. The point being that he hasn't been active in real estate for nearly a decade and his 'Trump labeling" may be enhancing his wealth, but it certainly isn't a sign of good business acumen.

    He is relying on people forgetting when he got out of the business that made him wealthy. Relying on him, IMO is risky business.

    ilporcupine , August 24, 2016 at 9:40 pm

    We need China more than they need us? Why? For what purpose? We are the customer. They are a provider of labor. We have unutilized labor here. ???
    I really am curious as to why you said that.

    steelhead23 , August 24, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    No apologies needed. Well said. And true.

    Mark , August 24, 2016 at 7:52 pm

    on the other hand

    "China National Chemical Corp. received approval from U.S. national security officials for its takeover of Swiss agrochemical and seeds company Syngenta AG, seen as the biggest regulatory hurdle that the $43 billion acquisition faces.

    The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. has cleared the transaction, the companies said in a statement Monday. The deal, expected to be completed by the end of the year, is still subject to antitrust review by regulators worldwide, according to the statement."

    Bloomberg. August 22.

    [Aug 25, 2016] Farage to stump with Trump: The Dream Team!

    Aug 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    EmilianoZ , August 24, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    Farage to stump with Trump: The Dream Team!

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/24/nigel-farage-donald-trump-mississippi-rally-appearance

    ian , August 24, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    I'll say one thing about Farage – I wish our members of congress could give speeches that were half as entertaining as some of his are. He has some absolute classics on youtube, including the 'who the hell are you?' speech in the European Parliament.

    clarky90 , August 24, 2016 at 7:27 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h53xa4Ai4U

    Coverage of Donald Trump Rally in Jackson, Mississsippi with Nigel Farage (The Brexit Guy)!

    It is happening today

    I am am right at the beginning. The interviewer is interviewing people waiting in line. It is very entertaining. Very nice people!!!

    Rather than read what the Paid Media Minions SAY and WRITE about "The People", let them speak for themselves! They are so eloquent!

    clarky90 , August 24, 2016 at 7:57 pm

    "The People" (as in We The People), standing in line, want Hillary Clinton charged and tried by a USA Court of Law.

    The population, as a whole, is realizing that the Grifters have been lying to us about almost everything.

    It is that moment when it suddenly dawns on a person (they grok) that their wife/husband/boss/friend/mother/father…… is a sociopath . Suddenly ALL the chaos in their lives makes perfect sense. The light goes on!

    Jim Haygood , August 24, 2016 at 9:38 pm

    Anathema:

    Former leader of the UK Independent Party Nigel Farage, credited for Brexit, addressed the audience at a Trump campaign rally in Jackson, Mississippi on Wednesday night.

    "You can beat the pollsters, you can beat the commentators, you can beat Washington," Farage said to cheers. "If you want change, you better get your walking boots on."

    "Anything is possible if enough decent people want to fight the establishment," Farage said.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/24/nigel_farage_at_trump_rally_anything_is_possible_if_enough_decent_people_fight_the_establishment.html

    Pure, populist poison, from the Depublicrat point of view.

    We have drone fleets to take out threats like this.

    How did Farage even get a visa to enter USA, USA!

    [Aug 25, 2016] Trump: I am fighting for a peaceful regime change in our own country

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump keeps saying, "I think we have a movement here" to his audiences. At the Akron speech, he said "I am fighting for a peaceful regime change in our own country." ..."
    "... I suspect that Donald Trump has awoken from The Great Slumber . ( Māyā means illusion, fraud, deception, magic that misleads and creates disorder) ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    clarky90 , August 24, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    Re, "Donald Trump's road show has detoured this month to states with no political value to a Republican nominee in a general election."

    Donald Trump keeps saying, "I think we have a movement here" to his audiences. At the Akron speech, he said "I am fighting for a peaceful regime change in our own country."

    I suspect that Donald Trump has awoken from The Great Slumber . ( Māyā means illusion, fraud, deception, magic that misleads and creates disorder)

    [Aug 24, 2016] Earth is way to complex system to rely on more CO2 -- more warming hypothesis.

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is no evidence that CO2 has caused the temperature to change in the past. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    Sandwichman : , Monday, August 22, 2016 at 11:14 PM

    Aug 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Climate change? What... [glug, glug, glug]
    likbez -> Sandwichman ... , -1
    Hi Sandwichman,

    > Climate change? What... [glug, glug, glug]

    :-)

    I hate when people simplify a complex problem. Carbon fuels depletion might take care of CO2 emissions sooner that we think. May be around 2050.

    Also it is not clear what role CO2 emissions play globally in such a short time frame. 100 years is way too short period for the trend to be established.

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/416786/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/

    There is slight chance (let's say less then 10%) that we actually are heading to a new Ice age? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

    and with carbon fuel depletion you can safely assume that this problem is already solved and the solution is available on the horizon.

    JAMESMATKIN
    Dec 26, 2015

    The crux of the so called climate crisis is supposedly human generated carbon dioxide, but not enough attention is paid to the fact not debated that the amount of such human C02 is so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Do the math. Water vapour is the main component of greenhouse gases at 95% leaving only < 4% for C02. Therefore water vapour is 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective making it 75 times more important. The total contribution of C02 to the greenhouse effect is 0.013. Further greenhouse gases combined cover only a small percentage of the atmosphere globally. This means that C02 of 400 pp per million is surely almost imperceptible - 0.00013. This truly is just a trace amount very difficult to even imagine how it could be so important as a heat covering gas. Water and C02 have the same specific gravity around 17 and in most cases clouds make the climate cooler not warmer from shutting out the suns radiation. These facts make many scientists dubious about the apoplectic global warming theory of the UN IPCC. "The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has varied a great deal over time. Sometimes it has been lower than now and sometimes it has been much higher than now. It is also true that it has been both a lot hotter and lot colder at various time in the past. There is no evidence that CO2 has caused the temperature to change in the past. All studies of temperature and CO2 levels in the past show that it is the temperature changing which changes the CO2 level and not the other way round- ..Because most of the energy which CO2 can absorb was already being absBorbed before the CO2 level was increased any extra CO2 can only absorb a small extra bit of energy. Even if the atmosphere were heavily laden with carbon dioxide, it would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption over current levels and temperatures would only go up incrementally. Doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming...thinking of adding blankets to your bed on a cold night: if you have no blankets, adding one will have a big effect. If you have a thousand blankets, adding another thousand will have an unmeasurably small effect.

    " A SCEPTICAL MIND. http://a-sceptical-mind.com/co2-the-basic-facts

    [Aug 24, 2016] Hillary Clinton Ad Suggests Donald Trump Will Launch Nukes As President

    Breitbart
    The latest ad from Hillary Clinton's campaign suggests that, if elected, Donald Trump might launch nuclear weapons because he lacks the experience and temperament to be president.

    "In times of crisis, America depends on steady leadership, clear thinking, and calm judgement," the narrator says. "Because all it takes is one wrong move."

    ... ... ...

    The strategy from the Clinton campaign is familiar. During the 2008 Democratic primary fight with President Obama, Clinton released an ad questioning whether the young senator would have the experience necessary to keep the country safe when the phone rang at 3 a.m.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Right On Cue Establishment Uses Putin Dog-Whistle As Similarities To Brexit Campaign Deepen

    Notable quotes:
    "... links to Russia were one of the most consistent messages of the 'Remain' campaign's 'Project Fear' strategy to keep Britain in the European Union. Even the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, invoked the threat of Russia to try and convince Britons to stay in. ..."
    "... The Clinton campaign's briefings on how Donald Trump is " Helping Putin Consolidate Control of Ukraine ", and how Russia is " meddling in U.S. election " (there's that word again) are Project Fear 101. The journalists willfully writing up these stories are ignoring critical points; such as how Secretary of State Clinton's connections with the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs helped Russia buy up U.S. uranium interests . The New York Times reported in April 2015: ..."
    Aug 23, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

    The Clinton campaign alongside the establishment media have begun blowing the Vladimir Putin dog-whistle, just as their European counterparts did during the United Kingdom's referendum on its membership of the European Union (EU).

    Almost as if on cue, news outlets have begun parroting the same old lines used by Britain's political establishment before June of this year, when they accused anti-establishment 'Leave' campaigners of doing the bidding for, if not being directly linked to, the Russian president and the Kremlin.

    From questioning the marriage of one of the key donors to the Leave campaign , to using Britain's public broadcaster to float conspiracy theories about Russian influence, the Cold War-esque scare tactics of 'Reds Under the Bed' not only reveals the lack of originality in the Clinton camp, it reveals hypocrisy, foreign policy flippancy , and perhaps even a serious misestimation of where the public stands on the issue.

    In the run up to the Brexit referendum, U.S. outlets even went as far as to call Mr. Putin's (lack of) interventions " meddling ". The same charge was never levelled by the media at U.S. President Barack Obama when he flew to the United Kingdom and lectured Britons on how they should vote. In fact, he threatened the country's economy and trade position in the world if they refused to follow his advice. But this was deemed appropriate.

    Meanwhile, the Kremlin and Mr. Putin were broadly absent from the debate, possibly because they knew full well the 'Remain' camp would use any public pronouncements against the Leave camp, but also because they are unlikely to have had a clear-cut position on the issue. Mr Putin is a grand strategist and could have dealt with either outcome. The U.S. establishment, however, has all of its eggs in the globalism basket.

    In March a Kremlin spokesman said : "Russia is being dragged into the domestic debate on Brexit. Why is the wicked Russia thesis used to explain a Government policy?"

    "We'd like the British people to know that those pronouncements have nothing to do with Russia's policy," the embassy said. "As a matter of fact, our Government doesn't have an opinion on Britain's place in the EU."

    Despite this far less "meddling" tactic, links to Russia were one of the most consistent messages of the 'Remain' campaign's 'Project Fear' strategy to keep Britain in the European Union. Even the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, invoked the threat of Russia to try and convince Britons to stay in.

    HYPOCRISY

    The Clinton campaign's briefings on how Donald Trump is " Helping Putin Consolidate Control of Ukraine ", and how Russia is " meddling in U.S. election " (there's that word again) are Project Fear 101. The journalists willfully writing up these stories are ignoring critical points; such as how Secretary of State Clinton's connections with the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs helped Russia buy up U.S. uranium interests . The New York Times reported in April 2015:

    "At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One."

    This is barely scratching the surface, as Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer wrote in the Wall Street Journal in July:

    "In May 2010, the State Department facilitated a Moscow visit by 22 of the biggest names in U.S. venture capital-and weeks later the first memorandums of understanding were signed by Skolkovo and American companies.

    "By 2012 the vice president of the Skolkovo Foundation, Conor Lenihan-who had previously partnered with the Clinton Foundation-recorded that Skolkovo had assembled 28 Russian, American and European "Key Partners." Of the 28 "partners," 17, or 60%, have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation, totaling tens of millions of dollars, or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton."

    Nevertheless, you will likely find more references to Putin and Trump in the past week alone than you will to these dubious affairs in their totality.

    Indeed arch-establishment mouthpiece, Legatum Institute leader, and all-round George Soros activist Anne Applebaum went so far as to declare Donald Trump "a Russian oligarch" in the Washington Post this week.

    Ms. Applebaum is married to the U.S.-hating former Polish foreign minister whose party was turfed out by a populist, nationalist revolt last year. They are now being assisted by Mr. Soros and his third party groups in their bid to destabilise the new Polish government, using the European Union and indeed the Clintons too . This, however, has not proved popular with U.S.-based Polish expats .

    And perhaps far worse than her connections to the Kremlin – a relationship which has evidently soured in recent months – are her connections to the fascist, authoritarian, pseudo-monarchical, Islamist dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. In 2015 the WSJ reported :

    " the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation was created in 1999. Part of that came in 2014, although the database doesn't specify how much."

    But few column inches or broadcast air minutes are used to discuss these matters.

    FOREIGN POLICY FLIPPANCY

    In drafting in Russia as a talking point, Mrs. Clinton makes it very difficult for her to deal with President Putin and the Kremlin should she find herself in the Oval Office in 2017.

    Her campaign's claims that Mr. Trump is somehow untrustworthy because he wants to work with Mr. Putin, not against him, is difficult to take seriously given her lauding of Russia as "an ally" in 2012:

    She said, in an attempt to mock then-GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who called the country America's greatest geopolitical foe:

    "Russia has been an ally. They're in the P-5+1 talks with us, they have worked with us in Afghanistan and have been very helpful in the Northern Distribution Network and in other ways. So I think it's somewhat dated to be looking backwards instead of being realistic about where we agree, where we don't agree, but looking for ways to bridge the disagreements and then to maximize the cooperation".

    In March 2010 she said:

    "One of the fears that I hear from Russia is that somehow the United States wants Russia to be weak. That could not be farther from the truth. Our goal is to help strengthen Russia."

    Her once-celebrated "reset" with Russia was an inglorious failure. But it is no different to her foreign policy accomplishments across the board. On Iran, Iraq, Europe, TTIP, Israel, Libya, and elsewhere, she has been an unprecedented flop.

    Her willingness to risk fresh discord with Putin's Russia for the sake of some negative Trump headlines speak volumes about her intentions in the Oval Office: endanger the United States and revive old wounds unless there's money to be made. And not for America either. For herself.

    WHERE THE PUBLIC STANDS

    The Russia question is a hard one to pin down. Certainly most Western citizens still remember or know of the Cold War. They see Russia, especially Putin's Russia, as untrustworthy and indeed – as Mitt Romney identified – the U.S.'s greatest geopolitical foe.

    But whether it is New York Magazine or the Washington Post ( again ) – journalists often portray pictures of Europe and Europeans living in the United States that had more relevance in the 1980s than they do today.

    The idea of people lining up for government gruel anti-Russian sentiment is outdated. Many Europeans see the country today as a stalwart of conservatism. Authoritarian, state-driven, religious conservatism. But conservatism nonetheless. There is a wafer-thin line between the political philosophies of Marine Le Pen's Front National and Mr. Putin's Russia.

    And while the WaPo 's and Daily Beasts of the world may think that abhorrent: the public does not.

    This stems from having seen first hand what the centrist political establishments – heralded in by the likes of Bill Clinton and John McCain – have done in their countries. But it also derives its legitimacy from the cultural debates raging across Western nations. In London, Warsaw, Paris, and Kiev there may be much backslapping over liberalism, but the great cultural arguments, those of civilisational import are indeed still being played out across the smaller towns and cities of European countries. The same as in the United States.

    Populists, nationalists, and eurosceptics are winning in the UK, in the Netherlands, in Poland, in France, in Hungary, and before the U.S./EU political coup: in Ukraine.

    So when James Hohmann quotes John McCain alongside failed John Kasich and Jon Huntsman campaign chief John Weaver, it is clear they all see the world from national capitals with their metropolitan, liberal, younger voters. Maybe its a "John" thing.

    "In and around Cleveland, Akron, Toledo, Detroit and all throughout Wisconsin, you're talking about voters with family in Poland, the Baltics, Ukraine and the Czech Republic," Weaver told the Washington Post , adding: "These voters are key to any narrow path that Trump has left."

    Whether or not that is true from a psephological perspective is already sketchy. That it is true from an ideological and cultural one is risible.

    While no one can doubt the Communist-era overhang suffered by places like Poland, the trend is going the other way, not against Mr. Putin. Pew Research from 2015 revealed a much more complex picture than Mr. Weaver et. al would have you believe, and while Russia's standing in the world declined around the Crimea annexation, it has begun to recover in all but the United Kingdom and Canada.

    "As recently as 2010, 45% of Poles had a favorable view of Russia – three times the current share. Just as striking, in 2010 only 11% had a very unfavorable opinion of Russia".

    Even in Ukraine the picture is less clear than U.S. journalists would have you think. Pew (2015) showed :

    "Western Ukrainians are much more likely to say Russia is the sole culprit (56%), while those in the east see the problem as more complicated. A third of Ukrainians in the east think Russia is primarily to blame, but 36% fault more than one of the groups.

    "Roughly half of Ukrainians (47%) believe Russia is a major military threat to other neighboring countries. Another 34% say the former Cold War power is a minor threat. Western Ukrainians are much more concerned about Russia's territorial ambitions (61% major threat) than those in the east (30%)."

    This is a drastically different scenario from the one portrayed in the U.S. media, which usually comes down to "Russia bad. Everywhere else good". But even the American people are growing weary of this slant.

    Pew (2016) demonstrated that while U.S. public opinion towards Russia slumped in 2014 around the time of the Crimea annexation, those numbers have now halved. People don't view Russia as an outright adversary, though they are perhaps rightly wary of its status as a geopolitical competitor.

    "There is no sign of growing public concern about either China or Russia. Roughly a quarter of the public (23%) views each as an adversary, while 44% say each is a serious problem but not an adversary. About three-in-ten say neither China nor Russia pose much of a problem for the U.S."

    Perhaps Mrs. Clinton's greatest folly will be believing that her campaign should be spending time hammering Donald Trump for ostensibly advocating the same "reset" policy she did in 2009.

    Much like during the Brexit campaign, it is hard to see many if any of the wider public placing much weight behind her simultaneously shaky and hypocritical claims.

    Raheem Kassam is the editor in chief of Breitbart London. Follow him on Facebook.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Russian hackers targeted New York Times

    Most of anti-russian hysteria is directed toward instilling fear and increasing solidarity, with neoliberals trying to scare low-information dumb voters away from Trump
    Notable quotes:
    "... The FBI is investigating whether Russian hackers have carried out a series of cyber attacks on the New York Times, officials have told US media. ..."
    "... New York Times was whinging that Chinese hackers had breached and infiltrated their servers a few years ago. NYT is always bitching about something. ..."
    "... Isn't it cute, the way the Americans have lost their minds, and they don't even notice? Here's the Washington Post , blatting about how Putin's meddling in the American elections has backfired on him . Just as if that were actually happening. It's a good thing they have focused on another actual country which is part of this planet, I guess, rather than aliens from another world, because then we would have to lock them up. ..."
    "... Some of it is just agitating for Hillary, trying to scare low-information dumb voters away from Trump. But there is a definite tendency to blame even routine American problems on Russia. They don't seem to get how crazy it makes them look, it's like actual national mental illness. The whole election process should be frozen right here until the country comes to its senses. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Warren , August 23, 2016 at 7:57 pm
    Russian hackers 'targeted New York Times'

    The FBI is investigating whether Russian hackers have carried out a series of cyber attacks on the New York Times, officials have told US media.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37171350

    Warren , August 23, 2016 at 8:07 pm
    New York Times was whinging that Chinese hackers had breached and infiltrated their servers a few years ago. NYT is always bitching about something.

    Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/chinese-hackers-infiltrate-new-york-times-computers.html?_r=0

    marknesop , August 23, 2016 at 9:49 pm
    Yes, the Chinese in chinked-out China would be very likely to want to tap into a newspaper that doesn't report anything which is true except for the Catholic Bean Supper at St. Patrick's. China can hear US government propaganda along with everyone else, while it is valuable to have advance notice of news only if what is being reported is actually true.
    marknesop , August 23, 2016 at 9:45 pm
    Isn't it cute, the way the Americans have lost their minds, and they don't even notice? Here's the Washington Post , blatting about how Putin's meddling in the American elections has backfired on him . Just as if that were actually happening. It's a good thing they have focused on another actual country which is part of this planet, I guess, rather than aliens from another world, because then we would have to lock them up.

    Not even during the coldest depths of the Cold War did the United States so crazily blame all of its problems on the Russians. If America can't have global war against Russia, it is going to be so disappointed.

    Some of it is just agitating for Hillary, trying to scare low-information dumb voters away from Trump. But there is a definite tendency to blame even routine American problems on Russia. They don't seem to get how crazy it makes them look, it's like actual national mental illness. The whole election process should be frozen right here until the country comes to its senses.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Comments on US Military Website Explode in Ridicule After Top Commander Warns Russia, Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Guess Townsend likes to make wishes to the tooth fairy (Carter)" ..."
    russia-insider.com

    Hannibal Aug 23, 2016 4:15 PM

    Comments on US Military Website Explode in Ridicule After Top Commander Warns Russia, Syria

    "good luck with this guy, but i dont think so!"

    "Guess Townsend likes to make wishes to the tooth fairy (Carter)"

    "With this administration even if you took all of Iraq back they would lose it next day or give it away. - Don't be a fool."

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/new-us-commander-iraq-vows-retake-...

    [Aug 24, 2016] The US raises the stakes in Syria, sets up no-fly zones in Syria and threatens to shoot down any Russian/Syrian jets enter these no-fly zones

    Notable quotes:
    "... The USA has no business at all in Syria, was not invited in, and if it is allowed to get its way in this it will progressively control more and more Syrian territory until it succeeds in its objective of unseating and replacing Assad. Once more, it has no right to be there, and I'm sure Russia will pursue that angle at the seat of international law. ..."
    "... The USA also has no right to impose no-fly zones arbitrarily on its own recognition in another sovereign nation. That's a UN decision, and they will never get that through the Security Council. If they try the R2P approach, who are they exercising their right to protect? ISIL? ..."
    "... The problem is that once the US sets a military foothold in Syria there is nothing – outside of using military power – that Russia can do to oust the US from Syria. The international law does not apply to the US because it can break the international law without sanctions being used against it. If there is no punishment there is no incentive for adhering the law either. ..."
    "... American Special Forces have already been caught wearing parts of Kurdish uniforms and badges ..."
    "... On second reading, it's beginning to sound more like American bluster to me. The press tried to pin him down to no-fly zones or not, and he didn't want to back down but he didn't want to go quite that far so he said "Call it what you want". The USA has no authority to unilaterally impose no-fly zones in a sovereign country. It has to go through the UN, and Russia and China will veto it. The USA is not in Syria with the Syrian government's permission, and it has had what must be called very questionable success so far with 'fighting ISIS'. If it wants to 'protect its forces', it can leave, and the Syrian government will not miss it a bit. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    karl1haushofer , August 23, 2016 at 10:06 pm

    The US raises the stakes in Syria, sets up "no-fly zones" in Syria and threatens to shoot down any Russian/Syrian jets enter these "no-fly zones": http://theduran.com/us-pentagon-throws-full-support-behind-al-qaeda-syria-exclusion-zones-ready-shot-syrian-russian-planes/

    This is all about securing that pipeline route that the West hopes that it can some day build from Qatar through Syria to Turkey. The US now claims that part of Syrian territory is their own and it will be used to build that pipeline.

    marknesop , August 23, 2016 at 10:25 pm
    There is one accurate statement in there. The last one in the article. It's endgame time.

    The USA has no business at all in Syria, was not invited in, and if it is allowed to get its way in this it will progressively control more and more Syrian territory until it succeeds in its objective of unseating and replacing Assad. Once more, it has no right to be there, and I'm sure Russia will pursue that angle at the seat of international law.

    But at the same time, Russia is legally in Syria, and I am sure it is not going to allow the USA to tell it where it can and cannot fly in Syria. If the USA is really ready to go to war in Syria, it is going to get it. And I don't think I have to point out to you the kind of logistic nightmare it would be, especially if it can no longer count on Turkey. And I find it hard to believe Erdogan will come on board with the USA carving out a Kurdish homeland right next door. Washington is getting desperate, and that's making it act crazy. Let's see what China says about it.

    The USA also has no right to impose no-fly zones arbitrarily on its own recognition in another sovereign nation. That's a UN decision, and they will never get that through the Security Council. If they try the R2P approach, who are they exercising their right to protect? ISIL?

    What's the USA got in Syria for anti-air systems? Russia has the S-400, and can cover most of Syria without even putting one of its own planes in the air.

    karl1haushofer , August 23, 2016 at 10:32 pm
    The problem is that once the US sets a military foothold in Syria there is nothing – outside of using military power – that Russia can do to oust the US from Syria. The international law does not apply to the US because it can break the international law without sanctions being used against it. If there is no punishment there is no incentive for adhering the law either.
    marknesop , August 23, 2016 at 11:29 pm
    Well, I guess we'll just have to see how it shakes out, won't we? I can tell you that if Syrian forces come knocking to drive out ISIS from other towns after Aleppo falls, and the USAF says it is going to stop them because its forces are mixed with ISIS in the town (remember, American Special Forces have already been caught wearing parts of Kurdish uniforms and badges) it is going to cut no ice with the Syrians – it's their country.

    On second reading, it's beginning to sound more like American bluster to me. The press tried to pin him down to no-fly zones or not, and he didn't want to back down but he didn't want to go quite that far so he said "Call it what you want". The USA has no authority to unilaterally impose no-fly zones in a sovereign country. It has to go through the UN, and Russia and China will veto it. The USA is not in Syria with the Syrian government's permission, and it has had what must be called very questionable success so far with 'fighting ISIS'. If it wants to 'protect its forces', it can leave, and the Syrian government will not miss it a bit.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Our Famously Free Press now reminds Nevada brothels

    Under neoliberalism like under communism political parties to become far more ideologically uniform than they used to be. So we have hard neoliberal party and soft neoliberal party and voters are limited between choosing Pepsi or Cola. And press became just presstitutes for political machine of the parties, especially during election. Those despicable presstitutes now are afraid to talk about the issue facing the country and denigrate to discussion personalities exclusively.
    "Trump has laid bare journalism's [ pressitutes ]contradictions - reporters' desire to be critical of politicians without criticizing anything they stand for "
    Notable quotes:
    "... The dems brand themselves as old time liberal to some constituencies. The repubs brand themselves as conservative to some constituencies. This works for dems and it works for repubs. The straw man arguments fill the boob tube and pass for democracy and self government. ..."
    "... But this year, after so many years, standard baloney like "Bush kept us safe" did not placate the repub base, which is in a serious world of hurt (death rates of poorer middle aged white people are going up!). And the dems faced the most ground shaking challenge to the orthodoxy since Gene McCarthy, as millennials working 2 or 3 jobs saw that the "highest standard of living in the world" had the same relation to reality as pancake syrup has to …maple trees. ..."
    "... We're at the beginning of the beginning – where the 99% is catching on that the vampire squid's gain is our loss. Its gonna be a bumpy ride… ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Lambert Strether Post author

    On Clinton not already having put Trump away:

    Hillary Clinton enjoys about a five-point polling lead over Donald Trump. One way to look at this is that it's a margin, at this stage of a presidential race, that is rarely reversed.

    Here's another way. The Democrats had a successful convention, the Republicans didn't. Clinton's campaign has been smooth; Trump's has careened between disasters. She has reached out to independents and Republicans; he has insulted the family of a soldier killed in Iraq, along with people with disabilities, Latinos and women. Clinton has outspent him 3 to 1.

    And she's only ahead by five percentage points.

    I keep saying the Clinton campaign is like a hot air balloon with a tear in it. They have to keep frantically pumping more hot air into it, simply to stay aloft.

    Trump hasn't spent a dime on TV, either. (I'm sure that he isn't filling up Republican consultants' rice bowls is one reason they hate him.)

    Policy

    UPDATE "No Need to Build The Donald's Wall, It's Built" [Tom Dispatch]. Wait, wait. Obama's policy now is what Trump's would be? And Democrats >and Trump are frothing and stamping over nothing? Is the problem that the wall's not beautiful? What?

    fresno dan

    UPDATE "No Need to Build The Donald's Wall, It's Built" [Tom Dispatch]. Wait, wait. Obama's policy now is what Trump's would be? And Democrats and Trump are frothing and stamping over nothing? Is the problem that the wall's not beautiful? What?

    ======================================
    The dems brand themselves as old time liberal to some constituencies. The repubs brand themselves as conservative to some constituencies. This works for dems and it works for repubs. The straw man arguments fill the boob tube and pass for democracy and self government.

    But it makes for a politics that is completely and totally irrelevant to most people. It is designed not to address issues, and reality is its enemy.

    But this year, after so many years, standard baloney like "Bush kept us safe" did not placate the repub base, which is in a serious world of hurt (death rates of poorer middle aged white people are going up!). And the dems faced the most ground shaking challenge to the orthodoxy since Gene McCarthy, as millennials working 2 or 3 jobs saw that the "highest standard of living in the world" had the same relation to reality as pancake syrup has to …maple trees.

    We're at the beginning of the beginning – where the 99% is catching on that the vampire squid's gain is our loss. Its gonna be a bumpy ride…

    Lambert Strether Post author

    Horrified by Trump, Democrats getting nostalgic about Romney Yahoo News. Boy, I'm so old I remember… Well, let me just collect some of the better headlines at Kos from campaign 2012:

    UPDATE: Mitt Romney Pals Around with Child Molesters

    Romney ignores request from mother of Navy SEAL killed in Benghazi to stop using son in stump speech

    Romney mansplains to lady editor what ladies really care about

    For Mitt Romney, Billy Graham 'Sells Out' His Faith & Jesus for Political Advantage

    Breaking: Did Romney Pay Zero Taxes From 1996 To 2009?

    Mitt Romney's Driving Killed Leola Anderson. His Cover-Up Tale is Proved Dishonest

    Romney Took $77,000 Tax Deduction For His Dancing Horse

    The re-emergence of dick Romney

    A Devastating Expose of Mitt Romney's Mistreatment of Mormon Women Emerges

    [Aug 24, 2016] Good jobs disaappered and middle class had shruk dramatically in the USA

    Notable quotes:
    "... That said, what I believe is needed in the USA is a doubling down on Corporate Boards of Directors and CEOs to create a crisis, an American intervention, if you will, that demands companies bring back the idea that Profits alone are not all that matters. Serving the Nation you are born in, raised in, educated in, and then making a profitable income from certainly needs to be focused in on. ..."
    "... An additional factor in the financial woes of the falling middle class is the changing demographics here in the US - the growing numbers of single mothers, who are far more likely to struggle financially than a two income household. I make no judgment regarding how people form their family units, but life is especially hard for single mothers. ..."
    "... Its even more difficult for journalists in Guardian. They have to destroy chances of only candidate addressing inequality and climate change (Bernie), completely surrender their integrity to corporations, lament over those issues post factum, and yet be paid miserably only in hundreds of thousands for such colossal betrayal of humanity. Its worth at billions to actively participate in destroying future of your kids. Or is it? ..."
    "... We need a new Federal Minimum Wage, and the wealthiest need to start paying up. Trump claims that business in the US pay the highest tax rate. That's just not true. I'm not talking about putting the burden on small business, but the multi-nationals and Wall Street. ..."
    "... And we can blame Billary and Hussein for it. Their "free-trade" decisions, along with their shameful endorsement of open-borders, have lowered wages for everyone, except for financiers. Interestingly, it was those who've suffered the brunt of the elites' decisions who voted for Britain to leave the EU. Ironically, those who professed to stand for the middle and lower classes, revealed their hypocrisy when they joined the Mandarins in opposing for Britain to leave the totalitarian EU. ..."
    "... Like the Trojans fearing present-giving presents, so should the working man loath the elites who promised to have their best interests at heart. That is the same promise communism gave the workers, only to turn on and enslave them. Today the workers don't stand a chance: the Marxists and bankers are on the same side sneering at the working classes who are demeaned as being racist, jingoistic xenophobes. ..."
    "... An article in Forbes that explains why Obamacare is a scam. ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders ..."
    "... I agree with you that he never did. Obama is a corporatist and globalist. If you think Obamacare is bad wait until his trade deals are past. He sold Americans out for the profits of multinational corporations. Hillary will continue his work. I understand the true meaning of his words now. ..."
    "... The US middle class has been disintegrating for decades as inequity grows ..."
    "... Clinton is in hiding. I can't find her in the Guardian today. She is a habitual liar and the whole world has all the evidence it needs. All of her promises are bullshit. Bernie has been right the whole time and he is smart not to endorse. Bernie has always known what she is and Bernie's supporters have no reason to support her. ..."
    "... It means she is corrupt, dishonest, and unqualified to be anything but an inmate. ..."
    "... the middle class has been decimated.. This financial category is only about 35% of was it was in the early 70's.. additionally the definition of middle class has changed drastically as well.. believe it or not your middle class if your earn more than 50k a year!.. this is part of the reason we are as a nation borrowing a trillion dollars a year.. when will the silenced majority wake up and start voting and stop spending on products that are vastly over priced. ..."
    "... My kid had a persistent tummy ache. Doc said intestinal blockage; take him to the ER immediately. Seven hours and one inconclusive CAT scan later, he's home again with symptoms unchanged. Two days later the pain went away. Cost: $12,000 with about $10,000 covered by union health insurance. So that's at least $2,000 out of pocket to me for seven hours in hospital, zero diagnosis and zero relief from symptoms. Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what? Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law? ..."
    "... I sympathize. I also agree with you. The US medical system is criminal. It is cruel, discriminatory, ruthless, often ineffective, and often incompetent. The only reason the administrators ("health" maintenance corporations) aren't in jail is because they use some of their obscene profits to buy Congress -- which passes laws like Obama's ACA or Bush's big Pharma swindle. I have no idea what to do about it though -- maybe if everyone refused to pay their premiums and medical bills, the money managers would notice. A sort of strike. ..."
    "... SIngle-payer is the answer. Of course, the insurance companies and big pharma use scare tactics to stop that from happening. They talk about government waste, completely ignoring their own waste. They ignore the billions of dollars that they skim off of the top each year before applying any money for actual medical care. Wake up, people. Medical care should be run by the government or non-profit organizations, not by for-profit corporations. ..."
    "... Despite the financial situation in middle-and lower income families that has been steadily declining under the past 8 years of the Obama administration, most in that group will support Hillary and propagate the Same problems for 4 more years. They stand no hope unless they break from the knee-jerk support of the "Democratic" Party. ..."
    "... So they should support Donald Trump and the conservative party? Last time I checked raising taxes on the middle class while lowering taxes on the rich didn't really help anyone but the rich. The Republican party never gave two shits about middle and lower class, and there's no point believing they will start now. ..."
    "... Isn't choosing to have three children very selfish if you cannot support them financially. People always find someone else to blame. ..."
    "... "Race" card!!?? Where the hell did I mention anything about race or are you really as dumb as your reply suggests. Plus, you don't require a test to decide if you can afford children or not. It basic family planning. It's people like you in society that has the place in a mess with your "blame anyone but meself attitude" If I'm considered horrible, at least I'm not totally dumb and irrisponsible like you. ..."
    "... Bill Maher recently (July 1, 2016; Overtime) editorialized about the state "laboratories" where new ideas are tested and evaluated. Maher compared the divergent fates of California and Kansas plus Louisiana. ..."
    "... It's interesting. According to my household income I'm in the "upper" tier for the DC-metro region. But it really doesn't feel that way. Even those of us who make a good income are more and more stretched. In comparison to most of the country, I am well off. I own a car, just bought a house, I can afford to go out to eat a couple times a week. But, I even get to the end of the month with only $100 in the bank. That's because other downward pressures on pay aren't taken into account, such as student debt. My expensive undergraduate and graduate education didn't come cheap, and while that education affords people higher pay, if you end up taking less of it home. It kinda equals out. ..."
    "... Sometimes my husband and I think about having kids, and then we realise that even with our good paying jobs, we can't afford day care in our area. I get paid the most, so I can't quit my job but if my husband quit to care for a child, we would really be strapped. Can I really be considered an upper tier household if I can't afford to have kids? If I can't afford to go on vacation once a year? If I haven't bought new clothes in two years? If I have no savings and a freak medical bill might just tip me over the edge? ..."
    "... Suggest you give Andrew Tobias' book a read to think outside the box a good education often constructs for us: https://www.amazon.com/Only-Investment-Guide-Youll-Ever/dp/0544781937?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc ..."
    "... You can cut student debt in the U.S. by attending a good community college for two years and then transferring to a state university. Most kids are unwilling to do this--no frats or prestige in community colleges! ..."
    "... Beginning in the 1970s, a majority of the middle class began to resent the taxation needed to continue support for these liberal policies, and they began to vote for conservative politicians who promised to remove them as they "only helped the undeserving poor." White racism played a role in this as the lower class was invariably portrayed in political speeches and advertising as group of lazy black people. ..."
    "... No, it was created in response to the Bolshevik revolution, in particular, to that genius who said "Let's just shoot the royal family and be done with this." ..."
    "... All of these things have come under attack since the USSR fell apart, probably on that exact day. And who overthrew the USSR? Overeducated middle class, not the poor or the rich. Who was Occupy Wall Street, Arab Spring... the recent protests against the French labor law tightenings, ALL the middle class. ..."
    "... The greatest threat to governments has, and always will be, from within. And this threat is from the middle class, almost exclusively. Therefore, we are to be crushed and controlled tightly ..."
    "... funny how this media outlet didn't publish these types of reports while the primary was hot. It was all "Hilary is inevitable and supporting Bernie is supporting Trump" type garbage. ..."
    "... Probably he means to say Americans habitually ask new acquaintances, "What do you do for a living?" That's absolutely a query about income and personal worth, though slightly disguised, and it's a question I have never widely encountered anywhere else in the world, nor while living overseas the last ten years. ..."
    "... This article is extremely dishonest. First, it claims that she has 'three other jobs'. Second, she has children, for whom she presumably gets child support. So what's her *real* income? ..."
    "... When those in poverty or on the verge of it are single mothers, you tend to wonder if there are some other issues as well. I don't recall a time in American history where a single mother of several children could take care of herself when completely on her own. ..."
    "... I teach in inner city schools. There are so many problems, money is one of them but all the money won't solve the problem of poor learning attitudes, disaffection, poor discipline and nonexistent work ethic . ..."
    "... A lot of the students get no discipline at home and their parents don't expect them to learn anything. They are resistant to the whole process of focus on new knowledge , absorb, drill, recall , deploy newly learned thing. ..."
    "... I don't know what solution there is to this. My nieces and nephews did well in school, studied hard, and went on to university. They didn't do drugs, rape or be raped, and stayed away from unsavory kids. BUT--they went home to two parents every night, a father and mother, which I think would have made them successful at school no matter what their income. ..."
    "... The US economy isn't competitive anymore. It started with the labor cost being too high, so factories moved out. Then the entire supply chain moved out. Now the main consumer market is also moving out. Once that is gone, we will have no more leverage. ..."
    "... The US education is good, but students are lazy, undisciplined, and incurious. In silicon valley, more than 75% of highly paid technical personnel are foreign born. Corporations making money with foreign workers here and abroad, on foreign markets. Taking these away and you will see the economy crash. ..."
    "... Labor costs were too high. Have some more kool-aid. The elite didn't want labor to have any bargaining power whatsoever . They wanted to dictate the terms to labor believing that they were the only ones who should have any say in matters. The elite wanted to maximize their profits at the expense of their own citizens. They wanted slave labor . They wanted powerless people to dance to their tune. How could an advanced nation's labor possibly compete with slave labor . ..."
    "... Sadly ..... thee isn't any hope for these people in the foreseeable future . Their economic decline has been happening for quite some time now and shows no sign of abating whatsoever . The economic foundations of their lives have been steadily pulled out from under them by the financial elite and their subservient political cultures , the Republican and Democratic Parties . The Republicans have never really given a damn about them and the Democrats have long abandoned them . These poor people of North Carolina are adrift on a sinking raft on easy ocean of indifference by the political cultures of America . To those in power , they don't exist . They don't count . They don't matter . ..."
    "... The trend in the U.S, along with almost every other major nation in the world over the past 35 years has been to exclusively serve the interests of the financial elite and only their needs . All sense of fairness , justice and decency have been totally discarded . ..."
    "... Tax breaks after tax breaks , tax shelters , free movement of capital , etc., etc. would sum up the experience of the financial elite over the past 35 years . They have become incredibly wealthy now and are still not satisfied . They want more . They want it all . They want what little you have and their political servants which help them get . ..."
    "... Political discourse pertaining to the plight of those like these folks in North Carolina is all window dressing . In the end , you can be certain that it will amount to nothing . Just like it has for decades now . The financial elite are in control and they are not going to give any of that control up . As a matter of fact , they are going to tighten their grip . They will invent crisis to have their agendas imposed upon an increasingly powerless and bewildered public . They will take advantage of every naturally occurring crisis to advance their agenda . ..."
    "... The problem is the job exporting American elite class. NAFTA was an economics, political, and social experiment with all the downside on the former, mostly lower middle class. Non-aligned examination of the available data shows how disastrous NAFTA has been to America's bubbas. Thanks to Bush 41 and Bill Clinton. WTO was all Bill. Of the mistakes Obama has made TPP would be the worst. The question is, really, do we favor global fairness (an even playing field for all earth's peoples) and a climate-killing consumerist world, or our own disadvantaged (courtesy of our financial and political elite) citizens. Not an easy choice. Death by poison or hanging. No treaty can benegotiated fairly in secret. ..."
    "... The tragic irony is that the anger against rule by the 1% manifests in things like support for Trump, a typical example of the greed and excess of the 1%. Americans need to question outside their desperately constrained paradigms more. It will help focus their anger more strategically, and possibly lead to solutions. Don't hold your breath, the inequality gap is accelerating the wrong way. ..."
    "... I think the US is heDing for trouble. It is the middle class that maintains civil society and gives a sense of hope. This is an interesting open letter by a zillionaire to his peers warning them what happens without a string middle class. A thought provoking read. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014 ..."
    "... The elite of the USA have done exactly what the Romans did and what the Pre-Revolutionary French did.... drain the lower classes while enriching themselves. "Taxes are for little people" is not just a pithy quote, it has become the reality as the elite rig the system so they benefit and the lower classes pay. They need to wake up or they will get exactly what the Romans Got (collapsed empire) or the French got (Violent Revolution). Wake up America! It is time to choose your side in the class war the elite continue to execute while telling us there is no "Class War" - you can't pull yourself up by your boot straps while they are pulling the rug out from under you! ..."
    "... My wife used to employ recent graduates from Georgetown University with poli. sci., psychology, sociology degrees, to stack books for $10/hr. It took them on average 2-3 years, before finding work in their field. ..."
    "... Education is NOT about finding a job! It's about learning ways to seek wisdom and rationality, and to assimilate (not deny) new knowledge throughout your life--and that's exactly what's lacking in the US! Our schools are factories to turn out standard robots to be used by the owners of this country, whether they practice law or flip burgers. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    HopeWFaith, 9 Jul 2016 16:04

    I was stumped by the very idea that someone has the $money, the time, the energy to go out and study for 3 bachelor degrees. This woman doesn't look old enough to have had time to get 3 degrees.

    That said, what I believe is needed in the USA is a doubling down on Corporate Boards of Directors and CEOs to create a crisis, an American intervention, if you will, that demands companies bring back the idea that Profits alone are not all that matters. Serving the Nation you are born in, raised in, educated in, and then making a profitable income from certainly needs to be focused in on.

    Why on earth isn't Main Stream Media doing this, along with all of CONGRESS and the President? What is their excuse? Even if you brought back all the robotic jobs to US soil, you would also end up bringing a large number of administrative jobs back here, too, just to keep up with the business at hand. It is critical that we rebuild our infrastructure, yet we see NO immediate or Long-term plans to do so. How can we, without the support of the Business Class to support the whole nation through Paying their Taxes to the US Tax System? There is no excuse that will do, in my book. Profits to the top tier need to be STOPPED so long as businesses are going outside of the United States Borders. Period.

    SluethforTruth , 2016-07-07 12:39:08

    Typical of what's happening around the world. The trillions of dollars lurking in tax havens is the reason why economies are stagnating. Money makes the world go round, however detouring to the Cayman Islands, the flow stops and the poverty begins. Spend locally and reject multi national corporations. Give your local communities a chance to prosper,
    Snaggletooth718 , 2016-07-07 12:40:07
    An additional factor in the financial woes of the falling middle class is the changing demographics here in the US - the growing numbers of single mothers, who are far more likely to struggle financially than a two income household. I make no judgment regarding how people form their family units, but life is especially hard for single mothers.
    saladbowl , 2016-07-07 12:46:52
    "The 2016 presidential race has superficially been dominated by talk of this declining middle. First from Bernie Sanders, then Hillary Clinton and even Donald Trump's promise to Make America Great Again"

    "And even"??? What a laugh. Even if you hate Trump its clear The Guardian has written every article possible to prevent his rise and they have failed miserably. Hillary amd Sanders are dominating conversatiin. Trump is by far.

    One thing us for sure. 15 million illegals and thousands more every month is not making the middle class more secure.

    They are shrinking, and you expect them to tolerate "Make America Mexico Again"? In these times?

    Donor money is ruining the country. They hate Trump because he doesnt need these arrogant donors who have never heard "no" their whole lives.

    peonyrose , 2016-07-07 12:47:08
    If ordinary people have to work three jobs to make ends meet, then you need to say that wages in the US are too low.
    Slavenko Sucur -> peonyrose , 2016-07-07 14:29:52
    Its even more difficult for journalists in Guardian. They have to destroy chances of only candidate addressing inequality and climate change (Bernie), completely surrender their integrity to corporations, lament over those issues post factum, and yet be paid miserably only in hundreds of thousands for such colossal betrayal of humanity. Its worth at billions to actively participate in destroying future of your kids. Or is it?
    SusanPrice58 , 2016-07-07 12:53:59
    It isn't immigration that costing jobs - it's employers who know they can pay these people less for their work. We need a new Federal Minimum Wage, and the wealthiest need to start paying up. Trump claims that business in the US pay the highest tax rate. That's just not true. I'm not talking about putting the burden on small business, but the multi-nationals and Wall Street.
    RaceOfStalwarts -> SusanPrice58 , 2016-07-07 14:06:02
    You can see in western Europe at the moment that a minimum wage desn't work without a whole host of other protective legislation. A minimum wage doesn't reach to the self employed, and it doesn't prevent the use of flexible or non-guaranteed hours contracts making use of a larger than is required labour pool. Not to mention the black market / cash in hand trade.
    BritainFirst2016 , 2016-07-07 12:55:21
    And we can blame Billary and Hussein for it. Their "free-trade" decisions, along with their shameful endorsement of open-borders, have lowered wages for everyone, except for financiers. Interestingly, it was those who've suffered the brunt of the elites' decisions who voted for Britain to leave the EU. Ironically, those who professed to stand for the middle and lower classes, revealed their hypocrisy when they joined the Mandarins in opposing for Britain to leave the totalitarian EU.

    Like the Trojans fearing present-giving presents, so should the working man loath the elites who promised to have their best interests at heart. That is the same promise communism gave the workers, only to turn on and enslave them. Today the workers don't stand a chance: the Marxists and bankers are on the same side sneering at the working classes who are demeaned as being racist, jingoistic xenophobes.

    pawildcat -> BritainFirst2016 , 2016-07-07 13:51:28
    You realize most of the votes in favor of NAFTA were Republican and most against were Democratic, right? You know that "free trade" has been an item in the Republican platform (and increasingly the Democratic one) for years before Clinton and Obama were ever in office, right? Know some elementary facts about U.S, politics before posting nonsense.
    daWOID -> Ed Thurmann , 2016-07-07 13:47:41
    Ed Thurmann: it's not teacher-bashing, it's just the old recycled "black family values" spiel that was introduced into the poverty debate in the '60s by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Moynihan, not so BTW, is Hillary Clinton's intellectual hero. So you can expect a hell of a lot more of these cliches after January of next year.
    Juillette , 2016-07-07 13:26:03
    An article in Forbes that explains why Obamacare is a scam. ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders

    Robert Lenzner , CONTRIBUTOR
    I'm trying to wise up 300 million people about money & finance

    So far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. Thats more than double the gains made in the broad stock market index, the S & P 500. The shares of CIGNA are up 63%, Wellpoint 47% and United Healthcare 28%. And if you go back to the early 2010 passage of ObamaCare, you will find that Obama's sellout of the public interest has allowed the public companies the ability to raise their premiums, especially on small business, dramatically multiply their profits and send the value of their common stocks up by 200%-300%. This is bloody scandalous and should be a cause for concern even as the Republican opponents of the bill threaten the close-down of the government.

    We warned you back on December4, 2009 in my blog " The Horrendous Truth About Health Care Reform" that the Obama White House was handing a " free ride for the health insurance industry" that would allow premium hikes of 8%-10% a year by CIGNA, Humana HUM +1.56%, Aetna AET +0.45%, UnitedHealth Group UNH +0.58% and Wellpoint, and as well a $500 billion taxpayer subsidy, a half trillion dollars without any requirement that the health insurers had to spend the subsidy on medical care. Several US Senators including Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia spoke to me openly of the outrageous sellout being foisted on the nation's uninsured citizens.

    At the time I wrote, Goldman Sachs research operation estimated that the 5 giants would increase profits by 10% a year from 2010 to 2019, sending their shares up an average of 59%. In truth, the shares of CIGNA and some others are up a multiple of several times since the contest was resolved by a very tight vote in early 2010. One startling reason for this amazing performance was that Obama took off the table "proposals to significantly reduce health care costs" as the giveaway in getting the bill through, according to Ron Susskind's best-selling book ,"Confidence Men," which I wrote about in a blog on September 24, 2011. ( "Obama's Incoherent Policy-Making") Some 3 years later, UnitedHealthCare Group(UNH) was rewarded by being added to the elite list of the Dow 30 industrials.

    I understood belatedly that there would have been no Affordable Care Act of 2010 if the White House had not given into demands from the giant profit-making health insurance companies. Had he not done so, I am being assured that there would have been no bill passed, a priority goal that Obama promised in his 2008 Presidential campaign. How the profits have risen so impressively requires further investigation as the bill is meant to limit the profits earned to 20% of the revenues.

    One of the other downsides to the supposed reform bill was the surprisingly unfair treatment of small business owners who faced even larger potential premiums for their employees. It has been the fear of these higher health costs that has resulted in the overwhelming trend toward hiring part-time employees whom the employers need not offer healthcare insurance.

    So much for the reforms embedded in the mis-labeled Affordable Care Act of 2010. It may not die a bloody demise this month, but it is certain to be reformed itself, let's hope for the benefit of the 300 million, not just the millions of lucky shareholders who may have understood the ramification of ObamaCare, which was to multiply the profits of five giant insurance companies, just as the major bank oligopoly was rewarded by the federal bailouts and Fed monetary policy.

    Juillette -> Andrew Kac , 2016-07-07 14:16:34
    I agree with you that he never did. Obama is a corporatist and globalist. If you think Obamacare is bad wait until his trade deals are past. He sold Americans out for the profits of multinational corporations. Hillary will continue his work. I understand the true meaning of his words now.

    "We are a nation of immigrants" meaning he prefers cheap illegal labor when 46 million Americans live in poverty. Soon cheap foriegn will be unlimited and legal in the US with worker mobility. Even for professional jobs. Can you imagine competing with foreigners in the US who make 30 cents an hour? It's depressing really. Here are some of the highlights of the TPP that will throw Americans further into poverty.

    http://www.citizen.org/TPP

    Also research Tisa.

    barbkay , 2016-07-07 13:49:42
    My heart goes out to these beleaguered families. In the late 1970s/80s I held down a full-time job in DC and freelanced feverishly to make ends meet. I lived below the official poverty line in an expensive, yet thoroughly crappy, flat. That recession-riddled era of energy chaos, leading into Reagan's 'voodoo' economics regime (the risible idea of 'trickle-down', the US becoming the world's largest debtor), was another hot mess.

    The US middle class has been disintegrating for decades as inequity grows, thanks in large part to the poor governance of Republican presidents (Nixon's stagflation, the disastrous shifts under GW Bush).

    FugitiveColors , 2016-07-07 13:53:22
    Clinton is in hiding. I can't find her in the Guardian today. She is a habitual liar and the whole world has all the evidence it needs. All of her promises are bullshit. Bernie has been right the whole time and he is smart not to endorse. Bernie has always known what she is and Bernie's supporters have no reason to support her.

    Her disapproval ratings will top Trump now. The voters are now going to show her what the meaning of is, really is.

    It means she is corrupt, dishonest, and unqualified to be anything but an inmate.

    MasonInNY -> FugitiveColors , 2016-07-07 16:08:57
    Her disapproval ratings are high, but not up with Trump's and they never will be. You can vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, in November. Or Gary Johnson, the Libertarian. But Bernie will not be a candidate, and he will eventually endorse Clinton -- after he is sure he's won certain concessions in the Democratic platform. That's your reality in July 2016, not in February.
    brianBT , 2016-07-07 14:16:48
    the middle class has been decimated.. This financial category is only about 35% of was it was in the early 70's.. additionally the definition of middle class has changed drastically as well.. believe it or not your middle class if your earn more than 50k a year!.. this is part of the reason we are as a nation borrowing a trillion dollars a year.. when will the silenced majority wake up and start voting and stop spending on products that are vastly over priced..Turn off your phone, stop buying all but essentials.. we need to force prices down until we complain and start voting with our dollars little will change
    MtnClimber -> ojeemabalzitch , 2016-07-07 15:37:37
    What about the millions of married couples with kids..when the parents lose their jobs? That happens very frequently. Should we take the kids away? Are you suggesting that poor people not be allowed to have children?

    Then we have the religious nutcases that are against contraception and abortion, yet demonize poor women for having children.

    NYbill13 , 2016-07-07 14:34:59
    My kid had a persistent tummy ache. Doc said intestinal blockage; take him to the ER immediately. Seven hours and one inconclusive CAT scan later, he's home again with symptoms unchanged. Two days later the pain went away. Cost: $12,000 with about $10,000 covered by union health insurance. So that's at least $2,000 out of pocket to me for seven hours in hospital, zero diagnosis and zero relief from symptoms. Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what? Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law?

    Hahahahahahahaha.

    ojeemabalzitch -> NYbill13 , 2016-07-07 14:58:00
    So? If your car breaks down it will cost a fortune to repair. Same if you have to replace the roof on your house. Life ain't fair, is it?
    MiltonWiltmellow -> NYbill13 , 2016-07-07 15:14:26

    Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what? Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law?

    I sympathize. I also agree with you. The US medical system is criminal. It is cruel, discriminatory, ruthless, often ineffective, and often incompetent. The only reason the administrators ("health" maintenance corporations) aren't in jail is because they use some of their obscene profits to buy Congress -- which passes laws like Obama's ACA or Bush's big Pharma swindle. I have no idea what to do about it though -- maybe if everyone refused to pay their premiums and medical bills, the money managers would notice. A sort of strike.

    MtnClimber -> MiltonWiltmellow , 2016-07-07 15:35:28
    SIngle-payer is the answer. Of course, the insurance companies and big pharma use scare tactics to stop that from happening. They talk about government waste, completely ignoring their own waste. They ignore the billions of dollars that they skim off of the top each year before applying any money for actual medical care. Wake up, people. Medical care should be run by the government or non-profit organizations, not by for-profit corporations.

    Corporations have only one goal...to make as much money as possible for themselves. Health care is just a necessary nuisance.

    Ykuos1 , 2016-07-07 14:37:56
    Despite the financial situation in middle-and lower income families that has been steadily declining under the past 8 years of the Obama administration, most in that group will support Hillary and propagate the Same problems for 4 more years. They stand no hope unless they break from the knee-jerk support of the "Democratic" Party.
    Sam Ahmed -> Ykuos1 , 2016-07-07 14:45:51
    So they should support Donald Trump and the conservative party? Last time I checked raising taxes on the middle class while lowering taxes on the rich didn't really help anyone but the rich. The Republican party never gave two shits about middle and lower class, and there's no point believing they will start now.
    KMdude , 2016-07-07 14:43:46
    This article mentions Latonia Best and her three children. Is there a Mr Best around? It has always been tough to raise a family on the salary of a single parent.

    The breakdown of the American family is a probably the biggest reason for the supposed struggles of the middle class. People have to take responsibility for their lives.

    Elephantmoth -> KMdude , 2016-07-07 14:56:57
    Sure, because every misfortune can be blamed on the individual. You have no idea why Mr Best isn't around so please spare us your moralising.
    rebeccazg -> KMdude , 2016-07-07 14:57:51
    traditionally, the middle class had the guy going out to work, and his wife staying at home to look after the kids. Once children are in school and childcare is reduced, I don't see how a woman working and raising her kids alone, is any more expensive than a man supporting himself, his wife and their kids.

    It used to be possible. It used to be doable. wealth disparity ind income inequality mean that is no longer the case, at least certainly not for the average middle class. In the UK anyway, it's now a sign of wealth. This has nothing top do with the family and everything to do with income disparity.

    Liverpooljack1 , 2016-07-07 15:02:53
    Isn't choosing to have three children very selfish if you cannot support them financially. People always find someone else to blame.
    MtnClimber -> Liverpooljack1 , 2016-07-07 15:27:08
    Ah. I was waiting for some "bubba" to pull the race card. Congratulations. Maybe we should make everyone take a test to prove that they can afford children. No children for poor people. Nice.

    You are a horrible person.

    Liverpooljack1 -> MtnClimber , 2016-07-07 16:05:10
    "Race" card!!?? Where the hell did I mention anything about race or are you really as dumb as your reply suggests.
    Plus, you don't require a test to decide if you can afford children or not. It basic family planning. It's people like you in society that has the place in a mess with your "blame anyone but meself attitude" If I'm considered horrible, at least I'm not totally dumb and irrisponsible like you.
    Quesera -> Donald Inks , 2016-07-07 16:00:32
    $3,333.33 is actually not a lot of money to raise a family of four on. Let's do some math, shall we?!

    Taxes: $800 (rough estimate)
    Health Insurance: I'm going to estimate $300 because she probably has dependents on her coverage and that's what I paid one dependent a while back.
    Car: I'm going to estimate $150. My car payment is $300, but let's say she got a cheaper, used car.
    Rent: Let's say $1,000/month (I did a quick search and found that this seemed like a good price for a two bedroom)
    Bills: Let's round up to $150/month for gas, electricity, water, sewage
    Food: Let's say she spends $80/week, so roughly $320 a month (you know, she's a thrifty shopper)

    All of that leaves about $313 left for gas, phone, college tuition, maybe internet and cable at home. I don't know how she does it.

    MiltonWiltmellow , 2016-07-07 15:04:56

    Worst of all was the town of Goldsboro – one of three metropolitan areas in North Carolina at the bottom of the national league table.

    North Carolina, Michigan, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma ... more ...

    Sad stories in states run by Republicans. Toxic rivers, shootings, poisoned tap water, bankruptcy, daily earthquakes ...

    Bill Maher recently (July 1, 2016; Overtime) editorialized about the state "laboratories" where new ideas are tested and evaluated. Maher compared the divergent fates of California and Kansas plus Louisiana.

    Kansas is going bankrupt under the Republican governor and legislature, the Louisiana economy is a basket case thanks to Republican Bobby Jindal while just a few years ago, under Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, California was billions in debt.

    In California they threw out the Republicans, put Democrats in charge, raised taxes on the rich and voila -- now with a surplus, California is ranked as the sixth largest economy in the world:

    Only five countries produced more last year than California: the U.S., China, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom.

    So -- North Carolina with fouled rivers, a collapsing middle class, discriminatory laws -- or a thriving California?

    Goldsboro remains far from the sort of economic catastrophe seen in parts of the rust belt, but these are signs of financial stress that are hard to ignore. The strain on the middle class across much of the country may not have gone unnoticed by politicians, but locals here fear there is little talk of the investment in skills, high-paying jobs and civic infrastructure needed to arrest the slide.

    Republican shills will have to admit -- finally that Republican policies ruin lives, ruin the economy and ruin the environment. Truth appears more powerful than slogans and slanders. Who knows? They might even acknowledge climate change.

    Profhambone -> MiltonWiltmellow , 2016-07-07 15:47:30
    I believe it is the wars and needs of the military-industrial-banking complex that sap far too much from the economy. Both parties are guilty of supporting them.
    ehmaybe -> MiltonWiltmellow , 2016-07-07 15:52:52
    North Carolina with fouled rivers, a collapsing middle class, discriminatory laws -- or a thriving California?

    Since 2013, North Carolina has the fastest GDP growth of any state. The NC economy is not in bad shape. This lady lives in one of the poorest areas in the state, she should move 45 minutes north to thriving Raleigh or Durham - the population in that area is booming, they need teachers.

    The dumping of coal ash into the Dan river was a corporate crime, not a policy decision. Neither party is responsible for criminal actions by individuals or corporations, that's just silly. (The republicans have been too lax in holding Duke Energy to account but the damage done is not a political issue)

    HB2 is a disgrace but the legislature is in the process of correcting it and the Governor is likely to lose the election in the fall which bodes well for anti-HB2 people. Don't forget that California voters voted to ban gay marriage not even 10 years ago. It's not a paradise of wealth and enlightenment, no place is.

    Voltaire21 , 2016-07-07 15:16:57
    Why should we feel sorry for the American middle class they have elected for all the misery that has befallen them!

    If America was a fascist state I could sympathise but it's not. Americans have let their social rights being eroded by a mendacious and cunning establishment.

    One good example of how Americans don't give a shit is the very expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which have cost gazillions to the US taxpayer and not a whimper from the US population.

    If one can compare that to the Vietnam war which created its own critical cinema genre, protest songs, large demonstrations etc...you know that todays average Americans responsibility for the mess they find themselves in is non existent. They just bend over and take it and have little whine about it from time to time.

    Quesera -> Voltaire21 , 2016-07-07 15:48:37
    What about the people that didn't vote for the "misery" as you call it?

    What about the fact that whichever way you vote in the US you're screwed?

    And I don't know about you, but you must not know many Americans. The number of my friends who have been tear gassed during marches against the Iraq war flies in the face of your argument. Have you, yourself, even uttered a whimper against it?

    Bardolphe , 2016-07-07 15:20:20
    I will support proper child-support and healthcare and everything that can be done to make this woman's life easier and secure her kids' futures BUT

    Three kids is a LOT for two people to handle, let alone one.

    To paraphrase Lady Bracknell, to raise one child alone may be regarded as a misfortune; to attempt to raise three looks like carelessness. To try to raise three alone in the United States is MADNESS.

    I live in the USA. I'm in a stable long-term relationship. I don't make much money. I can't afford kids.

    2 + 2 = 4

    Poor me. I don't say I have a right to kids because I need them or I have so much love to give or blah, blah, blah. I just can't. Not here. This is a cruelly individualistic country. It is built to serve those who serve themselves. Namely, the young, healthy, smart, motivated and single. There is no political foundation or tradition of altruism here. Maybe back in Ireland where there's a system to support me and some healthcare and family. Not here. Madness.

    Happyduckling -> Bardolphe , 2016-07-07 15:36:41
    But she's got the kids now. What is she supposed to do? Hand them back to someone? If she and the childrens' father had them when life was looking more stable and she didn't have to work 4 jobs to make ends meet, she can hardly be blamed now for their existence.

    You are living in the now and choose not to have children because you feel you can't afford them. However, in the future, you may find that you can afford them, and therefore choose to conceive. If your circumstances change after that and you are no longer able to afford to care for them without working excessive hours and living in poverty, there's not a lot you can do other than get on with it. No point blaming her for something that is irreversible.

    Bardolphe -> OinkImSammy , 2016-07-07 15:41:05
    That is not my point and you absolutely know it is not my point.

    Stop pretending that birth control doesn't exist. It exists.

    Quesera , 2016-07-07 15:42:11
    It's interesting. According to my household income I'm in the "upper" tier for the DC-metro region. But it really doesn't feel that way. Even those of us who make a good income are more and more stretched. In comparison to most of the country, I am well off. I own a car, just bought a house, I can afford to go out to eat a couple times a week. But, I even get to the end of the month with only $100 in the bank. That's because other downward pressures on pay aren't taken into account, such as student debt. My expensive undergraduate and graduate education didn't come cheap, and while that education affords people higher pay, if you end up taking less of it home. It kinda equals out.

    Sometimes my husband and I think about having kids, and then we realise that even with our good paying jobs, we can't afford day care in our area. I get paid the most, so I can't quit my job but if my husband quit to care for a child, we would really be strapped. Can I really be considered an upper tier household if I can't afford to have kids? If I can't afford to go on vacation once a year? If I haven't bought new clothes in two years? If I have no savings and a freak medical bill might just tip me over the edge?

    There's something very, very wrong. How rich do you need to be before you don't feel like you're struggling?

    Scott Plantier -> Quesera , 2016-07-07 15:55:19
    Thanks for the great post, but whatever will be, will be, unless you get in front of it and plan.

    Suggest you give Andrew Tobias' book a read to think outside the box a good education often constructs for us: https://www.amazon.com/Only-Investment-Guide-Youll-Ever/dp/0544781937?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc

    Spunky325 -> Quesera , 2016-07-07 20:31:21
    You can cut student debt in the U.S. by attending a good community college for two years and then transferring to a state university. Most kids are unwilling to do this--no frats or prestige in community colleges!
    Nash25 , 2016-07-07 15:48:56
    The huge middle class in the USA was created by the liberal economic polices of the 1930s, which were designed to help the lower class.

    Beginning in the 1970s, a majority of the middle class began to resent the taxation needed to continue support for these liberal policies, and they began to vote for conservative politicians who promised to remove them as they "only helped the undeserving poor." White racism played a role in this as the lower class was invariably portrayed in political speeches and advertising as group of lazy black people.

    What the middle class did not understand was that their continued existence depended on these liberal programs, as most of the benefits went to the middle class, not the lower class as they assumed. As the liberal programs began to disappear, so did the economic security of the middle class.

    One would think they would have figured all of this out by now, but they have not, and they continue to vote for conservatives.

    pbalrick -> DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-07 17:21:27
    No, it was created in response to the Bolshevik revolution, in particular, to that genius who said "Let's just shoot the royal family and be done with this." When that happened, the ruling class got scared, and said "OK, minimum wage, vacation, sick pay, 40 hr work week, no child labor, great schooling, etc"

    All of these things have come under attack since the USSR fell apart, probably on that exact day. And who overthrew the USSR? Overeducated middle class, not the poor or the rich. Who was Occupy Wall Street, Arab Spring... the recent protests against the French labor law tightenings, ALL the middle class.

    The greatest threat to governments has, and always will be, from within. And this threat is from the middle class, almost exclusively. Therefore, we are to be crushed and controlled tightly.

    Scott Plantier , 2016-07-07 15:49:55
    " squeezed middle class tell tales of struggle " Too bad they voted for the big squeeze herself -- Bernie could have set them free from the path of exploitation she has planned for them immediately after her election by imposing the TPP upon the very fools who will elect her. Stop watching the Kartrashians and read about actual policy implications for your family and especially your children, if you had, none of you would have supported Clinton.
    pbalrick -> Scott Plantier , 2016-07-07 17:15:29
    funny how this media outlet didn't publish these types of reports while the primary was hot. It was all "Hilary is inevitable and supporting Bernie is supporting Trump" type garbage.
    biglio , 2016-07-07 15:58:38
    Education in the US...oh boy....

    I lived in Pittsburgh for 8 years, being European I sent them to public school...well, after a year in which my six years old son was suspended twice for running around at lunchtime when he shouldn't (six years old tend to do that), numerous recesses where they were put in front of a TV (we cannot send them outside, insurance doesn't cover if they get hurt and we got sued before), and notes from teachers full of spelling mistakes......I had to send them to private school perpetuating a cycle of poor people in public system and rich people (or middle class as i was at the time) to private schools....

    i don't know what needs to be done to fix the issue but it's the whole society that is really divided along money lines and race lines and inequality is getting worse. But money trumps everything, the US is the only place int he world where it's not considered unpolite to ask people :"what's your worth?" meaning how much you make, what are your assets, etc.....instilling in people a mentality of self worth based on money and consequentially a cutthroat environment where the more you have the more you are worth, so at the top they squeeze the lower end, to make more money but also because they think they are really not that worthy....its a perverse cycle that history taught us doesn't bring any good because at a certain point the poor reach a critical mass that will just revolt......I'm waiting for that, good luck...

    biglio -> ehmaybe , 2016-07-07 16:24:09
    I'm afraid my friend we disagree on that, excellent public schools are exceptions, there are some but they are a minority (International statistics on education quality validate that), I don't live in the US anymore but travel a lot there for business (at least 20 times a year). As for the worth question I had it asked to me quite a few times and kind of everywhere, maybe it's unpolite, I believe it's unpolite, but it happens regularly and only in the US (let me rephrase, in the rest of the world it wouldn't be considered unpolite, that's too mild of a term, it would be considered inconceivable). Said that I hope the US makes it and the "American Values" that you talk about prevail, but i am afraid those values have changed and being substituted by less noble ones...
    jsaralan -> ehmaybe , 2016-07-07 16:33:16
    Probably he means to say Americans habitually ask new acquaintances, "What do you do for a living?" That's absolutely a query about income and personal worth, though slightly disguised, and it's a question I have never widely encountered anywhere else in the world, nor while living overseas the last ten years. The question is so ingrained, though, that Americans who ask it don't think of it as a query about net worth. They do, however, react with overflowing respect toward those who answer in certain ways, and something akin to sympathy to those who answer in other ways. All my foreign friends have noticed it, and all think it's weird.
    DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-07 16:45:46
    This article is extremely dishonest. First, it claims that she has 'three other jobs'. Second, she has children, for whom she presumably gets child support. So what's her *real* income?
    Michael Williams , 2016-07-07 17:50:39
    I do not know how things stand today, but I went to school in the UK and in the US in the 70s and 80s.

    The schools in the UK were so superior to the US that I thought I had been placed in a remedial class when I returned to the States.

    At the time, I would have bet that the average 16 year old in the UK was better educated than most American college graduates.

    I would like to hear what you all think.

    biglio -> Michael Williams , 2016-07-07 18:22:25
    Agree, I did my last year of high school in the US, in North Carolina of all places, in a top private school, i was a middling student in Europe with flashes of brilliance in some subjects but definitely far from the top of the class. When I arrived (it was in the 80s) I didn't speak English. Well, I graduated with high honors int he top 5% and got my high school diploma, honestly without having to study that much, school was not totally comparable but definitely way less challenging.
    eastbayradical -> biglio , 2016-07-07 18:33:35
    Contrary to conventional wisdom, a lot of private schools in the United States are severely lacking in the rigor department. This is even true for many--not all--private schools that cater to well-to-do families.
    LelouchVIBrittania , 2016-07-07 18:13:10
    When those in poverty or on the verge of it are single mothers, you tend to wonder if there are some other issues as well. I don't recall a time in American history where a single mother of several children could take care of herself when completely on her own.

    I know of single mothers who are doing fine, but they employed and are also being helped by siblings and parents who already have some wealth and free time to take care of the child. Maybe the issue is the fact that these people are having kids at the wrong time or without enough thought. Divorce rates are incredibly high in the US, and the percentage of children who have non-birth parents is very high as well. What this all means is that the USA isn't teaching its citizens about having kids and the responsibility.

    The USA is also not teaching men and women about birth control, or about being holding potential partners to higher standards (and I don't mean looks). A lot of people in the USA are too shallow and focus too much on aesthetics over reliability and now we have single mothers with fathers who refuse to pay child support at all costs. There are too many problems with the USA, but I feel that personal hygiene and responsibility with sexual partners should be on the top.

    PlatosNave , 2016-07-07 18:35:03
    I teach in inner city schools. There are so many problems, money is one of them but all the money won't solve the problem of poor learning attitudes, disaffection, poor discipline and nonexistent work ethic .

    A lot of the students get no discipline at home and their parents don't expect them to learn anything. They are resistant to the whole process of focus on new knowledge , absorb, drill, recall , deploy newly learned thing.

    Americans have a religious reverence for individualism and learning new things is a humbling experience and many people don't like it. Sure the adults bang on about education but they aren't serious about it. They think all you need is to spend more money , not do any actual work.

    Spunky325 -> PlatosNave , 2016-07-07 20:18:08
    The problems in the inner city are so intransigent that I doubt anything can fix it. I have three friends, all dedicated teachers, who taught in inner city schools in New Jersey and the stories they have told me make my mind reel: a mother who punched a teacher (and gave her a concussion) who "disrespected" her kid (by failing him, deservedly, in algebra), 15-year-olds who had pagers so their pimps could call them, children who had five brothers and sisters--all with different fathers. You couldn't make this stuff up.

    I don't know what solution there is to this. My nieces and nephews did well in school, studied hard, and went on to university. They didn't do drugs, rape or be raped, and stayed away from unsavory kids. BUT--they went home to two parents every night, a father and mother, which I think would have made them successful at school no matter what their income.

    thomasmccabe , 2016-07-07 18:49:47
    The Pew survey you cited noted that "...the share living in middle-income households fell from 55% in 2000 to 51% in 2014. Reflecting the accumulation of changes at the metropolitan level, the nationwide share of adults in lower-income households increased from 28% to 29% and the share in upper-income households rose from 17% to 20% during the period." In other words, most of the decline in the middle class was due to their moving into the upper class.

    The article was mostly about a declining rural area. The Guardian grinding its usual axes and reaching the conclusion it intended to reach?

    NoSerf , 2016-07-07 19:24:28
    Middle class job death inflicted by cronie capitalism entertained by the political establishment (examples): Private equity is not scrutinized by anti-trust legislation, buys any company and sends jobs overseas. Cronie supporters of politicians get help in that some industry gets indicted (e.g. more or less entire coal industry) or regulated into oblivion, for fake reasons, so that cronie (solar panel) company gets subsidies. Of course, the latter goes under, no company on IV survives without IV. Banks get bailed out, others not. GM gets bailed out, to maintain jobs, then outsources.

    The old members of middle class are not tolerated by our government and the cronies. Who is tolerated as middle class is any kind of civil servant, and new immigrants. Revenge from 2 sides. Or call it cultural revolution Mao style: Take their habitat.

    Curtis Gomez , 2016-07-07 19:49:24
    Growing up in the SF Bay Area during the 70's there was a large disparity in academics between schools even in the same district. At 11 years old the school district was rezoned and the new school that I attended had much lower standards. So much so, that I came home the very first day and complained to my mother that I had been assigned to a class for slow learners. Being so bored, my grades started to drop. At 13 years, I tested out of mathematics and eventually tested out of high school altogether and joined the military.

    There my intelligence was appreciated (believe it or not). The military provided a valuable work ethic and training in technology that have provided a decent career and lifestyle since. It's too bad that America can't seem to provide adequate learning to the vast majority.

    jacknbox , 2016-07-07 19:54:54
    The US economy isn't competitive anymore. It started with the labor cost being too high, so factories moved out. Then the entire supply chain moved out. Now the main consumer market is also moving out. Once that is gone, we will have no more leverage.

    The US education is good, but students are lazy, undisciplined, and incurious. In silicon valley, more than 75% of highly paid technical personnel are foreign born. Corporations making money with foreign workers here and abroad, on foreign markets. Taking these away and you will see the economy crash.

    Then you have Hillary wanting to sub divide a rapidly diminishing pie, and Trump wanting to return to 1946. Good luck to them both.

    enodesign -> jacknbox , 2016-07-08 01:25:43
    Get real .

    Labor costs were too high. Have some more kool-aid. The elite didn't want labor to have any bargaining power whatsoever . They wanted to dictate the terms to labor believing that they were the only ones who should have any say in matters. The elite wanted to maximize their profits at the expense of their own citizens. They wanted slave labor . They wanted powerless people to dance to their tune. How could an advanced nation's labor possibly compete with slave labor .

    This is the same argument that slave owning , southern plantation owners used to fight against the freeing of slaves . They to said that they would not longer be competitive and the overall economy would suffer .

    Are you telling us that an economy needs slave labor to exist ?

    enodesign , 2016-07-07 20:02:24
    Sadly ..... thee isn't any hope for these people in the foreseeable future . Their economic decline has been happening for quite some time now and shows no sign of abating whatsoever . The economic foundations of their lives have been steadily pulled out from under them by the financial elite and their subservient political cultures , the Republican and Democratic Parties . The Republicans have never really given a damn about them and the Democrats have long abandoned them . These poor people of North Carolina are adrift on a sinking raft on easy ocean of indifference by the political cultures of America . To those in power , they don't exist . They don't count . They don't matter .

    The trend in the U.S, along with almost every other major nation in the world over the past 35 years has been to exclusively serve the interests of the financial elite and only their needs . All sense of fairness , justice and decency have been totally discarded .

    Tax breaks after tax breaks , tax shelters , free movement of capital , etc., etc. would sum up the experience of the financial elite over the past 35 years . They have become incredibly wealthy now and are still not satisfied . They want more . They want it all . They want what little you have and their political servants which help them get .

    Political discourse pertaining to the plight of those like these folks in North Carolina is all window dressing . In the end , you can be certain that it will amount to nothing . Just like it has for decades now . The financial elite are in control and they are not going to give any of that control up . As a matter of fact , they are going to tighten their grip . They will invent crisis to have their agendas imposed upon an increasingly powerless and bewildered public . They will take advantage of every naturally occurring crisis to advance their agenda .

    There will be an end to their abuse , greed and domination until one day when everything changes . The day when people have had enough . When people can't take it any more . History has demonstrated this fact so often before . The mighty do fall . They always fall ..... but their fall is nowhere to be seen at this time .

    There is going to a great deal more pain for average folk before things get better .

    A Presidential election featuring Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is clear evidence of this fact.

    Hopefully , these two bottom feeding , utter human failures represent the bottom of the barrel but I doubt if they do .

    Good luck to the good folks of North Carolina and countless others like them .... they / we / myself are going to need it .

    enodesign -> DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-08 01:18:46
    On the contrary .... it's money that the elite have not paid out in wages .

    It's money that the elite have illegally hidden from the taxman . It's money the the elite need to pay for the infrastructure that makes it possible to do business in the first place . It's money that has been made from insider trading and backroom deals . It's money from the wealth that labour has basically created in the first place .

    It's money that contributes to the social maintenance on a safe , civil society . It's money that the wealthy do not need .... they have all they could ever need now .

    It is money that when distributed fairly keeps money in motion creating it's transfer into additional hands which further circulates that money creating even more spending by people and the consumption of goods and services which result in the creation of even more wealth .

    Static capital kills economies .

    I know that the elite like to think that they are the exclusive ones to create wealth but wealth creation is the marriage between capital and labour . You can have all of the capital in the world but without labour transforming it into greater wealth it can not possibly grow .

    If anyone is guilty of stealing money it is the elite who steal from the economy causing the economy's ill health .

    The last 35 years are more than testimony to this fact .

    Economies are dying wherever the elite have gotten their way .

    The elite are the real killers of wealth and economies . Just look at any economy in the world throughout history where the elite had all of the wealth to themselves . Their economies are highly dysfunctional and their societies are full of social problems and crime .

    This is an indisputable fact .

    Greed kills wealth development .

    Wealth development is directly tied to the well being of labour which allows for mass consumption of goods and services .

    You would have to be a complete idiot not to see this fact .

    So my good doctor .... the money in any given economy really belongs to everyone , not just the greedy elite .

    You need to get a real perspective instead of constantly eyeing you own pile of wealth .

    Matt C , 2016-07-07 20:32:07
    so the woman chose to have 3 daughters, is now choosing to foot the bill for their college education, and wants me to feel sorry because she has to work her ass off to do all these things? how about this.... don't have children you can't afford. a little personal responsibility in one's life goes a long, long way.
    Bajanova -> Matt C , 2016-07-07 21:03:04
    She is taking personal responsibility! She is working!
    DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-07 20:35:37
    Everybody here is debating the life of a person who probably doesn't even exist.
    JudeUSA -> DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-07 23:20:41
    Go to the website of the school she works for. Her picture is on the website and the NC pay for a 3 year teacher is about 40K. I think she exists.
    jecoz , 2016-07-07 20:59:28
    We need to redefine middle class. I grew up middle class. We had one TV. Not a lot of clothes. Took short, cheap vacations. Had no credit cards. Our lives were perfectly enjoyable. Many people here in the US live way beyond their means.
    Turrialba -> jecoz , 2016-07-07 21:36:59
    We piled into the station wagon and headed out on short trips in the region. We visited historic sites and were enriched by the experience. None of this $1000s on the trip to Disneyland. We didn't feel deprived or entitled.
    jacknbox -> jecoz , 2016-07-07 23:26:14
    The key is not money but optimism. America is still richer, cleaner, and better run than most other places. But the gap is rapidly closing. Scaling back the spending would not help here. It would only further reduce the drive.
    skwawshbug , 2016-07-07 22:08:36
    As a North Carolinian, there are two major issues. One, the right to bear arms and also, teacher tenure and working conditions. Republicans have already taken away tenure from my younger colleagues, but as an older teacher, I still have mine. Secondly, democrats want to take away gun rights on the federal level, but state dems are usually more pro-gun in the conservative state.

    SO for me, I will vote for a democratic state government and a republican federal government. I will be proudly putting a Roy Cooper bumper sticker on my car. But due to the peaceful liberals, I would be afraid to put a TRUMP sticker on my car because of recent violence against Trump supporters.

    DrSallyWinterton -> skwawshbug , 2016-07-07 22:30:35
    Teachers who can't be thrown out, no matter how incompetent they are, are a major reason why the US educational system is in such a mess.
    Shillingfarmer , 2016-07-07 22:15:18
    The problem is the job exporting American elite class. NAFTA was an economics, political, and social experiment with all the downside on the former, mostly lower middle class. Non-aligned examination of the available data shows how disastrous NAFTA has been to America's bubbas. Thanks to Bush 41 and Bill Clinton. WTO was all Bill. Of the mistakes Obama has made TPP would be the worst. The question is, really, do we favor global fairness (an even playing field for all earth's peoples) and a climate-killing consumerist world, or our own disadvantaged (courtesy of our financial and political elite) citizens. Not an easy choice. Death by poison or hanging. No treaty can benegotiated fairly in secret.
    SocratesP , 2016-07-07 22:30:13
    The tragic irony is that the anger against rule by the 1% manifests in things like support for Trump, a typical example of the greed and excess of the 1%. Americans need to question outside their desperately constrained paradigms more. It will help focus their anger more strategically, and possibly lead to solutions. Don't hold your breath, the inequality gap is accelerating the wrong way.
    DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-07 22:40:20
    Fake, fake fake. A woman with $40k and three children would *not* be paying 1/3 of her income in tax. This woman does *not* live on $40k net or gross - she has three other jobs. And her name looks *very* made up.
    Bronwyn Holmberg , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    I think the US is heDing for trouble. It is the middle class that maintains civil society and gives a sense of hope. This is an interesting open letter by a zillionaire to his peers warning them what happens without a string middle class. A thought provoking read. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014
    Chris Westcott , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    The elite of the USA have done exactly what the Romans did and what the Pre-Revolutionary French did.... drain the lower classes while enriching themselves. "Taxes are for little people" is not just a pithy quote, it has become the reality as the elite rig the system so they benefit and the lower classes pay. They need to wake up or they will get exactly what the Romans Got (collapsed empire) or the French got (Violent Revolution). Wake up America! It is time to choose your side in the class war the elite continue to execute while telling us there is no "Class War" - you can't pull yourself up by your boot straps while they are pulling the rug out from under you!
    veloboldie , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    My wife used to employ recent graduates from Georgetown University with poli. sci., psychology, sociology degrees, to stack books for $10/hr. It took them on average 2-3 years, before finding work in their field. I keep telling my kids you need to earn a degree that has a skill for life and will always be in demand, i.e. doctor, dentist, vet, engineer, scientist. Additionally, include work oversees in your career.
    Ardnas1936 -> veloboldie , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    Education is NOT about finding a job! It's about learning ways to seek wisdom and rationality, and to assimilate (not deny) new knowledge throughout your life--and that's exactly what's lacking in the US! Our schools are factories to turn out standard robots to be used by the owners of this country, whether they practice law or flip burgers.

    I was lucky that my parents were born and raised before that happened. They went to what used to be called "country schools"--my dad to a 1-room schoolhouse. Some of the so-called "knowledge" was patriotic trash, serving only the rich elites, but they learned to be sturdy and to think for themselves, so I was lucky and learned a lot at home. Without parents who practice the empathetic, rational morality needed in a democracy, all the jobs in the world--especially if most are for flipping burgers--won't save this dreary country.

    nataliesutler -> veloboldie , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    You make an excellent point. Thinking about your life rather than just going for a crip major in college would be an excellent way NOT to wind up stacking books for $10 an hour with a degree. I can't count the number of my kids friends who select communications majors, or sociology or women's studies and then are completely surprised when there are no jobs demanding their educational background. What is it that they think they will be qualified to do after college?
    mikegood , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    From the article.... "Some lucky families saw themselves promoted to the upper income bracket." Here in a nutshell we see the author's underlying worldview. Getting to the upper income bracket has nothing to do with effort. Rather it's the result of luck. It's something that is done to you by an outside force.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Scaring voters with Putin is the cornerstone of Hillary electron campaign

    She can not offer anything as she is "kick the can down the road" neoliberal candidate serving financial oligarchy, so playing fear card is her the only chance...
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    UPDATE "'You can get rid of Manafort, but that doesn't end the odd bromance Trump has with Putin,' Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement" [Washington Post]. That's our Democrats; gin up a war scare all to win Eastern Europeans in a swing state (Ohio). That's what this article, read closely, boils down to, read carefully. (I love Mook's "bromance," so reminiscent of the Clinton campaign's vile BernieBro smear.)

    UPDATE "Republicans in North Carolina are pulling out all the stops to suppress the state's reliably Democratic black vote. After the Fourth Circuit court reinstated a week of early voting, GOP-controlled county elections boards are now trying to cut early-voting hours across the state. By virtue of holding the governor's office, Republicans control a majority of votes on all county election boards and yesterday they voted to cut 238 hours of early voting in Charlotte's Mecklenburg County, the largest in the state. 'I'm not a big fan of early voting,' said GOP board chair Mary Potter Summa, brazenly disregarding the federal appeals court's opinion. 'The more [early voting] sites we have, the more opportunities exist for violations'" [The Nation]. Bad Republicans. On the other hand, if the Democrats treated voter registration like a 365/24/7 party function, including purchasing IDs in ID states for those who can't afford them, none of this would be happening.

    [Aug 24, 2016] How arms merchants who mostly support Hillary benefit from tensions with Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have pledged to increase the share of exports in their overall revenues, and they have been seeking major deals in East and Central Europe since the 1990s, when NATO expansion began," said William Hartung, director of the Arms & Security Project at the Center for International Policy. Hartung noted that as some nations ramp up spending, U.S. firms will be "knocking at the door, looking to sell everything from fighter planes to missile defense systems." ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Jeremn , August 23, 2016 at 7:32 am
    Some good links here. How arms merchants benefit from tensions with Russia:

    "Companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have pledged to increase the share of exports in their overall revenues, and they have been seeking major deals in East and Central Europe since the 1990s, when NATO expansion began," said William Hartung, director of the Arms & Security Project at the Center for International Policy. Hartung noted that as some nations ramp up spending, U.S. firms will be "knocking at the door, looking to sell everything from fighter planes to missile defense systems."

    https://theintercept.com/2016/08/19/nato-weapons-industry/

    [Aug 24, 2016] For neoliberals it becomes all the more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain solidarity

    Anti-Russian hysteria and demonization of Trump is the key strategies for neoliberal media to secure Hillary victory in November. Anti-Russian hysteria is also a tool to maintain solidarity and suppress dissent against neoliberal globalization. Those presstitutes will stop at nothing, even provocations and swiftboating are OK for them (See Khan Gambit)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Oh, and I suppose Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton's vitriol is okay, right? Typical [neo]liberal ranting. Point the finger at someone else, but do the same thing and it's okay. ..."
    "... When candidates wish to distinguish themselves or appeal to various segments of the electorate, there is nothing like a lot of demagoguery and fear mongering to bring attention to a candidate and his issues. ..."
    "... It then becomes all the more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain solidarity. While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience is that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own parochial personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election. ..."
    "... I think the divisions are easier to exploit in part because the society has become so greatly divided based of income inequality. ..."
    "... WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after, vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s. ..."
    "... The media became more fragmented as well. Broadcast media also used to be seen as a public service. But in the 1970s the major networks started to understand that it could also be a profit center -- and you had another shift in values, where the public function took a back-seat to profit maximization. The market also has become more cut-throat as the media environment has become more fragmented. ..."
    "... [Neo]Liberals are largely to blame - they regarded their opponents as "uneducated" "swivel-eyed" etc. They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful debate. ..."
    "... This is very true. Screaming racist at anyone challenging the liberal orthodoxy of black = victim and white = oppressor . ..."
    "... The same is true of ignoring the many black lives that are ended by the type of people the police frequently come into contact with - other young black men. ..."
    "... Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. ..."
    "... That is the disaster that what current politicians totally fail. That needs to change. Will such, I doubt it. The current so called political platforms or manifestos, are basically useless and used only for propaganda. ..."
    "... You left out WHO does the dirty work of the politicians. ..."
    "... I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse. ..."
    "... I have always wondered if "spin" is taught in journalism schools, or if it is taught by newspapers after graduation from journalism school. ..."
    "... I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse. ..."
    "... Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation were struck. ..."
    "... That lead to the banking crisis/collapse in 2008, and to the 'solution' whereby most governments imposed 'austerity' and debt on ordinary people to keep most of the bankers 'functional' and 'solvent' ...and not only were the bankers not adequately regulated to curtail their activities, but they carried on paying themselves mega-currency bonuses for using taxpayer guarantees to rescue their dysfunctional businesses. ..."
    "... I agree, its an entirely artificial construct. And the globalists are in a position to punish countries like Britain for its Brexit decision. But they cannot destroy Britain. Rather, it is the globalists who may be destroyed by the nationalism spreading across the globe. Many globalists are actually terrified by all this. General Electric has read the tea leaves and is already reacting: ..."
    "... GE's Immelt Signals End to 7 Decades of Globalization http://fortune.com/2016/05/20/ge-immelt-globalization/ ..."
    "... Fascinating link. The global corporate overlords only respond to sustained political pressure. Brexit was a wakeup call for them and the November election in the U.S. may be another... ..."
    Jul 10, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Comments from: Vitriol in American politics is holding the nation back' by Megan Carpentier

    ID6808749 , 11 Jul 2016 12:03

    Oh, and I suppose Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton's vitriol is okay, right? Typical [neo]liberal ranting. Point the finger at someone else, but do the same thing and it's okay.

    The only difference today is that Donald Trump doesn't take the finger pointing and Democratic vitriol laying down, he fires it right back at them and guess what, he keeps winning!

    Dale Roberts 11 Jul 2016 11:59

    Vitriolic and polemical speech has been a ubiquitous ritual since the earliest democracies. When candidates wish to distinguish themselves or appeal to various segments of the electorate, there is nothing like a lot of demagoguery and fear mongering to bring attention to a candidate and his issues. In the end, self-interest motivates voters, and fear is the biggest self-interest of all. Using the specter of the opposition to scare small children and those who think like them is a time honored tradition and well alive today. Further, as groups begin to prosper and start being assimilated into the broader society, the individual self-interests diverge and it becomes harder to hold them together as a cohesive group whose votes can be counted on. It then becomes all the more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain solidarity. While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience is that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own parochial personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election.
    Roger Dafremen 11 Jul 2016 3:56
    Noam Chomsky talked about this in "The Corporation." Our division and increased level of emotional isolation is a direct result of marketing attacks on the human psyche designed to get us to buy more products and services. I'm not sure how much of it is Machiavellian and how much is just pure greed reaping it's inevitable harvest.
    barbkay -> Roger Dafremen 11 Jul 2016 7:19
    A smart comment. Greed and fear are indeed the primary drivers of behaviour in many arenas now, and it's partly driven by corporations. This-or-that, black-and-white thinking is largely a product of high emotion, which essentially makes us 'stupid' and unable to reason.

    The impact of viewing - consciously or unconsciously - dozens of ads a day on the Internet, or hours of tranced staring at screens, may be shown to be a major factor in the increasingly mesmerised state of the populace.

    That and, as these venerable politicos point out, the demise of political nous generally.

    JVRTRL 11 Jul 2016 3:16
    Many excellent points. I think the divisions are easier to exploit in part because the society has become so greatly divided based of income inequality. People have completely different frames of reference in terms of their experience, and anxieties, and so it becomes easier to dismiss the concerns of others out-of-hand as illegitimate. You can also overlay racism as part of the equation, which has always been present with varying degrees of intensity in the U.S.

    WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after, vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s.

    The idea of a media culture that was objective and bipartisan is a newer idea. It was codified by things like the Fairness Doctrine as well, which tended to moderate, and censor, public discussion through broadcast media. When the Fairness Doctrine fell apart you had people like Limbaugh go national with a highly partisan infotainment model.

    The media became more fragmented as well. Broadcast media also used to be seen as a public service. But in the 1970s the major networks started to understand that it could also be a profit center -- and you had another shift in values, where the public function took a back-seat to profit maximization. The market also has become more cut-throat as the media environment has become more fragmented.

    ServiusGalba 11 Jul 2016 3:06
    [Neo]Liberals are largely to blame - they regarded their opponents as "uneducated" "swivel-eyed" etc. They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful debate. Now it's come back to bite them in the form of Donald Trump. They don't like it now they are on the receiving end.
    ionetranq -> ServiusGalba 11 Jul 2016 6:44

    [Neo]Liberals are largely to blame

    This is the type of over-stating a position that they are prone to. But saying that "liberals" are largely to blame is no different to them pointing the finger at "the right" for all the issues.

    There's plenty of blame to go around, and it's evenly spread.

    They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful debate.

    This is very true. Screaming racist at anyone challenging the liberal orthodoxy of black = victim and white = oppressor .

    A prime example of one of the issues is BLM. Pushing the view that any black person killed by the police as dying at the hand of a racist cop.

    Using whole population stats to compare the chances of being shot by the police, instead of comparing socio-economic groups. It's not exactly unbiased to compare the chances of a poor black man, and a white lawyer, of being stopped or shot by the police.

    The same is true of ignoring the many black lives that are ended by the type of people the police frequently come into contact with - other young black men.

    Until both sides are truthful about what's happening, nothing is going to change. Both sides - police and young black men - currently approach an interaction with each other fearful of the other. This is made worse on both sides by the rhetoric.

    If you listen to BLM and its supporters, then every cop is racist and wamnts to kill them. Why would you do what the police officer tells you if you think you're just opening yourself up to a racist cop killing you?

    On the other side, the police apparently often assume that every young black man they encounter both has a gun, and thinks they're racist, and therefore operates on that assumption and goes for a shoot first and be safe option.

    Neither of these will get any better while there is this lying and entrenched positions on either side. You could also ask why anyone who's white would support an organization which doesn't appear to care about the white victims of the police (of which AIUI there are an equal number). Or the black murder victims who aren't killed by the police.

    sdgreen 10 Jul 2016 20:51
    Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. Every thing in the politicians mind is open ended, and may or may not be adopted, considered, or maybe a totally different thing than what they were elected for.

    That is the disaster that what current politicians totally fail. That needs to change. Will such, I doubt it. The current so called political platforms or manifestos, are basically useless and used only for propaganda.

    GorCro -> sdgreen 11 Jul 2016 15:15
    You left out WHO does the dirty work of the politicians.
    pipspeak 10 Jul 2016 16:26
    I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse.

    Even my beloved Guardian is succumbing, publishing more and more pointless newsy opinion pieces and less and less fact-based, hard news. I don't want to read five takes on a single world event. I'd rather read the facts about five different world events and feel more informed at the end of the day.

    1iJack -> pipspeak 10 Jul 2016 22:41
    I have always wondered if "spin" is taught in journalism schools, or if it is taught by newspapers after graduation from journalism school.

    It gets so far out, you wonder what journalists think the readers think. It would be great to be in on a backroom discussion about headlines and all paraphrasing in articles at the Washington Post and Guardian.

    I'll bet they sit around and chuckle as they try to cook up positive or negative spins. Its more than facts.

    pipspeak 10 Jul 2016 16:26
    I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse.

    Even my beloved Guardian is succumbing, publishing more and more pointless newsy opinion pieces and less and less fact-based, hard news. I don't want to read five takes on a single world event. I'd rather read the facts about five different world events and feel more informed at the end of the day.

    Reddenbluesy 10 Jul 2016 9:13
    I suspect we're seeing the consequences of two events... one political, the other financial (heavily determined by the political, which happened first).

    Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation were struck.

    That lead to the banking crisis/collapse in 2008, and to the 'solution' whereby most governments imposed 'austerity' and debt on ordinary people to keep most of the bankers 'functional' and 'solvent' ...and not only were the bankers not adequately regulated to curtail their activities, but they carried on paying themselves mega-currency bonuses for using taxpayer guarantees to rescue their dysfunctional businesses.

    As the UK-EU Referendum result has proved, populist politicians spouting bullsh*t can succeed in this environment; especially when 'decent politicians' abdicate their responsibilities.

    1iJack -> PrinceVlad 10 Jul 2016 10:37
    I agree, its an entirely artificial construct. And the globalists are in a position to punish countries like Britain for its Brexit decision. But they cannot destroy Britain. Rather, it is the globalists who may be destroyed by the nationalism spreading across the globe. Many globalists are actually terrified by all this. General Electric has read the tea leaves and is already reacting:

    GE's Immelt Signals End to 7 Decades of Globalization http://fortune.com/2016/05/20/ge-immelt-globalization/

    bluepanther -> 1iJack 10 Jul 2016 17:46
    Fascinating link. The global corporate overlords only respond to sustained political pressure. Brexit was a wakeup call for them and the November election in the U.S. may be another...

    [Aug 24, 2016] Meet the "'Trumpocrats" -- Lifelong Democrats Breaking with Party Over Hillary Clinton to Support Donald Trump for President by Matthew Boyle

    Notable quotes:
    "... I believe in the two founding principles of Jacksonian Democracy, social justice and economic fairness. Right now, I think that the Democratic Party-my great party-has got away from some of this ..."
    "... If Hillary Clinton is elected, and not Donald Trump, Rickers says that income inequality-and particularly the "gap" between "the rich and the poor" will get worse. Clinton's refusal to focus on issues that matter to middle class Americans of all political stripes-including Democrats-is why Rickers is calling on Democrats nationwide to join him in a push to elect Donald Trump president of the United States. ..."
    "... his party "used to stand for working people," but "Hillary Clinton's record-NAFTA, SHAFTA, favored nation status for China, Glass-Steagall, I mean we could go on and on and on-she's not been a friend of rural America and rural America knows that and it's shining in the primaries and caucuses. It's a huge ABC feeling out here, Anybody But Clinton." ..."
    "... Bova added that Trump's support for protecting Americans' hard earned benefits like Social Security and Medicare-things that Americans, he says, can't trust Hillary Clinton with-is why his fellow Democrats should back him for president ..."
    "... These same folks, I believe, have been assured that Trump will also protect and seek to strengthen their Social Security and Medicare benefits, and finally, after 20 to 30 years, put their lives back on a level playing field by undoing the very so called free-trade, world-trade, global-trade agreements that that hollowed-out their jobs, their families, their communities, their businesses. That is a powerful reason, a survival reason, for them to want to vote to elect Trump President. ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... When asked about Clinton's supposed opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership-she previously supported it more than 40 times, but now claims to be against it as voters rebel against the deal-Rickers laughed. "That's just ridiculous," Rickers said. "She is one of the architects of the complete opposite position. This woman will say anything if she thinks she'll get a vote or money for it." ..."
    Aug 23, 2016 | breitbart.com

    On the Trumpocrats PAC website is a video of David "Mudcat" Saunders, another lifelong Democrat, talking with Fox News.

    I'm a Democrat," Saunders, who worked for many prominent national Democrats over his career, says in the interview video. "I believe in the two founding principles of Jacksonian Democracy, social justice and economic fairness. Right now, I think that the Democratic Party-my great party-has got away from some of this."

    If Hillary Clinton is elected, and not Donald Trump, Rickers says that income inequality-and particularly the "gap" between "the rich and the poor" will get worse. Clinton's refusal to focus on issues that matter to middle class Americans of all political stripes-including Democrats-is why Rickers is calling on Democrats nationwide to join him in a push to elect Donald Trump president of the United States. Rickers said:

    Otherwise, the gap is going to continue to increase between the rich and the poor because a lot of people don't have the ability now to rise up whether they're underemployed or facing hard times. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is talking about Planned Parenthood or whatever-which is all great, but that's not what we need. We need people to be self-sufficient and feed their families. Trump speaks to that, and there are people all across this country who are fed up with it-obviously, that's what this election is kind of all about. You have party registrations switching by the tens of thousands in Ohio and Pennsylvania and elsewhere, and there's a lot of people-they don't want to be Republicans, but they don't like either party anymore. We're going to give them a place or organize out of, you know? A home, if you will.

    Saunders said in the Fox interview that his party "used to stand for working people," but "Hillary Clinton's record-NAFTA, SHAFTA, favored nation status for China, Glass-Steagall, I mean we could go on and on and on-she's not been a friend of rural America and rural America knows that and it's shining in the primaries and caucuses. It's a huge ABC feeling out here, Anybody But Clinton."

    Billy Bova, another lifelong Democratic operative from Mississippi who is supportive of the effort, told Breitbart News that the answer for Democrats who feel Hillary Clinton does not support them is to back Donald Trump for president. Bova said in an email:

    If you have historically been a working class, middle class person in areas of America that produced good paying, blue collar factory jobs, white collar factory related jobs, small business jobs in your towns around the plants and factories, it would be hard not to support a Trumpocrats effort in electing Donald Trump! Historically, many regular-working Democratic voters have always been most interested in a candidate that supports economic issues, not so much social issues, but bottom-line pocketbook, kitchen table money issues that can pay their bills and help their children. Trump shoots directly at their pocketbooks, gives them hope for a better future.

    Bova added that Trump's support for protecting Americans' hard earned benefits like Social Security and Medicare-things that Americans, he says, can't trust Hillary Clinton with-is why his fellow Democrats should back him for president. He said:

    These same folks, I believe, have been assured that Trump will also protect and seek to strengthen their Social Security and Medicare benefits, and finally, after 20 to 30 years, put their lives back on a level playing field by undoing the very so called free-trade, world-trade, global-trade agreements that that hollowed-out their jobs, their families, their communities, their businesses. That is a powerful reason, a survival reason, for them to want to vote to elect Trump President.

    ... ... ...

    "I think there's a pretty sour taste in a lot of guys' mouths about Iraq and about what happened there," Jim Webb Jr., a Marine veteran and Webb's son-who is also a Trump supporter-told the Washington Post. "You pour time and effort and blood into something, and you see it pissed away, and you think, 'How did I spend my twenties?'"

    The Post cast Webb's son's comments in the light of him praising Trump's vow to end nation-building type of foreign policy that Republicans drove under the Bush administration. While Trump's vows to steer clear of establishment status quo type foreign policy has cost him a handful of votes among GOP elites in Washington, D.C., so the thinking goes, it has won him many more actual voters across America in places like Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina-and potentially even New York state.

    ... ... ...

    JOBS, JOBS, JOBS: IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID

    When asked about Clinton's supposed opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership-she previously supported it more than 40 times, but now claims to be against it as voters rebel against the deal-Rickers laughed. "That's just ridiculous," Rickers said. "She is one of the architects of the complete opposite position. This woman will say anything if she thinks she'll get a vote or money for it."

    And he said "hell no, absolutely no" he does not believe that Hillary Clinton is against the TPP.

    "No way," Rickers said. "And she'll say something different when she's in front of another group. Do you think she was saying that when she was being paid $250,000 a speech on Wall Street? No. And she doesn't want anybody to know what she said there."

    As for Trump, Rickers said he believes Trump on the issue of trade.

    "At least during this campaign-I know he's said a lot of things in a lot of different directions, but he's been pretty consistent that that is the foundation of his campaign, to rebuild the infrastructure of the country," Rickers said. "I just wish he wouldn't get distracted all the time and just talk about the main issue of his campaign, which is the rebuilding of the country."

    On the Trumpocrats PAC website are videos of many other Democrats switching parties to vote for Trump. David Abbott, a lifelong Democratic Party member and former local councilman from Kentucky, switched parties to vote for Trump.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Tragic mistake

    Notable quotes:
    "... In the Dutch "Telegraph" an article has been published in which it is announced that it was all a tragic mistake explained by low-skilled Buka operators who were under stress. ..."
    "... Tomorrow in the Dutch "Telegraph" appears new material about the downing over the Donbas of the Malaysian Boeing MH-17. There has been made an announcement, in which experts are referred to, that states that the Boeing was shot down accidentally (!), that it was "a huge, tragic mistake" and that no one at all had intended to shoot down the Boeing, only those people who were manning the BUK had low skill and had found themselves in a stress situation. In short, they fired a rocket at the Boeing by mistake. ..."
    "... What I find hard to believe is that if these accusations had been made against the separatist militia or the Russian military, then the tone of this discussion would have been otherwise. Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives who had been approximately deployed at that place and at that time. There are photos and videos. ..."
    "... It would be profoundly astonishing to me if there was even the slightest move toward Ukraine accepting responsibility, because of all Poroshenko's accusatory rhetoric and the eager baying of the western press, the British being the worst of the lot. The west would have to eat too much crow, while Ukraine would be the object of both disgust for its deliberate deception and renewed lawsuits by relatives of the dead. They've gone way too far to reverse themselves now. Fascinating, nonetheless. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile , August 23, 2016 at 5:12 am
    MH17 – сбили по "ошибке"

    In the Dutch "Telegraph" an article has been published in which it is announced that it was all a tragic mistake explained by low-skilled Buka operators who were under stress.

    Tomorrow in the Dutch "Telegraph" appears new material about the downing over the Donbas of the Malaysian Boeing MH-17. There has been made an announcement, in which experts are referred to, that states that the Boeing was shot down accidentally (!), that it was "a huge, tragic mistake" and that no one at all had intended to shoot down the Boeing, only those people who were manning the BUK had low skill and had found themselves in a stress situation. In short, they fired a rocket at the Boeing by mistake.

    What I find hard to believe is that if these accusations had been made against the separatist militia or the Russian military, then the tone of this discussion would have been otherwise. Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives who had been approximately deployed at that place and at that time. There are photos and videos.

    Moscow Exile , August 23, 2016 at 5:13 am
    Over to you, Secretary of State Kerry…
    marknesop , August 23, 2016 at 10:43 am
    Extremely interesting, and quite a variation on what I thought would be the verdict; "We may never know". But is this actually stipulating that it was non-separatist Ukrainian personnel who were responsible? I don't see that – just 'stressed-out, poorly-trained Buka operators'. That could be anyone.

    It would be profoundly astonishing to me if there was even the slightest move toward Ukraine accepting responsibility, because of all Poroshenko's accusatory rhetoric and the eager baying of the western press, the British being the worst of the lot. The west would have to eat too much crow, while Ukraine would be the object of both disgust for its deliberate deception and renewed lawsuits by relatives of the dead. They've gone way too far to reverse themselves now. Fascinating, nonetheless.

    Moscow Exile , August 23, 2016 at 12:22 pm
    But is this actually stipulating that it was non-separatist Ukrainian personnel who were responsible?

    The translation reads:

    Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives…

    Are they classifying separatists as "Ukrainians" when using the term "Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives"? Wouldn't they have written "Russian backed separatist anti-aircraft operatives" if they had meant those opposed to Kiev rule, or are the "Russian backed separatists" now recognized by the "Telegraph" as being Ukrainian citizens, which they are, of course de jure .

    [Aug 24, 2016] How Donald Trump could fix Middle East

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is right to accuse the Bush administration of creating the mess, and also right to blame Obama for withdrawing American forces in 2011. Once the mess was made, the worst possible response was to do nothing about it (except, of course, to covertly arm "moderate Syrian rebels" with weapons from Libyan stockpiles, most of which found their way to al-Qaeda or ISIS). ..."
    Aug 22, 2016 | Asia Times

    The first step to finding a solution is to know that there's a problem. Donald Trump understands that the Washington foreign-policy establishment caused the whole Middle Eastern mess. I will review the problem and speculate about what a Trump administration might do about it.

    For the thousand years before 2007, when the Bush administration hand-picked Nouri al-Maliki to head Iraq's first Shia-dominated government, Sunni Muslims had ruled Iraq. Maliki was vetted both by the CIA and by the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

    With Iraq in the hands of an Iranian ally, the Sunnis–disarmed and marginalized by the dismissal of the Iraqi army–were caught between pro-Iranian regimes in both Iraq and Syria. Maliki, as Ken Silverstein reports in the New Republic, ran one of history's most corrupt regimes, demanding among other things a 45% cut in foreign investment in Iraq. The Sunnis had no state to protect them, and it was a matter of simple logic that a Sunni leader eventually would propose a new state including the Sunni regions of Syria as well as Iraq. Sadly, the mantle of Sunni statehood fell on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who projected not only an Islamic State but a new Caliphate as well. America had a dozen opportunities to preempt this but failed to do so.

    From a fascinating defector's account in the Foreign Policy website, we learn that the region's jihadists debated the merits of remaining non-state actors on the al-Qaeda model versus attempting to form a state prior to the launch of ISIS. The defector reports a 2013 meeting in which al-Baghdadi demanded the allegiance of al-Qaeda (that is, al-Nusra Front) fighters in Syria:

    Baghdadi also spoke about the creation of an Islamic state in Syria. It was important, he said, because Muslims needed to have a dawla, or state. Baghdadi wanted Muslims to have their own territory, from where they could work and eventually conquer the world….The participants differed greatly about the idea of creating a state in Syria. Throughout its existence, al-Qaeda had worked in the shadows as a non-state actor. It did not openly control any territory, instead committed acts of violence from undisclosed locations. Remaining a clandestine organization had a huge advantage: It was very difficult for the enemy to find, attack, or destroy them. But by creating a state, the jihadi leaders argued during the meeting, it would be extremely easy for the enemy to find and attack them….

    Despite the hesitation of many, Baghdadi persisted. Creating and running a state was of paramount importance to him. Up to this point, jihadis ran around without controlling their own territory. Baghdadi argued for borders, a citizenry, institutions, and a functioning bureaucracy. Abu Ahmad summed up Baghdadi's pitch: "If such an Islamic state could survive its initial phase, it was there to stay forever."

    Baghdadi prevailed, however, not only because he persuaded the al-Qaeda ragtag of his project, but because he won over a large number of officers from Saddam Hussein's disbanded army. America had the opportunity to "de-Ba'athify" the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army after the 2003 invasion, the way it de-Nazified the German Army after World War II. Instead, it hung them out to dry. Gen. Petraeus' "surge" policy of 2007-2008 bought the Sunni's temporary forbearance with hundreds of millions of dollars in handouts, but set the stage for a future Sunni insurgency, as I warned in 2010.

    Trump is right to accuse the Bush administration of creating the mess, and also right to blame Obama for withdrawing American forces in 2011. Once the mess was made, the worst possible response was to do nothing about it (except, of course, to covertly arm "moderate Syrian rebels" with weapons from Libyan stockpiles, most of which found their way to al-Qaeda or ISIS).

    Now the region is a self-perpetuating war of each against all. Iraq's Shia militias, which replaced the feckless Iraqi army in fighting ISIS, are in reorganization under Iranian command on the model of Iran's Revolutionary Guards. The Kurds are fighting both ISIS and the Syrian government. ISIS is attacking both the Kurds, who field the most effective force opposing them in Syria, as well as the Turks, who are trying to limit the power of the Kurds. Saudi Arabia and Qatar continue to support the Sunnis of Iraq and Syria, which means in effect funding either ISIS or the al-Nusra Front.

    Russia, meanwhile, is flying bombing missions in Syria from Iranian air bases. Apart from its inclination to bedevil the floundering United States, Russia has a dog in the fight: as a number of foreign officials who have spoken with the Russian president have told me, Putin has told anyone who asks that he backs the Iranian Shi'ites because all of Russia's Muslims are Sunni. Russia fears that a jihadist regime in Iraq or Syria would metastasize into a strategic threat to Russia. That is just what al-Baghdadi had in mind, as the Foreign Policy defector story made clear:

    Baghdadi had another persuasive argument: A state would offer a home to Muslims from all over the world. Because al-Qaeda had always lurked in the shadows, it was difficult for ordinary Muslims to sign up. But an Islamic state, Baghdadi argued, could attract thousands, even millions, of like-minded jihadis. It would be a magnet.

    What Trump might do

    What's needed is a deal, and a deal-maker. I have no information about Trump's thinking other than news reports, but here is a rough sketch of what he might do:

    Iraq's Sunnis require the right combination of incentives and disincentives. The disincentive is just what Trump has proposed, an "extreme" and "vicious" campaign against the terrorist gang. The United States and whoever wants to join it (perhaps the French Foreign Legion?) should exterminate ISIS. That requires a combination of ruthless employment of air power with less squeamishness about collateral damage as well as a division or two on the ground. America doesn't necessarily need to deploy the kind of soldier who joined the National Guard to get a subsidy for college tuition. As Erik Prince has suggested, private contractors could do the job cheaper, along with judicious use of special forces.

    While the US grinds up ISIS, it should find a former Iraqi general to lead a Sunni zone in Iraq, and enlist former Iraqi army officers to join the war against ISIS. Gen. Petraeus no doubt still has the payroll list for the "Sunni Awakening" and "Sons of Iraq." The Sunnis would get the incentive of an eventual Sunni state, provided that they help crush the terrorists.

    The US would give quiet support to the Kurds' aspirations for their own state, and encourage them to take control of northern Syria along the Turkish border. If the US doesn't stand godfather to a Kurdish state, the Russians will. The Turks won't like that, and it must be explained to them that it is in their own best interests: the Kurds have twice as many children as ethnic Turks, and by 2045 will have more military-age men than do the Turks.

    Possibly the US should propose a UN-supervised referendum to allow the Kurdish-majority provinces of southeastern Turkey to secede and join the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds in a new state. That would be good for Turkey. Those who vote "yes" are better off outside Turkey, and those who vote to stay in Turkey have no excuse to support separatists in the future. There are several million Iranian Kurds, and the US should encourage them to break away as well.

    'Look, Vladimir, here's the deal'

    The next conversation between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin might go something like this: "Look, Vladimir, you say you're worried about Sunni terrorists destabilizing Russia. We're going to kill all the terrorists or hire people to kill them for us. We're not going to arm jihadists to make trouble for you like we did in Afghanistan during the Cold War. We leave you alone, and you get out of our hair. You get to keep your naval station in Syria, and the Alawites get to have their own state in the northwest. Give Basher Assad a villa in Crimea and put in someone else to replace him–anyone you like. The Sunni areas of Syria will become a separate enclave, along with enclaves for the Druze."

    And Trump might add: "We're taking care of the Sunni terrorists. Now you help us take care of the Iranians, or we'll do it ourselves, and you won't like that. You can either work together with us and we tell the Iranians to shut down their centrifuges and their ballistic missile program, or we'll bomb it. You don't want us to make the S-300 missiles you sold Iran look like junk–that's bad for your arms business.

    "As for Ukraine: let them vote on partition. If the eastern half votes to join Russia, you got it. If not, you stay the hell out of it."

    As Trump knows, everyone in a deal doesn't have to walk away happy. Only the biggest stakeholders have to walk away happy. Everyone else can go suck eggs.

    Russia can walk away with its Syrian naval station and some assurance that the Middle East jihad won't spill over into its own territory. Syria's Alawites and Sunnis both can declare victory. The Kurds, who provide the region's most effective boots on the ground, will be big winners. Iraq's Shi'ites will be able to rule themselves but not over the Sunnis and Kurds, which is a better situation than they had during the thousand years when the Sunnis ruled over them. Turkey won't like the prospect of losing a chunk of its territory, even though it will be better off for it. Iran will lose its aspirations to a regional empire, and won't like it at all, but no-one else will care.

    Rebuilding America's military, one of Trump's campaign planks, is a sine qua non for success. Russia as well as China should fear America's technological prowess today as much as Gorbachev feared Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s. Russia and China are closing the technology gap with the United States, and if the United States does not reverse that, not much else it does will matter.

    [Aug 23, 2016] Three of the top four nonfiction hardcover best sellers in the New York Times Book Review on Sunday were anti-Hillary Clinton screeds

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yet after all this, Trump remains around 40% in the polls or better - and only about five points behind Hillary Clinton" [Brent Arends, MarketWatch ]. "n other words, in presidential election terms, it's still either party's race. ..."
    "... Most elections see swings of several points between August and early November. Some see even bigger ones - at this point in 1988 Vice President George H.W. Bush looked like a no-hoper against Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. Bush went on to win by seven points. ..."
    "... "Three of the top four nonfiction hardcover best sellers in the New York Times Book Review on Sunday were anti-Hillary Clinton screeds ('Hillary's America' by Dinesh D'Souza, 'Crisis of Character' by Gary Byrne, and 'Armageddon' by Dick Morris), and the fourth, 'Liars' by Glenn Beck, was a more general assault on the liberal agenda that certainly has no kind words for Clinton" [ MarketWatch ]. And they say people don't read books any more… ..."
    "... Joyce was still keeping her vote a secret, but she thought she knew why people were so angry. 'I think it's more that we don't trust politicians, period,' she said. 'We've gotten to a point in the United States where they're all liars or they're all cheaters or they've all done something wrong and we're gonna blow that up. And so we don't trust any of them.' The other women were nodding. 'And I think," Joyce said, 'that's where Trump's power came from." Joyce is a volatility voter, then. ..."
    "... Clinton and "welfare reform": "Having abandoned the maternalists' sentimental defense of motherhood as a sacred calling, most second-wave feminists had no terms in which to mount a convincing justification for income support to poor mothers. ..."
    "... Hillary's support for the bill reveals the deep fault lines of class and race that fractured the second-wave feminist movement, as white middle-class women purchased their independence from domestic labor by shifting the burden to working-class women of color " [ N+1 ]. Remember Nannygate ? There you have it. ..."
    Aug 23, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com
    The Voters

    "Yet after all this, Trump remains around 40% in the polls or better - and only about five points behind Hillary Clinton" [Brent Arends, MarketWatch ]. "n other words, in presidential election terms, it's still either party's race.

    Most elections see swings of several points between August and early November. Some see even bigger ones - at this point in 1988 Vice President George H.W. Bush looked like a no-hoper against Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. Bush went on to win by seven points.

    There is no reason to think this election will be less volatile than the norm…. Right now the bookmakers give Trump about a 25% chance of winning. That's high enough to be alarming. But what's worse: If I had to take a wager at these levels, I'd take the over rather than the under. This race, terrifyingly, is still open."

    "That remarkable fact underscores how virtually unchallenged Clinton has been on the advertising airwaves, as Democratic and Republican strategists alike say she has gone deeper into the election calendar than any non-incumbent president they can remember in the modern era without sustained, paid opposition on television" [ Politico ]. So, if election 2016 were a WWF match, the [good|bad] guy would be fighting with one hand behind his back, and getting pounded, for sure, but….

    "Three of the top four nonfiction hardcover best sellers in the New York Times Book Review on Sunday were anti-Hillary Clinton screeds ('Hillary's America' by Dinesh D'Souza, 'Crisis of Character' by Gary Byrne, and 'Armageddon' by Dick Morris), and the fourth, 'Liars' by Glenn Beck, was a more general assault on the liberal agenda that certainly has no kind words for Clinton" [ MarketWatch ]. And they say people don't read books any more…

    "Our research suggests yet another reason not to overreact to news stories about the newest poll: Media outlets tend to cover the surveys with the most "newsworthy" results, which can distort the picture of where the race stands" [ WaPo ]. Look! Over there! Another fluctuation well inside the margin of error!

    UPDATE "Despite frequent claims of the 'women's vote' working in Democrats' favor, much depends on which women. Individually, these women's views vary widely, just as the county they live in. Lake County [Ohio] has been nearly evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Collectively, they make up a demographic that has reliably voted, and reliably voted Republican, in nearly every election since 1972: Married women, especially white married women" [ NBC ]. Joyce was still keeping her vote a secret, but she thought she knew why people were so angry. 'I think it's more that we don't trust politicians, period,' she said. 'We've gotten to a point in the United States where they're all liars or they're all cheaters or they've all done something wrong and we're gonna blow that up. And so we don't trust any of them.' The other women were nodding. 'And I think," Joyce said, 'that's where Trump's power came from." Joyce is a volatility voter, then.

    UPDATE Re: Clinton and "welfare reform": "Having abandoned the maternalists' sentimental defense of motherhood as a sacred calling, most second-wave feminists had no terms in which to mount a convincing justification for income support to poor mothers. Other women were working; why shouldn't they work too? But for middle-class women, work meant public recognition, self-determination, the right to be seen as autonomous individuals and to participate in civic life. For welfare mothers, especially black women, who made up two-thirds of all domestic workers by 1960, it meant watching other women's children, preparing their food, and scrubbing their floors, services that professional women increasingly relied on as they entered the workforce in greater numbers. The version of welfare reform Bill Clinton envisioned was much more generous than the bill eventually passed by the Republican Congress in 1996. It would have included child-care and job-placement programs - but it would still have required welfare recipients to work. Hillary's support for the bill reveals the deep fault lines of class and race that fractured the second-wave feminist movement, as white middle-class women purchased their independence from domestic labor by shifting the burden to working-class women of color " [ N+1 ]. Remember Nannygate ? There you have it.

    [Aug 23, 2016] WikiLeaks Emails From Hillary's Server Expose Criminal Clinton Foundation

    sputniknews.com

    Assange also pointed to Hillary Clinton's relations with Saudi Arabia that have led to great angst among Israel, a country that now worries where her allegiances fall in the region. "[Her connection to Saudi Arabia] is extensive. The relations between Hillary and Saudi Arabia. The Clinton Foundation and Saudi Arabia," opined Assange. "Saudi Arabia is probably the single largest donor to the Clinton Foundation. You can see Hillary's arms export policies where she was Secretary of State favoring Saudi Arabia extensively."

    The whistleblower also blasted Clinton for her allegations that Trump is a secret Russian agent saying that "there is a much deeper connection between Hillary Clinton and Russia on record than there is with Donald Trump." Assange pointed to the fact that her top strategic consultant John Podesta sits on the board of a Russian connected fund and her pay-to-play activities with Moscow businessmen who would make donations to the Clinton Foundation and then miraculously receive State Department clearance to undertake business in the US.

    Perhaps his most damning statements were Clinton's financial links to radical Jihadist groups in the Middle East and the State Department's policy of using Libya as conduit to get arms to Syria.

    "The US government, at the time that Hillary Clinton was in charge of US foreign policy, did use Libya as a conduit to get arms to Jihadists in Syria," said Assange. "That is well established not just by a range of our materials, but also by the investigative work of Sy Hersh."

    Assange also called into question links between Hillary Clinton's former employer LaFarge, a cement company that the presidential candidate served on the board of directors for, which is now under investigation for contracting with the Daesh (known colloquially as ISIS) terror network in Syria.

    "La Monde found that [LaFarge] paid ISIS/Daesh money, taxes if you will, for their operations in certain areas and they engaged in a variety of business deals," said Assange. "Hillary Clinton's involvement is that money from LaFarge in 2015 and 2016 went to the Clinton Foundation. Why did it go to that foundation? There is a long-time connection between Hillary Clinton and La Farge because she used to be on the board."

    [Aug 23, 2016] If Trump is Russias Candidate, Does That Make Clinton the Saudis Pick

    ​The idea that Hillary Clinton can be viewed as Saudi candidate is not as crazy as it looks. She feels the smell of money and that's the most important thing in life for her.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The [neoliberal] media has had a field day commenting on Donald Trump's words about cooperation with Russia against ISIS, labeling him a 'Kremlin agent' and a danger to the Western security order. But what about Hillary Clinton and her foundation's ties to the Saudis? If Trump is 'Moscow's man', does that make Clinton the candidate of Middle Eastern sheikdoms? ..."
    "... The media have accused Moscow of every sin imaginable, from meddling in America's elections, to using Trump advisor Paul Manafort, who was called 'the Kremlin's man in Ukraine', to outright calling Trump himself a 'Russian agent' . ..."
    "... Former NATO chief Anders Rasmussen joined the party bashing Trump recently, slamming him for having "his own views on the Ukrainian conflict," and adding that to top it all off, "he praises President Putin!" ..."
    "... The Times' piece reported on the fact that the Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the US State Department has repeatedly criticized for human rights abuses and discrimination against women. The offending countries purportedly include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Brunei, along with Algeria. Riyadh, the paper noted, was "a particularly generous benefactor," giving between $10 and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with at least another $1 million donated by the 'Friends of Saudi Arabia' organization. ..."
    "... the plot thickens. On Sunday, conservative US and British media revealed that Huma Abedin, a longtime friend and top aid to Clinton, had worked as an assistant editor for a radical Islamic Saudi journal for over a decade. The publication, called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, featured everything from pieces opposed to women's rights, to articles blaming the US for the September 11 terror attacks. ..."
    "... Abedin has long been accused by independent media in the US and elsewhere of having connections with Islamic organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood, charges which have long been labeled as nothing more than a conspiracy theory. ..."
    sputniknews.com

    The [neoliberal] media has had a field day commenting on Donald Trump's words about cooperation with Russia against ISIS, labeling him a 'Kremlin agent' and a danger to the Western security order. But what about Hillary Clinton and her foundation's ties to the Saudis? If Trump is 'Moscow's man', does that make Clinton the candidate of Middle Eastern sheikdoms?

    The US media has been relentless in its efforts to sink Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's campaign, in part due to the candidate's string of friendly remarks and gestures toward Russia and President Vladimir Putin. The media have accused Moscow of every sin imaginable, from meddling in America's elections, to using Trump advisor Paul Manafort, who was called 'the Kremlin's man in Ukraine', to outright calling Trump himself a 'Russian agent'.

    Former NATO chief Anders Rasmussen joined the party bashing Trump recently, slamming him for having "his own views on the Ukrainian conflict," and adding that to top it all off, "he praises President Putin!"

    Admittedly, Mr. Trump does seem very open to the idea of negotiating with Russia, and even partnering with Moscow to tackle some of the greatest challenges facing the world today, including radical Islamist terrorism. In that sense, he may really be the most 'Russia friendly' presidential candidate the US has seen since 1945, not counting the early 1990s, when Washington's friendly overtures toward Russia were based on the condition that Moscow does everything US officials tell it to.

    Does that make him a puppet to the Russians, the Kremlin and to Vladimir Putin personally? Not likely. Despite all the media investigations and even more accusations, no substantiated evidence has been presented demonstrating that Trump has any significant business or personal interests in Russia which would create a conflict of interest. The businessman held a Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow a few years ago, and tried, unsuccessfully, to build a Trump tower in the Russian capital. But he also has assets around the world, in Scotland, Dubai, and in over a dozen other countries. Does that make him the agent of these countries, too?

    Amid the endless suspicions surrounding 'Kremlin Agent Trump', a story in the New York Times unassumingly titled 'Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign' almost slipped through the cracks, before blowing up on national television.

    The Times' piece reported on the fact that the Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the US State Department has repeatedly criticized for human rights abuses and discrimination against women. The offending countries purportedly include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Brunei, along with Algeria. Riyadh, the paper noted, was "a particularly generous benefactor," giving between $10 and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with at least another $1 million donated by the 'Friends of Saudi Arabia' organization.

    The scandal didn't end there. Speaking to CNN reporter Dana Bash, Clinton Campaign manager Robby Mook could not coherently explain why the Clintons weren't willing to stop accepting donations from foreign 'investors' unless Clinton became president of the United States. Instead, Mook tried to divert the question to Donald Trump, saying the candidate has never revealed his financials, and adding that Mrs. Clinton had taken "unprecedented" steps to being "transparent."

    And the plot thickens. On Sunday, conservative US and British media revealed that Huma Abedin, a longtime friend and top aid to Clinton, had worked as an assistant editor for a radical Islamic Saudi journal for over a decade. The publication, called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, featured everything from pieces opposed to women's rights, to articles blaming the US for the September 11 terror attacks.

    In one article in January 1996, Abedin's own mother wrote a piece for the journal, where she complained that Clinton, who was First Lady at the time, was advancing a "very aggressive and radically feminist" agenda which was un-Islamic and dangerous for empowering women.

    Abedin has long been accused by independent media in the US and elsewhere of having connections with Islamic organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood, charges which have long been labeled as nothing more than a conspiracy theory. But Sunday's story seems to have ruffled a few feathers in some high places, with a Clinton campaign spokesperson explaining (rather unconvincingly) to the New York Post that Abedin played no formal role in the radical journal. "My understanding is that her name was simply listed on the masthead in that periodical," the spokesman said.

    These two stories, the first offering new details including dollar estimates about the money received by the Clinton Foundation from the Saudis, and the second shedding light on her top advisor's apparent ties to a Saudi journal propagating Islamist ideas, should lead the media to look for answers to some very troubling questions. These should be the same kinds of questions asked earlier this summer, when a formerly classified 28 page chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report was finally released, revealing that Saudi officials had supported the hijackers who carried out the terrorist attacks against the United States in 2001.

    ... ... ...

    [Aug 23, 2016] DOUBLE STANDARD: Khizr Khan Receives 50x More Coverage Than Pat Smith on ABC, CBS, NBC by Geoffrey Dickens

    Aug 01, 2016 |

    Two weeks ago at the Republican National Convention (RNC) a grieving mother blasted Hillary Clinton for the debacle of the 2012 Benghazi attack. Last Thursday, at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), grieving parents gave a speech criticizing Donald Trump for his statements against Muslims.

    While all the grieving parents deserve sympathy, the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening and morning shows seemed to only care about the parents that showed up at the Democratic Convention. Khizr Khan and his wife Ghazla's DNC appearance earned 55 minutes, 13 seconds of Big Three network coverage, nearly 50 times more than Pat Smith, whose RNC speech honoring her son earned just 70 seconds of airtime.

    • In the days (July 19 to August 1) that followed Smith's indictment of Clinton from the RNC podium, CBS (3 seconds) ABC (13 seconds) and NBC (54 seconds) gave her speech a total of just 70 seconds of coverage.
    • In the four days (July 29 to August 1) following Khizr Khan and his wife Ghazala's speech NBC (31 minutes, 39 seconds), offered the most amount of time followed by ABC (14 minutes, 21 seconds) and then CBS (9 minutes, 13 seconds).

    This is a textbook case of bias-by-agenda: One of these stories (the Khan story) matched the Democratic agenda, and the partisan media couldn't push it hard enough. The other (the Smith story) reflected poorly on the Democratic nominee, so it was barely mentioned.

    ... ... ...

    While Smith's emotional pleas were downplayed by the networks, Khan's speech and subsequent back and forth with Trump were played up. On the July 29 edition of CBS This Morning co-anchor Norah O'Donnell noted "One of the most powerful convention moments last night came from the father of a Muslim-American soldier who was killed in Iraq in 2004. Khizir Khan criticized Donald Trump for singling out Muslims during the campaign." Her CBS colleague Gayle King added: "That appearance by the Khans is being described as one of the most powerful of the night. People were moved to tears by the two of them standing there."

    On the August 1Today show, substitute host Tamron Hall reported "Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump campaigns in the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania today, but controversy will follow him after his remarks about the parents of a Muslim-American soldier killed in Iraq." Her colleague Andrea Mitchell added "Hillary Clinton is calling on Republicans to abandon Donald Trump, and in her words, 'put country before party' because of his controversial comments about Captain Khan and his family."

    Earlier in the show, co-anchor Savannah Guthrie interviewed the Khans. But so far Pat Smith, shamefully, has yet to be extended the same courtesy on any of the Big Three evening or morning shows.

    [Aug 22, 2016] Khizr Khan was tricked into smearing Donald Trump

    This is a really excellent analysys... Bravo --
    Notable quotes:
    "... Despite all efforts by the media to distort Trump's position about "banning" Muslims, he has made perfectly clear time and again that he does not want to ban all Muslims. He wants to simply perform thorough and complete background checks on all immigrants coming from countries presently in the grips of violent Islamic terrorism. ..."
    "... To her, Capt. Khan is not a just soldier who died defending his country in a foreign land. First and foremost, to her, he is a Muslim of Pakistani heritage and therefore is a perfect political pawn for just the right situation. ..."
    "... For just about every American alive, Capt. Khan is an inspiring and unifying figure. To Hillary Clinton, he is a tool to be used to divide people. In her false promise of unifying America, she creates a national political Babylon. Her avaricious greed for more and more power knows no bounds. ..."
    "... Politicians like Hillary Clinton slice and dice people into racial and gender groups. Then they toot on all their little "dog whistles" to send all their little demographic pawns scurrying in various directions. That is how you wind up with Khizr Khan standing on stage beside his head-scarved wife, waving around the U.S. Constitution and distorting Donald Trump's position on keeping radical Islamic terrorism at bay. ..."
    "... Perhaps a better testimony from Khizr Khan would have been for him to talk about how Hillary Clinton was in the U.S. Senate when she voted to invade Iraq. Years later, after that position became politically unpopular, she changed her mind and joined new political forces to vacate all the land across Iraq that so many great American patriots like Capt. Humayun Khan had died for. ..."
    "... It was her vote that sent Capt. Khan to his death. And then it was her decisions later to render that sacrifice worthless. ..."
    Jul 31, 2016 | TheHill

    Khizr Khan is a fine American and the father of a true American patriot. But now he is also everything that is wrong with American politics today.

    It is not entirely his fault, though he has only himself to blame for allowing his dead son to be used for the most hideous of purposes and dragged through the gutter of nasty and dishonest partisan politics.

    Khan and his wife took to the stage at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia last week to deliver an impassioned rebuke of Donald J.Trump that was universally celebrated by the media. Even Republican politicos swooned at the gambit. The Clinton campaign trotted out the Muslim couple because their son, Captain Humayun Khan, was killed by a car bomb in 2004 while guarding a base in Iraq.

    "If it was up to Donald Trump , he never would have been in America," said Khan, sliding easily into the political tradition of lying and distorting the position of one's opponent.

    "Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims," he went on. "He disrespects other minorities, women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls and ban us from this country."

    Despite all efforts by the media to distort Trump's position about "banning" Muslims, he has made perfectly clear time and again that he does not want to ban all Muslims. He wants to simply perform thorough and complete background checks on all immigrants coming from countries presently in the grips of violent Islamic terrorism.

    Yes, that means if you are a Muslim who wants to immigrate from Syria or Afghanistan, you are going to get a lot more scrutiny than if you are a Jew trying to immigrate from Canada. That is most unfortunate, but not nearly as unfortunate as innocents getting slaughtered by 10th Century savages killing in the name of Allah.

    Anyway, this higher scrutiny should be no obstacle for the likes of Khizr Khan and his family, except for the additional hassle.

    So, why would Khizr Khan choose to insert himself into politics and demean his son's sacrifice by lying at a political convention on national television? The answer is simple: He allowed himself to be tricked into it. And the Clinton campaign was all too eager to take advantage of him and his family and Capt. Khan and use them for their own political partisan purposes.

    Stop for a moment and ask yourself how exactly the Clinton campaign arrived at the decision to trot out the Khan family in the middle of their highly-choreographed, exhaustively produced convention?

    Were they just looking to give voice to the parents of a soldier? That would be a first. Did they want parents of anyone who had died abroad in the defense of their country? Gee, why not pick the parents of one of the fallen warriors who died defending the U.S. consulate in Benghazi? Oh, that's right. They would have called Hillary Clinton a liar. Can't have that.

    No. Politicians like Hillary Clinton do not see people like Capt. Humayun Khan as a soldier who made the ultimate sacrifice on a foreign battlefield in defense of his country. Politicians like Hillary Clinton see him only a demographic, a dispensable political pawn to be scooted around an electoral map, the way generals used to move armies across giant maps of the lands they were invading.

    But instead of liberating Europe from evil fascists, politicians like Hillary Clinton use their long, worn croupier rakes to move their pawns about with the singular goal of advancing their own personal political careers.

    To her, Capt. Khan is not a just soldier who died defending his country in a foreign land. First and foremost, to her, he is a Muslim of Pakistani heritage and therefore is a perfect political pawn for just the right situation.

    For just about every American alive, Capt. Khan is an inspiring and unifying figure. To Hillary Clinton, he is a tool to be used to divide people. In her false promise of unifying America, she creates a national political Babylon. Her avaricious greed for more and more power knows no bounds.

    It is an open secret in Washington that politics is the last bastion of rampant racial profiling. Both parties do it, but Democrats have taken it to a whole new scientific level.

    Politicians like Hillary Clinton slice and dice people into racial and gender groups. Then they toot on all their little "dog whistles" to send all their little demographic pawns scurrying in various directions. That is how you wind up with Khizr Khan standing on stage beside his head-scarved wife, waving around the U.S. Constitution and distorting Donald Trump's position on keeping radical Islamic terrorism at bay.

    Perhaps a better testimony from Khizr Khan would have been for him to talk about how Hillary Clinton was in the U.S. Senate when she voted to invade Iraq. Years later, after that position became politically unpopular, she changed her mind and joined new political forces to vacate all the land across Iraq that so many great American patriots like Capt. Humayun Khan had died for.

    It was her vote that sent Capt. Khan to his death. And then it was her decisions later to render that sacrifice worthless.

    Try sticking that into your dog whistle and blowing it.

    Hurt writes the "Nuclear Option" column for The Washington Times. A former D.C. bureau chief for the New York Post, he has covered the White House, Congress and presidential campaigns since 2001. Follow him on Twitter @charleshurt.

    [Aug 22, 2016] Clintons Rovian Gambit Against Obama

    This is from 2008. An interesting mention of Rove playbook that says, "Attack your opponent's perceived strength."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Rove playbook that says, "Attack your opponent's perceived strength." If that strength is merely "perceived" and not real, it's a legitimate tactic, but Rove attacks even when the perception is justified, and the Clintons are now doing the same. ..."
    "... Bill did this in New Hampshire when he contended that Obama was not really a consistent war opponent. Hillary put this tactic way out front on Meet the Press today. She said that Obama's campaign is premised entirely on his October 2002 speech, and she said that Obama did nothing after that speech. ..."
    "... A key point that has not been made is, if Hillary Clinton is telling the truth that she secretly opposed the invasion on March 20, 2003, then she cannot possibly claim the mantle of a leader, because she did not speak out against the prospect of invasion, even though she, due to her celebrity status, had one of the loudest megaphones to do so. ..."
    Jan 01, 2008 | The Atlantic
    A reader writes:

    Many of your recent posts on the Obama-Clinton contest are missing the forest for the trees. They are focusing on small annoyances from Camp Clinton. The big story of the last week is that the Clintons are trying to strip Obama of his rightful advantage on the Iraq war "judgment" issue and carry out the tactic from the Rove playbook that says, "Attack your opponent's perceived strength." If that strength is merely "perceived" and not real, it's a legitimate tactic, but Rove attacks even when the perception is justified, and the Clintons are now doing the same.

    Bill did this in New Hampshire when he contended that Obama was not really a consistent war opponent. Hillary put this tactic way out front on Meet the Press today. She said that Obama's campaign is premised entirely on his October 2002 speech, and she said that Obama did nothing after that speech. This is just an out and out lie; there are no shades of gray here. Here are two examples of what Obama did after his October 2002 speech that I was able to find through a simple Nexis search:

    On March 4, 2003, an AP story picked up by an Illinois newspaper, the Belleville News Democrat, states as follows:

    "Barack Obama is criticizing the idea of war against Iraq and challenging his Democratic opponents in the U.S. Senate race to take a stand on the question....'What's tempting is to take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on the issue, knowing that maybe in two or three or six months, at least the fighting will be over and you can see how it plays itself out,' said Obama, a state senator from Chicago."

    On March 17, 2003, the Chicago Sun Times reported this:

    "Thousands of demonstrators packed Daley Center Plaza for a two- hour rally Sunday [two days before Bush issued his ultimatum against Saddam and four days before the invasion], then marched through downtown in Chicago's largest protest to date against an Iraq war. Crowd estimates from police and organizers ranged from 5,000 to 10,000.... State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) told the crowd, 'It's not too late' to stop the war."

    All of this is highly relevant, because Hillary's account of her own actions in the October 2002 - March 20, 2003 period (March 20 being the day of the invasion) is that she voted, not to authorize war, but inspections, and that when the inspectors were there in March 2003, she, in her own mind, opposed the invasion and would not have carried it out had she been President.

    A key point that has not been made is, if Hillary Clinton is telling the truth that she secretly opposed the invasion on March 20, 2003, then she cannot possibly claim the mantle of a leader, because she did not speak out against the prospect of invasion, even though she, due to her celebrity status, had one of the loudest megaphones to do so.

    [Aug 22, 2016] Trump is 'fundamentally dishonest,' say GOP national security leaders in open letter

    See also Israel lobby in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Notable quotes:
    "... Eliot Cohen, or any member of the PNAC, calling Trump or anyone else 'fundamentally dishonest' is simply beyond the pale. It takes some serious nerve and arrogance for traitorous liars of this magnitude to be calling out Trump regardless of the veracity of their claims. ..."
    "... Nothing pleases me more than the careerist parasites and wannabe czars of DC feeling compelled to justify their proven incompetence by slagging the guy who seems increasingly likely to be their boss. Now if only the other half of the DC cesspool can do the same, maybe something good can actually happen for the rest of the country. ..."
    "... How terrific that the neocons are freaking out. Wait until the pharmaceuticals start hitting his healthcare proposals for bargaining down the cost of drugs. Good to have an outsider in the game. ..."
    "... Instead of calling these opponents Neocons, we should be calling them the Israel Lobby. They will wage war against any politician who doesn't agree to make America's Middle East policy coextensive with that of Israel. They don't care if their attacks destroy the Republican Party, because their loyalties lie elsewhere. Their motto is rule or ruin. ..."
    "... Whatever! There is one and only one reason why Bush-era foreign policy people are attacking Trump: He has rejected their extreme neocon warmongering. They want a president who will start whatever wars Netanyahu orders, and they think Trump will tell Netanyahu to go screw himself. ..."
    Mar 02, 2016 | The Washington Post

    tjm, 3/3/2016 8:29 PM EST

    The neocons in full revolt (or is it full revolting)!

    God, I have not seen such unity within the neocon cabal since they were ginning up support for the Iraq disaster. Trump does show how badly needed a full house cleaning and a serious revamping of the foreign policy establishment is required. However, in this case, with Trump being the complete wild card, I think a plan B is needed, whatever that might be.

    It certainly is not Hillary! She has been embraced by high and mighty poobahs of the neocon cabal so nothing changes with her in charge-more wars, more interventions, more regime changes. We would keep trying until we get one right, as unlikely that might be.

    PDXing, 3/3/2016 4:15 PM EST

    Eliot Cohen, or any member of the PNAC, calling Trump or anyone else 'fundamentally dishonest' is simply beyond the pale. It takes some serious nerve and arrogance for traitorous liars of this magnitude to be calling out Trump regardless of the veracity of their claims.

    David_Lloyd-Jones, 3/3/2016 3:41 PM EST [Edited]

    Wey-yull, I'm no Republican, but FWIW I would think having Michael Chertoff and Robert Zoellick against me would be winning the daily double.

    All this and being condemned by The Mittens? Pure gravy. And people wonder why Trump is doing so well? Seems pretty obvious to me.

    There's only one hope for Rubio: where's Darth Cheney when you need him?

    yibberat, 3/3/2016 3:23 PM EST

    Nothing pleases me more than the careerist parasites and wannabe czars of DC feeling compelled to justify their proven incompetence by slagging the guy who seems increasingly likely to be their boss. Now if only the other half of the DC cesspool can do the same, maybe something good can actually happen for the rest of the country.

    And I hate Trump. But man this show is worth MANY buckets of popcorn.

    Janine, 3/3/2016 12:58 PM EST

    How terrific that the neocons are freaking out. Wait until the pharmaceuticals start hitting his healthcare proposals for bargaining down the cost of drugs. Good to have an outsider in the game.

    JDavis, 3/3/2016 1:01 PM EST

    The neocons will be quite happy in a Hillary administration. She's an even bigger warmonger than Obama.

    technokim, 3/3/2016 12:22 PM EST

    Please tell me how any of these 50 self-purported national security and foreign policy experts have done? Seems the world is less safe and increasingly more messed up as a direct result of these "experts" actions and policies.

    Uselessboy, 3/3/2016 12:37 PM EST

    Conservatives certainly loved them when they were backing their unjustified Iraq invasion and demanding respect for Bush even by those who thought he was breaking laws.

    johng4, 3/3/2016 11:47 AM EST

    Instead of calling these opponents Neocons, we should be calling them the Israel Lobby. They will wage war against any politician who doesn't agree to make America's Middle East policy coextensive with that of Israel. They don't care if their attacks destroy the Republican Party, because their loyalties lie elsewhere. Their motto is rule or ruin.

    JohnMIII, 3/3/2016 11:41 AM EST

    Aren't these the same Necons that swore up and down that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was such a serious threat we needed to launch an invasion costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars? They have zero credibility anymore. Who cares what they say?

    DirtyConSanchez, 3/3/2016 7:32 AM EST

    Poor little neocon warmongers squealing like stuck war pigs. Too bad, no more war profiteering for you little piggies. The big bad orange furred wolf Donald is coming to eat your bacon. And he has a 150 million strong wolfpack coming along to assist him.

    Trump '16

    JDavis, 3/3/2016 5:55 AM EST

    Michael Hayden suggesting insubordination isn't surprising. He and Cheney have been mucking up this country for years with the dirt they collected when Hayden was director of the NSA. They don't respect the presidency. They want all power for themselves.

    Jason Oneil, 3/3/2016 4:53 AM EST

    Conservative???
    What a joke. The neocons and the Israel Lobby are in total panic....Trump is not their puppet who will let them hijack our country into endless wars based on lies.
    Expose these traitors.

    ObjectiveReader1, 3/3/2016 4:26 AM EST [Edited]

    Doc Zakheim and Bob Zoellick?! I oppose Trump but these two dolts have no credibility.

    Zakheim was Undersecretary of Defense and Pentagon Comptroller under Bush Jr. He worked on the disastrous funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which were debt financed. In the run up to the Iraq invasion, Zakheim publicly stated that Saddam was working on a nuclear bomb. Why doesn't Zakheim send a Letter to the American people apologizing for his role in not telling American taxpayers the truth about how much the Iraq war was going to cost.

    Bob Zoellick was US Trade Rep under Bush Jr. He worked on Cafta. He's an open borders guy. Free trade agreements like Nafta have hurt American workers. Bernie Sanders and Trump both openly criticize nafta and the TPP.

    Open Borders Zoellick and Iraq War neocon Zakheim have no credibility.

    pamfah_99, 3/3/2016 3:34 AM EST

    Don't these people realize that no one listens to them. They are the people who got us into Bush's mess in the mid-East that we are still paying for. Never mind all our vets who were killed and injured. They just don't understand what Trump represents. They think we are stupid and we are not. Go ahead and try to run Trump - see what happens to you. And Romney - that moron - remember that comment about the 47% or whatever it was. Talk about the establishment and the absolute disregard we had for us. Who listens to him either. About time the Republicans let democracy take its course and stop trying to act like Nazis. We, as Americans, have to right to vote for whomever we please.

    Miro23, 3/3/2016 2:27 AM EST [Edited]

    Their problem with Trump always comes back to the same point:

    He said, "We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that, frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems - our airports and all the other problems we have - we would have been a lot better off, I can tell you that right now.

    We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East - we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away - and for what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4 trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart!"

    They've smashed up Iraq and Libya, want to do the same to Syria and get on with bombing Iran using US blood and money. They're more AINO's (Americans In Name Only) than "Neo-Conservative" and couldn't care less about parties, Republicans, Democrats. They just want a President who will shut up and do what they want – like Bush, Rubio or Clinton or Romney(?) or some other Muppet.

    PoliticallyIncorrect4, 3/3/2016 1:53 AM EST

    Guess what, nobody gives a damned sh$%#$%# about what these think.

    The people who developed GW Bush's national security agenda of international interventionism -with the Iraq war as the prime example of the perils of such approach- are in no position to lecture anyone on national security or international issues.

    We have tried the professional politicians and their advisers. It didn't work. Time to move ahead with a completely new approach.

    dbi, 3/3/2016 12:39 AM EST

    The Washington Post is calling Frances Townsend "a foreign policy expert"? Give it up. The woman pretends to know the smallest tidbit of information in the Pentagon and White House but the fact is, she doesn't have a security clearance and is not in any of the special briefings or secret meetings. She isn't cleared for anything and talks in gibberish. Michael Hayden was fired and he, too, has no security clearance and no access to confidential and secret material and meetings in the DoD. More gibberish. These people, like others mentioned, are bitter and basically unemployed under President Obama. They just can't get over it and move on.

    Manray9, 3/3/2016 12:11 AM EST [Edited]

    This collection of so-called "Republican foreign policy experts" are all hip-deep in complicity for the Iraq fiasco. Maybe Trump is on to something in calling out Republican "leaders" on the nation's greatest national security and foreign policy disaster since Vietnam? Many people in America, and especially Trump supporters, are disgusted with the course of events created and managed by the same malefactors now attacking Trump. The GOP big shots just don't get it.

    FedEx Sect 120, 3/3/2016 5:16 AM EST

    It is amazing to me how all of these war hawks are complaining now about being lied to about weapons of mass destruction. Those of us who called it a lie then were being told that they were being unpatriotic or better yet un-American. Wake up folk every time a Republican is in office we go to war. Then the Democrats have to clean up their mess. Then get blamed for not doing the cleanup fast enough while Republicans stand in the way and hinder the Democrats for cleaning it up properly. If the Republican get in office get ready to see our children in another war. Get ready to go back to high unemployment , high foreclosures, high losses in your retirement plan, and high bank failures. Don't forget who propped up Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein,; yeah your great Republican leader Ronald Reagan. War War War War War

    Swift301, 3/3/2016 12:09 AM EST

    Eliot Cohen? Trump is totally nuts on many levels but Eliot Cohen is well, just follow his career path, an endless wimp for war whose policy views have resulted in the largest increase of influence in the Middle East of Iran ever:

    "Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as "World War IV".[6] In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent persons who pressed for an invasion."

    1ofamillion, 3/2/2016 11:36 PM EST

    Neocons are already lining up behind the candidate of the War Party. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinto...

    1ofamillion, 3/2/2016 11:33 PM EST

    These are the mouthbreathers who brought us the Iraq War, supported Libyan intervention, and support Syrian intervention. Our foreign policy would be better if directed by a statue.

    Are these idiots going to realize that they're making us all want to vote for him more and more? It's like PNAC founders Kagan and Cohen endorsing Hillary - pretty sure it's having the opposite effect of what they want.

    Stephen Clark, 3/2/2016 10:58 PM EST

    Whatever! There is one and only one reason why Bush-era foreign policy people are attacking Trump: He has rejected their extreme neocon warmongering. They want a president who will start whatever wars Netanyahu orders, and they think Trump will tell Netanyahu to go screw himself.

    [Aug 22, 2016] A 'New McCarthyism': This is the Real Harm in 'Lesser-Evil' US Politics

    Notable quotes:
    "... about lesser-evil politics and what impact the election could have on the future of progressive politics. ..."
    "... Ford quoted writer Steven Salait, who wrote recently, "Lesser evilism is possible only because we're so accustomed to seeing certain people as lesser human beings." ..."
    "... Dr. Monteiro believes that Republican support for Clinton could signal the beginning of a "new Mccarthyism." ..."
    "... "Now we've always known that the two-party system was essentially a one party system with two wings." he said, "But now, so many of the Republicans and the neocons and the liberals are gravitating to this big umbrella. But at the same time they're saying to anyone who would oppose their policy in Russia, or towards Korea or Syria, that somehow you are unpatriotic, you are on the payroll of Russia or some external force. So I would suggest that there's nothing more lethal than a Cold War liberal. They go beyond the conservatives." ..."
    "... That's a real concern. When we look at Hillary Clinton, when we look at her support for surveillance, her lack of support for civil liberties…It's very important that we're not distracted by this issue of who people vote for, is it this party or that party ..."
    "... "That's not to say that elections aren't important, they definitely are a gauge of where people are at, at any given point, but that's not where social change comes from. And we need to stand strong, we need to stand united, we need to be prepared to get out into the streets to continue to struggle around the issues, including issues that are to the left of the articulated position of Bernie Sanders himself, which are issues of peace and social justice that the Bernie movement resonated with." ..."
    sputniknews.com

    With election season in full swing, Democrats and defecting Republicans have ramped up a campaign against the open bigotry of bombastic real estate magnate Donald Trump.

    Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear spoke with Jane Cutter, editor of Liberationnews.org; Dr. Anthony Monteiro, W.E.B. DuBois scholar and member of the Black Radical Organizing Collective; and Derek Ford, Assistant Professor of Education Studies at DePauw University, about lesser-evil politics and what impact the election could have on the future of progressive politics.

    ​Cutter explained that, historically, "Who's sitting in the White House is ultimately not the determining factor" of a movement's vitality, and points to the presidency of Richard Nixon, considered to be one of America's most conservative presidents. Cutter noted the many progressive measures passed under the Nixon Administration due to pressure from the Civil Rights, Black Power, feminist and LGBTQ movements.

    "At that time, people were organized, people were mobilized, people were militant and in the streets and, as a result, the Nixon Administration and other elements of the ruling class were forced to give up numerous concessions that were in fact quite beneficial to the working class of this country," she said.

    Ford quoted writer Steven Salait, who wrote recently, "Lesser evilism is possible only because we're so accustomed to seeing certain people as lesser human beings."

    "By that he was saying that to call Hillary Clinton the lesser evil is to call the people of Palestine, in Syria, Libya and Iraq, as lesser human beings, because her actions and her policies have been so steadfastly hawkish there. It also disarms the movement and any potential for popular uprising."

    Dr. Monteiro believes that Republican support for Clinton could signal the beginning of a "new Mccarthyism."

    "Now we've always known that the two-party system was essentially a one party system with two wings." he said, "But now, so many of the Republicans and the neocons and the liberals are gravitating to this big umbrella. But at the same time they're saying to anyone who would oppose their policy in Russia, or towards Korea or Syria, that somehow you are unpatriotic, you are on the payroll of Russia or some external force. So I would suggest that there's nothing more lethal than a Cold War liberal. They go beyond the conservatives."

    He added, "I think Hillary represents something that we have to be very frightened of and we really have to mobilize and steel ourselves for a really intense struggle against what she represents."

    Cutter agreed, saying, "That's a real concern. When we look at Hillary Clinton, when we look at her support for surveillance, her lack of support for civil liberties…It's very important that we're not distracted by this issue of who people vote for, is it this party or that party."

    "That's not to say that elections aren't important, they definitely are a gauge of where people are at, at any given point, but that's not where social change comes from. And we need to stand strong, we need to stand united, we need to be prepared to get out into the streets to continue to struggle around the issues, including issues that are to the left of the articulated position of Bernie Sanders himself, which are issues of peace and social justice that the Bernie movement resonated with."

    [Aug 22, 2016] Irony FBI, DOJ Launch Criminal Probe of Hillary Campaign Chair Over Putin Links

    Notable quotes:
    "... Turns out, the Podesta Group founded by none other than John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chair and chief strategies, was retained by the Russian-owned firm UraniumOne in 2012, 2014, and 2015 to lobby Hillary Clinton's State Department based on John Podesta's longstanding relations with the Clinton family – he was the White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton. ..."
    Aug 21, 2016 | sputniknews.com

    The FBI and Department of Justice have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

    It seems like just yesterday that the top campaign official for Donald Trump found himself caught in the middle of a political dragnet for his work as a lobbyist on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych with the media clamoring about his purported ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin as a reason why the Republican nominee was a less desirable candidate than Hillary Clinton. Wait, that was just yesterday?

    It turns out that Hillary Clinton's campaign guru, head of the lobbying firm the Podesta Group, has found himself smack dab in the middle of the same criminal investigation spawned when devious political operatives decide to merge international relations with campaign politics. For weeks, the pages of the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal have chimed that Trump is a "Putin pawn" as part of some maniacal plot by the Kremlin to interfere with the US election.

    Turns out, the Podesta Group founded by none other than John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chair and chief strategies, was retained by the Russian-owned firm UraniumOne in 2012, 2014, and 2015 to lobby Hillary Clinton's State Department based on John Podesta's longstanding relations with the Clinton family – he was the White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton.

    Interestingly, UraniumOne's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation from 2009 to 2013. Perhaps a more blatant evidence of allegations that Hillary Clinton's State Department operated on a pay-to-play basis is the fact that, as the New York Times reported last April, "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting UraniumOne stock.

    Not only are investigators wondering whether there was any impropriety in the lobbying arrangement such as the provision of beneficial treatment by the State Department to an old friend, but they are also probing the work that Viktor Yanukovych's regime paid the Podesta Group to do while he was the head of the Ukrainian government.

    The controversy for Podesta links to his work for the Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a Brussels based organization that describes itself as "an advocate for enhancing EU-Ukraine relations." Unfortunately for Mr. Podesta, the organization has been described as "an operation controlled by Yanukovych" and tied to the former leader's Party of Regions suggesting the Podesta Group may have been, like has been said of Paul Manafort, tasked with greater reporting requirements pursuant to US law.

    The Podesta Group quickly hired the white-shoe law firm Caplin & Drysdale as "independent, outside legal counsel to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre's potential ties to foreign governments or political parties."

    And the plot of the 2016 presidential election thickens.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Hillary and the War Party by Carl Boggs

    Notable quotes:
    "... You haven't heard much from the Democrats lately about foreign policy or global agendas – indeed virtually nothing at the Philadelphia convention and little worthy of mention along the campaign trail. ..."
    "... But no one should be fooled: a Clinton presidency, which seems more likely by the day, can be expected to stoke a resurgent U.S. imperialism, bringing new cycles of militarism and war. The silence is illusory: Clintonites, now as before, are truly obsessed with international politics. ..."
    "... A triumphant Hillary, more "rational" and "savvy" than the looney and unpredictable Donald Trump, could well have a freer path to emboldened superpower moves not only in Europe but the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific. While the candidate has not revealed much lately, she is on record as vowing to "stand up" to Russia and China, face off against Russian "aggression", escalate the war on terror, and militarily annihilate Iran the moment it steps out of line (or is determined by "U.S. intelligence" to have stepped out of line) in its nuclear agreement with global powers. ..."
    "... A new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated "crises" in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, "usable") nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone - having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State. ..."
    "... Democratic elites say little publicly about these and other imperial priorities, preferring familiar homilies such as "bringing jobs back" (not going to happen) and "healing the country" (not going to happen). Silence appears to function exquisitely in a political culture where open and vigorous debate on foreign-policy is largely taboo and elite discourse rarely surpasses the level of banal platitudes. And Hillary's worshipful liberal and progressive backers routinely follow the script (or non-script) while fear-mongering about how a Trump presidency will destroy the country (now that the Sanders threat has vanished). ..."
    "... Who needs to be reminded that Hillary's domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global "crises" take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first. ..."
    "... There is a special logic to the Clintonites' explosive mixture of neoliberalism and militarism. They, like all corporate Democrats, are fully aligned with some of the most powerful interests in the world: Wall Street, the war economy, fossil fuels, Big Pharma, the Israel Lobby. They also have intimate ties to reactionary global forces – the neofascist regime in Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states. ..."
    "... Predictably, Trump's "unreliability" to oversee American global objectives has been an ongoing motif at CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. ..."
    "... Jackie was reported as saying "that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that a war might be started – not by men with self-control and restraint, but by little men, the ones moved by fear and pride." ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    You haven't heard much from the Democrats lately about foreign policy or global agendas – indeed virtually nothing at the Philadelphia convention and little worthy of mention along the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton's many liberal (and sadly, progressive) supporters routinely steer away from anything related to foreign policy, talk, talk, talking instead about the candidate's "experience", with obligatory nods toward her enlightened social programs. There is only the ritual demonization of that fearsome dictator, Vladimir Putin, reputedly on the verge of invading some hapless European country. Even Bernie Sanders' sorry endorsement of his erstwhile enemy, not long ago denounced as a tool of Wall Street, had nothing to say about global issues. But no one should be fooled: a Clinton presidency, which seems more likely by the day, can be expected to stoke a resurgent U.S. imperialism, bringing new cycles of militarism and war. The silence is illusory: Clintonites, now as before, are truly obsessed with international politics.

    A triumphant Hillary, more "rational" and "savvy" than the looney and unpredictable Donald Trump, could well have a freer path to emboldened superpower moves not only in Europe but the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific. While the candidate has not revealed much lately, she is on record as vowing to "stand up" to Russia and China, face off against Russian "aggression", escalate the war on terror, and militarily annihilate Iran the moment it steps out of line (or is determined by "U.S. intelligence" to have stepped out of line) in its nuclear agreement with global powers. Under Clinton, the Democrats might well be better positioned to recharge their historical legacy as War Party. One of the great political myths (and there are many) is that American liberals are inclined toward a less belligerent foreign policy than Republicans, are less militaristic and more favorable toward "diplomacy". References to Woodrow Wilson in World War I and Mexico, Harry Truman in Korea, JFK and LBJ in Indochina, Bill Clinton in the Balkans, and of course Barack Obama in Afghanistan (eight years of futile warfare), Libya (also "Hillary's War"), and scattered operations across the Middle East and North Africa should be enough to dispel such nonsense. (As for FDR and World War II, I have written extensively that the Pearl Harbor attacks were deliberately provoked by U.S. actions in the Pacific – but that is a more complicated story.)

    ... ... ...

    A new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated "crises" in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, "usable") nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone - having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State. There are currently no visible signs she would exit the protracted and criminal war in Afghanistan, a rich source of blowback (alongside Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Israel). Increased aerial bombardments against ISIS in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere? More deployments of American troops on the ground? Such ventures, with potentially others on the horizon, amount to elaborate recipes for more blowback, followed by more anti-terror hysteria, followed by more interventions. Uncompromising economic, diplomatic, and military support of Israeli atrocities in Palestine? Aggressive pursuit of the seriously mistaken "Asian Pivot", strategy, a revitalized effort to subvert Chinese economic and military power – one of Clinton's own special crusades? No wonder the Paul Wolfowitzes and Robert Kagans are delighted to join the Hillary camp.

    No wonder, too, that billionaire super-hawk Haim Saban has pledged to spend whatever is needed to get the Clintons back into the White House, convinced her presidency will do anything to maintain Palestinian colonial subjugation. Meeting with Saban in July, Hillary again promised to "oppose any effort to delegitimate Israel, including at the United Nations or through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement." She backs legislative efforts begun in several states to silence and blacklist people working on behalf of Palestinian rights. For this her celebrated "pragmatism" could work quite effectively.

    Democratic elites say little publicly about these and other imperial priorities, preferring familiar homilies such as "bringing jobs back" (not going to happen) and "healing the country" (not going to happen). Silence appears to function exquisitely in a political culture where open and vigorous debate on foreign-policy is largely taboo and elite discourse rarely surpasses the level of banal platitudes. And Hillary's worshipful liberal and progressive backers routinely follow the script (or non-script) while fear-mongering about how a Trump presidency will destroy the country (now that the Sanders threat has vanished).

    Amidst the turmoil Trump has oddly surfaced to the left of Clinton on several key global issues: cooperating instead of fighting with the Russians, keeping alive a sharp criticism of the Iraq war and the sustained regional chaos and blowback it generated, ramping down enthusiasm for more wars in the Middle East, junking "free trade" agreements, willingness to rethink the outmoded NATO alliance. If Trump, however haphazardly, manages to grasp the historical dynamics of blowback, the Clinton camp remains either indifferent or clueless, still ready for new armed ventures – cynically marketed, as in the Balkans, Iraq, and Libya, on the moral imperative of defeating some unspeakable evil, usually a "new Hitler" waging a "new genocide". Who needs to be reminded that Hillary's domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global "crises" take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first.

    ... ... ...

    ...At the other extreme, Clinton emerges in the media as the most "rational" and "even-tempered" of candidates, ideally suited to carry out the necessary imperial agendas. A tiresome mainstream narrative is that Hillary is "one of the best prepared and most knowledgeable candidates ever to seek the presidency." And she is smart, very smart – whatever her flaws. All the better to follow in the long history of Democrats proficient at showing the world who is boss. The media, for its part, adores these Democrats, another reason Trump appears to have diminished chances of winning. Further, the well-funded and tightly-organized Clinton machine can count on somewhat large majorities of women, blacks, and Hispanics, not only for the march to the White House but, more ominously, to go along with the War Party's imperial spectacle of the day. Most anything – war, regime change, bombing raids, drone strikes, treaty violations, JFK-style "standoffs" – can escape political scrutiny if carried out by "humanitarian", peace-loving Democrats. Bill Clinton's war to fight "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans, cover for just another U.S./NATO geopolitical maneuver, constitutes the perfect template here.

    There is a special logic to the Clintonites' explosive mixture of neoliberalism and militarism. They, like all corporate Democrats, are fully aligned with some of the most powerful interests in the world: Wall Street, the war economy, fossil fuels, Big Pharma, the Israel Lobby. They also have intimate ties to reactionary global forces – the neofascist regime in Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states.

    ... In March 121 members of the Republican "national security community", including the warmongers Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, and Brent Scowcroft, signed a public letter condemning Trump for not being sufficiently dedicated to American (also Israeli?) interests. Trump compounded his predicament by stubbornly refusing to pay homage to the "experts" – the same foreign-policy geniuses who helped orchestrate the Iraq debacle. A more recent (and more urgent) letter with roughly the same message has made its way into the public sphere. Predictably, Trump's "unreliability" to oversee American global objectives has been an ongoing motif at CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.

    Returning to the political carneval that was the Democratic convention, amidst all the non-stop flag-waving and shouts of "USA!" Hillary made what she thought would be an inspiring reference to Jackie Kennedy, speaking on the eve of her husband's (1961) ascent to the White House. Jackie was reported as saying "that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that a war might be started – not by men with self-control and restraint, but by little men, the ones moved by fear and pride."

    We can surmise that JFK was one of those "big men" governed by "restraint". History shows, however, that Jackie's esteemed husband was architect of probably the worst episode of international barbarism in U.S. history – the Vietnam War, with its unfathomable death and destruction – coming at a time of the Big Man's botched CIA-led invasion of Cuba and followed closely by the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the Big Man's "restraint" brought the world frighteningly close to nuclear catastrophe. As for "fear" and "pride" – nothing permeates JFK's biography of that period more than those two psychological obsessions.

    Could it be that Hillary Clinton, however unwittingly, was at this epic moment – her breakthrough nomination – revealing nothing so much as her own deeply-imperialist mind-set?

    Carl Boggs is the author of The Hollywood War Machine, with Tom Pollard (second edition, forthcoming), and Drugs, Power, and Politics, both published by Paradigm.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Ukraine Releases More Details on Payments for Trump Aide, Paul Manafort

    What a bunch of neoliberal piranha, devouring the poorest country in Europe, where pernneers exist on $1 a day or less, with the help of installed by Washington corrupt oligarchs (Yanukovich was installed with Washington blessing and was controlled by Washington, who was fully aware about the level of corruption of its government; especially his big friend vice-president Biden).
    Notable quotes:
    "... Mr. Kalyuzhny was also a founding board member of a Brussels-based nongovernmental organization, the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, that hired the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm that received $1.02 million to promote an agenda generally aligned with the Party of Regions. ..."
    "... Because the payment was made through a nongovernmental organization, the Podesta Group did not register as a lobbyist for a foreign entity. A co-founder of the Podesta Group, John D. Podesta, is chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and his brother, Tony Podesta, runs the firm now. ..."
    "... The Podesta Group, in a statement, said its in-house counsel determined the company had no obligation to register as a representative of a foreign entity in part because the nonprofit offered assurances it was not "directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party." ..."
    "... On Monday, Mr. Manafort issued a heated statement in response to an article in The New York Times that first disclosed that the ledgers - a document described by Ukrainian investigators as an under-the-table payment system for the Party of Regions - referenced a total of $12.7 million in cash payments to him over a five-year period. ..."
    "... In that statement, Mr. Manafort, who was removed from day-to-day management of the Trump campaign on Wednesday though he retained his title, denied that he had personally received any off-the-books cash payments. "The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical," he said. ..."
    Aug 18, 2016 | The New York Times

    MOSCOW - The Ukrainian authorities, under pressure to bolster their assertion that once-secret accounting documents show cash payments from a pro-Russian political party earmarked for Donald J. Trump's campaign chairman, on Thursday released line-item entries, some for millions of dollars.

    The revelations also point to an outsize role for a former senior member of the pro-Russian political party, the Party of Regions, in directing money to both Republican and Democratic advisers and lobbyists from the United States as the party tried to burnish its image in Washington.

    The former party member, Vitaly A. Kalyuzhny, for a time chairman of the Ukraine Parliament's International Relations Committee, had signed nine times for receipt of payments designated for the Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, according to Serhiy A. Leshchenko, a member of Parliament who has studied the documents. The ledger covered payments from 2007 to 2012, when Mr. Manafort worked for the party and its leader, Viktor F. Yanukovych, Ukraine's former president who was deposed.

    Mr. Kalyuzhny was also a founding board member of a Brussels-based nongovernmental organization, the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, that hired the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm that received $1.02 million to promote an agenda generally aligned with the Party of Regions.

    Because the payment was made through a nongovernmental organization, the Podesta Group did not register as a lobbyist for a foreign entity. A co-founder of the Podesta Group, John D. Podesta, is chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and his brother, Tony Podesta, runs the firm now.

    The role of Mr. Kalyuzhny, a onetime computer programmer from the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk, in directing funds to the companies of the chairmen of both presidential campaigns, had not previously been reported. Mr. Kalyuzhny was one of three Party of Regions members of Parliament who founded the nonprofit.

    The Associated Press, citing emails it had obtained, also reported Thursday that Mr. Manafort's work for Ukraine included a secret lobbying effort in Washington that he operated with an associate, Rick Gates, and that was aimed at influencing American news organizations and government officials.

    Mr. Gates noted in the emails that he conducted the work through two lobbying firms, including the Podesta Group, because Ukraine's foreign minister did not want the country's embassy involved. The A.P. said one of Mr. Gates's campaigns sought to turn public opinion in the West against Yulia Tymoshenko, a former Ukrainian prime minister who was imprisoned during Mr. Yanukovych's administration.

    The Podesta Group, in a statement, said its in-house counsel determined the company had no obligation to register as a representative of a foreign entity in part because the nonprofit offered assurances it was not "directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party."

    Reached by phone on Thursday, a former aide to Mr. Kalyuzhny said he had lost contact with the politician and was unsure whether he remained in Kiev or had returned to Donetsk, now the capital of a Russian-backed separatist enclave.

    Ukrainian officials emphasized that they did not know as yet if the cash payments reflected in the ledgers were actually made. In all 22 instances, people other than Mr. Manafort appear to have signed for the money. But the ledger entries are highly specific with funds earmarked for services such as exit polling, equipment and other services.

    On Monday, Mr. Manafort issued a heated statement in response to an article in The New York Times that first disclosed that the ledgers - a document described by Ukrainian investigators as an under-the-table payment system for the Party of Regions - referenced a total of $12.7 million in cash payments to him over a five-year period.

    In that statement, Mr. Manafort, who was removed from day-to-day management of the Trump campaign on Wednesday though he retained his title, denied that he had personally received any off-the-books cash payments. "The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical," he said.

    Mr. Manafort's statement, however, left open the possibility that cash payments had been made to his firm or associates. And details from the ledgers released Thursday by anticorruption investigators suggest that may have occurred. Three separate payments, for example, totaling nearly $5.7 million are earmarked for Mr. Manafort's "contract."

    Another, from October 2012, suggests a payment to Mr. Manafort of $400,000 for exit polling, a legitimate campaign outlay.

    Two smaller entries, for $4,632 and $854, show payments for seven personal computers and a computer server.

    The payments do not appear to have been reported by the Party of Regions in campaign finance disclosures in Ukraine. The party's 2012 filing indicates outlays for expenses other than advertising of just under $2 million, at the exchange rate at the time. This is less than a single payment in the black ledger designated for "Paul Manafort contract" in June of that year for $3.4 million.

    Ukrainian investigators say they consider any under-the-table payments illegal, and that the ledger also describes disbursements to members of the central election committee, the group that counts votes.


    Correction: August 20, 2016

    Because of an editing error, an article on Friday about the political activities in Ukraine of Donald J. Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, misidentified the office once held by Yulia V. Tymoshenko, a rival of Mr. Manafort's client, the former president Viktor F. Yanukovych. Ms. Tymoshenko served as prime minister of Ukraine, not its president.

    [Aug 21, 2016] The NSA Leak Is Real, Snowden Documents Confirm by Sam Biddle

    Notable quotes:
    "... The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE. ..."
    Aug 19, 2016 | theintercept.com
    On Monday, a hacking group calling itself the "ShadowBrokers" announced an auction for what it claimed were "cyber weapons" made by the NSA. Based on never-before-published documents provided by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, The Intercept can confirm that the arsenal contains authentic NSA software, part of a powerful constellation of tools used to covertly infect computers worldwide.

    The provenance of the code has been a matter of heated debate this week among cybersecurity experts, and while it remains unclear how the software leaked, one thing is now beyond speculation: The malware is covered with the NSA's virtual fingerprints and clearly originates from the agency.

    The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE.

    SECONDDATE plays a specialized role inside a complex global system built by the U.S. government to infect and monitor what one document estimated to be millions of computers around the world. Its release by ShadowBrokers, alongside dozens of other malicious tools, marks the first time any full copies of the NSA's offensive software have been available to the public, providing a glimpse at how an elaborate system outlined in the Snowden documents looks when deployed in the real world, as well as concrete evidence that NSA hackers don't always have the last word when it comes to computer exploitation.

    But malicious software of this sophistication doesn't just pose a threat to foreign governments, Johns Hopkins University cryptographer Matthew Green told The Intercept:

    The danger of these exploits is that they can be used to target anyone who is using a vulnerable router. This is the equivalent of leaving lockpicking tools lying around a high school cafeteria. It's worse, in fact, because many of these exploits are not available through any other means, so they're just now coming to the attention of the firewall and router manufacturers that need to fix them, as well as the customers that are vulnerable.

    So the risk is twofold: first, that the person or persons who stole this information might have used them against us. If this is indeed Russia, then one assumes that they probably have their own exploits, but there's no need to give them any more. And now that the exploits have been released, we run the risk that ordinary criminals will use them against corporate targets.

    The NSA did not respond to questions concerning ShadowBrokers, the Snowden documents, or its malware.

    A Memorable SECONDDATE

    The offensive tools released by ShadowBrokers are organized under a litany of code names such as POLARSNEEZE and ELIGIBLE BOMBSHELL, and their exact purpose is still being assessed. But we do know more about one of the weapons: SECONDDATE.

    SECONDDATE is a tool designed to intercept web requests and redirect browsers on target computers to an NSA web server. That server, in turn, is designed to infect them with malware. SECONDDATE's existence was first reported by The Intercept in 2014, as part of a look at a global computer exploitation effort code-named TURBINE. The malware server, known as FOXACID, has also been described in previously released Snowden documents.

    Other documents released by The Intercept today not only tie SECONDDATE to the ShadowBrokers leak but also provide new detail on how it fits into the NSA's broader surveillance and infection network. They also show how SECONDDATE has been used, including to spy on Pakistan and a computer system in Lebanon.

    The top-secret manual that authenticates the SECONDDATE found in the wild as the same one used within the NSA is a 31-page document titled "FOXACID SOP for Operational Management" and marked as a draft. It dates to no earlier than 2010. A section within the manual describes administrative tools for tracking how victims are funneled into FOXACID, including a set of tags used to catalogue servers. When such a tag is created in relation to a SECONDDATE-related infection, the document says, a certain distinctive identifier must be used:

    The same SECONDDATE MSGID string appears in 14 different files throughout the ShadowBrokers leak, including in a file titled SecondDate-3021.exe. Viewed through a code-editing program (screenshot below), the NSA's secret number can be found hiding in plain sight:

    All told, throughout many of the folders contained in the ShadowBrokers' package (screenshot below), there are 47 files with SECONDDATE-related names, including different versions of the raw code required to execute a SECONDDATE attack, instructions for how to use it, and other related files.

    .

    After viewing the code, Green told The Intercept the MSGID string's occurrence in both an NSA training document and this week's leak is "unlikely to be a coincidence." Computer security researcher Matt Suiche, founder of UAE-based cybersecurity startup Comae Technologies, who has been particularly vocal in his analysis of the ShadowBrokers this week, told The Intercept "there is no way" the MSGID string's appearance in both places is a coincidence.

    Where SECONDDATE Fits In

    This overview jibes with previously unpublished classified files provided by Snowden that illustrate how SECONDDATE is a component of BADDECISION, a broader NSA infiltration tool. SECONDDATE helps the NSA pull off a "man in the middle" attack against users on a wireless network, tricking them into thinking they're talking to a safe website when in reality they've been sent a malicious payload from an NSA server.

    According to one December 2010 PowerPoint presentation titled "Introduction to BADDECISION," that tool is also designed to send users of a wireless network, sometimes referred to as an 802.11 network, to FOXACID malware servers. Or, as the presentation puts it, BADDECISION is an "802.11 CNE [computer network exploitation] tool that uses a true man-in-the-middle attack and a frame injection technique to redirect a target client to a FOXACID server." As another top-secret slide puts it, the attack homes in on "the greatest vulnerability to your computer: your web browser."

    One slide points out that the attack works on users with an encrypted wireless connection to the internet.

    That trick, it seems, often involves BADDECISION and SECONDDATE, with the latter described as a "component" for the former. A series of diagrams in the "Introduction to BADDECISION" presentation show how an NSA operator "uses SECONDDATE to inject a redirection payload at [a] Target Client," invisibly hijacking a user's web browser as the user attempts to visit a benign website (in the example given, it's CNN.com). Executed correctly, the file explains, a "Target Client continues normal webpage browsing, completely unaware," lands on a malware-filled NSA server, and becomes infected with as much of that malware as possible - or as the presentation puts it, the user will be left "WHACKED!" In the other top-secret presentations, it's put plainly: "How do we redirect the target to the FOXACID server without being noticed"? Simple: "Use NIGHTSTAND or BADDECISION."

    The sheer number of interlocking tools available to crack a computer is dizzying. In the FOXACID manual, government hackers are told an NSA hacker ought to be familiar with using SECONDDATE along with similar man-in-the-middle wi-fi attacks code-named MAGIC SQUIRREL and MAGICBEAN. A top-secret presentation on FOXACID lists further ways to redirect targets to the malware server system.

    To position themselves within range of a vulnerable wireless network, NSA operators can use a mobile antenna system running software code-named BLINDDATE, depicted in the field in what appears to be Kabul. The software can even be attached to a drone. BLINDDATE in turn can run BADDECISION, which allows for a SECONDDATE attack:

    Elsewhere in these files, there are at least two documented cases of SECONDDATE being used to successfully infect computers overseas: An April 2013 presentation boasts of successful attacks against computer systems in both Pakistan and Lebanon. In the first, NSA hackers used SECONDDATE to breach "targets in Pakistan's National Telecommunications Corporation's (NTC) VIP Division," which contained documents pertaining to "the backbone of Pakistan's Green Line communications network" used by "civilian and military leadership."

    In the latter, the NSA used SECONDDATE to pull off a man-in-the-middle attack in Lebanon "for the first time ever," infecting a Lebanese ISP to extract "100+ MB of Hizballah Unit 1800 data," a special subset of the terrorist group dedicated to aiding Palestinian militants.

    SECONDDATE is just one method that the NSA uses to get its target's browser pointed at a FOXACID server. Other methods include sending spam that attempts to exploit bugs in popular web-based email providers or entices targets to click on malicious links that lead to a FOXACID server. One document, a newsletter for the NSA's Special Source Operations division, describes how NSA software other than SECONDDATE was used to repeatedly direct targets in Pakistan to FOXACID malware web servers, eventually infecting the targets' computers.

    A Potentially Mundane Hack

    Snowden, who worked for NSA contractors Dell and Booz Allen Hamilton, has offered some context and a relatively mundane possible explanation for the leak: that the NSA headquarters was not hacked, but rather one of the computers the agency uses to plan and execute attacks was compromised. In a series of tweets, he pointed out that the NSA often lurks on systems that are supposed to be controlled by others, and it's possible someone at the agency took control of a server and failed to clean up after themselves. A regime, hacker group, or intelligence agency could have seized the files and the opportunity to embarrass the agency.

    Documents

    Documents published with this story:

    [Aug 21, 2016] Gaius Publius: You Broke It, You Bought It – A Sanders Activist Challenges Clinton Supporters

    No progressives worth their name would vote for Hillary. Betrayal of Sanders made the choice more difficult, but still there no alternative. Clinton "No passaran!". Also "Clinton proved capable of coming to an agreement with Sanders. He received good money, bought a new house, published a book, and joined with Clinton, calling on his supporters to vote for her"...
    Crappy slogans like "hold her feet to the fire" are lies. Has there ever been serious detail about that? I've seen this line over and over. Hillary is dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal and will behave as such as soon as she get into office. You can view her iether as (more jingoistic) Obama II or (equally reckless) Bush III. If she wins, the next opportunity to check her neoliberal leaning will be only during the next Persidential election.
    Notable quotes:
    "... ...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any number of issues that touch core progressives values. ..."
    "... It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
    "... She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign  -  Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
    "... The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies. ..."
    "... It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in any sense that a normal person understands it. ..."
    "... TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions. ..."
    "... Regulatory arb, slice of corruption, and like shareholder value memes an equity burnishing tool… ..."
    "... One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS. Tariffs are necessary. ..."
    "... The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a sovereign nation any more. ..."
    "... You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh). ..."
    "... Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power. ..."
    "... merely infinite wealth and power for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? ..."
    "... Globalization and Technologization is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class. ..."
    "... The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants. ..."
    Aug 20, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com

    ...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any number of issues that touch core progressives values.

    ... ... ...

    Becky Bond on the Challenge to Clinton Supporters

    ...Bond looks at what the primary has wrought, and issues this challenge to activists who helped defeat Sanders: You broke it, you bought it. Will you now take charge in the fight to hold Clinton accountable? Or will you hang back (enjoying the fruits) and let others take the lead? ("Enjoying the fruits" is my addition. As one attendee noted, the Democratic Convention this year seemed very much like "a jobs fair.")

    Bond says this, writing in The Hill (my emphasis):

    Progressive Clinton supporters: You broke it, you bought it

    It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable.

    With Donald Trump tanking in the polls, there's room for progressives to simultaneously crush his bid for the presidency while holding Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on the TPP .

    And yet:

    She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign  -  Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable.

    ... ... ...

    Bond has more on Salazar and why both he and Tim Kaine are a "tell," a signal of things to come from Hillary Clinton: "The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies."

    ... ... ...

    Carla , August 20, 2016 at 5:40 am

    It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in any sense that a normal person understands it.

    This is the evil behind the lie of calling these "trade" agreements and putting the focus on "jobs." TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions.

    That's what's at stake; not jobs. The jobs will be lost to automation anyway; they are never coming back. The TPP et al legal straight jackets do not sell out jobs, that's already been done. No, what these phony trade agreements do is foreclose any hope of achieving functioning democracies. Please start saying so!

    sd , August 20, 2016 at 5:55 am

    Question – If automation killed jobs, then why did manufacturing move to low wage states and countries?

    Carla , August 20, 2016 at 6:25 am

    I miss-typed above. Of course I meant TPP and not ttp.

    Yes, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., certainly killed jobs. However, those jobs are not coming back to these shores. In the higher wage countries, "good" jobs - in manufacturing and in many "knowledge" and "service" sectors - as well as unskilled jobs, are being or have been replaced with automated means and methods.

    Just a few examples: automobile assemblers; retail cashiers; secretaries; steelworkers; highway toll collectors; gas station attendants. ETC. Here's what's happened so far just in terms of Great Lakes freighters:

    "The wheelman stood behind Captain Ross, clutching a surprisingly tiny, computerized steering wheel. He wore driving gloves and turned the Equinox every few seconds in whatever direction the captain told him to. The wheel, computer monitors and what looked like a server farm filling the wheelhouse are indicative of changes in the shipping industry. Twenty years ago, it took 35 crew members to run a laker. The Equinox operates with 16, only a handful of whom are on duty at once."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/travel/great-lakes-montreal-minnesota.html

    TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not trade, and only very incidentally, jobs. The rulers of the universe vastly prefer paying no wages to paying low wages, and whatever can be automated, will be, eventually in low-wage countries as well as here and in Europe. A great deal of this has already happened and it will continue. Only 5 sections of the TPP even deal with trade–that's out of 29. Don't take this on my authority; Public Citizen is the gold standard of analysis regarding these so-called "trade" agreements.

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 2:00 am

    It took the OverClass several decades to send all those jobs away from our shores. It would take several decades to bring those jobs back to our shores. But it could be done within a context of militant belligerent protectionism.

    Americans are smart enough to make spoons, knives and forks. We used to make them. We could make them again. The only obstacles are contrived and artificial political-economic and policy obstacles. Apply a different Market Forcefield to the American Market, and the actors within that market would act differently over the several decades to come.

    Andrew , August 20, 2016 at 6:34 am

    Automation hasn't eliminated those jobs yet. But it will. See Foxconns investment in automation to eliminate iPhone assemblers.

    Skippy , August 20, 2016 at 6:37 am

    Regulatory arb, slice of corruption, and like shareholder value memes an equity burnishing tool…

    EndOfTheWorld , August 20, 2016 at 6:46 am

    One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS. Tariffs are necessary. They protect your industries while at the same time bringing in a lot of revenue.

    The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a sovereign nation any more.

    casino implosion , August 20, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    Sovereign nations are racist.

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 2:02 am

    Really? Even multi-ethnic ones like Russia? Or America on a good day? Or Canada?

    You might want to be careful with Davos Man Free-Trade hasbara like that. You could end up giving racism a good name.

    Tom , August 20, 2016 at 6:50 am

    Off-shoring was just a stop-gap measure until human capital could be completely removed from the equation.

    Tom , August 20, 2016 at 7:55 am

    I meant to include a link to this particularly shocking example from a few months ago:
    Foxconn, Apple's Chinese supplier, is replacing 60,000 workers with AI robots.

    John , August 20, 2016 at 10:07 am

    Well then Apple can bring the all it's manufacturing back to the U.S. No need to be in China if they aren't using slave wage workers.

    Tom , August 20, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    Humans are just one line item on the list of expenses..

    dk , August 20, 2016 at 8:20 am

    ^That.

    Vastydeep , August 20, 2016 at 7:19 am

    The first round of industrial revolution automation substituted machines for human/horse mechanical exertion. We reached "peak horse" around 1900, and the move to low-wage/low-regulation states was just a step on the global race to the bottom. You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh).

    Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power.

    Will the rise of the machines lead to abundance for all, or merely infinite wealth and power for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? TPP and it's ilk may be the last chance for we the people to have any say in it.

    PhilU , August 20, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Manufacturing is in decline due to Reagan's tax cuts and low investment. Globalization and Technologization is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class.

    John Zelnicker , August 20, 2016 at 10:23 am

    @Squirrel – Labor costs, as you say, are a driving force; they are not the only one. Notice that the products you mentioned are all large heavy items. In these cases the transportation costs are high enough that the companies want their production to be close to their final market. The lower cost of labor elsewhere is not enough to compensate for the higher shipping costs from those locations. In addition, the wage gap between the US and other places has narrowed over the past 20 years, mostly due to the ongoing suppression of wage gains in the US. Your examples are exceptions that do not falsify the original premise that a huge amount of manufacturing has moved to lower wage locations. And those moves are still ongoing, e.g., Carrier moving to Mexico.

    The cost of manufactured goods has not fallen because the labor savings is going to profit and executive compensation, not reduced prices.

    TimmyB , August 20, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Sanders gets 45% of the vote and leads them down Hillarys cattle chute for slaughter – not cooption, not marginalization, but the bolt gun to the head

    Notable quotes:
    "... All these elections are equally fake. At some point you're going to have to stop pecking B.F. Skinner's levers, because the pellets have stopped coming out. But there's no point reasoning with you till your extinction burst finally subsides. ..."
    "... This is not a very good piece for several reasons, one being only in the nonsense universe of US mainstream discourse can Clinton be termed a 'centrist' or can someone be depicted as a bona fide 'progressive' and also be a supporter of Clinton. I wouldn't waste a moment trying to pressure 'Clinton progressives' on anything – there is no historical evidence she or Bill have ever had the slightest interest in the public interest. At best a 'Clinton progressive' might claim to be 'defending' some existing public good, but good luck there as well – as Trump is not the source of any real 'threat', that distinction belonging to the existing power elites (military, financial, corporate, legal, media etc.) Clinton serves. ..."
    "... The idea that Clinton ever was 'open' to progressives reminds me of why the putrid Rahm Emmanuel could dismiss the left as a 'bunch of retards'. Time to make them eat those words by taking ourselves and our values and our thinking seriously enough we stop fearing not being taken 'seriously' by so loathsome a crew as the Clintons. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Mooooo , August 20, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    Here in Temple Grandin's touchy-feely slaughterhouse, Sanders gets 45% of the vote and leads them down Hillary's cattle chute for slaughter – not cooption, not marginalization, but the bolt gun to the head, with lots of sadistic poleaxing straight out of an illegal PETA video. The surviving livestock are auctioned off for flensing through gleeful trading in influence. This we learn, is not beyond redemption. In some demented psycho-Quaker sense, perhaps. What the fuck WON'T you put up with?

    In this psychotic mindset, Kim Jong Un's 99.97% victory proves he's like twice as worthwhile as any Dem. Write him in. Nursultan Nazarbayev, too, his 98% success speaks for itself. Write him in. All these elections are equally fake. At some point you're going to have to stop pecking B.F. Skinner's levers, because the pellets have stopped coming out. But there's no point reasoning with you till your extinction burst finally subsides.

    Then we can talk about how you knock over moribund regimes.

    Fiver , August 20, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    This is not a very good piece for several reasons, one being only in the nonsense universe of US mainstream discourse can Clinton be termed a 'centrist' or can someone be depicted as a bona fide 'progressive' and also be a supporter of Clinton. I wouldn't waste a moment trying to pressure 'Clinton progressives' on anything – there is no historical evidence she or Bill have ever had the slightest interest in the public interest. At best a 'Clinton progressive' might claim to be 'defending' some existing public good, but good luck there as well – as Trump is not the source of any real 'threat', that distinction belonging to the existing power elites (military, financial, corporate, legal, media etc.) Clinton serves.

    There are 3 critical issues 'progressives', Greens, lefties, libertarians and others must come together en masse to resist: TPP immediately, US foreign policy of permanent wars of aggression now involving the entire Muslim world and fossil fuels. Don't waste any time hoping to influence Clinton (you won't) or fretting about Trump. First TPP, then anti-War/anti-fossil fuels.

    I am convinced TPP can be beaten – not with 'Clinton activists', but with a broad coalition of interests. And once it has been beaten, the supremely idiotic 'war on terror' is next up. Americans' votes and electoral desires have been ignored and suppressed. Other legitimate means therefore must be taken up and utilized to change critical policy failures directly.

    The idea that Clinton ever was 'open' to progressives reminds me of why the putrid Rahm Emmanuel could dismiss the left as a 'bunch of retards'. Time to make them eat those words by taking ourselves and our values and our thinking seriously enough we stop fearing not being taken 'seriously' by so loathsome a crew as the Clintons.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Hillary is a lying war hawk, a neoliberal who can not be reformed

    Notable quotes:
    "... Until she demonstrated her vile nature as Secretary of State, the problem with Hillary has been the cast of miscreants she surrounds herself with such as John Podesta. Obama might have actually at least not surrounded herself with such vile people, but Hillary's 2007 henchmen were a sign she was unfit for any office. Trying to grab an empty suit, Obama, before he made connections just made sense. ..."
    "... Other than that, she was First Lady and an unremarkable Senator. The line about Mos Eisley from Star Wars accurately describes the Senate. ..."
    "... I think "progressive" is a such a mushy term it's hard to fit anybody into it on any criteria other than that they identify themselves as such. ..."
    "... That's why there's never a real answer to "Progress in what direction?" And the progressives of today have no historical "bloodline" connection to the Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century (except maybe some vague technocratic leanings, the 10% of that day). ..."
    "... But if Hillary Clinton and Ezra Klein at al. get to call themselves progressive, it's a useless term ..."
    "... All I ever hear from Clinton supporters (even those newly aligned former Bernie supporters), is 'because Trump'. They appear starry-eyed and brainwashed because she's 'not Trump'. I don't predict any of 'em pushing Clinton on any issues. ..."
    "... Even if they tried, Clinton has already shown, IMO, that unless you have millions of dollars to throw at her feet you'll never get her attention, let alone force any change in her policies. ..."
    "... 2020 starts on November 9. Even if Clinton seems legitimate on election day, she'll delegitimize herself in short order. She won't be able to help herself. ..."
    "... IMO she already did that at the end of the campaign trail by choosing Kaine as her running mate, Salazar for her transition team (& suggesting Bill as economic advisor?). http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/hillary_clintons_choice_of_ken_salazar_comes_under_fire_video_20160818 ..."
    "... Kaine, along with IIRC Rahm, purged the Democrats of activists from Howard Dean's 50-state strategy post-2006. ..."
    "... Hillary is a lying war hawk. ..."
    "... Too bad Sanders turned out to be a sheepdog for the D party. He really should get the best actor in a political campaign award. After he endorsed Clinton it was clear as day it was ALL one big performance. ..."
    "... Young Sanders voters had a damned clear idea of the limits of what he was offering. They voted for him anyway, because he just sucked so much less than the jowly pair of creeps who stand before us now. ..."
    "... Can anyone doubt that Hillary will pull a super-Obama once elected, rejecting all her promises and implementing their opposites once elected? It amazes me that many people do, that they think they will have some ability to control policy. If things get too hot in the kitchen politically speaking, isn't it OBVIOUS that a 2-pronged propaganda effort will be unleashed, to hide blatantly unpopular moves on the one hand, and/or talk them up as if they were falsely maligned and in the TINA category on the other. ..."
    "... "This really matters. That Clinton is a better progressive choice than Trump is not much contested." Really? Reeeeaaaaa lly? Perhaps, as others have said way upthread, that is part of the problem right there. ..."
    "... Reading the article at this link should help progressives get over their fear of a President Trump. That fear is the only thing preventing them from voting for someone other than Clinton. Maybe the progressives should consider the possibility that they have nothing to fear but fear itself. ..."
    "... Because when he focuses on the last few-couple decades and especially the last few years, including CLINTON'S last few years, he makes serious sense. As well as his discussion of who has what military capabilities nowadays, and what a mistaken estimation of who has what military capabilities nowadays can lead the mistakers to lead their country into, box-canyon-of-no-return speaking-wise. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 20, 2016 at 10:53 am

    Until she demonstrated her vile nature as Secretary of State, the problem with Hillary has been the cast of miscreants she surrounds herself with such as John Podesta. Obama might have actually at least not surrounded herself with such vile people, but Hillary's 2007 henchmen were a sign she was unfit for any office. Trying to grab an empty suit, Obama, before he made connections just made sense.

    Other than that, she was First Lady and an unremarkable Senator. The line about Mos Eisley from Star Wars accurately describes the Senate.

    Lambert Strether , August 20, 2016 at 11:32 am

    I think "progressive" is a such a mushy term it's hard to fit anybody into it on any criteria other than that they identify themselves as such. I was there for the creation of the term, and there was a lot of discussion about it in the blogosphere at the time. Basically, the conservatives had managed, by dint of repetition, in making "liberal" a dirty word, so they needed rebranding. That's all "progressive" is; a rebranding.

    That's why there's never a real answer to "Progress in what direction?" And the progressives of today have no historical "bloodline" connection to the Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century (except maybe some vague technocratic leanings, the 10% of that day).

    So I disagree. Today:

    liberal = progressive = identity politics ≠ left

    aab , August 20, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    I never liked the word liberal and never self-identified as such. Even as a kid, I think I intuited its connection back to Locke and classical liberalism. I had been calling myself progressive for a while, as it seemed like a nice connection to the earlier progressive movement pushing back against the first Gilded Age and a way of talking about the left that wasn't too scary for people trapped in the liberal paradigm.

    But if Hillary Clinton and Ezra Klein at al. get to call themselves progressive, it's a useless term. I've reverted back to "leftist". I strongly doubt Hill and Ezra will want that. We'll see.

    crittermom , August 20, 2016 at 9:31 am

    Sorry, but I saw this article as little more than wishful thinking.

    "It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable."

    Not gonna happen.

    Even if those supporting her were to 'make a little noise' over things they're opposed to, what makes Bond think she'd listen? Wasn't the Dem convention revealing enough?

    All I ever hear from Clinton supporters (even those newly aligned former Bernie supporters), is 'because Trump'. They appear starry-eyed and brainwashed because she's 'not Trump'. I don't predict any of 'em pushing Clinton on any issues.

    Even if they tried, Clinton has already shown, IMO, that unless you have millions of dollars to throw at her feet you'll never get her attention, let alone force any change in her policies.

    Lambert Strether , August 20, 2016 at 11:19 am

    2020 starts on November 9. Even if Clinton seems legitimate on election day, she'll delegitimize herself in short order. She won't be able to help herself.

    crittermom , August 20, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    IMO she already did that at the end of the campaign trail by choosing Kaine as her running mate, Salazar for her transition team (& suggesting Bill as economic advisor?). http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/hillary_clintons_choice_of_ken_salazar_comes_under_fire_video_20160818

    She also confirmed it at the convention by silencing those there to push for platform reform. (I really had no idea just how much weight the head of a transition team carries until I watched this video).

    Lambert Strether , August 20, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    Kaine, along with IIRC Rahm, purged the Democrats of activists from Howard Dean's 50-state strategy post-2006.

    So I'm thinking the Sanders people will have some fighting to do sooner than they think.

    sharonsj , August 20, 2016 at 9:55 am

    I'd like to add that although I will be in the voting booth come November, none of the presidential candidates will get my vote. Trump is an ignorant egomaniac. Hillary is a lying war hawk. Johnson is another right-wing looney. And Stein, while she has some really good stances, lied during the CNN town hall (and I know because I actually read the Green Platform). I'm not even sure I will vote for the Dem challenger to my lousy Repub senator because the challenger is just another party hack who, like Hillary, only says what we want to hear.

    John , August 20, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Sanders did not "come out of nowhere".
    I and others followed and heard him for years on the Tom Hartman show.
    But I had gotten sick of hearing the talk but seeing no action and had stopped listening for at least the past two years.

    Also, the reason the "kids" took to him like wild was him calling for student loan cancellation.

    And that's the god's truth.

    Though his other messages about the rich looting us clean and needing to be stopped were what any sane person in the country longed to hear and have changed.

    Too bad Sanders turned out to be a sheepdog for the D party. He really should get the best actor in a political campaign award. After he endorsed Clinton it was clear as day it was ALL one big performance.

    FluffytheObeseCat , August 20, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    In my experience (6 years of pursuing a PhD late in life) young educated people today are so much more savvy, less self-indulgent and broadly "grown up" than the peeved, aging boomers who haunt this board…….. that this assertion is laugh-inducing.

    Young Sanders voters had a damned clear idea of the limits of what he was offering. They voted for him anyway, because he just sucked so much less than the jowly pair of creeps who stand before us now.

    ambrit , August 20, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    Voting for someone who "sucked so much less" than the other candidates is not how a movement gets started. If your assertion is correct, than things are not only looking dim for any reform in the near future, but look equally bad for long range reform. Hate is too self consuming to maintain constantly without renouncing ones humanity. Hope, as the histories of religions show, can keep chugging along for millennia. "True believers" did start in the religious sphere and transfer to other spheres of human endeavour.

    Norb , August 20, 2016 at 10:37 am

    I think what people have forgotten, or have no current experience with, is the actual radical, and destructive nature of Capitalism as a social organizing structure. It is the ocean in which we all swim or the air we all breathe, so take for granted – unreflectively. Commoners cannot connect the misery they experience daily with the system they live under. Capitalists can only double down on their life strategy. The second they hesitate, the game is up. It is an all or nothing strategy. In America, you are given no breathing space. No tolerance for dissent.

    A reformed capitalism ceases to be capitalism. Just as the divine right of Kings falls away when individual liberty takes hold in the mind. The two thoughts are incompatible.

    What is the capitalist goal? To control all- to exploit all? Don't capitalists already possess that power in disguised form already? What is it that they want anyway? Power over individual lives? Materially, the ruling elite have everything already, they have won the struggle of Owners over Labor. We have come full circle to where the elite now require our public displays of affection for their greatness once again. Freedom and liberty of the individual be dammed if not the right individual.

    If forced to express their vision for the human future, the ruling elite would be exposed as the shallow frauds that they are. They have no vision other than the ceaseless striving for material personal wealth. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are a logical result of an unrelenting capitalist system. They are its products.

    What is the logical end for capitalism? It is an ideology that needs competition to survive. But what happens when there are no more foes to conquer? No more resources to exploit for profit?.

    America is a nation of chaos because it is the leader of the capitalist world. It is not a nation of diverse strength and stability. It is a teetering behemoth, struggling not to fall over from neglect and self inflicted wounds perpetrated by sociopathic ideologues.

    Hopefully, the con game has lost it's effectiveness as harsh reality sinks in. As always, its having a plan ready to go and implement when the crash finally occurs. If the left does't have that plan ready, we all deserve what comes.

    Yves Smith Post author , August 21, 2016 at 1:28 am

    Actually, your intel is dated. Wall Street is her fading clientele. Google and Silicon Valley are much more important to Hillary now.

    DarkMatters , August 20, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    I'm really baffled at the surprise felt at Hillary's choice of associates, and at the policy decisions likely to follow. It reminds me of Condoleeza Rice statement that no one could have seen 911 coming, when drills had been ongoing to handle exactly this eventuality.

    Can anyone doubt that Hillary will pull a super-Obama once elected, rejecting all her promises and implementing their opposites once elected? It amazes me that many people do, that they think they will have some ability to control policy. If things get too hot in the kitchen politically speaking, isn't it OBVIOUS that a 2-pronged propaganda effort will be unleashed, to hide blatantly unpopular moves on the one hand, and/or talk them up as if they were falsely maligned and in the TINA category on the other.

    I state these opinions feeling on the one hand, as if I have 2 heads because this view seems so marginal among the populace, but on the other feeling eerily vindicated, as if I've been seeing a train coming down the track and striking a crowd of people, none of whom apparently saw or did anything during its approach. Is not the political outcome obvious? Hasn't anyone else seen through the level of propaganda diminishing her crimes as either nonexistent or unprosecutable?

    Well, I can entertain myself watching the propaganda, and watching how far political and ethical opinions can be twisted. Like the train metaphor, there's a certain macabre fascination to be savored. This is undoubtedly corrosive to my ethical and moral sensibilities, but trivially compared to all else.

    Jess , August 20, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    God I hate the phony framing of "hold her feet to the fire". After she's elected there is simply no way to do that. The only way her desired policies could be thwarted is by forcing enough members of Congress not to vote for certain bills like the TPP. But even then, nothing we can do can force her to change executive orders and executive branch policies or priorities.

    SpringTexan , August 20, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    Yes, TPP and TTIP are excellent places to "pick your spots," not easy but possibly winnable.

    Katniss Everdeen , August 20, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    You're right. The phoniest. And such crap.

    Bond is not even going to do the feet-to-fire holding herself. She's assigning it to someone else based on a standard she's devised. You broke it, you bought it. Give me a break.

    If you want to send the democrat party a message, you deny them the win. Period. It's how elections work. You don't get the job if your performance is piss poor.

    All this wishy-washiness over giving an unsuitable candidate a job and then assigning someone to stand guard over them to make sure they do it to your satisfaction when you've known from the beginning that s/he won't is just a weak excuse for taking the easy way out.

    You want to send a message to the democrat party that they better shape up now, you vote for Trump. And hold HIS feet to the fire. Two birds, one stone

    Jess , August 20, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    "vote for Trump. And hold HIS feet to the fire. Two birds, one stone"

    Yes. Excellent. And we might actually get some help holding those feet to that fire.

    KYrocky , August 20, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    Gaius asks:

    What will Clinton supporters, those who happily helped bring down Sanders, do then?

    Answer: Nothing. Sorry you wasted so many pixels avoiding the obvious.

    Oregoncharles , August 20, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    "Progressives who supported Clinton in the primary should use their leverage to ensure Clinton makes good on her vow to stop TPP and keep other promises she made on the campaign trail to win progressive votes. "

    This is crapified politics that we've heard before, over and over. HOW are they going to "hold her feet to the fire?" Has there ever been serious detail about that? I've seen this line over and over, but it's NEVER operational, and more important, it can't be. The next opportunity is 4 long years off; she could be dead by then, so could they, and the Republicans will nominate Cruz.

    All that leaves is insurrectionary street action; anything else is easy to ignore, and they know they have progressives hog-tied – hell, the progs did it to themselves.

    This hogswill is nothing but the same lesser-evilism that got us here. I suspect GP agrees; I'm responding to the quote.

    River , August 20, 2016 at 8:48 pm

    I think "hold her feet to the fire" means progressives will get on all fours and act as an Ottoman for Her Grace during a cold D.C winter's night. They seem to be doing it now.

    kimsarah , August 20, 2016 at 10:41 pm

    All fours alright: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/292086-sanders-looking-forward-to-campaigning-for-clinton-after

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 1:55 am

    Dear Gaius Publius,

    "This really matters. That Clinton is a better progressive choice than Trump is not much contested." Really? Reeeeaaaaa lly? Perhaps, as others have said way upthread, that is part of the problem right there.

    Perhaps people should consider the possibility that Clinton is the More Effective evil. Perhaps a Trump Administration would be a bunch of sound and fury and clown car fire drills signifying nothing. Whereas a Clinton Administration would be staffed and powered by Decromatic and Third Way Cheneys who know where all the knobs, levers and buttons of power are. And they are determined that what they want . . . they will get.

    One of Ian Welsh's favorite commenters brought this link to his blog.

    markfromireland PERMALINK

    August 19, 2016

    There are lots of reasons not to vote for Clinton and the suppurating corruption she represents. Not letting her owners play with matches rates high among them

    ( and if that sentence does not link to the brought-link here the way it does on Ian Welsh, here is the URL link its own self, so people can link to it and read it.)
    http://fredoneverything.org/hillary-trump-and-war-with-russia-the-goddamdest-stupid-idea-i-have-ever-heard-and-i-have-lived-in-washington/

    Some of the insulting language is harsh on the tender eyeballs of sensitive leftists. I would suggest gritting one's teeth and powering through the relatively few insulting words and phrases. Most of it is fact-based and evidence-supported reasoned reasons to prevent Clinton from getting elected. Reading the article at this link should help progressives get over their fear of a President Trump. That fear is the only thing preventing them from voting for someone other than Clinton. Maybe the progressives should consider the possibility that they have nothing to fear but fear itself.

    Lambert Strether , August 21, 2016 at 3:24 am

    I dunno how tender my eyeballs are, but this at your link caught my eye: "When Washington pushed the South into the Civil War…"

    Wowsers. No, I don't think so.

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 4:44 am

    Yes, one's eyeballs could be pretty tough and still find that one difficult. Still, it pays to grind one's teeth and power through.

    Because when he focuses on the last few-couple decades and especially the last few years, including CLINTON'S last few years, he makes serious sense. As well as his discussion of who has what military capabilities nowadays, and what a mistaken estimation of who has what military capabilities nowadays can lead the mistakers to lead their country into, box-canyon-of-no-return speaking-wise.

    [Aug 21, 2016] 6 Corporations control 90% Of The Media In North America

    It's like the USSR now: GE, News Corporation, Disney Company, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS. These 6 conglomerates control 90% of the mass media in North America nowadays.
    Notable quotes:
    "... That means that out of all the TV channels we watch, the radio stations we listen to and the movies we see are owned by one of these six main corporations. ..."
    "... People are almost "forced" to wonder if the media controls as well our public taste and interest. They control the information we receive, but not only that, they control exactly what we receive and the way we do, therefore they control what we think. Media companies do not care about how they can be more objective and provide people news and information with a neutral point of view (even thought it sounds contradictory). We could say that they "unintentionally" or "indirectly" tell us what to think and what to believe. ..."
    "... The media's duty is to provide objective information to the public through newspapers, television and radio, in order for the public to make public as well as personal decisions in the diverse fields. ..."
    October 21, 2013 | irenefgoros.wordpress.com
    Image

    GE, News Corporation, Disney Company, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS. These 6 conglomerates control 90% of the mass media in North America nowadays.

    Media ownership is becoming more and more concentrated these days as multi-billion dollar companies such as News corporation, Time warner and Disney company control almost all the shares of the mass media. A total of six corporations control almost 90% of the mainstream media nowadays. That means that out of all the TV channels we watch, the radio stations we listen to and the movies we see are owned by one of these six main corporations. Is this a good or a bad situation? Is the fact that almost the whole media is owned by a very few a positive or a negative aspect? Some argue that this brings benefits to the free market, the multi-billion companies and ultimately, the viewers. On the other hand, others say that this concentration of media ownership has a negative effect on the market and on society as a whole (articleworld.org).

    Image
    People are almost "forced" to wonder if the media controls as well our public taste and interest. They control the information we receive, but not only that, they control exactly what we receive and the way we do, therefore they control what we think. Media companies do not care about how they can be more objective and provide people news and information with a neutral point of view (even thought it sounds contradictory). We could say that they "unintentionally" or "indirectly" tell us what to think and what to believe. A newspaper finds some news and automatically interprets them, even though journalists try to focus on the facts, as many claim, they subconsciously have and opinion about whatever subject they are reporting about. This takes us to the point of "lack of diversity" that is a reality nowadays and that so many criticize. Danny Schechter, a television producer, independent filmmaker, blogger, and media critic states that "we have many channels and a tremendous lack of diversity." It wouldn't be strange to think that a news broadcast would withhold information if it had a negative effect on the company.

    From an international perspective, this situation of media merging is also beneficial for the big conglomerates. For instance, News Corporation owns the top newspaper on 3 continents, that is the Wall Street Journal in the U.S, The Sun in Europe and The Australian in Australia (Lutz, Jason, 2012). The positive aspect of this, is that the spreading of this "influence" is good for the company, and at the same time, readers get what they want, which is reading that newspaper. However, the bad aspect is that big conglomerates are big companies, and big companies main priority is always money, above everything else. Getting more readers, viewers and listeners is for the one and only purpose that matters to them: Money. That is what brings bad or "controversial" consequences, and one of them is that in 2012, they avoided $875 million in U.S taxes (Lutz, Jason, 2012). That would have been enough to double FEMA's budget, or to fund NPR for 40 years. Nonetheless, technically this cannot be criticized since they are a private corporation after all. Another issue that is a big concern in the European Union is the media transparency and plurality.

    Transparency is an essential component of pluralism (Stolte & Smith, 2010). Although the Council of Europe and the European Parliament have brought out recommendations regarding media transparency in the last few years, these have not been acted on. It is left to Member States to implement legislation regarding media ownership transparency, and there is by no means a unified or standard approach to be found across Europe (Stolte & Smith, 2010). This is a big issue in the European Union. The media's duty is to provide objective information to the public through newspapers, television and radio, in order for the public to make public as well as personal decisions in the diverse fields.

    Screen shot 2013-10-21 at 15.57.44

    It may sound scary -and it does to a lot of people- the fact that all our media is controlled by a few big conglomerates, forming an oligopoly, with the power of doing -almost- whatever they want. Also, it is true that this situation implies a very few and personal points of view, and the opportunity for those big conglomerates to "control" in a way what goes out, and how it does. Making the audience think in a certain way. This Infographic shows the media ownsership in the U.S currently.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Manafort's Ukraine ties being probed by FBI by Michael Isikoff

    This is a serious hit. And timing is perfect. Ukrainian government has connections to Hillary. If this is not interference n US election, I do not know what is. And Clinton Foundation ties to Ukraine are not investigated. Podesta firm (run by his brother) is involved by this involvement is hashed down. There is an interesting implicit hypothesis voiced in this article: the regime that replaced Yanukovich is less corrupt and less beholder to impoverishing Ukraine for the benefit of neoliberals like Soros. But the truth is that the country is now is much poor then it was under Yanukovich with his thieves. The best way to convert the country into debt slave is to wage a war. That's exactly what new leaders immediately did. See Ukraine denouement Michael Hudson. Of course FBI will not be investigating that. Like they refuse to investigate things about Hillary. Neoliberals are above the law, other people not so much.
    Isicoff said that Trump is attempting to delegitimize the current political establishment. I think he is correct if he means neoliberals (which MSM are afraid to call by name; imagine the same situation with communists when members of communist party were prohibited to call themselves communist; that would make communism closer to neoliberalism (which is essentially Trotskyism for rich)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Another firm, the Podesta Group, headed by Tony Podesta, brother of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, was also recruited by a Manafort deputy and lobbied for the European Centre. In a lengthy statement Friday, the Podesta Group said it had retained another Washington law firm, Caplin & Drysdale,"to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre's potential ties to foreign governments or political parties." ..."
    "... The lobbyists, political operators and former politicians are allowed to play all three roles interchangeably and that has (and continues) to lead to US foreign policies that consistently work AGAINST the best interests of the American people and the future well being of the country BUT in the in financial best interests of the special interests who own our elected officials and the mainstream media and thus call the shots. ..."
    "... This current case is a very close parallel to the case presidential candidate John McCains' chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, who was a paid lobbyist for for the former Soviet republic of Georgia which explains McCain's insistent that the US should intervene in the Russian/Geogian conflict of 2008 by bombing the pass thru which Russian troops were streaming into Georgia following Georgia attempt to claim South Ossetia and Abkhazia by force of arms. Yes, contrary to US media reports that was was started by the Georgians when they decided to invade and take back by force a couple of disputed regions and killed a number of Russian peacekeeper in the process. ..."
    "... So I guess this means that the FBI will give the Clinton Foundation similar scrutiny since Manafort's $12 million is chump change compared to the hundreds of millions the Clintons got from shady foreign governments in exchange for special favors. Yeah, right! Funny, I didn't know Manafort had more power in the US than the Clintons and so was more dangerous to national security. ..."
    "... Typical Clinton Machine deflection and distraction from their own worse crimes. Typical pro Hillary Yahoo 'news.' Read Breitbart and the Daily Caller, folks if you want real investigative reporting. ..."
    "... The FBI and Department of Justice have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. ..."
    "... It turns out that Hillary Clinton's campaign guru, head of the lobbying firm the Podesta Group, has found himself smack dab in the middle of the same criminal investigation spawned when devious political operatives decide to merge international relations with campaign politics. For weeks, the pages of the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal have chimed that Trump is a "Putin pawn" as part of some maniacal plot by the Kremlin to interfere with the US election. ..."
    "... The controversy for Podesta links to his work for the Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a Brussels based organization that describes itself as "an advocate for enhancing EU-Ukraine relations." Unfortunately for Mr. Podesta, the organization has been described as "an operation controlled by Yanukovych" and tied to the former leader's Party of Regions suggesting the Podesta Group may have been, like has been said of Paul Manafort, tasked with greater reporting requirements pursuant to US law. ..."
    August 19, 2016 | yahoo.com

    The Justice Department and the FBI are conducting a wide-ranging investigation into allegations of corrupt dealings by the government of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, including the hiring of Washington lobbyists for the regime by former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a senior law enforcement official confirmed to Yahoo News.

    The investigation, which was first reported by CNN, began two years ago after Yanukovych fled Kiev to Moscow and was replaced by the current government of Petro Poroshenko, the official said. But the inquiry has expanded in recent weeks in the wake of the discovery of documents showing $12.7 million in payments to Manafort by Yanukovych's Party of Regions political party. Investigators are also looking into reports that Manafort recruited two top Washington lobbying firms to advocate on behalf of a Belgian nonprofit that investigators now believe may have served as a front for Yanukovych's party. Neither of the firms, the Mercury Group and the Podesta Group, registered with the U.S. Justice Department as foreign agents - a requirement if they represented a foreign government or political party.

    The disclosure of the Justice Department investigation came on the same day that Manafort stepped down as Trump's campaign chairman - news that sent new shockwaves through Republican circles. Manafort, who served for years as a campaign consultant to Yanukovych, declined requests for comment. But a close associate of his who asked not to be identified explained his resignation this way: Manafort "is not going to take orders or relinquish power to people like" Kellyanne Conway, the new Trump campaign manager, and Steve Bannon, the newly named CEO of the campaign. The Manafort associate also blamed the rapidly unfolding Ukraine allegations on "oppo research" being spread by Corey Lewandowski, Trump's former campaign manager and a bitter foe of Manafort

    Ken Gross, a lawyer at Skadden Arps, which represents the Mercury Group, one of the lobbying firms recruited by Manafort, told Yahoo News that his firm has been "engaged to look into the matter" of whether Mercury was required to register as a foreign agent with the Justice Department when, at Manafort's request, it agreed to represent the Brussels-based European Centre for a Modern Ukraine in 2012. Lobbying reports reviewed by Yahoo News show that the firms sought to burnish Yanokovych's reputation and lobbied against congressional resolutions condemning the regime's treatment of political opponents and opposing Russian aggression in Ukraine.

    Another firm, the Podesta Group, headed by Tony Podesta, brother of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, was also recruited by a Manafort deputy and lobbied for the European Centre. In a lengthy statement Friday, the Podesta Group said it had retained another Washington law firm, Caplin & Drysdale,"to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre's potential ties to foreign governments or political parties."

    The statement added: "When the Centre became a client, it certified in writing that 'none of the activities of the Centre are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party.' We relied on that certification and advice from counsel in registering and reporting under the Lobbying Disclosure Act rather than the Foreign Agents Registration Act. We will take whatever measures are necessary to address this situation based on Caplin & Drysdale's review, including possible legal action against the Centre."

    Sevgil Musaieva, editor of Ukrainskaye Pravda, a newspaper that has conducted multiple investigations into corruption under the Yanukovych regime, told Yahoo News that she first met with a team of FBI agents at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev two years ago. At the time, the new government headed by Poroshenko had asked the FBI for assistance in tracking down millions of dollars that it believed had been stolen by Yanukovych and his associates before they fled Kiev. "The FBI came to Kiev and started an investigation," she said. They asked her detailed questions about what she knew about allegations of corrupt dealings by the Yanukovych regime.

    But sources familiar with the probe say it expanded after a Ukrainian anticorruption bureau discovered a "black book" said to show "off-the-books" cash payments from the party to Manafort totaling $12.7 million between 2007 and 2012. Entries show that some of the payments were signed by a former member of the Ukrainian Parliament who was also a board member of the European Centre. Documents also purportedly show payments to the executive director of the center, according to a source familiar with the probe, reinforcing suspicions that the group was fronting for Yanukovych's political party.

    Sage

    The lobbyists, political operators and former politicians are allowed to play all three roles interchangeably and that has (and continues) to lead to US foreign policies that consistently work AGAINST the best interests of the American people and the future well being of the country BUT in the in financial best interests of the special interests who own our elected officials and the mainstream media and thus call the shots.

    Manafort is getting all this negative publicity only now, years AFTER the fact, because of two reasons---1) the political/special interests are deathly afraid that a Trump victory because they may not be able to control him and thus he might upset their lucrative apple cart that has made them obscenely wealthy at the expense of the rest of the country; and 2)secondly because that Manafort was backing the wrong horse in a race in which the special interests are actively trying to isolate and surround Russian militarily in order to remove a potential obstacle to their goal of global domination thru bought and paid for US politicians.

    However, this incestuous and obscene criminal behavior involving lobbyist/political operator has been going on for a long time and it much wider spread than is normally reported because the special interest owed media usually has no reason to expose it; in fact they usually have reason NOT to expose it.

    This current case is a very close parallel to the case presidential candidate John McCains' chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, who was a paid lobbyist for for the former Soviet republic of Georgia which explains McCain's insistent that the US should intervene in the Russian/Geogian conflict of 2008 by bombing the pass thru which Russian troops were streaming into Georgia following Georgia attempt to claim South Ossetia and Abkhazia by force of arms. Yes, contrary to US media reports that was was started by the Georgians when they decided to invade and take back by force a couple of disputed regions and killed a number of Russian peacekeeper in the process.

    Of course Scheunemann, unlike Manafort, came out completely unscathed and totally untouched by the media because war lover McCain supported the special interests' agenda because unlike Manafort, he was aiding and abetting the same "horse" the neo-con State Dept and the CIA had their bets on.

    A Mcp

    So I guess this means that the FBI will give the Clinton Foundation similar scrutiny since Manafort's $12 million is chump change compared to the hundreds of millions the Clintons got from shady foreign governments in exchange for special favors. Yeah, right! Funny, I didn't know Manafort had more power in the US than the Clintons and so was more dangerous to national security.

    Typical Clinton Machine deflection and distraction from their own worse crimes. Typical pro Hillary Yahoo 'news.' Read Breitbart and the Daily Caller, folks if you want real investigative reporting.

    Billy Willy

    So you biased Hillary asslickers think we don;t know about her SAME issues? So report on this you morons:

    The FBI and Department of Justice have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

    It seems like just yesterday that the top campaign official for Donald Trump found himself caught in the middle of a political dragnet for his work as a lobbyist on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych with the media clamoring about his purported ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin as a reason why the Republican nominee was a less desirable candidate than Hillary Clinton. Wait, that was just yesterday?

    It turns out that Hillary Clinton's campaign guru, head of the lobbying firm the Podesta Group, has found himself smack dab in the middle of the same criminal investigation spawned when devious political operatives decide to merge international relations with campaign politics. For weeks, the pages of the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal have chimed that Trump is a "Putin pawn" as part of some maniacal plot by the Kremlin to interfere with the US election.

    Turns out, the Podesta Group founded by none other than John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chair and chief strategies, was retained by the Russian-owned firm UraniumOne in 2012, 2014, and 2015 to lobby Hillary Clinton's State Department based on John Podesta's longstanding relations with the Clinton family – he was the White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton.

    Interestingly, UraniumOne's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation from 2009 to 2013. Perhaps a more blatant evidence of allegations that Hillary Clinton's State Department operated on a pay-to-play basis is the fact that, as the New York Times reported last April, "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting UraniumOne stock.

    Not only are investigators wondering whether there was any impropriety in the lobbying arrangement such as the provision of beneficial treatment by the State Department to an old friend, but they are also probing the work that Viktor Yanukovych's regime paid the Podesta Group to do while he was the head of the Ukrainian government.

    The controversy for Podesta links to his work for the Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a Brussels based organization that describes itself as "an advocate for enhancing EU-Ukraine relations." Unfortunately for Mr. Podesta, the organization has been described as "an operation controlled by Yanukovych" and tied to the former leader's Party of Regions suggesting the Podesta Group may have been, like has been said of Paul Manafort, tasked with greater reporting requirements pursuant to US law.

    The Podesta Group quickly hired the white-shoe law firm Caplin & Drysdale as "independent, outside legal counsel to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre's potential ties to foreign governments or political parties."

    Alan

    The bummers FBI who just let off Hillary who should have been indicted and imprisoned? What a shock that they are involved.

    [Aug 21, 2016] An Open Letter From Mr. Trump -

    This Maureen Dowd column reminds me writing about Western capitalist society by some not too brainwashed Soviet propagandists. She managed to put into anti-trump diatibe (which is a requirement for NYT writers; to writing such column is a must; this is just a survival skill) some really damning things about Hillary.
    Notable quotes:
    "... She's like Lyin' Lochte, just sorry she got caught. Hearing her apologize is as likely as seeing those 33,000 yoga emails. ..."
    "... I'm sorry the Clintons didn't realize until now how bad it was to be using the State Department as a favor factory for big donors to the foundation. I'm all for pay-for-play, but only at my golf courses. ..."
    "... I'm sorry Hillary had to besmirch poor Colin Powell by claiming he gave her the idea for private emails. Hasn't his reputation suffered enough pushing that phony war at the U.N.? ..."
    Aug 20, 2016 | The New York Times

    I hated to ship Paul off to Siberia. But Jared and Corey told me I couldn't get swept up in an international money-laundering scandal while I was accusing Hillary of doing favors at State for a money launderer and Clinton Foundation donor.

    ... ... ...

    I'm sorry Huma is posing for Vogue instead of keeping her husband, the pervert, from sexting online again.

    ... ... ...

    I'm sorry that while I'm being too honest, Crooked Hillary is never really sorry for all her lies and illegal operations. She's like Lyin' Lochte, just sorry she got caught. Hearing her apologize is as likely as seeing those 33,000 yoga emails.

    I'm sorry the Clintons didn't realize until now how bad it was to be using the State Department as a favor factory for big donors to the foundation. I'm all for pay-for-play, but only at my golf courses.

    I'm sorry Hillary had to besmirch poor Colin Powell by claiming he gave her the idea for private emails. Hasn't his reputation suffered enough pushing that phony war at the U.N.?

    [Aug 21, 2016] The Clintons, along with Obama, have consistently sided with neoliberalsNeocons/ Trump is against globalistion, bad trade deals, interminable foreign wars and wants to fix America bybringing back jobs, etc. The standard line is that Trump is - oh horror – racist because he wants to stop immigration.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Carla, you are right about the main focus of these trade deals. Sure, it's about degrading labor and avoiding sensible regulation. More importantly, it's about making an end run around democracy and enscouncing the profiteers above governments. The Clinton's, along with Obama, have consistently sided with these elites. ..."
    "... Trump is against globalistion, bad trade deals, interminable foreign wars and wants to fix America by bringing back jobs, etc. The standard line is that Trump is - oh horror – "racist" because he wants to stop immigation. Therefore, etc. ..."
    "... FedupPleb – My thought exactly. Trump has personality issues but many of his positions, sketchy as they are, are in the right ballpark. Clinton by contrast seems to be rated "progressive" mainly because of surprisingly enduring loyalty to the Democrat brand. ..."
    "... The Clintonites are selling First Woman President as an Identity-Progressive goal and achievement. Just as the Obamazoids sold First Black President as an Identity-Progressive goal and achievement. ..."
    "... No, he has called for a $10 minimum wage. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/politics/donald-trump-minimum-wage Not great but not nuthin'. ..."
    "... the bible thumping crowd. Those constituents are not internationalist or pro trade deals. They have been afraid of 'world government' as opposed to nationalism; they have wanted even more local control for decades. ..."
    "... These 'allies' will move the ball. They will shake up the existing coalitions vs the stagnation and corruption we have now. Even as a switch between sets of oligarchs, if they keep Trump's promises, they will give the populace some breathing room. ..."
    "... When a republican candidate, Trump, can push Hillary to the left on such major issues as on war and trade deals, is she really the progressive here? A true progressive would not need to be dragged or pushed to the left. These are MAJOR issues. ..."
    "... Her warmonging and TPP support count against her. Her history in Haiti, etc., count against her. That's not to defend Trump as progressive in any meaningful sense. Just that Clinton is no improvement. ..."
    "... Agreed. This is a joke and Becky Bond, whoever she is, is living in a fantasy world if she thinks these faux progressive careerists will do anything to jeopardize their cush positions (or chance at cush positions, pathetic as that is). ..."
    "... I visit their blogs and watch them: its either outright Stockholm Syndrome (for those who had or have an ethical bone in their bodies) or insincere and dishonest posturing as "progressives" all around. They will hold Clinton as accountable as they held Obama. ..."
    "... The Clinton supporters that live in her bubble are insiders will never betray her because they benefit from the jobs they hope/will have in her administration. ..."
    "... "The narrative that it was the big bad obstructionist Republicans that stopped Obama's change is mostly false." I think it's totally false. If Obama had been who he portrayed on TV pre-election, the democrats would not have lost their seats in the next election. He gave the 2010 elections to the Republicans, so any obstruction from then on was his own creation. ..."
    "... "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence." ..."
    "... Average voters are a group to be messaged/pandered to on a 2/4/6 year cycle and then ignored between election cycles. ..."
    "... When a politician says he cares about the common man, see who he golfs with, see who he has dinner with, it's not the common man ..."
    "... Y'all can hold her feet to the fire all you want. She has asbestos feet. She'll never know the difference. She'll never even feel it. ..."
    "... Yea hard to say who is even being addressed. Nobodies voting for Clinton with voting as their main act of political participation? ..."
    "... Left activists? Let's be realistic how many left activist support Clinton? ..."
    "... This post greatly diminishes my esteem for the opinions of Gaius Publius. "Hold her accountable" as proposed? While we're at it we can bell the cat. Both major parties and government in this country at all levels National, State, and Local are captured beyond any accountability to the public. Our government is no longer interested in the Public Interest and as for the Public Good the term "Good" is only a synonym for a Commodity - as in goods and services. ..."
    "... The spectacle of Sanders kneeling and kissing the Clinton ring, even though reasonably 'spun' as a necessity for political 'survival' by Sanders, has left a bitter taste in the mouths of the "true believers" who flocked to Sanders. ..."
    "... The Democratic Party has shown the depths to which the Clinton cabal will sink in the pursuit of power. Wresting that power out of the hands of the Despicable Duo will perhaps be more trouble than splitting the Party would be. Thus, if "we broke it," why not carry on as one part of the 'new normal' Democratic Party Spectrum. ..."
    "... I have always asked who would win an election if we voted by policy instead of by name in an election? Of course I am assuming that a candidate would tell the truth about their positions from the beginning and not change after they won. Trump, Stein and Johnson have been honest about their positions but Clinton changes with the wind. ..."
    "... The ridicule is a badge of honor. It is the "laughter of fools". Both candidates of the major parties are unacceptable in their own way. To vote for either is to accept subjugation with a smile. Don't be fooled. Whatever happens in the election will be blamed on minor parties by the losing side. Vote your conscience and know that if you were to vote for either major party candidate you would be complicit in the destruction that will follow. ..."
    "... She will be in office for eight years and all the Trumpers will fortify their positions and mobilize on an even greater scale when she is done reigning whatever hell she brings with her. I'm seeing Weimar Republic politics here, and I don't like it. ..."
    "... I have seen it argued that the biggest benefit of sticking with one of the mainstream parties is the 'ground game,' or organizational templates already in place. ..."
    "... The corollary of the earlier assertion of mine about "true believers" is that, except for insular or separatist movements, true believers act as cadres around which larger aggregates coalesce to form an effective party. Trump is effecting this with his courting of the 'second division' level of Republican operatives. The outpouring of negative propaganda from the 'top tier' Republicans suggests a semi panic mind set. The virulence of the anti Trump screeching reinforces the perception that the senior Republicans fear that they can lose to Trump in the power struggle. ..."
    "... All very true, ambrit. The Greens have been on the margins for longer than they should have been because the myth of Nader spoiling the 2000 election has had lasting effect. Hell, I believed it myself until I took the time to take a second look this year. ..."
    "... I'd like to think that I'm not particularly in the vanguard here, and that many other people have recognized that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. The only option for progressives is to start filling in the ranks, to be vocal and to be active. To find talented candidates for down ticket races. ..."
    "... tradeunions in the UK are both stronger and more radical in their leadership and membership than in the USA ..."
    "... voting rule in the usa are state-by-state and filled with various opportunities for suppressing votes. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Michael C , August 20, 2016 at 9:44 am

    Carla, you are right about the main focus of these trade deals. Sure, it's about degrading labor and avoiding sensible regulation. More importantly, it's about making an end run around democracy and enscouncing the profiteers above governments. The Clinton's, along with Obama, have consistently sided with these elites.

    FedupPLeb , August 20, 2016 at 6:51 am

    . That Clinton is a better progressive choice than Trump is not much contested.

    But shouldn't it be?

    Trump is against globalistion, bad trade deals, interminable foreign wars and wants to fix America by bringing back jobs, etc. The standard line is that Trump is - oh horror – "racist" because he wants to stop immigation. Therefore, etc.

    But don't workers have a genuine interest in protecting the bargaining power of labour? If a capitalist declares that he will import workers from Mexico or India or Russia, or just export his entire production chain to China, because US labour is too expensive. Is it more "progressive" to declare these worried workers racist, or backward, or too intellectual challenged to see the benefits of a global supply chain and its cheap ipads for all still in salaried (i.e. unoutsourced) employment.

    But no matter. Hillary says nice things about hispanic-americans and has long ties to the black community over the last few decades as their standard of living has stagnated with everyone else. She supports LGBT rights and Trump probably doesn't even though I can't think of any negative statements he may have made but OK Hillary is the more Progressive candidate OK. Obviously.

    DWD , August 20, 2016 at 8:37 am

    About the only thing that is progressive for Clinton is the endless dick swinging .

    NYPaul , August 20, 2016 at 11:20 pm

    Pat………..

    "Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's LGBT community." This is a very dark moment in America's history. A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation."

    "It is a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation. It is an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want and express their identity."

    "I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, and Jewish people, are the targets of persecution and intimidation by radical Islamic preachers of hate and violence, it's a "quality-of-life issue."

    "If we want to protect the quality of life for all Americans – women and children, gay and straight, Jews and Christians and all people – then we need to tell the truth about radical Islam," he said.

    Read more at http://www.businessinsider.my/donald-trump-lgbt-orlando-speech-2016-6/#cDGqLoRmJARSSmfk.99

    Another Gordon , August 20, 2016 at 8:03 am

    FedupPleb – My thought exactly. Trump has personality issues but many of his positions, sketchy as they are, are in the right ballpark. Clinton by contrast seems to be rated "progressive" mainly because of surprisingly enduring loyalty to the Democrat brand.

    The best definition of a brand I ever came across is "a compelling promise, reliably honoured". How's that been working out for Dems in recent years?

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 2:15 am

    The Clintonites are selling First Woman President as an Identity-Progressive goal and achievement. Just as the Obamazoids sold First Black President as an Identity-Progressive goal and achievement.

    jrs , August 20, 2016 at 9:03 am

    Trump is of course against the minimum wage. Trump is interested in the power of labor, man they can not pass legalized marijuana fast enough, and maybe I can pretend it all makes sense.

    Yves Smith Post author , August 21, 2016 at 12:52 am

    No, he has called for a $10 minimum wage. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/politics/donald-trump-minimum-wage Not great but not nuthin'.

    sharonsj , August 20, 2016 at 9:47 am

    What Trump says doesn't matter (just like Clinton). Take a look at his VP and his advisors. Pence is a dominionist nutjob and the rest of Trump's team are ultra-right-wing bible thumpers. He may say he's against the TPP but his team is for it. As for the Constitution the Republicans are always waving about, they really don't care what's in it unless they can use it to their advantage.

    EndOfTheWorld , August 20, 2016 at 10:48 am

    "take a look at his vp"-that selection was a bone he HAD to throw to the GOP bigwigs so he could make it through the GOP convention. The VP will have no power in the Trump presidency, as even the venerable Yves has pointed out. The only one who took control was Richard "the Bruce" Cheney, and that was a special case.

    The only way Pence will have power is if Trump gets whacked, which is indeed a possibility.

    local to oakland , August 20, 2016 at 10:57 am

    I'm not part of, but I have some direct personal experience with the bible thumping crowd. Those constituents are not internationalist or pro trade deals. They have been afraid of 'world government' as opposed to nationalism; they have wanted even more local control for decades.

    These 'allies' will move the ball. They will shake up the existing coalitions vs the stagnation and corruption we have now. Even as a switch between sets of oligarchs, if they keep Trump's promises, they will give the populace some breathing room.

    As I said to a coworker in a political discussion yesterday, there are very few issues I would weigh above the Supreme Court, but Clinton's pro corporate, pro war stance has taken me to that place.

    TedWa , August 20, 2016 at 10:28 am

    I dispute that as a given also – When a republican candidate, Trump, can push Hillary to the left on such major issues as on war and trade deals, is she really the progressive here? A true progressive would not need to be dragged or pushed to the left. These are MAJOR issues.

    aab , August 21, 2016 at 12:40 am

    Actually, there's evidence in her private speech (leaked emails, etc.) that Hillary is pretty hostile to LGBT rights. Her public speech, of course, should be discounted as performative and dishonest. I think Trump has made some very positive statements about the LGBT community, but I can't point to a reference offhand. That could certainly be equally dishonest and performative. But he doesn't have the same documented history of pandering that way, and unlike Hillary, he's not an evangelical Christian. There's also evidence that in reality Hillary is quite racist, as well.

    I will step up and dispute that she's more progressive. I don't think she is. Her warmonging and TPP support count against her. Her history in Haiti, etc., count against her. That's not to defend Trump as progressive in any meaningful sense. Just that Clinton is no improvement.

    Kokuanani , August 20, 2016 at 7:03 am

    How on earth does ANYONE [other than the FIRE industry, her neo-con pals and the climate killers] "hold her accountable" or have any influence on her?

    She's got the nomination, there's little doubt she'll win the election, she's got 100% of DNC Dems behind her. WTF are folks supposed to do to have any sort of weight in a Clinton administration?

    And if Ms. Bond is speaking to those close to Clinton, what makes her think they WANT to have any influence for good?

    YankeeFrank , August 20, 2016 at 7:11 am

    Agreed. This is a joke and Becky Bond, whoever she is, is living in a fantasy world if she thinks these faux progressive careerists will do anything to jeopardize their cush positions (or chance at cush positions, pathetic as that is).

    I visit their blogs and watch them: its either outright Stockholm Syndrome (for those who had or have an ethical bone in their bodies) or insincere and dishonest posturing as "progressives" all around. They will hold Clinton as accountable as they held Obama.

    DavidE , August 20, 2016 at 8:44 am

    The Clinton supporters that live in her bubble are insiders will never betray her because they benefit from the jobs they hope/will have in her administration. It is the mass of voters who believed what she said are the ones that have to get out and hold her feet to the fire. Most rolled over and said nothing as Obama's "change we can believe in" was only a slogan to fool us. The narrative that it was the big bad obstructionist Republicans that stopped Obama's change is mostly false. Obama never ever fought for real change. He talked a good game but did nothing. The best way to make politicians listen to us is that we show up in mass (millions) in DC and demand that government act in our behalf.

    TedWa , August 20, 2016 at 10:38 am

    "The narrative that it was the big bad obstructionist Republicans that stopped Obama's change is mostly false." I think it's totally false. If Obama had been who he portrayed on TV pre-election, the democrats would not have lost their seats in the next election. He gave the 2010 elections to the Republicans, so any obstruction from then on was his own creation.

    John Wright , August 20, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    Then there is the frequently referenced Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper at

    https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

    "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

    Average voters are a group to be messaged/pandered to on a 2/4/6 year cycle and then ignored between election cycles.

    My high school civics teacher (Los Angeles County public school) made a statement 30+ years ago I still remember. "When a politician says he cares about the common man, see who he golfs with, see who he has dinner with, it's not the common man"

    About the only thing that needs to be updated in the statement is the "he" needs to be revised to "he/she"

    Perhaps the best the average citizen can hope for is that there are interest groups on both sides on an issue, but a profitable business group with a rich source of funding vs a public interest group depending on contributions seems mismatched.

    Even when there are powerful business groups that differ on current policy, change is difficult, for example US government price support for domestic sugar producers is opposed by the large sugar industry consumers (candy makers, soft drink producers), but the TPP specifically leaves this USA government subsidy in place.

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 2:17 am

    Y'all can hold her feet to the fire all you want. She has asbestos feet. She'll never know the difference. She'll never even feel it.

    jrs , August 20, 2016 at 9:11 am

    Yea hard to say who is even being addressed. Nobodies voting for Clinton with voting as their main act of political participation? Sometimes they might just be uninformed, or they may have voted for her thinking she would fare better against Trump, or if better off they might have voted their privilege, etc.. But they have no real power.

    Left activists? Let's be realistic how many left activist support Clinton? I have no doubt many supported Bernie while some may only support Stein etc. but Clinton? I have my doubts there are almost ANY actual left activists who supported Clinton over Sanders (over Trump maybe, but not over Sanders). But he means some talking head somewhere who isn't even an activist but has a public platform? Those people have been bought and paid for.

    EndOfTheWorld , August 20, 2016 at 10:49 am

    "there's little doubt she'll win the election"-not true.

    Jeremy Grimm , August 20, 2016 at 11:10 am

    This post greatly diminishes my esteem for the opinions of Gaius Publius. "Hold her accountable" as proposed? While we're at it we can bell the cat. Both major parties and government in this country at all levels National, State, and Local are captured beyond any accountability to the public. Our government is no longer interested in the Public Interest and as for the Public Good the term "Good" is only a synonym for a Commodity - as in goods and services.

    I supported Sanders. The primary and convention made it clear that making change within the system is no longer a real option. In the best of all possible worlds I feel it's time to tend my garden - far away from the action and with my head held low.

    ambrit , August 20, 2016 at 7:14 am

    The spectacle of Sanders kneeling and kissing the Clinton ring, even though reasonably 'spun' as a necessity for political 'survival' by Sanders, has left a bitter taste in the mouths of the "true believers" who flocked to Sanders.

    There should be little hope of those who embraced the cognitive dissonance that is the Clinton campaign suddenly 'seeing the light' and pivoting to an internally activist position in the Democratic Party. Far from righting the 'progressive' course of the Ship of State, many will conclude that this is just another 'Ship of Fools.'

    Any prospective transformative political movement needs a cadre of "true believers" to energize and channel that energy in the "proper" direction. The Democratic Party has shown the depths to which the Clinton cabal will sink in the pursuit of power. Wresting that power out of the hands of the Despicable Duo will perhaps be more trouble than splitting the Party would be. Thus, if "we broke it," why not carry on as one part of the 'new normal' Democratic Party Spectrum.

    "True believers" respond to appeals to their better nature more readily than appeals to their fear of 'others.' Real 'progressives' would rather live in a New Jerusalem than the White House Outhouse. The 'hostile takeover' of any political party requires a full housecleaning. Half measures will not suffice.

    DavidE , August 20, 2016 at 8:49 am

    I have always asked who would win an election if we voted by policy instead of by name in an election? Of course I am assuming that a candidate would tell the truth about their positions from the beginning and not change after they won. Trump, Stein and Johnson have been honest about their positions but Clinton changes with the wind.

    ... ... ...

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 20, 2016 at 9:19 am

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/25/443287/- You'll want to scroll down, but Edwards won the debate focus groups and polled "undecideds" in 2007 and 2008. Edwards was well to the left of Obama and Hillary from his campaign positions.

    Stephen Gardner , August 20, 2016 at 8:57 am

    The ridicule is a badge of honor. It is the "laughter of fools". Both candidates of the major parties are unacceptable in their own way. To vote for either is to accept subjugation with a smile. Don't be fooled. Whatever happens in the election will be blamed on minor parties by the losing side. Vote your conscience and know that if you were to vote for either major party candidate you would be complicit in the destruction that will follow.

    Michael C , August 20, 2016 at 10:00 am

    I would rather vote for what I want and not get it than to vote for what I don't want and get it. –Eugene Debs. Sanders, you should have remembered the words of your hero whose picture hangs on your office wall.

    Rosario , August 20, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    ... ... ...

    And on to the doom of a Trump presidency. The supposed logic that Hillary will "stop" Trump. I guess people forget that all the right-wing populists that support Trump are not going anywhere. They are having kids and they are rearing them in their toxic worldview. Hillary has done and will do nothing to build an ideology that counters the Trump crowd. Cover our ears and our eyes and it will all go away is the strategy. She will be in office for eight years and all the Trumpers will fortify their positions and mobilize on an even greater scale when she is done reigning whatever hell she brings with her. I'm seeing Weimar Republic politics here, and I don't like it.

    ambrit , August 20, 2016 at 9:04 am

    I have seen it argued that the biggest benefit of sticking with one of the mainstream parties is the 'ground game,' or organizational templates already in place. The Greens are chided for organizational weakness. Whether true or not, this "branding" of the Greens as feckless is a major impediment to popular acceptance of the party. The marginalization of the Green Party in the media magnifies whatever true weaknesses there are within the party.

    The corollary of the earlier assertion of mine about "true believers" is that, except for insular or separatist movements, true believers act as cadres around which larger aggregates coalesce to form an effective party. Trump is effecting this with his courting of the 'second division' level of Republican operatives. The outpouring of negative propaganda from the 'top tier' Republicans suggests a semi panic mind set. The virulence of the anti Trump screeching reinforces the perception that the senior Republicans fear that they can lose to Trump in the power struggle.

    Even though the Sanders supporters have been 'schooled' in hard ball politics by the Clinton camp, they still need a hope for success to motivate them to continue the struggle. The above comments anet the Greens show a perception that the Greens cannot supply that success. It may be all smoke and mirrors, but, absent some serious counter propaganda from the Green Party, the ginned up MSM portrayal of the Greens as irrelevant is pretty much all the information the Sanders supporters have to base a decision on. Get a Green governor, or some Green congresspeople, and the Greens gain inestimable status. It may look like a chicken or egg puzzle, but better propaganda is a good place to start.

    It's time for the Greens to stop looking like victims and to start looking and acting like victors.

    Michael C. , August 20, 2016 at 10:03 am

    Carla, you are right about the main focus of these trade deals. Sure, it's about degrading labor and avoiding sensible regulation. More importantly, it's about rimning sn end rin around democracy and ensconcing the profiteers above governments.

    Otis B Driftwood , August 20, 2016 at 10:12 am

    All very true, ambrit. The Greens have been on the margins for longer than they should have been because the myth of Nader spoiling the 2000 election has had lasting effect. Hell, I believed it myself until I took the time to take a second look this year.

    I'd like to think that I'm not particularly in the vanguard here, and that many other people have recognized that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. The only option for progressives is to start filling in the ranks, to be vocal and to be active. To find talented candidates for down ticket races.

    Unfortunately, one of the ironies of the current Democratic party is that it still does have some room for progressives in state and local office. That's why Zephyr Teachout is still a Democrat. She can win without the full backing of the party. And, I suspect equally unfortunately, she reckons that she would have a harder time running as a Green due to voter bias.

    That's what needs to change. Voters need to see the Green party as a viable alternative. It is indeed a chicken and egg problem. And that's why I see the Stein campaign as an important step in helping rehabilitate the Green party in the minds of voters.

    It is also critically important for progressives to not relent on our critique of neoliberalism and the Democratic party. The so-called progressives like Adolph Reed and others who have already capitulated need to be vigorously rejected.

    If Stein can get enough support this year it may convince candidates of Teachout's caliber that they can run successfully as Green party members and that will start the necessary momentum to building the party from the local and state level upward.

    Anyway, I've donated money to the Stein campaign and I've got my yard sign in front of my house and my "none of the above" sticker on my truck. I'm doing what I can in my own way.

    johnnygl , August 21, 2016 at 12:28 pm

    I'd like to make a couple of points to add to this little side discussion of the Sanders vs. Corbyn compare and contrast.

    1. tradeunions in the UK are both stronger and more radical in their leadership and membership than in the USA. Union leadership in the usa is still wedded to the dem elite, sometimes against the wishes of their members. There have been splits where some unions like nat nurses united and chicago teachers unions have supported sanders and opposed elite dems, but imagine if uaw and afscme had flipped on clinton. That would have really shaken things up. Insurgency plus institutional support is much tougher for the elites to control.
    2. voting rule in the usa are state-by-state and filled with various opportunities for suppressing votes. Imagine if the rules were that anyone could join and vote if they paid $5 and no 'purges' of voters or ridiculous rules like ny where you have to join 6 months in advance. In fact the blairites/plp in england seem to be trying to recreate some of the same tricks and traps that the dems used here.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Hillary said she was against the TPP as currently written

    Notable quotes:
    "... You know, the light bulb over my head went on when Hillary said she was against the TPP "as currently written." Political speak for: she'll fiddle with some words, pronounce it fixed, and pass it ..."
    "... her surrogates extol her penchant for "free trade" and are sure she will support it. ..."
    July 29, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com
    sharonsj , July 29, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    You know, the light bulb over my head went on when Hillary said she was against the TPP "as currently written." Political speak for: she'll fiddle with some words, pronounce it fixed, and pass it.

    And while she and Kaine claim now to be against the TPP, her surrogates extol her penchant for "free trade" and are sure she will support it.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Hillary and the War Party by Carl Boggs

    Notable quotes:
    "... You haven't heard much from the Democrats lately about foreign policy or global agendas – indeed virtually nothing at the Philadelphia convention and little worthy of mention along the campaign trail. ..."
    "... But no one should be fooled: a Clinton presidency, which seems more likely by the day, can be expected to stoke a resurgent U.S. imperialism, bringing new cycles of militarism and war. The silence is illusory: Clintonites, now as before, are truly obsessed with international politics. ..."
    "... A triumphant Hillary, more "rational" and "savvy" than the looney and unpredictable Donald Trump, could well have a freer path to emboldened superpower moves not only in Europe but the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific. While the candidate has not revealed much lately, she is on record as vowing to "stand up" to Russia and China, face off against Russian "aggression", escalate the war on terror, and militarily annihilate Iran the moment it steps out of line (or is determined by "U.S. intelligence" to have stepped out of line) in its nuclear agreement with global powers. ..."
    "... A new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated "crises" in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, "usable") nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone - having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State. ..."
    "... Democratic elites say little publicly about these and other imperial priorities, preferring familiar homilies such as "bringing jobs back" (not going to happen) and "healing the country" (not going to happen). Silence appears to function exquisitely in a political culture where open and vigorous debate on foreign-policy is largely taboo and elite discourse rarely surpasses the level of banal platitudes. And Hillary's worshipful liberal and progressive backers routinely follow the script (or non-script) while fear-mongering about how a Trump presidency will destroy the country (now that the Sanders threat has vanished). ..."
    "... Who needs to be reminded that Hillary's domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global "crises" take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first. ..."
    "... There is a special logic to the Clintonites' explosive mixture of neoliberalism and militarism. They, like all corporate Democrats, are fully aligned with some of the most powerful interests in the world: Wall Street, the war economy, fossil fuels, Big Pharma, the Israel Lobby. They also have intimate ties to reactionary global forces – the neofascist regime in Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states. ..."
    "... Predictably, Trump's "unreliability" to oversee American global objectives has been an ongoing motif at CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. ..."
    "... Jackie was reported as saying "that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that a war might be started – not by men with self-control and restraint, but by little men, the ones moved by fear and pride." ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    You haven't heard much from the Democrats lately about foreign policy or global agendas – indeed virtually nothing at the Philadelphia convention and little worthy of mention along the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton's many liberal (and sadly, progressive) supporters routinely steer away from anything related to foreign policy, talk, talk, talking instead about the candidate's "experience", with obligatory nods toward her enlightened social programs. There is only the ritual demonization of that fearsome dictator, Vladimir Putin, reputedly on the verge of invading some hapless European country. Even Bernie Sanders' sorry endorsement of his erstwhile enemy, not long ago denounced as a tool of Wall Street, had nothing to say about global issues. But no one should be fooled: a Clinton presidency, which seems more likely by the day, can be expected to stoke a resurgent U.S. imperialism, bringing new cycles of militarism and war. The silence is illusory: Clintonites, now as before, are truly obsessed with international politics.

    A triumphant Hillary, more "rational" and "savvy" than the looney and unpredictable Donald Trump, could well have a freer path to emboldened superpower moves not only in Europe but the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific. While the candidate has not revealed much lately, she is on record as vowing to "stand up" to Russia and China, face off against Russian "aggression", escalate the war on terror, and militarily annihilate Iran the moment it steps out of line (or is determined by "U.S. intelligence" to have stepped out of line) in its nuclear agreement with global powers. Under Clinton, the Democrats might well be better positioned to recharge their historical legacy as War Party. One of the great political myths (and there are many) is that American liberals are inclined toward a less belligerent foreign policy than Republicans, are less militaristic and more favorable toward "diplomacy". References to Woodrow Wilson in World War I and Mexico, Harry Truman in Korea, JFK and LBJ in Indochina, Bill Clinton in the Balkans, and of course Barack Obama in Afghanistan (eight years of futile warfare), Libya (also "Hillary's War"), and scattered operations across the Middle East and North Africa should be enough to dispel such nonsense. (As for FDR and World War II, I have written extensively that the Pearl Harbor attacks were deliberately provoked by U.S. actions in the Pacific – but that is a more complicated story.)

    ... ... ...

    A new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated "crises" in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, "usable") nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone - having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State. There are currently no visible signs she would exit the protracted and criminal war in Afghanistan, a rich source of blowback (alongside Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Israel). Increased aerial bombardments against ISIS in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere? More deployments of American troops on the ground? Such ventures, with potentially others on the horizon, amount to elaborate recipes for more blowback, followed by more anti-terror hysteria, followed by more interventions. Uncompromising economic, diplomatic, and military support of Israeli atrocities in Palestine? Aggressive pursuit of the seriously mistaken "Asian Pivot", strategy, a revitalized effort to subvert Chinese economic and military power – one of Clinton's own special crusades? No wonder the Paul Wolfowitzes and Robert Kagans are delighted to join the Hillary camp.

    No wonder, too, that billionaire super-hawk Haim Saban has pledged to spend whatever is needed to get the Clintons back into the White House, convinced her presidency will do anything to maintain Palestinian colonial subjugation. Meeting with Saban in July, Hillary again promised to "oppose any effort to delegitimate Israel, including at the United Nations or through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement." She backs legislative efforts begun in several states to silence and blacklist people working on behalf of Palestinian rights. For this her celebrated "pragmatism" could work quite effectively.

    Democratic elites say little publicly about these and other imperial priorities, preferring familiar homilies such as "bringing jobs back" (not going to happen) and "healing the country" (not going to happen). Silence appears to function exquisitely in a political culture where open and vigorous debate on foreign-policy is largely taboo and elite discourse rarely surpasses the level of banal platitudes. And Hillary's worshipful liberal and progressive backers routinely follow the script (or non-script) while fear-mongering about how a Trump presidency will destroy the country (now that the Sanders threat has vanished).

    Amidst the turmoil Trump has oddly surfaced to the left of Clinton on several key global issues: cooperating instead of fighting with the Russians, keeping alive a sharp criticism of the Iraq war and the sustained regional chaos and blowback it generated, ramping down enthusiasm for more wars in the Middle East, junking "free trade" agreements, willingness to rethink the outmoded NATO alliance. If Trump, however haphazardly, manages to grasp the historical dynamics of blowback, the Clinton camp remains either indifferent or clueless, still ready for new armed ventures – cynically marketed, as in the Balkans, Iraq, and Libya, on the moral imperative of defeating some unspeakable evil, usually a "new Hitler" waging a "new genocide". Who needs to be reminded that Hillary's domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global "crises" take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first.

    ... ... ...

    ...At the other extreme, Clinton emerges in the media as the most "rational" and "even-tempered" of candidates, ideally suited to carry out the necessary imperial agendas. A tiresome mainstream narrative is that Hillary is "one of the best prepared and most knowledgeable candidates ever to seek the presidency." And she is smart, very smart – whatever her flaws. All the better to follow in the long history of Democrats proficient at showing the world who is boss. The media, for its part, adores these Democrats, another reason Trump appears to have diminished chances of winning. Further, the well-funded and tightly-organized Clinton machine can count on somewhat large majorities of women, blacks, and Hispanics, not only for the march to the White House but, more ominously, to go along with the War Party's imperial spectacle of the day. Most anything – war, regime change, bombing raids, drone strikes, treaty violations, JFK-style "standoffs" – can escape political scrutiny if carried out by "humanitarian", peace-loving Democrats. Bill Clinton's war to fight "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans, cover for just another U.S./NATO geopolitical maneuver, constitutes the perfect template here.

    There is a special logic to the Clintonites' explosive mixture of neoliberalism and militarism. They, like all corporate Democrats, are fully aligned with some of the most powerful interests in the world: Wall Street, the war economy, fossil fuels, Big Pharma, the Israel Lobby. They also have intimate ties to reactionary global forces – the neofascist regime in Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states.

    ... In March 121 members of the Republican "national security community", including the warmongers Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, and Brent Scowcroft, signed a public letter condemning Trump for not being sufficiently dedicated to American (also Israeli?) interests. Trump compounded his predicament by stubbornly refusing to pay homage to the "experts" – the same foreign-policy geniuses who helped orchestrate the Iraq debacle. A more recent (and more urgent) letter with roughly the same message has made its way into the public sphere. Predictably, Trump's "unreliability" to oversee American global objectives has been an ongoing motif at CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.

    Returning to the political carneval that was the Democratic convention, amidst all the non-stop flag-waving and shouts of "USA!" Hillary made what she thought would be an inspiring reference to Jackie Kennedy, speaking on the eve of her husband's (1961) ascent to the White House. Jackie was reported as saying "that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that a war might be started – not by men with self-control and restraint, but by little men, the ones moved by fear and pride."

    We can surmise that JFK was one of those "big men" governed by "restraint". History shows, however, that Jackie's esteemed husband was architect of probably the worst episode of international barbarism in U.S. history – the Vietnam War, with its unfathomable death and destruction – coming at a time of the Big Man's botched CIA-led invasion of Cuba and followed closely by the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the Big Man's "restraint" brought the world frighteningly close to nuclear catastrophe. As for "fear" and "pride" – nothing permeates JFK's biography of that period more than those two psychological obsessions.

    Could it be that Hillary Clinton, however unwittingly, was at this epic moment – her breakthrough nomination – revealing nothing so much as her own deeply-imperialist mind-set?

    Carl Boggs is the author of The Hollywood War Machine, with Tom Pollard (second edition, forthcoming), and Drugs, Power, and Politics, both published by Paradigm.

    [Aug 20, 2016] Anabolic steroids taint Olympic competition, but its what they do to the human brain that is terrifying

    Notable quotes:
    "... studies in animals show that steroid-induced aggression is not impulsive, nor uncontrolled. Steroid-treated rats remain attuned to the context of the fight: who their opponent is and where the fight takes place. This suggests that anabolic steroids can promote not only spur-of-the-moment aggression, but also premeditated violence. ..."
    "... "Anabolic" refers to their muscle-building properties. (Not all steroids are anabolic; cortisol is a steroid widely prescribed as an anti-inflammatory agent.) Despite a variety of pharmaceutical names (e.g. nandrolone, boldenone, dianabol), all anabolic steroids are derivatives of testosterone, the major steroid produced by the testes in men. ..."
    "... In 2011, testosterone was the most-common banned substance found in urine tests administered by the World Anti-Doping Agency. It remains a popular choice for doping by elite athletes because it is challenging to distinguish injected testosterone from naturally occurring sources. ..."
    "... Rank-and-file users choose testosterone because of its low cost and easy availability. Despite being declared controlled substances in 1991, anabolic steroids are widely available through personal trainers in gyms and can be purchased online from international sources ..."
    "... It is estimated that as many as 3 million Americans have availed themselves of these outlets - far more than most people realize. Anabolic steroids are in high schools, fitness centers and "rejuvenation" clinics. A typical user is a young man in his late teens or early 20s. Among U.S. high school students, 4% to 6% of boys have used anabolic steroids, comparable to the rates of crack cocaine or heroin use. Among men in their 20s, that rate is even higher. ..."
    "... Many anabolic steroid users show signs of addiction: They take more than intended and are reluctant to quit because of withdrawal symptoms and loss of muscle mass. In addition, heightened testosterone levels give users a sense of invulnerability and increase their risk-taking. The resulting behavior can endanger themselves and others: fighting, unsafe sex, drinking and driving, carrying a weapon. A Swedish study of anabolic steroid users showed high rates of death from homicide, suicide and drug overdose. ..."
    "... today there is real evidence of the risks from surveys of current users and clinical studies of volunteers, supplemented with research in animals. So instead of just worrying about doped athletes during each Olympic cycle, we should focus on how widespread the use of anabolic steroids is and how dangerous they are for any users - and even those around them. ..."
    LA Times
    The popular image of "road-rage" is a sudden and exaggerated response to a minimal provocation, like "The Incredible Hulk." But that's not how it works. Instead, studies in animals show that steroid-induced aggression is not impulsive, nor uncontrolled. Steroid-treated rats remain attuned to the context of the fight: who their opponent is and where the fight takes place. This suggests that anabolic steroids can promote not only spur-of-the-moment aggression, but also premeditated violence.

    Some background information on anabolic steroids may prove useful. Steroids are organic molecules with rings that resemble chicken wire. "Anabolic" refers to their muscle-building properties. (Not all steroids are anabolic; cortisol is a steroid widely prescribed as an anti-inflammatory agent.) Despite a variety of pharmaceutical names (e.g. nandrolone, boldenone, dianabol), all anabolic steroids are derivatives of testosterone, the major steroid produced by the testes in men.

    At normal levels, testosterone builds muscle and contributes to characteristic "masculine" behavior. Anabolic steroid users may boost their testosterone up to 100 times normal levels.

    In 2011, testosterone was the most-common banned substance found in urine tests administered by the World Anti-Doping Agency. It remains a popular choice for doping by elite athletes because it is challenging to distinguish injected testosterone from naturally occurring sources.

    Rank-and-file users choose testosterone because of its low cost and easy availability. Despite being declared controlled substances in 1991, anabolic steroids are widely available through personal trainers in gyms and can be purchased online from international sources.

    It is estimated that as many as 3 million Americans have availed themselves of these outlets - far more than most people realize. Anabolic steroids are in high schools, fitness centers and "rejuvenation" clinics. A typical user is a young man in his late teens or early 20s. Among U.S. high school students, 4% to 6% of boys have used anabolic steroids, comparable to the rates of crack cocaine or heroin use. Among men in their 20s, that rate is even higher.

    Anabolic steroid users may be loath to admit it, but for most the drugs are just a shortcut to bigger muscles. Still, some people defend their use as a "healthy lifestyle choice" that allows them to work out harder and recover faster.

    My own research on the effects of anabolic steroids on brain and behavior show that there's nothing healthy about it. Many anabolic steroid users show signs of addiction: They take more than intended and are reluctant to quit because of withdrawal symptoms and loss of muscle mass. In addition, heightened testosterone levels give users a sense of invulnerability and increase their risk-taking. The resulting behavior can endanger themselves and others: fighting, unsafe sex, drinking and driving, carrying a weapon. A Swedish study of anabolic steroid users showed high rates of death from homicide, suicide and drug overdose.

    Research into these behavioral changes was slow to accumulate because steroid use became prevalent only in the late 1980s. Though anabolic steroid abuse remains understudied, today there is real evidence of the risks from surveys of current users and clinical studies of volunteers, supplemented with research in animals. So instead of just worrying about doped athletes during each Olympic cycle, we should focus on how widespread the use of anabolic steroids is and how dangerous they are for any users - and even those around them.

    Ruth Wood, chair of the department of cell and neurobiology at USC's Keck School of Medicine, studies the effects of anabolic steroids on brain and behavior.

    [Aug 20, 2016] Trump is a racist and his followers are racist narrative as well as the claim that Trump is Putins stooge, is very convenient to Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Trump is a racist and his followers are racist and that's all you need to know" is a narrative thesis, like the narrative thesis that Trump is Putin's stooge, very convenient to Clinton's candidacy, but ultimately corrosive to American politics and political discourse. ..."
    "... The Clinton campaign has whipped up a high dudgeon about racism and Putin and how unsuited Trump is, to be President. I don't disagree about the core conclusion: Trump does not seem to me to be suited to be President. That's hardly a difficult judgment: an impulsive, self-promoting reality teevee star with no experience of public office - hmmm, let me think about that for two seconds. But, the high dudgeon serves other purposes, to which I object strongly. ..."
    "... People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea. ..."
    "... Everything should not be about electing Clinton. ..."
    "... Pundits like Josh Marshall of TPM or Ezra Klein of Vox are betraying their public trust by carrying Clinton's water so slavishly. ..."
    "... People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea ..."
    "... Or, as Ian Welsh points out, her position on Syria. She seems to have advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria after Russia came in, which would presumably put us in the position of shooting down Russian warplanes or having a good chance of doing so. Maybe if she does take on Kissinger as an advisor he'll tell her that superpower conflicts have to be done through proxies or they're too dangerous. ..."
    "... This is what 40 years of two-party neoliberalism gives us: an unhinged demagogue or the point person for Democratic policies that have systematically gutted the middle class, screwed the poor, increase inequality, slowed productivity, caused multiple wars, and made them personally rich. ..."
    "... The moral righteousness of identity politics adds in an element that goes way beyond the lazy failure to hold politicians accountable or the tendency to explain away their more Machiavellian maneuvers. There's both an actual blindness to the reactionary conservatism of equal opportunity exploitation and a peremptory challenge to any other claim or analysis. If police practices and procedures are trending in an authoritarian direction, they can only be challenged on grounds of racist effect or intent. The authoritarianism cannot be challenged on its own merit, so the building of the authoritarian state goes on unimpeded, since the principle that is challenged is not authoritarianism, but a particular claim of racism or sexism. ..."
    "... As for LFC, he finished up his not a counter with "Assad and Putin are authoritarians (plus in Assad's case especially being a murderous thug), but I don't recall b.w. being too exercised about their authoritarianism." That's perfectly familiar [line] too: I well remember it from the GWB Iraq War days. Do you oppose the Iraq War? Well I never heard of you being very exercised about Saddam Hussein being a murderous thug. You must really support Saddam, or not really care about authoritarianism. The people who liked to say this were called the "Decents", a word like many other political words that was perfect because it meant exactly the opposite of what it sounded like. ..."
    "... What's being critiqued is the idea that nothing but racism matters. What's being critiqued is the idea that it's useful or even correct to do mind-reading and to confidently pronounce that people who disagree with you do so because they're stupid and evil – excuse me, because they're racists. What I find illuminating here is the graphic evidence of why this approach is so toxic. People get furious and hostile when you call them bigots. It's an insult, not an invitation to dialog – because it doubles as a character judgment and as a personal attack. ..."
    "... I am also saying, worry that the charge of racism may be all we have left that is capable of getting reforms. And, worry that charges of racism, without useful nuance, may not get the political reaction and reform one ought to desire. ..."
    "... Police misconduct is not a problem solely and originally about race and racism ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.13.16 at 7:44 pm 798

    Layman @ 795

    I think all you've really shown is that blue-collar, less-educated people tend to not know much about politics and to have the political attitudes of authoritarian followers and Trump is willing to be demagogic enough to attract their attention as an alternative to the status quo candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

    "Trump is a racist and his followers are racist and that's all you need to know" is a narrative thesis, like the narrative thesis that Trump is Putin's stooge, very convenient to Clinton's candidacy, but ultimately corrosive to American politics and political discourse. It isn't a question of whether statistics suggest racism is an efficient instrumental variable. It is a question of whether this politics of invective and distraction is going anywhere good, could go anywhere good.

    No one in these comment threads has been defending Trump or the political ignorance and resentments of his supporters. Some of us have questioned the wisdom of a political tactic of treating them as pariahs and dismissing their concerns and economic distress as fake or illegitimate.

    The Clinton campaign has whipped up a high dudgeon about racism and Putin and how unsuited Trump is, to be President. I don't disagree about the core conclusion: Trump does not seem to me to be suited to be President. That's hardly a difficult judgment: an impulsive, self-promoting reality teevee star with no experience of public office - hmmm, let me think about that for two seconds. But, the high dudgeon serves other purposes, to which I object strongly.

    Even though, and especially because Clinton is very likely to become President, her suitability ought to be scrutinized. Not just boxed away as, "well, she is obviously better than Trump so let's not even trouble our beautiful minds", when by the way it is not so obvious as all that, as several commenters have tried to point out. People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea.

    Everything should not be about electing Clinton. Clinton's election is pretty much assured, despite her deep flaws as a candidate of the center-left (to wit, her war-mongering and epic corruption and economic conservatism). Pundits like Josh Marshall of TPM or Ezra Klein of Vox are betraying their public trust by carrying Clinton's water so slavishly. Ezra may be gaining all important access to the Clinton White House comparable to what he had in Obama's White House, but he spent his credibility with his readers to get it. And, he's deprived his readers of the opportunity to learn about issues of vital importance, like the TPP and corporate business power, or NATO expansion and the relationship with Russia, or the swirling vortex forming in the Middle East where American Empire is going down the drain of failed invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and ill-conceived "alliances" with fundamentally hostile powers like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

    I don't think these comment threads are a good place to campaign or advocate on the behalf of any candidate. A modicum of advocacy might be welcome for the fodder it provides for reflective rumination, but mirroring the Clinton campaign's themes seems to require systematic misreadings of counter-argument and that has become disruptive. (RNB's volume and habitual tendentiousness puts RNB into a special category in this regard.)

    There ought to be room in this discussions to move the conversation to more of a meta-level, where we consider trends and dynamics without the partisan's hyper-narrow focus.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.13.16 at 9:12 pm 800

    BW: "People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea."

    Or, as Ian Welsh points out, her position on Syria. She seems to have advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria after Russia came in, which would presumably put us in the position of shooting down Russian warplanes or having a good chance of doing so. Maybe if she does take on Kissinger as an advisor he'll tell her that superpower conflicts have to be done through proxies or they're too dangerous.

    For the larger question of whether these comment threads are a good place to campaign or advocate, I sort of come down in a different place than you do. If these comment threads were about good-faith argument, then sure this kind of advocacy might be bad, but I don't think that most people here are capable of good-faith argument even if they were attempting it (most of the time they aren't attempting it). In that case the comment threads serve an alternate purpose of seeing what kinds of beliefs are out there, at least among the limited group of people likely to comment on CT threads. Of course people can be kicked out if they habitually make the threads too difficult to moderate (or really, for whatever other reason an OP decides on), but the well has long since been poisoned and one more drop isn't really going to do much more damage.

    T 08.13.16 at 9:13 pm 801

    BW@798
    Amen.

    There's a reason the electorate hates both Trump and Clinton. This is what 40 years of two-party neoliberalism gives us: an unhinged demagogue or the point person for Democratic policies that have systematically gutted the middle class, screwed the poor, increase inequality, slowed productivity, caused multiple wars, and made them personally rich.

    Let's not forget the Clintons were the Democratic Party point people in causing the vast incarceration of black men while simultaneously gutting welfare for black mothers and their children. (Yay 3rd Way!) They were the point people for letting 300 million Chinese workers compete with American workers. They deregulated the banks. And was there a war she didn't like?

    So Layman finds that the 80% of the Evangelicals that support Trump are racist. And so are the white voters in manufacturing regions. (Excuse me. "Principally" racist.) And Layman's exact counterpart on some unnamed right-wing site thinks all the blacks voting for HRC are in it for the welfare and affirmative action. (Yes, your exact counterpart. Oh, and they, like you, would say blacks are "principally" scammers cause, you know, there are other minor reasons to vote HRC.)

    I take a different view. I think most voters are going to have the taste of vomit in the their mouths when they pull the lever.

    alfredlordbleep 08.13.16 at 9:55 pm 802

    B Wilder @689
    Brings up revolution

    If there's a populist politics in our future, it will have to have a much sharper edge. It can talk about growth, but it has to mean smashing the rich and taking their stuff. There's very rapidly going to come a point where there's no other option, other than just accepting cramdown by the authoritarian surveillance state built by the neoliberals. that's a much taller order than Sanders or Trump have been offering.

    Fit for inscription (keeps me smashingly awake after hundreds of comments :-))

    LFC 08.14.16 at 1:19 am 809

    bruce wilder @687

    The moral righteousness of identity politics adds in an element that goes way beyond the lazy failure to hold politicians accountable or the tendency to explain away their more Machiavellian maneuvers. There's both an actual blindness to the reactionary conservatism of equal opportunity exploitation and a peremptory challenge to any other claim or analysis. If police practices and procedures are trending in an authoritarian direction, they can only be challenged on grounds of racist effect or intent. The authoritarianism cannot be challenged on its own merit, so the building of the authoritarian state goes on unimpeded, since the principle that is challenged is not authoritarianism, but a particular claim of racism or sexism.

    So in the same week that the Justice Department report on the Baltimore police force comes out, showing systematic police discrimination - e.g. lots of people stopped in black neighborhoods, esp. two in particular, for petty reasons or no reason, versus very few people stopped in other neighborhoods - bruce wilder informs us that identity politics somehow prevents us from criticizing police behavior on grounds of authoritarianism, that it can only be criticized on grounds of racism (or subconscious racial bias) - of course, that wd appear to be a main problem w police behavior in Baltimore and some other places.

    ... ... ...

    Rich Puchalsky 08.14.16 at 2:07 am

    "Rich where is the evidence people can no longer criticize police for broad authoritarianism?"

    The last time I talked about this with faustusnotes, he told me that it was entirely understandable and indeed good that Obama and the Democratic Party were passing laws to make non-violent protestors even more likely to be arrested, because Obama was black and there was a scary white protestor holding an assault rifle at a town meeting somewhere.

    As for LFC, he finished up his not a counter with "Assad and Putin are authoritarians (plus in Assad's case especially being a murderous thug), but I don't recall b.w. being too exercised about their authoritarianism." That's perfectly familiar [line] too: I well remember it from the GWB Iraq War days. Do you oppose the Iraq War? Well I never heard of you being very exercised about Saddam Hussein being a murderous thug. You must really support Saddam, or not really care about authoritarianism. The people who liked to say this were called the "Decents", a word like many other political words that was perfect because it meant exactly the opposite of what it sounded like.

    Marc 08.14.16 at 2:09 am

    What's being critiqued is the idea that nothing but racism matters. What's being critiqued is the idea that it's useful or even correct to do mind-reading and to confidently pronounce that people who disagree with you do so because they're stupid and evil – excuse me, because they're racists.

    What I find illuminating here is the graphic evidence of why this approach is so toxic. People get furious and hostile when you call them bigots. It's an insult, not an invitation to dialog – because it doubles as a character judgment and as a personal attack.

    Now, when someone actually says something bigoted that's one thing. But that's not what's going on, and that's why the pushback is so serious.

    And – faustnotes – you're minimizing the real suffering of people by claiming that the mortality rise in lower income US whites isn't real, and it certainly isn't important to you. I'm getting zero sense of empathy from you towards the plight of these people – the real important thing is to tell them why they're racist scum.

    I think that the left has a moral obligation to try and build a decent society even for people that don't like the left much. I think that working class voters across the Western world are susceptible to racial appeals not because they're scum, but because they've been screwed by the system and the left has nothing to offer them but moral lectures. And that's a failure that we can address, and it starts with listening to people with respect. You can stand for your principles without assuming bad faith, without mind-reading, and without the stereotyping.

    For me at least, those are the grounds of debate, and they're very different in kind from pretending that there is no such thing as racism.

    bruce wilder 08.14.16 at 2:14 am 820

    LFC @ 809

    I am aware that the claim of racism is potent and where it can be made to effect reform, I am all in favor. Take what you can get, I say.

    I am also saying, worry that the charge of racism may be all we have left that is capable of getting reforms. And, worry that charges of racism, without useful nuance, may not get the political reaction and reform one ought to desire.

    Police misconduct is not a problem solely and originally about race and racism. I hope Baltimore gets useful and effective reform.

    Here's a thoughtful blogpost about the problem of police misconduct in certain kinds of fatal shooting incidents and what can be done about it, both politically and in terms of reforming police training and administration: http://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2016/07/can-war-between-cops-and-blacks-be-de.html

    [Aug 20, 2016] No, Ambassador McFaul Putin Didnt Order Me to Fall in Love with Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul penned a scathing piece in the Washington Post accusing the Kremlin of intervening in the American election, based solely on the evidence of a harsh article regarding Clinton published by Sputnik News. Boy, was he wrong! ..."
    "... On Wednesday night, Michael McFaul took to the Washington Post to opine that the article was part of a Kremlin-led conspiracy to subvert the American election, referring to the person running the Sputnik Twitter account (that particular day being me) as a "Russian official," before warning (threatening) that we "might want to think about what we plan to do" if Clinton becomes president. ..."
    "... Pursuant to 18 US Code Chapter 115, I'd be writing this article to you from prison, if not awaiting a death sentence, if I were writing content ordered down to me by the Kremlin with a view towards subverting the American election. I am instead writing this piece from my favorite coffeeshop in downtown DC. I am not a Russian official. Our staff members are not Russian officials. We are not Kremlin controlled. We do not speak with Vladimir Putin over our morning coffee. ..."
    "... In fact, the Atlantic Council's Ben Nimmo leveled a completely different view on Friday morning, calling our coverage "uncharacteristically balanced," but arguing that, because we report generally negative stories on both candidates, our real target is American democracy itself. ..."
    "... It may surprise Mr. McFaul and Mr. Nimmo to learn that, in my previous work on political campaigns, I actually helped fundraise for Hillary Clinton - the candidate whose inner circle is now labelling my colleagues and I as foreign saboteurs. It is neither my fault nor Sputnik's fault that Secretary Clinton's campaign has devolved into one predicated upon fear and conspiracy, where the two primary lines are "the Russians did it" and that she is not Trump. ..."
    "... The fact that more than 50% of the country dislikes both presidential candidates is not a Kremlin conspiracy. Would it be appropriate for us to present to our readers an alternate universe a la MSNBC, which defended Clinton's trustworthiness by saying she only perjured herself three times? ..."
    "... Returning to the substance of the article to which Mr. McFaul took exception. This piece was written because it was newsworthy - it informed our readers and forced them to think. The provocative headline of the story was based on a statement by Trump that is a bit of a stretch (notice the air quotes on the title), but which highlights a major policy decision made by this administration that has not been properly scrutinized by the mainstream media. In the article, for those who actually read it, I refer to the 2012 DNI report that correctly calculated that Obama's policy in Syria would lead to the development of a Salafist entity controlling territory and that this outcome was "wanted." Hence, the title. ..."
    "... Today, the Obama Administration grapples with a similar debate over whether to continue to support the "moderate rebels" in Syria, despite the fact that they have now melded with al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate until they rebranded), under the banner of the Army of Conquest in Syria. ..."
    sputniknews.com

    Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul penned a scathing piece in the Washington Post accusing the Kremlin of intervening in the American election, based solely on the evidence of a harsh article regarding Clinton published by Sputnik News. Boy, was he wrong!

    My name is Bill Moran. A native Arizonan, I have worked on dozens of Democratic Party campaigns, and am more recently a proud writer for Sputnik's Washington, DC bureau.

    It also seems, as of Thursday morning, that I am the source of controversy between the United States and Russia - something I never quite could have imagined - for writing an article that was critical of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a stinging headline and a harsh hashtag.

    So, what is this controversy all about? This weekend I published a piece with the headline, "Secret File Confirms Trump Claim: Obama, Hillary 'Founded ISIS' to Oust Assad." I also tweeted out this story from our platform with the hashtag #CrookedHillary. Guilty as charged.

    On Wednesday night, Michael McFaul took to the Washington Post to opine that the article was part of a Kremlin-led conspiracy to subvert the American election, referring to the person running the Sputnik Twitter account (that particular day being me) as a "Russian official," before warning (threatening) that we "might want to think about what we plan to do" if Clinton becomes president.

    I feel it is necessary to pause, here, before having a substantive argument about the article's merits and purpose within the public discourse, to address the severity of the accusation leveled against me and Sputnik's staff (not by name until now), and its disturbing implications on freedom of speech, dissent, and American democracy - implications that I hope Mr. McFaul, other public proponents of the Hillary campaign, and the cadre of Russian critics consider.

    Pursuant to 18 US Code Chapter 115, I'd be writing this article to you from prison, if not awaiting a death sentence, if I were writing content ordered down to me by the Kremlin with a view towards subverting the American election. I am instead writing this piece from my favorite coffeeshop in downtown DC. I am not a Russian official. Our staff members are not Russian officials. We are not Kremlin controlled. We do not speak with Vladimir Putin over our morning coffee.

    Mr. McFaul worked side-by-side with the former Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, and his routine accusations that Trump supporters are siding with Putin leaves me to imagine that he is a Clinton insider if not a direct campaign surrogate. That such a public official would suggest reprisals against those with differing viewpoints in the event that she wins is disturbing.

    Our outlet does not endorse or support any particular US presidential candidate, but rather reports news and views for the day in as diligent a manner as we possibly can. This is evident in our very harsh headlines on Trump, which Mr. McFaul failed to review before making his attack.

    In fact, the Atlantic Council's Ben Nimmo leveled a completely different view on Friday morning, calling our coverage "uncharacteristically balanced," but arguing that, because we report generally negative stories on both candidates, our real target is American democracy itself.

    It may surprise Mr. McFaul and Mr. Nimmo to learn that, in my previous work on political campaigns, I actually helped fundraise for Hillary Clinton - the candidate whose inner circle is now labelling my colleagues and I as foreign saboteurs. It is neither my fault nor Sputnik's fault that Secretary Clinton's campaign has devolved into one predicated upon fear and conspiracy, where the two primary lines are "the Russians did it" and that she is not Trump.

    Donald Trump has the lowest approval rating since presidential polling began. Until recently, Clinton had the second lowest approval rating since presidential polling began. Their numbers are worse than even Barry Goldwater and George Wallace, in fact.

    The fact that more than 50% of the country dislikes both presidential candidates is not a Kremlin conspiracy. Would it be appropriate for us to present to our readers an alternate universe a la MSNBC, which defended Clinton's trustworthiness by saying she only perjured herself three times?

    There is a reason why both presidential candidates have received less than fawning coverage from our outlet: they have not done anything to warrant positive coverage. My colleagues, also Americans, like so many others in this country, wish they would.

    Returning to the substance of the article to which Mr. McFaul took exception. This piece was written because it was newsworthy - it informed our readers and forced them to think.

    The provocative headline of the story was based on a statement by Trump that is a bit of a stretch (notice the air quotes on the title), but which highlights a major policy decision made by this administration that has not been properly scrutinized by the mainstream media.

    In the article, for those who actually read it, I refer to the 2012 DNI report that correctly calculated that Obama's policy in Syria would lead to the development of a Salafist entity controlling territory and that this outcome was "wanted." Hence, the title.

    Today, the Obama Administration grapples with a similar debate over whether to continue to support the "moderate rebels" in Syria, despite the fact that they have now melded with al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate until they rebranded), under the banner of the Army of Conquest in Syria.

    We do not pretend that these decisions exist in a vacuum with a clear right and wrong answer upon which no two intelligent people differ, but this is a matter worthy of public discourse.

    And what about that hashtag? Why would I use #CrookedHillary? I mean, I could have put #Imwithher, but I wasn't trying to be ironic. When a hashtag is featured at the end of a sentence, its purpose is for cataloging. Some people, usually non-millennials, use hashtags as text to convey a particular opinion. I was not doing that. I also used #NeverTrump in a separate article.

    But Mr. McFaul lazily cherry-picked, and then labeled (maybe unwittingly) Sputnik's American writers traitors to this country.

    That, I personally, expect an apology for.

    [Aug 20, 2016] Leaked Memo Shows Soros Pushed Greece To Support Ukraine Coup, Paint Russia As Enemy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Last week we reported on the DC Leaks hack of what was over 2,500 documents detailing how George Soros and his NGOs influence world leaders, drive foreign policy, and help to create unrest in sovereign nations, that many times leads to chaos and civil war. ..."
    "... One country of part ..."
    Aug 19, 2016 | Zero Hedge

    Submitted by Alex Christoforou via TheDuran.com,

    Last week we reported on the DC Leaks hack of what was over 2,500 documents detailing how George Soros and his NGOs influence world leaders, drive foreign policy, and help to create unrest in sovereign nations, that many times leads to chaos and civil war.

    One country of particular focus for George Soros and his NGOs is Ukraine. It is now accepted fact that Soros was deeply involved in the Maiden protests in 2014 and the violent coup, that saw a democratically elected government overthrown in the name of "EU values". What is even more troubling, as revealed by the DC Leaks hack, is how Soros and his network of "non-profit organisations" worked to lobby EU member states into not only buying his Ukraine "Maidan" narrative, but to also disavow any ties and support for Russia.

    Leaked documents show that George Soros was active in mapping out the Greek media landscape with generous grants, so as to further his Ukraine project, while also using his deep pockets to get Greek media to turn against the Russian Federation…in what can only be described as a well-funded and orchestrated smear campaign.

    In one document entitled: "Open Society Initiative For Europe (OSIFE). Mapping the Ukrainian debate in Greece" (Ukraine and Europe-greece-tor ukraine debate mapping greece.docx), Soros offers a consultant a remuneration of $6,500 (gross) for "at least 15 full working days in carrying out this task" plus all expenses paid.

    The aim of this task:

    The consultant is expected to chart the main players in the Greek debate on Ukraine, outline the key arguments and their evolution in the past 18 months. Specifically, the report will take stock of any existing polling evidence provide a 'who is who?' with information about at least
    – 6 newspapers,
    – 10 audiovisual outlets (TV and radio),
    – 6 internet sites,
    – About 50 opinion leaders and trends in social networks[1].

    Categorize the main strains of discussion and eventually identify different sides / camps of the discussion.

    Provide a brief account of how Russia has tried to influence the Greek debate on Ukraine through domestic actors and outlets

    Include a section with recommendations on
    – What are the spaces OSF should engage and would most likely to have impact?
    – What are the voices (of reason or doubt) that should be amplified?

    Open Society Initiative For Europe (OSIFE) selected Iannis Carras for the Greek media mapping grant. The justification why he was chosen…

    All contracts were for the same amount. We needed to find highly specialized researchers to map the debate on Ukraine in Europe, therefore we identified a shortlist of candidates in consultation with colleagues in the Think Tank Fund, OSEPI and in consultation with members of the OSIFE board and chose the most qualified who could produce the report in the time allowed. I n the case of Greece we agreed that Iannis Carras, an economic and social historian of Balkan and Russian relations with expert knowledge of Greece's NGOs and social movements, was the best suited to the task.

    What is even more interesting is not the grant from OSIFE, but a letter from grant winner Carras to a person named Mathew (another Greek speaker???), outlining his plan in detail for pushing Soros' Ukraine agenda in Greece.

    Of significance is how Carras tells Mathew about Greek society's overall suspicion of The Open Society after the roll in played in seeding unrest in Yugoslavia. Carras even tells Mathew to not mention The Open Society in Greece.

    "Do you want your name to appear alongside mine on the paper? Do make comments on all of the below.

    In general, and at your discretion, do not say you are doing this for Open Society because it is likely to close down doors. There's a lot of suspicion about Open Society in Greece, mainly because of its positions vis-ŕ-vis the former Yugoslavia. As I am simultaneously writing an article for Aspen Review Eastern Europe that can be used as the organisation for which research like this is taking place."

    Carras then goes on to outline his approach in manipulating Greek society, covering topics such as:

    1. Media.
    2. Political parties and think tanks
    3. Opinion polls.
    4. Business relations.
    5. Religious and cultural ties.
    6. Migration and diaspora.
    7. Greece and Ukraine in the context of Greece's economic crisis.
    8. Greece, Ukraine and the Cyprus issue.
    9. Names and brief description of significant actors: a 'who is who?' with information on at least 50 opinion leaders

    Carras notes how Russia has much goodwill in Greece, exercising "significant soft power". Carras notes that Greece is, at this moment, a weak player in the Ukraine debate and the Greek Foreign Minister Kotzias realises this.

    Summary: I am working on the hypotheses largely born out by the interviews carried out so far that Russia has significant soft power in Greece though this does not easily convert into hard power (e.g. vetoing EU sanctions). Greeks are basically not very interested in Ukraine and the crisis there. They reflect and understand that conflict through their own economic crisis and their relations with Europe (nowadays primarily Europe and not US). To the extent that relations with Europe remain the focus and do not go off the rails, Greece will bark but will not bite. If they improve, Greece might not even bark (as can be seen with Greece's policy on Israel, Kotzias can be very much a realist).

    Carras does warn that should Greece's economic situation deteriorate further, than Greece may very well look to Russia for support, and this has implications on the Ukraine plan.

    If they deteriorate however, Greece will be looking to Russia for increased support and will alter its Ukraine policies accordingly. Do you agree with these hypotheses? Can you find confirmation for or against them in the media outlets examined?

    Carras places extra emphasis on influencing the media in Greece, citing various large news outlets that the Soros NGO can target, including approaching left wing and right wing blogs.

    This is the bulk of the work (we have to think about how to divide the work up). We have to provide a 'who is who?' with information about at least 6 newspapers, 10 audio-visual outlets (TV and radio) and 6 internet sites. Some of these will be obvious, but, even in these cases, change over time (at least eighteen months) is an important consideration. Here are some suggestions for newspapers: Kathimerini, Avgi, Ta Nea, Vima, Efymerida Syntakton, Eleutherotypia, Proto Thema, Rizospastis? etc. What else? Protagon? Athens Review of Books? (info on Kotzias). As for TV, we'll just do the main ones. What about left wing blogs? What about commercial radio stations? I think we should cover Aristera sta FM. Sky. What else? Anything from the nationalist and far right? My choice would be Ardin (already looking at this) which at least tries to be serious. Patria is even more unsavoury. I'll deal with the religious web sites in the culture and religion appendix. I think we should interview Kostas Nisenko ( http://www.kathimerini.gr/757296/article/epikairothta/kosmos/viaih-epi8e... ) and Kostas Geropoulos of New Europe to get into the issues involved… not at all sure though that it's advisable to talk to the Russia correspondents Thanasis Avgerinos, Dimitris Liatsos, Achileas Patsoukas etc. (I know all of them). Also if we come across articles with interesting information on any one of the topics, we should mail them to one another.

    Attention is placed on influencing political parties. Carras sees this as a more difficult task, as parties in Greece would not be warm towards turning their back on Russia.

    Who if anyone deals with Russia / Ukraine within each of the political parties? How important are political parties in formulating policies? (my hunch is totally unimportant). I must admit I have little idea of how to proceed with this one, but I have written to the academic Vassilis Petsinis and I hope I'll get to skype with him soon. Think-tanks are easier, and, I think, more important. I have already interviewed Thanos Dokos (director Greek foreign policy institute, ELIAMEP) in person.

    Carras notes how he has approached various religious leaders, academics and actors, to gauge a sense of how deep Russia's influence and "soft power" runs in Greek society and culture.

    So far I have interviewed by telephone Metropolitan John of Pergamum (one of the top figures in the inner circle of the Istanbul based Ecumenical Patriarchate). I have read Metropolitan Nektarios of the Argolid's recent book (2014), "Two bullets for Donetsk". I have tried but so far not succeeded in contacting Metropolitan Nektarios himself, and have started work on two of the main religious news websites romfea.gr and amen.gr .

    With respect to culture I intend to contact Georgos Livathinos, leading director of Russian and other plays and Lydia Koniordou, actress. Also the management of the Onassis Centre, particularly Afroditi Panagiotakou, the executive vice-director who is quite knowledgeable in this field having travelled to both Ukraine and Russia.

    In 2016 Greece and Russia will be hosting each other as the focus of cultural events in the two respective countries. I will be looking to understand the extent to which Russia's unparalleled cultural soft-power might translate into Greek policy making.

    Greek military is the final point of influence, with Carras interviewing Ambassadors and policy decision makers.

    Foreign policy and the Greek military. So far I have interviewed in person Ambassador Elias Klis (formerly ambassador of Greece to Moscow, advisor to the current Foreign Minister, advisor to the Greek Union of Industrialists. He is perhaps the single most important person for understanding Greek-Russian diplomatic relations at present). Ambassador Alexandros Philon (formerly ambassador of Greece to Washington, to whom I am related). Captain Panos Stamou (submarines, extensive contacts in Crimea, also secretary and leading light of the Greek-Russian historical association) who emphasised the non-political tradition of the Greek armed forces. Tempted to talk to Themos Stoforopoulos for a nationalist left wing view. I have also read foreign minister Kotzias' latest book. All of this has provided me with useful insights for appendices 7 and 8, and particularly for the connection to the Cyprus issue (which at the moment Greece is very keen to downplay).

    Carras places an emphasis on Cyprus, perhaps recognising the islands affinity to support Russia and its large Russian diaspora community.

    The recommendations will be for the medium and the short term, cited here based on interviews carried out so far. Medium term recommendations will include a cultural event (to be specified later) and a one-day conference on Ukraine and international law, citing precedents for dealing with the situation in Ukraine (particularly Cyprus). Recommendations may include capacity building for local Ukrainian migrant spokesperson(s). Short term recommendations will include an action pack on what Greece has at stake in Ukraine, and ways to narrate parallels in interactions between nation and empire vis-ŕ-vis Greece / Ukraine. Think about whether these work / what else we might recommend?

    Both of the documents are below...

    [Aug 20, 2016] LA times as a mirror of neoliberal press dirty campaign against Trump

    Here are some headlines, This is a textbook example of demonization. Persistent attempt not to discuss issues important for Americans and concentrate on personalities, making a show out of election. Out of a hundred that I analyzed only one was positive, around a dozen were neutral. Everything else were brazen, rabid dog style attack of neoliberals on Trump.
    www.latimes.co

    Trump

    1. Amid campaign chaos, Donald Trump seeks reboot
    2. New poll analysis finds a wasted summer for Donald Trump and a boost for Hillary Clinton
    3. Essential Politics: Trump goes nuclear
    4. Trump shows a new emotion - regret
    5. Donald Trump's media obsession has culminated in his hiring the head of a far-right news website to run his campaign
    6. Hey, Los Angeles: There's a naked statue of Donald Trump on Hollywood Boulevard
    7. If Trump won't pay his bills, will he pay America's - LA Times
    8. New poll analysis finds a wasted summer for Donald Trump and a boost for Hillary Clinton
    9. Signs of a shift in Trump's campaign - too little, too late?
    10. Before Trump, Americans hadn't worried this much about nuclear weapons since the Cold War
    11. Clinton campaign manager: Paul Manafort's resignation doesn't 'end the odd bromance' between Trump and Putin
    12. Maybe Trump's not trying to win the White House - he's trying to start Trump TV
    13. If you're worried about rigged elections, look at Trump's tactics first - LA Times
    14. Donald Trump spokeswoman with a history of false statements says Hillary Clinton suffers from a brain disorder
    15. Donald Trump's call for poll watchers brings back memories of 1988 Santa Ana
    16. What's new in Trump's foreign-policy speech isn't good - LA Times
    17. How to stay sane in the time of Trump - LA Times
    18. Clinton: Donald Trump 'is still the same'
    19. Donald Trump calls for 'extreme vetting' and an ideological test for would-be immigrants
    20. Donald Trump losing to Hillary Clinton? 'Says who?'
    21. The silver lining of the Trump campaign: Now we can't deny our racism or xenophobia
    22. Top Clinton backer on shuffling of Trump campaign: 'You can't fix Trump'
    23. Donald Trump's embattled campaign chairman Paul Manafort resigns
    24. Paul Manafort has guided dictators and strongmen, but can he manage Donald Trump?
    25. Memo to Donald Trump: Here's how to make the 'death tax' fair for everybody
    26. Trump's nationalism is just identity politics in a new flannel shirt
    27. Clinton campaign: Trump shake-up a sign he'll 'double down' on nasty, divisive attacks
    28. Warning of election fraud, Trump sparks fear that his backers may intimidate minority voters
    29. Republicans run for reelection - and away from Trump - as GOP tries to keep control of Senate
    30. He drafted a speech for the Republican convention. Now he says he can't vote for Donald Trump.
    31. How to stay sane in the time of Trump
    32. Philippine lawmaker wants to ban Trump from the country
    33. Biden says Trump has heightened danger for U.S. troops abroad
    34. Repudiating Trump: Republicans are damned if they do, damned if they don't
    35. Trump advisor repeats call for Hillary Clinton to be 'shot in a firing squad for treason'
    36. Trump lashes out at the Wall Street Journal for calling on him to change or leave
    37. The high price of living next door to Donald Trump in L.A.: $30 million
    38. I was a Minuteman III nuclear launch officer. Take it from me: We can't let Trump become president
    39. It isn't enough for Republicans to repudiate Donald Trump. They should endorse Hillary Clinton
    40. Essential Politics: Trump puts the squeeze on vulnerable Republicans
    41. What if Trump drops out?
    42. Trump tries to recover from blunders by sketching his economic agenda
    43. Obama says Trump is 'unfit to serve,' and Trump threatens to walk away from leading Republicans
    44. A Trump election could harm L.A.'s Olympics bid, Mayor Garcetti says
    45. His exact words: What did Donald Trump mean with his 2nd Amendment comments?
    46. Panic in GOP ranks will not stop Trump from being Trump
    47. Trump's call for '2nd Amendment people' to stop Clinton isn't helping his dropping poll numbers
    48. Donald Trump just proposed repealing the 'death tax.' Here's why that's a scam.
    49. How Trump's 2nd Amendment remark burned through Twitter before he even left the room
    50. How deferments protected Donald Trump from serving in Vietnam
    51. Donald Trump calls his claim that Obama founded Islamic State 'sarcasm'
    52. Trump was wrong about free speech and falsehoods, but in an interesting way
    53. San Diego roadside sign hacked with profane message about Trump
    54. Clinton slams Trump as unfit for presidency following 2nd Amendment comment
    55. Trump's wife Melania faces questions about her own immigration history
    56. If Donald Trump were black, would the GOP base accept him? The answer is obvious.
    57. Trump plans to take a 'nice, long vacation' if he loses in November
    58. 'Why don't we use nukes?' sounds like a plausible thing for Donald Trump to say
    59. Actress Rose McGowan pens scathing open letter to media, Trump and the Murdochs
    60. Clintons made $10.6 million last year, tax return shows, as Donald Trump is pressed to release his own
    61. Trump Taj Mahal casino will shut down amid strike, costing 3,000 workers their jobs
    62. Trump versus the fire marshals (and everyone else)
    63. 'Words matter, Mr. Trump, no matter when or where you say them'
    64. Snapshot from the trail: Confederate flag at Donald Trump event
    65. Why are Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin helping Donald Trump?
    66. Donald Trump tries to deflect attention away from recent controversies by pushing economic agenda
    67. Trump's campaign chairman fights back against report detailing pro-Russian payment ledgers
    68. Disgraced ex-lawmaker shows up at Trump rally, messes up attack on Clinton
    69. Ryan says Trump ought to clarify 2nd Amendment comment
    70. Hezbollah leader supports Trump's claim that U.S. created Islamic State
    71. Why Trump can't tell the difference between a Twitter war and a presidential campaign
    72. Many GOP foreign policy experts see Donald Trump as unfit to be president
    73. Trump calls Clinton a 'horror show' for coal mining, tries to move past gun controversy
    74. Top GOP security advisors warn Trump is 'dangerous'
    75. Donald Trump says '2nd Amendment people' can prevent Hillary Clinton from choosing judges
    76. Trump mired in another day of controversy with family of soldier killed in Iraq
    77. Sen. Susan Collins becomes latest Republican to break with Trump
    78. Patt Morrison Asks: Vladimir Putin biographer Masha Gessen on Russia, Trump and WikiLeaks
    79. Trump accused of threatening violence against Clinton with gun-rights remarks
    80. New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte still backing Trump after Maine Sen. Susan Collins says she cannot
    81. Hillary Clinton calls Donald Trump's plans to 'stick it to the rich' a myth
    82. GOP-Trump rift: This split's taking some time
    83. To live in L.A. is to know Trump is wrong: America is not in decline
    84. Clinton campaign launches group for conservatives who don't support Trump
    85. Case against Trump University should move forward, judge rules
    86. Trump sparks uproar by saying 'maybe there is' a way for '2nd Amendment people' to keep Clinton from naming justices
    87. Which Republicans are supporting Trump, and who's jumping ship?
    88. The Khan family's road to confrontation with Donald Trump
    89. Forget the squalling baby; Trump's comments about China on Tuesday were the worse tantrum
    90. Clinton has one big edge on Trump: Her supporting cast is stronger
    91. Essential Politics: Trump's tempest rages onward
    92. Trump loses ground among key voter groups, tracking poll finds
    93. Donald Trump tries to clarify his Islamic State remark. Or maybe not.
    94. Donald Trump says he wouldn't accept Ted Cruz's endorsement even if it were offered
    95. Update on: After several days, Donald Trump decides to endorse Paul Ryan
    96. French president has sharp words for Trump
    97. And the bar drops even lower as Trump calls on Russian hackers to help his election prospects
    98. Analysis: Trump lofts another ill-timed diversion as voters seek to justify their November choice
    99. Melania Trump affirms her immigration story after it's questioned
    100. Has Trump violated the 1st Amendment? Not yet

    [Aug 20, 2016] No Presidential Wars

    The American Conservative

    Donald Trump has made the 2016 presidential race potentially the most important of the last century. The Constitution repudiates presidential wars: they impoverish the people and undermine the rule of law. Trump, if he heeds our advice, can make the Constitution's foreign policy the battleground of the campaign.

    He did a masterful job of exposing the folly of the war in Iraq. He correctly denounced Hillary Clinton's Senate vote for that war and her later use of her position as secretary of state to wage congressionally unauthorized war against Libya. Rather than learn from her mistakes, which gave birth to ISIS, Clinton is redoubling her efforts to drag our nation into another unconstitutional war in Syria.

    The cornerstone of the Constitution's foreign policy is the exclusive entrustment of the war power to Congress. We made an unprecedented break with history by making Congress the sentinel against gratuitous wars. This was the most important decision we made in Philadelphia. We understood that from the beginning of all government, the Executive has chronically concocted excuses to go to war for power and fame. While Congress is not infallible, the institution has everything to lose and nothing to gain from going to war.

    We recognized that these features of the Executive and Legislative branches were timeless because they reflected personalities of the respective institutions that are as constant as the force of gravity. We examined every prior system of government for thousands of years. Regardless of their state of technology, Egyptian pharaohs, Israel's kings, Genghis Khan, and King George III were indistinguishable in their gravitation toward needless wars.

    The proof of our timeless wisdom is in the results. Less than a century after the ratification of the Constitution, by avoiding presidential wars the United States became the world's largest economy. We attracted the best and the brightest from everywhere to make America the workshop of the world.

    Trump's goal of regaining our former prosperity will be stillborn without restoring the Constitution's foreign policy. We were present at the creation of the Constitution, and we left no room for ambiguity about why we gave the war power to Congress. We call on Donald Trump to establish a precedent for every presidential candidate: an unequivocal pledge in writing never to initiate war without a congressional declaration. He should lead, and ask Hillary Clinton to follow. The pledges will make America great again.

    Trump is to be complimented for questioning alliance commitments that conflict with the pledge. He has asked why we would protect the borders of other countries when we don't protect our own. At present, the United States is obligated through treaties or executive promises to go to war to protect 69 countries. During our many years of public service, we rejected the idea of permanent friends or enemies and warned against the danger of entangling alliances. Trump's "No Presidential Wars" pledge will give him justification to extricate the United States from these military entanglements. Why should we safeguard the borders of almost half of the world's countries, who will betray us whenever their interests diverge from ours?

    In his first foreign-policy address, Trump alluded to John Quincy Adams's signature statement about the inseparability of foreign and domestic policy:

    [The United States has] abstained from interference in the concerns of others. … Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. … She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. … she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. … [America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty.

    The United States is the safest country in history. All the armies of the world couldn't take a drink from the Colorado or make a track in the Rockies. We now possess more than 7,000 nuclear warheads and the biggest, most technologically advanced Navy and Air Force ever seen. By contrast, when we wrote the Constitution in 1787, the world confronted six empires armed to the teeth: the Chinese Empire, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, and the Ottoman Empire. Despite massive superiority in manpower, ships, and weaponry, the British Empire was unable to defeat us in our Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

    By avoiding standing armies and entangling alliances, our foreign policy of self-defense unleashed the nation's resources and focused our human capital on making us the richest nation in history. Our greatest entrepreneurs did not squander their genius on warfare. But then our nation's leaders became seduced by the lure of the limitless executive power that comes with war. Presidents of both parties replaced invincible self-defense with a global military establishment in the false hope of dictating the affairs of other nations. Presidents concocted pretexts to justify wars against Spain, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq, and Libya. American jobs were traded away to attract professed foreign allies. The Democratic and Republican nominees have not given the American electorate a choice against unconstitutional presidential wars for more than half a century.

    Now is the time for Trump to end overseas adventurism and trumpet the invincible self-defense that made us the envy of the world. We have lost our way in abandoning the Constitution's foreign policy. A "No Presidential Wars" pledge is the first step to refocusing the genius of our people on production at home rather than destruction abroad. This is the way to make America great again.

    We are the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. We are the champion and vindicator only of our own.

    George Washington and James Madison are a Virginia businessman and lawyer.

    [Aug 20, 2016] For Clintonbots it is not enough to just vote for Clinton. They requres us to pretend that Clinton isn't more evil than Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is such a menace and defeating him is so important that I think freedom of speech should be limited temporarily (through informal ostracism and prudent editorial judgment, of course) and only pure HRC bots should be allowed to speak. But that is just my opinion, not my call. ..."
    "... This is how I understand the Clintonbots. ..."
    "... It is not enough to just vote for Clinton or support voting for Clinton against Trump. Let us also *pretend* that Clinton isn't more evil than her liberal supporters recognise, let us *pretend* that Donald Trump is unprecedented among Republicans, let us stop thinking and speaking what we think, let us do anything and say anything, use each and every conceivable argument, sacrifice all of our principles, honesty and future credibility in order to convince our followers and anyone still stupid enough to take our words seriously that Clinton is an angel of light and the difference between her and Trump is in no way less than the one between Heaven and Hell. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    F. Foundling, 08.09.16 at 2:27 pm

    @RNB 08.08.16 at 10:06 pm

    > I do not think Crooked Timber should be featuring this hugely irresponsible line of thought in their OP's. But that is my opinion, not my call.

    Trump is such a menace and defeating him is so important that I think freedom of speech should be limited temporarily (through informal ostracism and prudent editorial judgment, of course) and only pure HRC bots should be allowed to speak. But that is just my opinion, not my call.

    > 1,2,3,4,5,6

    This is how I understand the Clintonbots. It is not enough to just vote for Clinton or support voting for Clinton against Trump. Let us also *pretend* that Clinton isn't more evil than her liberal supporters recognise, let us *pretend* that Donald Trump is unprecedented among Republicans, let us stop thinking and speaking what we think, let us do anything and say anything, use each and every conceivable argument, sacrifice all of our principles, honesty and future credibility in order to convince our followers and anyone still stupid enough to take our words seriously that Clinton is an angel of light and the difference between her and Trump is in no way less than the one between Heaven and Hell.

    Let us be completely uncritical of everything that she and her allies have ever done or are doing at the moment, until the elections are over. Then, when she uses this free pass we have given her to do the same things as President, we can be happy that at least we have saved the world. And maybe, just maybe our absolute loyalty to the tribe and the establishment will be rewarded.

    [Aug 20, 2016] It is a perplexing and sorry phenomenon that deserves the attention of a first rate pundit like Frank

    Amazon review of Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew... the word "conservative" was replaced by "neoliberal" as it more correctly reflect the concept behind this social process.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberal ideology is championed on behalf of corporate elites who have now secured total control, even ownership, of the federal government. ..."
    "... Elites need federal government revenue transferred to their realm via fat government contracts and juicy subsidies. They want government without regulation, and they want taxation imposed on the masses without real representation, but not on them. ..."
    "... Neoliberals drew up a long term strategy to sabotage and disrupt the liberal apparatus. There ensued a vast selling-off of government assets (and favors) to those willing to fund the neoliberal movement. The strategy was concocted as a long term plan - the master blueprint for a wholesale transfer of government responsibilities to private-sector contractors unaccountable to Congress or anyone else. An entire industry sprung up to support conservatism - the great god market (corporate globalism) replaced anti-communism as the new inspiration. (page 93) ..."
    "... But capitalism is not loyal to people or anything once having lost its usefulness, not even the nation state or the flag ..."
    "... According to Frank, what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of governments; it is the capture of government by business interests. ..."
    "... Neoliberals don't want efficient government, they want less competition and more profits - especially for defense contractors. Under Reagan, civil servants were out, loyalists were in. ..."
    "... Contractors are now a fourth branch of government with more people working under contracts than are directly employed by government - making it difficult to determine where government stops and the contractors start in a system of privatized government where private contractors are shielded from oversight or accountability ..."
    "... The first general rule of neoliberal administration: cronies in, experts out. ..."
    "... Under Reagan, a philosophy of government blossomed that regarded business as its only constituent. ..."
    "... Watergate poisoned attitudes toward government - helping sweep in Ronald Reagan with his anti-government cynicism. Lobbying and influence peddling proliferated in a privatized government. Lobbying is how money casts its vote. It is the signature activity of neoliberal governance - the mechanism that translates market forces into political action. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism speaks of not compromise but of removing adversaries from the field altogether. ..."
    "... One should never forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal that saved capitalism from itself. Also, one should not forget that capitalism came out of the classical liberal tradition. Capitalists had to wrest power away from the landowning nobility, the arch neoliberal tradition of its time. ..."
    www.amazon.com
    Russell Ferrell

    Format: Paperback

    Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew is another classic. This work, along with his more notable What's The Matter With Kansas?, is another ground breaking examination into a major phenomenon of American politics by one of America's foremost social analysts and critics. While What's The Matter With Kansas? looked more at cultural behavior in explaining why Red State Americans have embraced corporate elitist ideology and ballot casting that militates against their own economic self-interest, even their very survival, this title deals more with structural changes in the government, economy, and society that have come about as a result of a Republican right wing agenda. It is a perplexing and sorry phenomenon that deserves the attention of a first rate pundit like Frank.

    Neoliberal ideology is championed on behalf of corporate elites who have now secured total control, even ownership, of the federal government. The Wrecking Crew is about a Republican agenda to totally eliminate the last vestiges of the New Deal and Great Society, which have provided social safety nets for ordinary working class Americans through programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Corporate elites want to demolish only that part of government that doesn't benefit the corporation. Thus, a huge military budget and intrusive national security and police apparatus is revered, while education, health, welfare, infrastructure, etc. are of less utility for the corporate state. High taxes on the corporations and wealthy are abhorred, while the middle class is expected to shoulder a huge tax burden. Although Republicans rail against federal deficits, when in office they balloon the federal deficits in a plan for government-by-sabotage. (Page 261)

    Elites need federal government revenue transferred to their realm via fat government contracts and juicy subsidies. They want government without regulation, and they want taxation imposed on the masses without real representation, but not on them. The big government they rail at is the same government they own and benefit from. They certainly do not want the national security state (the largest part of government) or the national police system to go away, not even the IRS. How can they fight wars without a revenue collection system? The wellspring of conservatism in America today -- preserving connections between the present and past -- is a destroyer of tradition, not a preserver. (Page 267)

    Neoliberals drew up a long term strategy to sabotage and disrupt the liberal apparatus. There ensued a vast selling-off of government assets (and favors) to those willing to fund the neoliberal movement. The strategy was concocted as a long term plan - the master blueprint for a wholesale transfer of government responsibilities to private-sector contractors unaccountable to Congress or anyone else. An entire industry sprung up to support conservatism - the great god market (corporate globalism) replaced anti-communism as the new inspiration. (page 93)

    Market populism arose as business was supposed to empower the noble common people. But capitalism is not loyal to people or anything once having lost its usefulness, not even the nation state or the flag. (page 100) While the New Deal replaced rule by wealthy with its brain trust, conservatism, at war with intellectuals, fills the bureaucracy with cronies, hacks, partisans, and creationists. The democracy, or what existed of it, was to be gradually made over into a plutocracy - rule by the wealthy. (Page 252) Starting with Reagan and Thatcher, the program was to hack open the liberal state in order to reward business with the loot. (Page 258) The ultimate neoliberal goal is to marketize the nation's politics so that financial markets can be elevated over vague liberalisms like the common good and the public interest. (Page 260)

    According to Frank, what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of governments; it is the capture of government by business interests. The game of corporatism is to see how much public resources the private interest can seize for itself before public government can stop them. A proper slogan for this mentality would be: more business in government, less government in business. And, there are market based solutions to every problem. Government should be market based. George W. Bush grabbed more power for the executive branch than anyone since Nixon. The ultra-rights' fortunes depend on public cynicism toward government. With the U.S. having been set up as a merchant state, the idea of small government is now a canard - mass privatization and outsourcing is preferred. Building cynicism toward government is the objective. Neoliberals don't want efficient government, they want less competition and more profits - especially for defense contractors. Under Reagan, civil servants were out, loyalists were in.

    While the Clinton team spoke of entrepreneurial government - of reinventing government - the wrecking crew under Republicans has made the state the tool of money as a market-based system replaced civil service by a government-by-contractor (outsourcing). Page 137 This has been an enduring trend, many of the great robber barons got their start as crooked contractors during the Civil War. Contractors are now a fourth branch of government with more people working under contracts than are directly employed by government - making it difficult to determine where government stops and the contractors start in a system of privatized government where private contractors are shielded from oversight or accountability. (Page 138)

    The first general rule of neoliberal administration: cronies in, experts out. The Bush team did away with EPA's office of enforcement - turning enforcement power over to the states. (Page 159) In an effort to demolish the regulatory state, Reagan, immediately after taking office, suspended hundreds of regulations that federal agencies had developed during the Carter Administration. Under Reagan, a philosophy of government blossomed that regarded business as its only constituent. In recent years, neoliberals have deliberately piled up debt to force government into crisis.

    Watergate poisoned attitudes toward government - helping sweep in Ronald Reagan with his anti-government cynicism. Lobbying and influence peddling proliferated in a privatized government. Lobbying is how money casts its vote. It is the signature activity of neoliberal governance - the mechanism that translates market forces into political action. (Page 175)

    It is the goal of the neoliberal agenda to smash the liberal state. Deficits are one means to accomplish that end.- to persuade voters to part with programs like Social Security and Medicare so these funds can be transferred to corporate contractors or used to finance wars or deficit reduction.. Uncle Sam can raise money by selling off public assets.

    Since liberalism depends on fair play by its sworn enemies, it is vulnerable to sabotage by those not playing by liberalism's rules/ (Page 265) The Liberal State, a vast machinery built for our protection has been reengineered into a device for our exploitation. (Page 8) Liberalism arose out of a long-ago compromise between left-wing social movements and business interests. (Page 266) Neoliberalism speaks of not compromise but of removing adversaries from the field altogether. (Page 266) No one dreams of eliminating the branches of state that protect Neoliberalism's constituents such as the military, police, or legal privileges granted to corporations, neoliberals openly scheme to do away with liberal bits of big government. (Page 266)

    Liberalism is a philosophy of compromise, without a force on the Left to neutralize the magneticism exerted by money, liberalism will be drawn to the right. (Page 274)

    Through corporate media and right wing talk show, liberalism has become a dirty word. However, liberalism may not be dead yet. It will have to be resurrected from the trash bin of history when the next capitalist crisis hits. One should never forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal that saved capitalism from itself. Also, one should not forget that capitalism came out of the classical liberal tradition. Capitalists had to wrest power away from the landowning nobility, the arch neoliberal tradition of its time.

    [Aug 19, 2016] 6 Problems With Medias Reaction To Trumps ISIS Comments

    This is a very important article and I strongly recommend to read it in full to understand how neoliberal propaganda works.
    This is nice example of how difficult is for ordinary person to cut threw media lies and get to the truth. So some level of brainwashing is inevitable unless you use only alternative media. Neoliberal MSM are disgusting and are lying all the time, but unless you use WWW and foreign sources (like people in the in the USSR did -- substitute radio for WWW, as it did not existed yet) that is not much else.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump did something downright shocking for a debate a few days before an important Republican primary. He went after the country's last Republican president, George W. Bush. Hard. He went after the Republican Party's general foreign policy approach. Hard. ..."
    "... Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. All right? The war in Iraq, we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have it. Iran has taken over Iraq with the second-largest oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction. ..."
    "... Trump said, "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that That's not keeping us safe." ..."
    "... Compare that little vignette with this week, when Donald Trump repeatedly said that President Obama and Hillary Clinton were founders/co-founders/MVPs of ISIS. ..."
    "... Washington Examiner ..."
    "... DT: I don't care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay? ..."
    "... Vanity Fair ..."
    Aug 12, 2016 | thefederalist.com

    Back in February, candidates for the Republican nomination for president debated each other in South Carolina. The Saturday evening discussion was raucous. Donald Trump did something downright shocking for a debate a few days before an important Republican primary. He went after the country's last Republican president, George W. Bush. Hard. He went after the Republican Party's general foreign policy approach. Hard.

    Moderator John Dickerson asked him about his 2008 comments in favor of impeaching George W. Bush. He had said that year that Bush had "lied" to get the United States into a war in Iraq. Trump said to Dickerson:

    Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. All right? The war in Iraq, we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have it. Iran has taken over Iraq with the second-largest oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

    Jeb Bush attempted to defend his brother's honor, saying, "And while Donald Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe. And I'm proud of what he did."

    Trump said, "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that That's not keeping us safe."

    And on it went. Yes, many in the crowd booed. Yes, many Republicans opposed his conspiracy theories about George W. Bush. The media were able to report Trump's challenges to Republican foreign policy without weighing in on the veracity of his claims. The most interesting thing of all? Trump easily won the South Carolina primary a week later with 33 percent of the vote.

    Compare that little vignette with this week, when Donald Trump repeatedly said that President Obama and Hillary Clinton were founders/co-founders/MVPs of ISIS. Even though the media had more than shot their outrage wad for the week, the media doubled, tripled, even quadrupled down on their outrage for the Wednesday night-Thursday news cycle. Here are six problems with the media's complete meltdown over the remarks.

    1. Why Did This Become an Issue Now and Not 7 Months Ago?

      Republicans who oppose Trump claim the media encouraged Trump when he was setting fire to Republican opponents but have fought him tooth and nail in the general. Ammunition for that claim includes the distinct ways the media have reacted to his long-standing claim that Obama and Clinton founded ISIS.

      As the Washington Examiner notes, Trump said this three times in January alone:

      'They've created ISIS. Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama,' he said during a campaign rally in Mississippi.

      Trump restated the claim in an interview on CBS in July. 'Hillary Clinton invented ISIS with her stupid policies,' he said. 'She is responsible for ISIS.'

      He said it again during a rally in Florida one month later. 'It was Hillary Clinton – she should take an award from them as the founder of ISIS.'

      Needless to say, the media response to these comments was more bemused enabling than the abject horror they reserved for this week. The full media meltdown over something Trump has been saying all year long is at best odd and unbecoming. At worst, it suggests deep media corruption.

    2. Hyperliteralism

      Listen, Trump might be an effective communicator with his core audience, but others have trouble understanding him. His speaking style couldn't be more removed from the anodyne and cautious political rhetoric of our era. This can be a challenge for political journalists in particular. His sentences run on into paragraphs. He avoids specificity or contradicts himself when he doesn't. His sentences trail into other sentences before they finish. He doesn't play the usual games that the media are used to. It's frustrating.

      So the media immediately decided Trump was claiming that Obama had literally incorporated ISIS a few years back. And they treated this literal claim as a fact that needed to be debunked.

      Politifact gave the claim one of their vaunted "pants on fire" rulings: ... ... ...

      The "fact" "check" admits that both President Barack Obama's leadership in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's push to change regimes in Libya led to the explosion of ISIS but says that since Trump said he really, totally, no-joke meant Obama and Clinton were co-founders, that they must give him a Pants On Fire rating.

      Even ABC News had a piece headlined, "Obama Is Not the 'Founder' of ISIS – These Guys Are." Nobody can be this stupid, not even our media.

      As for the CNN chyron which appears to be deployed never in the case of Hillary Clinton's many serious troubles with truth-telling, or when Joe Biden told black voters that Republicans were going to "put y'all back in chains," but repeatedly in the case of Donald Trump speaking hyperbolically, this tweet is worth considering:

    3. Failure to Do Due Diligence

      On Thursday morning, Trump did a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt. The media clipped one part of his answer and used it to push a narrative that Donald Trump was super serial about Obama literally going to Baghdad, attending organizational meetings, and holding bake sales to launch his new organization ISIS.

      Kapur's tweet went viral but so did about eleventy billion other reporter tweets making the same point. The Guardian headline was "Trump reiterates he literally believes Barack Obama is the 'founder of Isis'."

      You really need to listen to the interview to get the full flavor of how unjournalistic this narrative is.

      Yes, Trump does reiterate over and over that Obama is the founder of ISIS. And yes, he says he really meant to say Obama founded ISIS. But that's definitely not all. How hard is it to listen for an additional minute or read an additional few words? The relevant portion of the interview is from 15:25 to 16:53. So this is not a huge investment of your time.

      First off, let's note for our hyperliteral media that Trump says "I'm a person that doesn't like insulting people" a few seconds before Hewitt asks about the ISIS comments. (Fact check: Pants on fire, amiright?) In this minute and a half, Trump says "I meant he's the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton." Hewitt pushes back, saying that Obama is trying to kill ISIS. Trump says:

      DT: I don't care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?

      Here, journalists and pundits, is your first slap across the face that maybe, just maybe, Trump is not talking about articles of incorporation but, rather, something else entirely.

      Hewitt says, yeah, but the way you're saying it is opening you up to criticism. Was it a mistake? Trump says not at all. Obama is ISIS's most valuable player. Then Trump asks Hewitt if he doesn't like the way he's phrasing all this! And here's where journalists might want to put on their thinking caps and pay attention. Hewitt says he'd say that Obama and Hillary lost the peace and created a vacuum for ISIS, but he wouldn't say they created it:

      HH: I don't. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn't create ISIS. That's what I would say.

      DT: Well, I disagree.

      HH: All right, that's okay.

      DT: I mean, with his bad policies, that's why ISIS came about.

      HH: That's

      DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn't have had ISIS.

      HH: That's true.

      DT: Therefore, he was the founder of ISIS.

      HH: And that's, I'd just use different language to communicate it, but let me close with this, because I know I'm keeping you long, and Hope's going to kill me.

      DT: But they wouldn't talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?

      Now, this is undoubtedly true. When people critique Obama's policies as Hewitt did, the media either call the critic racist or ignore him. When Trump critiques Obama's policies, they do talk about the way he does it. Maybe this means the message gets through to people.

      No matter what, though, the media should have stuck through all 90 seconds of the discussion to avoid the idiotic claim that Trump was saying Obama was literally on the ground in Iraq running ISIS' operations. He flat-out admits he's speaking hyperbolically to force the media to cover it.

    4. Pretending This Rhetoric Is Abnormal

      People accuse their political opponents of being responsible for bad things all the time. Clinton accused Trump of being ISIS' top recruiter. Bush's CIA and NSA chief said Trump was a "recruiting sergeant" for ISIS. Former NYC mayor Rudy Guiliani said Hillary Clinton could be considered a founding member of ISIS. Here was Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, just a few weeks ago, making a completely false claim of Republican's literal ties to ISIS:

      Carly Fiorina and Rick Santorum placed blame for ISIS on Obama and Clinton. Sen. John McCain said Obama was "directly responsible" for the Orlando ISIS attack due to his failure to deal with the terror group. President Obama said he couldn't think of a more potent recruiting tool for ISIS than Republican rhetoric in support of prioritizing help for Christians who had been targeted by the group. Last year, Vanity Fair published a piece blaming George W. Bush for ISIS. Heck, so did President Obama. There are many other examples. This type of rhetoric may not be exemplary, but we shouldn't pretend it's unique to Trump.


    5. Missing Actual Problems with His Comments

      Huge kudos to BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski for avoiding the feigned outrage/fainting couch in favor of an important critique of Trump's comments. He didn't pretend to be confused by what Trump was saying. By avoiding that silliness, he noticed something much more problematic with Trump's comments.

      Trump has cited the conservative critique of President Obama's Iraq policy - that the withdrawal of troops in 2011 led to a power vacuum that allowed ISIS to flourish - in making the claim.

      'He was the founder of ISIS, absolutely,' Trump said on CNBC on Thursday. 'The way he removed our troops - you shouldn't have gone in. I was against the war in Iraq. Totally against it.' (Trump was not against the war as he has repeatedly claimed.) 'The way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, OK?' Trump later said.

      But lost in Trump's immediate comments is that, for years, he pushed passionately and forcefully for the same immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. In interview after interview in the later 2000s, Trump said American forces should be removed from Iraq.

      Read the whole (brief) thing. One of the Trump quotes in the piece specifically has him acknowledging the civil unrest in Iraq that led to ISIS flourishing. It's a devastating critique and a far smarter one than the silly hysteria on display elsewhere.

    6. We're Still Not Talking about Widespread Dissatisfaction with Our Foreign Policy

      Let's think back to the opening vignette. Trump went into the South in the middle of the Republican primary and ostentatiously micturated over George W. Bush's Iraq policy. The voters of South Carolina rewarded him with a victory.

      Here's the real scandal in this outrage-du-jour: by pretending to think that Trump was claiming Obama had operational control over ISIS' day-to-day decision making, the media failed to cover widespread dissatisfaction with this country's foreign policy, whether it's coming from George W. Bush or Barack Obama.

      Many Americans are rather sick of this country's way of fighting wars, where enemies receive decades of nation-building instead of crushing defeats, and where threats are pooh-poohed or poorly managed instead of actually dealt with.

      Trump may be an uneven and erratic communicator who is unable to force that discussion in a way that a more traditional candidate might, but the media shouldn't have to be forced into it. Crowds are cheering Trump's hard statements about Obama and Clinton's policies in the Middle East because they are sick and tired of losing men, women, treasure and time with impotent, misguided, aimless efforts there.

      The vast majority of Americans supported invading Iraq, even if many of them deny they supported it now. Americans have lost confidence in both Republican and Democratic foreign policy approaches. No amount of media hysteria will hide that reality.

    Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway

    [Aug 19, 2016] In Hillary clinton camp view Trump is a racist and his followers are racist and thats all you need to know like the narrative that Trump is Putins stooge, is very convenient to Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Trump is a racist and his followers are racist and that's all you need to know" is a narrative thesis, like the narrative thesis that Trump is Putin's stooge, very convenient to Clinton's candidacy, but ultimately corrosive to American politics and political discourse. ..."
    "... Not just boxed away as, "well, she is obviously better than Trump so let's not even trouble our beautiful minds", when by the way it is not so obvious as all that, as several commenters have tried to point out. People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea. ..."
    "... Everything should not be about electing Clinton. Clinton's election is pretty much assured, despite her deep flaws as a candidate of the center-left (to wit, her war-mongering and epic corruption and economic conservatism). Pundits like Josh Marshall of TPM or Ezra Klein of Vox are betraying their public trust by carrying Clinton's water so slavishly. ..."
    "... People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea ..."
    "... Let's not forget the Clintons were the Democratic Party point people in causing the vast incarceration of black men while simultaneously gutting welfare for black mothers and their children. (Yay 3rd Way!) They were the point people for letting 300 million Chinese workers compete with American workers. They deregulated the banks. And was there a war she didn't like? ..."
    "... If there's a populist politics in our future, it will have to have a much sharper edge. It can talk about growth, but it has to mean smashing the rich and taking their stuff. There's very rapidly going to come a point where there's no other option, other than just accepting cramdown by the authoritarian surveillance state built by the neoliberals. that's a much taller order than Sanders or Trump have been offering. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.13.16 at 7:44 pm 798

    Layman @ 795

    I think all you've really shown is that blue-collar, less-educated people tend to not know much about politics and to have the political attitudes of authoritarian followers and Trump is willing to be demagogic enough to attract their attention as an alternative to the status quo candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

    "Trump is a racist and his followers are racist and that's all you need to know" is a narrative thesis, like the narrative thesis that Trump is Putin's stooge, very convenient to Clinton's candidacy, but ultimately corrosive to American politics and political discourse. It isn't a question of whether statistics suggest racism is an efficient instrumental variable. It is a question of whether this politics of invective and distraction is going anywhere good, could go anywhere good.

    No one in these comment threads has been defending Trump or the political ignorance and resentments of his supporters. Some of us have questioned the wisdom of a political tactic of treating them as pariahs and dismissing their concerns and economic distress as fake or illegitimate.

    The Clinton campaign has whipped up a high dudgeon about racism and Putin and how unsuited Trump is, to be President. I don't disagree about the core conclusion: Trump does not seem to me to be suited to be President. That's hardly a difficult judgment: an impulsive, self-promoting reality teevee star with no experience of public office - hmmm, let me think about that for two seconds. But, the high dudgeon serves other purposes, to which I object strongly.

    Even though, and especially because Clinton is very likely to become President, her suitability ought to be scrutinized. Not just boxed away as, "well, she is obviously better than Trump so let's not even trouble our beautiful minds", when by the way it is not so obvious as all that, as several commenters have tried to point out. People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea.

    Everything should not be about electing Clinton. Clinton's election is pretty much assured, despite her deep flaws as a candidate of the center-left (to wit, her war-mongering and epic corruption and economic conservatism). Pundits like Josh Marshall of TPM or Ezra Klein of Vox are betraying their public trust by carrying Clinton's water so slavishly. Ezra may be gaining all important access to the Clinton White House comparable to what he had in Obama's White House, but he spent his credibility with his readers to get it. And, he's deprived his readers of the opportunity to learn about issues of vital importance, like the TPP and corporate business power, or NATO expansion and the relationship with Russia, or the swirling vortex forming in the Middle East where American Empire is going down the drain of failed invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and ill-conceived "alliances" with fundamentally hostile powers like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

    I don't think these comment threads are a good place to campaign or advocate on the behalf of any candidate. A modicum of advocacy might be welcome for the fodder it provides for reflective rumination, but mirroring the Clinton campaign's themes seems to require systematic misreadings of counter-argument and that has become disruptive. (RNB's volume and habitual tendentiousness puts RNB into a special category in this regard.) There ought to be room in this discussions to move the conversation to more of a meta-level, where we consider trends and dynamics without the partisan's hyper-narrow focus.

    kidneystones 08.13.16 at 9:03 pm 799

    @ 793 Hi Rich, that's a fair question. If memory serves, there were several very close calls under Nixon more from errors in the 'fail safe' system. Nixon is a complicated amoral actor fairly obviously guilty of some extremely serious crimes. He was not the only nasty actor at the time, however. In the specific case you're describing, I don't think any president would have handled things much differently. Russian missiles 90 miles from US soil during the cold war was unacceptable.

    Many of our students have absolutely no idea of what life was like during the 20th century. It's literally another world. The one we share today seems infinitely safer and more tolerant. Cheers.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.13.16 at 9:12 pm
    BW: "People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea."

    Or, as Ian Welsh points out, her position on Syria. She seems to have advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria after Russia came in, which would presumably put us in the position of shooting down Russian warplanes or having a good chance of doing so. Maybe if she does take on Kissinger as an advisor he'll tell her that superpower conflicts have to be done through proxies or they're too dangerous.

    For the larger question of whether these comment threads are a good place to campaign or advocate, I sort of come down in a different place than you do. If these comment threads were about good-faith argument, then sure this kind of advocacy might be bad, but I don't think that most people here are capable of good-faith argument even if they were attempting it (most of the time they aren't attempting it). In that case the comment threads serve an alternate purpose of seeing what kinds of beliefs are out there, at least among the limited group of people likely to comment on CT threads. Of course people can be kicked out if they habitually make the threads too difficult to moderate (or really, for whatever other reason an OP decides on), but the well has long since been poisoned and one more drop isn't really going to do much more damage.

    T 08.13.16 at 9:13 pm

    BW@798
    Amen.

    There's a reason the electorate hates both Trump and Clinton. This is what 40 years of two-party neoliberism gives us: an unhinged demagogue or the point person for Democratic policies that have systematically gutted the middle class, screwed the poor, increase inequality, slowed productivity, caused multiple wars, and made them personally rich.

    Let's not forget the Clintons were the Democratic Party point people in causing the vast incarceration of black men while simultaneously gutting welfare for black mothers and their children. (Yay 3rd Way!) They were the point people for letting 300 million Chinese workers compete with American workers. They deregulated the banks. And was there a war she didn't like?

    So Layman finds that the 80% of the Evangelicals that support Trump are racist. And so are the white voters in manufacturing regions. (Excuse me. "Principally" racist.) And Layman's exact counterpart on some unnamed right-wing site thinks all the blacks voting for HRC are in it for the welfare and affirmative action. (Yes, your exact counterpart. Oh, and they, like you, would say blacks are "principally" scammers cause, you know, there are other minor reasons to vote HRC.)

    I take a different view. I think most voters are going to have the taste of vomit in the their mouths when they pull the lever.

    alfredlordbleep 08.13.16 at 9:55 pm 802

    B Wilder @689

    Brings up revolution

    If there's a populist politics in our future, it will have to have a much sharper edge. It can talk about growth, but it has to mean smashing the rich and taking their stuff. There's very rapidly going to come a point where there's no other option, other than just accepting cramdown by the authoritarian surveillance state built by the neoliberals. that's a much taller order than Sanders or Trump have been offering.

    Fit for inscription (keeps me smashingly awake after hundreds of comments :-))

    LFC 08.14.16 at 1:19 am 809

    bruce wilder @687

    The moral righteousness of identity politics adds in an element that goes way beyond the lazy failure to hold politicians accountable or the tendency to explain away their more Machiavellian maneuvers. There's both an actual blindness to the reactionary conservatism of equal opportunity exploitation and a peremptory challenge to any other claim or analysis. If police practices and procedures are trending in an authoritarian direction, they can only be challenged on grounds of racist effect or intent. The authoritarianism cannot be challenged on its own merit, so the building of the authoritarian state goes on unimpeded, since the principle that is challenged is not authoritarianism, but a particular claim of racism or sexism.

    So in the same week that the Justice Department report on the Baltimore police force comes out, showing systematic police discrimination - e.g. lots of people stopped in black neighborhoods, esp. two in particular, for petty reasons or no reason, versus very few people stopped in other neighborhoods - bruce wilder informs us that identity politics somehow prevents us from criticizing police behavior on grounds of authoritarianism, that it can only be criticized on grounds of racism (or subconscious racial bias) - of course, that wd appear to be a main problem w police behavior in Baltimore and some other places.

    ... ... ...

    [Aug 19, 2016] The supress the disclosure of the DNC emails required a preposterous story of Russian hacking, followed by a gotcha accusing Trump of asking Putin to become a latter day Watergate burglar.

    Notable quotes:
    "... We here in CT comments lead a quiet, parochial life. In the larger world, the disclosure of the DNC emails required a preposterous story of Russian hacking, followed by a gotcha accusing Trump of asking Putin to become a latter day Watergate burglar. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.08.16 at 5:07 pm

    RP @ 375: the DNC Email

    We here in CT comments lead a quiet, parochial life. In the larger world, the disclosure of the DNC emails required a preposterous story of Russian hacking, followed by a gotcha accusing Trump of asking Putin to become a latter day Watergate burglar.

    I have no sympathy for Trump, who made his bones as birther-in-chief. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    But, I do have some sympathy for the rest of us, who are the objects of these manipulations. The email discussing whether they can push the atheist hot-button or the Jew hot-button and get a predictable response from voters disturbs me because it seems that the propaganda has drowned out everything else.

    It is one thing when they're wearing out the gay hot-button or the xenophobia hot-button or trying to get the anti-semite hot-button to work again, but I get the idea that there's only hot-buttons, only manipulation. There's no considered, deliberate purpose behind any of it. Hillary Clinton is so pre-occupied affirming support for Israel and condemning Iran or ISIS or Russia, that there's no room left for formulating reality-based policy or explaining such a policy to the American people.

    [Aug 19, 2016] Russian hackers story is propagated to create a distraction form DNC emails revelations and an excuse for pundits to engage in groundless speculation and fake ourage

    Moreover story about the Russkies carrying out a plot to influence the US election is so much juicier than a real story about Clinton's minions doing the humdrum work of influencing US elections by unethical means. It is somewhat similar to "Romney dog" story.
    Notable quotes:
    "... It is a story offered without proof for the purposes of creating a distraction, since it becomes an excuse for pundits engaging in groundless speculation and poses of outrage. Because a far-fetched story about the Russkies carrying out an 11-dimensional plot to influence the U.S. election is so much juicier than a pedestrian story about Clinton's minions doing the humdrum work of . . . influencing U.S. elections by unethical means. ..."
    "... The convoluted and imaginative stories about Guccifer and so on are just that, stories. The U.S. has an enormous and expensive surveillance state apparatus in place. So proof is, presumably, readily available if someone in authority wants to offer it. In the meantime, we have self-styled consultants blowing smoke ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.08.16 at 11:42 pm 396

    Lanny Davis, longtime Clinton ally and DNC hack, explaining in great detail ( on Fox no less) why the Romney dog story makes the Republican candidate (is a Mormon the same as an atheist, Debbie?) unfit for the office of the President.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/13/romneys-dog-on-car-roof-story-makes-him-unfit-to-be-president.html

    bruce wilder 08.08.16 at 11:45 pm 397

    awy @ 389: why is russian hacking of the dnc a preposterous story?

    It is a story offered without proof for the purposes of creating a distraction, since it becomes an excuse for pundits engaging in groundless speculation and poses of outrage.

    Because a far-fetched story about the Russkies carrying out an 11-dimensional plot to influence the U.S. election is so much juicier than a pedestrian story about Clinton's minions doing the humdrum work of . . . influencing U.S. elections by unethical means.

    The convoluted and imaginative stories about Guccifer and so on are just that, stories. The U.S. has an enormous and expensive surveillance state apparatus in place. So proof is, presumably, readily available if someone in authority wants to offer it. In the meantime, we have self-styled consultants blowing smoke.

    But, hey, the Democrat's Platform promises: "Democrats will protect our industry, infrastructure, and government from cyberattacks." Hillary is going to get on that real soon now.

    [Aug 19, 2016] Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasnt just violating the norms; she was trying to weaken her Party, draining away resources to the Clinton campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... The violation of norms was similar, but Tom DeLay invented his scheme as a way of strengthening his Party and making it more powerful in Congress, which was kinda his job, and he was quite successful in adding Republicans to the Texas delegation. ..."
    "... Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't just violating the norms; she was trying to weaken her Party, draining away resources to the Clinton campaign that they had no legitimate claim to from parts of the Party that needed those resources. And, it is part of a pattern of leadership action to weaken the Party. (Patrick Murphy, her hand-picked candidate for U.S. Senate from Florida is exhibit one.) ..."
    "... I think it is fair and accurate to describe the HVF transfer arrangements as a means of circumventing campaign financing limits and using the State parties to subsidize the Clinton campaign. ..."
    "... Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of [June], the fund had brought in $142 million, . . . 44 percent [to] DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), . . . state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee - or only 0.56 percent. ..."
    "... Beyond the transfers, much of the fund's $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties ..."
    "... The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for "salary and overhead expenses" to reimburse it for fundraising efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive - both of which also serve the Clinton campaign - for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton campaign materials. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.02.16 at 9:45 pm 72

    Wasn't Tom DeLay indicted and driven from Congress over a similar sort of money shuffle?

    The violation of norms was similar, but Tom DeLay invented his scheme as a way of strengthening his Party and making it more powerful in Congress, which was kinda his job, and he was quite successful in adding Republicans to the Texas delegation.

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't just violating the norms; she was trying to weaken her Party, draining away resources to the Clinton campaign that they had no legitimate claim to from parts of the Party that needed those resources. And, it is part of a pattern of leadership action to weaken the Party. (Patrick Murphy, her hand-picked candidate for U.S. Senate from Florida is exhibit one.)

    bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 1:08 am

    Layman @ 79

    I am not interested in a prolonged back and forth, but I will lay out a bare outline of facts. I do not find much support for your characterization of these arrangements, which give new meaning to the fungibility of funds. I think it is fair and accurate to describe the HVF transfer arrangements as a means of circumventing campaign financing limits and using the State parties to subsidize the Clinton campaign. Court rulings have made aggregate fund raising legal and invites this means of circumventing the $2700 limit on individual Presidential campaign donations. Whether the circumvention is legal - whether it violates the law to invite nominal contributions to State Parties of $10,000 and channel those contributions wholly to operations in support of Clinton, while leaving nothing in State Party coffers is actually illegal, I couldn't say; it certainly violates the norms of a putative joint fundraising effort. It wasn't hard for POLITICO to find State officials who said as much. The rest of this comment quotes POLITICO reports dated July 2016.

    Hillary Victory Fund, which now includes 40 state Democratic Party committees, theoretically could accept checks as large as $436,100 - based on the individual limits of $10,000 per state party, $33,400 for the DNC, and $2,700 for Clinton's campaign.

    Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of [June], the fund had brought in $142 million, . . . 44 percent [to] DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), . . . state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee - or only 0.56 percent.

    . . . state parties have received $7.7 million in transfers, but within a few days of most transfers, almost all of the cash - $6.9 million - was transferred to the DNC . . .

    The only date on which most state parties received money from the victory fund and didn't pass any of it on to the DNC was May 2, the same day that POLITICO published an article exposing the arrangement.

    Beyond the transfers, much of the fund's $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties.

    The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for "salary and overhead expenses" to reimburse it for fundraising efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive - both of which also serve the Clinton campaign - for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton campaign materials.

    [Aug 19, 2016] Whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans

    Notable quotes:
    "... The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America. ..."
    "... What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand. ..."
    "... You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:37 am 87

    84@ The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America.

    What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand.

    What is also clear from your comment is that you, and perhaps some others, believe that this love of country and rich tapestry of subcultures somehow makes Americans very, very special and beyond criticism.

    We understand this much: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor – 68 civilian casualties.

    The US response: "..on the night of March 9-10, 1945…LeMay sent 334 B-29s low over Tokyo from the Marianas. Their mission was to reduce the city to rubble, kill its citizens, and instill terror in the survivors, with jellied gasoline and napalm that would create a sea of flames. Stripped of their guns to make more room for bombs, and flying at altitudes averaging 7,000 feet to evade detection, the bombers, which had been designed for high-altitude precision attacks, carried two kinds of incendiaries: M47s, 100-pound oil gel bombs, 182 per aircraft, each capable of starting a major fire, followed by M69s, 6-pound gelled-gasoline bombs, 1,520 per aircraft in addition to a few high explosives to deter firefighters. [25] The attack on an area that the US Strategic Bombing Survey estimated to be 84.7 percent residential succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of air force planners…

    The Strategic Bombing Survey, whose formation a few months earlier provided an important signal of Roosevelt's support for strategic bombing, provided a technical description of the firestorm and its effects on Tokyo: The chief characteristic of the conflagration . . . was the presence of a fire front, an extended wall of fire moving to leeward, preceded by a mass of pre-heated, turbid, burning vapors . . . . The 28-mile-per-hour wind, measured a mile from the fire, increased to an estimated 55 miles at the perimeter, and probably more within. An extended fire swept over 15 square miles in 6 hours . . . . The area of the fire was nearly 100 percent burned; no structure or its contents escaped damage."

    The survey concluded-plausibly, but only for events prior to August 6, 1945-that

    "probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time in the history of man. People died from extreme heat, from oxygen deficiency, from carbon monoxide asphyxiation, from being trampled beneath the feet of stampeding crowds, and from drowning. The largest number of victims were the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly."

    The raids continue for all the 'best' military reasons…

    "In July, US planes blanketed the few remaining Japanese cities that had been spared firebombing with an "Appeal to the People." "As you know," it read, "America which stands for humanity, does not wish to injure the innocent people, so you had better evacuate these cities." Half the leafleted cities were firebombed within days of the warning. US planes ruled the skies. Overall, by one calculation, the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killed more than 300,000 people and injured an additional 400,000, figures that exclude the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (My italics) http://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/2414/article.html

    kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:59 am

    @ 86 Both my parents served. My grand-fathers served, and most of my uncles and great-uncles served – you know, the whole mess from being shot to dying in hospitals years after the war from gas attacks. And I served, nothing special about any of this.

    You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display.

    Should all the foreigners in your debt salute, or simply prostrate ourselves in awe?

    We're done.

    [Aug 19, 2016] Historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone

    Obama is a neocon and is fully dedicated to expansion and maintenance of the US global neoliberal empire, at any cost for the US population. Racism card play against Trump, who opposes neoliberal interventionism, is a variant of the classic " Divide et impera" strategy
    Notable quotes:
    "... Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone ..."
    "... Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't socialist or leftist ..."
    "... Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'. Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the behest of special interests. ..."
    "... Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    stevenjohnson 08.12.16 at 3:45 pm

    Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone and forgetting Barack Obama is still president, and won't even be a lame duck till November.

    Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't socialist or leftist, despite Bernie Sanders' long career as a sort of socialist (only informally a Democrat.)

    Historical amnesia means forgetting to even ask what "Watergate" was, and if or how it mattered (or didn't.)

    Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'. Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the behest of special interests.

    (Yes, Lupita believes that imperialism actually pays off for the whole country, which presumably is why when her preferred rich people try to get their own she'll be for that. Nonetheless, the idea is bullshit. At this point, I can only imagine people don't call her out on that because they actually agree that "we" are all in it together with our owners.)

    Historical amnesia includes forgetting Trump has run for president before, with the same personality and the same tactics and the same party base. It is unclear how the essentially racist nature of the vile masses has changed so much in four years.

    Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries.

    [Aug 19, 2016] Clinton has to worry about low voter turnout. Democrats lose low turnout elections and the Democratic Party apparatus is weak in many States, including North Carolina, Ohio and Florida, which are usually considered battlegrounds. If Democratic turnout is low enough, Trump can put unusual states like New York in play

    After stealing money from states to help Hillary, Politburo of democratic Party (aka DNC) now it trying to sink trump is the ocean of lies and distortions. That also helps to hide Hillary helath problems and emailgate fiasco. Attack is the best form of defense.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A vote for Trump is a middle-finger vote [ to neoliberal world globalization] . A Trump voter does not have to believe that Trump will do anything for him, only that Trump breaking the system won't be worse for the voter than for the system. ..."
    "... Obama had a very easy time of it in 2012. He had an opponent highly vulnerable to easily formulated populist attacks and with only muted appeal within the ranks of his own Party. It enabled Obama to run a very highly controlled and modulated campaign, aiming at a very narrow margin, but highly certain victory, a strategy that served Obama's neoliberal policy agenda well, since he neither had to attack the predatory wealth Romney the tax-dodging vampire capitalist symbolized, nor did he have to make extravagant populist promises to bring out additional electoral support. ..."
    "... Clinton has to worry about low voter turnout. Democrats lose low turnout elections and the Democratic Party apparatus is weak in many States, including North Carolina, Ohio and Florida, which are usually considered battlegrounds. If Democratic turnout is low enough, Trump can put unusual states like New York in play. ..."
    "... these things may cause a pivot with Trump standing in place. It would be a pivot to Trump attacking a broader range of establishment elites on a broader range of issues. ..."
    "... Ian Welsh notes that the story of the Trump meltdown is also a ready-made story of "a stab-in-the-back" by elites stealing the election. Trump is the past Teflon Master on these kinds of gotcha fests, but if the Media pivots away from playing gotcha with Trump saying hateful and alarming things about immigration and race to Trump saying arguably true things about foreign policy or economic policy that are kept in an undiscussed box by the perverted norms of conventional wisdom, that might be enough of a broadening pivot. Unlikely, but maybe. ..."
    "... Trump's candidacy is an attack on the legitimacy of elites and elite discourse. The news Media is as much an opponent as Clinton. If he baits them, even inadvertently, into doing a pivot for him, that's worrisome. ..."
    "... even if the attacks on the legitimacy of Clinton, the Media, the Republican establishment won't get far enough to win the election for Trump, they portend badly for Clinton's Administration. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 4:41 pm 136

    A vote for Trump is a middle-finger vote [ to neoliberal world globalization]. A Trump voter does not have to believe that Trump will do anything for him, only that Trump breaking the system won't be worse for the voter than for the system.

    bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 4:57 pm

    Romney was in every respect a conventional candidate, one that protected the Republican brand and, more importantly, protected the Democratic brand and the Obama brand.

    Obama had a very easy time of it in 2012. He had an opponent highly vulnerable to easily formulated populist attacks and with only muted appeal within the ranks of his own Party. It enabled Obama to run a very highly controlled and modulated campaign, aiming at a very narrow margin, but highly certain victory, a strategy that served Obama's neoliberal policy agenda well, since he neither had to attack the predatory wealth Romney the tax-dodging vampire capitalist symbolized, nor did he have to make extravagant populist promises to bring out additional electoral support.

    Clinton, ironically and even paradoxically, has a harder task because Trump is a "worse" candidate than Romney.

    Laying down markers for governance, as RP puts it, poses challenges Obama did not face in 2012. Carefully calibrating her campaign to get predictable responses and turnout will be much harder.

    bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 9:51 pm

    Layman @ 143

    Yours seems to me like a sound if conventional analysis.

    Clinton has to worry about low voter turnout. Democrats lose low turnout elections and the Democratic Party apparatus is weak in many States, including North Carolina, Ohio and Florida, which are usually considered battlegrounds. If Democratic turnout is low enough, Trump can put unusual states like New York in play.

    Also, attacks on Trump by establishment Republicans, who are worried about his violation of norms and by the Media Wurlitzer staging a gotcha ("oh my gosh, Trump didn't know about Crimea!") - these things may cause a pivot with Trump standing in place. It would be a pivot to Trump attacking a broader range of establishment elites on a broader range of issues.

    Ian Welsh notes that the story of the Trump meltdown is also a ready-made story of "a stab-in-the-back" by elites stealing the election. Trump is the past Teflon Master on these kinds of gotcha fests, but if the Media pivots away from playing gotcha with Trump saying hateful and alarming things about immigration and race to Trump saying arguably true things about foreign policy or economic policy that are kept in an undiscussed box by the perverted norms of conventional wisdom, that might be enough of a broadening pivot. Unlikely, but maybe.

    Trump's candidacy is an attack on the legitimacy of elites and elite discourse. The news Media is as much an opponent as Clinton. If he baits them, even inadvertently, into doing a pivot for him, that's worrisome.

    Again, I am firmly in the camp that thinks he has little chance in the election, but like Ian Welsh and others, I tend to think he's a proof of concept for a more disciplined demagogue and that he's accelerating the loss of legitimacy for the whole political system, and even if the attacks on the legitimacy of Clinton, the Media, the Republican establishment won't get far enough to win the election for Trump, they portend badly for Clinton's Administration.

    [Aug 19, 2016] 50 neocon security parasites blackmail Trump

    They feel danger for their cushy positions and military industrial complex profits. Of course they are concerned and denounce the irresponsibility of Trump.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I think we reached peak "Trump is not like anything we've seen before" today when 50 top GOP national security officials, many of them veterans of the George W. Bush administration, actually came out and said, Trump "would put at risk our country's national security." ..."
    "... just go back and read some of Jane Mayer's reporting on Mr. "we must live on the edge" Hayden ..."
    "... my personal favorite, John Negroponte, the man who thought Kissinger was too soft on the North Vietnamese, a Reaganite veteran of the Central America wars who Stephen Kinzer famously described as "a great fabulist." ..."
    "... Even by the Reagan Administration's standards of fantasy and duplicity -- I know this will come as news to some, but Donald Trump didn't make up the practice of constructing an alternative reality; remember that Ron Suskind interview with Karl "we create our own reality" Rove? -- Negroponte stood out, completely devising a Honduras of his imagination, which not only helped it become a staging ground for the devastation of the Contra war but also turned that country into a hellscape. ..."
    "... Anyway, these are the people who are now being trotted out to denounce the irresponsibility of Trump. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    Corey Robin 08.09.16 at 12:12 am 399

    I think we reached peak "Trump is not like anything we've seen before" today when 50 top GOP national security officials, many of them veterans of the George W. Bush administration, actually came out and said, Trump "would put at risk our country's national security."

    Among the signatories to this statement:

    • Michael Hayden (just go back and read some of Jane Mayer's reporting on Mr. "we must live on the edge" Hayden),
    • Eliot Cohen, [According to Wikipedia Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as "World War IV".[6] In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent persons who pressed for an invasion. --NNB]
    • my personal favorite, John Negroponte, the man who thought Kissinger was too soft on the North Vietnamese, a Reaganite veteran of the Central America wars who Stephen Kinzer famously described as "a great fabulist."

    Even by the Reagan Administration's standards of fantasy and duplicity -- I know this will come as news to some, but Donald Trump didn't make up the practice of constructing an alternative reality; remember that Ron Suskind interview with Karl "we create our own reality" Rove? -- Negroponte stood out, completely devising a Honduras of his imagination, which not only helped it become a staging ground for the devastation of the Contra war but also turned that country into a hellscape.

    Anyway, these are the people who are now being trotted out to denounce the irresponsibility of Trump.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.html

    [Aug 19, 2016] This is how fascism comes to America by Robert Kagan

    As neocons are neoliberals with the gun, no wonder they switched the party and became Hillary cheerleaders. Robert Kagan is dyed-in-the-wool neocon, one of the founders of PNAC (which promoted the idea of global neoliberal empire led by the USA and the use of 9/11 style event as vital for converting the USA into national security state) and cheerleader of Iraq war. He is also the husband of Victoria Nuland, who was instrumental in bringing into power neo-Nazis in Ukraine. In this WaPo column he conveniently forget about his own track record and the track record of his wife, openly accused Trump of fascist tendencies while being unable to use the words "neocons wars" and "neoliberal globalization" in the whole article even once
    Notable quotes:
    "... What he off ers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. ..."
    "... His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of "others" - Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees - whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. ..."
    "... Trump is a negotiator. A fascist is a dictator. They have absolutely nothing in common. The neocon who wrote this propaganda is far more a fascist than Trump could ever be...demonstrated right here with his utilizing his media platform to spread propagandist lies...which is what Hitler did. ..."
    "... You have no distaste for the strong man, Kagan. You have a distaste for not being in power. ..."
    "... What does that say about those whose interests are served? What is your net worth Robert? How much did you make in the Bush administration, and how did you make it? What was the soldier cost? ..."
    "... A Robert Kagan article lambasting the upcoming Reich in Israel will be forthcoming I assume. ..."
    "... 'What these people do not or will not see is that, once in power, Trump will owe them and their party nothing". Just like GWB in 2000 and 2004? Where were your warnings then? ..."
    May 18, 2016 | The Washington Post

    But of course the entire Trump phenomenon has nothing to do with policy or ideology. It has nothing to do with the Republican Party, either, except in its historic role as incubator of this singular threat to our democracy. Trump has transcended the party that produced him. His growing army of supporters no longer cares about the party. Because it did not immediately and fully embrace Trump, because a dwindling number of its political and intellectual leaders still resist him, the party is regarded with suspicion and even hostility by his followers. Their allegiance is to him and him alone.

    And the source of allegiance? We're supposed to believe that Trump's support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies - his proposals change daily. What he off ers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of "others" - Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees - whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.

    ... ... ...

    This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called "fascism." Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. "National socialism" was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Führer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation. Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain how. Today, there is Putinism, which also has nothing to do with belief or policy but is about the tough man who single-handedly defends his people against all threats, foreign and domestic.

    Richard Elkind, 6/1/2016 4:06 PM EDT

    Trump is a negotiator. A fascist is a dictator. They have absolutely nothing in common. The neocon who wrote this propaganda is far more a fascist than Trump could ever be...demonstrated right here with his utilizing his media platform to spread propagandist lies...which is what Hitler did.

    Faustfaust, 6/1/2016 3:57 PM EDT

    Kagan,

    A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. Excerpts:

    "Rather than pursuing a comprehensive peace with the entire Arab world, Israel should work jointly with Jordan and Turkey to contain, destabilize, and roll-back those entities that are threats to all three".

    "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambition"

    "Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey's and Jordan's actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite".

    "Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces".

    Who are those proxy forces? ISIS? It seems so. These statements put you and your ilk in the pot as corroborators for what has happened in the Middle East since it was written, and foremost for Syria and its fallout.

    Faustfaust, 6/1/2016 3:23 PM EDT

    Robert Kagan,

    You aren't afraid of strongmen. You prefer them as long as they are working for your interests and those who you see as your group. Do you remember these excerpts in this letter to George Bush that you signed in 2002?:

    "As a liberal democracy under repeated attack by murderers who target civilians, Israel now needs and deserves steadfast support.... We are both targets of what you have correctly called an "Axis of Evil"... Israel is targeted... in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles ...in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred... the United States should lend its full support to Israel as it seeks to root out the terrorist network that daily threatens the lives of Israeli citizens... Furthermore...we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq... every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes... but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons"

    In this letter you:

    1. Are concerned about Israel and its citizens, and are willing to take extreme action on their behalf, in a manner that is not reflected in your concern for American citizens.

    You were willing to destroy nations in the Levant while you call "nazi" when Trump wants to temporarily reduce travel for a group that has been prone to terrorism in the U.S. on a scale that not even Israel as experienced.

    Meanwhile, you have no issue with Israel's walls, population segregation, and ethnocentrism as symbols of a strong man fascist government. While you spin language to paint Trump's relatively mild suggestions as a sign of fascism, you have no issue cosigning the use of liberal superlatives for Israel. Simply, your writing is disingenuous.

    2. Have admitted to your support for the lie that the Iraq invasion was predicated upon, and for Syria's destruction that is now occurring.

    You have no distaste for the strong man, Kagan. You have a distaste for not being in power.

    JMater, 6/1/2016 8:47 AM EDT

    Robert Kagan and the rest of the Israel firsters brought fascism to the US. They have used the CUFI type of organizations and AIPaC and Wall Street money to brainwash Americans and corrupt Washington to the core.

    Faustfaust, 5/31/2016 7:45 PM EDT

    "This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac "tapping into" popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party - out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear - falling into line behind him".

    Robert Kagan, the brave patriot sounding the alarm from his entrenched and curiously across-the-aisle regular columnist position at the Washington Post.

    Curiously, all of the mainstream writers in solidarity with the concerns of Trump supporters in this democracy are silent.

    What does that say about those whose interests are served? What is your net worth Robert? How much did you make in the Bush administration, and how did you make it? What was the soldier cost?

    Has anyone in your immediate family ever served in the U.S. military?

    Your World War II abuse is in bad taste Robert, and excessively disrespectful to the population of this nation who your political class has asked to make an unconscionable regular sacrifice for as long as this nation has existed. For shame.

    Faustfaust, 5/31/2016 7:35 PM EDT

    "Get right with the leader and his mass following or get run over".

    Are you more comfortable with the Neocons running over the base? The number of people that benefit in either situation seems skewed toward a small minority in your preference. Is this a country of the politics of the minority?

    "They praise the leader's incoherent speeches as the beginning of wisdom, hoping he will reward them with a plum post in the new order. There are those who merely hope to survive. Their consciences won't let them curry favor so shamelessly, so they mumble their pledges of support, like the victims in Stalin's show trials, perhaps not realizing that the leader and his followers will get them in the end anyway".

    You are awfully bold with the allusions to genocidal regimes when addressing a population whose families gave up hundreds of thousands of soldiers to save your people, while at the same time Israel won't move a muscle to stop ISIS while they ethnically cleanse its region.

    Private Subscriber, 5/31/2016 7:37 AM EDT

    Mr. Kagan is a regular columnist for The Post whose biography is readily available. Every column of his, including this one, is followed by a note that he served in President Reagan's State Department.

    The Post isn't remotely pathetic, but having little faith in the intelligence of other readers and using the fourth-grade term "Shillary" is -- and I say that as a Sen. Sanders voter.

    You seem awfully bold with the allusions to genocidal regimes as an argument against people who want to reduce terrorism and have their immigration laws enforced, in light of your support for a regime that is rabidly more ethno-nationalist in Israel.

    You seem to be taking advantage of the emotions of people whom you obviously do not respect nor appreciate. Perhaps you'll soon resort to drawing overly-simplistic illustrations of political timelines embedded in cartoon explosives.

    "A great number will simply kid themselves, refusing to admit that something very different from the usual politics is afoot".

    Well, let's be honest. It would not be unusual for Israel. These politics would be extremely mild in Israel. A Robert Kagan article lambasting the upcoming Reich in Israel will be forthcoming I assume.

    'What these people do not or will not see is that, once in power, Trump will owe them and their party nothing". Just like GWB in 2000 and 2004? Where were your warnings then?

    Dodgers1, 5/31/2016 7:32 PM EDT

    Before we talk about Trump, we should take a look at Obama, America's version of President Snow in the movie "Hunger Games".

    Edward Snowden, if he was ever kidnapped back to the United States, would most certainly be persecuted by the State. If not for Snowden, we would have never have known about Obama's use of technology to create and move forward with his version of a police state.

    [Aug 19, 2016] The NYT argues for media bias against the Republican nominee

    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.08.16 at 1:43 pm

    The NYT argues for media bias against the Republican, because…

    The Republican is crazy and unfit to be President. First time, really!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html?_r=0

    [Aug 18, 2016] The casuality figures suggests that a civil war between factions fighting on approxzimatly level playing field with civilians caught in the middle, sometimes deliberately killed and sometimes dying because of indiscriminate fire

    Notable quotes:
    "... This suggests a civil war between factions that are fighting on a roughly level playing field with civilians caught in the middle, sometimes deliberately killed and sometimes dying because of indiscriminate fire. American politicians including Clinton sometimes talk as though Assad's forces are doing all the killing. It also seems odd that we are told the rebels need outside help so they can stand to Assad. Obviously they have had plenty of outside help– the death toll is what it is because the war keeps dragging on, but to hear Americans talk you'd think it was outgunned rebels along with civilians being massacred year after year, yet it seems 50,000 regular Syrian military along with tens of thousands of pro regime militia have been killed by the poorly armed rebels. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    Donald 08.10.16 at 7:02 pm 541

    I already answered your question RNB– the mainstream press, HRW, Amnesty, and various blogs. But if you look at the numbers released, they don't quite fit the narrative. For example

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/syria-civil-war-civilian-deaths/405496/

    Note a couple of things from the Syrian Observatory figures. First, civilians are about a third of the total. The number of Syrian military dead plus associated militia is comparable to the number of civilian dead ( not counting the estimated group) and the rebel dead, adding up the different categories including outside forces, are smaller than the dead on Theproud government side.

    This suggests a civil war between factions that are fighting on a roughly level playing field with civilians caught in the middle, sometimes deliberately killed and sometimes dying because of indiscriminate fire. American politicians including Clinton sometimes talk as though Assad's forces are doing all the killing. It also seems odd that we are told the rebels need outside help so they can stand to Assad. Obviously they have had plenty of outside help– the death toll is what it is because the war keeps dragging on, but to hear Americans talk you'd think it was outgunned rebels along with civilians being massacred year after year, yet it seems 50,000 regular Syrian military along with tens of thousands of pro regime militia have been killed by the poorly armed rebels.

    In the much smaller scale Gaza War the bulk of the deaths were Palestinian civilians– maybe 1500. Hundreds of Hamas fighters were killed and dozens of Israeli soldiers. That's more the kind of ratio I would expect if the Syrian civil war fit into the framework given by American politicians and pundits.

    RNB 08.10.16 at 7:18 pm

    @542 It could be that Hillary Clinton would be willing to put MANPADS in the rebels' hands if they can be shut down if stolen and Trump would not. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/20/the-u-s-wants-to-design-safer-anti-aircraft-missiles-for-syrias-rebels/

    [Aug 18, 2016] Khizr Khans sound bite is a good anti-Trump political advertising, but I dont believe he has read the Constitution

    If you view this as "Waiving the flag" type of attack, or as a witch hunt -- you can also read McCarthy-Welch Exchange During the Army-McCarthy Hearings - Online Speech Bank
    Notable quotes:
    "... Khizr Khan's sound bite makes for good free political advertising, following the lead of Trump himself, but I don't believe he has read the Constitution, or if he has read it he didn't understand it. ..."
    "... Obama taught constitutional law and a generation of his students will not understand that only Congress can declare war. ..."
    "... The conditions that produced and enabled Trump are the Democratic Party policies in its fake posture as an opposition party serving the interests of working people. A vote for Hillary is a vote for more of the same-increasing disparity in wealth and income. ..."
    "... The Democratic Party is bully enough to shut me and my chosen candidates down; and I don't like Trump, but I really like it when I see him kicking some lying elitist Democratic Party ass. ..."
    "... Consider then the partisan nature of worthiness determined by Democrats in their vilification of Cindy Sheehan for daring to effect a change in the system that murdered her son, whose death was more recent, the same sorrow that Khizr Khan now deals with from a position of ignorance so common to Democrats, but so much more worthy of respect when the sorrow strikes out in their political favor, unlike with Cindy Sheehan, who struck out in opposition to the Democratic Party in electorally challenging Nancy Pelosi. ..."
    "... It's absolutely not about the money. Pocket Constitution waving grieving father at DNC denouncing temporary ban on Muslim immigration coincidentally runs 'pay-to-play' US immigration visa procurement business. Deletes law firm website and 'wipes' web server clean. ..."
    "... Love of freedom? Love of cash? Grieving Parent? How about all three? Neutral observer? That's a harder sell. ..."
    "... Khizr M. Khan's website notes that he works to help clients with the E-2 and EB-5 programs that let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green cards for family members. ..."
    "... As a media-manipulation exercise, it just confirms that the Dems know how to deploy media resources of their own. The stunt was well-executed and achieved its purpose. ..."
    "... The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America. ..."
    "... What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand. ..."
    "... You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display. ..."
    "... Unlike Trump, Bush did it the right way. His team assassinated the character of his bereaved critic through the normal, respectable political channels. Meanwhile the man of the moment enjoyed plausible deniability and the praise of future journalists. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, journalists, liberals, and Democrats are kvelling over John McCain's denunciation of Trump's comments about the Khans. They love this nearly annual morality tale, in which McCain is dutifully trotted out (or trots himself out) to clean up the mess of last night's frat party. ..."
    "... In 2002, after Saxby Chambliss ran that disgusting ad against Max Cleland (which I talk about in the OP), John McCain said, "I'd never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield - it's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible." Six years later, McCain campaigned for Chambliss's reelection. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    Glenn 08.02.16 at 3:26 pm

    Khizr Khan's sound bite makes for good free political advertising, following the lead of Trump himself, but I don't believe he has read the Constitution, or if he has read it he didn't understand it.

    That should not trouble him overly much; Obama taught constitutional law and a generation of his students will not understand that only Congress can declare war.

    ... ... ...

    The conditions that produced and enabled Trump are the Democratic Party policies in its fake posture as an opposition party serving the interests of working people. A vote for Hillary is a vote for more of the same-increasing disparity in wealth and income.

    To quote from "The Big Short", which the Clintons played no small part in bringing about by the repeal of Glass-Steagall and passing NAFTA: "Truth is like poetry. And most people fucking hate poetry."

    The Democratic Party is bully enough to shut me and my chosen candidates down; and I don't like Trump, but I really like it when I see him kicking some lying elitist Democratic Party ass.

    I want to see if Democrats have it in them to stop being weasels.

    Glenn 08.02.16 at 4:23 pm

    Consider then the partisan nature of worthiness determined by Democrats in their vilification of Cindy Sheehan for daring to effect a change in the system that murdered her son, whose death was more recent, the same sorrow that Khizr Khan now deals with from a position of ignorance so common to Democrats, but so much more worthy of respect when the sorrow strikes out in their political favor, unlike with Cindy Sheehan, who struck out in opposition to the Democratic Party in electorally challenging Nancy Pelosi.

    kidneystones 08.02.16 at 9:57 pm

    It's absolutely not about the money. Pocket Constitution waving grieving father at DNC denouncing temporary ban on Muslim immigration coincidentally runs 'pay-to-play' US immigration visa procurement business. Deletes law firm website and 'wipes' web server clean.

    Trump has already seized on the 'If I were president, Captain Khan would be alive meme.'

    How long till the Khan grieving father looking to profit from selling visas access scam blows up the media narrative? What about Khan's business tax returns? Follow the money?

    The media loves building the narrative of the hero almost as much as they love tearing it apart.

    Think Trump will ignore Khan's entirely legitimate immigration business scam? I mean the one he just deleted? Think the media won't give Trumps comments on that story any airtime?

    Love of freedom? Love of cash? Grieving Parent? How about all three? Neutral observer? That's a harder sell.

    From the Wayback machine

    : https://web.archive.org/web/20160801212033/http://www.kmkhanlaw.com/International_Business.html

    Pointing to any or all of Khan's deleted business activities/interests is a 'McCarthyite' slur on the memory of a Gold Star mother and all others who so gloriously serve.

    kidneystones 08.02.16 at 9:59 pm

    Via Breitbart. Who else?

    http://kmkhanlaw.com/?reqp=1&reqr=nzcdYz9ypaMao25yMl5jLab=


    kidneystones 08.02.16 at 10:44 pm

    Going dark. What's the bet the Gold Star father goes off the radar because of 'family' issues? "…

    Khizr M. Khan's website notes that he works to help clients with the E-2 and EB-5 programs that let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green cards for family members. It also said that he helps in the purchase of U.S. real estate and businesses. The website lists his ability to practice in New York, though it gives a Washington phone number for the lawyer who lives in Virginia. A man who answered the phone said the website was correct, though he would not identify himself."

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/khan-specializes-in-visa-programs-accused-of-selling-u.s.-citizenship/article/2598279

    Mr. Khan evidently deleted his website after the Examiner story broke. Needless to say, the facts clearly indicate a highly reputable individual specializing in helping foreign businesses in the Middle East and elsewhere buy/invest in undervalued (we assume) US assets and provide green cards for their families, all according to law.

    There's clearly nothing in this account for Trump to make a fuss about.

    So, why is Mr.Khan suddenly going to such lengths to conceal a business he clearly has no reason to hide?


    kidneystones 08.02.16 at 11:05 pm


    TPM has pretty much dumped the Khan story, making it part of the past. No mention at all of stories of Khan's financial incentives for opposing Trump, naturally. Josh does insert a 'distractor' link to nutcase scare stories. As a media-manipulation exercise, it just confirms that the Dems know how to deploy media resources of their own. The stunt was well-executed and achieved its purpose. So, I fully expect the media and HRC supporters to recommend 'we all just move on.'

    Trump, however, may not let it go.

    http://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/donald-trump-one-on-one-with-sinclair

    Trump is doubling down on his beefs with the GOP establishment. No doubt, this is a full out attack on the globalist-Koch branch of the GOP. The Kochs gave TPP-loving Ryan a standing ovation. Good thing Dems are backing a candidate firmly in favor of TPP.

    Obama, another TPP fan, jumped on the bandwagon – so it's unanimous.

    Trump is the only major political candidate firmly opposed to ending the TPP. But don't support him because Trump hates all Muslims. Just ask Capt. Khan's dad.


    kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:37 am

    84@ The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America.

    What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand.

    What is also clear from your comment is that you, and perhaps some others, believe that this love of country and rich tapestry of subcultures somehow makes Americans very, very special and beyond criticism.

    We understand this much: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor – 68 civilian casualties.

    The US response: "..on the night of March 9-10, 1945…LeMay sent 334 B-29s low over Tokyo from the Marianas. Their mission was to reduce the city to rubble, kill its citizens, and instill terror in the survivors, with jellied gasoline and napalm that would create a sea of flames. Stripped of their guns to make more room for bombs, and flying at altitudes averaging 7,000 feet to evade detection, the bombers, which had been designed for high-altitude precision attacks, carried two kinds of incendiaries: M47s, 100-pound oil gel bombs, 182 per aircraft, each capable of starting a major fire, followed by M69s, 6-pound gelled-gasoline bombs, 1,520 per aircraft in addition to a few high explosives to deter firefighters. [25] The attack on an area that the US Strategic Bombing Survey estimated to be 84.7 percent residential succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of air force planners…

    The Strategic Bombing Survey, whose formation a few months earlier provided an important signal of Roosevelt's support for strategic bombing, provided a technical description of the firestorm and its effects on Tokyo: The chief characteristic of the conflagration . . . was the presence of a fire front, an extended wall of fire moving to leeward, preceded by a mass of pre-heated, turbid, burning vapors . . . . The 28-mile-per-hour wind, measured a mile from the fire, increased to an estimated 55 miles at the perimeter, and probably more within. An extended fire swept over 15 square miles in 6 hours . . . . The area of the fire was nearly 100 percent burned; no structure or its contents escaped damage."

    The survey concluded-plausibly, but only for events prior to August 6, 1945-that

    "probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time in the history of man. People died from extreme heat, from oxygen deficiency, from carbon monoxide asphyxiation, from being trampled beneath the feet of stampeding crowds, and from drowning. The largest number of victims were the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly."

    The raids continue for all the 'best' military reasons…

    "In July, US planes blanketed the few remaining Japanese cities that had been spared firebombing with an "Appeal to the People." "As you know," it read, "America which stands for humanity, does not wish to injure the innocent people, so you had better evacuate these cities." Half the leafleted cities were firebombed within days of the warning. US planes ruled the skies. Overall, by one calculation, the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killed more than 300,000 people and injured an additional 400,000, figures that exclude the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (My italics) http://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/2414/article.html

    kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:59 am

    @ 86 Both my parents served. My grand-fathers served, and most of my uncles and great-uncles served – you know, the whole mess from being shot to dying in hospitals years after the war from gas attacks. And I served, nothing special about any of this.

    You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display.

    Should all the foreigners in your debt salute, or simply prostrate ourselves in awe?

    We're done.

    JM Hatch 08.03.16 at 2:23 am

    @41 Lee Arnold: Are you referring to the Warren Buffet who owns Fruit-of-the-Loom? The same company which had Hillary's State Dept bust up a minimum wage law for Haiti's textile industry? The same company which then donated to the Clinton Foundation for aid that never arrived to Haiti? If not, then who is this Warren Buffet?

    oldster 08.03.16 at 5:28 am

    Still, there was one upside to Bush's minions attacks on Sheehan. Way back in those antediluvian times, John Cole was still a supporter of Bush and the Iraq War. (Bless his heart, he soon learned better) He defended the wing-nuts who were calling Sheehan a prostitute by saying that this was metaphorical. This inspired The Editors writing at The Poor Man to write a response that featured the phrase "enormous mendacious disembodied anus", which has passed into internet legend.

    And probably passed out of internet legend once again, since of the people who were alive in those days to be amused, very few are still alive to recall it. It was the heyday of war-blogging, and anti-(war-blog)-blogging. We really sacrificed in those days, let me tell you–it was our own personal Vietnam.

    Corey Robin 08.03.16 at 4:53 am

    The record of George W. Bush-the man who Ezra Klein claims would never have treated the Khans the way Trump has-with regard to Cindy Sheehan, whose son was also killed in Iraq, is even worse than I realized. As Brendan James reports in Slate:

    It's true, as the people tipping their hats to Bush have pointed out, that the president himself did not attack Sheehan the way Trump has gone after the Khans. But he didn't have to. He let his underlings do it.

    "Cindy Sheehan is a clown," said Bush's senior adviser and dirty trickster Karl Rove, whose management of the media ecosystem was unparalleled. The Washington Post reported at the time that Sheehan was a frequent topic of conversation between the president and his advisers. And somehow, some way, Rove's sentiment trickled down into every pore of the conservative press. Bill O'Reilly called Sheehan "dumb enough" to get "in bed" with the radical left. Glenn Beck called Sheehan a "tragedy pimp" who was "prostituting her son's death." Rush Limbaugh said she was somehow lying about having lost her son.

    Unlike Trump, Bush did it the right way. His team assassinated the character of his bereaved critic through the normal, respectable political channels. Meanwhile the man of the moment enjoyed plausible deniability and the praise of future journalists.

    Corey Robin 08.03.16 at 4:59 am

    Meanwhile, journalists, liberals, and Democrats are kvelling over John McCain's denunciation of Trump's comments about the Khans. They love this nearly annual morality tale, in which McCain is dutifully trotted out (or trots himself out) to clean up the mess of last night's frat party.

    Again, a little memory is helpful.

    In 2002, after Saxby Chambliss ran that disgusting ad against Max Cleland (which I talk about in the OP), John McCain said, "I'd never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield - it's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible." Six years later, McCain campaigned for Chambliss's reelection.

    [Aug 18, 2016] Clinton's campaign now faces the problem that they have won in August, but the election is in November.

    Notable quotes:
    "... So, taking up CR's Nixon-McGovern analogy: Clinton risks coming into office as a thoroughly disliked President from day one. The level of suspicion and cynicism of expectation is very high. And, though Trump won't ever have a chance in the campaign, his way of attacking opponents is likely to intensify a broad spectrum of opinion that calls into question Clinton's legitimacy and real commitments. ..."
    "... Nixon did experience pressure from the Republican Right, but he was also constrained by a Democratic Congress. If Nixon continued to govern as if the New Deal remained in place, it is because he faced a New Deal Congress. ..."
    "... Clinton will face a similar problem, but it will be more of her own making, because her politics and her hold over the Democratic Party, depend on not challenging the Republican base of power in the States and in Congress. ..."
    "... Trump might withhold an endorsement of Speaker Ryan for a few days, but the Democratic establishment isn't going to unseat Ryan, even though Ryan's district is one Obama won. ..."
    "... One path to this whole thing coming apart is a new generation of much younger Democrats trying to gain power in States where the Republicans have been showing their true colors. They will have to fight the Democratic Establishment in Washington to do so, and fight very hard. ..."
    "... The other is path is crisis. This is a politics of nominal stalemate, enabling a politics of sclerosis and corruption. ..."
    "... These paths are far from mutually exclusive, but there's a very real risk that a fractured and weakened polity turns to authoritarianism. If your politics does not permit reasoned discussion and deliberation, authoritarianism is the alternative when some kind of adaptive reform is required by events. ..."
    "... "Symbiosis" means the two sides work together, feed off each other. And, no I am not saying the Democrats in general feed off the Republicans, though obviously any two-party system locks the two Parties into a waltz in which one Party leads the other, with every step forward by one, a step back by the other. ..."
    "... What I mean by "symbiosis" in this case is a more specific dynamic by which the Clintonites, who are corrupt centrists at best and reactionary conservatives at worst, keep control of the nominally progressive Party. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.10.16 at 5:00 pm

    "Anything can happen" is one of those things that people say and I suppose it is trivially true. Certainly, if you are trying to sell click-thru's with alleged political news, you at the very least want to preserve the possibility of (new) news. At this point, though, I fear that the affirmation, "Trump could win this" suggests the opposite.

    Clinton's campaign now faces the problem that they have won . . . in August, but the election is in November.

    Do they keep up the campaign, organized around "dangerous Donald"? Is there a risk of wearing out its themes? Trump is in a box assigned to him by the Media. The Media have their canned narrative thru which anything Trump says will be filtered. He's been neutered. The Media Publishers await the spending of campaign cash, while the Editors have their orders.

    Even Scott Adams has conceded that the Donald may have been bested by Clinton's "dangerous Donald" propaganda and may be too inflexible in his personality to take any of the practical options to come back.

    What I would notice is that Clinton's campaign to get people to like her - "I'm with her" - did not win. Clinton will win in November, certainly. But, she will take office as one of the most seriously disliked politicians to win the Presidency in memory. I say this as someone who voted for Tricky Dick Nixon over McGovern. Usually, the seriously disliked Presidents get elected as Vice-President first. But, maybe she did - sorta. Maybe that's what her career as Secretary of State did for her.

    So, taking up CR's Nixon-McGovern analogy: Clinton risks coming into office as a thoroughly disliked President from day one. The level of suspicion and cynicism of expectation is very high. And, though Trump won't ever have a chance in the campaign, his way of attacking opponents is likely to intensify a broad spectrum of opinion that calls into question Clinton's legitimacy and real commitments.

    Nixon did experience pressure from the Republican Right, but he was also constrained by a Democratic Congress. If Nixon continued to govern as if the New Deal remained in place, it is because he faced a New Deal Congress. Not just Democratic majorities, but long-standing majorities and committee chairman who knew where the bodies were buried and how to pull the levers of power. That would change only gradually with the seniority system scrapped in the mid-1970s and the New Deal politics by which Congress critters played interests off against one another to maintain their own power eroded decisively only in Reagan's second term, as trade liberalization and deregulation and other policies took hold and the corporate executive class began their rise, driving changes in the lobbyist culture and dynamic.

    Clinton will face a similar problem, but it will be more of her own making, because her politics and her hold over the Democratic Party, depend on not challenging the Republican base of power in the States and in Congress. Clinton is not going to say to her minions, "OK, we've got this won, let's funnel all the campaign money and effort into winning the House so we have opportunities to govern effectively. Let's get Democratic Governors in place, so we can get Obamacare's Medicaid expansion working properly without privatization."

    Trump might withhold an endorsement of Speaker Ryan for a few days, but the Democratic establishment isn't going to unseat Ryan, even though Ryan's district is one Obama won.

    The Democratic Party - the rank and file and even the general run of Congress people - have become much more "socialist" for lack of a better term, but they have no experience of power. Few have served long in the Obama Administration. Most States are dominated by Republicans. In some States, like Kansas and North Carolina, "dominated" really does mean dominated. Democrats are a minority in Congress and the old leadership is retiring.

    One path to this whole thing coming apart is a new generation of much younger Democrats trying to gain power in States where the Republicans have been showing their true colors. They will have to fight the Democratic Establishment in Washington to do so, and fight very hard.

    The other is path is crisis. This is a politics of nominal stalemate, enabling a politics of sclerosis and corruption.

    These paths are far from mutually exclusive, but there's a very real risk that a fractured and weakened polity turns to authoritarianism. If your politics does not permit reasoned discussion and deliberation, authoritarianism is the alternative when some kind of adaptive reform is required by events.

    bruce wilder 08.10.16 at 5:00 pm

    Faustusnotes misreads me on Benghazi. (What else is new?) I was not saying, "both sides do it". That's not my point. My point is that the Right's obsessions with Benghazi (and with the email server) are gifts to Clinton. They take issues where Clinton's bad judgment is on display, and they transform them into a circus where what is on display instead is the Right's lunacy. The Benghazi hearings made Clinton look good, if that were possible; embattled, persecuted unwarrantedly. No sane person would want to pay much attention and the superficial takeaway impression is that there is no there, there in Rightwing accusations and fantasizing.

    "Symbiosis" means the two sides work together, feed off each other. And, no I am not saying the Democrats in general feed off the Republicans, though obviously any two-party system locks the two Parties into a waltz in which one Party leads the other, with every step forward by one, a step back by the other.

    What I mean by "symbiosis" in this case is a more specific dynamic by which the Clintonites, who are corrupt centrists at best and reactionary conservatives at worst, keep control of the nominally progressive Party.

    [Aug 18, 2016] And the truly frightening part is where team blue supporters insist that everyone pretend every 4 years that a Clinton, or Obama, is somehow less willing to kill at will than a Romney, or a Trump.

    Notable quotes:
    "... What I see is a Reagan, or a Bush, cheerfully admitting to American exceptionalism and in the need to kill at will. What frightens me is the inability of Americans to realize outsiders see pretty much the same willingness to kill at will from a Clinton, or Obama. ..."
    "... And the truly frightening part is where team blue supporters insist that everyone pretend every 4 years that a Clinton, or Obama, is somehow less willing to kill at will than a Romney, or a Trump. ..."
    "... We have a video of one political candidate laughing at murder, who 'never' holds press conferences, running to replace a president who expanded and entrenched the Bush-Cheney security state and who suppresses dissent and whistle-blowing with the vigor of a Nixon. Outsiders have learned to survive every 'too crazy to be true' you people elect. Of course, that's not as easy if one happens to live in the wrong part of the world. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.10.16 at 2:45 am

    @491 This is very good, Corey. I think you are precisely right about how (ahem) informed outsiders view the 'enormous' differences between the two political parties. What I see is a Reagan, or a Bush, cheerfully admitting to American exceptionalism and in the need to kill at will. What frightens me is the inability of Americans to realize outsiders see pretty much the same willingness to kill at will from a Clinton, or Obama.

    And the truly frightening part is where team blue supporters insist that everyone pretend every 4 years that a Clinton, or Obama, is somehow less willing to kill at will than a Romney, or a Trump.

    We have a video of one political candidate laughing at murder, who 'never' holds press conferences, running to replace a president who expanded and entrenched the Bush-Cheney security state and who suppresses dissent and whistle-blowing with the vigor of a Nixon. Outsiders have learned to survive every 'too crazy to be true' you people elect. Of course, that's not as easy if one happens to live in the wrong part of the world.

    Re: Republican weakness. That's sure to be a much-studied topic. At the state level Republicans are very strong. As 'racist' and 'sexist' as it is to say, the uniqueness of electing an African-American and then, perhaps, the woman he defeated speak very positively about the US in general. This stuff matters to you and that's nothing to be ashamed of.

    [Aug 18, 2016] We are seeing right now in real time exactly the same denunciations of one candidate by virtually all media outlets, all elite Dems, and many elite Republicans

    Notable quotes:
    "... We're seeing right now in real time exactly the same denunciations of one candidate by virtually all media outlets, all elite Dems, and many elite Republicans. When there were a number of candidates and two races and two outsiders, much of the press bias may have slipped beneath the radar. ..."
    "... At some point probably very soon Trump is going to be the real underdog. Not the underdog of imagination, no longer a billionaire whining about not being treated fairly. But the target of an unrelenting series of negative news stories and TV and radio commercials that leave no doubt in the minds of most voters that Trump has much less of a chance of winning than Hillary. ..."
    "... The anti-Trump stories are probably white noise already to many neutrals. Trump supporters stopped listening to the media long ago. ..."
    "... When the NYT, MSNBC, Bill Mahr, and on and on and on all tell people they can't possibly vote for Trump, how do you think folks are going to respond? I mean, about being told they don't actually have a choice. Cause that's what's happening now. ..."
    "... And the same people telling folks they don't have a choice are precisely the same people who predicted/promised that Trump would never win the nomination. Trump just needs to stay in the game. If he's within five points in October, I still say he edges it. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.10.16 at 2:23 pm

    We're seeing right now in real time exactly the same denunciations of one candidate by virtually all media outlets, all elite Dems, and many elite Republicans. When there were a number of candidates and two races and two outsiders, much of the press bias may have slipped beneath the radar.

    At some point probably very soon Trump is going to be the real underdog. Not the underdog of imagination, no longer a billionaire whining about not being treated fairly. But the target of an unrelenting series of negative news stories and TV and radio commercials that leave no doubt in the minds of most voters that Trump has much less of a chance of winning than Hillary.

    The anti-Trump stories are probably white noise already to many neutrals. Trump supporters stopped listening to the media long ago.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/09/media-justify-anti-trump-bias-claim-hes-too-dangerous-for-normal-rules.html

    When the NYT, MSNBC, Bill Mahr, and on and on and on all tell people they can't possibly vote for Trump, how do you think folks are going to respond? I mean, about being told they don't actually have a choice. Cause that's what's happening now.

    And the same people telling folks they don't have a choice are precisely the same people who predicted/promised that Trump would never win the nomination. Trump just needs to stay in the game. If he's within five points in October, I still say he edges it.

    Go figure!

    [Aug 18, 2016] Trump won the nomination by claiming the media and the elites rig the system against outsiders like Bernie and him and that the media and elites of both parties are indifferent to the problems and concerns of voters

    Notable quotes:
    "... The difference is the media and the elites are openly producing elite narratives in a manner that really do make Trump the underdog. Trump won the nomination by claiming the media elites and most of the politicians in both parties are in the pockets of the rich. That's an argument that continues to resonate. ..."
    "... The fact is that Trump and Sanders are both the result of a system that works precisely the way Trump and Saunders describe it. A significant block of voters understand that. ..."
    "... These voters are extremely unlikely to be distracted by any stories on any topic. Their focus is on jobs and the indifference of the media and politicians of both political parties to the need for jobs. ..."
    "... Trump's experience in the construction trades matters to voters because infrastructure construction provides short-terms and long-term jobs and training programs. Trump went to Detroit and described the city as HRC's blueprint for America. ..."
    "... The problem for the media, the Democrats, and their supporters is that practically nobody sees HRC as anything but the ultimate insider agent of the rich, who happens to wear a dress. She first got to the WH as a political wife. She was parachuted into a safe Senate seat to start her 'run for office.' She was awarded a plum position in the administration in large part to placate her followers and heal some of the 'Clintons and their supporters are all racists' wounds. After leaving the administration, she and her husband earned millions which poured into a private foundation. The DNC and the Dems colluded to keep her only opponent from winning. The DOJ just ruled the Clintion Cash Cow to be beyond investigation. And now, this ultimate insider is re-packaging herself as 'the best darn change-agent' president 'women as tissues' has ever seen. And then there are the drones. ..."
    "... The media can't cover the issues fairly because the issues confirm their chosen candidate can't be trusted on the issues that most Americans care about most. Most voters, including HRC voters, understand the difference between scare stories and solutions. ..."
    "... Suffice to say a counter-narrative exists: one in which Trump has committed very few of the crimes which the gullible routinely swallow as fact ..."
    "... Minds are made up, truth has to be sacrificed in order to 'prevent the end of mankind.' Rest assured, we'd be hearing precisely the same 'end of the world' spew were Bush, or any other placeholder the candidate ..."
    "... The choice between HRC and Bush is essentially no choice ..."
    "... The choice between HRC and Trump may actually be less of a choice than many believe ..."
    "... Take a chance with Trump, or settle in for 4-8 more years of Obama, only worse ..."
    "... Voters decide in November. I still say Trump edges it, at least ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.10.16 at 11:06 pm 564

    Trump won the nomination by claiming the media and the elites rig the system against outsiders like Bernie and him and that the media and elites of both parties are indifferent to the problems and concerns of many, many voters.

    The same thing is occurring in real-time now. The difference is the media and the elites are openly producing elite narratives in a manner that really do make Trump the underdog. Trump won the nomination by claiming the media elites and most of the politicians in both parties are in the pockets of the rich. That's an argument that continues to resonate.

    The fact is that Trump and Sanders are both the result of a system that works precisely the way Trump and Saunders describe it. A significant block of voters understand that.

    Voters also understand that HRC/Bush are simply the current/past iterations of a system that denies any voice to ordinary voters. There will be no real change, except on the periphery and that's the function of the elections – in a very real sense we're living the living, breathing embodiment of Burke's conservatism.

    Yes, LGBT rights are a good thing. After that, what?

    kidneystones 08.10.16 at 11:28 pm

    The fact is that a great many voters have seen their wages go down, or remain stagnant, over the past two decades as they read stories day to day of a soaring stock market and all kinds of economic good times.

    These voters are extremely unlikely to be distracted by any stories on any topic. Their focus is on jobs and the indifference of the media and politicians of both political parties to the need for jobs.

    Trump's experience in the construction trades matters to voters because infrastructure construction provides short-terms and long-term jobs and training programs. Trump went to Detroit and described the city as HRC's blueprint for America.

    The problem for the media, the Democrats, and their supporters is that practically nobody sees HRC as anything but the ultimate insider agent of the rich, who happens to wear a dress. She first got to the WH as a political wife. She was parachuted into a safe Senate seat to start her 'run for office.' She was awarded a plum position in the administration in large part to placate her followers and heal some of the 'Clintons and their supporters are all racists' wounds. After leaving the administration, she and her husband earned millions which poured into a private foundation. The DNC and the Dems colluded to keep her only opponent from winning. The DOJ just ruled the Clintion Cash Cow to be beyond investigation. And now, this ultimate insider is re-packaging herself as 'the best darn change-agent' president 'women as tissues' has ever seen. And then there are the drones.

    The media can't cover the issues fairly because the issues confirm their chosen candidate can't be trusted on the issues that most Americans care about most. Most voters, including HRC voters, understand the difference between scare stories and solutions.

    Both candidates traffic in scare stories. Only one offers solutions that resonate with voters.

    That candidate wins.

    kidneystones 08.11.16 at 12:32 am

    Actually, as we can see now. An awful lot of people are betting the farm that enough voters buy into that narrative. As I mentioned above, the people promulgating precisely this myth have been doing just that ever since he began running for office to no great effect.

    Suffice to say a counter-narrative exists: one in which Trump has committed very few of the crimes which the gullible routinely swallow as fact. Unless, of course, you and the vast majority here are about to assert a complete lack of confirmation bias on this matter.

    Minds are made up, truth has to be sacrificed in order to 'prevent the end of mankind.' Rest assured, we'd be hearing precisely the same 'end of the world' spew were Bush, or any other placeholder the candidate.

    The choice between HRC and Bush is essentially no choice.

    The choice between HRC and Trump may actually be less of a choice than many believe. We're unlikely to get to that discussion any time soon.

    No jobs, shitty schools and roads mean more votes for Trump.

    Take a chance with Trump, or settle in for 4-8 more years of Obama, only worse. Many voters have already decided. As we can see, the swing states are indeed swinging.

    Voters decide in November. I still say Trump edges it, at least.

    [Aug 18, 2016] If anyone does plan on seriously trying to make the case Trump is a fascist to me, at least, they'll need to cite policy positions from Trump's web site

    Notable quotes:
    "... I don't see Trump as fascist in any workable, or historically grounded use of the term. ..."
    "... The US government is an enormous cash-cow for an immense number of special interests. The notion that the PACs and special interests will just pack-up shop and write off the money they plan to make with a Bush/HRC in power is absurd. They'll hobble Trump they same way they handcuffed Carter, and start playing the same sorts of games. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.11.16 at 6:45 am 594

    @ 592 'With Trump, X is fascism (roughly) which is why I'm against Trump in spite of the very real possibility that a lot of his threats will turn out to be just empty talk.'

    Recognizing this is a blog comments section and that a certain degree of rhetorical excess is expected, I'd be very curious to learn which 'threats' make Trump a 'fascist.'

    I don't see Trump as fascist in any workable, or historically grounded use of the term.

    I'm not at all confident in Trump's ability to pull the levers of government, hence my own skepticism that he'll actually be able to rebuild the US economy in the way he's promising, or achieve many, any of his foreign policy goals. However, I see no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that any of his most fervent supporters would support abrogating any, or even some parts of the constitution. He is absolutely running as some kind of 'time to clean up Washington' populist. I'm certain, however, that those currently wielding power through their stooges in both parties are entirely willing to make defying Trump a wise and enriching decision.

    The US government is an enormous cash-cow for an immense number of special interests. The notion that the PACs and special interests will just pack-up shop and write off the money they plan to make with a Bush/HRC in power is absurd. They'll hobble Trump they same way they handcuffed Carter, and start playing the same sorts of games.

    If anyone does plan on seriously trying to make the case Trump is a fascist to me, at least, they'll need to cite policy positions from Trump's web site. And we know how few are willing to endure that....

    [Aug 18, 2016] Trump is not a republican campaign of Hillary to attact republican voters can backfire

    crookedtimber.org

    Corey Robin, 08.12.16 at 3:21 am 645

    A leaked email from a top DNC official in May shows that Democratic insiders were really leery of Clinton's strategy of trying to claim Trump is completely different from Republicans past and present. As this official points out, that strategy actually runs the risk of harming down-ballot Democrats running for office in Congress and state legislatures. It may help Clinton, but it's not good for the party. It also shows that the line that so many have swallowed about Trump being so different was actually a deliberate meme cultivated by Clinton's people, which then trickled down the food chain of the media and so on down the line, and that it ran in the face of how other DNC officials (and heavy-hitting members of Congress) wanted to frame the debate.

    I discuss the email here:

    http://coreyrobin.com/2016/08/11/how-clinton-enables-the-republican-party/

    Here's the text of the email from Luis Miranda, the DNC official:

    Hi Amy, the Clinton rapid response operation we deal with have been asking us to disaggregate Trump from down ballot Republicans. They basically want to make the case that you either stand with Ryan or with Trump, that Trump is much worse than regular Republicans and they don't want us to tie Trump to other Republicans because they think it makes him look normal.

    They wanted us to basically praise Ryan when Trump was meeting Ryan, or at a minimum to hold him up as an example. So they want to embrace the "Republicans fleeing Trump" side, but not hold down ballot GOPers accountable.

    That's a problem. I pushed back that we cannot have our state parties hold up Paul Ryan as a good example of anything. And that we can't give down ballot Republicans such an easy out. We can force them to own Trump and damage them more by pointing out that they're just as bad on specific policies, make them uncomfortable where he's particularly egregious, but asking state Parties to praise House Republicans like Ryan would be damaging for the Party down ballot.

    Can you help us navigate this with Charlie? We would basically have to throw out our entire frame that the GOP made Trump through years of divisive and ugly politics. We would have to say that Republicans are reasonable and that the good ones will shun Trump. It just doesn't work from the Party side. Let me know what you think.

    Thanks, – Luis.

    P.S. – – that strategy would ALSO put us at odds with Schumer, Lujan, Pelosi, Reid, basically all of our Congressional Democrats who have embraced our talking points and have been using them beautifully over the last couple of weeks to point out that GOPers in Congress have been pushing these ugly policies for years. Trying to dump this approach would probably not work with Members of Congress, it's worse than turning an aircraft carrier, we would lose 3/4 of the fleet. Let me know what you think. It might be a good strategy ONLY for Clinton (which I don't believe), I think instead she needs as many voices as possible on the same page.

    [Aug 18, 2016] Here's Trump's actual position on immigration and the deportations

    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.12.16 at 6:19 am

    ... ...

    Here's Trump's actual position on immigration and the deportations. Needless to say, some will find it plenty offensive. But it's radically different from what you've described. Were Hayden and company trashing a Dem, they'd be roundly and rightly condemned as precisely the same a-holes who've done so much damage over the years. But with Trump as the target, GOP clowns speak with the authority of god. Perfect.

    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

    [Aug 18, 2016] The reason so many foreign policy pundits are opposed to trump is not because of the possibility of making peace with Russia, but because they're neoliberal internationalists

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...As for the neocons, I'm quite sure that the real reason they hate him is because they think he actually might make peace with Russia and possibly deviate from the imperial agenda in other ways. In this, I have no sympathy for them.... ..."
    "... The similarities between the ways the vox crowd and vulgar Marxists view politics is really striking." ..."
    "... But 50 neocons some of them war criminals did issue a statement against.. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.13.16 at 12:34 am 718

    > F Foundling @ 705: In any case, [solidarity] doesn't need to be irrational or to have to do with narcissism (as suggested in 687) any more than acting in your own personal interests needs to be irrational or to have to do with narcissism.

    Thank you for thoughtful remarks @ 705 and @694.

    "Rational" and "irrational" can be a cause of great confusion. It is not some virtue I wish to ascribe, but, rather, to my mind, a matter of gamesmanship. As a strategy, not an ethic, solidarity is a way of committing one's self irrationally to not reconsider one's interests.

    The rat, betraying solidarity, is rational and selfish and calculating. Upholding solidarity requires an irrational ethic to trump strategic reconsideration.

    There can certainly be an element of enlightened self-interest in a commitment to solidarity. We hope this gift of the self to the community is not done stupidly or without some deliberate consideration of consequences.

    But, in the game, in the political contest where solidarity matters, where elite power is confronted, solidarity entails a degree of passionate commitment and even self-sacrifice. Whether expressed as an individual act of "altruistic punishment" or the common unwillingness to cooperate with the powers-that-be in a labor strike, there has to be a willingness to bear costs and forego opportunities.

    People have to be a bit mad to want justice.

    bruce wilder 08.13.16 at 12:47 am

    engels and others may appreciate Michael Pettis on the Trump phenomenon.

    He wrote this piece back in March and for reasons I cannot quite fathom he tried to tie in the Jacksonians - as if Donald Trump is some faded reprint of Andrew Jackson. But, ignore the part about the Jacksonians in American history and pay attention to what he says about his friend who is a supporter of Trump. It will complement Doug Henwood nicely, I suspect. And, Pettis has nothing nice to say about Trump - so no fear!

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/michael-pettis-trump-and-the-re-emergence-of-the-jacksonians.html

    F. Foundling, 08.13.16 at 1:56 am<

    ...As for the neocons, I'm quite sure that the real reason they hate him is because they think he actually might make peace with Russia and possibly deviate from the imperial agenda in other ways. In this, I have no sympathy for them....

    Ronan(rf), 08.13.16 at 2:34 am 725
    The reason so many foreign policy pundits ... are opposed to trump is not because of the possibility of making peace with Russia, but because they're liberal internationalists. They support the US led international order, think US hegemony is generally a force for good, and oppose powers and actors which will undermine the [neo]liberal order...

    Ronan(rf) 08.13.16 at 2:46 am 726

    Reasons someone on a middle income from an economically declining region might support trump(that aren't racism)
    Ronan(rf),

    "Reasons someone on a middle income from an economically declining region might support trump(that aren't racism)

    (1) support for other institutions (military , family, religion) mentioned above.

    (2) people don't vote individually but as a member of a group. Being a relatively prosperous member of a declining demographic has psychological consequences and perceived collective responsibilities.

    (3) middle income business owners are not a stable group.(socially or economically)

    (4) who do you think Is voting in these regions ? The poor in the US are less likely to vote.

    The similarities between the ways the vox crowd and vulgar Marxists view politics is really striking."

    engels 08.13.16 at 10:37 am 744

    Bruce thinks narcissism can be healthy, F. Foundling thinks it is excessive by definition. I understand it in what I think is the classical sense as a relation which is properly directed at others turned in on the individual. 'Narcissistic solidarity' would mean something like 'standing with oneself'-a conceptual absurdity. (I agree with the broader point that solidarity isn't inherently altruistic and doesn't preclude self-interest though.)

    Ronan(rf) 08.13.16 at 10:51 am 746

    "But 50 neocons some of them war criminals did issue a statement against.."

    On that. Im sorry for the ungenerous reading and cranky comment, f foundling. I was in a bit of a bad mood .

    ZM, I don't have time to reply at the minute, but will get back to it later .

    Ronan(rf) 08.13.16 at 11:02 am

    "Ronan,

    Weakening of unions is an important cause of support for Trump."

    Right, so you're now agreeing that a concentration on income only does not explain as much as you've been arguing above ?

    [Aug 18, 2016] Trump is no crazier than the current Democratic president

    Notable quotes:
    "... How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall we call it? Well, probably not modesty. ..."
    "... 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.12.16 at 7:00 am 669

    @ 668 "Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors."

    "But there's more evidence that he's batshit crazy. He declaimed that he knew more about ISIS than all the generals. He will trust no one's judgment but his own."

    So, your argument is that Obama (your Muslim socialist) should never have been trusted to be in the Oval Office.

    And that by these, your standards, Trump is no crazier than the current Democratic president.

    Fair enough.

    https://www.aei.org/publication/obama-im-a-better-intelligence-briefer-than-my-intelligence-briefers/

    kidneystones 08.12.16 at 7:39 am 671

    @670 "I won't even look up the quote"

    Oh, you don't need to. That boat sailed the moment you decided to make Obama level hubris grounds for ineligibility. Obama's 'accomplishments prior to entering the Senate in 2004 are the stuff of legend to the clueless, of course.

    How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall we call it? Well, probably not modesty.

    My life twice – plenty for everyone like to learn from! The perfect preparation for a great presidency. That and my love of basketball. That's what makes me so smart! Did anyone notice I'm young, black and handsome? Ignore that, please.

    And we are where we are. I've elided the 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date.

    Trump in 2016!

    [Aug 17, 2016] Clinton preps for Trumps Lewinsky attack

    It was Monica who saved us from gutting Social Security, which Bill Clinton conspired with republicans to dismantle. How Monica Lewinsky Saved Social Security
    Notable quotes:
    "... "You have to start off by saying, 'I want to thank the American people, especially Monica and Gennifer Flowers," anticipated a top Clinton ally with close ties to the campaign. "Nobody who is a friend of hers is going to want to say that in debate prep." ..."
    www.politico.com

    POLITICO

    This year in particular, it's a job that nobody close to Clinton is particularly eager to take on. "You have to start off by saying, 'I want to thank the American people, especially Monica and Gennifer Flowers," anticipated a top Clinton ally with close ties to the campaign. "Nobody who is a friend of hers is going to want to say that in debate prep."

    ... ... ...

    "It's a complicated debate prep," agreed Shrum. "The Clinton challenge is to prepare for the crazy Trump who will probably show up, some kind of toned-down Trump, and the somewhere-in-between Trump." Trump could spend 90 minutes berating Clinton for helping to found ISIS, Democrats said, or he could turn on the moderator and the media so that Clinton simply becomes a bystander rather than a participant. He could even devote real time to preparation and surprise Clinton by his substance on the issues.

    [Aug 16, 2016] The culture of medals over morals disgusts me.

    www.bbc.com
    marknesop , August 15, 2016 at 6:56 pm

    The culture of medals over morals disgusts me.

    [Aug 16, 2016] A Yahoo story with a slightly balanced view on doping

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Patient Observer, August 14, 2016 at 1:55 pm
    A Yahoo story with a slightly balanced view on doping:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/team-usa-kicked-off-doping-011345417.html

    In addition to shattering world records and breaking down barriers, the swimmers at the Rio Olympics have managed another feat of sorts: reigniting international sport's Cold War. On the self-proclaimed forces of good: swimmers from Western nations who broke unwritten Olympic etiquette by speaking out against competitors they deemed "drug cheats."

    The story mentions that in track and field, the US has an extensive history of doping and concluded:

    Americans may stack up medals on the track in Rio, but they'll have to table their righteousness on that podium.

    [Aug 16, 2016] Notorious Russian arms dealer refused US offer for lighter sentence

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al , August 15, 2016 at 12:00 pm
    Intellinews.org: Notorious Russian arms dealer 'refused US offer for lighter sentence'

    https://intelnews.org/2016/08/10/01-1956/

    …In a newspaper interview on Tuesday, Bout's wife, Alla Bout, said her husband could have gotten away with a considerably lighter sentence had he agreed to testify against a senior Russian government official. Speaking to Moscow-based daily Izvestia, Alla Bout said her husband had been approached by American authorities after being extradited to the United States from Thailand. He was told that US authorities wanted him to testify against Igor Sechin, a powerful Russian government official, whom American prosecutors believed was Bout's boss. In return for his testimony, US prosecutors allegedly promised a jail sentence that would not exceed two years, as well as political asylum for him and his family following his release from prison. Alla Bout added that her husband's American lawyers were told by the prosecution that the 'merchant of death' "would be able to live in the US comfortably, along with his wife and daughter", and that his family could stay in America during his trial "under conditions". Alla Bout claimed she was told this by Bout himself and by members of his American legal team…
    ####

    It goes to show how desperate Washington is, not to mention its extremely short term thinking. No one in their right minds in Russia would trust anyone in Washington worth a damn, and that has major implications for all sorts of state-to-state dealings running in to the future. If Washington thinks saying "It's all water under the bridge" will return relations back to normal just like that, then they are sorely retarded.

    Patient Observer , August 15, 2016 at 6:25 pm
    Speaks well of Bout's character and the profound corruption of the US legal system.

    [Aug 16, 2016] A Yahoo story with a slightly balanced view on doping

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Patient Observer, August 14, 2016 at 1:55 pm
    A Yahoo story with a slightly balanced view on doping:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/team-usa-kicked-off-doping-011345417.html

    In addition to shattering world records and breaking down barriers, the swimmers at the Rio Olympics have managed another feat of sorts: reigniting international sport's Cold War. On the self-proclaimed forces of good: swimmers from Western nations who broke unwritten Olympic etiquette by speaking out against competitors they deemed "drug cheats."

    The story mentions that in track and field, the US has an extensive history of doping and concluded:

    Americans may stack up medals on the track in Rio, but they'll have to table their righteousness on that podium.

    [Aug 16, 2016] The culture of medals over morals disgusts me.

    www.bbc.com
    marknesop , August 15, 2016 at 6:56 pm

    The culture of medals over morals disgusts me.

    [Aug 16, 2016] Trust the crooks in Ukraine to come up with documentary evidence which can be used to show Trump is really Putins man

    Notable quotes:
    "... In the New York Times ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    marknesop, August 14, 2016 at 11:06 pm
    Trust the crooks in Ukraine to come up with 'documentary evidence' which can be used to show Trump is really Putin's man. I wonder how big an IMF package Hillary had to promise them? Or did she strike a deal with Porky to get Crimea back?

    In the New York Times , of course; the Democrats' FOX News. They'd like to see a home girl win.

    [Aug 16, 2016] I see Trump more like a reaction on hardships inflicted by neoliberal globalization on the USA common folk.

    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Warren , August 15, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    Donald Trump is the least of the GOP's problems

    marknesop , August 15, 2016 at 5:23 pm
    That's actually a very good piece; the author is a compelling writer.
    likbez , August 15, 2016 at 8:29 pm
    I disagree. And not only regarding his extraordinarily dubious periodization of US political history. This baloney about Republicanism does not make much sense. Also since the 1963 deep state became the dominant political force and parties and elections became more of a legitimization show. .

    I see Trump more like a reaction on hardships inflicted by neoliberal globalization on the USA common folk. So he is standard bearer of the strata of population hit by globalization, the strata which standard of living was dropping for the last two-three decades. Professional classes and financial oligarchy support Hillary, but blue color workers switched to Trump by large numbers. Trade union bosses expect that 50% or more of membership will vote for Trump. That's their way to say "f*ck you" to neoliberal establishment and so far they are saying it pretty politely, if we do not count several recent riots (which mainly involved black population). Now the neoliberal elite is afraid that even the slightest trigger can produce uncontrollable situation.

    That's why Hillary adopted a part of Sanders platform and is now against TPP (only until November:-) A lot of people are just fed up.

    That's why neocons such as Cruze and, especially, Rubio and Jeb! were defeated by Trump, and why only machinations of DNC allowed Hillary to be crowned over Sanders (Sanders betrayal also played a role).

    This is a situation perfect for "color revolution" (what we miss is just a capable and well financed three letter agency of some foreign power 😉 In other words the US elite partially lost the control of ordinary people and MSM no longer can brainwash them with previous efficiency because after 2008 the key idea of "trickle down economy" - that dramatically rising inequality will provide Untermensch with enough crumps from the table of Masters of the Universe (financial oligarchy) were proven to be false.

    Financial oligarchy does not want to share even crumps and decent job almost totally disappeared. Switch to contractor jobs and outsourcing means a significant drop in standard of living for, probably, 80-90% of population. Unemployment after university graduation is now pretty common.

    While neoliberalism managed to survive the crisis of 2008 the next crisis of neoliberalism is probably close (let's, say, can happen within the current decade). The economic plunder of the xUSSR economic space helped to delay this crisis for a decade or more, but now this process is by-and-large over (although Russia still is a piece of economic space to fight for - so its dismembering or color revolution is always in cards and not only for geopolitical reasons) . Secular stagnation does not play well with neoliberal globalization, so nationalistic movements are on the rise in different parts of the globe, including Europe. The "plato oil" situation does not help either. So here all bets are off.

    Note an unprecedented campaign of demonization of Trump in neoliberal media and attempt to link him to Putin, playing on pre-existing Russophobia of the population. I especially like "Khan gambit" (essentially swiftboating of Trump) and recent campaign salivating over the "assassination attempt" on Hillary by inflating one (unfortunate) Trump remark completely our of proportion. And that's only the beginning.

    [Aug 16, 2016] The ECHR has, on the other hand, green-lighted the lawsuits of MH-17 relatives against Ukraine

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    marknesop , August 14, 2016 at 1:19 pm

    The ECHR has, on the other hand, green-lighted the lawsuits of MH-17 relatives against Ukraine , for "Failing to protect life" by taking the appropriate precautions to vector air traffic away from the war zone.

    Which means Ukraine's actions will come under close scrutiny once again, and in this instance the plaintiffs have plenty of evidence, since it was broadly agreed at the outset that Ukraine bore responsibility for its own airspace.

    Now, hopefully, there will be some questions asked about Ukraine's odd approach to record-keeping and its determination to control aircraft without any primary radars available.

    [Aug 16, 2016] Thomas Frank One Market Under God-- Extreme Capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... This extreme form of market capitalism, also called neo-liberalism in economics and neo-conservatism in foreign policy, has worked its way into the mindset of the ruling elites of many of the developed nations, and has taken a place in the public consciousness through steady repetition. I has become the modern orthodoxy of the fortunate few, who have been initiated into its rites, and served and been blessed by their god. ..."
    "... The adherents become blind by their devotion to their gods. ..."
    "... This is not something new. It is a madness that has appeared again and again throughout history in the form of Mammon, the golden idol of the markets. It is a way of looking at people and the world that is as old as Babylon, and as evil as sin. ..."
    jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    There is a lack of critical assessment of the past. But you have to understand that the current ruling elite is actually the old ruling elite. So they are incapable of a self-critical approach to the past."

    Ryszard Kapuscinski

    But they maintain a firm grasp on information and power, for their own sake, and sidetrack and stifle any meaningful reform.

    In October 2000 Thomas Frank published a prescient critical social analysis titled, One Market Under God: Extreme Capitalism, Market Populism, and the End of Economic Democracy .

    In the video below from 2015, Thomas Frank looks back over the past 15 years to when he wrote this insightful book, and ends with this observation.

    "I want to end with the idea that the market is capable of resolving all of our social conflict, fairly and justly. That is the great idea of the 1990's. And we all know now what a crock that is. I think what we need in order to restore some kind of sense of fairness is not the final triumph of markets over the body and soul of humanity, but something that confronts markets, and that refuses to think of itself as a brand ."
    The book was not received well at the time in the waning days of the Clinton revolution and the birth of the era of the neo-cons in foreign policy and neo-liberals in economics.

    This religion of the markets had yet to suffer the serial failures and decimation of the real economy which it would see over the next sixteen years.

    This is an ideology, a mindset, and as Frank calls it a religion, of taking market capitalism to such an extreme that it dispenses with the notion of restraints by human or policy consideration. It comes to consider the market as a god, with its orthodoxy crafted in think tanks, its temples in the exchanges and the banks, and its oracles on their media and the academy.

    This extreme form of market capitalism, also called neo-liberalism in economics and neo-conservatism in foreign policy, has worked its way into the mindset of the ruling elites of many of the developed nations, and has taken a place in the public consciousness through steady repetition. I has become the modern orthodoxy of the fortunate few, who have been initiated into its rites, and served and been blessed by their god.

    It is the taking of an idea, of a way of looking at things, that may be substantially practical when used as a tool to help to achieve certain outcomes, and placing it in such an extreme and inappropriate place as an end in itself, as the very definition and arbiter of what is good and what is not, that it becomes a kind of anti-human force that is itself considered beyond all good and evil, like a natural law.

    It is born of and brings with it an extreme tendency that kills thought, and stifles the ability to make distinctions between things. If not unfettered capitalism then what, communism ? The adherents become blind by their devotion to their gods.

    This is not something new. It is a madness that has appeared again and again throughout history in the form of Mammon, the golden idol of the markets. It is a way of looking at people and the world that is as old as Babylon, and as evil as sin.

    youtube.com

    [Aug 16, 2016] Is Trumps Extreme Vetting That Far Off Existing US Policies

    Aug 16, 2016 | Zero Hedge
    While the MSM has gone out of its way to question every plausible unintended consequence(s) of Donald Trump's new "extreme" vetting for immigrants, perhaps it is worth looking at some of the current questions the US Immigration Services asks and compare those to Trump's proposals. They may not be that far off.

    To recap, Trump proposed an ideological test of "Islamic sympathizers" to be admitted, focusing on issues including religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights.

    And while some have questioned the validity of a test, and whether a presumed terrorist would even be honest in said test, the experts and political pundits should take a look at what the US currently asks individuals.

    • Have you ever been involved in, or do you seek to engage in, money laundering?
    • Are you coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or unlawful commercialized vice or have you been engaged in prostitution or procuring prostitutes within the past 10 years?
    • Have you ever committed or conspired to commit a human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States?
    • Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?
    • Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?
    • Have you ever ordered, incited, committed, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide?
    • Have you ever committed, ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in torture?
    • Have you, while serving as a government official, been responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom?
    • Have you ever been directly involved in the coercive transplantation of human organs or bodily tissue?

    Evidently, if any of the US allies (e.g. Saudi Arabia) answered these questions honestly, they would not be admitted to the US. But, perhaps the best question still being asked to all immigrants is as follows:

    • Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?

    If the US government currently engages in these and other questionings, is it that far off to ask if you are anti gay rights, anti Semitic or pro sharia law?

    [Aug 16, 2016] Panama Papers were released with intent to expose Vladimir Putin's supposed corruption, only for the release itself to backfire when the only connection to Putin turned out to be a childhood friend violinist.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "US security experts however are blaming the leak on Russian hackers, according to Bloomberg, in a similar reaction seen in the wake of the DNC leaks." ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    More than 2,500 files from the raft of organizations run by billionaire George Soros have been leaked by hackers.

    Saturday's leak, published by DC leaks, includes hundreds of internal documents from multiple departments of Soros' groups, predominantly the Open Society Foundations.

    https://www.rt.com/usa/355919-soros-hacked-files-released/

    marknesop , August 14, 2016 at 11:29 pm
    Explosive. Early analysis says the leak shows his NGO's manipulating EU elections.

    "US security experts however are blaming the leak on Russian hackers, according to Bloomberg, in a similar reaction seen in the wake of the DNC leaks."

    Careful, boys; one day you'll go to the well and there won't be any more water. It's always the Russians.

    Jen , August 15, 2016 at 12:55 am
    Interesting that Soros' Open Society Foundations funds the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists which would explain why when the Panama Papers were released, there were no US individuals or companies named as clients of Mossack Fonseca. So the Panama Papers were released with intent to expose Vladimir Putin's supposed corruption, only for the release itself to backfire when the only connection to Putin turned out to be a childhood friend violinist.

    [Aug 16, 2016] Donald Trump's campaign team must disclose all pro-Russia links

    bbc.co.uk
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37080909

    Donald Trump's campaign team must disclose all pro-Russia links, Hillary Clinton's manager has said, following new allegations in the New York Times.

    [Aug 16, 2016] Must only be a matter of time then, when the US government discovers that Vladimir Putin might have met Melania Trump

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Dr. Filip Kovacevic @ Boiling Frogs Post/Newsbud: Newsbud Exclusive- Putin in Slovenia: An Analysis
    http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2016/08/10/newsbud-exclusive-putin-in-slovenia-an-analysis/

    The Hidden Subtext Behind Putin's Third Slovenia Visit

    Putin is no stranger to the ex-Yugoslav republic of Slovenia. In fact, in June 2001, when Slovenia was still neither an EU nor a NATO member state, it was chosen as a neutral meeting place for the first official meeting between him and the U.S. president George W. Bush. Ironically, the meeting took place in the Brdo Castle near Kranj, one of the long-time Communist leader Tito's summer residences. At that time, the U.S. high level officials did everything they could to flatter Putin and get him to accept their hegemonic geopolitical agenda for Eastern Europe, Russia, and Eurasia in general. For instance, during the press conference that followed their two-hour long discussions, Bush stated that he could fully trust Putin in international matters because "he's an honest, straight-forward man who loves his country. He loves his family. We share a lot of values. I view him as a remarkable leader. I believe his leadership will serve Russia well."[1]

    But, when Putin, unlike Yeltsin, whose hand-picked successor he was, proved unwilling to play along with the U.S. plans, his stature in the U.S. foreign policy discourse quickly deteriorated from that of "a remarkable leader" and an honest patriot to that of a brutal dictator and even "a thug"…
    ####

    Read on, read on!

    The UNSG bid certainly looks like part of it though I doubt anyone from the Western blocs inc. asia would be favorable, let alone balanced towards Russia. I'm not sure that Washington is stupid enough to pick a fight with Europe over the Balkans, but then again Washington has a long record of their actions causing blowback to their 'allies' and saying "Tough. That's the price for riding on our coattails."

    Jen , August 15, 2016 at 3:17 pm
    Must only be a matter of time then, when the US government discovers that Vladimir Putin might have met Melania Trump (even if they just brushed past each other in a matter of seconds with both of them looking away from each other) and BINGO! – the connection between Lord Sauron and his robot Donald Trump is finally revealed.

    [Aug 16, 2016] 3 minutes before they (and probably most other news) announced that a passenger jet was shot down, NSDC and Ukrainian Pravda announced that separatists suddenly now possess a Buk, which can reach a passenger jet.

    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Jeremn, August 15, 2016 at 7:07 am

    Interesting Timeline of how the downing of MH17 was first reported in the Ukrainian media. Basically, the Ukrainian government spokesman announced that the rebels had a BUK, but just at the time the Malaysian flight was coming down.

    "The headline at 17:26 EEST translates to "NSDC said that militants have equipment that can hit planes at a high altitude." The headline at 17:49 translates to "Source: A passenger jet was shot down in Donetsk region." So, it is interesting that an hour after MH17 crashed and 23 minutes before they (and probably most other news) announced that a passenger jet was shot down, NSDC and Ukrainian Pravda announced that separatists suddenly now possess a Buk, which can reach a passenger jet."

    https://energia.su/mh17/en/article/1/

    marknesop, August 15, 2016 at 10:20 am
    Very interesting indeed, since it implies premeditation. And since it is one of the few Ukrainian statements which was decisively refuted by western intelligence.

    [Aug 15, 2016] American Pravda Did the US Plan a Nuclear First Strike Against Russia in the Early 1960s - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... I suggested that if he possessed any private information regarding so astonishing a possibility-that the Kennedy Administration might have considered a nuclear first strike against the USSR-perhaps he had a duty to bring the facts to public awareness lest they be lost to history. ..."
    "... Obviously no nuclear attack took place, so the plans must have been changed at some point or discarded, and there were various indications that President Kennedy had had important doubts from the very beginning. But the argument made was that at the time, the first strike proposal was taken very seriously by America's top political and military leadership. Once we accept that idea, other historical puzzles more easily fall into place. ..."
    "... In a later footnote, Galbraith even mentioned that he subsequently had his interpretation personally confirmed by Kennedy's former National Security Advisor: "When once I asked the late Walt Rostow if he knew anything about the National Security Council meeting of July 20, 1961 (at which these plans were presented), he responded with no hesitation: `Do you mean the one where they wanted to blow up the world?'" ..."
    "... And there is also a sequel on this same topic. In 2001 military affairs writer Fred Kaplan published a major article in The Atlantic with the explicit title " JFK's First-Strike Plan." Drawing on a wealth of newly declassified archival documents, he similarly described how the Kennedy Administration had prepared plans for a nuclear first strike against the Soviets. His analysis was somewhat different, suggesting that Kennedy himself had generally approved the proposal, but that the attack was intended as an option to be used during a hypothetical future military confrontation rather than being aimed for a particular scheduled date. ..."
    "... Consider a particularly troubling thought-experiment. Suppose that the proposed nuclear attack on Russia had actually gone ahead, resulting in millions or tens of millions dead from the bombs and worldwide radioactive fallout, perhaps even including a million or more American casualties if the first strike had failed to entirely eliminate all retaliatory capability. Under such a dire scenario, is it not likely that every American media organ would have been immediately enlisted to sanitize and justify the terrible events, with virtually no dissent allowed? ..."
    www.unz.com
    I suggested that if he possessed any private information regarding so astonishing a possibility-that the Kennedy Administration might have considered a nuclear first strike against the USSR-perhaps he had a duty to bring the facts to public awareness lest they be lost to history.

    He replied that he'd indeed found persuasive evidence that the US military had carefully planned a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union in the early 1960s, and agreed about the historical importance. But he'd already published an article laying out the case. Twenty years earlier. In The American Prospect , a very respectable though liberal-leaning magazine. So I located a copy on the Internet:

    I quickly read the article and was stunned. The central document was a Top Secret/Eyes Only summary memo of a July 1961 National Security Council meeting written by Howard Burris, the military aide to then-Vice President Lyndon Johnson, which was afterward deposited in the Johnson Archives and eventually declassified. The discussion focused on the effectiveness of a planned nuclear first strike, suggesting that 1963 would be the optimal date since America's relative advantage in intercontinental nuclear missiles would be greatest at that point. Galbraith's student, Heather A. Purcell, had discovered the memo and co-authored the article with him, and as they pointed out, this meeting was held soon after the US military had discovered that the Soviet missile forces were far weaker than previously had been realized, leading to the plans for the proposed attack and also proving that the first strike under discussion could only have been an American one.

    This history was quite different from the deterrent-based framework of American nuclear-war strategy that I had always absorbed from reading my textbooks and newspapers.

    Obviously no nuclear attack took place, so the plans must have been changed at some point or discarded, and there were various indications that President Kennedy had had important doubts from the very beginning. But the argument made was that at the time, the first strike proposal was taken very seriously by America's top political and military leadership. Once we accept that idea, other historical puzzles more easily fall into place.

    Consider, for example, the massive campaign of "civil defense" that America launched immediately thereafter, leading to the construction of large numbers of fallout shelters throughout the country, including the backyard suburban ones which generated some famous ironic images. Although I'm hardly an expert on nuclear war, the motivation had never made much sense to me, since in most cases the supplies would only have been sufficient to last a few weeks or so, while the deadly radioactive fallout from numerous Soviet thermonuclear strikes on our urban centers would have been long-lasting. But an American first strike changes this picture. A successful U.S. attack would have ensured that few if any bombs fell on American soil, with the shelters intended merely to provide a couple of weeks of useful protection until the global radioactive dust-clouds resulting from the nuclear destruction of the Soviet Union had dissipated, and these anyway would have only reached America in highly attenuated form.

    Furthermore, we must reassess the background to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, certainly one of the most important and dangerous events of that era. If Soviet military analysts had reached conclusions similar to those of their American counterparts, it is hardly surprising that their political leaders would have taken the considerable risk of deploying nuclear warheads on intermediate range missiles close to American cities, thereby greatly multiplying their deterrent capability immediately prior to their point of greatest strategic vulnerability. And there was also the real possibility that their intelligence agents might have somehow gotten hints of the American plans for an actual nuclear first strike. The traditional view presented in the American media has always been that an unprovoked American attack was simply unimaginable, any Soviet paranoia notwithstanding, but if such an attack was not only imagined but actually planned, then our Cold War narrative must be significantly modified. Indeed, perhaps important aspects of the superpower confrontations of that era should be completely inverted.

    Could such a momentous historical discovery have been so totally ignored by our mainstream journalists and historians that I'd never heard of it during the previous twenty years? Gossipy rumors of an additional JFK infidelity might periodically make the headlines, but why was there no discussion of serious plans to launch a non-defensive global thermonuclear war likely to kill many millions?

    I have limited expertise in either analyzing nuclear warfare strategy or interpreting national security documents, so I could easily be making an error in evaluating the strength of the case. But in a later issue of TAP , William Burr and David Alan Rosenberg, scholars proficient in exactly those areas, published a lengthy rebuttal to the article , followed by a rejoinder from Galbraith and Purcell. And in my own opinion, the Burr/Rosenberg critique was quite unpersuasive.

    In their arguments, they emphasized that the key document was found in the Vice Presidential archives, while the National Archives and those of President Kennedy himself are usually a far better source of important material. But perhaps that's exactly the point. The authenticity of the Burris document was never disputed, and Burr/Rosenberg cite absolutely no contradictory archival material, implying that the documentary evidence was not available to them. So the materials dealing with such an extraordinarily explosive proposal had either elsewhere not been declassified or might even have been removed from the main archives, with only the less direct Burris summary memo in a secondary location surviving the purge and later being declassified, perhaps because its treatment of the subject was much less explicit.

    Meanwhile, a careful reading of the Burris memo seems to strongly support the Galbraith/Purcell interpretation, namely that in July 1961 President Kennedy and his top national security officials discussed cold-blooded plans for a full nuclear attack against the Soviet Union in roughly two years' time, when the relative imbalance of strategic forces would be at its maximum. The proposal seemed quite concrete, rather than merely being one of the numerous hypotheticals endlessly produced by all military organizations.

    In a later footnote, Galbraith even mentioned that he subsequently had his interpretation personally confirmed by Kennedy's former National Security Advisor: "When once I asked the late Walt Rostow if he knew anything about the National Security Council meeting of July 20, 1961 (at which these plans were presented), he responded with no hesitation: `Do you mean the one where they wanted to blow up the world?'"

    Once I accepted the reasonable likelihood of the analysis, I was shocked at how little attention the remarkable article had received. When I simply Googled the names of the authors "Galbraith Heather Purcell" I mostly discovered very brief mentions scattered here and there, generally in specialized books or in articles written by Galbraith himself, and found absolutely nothing in the major media. Possibly one of the most important revisions to our entire history of the Cold War-with huge implications for the Cuban Missile Crisis-seems to have never achieved any significant public awareness.

    And there is also a sequel on this same topic. In 2001 military affairs writer Fred Kaplan published a major article in The Atlantic with the explicit title " JFK's First-Strike Plan." Drawing on a wealth of newly declassified archival documents, he similarly described how the Kennedy Administration had prepared plans for a nuclear first strike against the Soviets. His analysis was somewhat different, suggesting that Kennedy himself had generally approved the proposal, but that the attack was intended as an option to be used during a hypothetical future military confrontation rather than being aimed for a particular scheduled date.

    The government plans unearthed by Kaplan are clearly referring to the same strategy discussed in the Burris memo, but since Kaplan provides none of the documents themselves, it is difficult to determine whether or not the evidence is consistent with the somewhat different Galbraith/Purcell interpretation. It is also decidedly odd that Kaplan's long article gives no indication that he was even aware of that previous theory or its differing conclusions, containing not a single sentence mentioning or dismissing it. I find it very difficult to believe that a specialist such as Kaplan remained totally unaware of the earlier TAP analysis, but perhaps this might possibly be explained given the near-total media blackout. Prior to the establishment of the Internet or even in its early days, important information ignored by the media might easily vanish almost without a trace.

    Kaplan's long article seems to have suffered that similar fate. Aside from a few mentions in some of Kaplan's own later pieces, I found virtually no references at all in the last 15 years when I casually Googled it. Admittedly, the timing could not have been worse, with the article appearing in the October 2001 edition of the magazine, released in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, but the silence is still troubling.

    The unfortunate fact is that when a massively important story is reported only once, with virtually no follow-up, the impact may be minimal. Only a small slice of the public encounters that initial account, and the lack of any repetition would eventually lead even those individuals to forget it, or perhaps even vaguely assume that the subsequent silence implied that the claims had been mistaken or later debunked. Every standard historical narrative of the 1960s that continues to exclude mention of serious plans for an American nuclear first strike constitutes a tacit denial of that important reality, implicitly suggesting that the evidence does not exist or had been discredited. As a consequence, I doubt whether more than a sliver of those seemingly informed Americans who carefully read the NYT and WSJ each morning are aware of these important historical facts, and perhaps the same is even true of the journalists who write for those esteemed publications. Only repetition and continuing coverage gradually incorporates a story into our framework of the past.

    It is easy to imagine how things might have gone differently. Suppose, for example, that similarly solid evidence of plans for a devastating and unprovoked nuclear attack on the Soviet Union had been found in the archival records of the presidential administrations of Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan. Is there not a far greater likelihood that the story have been heavily covered and then endlessly repeated in our media outlets, until it had become full embedded in our standard histories and was known to every informed citizen?

    In some respects, these discussions of events from over a half-century ago have little relevance for us today: the individuals involved are now all merely names in our history books and the world is a very different place. So although the sharp differences between the Galbraith/Purcell analysis and that of Kaplan might engage academic specialists, the practical differences would today be minimal.

    But what has enormous significance is the media silence itself. If our media failed to report these shocking new facts about the early 1960s, how much can we rely upon it for coverage of present-day events of enormous importance, given the vastly more immediate pressures and political interests which are surely brought to bear? If our mainstream histories of what happened fifty years ago are highly unreliable, what does that suggest about the stories we read each morning concerning the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine or the South China Sea or the Middle East?

    Consider a particularly troubling thought-experiment. Suppose that the proposed nuclear attack on Russia had actually gone ahead, resulting in millions or tens of millions dead from the bombs and worldwide radioactive fallout, perhaps even including a million or more American casualties if the first strike had failed to entirely eliminate all retaliatory capability. Under such a dire scenario, is it not likely that every American media organ would have been immediately enlisted to sanitize and justify the terrible events, with virtually no dissent allowed?

    Surely John F. Kennedy would have been enshrined as our most heroic wartime president-greater than Lincoln and FDR combined-the leader who boldly saved the West from an imminent Soviet attack, a catastrophic nuclear Pearl Harbor. How could our government ever admit the truth? Even decades later, this patriotic historical narrative, uniformly endorsed by newspapers, books, films, and television, would have become almost unassailable. Only the most marginal and anti-social individuals would dare to suggest that

    [Aug 15, 2016] The True Story Of How War Broke Out In Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... The CIA agents running the Deraa operation from their office in Jordan had already provided the weapons and cash needed to fuel the flames of revolution in Syria. With enough money and weapons, you can start a revolution anywhere in the world. ..."
    "... In reality, the uprising in Deraa in March 2011 was not fueled by graffiti written by teenagers, and there were no disgruntled parents demanding their children to be freed. This was part of the Hollywood style script written by skilled CIA agents, who had been given a mission: to destroy Syria for the purpose of regime change. Deraa was only Act 1: Scene 1. ..."
    "... The Libyans stockpiled weapons at the Omari Mosque well before any rumor spread about teenagers arrested for graffiti. The cleric, visually impaired and elderly, was unaware of the situation inside his Mosque, or of the foreign infiltrators in his midst. ..."
    "... The weapons came into Deraa from the CIA office in Jordan. The US government has close ties to the King of Jordan. Jordan is 98% Palestinian, and yet has a long lasting peace treaty with Israel, despite the fact that 5 million of the Jordanian citizen's relatives next door in Occupied Palestine are denied any form of human rights. ..."
    "... However, the US strategy was to create a "New Middle East", which would do away with safety in Syria; through the ensuing tornado, aka 'winds of change'. ..."
    "... Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and then Syria were the stepping stones in the garden of the "Arab Spring". But, the scenario in the Syrian mission did not stay on script. It went over deadline and over budget. The final credits have yet to be rolled, and the curtain has yet to fall on the stage. ..."
    "... Syrians were wondering how Western writers could take the side of the terrorists who were foreigners, following Radical Islam and attacking any unarmed civilian who tried to defend their home and family. The media was portraying the terrorists as freedom fighters and heroes of democracy, while they were raping, looting, maiming, kidnapping for ransom and murdering unarmed civilians who had not read the script before the shooting began in Deraa. ..."
    "... Deraa was the opening act of tragic epic which has yet to conclude. The cleric who was a key character in the beginning scenes, Sheikh Sayasneh, was first put under house arrest, and then he was smuggled out to Amman, Jordan in January 2012. He now gives lectures in America near Washington, DC. Just like aspiring actors usually find their way to Hollywood, which is the Mecca of the film industry, Sheikh Sayasneh found his way to the Mecca of all regime change projects. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    Submitted by Steven Sahiounie via American Herald Tribune,

    The day before September 11, 2001 was like any normal day in New York City. September 10, 2001 was unaware of the earthshaking events which would happen the next day.

    Similarly, one might think the day before the violence broke out in Deraa, Syria in March 2011 would have been an uneventful day, unaware of the uprising about to begin.

    But, that was not the case. Deraa was teaming with activity and foreign visitors to Syria well before the staged uprising began its opening act.

    The Omari Mosque was the scene of backstage preparations, costume changes and rehearsals. The Libyan terrorists, fresh from the battlefield of the US-NATO regime change attack on Libya, were in Deraa well ahead of the March 2011 uprising violence. The cleric of the Omari Mosque was Sheikh Ahmad al Sayasneh . He was an older man with a severe eye problem, which caused him to wear special dark glasses, and severely hampered his vision. He was not only visually impaired, but light sensitive as well, which caused him to be indoors as much as possible and often isolated. He was accustomed to judging the people he talked with by their accent and voice. The Deraa accent is distinctive. All of the men attending the Omari Mosque were local men, all with the common Deraa accent. However, the visitors from Libya did not make themselves known to the cleric, as that would blow their cover. Instead, they worked with local men; a few key players who they worked to make their partners and confidants. The participation of local Muslim Brotherhood followers, who would assist the foreign Libyan mercenaries/terrorists, was an essential part of the CIA plan, which was well scripted and directed from Jordan.

    Enlisting the aid and cooperation of local followers of Salafism allowed the Libyans to move in Deraa without attracting any suspicion. The local men were the 'front' for the operation.

    The CIA agents running the Deraa operation from their office in Jordan had already provided the weapons and cash needed to fuel the flames of revolution in Syria. With enough money and weapons, you can start a revolution anywhere in the world.

    In reality, the uprising in Deraa in March 2011 was not fueled by graffiti written by teenagers, and there were no disgruntled parents demanding their children to be freed. This was part of the Hollywood style script written by skilled CIA agents, who had been given a mission: to destroy Syria for the purpose of regime change. Deraa was only Act 1: Scene 1.

    The fact that those so-called teenaged graffiti artists and their parents have never been found, never named, and never pictured is the first clue that their identity is cloaked in darkness.

    In any uprising there needs to be grassroots support. Usually, there is a situation which arises, and protesters take to the streets. The security teams step in to keep the peace and clear the streets and if there is a 'brutal crackdown' the otherwise 'peaceful protesters' will react with indignation, and feeling oppressed and wronged, the numbers in the streets will swell. This is the point where the street protests can take two directions: the protesters will back down and go home, or the protesters can react with violence, which then will be met with violence from the security teams, and this sets the stage for a full blown uprising.

    The staged uprising in Deraa had some locals in the street who were unaware of their participation in a CIA-Hollywood production. They were the unpaid extras in the scene about to be shot. These unaware extras had grievances, perhaps lasting a generation or more, and perhaps rooted in Wahhabism, which is a political ideology exported globally by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Royal family and their paid officials.

    The Libyans stockpiled weapons at the Omari Mosque well before any rumor spread about teenagers arrested for graffiti. The cleric, visually impaired and elderly, was unaware of the situation inside his Mosque, or of the foreign infiltrators in his midst.

    The weapons came into Deraa from the CIA office in Jordan. The US government has close ties to the King of Jordan. Jordan is 98% Palestinian, and yet has a long lasting peace treaty with Israel, despite the fact that 5 million of the Jordanian citizen's relatives next door in Occupied Palestine are denied any form of human rights. The King of Jordan has to do a daily high-wire balancing act between his citizens, the peace and safety in his country and America's interests and projects in the Middle East. King Abdullah is not only a tight-rope walker, but a juggler at the same time, and all of this pressure on him must be enormous for him, and Queen Rania, who is herself Palestinian. These facts must be viewed in the forefront of the background painted scenery of The Syrian Arab Republic, which has for the last 40 years had a cornerstone of domestic and foreign policy carved and set in the principle of Palestinian human rights and Palestinian freedom and justice.

    The US policy to attack Syria for the purpose of regime change was not just about the gas lines, the oil wells, the strategic location and the gold: but it was about crushing that cornerstone of Palestinian rights into dust. To get rid of President Bashar al Assad was to get rid of one of the few Arab leaders who are an unwavering voice of Palestinian rights.

    Deraa's location directly on the Jordanian border is the sole reason it was picked for the location-shoot of the opening act of the Syrian uprising. If you were to ask most Syrians, if they had ever been to Derra, or ever plan to go, they will answer, "No." It is a small and insignificant agricultural town. It is a very unlikely place to begin a nationwide revolution. Deraa has a historical importance because of archeological ruins, but that is lost on anyone other than history professors or archeologists. The access to the weapons from Jordan made Deraa the perfect place to stage the uprising which has turned into an international war. Any person with common sense would assume an uprising or revolution in Syria would begin in Damascus or Aleppo, the two biggest cities. Even after 2 ˝ years of violence around the country, Aleppo's population never participated in the uprising, or call for regime change.

    Aleppo: the large industrial powerhouse of Syria wanted nothing to do with the CIA mission, and felt that by staying clear of any participation they could be spared and eventually the violence would die out, a natural death due to lack of participation of the civilians. However, this was not to play out for Aleppo. Instead, the US supported Free Syrian Army, who were mainly from Idlib and the surrounding areas, invited in their foreign partners, and they came pouring into Aleppo from Turkey, where they had taken Turkish Airlines flights from Afghanistan, Europe, Australia and North Africa landing in Istanbul, and then transported by buses owned by the Turkish government to the Turkey-Aleppo border. The airline tickets, buses, paychecks, supplies, food, and medical needs were all supplied in Turkey by an official from Saudi Arabia. The weapons were all supplied by the United States of America, from their warehouse at the dock of Benghazi, Libya. The US-NATO regime change mission had ended in success in Libya, with America having taken possession of all the weapons and stockpiles formerly the property of the Libyan government, including tons of gold bullion taken by the US government from the Central Bank of Libya.

    Enter the Libyans stage right. Mehdi al Harati, the Libyan with an Irish passport, was put in charge of a Brigade of terrorists working under the pay and direction of the CIA in Libya. Once his fighting subsided there, he was moved to Northern Syria, in the Idlib area, which was the base of operation for the American backed Free Syrian Army, who Republican Senator John McCain lobbied for in the US Congress, and personally visited, illegally entering Syria without any passport or border controls. In Arizona, Sen. McCain is in favor of deporting any illegal alien entering USA, but he himself broke international law by entering Syria as an illegal and undocumented alien. However, he was in the company of trusted friends and associates, the Free Syrian Army: the same men who beheaded Christians and Muslims, raped females and children of both sexes, sold girls as sex slaves in Turkey, and ate the raw liver of a man, which they proudly videoed and uploaded.

    Previously, Syria did not have any Al Qaeda terrorists, and had passed through the war in neighboring Iraq none the worse for wear, except having accepted 2 million Iraqis as refugee guests. Shortly before the Deraa staged uprising began, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were in Damascus and being driven around by the President and First Lady. Pitt and Jolie had come to visit and support the Iraqi war refugees in Damascus. Brad Pitt was amazed that the Syrian President would drive him around personally, and without any body guards or security detail. Pitt and Jolie were used to their own heavy security team in USA. Pres. Assad explained that he and his wife were comfortable in Damascus, knowing that it was a safe place. Indeed, the association of French travel agents had deemed Syria as the safest tourist destination in the entire Mediterranean region, meaning even safer than France itself.

    However, the US strategy was to create a "New Middle East", which would do away with safety in Syria; through the ensuing tornado, aka 'winds of change'.

    Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and then Syria were the stepping stones in the garden of the "Arab Spring". But, the scenario in the Syrian mission did not stay on script. It went over deadline and over budget. The final credits have yet to be rolled, and the curtain has yet to fall on the stage.

    We can't under estimate the role that mainstream media had to play in the destruction of Syria. For example, Al Jazeera's Rula Amin was in Deraa and personally interviewed the cleric Sayasneh at the Omari Mosque. Al Jazeera is the state owned and operated media for the Prince of Qatar. The Prince of Qatar was one of the key funders of the terrorists attacking Syria. The USA was sending the weapons, supplies and providing military satellite imagery, however the cash to make payroll, to pay out bribes in Turkey, and all other expenses which needed cold cash in hand was being paid out by the Prince of Qatar and the King of Saudi Arabia, who were playing their roles as closest Middle East allies of the United States of America. This was a production team between USA, EU, NATO, Turkey, Jordan, Israel and the Persian Gulf Arab monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar primarily. The CIA has no problem with covert operations in foreign countries, and even full scale attacks, but the matter of funding needs to come from a foreign country, because the American voters don't care about killing people in Syria, but they would never agree to pay for it. As long as the Arabs were paying for the project, that was OK by Mr. John Q. Public, who probably was not able to find Syria on a map anyway.

    Rula Amin and others of the Al Jazeera staff, and including the American CNN, the British BBC and the French France24 all began deliberate political propaganda campaign against the Syrian government and the Syrian people who were suffering from the death and destruction brought on by the terrorists who were pretending to be players in a local uprising. Some days, the scripts were so similar that you would have guessed they were all written in the same hotel room in Beirut. Onto the stage stepped the online media personalities of Robert Fisk, from his vantage point in Beirut and Joshua Landis from his perch in Oklahoma. These 2 men, sitting so far removed from the actual events, pretended to know everything going on in Syria. British and American readers were swayed by their deliberate one-sided explanations, while the actual Syrians living inside Syria, who read in English online, were baffled.

    Syrians were wondering how Western writers could take the side of the terrorists who were foreigners, following Radical Islam and attacking any unarmed civilian who tried to defend their home and family. The media was portraying the terrorists as freedom fighters and heroes of democracy, while they were raping, looting, maiming, kidnapping for ransom and murdering unarmed civilians who had not read the script before the shooting began in Deraa.

    There was one global movie trailer, and it was a low budget cell phone video which went viral around the world, and it sold the viewers on the idea of Syria being in the beginning of a dramatic fight for freedom, justice and the American way. From the very beginning, Al Jazeera and all the rest of the media were paying $100.00 to any amateur video shot in Syria. A whole new cottage industry sprang up in Syria, with directors and actors all hungry for the spotlight and fame. Authenticity was not questioned; the media just wanted content which supported their propaganda campaign in Syria.

    Deraa was the opening act of tragic epic which has yet to conclude. The cleric who was a key character in the beginning scenes, Sheikh Sayasneh, was first put under house arrest, and then he was smuggled out to Amman, Jordan in January 2012. He now gives lectures in America near Washington, DC. Just like aspiring actors usually find their way to Hollywood, which is the Mecca of the film industry, Sheikh Sayasneh found his way to the Mecca of all regime change projects.

    [Aug 15, 2016] Putin-Erdogan Meeting a Dud No Common Ground on Syria

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    PERIES: Ok. And, John, give us a sense of what Russia's interests are in this meeting. I mean, although it was downplayed, they did have the meeting with Erdogan, and they were the first to acknowledge and provide some support to Erdogan after the coup. We know that–

    HELMER: –No support. No, no, that's not quite right. Russian policy is for stability on its borders, its neighbors. Russia does not consider its national interests, its security interests, its border stability, to be advanced if there are coups and revolutions in countries around the neighborhood, whether that's Ukraine, the US did sponsor a coup in Kiev in February 2014, whether it's in Iran, whether it's in North Korea, whether it's in China, or whether it's in Turkey. So the Russian position was, stability in the neighborhood. The Russian position was Mr. Erdogan is the elected, constitutional leader of that country, and what was happening was an attempt to kill him, overthrow him, so Russia's position was stability in the neighborhood. That was the Russian position. It was stated rather quicker than Mr. Kerry was capable of stating it when he was trying to put some money on whoever was the winner and wasn't sure who would be the winner.

    But the Russian position is really simple. It's good neighbor policy if you like, but let me try and make it quick and short for you. First, Turkey should stop supporting and fueling and providing safe haven and supplies for groups that threaten Russia to the North, threaten Syria to the south. Threaten Iraq to the east. That means and end to support for ISIS, an end to support for the Chechen Rebellion in the Russian Caucasus. It means an end to support for Crimean Tatar opposition to Russia. It means an end Turkish support for the war against Armenia. That's number one. Number two, Russia has always for the last several hundred years, as long as there are ships, and as long as there's the sea, Russia wants free passage through the so-called Turkish straits, between the Black Sea, the Aegean Sea, and the Mediterranean. The Turks claim that it's a territorial war, they often claim that they lost several wars over this. Russia wants to see no expansion of NATO or enemy operations, naval operations, in the Black Sea, facilitated through the Bosphorus, through the Dardanelles, through the Turkish straits, at the behest and at the permission and the encouragement of the Turkish government. Those are security issues, right? No response from Erdogan. In fact, he said at the press conference, we didn't even talk about Syria, we'll talk about that a bit later in the afternoon. But as for that meeting, there is no record that anything was said, because as I said before the Russian Foreign Ministry has yet to acknowledge there was such a meeting. More important, on the [crosstalk] morning on the day Erdogan– HELMER: Well, let me go back a minute. On the morning of Erdogan's arrival in Saint Petersburg, there is a 30 minute interview that he gave to Russian state television, to the Tass News Agency, which he made a number of statements which he didn't repeat in his press conference. He called again for the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad. He again explicitly referred to support for the Crimean Tatars and their opposition to Crimea's accession, to the Russian Federation.

    Those are two very big no-no's, negatives. Aggressive remarks to make on the eve of your arrival in Russia, so that there was nothing left to discuss when he got there. Instead there's a lot of talk about talking.

    A lot of talk about talking about the future economic relations between the two countries. The revival of the two gas pipeline projects, the Turkish Stream and South Stream for Gazprom. The revival of the nuclear reactor project, which is Russia's building at Akkuyu. Talk about reviving investment, talk about improving visa conditions for Turkish workers in Russia.

    On none of those things, none of those things was any agreement announced. All the sides did, all the presidents said at their press conference was that they agreed to continue talking. And for all Mr. Erdogan's dear friend Putin remark he kept making roughly, I timed him, every three to four minutes of the time he's in front of the camera, nobody believes it. And he didn't offer anything on which the Russian side could say we've reached a new stage.

    He did, yes he apologized for the shoot down of the SU24, but he did not offer Turkish compensation for the murdered pilot, Captain Peshkov. It was very clear Russian policy that Turkey should pay compensation, just as it's been Turkish policy that Israel should pay compensation for the killing of Turkish citizens in the famous vessel incident off the Gaza coast several years ago. Turkey insisted on compensation from Israel. It took years, it's been achieved. Yet Turkey offers no compensation when Russia has insisted, on little issues, on big issues, Erdogan offered nothing.

    PERIES: And John, what now? In terms of moving forward with these two countries who are very pivotal and very strategically located in terms of the Syrian conflict.

    HELMER: Well, I wouldn't say that the direction is forward. From a Greek point of view, there is increasing chaos. From a Greek and Cyprian point of view, there is increasing chaos in Turkey, and around Turkey. And from one point of view, that's a small positive because it makes the Turkish army less capable of expanding aggressively east, south, or west.

    There is not improvement on Turkey's readiness to reach a solution for the withdrawal of troops from Northern Cyprus, illegally there since the invasion of '74. There is no sign that Turkey will relent in its support for the overthrow of Syria. There is no sign that Turkey will do anything to remove the Chechen threat to Russia inside Turkey, so we're going to move sideways.

    We're going to move, we will simply watch and see if Mr. Erdogan himself can survive. But the way he describes his survival is that he's the democratic leader of Turkey, well that's true.

    He produces these street displays of public support, and at the same time he distrusts his own military forces so much that he not only purges the general, generals staff, he couldn't bring a military officer in his delegation to Moscow yesterday. Not one military officer does Mr. Erdogan trust enough to bring to the party in Moscow. Sorry, in St. Petersburg. The chief of the Russian General Staff was there but no Turkish counterpart officer. Steve H. , August 14, 2016 at 10:27 am

    Instability seems to be the best description. Erdogan has so many horses attached to his cart it's hard to see what he wants. Beyond the billions stashed in the walls of his estates; I think it was Russia that released the phone calls with his son talking about moving the cash.

    We know he wants the cash, but is he an Islamic sultan first, or is his main horse the Turkic language group, which pushes into the X-istans to the east? Or is he a Euro, or a Russian lackey?

    Easier to see the view from Russia. No Islamic fundamentalism is a foundation stone. The Kurds have been better friends to Russia on this, and Russia reinforces success . That's close to a deal-killer for Erdogan. But he has to deal with the strategic fact that Russia can control the Black Sea by closing the Bosphorus unilaterally. Assad has managed to keep the same deal with Russia as the Kurds, so far. Erdogan has a lot of enemies to keep close. Does he have any friends?

    RabidGandhi , August 14, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    Funny, it's all speculation but I had the opposite thought.

    Erdogan, allegedly in a position of weakness, runs to Mother Russia for help in his time of need. But as Helmer notes, he brought bupkis to the table: no concessions on Syria, on Chechen seperatist groups, on trade, or even bones of lesser contention like Nato troops in Cyprus or fruit trade. The most obvious conclusion should be that his "failed" trip to Moscow was more signalling than a desperate appeal for help. And at whom is Erdogan's signalling aimed? Well Helmer again tells us: the only ones who think it was a salient rapprochment are the Western Press: yes the same Western Press that are currently hyperventillating that the Russians Are Coming! To wit, if you are Erdogan and you thought Victoria Nuland was going to be the next US Secretary of State, what would be the best way to get the stuff you wanted? Especially when it comes to Cyprus, arms to kill kurds, the overthrow of Assad, leverage with the EU, escalation vs. Iran….

    And on top of this, Erdogan has priors: he used the European press paranoia about immigrants to blackmail Merkl. He shot down a Russian fighter jet to ingratiate himself to Nato. And he's actively re-courting Israel. None of this indicates a realignment toward Russia– in fact his lack of concessions indicates the opposite.

    Like I said, at this point we can only speculate, and I personally lean more to the possibility that Erdogan saw the possibility of the coup happening and realised it could be to his advantage. But if you look at his position before the coup: weak domestically, not fully accepted by the West… and compare that to what he gets from the coup: elimination of enemies in a purge and the ability to use the threat of a Putin-alignment to blackmail the US, I don't see how the self-coup theory has been knocked on the head.

    PlutoniumKun , August 15, 2016 at 9:03 am

    I think your theory is as likely as any. Its very hard to see what Erdogan is doing. I suspects its a situation where he has been too clever by half and has wrapped himself up in knots in his various schemes. But its also possible he is actively trying to create as much ambiguity and uncertainty as possible in order to extract as much as possible from his 'allies'.

    Jagger , August 14, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Seems Erdogan is playing hard ball negotiations. Hopes Russia needs him more than Turkey needs Russia. And certainly he is doing the same with the EU. Undoubtedly he is playing both sides against each other for the best deal he can get. Wonder if he is competent enough to play those sort of games with someone like Putin.

    Although an alternative possibility is that Erdogan is completely out of his depth and burning bridges with everyone by making irrational demands on the EU, the US and Russia.

    financial matters , August 15, 2016 at 12:15 am

    Putin seems to be the most rational statesman in all this.

    One of the best things about Trump, I think, is that he realizes this and wants to work with him rather than demonize him in support of imperialistic type goals.

    Edward , August 14, 2016 at 11:49 am

    If Erdogan can pretend to change his Syria policy while not doing so, he can also pretend to not change this policy while doing so. When is he deceitful and when is he honest? We may need more time for Turkey's new policies to become apparent. Does anyone know what policy Gulen or the coup plotters wants toward Syria?

    makerowner , August 14, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Does anyone know what policy Gulen or the coup plotters wants toward Syria?

    Seems to be about as confused as Erdogan's. This article on his website from 2011 is supportive of regime change, but this article from 2014 suggests that Gülenists within the media and the miltary/police/security organizations are against intervention in Syria.

    Interestingly, this article from 2014 says almost the exact same things as we're seeing today about a Turkish rapprochement with Russia and Iran.

    Synoia , August 14, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    Erodgan wants to be the caliph of the new Ottoman Empire, with the support of the Salafis in Turkey, ISIS (or whatever) and Saudi Arabia.

    As a supplier to ISIS for these reasons, he has no common ground with Russia, who wants an end to Muslim Unrest, because it fuels problems for the Russian like Chechnya, and the other Muslim states along the silk road.

    Russia wants to ensure the Black Sea is no blockaded, because Sevastopol is their warm water port, and has been both very important and controlled by Russia for over 400 years.

    Erdogan, one expects,is hoping for "approval" from the United States to invade Syria to "keep the peace," which would be a great step towards a unified Salafi empire.

    The Middle East was, is, and will be the cockpit of the world for the foreseeable future.

    Before considering events in the Middle East:

    1. Know you history
    2. Know your geography – look at the maps of borders for the last 1,000 years
    3. Analyze ambitions in,and for, the Middle East

    jo6pac , August 14, 2016 at 5:20 pm

    The reset has started small steps but the just same it moving. The Russian tourist are coming back with announcement the airlines are approved to return Turkey.
    http://atimes.com/2016/08/putin-erdogan-have-a-deal-on-syria/

    This opens the door for others, about a month ago the Russians, Iran's, Syrians meet in Russia. They need to put aside their differences because Hillary coming back onto the world stage with every bat-shit-crazy neo-conn at her command. Turkey sees that also. They are all stronger together and throw in China in the back ground and who knows.

    http://atimes.com/2016/08/iran-taps-into-turkish-russian-reset/

    Then again what the hell do I know? Only time will tell.

    different clue , August 14, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    Erdogan awaits the results of America's election. He hopes that Clinton gets elected because Clinton shares Ergogan's goal of toppling Assad in order to install a Jihadi Cannibal Terrorist LiverEater government over all of Syria.

    If Trump defeats Clinton ( unlikely I know), and if Trump then purges hundreds or thousands of pieces of radioactive Clintonite Filth out of the relevant parts of the Administrative Branch of Government ( even unlikelier) such that he can forcibly and semi-violently impose a "peace with Russia" policy upon an unwilling DC FedRegime Government; then Erdogan may eventually give up on getting Trump's support to topple Assad and install a Jihadi Terrorist government. What would Ergogan do then? Where would he turn?

    Roland , August 15, 2016 at 1:47 am

    I think that some of the other commentators here are overly disparaging of Erdogan.

    Erdogan is a skilful and gutsy politician, with a large body of support in his country.

    I mean, for God's sake, we just saw that man totally punk the old-line Kemalists in Turkish officer corps!

    Late last year, despite the Syrian imbroglio and mounting tension with the Kurds, Erdogan won a convincing electoral victory. His party formed an outright parliamentary majority.

    When Erdogan meets Putin, that is a meeting of peers.

    I'll repeat the prediction I have already made a couple of times on this site: Erdogan is stringing Putin along until after the US election.

    By the time Clinton is inaugurated in 2017, Erdogan will have finished purging the suspect elements in the Turkish officer corps. Turkey will then be ready to play an important role in the US-led escalation of the conflict against Syria and Russia.

    But for the next 5-6 months, Erdogan wants to keep relations with Russia from going foul. That way the Russians might not want to make a more intense effort to help the Syrians recapture all of Aleppo.

    It's a tough situation for Putin. If Russia steps up the offensive at Aleppo, it would be easy for Erdogan and Clinton to use that as a pretext for their own escalation. If Putin waits for 2017, Erdogan and Clinton are likely to escalate anyhow–they'll make whatever pretext they need.ć

    Fiver , August 15, 2016 at 4:06 am

    A reasonable argument, but if Putin knows anything, it's that he can't trust Erdogan, no matter what the truth vis a vis US involvement in the coup or who may have tipped off or otherwise saved Erdogan's regime. Erdogan was an utter fool to become involved in Syria, and like the Saudis and Saddam before him, allow his ego to be captured by dreams of wider regional power and influence under US auspices – in exchange, as always, for going to war against a US enemy. Anyone as encumbered as Erdogan is an ally to be kept close enough to be useful, but not within striking distance.

    I think the meeting was likely very serious, and I expect Erdogan and Putin both were looking for something from the other indicating where there might be wiggle room vis a vis what everyone expects is coming under Clinton, but which may already be underway – a major influx of new rebels/ISIS into the fray in Syria amidst escalating calls for direct US intervention as per Libyan version of a 'no-fly zone'.

    Too bad for Turkey. Had they not become involved in this disastrous regime-change operation, Erdogan could've maintained his balancing act with relative ease. The focus of his Government would've been the continued development of what has become a large, dynamic economy capable of playing the role of Bridge from the West to an East that included Russia.

    I don't know how many rabbits can be left in Putin's hat. The US really wants its 30 years of war to transform all the regions attacked back into desert and I really don't expect Putin to go all the way to the wall to stop them. But he does want the world to know what's happening.

    [Aug 15, 2016] The next NeoCon Presidency will produce another neocon disaster

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    EoinW

    That's a fair assessment. What I wonder is how much Erdogan's Islamic beliefs effect his judgement and how much his wanting to revive the Ottoman Empire effects it. Seems to me that betraying ISIS would have been an easy concession for him to make to Russia. Yet he's still determined to get rid of Assad and anyone who says that supports ISIS because ISIS is the only means of achieving that result. Does Erdogan continue as an ISIS ally because of: 1) ideologically they are two sides of the same coin? 2) The Saudis are sending him money he doesn't want to give up? 3) he wants continued chaos to have the opportunity to take advantage at Syria's or the Kurds expense? 4) he fears the US more than Russia? After all, America destroys countries, Russia uses diplomacy, which is less threatening.

    Could go on endlessly with all these questions. I suspect the easiest conclusion to reach is that Erdogan is biding his time until the US election results. After all, you couldn't have a more starker choice: Clinton and full support for anything anti-Russian or Trump and a healing of relations, in which case being Russia's would be a good thing. I guess the fly in the ointment is a NeoCon Presidency producing another neocon disaster, meaning Russia kicks NATO's butt, including Turkey.

    I can't help but note that what Erodgan offers to each party – Russia, the US and Europe – is negative. Doesn't that make it inevitable he ends up with no friends? For goodness sake, he only runs Turkey – and a divided Turkey! He's a few centuries too late for that to strike any existential fear into his adversaries. Overplaying his hand perhaps?

    likbez

    > I guess the fly in the ointment is a NeoCon Presidency producing another neocon disaster, meaning Russia kicks NATO's butt, including Turkey.

    The next "neocon disaster" is the most probable outcome, but there one a countervailing factor to "new American militarism" (Bacevich) type of adventurism. The idea that the establishing and maintaining the global neoliberal empire by direct interventions is worth the price we pay as it will take the USA into the period of unprecedented peace and prosperity is now discredited. Prosperity is reserved to top one or ten percent and that factor can't be hidden any longer.

    I think the US elite became split and a smaller part of Washington establishment started to understand that the US neocons overextended the country in permanent wars for permanent peace. In wars for extension of the global neoliberal empire. Much like Britain became exhausted from British empire project before.

    It well might be that soon the impoverishment of the population and, especially, lack of job and shirking middle class, become an internal political instability factor that will force some changes.

    With the total surveillance in place the elite has probably pretty decent picture of the mood of the population. And it is definitely not too encouraging for another reckless neocon experiment.

    Also the power of MSM brainwashing started to wear down and neoliberalism as an ideology that keeps the current Washington elite in power is in crisis.

    The USSR crushed approximately in 20 years after the communist ideology became discredited by the inability to raise the standard of living of the population. The same is happening with neoliberalism. If we count from 2008, neoliberalism probably still has another 12 years or three presidential terms. That means that if "this Trump" fails to be elected, the "next Trump" might be much more dangerous for Washington neocons.

    In a way, emergence of Trump is a sign that the elite can't govern the old way and population does not want to live the old way. Degeneration of the US neoliberal elite is another factor. Looks at quality of presidential candidates - Hillary and the bunch of narrow minded fanatics they produced for Republican nomination as well as the level of Washington detachment from reality - "let them eat cakes" stance , Those factors will only increase internal political tension that already demonstrated itself in recent riots.

    Situation with oil is also dangerous. Artificial suppression of oil prices destroys the US oil producers. They probably will manage to keep the prices low in 2016. Then what?

    [Aug 15, 2016] Russia and Putin have been elected the sticks to beat Mr. Trunp with

    Thos pressitute now talking not stop and ties of Trump and Russia. I wonder when rumors about connections of Putin and Melania surface...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The article, very tendentious and rambling in the Post's normal diffuse style, short on facts, continues on page A10, half page above the fold, with the banner headline across the top "Russian meddling in European politics similar to DNC hack." ..."
    "... Then in the Outlook section, page B4, in the continuation of an article about conspiracy theories, there is a large, very unflattering picture of a frowning Mr. Putin, captioned "Is Russian President Vladimir Putin controlling Donald Trump ? That's one conspiracy theory floating around the 2016 campaign." ..."
    "... No doubt much of this is campaign related. Russia/Putin have been elected the sticks to beat Mr. Trunp with. If it continues until the election, however, it's likely public opinion, manufactured though it is, will be receptive to military action against Russia, as Hillary and her likely advisors have hinted openly, in Syria and the Ukraine. ..."
    "... WAPO's anti-Russia/Putin articles are part of this agenda: The New Cold War but this time it's different. ..."
    "... "The new Cold War is even more pointless than the first. Russia was cooperating with the West, and the Russian economy was integrated into the West as a supplier of raw materials. The neoliberal economic policy that Washington convinced the Russian government to implement was designed to keep the Russian economy in the role of supplier of raw materials to the West. Russia expressed no territorial ambitions and spent very little on its military. ..."
    "... The new Cold War is the work of a handful of neoconservative fanatics who believe that History has chosen the US to wield hegemonic power over the world. Some of the neocons are sons of former Trotskyists and have the same romantic notion of world revolution, only this time it is "democratic-capitalist" and not communist. The new Cold War is far more dangerous than the old, because the respective war doctrines of the nuclear powers have changed. The function of nuclear weapons is no longer retaliatory. Mutually Assured Destruction was a guarantee that the weapons would not be used. In the new war doctrine nuclear weapons have been elevated to first-use in a preemptive nuclear attack. Washington first took this step, forcing Russia and China to follow. ..."
    "... Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have raised tensions dramatically ..."
    "... William Perry, Secretary of Defense in the Clinton regime, recently spoke of the danger of nuclear war being launched by false alarms resulting from such things as faulty computer chips. Fortunately, when such instances occurred in the past, the absence of tension in the relationship between the nuclear powers caused authorities on both sides to disbelieve the false alarms. Today, however, with constant allegations of pending Russian invasions, Putin demonized as "the new Hitler," and the buildup of US and NATO military forces on Russia's borders, a false alarm becomes believable ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Seward | Aug 14, 2016 9:51:01 AM | 5

    For those that haven't seen it, this morning's Sunday Washington Post features several prominent anti-Russia/Putin articles. One page A1, above the fold, is the headline "Russia's tactic's roil Europe", with subordinate headlines "INTERVENTION IN NEIGHBOR'S POLITIC'S" (all caps) and "Kremlin's alleged role in DNC hack is similar. The article, very tendentious and rambling in the Post's normal diffuse style, short on facts, continues on page A10, half page above the fold, with the banner headline across the top "Russian meddling in European politics similar to DNC hack."

    A large picture of Red Square is labeled "The Kremlin is visible to the right of a women looking at her smartphone in Red Square. Russia has tried hard in recent years tout European countries to its side bankrolling the countries extremist political parties and working to fuel a backlash against migrants."

    Below that there's a small picture of Mr. Putin, looking very worried, captioned ""President Vladimir Putin sought to build support for his vision, favoring authoritarian leaders over democratically elected ones." The article says essentially the same thing, in a diffuse, very rambling manner.

    Then in the Outlook section, page B4, in the continuation of an article about conspiracy theories, there is a large, very unflattering picture of a frowning Mr. Putin, captioned "Is Russian President Vladimir Putin controlling Donald Trump ? That's one conspiracy theory floating around the 2016 campaign."

    No doubt much of this is campaign related. Russia/Putin have been elected the sticks to beat Mr. Trunp with. If it continues until the election, however, it's likely public opinion, manufactured though it is, will be receptive to military action against Russia, as Hillary and her likely advisors have hinted openly, in Syria and the Ukraine.

    Mann | Aug 14, 2016 10:19:58 AM | 9

    Seward

    Question that arise, is MSM brainwashed to hate Russia or are they unknowingly spreading propaganda against Russia?

    Anyone want to take a guess?

    virgile | Aug 14, 2016 10:25:40 AM | 10
    Latest Seymour Hersh on Syria and other White House lies
    Can you summarize what is Turkey's role in the ceaseless clash and bloodletting in Syria?

    The Erdogan government was a covert supporter of the ISIS war against the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria for years, rearming ISIS fighters, buying seized Syrian oil from the ISIS at discount prices, and keeping the borders between Turkey and Syria, especially in Hakkari province, open for a steady stream of anti-Assad jihadists from around the world who wanted to join in the war against Syria. There also is evidence that some anti-Syrian factors in the United States have welcomed the Erdogan support or, at the least, looked away when necessary.

    Erdogan's constantly expanding extremism and grab for power was ignored, more or less, by many in the mainstream US media until early this year, and President Obama, for reasons not known, has yet to fully share the intelligence about Erdogan's political and religious obligations with the nation.

    The irony, or tragedy, of Erdogan's move to extremism is that throughout much of the last decade he was seen as being fully in the Ataturk tradition in Turkey -- that of a strong leader with strong religious beliefs who made sure that his nation remained secular. That is no longer true, as the recent coup, and Erdogan's extremist response to it, has made clear. Those called by Erdogan to go to the street and attack the army when the coup began to fail were not fighting in support of democracy, as widely reported at first, but as Islamists fighting a secular military.

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37223-seymour-hersh-on-white-house-lies-about-bin-laden-s-death-pakistan-and-the-syrian-civil-war

    likklemore | Aug 14, 2016 11:04:21 AM | 13
    @ Seward 5

    WAPO's anti-Russia/Putin articles are part of this agenda: The New Cold War but this time it's different.

    Rethinking The Cold War - Paul Craig Roberts

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/11/rethinking-the-cold-war-paul-craig-roberts/

    [.]
    "The new Cold War is even more pointless than the first. Russia was cooperating with the West, and the Russian economy was integrated into the West as a supplier of raw materials. The neoliberal economic policy that Washington convinced the Russian government to implement was designed to keep the Russian economy in the role of supplier of raw materials to the West. Russia expressed no territorial ambitions and spent very little on its military.

    The new Cold War is the work of a handful of neoconservative fanatics who believe that History has chosen the US to wield hegemonic power over the world. Some of the neocons are sons of former Trotskyists and have the same romantic notion of world revolution, only this time it is "democratic-capitalist" and not communist.

    The new Cold War is far more dangerous than the old, because the respective war doctrines of the nuclear powers have changed. The function of nuclear weapons is no longer retaliatory. Mutually Assured Destruction was a guarantee that the weapons would not be used. In the new war doctrine nuclear weapons have been elevated to first-use in a preemptive nuclear attack. Washington first took this step, forcing Russia and China to follow.

    The new Cold War is more dangerous for a second reason. During the first Cold War American presidents focused on reducing tensions between nuclear powers. But the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have raised tensions dramatically .

    William Perry, Secretary of Defense in the Clinton regime, recently spoke of the danger of nuclear war being launched by false alarms resulting from such things as faulty computer chips. Fortunately, when such instances occurred in the past, the absence of tension in the relationship between the nuclear powers caused authorities on both sides to disbelieve the false alarms. Today, however, with constant allegations of pending Russian invasions, Putin demonized as "the new Hitler," and the buildup of US and NATO military forces on Russia's borders, a false alarm becomes believable ."[.]

    ~ ~ ~ ~

    It has a great deal to do with keeping the greedy MISC fed and NATO relevant. {MISC -> military industrial surveillance companies}
    Emphasis mine.

    [Aug 15, 2016] Secret Trump voters reverse their support: 'He seems to be insane' by Amber Jamieson

    What about Hillary Clinton my friend ? What a presstitute...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The media are completely biased...And spread utter lies about Trump, while Hillary immediately hires Debbie wasserman Schultz after she resigned in disgrace when exposed by DNC leaks/Europeans as cheating and colluding against another candidate. ..."
    Aug 12, 2016 | theguardian.com

    AhBrightWings 1d ago

    "The media is like an extension of the DNC at this point. They'll intentionally misinterpret or exaggerate anything Trump says to try to help Hillary win the election," said a 50-year-old college professor from California.

    Of all the risible, most easily shucked off charges, this one takes the toupee. You cannot misinterpret or exaggerate this:

    "Barack Hussein Obama is the creator of ISIS. I mean...he's the literal inventor of ISIS."

    Let that treasonous libel stand for the innumerable times Trump has demonstrated that he's a mental dwarf, a vicious idiot, an unhinged loon. And that's calling it like it is, on his express terms.

    This man belongs in one of two cells: a padded one where he can be safe from his own mental illnesses or a prison one for his financial shenanigans, death threats against others, incitement to violence, "cruel and inhumane" abuse of his first wife (the actual charges that stuck, the rape ones were retracted) and treason. I guess money really can buy anything.

    But hell, I'd settle for seeing him safely ensconced in his own Towers. Anywhere but the White House.

    peter nelson -> Ozponerised , 1d ago
    His followers don't feel that way.

    Thete's a certain sort of university-educated, somewhat cosmopolitan person, who probably places a premium on rationality and an expectation that the world works in reasonably orderly manner. And they're not just on the left. They read the newspaper - the Guardian or the Telegraph or the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. They plan their careers and their retirements.

    And they cannot CONCEIVE of how Trump supporters (or many Brexit supporters) see the world. They don't get it; they can't wrap their heads around the anger and resentment. And they can't believe that that there are tens of MILLIONS of people like that. All of whom will vote.

    Just as we've seen with recent mass shootings, the rational cannot process the IRrational.

    hureharehure, 1d ago

    '. . . he was trying to be distasteful/politically incorrect as usual, which is why I will vote for the man. PC has ventured into thought policing on things, and along with the ultra surveillance state we have moved towards, I don't want to be answering questions by the Gestapo after I text a tacky joke to someone.'

    This amazes me. It shouldn't, as it seems to be a commonly-held sentiment even here, but it amazes me that people like this feel they have such a strong need to say "tacky" - or, more realistically, racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic - things that somehow they stand no chance of being able to continue saying unless an unhinged 70-year old man who is widely denounced for being disreputable is elected to represent them. It just does not add up as a pile of emotions, let alone as part of a political platform. This guy also seems to have such a poor grasp of history and a hysteric sense of melodrama as to believe that someone who criticizes him for making "a tacky joke" (or possibly just makes him feel awkward for having done so?) is the equivalent of "the Gestapo." He's more melodramatic about the reception his jokes might receive than a maladjusted teen who acts out in class.

    Josh Gilman, 1d ago
    I'm a former Democrat...And I'm voting for trump. Hillary Clinton is one of the most blatantly corrupt politician I have ever seen.

    The media are completely biased...And spread utter lies about Trump, while Hillary immediately hires Debbie wasserman Schultz after she resigned in disgrace when exposed by DNC leaks/Europeans as cheating and colluding against another candidate.

    Hillary didn't address this disgusting, illegal, unethical behavior , but she rewards and condones cheating voters with a JOB.

    Unbelievable.

    Josh Gilman -> hureharehure, 1d ago
    Except judge curiel DOES have ties to la raza and and DOES have a conflict of interest in presiding over trump's case.

    /former dem, Hillary is a liar and the fake journalists are letting her get away with it. Democrats have lost all respect

    [Aug 15, 2016] Hillary, Trump, and War with Russia

    www.unz.com

    The Unz Review

    A good reason to vote for Trump, a very good reason whatever his other intentions, is that he does not want a war with Russia. Hillary and her elite ventriloquists threaten just that. Note the anti-Russian hysteria coming from her and her remoras.

    Such a war would be yet another example of the utter control of America by rich insiders. No normal American has anything at all to gain by such a war. And no normal American has the slightest influence over whether such a war takes place, except by voting for Trump. The military has become entirely the plaything of unaccountable elites.

    A martial principle of great wisdom says that military stupidity comes in three grades: Ordinarily stupid; really, really, really stupid; and fighting Russia. Think Charles XII at Poltava, Napoleon after Borodino, Adolf and Kursk.

    Letting dilettantes, grifters, con men, pasty Neocons, bottle-blonde ruins, and corporations decide on war is insane. We have pseudo-masculine dwarves playing with things they do not understand. So far as I am aware, none of these fern-bar Clausewitzes has worn boots, been in a war, seen a war, or faces any chance of being in a war started by themselves. They brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, and Isis, and can't win wars against goatherds with AKs. They are going to fight…Russia?

    A point that the tofu ferocities of New York might bear in mind is that wars seldom turn out as expected, usually with godawful results. We do not know what would happen in a war with Russia. Permit me a tedious catalog to make this point. It is very worth making.

    When Washington pushed the South into the Civil War, it expected a conflict that might be over in twenty-four hours, not four years with as least 650,000 dead. When Germany began WWI, it expected a swift lunge into Paris, not four years of hideously bloody static war followed by unconditional surrender. When the Japanese Army pushed for attacking Pearl, it did not foresee GIs marching in Tokyo and a couple of cities glowing at night. When Hitler invaded Poland, utter defeat and occupation of Germany was not among his war aims. When the US invaded Vietnam, it did not expect to be outfought and outsmarted by a bush-world country. When Russia invaded Afghanistan it did not expect…nor when America invaded Afghanistan, nor when it attacked Iraq, nor….

    Is there a pattern here?

    The standard American approach to war is to underestimate the enemy, overestimate American capacities, and misunderstand the kind of war it enters. This is particularly true when the war is a manhood ritual for masculine inadequates–think Kristol, Podhoretz, Sanders, the whole Neocon milk bar, and that mendacious wreck, Hillary, who has the military grasp of a Shetland pony. If you don't think weak egos and perpetual adolescence have a part in deciding policy, read up on Kaiser Wilhelm.

    Now, if Washington accidentally or otherwise provoked a war with Russia in, say, the Baltics or the Ukraine, and actually used its own forces, where might this lead, given the Pentagon's customary delusional optimism? A very serious possibility is a humiliating American defeat. The US has not faced a real enemy in a long time. In that time the armed forces have been feminized and social-justice warriorified, with countless officials having been appointed by Obama for reasons of race and sex. Training has been watered down to benefit girl soldiers, physical standards lowered, and the ranks of general officers filled with perfumed political princes. Russia is right there at the Baltic borders: location, location, location. Somebody said, "Amateurs think strategy, professionals think logistics." Uh-huh. The Russians are not pansies and they are not primitive.

    What would Washington do, what would New York make Washington do, having been handed its ass in a very public defeat? Huge egos would be in play, the credibility of the whole American empire. Could little Hillary Dillary Pumpkin Pie force NATO into a general war with Russia, or would the Neocons try to go it alone–with other people's lives? (Russia also has borders with Eastern Europe, which connects to Western Europe. Do you suppose the Europeans would think of this?) Would Washington undertake, or try to undertake, the national mobilization that would be necessary to fight Russia in its backyard? Naval war? Nukes in desperation?

    And, since Russia is not going to invade anybody unprovoked, Washington would have to attack. See above, the three forms of military stupidity.

    The same danger exists incidentally with regard to a war with China in the South China Sea. The American Navy hasn't fought a war in seventy years. It doesn't know how well its armament works. The Chinese, who are not fools, have invested in weaponry specifically designed to defeat carrier battle groups. A carrier in smoking ruins would force Washington to start a wider war to save face, with unpredictable results. Can you name one American, other than the elites, who has anything to gain from war with China?

    What has any normal American, as distinct from the elites and various lobbies, gained from any of our wars post Nine-Eleven? Hillary and her Neocon pack have backed all of them.

    It is easy to regard countries as suprahuman beings that think and take decisions and do things. Practically speaking, countries consist of a small number of people, usually men, who make decisions for reasons often selfish, pathologically aggressive, pecuniary, delusional, misinformed, or actually psychopathic in the psychiatric sense. For example, the invasion of Iraq, a disaster, was pushed by the petroleum lobbies to get the oil, the arms lobbies to get contracts, the Jewish lobbies to get bombs dropped on Israel's enemies, the imperialists for empire, and the congenitally combative because that is how they think. Do you see anything in the foregoing that would matter to a normal American? These do not add up to a well-conceived policy. Considerations no better drive the desire to fight Russia or to force it to back down.

    I note, pointlessly, that probably none of America's recent martial catastrophes would have occurred if we still had constitutional government. How many congressmen do you think would vote for a declaration of war if they had to tell their voters that they had just launched, for no reason of importance to Americans, an attack on the homeland of a nuclear power?

    There are lots of reasons not to vote for Clinton and the suppurating corruption she represents. Not letting her owners play with matches rates high among them

    [Aug 14, 2016] Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump is a claim of a career sycophant pandering to neocon lobby by Ray McGovern

    "For Michael Morell, as with many other CIA careerists, his strongest suit seemed to be pleasing his boss and not antagonizing the White House" His loyalty is to qhoewver occupies White House, not necessarily to the truth. "Morell [was] at the center of two key fiascoes: he "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 address to the United Nations and he served as the regular CIA briefer to President George W. Bush. Putting Access Before Honesty" Rise of Another CIA Yes Man – Consortiumnews
    Notable quotes:
    "... Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer. ..."
    "... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
    "... Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article. ..."
    Aug 13, 2016 | Antiwar.com

    As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump, well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer.

    However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS.

    Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article.

    Read more by Ray McGovern

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.

    [Aug 14, 2016] In Defense of Trump's Name-Calling by Ted Rall

    Notable quotes:
    "... "She is the one that caused all this problem with her stupid policies," Trump said, referring to Hillary Clinton. "You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly - if not the - one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country. She talks about me being dangerous. She's killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity." ..."
    "... Trump is absolutely right. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, which killed a million people. As I've pointed out , it wasn't just an immoral decision - it was a stupid one ..."
    "... As secretary of state, Clinton never met a war she didn't love. Under her watch and following her counsel, the United States armed radical jihadis who are now terrorists , helped topple Moammar Gaddafi , expanded a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Libyans and reduced one of the most advanced nations in Africa into a failed state . Then she turned around and did the same exact thing to Syria. ..."
    "... Psychology Today ..."
    "... Ted Rall , syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net ..."
    "... is the author of the book " Snowden ," the biography of the NSA whistleblower. ..."
    Dec 15, 2015 | counterpunch.org

    There is, on the other hand, something wonderfully refreshing about Donald Trump's gleeful deployment of the S-word.

    "She is the one that caused all this problem with her stupid policies," Trump said, referring to Hillary Clinton. "You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly - if not the - one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country. She talks about me being dangerous. She's killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity."

    Trump is absolutely right. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, which killed a million people. As I've pointed out, it wasn't just an immoral decision - it was a stupid one, since anyone with a half a brain could see at the time that Saddam probably didn't have WMDs, and that Bush's war would be a disaster.

    As secretary of state, Clinton never met a war she didn't love. Under her watch and following her counsel, the United States armed radical jihadis who are now terrorists, helped topple Moammar Gaddafi, expanded a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Libyans and reduced one of the most advanced nations in Africa into a failed state. Then she turned around and did the same exact thing to Syria.

    Stupid.

    Let Hillary's supporters take offense. How is unfair, wrong or intemperate to call out a foreign policy record that fits the dictionary definition of "stupid" - doing the same thing over and over, even though it never works? Stupid is as stupid does. Hillary is stupid, especially on foreign policy, and Trump is right to say so.

    Winner or loser, Trump has done political debate in America a huge favor by freeing "stupid" from the rhetorical prison of words and phrases polite people aren't allowed to use.

    Interestingly, stupid people aren't all losers and losers aren't always stupid in Trumpworld. Hillary Clinton has one hell of a resume, which she has parlayed into a big pile of cash. She is, by Trump standards, a winner (albeit a stupid one). If I met Trump, I'd ask him if a smart person can be a loser (possible example: he called the obviously smart Russell Brand a loser, but also a "dummy").

    Pre-Trump, American politics and culture suffered from a lack of stupid-calling. I am serious.

    "There has been a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in America, unlike most other Western countries," Ray Williams wrote last year in Psychology Today. Insults reflect a society's values. Americans value macho masculinity, good looks and youth, so our top slurs accuse their victims of being effeminate, weak, ugly, fat, old and outdated. In France, where the life of the mind is prized so much that one of the nation's top-rated TV shows featured philosophers and auteurs discussing politics and culture over cigarettes, there are few things worse than being called stupid and having it stick. A society that ranks "stupid" as of its worst insults lets it be known that being smart is at least as important as being tough or hot or buff.

    So, Donald Trump, thanks for dropping those S-bombs.

    Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net, is the author of the book "Snowden," the biography of the NSA whistleblower.

    [Aug 14, 2016] The Ghost of Seth Rich strikes DemoRats in the House of Representatives

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jim Haygood , August 12, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    The Ghost of Seth Rich strikes:

    After disappearing for a couple of weeks, the hacker "Guccifer 2.0" returned late this afternoon to provide a new headache for Democrats.

    In a post to his WordPress blog, the vandal–who previously provided nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee e-mails to Wikileaks–uploaded an Excel file that includes the cell phone numbers and private e-mail addresses of nearly every Democratic member of the House of Representatives.

    The Excel file also includes similar contact information for hundreds of congressional staff members (chiefs of staff, press secretaries, legislative directors, schedulers) and campaign personnel.

    In announcing the leak of the document, "Guccifer 2.0" reported that the spreadsheet was stolen during a hack of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. " As you see I wasn't wasting my time! It was even easier than in the case of the DNC breach," the hacker wrote.

    http://thesmokinggun.com/buster/democratic-national-committee/guccifer-dccc-hack-645891

    Bryan Pagliano could have stopped this outrage.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Professor Destroys CNN Anchor on Trump and Russia

    Senator Joseph McCarthy shadow in Clinton campaign. Remember the famous phrase Have You No Sense of Decency
    Notable quotes:
    "... Neo McCarthyism witch hunt against Trump instead of debate of a proper national policy is a sign of corrupted neoliberal media. They want the preservation and expantion of thier global empire at any cost for american people. ..."
    "... Reckless branding of Trump as Russian agent is coming from Clinton campaign and it needs to stop ..."
    Aug 05, 2016 | YouTube

    Neo McCarthyism witch hunt against Trump instead of debate of a proper national policy is a sign of corrupted neoliberal media. They want the preservation and expantion of thier global empire at any cost for american people.

    Reckless branding of Trump as Russian agent is coming from Clinton campaign and it needs to stop

    [Aug 14, 2016] That silly that neoliberal MSM claim that in case of DNC hack Russian government hackers did it. And in case of Hillary bathroom server nobody was able to hack it

    Notable quotes:
    "... What struck me in the article was a conflict between attributing the DNC hack and a possible Clinton hack that the authors didn't even attempt to address. They claim analysts are very confident that Russian hackers, working for the government, hacked the DNC. But as to the possibility that anyone hacked Clinton's private server; well, if they did, they would have been way to savvy to leave any traces that they'd done so. A DNC hack; those sloppy Russian government hackers did it. A personal server; a real pro job. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    Piotr Berman | Aug 13, 2016 2:33:04 PM | 72
    What struck me in the article was a conflict between attributing the DNC hack and a possible Clinton hack that the authors didn't even attempt to address. They claim analysts are very confident that Russian hackers, working for the government, hacked the DNC. But as to the possibility that anyone hacked Clinton's private server; well, if they did, they would have been way to savvy to leave any traces that they'd done so. A DNC hack; those sloppy Russian government hackers did it. A personal server; a real pro job.
    IhaveLittleToAdd | Aug 11, 2016 12:00:03 PM | 2

    I actually find it possible, namely that the firewall in DNC was sloppy, and paranoid Hillary had best computer security consultants she could find. Moreover, hers was a small operation and easier to keep secure, unlike DNC with many employees and many interactive activities. I speculate here, but this is plausible.

    ========

    More importantly, was there a public opprobrium, "How did they dare!" about the putative Russian hack? This is actually an interesting angle. Sometimes public suspects that the government is doing illegal stuff in other countries, it is thinly denied (or "our policy is no to comment"), and most of the citizens are glad that our leaders are so resourceful. But the side effect is that this type of activity becomes "normal", and detecting or convincingly suspecting it exits yawning response.

    For example, there were two assassination or "near assassination" attempts on Israeli diplomatic personal and Iran was suspected. "Sure, didn't they have a string of assassination of nuclear assassinations in Tehran? By the way, what is the weather this weekend?" If I recall, Tehran assassinations stopped.

    Similarly, after American cyber-successes, cyber attacks became a new normal.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Mike Morells Kill-Russians Advice

    This is what "New American Militarism" the term coined by Bacevich is about. And it reflect dominance of jingoism among Washington bureaucrats -- war is a source of money and career advancement.
    Notable quotes:
    "... At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, ..."
    "... he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one. ..."
    "... The Great War of Our Time ..."
    "... It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent." ..."
    "... For services rendered, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending him to a plum posting in London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag. Cohen had been acting director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq's [nonexistent] WMD. ..."
    "... The Great War of Our Time ..."
    "... When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things. He was appointed the CIA's first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence until moving up to become CIA's deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013. ..."
    "... Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very top of US intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever is likely to be the next President. ..."
    "... Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer. ..."
    "... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
    "... Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article. ..."
    Aug 13, 2016 | Antiwar.com
    Perhaps former CIA acting director Michael Morell's shamefully provocative rhetoric toward Russia and Iran will prove too unhinged even for Hillary Clinton. It appears equally likely that it will succeed in earning him a senior job in a possible Clinton administration, so it behooves us to have a closer look at Morell's record.

    My initial reaction of disbelief and anger was the same as that of my VIPS colleague, Larry Johnson, and the points Larry made about Morell's behavior in the Benghazi caper, Iran, Syria, needlessly baiting nuclear-armed Russia, and how to put a "scare" into Bashar al-Assad give ample support to Larry's characterization of Morell's comments as "reckless and vapid." What follows is an attempt to round out the picture on the ambitious 57-year-old Morell.

    I suppose we need to start with Morell telling PBS/CBS interviewer Charlie Rose on Aug. 8 that he (Morell) wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. … make the Russians pay a price in Syria."

    Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"

    Morell: "Yeah."

    Rose: "And killing Iranians?"

    Morell: "Yes … You don't tell the world about it. … But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran."

    You might ask what excellent adventure earned Morell his latest appearance with Charlie Rose? It was a highly unusual Aug. 5 New York Times op-ed titled "I ran the CIA Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton."

    Peabody award winner Rose – having made no secret of how much he admires the glib, smooth-talking Morell – performed true to form. Indeed, he has interviewed him every other month, on average, over the past two years, while Morell has been a national security analyst for CBS.

    This interview, though, is a must for those interested in gauging the caliber of bureaucrats who have bubbled to the top of the CIA since the disastrous tenure of George Tenet (sorry, the interview goes on and on for 46 minutes).

    A Heavy Duty

    Such interviews are a burden for unreconstructed, fact-based analysts of the old school. In a word, they are required to watch them, just as they must plow through the turgid prose of "tell-it-all" memoirs. But due diligence can sometimes harvest an occasional grain of wheat among the chaff.

    For example, George W. Bush's memoir, Decision Points, included a passage the former president seems to have written himself. Was Bush relieved to learn, just 15 months before he left office, the "high-confidence," unanimous judgment of the U.S. intelligence community that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed work on such weapons? No way!

    In his memoir, he complains bitterly that this judgment in that key 2007 National Intelligence Estimate "tied my hands on the military side. … After the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?" No, I am not making this up. He wrote that.

    In another sometimes inadvertently revealing memoir, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, CIA Director George Tenet described Michael Morell, whom he picked to be CIA's briefer of President George W. Bush, in these terms: "Wiry, youthful looking, and extremely bright, Mike speaks in staccato-like bursts that get to the bottom line very quickly. He and George Bush hit it off almost immediately. Mike was the perfect guy for us to have by the commander-in-chief's side."

    Wonder what Morell was telling Bush about those "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and the alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Was Morell winking at Bush the same way Tenet winked at the head of British intelligence on July 20, 2002, telling him that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq?

    High on Morell

    Not surprisingly, Tenet speaks well of his protégé and former executive assistant Morell. But he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one.

    So Morell reviewed the "intelligence" that went into Powell's thoroughly deceptive account of the Iraqi threat! Powell later called that dramatic speech, which wowed Washington's media and foreign policy elites and was used to browbeat the few remaining dissenters into silence, a "blot" on his record.

    In Morell's own memoir, The Great War of Our Time, Morell apologized to former Secretary of State Powell for the bogus CIA intelligence that found its way into Powell's address. Morell told CBS: "I thought it important to do so because … he went out there and made this case, and we were wrong."

    It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."

    It strains credulity beyond the breaking point to think that Michael Morell was unaware of the fraudulent nature of the WMD propaganda campaign. Yet, like all too many others, he kept quiet and got promoted.

    Out of Harm's Way

    For services rendered, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending him to a plum posting in London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag. Cohen had been acting director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq's [nonexistent] WMD.

    Cohen made a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible in late November 2003, and was still holding out some hope that WMD would be found. He noted, however, "If we eventually are proved wrong – that is, that there were no weapons of mass destruction and the WMD programs were dormant or abandoned – the American people will be told the truth …" And then Stu disappeared into the woodwork.

    In October 2003, the 1,200-member "Iraq Survey Group" commissioned by Tenet to find those elusive WMD in Iraq had already reported that six months of intensive work had turned up no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. By then, the U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had already cost $300 million, with the final bill expected to top $1 billion.

    In Morell's The Great War of Our Time, he writes, "In the summer of 2003 I became CIA's senior focal point for liaison with the analytic community in the United Kingdom." He notes that one of the "dominant" issues, until he left the U.K. in early 2006, was "Iraq, namely our failure to find weapons of mass destruction." (It was a PR problem; Prime Minister Tony Blair and Morell's opposite numbers in British intelligence were fully complicit in the "dodgy-dossier" type of intelligence.)

    When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things. He was appointed the CIA's first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence until moving up to become CIA's deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013.

    Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very top of US intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever is likely to be the next President.

    ... ... ...

    As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump, well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer.

    However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS.

    Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article.

    Read more by Ray McGovern

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.

    [Aug 14, 2016] WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant

    Notable quotes:
    "... WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant. ..."
    "... In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the risks of being a source for his organization. Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks. ..."
    "... The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established a motive for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he likely died during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told Omaha CBS-affiliate KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was stolen: his watch, money, credit cards and phone were still with him. ..."
    "... The WikiLeaks founder said that others have suggested that Rich was killed for political reasons and that his organization is investigating the incident. ..."
    "... "I think it is a concerning situation. There isn't a conclusion yet. We wouldn't be able to state a conclusion, but we are concerned about it," he continued. "More importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens." ..."
    www.yahoo.com

    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant.

    In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the risks of being a source for his organization.

    Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks.

    But Assange was apparently interested in hinting about an even darker theory.

    "Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often very significant risks. There's a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, who was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington," Assange said on Nieuwsuur. BuzzFeed drew more attention to the interview in the U.S.

    Somewhat startled, news anchor Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal said, "That was just a robbery, I believe - wasn't it?"

    "No, there's no finding," Assange responded. "I'm suggesting that our sources take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."

    "Why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?" van Rosenthal asked.

    "Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States," Assange said, "and that our sources face serious risks. That's why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity."

    The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established a motive for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he likely died during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told Omaha CBS-affiliate KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was stolen: his watch, money, credit cards and phone were still with him.

    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant.

    In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the risks of being a source for his organization.

    Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks.

    But Assange was apparently interested in hinting about an even darker theory.

    "Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often very significant risks. There's a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, who was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington," Assange said on Nieuwsuur. BuzzFeed drew more attention to the interview in the U.S.

    Somewhat startled, news anchor Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal said, "That was just a robbery, I believe - wasn't it?"

    "No, there's no finding," Assange responded. "I'm suggesting that our sources take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."

    "Why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?" van Rosenthal asked.

    "Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States," Assange said, "and that our sources face serious risks. That's why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity."

    The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established a motive for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he likely died during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told Omaha CBS-affiliate KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was stolen: his watch, money, credit cards and phone were still with him.

    The WikiLeaks founder said that others have suggested that Rich was killed for political reasons and that his organization is investigating the incident.

    "I think it is a concerning situation. There isn't a conclusion yet. We wouldn't be able to state a conclusion, but we are concerned about it," he continued. "More importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens."

    WikiLeaks further fanned the flames of conspiracy by offering a $20,000 reward for anyone with information leading to the conviction of the person responsible for killing Rich.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Khizr Khan and The Triumph of Democratic Militarism

    This is the first class analysis. Bravo Ted !!! It's sad that I found it only today. Deep insights into what Khan gambit means. Bravo !
    Notable quotes:
    "... A week ago corporate media gatekeepers managed to transform the Democratic National Committee internal emails released by WikiLeaks from what it really was – scandalous proof that Bernie Sanders and his supporters were right when they said the Democratic leadership was biased and had rigged the primaries against them ..."
    "... Hillary's vote for an illegal war of choice that was sold with lies, was a major contributing factor to the death of Captain Khan, thousands of his comrades, and over a million Iraqis. Iraq should be a major issue in this campaign - against her. ..."
    "... Instead, it's being used by his parents and the Democratic Party to bait Donald Trump into a retro-post-9/11 "Support Our Troops" militaristic trap. Khan, you see, was " defending his country ." ..."
    "... (How anyone can say U.S. soldiers in Iraq, part of an invasion force thousands of miles away where no one threatens the United States, are "defending" the U.S. remains a long-running linguistic mystery.) ..."
    "... "Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son 'the best of America,'" Khizr Khan told the convention. Unfortunately, the moniker can't apply to once-and-possible-future-first-daughter Chelsea Clinton, who never considered a military career before collecting $600,000 a year from NBC News for essentially a no-show job. But anyway… ..."
    "... "If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America," Khizr Khan continued. The cognitive dissonance makes my head spin. ..."
    "... "Let me ask you: Have you even read the U.S. Constitution?" asked Khizr, who is originally from Pakistan ..."
    "... A good question. While we're at it, however, where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that the president can send troops overseas for years at a time without a formal congressional declaration of war? Where does it say that the United States can attack foreign countries that have done it no harm and have never threatened it? ..."
    "... As you'd expect Trump, he of little impulse control, has handled this about as poorly as possible. Asked about Khizr Khan's remark that Trump hasn't made any sacrifices, he idiotically attempted to compare his business dealings with the death of a son. Still, you have to grudgingly admire Trump for fighting back against a guy you are officially not allowed to say anything mean about. ..."
    "... Democrats have successfully appropriated images of patriotism and "optimism" – scare quotes because this is not the kind of actual optimism in which you think things are going to actually get better, but the bizarro variety in which you accept that things will really never get better so you'd might as well accept the status quo – from the Republicans. This is part of Hillary Clinton's strategy of taking liberal Democrats for granted while trying to seduce Republicans away from Trump. ..."
    "... The Khan episode marks a high water mark for post-9/11 knee-jerk militarism. Even the "liberal" party whose sitting incumbent two-term president captured the White House by running against the Iraq war demands that everyone fall to their knees in order to pay homage to the "good" Muslims - those willing to go to the Middle East to kill bad ones. ..."
    "... Next time you see a panel of experts discussing a foreign crisis, pay attention: does anyone argue against intervention? No. The debate is always between going in light and going in hard: bombs, or "boots on the ground." Not getting involved is never an option. As long as this militaristic approach to the world continues, the United States will never have enough money to take care of its problems here at home, and it will always be hated around the world. ..."
    "... Most Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake . Who speaks for us? No one in the media. And no one in mainstream politics. ..."
    "... Trump's proposal to ban Muslims can't possibly be racist because Muslims are not a race. If the US were to ban European devotees of a white supremacist pagan cult - such cults do exist, and the US has every right to ban its devotees if it so chooses - nobody would bat an eye. ..."
    "... The vote to authorize the war in Iraq was in 2002. Khan's DNC speech was 14 years later (and 12 years after his son was killed), not 8 years later. ..."
    "... "The rest of us who makes heroes of our dead…" "Perpetuate war by exalting sacrifice…" ..."
    "... watch-v=reUstMn4bM8 ..."
    "... "Most Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake. Who speaks for us? No one in the media. And no one in mainstream politics." The last sentence is incorrect. Donald Trump repeatedly said the war was a mistake, even at times when it could have landed him in serious trouble. ..."
    August 2, 2016 | The Unz Review

    ... ... ...

    A week ago corporate media gatekeepers managed to transform the Democratic National Committee internal emails released by WikiLeaks from what it really was – scandalous proof that Bernie Sanders and his supporters were right when they said the Democratic leadership was biased and had rigged the primaries against them, and that the system is corrupt – into a trivial side issue over who might be responsible for hiking the DNC computers. Who cares if it was Russia? It's the content that matters, not that it was ever seriously discussed.

    Now here we go again.

    Hillary's vote for an illegal war of choice that was sold with lies, was a major contributing factor to the death of Captain Khan, thousands of his comrades, and over a million Iraqis. Iraq should be a major issue in this campaign - against her.

    Instead, it's being used by his parents and the Democratic Party to bait Donald Trump into a retro-post-9/11 "Support Our Troops" militaristic trap. Khan, you see, was "defending his country." (How anyone can say U.S. soldiers in Iraq, part of an invasion force thousands of miles away where no one threatens the United States, are "defending" the U.S. remains a long-running linguistic mystery.)

    "Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son 'the best of America,'" Khizr Khan told the convention. Unfortunately, the moniker can't apply to once-and-possible-future-first-daughter Chelsea Clinton, who never considered a military career before collecting $600,000 a year from NBC News for essentially a no-show job. But anyway…

    "If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America," Khizr Khan continued. The cognitive dissonance makes my head spin. Obviously, Trump's proposal to ban Muslims is racist and disgusting. Ironically, however, it would have saved at least one life. If it was up to Donald Trump, the Khans would still be in the United Arab Emirates. Humayan would still be alive. As would any Iraqis he killed.

    "Let me ask you: Have you even read the US Constitution?" asked Khizr, who is originally from Pakistan. "I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection of law." A good question. While we're at it, however, where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that the president can send troops overseas for years at a time without a formal congressional declaration of war? Where does it say that the United States can attack foreign countries that have done it no harm and have never threatened it?

    As you'd expect Trump, he of little impulse control, has handled this about as poorly as possible. Asked about Khizr Khan's remark that Trump hasn't made any sacrifices, he idiotically attempted to compare his business dealings with the death of a son. Still, you have to grudgingly admire Trump for fighting back against a guy you are officially not allowed to say anything mean about.

    It has been widely remarked, always approvingly, that this year's Democrats have successfully appropriated images of patriotism and "optimism" – scare quotes because this is not the kind of actual optimism in which you think things are going to actually get better, but the bizarro variety in which you accept that things will really never get better so you'd might as well accept the status quo – from the Republicans. This is part of Hillary Clinton's strategy of taking liberal Democrats for granted while trying to seduce Republicans away from Trump.

    The Khan episode marks a high water mark for post-9/11 knee-jerk militarism. Even the "liberal" party whose sitting incumbent two-term president captured the White House by running against the Iraq war demands that everyone fall to their knees in order to pay homage to the "good" Muslims - those willing to go to the Middle East to kill bad ones.

    Next time you see a panel of experts discussing a foreign crisis, pay attention: does anyone argue against intervention? No. The debate is always between going in light and going in hard: bombs, or "boots on the ground." Not getting involved is never an option. As long as this militaristic approach to the world continues, the United States will never have enough money to take care of its problems here at home, and it will always be hated around the world.

    Most Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake. Who speaks for us? No one in the media. And no one in mainstream politics.

    Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net,is the author of the book "Snowden," the biography of the NSA whistleblower.

    Fidelios Automata, August 3, 2016 at 7:24 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Trump's proposal to ban Muslims can't possibly be racist because Muslims are not a race. If the US were to ban European devotees of a white supremacist pagan cult - such cults do exist, and the US has every right to ban its devotees if it so chooses - nobody would bat an eye. The First Amendment says that the government may not infringe in Americans' religious choices; it says nothing about foreigners. If it did, it would be illegal for the US to give aid to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and any other nation that discriminates by religion.

    Dave Pinsen, August 5, 2016 at 4:12 am GMT

    The vote to authorize the war in Iraq was in 2002. Khan's DNC speech was 14 years later (and 12 years after his son was killed), not 8 years later.

    utu, August 5, 2016 at 6:35 am GMT

    "The rest of us who makes heroes of our dead…" "Perpetuate war by exalting sacrifice…"

    watch-v=reUstMn4bM8

    The best anti-war movie of all times.

    Parsifal, August 5, 2016 at 7:39 am GMT • 100 Words

    "Most Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake. Who speaks for us? No one in the media. And no one in mainstream politics." The last sentence is incorrect. Donald Trump repeatedly said the war was a mistake, even at times when it could have landed him in serious trouble.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Trump Apologizes, Wins Over Critics by Timothy Braatz

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post, ..."
    "... Former CIA director Michael Hayden chimed in, "You aren't just responsible for what you say; you're responsible for what people hear." ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    On Thursday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump apologized for comments that have been widely construed as calling for the assassination of Hillary Clinton. "I apologize," Mr. Trump said, clearly struggling with the second word as he addressed supporters at a campaign event in Philadelphia. "I misspoke, okay? It happens. Get over it."

    On Tuesday, Mr. Trump had warned supporters, "If she gets to pick her judges-nothing you can do, folks. Although, the Second Amendment people-maybe there is, I don't know."

    Speaking on CNN later that day, campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson insisted that Trump meant "that people that support their Second Amendment rights need to come together and get out and stop Hillary Clinton from winning in November." When it was pointed out that Trump was referring to what might happen after the election, Ms. Pierson explained, "He was saying what could happen. He doesn't want that to happen."

    The Clinton campaign, many in the media, and even prominent Republicans rejected this interpretation. Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said, "This is simple-what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the president of the United States should not suggest violence in any way."

    Clinton's running mate, Tim Kaine, told reporters after an event in Texas, "Nobody who is seeking a leadership position, especially the presidency, the leadership of the country, should do anything to countenance violence."

    Dan Rather, the former CBS news anchor, posted in Facebook that Trump "crossed a line with dangerous potential. By any objective analysis, this is a new low and unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics."

    Writing in the Washington Post, Joe Scarborough, former Republican congressman and current host of the MSNBC show "Morning Joe," called for "every Republican leader" to denounce Trump's assassination suggestion and revoke their endorsement of the controversial candidate.

    Regarding Trump's comment on the Second Amendment, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said, "I don't believe this to be a serious statement." But Sessions added, "You absolutely shouldn't joke about it. It's contrary to what we believe in."

    Former CIA director Michael Hayden chimed in, "You aren't just responsible for what you say; you're responsible for what people hear."

    With his poll numbers plummeting, Trump was in full damage-control mode in Philadelphia. After apologizing for his misstatement, he went on to say, "I'm a truth-teller. All I do is tell the truth. But some people-some people misinterpret me. On purpose, on accident, I don't know. I was not calling for the assassination of Hillary. Please. I'm not a violent person. Never. Never violent. My friends can tell you. What I meant to call for was the assassination of terrorists or potential terrorists, okay? And there are lots of them, people, I'm telling you, in Afghanistan and Iraq and wherever. Men, women, and children. Guns, not guns. Wedding parties. Doesn't matter. Drones would work fine, right?"

    The response was immediate and overwhelmingly positive. President Barack Obama said, "Contrary to my early statement, I now believe that Donald Trump is, indeed, fit to be president of the United States."

    Fifty prominent Republican foreign policy and national security experts-among them Hayden and other veterans of George W. Bush's administration-signed a letter endorsing Trump's candidacy. "Donald Trump is the answer to America's daunting challenges," the letter began, and went on to note that "without a doubt, he possesses the single most important quality required of an individual who aspires to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal."

    Leon Panetta, Obama's former CIA director and Defense Secretary, told the Washington Post, "As I have said on numerous occasions, we need a leader who is strong and decisive, who has the respect of our generals and admirals, and the trust of our troops, especially our Special Forces, who maintain U.S. credibility around the world. I now am comfortable with either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton winning the presidency." At the Democratic National Convention, in July, Panetta had condemned Trump because he "asks our troops to commit war crimes, endorses torture…and praises dictators."

    On his morning show, Scarborough appeared to be reconciling with the Trump campaign. He said, "I've been telling people for years that torture works. I know it works. You know it works. Donald Trump knows it works. This is going to make members of the mainstream media and Democratic Party uncomfortable, but you can make the argument, can't you, that shooting a member of al-Qaeda or ISIS, even a U.S. citizen, causes less pain than waterboarding."

    Nancy Lindborg, president of the U.S. Institute of Peace, issued a statement that said, "While we applaud Mr. Trump's support for measured counterterrorism, we contend that diplomacy, reconciliation, and no-fly zones are also necessary to achieve the U.S. goal of peace in the Middle East and remove Assad from power in Syria."

    Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who has received criticism for refusing to withdraw his endorsement of Trump, was heard joyfully singing his favorite campaign song, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

    The Clinton campaign, though, remained skeptical of Trump's correction. Mook stated, "Trump has zero foreign policy experience. Only one candidate in this race has the experience, knowledge, temperament, and judgment to call for assassination. Only one of the candidates was in the room when the decision was made to take out Osama bin Laden. Only one candidate has been privy to the president's kill list. And that's Hillary Clinton. The track record is there."

    On his FiveThirtyEight blog, Pollster Nate Silver wrote, "We now anticipate seeing a bump in Trump's numbers, especially among college-educated voters."

    [Aug 14, 2016] Paul Krugman Pieces of Silver

    economistsview.typepad.com
    Economist's View

    David said... For the demented people that say that Trump and Hillary are the same thing, two things:

    1. You're clearly not rational and observing reality, you're reacting out of some sense of immature pique.

    2. Remember Nader and W. Bush. Tell me why Nader giving W. Bush the White was a good thing.

    But the real reason to fear Trump is not Trump. Trump is the Republican base, but he has little skills as a politician. The next Trump will be more to right, more resentful, more white nationalist, and possibly more dangerous.

    The real danger to our democracy, sadly enough, is the Republican bigoted base.

    Don't believe me? Check the comments of right wing websites. It's there in plain sight. Reply Friday, August 12, 2016 at 01:11 PM likbez said in reply to David ... The vote will be not "for" Hillary or Trump.
    The vote will be against Hillary or Trump.

    As Hillary is a war criminal by Nuremberg trial standards she is like Kelvin absolute zero in evilness. You just can't be more evil.

    Can any intelligent person vote for her ? Reply Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 03:59 PM Peter K. said... The neoliberal totebaggers have given us a world of slow growth and increasing anger and unrest.

    Brexit. Trump. Sanders. Corbyn. Etc.

    I think they somehow feel if they can just make to the finish line and elect Hillary things will be fine.

    I am hoping Trump loses by a record margin. I hope the GOP suffers badly.

    Then the totebaggers will gloat but their problems will just have started. The DNC email leaks show the problem. It wasn't just a a few bad apples. They were doing their job. It's who the totebaggers are. Like PGL. Like Sanjait. It's like the Blairites trying unsuccessfully to limit the vote in the Labour leadership election.

    Hillary was bragging about how she received an average donation of $44 in recent months.

    She's just copying Sanders, stealing his mojo.

    I dont' think Sanjait is going to enjoy the coming revolution.

    Nor will totebagger trash like PGL. He'll try to divert the discussion with stuff like Gerald Friedman whose analysis the Sanders campaign didn't even commission.

    But it's easy to see through his BS. It's sad, really.

    [Aug 14, 2016] I have trouble believing that the GOP elite and pundit's horror regarding Trump is really about what he says or what policies he proposes.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I have trouble believing that the GOP elite and pundit's horror regarding Trump is really about what he says or what policies he proposes. These are the same people who embraced Palin (and many other conspicuously terrible candidates) after all. I suspect their real problem with him is that he got the nomination without having to successfully pass through their approval process. ..."
    "... They simply become apoplectic at the prospect of the great unwashed succeeding in getting the candidate they want rather than the one that's the overlord's choice ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    RMO , August 13, 2016 at 2:11 am

    I have trouble believing that the GOP elite and pundit's horror regarding Trump is really about what he says or what policies he proposes. These are the same people who embraced Palin (and many other conspicuously terrible candidates) after all. I suspect their real problem with him is that he got the nomination without having to successfully pass through their approval process.

    They simply become apoplectic at the prospect of the great unwashed succeeding in getting the candidate they want rather than the one that's the overlord's choice.

    Same thing probably goes for Sanders and Corbyn. Sure they really do hate some of their policy positions (fuzzy as they are in Trump's case) but that would seem like it would be of lesser concern to them than anything which would reduce the power they've had to decide who the voters get to choose from.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Khizr Khan and the Big Tent

    Notable quotes:
    "... In his latest interview with Chris Hayes, Khizr Khan reveals that he was close friends with Lee Atwater, the racist GOP strategist. It looks like all of the old Reaganites are now snugly inside of Hillary's Big Tent. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    In his latest interview with Chris Hayes, Khizr Khan reveals that he was close friends with Lee Atwater, the racist GOP strategist. It looks like all of the old Reaganites are now snugly inside of Hillary's Big Tent.

    For those of you too young to recall Atwater's demonic brand of politics. He's the guy who taught the Republicans how to court the vote of white supremacists without "appearing" racists themselves. (Hayes, of course, being "All In With Her," didn't pause to ask Khan about the nature of his relationship to the architect of Reagan's "Southern Strategy.")

    Here is Atwater unfiltered, bragging to Alexander Lamis, a political scientist at Case Western Reserve University. At the time, Atwater was working in the Reagan White House:

    You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"-that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

    Lamis taped the interview. You can listen to the racist rant of Khan's pal, the man who constructed the Big Tent theory of politics here.

    [Aug 14, 2016] The Crack Up Is the Two-Party System Splintering

    Notable quotes:
    "... One good thing that might come out of the fractious primaries, conventions and final election is that the two-party structure that controls the U.S. political system might fracture, if not fragment, into something unanticipated. If so, a new multi-party system might emerge and change the nation's political landscape. ..."
    "... the whole world was watching ..."
    "... David Rosen is the author of Sex, Sin & Subversion: The Transformation of 1950s New York's Forbidden into America's New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015). He can be reached at [email protected] ; check out www.DavidRosenWrites.com . ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    August 12, 2016

    shutterstock_257693272

    The 2016 presidential election has been a roller-coaster ride with the last two establishment-party candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, shoving and pushing, snapping, slapping and snarling their way to the finish line. How the November election turns out is an open question.

    One good thing that might come out of the fractious primaries, conventions and final election is that the two-party structure that controls the U.S. political system might fracture, if not fragment, into something unanticipated. If so, a new multi-party system might emerge and change the nation's political landscape.

    The election's winner, whether Democrat or Republican, is likely to usher in a period of unexpected instability, even disruption, as the parties seek to regain control over the electoral system, the American voter. They may fail. Both parties are poised for possible break-up, but along very different ideological lines.

    The Republicans have been splintering since the 2010 election when the rightwing Tea Party insurgency captured a significant slice of the Congressional delegation. They ushered in a period of legislative gridlock that has soured the American public on the do-nothing Washington.

    Trump's presidential run has further fragmented traditional Republicans, but in unanticipated ways. Conventional party "moderates" and "conservatives," like Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz, respectively, have been jettisoned. An opportunistic huckster, a 21st century P.T. Barnum, is reconfiguring the party's identity. Many mainstream stalwarts are jumping ship, refusing to support the candidate. Nevertheless, he is appealing to an apparently large and receptive segment of dissatisfied white working- and middle-class males, let alone some of the 1 percent. Whether Trump wins or loses, a very different Republican Party is likely to emerge.

    The Democrats were destabilized by the disruptive 1968 Chicago convention, when the whole world was watching; in the race of the two VPs, Richard Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey. It collapsed following the '72 election when Nixon routed Sen. George McGovern (SD). Mr. Clinton's victory in '92 reconstituted the party, establishing the formative neo-liberal period of globalization when the U.S. flourished; a Mrs. Clinton victory in 2016 might codify economic and social stagnation, furthering Pres. Obama's new normal to nowhere.

    Bernie Sanders unexpected popular appeal, especially among younger voters, disrupted the Clinton machine's well-scripted plan. The WikiLeak revelations as to the complicity of party officials in attempting to suppress Sanders campaign only confirmed what most people already knew - the game is rigged. In 2016 election's new-speak, all Democrats are "progressives." How long after the truce between Clinton "liberals" and Sanders "radicals" will the progressive fiction of unity prevail?

    Pres. Obama's 2008 campaign was based on the promise of "hope" and, over the last eight years, hope has dissipated from American politics and life. Trump, a masterful fear monger, has caught the spirit of this disillusionment, proclaiming that he alone can "Make American Great America." Clinton champions unity among the nation's divergent populace - whether in terms of racial, class and gender sectors - and has called for a program to stay the course.

    Both candidates - and their respective parties - are sitting on ticking time bombs, of profound economic instability and social insecurity. No one knows what's coming. Most threatening, incipient movements threaten to disrupt the political order. Something altogether new might be in the works.

    * * *

    Today's U.S. political system was fashioned out of numerous incidents of disruption that occurred over the last two centuries. Three factors have driven this disruption - internal party splits, third-party alternatives and charismatic insurgents. Each disruptive episode is uniquely distinct and offers valuable insight into the formation of the nation's political culture. The fragmentation that might follow from the 2016 presidential election could prefigure a fundamental realignment of political power in U.S. politics.

    Two of the most consequential political disruptions in U.S. history set the parameters of modern American life. The first involved the collapse of the Whig Party and the rise of the (original) Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, defining the Civil War era. The second involved Theodore Roosevelt's break with the (modern) Robber-Baron Republicans in the pre-WW-I era that set the stage for the rise of the Progressive movement, followed by the Great Depression, F. D. Roosevelt's New Deal and rise of modern state capitalism.

    Among third-party threats, two stand out. In 1856, the Know-Nothing's American Party backed Millard Fillmore for president and secured nearly 1 million votes, a quarter of all votes cast. A century later, in 1948, racists Southern Democrats launched the "Dixiecrat" that, a quarter-century later, would become part of Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and remake the Republican Party.

    With regard to party fragmentation, two campaign splits stand out. In 1964, many moderate Republicans, including Governors Nelson Rockefeller (NY) and George Romney (MI), opposed conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater's presidential run. In 1972, McGovern's electoral defeat marked the party's near collapse until Clinton's '92 neo-liberal resuscitation.

    Finally, the insurgent Eugene Debs, the nation's leading socialist at the turn of the 20th century, challenged the corporatist political system. He ran for president five times and was sentenced to a 10 years prison term for opposing U. S. entry into WW-I. Ralph Nader continued this tradition, but never – including the 2000 presidential election – achieved the level of support that Debs received.

    * * *

    A possible break-up of the traditional two-party system might involve, for example, the two parties morphing into four parties. In this scenario, each major party would split into two factions, establishment and radical, whether of the left for Democrats or right for Republicans – whatever left and right might mean. These parties will likely include Libertarian and Green parties, but also a host of single-issue, far-left groupings as well as white, Christian nationalist.

    A clock is ticking; the current political system is being squeezed by the demands of a new capitalist global order. In the U.S., how this possible political realignment works out – or if it doesn't – depends on changes in demographics and economics. The changing composition of the American people, of ethnic makeup, age-cohort and social class, is one axis of tension; and the social economy, of wages and growing inequality, is a second.

    The U.S. might well be a "better" - more politically representative - country if it fragments along lines suggested by European democracies. At least more voices would be added to the political mix, thus giving expression to the complexity of the social and economic realignment remaking the nation.

    The great tyranny of American democracy is that the 1 percent continues to rule. The 1 percent wrote the Constitution and, as two leading economists of the colonial economy, Jeffrey Williamson and Peter Lindert, report, "Around 1774, the top one percent of free wealthholders in the thirteen colonies held 12.6 percent of total assets, while the richest ten percent held a little less than half of total assets." Two-centuries later, in 2010, the 1 percent still controls Congress as well as 35 percent of the nation's wealth. It's time for change. Join the debate on Facebook

    David Rosen is the author of Sex, Sin & Subversion: The Transformation of 1950s New York's Forbidden into America's New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015). He can be reached at [email protected]; check out www.DavidRosenWrites.com. More articles by: David Rosen

    [Aug 14, 2016] How can any intelligent person vote for a war criminal ?

    Notable quotes:
    "... I am surprised a that so many commenters leave out the elephant in the root - the fact that by standards of Nuremberg trials Hillary Clinton is a war criminal. ..."
    "... I'll briefly sum up the case by noting again Hillary Clinton, like Bill before her, is a creation of the former Democratic Leadership Council. When the Republicans started their journey to the far right the DLC captured the right of center people. That's the moderate Republican base. That was the answer to the southern strategy. Keep some social progressiveness. Remember GBW's compassionate Republicanism? We're going to get a Republican President, but we're going to make believe that she's a progressive Democrat. ..."
    "... You are absolutely right that Hillary is a moderate Republican in a sheep skin of Democrat. That was Bill Clinton "Third Way" strategy from the very beginning. Essentially selling the Party to Wall Street. This "neoliberalization" of Democratic Party worked extremely well for Democratic brass for almost three decades. ..."
    "... Professor Bacevich had shown that the main driver of the US militarism is neocons domination of the US foreign policy, and, especially, neocons domination in State Department regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. They profess that the US that is uniquely qualified to take on the worldwide foes of peace and democracy, forgetting, revising, or ignoring the painful lessons of World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq. And that establishing and maintaining the neoliberal empire is worth the price we pay as it will take the USA into the period of unprecedented peace. ..."
    angrybearblog.com
    likbez August 14, 2016 5:44 pm

    I am surprised a that so many commenters leave out the elephant in the root - the fact that by standards of Nuremberg trials Hillary Clinton is a war criminal.

    http://www.voterninja.com/es/uncategorized/hillary-clinton-is-a-war-criminal/

    === quote ===
    Excerpts from a Blog by Roland Vincent

    "Using the standard announced by the justices at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals in World War II, Hillary Clinton is a war criminal

    Justice Robert Jackson's opening statement to the court is as applicable now as then

    MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please Your Honors:

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Jackson.html​

    Hillary Clinton is certainly not the only one, but she is the only one running for president.

    Equally credible cases can be made against W, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld.

    Each supported an illegal war in which thousands of American lives were sacrificed for Big Oil, and in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were murdered.

    Each subscribes to belligerent, interventionist military policy. Each supports an American Empire foreign policy.

    Each supports arming the world. Each supports Israel's occupation and war against the Palestinian people.

    Each supports regime change, by force or stealth, where such will benefit US corporate or military interests. Even at the expense of democratically elected governments.

    == end of quote ===

    How can any intelligent person vote for a war criminal ?

    Jack August 14, 2016 6:27 pm

    Oh no, not another HRC the criminal posts. War criminal in this case. Email fraud previously. Failure of duty in Libya. Oh, remember Vincent Foster. Murder no less.

    Trump is a sociopath and HRC has her delusional detractors. What good do they do? Well they draw attention away from HRC's real worst traits.

    I'll briefly sum up the case by noting again Hillary Clinton, like Bill before her, is a creation of the former Democratic Leadership Council. When the Republicans started their journey to the far right the DLC captured the right of center people. That's the moderate Republican base. That was the answer to the southern strategy. Keep some social progressiveness. Remember GBW's compassionate Republicanism? We're going to get a Republican President, but we're going to make believe that she's a progressive Democrat.

    All the definitions have changed since the '60s. She not a criminal. She's just put on a different colored cloak to demonstrate her flexibility. Americans are apparently not yet ready for a good old fashioned New Deal Democrat. Workers are afraid of unions. Americans never could stay out of a good fight. And Democrats since the '70s have learned to love bankers and recognize that if you let bankers have yet more money they'll shed some your way. Roosevelt didn't need their cash. He had his family's banking empire. And he had real compassion. He was an old style Keynesian. He understood the importance of the government spending money on the nation, and that the nation would return that money to the wealthy as they spent it to stay alive.

    Beverly Mann August 14, 2016 7:08 pm

    Bingo.

    Zachary Smith August 14, 2016 8:02 pm

    To likbez August 14, 2016 5:44 pm

    I agree that Hillary Clinton is many kinds of criminal. I also agree with the others that it no longer matters in the US.

    Nixon = unprosecuted treason.
    Reagan = unprosecuted treason.
    Bush Sr. = unprosecuted criminal in Iran Contra and more.
    (Clinton 1 is a black hole for me in terms of information – I just don't know enough to say.)
    Bush Jr. = unprosecuted torturer and war crimes in Iraq.
    Obama = unprosecuted drone killer and war crimes in Libya & Syria.

    That's the Leaders. On down the ladder US policemen routinely kill people. Many are cold-blooded executions. Very seldom is there any prosecution. Even rarer than that is a conviction.

    Big Bankers plundered the US in 2008. Not a single prosecution that I know about.

    ... ... ...

    US citizens are becoming numbed to violence by the sheer frequency frequency. And increasingly have their noses in their handheld devices tuning out all the news. Having learned almost no history, they're suckers for nearly any glib line from very talented propagandists.

    A very nasty piece of work is about to become President of the US of A. She has done many things for which better humans than her are in prison. If the email hackers produce actual evidence of actual crimes, she will NOT be prosecuted. At the very worst the TPP-loving Neocon Kaine will become president.

    This is the US in 2016.

    likbez, August 14, 2016 10:23 pm

    Jack,

    You are absolutely right that Hillary is a moderate Republican in a sheep skin of Democrat. That was Bill Clinton "Third Way" strategy from the very beginning. Essentially selling the Party to Wall Street. This "neoliberalization" of Democratic Party worked extremely well for Democratic brass for almost three decades.

    You are probably wrong in your underestimation of the danger of the "new American militarism" (Professor Bacevich coined the term) factor in the US foreign policy -- the desire to subdue all other countries and establish global neoliberal empire. Which as Zachary Smith observed makes each and every President since Clinton a war criminal, unless we adopt the Roman dictum "Winners [in a war] are never sent to the court of law".

    Professor Bacevich had shown that the main driver of the US militarism is neocons domination of the US foreign policy, and, especially, neocons domination in State Department regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. They profess that the US that is uniquely qualified to take on the worldwide foes of peace and democracy, forgetting, revising, or ignoring the painful lessons of World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq. And that establishing and maintaining the neoliberal empire is worth the price we pay as it will take the USA into the period of unprecedented peace.

    Bacevich scored a direct hit on the foundations of the American national security state with this scathing critique, and demolishes the unspoken assumptions that he believes have led the United States into a senseless, wasteful, and counter-productive perpetual war for perpetual peace.

    These assumptions clearly visible in "Khan gambit" are as following: the USA has the unique responsibility to intervene wherever it wants, for whatever purpose it wants, by whatever means it wants -- and the supporting "trinity" of requirements for the USA to maintain a global military presence, to configure its military forces for global power projection, and to counter threats by relying on a policy of global interventionism.

    The driving force in all recent wars is the desire to protect and enlarge the neoliberal empire. That means that election of Hillary means war.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Spooks in the Grindhouse

    Notable quotes:
    "... Kill the Messenger ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    It seems like I've known Nicholas Schou forever, though we just pressed flesh for the first time last year in the LBC. His ground-breaking reporting on the Contra-Cocaine network in southern California was crucial source material for a book that Cockburn and I wrote called Whiteout. Nick's own book on Gary Webb is excellent and it was turned into a fine movie, Kill the Messenger. Now Nick has published a new book, Spooked, a terrific and timely history of how the CIA manipulates the media and Hollywood (both useful idiots of the Agency). And, speaking of the devil, here Nick is telling us all about it in the latest installment of CounterPunch Radio with the indefatigable Eric Draitser.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Clintonites Feign Outrage at Threats of Violence

    www.counterpunch.org
    After Trump's asinine quip about a 2nd amendment "solution" to stopping Clinton's presidential run, her campaign manager, Robby Mook, had this to say:

    "What Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way."

    A presidential candidate should not suggest violence in any way?!? Really?

    This coming from a high-level supporter of a candidate who…

    …has supported every war during her political career?

    …supported the use of civilian-butchering cluster bombs by Israel in Gaza?

    …supported the brutal invasions by the Saudi dictatorship of Bahrain and Yemen?

    …enthusiastically pushed for the bombing of Libya that turned it into a failed state?

    …threatened use of nuclear weapons vs. Iran?

    …supported the military coups against the elected governments in Honduras and Egypt, turning both into violence-ridden basket cases?

    …adores as her mentor the arch war criminal Henry Kissinger, orchestrator of the tortures and killings of 10s of thousands?

    Tell me, please, Clinton supporters, how is this not "suggest[ing] violence in any way."

    Is it because threats of violence don't count when they're promoted against human beings who aren't Americans? Go ahead, probe the deeply caustic, Trump-like racism behind that assumption.

    Last Friday, four days before Trump issued his violent threat and a few weeks after the constitution-waiving stunt at the Democratic convention, the ACLU and a federal court finally forced the release of the Obama administration's patently unconstitutional guidelines [2] for killing people with drones ( nearly 90% of whom were not the intended targets).

    And yesterday, while the Republican sociopath was issuing his threat, the Obama State Department approved the sale of more than $1 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia , no doubt to continue its bloody invasion of Yemen, where the UN recently estimated that two-thirds of the civilian casualties are caused by Saudi air strikes.

    Where was the Democratic and Republican outrage against those very real, violent threats?

    When Clinton wins the November election, will we stoop ever farther into an Orwellian world as our first "feminist" president continues to shovel billions in arms to arguably the most anti-feminist dictatorship on the planet? Where violence against people doesn't count as violence due to their nationality and/or the color of their skin?

    If you're outraged about Trump's barbarous suggestion of 2 nd Amendment "solutions" to elections, please don't stop there. Get your blood boiling and then also, and just as forcefully, challenge Clinton's own barbarous "solutions."

    As journalist John Pilger recently noted ,

    "A third of the members of the United Nations have felt Washington's boot, overturning governments, subverting democracy, imposing blockades and boycotts. Most of the presidents responsible have been liberal – Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama…"

    "One of the more violent presidents, Obama gave full reign to the Pentagon war-making apparatus of his discredited predecessor. He prosecuted more whistleblowers – truth-tellers – than any president. He pronounced Chelsea Manning guilty before she was tried. Today, Obama runs an unprecedented worldwide campaign of terrorism and murder by drone."

    "In 2009, Obama promised to help "rid the world of nuclear weapons" and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. No American president has built more nuclear warheads than Obama."

    So please, no more sermonizing about stopping violence while taking a pass on condemning our government, which then and now, is "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."

    [Aug 14, 2016] Charles Woods - Father of Tyrone Woods - Destroys CNN Anchor On Benghazi and Hillary

    www.youtube.com

    YouTube

    This is what happens when the Lame Stream Media gets a guest that doesn't fit the narrative and handily puts the anchor in her place. They deflect and end the interview!

    [Aug 14, 2016] In Defense of Trump's Name-Calling by Ted Rall

    Notable quotes:
    "... "She is the one that caused all this problem with her stupid policies," Trump said, referring to Hillary Clinton. "You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly - if not the - one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country. She talks about me being dangerous. She's killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity." ..."
    "... Trump is absolutely right. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, which killed a million people. As I've pointed out , it wasn't just an immoral decision - it was a stupid one ..."
    "... As secretary of state, Clinton never met a war she didn't love. Under her watch and following her counsel, the United States armed radical jihadis who are now terrorists , helped topple Moammar Gaddafi , expanded a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Libyans and reduced one of the most advanced nations in Africa into a failed state . Then she turned around and did the same exact thing to Syria. ..."
    "... Psychology Today ..."
    "... Ted Rall , syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net ..."
    "... is the author of the book " Snowden ," the biography of the NSA whistleblower. ..."
    Dec 15, 2015 | counterpunch.org

    There is, on the other hand, something wonderfully refreshing about Donald Trump's gleeful deployment of the S-word.

    "She is the one that caused all this problem with her stupid policies," Trump said, referring to Hillary Clinton. "You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly - if not the - one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country. She talks about me being dangerous. She's killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity."

    Trump is absolutely right. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, which killed a million people. As I've pointed out, it wasn't just an immoral decision - it was a stupid one, since anyone with a half a brain could see at the time that Saddam probably didn't have WMDs, and that Bush's war would be a disaster.

    As secretary of state, Clinton never met a war she didn't love. Under her watch and following her counsel, the United States armed radical jihadis who are now terrorists, helped topple Moammar Gaddafi, expanded a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Libyans and reduced one of the most advanced nations in Africa into a failed state. Then she turned around and did the same exact thing to Syria.

    Stupid.

    Let Hillary's supporters take offense. How is unfair, wrong or intemperate to call out a foreign policy record that fits the dictionary definition of "stupid" - doing the same thing over and over, even though it never works? Stupid is as stupid does. Hillary is stupid, especially on foreign policy, and Trump is right to say so.

    Winner or loser, Trump has done political debate in America a huge favor by freeing "stupid" from the rhetorical prison of words and phrases polite people aren't allowed to use.

    Interestingly, stupid people aren't all losers and losers aren't always stupid in Trumpworld. Hillary Clinton has one hell of a resume, which she has parlayed into a big pile of cash. She is, by Trump standards, a winner (albeit a stupid one). If I met Trump, I'd ask him if a smart person can be a loser (possible example: he called the obviously smart Russell Brand a loser, but also a "dummy").

    Pre-Trump, American politics and culture suffered from a lack of stupid-calling. I am serious.

    "There has been a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in America, unlike most other Western countries," Ray Williams wrote last year in Psychology Today. Insults reflect a society's values. Americans value macho masculinity, good looks and youth, so our top slurs accuse their victims of being effeminate, weak, ugly, fat, old and outdated. In France, where the life of the mind is prized so much that one of the nation's top-rated TV shows featured philosophers and auteurs discussing politics and culture over cigarettes, there are few things worse than being called stupid and having it stick. A society that ranks "stupid" as of its worst insults lets it be known that being smart is at least as important as being tough or hot or buff.

    So, Donald Trump, thanks for dropping those S-bombs.

    Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net, is the author of the book "Snowden," the biography of the NSA whistleblower.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Families Of Benghazi Victims Are SUING Hillary! YES!

    www.thepoliticalinsider.com
    Hillary Clinton thought Benghazi and her email scandal were behind her. Even though the FBI declined to charge her with massive negligence, those affected by her incompetence aren't gonna let her off so easy.

    The families of the Benghazi victims are going after Hillary Clinton in court! This could be it for her!

    Via NBCNews:

    The parents of two Americans killed in the 2012 terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in federal court Monday against Hillary Clinton.

    In the suit, Patricia Smith and Charles Woods, the parents of Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods, claim that Clinton's use of a private e-mail server contributed to the attacks. They also accuse her of defaming them in public statements.

    Smith was an information management officer and Woods was a security officer, both stationed in Benghazi.

    This is lawsuit could be what FINALLY puts Hillary away. The families deserve justice!

    [Aug 13, 2016] A Rush to Judgment on Russian Doping by Rick Sterling

    Notable quotes:
    "... These are strong words and accusations, not against the athletes, but against the Russian government. It seems the Russian Paralympic athletes are being collectively punished as a means to punish the Russian government. ..."
    "... Another fact is that this problem exists in many if not all countries, especially since professional athletics is big business. WADA data shows that many countries have significant numbers of doping violations. ..."
    "... In contrast with the accusations, the scientific data prepared by WADA indicates that Russian athletes have a fairly low incidence of positive drug tests in international certified laboratories. The biggest question is whether the Russian government has been "sponsoring" or somehow supervising prohibited doping. This has been repeated many times and is now widely assumed to be true. ..."
    "... But the evidence is far from compelling. The accusations are based primarily on the testimony of three people: the main culprit and mastermind Grigory Rodchenkov who was extorting athletes and "whistle-blowers" Vitaliy and Yuliya Stepanov. The Stepanovs were the star witnesses in the "60 Minutes" feature on this topic. ..."
    "... The "60 Minutes" story also failed to include the important fact that Vitaliy was directly involved in his wife's doping. ..."
    "... Vitaliy even helps his wife with doping, procures the drugs, leads a kind of double life. ..."
    "... If the IPC final number is accurate, it means the committee confirmed 11 Paralympic athletes who tested positive between 2012 and 2015 but had their positive tests "disappeared" to allow these athletes to compete. If that's true, these athletes should be suspended or banned. Instead of doing that, the IPC banned the entire 267-member Russian Paralympic team. ..."
    "... The McLaren Report looks like a rush to judgment. The report was launched after the sensational New York Times story based on Grigory Rodchenkov and the "60 Minutes" segment based on the Stepanovs. Before he was half way done his investigation, Richard McLaren was advising the IAAF to ban the entire Russian team. ..."
    Aug 11, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    The West's anti-Russian bias is so strong that normal standards of fairness are cast aside whenever a propaganda edge can be gained, a factor swirling around the treatment of Russian athletes at the Rio Olympics, Rick Sterling says.

    There is an ugly anti-Russian mood in various Rio Olympic venues. When the Russian swimmers entered the pool for the 4×100-meter Freestyle team event, they were loudly booed. When the Russian team barely lost third place, the announcer happily announced that Russian had been "kept off the medal stand".

    Last Sunday, it was announced that the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) had decided to ban the entire Russian team from the upcoming Paralympics to be held in Rio in September. Next day, The Associated Press story opened as follows: "After escaping a blanket ban from the Olympics, Russia was kicked out of the upcoming Paralympics on Sunday as the ultimate punishment for the state running a doping operation that polluted sports by prioritizing 'medals over morals.'"

    Is this true, exaggerated or false? In this article I will show how some big accusations based on little evidence have contributed to discrimination against clean Russian athletes and fostered a dangerous animosity contrary to the intended spirit of the Olympics.

    The IPC made its decision to ban all 267 Russian Paralympic athletes largely on the basis of the World Anti-Doping Agency's July 16 McLaren Report and private communications with its chief author Richard McLaren.

    IPC President Sir Phillip Craven issued a statement full of accusations and moral outrage. He said, "In my view, the McLaren Report marked one of the darkest days in the history of all sport." However, the McLaren Report is deeply biased. Here are some of the problems with the report:

    • –It relied primarily on the testimony of one person, the former Director of Moscow Laboratory Grigory Rodchenkov, who was implicated in extorting Russian athletes for money and was the chief culprit with strong interest in casting blame somewhere else.
    • –It accused Russian authorities without considering their defense and contrary information.
    • –It excluded a written submission and documents provided by a Russian authority.
    • –It failed to identify individual athletes who benefited but instead cast suspicion on the entire team.
    • –It ignored the statistical data compiled by WADA which show Russian violations to be NOT exceptional.
    • –It did not provide the source for quantitative measurements.
    • –It claimed to have evidence but failed to reveal it.

    A detailed critique of the McLaren Report can be found at Sports Integrity Initiative, Consortiumnews, Counterpunch, Dissident Voice, True Publica, Global Research, Telesur, and other sites.

    Collective Punishment

    The IPC explanation of why they banned the entire Paralympic team boils down to the accusation that "the State-sponsored doping programme that exists within Russian sport regrettably extends to Russian Para sport as well. The facts really do hurt; they are an unprecedented attack on every clean athlete who competes in sport. The anti-doping system in Russia is broken, corrupted and entirely compromised.

    "The doping culture that is polluting Russian sport stems from the Russian government and has now been uncovered in not one, but two independent reports commissioned by the World Anti-Doping Agency. I believe the Russian government has catastrophically failed its Para athletes. Their medals over morals mentality disgusts me. The complete corruption of the anti-doping system is contrary to the rules and strikes at the very heart of the spirit of Paralympic sport."

    These are strong words and accusations, not against the athletes, but against the Russian government. It seems the Russian Paralympic athletes are being collectively punished as a means to punish the Russian government.

    But what are the facts? First, it's true some Russian athletes have used prohibited steroids or other performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). The documentaries by Hajo Seppelt expose examples of Russian athletes admitting to taking PEDs, a banned coach clandestinely continuing to coach, and another banned coach dealing in prohibited drugs.

    Another fact is that this problem exists in many if not all countries, especially since professional athletics is big business. WADA data shows that many countries have significant numbers of doping violations.

    It is claimed that doping by elite athletes is pervasive in Russia but is this true? To answer that accurately would require an objective examination, not a sensation seeking media report. In the current controversy the accusations and assumptions rely substantially on individual anecdotes and testimony which has been publicized through media reports (ARD documentaries, "60 Minutes" report and New York Times stories) with very little scrutiny.

    In contrast with the accusations, the scientific data prepared by WADA indicates that Russian athletes have a fairly low incidence of positive drug tests in international certified laboratories. The biggest question is whether the Russian government has been "sponsoring" or somehow supervising prohibited doping. This has been repeated many times and is now widely assumed to be true.

    But the evidence is far from compelling. The accusations are based primarily on the testimony of three people: the main culprit and mastermind Grigory Rodchenkov who was extorting athletes and "whistle-blowers" Vitaliy and Yuliya Stepanov. The Stepanovs were the star witnesses in the "60 Minutes" feature on this topic.

    The report was factually flawed: it mistakenly reports that Vitaliy had a "low level job at the Russian Anti Doping Agency RUSADA." Actually he was adviser to the Director General, close to the Minister of Sports and a trainer of doping control officers.

    The "60 Minutes" story also failed to include the important fact that Vitaliy was directly involved in his wife's doping. According to Seppelt's documentary "The Secrets of Doping," "First, Vitaliy even helps his wife with doping, procures the drugs, leads a kind of double life."(5:45) Adding to the argument there may be a political bias in these accusations, all three witnesses (Rodchenkov and the Stepanovs) are now living in the United States.

    The "proof" of Russian state-sponsored doping rests on remarkably little solid evidence. The principal assertion is that the Deputy Minister of Sports issued email directives to eliminate positive tests of "protected" athletes. McLaren claims to have "electronic data" and emails proving this. But he has not revealed the emails.

    If the emails are authentic, that would be damning. How would the Ministry of Sports officials explain it? Do they have any alternative explanation of the curious directives to "Quarantine" or "Save" doping test samples? Astoundingly, McLaren decided not to ask them and he still has not shown the evidence he says that he has.

    Tampering with Bottles?

    Another controversial issue is regarding the opening and replacement of "tamper proof" bottles. The Rodchenkov account is that in the middle of the night, in cahoots with FSB (successor to KGB), they would replace "dirty" urine with "clean" urine. Rodchenkov says they found a way to open the tamper-proof urine sample bottles. But the Swiss manufacturer Berlinger continues to stand by its product and has effectively challenged the veracity of the Rodchenkov/McLaren story.

    Since the release of the McLaren Report, Berlinger has issued a statement saying:

    • –To the statement in the McLaren investigation report that some such bottles proved possible to open Berlinger Special AG cannot offer any authoritative response at the present time.
    • –Berlinger Special AG has no knowledge at present of the specifications, the methods or the procedures involved in the tests and experiments conducted by the McLaren Commission.
    • –Berlinger Special AG conducts its own regular reappraisals of its doping kits, and also has its products tested and verified by an independent institute that has been duly certificated by the Swiss authorities.
    • –In neither its own tests nor any tests conducted by the independent institute in Switzerland has any sealed Berlinger Special AG urine sample bottle proved possible to open.
    • –This also applies to the "Sochi 2014" sample bottle model.
    • –The specialists at Berlinger Special AG are able at any time to determine whether one of the company's sample bottles has been tampered with or unlawfully replicated.

    McLaren says he does not know how the Russians were opening the bottles but he knows it can be done because someone demonstrated it to him personally. In contrast with McLaren's assertions, Berlinger states unequivocally: "In neither its own tests nor any tests conducted by the independent institute in Switzerland has any sealed Berlinger Special AG urine sample bottle proved possible to open. This also applies to the 'Sochi 2014' sample bottle model."

    If McLaren's claims are true, why has he not discussed this with the manufacturer? If McLaren's claims are true, isn't it of the highest importance to identify the weakness in the system so that doping test samples cannot be swapped?

    McLaren further claims to be able to forensically determine when a "tamper proof" bottle has been opened by the "marks and scratches" on the inside of the bottle caps. His report does not include photos to show what these "marks and scratches" look like, nor does it consider the possibility of a mark or scratch resulting from some other event such as different force being applied, cross-threading or backing off on the cap.

    In this area also, McLaren has apparently not had his findings confirmed by the Swiss manufacturer despite the fact that the company states: "The specialists at Berlinger Special AG are able at any time to determine whether one of the company's sample bottles has been tampered with or unlawfully replicated."

    If the findings of McLaren's "marks and scratches expert" are accurate, why did they not get confirmation from the specialists at Berlinger? Perhaps it is because Berlinger disputes McLaren's claims and says "Our kits are secure."

    The IPC decision substantially rests on the fact-challenged McLaren report. The IPC statement falsely claims that the McLaren bottle top "scratches and marks" expert has "corroborated the claim that the State directed scheme involved Russian Paralympic athletes."

    Rush to Judgment

    The IPC report includes data that purports to show widespread doping manipulation in Russia, saying: "Professor McLaren provided the names of the athletes associated with the 35 samples and whether the sample had been marked QUARANTINE or SAVE." These 35 samples are presumably the same Paralympic 35 which are identified on page 41 of the McLaren Report as being "Disappearing Positive Test Results by Sport Russian Athletes."

    There is no source for this data but supposedly it covers testing between 2012 and 2015. McLaren provided another 10 samples thus making 45 samples relating to 44 athletes.

    It is then explained that 17 of these samples are actually not from IPC administered sport. So the actual number is 27 athletes (44-minus-17) implicated. However, in another inconsistency, the IPC statement says not all these samples were marked "SAVE" by Moscow Laboratory. That was only done for "at least" 11 of the samples and athletes.

    If the IPC final number is accurate, it means the committee confirmed 11 Paralympic athletes who tested positive between 2012 and 2015 but had their positive tests "disappeared" to allow these athletes to compete. If that's true, these athletes should be suspended or banned. Instead of doing that, the IPC banned the entire 267-member Russian Paralympic team.

    The McLaren Report looks like a rush to judgment. The report was launched after the sensational New York Times story based on Grigory Rodchenkov and the "60 Minutes" segment based on the Stepanovs. Before he was half way done his investigation, Richard McLaren was advising the IAAF to ban the entire Russian team.

    The McLaren Report, with all its flaws and shortcomings, was published just a few weeks ago on July 16. Then, on Aug. 7, the IPC issued its decision to ban the Russian Paralympic Team from the September Rio Paralympics.

    The IPC statement claims that the committee "provided sufficient time to allow the Russian Paralympic Committee to present their case to the IPC" before they finalized the decision. While the Russian Paralympic Committee appeared before the IPC, it's doubtful they had sufficient time to argue their case or even to know the details of the accusations.

    In summary, the accusation of Russian "state sponsored doping" by McLaren and Craven is based on little solid evidence. Despite this, the accusations have resulted in the banning of many hundreds of clean athletes from the Olympics and Paralympics and are contributing to the ugly "ant-Russian" prejudice and discrimination happening at the Olympics right now.

    This seems to violate the purpose of the Olympics movement which is to promote international peace, not conflict and discrimination.

    Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist. He can be contacted at [email protected]

    [Aug 13, 2016] Banning Russia's paralympians from Rio 2016 sends a terrible message about the rights of disabled people

    Doping scandal is a larger problem the Russian athletes, who is this case are simply scapegoats. It is an international problem of huge proportions, which essentially is a cancer of professional sport in general, not only Olympics in particular.
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al, August 12, 2016 at 10:46 am
    Independent: Banning Russia's paralympians from Rio 2016 sends a terrible message about the rights of disabled people
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rio-2016-russian-paralympic-team-banned-disablility-rights-sends-terrible-message-russian-putin-a7185791.html?google_editors_picks=true

    Throughout the Soviet period, disabled people were largely banished. In Russian cities, even now, you see the elderly amputees being wheeled to a begging pitch on a trolley

    Mary Dejevsky

    To my mind, such a blanket ban is an outrage. It is not just illogical, but unjust and grievously short-sighted.

    I personally considered even the partial IOC ban on Russia as too harsh on the grounds that a higher standard of proof was effectively set for Russians compared with their non-Russian peers. But the treatment of Russia's Paralympians takes the pillorying of Russian sport to a whole new level

    The team as a whole is being made to answer for the sins of the Russian state – or, to be more accurate, its still largely Soviet-era sports establishment .
    ####

    OK, how long do you guys think it will be before we hear that "Mary Djevsky has left the Independent by mutual agreement with the paper"? She's a bit all over the place herself, but in general I like reading her pieces despite the casual generalizations she makes.

    [Aug 13, 2016] Mysterious Deaths of DNC s Seth Rich and Other East Coast Politicos Fuel Conspiracy Theories

    See Julian Assange viewpoint YouTube also see INCREDIBLE! RUSH Wikileaks' Julian Assange Implies Murdered DNC Staffer Was Email-Leaker - YouTube
    Notable quotes:
    "... "From Claudia Kash: I know why Seth Rich had to die. There were 2 sets of polling places this primary season -- one set for most of the voters, who went on state websites to find their polling locations -- a second set for Hillary Clinton supporters who looked on Hillary Clinton's website to find their polling location. The Secretary of State for each state had one set of locations on >the record; the other set of locations, the ones listed on Hillary's website, were not on the state record. I know this because I looked on her website to find where a friend should vote -- then double-checked the state >website, which showed a different address. I thought there must be a mistake -- I kept checking, right up to election day. ..."
    "... But until they killed Seth Rich, I couldn't figure out why there would be two different polling places. This is how I think the scam worked: While most voters look up their location on their state website, voters who were signed up as Hillary Clinton supporters would be directed to her site to find their polling place. It was set up the same as any other DNC polling place -- with DNC volunteers, regular voting machines, etc. -- and a duplicate voter roster, the same as the roster at the other polling place. Voters would be checked off on the roster, same as at the other polling place... and after the polls closed, the DNC supervisor would pick up the roster and the ballots. ..."
    "... Seems a straight Machiavellian operation. Murder the young insider, Seth Rich, that leaked the emails to Assange's Wikileaks and then blame it on an enemy that none can fact check on. DNC= Deep National Control ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    Yul | Aug 11, 2016 2:18:39 PM | 13
    WRT Seth Rich

    check this site :
    https://heatst.com/politics/mysterious-deaths-of-dncs-seth-rich-and-other-east-coast-politicos-fuel-conspiracy-theories/

    Mysterious Deaths of DNC's Seth Rich and Other East Coast Politicos Fuel Conspiracy Theories

    Tom in AZ | Aug 11, 2016 3:15:01 PM | 18
    The media reporting on keeps making the statement from the police 'that nothing was missing from his body or belongings'. The guy was walking around at 4 AM, and apparently no one but his killers actually saw him. So, I guess he couldn't be carrying anything outside of his pockets? In has hands?
    Miok | Aug 11, 2016 11:58:26 PM | 47
    This is supposedly from Seth rich's girlfriend

    https://m.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4vqvug/dnc_staffer_seth_rich_was_set_to_expose_dnc_voter/

    "From Claudia Kash: I know why Seth Rich had to die. There were 2 sets of polling places this primary season -- one set for most of the voters, who went on state websites to find their polling locations -- a second set for Hillary Clinton supporters who looked on Hillary Clinton's website to find their polling location. The Secretary of State for each state had one set of locations on >the record; the other set of locations, the ones listed on Hillary's website, were not on the state record. I know this because I looked on her website to find where a friend should vote -- then double-checked the state >website, which showed a different address. I thought there must be a mistake -- I kept checking, right up to election day.

    But until they killed Seth Rich, I couldn't figure out why there would be two different polling places. This is how I think the scam worked: While most voters look up their location on their state website, voters who were signed up as Hillary Clinton supporters would be directed to her site to find their polling place. It was set up the same as any other DNC polling place -- with DNC volunteers, regular voting machines, etc. -- and a duplicate voter roster, the same as the roster at the other polling place. Voters would be checked off on the roster, same as at the other polling place... and after the polls closed, the DNC supervisor would pick up the roster and the ballots.

    The supervisor would then pick up the roster at the legitimate polling place and the ballots there. He(or she) >would then replace a number of Bernie Sanders ballots with an equal number of the ballots from the Hillary >Clinton voting location. Then the duplicate roster from the HRC would be shredded and thrown away, along >with all the Bernie Sanders ballots that had been replaced. That way the number of people who voted (on the >remaining roster) still matches the number of ballots. This is why so many states reported a "lower than expected voter turnout".

    Seth Rich, who was responsible for the app that helped voters find their polling places, did not realize that there were two sets of polling places until he himself went to vote. He lived in Washington DC, which voted at the end of the primary season, a week after Clinton had already been declared the winner. I believe he discovered it then, and had started asking questions about why the polling places on Hillary's website didn't match the ones on the DC website.

    But even if he didn't say a word to anybody, it would have been dangerous to let him live. He would have >figured it out sooner or later -- and he would have reported it when he did."

    BRF | Aug 12, 2016 3:01:15 PM | 63
    Seems a straight Machiavellian operation. Murder the young insider, Seth Rich, that leaked the emails to Assange's Wikileaks and then blame it on an enemy that none can fact check on. DNC= Deep National Control.

    [Aug 13, 2016] Assange lawyer is dead

    www.zerohedge.com

    fishpoem Jacksons Ghost Aug 12, 2016 11:38 AM

    Yep. Yet another convenient "accident," eh? https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/01/john-rwd-jones-obituary

    NumberNone Jacksons Ghost Aug 12, 2016 11:39 AM

    It wasn't yesterday but it was determined to be suicide by train...because a brilliant attorney could not think of any easier way to commit suicide than throw himself in front of a moving train.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1138414/britains-top-human-rights...

    SokPOTUS Jacksons Ghost Aug 12, 2016 11:51 AM

    Happened April 22, 2016; but yes. Unless this is yet a second Assange lawyer to hit a train in the face this year....

    http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/renowned_lawyer_who_represented_julian_assange_died_after_being_struck_by_train_in_west_hampstead_1_4507283 OverTheHedge Jacksons Ghost Aug 12, 2016 1:00 PM

    I can forsee a number of FBI agents also being hit by trains in the near future.

    Lots of new job openings for young millennial who want to make a difference.

    Sigh

    ebear OverTheHedge Aug 12, 2016 3:30 PM "

    I can forsee a number of FBI agents also being hit by trains in the near future."

    If they've had the proper training they won't be standing near the track or watching the train as it approaches. If they've had the proper training, the person who tries to push them will go under the train.

    Martial arts, firearms, pursuit and evasive driving, general situational awareness - all part of FBI training. Not as easy as bumping a lawyer or journalist.

    N0TME Jacksons Ghost Aug 12, 2016 1:10 PM

    Died in an apparent suicide? I say pushed, but what do I know.

    http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/renowned_lawyer_who_represented_julian_assange_died_after_being_struck_by_train_in_west_hampstead_1_4507283

    ebear

    N0TME Aug 12, 2016 3:14 PM

    I've never understood people who stand toes to the line when a train enters the station. You know it's going to stop, so what's the rush? Situational Awareness demands that you stand well back from any potential danger, near an exit, facing the entrance, etc.

    Police and military are well aware of these principles - even in defensive driving you have the slogan "where is the present danger?" Walk facing oncoming traffic, step out and away from dark doorways, back alleys, bridge pillars etc.

    Take the stairs sometimes, take the elevator other times - drive to work one route, drive a different route home - mix them up. Take a taxi, get out at a random location and take a bus the rest of the way. Eat at different restaurants at different times. Do not establish a pattern. At all times carry a firearm.

    These principles should be part of basic lawyer training, especially when taking on dangerous cases. Same goes for journalists. There are professional courses that deal with these subjects. Take one.

    Whatever your goals in life, you can't achieve them if you don't survive. Last night I passed a fatal traffic accident where it was obvious the person turning left was killed by someone running a red light. Don't move off on the green right away.... pause and look around. That person is dead because he didn't follow that basic rule. So much for his life goals.

    I'm preaching to the choir here, but maybe someone who doesn't know will read this and it will help them survive. As the Donald said, it's all about winning and you can't win if you don't survive.

    [Aug 13, 2016] In foreign events coverage the US neoliberal media always behaves like it is an arm of CIA Such a disgusting bottom feeders. without any moral principles or courage to resist the government pressure

    Notable quotes:
    "... CBS can go shove itself in its own collective anus: http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/120820162 Daesh retreats from Manbij with 2000 civilian hostages. Some humanitarians. ..."
    "... Good catch. I hope Assad knows better than to give any legroom to these monkeys, because the SDF is just a rebranded Free Syrian Army. Most are not even Syrian, but Libyan and other mercenaries. Washington keeps changing their acronyms, but the aim remains unchanged – the overthrow and replacement of Assad. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Patient Observer , August 12, 2016 at 3:48 pm
    Watching CBS news as I write :
    – Rebels rescuing women and children and taking to hospitals (looking staged for cameras)
    – Air strikes destroy only remaining hospitals (videos showing piles of medical equipment which did not appear to have been damaged by fire or blast)
    – Syrian government would not respond to inquiries from CBS news about air strikes on hospitals in Aleppo. The reporter inferred that since the government did not deny the air strikes, they must be the perpetrators.

    Amazing. Child beheaders are portrayed as rescuers of women and children and the forces trying to defeat them are labeled as murderers.

    marknesop , August 12, 2016 at 5:35 pm
    Remarkable. But a time-tested technique frequently used in the past to portray Palestinian violence against Israelis. And Hezbollah has been frequently accused as well of faking damage and deaths in order to cultivate sympathy. I guess everybody does it. But it is in western interests to portray 'rebels', especially pet 'rebels' like the White Helmets, as closet humanitarians and the Syrian government as the liver-eaters. I think a lot of observers just expect it now and automatically discount about half of what is said.
    kirill , August 12, 2016 at 6:07 pm
    CBS can go shove itself in its own collective anus: http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/120820162 Daesh retreats from Manbij with 2000 civilian hostages. Some humanitarians.

    marknesop , August 12, 2016 at 6:39 pm

    Good catch. I hope Assad knows better than to give any legroom to these monkeys, because the SDF is just a rebranded Free Syrian Army. Most are not even Syrian, but Libyan and other mercenaries. Washington keeps changing their acronyms, but the aim remains unchanged – the overthrow and replacement of Assad. After that, things will go one of two ways; Assad will be replaced by a compliant western toady who will let Washington have a free hand to dabble, or he will be replaced by someone ineffective who will lead the country to collapse, at which time the west will have to step in to save it.

    [Aug 13, 2016] Trump should pattern his campaign on the model of Truman as neoliberal MSM had written him off

    Notable quotes:
    "... News Media bias. Excellent Lou Dobbs discussion with Newt Gingrich. Worthy of your time to Watch short Video ..."
    "... Newt Gingrich: ..."
    "... The elite media is dedicated to defeating Trump .. Trump should pattern his campaign on the model of Truman…media had written him off. ..."
    "... And the elite media in newsroom after newsroom is dedicated to defeating Trump and I think every chance they get to try to get him off message, they will, ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    likklemore | Aug 11, 2016 6:00:28 PM | 28
    News Media bias. Excellent Lou Dobbs discussion with Newt Gingrich. Worthy of your time to Watch short Video

    Newt Gingrich:

    The elite media is dedicated to defeating Trump .. Trump should pattern his campaign on the model of Truman…media had written him off.

    "The elite media understands that if they allow Donald Trump to communicate directly to the American people, he's just plain going to beat them. And he's going to win, and Hillary is going to lose

    And the elite media in newsroom after newsroom is dedicated to defeating Trump and I think every chance they get to try to get him off message, they will," he said. "I hope that Donald Trump will take, as his model, Harry Truman's campaign in 1948 where the entire elite media had written Truman off and he came back, he pounded away, and he won the presidency despite every expectation of the national establishment. I think Trump has the same opportunity this year."

    [more on Vid..Hillary's comment she short-circuited will return to hurt. What else did she short-circuit? listen]

    http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5078954144001/newt-gingrich-elite-media-is-dedicated-to-defeating-trump

    [Aug 13, 2016] A Rush to Judgment on Russian Doping by Rick Sterling

    Notable quotes:
    "... These are strong words and accusations, not against the athletes, but against the Russian government. It seems the Russian Paralympic athletes are being collectively punished as a means to punish the Russian government. ..."
    "... Another fact is that this problem exists in many if not all countries, especially since professional athletics is big business. WADA data shows that many countries have significant numbers of doping violations. ..."
    "... In contrast with the accusations, the scientific data prepared by WADA indicates that Russian athletes have a fairly low incidence of positive drug tests in international certified laboratories. The biggest question is whether the Russian government has been "sponsoring" or somehow supervising prohibited doping. This has been repeated many times and is now widely assumed to be true. ..."
    "... But the evidence is far from compelling. The accusations are based primarily on the testimony of three people: the main culprit and mastermind Grigory Rodchenkov who was extorting athletes and "whistle-blowers" Vitaliy and Yuliya Stepanov. The Stepanovs were the star witnesses in the "60 Minutes" feature on this topic. ..."
    "... The "60 Minutes" story also failed to include the important fact that Vitaliy was directly involved in his wife's doping. ..."
    "... Vitaliy even helps his wife with doping, procures the drugs, leads a kind of double life. ..."
    "... If the IPC final number is accurate, it means the committee confirmed 11 Paralympic athletes who tested positive between 2012 and 2015 but had their positive tests "disappeared" to allow these athletes to compete. If that's true, these athletes should be suspended or banned. Instead of doing that, the IPC banned the entire 267-member Russian Paralympic team. ..."
    "... The McLaren Report looks like a rush to judgment. The report was launched after the sensational New York Times story based on Grigory Rodchenkov and the "60 Minutes" segment based on the Stepanovs. Before he was half way done his investigation, Richard McLaren was advising the IAAF to ban the entire Russian team. ..."
    Aug 11, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    The West's anti-Russian bias is so strong that normal standards of fairness are cast aside whenever a propaganda edge can be gained, a factor swirling around the treatment of Russian athletes at the Rio Olympics, Rick Sterling says.

    There is an ugly anti-Russian mood in various Rio Olympic venues. When the Russian swimmers entered the pool for the 4×100-meter Freestyle team event, they were loudly booed. When the Russian team barely lost third place, the announcer happily announced that Russian had been "kept off the medal stand".

    Last Sunday, it was announced that the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) had decided to ban the entire Russian team from the upcoming Paralympics to be held in Rio in September. Next day, The Associated Press story opened as follows: "After escaping a blanket ban from the Olympics, Russia was kicked out of the upcoming Paralympics on Sunday as the ultimate punishment for the state running a doping operation that polluted sports by prioritizing 'medals over morals.'"

    Is this true, exaggerated or false? In this article I will show how some big accusations based on little evidence have contributed to discrimination against clean Russian athletes and fostered a dangerous animosity contrary to the intended spirit of the Olympics.

    The IPC made its decision to ban all 267 Russian Paralympic athletes largely on the basis of the World Anti-Doping Agency's July 16 McLaren Report and private communications with its chief author Richard McLaren.

    IPC President Sir Phillip Craven issued a statement full of accusations and moral outrage. He said, "In my view, the McLaren Report marked one of the darkest days in the history of all sport." However, the McLaren Report is deeply biased. Here are some of the problems with the report:

    • –It relied primarily on the testimony of one person, the former Director of Moscow Laboratory Grigory Rodchenkov, who was implicated in extorting Russian athletes for money and was the chief culprit with strong interest in casting blame somewhere else.
    • –It accused Russian authorities without considering their defense and contrary information.
    • –It excluded a written submission and documents provided by a Russian authority.
    • –It failed to identify individual athletes who benefited but instead cast suspicion on the entire team.
    • –It ignored the statistical data compiled by WADA which show Russian violations to be NOT exceptional.
    • –It did not provide the source for quantitative measurements.
    • –It claimed to have evidence but failed to reveal it.

    A detailed critique of the McLaren Report can be found at Sports Integrity Initiative, Consortiumnews, Counterpunch, Dissident Voice, True Publica, Global Research, Telesur, and other sites.

    Collective Punishment

    The IPC explanation of why they banned the entire Paralympic team boils down to the accusation that "the State-sponsored doping programme that exists within Russian sport regrettably extends to Russian Para sport as well. The facts really do hurt; they are an unprecedented attack on every clean athlete who competes in sport. The anti-doping system in Russia is broken, corrupted and entirely compromised.

    "The doping culture that is polluting Russian sport stems from the Russian government and has now been uncovered in not one, but two independent reports commissioned by the World Anti-Doping Agency. I believe the Russian government has catastrophically failed its Para athletes. Their medals over morals mentality disgusts me. The complete corruption of the anti-doping system is contrary to the rules and strikes at the very heart of the spirit of Paralympic sport."

    These are strong words and accusations, not against the athletes, but against the Russian government. It seems the Russian Paralympic athletes are being collectively punished as a means to punish the Russian government.

    But what are the facts? First, it's true some Russian athletes have used prohibited steroids or other performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). The documentaries by Hajo Seppelt expose examples of Russian athletes admitting to taking PEDs, a banned coach clandestinely continuing to coach, and another banned coach dealing in prohibited drugs.

    Another fact is that this problem exists in many if not all countries, especially since professional athletics is big business. WADA data shows that many countries have significant numbers of doping violations.

    It is claimed that doping by elite athletes is pervasive in Russia but is this true? To answer that accurately would require an objective examination, not a sensation seeking media report. In the current controversy the accusations and assumptions rely substantially on individual anecdotes and testimony which has been publicized through media reports (ARD documentaries, "60 Minutes" report and New York Times stories) with very little scrutiny.

    In contrast with the accusations, the scientific data prepared by WADA indicates that Russian athletes have a fairly low incidence of positive drug tests in international certified laboratories. The biggest question is whether the Russian government has been "sponsoring" or somehow supervising prohibited doping. This has been repeated many times and is now widely assumed to be true.

    But the evidence is far from compelling. The accusations are based primarily on the testimony of three people: the main culprit and mastermind Grigory Rodchenkov who was extorting athletes and "whistle-blowers" Vitaliy and Yuliya Stepanov. The Stepanovs were the star witnesses in the "60 Minutes" feature on this topic.

    The report was factually flawed: it mistakenly reports that Vitaliy had a "low level job at the Russian Anti Doping Agency RUSADA." Actually he was adviser to the Director General, close to the Minister of Sports and a trainer of doping control officers.

    The "60 Minutes" story also failed to include the important fact that Vitaliy was directly involved in his wife's doping. According to Seppelt's documentary "The Secrets of Doping," "First, Vitaliy even helps his wife with doping, procures the drugs, leads a kind of double life."(5:45) Adding to the argument there may be a political bias in these accusations, all three witnesses (Rodchenkov and the Stepanovs) are now living in the United States.

    The "proof" of Russian state-sponsored doping rests on remarkably little solid evidence. The principal assertion is that the Deputy Minister of Sports issued email directives to eliminate positive tests of "protected" athletes. McLaren claims to have "electronic data" and emails proving this. But he has not revealed the emails.

    If the emails are authentic, that would be damning. How would the Ministry of Sports officials explain it? Do they have any alternative explanation of the curious directives to "Quarantine" or "Save" doping test samples? Astoundingly, McLaren decided not to ask them and he still has not shown the evidence he says that he has.

    Tampering with Bottles?

    Another controversial issue is regarding the opening and replacement of "tamper proof" bottles. The Rodchenkov account is that in the middle of the night, in cahoots with FSB (successor to KGB), they would replace "dirty" urine with "clean" urine. Rodchenkov says they found a way to open the tamper-proof urine sample bottles. But the Swiss manufacturer Berlinger continues to stand by its product and has effectively challenged the veracity of the Rodchenkov/McLaren story.

    Since the release of the McLaren Report, Berlinger has issued a statement saying:

    • –To the statement in the McLaren investigation report that some such bottles proved possible to open Berlinger Special AG cannot offer any authoritative response at the present time.
    • –Berlinger Special AG has no knowledge at present of the specifications, the methods or the procedures involved in the tests and experiments conducted by the McLaren Commission.
    • –Berlinger Special AG conducts its own regular reappraisals of its doping kits, and also has its products tested and verified by an independent institute that has been duly certificated by the Swiss authorities.
    • –In neither its own tests nor any tests conducted by the independent institute in Switzerland has any sealed Berlinger Special AG urine sample bottle proved possible to open.
    • –This also applies to the "Sochi 2014" sample bottle model.
    • –The specialists at Berlinger Special AG are able at any time to determine whether one of the company's sample bottles has been tampered with or unlawfully replicated.

    McLaren says he does not know how the Russians were opening the bottles but he knows it can be done because someone demonstrated it to him personally. In contrast with McLaren's assertions, Berlinger states unequivocally: "In neither its own tests nor any tests conducted by the independent institute in Switzerland has any sealed Berlinger Special AG urine sample bottle proved possible to open. This also applies to the 'Sochi 2014' sample bottle model."

    If McLaren's claims are true, why has he not discussed this with the manufacturer? If McLaren's claims are true, isn't it of the highest importance to identify the weakness in the system so that doping test samples cannot be swapped?

    McLaren further claims to be able to forensically determine when a "tamper proof" bottle has been opened by the "marks and scratches" on the inside of the bottle caps. His report does not include photos to show what these "marks and scratches" look like, nor does it consider the possibility of a mark or scratch resulting from some other event such as different force being applied, cross-threading or backing off on the cap.

    In this area also, McLaren has apparently not had his findings confirmed by the Swiss manufacturer despite the fact that the company states: "The specialists at Berlinger Special AG are able at any time to determine whether one of the company's sample bottles has been tampered with or unlawfully replicated."

    If the findings of McLaren's "marks and scratches expert" are accurate, why did they not get confirmation from the specialists at Berlinger? Perhaps it is because Berlinger disputes McLaren's claims and says "Our kits are secure."

    The IPC decision substantially rests on the fact-challenged McLaren report. The IPC statement falsely claims that the McLaren bottle top "scratches and marks" expert has "corroborated the claim that the State directed scheme involved Russian Paralympic athletes."

    Rush to Judgment

    The IPC report includes data that purports to show widespread doping manipulation in Russia, saying: "Professor McLaren provided the names of the athletes associated with the 35 samples and whether the sample had been marked QUARANTINE or SAVE." These 35 samples are presumably the same Paralympic 35 which are identified on page 41 of the McLaren Report as being "Disappearing Positive Test Results by Sport Russian Athletes."

    There is no source for this data but supposedly it covers testing between 2012 and 2015. McLaren provided another 10 samples thus making 45 samples relating to 44 athletes.

    It is then explained that 17 of these samples are actually not from IPC administered sport. So the actual number is 27 athletes (44-minus-17) implicated. However, in another inconsistency, the IPC statement says not all these samples were marked "SAVE" by Moscow Laboratory. That was only done for "at least" 11 of the samples and athletes.

    If the IPC final number is accurate, it means the committee confirmed 11 Paralympic athletes who tested positive between 2012 and 2015 but had their positive tests "disappeared" to allow these athletes to compete. If that's true, these athletes should be suspended or banned. Instead of doing that, the IPC banned the entire 267-member Russian Paralympic team.

    The McLaren Report looks like a rush to judgment. The report was launched after the sensational New York Times story based on Grigory Rodchenkov and the "60 Minutes" segment based on the Stepanovs. Before he was half way done his investigation, Richard McLaren was advising the IAAF to ban the entire Russian team.

    The McLaren Report, with all its flaws and shortcomings, was published just a few weeks ago on July 16. Then, on Aug. 7, the IPC issued its decision to ban the Russian Paralympic Team from the September Rio Paralympics.

    The IPC statement claims that the committee "provided sufficient time to allow the Russian Paralympic Committee to present their case to the IPC" before they finalized the decision. While the Russian Paralympic Committee appeared before the IPC, it's doubtful they had sufficient time to argue their case or even to know the details of the accusations.

    In summary, the accusation of Russian "state sponsored doping" by McLaren and Craven is based on little solid evidence. Despite this, the accusations have resulted in the banning of many hundreds of clean athletes from the Olympics and Paralympics and are contributing to the ugly "ant-Russian" prejudice and discrimination happening at the Olympics right now.

    This seems to violate the purpose of the Olympics movement which is to promote international peace, not conflict and discrimination.

    Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist. He can be contacted at [email protected]

    [Aug 13, 2016] Media Builds Up Enemies For Hillarys Wars

    Notable quotes:
    "... What struck me in the article was a conflict between attributing the DNC hack and a possible Clinton hack that the authors didn't even attempt to address. They claim analysts are very confident that Russian hackers, working for the government, hacked the DNC. But as to the possibility that anyone hacked Clinton's private server; well, if they did, they would have been way to savvy to leave any traces that they'd done so. A DNC hack; those sloppy Russian government hackers did it. A personal server; a real pro job. ..."
    "... Hillary - if elected - will inherit economy in recession or on the brink of it, and her main preoccupation will be dealing with mounting domestic unrest, as well as with the wars she'll inherit from Obama. However she may want to, she'll be in no position to start another war. ..."
    "... The US Dept of State is an equal-opportunity criminal syndicate ..."
    "... There is always money for war, just no money for commons. ..."
    "... Amazing how even the most obvious facts are denied by the largest margin of people - in spite of the truth being available to the contrary. People believed Goebbels and are now believing the propaganda from the cesspool of the totalitarian establishment, because they WANT TO. ..."
    "... Regarding the to Nazi-standards evolving propaganda of the Western establishment, it would be helpful if people would stop 'googling' misinformation from the CIA 'search' engine aka data collection agency. There are other search engines available that will not skew the results. ..."
    "... Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting. ..."
    "... ...New emails showing ( the worse evil ) Hillarys lies and corruption would be perfect PR to highlight for one of Trump's principle core messages of Washintons and especially Hitlarys corruption. ..."
    "... The war monger industries, think tanks, and DOD want a bigger war. They don't have to kill Obama, they are waiting for the Killary and are using every dirty trick to get her elected. ..."
    "... We're sort of behind schedule on that DoD memo that Wesley Clark saw after 9/11 that said the US would "take out" seven countries in five years. Iraq, Syria, and Libya are basket cases. Somalia and Sudan aren't much better. That leaves Lebanon and Iran. ..."
    "... People know that those aren't true threats to us so following the Brzezinski/PNAC doctrine of not allowing any country to rise in any region leads us to real powers Russia and China. I wonder if Vegas has any odds on which country we'll be at war with next. And will we do it directly or via some sad-sack like Ukraine? ..."
    "... Excellent points. The propaganda process to convince the American people to accept war with Russia (Syria and Iran) has been going on for several years now (the military budgets are just beginning their upward ramp due to Russia). The process is nearly identical to what Bush and the neocons did with Saddam and the invasion of Iraq. And propaganda through the mass media is effective--upwards to 70% of the American people supported Bush's invasion. ..."
    "... Hillary's brain will not survive the pressure of a presidency when half the country thinks she is liar and untrustworthy. Her health is already suspicious and she may collapse after her election as there would be huge demands on her. The next president of the USA won't be Hillary Clinton for long, it will be Tim Kayne. ..."
    "... No doubt there could well be a lot more in what The Don doesn't say. But this election will be about low voter turn out. Record lows. Everyone is nauseous. Trump has his cult following. Hilary disgraced the Bernistas - none of them will vote for Hilary. Hilary has no one except the neocon rats who have jumped ship. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's Embrace of Kissinger Is Inexcusable. Bernie Sanders should call on her to repudiate him as the war criminal he is. https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clintons-embrace-of-kissinger-is-inexcusable/ ..."
    "... As for the discussion on running out of money for wars ... well al-CIAduh/IS is much cheaper than the US uniformed armed forces, or the same people through the revolving door fighting as mercenaries. The KSA/GCC have been footing the bill ... because the same forces they're directing outwards will devastate them if and when they turn around and go for them directly. As times get harder for al-CIAduh/IS ... up against the Russians, Syrians, Iranians, Hezbulla ... it's got to occur to them that there's a much easier, much larger paycheck available in turning around and robbing the bank that's been feeding them rations. ..."
    "... William Casey-CIA Director "We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ..."
    "... William Casey-CIA Director "We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ..."
    "... The New York Times is selling a world-view. You can't sell anyone anything they don't want to buy. The American public, having detected that their leaders have no idea how to bring them safely out of the wood of the "new economics", of the air economy, is begging to be told a story that - if we all close our eyes and believe real hard - will bring magic, fairy princess economy back to life. Life was OK ... nostalgia makes it better ... back when we used to hate the Russians. Let's hate 'em again. It's kind of a cargo cult mentality. ..."
    "... Many times, back then, I would confront my comrades with the assertion that the mass produced media outlets (MPMO), such as the New York Times were nothing more than propaganda machines. "Hip" as they might have been, they just could not handle this concept. ..."
    "... I also investigated the world of the eleetoids very deeply -- and I had several unique opportunities to do so. They are certainly not at all like us. They are generally quite vain and oddly shallow. Money, power, and organized violence are one and the same to them. Wall Street, Washington D.C., and the pentagon constellation are all on the same page. Crucially, none of these eleetoids is anywhere near what could be deemed sane. Their minds are profoundly warped just because they are what they are. ..."
    "... And they are easily capable of setting off Armageddon. War and the proliferation of misery is not their goal in the end, much worse, it is simply a consequence, a symptom if you will, of their insanity. ..."
    "... WADC and NYC attract psychopathy, so naturally our two choices for November are Alpha Psychopaths. That doesn't mean that the necrotic American ship of state will alter its course, only settle lower in the water, come to a gradual stop, tip downward at the bow, and then break in half. The psychopaths are The Vampire and will fly away, caww, caww, caww, leaving all the hoi polloi, the Little People, to drink and to drown. ..."
    "... In some ways the rules of engagement for Syria are reminiscent of the restrictions placed on U.S. special operators in El Salvador in the 1980s. The U.S. forces in that tiny country helped train the embattled government's counter-insurgency forces. But they were not allowed to go into battle with the forces they trained. ..."
    "... The people who have brainwashed the Americans are the problem just like in Hitler's time. Those global plutocratic families have been controlling the narrative for centuries and they seem to have convinced you it is the US citizens who are to blame for falling for the propaganda this time. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Another example that so-called news in U.S. media is often more propaganda than valid information is this NYT piece on the "hack" of the Democratic National Committee:

    WASHINGTON - A Russian cyberattack that targeted Democratic politicians was bigger than it first appeared and breached the private email accounts of more than 100 party officials and groups, officials with knowledge of the case said Wednesday.
    ...

    A "Russian cyberattack"? How can the NYT claim such, in an opening paragraph, when even the Director of U.S. National Intelligence is unable to make such a judgement?

    Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, speaking about the hack of Democratic Party emails, said on Thursday the U.S. intelligence community was not ready to "make the call on attribution" as to who was responsible.

    All the NYT lays out to backup its claim of a "Russian" hack is an anonymous Intelligence Committee staffer who claims U.S. intelligence agencies "have virtually no doubt" about it. If that were true why would the boss of these intelligence agencies publicly point out such doubts?

    There is not even any evidence that the publishing of emails incriminating the DNC for manipulating the Democratic primaries were the result of any "hack". It might have well been an insider who copied the material and handed them to Wikileaks for publication. After the leak the DNC data analyst Seth Rich was mutilated and murdered near his home in Washington DC. The case was obviously no robbery. Julian Assange of Wikileaks pointed out that the circumstances of Rich's death are suspicious. I first attributed that claim to Assange's typical exaggerations, but the facts speak for themselves. The case indeed looks very much like a targeted killing. Who did it and and why?

    The "Russia is guilty" claim for whatever happened, without any proof, is becoming a daily diet fed to the "western" public. A similar theme is the "barrel bombing" of (the always same ) "hospitals" in Syria which is claimed whenever the Syrian government or its allies hit some al-Qaeda headquarter .

    All this propaganda is in preparation of the rule of the " We came, we saw, he died. Hahaha ... " psychopathic queen of war Hillary Clinton.

    As Marc Wheeler, aka emptywheel, reminds us:

    6:13 AM - 10 Aug 2016 emptywheel @emptywheel

    The actions to ensure we will escalate our wars are being taken as we speak. January will be too late to stop it.

    Posted by b at 11:42 AM | Comments (74)

    IhaveLittleToAdd | Aug 11, 2016 12:00:03 PM | 2

    What struck me in the article was a conflict between attributing the DNC hack and a possible Clinton hack that the authors didn't even attempt to address. They claim analysts are very confident that Russian hackers, working for the government, hacked the DNC. But as to the possibility that anyone hacked Clinton's private server; well, if they did, they would have been way to savvy to leave any traces that they'd done so. A DNC hack; those sloppy Russian government hackers did it. A personal server; a real pro job.
    telescope | Aug 11, 2016 12:39:23 PM | 6
    Hillary - if elected - will inherit economy in recession or on the brink of it, and her main preoccupation will be dealing with mounting domestic unrest, as well as with the wars she'll inherit from Obama. However she may want to, she'll be in no position to start another war.

    America is in severe and accelerating decline, and simply has no resources for more wars.

    Noirette | Aug 11, 2016 1:17:21 PM | 8
    The Dems and Repubs. always vie to wage the 'best, most just, necessary, wars.' Wars as in merciless bombing and decimation and installation of a puppet Gvmt, not against and adversary who presents a threat.

    For B. Clinton, that was smashing Yugoslavia (plus various other, Africa etc.), while later the Repub. Bushies concentrated on Iraq (but see Billy C on that, plus Iran sanctions…) and Afghanistan. The two join together under Obama-Killary: Lybia and Syria. (Leaving much aside.)

    Not of course that IRL the division is clear, it isn't, but that is what is used to bamboozle the public. One war is baaaad, horrible, another is ee-ssential for security, and so all grinds on, with one switch after another, year by year, nothing changes, with millions of deaths, maimed, displaced, landscapes, agriculture, towns, whole countries, destroyed.

    ruralito | Aug 11, 2016 1:20:42 PM | 9
    @5 The US Dept of State is an equal-opportunity criminal syndicate.
    fastfreddy | Aug 11, 2016 2:30:23 PM | 14
    6 America is in severe and accelerating decline, and simply has no resources for more wars.

    America prints fiat currency at will and posts numbers on computer terminals. The value of this currency is indicated by its position as the petro-dollar. This arrangement is enforced by American hegemony and illegitimate partnerships with other despotic governments which support and maintain it's dominance as the world's most important currency.

    There is always money for war, just no money for commons.

    Yul | Aug 11, 2016 4:09:31 PM | 20
    The new defender of Al-Qa'ida in Syria:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNkmQzc9vxI

    CNN Clarissa Ward.
    Guess with Tayyip changing his Emperor clothes, Holly Williams can't do the same for CBS

    Stillnottheonly1 | Aug 11, 2016 4:33:03 PM | 21
    Amazing how even the most obvious facts are denied by the largest margin of people - in spite of the truth being available to the contrary. People believed Goebbels and are now believing the propaganda from the cesspool of the totalitarian establishment, because they WANT TO.

    Anybody that has ever had, or still has a shred of critical thinking left, will KNOW. The totalitarian, corporate establishment, that has been inbreeding since thousands of years, is going for the kill. The kill of 'democracy', the kill of freedom of speech, the killing of the 'pursuit of happiness' and a new cold war among the different ethnicities on planet earth.

    Therefore the so called 'racists' are actually 'Ethnicists' - denying ethnicities differing from the white man the right to live. The right to exterminate non-white sub-humans at will.

    Regarding the to Nazi-standards evolving propaganda of the Western establishment, it would be helpful if people would stop 'googling' misinformation from the CIA 'search' engine aka data collection agency. There are other search engines available that will not skew the results.

    This is the result in regards to the tactics of the Western establishments' propaganda: It's called 'Psychological Projection' and has worked for millennia. To find out more about it, one can look at the Wikipedia entry, or search anew for other sources:

    Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

    tom | Aug 11, 2016 4:54:27 PM | 23
    ...New emails showing ( the worse evil ) Hillarys lies and corruption would be perfect PR to highlight for one of Trump's principle core messages of Washintons and especially Hitlarys corruption. But no instead of sitting back and letting the new corruption unfold for himself to take advantage, the moronic narcissistic Trump has to make it about him self again by saying his idiocies and outrages which diverts from his core message that got him so much success.

    Trump(et) needs to rely on getting fake liberals to be discouraged, apathetic or a vote for third party, but Trump the King moron himself is driving these people into Hillarys camp.

    AriusArmenian | Aug 11, 2016 5:39:23 PM | 25
    The transition from Obama to Hillary mirrors the transition from Kennedy to Johnson. The war monger industries, think tanks, and DOD want a bigger war. They don't have to kill Obama, they are waiting for the Killary and are using every dirty trick to get her elected. Much bigger wars are coming after January.
    Jackrabbit | Aug 11, 2016 5:55:19 PM | 27
    Rg the Lg @15:
    ... ethnic cleansing that the modern Israeli's simply copy ...
    Here we go with the US-Israel equivalence meme that is being pushed by the usual suspects. As though nothing was learned in the last 80-120 years or so. If that were so, then Israel might find itself in an even more precarious position. Actually, some might well say that Israel is turning back the clock to pre-modern times, and joining with other reactionary forces to do so.
    Curtis | Aug 11, 2016 6:10:31 PM | 29
    We're sort of behind schedule on that DoD memo that Wesley Clark saw after 9/11 that said the US would "take out" seven countries in five years. Iraq, Syria, and Libya are basket cases. Somalia and Sudan aren't much better. That leaves Lebanon and Iran.

    People know that those aren't true threats to us so following the Brzezinski/PNAC doctrine of not allowing any country to rise in any region leads us to real powers Russia and China. I wonder if Vegas has any odds on which country we'll be at war with next. And will we do it directly or via some sad-sack like Ukraine?

    paulmeli | Aug 11, 2016 6:27:08 PM | 32
    "There is always money for war, just no money for commons."

    A political choice. We can always (or should be able to) buy everything we can produce. Odd that we can't.

    Erelis | Aug 11, 2016 7:42:55 PM | 34
    @ Casowary Gentry |

    Excellent points. The propaganda process to convince the American people to accept war with Russia (Syria and Iran) has been going on for several years now (the military budgets are just beginning their upward ramp due to Russia). The process is nearly identical to what Bush and the neocons did with Saddam and the invasion of Iraq. And propaganda through the mass media is effective--upwards to 70% of the American people supported Bush's invasion.

    January is already too late as this process has been going on for several years. The hysteria is now building to a crescendo and is pretty much impossible to stop with reasoned arguments.

    Speaking of influencing elections. The Ukrano-nazis look to be building up troop levels on the Crimean border to show off horrible Russian/Putin aggression. Looks like the Ukrano-nazis are willing to kill off a bunch of their own soldiers for propaganda effect.

    virgile | Aug 11, 2016 7:48:32 PM | 35
    Hillary's brain will not survive the pressure of a presidency when half the country thinks she is liar and untrustworthy. Her health is already suspicious and she may collapse after her election as there would be huge demands on her. The next president of the USA won't be Hillary Clinton for long, it will be Tim Kayne.
    MadMax2 | Aug 11, 2016 7:51:15 PM | 36
    @22 tom

    No doubt there could well be a lot more in what The Don doesn't say. But this election will be about low voter turn out. Record lows. Everyone is nauseous. Trump has his cult following. Hilary disgraced the Bernistas - none of them will vote for Hilary. Hilary has no one except the neocon rats who have jumped ship.

    Will she be able to excite Obamas #HopeAndChange army...? I don't see them getting out of bed sorry - and it's why you see #NeverTrump. It doesn't matter what Trump does, dem voter turn out will be at historic lows.

    virgile | Aug 11, 2016 8:32:14 PM | 37
    Hillary Clinton's Embrace of Kissinger Is Inexcusable. Bernie Sanders should call on her to repudiate him as the war criminal he is. https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clintons-embrace-of-kissinger-is-inexcusable/
    From The Hague | Aug 11, 2016 10:15:06 PM | 39
    @37 January will be too late to what?

    Trump wants John Bolton as Secretary of State????
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/08/11/trump-of-course-i-didnt-mean-to-incite-violence-against-hillary-n2203833
    video: about 03:00 - about 05:00

    Then there will be no difference:
    - continuation of horror and terror in MENO;
    - military tensions with Russia and China.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/the-only-mistake-of-the-iraq-war-was-that-we-didnt-get-rid-of-sa/

    Alison DeBeers | Aug 11, 2016 10:43:22 PM | 42
    The Guardian stated yesterday that Putin is ramping up for the 'invasion' (sic) of Crimea, but went out of their way to leave the impression it was a Russian invasion, and not invasion by NATO, behind a current World Bank-funded $10Bs looted from US taxpayers to rebuild Eastern Ukraine roads and bridges to military load capacity, ... just another wholly illegal and pro-war act by the ZIMF-WB to an unconstitutional dual-Israel junta coup leadership in Kiev, and made in violation to a non-NATO state, with no expectation the 'loans' would ever be paid back, ...just as $35B IMF loaned, then Kerry backstopped with US taxpayer savings, will never be repaid. Ever.

    The 'War of Crimea' is necessary for many political purposes, but primarily to cover up that July 2015 looting of $50B from the US Treasury by Kerry and the RINO Congress for war grift to Ukraine that will never be repaid, stolen from SS and disability funds.

    And behind that War of Crimea will come a US Militarized Police State of One Thousand Years, to cover The Chosen's wholly illegal, usurious, odious, onerous synthetic CDS 'scheme' to transfer all of WS's Exceptionalist *gambling debts* onto the backs of our grandchildren, when WS should be tarred and feathered, then beaten with birch switches.

    Instead, we get US Congress bleeting for Bibi and clapping at attention until the blood runs from their fingernails down their arms, afraid to be the first to stop clapping. New America is Kim Jung Un on steroids in 2017.

    Tick tock! What's the plan to protect the US Constitution? Where's the patriot sitrep?

    jfl | Aug 11, 2016 10:54:52 PM | 43
    This stuff pervades the corporate media across the board : A Rush to Judgment on Russian Doping . If war is the continuation of politics by other means, 'news' is the continuation of war by other means.

    As for the discussion on running out of money for wars ... well al-CIAduh/IS is much cheaper than the US uniformed armed forces, or the same people through the revolving door fighting as mercenaries. The KSA/GCC have been footing the bill ... because the same forces they're directing outwards will devastate them if and when they turn around and go for them directly.

    As times get harder for al-CIAduh/IS ... up against the Russians, Syrians, Iranians, Hezbulla ... it's got to occur to them that there's a much easier, much larger paycheck available in turning around and robbing the bank that's been feeding them rations.

    When the oil-archies go up in smoke the free for all will begin in earnest ... 'protecting world security'. Then US/Israeli troops will land in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar put out the fires, grab the checkbooks, reseat their clients under the new dispensation. That'll be their plan anyway. As Obama said, Hillary's will be his third term ... they hope. Pick the low-hanging fruit on the way to Moscow and Beijing.

    I liked the guy with the videos of no people at the Hillary rally. I liked Newt comparing Trump to Truman ... they do seem so alike, on more than the Dewey Defeats Truman level. Harry was as utterly unprepared as Donald is to be POTUS, and was whipsawed by the same old domestic gangsters oblivious to the consequences of their free-flowing gravy-train at home.

    @39 fth

    Good to see you've seen the light.

    We don't have to make a binary choice . We can uproot the seemingly divinely dictated dichotomy . It will take ten or twelve years to do it ... thank goodness for the "founding fathers'" oversight, allowing a two-year election cycle ... but that's not so long. If we'd begun in 2004 we'd be home by now.

    bbbb | Aug 11, 2016 11:24:43 PM | 46
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/08/stunning_revelation_wikileaks_hack_shows_that_soros_called_the_shots_on_us_policy_toward_albania.html

    ^^^^^BIG revelation IMHO.

    GoraDiva | Aug 12, 2016 1:04:02 AM | 48
    While a good post, I wonder why b. would say "I first attributed that claim to Assange's typical exaggerations..." I've not found him to exaggerate, typically, but I have found the MSM to want us to believe that he does... Also, it is Marcy Wheeler (a woman), not Marc (this mistake has been made here before).
    A friend in Silicon Valley - with a seven-member family all voting for B Sanders - reported that there seemed to be little doubt primaries were stolen. His polling station was managed by guys with IT background (S. Valley, after all) - who witnessed manipulations, including the purging of all provisional ballots.
    Tom Murphy | Aug 12, 2016 1:13:36 AM | 49
    Exactly. NYT Leads With Russia Hack Conspiracy–Despite 'No Evidence' (in Next-to-Last Paragraph) We need to work to prevent a Hillary presidency: HIGHLIGHTS of Jill Stein Speaking BEFORE her Acceptance Speech at Green Party Convention

    William Casey-CIA Director "We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

    okie farmer | Aug 12, 2016 3:15:40 AM | 50

    William Casey-CIA Director "We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
    jfl | Aug 12, 2016 3:34:25 AM | 51
    The bottom line on this is ... ya gotta wanna believe. The New York Times is selling a world-view. You can't sell anyone anything they don't want to buy. The American public, having detected that their leaders have no idea how to bring them safely out of the wood of the "new economics", of the air economy, is begging to be told a story that - if we all close our eyes and believe real hard - will bring magic, fairy princess economy back to life. Life was OK ... nostalgia makes it better ... back when we used to hate the Russians. Let's hate 'em again. It's kind of a cargo cult mentality.

    A measure of just how disjoint we all are. There's no there there where our memories of America were, we need a magic spell to bring tinker belle back to life, so we can fly back to never-never land again, live happily ever after. Things are very, very bad for the USA.

    Alison DeBeers | Aug 12, 2016 3:37:55 AM | 52
    49

    Your buddy and mine, ZH Khalizhad, 10 Years After:

    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a325070.pdf

    Rabels | Aug 12, 2016 4:27:54 AM | 53
    Another hypocrite-liberal-warmonger-idiot michael moore supports hillary,
    http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160812/1044183819/michael-moore-ivanka.html
    blues | Aug 12, 2016 5:19:22 AM | 54
    I was an anti-Vietnam war protester. For the most part we were very loosely organized, or even not at all organized. We were hippies, doing the whole mid-60s to mid-70s thing. Our city decided to actually have the fire department stage a pro-war protest -- Strange times indeed!

    Many times, back then, I would confront my comrades with the assertion that the mass produced media outlets (MPMO), such as the New York Times were nothing more than propaganda machines. "Hip" as they might have been, they just could not handle this concept. They were totally appalled that I could dare to claim this. I was sort of like their first "conspiracy theorist". The comments above reveal how times have changed. Even if they are still in psychological thrall to the propaganda machinery, the seed of dark doubt has now been sewn in their bewildered hearts.

    I also investigated the world of the eleetoids very deeply -- and I had several unique opportunities to do so. They are certainly not at all like us. They are generally quite vain and oddly shallow. Money, power, and organized violence are one and the same to them. Wall Street, Washington D.C., and the pentagon constellation are all on the same page. Crucially, none of these eleetoids is anywhere near what could be deemed sane. Their minds are profoundly warped just because they are what they are.

    And they are easily capable of setting off Armageddon. War and the proliferation of misery is not their goal in the end, much worse, it is simply a consequence, a symptom if you will, of their insanity.

    ProPeace | Aug 12, 2016 7:40:22 AM | 56
    @blues | Aug 12, 2016 5:19:22 AM | 54 "I was an anti-Vietnam war protester.

    God bless you for that.

    I'm still shocked how many people in Israel, Ukraine, ME, the Commonwealth, USA, Poland, are eager to go to war because of twisted ideologies, money, stupidity, or some inner demons, sinful desires.

    May be we need another war after all, just to get rid of them, since they pose a mortal danger to their host societies and cannot be restored to humanity in peaceful ways?

    ProPeace | Aug 12, 2016 8:36:03 AM | 57
    Assuming, of course, it will only be them who get to die.
    dahoit | Aug 12, 2016 9:46:45 AM | 58

    39;How does John Bolton fit with Trumps call for better Russian relations?I'd say he's thinking of him like he thought of Newt, which is not much.

    He does have to placate the warmongers a little bit,or else they'll call him soft on terror.
    Stop getting hysterical over unknown unknowns.:)

    He said he was being sarcastic about Obomba and IsUS,but again,like a jury,the American people are given info that can't be taken back.Of course its true,and I guarantee it will come up again,as we are still almost 3 months to the election.

    And the propaganda,as someone mentioned,is unbelievable,and yes the word should be stricken from the rolls.

    Alison DeBeers | Aug 12, 2016 9:50:50 AM | 59
    54

    WADC and NYC attract psychopathy, so naturally our two choices for November are Alpha Psychopaths. That doesn't mean that the necrotic American ship of state will alter its course, only settle lower in the water, come to a gradual stop, tip downward at the bow, and then break in half. The psychopaths are The Vampire and will fly away, caww, caww, caww, leaving all the hoi polloi, the Little People, to drink and to drown.

    Alison DeBeers | Aug 12, 2016 10:13:17 AM | 60
    15

    WADC

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol2/globalelite177_04.jpg

    Les | Aug 12, 2016 11:52:23 AM | 61
    In some ways the rules of engagement for Syria are reminiscent of the restrictions placed on U.S. special operators in El Salvador in the 1980s. The U.S. forces in that tiny country helped train the embattled government's counter-insurgency forces. But they were not allowed to go into battle with the forces they trained.

    Roger Carstens, a former lieutenant colonel for the Green Berets who trained local forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, told me there are good battlefield reasons for allowing the adviser to fight with the forces he trains. "They gain legitimacy and credibility and they show your partner forces that you share the risk," he said.

    Carstens also said that fighting alongside indigenous troops is a kind of vetting process. "The instructor gets to see whether the forces he is training have absorbed their training," which he said is important to evaluate how effective they are.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-11/orders-for-u-s-forces-in-syria-don-t-get-shot

    paulmeli | Aug 12, 2016 12:15:29 PM | 62
    ff @32…"every nation is in heavy debt!"

    This is debatable and a lot of nuance is absent from the statement. All debt is not the same, and in fact for a sovereign that has only liabilities in it's own currency the only debt that matters is that owed by the citizens to private banks. Will wait for an open thread to revisit.

    From The Hague | Aug 12, 2016 4:54:59 PM | 64
    @41 Hoarsewhisperer
    @43 jfl
    @58 dahoit

    The Americans are the problem. They're not interested in foreign policy. So if Trump can give them jobs and safety abroad, he may bomb the rest of the world. We can't exclude he appoints a person like John Bolton.

    psychohistorian | Aug 12, 2016 5:47:35 PM | 65
    @ From the Hague wrote "The Americans are the problem".............

    The people who have brainwashed the Americans are the problem just like in Hitler's time. Those global plutocratic families have been controlling the narrative for centuries and they seem to have convinced you it is the US citizens who are to blame for falling for the propaganda this time.

    We will never overcome the Western sick form of social organization if we continue to blame the wrong folks. We need to end private finance and return all those grifted earnings to the global commons along with neutering inheritance globally so no one individually/family can control social policy.

    And then the media would not be the brainwashing mechanism it is now building credence for more wars.

    [Aug 13, 2016] Downing Street-controlled BBC disapproves the thawing of relations between Russia and Turkey

    w_page_12.htmhttps:

    Warren , August 12, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Downing Street-controlled BBC disapproves the thawing of relations between Russia and Turkey.

    Russia and Turkey: An 'alliance of misfits'?

    It was a gesture that ended a crisis. The leaders of Russia and Turkey met on Tuesday to shake hands and declare a formal end to an eight-month long war of words and economic sanctions.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37045724

    [Aug 13, 2016] One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance

    Arguments of Sanders supporters against Hillary are not perfectly applicable to Hillary vs Trump contest.
    Notable quotes:
    "... If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere. ..."
    "... You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what party is in office. ..."
    "... What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . ..."
    "... Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change and motives of votes become transparent. ..."
    "... the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. ..."
    "... I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc. ..."
    "... I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences . ..."
    "... One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? ..."
    "... Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance. ..."
    "... Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well. Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and Independents is already under way. This is one of the forms it may take. ..."
    "... Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance. Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified relief by western representatives. ..."
    "... Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged and non powerful in todays' America. ..."
    "... If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. ..."
    "... Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it). ..."
    "... Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST. ..."
    "... Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures. But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive. ..."
    May 06, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Kevin P Brown Carly435 , 2016-05-05 19:28:39

    Robin is relentless is arguing AGAINST, but he is quite light on arguing for anything. It is an interesting question as to what he stands for.

    His main argument is that zero information from "right wing" press is true. He seems unaware that at times, actual facts are presented or not presented or suppressed by either media outlet, depending on their corporate ownership and management slant of what should be reported. Me? I read everything and decide if something is a fact. It is strange that factual reporting about the actual many many FOIA lawsuits only gets printed in right wing press. They of course have an agenda, but does not negate the facts they report. Like Clinton being allowed to be deposed in a civil FOIA suit. That is a fact, with quotes from the Judge. CNN? I guess they couldn't afford to report this factual development.

    When you only read the press looking for a partisan set of narratives, you end up being partisan and ill informed. When you read all the flavours of press in an desire to inform yourself, when your goal is not a narrative but factual accounts of the truth, then you can be better informed. So we have partisans, who only view Fox and we also have partisans who only view CNN. Both are as bad as each other. One must be capable of decreeing the motives of each, and discarding the nonfactual narratives, and then one can be fully informed.

    Robin makes the assumption that facts only occur in his selected set of informational partisan sources. Why? Because he is partisan. This then enables him to argue against a narrative, rather than support his own narrative. He plays the neat trick of simply discarding any factual reporting from places like Breibart. One can see interesting lacks of coverage on google search.

    Kevin P Brown RobInTN , 2016-05-05 19:19:20
    "Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."

    So surely in America, Clinton with her wealth would take some legal action? I would if I had her money, and wealth. Interesting that she has not? Perhaps you could write to her and suggest she defend herself in a real and palpable way?

    dutchview lsbg_t , 2016-05-05 18:17:57
    Yes and a lot of the press are trying to bury the news about another Sanders success. When you look at how many voting districts he comes out top in, in is a large percentage. Clinton tends to get closer or take the district if their is a higher population density.

    The influence of the super delegates is a scandal in a "democratic process".

    Vladimir Makarenko digit , 2016-05-05 17:00:45
    First I would be very careful taking what G gives, it is nowadays "fixing" news like Fox. Most reliable, if speaking about polls the word can be used, is results of metastudies:

    Both give today's Clinton of 6% when Sanders is whopping 13+%

    So when Hillary's shills preaching how easily she "beats" Trump, they lie. Only Bernie can do this or or see Oval Office moved to Atlantic City.

    luminog simpledino , 2016-05-05 12:48:54
    If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere.

    Clinton won't cut it and she won't beat Trump. Trump will out her on every crooked deal she has been involved in.

    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 12:23:14
    You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what party is in office.

    Is this is a Fox News plant article? yeah yeah, let's vote Clinton who promises a continuation of Obama's policies. Will Trump make this much worse? Maybe. Trump or Clinton will in my opinion do little to improve these issues quoted below. You have a different opinion. Great.

    " http://www.blackpressusa.com/is-black-america-better-off-under-obama /

    "Like the rest of America, Black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when I came into office," said President Obama on December 19, in response to a question by Urban Radio Networks White House Correspondent April Ryan.

    What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office illustrates that.

    • Unemployment. The average Black unemployment under President Bush was 10 percent. The average under President Obama after six years is 14 percent. Black unemployment, "has always been double" [that of Whites] but it hasn't always been 14 percent. The administration was silent when Black unemployment hit 16 percent – a 27-year high – in late 2011 .
    • Poverty. The percentage of Blacks in poverty in 2009 was 25 percent; it is now 27 percent. The issue of poverty is rarely mentioned by the president or any members of his cabinet. Currently, more than 45 million people – 1 in 7 Americans – live below the poverty line.
    • The Black/White Wealth Gap. The wealth gap between Blacks and Whites in America is at a 24-year high. A December study by PEW Research Center revealed the average White household is worth $141,900, and the average Black household is worth $11,000. From 2010 to 2013, the median income for Black households plunged 9 percent.
    • Income inequality. "Between 2009 and 2012 the top one percent of Americans enjoyed 95 percent of all income gains, according to research from U.C. Berkeley," reported The Atlantic. It was the worst since 1928. As income inequality has widened during President Obama's time in office, the president has endorsed tax policy that has widened inequality, such as the Bush Tax cuts.
    • Education: The high school dropout rate has improved during the Obama administration. However, currently 42 percent of Black children attend high poverty schools, compared to only 6 percent of White students. The Department of Education's change to Parent PLUS loans requirements cost HBCU's more than $150 million and interrupted the educations of 28,000-plus HBCU students.
    • SBA Loans. In March 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that only 1.7 percent of $23 billion in SBA loans went to Black-owned businesses in 2013, the lowest loan of SBA lending to Black businesses on record. During the Bush presidency, the percentage of SBA loans to Black businesses was 8 percent – more than four times the Obama rate.
    Kevin P Brown Kevin P Brown , 2016-05-05 12:16:44
    "All the equations showed strikingly uni- form statistical results: racism as we have measured it was a significantly disequalizing force on the white income distribution, even when other factors were held constant. A 1 percent increase in the ratio of black to white median incomes (that is, a 1 percent decrease in racism) was associated with a .2 percent decrease in white inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient. The corresponding effect on top 1 percent share of white income was two and a half times as large, indicating that most of the inequality among whites generated by racism was associated with increased income for the richest 1 percent of white families. Further statistical investigation reveals that increases in the racism variable had an insignifi- cant effect on the. share received by the poorest whites and resulted in a decrease in the income share of the whites in the middle income brackets."
    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 12:16:13
    "What I said, and still maintain, is that the struggle against racism is as important as the struggle against other forms of oppression, including those with economic and financial causes."

    We can agree on this statement. However, do we need to recognise that legislation alone will not solve racism. A percentage of poor people turn against the "other" and apportion blame for their issues.

    http://tomweston.net/ReichRacism.pdf

    Try reading this.

    " that campaign finance and banking reform will fix everything"

    Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change and motives of votes become transparent.

    "The various forms of discrimination are not separable in real life. Employers' hiring and promotion practices; resource allocation in city schools; the structure of transportation sys- tems; residential segregation and housing quality; availability of decent health care; be- havior of policemen and judges; foremen's prejudices; images of blacks presented in the media and the schools; price gouging in ghetto stores-these and the other forms of social and economic discrimination interact strongly with each other in determining the occupational status and annual income, and welfare, of black people. The processes are not simply additive but are mutually reinforcing. Often, a decrease in one narrow form of discrimination is accompanied by an increase in another form. Since all aspects of racism interact, an analysis of racism should incorporate all its as- pects in a unified manner."

    My thesis is this: build economic equality and the the pressing toxins of racism diminish. But yeah dismiss Sanders as a one issue candidate. he is a politician, which I acknowledge. He has a different approach to clinton who will micro triangulate constantly depending on who she in front of. I find his approach ore honest. Your mileage may vary.

    " money spent on campaigns does not correlate very highly to winning"

    No but overall money gets to decide on a narrow set of compliance in the candidates. But it still correlates to winning. Look at the Greens with no cash. Without the cash, they will never win. Sanders has proved that 1. We do not need to depend on the rich power brokers to select narrowly who will be presented as a candidate. 2. He has proved that a voter can donate and compete with corporate donations. I would rather scads of voter cash financing rather than corporate cash buying influence. ABSCAM was a brief flash, never repeated to show us what really happens in back rooms when a wad of cash arrives with a politician. That we cannot PROVE what happens off the grid, we can and should rely on common sense about the influence of money. 85% of the American people believe cash buys influence. The only influence on a politician should be the will of the people. Sure, corporates can speak. Speech is free. Corporate cash as speech is a different matter. It is a moral corruption.

    "most contributions come after electoral success"

    Yes part of the implied contract of corporates and people like the Koch Brothers: Look after us and we will look after you. We will keep you in power, as long as you slant the legislation to favour us over the voters.

    You do realise the Clinton Foundation bought the assets of the DLC, a defunct organisation. Part of the assets are the documents and records that contain the information about the Koch Brothers donations and their executives joining the "management" of the DLC. Why would a Charity be interested in the DLC documents? Ah it is a Clinton Foundation. Yeah yeah, there is no proof of anything is there. No law was broken. Do I smell something ? Does human nature guide my interpretation absent a clear statement from the Foundation of this "investment"?? Yes.

    We have to start SOMEWHERE. Root causes are the best place to start.

    Democrat or Republican, Blacks and Whites at the bottom are thrown in a race for the bottom and this helps fuel the impoverishment of both. It is fuel to feed racism. My genuine belief.

    digit Vladimir Makarenko , 2016-05-05 12:07:33
    Sorry, I mean, here .
    buttonbasher81 o_lobo_solitario , 2016-05-05 12:06:44
    Why is it wrong for democrats to pick their own party leader? Also Obama beat Hilary last time so what's Bernies problem now? Also why moan about a system that's been in place for decades now, surely the onus was on Sanders to attract more middle of the road dem voters? Finally I'm sure republicans would also love to vote in Sanders, easy to demolish with attack ads before the election (you'll note they've studiously ignored him so far).
    Longasyourarm Genpet , 2016-05-05 11:47:49
    the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard.
    Longasyourarm nemesis7 , 2016-05-05 11:44:57
    explain to me why the blacks and Hispanics vote for her because it is a mystery to me. She stands for everything they have had to fight against. So you have a 1%er-Wall St.-invade Iraq-subprime-cheat the EU-Goldman Sachs-arms dealing-despot cuddling-fuck the environment coalition. And blacks and Hispanics too? Are they out of their minds?
    Eric L. Wattree , 2016-05-05 09:19:27
    BERNIE SANDERS - OR ZIG AGAINST ZAG
    .
    If the American people don't come to their senses and give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination, we're going to end up with a choice between Zig and Zag. Zig is Donald Trump, and Zag is Hillary Clinton. To paraphrase Mort Sahl back in the sixties, the only difference between the two is if Donald 'Zig' Trump sees a Black child lying in the street, he'd simply order his chauffeur to run over him. If Hillary 'Zag' Clinton saw the kid, she'd also order her chauffeur to run over him, but she'd weep, and go apologize to the NAACP, after she felt the bump.
    .
    WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE!!!

    IF YOU DON'T, YOU'LL BE SORRY - AGAIN.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1057244620990215&set=a.136305753084111.28278.100001140610873&type=3&theater

    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 08:20:53
    Giving aid to the Republicans? If you honestly believe that any criticisms I have is worse than what I discuss, you need to give up politics and get a hobby. Trump will for example use her FOIA/email issues like a stick to beat her with. This is not Soviet Russia where we all adopt the party line. I'm not not ever have been a member of the Democratic Party. I COULD have been this year. Now? Never. The solution to the nations problems will come from outside this party.

    I prefer neither. You love fearmongering about how worse it will be under trump. Hmmm. I don't buy that tale. Take Black family incomes. In the toilet. Under either party it goes south. Abortion? Like slavery nothing ...... Nothing is going to change. It's too late to change that one. But it's a useful tool to make us believe ONLY Clinton can protect us. Economically the Democrats are essentially the same as the Republicans, more of the same corporate welfare. Would Clinton cut Social Security? Maybe. I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc.

    You believe a black family gays and women will sing Kumbaya under Clinton and all will be well.

    I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences .

    SavvasKara irishgaf , 2016-05-05 05:32:13
    It would be perhaps remotely marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats, socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing marxist about it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans.

    I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. Those groups believe in changing the society through struggle into a model that fits their idea of the world whatever that may be. He simply states his beliefs and suggests laws to adjust the society to human needs, to eat, to live, to prosper in an equal footing.

    Carly435 RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 05:28:00

    It is a rather sad commentary on how the bar of integrity and honesty has been so lowered that it doesn't even faze them

    One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Their stance on gun and abortion issues? Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance.

    Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well. Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and Independents is already under way. This is one of the forms it may take.

    Carly435 RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 05:06:51
    Recharging is always a good idea ... and never more so than in an election year as turbulent, crazy, uplifting, disillusioning, energizing, maddening and fascinating as this one. I'll also be away (for weeks) toward the end of this month.

    Before you go, here's Carl Bernstein's interview with Don Lemon, in case you missed it:

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/05/03/bernstein-there-will-be-very-damaging-leaks-from-hillary-email-investigation-her-actions-reckless-and-entitled /

    nemesis7 , 2016-05-05 03:24:50
    Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance.
    Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified relief by western representatives.

    Add to that the continual lies that are being aired in public and this is why the USA has lost its way.

    Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy Hilary is to these people.
    And since when does the USA have the ethical superiority to attack countries like Russia for cronyism etc? This is unbelievable - a presidential nominee candidate is being investigated by the FBI and she doesn't stand down?

    Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged and non powerful in todays' America.

    I recall David Bowie's beautiful song This Is Not America. The Bernie supporters understand that, all power to him, those who think like him, and his supporters.

    macktan894 RobInTN , 2016-05-05 02:29:31
    Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro, called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama. Things changed real fast.
    Allan Barr , 2016-05-05 02:21:15
    Like its not obvious? There is now no paper trail to enable ensuring computer votes are true. A man on the moon can now ensure who is going to be President, that was said by a premier computer security expert.

    Along with extensive disenfranchisement, numerous ways its pretty clear these outcomes are preordained. Guess I am not going to be voting for either of the two appointed runners, its pointless. I will vote for Bernie when its time in California.

    Carly435 RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 02:05:34
    And to branch out a bit, there are so many empty stock phrases to choose from in her 2016 campaign alone, including "I'm with her" and "Breaking down barriers" courtesy of her 2008 campaign manager, Mark Penn. Speaking of Penn, there's a hilarious little passage in "Clinton, Inc" (p. 65) which describes Penn running through possible campaign slogans for 2008. "Penn began to walk through all the iterations of Hillary slogans: Solutions for America, Ready for a change, Ready to lead, Big challenges, Real Solutions; Time to pick a President... but then he seem to get a little lost...Working for change, Working for you. There was silence, then snickers as Penn tried to remember all the bumper stickers which run together sounded absurd and indistinguishable. The Hillary I know."....

    Oy. ^__^

    But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer:

    https://www.americarisingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/clinton-sheldon-silver-meme1.jpg

    Some background:

    https://www.americarisingpac.org/sheldon-silver-critical-to-hillary-clinton-political-machine /

    In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support

    So I guess the former speaker of the NY assembly is just gonna have to vote for Hillary from behind bars, instead of at the DNC? How "super-inconvenient."

    John W , 2016-05-05 01:42:54
    Sanders is also leading in the West Virginia polls, which is the next primary. He just might be able to squeak out a victory.
    Robin Crawford Rouffian , 2016-05-05 01:07:15
    If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only is a distraction from their lack of policy.

    Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it).

    If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters.

    nomorebanksters Jonah92 , 2016-05-04 23:43:43
    You are obviously misinformed about Bernie Sanders:

    https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA

    Most effective senator for the last 35 years and as Mayor or Burlington stopped corporate real estate developers from turning Burlington into Aspen east coast version.

    She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi, turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I go on?

    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 23:10:01
    So please please explain how Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to wave a wand and fix racism? I already know she will not fix poverty, she will slap a few ersatz bandaids onto bills that won't pass and like the spoiled child will seek praise every time mommy gets him to shit on the potty. You might recall a guy called Martin Luther King. he had some words about economic fairness and poverty.

    "" In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white and Negro alike . "

    nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. The belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.

    You love that word but rejection of the dysfunctional state of DNC politics is NOT nihilism. Moral corruption around campaign finance is real. Moral corruption around money and lobbyists is real. The desire to fix this, this is real. Seeking real change is not nihilism. But yes, if it pleases you to continue in every other post with this word, do so. It's misuse says more about you than Sanders.

    nomorebanksters TehachapiCalifornia , 2016-05-04 23:04:08
    Please tell me exactly how much HRC has done for the U.S.? I'm from NYC and when she brought her carpet bagging ass here and as a 2 term senator she pushed 3 pieces of legislation thru. If you look at Bernie Sanders voting record:

    https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA

    He's been one of the most effective senators in Congress and has been able to get things done with cooperation from both sides of the aisle.
    So tell me again, what's she done that's so notable?

    nomorebanksters nolashea , 2016-05-04 22:57:13
    Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt....
    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 22:31:08
    "Are you really sure that money buys votes"

    Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures. But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive.

    [Aug 13, 2016] Its TIME For A Big Change In This Presidential Campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reading Time for the 1st time in decades made me feel better because I could not read it, at least not the way they intended it. It was like trying to compile FORTRAN with a source file written in C. I don't understand their language anymore so the reading experience is like looking for errors in your source code. Kind of liberating in a way. ..."
    "... Everyone is recognizing the only way to become a Billionaire for now on is paying off politicians and becoming an extension of the federal government. Write rules in your favor or get the economic mercenaries whether they be the military - CIA - or the state department and take over a country a la Confessions of a Economic Hitman. Hillary is preferred since now you can induce a seizure and she turns into a signature pad with amnesia ..."
    "... Circulation around 3 million copies. Probably covers most waiting rooms across the country and a few Grandmas. ..."
    "... Here's a TIME magazine cover the day after 9/11/2016 when he gives his memorial dedication to those that perished that day with his unwavering pledge for the only investigation that matters!... ..."
    Zero Hedge
    Ralph Spoilsport J S Bach Aug 12, 2016 7:26 PM
    Had to pick up and glance through a copy of Time recently before a dental appt. The other choices were People, Good Housekeeping and some sales literature for dental equipment and other torture gear.

    Reading Time for the 1st time in decades made me feel better because I could not read it, at least not the way they intended it. It was like trying to compile FORTRAN with a source file written in C. I don't understand their language anymore so the reading experience is like looking for errors in your source code. Kind of liberating in a way.

    Omen IV Aug 12, 2016 7:09 PM
    Everyone is recognizing the only way to become a Billionaire for now on is paying off politicians and becoming an extension of the federal government. Write rules in your favor or get the economic mercenaries whether they be the military - CIA - or the state department and take over a country a la Confessions of a Economic Hitman. Hillary is preferred since now you can induce a seizure and she turns into a signature pad with amnesia

    It's over

    cart00ner Aug 12, 2016 7:14 PM
    I think you give TIME too much credit, does anyone still read that rag?
    Smerf cart00ner Aug 12, 2016 8:11 PM
    Circulation around 3 million copies. Probably covers most waiting rooms across the country and a few Grandmas.
    Son of Captain Nemo Aug 12, 2016 7:20 PM
    Here's a TIME magazine cover the day after 9/11/2016 when he gives his memorial dedication to those that perished that day with his unwavering pledge for the only investigation that matters!...

    Trump UNSTOPPABLE!!!

    [Aug 13, 2016] The Bloody Spectre Of A Clinton Presidency Looms Over The World Stage

    A view from a Russian think tank
    Notable quotes:
    "... The 90's represent a time of relative economic prosperity and geopolitical dominance in the collective American imagination. Race relations, though briefly inflamed during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, remained relatively placid by the standards of U.S. history, and with the fall of the USSR, the United States became an unquestioned Global Hegemon. ..."
    "... In this sense at least, the 90's were high times for the Clintons and their Neo-Liberal fellow travelers. Who had convinced themselves, along with much of the populace of the United States, that they had finally entered Francis Fukuyama's prophesied "End of History." ..."
    "... Though Donald Trump promises to "Make America Great Again," his rhetoric recalls, not the beloved 1990s of the Clintons, but rather the decade from 1953 to 1963, the time between the Korean war and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. An era of middle-class flourishing and industrial expansion, when good paying factory work allowed unskilled laborers to achieve the "American Dream" of Suburban tranquility and economic comfort. An era of low crime and common purpose. An era when a beloved President first dreamt of landing a man on the moon and the covers of magazines like "Popular Mechanics" showcased grand visions of a future dominated by the wonders and comforts of American technology. Though of course profoundly philistine and materialist in nature (and thus genuinely American), it is a vision which remains quite distinct from violent, pathological visions dreamt of by the Clintons and their associates. ..."
    "... This universal, imperialist programme of exploitation and domination is the explicit goal of the ideology of Neo-Liberalism, whose cause will seem all the more urgent to a newly elected and empowered Hillary Clinton. She will then have to face the reality of both a divided country at home and a rapidly decaying Neoliberal world order abroad. As Russia, China, Iran, and others begin to push back against the reign of U.S. led cultural Imperialism. ..."
    "... A more cautious Trump presidency would likely approach the situation with a good deal of pragmatism by letting the United State's moment of unipolar hegemony naturally fade away as the world slowly drifts into the more organic and sustainable state of Multipolarity. ..."
    "... Though derided by her detractors as a dangerous, ideologically driven hawk on foreign policy and praised by her devotees as a steady, experienced hand, possessing considerable analytic acumen. The truth is that, in reality, both assessments are correct. It is important to note, however, that for Hillary Clinton, the latter merely acts as a veneer for the former. Her strategic acumen, however potent it may be, remains merely the servant of the powerful chthonic forces which drive her damaged psyche. Despite any appearances to the contrary, in her purest essence, she remains a genuine fanatic. ..."
    "... Regardless of these rumors, it is entirely fair to assert that Clinton, whether or not she is a practicing lesbian, is at least a functional one. Her projected persona, from the androgynous pantsuits to her open contempt for the Traditional female roles of wife and mother coupled with a fanatical devotion to the cause of universal LGBT "human rights," is an almost exact emulation of a butch lesbian aesthetic and sensibility. It is a direct mimicry of Western conceptions of corporate masculinity reconceptualized through the funhouse mirror of 1970's feminist ideology. It is this barely cryptic Lesbianism, which serves as the primary ideological scaffolding for Clinton's thought and action. An ideology that is driven almost purely by a profound ressentiment of all those who do not affirm its tenets. ..."
    "... The very first action to be taken by a future Clinton administration will be an immediate reset of the U.S. policy on Syria. This intention has already been explicitly articulated and publicized in the international press and will mark a stark break with the Obama administration's previously more pragmatic approach. Syria was a war Obama was never particularly interested in and which he involved himself in only after intense pressure from his advisors (such as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland). Although Obama would, of course, have favored a solution that resulted in the replacement of Assad with a malleable puppet regime which was friendly to both American and Zionist ambitions in the Region. His better instincts led him to avoid the more extreme Anti-Assad approach favored by the most hawkish members of his cabinet. ..."
    "... Clinton's stratagem will be the direct inverse of Obama's more tolerant approach to Assad. For Clinton, destroying Assad, and by extension, the millions of innocents which his government protects from Jihadi terror represents a triple opportunity. Enabling her to strike a direct blow simultaneously against Iranian and Russian interests in the region while also appeasing her Zionist backers. Thus, it will become an immediate priority for her administration. ..."
    "... The full weight of U.S. power will be used to reignite a conflict in the Donbass region, which will be justified under the pretense of restoring the "territorial integrity" of the Ukrainian Junta. This will enable the U.S. to continue its encirclement of Russia while also bleeding it of resources. This will make it, it is hoped by the U.S., more vulnerable, over the long term, to a hostile, U.S. funded, regime change which will be carried out by Atlanticist Fifth Columnist inside Russia. ..."
    "... Clinton's domestic policies will be similarly reckless and aggressive. These will focus primarily upon stamping out any dissent, whether on the Left or the Right, to her rule. This should not be a difficult task, as the vast majority of Media elites in the United States are open supporters of her ideology. These elites will be in a particularly foul mood after the Election, as they have come to view Trump, and especially his supporters, as a mortal threat to their continued hegemony. A Clinton victory would then give them the leverage and pretext they need to begin punishing and marginalizing the Trump electorate that they so deeply despise. ..."
    "... Needless to say, dissenters will suffer greatly under a Clinton regime. Those who oppose further aggressive U.S. actions across the globe will be dealt with as borderline traitors. Others who oppose the normalization of Sodomy and other related deviancies, such as Transgenderism, will be labeled bigots and suffer economic consequences as they are forced out of their jobs under the pretext of creating "safe work environmen ..."
    Katehon think tank

    The Summer of 2016 is proving to be a decisive one in both the United States and the rest of the world. The long shadows currently being thrown against the wall by history will soon morph into their full forms come November when the presidential contest is finally decided. With the longest and most ominous being the potential ascension of Hillary Rodham Clinton to the office of President of the United States of America.

    Most Americans are instinctively aware of this, and it is this instinct which has seen Hillary Clinton's unfavorable ratings rise to historic levels. This anti-Clinton aversion is born as much from experience as it is from intuition, as Americans vividly recall her Husband's presidency and assume, correctly, that a second Clinton presidency would repeat all of the vices of the first but without any of its virtues.

    Indeed, the 1990's still loom large in the imagination of most Clintonites. The 90's represent a time of relative economic prosperity and geopolitical dominance in the collective American imagination. Race relations, though briefly inflamed during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, remained relatively placid by the standards of U.S. history, and with the fall of the USSR, the United States became an unquestioned Global Hegemon. A Hegemon which possessed the perfect freedom to strike its enemies, both real and perceived, with near impunity across the Globe. As the people of Serbia and Iraq learned, only too well, through horrible experience. In this sense at least, the 90's were high times for the Clintons and their Neo-Liberal fellow travelers. Who had convinced themselves, along with much of the populace of the United States, that they had finally entered Francis Fukuyama's prophesied "End of History."

    Though Donald Trump promises to "Make America Great Again," his rhetoric recalls, not the beloved 1990s of the Clintons, but rather the decade from 1953 to 1963, the time between the Korean war and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. An era of middle-class flourishing and industrial expansion, when good paying factory work allowed unskilled laborers to achieve the "American Dream" of Suburban tranquility and economic comfort. An era of low crime and common purpose. An era when a beloved President first dreamt of landing a man on the moon and the covers of magazines like "Popular Mechanics" showcased grand visions of a future dominated by the wonders and comforts of American technology. Though of course profoundly philistine and materialist in nature (and thus genuinely American), it is a vision which remains quite distinct from violent, pathological visions dreamt of by the Clintons and their associates.

    In contrast, to Trump's inward looking, Populist-Nationalist synthesis, Clinton offers Americans what is perhaps the most thoroughly pure version of Neo-Liberalism yet put forward on a national political stage. Consisting of both unapologetic support for international capitalist exploitation of labor as well as a virulent dedication to the continued unipolar geopolitical dominance of the United State's burgeoning Imperium. Its explicit goal is not merely to enable its own citizens to live the good life of uninhibited, rootless hedonism (the American Dream) but also to impose this concept of "the good life" upon the rest of the world.

    This universal, imperialist programme of exploitation and domination is the explicit goal of the ideology of Neo-Liberalism, whose cause will seem all the more urgent to a newly elected and empowered Hillary Clinton. She will then have to face the reality of both a divided country at home and a rapidly decaying Neoliberal world order abroad. As Russia, China, Iran, and others begin to push back against the reign of U.S. led cultural Imperialism.

    A more cautious Trump presidency would likely approach the situation with a good deal of pragmatism by letting the United State's moment of unipolar hegemony naturally fade away as the world slowly drifts into the more organic and sustainable state of Multipolarity.

    The same cannot be said, of course, for the path a potential Clinton administration would take, however. Clinton will have no choice but to throw all of her energies behind a shrill, last-ditch defense of the American Imperium, in both its physical, cultural and psychological manifestations.

    Though derided by her detractors as a dangerous, ideologically driven hawk on foreign policy and praised by her devotees as a steady, experienced hand, possessing considerable analytic acumen. The truth is that, in reality, both assessments are correct. It is important to note, however, that for Hillary Clinton, the latter merely acts as a veneer for the former. Her strategic acumen, however potent it may be, remains merely the servant of the powerful chthonic forces which drive her damaged psyche. Despite any appearances to the contrary, in her purest essence, she remains a genuine fanatic.

    When one looks back on the trajectory of her political career, it is not difficult to perceive it as a series of carefully calculated moves which served only to move her continually closer to capturing the presidency and the ultimate power it offers. While this is not exactly original analysis, it is still startling and instructive to contemplate the truly bizarre length and breadth of the ambition which has propelled her this far. Her husband's philandering, which has become the stuff of legend in the United States and has resulted in at least one serious claim of sexual assault, was obviously known to her from the beginning of their relationship. Her apparent ambivalence (if not open approval) regarding her husband's behavior is likewise an open secret and has, at least in part, contributed to the constant rumors regarding her potential homosexuality.

    Regardless of these rumors, it is entirely fair to assert that Clinton, whether or not she is a practicing lesbian, is at least a functional one. Her projected persona, from the androgynous pantsuits to her open contempt for the Traditional female roles of wife and mother coupled with a fanatical devotion to the cause of universal LGBT "human rights," is an almost exact emulation of a butch lesbian aesthetic and sensibility. It is a direct mimicry of Western conceptions of corporate masculinity reconceptualized through the funhouse mirror of 1970's feminist ideology. It is this barely cryptic Lesbianism, which serves as the primary ideological scaffolding for Clinton's thought and action. An ideology that is driven almost purely by a profound ressentiment of all those who do not affirm its tenets.

    It is this ressentiment which serves as the motivator for all of her endeavors, both of the past and of the future. Once Clinton secures the full powers of the U.S. presidency, she will then have the ultimate tool with which to wage war upon her perceived tormentors, i.e. all those who do not willingly affirm her particularly deviant ideological proclivities.

    This campaign of revenge will be waged on two separate fronts, one foreign and one domestic and will seek an utter subjugation or eradication of her perceived enemies.

    On the foreign front Clinton will immediately seek to reestablish U.S. dominance over the three primary regions of Modern Geopolitical Conflict: The Greater Middle East, the South China Sea, and Europe with a special focus on subduing the Russian Federation

    The very first action to be taken by a future Clinton administration will be an immediate reset of the U.S. policy on Syria. This intention has already been explicitly articulated and publicized in the international press and will mark a stark break with the Obama administration's previously more pragmatic approach. Syria was a war Obama was never particularly interested in and which he involved himself in only after intense pressure from his advisors (such as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland). Although Obama would, of course, have favored a solution that resulted in the replacement of Assad with a malleable puppet regime which was friendly to both American and Zionist ambitions in the Region. His better instincts led him to avoid the more extreme Anti-Assad approach favored by the most hawkish members of his cabinet.

    Clinton's stratagem will be the direct inverse of Obama's more tolerant approach to Assad. For Clinton, destroying Assad, and by extension, the millions of innocents which his government protects from Jihadi terror represents a triple opportunity. Enabling her to strike a direct blow simultaneously against Iranian and Russian interests in the region while also appeasing her Zionist backers. Thus, it will become an immediate priority for her administration.

    The policy will most likely take the form of a deluge of advanced armaments to the Syrian Islamists currently at war with the Assad government, potentially including Jabhat Al Nusra whose recent split with Al-Qaeda proper will make it a tempting potential ally in the new crusade against Assad.

    In addition to this new flow of arms, an attempt to establish a "no-fly zone" over Syria will be made with the expressed purpose of denigrating the Syrian government's ability to defend its people from Islamist terrorists. How this will be accomplished is still unclear, with the presence of the Russian military posing an especially difficult challenge. However, a U.S. provocation to open war is not entirely out of the question. Especially since a Clinton administration may view Syria as a theatre which, given U.S. superiority in power projection, would potentially enable a seemingly easy victory over Russian and Syrian forces.

    Everything will depend on the actions of the Russian government, whether it decides to double down on its ally or surrender to U.S. intimidation, as well as the disposition of Turkey. In this sense, the recent Coup attempt may serve as a blessing in disguise, as it is well known that, if not explicitly planned by the CIA, the Coup attempt was at the very least tacitly endorsed by the Obama administration. These facts will weigh heavily on President Erdogan's mind if and when a request is made to use Turkish airbases to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria.

    The second theatre, which will serve as the medium-term priority, will be a renewed attempt to further isolate and weaken the Russian Federation. This will involve both new deployments of American Military forces and equipment to both the Baltic states and Eastern Ukraine. The full weight of U.S. power will be used to reignite a conflict in the Donbass region, which will be justified under the pretense of restoring the "territorial integrity" of the Ukrainian Junta. This will enable the U.S. to continue its encirclement of Russia while also bleeding it of resources. This will make it, it is hoped by the U.S., more vulnerable, over the long term, to a hostile, U.S. funded, regime change which will be carried out by Atlanticist Fifth Columnist inside Russia.

    The third theatre, which will serve as the long-term priority, will be attempting to contain China from asserting its sovereignty in the South China Sea and the island of Taiwan. This will be by far the most difficult task facing a potential Clinton administration. China will possess a distinct military advantage over U.S. forces in the region owing to its advanced area-denial capabilities which will enable it effectively to neutralize the main tool of U.S. power projection: the aircraft carrier. The exact course a Clinton administration would take in a potential showdown with China is still unclear but given her past proclivities; it would not be a stretch to assume a choice for confrontation over compromise would be made.

    Clinton's domestic policies will be similarly reckless and aggressive. These will focus primarily upon stamping out any dissent, whether on the Left or the Right, to her rule. This should not be a difficult task, as the vast majority of Media elites in the United States are open supporters of her ideology. These elites will be in a particularly foul mood after the Election, as they have come to view Trump, and especially his supporters, as a mortal threat to their continued hegemony. A Clinton victory would then give them the leverage and pretext they need to begin punishing and marginalizing the Trump electorate that they so deeply despise.

    This will involve not only formal purges of journalists and academics (which has already become a regular occurrence in the U.S.) but also a renewed push to further hollow out what remains of the American Middle class, as well as continuing to push an intrinsically violent LGBT ideology further upon America's children.

    Needless to say, dissenters will suffer greatly under a Clinton regime. Those who oppose further aggressive U.S. actions across the globe will be dealt with as borderline traitors. Others who oppose the normalization of Sodomy and other related deviancies, such as Transgenderism, will be labeled bigots and suffer economic consequences as they are forced out of their jobs under the pretext of creating "safe work environmen ts".

    Tax exemption for religiously affiliated schools and nonprofit organizations will be revoked unless they agree to adhere to anti-discrimination laws which will require the affirmation of LGBT ideology.

    [Aug 13, 2016] In June 2014, Cuomo openly admitted on camera that the media have abandoned all pretenses at journalistic objectivity, but instead give Hillary Clinton "a free ride"

    Notable quotes:
    "... No wonder this man at a Trump campaign rally yesterday in Kissimmee, Florida, gave the finger to CNN producer Noah Gray and other journalists, shouting, "Go home! You are traitors! I am an American patriot!" ..."
    fellowshipoftheminds.com

    Now we have CNN anchor Chris Cuomo - former ABC News correspondent and "20/20" co-anchor, son of the late New York governor Mario Cuomo, and brother of current New York governor Andrew Cuomo - confirming what so many suspect.

    In June 2014, Cuomo openly admitted on camera that the media have abandoned all pretenses at journalistic objectivity, but instead give Hillary Clinton "a free ride" and are her "biggest" promoters. At the time, although Hillary had not yet declared she would run for the presidency, she was already getting donations for her then-nonexistent presidential campaign.

    Cuomo said:

    "It's a problem because she's [Hillary Clinton] doing what they call in politics 'freezing pockets,' because the donors are giving her money thinking she's going to run, that means they're not going to have available money for other candidates if she doesn't. And I don't think she's going to give it to them. We [the media] couldn't help her any more than we have, she's got just a free ride so far from the media, we're the biggest ones promoting her campaign, so it had better happen. "

    No wonder this man at a Trump campaign rally yesterday in Kissimmee, Florida, gave the finger to CNN producer Noah Gray and other journalists, shouting, "Go home! You are traitors! I am an American patriot!"

    [Aug 13, 2016] Hate Trump You Should Still Hold Clinton's Feet to the Fire

    Notable quotes:
    "... she is living in a glass house funded by Goldman Sachs and should be throwing no stones. ..."
    "... Clinton's been courting endorsements from billionaires Meg Whitman, Warren Buffett and Michael Bloomberg. Her own son-in-law is a "hedge fund guy", and the Wall Street Journal reported that "hedge fund money has vastly favored Clinton over Trump" to the tidy sum of $122m. Being bothered by what this portends for our economic future this is not a vote for Trump. ..."
    "... She has embraced the endorsement of neocon John Negroponte and is even reportedly courting the endorsement of Henry Kissinger. As secretary of state, Clinton controversially supported not designating the 2009 ouster of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya as a coup ..."
    "... turning a critical lens on the presidential candidate who supported the war that killed their son does not equate supporting her opponent. ..."
    Common Dreams

    While she made fun of Trump on the stump for having "a dozen or so economic advisers he just named: hedge fund guys, billionaire guys, six guys named Steve, apparently," she is living in a glass house funded by Goldman Sachs and should be throwing no stones.

    They're not named Steve, but Clinton's been courting endorsements from billionaires Meg Whitman, Warren Buffett and Michael Bloomberg. Her own son-in-law is a "hedge fund guy", and the Wall Street Journal reported that "hedge fund money has vastly favored Clinton over Trump" to the tidy sum of $122m. Being bothered by what this portends for our economic future this is not a vote for Trump.

    And though Trump is hinting to his supporters that they might want to use the second amendment to possibly assassinate Clinton or justices of the supreme court is disgusting, let's not forget Clinton saying in May 2008 that she had to stay in that primary because "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California" and, ho hum, you never know what might happen to presumptive nominee Barack Obama.

    I bring this all up not to draw parallels between Clinton and Trump. She is clearly the more capable person suited to preside over this corrupt, perpetually and criminally violent enterprise known as the United States of America. But let's not act like Clinton is a dove when it comes to matters of life and death.

    She has embraced the endorsement of neocon John Negroponte and is even reportedly courting the endorsement of Henry Kissinger. As secretary of state, Clinton controversially supported not designating the 2009 ouster of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya as a coup , even though he was woken up by armed soldiers and forced onto a plane and out of his country in his pajamas. She has since defended her role in that situation, which has led to hell for women, children and environmentalists, including the assassination of indigenous activist Berta Cáceres. And as senator, Clinton supported the Iraq war, a vote which helped lead to the death of US army captain Humayun Khan.

    Captain Khan's parents have valiantly and admirably taken on Trump and his ugly Islamophobia. But turning a critical lens on the presidential candidate who supported the war that killed their son does not equate supporting her opponent.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Russian athletes are demonized as the villains of the Rio Olympics

    The problems is with Olympic sport as whole. It became too politicized to be of value. The achievements displayed by athletes now are such that you suspect systematic doping program to be mainstream and revelations about individual athletes doping are just the tip of the iceberg. It might be a time to replace Olympic games with something else.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "It's something not usually heard at the Olympic Games. Booing. Loud, sustained booing. The rain of fury is directed at a common enemy: Russian athletes. The contingent, clouded and shrouded by drug scandal, has quickly emerged as the villains of these Rio 2016 Games. Like Cold War days of old, the Russians are once again the global bad guys. ..."
    "... After avoiding a full Olympic ban, some wondered how fans and fellow athletes would treat Russian athletes. That answer came quickly. At the opening ceremony, even athletes from pariah nations were given polite applause. But fans interrupted the global Kumbya moment to let the Russians know their presence wasn't welcome." ..."
    "... " It's kind of sad that today in sports in general, not just in swimming, there are people who are testing positive and are allowed back in the sport, and multiple times. I think it just breaks what sport is meant to be and that pisses me off." ..."
    "... "We in Australia have been less than impressed with the efforts in America, and if you were to do a survey of the athletes, they'll tell you the country that's the major problem." ..."
    "... "They came to me and asked me to participate in a project in which they wanted to give athletes what they called ATP injections – that's aginicent triphosphate. That's the fuel that muscle cells actually operate on and I refused on the basis that i thought it was unethical to give people things in a non-medical fashion for non-treatment, but just to see if it would help performance. I also thought that even if that substance wasn't directly named or on the IOC list, that it was at least aimed in the direction of doping." ..."
    "... "They've got the facilities, they've got the research, they've got the motivation to be using drugs across the board in many different sports." ..."
    "... Sports Illustrated ..."
    "... The Orange County Register ..."
    "... "The World Anti-Doping Agency steered the Stepanovs to a reporter at the German television network ARD. Their tapes became the centerpiece of this documentary which aired in December 2014 and sent shockwaves through the world of sports." ..."
    "... "The report released Monday was the result of a 10-month investigation by an independent commission of WADA. Its inquiry stemmed from a December 2014 documentary by the German public broadcaster ARD , which drew on accounts from Russian athletes, coaches and antidoping officials, who said that the Russian government had helped procure drugs for athletes and cover up positive test results." ..."
    "... "Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the director of the Moscow lab whom Monday's report accused of having solicited and accepted bribes, dismissed the suggestions. "This is an independent commission which only issues recommendations," he said. "There are three fools sitting there who don't understand the laboratory." ..."
    "... "Conte, who spent four months in prison for his role in the affair, said he has offered to provide expert insights to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), only to be turned down. "I've made myself available, put forward names, addresses, websites, protocols but you know what they told me? That we can't trust someone who's been sentenced ," he added." ..."
    "... Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian president Vladimir Putin, said Tuesday that "as long as there is no evidence [of state-sponsored doping in Russia], it is difficult to consider the accusations, which appear rather unfounded." How do you respond to that? ..."
    "... That doesn't surprise me. He and others have said that before. But I would expect that won't be the same refrain by the end of the week once they have a chance to study the report. When you draw the connections across the board about what's going on, you can't just say this is just a few isolated people or some of the old coaches dictating out of the Soviet era and nobody else. ..."
    "... Dmitry's correct. We don't have any evidence of a systematic, state-wide doping mechanism. If we did, we would have published it and so we have to go on the inference. But across a vast country [with] all sorts of different training camps, it has to be somehow state supported but we can't actually describe for you how that operates. We can only draw the inference. We've given them a chance to reform, so why don't you reform and join the rest of the world instead of fighting it. ..."
    "... " The IP did not seek to interview persons living in the Russian Federation . I did not seek to meet with Russian government officials and did not think it necessary " ..."
    "... on no grounds but their nationality ..."
    "... "Additionally, no reliance can be made on the McLaren Report as evidence, as it is not complete, it has secret parts that were not shared with or available to the Athlete and there was no date of the sample taking in the information provided by Mr. McLaren." ..."
    "... "FISA applied the criterion and was satisfied that the Athlete was 'clearly implicated' by the McLaren Report and was therefore excluded from the Rio Games." ..."
    "... "Additionally, Mr. McLaren, in his amicus curiae, while not providing the emails on grounds of confidentiality, revealed to the Panel the exact date and times of the message from the Moscow laboratory that the screen of the Athlete's A sample revealed positive for the prohibited substance GW 1516 and the response from the Deputy Minister to change the positive into a negative, following the DPM. While these additional details were not before FISA (primarily due to the lack of time) they have been considered by the Panel in this de novo procedure". ..."
    "... "I have to respect (the track authorities') decision even if it is something I don't necessarily agree with," King said. "No, do I think people who have been caught doping should be on the team? They shouldn't. It is unfortunate we have to see that. ..."
    "... "In the United States, it is a matter of law. If you are not under a ban, regardless of what you may have served in the past, you are fully eligible to be on the team." ..."
    "... "For one, a blanket ban on Russian athletes would likely have been derailed by numerous legal hurdles. The Court of Arbitration for Sport, among others, would likely overturn a universal ban that included athletes who haven't been implicated in doping. ..."
    "... "We were mindful of the need for justice for clean athletes," IOC vice-president John Coates told reporters. "We did not want to penalize athletes who are clean with a collective ban and, therefore, keeping them out of the Games." ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    According to the CBC – the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a Crown corporation and the official voice of the nation – Russian athletes are "emerging as the villains of the Rio Olympics". And maybe it's just me, but the tone seems approving, self-righteous judgy. As if the official mouthpiece of Canada is delighted to sign on to the Get Russia program offered by its southern neighbour and business partner to all its toadies and would-be chambermaids.

    In a word, this is disappointing. I used that word because I didn't want to start swearing so early, although I'm sure we'll get to it.

    Just so we're clear – whose interests does it serve for Canada to enthusiastically sign on to booing and hooting like howler monkeys whenever Russian athletes step up to compete, like we were English football hooligans? Canada's? How?

    In fact, as everyone who is not thick as a BC pine knows, it serves Washington's interests, because the USA wants Russia isolated and alone and friendless because it is pissed off at it for other things, and the more disrespect and ignorance and rudeness it gets from the former politeness capital of the world, the better Uncle Sam likes it. WADA is going after every medal Russia ever won, and it is not even looking at anyone else. And that entire effort rests on the credibility of two people; one who was convicted of doping herself and barred from competition for two years for it, and her husband who knew and did nothing about it while he worked for the national anti-doping agency.

    We'll get to that.

    "It's something not usually heard at the Olympic Games. Booing. Loud, sustained booing. The rain of fury is directed at a common enemy: Russian athletes. The contingent, clouded and shrouded by drug scandal, has quickly emerged as the villains of these Rio 2016 Games. Like Cold War days of old, the Russians are once again the global bad guys.

    After avoiding a full Olympic ban, some wondered how fans and fellow athletes would treat Russian athletes. That answer came quickly. At the opening ceremony, even athletes from pariah nations were given polite applause. But fans interrupted the global Kumbya moment to let the Russians know their presence wasn't welcome."

    Disappointing. Disappointing to see how easy it is to get people who probably are reasonably nice under ordinary circumstances to get on board with the mob mentality, because it's kind of fun. Why is the western audience (because that's who it is, mostly – the North Americans, the Australians and the English) booing the Russians? Because the whole nation is implicated in a doping scandal.

    Is that all it takes to make otherwise-sensible people make one-syllable sounds of disapproval simultaneously, in a deliberately-insulting fashion? Good. Let's hear a long, sustained 'boooooo .." for the cheatingest nation on the planet – the United States of America.

    Worldly-wise 19-year-old American 100-meter backstroke champion Lilly King unloaded on silver-medalist Russian Yulia Efimova, calling her a drug cheat and sounding off to reporters that the 'twice-banned' Russian athlete should not be allowed at the games; Efimova was booed by the crowd every time she appeared on the pool deck. World-class jackass Michael Phelps, American team leader, went further as he applauded King's rudeness; " It's kind of sad that today in sports in general, not just in swimming, there are people who are testing positive and are allowed back in the sport, and multiple times. I think it just breaks what sport is meant to be and that pisses me off."

    That so, Michael? All about self-discipline, are you? Did you learn that in rehab? "I honestly didn't care about my training" leading up to the 2012 London Olympics; wasn't that you? Is that what sport is meant to be? Isn't this you, with a bong in your face? What's up with that, voice of clean sports?

    While we're having this heart-to-heart, Michael, let me tell you what pisses me off. Hypocrisy.

    Before the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney even started, Dr. Wade Exum – former director of the US Olympic Committee's (USCOC) drug-testing program – announced that more than half of all US athletes caught doping prior to the Atlanta games (1996) suffered no penalty whatever and were permitted to compete at those games, where some of them won medals. At the time, ally Australia's opinion of America's drug-testing efforts was decidedly negative.

    "We in Australia have been less than impressed with the efforts in America, and if you were to do a survey of the athletes, they'll tell you the country that's the major problem."

    And let me tell you this – that same country is still the major problem. It has hit upon the novel approach that rather than control the athletes and what they are taking, you control the testing process and develop performance enhancements which are ever harder to detect. Within months of Exum's joining USOC in 1991, the organization came to him with a proposal to trial a new injection 'just to see if it enhances performance'.

    "They came to me and asked me to participate in a project in which they wanted to give athletes what they called ATP injections – that's aginicent triphosphate. That's the fuel that muscle cells actually operate on and I refused on the basis that i thought it was unethical to give people things in a non-medical fashion for non-treatment, but just to see if it would help performance. I also thought that even if that substance wasn't directly named or on the IOC list, that it was at least aimed in the direction of doping."

    Other Australians were less circumspect in their criticism. Sean Murphy, chair of the Australian Olympic Committee at the time, said, "They've got the facilities, they've got the research, they've got the motivation to be using drugs across the board in many different sports."

    There was no World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) then; it was founded by Dick Pound in 1999 and he served as president until 2007. But WADA and Dick Pound were certainly around in 2003, when Exum released more than 30,000 pages of documents to Sports Illustrated and The Orange County Register, documents which proved beyond doubt that American athletes and champions such as Carl Lewis and Mary Jo Fernandez tested positive for banned substances in American screening but were allowed to compete anyway. USOC called Exum's accusations 'baseless'. Were they? Evidently not – here's Carl Lewis's reaction: So I was doping, who cares?

    That's the accused, ladies and gentleman. It sounds awfully like a confession to me. What does that mean? That the United States Olympic Committee was comprised of and headed by liars, whose word on anything to do with the clean performance of American athletes was not and is not to be trusted. It also screams "State-sponsored doping program" in chrome letters 18 feet high; USOC is the national authority for Olympic sport, and of the top ten doping scandals of all time in Track and Field, six are Americans.

    Can anybody tell me the last time the United States did not send a team to the Olympics because it was awarded a blanket ban for doping? That's right – never. Nor has any identifiable component of its team, such as Track and Field, been banned from competition, despite ample evidence of doping which was covered up by American sports organizations and its Olympic Commission. But Mr. Clean, Dick Pound, was adamant that Russia be banned completely from competition at Rio, and was vocal in his disappointment that only the Track and Field team was denied the opportunity to compete, including world champion gold medalist Yelena Isinbayeva, who has never, ever failed a drug test conducted by any authority. What a disgrace. But Dick Pound was one of the three members of the 'Independent Commission' appointed to investigate Russia's alleged state-sponsored doping program.

    Let's go back to the Sydney Games, 2000. That event was dogged by allegations that American athletes had used performance-enhancing drugs to win medals. Rubbish, said USOC. An investigation was ordered. Enter Professor Richard McLaren, who headed the probe

    Boom. The BALCO Scandal hit, three years later. The Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative, headed by Victor Conte, whipped up performance cocktails for American athletes. He admitted to it, and implicated dozens of athletes. Perhaps the most well-known was Marion Jones, who won 5 medals at the Sydney Olympics, 3 of them gold. Marion Jones vehemently denied any involvement with drugs, and sued Conte for defamation. Not until 2007 did she finally admit tearfully that it was all true, and was awarded 6 months in jail for lying to federal investigators, as well as being stripped of her medals. Regina Jacobs was also netted, and awarded a 4-year suspension from competition; the same year the BALCO scandal broke, she set a world record in the indoor 1500 meter. Alvin Harrison, who won a gold and a silver for the USA at the Sydney Olympics; he was not stripped of any medals until 2008, when a teammate admitted he had used performance-enhancing drugs. Michelle Collins, the 2003 world-record holder for the 200-meter indoor sprint. She was banned from competition for 8 years, threatened to take the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) to court, and they backed down and cut her suspension to 4 years. The current head of USADA is the alliteratively-named Travis T. Tygart, who bayed like a hound for a Russian national ban at Rio. 'Cause, you know, enough is enough.

    Kevin Toth, a US shot-putter who was United States Track and Field (USATF) Athlete of the Week in April that same year; he got a 2-year suspension. John McEwen, 2-year suspension. Dwain Chambers, a British sprinter – think word got around about the USA's new line of undetectable performance enhancers? He was the top European performer at his Olympic debut at – you guessed it – the Sydney Olympics; 2-year suspension. Calvin Harrison, identical twin brother of the previously-named Alvin Harrison, gold medalist at Sydney in the 4oo-meter relay – 2-year suspension. We could go on with this for quite a while, but I think you get the point.

    Here's what I bet you didn't get, though. Professor McLaren's investigation did not catch any of those people. They were all exposed by the BALCO scandal and press releases like those generated by Exum. McLaren's investigation wrapped up in 2001, and a year after that USATF was still suppressing the case files and refusing to reveal the name of an American athlete who had been cleared to compete at the Sydney Olympics and had won a medal for the USA. USATF defied an order and threats of de-registration from IOC president Dr. Jacques Rogge. What was done about it? Fuck all, as you probably knew.

    Professor McLaren was the public voice of the 'Independent Commission' that recommended a complete national ban for Russia at Rio. The third member was Gunter Younger, a former head of a Bavarian cybercrime division, who was just appointed as WADA's new head of Intelligence and Investigations this past June. Younger headed the actual investigation into Russian doping, and was 'given a free hand' by Dick Pound to use the covert recordings from the German television ARD documentary which initially broke the story of Russian doping.

    Well, sort of. Actually ARD was steered onto the story by WADA, who had acquired the services of the whistle-blowing Stepaonovs, Yulia (nee Rusanova), a doper athlete and her urine-testing husband with the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA). WADA told Valery Stepanov that it did not have the power to investigate inside Russia. So WADA steered the Stepanovs to ARD with their story, which was released as a documentary and which WADA then pounced on as evidence of 'a culture of cheating'.

    "The World Anti-Doping Agency steered the Stepanovs to a reporter at the German television network ARD. Their tapes became the centerpiece of this documentary which aired in December 2014 and sent shockwaves through the world of sports."

    WADA does not mention this elsewhere, and the rest of the world is led to believe that the ARD documentary was the clarion call which inspired WADA's investigation.

    "The report released Monday was the result of a 10-month investigation by an independent commission of WADA. Its inquiry stemmed from a December 2014 documentary by the German public broadcaster ARD, which drew on accounts from Russian athletes, coaches and antidoping officials, who said that the Russian government had helped procure drugs for athletes and cover up positive test results."

    But WADA considers the Stepanovs 100% credible. It has to – that's the only evidence it has. Grigory Rodchenkov, the former director of the Moscow laboratory, was not always on board, and as recently as November 2015 described the Independent Commission as 'three fools'.

    "Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the director of the Moscow lab whom Monday's report accused of having solicited and accepted bribes, dismissed the suggestions. "This is an independent commission which only issues recommendations," he said. "There are three fools sitting there who don't understand the laboratory."

    Yet only months later he was in the WADA camp and singing like a canary. Perhaps the revelation that Vitaly Stepanov recorded 15 hours of their conversations without his knowledge inspired a conversion. Oddly enough, that is generally illegal in Canada, and cannot be used as evidence except in exceptional circumstances. There is a blanket exemption, though, for consent, and this is implied if the person making the recording is a party to the conversation. Still, it kind of makes Rodchenkov sound like the kind of guy who will say anything. Just to give you an idea how ridiculous that is, Victor Conte – the executive in charge of BALCO – offered after the scandal broke to act as an expert assistant to WADA (probably as an effort to plea-bargain; he served four months in prison).

    "Conte, who spent four months in prison for his role in the affair, said he has offered to provide expert insights to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), only to be turned down. "I've made myself available, put forward names, addresses, websites, protocols but you know what they told me? That we can't trust someone who's been sentenced," he added."

    But they can trust someone who just got through saying the Investigative Commissioners were three fools who don't have any power to do anything and don't know what the fuck they're talking about, when he suddenly says, Yesiree, boss, it was exactly like you said. I'm a crook. And you know who else is a crook? The whole Russian government. Uh huh.

    Which brings me to my favourite part – the legal implications. The McLaren Report is careful not to name names for public consumption, because WADA fears getting sued by individuals. As well it might. So McLaren prefers to leave the oomph of his report to a statement that it proves there is a state sponsored doping program in Russia which is known and countenanced by the highest levels of government. And he's said that, on a number of occasions, and the press has dutifully repeated it. It's basically the most damaging finding of the McLaren Report.

    Which is why it would be odd for him to say that WADA has no evidence of a state-sponsored doping program. Like he did here, after the report came out.

    CBCSports.ca: Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian president Vladimir Putin, said Tuesday that "as long as there is no evidence [of state-sponsored doping in Russia], it is difficult to consider the accusations, which appear rather unfounded." How do you respond to that?

    McLaren: That doesn't surprise me. He and others have said that before. But I would expect that won't be the same refrain by the end of the week once they have a chance to study the report. When you draw the connections across the board about what's going on, you can't just say this is just a few isolated people or some of the old coaches dictating out of the Soviet era and nobody else.

    Dmitry's correct. We don't have any evidence of a systematic, state-wide doping mechanism. If we did, we would have published it and so we have to go on the inference. But across a vast country [with] all sorts of different training camps, it has to be somehow state supported but we can't actually describe for you how that operates. We can only draw the inference. We've given them a chance to reform, so why don't you reform and join the rest of the world instead of fighting it.

    The 'Independent Commission' did not question or interview any Russian athletes or officials except for the Stepanovs and Grigory Rodchenkov. " The IP did not seek to interview persons living in the Russian Federation . I did not seek to meet with Russian government officials and did not think it necessary "

    And, you see, that's a problem. Because athletes on the Track and Field team who have never failed a drug test were banned, by association, from competing, on no grounds but their nationality. Others were banned in highly ambiguous circumstances, just because their names appeared in McLaren's testimony. Like Russian rower Ivan Balandin, whose appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is featured here. The whole case is worth reading, as there are many juicy bits, but the upshot was his appeal was rejected on the grounds that he had made out he was unfairly denied the chance to compete because the McLaren Report fingered him for doping, which was not the case – he was fingered as 'ineligible' because one of his samples had allegedly tested positive, except McLaren did not even know when the test was allegedly administered, that information helpfully being provided by the UK, the second-most-Russophobic of the western countries. I'm damned if I can see the difference, but I'm not a lawyer. Anyway, I'd just like to draw your attention to page 7, where we read,

    "Additionally, no reliance can be made on the McLaren Report as evidence, as it is not complete, it has secret parts that were not shared with or available to the Athlete and there was no date of the sample taking in the information provided by Mr. McLaren."

    But on the same page, it reports, "FISA applied the criterion and was satisfied that the Athlete was 'clearly implicated' by the McLaren Report and was therefore excluded from the Rio Games." Wha wha what??? The reference which did not meet evidentiary standards was relied upon in the decision?

    Oh, dear; on Page 11 "Additionally, Mr. McLaren, in his amicus curiae, while not providing the emails on grounds of confidentiality, revealed to the Panel the exact date and times of the message from the Moscow laboratory that the screen of the Athlete's A sample revealed positive for the prohibited substance GW 1516 and the response from the Deputy Minister to change the positive into a negative, following the DPM. While these additional details were not before FISA (primarily due to the lack of time) they have been considered by the Panel in this de novo procedure".

    FISA and the Panel both made decisions based on evidence furnished by McLaren that they never examined or even saw. There just wasn't time. McLaren's report provides the evidence of a state-run doping program, except he doesn't have any evidence of that and says so, although he does and it's secret and he hasn't shown it to anyone.

    Bullshit. From start to finish. No western athlete would have to put up with a ban on competition just because he or she was American or Canadian or Dutch, and he or she would damned sure not be told to accept a ban where he or she had not even seen the evidence against him or her because it was secret.

    Which brings us back to the hooting and booing like the audience at a taping of the Arsenio Hall Show. On the occasion of Ms. King flipping out on Ms. Efimova, some reports of the incident recount the rest of the conversation – in which the reporter asked Ms. King if she thought American doper athletes like Justin Gatlin and Tyson Gay should be allowed to compete. To her credit, she didn't flinch, and said absolutely not.

    "I have to respect (the track authorities') decision even if it is something I don't necessarily agree with," King said. "No, do I think people who have been caught doping should be on the team? They shouldn't. It is unfortunate we have to see that.

    You could almost smell the controlled fury in the response rushed out by USATF:

    "In the United States, it is a matter of law. If you are not under a ban, regardless of what you may have served in the past, you are fully eligible to be on the team."

    Which describes Ms. Efimova's circumstances to a 'T'. What would be the American response to an Olympics audience which booed loudly every time Gay or Gatlin took the field? Low-class? You bet.

    And that brings us back to the beginning, to the article which started the whole post. An associated article on the same page offers, "Analysis: Why a Full Olympic Ban on Russia Never Had a Chance". Why not? Because it would have been illegal.

    "For one, a blanket ban on Russian athletes would likely have been derailed by numerous legal hurdles. The Court of Arbitration for Sport, among others, would likely overturn a universal ban that included athletes who haven't been implicated in doping.

    "We were mindful of the need for justice for clean athletes," IOC vice-president John Coates told reporters. "We did not want to penalize athletes who are clean with a collective ban and, therefore, keeping them out of the Games."

    Totally oblivious to fairness, apparently, are the Olympic crowds booing like a bunch of fourth-graders, and getting across the message so helpful to Washington that 'you Russian cheaters are not welcome here', fattened on non-stop propaganda from the world's biggest cheater and seasoned by the McLaren Report which proves Russia has a state culture of cheating, except it doesn't.

    WADA argued for a total ban. Travis Tygart of USADA argued for a total ban, because it would likely mean more medals for Americans. Neither of them gives a tin weasel whether it would be legal or not. Because that's the way things are done now – you just smash ahead by brute force and momentum, and hope that everyone mistakes action for justification.

    And that's what you're cheering for when you boo the Russians. I'm ashamed of you.

    There will be a price exacted for this later. I will be surprised if Russia does not take WADA to court, and even if it does not, the angry split between WADA and the IOC is evident. The McLaren Report does not prove anything it purports to prove, and it will not stand up to a challenge. At a minimum, WADA should be moved out of Canada to the USA, whose policies and interests it serves, depriving that country of an opportunity to internationalize its own initiatives.

    God speed the plough.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in the USA

    Notable quotes:
    "... The party left me ..."
    "... "The larger conclusion from the data is that the Trump campaign - both through the support Trump generates among working-class whites and the opposition he generates among better educated, more affluent voters - has accelerated the ongoing transformation of the Democratic Party. ..."
    "... Once a class-based coalition, the party has become an alliance between upscale well-educated whites and, importantly, ethnic and racial minorities, many of them low income" ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Democrats' Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S." [The Intercept].

    The party left me

    "The larger conclusion from the data is that the Trump campaign - both through the support Trump generates among working-class whites and the opposition he generates among better educated, more affluent voters - has accelerated the ongoing transformation of the Democratic Party.

    Once a class-based coalition, the party has become an alliance between upscale well-educated whites and, importantly, ethnic and racial minorities, many of them low income"

    [Thomas Edsall, New York Times]. Citing this tweet:

    [Aug 12, 2016] Is Hillary Showing Signs Of Dementia

    This article was written two years ago. Still current...
    Notable quotes:
    "... She was responding, but seemed a little off. I figured she was just distracted and didn't feel like it was worth her time. ..."
    "... I kept going, but was starting to get frustrated. I decided I would ask her something I hadn't really planned on. I said, 'Ms. Clinton, some have suggested that you aren't healthy enough or are too old to pursue the presidency. Do you have a comment on that?' ..."
    "... I knew I had crossed a line for her right away. She snapped back, 'It's my turn. I've done my time, and I deserve it.' Then she stormed off. ..."
    "... When you consider her history of fainting spells, likely the result of strokes and the verbal gaffes she's made recently, you have to wonder if she isn't losing her mental faculties. ..."
    "... Let's face it, she's not a rank amateur when it comes to politics. She's always demonstrated a talent for verbal manipulation and deception. But suddenly it's as if her mask has slipped exposing her ugly, arrogant sense of entitlement. ..."
    "... I guarantee there's a lot of hand wringing going on in Democrat circles right now. They have a lot invested in Hillary as their best and only shot at replacing Obama. Between revelations about her health, her age, the gaffes she's made, the failure of her book, her low approval numbers… They're sweating bullets. ..."
    June 24, 2014 | Blur Brain
    The story goes that a freelance journalist Samuel Rosales-Avila was granted a short interview with Hillary after her LA book signing. He wanted to do a article for a Hispanic publication and was surprised when Hillary granted him a 20 minute meeting.

    He got more than he bargained for…

    I started asking Ms. Clinton questions. Mostly policy stuff, really focused on immigration. She was responding, but seemed a little off. I figured she was just distracted and didn't feel like it was worth her time.

    I kept going, but was starting to get frustrated. I decided I would ask her something I hadn't really planned on. I said, 'Ms. Clinton, some have suggested that you aren't healthy enough or are too old to pursue the presidency. Do you have a comment on that?'

    I knew I had crossed a line for her right away. She snapped back, 'It's my turn. I've done my time, and I deserve it.' Then she stormed off.

    After she left, one of her handlers came up to me and told me he would need the recording of our interview and that it was now 'off the record'. I was shocked and disappointed, but it was clear that it wasn't a negotiation.

    Read the rest:

    Hillary's posse isn't denying that the meeting took place, but without that recording we only have his version of what transpired.

    When you consider her history of fainting spells, likely the result of strokes and the verbal gaffes she's made recently, you have to wonder if she isn't losing her mental faculties.

    Let's face it, she's not a rank amateur when it comes to politics. She's always demonstrated a talent for verbal manipulation and deception. But suddenly it's as if her mask has slipped exposing her ugly, arrogant sense of entitlement.

    I guarantee there's a lot of hand wringing going on in Democrat circles right now. They have a lot invested in Hillary as their best and only shot at replacing Obama. Between revelations about her health, her age, the gaffes she's made, the failure of her book, her low approval numbers… They're sweating bullets.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Brexit: This Backlash Has Been a Long Time Coming

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Kevin O'Rourke, Chichele Professor of Economic History, All Souls College, University of Oxford; and Programme Director, CEPR. Originally published at VoxEU . ..."
    "... I completely agree that the backlash has been a long time coming. We are decades into a slow motion train wreck at this point. The evidence is there for any who wish to see it. ..."
    Aug 12, 2016 |

    By Kevin O'Rourke, Chichele Professor of Economic History, All Souls College, University of Oxford; and Programme Director, CEPR. Originally published at VoxEU.

    After the Brexit vote, it is obvious to many that globalisation in general, and European integration in particular, can leave people behind – and that ignoring this for long enough can have severe political consequences. This column argues that this fact has long been obvious. As the historical record demonstrates plainly and repeatedly, too much market and too little state invites a backlash. Markets and states are political complements, not substitutes.

    The main point of my 1999 book with Jeff Williamson was that globalisation produces both winners and losers, and that this can lead to an anti-globalisation backlash (O'Rourke and Williamson 1999). We argued this based on late-19th century evidence. Then, the main losers from trade were European landowners, who found themselves competing with an elastic supply of cheap New World land. The result was that in Germany and France, Italy and Sweden, the move towards ever-freer trade that had been ongoing for several years was halted, and replaced by a shift towards protection that benefited not only agricultural interests, but industrial ones as well. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, immigration restrictions were gradually tightened, as workers found themselves competing with European migrants coming from ever-poorer source countries.

    ...

    The globalisation experience of the Atlantic economy prior to the Great War speaks directly and eloquently to globalisation debates today – and the political lessons from this are sobering.

    "Politicians, journalists, and market analysts have a tendency to extrapolate the immediate past into the indefinite future, and such thinking suggests that the world is irreversibly headed toward ever greater levels of economic integration. The historical record suggests the contrary."

    "Unless politicians worry about who gains and who loses,î we continued, ěthey may be forced by the electorate to stop efforts to strengthen global economy links, and perhaps even to dismantle them … We hope that this book will help them to avoid that mistake – or remedy it."

    ...If the English want continued Single Market access, they will have to swallow continued labour mobility. There are complementary domestic policies that could help in making that politically feasible. We will have to wait and see what the English decide. But there are also lessons for the 27 remaining EU states (28 if, as I hope, Scotland remains a member). Too much market and too little state invites a backlash. Take the politics into account, and it becomes clear (as Dani Rodrik has often argued) that markets and states are complements, not substitutes.

    Topics: Brexit , Free markets and their discontents , Globalization , Guest Post

    1. makedoanmend

      UK Toryism today is not so much a political party espousing an ideology as it is an ideology that has taken over a political party. It is the ideolgy of exploitation of a tiny clique over an entire society and has become, through extensive and relentless propoganda, embedded the fabric of UK society. It is a class ideology that requires a middle classes and poorer apirants to the middle classes to accept cuts to their influence and hence wealth by creating an demonising a constructed underclass. The underclass serves as:

      1. a frightening lesson to those who do not conform
      2. scapegoats for every kind of social and cultural ill
      3. a fungible source of wandering labour who can be compelled to exploitation and discarded at will

      It demands the destruction of the state that supports people and replaces it with a state that supports business interests only. Everything must become a commodity – especially humans. It is an ideology that decries income distribution to the less wealthy but in every instance creates laws that ensure distribution of vast majority of wealth to the wealthiest. It is the insurance company for the wealthy as well. The taxpayer is the insurer.

      The greatest single example of wealth redistribution from the politically weak is the student loan wheeze. The mob in their greatest exploits could not have contrived a more elaborate form of extortion. As Tory idoeology 'crapifies' every job in the UK, they goad the young into what have become school factories, turning out people with certificates but often very little relevant qualification for a shrinking economy. Meanwhile the governement sells the loans to "investors" (themselves and their friends) for pence on the pound.

      Create the law that create the conditions that create the cash flow, and never lift a finger to do a real days work.

      What's not to like?

      Given the over population of the island, that oil is running out, and that they have gutted any social and cultural cohesive factor, and even if Brexit evaporates, the long term bodes ill anyway.

    1. paul

      So if the EU was completely different in action and intent, we would not have had brexit?

      Is labour mobility a really an expression of individual freedom, or coercive displacement in the face of the internal devaluation insisted upon by the technocrats?

      Its the former for JC Juncker and the latter for the workers at the sports direct gulags.

      Globalisation is a mechanism to strengthen corporations and the elites that own them, we would never had heard of the term otherwise.

      The europroject has steadfastly committed itself to this end and nothing will be allowed to interfere with it.
      A highly coupled,regionally constrained 'free trade' area is the only way to achieve this end.

      Why is brexit going to be painful? The same reason a chinese finger trap is difficult to get out of, it's designed that way.

      The eurogroup cannot admit that it now only serves as an iron lung for the financial sector.

      Popular reaction against it is to be welcomed, It's the only thing that will work.

    1. windsock

      "It is astonishing in retrospect how few people argued strongly for more services rather than fewer people."

      Well, Jeremy Corbyn did…

      "Learning abroad and working abroad, increases the opportunities and skills of British people and migration brings benefits as well as challenges at home.

      But it's only if there is government action to train enough skilled workers to stop the exploitation of migrant labour to undercut wages and invest in local services and housing in areas of rapid population growth that they will be felt across the country.'

      And this Government has done nothing of the sort. Instead, its failure to train enough skilled workers means we have become reliant on migration to keep our economy functioning."

      and

      "It is sometimes easier to blame the EU, or worse to blame foreigners, than to face up to our own problems. At the head of which right now is a Conservative Government that is failing the people of Britain."

      http://labourlist.org/2016/04/europe-needs-to-change-but-i-am-voting-to-stay-corbyns-full-speech-on-the-eu/

      …but the Tories couldn't – they have been demonising the service users as "scroungers" and "skivers" since Osborne introduced his austerity policies in 2010. Why on earth would he and Cameron – leading the Remain campaign, take the opinions of such people (like me) into account?

      1. Art Eclectic

        I don't believe the lack of skilled workers is the problem. The problem is the wages that professionals WANT to pay for skills do match up with what labor needs/wants to make. Tech workers are a perfect example. US tech companies want more HB1 visas, claiming there is not enough skilled labor. The part they leave out is the skilled labor wages. A US citizen carrying six figures in student load dept demands a higher wage than an Indian immigrant on an HB1.

        The professional class and corporations want to pay lower wages for everything from child care to roofers to junior managers, so of course they are all in favor of globalization and worker movement. There's bit of classism there as well. The senior manager is pissed that some random coder is making almost as much as he is. The professional is offended that a child care worker can afford their own home and drive a middle class car. Keeping wages low allows the professionals to maintain distinction of rank and value.

        You can see that impact in every discussion about minimum wages and people complaining about fast food workers getting $15 a hour for "low-skill" work.

    1. Ancaeus

      Lambert,

      The subtext of this article is a fawning acceptance of the desirability of globalization. Many of us reject globalization outright. We don't believe that it can, or ever will, be "tamed". Nor do we desire to live in a world where its pernicious effects must be forever mitigated. We do not want to be the recipients of such long-term mitigation, with the consequent loss of dignity.

      Instead, let us return to local products and services, produced by our neighbors. The money we spend will stay in our community. What's more, the social benefits of such local trade and the resulting thriving local economy go well beyond economic ones.

      The destruction of social cohesion is the primary externality that results from "free trade". And, in my opinion, no amount of money can adequately compensate for it. Returning to Brexit question, it is not clear to me that these non-economic costs of free trade are made worthwhile by the supposed non-economic benefits of the European project. From this side of the Atlantic, it seems doubtful.

      1. washunate

        Agreed. I come at it from the other side: I think the (reasonably controlled) exchange of people, ideas, goods, and services across national borders is a good thing; however, I respect the right of those who dislike globalization to do so. This post instead treats them with a thinly veiled heaping of scorn on top of an implicit claim of calling people both stupid and racist.

        The notion at the end of the article that Brexit specifically, or opposition to globalization more generally, is about market vs. the state is nonsensical bordering on purposeful obtuseness. Western society today is not characterized by too little state. The problem is what the state does.

    1. Sound of the Suburbs

      The BoE has taken more action that won't help and its been a long time since 2008.

      More and more people have read Richard Koo's book and know fiscal stimulus is required.

      Ben Bernake and Janet Yellen had read Richard Koo's book and ensured the US didn't impose austerity and go over the fiscal cliff.

      Mario hasn't read Richard Koo's book and pushed the Club-Med nations over the fiscal cliff.
      The harsh austerity on Greece, killed the Greek economy altogether.

      Reading Richard Koo's book is important, if only Mario would get a copy before he wipes out the Club-Med economies and banking systems.

      Mark Carney is from the Goldman stable and is naturally slow on the uptake and is set in his old-fashioned banker ways.

      Before you make a complete fool of yourself like Mario, here is an essential video:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk

      You know what bankers are like.

      The IMF and World Bank spent 50 years imposing austerity, selling off previously public companies and insisting on lower Government spending. The trail of wreckage is spread across the world, South America, Africa, Asia and finally Greece.

      Bankers don't take responsibility for anything and so never learn from their mistakes.

      Well, The IMF, after 50 years, has finally realised this doesn't work.

      At 15.30 mins. into the video you can see the UK situation.

      There are massive bank reserves, adding to them will make no difference.

      Comparing the charts, the UK's borrowing has gone down more since 2008 than the US and the Euro-zone.

      We are doing all the wrong things, like austerity.

      If we had done the right things straight away the UK might still be in the EU

      (The Euro-zone figures look OK because the strong Northern nations aren't doing too badly, looking at the Club-Med nations and Greece, it's a very different story. The chart of Greece shows a nation being run into the ground.)

    1. hotairmail

      I voted Brexit not for the 'immigration issue' but for democracy. The EU bureaucracy has too much power and leverages its Central Bank to keep wayward states in line such as Greece, deliberately causing deflationary depressions and mass unemployment in their wake. The disdain with which democratic leaders are treated is typified by a rather famous video where a drunk Juncker greets various heads of democratic governments and proceeds to treat them disgracefully (search "Juncker bitch slap" on Youtube). That is not simply a video of a drunk man being inappropriate – it shows you where the power lies and what the bureaucracy routinely believes it can get away with.

      Britain decided not to join the Euro bloc. It is well documented that its design is not sustainable. It will either blow up and the thing will fall apart, or they will need to implement new fiscal transfers from the rich parts of the bloc to the less well off, as with an ordinary country. The Euro bloc will need to make big changes to ensure the Euro stays together which involves large costs to the richer nations such as Germany and Holland. But as most of the EU decision making at inter governmental level is majority voting, it is likely the UK would be outvoted to implement this via the EU – NOT the Euro bloc. They will want to pick the pockets of the UK even though the reasons for the transfers is nothing to do with the UK.

      Turning to the immigartion issue itself, it seems to me this is just as much about tax and benefits policy and its effects, as it is for free movement. As an EU citizen when you come to the UK, you are automatically treated the same as a UK citizen. This means you instantly have access to free health, free schools, housing benefit and in work tax credits. These sums really add up. The effect of these supports is to make labour very cheap to employers in the UK – people can do very low value work and still make their way. The expansion of the EU to the east made a vast pool of relatively poor labour available to employers and we have witnessed an explosion of low value added work from "hand car washes" to picking fruit (whilst fruit lays unpicked in their home countries). People wring ther hands about why productivity and tax revenue isn't growing despite rising employment coupled with an exploding housing benefit and tax credit bill, pressure on schools and healthcare. Put quite simply the UK cannot afford the services it has become used to with low value added work, so something has to give. At the end of the day, a decent welfare state in fact is NOT compatible with open borders. This is something the left wing have yet to face properly. And ordinary people, far from being simply 'racist' and xenophobic, are simply exercising their choice at the ballot box and they basically don't want to to see their lives get worse with lower wages, fewer opportunities, poorer housing and reduced welfare and services.

      A word of warning though about whether Brexit or the EU is protectionist or left wing etc – there are actually quite well argued opinions on both sides. For many Brexiteers, the EU actually represents a protectionist bloc that hinders free trade with the world. Many on the left, coming from the pure "international socialism" of the proper left wing also believe in fighting for protections of workers on the international stage such as the EU and therefore are not necessarily in step with their less well off followers, wondering who stole their cheese. A free trading nation but with a controlled immigration policy is actually quite appealing and may help to squeeze out the explosion of low value added work.

      On the democratic front, our politicians for decades have blamed the EU for why they can't do x or y. Add in that for the ordinary Brit we've only ever read articles about rules to implement "straight bananas" and the like, whilst our media spends far more time covering the anglophone American election, you can see there is no proper functioning "demos". And at the end of the day although "status quo" was always the position of the Remain side of things, this was never on the table. First we have the Euro issue and then we always have the Rome Treaty we signed up to which clearly states "Ever closer union".

      One final point about the vote split from the Ashcroft poll. You should note that only 2 parties voters supported Leave – UKIP (96%) and the Tories (56%). Labour and SNP were about the same at 62/63% to Remain. The idea that those who voted Leave are council house dwelling northerners is far from the mark. If you discount the fact that nationalist issues dominated proceedings in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the vote was more decisive than at first glance – hence why the Tories are treating this seemingly marginal result as so decisive – both amongst their own voters and the prize of the UKIP support in the future.

      Sorry for the rambling comment but there are lots of different angles to the EU issue – I'd just like to leave you with how I feel the split amongst the electorate occurs. Imagine a 4 box matrix, 2×2, with 'left' and 'right' on the top and 'nightmare' and 'dream' along the left. Left wingers who voted to remain have an international socialist dream. Right wingers who voted to Remain see it as a rampant free trade dream. Those who voted to leave on the right saw it as a socialist, protectionist nightmare. Those who voted leave on the left saw it as a neo liberal nightmare. So, you can see the split isn't just about whether you are left or right, free trade or protectionist – it has to be overlaid with whether the EU better represents your hopes or is a threat. The motivations for the vote are even more confusing than the coverage of those supposed reasons.

    1. sd

      Shorter version: the only way to keep capitalism in check is to pair it with a strong dose of socialism which the greed of those in power rarely allows. Outcome is always the same: the peasants revolt and management wonders why.

    1. lyman alpha blob

      The only reason globalization works for the meritorious technocrat class that supports it is because they are able to take advantage of differences in local currency values.

      Funny how you hear all this talk about global trade being necessary and unavoidable but never a global currency.

      Reply
    2. Mark John

      And now in France, a so-called Socialist government has weakened labor protections. A situation where a proletariat forced to swallow this, along with an easy immigration program, would spell trouble to anyone who has a knowledge of history and human nature.

      Plus, an even more immediate concern is that it appears globalization is an environmental disaster that we may very well have precious little time to correct.

    1. dw

      globalization isnt even all that popular among professionals since even their jobs are at risk now. but its extremely popular among executives because it makes their job easier. until their jobs end up being subject to it too. but among the among 1% its very popular, at least until it becomes very hard to make a profit or grow their business, since they all loose customers , and cant raise prices

    1. Mary Wehrheim

      The reason why popular opinion turns toward solutions involving immigration restriction rather than expansion of services is because….deficits. Watching the GOP primary ads in the hermetically sealed conservative bubble that passes for Kansas one would think that was the most pressing problem facing the US … course they throw in the usual memes of terrorist and Obama care dangers with a short sop about "more jobs" as rather an aside. The Powell memo propaganda machine has been very successful in redirecting the popular world view through the gaze of the 1%. Taxes = theft, just work harder (that one is finally wearing a bit thin though after the wives got into the work force and people got into deep debt over the past 40 years in a vain attempt to try and rise above stagnant salaries), safety net = dependency, poverty = lazy habits, privatization= efficiency, government and regulation = serfdom, and unions interfere with the celestial harmony of the spheres that is markets.

    1. Pookah Harvey

      These same arguments can be made for the replacement of low skilled jobs by robots, Closing borders will not help in this situation. Governments need to start planning for a world where there will be less of what we now consider" jobs" More services provided by government and lowering hours in the work week soon have to be on the agenda for forward looking politicians or Dune's Butlerian Jihad may come sooner than we think.

      Reply
      1. two beers

        […] lowering hours in the work week […]

        A guy named Karl Marx had an interesting little theory of value in capitalism which explains that the more hours a person works = more profit for the company. As automation deepens and spreads, companies will lay people off, but they will never willingly reduce the hours worked for the remaining employees.

        Unless capitalism willingly adopts socialistic measures (and it never will), it will keep herding workers – and eventually, itself – off a cliff.

    1. Ché Pasa

      These stories and the studies they're grounded in have been told over and over again for decades now. They're true, and in some cases they are so complete and compelling as to demolish once and for all the consensus ideology of Neo-LibCon rule, and yet…

      Our rulers do not listen. Our rulers do not care. They are lost in a post-modern decoupling of truth and fact from anything they need concern themselves with.

      It's pure religion tangled with power.

      The more stories and studies showing just how wrong they and their ideology/religion are, the more they don't listen, the more they don't care.

      1. Ulysses

        "Our rulers do not listen. Our rulers do not care. They are lost in a post-modern decoupling of truth and fact from anything they need concern themselves with.

        It's pure religion tangled with power.

        The more stories and studies showing just how wrong they and their ideology/religion are, the more they don't listen, the more they don't care."

        Very well said! Here in the U.S. we have enshrined in our fundamental law the right: "to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This first right amongst the bill of rights was only granted to us after Shay's Rebellion showed the elites that the people wouldn't simply roll over and subject themselves to an authoritarian government.

        When this petitioning failed, in the 1770s, to produce satisfactory results our independent nation was born amidst great tumult. Now we face a similar crossroads: move forward into a potentially better life, after toppling the transnational kleptocracy, or guarantee the further degradation of humanity by failing to do more than meekly petition the kleptocrats to throw us a few more crumbs.

        We need to stop trying to persuade those who benefit from exploiting us to stop through constructing ever more convincing arguments. The kleptocrats need to suffer tangible consequences for their crimes, through massive non-compliance with their wishes and monkey-wrenching of their systems. Indigenous peoples in Brazil have just shown us how to proceed by halting the dam.

        http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/news/international/388953/indigenous-tribe-applauds-state-move-to-cancel-brazil-amazon-dam

    1. Wade Riddick

      Zvi Namenwirth. He did a pioneering early study measuring the rhetoric of wealth transfer in American party platforms. I noticed twenty years ago that the swings tacked according to Kondratieff curves, which measure shifts between growth in manufacturing vs. agriculture. That's likely what you're seeing now with the balance shifting from labor to capital (the 1%) since the early '70s. It's not as important to look at general inflation as it is to measure the relative changes in prices among different sectors. Given that parties represent different interest groups, it's likely these stresses show up in political speech.

      But then that would mean politics drives economics and no economist wants to admit that.

    1. washunate

      I completely agree that the backlash has been a long time coming. We are decades into a slow motion train wreck at this point. The evidence is there for any who wish to see it.

      I completely disagree, though, with the conclusion. What is going on is not about an insufficiently large state. Rather, it's that the state has been entrenching inequality rather than addressing it. Our contemporary experience with excessive concentration of wealth and power is not an outcome of markets. It's an outcome of public policy. Implying that Brexit voters specifically, or anti-globalization advocates more generally, are stupid and racist says a lot more about the biases and blind spots in our intellectual class than it does about the victims of globalization as western governments have implemented it over the past few decades.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Michael Hudson: Clintons Red-Baiting Distracts from Failure to Address Inequality, War-Mongering as Trump Flails

    This lesser evilness trap is a standard trick inherent in two party system setup, designed to prevent voting for third party candidate and essentially limiting public discourse to selection between two oligarchy stooges. Moreover Hillary is definitely greater evil. Invoking of Nader to justify voting for Hillary is pure neoliberal propaganda designed to get the establishment candidate (who has significant and dangerous for any politician, to say nothing about POTUS, health problems) into White House. that why neoliberal MSM are baking non-stop at Trump, trying exaggerate any his misstep to galactic proportions. ...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American ..."
    "... Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers. ..."
    "... Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump. ..."
    "... She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. ..."
    "... Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. ..."
    "... "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity." ..."
    "... I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals. ..."
    "... I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades? ..."
    "... The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess. ..."
    "... I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. ..."
    "... As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything ..."
    "... You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country. ..."
    "... Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of. ..."
    "... As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager? ..."
    "... It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking administration. ..."
    "... Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention. ..."
    "... I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House. ..."
    "... You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed. ..."
    "... Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things. ..."
    "... Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way. ..."
    "... He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed. ..."
    "... While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative, scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in? No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry, not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake". ..."
    "... Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband, all to further the Clinton's. ..."
    "... IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected, she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place will be gutted. ..."
    "... Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war? ..."
    "... It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV. ..."
    "... You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear. ..."
    "... If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now. ..."
    "... "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.) ..."
    "... Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer." ..."
    "... That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care. ..."
    "... clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign. ..."
    "... it's common knowledge that the current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels. Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate it. ..."
    "... At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip. It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about all the things the media spends so much time discussing." ..."
    "... Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical ..."
    "... The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games. ..."
    "... Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards. ..."
    "... HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc. ..."
    "... They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex ..."
    "... "When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism and sexism. ..."
    "... He is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his parting speech. ..."
    "... Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics ..."
    "... Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more going on than meets the eye. ..."
    "... Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed by a dictatorship. ..."
    "... A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy". ..."
    "... How could Trump become a dictator? Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile. Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally lining up behind Clinton?) Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking like crazy. ..."
    "... Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for Trump to attempt a mass purge. ..."
    "... Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled "checks and balances" come into play for once in your life! ..."
    "... How could Trump become a dictator? ..."
    "... This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight. ..."
    "... While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ... ... ...

    PERIES: So Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American . Now, this type of association game, which is supposed to make it difficult for Sanders supporters to criticize Clinton, what implication does this have on the overall politics in this country?

    HUDSON: Well, it certainly changed things in earlier elections. The Republican convention was as is normal, all about their candidate Trump. But surprisingly, so was the Democratic convention. That was all about Trump too – as the devil. The platform Hillary's running on is "I'm not Trump. I'm the lesser evil."

    She elaborates that by saying that Trump is Putin's ploy. When the Democratic National Committee (someone within it, or without) leaked the information to Wikileaks, the Democrats and Hillary asked, "Who benefits from this"? Ah-ha. Becaue Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers.

    Then Assange did an Internet interview and implied that it was not a cyberwar attack but a leak – indicating that it came from an insider inn the DNC. If this is true, then the Democrats are simply trying to blame it all on Trump – diverting attention from what the leaks' actual content!

    This is old-fashioned red baiting. I saw it 60 years ago when I was a teenager. I went to a high school where teachers used to turn in reports on what we said in class to the FBI every month. The State Department was emptied out of "realists" and staffed with Alan Dulles-type Cold Warriors. One couldn't talk about certain subjects. That is what red-baiting does. So the effect at the Democratic Convention was about Hillary trying to avoid taking about her own policies and herself. Except for what her husband said about "I met a girl" (not meaning Jennifer Flowers or Monica Lewinski.)

    The red baiting succeeded, and the convention wasn't about Hillary – at least, not her economic policies. It was more about Obama. She tied herself to Obama, and next to Trump = Putin, the convention's second underlying theme was that Hillary was going to be Obama's third term. That's what Obama himself said when he came and addressed the convention.

    The problem with this strategy is it's exactly the problem the Republicans faced in 2008, when voters turned against George Bush's administration. Voters wanted change. And they do today. Hillary did not say "I'm going to have hope and change from the last years of Obama." She said, in effect, "I'm not going to change anything. I'm going to continue Obama's policies that have made you all so prosperous." She talked about how employment is rising and everyone is better off.

    Well, the problem is that many people aren't better off than the last eight years. Ten million families have lost their homes, and most peoples' budgets are being squeezed. Obama saved the banks not the economy. So Trump's line and the Republican line in this election could well be: "Are you really better off than you were eight years ago? Or, are you actually worse off? Where are all your gains? You're further in debt. You're having more difficulty meeting your paychecks, you're running up your student loans. You're really not better off and we're going to be the party of hope and change."

    Hillary can't really counter that with the policies she has. Trump and the Republicans can say that even though she disavowed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the trade agreement with Europe, all the Democratic representatives that voted for the TPP have won re-nomination, and it's still on the burner.

    Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump.

    What did Hilary actually say at the convention besides "I'm not Trump, Trump is worse." She's trying to make the whole election over her rival, not over herself.

    PERIES: Okay, so everything you say about Hillary Clinton may be true, and it's more in your favor that it is true. She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. So when we opened this interview we were talking about what the Bernie Sanders supporters should now do, because Trump is starting to appeal like he's the candidate of ordinary people. So what are they to do?

    HUDSON: Well, if the election is between the most unpopular woman candidate in America and the most unpopular male candidate, the winner is going to be whoever can make the election fought over the other person. Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. It looks like she's able to do this, because Trump is even more narcissistic than she is.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 5:37 am

    EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie. Diametrically opposed to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces her! What? I will never understand that.

    "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."

    He's right too. I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals.

    She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again said she wants to take out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just hope that there's a big Clinton Foundation email leak to finish her off.

    Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of course, if war wasn't making so many people rich, it would be stopped tomorrow). He's questioning why NATO is necessary, never mind its continual expansion, and he wants to stop the TPP.

    God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP, more NATO, more war, and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails hanging around, now is the time!

    Katniss Everdeen , August 10, 2016 at 7:30 am

    I honestly don't think there's any way to predict what Donald Trump will do if elected. He's effectively a private citizen who, all of a sudden, will have access to every government secret and lie, and no culpability for any of it. It's almost impossible to imagine what that would be like.

    And it's what makes him so "dangerous."

    I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades?

    The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess.

    PlutoniumKun , August 10, 2016 at 8:09 am

    I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. I doubt he would be able to get much done as there would be an establishment consensus to keep him firmly under wraps. He would mostly busy himself with jetting around meeting foreign leaders and he might actually be quite productive at that.

    jrs , August 10, 2016 at 2:02 pm

    or he'll pass what he campaigns on which is standard Republican policy (sometimes) through an entirely Republican legislature duh. So tax cuts, cuts to regulation etc.. Really he's campaigning on these things and they CAN pass a Republican congress.

    Michael Fiorillo , August 10, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Yes, if Donnie is elected, we'll see some form of a Regency; that's what Pence is there for. Donnie will be Clown Prince, while more traditionally evil Republican/DC technocrats "run" things. It would be a re-doing of the Reagan/Bush-Baker and Bush/Cheney dynamic, as seen on reality TV.

    As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything. Does he lie exactly the way Hillary does? Of course not, she's the accomplished professional, while Donnie spins plates and tries to misdirect by finding someone to insult when they fall and shatter.

    Vote for Hillary or not (I most likely won't, but can't predict much of anything in this all-bets-are-off opera buffa), but by believing anything Donnie says, you risk being the chump he already thinks you are.

    oh , August 10, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country.

    EoinW , August 10, 2016 at 8:28 am

    Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of.

    When was the last time a political candidate in any country was as hated by the establishment as Trump is? That's all you need to know. As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager?

    Pat , August 10, 2016 at 10:32 am

    It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking administration. Something, that for all her rhetoric, there is no reason to believe that Clinton will change. As for waging war, we have a whole lot of information that for all his massive drone wars and interventions in the Middle East, Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention.

    I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House.

    You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed.

    Once again, people are choosing from known despicable, unknown possibly lesser possibly greater despicable, and unlikely to win third parties or write ins – everyone can only do that for themselves.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 10:53 am

    That's fair.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    One New York reporter (sorry, I don't have the link) said that he has watched Trump his whole life and he said, though he could say many bad things about Trump, racism wasn't one of them. He said he had never in all his years of watching him known Trump to be racist in any way.

    Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things.

    Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way.

    He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative, scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in? No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry, not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake".

    Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband, all to further the Clinton's.

    IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected, she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place will be gutted.

    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    Needs a link, especially on a key point like that!!

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    Okay, I'm pretty sure I saw it at Counterpunch. I think I can probably find it. Thanks.

    Michael Fiorillo , August 10, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    That's preposterous about Donnie not being racist. When the Central Park Five (released from prison and compensated by the state for false impisonment) were arrested, Donnie took out full page ads for days in the NYC papers, all but calling for those (innocent) boy's lynching. He was raised in an explicitly racist milieu – his father arrested at a KKK tussle in Queens in the 1920's, and successfully sued by the Nixon DOJ for his discriminatory rental policies…) and has a long history of saying ignorant, absurd and racist things about "The Blacks."

    shinola , August 10, 2016 at 10:56 am

    "Clinton is awful, but that doesn't mean it's a better idea to elect a hateful, racist, despicable con man"

    Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war?

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 11:25 am

    It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV.

    Hatred and racism is exhibited in leaders by being a war monger and gutting this nation with the TPP and lousy trade deals that sell off our national sovereignty and democracy. You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    I am with Noam Chomsky on this. If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now.

    But as Pat said above, everyone must make up his or her own mind.

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    Of course my friend, you have to vote your conscience is the way I've always felt. You have to be able to live with your vote.

    lyman alpha blob , August 10, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    Has there ever been any evidence that this type of strategic voting has ever done any good whatsoever or ever had its intended result? Just speculation but I'm guessing that only a very few of the very politically astute would even bother. I say vote your conscience regardless and let the chips fall where they may.

    Not the voters fault that this is the best the two major parties could come up with.

    Tyler , August 10, 2016 at 9:35 am

    Speaking of revolution, I emailed Chomsky yesterday and he replied. The below is my message to him.

    Professor Chomsky,

    In the last years of his life, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized the Poor People's Campaign, which essentially planned to occupy Capitol Hill. The campaign still happened after his death, but not enough people showed up for it to have a great impact.

    I've begun to advocate what would essentially be a continuation of the Poor People's Campaign, but with a broader focus on the numerous crises facing humanity: climate change, poverty, illegal wars, etc.

    Would you possibly be interested in providing rhetorical support for this action?

    Thank you so much for your efforts to make a better world.

    The below is Chomsky's reply.

    It was a wonderful and very important initiative, cruelly undermined by his assassination. I hope you manage to revive it.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    Bravo! Chomsky and MLK are two of my heros, as I think they are for many here.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she now? Here's a good quote on how she felt about universal health care:

    "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)

    "David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary Clinton's weary and exasperated response – as head of the White House's health reform initiative – to Harvard medical professor David Himmelstein in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health Program. He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive, single-payer "Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds of the U.S. public. Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/27/feel-the-hate/

    That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care.

    Perhaps Yves could highlight Hillary's disdain for single-payer healthcare on another post. Thanks.

    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen CBS

    vidimi , August 10, 2016 at 9:52 am

    clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign.

    Steve Sewall , August 10, 2016 at 11:08 am

    I love Michael Hudson. But like everyone commenting here he is needlessly thinking inside the crumbling box of America's existing top-down, money-driven system of political discourse. So what is it that keeps us from thinking outside this godawful box? I think we're all so deeply and habitually embedded in the mode of being status quo critics that we're unable to enter the problem-solving mode of finding alternatives to it. But to make government work in America, we need to think in both modes.

    So let's think outside the box for a minute. After all, it's common knowledge that the current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels. Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate it.

    At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip. It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about all the things the media spends so much time discussing." Yet like all presidential candidates this year Bernie didn't take the next, logical step: he didn't call for the creation of a new political discourse system. (Note that Hillary alone among the top three candidates never, ever has a bad word to say against the current system.)

    OK, so what might a new system look like? First off, it would be non-partisan, issue-centered and deliberative. And citizen-participatory. It would make citizens and governments responsive and accountable to each other in shaping the best futures of their communities. That's its core principal.

    More specifically, the format of a reality TV show like The Voice or American Idol could readily be adapted to create ongoing, prime-time, issue-centered searches for solutions to any and all of the issues of the day. And of course problem-solving Reality TV is just of any number of formats that could work for TV. Other media could develop formats tap their strengths and appeal to their audiences.

    I'm from Chicago, so here's how it could take shape in the Windy City .

    Thanks to the miracle of modern communications technologies, there's nothing to stop Americans from having a citizen-participatory system of political discourse that gives all Americans an informed voice in the political and government decisions that affect their lives. Americans will flock in drove to ongoing, rule-governed problem-solving public forums that earn the respect and trust of citizens and political leaders alike. When we create them, governments at local, state and national levels will start working again. If we don't, our politics will continue to sink deeper into the cesspool we're in now.

    Left in Wisconsin , August 10, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical, unless there is a real socialist-ish movement out there educating and politicizing. In other words, while the political system is indeed broken, the economy is also broken and it is hard to see "empowered" citizens fixing the economy. What I think would happen is the politicians elected by these empowered citizens would be opposed by big business and the politicians they own, nothing good would get done, and there would be a business-financed media drumbeat that more democracy has been "proven" not to work.

    I don't think our political problems can be solved simply be electing better politicians – though of course we do need better politicians.

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 11:40 am

    The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    I have not had nearly the hardship you have had crittermom and I have not lived as long either, but at 27, and being someone who has been discontent with social structure since middle school, I have absolutely had enough. Genetics, environment, the combination of internal-external factors, whatever it was I have always had a very ("annoying" and sarcastic) curiousity or oppositional approach to things, especially things people do not question and accept as is (religion, government…).

    Growing older has only led me to greater understanding of the pit we reside within and how we probably will not get out. This election season in particular has been ridiculously… indescribable. The utter incompetence of our selfish administrations is finally coming to a head and people are completely oblivious, pulling the same stale BS that we have seen every four years since before I was born.

    Bernie totally blew it but, outside your hardship, don't ever think you effort was a waste. For once an honest candidate appeared who was backed by the policies we need and you supported that (as I did). That is the most we can do at this point. Bernie the man should absolutely be criticized because he wanted a "revolution" then sold out to the Junta instead of biting back when it would have really sent a message to the people and high rollers. He wasn't willing to sacrifice what was necessary to make a stand. Instead he sided with the people that have made careers sacrificing citizens like you–and that is terrible. The reality these people live in and teach to others is such a lie.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    These circumstances constantly remind me of the closing passage from Robert A. Heinlein's All You Zombies" :

    The Snake That Eats Its Own Tail, Forever and Ever. I know where I came from-but where did all you
    zombies come from?

    I felt a headache coming on, but a headache powder is one thing I do not take. I did once-and you all went away.

    So I crawled into bed and whistled out the light.

    You aren't really there at all. There isn't anybody but me-Jane-here alone in the dark.

    I miss you dreadfully!

    Carolinian , August 10, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    America needs an ineffective president .

    Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards.

    So despite his potty mouth there's something to be said for Mr. Trump Goes to Washington. By the time he figures out how to be caudillo it may be time for another election.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    crittermom – HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc.

    They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex. Who would have thought that the guy running for the right wants to keep jobs in America, wants to stop wars, and the one on the left is for the monied class! Right is left and left is right. Upside down world.

    The following article is old now, from April, but it gives you an idea of "Why the Establishment Hates Trump" and what he is planning on doing. Watch them go after him; they will vilify him.

    "When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism and sexism.

    But the silenced policies he advocates are more like jumping into a crocodile pit. He is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his parting speech.

    Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics.

    Big Pharma is also called out with "$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of prices". The even more powerful HMO's are confronted by the possibility of a "one-payer system", the devil incarnate in America's corporate-welfare state."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/05/why-the-establishment-hates-trump/

    Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more going on than meets the eye.

    MLaRowe , August 10, 2016 at 10:53 pm

    So I don't usually post here, just mostly read what other folks have to say.

    Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed by a dictatorship.

    So if that is the case is Trump going to take us into the land of dictatorship (which I believe is highly likely) or are any of us going to be able to tread water for a little longer with HRC (who I agree is ugh a non-choice but hopefully the lesser of the two evils).

    Looking this up I found the concept of the Tytler Cycle. Interesting and scary. This is off wikipedia:

    Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy".

    Anyway can someone refute this for me so I can sleep tonight? Thanks, in advance.

    flora , August 10, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    Sounds a bit too deterministic.

    Roland , August 11, 2016 at 4:51 am

    @ MLaRowe

    How could Trump become a dictator? Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile. Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally lining up behind Clinton?) Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking like crazy.

    Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for Trump to attempt a mass purge.

    So exactly how the hell would Trump impose his will on the American masses? Answer: No Way.

    President Trump can only be a relatively weak president.

    Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled "checks and balances" come into play for once in your life!

    Roger Smith , August 11, 2016 at 10:48 am

    How could Trump become a dictator?

    Thank you! The same question I have been asking repeatedly throughout this charade. Everyone's favorite line is "Trump will be a dictator [be afriad]!" The obvious question… how ?!

    How is Trump going to have the same or any more power within or over the system than any president before him?? What is a reasonable strategy with which he could upend and create domination over this system with? This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight.

    Roger Smith , August 11, 2016 at 10:42 am

    I have felt for a long time but have struggled to put into words the deep, strong aversion I have towards Clinton (et al.)and that I feel any time I read about her or see her. There is a phrase in the song Art War , by the Knack, that caught my ear; what I originally heard as, "malice of forethought". To me this represents the idea that terrible, harmful, far-reaching, incompetent decisions are made completely on purpose. After doing some research I discovered that the phrase is actually "malice aforethought", related to murderous intent in legal definitions. A second, more appropriate definition here is "a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others". This represents my internal shuddering exactly – a sort of willful, deadly incompetence.

    While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Nader, Bush-Gore and lesser evil propaganda by Demorats

    Notable quotes:
    "... CNN exit polls show that only about 47 percent of the Nader voters would have voted for Gore in a two way race, while 21 percent would have voted for Bush and 30 percent would have abstained from voting in the Presidential contest altogether. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    Well, a counterfactual: Bush v Gore 2000. I have heard arguments that if Nader had not run, or if no one voted for him, Gore would have won Florida and hence the election.

    How might the world be different?

    Reply
    oh , August 10, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    That was the Dems' excuse for losing and has been disproved many times over. Don't buy it.

    Reply
    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    Do you have a link? I'd like to be educated.

    Reply
    Michael Fiorillo , August 10, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    Mike, I've no links to provide you with -you can easily find them – but the rebuttal to the Nader-Gave-Us-Bush line is typically that 1) hundreds of thousands of registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush, and 2) Gore could not win his "home" (though he's really a pure product of Washington, DC) state of Tennessee.

    The Blame Nader narrative also ignores the fact that the Dems did little or nothing to contest the blatant stealing of the election.

    Lies and misdirection, everywhere you look.

    Reply
    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 5:53 pm

    Thanks, Michael. They only way I see to disprove it is if they interviewed all 90,000+ Nader voters and > 50% in FL swore they would have voted for Bush - or some such.

    It seems tough to disprove such an historical counterfactual hypothetical!

    At any rate, I think this is what underlies Chomsky's reasoning.

    Reply
    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    BTW here's the Chomsky interview I referred to.

    Reply
    m1p3nner , August 11, 2016 at 12:55 am

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/dont_fall_for_it_the_nader_myth_and_your_2016_vote_20160802
    Of course such commentary isn't conclusive but I found it persuasive. Then again, I voted for Ralph Nader and can't help second guessing that vote now and again, so some confirmation bias. If you have time, let us know what you think.

    Reply
    MikeNY , August 11, 2016 at 5:27 am

    Thanks for the link. From the Alternet article linked to at the end:

    CNN exit polls show that only about 47 percent of the Nader voters would have voted for Gore in a two way race, while 21 percent would have voted for Bush and 30 percent would have abstained from voting in the Presidential contest altogether.

    This would be the relevant evidence to prove the counterfactual hypothesis. I note that it seems to be contradicted by the CNN polling data in the Truthdig article; what is unclear to me is whether they are talking about FL voters, or national voters. It makes a difference if we are focusing solely on FL (which in itself could be problematic if Nader's elimination swung the result in other states - which I don't know.)

    Anyway, as I said above, I do think it is this example and reasoning that underlies Chomsky's logic. And mine. But I admit, I am abjectly unenthusiastic about it. I expect and hope that I shall be able to vote 3rd party - I vote in NY.

    Thanks again. And to you and all, I appreciate the civility of tone in this engagement. I realize my view is probably in the minority here.

    Reply
    lyman alpha blob , August 10, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    Gore got more votes overall than Bush and not all the votes were counted in FL in 2000 thanks to a corrupt Supreme court. Bush was appointed, not elected, and that isn't Nader's fault.

    Nader ran in 2004 too and got ,< 1% of the vote. Of course that election was stolen too but neither Gore nor Kerry bothered to raise a fuss.

    I think we ought to be concentrating more on the integrity of our elections in this country rather than wringing our hands about who might be a 'spoiler'.

    Can't stand the republicans but I haven't heard them whinging about Ross Perot for the last 20 years.

    Reply
    MojaveWolf , August 10, 2016 at 7:03 pm

    Sooooo tired of this analogy. And I voted for Gore in 2000. First, a couple of differences:
    Gore was clearly a much better candidate and would have been a much better president than Bush. And Gore was great on the environment.

    Also, Gore lost primarily because of a tilted "liberal media" that seemed to MUCH prefer Bush. Secondarily because he (or his people) ran one of the worst presidential campaigns I've ever seen. Maybe the worst presidential campaign I've ever seen, as far as trying to take advantage of the candidate's strengths (Trump in this general is working on catching up, though!)

    Third was Clinton fatigue, which was very real at the time and did not help at all. Nader and the cheating in Florida and the horrid Supreme Court decision (complete w/failures to recuse that were kinda eyebrow raising) were also relevant, but none of this should have even come into play. Gore had a lot to work with, Bush was a godawful candidate, and a competent campaign combined with something even vaguely resembling fair media coverage would have made this a slam dunk 5+ % win despite the polarized country and a strong desire on the part of many to get rid of anything associated with Bill. Even with all that, and Nader, if we hadn't allowed a truly criminal purge of non-criminals from Florida's voter rolls, Gore wins. This was followed by the count fiasco, more horribly biased media coverage (they were as desperate for Gore to quit then as they were for Bernie to quit the last several months of his campaign, gotta give Bernie credit for fighting harder and longer against worse odds), Gore inexplicably rolling over in a display that still makes me shake my head in disbelief, and a just plain wrong Supreme Court decision that only happened because justices w/family members working on Bush's campaign didn't recuse themselves.

    But still, biggest difference for me? Neither of these are someone I want in the oval office.

    Reply
    Skippy , August 11, 2016 at 2:24 am

    Bush used the Enron jet to stitch up a deal, Gore folded.

    Disheveled Marsupial…. I still get a tear in my eye when thinking about the xmas card the Skilling family sent Bush…. see you in the WH…. sniff…

    Reply

    [Aug 12, 2016] Michael Hudson: Clinton's Red-Baiting Distracts from Failure to Address Inequality, War-Mongering as Trump Flails

    Notable quotes:
    "... Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American ..."
    "... Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers. ..."
    "... Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump. ..."
    "... She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. ..."
    "... Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. ..."
    "... "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity." ..."
    "... I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals. ..."
    "... I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades? ..."
    "... The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess. ..."
    "... I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. ..."
    "... As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything ..."
    "... You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country. ..."
    "... Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of. ..."
    "... As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager? ..."
    "... Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention. ..."
    "... I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House. ..."
    "... You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed. ..."
    "... Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things. ..."
    "... Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way. ..."
    "... He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed. ..."
    "... Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war? ..."
    "... It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV. ..."
    "... You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear. ..."
    "... If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now. ..."
    "... Professor Chomsky, ..."
    "... In the last years of his life, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized the Poor People's Campaign, which essentially planned to occupy Capitol Hill. The campaign still happened after his death, but not enough people showed up for it to have a great impact. I've begun to advocate what would essentially be a continuation of the Poor People's Campaign, but with a broader focus on the numerous crises facing humanity: climate change, poverty, illegal wars, etc. Would you possibly be interested in providing rhetorical support for this action? ..."
    "... Thank you so much for your efforts to make a better world. ..."
    "... It was a wonderful and very important initiative, cruelly undermined by his assassination. I hope you manage to revive it. ..."
    "... clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign. ..."
    "... Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical ..."
    "... The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games. ..."
    "... All You Zombies" ..."
    "... The Snake That Eats Its Own Tail, Forever and Ever. I know where I came from-but where did all you zombies come from? ..."
    "... I felt a headache coming on, but a headache powder is one thing I do not take. I did once-and you all went away. So I crawled into bed and whistled out the light. You aren't really there at all. There isn't anybody but me-Jane-here alone in the dark. ..."
    "... I miss you dreadfully! ..."
    "... Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards. ..."
    "... How could Trump become a dictator? ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ... ... ...

    PERIES: So Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American . Now, this type of association game, which is supposed to make it difficult for Sanders supporters to criticize Clinton, what implication does this have on the overall politics in this country?

    HUDSON: Well, it certainly changed things in earlier elections. The Republican convention was as is normal, all about their candidate Trump. But surprisingly, so was the Democratic convention. That was all about Trump too – as the devil. The platform Hillary's running on is "I'm not Trump. I'm the lesser evil."

    She elaborates that by saying that Trump is Putin's ploy. When the Democratic National Committee (someone within it, or without) leaked the information to Wikileaks, the Democrats and Hillary asked, "Who benefits from this"? Ah-ha. Becaue Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers.

    Then Assange did an Internet interview and implied that it was not a cyberwar attack but a leak – indicating that it came from an insider inn the DNC. If this is true, then the Democrats are simply trying to blame it all on Trump – diverting attention from what the leaks' actual content!

    This is old-fashioned red baiting. I saw it 60 years ago when I was a teenager. I went to a high school where teachers used to turn in reports on what we said in class to the FBI every month. The State Department was emptied out of "realists" and staffed with Alan Dulles-type Cold Warriors. One couldn't talk about certain subjects. That is what red-baiting does. So the effect at the Democratic Convention was about Hillary trying to avoid taking about her own policies and herself. Except for what her husband said about "I met a girl" (not meaning Jennifer Flowers or Monica Lewinski.)

    The red baiting succeeded, and the convention wasn't about Hillary – at least, not her economic policies. It was more about Obama. She tied herself to Obama, and next to Trump = Putin, the convention's second underlying theme was that Hillary was going to be Obama's third term. That's what Obama himself said when he came and addressed the convention.

    The problem with this strategy is it's exactly the problem the Republicans faced in 2008, when voters turned against George Bush's administration. Voters wanted change. And they do today. Hillary did not say "I'm going to have hope and change from the last years of Obama." She said, in effect, "I'm not going to change anything. I'm going to continue Obama's policies that have made you all so prosperous." She talked about how employment is rising and everyone is better off.

    Well, the problem is that many people aren't better off than the last eight years. Ten million families have lost their homes, and most peoples' budgets are being squeezed. Obama saved the banks not the economy. So Trump's line and the Republican line in this election could well be: "Are you really better off than you were eight years ago? Or, are you actually worse off? Where are all your gains? You're further in debt. You're having more difficulty meeting your paychecks, you're running up your student loans. You're really not better off and we're going to be the party of hope and change."

    Hillary can't really counter that with the policies she has. Trump and the Republicans can say that even though she disavowed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the trade agreement with Europe, all the Democratic representatives that voted for the TPP have won re-nomination, and it's still on the burner.

    Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump.

    What did Hilary actually say at the convention besides "I'm not Trump, Trump is worse." She's trying to make the whole election over her rival, not over herself.

    PERIES: Okay, so everything you say about Hillary Clinton may be true, and it's more in your favor that it is true. She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. So when we opened this interview we were talking about what the Bernie Sanders supporters should now do, because Trump is starting to appeal like he's the candidate of ordinary people. So what are they to do?

    HUDSON: Well, if the election is between the most unpopular woman candidate in America and the most unpopular male candidate, the winner is going to be whoever can make the election fought over the other person. Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. It looks like she's able to do this, because Trump is even more narcissistic than she is.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 5:37 am

    EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie. Diametrically opposed to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces her! What? I will never understand that.

    "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."

    He's right too. I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals.

    She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again said she wants to take out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just hope that there's a big Clinton Foundation email leak to finish her off.

    Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of course, if war wasn't making so many people rich, it would be stopped tomorrow). He's questioning why NATO is necessary, never mind its continual expansion, and he wants to stop the TPP.

    God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP, more NATO, more war, and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails hanging around, now is the time!

    Katniss Everdeen , August 10, 2016 at 7:30 am

    I honestly don't think there's any way to predict what Donald Trump will do if elected. He's effectively a private citizen who, all of a sudden, will have access to every government secret and lie, and no culpability for any of it. It's almost impossible to imagine what that would be like.

    And it's what makes him so "dangerous."

    I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades?

    The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess.

    PlutoniumKun , August 10, 2016 at 8:09 am

    I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. I doubt he would be able to get much done as there would be an establishment consensus to keep him firmly under wraps. He would mostly busy himself with jetting around meeting foreign leaders and he might actually be quite productive at that.

    jrs , August 10, 2016 at 2:02 pm

    or he'll pass what he campaigns on which is standard Republican policy (sometimes) through an entirely Republican legislature duh. So tax cuts, cuts to regulation etc.. Really he's campaigning on these things and they CAN pass a Republican congress.

    Michael Fiorillo , August 10, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Yes, if Donnie is elected, we'll see some form of a Regency; that's what Pence is there for.

    Donnie will be Clown Prince, while more traditionally evil Republican/DC technocrats "run" things. It would be a re-doing of the Reagan/Bush-Baker and Bush/Cheney dynamic, as seen on reality TV.

    As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything. Does he lie exactly the way Hillary does? Of course not, she's the accomplished professional, while Donnie spins plates and tries to misdirect by finding someone to insult when they fall and shatter.

    Vote for Hillary or not (I most likely won't, but can't predict much of anything in this all-bets-are-off opera buffa), but by believing anything Donnie says, you risk being the chump he already thinks you are.

    oh , August 10, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country.

    EoinW , August 10, 2016 at 8:28 am

    Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of.

    When was the last time a political candidate in any country was as hated by the establishment as Trump is? That's all you need to know. As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager?

    Pat , August 10, 2016 at 10:32 am

    It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking administration. Something, that for all her rhetoric, there is no reason to believe that Clinton will change. As for waging war, we have a whole lot of information that for all his massive drone wars and interventions in the Middle East, Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention.

    I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House.

    You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed.

    Once again, people are choosing from known despicable, unknown possibly lesser possibly greater despicable, and unlikely to win third parties or write ins – everyone can only do that for themselves.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 10:53 am

    That's fair.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    One New York reporter (sorry, I don't have the link) said that he has watched Trump his whole life and he said, though he could say many bad things about Trump, racism wasn't one of them. He said he had never in all his years of watching him known Trump to be racist in any way.

    Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things.

    Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way.

    He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative, scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in? No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry, not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake".

    Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband, all to further the Clinton's.

    IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected, she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place will be gutted.

    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    Needs a link, especially on a key point like that!!

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    Okay, I'm pretty sure I saw it at Counterpunch. I think I can probably find it. Thanks.

    Michael Fiorillo , August 10, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    That's preposterous about Donnie not being racist. When the Central Park Five (released from prison and compensated by the state for false impisonment) were arrested, Donnie took out full page ads for days in the NYC papers, all but calling for those (innocent) boy's lynching. He was raised in an explicitly racist milieu – his father arrested at a KKK tussle in Queens in the 1920's, and successfully sued by the Nixon DOJ for his discriminatory rental policies…) and has a long history of saying ignorant, absurd and racist things about "The Blacks."

    shinola , August 10, 2016 at 10:56 am

    "Clinton is awful, but that doesn't mean it's a better idea to elect a hateful, racist, despicable con man"

    Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war?

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 11:25 am

    It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV.

    Hatred and racism is exhibited in leaders by being a war monger and gutting this nation with the TPP and lousy trade deals that sell off our national sovereignty and democracy. You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    I am with Noam Chomsky on this. If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now.

    But as Pat said above, everyone must make up his or her own mind.

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    Of course my friend, you have to vote your conscience is the way I've always felt. You have to be able to live with your vote.

    Reply
    lyman alpha blob , August 10, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    Has there ever been any evidence that this type of strategic voting has ever done any good whatsoever or ever had its intended result? Just speculation but I'm guessing that only a very few of the very politically astute would even bother. I say vote your conscience regardless and let the chips fall where they may.

    Not the voters fault that this is the best the two major parties could come up with.

    Reply
    Tyler , August 10, 2016 at 9:35 am

    Speaking of revolution, I emailed Chomsky yesterday and he replied. The below is my message to him.

    Professor Chomsky,

    In the last years of his life, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized the Poor People's Campaign, which essentially planned to occupy Capitol Hill. The campaign still happened after his death, but not enough people showed up for it to have a great impact.

    I've begun to advocate what would essentially be a continuation of the Poor People's Campaign, but with a broader focus on the numerous crises facing humanity: climate change, poverty, illegal wars, etc.

    Would you possibly be interested in providing rhetorical support for this action?

    Thank you so much for your efforts to make a better world.

    The below is Chomsky's reply.

    It was a wonderful and very important initiative, cruelly undermined by his assassination. I hope you manage to revive it.

    Reply
    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    Bravo! Chomsky and MLK are two of my heros, as I think they are for many here.

    Reply
    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she now? Here's a good quote on how she felt about universal health care:

    "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)

    "David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary Clinton's weary and exasperated response – as head of the White House's health reform initiative – to Harvard medical professor David Himmelstein in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health Program. He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive, single-payer "Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds of the U.S. public. Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/27/feel-the-hate/

    That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care.

    Perhaps Yves could highlight Hillary's disdain for single-payer healthcare on another post. Thanks.

    Reply
    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen CBS

    vidimi , August 10, 2016 at 9:52 am

    clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign.

    Steve Sewall , August 10, 2016 at 11:08 am

    I love Michael Hudson. But like everyone commenting here he is needlessly thinking inside the crumbling box of America's existing top-down, money-driven system of political discourse. So what is it that keeps us from thinking outside this godawful box? I think we're all so deeply and habitually embedded in the mode of being status quo critics that we're unable to enter the problem-solving mode of finding alternatives to it. But to make government work in America, we need to think in both modes.

    So let's think outside the box for a minute. After all, it's common knowledge that the current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels. Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate it.

    At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip. It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about all the things the media spends so much time discussing." Yet like all presidential candidates this year Bernie didn't take the next, logical step: he didn't call for the creation of a new political discourse system. (Note that Hillary alone among the top three candidates never, ever has a bad word to say against the current system.)

    OK, so what might a new system look like? First off, it would be non-partisan, issue-centered and deliberative. And citizen-participatory. It would make citizens and governments responsive and accountable to each other in shaping the best futures of their communities. That's its core principal.

    More specifically, the format of a reality TV show like The Voice or American Idol could readily be adapted to create ongoing, prime-time, issue-centered searches for solutions to any and all of the issues of the day. And of course problem-solving Reality TV is just of any number of formats that could work for TV. Other media could develop formats tap their strengths and appeal to their audiences.

    I'm from Chicago, so here's how it could take shape in the Windy City .

    Thanks to the miracle of modern communications technologies, there's nothing to stop Americans from having a citizen-participatory system of political discourse that gives all Americans an informed voice in the political and government decisions that affect their lives. Americans will flock in drove to ongoing, rule-governed problem-solving public forums that earn the respect and trust of citizens and political leaders alike. When we create them, governments at local, state and national levels will start working again. If we don't, our politics will continue to sink deeper into the cesspool we're in now.

    Left in Wisconsin , August 10, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical, unless there is a real socialist-ish movement out there educating and politicizing. In other words, while the political system is indeed broken, the economy is also broken and it is hard to see "empowered" citizens fixing the economy. What I think would happen is the politicians elected by these empowered citizens would be opposed by big business and the politicians they own, nothing good would get done, and there would be a business-financed media drumbeat that more democracy has been "proven" not to work.

    I don't think our political problems can be solved simply be electing better politicians – though of course we do need better politicians.

    Reply
    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 11:40 am

    The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    I have not had nearly the hardship you have had crittermom and I have not lived as long either, but at 27, and being someone who has been discontent with social structure since middle school, I have absolutely had enough. Genetics, environment, the combination of internal-external factors, whatever it was I have always had a very ("annoying" and sarcastic) curiousity or oppositional approach to things, especially things people do not question and accept as is (religion, government…).

    Growing older has only led me to greater understanding of the pit we reside within and how we probably will not get out. This election season in particular has been ridiculously… indescribable. The utter incompetence of our selfish administrations is finally coming to a head and people are completely oblivious, pulling the same stale BS that we have seen every four years since before I was born.

    Bernie totally blew it but, outside your hardship, don't ever think you effort was a waste. For once an honest candidate appeared who was backed by the policies we need and you supported that (as I did). That is the most we can do at this point. Bernie the man should absolutely be criticized because he wanted a "revolution" then sold out to the Junta instead of biting back when it would have really sent a message to the people and high rollers. He wasn't willing to sacrifice what was necessary to make a stand. Instead he sided with the people that have made careers sacrificing citizens like you–and that is terrible. The reality these people live in and teach to others is such a lie.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    These circumstances constantly remind me of the closing passage from Robert A. Heinlein's All You Zombies" :

    The Snake That Eats Its Own Tail, Forever and Ever. I know where I came from-but where did all you
    zombies come from?

    I felt a headache coming on, but a headache powder is one thing I do not take. I did once-and you all went away.

    So I crawled into bed and whistled out the light.

    You aren't really there at all. There isn't anybody but me-Jane-here alone in the dark.

    I miss you dreadfully!

    Carolinian , August 10, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    America needs an ineffective president .

    Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards.

    So despite his potty mouth there's something to be said for Mr. Trump Goes to Washington. By the time he figures out how to be caudillo it may be time for another election.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    crittermom – HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc.

    They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex. Who would have thought that the guy running for the right wants to keep jobs in America, wants to stop wars, and the one on the left is for the monied class! Right is left and left is right. Upside down world.

    The following article is old now, from April, but it gives you an idea of "Why the Establishment Hates Trump" and what he is planning on doing. Watch them go after him; they will vilify him.

    "When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism and sexism. But the silenced policies he advocates are more like jumping into a crocodile pit. He is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his parting speech. Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics. Big Pharma is also called out with "$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of prices". The even more powerful HMO's are confronted by the possibility of a "one-payer system", the devil incarnate in America's corporate-welfare state."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/05/why-the-establishment-hates-trump/

    Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more going on than meets the eye.

    Reply
    MLaRowe , August 10, 2016 at 10:53 pm

    So I don't usually post here, just mostly read what other folks have to say.

    Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed by a dictatorship.

    So if that is the case is Trump going to take us into the land of dictatorship (which I believe is highly likely) or are any of us going to be able to tread water for a little longer with HRC (who I agree is ugh a non-choice but hopefully the lesser of the two evils).

    Looking this up I found the concept of the Tytler Cycle. Interesting and scary. This is off wikipedia:

    Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy".

    Anyway can someone refute this for me so I can sleep tonight? Thanks, in advance.

    flora , August 10, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    Sounds a bit too deterministic.

    Roland , August 11, 2016 at 4:51 am

    @ MLaRowe

    How could Trump become a dictator?

    Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile. Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally lining up behind Clinton?)

    Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking like crazy.

    Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for Trump to attempt a mass purge.

    So exactly how the hell would Trump impose his will on the American masses? Answer: No Way.

    President Trump can only be a relatively weak president.

    Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled "checks and balances" come into play for once in your life!

    Roger Smith , August 11, 2016 at 10:48 am

    How could Trump become a dictator?

    Thank you! The same question I have been asking repeatedly throughout this charade. Everyone's favorite line is "Trump will be a dictator [be afriad]!" The obvious question… how ?! How is Trump going to have the same or any more power within or over the system than any president before him?? What is a reasonable strategy with which he could upend and create domination over this system with? This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight.

    Roger Smith , August 11, 2016 at 10:42 am

    I have felt for a long time but have struggled to put into words the deep, strong aversion I have towards Clinton (et al.)and that I feel any time I read about her or see her. There is a phrase in the song Art War , by the Knack, that caught my ear; what I originally heard as, "malice of forethought". To me this represents the idea that terrible, harmful, far-reaching, incompetent decisions are made completely on purpose. After doing some research I discovered that the phrase is actually "malice aforethought", related to murderous intent in legal definitions. A second, more appropriate definition here is "a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others". This represents my internal shuddering exactly–a sort of willful, deadly incompetence.

    While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Neoliberal press attacks on Trump

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    backwardsevolution

    crittermom – HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc.

    They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex. Who would have thought that the guy running for the right wants to keep jobs in America, wants to stop wars, and the one on the left is for the monied class! Right is left and left is right. Upside down world.

    [Aug 11, 2016] Breedlove Network Sought Weapons Deliveries for Ukraine

    High level military commanders are more politicians then commanders. And if they belong to neocons this is a dangerous and potentially explosive combination. Especially if State Department is fully aligned with Pentagon, like happened under Secretary Clinton tenure.
    Notable quotes:
    "... He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of delivering weapons to Kiev. ..."
    "... "I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????" Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell. ..."
    "... Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev. ..."
    "... One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev were asking Karber for help. ..."
    "... According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns, and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine." ..."
    "... Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance, the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days." ..."
    "... In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank munitions to Ukraine." ..."
    "... In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email. ..."
    "... At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye." ..."
    "... Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places." ..."
    "... In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee, was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly. ..."
    "... He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia. ..."
    "... The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear. Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce the number of US troops in Europe. ..."
    "... General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a hardliner vis-a-vis Russia. ..."
    "... What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate for secretary of state. ..."
    "... The now famous and appropriate quote from President Eisenhower: ..."
    "... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational. The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment, which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO would have no other cause for existence. ..."
    "... The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and especially Jews. ..."
    "... After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance, financed by America. ..."
    "... These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? ..."
    "... Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable. ..."
    "... Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. ..."
    "... Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE. ..."
    "... nato Breedhate? ..."
    "... SPON was always parotting him. And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda. ..."
    SPIEGEL ONLINE (SPON)
    The newly leaked emails reveal a clandestine network of Western agitators around the NATO military chief, whose presence fueled the conflict in Ukraine. Many allies found in Breedlove's alarmist public statements about alleged large Russian troop movements cause for concern early on. Earlier this year, the general was assuring the world that US European Command was "deterring Russia now and preparing to fight and win if necessary."

    The emails document for the first time the questionable sources from whom Breedlove was getting his information. He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of delivering weapons to Kiev.

    The general and his likeminded colleagues perceived US President Barack Obama, the commander-in-chief of all American forces, as well as German Chancellor Angela Merkel as obstacles. Obama and Merkel were being "politically naive & counter-productive" in their calls for de-escalation, according to Phillip Karber, a central figure in Breedlove's network who was feeding information from Ukraine to the general.

    "I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????" Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

    Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev.

    One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev were asking Karber for help.

    Surreptitious Channels

    On February 16, 2015, when the Ukraine crisis had reached its climax, Karber wrote an email to Breedlove, Clark, Pyatt and Rose Gottemoeller, the under secretary for arms control and international security at the State Department, who will be moving to Brussels this fall to take up the post of deputy secretary general of NATO. Karber was in Warsaw, and he said he had found surreptitious channels to get weapons to Ukraine -- without the US being directly involved.

    According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns, and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine."

           A destroyed airport building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk        : Thousands were killed in fighting during the Ukraine conflict.      Zoom AFP

    A destroyed airport building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk : Thousands were killed in fighting during the Ukraine conflict.

    Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance, the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days."

    "Stark," Breedlove replied. "I may share some of this but will thoroughly wipe the fingerprints off."

    In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank munitions to Ukraine."

    Much to the irritation of Breedlove, Clark and Karber, nothing happened. Those responsible were quickly identified. The National Security Council, Obama's circle of advisors, were "slowing things down," Karber complained. Clark pointed his finger directly at the White House, writing, "Our problem is higher than State," a reference to the State Department.

    ... ... ...

    'The Front Is Now Everywhere'

    Karber's emails constantly made it sound as though the apocalypse was only a few weeks away. "The front is now everywhere," he told Breedlove in an email at the beginning of 2015, adding that Russian agents and their proxies "have begun launching a series of terrorist attacks, assassinations, kidnappings and infrastructure bombings," in an effort to destabilize Kiev and other Ukrainian cities.

    In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email.

    At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye."

    Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places."

    Highly Controversial Figure

    In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee, was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly.

    He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia.

    By November 10, 2014, at the latest, Breedlove must have recognized that his informant was on thin ice. That's when Karber reported that the separatists were boasting they had a tactical nuclear warhead for the 2S4 mortar. Karber himself described the news as "weird," but also added that "there is a lot of 'crazy' things going on" in Ukraine.

    The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear. Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce the number of US troops in Europe.

    Karber confirmed the authenticity of the leaked email correspondence. Regarding the questions about the accuracy of his reports, he told SPIEGEL that, "like any information derived from direct observation at the front during the 'fog of war,' it is partial, time sensitive, and perceived through a personal perspective." Looking back with the advantage of hindsight and a more comprehensive perspective, "I believe that I was right more than wrong," Karber writes, "but certainly not perfect." He adds that, "in 170 days at the front, I never once met a German military or official directly observing the conflict."

    Great Interest in Berlin

    Breedlove's leaked email correspondences were read in Berlin with great interest. A year ago, word of the NATO commander's "dangerous propaganda" was circulating around Merkel's Chancellery. In light of the new information, officials felt vindicated in their assessment. Germany's Federal Foreign Office has expressed similar sentiment, saying that fortunately "influential voices had continuously advocated against the delivery of 'lethal weapons.'"

    Karber says he finds it "obscene that the most effective sanction of this war is not the economic limits placed on Russia, but the virtual complete embargo of all lethal aid to the victim. I find this to be the height of sophistry -- if a woman is being attacked by a group of hooligans and yells out to the crowd or passersby, 'Give me a can of mace,' is it better to not supply it because the attackers could have a knife and passively watch her get raped?"

    General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a hardliner vis-a-vis Russia.

    What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate for secretary of state.

    bubasan 07/28/2016

    Upon reading this article, I am reminded of Dwight D Eisenhowers Farewell speech to the American Public on January 17, 1961. So long as we continue the PC mentality of NOT Teaching History, as it really was, we are going to repeat past mistake's. The now famous and appropriate quote from President Eisenhower:

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.

    Inglenda2 07/28/2016

    The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational. The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment, which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO would have no other cause for existence.

    PeterCT 07/28/2016

    Why is Breedlove so fat? He is setting a bad example to his troops. Show all comments

    turnipseed 07/29/2016

    The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and especially Jews.

    After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance, financed by America.

    90-grad 07/31/2016

    Quite detailed article. Not being published in the german website. How to describe these people, basically just trying to ignite bigger conflicts, or even war. Hardliner, hawks, to me not strong enough. These are criminals of war, and they should be named accordingly. These are exactly the kind of persons, who helped Bush to invade Irak, basing on false informations to the public. And their peace endangering activities help politicians like H.Clinton to keep the peoble in fear, solely to their own benefit. Disgusting!

    huguenot1566 07/31/2016

    Extremely disturbing

    I don't even know here to begin. Breedlove, Karber, Clark all Americans, seemingly on their own without Obama's permission, trying to exaggerate or fabricate evidence in order to start a war with Russia and the danger to the world is profoundly terrifying (Iraq 2003). The US Embassy in Ukraine saying they were in the dark and therefore relying on information from a college professor, Karber, who still thinks we're in the Cold War along with Clark who was retired & meddling in an unofficial capacity as far as the story implies tells me they should be brought up on charges. And Breedlove is supposed to follow orders not make up his own policy & then try & manufacture evidence supporting that policy to start war. If the US Embassy in Ukraine says they were in the dark then clearly they were fishing for info to proactively involve themselves in another nation & region's personal business. Congress & the U.S. military should investigate as these actions violate the U.S. Constitution. Thankfully, Germany and NATO is able to say no. It tells Americans that something isn't right on their end of this.

    verbatim128 07/31/2016

    Look who was crying wolf!

    These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? We, public opinion and most Western peace-loving folk, are played like a fiddle to step into the fray to "protect" and further some age-old ethnic and nationalistic rivalries. Time to put an end to this.

    gerhard38 08/01/2016

    Fucking war monger

    Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable.

    aegiov 08/01/2016

    Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. good reporting. thank you.

    titus_norberto 08/02/2016

    The Front Is Now Everywhere, indeed...

    Quote: 'The Front Is Now Everywhere', yes indeed, we can go back to the Wilson administration, he invented the League of Nations and his nation did not even joined.

    There is a folly in American presidents, they believe they can solve worlds problems, especially in the Middle East, with two invariable results:

    1- utter failure plus CHAOS; and

    2- utter disregard for DOMESTIC GOVERNANCE.

    Now, the fact that the front is NOW 2016 everywhere is the result of failure one. Donald Trump is the result of failure two. There is another aspect to consider, what is General Breedlove doing ? Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE.

    vsepr1975 08/03/2016

    nato Breedhate?

    w.schuler 08/09/2016

    Fat Bredlove is a war monger

    This is true and it was obvious from the very beginning. But SPON was always parotting him. And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda.

    [Aug 10, 2016] Seth Rich murder: The facts so far by Kit

    Aug 10, 2016 | off-guardian.org

    OffGuardian because facts really should be sacred Menu Search
    Close Menu latest , media watch , United States Published on August 10, 2016 Comments 53 Seth Rich murder: The facts so far written by Kit i 3 Votes

    Last month Seth Rich, a data analyst who worked for the DNC, was shot near his home in Washington DC. He was on the phone to his girlfriend when it happened. Police were called to the scene and discovered the young man's body at roughly 4.20am. It was reported that Rich was "covered in bruises", shot "several times" and "at least once in the back".

    The New York Daily News reported :

    police have found little information to explain his death. At this time, there are no suspects, no motive and no witnesses in Rich's murder.

    While initial theories were that the killing was robbery or mugging gone wrong, the Washington Post said :

    There is no immediate indication that robbery was a motive in the attack but it has not been ruled out as a possibility."

    Rich's family have also reported that nothing was taken :

    [Rich's] hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they never took anything."

    On August 9th Julian Assange gave an interview on Dutch television in which he seemed to imply that Rich's death was politically motivated, and perhaps suggest he had been a source for the DNC e-mail leak:

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/Kp7FkLBRpKg?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

    That same day wikileaks tweeted that they were offering a $20,000 dollar reward for information on the killing of Mr Rich.

    These are the facts of the case, so far. And they are undisputed.

    I'm not going to take a position on the motive for Mr Rich's killing, or possible suspects. But I do want to point out the general level of media silence. Take these facts and change the names – imagine Trump's email had been hacked, and then a staffer with possible ties to wikileaks was inexplicably shot dead. Imagine this poor young man had been a Kremlin whistleblower, or a Chinese hacker, or an Iranian blogger.

    If this, as yet unsolved, murder had ties to anyone other than Hillary Clinton, would it be being so ritually and rigourously ignored by the MSM?


    If you liked this then please share!: Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) 857 Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) 857 Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) 1 Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) 1 Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window) Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Click to print (Opens in new window) Click to email (Opens in new window) Like this: Like Loading...

    https://widgets.wp.com/likes/#blog_id=89387340&post_id=28324&origin=offgraun.wordpress.com&obj_id=89387340-28324-5a3dabc7dc873

    latest , media watch , United States Tagged with: Democratic National Convention , DNC , Hillary Clinton , julian assange , Seth Rich , Wikileaks 53 Comments

    Bruce Conklin says May 17, 2017

    Seth was bruised, and shot twice in the back; there was no robbery. Former Clinton partner James MacDougall was separated from his heart medication by prison guards; he died in solitary confinement.
    Kenneth Jones says August 12, 2017
    And these suspicious deaths aren't connected? Who do they think they're kidding? We weren't all born stupid! Is this a massive cover up? You bet it is, and we're eventually going to find out who ordered those killings!
    Kraut says August 19, 2016
    Interesting body language at 1:05min: "Was he one of your sources?" Assange slightly nods, says: "We don't comment on our sources ."
    Brian Harry, Australia says October 21, 2016
    In fairness to Assange, the video and the sound are not in sync .
    wernerpd says November 15, 2016
    I believe the precise term is "Arkancide."
    Douglas Gray says August 12, 2016
    The Washington Post said, "Nothing was taken, but robbery has not been ruled out????" What does that mean? If nothing was taken, then there is no robbery. Who wrote this for the Washington Post? Is English their native language?
    Stu Piddy says August 12, 2016
    Ask his girl friend some questions. She would probably know a lot, including if he was the leaker.
    Me says August 12, 2016
    Julian Assange did not say Rich was a source. It is highly unlikely Rich was a source, I can't see Wikileaks revealing a source regardless of circumstance. Wikileaks obviously have information pointing to the idea that this was a politically motivated killing. He is concerned that this, in turn will lead to all dissidents being frightened to stand up and speak out.
    Marina Boyd says August 12, 2016
    Maybe wikileaks doesn't know who their source was. The DNC authenticated the e-mails by their response, then they float the "Russia influencing US elections narrative" to distract from Seth's murder.

    Has there be ANY evidence that Russia was behind the hack? Where did that rumer start?? WikiLeaks has a vested interest in Seth's murder being solved because they don't want people being afraid to give them information, so I understand them offering a reward, even if he wasn't their source, once the rumors started, they wouldn't want to scare off the real source, or futur sources. http://www.prosewestand.org

    brian says August 12, 2016
    I am afraid to leave a comment. I am afraid to speak my heart. Just vote for Trump or anyone else who can win. Enough said.
    Eric Edblad says August 15, 2016
    Don't be afraid! The "Problem" will not come after you because True Americans are watching every political detail and the Problem knows that! If common people start dying for their free speech–many American's are waiting for a reason to make a stand against the Problem, their constituency and their conspiracies! If you think about it, some of the press is helping the Problem take away your free speech as well! This is not going unnoticed. CNN is the worst conspirator out there!!

    The Problem is afraid of Donald Trump because he will shake up their house! Mrs. Clinton and the press want to put you in politically-correct bondage experienced in much of the world. Those countries are ruled by their Problem and worse. The only way to maintain the balance of powers in America is that True Americans exercise their constitutional leverage with free speech! Exercise it freely every day!

    In this day and age any unprotected informant should have a concealed carry permit and a gun! I will refrain from getting into the 2nd Amendment discussion–may not be appropriate for this discussion ..

    No matter how it turns out, my condolences to the family of Seth Rich

    Kathy says August 27, 2016
    Eric, Well said I'm with you
    Brad Benson says August 11, 2016
    Excellent. People are beginning to link to you guys.
    Bozo says August 11, 2016
    Assange for the Nobel Peace Prize!
    BigB says August 11, 2016
    Could be nothing

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/sudden-death-of-attorney-who-served-the-lawsuit-against-the-democratic-national-committee-dnc-on-charges-of-fraud-deceptive-conduct-and-negligence/5540274

    Marina Boyd says August 12, 2016
    Probably a little more difficult to get anyone willing to serve them now.
    Mary says September 2, 2016
    Also, around the same time of Rich Seth and Shawn Lucas deaths, Victor Thorn, who wrote at least 20 anti-Clinton books, supposedly committed suicide. Makes one wonder what is really going on
    Alan says August 11, 2016
    So many theories and those, who appear to want to profit. This young man is dead with an on going investigation. Given his connection whatever verdict is reached will be a whitewash, can we blame those who disbelieve? A history of victims with throats cut, gunshot wounds to the back, judged as suicides or bizarrely as natural causes? We are surrounded by the most callous whose trade is 'the good of society', are we to be a part of that? Whatever the motive a lost life and decimated family cannot be used for gain, whether it be ratings, publicity or a confirmation of ones own theories.
    robert costa says August 11, 2016
    the road to the clinton power regime is littered with bodies. vince foster and ron brown. and more recently john ashe and shawn lucas. add seth rich to the list. good luck if you work for the dnc or in her campaign. the clintons are completely corrupt and morally bankrupt.
    KLB says August 11, 2016
    The Clinton rumors have been around for over 20 years. Clintons had nothing to do with this. He was probably involved in something deeper. There are no missing bodies. Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Ken Starr are all still around and they would be the ones to go. Get a clue. No one's missing and Foster suffered from severe depression. Do some research.
    AnotherLover says August 12, 2016
    The lead investigator, Manuel Rodriguez, resigned from the case because when he followed the leads that clearly showed MURDER he found HIMSELF investigated! Here, read his resignation letter:
    http://www.dcdave.com/article5/MiguelRodriguezLetter.htm
    Quick quote (USPP stands for US Park Police. THAT is who had jurisdiction on the possible murder of a United States politician. The Park Police):

    (10) the existing FBI interview reports and USPP interview reports do not accurately reflect witness statements; (11) four emergency medical personnel identified, having refreshed their recollection with new photographic evidence, trauma each had observed on Foster's right neck area; and (12) blurred and obscured blow-ups of copies of (polaroid [sic] and 35mm) photographs have been offered and utilized. After uncovering this information, among other facts, my own conduct was questioned and I was internally investigated.

    DCDave has been doggedly researching this case for years. He's just kept at it. Here's a great article, among many, by him:
    http://www.dcdave.com/article5/091217.htm

    Cheers!

    Judianne says August 16, 2016
    All of those people you mentioned were constantly in yhe public eye. In fact, they've been household names for over 20 years. If they were to die "mysteriously," it would shoot up too many red flags and would make it a lot easier to connect the dots to the Clintons. They might have wanted these people to disappear, but it would have been way too risky to make that happen. .. which is why some of them went out of their ways to remain relevant. As far as the murdered individuals are concerned I think you should consider this fact. During the course of a very lengthy political career, it's entirely possible for one or two people to die of unnatural, non disease related causes, but when the death toll surpasses 50 and is still counting, that just might be the smoke from a fire raging out of control. Hence, the so called conspiracy theories.
    Vera says August 14, 2016
    Please keep this brutal murder in the spotlight. Julian isn't offering $20.000 without an inkling it's tied to the Clinton's campaign.
    The press are too busy destroying trump.
    It's rather scary.
    Polly Ticker (@MollyWolly8) says August 10, 2016
    Here is alternative, crazed anarchist Assange being interviewed by CNN from the Ecuadorian embassy.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/30/politics/julian-assange-wikileaks-democrats/

    Is Ecuador some kind of Shangri La anarchist freedom republic or

    "The administration of President Rafael Correa has expanded state control over media and civil society and abused its power to harass, intimidate, and punish critics. In 2015, thousands of people participated in public demonstrations against government policies, and security forces on multiple occasions responded with excessive force. Abuses against protesters, including arbitrary arrests, have not been adequately investigated."

    https://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador

    Brian Harry, Australia says August 10, 2016
    "Crazed anarchist"???
    Polly Ticker (@MollyWolly8) says August 10, 2016
    I was being sarcastic. Assange was supposed to be some way out there anarchist, anti capitalist hacker. He might have been before he was busted and 'pardoned' from a 10 year prison sentence in Australia.

    "In 1991, at the age of 20, Assange and some fellow hackers broke into the master terminal of Nortel, the Canadian telecom company. He was caught and pleaded guilty to 25 charges; six other charges were dropped. Citing Assange's "intelligent inquisitiveness," the judge sentenced him only to pay the Australian state a small sum in damages".

    http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2006496,00.html#ixzz16cuIO0Fz

    Brian Harry, Australia says August 10, 2016
    Sorry, I took your comment literally ..
    Richard Le Sarcophage says August 10, 2016
    A crazy hasbaranik has landed! 'Human Rights Watch, in my very firm opinion, are a rabble of mostly Judeofascist hypocrites who work hand in glove with the US regime to blackguard and vilify states targeted for regime change for attempting to create decent societies for their people. I wouldn't cross the street to piss on them if they were on fire.
    Brian Harry, Australia says August 11, 2016
    "Like"
    elenits says August 11, 2016
    "Like" .
    Polly Ticker (@MollyWolly8) says August 10, 2016
    We know that he told Wikileaks and now he's dead. Bradley manning's info was spilled too.

    Wikileaks is a fraud Guardian – John Young http://goo.gl/AbCV

    "But the group ran in to problems even before WikiLeaks was launched. The organisers approached John Young, who ran another website that posted leaked documents, Cryptome, and asked him to register the WikiLeaks website in his name. Young obliged and was initially an enthusiastic supporter but when the organisers announced their intention to try and raise $5m he questioned their motives, saying that kind of money could only come from the CIA or George Soros. Then he walked away.

    "WikiLeaks is a fraud," he wrote in an email when he quit. "Fuck your cute hustle and disinformation campaign against legitimate dissent. Same old shit, working for the enemy." Young then leaked all of his email correspondence with WikiLeak's founders, including the messages to Ellsberg."

    Richard Le Sarcophage says August 11, 2016
    Wikileaks pretty plainly started as a US tool to attack the likes of China, but then Assange may or may not have gone 'off reservation', so he was set up by US stooge regime Sweden, in the usual blatant fashion. And Assange's little buddies at the Guardian cess-pool turned against him with Old Testament fury, in particular unleashing their pack of feminazi Harpies to vilify him. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
    Polly Ticker (@MollyWolly8) says August 11, 2016
    Wikileaks was created to foment internal trouble in the Middle East states and trigger the Arab Spring. It's basically the NSA's own conspiracy generator.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/13/amnesty-international-wikileaks-arab-spring

    The guy says August 11, 2016
    Really? Wow
    elenits says August 11, 2016
    And nowhere in the Wikileaks docs is ANY reference to 911. Same with "Snowden".
    Looks like a case of – twang! – Coincidence Theory .
    AnotherLover says August 12, 2016
    elenits:
    Tried to "like" your post, but for some reason I can only reply, and face the login screen when I try to "like." Loved the comment. Twang! (I'm using that!)
    Polly Ticker (@MollyWolly8) says August 14, 2016
    BIG like.
    AnotherLover says August 12, 2016
    Killing it! It seems more and more like Trump's the plant, huh? A true know-nothing that can ONLY do what his advisors tell him to. And the Trump election is likely to bring whatever Americans can muster up as a race war into being (comment directed at the fact everybody's fluoridated to the gills these days and likely UNABLE to really riot). I think the controllers really, really, really want that.

    My GUT told me all this about Assange when he first appeared. Same thing with "please-employ-encryption-so-we-know-who-to-watch" Snowden. Encryption's just about the FIRST thing I was interested in when I bought my first laptop, so the LAW barring encryption past a certain strength on the open market was one of the first things I found out about! Whatever encryption you can get is hacked. Period.

    Great info on Assange.

    Seamus Padraig says August 10, 2016
    The old Clinton body-count just a keeps on growin'! Not imagine what she could accomplish with a fleet of drones at her command, eh people?
    Brian Harry, Australia says August 10, 2016
    "Like"
    Sasha says August 10, 2016
    Wouldn't be the first time. The Clintons have a trail of bodies behind them that puts MacBeth to shame.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php

    elenits says August 11, 2016
    Ambrose Evans Pritchard is in the forefront of the Clinton exposure:
    Wikipedia:
    "During his time as the Sunday Telegraph's Washington, D.C. bureau chief in the early 1990s, Evans-Pritchard became known for his controversial stories about President Bill Clinton, the 1993 death of Vincent Foster, and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

    He is the author of The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories (1997) which was published by conservative publishing firm Regnery Publishing.[1] In this book, he elaborates on assertions that the Oklahoma City bombing was a sting operation by the FBI that went horribly wrong, that ATF agents were warned against reporting to work in the Murrah Building the morning of the attack, and that the Justice Department subsequently engaged in a cover-up.[2]

    Coverage of US politics
    During his time in Washington, his stories often attracted the ire of the Clinton administration, and on Evans-Pritchard's departure from Washington in 1997, a White House aide was quoted in George saying, "That's another British invasion we're glad is over. The guy was nothing but a pain in the ass". His efforts in ferreting out the witness, Patrick Knowlton, whose last name had been spelled "Nolton" in the Park Police report on Foster's death, resulted eventually in a lawsuit by Knowlton against the FBI and the inclusion of Knowlton's lawyer's letter as an appendix to Kenneth Starr's report on Foster's death.[3] In his book, Evans-Pritchard responded vigorously to White House charges against him.

    [Aug 10, 2016] Assange Implies Murdered DNC Staffer May Have Been Wikileaks Source

    www.redstate.com

    RedState

    It's hard to overstate the amount of caution we should all display with this story, but it's too newsworthy to ignore.

    It starts with this interview with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange where he brings up murdered DNC staffer, Seth Rich, unprompted.

    Here's the juicy part:

    ASSANGE: Our whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. There's a 27 year old that works for the DNC, he was shot in the back. Murdered, uh just a few weeks ago, uh, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington. So...

    INTERVIEWER: That was, that was just a robbery I believe. Wasn't it?

    ASSANGE: No. There's no finding. So...

    INTERVIEWER: What are you suggesting? What are you suggesting?

    ASSANGE: I'm suggesting our sources take risks and they uh, become concerned, uh to see things occurring, like that.

    INTERVIEWER: Was he one of your sources then? I mean...

    ASSANGE: We don't comment on who our sources are.

    INTERVIEWER: Then why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?

    ASSANGE: Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States. And our sources are ... you know... our sources face serious risks. That's why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity.

    Then comes the news that Wikileaks is offering a $25,000 reward for any information leading to the capture of Rich's murderer.

    [Aug 10, 2016] How many such average Americans also were killed in action and Hillary could care less because it doesnt fit her or the elites agenda? The Clinton family will drag us into more wars to advance the bankster interests

    Was not WaPo a cheerleader of Iraq war? What a despicable hypocrites... Judging from comments it is more and more difficult for them to deceive and brainwash the readers... The Trump campaign is a movement MSM and neocons will never embrace. The media bias against Trump has reached unprecedented proportions.
    Notable quotes:
    "... My other thought on this is that the Wahabbi theology, which the Saudis have spread so aggressively, is likely to poison the minds of fighting age Muslim males for many many generations to come. And if the House of Saud falls, the country will most likely fall to those under the sway of the Wahabbi clerics, with whom the Saudi monarchs have a tenuous alliance. IMO, if the House of Saud falls, the country is most likely to become an even more brutal theocracy than it already is. It's much more likely to turn into another ISIS state than a western style democracy. ..."
    "... Among other things, it is highly doubtful that any other religion will ever be allowed on the Arabian peninsula, which speaks volumes about what will happen "free speech" or freedom of conscience in general in Saudi Arabia for the foreseeable future. ..."
    "... As I've said before, ISIS Islam is indistinguishable from Saudi (Wahabbi) Islam. If ISIS is perverting Islam, then the Saudis, the Vatican of Islam are likewise perverting Islam. ..."
    "... Insisting ISIS is not Islamic probably is intellectually dishonest and an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy, but what do you expect our leaders and Muslims who abhor Islamist violence to do? Its in the world's interests to repudiate Islamic State and disconnect it from mainstream Islam. It's simple pragmatism. ..."
    "... I don't see what positive purpose it serves constantly to parrot that Islamic State are "true" Muslims. Where exactly does that lead us? We know what IS wants, and what its methods are. These individuals are thugs, not deep thinkers; their motive for doing what they are doesn't need to be overthought. There isn't anyone in the world who thinks Islamic State is composed of Episcopalians. ..."
    "... Not saying they are "true" Muslims; that's certainly not for me to say. I am saying the Saudis are undeniably a "mainstream" sect, not a fringe sect. That's pretty hard to deny where the holiest sites in all of Islam are in Mecca and Medina, and the Saudis exert a huge influence over Mosque construction and Islamic education. ..."
    "... But when I hear someone like this soldier's poor father say "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" I just want to throw up my hands because it so clearly does. ..."
    "... That's one of big problems with Islam: the immutable word of God as expressed in the Koran is pretty consistently hateful. And "the Bible is just as bad" is not persuasive-- for Christians there's that whole "New Testament" thing and the Jews are busy winning Nobel Peace Prizes while their neighbors are refining the art of the suicide vest. ..."
    "... We are at war with an ideology that is embedded in a religion. That's an inescapable fact. ..."
    "... Capt. Humayun Khan was killed in combat in 2004, over 12 yrs ago. Yet Hillary & DNC brought his parents to be on the podium of the convention. Democrats and Hillary Clinton wanted to EXPLOIT HIS DEATH to hilt. And media bought it whole, hook, line & sinker. Then Trump opened his mouth (it does not matter what he says. The media will pulverize it). Trump became a punching bag of the media yet again. ..."
    "... "Islamophobia" is a term meant to conflate all criticism of Islam with xenophobia and racism. It's intended to stifle thought shut down conversation. I reject it as a label; it's a nonsense term. ..."
    "... Here's the reasons I'm afraid of Islam: 9/11, Mumbai, Boston, Paris, Brussels, Madrid, San Bernandino, Orlando etc etc, etc., death penalty for apostasy, death penalty for blasphemy, death penalty for homosexuality, death penalty for adultery, honor killings, female genital mutilation, misogyny etc etc. etc. ..."
    "... I understand that here in the US, people are free to believe as they choose. As I've said before, I don't care if you worship a stone, as long as you don't throw it at me. The reality is that some mainstream sects of Islam (e.g. Wababbis) are spiritual Nazis, and I give them the same "respect" I would give to any other totalitarian ideology; that is, none. If I'm an "Islamophobe" for that, I'll wear it as badge of honor. ..."
    "... The son of Mr Khan was an AMERICAN SOLDIER -- Are the Khans American Citizens? If so why are you calling them and their son Muslims .. Muslim is their religion. I don't hear anyone be called a Baptist Soldier was killed, His Baptist Parents are grieving. ..."
    "... Mr. Khan and Democrats were attacking Donald Trump with false narratives, Mr. Khan made his son a Muslim Martyr on national television, to compare legal immigrants from middle east with so called refugees from countries of terror who are not vetted is like apples and oranges. Khans need to be angry with Terrorists no Mr Trump who wants to protect all Americans even them from the Jihadists. ..."
    "... Their son was killed by Muslims who I am certain would not hesitate for one second to kill them also, yet Mr. Trump is the object of their ire, not the kind of Muslim that would blow up their son. The pocket Constitution Mr. Khan produced was a cheap theatrical prop, the Khan's have every right to have a political opinion and support Mrs. Clinton and even bad mouth Trump as much as they like; I find Trump quite indefensible however in my opinion the Khan's use of their son's sacrifice for a political commercial did only one thing, cheapened and diminished their son's memory. ..."
    "... "Who wrote that? Did Hillary's scriptwriters write it?" ..."
    "... First, thank you for your service. Second Trump is indefensible. However do not for one second believe that the Khan's were there to pay homage to the memory of their son, they were a commercial for Hillary Clinton plain and simple. By mixing their son's sacrifice with a political commercial in my eyes they cheapened their son's memory. ..."
    "... Trump has no filter though. Although I agree with much of what he says about Islam ("Islam hates us" is more accurate than he knows-- Google "al wara wal bara") he's a loose cannon. Don't like him or Hillary, although on Islam Hillary is unquestionably worse. Bought and paid for by the Saudis, among the worst enemies America has ever known. ..."
    "... They want Muslim prayer in our schools, but they do not want Christian prayer anywhere near them. ..."
    "... My point is that Islamic thuggery has its roots in the religion itself. It's not at all the same as soccer hoologanism. Muhammed is the supreme example for all Muslims; the world's most perfect human. I'm sure you know the word "Sunni" essentially means example (of Muhammed). ISIS essentially claims that the prophet Muhammed was the original ISIS member. ..."
    "... So who dug up this lawyer to speak at a democrate convention and why? What's so special about him? ..."
    "... And what have Hillary and the Clinton's sacrificed? An ambassador and diplomat and others in Benghazi? The Dems and their racist elitist owners have a knack for chastising all average Americans (typically white Christians) as always wrong, while they search far and wide for an example that they can use to expand their multi-culturalism agenda. ..."
    "... Your son served as a legal American. All Trump wants is proper vetting of people who as a group contain a small minority might do us severe harm. Since you were at the Democrat convention, may I inform you of a couple of things. First, our current president, Obama, never served in the military. Bill, the husband of the nominee you support, Hillary Clinton, never served; ..."
    "... But it is worse. Bill Clinton (obviously I am reading reports and would be very unlikely to have first hand knowledge of all of these things) had an educational deferment for college during the VietNam "war." He then had an additional deferment during his two year Rhodes scholarship at Oxford. He joined a National Guard unit in Arkansas but did not report. ..."
    "... You are very confused. The Clinton running for President is Hillary. The Republican opponent is Trump with 4 military deferments for his bad foot BUT he bragged he did his national patriotic service avoiding VD in New York. ..."
    "... When Mr. Khan asked the question: what have you sacrificed? he opened the door to comparisons. Mr Obama is a current president, Mr Clinton a former president. The comparisons were perfectly legitimate. You consider it irrelevant I consider it relevant. That is called a difference of opinions. ..."
    www.washingtonpost.com

    ...

    ...Hillary Clinton had referred to his son as "the best of America."

    [Khizr Khan's loss: A grieving father of a soldier struggles to understand]

    Then he focused his attention on Trump.

    "If it was up to Donald Trump, [Humayun] never would have been in America," Khan said. "Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities, women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls and ban us from this country.

    Muslim American Khizr Khan, whose son Humayun was killed while serving in the U.S. Army, offered Republican candidate Donald Trump his copy of the Constitution during a speech at the Democratic convention. (The Washington Post)

    "Donald Trump," he said, "you are asking Americans to trust you with our future. Let me ask you: Have you even read the U.S. Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy." He pulled a copy of the Constitution from his pocket. "In this document, look for the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection of law.' " Earlier this month, Trump promised congressional Republicans that he would defend "Article XII" of the Constitution, which doesn't exist.

    "Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery?" Khan asked. "Go look at the graves of the brave patriots who died defending America - you will see all faiths, genders, and ethnicities.

    "You have sacrificed nothing. And no one."

    Norger, 8/3/2016

    My other thought on this is that the Wahabbi theology, which the Saudis have spread so aggressively, is likely to poison the minds of fighting age Muslim males for many many generations to come. And if the House of Saud falls, the country will most likely fall to those under the sway of the Wahabbi clerics, with whom the Saudi monarchs have a tenuous alliance. IMO, if the House of Saud falls, the country is most likely to become an even more brutal theocracy than it already is. It's much more likely to turn into another ISIS state than a western style democracy.

    Among other things, it is highly doubtful that any other religion will ever be allowed on the Arabian peninsula, which speaks volumes about what will happen "free speech" or freedom of conscience in general in Saudi Arabia for the foreseeable future.

    Katy Cordeth, 8/2/2016

    @Katy.

    As I've said before, ISIS Islam is indistinguishable from Saudi (Wahabbi) Islam. If ISIS is perverting Islam, then the Saudis, the Vatican of Islam are likewise perverting Islam. To say that "ISIS is not Islamic" is deception and complete intellectual dishonesty not from you, but from our leaders. They literally think we must be lied to, that we can't handle the truth. ISIS is very Islamic, in the sense that they are ultra orthodox.

    Not if they ignore the parts of the Qur'an which promote peace and respect for all people, Norger, and such passages do exist despite what your Mr. Spencer might tell you. Being orthodox means not being able to cherry-pick the parts of one's holy texts one wishes and ignoring the rest. It depends which definition of "orthodox" one is employing, but if this were the case the Phelps clan could be described as orthodox.

    Insisting ISIS is not Islamic probably is intellectually dishonest and an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy, but what do you expect our leaders and Muslims who abhor Islamist violence to do? Its in the world's interests to repudiate Islamic State and disconnect it from mainstream Islam. It's simple pragmatism. It reminds non-Muslims that, in direct contravention of IS (and Donald Trump's) goal, the majority do not support the kind of violence Islamists use; and it stops impressionable Muslims such as those three British schoolgirls from viewing terrorists as legitimate followers of their faith.

    I don't see what positive purpose it serves constantly to parrot that Islamic State are "true" Muslims. Where exactly does that lead us? We know what IS wants, and what its methods are. These individuals are thugs, not deep thinkers; their motive for doing what they are doesn't need to be overthought. There isn't anyone in the world who thinks Islamic State is composed of Episcopalians.

    Norger, 8/2/2016

    Not saying they are "true" Muslims; that's certainly not for me to say. I am saying the Saudis are undeniably a "mainstream" sect, not a fringe sect. That's pretty hard to deny where the holiest sites in all of Islam are in Mecca and Medina, and the Saudis exert a huge influence over Mosque construction and Islamic education. It's not our leaders' job (and certainly not mine)to decide which interpretation of Islam is "proper" or true. It is their job to recognize threats to our national security and deal with them appropriately. As Sam Harris says, the Taliban, Al Quaeda etc. offer up an entirely plausible interpretation of the faith. And there is no clear dividing line between their "bad" Islam and "good" Islam.

    Anwar al-Awlaki was supposedly a good or "moderate" Muslim until we found out he wasn't and killed him in a drone strike. I wish I were as optimistic as you about the power of moderate Muslims to transform the faith. But the threat of being labeled an apostate can be seriously hazardous to one's health, even here in the US. But when I hear someone like this soldier's poor father say "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" I just want to throw up my hands because it so clearly does.

    Norger, 8/3/2016

    Tell me about those parts of the Koran that promote respect for all people if you can -- but I will tell you they are far outnumbered by the hateful verses, which I could spend all day quoting, And if you are going to quote that "whosoever kills another person it's as though he killed all mankind verse" I suggest you quit the entire verse (including the always omitted language about when it IS OK to kill another person) and the verse which follows, which describes the manner in which such transgressors are to be killed.

    That's one of big problems with Islam: the immutable word of God as expressed in the Koran is pretty consistently hateful. And "the Bible is just as bad" is not persuasive-- for Christians there's that whole "New Testament" thing and the Jews are busy winning Nobel Peace Prizes while their neighbors are refining the art of the suicide vest.

    BigPicture , 8/1/2016

    Something worth repeating. Below, I quote from @Norger's comment. Mr. Norger said:

    "We are at war with an ideology that is embedded in a religion. That's an inescapable fact. Are we at war with all Muslims? I sure hope not. But if, in your words, the jihadis represent "the worst," then we (particularly military and law enforcement) need to be able to take a hard and unflinching look at our enemies' self-stated motivating ideology in order to defeat it. That necessarily means developing a deep understanding of the most extreme Islamic ideologies. The fact is that some Muslims will inevitably not find this "insulting" or "offensive." It is noteworthy that in Sharia law, "slander" is not necessarily a false statement; it's any discussion of something which the aggrieved party does not wish to be known. Unless we have a death wish, "cultural sensitivity" should take a back seat to national security when lives are at stake. We knew this after 9/11, the body count must rise once again before we learn it again.

    Don't know if Andrew McCarthy (federal prosecutor of the "Blind Sheik," Omar Abdel Rahman) is also "beneath contempt" in your circles, but I would alsorecommend his book, "Willful Blindness." (yes Ted Cruz ripped this off).

    BigPicture View, 8/1/2016 8:02 AM EST

    Capt. Humayun Khan was killed in combat in 2004, over 12 yrs ago. Yet Hillary & DNC brought his parents to be on the podium of the convention. Democrats and Hillary Clinton wanted to EXPLOIT HIS DEATH to hilt. And media bought it whole, hook, line & sinker. Then Trump opened his mouth (it does not matter what he says. The media will pulverize it). Trump became a punching bag of the media yet again.

    Hillary exploited the death of Capt, Khan. The media had something to report besides zero. Trump became the media punching bag, yet again Trump got free ads and voters' sympathy.

    Every one got something out of it. Who is the loser??? Mr. & Mrs. Khan became suckers.

    Norger, 8/1/2016 7:44 AM EST

    "Islamophobia" is a term meant to conflate all criticism of Islam with xenophobia and racism. It's intended to stifle thought shut down conversation. I reject it as a label; it's a nonsense term.

    Here's the reasons I'm afraid of Islam: 9/11, Mumbai, Boston, Paris, Brussels, Madrid, San Bernandino, Orlando etc etc, etc., death penalty for apostasy, death penalty for blasphemy, death penalty for homosexuality, death penalty for adultery, honor killings, female genital mutilation, misogyny etc etc. etc.

    To you, I'm a borderline racist for being concerned about these things. To me, you are a blind apologist. Jihad is different in kind from anything the US military does. It's quite literally murder as a sacrament, in the name of spreading or defending the faith. Afraid of Islam? You bet. Among other things, "mutually assured destruction" means nothing to a country in possession of nuclear weapons whose leaders are of this mindset (Iran, anyone?)

    I understand that here in the US, people are free to believe as they choose. As I've said before, I don't care if you worship a stone, as long as you don't throw it at me. The reality is that some mainstream sects of Islam (e.g. Wababbis) are spiritual Nazis, and I give them the same "respect" I would give to any other totalitarian ideology; that is, none. If I'm an "Islamophobe" for that, I'll wear it as badge of honor.

    "ISIS is not Islamic." Riiiight.

    Michelle Ann, 7/31/2016 12:58 PM EST

    The son of Mr Khan was an AMERICAN SOLDIER -- Are the Khans American Citizens? If so why are you calling them and their son Muslims .. Muslim is their religion. I don't hear anyone be called a Baptist Soldier was killed, His Baptist Parents are grieving.

    Mr. Khan and Democrats were attacking Donald Trump with false narratives, Mr. Khan made his son a Muslim Martyr on national television, to compare legal immigrants from middle east with so called refugees from countries of terror who are not vetted is like apples and oranges. Khans need to be angry with Terrorists no Mr Trump who wants to protect all Americans even them from the Jihadists.

    American, 7/31/2016 8:45 AM EST [Edited]

    Any parent who has to bury a child is worthy of compassion, I cannot imagine a greater pain. Captain Khan is a hero, there is nothing more noble than to lay down your life so another may live. Mr. and Mrs. Khan used their son's memory to attack Mr. Trump, they politicized the death of their son, they went on TV in front of an audience of millions with only one purpose: to attack Mr. Trump.

    Their son was killed by Muslims who I am certain would not hesitate for one second to kill them also, yet Mr. Trump is the object of their ire, not the kind of Muslim that would blow up their son. The pocket Constitution Mr. Khan produced was a cheap theatrical prop, the Khan's have every right to have a political opinion and support Mrs. Clinton and even bad mouth Trump as much as they like; I find Trump quite indefensible however in my opinion the Khan's use of their son's sacrifice for a political commercial did only one thing, cheapened and diminished their son's memory.

    G_Minde, 7/31/2016 4:04 AM EST

    "Who wrote that? Did Hillary's scriptwriters write it?"

    For shame.

    A father who has lost a son in our nation's service calls out The Donald – and his lame response is to question whether or not the father wrote his own words?

    The Donald can't believe that someone born in a country that had English as an official language, trained as a lawyer, and with over 20 years in the United States can not make his own speech?

    The Donald can't believe that someone with a darker skin tone than his can be eloquent?

    The Donald can't handle that a family who has lost a son in our nation's service would disagree with his proposed policy that would have kept them from coming to this country in the first place.

    And when questioned about it, instead of being compassionate, or non-committal, or at least *respectful* of the father of one of our fallen soldiers, questions whether or not those were even his words.

    Contrast that with former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, talking about how "Virtually every night for four and a half years, writing condolence letters and reading about these mostly young men and women, I wept."

    Donald, when the father of a fallen solder says ""You have sacrificed nothing and no one, " I don't think that staying that you have 'worked hard' to make money is really quite…sacrifice. It's not like you have been one of the 'dollar a year' men like served under FDR in World War Two. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't expect to 'work hard' in the course of making billions of dollars.

    You claim 'creating jobs' in the process of making money as a sacrifice you have made.

    So how many jobs is the life of a son worth?

    The Donald wants to be the Commander-in-Chief, but this is how he talks about the Families of the Fallen. Such character. Such temperament.

    Here's one Afghan veteran whose vote he will not be getting.

    American, 7/31/2016 8:58 AM EST

    First, thank you for your service. Second Trump is indefensible. However do not for one second believe that the Khan's were there to pay homage to the memory of their son, they were a commercial for Hillary Clinton plain and simple. By mixing their son's sacrifice with a political commercial in my eyes they cheapened their son's memory.

    Norger, 8/7/2016 10:08 AM EST

    Yes, and the Republicans tried the same thing with a mother of one of soldiers killed in Benghazi; she was ripped by many in the MSM, essentially for these same reasons. Not that there's any double standard.

    Trump has no filter though. Although I agree with much of what he says about Islam ("Islam hates us" is more accurate than he knows-- Google "al wara wal bara") he's a loose cannon. Don't like him or Hillary, although on Islam Hillary is unquestionably worse. Bought and paid for by the Saudis, among the worst enemies America has ever known.

    GeorgeVreelandHill1, 7/30/2016 10:37 PM EST

    I agree with Trump on banning Muslims.
    Far too many of them have killed innocent people around the world including in the United States.
    Far too many of them chant "Death To America" in their streets and few have real respect for America.
    I see Muslims all over Los Angeles and they want to do things their way according to their own customs.
    You say no to them and they sue.
    A Christmas tree is an insult to them.
    They want Muslim prayer in our schools, but they do not want Christian prayer anywhere near them.
    They try to take over any space they are in.
    On 9/11, there were two Arab boys pointing to the smoldering ruins of the Twin Towers.
    They were laughing.
    That is typical Muslim behavior towards America.
    The United States is THE land of freedom, but Muslims are trying to take away as much of the freedom as they can.
    Their agenda is the Middle East agenda and they dare others to stop.
    Well, stop them we must.
    In America, you do what is according to the laws of this land and not the laws of other places.
    Don't like it, then get out.
    Or be banned.

    George Vreeland Hill

    Norger, 7/30/2016 10:50 PM EST

    OK, so it appears you now agree you said that many Muslims are in fact intimidated into silence even though you were outraged in your last post that I would suggest you said such a thing.

    I don't doubt that political grievances play some part in this but there are many other groups throughout the world (e.g. Christians in the Middle East, Tibetan Buddhists) who suffer oppression equal or greater than that of Muslims, but don't resort to terroristic violence. (where are those Tibetan suicide bombers). And sorry no, I don't think that western imperialism is responsible for the second (or more) generation Islamist violence we are seeing in France, Belgium and Germany. Islam reliably breeds a certain percentage of terrorists.

    My point is that Islamic thuggery has its roots in the religion itself. It's not at all the same as soccer hoologanism. Muhammed is the supreme example for all Muslims; the world's most perfect human. I'm sure you know the word "Sunni" essentially means example (of Muhammed). ISIS essentially claims that the prophet Muhammed was the original ISIS member. They emulate his behavior in every way and (accurately) cite Islamic scripture in support of virtually every atrocity they commit. It's not just "human nature;" it's an ideology of conquest, cloaked in a veneer of religion.And ther is little or no difference between ISIS Islam and Saudi Islam. That fact alone should terrify us.

    I say that jihad terror is going to continue until we recognize it for what it is--religiously motivated warfare. I'm supposed to be flattened by you telling me that "sounds like Trump?" Here's my question to you: how can we possibly fight jihad terror effectively if we refuse to recognize, name and study our enemies' self-stated motivating ideology? How can that possibly be helpful? If we are "at war" with "violent extremism" then intentionally refusing to "come to grips" with our enemies' self-stated motivating ideology is beyond foolish.

    DPMP, 7/30/2016 9:24 PM EST

    So who dug up this lawyer to speak at a democrate convention and why? What's so special about him?

    anagitator, 7/30/2016 8:45 PM EST

    And what have Hillary and the Clinton's sacrificed? An ambassador and diplomat and others in Benghazi? The Dems and their racist elitist owners have a knack for chastising all average Americans (typically white Christians) as always wrong, while they search far and wide for an example that they can use to expand their multi-culturalism agenda.

    How many such average Americans also were killed in action and Hillary could care less because it doesn't fit her or the elites agenda? The Clinton family will drag us into more wars to advance the bankster interests.

    Jake55, 7/30/2016 4:39 PM EST

    For the, 70 plus years, Hillary has been destroying America. She in her term as the Governor's wife was snorting so much cocaine that she drifted through that term. She had a good start with Watergate, where she was fired for dishonesty and trying to manufacture evidence. Then during her husband's vie for the presidential seat, she was a master at covering up his affairs and picadillos. Rape, indiscretions...all covered up by Hillary. She has ruined many lives protecting her errant husband and his sex crazed impulses.

    ... ... ...

    Katy Cordeth, 7/30/2016 5:07 PM EST

    Everything else in your comment was too asinine, hysterical (God help us indeed) and borderline-libellous to respond to, but this Watergate calumny should be addressed.

    Snopes.com - Zeif-geist. Hillary Clinton was not fired from the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation by Chief Counsel Jerry Zeifman.

    senator59, 7/30/2016 2:04 PM EST

    OK, let's talk about your son, who gave his life AS AN AMERICAN soldier, and your Trump insult by your rhetorical question of whether Trump has ever been to Arlington (where, BTW, my parents are also buried...so it is a powerful image associated with this WaPo article).

    Your son served as a legal American. All Trump wants is proper vetting of people who as a group contain a small minority might do us severe harm.
    Since you were at the Democrat convention, may I inform you of a couple of things. First, our current president, Obama, never served in the military. Bill, the husband of the nominee you support, Hillary Clinton, never served;

    But it is worse. Bill Clinton (obviously I am reading reports and would be very unlikely to have first hand knowledge of all of these things) had an educational deferment for college during the VietNam "war." He then had an additional deferment during his two year Rhodes scholarship at Oxford. He joined a National Guard unit in Arkansas but did not report. He picketed against America while overseas. When he did not report to his Guard unit, he was, in June, sent a draft notice. But he did not go. In August, two months later, the draft was changed to a lottery system and he received a high number, meaning he would not go into the military. BUT...those who had already received a draft note, as Bill, were not eligible for the lottery. How did he escape that?? And how can you therefore support Hillary?
    What have you done personally to stop Muslim terrorists from striking us here in America?

    BobSanderson, 7/30/2016 2:24 PM EST

    You are very confused. The Clinton running for President is Hillary. The Republican opponent is Trump with 4 military deferments for his bad foot BUT he bragged he did his national patriotic service avoiding VD in New York.

    How did you miss the revelant parties and facts on service?

    American, 7/30/2016 2:39 PM EST

    When Mr. Khan asked the question: what have you sacrificed? he opened the door to comparisons. Mr Obama is a current president, Mr Clinton a former president. The comparisons were perfectly legitimate. You consider it irrelevant I consider it relevant. That is called a difference of opinions.

    [Aug 10, 2016] Owen Jones: vote for Hillary because when she's POTUS we can ask her nice to be progressive by Catte

    Notable quotes:
    "... the U.S. system never has been democratic. It is a show–a very expensive one–that the capitalist class puts on every two years in order to control the citizenry and to provide a justification for U.S. imperialism. ..."
    "... Now, the capitalist class that controls Rome is no longer national, but transnational, being based on the transnational corporations and financial institutions and enjoying the full support of the transnational capitalist media. ..."
    "... new poles: Globaliists vs. Antiglobalists. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is an antiglobalist. That's the reason he deserves the full support of all those who oppose the transnational capitalist class and its institutions, including the EU, NATO, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD, to name just a few. ..."
    "... However, the election should not be about appearances but about policies. Obama sounded intelligent, but his policies all come out of the globalist think tanks, the CIA (his mum's former employer) and the neocon asylum in Washington. So chose: someone who sounds like a television personality with great positions, or… well we all know what Clinton stands for. ..."
    "... submissives to the atomisation of all systems that might afford self-sufficiency to societies, that makes everybody absolutely dependent on and therefore subservient to international finance and it's program of enslavement. ..."
    "... Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that reality appears. ..."
    "... spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. ..."
    "... sheepdog is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his so-called campaign. ..."
    "... If the majority of people in the USA are really thinking that voting for either Hillary or the Donald is worse than having unprotected sex with an HIV+ hooker, then the Independent would barely need any publicity. They'd just need to be on the ballot. ..."
    "... Course, the Establishment might get cute and put a far-right nutcase up as 'another Independent' so as they would have someone who'd do as they were told no matter what. ..."
    "... The Boy Wonder's credentials as a card-carrying New World Order shill haven't really been in question since January this year – when he penned this fact-free Russophobic screed: ..."
    "... Owen Jones has lost all credibility with his quest for publicity at any price. He'd sell his granny for whatever he could get if it served his interests. He's a hypocrite and a propagandist opportunist. He doesn't give a fig about the Syrians, the Palestinians, the Yemeni or anyone else but himself. At best he is a worthless egocentric loser who wants to be heard, whatever drivel he is spouting and is a traitor to the socialist/centrist movement, his only loyalty is to himself. Nothing he writes or says can be taken seriously anymore. ..."
    July 27, 2016 | OffGuardian

    So, even though Clinton also isn't progressive, or honest, or sane, and even though she has no interest in helping the disadvantaged or rebuilding social infrastructure, and even though she conducted state business on a private email server so no one would be able to tell what nefarious and illegal, and potentially insanely dangerous things she was doing, and even though she presided over the Honduras debacle, and even though she authorised and gloated over the illegal murder of a foreign head of state, and even though she has threatened to "obliterate" Iran and take the confrontations with Russia and China to new heights that really might result in WW3, we absolutely have to get behind her because – hello – she isn't Trump. And anyhow if we get her to be POTUS and make sure there are lots of lovely Democrats in Congress, maybe we can ask them to please do some of the socialist things Bernie talked about. They will probably say yes, of course And anyhow, Owen's not sure if he mentioned this but Hillary isn't Trump

    Yes, this is what passes for political analysis when the neolibs are slipping you wads of cash to endorse the unendorsable, the discredited and the morally broken.

    The likes of Jones are paid to surrender their dignity and ethics and pretend this macabre farce is something called "democracy", and to sell the decaying relics offered up for candidacy as if they were real choices. That doesn't mean we have to pretend to believe them. If I were a US citizen I'd take the only truly free choice left and decline to play this game of fake reality any longer. And if we all did that, the game would be over, wouldn't it.

    anonymous, July 27, 2016

    I am a 57-year-old U.S. citizen. To disabuse those Europeans who both live in smaller countries and have the blessing of a parliamentary system, the U.S. system never has been democratic. It is a show–a very expensive one–that the capitalist class puts on every two years in order to control the citizenry and to provide a justification for U.S. imperialism. The citizens are convinced that they don't have to do a thing in order to make the "democracy" work, and that if they don't like the results that either they are to blame or it is useless to oppose the system. And outside of Rome, people are told that the Roman way is best because it is legitimized by the vote of the citizens.

    Now, the capitalist class that controls Rome is no longer national, but transnational, being based on the transnational corporations and financial institutions and enjoying the full support of the transnational capitalist media. And as the rise of the Alt-Right shows, the old communist vs. far-right poles have become obsolete with the utter defeat and assimilation of the Marxist left, and have been replaced with new poles: Globaliists vs. Antiglobalists.

    Donald Trump is an antiglobalist. That's the reason he deserves the full support of all those who oppose the transnational capitalist class and its institutions, including the EU, NATO, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD, to name just a few. There are not a few "progressives" and "leftists" who refuse to support Trump because he doesn't sound intelligent.

    However, the election should not be about appearances but about policies. Obama sounded intelligent, but his policies all come out of the globalist think tanks, the CIA (his mum's former employer) and the neocon asylum in Washington. So chose: someone who sounds like a television personality with great positions, or… well we all know what Clinton stands for.

    dahoit, August 7, 2016

    I agree totally, Trump is the answer for American recovery.

    But the zionists want no part of America First and Israel on its own.

    And that is why the MSM and web sites everywhere are in full throat propaganda mode for the Hell Bitch.

    I have never seen anything like this before, and the American people can see the fix is in, but over our dead bodies, if necessary. I'm pissed to shite at this massive mis and disinformation bliztkrieg.

    It will backfire, just like all their attempts to marginalize him during the primaries.

    physicsandmathsrevision, July 26, 2016

    He's happy to support Clinton's murderous Jewish racist agenda. All perceived threats to Israel must be destroyed. Iraq, Libya, Syria and (next up) Iran.
    This is where leftist centrists think is a good place to stand in this terrifying age during which we must endure the brain-dead analysis of commentators who, in truth, are most easily understood as simple submissives to the establishment will … a will that everyone is afraid to recognise as being dominated by Jewish money and its globalist anti-commutarian agenda….submissives to the atomisation of all systems that might afford self-sufficiency to societies, that makes everybody absolutely dependent on and therefore subservient to international finance and it's program of enslavement. Are 'gays' a new officer class in this operation?

    OffG Editor, July 26, 2016

    The phrase "a Jewish racists agenda" should qualify for some award for unintended and self-defeating irony.

    If you can tell me how it clarifies, exlains or expands your point then I'll recognise you have a valid reason for adding it that isn't racist or intentionally self-sabotaging.

    proximity1, July 27, 2016

    IF YOU can tell me how the remark is not arguably quite true based on a fair and honest review of facts, then I'll recognise your valid objection to it.

    But, as it seems to me, the simple fact that Clinton's policies aren't solely confined* to the outrages which the writer describes as a "murderous Jewish racist agenda," does not make that observation any the less true- does it!?

    What, other than that, are you objecting to?

    Richard Le Sarcophage, July 28, 2016

    Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that reality appears. He is, in fact, with his total and immediate roll-over, even as the corruption of the process was categorically exposed by the e-mails, making no pretense otherwise, spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. He was the geriatric Obama, dispensing more Hopium for the dopes. And when Clinton feigns adoption of Sanders policy, like not signing the TPP, she is LYING.

    Diana, July 28, 2016

    Sanders' own campaign called him the "youth whisperer", but sheepdog is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his so-called campaign. Perhaps he did so hoping that the DNC would play fair, but that goes to show you he's no socialist. A real socialist would have been able to size up the opposition, not made any gentleman's agreements with them and waged a real campaign.


    rtj1211, July 26, 2016

    So far as I'm aware, there must be a mechanism for an Independent to put their name on the ballot.

    If the majority of people in the USA are really thinking that voting for either Hillary or the Donald is worse than having unprotected sex with an HIV+ hooker, then the Independent would barely need any publicity. They'd just need to be on the ballot.

    Course, the Establishment might get cute and put a far-right nutcase up as 'another Independent' so as they would have someone who'd do as they were told no matter what.

    But until the US public say 'da nada! Pasta! Finito! To hell with the Democrats and the GOP!', you'll still get the choice of 'let's invade Iran' or 'let's nuke Russia'. You'll get the choice of giving Israel a blowjob or agreeing to be tied up and have kinky sex with Israel. You'll get the choice of bailing out Wall Street or bailing out Wall Street AND cutting social security for the poorest Americans. You'll get the choice of running the USA for the bankers or running the USA for the bankers and a few multinational corporations.

    Oh, they'll have to fight for it, just as Martin Luther King et al had to fight for civil rights. They may have the odd candidate shot by the CIA, the oil men or the weapons men. Because that's how US politics works.

    But if they don't want a Republican or a Republican-lite, they need to select an independent and vote for them.

    The rest of us? We have to use whatever influence we have to try and limit what they try to do overseas…….because we are affected by what America does overseas…….

    reinertorheit, July 26, 2016

    Holy Schmoley, Batman!

    The Boy Wonder's credentials as a card-carrying New World Order shill haven't really been in question since January this year – when he penned this fact-free Russophobic screed:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/26/vladimir-putin-russia-oligarch-british-left-speak-out

    Perhaps the most laughable thing in it is that he claims to be speaking for "the British Left"

    mohandeer, July 26, 2016

    Owen Jones has lost all credibility with his quest for publicity at any price. He'd sell his granny for whatever he could get if it served his interests. He's a hypocrite and a propagandist opportunist. He doesn't give a fig about the Syrians, the Palestinians, the Yemeni or anyone else but himself. At best he is a worthless egocentric loser who wants to be heard, whatever drivel he is spouting and is a traitor to the socialist/centrist movement, his only loyalty is to himself. Nothing he writes or says can be taken seriously anymore.

    [Aug 10, 2016] M of A - Clintons False Assassination Outrage Only Helps Trump

    "Clinton's false assassination outrage" was launched to suppress damaging new emails rulors the Clinton goons are behind asssainatin of GNC staffer, who may have been the source of email leaks scandal articles
    Notable quotes:
    "... I distinctly recall HRC pacing the 2008 DNC stage, furiously red-faced, making a thinly veiled reference to Obama and the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, then later shouting with great exasperation, "Ären't you going to 'do' anything about this (guy)", using 'do' in the full Mafia 'Trail of 50 Bodies' sense. ..."
    "... How can one be so blind not to see that it's Hitlary, who is surrounded by the bloodthirsty CIA people pushing openly for world war? ..."
    "... Hillary's false 'The Russians are coming!' is having as widespread and as dire results as anything the Trump has said. Her program is institutional, with the guy 'who used to run the CIA' - right - plugging assassinations himself, and Hillary pledging to continue Obama's program of murdering 'suspects' and everyone surrounding them, or just people who seem to be acting like you'd think 'suspects' might - while viewing them through an 8 or 10,000 mile long drinking straw. ..."
    "... Actually, that's not the video where she made both those statements, but rather an after-play pre-rehearsed news event to immediately replace in the viewers' minds what was actually said, and the shocking raw horror of her psychopathy. ..."
    "... "We came, we saw, he died, caww, caww, caww!" Remember, she'd just watched Ghadaffi be anally raped to death with a bayonet on closed-circuit satellite feed to the War Room. And that was her psychopathic response. ..."
    "... Trump has a huge advantage over his opponents and critics. He's not a bribed, corrupt politician. The Dems and Republicans are all in the pockets of the Owners of the Military/ Industrial/ Security/ Trade/ pro-Israel Complex. They, and their followers, aren't allowed to stray from the Handed-down Wisdom script. It's an insurmountable obstacle for the anti-Trump crowd and b's perspective, (their) outrage (and fake sincerity) only helps Trump, and can only get worse. ..."
    "... I suspect that Clinton will have some bad news in terms of leaked emails and ties between state department and Clinton foundation so by November when elected she will be embroiled in legal fights. ..."
    "... The effect of all that hysterical shouting and screaming of the Hillary-bots: All members and all supporters of the NRA now know exactly what's on stake. ..."
    "... the Charlie Rose interview with ex-CIA chief Morrell who is backing Clinton: Kill Russians and Iranians, threaten Assad,' https://www.rt.com/usa/355291-morrell-kill-russians-clinton/ ..."
    "... Today's outing at The Wall Street Journal via ZH: Latest Hillary Email Scandal Reveals State Department "Favors" To Clinton Foundation http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-10/latest-hillary-email-scandal-shows-state-department-favors-clinton-foundation ..."
    "... A TIME magazine cover recently depicted a headline "Can Hillary be Stopped". Were the editors of TIME suggesting she be assassinated? The media is merely a propaganda tool used to influence our every thought from buying toothpaste to voting for one of two candidates who will be "empty suits" (unless someone comes along who will resist the proffered script) called "President of the USA" - ..."
    "... The internet has been an efficient tool to awaken the people... TPTB (or TPTA) are not adjusting too well. Rather than falsely present a "close race" as is their usual MO, they have persuaded almost 100% of the media to pile on Trump - they think people are too stupid to realize what is going on - same thing with the "polls" - with the "swing states" etc. People are NOT buying it this go round though. Obama's hope & change and subsequent same ol same ol has done alot to "change" people to no longer hope. Then along comes Trump - definitely not one of the establishment. ..."
    "... The more the TPTB pile on Trump's every utterance, and the more they IGNORE the blatant crimes of HRC... imho, the more people will be inclined to vote Anybody But Clinton. Again, in my opinion, many Democrats will stay at home on election day. When in our history of elections has a candidate stolen an election and that fact been verified, and the guilty candidate as much as said to the Party "Deal with It"? ..."
    "... Apologize for the tirade, but I have been a Democrat (actually a LEFTY) for almost 7 decades... in this election cycle most democrats are gleeful over what they see as the decline of the Republican Party, totally BLIND to the evaporation of the Democratic Party. I will never again work or vote for a Democrat - local or national. ..."
    "... "The election will likely be decided on voter turn-out and get-out-the-vote volunteering efforts." If the primaries had been so decided Hillary would not still be in the race. Elections, no less than primaries, are decided by the (corrupt) vote counting. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/06/24/smoking-gun-approximately-15-of-bernies-votes-were-flipped-to-clinton-in-california/ ..."
    "... Richard Charnin has documented the mathematical impossibility of the results in quite a few primaries. ..."
    "... HAHAHA I think more than half the country understands The Washington Post sells lies, bias and bullshit ..."
    "... Killary campaign is unravelling fast imho. Her health problems are all over the net, Assange seems to be hinting at the fact that Seth Rich (goog) was a source, the leaker of DNC mails. (Imho he was a conduit rather than source but who am I.) ..."
    "... Who cares if he's clean? What matters is that he's not a war criminal, and can't be bought. That he can't be bought is why the Establishment is so dead-set against him. ..."
    "... I can't understand your position, given your interest in Russia. Surely you're aware that Hillary would make Obama's relaunching of the Cold War look like a little skirmish? And she would not rest until Syria is destroyed like Libya. One of her advisers has said that he hopes she will kill Russians and Iranians in Syria; another said that NATO is too concerned about ISIS, and attention should go back to overthrowing the legitimate secular Syrian government. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    Karl Pomeroy | Aug 9, 2016 10:18:41 PM | 14
    Geopolitical analyst Finian Cunningham has brilliantly nailed Hillary as an "Exemplar of Neo-Fascism."

    https://quemadoinstitute.org/2016/08/08/hillary-exemplar-of-neo-fascism-trump-an-anathema-to-pentagon-cia-finian-cunningham/

    blues | Aug 9, 2016 10:54:06 PM | 17
    Here are the monsters your scorn should be heaped upon. Yes right here:

    https://electology.org/forum/distracting-unworkable-feints

    bbbb | Aug 10, 2016 12:49:05 AM | 18
    Somebody on the Syria thread got me back on D. Orlov's site. He has a great writeup about how to 'vote' this time around (at least for the president).
    http://cluborlov.blogspot.ca/2016/08/furious-sheep.html
    Alison DeBeers | Aug 10, 2016 1:13:23 AM | 20
    I distinctly recall HRC pacing the 2008 DNC stage, furiously red-faced, making a thinly veiled reference to Obama and the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, then later shouting with great exasperation, "Ären't you going to 'do' anything about this (guy)", using 'do' in the full Mafia 'Trail of 50 Bodies' sense.

    The Cgiseb Trotskyist Now has already rewritten that out of history.

    Back then HRC was speaking without notes, ...directly from her psychopathic brain. Trump was clearly reading from a teleprompter, and you can gargle all you want about that, but the intent was clear, 'crystal', as they say in the halls of Mossad-CIA: 'Do' HRH if she is selected. Who do?

    Then you have to wonder at the cynosure behind the curtain, and their intent, ...which seems to me to be clearly to foment civil war, resolving the inevitable stall and flat spin death spiral of QEn 'goosed' and 'juiced' global markets, so the looting can begin.

    Chinyowinh made a compelling prediction that Bernie was a ruse to round up the Left and deliver them with roses and chocolates to Hillary on a silver plate, which he did; and also that Donald is a ruse to round up Right Wing Rabbinicals, Sovereigntists, Patriots and Crypto-Zionists, and drive them all off Nut Bar Cliff in a hand basket, which he is.

    But that prediction, which seems to have come true, doesn't answer intent. What is the intent of the Chosen controlling all three houses of government, of course, forming a Holy Zionist Kleptocracy. Why? What is their goal, besides enslaving all the Earners?

    Their Solution is all-out civil war, and killing off all the useless EBC mouths to feed.

    Then you have to wonder why nobody has 'done' the cynosures yet, as the bodies pile up.
    Why do we let the cynosure control dissent? Why do we let them hector in the arguments?
    Why waste a NY nanosecond even talking about this psyop brainwashing stress positioning?

    Nothing to see here, citizens, move on dot org.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 10, 2016 6:31:21 AM | 24
    "Those incoherent remarks were certainly off-the-cuff babble without a prepared script. Difficult to follow even if someone were interested in doing so."

    If this is the best that can be said about a candidate, it is not a recommendation. "Vote Trump, he has most incoherent remarks!"

    Most importantly, b correctly observes that Trump, a remarkably successful candidate, uses highly emotional barely coherent speech (or incoherent, if you are charitably inclined), so to compete with him one has to use methodical clear arguments and not an ounce of "false outrage". Just compare with GOP propaganda in the preceding week: there was a deal with Iran allowing access to "frozen" (de-facto, stolen money that belong to the state of Iran), and as a part of that deal some money were sent to Iran before restoring banking connections. Clearly, it was a mean trick on the side of Obama administration, as they are delaying the restoration of normal banking transactions, but GOP is no in full false outrage about "illegal payment", "treason" and so on.

    How about the outrage that Democrats do not use expression "Islamist radical" often enough (or some other expression).

    Emotional and rather base arguments are the specialty of GOP, so it is only fitting to respond in kind. In a counter-narrative, GOP is bent on supplying every right wing psychopath with a ton of machine guns and ammo so they can dispatch LGT folks, social workers, abortion clinics, the public in shopping malls (then and now an armed psychopath is simply, a-politically insane) and liberal politicians. This is an angle directed at "soccer mom" demographic.

    And the situation is a bit scary. American gun nuts are numerous, organized, full of homicidal fantasies (check what "stopping power" means, one of their favorite phrases) and, quite regrettably, they have means to realize their fantasies when angry, depressed etc.

    From The Hague | Aug 10, 2016 6:54:52 AM | 26
    It seems 'bad words' by Trump are worse than bad actions by Hillary.
    He's not a politician (I agree with likklemore #10)

    Talking about assassination: #SethRich

    https://twitter.com/AzaniaJustice/status/759940203616280577

    ProPeace | Aug 10, 2016 8:22:21 AM | 30
    The media bias against Trump has reached unprecedented proportions. I don't know he can be still considered a part of the establishment. Instead of futile speculations about what Trump did not say fueled by the lame-scream media disinformation people should be talking about this:

    WikiLeaks Offers $20,000 Reward For Information On Murder Of DNC Staffer

    ProPeace | Aug 10, 2016 8:27:11 AM | 31
    @Piotr Berman | Aug 10, 2016 6:31:21 AM | 24

    "Trump, a remarkably successful candidate, uses highly emotional barely coherent speech (or incoherent, if you are charitably inclined)"

    Because that's what vast majority of the US public deserves.

    ProPeace | Aug 10, 2016 8:32:21 AM | 32
    @somebody

    How can one be so blind not to see that it's Hitlary, who is surrounded by the bloodthirsty CIA people pushing openly for world war? Are you high on something bad to claim that Killary will be "slow decline" instead of immediate, violent confrontation with the anti-empire block?!

    jfl | Aug 10, 2016 8:34:32 AM | 33
    Hillary's false 'The Russians are coming!' is having as widespread and as dire results as anything the Trump has said. Her program is institutional, with the guy 'who used to run the CIA' - right - plugging assassinations himself, and Hillary pledging to continue Obama's program of murdering 'suspects' and everyone surrounding them, or just people who seem to be acting like you'd think 'suspects' might - while viewing them through an 8 or 10,000 mile long drinking straw.

    From the Olympics come the Americans ... booing the silver medal winning Russian, and her American competitors labeling her a cheater.

    There comes also a ' selfie ' from a young South Korean gymnast, with her new friend from North Korea. There is talk of the USA and its stooges in South Korea making her pay for her 'impure hatred' of the imperially defined other, her own flesh and blood!

    World wide now ... who do love and who do you hate? The Americans? the Koreans? I'm loving the two young Koreans in their selfie myself. Feel sorry for the twisted American swimmers. Amazing they can still float with all the thick bile of hatred weighing them down.

    From The Hague | Aug 10, 2016 9:00:43 AM | 37
    @35,36 ralphieboy,

    Why are you so glad with Hillary? Because of her experience with Libya?
    https://twitter.com/RonSantoFan/status/761725517481455616 (I like her plain talk!)
    Or her experience with Russia?
    https://twitter.com/stranahan/status/760555034660655104 (Stephen Cohen - CNN; Must See!)

    Alison DeBeers | Aug 10, 2016 9:40:40 AM | 41
    25

    Actually, that's not the video where she made both those statements, but rather an after-play pre-rehearsed news event to immediately replace in the viewers' minds what was actually said, and the shocking raw horror of her psychopathy.

    "We came, we saw, he died, caww, caww, caww!" Remember, she'd just watched Ghadaffi be anally raped to death with a bayonet on closed-circuit satellite feed to the War Room. And that was her psychopathic response.

    Here is an example. A still shot of Jackie climbing over the back of the limo as a Secret Service agent rushes up to the limo, and shot from what angle and azimuth, you might ask, since the far ground was level, except by a telephoto spotting scope.

    Then watch the Zapruder video, which shows the agent already on the limo.

    There are 1000's of examples like this from the 9/11 recasting, that's what the Cgiseb Trotskyist Now media people are for, to alter reality in real time, or very near to it.

    19 Arabs who could not fly a Cessna flew two 757s through fighter jet maneuvers with full tanks at full payload dropped two skyscrapers for the first time in history, and two other mythical 757s accomplished what Einstein never did: "They just vaporized!"

    "Hillary just meant that we need a good Vice President, ...you know, just in case."

    Cheney instituted a $5.8B domestic media Black Ops program, that continues to this day, and both Red Donald and Blue Hillary are owned by the same cartels that control the Ops.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 10, 2016 9:51:24 AM | 42
    Trump has a huge advantage over his opponents and critics. He's not a bribed, corrupt politician. The Dems and Republicans are all in the pockets of the Owners of the Military/ Industrial/ Security/ Trade/ pro-Israel Complex. They, and their followers, aren't allowed to stray from the Handed-down Wisdom script. It's an insurmountable obstacle for the anti-Trump crowd and b's perspective, (their) outrage (and fake sincerity) only helps Trump, and can only get worse.
    somebody | Aug 10, 2016 9:55:27 AM | 43
    Posted by: x | Aug 10, 2016 9:03:31 AM | 39

    He is catering for his core voters who made him win the primary but that group won't get him elected in the general election.

    He needs utter amnesia to change his image till October, and youtube and social media will make sure he does not get a chance.

    I suspect that Clinton will have some bad news in terms of leaked emails and ties between state department and Clinton foundation so by November when elected she will be embroiled in legal fights.

    It would be nice to see the Republican and Democrat Parties split.

    From The Hague | Aug 10, 2016 9:57:35 AM | 44
    Wikipedia on the National Rifle Association of America (NRA): Membership surpassed 5 million in May 2013.

    The effect of all that hysterical shouting and screaming of the Hillary-bots: All members and all supporters of the NRA now know exactly what's on stake.

    Brilliant PR from Trump; simple, effective and costless.

    likklemore | Aug 10, 2016 10:07:02 AM | 45
    Connecting the dots.

    "Clinton's false assassination outrage" has accomplished its intent to suppress damaging emailo scandal articles on the front pages, and especially viral on the internet is

    the Charlie Rose interview with ex-CIA chief Morrell who is backing Clinton: Kill Russians and Iranians, threaten Assad,' https://www.rt.com/usa/355291-morrell-kill-russians-clinton/

    "The ex-CIA chief, who worked with Clinton while she was secretary of state, told CBS This Morning co-host Charlie Rose that Iran and Russia should "pay a big price" in Syria – and by that he meant killing them."

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    MSM global has it in the bag for Clinton but over the next weeks we will read the connections between her office and pay-for-play Clinton Foundation.

    Today's outing at The Wall Street Journal via ZH: Latest Hillary Email Scandal Reveals State Department "Favors" To Clinton Foundation
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-10/latest-hillary-email-scandal-shows-state-department-favors-clinton-foundation

    ~ ~ ~ ~

    Not surprised. Quite revealing the list of CF Board of Directors. There is a descriptor for this that escapes one's capacity to spell. SO, HRC's Chief of Staff served on the CF Board, (2004-2009) then to State Department and back to the Board (2013-present).

    Peruse the others:
    https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/board-directors

    likklemore | Aug 10, 2016 10:22:47 AM | 48
    "Rudy Giuliani went to bat for Donald Trump during the Republican nominee's campaign rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina"

    I listened to Donald Trump's speech in Wilmington and what he said very clearly was that if Hillary Clinton were elected president she would get to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and among the other things that they would do to destroy us would be to do away with the Second Amendment and your right to bear arms.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/09/rudy-giuliani-to-clinton-campaign-press-are-you-out-of-your-mind/

    ~ ~ ~
    Trump's speech pattern, (as b, noted) can be described as a babble….as in good American street talk.

    crone | Aug 10, 2016 11:30:49 AM | 51
    In my view, Trump was speaking to the ballot box... those who support the 2nd amendment (some of whom have probably never voted) turning out in November in enough numbers to "stop Hillary"

    A TIME magazine cover recently depicted a headline "Can Hillary be Stopped". Were the editors of TIME suggesting she be assassinated? The media is merely a propaganda tool used to influence our every thought from buying toothpaste to voting for one of two candidates who will be "empty suits" (unless someone comes along who will resist the proffered script) called "President of the USA" -

    The internet has been an efficient tool to awaken the people... TPTB (or TPTA) are not adjusting too well. Rather than falsely present a "close race" as is their usual MO, they have persuaded almost 100% of the media to pile on Trump - they think people are too stupid to realize what is going on - same thing with the "polls" - with the "swing states" etc. People are NOT buying it this go round though. Obama's hope & change and subsequent same ol same ol has done alot to "change" people to no longer hope. Then along comes Trump - definitely not one of the establishment.

    The more the TPTB pile on Trump's every utterance, and the more they IGNORE the blatant crimes of HRC... imho, the more people will be inclined to vote Anybody But Clinton. Again, in my opinion, many Democrats will stay at home on election day. When in our history of elections has a candidate stolen an election and that fact been verified, and the guilty candidate as much as said to the Party "Deal with It"?

    Apologize for the tirade, but I have been a Democrat (actually a LEFTY) for almost 7 decades... in this election cycle most democrats are gleeful over what they see as the decline of the Republican Party, totally BLIND to the evaporation of the Democratic Party. I will never again work or vote for a Democrat - local or national.

    Penelope | Aug 10, 2016 11:46:25 AM | 52
    "The election will likely be decided on voter turn-out and get-out-the-vote volunteering efforts." If the primaries had been so decided Hillary would not still be in the race. Elections, no less than primaries, are decided by the (corrupt) vote counting.
    https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/06/24/smoking-gun-approximately-15-of-bernies-votes-were-flipped-to-clinton-in-california/

    Did you know that exit polls which document that Candidate B is winning are changed (falsified) to agree with the corrupt counting that holds Candidate C the winner? It's official, nonsecret policy of the companies that do exit-polling. Richard Charnin has documented the mathematical impossibility of the results in quite a few primaries.

    From The Hague | Aug 10, 2016 12:31:35 PM | 55
    must be @53 Inkan1969

    NB I googled: Washington Post Trump
    This is the first hit:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/08/09/the-gop-must-dump-trump/

    HAHAHA I think more than half the country understands The Washington Post sells lies, bias and bullshit

    Noirette | Aug 10, 2016 12:34:17 PM | 56
    Killary campaign is unravelling fast imho. Her health problems are all over the net, Assange seems to be hinting at the fact that Seth Rich (goog) was a source, the leaker of DNC mails. (Imho he was a conduit rather than source but who am I.)

    What is nuts about the personal-server e-mails is that what is important now, as everyone seems to have copies, is who releases what when! (Assange, FBI, judiciary, others, possibly Trump …)

    Some commentators correctly insist the personal server-classified info. etc. is secondary to the Clinton Foundation Slush Fund, imho simply a bribery-influence-peddling-dark-deals *criminal* enterprise. That angle seems to be also slowly coming to the surface.

    So someone must be blamed and accused! The only candidate is Putin.

    However it is Killary who is tied to 'shady' deals with Russia, the Uranium One matter.

    Link from NYT, chosen on purpose as *MSM* o-so-supportive of the PTB, sober and prudent supposedly, mealy-mouthed + covering up, obfuscating liars, according to others.

    NYT April 15 2015

    behind paywall? - title : Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

    Another NYT article with laid-out time-line. Title: Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

    NYT April 22 2015

    Formerly T-Bear | Aug 10, 2016 12:47:14 PM | 58
    The cockamamie is strong in these parts, any ol' codswallop is being bought at full market value.

    Has any one stopped long enough in spinning gold out of straw to consider candidate Trump's remarks as reference to the constitution without waving the bloody flag which such reference usually entails? A reasonable estimate of the percentage of the public having some sound knowledge of the constitution is vanishingly small outside their familiarity with the second amendment which would run upwards to 60% or slightly greater. This is the cost of not teaching civics in school. Trump's reference can only be understood as such, nothing more, nothing less.

    The balderdash suggestion that the intent of liquidation was present is a factor only in the twisted imaginations of a few media manipulators. To give those manipulations any currency is at great risk (don't believe), give those enhancing currency wide berth (don't trust), don't be going selling the family milch cow for a handful of magic beans to that lot (run away as fast as you can). Interesting times to live in - indeed.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 10, 2016 1:00:09 PM | 59
    It is interesting to observe that in a highly polarized political landscape, like we see currently in USA (but also in a number of other countries, like Poland and Turkey), there is a wide belief that the candidate/president/leader of the other side is so awful that if only the public fully understood this awfulness he/she would become un-electable.

    But, alas, it does not happen. In a milder times this was called "teflon effect", the most obnoxious dirt goes away after a gentle spray with water. But as the adversaries are perceived in increasingly demonic turns, perhaps a better metaphor is a vampire swiftly shrugging off any attempt to wound it and kill.

    "Wampira można zabić przebijając jego serce drewnianym kołkiem, najlepiej osinowym, albowiem osika w wierzeniach Słowian miała moc odpędzania złych duchów." "One can kill a vampire by stabbing it through the heart with a wooden stake, and best of all, made of aspen, as in the Slavic lore, aspen had the ability to shun away the evil spirits". Vampires actually come from Slavic folk lore, I was actually surprised that Americans think that any type of wooden stake could be used. I guess "silver bullet" is a method closer to the imagination and home arsenal of contemporary Americans.

    Thus we can see the quests for a silver bullet or for a stake made of a proper type of wood. How many times adversaries were cheered by the news that from now on, nobody could elect a Clinton, or Mr. Trump? Quite notably, e-mails proved to be worthless. You can make a stake out of e-mails and then drive it through a witch as many times as you want and she does not even need to regenerate: no traces of a wound can be observed at all! A more sober analysis would show that there are no records of e-mails dispelling evil spirits, killing vampires etc.

    YouTube videos are perhaps a sterner material. But alas, showing the public that Mrs. Clinton reports a killing with a maniacal glee is a total non-issue in U.S. of A. As of now, it is inconclusive if it increased or decreased her popularity. Surely she became a darling of neocons and homicidal retirees from CIA, and there exists a demographic that detests it, but the pluses and minuses in electoral sense are so small that no one even tried to measure them.

    And here comes sober foreign policy of Mr. Trump. He would pick fights only in American interests, e.g. he does not overly care about Crimea and Latvia, thus kissing good bye to the vote of ethnic Latvians and Ukrainians, but promises to shoot down Ruskies if they approach our ships and planes too closely. So, on the credit side, no proxy wars for dubious reasons, on the debit side, WWIII for no reason whatsoever. Promises to unleash torture programs above and beyond recent non-negligible American experience also have a reception that is too mixed to assess.

    And indeed, periodically we learned about an exhalation of the Trumpian orifice that should bury his chances once for all. In general, Madam Secretary played that by the book. Mad dog attacks are done only by proxy. She can make a declaration of virtue: "You will never see me singing praises of foreign dictators and strongmen who do not love America". And who would not make little modest requirement, "praise the strongmen only if they love America"? Trump, apparently, for him it suffices that Putin calls him a genius (although that can be deconstructed as a love for America, and exquisite taste to boot.) But her attacks remains proper, grammatical and dignified.

    Noirette | Aug 10, 2016 1:15:32 PM | 61
    Charles Hugh Smith (blogger) is a nice chap, afaik sincere, consistent, with a big following for long years. Has this perhaps counter-intuitive post up recently. For interest, plurality of opinion, etc.:

    Could the Deep State Be Sabotaging Hillary?

    http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug16/deep-state-hillary8-16.html

    His previous post was in the line of b, title: The More the Establishment Freaks Out Over Trump, the More Attractive He Becomes.

    http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug16/establishment-trump8-16.html

    Piotr Berman | Aug 10, 2016 3:27:12 PM | 64
    Re: Noisette @61

    I think that the linked article is a satire. Look at that passage:

    Hillary has exhibited the typical flaw of liberal Democrats: fearful of being accused as being soft on Russia, Syria, Iran, terrorism, etc. or losing whatever war is currently being prosecuted, liberal Democrats over-compensate by pursuing overly aggressive and poorly planned policies.
    The forward-thinking elements of the Deep State are not averse to aggressive pursuit of what they perceive as American interests, but they are averse to quagmires and policies that preclude successful maintenance of the Imperial Project.

    "Forward-thinking elements of the Deep State". This is really funny. That really calls for some definition of the Deep State. In USA, it is not that deep, I mean, denizens do not need to hide in cellars, abandoned mines etc. although some members could have private bomb shelters and other measures allowing to survive nuclear war. Instead we have a ruling class that socializes (mostly) in public, where we can discern money people, power people, media people and intelligentsia, think tanks and obedient sectors of the academia. The few who are "forward thinking" may be found among FORMER members or acquaintances of the current members, but those, by definition, have no decision making capacities.

    GOP side of the ruling class is split: some would prefer a serial rapist over anyone who does not believe in decreasing taxes, regulations etc. and Trump, for all his faults, is not THAT bad. Additionally, an entire generation grew on hating anything related to Clintons. Other have various grievances. In particular, the Koch brothers who are close to the center of deep power in GOP side openly bet against Trump, working to assure that GOP will remain in the majority of both houses of Congress. In that scenario, Clinton will harmless. Importantly, from Koch perspective, overly energetic support of Trump may cost the majority in the Senate and dangerously weaken it in the House.

    Democratic side of the ruling class is in the minority (at least, within their class) so it is more cohesive. Whatever minor foibles may be presented by HRC, there are barbarian at the gates that have to be repelled. As Trump the Barbarian approaches the capital, they recognize the familiar annoyance and will the their best to stop him.

    likklemore | Aug 10, 2016 3:32:23 PM | 65
    Where is the Clinton rebuke over this direct call from two of their own - call to assassinate public figures"

    From ex-CIA Chief Morrell, a Clinton supporter, calls to kill Russians, Iranians and Assad. See link at 45
    And today, from CNN host to assassinate Assange? Democratic Strategist Calls For The Assassination Of Julian Assange
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-10/democratic-strategist-calls-assassination-julian-assange

    "Amid the media-hyped furor over Donald Trump's 2nd Amendment comments and Wikileaks' suggestions about the untimely death of DNC-staffer Seth Rich, we thought it perhaps of note that Democratic strategist, and CNN host, has publicly called for the "illegal assassination of that son-of-a-bitch" Julian Assange...
    Meet Bob Beckel - Democratic strategist, CNN host (former Fox host), and clear "treasonous, traitor" Assange-hater...
    This strikes us as very dangerous talk... We wonder if he is being questioned or investigated for such a public and unquestionable demand for someone to be murdered? Forget due process... "just kill the son of a bitch."

    From The Hague | Aug 10, 2016 4:24:33 PM | 68
    @67 rg the lg

    Gary Johnson:

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263765/gary-johnsons-campaign-make-hillary-president-daniel-greenfield

    Gary Johnson on Hillary: 'A Wonderful Public Servant'
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIxJicyjLLE

    ProPeace | Aug 10, 2016 4:32:31 PM | 69
    @ somebody | Aug 10, 2016 9:40:00 AM | 40

    Hitlary is a known absolute, unspeakable evil, there is a guarantee she'll escalate dramatically the world tensions. She's has done sbsolutely NOTHING positive during her campaign, zilch, nada. She's MSM's favorite. We have no chance for safe, normal life if she has presidential powers.

    Trump, as many others observed, is an enigma, far less risky. Keeps us guessing but has already inflicted some real damage to the evil empire. MSM has played some really dirty, biased game against him. If he forfeits on his promises, his voters will tear him into pieces.

    Personally I suggest voting AGAINST Killary, NOT for Trump.

    There is absolutely no equivalence between these two alternatives.

    nr27 | Aug 10, 2016 4:47:02 PM | 72
    While the Clinton campaign tries to make everybody believe that Trump was calling for the assassination of Hillary, Hillary or someone associated very likely assassinated the DNC Wikileaks leaker Seth Rich a couple of weeks ago. The Russia did the hack is as bogus as the North Korea hacked Sony story and the most significant whistleblowing has up till now been done by individuals (Manning and Snowden). The Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was shot in the back with no motives for his murder as all his belongings were still on him.

    http://sputniknews.com/us/20160810/1044139492/wikileaks-victim-leak.html

    somebody | Aug 10, 2016 4:58:55 PM | 75
    This is funny. Russia - RT - has decided to run US election spots .

    ProPeace | Aug 10, 2016 4:59:46 PM | 76
    @ somebody | Aug 10, 2016 9:40:00 AM | 40

    BTW It's proven that Hellary ALREADY STOLE the nomination from Sanders.

    Trump has not cheated in the elections so far.

    So no, there is no equivalence here.

    Demian | Aug 10, 2016 6:14:41 PM | 77
    I'm impressed that an actual doctor who is involved with various professional associations has come out about this:

    Is Hillary Clinton Medically Unfit to Serve?

    Strangely silent is the mainstream media about the fitness of the Democrat candidate. And causes for concern are growing. Without considering any statements she has made or positions she has taken, and without presuming to speculate on psychiatric diagnoses, one can point to certain observations. ..

    Videos widely circulated on the internet are, if authentic, very concerning. One shows prolonged, inappropriate laughter; another, strange head movements. In a third, she appeared momentarily dazed and confused, and lost her train of thought.

    Strangely silent indeed. (I found out about that post from a piece at Breitbart , which mentions that Clinton's top aid said in an email that she is "often confused".)

    PavewayIV | Aug 10, 2016 6:16:25 PM | 78
    As much as I try to ignore the election travesty playing out, I can't help but notice Hillary is getting sloppy about her murders. What her and Bill could do in their previous roles they can't do now without drawing unwanted attention. This is why it's so important to own the press/newz. This is a psychopathic strategy of yesteryear, yet Hillary's handlers cling to it desperately. I'm not suggesting Hillary herself controls the press. Her masters are the same masters the NYT, WaPo, CNN and network newz answer to. Whether you buy into the whole psychopath-this and psychopath-that conspiracy, you have to admit Hillary (and Obama for that matter) go ballistic about 'leakers'. Far more so than you would expect ANY normal, powerful person to react. Denial and counter-accusations are 'normal'. Killing (or wishing the death) of leakers is not.

    Wikileaks' Assange Hints Murdered DNC Staffer Was Email-Leaker, Offers $20k Reward For Info

    The usual tactic (for psychopaths) is to immediately blame someone else for something they themselves are guilty of. Funny how Hillary's camp went nuts over Trump's reference to Second Amemdment people changing the law. Who the hell would interpret this - literally - as Trump suggesting they assassinate Hillary? You have to have a seriously sick and twisted mind to see that to begin with, and then wage a futile campaign of outrage about it in the media. Even Hillary supporters are starting to ask WTF??

    crone | Aug 10, 2016 6:49:22 PM | 79
    @ 77 Demian

    Thanks, I missed the fact that Dr. Susan Berry is the author of that piece. I clicked on her name and found this:

    "Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, observes that "strangely silent is the mainstream media about the fitness" for presidential office of Hillary Clinton. At AAPS' website, Orient summarizes the concerns about Clinton's health that she says are growing:"

    Association of American Physicians and Surgeons website: http://www.aapsonline.org/

    Dr. Orient has a lengthy article there, here are the last three paras:

    "... The U.S. has had problems with incompetent leaders in the White House before. Mrs. Woodrow Wilson (the "First First Lady President") was effectively President for the last year and a half of her husband's term after he suffered a disabling stroke. She managed to conceal the seriousness of Wilson's condition for a long time. This was the reason for the 25th amendment to provide for replacing the President in case of disability.

    While the U.S. government knows more and more about our medical histories and other aspects of our lives, many details about the President are a secret. The press appears to care more about the tax returns of Republican candidates than the medical records of Democrat Presidents or candidates. And Secretary Clinton's public appearances have been rather carefully controlled.

    Is it conceivable that Hillary supporters would really be voting for Huma Abedin, Clinton's top aide, or for the First First Husband President, Bill Clinton? The American people are entitled to know the objective medical facts about Secretary Clinton."


    Demian | Aug 10, 2016 7:30:25 PM | 80
    @ProPeace #76:

    It's proven that Hellary ALREADY STOLE the nomination from Sanders.

    Trump has not cheated in the elections so far.

    So no, there is no equivalence here.

    Indeed. I guess that Western democracy has become so degraded that many people can't grasp or even notice this difference.

    The way the system is rigged has been clear for some time, at least since Bill Clinton's second term. You have two parties that are more or less identical in terms of the policies they implement, except on social wedge issues. The candidate of both parties is pre-selected by the establishment.

    What was unusual about the current election is that there were insurgencies in both parties. The Republican insurgency succeeded; the Democratic one failed. That alone is reason enough to vote for the Republican in this election (something I never even considered doing before).

    The More the Establishment Freaks Out Over Trump, the More Attractive He Becomes

    The Establishment is freaking out about Donald Trump for one reason: they didn't pick him . The Establishment is freaking out because the natural order of things is that we pick the presidential candidates and we run the country to serve ourselves, i.e. the financial-political elites.

    Donald Trump's candidacy upsets this neofeudal natural order, and thus he (and everyone who supports him) is anathema to the Establishment…

    rufus magister | Aug 10, 2016 7:48:51 PM | 81
    Just in case one has forgotten, don't we all know what our "constitutionalist" ammosexuals are capable of? Who can forget Ammo-on Bundy and all the related fun at Malheur?

    And do you really believe The Donald is clean? What NYC property developer and builder isn't mobbed up? I'm sure he's slid plenty of envelopes of cash across tables to state and local politicians. Isn't most of the New York legislature under indictment? Or just the leadership? Here is Jersey, our official motto is "The Pay-to-Play State."

    And of course his penchant for shady business deals and bankruptcies fully vouches for his undeniable probity.

    MadMax2 | Aug 10, 2016 8:01:40 PM | 82
    Yeah, both Hilary and Bill look pretty used up. Spent. For what...? Haha... Great entertainment. You seppos put on a great show. Would be pretty funny except for the fact you're all holding a gun to your head and everyone else's.

    I enjoy Bill still though. A yank I like. The Secret of Oz and The Money Masters are essential viewing for those who want to know HOW they rig it. Here is something i posted in the US Election thread, tho suits here now. Makes a great point about social media figures, the unspoken polls...(what is the future...or...perhaps the now...?)

    @133 Demian
    Yeah, Orwellian indeed...

    I am in no doubt she is suffering. I remember Trump ripping her a new hole when she failed to appear with Bernie and O'Malley during a televised debate. Trump questioned her stamina then, and while Trump draws sell out crowds each day, sometimes twice a day, she is appearing only 3 times before Oct 9 I think.

    You cant hide from what she's got. And she's got it bad.

    The peoples champ and US patriot Bill Still does some Social Media viewing figures for us:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5pXLGdVlxqk

    Still: How Clinton rigs the polls:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XLf63B1R5aY

    And of course Still on: Hilary's Handler Carries Diazepam Pen
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ6v8yKMX-A

    Jovial stuff...

    Haha...Trump, yeah hes a buffoon, but he's more MSM than the MSM itself and is playing it like a flute... Plus he's causing all sorts of chaos. Destroyed the Republicans already, Dems next.

    Demian | Aug 10, 2016 8:24:14 PM | 85
    @rufus magister #81:

    And do you really believe The Donald is clean?

    Who cares if he's clean? What matters is that he's not a war criminal, and can't be bought. That he can't be bought is why the Establishment is so dead-set against him.

    I can't understand your position, given your interest in Russia. Surely you're aware that Hillary would make Obama's relaunching of the Cold War look like a little skirmish? And she would not rest until Syria is destroyed like Libya. One of her advisers has said that he hopes she will kill Russians and Iranians in Syria; another said that NATO is too concerned about ISIS, and attention should go back to overthrowing the legitimate secular Syrian government.

    Doesn't the world have enough instability? It would just get worse under Hillary. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that Trump is, at the very least, the lesser evil, apparently out of a liberal smugness and dislike for his populism.

    And I don't understand why you can't see this from the Russian point of view. Lavrov keeps on talking about how the world is becoming multipolar, but that US elites refuse to accept this new reality. It is obvious that Trump understands and accepts this new reality. That's why US foreign policy types hate him.

    Jack Smith | Aug 10, 2016 8:41:38 PM | 86
    @MadMax2 | Aug 10, 2016 8:09:49 PM | 84

    Exactly! However, all polls from Realclealpolitics shows Hillary leading and most likely landslide in Nov.

    Trump is no angel either, and his team of economic advisers consists of Oligarch. Between the two who is most evil?

    Boils down to: Hillary love endless wars while Trump will strips everything we have left.

    Buy your pitchforks before it's too late..

    [Aug 10, 2016] Father of Muslim soldier killed in action delivers brutal repudiation of Trump

    Another nice example of swiftboating. What scarifies for illegal and disastrous Iraq war that made Iran region superpower mean?
    Notable quotes:
    "... "He says, 'You have sacrificed nothing and no one,'" Stephanopoulos asked. "Who wrote that, did Hillary's scriptwriters write it?" Trump replied. "How would you answer that father?" Stephanopoulos asked. "What sacrifice have you made?" ..."
    "... In lieu of participating in a debate on Fox News earlier this year, Trump held a fundraiser at which he said he raised millions of dollars for veterans' charities and given $1 million of his own. When The Washington Post investigated, we found that he had overstated how much had been raised and contributed and that Trump himself hadn't made a contribution. ..."
    "... Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said during a campaign speech in Iowa on July 28 that he wanted to "hit" some of the speakers at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. "I was going to hit one guy in particular. A very little guy," Trump said to laughter. (Reuters) ..."
    www.washingtonpost.com

    Trump's response to the New York Times's Maureen Dowd was brief: "I'd like to hear his wife say something."

    If your assumption was that Trump was suggesting that, as a Muslim woman, Ghazala Khan may have been forced into a position of subservience, Trump made that point explicitly in an interview with ABC News's George Stephanopoulos.

    "I saw him," Trump said of the speech. "He was very emotional and probably looked like a nice guy to me. His wife … if you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say."

    "She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me," Trump continued. "But a plenty of people have written that. She was extremely quiet, and it looked like she had nothing to say. A lot of people have said that."

    Ghazala did have something to say when the couple were interviewed by MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell .

    O'DONNELL: You were very nervous about going to the convention and actually were reluctant, didn't really want to go out on the stage and especially didn't want to speak because you would not be able to keep your composure and I have to say, I'm just like you. I don't think I would have been able to do what your husband did out there last night.

    How do you feel now about having gone to the convention and gone out on stage and seen what an impact it's had?

    GHAZALA KHAN: First of all, I thank all America who listened from their heart to my husband's and my heart, and I'm so grateful for that. And it was very nervous because I cannot see my son's picture, and I cannot even come in the room where his pictures are. That's why when I saw the picture at my back I couldn't take it, and I controlled myself at that time. So, it is very hard.

    While Khizr Khan spoke, a large photo of their son was displayed on the large video screens behind the couple.

    [ Khizr Khan's loss: A grieving father of a soldier struggles to understand ]

    In the ABC interview, Stephanopoulos pressed Trump on Khan's question of what he's sacrificed.

    Donald Trump to Army Gold Star father Khizr Khan: "I've made a lot of sacrifices" https://t.co/ZOHLGCaOyC https://t.co/Myp4oyHyX4

    - This Week (@ThisWeekABC) July 30, 2016

    "He says, 'You have sacrificed nothing and no one,'" Stephanopoulos asked.

    "Who wrote that, did Hillary's scriptwriters write it?" Trump replied.

    "How would you answer that father?" Stephanopoulos asked. "What sacrifice have you made?"

    "I think I've made a lot of sacrifices," Trump said. "I've worked very, very hard. I've created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs …"

    "Those are sacrifices?" Stephanopoulos asked.

    "Sure. I think they're sacrifices. I think when I can employ thousands and thousands of people, take care of their education, take care of so many things," Trump said. "Even the military. I mean, I was very responsible along with a group of people for getting the Vietnam Memorial built in downtown Manhattan, which to this day people thank me for."

    "I raised and I have raised millions of dollars for the vets," he added.

    In lieu of participating in a debate on Fox News earlier this year, Trump held a fundraiser at which he said he raised millions of dollars for veterans' charities and given $1 million of his own. When The Washington Post investigated, we found that he had overstated how much had been raised and contributed and that Trump himself hadn't made a contribution.

    It was only after that report that Trump wrote a check.

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said during a campaign speech in Iowa on July 28 that he wanted to "hit" some of the speakers at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. "I was going to hit one guy in particular. A very little guy," Trump said to laughter. (Reuters)

    [Aug 10, 2016] Austin Bay on NeverTrumpers

    neoneocon.com

    August 2nd, 2016

    I've long respected Austin Bay , and so I found this article of his making the case for voting for Trump to be of interest, and I think it deserves an audience.

    Everyone who reads this blog regularly knows I've struggled long and hard with the question of whether I can stomach voting for Trump, and I expect I'll probably struggle with it right up to the moment of truth in the voting booth. But I've long said that I respect those who will vote for him and are convinced it is the right thing to do, although I also respect those who will not. There are arguments-good arguments-to be made on either side.

    Bay comes down on the pro-Trump side, and reminds us of some of Trump's good points:

    He won the nomination by boldly and relentlessly addressing difficult political and social issues that his opponents preferred to either avoid or carefully finesse. He damned political and media hacks who run down America. When racist fanatics murdered cops Trump demanded law and order.

    Bay feels that NeverTrumpers are fooling themselves as to the effects of their non-support:

    NeverTrumpLand's childish Sore Losers don't thwart the ambitions of America's all-too-real Captain Crook-Hillary Clinton-and her privileged Clinton Foundation cronies. Quite the opposite. In GetRealLand Sore Losers become Crooked Hillary's political tools.

    That's why I've never been part of the NeverTrump movement-my reluctance to facilitate the election of Hillary Clinton. But I realize that many NeverTrumpers are propelled into that camp by their belief that Trump would not necessarily be better than Clinton-rather, that he and she would both be extremely bad, just in different ways. Weighing a future that features a known and more predictable type of badness (Clinton) with a more unknown and unpredictable type of badness (Trump) would be hard enough, but it's compounded in this election by what Donald Rumsfeld might call the unknown unknowns of both of these candidates.

    [Aug 09, 2016] New Cold War also competing in Rio Olympics

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is no coincidence that the doping scandals have started around Russian sportsmen. After all, professional athletes from other countries also use steroids. The West needs to strike at Russia's image since sanctions didn't bring about the planned affect and Moscow is not giving in to political and economic pressure. ..."
    "... As in politics, sports is filled with a variety of scandals which have taken place quite often in the history of the Olympic Games and other major events. However, in the case of violations by athletes, things should be handled fairly and objective. Otherwise, having achieved their goal (and all Western law is based on precedent), certain lobbies will begin to repeat the practice of discrediting athletes from other countries, thus not serving the interests of sports at all. ..."
    Defend Democracy Press
    International sporting events have a clear political nature: nation-states enter the stadium under their national anthem, represent their countries, and, in the case of victory, their rank increases. In other words, sports is an instrument of "soft power" if we use Joseph Nye's term. Moreover, the country hosting a sporting event can improve its image, as was the case with the Sochi Winter Olympic Games.

    Thus, athletes, just like politicians, are paid careful attention by their "partners" and detractors. It is no coincidence that the doping scandals have started around Russian sportsmen. After all, professional athletes from other countries also use steroids. The West needs to strike at Russia's image since sanctions didn't bring about the planned affect and Moscow is not giving in to political and economic pressure.

    We should recall that the first article about such was published in the New York Times in May. The media has statutes for tribute for ordered articles, so it is very easy to identify the initiators.

    Russia has the right to maintain sovereign positions on many other issues, but it is also necessary to reach consensus through skillful diplomatic work in international organizations. This is not always effective (for example, in recent years the United Nations has supported sodomites in Russia at the expense of traditional family values), but it is individual persons who often have the last word.

    The doping scandal was put to an end by the head of the International Olympic Committee, Thomas Bach, who is in office since 2013. The Russian Olympic team will not be banned from the competition in Rio de Janeiro. The federation will pass decisions on individual athletes. Bach called this approach distinguishing between "clean" and doping athletes who have the chance to prove their case.

    Although the number of Russian athletes will in fact still be smaller, there still exists the space for a political message: the anthem, the flag, and the possibility to win in different sports.

    Perhaps some can see a pro-Russian position in Bach's activities, since he is against the US' political order on this occasion. He is in fact trying to protect the traditions and mechanisms of big sports.

    As in politics, sports is filled with a variety of scandals which have taken place quite often in the history of the Olympic Games and other major events. However, in the case of violations by athletes, things should be handled fairly and objective. Otherwise, having achieved their goal (and all Western law is based on precedent), certain lobbies will begin to repeat the practice of discrediting athletes from other countries, thus not serving the interests of sports at all.

    [Aug 09, 2016] he USA and the coup in Turkey new disturbing questions - Defend Democracy Press

    Jun 08, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press

    Reports that US General John F. Campbell was the organizer of a coup d'etat in Turkey surprised no one. Recall that the July 25th edition of the Turkish Yeni Safak, close to President Recep Erdogan's AKP party, reported that General John F. Campbell, former U.S. commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan, was the organizer of the July 15th military coup attempt in Turkey. The sources stated that he was also involved in the financing of the coup participants and the reshuffling of air base personnel while visiting the base on the eve of the coup attempt. After an unsuccessful coup attempt the Turkish generals Cahit Bakır and Şener Topçu were detained in Dubai airport. Both worked with Campbell in Afghanistan, where they commanded the Turkish contingent within the NATO forces.

    However, these are not the only clues in the Turkish coup plot which directly points to NATO as the mastermind of the coup. There are some other information regarding this issue:

    1. The same coup participants stationed at the Turkish Air Force, were the most NATO-integrated structures of the Turkish Military, and this gave to the observers the first evidence of NATO involvement in the military putsch. The Incirlik Air Base, where the US military was based was used by the putschists to launch air strikes on the Turkish parliament. The base is jointly used by the US and Turkish Air Forces. After the coup attempt, it was suppressed by the Turkish commander of the base. General Bekir Ercan Van was arrested by the troops loyal to Erdogan. General Van sought asylum from the United States but was denied. In the aftermath of the coup, external electrical power from Turkey was cut to the base and a Turkish no fly order had been put into effect for US military aircraft in the area. On July 30th the base was blocked by Turkish troops on information about a second coup attempt.

    .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area { height: 130px; position: relative; } .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl { height: 130px; position: relative; } .IRPP_ruby { height: 130px; position: relative; } .IRPP_ruby:active { border:0!important; } .IRPP_ruby:visited { border:0!important; } .IRPP_ruby:hover { border:0!important; } .IRPP_ruby { border:0!important; } .IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .IRPP_ruby { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .IRPP_ruby:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #34495E; } .IRPP_ruby:active { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #34495E; } .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl { background-position: center; background-size: cover; float: left; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 31.59%; } .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area { float: right; width: 65.65%; padding:0; margin:0; } .IRPP_ruby .centered-text { display: table; height: 130px; left: 0; top: 0; padding:0; margin:0; } .IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0 74px 0 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .IRPP_ruby .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #3498DB; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: .125em; margin: 0; padding: 0; } .IRPP_ruby .postTitle { color: #ECF0F1; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; } .IRPP_ruby .ctaButton { background: url(http://www.defenddemocracy.press/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat; display: inline-block; height: 130px; width: 54px; } .IRPP_ruby .ctaButton { background-color: inherit; margin-left: 10px; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .IRPP_ruby:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } Read also: Russia Returns to the Middle East

    2. From the very beginning Western media spread disinformation, that President Erdogan flee the country. American NBS mentioned high ranking US military, proving the information. Thus the US military was directly involved in the disinformation during the most critical early hours of the failed coup operation.
    The US alternative media Newsbud has identified Former NATO Commander-Retired US Army General John F. Campbell as the 'likely' NBC News' source.

    3. The majority of those arrested after the coup attempt were people related to the NATO structure. The the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, speaking at a forum on security organized by the Aspen Institute in Colorado last week, declared that after the coup "many of our interlocutors have been purged or arrested".

    Curtis Scaparrotti, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe confirmed this information, stating that:

    "Some of the officers that we have our relationships with in Turkey are now either detained, in some cases retired as a result of the coup"

    Thus, NATO de-facto recognized, that their people were in the ranks on the presumptive putschists

    4. It was revealed that NATO aggressively promoted their agents, who then actively participated in the coup:

    According to Erdogan's supporters, thousands of Turkish officers recruited to Gulen's network went up the ladder in their military career on "on high speed" , reaching ranks of generals and colonels in key positions. In sharp contrast, in the Kemalist army base, their former fellows remained captains or majors.

    5. The three most important regiments which participated in the coup were part of Turkey's 'NATO Rapid Deployable Corps'. The registration plates on military vehicles of the putschists, show that they belonged to the 2nd Armoured Brigade, stationed in the Istanbul district of Kartal, and the 66th Mechanised Infantry Brigade, which is based in Hasdal together with the 6th Regiment. The transcript of WhatsApp messagess of the plotters, provided by Bellingcat showed that the group in communications also used the emblem and slogan used by NATO's Rapid Deployable Corps (a quote of Ataturk) : "Peace at home, peace in the world.".

    .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area { height: 130px; position: relative; } .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl { height: 130px; position: relative; } .IRPP_ruby { height: 130px; position: relative; } .IRPP_ruby:active { border:0!important; } .IRPP_ruby:visited { border:0!important; } .IRPP_ruby:hover { border:0!important; } .IRPP_ruby { border:0!important; } .IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .IRPP_ruby { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .IRPP_ruby:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #34495E; } .IRPP_ruby:active { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #34495E; } .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl { background-position: center; background-size: cover; float: left; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 31.59%; } .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area { float: right; width: 65.65%; padding:0; margin:0; } .IRPP_ruby .centered-text { display: table; height: 130px; left: 0; top: 0; padding:0; margin:0; } .IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0 74px 0 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .IRPP_ruby .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #3498DB; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: .125em; margin: 0; padding: 0; } .IRPP_ruby .postTitle { color: #ECF0F1; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; } .IRPP_ruby .ctaButton { background: url(http://www.defenddemocracy.press/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat; display: inline-block; height: 130px; width: 54px; } .IRPP_ruby .ctaButton { background-color: inherit; margin-left: 10px; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .IRPP_ruby:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } Read also: They push Turkey into TTIP

    6. And finally, once again the news from Yeni Safak. It revealed information that the Guvercinlik First Army Aviation Regiment's Maintenance Battalion Commander Lieutenant Colonel Murat Bolat told prosecutors that the US was ready to help them to assassinate Erdogan during the coup.

    "Americans were to provide the exact coordinates of Erdoğan, if the team was unable to find him in the hotel. They also said that up to four persons with civil dress have been tracking Erdoğan ", – the Turkish newspaper quotes the rebel.

    The same fact, that Erdogan's newspaper attacks the US and NATO so fiercely corroborates that Turkish authorities are preparing for harsh anti-US moves, including leaving NATO. And they have a lot of the evidence of NATO's involvement in the coup.

    Read also:

    [Aug 09, 2016] Accusations of Trump is being fascist as another attempt to marginalize him

    Notable quotes:
    "... broadly, fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks. ..."
    "... The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements, once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself (The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving Labor with the consequences. ..."
    "... The article I cited above in Vox canvasses the opinion of five serious students of fascism, and none of them believe Trump is a fascist. I'd be most interested in knowing what you have been reading. ..."
    "... If anything it is merely a very crude descriptive model of the political process. It doesn't define fascism as a particular set of beliefs that make it a distinct political ideology that can be differentiated from other ideologies ..."
    "... Indeed by your standard virtually every state that has ever existed has to a greater or lesser extent been "fascist". ..."
    "... My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD, and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to be taken seriously. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Lexington , June 2, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    "Fascism" has become the prefered term of abuse applied indiscriminately by the right thinking to any person or movement which they want to tar as inherently objectionable, and which can therefore be dismissed without the tedium of actually engaging with them at the level of ideas.

    Most of the people who like to throw this word around couldn't give you a coherant definition of what exactly they understand it to signify, beyond "yuck!!"

    In fairness even students of political ideology have trouble teasing out a cosistent system of beliefs, to the point where some doubt fascism is even a coherent ideology. That hardly excuses the intellectual vacuity of those who use it as a term of abuse, however.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , June 2, 2016 at 4:39 pm

    Precisely 3,248 angels can fit on the head of a pin. Parsing the true definition of "fascism" is a waste of time, broadly, fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks.

    As far as the definition "neo-liberalism" goes, yes it's a useful label. But let's keep it simple: every society chooses how resources are allocated between Capital and Labor. The needle has been pegged over on the Capital side for quite some time, my "start date" is when Reagan busted the air traffic union. The hideous Republicans managed to sell their base that policies that were designed to let companies be "competitive" were somehow good for them, not just for the owners of the means of production.

    The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements, once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself (The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving Labor with the consequences.

    Lexington , June 2, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks

    Which textbooks specifically?

    The article I cited above in Vox canvasses the opinion of five serious students of fascism, and none of them believe Trump is a fascist. I'd be most interested in knowing what you have been reading.

    As for your definition of "fascism", it's obviously so vague and broad that it really doesn't explain anything. To the extent it contains any insight it is that public institutions (the state), private businesses (the corporation) and the armed forces all exert significant influence on public policy. That and a buck and and a half will get you a cup of coffee. If anything it is merely a very crude descriptive model of the political process. It doesn't define fascism as a particular set of beliefs that make it a distinct political ideology that can be differentiated from other ideologies (again, see the Vox article for a discussion of some of the beliefs that are arguably characteristic of fascist movements). Indeed by your standard virtually every state that has ever existed has to a greater or lesser extent been "fascist".

    My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD, and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to be taken seriously. Given that these movements are only growing in strength as faith in traditional political movements and elites evaporate this is likely to produce exactly the opposite result. Right wing populism isn't going to disappear just because the left keeps trying to wish it away. Refusing to accept this basic political fact risks condemning the left rather than "the fascists" to political irrelevance.

    [Aug 09, 2016] They knew nothing about the coup in Turkey! - Defend Democracy Press

    Notable quotes:
    "... German parliamentarians are preparing to ask for sanctions against the USA, Britain and France also. According to those parliamentarians, by implementing the Chaos Strategy in the Middle East, in order to "promote democracy", as they kept saying, Washington, London and Paris are directly responsible for the refugee crisis, the terror attacks and the whole pattern of instability which has now engulfed Turkey as well. ..."
    "... Mr. Erdogan, President of one of the most important NATO countries, did not meet any of his Western counterparts, but he is going to Russia to meet President Putin, and his closest advisors are proposing that he should institute an alliance with Russia, like Kemal, and wage war against "the Crusaders". ..."
    "... The perspective of a strategic alliance between Ankara and Moscow is the definition of a nightmare for US and Israeli planners. They certainly did not start all those wars just to see a bloc of Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria being formed in the Middle East, not to mention, potentially, a huge crisis in NATO. ..."
    www.defenddemocracy.press

    The US Ambassador to Ankara explains why his country knew nothing about what was going to happen in Turkey

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/no-us-planning-support-knowledge-in-coup-attempt-in-turkey-ambassador.aspx?pageID=238&nID=102529&NewsCatID=510

    In the meantime Austrian and German politicians compare the coup in Turkey with the Reichstag fire in 1933. But they don't know who set the fire

    https://www.rt.com/news/354909-austria-germany-nazi-turkey/

    A leftist politician in Germany wants sanctions against Turkey

    http://www.thelocal.de/20160802/left-party-politician-calls-for-sanctions-against-turkey

    According to our information this is only the first step. German parliamentarians are preparing to ask for sanctions against the USA, Britain and France also. According to those parliamentarians, by implementing the Chaos Strategy in the Middle East, in order to "promote democracy", as they kept saying, Washington, London and Paris are directly responsible for the refugee crisis, the terror attacks and the whole pattern of instability which has now engulfed Turkey as well.

    According also to our information, top US and Israeli officials are outraged at what is happening. They now have to cancel all family vacation planning and concentrate on how to handle an unbelievable new situation. Mr. Erdogan, President of one of the most important NATO countries, did not meet any of his Western counterparts, but he is going to Russia to meet President Putin, and his closest advisors are proposing that he should institute an alliance with Russia, like Kemal, and wage war against "the Crusaders".

    Radicals around Erdogan call for war "against Crusaders"

    The perspective of a strategic alliance between Ankara and Moscow is the definition of a nightmare for US and Israeli planners. They certainly did not start all those wars just to see a bloc of Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria being formed in the Middle East, not to mention, potentially, a huge crisis in NATO.

    We are still not there and nobody knows if we will reach that point. Russia and Turkey, as history proves, have seriously conflicting interests. As for Erdogan himself, he cannot win over the Kurds by military means and neither can the Kurds win what they want by war. All that is certain is that we are heading straight for very serious conflicts.

    Fortunately for them, and probably for us also, European politicians do not consider any alteration of their vacation programs. They are continuing their enjoyment of their holidays, waiting for Washington to take its decisions.

    D.K.

    [Aug 09, 2016] New Cold War also competing in Rio Olympics

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is no coincidence that the doping scandals have started around Russian sportsmen. After all, professional athletes from other countries also use steroids. The West needs to strike at Russia's image since sanctions didn't bring about the planned affect and Moscow is not giving in to political and economic pressure. ..."
    "... As in politics, sports is filled with a variety of scandals which have taken place quite often in the history of the Olympic Games and other major events. However, in the case of violations by athletes, things should be handled fairly and objective. Otherwise, having achieved their goal (and all Western law is based on precedent), certain lobbies will begin to repeat the practice of discrediting athletes from other countries, thus not serving the interests of sports at all. ..."
    Defend Democracy Press
    International sporting events have a clear political nature: nation-states enter the stadium under their national anthem, represent their countries, and, in the case of victory, their rank increases. In other words, sports is an instrument of "soft power" if we use Joseph Nye's term. Moreover, the country hosting a sporting event can improve its image, as was the case with the Sochi Winter Olympic Games.

    Thus, athletes, just like politicians, are paid careful attention by their "partners" and detractors. It is no coincidence that the doping scandals have started around Russian sportsmen. After all, professional athletes from other countries also use steroids. The West needs to strike at Russia's image since sanctions didn't bring about the planned affect and Moscow is not giving in to political and economic pressure.

    We should recall that the first article about such was published in the New York Times in May. The media has statutes for tribute for ordered articles, so it is very easy to identify the initiators.

    Russia has the right to maintain sovereign positions on many other issues, but it is also necessary to reach consensus through skillful diplomatic work in international organizations. This is not always effective (for example, in recent years the United Nations has supported sodomites in Russia at the expense of traditional family values), but it is individual persons who often have the last word.

    The doping scandal was put to an end by the head of the International Olympic Committee, Thomas Bach, who is in office since 2013. The Russian Olympic team will not be banned from the competition in Rio de Janeiro. The federation will pass decisions on individual athletes. Bach called this approach distinguishing between "clean" and doping athletes who have the chance to prove their case.

    Although the number of Russian athletes will in fact still be smaller, there still exists the space for a political message: the anthem, the flag, and the possibility to win in different sports.

    Perhaps some can see a pro-Russian position in Bach's activities, since he is against the US' political order on this occasion. He is in fact trying to protect the traditions and mechanisms of big sports.

    As in politics, sports is filled with a variety of scandals which have taken place quite often in the history of the Olympic Games and other major events. However, in the case of violations by athletes, things should be handled fairly and objective. Otherwise, having achieved their goal (and all Western law is based on precedent), certain lobbies will begin to repeat the practice of discrediting athletes from other countries, thus not serving the interests of sports at all.

    [Aug 09, 2016] Russophobia by Giulietto Chiesa

    Notable quotes:
    "... Putin is a monster to feed the imagination of the masses, systematically depicted as a psychopathic tyrant, responsible for massacres, cynical weaver of imperialistic plots. ..."
    "... Things are changing. The resolute intervention of Russia against the Daesh terrorists unmasked ambiguities in Turkish and Saudi Arabian policy The West as a whole was stunned. Russophobic propaganda went into panic mode Slowly and steadily another truth is coming out and being glimpsed. The winners of the Cold War were already convinced that Russia was defeated and colonized. ..."
    Defend Democracy Press

    By now it is clear: the crisis in which the West is struggling does not resemble anything known. It is a crisis of values, democracy, economic, financial, environmental, an unprecedented political crisis. All paradigms are collapsing, the US leadership is no longer invincible: clearly it is in serious danger. And when power feels weak, it looks for an enemy to target: somebody to blame, somebody to frighten people with. All is grist for the mill. Instead of an admission of the truth, namely that the crisis is inside the west, is a by-product of the West, instead of an admission that resources are running out and the system is marching toward collapse, Russia is made the enemy. So it was in the past, so it is today. The obsession returns in updated form. Russia with its strongman Vladimir Putin is the new "enemy number one". Reviving Cold War slogans, they (the West, the USA), are reproducing the idea of the Evil Empire, and Putin is a monster to feed the imagination of the masses, systematically depicted as a psychopathic tyrant, responsible for massacres, cynical weaver of imperialistic plots.

    The war in Ukraine, the economic sanctions, even the denial of the Russian role in the defeat of Nazism: everything is pushing in that direction. But is it really so, or is the "Putinophobia" that is being touted by the bulk of the media just a big mirror in which the West sees its own shortcomings and troubles reflected?

    Things are changing. The resolute intervention of Russia against the Daesh terrorists unmasked ambiguities in Turkish and Saudi Arabian policy The West as a whole was stunned. Russophobic propaganda went into panic mode Slowly and steadily another truth is coming out and being glimpsed. The winners of the Cold War were already convinced that Russia was defeated and colonized.

    They were looking to China as the next enemy to be destroyed or reduced to submission. They have been taken by surprise. Putin's Russia, the phoenix reborn from its ashes, is the only superpower that can derail the train that is hurtling towards catastrophe. But it may be also the last hope for the West too. If, obviously, the West can bring itself to understand that it is not, in any case, going to be able to rule over seven billion people.

    [Aug 09, 2016] Slate, Mother Jones, and Buzzfeed News all ran more stories about Trump's dust-up with an infant than they did on what was effectively the start of bombing of Libya

    Notable quotes:
    "... ABC World News Tonight ..."
    "... NBC Nightly News ..."
    www.defenddemocracy.press

    Defend Democracy Press

    Even many center-left outlets barely touched on the massive mission creep. To give some perspective, Slate, Mother Jones, and Buzzfeed News all ran more stories about Trump's dust-up with an infant than they did on what was effectively the start of a new war. ABC World News Tonight mentioned the Libyan air strikes for only 20 seconds, 13 minutes into the show, and NBC Nightly News didn't mention the air strikes at all. The president's announcement that the United States is bombing a new country has become entirely banal.

    [Aug 09, 2016] MRC's Bozell Lashes Out at 'Stupid' Trump Giving Media Excuse to Not Cover DNC Leaks, Hillary

    newsbusters.org
    MRC's Bozell Lashes Out at 'Stupid' Trump Giving Media Excuse to Not Cover DNC Leaks, Hillary By NB Staff | August 6, 2016 | 10:17 AM EDT Media Research Center President Brent Bozell was in rare form on Tuesday night while speaking to Dana Loesch of The Blaze TV in calling out Donald Trump as "stupid" for giving the liberal media an endless number of excuses to not cover the firings and Wikileaks dumps about the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's latest problems with the truth.

    [Aug 08, 2016] Russian Olympic doping scandal McLaren Report sexed up, implicated clean athletes

    Notable quotes:
    "... the whole way the campaign was conducted, and the timing of the publication of the various WADA reports, shows that the agenda all along was to get the whole of Team Russia expelled from the Olympic Games. ..."
    "... The president of the Australian Olympic Committee, John Coates, who is also an IOC vice president, reportedly wrote to Australia's Health Minister Susan Ley, saying that the IOC had a "lack of confidence in WADA." ..."
    "... We encourage a full report by Professor McLaren before we make any full and frank ­decisions ..."
    theduran.com

    More evidence of deep divisions between the IOC and WADA over the Russian doping scandal have emerged in two articles in The Australian. One article, which is behind a paywall, derives from off-the-record conversations with IOC officials. The other article, which is open access, gives Professor McLaren's side of the story. It alludes to the article behind the paywall and reproduces some of its material.

    For an open source account of what is in the article behind the paywall, one is obliged to turn to RT. It claims that the article says

    " .that there are members within the International Olympic Committee (IOC) who believe the release of the McLaren report on the eve of the Olympics was designed to set off the "nuclear option" of issuing a blanket ban on Russia competing at the games."

    This is very similar to what I said in an article I wrote a few days ago. I said that the whole way the campaign was conducted, and the timing of the publication of the various WADA reports, shows that the agenda all along was to get the whole of Team Russia expelled from the Olympic Games. Here is what I said:

    "That this was indeed the agenda is clear enough from the way the whole anti-doping campaign against Russia has been conducted. It seems that a decision to expel Russia from the Olympic movement was taken probably around the time of the failure of the campaign to boycott the Winter Olympics in Sochi in 2014. All the various allegations of doping in Russia that have circulated since 2010 and even before were then sifted through to construct a case. Someone then put them all together in a dossier, spicing them up with witness testimony from people like Stepanova and Rodchenkov. A series of lurid articles and documentaries then appeared in the Western media, reviving all the allegations and putting the worst possible spin on them. A series of reports from WADA then followed in quick succession starting in the autumn of last year, timed to make the maximum possible impact and to leave the least possible time for proper independent fact checking or for any other steps to be taken before the start of the Rio Games. That way the allegations could not be properly and independently assessed and no fully fair arrangements could be made to allow for the admission of all indisputably clean Russian athletes. That opened the way, just as the Rio Games were about to start, for the IOC to be presented with a demand for a blanket ban."

    In my article I also said on the basis of certain comments by IOC President Thomas Bach that all the facts pointed to the IOC being furious with WADA for its conduct of the whole affair. Again RT's summary of the article behind the paywall confirms as much.

    "Once it was clear that the IOC was not going to support a full ban, the author of the report, the Canadian lawyer Richard McLaren, handed over the names of Russian athletes who had been cited in his document to the 28 federations. These names had initially not been published when the report was first made public on July 18. However, The paper's sources reportedly said that WADA now has a problem as it "had been caught short not having enough detail to justify some of the claims against athletes."

    "They sexed it up which is crazy because now the entire report is under scrutiny and I am sure most of the report is absolutely accurate. It just puts question marks where question marks should not be," a sports official told the publication.

    The president of the Australian Olympic Committee, John Coates, who is also an IOC vice president, reportedly wrote to Australia's Health Minister Susan Ley, saying that the IOC had a "lack of confidence in WADA."

    "McLaren said there was evidence that 170 Russian athletes, the majority of whom were set to compete in Rio, had previously had positive doping tests destroyed by the Moscow Anti-Doping Laboratory. Following further analysis of the samples carried out at the Moscow laboratory, it was found that Russian samples were split into four separate categories of seriousness. However, one of these categories was for samples which were not considered serious at all.

    "We were asked to make a judgment about Russian competitors based on McLaren's report but without having any of the detail to understand the significance of them being named," a senior sports official said, as cited by The Australian. "Now to be told that there were four different categories – why weren't we told this at the very beginning? It's a mess and it's WADA's fault.''"

    That RT is reproducing the article accurately is confirmed by the open access article. It corroborates RT's account of the article behind the paywall:

    "Sports officials have accused WADA of "sexing up" the case against Russian athletes by handing over to sporting federations the names of competitors who had no evidence against them in order to invoke the "nuclear option" of expelling Russia from the Games. IOC spokesman Mark Adams said yesterday the confusion showed the dangers of working with an unfinished report: "To have someone who didn't (commit) a competition doping offence but was counted as such is a very dangerous thing. We encourage a full report by Professor McLaren before we make any full and frank ­decisions.''"

    (bold italics added)

    The reference to McLaren's report being "unfinished" and to the need for a "full report" refers to something else I said in another earlier article I wrote a week ago:

    "In any rational world what ought to have happened is that when Stepanova's and Rochenkov's allegations became public a full and proper investigation ought to have been set up, with all the witnesses examined and represented by legal counsel, and with the forensic evidence examined by a variety of scientific experts, who could have been cross-examined and whose reports would have been made public. Since this would have taken time – a year at least – arrangements of the sort now set up by the IOC should have been made in the meantime to ensure that there was no cheating by Russian athletes at Rio. Given the scale of the allegations and the suspicion of state involvement in the doping, this would inevitably have involved barring Russian athletes already found to have cheated from competing in Rio, harsh though that is. At the end of this process the investigation would have delivered a proper report – not like the deeply flawed report provided by McLaren – either confirming or refuting the allegations, and making specific recommendations to prevent the problem arising again."

    The IOC is obviously right to complain that it should not have been asked to make a decision on the basis of an incomplete report provided just 2 weeks before the Games in Rio were due to begin. However, given his actions in preparing his report and the way he presented it, Professor McLaren is obviously the wrong person to prepare the full report IOC spokesman Mark Adams is referring to.

    The open access article in The Australian shows the extent to which McLaren and WADA have been thrown onto the defensive. It reports McLaren complaining that

    "The focus has been completely lost and the discussion is not about the Russian labs and Sochi Olympic Games, which was under the direction of the IOC. But what is going on is a hunt for people supposed to be doping but that was never part of my work, although it is starting to (become) so. My reporting on the state-based system has turned into a pursuit of individual athletes.''

    I am at a total loss to understand how Professor McLaren thinks that a report supposedly about an alleged state-sponsored system of doping should not look into the evidence of doping on the part of individual athletes, when it is precisely those individual cases of doping which are the evidence that there was a state-sponsored system of doping in the first place.

    Obviously there was insufficient time to look into each and every allegation of doping properly in the 57 days in which Professor McLaren's investigation was conducted. However that merely points to the fact that conducting a proper investigation within a timeframe of just 57 days was impossible. Professor McLaren should have admitted as much and asked for more time to conduct his investigation properly, leaving it to WADA and the IOC to put in place proper arrangements to prevent possible cheating by Russian athletes at the Olympic Games in Rio in the meantime. However that is not what he did. Instead he delivered an incomplete and defective report and demanded a blanket ban on the strength of it.

    Frankly I cannot see in Professor McLaren's words anything other than confirmation that that was his objective all along. Judging from what IOC officials are reported to have told The Australian, it seems that is their opinion too.

    Further confirmation that this was the objective is provided by the way WADA is now desperately trying to retreat from the way McLaren "implicated" individual athletes in his report. In order to explain this away WADA's chief executive Olivier Niggli is quoted by The Australian as providing what can only be called a twisted explanation of what happened.

    "WADA chief executive Olivier Niggli said the confusion arose because sports officials had not understood what the word ''implicated'' meant. ''Professor McLaren gave each sport the list of the athletes who were implicated. That was the word used by the IOC; which athletes were appearing there in the report. Then we get to the confusing part. He gave the international federations everything he had, every name.'' There was no further information about some names, yet the sports federations believed listing meant they were ''implicated'' and they should withdraw the athletes and, following IOC guidelines, they should withdraw them from Olympics competition."

    That Professor McLaren (who is a lawyer) "implicated" athletes in a way that was not intended to cast suspicion on them strikes me as frankly absurd. On the contrary it is now starting to look as if he presented his findings in such a way as to create the impression that there was more evidence of Russian athletes being involved in doping than was actually the case.

    All this is of course grist to the mill for the lawyers in the court cases which the Russian athletes are now bringing. Some of the comments on the thread to the article in which I discussed these court cases doubted that they would have much effect. On the contrary it is precisely because these court cases are being brought that the IOC and WADA are now so publicly at odds with each other. What one can see in these angry exchanges and recriminations are the frantic steps of the two sporting bodies as they try desperately to cover their positions in anticipation of the court cases that are now coming. Moreover in any court case there is a legal duty of full disclosure which the Russian athletes can use to demand sight of all the correspondence (including telephone records and emails) which led to the decision to exclude them being made. I expect their lawyers to advise them to use this right to the hilt. This is beginning to look like a debacle. As I have said before this affair is only at its start.

    [Aug 08, 2016] Fmr Russian doping lab chief sold drugs to athletes, promised cover-up

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the end of June the Investigative Committee filed a request with US authorities to help with carrying out the questioning of Rodchenkov, as part of the criminal case against him. ..."
    "... This guy should be dealt with harshly for he has used, other wise, athletes that would have used better judgment. Temptation in the eyes of rising stars with the promises. Tragic now that they are sideline. Gods speed with this calamity. ..."
    Jul 01, 2005 | RT Sport

    The former head of the Moscow anti-doping laboratory set up a doping scheme in which he sold illegal substances to athletes while also promising to help them obtain a clean doping record, a Russian investigation has revealed.

    Investigators cited witnesses implicating Grigory Rodchenkov in a doping scheme.

    "According to preliminary information, he [Rodchenkov] purchased these substances in the US and when selling them to clients, promised to cover the fact that banned substances had been detected in their samples," Vladimir Markin, spokesman for the Russian Investigative Committee said in a statement published on Monday.

    The committee has reason to think that Rodchenkov was the mastermind behind the illegal trade, the statement continued to say. There is as of yet no information about his possible accomplices.

    "He could have destroyed the samples to conceal the selling of prohibited substances and avoid criminal responsibility that would bring him a much stricter punishment, than that [which exists] for violating WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] standards," Markin also wrote.

    Another detail revealed by the Investigative Committee is that Rodchenkov's sister had been convicted in 2012 for the illegal trafficking of substances that could have been used for doping. It is yet to be established where she bought the drugs.

    The case against Rodchenkov was launched in the middle of June. He faces charges in Russia of abuse of authority based on World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) reports and media reports which suggested Rodchenkov and Russian athletes violated anti-doping regulations.

    Rodchenkov deliberately decided to destroy 1,437 blood samples in December 2014, despite receiving a letter from WADA requesting that he keep the samples, the investigation stated.

    The former head of the Moscow anti-doping lab is currently in the US where he fled, stating that he has been fearing for his safety.

    In May, Rodchenkov said in an interview with NYT that he substituted more than 100 samples given by Russian athletes during the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics which was all part of a state-run "decade-long effort to perfect" Russia's performance at international competitions.

    Russian Sports Minister Vitaly Mutko subsequently rejected the claims, stressing that no doping program had ever existed in Russian sports.

    At the end of June the Investigative Committee filed a request with US authorities to help with carrying out the questioning of Rodchenkov, as part of the criminal case against him.

    Blue Sushi -> Red Fish

    "Is anybody stupid enough to think Russia would have admitted its drugs problem on its own?"

    Does any nation?

    ethan hunt

    Grigory Rodchenkov made an allegation and its only right that he provides proof/evidence to backed his allegations.

    Russia does not want to shut him up but it does wanted Rodchenkov to present evidence to claim so that the necessary steps can be taken.

    MeBituman

    Simple question who destroyed the samples that were expressly requested by WADA to be preserved? This is your guilty party. No?

    ethan hunt

    An allegation was made and no evidence was presented. Did the IAAF and WADA actually presented evidence? They did not, their decision was based on the "allegations" made.

    James Hickey

    This guy should be dealt with harshly for he has used, other wise, athletes that would have used better judgment. Temptation in the eyes of rising stars with the promises. Tragic now that they are sideline. Gods speed with this calamity.

    [Aug 08, 2016] America's Dangerous Game of Intrigue Inside International Organizations

    Notable quotes:
    "... From the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Washington has been playing a dangerous game of intrigue and deception with regard to steering these organizations in a pro-American direction. The Obama administration has decided that the halls, offices, and conference rooms of international organizations are acceptable battlefields to wage propaganda and sanctions wars. ..."
    www.strategic-culture.org

    From the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Washington has been playing a dangerous game of intrigue and deception with regard to steering these organizations in a pro-American direction. The Obama administration has decided that the halls, offices, and conference rooms of international organizations are acceptable battlefields to wage propaganda and sanctions wars.

    The first American target of note was the international football association, FIFA. Not content with trying to sully the reputation of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics with issues of gay rights and doping of athletes, the US disinformation boiler rooms began a full-scale attack on FIFA. The major reason is Russia's hosting of the 2018 FIFA World Cup. The US Justice Department, in a major move toward the internationalization of domestic US law, began unsealing indictment after indictment of FIFA officials for financial crimes. The actual target of these indictments was Russia.

    ... ... ...

    Resisting pressure from Washington, IOC president Thomas Bach wisely decided to avoid a blanket ban of Russian athletes. Bach called such a unilateral ban on Russia participating in the Rio games as a "nuclear option". He also said that such a "nuclear option" would have resulted in "collateral damage" among innocent athletes. Bach's use of two geopolitical military terms was no mistake and it bore the mark of someone responding to familiar American "shock and awe" pressure. The United States used its compliant stooges, Germany and Canada, as well as the dubious World Anti-Doping Agency, run by a Scottish lawyer, to call for a total ban on Russian athletes in Rio.

    ... ... ...

    [Aug 08, 2016] Feds: Clinic founder sold performance drugs to athletes

    Fish rots from the head: doping is the most rampant in the USA...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Federal officials said earlier Tuesday that Bosch would agree to plead guilty to a charge of distributing steroids in a conspiracy that stretched from big league club houses to South Florida high schools and youth baseball leagues to sandlots in the Caribbean. ..."
    "... "These defendants were motivated by one thing: money," United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Wifredo Ferrer, said. "They did this by lining their pockets, by exploiting the pressures of athletes and others to be bigger, to be stronger and to play better." ..."
    "... Bosch told investigators that he provided the illegal substances to at least 18 minors, Ferrer said. ..."
    "... Bosch and his associates distributed the drugs to minors who attended a number of public and private high schools in South Florida. He would charge the teenagers and their parents between $250 and $600 a month, promising that the concoctions -- which included black market steroids -- would improve their game. ..."
    CNN.com
    Tony Bosch, the founder of the now-defunct Biogenesis anti-aging clinic in Miami, is not a licensed doctor, but portrayed himself as one, federal officials said Tuesday.

    Officials said he dispensed performance-enhancing drugs to professional baseball players such as suspended New York Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez and to impressionable high school athletes in South Florida and teenagers in the Dominican Republic.

    Bosch, 50, surrendered to the Drug Enforcement Administration in Florida on Tuesday. At a court appearance, he pleaded not guilty and a judge set bail at $100,000.

    Federal officials said earlier Tuesday that Bosch would agree to plead guilty to a charge of distributing steroids in a conspiracy that stretched from big league club houses to South Florida high schools and youth baseball leagues to sandlots in the Caribbean.

    One of his attorneys, Susy Ribero-Ayala, said there is a plea agreement in place and Bosch will change his plea later.

    "Mr. Bosch has never had and does not have a DEA registration," said Mark Trouville, special agent in charge of the DEA Miami. "He is not a licensed medical professional. He is not a doctor. He is a drug dealer."

    Also charged in the scandal were Yuri Sucart, a cousin of Rodriguez, and Juan Carlos Nunez, who was named in a scheme to clear All-Star Melky Cabrera after a positive 2012 testosterone test, authorities said.

    Other defendants include Carlos Acevedo, a longtime associate of Bosch's, former University of Miami coach Lazaro "Lazer" Collazo, Jorge Velasquez, and Christopher Engroba.

    Acevedo and three other men, including CarlosLuis Ruiz, a Florida Highway Patrol trooper, also were charged in a separate conspiracy involving the sale of the drug MDMA, or molly.

    Eight of the 10 men charged appeared in court. Acevedo and Engroba also entered not guilty pleas. The other men didn't enter a plea.

    Lengthy investigation

    The drug conspiracy charges against the men stemmed from from a 21-month DEA investigation.

    "These defendants were motivated by one thing: money," United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Wifredo Ferrer, said. "They did this by lining their pockets, by exploiting the pressures of athletes and others to be bigger, to be stronger and to play better."

    Bosch could face a 10-year prison term in the case.

    Bosch told investigators that he provided the illegal substances to at least 18 minors, Ferrer said.

    Bosch and his associates distributed the drugs to minors who attended a number of public and private high schools in South Florida. He would charge the teenagers and their parents between $250 and $600 a month, promising that the concoctions -- which included black market steroids -- would improve their game.

    A look at performance enhancing drugs in sports

    In addition, investigators said, Bosch and the others operated in the Dominican Republic, where boys as young as 12 were given new baseball equipment and treated with testosterone-loaded syringes in an effort to get them signed with big league teams. Talents scouts working with the children would keep as much as 50 % of their signing bonuses.

    "These defendants provided easy access to dangerous concoctions of steroids and human growth hormones to impressionable high school kids," Ferrer said. "Simply put: Doping children is unacceptable. It is wrong. It is illegal and it is dangerous and Bosch and his reckless recruiters and his black market suppliers ignored the serious health risks posed to their so called patients, all to make a profit."

    Using lollipops

    The drugs were administered in a number of ways, through injections, pills, creams and even lollipops, according to a source with direct knowledge of the investigation.

    Masking agents were used to hide the drugs. "It was so good. The key was being able to fool testers with the league (Major League Baseball), the source said. "The masking agents in the creams would hide the actual drug, and (Bosch) would know the timing involved. He knew if the athlete took the drug right before a game, they'd be tested 12 hours later and the drug would no longer be detectable."

    Earlier this year, Major League Baseball dropped its lawsuit against Bosch and the company the league claims provided performance-enhancing drugs to a number of players, including Rodriguez. The league had agreed to drop the suit if Bosch cooperated in the investigation, according to published reports.

    In a statement Tuesday, Rodriguez's lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said: "This obviously is the beginning of the end of this sordid chapter in baseball."

    Authorities said professional athletes recruited by the clinic paid between $2,000 and $12,000 per month for the drugs.

    The investigation led to the suspension of 14 players for violating the league's drug policy. Besides Rodriguez, suspended players included Milwaukee Brewers outfielder Ryan Braun, the 2011 National League MVP, who served part of his suspension last season.

    Bosch's Biogenesis clinic became part of the story in late January 2013, when the Miami New Times reported that more than a dozen professional baseball players and other athletes had been named in records kept over several years by the clinic.

    Two months later, MLB filed its lawsuit against the clinic in Florida's Miami-Dade County.

    Its 14-page complaint named Biogenesis, its predecessor company and six individuals -- among them program director Bosch, others at the company, someone who worked at a sports agency, a former University of Miami baseball player and a "self-proclaimed chemist" who supplied substances.

    [Aug 08, 2016] The fact that Rodchenkov knew techniques of manipulating test results is not evidence of state controlled doping program, especially since he was the main culprit

    Notable quotes:
    "... That's a excellent article; good catch. I wrote to the Canadian Minister for Sport about it and urged her to revisit Canada's position on this, which is to essentially act as a spear carrier for Washington. ..."
    "... The 'Independent Commission' was McLaren, Dick Pound (who has already made his feelings on banning Russia from the Olympics quite clear), and Gunter Younger, who was just appointed WADA's Chief of Intelligence and Investigations this past June. A reward? I wonder. Whatever the case, you could hardly imagine a more ideological and biased team of 'investigators'. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Fern . August 7, 2016 at 4:43 pm
    I came across this guy, Rick Sterling, being interviewed on RT about the ban on Russia's paralympic team where he mentioned that he'd produced a critique of the McLaren report. It's a substantial analysis and worth reading:-

    "The report concludes that Rodchenkov is credible and truthful with little demonstrated proof. In contrast, the November 2015 Independent Commission report concluded that Dr. Rodchenkov was not credible. The fact that Rodchenkov knew techniques of manipulating test results is not evidence of "state controlled doping program," especially since he was the main culprit. The information spread in previous reports on Russian doping that Rodchenkov was involved in extorting money from athletes – this information suggests opportunism on his part rather than integrity. The former director of Moscow Laboratory has admitted his involvement in urine sample swapping, design of a steroid cocktail not easily traced, and more. He was instrumental in helping some athletes cheat the system. He is also the person with most motivation to implicate others, even if unjustly. His testimony obviously needs careful scrutiny and cross-checking."

    http://theduran.com/heres-russian-athletes-unfairly-banned-olympics/

    marknesop says: August 7, 2016 at 7:04 pm
    That's a excellent article; good catch. I wrote to the Canadian Minister for Sport about it and urged her to revisit Canada's position on this, which is to essentially act as a spear carrier for Washington. I am sure there is going to be an independent legal review of the McLaren Report after the Olympics is over, and that it will find it a shambles.

    The 'Independent Commission' was McLaren, Dick Pound (who has already made his feelings on banning Russia from the Olympics quite clear), and Gunter Younger, who was just appointed WADA's Chief of Intelligence and Investigations this past June. A reward? I wonder. Whatever the case, you could hardly imagine a more ideological and biased team of 'investigators'.

    [Aug 08, 2016] Doping must not be tolerated, but neither should the politicizing of sport by Peter Lavelle

    Actually the fact that almost anybody under investigation from Russia can escape to West and on crossing the border be promoted as fighter for democracy or truth creates an unhealthy climate. See Fmr Russian doping lab chief sold drugs to athletes, promised cover-up – investigation - RT Sport
    Notable quotes:
    "... Peter Lavelle is host of RT's political debate program CrossTalk. His views may or may not reflect those of his employer. ..."
    theduran.com

    The International Olympic Committee has decided Russian athletes can attend the Rio Olympic Games – participation to be individually decided by federations. This is the right decision, but a dangerous precedent has been established – entire teams can be targeted for political reasons.

    The IOC probably realized it was playing with fire. The U.S. and some of allies have gone to great lengths to "isolate" Russia for Washington's blunders in Ukraine and elsewhere. The strategy to "isolate" means no stone will be left unturned to damage Russia, including the areas of sports and other prestige events. By banning the Russian team the IOC probably drew the conclusion that itself would face isolation from hundreds of million of sports enthusiasts.

    Also, the IOC probably reflected on what any Olympics would be like without Russia – one of the pillars of international sports. Without the Russians, all medals would have been deemed less worthy.

    ... ... ...

    Washington's neocons and their fellow travelers have been dealt a blow – there are surely feeling they lost an important PR coup. They will certainly regroup and continue their vengeful assault on Russia and international legal norms. The Rio Games have been saved, but the reputation of the IOC has been damaged. Doping must not be tolerated, but neither should the politicizing of sport.

    Peter Lavelle is host of RT's political debate program CrossTalk. His views may or may not reflect those of his employer.

    [Aug 08, 2016] The Olympics as a tool of the new Cold War

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yulia Stepanova's husband is Vitaly Stepanov a former staffer at RUSADA. He had lived and studied in the US since he was 15, but later decided to return to Russia. In 2008, Vitaly Stepanov began working for RUSADA as a doping-control officer. Vitaly met Yulia Rusanova in 2009 at the Russian national championships in Cheboksary. Stepanov now claims that he sent a letter to WADA detailing his revelations back in 2010, but never received an answer. ..."
    "... One fact that deserves attention is that Vitaly has confessed that he was fully aware that his wife was taking banned substances, both while he worked for RUSADA as well as after he left that organization. ..."
    "... In early June he admitted that WADA had not only helped his family move to America, but had also provided them with $30,000 in financial assistance. ..."
    "... Threatened with prosecution, Gregory Rodchenkov began to behave oddly and was repeatedly hospitalized and "subjected to a forensic psychiatric examination." A finding was later submitted to the court, claiming that Rodchenkov suffered from "schizotypal personality disorder," exacerbated by stress. As a result, all the charges against Rodchenkov were dropped. But the most surprising thing was that someone with a "schizotypal personality disorder" and a sister convicted of trafficking in performance-enhancing drugs continued as the director of Russia's only WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory ..."
    "... All the evidence to be used by the prosecution is subject to challenge, and if some fact included in those charges can be interpreted to the defendant's advantage, then the court is obliged to exclude that fact from the materials at the disposal of the prosecution. ..."
    "... As a lawyer, McLaren understands all this very well. Hundreds of lawsuits filed by Russian athletes resulting in an unambiguous outcome would not only destroy his reputation and ruin him professionally – they could form the basis of a criminal investigation with obvious grounds for accusing him of intentionally distorting a few facts, which in his eyes can be summarized as follows. ..."
    Oriental Review

    The 6th Fundamental Principle of Olympism (non-discrimination of any kind, including nationality and political opinion) seems to be forgotten long ago. In ancient Greece the competition of best athletes was able to halt a war and serve as a bridge of understanding between two recent foes. But in the twentieth century the Olympics have become a political weapon. Back in 1980 the US and its allies boycotted the games in Moscow as a protest against the Soviet troops that entered Afghanistan at the request of that country's legitimate government (in contrast, the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany were held as usual, to the applause of the "civilized" world).

    On May 8, 2016 the CBS program 60 Minutes aired a broadcast about doping in Russia. The interviews featured recorded conversations between a former staffer with the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA), Vitaly Stepanov, and the ex-director of Russia's anti-doping laboratory in Moscow, Grigory Rodchenkov. That program was just the fourth installment in a lengthy series about the alleged existence of a system to support doping in Russian sports.

    A few days later the New York Times published an interview with Rodchenkov. There that former official claims that a state-supported doping program was active at the Sochi Olympics, and that the orders for that program had come almost directly from the Russian president.

    One important fact that escaped most international observers was that a media campaign, which had begun shortly after the 2014 deep freeze in Russian-Western relations, was constructed around the "testimonies" of three Russian citizens who were all interconnected and complicit in a string of doping scandals, and who later left Russia and are trying to make new lives in the West.

    A 29-year-old middle-distance runner, Yulia Stepanova, can be seen as the instigator of this scandal. This young athlete's personal best in global competition was a bronze medal at the European Athletics Indoor Championship in 2011. At the World Championships that same year she placed eighth. Stepanova's career went off the rails in 2013, when the Russian Athletic Federation's Anti-Doping Commission disqualified her for two years based on "blood fluctuations in her Athlete Biological Passport." Such fluctuations are considered evidence of doping. All of Stepanova's results since 2011 have been invalidated. In addition, she had to return the prize money she had won running in professional races in 2011-2012. Stepanova, who had been suspended for doping, acted as the primary informant for ARD journalist Hajo Seppelt, who had begun filming a documentary about misconduct in Russian sports. After the release of ARD's first documentary in December 2014, Stepanova left Russia along with her husband and son. In 2015 she requested political asylum in Canada. Even after her suspension ended in 2015, Stepanova told the WADA Commission (p.142 of the Nov. 2015 WADA Report) that she had tested positive for doping during the Russian Track and Field Championships in Saransk in July 2010 and paid 30,000 rubles (approximately $1,000 USD at that time) to the director of the Russian anti-doping laboratory in Moscow, Gregory Rodchenkov, in exchange for concealing those test results.

    Yulia Stepanova's husband is Vitaly Stepanov a former staffer at RUSADA. He had lived and studied in the US since he was 15, but later decided to return to Russia. In 2008, Vitaly Stepanov began working for RUSADA as a doping-control officer. Vitaly met Yulia Rusanova in 2009 at the Russian national championships in Cheboksary. Stepanov now claims that he sent a letter to WADA detailing his revelations back in 2010, but never received an answer.

    In 2011 Stepanov left RUSADA. One fact that deserves attention is that Vitaly has confessed that he was fully aware that his wife was taking banned substances, both while he worked for RUSADA as well as after he left that organization. Take note that Stepanova's blood tests went positive starting in 2011 – i.e., from the time that her husband, an anti-doping officer, left RUSADA. With a clear conscience, the Stepanovs, now married, accepted prize money from professional races until Yulia was disqualified. Then they no longer had a source of income and the prize money suddenly had to be returned, at which point Vitaly Stepanov sought recourse in foreign journalists, offering to tell them the "truth about Russian sports." In early June he admitted that WADA had not only helped his family move to America, but had also provided them with $30,000 in financial assistance.

    And finally, the third figure in the campaign to expose doping in Russian sports – the former head of the Russian anti-doping laboratory in Moscow,Gregory Rodchenkov. According to Vitaly Stepanov, he was the man who sold performance-enhancing drugs while helping to hide their traces, and had also come up with the idea of "doped Chivas mouth swishing" (pg. 50), a technique that transforms men into Olympic champions. This 57-year-old native of Moscow is acknowledged to be the best at what he does. He graduated from Moscow State University with a Ph.D. in chemistry and began working at the Moscow anti-doping lab as early as 1985. He later worked in Canada and for Russian petrochemical companies, and in 2005 he became the director of Russia's national anti-doping laboratory in Moscow. In 2013 Marina Rodchenkova – Gregory Rodchenkov's sister – was found guilty and received a sentence for selling anabolic steroids to athletes. Her brother was also the subject of a criminal investigation into charges that he supplied banned drugs.

    Threatened with prosecution, Gregory Rodchenkov began to behave oddly and was repeatedly hospitalized and "subjected to a forensic psychiatric examination." A finding was later submitted to the court, claiming that Rodchenkov suffered from "schizotypal personality disorder," exacerbated by stress. As a result, all the charges against Rodchenkov were dropped. But the most surprising thing was that someone with a "schizotypal personality disorder" and a sister convicted of trafficking in performance-enhancing drugs continued as the director of Russia's only WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory.

    In fact, he held this job during the 2014 Olympics. Rodchenkov was not dismissed until the fall of 2015, after the eruption of the scandal that had been instigated by the broadcaster ARD and the Stepanovs. In September 2015 the WADA Commission accused Rodchenkov of intentionally destroying over a thousand samples in order to conceal doping by Russian athletes. He personally denied all the charges, but then resigned and left for the US where he was warmly embraced by filmmaker Bryan Fogel, who was shooting yet anothermade-to-order documentary about doping in Russia.

    As this article is being written, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is studying a report from an "Independent Person," the Canadian professor Richard H. McLaren, who has accused the entire Russian Federation, not just individual athletes, of complicity in the use of performance-enhancing drugs. McLaren was quickly summoned to speak with WADA shortly after the NYT published interview with Rodchenkov. The goal was clear: to concoct a "scientific report" by mid-July that would provide the IOC with grounds to ban the Russian team from the Rio Olympics. At a press conference on July 18 McLaren himself acknowledged that with a timeline of only 57 days he was unable "to identify any athlete that might have benefited from such manipulation to conceal positive doping tests." WADA's logic here is clear – they need to avoid any accusations of bias, unprofessionalism, embellishment of facts, or political partisanship. No matter what duplicity and lies are found in the report – it was drafted by an "independent person," period. However, he does not try to hide that the entire report is based on the testimony of a single person – Rodchenkov himself, who is repeatedly presented as a "credible and truthful" source. Of course that man is accused by WADA itself of destroying 1,417 doping tests and faces deportation to Russia for doping-linked crimes, but he saw an opportunity become a "valuable witness" and "prisoner of conscience" who is being persecuted by the "totalitarian regime" in Russia.

    The advantage enjoyed by this "independent commission" – on the basis of whose report the IOC is deciding the fate of Russia's Olympic hopefuls – is that its accusations will not be examined in court, nor can the body of evidence be challenged by the lawyers for the accused. Nor is the customary legal presumption of innocence anywhere in evidence.

    It appears from Professor McLaren's statement that no charges will be brought against any specific Russian athletes. Moreover, they can all compete if they refuse to represent Russia at the Olympics. There are obvious reasons for this selectivity. A law professor and longstanding member of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Professor McClaren knows very well that any charges against specific individuals that are made publicly and result in "legally significant acts" (such as a ban on Olympic participation) can and will be challenged in court, in accordance with international law and on the basis of the presumption of innocence. All the evidence to be used by the prosecution is subject to challenge, and if some fact included in those charges can be interpreted to the defendant's advantage, then the court is obliged to exclude that fact from the materials at the disposal of the prosecution.

    As a lawyer, McLaren understands all this very well. Hundreds of lawsuits filed by Russian athletes resulting in an unambiguous outcome would not only destroy his reputation and ruin him professionally – they could form the basis of a criminal investigation with obvious grounds for accusing him of intentionally distorting a few facts, which in his eyes can be summarized as follows.

    During the Sochi Olympics, an FSB officer named Evgeny Blokhin switched the doping tests taken from Russian athletes, exchanging them for "clean" urine samples. This agent is said to have possessed a plumbing contractor's security clearance, allowing him to enter the laboratory. In addition, there are reports that Evgeny Kurdyatsev, – the head of the Registration and Biological Sample Accounting Department – switched the doping tests at night, through a "mouse hole" in the wall (!). Awaiting them in the adjascent building was the man who is now providing "credible evidence" – Gregory Rodchenkov – and some other unnamed individuals, who passed Blokhin the athletes' clean doping tests to be used to replace the original samples. If the specific gravity of the clean urine did not match the original profile, it was "adapted" using table salt or distilled water. But of course the DNA was incompatible. And all of this was going on in the only official, WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory in Russia!

    How would something like that sound in any court? We have witnesses, but the defense team cannot subject them to cross-examination. We cannot prove that Blokhin is an FSB agent, but we believe it. We do not possess any of the original documents – not a single photograph or affidavit from the official examination – but we have sufficient evidence from a single criminal who has already confessed to his crime. We did not submit the emails provided by Rodchenkov to any experts to be examined, but we assert that the emails are genuine, that all the facts they contain are accurate, and that the names of the senders are correct. We cannot accuse the athletes, so we will accuse and punish the state!

    To be honest, we still do not believe that the Olympic movement has sunk so low as to deprive billions of people of the pleasure of watching the competitions, forgetting about politics and politicians. That would mean waving goodbye to the reputations of the WADA and the IOC and to the global system of sports as a whole. Perhaps a solution to the colossal problem of doping is long overdue, but is that answer to be found within the boundaries of only one country, even a great country like Russia? Should we take a moment here and now to dwell upon the multi-volume history of doping scandals in every single country in the world? And in view of these facts that have come to light, is not WADA itself the cornerstone of the existing and far-reaching system to support and cover up athletic doping all over the world?

    In conclusion, we cite below the complete translation of the Russian Olympic Committee'sstatement in response to the WADA report:

    "The accusations against Russian sports found in the report by Richard McLaren are so serious that a full investigation is needed, with input from all parties. The Russian Olympic Committee has a policy of zero tolerance and supports the fight against doping. It is ready to provide its full assistance and work together, as needed, with any international organization.

    We wholeheartedly disagree with Mr. McLaren's view that the possible banning of hundreds of clean Russian athletes from competition in the Olympic Games is an acceptable 'unpleasant consequence' of the charges contained in his report.

    The charges being made are primarily based on statements by Grigory Rodchenkov. This is solely based on testimony from someone who is at the epicenter of this criminal scheme, which is a blow not only to the careers and fates of a great many clean athletes, but also to the integrity of the entire international Olympic movement.

    Russia has fought against doping and will continue to fight at the state level, steadily stiffening the penalties for any illegal activity of this type and enforcing a precept of inevitable punishment.

    The Russian Olympic Committee fully supports the harshest possible penalties against anyone who either uses banned drugs or encourages their use.

    At the same time, the ROC – acting in full compliance with the Olympic Charter – will always protect the rights of clean athletes. Those who throughout their careers – thanks to relentless training, talent, and willpower – strive to realize their Olympic dreams should not have their futures determined by the unfounded, unsubstantiated accusations and criminal acts of certain individuals. For us this is a matter of principle."

    orientalreview.org

    [Aug 08, 2016] Russia scholar Stephen Cohen shuts down CNN shill host who tries to link Trump to Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... I know a bit about Russian people and one thing I know is this; the U.S. is ignorant of their culture, values and intelligence; a gross miscalculation of an adversary. ..."
    "... The neo-cons are crazy (like rabid dogs) but not overtly suicidal, I think (not sure actually). ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    MadMax2 | Aug 7, 2016 7:02:32 AM | 50

    - YouTube Did he get it?Nope

    Youtube:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mCMyHJJrdDw
    Source:
    https://twitter.com/shekunchik/status/762055101930475520

    jfl | Aug 7, 2016 7:43:54 AM | 52

    @50 mm2

    Stephen Cohen got it. He got shut down. And the talking head at CNN made a note never to have this guy on again. CNN's just had all the conversation - and then some - that they ever want to have with this guy. We'll never see Stephen Cohen on TNC TV again.

    V. Arnold | Aug 7, 2016 8:51:16 AM | 57

    jfl | Aug 7, 2016 8:08:41 AM | 56

    Yes, both. I'm well aware of the long and somewhat "bumpy" history going back decades (many) and see this as a mutual joust against a common enemy/hegemon. Russia is well aware of it's vast area and consequent resources making it a prize like no other on the planet.

    It's Russia's curse and wealth at the same time. It's there's to lose if they play badly.

    I know a bit about Russian people and one thing I know is this; the U.S. is ignorant of their culture, values and intelligence; a gross miscalculation of an adversary.

    Together they (PRC and Russia) are the perfect foil to the U.S. aggression.

    The neo-cons are crazy (like rabid dogs) but not overtly suicidal, I think (not sure actually).

    [Aug 08, 2016] Has al Nusra proven to be a capable fighting force on its own? Or has it proven capable at using the weapons gifted it by its regime-change uncle and with the support of the USAF and

    American Special Forces within Nusra? If true that's rich...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Has al Nusra proven to be a capable fighting force on its own? Or has it proven capable at using the weapons gifted it by its regime-change uncle and with the support of the USAF and American Special Forces? ..."
    "... Natalya Nougayrčde hits all the familiar high points in this typical hagiography – Putin is in Syria because he wants to show everyone his penis, and avenge the catastrophic defeat of Soviet forces in Afghanistan while restoring Russia's image as a serious military power. ..."
    "... But despite her love-letter to western imperialism, Nougayrčde seems quite clear that Assad is not losing ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    marknesop , August 7, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    Has al Nusra proven to be a capable fighting force on its own? Or has it proven capable at using the weapons gifted it by its regime-change uncle and with the support of the USAF and American Special Forces?

    Natalya Nougayrčde hits all the familiar high points in this typical hagiography – Putin is in Syria because he wants to show everyone his penis, and avenge the catastrophic defeat of Soviet forces in Afghanistan while restoring Russia's image as a serious military power. Putin was in the KGB. It has absolutely fuck-all to do with the article, but Putin was in the KGB, just to be sure you know. It was terribly embarrassing for the Soviet Union to be defeated by a ragtag army of Afghan Mujaheddin, but apparently it is not embarrassing at all for America to experience the profound failure of its military policy in Afghanistan . Or perhaps it is embarrassing, since it dares not leave.

    But despite her love-letter to western imperialism, Nougayrčde seems quite clear that Assad is not losing, although she plainly would be delighted if that were the case. She also points out that Aleppo is the last remaining significant opposition stronghold. If al Nusra is such an awesome fighting force, why are they surrounded in the last significant objective they hold? Why are they not spreading out and taking more territory?

    [Aug 08, 2016] Globalization and its New Discontents

    economistsview.typepad.com
    JohnH :

    Globalization and its New Discontents

    Stiglitz: AUG 5, 2016 8
    Globalization and its New Discontents

    NEW YORK – Fifteen years ago, I wrote a little book, entitled Globalization and its Discontents, describing growing opposition in the developing world to globalizing reforms. It seemed a mystery: people in developing countries had been told that globalization would increase overall wellbeing. So why had so many people become so hostile to it?

    Now, globalization's opponents in the emerging markets and developing countries have been joined by tens of millions in the advanced countries. Opinion polls, including a careful study by Stanley Greenberg and his associates for the Roosevelt Institute, show that trade is among the major sources of discontent for a large share of Americans. Similar views are apparent in Europe.

    How can something that our political leaders – and many an economist – said would make everyone better off be so reviled?

    One answer occasionally heard from the neoliberal economists who advocated for these policies is that people are better off. They just don't know it. Their discontent is a matter for psychiatrists, not economists.

    But income data suggest that it is the neoliberals who may benefit from therapy. Large segments of the population in advanced countries have not been doing well: in the US, the bottom 90% has endured income stagnation for a third of a century. Median income for full-time male workers is actually lower in real (inflation-adjusted) terms than it was 42 years ago. At the bottom, real wages are comparable to their level 60 years ago.

    The effects of the economic pain and dislocation that many Americans are experiencing are even showing up in health statistics. For example, the economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton, this year's Nobel laureate, have shown that life expectancy among segments of white Americans is declining.

    Things are a little better in Europe – but only a little better.

    Branko Milanovic's new book Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization provides some vital insights, looking at the big winners and losers in terms of income over the two decades from 1988 to 2008. Among the big winners were the global 1%, the world's plutocrats, but also the middle class in newly emerging economies. Among the big losers – those who gained little or nothing – were those at the bottom and the middle and working classes in the advanced countries. Globalization is not the only reason, but it is one of the reasons.

    Under the assumption of perfect markets (which underlies most neoliberal economic analyses) free trade equalizes the wages of unskilled workers around the world. Trade in goods is a substitute for the movement of people. Importing goods from China – goods that require a lot of unskilled workers to produce – reduces the demand for unskilled workers in Europe and the US.

    This force is so strong that if there were no transportation costs, and if the US and Europe had no other source of competitive advantage, such as in technology, eventually it would be as if Chinese workers continued to migrate to the US and Europe until wage differences had been eliminated entirely. Not surprisingly, the neoliberals never advertised this consequence of trade liberalization, as they claimed – one could say lied – that all would benefit.

    The failure of globalization to deliver on the promises of mainstream politicians has surely undermined trust and confidence in the "establishment." And governments' offers of generous bailouts for the banks that had brought on the 2008 financial crisis, while leaving ordinary citizens largely to fend for themselves, reinforced the view that this failure was not merely a matter of economic misjudgments.

    In the US, Congressional Republicans even opposed assistance to those who were directly hurt by globalization. More generally, neoliberals, apparently worried about adverse incentive effects, have opposed welfare measures that would have protected the losers.

    But they can't have it both ways: if globalization is to benefit most members of society, strong social-protection measures must be in place. The Scandinavians figured this out long ago; it was part of the social contract that maintained an open society – open to globalization and changes in technology. Neoliberals elsewhere have not – and now, in elections in the US and Europe, they are having their comeuppance.

    Globalization is, of course, only one part of what is going on; technological innovation is another part. But all of this openness and disruption were supposed to make us richer, and the advanced countries could have introduced policies to ensure that the gains were widely shared.

    Instead, they pushed for policies that restructured markets in ways that increased inequality and undermined overall economic performance; growth actually slowed as the rules of the game were rewritten to advance the interests of banks and corporations – the rich and powerful – at the expense of everyone else. Workers' bargaining power was weakened; in the US, at least, competition laws didn't keep up with the times; and existing laws were inadequately enforced. Financialization continued apace and corporate governance worsened.

    Now, as I point out in my recent book Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy, the rules of the game need to be changed again – and this must include measures to tame globalization. The two new large agreements that President Barack Obama has been pushing – the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and 11 Pacific Rim countries, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the EU and the US – are moves in the wrong direction.

    The main message of Globalization and its Discontents was that the problem was not globalization, but how the process was being managed. Unfortunately, the management didn't change. Fifteen years later, the new discontents have brought that message home to the advanced economies.

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/globalization-new-discontents-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2016-08

    [Aug 08, 2016] Clinton is a neo con and a neo liberal.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary is definitely both a staunch dyed-in-the-wool neocon ("We came, we saw, he died", anti-Russia stance, appointment of Kagan and Nuland, her role in Syria, etc.) and "born again" ( deviating from Goldwater platform after marriage) neoliberal much like Slick Willie was/is. ..."
    "... "long ago, conservatives decided to harness racial resentment to sell right-wing economic policies to working-class whites, especially in the South." ..."
    "... Isn't the corollary to this that the Clintons harnessed racial resentment to sell neo-lib economic policies to poor blacks, especially in the South? ..."
    "... Classist elitism, cultural chauvinism, standing pat in the economic center, bland words about small plans, neoconservative foreign policy & recruiting of capital-class Republicans are back in the driver's seat. This is the Democratic Party once again without a Sanders campaign to worry about. ..."
    "... What strikes me as telling and important is that the New York Times was reporting on conservatives or neocons moving to support Hillary Clinton as early as July 2014. The sense being that Clinton was, in particular, a foreign policy conservative: ..."
    "... Dismantling of Orthodox hegemony in east Europe.... Hapsburg at the neocon rise. Regime change in Moscow was in the strategy when Strobe Talbot brought in Mrs. Kagan in 1993 and Bill Clinton started arming Croatia and backing separatists in Bosnia and Kosovo. ..."
    "... Clinton voted for universal war and then as SecState implemented it bad and hard. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    jonny bakho -> ilsm... , Friday, August 05, 2016 at 01:35 PM
    Clinton is neither a neo con nor a neo liberal.
    What are you smoking?
    A neo con would not have pushed for a negotiated settlement with Iran.

    HillaryCare was the antithesis of neoliberalism

    Maybe the Cartoon character Hillary Clinton is those things but not the real one.

    jonny bakho -> ilsm... , Friday, August 05, 2016 at 01:39 PM
    Reasons to vote for Clinton:
    • Criminal Justice and policing reform.
    • Extension of bank regulation.
    • Stimulus spending on the 10 20 30 model
    • Immigration reform
    • Expansion of solar and wind energy
    • Use of negotiation in foreign issues
    ilsm -> jonny bakho ...
    Check out Clintons in Serbia, who is Victoria Nuland, and on whose advisory committee is her husband Robert Kagan?

    You have a very limited and benign view of neocon and neoliberals.

    Likbez said in reply to ilsm... , -1
    An excellent comment. I am with you ilsm --

    Hillary is definitely both a staunch dyed-in-the-wool neocon ("We came, we saw, he died", anti-Russia stance, appointment of Kagan and Nuland, her role in Syria, etc.) and "born again" ( deviating from Goldwater platform after marriage) neoliberal much like Slick Willie was/is.

    Anybody who tried to deny this denies the reality.

    • Police state?
    • Wall st sponsors
    • Debt reduction with stimulus?
    • Immigration, what demalarkey is that?
    • Energy is happening with tech.
    • Neocon, just war is pushing Putin around! She negotiated with Qaddafi! She and Kerry on Assad, Benghazi shipping point to ISIS in 2012.

    Send a check I have the deed to a bridge.

    Bob : , Friday, August 05, 2016 at 11:07 AM
    "long ago, conservatives decided to harness racial resentment to sell right-wing economic policies to working-class whites, especially in the South."

    Isn't the corollary to this that the Clintons harnessed racial resentment to sell neo-lib economic policies to poor blacks, especially in the South?

    ilsm -> Bob... ,
    Dem thought crime squads will make sure men get to use the ladies' room in all 50 states and DC.
    Dan Kervick : , Friday, August 05, 2016 at 11:15 AM
    Clinton doesn't need to move to the center to beat Trump, since she is already in the center. She's picking up a number of disaffected Republicans already without doing anything. Trump and his campaign are a circus. Her advisers are probably recommending that she remain inoffensively silent and allow Trump to continue eating his own tail.

    Meanwhile, every result one would realistically have expected from the Democrats disposing of the Sanders campaign has indeed come to pass. Classist elitism, cultural chauvinism, standing pat in the economic center, bland words about small plans, neoconservative foreign policy & recruiting of capital-class Republicans are back in the driver's seat. This is the Democratic Party once again without a Sanders campaign to worry about.

    ilsm -> Dan Kervick... ,

    Yup!

    anne : ,
    What strikes me as telling and important is that the New York Times was reporting on conservatives or neocons moving to support Hillary Clinton as early as July 2014. The sense being that Clinton was, in particular, a foreign policy conservative:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html

    July 5, 2014

    The Next Act of the Neocons
    By JACOB HEILBRUNN

    Are they getting ready to ally themselves with Hillary Clinton?

    ilsm -> anne... ,
    Dismantling of Orthodox hegemony in east Europe.... Hapsburg at the neocon rise. Regime change in Moscow was in the strategy when Strobe Talbot brought in Mrs. Kagan in 1993 and Bill Clinton started arming Croatia and backing separatists in Bosnia and Kosovo.
    Fred C. Dobbs : , Friday, August 05, 2016 at 11:47 AM
    (So, is it 'over'?)

    Peggy Noonan: Trump 'doesn't have the skill set needed now'
    http://washex.am/2aAIwqk via @DCExaminer - Aug 5

    Conservative Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan said Donald Trump doesn't have what it takes to win the White House.

    In her latest column, Noonan wrote that the celebrity businessman has been unable to "take yes for an answer" from the voters who made him the Republican presidential nominee.

    "This is what became obvious, probably fatally so: Mr. Trump is not going to get serious about running for president," she wrote. "He does not have a second act, there are no hidden depths, there will be no 'pivot.' It is not that he is willful or stubborn, though he may be, it's that he doesn't have the skill set needed now - discretion, carefulness, generosity, judgment. There's a clueless quality about him."

    After the GOP convention two weeks ago, Trump enjoyed a slight bump in national and some state-level polls against Hillary Clinton, only to suffer a series of setbacks caused by his own controversial comments.

    As a result, his numbers have fallen in more recent polls and Clinton's have risen in light of intense media scrutiny on Trump.

    "All the damage done to him this week was self-inflicted," Noonan wrote. "The arrows he's taken are arrows he shot.

    The Week They Decided He Was Crazy
    by @peggynoonannyc
    http://on.wsj.com/2aZ4p2b
    via @WSJ - Aug 4

    I think this week marked a certain coming to terms with where the election is going. Politics is about trends and tendencies. The trends for Donald Trump are not good, and he tends not to change.

    All the damage done to him this week was self-inflicted. The arrows he's taken are arrows he shot. We have in seven days witnessed his undignified and ungrateful reaction to a Gold Star family; the odd moment with the crying baby; the one-on-one interviews, which are starting to look like something he does in the grip of a compulsion, in which Mr. Trump expresses himself thoughtlessly, carelessly, on such issues as Russia, Ukraine and sexual harassment; the relitigating of his vulgar Megyn Kelly comments from a year ago; and, as his fortunes fell, his statement that he "would not be surprised" if the November election were "rigged." Subject to an unprecedented assault by a sitting president who called him intellectually and characterologically unfit for the presidency, Mr Trump fired back - at Paul Ryan and John McCain.

    The mad scatterbrained-ness of it was captured in a Washington Post interview (*) with Philip Rucker in which five times by my count-again, the compulsion-Mr. Trump departed the meat of the interview to turn his head and stare at the television. On seeing himself on the screen: "Lot of energy. We got a lot of energy." Minutes later: "Look at this. It's all Trump all day long. That's why their ratings are through the roof." He's all about screens, like a toddler hooked on iPad. ...

    *- Donald Trump's Washington Post interview
    should make Republicans panic http://wpo.st/Q4gq1

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    "Skill set" like the "set" that has the US squander $2T in war spending, endure huge casualties, inflict massive collateral damage and is worse off than when Clinton voted for all of it.

    When the Donald calls a general or administration official inept he means the above.

    ilsm -> sanjait... , -1
    One so easily conned not allowed in Oval Office.

    Demalarkey. Crooked Hillary was conned like Colin Powell, the great equivocators.

    Her vote was the switch that turned it all on!

    Did she ever give a speech anywhere saying the Overseas Contingency Operations appropriation were bad? Has she ever proposed ending it all? Send links.

    But worse she equivocates about marked e-mails which at best show ignorance, and expects ignorance from the audience.

    Which is all right with the administration (DoJ) flying cover for her.

    ilsm -> EMichael... , -1
    HEH!

    Clinton voted for universal war and then as SecState implemented it bad and hard.

    [Aug 08, 2016] Hillary is so well qualified to send everything to Wall St and get US into regime change in the former Soviet Union

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's the rigging of our economy – the increasingly tight nexus between wealth and political power. Big money has been buying political clout to get laws and regulations that make big money even bigger." ..."
    "... Odds are that Clinton, now worth $100 million due to public service, will milk the system for all its worth, becoming the first to become a billionaire via public service. Reckoning? LOL! ..."
    "... Aren't we used to the robber barons running the joint, yet? Clinton endorsed by the in crowd, including water boarders. ..."
    "... Hillary is so well qualified to send everything to Wall St and get US into regime change in the former Soviet Union see how well it worked in Iraq, Afghanistan Libya... ..."
    "... Logisticians do planning with the ops guys, we are the guys that tell "strategists": "you don't have transport etc to get there..." Been doing a bit of 'thought exercising' on the fighting for Estonia under defending small countries is "just war" meme. I could see the Clintons installing a fascist in Talinn like they did in Kyiv....... ..."
    "... All because the democrats went from the party of perpetual small conventional profitable wars against third world guerillas and goatherds to taking on Russia run by evil. ..."
    "... Trump did not have Qaddafi or anyone else done! ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    JohnH, August 05, 2016 at 08:16 PM

    Robert Reich--Democratic Party needs to start reckoning with reality, too.

    "In a Gallup poll taken in mid-July, before the conventions, 82 percent said America was on the wrong track. In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll just before that, 56 percent said they preferred a candidate who would bring sweeping changes to the way the government functioned, no matter how unpredictable those changes might be.

    The major issue the public is reacting to isn't terrorism or racism. We didn't see these numbers after 9/11. We didn't even get these sorts of responses in the late 1960s, when American cities were torn by riots and when the Vietnam War was raging.

    It's the rigging of our economy – the increasingly tight nexus between wealth and political power. Big money has been buying political clout to get laws and regulations that make big money even bigger."

    Odds are that Clinton, now worth $100 million due to public service, will milk the system for all its worth, becoming the first to become a billionaire via public service. Reckoning? LOL!

    ilsm -> JohnH...
    Aren't we used to the robber barons running the joint, yet? Clinton endorsed by the in crowd, including water boarders.

    Hillary is so well qualified to send everything to Wall St and get US into regime change in the former Soviet Union see how well it worked in Iraq, Afghanistan Libya....

    I am betting on nuclear winter before climate disaster.

    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , -1
    Logisticians do planning with the ops guys, we are the guys that tell "strategists": "you don't have transport etc to get there..." Been doing a bit of 'thought exercising' on the fighting for Estonia under defending small countries is "just war" meme. I could see the Clintons installing a fascist in Talinn like they did in Kyiv.......

    Russia moves in to "protect" Russian nationals (the reason for NATO was so Russia would not move in to West Germany to protect socialists from US puppets).

    The US' deployable armor brigade arrives to kasserns smoldering, gets chewed up and the B-61 start falling.

    You could model a nuclear exchange that stops with a Red Army tank division irradiated.....

    I see it going 99 Red Balloons.

    All because the democrats went from the party of perpetual small conventional profitable wars against third world guerillas and goatherds to taking on Russia run by evil.

    ilsm -> ilsm... , -1
    Then the demalarkey* comes up with: if US don't start WW III the small countries will get their own nukes like Israel............

    Not much different than US holding on to the button, but throws out a new range of MAD thought exercises.

    *"Oh my!! Trump will let everyone get nukes!"

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    I do not want crooked Hillary followed by a junior military officer with the "football". What she knows about operation security and who advises her. Is quite troubling.

    Trump did not have Qaddafi or anyone else done!

    [Aug 08, 2016] The Olympics as a tool of the new Cold War

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yulia Stepanova's husband is Vitaly Stepanov a former staffer at RUSADA. He had lived and studied in the US since he was 15, but later decided to return to Russia. In 2008, Vitaly Stepanov began working for RUSADA as a doping-control officer. Vitaly met Yulia Rusanova in 2009 at the Russian national championships in Cheboksary. Stepanov now claims that he sent a letter to WADA detailing his revelations back in 2010, but never received an answer. ..."
    "... One fact that deserves attention is that Vitaly has confessed that he was fully aware that his wife was taking banned substances, both while he worked for RUSADA as well as after he left that organization. ..."
    "... In early June he admitted that WADA had not only helped his family move to America, but had also provided them with $30,000 in financial assistance. ..."
    "... Threatened with prosecution, Gregory Rodchenkov began to behave oddly and was repeatedly hospitalized and "subjected to a forensic psychiatric examination." A finding was later submitted to the court, claiming that Rodchenkov suffered from "schizotypal personality disorder," exacerbated by stress. As a result, all the charges against Rodchenkov were dropped. But the most surprising thing was that someone with a "schizotypal personality disorder" and a sister convicted of trafficking in performance-enhancing drugs continued as the director of Russia's only WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory ..."
    "... All the evidence to be used by the prosecution is subject to challenge, and if some fact included in those charges can be interpreted to the defendant's advantage, then the court is obliged to exclude that fact from the materials at the disposal of the prosecution. ..."
    "... As a lawyer, McLaren understands all this very well. Hundreds of lawsuits filed by Russian athletes resulting in an unambiguous outcome would not only destroy his reputation and ruin him professionally – they could form the basis of a criminal investigation with obvious grounds for accusing him of intentionally distorting a few facts, which in his eyes can be summarized as follows. ..."
    Oriental Review

    The 6th Fundamental Principle of Olympism (non-discrimination of any kind, including nationality and political opinion) seems to be forgotten long ago. In ancient Greece the competition of best athletes was able to halt a war and serve as a bridge of understanding between two recent foes. But in the twentieth century the Olympics have become a political weapon. Back in 1980 the US and its allies boycotted the games in Moscow as a protest against the Soviet troops that entered Afghanistan at the request of that country's legitimate government (in contrast, the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany were held as usual, to the applause of the "civilized" world).

    On May 8, 2016 the CBS program 60 Minutes aired a broadcast about doping in Russia. The interviews featured recorded conversations between a former staffer with the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA), Vitaly Stepanov, and the ex-director of Russia's anti-doping laboratory in Moscow, Grigory Rodchenkov. That program was just the fourth installment in a lengthy series about the alleged existence of a system to support doping in Russian sports.

    A few days later the New York Times published an interview with Rodchenkov. There that former official claims that a state-supported doping program was active at the Sochi Olympics, and that the orders for that program had come almost directly from the Russian president.

    One important fact that escaped most international observers was that a media campaign, which had begun shortly after the 2014 deep freeze in Russian-Western relations, was constructed around the "testimonies" of three Russian citizens who were all interconnected and complicit in a string of doping scandals, and who later left Russia and are trying to make new lives in the West.

    A 29-year-old middle-distance runner, Yulia Stepanova, can be seen as the instigator of this scandal. This young athlete's personal best in global competition was a bronze medal at the European Athletics Indoor Championship in 2011. At the World Championships that same year she placed eighth. Stepanova's career went off the rails in 2013, when the Russian Athletic Federation's Anti-Doping Commission disqualified her for two years based on "blood fluctuations in her Athlete Biological Passport." Such fluctuations are considered evidence of doping. All of Stepanova's results since 2011 have been invalidated. In addition, she had to return the prize money she had won running in professional races in 2011-2012. Stepanova, who had been suspended for doping, acted as the primary informant for ARD journalist Hajo Seppelt, who had begun filming a documentary about misconduct in Russian sports. After the release of ARD's first documentary in December 2014, Stepanova left Russia along with her husband and son. In 2015 she requested political asylum in Canada. Even after her suspension ended in 2015, Stepanova told the WADA Commission (p.142 of the Nov. 2015 WADA Report) that she had tested positive for doping during the Russian Track and Field Championships in Saransk in July 2010 and paid 30,000 rubles (approximately $1,000 USD at that time) to the director of the Russian anti-doping laboratory in Moscow, Gregory Rodchenkov, in exchange for concealing those test results.

    Yulia Stepanova's husband is Vitaly Stepanov a former staffer at RUSADA. He had lived and studied in the US since he was 15, but later decided to return to Russia. In 2008, Vitaly Stepanov began working for RUSADA as a doping-control officer. Vitaly met Yulia Rusanova in 2009 at the Russian national championships in Cheboksary. Stepanov now claims that he sent a letter to WADA detailing his revelations back in 2010, but never received an answer.

    In 2011 Stepanov left RUSADA. One fact that deserves attention is that Vitaly has confessed that he was fully aware that his wife was taking banned substances, both while he worked for RUSADA as well as after he left that organization. Take note that Stepanova's blood tests went positive starting in 2011 – i.e., from the time that her husband, an anti-doping officer, left RUSADA. With a clear conscience, the Stepanovs, now married, accepted prize money from professional races until Yulia was disqualified. Then they no longer had a source of income and the prize money suddenly had to be returned, at which point Vitaly Stepanov sought recourse in foreign journalists, offering to tell them the "truth about Russian sports." In early June he admitted that WADA had not only helped his family move to America, but had also provided them with $30,000 in financial assistance.

    And finally, the third figure in the campaign to expose doping in Russian sports – the former head of the Russian anti-doping laboratory in Moscow,Gregory Rodchenkov. According to Vitaly Stepanov, he was the man who sold performance-enhancing drugs while helping to hide their traces, and had also come up with the idea of "doped Chivas mouth swishing" (pg. 50), a technique that transforms men into Olympic champions. This 57-year-old native of Moscow is acknowledged to be the best at what he does. He graduated from Moscow State University with a Ph.D. in chemistry and began working at the Moscow anti-doping lab as early as 1985. He later worked in Canada and for Russian petrochemical companies, and in 2005 he became the director of Russia's national anti-doping laboratory in Moscow. In 2013 Marina Rodchenkova – Gregory Rodchenkov's sister – was found guilty and received a sentence for selling anabolic steroids to athletes. Her brother was also the subject of a criminal investigation into charges that he supplied banned drugs.

    Threatened with prosecution, Gregory Rodchenkov began to behave oddly and was repeatedly hospitalized and "subjected to a forensic psychiatric examination." A finding was later submitted to the court, claiming that Rodchenkov suffered from "schizotypal personality disorder," exacerbated by stress. As a result, all the charges against Rodchenkov were dropped. But the most surprising thing was that someone with a "schizotypal personality disorder" and a sister convicted of trafficking in performance-enhancing drugs continued as the director of Russia's only WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory.

    In fact, he held this job during the 2014 Olympics. Rodchenkov was not dismissed until the fall of 2015, after the eruption of the scandal that had been instigated by the broadcaster ARD and the Stepanovs. In September 2015 the WADA Commission accused Rodchenkov of intentionally destroying over a thousand samples in order to conceal doping by Russian athletes. He personally denied all the charges, but then resigned and left for the US where he was warmly embraced by filmmaker Bryan Fogel, who was shooting yet anothermade-to-order documentary about doping in Russia.

    As this article is being written, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is studying a report from an "Independent Person," the Canadian professor Richard H. McLaren, who has accused the entire Russian Federation, not just individual athletes, of complicity in the use of performance-enhancing drugs. McLaren was quickly summoned to speak with WADA shortly after the NYT published interview with Rodchenkov. The goal was clear: to concoct a "scientific report" by mid-July that would provide the IOC with grounds to ban the Russian team from the Rio Olympics. At a press conference on July 18 McLaren himself acknowledged that with a timeline of only 57 days he was unable "to identify any athlete that might have benefited from such manipulation to conceal positive doping tests." WADA's logic here is clear – they need to avoid any accusations of bias, unprofessionalism, embellishment of facts, or political partisanship. No matter what duplicity and lies are found in the report – it was drafted by an "independent person," period. However, he does not try to hide that the entire report is based on the testimony of a single person – Rodchenkov himself, who is repeatedly presented as a "credible and truthful" source. Of course that man is accused by WADA itself of destroying 1,417 doping tests and faces deportation to Russia for doping-linked crimes, but he saw an opportunity become a "valuable witness" and "prisoner of conscience" who is being persecuted by the "totalitarian regime" in Russia.

    The advantage enjoyed by this "independent commission" – on the basis of whose report the IOC is deciding the fate of Russia's Olympic hopefuls – is that its accusations will not be examined in court, nor can the body of evidence be challenged by the lawyers for the accused. Nor is the customary legal presumption of innocence anywhere in evidence.

    It appears from Professor McLaren's statement that no charges will be brought against any specific Russian athletes. Moreover, they can all compete if they refuse to represent Russia at the Olympics. There are obvious reasons for this selectivity. A law professor and longstanding member of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Professor McClaren knows very well that any charges against specific individuals that are made publicly and result in "legally significant acts" (such as a ban on Olympic participation) can and will be challenged in court, in accordance with international law and on the basis of the presumption of innocence. All the evidence to be used by the prosecution is subject to challenge, and if some fact included in those charges can be interpreted to the defendant's advantage, then the court is obliged to exclude that fact from the materials at the disposal of the prosecution.

    As a lawyer, McLaren understands all this very well. Hundreds of lawsuits filed by Russian athletes resulting in an unambiguous outcome would not only destroy his reputation and ruin him professionally – they could form the basis of a criminal investigation with obvious grounds for accusing him of intentionally distorting a few facts, which in his eyes can be summarized as follows.

    During the Sochi Olympics, an FSB officer named Evgeny Blokhin switched the doping tests taken from Russian athletes, exchanging them for "clean" urine samples. This agent is said to have possessed a plumbing contractor's security clearance, allowing him to enter the laboratory. In addition, there are reports that Evgeny Kurdyatsev, – the head of the Registration and Biological Sample Accounting Department – switched the doping tests at night, through a "mouse hole" in the wall (!). Awaiting them in the adjascent building was the man who is now providing "credible evidence" – Gregory Rodchenkov – and some other unnamed individuals, who passed Blokhin the athletes' clean doping tests to be used to replace the original samples. If the specific gravity of the clean urine did not match the original profile, it was "adapted" using table salt or distilled water. But of course the DNA was incompatible. And all of this was going on in the only official, WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory in Russia!

    How would something like that sound in any court? We have witnesses, but the defense team cannot subject them to cross-examination. We cannot prove that Blokhin is an FSB agent, but we believe it. We do not possess any of the original documents – not a single photograph or affidavit from the official examination – but we have sufficient evidence from a single criminal who has already confessed to his crime. We did not submit the emails provided by Rodchenkov to any experts to be examined, but we assert that the emails are genuine, that all the facts they contain are accurate, and that the names of the senders are correct. We cannot accuse the athletes, so we will accuse and punish the state!

    To be honest, we still do not believe that the Olympic movement has sunk so low as to deprive billions of people of the pleasure of watching the competitions, forgetting about politics and politicians. That would mean waving goodbye to the reputations of the WADA and the IOC and to the global system of sports as a whole. Perhaps a solution to the colossal problem of doping is long overdue, but is that answer to be found within the boundaries of only one country, even a great country like Russia? Should we take a moment here and now to dwell upon the multi-volume history of doping scandals in every single country in the world? And in view of these facts that have come to light, is not WADA itself the cornerstone of the existing and far-reaching system to support and cover up athletic doping all over the world?

    In conclusion, we cite below the complete translation of the Russian Olympic Committee'sstatement in response to the WADA report:

    "The accusations against Russian sports found in the report by Richard McLaren are so serious that a full investigation is needed, with input from all parties. The Russian Olympic Committee has a policy of zero tolerance and supports the fight against doping. It is ready to provide its full assistance and work together, as needed, with any international organization.

    We wholeheartedly disagree with Mr. McLaren's view that the possible banning of hundreds of clean Russian athletes from competition in the Olympic Games is an acceptable 'unpleasant consequence' of the charges contained in his report.

    The charges being made are primarily based on statements by Grigory Rodchenkov. This is solely based on testimony from someone who is at the epicenter of this criminal scheme, which is a blow not only to the careers and fates of a great many clean athletes, but also to the integrity of the entire international Olympic movement.

    Russia has fought against doping and will continue to fight at the state level, steadily stiffening the penalties for any illegal activity of this type and enforcing a precept of inevitable punishment.

    The Russian Olympic Committee fully supports the harshest possible penalties against anyone who either uses banned drugs or encourages their use.

    At the same time, the ROC – acting in full compliance with the Olympic Charter – will always protect the rights of clean athletes. Those who throughout their careers – thanks to relentless training, talent, and willpower – strive to realize their Olympic dreams should not have their futures determined by the unfounded, unsubstantiated accusations and criminal acts of certain individuals. For us this is a matter of principle."

    orientalreview.org

    [Aug 08, 2016] In 1839, England went to war with China because it was upset that Chinese officials had shut down its drug trafficking racket and confiscated its dope.

    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Patient Observer , August 7, 2016 at 8:06 am

    Least we forget what the British empire was about then:

    In 1839, England went to war with China because it was upset that Chinese officials had shut down its drug trafficking racket and confiscated its dope.

    Stating the historical record so plainly is shocking - but it's true, and the consequences of that act are still being felt today.

    https://warisboring.com/to-understand-chinese-expansionism-look-to-the-opium-wars-fc96e2bba94#.3h4zarnzv

    Unlike a fine wine, there is no reason (or proof) that the British Empire has improved with age.

    yalensis , August 7, 2016 at 4:05 pm
    From Charles Dickens "Our Mutual Friend", the heroine Bella Wilfer is fantasizing about her beloved Papa becoming a rich opium trader:

    "Now Pa was going to China in that handsome three-masted ship, to bring home opium, with which he would forever cut out Chicksey, Veneering, and Stobble, and to bring home silks and shawls without end for the decoration of his charming daughter."

    Cortes , August 7, 2016 at 7:38 pm

    Most of the traffickers were (possibly still are?) fine upstanding Scottish Presbyterians.

    Jardine, Matheson et cetera.

    [Aug 08, 2016] America's Dangerous Game of Intrigue Inside International Organizations

    Notable quotes:
    "... From the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Washington has been playing a dangerous game of intrigue and deception with regard to steering these organizations in a pro-American direction. The Obama administration has decided that the halls, offices, and conference rooms of international organizations are acceptable battlefields to wage propaganda and sanctions wars. ..."
    www.strategic-culture.org

    From the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Washington has been playing a dangerous game of intrigue and deception with regard to steering these organizations in a pro-American direction. The Obama administration has decided that the halls, offices, and conference rooms of international organizations are acceptable battlefields to wage propaganda and sanctions wars.

    The first American target of note was the international football association, FIFA. Not content with trying to sully the reputation of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics with issues of gay rights and doping of athletes, the US disinformation boiler rooms began a full-scale attack on FIFA. The major reason is Russia's hosting of the 2018 FIFA World Cup. The US Justice Department, in a major move toward the internationalization of domestic US law, began unsealing indictment after indictment of FIFA officials for financial crimes. The actual target of these indictments was Russia.

    ... ... ...

    Resisting pressure from Washington, IOC president Thomas Bach wisely decided to avoid a blanket ban of Russian athletes. Bach called such a unilateral ban on Russia participating in the Rio games as a "nuclear option". He also said that such a "nuclear option" would have resulted in "collateral damage" among innocent athletes. Bach's use of two geopolitical military terms was no mistake and it bore the mark of someone responding to familiar American "shock and awe" pressure. The United States used its compliant stooges, Germany and Canada, as well as the dubious World Anti-Doping Agency, run by a Scottish lawyer, to call for a total ban on Russian athletes in Rio.

    ... ... ...

    [Aug 08, 2016] Obeidallah Goes Berserk After CNN Guest Recalls Khan Ties to Clintons

    Notable quotes:
    "... There's no question that the guy was not just picked off a list of "Gold Star Muslim Families." And everyone who spoke at that convention was a Clinton supporter; that's one of the main reasons for the convention. But a better candidate, a candidate with better character and intellect, would never have fallen into such an obvious trap. ..."
    "... I hope Trump runs ads that say "Why did Hillary have a guy --with Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi connections, an attorney who specializes in helping Arab Muslims into our country on greencards and visas, ..."
    "... What often gets lost in the White Water, Castle Grande real estate kiting scam discussion, is that the original funds AND the monies for multiple inflated resale of those properties came from the Madison Savings and Loan, in cahoots with the State of Arkansas (Clintons cohorts) raiding a Federal fund (HUD) meant for low income housing. ..."
    "... After embezzling and laudering hundreds of millions, they never built ANY low income housing for the poor. That's the nature of the Clinton's compassion for the poor. ..."
    "... clinton got millions from 'sharia law education group' ..."
    "... With the help of republicans demonizing Trump. Instead of talking about Clinton and all the dirt, the lies, the treasonous behavior, the e-mail scandal, her lying to the Benghazi families, etc. etc. Instead they keep harping on what they claim Trump said. In other words republicans going out of their way to help Clinton. ..."
    "... More and more Khan is being exposed as a plant and a stooge for Hillary and the Democrat Party. And the Leftist media, an embedded wing of the Democrat Party, will not tolerate us exposing their lies, hypocrisies and false narratives. Which is all the more incentive to keep ON exposing them. ..."
    "... We will have to deal with Trump's verbal antics, and take him to task, but we MUST see to it he is elected President. The Republican Party be damned! Our country is at stake. Khan will not be the person to decide this election, and we will not let him have that power. ..."
    "... All the media types think "Trump going after the gold star muslim family" is hurting him. I don't think this has any effect on voters at all. The [neo]liberal playbook is to put a little girl in the boxing ring to throw punches, and if she's hit back they scream "how could you hit a little girl???" It's all theater and all very old shtick. I think real voters know this and are unaffected. ..."
    "... Ever notice how the truth causes [neo]liberals to go batshit crazy? It's like sunlight to a vampire.... ..."
    "... FACTS: A [neo]liberals worst enemy ..."
    "... The Clinton Campaign has held up a Muslim Human Shield. You are no longer allowed to criticize them on "refugees" or "immigration". ..."
    "... What the f does making sure we vet Syrian refugees have to do with the member of the Muslim brotherhood's losing a son in the first Irag war have to do with anything? The fact is the DNC dragged these poor people out there to try and smear Trump just because he wants to make sure no terrorist get in with these refugees. I believe the Khan's son was a US citizen, so what does this have to do with Syrian refugees, this is how the left lies time and time again. ..."
    "... The last sentence says everything you need to know about [neo[liberals. Bravo to Bauer for standing up to this ignorant [neo]liberal Troll from CNN. You can count down 3, 2, 1....until the screaming [neo]liberal goes off after hearing facts. ..."
    "... The newest form of ignorance out there Knowing what the Clinton campaign is Deliberately doing and making excuses and steering the viewers away from the reality that comes with common sense. Trump may not be the perfect candidate but sure as the Good lord loves me, Hillary represents Satan And everything wrong Corrupted and evil about humanity. If you vote for that woman (and I don't care if you write in someone else) but if you vote for that woman you are an accomplice to every evil the Democratic party now represents and that is just plain NO BS Common Sense. ..."
    "... "You're like he worked for Hillary Clinton like that somehow makes him unqualified to speak about his son-" It simply makes everything he says suspect. ..."
    "... I am sick of this. Trump criticized Khan, and it turned out he (Khan) is a Clinton insider, working for a group of lawyers who did the Clinton's frickin' taxes... ..."
    "... When you participate in a partisan attack--as the Khan's, Pat Smith and Charles Wood have done -- then you're opening yourself to a partisan counter-attack. Having no defense for the deaths in Benghazi, the Hillary surrogates are reduced to claiming that the Khan's are neutral territory. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. ..."
    "... If he cared about the memory of his son, he would shut the f**k up. His son didn't join the Army to support Hillary Clinton. Just another case of a Cindy Sheehan. Hillary voted on the war, because her independent research convinced her that regime change was necessary. ..."
    "... Truth and facts are by definition "smears" on the Clintons... After all these years I have a pretty good grasp just exactly who and what they are... What I do not understand is how nearly half of the electorate in this country continues to drink the lemonade... ..."
    "... We must distinguish between the son, who died in the service of this country, and the father, who has his own life and agenda. Trump was wrong if he criticized the son. The father is fair game. ..."
    newsbusters.org

    Appearing on Tuesday's New Day, liberal Daily Beast contributor and recurring CNN guest Dean Obeidallah went ballistic after a fellow guest and Donald Trump supporter recalled that Khizr Khan has a history of ties to the Clintons as the immigration expert was an employee of the law firm Hogan Lovells LLP, which not only has represented the Clinton Foundation but also worked on immigration cases involving the controversial EB-5 visa program.

    After former South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer recalled Khan's connections to the Clintons, the two got into a heated debate as Obeidallah incredulously accused the Trump supporter of "smearing" Khan by merely introducing his links to the Clintons into the political conversation.

    At 8:30 a.m. ET, Bauer brought up Khan's ties to the Clintons:

    Mr. Khan worked for the Clintons. There is a direct connection. Nobody wants to engage in that because of the loss of a child, which is a terrible thing, but again, he is continuing to push this, too. He is making it political, and there is a bigger tie to the Clintons. He's worked for them. He's worked for the EB-5 program, which is controversial.

    The South Carolina Republican added:

    Senator Grassley even pointed out there are inconsistencies and really not checks and balances in a program that's let too many folks in that are questionable, individuals that probably should never have been allowed in our country.

    robert108 > bkeyser

    He works for her, then shows up at her convention and lies about her opponent. He smeared himself by his lack of integrity. Furthermore, papa khan is a sharia advocate, standing there with his good little hijab wearing sharia wife, and waves the Constitution, as if he believes in it. A complete crock, designed to serve his employer, Hillary.

    bkeyser Mod > robert108

    There's no question that the guy was not just picked off a list of "Gold Star Muslim Families." And everyone who spoke at that convention was a Clinton supporter; that's one of the main reasons for the convention. But a better candidate, a candidate with better character and intellect, would never have fallen into such an obvious trap. You can blame Clinton, you can blame the Khan's, but this is a story only because of Trump.

    CruzAmnestiedHortence > bkeyser

    I hope it remains a story.

    I hope Trump runs ads that say "Why did Hillary have a guy --with Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi connections, an attorney who specializes in helping Arab Muslims into our country on greencards and visas, who has written and lectured admiringly of the "superiority" of Sharia law-- in a prime time slot at her convention? And why is he carrying water for her? Could it be that this Jihadist in a suit has financial and ideological interests in supporting her policy of importing millions more Muslims?

    Might Mr Khan understand that Trump policy objectives conflict with his professional AND ideological goals?

    Check out Breitbart now before they change it.....ALL the Benghazi mothers and widows are laying wood to Hillary right now. Ugly. Hillary is going to LOSE this one eventually. Khan has already said he wants out of the discussion. The Democrats will want out next.

    Don Meaker > bkeyser

    If you look at what Trump actually said, it was unexceptional. The outrageous part is what the media shills are saying.

    Gary Hall Mod > bkeyser

    Certainly the broad electorate should be well aware (and, of course they are not) that many many friends and associates of the Clinton's have been charged and found guilty - or plead guilty of crimes. I think that there were 15 in the Whitewater development scam alone (oh, did the Clinton's ever pay all those that lost all of their investment purchasing lots?). And then there were another batch in this lot:

    https://www.justice.gov/archiv...

    And for a little walk down memory lane (and I apologize, looks like the video has been taken down - perhaps someone can locate it) -- PBS's Frontline production - "The Fixers."

    (;~/ gary

    DaRueStir > Gary Hall

    What often gets lost in the White Water, Castle Grande real estate kiting scam discussion, is that the original funds AND the monies for multiple inflated resale of those properties came from the Madison Savings and Loan, in cahoots with the State of Arkansas (Clintons cohorts) raiding a Federal fund (HUD) meant for low income housing.

    After embezzling and laudering hundreds of millions, they never built ANY low income housing for the poor. That's the nature of the Clinton's compassion for the poor.

    physicsnut
    bkeyser 4 days ago

    // hmmm - clinton got millions from 'sharia law education group'

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/new...

    // ann - wrath of Khan

    more stuff:

    // turned on shortwave - Shoebat was on Rick Wiles

    Yip Yap

    FACT: Trump spoke highly of Captain Khan and his scacrifice. But, NOT the outrageous rants of the dead soldier's father.

    FACT: Khizr M. Khan is a very rich Muslim attorney with DEEP ties to Saudi Arabia.

    FACT: Khan is an immigration lawyer who specializes in a highly controversial program accused of letting RICH Muslims buy their way into the U.S.

    FACT: The E-2 and EB-5 are two of the most notoriously abused visa categories that essentially allow wealthy foreigners to buy their way to U.S. residency, and possibly citizenship, with a relatively modest investment,

    FACT: Khan's website notes that he works to help clients with the E-2 and EB-5 programs that let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green cards for family members.

    FACT: Khan has now taken his website down coz it exposes his hypocrisy.

    FACT: Khan has written extensively about Sharia Law and wants to replace America's Constitution with it.

    FACT: Khan has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

    ohio granny > bill

    With the help of republicans demonizing Trump. Instead of talking about Clinton and all the dirt, the lies, the treasonous behavior, the e-mail scandal, her lying to the Benghazi families, etc. etc. Instead they keep harping on what they claim Trump said. In other words republicans going out of their way to help Clinton.

    DanB_Tiffin

    Who is Khizr Khan, the father of a fallen US soldier?
    01Aug2016 by Clarice Feldman
    http://www.americanthinker.com...
    "a Muslim Cindy Sheehan playing on people's sympathies to foster a Democratic Party political agenda."

    Simon Battle > DanB_Tiffin

    The GOPe, rather than point out Khan's radical jihadi connections, are spending their time to further divide in the Republican party. Who's side is the GOPe on? The Republican party, we the people, have made our choice. We have chosen Donald Trump because he best represents us, the Republican party. It's time for the GOPe to coalesce around the Republican party or get the hell out of the way.

    ohio granny > Simon Battle

    Yep helping the democRATs slander Trump almost like they want Trump to lose. They are nothing but hypocrites doing the democRATs dirty work.

    CruzAmnestiedHortence > ohio granny

    The GOPe went into "vandalize Trump's campaign" mode as soon as they realized they couldn't steal the nomination 3 weeks ago.

    JValjean > DanB_Tiffin

    Moslem Americans with compelling personal narratives, i.e. losing a child on the battlefield, do not have an unassailable right to haughtily lecture other Americans on what's proper Americanism, that includes presidential candidates. If "Moslem Gold Star Families" are indeed not unicorns, perhaps there is a better and less controversial avatar in that community to legitimately promote its political agenda other than the baggage laden Mr. Khan.

    ZombieProcesses > JValjean

    The Clintonistas were being lazy. No need not to be as the press (and the globalistas in the GOP) will focus on the prey, not the bait.

    twfuller • 5 days ago

    More and more Khan is being exposed as a plant and a stooge for Hillary and the Democrat Party. And the Leftist media, an embedded wing of the Democrat Party, will not tolerate us exposing their lies, hypocrisies and false narratives. Which is all the more incentive to keep ON exposing them.

    We will have to deal with Trump's verbal antics, and take him to task, but we MUST see to it he is elected President. The Republican Party be damned! Our country is at stake. Khan will not be the person to decide this election, and we will not let him have that power.

    pbtruth 5 days ago
    Never thought that the Clinton News Network would admit that just being associated with the Clintons was a smear on your character. I always thought it was but I now see CNN agrees.

    Thumbnail

    PJ1193

    What part of Mr Khan calling Trump a racist then wrapping himself in his dead sons memory to shut off a response to his personal smear of Trump not a sick thing to do. We all know what this is about and all this faux outrage by the left is pure bull$#!+.....Plus Mr Khan is a radical Sharia defending Islamist on top of everything else, pure phony.

    Kaiser

    Khan is a Demorat operative. Get it, Clinton media hacks?

    toledofan

    The entire Khan event was staged and the made into political fodder. Right or wrong Trump took it at face value and defended his honor. The Khans should have declined but their is no doubt they were motivated by politics as well.

    Russ Neal

    All the media types think "Trump going after the gold star muslim family" is hurting him. I don't think this has any effect on voters at all. The [neo]liberal playbook is to put a little girl in the boxing ring to throw punches, and if she's hit back they scream "how could you hit a little girl???" It's all theater and all very old shtick. I think real voters know this and are unaffected.

    Biff Wellington

    Ever notice how the truth causes [neo]liberals to go batshit crazy? It's like sunlight to a vampire....

    Cajunkingkong

    FACTS: A [neo]liberals worst enemy

    Rob

    [Neo]Liberalism is a disease. This so-called journalist just proved it, once again.

    Smackalicious

    The Clinton Campaign has held up a Muslim Human Shield. You are no longer allowed to criticize them on "refugees" or "immigration".

    fastfood

    The mans' parents certainly experienced the great loss of a loved one. No parent should ever expect to have to bury their child. It's supposed to be the other way around.

    But Speaking of "frankly" and "Blunt" and political so-called correctness aside; it was not the parents who experience the "sacrifice". It was their son who selflessly made that ultimate sacrifice. He could have chosen any one of a million other professions. Instead, he selflessly chose to serve to protect his country, his way of life and to help other folks to achieve the same. And as many before him, it was [he] who made the ultimate sacrifice attempting to accomplish that noble goal.

    But no. The man's parents did not make the "sacrifice". To falsely claim this soldiers sad and ultimate "sacrifice" in the name of his Country is tantamount to claiming to have [earned] a Medal of Honor because someone else in the family happened to have earned it. Trump may seemed to have made light of the soldiers selfless sacrifice, but I see and hear the soldiers' Father do at least as bad day in and day out, and day after day.

    Timothy Riley

    What the f does making sure we vet Syrian refugees have to do with the member of the Muslim brotherhood's losing a son in the first Irag war have to do with anything? The fact is the DNC dragged these poor people out there to try and smear Trump just because he wants to make sure no terrorist get in with these refugees. I believe the Khan's son was a US citizen, so what does this have to do with Syrian refugees, this is how the left lies time and time again.

    BLM=TERRORIST GROUP ✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ • 4 days ago

    "BAUER: Yeah, facts matter, but not to you."

    The last sentence says everything you need to know about [neo[liberals. Bravo to Bauer for standing up to this ignorant [neo]liberal Troll from CNN. You can count down 3, 2, 1....until the screaming [neo]liberal goes off after hearing facts.

    HAMMERBOX

    The newest form of ignorance out there Knowing what the Clinton campaign is Deliberately doing and making excuses and steering the viewers away from the reality that comes with common sense. Trump may not be the perfect candidate but sure as the Good lord loves me, Hillary represents Satan And everything wrong Corrupted and evil about humanity. If you vote for that woman (and I don't care if you write in someone else) but if you vote for that woman you are an accomplice to every evil the Democratic party now represents and that is just plain NO BS Common Sense.

    However if you are a die hard democrat whom has voted in Murderers, KKK Grand Poobah's, Alcoholics and adulterers in the past I don't forsee you being capable of not doing the same with Hillary because common sense is lacking. TRUTH

    lars1701c • 5 days ago

    I am voting for Trump but even i agree its a uphill battle against the rampant corruption of hillary and the DNC but if Trump does win its going to be so delicious to see the republicans come crawling back to him. Oh it'll be fun to watch obama give Trump that tour of the WH that every outgoing president gives. I would pay real money to be a fly on that wall :D

    Phil Christensen

    "You're like he worked for Hillary Clinton like that somehow makes him unqualified to speak about his son-" It simply makes everything he says suspect.

    bluepeahen

    I am sick of this. Trump criticized Khan, and it turned out he (Khan) is a Clinton insider, working for a group of lawyers who did the Clinton's frickin' taxes...

    menloman

    When you participate in a partisan attack--as the Khan's, Pat Smith and Charles Wood have done -- then you're opening yourself to a partisan counter-attack. Having no defense for the deaths in Benghazi, the Hillary surrogates are reduced to claiming that the Khan's are neutral territory. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

    Zero Flash

    Mr. Khan is a progressive hypocrite. If he cared about the memory of his son, he would shut the f**k up. His son didn't join the Army to support Hillary Clinton. Just another case of a Cindy Sheehan. Hillary voted on the war, because her independent research convinced her that regime change was necessary. Check the record. Mr. Khan is using the death of his son to pad in bank account and he should be ashamed. Like I always say, "There is no hypocrite like a progressive hypocrtie."

    Mark Merritt

    Truth and facts are by definition "smears" on the Clintons... After all these years I have a pretty good grasp just exactly who and what they are... What I do not understand is how nearly half of the electorate in this country continues to drink the lemonade...

    Pretty clearly, the story of the Pied Piper is true... Or, perhaps, it involves lemmings... I'm north of 75 and probably will not be around when it all crashes in... I just have great concern for my children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren... Not in any way comfortable with the country in which I foresee them living...

    jimc

    Now that telling the truth about a person is considered a "smear" the [neoliberal] left proves its intent to sink deeper and deeper into utter depravity.

    Bik Fizbyn

    Funny how they want to call Trump a bigot and a Nazi yet there's this.

    Letter to Lieutenant General Artur Phleps of August 6, 1943,

    "I do not wish that through the folly and narrowness of mind of an isolated person, a single one of the tens of thousands of these brave volunteers and their families should suffer from ill humor and feel deprived of the rights which have been granted to them. …

    Moreover, I forbid the jokes and facetious remarks about the Moslem volunteers which are so much enjoyed in groups of comrades. There will no longer be the least discussion about the special rights afforded to the Moslems in these circles." - Heinrich Himmler

    Doesn't sound like Trump to me.

    Proud Skeptic

    We must distinguish between the son, who died in the service of this country, and the father, who has his own life and agenda. Trump was wrong if he criticized the son. The father is fair game.

    [Aug 08, 2016] Feds: Clinic founder sold performance drugs to athletes

    Fish rots from the head: doping is the most rampant in the USA...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Federal officials said earlier Tuesday that Bosch would agree to plead guilty to a charge of distributing steroids in a conspiracy that stretched from big league club houses to South Florida high schools and youth baseball leagues to sandlots in the Caribbean. ..."
    "... "These defendants were motivated by one thing: money," United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Wifredo Ferrer, said. "They did this by lining their pockets, by exploiting the pressures of athletes and others to be bigger, to be stronger and to play better." ..."
    "... Bosch told investigators that he provided the illegal substances to at least 18 minors, Ferrer said. ..."
    "... Bosch and his associates distributed the drugs to minors who attended a number of public and private high schools in South Florida. He would charge the teenagers and their parents between $250 and $600 a month, promising that the concoctions -- which included black market steroids -- would improve their game. ..."
    CNN.com
    Tony Bosch, the founder of the now-defunct Biogenesis anti-aging clinic in Miami, is not a licensed doctor, but portrayed himself as one, federal officials said Tuesday.

    Officials said he dispensed performance-enhancing drugs to professional baseball players such as suspended New York Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez and to impressionable high school athletes in South Florida and teenagers in the Dominican Republic.

    Bosch, 50, surrendered to the Drug Enforcement Administration in Florida on Tuesday. At a court appearance, he pleaded not guilty and a judge set bail at $100,000.

    Federal officials said earlier Tuesday that Bosch would agree to plead guilty to a charge of distributing steroids in a conspiracy that stretched from big league club houses to South Florida high schools and youth baseball leagues to sandlots in the Caribbean.

    One of his attorneys, Susy Ribero-Ayala, said there is a plea agreement in place and Bosch will change his plea later.

    "Mr. Bosch has never had and does not have a DEA registration," said Mark Trouville, special agent in charge of the DEA Miami. "He is not a licensed medical professional. He is not a doctor. He is a drug dealer."

    Also charged in the scandal were Yuri Sucart, a cousin of Rodriguez, and Juan Carlos Nunez, who was named in a scheme to clear All-Star Melky Cabrera after a positive 2012 testosterone test, authorities said.

    Other defendants include Carlos Acevedo, a longtime associate of Bosch's, former University of Miami coach Lazaro "Lazer" Collazo, Jorge Velasquez, and Christopher Engroba.

    Acevedo and three other men, including CarlosLuis Ruiz, a Florida Highway Patrol trooper, also were charged in a separate conspiracy involving the sale of the drug MDMA, or molly.

    Eight of the 10 men charged appeared in court. Acevedo and Engroba also entered not guilty pleas. The other men didn't enter a plea.

    Lengthy investigation

    The drug conspiracy charges against the men stemmed from from a 21-month DEA investigation.

    "These defendants were motivated by one thing: money," United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Wifredo Ferrer, said. "They did this by lining their pockets, by exploiting the pressures of athletes and others to be bigger, to be stronger and to play better."

    Bosch could face a 10-year prison term in the case.

    Bosch told investigators that he provided the illegal substances to at least 18 minors, Ferrer said.

    Bosch and his associates distributed the drugs to minors who attended a number of public and private high schools in South Florida. He would charge the teenagers and their parents between $250 and $600 a month, promising that the concoctions -- which included black market steroids -- would improve their game.

    A look at performance enhancing drugs in sports

    In addition, investigators said, Bosch and the others operated in the Dominican Republic, where boys as young as 12 were given new baseball equipment and treated with testosterone-loaded syringes in an effort to get them signed with big league teams. Talents scouts working with the children would keep as much as 50 % of their signing bonuses.

    "These defendants provided easy access to dangerous concoctions of steroids and human growth hormones to impressionable high school kids," Ferrer said. "Simply put: Doping children is unacceptable. It is wrong. It is illegal and it is dangerous and Bosch and his reckless recruiters and his black market suppliers ignored the serious health risks posed to their so called patients, all to make a profit."

    Using lollipops

    The drugs were administered in a number of ways, through injections, pills, creams and even lollipops, according to a source with direct knowledge of the investigation.

    Masking agents were used to hide the drugs. "It was so good. The key was being able to fool testers with the league (Major League Baseball), the source said. "The masking agents in the creams would hide the actual drug, and (Bosch) would know the timing involved. He knew if the athlete took the drug right before a game, they'd be tested 12 hours later and the drug would no longer be detectable."

    Earlier this year, Major League Baseball dropped its lawsuit against Bosch and the company the league claims provided performance-enhancing drugs to a number of players, including Rodriguez. The league had agreed to drop the suit if Bosch cooperated in the investigation, according to published reports.

    In a statement Tuesday, Rodriguez's lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said: "This obviously is the beginning of the end of this sordid chapter in baseball."

    Authorities said professional athletes recruited by the clinic paid between $2,000 and $12,000 per month for the drugs.

    The investigation led to the suspension of 14 players for violating the league's drug policy. Besides Rodriguez, suspended players included Milwaukee Brewers outfielder Ryan Braun, the 2011 National League MVP, who served part of his suspension last season.

    Bosch's Biogenesis clinic became part of the story in late January 2013, when the Miami New Times reported that more than a dozen professional baseball players and other athletes had been named in records kept over several years by the clinic.

    Two months later, MLB filed its lawsuit against the clinic in Florida's Miami-Dade County.

    Its 14-page complaint named Biogenesis, its predecessor company and six individuals -- among them program director Bosch, others at the company, someone who worked at a sports agency, a former University of Miami baseball player and a "self-proclaimed chemist" who supplied substances.

    [Aug 08, 2016] Clinton-Trump Neoliberalism a Media Critique

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Muppet Show ..."
    "... Andrew Stewart is a documentary film maker and reporter who lives outside Providence. His film, AARON BRIGGS AND THE HMS GASPEE, about the historical role of Brown University in the slave trade, is available for purchase on Amazon Instant Video or on DVD. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    July 21, 2016

    Bill Clinton, who is certainly savvy of the media as an engine of electioneering, knew exactly what he was doing when he called Donald Trump up in spring 2015 to tell him he might have a shot as a political candidate. Clinton knew that the public had as much interest in his wife as a chance for staph infection. Try as they might since 2012, they never were able to tap into a public interest in the idea of President Hillary. The book tours were stilted, boring affairs that would make Tolstoy complain about the length. The pathetic attempts by David Brock and Media Matters to imitate Alexander Cockburn's brand of media critique were the internet equivalent of an inflatable sex toy. Sidney Blumenthal's ridiculous impersonation of Arthur Schlesinger Jr., going on television to lecture about the implosion of the Republicans in comparison to the collapse of the Whigs and implying, by extension, that his candidate was akin to Lincoln, had all the sincerity of Bugs Bunny planting a kiss on Yosemite Sam.

    A lifelong union man and Vietnam vet friend of mine put it best, "It's her election to lose and she is doing a phenomenal job of it." Hell, an ornery New Deal-Great Society Pentagon Keynesian with a harsh Brooklyn accent and all the style of Statler and Waldorf on The Muppet Show nearly wiped the floor of the electoral stage with her upholstered behind! This was National Lampoon's Presidential Campaign from the start.

    ... ... ...

    Return to the propaganda model provided by Chomsky and Herman:

    -How will this impact ownership?

    -How will this impact our advertisers?

    -How will this impact the willingness of our regular sources, such as the White House or 10 Downing Street, to provide us with information?

    -What sort of 'flak', negative reactions, will we get from our consumers and particularly those consumers within the established power structure?

    -Can the subject(s) of this story be presented in a fashion that would be broadly described as either anti-Communist or based on notions of fear so to preserve the credibility and unchallenged authority of the power structure?

    The media has been the sole party that is responsible for both the hegemony of neoliberalism and the rise of Trump. Both are instances of how they serve their advertisers.

    Let us consider the former for a moment. The case of the public pension heist that was perpetrated in Rhode Island is illustrative. John Arnold, an Enron alumnus, donated good money to PBS so to get a false-flag "pension crisis" narrative put on the NewsHour broadcasts that everyone thought were "neutral". The public pension systems in America are simply one of the largest reserves of capital in America at a value total of $4 trillion. Arnold then made a series of campaign donations to up-and-coming politicians like then-Treasurer and now-Governor Gina Raimondo, who in turn "reformed" the pension system, investing it in high-stakes high-fee hedge funds, effectively activating a pipeline from the public pocket into Wall Street. Of course this was not new for PBS, their support of neoliberalism dates back at least to when they gave that quack Milton Friedman a ten-part television series. It was PBS in the 1970's that flooded the airwaves with the grammar of seemingly-sane neoliberalism while the advertisers took up the frontal action of extolling "markets" and their infinite wisdom. Simultaneously the United States engaged in a new Cold War, restarted by Carter after the detente policies of Nixon, so to thoroughly demonize not just "Communism" (though the Soviet system was everything but that by the end) but anything remotely akin to "central planning in the economy" (which was called welfare state Keynesian economics when my grandparents were birthing Baby Boomers). Here, in order to keep funding coming through major donors, a taxpayer-supported public broadcasting system engaged in a wholesale fraud that attempted to rob those same taxpayers of literally multi-trillions of dollars on behalf of a swindler and con man who I have been unable to discern ever having an actual job. We should understand this media assault as a frontal attack by capital on our social safety net. Return to the propaganda model provided by Chomsky and Herman:

    -How will this impact ownership?

    -How will this impact our advertisers?

    -How will this impact the willingness of our regular sources, such as the White House or 10 Downing Street, to provide us with information?

    -What sort of 'flak', negative reactions, will we get from our consumers and particularly those consumers within the established power structure?

    -Can the subject(s) of this story be presented in a fashion that would be broadly described as either anti-Communist or based on notions of fear so to preserve the credibility and unchallenged authority of the power structure?

    The media has been the sole party that is responsible for both the hegemony of neoliberalism and the rise of Trump. Both are instances of how they serve their advertisers.

    Let us consider the former for a moment. The case of the public pension heist that was perpetrated in Rhode Island is illustrative. John Arnold, an Enron alumnus, donated good money to PBS so to get a false-flag "pension crisis" narrative put on the NewsHour broadcasts that everyone thought were "neutral". The public pension systems in America are simply one of the largest reserves of capital in America at a value total of $4 trillion. Arnold then made a series of campaign donations to up-and-coming politicians like then-Treasurer and now-Governor Gina Raimondo, who in turn "reformed" the pension system, investing it in high-stakes high-fee hedge funds, effectively activating a pipeline from the public pocket into Wall Street. Of course this was not new for PBS, their support of neoliberalism dates back at least to when they gave that quack Milton Friedman a ten-part television series. It was PBS in the 1970's that flooded the airwaves with the grammar of seemingly-sane neoliberalism while the advertisers took up the frontal action of extolling "markets" and their infinite wisdom. Simultaneously the United States engaged in a new Cold War, restarted by Carter after the detente policies of Nixon, so to thoroughly demonize not just "Communism" (though the Soviet system was everything but that by the end) but anything remotely akin to "central planning in the economy" (which was called welfare state Keynesian economics when my grandparents were birthing Baby Boomers). Here, in order to keep funding coming through major donors, a taxpayer-supported public broadcasting system engaged in a wholesale fraud that attempted to rob those same taxpayers of literally multi-trillions of dollars on behalf of a swindler and con man who I have been unable to discern ever having an actual job. We should understand this media assault as a frontal attack by capital on our social safety net. Return to the propaganda model provided by Chomsky and Herman:

    -How will this impact ownership?

    -How will this impact our advertisers?

    -How will this impact the willingness of our regular sources, such as the White House or 10 Downing Street, to provide us with information?

    -What sort of 'flak', negative reactions, will we get from our consumers and particularly those consumers within the established power structure?

    -Can the subject(s) of this story be presented in a fashion that would be broadly described as either anti-Communist or based on notions of fear so to preserve the credibility and unchallenged authority of the power structure?

    The media has been the sole party that is responsible for both the hegemony of neoliberalism and the rise of Trump. Both are instances of how they serve their advertisers.

    Let us consider the former for a moment. The case of the public pension heist that was perpetrated in Rhode Island is illustrative. John Arnold, an Enron alumnus, donated good money to PBS so to get a false-flag "pension crisis" narrative put on the NewsHour broadcasts that everyone thought were "neutral". The public pension systems in America are simply one of the largest reserves of capital in America at a value total of $4 trillion. Arnold then made a series of campaign donations to up-and-coming politicians like then-Treasurer and now-Governor Gina Raimondo, who in turn "reformed" the pension system, investing it in high-stakes high-fee hedge funds, effectively activating a pipeline from the public pocket into Wall Street. Of course this was not new for PBS, their support of neoliberalism dates back at least to when they gave that quack Milton Friedman a ten-part television series. It was PBS in the 1970's that flooded the airwaves with the grammar of seemingly-sane neoliberalism while the advertisers took up the frontal action of extolling "markets" and their infinite wisdom. Simultaneously the United States engaged in a new Cold War, restarted by Carter after the detente policies of Nixon, so to thoroughly demonize not just "Communism" (though the Soviet system was everything but that by the end) but anything remotely akin to "central planning in the economy" (which was called welfare state Keynesian economics when my grandparents were birthing Baby Boomers). Here, in order to keep funding coming through major donors, a taxpayer-supported public broadcasting system engaged in a wholesale fraud that attempted to rob those same taxpayers of literally multi-trillions of dollars on behalf of a swindler and con man who I have been unable to discern ever having an actual job. We should understand this media assault as a frontal attack by capital on our social safety net. Trump is a rear-guard assault, though it seems now with Mike Pence on the ticket Wall Street feels more comfortable. The media props him up in the way it propped up "terrorists" to justify the militarizing of the police and the shredding of the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus. He scares well-intentioned but still-racist white liberals into a self-aggrandizing pity party wherein they will say anything and everything about how we just must elect Hillary Clinton. They fail to recognize and accept that Clinton has been targeting the Social Security system for privatization for decades, best illustrated in a fantastic essay by Robin Blackburn I have been re-reading and circulating on an almost daily basis this year. The Democratic Party platform plank supporting Social Security seems as adamantine as wet toilet paper, capital wants that public resource on Wall Street and Obama himself has been making moves over the last eight years to actualize that plan. Trump scares the sheep into the wolf's den while Bernie Sanders barks at them should they go astray. And Trump is only able to do that with the aid and support of a corporate media that throws up a farcical wall of integrity and objectivity so to actualize it.

    This is the synthesis of Trump and Clinton in the montage Eisenstein described. Both are pro-war, anti-Social Security, racist, misogynist, awful people. One and the same in almost every sense.

    Andrew Stewart is a documentary film maker and reporter who lives outside Providence. His film, AARON BRIGGS AND THE HMS GASPEE, about the historical role of Brown University in the slave trade, is available for purchase on Amazon Instant Video or on DVD.

    [Aug 08, 2016] August 7, 2016 at 4:45 am

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    There's a lovely smell of coffee and a sound like…thunder:

    http://www.unz.com/announcement/john-mccains-tokyo-rose-propaganda-broadcast-now-found-and-released/

    Patient Observer , August 7, 2016 at 5:18 am
    Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

    [Aug 08, 2016] the idea of voting third party to vote your conscience and register your disgust with the two evils

    economistsview.typepad.com

    JohnH said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...

    Yeah, right! With Gary Johnson, Libertarian, nipping at his heels, a surge in third party voting is going to help the Donald! [NOT!] If anything, discouraging people from voting third party is going to help Trump.

    But apparently Fred C. Dobbs doesn't like the idea of voting third party to vote your conscience and register your disgust with the two evils...

    [Aug 08, 2016] Donald Trump slams globalization in economic speech

    CNNPolitics.com

    Monessen, Pennsylvania (CNN)Donald Trump on Tuesday trashed U.S. trade policies that he said have encouraged globalization and wiped out American manufacturing jobs in a speech in which he promised to herald a U.S. economic resurgence.

    Speaking before a colorful backdrop of crushed aluminum cans, Trump pitched himself at a factory in Rust Belt Pennsylvania as a change agent who would bring back manufacturing jobs and end the "rigged system," which he argued presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton represents.

    Trump promised sweeping changes if elected -- including killing the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement -- and urged voters to be wary of a "campaign of fear and intimidation" aimed at swaying them away from his populist message.

    "Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization -- moving our jobs, our wealth and our factories to Mexico and overseas," he said, reading from prepared remarks and using teleprompters. "Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy. I used to be one of them. Hate to say it, but I used to be one of them."

    Trump repeatedly slammed Clinton for supporting free trade agreements and argued that under a Clinton presidency "nothing is going to change."

    "The inner cities will remain poor. the factories will remain closed," Trump said at Alumisource, a raw material producer for the aluminum and steel industries in Monessen, Pennsylvania, an hour south of Pittsburgh. "The special interests will remain firmly in control."

    Echoing Clinton's chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Trump also argued that Clinton has "voted for virtually every trade agreement" and accused her of supporting trade deals that have hurt U.S. workers.

    Trump's speech drew a swift rebuke Tuesday from opposing ends of the political spectrum.

    The Chamber of Commerce, the big business lobby that traditionally backs Republicans, issued a swift statement warning that Trump's proposed policies would herald another U.S. recession.

    "Under Trump's trade plans, we would see higher prices, fewer jobs, and a weaker economy," the group tweeted, linking to a lengthier article warning that a recession would hit the U.S. "within the first year" of a Trump presidency.

    "I'd love for him to explain how all of that fits with his talk about 'America First,'" Clinton said in a speech last week.

    Trump moved quickly on Tuesday to insulate himself from the criticism from his rival's campaign and others opposed to his vision of radically changing U.S. economic policies.

    Trump repeatedly warned Americans to gird themselves against a "campaign of fear" he argued Clinton and others are running against him -- a notable criticism given the accusations that several of his policies, including a ban on Muslims and a plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, have played to voters' fears.

    The de facto GOP nominee promised to instruct his treasury secretary to "label China a currency manipulator" and to order the U.S. trade representative to bring lawsuits against China at the World Trade Organization and in U.S. courts to combat what he characterized as unfair trade policies.

    And he also warned of potentially levying tariffs on imports from China and other countries, reviving a common theme of his campaign.

    Trump has frequently argued on the stump that the U.S. is getting "killed" by other countries on trade and threatened to raise certain tariffs on China and Mexico up to 35%.

    Early on in his yearlong campaign, Trump singled out specific American companies -- notably Ford and Nabisco -- for plans to move some of their manufacturing plants abroad.

    Slamming Nabisco for building a factory in Mexico, Trump has vowed he's "not eating Oreos anymore."

    A senior Trump aide told CNN earlier on Tuesday the speech would be "the most detailed economic address he has given so far."

    Trump has frequently lamented the economic slowdown working-class communities in America have faced as a result of a drop in American manufacturing, particularly in the last decade.

    [Aug 08, 2016] Washington political mess: Internet rumors for the curious

    Notable quotes:
    "... Who knows if he'll embrace better relations with Russia...? We don't. You cant know. He's all over the shop. We do know trigger-happy-hitlery's objectives though. That I would probably vote for him if I were a US citizen doesn't say anything about me, it speaks more about the state of decay the American political system is in - in dire need of a coup, a radical. ..."
    "... The Don's security detail need to be very wary of any grassy knolls. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    ProPeace | Aug 7, 2016 10:39:36 AM | 60

    ...
    As Hillary Clinton's Democratic Party's "motion to dismiss" was nearing to be heard by the US Federal Court, this report notes, the main witness for JamPAC was attorney Lucas-but who, according to the Washington D.C. police report, was mysteriously discovered dead on 2 August: "R-1 reports she arrived home at 1913 hours and located her boyfriend Subject-1 laying unconscious on the bathroom floor. R-1 immediately called 911.DCFD Engine 9 responded and found no signs consistent with life. Subject-1 remained on scene".

    With attorney Lucas now being the latest victim of Hillary Clinton's "killing spree", this report says, the lawsuit against her Democratic Party will now be postponed because he is unable to testify, and it may be dismissed entirely because his testimony was so crucial as to if proper service was made or not-and that the Clinton cabal "obviously" knew about beforehand when filing their motion a fortnight before his death.

    As to how Hillary Clinton's cabal is able to accomplish their "Night of the Long Knives" murderous acts, this report continues, is due to the "assassin network" established by what the SVR labels as one of the most feared CIA operatives ever encountered by Russian intelligence-former CIA director, and deputy director, Mike Morell.

    Director Morell, this report explains, joined the CIA in 1980 and became an important operative in "Operation Cyclone" that sought to destroy the government of Afghanistan that had been aligned with the then Soviet Union.

    Morell's main duties within the CIA during the early 1980's, this report details, was in establishing a network whereby terrorists, assassins and weapons were able to flow freely between the United States, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan-and was aided by one of his top Pakistani operatives Khizr Khan-about whom the SVR previously reported on, and as we detailed in our report US Media Support Of Khizr Khan Who Enabled 9/11, Boston Marathon And San Bernardino Terror Attacks Stuns Russia.

    So entrenched was Morell in the CIA's "active terror network", this report continues, he was not only present with President Bush during the 11 September 2001 (9/11) attacks, he was, also, present when President Obama ordered the killing of CIA operation Tim Osman-otherwise known as Osama bin Laden.

    With Morell being a "diehard supporter" of Hillary Clinton, and responsible for the lies she told about the Benghazi terror attack, this report continues, in 2013 he left the CIA a month after Clinton resigned as Secretary of State and founded a mysterious private intelligence company called Beacon Global Strategies LLC (BGS) where he is listed as a "Senior Consular".

    Beacon Global Strategies, however, this report details, is far from a "normal" private intelligence company as the SVR categorizes it as an "assassination/propaganda" organization created expressly for the use and protection of top American elites and whose funding came from Claude Fontheim, a former Clinton adviser who now serves as a lobbyist to the US-China Exchange Foundation, a nonprofit reportedly used by Chinese government officials and Hong Kong tycoons to shape American policy toward China-and whose clients, including Hillary Clinton, include Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
    ...

    Noirette | Aug 7, 2016 10:56:44 AM | 61

    james @ 4. Digging a bit deeper we might want to characterize the fundamental nature of the US Empire or err 'Pax Amerikana.' This is actually, for me, very difficult to do, as compared, say to the British Empire. How to describe it fully?

    Chatter about AFRICOM, a 1000 military bases, Wall Street, the destruction of Lybia, etc. isn't explanatory enough.

    Part of the problem is that much is hidden from sight (Deep State shadow dealings), and the 'rule based' aspect is (post WW2 structure, UN, EU, etc.) very strong, with the rules moot, applied selectively through arm-twisting, etc. Coupled with another aspect, i.e. the prevalent US-W ideology, which is a kind of end-of-history dictate: free-market capitalism of a kind, pro-"democracy", 'freedom' from despots, dictators, God anointed/religious rule, very narrow personal 'freedom' (identity politics, sexual mores, social rising thru competition, etc.) This system easily manipulates ppl into an Orwellian space (more J. Huxley in fact.)

    It also has many characteristics of Mafia-type arrangements, a criminal class dominating, aspect not much discussed. The upshot: the system is opaque, secretive and highly complex. In its multiple ramifications, intersections amongst them (military, Gvmt/politics, security, finance, corporate, media, int'l relations..) Power of whatever kind (military, media, whatever) is only effective when it can coordinate with others to effect control. (Imagine a mess of a systemic diagram with 100s of boxes, nodes, heavy and light arrows.) Not looking good for the US at present.

    Trump is proposing (provided we read his confused comments, pronoucements, at face value, and interpret) a simplification of the system, which is the only thing to do with complex systems that get out of hand. (Turn off district 3, put all efforts into fixing pipelines in 1..)

    Others in their own ways are doing the same. Le Pen with 'New Nationalism', even ISIS in way (long story, as supported by outsiders…) Sanders is a different case - he tried once again to exploit the 'hopie changie' with a 'harking back to the past' - a 'new' New Deal - while not adressing any vital issues in any way.

    - not shilling for the Donald - attention should be put on non-est. candidates, music of the future.

    MadMax2 | Aug 7, 2016 11:43:18 AM | 63

    @61 Noirette

    One coup deserves another. You're right about how the establishment is not able to correct it's path without a radical shift, a guy like Sanders would have been absorbed and subverted - he offered merely band aid solutions. Ron Pauls platform may well have worked...his 'End The Fed' policy attacked a pillar, a thick root cause of how the establishment is able to baffle with bullshit.

    In some way, The Don's schizophrenic-stream-of-consciousness delivery is perfect for much the subliminally mindf*cked US electorate. He gives all the sound bites a host of large demographics need, let's just throw a tonne of shit out there now, see what happens, and tighten up the message later on. Even if he contradicts what he says the very next moment he opens his mouth it doesn't matter...his charisma can counter that most of the time.

    Who knows if he'll embrace better relations with Russia...? We don't. You cant know. He's all over the shop. We do know trigger-happy-hitlery's objectives though. That I would probably vote for him if I were a US citizen doesn't say anything about me, it speaks more about the state of decay the American political system is in - in dire need of a coup, a radical.

    The Don's security detail need to be very wary of any grassy knolls.

    james | Aug 7, 2016 12:39:58 PM | 66

    @61 noirette/63 madmax/65 jfl - noirette- i like the way you process all the myriad ways of considering the american empire... i do the same. it's impossible to come up with a clear vision of how it works, which is one ongoing part of it - to remain a mystery.. it will always be a part of a process of change too.

    whether some force/s have hi-jacked the usa for their own narrower agenda - it sure appears that way to me.. trump appears to offer a spontaneous response to ordinary americans place in a country spiraling out of the realm it was thought to be (out of control basically), not that any one view on a country remains static.. the idea of the simplicity of his message with regard to foreign policy is appealing.. what he would do in power is more of an unknown then what history tells us hillary clinton will do... i would be voting for trump if i was in the usa, partly the msm witch hunt on him which i think in my own way is more of those mysterious forces behind the scene guiding the usa into an ever widening ditch of it's own making, leaving many more people to suffer or worse.. thanks for everyone's comments..

    [Aug 07, 2016] Issues of defamation, slander and libel and possible future legal action

    Notable quotes:
    "... any knee jerk withdrawal, boycott, etc., would "prove" Russia is covering up its "misbehaviour" and is a "sore loser". Right now, the Russian athletes in Rio cannot be smeared with the same brush. ..."
    "... I am really hoping that multiple legal actions are launched against WADA and any enablers of its libel ..."
    "... Challenging it in the public political space is doomed to failure since the average sheep does not have enough IQ or desire to evaluate such reports on their merits and simply defers to the "authorities" and their "evidence". ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    kirill, August 6, 2016 at 9:00 am
    Regarding Russia, WADA and the Rio Olympics. The current Russian approach seems optimal. Russian athletes have managed to clear the hurdles set up before them and will participate. That is a major fail for Uncle Scam and his WADA cronies. They were hoping for Russia to knee jerk with indignation. It is something I would have done. But any knee jerk withdrawal, boycott, etc., would "prove" Russia is covering up its "misbehaviour" and is a "sore loser". Right now, the Russian athletes in Rio cannot be smeared with the same brush.

    I am really hoping that multiple legal actions are launched against WADA and any enablers of its libel. This is the right medicine for this scum. They have no legal case and use some two bit propaganda report to smear all Russian athletes. This report will not stand up in court and that is where it should be challenged.

    Challenging it in the public political space is doomed to failure since the average sheep does not have enough IQ or desire to evaluate such reports on their merits and simply defers to the "authorities" and their "evidence".

    Fern , August 6, 2016 at 1:27 pm
    I was watching the Games' opening ceremony from Rio on the BBC and when the Russian team appeared in the parade, we had a quick re-hash of the doping 'scandal'. Then one of the commentators did something surprising – she said, of course, many of these athletes are probably clean and we wish them well. I suspect someone has raised the issues of defamation, slander and libel and possible future legal action and commentators have been warned to take care in what they say.

    Here's another interesting point I learned from last night's BBC coverage – Thomas Bach, newly-labelled as a Putin-stooge for not enforcing a ban on the whole Russian team, was in competition for his post against a Ukrainian. I wonder whether the plan to ruin Russia's Olympics was hatched a while back with the West hoping it would have a Ukrainian in the key job?

    Patient Observer , August 6, 2016 at 1:51 pm
    I had the same initial reaction as you and now agree with your conclusions. Russia has also consistently used a similar "high road" approach in its foreign policy decisions with great results.

    Of course, it takes a savvy (and moral) domestic population to understand the strategy. It would seem that a majority of Western populations would not be able to comprehend, much less support, such actions. They have grown to expect if not demand bellicose, insulting and vindictive actions by their governments over the slightest real or imagined challenge to US hegemony.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Is hillary a female phychopath

    Notable quotes:
    "... It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding, and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot get away with. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    marknesop , August 5, 2016 at 5:06 pm
    Sayyyyyy…..didn't someone here theorize, right after the news broke that the DNC's emails had been hacked, and Hillary blamed the Russians so people would forget what she and the rest of the coven did to Sanders, that the actual attacker was more likely someone much closer to home?

    Enter the Disgruntled US Intelligence Worker . According to US government whistleblower William Binney, somebody in the NSA released Hillary's and the DNC's emails, infuriated at Teflon Hillary's non-stick escape from any accountability for her hijinks.

    The headline suggests he knows, but the body of the story suggests he is just speculating, though. But it raises a valid point – the NSA probably has all those emails, including the 30,000 she deleted on the grounds that they were 'personal'.

    Cortes , August 5, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    The following piece by Andrew Napolitano speculates on what might have triggered a disgruntled NSA person to leak materials:

    http://www.unz.com/anapolitano/lessons-from-the-deep-state/

    At some point between now and November, is anyone in the media going to put the questions about the likelihood of NSA possession of, and therefore ease of FBI access thereto, the "missing" emails to Director Comey? Or will TPTB just smile grimly and pray no further leaks arrive to shatter the Narnian alternative reality world they inhabit?

    marknesop , August 6, 2016 at 9:16 am

    What an excellent article, quite a bit more authoritative than the one I cited although it helpfully offers the same source, and it shapes some more pieces of the puzzle which now make more sense. The compromising of intelligence personnels' identities was something that, to the best of my knowledge, was never discussed in any stories on her email peccadilloes. Intelligence agencies quite properly despise anyone who casually blows the cover of its operatives. It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding, and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot get away with.

    Thanks for posting that revealing corroborative piece.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Wapo neocon coulumnit Appelbaum goes after Trump

    From a pro-Russian blog... Applebaum is essentially a tool...
    Notable quotes:
    "... While Applebaum does not think that Trump has a direct relationship to Putin, the American Presidential Candidate has been using lines from Russian propaganda, which suggests that he is probably getting the information from his staff; ..."
    "... I couldn't watch it; as soon as I saw Applebaum's horsey face come up on the screen I felt queasy and had to turn it off. I did stay long enough to hear her characterize Manafort's work for Viktor Yanukovych as perhaps the defining moment in his career, working for Ukrainian oligarchs. ..."
    "... Apfelbaum's hatred of Trump, and that of Atlanticists, stems from the fact that Trump does not share the Atlanticists' aggressive foreign policy agenda. The founding tenet and pillar of Atlanticism – is implacable hostility to Russia. Trump deviates from that, hence the reason why Trump is so loathed and viewed as a heretic by Atlanticists. ..."
    "... Well, she wrote a book about the gulags which received 'critical acclaim'. She is married to Radislaw Sikorski, onetime Polish Foreign Minister and who was once under consideration for NATO Secretary-General, and who is now a member of Petro Poroshenko's 'Foreign Advisory Council'. She hates Russia as if she were a native Pole. And that's…about it. She loved Georgie Bush enough to bear his children if he had asked, and in general she is a big fan of America kicking sand in everybody's face all around the world and making them eat dirt with its big, powerful military. As I said, she is a diehard conservative – but these are strange times, and the Republican candidate has refused to say how much he loves Israel and hates Russia, while there is by far a better chance that America will return to its ass-kicking ways under Hillary Clinton, so that's the way Annie is leaning this time around. ..."
    "... Not to mention the numerous sources of information on how Israel influences US foreign policy and how often Satanyahu flies to Washington to lecture O'Bomber on what he's supposed to do. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Warren , August 3, 2016 at 4:31 pm
    Published on 2 Aug 2016
    What You Need To Know:

    "Trump is surrounded by people close to Russia in a way that is very unusual not only in American politics but in American business as well;"

    While Applebaum does not think that Trump has a direct relationship to Putin, the American Presidential Candidate has been using lines from Russian propaganda, which suggests that he is probably getting the information from his staff;

    Applebaum says that it is rare for another country to influence U.S. politics, and Trump's campaign was only interested in the Ukraine platform and not much else;

    DNC hack: "the use of illicitly stolen information to affect and shape politics is something that the Kremlin has been working on for a decade."

    "He is surrounded by people close to Russia in a way that is very unusual not only in American politics but in American business as well," says Anne Applebaum, an award-winning author and Washington Post columnist, when speaking about Donald Trump and his entourage. Paul Manafort and Carter Page , two individuals who manage and advise Trump, both have ties to Russia.

    While Applebaum does not think that Trump has a direct relationship to Putin, the American Presidential Candidate has been using lines from Russian propaganda, which suggests that he is probably getting the information from his staff.

    "He seems to have a special interest in Russia and Ukraine. I'm guessing because of who's around him." Applebaum says that it is rare for another country to influence U.S. politics, and Trump's campaign was only interested in the Ukraine platform and not much else.

    Applebaum also touches upon the recent DNC hacks and says that all fingers point at Russia: "the use of illicitly stolen information to affect and shape politics is something that the Kremlin has been working on for a decade."

    Hromadske's Nataliya Gumenyuk spoke to Anne Applebaum, award-winning author and Washington Post columnist via Skype on July 31st, 2016.

    marknesop , August 3, 2016 at 5:07 pm
    I couldn't watch it; as soon as I saw Applebaum's horsey face come up on the screen I felt queasy and had to turn it off. I did stay long enough to hear her characterize Manafort's work for Viktor Yanukovych as perhaps the defining moment in his career, working for Ukrainian oligarchs.

    Somebody better let Tony "shirtfront" Abbott know that he might be establishing the defining moment in his career. Because that's what he's doing; working for Ukrainian oligarchs. And Applebaum did not seem to intend it as a compliment. Mustn't forget Tony "War Criminal" Blair, or Anders "Fogh of War" Fogh Rasmussen.

    The Democrats and their supporters – and we should remember there was a time when Annie Applebaum would not cross the street to spit on Hillary Clinton if she burst into flames, because Annie is as Republican as they come – have to keep up the noise about Putin hacking the DNC so that voters do not ask, "Yeah, but is the information that was released true? And why do political figures have a right to hide that stuff from us? Don't they work for us?"

    Warren , August 3, 2016 at 5:44 pm
    Apfelbaum is far more restrained in this interview, than she is on her twitter feed and her Washington Post column. Where she repeatedly insinuates that Trump is a Russian agent, plant, spy or a "Siberian candidate".

    Tony "the Geordie" Abbott, Tony "JP Morgan" Blair and Anders Fogh "cartoons" Rasmussen are all good and noble Atlanticist, therefore one cannot equate them with Paul Manafort – a professional influence peddler. This how Apfelbaum would rationalise the difference and draw a distinction.

    Whether Apfelbaum is a Republican or Democrat, I don't know. She has worked outside the US most of her career and adult life, her interests are foreign affairs. And when it comes to foreign policy, the two US parties pursue exactly the same policies and objectives – that of expanding US power and maintaining US ascendency.

    Apfelbaum's hatred of Trump, and that of Atlanticists, stems from the fact that Trump does not share the Atlanticists' aggressive foreign policy agenda. The founding tenet and pillar of Atlanticism – is implacable hostility to Russia. Trump deviates from that, hence the reason why Trump is so loathed and viewed as a heretic by Atlanticists.

    Trump's opinions and statements on Russia, Ukraine, Crimea and NATO has made Atlanticists apoplectic – as any US-Russia detente or rapprochement would ruin the careers of countless Atlanticist DC policy wonks, hacks, academics, and propagandists.

    Northern Star , August 3, 2016 at 5:43 pm
    So *exactly* what are the credentials of this Jewess insofar as Russia is concerned..
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Applebaum
    marknesop , August 3, 2016 at 7:37 pm
    Well, she wrote a book about the gulags which received 'critical acclaim'. She is married to Radislaw Sikorski, onetime Polish Foreign Minister and who was once under consideration for NATO Secretary-General, and who is now a member of Petro Poroshenko's 'Foreign Advisory Council'. She hates Russia as if she were a native Pole. And that's…about it. She loved Georgie Bush enough to bear his children if he had asked, and in general she is a big fan of America kicking sand in everybody's face all around the world and making them eat dirt with its big, powerful military. As I said, she is a diehard conservative – but these are strange times, and the Republican candidate has refused to say how much he loves Israel and hates Russia, while there is by far a better chance that America will return to its ass-kicking ways under Hillary Clinton, so that's the way Annie is leaning this time around.
    yalensis , August 4, 2016 at 3:53 am
    She graduated from Yale, 'nuff said!
    yalensis , August 4, 2016 at 3:54 am
    P.S. – her wiki says she is a "Reformed Jew".
    That's code for atheist.
    Jen , August 4, 2016 at 5:18 am
    Reformed Judaism = women rabbis, gender equality, women and girls allowed to read Torah, bat mitzvah celebrations, secular and social justice warrior values, being able to eat food prepared by non-Jews

    Jen , August 3, 2016 at 5:53 pm

    " … Applebaum says that it is rare for another country to influence U.S. politics, and Trump's campaign was only interested in the Ukraine platform and not much else …"

    I guess Annie Apples doesn't read DailyCaller.com much, does she?

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/11/exclusive-persian-gulf-sheikhs-gave-bill-hillary-100-million/

    Not to mention the numerous sources of information on how Israel influences US foreign policy and how often Satanyahu flies to Washington to lecture O'Bomber on what he's supposed to do.

    yalensis , August 4, 2016 at 3:55 am
    Hey, every candidate is allowed to have their pet country!

    [Aug 07, 2016] Berine Bro propaganda of Hillary compaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... Anyone not willing to jump to Hillary is a "Bernie Bro"-not willing to vote for anyone but Bernie. Why? Because, Trump. Forget the will of the people, the democratic process, or "voting one's conscience"-Trump trumps all hesitation. We simply cannot afford to give Trump any chance of winning. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    For months now, the Hillary campaign has vigorously argued that Bernie supporters have to fall in line to support the Democratic National Committee's favorite candidate.

    Anyone not willing to jump to Hillary is a "Bernie Bro"-not willing to vote for anyone but Bernie. Why? Because, Trump. Forget the will of the people, the democratic process, or "voting one's conscience"-Trump trumps all hesitation. We simply cannot afford to give Trump any chance of winning.

    [Aug 07, 2016] The key idea behind MH17 provocation was neutralizing a threat for a determined time frame, taking them down politically and promote more pliable actors

    In this scheme adopted by West "who did it" does not matter, because when the truth eventually surface, the necessary effect was already achieved.
    Notable quotes:
    "... MH17 was just another opportunity to justify sanctions against Russia. Tank the Russian economy, promote a coup. Innit? Except the West and particularly the US are stuck in their own echo chamber. ..."
    "... Anyone even mildly critical of their strategy had seen the way the wind is blowing or has been forced out. Thinktankland has been gutted of critical thought, ironically to the detriment of the US itself. A great example of perfect short term thinking that dominates western thinking and long term thinking based on false premise. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Jen , August 6, 2016 at 4:56 am

    Naah, you follow the way forged by the Dutch Safety Board in investigating what brought down MH17: you decide that the Russians are to blame and then you look for and put out the evidence that leads to your chosen decision and ignore all other evidence that leads away from your belief.
    et Al , August 6, 2016 at 7:48 am
    Well that's what the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague did with Milosevic. The 'surprise' finding in the Karadzic judgment that one of the Stooges posted recently is anything but surprising, but that's not the point. It is neutralizing a 'threat' for a determined time frame to take them out of a political equation and make way for more pliable actors.

    MH17 was just another opportunity to justify sanctions against Russia. Tank the Russian economy, promote a coup. Innit? Except the West and particularly the US are stuck in their own echo chamber.

    Anyone even mildly critical of their strategy had seen the way the wind is blowing or has been forced out. Thinktankland has been gutted of critical thought, ironically to the detriment of the US itself. A great example of perfect short term thinking that dominates western thinking and long term thinking based on false premise.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Does WADA has facts to prove allegations ? If they are lying or cannot furnish any real evidence, the case is in serious trouble

    Professional sport is now almost pure politics and not only athletes destroy their health by taking drugs, the corrupt politicians play their dirty games with impunity. As perforce enhancing drags are not a real menace, singling out Russia as the most egregious abuser based on testimony of the corrupt turncoat (who destroyed the evidence and is under criminal investigation in Russia) looks like a dirty game.
    Notable quotes:
    "... That is a slippery slope in which WADA is putting all its eggs in the Rodchenkov/Stepanov basket. If they are lying or cannot furnish any real evidence, the case is in serious trouble, and it looks like it is only going to heat up after Rio rather than dying down. ..."
    "... If I remember correctly, Dick Pound is not part of WADA any more, or any Olympic organization – he's retired, just (allegedly) 'well-respected' and a former WADA official. He's a co-founder of WADA and a former president, and he had several jobs in both the Canadian and international Olympic committees. but now he's just an international busybody without portfolio, and obviously possessed of the belief that the Russians are what is wrong with clean sport and everything they ever won, they cheated to get. conversely, North America represents everything that's right with clean sport, and has an international obligation to squeeze out those Russian state-sponsored dopers and everyone else who shames their nation. The United States is happy to use him and McLaren because they like to internationalize their Russophobia. ..."
    "... I'm sure there are good reasons for Russia to just bow its head and accept it for now, and probably that's the best thing in the long run, especially if WADA ends up discredited. And hopefully Russia will press it hard once the Olympics is over. But I would be hurt and angry if I were in charge, and I would withdraw from the Olympics, do everything I could to damage it as an institution and it would never see another dime out of me. ..."
    "... I would be exactly the kind of reactionary leader Washington wishes was in charge in Russia. Because the USA would be delighted to see Russia as isolated as it is trying to make it. Here's a very interesting Canadian policy document on the drive for medals in international sport, and how much it means politically. It specifically cites how much Russia spends on sport, and I am sure I'm not speaking out of turn when I say screwing Russia out of medals is a western objective, and one that would not be necessary if they could be easily beaten just by superior athletes. ..."
    "... "International sporting success has many outcomes, which I would argue are beneficial and far reaching. Governments seem to agree with what appears to be a continuing and increasing "arms race" with the hopes of further medals . As but one example on October 11, 2014, Russia announced a new federal funding program worth RUB70 billion ($1.8 billion) to further develop physical education and sports. Understanding how to best invest these funds in any country is difficult, however, as creating world champions is a complicated algorithm. In part, it was this recognition that led to the creation of the Canadian Sport for Life Long-Term Athlete Development (CS4L–LTAD) pathway. ..."
    "... Another way to help answer the question of how to best invest in sport is SPLISS (Sport Policies Leading to International Sporting Success), a theoretical model for understanding (as the name suggests) what policies administrators can influence that will lead to medals in Summer Olympic Games ..."
    "... Forget that 'just do your best; you can do no more' shit. It's about international prestige and winning lots of gold medals gives you a bigger dick to swing around on the world stage. And that's what it's all about. ..."
    "... We've spoken before about the limitations of the human body set against the expectations that new world records will be set at every Olympics. The body can only do so much, and there are thresholds for human performance. These are young people in the prime of health who train every day, and it is not unrealistic to imagine at some point a person is going to lift the greatest weight of which a human is capable of lifting without taking some sort of drug to boost his strength or dull the pain that warns him he is destroying something. ..."
    "... the IOC smackdown is a double kick in the sack. ..."
    "... For all the slurry WADA, the US and its allies have spread in the direction of Russia, two thirds of (now angry) Russian athletes are going to the Olympics. ..."
    "... I'm not for keeping Russian athletes at home. This is about history. It will be another chapter in a series of attempts by the West to pawn Putin that he handles with his usual Judo throw/chess move, at his timing and choice. ..."
    "... I think WADA is going to end up getting its peepee slapped. I certainly hope so, anyway, and I hope Reedie comes through on naming athletes fingered by WADA's 'whistleblowers' because that will leave both the 'whistleblowers' and WADA open to lawsuits. ..."
    "... Let's hope Russia goes after WADA and McClaren once the Games are over – let's see how well his 'evidence' stands up in an actual court rather than the fictious one he seems to have created in his mind. ..."
    "... He looks to be sweating in the picture. I'd say he should get used to that. He just admitted to convicting an entire country on secret evidence that he has shared with nobody else. ..."
    "... Did he actually go to Russia to obtain the samples he alludes to having? If not, I hope he has a chain of custody for them, because they could have come from anywhere and he probably got every bit of it from Rodchenkov. ..."
    marknesop, August 3, 2016 at 10:01 pm
    I wonder if there is an implied threat here; "Russian sports chief says McLaren's doping report to be thoroughly studied after 2016 Rio"

    Moscow knows very well that McLaren has no real evidence, and is pinning everything on Rodchenkov's and the Stepanovs' testimony – he has said as much. Will their wild tales hold up? We'll see. But the public rift between the IOC and WADA, and increasing talk about reform at the latter does not spell confidence in WADA's allegations to me. It would be pretty sweet if their whole case fell through and Russia took WADA to court. They've been strutting around throwing bans and cutting a wide swath as Washington uses them as yet one more of its political tools, but just maybe they have overstepped this time.

    I notice WADA was not able to reward its star nightingale , Yulia Stepanova, with an Olympic slot. The IOC put paid to that proposition, as their quarrel gets more public.

    Speaking of WADA, Russia appears to have goaded its president, Craig Reedie, into announcing that WADA was ready to reveal the names of the Russian athletes who allegedly took performance-enhancing drugs during the Sochi Olympics. That is a slippery slope in which WADA is putting all its eggs in the Rodchenkov/Stepanov basket. If they are lying or cannot furnish any real evidence, the case is in serious trouble, and it looks like it is only going to heat up after Rio rather than dying down.

    et Al, August 4, 2016 at 9:03 am
    I think the legal route will be pretty well inevitable unless WADA rows back. It doesn't actually have to go to court, as you have pointed out their rather whimiscal 'evidence', that I highly doubt would pass the legal smell test to even get beyond a hearing. I would expect that WADA & the IOC may simply be happy to drop the ban with little or no fanfare and 'no comment', after Rio if possible.

    Those re-tested samples would need to be tested even again…

    I suppose the question is what happens to those officials in WADA who backed & demanded the ban. I don't see how anyone could have further confidence in WADA if they remain in place. They may pretend not to be responsible or take any blame but I don't see how they could stay (apart from their government's insistence) without all credibility being lost.

    marknesop , August 4, 2016 at 12:33 pm
    If I remember correctly, Dick Pound is not part of WADA any more, or any Olympic organization – he's retired, just (allegedly) 'well-respected' and a former WADA official. He's a co-founder of WADA and a former president, and he had several jobs in both the Canadian and international Olympic committees. but now he's just an international busybody without portfolio, and obviously possessed of the belief that the Russians are what is wrong with clean sport and everything they ever won, they cheated to get. conversely, North America represents everything that's right with clean sport, and has an international obligation to squeeze out those Russian state-sponsored dopers and everyone else who shames their nation. The United States is happy to use him and McLaren because they like to internationalize their Russophobia.

    I'm sure there are good reasons for Russia to just bow its head and accept it for now, and probably that's the best thing in the long run, especially if WADA ends up discredited. And hopefully Russia will press it hard once the Olympics is over. But I would be hurt and angry if I were in charge, and I would withdraw from the Olympics, do everything I could to damage it as an institution and it would never see another dime out of me.

    I would be exactly the kind of reactionary leader Washington wishes was in charge in Russia. Because the USA would be delighted to see Russia as isolated as it is trying to make it. Here's a very interesting Canadian policy document on the drive for medals in international sport, and how much it means politically. It specifically cites how much Russia spends on sport, and I am sure I'm not speaking out of turn when I say screwing Russia out of medals is a western objective, and one that would not be necessary if they could be easily beaten just by superior athletes.

    Here's a teaser:

    "International sporting success has many outcomes, which I would argue are beneficial and far reaching. Governments seem to agree with what appears to be a continuing and increasing "arms race" with the hopes of further medals . As but one example on October 11, 2014, Russia announced a new federal funding program worth RUB70 billion ($1.8 billion) to further develop physical education and sports. Understanding how to best invest these funds in any country is difficult, however, as creating world champions is a complicated algorithm. In part, it was this recognition that led to the creation of the Canadian Sport for Life Long-Term Athlete Development (CS4L–LTAD) pathway.

    Another way to help answer the question of how to best invest in sport is SPLISS (Sport Policies Leading to International Sporting Success), a theoretical model for understanding (as the name suggests) what policies administrators can influence that will lead to medals in Summer Olympic Games . This model has evolved following rigorous study that began in the early 2000s. At that time, researchers from Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom recognized that other models were too anecdotal or descriptive in their attempts to understand how to better invest for medal success ."

    Forget that 'just do your best; you can do no more' shit. It's about international prestige and winning lots of gold medals gives you a bigger dick to swing around on the world stage. And that's what it's all about.

    We've spoken before about the limitations of the human body set against the expectations that new world records will be set at every Olympics. The body can only do so much, and there are thresholds for human performance. These are young people in the prime of health who train every day, and it is not unrealistic to imagine at some point a person is going to lift the greatest weight of which a human is capable of lifting without taking some sort of drug to boost his strength or dull the pain that warns him he is destroying something. At the next Olympics, somebody will still win a gold medal in that event, but they will not be able to break the record, and that will be disappointing because it will force everyone to acknowledge that humans have limits.

    Interestingly, Craig Reedie is not only President of WADA, but Vice-President of the IOC. He is British, unsurprisingly – he had to be either that or an American because nobody hates the Russians like the British and the Americans do. So the IOC smackdown is a double kick in the sack. I guess we know who the "1" was in the 84-1 vote, or whatever it was.

    et Al , August 4, 2016 at 1:51 pm
    I think you've just failed your job interview with Vladimir Putin! Never mind.

    Let's look at this dispassionately. For all the slurry WADA, the US and its allies have spread in the direction of Russia, two thirds of (now angry) Russian athletes are going to the Olympics. By not winning a ban, they have already lost. It was the best they could do and there was no way for them to square the circle short of declaring that Russia does not exist and thus cannot be present a the Olympics.

    Then there's the longburn that we've all discussed and heavily speculated upon. Who knows how it is going to shake out, but what we do know is that Putler takes his time and likes to serve his revenge cold, and usually indirectly with little fanfare. It may not garner headlines, but it will be an obvious slap in the face with a large fish a la Asterix to Russia's opponents.

    I'm not for keeping Russian athletes at home. This is about history. It will be another chapter in a series of attempts by the West to pawn Putin that he handles with his usual Judo throw/chess move, at his timing and choice. This will be stuff taught to new cadres of diplomats as textbook 'handling dat shit and then some'. No one is perfect and certainly not Putin (disbanding the firewarning/volunteer service for example), but it is a master class of playing whatever cards you've got their best advantage.

    et Al , August 4, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    Wada's that stuck in your throat, Groaning Man?#

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/04/thomas-bach-russians-ioc-soul-searching-rio

    …"For me was that after this decision you have to be able to look into the eyes of all the athletes and during my many visits to the village here in Rio I have been looking into eyes of many athletes."

    McLaren has accused the IOC of misrepresenting his findings, with several Russian athletes challenging bans based on their inclusion within the report. But Bach defended the process, which left those Russian athletes who did travel in limbo until the eve of the Olympics.

    "I think this is a very thorough, strict and clear procedure and you will see the results of the individual analyses and on the application of justice in order to ensure a level playing field here at the Olympic Games," he said.

    As he has since the beginning of the saga, he said that while the presumption of innocence had been reversed, "natural justice does not allow us to deprive human beings of the right to prove their innocence".

    Bach pointed to the near unanimous support he received from members at the IOC decision, with only Britain's Adam Pengilly voting against. ..

    marknesop , August 4, 2016 at 10:14 pm
    Still a lot of mouth from the western press against the IOC, and although I think Bach's position is secure, you can bet that an effort to muscle him out and a compliant toady into his position will depend on how further investigations into the McLaren report go after the Olympics are over. For the moment McLaren seems pretty cocky, saying the IOC misrepresented his findings, but he got all of his testimonial evidence from WADA and its president is vice-president of the IOC! What's the chances of that being true, do you think?

    I think WADA is going to end up getting its peepee slapped. I certainly hope so, anyway, and I hope Reedie comes through on naming athletes fingered by WADA's 'whistleblowers' because that will leave both the 'whistleblowers' and WADA open to lawsuits.

    Cortes , August 4, 2016 at 2:54 pm
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/04/richard-mclaren-ioc-wada-russia-rio-2016
    Fern , August 4, 2016 at 4:28 pm
    Looks like the wheels are coming off the WADA wagon and McClaren is getting a tad worried hence the somewhat hysterical tone of this:

    "I have the evidence, I have it secured. I have the evidence backed up by forensic analysis of databases, sample bottles, I have laboratory evidence of some of those samples. It's true I haven't revealed," he said.

    "But if you conduct a proper investigation, you don't put the evidence out there to create misinformation. I was at the stage where I could say what I knew beyond reasonable doubt. I wouldn't put anything in the report that I didn't have evidence of and wouldn't meet the criminal standard in any court around the world," he added.

    I don't know what standard of jurisprudence he's used to but it's a mighty odd one. How can he really have established the provenance of any samples his 'whistleblower' presented him with? Other than the word of his informant, what actual evidence has he got of the involvement of the Russian state? Why did McClaren make no effort to discuss his 'evidence' with Russian officials?

    Let's hope Russia goes after WADA and McClaren once the Games are over – let's see how well his 'evidence' stands up in an actual court rather than the fictious one he seems to have created in his mind.

    marknesop , August 4, 2016 at 11:35 pm
    He looks to be sweating in the picture. I'd say he should get used to that. He just admitted to convicting an entire country on secret evidence that he has shared with nobody else.

    yalensis , August 5, 2016 at 4:57 am

    Yeah, but he said that it appeared that way to him beyond reasonable doubt .
    If that's good enough for this one-man judge-jury-executioner, then it should be good enough for the rest of us.
    marknesop , August 5, 2016 at 10:06 am
    He said he had secret evidence that nobody had seen but him, and that the purpose of his report was never to establish individual guilt, but to demonstrate that there was a state-sponsored doping program. He admitted publicly before he commenced his research that he had no such evidence, so he must have obtained it between the time he announced he had none and the time his report was released. Did he actually go to Russia to obtain the samples he alludes to having? If not, I hope he has a chain of custody for them, because they could have come from anywhere and he probably got every bit of it from Rodchenkov.

    He's just saying nobody else has seen it to avoid saying where he got it, and a conviction in which the accused was not permitted to challenge the veracity of the evidence would not stand up anywhere else in the world except for America, where they are just so exceptional that they can do things that any other country would be condemned for doing. And rightly so.

    Chinese American , August 5, 2016 at 7:53 am

    Alexander Mercouris just put out a good summary of some of the new developments:

    http://theduran.com/russian-olympic-doping-scandal-mclaren-report-sexed-implicated-clean-atheletes/

    Apparently, the IOC and WADA are starting to point fingers at each other, and it's starting to get reported in the Western press.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Democrats Will Learn All the Wrong Lessons From Brush With Bernie

    Notable quotes:
    "... But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department (though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey). ..."
    "... The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on Beltway politics. ..."
    Rolling Stone

    Hohmann's thesis was that the "scope and scale" of Clinton's wins Tuesday night meant mainstream Democrats could now safely return to their traditional We won, screw you posture of "minor concessions" toward the "liberal base."

    Hohmann focused on the fact that with Bernie out of the way, Hillary now had a path to victory that would involve focusing on Trump's negatives. Such a strategy won't require much if any acquiescence toward the huge masses of Democratic voters who just tried to derail her candidacy. And not only is the primary scare over, but Clinton and the centrist Democrats in general are in better shape than ever.

    "Big picture," Hohmann wrote, "Clinton is running a much better and more organized campaign than she did in 2008."

    Then there was Jonathan Capehart, also of the Post, whose "This is how Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are the same person" piece describes Sanders as a "stubborn outsider" who "shares the same DNA" as Donald Trump. Capeheart snootily seethes that both men will ultimately pay a karmic price for not knowing their places.

    "In the battle of the outsider egos storming the political establishment, Trump succeeded where Sanders failed," he wrote. "But the chaos unleashed by Trump's victory could spell doom for the GOP all over the ballot in November. Pardon me while I dab that single tear trickling down my cheek."

    If they had any brains, Beltway Dems and their clucky sycophants like Capeheart would not be celebrating this week. They ought to be horrified to their marrow that the all-powerful Democratic Party ended up having to dig in for a furious rally to stave off a quirky Vermont socialist almost completely lacking big-dollar donors or institutional support.

    They should be freaked out, cowed and relieved, like the Golden State Warriors would be if they needed a big fourth quarter to pull out a win against Valdosta State.

    But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department (though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey).

    The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on Beltway politics. But the major-party leaders and the media mouthpieces they hang out with can't see this, because of what that friend of mine talked about over a decade ago: Washington culture is too far up its own backside to see much of anything at all.

    [Aug 07, 2016] The Return of Lesser Evilism by Matt Taibbi

    Notable quotes:
    "... Roe v. Wade ..."
    "... To Kill a Mockingbird ..."
    "... Ugh. Hey, Jonathan: Voters don't want candidates who agree with them about everything. They just want one who isn't going to completely take them for granted. If that's become too much to ask, maybe there's something wrong with the Democratic Party, not people like Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders. ..."
    "... As of June 6th, Hillary Clinton had won nearly 13 million primary votes, while Trump had gotten some 11.5 million. ..."
    www.rollingstone.com

    Rolling Stone

    Jonathan Chait of New York magazine wrote a column about Ralph Nader this morning that uses some interesting language. Noting that it's now been 16 years since Nader ran for president and garnered enough dissenting votes to help elect George W. Bush, he wrote (emphasis mine):

    Instead of a reality check for the party, it'll be smugness redoubled

    "That is enough time for Nader to confess his role in enabling one of the most disastrous presidencies in American history, or at least to come up with a better explanation for his decision. Instead, Nader has repeated his same litany of evasions, most recently in an interview with Jeremy Hobson on WBUR, where he dismissed all criticisms of his 2000 campaign as 'fact deprived.'"

    Nader refuses to confess! What is this, the Spanish Inquisition? Fetch the comfy chair!

    It would be foolish to argue that Nader's run in 2000 didn't enable Bush's presidency. Though there were other factors, Nader's presence on the ballot was surely a big one.

    But the career Democrats of the Beltway and their buddies in the press have turned the Nader episode into something very like the creation story of the Third Way political movement. And like many religious myths, it's gotten very tiresome.

    The Democratic Party leaders have trained their followers to perceive everything in terms of one single end-game equation: If you don't support us, you're supporting Bush/Rove/Cheney/Palin/Insert Evil Republican Here.

    That the monster of the moment, Donald Trump, is a lot more monstrous than usual will likely make this argument an even bigger part of the Democratic Party platform going forward.

    It's a sound formula for making ballot-box decisions, but the people who push it never seem content to just use it to win elections. They're continually trying to make an ethical argument out of it, to prove people who defy The Equation are, whether they know it or not, morally wrong and in league with the other side.

    Beltway Democrats seem increasingly to believe that all people who fall within a certain broad range of liberal-ish beliefs owe their votes and their loyalty to the Democratic Party.

    That's why, as a socially liberal person who probably likes trees and wouldn't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, Nader's decision to take votes from the party-blessed candidate Gore is viewed not as dissent, but as a kind of treason.

    The problem with this line of thinking is that there's no end to it. If you think I owe you my vote because I recycle and enjoyed To Kill a Mockingbird, you're not going to work very hard to keep it. That's particularly true if the only standard you think you need to worry about is not being worse than Donald Trump, which is almost the same as no standard at all.

    This is why the thinking within the Democratic Party has gotten so flabby over the years. It increasingly seems to rejoice in its voters' lack of real choices, and relies on a political formula that requires little input from anyone outside the Beltway.

    It's heavily financed by corporate money, and the overwhelming majority of its voters would never cast a vote for the nut-bar God-and-guns version of Republicanism that's been their sole opposition for decades.

    So the party gets most of its funding without having to beg for it door to door, and it gets many of its votes by default. Except for campaign-trail photo ops, mainstream Democrats barely need to leave Washington to stay in business.

    Still, the Democratic Leadership Council wing of the Democrats have come to believe they've earned their status, by being the only plausible bulwark against the Republican menace.

    This sounds believable because party officials and pundits like Chait keep describing critics of the party as far-leftists and extremists, whose platform couldn't win a national election.

    Dissenting voices like this year's version of Nader, Bernie Sanders, are inevitably pitched as quixotic egotists who don't have the guts to do what it takes to win. They're described as just out for 15 minutes of fame, and maybe a few plaudits from teenagers and hippies who'll gush over their far-out idealism.

    But that characterization isn't accurate. The primary difference between the Nader/Sanders platform and the Gore/Clinton platform isn't rooted in ideology at all, but money.

    The former camp refuses to be funded by the Goldmans and Pfizers of the world, while the latter camp embraces those donors. That's really all this comes down to. There's nothing particularly radical about not taking money from companies you think you might need to regulate someday. And there's nothing particularly centrist or "realistic" about taking that same money.

    When I think about the way the Democrats and their friends in the press keep telling me I owe them my vote, situations like the following come to mind. We're in another financial crisis. The CEOs of the ten biggest banks in America, fresh from having wrecked the economy with the latest harebrained bubble scheme, come to the Oval Office begging for a bailout.

    In that moment, to whom is my future Democratic president going to listen: those bankers or me?

    It's not going to be me, that's for sure. Am I an egotist for being annoyed by that? And how exactly should I take being told on top of that that I still owe this party my vote, and that I should keep my mouth shut about my irritation if I don't want to be called a Republican-enabler?

    The collapse of the Republican Party and its takeover by the nativist Trump wing poses all sorts of problems, not the least of which being the high likelihood that the Democrats will now get even lazier when it comes to responding to their voters' interests. The crazier the Republicans get, the more reflexive will be the arguments that we can't afford any criticism of Democrats anymore, lest we invite in the Fourth Reich.

    I didn't vote for Nader in 2000, and I don't have a problem with anyone arguing this coming Election Day that we shouldn't all do whatever we can to keep Donald Trump out of office.

    What's problematic is the way Beltway media types are forever turning postmortems on the candidacies of people like Nader or Sanders into parables about the perils of voting your conscience, when what we're really talking about is the party's unwillingness to untether itself from easy money. This is how Chait sums up Nader (again, emphasis mine):

    "Nader goes on to defend his idiosyncratic belief that people are under no obligation to consider real-world impacts in their voting behavior. Vote for a third-party candidate, write in a candidate, follow your own conscience: 'I think voters in a democracy should vote for anybody they want, including write in or even themselves. I don't believe in any kind of reprimand of voters who stray from the two-party tyranny.'

    "Why should people vote for candidates at all? Since, by definition, the person we most closely agree with is ourselves, why not just write your own name in every time?"

    Ugh. Hey, Jonathan: Voters don't want candidates who agree with them about everything. They just want one who isn't going to completely take them for granted. If that's become too much to ask, maybe there's something wrong with the Democratic Party, not people like Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders.

    As of June 6th, Hillary Clinton had won nearly 13 million primary votes, while Trump had gotten some 11.5 million.

    [Aug 07, 2016] A nice sample of anti-Trump propaganada

    economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs said...

    The Sore Loser Uprising http://nyti.ms/2an7bR6
    NYT - Timothy Egan - AUG. 5, 2016

    After a week in which Donald Trump insulted babies and their mothers and war heroes and their families, and threw in fire marshals for good measure, the scariest thing to come out of his team of thugs and political mercenaries is this: the suggestion that civil unrest could follow if he's denied the presidency.

    When the Supreme Court handed George W. Bush the White House in 2000 even though he lost the popular vote, Al Gore graciously conceded and faded away. When Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama four years ago although his internal polls showed a Republican triumph, he congratulated the winner and went off to rediscover his many grandchildren.

    Despite party-machine manipulation and considerable voting of the dead, the American institution that produces a peaceful transfer of power has survived.

    But this year, facing a likely trouncing in November, Trump has signaled that he will try to bring down our democracy with him. His overlooked comment - "I'm afraid the election is going to be rigged" - is the opening move in a scheme to delegitimize the outcome.

    Because Trump is consistently barbaric and such a prolific liar, it's hard to sustain outrage over any one of his serial scandals. But his pre-emptive attack on the electoral process is very troubling.

    To understand what Trump is up to, listen to his doppelgänger, the veteran political operative Roger Stone. He will say things that even Trump will not say, usually as a way to allow Trump to later repeat some variant of them.

    It was Stone who called a CNN commentator a "stupid Negro" and accused the Gold Star parents of Capt. Humayun Khan of being Muslim Brotherhood agents. And it was Stone who threatened to give out the hotel room numbers of unsupportive Republicans at the party convention, the better for the Trumpian mob to find them.

    He tastes the food for the king to make sure it's not poison. If it doesn't kill Roger Stone, it will not kill Donald Trump.

    Picking up on Trump's rigged-election meme, Stone told a right-wing news outlet that the electoral fix was already in: "The government will be shut down if they attempt to steal this and swear Hillary in." The outcome is fair only if Trump wins.

    "If there's voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience," he said.

    It would be laughable if the campaign were simply laying down the grand excuse for the label that will follow the tyrant from Trump Tower after Nov. 8 - loser. But Trump has crossed all barriers of precedent and civility, from waging an openly racist campaign to loose talk about nuclear weapons. He has challenged the independence of the judiciary system, and called for a religious test for entry into this nation. With this latest tactic, he's trying to destabilize the country itself after he's crushed.

    Let's talk about the basis for his sore loser uprising - the gaming of the system. Trump's casinos were rigged, as are all gambling parlors, in favor of the house. Italian soccer is rigged. But there is virtually no evidence of modern American elections being fixed.

    Studying national elections from 2000 to 2014, and looking at 834 million ballots cast, Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School found a total of 31 instances of credible voter fraud. Yes, 31. The Bush administration, after a five-year investigation concluding in 2007, found no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections. A federal judge in Wisconsin found that "virtually no voter impersonation occurs."

    Trump's evidence? "I just hear things and I just feel it." Yeah, he hears things. Like Russia not actually taking over Crimea. Like President Obama not being an American citizen. Like the N.F.L. writing him an imaginary letter. "The voter ID situation has turned out to be a very unfair development," he said this week. "We may have people vote 10 times."

    He's right about the unfairness of voter identification, but not in the way he means it. As a slew of recent court rulings have shown, Republican-led efforts to deny the vote to millions of citizens has rigged the system against the poor, the disabled, ethnic minorities. A voter- suppression law in North Carolina targeted blacks "with almost surgical precision," an appeals court ruled.

    Nationwide rigging, though difficult to do in a system with more than 9,000 voting jurisdictions, is more likely to come from Russian efforts at hacking voting machines, given Vladimir Putin's apparent attempt to tip things in favor of his fellow authoritarian, the unstable Donald Trump.

    With his inability to process basic information, Trump has gone down this road before. After the 2012 contest, which Romney lost by nearly five million votes, Trump said: "This election is a total sham and travesty. We are not a democracy." The last statement, judging by the groundwork he's doing for this November, looks more like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Do Wikileaks Have the Email That'll Put Clinton in Prison to serve as a counterwiling force for Us oligarchs who almost unimously support Clintons

    www.moonofalabama.org

    John Gilberts | Aug 7, 2016 2:11:10 AM | 38

    Re Trump v Hillary

    America's Oligarchs Support Clinton Almost Unanimously

    https://off-guardian.org/2016/08/06/americas-oligarchs-support-clinton-almost-unanimously/

    "Going forward it's like a hundred-to-one advantage, Clinton over Trump...In the current US presidential race, there is no real contest at all in terms of support by the oligarchs - and their support tends to be decisive."

    But then there's this:

    Julian Assange Special: Do Wikileaks Have the Email That'll Put Clinton in Prison?

    https://youtu.be/h2FfrNGcO3g

    [Aug 07, 2016] WikiLeaks Just Revealed Mainstream Media Works Directly With Hillary, DNC

    www.moonofalabama.org

    MadMax2 | Aug 6, 2016 4:50:59 PM | 13

    ...From 23rd July - WikiLeaks Just Revealed Mainstream Media Works Directly With Hillary, DNC
    http://theantimedia.org/wikileaks-media-dnc-hillary/
    One of the most damning findings of the leak is the fact Clinton and the DNC have worked closely with, manipulated, and bullied media outlets.

    No doubt the Anti-Trump sentiment is rampant in the MSM and now even a good deal of alternate media I pick up... but any cursory glance at Hilary vs Trump youtube viewing numbers would give anyone a fair idea of the state of play. Trumps any publicity is good publicity will eventually pay dividends.

    Reuters had a poll out which seems more on the mark than most. And it's the first time I've seen Nate Silver get slammed so hard - rightly so.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-06/peak-hillary-reuters-baffled-clintons-lead-over-trump-suddenly-evaporates

    Reuters poll from Friday:
    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN10G2BQ

    [Aug 07, 2016] Shaky, US-led, global financial order and governance is horrified by possibility that Trump can win the election

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some powerful figures clearly want any winding down of this 'new' Cold War dead in its tracks. Trump's questioning of the hostilities with Russia, of the purpose of NATO, and of the costs to the US of it being a global hegemon have turned them cold. ..."
    "... Especially, if those who reject it, and who opt to stay out of the globalised order, find that they can so do – and emerge empowered and with their influence enhanced? If the political 'rules-based order' does erode, what then will be the future for the inter-connected, and presently shaky, US-led, global financial order and governance?" ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    james | Aug 6, 2016 3:28:53 PM | 4

    quote i liked from alastair cooke

    ""Some powerful figures clearly want any winding down of this 'new' Cold War dead in its tracks. Trump's questioning of the hostilities with Russia, of the purpose of NATO, and of the costs to the US of it being a global hegemon have turned them cold.

    Does he (Trump) not understand, (these 'ancien régime' figures seem to say,) that rapprochement and entente with Putin now, could bring the whole structure tumbling down? It could collapse America's entire foreign policy? Without a clear Russian 'threat' (the 'threat' being now a constant refrain in the US Beltway), what meaning has NATO? – and without NATO, why should Europe stay "on side, and [do] the right thing". And if Damascus, Moscow and Tehran succeed in emerging with political credit and esteem from the Syria conflict, what price then, the US-led "rules-based" global order?

    Especially, if those who reject it, and who opt to stay out of the globalised order, find that they can so do – and emerge empowered and with their influence enhanced? If the political 'rules-based order' does erode, what then will be the future for the inter-connected, and presently shaky, US-led, global financial order and governance?"

    [Aug 07, 2016] Commentary The worlds best cyber army doesn't belong to Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... The NSA identified Peńa's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process. ..."
    "... Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account." ..."
    "... At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America. ..."
    "... Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police force and post office. ..."
    "... One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks. ..."
    "... Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying and cyberwarfare. ..."
    "... The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America ..."
    Aug 4, 2016 | Reuters
    National attention is focused on Russian eavesdroppers' possible targeting of U.S. presidential candidates and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Yet, leaked top-secret National Security Agency documents show that the Obama administration has long been involved in major bugging operations against the election campaigns -- and the presidents -- of even its closest allies.

    The United States is, by far, the world's most aggressive nation when it comes to cyberspying and cyberwarfare. The National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on foreign cities, politicians, elections and entire countries since it first turned on its receivers in 1952. Just as other countries, including Russia, attempt to do to the United States. What is new is a country leaking the intercepts back to the public of the target nation through a middleperson.

    There is a strange irony in this. Russia, if it is actually involved in the hacking of the computers of the Democratic National Committee, could be attempting to influence a U.S. election by leaking to the American public the falsehoods of its leaders. This is a tactic Washington used against the Soviet Union and other countries during the Cold War.

    In the 1950s, for example, President Harry S Truman created the Campaign of Truth to reveal to the Russian people the "Big Lies" of their government. Washington had often discovered these lies through eavesdropping and other espionage.

    Today, the United States has morphed from a Cold War, and in some cases a hot war, into a cyberwar, with computer coding replacing bullets and bombs. Yet the American public manages to be "shocked, shocked" that a foreign country would attempt to conduct cyberespionage on the United States.

    NSA operations have, for example, recently delved into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential candidates, Enrique Peńa Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peńa won that election and is now Mexico's president.

    The NSA identified Peńa's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.

    The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.

    Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."

    At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America.

    Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police force and post office.

    And it is about to grow considerably bigger, now that the NSA cyberspies have merged with the cyberwarriors of U.S. Cyber Command, which controls its own Cyber Army, Cyber Navy, Cyber Air Force and Cyber Marine Corps, all armed with state-of-the-art cyberweapons. In charge of it all is a four-star admiral, Michael S. Rogers.

    Now under construction inside NSA's secret city, Cyber Command's new $3.2- billion headquarters is to include 14 buildings, 11 parking garages and an enormous cyberbrain - a 600,000-square-foot, $896.5-million supercomputer facility that will eat up an enormous amount of power, about 60 megawatts. This is enough electricity to power a city of more than 40,000 homes.

    In 2014, for a cover story in Wired and a PBS documentary, I spent three days in Moscow with Snowden, whose last NSA job was as a contract cyberwarrior. I was also granted rare access to his archive of documents. "Cyber Command itself has always been branded in a sort of misleading way from its very inception," Snowden told me. "It's an attack agency. … It's all about computer-network attack and computer-network exploitation at Cyber Command."

    The idea is to turn the Internet from a worldwide web of information into a global battlefield for war. "The next major conflict will start in cyberspace," says one of the secret NSA documents. One key phrase within Cyber Command documents is "Information Dominance."

    The Cyber Navy, for example, calls itself the Information Dominance Corps. The Cyber Army is providing frontline troops with the option of requesting "cyberfire support" from Cyber Command, in much the same way it requests air and artillery support. And the Cyber Air Force is pledged to "dominate cyberspace" just as "today we dominate air and space."

    Among the tools at their disposal is one called Passionatepolka, designed to "remotely brick network cards." "Bricking" a computer means destroying it – turning it into a brick.

    One such situation took place in war-torn Syria in 2012, according to Snowden, when the NSA attempted to remotely and secretly install an "exploit," or bug, into the computer system of a major Internet provider. This was expected to provide access to email and other Internet traffic across much of Syria. But something went wrong. Instead, the computers were bricked. It took down the Internet across the country for a period of time.

    While Cyber Command executes attacks, the National Security Agency seems more interested in tracking virtually everyone connected to the Internet, according to the documents.

    One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks.

    Yet, even as the U.S. government continues building robust eavesdropping and attack systems, it looks like there has been far less focus on security at home. One benefit of the cyber-theft of the Democratic National Committee emails might be that it helps open a public dialogue about the dangerous potential of cyberwarfare. This is long overdue. The possible security problems for the U.S. presidential election in November are already being discussed.

    Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying and cyberwarfare.

    In fact, the United States is the only country ever to launch an actual cyberwar -- when the Obama administration used a cyberattack to destroy thousands of centrifuges, used for nuclear enrichment, in Iran. This was an illegal act of war, according to the Defense Department's own definition.

    Given the news reports that many more DNC emails are waiting to be leaked as the presidential election draws closer, there will likely be many more reminders of the need for a public dialogue on cybersecurity and cyberwarfare before November.

    (James Bamford is the author of The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America. He is a columnist for Foreign Policy magazine.)

    [Aug 07, 2016] Former head of Moscow Anti-Doping Laboratory faces criminal charges

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Rodchenkov used his authority despite the legal interests of the aforementioned organization and with the purpose of gaining personal advantages and benefits, thus having abused rights and legal interests," ..."
    "... "Thus, the Anti-Doping Center lost the right for work. Rodchenkov's activities also have affected the interests of state, damaging its reputation, discrediting the country's anti-doping policies, and caused revoking of the international license from the laboratory, which had been established at expense of the federal budget." ..."
    RT Sport
    Published time: 18 Jun, 2016 10:44 Get short URL Grigory Rodchenkov © Valeriy Melnikov / Sputnik The discredited former chief of the Moscow Anti-Doping Laboratory, Grigory Rodchenkov, now faces criminal proceedings on charges of abuse of authority by Russia's Investigative Committee. The case focuses on media reports alleging violations of anti-doping regulations (including his participation) in Russian sports, as well as the information presented in the report of World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in November last year.

    Of particular note is Rodchenkov's decision to deliberately destroy evidence after being asked by WADA to preserve and freeze blood samples in December 2014.

    The Investigative Committee's spokesman, Vladimir Markin, explained the case by chronicling the events that eventually led to the suspension of the Moscow lab, as well as creating massive suspicion and mistrust of Russian athletes.

    On December 9, 2014, WADA sent a letter to Rodchenkov, then-director of the Anti-Doping Center, asking that all blood samples that had been taken in the previous three months (as well as those taken in the future) were to be frozen and stored until further instructions from WADA.

    On December 10, Rodchenkov confirmed by e-mail receipt of the letter and assured that the samples would be properly stored.

    Read more Drugs, alcohol & offended insider: 5 reasons why Sochi doping allegations don't hold up

    On December 12, in violation of the Anti-Doping lab's regulations, Rodchenkov issued a verbal order to his staff to discard 1,437 samples. His staff complied the same day.

    "Rodchenkov used his authority despite the legal interests of the aforementioned organization and with the purpose of gaining personal advantages and benefits, thus having abused rights and legal interests," Markin said.

    "Thus, the Anti-Doping Center lost the right for work. Rodchenkov's activities also have affected the interests of state, damaging its reputation, discrediting the country's anti-doping policies, and caused revoking of the international license from the laboratory, which had been established at expense of the federal budget."

    READ MORE: Sochi Olympics doping allegations

    [Aug 07, 2016] Trumpbusters Who You Gonna Call

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Sanders' campaign, like the Obama phenomenon before it, does not offer a program or strategic direction for addressing the current crisis and contradictions of Western capitalist societies. Instead, it is an expression of the moral and political crisis of Western radicalism. This crisis – which is reflective of the loss of direction needed to inform vision, and fashion a creative program for radical change – is even more acute in the U.S. than Western Europe. Yet, what unites both radical experiences is a tacit commitment to Eurocentrism and the assumptions of normalized white supremacy. ..."
    "... I don't like Trump's shrillness, and I don't like Baraka's either. He's too fast and loose with accusations of white supremacy. ..."
    "... As the author of this posts makes clear, against Trump are only his words, but against Hillary are her actions. In that sense, it is no contest: Hillary loses. ..."
    "... It's Putin we need to worry about. Putin is in league with Space Aliens and they are plotting to destroy the American 21st Century. The Space Aliens have leased a Weather Control Machine to Putin and Putin has set the thermostat on high! Worse yet, it's a 100 year lease. It will last the entire century! ..."
    "... Well written! I grow tired of westerners' talk about how peace loving they are, as if by just saying you are for peace makes it so. It's perfectly clear what Clinton represents and how anti-peace she is. Yet so many westerners, especially outside the USA, would choose Clinton while also believing how much they support peace in the world. Thus Trump becomes a convenient excuse to vote for more endless war. Very easy to turn him into the nuclear bomb Prez as one can then support Clinton and claim to be for peace. ..."
    "... As I write this it is clearer to me what a rare gem Bernie coulda been. ..."
    "... Jingoism; assertions that the 21st century will be the "American Century"; odes to "American Exceptionalism"; ..."
    "... Project for the New American Century ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    Vatch , August 6, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    This is an example of Baraka's histrionics:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/16/the-yemen-tragedy-and-the-ongoing-crisis-of-the-left-in-the-united-states/

    The Sanders' campaign, like the Obama phenomenon before it, does not offer a program or strategic direction for addressing the current crisis and contradictions of Western capitalist societies. Instead, it is an expression of the moral and political crisis of Western radicalism. This crisis – which is reflective of the loss of direction needed to inform vision, and fashion a creative program for radical change – is even more acute in the U.S. than Western Europe. Yet, what unites both radical experiences is a tacit commitment to Eurocentrism and the assumptions of normalized white supremacy.

    In their desperate attempt to defend Sanders and paint his critics as dogmatists and purists, the Sanders supporters have not only fallen into the ideological trap of a form of narrow "left" nativism, but also the white supremacist ethical contradiction that reinforces racist cynicism in which some lives are disposable for the greater good of the West.

    I don't like Trump's shrillness, and I don't like Baraka's either. He's too fast and loose with accusations of white supremacy.

    Dirk77 , August 6, 2016 at 8:48 am

    As the author of this posts makes clear, against Trump are only his words, but against Hillary are her actions. In that sense, it is no contest: Hillary loses. As Obama's tenure has made abundantly clear, words mean nothing; only actions and facts do. I think this is why the media hates Trump so: they make their living off words and so think they matter. But they do only if they describe actions and facts, not gossip. All the reporting about Trump consists of repeating what he says. So what? He is a politician. Apart from his lack of experience he's a big question mark. But lack of experience didn't stop people from voting for Obama.

    craazyboy , August 6, 2016 at 9:21 am

    It's Putin we need to worry about. Putin is in league with Space Aliens and they are plotting to destroy the American 21st Century. The Space Aliens have leased a Weather Control Machine to Putin and Putin has set the thermostat on high! Worse yet, it's a 100 year lease. It will last the entire century!

    To make matters even worse, the Space Aliens have provided Putin with alien probiotics. This will extend Putin's life by 100 years. We will never get regime change in Russia! At least not without nuclear intervention.

    The diabolical plan is to roast the western world. This will be the end of the American Century! The Space Aliens also developed miniaturizing technology a millennia ago. They can fit more of their kind into space ships that way. The economic growth plan then is to beam the miniaturizing beam at China and India. The population will shrink to 2 inches tall, which is pretty short even for the Chinese. They will have much less resource and environmental impact on the Earth. But they will not devalue their currencies, resulting in steady growth and they will become the largest and second largest economies in the world!

    I'm sure you agree this is pretty scary stuff and you, your children, and grandchildren should be scared to death that these powerful forces are conspiring against our American Century.

    Hillary is the only one that knows how to get things done and save us!

    Don't kill yourself. Vote!

    EoinW , August 6, 2016 at 11:04 am

    Well written! I grow tired of westerners' talk about how peace loving they are, as if by just saying you are for peace makes it so. It's perfectly clear what Clinton represents and how anti-peace she is. Yet so many westerners, especially outside the USA, would choose Clinton while also believing how much they support peace in the world. Thus Trump becomes a convenient excuse to vote for more endless war. Very easy to turn him into the nuclear bomb Prez as one can then support Clinton and claim to be for peace.

    This exercise of moral shenanagans grows tiresome after 18 years. I'd like to say we have fair weather ethical values in our Sodom and Gomorrah society. However i don't even think we rate that highly any longer. Moral hypocrisy is really all we are now capable of. So bring on all the peace loving westerners to kiss the ring of the next neocon President!

    habenicht , August 6, 2016 at 8:45 am

    I posit that there is a gresham dynamic of sorts in politics. If I remember right, this is where bad behavior goes unpunished in an industry and that leads to only "cheaters" in the space because all the ethical players in the space can't compete and need to / elect to drop out.

    If this is right, then it should be no surprise that outsiders to politics (representing ethics) don't have the professional "expertise" held by the insiders. I see it as a straight up trade between ethics and expertise, and we have been relying on experts too long.

    Said another way, I think an ethical person can learn expertise much better than an expert person can learn ethics.

    As I write this it is clearer to me what a rare gem Bernie coulda been.

    Medbh , August 6, 2016 at 11:10 am

    That's what I've experienced with leadership/executive roles. I was on that path, but felt like I was becoming something I hated.

    I used to admire "successful" people, but now I wonder what bodies they stepped over to get there.

    It's discouraging, as the people with the power are unfit for leadership, due to the behaviors and choices they made to get there.

    Baby Gerald , August 6, 2016 at 9:34 am

    Professor Wray wastes a whole lot of column inches arguing against Trump without really offering anything other than a long list of evidence-based reasons not to vote for Clinton, while regurgitating the tried-and-true LOTE argument to not vote for Stein (or Johnson, who for reasons unclear to me has been deemed to be completely untenable by every thinking critic's estimate).

    In a landmark statement this week, our commander-in-chief has deemed Trump somehow fundamentally unqualified to hold that esteemed office. Really? Those of us with memories that extend beyond the last news cycle might recall the exact same arguments levied against Obama eight years ago from his opponents on the right. "He's a 'community organizer', whatever that is," they would claim about the first term senator, "What has he ever run besides a canned food drive?"

    The right-wing who feared that somehow Obama would be sworn in on Monday and on Tuesday take their guns away, close Guantanamo and bring all those captives to criminal trial here on the mainland (whatever threat that entailed, I'm still not sure), give free health care to everyone at the expense of all their friends in the health care and pharma industries, and nationalize flagging industries and banks like some kind of black Lenin… their list of eventually unrealized worries went on and on.

    What was the left's argument to allay these overblown fears during the 2008 campaign? Checks and balances. "Anything the president does has to go through both houses of Congress" they would claim, and that, the government wisely laid down by our founding fathers, would prevent this first-term senator from turning us into a socialist state. Where are those 'checks and balances' arguments now?

    A brash demeanor isn't enough of a reason to not vote for someone, yet we are supposed to believe that Trump is going to somehow cast off the shackles of democracy and crown himself dictator based solely on his demagogic personality. Claiming that Trump won't be able to conduct himself with the esteem required for that high office, pundits have become armchair psychologists and labeled the guy a borderline psychotic while comedians beholden to their major media paymasters have jumped on this bandwagon to have us thinking the guy is nothing more than an egotistical loon who, by the way, also secretly wants to screw his daughter.

    He's a racist because he wants to have a better control of the border where thousands of illegal immigrants cross every year, often at their own peril. He's beholden to nameless Russian oligarchs, we are led to believe without any real evidence to support the claim. He secretly doesn't want to be president and is doing this only to stoke that massive ego, we are told by pundits who have not been correct in any of their other predictions. Maybe he's a secret democratic plant, we've been told, placed there by Clinton and the DNC to guarantee her coronation. I honestly can't believe the level of nonsense this election has generated.

    Anything to deflect attention from the fact that Trump is the only major party candidate left who is honestly questioning aloud the validity of NATO, criticizing the effects of globalization, asking what advantage it gives us to antagonize Russia thirty years after the cold war supposedly ended, wondering whether regime change is the best option on the table while Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and Syria offer solid examples to the contrary, and whether massive trade deals cannot be negotiated in such a way that the middle class American worker doesn't lose in the end.

    Instead we are told to look at his funny hair, marvel at his orange skin, and to count how many times he uses the words 'huge' and 'great'. He eats KFC with a fork and knife. He hates Muslims because he thinks all their women are oppressed and told that it is the man's job to do the talking. The list of deflections away from his policy plans and how they compare and contrast with his opponent gets longer by the day.

    In the end, Professor Wray adds literally nothing to this discussion– paragraph after paragraph offer plenty of reasons to distrust and dislike Clinton, plenty of reasons in his mind that voting for a third party is a wasted vote, but simply nothing to counter the legitimate arguments offered by Trump to change the direction this country has been headed for the last two decades.

    lyman alpha blob , August 6, 2016 at 11:30 am

    With all the fearmongering about Trump potentially having his finger on the nuclear button, I have yet to see anyone bring up Clinton statements during the last presidential campaign regarding Iran and 'all options being on the table' which of course meant nukes and her willingness to use them.

    optimader , August 6, 2016 at 11:43 am

    Jingoism; assertions that the 21st century will be the "American Century"; odes to "American Exceptionalism";
    more than an Ode! That is a bromide direct from the Neocon Project for the New American Century (PNAC) Redbook!

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

    Neocons are Political Party agnostics, they migrate opportunistically. HRC is just the latest Host opportunity. That is a strategic advantage they wield. No party affiliation inertia. Changelings from the Dark Side

    Question for Lambert.
    I didnt ask yesterday after you stated that no qualified candidate is slated for this POTUS general election cycle, (I happen to agree).
    So tell me, who do you feel was the last qualified POTUS?
    This goes to the strategy voting against perceived greater evils.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Edward Snowden Tweets Cryptic Code Was it a Dead Man's Switch

    sputniknews.com
    © Photo: Screenshot: Council of Europe News 21:57 06.08.2016 (updated 04:45 07.08.2016) Get short URL 31 62487 109 20

    After posting a 64 character hex code that is believed to be an encryption key, the internet worries that the famed whistleblower may have been killed or captured resulting in the triggering of a dead man's switch and potentially the release of many more US national secrets.

    Edward Snowden talks with Jane Mayer via satellite at the 15th Annual New Yorker Festival on Saturday, Oct. 11, 2014 in New York © AP Photo/ Christopher Lane Edward Snowden Not Dead: 'He's Fine' Says Glenn Greenwald After Mysterious Tweet On Friday night, famed NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted out a 64 character code before quickly deleting the message along with a mysterious warning earlier this week that "It's Time" which had called on colleagues of the former contractor to contact him leaving the internet to speculate that the characters could be an encryption key for a major document leak, it may be a "dead man's switch" set to go in effect if the whistleblower were killed or captured, or potentially both.

    A dead man's switch is a message set up to be automatically sent if the holder of an account does not perform a regular check-in. The whistleblower has acknowledged that he has distributed encrypted files to journalists and associates that have not yet been released so in Snowden's case, the dead man's switch could be an encryption key for those files.

    As of this time, Edward Snowden's Twitter account has gone silent for over 24 hours which is far from unprecedented for the whistleblower but is curious at a time when public concern has been raised over his well-being. The 64 hex characters in the code do appear to rule out the initial theory that Edward Snowden, like so many of us, simply butt dialed his phone, but instead is a clearly a secure hash algorithm that can serve as a signature for a data file or as a password.

    The timing shortly after the "It's Time" tweet also have caused concern for some Reddit theorists such as a user named stordoff who believes that the nascent Twitter post "was intended to set something in motion." The user postulates that it is an encrypted message, a signal, or a password.

    Snowden's initial data release in 2013 exposed what many had feared about the NSA for years, that the agency had gone rogue and undertaken a massive scheme of domestic surveillance. However, it is also known that the information released was only part of the document cache he had acquired from government servers.

    A chair is pictured on stage as former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. © REUTERS/ Svein Ove Ekornesvaag/NTB Scanpix 'It's Time': Whistleblower Edward Snowden Tweets Mysterious Warning

    It has been reported that additional government data was distributed in encrypted files to trusted journalists who were told to not release the information unless they received a signal urging them to – information that the whistleblower determined was too sensitive for release at the time.

    The possibility also exists that Snowden has decided that after three years in hiding that additional information needed to be released to the public independent of some physical harm to himself, but the whistleblower's fans and privacy advocates across the world will continue to sit on the edge of their seats in worry until and unless he tweets to confirm that he is safe.

    [Aug 06, 2016] Vladimir Putin Issued a Chilling Warning to the United States

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia is aware of the United States' plans for nuclear hegemony ..."
    "... The Russian president also highlighted the fact that although the United States missile system is referred to as an "anti-missile defense system," the systems are just as offensive as they are defensive: ..."
    "... Putin further explained the implications of this missile defense system's implementation without any response from Russia. The ability of the missile defense system to render Russia's nuclear capabilities useless would cause an upset in what Putin refers to as the "strategic balance" of the world. Without this balance of power, the U.S. would be free to pursue their policies throughout the world without any tangible threat from Russia. Therefore, this "strategic balance," according to Putin, is what has kept the world safe from large-scale wars and military conflicts. ..."
    Aug 04, 2016 | theantimedia.org

    (ANTIMEDIA) As the United States continues to develop and upgrade their nuclear weapons capabilities at an alarming rate, America's ruling class refuses to heed warnings from President Vladimir Putin that Russia will respond as necessary.

    In his most recent attempt to warn his Western counterparts about the impending danger of a new nuclear arms race, Putin told the heads of large foreign companies and business associations that Russia is aware of the United States' plans for nuclear hegemony. He was speaking at the 20th St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

    "We know year by year what will happen, and they know that we know," he said.

    Putin argued that the rationale the U.S. previously gave for maintaining and developing its nuclear weapons system is directed at the so-called "Iranian threat." But that threat has been drastically reduced since the U.S. proved instrumental in reaching an agreement with Iran that should put to rest any possible Iranian nuclear potential.

    The Russian president also highlighted the fact that although the United States missile system is referred to as an "anti-missile defense system," the systems are just as offensive as they are defensive:

    "They say [the missile systems] are part of their defense capability, and are not offensive, that these systems are aimed at protecting them from aggression. It's not true the strategic ballistic missile defense is part of an offensive strategic capability, [and] functions in conjunction with an aggressive missile strike system."

    This missile system has been launched throughout Europe, and despite American promises at the end of the Cold War that NATO's expansion would not move "as much as a thumb's width further to the East," the missile system has been implemented in many of Russia's neighboring countries, most recently in Romania.

    Russia views this as a direct attack on their security.

    "How do we know what's inside those launchers? All one needs to do is reprogram [the system], which is an absolutely inconspicuous task,"

    Putin stated.

    Putin further explained the implications of this missile defense system's implementation without any response from Russia. The ability of the missile defense system to render Russia's nuclear capabilities useless would cause an upset in what Putin refers to as the "strategic balance" of the world. Without this balance of power, the U.S. would be free to pursue their policies throughout the world without any tangible threat from Russia. Therefore, this "strategic balance," according to Putin, is what has kept the world safe from large-scale wars and military conflicts.

    Following George W. Bush's 2001 decision to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, Russia was, according to Putin, left with no choice but to upgrade their capabilities in response.

    Putin warned:

    "Today Russia has reached significant achievements in this field. We have modernized our missile systems and successfully developed new generations. Not to mention missile defense systems We must provide security not only for ourselves. It's important to provide strategic balance in the world, which guarantees peace on the planet.

    Under the guise of following an anti-nuclear weapons policy, the Obama administration has announced plans for a $1 trillion nuclear weapons plan, which - let's face it - is targeted at Russia.

    Neutralizing Russia's nuclear potential will undo, according to Putin, "the mutual threat that has provided [mankind] with global security for decades."

    There is no winner in a nuclear war between Russia and the United States. This has been not only confirmed but repeatedly warned about by atomic scientists who - if we are being honest - are the people whose opinion on this topic should matter the most.

    It should, therefore, come as no surprise that NASA scientists want to colonize the moon by 2022 - we may have to if we don't drastically alter the path we are on. As Albert Einstein famously stated:

    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

    This article (Vladimir Putin Just Issued a Chilling Warning to the United States) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to [email protected].

    [Aug 06, 2016] Empire's Chain Reaction

    Notable quotes:
    "... Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East." ..."
    "... The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.) ..."
    "... Finally, George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of "regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. ..."
    "... Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades. ..."
    "... "Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S. interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists, token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East. ..."
    "... The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible. ..."
    "... The final lesson of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect." ..."
    The American Conservative

    Bacevich's latest book, America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, is a bookend of sorts to American Empire. The earlier work was heavy on theory and institutional development, the groundwork for the wars of the early 21st century. The new book covers the history itself-and argues persuasively that the Afghanistan, Iraq, and other, smaller wars since 9/11 are parts of a larger conflict that began much earlier, back in the Carter administration.

    Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East."

    Operation Eagle Claw, Carter's ill-fated mission to rescue Americans held hostage in Iran, was the first combat engagement in the war. Iran would continue to tempt Washington to military action throughout the next 36 years-though paradoxically, attempts to contain Iran more often brought the U.S. into war with the Islamic Republic's hostile neighbor, Iraq.

    The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.)

    Weakened and indebted by that war, and thinking the U.S. tolerant of his ambitions, Saddam then invaded Kuwait, leading to full-scale U.S. military intervention against him: Operation Desert Storm in 1991. (By Bacevich's count, the second Gulf War.) President George H.W. Bush stopped American forces from pushing on to Baghdad after liberating Kuwait, however, because-among other things-toppling Saddam would have created a dangerous vacuum that Iran might fill.

    A decade of sanctions, no-fly zones, and intermittent bombing then ensued, as Washington, under Bush and Clinton, would neither depose Saddam Hussein nor permit him to reassert himself. Finally, George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of "regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. This would set a precedent for America to democratize every trouble-making state in the region, including Iran.

    Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades.

    Iran released its American hostages the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president: January 20, 1981. So what accounts for another 35 years of conflict with Iran and Iraq? The answer begins with oil.

    Bacevich takes us back to the Carter years. "By June 1979, a just-completed study by a then-obscure Defense Department official named Paul Wolfowitz was attracting notice throughout the national security bureaucracy." This "Limited Contingency Study" described America's "vital and growing stake in the Persian Gulf," arising from "our need for Persian-Gulf oil and because events in the Persian Gulf affect the Arab-Israeli conflict."

    "Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S. interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists, token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East.

    (Bacevich is fair to Wolfowitz, acknowledging that Saddam Hussein was indeed an expansionist, as the Iraqi dictator would demonstrate by invading Iran in 1980 and seizing Kuwait a decade later. Whether this meant that Iraq was ever a threat to U.S. interests is, of course, a different question-as is whether the Soviet Union could really have cut America off from Gulf oil.)

    Wolfowitz was not alone in calling for the U.S. to become the guarantor of Middle East security-and Saudi Arabia's security in particular-and President Carter heeded the advice. In March 1980 he created the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), predecessor to what we now know as the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which has military oversight for the region. The RDJTF's second head, Lt. Gen. Robert Kingston, described its mission, in admirably frank language, as simply "to ensure the unimpeded flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf."

    Iraq and Iran both posed dangers to the flow of oil and its control by Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies-to use the term loosely-of the United States. And just as the U.S. was drawn into wars with Iran and Iraq when it tried to play one against the other, America's defense of Saudi Arabia would have grave unintended consequences-such as the creation of al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden was outraged when, in 1990, Saudi Arabia's King Fahd declined his offer to wage holy war against Saddam Hussein and instead turned to American protection, even permitting the stationing of American military personnel in Islam's sacred lands. "To liberate Kuwait," writes Bacevich, bin Laden had "offered to raise an army of mujahedin. Rejecting his offer and his protest, Saudi authorities sought to silence the impertinent bin Laden. Not long thereafter, he fled into exile, determined to lead a holy war that would overthrow the corrupt Saudi royals." The instrument bin Laden forged to accomplish that task, al-Qaeda, would target Americans as well, seeking to push the U.S. out of Muslim lands.

    Bin Laden had reason to hope for success: in the 1980s he had helped mujahedin defeat another superpower, the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan. That struggle, of course, was supported by the U.S., through the CIA's "Operation Cyclone," which funneled arms and money to the Soviets' Muslim opponents. Bacevich offers a verdict on this program:

    Operation Cyclone illustrates one of the central ironies of America's War for the Greater Middle East-the unwitting tendency, while intently focusing on solving one problem, to exacerbate a second and plant the seeds of a third. In Afghanistan, this meant fostering the rise of Islamic radicalism and underwriting Pakistan's transformation into a nuclear-armed quasi-rogue state while attempting to subvert the Soviet Union.

    America's support for the mujahedin succeeded in inflicting defeat on the USSR-but left Afghanistan a haven and magnet for Islamist radicals, including bin Laden.

    Another irony of Bacevich's tale is the way in which the end of the Cold War made escalation of the War for the Greater Middle East possible. The Carter and Reagan administrations never considered the Middle East the centerpiece of their foreign policy: Western Europe and the Cold War took precedence. Carter and Reagan were unsystematic about their engagement with the Middle East and, even as they expanded America's military presence, remained wary of strategic overcommitment. Operation Eagle Claw, Reagan's deployment of troops to Lebanon in 1983 and bombing of Libya in 1986, and even the meddling in Iran and Iraq were all small-scale projects compared to what would be unleashed after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible.

    The Greater Middle East of Bacevich's title centers strategically, if not geographically, upon Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. But its strategic implications and cultural reach are wide, encompassing Libya, Somalia, and other African states with significant Muslim populations; Afghanistan and Pakistan (or "AfPak," in the Obama administration's parlance); and even, on the periphery, the Balkans, where the U.S. intervened militarily in support of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. That Clinton-era intervention is examined in detail by Bacevich: "Today, years after NATO came to their rescue," he writes, "a steady stream of Bosnians and Kosovars leave their homeland and head off toward Syria and Iraq, where they enlist as fighters in the ongoing anti-American, anti-Western jihad."

    Much as George W. Bush believed that liberal democracy would spring up in Saddam Hussein's wake, the humanitarian interventionists who demanded that Bill Clinton send peacekeepers to Bosnia and bomb Serbia on behalf of the Kosovars thought that they were making the world safe for their own liberal, multicultural values. But as Bacevich notes, the Balkan Muslims joining ISIS today are "waging war on behalf of an entirely different set of universal values."

    Bacevich's many books confront readers with painful but necessary truths. The final lesson of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect."

    Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative.

    [Aug 06, 2016] Sanders supporters turn to Jill Stein: You should vote your conscience

    Hillary is a warmonger and is very dangerous in any high position in government (look how much damage she managed to do while being the Secretary of State), to say nothing about being POTUS. Among other things Hillary and just too old and too sick to be a President.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A vote for Stein is a vote against empire. It's a vote against the neocons and their plans to bring the entire world under our rule. ..."
    "... Look who Hillary picked as her VP! Look who she hired in her campaign. She doesn't give a damn. Instead of demanding the progressive vote to avoid disaster, have her change course and deserve that vote. People have had enough already. ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders sold out. Time to forget him and forget his advice, as the worst vote would be a vote for a neocon and the wars she would bring us. ..."
    "... I mean if this was a contest between Hitler and Stalin there would still be people asking others to vote for Stalin so that Hitler wasn't elected and arguing that voting for another candidate is wasting your vote. If you want to vote tactically, vote tactically, and if you want to vote for what you believe, vote for what you believe, but understand what you are saying and don't act as if there was any kind of moral obligation to vote for Clinton, because there isn't. ..."
    "... Independent studies and reports have proven that the primaries were rigged beyond any doubt. ..."
    "... Hillary's biggest supporters spend most of their time on Wall St, in oil companies, or in corrupt foreign governments. ..."
    "... There simply isn't any logic to this OMG Trump will be the worst thing ever. So one must then assume that the argument is created and perpetuated simply to manipulate and mislead. ..."
    "... Trump, a detestable person, would get very little of his extreme views passed. Clinton, a detestable person, would get very much of her extreme views passed. ..."
    "... Because Clinton is to the right of Obama (accurate provided you aren't a rabid partisan) she is far more likely to get every awful military action she wants. Since she's apparently the "pragmatic" one, how quickly do any of these policy proposals get watered down or gutted entirely in the name of compromise and political realities and "politics being the art of the possible"? ..."
    "... True. It ends here. A vote for Hillary is a vote that supports and condones the corruption of the DNC and Clinton 's campaign. Clearly, they had handicapped Sanders from the start. Starting with an 'insurmountable 400+ superdelegates before Bernie entered the race which the MSM, who, in collusion with the DNC, pushed as "an impossible lead to overcome" skewed the primaries results in favor of Clinton. ..."
    "... I won't vote for someone who has to nuance her answers when it comes to the way in which she's conducted herself during her tenure at the Department of State. This from a former Clinton supporter in 2008. ..."
    "... Glad to know that they would rather have a Trump presidency instead of banding together with the Dems. ..."
    "... Please see what you will be doing if Trump becomes president. He doesn't stand for ANYTHING that Bernie stands for. ..."
    "... Not this election. Certainly not the next election. Or the one after that. At least Hilly is Dem. Best laugh of the day. ..."
    The Guardian

    "But I am concerned that the DNC elected Hillary in the first place. Because they [Trump and Clinton] are either tied or she's even losing in some polls. Whereas Bernie consistently beat Trump by double digits [in hypothetical match-up polls]. We could win the House and the Senate back with those kind of numbers."

    ... ... ...

    "I've read hundreds of the DNC leaked emails. I feel that our votes were stolen. I don't think she won the primary fair and square. And if she had to cheat to do it, maybe she shouldn't become the first woman president."

    "I think by me voting for the third-party candidate, along with millions of other Bernie supporters, it will maybe show that the third party is possible in the future." JCDavis Tom J. Davis

    What has Jill Stein ever done that qualifies her to lead a large nation with international obligations and not just those to it's own citizens?

    A vote for Stein is a vote against empire. It's a vote against the neocons and their plans to bring the entire world under our rule.

    pdehaan -> Tom J. Davis

    It's quite something for democrats to demand the progressive votes for Hillary and trying to induce a guilt trip in order to avoid Trump from being elected.
    Why don't you demand Hillary Clinton to earn that vote?? For example, by having her guarantee in no uncertain means that she'll oppose TPP and associated trade deals in any form or fashion (instead of in it's current form)? Why don't you demand Hillary Clinton to be less hawkish and dangerous wrt foreign policy instead? Why don't you demand her to work towards a $15 minimum wage, income equality and social protection instead? It's very easy to demand one's vote just because the other side is even worse. This issue comes up every election and it's just maintaining the status quo.

    Look who Hillary picked as her VP! Look who she hired in her campaign. She doesn't give a damn. Instead of demanding the progressive vote to avoid disaster, have her change course and deserve that vote. People have had enough already.

    JCDavis -> palindrom

    Bernie Sanders sold out. Time to forget him and forget his advice, as the worst vote would be a vote for a neocon and the wars she would bring us.

    JCDavis -> davshev

    Think of it this way--Trump may be a clown, but Hillary is a warmonger who will bring us war with Russia. and a war with Russia will be a disaster for everyone. So if your vote for Stein gives us Trump, that is not as bad as it could be.

    cynictomato

    Oh Please! If you want to vote for Clinton just vote for her but let the rest do whatever they want. The idea that if you vote for another candidate besides the two main ones you are wasting your vote is what has turned the USA in a two party democracy and is detrimental for the citizens because the main parties only have to worry about presenting a better option than their rival, not about presenting a good candidate.

    I mean if this was a contest between Hitler and Stalin there would still be people asking others to vote for Stalin so that Hitler wasn't elected and arguing that voting for another candidate is wasting your vote. If you want to vote tactically, vote tactically, and if you want to vote for what you believe, vote for what you believe, but understand what you are saying and don't act as if there was any kind of moral obligation to vote for Clinton, because there isn't.

    BStroszek
    The idea that the Democratic National Committee, and the Clinton campaign, "rigged" the Democratic primary is fairly widespread

    It's not an IDEA it's a FACT. Independent studies and reports have proven that the primaries were rigged beyond any doubt. (Guardian please study these reports and write an in depth article on the rigged primaries)

    ErnaMsw -> Doggiedo

    On foreign policy, Clinton is certainly not "the much lesser threat to their ideology". She has made it clear that aggressive stance on Syria/Ukraine will be taken, increasing the odds of an uncontained global conflict.

    NoOneYouKnowNow -> kevdflb

    Hillary's biggest supporters spend most of their time on Wall St, in oil companies, or in corrupt foreign governments.

    mrmetrowest -> Iskierka

    Are Nader voters more responsible for Bush than the hundreds of thousands of Democrats that voted for him? Are they more responsible than the millions who stayed home? The 'Nader cost Gore the election' canard is one of the least logical pieces of conventional wisdom ever.

    Mrs Clinton is on record as supporting a no-fly zone in Syria - an act that will further embroil us in the Middle East and might get us into a blow-up with Russia. If this happens, are Clinton supporters willing to be responsible for her actions?

    Vote Green, if that's what your conscience says. The anti-Trump voters' moral position is less pure than they think; in four years they'll be voting against someone else. This goes on forever.

    mrmetrowest -> Rolf Erikson

    In 1964, voters were presented with a choice between LBJ and Goldwater. Goldwater was considered to hold extreme political views which caused many to vote for LBJ, who won a landslide victory.

    LBJ did great things domestically, however he massively escalated the war in Vietnam, leading to the deaths on tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese. To what extent are those who voted for LBJ responsible for those deaths? Likewise, if Mrs Clinton gets us into a war in Syria, or Iran, will you accept responsibility for helping put her in office?

    Canuckistan, 38m ago

    Cue the trolls insisting that you must, must vote for their preferred candidate. If people vote Green, that is their democratic choice and right. It is also because the Democratic Party saw fit to foist a terrible candidate on the people.

    ID7004073 1h ago

    Bernie has #DemExit and is returning to his roots as an Independent and said he will run in 2018 for the Senate as an Independent! Follow Bernie's lead and exit the corrupt, neoLiberal Democratic Party! Do you want 4 more War Years? Peace NOW or nothing later!

    Vote for peace and prosperity - Dr Jill Stein and the Green Economy!

    MrWangincanada , 2016-08-02 11:34:46

    Anyone but Clinton, I beg you, American voters.

    The Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama is one of the greatest war criminals in recent history, Clinton will only be worse.

    Vote for Jill or Trump, never Clinton.

    Haigin88 , 2016-08-02 11:32:20
    Following the epic Robert Reich/Chris Hedges battle of the other day, regarding L.E.V. (lesser evil voting) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr4cXH3Fil8 the wonderful Kshama Sawant and Rebecca Traister took the same issue around the block, again on 'Democracy Now!' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-yZbjZ_VOo

    Sawant is a complete pile-driver of a debater, a devastatingly accurate verbal machine gun, and she utterly crushed...but, to me, Traister still won. The 'vote your heart' constituency diagnose the situation near perfectly, and push for political action that isn't beholden to election cycles but they then just fall short; they then turn on a dime and act like the electoral system isn't broken, like a General Election is an 'end game' and is meaningful. Whereas L.E.V. adherents don't close their eyes to what's on offer and it's they, not 'vote your heart' people, who see a General Election for what it is: a broken democracy offering a "choice" between two types of terrible but one type of terrible is always going to be less terrible. Underneath Traister's tiresome, wilfully blind, if well written, Hillary hagiographies, I think that she knows this too.

    Of course, the Hillary supporters and media cheerleaders will spin around from beseeching for a vote against Miller/Barron/Drumpf/von Clownstick to then, if Hillary gets a solid victory, claiming a great win, after all -"look at the votes *for* Hillary Clinton!" - when she would only win because of votes *against* the short-fingered hysteric. They'll steal votes cast against Drumpf and disingenuously claim them as votes *for* Hillary. So what? 'Cynical, dishonest narcissists in cynical, dishonest narcissism' shock! "Let the baby have its bottle", as they say, and let them stew in their own juice after progressives perhaps bolt to the formation of a new party or a re-structured Green party after election day.

    Think outside of election cycles and it's precisely *because* one should do so, and treat General Elections as unimportant towards the big scheme of things, that one should vote for better of two historically disliked candidates because other days will offer less sickening choices and huge swathes of the country will gain/be better off even if you don't. It would ironically be Clintonian to punish Clinton and the DNC for not having a sufficiently collectivist outlook by personally selling out others and allowing the short-fingered vulgarian to snake oil his tiny-handed way in. Women seeking to retain the right to choose http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/07/mike-pence-says-roe-v-wade-will-be-overturned.html Mexican people, Muslim people, immigrants in general will be just some of those who'll be in your spiritual debt if you're a swing state voter who'll bite the bullet. You don't have to support someone in order to give them your vote.

    SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 2016-08-02 11:30:40

    The idea that the Democratic National Committee, and the Clinton campaign, "rigged" the Democratic primary is fairly widespread among Sanders supporters

    This is something that really annoys me. You're implying that this is not an undeniable fact clearly backed by written evidence fact by calling it an ''idea''.
    The thing about Hilary is that she is not by any stretch of imagination a good candidate. She is deeply unpopular because of who she is as a politician. You cannot expect people to ignore this. When the DNC willingly and knowingly rigged the election in favour of a bad candidate it was done based on the partly flawed calculation that the fear of any Republican winning over a Democrat would suffice to back their candidate no matter what.

    And I say partly true, because a lot of the people who would vote for Democrats anyways will do so even if they backed Bernie.

    However Bernie (and to a far smaller extent Trump) energised and brought in people who might not normally vote at all because they're fed up with the establishment. Once they found their voice in Bernie and got fired up, they will vote but on for the thing they despise the most (aka the establishment like Clinton). Nor should they. It was up to the Democratic Party to recognise the candidate that would have taken advantage of this and they willingly failed in doing so. Even when picking a VP for Clinton they failed to make even the smallest gesture to these people. So, no there is no reason good enough for them to switch and vote for someone they despise and know for sure represents the things they hate.

    Now there is also the irony that they're attacking Trump for his fear mongering, while they themselves are also creating fear mongering amongst voters about what a monster Trump would be. It's all about fear even when they pretend it's not and that is sickening.

    FTPFTP , 2016-08-02 11:30:03
    There simply isn't any logic to this OMG Trump will be the worst thing ever. So one must then assume that the argument is created and perpetuated simply to manipulate and mislead.

    Trump, a detestable person, would get very little of his extreme views passed. Clinton, a detestable person, would get very much of her extreme views passed.

    Because Clinton is to the right of Obama (accurate provided you aren't a rabid partisan) she is far more likely to get every awful military action she wants. Since she's apparently the "pragmatic" one, how quickly do any of these policy proposals get watered down or gutted entirely in the name of compromise and political realities and "politics being the art of the possible"?

    And of course, the useless, vapid, Democrat partisans will, for the most part, say nothing. See: 8-years of Obama as Bush 2.0.

    ID7004073 bluelines , 2016-08-02 11:54:07
    Get your facts straight. Those have been labeled FALSE!

    However the corruption and neoLiberal war supporter that is hung on Clinton has been proven by her actions with "regime change" in Libya and coup support in Honduras. And then there is the corruption of weapons for charitable contributions for the Clinton Foundation!

    Do we want peace and prosperity that only ill Stein can bring with her Green Economy or do we want 4 more years of war and job loss? Simple choice.

    jamesmit FTPFTP , 2016-08-02 12:00:59
    Obama was very different to bush on almost every issue, the differences might not be massive but they have a real impact on people. For example on climate change obama successfully pushed for polices that will help reduce emissions while bush did literally nothing. It will be the same for clinton.
    FTPFTP jamesmit , 2016-08-02 12:10:31
    You are correct that Obama was different from Bush, you're just wrong about the direction.

    Drones/Illegal Wars: Expanded
    Wall St/Corporate Corruption: Went unpunished & expanded
    Domestic Spying: Expanded
    Constitutional Violations: Expanded
    War or Whistleblowers: Created

    He has done nothing but act like climate change is important. He has not done anything meaningful except offer more hopeful rhetoric, the only thing the Democratic candidates seem to be good at lately.

    This is what lesser evilism gets you.

    EnglishMike FTPFTP , 2016-08-02 11:48:51
    You're being ridiculous. If Trump wins, the republicans win the Senate and the House and he will sign dozens of Republican bills that will set the progressive movement back a decade or more. He will also nominate a right wing judge to replace Scalia Anna the SCOTUS will be in conservative hands for another generation.

    If you don't see that, you have a severe case of denial.

    FTPFTP EnglishMike , 2016-08-02 12:02:20
    You are aware that you can vote for candidates for other positions that are not in the same as the party as the president you vote for, yes? You can not vote Clinton but still vote Team D everywhere else.

    As an institution, SCOTUS has held back progress almost as often as it has helped it. So no, i'm not one of those easily swayed by the terrible "but think of the appointments!" argument. Perhaps it becoming even clearer that it is an anti-democratic institution is the best way to achieve real justice.

    suchesuch Jaydee23 , 2016-08-02 11:44:26
    The old worse of two evils logic that guarantees an eternity of bad candidates.


    Cliff Olney

    True. It ends here. A vote for Hillary is a vote that supports and condones the corruption of the DNC and Clinton 's campaign. Clearly, they had handicapped Sanders from the start. Starting with an 'insurmountable 400+ superdelegates before Bernie entered the race which the MSM, who, in collusion with the DNC, pushed as "an impossible lead to overcome" skewed the primaries results in favor of Clinton.

    What a hollow victory it must be for Hillary, but then, one must have a conscience to feel such things, and as we can see from her support for the coup in Honduras, she lacks this empathy. "Give them a good attorney before we deport the children back to Honduras", resonates with those of us that have a conscience.

    Not going to happen.

    Sanders was honest. So is Stein. I won't vote for someone who has to nuance her answers when it comes to the way in which she's conducted herself during her tenure at the Department of State. This from a former Clinton supporter in 2008.

    Clinton or Trump? The duopoly's choice for president is a dry heave.


    BradStorch -> Mardak

    How will you push Clinton to the left? What leverage will you have after you gave her a pass on Iraq, Libya, Wall Street etc.? If she runs against Ted Cruz in 2020 you'll vote for her whether or not she started any wars or did anything from Bernie's platform, right?

    brooks303

    Glad to know that they would rather have a Trump presidency instead of banding together with the Dems. I understand the need for a three, or even four party system. We should work toward that at the ballot box.

    But not with this election. Please see what you will be doing if Trump becomes president. He doesn't stand for ANYTHING that Bernie stands for. At least Hillary is a Democrat.

    Indie60 -> brooks303

    Not this election. Certainly not the next election. Or the one after that. At least Hilly is Dem. Best laugh of the day.

    christinaak -> brooks303

    We would have to amend the Constitution to have an effective multiparty system, because of the current requirement of 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency. Under the current system it would be all but impossible for one candidate to obtain 270 electoral votes in a truly competitive multiparty system. If one candidate does not obtain the required number then the House of Representatives gets

    [Aug 06, 2016] HILLARY'S KHAN MAN Who Is KHIZR KHAN The SHOCKING Truth About His Job, His Ties To Hillary, Saudi Arabia And The Muslim Bro

    100percentfedup.com
    Khizr Muazzam Kahn moved from Pakistan to the United Arab Emirates prior to emigrating into the U.S. Kahn is directly affiliated with the advancement of Muslim immigration into the United States.

    Mr. Kahn runs a law firm in New York called KM Kahn Law Office:

    Kahn's primary area of expertise -as advertised- is legal aide and legal services for Muslim immigration assistance.

    Attorney Khizr Kahn also used to work for Hogan, Hartson and Lovells law firm within Washington DC which has direct ties to the Clinton Foundation.

    ... ... ...

    Hogan, Hartson, Lovells are one of the lobbying entities for Saudi affairs in Washington DC.

    […] Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis , is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show. Robert Kyle, a lobbyist from the firm, has bundled $50,850 for Clinton's campaign"

    "Many lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember the week in 2004 when U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan lost his life to a suicide bomber. Then-Hogan & Hartson attorneys mourned the death because the soldier's father, Khizr Khan, a Muslim American immigrant, was among their beloved colleagues"

    Mr. Khizr Kahn is not some arbitrary Muslim voice called upon randomly to speak at the Democrat National Convention on behalf of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    Attorney Kahn is a well documented, and well compensated, conscript and activist for the advancement of Islamic interests into the United States. So it should come as no surprise to see the Clinton Machine use Kahn to serve both of their interests in this political election season. – The Conservative Treehouse

    Well, will you look at that! What a coincidence… Loretta Lynch was also employed by Hogan and Hartson:

    ... But little known is the fact that Lynch was a litigation partner for eight years at a major Washington law firm that served the Clintons.
    Lynch was with the Washington-headquartered international law firm Hogan & Hartson LLP from March 2002 through April 2010.

    According to documents Hillary Clinton's first presidential campaign made public in 2008, Hogan & Harrison's New York-based partner Howard Topaz was the tax lawyer who filed income tax returns for Bill and Hillary Clinton beginning in 2004. –GR

    Khizr Muazzam Khan graduated in Punjab University Law College, as the New York Times confirms. He specialized in International Trade Law in Saudi Arabia. An interest lawyer for Islamic oil companies Khan wrote a paper, called In Defense of OPEC to defend the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), an intergovernmental oil company consisting of mainly Islamic countries.

    But more than this, Khan is a promoter of Islamic Sharia Law in the U.S. He was a co-founder of the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law (Islamic Sharia). Khan's fascination with Islamic Sharia stems from his life in Saudi Arabia. During the eighties Khan wrote a paper titled Juristic Classification of Islamic [Sharia] Law. In it he elucidated on the system of Sharia law expressing his reverence for "The Sunnah [the works of Muhammad] - authentic tradition of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)." A snapshot of his essay can be seen here:

    essay

    But Khan's fascination with Islam isn't the only issue. What is more worrisome is that at the bottom of the intro, Khan shows his appreciation and the source of his work and gives credit to an icon of the Muslim Brotherhood:

    "The contribution to this article of S. Ramadan's writing is greatly acknowledged."

    This alone speaks volumes. Khan used the works of S. Ramadan to lay his foundation for his inspiration regarding the promotion of Sharia. S. Ramadan is Said Ramadan, head of the Islamic Center in Geneva and a major icon of the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandson of Hassan Al-Banna the founder and hero of the Muslim Brotherhood which spread terrorism throughout the world.

    In regards to his son and his sacrifice, on the other side of the coin, many were the 'Muslim martyrs' who joined the US military. Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed, for example, enlisted in the Special Forces of the US Army; he was a double agent for Al-Qaeda. How about Hasan K. Akbar, a Muslim American soldier who murdered and injured fifteen soldiers. There was Bowe Bergdahl, an American Muslim soldier who deserted his men to join the Taliban, a desertion which led to six American being ambushed and killed while they were on the search looking for him. And of course the example of Nidal Malik Hassan, who murdered fourteen Americans in cold blood in Fort Hood. What about infiltration into the U.S. military like Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, a major Muslim thinker for the Muslim Minority Affairs, an icon of the Abedin family (Hillary's aid Human) who, while he served in U.S. military, called on arming Muslims to fight the U.S? Al-Alwani is an IMMA (Institute of Muslims Minority Affairs) favorite, Taha Jaber al-Alwani, whom the Abedins say is the source for their doctrine (see Abedins-Meii-Kampf) is an ardent anti-Semite who by the way, runs the United States Department of Defense program (out of all places) for training Muslim military chaplains in the U.S. military. Via: Shoebat.com


    [Aug 06, 2016] Paul Vallely Khizr Khan Is A 'Muslim Brotherhood Sympathizer'

    Right Wing Watch

    Paul Vallely, a retired Army general turned conservative activist, defended Donald Trump's attacks on the Muslim-American family of a slain service member yesterday, telling Newsmax host Ed Berliner that the late soldier's father, Khizr Khan is "a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer" and saying that the mother, Ghazala Khan, made herself a "political pawn" when she stood silently by her husband's side "as most Muslim women do."

    Vallely noted that he himself lost a son in the armed forces, saying that Khizr Khan "put himself out there" and became a "political pawn" when he agreed to speak against Trump at the Democratic National Convention. He accused Kahn of being "the one that initiated the attack against Trump" and claimed that Khan is "a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer," a baseless charge that Berliner challenged.

    When Berliner asked Vallely about Trump's attacks on Ghazala Khan, who, overcome by emotion, chose not to speak onstage at the convention, Vallely repeated Trump's charge that she had been silenced by her religion: "Well, she did stand there, as most Muslim women do and they don't say anything, so there again, when you put yourself up into being a political pawn like that, you've got to take the heat."

    [Aug 05, 2016] Bursting Damn. And Its Sole Cause

    This idea of "Khan gambit" gets more and more currency...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is just about everything everybody has said about him – excepting of course the "insane" business. That said, it remains he is not as risky a prospect as President Hillary. The reason those neocons and neoliberals are so desperate for Hillary is that they desire more wars. More stuff like the TPP treaty. ..."
    "... Poking a nuclear Russia is NOT a good idea. Nor is handing our government over to Corporations. ..."
    "... I continue to contend that Trump, bad as he very obviously is, would not likely be as terrible has Hillary. ..."
    "... If Trump truly is a Manchurian Candidate for the Clintons, we might see much worse from him. Wikileaks probably has some awfully bad dirt on Hillary, and if the election gets close on that account, I'd expect to see Trump do whatever it takes to lose. ..."
    "... HP was a disaster by all reckoning, but it's also generally true that women and minorities are more likely to become CEOs of companies that are in trouble ..."
    "... Zack Smith I'm with you bro, do not give up the fight against the neocons. Meg Whitman, Michael Bloomberg and many others like them are the oligarchs in their little corporate castles that have betrayed America. HRC and now the DNC, main stream news media and large corporations have flipped and become the main mail carriers of the oligarchs billionaires club. ..."
    "... Trump is the outsider now who is being demonized by the elites of the oligarchs. They do not want any change in any meaningful way and are determined to try to undermine and destroy Trump by any means… Scandal after scandal after scandal with a life time of with HRC do you think that the American people would see trough the smoke, mirrors and deception. ..."
    "... The American public is very gullible and mis informed today due to the oligarchs determination to stay in control of greed, profit and power…The greatest driving force-mission of Wall St. today is profit above anything and the rule of law is dead. This is what and why they need HRC to be their next president at any cost…. ..."
    "... The endorsements of Whitman, Bloomberg, neo-cons, etc. are not endorsements of Clinton but endorsements for the movement to keep Trump out of the White House. They are not pro-HRC, they are anti-Trump. In any other election year and against any other sane Republican candidate they would be opposed to Clinton. ..."
    "... Even the neocon Washington Post is getting a little worried about the extent of the DUMP ON TRUMP crusade. As Robert Parry reports in his current essay "The Danger of Excessive Trump Bashing" the momentum of a successful campaign will have serious consequences. "The grave danger from this media behavior is that it will empower the neocons and liberal hawks already nesting inside Hillary Clinton's campaign to prepare for a new series of geopolitical provocations once Clinton takes office." ..."
    "... Half the things attributed to Trump were spun from whole cloth and printed as fact. That Joe Sarbourough's sisters ex roomates cousin (apologies to Dark Helmet) thought she heard Trump ask about nukes doesn't impress me much . ..."
    "... Of course nukes are meant to be used , otherwise we wasted a lot of money on the 20,000 ++++ that we bought during the last 70 years. ..."
    "... But if we take her statements about Syria and Russia at face value she is either dangerously ignorant or (more probably) is a female sociopath. Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no sense of self-preservation, no boundaries. So her arrogant and reckless behavior as for "getting rich quick" and with the private "bathroom" email server is a sign of more general and more dangerous tendency. ..."
    angrybearblog.com
    Zachary Smith August 3, 2016 4:11 pm

    "…when it's become undeniable that Trump is not sane."

    "Trump is publicly descending into outright madness." Trump is many ugly things, but the proposition he is clinically insane is "a bridge too far".

    "The dam is bursting, and it barely has anything to do with Clinton or whom she asks for an endorsement." That is true. The neocons and neoliberals have decided that nothing less than a total assault on Trump will do the job, and that's exactly what they have arranged.

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-raimondo-trump-media-bias-20160802-snap-story.html

    Trump is just about everything everybody has said about him – excepting of course the "insane" business. That said, it remains he is not as risky a prospect as President Hillary. The reason those neocons and neoliberals are so desperate for Hillary is that they desire more wars. More stuff like the TPP treaty.

    Poking a nuclear Russia is NOT a good idea. Nor is handing our government over to Corporations.

    Zachary Smith August 3, 2016 10:27 pm

    To Noni Mausa
    August 3, 2016 8:48 pm

    I hope you haven't gotten the impression I like Donald Trump. Or that I'll vote for him. The man lost me when he endorsed torture. He compounded that when he said he would outsource the Supreme Court to the Heritage Foundation loons. But any chance of redeeming himself was lost with the selection of Pence as VP. We've had that dingleberry as governor here in Indiana, and the thought of Pence being one heartbeat from the Oval Office is at least as scary as President Hillary.

    In 2016 I'm taking what some will consider to be the coward's way out. Like in 2012, I'm not voting for either candidate. Yes, somebody else will select who gets to be President because both of them are too far over the edge of pure evil for me. We're going to have a very bad time ahead of us, no matter what happens in November. Just as in 2012, I won't be subconsciously in bed with "my" candidate because I voted for him as a "lesser evil". Though I voted for Obama in 2008, after I'd learned what a worthless *** he was, never again. In Indiana Jill Stein won't be on the ballot, so I'll leave the top part of the Computer Voting Device empty, and can only hope the computer hackers won't turn the empty spot to a vote for Hillary.

    But I continue to contend that Trump, bad as he very obviously is, would not likely be as terrible has Hillary. That's just an educated guess of mine, but that's how I see it.

    If Trump truly is a Manchurian Candidate for the Clintons, we might see much worse from him. Wikileaks probably has some awfully bad dirt on Hillary, and if the election gets close on that account, I'd expect to see Trump do whatever it takes to lose. Like – "This last mass gun slaughter was one too many. As President I will work to amend the Second Amendment to restrict gun ownership." Whatever it takes.

    J.Goodwin August 4, 2016 10:28 am
    Meg Whitman is not the kind of person you want endorsing you if you're pretending to have a progressive agenda. She is fundamentally on the side of business over anything like workers rights, environmental concerns, she in favor of forms of immigration reform that are primarily aimed at benefiting business over labor.

    Like Hillary, she had a long and tight history with Goldman Sachs. She's not even known in business for her acumen. She had some major acquisition failures particularly Skype when she was at eBay (you can argue the company had grown beyond her capacity, this happens). HP was a disaster by all reckoning, but it's also generally true that women and minorities are more likely to become CEOs of companies that are in trouble (men can always go somewhere else, and decline the worst roles).

    http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/66/7e/7f/667e7f60ad8d91db88366912f411fb64.jpg

    William Ryan August 4, 2016 10:47 am

    Zack Smith I'm with you bro, do not give up the fight against the neocons. Meg Whitman, Michael Bloomberg and many others like them are the oligarchs in their little corporate castles that have betrayed America. HRC and now the DNC, main stream news media and large corporations have flipped and become the main mail carriers of the oligarchs billionaires club.

    Trump is the outsider now who is being demonized by the elites of the oligarchs. They do not want any change in any meaningful way and are determined to try to undermine and destroy Trump by any means… Scandal after scandal after scandal with a life time of with HRC do you think that the American people would see trough the smoke, mirrors and deception.

    The American public is very gullible and mis informed today due to the oligarchs determination to stay in control of greed, profit and power…The greatest driving force-mission of Wall St. today is profit above anything and the rule of law is dead. This is what and why they need HRC to be their next president at any cost….

    ms 57 August 4, 2016 11:13 am

    The endorsements of Whitman, Bloomberg, neo-cons, etc. are not endorsements of Clinton but endorsements for the movement to keep Trump out of the White House. They are not pro-HRC, they are anti-Trump. In any other election year and against any other sane Republican candidate they would be opposed to Clinton.

    In this election year, with Trump running for President of the United States, the hostility toward HRC on this page never takes into account what a Trump victory would look like. It is as if they see Trump as some benign player "who will "change" when he gets in office. While the criticism of HRC are right, the support for Trump as President is either wishful thinking, a delusion or a hallucination. It's like criticizing your left hand while your right hand holds a dagger to your throat.

    Zachary Smith August 4, 2016 1:12 pm

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/i-have-a-few-questions-for-morning-joe/

    Even the neocon Washington Post is getting a little worried about the extent of the DUMP ON TRUMP crusade. As Robert Parry reports in his current essay "The Danger of Excessive Trump Bashing" the momentum of a successful campaign will have serious consequences. "The grave danger from this media behavior is that it will empower the neocons and liberal hawks already nesting inside Hillary Clinton's campaign to prepare for a new series of geopolitical provocations once Clinton takes office."

    Source: Consortium News site.

    Bronco, August 4, 2016 7:13 pm

    MS 57 I don't know why you would think I'm a trump supporter , I voted for Sanders in the primary.
    You know that thing Team Hillary rigged ? And the media has been deflecting attention from with all its might?

    Half the things attributed to Trump were spun from whole cloth and printed as fact. That Joe Sarbourough's sisters ex roomates cousin (apologies to Dark Helmet) thought she heard Trump ask about nukes doesn't impress me much .

    Of course nukes are meant to be used , otherwise we wasted a lot of money on the 20,000 ++++ that we bought during the last 70 years.

    likbez , August 5, 2016 12:01 am

    I find "Khan gambit" using Democratic conventions podium to be a well prepared trap.

    While the fact that Trump got into in (and this is plain vanilla swift boating, so any normal politicians would sense the danger immediately) does not characterize him well, the shame IMHO is on neocons who created this trap.

    BTW endorsement by Whitman is nothing to be proud of. She is a regular neoliberal. So what would you expect? That's simply silly not to expect that some/most of them will not cross the party line. Neocons like Kagan were the first, now neoliberals follow the suit. The same is even more true about Bloomberg (with his media empire being essentially propaganda arm of GS)

    I think Trump demonstrated courage by opposing well oiled with money propaganda machine of neocons.

    In their zeal to discredit Trump some MSM became pretty disingenuous and that might have the opposite effect, if "Khan gambit" is overplayed:

    From http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-how-trump-supporters-are-pushing-back-1470079021-htmlstory.html

    === Quote ===

    While many Republicans have rebuked Donald Trump for attacking Khizr Khan and his wife - who lost their U.S. Army captain son, Humayun, in the war in Iraq - some of Trump's allies are rallying to his side and, in the process, attacking Khan.

    Trump's longtime ally, political consultant Roger Stone, who has a long history as a controversialist, set the pattern on Twitter Sunday night by linking to an article that accused Khan, an immigration lawyer from Virginia, of being an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, an inflammatory and unproved charge.

    Here is what else you can expect to hear from some of Trump's backers as the controversy builds:

    • Hillary Clinton, they say, is not being called out adequately for contradicting Pat Smith, another Gold Star mother, whose son Sean was one of the Americans killed in the attack in 2012 on a diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Smith blames Clinton for misrepresenting the cause of the attack that took her son's death, and ultimately for the death itself.
    • Khan, they note, once worked for a law firm that represented Saudi Arabia, which has donated to the Clinton Foundation.
    • They argue that because Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, she should be called to account for the death of Humayun Khan, who died 12 years ago in a suicide bomb attack. Trump supported the Iraq war at the time, although he now claims to have opposed it.
    • The Khans, some Trump supporters say, opened themselves to criticism by taking the stage at a political event, thus politicizing their son's death.

    Zachary Smith , August 5, 2016 6:55 pm

    Hillary 2008: "George Stephanopoulos: "Senator Clinton, would you [extend our deterrent to Israel]?"

    Hillary Clinton: "Well, in fact … I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region."

    Massive Retaliation has always had the meaning of a 'massive' nuclear attack.

    Hillary 2016: "MR. CUOMO: Iran: some language recently. You said if Iran were to strike Israel, there would be a massive retaliation. Scary words. Does massive retaliation mean you'd go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is that what that's supposed to suggest?

    SEN. CLINTON: Well, the question was if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that.

    Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

    That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic."

    The warmongering neocon woman gets a little careless in the second part of her statement, forgetting "nuclear" and reverting to the 2008 declaration. Worse, she says that even if they don't have nukes quite yet, an attack on Holy Israel means it's "glow-in-the-dark" time in Iran.

    It really is a tragic thing to be talking about. That's the way the Madeleine Albright ***** – the one who has declared that any woman who doesn't vote for Hillary will go to hell – put it when speaking of 500,000 dead Iraqi kids. Darned shame, but it had to be done.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/04/iran-a24.html

    https://votesmart.org/public-statement/335164/abc-good-morning-america-transcript#.V6UUn5Ma3ow

    But move on – it's the insane Trump who can't be trusted with nukes.
    Don't even think about a possibility why Hillary might be so devoted to Israel. When she was in the Senate the woman went to a prayer breakfast with some of the most repulsive of the Conservative Republicans. Nobody at all is talking about Hillary's religion. If she is one of the Rapture types, her access to nukes would mean an End-Timer finally has a chance to force God to get off the pot and start with the Second Coming.

    Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president.

    likbez , August 5, 2016 11:29 pm

    Hi Zachary,

    > Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president.

    You are right. She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health, age and history of blood clots. As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition, she often is "confused". Which means that she does not have a "normal" level of situational awareness.

    For some specialties like airplane pilots this is a death sentence. Unfortunately, if elected, she can take the country with her.

    While the USSR existed, as bad as it was for people within its borders, it was a blessing for the people of the USA, as it kept the elite in check and frightful to behave in "natural, greedy and delusional "Masters of the Universe" way".

    After the dissolution of the USSR and the "triumphal march" of neoliberalism, the US elite by-and-large lost the sense of self-preservation.

    If you read what Hillary utters like "no fly zone" in Syria and other similar staff, to me this looks like a sign of madness, plain and simple. No reasonable politician should go off the cliff like that, if stakes are not extremely high.

    And MSM try to sell her as a more reasonable politician then Trump. In reality she is like Kelvin absolute zero. You just can't go lower. The only hope is that she is a puppet and it does not matter what she utters.

    But if we take her statements about Syria and Russia at face value she is either dangerously ignorant or (more probably) is a female sociopath. Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no sense of self-preservation, no boundaries. So her arrogant and reckless behavior as for "getting rich quick" and with the private "bathroom" email server is a sign of more general and more dangerous tendency.

    Neocons are still way too powerful. They dominate MSM and essentially dictate the agenda. So we can only pray to God to spare us.

    Zachary Smith , August 6, 2016 10:53 am

    To likbez August 5, 2016 11:29 pm:

    "She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health, age and history of blood clots. As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition, she often is "confused". Which means that she does not have "normal" level of situational awareness."

    At this moment I'm feeling very foolish, for I'd totally forgotten the state of Hillary's health.

    A really excellent comment.

    [Aug 05, 2016] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/10/texas-older-women-politics-us-election#comments

    Notable quotes:
    "... Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation were struck. ..."
    "... We weren't robbed. We gave our country away. Republics that operate in a Democratic manner cannot be left to themselves any more than one should leave a three-year-old child alone...but we did. ..."
    "... Is the middle class disappearing? Since the middle class is the majority, one has to ask why. Why is the majority population of the United States slipping into "Lower Class" status? Simple: the Majority allowed it to happen by not saying "No!" often enough. ..."
    "... Our government here in the United States is a wonder, a thing of genius passed down from the Founders (most of whom would be on "Do not Fly" lists today). ..."
    "... Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. Every thing in the politicians mind is open ended, and may or may not be adopted, considered, or maybe a totally different thing than what they were elected for. ..."
    "... WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after, vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s. The idea of a media culture that was objective and bipartisan is a newer idea. ..."
    "... Noam Chomsky talked about this in "The Corporation." Our division and increased level of emotional isolation is a direct result of marketing attacks on the human psyche designed to get us to buy more products and services. ..."
    "... While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience is that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own parochial personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election. ..."
    "... Civility and all the claims about it are largely the reason the abominable Reagan era free market economics have shattered the U.S. Economy. ..."
    "... Much the better to forget civility in the face of bankster monsters who have worked to destroy the English speaking world and everyone else in it. Civilty is just plain crap in the face of the policies of neoliberalism. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    Reddenbluesy , 2016-07-10 14:13:37
    I suspect we're seeing the consequences of two events... one political, the other financial (heavily determined by the political, which happened first).

    Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation were struck.

    That lead to the banking crisis/collapse in 2008, and to the 'solution' whereby most governments imposed 'austerity' and debt on ordinary people to keep most of the bankers 'functional' and 'solvent' ...and not only were the bankers not adequately regulated to curtail their activities, but they carried on paying themselves mega-currency bonuses for using taxpayer guarantees to rescue their dysfunctional businesses.

    As the UK-EU Referendum result has proved, populist politicians spouting bullsh*t can succeed in this environment; especially when 'decent politicians' abdicate their responsibilities.

    Kyllein MacKellerann , 2016-07-10 19:13:38
    Here in the U.S. we're learning that we've created a monster by essentially doing nothing. While the Police turned themselves into "Occupying Forces" who "Enforced the laws on a resistant populace" and created a poisonous "Us vs. Them" situation...we were watching game shows. As the Elites in the government crafted laws to protect themselves from the civil laws that govern the rest of us, we were obsessing over soap operas. As fellow citizens were targeted on account of race, nationality, or language, we were busy with planning our vacations and where to spend them.

    We weren't robbed. We gave our country away. Republics that operate in a Democratic manner cannot be left to themselves any more than one should leave a three-year-old child alone...but we did.

    Now, the would-be powerful use Hate and Race and Nationality as a means of dividing us and turning us against ourselves. This is done for the same reason the magician's "assistant" doesn't wear enough clothing to flag down a passing car - the magician wants us to be distracted while he sets up for the next trick.
    It's easy to get the public to turn away from the basic rights that our nation was founded upon; just frighten them and then promise that by simply surrendering those rights they will be made "safe" from possible harms. Never mind that Ben Franklin said, "Those who would surrender their basic liberties for the illusion of safety deserve neither." Schools don't teach that anymore. They teach conformity to authority, any authority. Schools teach obedience, not critical thought; and they punish those who question things very severely.

    Is the middle class disappearing? Since the middle class is the majority, one has to ask why. Why is the majority population of the United States slipping into "Lower Class" status? Simple: the Majority allowed it to happen by not saying "No!" often enough. We chose to lose because we didn't do what was necessary to win. The United States of Laziness, long may it watch the idiot box and not do anything to change what's happening to it.

    Our government here in the United States is a wonder, a thing of genius passed down from the Founders (most of whom would be on "Do not Fly" lists today). Under our system we are treated to the fairest form of government that has ever been devised: We get the Government and the Society under that government... that we DESERVE. We don't get what we want, we get what we deserve. Let the apologists claim that the country is "Changing". Let them say, "We're growing into something new!" We aren't. We're simply living down to the historical model of failed societies.

    Welcome to the downside of the bell-curve.

    sdgreen , 2016-07-11 01:51:42
    Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. Every thing in the politicians mind is open ended, and may or may not be adopted, considered, or maybe a totally different thing than what they were elected for.

    That is the disaster that what current politicians totally fail. That needs to change. Will such, I doubt it.

    The current so called political platforms or manifestos, are basically useless and used only for propaganda.

    JVRTRL , 2016-07-11 08:16:30
    Many excellent points. I think the divisions are easier to exploit in part because the society has become so greatly divided based of income inequality. People have completely different frames of reference in terms of their experience, and anxieties, and so it becomes easier to dismiss the concerns of others out-of-hand as illegitimate. You can also overlay racism as part of the equation, which has always been present with varying degrees of intensity in the U.S.

    WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after, vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s. The idea of a media culture that was objective and bipartisan is a newer idea.

    It was codified by things like the Fairness Doctrine as well, which tended to moderate, and censor, public discussion through broadcast media. When the Fairness Doctrine fell apart you had people like Limbaugh go national with a highly partisan infotainment model.

    The media became more fragmented as well. Broadcast media also used to be seen as a public service. But in the 1970s the major networks started to understand that it could also be a profit center -- and you had another shift in values, where the public function took a back-seat to profit maximization. The market also has become more cut-throat as the media environment has become more fragmented.

    Roger Dafremen , 2016-07-11 08:56:22
    Noam Chomsky talked about this in "The Corporation." Our division and increased level of emotional isolation is a direct result of marketing attacks on the human psyche designed to get us to buy more products and services. I'm not sure how much of it is Machiavellian and how much is just pure greed reaping it's inevitable harvest.
    Dale Roberts , 2016-07-11 16:59:44
    Vitriolic and polemical speech has been a ubiquitous ritual since the earliest democracies. When candidates wish to distinguish themselves or appeal to various segments of the electorate, there is nothing like a lot of demagoguery and fear mongering to bring attention to a candidate and his issues. In the end, self-interest motivates voters, and fear is the biggest self-interest of all.

    Using the specter of the opposition to scare small children and those who think like them is a time honored tradition and well alive today. Further, as groups begin to prosper and start being assimilated into the broader society, the individual self-interests diverge and it becomes harder to hold them together as a cohesive group whose votes can be counted on. It then becomes all the more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain solidarity.

    While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience is that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own parochial personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election.

    DoyleSaylor , 2016-07-12 15:25:07
    Civility and all the claims about it are largely the reason the abominable Reagan era free market economics have shattered the U.S. Economy. The phony claim that civility is politically useful belies that all manner of suffering like homelessness is not now or ever heard by the deliberately unhearing administrators of this economy. All civility got anyone is a thin veneer repectabilty covering up a society in which the rich have robbed the rest of us.

    Much the better to forget civility in the face of bankster monsters who have worked to destroy the English speaking world and everyone else in it. Civilty is just plain crap in the face of the policies of neoliberalism.

    [Aug 05, 2016] The Myth of Trumps Alternative Worldview

    Looks like this guy is a neocon... the take on NATO is similar to presstitutes in CNN On NATO, Donald Trump would break sharply with US foreign policy tradition - CNNPolitics.com
    As Scott Adams noted: "Clinton's campaign has such strong persuasion going right now that she is successfully equating her actual misdeeds of the past with Trump's imaginary mental issues and imaginary future misdeeds".
    They use a Rovian strategy: Assault the enemy's strength. You've got to admire the Chutzpah: Killing your parents, then complaining you're an orphan. The candidate who didn't raise a voice against the Iraq War and pushed the administration in favor of war with Libya (which we're now bombing again) paints their opponent as a lunatic warmonger.
    Notable quotes:
    "... it's hard not to applaud when he pisses off the stuff shirts at the Washington Post. ..."
    "... the frustration with Obama's foreign policy - the continuation of wars, the expansion of drone attacks, the failure to reduce nuclear weapons - has prompted some to piece through Donald Trump's sayings in a desperate search for something, anything, that could possibly represent an alternative. ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting other countries, and in many cases the countries I'm talking about are extremely rich. Then if we cannot make a deal, which I believe we will be able to, and which I would prefer being able to, but if we cannot make a deal…. I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, "Congratulations, you will be defending yourself. ..."
    "... We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem. And we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel. The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has traditionally adopted foreign policy positions to the right of Barack Obama. As president, she will likely tack in a more hawkish direction. ..."
    "... John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
    August 3, 2016 | Foreign Policy In Focus

    Trump's foreign policy isn't an alternative to U.S. empire. It's just a cruder rendition of it. ;

    Donald Trump may be a bigot and a bully, but it's hard not to applaud when he pisses off the stuff shirts at the Washington Post.

    Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has staked out a foreign policy position quite distinct from his opponent, Hillary Clinton. It is not, however, "isolationist" (contra Jeb Bush and many others) or "less aggressively militaristic" (economist Mark Weisbrot in The Hill ) or "a jolt of realpolitik " (journalist Simon Jenkins in The Guardian ).

    With all due respect to these sources, they're all wrong. Ditto John Pilger's claim that Clinton represents the greater threat to the world, John Walsh's argument that Trump is "the relative peace candidate," and Justin Raimondo's assertion that if Trump wins then "the military-industrial complex is finished, along with the globalists who dominate foreign policy circles in Washington."

    ...His comments on foreign policy have frequently been incoherent, inconsistent, and just plain ignorant. He hasn't exactly rolled out a detailed blueprint of what he would do to the world if elected (though that old David Levine cartoon of Henry Kissinger beneath the sheets comes to mind)...

    However, over the last year Trump has said enough to pull together a pretty good picture of what he'd do if suddenly in a position of nearly unchecked power (thanks to the expansion of executive authority under both Bush and Obama). President Trump would offer an updated version of Teddy Roosevelt's old dictum: speak loudly and carry the biggest stick possible.

    It's not an alternative to U.S. empire - just a cruder rendition of it.

    The Enemy of My Enemy

    Both liberals and conservatives in the United States, as I've written , have embraced economic policies that have left tens of millions of working people in desperate straits. The desperation of the "left behind" faction is so acute, in fact, that many of its members are willing to ignore Donald Trump's obvious disqualifications - his personal wealth, his disdain for "losers," his support of tax cuts for the rich - in order to back the Republican candidate and stick it to the elite.

    A similar story prevails in the foreign policy realm. On the left, the frustration with Obama's foreign policy - the continuation of wars, the expansion of drone attacks, the failure to reduce nuclear weapons - has prompted some to piece through Donald Trump's sayings in a desperate search for something, anything, that could possibly represent an alternative. ... ... ...

    Examined more carefully, his positions on war and peace, alliance systems, and human rights break no new ground. He is old white whine in a new, cracked bottle.

    Trump on War

    ... ... ...

    True, Trump has criticized the neoconservative espousal of the use of military force to promote democracy and build states. But that doesn't mean he has backed off from the use of military force in general. Trump has pledged to use the military "if there's a problem going on in the world and you can solve the problem," a rather open-ended approach to the deployment of U.S. forces. He agreed, for instance, that the Clinton administration was right to intervene in the Balkans to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

    In terms of current conflicts, Trump has promised to "knock the hell out of ISIS" with airpower and 20,000-30,000 U.S. troops on the ground. He even reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against the would-be caliphate. By suggesting to allies and adversaries alike that he is possibly unhinged, Trump has resurrected one of the most terrifying presidential strategies of all time, Richard Nixon's "madman" approach to bombing North Vietnam.

    ... ... ...

    ... Trump holds out the possibility of a war with China . He'd keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan . Back in 2011, he channeled his inner Malcolm X in promising war with Iran: "Iran's nuclear program must be stopped - by any and all means necessary." He would expand the use of military drones in overseas conflicts, as he said in an interview with a Syracuse newspaper in April - which makes Simon Jenkins's claim that "at least President Trump would ground the drones" particularly mystifying. Trump has also promised to use unarmed drones to patrol the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico.

    This is not isolationism. It's not even discriminate deterrence. As in the business world, Trump believes in full-spectrum dominance in global affairs. As Zack Beauchamp points out in Vox , Trump is an ardent believer in colonial wars of conquest to seize oil fields and pipelines.

    About the only place in the world that Trump has apparently ruled out war is with Russia. Yes, it's a good thing that he's against the new cold war that has descended on U.S.-Russian relations...

    ... ... ...

    Trump on Alliances

    Trump has made few friends in Washington with his criticisms of veterans and their families and his "joke" encouraging Russia to release any emails from Hillary Clinton's account that it might have acquired in its hacking. Yet it's Trump's statements about NATO that have most unsettled the U.S. foreign policy elite.

    In an interview with The New York Times , Trump said:

    If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting other countries, and in many cases the countries I'm talking about are extremely rich. Then if we cannot make a deal, which I believe we will be able to, and which I would prefer being able to, but if we cannot make a deal…. I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, "Congratulations, you will be defending yourself.

    ... ... ...

    Again, I doubt Trump actually believes in abandoning NATO. Rather, he believes that threats enhance one's bargaining position. In the Trump worldview, there are no allies. There are only competitors from whom one extracts concessions.

    Some Trump enthusiasts have quietly celebrated the candidate's more hard-headed approach to Israel. Justin Raimondo, for instance, has praised Trump's understanding of the conflict as a real-estate dispute that requires a more even-handed mediation. But Trump, in his speech before the American Israel Political Action Committee, lambasted the Obama administration for "pressuring our friends and rewarding our enemies." He then said :

    We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem. And we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel. The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable.

    Ultimately President Trump would extend the same reassurances to other allies once he is briefed on exactly how much they contribute to maintaining U.S. hegemony in the world.

    Trump on Pentagon Spending

    Critics like Jean Bricmont rave about Trump's willingness to take on the U.S. military-industrial complex: "He not only denounces the trillions of dollars spent in wars, deplores the dead and wounded American soldiers, but also speaks of the Iraqi victims of a war launched by a Republican president."

    But Donald Trump, as president, would be the military-industrial complex's best friend. He has stated on numerous occasions his intention to "rebuild" the U.S. military: "We're going to make our military so big, so strong and so great, so powerful that we're never going to have to use it."

    More recently, in an interview with conservative columnist Cal Thomas , he said, "Our military has been so badly depleted. Who would think the United States is raiding plane graveyards to pick up parts and equipment? That means they're being held together by a shoestring. Other countries have brand-new stuff they have bought from us." That the United States already has the most powerful military in the world by every conceivable measure seems to have escaped Trump. And our allies never get any military hardware that U.S. forces don't already have.

    Well, perhaps Trump will somehow strengthen the U.S. military by cutting waste and investing that money more effectively. But Trump has promised to increase general military spending as well as the resources devoted to fighting the Islamic State. It's part of an overall incoherent plan that includes large tax cuts and a promise to balance the budget.

    An Exceptional Ruler

    Let me be clear: Hillary Clinton has traditionally adopted foreign policy positions to the right of Barack Obama. As president, she will likely tack in a more hawkish direction.

    ... ... ...

    John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Clintons campaign has such strong persuasion going right now that she is successfully equating her actual misdeeds of the past with Trumps imaginary mental issues and imaginary future misdeeds

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton's campaign has such strong persuasion going right now that she is successfully equating her actual misdeeds of the past with Trump's imaginary mental issues and imaginary future misdeeds ..."
    naked capitalism

    UPDATE "Clinton's campaign has such strong persuasion going right now that she is successfully equating her actual misdeeds of the past with Trump's imaginary mental issues and imaginary future misdeeds" [ Scott Adams ].

    This is a Rovian strategy: Assault the enemy's strength. You've got to admire the effrontery: The candidate who didn't raise a voice against the Iraq War and tipped the administration in favor of war with Libya (which we're now bombing again) paints their opponent as a lunatic warmonger.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Clinton set to seize national security issue from GOP as endorsements roll in

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's entertaining to watch the MSM take a non-story and turn it into a Clinton ad. There are likely hundreds of retired admirals and generals in America. By the law of averages about 50% of those will be democratic voters and hence will support Clinton. It is probable that an equal number of retired generals and admirals will support Trump. ..."
    "... The world needed the Soviets to raise the hammer and sickle over the Reichstag and the world will need Russia's help to defeat ISIS. ..."
    "... She is a neocon, and has been supported by the neocons all along. She also 'seized' Republican neoliberal economic policy, like her husband did, and supports 'free trade' and will pass the TPP coming up and all of Wall st and most corporate America is 'with her'. She gets more money than all the Reps combined from Wall st and most corporate special interests. And now that it's Trump, and not a 'moderate' corporate Republican like Bush, Kasich or Rubio, or Walker, they are all with her. ..."
    "... So the Democrats under Hillary have officially become 'moderate' Wall st. neocon Kasich, Bush, Rubio Republicans on the really big things, issues like Wall st., trade, war and foreign policy and big money and corruption in politics, issues that determine everything else. ..."
    "... So who needs Republicans? And the 'Democratic' voters just go along and cheer for it, so all that opposition to Bush and all the wars and 'regime change', the money in politics, the Wall st crash and criminal activity, etc that was all just for show, they didn't really care, they just wanted their 'team' in power, and the first woman on their team. Just like Republicans. ..."
    "... National Security" also means full specturm bullying and ass-kicking and nation-destroying around the world in order to seize resources (including any gold bullion lying around) and "privatize" national economies. ..."
    "... "The people of the Middle East, Haiti, Honduras, and many other countries know better, having been on the other side of Clinton's "experience." ..."
    "... "In reality, as Secretary of State and U.S. Senator, Clinton served as a cutthroat operator for U.S. imperialist interests, becoming a favorite among military contractors, energy companies, war hawks and even neoconservative strategists from the Bush administration." https://www.liberationnews.org/clinton-imperialist-not-feminist/ ..."
    "... Whilst they were previously the devil, generals and spooks are now beloved public figures for the democratic establishment. ..."
    "... Reminds me of Huey Long. Summed it up perfectly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLyfrb15v-Q ..."
    "... Nope, not jail, but they would not be allowed to work for the government again, could not get a security clearance again, and yet Hillary is now running to be the boss of all government. ..."
    "... If a lower level state dept. employee like an attaché or ambassador did all that HIllary did - from private server and private email for work, sending classified info (whether at the time or later, and she did both) and using her mail and server in 'hackable' open hostile foreign place like China, which is what she did - so if they did not even half of that, a smidgen, they could not work in government again, and they would get probation at least, like a Petraeus. ..."
    "... And other 'small fish' who unintentionally did not even half of what she did, or Petraeus, they got probation and even went to jail a little bit I think, but definitely probation, and lost their security clearance. But Hillary gets to be president. ..."
    "... Agreed. When you see the National Security establishment swinging into her camp, which already contains the banking-financial establishment, the defence and weapons-manufacturing establishment.... How many more clues to people need? ..."
    "... This is not a laughing matter, please watch the CNN interview with Professor Stephen Cohen. The MSM is not reporting the war that is brewing with Russia! The size of Trumps' hands are more newsworthy..... ..."
    "... The national security candidate is always a vote for war. ..."
    "... "Ukraine - once part of the Soviet Union - has become a CIA theme park. Having orchestrated a coup in Kiev, Washington effectively controls a regime that is next door and hostile to Russia: a regime rotten with Nazis, literally. Prominent parliamentary figures in Ukraine are the political descendants of the notorious OUN and UPA fascists. They openly praise Hitler and call for the persecution and expulsion of the Russian speaking minority." A World War Has Begun: Break the Silence by John Pilger ..."
    "... An article about Clinton being the 'national security' president that doesn't mention one thing about her national security positions. Well done! ..."
    "... Well she does keep some things secure =) ..."
    "... The level of media control is halfway to war level. Let's say it's at a pre-war level. There is a tiny and diminishing space for views contrary to the interests of banks and weapons manufacturers (who were key causes of WW1 and WW2 - Edwin Black, Antony Sutton). How else to account for the uniformity, the single message, repeated endlessly like a drum beat for weaponising, militarising, intervening, surrounding and encamping? ..."
    "... Get money out of politics too. corporations are not people, money is not speech, it's gotten to the point where if you are not a high earner , your positions have little effect on policy, and has practically zero effect when it opposes big money. ..."
    "... The media has a large part in this , the coverage of presidential candidates was vastly unequal, it has become solely motivated by profit, of course constantly covering Trump's every blunders and rants, egging him on and treating the election like a reality tv show is going to affect the outcome. I don't even know where to begin with FOX News, they've been encouraging and spreading this kind of ideology for decades now. ..."
    "... There is no moral compass in most of establishment politicians that are puppets for multinational corporations, Wall Street, etc. There is no turn off switch in their DNA. Enough is never enough. They would have 300 million Americans forced into poverty if it gave them more money. The only way is to vote them out of Washinton. ..."
    "... When Clinton wins, just change the name of the country to USSA: United Security States of America. I guess a lot of people will like that anyway. ..."
    "... Unfortunately America is already the most state controlled nation on earth - and the Constitution is used to cover-up the prisonhouse of free thinking. Poverty is used to make the population obedient. ..."
    "... Wrong on Iraq, calamity on Libya, part of the problem in Syria, and saved from her self on Ukraine. Way too close, with dubious connections to the pernicious Gulf States. ..."
    "... Trump is terrifying because he is impulsive, ill-informed & a rampant ego. And the savior is one who is calm, calculating, well briefed, but has a history of misjudgements & disasters that makes you wish, in the words of the war criminal Kissinger on Iran-Iraq war: 'A pity they both can't lose' ..."
    "... This election is like choosing death by fire or death by drowning for most Americans. ..."
    "... Clinton continues to espouse the horribly failed philosophy of American intervention, which is, in fact, a philosophy of perpetual war. The American people must reject the political/media orthodoxy that has resulted in decades of deception and manipulation. Read "Ross Rambles: Don't sit this one out." ..."
    "... Pretty much the same thing happened during the primary. There were a bunch of high ranking military and intelligence officials who said they preferred Hillary to Bernie as well. The problem with that is that many of us consider that an indictment. These are the people who invaded two countries and bombed five more to fight terrorism, and fifteen years later terrorism is worse than it ever was. These days we long for the simpler times of Al Qaida and Hezbollah and Hamas. Forgive me thinking these people should keep their electoral advice to themselves. They've conclusively proven that they've got no f*cking clue what they're doing in the middle east. ..."
    "... Warmongers always want more war. That is a given. Warmongers only care about war, not about the American people or their safety. That seems right. So if the warmongers don't want Trump, it can't be because he is going to make to much war for them. There can never be enough ware for the warmongers. They must dislike Trump for another reason. Maybe they can't control him. That is why they don't want him. ..."
    "... Conversely, the warmongers want Hillary. Based on the above reasoning. Hillary is no threat to the warmongers. A vote for Hillary is a vote for war. ..."
    "... As a side note, it's pretty telling how much media attention Khizir Khan has received since the convention compared to the families involved in the Benghazi attack. I'm no fan of Trump, but this election has laid bare the degree to which the media establishment is willing to shield Clinton from the same kind of standards and criticism that are laid against a more explicitly transgressive candidate like Trump. There is clearly an establishment bias. ..."
    "... What's more, even as Morell touts his three decades of non-partisan service to his country and his (heretofore private) bi-partisan voting record, he fails to disclose that he left the CIA in 2013 to join Beacon Global Strategies, a consulting firm founded by longtime Clinton aide and ally Philippe Reines. ..."
    "... Yup, the military/Washington/Wall Street revolving door. And these establishment clowns wonder why much of the electorate is pissed off. ..."
    "... Military supports war hawk. Shocking. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0 ..."
    "... Clinton supported the policy objectives of the military high command right down the line, even when those policies turned out in hindsight to have been terrible mistakes. Why wouldn't they support her? Obama, who did not turn out to be the shining light on foreign policy that some of us had hoped he would be, at least had the backbone to stand up to the generals and say "No!" occasionally ..."
    "... Say NO to the military-industrial complex. Say NO to Trump AND Clinton. !!! JILL STEIN 2016 !!! ..."
    "... She's a trustworthy servant of the Establishment, the criminal and the profligate MIC. No wonder they love her. ..."
    "... I'm really not interested in an article about endorsements from military commanders that are so far up the ladder, they're basically politicians. Where's the article about the opinions from the Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, or Air Force pilots that are the ones doing dangerous missions in Syria and Libya? Do they really want to give their lives for a piece of desert? My guess is no. ..."
    "... So national security officials, including the former CIA director, have endorsed the former Secretary of State with whom they collaborated since at least 2008 in overthrowing Ghaddafi, supporting opposition fundamentislists in Syria, attacking wistleblowers, etc. HUGE surprise there, the establishment supports itself! Shocking. ..."
    "... So basically what is happening is the Democrats are going all in on neo liberal foreign policy? They do realize how illegal, immoral, costly, and most importantly...impossible it is right? We've tried it for almost 6 decades now. ..."
    "... Is this really something the Democrat's should be proud of? Who really runs the country, obviously the Pentagon, CIA and DoD. More wars abroad equal less prosperity at home. ..."
    "... American Exceptionalism. Does global domination count as being exceptional or does feeding the hungry in your neighborhood count, because we can't afford both. ..."
    "... True enough. Your point is well taken. We do need to get over ourselves as a global dominating power with our double standards. I do believe that shift is inevitable. No matter who is elected president, the illusion of global dominance is not sustainable. ..."
    "... You'd think that with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, an army with outposts across the globe, a public relations office that can swat away a few accusations of torture by prosecuting a few enlisted soldiers, an ability to control (or kill) journalists who don't fully conform to the narrative, an industry funded by hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars per year, a political institution that claims the right to arbitrarily arrest and detain -- or summarily execute -- anyone any time anywhere on the face of the earth ... ..."
    "... the country needs a complete change in direction.. Trump is that change.. The Clinton's I suspect are the establishment and it appears that they are only in it for the money.. Vote Trump Make America Great Again for ALL.. not just the Clinton elites ..."
    "... Shocker: Bloodthirsty warmongers endorse Hillary. ..."
    "... Neoconservative Republican hawks are flocking to Hillary, knowing she will keep the expanding, never-ending wars expanding and never-ending, yet the Democratic loyalists are possessed of such cognitive dissonance that they still think she's a stalwart liberal who'll implement sane policies. ..."
    "... And largely responsible for what Obama has called the biggest mistake of his presidency - removing Ghadaffi from power in Libya. Any other fabulous accomplishments during her tenure? Syria? Honduras? ..."
    "... Since the MSM isn't doing journalism anymore. http://www.dailywire.com/news/7960/wikileaks-hacked-emails-include-hillary-arming-james-barrett ..."
    "... It seems that the country is going to end up with the liar dynasty continuing. Why can we not have honest, decent candidates? A real debate needs to start as to how it can be that the only people who end up as candidates are so unutterably awful. ..."
    "... Scary Hillary has the endorsement of the cia. Both teamed together brought us Libya, Syria, Honderas. I can only think more illegal wars and mass refugee crisis to come if she is president when we need to focus on our economy. ..."
    "... Destroying Libya, Syria and Ukraine were definitely not in our security interests, unless you mean a few oligarchs' financial security interests that is.. ..."
    "... Considering the Maidan protests started in November 2013, about a year after Hillary stopped being secretary of state, I don't think it's reasonable to blame her for the Ukraine situation. ..."
    "... Well, thanks in a great part to Hillary, US national and global security has been worsened with decisions made on Libya, Syria, supporting Saudi Arabia and Egypt with weapons/training and $. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Aug 05, 2016 |

    TheMediaSux 8m ago

    It's entertaining to watch the MSM take a non-story and turn it into a Clinton ad. There are likely hundreds of retired admirals and generals in America. By the law of averages about 50% of those will be democratic voters and hence will support Clinton. It is probable that an equal number of retired generals and admirals will support Trump.

    suddenoakdeath -> TheMediaSux , 2016-08-06 02:31:39
    Usually the military votes GOP.
    EnkiduBlueBalls , 2016-08-06 02:26:39
    Russia will be a superpower again. They're the only ones who stand up to US imperialism...Obama, Clinton or Trump...it doesn't matter for Putin. He's more intelligent than the latter two and Obama probably secretly knows this. While other nations are "too afraid to speak their minds" the Russians won't back down. The world needed the Soviets to raise the hammer and sickle over the Reichstag and the world will need Russia's help to defeat ISIS.
    MoneyCircus , 2016-08-06 02:17:32
    ... 'No More War'... 'No More War'... ...

    ... 'No, MORE War!'

    ... 'More War!'... "More War!'... 'War, War War!'... 'War, War War!'...

    MrBoolean , 2016-08-06 02:03:19
    Yay! Now they can be known for squandering taxpayer dollars at home and abroad!
    europeangrayling , 2016-08-06 02:00:00
    Well yeah, we knew that all along. She is a neocon, and has been supported by the neocons all along. She also 'seized' Republican neoliberal economic policy, like her husband did, and supports 'free trade' and will pass the TPP coming up and all of Wall st and most corporate America is 'with her'. She gets more money than all the Reps combined from Wall st and most corporate special interests. And now that it's Trump, and not a 'moderate' corporate Republican like Bush, Kasich or Rubio, or Walker, they are all with her.

    So the Democrats under Hillary have officially become 'moderate' Wall st. neocon Kasich, Bush, Rubio Republicans on the really big things, issues like Wall st., trade, war and foreign policy and big money and corruption in politics, issues that determine everything else.

    So who needs Republicans? And the 'Democratic' voters just go along and cheer for it, so all that opposition to Bush and all the wars and 'regime change', the money in politics, the Wall st crash and criminal activity, etc that was all just for show, they didn't really care, they just wanted their 'team' in power, and the first woman on their team. Just like Republicans.

    Falanx , 2016-08-06 01:56:32
    "National Security" means an ongoing national security state and attendant abrogations of constitutional rights, including due process prior to being deep sixed or supermaxed.

    "National Security" also means full specturm bullying and ass-kicking and nation-destroying around the world in order to seize resources (including any gold bullion lying around) and "privatize" national economies.

    I am so overjoyed the democrats are owning (up) to their guilt in the matter.

    Shill on! Shill on!

    MoneyCircus GusOsner , 2016-08-06 01:50:04
    "The Clinton campaign always points to her years of "foreign policy experience" as proof of her presidential qualifications. But what was that "experience" really? Was she a progressive defender of democracy who sometimes had to make "hard choices," as she claims?

    "The people of the Middle East, Haiti, Honduras, and many other countries know better, having been on the other side of Clinton's "experience."

    "In reality, as Secretary of State and U.S. Senator, Clinton served as a cutthroat operator for U.S. imperialist interests, becoming a favorite among military contractors, energy companies, war hawks and even neoconservative strategists from the Bush administration." https://www.liberationnews.org/clinton-imperialist-not-feminist/

    SenseCir , 2016-08-06 01:40:41
    Whilst they were previously the devil, generals and spooks are now beloved public figures for the democratic establishment. It really is just tribalism, with barely a difference between the GOP (sans Trump) and the democrats.
    MoneyCircus -> SenseCir , 2016-08-06 01:45:56
    It's the same interests. They could call it the Santa Claus Party. Wouldn't make a jot of difference. Couldn't slide a sheet of paper between the two 'parties'. But then along came Trump, unexpectedly, bombastically and grabbed the popular vote. Talk about a fly in the ointment.

    Reminds me of Huey Long. Summed it up perfectly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLyfrb15v-Q

    ID107896 , 2016-08-06 01:35:05
    5 in 6 weeks.

    1) Shawn Lucas, Sanders supporter who served papers to DNC on the Fraud Case (DOD August 2, 2016)

    2) Victor Thorn, Clinton author (and Holocaust denier, probably the least credible on this list) shot himself in an apparent suicide. Conspiracy theorists at Mystery Writers of America said some guys will do anything to sell books. (DOD August, 2016)

    3) Seth Conrad Rich, Democratic staffer, aged 27, apparently on his way to speak to the FBI about a case possibly involving the Clintons. The D.C. murder was not a robbery. (DOD July 8, 2016)

    4) John Ashe, UN official who allegedly crushed his own throat while lifting weights, because he watched too many James Bond films and wanted to try the move where the bad guy tries to…oh, never mind. "He was scheduled to testify against the Clintons and the Democrat Party." (DOD June 22, 2016)

    5) Mike Flynn, the Big Government Editor for Breitbart News. Mike Flynn's final article was published the day he died, "Clinton Cash: Bill, Hillary Created Their Own Chinese Foundation in 2014." (DOD June 23, 2016)

    PostTrotskyite ID107896 , 2016-08-06 01:39:56
    Conspiracy theories #198, 199, 200, 201 and 202.
    Juillette -> ID107896 , 2016-08-06 01:43:51
    Wow
    BG Davis , 2016-08-06 01:32:46
    "if anyone [in uniform] did with Clinton's emails what she did that they'd wind up in jail." Not surprising that this grossly inaccurate comment comes from the GOP.
    No, Kory, they would not end up in jail. Let's look at what actually happens with the miliary:
    • General David Petraeus was actively sharing information he knew was classified with an individual with whom he was having a personal relationship. No jail.
    • Major Jason Brezler was forced out of the Marines for using his private email account to send a warning to fellow Marines about an Afghan Police Chief Sarwar Jan's alleged links to the Taliban. No jail.

    Sorry, just more tired GOP BS.

    europeangrayling -> BG Davis , 2016-08-06 01:44:09
    Nope, not jail, but they would not be allowed to work for the government again, could not get a security clearance again, and yet Hillary is now running to be the boss of all government.

    If a lower level state dept. employee like an attaché or ambassador did all that HIllary did - from private server and private email for work, sending classified info (whether at the time or later, and she did both) and using her mail and server in 'hackable' open hostile foreign place like China, which is what she did - so if they did not even half of that, a smidgen, they could not work in government again, and they would get probation at least, like a Petraeus.

    And other 'small fish' who unintentionally did not even half of what she did, or Petraeus, they got probation and even went to jail a little bit I think, but definitely probation, and lost their security clearance. But Hillary gets to be president.

    SgtEmileKlinger , 2016-08-06 01:28:02
    And to think that some people find comfort in knowing that Hillary has the backing of the Pentagon and Wall Street.
    MoneyCircus -> Henrychan , 2016-08-06 01:29:16
    Agreed. When you see the National Security establishment swinging into her camp, which already contains the banking-financial establishment, the defence and weapons-manufacturing establishment.... How many more clues to people need?

    She could be running for the Santa Claus party - it doesn't matter. The interests that she represents would be the same.

    Henrychan -> PostTrotskyite , 2016-08-06 02:32:36
    This is not a laughing matter, please watch the CNN interview with Professor Stephen Cohen. The MSM is not reporting the war that is brewing with Russia! The size of Trumps' hands are more newsworthy.....
    trevorgoodchild2 , 2016-08-06 01:03:15
    The national security candidate is always a vote for war.
    MoneyCircus -> trevorgoodchild2 , 2016-08-06 01:33:10
    War is planned. Make no mistake.

    "The Obama administration has built more nuclear weapons, more nuclear warheads, more nuclear delivery systems, more nuclear factories. Nuclear warhead spending alone rose higher under Obama than under any American president. The cost over thirty years is more than $1 trillion.

    "A mini nuclear bomb is planned. It is known as the B61 Model 12. There has never been anything like it. General James Cartwright, a former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, "Going smaller [makes using this nuclear] weapon more thinkable."

    "In the last 18 months, the greatest build-up of military forces since World War Two - led by the United States - is taking place along Russia's western frontier. Not since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union have foreign troops presented such a demonstrable threat to Russia.

    "Ukraine - once part of the Soviet Union - has become a CIA theme park. Having orchestrated a coup in Kiev, Washington effectively controls a regime that is next door and hostile to Russia: a regime rotten with Nazis, literally. Prominent parliamentary figures in Ukraine are the political descendants of the notorious OUN and UPA fascists. They openly praise Hitler and call for the persecution and expulsion of the Russian speaking minority." A World War Has Begun: Break the Silence by John Pilger

    babymamaboy , 2016-08-06 00:59:47
    An article about Clinton being the 'national security' president that doesn't mention one thing about her national security positions. Well done!
    ID107896 -> babymamaboy , 2016-08-06 01:25:09
    Well she does keep some things secure =)
    MoneyCircus -> babymamaboy , 2016-08-06 01:40:56
    The level of media control is halfway to war level. Let's say it's at a pre-war level. There is a tiny and diminishing space for views contrary to the interests of banks and weapons manufacturers (who were key causes of WW1 and WW2 - Edwin Black, Antony Sutton). How else to account for the uniformity, the single message, repeated endlessly like a drum beat for weaponising, militarising, intervening, surrounding and encamping?
    Liamj91 , 2016-08-06 00:46:04
    Surely this election has to be a wake up call for American democracy. You can only write off so many likely Trump voters as stupid racists, there simply aren't enough for that. some are just desperate. It's become so corrupt that people are willing to vote for anything that might change it. Perhaps it's time to look at reforming the whole process in a way that allows other parties a better chance so people don't have to vote for something rather than voting against the other guy or out of fear.

    Get money out of politics too. corporations are not people, money is not speech, it's gotten to the point where if you are not a high earner , your positions have little effect on policy, and has practically zero effect when it opposes big money.

    The media has a large part in this , the coverage of presidential candidates was vastly unequal, it has become solely motivated by profit, of course constantly covering Trump's every blunders and rants, egging him on and treating the election like a reality tv show is going to affect the outcome. I don't even know where to begin with FOX News, they've been encouraging and spreading this kind of ideology for decades now.

    The Republican party needs a major overhaul, it's become a corporate special interest group/ religious extremist/wing of the NRA. It hasn't been all that different to Trump in a long time, he just doesn't bother to dress it up in any way and blurts it all out. Instead of pandering to the far right, gerrymandering and steamrolling with corporate money and then going on to be obstructionist, science denying fools, why not go back to being a traditional, moderate conservative party? Would it really be that much of a vote loser? With any luck the democratic party should be moving to the left now anyway, now is the time to climb back up the cliff.

    Lots of things are to be blamed for potentially inflicting Trump on the U.S and the world and they should be held to account. But they won't, nobody will learn a thing from any of this.

    Juillette -> Liamj91 , 2016-08-06 01:05:34
    There is no moral compass in most of establishment politicians that are puppets for multinational corporations, Wall Street, etc. There is no turn off switch in their DNA. Enough is never enough. They would have 300 million Americans forced into poverty if it gave them more money. The only way is to vote them out of Washinton.
    catch18 , 2016-08-05 23:00:38
    I Ran the CIA Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton.

    By MICHAEL J. MORELL

    During a 33-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, I served presidents of both parties - three Republicans and three Democrats. I was at President George W. Bush's side when we were attacked on Sept. 11; as deputy director of the agency, I was with President Obama when we killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.

    I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican. In my 40 years of voting, I have pulled the lever for candidates of both parties. As a government official, I have always been silent about my preference for president.

    No longer. On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president.

    Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president - keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/campaign-stops/i-ran-the-cia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

    PrinceVlad -> catch18 , 2016-08-05 23:05:34
    Vote for the Washington Establishment Party!
    r3vengepizza , 2016-08-05 22:56:06
    RIP Shawn Lucas: http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/04/dnc-lawsuit-process-server-shawn-lucas-has-died /
    funnynought , 2016-08-05 22:49:41
    When Clinton wins, just change the name of the country to USSA: United Security States of America. I guess a lot of people will like that anyway.
    euronmaker -> funnynought , 2016-08-05 22:56:15
    Unfortunately America is already the most state controlled nation on earth - and the Constitution is used to cover-up the prisonhouse of free thinking. Poverty is used to make the population obedient.
    Mercurey , 2016-08-05 22:38:54
    The US presidential election is turning in to an even more depressing version of Sophie's Choice. On the one side we have a buffoon of a character that is so absurd & erratic it is hard to believe he has come this far. On the other, a candidate who is lauded as experienced largely on account of mere longevity.

    Wrong on Iraq, calamity on Libya, part of the problem in Syria, and saved from her self on Ukraine. Way too close, with dubious connections to the pernicious Gulf States.

    Trump is terrifying because he is impulsive, ill-informed & a rampant ego. And the savior is one who is calm, calculating, well briefed, but has a history of misjudgements & disasters that makes you wish, in the words of the war criminal Kissinger on Iran-Iraq war: 'A pity they both can't lose'

    aul Moore -> Mercurey , 2016-08-06 01:04:04
    This election is like choosing death by fire or death by drowning for most Americans.
    Ken Ross , 2016-08-05 22:34:18
    Clinton continues to espouse the horribly failed philosophy of American intervention, which is, in fact, a philosophy of perpetual war. The American people must reject the political/media orthodoxy that has resulted in decades of deception and manipulation. Read "Ross Rambles: Don't sit this one out."
    neuronmaker -> Ken Ross , 2016-08-05 23:20:03
    The American military complex is involved in virtually everything around the globe, from condoms to literacy, cultural studies to constitutional law - they are involved in everything.
    Oldiebutgoodie -> neuronmaker , 2016-08-05 23:32:12
    true they got their defense budget passed
    http://thehill.com/policy/finance/244715-house-passes-2016-defense-spending-bill
    MooseMcNaulty , 2016-08-05 22:09:46
    Pretty much the same thing happened during the primary. There were a bunch of high ranking military and intelligence officials who said they preferred Hillary to Bernie as well. The problem with that is that many of us consider that an indictment. These are the people who invaded two countries and bombed five more to fight terrorism, and fifteen years later terrorism is worse than it ever was. These days we long for the simpler times of Al Qaida and Hezbollah and Hamas. Forgive me thinking these people should keep their electoral advice to themselves. They've conclusively proven that they've got no f*cking clue what they're doing in the middle east.
    rocjoc43rd , 2016-08-05 21:52:59
    Just thinking some more about this.....

    Warmongers always want more war. That is a given. Warmongers only care about war, not about the American people or their safety. That seems right. So if the warmongers don't want Trump, it can't be because he is going to make to much war for them. There can never be enough ware for the warmongers. They must dislike Trump for another reason. Maybe they can't control him. That is why they don't want him.

    Conversely, the warmongers want Hillary. Based on the above reasoning. Hillary is no threat to the warmongers. A vote for Hillary is a vote for war.

    JVRTRL , 2016-08-05 21:44:25
    As a side note, it's pretty telling how much media attention Khizir Khan has received since the convention compared to the families involved in the Benghazi attack. I'm no fan of Trump, but this election has laid bare the degree to which the media establishment is willing to shield Clinton from the same kind of standards and criticism that are laid against a more explicitly transgressive candidate like Trump. There is clearly an establishment bias.
    Aspadana , 2016-08-05 21:41:42
    Truly disconcerting ...

    http://gawker.com/i-ran-the-c-i-a-now-i-work-for-a-longtime-clinton-ally-1784871887?rev=1470408198358&utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

    What's more, even as Morell touts his three decades of non-partisan service to his country and his (heretofore private) bi-partisan voting record, he fails to disclose that he left the CIA in 2013 to join Beacon Global Strategies, a consulting firm founded by longtime Clinton aide and ally Philippe Reines.

    PrinceVlad -> Aspadana , 2016-08-05 22:09:10
    Yup, the military/Washington/Wall Street revolving door. And these establishment clowns wonder why much of the electorate is pissed off.
    shepdavis , 2016-08-05 21:39:29
    well, that's it...the NSA will just email in the election returns...

    For their girl. Funny, she no longer angry about their "fooling" her on WMD, eh? (she never was, she knew it was all about regime change...open season again come January...)

    Hacking voting machines is like bumping the candy machine for free Doritos, everyone knows that.

    I was listening to Science Friday on NPR with two experts today, and they explained that there already exists a good system that leaves a paper ballot... but you still have to have cause, and $$$, to check them.

    The only secure system gives each voter a "receipt" listing 1) the ballot # used & 2) the selection made for each choice on the ballot. Then the actual count must be published, put up in print out on the polling place wall, so any voter can match what the list shows as choices for given ballot # and your receipt...

    if they don't match...vote fraud, by whoever controlled the machine.

    (and an aside, since there would be an error rate, the differentials on each choice section could be compared against the "white noise" of system error, a neat check on reliability.)

    brianBT , 2016-08-05 21:38:05
    With Clinton's promise to follow Obama's policies, and the announcement that they wish to increase the number of Syrian refuges by 500%, combined with the Libya fiasco, and her position on the Gulf and Iraq wars.. I t just seems like she cant make up her mind, fight them or make friends.. you cant have a president in two minds like this..
    Cirilo77 , 2016-08-05 21:37:18
    Military supports war hawk. Shocking. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0
    tonygh , 2016-08-05 21:33:12
    Clinton supported the policy objectives of the military high command right down the line, even when those policies turned out in hindsight to have been terrible mistakes. Why wouldn't they support her? Obama, who did not turn out to be the shining light on foreign policy that some of us had hoped he would be, at least had the backbone to stand up to the generals and say "No!" occasionally. Clinton never faced that choice, because she never disagreed with them. I'd certainly rather have Clinton making military decisions than Trump, but it's one of the least reassuring aspects of having her as the next president.
    svann21 , 2016-08-05 21:32:32
    Brent Scowcroft endorses Hillary

    Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to Presidents George H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford, and who worked in the White House of Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, said Clinton "brings truly unique experience and perspective to the White House."

    "She brings deep expertise in international affairs and a sophisticated understanding of the world, which I believe are essential for the commander-in-chief," Scowcroft said.

    "I believe Hillary Clinton has the wisdom and experience to lead our country at this critical time," Scowcroft said.

    TheBorderGuard , 2016-08-05 21:22:41
    Say NO to the military-industrial complex. Say NO to Trump AND Clinton. !!! JILL STEIN 2016 !!!
    CarlnMuel TheBorderGuard , 2016-08-05 21:42:13
    I applaud you for looking beyond the expected party options. Usually i would do the same. but this year, this time, Trump cannot win. And while it makes me heart and brain hurt, i urge everyone to vote for Hillary.

    "Spits on floor".

    PS. if i thought Jill Stein had a chance to win i'd vote. Trust me. But this is america and closing ones eyes to the reality that the two party systems OWNS the media, the churches, the veteran network, the unions and every other group that mobilizes to vote is naive.

    CivilDiscussion , 2016-08-05 21:22:00
    She's a trustworthy servant of the Establishment, the criminal and the profligate MIC. No wonder they love her.
    LittleRick , 2016-08-05 21:21:57
    I'm really not interested in an article about endorsements from military commanders that are so far up the ladder, they're basically politicians. Where's the article about the opinions from the Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, or Air Force pilots that are the ones doing dangerous missions in Syria and Libya? Do they really want to give their lives for a piece of desert? My guess is no.

    Either way, Both Ivanka and Chelsea are eligible to enlist in the military if Trump or Clinton want to show how much they "understand" their constituents. But they'll both stay at their six figure jobs anyway....

    Camacho for President 2016

    Cirilo77 , 2016-08-05 21:04:49
    So national security officials, including the former CIA director, have endorsed the former Secretary of State with whom they collaborated since at least 2008 in overthrowing Ghaddafi, supporting opposition fundamentislists in Syria, attacking wistleblowers, etc. HUGE surprise there, the establishment supports itself! Shocking. The machine vs. the idiot, what a great choice we have...
    goto100 , 2016-08-05 20:58:52
    Yay! Victory for the neocon establishment around Hillary Clinton! Yay! Wars! Yay! This is good for humanity (excluding brown people, who will be droned frequently).
    outkast1213 , 2016-08-05 20:58:19
    So basically what is happening is the Democrats are going all in on neo liberal foreign policy? They do realize how illegal, immoral, costly, and most importantly...impossible it is right? We've tried it for almost 6 decades now. It has never worked and won't work because it contradicts human behavior. Maybe we can try promoting democracy and self determination for half a century and see if that works better. Certainly can't work worse.
    DogsLivesMatter , 2016-08-05 20:57:33
    Is this really something the Democrat's should be proud of? Who really runs the country, obviously the Pentagon, CIA and DoD. More wars abroad equal less prosperity at home.
    Indie60 , 2016-08-05 20:42:41
    American Exceptionalism. Does global domination count as being exceptional or does feeding the hungry in your neighborhood count, because we can't afford both.
    meggo56 -> Indie60 , 2016-08-05 21:03:49
    True enough. Your point is well taken. We do need to get over ourselves as a global dominating power with our double standards. I do believe that shift is inevitable. No matter who is elected president, the illusion of global dominance is not sustainable.
    MiltonWiltmellow , 2016-08-05 19:54:52
    You'd think that with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, an army with outposts across the globe, a public relations office that can swat away a few accusations of torture by prosecuting a few enlisted soldiers, an ability to control (or kill) journalists who don't fully conform to the narrative, an industry funded by hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars per year, a political institution that claims the right to arbitrarily arrest and detain -- or summarily execute -- anyone any time anywhere on the face of the earth ...

    ... whew ...

    anyway, you'd think this organization wouldn't need MORE security.

    ... more defense.

    ... more political support.

    ... more money,

    ... more weapons

    ... et cetera.

    You'd think that but you'd be wrong. Sure, there's a huge black hole at the center of the galaxy that swallows all matter approaching it. Here on earth, we have a similar all-consuming black hole. We call it "the Pentagon."

    brianBT , 2016-08-05 19:48:19
    the country needs a complete change in direction.. Trump is that change.. The Clinton's I suspect are the establishment and it appears that they are only in it for the money.. Vote Trump Make America Great Again for ALL.. not just the Clinton elites
    PolydentateBrigand , 2016-08-05 19:41:25
    Shocker: Bloodthirsty warmongers endorse Hillary.
    TheBaffler , 2016-08-05 19:29:35
    Neoconservative Republican hawks are flocking to Hillary, knowing she will keep the expanding, never-ending wars expanding and never-ending, yet the Democratic loyalists are possessed of such cognitive dissonance that they still think she's a stalwart liberal who'll implement sane policies.
    J.K. Stevens -> TheBaffler , 2016-08-05 19:33:43
    She was Secretary of State for 4 years.
    EdHyde -> TheBaffler , 2016-08-05 19:37:18
    They have to protect their investments in the MIC.
    EdHyde -> J.K. Stevens , 2016-08-05 19:40:50
    And largely responsible for what Obama has called the biggest mistake of his presidency - removing Ghadaffi from power in Libya. Any other fabulous accomplishments during her tenure? Syria? Honduras?
    weiver , 2016-08-05 19:19:03
    Since the MSM isn't doing journalism anymore. http://www.dailywire.com/news/7960/wikileaks-hacked-emails-include-hillary-arming-james-barrett
    Obelisk1 , 2016-08-05 19:07:27
    This is a slow-motion disaster for the US. What a choice: lunatic Trump or pathological liar Clinton.

    It seems that the country is going to end up with the liar dynasty continuing. Why can we not have honest, decent candidates? A real debate needs to start as to how it can be that the only people who end up as candidates are so unutterably awful.

    Rogelio Hernandez Fitch , 2016-08-05 19:06:03
    538's latest forecast: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
    Juillette , 2016-08-05 18:52:00
    Scary Hillary has the endorsement of the cia. Both teamed together brought us Libya, Syria, Honderas. I can only think more illegal wars and mass refugee crisis to come if she is president when we need to focus on our economy.
    r3vengepizza , 2016-08-05 18:51:21
    Destroying Libya, Syria and Ukraine were definitely not in our security interests, unless you mean a few oligarchs' financial security interests that is..
    HedgehogsAreCute r3vengepizza , 2016-08-05 19:39:33
    Considering the Maidan protests started in November 2013, about a year after Hillary stopped being secretary of state, I don't think it's reasonable to blame her for the Ukraine situation.
    CantStumpTheTrump , 2016-08-05 18:49:04
    Stop the presses! Rotten establishment endorses itself!
    calderonparalapaz , 2016-08-05 18:45:30
    Well, thanks in a great part to Hillary, US national and global security has been worsened with decisions made on Libya, Syria, supporting Saudi Arabia and Egypt with weapons/training and $.

    Hillary didn't even learn the lessons of Iraq war! She made huge blunder in Libya and now ISIS took control, hence threat to US and global national security.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Cornered Neocons Trump's heresy on foreign policy has put Republican hawks in nightmare scenario - backing Hillary Clinton

    www.salon.com

    It's heresy in the GOP to question the neoconservative paradigm – just ask Rand Paul. It's assumed, as an article of faith, that America is the moral leader of the world; that we must not only defend our values across the world, we must also use force to remake it in our image. This is the thinking that gave us the Iraq War. It's the prism through which most of the GOP still views international politics. Trump – and Bernie Sanders – represents a departure from this paradigm.

    Although it's unlikely to happen, a Trump-Sanders general election would have been refreshing for at least one reason: it would have constituted a total rejection of neoconservatism.

    Most Americans understand, intuitively, that the differences between the major parties are often rhetorical, not substantive. That's not to say substantive differences don't exist – surely they do, especially on social issues. But the policies from administration to administration overlap more often than not, regardless of the party in charge. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Much of the stability is due to money and the structure of our system, which tends toward dynamic equilibrium. And there are limits to what the president can do on issues like the economy and health care.

    But one area in which the president does have enormous flexibility is foreign policy. Which is why, as Politico reported this week, the GOP's national security establishment is "bitterly digging in against" Trump. Indeed, more than any other wing of the Republican Party, the neoconservatives are terrified at the prospect of a Trump nomination.

    "Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former Bush official with neoconservative ties. Trump would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy." Another neocon, Max Boot, says he'd vote for Clinton over Trump: "She would be vastly preferable to Trump." Even Bill Kristol, the great champion of the Iraq War, a man who refuses to consider the hypothesis that he was wrong about anything, is threatening to recruit a third party candidate to derail Trump for similar reasons.

    Just this week, moreover, a group of conservative foreign policy intellectuals, several of whom are neocons, published an open letter stating that they're "united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency." They offer a host of reasons for their objections, but the bottom line is they don't trust Trump to continue America's current policy of policing the world on ethical grounds.

    Trump isn't constrained by the same ideological conventions as other candidates, and so he occasionally stumbles upon unpopular truths. His comments about the Iraq War are an obvious example. But even on an issue like the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Trump says what any reasonable observer should: we ought to maintain neutrality and work to solve the dispute with an eyes towards our national interest. Now, Trump couldn't explain the concept of "realism" to save his life, but this position is perfectly consistent with that tradition. And if Republicans weren't blinkered by religious fanaticism, they'd acknowledge it as well. The same is true of Trump's nebulous critiques of America's soft imperialism, which again are sacrilege in Republican politics.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Ex-Trump Manager Blows MASSIVE Hole in Khans' Story, Instantly Shuts Them Down

    conservativetribune.com

    Ex-Trump Manager Blows MASSIVE Hole in Khans' Story, Instantly Shuts Them Down

    Share on Facebook Share Tweet Email Print

    Advertisement - story continues below

    Earlier this week, GOP nominee Donald Trump was quick to respond to criticism by the parents of fallen U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, saying that their son wouldn't have died if he'd been commander-in-chief.

    Now, ex-Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is saying the exact something - but this time, it's in a panelist discussion on CNN, the Daily Beast reports.

    "If Donald Trump was the president, Captain Khan would be alive today because he never would have engaged in a war that didn't directly benefit this country. He's been very clear about that fact and said I don't support Iraq and I don't support Afghanistan," Lewandowski stated.

    Advertisement - story continues below

    Related Stories

    Then anchorman Chris Berman jumped in, rebutting that Trump supported the war - he cited a 2002 interview with Howard Stern in his defense.

    Instead of the Khan family being a political pawn of Hillary Clinton - who's using their child's death for political expediency - they should be praising Trump's anti-Islamic State group, anti-terror policies.

    Clinton is an enabler of unnecessary destruction , whereas Trump is laser-focused on targeting and taking out the people who will harm our society the most. The Khan's son was a freedom fighter of the first order - it's a shame that his own parents are standing on his grave, promoting a woman who couldn't care less about veterans or members of the United States' military.

    We must keep America first and always stand up to terrorism - even if it's not politically correct.

    H/T Fox Nation

    [Aug 04, 2016] Anti-Russian Hysteria, Rigged Primaries Americas Longest War Gets Longer

    Notable quotes:
    "... Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails. ..."
    "... Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons. ..."
    "... And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle Sam can deal with them. ..."
    "... I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry spectacle? ..."
    "... One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America, the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local Afghan opium-growing stooges. ..."
    "... But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force. Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies. ..."
    "... So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed to defeat the US military. ..."
    "... This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date – all of its borrowed money – and caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a war none of them understood. ..."
    "... No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan. ..."
    www.strategic-culture.org

    Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails.

    This was rich coming from the US that snoops into everyone's emails and phones across the globe. Remember German chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone being bugged by the US National Security Agency?

    Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

    Blaming Putin was a master-stroke of deflection. No more talk of Hillary's slush fund foundation or her status as a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street. All attention was focused on President Putin who has been outrageously demonized by the US media and politicians.

    Except for a small faux pas – a montage of warships shown at the end of the Democratic Convention is a blaze of jingoistic effusion embarrassingly turned out to be Russian warships!

    Probably another trick by the awful Putin who has come to replace Satan in the minds of many Americans.

    And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle Sam can deal with them.

    I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry spectacle?

    One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America, the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local Afghan opium-growing stooges.

    The saintly President Barack Obama repeatedly proclaimed the Afghan War over and staged phony troops withdrawals. He must have believed his generals who kept claiming they had just about defeated the resistance alliance, known as Taliban.

    But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force. Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies.

    So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed to defeat the US military.

    Look what happened to the Soviets after they admitted defeat in Afghanistan and pulled out. Why expose the US Empire to a similar geopolitical risk?

    With al-Qaida down to less than 50 members in Afghanistan, according to former US defense chief Leon Panetta, what was the ostensible reason for Washington to keep garrisoning Afghanistan? The shadowy ISIS is now being dredged up as the excuse to stay.

    This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date – all of its borrowed money – and caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a war none of them understood.

    No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan.

    EricMargolis.com

    [Aug 04, 2016] Anti-Russian Hysteria, Rigged Primaries Americas Longest War Gets Longer

    Notable quotes:
    "... Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails. ..."
    "... Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons. ..."
    "... And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle Sam can deal with them. ..."
    "... I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry spectacle? ..."
    "... One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America, the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local Afghan opium-growing stooges. ..."
    "... But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force. Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies. ..."
    "... So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed to defeat the US military. ..."
    "... This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date – all of its borrowed money – and caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a war none of them understood. ..."
    "... No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan. ..."
    www.strategic-culture.org

    Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails.

    This was rich coming from the US that snoops into everyone's emails and phones across the globe. Remember German chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone being bugged by the US National Security Agency?

    Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

    Blaming Putin was a master-stroke of deflection. No more talk of Hillary's slush fund foundation or her status as a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street. All attention was focused on President Putin who has been outrageously demonized by the US media and politicians.

    Except for a small faux pas – a montage of warships shown at the end of the Democratic Convention is a blaze of jingoistic effusion embarrassingly turned out to be Russian warships!

    Probably another trick by the awful Putin who has come to replace Satan in the minds of many Americans.

    And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle Sam can deal with them.

    I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry spectacle?

    One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America, the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local Afghan opium-growing stooges.

    The saintly President Barack Obama repeatedly proclaimed the Afghan War over and staged phony troops withdrawals. He must have believed his generals who kept claiming they had just about defeated the resistance alliance, known as Taliban.

    But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force. Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies.

    So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed to defeat the US military.

    Look what happened to the Soviets after they admitted defeat in Afghanistan and pulled out. Why expose the US Empire to a similar geopolitical risk?

    With al-Qaida down to less than 50 members in Afghanistan, according to former US defense chief Leon Panetta, what was the ostensible reason for Washington to keep garrisoning Afghanistan? The shadowy ISIS is now being dredged up as the excuse to stay.

    This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date – all of its borrowed money – and caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a war none of them understood.

    No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan.

    EricMargolis.com

    [Aug 04, 2016] An Eloquent Silence The West does not respond to Turkish accusations -

    Feb 08, 2016 | Defend Democracy Press

    Something very strange is happening. The great majority of the mainstream western media are "under-reporting" the quite monumental events affecting one of the most important NATO allies.

    In the same time more and more accusations and more concrete ones are coming out of Turkey about the West supporting the failed coup! Still western media and capitals behave like it is just normal for leaders and officials of a NATO country to accuse the United States of supporting a coup in their country!

    It is true that Erdogan is not a popular politician in the West and he is considered rather authoritarian. He made a lot of things to justify this accusation. But the question is they don't like because he is authoritarian or because he became too "uncontrollable"?

    Anyway there is a distance between criticizing a leader (elected by the way) for his authoritarianism and supporting military coups against him. To impose a military dictatorship in Turkey is hardly a way to promote "democracy", as it was hardly the repeated wars in the Middle East (USA and France have just begun a new one against Libya!)

    President Erdogan has again accused the West for its attitude towards his country, just one day after the visit to Turkey of the chief of the US Armed Forces

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/west-stands-by-coup-terrorists-president-erdogan-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=102395&NewsCatID=338

    More accusations are addressed every day to the CIA and US Generals of being behind the coup attempt in Turkey. The last one is here

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/cia-also-behind-failed-coup-attempt-former-turkish-army-chief-.aspx?PageID=238&NID=102382&NewsCatID=341

    Meanwhile, the British Ambassador to Ankara is using the old imperial know-how of his country to what seems a damage limitation exercise

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/uk-envoy-gulen-may-be-behind-failed-coup-attempt.aspx?pageID=238&nID=102258&NewsCatID=510

    And here is what a known Japanese specialist on Turkey had to say about the post-coup situation there

    http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160802/1043871296/japan-turkey-army.html

    [Aug 04, 2016] Khan is getting more fishy by the minute.

    discussion.theguardian.com

    DracoFerret

    Is this from wikileaks that trump mentioned. meanwhile Khan is getting more fishy by the minute.

    Baranta -> DracoFerret

    Yep, I just saw this.

    [Aug 04, 2016] Khan specializes in visa programs accused of selling U.S. citizenship

    www.legitgov.org

    Source: Khan specializes in visa programs accused of selling U.S. citizenship | 01 Aug 2016

    The [attorney] father of a Muslim-American soldier killed in Iraq who is caught up in a war of words with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is an immigration lawyer who specializes in a highly controversial program accused of letting immigrants buy their way into the U.S. Khizr M. Khan's website notes that he works to help clients with the E-2 and EB-5 programs that let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green cards for family members...

    The EB-5 program has been caught up in multiple scandals and critics are pressing Congress to kill it.

    [Aug 04, 2016] Who the Muslim Fathers DNC Speech Really Pandered To

    Notable quotes:
    "... At one point Khan challenged Trump, "You have sacrificed nothing and no one." True. But let us also remember the Clinton family sent no one to war. Their daughter did not serve any more than any Trump kid. Bill and Hillary served exactly as many days as Trump and Melania. Khan should have been more inclusive in his condemnation. ..."
    "... I would also like to ask Khan how he reconciles his son's death with the fact that only a few years later Iraq is still deep in war. ..."
    "... I think it was a direct attempt to bait Trump into another racist spectacle and it looks like it worked. ..."
    "... Nailed it. Trump's biggest weakness was exposed in March when he talked about the size of his hands, and other parts, on a national debate stage. He can't help but lash out after almost any attack, even when there is clearly nothing to be gained by responding. ..."
    "... On a side note, if it was an intentional trap anticipating this reaction, you almost have to give props to the democrats for being sneaky and clever. ..."
    "... It will not change anything at all. The staged circus of putting these parents on display for political purposes -- is just reinforcing the cynics in all of us. ..."
    "... The amusing part is 911 was a false flag operation to make Americans fear and hate Muslims so Israel could expand The Greater Israel Project. (google it). So 911 set up a sub conscious dislike of Muslims in the majority of Americans and Donald Trump, being the marketing genius he is, is exploiting it. Now the MSM screams bloody murder because he brings it to people's conscious minds and they agree with Trump. So they bash Trump for saying it while they murder Muslims all over the middle east for Israel. Can we say hypocrites? ..."
    "... Damn, I sure do feel more and more that it's a setup. Like that star wars character whose name I don't remember from a movie I didn't watch, some kind of general (I saw the parody of it on a Family Guy cartoon with some of the other Seth McFarlane show American Dad) but the line is "it's a trap". ..."
    "... If the Kahn's had their way, their son would have deserted. (right click and open in a new tab) ..."
    July 31, 2016 | www.antiwar.com
    Last Thursday night, speaking at the Democratic National Convention, Khizr Khan paid tribute to his son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, who died in Iraq on June 8, 2004, after he tried to stop a suicide bomber.

    As for every parent, husband, wife, brother, sister and friend who lost someone any war, I grieve with them. I am sorry for the Khan's loss. I am a parent and can all too easily be sent to thinking about the loss of a child.

    So go ahead and hate on me. But of the almost 7,000 American families who lost sons and daughters in the last 15 years of American war of terror, why did the Democrats choose a single Muslim family to highlight?

    No one knows how many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of non-American Muslims were killed as collateral damage along the way in those wars. Who spoke for them at the Convention?

    I found the Democrats' message shallow. It was pandering of the most contemptible kind, but not as some say simple pandering for Muslim votes from those alienated by Trump's rhetoric.

    The Democratic pandering was to an America that wants to believe we have good Muslims (who express their goodness by sending their kids to fight our wars) and "they" have the bad Muslims (who express their badness by sending their kids to fight their wars.) The pandering was to the cozy narrative that makes the majority of Americans comfortable with perpetual war in the Middle East and Africa.

    MORE: At one point Khan challenged Trump, "You have sacrificed nothing and no one." True. But let us also remember the Clinton family sent no one to war. Their daughter did not serve any more than any Trump kid. Bill and Hillary served exactly as many days as Trump and Melania. Khan should have been more inclusive in his condemnation.

    I would also like to ask Khan how he reconciles his son's death with the fact that only a few years later Iraq is still deep in war.

    Trump is an ass and I do not support him in any way. I am particularly troubled by his hate speech directed at Muslims, and Mexicans, and everyone else he hates.

    It is not disrespectful to discuss these things. Khan choose to put himself and his son's death on television to serve a partisan political purpose. We need to talk about what he talked about.

    Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People . His latest book is Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent . Reprinted from the his blog with permission.

    comrade hermit 3 days ago
    I think it was a direct attempt to bait Trump into another racist spectacle and it looks like it worked.
    gk420 -> comrade hermit 3 days ago
    Nailed it. Trump's biggest weakness was exposed in March when he talked about the size of his hands, and other parts, on a national debate stage. He can't help but lash out after almost any attack, even when there is clearly nothing to be gained by responding. There's so much wrong with Trump, but the Queen of Chaos is just so dangerous, and stumbles like these might just be devastating to his chances at success.

    On a side note, if it was an intentional trap anticipating this reaction, you almost have to give props to the democrats for being sneaky and clever. Too bad they're success may endangers all our lives. (Not that Trump would guarantee our safety, but perhaps he might increase the odds)

    Bianca -> gk420 2 days ago
    It will not change anything at all. The staged circus of putting these parents on display for political purposes -- is just reinforcing the cynics in all of us.

    And now everyone is jumping to trash Trump -- and guess what? In the end, he will be the winner of this.

    The stage management around Hillary, the pandering to people of all races, without ever having done anything human for them -- is her undoing. Trump does not hate anyone, he is just committing sin after sin against political correctness. And everyone who understands what it means, gets it. The era of putting people into neat boxes has come to an end. The era when only black people can talk about problems in black community, or Mexicans in their community, or only women can criticize a woman -- are gone. Guess what? Hillary is not an inch closer to offering any solutions to our financial bleeding wound, the "wars" of choice that make the chosen elite, very, very rich. In fact, she will push spineless Obama into more of those during the months before election.

    So, how is it bad to tell that there is an Islamic cult, or "radical Islam" that Trump is talking about -- or is it better to fluff up the problem, so we can by implication blame all Moslems. As we arm, finance and provide all the logistics to various fundamentalist cults in the Middle East, we are pious here about not even mentioning the word "Moslem". Nobody would be happier then the Moslem community if finally somebody will point out that we have Salafi centers in US, Saudi schools preaching the Wahhabi Islam, and then, we are shocked and surprised when something like Boston happens. Somebody needs to talk about this, why not Trump. Or that we have over 100 schools in US that were privatized by Feds for failing standards, converted into Charter schools, and run by no other then Gulen Foundation, the "moderate" cleric we give refugee to, and who has with "his" money caused many a problem in Turkey. Moderate? He is a Salafi, but our wonderful lying press calls him "Sufi cleric"? Deliberate deception, in order to mix the two. Sufi branch is known for its peacefulness, for its poetry, twirling Dervishes. Salafis by head chopping. Gulen will not shake hands with women.

    By confusing, mixing unmixable, we are led by the nose. And the wars go on and on, and expand as we speak. So, have mercy on Moslems of US, and identify the cults -- who is financing them, and why are our politicians so comfy cozy with them.

    Can we say something about Mexicans? Do you think that Mexicans do not know of gangs that endanger their community in the first place? Who does not know that the descent into hell of Mexican society is due to the drug trafficking, chiefly with the US, and illegally across the border? Who does not know that we, the US, have given rights to El-Salvador and Guatemalan people right to apply for refugee status, and that they are -- once caught at the border, promptly released? How is destabilizing these two countries by our meddling, and then taking in refugees, helping us or them?

    But the real sin that Trump committed is this -- he wants to pull our forces out of the profit-making schema that is our foreign policy, and use money to repair our crumbling infrastructure, RETURN money to Social Security Fund from which the warmongers are borrowing, and punish the corporations that leave US only to profit from it. Now, these are the sins against the international financial cartels and their deals. Heavens forbid that people are going to find out how they are ripped off, and stop the gravy train of the riches at the expense of our soldiers, their families, and the US citizens.

    Please, do not let yourself be bamboozled by the scary woman. When she talks, one gets a fright. Trump is just human, and is not following the political correctness unwritten rules.
    Scary thing is listening to Hillary talking about the hacking of Democratic election e-mails. She lies, and believes in her lies, as if she is a God, and creates realities. Without flinching, and against all sense, she goes on an Russia diatribe. She blames Russian hackers -- but that is not enough for her. She then claims that these were run by the Russian government, that is under full control of Vladimir Putin. She looked like she was going to continue how he is under full control by the Martian federation, and they in turn are controlled by the Orion empire. Her fanaticism is not normal, say what you want. But she would not talk of the e-mails that tell the story of her campaign, and the questions it raises of the legitimacy of her win over Sanders. But Sanders has proven to be not much more then her strategy to reel in some young and disaffected democrats. And they have learned now enough about politics to know -- without a wrecking ball, this cabal will stay in power. And there is a good sized one in Donald Trump.

    JW -> gk420 2 days ago
    Yup. I think the next step will be the Dems trotting out a Downs syndrome teen to reprimand Trump for whatever. It's like dangling red meat in front of a tiger, he can't possibly resist. No reason for Dems not to repeat this if it keep working.
    TellTheTruth-2 -> comrade hermit a day ago
    The amusing part is 911 was a false flag operation to make Americans fear and hate Muslims so Israel could expand The Greater Israel Project. (google it). So 911 set up a sub conscious dislike of Muslims in the majority of Americans and Donald Trump, being the marketing genius he is, is exploiting it. Now the MSM screams bloody murder because he brings it to people's conscious minds and they agree with Trump. So they bash Trump for saying it while they murder Muslims all over the middle east for Israel. Can we say hypocrites?
    BrotherJonah 2 days ago
    Damn, I sure do feel more and more that it's a setup. Like that star wars character whose name I don't remember from a movie I didn't watch, some kind of general (I saw the parody of it on a Family Guy cartoon with some of the other Seth McFarlane show American Dad) but the line is "it's a trap".

    But as previously overstated by moi meme sui, the Leaders and especially the bureaucrats who infest our body politic, well, they've got a long history of engineering coups. It's the fastest way to steal control of territory and enslave cultures, as in "any culture except White Anglo Saxon Protestants" and some of our favorite regime change targets have consistently been Latin America. Mostly because of proximity.

    So are we suddenly faced with the crap decision of well, you know, in a setup for a coup immediately following the election? A national state of emergency brought on by post-election brawling?

    TellTheTruth-2 a day ago
    If the Kahn's had their way, their son would have deserted. (right click and open in a new tab)

    [Aug 04, 2016] Ron Paul on Capt. Humayun Khan Sacrifice or Victim

    Notable quotes:
    "... go to 13:30 and listen. Kahn's mom and dad are MAD about their son completing his tour of duty and then being forced to return via a BACK DOOR DRAFT in a war Hillary voted for and Trump opposed. ..."
    "... Let's see how many others have been hatchet jobbed after serving in the military and doing what they were told to do in war. Max Cleland. The Republicans smeared him ten ways from Sunday in support of a Plantation Aristocrat named Saxby Chambliss 111. Who was a chickenhawk. The slander against a man who left half his body weight and three of his limbs in VietNam would be sickening, right? The Wave The Flag crowd would of course not permit that to be unanswered. So they cheered on the punk Chambliss and his publicists. That was their answer. Same for Ron Kovic. People who had never gotten their delicate fingers calloused or fought any of their own battles, far less risked becoming paraplegic, loved him like a hero until he renounced war. And said some things, wrote some things that enraged the Warmongers. ..."
    "... Ploy by the democratic party and their fake patriotism after getting the USA involved in illegal wars. Hillary Clinton voted to go to war to protect the vested interests of Wall Street and big banks as well as the military industrial complex. ..."
    Antiwar.com

    Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's team invited the parents of Capt. Humayun Khan, killed in Iraq in 2004, to speak at the convention and criticize Republican nominee Donald Trump's policy on Muslim immigration. It was a classic trap and Trump bumbled into it.

    The ensuing blow-up may have made great ratings for the media, but what is unsaid is that both sides agreed that Khan's death was a great sacrifice for our liberties and freedoms back home in the US. The media went along with this view. But being killed in a war started by government and media lies does not make one a heroic sacrifice. In fact, it makes on a victim. Khan was a victim of both Republicans and Democrats who supported the war in 2002 and he is victim again today.

    Ron Paul's view in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:

    watch-v=DxYPN0G_LUw

    TellTheTruth-2

    If the Kahn's had their way, their son would have deserted. (right click and open in a new tab) …

    watch-v=qqZirz12x-8

    go to 13:30 and listen. Kahn's mom and dad are MAD about their son completing his tour of duty and then being forced to return via a BACK DOOR DRAFT in a war Hillary voted for and Trump opposed. Notice how they terminate the interview as his dad is going off again on his son being forced to have to go to Iraq.

    His mother told him NOT to be hero. There is another side of this story the MSM is not telling us. I suspect they're only in the USA to take what they can take without giving back. If they had their way, their son would have deserted.

    BrotherJonah

    And my nephew, a top-shirt (E8) in the US Army, I wish he would desert. Who needs another killer in the world? He's been in since just before 9-11. Killed a few folks, and none of them (just guess the next part, ok?)

    not a single one of them was involved with 9-11 or WMDs. Did you guess correctly?? Clever lad. Forget desertion, maybe what's needed is some good old fashioned mutiny.

    Let's see how many others have been hatchet jobbed after serving in the military and doing what they were told to do in war. Max Cleland. The Republicans smeared him ten ways from Sunday in support of a Plantation Aristocrat named Saxby Chambliss 111. Who was a chickenhawk. The slander against a man who left half his body weight and three of his limbs in VietNam would be sickening, right? The Wave The Flag crowd would of course not permit that to be unanswered. So they cheered on the punk Chambliss and his publicists. That was their answer. Same for Ron Kovic. People who had never gotten their delicate fingers calloused or fought any of their own battles, far less risked becoming paraplegic, loved him like a hero until he renounced war. And said some things, wrote some things that enraged the Warmongers.

    So Hillary and Trump made damned sure this other young American and his family get the same treatment.

    Greg Kenny

    Ploy by the democratic party and their fake patriotism after getting the USA involved in illegal wars. Hillary Clinton voted to go to war to protect the vested interests of Wall Street and big banks as well as the military industrial complex.

    [Aug 04, 2016] Clinton Cash Khizr Khan's Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary's Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration

    1 Aug 2016 | www.breitbart.com

    Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that the mainstream media and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been using to criticize Donald J. Trump, has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia-and to international Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition to those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration programs that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the United States-and has deep ties to the "Clinton Cash" narrative through the Clinton Foundation.

    Khan and his wife Ghazala Khan both appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention to attack, on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's behalf, Donald Trump-the Republican nominee for president. Their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, was killed in Iraq in 2004. Khizr Khan, in his speech to the DNC, lambasted Donald Trump for wanting to temporarily halt Islamic migration to America from countries with a proven history of exporting terrorists.

    Since then, Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos-who served as a senior adviser to the president in Bill Clinton's White House and is a Clinton Foundation donor as well as a host on the ABC network-pushed Trump on the matter in an interview. Trump's comments in that interview have sparked the same mini-rebellion inside his party, in the media and across the aisle that has happened many times before. The usual suspects inside the GOP, from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to House Speaker Paul Ryan to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, have condemned Trump in one way or another. The media condemnation has been swift and Democrats, as well their friends throughout media, are driving the train as fast as they can.

    But until now, it looked like the Khans were just Gold Star parents who the big bad Donald Trump attacked. It turns out, however, in addition to being Gold Star parents, the Khans are financially and legally tied deeply to the industry of Muslim migration–and to the government of Saudi Arabia and to the Clintons themselves.

    Khan, according to Intelius as also reported by Walid Shoebat, used to work at the law firm Hogan Lovells, LLP, a major D.C. law firm that has been on retainer as the law firm representing the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States for years. Citing federal government disclosure forms, the Washington Free Beacon reported the connection between Saudi Arabia and Hogan Lovells a couple weeks ago.

    "Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show," Joe Schoffstall of the Free Beacon reported.

    The federal form filed with the Department of Justice is a requirement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which makes lobbyists and lawyers working on behalf of foreign governments and other agents from abroad with interests in the United States register with the federal government.

    The government of Saudi Arabia, of course, has donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.

    "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has given between $10 and $25 million to the foundation while Friends of Saudi Arabia has contributed between $1 and $5 million," Schoffstall wrote.

    Trump, of course, has called on Hillary Clinton to have the Clinton Foundation return the money.

    "Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays," Trump wrote in a Facebook post back in June, according to Politico. "Hillary must return all money from such countries!"

    "Crooked Hillary says we must call on Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding hate," Trump posted in a separate Facebook posting at the time. "I am calling on her to immediately return the $25 million plus she got from them for the Clinton Foundation!"

    Of course, to this day, Hillary Clinton and her Clinton Foundation has kept the money from the Saudi Arabian government.

    Schoffstall's piece in the Washington Free Beacon also notes how Hogan Lovells lobbyist Robert Kyle, per Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, has bundled more than $50,000 in donations for Clinton's campaign this year.

    Khan's connections with the Hogan Lovells firm run deep, according to a report from Law.com written by Katelyn Polantz.

    "Many lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember the week in 2004 when U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan lost his life to a suicide bomber," Polantz wrote. "Then-Hogan & Hartson attorneys mourned the death because the soldier's father, Khizr Khan, a Muslim American immigrant, was among their beloved colleagues."

    Polantz wrote that Khan worked at the mega-D.C. law firm for years.

    "Khan spent seven years, from 2000 to 2007, in the Washington, D.C., office of then-Hogan & Hartson," Polantz wrote. "He served as the firm's manager of litigation technology. Although he did not practice law while at Hogan, Khan was well versed in understanding the American courts system. On Thursday night, he described his late son dreaming of becoming a military lawyer."

    But representing the Clinton Foundation backing Saudi Arabian government and having one of its lobbyists bundle $50,000-plus for Clinton's campaign are hardly the only places where the Khan-connected Hogan Lovells D.C. mega-firm brush elbows with Clinton Cash.

    The firm also handles Hillary Clinton's taxes and is deeply connected with the email scandal whereby when she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a home-brew email server system that jeopardized classified information handling and was "extremely careless" according to FBI director James Comey.

    "A lawyer at Hogan & Hartson [Howard Topaz] has been Bill and Hillary Clinton's go-to guy for tax advice since 2004, according to documents released Friday by Hillary Clinton's campaign," The American Lawyer's Nate Raymond wrote in 2008, as Hillary Clinton ran for president that year. "The Clintons' tax returns for 2000-07 show combined earnings of $109 million, on which they paid $33 million in taxes. New York-based tax partner Howard Topaz has a broad tax practice, and also regularly advises corporations on M&A and executive compensation."

    Breitbart News' Patrick Howley, in a deep investigative piece on Hillary Clinton's email scandal, late last year uncovered how Topaz's firm-which employed Khan while Topaz did Hillary Clinton's taxes-is also connected to the email scandal.

    "Topaz was a partner at Hogan & Hartson, which later merged to become known as Hogan Lovells, where Topaz continues to practice. The firm's lawyers were major donors to Hillary Clinton's first presidential campaign," Howley wrote.

    For her private email system, Clinton used a spam filtering program MX Logic.

    "Hogan & Hartson handled the patent for MX Logic's email-filtering program, which McAfee bought the small company for $140 million in 2009 in order to acquire," Howley wrote. "The MX Logic company's application for a trademark for its SPAMTRAQ program was filed in 2004 on Hogan & Hartson stationery and signed by a Hogan & Hartson attorney. Hogan & Hartson has been responsible for MX Logic annual reports. The email company's Clinton links present more evidence that Clinton's political and legal establishment was monitoring her private email use."

    If that all isn't enough, that same Hogan & Hartson law firm-now Hogan Lovells-employed Loretta Lynch, the current Attorney General of the United States. Lynch infamously just a few weeks ago met with Bill Clinton, Hillary's husband and the former president, on her private jet in Phoenix just before clearing Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing when it came to her illicit private email server system.

    Khan's own website for his own personal law firm KM Khan Law Office shows he represents clients in the business of buying visas to enter the United States. One of his specific areas of practice, according to the website, is "E2 Treaty Investors, EB5 Investments & Related Immigration Services."

    Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the U.S. Senate's Judiciary Committee, has detailed how the EB5 immigration program is "riddled with flaws and corruption."

    "Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill-on this island surrounded by reality-that we can choose to plug our ears and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts," Grassley said in a statement earlier this year. "The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry experts, members of congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Allow me to mention a few of the flaws."

    From there, Sen. Grassley listed out several of the "flaws" with the EB5 immigration program that Khan works in:

    • – Investments can be spent before business plans are approved.
    • – Regional Center operators can charge exorbitant fees of foreign nationals in addition to their required investments.
    • – Jobs created are not "direct" or verifiable jobs but rather are "indirect" and based on estimates and economic modeling.
    • – Jobs created by U.S. investors are counted by the foreign national when obtaining a green card, even if EB-5 money is only a fraction of the total invested.
    • – Investment funds are not adequately vetted.
    • – Gifts and loans are acceptable sources of funds from foreign nationals.
    • – The investment level has been stagnant for nearly 25 years.
    • – There's no prohibition against foreign governments owning or operating regional centers or projects.
    • – Regional centers can be rented or sold without government oversight or approval.
    • – Regional centers don't have to certify that they comply with securities laws.
    • – There's no oversight of promoters who work overseas for the regional centers.
    • – There's no set of sanctions for violations, no recourse for bad actors.
    • – There are no required background checks on anyone associated with a regional center.
    • – Regional centers draw Targeted Employment Area boundaries around poor areas in order to come in at a lower investment level, yet the jobs created are not actually created in those areas.
    • – Every Targeted Employment Area designation is rubberstamped by the agency.
    • – Adjudicators are pressured to get to a yes, especially for those politically connected.
    • – Visas are not properly scrutinized.
    • – Visas are pushed through despite security warnings.
    • – Files and applications lack basic and necessary information to monitor compliance.
    • – The agency does not do site visits for each and every project.
    • – There's no transparency on how funds are spent, who is paid, and what investors are told about the projects they invest in.

    That's not to mention the fact that, according to Sen. Grassley, there have been serious national security violations in connection with the EB5 program that Khan works in and around already. In fact, the program-according to Grassley-was used by Middle Eastern operatives from Iran to attempt to illicitly enter the United States.

    "There are also classified reports that detail the national security, fraud and abuse. Our committee has received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side of the story," Grassley said in the early February 2016 statement. "The enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security wrote an internal memo that raises significant concerns about the program. One section of the memo outlines concerns that it could be used by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States. The memo identifies seven main areas of program vulnerability, including the export of sensitive technology, economic espionage, use by foreign government agents and terrorists, investment fraud, illicit finance and money laundering."

    Maybe all of this is why–as Breitbart News has previously noted–the Democratic National Convention made absolutely no mention of the Clinton Foundation or Clinton Global Initiative. Hillary Clinton's coronation ceremony spent exactly zero minutes of the four nights of official DNC programming talking about anything to do with perhaps one of the biggest parts of her biography.

    Michael Rawlings -> Jeremy Stevens

    No wonder Khan is so mad at Trump, Trump is threatening Khan's multi million $ corrupt EB5 immigration business.

    jones -> Michael Rawlings

    Right. It makes me totally forget the fact that a candidate for the presidency has the temperament of a seven-year-old bully and can't control his mouth. Good thing we know the truth about this random guy with a tiny bit of power and a small possibly corrupt business so that we can go ahead and elect a madman to be the most powerful person in the world.

    TechZilla -> jones

    We should support the NWO warmonger HRC ....because Trump can be uncouth?

    No thanks, I don't want more destabilization of the middle east, my cousin would still be alive if Trump's foreign policy was in effect circa 2000. O but she's the one that loves vets, not the guy who disagrees with more aggressive actions against Russia. These elitist promoted wars are not in the public interest, and they have effected me personally.

    Taylor -> jones

    This is just a drop in the bucket for what Hillary's campaign is a part of. I'd rather have someone who can speak their mind and know their crazy rather than having a liar that can't even own up to their corruption.

    mo johnson -> Jeremy Stevens

    There is a link in this story to something called the KM Khan Law Office in New York, also specializing in immigration: Khan specializes in visa programs accused of selling U.S. citizenship

    james barklow -> Jeremy Stevens

    Interesting. He also has a NYC law office address and a DC phone number.

    [Aug 04, 2016] Donald Trump on Foreign Policy

    ontheissues.org
    Diplomacy & respect crucial to our relationship with Russia

    Q: This week we're going to see a lot of world leaders come to Manhattan. Might you have a meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin?

    TRUMP: Well, I had heard that he wanted to meet with me. And certainly I am open to it. I don't know that it's going to take place, but I know that people have been talking. We'll see what happens. But certainly, if he wanted to meet, I would love to do that. You know, I've been saying relationship is so important in business, that it's so important in deals, and so important in the country. And if President Obama got along with Putin, that would be a fabulous thing. But they do not get along. Putin does not respect our president. And I'm sure that our president does not like him very much.

    Source: Meet the Press 2015 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Sep 20, 2015

    Putin has no respect for America; I will get along with him

    Q: What would you do right now if you were president, to get the Russians out of Syria?

    TRUMP: Number one, they have to respect you. He has absolutely no respect for President Obama. Zero. I would talk to him. I would get along with him. I believe I would get along with a lot of the world leaders that this country is not getting along with. I think I will get along with Putin, and I will get along with others, and we will have a much more stable world.

    Source: 2015 Republican two-tiered primary debate on CNN , Sep 16, 2015

    We must deal with the maniac in North Korea with nukes

    [With regards to the Iranian nuclear deal]: Nobody ever mentions North Korea where you have this maniac sitting there and he actually has nuclear weapons and somebody better start thinking about North Korea and perhaps a couple of other places. You have somebody right now in North Korea who has got nuclear weapons and who is saying almost every other week, "I'm ready to use them." And we don't even mention it.
    Source: 2015 Republican two-tiered primary debate on CNN , Sep 16, 2015

    China is our enemy; they're bilking us for billions

    China is bilking us for hundreds of billions of dollars by manipulating and devaluing its currency. Despite all the happy talk in Washington, the Chinese leaders are not our friends. I've been criticized for calling them our enemy. But what else do you call the people who are destroying your children's and grandchildren's future? What name would you prefer me to use for the people who are hell bent on bankrupting our nation, stealing our jobs, who spy on us to steal our technology, who are undermining our currency, and who are ruining our way of life? To my mind, that's an enemy. If we're going to make America number one again, we've got to have a president who knows how to get tough with China, how to out-negotiate the Chinese, and how to keep them from screwing us at every turn.
    Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 2 , Dec 5, 2011

    When you love America, you protect it with no apologies

    I love America. And when you love something, you protect it passionately--fiercely, even. We are the greatest country the world has ever known. I make no apologies for this country, my pride in it, or my desire to see us become strong and rich again. After all, wealth funds our freedom. But for too long we've been pushed around, used by other countries, and ill-served by politicians in Washington who measure their success by how rapidly they can expand the federal debt, and your tax burden, with their favorite government programs.

    American can do better. I think we deserve the best. That's why I decided to write this book. The decisions we face are too monumental, too consequential, to just let slide. I have answers for the problems that confront us. I know how to make American rich again.

    Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 7 , Dec 5, 2011

    By 2027, tsunami as China overtakes US as largest economy

    There is a lot that Obama and his globalist pals don't want you to know about China's strength. But no one who knows the truth can sit back and ignore how dangerous this economic powerhouse will be if our so-called leaders in Washington don't get their acts together and start standing up for American jobs and stop outsourcing them to China. It's been predicted that by 2027, China will overtake the United States as the world's biggest economy--much sooner if the Obama economy's disastrous trends continue. That means in a handful of years, America will be engulfed by the economic tsunami that is the People's Republic of China--my guess is by 2016 if we don't act fast.

    For the past thirty years, China's economy has grown an average 9 to 10 percent each year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, China's economy grew a robust 9.7 percent. America's first quarter growth rate? An embarrassing and humiliating 1.9 percent. It's a national disgrace.

    Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 30 , Dec 5, 2011

    Things change; empires come and go
    A lot of life is about survival of the fittest and adaption, as Darwin pointed out. It's not all there is, but it's an indication of how the world has evolved in historical terms. We've seen many empires come and go -- the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire -- there have always been surges of power. Sometimes they last for centuries. Even so, some of us have never learned of them as of today. In other words, things change. We have to keep up with the changes and move forward.
    Source: Think Like a Champion, by Donald Trump, p. 23-4 , Apr 27, 2010

    Criticized Buchanan's view on Hitler as appeasement

    In Buchanan's book, he actually said the Western allies were wrong to stop Hitler. He argued that we should have let Hitler take all of the territories to his east. What of the systematic annihilation of Jews, Catholics, and Gypsies in those countries? You don't have to be a genius to know that we were next, that once Hitler seized control of the countries to his east he would focus on world domination.

    Pat Buchanan was actually preaching the same policy of appeasement that had failed for Neville Chamberlain at Munich. If we used Buchanan's theory on Hitler as a foreign policy strategy, we would have appeased every world dictator with a screw loose and we'd have a brainwashed population ready to go postal on command.

    After I [wrote an article on this for] Face the Nation, Buchanan accused me of ⌠ignorance." Buchanan, who believes himself an expert, has also called Hitler ⌠a political organizer of the first rank." Buchanan is a fan.

    Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.267-68 , Jul 2, 2000

    Post-Cold War: switch from chess player to dealmaker

    In the modern world you can't very easily draw up a simple, general foreign policy. I was busy making deals during the last decade of the cold war. Now the game has changed. The day of the chess player is over. Foreign policy has to be put in the hands of a dealmaker.

    Two dealmakers have served as president-one was Franklin Roosevelt, who got us through WWII, and the other was Richard Nixon, who forced the Russians to the bargaining table to achieve the first meaningful reductions in nuclear arms.

    A dealmaker can keep many balls in the air, weigh the competing interests of other nations, and above all, constantly put America's best interests first. The dealmaker knows when to be tough and when to back off. He knows when to bluff and he knows when to threaten, understanding that you threaten only when prepared to carry out the threat. The dealmaker is cunning, secretive, focused, and never settles for less than he wants. It's been a long time since America had a president like that.

    Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.111-12 , Jul 2, 2000

    Support Russia, but with strings attached

    I don't understand why American policymakers are always so timid in dealing with Russia on issues that directly involve our survival. Kosovo was a perfect case in point: Russia was holding out its hand for billions of dollars in IMF loans (to go along with billions in aid the U.S. has given) the same week it was issuing threats and warnings regarding our conduct in the Balkans. We need to tell Russia and other recipients that if they want our dime they had better do our dance, at least in matters regarding our national security. These people need us much more than we need them. We have leverage, and we are crazy not to use it to better advantage.

    Few respect weakness. Ultimately we have to deal with hostile nations in the only language they know: unshrinking conviction and the military power to back it up if need be. There and in that order are America's two greatest assets in foreign affairs.

    Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.134 , Jul 2, 2000

    China: lack of human rights prevents consumer development

    Why am I concerned with political rights? I'm a good businessman and I can be amazingly unsentimental when I need to be. I also recognize that when it comes down to it, we can't do much to change a nation's internal policies. But I'm unwilling to shrug off the mistreatment of China's citizens by their own government. My reason is simple: These oppressive policies make it clear that China's current government has contempt for our way of life.

    We want to trade with China because of the size of its consumer market. But if the regime continues to repress individual freedoms, how many consumers will there really be? Isn't it inconsistent to compromise our principles by negotiating trade with a country that may not want and cannot afford our goods?

    We have to make it absolutely clear that we're willing to trade with China, but not to trade away our principles, and that under no circumstances will we keep our markets open to countries that steal from us.

    Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.119 & 123 , Jul 2, 2000

    Be tougher on China-we're too eager to please

    Our biggest long-term challenge will be China. The Chinese people still have few political rights to speak of. Chinese government leaders, though they concede little, desperately want us to invest in their country. Though we have the upper hand, we're way to eager to please. We see them as a potential market and we curry favor with them at the expense of our national interests. Our China policy under Presidents Clinton and Bush has been aimed at changing the Chinese regime by incentives both economic and political. The intention has been good, but it's clear that the Chinese have been getting far too easy a ride.

    Despite the opportunity, I think we need to take a much harder look at China. There are major problems that too many at the highest reaches of business want to overlook, [primarily] the human-rights situation.

    Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.117-18 , Jul 2, 2000


    Donald Trump on Mideast

    Too risky to take in Syrian refugees

    Q: Would you block Syrian refugees from entering the US?

    RUBIO: The problem is we can't background check them. You can't pick up the phone and call Syria. And that's one of the reasons why I said we won't be able to take more refugees. It's not that we don't want to. The bottom line is that this is not just a threat coming from abroad. What we need to open up to and realize is that we have a threat here at home, homegrown violent extremists, individuals who perhaps have not even traveled abroad, who have been radicalized online. This has become a multi-faceted threat. In the case of what's happening in Europe, this is a swarm of refugees. And as I've said repeatedly over the last few months, you can have 1,000 people come in and 999 of them are just poor people fleeing oppression and violence but one of them is an ISIS fighter.

    Source: ABC This Week 2015 interview on SSyrian Refugee crisis , Nov 22, 2015

    Let Russia bash ISIS; let Germany defend Ukraine

    Q: Russia has invaded Ukraine, and has put troops in Syria. You have said you will have a good relationship with Mr. Putin. So, what does President Trump do in response to Russia's aggression?

    TRUMP: As far as Syria, if Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, 100%, and I can't understand how anybody would be against it.

    Q: They're not doing that.

    TRUMP: They blew up a Russian airplane. He cannot be in love with these people. He's going in, and we can go in, and everybody should go in. As far as the Ukraine is concerned, we have a group of people, and a group of countries, including Germany--why are we always doing the work? I'm all for protecting Ukraine--but, we have countries that are surrounding the Ukraine that aren't doing anything. They say, "Keep going, keep going, you dummies, keep going. Protect us." And we have to get smart. We can't continue to be the policeman of the world.

    Source: Fox Business/WSJ First Tier debate , Nov 10, 2015

    Provide economic assistance to create a safe zone in Syria

    Q: Where you are on the question of a safe zone or a no-fly zone in Syria?

    TRUMP: I love a safe zone for people. I do not like the migration. I do not like the people coming. What they should do is, the countries should all get together, including the Gulf states, who have nothing but money, they should all get together and they should take a big swath of land in Syria and they do a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country, go back to where they came from.

    Q: Does the U.S. get involved in making that safe zone?

    TRUMP: I would help them economically, even though we owe $19 trillion.

    Source: CBS Face the Nation 2015 interview on Syrian Refugee crisis , Oct 11, 2015

    US should not train rebels it does not know or control

    Q: The Russians are hitting Assad as well as people we've trained.

    TRUMP: Where they're hitting people, we're talking about people that we don't even know. I was talking to a general two days ago. He said, "We have no idea who these people are. We're training people. We don't know who they are. We're giving them billions of dollars to fight Assad." And you know what? I'm not saying Assad's a good guy, because he's probably a bad guy. But I've watched him interviewed many times. And you can make the case, if you look at Libya, look at what we did there-- it's a mess-- if you look at Saddam Hussein with Iraq, look what we did there-- it's a mess-- it's going be same thing.

    Source: Meet the Press 2015 interview moderated by Chuck Todd , Oct 4, 2015

    Better to have Mideast strongmen than Mideast chaos

    Q: You think the Middle East would be better today if Gaddafi, Saddam and Assad were stronger? That the Middle East would be safer?

    TRUMP: It's not even a contest. Iraq is a disaster. And ISIS came out of Iraq.

    Q: Well, let me button this up. If Saddam and Gaddafi were still in power, you think things would be more stable?

    TRUMP: Of course it would be. You wouldn't have had your Benghazi situation, which is one thing, which was just a terrible situation.

    Q: Would you pull out of what we're doing in Syria now?

    TRUMP: no, I'd sit back.

    Source: Meet the Press 2015 interview moderated by Chuck Todd , Oct 4, 2015

    Good that Russia is involved in Syria

    Q: You came across to me as if you welcomed Putin's involvement in Syria. You said you saw very little downside. Why?

    TRUMP: I want our military to be beyond anything, no contest, and technologically, most importantly. But we are going to get bogged down in Syria. If you look at what happened with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, that's when they went bankrupt.

    Q: So, you think Putin's going to get suckered into--

    TRUMP: They're going to get bogged down. Everybody that's touched the Middle East, they've gotten bogged down. Now, Putin wants to go in and I like that Putin is bombing the hell out of ISIS. Putin has to get rid of ISIS because Putin doesn't want ISIS coming into Russia.

    Q: Why do you trust him and nobody else does?

    TRUMP: I don't trust him. But the truth is, it's not a question of trust. I don't want to see the United States get bogged down. We've spent now $2 trillion in Iraq, probably a trillion in Afghanistan. We're destroying our country.

    Source: Meet the Press 2015 interview moderated by Chuck Todd , Oct 4, 2015

    More sanctions on Iran; more support of Israel

    What does Donald Trump believe? Iran and Israel: Walk away from nuclear talks. Increase sanctions.

    Trump has said that the U.S. is mishandling current Iran negotiations and should have walked away from the table once Tehran reportedly rejected the idea of sending enriched uranium to Russia. He would increase sanctions on Iran. Trump has been sharply critical of the Obama administration's handling of relations with Israel and has called for a closer alliance with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

    Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series , Jun 16, 2015

    [Aug 04, 2016] Trump attacks Clinton on 'scandal' of US paying 400 million dollars to Iran after nuclear deal

    Iran deal was signed when Hillary was not the Secretary of state (her last month was Feb 2013). Is Trump delusional or stupid ?
    Notable quotes:
    "... whatever the 'ransom', both Clinton and Trump are hellbent on undermining the Iranian deal. idiots. ..."
    "... The more I think about it, US deserve to have Trump as president. He will screw up the US so royally that may shock American people to start thinking straight. ..."
    "... Trump would certainly screw up the US, but if 8 years of Bush couldn't get them to start thinking straight, I am not sure what would. ..."
    "... Hillary hates Iran more than Trump does... she's just extremely good in deceiving.. Remember when Sanders said to reach out to Iran about the Syrian conflict? Her reply was exactly this; "asking Iran for cooperation in Syria is like asking a pyromaniac to extinguish a fire" .. when president, I fear she will not only avoid cooperation but will be playing real hardball with Iran, where Trump, as someone who seems to be sympathetic to the Russian regime, might get more friendly with Iran (the friends of your friends...) ..."
    "... It's a mess anyways... trump changes like how the wind blows, and Hillary is a snake (understatement of the year) ..."
    "... The US has not held up to the term of the nuclear agreement! The banks are still afraid of US to deal with Iran. Congress has stopped the beoing deal, etc. The US congress is acting as bully! Actually not holding itself with the very deal the US signed is very bad! I can see Iran reluctant to negotiate any deal with a bunch of liars ..."
    "... There were no bank relations between the US and Iran, so cash was the only option. It was conducted in secret because who's going to announce that a plane full of cash is in route to, well, anywhere? ..."
    "... The US owed that money to Iran. The transfer was kept secret for the reason mentioned by bob. ..."
    "... Ultimately, Mr. Trump's outrage over the $ (true or not) is yet another dodge avoiding the real question that he needs to be asked: "Do you want a war with Iran?" ..."
    "... Course, I think everybody probably already knows the answer. It'd just be nice to have it print (or a tweet as the case may be). ..."
    "... If the reports about Trump asking his foreign policy advisers about the utility of using nuclear weapons are accurate, there are probably several nations, including Iran, who'd be wise to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible to let him know why they shouldn't be used. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Ron Jacobs

    It was Iran's money that Washington froze . Besides, if I recall, the great Republican hero Ronnie Reagan traded weapons to Iran for hostages.

    Joel Marcuson

    It probably hasn't dawned on him that Hillary has not been a member of the current Gov't for about 4 yrs now. How could she possibly be responsible for that decision, the type our Gov't has made all along for as long as I can remember? What a screwball.

    onu labu

    whatever the 'ransom', both Clinton and Trump are hellbent on undermining the Iranian deal. idiots.

    trucmat

    The gist of reality here is that the US confiscated a bunch of Iranian money and are decades later starting to give it back. Scandalous!

    ViktorZK

    They should be attacking Clinton over the DNC resignations and a whole bunch more. But the entire week has been taken up damping down fires Trump and his surrogates keep lighting. Even this story (which is a non-event really) will struggle for oxygen. The biggest headline today is GOP ELDERS PLAN INTERVENTION TO REHABILITATE FAILING CAMPAIGN. Hard to top that.

    macmarco 1h

    One must remember that Obama early and often said Reagan was his political hero. The same Reagan who bought hostages freedom with a cake, a bible and a bunch of weapons.

    ClearItUp

    The more I think about it, US deserve to have Trump as president. He will screw up the US so royally that may shock American people to start thinking straight.

    rberger -> ClearItUp

    Trump would certainly screw up the US, but if 8 years of Bush couldn't get them to start thinking straight, I am not sure what would.

    ChangeIranNow

    At this point, with tens of billions of dollars in frozen assets already on their way to Iran and a virtual Tehran gold rush in which Western firms are seeking to profit from the collapse of sanctions going on, revisiting the way the Iran deal was sold to the nation seems beside the point. But with Iran already signaling that it will demand even more Western appeasement to keep complying with the terms of the nuclear pact, an examination into the cash-for-hostages' aspect of the story is important. Let us hope our next president is willing to harden its stance on the Iran regime and support an era of domestically-fostered peace and stability.

    doublreed legalimmigrant

    DryBack, Voilŕ: Wikileaks recently released documents proving that Hillary Clinton took $100,000 of cash from a company she ran (and worked for in the 80's and 90's) that also funded ISIS in Syria. French industrial giant, Lafarge, gave money to the Islamic state to operate their (Lafarge's) cement plant in Syria, and purchased oil from ISIS. Lafarge are also large donators to Clinton's election and the Clinton Foundation. More is here: http://yournewswire.com/clinton-was-director-of-company-that-donated-money-to-isis/

    Lafarge is a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation – the firm's up to $100,000 donation was listed in its annual donor list for 2015.

    Zepp

    Who on Earth would consider Tom Cotton and the Wall Street Journal to be credible sources?

    They took the (true, verified) story of the Bush administration flying pallets of $100 bills into Baghdad where they promptly vanished, filed the numbers of, and resurrected it for this story. The WSJ is a Murdoch organ, and Cotton is a crackpot.

    itsmeLucas

    Hillary hates Iran more than Trump does... she's just extremely good in deceiving.. Remember when Sanders said to reach out to Iran about the Syrian conflict? Her reply was exactly this; "asking Iran for cooperation in Syria is like asking a pyromaniac to extinguish a fire" .. when president, I fear she will not only avoid cooperation but will be playing real hardball with Iran, where Trump, as someone who seems to be sympathetic to the Russian regime, might get more friendly with Iran (the friends of your friends...)

    It's a mess anyways... trump changes like how the wind blows, and Hillary is a snake (understatement of the year)

    coffeeclutch

    Donald Trump and Tom Cotton are the verifying sources for this information? Tom Cotton, who claimed that Iran needed to be stopped because "[they] already control Tehran?"

    The circus act of American politics is really beyond belief. I'm still in awe the Republicans faced no consequences for issuing a warning letter to a foreign government in the midst of diplomatic negotiations with the President and the State Department. All while running around Obama's back and inviting Israel's Prime Minister to address them directly in suggesting how Americans should approach their foreign policy.

    WorkingEU

    To shift focus to an Iranian deal seems a good line of attack. But from a historical perspective it may be a little guileless. The Iranian Revolution was a populist revolt against globalization, elitism, corruption, foreign treachery and all the other abundant evils.

    The clergy promised the earth, and delivered heaven. I confess this is a somewhat superficial analysis when compared to the profound depth of the Trump campaign.

    coffeeclutch -> WorkingEU

    If I recall correctly the religious sphere was also one of the areas of social life not micromanaged and controlled by the Shah (secular authority at that time was rather hands-off on its approach to the clergy), so the clergy were in a unique position to manipulate a lot of desperate people by presenting themselves as an "open and freer" alternative to the grossly exploitative, corrupt, and often violent rule of the secular regime.

    Of course once the were able to wrest enough power to shunt aside the various leftist and student protest groups rising up at the same time, all that concern about anti-corruption and public welfare was immediately tossed into the bin. Pretty much a Scylla and Charybdis situation.

    jokaz

    The US has not held up to the term of the nuclear agreement! The banks are still afraid of US to deal with Iran. Congress has stopped the beoing deal, etc. The US congress is acting as bully! Actually not holding itself with the very deal the US signed is very bad! I can see Iran reluctant to negotiate any deal with a bunch of liars

    DBakes

    I would like to understand more details about the cash payment and the reason. Was it really a secret payment? That being said I will never vote for Trump who to me is an imminent threat to national security.

    bobj1156 -> DBakes

    There were no bank relations between the US and Iran, so cash was the only option. It was conducted in secret because who's going to announce that a plane full of cash is in route to, well, anywhere?

    MtnClimber -> DBakes

    The US owed that money to Iran. The transfer was kept secret for the reason mentioned by bob.

    MiltonWiltmellow

    The US state department has denied this.

    The WSJ quoted Tom Cotton, a Republican senator from Arkansas, as accusing the Obama administration of ...

    Does the accusation even matter?

    A Murdoch rag prints an unsubstantiated political accusation made a Murdoch political sympathizer and somehow it becomes credible enough for the Guardian to repeat the smear?

    Here's what those of us who live in the Real World™ say.

    Where's your fucking proof??

    williamdonovan

    However, although the cash payment to Iran coincided with the release of a group of Iranian American prisoners, there is no evidence to suggest any link between the two events.

    Evidence maybe not but the read could draw easily make a "inference"

    Blacks Law 4th Edition

    INFERENCE. In the law of evidence. A truth or proposition drawn from another which is sup- posed or admitted to be true. A process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition sought to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state of facts, already proved or admitted. Whitehouse v. Bolster, 95 Me. 458, 50 A. 240; Joske v. Irvine, 91 Tex. 574, 44 S.W. 1059.

    A deduction which the reason of the jury makes from the facts proved, without an express direction of law to that effect. Puget Sound Electric Ry. v. Benson, C.C.A. Wash., 253 F. 710, 714.
    A "presumption" and an "inference" are not the same thing, a presumption being a deduction which the law requires a trier of facts to make, an inference being a deduction which the trier may or may not make, according to his own conclusions; a presumption is mandatory, an INFERENCE

    eyeinlurk -> williamdonovan

    Kind of like the Reagan arms for hostages deal with...uh...Iran. Back in the 80's.
    I'm starting to miss the 80's, and I never thought I'd say that.

    Ranger4 -> eyeinlurk

    And they used the cash to .............fund an insurrection

    williamdonovan -> eyeinlurk

    I was working at the Pentagon then and found myself having inside knowledge of Iran-Contra before it unfolded to the rest of the world. Given that the information was highly classified Top Secret/SRA access. I had been given access to what I thought at the time was two completely unrelated events moving of the missiles and the training and arming of the contras. The information was compartmented meaning few people knew about either program and even far fewer people new both programs where related (it wasn't called Iran-Contra until after much later) Just weeks before the public new. I was given access to the complete picture. Even then I couldn't figure how could something like this be legal. Because as we know now it was not.

    You could easily draw inference between the these two events.

    As I already have!

    jrcdmc6670

    Ultimately, Mr. Trump's outrage over the $ (true or not) is yet another dodge avoiding the real question that he needs to be asked: "Do you want a war with Iran?"

    Course, I think everybody probably already knows the answer. It'd just be nice to have it print (or a tweet as the case may be).

    jrcdmc6670

    If the reports about Trump asking his foreign policy advisers about the utility of using nuclear weapons are accurate, there are probably several nations, including Iran, who'd be wise to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible to let him know why they shouldn't be used.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html

    [Aug 04, 2016] Donald Trump Reaffirms Support for Warmer Relations With Russia

    Aug 2, 2016

    Donald Trump Reaffirms Support for Warmer Relations With Russia, NYT, 01 Aug 2016

    Donald J. Trump unabashedly trumpeted his support for warmer relations with Russia at a campaign rally here on Monday night, acidly mocking opponents who say he is too friendly to Vladimir V. Putin, the country's strongman president. Mr. Trump, who has been under fire from Democrats and some conservative national security leaders for his accommodating stance toward Mr. Putin, cast his supportive remarks as a matter of practical necessity. By aligning itself with Russia, he said, the United States could more easily take on the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. "If we could get Russia to help us get rid of ISIS -- if we could actually be friendly with Russia -- wouldn't that be a good thing?" Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, said. Repeating the question moments later, he won loud applause from the crowd: "If we could get along with Russia, wouldn't that be a good thing, instead of a bad thing?"

    [Aug 04, 2016] Ron Paul on Libya War Escalation – Congress AWOL

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Neoconservatives and the Neoliberals have created madness and mayhem in the world today. Real change will happen only if resources are available for all in a co-operative capitalistic way that raises the standard of living for all rather than the few. We now have socialism of the rich and low productivity with the standard of living becoming more about quantity rather than quality. ..."
    Antiwar.com Blog
    Greg Kenny , 6 minutes ago
    Liberals ,conservatives and progressives need to put ideologies behind and form a coalition to demand change. Just exercising our right to vote will change nothing.

    We will continue to get blow back in the form of terrorism as long as we do not change the foreign policy in the Middle East which goes back to Sykes -Picot and the aftermath of World War One.

    The Neoconservatives and the Neoliberals have created madness and mayhem in the world today. Real change will happen only if resources are available for all in a co-operative capitalistic way that raises the standard of living for all rather than the few. We now have socialism of the rich and low productivity with the standard of living becoming more about quantity rather than quality.

    [Aug 04, 2016] Obama Trump Unfit, Woefully Unprepared For Presidency, Has To Be A Point Where Republicans Say Enough

    Notable quotes:
    "... President Obama has been a failed leader who along with Secretary of State Clinton created a foreign policy that has destabilized the world and made it an unsafe place. He is the one who is unfit to be President and Hillary Clinton is equally unfit. ..."
    "... Obama-Clinton have single-handedly destabilized the Middle East, handed Iraq, Libya and Syria to ISIS, and allowed our personnel to be slaughtered at Benghazi. ..."
    "... They have produced the worst recovery since the Great Depression. They have shipped millions of our best jobs overseas to appease their global special interests. They have betrayed our security and our workers, and Hillary Clinton has proven herself unfit to serve in any government office. ..."
    "... She is reckless with her emails, reckless with regime change, and reckless with American lives. Our nation has been humiliated abroad and compromised by radical Islam brought onto our shores. We need change now. ..."
    www.realclearpolitics.com
    President Obama slams Republican nominee for president Donald Trump at a joint press conference with the prime minister of Singapore at the White House Tuesday morning. Obama said Trump does not have the judgment, temperament or understanding to occupy the Oval Office. Obama scolded Trump for his "attack on a Gold Star family."

    "He is woefully unprepared," Obama stated.

    Trump: "There's Something Phony" About This Week's CNN Poll

    The president implored Republicans to un-endorse him and asked what does it say about the Republican party that Trump is their standard bearer. This isn't an "episodic gaffe," this is daily and weekly, Obama said. Obama called on Republicans to repudiate and condemn the party's nominee.

    Trump: "We're Running Against a Rigged Press"

    "There has to come a point at which you say somebody who makes those kinds of statements doesn't have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding to occupy the most powerful position in the world," Obama said at the event with PM Lee Hsien Loong.

    "There has to be a point in which you say this is somebody I can't support for president of United States," the president said. "There has to be a point in which you say 'enough.'"

    "I recognize that they all profoundly disagree with myself or Hillary Clinton on tax policy or on certain elements of foreign policy," Obama said of Republicans. "But you know, there have been Republican presidents with whom I disagreed with but I didn't have a doubt that they could function as president."

    From President Obama's press conference:

    OBAMA: I think the Republican nominee is unfit to serve as president. I said so last week. He keeps on proving it. The notion that he would attack a Gold Star family, that [General] Hayden -- had made such extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our country, the fact that he does not appear to have basic knowledge around critical issues in Europe, the Middle East, in Asia.

    It means that he is woefully unprepared. This is not just my opinion. What's been interesting has been the repeated denunciations of his statements by leading Republicans. Including the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, prominent Republicans like John McCain.

    The question they have to ask themselves is if you are repeatedly having to say in very strong terms that what he has said is unacceptable, why are you still endorsing him? What does this say about your party, that this is your standard bearer?

    This isn't a situation where you have an episodic gaffe. This is daily, and weekly, where they are distancing themselves from statements he's making. There has to be a point in which you say, this is not somebody I can support for president of the United States. Even if he purports to be a member of my party. And, you know, the fact that that has not yet happened makes some of these denunciations ring hollow.

    I don't doubt their sincerity. I don't doubt that they were outraged about some of the statements that Mr. Trump and his supporters made about the Khan family. But there has to come a point at which you say somebody who makes those kinds of statements doesn't have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding to occupy the most powerful position in the world. Because a lot of people depend on the White House getting stuff right. And this is different than just having policy disagreements.

    I recognize that they all profoundly disagree with myself or Hillary Clinton on tax policy or on certain elements of foreign policy. But you know, there have been Republican presidents with whom I disagreed with but I didn't have a doubt that they could function as president...

    There has to come a point in which you say, enough. And the alternative is that the entire party, the Republican party, effectively endorses and validates the positions that are being articulated by Mr. Trump. And as I said in my speech last week, I don't think that actually represents the views of a whole lot of Republicans out there.

    Trump responded to Obama in a statement Tuesday afternoon:

    President Obama has been a failed leader who along with Secretary of State Clinton created a foreign policy that has destabilized the world and made it an unsafe place. He is the one who is unfit to be President and Hillary Clinton is equally unfit.

    Obama-Clinton have single-handedly destabilized the Middle East, handed Iraq, Libya and Syria to ISIS, and allowed our personnel to be slaughtered at Benghazi. Then they put Iran on the path to nuclear weapons. Then they allowed dozens of veterans to die waiting for medical care that never came. Hillary Clinton put the whole country at risk with her illegal email server, deleted evidence of her crime, and lied repeatedly about her conduct which endangered us all. They released criminal aliens into our country who killed one innocent American after another -- like Sarah Root and Kate Steinle -- and have repeatedly admitted migrants later implicated in terrorism. They have produced the worst recovery since the Great Depression. They have shipped millions of our best jobs overseas to appease their global special interests. They have betrayed our security and our workers, and Hillary Clinton has proven herself unfit to serve in any government office.

    She is reckless with her emails, reckless with regime change, and reckless with American lives. Our nation has been humiliated abroad and compromised by radical Islam brought onto our shores. We need change now.

    [Aug 04, 2016] Commentary The real reason Washington calls Putin a thug by Peter Van Buren

    Notable quotes:
    "... Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the conclusion of the Cold War (" the end of history ," as Francis Fukuyama, called it), there was no global enemy for America to face down. No big nasty to spur weapons procurement, to justify a huge standing military with hundreds of bases around the world or to pick fights with to allow a president down in the polls to morph into a superhero. ..."
    "... Americans are already well-prepared by the old Cold War to see Russia again as an evil empire, and Putin does look the part. The Russians are involved in Syria's civil war, so there is some sense of continuity. A new Cold War with Russia would require America to buy more expensive military hardware, plus discover new areas of Europe, like the Baltic states, to garrison. It might even breathe new life into a North Atlantic Treaty Organization that is confused about its role vis-a-vis terrorism. For politicians, ceaselessly shouting about the Muslim threat has proved to have downsides: It has inflamed many Muslims, perhaps pushing them toward radicalization. In addition, it turns out there are Muslim voters in the United States, and people who respect Muslims. The Kahn family's moving speech to the Democratic National Convention about the death of their soldier son was proof of that. ..."
    "... On the other hand, Putin doesn't vote, only a handful of far leftists think he's a good guy, and he can be slapped around in sound bites without risk that he will actually launch a war against the United States. Why, he can even be accused, without penalty, of meddling in our democratic processes. ..."
    "... Putin the Thug is a political-military-industrial-complex dream candidate. Expect him to feature heavily in the next administration's foreign policy. ..."
    Aug 02, 2016 | Reuters

    There is a near-certainty in American political speech, going back to the 1980s: When a senior United States official labels you a thug, trouble follows. "Thug" is the safest go-to word in the lexicon of American Exceptionalism.

    So, it is with concern that folks are lining up at the mic to call Russian President Vladimir Putin just that. President Obama called him a "thug," as did presidential hopeful Marco Rubio, who added "gangster" for good measure. Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan's spokesperson found fault with Putin and his whole nation, even adding an adjective: "Russia is a global menace led by a DEVIOUS thug." One rarely hears ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum or villain, but watch out for thug.

    While throwing the term at Putin is tied to the weak public evidence supposedly linking Russian government hacker(s) to the Democratic National Committee computer breach, there may be larger issues in the background.

    It seems the word "thug" is a sort of dog whistle that when blown signals Americans and their media to psyche up for a new fight. For example:

    Secretary of State John Kerry on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad: "A thug and murderer." Kerry also said, "Daesh [Islamic State] is in fact nothing more than a mixture of killers, of kidnappers, of criminals, of thugs ..."

    Then-President George W. Bush on al Qaeda: "If we let down our guard against this group of thugs, they will hurt us again." Bush also thought Saddam Hussein was a thug.

    Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Muammar Gaddafi: "Look, everybody understands Gaddafi is a thug and murderer."

    Madeleine Albright found thugs in Somalia and the Balkans for the wars of her era as secretary of state.

    But why Putin, and why now? Perhaps what we're seeing is preparation for the next iteration of America's perpetual state of war.

    Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the conclusion of the Cold War ("the end of history," as Francis Fukuyama, called it), there was no global enemy for America to face down. No big nasty to spur weapons procurement, to justify a huge standing military with hundreds of bases around the world or to pick fights with to allow a president down in the polls to morph into a superhero.

    A lot of people had a lot of power and money in play that demanded some real bad guys. An attempt was made in the 1980s to make drug lords the new major threat, but they were too few in number to sustain the media campaign. Following 9/11, the bad guys were "the terrorists." The George W. Bush administration riffed off that theme in appointing Saddam Hussein as a weapons-of-mass-destruction threat and in tagging Iran and North Korea as members of an "axis of evil."

    Saddam Hussein turned out to be a bust, and the war in Iraq was ultimately very unpopular. Osama bin Laden never launched a second attack on the United States, and the Taliban were dragged down by a war that seemed to lose its focus after 15 years. Iran and North Korea make a lot of noise but never seemed able to do real harm to America. The United States made a good-faith effort trying to label all sorts of others – Gaddafi, Assad, Islamic State – as global enemies worthy of perpetual war, but the Middle East in general has turned into a quagmire. America likes a winner, or at least the appearance of winning.

    Ahead of the next administration, Washington really needs an arch enemy, a poster-child kind of guy who looks like a James Bond villain. And preferably one with nuclear weapons he'll brandish but never use.

    Enter Putin the Thug.

    Americans are already well-prepared by the old Cold War to see Russia again as an evil empire, and Putin does look the part. The Russians are involved in Syria's civil war, so there is some sense of continuity. A new Cold War with Russia would require America to buy more expensive military hardware, plus discover new areas of Europe, like the Baltic states, to garrison. It might even breathe new life into a North Atlantic Treaty Organization that is confused about its role vis-a-vis terrorism.

    For politicians, ceaselessly shouting about the Muslim threat has proved to have downsides: It has inflamed many Muslims, perhaps pushing them toward radicalization. In addition, it turns out there are Muslim voters in the United States, and people who respect Muslims. The Kahn family's moving speech to the Democratic National Convention about the death of their soldier son was proof of that.

    On the other hand, Putin doesn't vote, only a handful of far leftists think he's a good guy, and he can be slapped around in sound bites without risk that he will actually launch a war against the United States. Why, he can even be accused, without penalty, of meddling in our democratic processes.

    Putin the Thug is a political-military-industrial-complex dream candidate. Expect him to feature heavily in the next administration's foreign policy.

    Peter Van Buren, who served in the State Department for 24 years, is the author of "We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People," a look at the waste and mismanagement of the Iraqi reconstruction. His latest book is "Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent." He is on Twitter @WeMeantWell

    [Aug 03, 2016] Trump-Khan Flap Puts Republicans in a Bind RealClearPolitics by James Arkin

    Aug 02, 2016 | www.realclearpolitics.com
    In an interview with CNN on Monday, Khan called Trump "ignorant" and "arrogant" and criticized other Republicans for not doing more to denounce their party's nominee.

    "Enough is enough," he said. "Every decent Republican ... has rebuked this behavior, yet no one has stood up and said, 'Enough, stop it. You will not be our candidate.'"

    It was the second time since his convention speech that Khan has directly appealed to GOP leadership on Capitol Hill to push back against the nominee. Over the weekend, he singled out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker Paul Ryan on MSNBC, saying the "only reason they're not repudiating his behavior, his threat to our democracy, our decency, our foundation, is just because of political consequences."

    [Aug 03, 2016] Khizr Khan Founded Islamic Journal to Defend Sharia Law

    Notable quotes:
    "... Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law ..."
    "... The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law ..."
    "... Virginia continues to provide driver's licenses to terrorists. Mohammad Khweis, a member of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), was captured by Kurdish forces in northern Iraq. Like seven of the 9/11 hijackers, Khweis carried a Virginia license. Khizr Khan's legal advice to followers of Sharia law has allowed them to game the U.S. immigration system and Virginia legal statutes. Khan has some explaining to do about his legal practice. ..."
    "... Wayne Madsen is an investigative journalist who consistently exposes cover-ups from deep within the government. Want to be the first to learn the latest scandal? Go to WayneMadsenReport.com subscribe today! ..."
    Alex Jones' Infowars!
    Khizr Khan, the Muslim immigrant lawyer from Pakistan who arrived in America by way of Dubai and pulled at the heart strings of viewers of the Democratic National Convention by regaling the audience with the story of the loss of his son in Iraq, Army Captain Humayun Khan, told his son's story but skipped over his own.

    Khizr Khan entered the United States in 1980 from Dubai to attend Harvard Law School. That year saw the Central Intelligence Agency ramp up its operations in Pakistan in support of the Afghan mujaheddin against the Soviets.

    The Pakistan operation was shepherded by national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, currently an outspoken opponent of Donald Trump and a bitter foe of Russia.

    Khan received his bachelor of law degree from Punjab University Law College in Lahore, Pakistan in 1974. After entering the United States from Dubai in 1980, Khan received a masters of law degree from the University of Missouri in 1982.

    Khan specializes in international trade law for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. As anyone familiar with these countries knows, trade law for both countries involves the traditional Muslim bribe, the baksheesh, which, depending on the value of the deal, can involve millions of dollars. These deals are very familiar to Trump, who could have strengthened his argument against Khan by revealing the "Gold Star father's" specialty in the "art of the bribe."

    Khan co-founded the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law, an academic periodical that seeks to defend the arcane Sharia law to a legal system based on Western jurisprudence. Of course, Sharia law justifies the execution of gays, prostitutes, blasphemers, and Muslim "apostates" who convert to other religions.

    Trying to advance Sharia law in legal systems based on Roman and English Common Law is like forcing a square peg into a round hole.

    ... ... ...

    Khan is a firm believer that law is based on the Sunnah, the works of the prophet Mohammed. The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law is linked to the Islamic Center of Geneva, Switzerland, an arm of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood.

    And here we run the circle back to Khan's favorite candidate, Hillary Clinton. Clinton's close aide and reported lesbian lover, Huma Abedin, has close links to radical Wahhabist Islam through her mother, the Pakistani-born Saleha Mahmood Abedin. Saleha Abedin resides in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and teaches sociology at Dar Al-Hekma College in Jeddah.

    Although she was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Huma lived in Jeddah from infancy to her college years before returning to the United States. Dar Al-Hekma College is a women-only college in keeping with Sharia and Quranic principles of segregation of the sexes.

    The college, which was endowed by the Al-Ilm Foundation, is part of a network of Wahhabist colleges and schools that extend from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, Malaysia, and southern California.

    Khizr Khan practices law in New York and is a member of the New York Bar. Khan's Manhattan law office is next door to the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, which also happens to house the residence of the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power.

    Power's husband is Cass Sunstein, President Obama's former information czar who excels in the art of disinformation, propaganda, and cognitive dissonance. But more interesting is the fact that Khan and his wife are residents of Charlottesville, Virginia, a home to a number of foreign Muslims, many of whom are students at the University of Virginia who wish to change their student visa status to permanent residency, or "green card" status.

    Charlottesville is a so-called "sanctuary city" that welcomes those who either enter the United States illegally or overstay their limited residency visas.

    Khan's wife, Ghazala, is a pediatrician in Virginia Beach, which is a three-hour drive from Charlottesville. The Khans are not attracted to Charlottesville because of a convenient distance to their places of work.

    So why do they reside in the university town? When their son died in Iraq in 2004, the Khans lived in Bristow, Virginia, a far suburb of Washington, DC in Prince William County. The Khans had also once lived in Silver Spring, Maryland.

    The official notification of Khan's death stated:

    "Captain Humayun S. M. Khan, 27, of Bristow, Virginia, died June 8, 2004, in Baquabah, Iraq, after a vehicle packed with an improvised explosive device drove into the gate of his compound while he was inspecting soldiers on guard duty. Khan was assigned to Headquarters, Headquarters Company, 201st Forward Support Battalion, 1st Infantry Division, Vilseck, Germany."

    Khan was actually an Army intelligence officer, fluent in Arabic, who worked with Iraqi civilians in a program called the United States-Iraq Sponsorship Program, which was actually an operation designed to recruit Iraqis to work as police and in other "capacities" for the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. occupation government of Iraq.

    Khan's home base of Vilseck is a center for U.S. intelligence operations involving units of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command. When Khan was killed, oversight of Iraq "transition" programs, such as the U.S.-Iraq Sponsorship Program, had just come under the control of General David Petraeus, the first commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq.

    Members of the Pakistani embassy, including deputy chief of mission (DCM) Mohammad Sadiq, attended Captain Khan's burial at Arlington National Cemetery. The DCM of large embassies are almost always the embassy intelligence chief of station. In the case of Sadig, this would be the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

    In 2008, Sadiq, who paid his respects to Captain Khan at Arlington, was defending ISI as the Pakistan Foreign Ministry's chief spokesman. India accused the ISI of bombing its embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. The bombing killed four people, including two Indian diplomats.

    It was not only India that blamed the ISI for the bombing in Kabul. CIA officials said that intercepts of communications showed ISI involvement. Pakistan was so incensed by the statements from U.S. intelligence that it summoned CIA official Stephen Kappes to Islamabad for a chewing out session.


    Virginia continues to provide driver's licenses to terrorists. Mohammad Khweis, a member of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), was captured by Kurdish forces in northern Iraq. Like seven of the 9/11 hijackers, Khweis carried a Virginia license. Khizr Khan's legal advice to followers of Sharia law has allowed them to game the U.S. immigration system and Virginia legal statutes. Khan has some explaining to do about his legal practice.

    Pakistan was not a member of the U.S. coalition in Iraq, which begs the question of why the Pakistani embassy's ISI chief attended Captain Humayun Khan's funeral at Arlington? Was Khan working, through his Saudi- and Pakistani-connected father with the ISI?

    If so, was the contact "sanctioned" by the CIA? If not, was Humayun Khan freelancing and feeding information from Iraq to the ISI, which then passed it to their close allies in the Saudi General Intelligence Department?

    Khizr Khan claims he is a "legal consultant" in Charlottesville, although he is not a member of the Virginia Bar. Given the nature of Charlotteville's status as a sanctuary city, Khan's legal background and his work with the Muslim community in Virginia, it is likely that Khan offers help to Muslims who have overstayed their student visas in the university and sanctuary city to obtain permanent residence.

    It should be recalled that seven of the 9/11 hijackers obtained Virginia driver's licenses, three of which were used as official identification to check in for flights on September 11, 2001. Perhaps if Khizr Khan had not been so willing to help dodgy Muslim "students" overstay their visas and seek workarounds to the law, Virginia might have been able to prevent the hijackers fraudulently obtain driver's licenses.

    And had there been no 9/11, there certainly would have been no U.S. invasion of Iraq and Humayun Khan would have realized his dream of attending the University of Virginia law school and becoming a military lawyer. In making it easy for Saudis, Emiratis, and others to game the U.S. immigration system, Khizr Khan shares in some of the responsibility for his son's death.

    Because it is not advisable to attack any Gold Star family, Trump should have merely replied to Khizr Khan's attack by saying, "I understand the family's loss and although they attacked me, I will not respond to a grieving family."

    Trump could have added that Captain Khan would not have died had it not been for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, a war for which Hillary Clinton voted as a senator. Through surrogates, Trump could have revealed the Khan's connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia law advocates, the Saudis, and the ISI.

    Wayne Madsen is an investigative journalist who consistently exposes cover-ups from deep within the government. Want to be the first to learn the latest scandal? Go to WayneMadsenReport.com subscribe today!

    [Aug 03, 2016] Financialization and its Discontents

    Notable quotes:
    "... We are all "banks", but we don't have the capacity to socialise costs and privatise benefits. The problem is thereby, a problem of the power structure and accountability. Of institutional decay and corruption. ..."
    "... Capitalism has always favored the few at the expense of the many. Yet there have been places and moments, like in post-WWII U.S., where effort has gone into making the financial system at least appear somewhat transparent and predictable. Today we simply suffer the unrestrained looting of kleptocrats who laugh in our faces if we dare to complain. They violate "rules" that are already tilted in their favor with impunity. Meanwhile, if you are a poor person, unable to pay a traffic ticket in a timely fashion, you may well lose your liberty, or even your life. ..."
    "... The problem we have is that the system is rigged. Bad actors in the upper class can destroy their bank for fun and profit. Individuals father down the scale cannot discharge student loans under any circumstances. This is the largest source of discontent and a problem elites refuse to address. ..."
    "... And the elites won't address it until they are jailed or guillotined. Why should they? ..."
    "... The article starts off well enough, but then loses track of the critical standpoints it initially sets out. For example, within the above idea, the author can't talk about dimensions of life that are not monetizable because they are a capitalist prerogative. For instance, if someone is forced to work mandatory overtime because their employer doesn't want to hire enough workers to cover demand without overtime, you either do the overtime or you exit. You can't buy your time off. Etc. ..."
    "... I'm not sure what point this article is attempting to make. The distinction between money and debt becomes moot if money is a debt - which if I understand his arguments correctly is what Michael Hudson argues in "Killing the Host". I do like the reading list at the bottom. I'm behind many of the rest of the commenters in not having read any of these oft cited books. ..."
    "... I agree with other comments the formula "we are each of us banks" is lame. I think it matches nicely with the oft repeated analogy between government finance and a family business. ..."
    "... Financialization is about middlemen and looters skimming off money as it flows through; whether this is good or bad in a particular case depends upon whether those middlemen add value or simply act as rentiers. ..."
    "... money is the mental construct, the idea, by which we value human labor and transport that value across spacetime. ..."
    "... Other People's Money ..."
    naked capitalism
    TomDority , August 3, 2016 at 6:55 am

    Not sure the bank thing is a good analogy. Seams when a financial system raises the cost of an asset like land through speculation to the point where a debtor has not enough income to cover outflow to provide basics of survival….. food, water, shelter, community etc……..then does the crrditor/speculator thus owe society because, it was through speculation and Mal-investment that society was damaged.

    Thomas Jefferson….I think, said something along the lines…… if banks get a hold of credit creation then, by inflation and deflation the citizens of this country will be left homeless upon the land their fathers established.

    IDG , August 3, 2016 at 7:30 am

    We are all "banks", but we don't have the capacity to socialise costs and privatise benefits. The problem is thereby, a problem of the power structure and accountability. Of institutional decay and corruption.

    Ulysses , August 3, 2016 at 9:41 am

    Very well said!

    Capitalism has always favored the few at the expense of the many. Yet there have been places and moments, like in post-WWII U.S., where effort has gone into making the financial system at least appear somewhat transparent and predictable. Today we simply suffer the unrestrained looting of kleptocrats who laugh in our faces if we dare to complain. They violate "rules" that are already tilted in their favor with impunity. Meanwhile, if you are a poor person, unable to pay a traffic ticket in a timely fashion, you may well lose your liberty, or even your life.

    washunate , August 3, 2016 at 10:55 am

    Capitalism has always favored the few at the expense of the many.

    I'm curious what makes capitalism unique for you in that regard? I agree that there are problems with market-based economics, but you seem to be suggesting that other forms of political economy don't have problems of concentration of wealth and power?

    Capitalism without democracy and individual rights absolutely favors the few at the expense of the many. That's why our intellectual enablers have spent so much energy trying to separate economics from politics: to camouflage political choices as if they are natural economic outcomes.

    Left in Wisconsin , August 3, 2016 at 11:52 am

    I'm not sure what "other forms" you have in mind for comparison. But I would suggest it is a huge failure of imagination to suggest humans have exhausted all possible forms of economic organization and are stuck with contemporary global capitalism. Time for some innovation!

    readerOfTeaLeaves , August 3, 2016 at 11:04 am

    Agreed.

    And as Mehring points out: "Focusing on what money really is – whether gold or state fiat – shifts attention away from what credit really is, which is to say away from the center of discontent." It's the quality of that debt, what it is and why, that needs far more examination. At present, it is at the root of much discontent: why should I and mine be expected to salvage bank balance sheets that are essentially fraudulent in terms of crap mortgages?

    The institutional decay is really some kind of measure of the quality of crappy debt, which is making many of us seriously discontent at being expected to cover crap bets.

    Larry , August 3, 2016 at 7:36 am

    The problem we have is that the system is rigged. Bad actors in the upper class can destroy their bank for fun and profit. Individuals father down the scale cannot discharge student loans under any circumstances. This is the largest source of discontent and a problem elites refuse to address.

    Benedict@Large , August 3, 2016 at 8:22 am

    And the elites won't address it until they are jailed or guillotined. Why should they?

    hemeantwell , August 3, 2016 at 8:42 am

    From a money view perspective, the origin of discontent seems to lie in the fact that each of us, in our interface with the essentially financial system that is modern capitalism, operates essentially as a bank, meaning a cash inflow, cash outflow entity.

    The article starts off well enough, but then loses track of the critical standpoints it initially sets out. For example, within the above idea, the author can't talk about dimensions of life that are not monetizable because they are a capitalist prerogative. For instance, if someone is forced to work mandatory overtime because their employer doesn't want to hire enough workers to cover demand without overtime, you either do the overtime or you exit. You can't buy your time off. Etc.

    Jeremy Grimm , August 3, 2016 at 9:34 am

    I'm not sure what point this article is attempting to make. The distinction between money and debt becomes moot if money is a debt - which if I understand his arguments correctly is what Michael Hudson argues in "Killing the Host". I do like the reading list at the bottom. I'm behind many of the rest of the commenters in not having read any of these oft cited books.

    I agree with other comments the formula "we are each of us banks" is lame. I think it matches nicely with the oft repeated analogy between government finance and a family business.

    The close: "fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the system" leaves me hanging. Where is the explanation which clarifies things and repairs my misunderstanding? I missed it in the presentation above and the concluding absurdity - "… we are each of us banks, managing our daily cash inflow and cash outflow relative to the larger system which is society." - hardly serves as clarification of anything. It just makes me annoyed that I bothered to read down that far.

    JEHR , August 3, 2016 at 11:38 am

    Bad analogy: If each of us were our own bank, then we would be able to create money like banks and loan out with interest and make billions each quarter because sometimes we could speculate or gamble and make billions more while our fellow citizens become poorer because of our efforts.

    washunate , August 3, 2016 at 10:25 am

    Unlike some commenters, I do happen to like the imagery of all of us being banks. That's what we all do: our labor flows out, other people's labor flows in. Imbalances can (and in fact, almost by definition have to) occur over arbitrarily short time frames, but over longer timeframes, these inflows and outflows do have to roughly balance. It also helps lay bare the fallacy of bailing out individual banks (TBTF) as some kind of means of saving the banking system rather than those specific banks bailed out. If the USFG gave Wash a trillion buck bailout, Wash Banking Inc would be very grateful and fix lots of things in Wash Town USA and make lots of jawbs and groaf and all dat. Does that make it good policy, either for the residents of Wash Town or the residents of Dry Town across the valley?

    Where I don't quite follow the author's point is in distinguishing money/credit/financialization/etc. The easiest way to understand money at a macro level is that money is labor. Or a bit more complexly, money is the mental construct, the idea, by which we value human labor and transport that value across spacetime.

    The issue of financialization isn't market vs. non-market or money vs. non-money or something like that. Financialization is about the subset of money called currency, particularly currency units issued by a sovereign government, being used to allocate resources in areas where currency units are poor allocators of resources. Financialization is about middlemen and looters skimming off money as it flows through; whether this is good or bad in a particular case depends upon whether those middlemen add value or simply act as rentiers.

    The biggest areas of financialization in contemporary western culture, especially in the heart of the free world in DC, are not markets at all. They are government sponsored enterprises carrying out that age old quest of the Will to Power. Remove USFG policy choices to run a global empire abroad and create massive inequality at home, and our supposedly market-based financial system would shrink to a much smaller size overnight.

    JEHR , August 3, 2016 at 11:39 am

    If money were true labour then bankers would be broke!

    Robert Dannin , August 3, 2016 at 11:51 am

    "Financialization is about middlemen and looters skimming off money as it flows through; whether this is good or bad in a particular case depends upon whether those middlemen add value or simply act as rentiers."

    You hit the nail on the head here. Profits from financial transactions differ from those derived in trading commodities and services. The former are occult whereas the latter originate in the value of labor power. The claim that financial profits track interest rates doesn't work because they remain linked to credit and ultimately commodity exchange. If you listen to the Blankfeins and Dimons, they will say they are compensated for some special managerial skills that add values to the financial transaction. This is only nonsense to justify their mega-salaries, themselves only a fraction of the huge profits in finance. According to Hilferding's Finance Capital, the source of profit in finance is "sui generis" and derives from what we now call transaction fees. Whether legitimate or not, we need to understand how those rates are determined relative to the other variables.

    Left in Wisconsin , August 3, 2016 at 11:58 am

    money is the mental construct, the idea, by which we value human labor and transport that value across spacetime.

    But even this has to be qualified by tradition, power relations, etc. as there are many, many forms of human labor (often those forms traditionally performed by women) that we value but do not compensate with money. Also, who is "we?" And when did "we" decide that 2 and 20 was appropriate compensation for the "value" provided by hedge funders?

    Alejandro , August 3, 2016 at 11:10 am

    This "economist" alludes to, but fails to make the connection of the "asymmetrical" AND disproportionate power between creditors and debtors, that has been legislated, ratified and codified into the creditor castle (institution) of banking, currently run by banksters and moated with pols, judges, story-tellers masquerading as "journos"/"economists" etc….e.g.-assuming it were possible to make a sharp distinction between speculating and investing, by what reasonable definition of creditor can vultures be classified as creditors?

    Also doesn't seem to challenge the presupposition of "self-regulation" in the abstract "logic"(and language) of "markets", which is innate in thinking of "money" as a commodity. This abstract "logic"(and language) has "supplied" the fodder for neoliberal zealots to rationalize de-regulation, which many have concluded has been a major driver of the "defining issue of our time" and the disdainful polarization between the "haves" and "have-nots".

    Also seems to fail to recognize the conflict when thinking about money as a commodity and the effects of compounding interest…

    Sluggeaux , August 3, 2016 at 12:23 pm

    Thanks for this. I followed the link and have started reading Louis Brandeis' Other People's Money , which I've never read before. We've learned little in the ensuing 100 years…

    [Aug 03, 2016] Obama predicts TPP trade deal will be ratified after election by legitgov

    www.legitgov.org
    August 3, 2016

    The people will stop this, dirt-bag: Obama predicts TPP 'trade' deal will be ratified after election | 02 Aug 2016 | President Barack Obama dismissed Hillary Clinton's [phony] opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement corporate takeover Tuesday and suggested that her disapproval of the deal may be politically motivated. [*Duh.*] "Right now, I'm president, and I'm for it," he said at a news conference with Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong...While Obama and Lee were speaking, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was addressing supporters at a rally in Ashburn, Virginia, just miles from the capital. In a statement, Trump said a victory by him in November is the only way to stop a "TPP catastrophe."

    [Aug 03, 2016] Rove What If Trump Stayed On Message Addressed Hillary Clinton's Lie on Emails and FBI, Beat Her Up On Economy

    Alex Junces consider the Hillary is illegitamete candidate that stole primaries from Sanders and she intend to steal general elections. The Alex Jones Channel - YouTube
    www.realclearpolitics.com

    Former Bush adviser Karl Rove scolds Republican nominee Donald Trump for getting off message and missing campaign opportunities. In an appearance on the FOX News Channel on Wednesday morning Rove listed a litany of items Trump could have brought attention to rather than express his indignation at treatment by the media and the Khan family.

    "Let's take last Friday," Rove started. "Rather than engaging in a battle with the Khan family over the death of their son. What if that day Donald Trump had taken the economic report that showed 1% GDP growth and excoriated her for having nothing but the same policies as Barack Obama that put us here. He could have used that Friday and Saturday and beaten her up on the economy and displayed his expertise, his agenda, his issues and be seen with blue-collared workers and small business people."

    "What if on Sunday rather than starting to talk about how the elections were rigged because the debates were scheduled on the same day as big NFL football games 18 months ago, incidentally, and also excoriating the fire marshals in Colorado Springs and Columbus for enforcing the fire codes. What if he had spent the afternoon and evening of Sunday focused in on Hillary Clinton's interview with Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday where she lied again about the emails and also gave him a big, fat juicy target on the economy saying my answer is I'm going to set up an infrastructure bank, 'to seed it with taxpayer dollars' and then 'get investors involved' in order to make money off of using taxpayer dollars for infrastructure projects. Both of those seem to me to be a much better way to go," Rove said.

    [Aug 03, 2016] Clint Eastwood Trump Challenging Obama's 'Pussy Generation'

    Notable quotes:
    "... Million Dollar Baby ..."
    Alex Jones' Infowars
    Presidential contender Donald Trump is challenging the "pussy generation" manifested by President Obama and the religion of political correctness, film legend Clint Eastwood recently told Esquire magazine.

    In a father-son interview featured in the September 2016 issue of the men's magazine, Eastwood explains he prefers Trump's more cut-to-the-chase, no-nonsense approach of getting his message across.

    ESQ: Your characters have become touchstones in the culture, whether it's Reagan invoking "Make my day" or now Trump … I swear he's even practiced your scowl.

    CE: Maybe. But he's onto something, because secretly everybody's getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That's the kiss-ass generation we're in right now. We're really in a pussy generation. Everybody's walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren't called racist. And then when I did Gran Torino, even my associate said, "This is a really good script, but it's politically incorrect." And I said, "Good. Let me read it tonight." The next morning, I came in and I threw it on his desk and I said, "We're starting this immediately."

    ESQ: What is the "pussy generation"?

    CE: All these people that say, "Oh, you can't do that, and you can't do this, and you can't say that." I guess it's just the times.

    ESQ: What do you think Trump is onto?

    CE: What Trump is onto is he's just saying what's on his mind. And sometimes it's not so good. And sometimes it's … I mean, I can understand where he's coming from, but I don't always agree with it.

    ESQ: So you're not endorsing him?

    CE: I haven't endorsed anybody. I haven't talked to Trump. I haven't talked to anybody. You know, he's a racist now because he's talked about this judge. And yeah, it's a dumb thing to say. I mean, to predicate your opinion on the fact that the guy was born to Mexican parents or something. He's said a lot of dumb things. So have all of them. Both sides. But everybody-the press and everybody's going, "Oh, well, that's racist," and they're making a big hoodoo out of it. Just fucking get over it. It's a sad time in history.

    Speaking of his stunt at the 2012 RNC in which he spoke to an empty chair intended to represent Obama, the 86-year-old director stated the president is pretty much the embodiment of the "pussy generation" due to his lack of efforts to strike deals with Congress throughout his tenure.

    CE: It was silly at the time, but I was standing backstage and I'm hearing everybody say the same thing: "Oh, this guy's a great guy." Great, he's a great guy. I've got to say something more. And so I'm listening to an old Neil Diamond thing and he's going, "And no one heard at all / Not even the chair." And I'm thinking, That's Obama. He doesn't go to work. He doesn't go down to Congress and make a deal. What the hell's he doing sitting in the White House? If I were in that job, I'd get down there and make a deal. Sure, Congress are lazy bastards, but so what? You're the top guy. You're the president of the company. It's your responsibility to make sure everybody does well. It's the same with every company in this country, whether it's a two-man company or a two-hundred-man company… . And that's the pussy generation-nobody wants to work.

    While Eastwood hasn't formally endorsed Trump, the Million Dollar Baby actor did admit he would vote for the businessman over Clinton, as she is set to continue Obama's disastrous agenda.

    ESQ: But if the choice is between her and Trump, what do you do?

    CE: That's a tough one, isn't it? I'd have to go for Trump … you know, 'cause she's declared that she's gonna follow in Obama's footsteps. There's been just too much funny business on both sides of the aisle. She's made a lot of dough out of being a politician. I gave up dough to be a politician. I'm sure that Ronald Reagan gave up dough to be a politician.

    Eastwood and his son, Scott, later clarified their positions on being labeled the "anti-pussy party."

    ESQ: Politically, you're the Anti-Pussy party?

    SE: That's right. No candy-asses.

    CE: Yeah, I'm anti–the pussy generation. Not to be confused with pussy.

    SE: All of us are pro-pussy.

    Eastwood is just the latest in a growing chorus of voices speaking out against the burgeoning system of political correctness, which threatens an Orwellian control of language and the population at large.

    [Aug 03, 2016] Obama Signals Trump Will Win

    www.infowars.com

    Alex Jones' Infowars

    If the election was already "in the bag" for Hillary Clinton, President Obama wouldn't be working overtime to convince the GOP to dump Trump.

    Instead, he'd be encouraging Trump to speak out more if his words were helping Hillary – but that's not the case at all.

    Obama is signaling that the globalists are losing and Hillary is falling too far behind for the technocrats to rig the election in her favor.

    "The president implored Republicans to un-endorse him and asked what does it say about the Republican party that Trump is their standard bearer," Real Clear Politics reported. "Obama called on Republicans to repudiate and condemn the party's nominee."

    In other words, the president is the Wizard of Oz panicking after Trump pulled the curtain to expose the globalists as the evil they are – and not the saviors of humanity they portray themselves to be.

    It's also revealing that Obama made his desperate declaration right after Trump warned the general election is being rigged just like the Democratic nomination, which was rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton – despite the majority of Democrats supporting Bernie Sanders.

    "As the leaked DNC emails illustrated, the establishment pre-selected Hillary from the start and the primary process was a complete charade to give the illusion of democratic choice," Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones stated. "As the Observer's Michael Sainato writes, 'Instead of treating Sanders as a viable candidate for the Democratic ticket, the DNC worked against him and his campaign to ensure Clinton received the nomination.' The elite chose Hillary before any of the primary votes came in, and vowed to select her regardless of the result."

    "How in any way is this not a rigged process, as Trump rightly pointed out?"

    Did Trump just let the genie out of the bottle the globalists won't be able to put back in? It appears so.

    "Government's been around for as long as history's been around and I think they've exhausted their experimentation," Ron Paul once said. "We've had some experiments with individual liberty and one great experiment was here and I think right now we're seeing the fruitions of how we left that experiment in the last 100 years and it continues yet there's a spirit right now amongst the people who are starting to realize that."

    [Aug 03, 2016] How Not To Run An Anti-Trump Campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... The whole U.S. political and media establishment is right now running a full fledged anti-Trump campaign. ..."
    "... rumors or outright lies. ..."
    "... Some spat over a dead soldier who the Clinton campaign (ab)used for her campaign gets way overblown. Unfounded rumors that some Republicans are going to replace Trump are just a repetition of the same nonsense that spread a month ago. It only heightens the media's lack of credibility. It is similar to the claims that "the Assad regime will fall any minute now". We have heard for the last five years and no one believes it. Unsourced claims that Trump asked why the U.S. can not use nukes are not credible. Especially when they are transported by a lowlife like MSNBC's Scarborough and immediately denied . If true at all, the issues is likely taken out of context. ..."
    "... On the other side, news about Clinton actively lying is so obviously suppressed by the New York Times that even its public editor laments about it. CNN claims that Hillary meets "boisterous crowds" when no-one shows up. ..."
    "... This wont work. This imbalance is not sustainable. The Clinton campaign managers who orchestrate this onslaught are shooting their wads prematurely. ..."
    "... That's what they've been doing for months now in UK against Corbyn - and there the election is four years away. ..."
    "... Mockery, sham, inane, insipid, and other akin words well describe the efforts by the Propaganda System to promote the most immoral candidate ever nominated for president over the second most immoral candidate ever nominated for president all while ignoring the most moral and worthy candidate for president--Dr. Jill Stein. ..."
    "... Bernie(the fake candidate) Sanders was used to placate and herd in the mass of youngsters and progressives and folks who are outright sick and tired only to then softly ease them down ,possibly into the Hillary camp; also so said grouping can feel that they were close and actually had a chance and democracy is indeed real. ..."
    "... 10,000 expected for Trump Rally in Daytona Beach, Florida. At 1 PM Thousands already jammed in the hallways of the Ocean Center for 3 PM Rally. Meanwhile, Hillary must bring in high school students to fill seats. ..."
    "... In fact, I never seen such a politically brave guy in Americas recent history of zionist collaboration. ..."
    "... Khizr Khan used to work for a law firm that has the Saudi Arabian regime and apparently the Clintons or the Clinton Foundation as clients. Khizt Khan is a lawyer and his law firm offers to arrange visa for wealthy foreigners and given his previous employment that probably means that his clients include Saudi Arabians. I just can't understand why such a man would feel strongly about a temporary ban on entry into the United States for Muslims. ..."
    "... You did not mention the firm Khizr-Khan worked for did Hillary Clinton's taxes.. Khizr Khan has all sorts of financial, legal, and political connections to the Clintons through his old law firm, the mega-D.C. firm Hogan Lovells LLP. That firm did Hillary Clinton's taxes for years, starting when Khan still worked there involved in, according to his own website, matters "firm wide"-back in 2004. ..."
    "... The Clinton political machine has rigged the process, against Sanders, and gone to some lengths to conceal the shame of it. At the convention in Philadelphia, they looked most odd; while the Party was showing itself be a some kind of schitzophrenic monster, gulping down the high octane fuel of unreality. They can bear no real resemblance to the Party of Franklin Roosevelt, although they come to the Convention wearing clothes made out of his skin. ..."
    "... They have become republicans with a crisis of identity. ..."
    "... I read that NBC piece on the plot. The word for the day.; "Irreparable consequences." ..."
    "... Does it strike anyone else that the Khan story just sort of vanished all of a sudden. For several days - nothing else in the media. It seemed to drop off sharply yesterday. Normally, I see stories about Khan and his involvement with the Clintons, sharia law, immigration, the disappearing website, etc... and would attribute it to a weak attempt to deflect news coverage but I wonder... ..."
    "... And Trumps counter-attack on the Khans. At first I had the knee-jerk response "he's gone too far this time". On reflection, the Democrat MO to attack opponents using some sympathetic figure with a lot of "moral authority" - could be someone who has lost a loved one, or a disabled person, ... - on the theory that the person being attacked can't fight back. In a way, I applaud Trump for having none of that (while at the same time being annoyed that he took the bait). The Khans made an free decision to be at the DNC convention and leverage their tragedy to attack Trump. While I feel for them, they can't have it both ways. ..."
    "... How on earth could mainstream media even think anyone would watch their stupid propaganda, I feel sorry for Trump with all this propaganda in ALL western states. And no republicans seems to help him! What the hell!? Are they rooting for democrats? ..."
    "... Ukraine renames Moscow Avenue to Bandera Avenue http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c4_1470238094 ..."
    "... Pat Buchanan examines the fact that Trump's the "Peace Candidate," and notes how that's playing in Peoria, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/trump-the-peace-candidate/ ..."
    "... "Behind the war guarantees America has issued to scores of nations in Europe, the Mideast and Asia since 1949, the bedrock of public support that existed during the Cold War has crumbled." ..."
    "... As I've written elsewhere, myself and others's analysis of Trump vs HRC leads us to conclude that Trump's the lesser evil, and is indeed a peace candidate compared to HRC's nonstop belligerence and warmongering. The Propaganda System will do its best to paint Trump as the greater evil, but that will be a very hard task as most of the public no longer sees that System as credible. ..."
    "... I stumbled upon this. Its fun to read. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/02/american-elections-weapons-of-mass-distraction/ ..."
    "... Stein deserves far more serious attention and exposure then she's getting here (U.S.). ..."
    "... Yesterday someone posted a link to the interview with Bashar al-Assad. (Thnx BTW). He was asked his opinion about the next president several times probably to smear him as a Trump supporter. He kept saying that their campaign talk doesn't matter and that it's their actions. But @17:40 he said this, "We always hope that the next president will be much wiser than the previous one." We hope for the same thing here in the us and we keep being disappointed. ..."
    "... Hope isn't going to do the trick, it's time the American people took matters into their own hands. Start marching...against war, against unemployment, homelessness, infrastructure falling apart, prisons everywhere, swindles in the tune of Trillions etc. I could go on... ..."
    "... Zioinism is just a manifestation of the problem ..."
    "... Problem is, the bludgeoning tool is showing signs of cracking. Trump or Hillary, both will go out of their way to finally break it. That sad, because I love this country. ..."
    "... Consider foreign policy, the focus of discussions here. Is it important what and when did Clinton know about the attack on the consulate in Benghazi? Not really. It is important that the entire policy of regime change in Libya is FUBAR. It starts from a simple observation that aging Kaddafi was sufficiently pliable to give the West all (almost all?) benefits of control without the cost. But given the chaotic situation that ensued, indeed it was better to pursue some influence than playing it "risk free" (from Empire perspective, shared by Clinton and her tormentors). ..."
    "... Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Jews agree with Israel's policies. Many Jews are victims as they are preyed upon for their support and vilified for protesting/objecting. ..."
    M of A

    The whole U.S. political and media establishment is right now running a full fledged anti-Trump campaign. The points this drive brings up are minor issue, rumors or outright lies.

    It is premature to run such a campaign now. One can not tell the same story over and over again for nearly a 100 days. People will either get tired of it or will endorse Trump as the poor small boy that everyone is bullying and beating up.

    Some spat over a dead soldier who the Clinton campaign (ab)used for her campaign gets way overblown. Unfounded rumors that some Republicans are going to replace Trump are just a repetition of the same nonsense that spread a month ago. It only heightens the media's lack of credibility. It is similar to the claims that "the Assad regime will fall any minute now". We have heard for the last five years and no one believes it. Unsourced claims that Trump asked why the U.S. can not use nukes are not credible. Especially when they are transported by a lowlife like MSNBC's Scarborough and immediately denied . If true at all, the issues is likely taken out of context.

    On the other side, news about Clinton actively lying is so obviously suppressed by the New York Times that even its public editor laments about it. CNN claims that Hillary meets "boisterous crowds" when no-one shows up.

    This wont work. This imbalance is not sustainable. The Clinton campaign managers who orchestrate this onslaught are shooting their wads prematurely.

    It does not matter that Trump indeed has small hands or that he fibs on every details. The majority of the people hate Clinton. This media campaign will fall back on her. She will be perceived as the bully increasing her already strong negatives.

    Posted by b on August 3, 2016 at 12:49 PM | Permalink

    Comments

    Steve | Aug 3, 2016 12:52:38 PM | 1

    Political class has learned nothing from Brexit vote... Fear mongering, smears, etc don't work...

    sk

    Laguerre | Aug 3, 2016 1:01:44 PM | 2
    It is premature to run such a campaign now. One can not tell the same story over and over again for nearly a 100 days
    That's what they've been doing for months now in UK against Corbyn - and there the election is four years away.
    Tony B. | Aug 3, 2016 1:05:04 PM | 4
    Many years ago a lady, who knew from personal experience, mentioned that talumdists (some of whom run the U.S. government, the U.S. media, the U.S. economy, U.S. academia, etc.) have no sense of proportion and no sense of timing - except in music. She knew exactly the truth of what she was stating.
    karlof1 | Aug 3, 2016 1:11:25 PM | 5
    Mockery, sham, inane, insipid, and other akin words well describe the efforts by the Propaganda System to promote the most immoral candidate ever nominated for president over the second most immoral candidate ever nominated for president all while ignoring the most moral and worthy candidate for president--Dr. Jill Stein.
    bored muslim | Aug 3, 2016 1:11:37 PM | 6
    I don't watch mainstream media for years now, too disgusting for my appetite, but I will venture to say this:

    The election years in the U.S have been for decades now carnivals. Now that there are two official runners, we are now entering the 'Magician Show' phase, fast forward, the 'power' behind the curtain (Israel-firsters, AIPAC, international talmudists i.e) will/are using Trump as the sleight of hand, while Hillary will be ushered in as the prestige. Simple as that. Its all orchestrated. Has been for so long. Power in the U.S is very well protected.

    Bernie(the fake candidate) Sanders was used to placate and herd in the mass of youngsters and progressives and folks who are outright sick and tired only to then softly ease them down ,possibly into the Hillary camp; also so said grouping can feel that they were close and actually had a chance and democracy is indeed real.

    I cant find it anymore, but not long ago I saw a newspaper clipping of a picture on a major U.S newspaper showing Trump's grandchildren visiting him in his office and lo and behold, among the many portraits and pictures Trump had hanging on his wall was one that stuck out to me. It was a portrait of King Solomon's Temple with Hebrew writing on it. The man is a full fledged Zionist and on the take. Hillary is the same or worse, since the 'powers' have sooo much on here and her husband she will make a good blackmail abled POTUS.

    That's my take, and no, I don't have or need a tin foil hat. Mark my words.

    fastfreddy | Aug 3, 2016 1:15:10 PM | 7
    10,000 expected for Trump Rally in Daytona Beach, Florida. At 1 PM Thousands already jammed in the hallways of the Ocean Center for 3 PM Rally. Meanwhile, Hillary must bring in high school students to fill seats.
    dahoit | Aug 3, 2016 1:15:15 PM | 8
    4;Correctamundo; A bunch of wacko ancient anti-religious hypocrites control US, and want no part of America First. The only nationalism permitted is zionism's.
    Can b list Trumps fibs? I haven't seen any, although he has walked back some statements, but that isn't a fib, its just re-evaluation.

    In fact, I never seen such a politically brave guy in Americas recent history of zionist collaboration.

    bored muslim | Aug 3, 2016 1:21:46 PM | 12
    off topic...but
    To my fellow barflies, please take the time to watch this moving and special video. Its kind of long but well worth it.

    It essentially made me proud to be American again, when I see my fellow countrymen engaging in this sort of thing, especially the Senator. Very moving indeed.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4RzlWCe4dA

    blowback | Aug 3, 2016 1:31:07 PM | 13
    Khizr Khan used to work for a law firm that has the Saudi Arabian regime and apparently the Clintons or the Clinton Foundation as clients. Khizt Khan is a lawyer and his law firm offers to arrange visa for wealthy foreigners and given his previous employment that probably means that his clients include Saudi Arabians. I just can't understand why such a man would feel strongly about a temporary ban on entry into the United States for Muslims.

    What I really can't understand is why Khizr Khan supports HRC, since she voted for the war that killed his son. That the son might not have come to the United States and jined the military if Trump's ban had been in place just reinforces that point. I really wonder what his pay-off is. I really hope it's been worth the loss of a son.

    Johnny Utah | Aug 3, 2016 1:34:43 PM | 14
    Well, Sith Lord Dennis Ross has an opinion piece urging the US to 'finally' attack Assad:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/opinion/the-case-for-finally-bombing-assad.html

    It goes without saying it's nonsense, but I hope a few readers here will take the time, if they open it for comments, to voice their opposition to his absurd, warmongering narrative.

    Much or most of the organized, over the top attacks on Trump [who is, in and of himself, a buffoon] is coming from Zionist/Neocon interests who fear he won't attack Syria and Iran for Israel, and to some extent by the organized Jewish community per se who fear he might enforce immigration law.

    harrylaw | Aug 3, 2016 1:58:31 PM | 17
    blowback@13 .

    You did not mention the firm Khizr-Khan worked for did Hillary Clinton's taxes.. Khizr Khan has all sorts of financial, legal, and political connections to the Clintons through his old law firm, the mega-D.C. firm Hogan Lovells LLP. That firm did Hillary Clinton's taxes for years, starting when Khan still worked there involved in, according to his own website, matters "firm wide"-back in 2004.

    It also has represented, for years, the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States. Saudi Arabia, of course, is a Clinton Foundation donor which-along with the mega-bundlers of thousands upon thousands in political donations to both of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2016-plays right into the "Clinton Cash" narrative.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/01/just-joking-media-apoplectic-khizr-khan-attack-donald-trump-goes-flames/

    Oh dear!

    Copeland | Aug 3, 2016 2:05:52 PM | 18
    The electorate in the US will blunder into the new leadership, with no help, -- and much hindrance -- from the corporate media. Some people will know what they are doing when they cast their vote, -- while others will feel their way along the walls of uncertainty, like sleepwalkers. As usual, a huge percent will not vote at all.

    The Clinton political machine has rigged the process, against Sanders, and gone to some lengths to conceal the shame of it. At the convention in Philadelphia, they looked most odd; while the Party was showing itself be a some kind of schitzophrenic monster, gulping down the high octane fuel of unreality. They can bear no real resemblance to the Party of Franklin Roosevelt, although they come to the Convention wearing clothes made out of his skin.

    They have become republicans with a crisis of identity.

    These pols are all rageaholics who worship the power that comes out of the barrel of a gun, the broad power of coersion; and they act as if people are fooled by their honey-coated words and painted smiles. They are vanguards of the empire, the apostles of expansion and exceptionalism.

    blues | Aug 3, 2016 2:16:31 PM | 21
    These candidates all have fancy educations, and have always dwelt near the very top of the power bubble. Yet their minds contain many vast intellectual deserts.

    jawbone | Aug 3, 2016 2:31:04 PM | 22
    https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Obama+criticizes+Trump

    Yesterday, Pres. Obama told the Republicans they needed disavow Trump or words to that effect.

    Struck me as exactly not what a sitting Dem president should say about a Repub nominee, especially Trump since he seems quite capable of shooting himself in the foot and other areas of his anatomy (no dirty joke implied, just that he's a loose cannon).

    Obama could have made a simple comment about not picking on dead soldiers without trying to look like he's telling the Repubs what to do.

    I'm sure there must be some Repubs who have told the Dems they should not have nominated Hillary...unless they WANT her impeached. But, if so, it's not getting much attention.

    Sen. Warren Simpson was on WNYC today, warning that Obama's attack might well backfire and hurt Hillary. Hhhmmm, maybe that's a plan?

    Who can tell with this horrible choice provided to American voters.

    likklemore | Aug 3, 2016 2:46:00 PM | 23
    Thanks b.

    I read that NBC piece on the plot. The word for the day.; "Irreparable consequences."

    People will either get tired of it or will endorse Trump as the poor small boy that everyone is bullying and beating up

    Also, there is this being offered - "Trump is running to lose."

    The establishment, disconnected from joeandjill's anger, is fighting to maintain the status quo forgetting the old adage – Americans love and support the underdog."

    = = = = = =

    @ ben 3

    The "electoral college" system will decide"

    When that system was envisaged, there were paper ballots. Do not dismiss the popular vote and the "winner-take-all electors" states. Electors are selected by a two part process. This is the age of computer rigging. Loading votes to deliver key states and the required 270 votes of the electors made easy.

    Key your eye on GEMS. No, not precious stones.

    If this checks out you may no longer have one person-one vote.

    A fascinating read:

    "US election shocker: is this how the vote will be rigged?"

    by Jon Rappoport
    Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers

    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/us-election-shocker-is-this-how-the-vote-will-be-rigged/

    As we know, there are a number of ways to rig an election. Bev Harris, at blackboxvoting.org, is exploring a specific "cheat sheet" that has vast implications for the Trump vs. Hillary contest.

    It's a vote-counting system called GEMS.

    "Our testing [of GEMS] shows that one vote can be counted 25 times, another only one one-thousandth of a time, effectively converting some votes to zero."

    "This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes.

    This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds." [..]

    ian | Aug 3, 2016 3:04:07 PM | 25
    A few comments/observations:

    I agree that the timing of this onslaught seems wrong - it's too early. An attack like this, you go for the knockout punch. If that doesn't happen - then what? There's a lot of time between now and November. I have always thought that this campaign, more than most, will be driven by events out of the candidates control - terrorist attacks, cop shootings, the markets, etc...

    Obama's screed against Trump - what's up with that? Is he hoping to do for Trump what he's done for gun sales? He might be better off endorsing him.

    Does it strike anyone else that the Khan story just sort of vanished all of a sudden. For several days - nothing else in the media. It seemed to drop off sharply yesterday. Normally, I see stories about Khan and his involvement with the Clintons, sharia law, immigration, the disappearing website, etc... and would attribute it to a weak attempt to deflect news coverage but I wonder...

    And Trumps counter-attack on the Khans. At first I had the knee-jerk response "he's gone too far this time". On reflection, the Democrat MO to attack opponents using some sympathetic figure with a lot of "moral authority" - could be someone who has lost a loved one, or a disabled person, ... - on the theory that the person being attacked can't fight back. In a way, I applaud Trump for having none of that (while at the same time being annoyed that he took the bait). The Khans made an free decision to be at the DNC convention and leverage their tragedy to attack Trump. While I feel for them, they can't have it both ways.

    tom | Aug 3, 2016 3:05:56 PM | 26
    So Trump saying he has sacrificed as much as someone in the military who was killed, is not insane ludicrous BS ? Hahaha... I guess that fits in the minor issue category for B because he was still wants to keep telling a lie the trump is a genius. Oops, at least not in his latest useless piece. Backtracking much ?
    Oh and Trump whoring himself out to the Israeli genocide lobby is a minor issue ?

    What is so genius about right wing fucktards who are sick to death of the corrupt political system and themselves being screwed screwed over by the class war, desperately waiting for a lying not job piece of shit to say the system is corrupt and rigged, all the while Trump being guilty of the same in his corporate life.

    That really is self lying cowards among the population desperate to hear what they want to hear and create a self lying loop of endless delusion with deliberate omissions of awfulness from their baseless chosen cult leader.

    Same can be said for the atrociously war loving fake leftists cheering for the most evil woman on the planet Hitlery Clinton.

    Tom | Aug 3, 2016 3:20:35 PM | 27
    How on earth could mainstream media even think anyone would watch their stupid propaganda, I feel sorry for Trump with all this propaganda in ALL western states. And no republicans seems to help him! What the hell!? Are they rooting for democrats?

    Also,

    Ukraine renames Moscow Avenue to Bandera Avenue http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c4_1470238094

    karlof1 | Aug 3, 2016 3:22:56 PM | 28
    Pat Buchanan examines the fact that Trump's the "Peace Candidate," and notes how that's playing in Peoria, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/trump-the-peace-candidate/

    Excerpt:

    "Trump then told the New York Times that a Russian incursion into Estonia need not trigger a U.S. military response.

    "Even more shocking. By suggesting the U.S. might not honor its NATO commitment, under Article 5, to fight Russia for Estonia, our foreign policy elites declaimed, Trump has undermined the security architecture that has kept the peace for 65 years.

    "More interesting, however, was the reaction of Middle America. Or, to be more exact, the nonreaction. Americans seem neither shocked nor horrified. What does this suggest?

    "Behind the war guarantees America has issued to scores of nations in Europe, the Mideast and Asia since 1949, the bedrock of public support that existed during the Cold War has crumbled."

    As I've written elsewhere, myself and others's analysis of Trump vs HRC leads us to conclude that Trump's the lesser evil, and is indeed a peace candidate compared to HRC's nonstop belligerence and warmongering. The Propaganda System will do its best to paint Trump as the greater evil, but that will be a very hard task as most of the public no longer sees that System as credible.

    bored muslim | Aug 3, 2016 3:34:11 PM | 29
    I stumbled upon this. Its fun to read. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/02/american-elections-weapons-of-mass-distraction/
    jdmckay | Aug 3, 2016 3:41:18 PM | 30
    fastfreddy @ Aug 3, 2016 1:40:47 PM | 15
    Another unfortunate faux pas was committed by the intelligent, calm-speaking and otherwise logical Jill Stein in the selection of a black guy named Barak as her Veep.

    The name is: Baraka. You may want to read a bit on his views, work history and positions. Baraka has got just about everything right that is expressed by MoA repeatedly.

    Brief discussion of Stein's meeting in Moscow with RT organized Policy experts is here . At a dinner several days after with Putin (and others) Vlade said:

    Putin noted, "What I would like to say, something really unexpected, when I was watching this material. When I was listening to your comments, politicians from other countries, you know what I caught myself thinking about? I agree with them, on many issues."

    Stein deserves far more serious attention and exposure then she's getting here (U.S.). I encourage people... especially U.S. voters and Bernie supporters, to now rely on media reports about her but take a few hours and go through her website. Her positions on just about everything... and all the BIG ones, are impressive and make more sense then anything I've heard from any candidate since I can remember. I encourage folks to write letters demanding she be included in the debates.

    bored muslim | Aug 3, 2016 3:49:29 PM | 31

    @ 9, karlof1

    Jill Stein? You got to be kidding , right? Just like Bernie, she's just another member of the 'tribe/race' that are putting on this charade that is the U.S election. These people are in the final stages of pulling off the greatest coup in world history and the American people hardly know it. That's horrifying. This is the Opus Magnum folks. Read the last 2000, or 1000 or 500, or 200 years of world history and one knows where this will lead. It's going to be dark.

    Americans....your children and grandchildren are going to curse at your graves if you don't wake up.

    Posted by: Curtis | Aug 3, 2016 3:50:42 PM | 32
    13 & 17. You're both right. It's a shame Trump didn't go after this fact or that the DEMs/Hillary/Media complex are playing races against each other. He should have said that yes, he has not sacrificed a son on an "elective war" as a Pope once called it but that Hillary has not sacrificed either while voting for and pushing for wars.
    Curtis | Aug 3, 2016 3:56:05 PM | 35
    Yesterday someone posted a link to the interview with Bashar al-Assad. (Thnx BTW). He was asked his opinion about the next president several times probably to smear him as a Trump supporter. He kept saying that their campaign talk doesn't matter and that it's their actions. But @17:40 he said this, "We always hope that the next president will be much wiser than the previous one." We hope for the same thing here in the us and we keep being disappointed.
    bored muslim | Aug 3, 2016 4:05:07 PM | 38
    @35, Curtis,

    Hope isn't going to do the trick, it's time the American people took matters into their own hands. Start marching...against war, against unemployment, homelessness, infrastructure falling apart, prisons everywhere, swindles in the tune of Trillions etc. I could go on...

    The Democratic NC has turned into an advertisement for more and endless war. Complete with hoorah's of USA!! USA!!

    sigh. sorry.

    broders | Aug 3, 2016 4:11:53 PM | 39
    hegel forever :-)
    bored muslim | Aug 3, 2016 4:21:36 PM | 40
    @ 11, dahoit,

    Less, of course. And it would also stop the insane policy of taking America and using it as a bludgeoning tool against the Arabic, African, NovoRuss and hell, maybe even the Persian peoples. Zioinism is just a manifestation of the problem, as Zionism is rather a new thing. Problem is, the bludgeoning tool is showing signs of cracking. Trump or Hillary, both will go out of their way to finally break it. That sad, because I love this country.

    Piotr Berman | Aug 3, 2016 4:23:20 PM | 41
    "The majority of the people hate Clinton. This media campaign will fall back on her. She will be perceived as the bully increasing her already strong negatives."

    This is a stretch. According to recent polls, Clinton has 54% "unfavorable" rating, and Trump has 64%. And not surprisingly, libertarian and green tickets poll better than usual. Especially libertarian, which marks dissatisfaction of the right side of the public.

    If I were a politician, I would forbid my stuff from reading b without a red pen to underline all statements to disagree with. Number one, that the opponent should not be attacked over unimportant details. It defies historical record! Profound nonsense if usually difficult to explain. In particular, it requires an explanation, so you miss the ever important sector of the public that is immune to explanations. By the way of contrast, inconsequential details are easy to convey.

    Consider foreign policy, the focus of discussions here. Is it important what and when did Clinton know about the attack on the consulate in Benghazi? Not really. It is important that the entire policy of regime change in Libya is FUBAR. It starts from a simple observation that aging Kaddafi was sufficiently pliable to give the West all (almost all?) benefits of control without the cost. But given the chaotic situation that ensued, indeed it was better to pursue some influence than playing it "risk free" (from Empire perspective, shared by Clinton and her tormentors).

    Another foreign policy example, the issue of Iran and "the deal". Trump promises even worse approach than executed by Obama. Why? This is fully consistent with the basic plank of his philosophy, help those that pay their dues. And Saudis and other Gulfies manifestly pay their dues. Unlike Latvia and Ukraine. In any case, Trump is attacking here on inconsequential details, which shows that he understands the basics of the political craft.

    Finally, "Clinton risks being perceived as a bully". Trump is uniquely positioned to get scant sympathy. Bullying somewhat frail Sanders would be risky, but Trump?

    Jackrabbit | Aug 3, 2016 4:25:11 PM | 42
    Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Jews agree with Israel's policies. Many Jews are victims as they are preyed upon for their support and vilified for protesting/objecting.

    [Aug 03, 2016] Israel to US Give Us More! by Justin Raimondo

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources to get Congress to pressure the White House. ..."
    "... As Glenn Greenwald points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure, their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is occurring. ..."
    "... We made possible the Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use the "f"-word lightly. I've been chronicling Israel's slide toward a repulsive ethno-nationalism for years , and today – with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders – my predictions are coming true. ..."
    "... The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous insults , slights, and outright sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from You Know Who: it's time to put America first. ..."
    "... What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's just what they are. ..."
    original.antiwar.com
    August 03, 2016 | Antiwar.com

    Washington is preparing to increase US aid to Israel by billions of dollars, with a ten-year ironclad agreement that couldn't be altered by President Obama's successor. But that isn't good enough for Bibi Netanyahu. He wants more. Much more.

    Unlike the case with other countries, the US engages in protracted and often difficult negotiations with Israel over how much free stuff they're going to get come budget time. This year, the talks are taking on a particularly urgent tone because of … you guessed it, Donald Trump. While Trump is fervently pro-Israel, he has said that the Israelis, like our NATO allies, are going to have to start paying for their own defense (although with him, you never know what his position is from one day to the next ). This uncertainty has the two parties racing to sign an agreement before President Obama's term is up in January. And it also has inspired the inclusion of a novel clause: a ten-year guarantee that aid will remain at the agreed level, with no possibility that the new President – whoever that may be – will lower it.

    The Israelis currently receive over half the foreign aid doled out by Uncle Sam annually, most of it in military assistance with an extra added dollop for "refugee resettlement." That combined with loan guarantees comes to roughly $3.5 billion per year – with all the money handed to them up front, in the first weeks of the fiscal year, instead of being released over time like other countries.

    So how much is this increase going to amount to? With negotiations still ongoing, the US isn't releasing any solid figures, although Bibi, we are told, is demanding $5 billion annually. The New York Times is reporting the final sum could "top $40 billion." What we do know is that the administration told Congress in a letter that they are prepared to offer Tel Aviv an aid package "that would constitute the largest pledge of military assistance to any country in US history." In addition, it would guarantee US aid for Israel's missile defense, taking it out of the annual appropriations song-and-dance, and immunizing it from any cuts.

    Aside from the "haggling" – as the Times put it – over the amount, there is another issue: the Israeli exception to a rule that applies to all other recipients of American aid. Other countries must spend their welfare check in dollars – that is, they must buy American. Not the Israelis. They're allowed to spend up to 25% of their aid package at home: which means that US taxpayers have been subsidizing the Israeli military-industrial complex to the tune of multi-billions since the 1980s, when this special arrangement was legislated. However, in an era where "America First" is now a popular political slogan – popularized by You Know Who – the Obama administration is trying to end this exception to the rules. Naturally, the Israelis are resisting, but, according to Ha'aretz :

    "The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth said the White House was prepared to let Israel keep the arrangement for the first five years of the new MOU but it would be gradually phased out in the second five years, except for joint U.S.-Israeli military projects."

    If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources to get Congress to pressure the White House.

    In their letter to Congress, national security honcho Susan Rice and OMB chief Shaun Donovan evoke the Iran deal as justification for this new and sweeter aid package. Yet this argument undermines the administration's contention that the agreement with Iran doesn't endanger Israel – because if it doesn't, then why do the Israelis need billions more in aid in the first place?

    What the letter tiptoes around is the fact that this aid package is extortion, pure and simple. It's a purely political attempt by the Obama White House to appease the Israelis, and mobilize the Israel lobby behind the Democrats in a crucial election year. It's important to keep Haim Saban happy.

    As Glenn Greenwald points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure, their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is occurring.

    What in the heck is going on here?

    We made possible the Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use the "f"-word lightly. I've been chronicling Israel's slide toward a repulsive ethno-nationalism for years , and today – with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders – my predictions are coming true.

    The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous insults , slights, and outright sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from You Know Who: it's time to put America first.

    What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's just what they are.

    [Aug 03, 2016] Neocon-like Groupthink Dominates Both Conventions

    Notable quotes:
    "... The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland. ..."
    "... The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States. Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee, then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat, Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it. ..."
    "... Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation. ..."
    "... And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed, Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media around thirty years ago. ..."
    "... Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S., never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents. ..."
    "... Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there are separate reports suggesting that one of her first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party. ..."
    "... If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020. ..."
    The Unz Review

    The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland.

    The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States. Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee, then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat, Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it.

    Those in the media and around Hillary who were baying the loudest about how outraged they were over the hack curiously appear to have no knowledge of the existence of the National Security Agency, located at Fort Meade Maryland, which routinely breaks into the government computers of friends and foes alike worldwide. Apparently what is fair game for American codebreakers is no longer seen so positively when there is any suggestion that the tables might have been turned.

    Republican nominee Donald Trump noted that if the Russians were in truth behind the hack he would like them to search for the 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton reportedly deleted from her home server. The comment, which to my mind was sarcastically making a point about Clinton's mendacity, brought down the wrath of the media, with the New York Times reporting that "foreign policy experts," also sometimes known as "carefully selected 'Trump haters,'" were shocked by The Donald. The paper quoted one William Inboden, allegedly a University of Texas professor who served on President George W. Bush's National Security Council. Inboden complained that the comments were "an assault on the Constitution" and "tantamount to treason." Now I have never heard of Inboden, which might be sheer ignorance on my part, but he really should refresh himself on what the Constitution actually says about treason, tantamount or otherwise. According to Article III of the Constitution of the United States one can only commit treason if there is a declared war going on and one is actively aiding an enemy, which as far as I know is not currently the case as applied to the U.S. relationship with Russia.

    Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation.

    And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed, Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media around thirty years ago.

    Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S., never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents.

    No other foreign country was mentioned as often as Israel apart from Iran, which was regularly cited as an enemy of both the U.S. and – you guessed it – Israel. Indeed, the constant thumping of Iran is a reflection of the overweening affection for Netanyahu and his right wing government. Regarding Iran, the GOP foreign policy platform states "We consider the Administration's deal with Iran, to lift international sanctions and make hundreds of billions of dollars available to the Mullahs, a personal agreement between the President and his negotiat­ing partners and non-binding on the next president. Without a two-thirds endorsement by the Senate, it does not have treaty status. Because of it, the de­fiant and emboldened regime in Tehran continues to sponsor terrorism across the region, develop a nuclear weapon, test-fire ballistic missiles inscribed with 'Death to Israel,' and abuse the basic human rights of its citizens."

    The final written Republican platform for 2016 as relating to the Middle East, drawn up with the input of two Trump advisors Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, rather supports the suggestion that Trump would be pro-Israel rather than the claim of impartiality. The plank entitled "Our Unequivocal Support of Israel and Jerusalem," promises to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, praises Israel in five different sections, eulogizing it as a "beacon of democracy and humanity" brimming over with freedom of speech and religion while concluding that "support for Israel is an expression of Americanism." It pledges "no daylight" between the two countries, denies that Israel is an "occupier," and slams the peaceful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS), which it describes as anti-Semitic and seeking to destroy Israel. It calls for legal action to "thwart" BDS. There is no mention of a Palestinian state or of any Palestinian rights to anything at all.

    The Democratic plank on the Middle East gives lip service to a two state solution for Israel-Palestine but is mostly notable for what it chose to address. Two Bernie Sanders supporters on the platform drafting committee James Zogby and Cornel West wanted to remove any illegal under international law affirmation that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel and also sought to eliminated any condemnation of BDS. They failed on both issues and then tried to have included mild language criticizing Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its settlement building. They were outvoted by Hillary supporters on all the issues they considered important. Indeed, there is no language at all critical in any way of Israel, instead asserting that "a strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism." That none of that was or is true apparently bothered no one in the Hillary camp.

    The Democratic platform document explicitly condemns any support for BDS. Hillary Clinton, who has promised to take the relationship with Israel to a whole new level, has reportedly agreed to an anti-BDS pledge to appease her principal financial supporter Haim Saban, an Israeli-American film producer. Clinton also directly and personally intervened through her surrogate on the committee Wendy Sherman to make sure that the party platform would remain pro-Israel.

    But many Democrats on the floor of the convention hall have, to their credit, promoted a somewhat different perspective, displaying signs and stickers while calling for support of Palestinian rights. One demonstrator outside the convention center burned an Israeli flag, producing a sharp response from Hillary's spokeswoman for Jewish outreach Sarah Bard, "Hillary Clinton has always stood against efforts to marginalize Israel and incitement, and she strongly condemns this kind of hatred. Burning the Israeli flag is a reckless act that undermines peace and our values." Bill meanwhile was seen in the hall wearing a Hillary button written in Hebrew. It was a full court press pander and one has to wonder how Hillary would have felt about someone burning a Russian flag or seeing Bill sport a button in Cyrillic.

    Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there are separate reports suggesting that one of her first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party.

    The Democratic platform also beats down on Iran, declaring only tepid support for the nuclear deal while focusing more on draconian enforcement, asserting that they would "not hesitate to take military action if Iran violates the agreement." It also cited Iran as "the leading state sponsor of terrorism" and claimed that Tehran "has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East." For what it's worth, neither assertion about Iran's regional role is true and Tehran reportedly has complied completely with the multilateral nuclear agreement. It is the U.S. government that is failing to live up to its commitments by refusing to allow Iranian access to financial markets while the Congress has even blocked an Iranian bid to buy Made-in-the-U.S.A. civilian jetliners.

    So those of us who had hoped for at least a partial abandonment of the hitherto dominant foreign policy consensus have to be disappointed as they in the pro-war crowd in their various guises as liberal interventionists or global supremacy warriors continue to control much of the discourse from left to right. Russia continues to be a popular target to vent Administration frustration over its inept posturing overseas, though there is some hope that Donald Trump might actually reverse that tendency. Iran serves as a useful punchline whenever a politician on the make runs out of other things to vilify. And then there is always Israel, ever the victim, perpetually the greatest ally and friend. And invariably needing some extra cash, a warplane or two or a little political protection in venues like the United Nations.

    If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020.

    [Aug 02, 2016] NSA Architect: Agency Has ALL of Clinton's Deleted Emails

    A very important, informative interview. Outlines complexity of challenges of modern society and the real power of "alphabet agencies" in the modern societies (not only in the USA) pretty vividly. You need to listen to it several times to understand better the current environment.
    Very sloppy security was the immanent feature both of Hillary "bathroom" server and DNC emails hacks. So there probably were multiple parties that has access to those data not a single one (anti Russian hysteria presumes that the only party are Russian and that's silly; what about China, Iran and Israel?). Russian government would not use a "known attack" as they would immediately be traced back.
    Anything, any communications that goes over the network are totally. 100% exposed to NSA data collection infrastructure. Clinton email messages are not exception. NSA does have information on them, including all envelopes (the body of the message might be encrypted and that's slightly complicate the matter, but there is no signs that Clinton of DNC used encryption of them)
    NSA has the technical capabilities to trace the data back and they most probably have most if not all of deleted mail. The "total surveillance", the total data mailing used by NSA definitely includes the mail envelopes which makes possible to enumerate all the missing mails.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday. ..."
    "... Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists." ..."
    "... "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
    "... Listen to the full interview here: ... ..."
    "... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer ..."
    www.breitbart.com
    The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday.

    Speaking as an analyst, Binney raised the possibility that the hack of the Democratic National Committee's server was done not by Russia but by a disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker concerned about Clinton's compromise of national security secrets via her personal email use.

    Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency.

    He was speaking on this reporter's Sunday radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio," broadcast on New York's AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia's NewsTalk 990 AM.

    Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists."

    Stated Binney:

    "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails."

    "So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated of Clinton's emails as well as DNC emails.

    Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the deleted correspondence, Binney replied in the affirmative.

    "Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there."

    Listen to the full interview here: ...

    Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.

    And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails.

    The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:

    GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).

    Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

    [Aug 02, 2016] NSA Architect: Agency Has ALL of Clinton's Deleted Emails

    A very important, informative interview. Outlines complexity of challenges of modern society and the real power of "alphabet agencies" in the modern societies (not only in the USA) pretty vividly. You need to listen to it several times to understand better the current environment.
    Very sloppy security was the immanent feature both of Hillary "bathroom" server and DNC emails hacks. So there probably were multiple parties that has access to those data not a single one (anti Russian hysteria presumes that the only party are Russian and that's silly; what about China, Iran and Israel?). Russian government would not use a "known attack" as they would immediately be traced back.
    Anything, any communications that goes over the network are totally. 100% exposed to NSA data collection infrastructure. Clinton email messages are not exception. NSA does have information on them, including all envelopes (the body of the message might be encrypted and that's slightly complicate the matter, but there is no signs that Clinton of DNC used encryption of them)
    NSA has the technical capabilities to trace the data back and they most probably have most if not all of deleted mail. The "total surveillance", the total data mailing used by NSA definitely includes the mail envelopes which makes possible to enumerate all the missing mails.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday. ..."
    "... Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists." ..."
    "... "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
    "... Listen to the full interview here: ... ..."
    "... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer ..."
    www.breitbart.com
    The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday.

    Speaking as an analyst, Binney raised the possibility that the hack of the Democratic National Committee's server was done not by Russia but by a disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker concerned about Clinton's compromise of national security secrets via her personal email use.

    Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency.

    He was speaking on this reporter's Sunday radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio," broadcast on New York's AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia's NewsTalk 990 AM.

    Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists."

    Stated Binney:

    "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails."

    "So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated of Clinton's emails as well as DNC emails.

    Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the deleted correspondence, Binney replied in the affirmative.

    "Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there."

    Listen to the full interview here: ...

    Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.

    And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails.

    The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:

    GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).

    Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

    [Aug 01, 2016] FSB Detects Cyberattacks on 20 Russian Organizations, Including Military Targets

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Instances of planting of malicious software designed for cyber espionage in computer networks of some 20 organizations located on the territory of Russia have been exposed Information resources of public authorities, scientific and military institutions, enterprises of the military - industrial complex and other objects of country's critical infrastructure were contaminated," the statement read. ..."
    sputniknews.com

    Instances of planting of malicious software designed for cyber espionage in computer networks of some 20 organizations located on the territory of Russia have been exposed, according to FSB press service.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) exposed planting of malicious software designed for cyber espionage in computer networks of about 20 Russian institutions, including government and military bodies, FSB press service said Saturday.

    "Instances of planting of malicious software designed for cyber espionage in computer networks of some 20 organizations located on the territory of Russia have been exposed Information resources of public authorities, scientific and military institutions, enterprises of the military - industrial complex and other objects of country's critical infrastructure were contaminated," the statement read.

    The press service stressed that the attack was professionally planned, has similar traits with the previously exposed attacks from all over the world.

    "The latest sets of software are made for each 'victim' individually, based on the unique characteristics of the targeted PC. The spread of the virus is carried out by the means of targeted attacks on PC by sending an e-mail containing a malicious attachment," the statement continued adding that the software made it possible to do screenshots, turn on web-camera and microphones, collect data from the keyboard use.

    FSB in cooperation with the ministries and agencies took a number of measures to identify all the "victims" of the malicious program on the Russian territory, as well as to localize the threats and minimize the consequences caused by its spread.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Will Preemptive Accusations Against Russia Cover Up Voting Fraud

    Notable quotes:
    "... Why do we see such an orchestrated attempt to preemptively accuse Russia of potentially manipulating U.S. voting? This without ANY evidence that Russia ever has or would attempt to do so? Are there already plans for such manipulations that need a plausible foreign culprit as cover up story? Or is there a color revolution in preparation to eventually disenfranchise the election winner? ..."
    "... "hacking", or rather, snooping and leaking, is business as usual... remember when the Sanders and Clinton campaigns were fighting over DNC server data? ..."
    "... The source of the DNC email leak is irrelevant. The Orwellian chant "Putin bad; US good!" is the point of the whole thing, and the media is just a bullhorn for the party/parties. ..."
    "... But I do look forward to the show when the emails Trump referred to are released. What is Hillary afraid of? it's not like nobody knows what she's done... and wants to do next. ..."
    "... the United States has been a failed state from the perspective of voting integrity from at least 2000. The lunatics are running the asylum here and we voters are only allowed to participate as a hollow form of placation. ..."
    "... Our famous "free press," so totally controlled by Big Corporations. Always looking for a way to try to persuade the public that any political and social actions is bad and of no importance. ACK! ..."
    "... My immediate thought was of the White House managed meetings with mayors of cities where Occupy was very much not "crushed," and how they coordinated their attacks by knocking down tents, dumped books into dupsters, which were part of the free lending library in some cities, and forcing people out of sites long occupied with the persuasion of threatened force and physical harm. ..."
    "... we know the neocons intend to cheat to get Hillary elected. Sounds like a warning to Russia to keep out of the way or else. ..."
    "... This video below shows that the pressure of the Russian hacking lies worked on Trump. What kind of genius is that b ? Trump: Putin has no respect for the US. Starts at 1min 20 sec : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=riuduXz5Y2I Trump on Russia finding Hillays emails : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ ..."
    "... If Trump is such a genius then why would he make so many idiotic and contradictory statements, and then cave it so easily into pressure of lies like this against Russia ? Immediately antagonizing Russia. ..."
    "... The problem with the 'Trump as Manchurian Candidate' narrative is that most people (even Democrats) deep down, probably don't really believe it. It runs right into his 'America First' that the same people have been complaining about. In the absence of hard evidence, actually shared with the public, the Putin connection will eventually fall apart. ..."
    "... Bruce Schneier has been having a neolibcon bias for years with a blind spot for NSA activities. I stopped reading his stupid blog, with little to no added value regarding security news, when it became too obvious. ..."
    "... 'The only reason not to have paper copies is to allow fraud.' ..."
    "... Very well and concisely put. Except for the 'copies' bit. The only reason not to have paper ballots ..."
    "... To me the answer seems obvious: voters registered and elections administered, ballots tallied and stored at the precinct level. There are about 175,000 precincts in the USA, each composed of 1,000 to 2,000 people. A workable size for real, participatory democracy, the basis for all constituencies - municipal, county, state, federal - erected upon them. First come the people , then come our governments. ..."
    "... Russia told the United States on Thursday to get to the bottom of of its own hacking scandal. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said accusations of a Russian hand in hacking Democratic Party emails bordered on "total stupidity" and were motivated by anti-Russian sentiment. ..."
    "... Michael Connell - who died at age 45, leaving a wife and four kids - was a computer networking expert who lived near Akron. Last July 17, an attorney who's filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging a conspiracy to rig elections in Ohio held a press conference at which he identified Connell as a principal witness. ..."
    "... the missing deleted emails would most likely also reveal the innards of the Clinton family Foundation. Not really missing. It would be a great disappointment if copies are not in a few 3 letter agencies. ..."
    "... Great George Carlin probably did not know many actual names of the "big owners" when he wrote ..."
    "... ...The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice you don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own, and control the corporations. They've long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. ..."
    "... They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying lobbying, to get what they want Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want they don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking... ..."
    "... The perfidy of Manly is that he does not say how to _prevent_ possible breaches, but creates perception of "Russians having access to everything" instead. So he does not really care about solving the problem, but about maintaining the notion that the problem magically persist. ..."
    "... "As regards these (email) batches, that is not our headache. We never poke our noses into others' affairs and we really don't like it when people try to poke their nose into ours," he said. "The Americans needs to get to the bottom of what these emails are themselves and find out what it's all about." ..."
    "... The DNC was "hacked "by some of Killary's Israeli chums/clients... Lets look at the proffered "evidence" for a Russian Hack.. The hackers "seem to have been following a schedule of "Russian" holdiays... Half (or more) of the people in Israel follow that same schedule of holdiays... ..."
    "... Article on Gen. Breedlove: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breedlove-network-sought-weapons-deliveries-for-ukraine-a-1104837.html Defense contractors, think tanks, and Breedlove feared Congress would cut U.S. troop levels in Europe. ..."
    "... desperate ..."
    "... The Americans are beginning to tell themselves another 'real' war will solve their problems ... look at the DNC convention ... and it'll be OK because it will be another war 'over there'. It won't be over there, it'll be right here no matter where that is. ..."
    "... Bruce Schneier used to charge the Chinese in every hacking incident, I guess there is now a "pivot" in the propaganda world. ..."
    "... It is obvious that our elections are hacked: Florida in 2000, Ohio 2004, and now Brooklyn, Nevada, Arizona, California and other locations this year. They were hacked by our own crooks who would never allow Rooskies to muscle in on the action. Few polling stations in crowded districts, removing names from voter lists, private companies contracted to "count", voter suppression ID laws, jailing of voting populations, gerrymandering, etc. The Rooskies can only bring a rubber chicken to a gun fight. ..."
    "... I have said many times: "We must abolish election machines, such as voting computers. If they make casting and tallying 10 times faster, they make organized cheating 10 times easier as well. Which can we truly afford?" ..."
    "... I can't for the life of me understand why so many hawks in the State Dept and elsewhere are sooooo afraid of Putin. They still mad he nationalized oil companies? ..."
    "... Just suppose the emails of the DNC were released by the Clinton Machine, what a creative tactic, and certainly there is no reason to doubt that...a great media firestorm ensues, DWS had to fall on her sword but quickly gets hoisted on the Clinton petard..as a campaign manager ..."
    "... The evil that we face is an alternate philosophical position which rejects all the moral tenets of the world's 7 great religions. The goal is the rule of a tiny sect which imagines itself a godhead over humanity. ..."
    M of A

    The Clinton campaign and some pseudo experts assert that Russia is somehow guilty of hacking the Democratic National Committee and of revealing DNC emails via Wikileaks. There is zero hard evidence for that. The Clinton campaign also claims that Trump asked Russia to hack Clinton's emails. That is also not the case.

    But two "liberal" computer experts, who are taken serious in the security scene, now build on those false assertions to say that Russia might manipulate voting machines in the November 9 elections. It would do so, presumably, to change the vote count in favor of Trump.

    A Bruce Schneier op ed in today's Washington Post is headlined: By November, Russian hackers could target voting machines .

    That headline alone is already dumb. ANY hacker could target and manipulate the easy to deceive voting machines - should those be connected to the Internet. Local administrators of such machines can manipulate them any time.

    Schneier is, untypically for him, in war mongering mode.

    If the intelligence community has indeed ascertained that Russia is to blame, our government needs to decide what to do in response. This is difficult because the attacks are politically partisan, but it is essential. If foreign governments learn that they can influence our elections with impunity, this opens the door for future manipulations, both document thefts and dumps like this one that we see and more subtle manipulations that we don't see.

    The U.S. manipulates foreign elections all the time, according to Bush administration lawyer Jack Goldsmith. It may not feel nice to suddenly be the target of manipulation attempts instead of the perpetrator, but manipulation attempts in elections are normal everywhere and no reason to start a war or other "response" measures.

    Schneier:

    [W]e need to secure our election systems before autumn. If Putin's government has already used a cyberattack to attempt to help Trump win, there's no reason to believe he won't do it again - especially now that Trump is inviting the "help."

    What a joke. Trump has not invited Russian "help" to manipulate voting computers. Trump also did not ask Russia to "hack" the Clinton email sever. That server no longer exists. If the Clinton email-server was secure, as Clinton asserts, and if the emails in question have been deleted, as Clinton also asserts, how could Russia "hack" for them?

    Trump made a FOIA request for emails that, Hillary Clinton claims, have been deleted. What does she fear about that? Trump asked Russia to give the deleted Clinton emails to the FBI, should it by chance have a copy of them. Such a Freedom of Information Act request usually goes to a part of the U.S. administration. But the Obama administration says it does not have those emails. Trump then made a joke in directing the request to Russia.

    Trump did get the furious media "outrage" response he intended to get. He thereby ruined the PR effect of the last night of the Democratic Convention. That was likely the sole intention of his stunt and again shows his marketing genius.

    But back to the Schneier op-ed. That one is now joined by a piece at Boing Boing by Cory Doctorow. Doctorow is like Schneier a famous person in the computer scene. He quotes the Schneier piece and adds:

    Voting machines are so notoriously terrible that they'd be a very tempting target for Russia or other states that want to influence the outcome in 2016 (or merely destabilize the US by calling into question the outcome in an election).

    The Doctorow sentence neglects, like Schneier, that the entities with the most obvious interest and capabilities to manipulate U.S. voting machines are not foreign countries. U.S. presidential candidates and their parties have much more at stake. The candidates and the money and interests behind them have stronger motives as well as more potential to change the voting results.

    Why do we see such an orchestrated attempt to preemptively accuse Russia of potentially manipulating U.S. voting? This without ANY evidence that Russia ever has or would attempt to do so? Are there already plans for such manipulations that need a plausible foreign culprit as cover up story? Or is there a color revolution in preparation to eventually disenfranchise the election winner?

    Cory Doctorow also sees destabilization as a possible motive and outcome of voting manipulations. Already back in March John Robb warned of a scenario this fall in which election results come into serious doubt and where a conflict over voting results escalates into a civil war.

    I do not foresee such a scenario (yet). But should large scale voting manipulations take place, and be blamed on Russia, more than a civil war enters the realm of possibilities.

    Posted by b at 02:21 PM | Comments (130)

    anon | Jul 28, 2016 3:00:23 PM | 4

    "hacking", or rather, snooping and leaking, is business as usual... remember when the Sanders and Clinton campaigns were fighting over DNC server data?
    https://berniesanders.com/press-release/statement-jeff-weaver/

    The source of the DNC email leak is irrelevant. The Orwellian chant "Putin bad; US good!" is the point of the whole thing, and the media is just a bullhorn for the party/parties. The voting machine rumor is probably aimed at the actual corruption in some places that was designed to favor republicans in swing states. (ironic!) watch them call for more honest verification this time around.

    But I do look forward to the show when the emails Trump referred to are released. What is Hillary afraid of? it's not like nobody knows what she's done... and wants to do next.

    Bruno Marz | Jul 28, 2016 3:01:16 PM | 5
    For all intents and purposes, the United States has been a failed state from the perspective of voting integrity from at least 2000. The lunatics are running the asylum here and we voters are only allowed to participate as a hollow form of placation.
    jawbone | Jul 28, 2016 3:16:03 PM | 7
    Our famous "free press," so totally controlled by Big Corporations. Always looking for a way to try to persuade the public that any political and social actions is bad and of no importance. ACK!

    On Tuesday night, iirc, but could have been Wednesday, the discussion mentioned Occupy as a failed political/social movement. PBS's Gwen Ifill said that it was "crushed by its own weight." It was part of the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) declaring the Sanders' promoted political revolution dead and nearly buried.

    My immediate thought was of the White House managed meetings with mayors of cities where Occupy was very much not "crushed," and how they coordinated their attacks by knocking down tents, dumped books into dupsters, which were part of the free lending library in some cities, and forcing people out of sites long occupied with the persuasion of threatened force and physical harm.

    But her statement was part and parcel of how the actual left of any type is dismissed and disrespected by the Corporatist Dems and their Repub allies.

    Alaric | Jul 28, 2016 3:22:04 PM | 9
    we know the neocons intend to cheat to get Hillary elected. Sounds like a warning to Russia to keep out of the way or else.
    Mick McNulty | Jul 28, 2016 3:55:30 PM | 11
    The neo-cons realized how easy it was to rig the election in 2000 after which both sides do it. Now it's down to who who rigs it best. It's a one-party state anyway, two cheeks on the same ass, but every politician wants to be the one who does the telling not the told.

    I think the neo-cons impeached Clinton to ruin the Democrat run because 9/11 was ready to go, and they needed to be in power or they risked being uncovered by the security services of a Gore White House. When the impeachment failed they had no choice but to go in and steal it, because they'd have gone down for their treason. Look what it did to the world.

    likklemore | Jul 28, 2016 4:03:55 PM | 12
    Thanks b for your persistence in shining the torchlight.. Unfortunately for Bruce Schneier, Mr. James Clapper is not ready

    US Intelligence Not Ready to Name Party Behind DNC
    http://sputniknews.com/us/20160728/1043732561/usa-intel-not-ready-dnc-hack.html

    US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that the US intelligence authorities are not ready to say who is responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee emails.

    I do not think we are quite ready yet to make a call on attribution," Clapper stated at the Aspen Security Forum.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Why not and when will he be ready? Oh never mind. If Schneier is so concerned the election voting machines can be hacked -(Notice no mention of pre-programmed votes) - let's return to paper ballots and pencils. And who counts the votes?

    Oh wait... the Supreme Court may issue a decree to stop the count as they did on December 12, 2000.

    tom | Jul 28, 2016 4:08:55 PM | 13
    In a desperate attempt for bs stupid assertion of Trumps genius, b refuses to give a link for what Trump actually said. B also refuses to give us a sentenced quote from Trump. How weak.

    This video below shows that the pressure of the Russian hacking lies worked on Trump. What kind of genius is that b ?
    Trump: Putin has no respect for the US. Starts at 1min 20 sec : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=riuduXz5Y2I

    Trump on Russia finding Hillays emails : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ

    If Trump is such a genius then why would he make so many idiotic and contradictory statements, and then cave it so easily into pressure of lies like this against Russia ? Immediately antagonizing Russia.

    Also if trump really understands how corrupt the US voting system is, then what kind of genius would not hedge himself against that voting corruption surely to be done against Trump and for Hitlery - by saying insanely incessant stupid moronic things that expose him to attacks.

    Wouldn't you hedge yourself by keeping on core message and not dragging yourself back into the pack with stupidity.

    Trump said that Putin called Trump a genius, and pathetically that's all b needs to know.

    likklemore | Jul 28, 2016 4:10:36 PM | 14
    @ Steve 1

    Oh my. That was quick, even before HRC's acceptance tonight. Bernie has left the Democratic Party, back to being an Independent

    Bernie Sanders Leaves The Democratic Party

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-28/bernie-sanders-leaves-democratic-party

    I am totally confused. What about his supporters?

    ian | Jul 28, 2016 4:43:38 PM | 20
    The problem with the 'Trump as Manchurian Candidate' narrative is that most people (even Democrats) deep down, probably don't really believe it. It runs right into his 'America First' that the same people have been complaining about. In the absence of hard evidence, actually shared with the public, the Putin connection will eventually fall apart.

    Trumps MO is to say something that generates a lot of outrage that dominates the news cycle at opportune moments. He does this when there is something else he doesn't want you to pay attention to. Remember when Trump University was in the news? He comes back with those statements about the judge. Last night, you had the president, the vice-president among the heavy hitters - what better time to pull a stunt like that? For a party that prides themselves as being the 'smart' one, the Democrats have been remarkably slow in figuring this out.

    Trump probably won't pull anything like this with Hillary - the thing with her is that the more people see her, the less they like her - so let her have her hour of shouting a speech at us.

    MRW | Jul 28, 2016 4:58:51 PM | 21
    For voting machine issues, watch the Stephen Spoonamore series on YouTube. Each segment is about 3-4 minutes. Think there are eight segments. The series is 10 years old but extremely timely. Velvet Revolution Interviews Stephen Spoonamore (segment 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAyEfovA404

    THEN watch his 2008 series, search YouTube. Warning: Annoying white noise in background. His solution to vote fraud specified in the later segments is ingenious. Spoonamore was the guy American Express and major banks called when they are hacked.

    Noirette | Jul 28, 2016 5:00:20 PM | 23
    I *always* disliked that guy Scheneir now b has given me cause, thanks. (No that I know anything about hacking.) Some US rulings:

    Here the kicker:

    A cyber attack has been given the status of a conventional military attack by NATO on 14th June in a major policy change that increases the likelihood of a world war against Russia.

    NATO 14 June

    nr23 | Jul 28, 2016 5:02:10 PM | 24
    Bruce Schneier has been having a neolibcon bias for years with a blind spot for NSA activities. I stopped reading his stupid blog, with little to no added value regarding security news, when it became too obvious.

    PS: when will you remove the embedded links to google, yahoo, ...?

    virgile | Jul 28, 2016 5:22:06 PM | 25
    The democrats are warning loud and clear that Russia may hack the voting machines in favor of Trump. In fact, they are preparing the terrain to use this argument in case Trump is elected. To make such stupid statements, it shows that the dems are seriously worried that Hillary is quickly loosing ground.
    jfl | Jul 28, 2016 6:05:56 PM | 28
    @27 cresty, 'The only reason not to have paper copies is to allow fraud.'

    Very well and concisely put. Except for the 'copies' bit. The only reason not to have paper ballots is to allow fraud.

    To me the answer seems obvious: voters registered and elections administered, ballots tallied and stored at the precinct level.

    There are about 175,000 precincts in the USA, each composed of 1,000 to 2,000 people. A workable size for real, participatory democracy, the basis for all constituencies - municipal, county, state, federal - erected upon them. First come the people , then come our governments.

    MRW | Jul 28, 2016 6:10:02 PM | 29
    Watch: New: Spoonamore - Sep 2008 - Part 8 - "What part don't you understand...paper ballots please."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WTe8ppEIic
    2:47 minutes
    .
    lysias | Jul 28, 2016 6:52:40 PM | 32
    2004, not 2008. Obama and Dems won Ohio in 2008. The Republicans' computer expert in Ohio died afterwards in a fishy small plane accident just as he was about to testify.
    crone | Jul 28, 2016 6:41:21 PM | 30
    from Russia (with Love). Russia To US: "Sort Out Your Own Hacking Scandal; It Is Not Our Headache" As the silly farce over whether Russia hacked the DNC continues, earlier today the Kremlin had some harsh words for the US.

    Russia told the United States on Thursday to get to the bottom of of its own hacking scandal. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said accusations of a Russian hand in hacking Democratic Party emails bordered on "total stupidity" and were motivated by anti-Russian sentiment. Suggestions of Russian involvement riled the Kremlin, which has categorically denied this and accused U.S. politicians of seeking to play on Cold War-style U.S. fears of Moscow by fabricating stories for electoral purposes.

    "As regards these (email) batches, that is not our headache. We never poke our noses into others' affairs and we really don't like it when people try to poke their nose into ours," he said.

    "The Americans needs to get to the bottom of what these emails are themselves and find out what it's all about."

    Link to ZeroHedge

    Jen | Jul 28, 2016 6:55:21 PM | 33
    "... Trump made a FOIA request for emails that, Hillary Clinton claims, have been deleted. What does she fear about that? Trump asked Russia to give the deleted Clinton emails to the FBI, should it by chance have a copy of them. Such a Freedom of Information Act request usually goes to a part of the U.S. administration. But the Obama administration says it does not have those emails. Trump then made a joke in directing the request to Russia ..."

    What Clinton fears is that the deleted emails are emails related to the work she did (or supposedly did) while she was US Secretary of State and therefore they would be proof that she violated federal US laws on recordkeeping. Some of these emails might cast light on the 2012 Benghazi consulate attack and whether she can be held partly responsible for the deaths of four Americans during that attack.

    Yonatan | Jul 28, 2016 7:47:18 PM | 34
    Jessia @3. Schneier is an insider - Harvard and the US DoD. It is also ironic that he wrote a book titled: Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive.

    Way to go, Bruce!

    Macon Richardson | Jul 28, 2016 8:00:44 PM | 35
    Bruno Marz @ 5

    If voter fraud is the criterion of a failed state (and why not), the US failed in 1960 when John Kennedy not only stole the Democratic nomination through voter fraud in West Virginia but also stole the general election through voter fraud in Illinois.

    Tricky Dick Nixon was urged to contest the Illinois vote and contest the outcome of the election. He pointedly refused to do so saying that a contested election would do more harm to the country than allowing a fraudulent victory for JFK.

    Nixon was quite a complicated person.

    V. Arnold | Jul 28, 2016 8:57:12 PM | 37
    Well, it does appear the U.S. is in full Loon mode (my apologies to the bird). The Clinton campaign is doing a fantastic job of deflection and distraction and the idiots are falling for it. It would seem Russia's Pres. Putin is indeed omnipotent.
    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 9:02:14 PM | 39
    The missing Hitlary Killton's deleted emails would reveal most probably that the current war against Libya, Syria, Iraq has been mostly her private endeavor (plus Petreaus, CIA, Raytheon) at the request of her Bilderberg/City of London Crown Corporation masters, outside Obama's control.
    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 9:17:30 PM | 40
    @23 Thank you Noirette for that missing piece of the puzzle.

    I forgot abut that in my reply on earlier thread.

    The scenario deep state/global criminal cabal has been preparing against the US people and the world would go like this:

    1. Hitlary looses to Trump
    2. Russia is blamed with fabricated evidence for rigging the election
    3. civil unrest in incited (Israeli snipers shooting civilians at random + police trained by the Israeli advisors brutalizes protesters)
    4. hot spots in conflict zones (Turkey, Ukraine, Pribaltica) are set on fire - blamed on Russia (Phillipines blamed on China)
    5. nukes going off in Chicago
    6. NATO considers "Russian cyber attack" as an act of war and responds

    In order to avoid this at this point anybody who supports the Hell Bitch should be boycotted and ostracized, including all the celebrities (who obviously pay their dues for their dark, secret deals) not only that filth Sarah Silverman and alike, who lower themselves to such a sewer level, also companies, local politicians and so on...

    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 9:24:29 PM | 41
    Let's not forget Karl Rove case witness killed in plane crash, sisters want answers
    Web guru was potential witness in Ohio voting fraud case

    Shannon Connell of Madison says her brother Michael rarely talked about work. She knew he ran an Ohio company called New Media Communications that set up websites for Republicans including former President George H.W. Bush and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. But it wasn't until after he died last December, when the small plane he was piloting crashed, that she learned via the Internet of his tie to a voter fraud case and to allegations that presidential adviser Karl Rove had made threats against him.

    "At first, it was really hard for me to believe Mike was dead because somebody wanted him dead," says Shannon, a buyer for a local children's resale shop. "But as time goes on, it's hard for me not to believe there was something deliberate about it."

    A native of Illinois, Shannon moved to Madison in 2002, the same year as her sister, Mary Jo Walker. Walker, a former Dane County Humane Society employee, has similar concerns about their brother's death: "It doesn't seem right to me at all."

    Michael Connell - who died at age 45, leaving a wife and four kids - was a computer networking expert who lived near Akron. Last July 17, an attorney who's filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging a conspiracy to rig elections in Ohio held a press conference at which he identified Connell as a principal witness.

    The attorney, Cliff Arnebeck of Columbus, Ohio, tells Isthmus he doesn't believe Connell was engaged in criminal activity but may have been a "data-processing implementer" for those who were. "I was told he was at the table when some criminal things were discussed."

    A week after the press conference, on July 24, Arnebeck wrote U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey seeking protection for Connell, whom he said had been "threatened" by Rove, a key player in the campaigns of George W. Bush. Arenebeck says Connell was told through an intermediary that unless he agreed to "take the fall" for election fraud in Ohio, his wife [and New Media partner] faced prosecution for lobby law violations. There was no claim of a threat on Connell's person.

    Arnebeck was permitted to depose Connell last Nov. 3. The portion of this deposition that dealt with the alleged threats was sealed, but Arnebeck is preparing a motion to make it all public. He affirms that Connell denied any involvement in voter fraud, but thinks Rove still had reason to regard him as a threat.

    "The problem that Mike Connell represented is [he was] a guy of conscience," says Arnebeck. "If it came right down to it, he would not commit perjury." Arnebeck "absolutely" would have called Connell as a witness in his lawsuit.

    Shannon and Mary Jo both say their brother, a devout Catholic, seemed upset in the weeks before his death. Mary Jo feels he was "stressed out and depressed" on his birthday last November; Shannon says he atypically did not respond to an email she'd sent.

    On Dec. 19, Connell flew alone in his single-engine Piper Supercub from a small airport near Washington, D.C. The plane crashed on its final approach to his hometown Akron-Canton Airport, between two houses. The cause is still under investigation but is presumed accidental.

    The blogosphere refuses to accept this. "Mike was getting ready to talk," writes one online journalist who labels Connell a source. "He was frightened."

    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 9:33:51 PM | 42
    DEMEXIT Is REAL and Is Gaining Steam. Interactive Map To Re-Register
    Going viral and encouraging disgruntled Democrats to leave the party in all states without upcoming primaries. This does not mean that a percentage of these people won't still vote Democrat in the general election but there is also an active effort coming from the Green Party to recruit these people. Sanders very publicly leaving the Democrat Party to return to Independent was very significant and a signal to his supporters to give the Demexit go sign. Many states have a deadline of August 1st for pre-election party switches, so that leaves only a couple days for many.

    The interactive map and Demexit instruction page being circulated is here. As is customary with the left, alot of work and coordination went into putting this together.

    likklemore | Jul 28, 2016 9:44:13 PM | 43
    @ ProPeace 38,39

    Question being asked in Vermont on party affiliation

    Is Bernie Sanders an Independent or a Democrat?

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/28/bernie-sanders-party-affiliation-not-simple-question/87666494/

    Sanders is an Independent in the Senate but also a member of the Democratic Party, according to his spokesman, Michael Briggs.

    Notice Biggs said member?

    = = = =

    the missing deleted emails would most likely also reveal the innards of the Clinton family Foundation. Not really missing. It would be a great disappointment if copies are not in a few 3 letter agencies.

    likklemore | Jul 28, 2016 10:17:16 PM | 47
    @ ProPeace 44

    Putin did It. with a bowl of popcorn and using one finger. More Hacking – And is said to be of "Great Concern"

    Reuters Exclusive: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-democrats-exclusive-idUSKCN1082Y7?il=0

    FBI investigates hacking of Democratic congressional group – sources

    [.] Jim Manley, a Democratic strategist who once worked for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, said the possibility of the DCCC being hacked was cause for great concern.

    "Until proven otherwise, I would suggest that everyone involved with the campaign committee operate under the assumption Russians have access to everything in their computer systems," Manley said.

    [. ] The disclosure of the DCCC breach is likely to further stoke concerns among Democratic Party operatives, many of whom have acknowledged they fear further dumps of hacked files that could harm their candidates. WikiLeaks has said it has more material related to the U.S. election that it intends to release.[.]

    = = = =

    "They fear" Wikileaks intends to release the big one?

    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 10:37:33 PM | 48
    Great George Carlin probably did not know many actual names of the "big owners" when he wrote

    ...The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice you don't.

    You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own, and control the corporations. They've long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear.

    They got you by the balls.

    They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying lobbying, to get what they want Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want they don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking...

    Blackstone is one of them, others being Fidelity, PIMCO, StateStreet...

    Hillary Clinton Talks Tough on Shadow Banking, But Blackstone Is Celebrating at the DNC

    Blackstone, the giant Wall Street private equity firm, will hold an invitation-only reception before the final night of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. The event, at the swanky Barnes Foundation art museum, includes the usual perks for attendees: free food, drink, and complimentary shuttle buses to the final night of the convention.

    What's unusual is that the host is precisely the kind of "shadow banker" that Hillary Clinton has singled out as needing more regulation in her rhetoric about getting tough on Wall Street.

    But Blackstone President and Chief Operating Officer Hamilton "Tony" James doesn't seem the least bit intimidated...

    ... The head-scratcher here is that James runs a private equity firm, exactly the kind of "shadow bank" that Clinton has derided as a scourge to the financial system. Shadow banks are financial institutions that do bank-like activities (such as lending or investing for clients) but aren't chartered as banks, existing outside of the traditional regulatory perimeter.

    Clinton argued during the primaries with Bernie Sanders that they were more dangerous than the big banks, because of the lack of scrutiny on their risk-taking. That was the linchpin of her argument that Sanders's plan was too myopic, and thather plan, which sought to crack down on shadow banking and deny it sources of funds, was more comprehensive.

    James has not only actively engaged in defending the whole concept of shadow banking, he created the original private equity trade group, formerly known as the Private Equity Council. The group later quietly changed its name to the more innocuous-sounding American Investment Council.

    In 2014, James penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed where he called shadow banking an "Orwellian term that can undermine critical thought." It was the regulated entities, not shadow banks, that were "the source of almost all the systemic risk in the financial crisis," he wrote. James explicitly sought to steer policymakers away from "regulations that undermine the many thousands of companies and jobs that need market-based financing to survive and grow."

    That term, "market-based financing," is a Tony James original. He prefers it because it removes the more sinister connotations associated with the shadows. "Private equity sounds bad, but shadow banking is worse," he told NPR.

    Blackstone operates in leveraged buyouts, asset management, and real estate transactions. It is the largest real estate private equity firm in the world, holding over $103 billion in assets. After the housing bubble collapsed, Blackstone bought 43,000 single-family homes over a two-year period, at one point buying more than $100 million worth of homes per week. They converted most of these into rentals, becoming one of the largest landlords in the world.

    Renters have sued Blackstone's real estate unit, Invitation Homes, for renting out homes in shoddy condition. They've also been accused of jacking up rents to satisfy investors, charging as high as 180 percent of the market rent value. Nevertheless, Blackstone plans to spin off Invitation Homes with an initial public offering next year.

    James's company also benefits from taking business lines from regulated banks, such as one of the trading businesses of global firm Credit Suisse. Blackstone then runs that company without government interference; assets in the Credit Suisse group have doubled since 2013.

    ProPeace | Jul 28, 2016 10:55:20 PM | 49
    @likklemore

    So Clapper did not call it, but Manley has already "suggestion" blaming Russia... LOL. The perfidy of Manly is that he does not say how to _prevent_ possible breaches, but creates perception of "Russians having access to everything" instead. So he does not really care about solving the problem, but about maintaining the notion that the problem magically persist.

    Obviously to use that notion/perception later for some sinister goals.

    Cho Nyawinh | Jul 29, 2016 12:14:16 AM | 50
    This is just agitprop disinformation. Since the 'hanging chad' soft coup, all US voting machines have backdoors to allow thevotes to be flipped, and since the Patriot Act, an Israeli subcontractor and AT&T have had an NSA contract to 'hack' all US cell phone and internet traffic, but now there is no need...GOOG and FB have apps on your tablet, your phone, and your sports band that record and database all your thoughts and actions.

    If you following computing, significant breakthroughs have been made in database manipulation, to where terabytes of information can now be ground down to streaming focus group metrics on the entire herd of so-called Little People. They can literally 'read your mind'.

    'Russia' is just a Zionist mind-meld 'shiney object' whatever cognitive dissociation memes they need to blunt-force eye-socket rape we and our children have to endure ... FOREVER

    psychohistorian | Jul 29, 2016 1:01:50 AM | 53

    And to further make my point about the emails there is this quote from a Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov:

    "As regards these (email) batches, that is not our headache. We never poke our noses into others' affairs and we really don't like it when people try to poke their nose into ours," he said. "The Americans needs to get to the bottom of what these emails are themselves and find out what it's all about."

    And DUH! the attribution for that last quote....

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-28/russia-us-sort-out-your-own-hacking-scandal-it-not-our-headache

    sigh....

    Formerly T-Bear | Jul 29, 2016 3:10:37 AM | 56

    The toxicity of this (2016) election has only been equalled by the election of 1860. Republicans and Democrats were involved then also though the rôles have substantially changed, the results are yet to be seen. What will 156 years of experience bring?

    Zico | Jul 29, 2016 4:08:12 AM | 57
    Look everybody, over there.. The Russians are everywhere!!!!

    Gotta hand it to the msm, though. They've managed to turn this Democrats match fixing to "It must be the Russians".. As always, the joke's on us :)

    tod | Jul 29, 2016 4:34:07 AM | 58
    It is worth to mention that Bruce Schneier is part of the "Tor Project" board of directors since July 2016.
    tSinilats | Jul 29, 2016 5:59:56 AM | 59
    The DNC was "hacked "by some of Killary's Israeli chums/clients... Lets look at the proffered "evidence" for a Russian Hack.. The hackers "seem to have been following a schedule of "Russian" holdiays... Half (or more) of the people in Israel follow that same schedule of holdiays... There are "clues" 'suggesting connections" with known Russian hacker groups..right..again, any Russian hacker group "known" this well and this long, is not an active hacker group any more... Except when Israelis, or whoever, are gaslighting them....The rest of the evidence, where any one has even bothered to offer it, is just as weak, or even weaker.
    From The Hague | Jul 29, 2016 7:00:43 AM | 60
    It will be a landslide. So, the outcome can't be manipulated. Or, who will vote for Killary?
    Enrico Malatesta | Jul 29, 2016 7:22:40 AM | 61
    MR @ 35

    A small quibble, but words matter - what is going on is not Voter Fraud, it's Election Fraud.

    Yonatan | Jul 29, 2016 7:46:47 AM | 62
    psychohistorian @52.

    "Nowhere on the intertubes that I frequent are stories about implications of the CONTENT of the DNC emails. The only angle of the story that is allowed to be covered in excruciating detail is who done it."

    That is the whole point of the 'Putin did it' exercise. It is to distract the people from the content. Contrast with the Panama Papers release where the target, Putin, was immediately targeted indirectly in carefully selected releases. There was very little interest in who was behind the hack. The info was publicly released via a US-government funded entity.

    Yonatan | Jul 29, 2016 7:51:29 AM | 63
    psychohistorian @52.

    It should also be seen in context of the earlier public declaration that such hacking would constitute an act of war. Trump has played into USG hands creating a 'reality' that 'Putin did it' - after saying that "Russia should release the emails, if it has them". Was this done wittingly or unwittingly?

    Noirette | Jul 29, 2016 8:02:47 AM | 64
    ian @ 20: The problem with the 'Trump as Manchurian Candidate' narrative is that most people (even Democrats) deep down, probably don't really believe it.

    I agree! .. hogwash. Trump is the Donald and not more. Yet, after thinking about ian's post, there is an oblique argument to be made: that this election is in fact IS all about Putin. Not Putin as Vladimir, but Putin as a stand-in for Russia. The central issue, the ginormous elephant in the room that is not being discussed is foreign policy - it only shows up in some remarks and many are oblivious to it.

    camps

    1. Killary and escalation - the continuation of Bush-Obama foreign policy on speed + steroids, which involves destroying places and going for one 'enemy' after another and flailing about (e.g. Iraq) - now aimed at the higher-stake ones (e.g. weakening Europe, dividing it from Russia, and attacking Russia with all means at hand.) The backers are neo-cons, neo-libs, the MIC, Wall Street (gingerly), and others, long list, some/many are criminal enterprises. Going on strong is the meme.
    2. Trump, with a nationalistic bent (partly calculated and not the most important) shows at the same time an isolationist stance (as opposed to conquering position) e.g. walls, anti-globalization on trade (ostensibly), America first of a certain flavor, and going so far! as to question the existence of NATO and to have a neutral or positive attitude towards the latest green-clawed fire-breathing devil. Reversing decline is the meme.

    Arguably, foreign policy in terms of life/death of its citizens is the most crucial point, but it is sub rosa. That is partly why all the talk/analysis in terms of ethnicity-race-religious identities / values in this election (black / brown voters, abortion..), class (economic), tribal political belonging, has become utterly confused, as these archaic divisions become meaningless, while upheld in political discourse (with endless switcheroos) by all, to confuse and gather votes here 'n there.

    The US public is left adrift with two despised candidates, who do or might represent two very different paths forward if one can even contemplate 'the forward' at present.

    ProPeace, 40, that is scary indeed.

    From The Hague | Jul 29, 2016 8:20:46 AM | 65
    @64 Noirette

    People hoped 8 years ago that Obama was camp 2. But he was a traitor.

    fast freddy | Jul 29, 2016 8:24:31 AM | 66
    Noirette 64

    Your summary is excellent. Reading it, the choice between the two (excluding 3rd choices) is clear. There exists a chance for peace or the guarantee of perpetual war.

    Les | Jul 29, 2016 8:32:26 AM | 67
    Article on Gen. Breedlove: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breedlove-network-sought-weapons-deliveries-for-ukraine-a-1104837.html Defense contractors, think tanks, and Breedlove feared Congress would cut U.S. troop levels in Europe.
    jfl | Jul 29, 2016 9:27:18 AM | 68
    @64 noirette, 'two despised candidates, who do or might represent two very different paths forward if one can even contemplate 'the forward' at present.'

    Yeah. Absolutely. My italics on the might. Hillary has a record. She can lie, but not to me. Trump has ... a mouth. When he says reasonable things - given Hillary - people are desperate to believe him. I can't.

    I don't think we can, or should. Trump seems far more likely to be another Obama than not. I think we have wasted far too many of these quadrennial exercises and that the time to do something different is now. Look what happened in Libya. That could happen in Russia ... and a lot more people than a US Ambassador will die. The Europeans are mad not to abrogate the US at this point. The Americans are beginning to tell themselves another 'real' war will solve their problems ... look at the DNC convention ... and it'll be OK because it will be another war 'over there'. It won't be over there, it'll be right here no matter where that is.

    Concerted action by our atomized selves is the only option left open to us. Let us Americans envision a different future and simply effect it. No to Clinton, not to Trump . Let's emulate a higher life form . We can make it we try.

    Joe Stalin | Jul 29, 2016 9:52:09 AM | 69
    Bruce Schneier used to charge the Chinese in every hacking incident, I guess there is now a "pivot" in the propaganda world.

    It is obvious that our elections are hacked: Florida in 2000, Ohio 2004, and now Brooklyn, Nevada, Arizona, California and other locations this year. They were hacked by our own crooks who would never allow Rooskies to muscle in on the action. Few polling stations in crowded districts, removing names from voter lists, private companies contracted to "count", voter suppression ID laws, jailing of voting populations, gerrymandering, etc. The Rooskies can only bring a rubber chicken to a gun fight.

    Angry Panda | Jul 29, 2016 10:17:14 AM | 70
    I keep dreaming of a "dream" (or a "nightmare") scenario in which a) Trump wins on the election night, just, maybe by 10-20 electoral votes; and b) on the day the Electoral College actually meets, 10-20 electors from "Trump" states, quote, "vote their conscience", end quote, and Hillary becomes president. Which, legally, they can do - remember the electors aren't formally bound by anything other than "tradition" (read: what their local party officials would do to them were they to change their vote).

    I know, I know, slim chance. But it would be a thing of beauty to behold were it to actually happen. For those of us who revel in chaos and anarchy, of course, the types who wished for a Sarah Palin presidency just for the sheer amount of comedy material involved; the rest of the population might well differ. In any event, the "Russian voting machine fraud" story would fit in very well with this particular sequence of events - the electors "voting their conscience" could then be portrayed as patriotic anti-communists (or whatever), for example.

    lysias | Jul 29, 2016 10:25:26 AM | 71
    For those 10-20 electors to vote for Hillary would be regarded as a betrayal of the system and make her an illegitimate, crippled president.

    What those 10-20 electors could do instead is to vote for some third candidate. Say, Gary Johnson or John Kasich. When no candidate wins a majority of electors, the election is thrown into the House of Representatives, in which each state's delegation has one vote and the vote must be among the three candidates who got the greatest number of electoral votes.

    rg the lg | Jul 29, 2016 10:35:56 AM | 72
    Get a life! Then read: http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/

    He makes a good point: " From inception, America proved itself the cruelest, most ruthless nation in world history, harming more people over a longer duration than any other. Tens of millions of corpses attest to its barbarity."

    "If elected, Hillary risks committing greater high crimes of state than her predecessors, including possible nuclear war - why it's crucial to defeat her in November. Humanity's fate hangs in the balance."

    All the rest is just rhetoric ... and the primary reason AmeriKKKans have Clinton as President in the first place. AmeriKKKans know that their best interests, even when jobless, are with continued murder, rape and theft!

    Proof? You want proof? Each of you AmeriKKKans who post to this site. Not that other are blameless, they just don't vote.

    blues | Jul 29, 2016 10:55:11 AM | 75
    I have stated here and "everywhere" that automated elections are not really elections at all. While the USA buys more and more election computers, most of the rest of the (ostensibly democratic) world has tossed out election computers, and moved to using had counted paper ballots.

    I have said many times: "We must abolish election machines, such as voting computers. If they make casting and tallying 10 times faster, they make organized cheating 10 times easier as well. Which can we truly afford?"

    I read several computer programmer's blogs, and comments almost every day, and I am sure most of these professionals are aware of the fact that their machines can never be made safe for use in elections. Yet, they virtually never come out and say that. Job security trumps having democracy for nearly all of them. Most of these programmers are depressing examples of self-centeredness.

    nr23 | Jul 29, 2016 1:55:10 PM | 76
    @58 "It is worth to mention that Bruce Schneier is part of the "Tor Project" board of directors since July 2016."

    That's indeed worth mentioning since one of the TOR founders, Jacob Appelbaum, was ejected from the board in June by a phony sex scandal identical to the one of Julian Assange. There was also the recent departure in July of one of the major TOR contributors, Lucky Green, who didn't disclose a lot about his reasons ("I feel that I have no reasonable choice left within the bounds of ethics") http://thehackernews.com/2016/07/tor-anonymity-node.html . The departures of Jacob Appelbaum and Lucky Green and the welcoming of sellout Bruce Schneier who's opinions were always in line with US foreign policy spell doom and gloom for TOR's security reliability.

    PhilK | Jul 29, 2016 2:11:16 PM | 78
    A lot of people outside the US are probably unaware of some very important features of federal elections here. Many of these people may assume that the US has a single presidential election, run by the federal government, as is the case in their own countries (Australia, for example). But in reality, there are 51 presidential elections, and only one of them (the one in the District of Columbia) is run by the federal government.

    Each state has its own way of collecting and counting ballots, and its own laws about voter eligibility, absentee voting, ballot access for third parties, voting procedures, etc. Because the counties within each state actually run the polling places, these state election laws are mainly instructions for county election officials. So there are ample opportunities for election fraud at the county and state levels, but not at the federal level (except for mass media mind control).

    In unusual situations, state election laws can be challenged in federal courts. In my home state of Tennessee, Republicans and Democrats many years ago passed a law that essentially makes it impossible for third parties to appear on the ballot. And for all those many years, the Tennessee Green Party has routinely gone to federal court, claiming that the state law unreasonably restricts Tennesseans' voting rights, and the court routinely rules in their favor. Thus my ability to vote for Jill Stein exists only because a federal court has intervened in Tennessee's election system. But judicial intervention like this is essentially the only power the federal government can exercise over voting.

    shadyl | Jul 29, 2016 3:25:23 PM | 80
    I can't for the life of me understand why so many hawks in the State Dept and elsewhere are sooooo afraid of Putin. They still mad he nationalized oil companies?
    dorcus | Jul 29, 2016 4:22:50 PM | 81

    Just suppose the emails of the DNC were released by the Clinton Machine, what a creative tactic, and certainly there is no reason to doubt that...a great media firestorm ensues, DWS had to fall on her sword but quickly gets hoisted on the Clinton petard..as a campaign manager

    Edward | Jul 29, 2016 10:24:21 PM | 85
    It is possible that Schneier and Doctorow may not have an anti-Russia agenda but are using the Russia angle because then the U.S. press will report on the security problems with electronic voting. Russia should just tell the U.S. to switch to mechanical voting if they are worried. How is Russia responsible for our insecure voting?
    Penelope | Jul 29, 2016 11:49:31 PM | 86
    ProPeace,

    Thanks for so much intelligent commentary this thread.

    Your comment, "As I have often mentioned on these pages previously, I do believe pedophiles and various other perverts are actively recruited into positions of power so that they can be compromised and controlled by the criminal cabal." I don't think that the pedophiles are recruited into power so that they can be controlled by fear of disclosure. In fact nothing happens to them when they're found out: the records are "lost", evidence is "insufficient", etc. Rather, the explanation I think is that the secret societies and higher levels of Masonry all use sexual deviancy as a means of bonding their initiates into a criminal cabal outside of the norms of society. There is a philosophical embracing of the destruction of innocence just as there is a glorification of the chaos produced by war.

    The evil that we face is an alternate philosophical position which rejects all the moral tenets of the world's 7 great religions. The goal is the rule of a tiny sect which imagines itself a godhead over humanity. Their main tools against us are informational and moral. Many of the novels of the 20s, the 30s and especially the late 19th century reveal by contrast how greatly they've degraded the very idea of living one's life informed by a moral ideal.

    The examined life has been swept away, replaced by the exclusively material and physical. Did you know that one of the early objectives was to control the appointment of divinity school teachers? The Rockefellers personally championed Unitarianism, which helped to trivialize religion. Without religion or an organized system of moral limits and the complete absence of the idealization of the moral and the possession of moral purpose, that great generational sink of morality once so vibrant among the American people has long-since sprung a leak now become a torrent. One looks in vain for that which would nourish the soul of the very young. The moral ideal has vanished from our culture. How could it not? The Rockefellers alone control over 2,000 domestic NGOs, foundations and think tanks. Even the culturally trivial is now being replaced by the overtly destructive. The human eclipsed by the bestial.

    Enough people, armed simply with knowledge and the resolution to look for the truth wherever it leads, can still stop it.

    ThatDamnGood | Jul 30, 2016 12:06:16 AM | 88
    Hillary to be president by hook or crook.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-29/no-id-no-problem-feds-overrule-north-carolina-voting-rules-discriminatory

    Election preparation underway, they are taking a page from the playbook used in Malaysia.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Strengthening Russo-Turkish Alliance Stokes US-Russian Cold War naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally. ..."
    "... Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big setback for the US and a big gain for Russia ..."
    "... The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts" get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous. These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR. ..."
    "... NATO gets aggressive and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions. ..."
    "... I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to invade or start a war!" ..."
    "... US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria (by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable reaction. Same goes for Ukraine. ..."
    "... The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development, they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college. ..."
    "... If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists, strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged: ..."
    "... Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well. ..."
    "... While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement. ..."
    "... But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen, as Edmonds says. ..."
    "... Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing to speak out about it. ..."
    "... Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial, cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded within the USA and Congress. ..."
    "... For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point. ..."
    "... Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin? ..."
    "... Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the 9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period (i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte"). ..."
    "... But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all a happy one. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    nmb , August 1, 2016 at 6:21 am

    It's rather improbable to see a Russo-Turkish alliance against US and NATO. The US and the Russians have probably already agreed on the new Middle East map which includes Kurdish state. This explains to a great extent why Erdogan is so nervous, making sloppy and dangerous moves.

    Yves Smith Post author , August 1, 2016 at 8:30 am

    Um, given reports that the Turks briefly closed the airbase that the US uses to conduct operations in Syria over the weekend, Erdogan seems plenty pissed with the US for not turning over Gulen, as he has repeatedly requested. Europe has agreed to give him only 3 billion euros to halt the refugee flow into Europe, which is hardly adequate, and a vague promise that maybe the EU will give Turks the freedom of movement too. The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally.

    Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big setback for the US and a big gain for Russia

    Steve H. , August 1, 2016 at 9:01 am

    Islamic State calls on members to carry out jihad in Russia

    Could be oblique pressure from Turkey, which has been supplying IS.

    Ask Bandar how that works out.

    John Candlish , August 1, 2016 at 6:38 am

    The Guardian is cranking its front page handorgan while its monkey dances to the tune of Syrian rebels launch operation to break Aleppo siege

    The Al-nursra rebranding hits the spotlight.

    Carla , August 1, 2016 at 8:00 am

    Thanks for mentioning the Real News Network fundraiser, Yves. They have a dollar-for-dollar matching grant going on as well, doubling the impact of every donation.

    rhcaldwell , August 1, 2016 at 8:03 am

    'Sure hope we've flown all our nukes out of Incirlik…

    Praedor , August 1, 2016 at 9:14 am

    The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts" get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous. These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR.

    They take it on faith that the US/West and Russia MUST be at odds, no matter what, to the point that they create out of whole cloth conflicts where none existed before. NATO gets aggressive and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions.

    Personally, I couldn't care less if Turkey and Russia get kissy-faced with each other. Big wup. Russia is NOT preparing to invade Western Europe (as much as NATO WISHES it were). Russia is NOT invading countries and overthrowing their governments to install puppet regimes, that's the USA and NATO ONLY. The West transgresses, grossly, again and again and when Russia coughs or clears its throat in opposition, it is "RUSSIAN AGGRESSION! Yaaaa! The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!!!!"

    I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to invade or start a war!" On the other hand, I've seen nothing BUT war starting by the West. First NATO takes something that wasn't, in all actuality, THAT bad a situation (the breakup of Yugoslavia) and turns it into a complete hell in Europe.

    US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria (by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable reaction. Same goes for Ukraine.

    The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development, they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college.

    Ralph Reed , August 1, 2016 at 11:11 am

    If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists, strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged:

     There is now only one way out. The time has come for the United States to make common cause with the Soviet Union. The bringing together of the Soviet landmass (with all its natural resources) and our island empire (with all its technological resources) would be of great benefit to each society, not to mention the world. Also, to recall the wisdom of the Four Horsemen who gave us our empire, the Soviet Union and our section of North America combined would be a match, industrially and technologically, for the Sino-Japanese axis that will dominate the future just as Japan dominates world trade today. But where the horsemen thought of war as the supreme solvent, we now know that war is worse than useless. Therefore, the alliance of the two great powers of the Northern Hemisphere will double the strength of each and give us, working together, an opportunity to survive, economically, in a highly centralized Asiatic world.

    Then again, the international co-operation around protecting the ozone layer could have been deepened if the Red Greens hadn't already been promised as sacrificial lambs to the Gladio remnants, their old money benefactors, Western intelligence agencies, Mossad, the CIA, FBI, and disgruntled Russian elites who already hated hippies.

    Ralph Reed , August 1, 2016 at 11:17 am

    I messed up the format and don't seem to be able to edit. My apologies.

    Ralph Reed (@RalphWalterReed) , August 1, 2016 at 11:32 am

    Rereading this it sacrifices coherence to venting. The premise is that historical contiguity with the racial residues of empire could be confronted or not if they were more simply transparent.

    The bigger point I wanted to make is the current demographic disaster may be intentional if one looks at the recent Russian experience as an experiment. Broken Force? Then social pressure through thwarting the traditional modes of reproduction of labor leading to a reinvigorated military economy in 15 years.

    digi_owl , August 1, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    Yeah the whole "soviet threat" issue vanished the day Stalin passed. But i fear that the US, and thus NATO, needed it to maintain compliance within their own nations.

    And thus the threat was stoked until the 90s, then it was eased back as they thought they had the old bear chained down while Yeltsin was in office, only for their antics to cause a blowback that is still ongoing once Putin took over.

    TheCatSaid , August 1, 2016 at 10:49 am

    Great interview. It's good to see Helmer on TRNN.

    Last week I got curious to have a better understanding of the Turkey situation than what I was getting from MSM. I decided to see if Sibel Edmonds had spoken up–and discovered that she predicted this coup 18 months ago.

    There are a number of insightful interviews she has given about Turkey over the last 18 months. Here are a couple:

    Lengthy video interview with Edmonds about
    Turkey / Gulen background from 2014, "Sibel Edmonds Explains the CIA's "Reverse Engineering" of Erdogan". She says it is easy to document Gulen's close links to the CIA, and makes a strong case for his status as being strongly protected by the USA. It references articles she's written including " Turkish PM Erdogan: The Speedy Transformation of an Imperial Puppet ".

    Two recent interviews since the coup.
    Sibel Edmonds Dissects the Turkish Coup

    Breaking News: Turkey's Coup Plotters are Members of NATO's Rapid Deployable Corps (July 24 2016)

    The "BellingTheCat" website with WhatsApp translated messages of Turkish military during the coup, which Helmers also mentions, are here . Helmers says this website is a NATO-sponsored website and that it is not always trustworthy, but isn't sure in this case. Edmonds doesn't mention this website being linked to NATO.

    For background on Edmonds see " Kill the Messenger ", a 2006 documentary about her whistleblowing within the FBI.

    jagger , August 1, 2016 at 11:40 am

    Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well.

    TheCatSaid , August 1, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Something I found intriguing:

    While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement.

    But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen, as Edmonds says.

    Within the CIA there are therefore different angles / understandings / strategies. The upper echelon strategy seems to be about supporting Gulen (including helping clandestinely Gulen–or his puppet-master(s)–to effect regime change). LIHOP is too weak an argument, given the kind of support Gulen receives from his USA base. Probably he's just a figurehead and the real power is out of view. (USA? Off-world?)

    Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing to speak out about it.

    TheCatSaid , August 1, 2016 at 11:01 am

    Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial, cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded within the USA and Congress.

    A longer post with a number of links has been sidetracked to moderation. In case it disappears I'm posting this short comment.

    For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point.

    jagger , August 1, 2016 at 11:32 am

    How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there?

    Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin?

    dbk , August 1, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    This thread seems to have petered out rather early on, not sure how much to add.

    For those (if anyone is still out there) interested, Pat Lang's site SST has been posting regularly on Turkey, and he has commenters from the region and who are knowledgeable about ME/NE military and political affairs.

    I had read the John Helmer piece on his blog when it was first posted, and forwarded it to a friend who's similar in many respects to Lang (career military officer, now retired; author of historical studies and books; keen student of the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey, Cyprus, the Balkans) except that he's Greek.

    In return he sent me a link to his own latest two pieces on a Greek blog. One discusses the "coup" in considerable detail. Some random factoids I picked up on, in no particular order or hierarchy:

    • -Russia is not interested in regime change in Turkey at the moment;
    • -Russia is very interested in maintaining its buffer zone (called "The Rimland" by the late Nicholas Spykman, a geopolitics theoretician), of which Turkey forms perhaps the key part (historically, and now);
    • -Russia turned the shooting down of that SU 24 into an opportunity to install S400s or possibly, S500s, in Syria;
    • -The current situation in Syria is more or less a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia;
    • -Russia has recently become very active in the so-called "Northern Corridor" (aka, the Arctic Circle), something most analysts forget;
    • -By 2020, Russia will be 100% self-sufficient in food production;
    • -It is likely that Russian surveillance technology picked up the news of the impending coup and informed Erdogan of it;
    • -The presence of nuclear weapons at Incirlik is in violation of Article 2 of the 1975 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
    • -Russia wants/needs a "southern corridor" to move LNG to the Med. Turkey is in the right geographic location to serve this purpose.

    The historical relationship between Turkey and Russia comes out a bit garbled in Helmer's (original post) title, i.e. "The New Byzantine Alliance: The Kremlin and the Porte," etc.

    Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the 9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period (i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte").

    Short version: when you start messing around in somebody else's backyard, trouble ensues.

    The 2016 election offers voters two rather stark choices. Another blog I read, LGM, recently had a comment on a thread about Trump-Clinton (there are so many, one loses count) that laid out why voters are choosing one or the other candidate very neatly. If one is in the U.S. and is relatively or very well-off, the Democrats' championing (qualified, I would say) of identity politics looks pretty good, or at least, not as bad as the Republicans' (I'm still aghast at how black voters are so staunchly supportive of someone whose husband shoved TANF through in place of AFDC, but hey). But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all a happy one.

    [Aug 01, 2016] DNC Lock Sanders Delegates Out Of Room, Reject Superdelegate Reforms

    Aug 01, 2016 | InvestmentWatch
    Bernie Sanders delegates were forcefully locked out of a DNC meeting on Saturday as the Democratic National Committee attempted to block superdelegate reforms.

    The meeting of 187 rules committee members took place in a small room at the Wells Fargo Center where they unceremoniously voted to reject a proposal that would ban superdelegates in future primaries.

    Usuncut.com reports:

    The DNC's Rules Committee, which is co-chaired by former Massachusetts Congressman and outspoken Clinton surrogate Barney Frank, is made up of representatives of both campaigns in proportion to how many delegates each campaign won during the primary process.

    DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also appointed 25 members of the Rules Committee who are able to vote on each proposal. The superdelegate elimination proposal and related measures were easily the most high-profile votes of the day.

    On Saturday afternoon, the committee voted to reject a proposal eliminating the role of superdelegates in future Democratic presidential primaries - something that multiple state Democratic conventions voted in favor of earlier this year. Similar proposals to minimize or limit the power of superdelegates were also defeated.

    [Aug 01, 2016] The top one tenth of percent couldnt have done so much damage to the world if millions supposedly good people hadnt fallen into their traps so easily...

    www.moonofalabama.org

    @84 PhilK

    Anything I got wrong? Anything I missed? There's an address you can reach me at the page if you have suggestions.

    Posted by: jfl | Jul 30, 2016 1:37:48 AM | 90

    @86 Thank you, Penelope. You make very good points, as always. :-)

    But let me repeat my conclusion - the world is evil because people are weak.

    The 0.1% couldn't have done so much damage to the world if millions supposedly "good people" hadn't fallen into their traps so easily...

    Posted by: ProPeace | Jul 30, 2016 2:57:04 AM | 91

    @72 Many good USians have been murdered (Phill Marshall, sen. Paul Wellstone, JFK junior - competing with Hitlary for the Senate seat), silenced, imprisoned, intimidated, disenfranchised for standing up to the criminal elite.

    They deserve our utmost respect.

    Do not use collective responsibility, Bolshevik style.

    Posted by: ProPeace | Jul 30, 2016 3:05:11 AM | 92

    [Jul 31, 2016] Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party

    Notable quotes:
    "... However, to ease tensions with the Clinton wing of the party, Obama selected Clinton to be his Secretary of State, one of the first and most fateful decisions of his presidency. He also kept on George W. Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon members of the military high command, such as Gen. David Petraeus. ..."
    "... Inside Obama's foreign policy councils, Clinton routinely took the most neoconservative positions, such as defending a 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a progressive president. ..."
    "... Clinton also sabotaged early efforts to work out an agreement in which Iran surrendered much of its low-enriched uranium, including an initiative in 2010 organized at Obama's request by the leaders of Brazil and Turkey. Clinton sank that deal and escalated tensions with Iran along the lines favored by Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Clinton favorite. ..."
    "... But no one should be gullible enough to believe that Clinton's invasion of Syria would stop at a "safe zone." As with Libya, once the camel's nose was into the tent, pretty soon the animal would be filling up the whole tent. ..."
    "... Perhaps even scarier is what a President Clinton would do regarding Iran and Ukraine, two countries where belligerent U.S. behavior could start much bigger wars. ..."
    "... In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and to "liberate" the people of Crimea from "Russian aggression" (though they voted by 96 percent to leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)? ..."
    "... Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neocon Project for the new American Century, has endorsed Clinton, saying "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." [See Consortiumnews.com's " Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon. "] ..."
    "... So, by selecting Clinton, the Democrats have made a full 360-degree swing back to the pre-1968 days of the Vietnam War. After nearly a half century of favoring a more peaceful foreign policy – and somewhat less weapons spending – than the Republicans, the Democrats are America's new aggressive war party. ..."
    Jun 08, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    ... But former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military force to achieve "regime change" in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires. She abides by neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.

    Amid the celebrations about picking the first woman as a major party's presumptive nominee, Democrats appear to have given little thought to the fact that they have abandoned a near half-century standing as the party more skeptical about the use of military force. Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes.

    As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton voted for and avidly supported the Iraq War, only cooling her enthusiasm in 2006 when it became clear that the Democratic base had turned decisively against the war and her hawkish position endangered her chances for the 2008 presidential nomination, which she lost to Barack Obama, an Iraq War opponent.

    However, to ease tensions with the Clinton wing of the party, Obama selected Clinton to be his Secretary of State, one of the first and most fateful decisions of his presidency. He also kept on George W. Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon members of the military high command, such as Gen. David Petraeus.

    This "Team of Rivals" – named after Abraham Lincoln's initial Civil War cabinet – ensured a powerful bloc of pro-war sentiment, which pushed Obama toward more militaristic solutions than he otherwise favored, notably the wasteful counterinsurgency "surge" in Afghanistan in 2009 which did little beyond get another 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed and many more Afghans.

    Clinton was a strong supporter of that "surge" – and Gates reported in his memoir that she acknowledged only opposing the Iraq War "surge" in 2007 for political reasons. Inside Obama's foreign policy councils, Clinton routinely took the most neoconservative positions, such as defending a 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a progressive president.

    Clinton also sabotaged early efforts to work out an agreement in which Iran surrendered much of its low-enriched uranium, including an initiative in 2010 organized at Obama's request by the leaders of Brazil and Turkey. Clinton sank that deal and escalated tensions with Iran along the lines favored by Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Clinton favorite.

    Pumping for War in Libya

    In 2011, Clinton successfully lobbied Obama to go to war against Libya to achieve another "regime change," albeit cloaked in the more modest goal of establishing only a "no-fly zone" to "protect civilians."

    Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had claimed he was battling jihadists and terrorists who were building strongholds around Benghazi, but Clinton and her State Department underlings accused him of slaughtering civilians and (in one of the more colorful lies used to justify the war) distributing Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women.

    Despite resistance from Russia and China, the United Nations Security Council fell for the deception about protecting civilians. Russia and China agreed to abstain from the vote, giving Clinton her "no-fly zone." Once that was secured, however, the Obama administration and several European allies unveiled their real plan, to destroy the Libyan army and pave the way for the violent overthrow of Gaddafi.

    Privately, Clinton's senior aides viewed the Libyan "regime change" as a chance to establish what they called the "Clinton Doctrine" on using "smart power" with plans for Clinton to rush to the fore and claim credit once Gaddafi was ousted. But that scheme failed when President Obama grabbed the limelight after Gaddafi's government collapsed.

    But Clinton would not be denied her second opportunity to claim the glory when jihadist rebels captured Gaddafi on Oct. 20, 2011, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him. Hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Clinton went into a network interview and declared , "we came, we saw, he died" and clapped her hands in glee.

    Clinton's glee was short-lived, however. Libya soon descended into chaos with Islamic extremists gaining control of large swaths of the country. On Sept. 11, 2012, jihadists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American personnel. It turned out Gaddafi had been right about the nature of his enemies.

    Undaunted by the mess in Libya, Clinton made similar plans for Syria where again she marched in lock-step with the neocons and their "liberal interventionist" sidekicks in support of another violent "regime change," ousting the Assad dynasty, a top neocon/Israeli goal since the 1990s.

    Clinton pressed Obama to escalate weapons shipments and training for anti-government rebels who were deemed "moderate" but in reality collaborated closely with radical Islamic forces, including Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda's Syrian franchise) and some even more extreme jihadists (who coalesced into the Islamic State).

    Again, Clinton's war plans were cloaked in humanitarian language, such as the need to create a "safe zone" inside Syria to save civilians. But her plans would have required a major U.S. invasion of a sovereign country, the destruction of its air force and much of its military, and the creation of conditions for another "regime change."

    In the case of Syria, however, Obama resisted the pressure from Clinton and other hawks inside his own administration. The President did approve some covert assistance to the rebels and allowed Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states to do much more, but he did not agree to an outright U.S.-led invasion to Clinton's disappointment.

    Parting Ways

    Clinton finally left the Obama administration at the start of his second term in 2013, some say voluntarily and others say in line with Obama's desire to finally move ahead with serious negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and to apply more pressure on Israel to reach a long-delayed peace settlement with the Palestinians. Secretary of State John Kerry was willing to do some of the politically risky work that Clinton was not.

    Many on the Left deride Obama as "Obomber" and mock his hypocritical acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. And there is no doubt that Obama has waged war his entire presidency, bombing at least seven countries by his own count. But the truth is that he has generally been among the most dovish members of his administration, advocating a "realistic" (or restrained) application of American power. By contrast, Clinton was among the most hawkish senior officials.

    A major testing moment for Obama came in August 2013 after a sarin gas attack outside Damascus, Syria, that killed hundreds of Syrians and that the State Department and the mainstream U.S. media immediately blamed on the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    There was almost universal pressure inside Official Washington to militarily enforce Obama's "red line" against Assad using chemical weapons. Amid this intense momentum toward war, it was widely assumed that Obama would order a harsh retaliatory strike against the Syrian military. But U.S. intelligence and key figures in the U.S. military smelled a rat, a provocation carried out by Islamic extremists to draw the United States into the Syrian war on their side.

    At the last minute and at great political cost to himself, Obama listened to the doubts of his intelligence advisers and called off the attack, referring the issue to the U.S. Congress and then accepting a Russian-brokered deal in which Assad surrendered all his chemical weapons though continuing to deny a role in the sarin attack.

    Eventually, the sarin case against Assad would collapse. Only one rocket was found to have carried sarin and it had a very limited range placing its firing position likely within rebel-controlled territory. But Official Washington's conventional wisdom never budged. To this day, politicians and pundits denounce Obama for not enforcing his "red line."

    There's little doubt, however, what Hillary Clinton would have done. She has been eager for a much more aggressive U.S. military role in Syria since the civil war began in 2011. Much as she used propaganda and deception to achieve "regime change" in Libya, she surely would have done the same in Syria, embracing the pretext of the sarin attack – "killing innocent children" – to destroy the Syrian military even if the rebels were the guilty parties.

    Still Lusting for War

    Indeed, during the 2016 campaign – in those few moments that have touched on foreign policy – Clinton declared that as President she would order the U.S. military to invade Syria. "Yes, I do still support a no-fly zone," she said during the April 14 debate. She also wants a "safe zone" that would require seizing territory inside Syria.

    But no one should be gullible enough to believe that Clinton's invasion of Syria would stop at a "safe zone." As with Libya, once the camel's nose was into the tent, pretty soon the animal would be filling up the whole tent.

    Perhaps even scarier is what a President Clinton would do regarding Iran and Ukraine, two countries where belligerent U.S. behavior could start much bigger wars.

    For instance, would President Hillary Clinton push the Iranians so hard – in line with what Netanyahu favors – that they would renounce the nuclear deal and give Clinton an excuse to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran?

    In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and to "liberate" the people of Crimea from "Russian aggression" (though they voted by 96 percent to leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)?

    Would President Clinton expect the Russians to stand down and accept these massacres? Would she take matters to the next level to demonstrate how tough she can be against Russian President Vladimir Putin whom she has compared to Hitler? Might she buy into the latest neocon dream of achieving "regime change" in Moscow? Would she be wise enough to recognize how dangerous such instability could be?

    Of course, one would expect that all of Clinton's actions would be clothed in the crocodile tears of "humanitarian" warfare, starting wars to "save the children" or to stop the evil enemy from "raping defenseless girls." The truth of such emotional allegations would be left for the post-war historians to try to sort out. In the meantime, President Clinton would have her wars.

    Having covered Washington for nearly four decades, I always marvel at how selective concerns for human rights can be. When "friendly" civilians are dying, we are told that we have a "responsibility to protect," but when pro-U.S. forces are slaughtering civilians of an adversary country or movement, reports of those atrocities are dismissed as "enemy propaganda" or ignored altogether. Clinton is among the most cynical in this regard.

    Trading Places

    But the larger picture for the Democrats is that they have just adopted an extraordinary historical reversal whether they understand it or not. They have replaced the Republicans as the party of aggressive war, though clearly many Republicans still dance to the neocon drummer just as Clinton and "liberal interventionists" do. Still, Donald Trump, for all his faults, has adopted a relatively peaceful point of view, especially in the Mideast and with Russia.

    While today many Democrats are congratulating themselves for becoming the first major party to make a woman the presumptive nominee, they may soon have to decide whether that distinction justifies putting an aggressive war hawk in the White House. In a way, the issue is an old one for Democrats, whether "identity politics" or anti-war policies are more important.

    At least since 1968 and the chaotic Democratic convention in Chicago, the party has advanced, sometimes haltingly, those two agendas, pushing for broader rights for all and seeking to restrain the nation's militaristic impulses.

    In the 1970s, Democrats largely repudiated the Vietnam War while the Republicans waved the flag and equated anti-war positions with treason. By the 1980s and early 1990s, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were making war fun again – Grenada, Afghanistan, Panama and the Persian Gulf, all relatively low-cost conflicts with victorious conclusions.

    By the 1990s, Bill Clinton (along with Hillary Clinton) saw militarism as just another issue to be triangulated. With the Soviet Union's collapse, the Clinton-42 administration saw the opportunity for more low-cost tough-guy/gal-ism – continuing a harsh embargo and periodic air strikes against Iraq (causing the deaths of a U.N.-estimated half million children); blasting Serbia into submission over Kosovo; and expanding NATO to the east toward Russia's borders.

    But Bill Clinton did balk at the more extreme neocon ideas, such as the one from the Project for the New American Century for a militarily enforced "regime change" in Iraq. That had to wait for George W. Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. As a New York senator, Hillary Clinton made sure she was onboard for war on Iraq just as she sided with Israel's pummeling of Lebanon and the Palestinians in Gaza.

    Hillary Clinton was taking triangulation to an even more acute angle as she sided with virtually every position of the Netanyahu government in Israel and moved in tandem with the neocons as they cemented their control of Washington's foreign policy establishment. Her only brief flirtation with an anti-war position came in 2006 when her political advisers informed her that her continued support for Bush's Iraq War would doom her in the Democratic presidential race.

    But she let her hawkish plumage show again as Obama's Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 – and once she felt she had the 2016 Democratic race in hand (after her success in the southern primaries) she pivoted back to her hard-line positions in full support of Israel and in a full-throated defense of her war on Libya, which she still won't view as a failure.

    The smarter neocons are already lining up to endorse Clinton, especially given Donald Trump's hostile takeover of the Republican Party and his disdain for neocon strategies that he views as simply spreading chaos around the globe. As The New York Times has reported, Clinton is "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes."

    Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neocon Project for the new American Century, has endorsed Clinton, saying "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon."]

    So, by selecting Clinton, the Democrats have made a full 360-degree swing back to the pre-1968 days of the Vietnam War. After nearly a half century of favoring a more peaceful foreign policy – and somewhat less weapons spending – than the Republicans, the Democrats are America's new aggressive war party.

    [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's "Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?']

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

    [Jul 31, 2016] Clinton has now made Democrats the anti-Russia party

    How about WAPO does some real reporting and compares the two candidate on the issues at hand and leaves out all the speculation"
    Judging from comments the level of brainwashing of WaPo readship is just staggering... Far above that existed in soviet Russia (were most people were supciously about Soviet nomeklatura and did not trust them).
    Notable quotes:
    "... In their zeal to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous threat to national security, the Clinton campaign has taken a starkly anti-Russian stance, one that completes a total role reversal for the two major American parties on U.S.-Russian relations that Hillary Clinton will now be committed to, if she becomes president. ..."
    "... And now, for mostly political reasons, the Clinton campaign has decided to escalate its rhetoric on Russia. ..."
    "... This year, the Clinton team is accusing Putin of waging information warfare against the Democratic candidate in order to help elect the Republican candidate. Clinton is also running ads claiming she stood up to Putin. Meanwhile, Trump is called for a weakening of NATO and his staff worked to remove an anti-Russia stance on Ukraine from the GOP platform. ..."
    "... Now that the Democrats are the tough-on-Russia party, they should explain exactly what that means. What would Clinton do about Russia's increasingly aggressive cyber-espionage and information warfare in Europe and around the world? Would she expand sanctions on Russia in response to the hacks? Would she use U.S. cyber forces to retaliate? Would she abandon President Obama's plan to deepen U.S.-Russian military and intelligence cooperation in Syria? ..."
    "... if Clinton wins, she will be committed to implementing the anti-Putin, tough-on-Russia policy she is running on and Democrats will need to fall in line ..."
    "... I am not a national security expert but it does not look intelligent to antagonize Russia and China at the same time. But I think it is unfair to blame Hillary for this, Obama has been antagonizing Russia and China for some time now. He has being very successful at that, for the first time in many years now Russia and China are BFF doing naval exercises together. ..."
    "... In other words, her use of a homebrew email server constituted a threat to national security? ..."
    "... The Dems and their Washington Post surrogates are apoplectic over Donald Trump's supposed affinity for the Russians. Russia is now America's mortal enemy in the current Dem narrative. ..."
    "... Mook's claim of Russian involvement would be more convincing if he had offered any proof. Otherwise it just looks like pure deflection and distraction and disinformation. ..."
    Jul 28, 2016 | The Washington Post

    In their zeal to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous threat to national security, the Clinton campaign has taken a starkly anti-Russian stance, one that completes a total role reversal for the two major American parties on U.S.-Russian relations that Hillary Clinton will now be committed to, if she becomes president.

    The side switching between the parties on Russia is the result of two converging trends. U.S.-Russian relations have gone downhill since Russian President Vladimir Putin came back to power in 2012, torpedoing the Obama administration's first term outreach to Moscow, which Clinton led. Then, in the past year, Trump's Russia-friendly policy has filled the pro-engagement space that Democrats once occupied.

    And now, for mostly political reasons, the Clinton campaign has decided to escalate its rhetoric on Russia. After Trump suggested Wednesday that if Russia had indeed hacked Clinton's private email server it should release the emails, the Clinton campaign sent out its Democratic surrogates to bash Russia and Trump in a manner traditionally reserved for Republicans.

    "This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue," Clinton senior foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said.

    Set to one side that Trump was probably joking. Russia clearly does not need Trump's permission to hack U.S. political organizations or government institutions. And there's no consensus that Russia released the Democratic National Committee emails in order to disrupt the presidential election. In fact, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has his own personal vendetta against Clinton, claimed that he alone chose the timing of the release of the DNC emails.

    Regardless, the idea that a GOP presidential nominee would endorse Russian cyber-espionage was too tempting for the Clinton campaign to resist, especially on the day their convention was dedicated to painting Trump as dangerous on national security.

    At an event on the sidelines of the convention Wednesday, several top Clinton national security surrogates focused on Trump's latest comments to argue that they embolden Russia in its plan to destabilize and dominate the West. Former national security adviser Tom Donilon said that Russia is interfering with elections all over Europe and said Trump is helping Russia directly.

    "The Russians have engaged in cyberattacks in a number of places that we know about, in Georgia, in Estonia and in Ukraine. . . . In the Russian takeover of Crimea, information warfare was a central part of their operations," Donilon said. "To dangerously embrace a set of strategies by the Russian Federation that are intent on undermining key Western institutions . . . is playing into the hands of Russian strategy."

    Former defense secretary and CIA director Leon Panetta said that if Donilon was still in the White House, he would have tasked the CIA to retaliate against Moscow. Panetta then doubled down on Sullivan's argument that Trump's comments by themselves are making the United States less safe.

    "This is crazy stuff, and yet somehow you get the sense that people think it's a joke. It has already represented a threat to our national security," Panetta said. "Because if you go abroad and talk to people, they are very worried that someone like this could become president of the United States."

    In 2008, the Russian government was definitely not rooting for the Republican candidate for president. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) had made a feature of his campaign a pledge to stand up to Russian aggression and dispatched two top surrogates to Georgia after the Russian invasion.

    In 2012, Mitt Romney warned that Russia was the United States' "number one geopolitical foe." Then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry mocked Romney at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, saying that Romney got his information about Russia from the movie "Rocky IV."

    This year, the Clinton team is accusing Putin of waging information warfare against the Democratic candidate in order to help elect the Republican candidate. Clinton is also running ads claiming she stood up to Putin. Meanwhile, Trump is called for a weakening of NATO and his staff worked to remove an anti-Russia stance on Ukraine from the GOP platform.

    Now that the Democrats are the tough-on-Russia party, they should explain exactly what that means. What would Clinton do about Russia's increasingly aggressive cyber-espionage and information warfare in Europe and around the world? Would she expand sanctions on Russia in response to the hacks? Would she use U.S. cyber forces to retaliate? Would she abandon President Obama's plan to deepen U.S.-Russian military and intelligence cooperation in Syria?

    The Clinton team hasn't said. For now, they are content to use Trump's statements about Russia to make the argument that he's not commander-in-chief material. But if Clinton wins, she will be committed to implementing the anti-Putin, tough-on-Russia policy she is running on and Democrats will need to fall in line . If Putin wasn't rooting for Trump before, he is now.

    NotaClinton , 7/28/2016 6:25 PM EDT

    So TRUMP is threat to NATIONAL SECURITY for asking RUSSIA for the emails she destroyed? Because they would be the one likely to have them since she completely ignored Security protocol while in Russia? WOW they get better every day. They have already explain Russia could have been in and out of her accounts all along because of her complete lack of security of her devises. She had less security than a commercial account using the private server the way she did. And she did cause a breach in national security. She fwd classified email to an intern and it did get hacked. Whether or not Russia got any info from her we will never know. Because the lack of security on her server Russia could have got her password and and the info leaving no tracks.

    NotaClinton , 7/28/2016 5:22 PM EDT

    People agree with PUTIN you know like the ones in CRIMEA and SYRIA. I'd rather see a PUTIN TRUMP ticket. I like what I see in PUTIN doing in the world. He seems to be the one SAVING people around the world. Assad let the people have freedom of religion. These Sunni the USA is arming want to force Sharia law. I don't approve of my tax dollars being spent arming those terrorists nor do I consider Saudi Arabia an ally!!! I would rather see a TRUMP PUTIN ticket and add 75 more stars to our flag. Than what the current government is. Although I would more so like to see the USA government take a much more democratic stance. Change our government to be more like Switzerland Norway and the Netherlands. Who were inspired by the USA constitution. Our constitution and democracy has been lost to corruption!!!!

    George1955, 7/28/2016 5:08 PM EDT

    I am not a national security expert but it does not look intelligent to antagonize Russia and China at the same time. But I think it is unfair to blame Hillary for this, Obama has been antagonizing Russia and China for some time now. He has being very successful at that, for the first time in many years now Russia and China are BFF doing naval exercises together. Maybe there is a very profound strategy in that (everybody says that Obama is a genius) but I cannot see what is the logic of provoking at the same time the two biggest military powers apart of the United States while weakening our military forces with budget cuts.

    Aleksandar Malečić, 7/28/2016 5:16 PM EDT

    It's meant to be profitable, not intelligent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww_z6Teynow

    chayapartiya, 7/28/2016 5:21 PM EDT

    It is the worst foreign policy since the Arab Spring brought us ISIS. They are incapable of intelligent policy. Their whole idea was to "not do stupid stuff" and here they are. They just can't help themselves.

    chayapartiya, 7/28/2016 5:01 PM EDT

    The only thing standing between a highly productive US/Russian relationship are the other relationships the United States has, both institutional and personal among our elites.

    Russia is the sworn enemy of many US allies and has barred our richest citizens from taking charge of large sectors of the Russian economy. That is the source of our new Cold War.

    Lacking Communist ideology Russia will never be an existential threat to the United States or our way of life. On the other hand, Islam is. On the other hand, Red China is.

    You have to be willing to abandon the entire US foreign policy establishment to turn our relationship with Russia around, and if we did maintaining our relationships with Poland, the Baltics, Georgia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and more would become vastly more difficult.

    But the idea is too good of one to abandon, Russia is far too influential to ignore. I'm glad one major party is going to recognize that now.

    invention13, 7/28/2016 5:01 PM EDT

    "This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue," Clinton senior foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said.

    In other words, her use of a homebrew email server constituted a threat to national security?

    I'm finding this whole flap just too funny. The whole point was probably to step on the news coverage of the convention on the night that the president and vice president were to speak. Trump is happy to fan the flames a bit. This is what he does when there is something he doesn't want people to pay attention to (whether it is unfavorable coverage of Trump University, or a convention). He throws out something outrageous that sucks the oxygen out of the news cycle. This whole thing will die down, simply because in the absence of hard evidence, most people don't believe it is true that Trump is Putin's agent. He may admire him, but work for him? I doubt it.

    NotaClinton, 7/28/2016 5:44 PM EDT

    Her actions DID once agains threaten NATIONAL SECURITY there was no doubt about that. She fwd classified email to her interns who got hacked. That is definitely a threat to national security. She carried her Blackberry and laptop into countries while acting as head of state. Which was not recommended for anyone to do even if there devices were secured by the state. She took hers to countries with her personal server that had zero security less than a commercial account. Then there was the fact she deleted and kept her business out of reach of FOIA. Zero respect for those laws. All federal employees are allowed to have a personal email for there person life. But Hilary decides she is above the law. Those federal laws don't apply to her and got away with it. When Comey was asked about that. He said he wasn't asked to investigate whether she broke those federal laws. He wasn't investigating whether she broke the law. But only if he should charge her for violating security. His conclusion was yes she violated the law. But he sees the law meant nothing so why file a criminal charge.

    Trump only requested information that they very well may have. Because Hilary handed it to them. it's hard to believe the Russians hacked the DNC. They most likely had the passwords from Hilary's accounts. Which would leave no footprints.

    OswegoTex , 7/28/2016 2:54 PM EDT

    The Dems and their Washington Post surrogates are apoplectic over Donald Trump's supposed affinity for the Russians. Russia is now America's mortal enemy in the current Dem narrative. Wasn't Romney ridiculed by a snarky and arrogant Obama and his press sycophants for identifying Russia as a major geopolitical threat in the 2012 election cycle. What happened? Oh-- I know--- the Clinton/Obama "reset".

    stella blue, 7/28/2016 2:45 PM EDT

    Very interesting article. Hillary is a neocon. She never saw a war she didn't like. I don't know what would be so wrong with having good relations with Russia. Wasn't that what Hillary's stupid reset button was all about?

    NotaClinton, 7/28/2016 6:11 PM EDT [Edited]

    I admire PUTIN and so do a lot of people. If you are a Citizens and believe in our values and the constitution. He held a democratic Legal election in Crimea. Where the people voted unanimously in favor of Belonging to Russia, A Vote that would be exactly the same today. The USA invades Syria with terrorists from countries whose own people wouldn't vote them in.

    All I have seen Putin do is save people. He saved Syria finally. i don't know what took him so long. Maybe WMDs he knew the opposition would use and some more dirty filthy rotten tricks that have been happening there. He turned the war around on less money than a shipment of weapons and training to the rebels forces costed the USA. those shipments and training was going on since before the conflict broke out. What was the point?

    Why has the USA spent a dime in that country other than they should have immediately neutralized, destroyed or recovered all the military equipment that was stolen from Iraq. I you like Russian your anti american? If you don't like illegal Immigrants your a racist. That is to be expected from those educated Hilary Voters...

    Nikdo, 7/28/2016 4:26 PM EDT

    Mook's claim of Russian involvement would be more convincing if he had offered any proof. Otherwise it just looks like pure deflection and distraction and disinformation.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Russian television shows what the Kremlin thinks of Clinton

    The video accompanying the article is actually better the the text. John Bolton made some interesting remarks. For example he said that it is stunning that Hillary Clinton said something about damage from hack of DNC server. What she though by engaging in her reckless behaviors with bathroom server four years while she were in office. He also suggested that points to Russia might be just attempt if disinformation from a real perpetuator.
    Notable quotes:
    "... In her acceptance speech, Clinton reaffirmed a commitment to NATO, saying she was "proud to stand by our allies in NATO against any threat they face, including from Russia." ..."
    "... As U.S. secretary of state, Clinton in 2009 presented her Russian counterpart with a red button intended to symbolize a "reset" in relations between the two countries, one of U.S. President Barack Obama's initiatives. In Russia, the gesture is best remembered for the misspelling of the word in Russian, while the reset itself failed in the face of Putin's return as Russian president in 2012 and Russia's seizure of Crimea from Ukraine two years later. ..."
    "... Clinton once compared the annexation of Crimea to Adolf Hitler's moves into Eastern Europe at the start of World War II, a comparison that was deeply offensive in Russia, where the country's victory over Nazi Germany remains a prime source of national pride. ..."
    "... "And as far as the Ukraine is concerned, it's a mess. And that's under the Obama's administration with his strong ties to NATO. So with all of these strong ties to NATO, Ukraine is a mess," Trump said. "Crimea has been taken. Don't blame Donald Trump for that." ..."
    "... Putin was outraged by U.S. support for Ukraine and by U.S. military intervention around the world, particularly in Libya, on Clinton's watch. But it was what he saw as interference in Russia that really rankled. ..."
    "... When Clinton described Russia's 2011 parliamentary elections as rigged, Putin said she was "sending a signal" to his critics. He then accused the U.S. State Department of financially supporting the protests that drew tens of thousands of people to the streets of Moscow to demand free elections and an end to Putin's rule. ..."
    "... Channel One began its report by introducing Clinton as "a politician who puts herself above the law, who is ready to win at any cost and who is ready to change her principles depending on the political situation." The anchorwoman couched the description by saying that was how Clinton is seen by Trump's supporters - but it was a nuance viewers could easily miss. ..."
    Fox News

    MOSCOW – To understand what the Kremlin thinks about the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming the U.S. president, it was enough to watch Russian state television coverage of her accepting the Democratic nomination.

    Viewers were told that Clinton sees Russia as an enemy and cannot be trusted, while the Democratic Party convention was portrayed as further proof that American democracy is a sham.

    In her acceptance speech, Clinton reaffirmed a commitment to NATO, saying she was "proud to stand by our allies in NATO against any threat they face, including from Russia."

    In doing so, she was implicitly rebuking her rival, Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has questioned the need for the Western alliance and suggested that if he is elected president, the United States might not honor its NATO military commitments, in particular regarding former Soviet republics in the Baltics.

    While Trump's position on NATO has delighted the Kremlin, Clinton's statement clearly stung.

    "She mentioned Russia only once, but it was enough to see that the era of the reset is over," Channel One said in its report.

    As U.S. secretary of state, Clinton in 2009 presented her Russian counterpart with a red button intended to symbolize a "reset" in relations between the two countries, one of U.S. President Barack Obama's initiatives. In Russia, the gesture is best remembered for the misspelling of the word in Russian, while the reset itself failed in the face of Putin's return as Russian president in 2012 and Russia's seizure of Crimea from Ukraine two years later.

    Clinton once compared the annexation of Crimea to Adolf Hitler's moves into Eastern Europe at the start of World War II, a comparison that was deeply offensive in Russia, where the country's victory over Nazi Germany remains a prime source of national pride.

    Trump, on the other hand, told ABC's "This Week" in a broadcast Sunday that he wants to take a look at whether the U.S. should recognize Crimea as part of Russia. "You know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were," Trump said.

    This runs counter to the position of the Obama administration and the European Union, which have imposed punishing sanctions on Russia in response to the annexation.

    "And as far as the Ukraine is concerned, it's a mess. And that's under the Obama's administration with his strong ties to NATO. So with all of these strong ties to NATO, Ukraine is a mess," Trump said. "Crimea has been taken. Don't blame Donald Trump for that."

    Putin was outraged by U.S. support for Ukraine and by U.S. military intervention around the world, particularly in Libya, on Clinton's watch. But it was what he saw as interference in Russia that really rankled.

    When Clinton described Russia's 2011 parliamentary elections as rigged, Putin said she was "sending a signal" to his critics. He then accused the U.S. State Department of financially supporting the protests that drew tens of thousands of people to the streets of Moscow to demand free elections and an end to Putin's rule.

    In the years since, the Kremlin has defended Russian elections in part by implying they are no different than in the United States, a country it says promotes democracy around the world while allowing its business and political elite to determine who wins at home.

    The Democratic Convention, which ended Friday morning Moscow time, was given wide coverage throughout the day on the nearly hourly news reports on state television, the Kremlin's most powerful tool for shaping public opinion.

    Channel One began its report by introducing Clinton as "a politician who puts herself above the law, who is ready to win at any cost and who is ready to change her principles depending on the political situation." The anchorwoman couched the description by saying that was how Clinton is seen by Trump's supporters - but it was a nuance viewers could easily miss.

    The reports ran excerpts of Clinton's speech, but the camera swung repeatedly to a sullen Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her Democratic challenger, and his disappointed supporters. The Rossiya channel also showed anti-Clinton protesters outside the convention hall who it said "felt they have been betrayed after the email leak that showed Bernie Sanders was pushed out of the race."

    Russia is a prime suspect in the hacking of Democratic National Committee computers, which led to the release of emails showing that party officials favored Clinton over Sanders for the presidential nomination.

    The Kremlin has denied interfering in the U.S. election. A columnist at Russia's best-selling newspaper, however, said it would have been a smart move.

    "I would welcome the Kremlin helping those forces in the United States that stand for peace with Russia and democracy in America," Israel Shamir wrote in Komsomolskaya Pravda.

    Trump, meanwhile, has encouraged Russia to seek and release more than 30,000 other missing emails deleted by Clinton. Democrats accused him of trying to get a foreign adversary to conduct espionage that could affect this November's election, but Trump later said he was merely being sarcastic.

    whollop

    Putin has tried to remind the world what a mistake break up of Yugoslavia was and corruption involved and lies, no one listens. Next leader of Russia might not be so restrained and patient. Sad we are letting such bad minds lead US now. What is it about Clinton's that make ppl so gullible?

    whollop

    Read "how the srebrenica massacre redefined US policy," by US professor. Media distorts truth everywhere, all the time. Bought and paid for.

    Russians didn't start last 2 WW's either. You can bet if ISIS attacks Russia, Pres O won't go to their aid.

    This constant demonizing of Russia has pushed them closer to China. Obama and Clinton and Bill Clinton (from earlier and beyond) have made a mess of the world because their values are built on wrong philosophy. German rationalism does not mesh with American freedom and love of law.

    Trump17

    Her and Obama interfered in their affairs and now without any proof they are blaming Russia for a hacking of the DNC. Back in March the FBI told the DNC it was hacked and wanted information to conduct an investigation which Hillary of course blocked. Now they are crying the blues..

    HmmIsee

    Dems have hated Russia ever since Reagan disbanded their beloved USSR

    teabone

    Russia and the U.S. used to have a common enemy, radical/extremist Islamism.

    Not anymore since Obama and Clinton loves Muslims more than they like American citizens.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Clinton blames Russia for DNC hack as Trump seems to back annex of Crimea

    Looks like this is a new part of Hillary strategy to take Trump down
    Notable quotes:
    "... "We know that Russian intelligence services hacked into the DNC," Clinton said, in her first interview with Fox in more than five years. "And we know that they arranged for a lot of those emails to be released and we know that Donald Trump has shown a very troubling willingness to back up Putin, to support Putin." ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Clinton answered tough questions on Benghazi, her emails and her campaign and policies, and focused her own attack on her opponent's alleged links to Russia and Putin.

    "We know that Russian intelligence services hacked into the DNC," Clinton said, in her first interview with Fox in more than five years. "And we know that they arranged for a lot of those emails to be released and we know that Donald Trump has shown a very troubling willingness to back up Putin, to support Putin."

    Asked if she believed Putin wanted Trump to win the presidency, Clinton said she would not make that conclusion. "But I think laying out the facts raises serious issues about Russian interference in our elections, in our democracy," she said.

    The US would not tolerate that from any other country, Clinton said, adding: "For Trump to both encourage that and to praise Putin despite what appears to be a deliberate effort to try to affect the election, I think, raises national security issues."

    [Jul 31, 2016] Is Hillary the lesser evil

    Notable quotes:
    "... You would rather vote against ..."
    "... …and vote FOR the person who voted for the invasion of Iraq, supported NAFTA and the undermining of universal health coverage in support of private insurance companies/managed care, was likely the deciding factor in overthrowing the Libyan government, was instrumental in supporting multiple dictatorships in Haiti (good pieces linked to that on NC recently), was possibly instrumental in and for sure responsible for the support after the fact of the coup in Honduras, was a founder of what might go down in history as one of the largest fraudulent charities ever (with those tentacles doing the very same things the DNC is accusing Putin of doing), has a history of quid pro quo dealings with predator international investment banks and vulture capitalists (which Elizabeth Warren has identified in speeches that are available on Youtube)… one could go on and on, but basically the candidate who has never met a nation state or corrupt business dealing that she didn't want to stick herself in the middle of the dealings with… ..."
    "... I would think the xenophobe might look more attractive to non-passport holders of the American empire simply based upon a cursory reading of history. But nothing should surprise me anymore. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Betina , July 29, 2016 at 11:32 am

    This is some irresponsible stuff. For all of Naked Capitalism's concerns with Clinton's neocon tendencies, you neglect to understand that we are terrified of Trump here in Europe, and as a Brazilian, I do not know a single person from my country who would prefer him as President. 2016 Democrats are not "neoliberals," even as they operate in a neoliberal structure. The only thing any of this indicates is Trump has is that he has *no record* – Hudson thinks that every last thing that happened under the Obama government was out of the President's personal desire to make it so. If Trump had a political career, he would be no better, if not much worse. Trump's career in business does not support Hudson's optimism, at all.

    RUKidding , July 29, 2016 at 11:59 am

    I do agree with you. I have many friends in Europe and Australia who are literally begging me to vote for Clinton – and they don't like her much either.

    I love NC, but I disagree with the fawning acceptance of Trump as somehow fit to be President. He's a racist, bigoted, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist jerk with no really good plans in place. The so-called "ideas" or "plans" that he has do not pencil out and would bankrupt this country should they ever be implemented. I agree that Clinton is awful and was well nigh disgusted with the DNC convention (but expected nothing less or different).

    But voting for Trump is irresponsible in my opinion. I just cannot go there. Yet and still in this nation today, you are free to vote for who you want.

    Treadingwaterbutstillkicking , July 29, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    Very confused here.

    You would rather vote against the egomaniacal, sexist, xenophobe, who is willing to downshift international military interventions, lessen spending on NATO, work WITH the Russians on ISIS, possibly exit trade neoliberal trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO (while not adopting the TPP), etc…

    …and vote FOR the person who voted for the invasion of Iraq, supported NAFTA and the undermining of universal health coverage in support of private insurance companies/managed care, was likely the deciding factor in overthrowing the Libyan government, was instrumental in supporting multiple dictatorships in Haiti (good pieces linked to that on NC recently), was possibly instrumental in and for sure responsible for the support after the fact of the coup in Honduras, was a founder of what might go down in history as one of the largest fraudulent charities ever (with those tentacles doing the very same things the DNC is accusing Putin of doing), has a history of quid pro quo dealings with predator international investment banks and vulture capitalists (which Elizabeth Warren has identified in speeches that are available on Youtube)… one could go on and on, but basically the candidate who has never met a nation state or corrupt business dealing that she didn't want to stick herself in the middle of the dealings with…

    I would think the xenophobe might look more attractive to non-passport holders of the American empire simply based upon a cursory reading of history. But nothing should surprise me anymore.

    Yves Smith Post author , July 30, 2016 at 5:38 am

    There were some newbie walk-ins at the top of the thread who were keen on Trump, which I agree was creepy.

    But aside from our relentless jgordon, no regular LIKES Trump. The ones who say they will vote for him weigh that choice against Jill Stein. They see themselves reluctantly voting for Trump as the "less effective evil," that as an outsider, hated by his own party, he won't get much done. Think Jimmy Carter cubed. The other reasons for being willing to consider Trump are that Hilary clearly wants a hot war with Russia, and that she will push for the TPP, which is a dangerous and irrevocable deal.

    aab , July 30, 2016 at 5:55 am

    As someone who consistently advocates here for Trump being the lesser evil, I want to chime in behind Yves. I do not like Trump. I just consider putting him into the Presidency to be a far safer choice than enabling Clinton into power, and I recognize that however I choose to vote, one of those two people will be President. I also value highly the possibility of weakening the hold of big finance and corporations over the Democratic Party by purging the Clintons and leaving the party too weak to be of much use to its current owners.

    Fundamentally, I am Anyone But Clinton, a handy catchphrase that captures my perspective exactly. I will probably end up voting for a socialist third party no one ever discusses here, because why not support the party closest to my own values and policy desires? But if Stein OR Trump actually got enough traction to possibly take my state, I'd add my vote to that pile, happily. Well, "happily" in that I would feel I was making the best possible choice with whatever tiny amount of agency my vote represents. But the next four years are likely to be quite grim, no matter what.

    John Wright , July 30, 2016 at 9:35 am

    As I live in CA, which is assumed to be in the bag for HRC, my vote against her is only of import to me.

    This election is akin to someone who desperately needs a tricky surgery and their choice of surgeons is limited to two with long records of malpractice but with good media advertising campaigns.

    When I visualize a President Hillary Clinton, my only hope is that once she has successfully climbed the Presidential mountain she has so doggedly pursued (as her faux "namesake" Sir Edmund did his), she might realize she should serve the people, not the elite.

    But my hope in the original trademarked "Hope" candidate Obama dissipated rather quickly.

    And Hillary has a lifetime record of serving herself, her family and her ambitions, not the people.

    I also view Trump as the LOE

    low integer , July 29, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    Look, I live in Australia and the msm Clinton bias verges on is ridiculous. Why is Europe more terrified of Trump than Clinton? The media? I understand Trump is problematic, but do you know Hillary's history? Looking forward to a hot war with Russia?

    Luciano Moffatt , July 29, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    As an Argentinian, I urge you to vote for Trump.
    As bad as Bush was for you and for Middle East, in Latin America we enjoy the possibility of finding our own ways to develop, as Bush did not care about us.
    Once Obama got to office, the wave changed starting from the Honduras' coup, followed by Paraguay coup. Now, the only countries resisting are the ones that reformed its constitution: Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.
    Policies of Democrats to Latin America, from some reason that I do not comprehend, have been particularly bad for Latin America. The only exception I remember is the active policies of Jimmy Carter against the violation of human rights in Argentina.

    EoinW , July 29, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    Not surprised by the European take on Trump. I've caught bits and pieces of CBC coverage(can't stomach much of it) and they make CNN look objective! Trump has been neatly inserted into the bad guy role and all coverage assumes the viewers only care about one thing: stopping Trump. You'd think they were still covering Iraq and talking about Saddam, not Donald. I can't call the CBC's coverage of Trump juvenile because it's barely infantile in its simplicity. Other Canadian media outlets are pretty much falling in with the CBC narrative. After all, you think pro-neocon/pro-war Sun Media is going to give Trump and his anti-war rhetoric any chance?

    To put it simply: Canadian media is a captured entity. No surprise as Canada has always done what it takes to have a presence in the imperial court(even if it's a spot in the far corner). This is Canada's reason for being: to kiss the imperial ass. First the British Empire and now the American Empire. As a good loyal supplicant, we've now stepped forward to combat the latest imperial threat: Donald Trump.

    The irony is delightful. Part of the national narrative here is how much better educated we are than those ignorant Americans. I'm sure Europeans share the same conceit. Yet we are the ones swallowing all the establishment propaganda while Americans are seeing through all the media lies, are engaged and demanding change. I guess this makes sense. After all, Americans have run the world, while Europeans are the "has beens" and Canadians the "never have been at all"!

    [Jul 31, 2016] Lesser Evil Voting and Hillary Clintons War on the Poor

    Notable quotes:
    "... They tell us that Hillary is a flawed but basically progressive candidate who shouldn't be "demonized." After all, she's spent her "entire life" advocating on behalf of "women and girls." ..."
    "... As Doug Henwood has pointed out , most of what Clinton did "for women and girls" as Secretary of State was to do photo-ops with women around the world wearing colorful ethnic garb. ..."
    "... The candidate herself frequently talks up the sheer number of miles she traveled as if this alone added up to some sort of praiseworthy political accomplishment. The fact is that the policies she flew around the world supporting were a disaster for poor people around the world, and especially for poor women. ..."
    "... During the early years of the Obama administration, the Haitian government tried to raise the minimum wage there to all of 61 cents an hour, which works out to about five dollars a day. (The minimum wage before the proposed increase was 22 cents.) Diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks in 2011 show that the sweatshops supplying Hanes and Levi-Strauss made a huge stink, and got the State Department involved to lobby the Haitian government against their plan to go to all the way up to 61 cents an hour. ..."
    "... Today, after preparing to write this article by reviewing Secretary Clinton's disgusting rhetoric about welfare mothers and reviewing the facts about workfare, benefit reductions, and the uptick in extreme poverty, I know exactly what to think. Guns should be confiscated from NRA members and redistributed to single mothers who have been kicked off of benefits. Lacking money from the now-defunct Aid to Families with Dependent Children program to help them keep the lights on and buy groceries for their kids, let's give them the ability to procure groceries by other means. ..."
    "... Ben Burgis is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Underwood International College, Yonsei University. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    I voted for Jill Stein in 2012, and I'll do so again as a matter of course if Hillary is nominated in 2016. I'm cautiously optimistic that a non-trivial fraction of those currently Feeling the Bern may do the same, just as a spillover effect from Ron Paul's liberatarian-ish Presidential campaign in 2012 seems to have contributed to the unprecedented million votes received by Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson in the 2012 general election. I would argue that breaking the stranglehold of the two-party 'duopoly' on American politics is clearly in the interests of working people-not to mention the interests of all the people in the third world who live in fear of American bombs. As OACW union leader Tony Mazzocchi was fond of saying, "The bosses have two parties. We need one of our own."

    But let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm wrong about all of that. Let's assume, as liberal pundits uniformly insist, that it would be dangerously irresponsible to even consider voting for anyone but Hillary Clinton in the general election. Even granting that premise, why not vote for her with rubber gloves and open eyes?

    Instead of emulating the French, scolding liberal commentators constantly tell us that the differences between Hillary and Bernie shouldn't be "exaggerated." They tell us that Hillary is a flawed but basically progressive candidate who shouldn't be "demonized." After all, she's spent her "entire life" advocating on behalf of "women and girls."

    As Doug Henwood has pointed out, most of what Clinton did "for women and girls" as Secretary of State was to do photo-ops with women around the world wearing colorful ethnic garb. Indeed, it's revealing that, when you dig beyond bumper sticker slogans like "advocacy on behalf of women and girls," Clinton supporters rarely want to discuss the particulars of her record. The candidate herself frequently talks up the sheer number of miles she traveled as if this alone added up to some sort of praiseworthy political accomplishment. The fact is that the policies she flew around the world supporting were a disaster for poor people around the world, and especially for poor women.

    During the early years of the Obama administration, the Haitian government tried to raise the minimum wage there to all of 61 cents an hour, which works out to about five dollars a day. (The minimum wage before the proposed increase was 22 cents.) Diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks in 2011 show that the sweatshops supplying Hanes and Levi-Strauss made a huge stink, and got the State Department involved to lobby the Haitian government against their plan to go to all the way up to 61 cents an hour. The U.S. State Department has a fairly massive level of sway in the deliberations of the Haitian government, considering the United States' long history of meddling, backing coups, and even invading the country when governments there displease Uncle Sam. Nor is this ancient history from the Cold War. U.S. Marines removed the democratically elected President of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, in 2004. So when the U.S. Embassy says jump, the Haitian government tends to ask how high. In this case, they ended up cutting the proposed minimum wage hike of 39 cents an hour all the way down to 9 cents. It might be worth thinking hard about the fact that the girls sewing your jeans have Hillary Clinton to thank for their current salary of 31 cents an hour next time a liberal scold tells you not to "demonize" Secretary Clinton.

    Of course, Haitians are foreigners, and black foreigners at that, so maybe they don't quite count. (After all, Hillary's liberal supporters are willing to overlook that small matter of her support for the invasion of Iraq.) Perhaps, in evaluating her record, we should focus on her no-doubt glorious history of domestic progressivism.

    Back in the mid-1980s, the Clintons and a lot of their friends founded something called the Democratic Leadership Council to move the Democratic Party back to "the center." Throughout that decade, Ronald Reagan had led the Republicans in demonizing "welfare queens" allegedly ripping off vast sums from the hard-working taxpayers. The evidence for the claim that a non-trivial amount of money was being lost to welfare benefits being paid out to people who simply didn't want to work was always pretty thin, but it hardly mattered. The racial subtext was powerful and it was thinly disguised, and Reagan's skillful use of this rhetoric paid off in a big way for the GOP.

    When the Democratic Leadership Council, which still claimed to be "socially progressive," talked about moving "to the center" on economic issues, this is precisely the center they were talking about capturing. Bill Clinton made it explicit in 1992 with his campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it." Unlike quite a few of his other promises, he kept this one, signing away the end of federal welfare requirements in 1996. The impact of this "reform" on millions of desperate people was predictably grim, even for those who did manage to hold onto some kind of benefits so they could keep the heat on and make rent.

    (Google "workfare" to see what this often looked like in practice. One of the options Google helpfully offers you when you type that word into the search engine is workfare is a form of slave labor.) With federal requirements abolished, the paltry funds made available for welfare were sent out as bloc grants to the states, where bloody-minded conservative state legislatures could have their way with the programs. In the years since "welfare reform" was passed, the percentage of Americans living in extreme poverty has greatly increased. As Ryan Cooper puts it, "Even after the worst economic crisis in 80 years, TANF has basically ceased to exist in much of the country. Eligibility requirements have gotten so onerous, and benefit levels so miserly, that many poor people haven't even heard of the program, or think it was abolished."

    So, where was Hillary Clinton in all this? She was an enthusiastic supporter of her husband's initiative, both in her role as an administration advisor and in her many public statements on the matter, including ones that she made after Bill's Presidency ended and she was elected to the Senate. She called single mothers on benefits "deadbeats" and talked about them over and over again in the most offensively cliched terms, as people who knew nothing but "dependency" and had no inkling of the value of work. So, for example, using Ronald Reagan's trademark rhetorical technique of a supposedly representative anecdote that sounds authoritative becomes it comes with a proper name, Clinton talked about a former welfare queen named Rhonda Costa. "Rhonda Costa's daughter came home from school and announced, 'Mommy, I'm tired of seeing you sitting around the house doing nothing.' That's the day Rhonda decided to get off welfare…."

    Because it's just that easy, right? These people are clearly on welfare because they don't want to work, and any time they decide that they'd like a job, one will fall in their lap. It's certainly not as if holes on resumes matter, or workfare requirements often prevent welfare recipients from being able to go to job interviews, or "structural unemployment" is a feature of market economies.

    Matt Bruenig sums things up nicely:

    For lifelong upper class pundits, these statements may not actually cause much feeling inside of them. But, as someone who actually grew up in and adjacent to the class of people being described here, I can tell you that these are really the height of anti-poor slurs. Under Clinton's estimation, welfare beneficiaries are dignity-lacking dependent deadbeats who are such losers that even their own kids think they are trash. We don't talk a lot about classism in the US (and frankly I don't like the term), but that's what this is. It is the class equivalent of calling women airhead bimbos.

    Nor, of course, are the class and gender dimensions of all this entirely unrelated. Not so coincidentally, the picture of an allegedly typical welfare recipient you get from Hillary Clinton's rhetoric on this-the "Rhonda Costa" of her anecdote-is a single mother.

    As Bernie Sanders tried to keep the focus of this year's Democratic debates on economics and his proposals to expand the welfare state, Hillary Clinton changed the subject as often as possible to guns. This is the one issue where the Secretary thought she had an opening to outflank Bernie Sanders on the "left," on the grounds that Senator Sanders has sometimes been insufficiently enthusiastic about gun control.

    It's a complicated issue. On the one hand, the statistics about gun accidents, never mind gun crimes, are pretty grim. On the other hand, the fact that "stop and frisk" started as a program to go after illegal guns should make leftists who harbor concerns about police power and the carceral state think twice about bold new gun regulations are likely to play out. On a normal day, I'm not entirely sure what to think.

    Today, after preparing to write this article by reviewing Secretary Clinton's disgusting rhetoric about welfare mothers and reviewing the facts about workfare, benefit reductions, and the uptick in extreme poverty, I know exactly what to think. Guns should be confiscated from NRA members and redistributed to single mothers who have been kicked off of benefits. Lacking money from the now-defunct Aid to Families with Dependent Children program to help them keep the lights on and buy groceries for their kids, let's give them the ability to procure groceries by other means.

    Join the debate on Facebook

    Ben Burgis is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Underwood International College, Yonsei University.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Donald Trump says hes taking the gloves off as party conventions wrap

    Pro-Hilary bots dominate discussion. Still there are few interesting comments
    Notable quotes:
    "... Meh, Hitler only ascended to power because he aligned himself with corporate interests and Germany's 1%. They did so because he stoked their fear of the other guys...who were communists. Sounds more like Hillary's playbook than Trumps ..."
    "... Trump may or may not be as he is portrayed, but to hold Hilary up as a paragon of virtue isn't going to get the Democrats very far. Between Hilary and Bill there are so many skeletons that there are not enough cupboards to hold them. Whitewater and other nepharious business dealings combined with corruption , sexual double dealing , this couple (for that is what they are) cannot preach to anyone re morality , honesty and trustworthiness. In addition Hilary is a master of the dark arts of Politics ( and that's being kind) Trump, has not been found out and if there were skeletons there then be sure they would have been found by now. Trump to win and Hilary to be placed in a well deserved prison cell. ..."
    Jul 31, 2016 | theguardian.com
    Sam3456 -> Merveil Meok , 2016-07-31 03:31:48
    Hillary has no such problems:

    Hedge fund owners and employees have so far this election cycle contributed nearly $48.5 million for Hillary Clinton, compared to about $19,000 for Donald Trump, an indication that Wall Street is clearly backing the Democratic presidential nominee.

    RogTheDodge -> peter nelson , 2016-07-31 13:35:21
    He didn't ask anyone to spy on us. He said if the Russians *already* had Clinton's 30,000 deleted emails, the media would love to get them and he'd love to read them. At no point did he ask anyone to hack anything.
    MsEvenstar , 2016-07-30 23:51:36
    Donald Trump sings from Hitler's playbook. There is a real difference, however, as an orator, he is not quite so polished. To date, his campaign has been devoted creating a "cult of personality", and on labeling all those who disagree un-American. A collection of slogans and sound-bites and an itchy Twitter finger do not a coherent platform make, but they are ideally suited to turning a crowd into a mob, one of the oldest tricks in the Hitler playbook.
    Sam3456 -> MsEvenstar , 2016-07-31 03:30:43
    Meh, Hitler only ascended to power because he aligned himself with corporate interests and Germany's 1%. They did so because he stoked their fear of the other guys...who were communists. Sounds more like Hillary's playbook than Trumps
    1iJack , 2016-07-30 17:19:11
    Whoever thought the Democrats would become the party of Wall Street?

    "Wall Street for Hillary? Clinton has $48.5M in hedge fund backing, compared to Trump's $19K"


    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/30/wall-street-for-hillary-clinton-has-48-5m-in-hedge-fund-backing-compared-to-trumps-19m.html
    ethane21 -> Kelly Grey , 2016-07-30 17:40:26

    Trump has the backing of Russia, so...

    The CLinton's already have that sewn up by flogging the Russkies Uranium mines a deal facilitated through the Clinton Foundation.
    'Uranium1' - check it.
    dalepues , 2016-07-30 15:51:45
    Thank God for Donald Trump. He is the only person of national stature who has taken the whip to GWB and his sorry, criminal administration. Donald Trump should be lauded for telling the truth in front of 40,000,000 viewers about the neocon crime syndicate that created Operation Iraqi Freedom and, of course, its members, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, erstwhile U.S. Senator who voted in favor of going to war in Iraq and who has never seen a war she didn't like or profit from. Trump in a single evening destroyed once and forever the myth that GWB "kept America safe". I look forward to the taking down of the Clinton brand.
    edward Marbletoe -> dalepues , 2016-07-30 16:18:39
    Trump:
    took down GWB worship
    took down FOX and Ailes
    took down Cruz
    took down GOP

    Sounds like the to-do list of a democrat. A very successful one.

    dylan37 , 2016-07-30 14:21:57
    Seems blindingly obvious to me that Trump is a born entertainer and knows exactly how to manipulate the media spotlight and get headlines..his "no more Mr Nice Guy" schtick is straight out of the TV villain playbook, like those mullet swinging moustachioed Amercan wrestlers..the crowd love it..he gets the attention..it generates comments and effectively shifts the low level debate back on to his ground, after Hillary enjoyed a couple of days of glass ceiling smashing. It's old vaudeville and pantomime and he's a master of it. Every serious reaction and outraged comment plays beautifully into his now gloveless hands. Don't fall for it. No need to worry, until he secures the keys to the kingdom come November.
    shejean , 2016-07-30 14:21:33
    'Nice'? Trump has never been 'nice' to Hillary or any other person, let alone another candidate Repub or Dem. How long did it take for him to come up with this rhetoric? Be afraid, very afraid, if he ever becomes POTUS. ��
    Nedward Marbletoe -> shejean , 2016-07-30 16:12:24
    Trump donated to Hillary. If that's not nice, idk what is.
    mythology 200gnomes , 2016-07-30 11:31:02
    Let's help out here: Jill Stein : and Gary Johnson .

    Real people worth voting for. Who would have guessed that America had a choice?
    Given a level democratic playing field, surely what a democracy is meant to be, then we would be seeing prime time coverage of all people standing for President.

    But the U.S. is not a democracy, it is an elected dictatorship.

    oldwatcher , 2016-07-30 10:59:51
    Anyone but the Clinton family in the White House for another eight years signals a disaster for the whole of the United States of America
    Trump has never sullied the White House and never will like that dirty bugger Clinton.
    Scipio1 , 2016-07-30 10:57:53
    What has happened to America's conscience, its democratic traditions, its sense of reason and fair play, where is its morality - all gone apparently if the Democratic Party Convention and nomination of HRC is anything to go by.

    Herewith an interesting snippet.

    ''Our Gross National Product - if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our Redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in a chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear war-head, and armoured cars and police to fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Specks Knife, and the TV programmes which glorify violence to sell toys to our children.

    GDP does not the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.''

    Who said that? Martin Luther King, Noam Chomsky, Jill Stein? Actually it was Bobby Kennedy (Remarks at the University of Kansas, 18 March 1968 - quoted in S.Das - The Age of Stagnation 2015)

    Can anyone today imagine in their wildest dreams a leading Democrat espousing views such as this? This is how far into the night that America has come. God help us all.

    anotherwelshbloke , 2016-07-30 10:46:54
    Obama tried to influence our referendum by saying that if the UK voted for Brexit then the UK would go to the back of the queue. Hilary as president will try and make sure that his word is carried out. However.....
    Trump wanted Brexit to happen. He also has a love for Scotland where he owns a golf course. He is also likely to see eye to eye with our new Foreign Secretary who was responsible for annoying Obama in the first place. I think both Boris and Trump are lunatics but looking at the bigger picture Trump will be so much better for British and Scottish interests than Hilary. He will place us at the front of the queue and Nicola Sturgeon would almost certainly be given a place at the high table.
    keyser soze , 2016-07-30 10:44:57
    Down with establishment and status quo TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP lets go Trump
    ydobon , 2016-07-30 10:30:54
    The people complaining about Trump being dishonest about the numbers of New Jersey Muslims celebrating 911 are themselves guilty of an even bigger falsehood in claiming that the number was zero.

    ""When I saw they were happy, I was pissed," said Ron Knight, 56, a Tonnele Avenue resident who said he heard cries of "Allahu Akbar" as he shouldered his way through a crowd of 15 to 20 people on John F. Kennedy Boulevard that morning.

    "Collectively, the gatherings amounted to dozens of people at the two locations, the witnesses said. Callers also flooded the 911 system with accounts of jubilant Muslims on a rooftop at a third location, three police officers said"

    http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/12/exclusive_jersey_city_cop_residents_say_some_musli.html

    And honestly, why should this even be surprising? Living in a Western country doesn't instantly make all Muslims loyslpatriots, as I would've thought anyone would recognise by now.

    Paul Silbert -> ydobon , 2016-07-30 11:08:33
    I thought that it was supposed to be Israelis celebrating in NJ because of 9/11? I guess that I must have been fed the wrong conspiracy theory. It doesn't matter, really, because it's pure unadulterated bullsh--, whoever you claim it about.
    Frogdoofus , 2016-07-30 09:57:44
    Lots of anti-Trump comments, fine and perfectly understandable. To clarify, the election is not a yes/no vote on Trump as President. It is a choice between Trump and HRC. To call HRC a deeply flawed candidate is an understatement. The important discussion is not over which one is evil, but which one is the lesser evil.

    If there is one candidate that you simply cannot go into a voting booth and vote for, then the other one gets your vote. For some people both candidates are "unvoteable", which is a quandary. Throwing away ones vote by not voting or going third party is not a civic option. It will be a tough few months.

    heatherton , 2016-07-30 09:56:54
    Trump may or may not be as he is portrayed, but to hold Hilary up as a paragon of virtue isn't going to get the Democrats very far. Between Hilary and Bill there are so many skeletons that there are not enough cupboards to hold them. Whitewater and other nepharious business dealings combined with corruption , sexual double dealing , this couple (for that is what they are) cannot preach to anyone re morality , honesty and trustworthiness. In addition Hilary is a master of the dark arts of Politics ( and that's being kind) Trump, has not been found out and if there were skeletons there then be sure they would have been found by now. Trump to win and Hilary to be placed in a well deserved prison cell.
    erazmatazz , 2016-07-30 09:50:59
    Clinton supporters always focus on the petty issues. Listen to Trump speak, there is a lot of substance in those speeches relating to the common people of the US of A. Reason why this guy is winning! And Why the Main stream media ( Including the quintessential Hillary supporters news paper The Guardian) hates Donald Trump. Let's put it this way, if you want a fair assessment of Donald Trump and what He is about, stay away from the main stream media.
    Clark8934 , 2016-07-30 09:48:27
    Judging by the comments below Trump is doing just fine! They remind you of people who would go to see stand-up comedy acts, not get the jokes, then mis-represent them and run home to mummy in shock! Yes, Trump is a stand-up act, hes entertaining, hes mainly unscripted and he has an audience. I think the world is divided between those with a sense of humor and those without! No-one with such a sense of humor can be dangerous, but sure as heck the Clintons and the Sanders are, as they take themselves very seriously now dont they!
    ydobon , 2016-07-30 09:38:59
    "his false claim that Muslims celebrated September 11"

    It isn't false that (some) Muslims celebrated 911. It isn't even false that some in New Jersey celebrated it. The only dispute is over numbers: dozens, possibly hundreds (as early news reports suggested) or thousands (as Trump asserts). It is ridiculous that the media so quick to paint Trump as a liar on this issue are themselves pushing an even bigger lie, ie that no Muslims celebrated at all.

    centerline -> IanCPurdie , 2016-07-30 10:26:57
    Earlier in the US farce, I looked up the various candidates websites and looked for their foreign policy. Non had foreign policy. All had war policy, or war and peace. This is the US version of foreign policy. On this Trump has been consistent - negotiation.
    Trump's an unknown, a showman. Clinton is a known - war.
    In the stratosphere of US $emocracy, all we can hope for here is an independent foreign policy rather than a foreign policy delivered direct from the US embassy.
    tupacalypse7 , 2016-07-30 09:05:29
    Good lord, the Russiaphobic brainwashing on these comments is thick and terrifying. I'm sorry, but I'd rather not have Cold War 2.0 over fucking Syria, thanks! But please go ahead and Vote For Hillary even though she's in bed with all the MidEast Wahhabist Dictatorships, AIPAC, and wants to demolish Damascus. Fucking nightmare. Seriously, Hillary people are either bought-off or brainwashed. And it's all because of Big Bad Trump, a decades long Clinton-Democrat who is now literally Hitler, right?
    Kess , 2016-07-30 09:04:15
    All this simplistic "Trump = bad / Clinton = good" reporting is getting ridiculous. Both candidates have a lot of dubious qualities and skeletons in their cupboards, yet one is glossed over while the other is exaggerated into caricature.

    Are there any truly independent newspapers that will report both sides fairly and evenly? The Guardian clearly won't.

    poststructuralist , 2016-07-30 08:30:21
    Another Trump bashing article. Nice to see your journalistic objectivity is intact Guardian. The establishment is finally being challenged - No more spin, no more smooth one liners, no more oppressive political correctness from the liberal elites. The gloves are off - and if we don't see the establishments bare hands this time - they will without a doubt lose. People are tired of being handled the the establishments kit gloves.
    Chris Bartelt , 2016-07-30 08:12:06
    Can we have an article on Clinton's proposed 'Syria reset' please, the one where she's proposing ramping the war up and arming more 'moderate rebels' and imposing a 'no fly zone' on Russian airstrips (what could possibly go wrong)..... This woman is a dangerous menace and will bring you everything you all wanted to get away from. Lots and lots of war for her mates in the banks and MIC.
    I despair if that warmongering liar gets in.
    Neemleaf1 , 2016-07-30 05:40:57
    India, US agree to share military supplies and fuel

    http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/ashton-carter-manohar-parrikar-india-us-agree-in-principle-to-use-each-others-military-bases /

    DWLindeman , 2016-07-30 02:46:51
    Donald Trump: "I've been Mr Nice Guy for too long. Now, I'm taking the gloves off, and I'm going to yell and scream and swear and insult anyone and everyone who doesn't believe I'm a real candidate, and that I really want to be president. No one understands just how serious I am. I've been trying to be serious all my life, and I will scare the bewillies out of anyone who doesn't believe in me now. After all, some one's go to pay."
    Free Speech , 2016-07-30 01:13:54
    The Guardian is quaking in their boots. The propaganda is not working thanks to the abundant info on the internet.
    People are waking up to the populist. I predict a double digit lead in 2 weeks time.
    Great time to be alive!
    Free Speech Aldythe , 2016-07-30 02:24:17
    LOL. Reuters were found to be colluding with the Democrats. They have lost any respect.

    Thank you Wikileaks for exposing the dishonest media.

    [Jul 31, 2016] European colonization exacted tremendous violence, extracted critical resources, disrupted social structures, and weakened the health of indigenous populations.

    Notable quotes:
    "... King Leopold's Ghost ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Synoia , July 29, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    The Ghost of King Leopold II Still Haunts Us

    European colonization exacted tremendous violence, extracted critical resources, disrupted social structures, and weakened the health of indigenous populations. European nations broke their promise to protect and promote the welfare of the indigenous African people. Instead the Belgians dehumanized and debased African societies producing the social determinants of death that gave rise to deadly infectious diseases.

    Disclaimer: I grew up in a UK colony.

    In the passage above I intensely dislike the transition from the general 'European colonization" to specific "Belgian." The Congo was a Belgian disaster from start to finish.

    Kokuanani , July 29, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    I highly recommend Hochschild's book, King Leopold's Ghost , mentioned in fn 4 of the article. It's a detailed description of the horrific circumstances in the Congo under the Belgians. Most of the papers and other sources were burned or kept hidden until Hochschild's inquiry and book. That's why you didn't learn about it in history class. [Well, that and a few other reasons.]

    It will make you cry.

    Plenue , July 29, 2016 at 7:29 pm

    My favorite* part of Imperial Reckoning is that after it came out there were a bunch of other historians who criticized it and claimed Elkins numbers for the amount of people detained and killed were inflated and completely implausible.

    Well, excuse me, but she makes it very clear that the British records regarding the final period of the colonization of Kenya were conspicuously absent, both in Kenya and in the home archives back in Britain. As in there were giant empty sections on the shelves, completely out of character for the normally anally retentive British record keeping. The only possible explanation being that a vast number of documents were destroyed to hide what they contained. Even so, she managed to find enough surviving documentation to piece together a very dismal picture. And she was the only person who ever bothered to go archive mining in regards to Kenya (in addition to a lot of time spent traveling around Kenya interviewing people who witnessed events first hand).

    For the sake of argument, maybe her numbers are inflated. But there is literally no other historian who has done the kind of work on the subject that Elkins did, so how the hell would they have any idea if her numbers were right or wrong?

    *actually second favorite, since my number one favorite is the blurb from self-hating Scotsman and British Empire apologist Niall Ferguson on the back of the book to the effect that it provides a sobering account of the 'excesses' of Empire, as if Empire could ever be anything but an inherent excess.

    Synoia , July 30, 2016 at 12:16 pm

    My comment was specific to the Belgian excesses in the Congo. Your comment is a misunderstanding of the subject of my comment.

    As to the horrors of British Imperialism, I am aware they exist (for example: Black Hole response), and did not comment. I would also point out the the British Imperialism would have to be viewed under the contemporaneous activities of the world. I recommend reviewing Madam Tinabu's efforts in Nigeria, or Shaka's and Dingan's efforts in South Africa, and most recently, Mugabe's efforts in Matabeleland.

    In modern times: Stalin's efforts in the USSR. Or WW I, or WW II, or the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, its Monroe doctrine in South America, or the Saudis' in Yemen, are much worse than British Imperialism.

    And yes, that is my biased opinion. The British never promise to respect democracy, and then continually undermine the will of the people with military coup after military coup, or sanctions for ever, followed by Dictator after Dictator.

    The US, and many of its people, appear to have a predilection for Sanctimony coupled with Hypocrisy.

    Plenue , July 30, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    You sure love to engage in slavery apologism. You refer to Tinabu constantly. She and Shaka/Dingane had been dead for decades before the British colony in Kenya was even established.

    pretzelattack , July 29, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    i certainly never learned about king leopold's depradations in class. eye opening book.

    Plenue , July 29, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    Maybe not in in history class, but Conrad's Heart of Darkness is a pretty ubiquitous piece of culture. Apocalypse Now is probably more famous and strips the story of its African setting, but the core attributes still remain. Especially the implicit moral that any 'civilization' that engages in mass butchery and exploitation of natives is nowhere near as civilized as it fancies itself. And the natives are never as 'primitive' as the colonial overlords think they are.

    pretzelattack , July 29, 2016 at 7:52 pm

    yeah i meant history classes in high school. somebody told me about hochschild's book in an online discussion of heart of darkness.

    Jim Haygood , July 29, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    Hillary … better than King Leopold! *

    * but she shares His Majesty's aversion to press conferences. :-(

    Mel , July 29, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    The Casement Report (Project Gutenberg), apparently cited by Conan Doyle

    Gaianne , July 30, 2016 at 3:15 am

    It is good that detailed information is coming out about the Belgian Congo.

    But I don't see how the whole subject can be considered a surprise.

    In his story "The Heart of Darkness"–which is usually taken to have something to do with African savagery–Joseph Conrad plainly describes how the Belgians did not feed their slave labor because it was cheaper to get new slaves than to feed the slaves they had. Typically, when the slaves weakened, they were thrown in pits to die and new slaves were acquired.

    –Gaianne

    windsock , July 30, 2016 at 4:09 am

    Hmm… Belgian depredations in the Congo… any coincidence that it is also the seat of the EU Commission?

    makerowner , July 30, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    The "Congo Free State" wasn't Belgian, it was a private colony of King Leopold II. It was officially established at the Berlin Conference , which involved all the powers of Europe, and part of the deal for the other European countries was that there would be "free trade" without any favour shown to Belgian traders (though this turned out to be a lie). One of the major exploiters of the "products of the forest" was the Anglo-Belgian India Rubber Company , which, as the name indicates, had British and Belgian owners. So in many ways the "humanitarian mission" in the Congo was a European, rather than just Belgian, project.

    [Jul 30, 2016] Russian factor in US elections

    Jul 28, 2016 | katehon.com

    The Russian theme has expectedly become one of the most important in the US presidential election. Democrats are unsurprisingly engaged in anti-Russian hysteria. Donald Trump says that he will establish good relations with Russia and is ready to discuss the issue of recognition of the referendum in the Crimea.

    Noise and hysteria

    Mass hysteria on the part of the Democrats, neocons, ultra-liberals and plain and simple Russophobes, was provoked by the recent statements of Donald Trump. Speaking at a press conference in Florida, Trump called on Russia to hand over the 30,000 emails "missing" from the Hillary Clinton's email server in the US. Their absence is a clear sign that Clinton destroyed evidence proving that she used her personal e-mail server to send sensitive information. Democrats immediately accused Trump of pandering to Russian hackers, although in reality the multi-billionaire rhetorically hinted that the data that Clinton hid from the American investigation is in the hands of foreign intelligence services. So, Clinton is a possible target for blackmail.

    Trump's statement that he is ready to discuss the status of Crimea and the removal of anti-Russian sanctions caused even more noise. This view is not accepted either in the Democrat or in the Republican mainstream. Trump also said that Vladimir Putin does not respect Clinton and Obama, while Trump himself hopes to find a common language with him. Trump appreciates Putin's leadership and believes that the US must work together with Russia to deal with common threats, particularly against Islamic extremism.

    The establishment's tantrum

    Both Democrats and Republicans are taking aim at Trump. The vice-presidential candidate, Mike Pence, made threats to Russia. The head of the Republican majority in Congress, Paul Ryan, became somewhat hysterical. He said that Putin is "a thug and should stay out of these elections."

    It is Putin personally, and the Russian security services, who are accused of leaking correspondences of top employees of the National Committee of the Democratic Party. This unverified story united part of the Republicans and all of the Democrats, including the Clinton and Barack Obama themselves. Trump supporters note that the Russian threat is used to divert attention from the content of these letters. And these show the fraud carried out during the primaries which favored Hillary Clinton.

    The pro-American candidate

    The "Russian scandal" demonstrates that on the one hand the thesis of the normalization of relations with Russia, despite the propaganda, is becoming popular in US society. It is unlikely that Donald Trump has made campaign statements that are not designed to gain the support of the public in this election. On the other hand - Trump - a hard realist, like Putin, is not pro-Russian, but a pro-American politician, and therefore the improvement of relations with Russia in his eyes corresponds to the US's national interests. Trump has never to date done anything that would not be to his advantage. Sometimes he even said he would order US fighter jets to engage with Russian ones, and declared he would have a hard stance in relations with Russia.

    Another thing is that his understanding of US national interests is fundamentally different from the dominant American globalist elite consensus. For Trump, the US should not be the source of a global liberal remaking of the world, but a national power, which optimizes its position just as efficiently as any commercial project. And in terms of optimizing the position of the United States, he says there should be a normal American interaction with Putin and Russia in the field of combating terrorism and preventing the sliding of the two countries into a global war. He claims this is to be the priority instead of issues relating to the promotion of democracy and the so-called fight against "authoritarian regimes".

    Related links

    [Jul 30, 2016] Hillary Clinton and the Weaponization of the State Department

    Notable quotes:
    "... This integrated relationship between State and Defense was confirmed by US Special Operations chief Admiral William McRaven shortly after Hillary's speech. When asked about the "unlikely partnership," McRaven assured DefenseNews that SOCOM has "an absolutely magnificent relationship with the State Department" and that SOCOM doesn't "do anything that isn't absolutely fully coordinated and approved by the US ambassador and the geographic combatant commander." ..."
    "... As David Axe aptly described it in Wired , "Together, Special Operations Forces and State's new Conflict Bureau are the twin arms of an expanding institution for waging small, low-intensity shadow wars all over the world." ..."
    "... Ultimately, it became a hand-in-pocket relationship when Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates developed the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) to "incentivize joint planning and to pool the resources of the Departments of State and Defense, along with the expertise of other departments, to provide security sector assistance for partner countries so they can address emergent challenges and opportunities important to US national security." ..."
    "... Although he's been criticized as feckless and deemed less hawkish than Secretary Clinton, President Obama's newly-proposed Counterterrorism Partnership Fund (CTPF) is the logical extension of the Clinton-Gates Global Security Contingency Fund and epitomizes the Whole-of-Government shift. ..."
    "... That "flexibility" is exactly what Hillary Clinton instituted at State and touted at the SOFIC conference in 2012. It also portends a long-term shift to less invasive forms of regime change like those in Yemen , Libya , Syria and Ukraine , and an increased mission flexibility that will make the Authorization for the Use of Military Force functionally irrelevant . ..."
    "... And because terrorism is a tactic – not a political system or a regime – the shadowy, State Department-assisted Special Ops industry that fights them will, unlike the sullen enthusiasts of the Cold War , never be bereft of an enemy. ..."
    Jun 06, 2014 | original.antiwar.com

    On May 23, 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference (SOFIC) trade show in Tampa, Florida to share her vision of "smart power" and to explain the State Department's crucial role in extending the reach and efficacy of America's growing "international counterterrorism network."

    First, there is such a thing as a "Special Operations Forces Industry Conference trade show." Without some keen reporting by David Axe of Wired, that peculiar get-together might've flown completely under the radar – much like the shadowy "industry" it both supports and feeds off of like a sleek, camouflaged lamprey attached to a taxpayer-fattened shark.

    Second, "special operations" have officially metastasized into a full-fledged industry. United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is located at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa and, therefore, conveniently located near the special operations trade show, which happened again this year at the Tampa Convention Center. The theme was "Strengthening the Global SOF Network" and the 600,000-square-foot facility was filled with targets of opportunity for well-connected and well-heeled defense contractors.

    According to the SOFIC website, this year's conference afforded attendees "the opportunity to engage with USSOCOM Program Executive Officers, Science and Technology Managers, Office of Small Business Programs and Technology & Industry Liaison Office representatives, and other acquisition experts who will identify top priorities, business opportunities, and interests as they relate to USSOCOM acquisition programs."

    Third, Hillary's widely-ignored speech marked a radical departure from the widely-held perception that the State Department's diplomatic mission endures as an institutional alternative to the Pentagon's military planning. Instead, Secretary Clinton celebrated the transformation of Foggy Bottom into a full partner with the Pentagon's ever-widening efforts around the globe, touting both the role of diplomats in paving the way for shadowy special ops in so-called "hot spots" and the State Department's "hand-in-glove" coordination with Special Forces in places like Pakistan and Yemen.

    Finally, with little fanfare or coverage, America's lead diplomat stood before the shadow war industry and itemized the integration of the State Department's planning and personnel with the Pentagon's global counter-terrorism campaign which, she told the special operations industry, happen "in one form or another in more than 100 countries around the world."

    If this isn't entirely unexpected, consider the fact that under then-Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the State Department fought attempts by the Pentagon to trump its authority around the globe and, as reported by Washington Post, "repeatedly blocked Pentagon efforts to send Special Operations forces into countries surreptitiously and without ambassadors' formal approval."

    But that was before Hillary brought her "fast and flexible" doctrine of "smart power" to Foggy Bottom and, according to her remarks, before she applied lessons learned from her time on the Senate Armed Services Committee to launch the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, which she modeled on the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review. That Pentagon-style review spurred the creation of the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations to "advance the U.S. government's foreign policy goals in conflict areas."

    According to a Congressional Research Service analysis, the initial intent of the Conflict Bureau was to replace the ineffectual Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization, which was created in 2004 to help manage "stabilization" efforts in two nations the US was actively destabilizing – Afghanistan and Iraq.

    But the new, improved bureau does more than just react to messes made by unlawful invasions or direct costly remediation efforts in war zones – it also collaborates with "relevant partners" in the Department of Defense and NATO "to harmonize civilian and military plans and operations pertaining to conflict prevention, crisis response, and stabilization."

    This integrated relationship between State and Defense was confirmed by US Special Operations chief Admiral William McRaven shortly after Hillary's speech. When asked about the "unlikely partnership," McRaven assured DefenseNews that SOCOM has "an absolutely magnificent relationship with the State Department" and that SOCOM doesn't "do anything that isn't absolutely fully coordinated and approved by the US ambassador and the geographic combatant commander."

    As David Axe aptly described it in Wired, "Together, Special Operations Forces and State's new Conflict Bureau are the twin arms of an expanding institution for waging small, low-intensity shadow wars all over the world."

    In fact, during Hillary's time as America's chief diplomat, the State Department embraced the shadowy edge of US foreign policy where decision-makers engage in activities that look like war, sound like war and, if you were to ask civilians in places like Yemen and Pakistan, feel a lot like war, but never quite have to meet the Constitutional requirement of being officially declared as war.

    The Whole-of-Government Shift

    Once upon a time, "low-intensity shadow wars" were the Congressionally-regulated bailiwick of the Central Intelligence Agency. But 9/11 changed everything. However, the excesses of the Bush Administration led many to hope that Obama could and would change everything back or, at least, relax America's tense embrace of "the dark side."

    Although the new administration did officially re-brand "The War on Terror" as "Overseas Contingency Operations," Team Obama employed an increasingly elastic interpretation of the 9/11-inspired Authorization for Use of Military Force and expanded covert ops, special ops, drone strikes and regime change to peoples and places well-beyond the law's original intent, and certainly beyond the limited scope of CIA covert action.

    Obama's growing counter-terrorism campaign – involving, as Secretary Clinton said, "more than 100 countries" – took flight with a new, ecumenical approach called the "Whole-of-Government" strategy. Advanced by then-Secretary of Defense Bill Gates and quickly adopted by the new administration in early 2009, this strategy catalyzed an institutional shift toward interagency cooperation, particularly in the case of "state-building" (a.k.a. "nation building").

    During remarks to the Brookings Institution in 2010, Secretary Clinton explained the shift: "One of our goals coming into the administration was to begin to make the case that defense, diplomacy and development were not separate entities, either in substance or process, but that indeed they had to be viewed as part of an integrated whole and that the whole of government then had to be enlisted in their pursuit."

    Essentially, the Whole-of-Government approach is a re-branded and expanded version of Pentagon's doctrine of "Full-Spectrum Dominance." Coincidentally, that strategy was featured in the Clinton Administration's final Annual Report to the President and Congress in 2001. It defined "Full-Spectrum Dominance" as "an ability to conduct prompt, sustained, and synchronized operations with forces tailored to specific situations and possessing freedom to operate in all domains – space, sea, land, air, and information."

    In 2001, Full-Spectrum Dominance referred specifically to 20th Century notions of battlefield-style conflicts. But the "dark side" of the War on Terror stretched the idea of the battlefield well-beyond symmetrical military engagements. "Irregular warfare" became the catchphrase du jour, particularly as grinding campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq exposed the reality that the full spectrum still wasn't enough.

    An assessment by the Congressional Research Service identified the primary impetus for the Whole-of-Government "reforms" embraced by Team Obama as the "perceived deficiencies of previous interagency missions" during the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those missions failed to address a myriad of problems created – culturally, economically and politically – by the wholesale bombing and occupation of those countries. The Full-Spectrum was half-baked. Lesson learned.

    But the lesson wasn't that the US should avoid intervention, regime change or unleashing nascent civil, ethnic or religious conflicts. Instead, the lesson was that the "Whole-of-Government" must be marshaled to fight a worldwide array of Overseas Contingency Operations in "more than 100 countries."

    This Whole-of-Government shift signaled a renewed willingness to engage on variety of new fronts – particularly in Africa – but in a "fast and flexible" way. With other agencies – like the State Department – integrated and, in effect, fronting the counter-terrorism campaign, the military footprint becomes smaller and, therefore, easier to manage locally, domestically and internationally.

    In some ways, the Whole-of-Government national security strategy is plausible deniability writ-large through the cover of interagency integration. By merging harder-to-justify military and covert actions into a larger, civilian-themed command structure, the impact of the national security policy overseas is hidden – or at least obfuscated – by the diplomatic "stabilization" efforts run through the State Department – whether it's the Conflict Bureau working against Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army in Central Africa, "stabilizing" post-Gaddafi Libya or spending $27 million to organize the opposition to Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime.

    The Pass Key

    The cover of diplomacy has traditionally been an effective way to slip covert operators into countries and the State Department's vast network of embassies and consulates still offers an unparalleled "pass-key" into sovereign nations, emerging hot spots and potential targets for regime change. In 2001, the Annual Report to the President and Congress foresaw the need for more access: "Given the global nature of our interests and obligations, the United States must maintain the ability to rapidly project power worldwide in order to achieve full-spectrum dominance."

    Having the way "pre-paved" is, based on Hillary's doctrinal shift at State, a key part of the new, fuller-spectrum, Whole-of-Government, mission-integrated version of diplomacy. At the SOFIC's Special Operations Gala Dinner in 2012, Hillary celebrated the integration of diplomatic personnel and Special Operations military units at the State Department's recently created Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications – a "nerve center in Washington" that coordinates "military and civilian teams around the world" and serves "as a force multiplier for our embassies' communications efforts."

    As with most doors in Washington, that relationship swings both ways and mission-integrated embassies have served as an effective force multiplier for the Pentagon's full spectrum of activities, particularly around Africa.

    In his 2011 testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Africa, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Don Yamamoto noted the "significantly expanded the number of DoD personnel who are integrated into embassies across the continent over the past three years," and read a surprisingly long laundry list of collaborative efforts between State and the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), including: "reduction of excess and poorly secured man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS); Defense Sector Reform in Liberia, DRC, and South Sudan; counterpiracy activities off the Somali coast; maritime safety and security capacity building; and civil-military cooperation."

    It seems that "civil-military cooperation" is a primary focus of the State Department in Africa. Most notably, Yamamoto told Congress that "embassies implement Department of State-funded Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and International Military Education and Training (IMET) programs, which further US interests in Africa by helping to professionalize African militaries, while also assisting our African partners to be more equipped and trained to work toward common security goals."

    As the ever-vigilant Nick Turse recently reported, US presence on the continent has only grown since that testimony was given in 2011. On TomDispatch.com, Turse identified the infamous attack on Benghazi on September 11, 2012 as the catalyst for "Operation New Normal" – the continent-wide response to, quite ironically, the political potboiler still simmering around Secretary Clinton. Whether or not Congressional Republicans find anything more than incompetence at the root of Benghazi, the US military certainly finds itself in a "new normal" of increased activity in response to the forces – and the weaponry – unleashed by U.S.-led regime change in Libya. According to Turse, the US is "now conducting operations alongside almost every African military in almost every African country and averaging more than a mission a day."

    Those missions are, of course, integrated with and augmented by the State Department's Conflict Bureau which has used a variety of state-building programs and its diplomatic "pass key" in places like Libya, Nigeria, Kenya, South Sudan, Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo and six other African nations, all to develop a growing roster of "host country partners."

    Establishing "host country partners" is the nexus where the State Department, its Conflict Bureau and the AFRICOM meet – implementing the Whole-of-Government strategy in emerging or current conflict zones to fuse a mounting counter-terrorism campaign with stabilization, modernization and state-building initiatives, particularly in oil and resource-rich areas like the Niger River Delta, Central Africa and around AFRICOM's military foothold on the Horn of Africa.

    As Richard J. Wilhelm, a Senior Vice President with defense and intelligence contracting giant Booz Allen Hamilton, pointed out in a video talk about "mission integration," AFRICOM's coordination with the Departments of State and Commerce, USAID is the "most striking example of the Whole-of-Government approach."

    And this is exactly the type of "hand-in-glove" relationship Secretary Clinton fostered throughout her tenure at State, leveraging the resources of the department in a growing list of conflict areas where insurgents, terrorists, al-Qaeda affiliates, suspected militants or uncooperative regimes threaten to run afoul of so-called "US interests".

    Ultimately, it became a hand-in-pocket relationship when Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates developed the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) to "incentivize joint planning and to pool the resources of the Departments of State and Defense, along with the expertise of other departments, to provide security sector assistance for partner countries so they can address emergent challenges and opportunities important to US national security."

    Although he's been criticized as feckless and deemed less hawkish than Secretary Clinton, President Obama's newly-proposed Counterterrorism Partnership Fund (CTPF) is the logical extension of the Clinton-Gates Global Security Contingency Fund and epitomizes the Whole-of-Government shift.

    The $5 billion Obama wants will dwarf the $250 million pooled into the GSCF and will, the President said at West Point, "give us flexibility to fulfill different missions including training security forces in Yemen who have gone on the offensive against al Qaeda; supporting a multinational force to keep the peace in Somalia; working with European allies to train a functioning security force and border patrol in Libya; and facilitating French operations in Mali."

    That "flexibility" is exactly what Hillary Clinton instituted at State and touted at the SOFIC conference in 2012. It also portends a long-term shift to less invasive forms of regime change like those in Yemen, Libya, Syria and Ukraine, and an increased mission flexibility that will make the Authorization for the Use of Military Force functionally irrelevant.

    Normalizing the War on Terror

    The ultimate outcome of this shift is, to borrow from Nick Turse, yet another "new normal" – the new normalization of the War on Terror. What the adoption of the Whole-of-Government/mission integration approach has done is to normalize the implementation of the re-branded War on Terror (a.k.a. Overseas Contingency Operations) across key agencies of the government and masked it, for lack of the better term, under the rubric of stabilization, development and democracy building.

    It is, in effect, the return of a key Cold War policy of "regime support" for clients and "regime change" for non-client states, particularly in strategically-located areas and resource-rich regions. Regimes – whether or not they actually "reflect American values" – can count on US financial, military and mission-integrated diplomatic support so long as they can claim to be endangered not by communists, but by terrorists.

    And because terrorism is a tactic – not a political system or a regime – the shadowy, State Department-assisted Special Ops industry that fights them will, unlike the sullen enthusiasts of the Cold War, never be bereft of an enemy.

    JP Sottile is a freelance journalist, radio co-host, documentary filmmaker and former broadcast news producer in Washington, D.C. His weekly show, Inside the Headlines w/ The Newsvandal, co-hosted by James Moore, airs every Friday on KRUU-FM in Fairfield, Iowa and is available online. Visit his website.

    [Jul 30, 2016] Is Russia our enemy?

    Notable quotes:
    "... "In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us." ..."
    "... Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it. ..."
    "... I've always thought the US inherited the hatred of Russia from the Brits and the Brits hated Russia at least back as far as the Crimean War in 1853. Not saying this as fact and am happy to get updated. ..."
    "... Official Brit hatred of Russia got started right after the Napoleonic Wars. About 4 centuries of Brit hatred of France got transferred, lock, stock, and barrel, to Russia, since Russia then became the most powerful land power in the world. ..."
    "... Russia's primary offense is that it has dared to have its own national interests. ..."
    "... Today, all those "freedom-loving" people of former USSR, even including all those scores of West Ukrainians who hate Russian guts and Middle Asian "nationalists" flock to Russia "in pursuit of happiness". ..."
    "... I am not saying that all those people are bad, but the question I do ask sometimes is this: you hated us, you evicted (sometimes with bloodshed) us, Russians, from your places. You got what you asked for, why then, do you come to Russia in millions (I am not exaggerating, in fact, most likely underestimating)? What happened? Of course, we all know what happened. ..."
    "... I read before that Obama was pushing back against this lunacy. Now the HRC-NEOCON camp are in full attack mode. I honestly think I'll be voting for Trump because I feel he can't do all of the things that I would hate for him to do. I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious. ..."
    "... "I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious." It has already happened on this watch, see the case of MH-17. ..."
    "... The American talking point about the Crimea is a laughable piece of High School Debating Team rhetoric. The people in charge know full well the truth about Ukraine's claim to the Crimea. The thing that hurts is that the whole point of the "Nuland Putsch",and the rise of a western aligned govt., was to provide the crown jewel in Nato's (read America) crown: Eliminating Russia's naval base at Sevastopol completing the encirclement of Russia in the west (except for the always vulnerable Kaliningrad). ..."
    "... Once the FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers were removed from power, Russia began to recover. The birth rate started to improve immediately, and Russia's death rate started to decline in 2006. By 2009, the gap between Russia's births and deaths closed sufficiently that immigration could fill it, and so the Russian population was growing. By 2012, births in the Russian Federation exceeded deaths, for the first time since 1991. ..."
    "... In the mid-2000s, Putin proposed measures to support families having children. Western politicians and demographers poured scorn on the very idea that Russian demographics might improve. In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau's population projections had Russia's population declining by 500,000/year as recently as 2015. Now Western politicians and demographers are reduced to claiming that "Putin had nuthin' to do with it!" ..."
    "... Putin inherited a helpless, bankrupt, dying Russia. ..."
    "... Russia, for all the Borg media grandstanding, seems to only be concerned with Russian related interests. There is no indication of greater plan for global domination. They are upgrading and preparing for a future war, sure. Any country would be smart to prepare accordingly to defend itself (and their interests). ..."
    "... Russia became the enemy of United States in early 2000's after Putin started cracking down on the oligarchs that had taken over Russia's economy during Yeltsin's privatization efforts. It is estimated that seven individuals were controlling as much as 50% of Russia's economy at its peak during the late 90's: ..."
    "... The ruling ideology of the West is the free movement of capital and people together with the dismantling of sovereign states and replacing them with global institutions and corporate trade pacts. Donald Trump's "America First" threatens this so he is subject to full throated attacks by the media and the connected. Vladimir Putin stands in the way of the global hegemony and the return of Russia to the 1990s. Thus, the western hybrid war for a Kremlin regime change. ..."
    "... If Clinton takes over for Obama it will only mean continued escalation by the US against any country resisting a unipolar world. There are a lot more than Russia and China resisting US hegemony and that attacks, subtle as they are, continue unabated. If Trump dials that back this can only be a good thing for world peace. The neocons apparently are betting the farm on Hillary. Good, I pray they lose and are cleansed permanently from the US political landscape. Personally, I see a win by Clinton as the end of mankind. ..."
    "... I remember the end of Cold War extremely well, when the relations warmed up and the danger of nuclear exchange faded. In Russia, at that time, this was precisely the idea what you described but, as Pat Buchanan wrote several days ago "The inability to adapt was seen when our Cold War adversary extended a hand in friendship, and the War Party slapped it away." ..."
    "... In the early 1880s the U.S. government decided to become a global seapower. Hostility towards the world's largest landpower followed, as night follows day. ..."
    Jul 28, 2016 | turcopolier.typepad.com
    The Democratic Party convention and the media are full of the assumption that Russia is the enemy of the United States. What is the basis for that assumption?
    • Russian support for the Russian ethnic minority in eastern Ukraine? How does that threaten the United States?
    • Russian annexation of the Crimea? Khrushchev arbitrarily transferred that part of Russia to Ukraine during his time as head of the USSR. Khrushchev was a Ukrainian. Russia never accepted the arbitrary transfer of a territory that had been theirs since the 18th Century. How does this annexation threaten the United States?
    • Russia does not want to see Syria crushed by the jihadis and acts accordingly? How does that threaten the United States?
    • Russia threatens the NATO states in eastern Europe? Tell me how they actually do that. Is it by stationing their forces on their side of the border with these countries? Have the Russians made threatening statements about the NATO states?
    • Russia has made threatening and hostile statements directed at the United States? When and where was that?
    • Russia does not accept the principle of state sovereignty? Really? The United States is on shaky ground citing that principle. Remember Iraq?
    • Russian intelligence may have intercepted and collected the DNC's communications (hacked) as well as HC's stash of illegal e-mails? Possibly true but every country on earth that has the capability does the same kind of thing every single day. That would include the United States.

    The Obama Administration is apparently committed to a pre-emptive assertion that Russia is a world class committed enemy of the United States. The Borgist media fully support that.

    We should all sober up. pl

    Valissa

    "In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us."
    -- Thich Nhat Hanh

    Not to mention the financial advantages to the Military-Industrial-Thinktank complex (I'm including NATO in this) and all the politicians that benefit from the lobbying monies from that complex.

    Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it.

    Grizziz -> Ghostship...

    I've always thought the US inherited the hatred of Russia from the Brits and the Brits hated Russia at least back as far as the Crimean War in 1853. Not saying this as fact and am happy to get updated.

    rkka said in reply to Grizziz...

    Official Brit hatred of Russia got started right after the Napoleonic Wars. About 4 centuries of Brit hatred of France got transferred, lock, stock, and barrel, to Russia, since Russia then became the most powerful land power in the world.

    Maritime empires hate, with undying passion, the most powerful land power in the world.

    And its a funny thing, the U.S. hatred of Russia dates from the early 1880s, right when the U.S. began laying down a new steel navy to replace the rotting wooden navy built for the Civil War, started with the explicit intention of making the U.S. a global power.

    Tel said in reply to Valissa...

    Quote: "Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it."

    Clinton and Obama are busy campaigning that the USA has been completely successful, nothing is going wrong, everyone has jobs, etc.

    I dunno who would believe this, but that's their story and for the time being they are sticking to it. You have never had it so good.

    Dave Schuler

    Russia's primary offense is that it has dared to have its own national interests.

    SmoothieX12 -> kooshy ...

    Today, all those "freedom-loving" people of former USSR, even including all those scores of West Ukrainians who hate Russian guts and Middle Asian "nationalists" flock to Russia "in pursuit of happiness".

    I am not saying that all those people are bad, but the question I do ask sometimes is this: you hated us, you evicted (sometimes with bloodshed) us, Russians, from your places. You got what you asked for, why then, do you come to Russia in millions (I am not exaggerating, in fact, most likely underestimating)? What happened? Of course, we all know what happened.

    NotTimothyGeithner said...

    Moscow is large enough to be a mommy figure for a small country with an interest in dealing with China which doesn't want to be swamped by Beijing's sheer size. Moscow is a threat to U.S. financial and military domination without firing a shot, engaging in a trade war, or leading a diplomatic revolt.

    The average American doesn't care about a loss of hegemony. We naturally want cooperation and hippie peace, love, dope. The Western industries with effective monopolies abroad would see immense profits under threat because the Chinese and Russian competitors would drive prices down in finance, defense, pharmaceuticals, tech, and so forth. So they are turning to the Goering play book to keep the Russians out of the world stage. The professional Risk players in the neoconservatives would see their plans fall apart if the Erdogan-Putin meeting is a positive one.

    Also, Putin embarrassed Obama over Syria in 2013 and then was magnanimous. Obama hasn't forgotten that perceived slight.

    SmoothieX12 -> NotTimothyGeithner...

    Moscow is large enough to be

    A medium-size European country herself. It is also a very peculiar economic entity. I do, however, have a question on what do you mean by a "mommy for a small country"? No matter how small the country is, in my understanding, it still will have a fair degree of freedom when building trade relations with any entity, even of such mammoth size as China.

    Cee:

    Col. Lang,

    I read before that Obama was pushing back against this lunacy. Now the HRC-NEOCON camp are in full attack mode. I honestly think I'll be voting for Trump because I feel he can't do all of the things that I would hate for him to do. I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious.

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/hillary-the-hawk-a-history-clinton-2016-military-intervention-libya-iraq-syria/

    Thomas -> Cee...

    "I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious." It has already happened on this watch, see the case of MH-17.

    Erik

    The American talking point about the Crimea is a laughable piece of High School Debating Team rhetoric. The people in charge know full well the truth about Ukraine's claim to the Crimea. The thing that hurts is that the whole point of the "Nuland Putsch",and the rise of a western aligned govt., was to provide the crown jewel in Nato's (read America) crown: Eliminating Russia's naval base at Sevastopol completing the encirclement of Russia in the west (except for the always vulnerable Kaliningrad).

    All the rest about Russia's alleged expansionism is similar debating team poppycock.

    Looking at the history of empire building and aggressive wars, one is well served to think in terms of the 3 legged stool of criminology (for aggressive wars are simply, as Jackson said at Nurnberg, the supreme international crime) and consider means, opportunity, and motive.

    We have motive, the Russians do not. The motive in this case is theft, plain and simple. Russia with its small population and vast real estate holdings is already provided with more resources than she knows what to do with. We, on the other hand are not, and have not been since at least the seventies. Russia has its work cut out for it to develop what it owns already and why would they want to conquer populous resource poor neighbor states?

    Not only has Putin snatched away the score of the century by re-asserting Russian control over Crimea, but he had since 2000 or so been forestalling the western feeding frenzy on the carcass of the Soviet Union that had Americans creaming their jeans. Re assertion of Russian true sovereignty was his real offense.

    What's so poignant is the long standing western ambition to be able to steal what Russia has. 2 centuries of western aggression against Russia, and all dedicated to theft. Same now, and the drumbeat of warmongering rhetoric now directed at Russia is hilarious in a dangerous way. We really are using the Goering argument to drag our unwilling population towards war.


    James said...

    If I might be permitted to express some thoughts about why Russians feel the way they do about Putin ...

    Median income in Russia increased 260% (in inflation adjusted terms) during the first 10 years that Putin was in power. That is a staggering increase in people's financial well being. The Economist and its brethren like to dismiss this achievement as being "solely due to the increased price of oil" - but if you look at Canada, its oil production per capita was and is equal to that of Russia yet Canada's median income only increased 9% during the same time period.

    I think a good way to get a better sense of how the Russian's feel about Putin is to watch the Russian film "Bimmer" (if you can get access to a copy with English subtitles):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimmer_(film)

    I took a trip in Africa where our white South African guides favorite catch phrase was "In Africa, anything is possible." Dystopias are terribly messed up and most people living in them suffer greatly - but there is something really sexy about them, about the feeling that anything is possible.

    Russia was dystopic like this before Putin came to power - utter anarchy, crime, poverty, worse corruption than now despite what you hear from the Borg ... but at the same time, anything was possible. Bimmer depicts the transition from the anarchy of the Yeltsin years to the greater prosperity and rule of law that Russia now enjoys - while at the same time communicating the fact that many Russians can't help but feel some nostalgia for the time when anything was possible.

    (I visited Russia before, during, and after this transition. I have friends who live there.)

    kao_hsien_chih said in reply to James...

    The 260% increase in the Russian median income (an important point--the middle Russian became financial secure under Putin) under Putin's watch underscores the other point: before Putin, Russia was a total and complete economic wreck. People who saw economic ruin firsthand don't cavalierly dismiss hard won economic security.

    rkka -> Ulenspiegel...

    While Russia was being run by FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers, Russians were dying off at the rate of nearly a million/year.

    Once the FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers were removed from power, Russia began to recover. The birth rate started to improve immediately, and Russia's death rate started to decline in 2006. By 2009, the gap between Russia's births and deaths closed sufficiently that immigration could fill it, and so the Russian population was growing. By 2012, births in the Russian Federation exceeded deaths, for the first time since 1991.

    In the mid-2000s, Putin proposed measures to support families having children. Western politicians and demographers poured scorn on the very idea that Russian demographics might improve. In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau's population projections had Russia's population declining by 500,000/year as recently as 2015. Now Western politicians and demographers are reduced to claiming that "Putin had nuthin' to do with it!"

    Putin inherited a helpless, bankrupt, dying Russia.

    Russia now has a future. That's what Putin did, and he is rightly popular with Russians, Russians who pine for the days of the drunken incompetent comprador buffoon Yeltsin excepted.


    SmoothieX12 -> Ulenspiegel...

    Putin is judged by his ability to transform the Russian economy from an exporter of oil, gas and academics to something more sustainable.

    It seems like you are one of those thinkers who thinks that repeating popular BS will create new reality. FYI, Russia now is #1 exporter of grain in the world. If you didn't catch real news from Russia, Rosatom's portfolio of contracts exceeds 100 billion USD. Evidently you also missed the fact that Russia is #2 exporter of many #1 weapon systems in the world, some of which are beyond the expertise (industrial and scientific) of Europe (I assume you are from that part of the world). Do you know what it takes and what host of real hi-tech goes into production of a top fighter jet or modern SSK? Russia is an active and a dominant player at the commercial space launch business, in fact whole US Atlas program flies on Russian-made RD-180 rocket engines. I will repeat again, learn facts on the ground, which is relatively easy to do in the world of global IT. And finally, Russia will never live as well as US or Canada, for starters--there is a colossal difference in consumer patterns between Russians and North Americans (albeit there are many similarities too) but there is very little doubt that standard of living in Russia grew tremendously and a lot of it has very little to do with gas or oil prices. It has, however, a lot to do with retooling and re-industrialization of the country, which was ongoing since circa 2008. It is a very significant year. Last, but not least--Russia is huge own consumer market (and then some due to markets of former USSR) and that is a key. German MTU followed sanctions, well, guess what--it will never appear again on Russian markets. Thales loved to sell IR matrices to Russia, well, guess what.....you may fill in the blanks.

    SmoothieX12 said in reply to different clue...

    In terms of pork and poultry Russia produces 100% of that and, which did surprise me, even exports turkey. Beef--about 80% covered. Most of what Russia consumes in food stuff is home grown or made. Exceptions are some luxury food items and things like well-aged cheeses. Russian food stores can give any best US or European grocery chain a run for their money. Variety is excellent and most of it affordable. Per salmon, as far as I know it is both farm-raised and wild. What are the proportions, I don't know. I can, however, testify to the fact that, say, in Troitsky supermarket you can buy alive strelyad' (sturgeon). ...

    SmoothieX12,

    This is good to hear. When the "sanction Russia" crowd began embargoing various food-items being sold to Russia, they unintentionally began without realizing it an economic experiment in Protectionism. The food embargo against food going into Russia amounts to a kind of Protectionism for Russian food production within a protectionized and defended Russian market.

    If it ends up allowing more monetizable food-as-wealth to be produced withIN Russia, that will allow all sorts of sectors and people to buy and sell more monetizable non-food goods and non-food services FROM withIN Russia TO withIN Russia as well. If that allows Russia to become more all-sectors-in-balance wealthier, that fact would be hard to hide eventually. And various farm-sector advocates in America could seize upon it and point to it as evidence that Protectionism WORKS to allow a country to increase its own net production and enjoyment of overall wealth withIN its own borders. And it might inspire more people to suggest we try it here within America as well. And through the abolition of NAFTA, allow Mexico to revive Protectionism for its agricultural sector as well. It might allow for enough broad-based ground-up revival of economic activity withIN Mexico that some of the millions of NAFTAstinian exiles in America might decide they have a Mexican economy to go back to again. And some of them might go back.

    IF! NAFTA can be abolished and Mexico set free to re-protectionize its own agricultural economy. Perhaps if enough Mexican political-economic analysts look at events in Russia and see the ongoing success there, they too might agitate for the abolition of NAFTA and the re-protectionization of farm-country Mexico.


    SmoothieX12 -> different clue...

    Protectionism WORKS to allow a country to increase its own net production and enjoyment of overall wealth withIN its own borders

    Free Trade fundamentalism (which is a first derivative of liberalism) is what killing USA and, I assume, Mexico. Most "academic" so called economists and bankers (monetarists) are clueless but it is them who set the framework of discussion on economy. It is a long discussion but let me put it this way--all their "theories" are crap. As for Russia--she is largely self-sustainable for years now.

    kao_hsien_chih -> Ulenspiegel...

    That Russia before Putin provides for better explanation of his support than even the 260%. Yes, Russia is still a relatively poor country, but only a decade before, it was a total and complete basketcase and people remember that Putin is responsible for putting things back to a semblance of normalcy.


    Daniel Nicolas

    In another thread, it was mentioned that countries have no friends, only interests.

    Russia, for all the Borg media grandstanding, seems to only be concerned with Russian related interests. There is no indication of greater plan for global domination. They are upgrading and preparing for a future war, sure. Any country would be smart to prepare accordingly to defend itself (and their interests).

    Obama's USA has been far too hostile to Russia without apparent cause. A Clinton administration would likely swing even further. While Russia has openly declared that it not want a new hot war, they are preparing accordingly because they have no choice but to prepare for the possible future USA being even more hostile.

    LondonBob -> Daniel Nicolas...

    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/

    Not likely, will be.

    JohnsonR

    Interesting Spiegel piece about some of Breedlove's email exchanges regarding the Ukraine from two years ago:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breedlove-network-sought-weapons-deliveries-for-ukraine-a-1104837.html

    The Germans are obviously still sore about it all.

    EricB

    Russia became the enemy of United States in early 2000's after Putin started cracking down on the oligarchs that had taken over Russia's economy during Yeltsin's privatization efforts. It is estimated that seven individuals were controlling as much as 50% of Russia's economy at its peak during the late 90's:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jul/02/russia.lukeharding1

    ... ... ...

    VietnamVet :

    Colonel,

    The ruling ideology of the West is the free movement of capital and people together with the dismantling of sovereign states and replacing them with global institutions and corporate trade pacts. Donald Trump's "America First" threatens this so he is subject to full throated attacks by the media and the connected. Vladimir Putin stands in the way of the global hegemony and the return of Russia to the 1990s. Thus, the western hybrid war for a Kremlin regime change.

    Hillary Clinton is supremely qualified to maintain the status quo. If Donald Trump wins, it has to be due to the perfidious Russians hacking the election; not Globalism's Losers voting against their exploitation by the insanely wealthy and the enabling technocrats. Meanwhile, the "War of Russian Aggression" heats up, Turkey turns Islamist and the EU splinters due to the war refugees and austerity.

    Old Microbiologist -> Bill Herschel...

    Bill,
    I am with you all the way. It, of course, goes much further. There are ongoing US-manufactured destabilization events unfolding all around Russia. Then you have the economic attacks via sanctions and trade which have arguably crippled Russia. On top of that you have these insipid attacks via things like SWIFT bank transfers, IMF, World Bank and idiocy such as attempting to ban the entire Russian Olympic team from the Olympics. Russia senses these attacks on all fronts and was unfortunately caught early being unprepared. During the Soviet Union Russia was 100% self sufficient but as mentioned in other comments under Yeltsin's "privatization" programs an awful lot of that industry was sold or closed. Now Russia has had to start from scratch replacements for things not available in Russia and yet still has a budget surplus (unlike the US with a near $20 trillion deficit). They have created alternates to SWIFT, VISA/Mastercard, the IMF and even the G8.

    The Crimea debacle was a clear attempt to kick Russia out of their base in Sevastopol which was brilliantly countered. However, the cost has been enormous. Little commented on is that Ukraine under US leadership has cut off water, gas, and electricity to the peninsula and blocked all traffic to the mainland. Russia is nearing the completion of the bridge to Crimea from Russia and water/power are already being delivered. This is a huge effort which shows the dedication to their control of Crimea.

    Then they have undertaken to directly thwart the anti-Assad US-led coalition in Syria and have hoisted the US on its own petard. It hasn't been easy nor cheap and all of this has been happening simultaneously. On top of all of this we have buildups on the Russian borders so Putin also has to upgrade his military to counter any potential EU/NATO/US invasion of Russia. The aggression has all been one sided but delusional citizens in the US see our aggression as defensive as bizarre as that is. Outside the US people see US aggression for what it is and are not fooled into believing that we are trying to help anyone except the rich plutocrats. The immigrant invasion of Europe is seen as a US caused problem for these continuous insane wars that never end nor apparently have any actual purpose.

    If Clinton takes over for Obama it will only mean continued escalation by the US against any country resisting a unipolar world. There are a lot more than Russia and China resisting US hegemony and that attacks, subtle as they are, continue unabated. If Trump dials that back this can only be a good thing for world peace. The neocons apparently are betting the farm on Hillary. Good, I pray they lose and are cleansed permanently from the US political landscape. Personally, I see a win by Clinton as the end of mankind.

    Peter Reichard said...

    Have always thought Russians and Americans were more like each other than either of us were like Europeans. Both a little crude, crazy, traditionally religious and musical with big countries created from an expanding frontier and thinking big in terms of infrastructure and vehicles. We ought to be natural allies as we were in the nineteenth century in opposition to the British Empire and again in World War 2. Russia, a land power in the heart of the world island in balance with the US, an ocean power on the other side of the planet with mutual respect could create a stable multi-polar world.

    SmoothieX12 -> Peter Reichard...

    That is generally true. There are a lot of similarities. And I remember the end of Cold War extremely well, when the relations warmed up and the danger of nuclear exchange faded. In Russia, at that time, this was precisely the idea what you described but, as Pat Buchanan wrote several days ago "The inability to adapt was seen when our Cold War adversary extended a hand in friendship, and the War Party slapped it away."

    kao_hsien_chih -> SmoothieX12...

    In mid-19th century, Russia was extremely friendly to United States, where many remained deeply suspicious of the British Empire. Somehow, by the end of 19th century, United States became peculiarly fond of the British Empire and inexplicably hostile to Russia--Mahan was both an Anglophile and Russophobe, as I understand, and his sentiments shows up in his ideas, or so I've heard. (I imagine SmoothieX12, as an ex Soviet navy man, is far more familiar with this than I ever could). How did that happen?

    rkka -> kao_hsien_chih...

    "How did that happen?"

    In the early 1880s the U.S. government decided to become a global seapower. Hostility towards the world's largest landpower followed, as night follows day.

    [Jul 30, 2016] Two liberal IT luminaries today pick up the (totally unproven) assertion that Russia hacked and published via wikileaks the DNC shennigens of preferring Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... Westen is a Democrat and he basically wrote this book to try and help Democrats win more presidential election, though the research portion in the beginning of the book shows how people in both parties are biased in their interpretation of political events based on their political party allegiance. ..."
    "... Then a year or two later he wrote some follow up articles whining and complaining about how disappointed he was in Obama not being much different from Bush, etc, etc ..."
    "... The fact that Mr. Western could wake up to Obama's basic Bushness in only one or two years means that Mr. Western had a freer mind than most Obama supporters. ..."
    "... Good find. Yes and yes. They never stop manipulating. Now the MSM will finally have to admit that the machines are compromised ONLY when it serves the interests of th few. ..."
    turcopolier.typepad.com

    b , 28 July 2016 at 12:41 PM

    Of interest:

    Two "liberal" IT luminaries today pick up the (totally unproven) assertion that Russia hacked and published via wikileaks the DNC shennigens of preferring Clinton.

    The used this to (preemptively) accuse Russia of manipulating the U.S. election via voting computers on November 9.

    Bruce Schneier

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/27/by-november-russian-hackers-could-target-voting-machines/

    By November, Russian hackers could target voting machines >

    Cory Doctorow

    http://boingboing.net/2016/07/27/russia-and-other-states-could.html

    Russia and other states could hack the US election by attacking voting machines

    This is curious as both are usually much more carefully about attribution of such hacks.

    Could this be a "preemptive" attempt to find Russia guilty should the November 9 result come into question?

    John Robb warned earlier that such a scenario could lead to civil war

    http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2016/03/how-the-us-ends-up-in-a-civil-war.html

    Valissa -> b, 28 July 2016 at 02:02 PM

    I think this is a sign that both Schneier and Doctorow are democrats who fear Trump. Tribal allegiance exerts a very powerful, and irrational, force on the so-called rational mind.

    The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, by Drew Westen https://www.amazon.com/Political-Brain-Emotion-Deciding-Nation/dp/1586485733/

    Warning, Westen is a Democrat and he basically wrote this book to try and help Democrats win more presidential election, though the research portion in the beginning of the book shows how people in both parties are biased in their interpretation of political events based on their political party allegiance.

    When Obama first ran in 2007-2008, Westen had clearly been drinking the glorious pro-Obama koolaid as was evident in some HuffPo articles he wrote at the time.

    Then a year or two later he wrote some follow up articles whining and complaining about how disappointed he was in Obama not being much different from Bush, etc, etc.

    Clearly this man was so caught up in his tribal allegiance he couldn't recognize the very biases his research showed. Btw, he is still a consultant to the Democrats... attempting to be the Frank Luntz of the left.

    different clue -> Valissa, 28 July 2016 at 08:58 PM

    The fact that Mr. Western could wake up to Obama's basic Bushness in only one or two years means that Mr. Western had a freer mind than most Obama supporters.

    rjj -> b, 28 July 2016 at 03:11 PM
    guessing they are setting the scene to invalidate an unfavorable vote count and take it to House of Representatives.

    writers could be persuaded they were Doing Good.

    Cee -> b, 28 July 2016 at 03:15 PM
    B,

    Good find. Yes and yes. They never stop manipulating. Now the MSM will finally have to admit that the machines are compromised ONLY when it serves the interests of th few.

    [Jul 30, 2016] Snowden And WikiLeaks Go To War Over The Ethics Of The DNC Email Hack

    If the intent is to expose corruption then that is doing a public service. The public's interest is the content of the e-mails and the dirty tricks played by the DNC and Clinton. The e-mails clearly show that the journalists are in bed with the DNC/Clinton and this article is just another example of this corruption of the media
    Notable quotes:
    "... Reading the comments it is hard to understand what is wrong with a lot of you commenters. You seem to swallow whole one side or the other and march off the cliff just like lemming. This argument is a few sentences and is about proper handling of the leaks, not the leaks themselves. The leaks show Hillary supporters helped steal the primary votes from Sanders when the DNC was supposed to be neutral. That is a crime against democracy, an attack on you, it is third world corruption. If you believe Hillary is for you than you are just hopeless. ..."
    "... All the noise about Russian plots and secret agendas is a bit ironic as it seems the truth is that the DNC and their presidential candidate are the ones with a secret agenda that was made public. ..."
    "... The collapse of the government and Google as a-censor is imminent. ¨ Everyone is switching to Duckduckgo.com ..."
    "... How this backfire ??? We just get proof how the DNC establishment nominate what candidate they want not what people want. If after this Sanders supporters will still vote for Hillary, they just simply give the establishment green lite to do it same thing anytime they want and democracy really is just the empty word...... ..."
    "... Wikileaks only confirms that DNC has rigged the primaries to help Hillary Clinton, that's why Debbie W. Schultz had to resign her Chair. Whether that will cost Clinton her election depends on how many of the Bernie Sanders supporters are angry enough to boycott the election. ..."
    "... The problem in America is that we have a two party political system that can be easily manipulated by the wealthy and those with evil intent .When that happens you have basically one party speaking double talk , controlled by the few and sewing confusion among the voters in order to divide and polarize the country . ..."
    "... It is interesting (albeit unsurprising) that since the leak makes Hillary Clinton's backers in the DNC look bad, the media is so interested in the motives of the leakers. This was never the case with the anti-Bush crowd in the 2000's. Going back a bit further, anyone involved in exposing the Watergate break-in is practically treated like a national hero. Suddenly, the "truth to power" crowd has become the "can't handle the truth" crowd. ..."
    "... This #$%$ article is just ridiculous! "Oh, well, the leak hasn't revealed anything important". Hello! Wake up! It has shown how crooked the DNC was during this election cycle ..."
    "... Did you notice there's no (By-Line) for this article? Because what is IN the emails is most important. Firstly, they blame the Russians. Then they blame Trump. Then they blame the Russians and Trump. Now they don't know who to blame. But, the FBI said for certain the server was hacked and there were indications of who hacked it. This was established in a couple of short weeks - or less. The FBI had Hillary's server for a year and couldn't make a determination. ..."
    "... The most important question to ask is about the motives of American Journalists is there report a distraction from the truth are they in fact trying to do damage control are they being controlled by a political party as these E-MAILS seem to suggest . The motive of the leaker is less important than the truth. ..."
    "... The DNC had to hire actors at $50 a pop by advertising on Craigslist so Hillary Clinton wouldn't look like the clown she is in front of a half-empty DNC stadium during her acceptance speech. ..."
    "... The exodus of hundreds, if not thousands, of Bernie Sanders supporters from the convention made crystal clear the extent of discord among Democratic voters. ..."
    "... It's a sad state of affairs in that we are depending on Julian Assange to save the Republic from corrupt Hillary and the Clinton foundation. If Clinton becomes President she will basically place the United States up for sale so that the globalists can destroy what little remains of the American middle class. America will truly become a third world nation with only rich and poor. ..."
    "... We can not allow this to happen. Trump may be a little "rough around the edges" however he is a true American who will bring back jobs, try his best to eliminate illegal immigration, and take America back from the globalists. This will help middle class Americans to thrive -- Vote Trump for President in 2016 -- ..."
    "... I think most commenters are missing the point that Snowden made: what is the intent of the leak? If the intent is to expose corruption then that is doing a public service. ..."
    "... All look at the bang up job the FBI did with Clinton's email wrong doings. She broke the law and lied and the FBI tip toed around it by not taking her statements under oath so she wouldn't be charged. ..."
    "... Another article to divert from the content of the emails, which were so damning that the DNC used all their Media contacts to create the "Russia Hack" scenario and then accused Trump of conspiring with Russia. As of yet not one DNC official has denied the facts or content in the e-mails. ..."
    "... I found it interesting you didn't mention that Politico was found in cahoots with the DNC as well in the emails.. Just like the mainstream media didn't hardly cover the protesters at the DNC convention but surely did at the RNC convention. You pick & choose what you want to report don't you. ..."
    Jul 29, 2016 | yahoo.com

    michaelmichael

    Reading the comments it is hard to understand what is wrong with a lot of you commenters. You seem to swallow whole one side or the other and march off the cliff just like lemming. This argument is a few sentences and is about proper handling of the leaks, not the leaks themselves. The leaks show Hillary supporters helped steal the primary votes from Sanders when the DNC was supposed to be neutral. That is a crime against democracy, an attack on you, it is third world corruption. If you believe Hillary is for you than you are just hopeless.

    DoctorNoDoctorNo

    At what point in civilization did the truth become unethical? No one is denying that the information contained in these e-mails is not true. All the noise about Russian plots and secret agendas is a bit ironic as it seems the truth is that the DNC and their presidential candidate are the ones with a secret agenda that was made public.

    We have one presidential candidate under IRS, FBI and State Department investigation and another who opens their mouth only to change feet placing the American voter in an untenable position come November.

    fudmer

    @ Tim Schultze Humanity refuses to be ruled by the few! ¨

    The collapse of the government and Google as a-censor is imminent. ¨ Everyone is switching to Duckduckgo.com

    Enough Oligarch monopoly and control. Yesterday 40 civilians bombed to death and 50 more injured in Syria by US Air force and marines killed in actions in Yemen. What the hell is the USA doing in Syria or Yemen?

    Democracy is freedom of movement, action and thought, not controlled, restricted and regulated movement, not punishment for each action that challenges the established monopolies, and not mind control and media propaganda as a total cultural environment.

    Everywhere world wide humanity, Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Moslem [except the wabahi Sunni] are rising to the challenge the few.

    nobodynobody

    "The DNC email leak has backfired on WikiLeaks, and arguably Russia and Trump, because theorizing about who leaked these emails has been far more intriguing to journalists and the general public than the emails themselves."

    How this backfire ??? We just get proof how the DNC establishment nominate what candidate they want not what people want. If after this Sanders supporters will still vote for Hillary, they just simply give the establishment green lite to do it same thing anytime they want and democracy really is just the empty word......

    AlitaAlita,

    Wikileaks only confirms that DNC has rigged the primaries to help Hillary Clinton, that's why Debbie W. Schultz had to resign her Chair. Whether that will cost Clinton her election depends on how many of the Bernie Sanders supporters are angry enough to boycott the election.

    JohnJohn

    The problem in America is that we have a two party political system that can be easily manipulated by the wealthy and those with evil intent .When that happens you have basically one party speaking double talk , controlled by the few and sewing confusion among the voters in order to divide and polarize the country . Which leads to a lack of unity and everyone for him or her self . What we need is not more or fewer political parties but a more informed public


    Scotty P.Scotty P.

    It is interesting (albeit unsurprising) that since the leak makes Hillary Clinton's backers in the DNC look bad, the media is so interested in the motives of the leakers. This was never the case with the anti-Bush crowd in the 2000's. Going back a bit further, anyone involved in exposing the Watergate break-in is practically treated like a national hero. Suddenly, the "truth to power" crowd has become the "can't handle the truth" crowd.

    Similarly, Edward Snowden proudly violated national security laws, in the name of exposing government corruption. But now that someone else has done it to a politcal base Snowden finds more tolerable (he's a known liberal), he takes issue with it? Get over yourself, Ed. You're no better than WikiLeaks, and your agenda is no more "pure" than theirs.

    Lastly, the author of this article saying the leak has "backfired" is truly rich. This isn't the 90's, when feckless partisans tried to take down the Clintons, only to have disgraced themselves- although Newt Gingrich still ATTEMPTS to be relevant. (But I digress.) This time, the Clintons have angered a lot of people on the left, who see that the Democrats are no more a "party of the people" than the Republicans are- although anyone paying attentions wouldn't need WikiLeaks to tell them that.

    SomeSome

    Talk about playing it down, this proved media collusion further evidenced by the blackout of delegates lack of media coverage when over 1,000 walked out after roll call and stormed the media tents. (Video's all over YouTube)

    My Revolution brothers and sisters, even though we are separated by #DemExit, I understand and appreciate your fight from within. I am fighting to build a new home in the Green party. We are still together even when we are apart.

    • If you can't fly then run,
    • If you can't run then walk,
    • If you can't walk then crawl,

    But whatever you do you have to keep moving forward!

    michael

    Another is a long line of distortion and lies by the establishment to make the establishment Queen elected. The lies just never stop. Snowden tweeted a sentence and Wikileaks tweeted by another. from this a whole pyramid of lies and distortions was written. There is zero evidence the Russians government hacked these emails, zero, nada, nothing. What is important is the DNC was for Hillary and was trying to sabotage another Democrat, Sanders, running for the same office. That is corruption pure and simple, nothing less. Third world corruption going on at the DNC.

    TimmyTimmy

    This #$%$ article is just ridiculous! "Oh, well, the leak hasn't revealed anything important". Hello! Wake up! It has shown how crooked the DNC was during this election cycle, and in truth the RNC probably isn't any better. But here we have PROOF of just how crooked hilary and her cronies are, and they are all getting a free pass. No one sees a problem with this?

    Gordon

    Did you notice there's no (By-Line) for this article? Because what is IN the emails is most important. Firstly, they blame the Russians. Then they blame Trump. Then they blame the Russians and Trump. Now they don't know who to blame. But, the FBI said for certain the server was hacked and there were indications of who hacked it. This was established in a couple of short weeks - or less. The FBI had Hillary's server for a year and couldn't make a determination.

    Too much of this just doesn't add up. The Democrats went into immediate Damage Control mode when the emails came out and Not ONE person was screaming, "This ain't True!". Nope, not even a whisper. We can't tell who's pulling the strings on this. But, there's dammed sure someone behind the curtain.

    Richard

    The most important question to ask is about the motives of American Journalists is there report a distraction from the truth are they in fact trying to do damage control are they being controlled by a political party as these E-MAILS seem to suggest . The motive of the leaker is less important than the truth. Wiki-leaks hates Clinton , Russia hacked the DNC server that is another subject . The fact weather or not the DNC acted in a unethical manner is the subject.

    JULEA

    There is nothing wrong with Transparency. We need MORE of it. How long did WE Hack and Spy on Germany, Merkel? They were suing US. What ever happened about this? We ALSO need more transparency about TPP and who can be sued for some Corporation losing profits..even if they are doing wrong to make their profits. I think something falls on States, counties, even citizens. Even SCIENCE for proving harmful things involved. We just need Transparency and who is giving money to who and why. The DNC became VERY Undemocratic and this just a BIG BIG BIG No to every Liberal and should not be covered up for anything. WE HACK EVERY COUNTRY.

    DickDick

    Nobody except America's enemies wants vital secrets that jeopardize our well being hacked. On the other hand we have a national interest in finding out what our leaders have been hiding that jeopardize our liberties. Snowden exposed extreme violations of the fourth amendment by the NSA. Wikileaks exposed political chicanery by the democrat central committee. Hiding information like this is harmful and only benefits those who are trying to cover up something just to protect themselves. Both Snowden and wikileaks have done good deeds.

    Snowden, who risked his life to spill the beans, said he would reveal all in return for immunity. But too many people have reason to fear the truth so I doubt if he will be granted it. A shame.

    mike

    Democrat or Republican they both pull this kind of #$%$. The only answer is to vote all of them out of office and put term limits in place . We need to stop the Life long politicians who are in it for their own riches. And we know its "All" of them, they find out how easy it is to rip the American people off and get by with it.

    DavidSDavidS

    This attempt to paint Clinton the victim is sooooo over played. She has been the "victim" all her life. Focus on just how corrupt she and everyone around her is. DWS didn't get punished for what she did (or allowed), she was rewarded. Doesn't that speak volumes about Clinton? The more corrupt you are, the more she and hers will reward. Wake up people, there was a time when a single lie told to the public was a career ending blotch. Now it's who can tell the biggest.

    Ron

    I love how this story tries to downplay the content of the emails and focus on the hackers. The emails exposed a coordinated effort to rob Bernie. Journalists may be having more fun speculating on who hacked them, but Bernies followers could care less. They know the old man got robbed.

    Lord Doom

    The Leak disclosed how the main stream media has bias with the DNC. Yahoo news wants to blow down the story and mask its importance it seems to me.

    Idontwanngiveit

    Dan Seitz.... Do you practice being a political dolt or does it come naturally?

    The DNC had to hire actors at $50 a pop by advertising on Craigslist so Hillary Clinton wouldn't look like the clown she is in front of a half-empty DNC stadium during her acceptance speech.

    The exodus of hundreds, if not thousands, of Bernie Sanders supporters from the convention made crystal clear the extent of discord among Democratic voters.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the devastating fall-out of the WikiLeaks e-mail dump on Hillary Clinton's election bid. She is the No. 1 casualty -- albeit "collateral damage" -- inflicted by the party upon itself!

    Prior to the WikiLeaks e-mail showing how Bernie got jerked around by a rigged system, most of his supporters would have held their nose and grudgingly voted for Hillary in November. Now, since learning how party officials conspired against them, they want and deserve blood!

    The disgruntled masses who stormed out of the DNC represent a microcosm of the equally disgruntled masses of Democrats nation-wide who are incensed over the party's machinations and shenanigans. The ones in Pennsylvania and those watching on TV, following events on the Internet and reading newspapers at home are fully informed about what took place and will now do one of three things:

    1. Sit out the election entirely our of frustration over a status-quo system that's patently rigged against them, which benefits Donald Trump.
    2. Vote for a third-candidate, which splits the Democratic ticket and, again, benefits Trump.
    3. Vote for Donald Trump directly out of shear spite to show the Democratic Party exactly what it deserves for screwing with them, which also Trump.

    Even if all those people constitute just 5 or 10 percent of the Party's voting base, their loss and its effect on Hillary's chances of winning the White House will be devastating!

    So, as a staunch Trump supporter myself, Thank you, Julian Assange! Thank you very much for your generous and very helpful assistance in securing the Oval Office for Donald J. Trump on Nov. 8.

    Oh yeah. And one other thing.... Please keep those Democratic Party internal e-mails coming. They're absolutely fascinating!

    Joseph

    It's a sad state of affairs in that we are depending on Julian Assange to save the Republic from corrupt Hillary and the Clinton foundation. If Clinton becomes President she will basically place the United States up for sale so that the globalists can destroy what little remains of the American middle class. America will truly become a third world nation with only rich and poor.

    We can not allow this to happen. Trump may be a little "rough around the edges" however he is a true American who will bring back jobs, try his best to eliminate illegal immigration, and take America back from the globalists. This will help middle class Americans to thrive -- Vote Trump for President in 2016 !

    Elizabeth

    I think most commenters are missing the point that Snowden made: what is the intent of the leak? If the intent is to expose corruption then that is doing a public service. Leaking private information like credit card numbers and SS numbers only makes the victims vulnerable to thieves and does not fall in the "need to know" category. Wiki could have edited the leak to expose the DNC while protecting private information.

    joanjoan

    All look at the bang up job the FBI did with Clinton's email wrong doings. She broke the law and lied and the FBI tip toed around it by not taking her statements under oath so she wouldn't be charged.

    A Yahoo reader

    What could be more hypocritical of this pro-Clinton commentary questioning the objectivity of documents released with no commentary at all. Any rational person appreciates being provided the truth. It's of no consequence that the truth provider doesn't like Clinton. There's no law that says people have to like Clinton, at least not yet.

    alfredalfred

    Nice try to discredit the emails. They happened. She resigned. Democrats are terrible people. They get away with it because we are stupid and believe everything this media tells us.

    Danny

    OK, you won't listen to a guy (Edward Snowden) about issues, when he releases information that the public NEEDS to know, but "MAY BE" detrimental to the people in National Security, you put him on the World's MOST WANTED LIST, take his citizenship away. So what is his choice, he HAS NO CHOICE, he goes on the offense, obtaining and releasing even more information, and working with whomever will protect him.

    There is no evidence Russia is holding him prison, just protecting him. There is no evidence he can't leave anytime he wants, even come back to his own country. Yet our government continues to villanize Snowden.

    Look at the data released - It is true, it proves ALL the crooks are in our own government and politics, there is no evidence Russia is doing anything but helping people find, obtain and release material our politicians create.

    So, Killary, DNC, Obama, one and all attack Snowden and Russia, even adding Trump to the mix. I think we need to pack up all these crooked Democrats, including Obama, and ship them off to another country and tell them to GET A JOB. Then, let Snowden back into his country and let him do his job of protecting the United States of America. And Trump doesn't have anything to do with Killary, Obama and DNCs crooked politics.

    krainkrain

    Then there is the language issue. "I hate being attributed to Russia," the Guccifer 2.0 account told Motherboard, probably accurately. The person at the keyboard then claimed in a chat with Motherboard's Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai that Guccifer 2.0 was from Romania, like the original Guccifer, a well-known hacker. But when asked to explain his hack in Romanian, he was unable to respond colloquially and without errors. Guccifer 2.0's English initially was also weak, but in subsequent posts the quality improved sharply, albeit only on political subjects, not in technical matters-an indication of a team of operators at work behind the scenes.

    VernyVerny
    The government is protecting Hillary and the Clinton Gang, so "leaks and hacks" are the only methodology of showing Americans the truth about Hillary, the most corrupt politician in American history.

    Jayster b

    Another article to divert from the content of the emails, which were so damning that the DNC used all their Media contacts to create the "Russia Hack" scenario and then accused Trump of conspiring with Russia. As of yet not one DNC official has denied the facts or content in the e-mails. So, Assange scored in this first round so much that Debbie is no longer head of the DNC, and the FBI has demanded access to the DNC server to analyze it, meaning they will have access to all the donor information from foreign countries that are helping the Democrats steal the nomination from Bernie. What a crazy world. Assange 1, DNC 0

    TomTom

    I found it interesting you didn't mention that Politico was found in cahoots with the DNC as well in the emails.. Just like the mainstream media didn't hardly cover the protesters at the DNC convention but surely did at the RNC convention. You pick & choose what you want to report don't you.

    [Jul 29, 2016] Donald Trump Calls Comments About Russia and Clinton Emails Sarcastic by legitgov

    www.legitgov.org

    Donald Trump Calls Comments About Russia and Clinton Emails 'Sarcastic' | 28 July 2016 | Facing a torrent of criticism over his comments seeming to condone the hacking of Hillary Clinton's emails by Russian intelligence services, Donald J. Trump and his allies on Thursday sought to tamp down his remarks, with Mr. Trump saying he was simply being "sarcastic." In public interviews and private conversations on Thursday, Mr. Trump; his running mate, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana; and campaign staff members contended that Mr. Trump was being facetious when, during a news conference on Wednesday, he said he hoped Russia would be able to find Mrs. Clinton's missing emails. "Of course I'm being sarcastic," Mr. Trump told "Fox and Friends" Thursday morning as his aides accused the news media of misconstruing his remarks.

    [Jul 28, 2016] the number of Ukrainian citizens has been reduced by approximately 3 million people over a period of 5 years

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile , July 26, 2016 at 9:34 am
    ... ... ...

    The other day on the pages of "Correspondent" that quoted figures given by the State Statistics Service there was published data on the Ukrainian demographic catastrophe. It turns out that the population of the Ukraine (excluding the Crimea) as of January 1, 2016, amounted to 42,76,500 people, which is 6.3% or 2,873,000 persons fewer than there were in January 1, 2012 .

    That is to say, the number of Ukrainian citizens has been reduced by approximately 3 million people over a period of 5 years. If this sad trend continues, then in 70 years no "Ukrainians" will remain.

    [Jul 28, 2016] Hillary corrupt, rigged nomination that is the cause of the disunity.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The policy differences between Bernie and Hillary are a chasm from military interventions for regime change, to break up the banks that created the worst recession in the US, to the support of the TPP by HRC, until she thought of political expediency. ..."
    "... The Democratic Party is already in disarray and their operatives are carefully shielding this fact with the help of the media that is supportive of HRC. This article will provide what all insiders of the Democratic Party are discussing. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-debbie-wasserman-schultz-226352 ..."
    "... The record of the last 8 years is of a president with an almost divine oratory eloquence, but whose words of "Hope, change and the Dreams of My Father" clearly were nothing more than a "sales job" on small donors who were duped in to believing the promised land was on the way. ..."
    "... He had 2 years with a complete majority in both houses of congress, but chose to dither rather than promote much needed progressive legislation, for all Americans, but especially those folks in white Appalachia and black urban areas who most needed "Hope". ..."
    "... He staffed his cabinet with the very same people who had staffed the banks who gleefully robbed Americans of their pace to live. Bernie, Geitner and others running the Treasury is about as from "Change You Can Believe In" as Chicago is from Mars. ..."
    "... His legacy is exclusively "Obamacare", legislation which forces folks to buy from a monopoly of private insurance companies, whose coffers have soared since the regime was implemented. ..."
    "... Nice man I do believe, but a shill of the first order and a master stroke by the establishment in producing the right actor at a time when ordinary people seemed ready to storm the castle. ..."
    "... Don't get duped by Hillary because she's a female candidate like the black folks did in 2008. ..."
    "... Unlike you, there is no "Glass Ceiling" for people like Hillary and Obama. It is as tall and limitless as the elites promise them in return for their obedience and servitude. ..."
    "... Sen. Elizabeth Warren in her book "A Fighting Chance" gives one example of Hillary Clinton's lack of any principles. HRC promised Mrs. Warren that she will oppose the Bankruptcy Bill that was lobbied by Big Banks and, as previously existed gave a chance to those who were financially strapped from starting all over. Most who filed for bankruptcy earlier was driven to do so because of medical bills. However, when the Bill came to the vote Hillary Clinton voted with the banks. That's Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... How can you vote for someone who basically destroyed the African American male population w/ the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994? An apology for millions of lives ruined after cheering on her husbands murder of Ricky Ray Rector. ..."
    "... "pockets of resistance" ... keep dreaming (and lying) in the hope that your fiction will come true ... the resistance to a HRC presidency (even amongst Democratic convention delegates) is substantial, vibrant and growing ... soon you will see that your misrepresentations are of no effect ..."
    "... my guess is that on election day 30-35% of Bernie voters and supporters are either voting for a third party or . . .voting for Trump. ..."
    "... The last time something like this happened was 1968. Hundreds of thousands of anti-war young people refused to vote for Hubert Humphrey and that was more or less the margin of his defeat. ..."
    "... Don't be naive. The first thing Clinton will do upon entering office is install a shredder next to her personal email server so she can shred the DNC platform away from prying eyes. She has never had any use for progressives and now holds a personal animus toward them for marring her coronation. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Comments to the article: Clinton's nomination quiets Democrats' disunity but pockets of resistance linger by
    Dan Roberts, Lauren Gambino and Sabrina Siddiqui in Philadelphia

    eileen1 , 2016-07-29 02:32:24
    We've been played folks - again. We fought for our candidate and lost - we can accept that. What is hard to swallow is the utter corruption in the DNC and the US election process. We are no longer the greatest democracy in the world - we're not even a democracy.
    PerspectivesPlease , 2016-07-29 02:06:00
    We need a third party as an alternative to the corporate controlled parties. This election provides voters with the best opportunity.

    If HRC wins in November it will be the end of the movement that Sanders started, and if the Democrats lose, it will not only be the end Democratic Party controlled by the corporatists, it will also be the end of the Republican Party as we know it. We know who will be in charge. Therefore, defeating the Democratic Party will certainly provide the optimum openings for the Sanders movement, with or without him, to become stronger, and most probably without him.

    Bernie Sanders will live to regret his endorsement of HRC because he caved in to the Democratic Party establishment that wanted a coronation of Hillary Clinton and not an election. Make no mistake that the DNC not only undermined Sen. Sanders's democratic campaign, it undermined the the very democratic process.

    The policy differences between Bernie and Hillary are a chasm from military interventions for regime change, to break up the banks that created the worst recession in the US, to the support of the TPP by HRC, until she thought of political expediency.

    The Democratic Party is already in disarray and their operatives are carefully shielding this fact with the help of the media that is supportive of HRC. This article will provide what all insiders of the Democratic Party are discussing. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-debbie-wasserman-schultz-226352

    Ezajur , 2016-07-29 01:58:27
    Its not easy to vote for lip service.
    Lecorbeau40 , 2016-07-29 01:50:53
    I say this as someone who is married to an African American woman and mean no disrespect to those who differ.

    I was in Grant Park in Chicago the night Obama got elected in 2008. The atmosphere was electric with expectation and as we waded through the crowds, I watched in delight as black folks young, old and for the most parts of the city rejoiced and exalted in the historic breaking of the color line by the first African American president. "Not healthy to expect one man to achieve all things in just 4 or 8 years...cut him a little slack" I dead panned, at which point I was roundly put down as being "Canadian, and just not getting it".

    Well I did "get it" and take no pleasure in having proved my in laws wrong.

    The record of the last 8 years is of a president with an almost divine oratory eloquence, but whose words of "Hope, change and the Dreams of My Father" clearly were nothing more than a "sales job" on small donors who were duped in to believing the promised land was on the way.

    He had 2 years with a complete majority in both houses of congress, but chose to dither rather than promote much needed progressive legislation, for all Americans, but especially those folks in white Appalachia and black urban areas who most needed "Hope".

    He staffed his cabinet with the very same people who had staffed the banks who gleefully robbed Americans of their pace to live. Bernie, Geitner and others running the Treasury is about as from "Change You Can Believe In" as Chicago is from Mars.

    His legacy is exclusively "Obamacare", legislation which forces folks to buy from a monopoly of private insurance companies, whose coffers have soared since the regime was implemented.

    Nice man I do believe, but a shill of the first order and a master stroke by the establishment in producing the right actor at a time when ordinary people seemed ready to storm the castle.

    So what's the point of this tabling post? Simply this:

    There is no more "Left & Right" in western politics. The equation is much simpler. It's You And your neighbours' interests vs. those of the establishment.

    It would have done a lot more for the interests of urban to have gotten a non-black president in 2008 who actively championed policies and laws to help all poor Americans.

    Point is, it doesn't matter a fig if the candidate is he's owned by corrupt interests that are

    And it will matter even less for women, when the candidate is female but has an agenda which is as far from feminist as New York is from Mercury. Unnecessary wars, a refusal to back a $15 minimum wage and a demonstrated wilful intent to impose the TPP on American workers, and an acceptance of spousal a issue as a norm make Hillary a bizarre choice for anyone who holds women in high esteem.

    If people tell you the only other choice is Trump, don't believe them and you can't bring yourself to vote for him then don't . A real feminist is running as candidate for the Greens and even the Libertarians appear to ha e a more women friendly candidate. What's more, Elizabeth Warren has a great shot at it in 2020, and she would make an exemplary first female president.

    Don't get duped by Hillary because she's a female candidate like the black folks did in 2008.

    Unlike you, there is no "Glass Ceiling" for people like Hillary and Obama. It is as tall and limitless as the elites promise them in return for their obedience and servitude.

    PerspectivesPlease -> Lecorbeau40 , 2016-07-29 02:28:56
    Sen. Elizabeth Warren in her book "A Fighting Chance" gives one example of Hillary Clinton's lack of any principles. HRC promised Mrs. Warren that she will oppose the Bankruptcy Bill that was lobbied by Big Banks and, as previously existed gave a chance to those who were financially strapped from starting all over. Most who filed for bankruptcy earlier was driven to do so because of medical bills. However, when the Bill came to the vote Hillary Clinton voted with the banks. That's Hillary Clinton.
    1Rule303 , 2016-07-29 01:45:24
    the African Americans who support her nomination have made a grave mistake letting her be the nominee. How can you vote for someone who basically destroyed the African American male population w/ the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994? An apology for millions of lives ruined after cheering on her husbands murder of Ricky Ray Rector. It makes no sense. We would be better off voting for Trump. At least we know the racist acts will be to our face as opposed to in our backs.
    Juillette -> nevesone , 2016-07-29 01:23:00
    Or Hillary and the DNC is corrupt and will never change. The addiction to wall street money is impossible to break.

    http://yournewswire.com/election-justice-usa-report-says-sanders-was-robbed /

    George Duhaime , 2016-07-29 00:29:13
    "pockets of resistance" ... keep dreaming (and lying) in the hope that your fiction will come true ... the resistance to a HRC presidency (even amongst Democratic convention delegates) is substantial, vibrant and growing ... soon you will see that your misrepresentations are of no effect
    aintnorep , 2016-07-29 00:08:35
    Anti-Hillary sentiments may be waning across the country, but it depends how you look at it. I'm a Bernie voter who won't vote for Hillary. Most of the people I know are capitulating to her candidacy but not all by a long shot. And then there are the white union voters in the Midwest, who voted for Bernie. Many are going to vote for Trump. Like with Brexit in the UK, I'm not sure the polling is sophisticated enough to pick up the unusual nature of anti-Hillary Democratic vote, but my guess is that on election day 30-35% of Bernie voters and supporters are either voting for a third party or . . .voting for Trump.

    The last time something like this happened was 1968. Hundreds of thousands of anti-war young people refused to vote for Hubert Humphrey and that was more or less the margin of his defeat.

    TwinnedCoot , 2016-07-29 00:06:33
    "Pockets of resistance"

    Have you all walked outside the DNC? The city marched through Tuesday saying "don't vote for Hillary, she's killing black people"

    nosleepb4midnight , 2016-07-28 23:50:28
    What another terrible article!! The disunity is not quiet, you're just not willing to tell the story, instead you post another biased condescending article.
    greven , 2016-07-28 23:33:44
    46% of the people who voted in the primaries voted for Bernie many more would if they hadn't been purged or otherwise had their desire to vote for him sabotaged. That is a lot of people to alienate for someone who wants to be elected. But the establishment has clearly demonstrated their tin ear by electing the most establishment team ever in a year when the establishment is held in contempt by most voters.
    bcarey , 2016-07-28 23:14:28

    Clinton's nomination quiets Democrats' disunity

    Wrong.
    It is her corrupt, rigged nomination that is the cause of the disunity.

    Arthor , 2016-07-28 22:39:19
    Resistance is futile, Berners will be assimilated
    ID0221014 , 2016-07-28 22:37:51
    For the hypocrite politicians we are IDIOTS! They ignore us, they do not listen or support us.
    They think that with empty , fake promises they will convince us to vote them, as we did ALWAYS!
    NOW WE SAY NOOOO! We will not vote Clinton, we are not sheep, we will punish them to learn to listen and respect us.
    raciallyAmerican , 2016-07-28 22:36:48
    For many left wing liberals changing our U.S. corrupted political system is a must goal, even if fascist Trump does it. We know that Clinton wants to maintain it. At this point the far right conservatives & the far left liberals want to change it democratically by the vote. If it can't be done democratically the hatred for the system will eventually explode into sheer violence (we are a violent culture). Trump & Sanders both saw the urgent need for change. Sanders back down from creating a third party was a huge delay for having a greater democracy. Fascist Trump wants to change it democratically (making it probable that the RP may split into two parties.). Sander's great fear of a Trump presidency blinded him from seeing the potential of "after Trump" increasing the democracy of our nation. (Students take this to the classroom)
    ATTW , 2016-07-28 22:36:46
    The Guardian's reporting on the DNC has been remarkably poor. It's no wonder readership keeps sinking, and few sign up to be 'members'.

    All about this person's speech or that person's speech and all the lovely diversity/inclusivity marketing extravaganza -

    A quick look at The Intercept shows several important stories - serious journalism:
    On 'shadow banking' and Blackstone's president at the DNC: https://theintercept.com/2016/07/28/hillary-clinton-talks-tough-on-shadow-banking-but-blackstone-is-celebrating-at-the-dnc /

    or this, on Neo-Cons raising funds for Hillary:
    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton /

    and more.

    Guardian, raise your game.

    Solaraenyues Reddenbluesy , 2016-07-28 23:38:42
    Don't be naive. The first thing Clinton will do upon entering office is install a shredder next to her personal email server so she can shred the DNC platform away from prying eyes. She has never had any use for progressives and now holds a personal animus toward them for marring her coronation.
    Carmen Vasquez , 2016-07-28 22:27:57
    We all knew how serious the DNC was when Kaine was announced - the guy is pro TPP. Hillary doesn't give a honk about the liberal side of the DP. She would run for either party if it got her in power to perpetuate her pay-for-play business.
    I recognize voting for Jill Stein might hand the presidency to Trump, but people would realize that you can't let the Clintons run the DNC like happened this time. I hate Trump, but I can't vote for Hillary.
    CameronsTopHat Killabee , 2016-07-28 23:20:00
    Lol you keep posting this ridiculous link. Well if the Saudis are allies, I guess it's ok to take bribes from them. Talking of facts:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM

    Drewv Killabee , 2016-07-28 23:50:55
    Who said anything about the Saudis? Goldman Sachs is much worse, and much more powerful, than those backwater oil sheiks.

    [Jul 28, 2016] Russian media is being accused of fakes and lies when the reality is that theyre almost always quoting Western media in verbatim on all these things

    Notable quotes:
    "... This is how these fucks build their cases, it's just like the massive disinformation about everything Ukraine. If you pick it apart and study each case of a "fake" or whatever, most (if not all) of it suddenly seems less insidious and more sensible, in the light of medias being medias, people being people, bad translations being bad translations and what not. Heck, a lot of the "fakes" are actually fakes by the alleged fake-spottters. Anyway, that's why the tsunami approach is being used, just a torrent of stuff that nobody will bother picking apart as you have no choice but to submit to the sheer volume of it. ..."
    "... Or take the Sochi Olympics. Total tsunami there as well, by the time false assertion #1 had been debunked by some brave soul there were 300 other assertions stacked on top. Or anything Russia in general, it doesn't matter, it's the same crap all over. ..."
    "... Oh, and one last observation. The Russia disinformation tsunami approach reminds me of something very similar, namely tin foil hats peddling alien conspiracies and so on. They typically set out with their minds made up and then present "evidence" A, B, C. Once these have been debunked, they go "fine, but what about D, E, F" all the way to Z. Once that's been exhausted they jump all the way back to A, B, C as if nothing's happened at all, though this way around they typically attempt to overwhelm by referencing D-Z from the get go. Good god, it's depressing. ..."
    July 25, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    I've been finding a lot of these things being forwarded on Twitter etc:

    I find it rather amazing, actually. Russian media is being accused of "fakes" and "lies" when the reality is that they're almost always quoting Western media in verbatim on all these things. In this particular case, Swedish media reported a "powerful explosion, possibly several", and "a man holding a gun-like object" and "police has been called to the scene" and so on. Yep, that they did. Since it was in the central parts of the capital and all these things gave the impression something big could be brewing, international media quickly went nuts with it as well:

    The Russians followed suit, naturally. Now, soon thereafter it turned out to be a case of overblown hysteria and the story quickly died out following that, with all media issuing retractions, including Russian dito.

    But, quelle surprise – it's obviously yet another "Russia fake".

    This is how these fucks build their cases, it's just like the massive disinformation about everything Ukraine. If you pick it apart and study each case of a "fake" or whatever, most (if not all) of it suddenly seems less insidious and more sensible, in the light of medias being medias, people being people, bad translations being bad translations and what not. Heck, a lot of the "fakes" are actually fakes by the alleged fake-spottters. Anyway, that's why the tsunami approach is being used, just a torrent of stuff that nobody will bother picking apart as you have no choice but to submit to the sheer volume of it.

    It really pisses me off.

    Drutten , July 25, 2016 at 2:25 am

    Or take the Sochi Olympics. Total tsunami there as well, by the time false assertion #1 had been debunked by some brave soul there were 300 other assertions stacked on top. Or anything Russia in general, it doesn't matter, it's the same crap all over.

    Hybrid war you say? Ну, ну…

    Drutten , July 25, 2016 at 2:40 am
    Also, regarding the above "Russia fake" – just to further prove what bullshit this is, this is what Sweden's most-read news site wrote at the time it had just occurred:
    http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article21715154.ab

    " A powerful detonation was heard on Södermalm in Stockholm at lunch time.
    Police arrived on site with several patrols and the street was cordoned off.
    We don't know what has happened , says Albin Näverberg of the Stockholm police.

    The blast, that witnesses describe as being powerful , was heard at 11:40 AM near Brännkyrkagatan on Södermalm. The street was cordoned off. A large police force was called to the site. Rescue services were there as well."

    "Rescue services" meaning firefighters and/or paramedics. Clearly everybody thought some shit had gone down and there were multiple emergency vehicles, cordons and so on.

    Drutten , July 25, 2016 at 2:56 am
    Oh, and one last observation. The Russia disinformation tsunami approach reminds me of something very similar, namely tin foil hats peddling alien conspiracies and so on. They typically set out with their minds made up and then present "evidence" A, B, C. Once these have been debunked, they go "fine, but what about D, E, F" all the way to Z. Once that's been exhausted they jump all the way back to A, B, C as if nothing's happened at all, though this way around they typically attempt to overwhelm by referencing D-Z from the get go. Good god, it's depressing.

    [Jul 28, 2016] http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/07/exclusive-interview-putin-dnc-emails-russia-love.html

    Notable quotes:
    "... let the buyer beware ..."
    www.washingtonsblog.com

    By Michael Collins
    Satire

    (Washington, DC 7/25) As I was idly wondering what Vladimir Putin would say about the DNC email scandals, I received a call from Vladimir Putin himself. He said he wanted to talk about the Wikileaks release of DNC emails. When I asked why he picked me to contact, he said "I probably strarted at the wrong end of the list" and laughed heartily.

    MC: President Putin, did the Russian government hack the DNC email server and then publically release those emails through Wikileaks the day before the Democratic convention?

    Putin: Yes.

    MC: Yes! Are you serious?

    Putin : I'm quite serious.

    MC: How can you justify this open meddling in United States politics?

    Putin: Your question should be what took Russia so long. The US oligarchs and their minions surround us with military bases and nuclear missiles, damage our trade to Europe, and seek to destabilize our domestic politics. These emails are nothing in the big picture. But they're sort of funny, don't you agree?

    MC: I'm not sure that funny is the right word. What do you mean by that?

    Putin: You've got Hillary Clinton running as a strong and independent woman. Of course, nobody would know who she is had she not married Bill Clinton. She's not independent. Quite the contrary. She had to marry a philandering redneck to get to where she is. When it comes to strength, I can say only this. How strong can you be if you have to cheat and create a rigged game to win the nomination?

    MC: Anything else about your leak to cheer us up?

    Putin: This situation is the epitome of ironic humor. After the emails were released, the focus was all on DNC Chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. That's fine for now but what happens when people start asking why Wasserman-Schultz had the DNC screw Sanders and boost Hillary? Did she just wake up one day and decide this on her own?. Not likely. She was and remains Hillary's agent. It will take people a while to arrive that answer. When enough people hear about Wasserman-Schultz's key role in the Clinton campaign, everything will be clear. It's adios Hillary. That inevitable conclusion, by the way, is the reason the DNC made such a big deal about Russia hacking the DNC. That was diversion one right out of the gate.

    MC: Is Russia an equal opportunity hacker? What about the Trump campaign?

    Putin: Why not? I hear there are some very rather graphic home movies and videos of Mr. Trump with some interesting playmates. But that can wait. Enjoy Hillary's hypocrisy to the fullest. When it comes to either candidate, my only advice is let the buyer beware .

    That was it for my time with the man. I'd like to think it was Putin. Even if it wasn't, this is what I suspect Putin would say.

    Satire
    Creative Commons 4.0

    [Jul 28, 2016] NSA Whistleblower Not So Fast On Claims Russia Behind DNC Email Hack naked capitalism

    Why those unknown forces (probably a disgruntled insider) leaked this bombshell so late. At this point it does not affect Sanders chances to beat Hillary.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "The same people on the Clinton team who made enormous efforts to claim her private email server-which operated unencrypted over the Internet for three months, including during trips to China and Russia, and which contained top-secret national-security data-was not hacked by the Russians now are certain that the DNC server was hacked by the Russians" http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unpacking-the-dnc-emails/ ..."
    "... The British government has learned that Vladimir Putin recently sought significant quantities of malware from Africa. ..."
    "... Well, golly, if you're going to create a bright, shiny object to distract people from the actual content of the e-mails, why not blame little green men from Mars? I mean, seriously, isn't what this is all about – deflecting away from what the DNC was up to, so as to keep as much of it as possible from further tarnishing the already-clouded view of both the process and the major candidate whom it benefited? ..."
    "... And in addition to this little bit of obviousness, how can it possible have escaped anyone with a functioning brain that this escalating hysteria about the DNC hack was noticeably absent with respect to Clinton's own email operation? ..."
    "... I also find it deeply and almost-hilariously ironic that we're all supposed to be livid at the idea of some foreign government trying to manipulate the US elections when not only is the Democratic Party's flagship organization flagrantly engaged in trying to manipulate the outcome, but the AMERICAN MEDIA wouldn't know what to do with itself if it wasn't constantly fking around with the entire process. ..."
    "... Looks like another false flag propaganda ploy. The Obama Admin flares up with phony indignation and immediately swears there will be more sanctions. The FBI wants to prosecute ( or is it persecute) the messenger instead of investigating the real crimes. The e-mails and their contents are real. The noise is to cover up this fact! ..."
    "... The CNN poll in yesterday's Links shows Trump beats Hillary by huge margins (12 points) on the economy and terrorism. She beats him on foreign policy (and nothing else). Dragging in Russian hackers and foreign intelligence services plays to her strength. ..."
    "... In reality, politically motivated attacks like this are almost always domestic in origin. To go to Wikileaks specifically I expect an inside whistleblower is responsible. The same thing happened to Sony and the Swiss banks. Elites simply don't understand how many people they work with are disgusted by their policies. To them this is a perfectly believable thing. ..."
    "... It reminds me very much of the French Fries to Freedom Fries movement. If you have a critical mass of people in on the fun, it can work, at least for a time. But what happens when most people don't care about being excommunicated from the DNC Serious People List? ..."
    "... Obvious clues pointing back at a known adversary…strategically-timed leaks from anonymous intelligence sources…vague statements on the record from the President and other high-level officials…stories fed to sympathetic media outlets…yep, sounds a lot like the playbook used by the Bush White House for the run-up to the Iraq War. Except there's no way that the Democrats would ever ..."
    "... No matter who is responsible for the hack, I'm just glad that the information about the DNC corruption is out in the open. I'm disappointed that this didn't happen before June 7, when California, New Jersey, and several other states had their primaries. Better late than never, I guess. ..."
    "... why hadn't our press revealed this? ..."
    "... It's now so routine to spin-doctor aggressively that the elites have lost any sense of whether what they are saying is credible or not. ..."
    "... I thought Trump's comments today about wanting the Russians to find Hillary's emails were genius. He fans the flames of this whole Russia-Putin thing on day 3 of the Dem convention and what are the media outlets talking about? Plus, Hillary's campaign, in it's rebuttal to Trump, is indirectly reminding everyone that her homebrew server was putting national security at risk. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Washington's Blog asked the highest-level NSA whistleblower in history, William Binney – the NSA executive who created the agency's mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a "legend" within the agency and the NSA's best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened ("in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union's command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons") – what he thinks of such claims:

    Edward Snowden says the NSA could easily determine who hacked Hillary Clinton's emails:

    Evidence that could publicly attribute responsibility for the DNC hack certainly exists at #NSA , but DNI traditionally objects to sharing.

    - Edward Snowden (@Snowden) July 25, 2016

    Even if the attackers try to obfuscate origin, #XKEYSCORE makes following exfiltrated data easy. I did this personally against Chinese ops.

    - Edward Snowden (@Snowden) July 25, 2016

    But mainstream media say it couldn't: http://www.businessinsider.com/dnc-hack-russian-government-2016-7

    The mainstream media is also trumpeting the meme that Russia was behind the hack, because it wants to help Trump get elected. In other words, the media is trying to deflect how damaging the email leaks are to Clinton's character by trying to somehow associate Trump with Putin. See e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/kremlin-donald-trump-vladimir-putin.html

    Who's right?

    Binney responded:

    Snowden is right and the MSM is clueless. Here's what I said to Ray McGovern and VIPS with a little humor at the end. [McGovern is a 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ("VIPS" for short).]

    Ray, I am suspicious that they may have looked for known hacking code (used by Russians). And, I'm sure they were one probably of many to hack her stuff. But, does that mean that they checked to see if others also hacked in?

    Further, do they have evidence that the Russians downloaded and later forwarded those emails to wikileaks? Seems to me that they need to answer those questions to be sure that their assertion is correct. Otherwise, HRC and her political activities are and I am sure have been prime targets for the Russians (as well as many others) but without intent of course.

    I would add that we proposed to do a program that would monitor all activity on the world-wide NSA network back in 1991/92. We called it "Wellgrounded." NSA did not want anyone (especially congress) to know what was going on inside NSA and therefore rejected that proposal. I have not read what Ed has said, but, I do know that every line of code that goes across the network is logged in the network log. This is where a little software could scan, analyze and find the intruders initially and then compile all the code sent by them to determine the type of attack. This is what we wanted to do back in 1991/92.

    The newest allegation tying the Clinton email hack to Russia seems to be all innuendo .

    Binney explained to us:

    My problem is that they have not listed intruders or attempted intrusions to the DNC site. I suspect that's because they did a quick and dirty look for known attacks.

    Of course, this brings up another question; if it's a know attack, why did the DNC not have software to stop it? You can tell from the network log who is going into a site. I used that on networks that I had. I looked to see who came into my LAN, where they went, how long they stayed and what they did while in my network.

    Further, if you needed to, you could trace back approaches through other servers etc. Trace Route and Trace Watch are good examples of monitoring software that help do these things. Others of course exist … probably the best are in NSA/GCHQ and the other Five Eyes countries. But, these countries have no monopoly on smart people that could do similar detection software.

    Question is do they want to fix the problems with existing protection software. If the DNC and OPM are examples, then obviously, they don't care to fix weakness probably because the want to use these weaknesses to their own advantage.

    Why is this newsworthy?

    Well, the mainstream narrative alleges that the Clinton emails are not important … and that it's a conspiracy between Putin and Trump to make sure Trump – and not Clinton – is elected.

    But there are other issues, as well …

    For example, an allegation of hacking could literally lead to war .

    So we should be skeptical of such serious and potentially far-reaching allegations – which may be true or may be false – unless and until they are proven .

    JacobiteInTraining , July 27, 2016 at 4:46 am

    Yup, as a former server admin it is patently absurd to attribute a hack to anyone in particular until a substantial amount of forensic work has been done. (read, poring over multiple internal log files…gathering yet more log files of yet more internal devices, poring over them, then – once the request hops out of your org – requesting logfiles from remote entities, poring over *those* log files, requesting further log files from yet more upstream entities, wash rinse repeat ad infinitum)

    For example, at its simplest, I would expect a middling-competency hacker to find an open wifi hub across town to connect to, then VPN to server in, say, Tonga, then VPN from there to another box in Sweden, then connect to a PC previously compromised in Iowa, then VPN to yet another anonymous cloud server in Latvia, and (assuming the mountain dew is running low, gotta get cracking) then RDP to the target server and grab as many docs as possible. RAR those up and encrypt them, FTP them to a compromised media server in South Korea, email them from there to someones gmail account previously hacked, xfer them to a P2P file sharing app, and then finally access them later from a completely different set of servers.

    In many cases where I did this sort of analysis I still ended up with a complete dead end: some sysadmins at remote companies or orgs would be sympathetic and give me actual related log files. Others would be sympathetic but would not give files, and instead do their own analysis to give me tips. Many never responded, and most IPs ended up at unknown (compromised) personal PCs, or devices where the owner could not be found anyway.

    If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence you might get lucky – but that demographic mostly points back to script kiddies and/or criminal dweebs – i.e., rather then just surreptitiously exfiltrating the goods they instead left messages or altered things that seemed to indicate their own backgrounds or prejudices, or left a message that was more easily 'traced'. If, of course, you took that evidence at face value and it was not itself an attempt at obfuscation.

    Short of a state actor such as an NSA who captures it ALL anyway, and/or can access any log files at any public or private network at its own whim – its completely silly to attribute a hack to anyone at this point.

    So, I guess I am reduced to LOL OMG WTF its fer the LULZ!!!!!

    4D , July 27, 2016 at 5:27 am

    Thanks for that great explanation on covering tracks. Now can you please explain how they go about actually hacking into a supposedly secure server?

    JacobiteInTraining , July 27, 2016 at 5:49 am

    hah, well I had a nice long answer but cloudflare blocked me. heh…apparently it doesnt like certain words one uses when describing this stuff. Understandable!

    I guess try looking up 'phishing' and 'privilege elevation' on wikipedia. Former is easiest, latter gives you street cred.

    So easy a kid can do it.

    JacobiteInTraining , July 27, 2016 at 6:25 am

    Just to clarify on the "…If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence…" – this is basically what I have seen reported as 'evidence' pointing to Russia: the Cyrillic keyboard signature, the 'appeared to cease work on Russian holidays' stuff, and the association with 'known Russian hacking groups'.

    Thats great and all, but in past work I am sure my own 'research' could easily have gotten me 'associated' with known hacking groups. Presumably various 'sophisticated' methods and tools get you closer to possible suspects…but that kind of stuff is cycled and recycled throughout the community worldwide – as soon as anything like that is known and published, any reasonably competent hacker (or org of hackers) is learning how to do the same thing and incorporating such things into their own methods. (imitation being the sincerest form of flattery)

    I guess I have a lot more respect for the kinds of people I expect to be getting a paycheck from foreign Intelligence agencies then to believe that they would leave such obvious clues behind 'accidentally'. But if we are going to be starting wars over this stuff w/Russia, or China, I guess I would hope the adults in the room don't go all apesh*t and start chanting COMMIES, THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!, etc. before the ink is dry on the 'crime'.

    Even then, I fail to see why this person (foreign, domestic, professional, amateur, state-sponsored, or otherwise) hasn't done us a great service by exposing the DNC corruption in the first place. Hell, I would love to give them the Medal of Freedom for this and (hopefully) the next boot to drop! :)

    Hacker , July 27, 2016 at 8:35 am

    Spot on JacobitIn Training.

    There is a problem with those who argue that these are sophisticated Nation State attackers and then point to the most basic circumstantial evidence to support their case. I'd bet that, among others, the Israelis have hacked some Russian servers to launch attacks from and have some of their workers on a Russian holiday schedule. Those things have been written about in attack analysis so much over the last 15-20 years that they'd be stupid not to.

    Now, I'm not saying the Israelis did it. I'm saying that the evidence provided so far by those arguing it is Russia is so flaky as to prove that the Russia accusers are blinded or corrupted by their own political agenda.

    Anon , July 27, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    The whole point of the "It's the Russian's" meme is to deflect attention from the corrupt and undemocratic actions of the DNC.

    fajensen , July 27, 2016 at 10:02 am

    Oh, "they" just use the system management features baked right into the embedded computers either the ones inside the "secure server" itself or (much more convenient and easy to do), they attack the cheap-ish COTS lapdog that the support techie will be using to access the "secure server" with:

    http://blog.cr4.sh/2016/06/exploring-and-exploiting-lenovo.html
    http://www.legbacore.com/Research.html

    *Everything PC-ish* is insecure, by sloth & design!

    Steve Gunderson , July 27, 2016 at 6:00 pm

    I thought I read the password was "Obama08" and that they never changed it.

    vlade , July 27, 2016 at 6:44 am

    Indeed. I'd go even further, and say two things:

    – if there's a non-NSA evidence the attacks originated from Russia, then someone wanted the world to know it was from Russia (or was just a private snoop).

    – even if there was a technical evidence that the attack originated from Russia, unless it could be tied very specifically to an institution (as opposed to a "PC in Russia"), it does not prove that it was Russia. All it proves that someone using a computer in Russia initiated it.

    JacobiteInTraining , July 27, 2016 at 7:13 am

    Well phooey. My theory now goes up in smoke: Here we can clearly see an attempt at disinformation from a Russian Operative, likely FSB – possibly from Putin's inner circle.

    We know this through 2 things:

    A.) The name, 'Vlad' – inequivocally a Russian given name, and not a common one at that.

    B.) Note the slightly wrong grammar: "…a non-NSA evidence…" & "..was a technical evidence". Clearly not a native English speaker.

    See how easy that was? Yves, no need for log files to track IP here…case closed. In Soviet Russia, crow eats me.

    Anyone gots some nuke launch codes handy? 00000000 doesn't work for me anymore…

    oho , July 27, 2016 at 9:40 am

    "00000000 doesn't work for me anymore…"

    To those who may not know--for many years 0000 0000 were indeed the nuke launch codes. (namely cuz it would be easy to remember)

    Whine Country , July 27, 2016 at 9:59 am

    Is this another of your nom de plumes?

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/07/hillary-supporters-the-russians-are-coming-the-russians-are-coming/

    Love your input BTW!

    Whine Country , July 27, 2016 at 10:01 am

    DNC training film

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El03KPUeQc4

    jo6pac , July 27, 2016 at 10:07 am

    Thanks for all the info.

    The Trumpening , July 27, 2016 at 5:13 am

    The recently murdered DNC Date Director Seth Rich being the leaker, or at least knowing who the leaker was, as was hinted at recently by Julian Assange himself, makes a far more interesting conspiracy theory.

    From The Forward:

    Ten days after the murder of promising Democratic staffer Seth Rich, the Washington D.C. slaying remains unsolved and police say they have no suspects in the crime.

    Rich, a Jewish data analyst for the Democratic National Committee who worked on polling station expansion, was shot and killed as he walked home on Sunday, July 10.

    Police told Rich's parents that they believed his death was the result of a botched robbery. Though Rich's killer did not take his wallet or phone, D.C. Police Commander William Fitzgerald said that "there is no other reason (other than robbery) for an altercation at 4:30 in the morning" at a community meeting on Monday.

    The meeting was meant to address the recent uptick in robberies in the Bloomingdale neighborhood near Howard University. Police reports say robberies in the area are down 20%, but an investigation by the Washington Post found that armed robberies are actually up over 20% compared with July 2015.

    Of course there is absolutely no proof of Seth Rich's involvement, but I suppose it is a reasonable surmise, as George Will recently said about the Russia allegations! In any case a possible crypto-BernieBro tech-guy mole from within the DNC, as the source of the DNCLeaks, would make a much better made-for-TV movie than the Russian theory. And if it was an internal mole, what better way to cover their tracks than to leave some "traces" of a Russian hack.

    Lambert Strether , July 28, 2016 at 2:31 am

    I always felt it was odd that RIch was involved in GOTV efforts. Not that our voting systems aren't totally on the up and up…

    Skippy , July 27, 2016 at 6:25 am

    Its one thing for Republicans to resort to the old chestnut of red scare mongering, but for the Democrats to use the same ammo they once had lobed at them is surreal….

    WorldBLee , July 27, 2016 at 4:11 pm

    The Demopublicans have become the Republicrats! War is peace!

    But yeah, the Democrats under Clinton and Obama have essentially morphed into the Republican party while claiming to represent "progressive" values.

    TomDority , July 27, 2016 at 6:32 am

    I suppose Hilary's personal server was just as easy to breach…..maybe.

    Sam , July 27, 2016 at 11:29 am

    "The same people on the Clinton team who made enormous efforts to claim her private email server-which operated unencrypted over the Internet for three months, including during trips to China and Russia, and which contained top-secret national-security data-was not hacked by the Russians now are certain that the DNC server was hacked by the Russians" http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unpacking-the-dnc-emails/

    allan , July 27, 2016 at 7:21 am

    Shorter anonymous administration officials:

    The British government has learned that Vladimir Putin recently sought significant quantities of malware from Africa.

    Lambert Strether , July 27, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    Ha.

    Anne , July 27, 2016 at 7:28 am

    Well, golly, if you're going to create a bright, shiny object to distract people from the actual content of the e-mails, why not blame little green men from Mars? I mean, seriously, isn't what this is all about – deflecting away from what the DNC was up to, so as to keep as much of it as possible from further tarnishing the already-clouded view of both the process and the major candidate whom it benefited?

    And in addition to this little bit of obviousness, how can it possible have escaped anyone with a functioning brain that this escalating hysteria about the DNC hack was noticeably absent with respect to Clinton's own email operation?

    I also find it deeply and almost-hilariously ironic that we're all supposed to be livid at the idea of some foreign government trying to manipulate the US elections when not only is the Democratic Party's flagship organization flagrantly engaged in trying to manipulate the outcome, but the AMERICAN MEDIA wouldn't know what to do with itself if it wasn't constantly fking around with the entire process.

    I'm not sure we're ever coming out of this rabbit-hole-to-hell.

    ger , July 27, 2016 at 8:01 am

    Looks like another false flag propaganda ploy. The Obama Admin flares up with phony indignation and immediately swears there will be more sanctions. The FBI wants to prosecute ( or is it persecute) the messenger instead of investigating the real crimes. The e-mails and their contents are real. The noise is to cover up this fact!

    Whine Country , July 27, 2016 at 10:25 am

    "Why play the Russian/Putin/Trump card with the DNC email hack?" – An excellent question for which you have provided a logical potential answer. Beyond that, this generally seems like an act of desperation. I am nowhere near an expert on the details of hacking like the two who have commented above, but what I see is a desperate attempt to capture the "stupid" vote. The whole Democrat dog and pony show being put on now only serves to make those who will vote for Hillary no matter what, feel self satisfied that they are right minded. What matters though is how they connect with those not inclined to vote for her. In their logic it follows that the HIllary crowd basically believes that anyone who would consider voting for Trump is very stupid, and this is a desperate attempt to convince the "stupid's" to vote for Hillary. I have no idea how Trump will act if he is elected President, but the critical factor for me is that there is now overwhelming evidence that the entire Democrat establishment is just like Hillary (as made clear by Mr. Comey): They are either grossly negligent and incompetent, or criminals who are not being prosecuted. Anyone but her and her merry band of thieves will leave us all better off after November.

    Whine Country , July 27, 2016 at 10:29 am

    I forgot to add: "The fish rots from the head"

    different clue , July 27, 2016 at 7:47 pm

    " And a rotten barrel spoils all the apples."

    reslez , July 27, 2016 at 1:17 pm

    The association the Dems want to create is "scary foreign people support Trump".

    The CNN poll in yesterday's Links shows Trump beats Hillary by huge margins (12 points) on the economy and terrorism. She beats him on foreign policy (and nothing else). Dragging in Russian hackers and foreign intelligence services plays to her strength.

    In reality, politically motivated attacks like this are almost always domestic in origin. To go to Wikileaks specifically I expect an inside whistleblower is responsible. The same thing happened to Sony and the Swiss banks. Elites simply don't understand how many people they work with are disgusted by their policies. To them this is a perfectly believable thing.

    Lambert Strether , July 27, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    I also wonder whether there are significant numbers of Poles and Eastern Europeans generally in the industrial precincts in some swing states; a vote against Russia in the form of a vote against Trump might appeal to them.

    WorldBLee , July 27, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    I doubt it's that strategic–looks more like classic red-baiting (minus any communism but saying "Russia" still evokes the same emotional response for people of a certain age) of the sort a former Goldwater girl like Hillary would understand all too well.

    washunate , July 27, 2016 at 10:43 am

    Linking the hack and delivery of DNC emails to WIkiLeaks by Putin as a way of helping Trump may strategically backfire.

    Agreed. There are so many moving parts at this point the blowback looks to happen more rapidly than they can manage perception, especially with things online. They spent so much time segmenting and dismissing the various developments as disparate conspiracy theories, and now in one fell swoop they've both legitimized critiques and connected them together (they run the risk that even criticism that isn't true will still stick more than it otherwise would have). I'm not sure they fully realize what they've done yet. It's a simple equation to them: Wikileaks = Bad. Russia = Bad. Wikileaks + Russia = DoubleBad.

    It reminds me very much of the French Fries to Freedom Fries movement. If you have a critical mass of people in on the fun, it can work, at least for a time. But what happens when most people don't care about being excommunicated from the DNC Serious People List?

    two beers , July 27, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    Playing the Trump is in bed with Putin meme creates an easily adaptable narrative as more comes out.

    Peter Lee has a piece up on Counterpunch this morning laying out this theory.

    geoff , July 27, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/27/trumputin-and-the-dnc-leaks/

    voteforno6 , July 27, 2016 at 8:26 am

    Obvious clues pointing back at a known adversary…strategically-timed leaks from anonymous intelligence sources…vague statements on the record from the President and other high-level officials…stories fed to sympathetic media outlets…yep, sounds a lot like the playbook used by the Bush White House for the run-up to the Iraq War. Except there's no way that the Democrats would ever do something so shady.

    Uahsenaa , July 27, 2016 at 9:38 am

    It's perfectly circuitous and self-serving logic:

    Admin feeds story to crony media –> media report story as if independently sourced –> admin then uses those reports to corroborate its own claims

    It's not like they can reasonably deny anymore that they do this. The DNC leak provides hard evidence. So plant your stories now, before there's a run!

    Carolinian , July 27, 2016 at 8:44 am

    Hey why fix our cybersecurity problems when we can just bomb Russia instead? To a hammer with bombs everything looks like a nail.

    Perhaps the biggest tell regarding our clueless, and mostly geriatric, establishment is their superstitious misunderstanding of modern technology. Every toddler these days probably knows that you don't put controversial material in emails or on cellphones unless you are willing to take the kind of precautions Snowden talks about. The notion of ginning up an international conflict over hacking is like Hollywood's idea of five years in jail for stealing one of Meryl Streep's movies. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

    Plus of course there's the immense irony of the US, home of the NSA, getting huffy about other countries doing the same thing. As always with out elites it's "do as we say, not as we do."

    Vatch , July 27, 2016 at 9:45 am

    No matter who is responsible for the hack, I'm just glad that the information about the DNC corruption is out in the open. I'm disappointed that this didn't happen before June 7, when California, New Jersey, and several other states had their primaries. Better late than never, I guess.

    reslez , July 27, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    1. Before the evidence comes out: "The DNC is secretly sabotaging Sanders? Laughable conspiracy theory!"
    2. After the evidence comes out: "There's nothing new here, everyone knew this was happening, it made no difference anyway! Sore loser."

    So predictable.

    1 Kings , July 27, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    Great comment.

    Was flipping through 'convention' last night and happened upon Bernie's face as they try to thank/bury him. It was the look of resignation to corruption, like Mr. Smith's just before Claude Rains goes extra-Hollywood, tries to off himself, then says 'Arrest me', etc.

    Bernie, you should have just run against both of them, damn the torpedoes.

    Frank , July 27, 2016 at 10:13 am

    It doesn't matter if Russia hacked it or someone else. The really important issue this brings up is why hadn't our press revealed this? Why do we need to here about this from outsiders? And why, now that it has been released, do they spend the bulk of their time speculating on the source and not the content? Me thinks it's because our corporate main stream media, that merely masquerades as a press entity, was complicit.

    tgs , July 27, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    why hadn't our press revealed this?

    I think the leaked emails establish that the DNC was working closely with the 'press'. Anyone who watched CNN during the primary season would not be surprised at the revelation that the 'press' was complicit in the coronation of Hillary.

    Anonymous , July 27, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    The DNCLeaks showed that the DNC (aka the Clinton Machine) was heavily influencing,
    if not totally controlling, much of the mass media, using it to smear HRC's rivals and to
    whitewash her crimes.

    This fascist totalitarian control of the mass media by the DNC/Clinton campaign
    has been exposed but that doesn't mean it has stopped! It hasn't. Ergo, one
    will see minimal to no coverage, or whitewashing or diversionary coverage.

    Jon Paul , July 27, 2016 at 10:16 am

    Why isn't it just as grave a concern that the primary contest of one of the 2 major political parties was rigged to favor one candidate? Heck, people worried more about deflategate.

    craazyboy , July 27, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Yeah. I think that's a Federal crime and the FBI is supposed to investigate….

    https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/pressrel/press-releases/ballotfraud_102710

    flora , July 27, 2016 at 10:28 am

    an aside: "A separate story pointed out that Trump's primary banking relationships are with mid-sized players, and that makes sense too. He's be a third-tier account at a too-big-to-fail banks (see here on how a much richer billionaire was abused by JP Morgan). Trump would get much better service at a smaller institution. "

    From what I've read at NC I think everyone would get much better service at a smaller bank than at a TBTF.

    readerOfTeaLeaves , July 27, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Yves wrote:

    "I joked early on that in the Obama administration that its solution to every problem was better propaganda. What is troubling is how so many other players have emulated that strategy. It's now so routine to spin-doctor aggressively that the elites have lost any sense of whether what they are saying is credible or not. And as a skeptical consumer of media, I find it uncomfortable to be living in an informational hall of mirrors."

    It's no coincidence that trust in institutions is at an all-time low.
    Eroded public trust translates to crappy, Banana Republic economies - and politics so venal that it requires constant deceit to (mal)function.

    On the upside, the dwindling credibility of institutions is providing opportunities for outlets like The Young Turks (via YouTube), which take a lot of time unpacking propaganda and looking for alternative perspectives. Ditto 'The Real News Network' (RNN). And ditto NC.

    WorldBLee , July 27, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    Except that the Young Turks fall for the same anti-Russian BS as the MSM and have tried to tie Trump to Putin.

    MaroonBulldog , July 27, 2016 at 11:37 am

    The Russsians did it?

    When I hear the "reporters" and "newscasters" on our American MSM speak, it reminds me of something Wolfgang Leonhard taught: "Pravda lies in such a a way that not even the opposite of what they say is true."

    Praedor , July 27, 2016 at 11:58 am

    Huh. It is clear and irrefutable that the NSA (ie, the USA) has hacked Germany, France, Britain, Japan, etc, etc, etc, etc. So…since hacking is an "act of war" we are now at war with our allies.

    Yes?

    Or does a war-worthy hack HAVE to originate in Russia (or China) to be an "act of war"? If the USA is doing it it's an act of peacylove?

    craazyboy , July 27, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    please tell me you understand the difference between true love and rape.

    Buttinsky , July 27, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    If the issue is the hack itself and its perpetrator(s), as opposed to the content of the hack, I remain curious about the inattention to this fact: One of the documents in the DNC cache released by Wikileaks was an excel spreadsheet of Trump donors. I haven't heard anyone question the origin of a document that would itself appear to be the product of a hack by the DNC (the only other possibility that comes to mind is a mole inside the Trump campaign). I certainly haven't seen a request by the Trump campaign or anybody else for an FBI investigation of what would seem to be prima facie evidence of a hack by the DNC of Trump computers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030.

    But, then, there's been relative silence, generally, by the DNC with regard to leaks of donor information. At least I haven't seen any PR-ly apology by the DNC, or Trump's organization for that matter, for the insecure storing of donor information and a promise that steps have been taken to make sure it doesn't happen again. Maybe I just missed that public apology. But I also wonder if there isn't a reluctance to draw any attention whatsoever to that now public information.

    craazyboy , July 27, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    I imagine, privately, donors just got awarded double reward points.

    Philip Martin , July 27, 2016 at 1:08 pm

    Trump's affection for Putin and all things Russian has been known for years. In Russia, however, Trump is considered to be clownish. Putin's affection for Trump might best be characterized as condescending. Trump is the preference of the Putin crowd. And why not? Russian oligarch money has been flowing into Trump's coffers for at least a decade. Why? Well, after four bankruptcies, where else is Trump going to borrow money? There is solid evidence of financial ties between Trump advisors and Putin's circle. Try the website Ballotpedia and look up "Carter Page," Trump's advisor on all things Russian. Other examples are out there.

    That said, I would not absolutely eliminate Putin and his operatives of conspiring with hackers to obtain and then release documents that would denigrate the Democratic party and HRC.

    I find it interesting that Trump telegraphed to the world a skeptical view of NATO allies, especially the Putin-coveted Baltics, and signaled that he might not come to their defense if attacked. Those views were expressed in an interview with the New York Times on Thursday, July 21. These comments, predictably, set off alarms all across Europe, and had Republicans scrambling to backpedal. And then the next day, come the DNC leaks.

    And now rumors of Scalia's assassination are being floated again! Distraction after distraction!

    MaroonBulldog , July 27, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    When you see "Trump" spelled in Cyrillic letters, you might think it would be pronounced "Tramp".

    Yves Smith Post author , July 27, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    Stop prattling nonsense.

    KKR, Blackstone, Apollo, etc al, have bankrupted HUNDREDS of companies each. Yet they not only do they have no trouble borrowing money, they are eagerly pursued by Wall Street.

    Trump has never gone bankrupt personally. He had four companies go bankrupt. Trump has started and operated hundreds of corporate entities. That makes his ratio of bankruptcies way lower than average and thus means he's a good credit, and much better than private equity. I'm not about to waste time tracking it down, but the media has already reported on who Trump's regular lender is, and it's a domestic financial institution, but not one of the TBTF banks.

    In addition, I had a major NYC real estate developer/syndicator, a billionaire, in the late 1980s. The early 1990s recession hit NYC real estate very hard and every developer was in serious trouble. My former client and Trump were the only big NYC developers not to have to give up major NY properties to the banks.

    And as far as your NATO remarks are concerned, you've clearly not been paying attention. Trump has been critical of the US role in NATO for months, and has already gotten plenty of heat for that.

    Finally, as even the New York Times was forced to concede, the timing of the hacks was all wrong to be intended to help Trump. It started long before he was a factor on the Republican side.

    Direction , July 27, 2016 at 1:15 pm

    The DNC hired Crowdstrike to get 2 major Russian hacks off the DNC network prior to this guccifer2.0 nonsense.

    You write: "Binney explained to us:
    My problem is that they have not listed intruders or attempted intrusions to the DNC site. I suspect that's because they did a quick and dirty look for known attacks."
    But they have listed the initial intruders, see links below.

    http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack?trk_source=recommended

    https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

    Binny keeps describing how he would check his LAN back in 1991. His experience is that of a dinosaur. This article is a mess, conflating the Hrc email scandal with the DNC scandal. What is at issue, as stated in the FAIR link, is whether the leak to gawker and wiki etc was perpetrated by a lone Romanian hacker or by the Russian government, not whether the DNC was spied upon by the Russian; it was.

    I am not arguing the the Clinton campaign did not figure out how to use this to their advantage, guccifer 2.0 and crowd strike stuff both came out in June but was not the subject of much crowing until now…

    reslez , July 27, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    > not whether the DNC was spied upon by the Russian; it was.

    Based on what evidence? So many blanket statements we're supposed to accept as fact. No.

    Guccifer 1.0, who is Romanian, hacked Sidney Blumenthal's email. Generally speaking, Romanians like many Eastern Europeans hate Russia. Guccifer 1.0 was extradited to the US and made various statements to the press about Clinton's private email server. I'm not aware of anything he said about the DNC.

    Guccifer 2.0 released DNC documents to the public and apparently to WikiLeaks. There is no evidence he is Russian or connected to the Russians.

    Direction , July 28, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Oops my reply posted below. I am not saying he's Russian. I'm not sure he's the original hacker either. You obviously did not read the links. Here is a third.
    http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/07/clinton-campaign-email-accounts-were-targeted-by-russians-too/

    Anonymous , July 27, 2016 at 1:55 pm

    Isn't there a typo in the following:

    "But mainstream media say it couldn't: http://www.businessinsider.com/dnc-hack-russian-government-2016-7

    The mainstream media is also trumpeting the meme that Russia was behind the hack, because it wants to help Trump get elected. In other words, the media is trying to deflect how damaging the email leaks are to Clinton's character by trying to somehow associate Trump with Putin. See e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/kremlin-donald-trump-vladimir-putin.html "

    don't you mean MSM wants to get Clinton elected, not Trump?

    MaroonBulldog , July 27, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    Reply to "Anonymous" at 1:55 pm

    think the sentence was trying to express the idea that "Russia" "wants to help Trump get elected–the "it" referring to "Russia" and not to "mainstream media"–as that idea is the predicate of a meme that the mainstream media is trumpeting.

    Always better to repeat the noun you are referring to, rather than use a pronoun, where use of a pronoun could create ambiguity, as "it" (or should I have said, " such use" ?) did here.

    Direction , July 27, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    I'm not saying he is Russian.

    sunny129 , July 27, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Did any one see the recent docu ' Zero days' re STUXNET worm (invented by combined efforts of US _NSA,CIA + Israeli intelligent +?UK) introduced into the NET to take down the Nulc program in IRAN!

    There is fascinating discussion and the threat of cyber terrorism from any one from any where to the infra structures – Energy grid, transportation ++

    It has lot of bearing on this Hillary E-mail gate scandal

    Brian g , July 27, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    Why are you referencing ,Hillary Clinton emails when the issue is DNC emails?

    Reports the Russins broke into the DNC mail servers have Ben floating around since June

    https://www.wired.com/2016/06/hack-brief-russias-breach-dnc-trumps-dirt/

    What their reasons are is unknown but it is pretty clear that thy broke into the DNC Mail servers

    Yves Smith Post author , July 28, 2016 at 12:17 am

    Did you bother reading the comments earlier in this thread by JacobiteInTraining and Hacker, who confirm that the claims don't stand up to scrutiny?

    And you appear not to have been following this at all. Right after the story broke, a hacker who called himself Guccifer 2.0 posted two sets of DNC docs and said more were coming, which was presumed even then to be a Wikileaks releases (Assange had separately said lots of material on Clinton was coming).

    ian , July 28, 2016 at 2:08 am

    Because Hillary's campaign has insisted that national security was not compromised with her use of a homebrew email server. Which would be the higher value target to a foreign intelligence service – email she used as sec state, or the DNC server? Which would probably have better security – the homebrew server, or the DNC server? If you buy into the idea that the Russians hacked the DNC server, you have to admit there is a _strong_ probability they hacked her personal server as well. I find it kindof amusing that her campaign, in it's response to Trump today, is basically making the same point (even though it hasn't sunk in yet).
    That's why it's relevant.

    Brian g , July 28, 2016 at 8:50 am

    I can't speak to what security Hillary had in place. But I can say with 100% certainty that it is I direly easier to secure a small network for one or two people over a large network that has 100s or 1000s.

    I have been working in network security for 20 years. I guarantee that I could build a small network that would be close to impossible to break into regardless of the ability of the attacker.

    So I reject the premise that we should presume that Hillary was hacked

    Yves Smith Post author , July 28, 2016 at 9:11 am

    I suggest you get up to speed on this story before making assumptions and assertions based on them. It has been widely reported that Hillary's tech had no experience in network security whatsoever, so the issue re the size of the network is irrelevant.

    Bryan Pagliano's resume , which the State Department recently turned over to Judicial Watch, shows he had neither experience nor certification in protecting email systems against cyber security threats

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/12/documents-show-hillarys-email-technician-was-underqualified-for-the-job/

    His main qualification seems to be that he had been an IT director for the Clinton campaign in 2006. CNN points out he was hired at State as a "political appointee":

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/bryan-pagliano-hillary-clinton-server-state-department/

    Brian G , July 28, 2016 at 10:04 am

    Again, irrelevant to my point. The fact that the DNC mail servers were hacked does NOT mean that Clinton's mail servers were hacked. Clinton's mail servers may have been hacked and Assange is claiming that he has documents that prove it was. But, to date, no evidence has been provided to show that her mail servers were hacked.

    What we DO know is that the State Department mail servers were hacked, at least twice and at least once by the Russians.

    Regardless, none of this has anything to do with whether the Russians hacked the DNC mail servers and whether they gave that information to Wikileaks.

    Crowdstrike , Fiedlis Cybersecurity , and Mandiant all independently corroborated that it was the Russians. The German government corroborated that an SSL cert found on the DNC servers was the same cert that was used to infiltrate the German Parliament.

    guccifer 2.0 is some guy that made a claim that made a claim the day AFTER Crowdstrike released their report. He/She offered no evidence to support their claim.

    So perhaps 3 different professional IT security companies are incompetent, despite all evidence to the contrary, or Guccifer 2.0 is just some guy trying to take credit for something they didn't do or it is a Russian agent trying to actively distract people from the actual culprits.

    It is possible that the Russians weren't the ones to give the docs to wikileaks. But they almost certainly were the ones who perpetrated an attack into the DNC mail servers. That in itself is a huge problem.

    washunate , July 28, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    I'm curious, is your background on the computer side or the policy side? You're making some leaps where I think I follow your meaning, but the actual logic/evidence/warrant isn't there, so I'm not sure exactly what you're claiming.

    Aside from questions of whether elements of the Russian government attacked the DNC, for example, you imply that the Russians were the only people attacking the DNC. Do you have any technical reason to conclude that? Or is it just sloppy sentence construction, and you didn't mean to imply that? Because at a policy level, it seems a reasonably solid understanding of the world we inhabit that elements of many foreign governments attack US computer systems, both for active penetration of documents and for more passive denial of service by legitimate users. For goodness sakes, elements of the USFG itself attack US computer systems.

    mrtmbrnmn , July 27, 2016 at 11:56 pm

    Anyone who can stand up straight for 5 minutes without falling over backwards and has half a brain and an ounce of institutional memory knows it wasn't the Russkies who dropped the email dime on the DNC shenanigans…

    It was "Curveball"…!!

    ian , July 28, 2016 at 2:32 am

    I thought Trump's comments today about wanting the Russians to find Hillary's emails were genius. He fans the flames of this whole Russia-Putin thing on day 3 of the Dem convention and what are the media outlets talking about? Plus, Hillary's campaign, in it's rebuttal to Trump, is indirectly reminding everyone that her homebrew server was putting national security at risk.

    This whole Russia-Putin connection thing won't work – it really isn't that believable in the first place, the timing is suspect, and a lot of people in this country really don't care that deeply about Putin one way or the other.

    [Jul 28, 2016] I am missing a white sock from the laundry I did over the weekend. I know Putin did it

    www.moonofalabama.org

    Bob In Portland | Jul 25, 2016 12:18:47 PM | 88

    I am missing a white sock from the laundry I did over the weekend. I know Putin did it, I'm just not sure how he broke into my basement to steal it. All the other sock-stealing suspects, Hussein, Khadafy, bin Laden, they've all been killed. So it has to be Putin.

    [Jul 28, 2016] Putin is God -- it is well-known scientific fact

    Notable quotes:
    "... Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing. ..."
    "... Hold on there, Clintonites - Both I and the World remember seeing Madame Clinton herself hand over to Putin that gigantic red Reset button. ..."
    "... So now, of course - he's resetting EVERYTHING! And you, dear lady, you gave it to him! I rest my case. ..."
    "... Putin is god--it is well-known scientific fact. He actually controls the weather and even Earth's rotation speed. Russians always knew it, now, with the advancement of information technologies (also controlled by Putin--ah yes, he, not Al Gore, invented the internet) decadent West can witness his powers and omnipresence. Remember Katrina? Putin! Remember the water main break in NYT--also Putin. I had a constipation last week--damn Putin. Got rid of constipation and back to normal BMs--Putin's hand was definitely in it. If you look attentively at HRC for 20+ minutes you will see Putin's image surfacing on her face. ..."
    "... In an interview Andrew Bacevich spoke about what he saw at various institutes, academic, etc. conferences he attended as an academic which I believe has effected his later known books. He noted among other things, that there was an inability for empathic thinking. He did not mean sympathy, but rather the act of trying to understand the actions of other people. I think the phrase is to treat people as rational actors. As horrific as Hitler was, historians dug into his motivations for example, for his invasion of the Soviet Union. ..."
    "... The propaganda demonization of Putin and the Russians is part of the same playbook republicans and the neocons used to fertilize the field of popular belief for the justification of war and invasion of Iraq to the American people (but now followed by democrats). Every one of those articles is a bit of propaganda manure which will eventually sprout the seeds of conflict and war. ..."
    "... What I find alarming about all of this Putin bashing and Hillary using it in her campaign is that I am seeing many of my acquaintances who identify as liberal/progressive Democrats are becoming more and more anti-Russian. ..."
    "... I like a good meme as much as the next guy, but there wasn't any putin-did-it in that Reuters article about the ferry accident in NY. ..."
    "... 'But Russia is secretly plotting even more nefarious schemes. Putin is infiltrating Europe. And not only Europe.' US regime would never infiltrate europe...its already there! ..."
    "... All I can say here is ... this is Sheer Comedy Gold. Hollywood couldn't make this stuff up. ..."
    "... PS - anyone know what Putin does on the seventh day? ..."
    "... @60 He really is versatile. No sooner had he finished rigging the Brexit vote than he was off to France in a truck. Then he was spotted in Kabul. This week he has been busy making trouble in Germany and he still finds time to fake HRC's emails. The man must be stopped! ..."
    "... Indeed. Democrats have become hysterical and unhinged in all things regarding Clinton. I have been reading a few Democrat partisan sites. With the DNC blaming Putin/Russians for the release of the DNC emails, the partisans are demanding what amounts to McCarthy era witch hunts, and some strong immediate NATO action against the Russians for the evil act. One supporter had a posting showing how the Russians plan to invade the Baltics with graphics showing the invasion route -- good grief. It is curious to see that those not buying the propaganda are drawing comparisons to the witch hunts of the 1950s'. ..."
    "... When I post or talk to partisan Dems I don't get accused of supporting Trump but called a Putin lackey/stooge. ..."
    "... Thanks for quote-will use it . You did something readers of anti-Russian/Putin propaganda don't do. Actually listen to or read what Putin says. I am still puzzled even though I shouldn't be when I read descriptions of Putin in the Western media, and then read what he actually said or acted on: two people from two different planets. I was listening to Stephen Cohen, and he said the same thing. Nobody bothers to read what Putin says, forget his actions. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    Zico | Jul 24, 2016 10:42:09 AM | 1
    M of A - Clinton Asserts Putin Influence On Trump - After Taking Russian Bribes

    Off topic but still within context of the West's "lets bash Russia/Putin at every chance we get"..

    Seems the BBC and their assorted groupies just got eggs all over their collective faces after the IOC ruled that Russian athletes can compete in the olympics. The British press are crying foul - dunno if they're afraid of losing to Russian athlete or something.

    This whole doping thing stunk from day one.. All the accusers pretends they never dope before. But then, anything to humiliate Russia and Putin will do. How many American athletes have been caught doping - yet nobody called for a blanket ban on the American Olympic team. The hypocrisy is just beyond stupid!!!

    Watch this space, won't be long before we see a campaign to oust the current OIC chief..lol

    dh | Jul 24, 2016 12:07:52 PM | 7
    okie farmer posted this on the US election thread...

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/23/pers-j23.html

    Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing.

    Only Jedi Knights can stop him.

    fast freddy | Jul 24, 2016 12:10:28 PM | 8
    Clinton/Kaine certainly confident that the MSM will not report. For all the money given to the Clinton's it didn't prevent the Ukraine disasters. Of course, Ukraine may not have been a concern among the particular oligarchs who made these bribes.
    juliania | Jul 24, 2016 1:49:12 PM | 15
    Hold on there, Clintonites - Both I and the World remember seeing Madame Clinton herself hand over to Putin that gigantic red Reset button.

    C'mon, World - you SAW that, right?

    So now, of course - he's resetting EVERYTHING! And you, dear lady, you gave it to him! I rest my case.

    SmoothieX12 | Jul 24, 2016 2:42:26 PM | 27
    Putin is god--it is well-known scientific fact. He actually controls the weather and even Earth's rotation speed. Russians always knew it, now, with the advancement of information technologies (also controlled by Putin--ah yes, he, not Al Gore, invented the internet) decadent West can witness his powers and omnipresence. Remember Katrina? Putin! Remember the water main break in NYT--also Putin. I had a constipation last week--damn Putin. Got rid of constipation and back to normal BMs--Putin's hand was definitely in it. If you look attentively at HRC for 20+ minutes you will see Putin's image surfacing on her face.
    Erelis | Jul 24, 2016 5:19:58 PM | 41
    In an interview Andrew Bacevich spoke about what he saw at various institutes, academic, etc. conferences he attended as an academic which I believe has effected his later known books. He noted among other things, that there was an inability for empathic thinking. He did not mean sympathy, but rather the act of trying to understand the actions of other people. I think the phrase is to treat people as rational actors. As horrific as Hitler was, historians dug into his motivations for example, for his invasion of the Soviet Union.

    So we get with Putin not a rational understanding of what he does and why, but rather cartoon psychological and religious explanations which cannot be argued against as they defy rationality. How can one argue against people calling Putin evil as that person has not invoked a rational argument.

    The propaganda demonization of Putin and the Russians is part of the same playbook republicans and the neocons used to fertilize the field of popular belief for the justification of war and invasion of Iraq to the American people (but now followed by democrats). Every one of those articles is a bit of propaganda manure which will eventually sprout the seeds of conflict and war.

    ToivoS | Jul 24, 2016 7:07:06 PM | 48
    What I find alarming about all of this Putin bashing and Hillary using it in her campaign is that I am seeing many of my acquaintances who identify as liberal/progressive Democrats are becoming more and more anti-Russian. By the time she becomes president there will be a majority of Democrats clamoring for war against Russia. This is something to worry about. Recall that liberal Democrat Truman got us involved in the Korean war and it was liber LBJ that led us to war in Vietnam. I recall very clearly how the liberal press in the US was advocating for and supporting war in Vietnam between 1964 and 1968. The liberalists of all liberal Democrats Hubert Humphrey was leading that charge.

    Democratic Party partisans are losing their common sense in this effort to back Clinton. A year ago I could carry on rational discussion with those I know about how unwise our Ukraine policy is -- today when I try to defend Russia I am accused of backing Trump.

    Akira | Jul 24, 2016 7:09:57 PM | 49
    Hello Comrades,

    Since the stupid secret encryption rings don't work after the last update, I have prepared our usual weekly PUTIN CONSPIRACY SITREP on the web:

    https://4threvolutionarywar.wordpress.com/2016/07/24/14066/

    We are winning! Rub it in!

    ruralito | Jul 24, 2016 7:53:33 PM | 54
    I like a good meme as much as the next guy, but there wasn't any putin-did-it in that Reuters article about the ferry accident in NY.
    brian | Jul 24, 2016 8:35:27 PM | 57
    'But Russia is secretly plotting even more nefarious schemes. Putin is infiltrating Europe. And not only Europe.' US regime would never infiltrate europe...its already there!
    Jen | Jul 24, 2016 9:02:42 PM | 59
    All I can say here is ... this is Sheer Comedy Gold. Hollywood couldn't make this stuff up.

    Thank you B.

    PS - anyone know what Putin does on the seventh day?

    likklemore | Jul 24, 2016 9:18:34 PM | 60
    @ Jen 59

    PS - anyone know what Putin does on the seventh day?

    He refreshes, reboots his energy and surveys all that he has done; here, there and everywhere on planets known or yet to be discovered.

    Yesterday we had severe thunderstorms. Mr. Putin made mischief.

    dh | Jul 24, 2016 9:45:37 PM | 62
    @60 He really is versatile. No sooner had he finished rigging the Brexit vote than he was off to France in a truck. Then he was spotted in Kabul. This week he has been busy making trouble in Germany and he still finds time to fake HRC's emails. The man must be stopped!
    V. Arnold | Jul 24, 2016 9:53:00 PM | 63
    SmoothieX12 | Jul 24, 2016 2:42:26 PM | 27

    Yes, yes, it's all true; Vladimir Putin, master of the universe; the Whirlwind; omnipotent; everywhere and nowhere all at the same time.
    I'm so glad people are waking up to reality. :-)

    Erelis | Jul 24, 2016 10:23:02 PM | 64
    @ ToivoS 48

    Indeed. Democrats have become hysterical and unhinged in all things regarding Clinton. I have been reading a few Democrat partisan sites. With the DNC blaming Putin/Russians for the release of the DNC emails, the partisans are demanding what amounts to McCarthy era witch hunts, and some strong immediate NATO action against the Russians for the evil act. One supporter had a posting showing how the Russians plan to invade the Baltics with graphics showing the invasion route -- good grief. It is curious to see that those not buying the propaganda are drawing comparisons to the witch hunts of the 1950s'.

    When I post or talk to partisan Dems I don't get accused of supporting Trump but called a Putin lackey/stooge.

    @ Relis 44

    Thanks for quote-will use it . You did something readers of anti-Russian/Putin propaganda don't do. Actually listen to or read what Putin says. I am still puzzled even though I shouldn't be when I read descriptions of Putin in the Western media, and then read what he actually said or acted on: two people from two different planets. I was listening to Stephen Cohen, and he said the same thing. Nobody bothers to read what Putin says, forget his actions.

    Putin should hire an agent and get a role on the TV series SHIELD as the new head of HYDRA. And then attend comic-cons giving out autographs.

    jfl | Jul 25, 2016 1:25:28 AM | 70

    Fort-Russ has the video of ' Putin's full speech ' at St. Petersburg International Economic Forum - 2016 with subtitles, I transcribed the subtitles , if any one else is interested in reading what he actually said on the subject of the US auto-missile defense in Romania and Poland.

    [Jul 28, 2016] Unless it is fully disclosed what Rodchenkov is doing in the United States, who is paying him …and that some of his evidence is made public….then the IOC should discard this entire WADA and Mclaren report

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Eric : July 23, 2016 at 11:03 am
    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/352656-sochi-doping-scandal-russia/

    Probably one of the best pieces I have read on the doping scandal…..it does highlight what a nonsensical approach it is to punish summer Olympic athletes for Winter Olympic "offences" (which the author knocks down comprehensively).

    This is now both Browder and Rodchenkov, …2 guys punished for offences in Russia, both flee to the USA, both have undetermined locations of residence, both have their bollocks supported in massive PR campaigns by the American state, both can make criminal allegations… but both are unindictable…….and both are allowed to cause harm to the Russian state.

    Unless it is fully disclosed what Rodchenkov is doing in the United States, who is paying him …and that some of his "evidence" is made public….then the IOC should discard this entire WADA and Mclaren report

    marknesop , July 23, 2016 at 10:04 pm
    That is a good piece, and it very effectively makes an important point. He's right that this is an angle on it that nobody has covered. It will be interesting to see what comes of the Speigel report on new discoveries relating to doping at Beijing and in the UK. But of course they would never ban any entire country but Russia.

    This is bringing the real haters out of their holes, the ones who reacted with jubilation to the Russian ban. I can't protest the decision by ignoring the Olympics, because I don't pay any attention to them anyway, only checking the medals standings once in awhile online. Now I won't be interested enough even to do that. But I think there is going to be a significant decline in interest in the Games this time around; that's unfortunate for Brazil, because Washington is agitating for the Games to be a failure to discredit Brazil, as well. But in the end I think the effect will be positive – Brazil will learn a valuable lesson, and hopefully the blame for spoiling the Olympics as a sports venue will be laid at America's door where it belongs. If America cannot own something totally and brag about how thoroughly it is under its control, it must piss all over it to ruin it for everyone else.

    Drutten , July 24, 2016 at 9:47 am

    http://theduran.com/people-behind-ioc-decision/

    This guy nails it, regarding the alleged Russian doping. Like I said a week ago or so, all of this was a way for Rodchenkov and the Stepanovs to secure some sort of future career after having been disgraced in Russia. That's all there is too it. I wonder if the IOC noticed this in their decision NOT to ban Russia from Rio, or if something else was at play.

    marknesop , July 24, 2016 at 12:54 pm
    Yes, most of it is a reprint of the Oriental Review piece. I'm so confused now that I don't know what is what. Is Russia banned from the Summer Olympics, or just its Track Team, or anyone or everyone? There's so much conflicting testimony. I think that Russia should not attend, as a protest to the way it has been treated, but as I mentioned before, it will be the last chance for some of them to set a new world record. That's balanced against Washington's probable heckling from the gallery and the probability that American officials will conspire to rig samples. Washington simply cannot be trusted, and this latest example of its perfidy was a grievous overstep which is building international sympathy for Russia. That will be imperiled if Russia participates. But of course it is up to the athletes.
    Moscow Exile , July 26, 2016 at 4:55 am
    http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/109793/11206178.ae0/0_11adfa_aad3b3a7_orig
    A veritable icon of US sporting prowess and down-to-earth, honest competitiveness!

    BBC: "WADA утратила пробы американских спортсменов с 1990 по 2016 год"

    "As a result of the negligent actions of an employee of the cleaning company, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has lost all samples of American athletes who played for team USA since 1990", reports the BBC.

    Cortes , July 26, 2016 at 10:20 am

    Meanwhile an innocent Russian falls victim to the hysteria:

    https://tyronetribulations.com/2016/07/24/russian-man-stripped-of-1972-washingbay-sports-wheelbarrow-race-medal/

    marknesop , July 26, 2016 at 10:40 am
    Brilliant! marknesop , July 26, 2016 at 10:32 am
    That must be humor, because I can't find any mention of it anywhere in English; that would blow the lid right off the whole thing.
    yalensis , July 26, 2016 at 5:52 pm
    "As a result of the negligent actions of an employee of the cleaning company,…"
    I think that was my brother-in-law, he's a real screw-up.
    Always blame the cleaning crew.

    [Jul 28, 2016] The tireless weaponiser does it again -- he weaponized hillary compaigh

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Cortes , July 24, 2016 at 2:49 pm
    Comedy gold:

    http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160724/1043565225/trump-putin-hillary-wikileaks-dnc.html

    The tireless weaponiser does it again.

    marknesop , July 24, 2016 at 2:58 pm
    Yes, I wouldn't have believed it if I had not seen it with my own eyes : Putin again. The Russian state obviously does not give him enough to do. He seems to have plenty of time on his hands to meddle around the world and to tirelessly work to thwart that nice Mrs. Clinton's plans. There is a real danger that Putin will suffer some sort of embolism in a laughing fit. What can you do but laugh? The United States government is so ridiculous, how humiliating for Americans.

    As usual, it escapes unnoticed that Russian hackers must have gained access to Mrs. Clinton's illegal email server, which she was repeatedly warned against having in the first place, yet pretended various authorities had signed off on it and she was allowed to have it. She denied anyone else had gained access to it but now Putin is rolling around in a pile of her emails; how is that possible? She therefore deliberately and willfully put American security at risk. How does the FBI not see this? Would it have happened if she had used the government's server as she was supposed to do? Well, how many hacks has Putin offered up from that system? Pavlo Svolochenko , July 24, 2016 at 6:28 pm

    If she treats all her staff like she used to treat the secret service, then the source of the leaks is probably much closer to home.
    Cortes , July 26, 2016 at 4:17 am
    Sauron as Clark Kent (that's Clark Kent, Pulitzer prize winner to you mortals):

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/will-putin-get-pulitzer/ri15861

    [Jul 28, 2016] Polish ministers are blaming Russia for Volyn massacres but situation is much worse -- looks like he uses time travel to different centuries freely

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Warren , July 24, 2016 at 7:09 am

    Published on 24 Jul 2016
    Polish lawmakers have adopted a resolution calling the massacres committed between 1943 and 1945 by Ukrainian nationalists against Polish people, genocide.

    The document makes July 11 a day of remembrance for the victims of the atrocity.

    marknesop , July 24, 2016 at 12:40 pm
    That won't please Banderaland.

    kirill , July 24, 2016 at 6:56 pm

    No problems, Polish ministers are blaming Russia:

    http://en.news-4-u.ru/the-minister-of-defence-of-poland-accused-the-volyn-massacre-russia.html

    marknesop , July 24, 2016 at 7:03 pm
    I wonder how the lurking embryo of Putin could be tied to it. Jen , July 25, 2016 at 5:10 am
    According to The Daily Mail, it would not have been beyond the realms of possibility for Putin to have had a hand in organising the Volyn massacre. In a past life, he sat for Leonardo da Vinci and his portrait now hangs in the Louvre.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3361468/Evidence-suggests-Vladimir-Putin-immortal-thanks-Russians-discovering-secret-time-travel.html

    yalensis , July 25, 2016 at 5:17 am
    One of the commenters pointed out that Putin also served as the model (in 1350) for "Satan" in this detail of "The Last Judgement" by medieval painter Jacopo da Bologna:

    marknesop , July 25, 2016 at 9:43 am
    Don't forget that he is also a skin-changer who can become a dog when he chooses . No wonder he inspires such obsessive behavior.
    colliemum , July 25, 2016 at 11:30 am
    Putin can change into a dog, at will?
    Hah! Now I know why I've found him so simpatico , being a Dog h.c. myself … Cortes , July 26, 2016 at 12:07 am
    The Lord Ismay referred to earlier by Warren as first SecGen of NATO was known to his pals (!) as "Pug"…
    cartman , July 25, 2016 at 5:43 am
    yalensis , July 25, 2016 at 3:57 pm
    The man in the picture is Giovanni Arnolfini , but actually a time-travelling Putin in disguise. His purpose in going back in time to Italy was to impregnate the lady in green. This was the year 1434.
    The ultimate goal was to give birth to Antonio Grimani , who went on to cause several colossal military defeats, in favor of Ottoman Turkey.
    This was Putin's way of changing history and propping up the Ottoman Empire back in the day. Presumably as a counter-weight to Western Europe.
    Playing a very deep and very long game, which is little understood.
    Oh, and the little dog was in on it too. 'cause remember that Putin can talk with the animals.
    colliemum , July 25, 2016 at 10:37 pm
    Heh. In future I shall look out for dogs into which Putin has shape-shifted.
    there's at least one in my neighbourhood of which I'm aware of …

    (At least he's not having any ruck with collies …)

    Jen , July 25, 2016 at 4:18 pm
    Putin must have been an evil Time Lord in disguise – The Master perhaps? – and the dog his trusty alien companion who asks dumb questions (so that TV viewers understand the plot). 'Cos you know, Time Lords don't time-travel alone.
    Jen , July 25, 2016 at 4:15 pm
    In a former life Putin was a 19th-century Greek military hero called Thanassoulas Valtinos:

    … which would conflict with Putin having been some other famous 19th-century figure since Valtinos' year of birth was 1802.

    marknesop , July 25, 2016 at 10:24 pm
    He's like the original 'Highlander'; immortal, pretending to die every couple of decades, and coming back as some new guy. But in that movie, if you put all the names together and ran them through a sophisticated computer program, it would reveal that they are all anagrams of one another, and are really all the same name with the letters rearranged. Too clever by half, Mr. Putin! Or should I call you Napassoulasvalintsocanoline?
    colliemum , July 25, 2016 at 10:40 pm
    And just like the great chess player he is, he also fought on both sides in yon war, see here:
    yalensis , July 26, 2016 at 4:43 am
    Jen is on to something about Putin being a Timelord. But I don't think he is the Master, because the Master is COMPLETELY nuts in the head, he is, like, LA-LA-LA-LALLALALALA!, and the Master's schemes are always of the most hare-brained variety.

    The Master will concoct some uber-complex plot to rule the universe which, after the twists and turns, basically boils down to cloning more Daleks. And in the end is always hoisted upon his own petard. Putin does not show any of this kind of impulsiveness, except in the case of nuzzling children's bellies.

    Instead, I believe there is evidence that Putin is Lord Rassilon himself.

    This is why the Presdient of Russia wears the Belt of Rassilon, the Tie of Rassilon, and even the Watch of Rassilon.

    [Jul 28, 2016] Robert Parry slaps the NYT, Bellingcat and others around over analysis of photos in their struggle to attribute blame for MH17:

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Robert Parry slaps the NYT, Bellingcat and others around over analysis of photos in their struggle to attribute blame for MH17:

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/will-nyt-retract-latest-anti-russian-fraud/ri15814

    [Jul 27, 2016] Clinton is everything thats repugnant in Western politics.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton and the Democrats have far more to worry about from Wikileaks than they do disaffected Sanders supporters. ..."
    "... The game is rigged and the house always win. You should know that by now. ..."
    "... the neoconservatives do not support or trust Trump or anyone who makes nice with Putin. Hillary is a dependable hawk. Victoria Nuland worked in her State Dept. The empire will continue with Hillary in the White House. ..."
    "... The other reason she is vulnerable to Trump is because she is almost as loathed as he is but unlike Trump she doesn't generate the adulation to counter it. ..."
    "... I think the election could be compared to the EU referendum because just like the EU it's very hard to feel much enthusiasm for Clinton, wheras just like the Brexit campaign, Trump generates strong support with a bunch of easy answers and cheap soundbites ..."
    "... Even Bill Clinton chose someone other than Hillary ... shouldn't we? ..."
    "... If Trump is elected. who knows what will happen, but we know what will happen if the Clintons are elected. I will vote for Trump and watch the events and hope that the DNC fragments and then watch as a revolution and a rebuilding of our political system begins. I do not anymore wars. With the Clintons, there will be a continuation and new wars, perhaps a conflict with Russia and mankind will vanish. ..."
    "... Obama didn't equal huge positive change, so why do we think Trump can create huge negative change ??? ..."
    "... There won't be a video, Goldman Sachs own her. And with either Clinton or Trump, we will still be living under the dictate of Wall Street. ..."
    "... Once again this election is proof positive that you BUY elections. The masters of the DNC ordained that Clinton represent them and they were so insulated in their rich little world that they failed to recognize that she is unelectable; the republican turnout will be higher than it has ever been in history, so polarizing is she. People like me, poor people who crave change, will NOT vote for banks so, by default, Trump wins. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    secretsquirrel72 , 2016-07-27 15:36:40
    Clinton is everything that's repugnant in Western politics.
    Adil Oyango -> Joel Marcuson , 2016-07-27 19:53:07
    If Bernie won the nomination, and Clinton gave him 'belated and tepid support', he would still win the election by a large margin. Which is testament to Clinton's ineptitude as a politician
    badcat , 2016-07-27 15:45:37
    Yep, Clinton is campaigning in a way that increases Trump's chances, and she must know that. Why can't the Guardian have more columns like this one?
    RooseveltDem , 2016-07-27 15:48:14
    Clinton and the Democrats have far more to worry about from Wikileaks than they do disaffected Sanders supporters.
    Drastich , 2016-07-27 15:48:46

    I had hoped Obama would deliver genuine economic change – but that didn't happen. Before becoming a journalist, I even moved to Pennsylvania for a couple of months to volunteer for Barack Obama's campaign. I was enamored by his intelligence and the beautiful ways he wrote and spoke about race. But I was also thrilled (naively) that Obama seemed to get his money from small donors, and that he might break Wall Street's stranglehold on the Democrats.

    The game is rigged and the house always win. You should know that by now.

    JackGC -> MalleusSacerdotum , 2016-07-27 17:08:02
    George won the vote in Florida because Cubans in Dade and Broward counties voted for him 4-1 over Gore. Why do you think she went to Miami last week and her V.P. is fluent in Spanish?

    Latinos and women will vote in the tens of millions for Hillary. Plus, the neoconservatives do not support or trust Trump or anyone who makes nice with Putin. Hillary is a dependable hawk. Victoria Nuland worked in her State Dept. The empire will continue with Hillary in the White House.

    Antagonym , 2016-07-27 15:54:15
    Sanders would never have lost to Trump.
    Hillary is incredibly vulnerable to Trump.

    The Media and the DNC's obsession with making sure that Hillary won may go down as one of the greatest mistakes in American history.

    Obviously she can win. But Sanders looks infinitely more capable of beating Trump in the states where it's going to be dog fight. Whereas Hillary represents everything Trump has specialised in opposing with such great success.

    Ezajur Antagonym , 2016-07-27 20:35:53
    Sanders would have brushed Trump off like a fly and peeled off large parts of his blue collar support. And Rep leaders would blush and giggle when discussing his integrity and honesty. But instead we get Hillary and her baggage train. Lousy.
    extrapolator Antagonym , 2016-07-27 20:43:33

    Whereas Hillary represents everything Trump has specialised in opposing with such great success.

    Very good point.

    The other reason she is vulnerable to Trump is because she is almost as loathed as he is but unlike Trump she doesn't generate the adulation to counter it.

    I think the election could be compared to the EU referendum because just like the EU it's very hard to feel much enthusiasm for Clinton, wheras just like the Brexit campaign, Trump generates strong support with a bunch of easy answers and cheap soundbites.

    If the Democrats are to bring about a different outcome they need to recognise just how bad their candidate is and really concentrate on running an anti-Trump campaign. As I see it it's the only they can win.

    GRBnative -> Antagonym , 2016-07-27 22:24:22
    Even Bill Clinton chose someone other than Hillary ... shouldn't we?
    Axrivers , 2016-07-27 15:54:37
    If Trump is elected. who knows what will happen, but we know what will happen if the Clintons are elected. I will vote for Trump and watch the events and hope that the DNC fragments and then watch as a revolution and a rebuilding of our political system begins. I do not anymore wars. With the Clintons, there will be a continuation and new wars, perhaps a conflict with Russia and mankind will vanish.
    Kevin Skilling , 2016-07-27 15:56:15
    Hopefully trump gets elected and puts Hilary on trial like he's promised...
    bluepanther -> SaguaroRex , 2016-07-27 18:42:22
    Poor whites in the U.S. are not voting for the "Left" because they have been dismissed, if not vilified, by the cosmopolitan luvvies of the Democratic Party who are in thrall to every trendy identity politics of the moment.
    Drastich , 2016-07-27 15:58:21
    The elections are the X-Factor theatre for us lot every 4/5 years.

    The shadow government (Wall Street/global corporations/war machine) always remains the same throughout the decades, regardless of the rolling red/blue figurehead.

    You can't get anywhere near the top job without being in the pocket of the kingmakers.

    If only you could take the money out of politics. Maybe in a parallel universe we'll have grown up sufficiently to understand that it's absolutely this that kills any hope of democracy.

    jgw791, 2016-07-27 16:01:13

    Would a Trump presidency be a disaster? Yes. Would it cause all manner of economic, legal, political and moral crises? Definitely. Yup. Would a good chunk of Trump voters – even angry white Trump voters – grow to regret their votes? No doubt.

    Would poor people and people of color – especially immigrants, those assumed to be immigrants and Muslims – pay the highest price?

    Why would it be a disaster ?

    Would it cause all manner of economic, legal, political and moral crises?

    Would poor people and people of color – especially immigrants, those assumed to be immigrants and Muslims – pay the highest price?

    I don't think you can categorically say it would be a disaster, any policy would still need to be voted through, and congress isn't suddenly going to change based on the President.

    You thought Obama was going to change everything for the better, but he couldn't due to the restrictions of power on a president, so why do people think Trump is suddenly going to have unlimited power.

    Obama didn't equal huge positive change, so why do we think Trump can create huge negative change ???

    RavenGodiva , 2016-07-27 16:04:57
    Bernie actually brought in the young crowd who frankly sees Clinton as an establishment dragging the sack candidate and would have never voted for her. Ron Paul did the same for Republicans.

    He did actually start a conversation about what it means to be a socialist and have all the great ideas and no way to pay for them, except raise taxes.

    Neither Bernie or Hillary have a response to get people employed. Their answer is to send people to school till they actually want to drop out of the perpetual education carousel and try and get a job.

    I wouldn't consider the same old steal (tax) the working stiffs money from them under a different acronym (slush fund) a viable plan.

    PotholeKid , 2016-07-27 16:06:46
    At last some rational commentary coming from the Guardian. The democratic party nominated Hillary Clinton last night and elected Donald Trump.. Blame Clinton, Wasserman and the rest of the crooked DNC cabal for what may well be the disintegration for the Democratic Party...
    Madranon , 2016-07-27 16:14:44
    If Hillary Clinton hadn't been married to Bill Clinton she would have come nowhere, she wouldn't have been a senator, the same principal as the Bush legacy, where would GWBush have got in the selection process if his father hadn't have been pulling strings. The US needs a president on merit, not who they are related to or married to. It is like a monarchy, just what the American revolution was carried out to escape from.
    Curt Chaffee , 2016-07-27 16:16:55
    There really is only one party at the Federal level and that is the $ party. The rest is just a carnival con game with the banners and shouting. The truth is that all of us but the very rich, have been abandoned by what is supposed to be representative govt. Sanders supporters have learned a hard lesson, that you can't reform this level of corruption from inside the system.
    Atlant , 2016-07-27 16:20:49
    Another interesting aspect will be the Wall Street speeches that no one has mentioned for a while.

    Clinton still refuses to disclose anything about those but now, she's up against the very people to whom those speeches were delivered. They not only have transcripts, they doubtless have VIDEO and that video will probably surface at the least-convenient time for Clinton.

    circuit Atlant , 2016-07-27 16:32:02
    There won't be a video, Goldman Sachs own her. And with either Clinton or Trump, we will still be living under the dictate of Wall Street.
    stderr2 , 2016-07-27 16:27:57
    > the Democrats seem bent on putting up people and policies that
    > will redistribute money to Wall Street and ignore the 99% when their
    > base been screaming at them to stop this.
    > Americans might not regret casting a vote for Trump until it's too late.
    >
    One of the policies that Trump advocates is less of a seeming oneness with Wall Street. If Obama couldn't divorce himself of that sort of thing, why do you think that Hillary Big Banks Pay Me Big Bucks For Speeches Clinton would?
    Dalivus , 2016-07-27 16:38:16
    Once again this election is proof positive that you BUY elections. The masters of the DNC ordained that Clinton represent them and they were so insulated in their rich little world that they failed to recognize that she is unelectable; the republican turnout will be higher than it has ever been in history, so polarizing is she. People like me, poor people who crave change, will NOT vote for banks so, by default, Trump wins.

    [Jul 27, 2016] http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/07/syria-and-the-dnc-hack-how-believes-turn-into-dangerous-policies.html#more

    Notable quotes:
    "... As life exceeds satire, one can imagine that within a week Wikileaks will produce those "missing e-mails". And later Hillary's Wall Street speeches, following the next appeal from Trump. ..."
    "... PB @ 4, confirming some earlier analysis that trump is playing the media for suckers over HRC's hysteria. "Trump calls on Kremlin to commit acts of espionage against Hillary Clinton." omg. ..."
    "... they cannot afford to have the truth about ISIS revealed. They need the next president to continue their lies. It is terrifying. ..."
    "... Even if Russia did the hack and leaked that information (no evidence) -- so what? We have done and do the same all the time in other countries. Just doesn't feel as good when you are at the receiving end. ..."
    "... It's like 9/11. What do you desperately want to believe? What are you desperately afraid to admit? ..."
    "... No amount of 'debunking' of the DNC's assertions will affect the beliefs of those who want to believe, who are afraid to admit that they are going to vote for the corporate whore who mocks them with her pathetic ruses. The corporate media have suffered irreparable damage to their credibility over the past decade, at least. ..."
    "... What is scary about this campaign is that the anti-Russian hysteria is being incorporated by Hillary supporters. By the time she is elected there will be many millions of Democrats crying for war against Russia. The last time a Democrat ran to the right of the Republican in a presidential election was the Kennedy-Nixon race. That resulted in Kennedy entering office and believing his own bs. He then very quickly carried out the Bay of Pigs fiasco but much worse the near start of WWIII during the Cuban missile crisis. ..."
    "... Hillary is definitely stupid enough to listen to her neocon advisers and, fueled with self righteous Russian hatred, get us involved in some shooting war with them in Syria, Ukraine or the Baltic region. Very dangerous times ahead I fear. This why I am moving closer and closer to voting for Trump rather than a third party. ..."
    "... Great observation. Cuts to the chase, to bedrock reality. We are the Evil Empire that Ronald Reagan ranted about. Have been since the Dulles Boys' coup. ..."
    "... Trump is beginning to look like the lessor of two evils. And we Americans are proven suckers for that line of 'reasoning'. The champion poll forecaster now 'shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton with a shocking 15 percentage point-greater chance of winning if the general election were held today.'. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    NoOneYouKnow | Jul 27, 2016 3:04:03 PM | 3
    Usually, the only thing that stops mass- and self-delusion (and the attending propaganda) on this scale is the massive intervention of reality. I worry that many casualties will ensue.

    Trump apparently said in his press conference that the US should cooperate to with Russia to destroy ISIS. The panic created in DC by this man must be incredible.

    Piotr Berman | Jul 27, 2016 3:29:55 PM | 4
    ELECTION 2016
    Trump Calls for Russia's Help to Expose Emails Clinton Deleted
    By ASHLEY PARKER 11:44 AM ET (NYT)

    "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Donald J. Trump said, referring to messages deemed personal by Hillary Clinton and deleted from her private email server.

    ===

    As life exceeds satire, one can imagine that within a week Wikileaks will produce those "missing e-mails". And later Hillary's Wall Street speeches, following the next appeal from Trump.

    jason | Jul 27, 2016 3:37:41 PM | 5
    PB @ 4, confirming some earlier analysis that trump is playing the media for suckers over HRC's hysteria. "Trump calls on Kremlin to commit acts of espionage against Hillary Clinton." omg.

    Terry | Jul 27, 2016 3:45:33 PM | 6

    There is just not enough of Orville Redenbacher's popcorn to last to the end of this crazy 2016 . I think if Putin came out personally and said that he did it the world would cheer . yet for some reason Russia needs to be vilified ...Thanks for the work you do b ...
    jo6pac | Jul 27, 2016 3:46:23 PM | 7
    Here are some real experts on this and check comments there is a former server coder writing this up.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/nsa-whistleblower-not-so-fast-on-claims-russia-behind-dnc-email-hack.html

    jo6pac | Jul 27, 2016 3:50:17 PM | 8
    Terry at 6 here is your request.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/07/exclusive-interview-putin-dnc-emails-russia-love.html

    A little humor for the day ;)

    ian | Jul 27, 2016 3:54:01 PM | 9
    What cracks me up about the idea that the Russians were behind the DNC hack is that Putin has little to fear from the accusation. It would probably help him politically at home and seriously, what are we going to do about it? Go to war? More sanctions? Denounce Russia in the UN? He's probably having a good laugh over the whole thing.
    Ondine | Jul 27, 2016 4:03:29 PM | 10
    3, they cannot afford to have the truth about ISIS revealed. They need the next president to continue their lies. It is terrifying.
    karlof1 | Jul 27, 2016 4:10:27 PM | 11

    Pat Buchanan provides some interesting thoughts on the subject, "Will Putin Get a Pulitzer?" http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/will-putin-get-a-pulitzer/

    psychohistorian | Jul 27, 2016 4:12:41 PM | 12
    Here are a couple of links to techie stories about the issue. They each have links and educational comments. How deep down the rabbit hole do you want to go?
    okie farmer | Jul 27, 2016 4:58:07 PM | 13
    Assange Timed WikiLeaks Release of Democratic Emails to Harm Hillary Clinton

    The New York Times

    By CHARLIE SAVAGE

    5 hrs ago

    WASHINGTON - Six weeks before the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks published an archive of hacked Democratic National Committee emails ahead of the Democratic convention, the organization's founder, Julian Assange, foreshadowed the release - and made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the presidency.

    Mr. Assange's remarks in a June 12 interview underscored that for all the drama of the...

    b | Jul 27, 2016 5:38:59 PM | 15
    Bush lawyer Jack Goldsmith: Yet More Thoughts on the DNC Hack: Attribution and Precedent

    Essentially: "Even if Russia did the hack and leaked that information (no evidence) -- so what? We have done and do the same all the time in other countries. Just doesn't feel as good when you are at the receiving end."

    Cortes | Jul 27, 2016 5:41:52 PM | 16
    Thanks, b - a very acute analysis. It reminds me of the warning of false narrative the "Merlin" sponsors were peddling which Control warned George Smiley about in Le Carre's "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy":

    "They're buying their way in with false money, George."

    jfl | Jul 27, 2016 5:44:47 PM | 17
    It's like 9/11. What do you desperately want to believe? What are you desperately afraid to admit?

    Trump made light of the charges with 'hope the Russians find the 30,000 missing emails' crack, but his vp immediately made a show of taking the claim seriously ... he looks to be the mole set up by the RNC to take down Trump.

    No amount of 'debunking' of the DNC's assertions will affect the beliefs of those who want to believe, who are afraid to admit that they are going to vote for the corporate whore who mocks them with her pathetic ruses. The corporate media have suffered irreparable damage to their credibility over the past decade, at least.

    The D-N-Cee,
    the men-a-ger-ie,
    they're not for you,
    and they're not for me!
    They're runnin' in circles,
    around the tree.

    When they turn to butter, let's make pancakes. I'm so hungry I could eat one hundred and sixty-nine! Breakfast for us indigenes.

    ToivoS | Jul 27, 2016 6:15:43 PM | 18
    What is scary about this campaign is that the anti-Russian hysteria is being incorporated by Hillary supporters. By the time she is elected there will be many millions of Democrats crying for war against Russia. The last time a Democrat ran to the right of the Republican in a presidential election was the Kennedy-Nixon race. That resulted in Kennedy entering office and believing his own bs. He then very quickly carried out the Bay of Pigs fiasco but much worse the near start of WWIII during the Cuban missile crisis.

    Hillary is definitely stupid enough to listen to her neocon advisers and, fueled with self righteous Russian hatred, get us involved in some shooting war with them in Syria, Ukraine or the Baltic region. Very dangerous times ahead I fear. This why I am moving closer and closer to voting for Trump rather than a third party.

    jayc | Jul 27, 2016 6:17:42 PM | 20
    Credit to Julian Assange for having guts. If Clinton should win it's foreseeable that a major effort to regime-change Ecuador will ensue so they can get him booted from the London embassy straight into a CIA jet.
    dahoit | Jul 27, 2016 6:37:29 PM | 21
    Putin knows the zionists hate him, and Trump. I don't believe he would release this stuff. just because of the anti Russian BS the MSD would stir, which wo proof, they are anyway.

    I read it was Guccifer?somewhere,a Russian? blogger.

    This will all backfire,as the American people have been had too many times by the serial liars.

    What if this came from GB,say?What would be the reaction then?

    And why is Russia,who has never done a thing to US,in history,an enemy,when the Zionists spy,bribe and control our whole nation,nakedly,shamelessly,but there is the ol'crickets only, chirping in the weeds?

    Yahoo to Putin; Hey, you are cutting in on our action.

    jfl | Jul 27, 2016 6:38:00 PM | 22
    @18 Toivo S

    Trump as the lessor of two evils. Everyday in every way ... Who'd'a thunk it?

    lysias | Jul 27, 2016 6:40:02 PM | 23
    WaPo comment sections are full of people who seem to be true believers in the ideology of the new Cold War. Or maybe they only say that because they're being paid to do so. Hard to believe so many people could be so stupid.
    hejiminy cricket | Jul 27, 2016 6:51:46 PM | 24
    I was thinking the other day that Putin should send a squad of angry babushkas after the sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits running the DNC. Evidently this is already in the works.

    #UKRAINE-UA police released warning that the "#HolyCross Procession includes violent grandmas who provoke Ukrainian youth to beat them up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/gbazov/status/758426948309651456

    jfl | Jul 27, 2016 7:06:18 PM | 25
    @15 b

    Great observation. Cuts to the chase, to bedrock reality. We are the Evil Empire that Ronald Reagan ranted about. Have been since the Dulles Boys' coup.

    Still I agree with yours and with Toivo S' point just above. Trump is beginning to look like the lessor of two evils. And we Americans are proven suckers for that line of 'reasoning'. The champion poll forecaster now 'shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton with a shocking 15 percentage point-greater chance of winning if the general election were held today.'.

    psychohistorian | Jul 27, 2016 7:31:06 PM | 26
    @ jfl

    Before the Dulles Boy's coup there was the changing of the motto in the 1950's from E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one) to In Gawd We Trust.

    Before that in 1913 the Fed was created with the 12 regional banks owned privately.

    Has the City of London and that empire ever died?

    Has the City of Rome corner of the global financial system ever been made clear?

    The basic tenets of the Western way are private ownership of property enhanced by rampant inheritance at the top and private finance owned and operated by historical families and others unknown. It is sad to me when commenter here and other places rail on about bankers and corporations and not the global cabal that own them all.

    Why can't humanity evolve beyond private finance to totally sovereign finance and, at a minimum, neuter inheritance laws globally so that none can accumulate enough to control social policy? Private finance is a cancer humanity can no loner afford.

    [Jul 26, 2016] Guardian tries to silence Democrat Leak Scandal by Jonathan Cook

    Clinton mafia and corrupt MSM like Guardian cannot deny the reality of what they wrote, so they focus on how the information came out. "But voters don't care where the info came from. What voters care about (for a change) is what the democrats actually wrote to each other, thinking their words were "safe" (i.e., their hubris and arrogance is coming back to bite them in the ass). And the DNC are completely guilty, based on their own words." "So, the media is lockstep quiet about their outting as utterly disingenuous manipulators and distorters of the political process. And they are crying foul at full volume at the Russians for allegedly daring to affect the political process by introducing the truth of the situation. Apparently, some folk never learn, can never be taught a lesson. So what's the solution?"
    Notable quotes:
    "... The first report by the Guardian's own correspondent, Alan Yuhas, and the one in today's newspaper, includes responses both from the Clinton team and from Sanders. But the Clinton response does not just get a mention, it dictates the entire theme of the Guardian story: that the leaks themselves are of little consequence. The real story, apparently, is an unproven and deflectionary claim by the Clinton camp that Russia is behind the leak. The headline says it all: "Hillary Clinton campaign blames leaked DNC emails about Sanders on Russia". ..."
    "... The story itself does not tell us anything about the leaks until the sixth ..."
    July 25th, 2016 | Dissident Voice
    The pattern is unmistakable in both the UK and US – and I apologise for sounding like a stuck record. Liberal mainstream media prove over and over again their aversion to telling us the news straight. They conspire – I can think of no fairer word – with the political elites in Washington and London to spin and subvert stories damaging to their mutual interests, even when the facts are driving real events in an entirely different direction.

    A perfect illustration is the story of the Democratic party's leaked emails, which reveal that the national leadership was actively seeking to swing the primaries battle in Hillary Clinton's favour by harming Bernie Sanders. One leaked email (there are more to come, apparently) shows officials trying to highlight Sanders' "faith" – it is unclear whether the goal was to play up his Jewishness or his supposed atheism, or both.

    As Sanders says, this is "outrageous" activity by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), even if it is hardly surprising. He, and we, knew it was happening during the primaries, even if it wasn't being reported, just as we know the British parliamentary Labour party has been trying to undermine its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, since he was elected last summer, even if everyone denies it. The difference with the Democratic party scandal is we now have the proof.

    It is worth examining the Guardian's coverage of this affair. It's like a masterclass in Pravda-style journalism – and entirely illustrative of how the Guardian is not reporting news but framing debates to protect its political interests: they have been rock solid behind the status-quo candidacy of Clinton rather than Sanders ("let's focus on the fact she's woman rather than that she's the spokeswoman for the military-industrial complex"), just as they seem ready to back anyone for British PM as long as it's not Jeremy Corbyn, including Theresa May.

    The DNC email leak story broke badly for the Guardian, with the first reports arriving Sunday UK time, when the paper does not publish. A bland Associated Press report appears to be the first time the story runs on its website, too early for responses from the main actors.

    The first report by the Guardian's own correspondent, Alan Yuhas, and the one in today's newspaper, includes responses both from the Clinton team and from Sanders. But the Clinton response does not just get a mention, it dictates the entire theme of the Guardian story: that the leaks themselves are of little consequence. The real story, apparently, is an unproven and deflectionary claim by the Clinton camp that Russia is behind the leak. The headline says it all: "Hillary Clinton campaign blames leaked DNC emails about Sanders on Russia".

    This is exactly what the Clinton team wanted: for the media to focus on her phony outrage rather than our justified outrage that the party system is rigged to make sure ordinary voters cast their ballots the way the Democrat leadership want them cast.

    The story itself does not tell us anything about the leaks until the sixth paragraph. Before that we have lots of Clinton camp indignation about Russia interfering in US domestic politics – as though this story is primarily yet another chance to knock Vladimir Putin and his supposed best pal, Donald Trump, Clinton's chief rival for the presidency. Even when we finally reach mention of the leaks, they are glossed over, with it unclear what the substance of these emails was and why they are significant.

    This is stenographic journalism that has become entirely the norm in the Guardian (if you don't believe me, just scroll back through my blog posts to see more examples).

    The real angle – the one that should have the been the focus of the story, at least based on news value – is buried near its end: Sanders' demand that DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, should resign. That angle as the lead would have highlighted its true news interest: evidence of corrupt practices at the DNC. It would have allowed the Guardian to focus on the nature of the leaked emails rather get sidetracked into Clinton's anti-Russia spiel.

    Proof that this was the real news story is confirmed by the fact that, soon after the Guardian published its report, Wasserman Schultz did, in fact, resign. The real scandal, rather than the Washington spin, finally cornered the Guardian very belatedly to run the story online in a more realistic fashion.

    The fact that it took more than 24 hours and three attempts before the story was reported in a way any first-year journalism student would understand it had to be covered is not to the Guardian's credit. It is to its shame. This was a desperate damage limitation operation by the Clinton camp that was (yet again) actively supported and assisted by the Guardian.

    Social media is changing many things. But one of the clearest examples is in the way it is bypassing mainstream media gatekeepers like the Guardian and allowing the facts to speak for themselves.

    Jonathan Cook, based in Nazareth, Israel is a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). Read other articles by Jonathan, or visit Jonathan's website.

    [Jul 26, 2016] AP Headlines Positive Dem Convention, Ignores Bernie Fans Lock Her Up! Chants

    Notable quotes:
    "... Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com . ..."
    www.newsbusters.org

    July 25, 2016 | newsbusters.org

    Though they haven't yet completed covering things up, Hillary Clinton's journalistic defense team at the Associated Press has swung into gear at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

    The headline at the wire service's 10:00 p.m. Monday evening story by reporters Julie Pace and Ken Thomas - "AFTER DISPUTES, DEM STARS TURN THEIR CONVENTION POSITIVE" - falsely told readers that the contentiousness was over. Far from it. The pair's cleanup isn't complete yet (I expect we'll see that by early Tuesday morning), because their early paragraphs still betray the widely-reported disarray which occurred throughout the day. Pace and Thomas also need to work on their hearing, because they're claiming that a chant which became popular at the Republican convention last week relating to Hillary Clinton - "Lock her up!" - hasn't been heard in Philadelphia. They're wrong.

    Here are several paragraphs from the AP report (saved here for future reference, fair use and discussion purposes; bolds are mine throughout this post):

    AFTER DISPUTES, DEM STARS TURN THEIR CONVENTION POSITIVE

    Hillary Clinton's campaign joined forces with former primary rival Bernie Sanders and some of his supporters Monday in a scramble to tamp down a fresh burst of party disunity and give an upbeat tone to the opening night of the Democratic convention.

    Sanders, one of the night's featured speakers, sent urgent messages to his backers urging them to avoid protests on the convention floor. The Clinton campaign opened up speaking spots for his supporters who touted his accomplishments, and warned that not backing Clinton would only help Republican Donald Trump.

    An array of office holders and celebrities hammered home the call for unity, with singer Paul Simon singing his "Bridge Over Troubled Water" as delegates linked arms and swayed to the music.

    The headline and those opening paragraphs clearly aren't consistent. But the headline is the only thing many readers will see, especially those who get newsfeeds on their computers, tablets and smartphones. So the deceptive headline clearly serves a useful propagandistic purpose.

    (Aside: "Bridge Over Troubled Water" was written by Paul Simon, but his partner Art Garfunkel sang the version people know and love. Simon's vocal performance tonight pales in comparison, and demonstrates that even in Simon's heyday, Garfunkel was better suited to sing it.)

    Here's the paragraph which causes me to recommend that Pace and Thomas visit a hearing doctor:

    Trump was a frequent target throughout the night, though the jabs were often more mocking than mean. The tone was a sharp contrast to the Republican convention, where the attacks against Clinton was bitingly personal, including chants of "Lock her up."

    So of course we're supposed to believe that the DNC delegates weren't yelling "Lock her up."

    But they were, as the Politico reported earlier today:

    Sanders delegates revolt on convention floor

    ... Sanders begged delegates to resist the urge to protest, warning that "our credibility as a movement will be damaged" if delegates walk out, turn their backs or boo.

    It was the first acknowledgment that an attempt to appease Sanders supporters earlier in the day - the ouster of outgoing DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz from the convention stage - had fallen short. Some Sanders allies, still fuming over leaked emails that showcase the DNC leadership's favoritism for Clinton, chanted "lock her up" on the convention floor - echoing a Republican rallying cry from last week's GOP national convention.

    ... Subsequent speakers were continuously interrupted by pro-Bernie chants - even as they pleaded for unity.

    What a disgraceful journalistic deception.

    Sadly, it's par for the course, especially for Pace, who in November 2013 reveled on national TV in how her employer hid secret negotiations between Iran and the Obama administration it knew were occurring from the public for eight months.

    Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Hillary Clinton Admits U.S. Created Al Qaeda, ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... If destroying Syria is the way we "help" Israel, how many other nations must the U.S. destroy to "help" Israel? And before John Hagee's braindead disciples start shouting "Destroy them all!" I remind you that Syria and other parts of the Middle East is the historic home of millions of Christians going back to the time of the Apostle Paul. ..."
    "... On the whole, Neocons and Neolibs are people without conscience. At their core, they have no allegiance to the United States or any other country. They are globalists. The only god they serve is the god of power and wealth, and they don't care how many people--including Americans--they kill to achieve it. The blood of millions of dead victims around the world is already dripping from their murderous hands. ..."
    chuckbaldwinlive.com
    May 26, 2016

    Why isn't the Mainstream Media (MSM) in America reporting the fact that Hillary Clinton admitted in public that the U.S. government created Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Nusra, etc.? Why does the MSM refuse to tell the American people that the United States has not ever actually fought ISIS but instead has surreptitiously and very actively supported ISIS and the other radical Muslim terrorists in the Middle East? Why has the media refused to reveal the fact that ever since Russia started to fight a true offensive war against ISIS the terrorist organization has been reduced to almost half?

    I'll tell you why: the MSM is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the U.S. government--no matter which party is in power. The MSM doesn't work for the U.S. citizenry. It doesn't even work for its corporate sponsors. It works for the Washington Power Elite permanently ensconced in D.C. (and yes, those same Power Elite control most of those media corporate sponsors).

    It is a sad reality that if one wants to get accurate news reporting, one must mostly bypass the U.S. propaganda media and look to sources outside the U.S. Here is a Canadian publication that covered the Hillary admission:

    "The following video features Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton acknowledging that America created and funded Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:

    "'Let's remember here the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago.

    "'Let's go recruit these mujahideen.

    "'And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.'"

    "What she does not mention is that at no time in the course of the last 35 years has the US ceased to support and finance Al Qaeda as a means to destabilizing sovereign countries. It was 'a pretty good idea', says Hillary, and it remains a good idea today:

    "Amply documented, the ISIS and Al Nusrah Mujahideen are recruited by NATO and the Turkish High command, with the support of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.

    "The more fundamental question:

    "Should a presidential candidate who candidly acknowledges that 'We created Al Qaeda' without a word of caution or regret become president of the US, not to mention Hillary's commitment to waging nuclear war on Russia if and when she becomes president of the United States of America."

    The report continues:

    "The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is led by the United States. It is not directed against Al Qaeda.

    "Quite the opposite: The 'Global War on Terrorism' uses Al Qaeda terrorist operatives as their foot soldiers.

    "'Political Islam' and the imposition of an 'Islamic State' (modeled on Qatar or Saudi Arabia) is an integral part of US foreign policy."

    The report further states:

    "It is a means to destabilizing sovereign countries and imposing 'regime change'.

    "Clinton's successor at the State Department, John Kerry is in direct liaison with Al Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliated organization in Syria, integrated by terrorists and funded by the US and its allies.

    "In a bitter irony, John Kerry is not only complicit in the killings committed by Al Nusra, he is also in blatant violation of US anti-terrorist legislation. If the latter were to be applied to politicians in high office, John Kerry would be considered as a 'Terror Suspect'".

    See the report here:

    Hillary Clinton: "We Created Al Qaeda". The Protagonists Of The "Global War On Terrorism" Are The Terrorists

    Think it through, folks: the U.S. government creates the radical Islamic terror networks that justify America's "Global War On Terror" which directly results in millions of refugees (and no doubt plants terrorists among them) flooding Europe. At the same time, it purposely refuses to protect our own borders and even forces states and local communities to accept hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees (but the government is not sending any Christian refugees to America, even though a sizable percentage of the refugees include Christians also) and pushes NATO to the doorstep of Russia, which to any objective observer could only be regarded as an overt incitement to war.

    Furthermore, why doesn't the MSM report the words of Hillary saying that the "best way to help Israel" is to destroy Syria? Why doesn't the media acknowledge that official U.S. foreign policy is to foment perpetual war, not in the name of the safety and security of the United States, but in the name of "helping" Israel?

    Here is how the same Canadian publication covers this part of the story:

    "A newly-released Hillary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the 'best way to help Israel.'

    "In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the 'right thing' to personally threaten Bashar Assad's family with death.

    "In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the 'best way to help Israel' is to 'use force' in Syria to overthrow the government."

    It continues:

    "Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Iran's 'atomic bomb' program as a hoax, (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to 'justify' destroying Syria in the name of Israel."

    And again:

    "The email proves--as if any more proof was needed--that the US government has been the main sponsor of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to 'protect' Israel.

    "It is also a sobering thought to consider that the 'refugee' crisis which currently threatens to destroy Europe, was directly sparked off by this US government action as well, insofar as there are any genuine refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria.

    "In addition, over 250,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict, which has spread to Iraq--all thanks to Clinton and the Obama administration backing the 'rebels' and stoking the fires of war in Syria."

    See the report here:

    Hillary Clinton: Destroy Syria For Israel: "The Best Way To Help Israel"

    If destroying Syria is the way we "help" Israel, how many other nations must the U.S. destroy to "help" Israel? And before John Hagee's braindead disciples start shouting "Destroy them all!" I remind you that Syria and other parts of the Middle East is the historic home of millions of Christians going back to the time of the Apostle Paul.

    The truth is, Hillary (and the rest of the grubby gaggle of Neocons) doesn't give a tinker's dam about Israel. Neocons such as Hillary Clinton simply use Israel (and the misguided passions of Christians and conservatives who blindly support Israel) as cover to accomplish their real agenda: manipulating world governments to the enrichment and empowerment of themselves.

    Donald Trump is untested. But if Hillary should be elected, I'm confident she would not make it through her first term without taking us into another G.W. Bush-type war (or worse)--except she will also add the attempted disarmament of the American people to her nefarious agenda.

    That's what Neocons do: they foment war. To their very soul, they are warmongers. And never forget that Hillary Clinton is a true-blue Neocon. Or if the word "Neoliberal" sounds better to you in describing Hillary, so be it. They both mean the same thing: WAR.

    Here is a good explanation of how both Neocons and Neolibs are working from the same script:

    Neocons And Neolibs: How Dead Ideas Kill

    On the whole, Neocons and Neolibs are people without conscience. At their core, they have no allegiance to the United States or any other country. They are globalists. The only god they serve is the god of power and wealth, and they don't care how many people--including Americans--they kill to achieve it. The blood of millions of dead victims around the world is already dripping from their murderous hands.

    And if you think my indictment against the Neocons is an exaggeration, Paul Craig Roberts (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan) was even more scathing in his condemnation of them:

    "The remaining danger is the crazed American neoconservatives. I know many of them. They are completely insane ideologues. This inhuman filth has controlled the foreign policy of every US government since Clinton's second term. They are a danger to all life on earth. Look at the destruction they have wreaked in the former Yugoslavia, in Ukraine, in Georgia and South Ossetia, in Africa, in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The American people were too brainwashed by lies and by political impotence to do anything about it, and Washington's vassals in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan had to pretend that this policy of international murder was 'bringing freedom and democracy.'

    "The crazed filth that controls US foreign policy is capable of defending US hegemony with nuclear weapons. The neoconservatives must be removed from power, arrested, and put on international trial for their horrendous war crimes before they defend their hegemony with Armageddon.

    "Neoconservatives and their allies in the military/security complex make audacious use of false flag attacks. These evil people are capable of orchestrating a false flag attack that propels the US and Russia to war."

    See Roberts' column here:

    The Fall Of The Unipower

    And make no mistake about it: the national news media is a deliberate and willing facilitator of these international crimes against humanity.

    © Chuck Baldwin

    [Jul 25, 2016] Turkey coup

    Amazing: nobody seems to blame Putin
    Warning: Bellingcat is a disinformation outpost probably created by some intelligence agency. It lied about MH17 extensively.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Beware Bellingcat; he's been busted more than once publishing fraudulent information; especially re: Putin and Ukraine ..."
    "... This is an interesting article that explores possibilities (if only partially) of an extremely murky event: the recent coup in Turkey. One very keen observation is that this coup has one extraordinary aspect: nobody seems to blame Putin! The second observation is that it is not typical for a coup that it is not possible to trace who was running it, while indisputably, someone activated a bunch of conspirators to action. In the past, even failed coup had an identified leader. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    chu teh | Jul 25, 2016 8:00:21 AM | 16

    3 Turkish specialized NATO regiments (20,000+ troops?} led coup attempt. Using Bellingcat translated records of coup communications, Sybil Edmonds explains:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KAxjZWy-Lk

    Bellingcat transcripts and photos:

    https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2016/07/24/the-turkey-coup-through-the-eyes-of-its-plotters/

    V. Arnold | Jul 25, 2016 3:48:50 AM | 78

    chu teh | Jul 25, 2016 3:39:31 AM | 76

    Beware Bellingcat; he's been busted more than once publishing fraudulent information; especially re: Putin and Ukraine.

    chu teh | Jul 25, 2016 2:17:00 AM | 72

    re news onTurkey coup: Just in...

    Sybil Edmonds now shows s that 3 top Turk regiments that led the coup are part of NATO Rapid Deployment Forces. Here it is on YouTube:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KAxjZWy-Lk

    Alternatively, this link:

    http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2016/07/24/newsbud-breaking-news-turkeys-coup-plotters-are-members-of-natos-rapid-deployable-corps/

    Seems to demonstrate direct NATO involvement and connection with Gulencia intentions.

    chu teh | Jul 25, 2016 3:39:31 AM | 76

    Detail of Turkey coup:

    Here's reconstructed blow-by-blow account of coup from coup leaders' own WhatsApp communications,; source and English translations per Bellingcat:

    https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2016/07/24/the-turkey-coup-through-the-eyes-of-its-plotters/

    Can note NATO insignia of regimental unit.

    Piotr Berman | Jul 25, 2016 5:03:13 AM | 80

    https://4threvolutionarywar.wordpress.com/2016/07/20/turkey-battle-of-the-conspiracy-theories-akira/

    This is an interesting article that explores possibilities (if only partially) of an extremely murky event: the recent coup in Turkey. One very keen observation is that this coup has one extraordinary aspect: nobody seems to blame Putin! The second observation is that it is not typical for a coup that it is not possible to trace who was running it, while indisputably, someone activated a bunch of conspirators to action. In the past, even failed coup had an identified leader.

    [Tinfoil hat on] This points to a masterful hand behind the plot, perhaps a bit deficient in purely military details but very capable in conspiratorial techniques. [delete]Gulen[end delete] Putin! Putin theory could have a weak spot, namely that he is competent in purely military details, but it can be elegantly rescued by the fact that he had no interest in actually replacing Erdogan, but merely in rendering him ineffective against Russia. As Russians know only too well, the most effective way of disabling a military organization is to imbue the national leader with total paranoia. [Tinfoil hat off, malignant waves enter brain again]

    Clearly, Erdogan is another person who benefits from the coup, and who has much simpler means to assure that the leadership of the coup remains unclear: his devoted stooges run the investigation after all! Moreover, Akira correctly observed that the past actions attributed to Gulen's movement lacked outright violence. In my opinion, this stems from religious principles of Gulen himself, his own interpretation of Islam (which clearly allows for intrigue and subterfuge). Gulen did not create his movement in vacuum, he became a leader of followers of Said Nursi who died in 1960. The way those movements (Nur of Nursi, Hizmet of Gulen) operated is compared to Sufi brotherhoods which may be loosely hierarchical and highly conspiratorial. Some Sufi movements may be violent, by calling to armed Jihad etc. However, Nursi was a pacifist. As I said, unlike some other Muslim movements in Turkey. Erdogan has a somewhat murky religious movement of his own, and he clearly accepts the concept of violent Jihad.

    One can dwell more of it, but pretty safe conclusion is that we have two likely possibilities: Erdogan pulling the strings (in that case, using Hakan Fidan, his spy master) and going to some lengths to make the appearance that Guelen does it, or the reverse. Because of that, no single piece of evidence is conclusive, any single person can be a double/multiple agent etc. And because those possibilities are both so compelling, the true guiding master hand remains hidden (Putin!!!!).

    jfl | Jul 25, 2016 8:08:14 AM | 84

    @80 pb

    Great stuff pb. I think that Erdo's 'genius' lies in his ability to react rather than act. He just waits to see his chances then takes 'em. Having plans opens one up to having one's plans divined by others and so defeated. His strength lies in his nihilism, the g-forces alone of his about faces would so distort the physique of any ordinary man that he could never survive. But Erdo is focused exclusively on his own ends - and possesses the magical ability of convincing his followers of his invincibility and hence, of theirs. His survival of his seemingly endless stream of volte faces proves this in the eyes of his followers and so confounds his more or less principled opposition that their very bones melt and they puddle.

    So the CIA, who have kept Gulen bottled up in their Pennsylvania super-fortress all these years, perhaps their secret, kryptonite-like antidote to al-CIAduh, sprang him to avail Erdogan of yet another of his nine-times-nine-lives, in order to keep his ego-driven presence alive and disruptive on their geostrategic gameboard.

    The terrifying thing from the CIA's/USA's point of view would be any kind of coherent coincidence of aims among Russia, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, the Caucasus, and the stans of Central Asia. They feel that they can rely upon Erdo to keep the Caucasus and Central Asia high on its own version of the Ottoman dream, and in competition with the Sunni/IS, the Shia, and Kurdish Axes.

    If the Turkmen and the Shia were to cohere rather than contend, or, worse, the Turkmen-Shia-Kurds were to do so, there would be far too much constructive activity in the Middle East for the empire of chaos to survive there let alone prevail. The opposite hand of Putin did it! is ... the CIA did it! I say the CIA did it. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

    The real story will become apparent in the fullness of time.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Hillary Clinton Admits U.S. Created Al Qaeda, ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... If destroying Syria is the way we "help" Israel, how many other nations must the U.S. destroy to "help" Israel? And before John Hagee's braindead disciples start shouting "Destroy them all!" I remind you that Syria and other parts of the Middle East is the historic home of millions of Christians going back to the time of the Apostle Paul. ..."
    "... On the whole, Neocons and Neolibs are people without conscience. At their core, they have no allegiance to the United States or any other country. They are globalists. The only god they serve is the god of power and wealth, and they don't care how many people--including Americans--they kill to achieve it. The blood of millions of dead victims around the world is already dripping from their murderous hands. ..."
    chuckbaldwinlive.com
    May 26, 2016

    Why isn't the Mainstream Media (MSM) in America reporting the fact that Hillary Clinton admitted in public that the U.S. government created Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Nusra, etc.? Why does the MSM refuse to tell the American people that the United States has not ever actually fought ISIS but instead has surreptitiously and very actively supported ISIS and the other radical Muslim terrorists in the Middle East? Why has the media refused to reveal the fact that ever since Russia started to fight a true offensive war against ISIS the terrorist organization has been reduced to almost half?

    I'll tell you why: the MSM is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the U.S. government--no matter which party is in power. The MSM doesn't work for the U.S. citizenry. It doesn't even work for its corporate sponsors. It works for the Washington Power Elite permanently ensconced in D.C. (and yes, those same Power Elite control most of those media corporate sponsors).

    It is a sad reality that if one wants to get accurate news reporting, one must mostly bypass the U.S. propaganda media and look to sources outside the U.S. Here is a Canadian publication that covered the Hillary admission:

    "The following video features Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton acknowledging that America created and funded Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:

    "'Let's remember here the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago.

    "'Let's go recruit these mujahideen.

    "'And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.'"

    "What she does not mention is that at no time in the course of the last 35 years has the US ceased to support and finance Al Qaeda as a means to destabilizing sovereign countries. It was 'a pretty good idea', says Hillary, and it remains a good idea today:

    "Amply documented, the ISIS and Al Nusrah Mujahideen are recruited by NATO and the Turkish High command, with the support of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.

    "The more fundamental question:

    "Should a presidential candidate who candidly acknowledges that 'We created Al Qaeda' without a word of caution or regret become president of the US, not to mention Hillary's commitment to waging nuclear war on Russia if and when she becomes president of the United States of America."

    The report continues:

    "The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is led by the United States. It is not directed against Al Qaeda.

    "Quite the opposite: The 'Global War on Terrorism' uses Al Qaeda terrorist operatives as their foot soldiers.

    "'Political Islam' and the imposition of an 'Islamic State' (modeled on Qatar or Saudi Arabia) is an integral part of US foreign policy."

    The report further states:

    "It is a means to destabilizing sovereign countries and imposing 'regime change'.

    "Clinton's successor at the State Department, John Kerry is in direct liaison with Al Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliated organization in Syria, integrated by terrorists and funded by the US and its allies.

    "In a bitter irony, John Kerry is not only complicit in the killings committed by Al Nusra, he is also in blatant violation of US anti-terrorist legislation. If the latter were to be applied to politicians in high office, John Kerry would be considered as a 'Terror Suspect'".

    See the report here:

    Hillary Clinton: "We Created Al Qaeda". The Protagonists Of The "Global War On Terrorism" Are The Terrorists

    Think it through, folks: the U.S. government creates the radical Islamic terror networks that justify America's "Global War On Terror" which directly results in millions of refugees (and no doubt plants terrorists among them) flooding Europe. At the same time, it purposely refuses to protect our own borders and even forces states and local communities to accept hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees (but the government is not sending any Christian refugees to America, even though a sizable percentage of the refugees include Christians also) and pushes NATO to the doorstep of Russia, which to any objective observer could only be regarded as an overt incitement to war.

    Furthermore, why doesn't the MSM report the words of Hillary saying that the "best way to help Israel" is to destroy Syria? Why doesn't the media acknowledge that official U.S. foreign policy is to foment perpetual war, not in the name of the safety and security of the United States, but in the name of "helping" Israel?

    Here is how the same Canadian publication covers this part of the story:

    "A newly-released Hillary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the 'best way to help Israel.'

    "In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the 'right thing' to personally threaten Bashar Assad's family with death.

    "In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the 'best way to help Israel' is to 'use force' in Syria to overthrow the government."

    It continues:

    "Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Iran's 'atomic bomb' program as a hoax, (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to 'justify' destroying Syria in the name of Israel."

    And again:

    "The email proves--as if any more proof was needed--that the US government has been the main sponsor of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to 'protect' Israel.

    "It is also a sobering thought to consider that the 'refugee' crisis which currently threatens to destroy Europe, was directly sparked off by this US government action as well, insofar as there are any genuine refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria.

    "In addition, over 250,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict, which has spread to Iraq--all thanks to Clinton and the Obama administration backing the 'rebels' and stoking the fires of war in Syria."

    See the report here:

    Hillary Clinton: Destroy Syria For Israel: "The Best Way To Help Israel"

    If destroying Syria is the way we "help" Israel, how many other nations must the U.S. destroy to "help" Israel? And before John Hagee's braindead disciples start shouting "Destroy them all!" I remind you that Syria and other parts of the Middle East is the historic home of millions of Christians going back to the time of the Apostle Paul.

    The truth is, Hillary (and the rest of the grubby gaggle of Neocons) doesn't give a tinker's dam about Israel. Neocons such as Hillary Clinton simply use Israel (and the misguided passions of Christians and conservatives who blindly support Israel) as cover to accomplish their real agenda: manipulating world governments to the enrichment and empowerment of themselves.

    Donald Trump is untested. But if Hillary should be elected, I'm confident she would not make it through her first term without taking us into another G.W. Bush-type war (or worse)--except she will also add the attempted disarmament of the American people to her nefarious agenda.

    That's what Neocons do: they foment war. To their very soul, they are warmongers. And never forget that Hillary Clinton is a true-blue Neocon. Or if the word "Neoliberal" sounds better to you in describing Hillary, so be it. They both mean the same thing: WAR.

    Here is a good explanation of how both Neocons and Neolibs are working from the same script:

    Neocons And Neolibs: How Dead Ideas Kill

    On the whole, Neocons and Neolibs are people without conscience. At their core, they have no allegiance to the United States or any other country. They are globalists. The only god they serve is the god of power and wealth, and they don't care how many people--including Americans--they kill to achieve it. The blood of millions of dead victims around the world is already dripping from their murderous hands.

    And if you think my indictment against the Neocons is an exaggeration, Paul Craig Roberts (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan) was even more scathing in his condemnation of them:

    "The remaining danger is the crazed American neoconservatives. I know many of them. They are completely insane ideologues. This inhuman filth has controlled the foreign policy of every US government since Clinton's second term. They are a danger to all life on earth. Look at the destruction they have wreaked in the former Yugoslavia, in Ukraine, in Georgia and South Ossetia, in Africa, in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The American people were too brainwashed by lies and by political impotence to do anything about it, and Washington's vassals in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan had to pretend that this policy of international murder was 'bringing freedom and democracy.'

    "The crazed filth that controls US foreign policy is capable of defending US hegemony with nuclear weapons. The neoconservatives must be removed from power, arrested, and put on international trial for their horrendous war crimes before they defend their hegemony with Armageddon.

    "Neoconservatives and their allies in the military/security complex make audacious use of false flag attacks. These evil people are capable of orchestrating a false flag attack that propels the US and Russia to war."

    See Roberts' column here:

    The Fall Of The Unipower

    And make no mistake about it: the national news media is a deliberate and willing facilitator of these international crimes against humanity.

    © Chuck Baldwin

    [Jul 25, 2016] Clinton Asserts Putin Influence On Trump - After Taking Russian Bribes

    Seems the Clinton and her assorted groupies just need a scapegoat :-). Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing.
    Notable quotes:
    "... From Bloomberg - "If the Democrats can show the hidden hand of Russian intelligence agencies, they believe that voter outrage will probably outweigh any embarrassing revelations, a person familiar with the party's thinking said' ..."
    "... Ha! Fat chance. I'm thinking the American voter is going to start sending Thank You notes to the Kremlin! As usual, their heads are stuck so far up the arse of their donkey they incapable of gauging Main Street sentiment. ..."
    "... She is just a symptom of the DNC disease. And yes, she'll take the fall for the team, but make no mistake, the cancer remains and will continue to metastasize. ..."
    M of A

    Is Putin manipulating the Clinton campaign?

    Russia is weaponizing everything : Word files, federalism, finance and Jedi mind tricks - everything is transformed into a weapon if Russia or its president Putin is imagined to come near it.

    But Russia is secretly plotting even more nefarious schemes. Putin is infiltrating Europe . And not only Europe.

    Putin, the President of the Russian Federation, is influencing, manipulating and controlling many "western" politicians, parties and movements - in Europe AND in the United States.

    Here are, thanks to Mark Sleboda , a partial list of political entities and issue Putin secretly manipulates and controls:

    Putin is indeed everywhere:

    9:16 PM - 23 Jul 2016 - Billmon @billmon1

    Putin strikes AGAIN! " Seventeen people hurt when Hudson River ferry hits pier in New Jersey "

    And now for the crown of it all.

    Putin is in cahoots with the Republican presidential candidate Trump - claims the Clinton campaign . Putin is behind, it asserts, the leak of the DNC emails which prove that the Democratic National Committee has been working against Sanders to promote Hillary Clinton. The leak of the DNC emails, says the Clinton campaign, is ..:

    .. further evidence the Russian government is trying to influence the outcome of the election.

    The "facts" proving Russian support for Trump are mostly lies , but Putin's nefarious intentions must still be speculated about.

    The Clinton campaign has not looked thoroughly enough into Putin's schemes. Reveal we can that Putin has penetrated U.S. politics even deeper than thought - right down into the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family itself:

    As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.

    That money, surely, had no influence on then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's decisions? And what about her husband?

    Mr. Clinton received $500,000 ... from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin

    These undisputed facts demonstrate that Putin is indeed waging influence by bribing U.S. politicians. But the Clinton campaign is be a bit more hesitant in pointing these out.

    Posted by b at 10:29 AM | Comments (87)

    fast freddy | Jul 24, 2016 12:10:28 PM | 8

    Clinton/Kaine certainly confident that the MSM will not report.

    For all the money given to the Clinton's it didn't prevent the Ukraine disasters. Of course, Ukraine may not have been a concern among the particular oligarchs who made these bribes.

    HOw could this anti-russian hysteria/bashing go on, I mean the level of paranoia and disinformation against Russia and Putin is plain crazy.

    Zedew | Jul 24, 2016 12:32:54 PM | 9

    h | Jul 24, 2016 1:39:54 PM | 14

    From Bloomberg - "If the Democrats can show the hidden hand of Russian intelligence agencies, they believe that voter outrage will probably outweigh any embarrassing revelations, a person familiar with the party's thinking said'

    Ha! Fat chance. I'm thinking the American voter is going to start sending Thank You notes to the Kremlin! As usual, their heads are stuck so far up the arse of their donkey they incapable of gauging Main Street sentiment.

    h | Jul 24, 2016 1:58:17 PM | 17
    Sanders calls for Schultz to step down.

    Funny though, Schultz takes her orders from Obama, as the Chairman of the Party, the DNC Board of Directors and team Hillary. Period. If any blame should go around it should splash onto all individuals NOT just Schultz.

    She is just a symptom of the DNC disease. And yes, she'll take the fall for the team, but make no mistake, the cancer remains and will continue to metastasize.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Lock her up: Sanders supporters adopt Trumps attack line on Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... Sanders was always just the shiny carrot used to attract the naive youth and rope them in to Clinton's campaign. It's all a charade as it's always been. ..."
    "... Well Clinton is a neoliberal. They believe in destroying someone's whole life for making a mistake once. So perhaps she is getting a taste of her own medicine. ..."
    "... bernie is a accomplice sell out….sanders sold out to the criminal psychopath clinton…what a disappointment he turned out to be... ..."
    "... In different manner, Mr Trump has shaken the Republican Party to its foundations. He too has been subject to a devious counter-campaign. Thus, this is a unique moment for the USA: each of the two dominant political parties is reeling and given the right push shall either reform or fall. ..."
    "... Victoria Nuland and Hunter Biden as instrumental supporters of a fascist coup in the Ukraine...fascist coup. Support for Nazis. "We came, we saw; he died", said Hilary Rodham Clinton following the bloody Benghazi incident. There you have two excellent examples of Fascism and Authoritarianism, M.C.. Words and acts. ..."
    "... Sanders is trying to hold back the tide for change , and he will be found out. He is an utter hypocrite, who is reneging on everything that he said so recently. The Democrats are a party for the 1% ---whoever is the leader. A new, mass party of socialism is urgently needed. ..."
    "... Trump is a Bully, Hillary is a War Criminal. If Bernie won't lead a REVOLT--then We, the People will. ..."
    "... Loons. Hillary Clinton is just Dick Cheney without the long, ah, nose... ..."
    "... Hillary is indisputably a Neoliberal and Necon (warmonger), she's a threat to humanity. ..."
    "... Actually Hillary Clinton is perched quite a bit to the right of the Party. ..."
    "... Let me correct the record: it is nuts to support a candidate that is trusted by only 28% of the population! Nate Silver came out with a new projection that shows Hillary will lose to Trump. In a poll with a three way race Hillary, Trump, and with Johnson opposing Trump, Hillary STILL loses to Trump even though Johnson got a nice little chunk of the right leaning voters... ..."
    "... How is somebody not going to jail? And, why isn't there talk of holding a fair and Democratic primary? ..."
    "... HRCand DWS brought it on themselves. I am a registered democrat. I wanted a relatively clean establishment democrat without looming scandals to run. That didn't happen because Hillary ran. ..."
    "... She gives me the heebie jeebies. Julian Assange has apparently got something on her which will deliver the coup de grace. I am loving Wikileaks at the moment. ..."
    "... I hope Clinton will become less and less popular in the run up to the election, what would be fantastic is if we see Bernie running as an independent, America needs to have real democracy for once. ..."
    "... People say lock her up ..."
    "... No, she's above the law. As ex-Guardian columnist states so eloquently, there are 2 sets of laws in America---1 for elites like the Clintons, and another for everybody else. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    RJ6126 , 2016-07-25 23:19:02
    Sanders was always just the shiny carrot used to attract the naive youth and rope them in to Clinton's campaign. It's all a charade as it's always been.
    totallydude , 2016-07-25 22:17:31
    Well Clinton is a neoliberal. They believe in destroying someone's whole life for making a mistake once. So perhaps she is getting a taste of her own medicine.
    stephannoir , 2016-07-25 22:02:25
    bernie is a accomplice sell out….sanders sold out to the criminal psychopath clinton…what a disappointment he turned out to be...
    Pragmatism , 2016-07-25 21:42:11
    Mr Sanders is wrong to continue support for Clinton.

    Not only has Clinton admitted wilful breach of sensible electronic communication security arrangements but also her associates, likely with her tacit blessing, have done all in their power to undermine Mr Sanders. Allegations of vote rigging (e.g. excluding people entitled to vote, closing polling stations in locations where support for Clinton is thin, and strong presumptive statistical evidence that voting machines have been tampered with) give little credence to Clinton being fit for the presidency.

    Even Mr Trump has condemned this behaviour and I don't believe that wholly to be through political opportunism.

    There is an open offer for Mr Sanders to jump ship and front the Green Party. Else, he could stand as an independent democrat. What Mr Sanders must not do is lie down and accept having been shafted. He has pledged support to Clinton. He did this without full knowledge of the facts of Clinton's duplicity. Thus he is no longer honour bound to stick to his word. Indeed, by accepting the manipulated would-be status quo he becomes tainted by Clinton's malodorous persona.

    Mr Sanders is of an age when it soon shall be increasingly difficult to meet the physical demands of running for high office. This is his one and only chance for the presidency. Regardless of whether he succeeds, his stab at the presidency will give heart to a huge number of disenchanted US voters and bring about major changes to the Democratic Party establishment, to its electoral procedures and to its longer term policy platform; an alternative being collapse of that party and replacement by an entity better suited to the 21st century.

    In different manner, Mr Trump has shaken the Republican Party to its foundations. He too has been subject to a devious counter-campaign. Thus, this is a unique moment for the USA: each of the two dominant political parties is reeling and given the right push shall either reform or fall.

    mijkmijld Martha Carter , 2016-07-25 21:42:07
    Victoria Nuland and Hunter Biden as instrumental supporters of a fascist coup in the Ukraine...fascist coup. Support for Nazis. "We came, we saw; he died", said Hilary Rodham Clinton following the bloody Benghazi incident. There you have two excellent examples of Fascism and Authoritarianism, M.C.. Words and acts.
    Thies Arndt , 2016-07-25 21:19:21
    Remember how Team Clinton kept pushing the lie about Bernie supporters throwing chairs at the Nevada convention? I think I saw that mentioned in articles here more than once as well.

    http://www.snopes.com/did-sanders-supporters-throw-chairs-at-nevada-democratic-convention /

    FactsnReason -> Phil Forde , 2016-07-25 21:29:48
    Who needs to look at facts would be you and the other willfully blind Hillary supporters.

    Notably, the FBI DID NOT investigate this law...why didn't the Hillary loyalist, Loretta Lynch, include this one as part of their investigation? Hmmm. I wonder...

    Hillary Clinton broke this law.
    http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1663-protection-government-property-protection-public-records-and
    Subsection (b) of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 contains a similar prohibition specifically directed at custodians of public records. Any custodian of a public record who "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys (any record) shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States." While the range of acts proscribed by this subsection is somewhat narrower than subsection (a), it does provide the additional penalty of forfeiture of position with the United States.

    eveofchange , 2016-07-25 21:16:00
    Sanders is trying to hold back the tide for change , and he will be found out. He is an utter hypocrite, who is reneging on everything that he said so recently. The Democrats are a party for the 1% ---whoever is the leader. A new, mass party of socialism is urgently needed.
    smokinbluebear , 2016-07-25 21:15:40
    Trump is a Bully, Hillary is a War Criminal. If Bernie won't lead a REVOLT--then We, the People will.

    VOTE JILL STEIN

    Dan Pocela , 2016-07-25 21:00:22
    Loons. Jill Stein is just Ralph Nader without the long, ah, nose...
    FactsnReason -> Dan Pocela , 2016-07-25 21:40:58
    Loons. Hillary Clinton is just Dick Cheney without the long, ah, nose...
    BenevolentPantheist , 2016-07-25 20:37:55
    Hillary is indisputably a Neoliberal and Necon (warmonger), she's a threat to humanity.

    Legit Sources: Video.1 | Hillary Fighting For Us . | Hillary is a War Hawk - NYTimes and Salon news: she is more dangerous than Republicans . | Hillary Ready To Put The U.S on Warpath With Russia. Washington Times. | NATO-Russia Marching Towards War. Telegraph news UK . | Northern Thunder: 350,000 Troops Ready For War (Middle East) Daily Star news UK . | Poland Considering Access to Nuclear Weapons. The Guardian news . | Hillary Clinton Thinks Women Should Be Included In The Draft. Huffington Post . | Senate Votes To Include Women In The Draft. Huffington Post

    I'll stick to moral values and vote for Jill Stein :- )

    JudgeSturdy -> ilaughtilicried , 2016-07-25 20:43:52
    Actually Hillary Clinton is perched quite a bit to the right of the Party.
    FactsnReason -> aguy777 , 2016-07-25 21:56:03
    Let me correct the record: it is nuts to support a candidate that is trusted by only 28% of the population! Nate Silver came out with a new projection that shows Hillary will lose to Trump. In a poll with a three way race Hillary, Trump, and with Johnson opposing Trump, Hillary STILL loses to Trump even though Johnson got a nice little chunk of the right leaning voters...
    Who is nuts, now, dude?
    LinkMeyer , 2016-07-25 20:27:56
    How is somebody not going to jail? And, why isn't there talk of holding a fair and Democratic primary?
    AndreevReflection -> soneil , 2016-07-25 21:19:27
    HRCand DWS brought it on themselves. I am a registered democrat. I wanted a relatively clean establishment democrat without looming scandals to run. That didn't happen because Hillary ran.

    I wanted a clean looking election with few glaring conflicts of interests. That didn't happen because DWS didn't step down and high level party members couldn't keep their mouths shut over email.

    Now, we're expected to smile, nod, look the other way, and vote for Hillary. I will do that this time, but, if Hillary loses, I will never support her again.

    Whatrhymeswithorange , 2016-07-25 20:16:09
    She gives me the heebie jeebies. Julian Assange has apparently got something on her which will deliver the coup de grace. I am loving Wikileaks at the moment.
    Oliver Elkington , 2016-07-25 20:14:35
    I hope Clinton will become less and less popular in the run up to the election, what would be fantastic is if we see Bernie running as an independent, America needs to have real democracy for once.
    Anthony Simpson , 2016-07-25 20:06:45
    People say lock her up but she hasn't been changed with any crimes. The FBI cleared her on the e-mail server thing.
    Lee Mulcahy -> Anthony Simpson , 2016-07-25 20:28:50
    No, she's above the law. As ex-Guardian columnist states so eloquently, there are 2 sets of laws in America---1 for elites like the Clintons, and another for everybody else.

    [Jul 25, 2016] How Clinton And Her Shallow-Brained Media Do Trumps Bidding

    Notable quotes:
    "... The "dark speech" theme was obviously a canned response by the Clinton campaign. ..."
    "... independent media ..."
    "... You know that's a common problem with the 1% oriented inner party and their outer party wannabes. They 'have nothing meaningful to offer the electorate in a positive sense'. ..."
    "... The Don has benefitted not only from his worldwide brand prior to entering the race, but also from what came before him. A pretty large Paulite mobilisation in 2008, followed by an at times clinical insurgency into the party rank and file in 2012 created an atmosphere just perfect for Trump to follow in behind. ..."
    "... The Paulite insurgency which in great detail engineered massive primary caucus delegate victories (see Minnesota) against the popular vote were so effective that the RNC changed the voting rules. And so, the 2016 primary delegates would be bound to the popular vote. ..."
    "... I am not sure that this revolution is what Good Dr Ron had in mind, but as an outsider looking in it's not hard to tell that The Don has aimed a couple of clever soundbites in regards to foreign policy squarely at the Paulites...even though you don't need to be too anti-war entice votes from Hilary. ..."
    "... The RNC imploded. Because of Paul they lost a switch and lever crucial to event rigged - whenever Trump tweets 'RIGGED' that a war chant aimed at all conscious human beings. ..."
    "... Trump raises much less money than Clinton. He simply does not need as much as she does. He can spend more time on real campaigning than Clinton who must hurry from one fund raiser to the next one. Meanwhile Clinton's negative campaigning against Trump reinforces his message. ..."
    "... Good one - yes, the mass corporate press really is scripted, and really they all read from the same script. ..."
    "... I look at politics through what is called "Deep Politics" which to me means politics viewed as it is rather than through the lens of American Exceptionalism." The oligarchs have fallen out among themselves at the very time that they achieved absolute control over our society. Part of all the differences are about "personal" rivalries among the aristocracy, another and part is about ethnic and social rivalries, and finally there are several different ideologies at work here. This explains the drift we have seen during the Obama years. ..."
    "... In the current system American politicians are power brokers who arrange deals and they tend to have very little personal power. Thus Obama's FP seems to be utterly rudderless and full of constant zig-zags. ..."
    "... Trump, in my view, saw that the disaffected factions had nowhere to go and were more nationalist and not as global in their views and believed he could Marshall those then inchoate forces into a movement. Trump was also, unlike most oligarchs, in touch with the yeoman class who do the heavy lifting in our society and are and have been ignored by the major factions as being irrelevant. Now Trump is heading the first genuine populist movement since FDR ..."
    "... I have it from a source I trust that Trump is fully aware of some of the skullduggery of the back ops cadre which explains his alliance with Alex Jones and his posse. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Clinton's negative campaign against Trump, and the media leashed to her messages, are doing Trump a huge favor. Unless they can break away from their limited framework, stop their unintended advertising for Trump's campaign, they will propel him to victory.

    Here is an example: Networks on Trump: A 'Dark Speech' From a 'Vengeful' 'Demagogue' - Newsbuster

    The three networks on Thursday night immediately derided Donald Trump's "dark speech" as one coming from a "vengeful" "demagogue."

    The "dark speech" theme was obviously a canned response by the Clinton campaign. Her independent media (not) dutifully repeated it over and over. But that negative "dark speech" theme, supposed to condemn Trump, only makes his point.

    (Isn't it amazing how Putin can compel all U.S. media to parrot the very same message?)

    Cont. reading: How Clinton And Her Shallow-Brained Media Do Trump's Bidding

    Posted by b at 04:44 AM | Comments (58)

    anon | Jul 25, 2016 7:18:04 AM | 10

    @4, Colin 'The Clintonistas can only go negative, because they have nothing meaningful to offer the electorate in a positive sense.'

    You know that's a common problem with the 1% oriented inner party and their outer party wannabes. They 'have nothing meaningful to offer the electorate in a positive sense'. That's exactly the 'problem' here in Thailand. The Democrat Party here, which is in about the same position as there, adopted the 'strategy' of boycotting elections. Not even running. They knew they had not a snowball's chance in South Thailand of winning.

    The 'solution' to their problem here was ... military coup and dictatorship. Turn back the clock to the middle ages and see how that works out. The thing about dictatorships is that they make 'society' stupid and cowardly. All the state functionaries identify with the dictator and in every situation ask themselves 'what would the dictator do?' and then they do it. They are at once even more irrational and brutal than the dictator himself ... or than the dictator himself after his advisors have cajoled and pleaded or the plutocrats have threatened him ... because they are deathly afraid of incurring the dictator's wrath for being 'lax'.

    And at the same time they'd like to stand out as dictatoresque men of action themselves ... just like the d-man himself. Maybe they can be d-men someday. Society is degenerating, and the pace has picked up in the past couple of months on the way to the dictator's referendum on his waaaay over the top charter, aka constitution, for Thailand. They arrested and charged two 8 year-old girls the other day who appropriated some important papers they'd hung up, because they put there orders on pink paper and the girls thought the paper was beautiful.

    Anyway, Trump is analogous to Thaksin, not to put too fine a point on it, at least he's talkin' the talk. The Democrats have nothing to offer ordinary

    jfl | Jul 25, 2016 7:28:03 AM | 12

    Looks like the corporate media all got the memo concerning Trump's "dark" acceptance speech:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoG0Q_oXEAAJlgV.jpg

    @7 ms, 'It is the time for nationalists and globalists to have a political war'

    I think its time for corporatists and humanists to have a war. I know that hard-right - libertarians - conceive of the government as the arch, evil corporation, but in fact that is because it is run by the arch. evil transnational corporations. The TTP / TTIP embody that corporate manifest. They want to take decision-making out of the hands of human beings and put it in the hands of the TNCs, because as slave 'owners' or 'managers' of corporations their livelihoods are completely dependent on the 'well-being', bottom line anyway, of those TNCs.

    The real problem with government is that it is absentee-owned, we the people have taken a permanent vacation, and the corporations have usurped our place. So the battle is to seize control of our governments and to geld the TNCs.

    There is much more overlap in our immediate goals than in our conception of how the world works, but the key word there is immediate. We have enough common ground there to form a coherent, goal directed, expeditionary-force, to battle the corporatists from the left and the globalists from the right, though we retire to separate tents with our fellows to plan the struggles of tomorrow, once the immediate battle has been closed and won.

    MadMax2 | Jul 25, 2016 7:53:05 AM | 13
    @jfl 5
    No, he cant lose vs Hilary. Impossible... as the outside observer (so more tuned to receive US foreign policy banter)

    The Don has benefitted not only from his worldwide brand prior to entering the race, but also from what came before him. A pretty large Paulite mobilisation in 2008, followed by an at times clinical insurgency into the party rank and file in 2012 created an atmosphere just perfect for Trump to follow in behind.

    For how fortunate the republican climate was/is for The Don, it was equally balanced by how unforgiving it was to Cruz. The RNC shot stooge Cruz in the back 4 years ago.

    The Paulite insurgency which in great detail engineered massive primary caucus delegate victories (see Minnesota) against the popular vote were so effective that the RNC changed the voting rules. And so, the 2016 primary delegates would be bound to the popular vote.

    An unfathomable lack of foresight right there, but also gives you an idea of how shitscared Stooge Romney was of the Paul faithful, whose leader had been subject to media blackout by much of the MSM and passed off as a cuck wherever else he was mentioned. Romney couldn't have him hijacking the 2012 RNC.

    Delegates now bound by popular vote instead of the caucus based system which encourages grass roots involvement is a perfect platform for...well..a populist.

    I am not sure that this revolution is what Good Dr Ron had in mind, but as an outsider looking in it's not hard to tell that The Don has aimed a couple of clever soundbites in regards to foreign policy squarely at the Paulites...even though you don't need to be too anti-war entice votes from Hilary.

    The Dems will have their reformation in 2020 - but I don't think they'll be feeling The Bern as much as the RNC is feeling Dr Ron's Pay-It-Forward Prescription.

    The RNC imploded. Because of Paul they lost a switch and lever crucial to event rigged - whenever Trump tweets 'RIGGED' that a war chant aimed at all conscious human beings.

    At least with Emperor Trump libertarians also get their wish of minimal government. Something to smile about I guess.

    Mike Maloney | Jul 25, 2016 7:57:34 AM | 15

    MadMax2 | Jul 25, 2016 7:55:53 AM | 14

    ^*crucial to event rigging /a>
    For all of Hillary's weaknesses and venality it is going to be next to impossible for Trump to beat her as long as he labors under a gender gap of historic proportions . After Hillary is elected, expect even more and larger U.S. wars. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Doomsday Clock will likely tick two minutes to midnight, something it hasn't done since 1953 at the height of the Cold War.
    Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 25, 2016 10:28:53 AM | 24
    Excellent run-down on the way Visionless Twerps emphasize their lack of vision by resorting to one-word slogans as a substitute for POLICIES, b.

    This observation sums up Hillary's dilemna with superb and delicious clarity:

    Trump raises much less money than Clinton. He simply does not need as much as she does. He can spend more time on real campaigning than Clinton who must hurry from one fund raiser to the next one. Meanwhile Clinton's negative campaigning against Trump reinforces his message.

    If she keeps believing her own bullshit (fingers crossed), and she slides in the polls, it's not hard to imagine that she'll have to put the Putin excuse on the back-burner and swing a wrecking ball through Team Clinton in retribution for her own dumbfuckery.

    With Right-wing Cranks it's ALWAYS somebody else's fault when a half-baked scheme goes belly-up.

    TG | Jul 25, 2016 10:30:14 AM | 25
    Good one - yes, the mass corporate press really is scripted, and really they all read from the same script.

    I guess they decided that 'racist' and 'fascist' were starting to lose their shock value due to overuse, and they decided to try 'dark' for a while.

    If I was a talented hacker I would love to intercept the marching orders that the media get and replace the official cuss-word of the day with something like 'ontological', and see how many media outlets blindly use the word even though it makes no sense at all…

    • "Donald Trump's speech darkly ontological" - NYT
    • "The specter of ontology haunting the Trump campaign" - The Guardian
    • "Putin and Trump: ontological partners?" - Time magazine

    I can dream...

    I think perhaps the worst thing that Bill Clinton did to this country - worse than NAFTA, worse than repealing Glass-Steagall, or bailing out the big banks that made bad loans to Mexico etc.etc., was allowing the media to consolidate.

    I think the biggest priority for anyone who wants his country to stop going down the drain, would be to break up the big media monopolies, prevent news organizations from owning or being owned by any other business, and blocking foreign nationals from controlling US media outlets. IMHO.

    likklemore | Jul 25, 2016 10:54:45 AM | 27
    Bravo b. But you've been too kind with your description:

    "The New York Times journalist tweeted" [..] The journos' shallow-brained reaction is a main ingredient of it"

    Imho, "journalist" joined the Dodos decades ago. What we now have are Stenos., Cut and Pasters at corporate media.

    May I use your apt descriptor "shallow-brained"? Yes, shallow-brain Stenos. No exercise of brain cells required.


    "Oh my, we need to separate the adverts, do you have a ready piece you'd like us to print? Send it over."

    On Election day, the turnout to vote may be as low as 30%.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    @ Mike Maloney 15

    For all of Hillary's weakness and venality it is going to be next to impossible for Trump to beat her…[..]"

    btw, I .do. not. have. a. vote.

    but
    May I suggest
    You underestimate the utter public disgust for the Clinton dynasty. Take any segment - from the low-informed to independents- they are tired and wish to see the backs of Clintons.

    Michael Moore sees even progressives will stay at home. A low turnout favours Trump.

    And do you not think the emails, ones from the DNC and HRC private servers, will keep on giving?

    At the link, do scroll up to "Wow" read the DNCLeak email. Donna Brazile says there are more coming….

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/24/2016-livewire-democrats-disarray-eve-hillary-clintons-coronation-convention-philadelphia/

    Democrats in Disarray UPDATE 10:25 P.M. ET

    Hillary Clinton, in an interview with 60 Minutes, says: "I don't know anything about these emails. I haven't followed it. But I'm very proud of the campaign I ran. And I'm very proud of the campaign that Sen. Sanders ran."
    When asked by 60 minutes if it would have been "improper" for anyone inside the DNC to favor one candidate over another, Hillary Clinton responds: "Again, I don't have any information about this. So I can't answer specifically. We ran our campaign. We ran hard. We worked to have as many successes as possible. We're very proud we got{.}

    ~ ~ ~

    as always HRC admits to " knowing nothing about it " and "is sometimes confused."

    HRC, the next president with Bill the first spouse?

    Is there some real estate for sale on Pluto?

    Banger | Jul 25, 2016 10:56:01 AM | 28
    I look at politics through what is called "Deep Politics" which to me means politics viewed as it is rather than through the lens of American Exceptionalism." The oligarchs have fallen out among themselves at the very time that they achieved absolute control over our society. Part of all the differences are about "personal" rivalries among the aristocracy, another and part is about ethnic and social rivalries, and finally there are several different ideologies at work here. This explains the drift we have seen during the Obama years.

    In the current system American politicians are power brokers who arrange deals and they tend to have very little personal power. Thus Obama's FP seems to be utterly rudderless and full of constant zig-zags.

    The main faction which includes Soros and his gang have the advantage of controlling the major propaganda organs and they support the Clintons. Trump, in my view, saw that the disaffected factions had nowhere to go and were more nationalist and not as global in their views and believed he could Marshall those then inchoate forces into a movement. Trump was also, unlike most oligarchs, in touch with the yeoman class who do the heavy lifting in our society and are and have been ignored by the major factions as being irrelevant. Now Trump is heading the first genuine populist movement since FDR though he is much closer to Mussolini in style and substance except for the imperial ambitions.

    Even if Trump wins that does not mean the dominant faction is dead because as long as the muscle part of the faction, mainly the black op faction remains in the globalist corner, they will still be able to assert themselves. Trump, if he wants to have free rein must purge some of these people and make some deals with the rest of we will see major instability. I have it from a source I trust that Trump is fully aware of some of the skullduggery of the back ops cadre which explains his alliance with Alex Jones and his posse.

    The "issues" here are irrelevant. This is about a struggle for power and if it is a close election the race will come down to who can control the ballot. American elections are noonger honest so who controls the count controls the election.

    One little caveat here. During the 00 ballot counting period in Florida while I was working on a top secret project one of the senior people on the project who was ex-military told me his sources in the military told him that if Gore won there would be a military coup. I believe the Supreme Court was aware of this and threw the election to Bush. I think we are seeing the most important election of our lifetime and no matter who wins we will see even more unraveling of the USA.

    kafkananda | Jul 25, 2016 10:58:01 AM | 29
    This is exactly the analysis that Scott Adams, the Dilbert comic strip creator, has been following for over a year. Understanding Trump as a 'Master Persuader' and relying on his training as a hypnotist, he was one of the first to say Trump was on his way to a landslide win, not just the Republican nomination. Check out his twitter feed "@ScottAdamsSays" for his latest thoughts.

    [Jul 24, 2016] Hillary Clinton Didnt Create ISIS, But America Can Still Blame Itself

    Notable quotes:
    "... Robert Mackey would like you to know that many in the Arab-speaking world are doing some genuine soul-searching about their culture's own role in the emergence of ISIS and that these conspiracy theories have simply been a haven for the obstinate and the self-deluded; Muslims who are too afraid to look themselves and their societies in the mirror. ..."
    "... Ha, ha. "Washington." What buffoons! ..."
    "... In a report this week on the blistering efficiency and military prowess of ISIS, ABC News reporter James Gordon Meek got an incredibly great, short answer as to where the Islamic State gained its technical expertise: "Probably the Chechens," a U.S. official said. ..."
    "... ISIS, or ISIL, or the Islamic State-whatever you want to call it-was nearly dead in 2007, after U.S. forces in Iraq and local Sunni tribes successfully joined forces against the group. It wasn't until the Syrian uprisings that it reemerged as a potent force, after a failed merger with the al-Qaida-affiliated Syrian rebel group al-Nusra, lead most of al-Nusra's foreign-born jihadis to defect to ISIS . ..."
    "... "Foreign-born jihadis" here meaning career Islamists like the Chechen groups, which have been conducting terror campaigns, kidnappings, and suicide bombings in Russia , with a reasonable degree of success, for over 15 years now. Some of the most prominent leaders now fighting with ISIS are Chechens: the ginger-bearded "rising star" Omar al-Shishani and the group's Che Guevara, Muslem al-Shishani (the unnervingly studly viking face pictured above). In addition to Saudi and Pakistani assistance, many of the Chechens were led and supported by the CIA-trained Afghan mujahideen, up-to-and-including Osama bin Laden: ace mentors, in other words, with proven experience in a professional terror setting. ..."
    "... When not actively defending the Chechen extremists with weirdly bipartisan neocon-neoliberal advocacy groups , policy makers and government officials in Washington have turned a proactively blind eye to Chechen Islamist activities in Russia and here in the United States with infamously fatal consequences. Both the 9/11 Commission Report and FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley have shown that senior-level officials refused to classify Islamic terrorists in Chechnya-like their then-leader Ibn al Khattab who had direct contact with bin Laden-as actual terrorists, thus preventing the FBI from properly investigating "20th hijacker" Zaccarias Moussaoui before 9/11. ..."
    "... A big part of the reason for this sensitivity is that covertly letting the Saudis and their Islamic radicals chip away at the oil-rich rubble on the fringes of the collapsed Soviet empire has been America's favored strategy for collecting the spoils of the Cold War. ..."
    "... "The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army," a former CIA analyst told Swiss journalist Richard Labévičre back in the late 1990s . "The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia." ..."
    blackbag.gawker.com

    Wise Men of Foreign Affairs have jumped at the chance to debunk a wild rumor that Hillary Clinton bragged about creating ISIS in her new memoir-truly an easy layup in the annals of punditry. The rumor even got the name of Clinton's memoir wrong. But, that's OK: The remaining facts still allow America to feel guilty.

    According to at least one Egyptian blogger, the conspiracy theory-complete with fake quotes from a fantasy version of Clinton's memoir entitled Plan 360-emerged from the hothouse of Egypt's Pro-Mubarak/Pro-Military Facebook pages: a social circle in which it is already de rigueur to suggest that the U.S. and the Muslim Brotherhood secretly conspired to orchestrate the Arab Spring. This screenshot of a Facebook page for the Egyptian military's counter-terrorism and special operations unit, Task Force 777, and its reconnaissance special operations unit, Task Force 999, depicts one of the earliest appearances of the fake Clinton quotes:

    Leaving aside for the moment the question of why Clinton would brag about this covert operation, in progress, in her memoir, what foreign policy objectives could possibly be achieved by America manufacturing ISIS? Like: Why do that? To what ends?

    One version involves Israel (obviously), and something about balkanizing Israel's Mid-East neighbors to both justify their nefarious Zionist expansion, or whatever, and remove opposition to it. Another version, as The Week pointed out Tuesday, claims that the U.S. would plan to recognize an ISIS caliphate and that this caliphate would turn out to be (somehow) very amenable to America's strategic and economic interests.

    Despite the fact that the U.S. Embassy in Beirut felt compelled to publicly debunk all this on their Facebook page, it's unclear how many people in the region actually believed it.

    The hashtag #HilaryClintonsMemoirs ( #مذكرات_هيلاري_كلينتون) quickly started trending across social media in the region, Huffington Post UK reported, "with satirical tweets mocking the theory with outlandish claims about what else the Secretary of State might have written-like a secret CIA plot to close all the restaurants in Cairo and replace them with McDonalds."

    Good one, the Middle East. I'm lovin' it.

    Not everyone appreciated the Middle East's jokes, however. Writing in his "Open Source" column for the New York Times, Robert Mackey would like you to know that many in the Arab-speaking world are doing some genuine soul-searching about their culture's own role in the emergence of ISIS and that these conspiracy theories have simply been a haven for the obstinate and the self-deluded; Muslims who are too afraid to look themselves and their societies in the mirror.

    For instance, the Lebanese scholar Ziad Majed wrote on his blog that at least six factors from the recent history of the Middle East helped give birth to the militant movement, including "despotism in the most heinous form that has plagued the region," as well as "the American invasion of Iraq in 2003," and "a profound crisis, deeply rooted in the thinking of some Islamist groups seeking to escape from their terrible failure to confront the challenges of the present toward a delusional model ostensibly taken from the seventh century."

    That sort of introspection is not for everyone, of course, so a popular conspiracy theory has spread online that offers an easier answer to the riddle of where ISIS came from: Washington.

    Ha, ha. "Washington." What buffoons!

    Let's learn a valuable lesson from the psychological projections of these weak-willed Third World plebes: desert Archie Bunkers and izaar-clad Tony Sopranos too parochial in their worldview and too much in denial of their own culpability to face this present danger.

    America is better than that.

    Let us examine with clear eyes all the ways in which our own democratically elected government-in Washington-is responsible for where ISIS came from.

    U.S. Policy in Chechnya

    In a report this week on the blistering efficiency and military prowess of ISIS, ABC News reporter James Gordon Meek got an incredibly great, short answer as to where the Islamic State gained its technical expertise: "Probably the Chechens," a U.S. official said.

    ISIS, or ISIL, or the Islamic State-whatever you want to call it-was nearly dead in 2007, after U.S. forces in Iraq and local Sunni tribes successfully joined forces against the group. It wasn't until the Syrian uprisings that it reemerged as a potent force, after a failed merger with the al-Qaida-affiliated Syrian rebel group al-Nusra, lead most of al-Nusra's foreign-born jihadis to defect to ISIS.

    "Foreign-born jihadis" here meaning career Islamists like the Chechen groups, which have been conducting terror campaigns, kidnappings, and suicide bombings in Russia, with a reasonable degree of success, for over 15 years now. Some of the most prominent leaders now fighting with ISIS are Chechens: the ginger-bearded "rising star" Omar al-Shishani and the group's Che Guevara, Muslem al-Shishani (the unnervingly studly viking face pictured above). In addition to Saudi and Pakistani assistance, many of the Chechens were led and supported by the CIA-trained Afghan mujahideen, up-to-and-including Osama bin Laden: ace mentors, in other words, with proven experience in a professional terror setting.

    When not actively defending the Chechen extremists with weirdly bipartisan neocon-neoliberal advocacy groups, policy makers and government officials in Washington have turned a proactively blind eye to Chechen Islamist activities in Russia and here in the United States with infamously fatal consequences. Both the 9/11 Commission Report and FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley have shown that senior-level officials refused to classify Islamic terrorists in Chechnya-like their then-leader Ibn al Khattab who had direct contact with bin Laden-as actual terrorists, thus preventing the FBI from properly investigating "20th hijacker" Zaccarias Moussaoui before 9/11. Another pre-9/11 FBI investigation, this time into a Florida summer camp run by the Saudi-funded World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), discovered that the group was showing children videos praising Chechen bombers, only to be pulled off the case according to an FBI memo, ID 1991-WF-213589, uncovered by Greg Palast for the BBC and Vice.

    Upon further digging by Palast:

    Several insiders repeated the same story: U.S. agencies ended the investigation of the bin Laden-terrorist-Chechen-jihad connection out of fear of exposing uncomfortable facts. U.S. intelligence had turned a blind eye to the Abdullah bin Laden organisation [yes, WAMY was run by a bin Laden brother] because our own government was more than happy that our Saudi allies were sending jihadis to Afghanistan, then, via WAMY, helping Muslims to fight in Bosnia then, later, giving the Russians grief in Chechnya. The problem is that terrorists are like homing pigeons – they come home to roost.

    As Joe Trento of the National Security News Service, who helped me on the investigation, said, "It would be unseemly if [someone] were arrested by the FBI and word got back that he'd once been on the payroll of the CIA What we're talking about is blow-back. What we're talking about is embarrassing, career-destroying blow-back for intelligence officials."

    The agency has gone to great lengths to paper over this. When former CIA agent Robert Baer-whose writing served as the factual basis for that weird George Clooney movie Syriana-wanted to cite Russian sources about the Saudi-Chechen connection in his book Sleeping With the Devil, the agency pressured him not to. This despite the fact that it was publicly available information he'd acquired after retiring from government service.

    A big part of the reason for this sensitivity is that covertly letting the Saudis and their Islamic radicals chip away at the oil-rich rubble on the fringes of the collapsed Soviet empire has been America's favored strategy for collecting the spoils of the Cold War.

    "The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army," a former CIA analyst told Swiss journalist Richard Labévičre back in the late 1990s. "The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia."

    Granted: The events of September 11th made this grand strategy a little tricky, domestically, but as you may have noticed over the past few years, particularly in Russian-allied Syria, it's mostly back on track.

    [Jul 24, 2016] Obama Denies Advance Knowledge of Turkish Coup

    Notable quotes:
    "... Speaking at the White House today, President Obama denied unequivocally that the US had any prior knowledge of last week's failed military coup in Turkey, calling on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to make sure everyone in Turkey knows the US wasn't involved. ..."
    "... The early US reaction to the coup has raised a lot of speculation, as Secretary of State John Kerry, during the coup, issued a tepid comment just urging "stability." The US only condemned the coup when it became clear, later that evening, that it was going to fail. ..."
    Jul 22, 2016 | Antiwar.com

    Obama Denies Advance Knowledge of Turkish Coup; Insists US Had No Involvement in Failed Coup

    Speaking at the White House today, President Obama denied unequivocally that the US had any prior knowledge of last week's failed military coup in Turkey, calling on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to make sure everyone in Turkey knows the US wasn't involved.

    The early US reaction to the coup has raised a lot of speculation, as Secretary of State John Kerry, during the coup, issued a tepid comment just urging "stability." The US only condemned the coup when it became clear, later that evening, that it was going to fail.

    Turkey cut power to the Incirlik Air Base, where many US warplanes and dozens of US nuclear weapons are based, and jailed the commander as a co-conspirator to the coup. That, and Turkey's blaming of cleric Fethullah Gulen, exiled to the US, as being behind the plot, are likely the source of a lot of the speculation.

    The US has been keen to keep its ties close to Turkey, whoever ends up running it, and the Obama Administration is understandably eager to distance itself from any suspicion. This is a key part of why the US has been so reluctant to seriously criticize Turkey's post-coup purge, and why Turkey feels comfortable pressuring them to extradite Gulen without any evidence.

    [Jul 23, 2016] Did Russia save Erdogan

    Defend Democracy Press
    TEHRAN (FNA)- Arab media outlets quoted diplomats in Ankara as disclosing that Turkey's President Erdogan was alerted by Russia against an imminent army coup hours before it was initiated on Friday, while a western media outlet said Erdogan asked his supporters to remain in the streets after receiving advice from Tehran.

    Several Arab media outlets, including Rai Alyoum, quoted diplomatic sources in Ankara as saying that Turkey's National Intelligence Organization, known locally as the MIT, received intel from its Russian counterpart that warned of an impending coup in the Muslim state.

    The unnamed diplomats said the Russian army in the region had intercepted highly sensitive army exchanges and encoded radio messages showing that the Turkish army was readying to stage a coup against the administration in Ankara.

    The exchanges included dispatch of several army choppers to President Erdogan's resort hotel to arrest or kill the president.

    The diplomats were not sure of the Russian station that had intercepted the exchanges, but said the Russian army intelligence unit deployed in Khmeimim (also called Hmeimim) in Syria's Northern province of Lattakia is reportedly equipped with state-of-the-art electronic and eavesdropping systems to gather highly sensitive information for the Russian squadrons that are on an anti-terrorism mission in Syria.

    Khmeimim in Northwestern Syria is the only Russian air force base in the war-ravaged country that provides cover for Syrian army and popular forces in multiple fronts across the country, in addition to bombing missions against terrorist targets. The Russian naval fleet, including its only aircraft carrier, are deployed along the coasts of Lattakia border province to provide logistical aid to the air base in a short time. Meantime, Russia has deployed its highly sophisticated S-400 air defense shield at Khmeimim and announced that it covers the entire Syrian skies with the same air defense system.

    Last year, Turkey shot down a Russian Sukhoi bomber over Syrian skies and President Erdogan who was then a staunch enemy of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad rejected extending an apology to Moscow for about a year, although economic sanctions by Russia as well as growing victories by the Syrian army, popular forces, Hezbollah fighters, Iranian advisors and Russian air force that cornered the terrorists in Syria and similar victories against ISIL in Iraq convinced the Turkish president to not just apologize for the Sukhoi incident, but also show signs of a U-turn in foreign policy, saying that he is dropping his opposition to President Assad.

    Four days after the coup, officials in Ankara announced that the two Turkish pilots who played a role in the downing of the Russian plane in November were in custody over the recent failed coup. "Two pilots who were part of the operation to down the Russian Su-24 in November 2015 are in custody," a Turkish official told journalists on Tuesday, adding that they were detained over links to the coup bid.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin called his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Sunday, describing the attempted coup as unacceptable and voicing hope for a speedy return to stability.

    The diplomatic sources said the shift in Erdogan's foreign policy stated only a week before the coup has been "a major cause pushing several foreign states to provoke and promise support for the army to stage the coup, and the same shift also saved him" as it was not clear if the Russians would provide Ankara with their intel, otherwise.

    Officials of neither country have made any comment on the report yet. In Ankara, official sources, including the Army itself, confirmed that the Turkish army's top generals had been informed of last week's coup by the MIT hours before the plot came into action.

    A statement issued by the army on July 19 described the events that took place on July 15, saying a majority within the military managed to suppress the coup attempt due to information provided by the MIT some five hours before the coup plot became public, national newspaper Hurriyet reported.

    "The information given by the National Intelligence Organization on July 15, 2016, at around 4:00 p.m. was evaluated at the General Staff headquarters with the attendance of Chief of Staff General Hulusi Akar, Chief of the Army General Salih Zeki Colak and Deputy Chief of Staff General Yasar Guler."

    In order to counter the coup, high ranking officials within the Turkish army gave orders for all air and ground forces around the country to immediately cease operations including military vehicles such as tanks, planes and helicopters.

    A report by Al-Jazeera Arabic suggests the coup plotters initiated the operation six hours ahead of time as they had previously planned to launch the coup at 3:00 a.m. local time on July 16.

    While the report does not indicate the reason for the coup being initiated ahead of time, the revelation by the military suggests the coup plotters understood their plans had been compromised and decided to act. 1

    Reports also suggest the coup plotters had orders to kidnap or kill President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as helicopters headed toward the hotel he was staying in at the holiday resort of Marmaris. But Erdogan had left 44 minutes before they arrived, according to Al-Jazeera's report.

    The official statements coming out from Ankara are in full compliance with the Arab media reports quoting the diplomatic sources on the Russian intel.

    Only four days after the coup, Erdogan appeared on the media saying that he plans to declare a crucial turn in foreign policy that would "end differences with Turkey's neighboring states".

    Less than a day later, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov announced that President Erdogan would visit Russia early in August to meet with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.

    Meantime, Iran rushed to condemn the Turkish army coup only two hours after it started. Several top security and foreign policy officials in Tehran were in constant contact with President Erdogan and his cabinet ministers all throughout Friday.

    As July 15 was coming to an end in Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was on the phone with his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu, whose government was under the threat of being overthrown by a military coup. Meanwhile, Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), was on another line with security officials in Ankara. All the while, Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force, Iran's regional military arm, was busy pursuing and reviewing various scenarios that might emerge.

    "It's not a secret anymore," an Iranian official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. "Zarif, Shamkhani and Soleimani were executing higher orders. The whole establishment was too concerned. Turkey is a neighboring state. President Erdogan and his government are strong partners of Iran. Our nations enjoy strong brotherly ties, so it's the least we can do to show solidarity and try to offer any help they might need in such critical times."

    "Another Iranian official saw parallels between the successful coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 and this year's coup attempt in Turkey," Al-Monitor said.

    The official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, "What we know is that this move was triggered by foreign hands. We went through the same in the past, and because Mr. Erdogan is today looking forward to playing a better role in the region, they want him down." The Iranian official said, "There was a message that was conveyed to Turkish security officials: Don't leave the streets. This coup might be made up of several waves; it happened in Iran in 1953. When the first coup failed, they had another one ready - and they succeeded."

    In Ankara, the government claims the coup and the generals behind it are loyal followers of US-based Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen, who was once Erdogan's key ally before a major fallout in 2012. Many believe that Gulen is the main cause of why Ankara officials have repeatedly accused the US of masterminding the plot.

    Gulen is running a multi-billion dollar enterprise in Saudi Arabia and has grown into a serious bone of contention in Ankara-Riyadh ties. Saudi Arabia reserved condemnation of the coup in a suspicious move. Later, reports surfaced the media that the top brass in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi – two strong allies of the US with unbreakably intimate ties with each other in the Persian Gulf – were involved in the coup.

    Saudi whistle-blower Mujtahid, who is believed to be a member of or have a well-connected source in the royal family, dislosed that senior government officials in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi had been informed of the coup in Turkey long before it took place.

    Mujtahid wrote on his twitter page on Monday that the UAE leaders had played a role in the coup and the Turkish spy agencies have come to decode this involvement, adding that the UAE leaders had also alerted the Saudis about the impending coup.

    "Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammad bin Salman had been informed of the military coup in Turkey," Mujtahid wrote on his twitter page on Monday.

    "There are reasons to prove that given his intimate relations with Mohammad bin Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces), Mohammad bin Salman had been filled with information about this coup," he added.

    According to Mujtahid, Turkish intelligence agencies had received information about some negative collaboration between bin Salman and bin Zayed, but the Saudis managed to convince the Justice and Development party to rest assured and be optimistic about Riyadh's actions.

    He revealed that bin Salman has been trying to convince the Turks to conceal the UAE's role in the coup and has promised a large amount of cash in retribution.

    The last week coup in Turkey is now growing into a major regional confrontation over Turkey's shift in its Syria policy now. If confirmed, the Russian and Iranian aid to Erdogan would mean the power balance and equations in the region ought to be redefined.

    [Jul 23, 2016] Donald Trump's United States of #MAGA

    theintercept.com

    Maisie July 23 2016, 10:07 p.m.

    Trump may not know or care to know that Barack Obama has spent eight years pounding on al Qaeda, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also through the use of drones and other covert campaigns in Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. In his two terms, George W. Bush ordered 49 drone strikes against al Qaeda and Taliban-associated targets in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Obama, during his first two years of office, ordered 174. These are facts, but to Trump and Giuliani, they may not matter. After all, what good does killing radical Islamic terrorists do if Obama refuses to call the enemy by its name?

    1). You uncritically express the establishment line that "Obama is killing radical terrorists," when the most accurate description is "Obama is killing people suspected of something, and also killing those near them."

    2). 90% of drone strike victims are not the intended target.

    3). Obama's militarism is founded on Full Spectrum Dominance for corporate America and allied interests, not "fighting terrorism."

    4). Chest-pounding to boast Obama is a violent bastard like the Republicans is – while true – obscene.

    W0X0F July 23 2016, 9:57 p.m.
    Giuliani is one of the bad guys. He has helped cover up the 9/11 deception. Bldg 7 contained his emergency HQ. We all know it was "pulled"!

    Orville, July 23 2016, 9:05 p.m.

    Alas, Guliani is still around. I remember how the media announced him as the winner of a presidential debate, solely for going against Ron Paul's factual statement that we are hated for our overseas meddling. (Never mind that various intelligence figures backed Paul- including Michael Scheuer, who endorsed Paul the next day, or that the voters themselves backed Paul in the polls and primaries.

    George C, July 23 2016, 8:40 p.m.

    "Man has an intense need for certainty; he wants to believe that there is no need to doubt that the method by which he makes his decisions is right. In fact, he would rather make the "wrong" decision and be sure about it than the "right" decision and be tormented with doubt about its validity. This is one of the psychological reasons for man's belief in idols and political leaders. They all take out doubt and risk from his decision making; this does not mean that there is not a risk for his life, freedom, etc., after the decision has been made, but that there is no risk that the method of his decision making was wrong. For many centuries certainty

    Fromm, Erich. The Revolution of Hope: Toward a Humanized Technology

    photosymbiosis -> rrheard, July 23 2016, 8:45 p.m.

    I don't know, I appreciate the focus on Giuliani who is an utter slimeball in the same mold as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and the Clintons.

    However, a more careful analysis of Giuliani's background in the second section ('Altar Boys') would have had a more devastating impact. Giuliani is the perfect example of a corrupt prosecutor; his claim to fame was prosecuting a Italian mafia drug ring – and then he went to work for the Purdue Pharma oxycontin drug ring. He's also a close long-time associate of FBI Director Louis Freeh, who notably went to work for the Wall Street credit giant MBNA (#2 Bush donor after Enron) after his FBI term ended. MBNA was later bought by Bank of America, who wrote off $60 billion in shady MBNA credit loans from 2008-2010, probably got a taxpayer bailout for that too. Who are the crooks, again?

    See David Vise's "The Bureau and the Mole" about FBI agent / Soviet mole (and Opus Dei member) Robert Hannsen, about the Giuliani-Freeh connection.
    http://blogcritics.org/spy-vs-spy-the-bureau-and/

    Really, all of Giuliani's talk about "law and order" is utter BS; the guy is a crook as his lobbying the DEA to get Purdue Pharma off criminal charges for illegal oxycontin distribution shows. This was all done through a shady firm he set up after leaving office called "Giuliani Partners" c.2002

    Crooked Rudy Giuliani, Lyin' Rudy Giuliani – basically a con artist in the same mold as the Clintons, cashing in with the corporate crooks every chance they can get. (Giuliani pulled in $11 million in speaking fees in 2006 alone, outdoing Clinton I think).

    Fellow Citizen, July 23 2016, 7:29 p.m.

    How are Republicans going to make America great again when the problem is Democrats becoming Republicans by destroying the American middle class, and placeing our poor in what now has become a state of abject poverty?


    [Jul 20, 2016] FBI Agents Silenced on Hillary Probe

    Notable quotes:
    "... FBI agents who worked on the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server reportedly had to sign an unusual non-disclosure form banning them from talking about the case unless they were called to testify. ..."
    "... Unnamed sources tell the New York Post they'd never heard of the special form - known as a "case briefing acknowledgment" - being used before, though all agents initially have to sign nondisclosure agreements to obtain security clearance. ..."
    Jul 13, 2016 | www.newsmax.com

    FBI agents who worked on the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server reportedly had to sign an unusual non-disclosure form banning them from talking about the case unless they were called to testify.

    Unnamed sources tell the New York Post they'd never heard of the special form - known as a "case briefing acknowledgment" - being used before, though all agents initially have to sign nondisclosure agreements to obtain security clearance.

    "This is very, very unusual. I've never signed one, never circulated one to others," one unnamed retired FBI chief tells the Post. "I have never heard of such a form. Sounds strange," an anonymous FBI agent said.

    The Post additionally reports some FBI agents are disappointed that Director James Comey decided against recommending that charges be brought against Clinton for her mishandling of classified information.

    "FBI agents believe there was an inside deal put in place after the [Attorney General] Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting" just hours before the release of a House report on the Benghazi, Libya terror attack in 2012, one unnamed source tells the Post.

    Another Justice Department source tells the newspaper he was "furious" with Comey, deriding him for having "managed to piss off right and left."

    [Jul 20, 2016] The Toughest Question about Global Trade

    Notable quotes:
    "... This research documents that the negative effects of globalization on employment and wages are larger than many people realized. In addition, it recognizes that most of the benefits have accrued to those at the top of the income distribution while the costs -- lost jobs, lower wages and fewer attractive employment opportunities -- have fallen mainly on the working class. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    I have a new post at MoneyWatch:
    The toughest question about global trade: This year's battle for the White House has put international trade in the spotlight. Donald Trump has led the charge against trade agreements, but Hillary Clinton's reversal of her support for President Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) also reflects the evolving view of the benefits of globalization.
    The American public has long been suspicious of international trade, but economists have been much more supportive. However, new evidence in the economics literature has caused a rethinking of how to evaluate trade agreements.

    This research documents that the negative effects of globalization on employment and wages are larger than many people realized. In addition, it recognizes that most of the benefits have accrued to those at the top of the income distribution while the costs -- lost jobs, lower wages and fewer attractive employment opportunities -- have fallen mainly on the working class.

    One response from many advocates is to point out that international trade has lifted millions of people around the world out of poverty and that reducing the pace of globalization would slow the rate of global poverty reduction.

    All of which brings up an important and rather difficult question: Just how should we value international trade? ...

    Tom aka Rusty said...
    Who decided that US workers would be required to sacrifice to create a middle class in China (and the Chinese military, oops)? Why didn't the elites join in the sacrifice? Why no transparency? Or was this pushed with great theories that didn't work? Just wondering.

    [Jul 20, 2016] Global elites must heed the warning of populist rage by Martin Wolf

    Notable quotes:
    "... Real income stagnation over a far longer period than any since the second world war is a fundamental political fact. But it cannot be the only driver of discontent. For many of those in the middle of the income distribution, cultural changes also appear threatening. So, too, does immigration - globalisation made flesh. Citizenship of their nations is the most valuable asset owned by most people in wealthy countries. They will resent sharing this with outsiders. Britain's vote to leave the EU was a warning. ..."
    "... First, understand that we depend on one another for our prosperity. It is essential to balance assertions of sovereignty with the requirements of global co-operation. ..."
    "... Second, reform capitalism. The role of finance is excessive. The stability of the financial system has improved. But it remains riddled with perverse incentives. The interests of shareholders are given excessive weight over those of other stakeholders in corporations. ..."
    "... Above all, recognise the challenge. Prolonged stagnation, cultural upheavals and policy failures are combining to shake the balance between democratic legitimacy and global order. The candidacy of Mr Trump is a result. ..."
    July 19, 2016 | ft.com

    Real income stagnation over a longer period than any since the war is a fundamental political fact

    For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong." HL Mencken could have been thinking of today's politics. The western world undoubtedly confronts complex problems, notably, the dissatisfaction of so many citizens. Equally, aspirants to power, such as Donald Trump in the US and Marine Le Pen in France, offer clear, simple and wrong solutions - notably, nationalism, nativism and protectionism.

    The remedies they offer are bogus. But the illnesses are real. If governing elites continue to fail to offer convincing cures, they might soon be swept away and, with them, the effort to marry democratic self-government with an open and co-operative world order.

    What is the explanation for this backlash? A large part of the answer must be economic. Rising prosperity is a good in itself. But it also creates the possibility of positive-sum politics. This underpins democracy because it is then feasible for everybody to become better off at the same time. Rising prosperity reconciles people to economic and social disruption. Its absence foments rage.

    The McKinsey Global Institute sheds powerful light on what has been happening in a report entitled, tellingly, Poorer than their Parents?, which demonstrates how many households have been suffering from stagnant or falling real incomes. On average between 65 and 70 per cent of households in 25 high-income economies experienced this between 2005 and 2014. In the period between 1993 and 2005, however, only 2 per cent of households suffered stagnant or declining real incomes. This applies to market income. Because of fiscal redistribution, the proportion suffering from stagnant real disposable incomes was between 20 and 25 per cent. (See charts.)

    McKinsey has examined personal satisfaction through a survey of 6,000 French, British and Americans. The consultants found that satisfaction depended more on whether people were advancing relative to others like them in the past than whether they were improving relative to those better off than themselves today. Thus people preferred becoming better off, even if they were not catching up with contemporaries better off still. Stagnant incomes bother people more than rising inequality.

    The main explanation for the prolonged stagnation in real incomes is the financial crises and subsequent weak recovery. These experiences have destroyed popular confidence in the competence and probity of business, administrative and political elites. But other shifts have also been adverse. Among these are ageing (particularly important in Italy) and declining shares of wages in national income (particularly important in the US, UK and Netherlands).

    Real income stagnation over a far longer period than any since the second world war is a fundamental political fact. But it cannot be the only driver of discontent. For many of those in the middle of the income distribution, cultural changes also appear threatening. So, too, does immigration - globalisation made flesh. Citizenship of their nations is the most valuable asset owned by most people in wealthy countries. They will resent sharing this with outsiders. Britain's vote to leave the EU was a warning.

    So what is to be done? If Mr Trump were to become president of the US, it might already be too late. But suppose that this does not happen or, if it does, that the result is not as dire as I fear. What then might be done?

    1. First, understand that we depend on one another for our prosperity. It is essential to balance assertions of sovereignty with the requirements of global co-operation. Global governance, while essential, must be oriented towards doing things countries cannot do for themselves. It must focus on providing the essential global public goods. Today this means climate change is a higher priority than further opening of world trade or capital flows.
    2. Second, reform capitalism. The role of finance is excessive. The stability of the financial system has improved. But it remains riddled with perverse incentives. The interests of shareholders are given excessive weight over those of other stakeholders in corporations.
    3. Third, focus international co-operation where it will help governments achieve significant domestic objectives. Perhaps the most important is taxation. Wealth owners, who depend on the security created by legitimate democracies, should not escape taxation.
    4. Fourth, accelerate economic growth and improve opportunities. Part of the answer is stronger support for aggregate demand, particularly in the eurozone. But it is also essential to promote investment and innovation. It may be impossible to transform economic prospects. But higher minimum wages and generous tax credits for working people are effective tools for raising incomes at the bottom of the distribution.
    5. Fifth, fight the quacks. It is impossible to resist pressure to control flows of un­skilled workers into advanced economies. But this will not transform wages. Equally, protection against imports is costly and will also fail to raise the share of manufacturing in employment significantly. True, that share is far higher in Germany than in the US or UK. But Germany runs a huge trade surplus and has a strong comparative advantage in manufacturing. This is not a generalisable state of affairs. (See chart.)

    Above all, recognise the challenge. Prolonged stagnation, cultural upheavals and policy failures are combining to shake the balance between democratic legitimacy and global order. The candidacy of Mr Trump is a result. Those who reject the chauvinist response must come forward with imaginative and ambitious ideas aimed at re-establishing that balance. It is not going to be easy. But failure must not be accepted. Our civilisation itself is at stake.

    [email protected]

    More on this topic

    [Jul 20, 2016] Ron Paul on the Turkey Coup – Is It Over

    Antiwar.com

    Three days after the mysterious Turkish coup that was put down almost instantly, Turkish president Erdogan has conducted massive purges of the judiciary and the military. He even referred to the coup as a "godsend" that would allow him to rid the government of those who are disloyal. The purges have focused attention in Washington and Brussels, where he is being warned that talks for EU membership - and even existing NATO membership - may be at risk if the government crackdown gets more serious. Is the US and EU bluffing? After all, Erdogan currently has nearly three million Syrian refugees on Turkish soil that he could send to Europe at any time. And closing the US base at Incirlik would create havoc for US "power projection" in the region. We examine these and more in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:

    [Jul 20, 2016] The Saudis Did 9-11

    The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

    News reports about the recently released 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks are typically dismissive: this is nothing new, it's just circumstantial evidence, and there's no "smoking gun." Yet given what the report actually says – and these news accounts are remarkably sparse when it comes to verbatim quotes – it's hard to fathom what would constitute a smoking gun.

    To begin with, let's start with what's not in these pages: there are numerous redactions. And they are rather odd. When one expects to read the words "CIA" or "FBI," instead we get a blacked-out word. Entire paragraphs are redacted – often at crucial points. So it's reasonable to assume that, if there is a smoking gun, it's contained in the portions we're not allowed to see. Presumably the members of Congress with access to the document prior to its release who have been telling us that it changes their entire conception of the 9/11 attacks – and our relationship with the Saudis – read the unredacted version. Which points to the conclusion that the omissions left out crucial information – perhaps including the vaunted smoking gun.

    In any case, what we have access to makes more than just a substantial case: it shows that the Saudi government – including top officials, such as then Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and other members of the royal family – financed and actively aided the hijackers prior to September 11, 2001.

    [Jul 19, 2016] US releases Saudi documents 9-11 coverup exposed by Bill Van Auken

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, maintained this secrecy for several reasons. First, it was concerned that the documents would jeopardize its relations with Saudi Arabia, which, after Israel, is Washington's closest ally in the Middle East, a partner in bloody operations from Afghanistan to Syria to Yemen, and the world's biggest buyer of American arms. ..."
    "... Even more importantly, it was concerned that the 28 pages would further expose the abject criminality of the US government's role in facilitating the attacks of 9/11 and then lying about their source and exploiting them to justify savage wars of aggression, first against Afghanistan and then against Iraq. These wars have claimed over a million lives. The false narrative created around the September 11 attacks remains the ideological pillar of the US campaign of global militarism conducted in the name of a "war on terror." ..."
    "... The report focuses in part on the role of one Omar al-Bayoumi, who was described to the FBI as a Saudi intelligence officer, and, according to FBI files, "provided substantial assistance to hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi after they arrived in San Diego in February 2000." ..."
    "... According to the report, al-Bayoumi had previously worked for the Saudi Civil Aviation Association and, in the period leading up to 9/11, was "in frequent contact with the Emir at the Saudi Defense Ministry responsible for air traffic control." Phone records showed him calling Saudi government agencies 100 times between January and May of 2000. ..."
    "... Bassnan's wife also received a monthly stipend from Princess Haifa, the Saudi ambassador's wife, to the tune of $2,000 a month. As well, the FBI found one $15,000 check written by Bandar himself in 1998 to Bassnan. The report states that FBI information indicated that Bassnan was "an extremist and supporter of Usama Bin Ladin," who spoke of the Al Qaeda leader "as if he were god." ..."
    "... The obvious anomalies in the Pentagon incident and the Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash merely add to the mountain of evidence that exists pointing to some cabal that ran a MIHOP operation that day. This is not new information and has been made available by the many independent investigators who have been diligently digging into this signal event for nearly 15 years now. ..."
    "... Much more likely suspects would be those Americans named by Kevin Ryan in his book "Another Nineteen", and/or the Israeli Mossad and military agents (5 of whom were arrested in New Jersey while making a video record of "the event" and who were noticed by an outraged citizen who called local police who arrested them and the spent 2 months in U.S. jails, finally released by dual Israeli / U.S. citizen Michael Chertoff, 3 of them appeared later on Israeli TV and bragged about the operation in plain Hebrew). ..."
    "... My father was a structural design engineer who designed heavy steel structures like the WTC and also nuclear power plants and wind tunnels for NASA. He was an expert on types of steel, how it was made and what its properties were. The moment he saw the first tower collapse into it own footprint, he said 'That's a controlled demolition." He knew that fire alone would not have been enough to even dent the steel in the WTC, let alone pulverize it. Everything in the building could have burned and the steel would have remained standing, slightly scorched, but largely intact. To believe otherwise is not to believe in the laws of physics or the science of metallurgy. ..."
    "... 9/11 was/is a criminally managed event involving some of America's highest officials. ..."
    "... Ahhhh yes, and no less a group of people than members of the NYFD who charged up into those buildings were not concerned about them collapsing. In fact one team of firefighters who made it up to the impact zone in one of the towers reported the fire there as "no big deal" and "easily controlled". Other firefighters and various police did, however, report many explosions, most of them deep in the buildings far below the impact zones. ..."
    "... Dutch controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko, upon seeing a video of the collapse of Tower 7 immediately said (I think this comment was made in 2007) "This is controlled demolition"; of course he died in a suspicious one car accident, in which his car hit a tree head on on July 16th, 2011 (similar to how some of the JFK assassination witnesses were eliminated). A couple of videos of his comments can be seen in a "Veteran's Today" article found at < http://www.veteranstoday.com/2... >. ..."
    "... One should ask why the Mossad and the extremely powerful Israel lobby have seen fit to participate in the cover-up for so long. They certainly would have ignored the U.S. government's desire for secrecy and gotten this information out (which they surely knew from their own sources) if they didn't have something to hide. But that cover-up continues. ..."
    "... The true "smoking gun" of the 9/11 atrocities is the eight-second symmetrical free-fall collapse of WTC #7. The claim that this occurred because of office fires is ludicrous, entirely impossible. It was a conventional implosion, carried off in one of the most secure buildings in NYC, sheltering the CIA, FBI and the mayor's emergency bunker and would have taken weeks to prepare. ..."
    "... I saw the video on TV and was surprised that it went unquestioned on why it collapsed. Even the clean symmetrical fall of the second tower to collapse, was neat and symmetric. ..."
    "... In my educated opinion, supported by facts of the case conveniently omitted, the release of the small section of the Congressional report kept secret for 13 years is what they call in the CIA a "limited hangout", which is contains a mix of both truth and omissions or outright lies, and exposes the audience to a falsity more dangerous and misleading than an outright lie. ..."
    "... The best evidence if this were ever taken to court, would be the stand down by the military that morning in the intercepting of these "hijackers" as they made their way to their targets. And Cheneys barking orders to a subordinate in the crisis control room beneath the white house that yes the orders still stand, as flight 175? made its way toward the Pentagon ..."
    "... Excuse me, but the towers of the WTC WERE very heavy structurally. Particularly the central cores, which contained heavily redundant layers of steel, and special steel at that. ..."
    July 16, 2016 | World Socialist Web Site
    The Obama White House, the CIA, the Saudi monarchy and the corporate media have all tried to portray the documents-released on a Friday afternoon to assure minimal exposure-as somehow exonerating the Saudi regime of any culpability in the 9/11 attacks.

    "This information does not change the assessment of the US government that there's no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi individuals funded al-Qaeda," Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary said Friday, boasting that the main significance of their release was its proof of the Obama administration's commitment to "transparency."

    In reality, the 28 pages have been kept under lock and key since 2002, with only members of Congress allowed to read them, in a Capitol Hill basement vault, while prohibited from taking notes, bringing members of their staff or breathing a word of their content.

    The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, maintained this secrecy for several reasons. First, it was concerned that the documents would jeopardize its relations with Saudi Arabia, which, after Israel, is Washington's closest ally in the Middle East, a partner in bloody operations from Afghanistan to Syria to Yemen, and the world's biggest buyer of American arms.

    Even more importantly, it was concerned that the 28 pages would further expose the abject criminality of the US government's role in facilitating the attacks of 9/11 and then lying about their source and exploiting them to justify savage wars of aggression, first against Afghanistan and then against Iraq. These wars have claimed over a million lives. The false narrative created around the September 11 attacks remains the ideological pillar of the US campaign of global militarism conducted in the name of a "war on terror."

    Media reports on the 28 pages invariably refer to the absence of a "smoking gun," which presumably would be tantamount to an order signed by the Saudi king to attack New York and Washington. The evidence is described as "inconclusive." One can only imagine what would have been the response if, in place of the word "Saudi," the documents referred to Iraqi, Syrian or Iranian actions. The same evidence would have been proclaimed an airtight case for war.

    Among those who were involved in preparing the report, John Lehman, the former secretary of the navy, directly contradicted the official response to the release of the previously censored section. "There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government," he said. "Our report should never have been read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia."

    ... ... ...

    The report focuses in part on the role of one Omar al-Bayoumi, who was described to the FBI as a Saudi intelligence officer, and, according to FBI files, "provided substantial assistance to hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi after they arrived in San Diego in February 2000."

    The inquiry report deals with al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar only from after they arrived in California, and says nothing about the circumstances under which they were allowed to enter the country in the first place. Both were under CIA surveillance while attending an Al Qaeda planning meeting in 2000 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and placed on a "watch list" for FBI monitoring if they came to the United States. Nonetheless, the two men were allowed to enter the United States on January 15, 2000, landing at Los Angeles International Airport, eventually going to San Diego. From then on, they were permitted to operate freely, attending flight training school in preparation for their role as pilots of hijacked planes on September 11, 2001.

    Al-Bayoumi, the report establishes, "received support from a Saudi company affiliated with the Saudi Ministry of Defense," drawing a paycheck for a no-show job. The report states that the company also had ties to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

    According to the report, al-Bayoumi had previously worked for the Saudi Civil Aviation Association and, in the period leading up to 9/11, was "in frequent contact with the Emir at the Saudi Defense Ministry responsible for air traffic control." Phone records showed him calling Saudi government agencies 100 times between January and May of 2000.

    FBI documents also established that the $465 in "allowances" that al-Bayoumi received through the Saudi military contractor, jumped to over $3,700 shortly after the arrival of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. During this period, al-Bayoumi initially allowed the two future hijackers to stay in his apartment before finding them their own place-with an informant of the San Diego FBI-cosigning their lease and advancing them a deposit and the first month's rent.

    The report states that FBI investigations following 9/11 indicated that al-Bayoumi had "some ties to terrorist elements." His wife, meanwhile, was receiving a $1,200 a month stipend from Princess Haifa Bint Sultan, the wife of Prince Bandar, then the Saudi ambassador to the US and later head of Saudi intelligence.

    Also named in the document as a likely Saudi intelligence agent is one Osama Bassnan, who lived across the street from the two hijackers in San Diego and was in telephone contact with al-Bayoumi several times a day during this period. He apparently placed the two in contact with a Saudi commercial airline pilot for discussions on "learning to fly Boeing jet aircraft," according to an FBI report. Bassnan's wife also received a monthly stipend from Princess Haifa, the Saudi ambassador's wife, to the tune of $2,000 a month. As well, the FBI found one $15,000 check written by Bandar himself in 1998 to Bassnan. The report states that FBI information indicated that Bassnan was "an extremist and supporter of Usama Bin Ladin," who spoke of the Al Qaeda leader "as if he were god."

    Appearing before the Congressional inquiry in October 2002, FBI Executive Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Pasquale D'Amuro reacted with undisguised cynicism and contempt when asked about the payments from the Saudi ambassador's wife to the wives of the two reputed intelligence agents involved with the 9/11 hijackers.

    "She gives money to a lot of different groups and people from around the world," he said. "We've been able to uncover a number of these… but maybe if we can discover that she gives to 20 different radical groups, well, gee, maybe there's a pattern here." Spoken like a man who believes he is above the law in defense of a figure that he clearly sees as untouchable.

    dmorista 2 days ago

    Mr Van Auken presents a Let It Happen on Purpose (LIHOP) position in this article. Clearly it is better to have arrived at that level of awareness than to just swallow the absurd "official story" that is, unfortunately, the position of much of the so-called Left in the U.S., e.g. Noam Chomsky and his ilk. The LIHOP position suffers from a fatal flaw, the 3 towers that collapsed in Lower Manhattan that could not conceivably have done so due to just the plane impacts (on Towers 1 & 2, which were specifically designed to withstand impacts by one or more Boeing 707s full of fuel, a plane similar in size to the 767s that did hit the towers) and/or the fairly insignificant office fires the occurred in all three towers (this includes Tower 7 that collapsed after some minor office fires and was never hit by a plane). Tower 7 was an absolutely classic example of a controlled demolition / implosion, while Towers 1 & 2 are modified controlled demolitions meant to make it look like the planes had caused the collapses. The implications of controlled demolitions are that only a Make it Happen on Purpose (MIHOP) process can actually explain what happened in New York on that day.

    The obvious anomalies in the Pentagon incident and the Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash merely add to the mountain of evidence that exists pointing to some cabal that ran a MIHOP operation that day. This is not new information and has been made available by the many independent investigators who have been diligently digging into this signal event for nearly 15 years now.

    Certainly Bin Laden (dying from kidney failure and reportedly in his cave in Afghanistan) and his team of largely dim-witted plotters (some of whom spent a lot of time at titty bars snorting cocaine and drinking whisky) did not have the wherewithal to 1). place the explosives in the 3 towers and the Pentagon, 2). run the 45 or more related drills, over 15 of which were in operation on that very day, including such actions as sending the bulk of the fighter aircraft to northern Canada or the Caribbean, placing fake radar images on military and FAA radar sets, 3). order the flight in Pennsylvania to be shot down and leave an 8 mile long debris field with absolutely no debris where it supposedly crashed, 4). supposedly make the impossible approach to the Pentagon, hitting the area where various accountants and Naval investigators were working on some issues, including the trillions of dollars missing from Pentagon accounts, rather than make the easy crash into the roof in the area where the high command offices were located, 5). ensure that the FBI immediately confiscated all 85+ video recordings that had some view of the Pentagon crash site, and so on and so on.

    Much more likely suspects would be those Americans named by Kevin Ryan in his book "Another Nineteen", and/or the Israeli Mossad and military agents (5 of whom were arrested in New Jersey while making a video record of "the event" and who were noticed by an outraged citizen who called local police who arrested them and the spent 2 months in U.S. jails, finally released by dual Israeli / U.S. citizen Michael Chertoff, 3 of them appeared later on Israeli TV and bragged about the operation in plain Hebrew).

    The Left Forum, held at John Jay College, had several worthwhile sessions about the Deep State and 9-11, the sessions are archived at NoLiesRadio < http://noliesradio.org/archive... > and are well worth a watch. The evidence for MIHOP orchestrated by the U.S. Deep State and its Zionist faction/allies is overwhelming, no doubt the Saudis played a role in all this, but a secondary one.

    Carolyn Zaremba -> dmorista 2 days ago
    My father was a structural design engineer who designed heavy steel structures like the WTC and also nuclear power plants and wind tunnels for NASA. He was an expert on types of steel, how it was made and what its properties were. The moment he saw the first tower collapse into it own footprint, he said 'That's a controlled demolition." He knew that fire alone would not have been enough to even dent the steel in the WTC, let alone pulverize it. Everything in the building could have burned and the steel would have remained standing, slightly scorched, but largely intact. To believe otherwise is not to believe in the laws of physics or the science of metallurgy.
    Robert B. Livingston Carolyn Zaremba a day ago
    To brutally manipulate public opinion, 9/11 was/is a criminally managed event involving some of America's highest officials.

    Too many characters in the 9/11 truth movement, and their observations have often engrossed me -- until I got weary of discovering the inevitable snake oils always up for sale.

    That said, some people might find this contribution of my own interesting/amusing/puerile:

    https://archive.org/details/oz...

    In general, I've found that the WSWS has taken the proper perspective with regard to 9/11: to take a broad perspective as events unfold.

    dmorista -> Carolyn Zaremba a day ago
    Ahhhh yes, and no less a group of people than members of the NYFD who charged up into those buildings were not concerned about them collapsing. In fact one team of firefighters who made it up to the impact zone in one of the towers reported the fire there as "no big deal" and "easily controlled". Other firefighters and various police did, however, report many explosions, most of them deep in the buildings far below the impact zones.

    Dutch controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko, upon seeing a video of the collapse of Tower 7 immediately said (I think this comment was made in 2007) "This is controlled demolition"; of course he died in a suspicious one car accident, in which his car hit a tree head on on July 16th, 2011 (similar to how some of the JFK assassination witnesses were eliminated). A couple of videos of his comments can be seen in a "Veteran's Today" article found at < http://www.veteranstoday.com/2... >.

    This does not change my extremely high opinion of WSWS and Bill Van Auken in particular, it was just a bit disappointing to see them still hewing to a fairly standard line on this critical issue. The whole bottom falls out of the Global War on Terror argument if the average person realizes who really attacked the U.S. on that day.

    Aaron Aarons 3 days ago
    One should ask why the Mossad and the extremely powerful Israel lobby have seen fit to participate in the cover-up for so long. They certainly would have ignored the U.S. government's desire for secrecy and gotten this information out (which they surely knew from their own sources) if they didn't have something to hide. But that cover-up continues.
    TonyVodvarka -> Aaron Aarons 2 days ago
    We might ask the several Israeli Mossad agents (they were later interviewed on Israeli TV as such) who were filming the atrocity from across the river in New Jersey, dancing about and high-fiving in celebration as the towers came down. They were arrested, held for a few weeks and released without comment.
    TonyVodvarka 3 days ago
    The true "smoking gun" of the 9/11 atrocities is the eight-second symmetrical free-fall collapse of WTC #7. The claim that this occurred because of office fires is ludicrous, entirely impossible. It was a conventional implosion, carried off in one of the most secure buildings in NYC, sheltering the CIA, FBI and the mayor's emergency bunker and would have taken weeks to prepare.
    Carolyn Zaremba -> TonyVodvarka 2 days ago
    See my comment above regarding my father, an engineer and an expert on steel. He recognized instantly that the building was "blown" -- i.e., controlled demolition.
    Vijay Kumar -> TonyVodvarka 2 days ago
    I saw the video on TV and was surprised that it went unquestioned on why it collapsed. Even the clean symmetrical fall of the second tower to collapse, was neat and symmetric.
    Gordon 3 days ago
    In my educated opinion, supported by facts of the case conveniently omitted, the release of the small section of the Congressional report kept secret for 13 years is what they call in the CIA a "limited hangout", which is contains a mix of both truth and omissions or outright lies, and exposes the audience to a falsity more dangerous and misleading than an outright lie.

    Of course the Saudis were involved, but if you research exactly what they did, it was simply to escort a handful of patsies around the country on behalf of the CIA and give them money to spend, creating a story to be later used as a diversion. The fact is, half the supposed hijackers within a week of the buildings exploding made their presence known to authorities, saying yoo-hoo, here we are, what's all this news regarding our deaths aboard airplanes?

    Second point is that airplanes loaded with fuel don't cause buildings like the Trade Towers to collapse from heat, this is an engineering impossibility and has been proven dozens of times. In addition, a plane constructed of a thin aluminum skin stretched on an aluminum frame with a hollow nose can't penetrate a steel curtain wall like the ones the towers were built with. But the YouTube videos show the planes being absorbed into the buildings as though the craft were made of liquid.

    To assume that the release of this is significant, is to be fooled by the tricks of the intelligence agencies who were responsible for the massacres in the first place.

    Jim Gordon 2 days ago
    My friend, you are mistaken, 120 ton airliners at a speed of 500 miles an hour can and have penetrated building facades before (Empire State Bldg). This theory by some that these planes were holograms or some sort of visual trickery is absurd and of course a distraction.

    The world trade centers towers 1 and 2 were a combination of steel curtain and precast spandrels at spans between several floors of approx. 30'. They are not that strong. The edges of the concrete floors consist of angle iron between the floor joists which span from 4' to 6' on centers. If buildings were constructed strong enough to stop or substantially slow a commercial airliner, they would 1. be too heavy structurally and 2. thus be prohibitively costly.

    The best evidence if this were ever taken to court, would be the stand down by the military that morning in the intercepting of these "hijackers" as they made their way to their targets. And Cheneys barking orders to a subordinate in the crisis control room beneath the white house that yes the orders still stand, as flight 175? made its way toward the Pentagon

    Carolyn Zaremba -> Jim 2 days ago
    Excuse me, but the towers of the WTC WERE very heavy structurally. Particularly the central cores, which contained heavily redundant layers of steel, and special steel at that.

    [Jul 19, 2016] Turkish variant of Brexit?

    peakoilbarrel.com
    Ves , 07/16/2016 at 1:15 pm
    Caelan,

    It is pre-emptive coup :-) (fake coupe in order to clear the military deck)

    It looks to me that this time Turkish political elite pulled pre-emptive coup on Turkish military so it can purge her from the elements that are influenced by remote control from outside the country.
    In one word this is Turkish version of Brexit. Basically financial, political, and military international structures that were established after II world war are crumbling because the interests of individual countries are so diametrical.

    Fred Magyar , 07/16/2016 at 2:08 pm
    In one word this is Turkish version of Brexit. Basically financial, political, and military international structures that were established after II world war are crumbling because the interests of individual countries are so diametrical.

    Oh Shit! Get ready for a new, old style caliphate and the ushering in of another couple hundred years of dark ages… The Ottomans are coming!

    Ves , 07/16/2016 at 3:01 pm
    Fred, Ottomans are not coming.. Chinese are coming with trade deals on Orient express train from Beijing…via Istanbul…you guys are so misinformed about what's going in the world that you will be in state of shock when IMF, EU, NATO close the shop all in one day.

    [Jul 17, 2016] MH17 crash: Malaysia Airlines 'strikes deal on damages', says lawyer

    www.bbc.com

    Dutch media say there are no further details because both parties have agreed to secrecy.

    A memorial service was held for the victims on Sunday near Schiphol.

    Under the Montreal Convention, which regulates air travel, airlines must pay damages of up to about $145,000 (Ł109,000) to victims' families, regardless of the circumstances of a crash.

    [Jul 16, 2016] the fight is between Islamists and secular elements of the state.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It appears the Army has the MIT Headquarters under siege right now with scattered reports that Army helicopters are firing on it. Too soon to tell but we might be looking at a Turkish civil war. ..."
    "... The Turkish military is quite good at fulfilling it's role as the protector of the country and arbiter of the Constitution. Which usually means overthrowing Islamist governments that brazenly cross over legal lines. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Kurt Sperry , July 15, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    From a friend in Ankara minutes ago, "Oh shit, this has all the hallmarks of a fight between two fractions within the state. It's said that Fethullah Gulen and his supporters in the military tried this because of the imminent purge. There was a armed clash in Ankara between the military forces (Gulen movement) and tgr police/intelligence agency (Tayyip). It's been going for a while, this feud. Now it seems like it's grown a full blown war. Airports are also closed. "

    Andrew Watts , July 15, 2016 at 7:21 pm

    Good observation by your friend. Broadly speaking I'd say the fight is between Islamists and secular elements of the state. The Islamists have purged the police and MIT (intelligence) of any secular influence under Erdogan. With the secular crowd maintaining it's traditional hold over the military.

    It appears the Army has the MIT Headquarters under siege right now with scattered reports that Army helicopters are firing on it. Too soon to tell but we might be looking at a Turkish civil war.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , July 15, 2016 at 9:01 pm

    I'll just be the first with the conspiracy theory about the usual suspects: US, regime change, Obama, and the Clinton Foundation:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BClen_movement
    They would like a much more compliant government in place than Erdogan.
    Also interesting that Germany refused Erdogan asylum after his plane was turned away in Istanbul.
    Very bad move for Erdogan to head out of town at a time like this as lots of Roman emperors could attest.

    Andrew Watts , July 15, 2016 at 10:17 pm

    I'm skeptical that the Gulen movement is behind this. The Turkish military is quite good at fulfilling it's role as the protector of the country and arbiter of the Constitution. Which usually means overthrowing Islamist governments that brazenly cross over legal lines. Furthermore Colonel Muharrem Kose ( wiki ) might've been purged for being associated with Gulen but it doesn't make the allegations true.

    As a matter of principle I'm not in favor of military coups but for Erdogan I can make an exception.

    Buttinsky , July 15, 2016 at 5:13 pm

    Turkish Prime Minister Yildirim broadcast a statement that the situation is being dealt with by "security forces" from an apparently privately owned TV channel, while soldiers have been reported at the state broadcaster TRT in Ankara.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/15/turkey-coup-attempt-military-gunfire-ankara

    allan , July 15, 2016 at 5:47 pm

    Irony died tonight:

    Erdogan: I urge the Turkish people to convene at public squares and airports. There is no power higher than the power of the people.

    #TheocratLivesMatter

    Steve C , July 15, 2016 at 7:01 pm

    Let's see if Obama's reaction is the same as it was with the Thai and Honduran coups. Talk of looking forward not backward. Calling for new elections.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , July 15, 2016 at 7:29 pm

    I'm wondering if the Turkish military wants more or less war than Erdogan, could be like the generals at the Pentagon, telling the White House they didn't think a Libya war was a wise idea while Hilary was shrieking for more blood.

    (We came…we saw…he died).

    Or maybe the military wants more secularism than Erdogan?

    different clue , July 15, 2016 at 7:45 pm

    If the military still has enough left-over Kemalists inside it to be bitter at the Erdogist degradation of secular republican Turkey into an Islamic Emirate in-the-making; those Kemalists may indeed be making one last try to purge and erase Erdogism from all positions of power and re-Kemalize the State.

    NotTimothyGeithner , July 15, 2016 at 8:34 pm

    The politics are different. This isn't the Cold War. Any coup government done without street support (outside Istanbul, this might be tough and even then…a military coup isn't good precedence) is going to have problems.

    The issue isn't the Kemalists, but the Kemalists are too far removed from Attaturk. An Attaturk aide will simply have more legitimacy than some, random preening general. Well, the aides are dead by now. The successors of the aides have no legitimacy without an election.

    I don't think the coup will fly without serious repercussions.

    craazyboy , July 15, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    "Vote for The Sultan – it's important!"

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 15, 2016 at 9:25 pm

    +100.

    (Not making a comment on Turkish politics, about which I know nothing, nothing, but it's a splendid snowclone.)

    NotTimothyGeithner , July 15, 2016 at 9:45 pm

    The Kemalists traditionally tend to lavish attention on Istanbul and the coastal elites while dealing with the Kurds and their role in NATO.

    The heartland (Anatolia. What's that about Constantinople?) has traditionally been ignored by the Kemalists. The Kemalists would say they took important small steps and not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In the mean time, the religious nuts took power and used private charity to do poorly what the government wasn't doing and found sympathy with the majority. I know it sounds familiar.

    External pressure especially from the EU forced electoral reforms which gave power to the majority of the country in the heartland instead of being controlled by coastal elites.

    Erdogan's policies have provoked anger, but his actions against the old guard have never seemed to irritate even the coastal population, partially because the old guard wasn't that great. They just received good press. Better dead than Red.

    My sense is young coastal Turks are more or less like their counterparts in other European cities, so I imagine the army making decisions won't go over too well.

    Erdogan is popular in the heartland, largely because he delivered on promises to improve infrastructure, jobs, and so forth even though he skims. For rural Turkey, everything of nothing is still nothing, so who cares if Erdogan skims?

    abynormal , July 15, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    scrolled right past ya allan…any idea what set it all off?

    NotTimothyGeithner , July 15, 2016 at 6:25 pm

    Erdogan. ..more like Erdo well he's not going to be there anymore.

    Let's see:

    -Merkels refugee plan
    -NATO dealing with a coup after the fall of the USSR
    -Syria
    -ISIS
    -Kurds
    -collapse of Turkish tourism
    -Erdogan was popular in the Anatolian heartland

    Ottawan , July 15, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    Whatever anyone thinks of Erdogan, its hard to imagine how to keep a lid on the pot in Turkey these days.

    NotTimothyGeithner , July 15, 2016 at 6:47 pm

    Erdogan's Sultan project wasn't an effort to keep a lid on Turkey's problems. Many of the problems are of his direct action.

    That Which Sees , July 15, 2016 at 6:58 pm


    TURKEY: The at least 4 sided coup attempt

    Words of caution to everyone. There are at least four [4] armed sides participating in tonight's chaos:

    1) Military (obviously)
    2) Armed National Police (pro-Erdogan)
    3) Criminals (who are exploiting the situation as cover to settle scores) - Cannot prove this, but it is consistent with prior civil unrest history in other nations.
    4) Terrorists - IS / Daesh. Probably not organized, but shooting unarmed civilians on camera would exacerbate the situation as both major sides blame each other.
    ______________

    The RUSSIAN Reaction?

    Not advocating a conspiracy theory, but ex-KGB Putin has a jet downed by Erdogan's government. There may be Russian involvement.

    Even if the Russians were surprised, the Russian Black Sea Fleet needs to be able to transit the Bosphorus to support Syrian operations. Expect Putin to quickly make favorable offers to the new military leadership if Erdogan falls.

    Andrew Watts , July 15, 2016 at 7:43 pm

    You forgot Kurds as a potential player. I have no clue what PKK or TAK will do under these circumstances but I imagine it wouldn't necessarily involve doing nothing.

    Eureka Springs , July 15, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    In the game of U.S. neolibralcons, If Erdo or Gulen prevail… don't 'we' win either way?

    I mean Gulen sure sucks up a lot of U.S. education dollars.

    http://turkishinvitations.weebly.com/list-of-us-schools.html

    Andrew Watts , July 15, 2016 at 8:46 pm

    I don't think Gulen is primarily behind the coup. I mean I know that's what Erdogan said but when the military released it's first letter to the public it had Kemalist written all over it.

    don't 'we' win either way?

    Uhh, it's complicated. Secretary of State Kerry is in Moscow today negotiating an anti-jihadi pact/alliance in Syria. While a few days ago Kerry publicly labeled the Saudi-back Jaish al-Islam as no different from Al Qaeda and the neocon crowd had a hissyfit over it. The gap between how the US and Russian governments perceive the rebel-jihadi alliance is closer than it's ever been.

    Meanwhile it just so happens that the 28 pages from the 9/11 report implicating Saudi involvement and a military coup in Turkey is overthrowing the Islamist government of Erdogan. Both governments have supported the rebel-jihad alliance in Syria so this could just be a huge coincidence… except I don't believe in coincidences that strain my gullibility.

    Any speculation beyond that point is tin foil hat territory.

    Alex morfesis , July 15, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    German fingerprints on turkish coup…not foily…ribbi gulan is in a very historic german german bund part of Pennsylvania…not by my laptop to scrape reports but there have been continued reports of sultan erdo asking for and receiving asylum from Germany…

    of all the places to go hang out…

    schaeubleland is not one of them…

    my other thought was the sah-oodz since that little 28 page thingee was distributed on a friday, just a few hours before the parade in istanbul…

    I call it a parade as the new coup position information is there was a grand total of less than 150 gulanis involved…

    which made sense since the same photos of hardly 50 soldiers kept getting played over and over…

    the saud argument is technically more foily…

    but my money would be on field marshall schaeuble…

    would put money down that he "resigns/retires" for health reasons in 90 dayz if sultan erdo "holds" as he now appears to have landed his plane at the airport in istanbul…

    On a technical side, two weeks from now there is the annual kiss the sultans ring moment in the military and it has been suggested erdo was going to ax in a very publicly some gulanis…

    and some colonel that has been named as a top coup boy had recently been bounced due to his ties to the gulanis….

    So much for the boris jokes…

    What a week…

    [Jul 15, 2016] The 28 pages regarding the Saudi involvement in 9/11 were finally released today:

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

      1. Vatch

        Thanks. A quick visual inspection suggests that they "only" blacked out about 10% of the document. Some pages almost everything is visible, and on a few, almost half of the text is obscured.

        A couple of days ago there was a discussion of infantilization by politicians via the use of emojis. I think that preventing people from reading the full report is a far more serious form of infantilization. Only the elite philosopher kings are allowed access to information. The rest of us children might be traumatized if we could read the full report.

        Reply
      2. WJ

        The information about the dry-run of 1999 on America West flight from Phx to DC Saudi Embassy party was especially interesting to me. I suspect that Saudi Arabia played both sides (al-quaeda and the US) in order to bring about the Sunni alliance we are currently being worked out in Libya and Syria. Iraq was on this analysis definitely an expected casualty of the events of 9/11, which suggests that the Saudis had good reason to believe that US officials were already waiting for any excuse to take over that country.

        Reply
      3. sd

        Sober reading.

        There's this sort of hole prior to 9-11-2001 where it sounds like no one knows anything but actually, the Joint Forces intelligence group knew quite a bit. The Joint Inquiry never interviewed anyone from DO-5.

        Reply
        1. Alex morfesis

          While saudis offer big bux to turkish military to stage a coup to distract the audience…???

          a coup..???

          in turkey in the 21st century ??

          How silly is that ?…

          Reply
          1. Barmitt O'Bamney

            So strange! Why it seems just yesterday Chancellor Merkel and other wise EU leaders were trying to get Turkey admitted to the European Union, enabling Turks to move freely about the Continent, and they were pressing that nice Mr. Erdogan to accept billions of Euros to handle Muslim refugees for them. How could a stable European society like Turkey still be experiencing things like military coups? There must be a more polite explanation for what's really going on over there.

    [Jul 12, 2016] FBI s Critique of Hillary Clinton Is a Ready-Made Attack Ad

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton may not be indicted on criminal charges over her handling of classified email, but the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, all but indicted her judgment and competence on Tuesday - two vital pillars of her presidential candidacy - and in the kind of terms that would be politically devastating in a normal election year. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    Hillary Clinton may not be indicted on criminal charges over her handling of classified email, but the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, all but indicted her judgment and competence on Tuesday - two vital pillars of her presidential candidacy - and in the kind of terms that would be politically devastating in a normal election year.

    ... ... ...

    To her charge that he is "reckless," Mr. Trump may now respond by citing Mr. Comey's rebuke: that Mrs. Clinton and her team "were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

    To her promises to defend the United States, Mr. Trump may now retort with Mr. Comey's warning that "it is possible that hostile actors gained access" to Mrs. Clinton's email account and the top secret information it contained.

    And to her reproofs about his temperament and responsibility, Mr. Trump may now point to Mr. Comey's finding that "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes" on handling classified information - though Mr. Comey said that other factors, like Mrs. Clinton's intent, argued against criminal charges.


    Worst of all was the totality of Mr. Comey's judgment about Mrs. Clinton's judgment.

    She is running as a supremely competent candidate and portraying Mr. Trump, in essence, as irresponsible and dangerous. Yet the director of the F.B.I. basically just called her out for having committed one of the most irresponsible moves in the modern history of the State Department.

    ... ... ...

    Her clearest selling point - that she, unlike Mr. Trump, can manage challenging relationships with allies and adversaries - has now been undercut because she personally mismanaged the safeguarding of national security information.

    [Jul 12, 2016] Workers deserve to be compensated fairly for their work, and have generous social support programs to rely upon when economic changes that are out of their control throw them out of work or force them to accept lower paying jobs.

    www.thefiscaltimes.com

    "That empowerment must be both economic and political. Workers deserve to be compensated fairly for their work, and have generous social support programs to rely upon when economic changes that are out of their control throw them out of work or force them to accept lower paying jobs.

    We should not hesitate to ask those who have gained so much from globalization and technological change to give something back to those who have paid the costs of their success."

    All this would have been especially great, say, forty or even thirty years ago.

    [Jul 11, 2016] 5 Reasons The Comey Hearing Was The Worst Education In Criminal Justice The American Public Has Ever Had by Seth Abramson

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... The reality is that prosecutors don't normally consider the legislative history or possible unconstitutionality of criminal statutes. Why? Because that's not their job. ..."
    "... We can say, accurately, that the judgment of the FBI in its investigation into Clinton and her associates ― and Comey confirmed Clinton was indeed a "subject" of the investigation ― is that Clinton is a criminal. ..."
    "... whether criminal statutes on the books had been violated ..."
    "... criminal statutes had been violated ..."
    "... So, my first point: for Comey to imply that there is any prosecutor in America uncomfortable with the "constitutionality" of criminal statutes predicated on "negligent," "reckless," or "knowing" mental states is not just laughable but an insult to both the prosecutorial class and our entire criminal justice system. Whatever issue Comey may have had with the felony statute he agrees Clinton violated, that wasn't it. ..."
    "... specific intent ..."
    "... Black's Law Dictionary ..."
    "... First he asked, "What would other prosecutors do?" That's not a question prosecutors are charged to ask, and we now see why: as Comey himself concedes, countless prosecutors have already come out in public to say that, had they been investigating Clinton, they would have prosecuted her. A standard for prosecutorial discretion in which you weigh what others in your shoes might do based on some sort of a census leads immediately to madness, not just for the reasons I'm articulating here but many others too numerous to go into in detail in this space. ..."
    "... Comey found credible that Clinton had created her private basement server set-up purely out of "convenience"; yet he also found that old servers, once replaced, were "stored and decommissioned in various ways." Wait, "various ways"? If Clinton was trying to create a streamlined, convenient personal process for data storage, why were things handled so haphazardly that Comey himself would say that the servers were dealt with "in various ways" over time? ..."
    "... And indeed, the evidence Comey turned up showed that Clinton's staff was aware ― was repeatedly and systematically made aware ― that the Secretary's set-up had the effect of evading FOIA requests. And Clinton was, by her own admission, clear with her inferiors that "avoiding access to the personal" was key to her private basement-server set-up. That's very different from "convenience." ..."
    "... completely different and more stringent protocols and requirements for data storage ..."
    "... simply by looking at their headers ..."
    "... every other action ..."
    www.huffingtonpost.com
    1. According to Comey, Clinton committed multiple federal felonies and misdemeanors. Many people will miss this in the wash of punditry from non-attorneys in the mainstream media that has followed Comey's public remarks and Congressional testimony.

    The issue for Comey wasn't that Clinton hadn't committed any federal crimes, but that in his personal opinion the federal felony statute Clinton violated (18 U.S.C. 793f) has been too rarely applied for him to feel comfortable applying it to Clinton. This is quite different from saying that no crime was committed; rather, Comey's position is that crimes were committed, but he has decided not to prosecute those crimes because (a) the statute he focused most on has only been used once in the last century (keeping in mind how relatively rare cases like these are in the first instance, and therefore how rarely we would naturally expect a statute like this to apply in any case), and (b) he personally believes that the statute in question might be unconstitutional because, as he put it, it might punish people for crimes they didn't specifically intend to commit (specifically, it requires only a finding of "gross negligence," which Comey conceded he could prove). Comey appears to have taken the extraordinary step of researching the legislative history of this particular criminal statute in order to render this latter assessment.

    The reality is that prosecutors don't normally consider the legislative history or possible unconstitutionality of criminal statutes. Why? Because that's not their job. Their job is to apply the laws as written, unless and until they are superseded by new legislation or struck down by the judicial branch. In Comey's case, this deep dive into the history books is even more puzzling as, prior to Attorney General Loretta Lynch unethically having a private meeting with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac, Comey wasn't even slated to be the final arbiter of whether Clinton was prosecuted or not. He would have been expected, in a case like this, to note to the Department of Justice's career prosecutors that the FBI had found evidence of multiple federal crimes, and then leave it to their prosecutorial discretion as to whether or not to pursue a prosecution. But more broadly, we must note that when Comey gave his public justification for not bringing charges ― a public justification in itself highly unusual, and suggestive of the possibility that Comey knew his inaction was extraordinary, and therefore felt the need to defend himself in equally extraordinary fashion ― he did not state the truth: that Clinton had committed multiple federal crimes per statutes presently on the books, and that the lack of a recommendation for prosecution was based not on the lack of a crime but the lack of prosecutorial will (or, as he might otherwise have put it, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion).

    The danger here is that Americans will now believe many untrue things about the executive branch of their government. For instance, watching Comey's testimony one might believe that if the executive branch exercises its prosecutorial discretion and declines to prosecute crimes it determines have been committed, it means no crimes were committed. In fact, what it means (in a case like this) is that crimes were committed but will not be prosecuted. We can say, accurately, that the judgment of the FBI in its investigation into Clinton and her associates ― and Comey confirmed Clinton was indeed a "subject" of the investigation ― is that Clinton is a criminal. She simply shouldn't, in the view of the FBI, be prosecuted for her crimes. Prosecutorial discretion of this sort is relatively common, and indeed should be much more common when it comes to criminal cases involving poor Americans; instead, we find it most commonly in law enforcement's treatment of Americans with substantial personal, financial, sociocultural, and legal resources.

    Americans might also wrongly believe, watching Comey's testimony, that it is the job of executive-branch employees to determine which criminal statutes written by the legislative branch will be acknowledged. While one could argue that this task does fall to the head of the prosecuting authority in a given instance ― here, Attorney General Loretta Lynch; had an independent prosecutor been secured in this case, as should have happened, that person, instead ― one could not argue that James Comey's role in this scenario was to decide which on-the-books criminal statutes matter and which don't. Indeed, Comey himself said, during his announcement of the FBI's recommendation, that his role was to refer the case to the DOJ for a "prosecutive decision" ― in other words, the decision on whether to prosecute wasn't his. His job was only to determine whether criminal statutes on the books had been violated.

    By this test, Comey didn't just not do the job he set out to do, he wildly and irresponsibly exceeded it, to the point where its original contours were unrecognizable. To be blunt: by obscuring, in his public remarks and advice to the DOJ, the fact that criminal statutes had been violated ― in favor of observing, more broadly, that there should be no prosecution ― he made it not just easy but a fait accompli for the media and workaday Americans to think that not only would no prosecution commence, but that indeed there had been no statutory violations.

    Which there were.

    Americans might also wrongly take at face value Comey's contention that the felony statute Clinton violated was unconstitutional ― on the grounds that it criminalizes behavior that does not include a specific intent to do wrong. This is, as every attorney knows, laughable. Every single day in America, prosecutors prosecute Americans ― usually but not exclusively poor people ― for crimes whose governing statutes lack the requirement of "specific intent." Ever heard of negligent homicide? That's a statute that doesn't require what lawyers call (depending on the jurisdiction) an "intentional" or "purposeful" mental state. Rather, it requires "negligence." Many other statutes require only a showing of "recklessness," which likewise is dramatically distinct from "purposeful" or "intentional" conduct. And an even larger number of statutes have a "knowing" mental state, which Comey well knows ― but the average American does not ― is a general- rather than specific-intent mental state (mens rea, in legal terms).

    And the term "knowingly" is absolutely key to the misdemeanors Comey appears to concede Clinton committed, but has declined to charge her for.

    To discuss what "knowingly" means in the law, I'll start with an example. When I practiced criminal law in New Hampshire, it was a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to "knowingly cause unprivileged physical contact with another person." The three key elements to this particular crime, which is known as Simple Assault, are "knowingly," "unprivileged," and "physical contact." If a prosecutor can prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant could, at the discretion of a judge, find themselves locked in a cage for a year. "Physical contact" means just about exactly what you'd expect, as does "unprivileged" ― contact for which you have no claim of privilege, such as self-defense, defense of another, permission of the alleged victim, and so on. But what the heck does "knowingly" mean? Well, as any law student can tell you, it means that you were aware of the physical act you were engaged in, even if you didn't intend the consequences that act caused. For instance, say you're in the pit at a particularly raucous speed-metal concert, leaping about, as one does, in close proximity with many other people. Now let's say that after one of your leaps you land on a young woman's foot and break it. If charged with Simple Assault, your defense won't be as to your mental state, because you were "knowingly" leaping about, even if you intended no harm in doing so. Instead, your defense will probably be that the contact (which you also wouldn't contest) was "privileged," because the young lady had implicitly taken on, as had you, the risks of being in a pit in the middle of a speed-metal concert. See the difference between knowingly engaging in a physical act that has hurtful consequences, and "intending" or having as your "purpose" those consequences? Just so, I've seen juveniles prosecuted for Simple Assault for throwing food during an in-school cafeteria food fight; in that instance, no one was hurt, nor did anyone intend to hurt anybody, but "unprivileged physical contact" was "knowingly" made all the same (in this case, via the instrument of, say, a chicken nugget).

    So, my first point: for Comey to imply that there is any prosecutor in America uncomfortable with the "constitutionality" of criminal statutes predicated on "negligent," "reckless," or "knowing" mental states is not just laughable but an insult to both the prosecutorial class and our entire criminal justice system. Whatever issue Comey may have had with the felony statute he agrees Clinton violated, that wasn't it.

    What about the misdemeanor statute?

    Well, there's now terrifying evidence available for public consumption to the effect that Director Comey doesn't understand the use of the word "knowingly" in the law ― indeed, understands it less than even a law student in his or her first semester would. Just over an hour (at 1:06) into the six-hour C-SPAN video of Comey's Congressional testimony, Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) makes a brief but absolutely unimpeachable case that, using the term "knowingly" as I have here and as it is used in every courtroom in America, Secretary Clinton committed multiple federal misdemeanors inasmuch as she, per the relevant statute (Title 18 U.S.C. 1924), "became possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States....and knowingly removed such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location." Comey, misunderstanding the word "knowingly" in a way any law school student would scream at their TV over, states that the FBI would still, under that statutory language, need to prove specific intent to convict Clinton of a Title 18 U.S.C. 1924 violation. Lummis points out that Comey is dead wrong ― and she's right, he is wrong. Per the above, all Clinton had to be aware of is that (a) she was in possession of classified documents, and (b) she had removed them to an unauthorized location. Comey admits these two facts are true, and yet he won't prosecute because he's added a clause that's not in the statute. I can't emphasize this enough: Comey makes clear with his answers throughout his testimony that Clinton committed this federal misdemeanor, but equally makes clear that he didn't charge her with it because he didn't understand the statute. (At 1:53 in the video linked to above, Representative Ken Buck of Colorado goes back to the topic of Title 18 U.S.C. 1924, locking down that Comey is indeed deliberately adding language to that federal criminal statute that quite literally is not there.)

    Yes, it's true. Watch the video for yourself, look up the word "knowingly" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll see that I'm right. This is scary stuff for an attorney like me, or really for any of us, to see on television ― a government attorney with less knowledge of criminal law than a first-year law student.

    2. Comey has dramatically misrepresented what prosecutorial discretion looks like. The result of this is that Americans will fundamentally misunderstand our adversarial system of justice.

    Things like our Fourth and Fifth Amendment are part and parcel of our "adversarial" system of justice. We could have elected, as a nation, to have an "inquisitorial" system of justice ― as some countries in Europe, with far fewer protections for criminal defendants, do ― but we made the decision that the best truth-seeking mechanism is one in which two reflexively zealous advocates, a prosecutor and a defense attorney, push their cases to the utmost of their ability (within certain well-established ethical strictures).

    James Comey, in his testimony before Congress, left the impression that his job as a prosecutor was to weigh his ability to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt not as a prosecutor, but as a member of a prospective jury. That's not how things work in America; it certainly, and quite spectacularly, isn't how it works for poor black men. In fact, what American prosecutors are charged to do is imagine a situation in which (a) they present their case to a jury as zealously as humanly possible within the well-established ethical code of the American courtroom, (b) all facts and inferences are taken by that jury in the prosecution's favor, and then (c) whether, given all those conditions, there is a reasonable likelihood that all twelve jurors would vote for a conviction.

    That is not the standard James Comey used to determine whether to prosecute Hillary Clinton.

    What Comey did was something else altogether.

    First he asked, "What would other prosecutors do?" That's not a question prosecutors are charged to ask, and we now see why: as Comey himself concedes, countless prosecutors have already come out in public to say that, had they been investigating Clinton, they would have prosecuted her. A standard for prosecutorial discretion in which you weigh what others in your shoes might do based on some sort of a census leads immediately to madness, not just for the reasons I'm articulating here but many others too numerous to go into in detail in this space.

    The second thing Comey did was ask, "Am I guaranteed to win this case at trial?" Would that this slowed the roll of prosecutors when dealing with poor black men! Instead, as I discuss later on, prosecutors ― via the blunt instrument of the grand jury ― usually use the mere fact of misdemeanor or felony charges against a defendant as a mechanism for ending a case short of trial. Even prosecutors who ultimately drop a case will charge (misdemeanor) or indict (felony) it first, if only to give themselves time ― because defendants do have speedy trial rights, and statutes of limitation do sometimes intercede ― to plan their next move.

    Third, Comey imagined his case at trial through the following lens: "How would we do at trial if the jury took every fact and presumption ― as we already have ― in Clinton's favor?" Indeed, I'm having more than a hard time ― actually an impossible time ― finding a single unknown or unclear fact that Comey took in a light unfavorable to Clinton (including, incredibly, the facts that became unknowable because of Clinton's own actions and evasions). Instead, Hillary was given the benefit of the doubt at every turn, so much so that it was obvious that the only evidence of "intent" Comey would accept was a full confession from Clinton. That's something prosecutors rarely get, and certainly (therefore) never make a prerequisite for prosecution. But Comey clearly did here.

    I have never seen this standard used in the prosecution of a poor person. Not once.

    3. Comey left the indelible impression, with American news-watchers, that prosecutors only prosecute specific-intent crimes, and will only find a sufficient mens rea (mental state) if and when a defendant has confessed. Imagine, for a moment, if police officers only shot unarmed black men who were in the process of confessing either verbally ("I'm about to pull a gun on you!") or physically (e.g., by assaulting the officer). Impossible to imagine, right? That's because that's not how this works; indeed, that's not how any of this works. Prosecutors, like police officers, are, in seeking signs of intent, trained to read ― and conceding here that some of them do it poorly ― contextual clues that precede, are contemporaneous with, and/or follow the commission of a crime.

    But this apparently doesn't apply to Hillary Clinton.

    It would be easier to identify the contextual clues that don't suggest Clinton had consciousness of guilt than those that do ― as there are exponentially more of the latter than the former. But let's do our best, and consider just a few of the clear signs that Clinton and her team, judging them solely by their words and actions, knew that what they were doing was unlawful.

    For instance, Clinton repeatedly said she used one server and only one device ― not that she thought that that was the correct information, but that she knew it was. Yet the FBI found, per Comey's July 5th statement, that Clinton used "several different servers" and "numerous mobile devices." So either Clinton didn't know the truth but pretended in all her public statements that she did; or she was given bad information which she then repeated uncritically, in which case a prosecutor would demand to know from whom she received that information (as surely that person would know they'd spread misinformation); or she knew the truth and was lying. A prosecutor would want clear, on-the-record answers on these issues; instead, Comey let other FBI agents have an unrecorded, untranscripted interview with Clinton that he himself didn't bother to attend. It's not even clear that that interview was much considered by the FBI; Comey declared his decision just a few dozen hours after the interview was over, and word leaked that there would be no indictment just two hours after the interview. Which, again, incredibly ― and not in keeping with any law enforcement policy regarding subject interviews I'm aware of ― was unrecorded, untranscripted, unsworn, and unattended by the lead prosecutor.

    This in the context of a year-long investigation for which Clinton was the primary subject. Since when is an hours-long interview with an investigation's subject so immaterial to the charging decision? And since when is such an interview treated as such a casual event? Since never. At least for poor people.

    And since when are false exculpatory statements not strong evidence of intent?

    Since never - at least for poor people.

    Comey found credible that Clinton had created her private basement server set-up purely out of "convenience"; yet he also found that old servers, once replaced, were "stored and decommissioned in various ways." Wait, "various ways"? If Clinton was trying to create a streamlined, convenient personal process for data storage, why were things handled so haphazardly that Comey himself would say that the servers were dealt with "in various ways" over time? Just so, Comey would naturally want to test Clinton's narrative by seeing whether or not all FOIA requests were fully responded to by Clinton and her staff in the four years she was the head of the State Department. Surely, Clinton and her staff had been fully briefed on their legal obligations under FOIA ― that's provable ― so if Clinton's "convenience" had caused a conflict with the Secretary's FOIA obligations that would have been immediately obvious to both Clinton and her staff, and would have been remedied immediately if the purpose of the server was not to avoid FOIA requests but mere convenience. At a minimum, Comey would find evidence (either hard or testimonial) that such conversations occurred. And indeed, the evidence Comey turned up showed that Clinton's staff was aware ― was repeatedly and systematically made aware ― that the Secretary's set-up had the effect of evading FOIA requests. And Clinton was, by her own admission, clear with her inferiors that "avoiding access to the personal" was key to her private basement-server set-up. That's very different from "convenience."

    Even if Comey believed that "avoiding access to the personal," rather than "convenience," was the reason for Clinton's server set-up, that explanation would have imploded under the weight of evidence Clinton, her team, and her attorneys exercised no due caution whatsoever in determining what was "personal" and what was not personal when they were wiping those servers clean. If Clinton's concern was privacy, there's no evidence that much attention was paid to accurately and narrowly protecting that interest ― rather, the weight of the evidence suggests that the aim, at all times, was to keep the maximum amount of information away from FOIA discovery, not just "personal" information but (as Comey found) a wealth of work-related information.

    But let's pull back for a moment and be a little less legalistic. Clinton claimed the reason for her set-up was ― exclusively ― "convenience"; nevertheless, Comey said it took "thousands of hours of painstaking effort" to "piece back together" exactly what Clinton was up to. Wouldn't that fact alone give the lie to the claim that this system was more "convenient" than the protocols State already had in place? "Millions of email fragments ended up in the server's 'slack space'," Comey said of Clinton's "convenient" email-storage arrangement. See the contradiction? How would "millions of email fragments ending up in a server's 'slack space'" in any way have served Clinton's presumptive desire for both (a) convenience, (b) FOIA complicance, (c) a securing of her privacy, and (d) compliance with State Department email-storage regulations? Would any reasonable person have found this set-up convenient? And if not ― and Comey explicitly found not ― why in the world didn't that help to establish the real intent of Clinton's private basement servers? Indeed, had Clinton intended on complying with FOIA, presumably her own staff would have had to do the very same painstaking work it took the FBI a year to do. But FOIA requests come in too fast and furious, at State, for Clinton's staff to do the work it took the FBI a year to do in a matter of days; wouldn't this in itself establish that Clinton and her staff had no ability, and therefore well knew they had no intention, of acceding to any of the Department's hundreds or even thousands of annual FOIA requests in full? And wouldn't ignoring all those requests be not just illegal but "inconvenient" in the extreme? And speak to the question of intent?

    It took Clinton two years to hand over work emails she was supposed to hand over the day she left office; and during that time, she and her lawyers, some of whom appear to have looked at classified material without clearance, deleted thousands of "personal" emails ― many of which turned out the be exactly the sort of work emails she was supposed to turn over the day she left State. In this situation, an actor acting in good faith would have (a) erred on the side of caution in deleting emails, (b) responded with far, far more alacrity to the valid demands of State to see all work-related emails, and (c) having erroneously deleted certain emails, would have rushed to correct the mistake themselves rather than seeing if they could get away with deleting ― mind you ― not just work emails but work emails with (in several instances) classified information in them. How in the world was none of this taken toward the question of intent? Certainly, it was taken toward the finding of "gross negligence" Comey made, but how in the world was none of it seen as relevant to Clinton's specific intent also? Why does it seem the only evidence of specific intent Comey would've looked at was a smoking gun? Does he realize how few criminal cases would ever be brought against anyone in America if a "smoking gun" standard was in effect? Does anyone realize how many poor black men wouldn't be in prison if that standard was in effect for them as well as Secretary Clinton?

    4. Comey made it seem that the amount and quality of prosecutorial consideration he gave Clinton was normal. The mere fact that Comey gave public statements justifying his prosecutorial discretion misleads the public into thinking that, say, poor black men receive this level of care when prosecutors are choosing whether to indict them.

    While at least he had the good grace to call the fact of his making a public statement "unusual" ― chalking it up to the "intense public interest" that meant Clinton (and the public) "deserved" an explanation for his behavior ― that grace ultimately obscured, rather than underscored, that what Comey did in publicly justifying his behavior is unheard of in cases involving poor people. In the real America, prosecutors are basically unaccountable to anyone but their bosses in terms of their prosecutorial discretion, as cases in which abuse of prosecutorial discretion is successfully alleged are vanishingly rare. Many are the mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers of poor black men who would love to have had their sons' (or brothers', or fathers') over-charged criminal cases explained to them with the sort of care and detail Hillary Clinton naturally receives when she's being investigated. Clinton and the public "deserve" prosecutorial transparency when the defendant is a Clinton; just about no one else deserves this level of not just transparency but also ― given the year-long length of the FBI investigation ― prosecutorial and investigative caution.

    What's amazing is how little use Comey actually made of all the extra time and effort. For instance, on July 5th he said that every email the FBI uncovered was sent to the "owning" organization to see if they wanted to "up-classify" it ― in other words, declare that it should have been classified at the time it was sent and/or received, even if not marked that way at the time. One might think Comey would want this information, the better to determine Clinton's intent with respect to those emails (i.e., given Clinton's training, knowledge, and experience, how frequently did she "miss" the classified nature of an email, relative to the assessment of owning agencies that a given email was effectively and/or should have been considered classified ― even if not marked so ― at the time Clinton handled it?) Keep in mind, here, that certain types of information, as Clinton without a doubt knew, are "born classified" whether marked as such or not. And yet, just two days after July 5th, Comey testified before Congress that he "didn't pay much attention" to "up-classified" emails. Why? Because, said Comey, they couldn't tell him anything about Clinton's intent. Bluntly, this is an astonishing and indeed embarrassing statement for any prosecutor to make.

    Whereas every day knowledge and motives are imparted to poor black men that are, as the poet Claudia Rankine has observed, purely the product of a police officer's "imagination," the actual and indisputable knowledge and motives and ― yes ― responsibilities held by Clinton were "downgraded" by Comey to that of merely an average American. That is, despite the fact that Clinton was one of the most powerful people on Earth, charged with managing an agency that collects among the highest number of classified pieces of information of any agency anywhere; despite the fact that Clinton's agency had the strictest policies for data storage for this very reason; despite the fact that State is, as Clinton well knew, daily subjected to FOIA requests; despite all this, Comey actually said the following: "Like many email users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted emails..."

    What?

    How in the world does the "many email users" standard come into play here? Clinton's server, unlike anyone else's server, was set up in a way that permitted no archiving, an arrangement that one now imagines led (in part) to the person who set up that server taking the Fifth more than a hundred times in interviews with the FBI; even assuming Clinton didn't know, and didn't request, for her server to be set up in this astonishing way ― a way, again, that her own employees believe could incriminate them ― how in the world could she have been sanguine about deleting emails "like many email users" when the agency she headed had completely different and more stringent protocols and requirements for data storage than just about any government agency on Earth? Just so, once it was clear that Clinton had deleted (per Comey) "thousands of emails that were work-related" instead of turning them over to State, in what universe can no intent be implied from the fact that her attorneys purged 30,000 emails simply by looking at their headers? At what point does Clinton, as former Secretary of State, begin to have ill intent imputed to her by not directing her attorneys to actually read emails before permanently destroying them and making them unavailable to the FBI as evidence? If you were in her situation, and instead of saying to your team either (a) "don't delete any more emails," or (b) "if you delete any emails, make sure you've read them in full first," would you expect anyone to impute "no specific intent" to your behavior?

    The result: despite saying she never sent or received emails on her private basement server that were classified "at the time," the FBI found that 52 email chains on Clinton's server ― including 110 emails ― contained information that was classified at the time (eight chains contained "top secret" information; 36, "secret" information; and another eight "confidential" information). Moreover, Clinton's team wrongly purged ― at a minimum ― "thousands" of work-related emails. (And I'm putting aside entirely here the 2,000 emails on Clinton's server that were later "up-classified.") At what point does this harm become foreseeable, and not seeing it ― when you're one of the best-educated, smartest, most experienced public servants in U.S. history, as your political team keeps reminding us ― become evidence of "intent"? Comey's answer? Never.

    Indeed, Comey instead makes the positively fantastical observation that "none [of the emails Clinton didn't turn over but was supposed to] were intentionally deleted." The problem is, by Comey's own admission all of those emails were intentionally deleted, under circumstances in which the problems with that deletion would not just have been evident to "any reasonable person" but specifically were clear ― the context proves it ― to Clinton herself. During her four years as Secretary of State Clinton routinely expressed concern to staff about her own and others' email-storage practices, establishing beyond any doubt that not only was Clinton's literal key-pressing deliberate ― the "knowing" standard ― but also its repeated, systemic effect was fully appreciated by her in advance. Likewise, that her attorneys were acting entirely on their own prerogative, without her knowledge, is a claim no jury would credit.

    Clinton's attorneys worked Clinton's case in consultation with Clinton ― that's how things work. In other words, Clinton's lawyers are not rogue actors here. So when Comey says, "They [Clinton and her team] deleted all emails they did not produce for State, and the lawyers then cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery," we have to ask, what possible reason would an attorney have for wiping a server entirely within their control to ensure that no future court order could access the permanently deleted information? In what universe is such behavior not actual consciousness of guilt with respect to the destruction of evidence? Because we must be clear: Comey isn't saying Clinton and her lawyers accidentally put these emails outside even a hypothetical future judicial review; they did so intentionally.

    There's that word again.

    The result of these actions? The same as every other action Clinton took that Comey somehow attributes no intent to: a clear legal benefit to Clinton and a frustration, indeed an obstruction, of the FBI's investigation. As Comey said on July 5th, the FBI can't know how many emails are "gone" (i.e., permanently) because of Clinton and her team's intentional acts after-the-fact. So Comey is quite literally telling us that the FBI couldn't conclude their investigation with absolute confidence that they had all the relevant facts, and that the reason for this was the intentional destruction of evidence by the subject of the investigation at a time when there was no earthly reason to destroy evidence except to keep it from the FBI.

    In case you're wondering, no, you don't need a legal degree to see the problem there.

    As an attorney, I can't imagine destroying evidence at a time I knew it was the subject of a federal investigation. And if I ever were to do something like that, I would certainly assume that all such actions would later be deemed "intentional" by law enforcement, as my intent would be inferred from my training, knowledge, and experience as an attorney, as well as my specific awareness of a pending federal investigation in which the items I was destroying might later become key evidence. That Clinton and her team repeatedly (and falsely) claimed the FBI investigation was a mere "security review" ― yet another assertion whose falseness was resoundingly noted by Comey in his public statements ― was clearly a transparent attempt to negate intent in destroying those emails. (The theory being, "Well, yes, I destroyed possible evidence just by looking at email headers, but this was all just a 'security review,' right? Not a federal investigation? Even though I knew the three grounds for referral of the case to the FBI, and knew that only one of them involved anything like a 'security review'?")

    And certainly, none of this explains Comey's (again) gymnastic avoidance of stating the obvious: that crimes were committed.

    Listen to his language on July 5th: "Although we did not find clear evidence that Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information" (emphasis in original) ― actually, let's stop there. You'd expect the second half of that sentence to be something like, "...they nevertheless did violate those laws, despite not intending to." It's the natural continuation of the thought. Instead, Comey, who had prepared his remarks in advance, finished the thought this way: "....there is evidence that they were extremely careless with very sensitive, highly classified information" (emphasis in original).

    Note that Comey now uses the phrase "extremely careless" instead of "gross negligence," despite using the latter phrase ― a legal phrase ― at the beginning of his July 5th remarks. That matters because at the beginning of those remarks he conceded "gross negligence" would lead to a statutory violation. So why the sudden shift in language, when from a legal standpoint "extreme carelessness" and "gross negligence" are synonymous ― both indicating the presence of a duty of care, the failure to meet that duty, and moreover a repeated failure on this score? Comey also avoids finishing his sentence with the obvious thought: that they may not have intended to violate criminal statutes, but they did nonetheless. Remember that, just like our hypothetical raver may not have intended to commit a Simple Assault by stepping on that poor young woman's foot, he nevertheless could be found to have done so; just so, had Comey accepted the statute as written, Clinton's "gross negligence" would have forced him to end the above sentence with the finding of a statutory violation, even if there had been no "specific intent" to do so.

    This is how the law works. For poor black men, just not for rich white women.

    5. Comey, along with the rest of Congress, left the impression, much like the Supreme Court did in 2000, that legal analyses are fundamentally political analyses. Not only is this untrue, it also is unspeakably damaging to both our legal system and Americans' understanding of that system's operations.

    I'm a staunch Democrat, but I'm also an attorney. Watching fellow Democrats twist themselves into pretzels to analyze Clinton's actions through a farcically slapdash legal framework, rather than merely acknowledging that Clinton is a human being and, like any human being, can both (a) commit crimes, and (b) be replaced on a political ticket if need be, makes me sick as both a Democrat and a lawyer. Just so, watching Republicans who had no issue with George W. Bush declaring unilateral war in contravention of international law, and who had no issue with the obviously illegal behavior of Scooter Libby in another recent high-profile intel-related criminal case, acting like the rule of law is anything they care about makes me sick. Our government is dirty as all get-out, but the one thing it's apparently clean of is anyone with both (a) legal training, and (b) a sense of the ethics that govern legal practice. Over and over during Comey's Congressional testimony I heard politicians noting their legal experience, and then going on to either shame their association with that august profession or honor it but (in doing so) call into question their inability or unwillingness to do so in other instances.

    When Comey says, "any reasonable person should have known" not to act as Clinton did, many don't realize he's quoting a legal standard ― the "reasonable person standard." A failure to meet that standard can be used to establish either negligence or recklessness in a court of law. But here, Clinton wasn't in the position of a "reasonable person" ― the average fellow or lady ― and Comey wasn't looking merely at a "reasonableness" standard, but rather a "purposeful" standard that requires Comey to ask all sorts of questions about Clinton's specific, fully contextualized situation and background that he doesn't appear to have asked. One might argue that, in keeping with Clinton's campaign theme, no one in American political history was more richly prepared ― by knowledge, training, experience, and innate gifts ― to know how to act properly in the situations Clinton found herself. That in those situations she failed to act even as a man or woman taken off the street and put in a similar situation would have acted is not indicative of innocence or a lack of specific intent, but the opposite. If a reasonable person wouldn't have done what Clinton did, the most exquisitely prepared person for the situations in which Clinton found herself must in fact have been providing prosecutors with prima facie evidence of intent by failing to meet even the lowest threshold for proper conduct. Comey knows this; any prosecutor knows this. Maybe a jury would disagree with Comey on this point, but his job is to assume that, if he zealously advocates for this extremely powerful circumstantial case, a reasonable jury, taking the facts in the light most favorable to the government, would see things his way.

    Look, I can't possibly summarize for anyone reading this the silly nonsense I have seen prosecutors indict people for; a common saying in the law is that the average grand jury "would indict a ham sandwich," and to be clear that happens not because the run-of-the-mill citizens who sit on grand juries are bloodthirsty, but because the habitual practice of American prosecutors is to indict first and ask questions later ― and because indictments are absurdly easy to acquire. In other words, I've seen thousands of poor people get over-charged for either nonsense or nothing at all, only to have their prosecutors attempt to leverage their flimsy cases into a plea deal to a lesser charge. By comparison, it is evident to every defense attorney of my acquaintance that I've spoken to that James Comey bent over backwards to not indict Hillary Clinton ― much like the hundreds of state and federal prosecutors who have bent over backwards not to indict police officers over the past few decades. Every attorney who's practiced in criminal courts for years can smell when the fix is in ― can hear and see when the court's usual actors are acting highly unusually ― and that's what's happened here. The tragedy is that it will convince Americans that our legal system is fundamentally about what a prosecutor feels they can and should be able to get away with, an answer informed largely, it will seem to many, by various attorneys' personal temperaments and political prejudices.

    No one in America who's dedicated their life to the law can feel any satisfaction with how Hillary Clinton's case was investigated or ultimately disposed of, no more than we can feel sanguine about prosecutors whose approach to poor black defendants is draconian and to embattled police officers positively beatific. What we need in Congress, and in prosecutor's offices, are men and women of principle who act in accordance with their ethical charge no matter the circumstances. While James Comey is not a political hack, and was not, I don't believe, in any sense acting conspiratorially in not bringing charges against Hillary Clinton, I believe that, much like SCOTUS did not decide in the 2000 voting rights case Bush v. Gore, Comey felt that this was a bad time for an executive-branch officer to interfere with the workings of domestic politics. Perhaps Comey had the best of intentions in not doing his duty; perhaps he thought letting voters, not prosecutors, decide the 2016 election was his civic duty. Many Democrats could wish the Supreme Court had felt the same way in 2000 with respect to the role of judges. But the fact remains that the non-indictment of Hillary Clinton is as much a stain on the fair and equal administration of justice as is the disparate treatment of poor black males at all stages of the criminal justice system. I witnessed the latter injustice close up, nearly every day, during my seven years working as a public defender; now America has seen the same thing, albeit on a very different stage, involving a defendant of a very different class and hue.

    To have prosecuted Clinton, said Comey, he would need to have seen "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or....efforts to obstruct justice..." When Comey concludes, "we do not see those things here," America should ― and indeed must ― wonder what facts he could possibly be looking at, and, moreover, what understanding of his role in American life he could possibly be acting upon. The answers to these two questions would take us at least two steps forward in discussing how average Americans are treated by our increasingly dysfunctional system of justice.

    Seth Abramson is the Series Editor for Best American Experimental Writing (Wesleyan University) and the author, most recently, of DATA (BlazeVOX, 2016).

    [Jul 11, 2016] Letter signed by over 200 members of Congress demanding answers from FBI Director Comey

    Neoliberal MSM response to latest FBI director Comey testimony is a textbook example of brainwashing (or groupthink). It shows to me again that you need to go to the source watch at least the fragments of the testimony on YouTube. It deadly serious situation for Hillary. No person with even cursory knowledge of security can avoid thinking that she should be in jail. Republicans know it and will not let her off the hook. Probably special prosecutor will be appointed. See for example https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/House-Letter-to-FBI-Director-1.pdf
    Now Comey is under strong fire and need to save his own skin. You can tell anything about Republican members of House of Representative, but it is now quite clear to me that several of them are brilliant former lawyers/prosecutor/judges.
    From now on they will block all attempt to swipe this matter under the carpet and unless Hillary withdraw they might try to implicate Obama in the cover-up (and they have facts: he recklessly corresponded with her on this account).
    They already requested all FBI files on Clinton. Soon they will have all the dirty laundering from Hillary server and FBI probably recovered most of it.
    From this point it is up-hill battle for Obama, and might well think about finding appropriate sacrificial lamp NOW. My impression is that she lost her chance to became the President. With FBI files in hand, In four month they can do so much damage that she would be better to take her toys and leave the playground.
    And this topic hopefully already influence super-delegates. I think her best option now is give Sanders a chance. Because the real threat now is not that she will go to jail. She belongs to the elite and is above the law. Now the real threat is that all her close associates might.
    judiciary.house.gov

    On Tuesday, the FBI assumed the role of prosecutor and not simply investigator and took the unprecedented act of proclaiming that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Based on the perception that a decision has been made by the FBI that has seemingly ignored facts that the FBI itself found in its own investigation, we have additional questions that are aimed at ensuring that the cloud which now hovers over our justice system is at least minimally pierced:

    1) As a former prosecutor, please explain your understanding of the legal difference between actions performed with "gross negligence" and those done "extremely carelessly." How did you determine that "extreme carelessness" did not equate to "gross negligence?"

    2) You said that no reasonable prosecutor would decide to prosecute the Clinton case on the evidence found by FBI agents during the Bureau's investigation over the past year. We have multiple former prosecutors in Congress, and it is not far-fetched for many of us to envision a successful prosecution of someone for doing far less than that which was committed by Secretary Clinton. Is your statement not an indictment and prejudgment against any Assistant United States Attorney who is now tasked with reviewing the evidence you presented Tuesday? In your judgment, does it not follow that you would think that a prosecutor who moved forward with the instant prosecution of Secretary Clinton would be "unreasonable?"

    3) Are you aware of any internal opinions by FBI agents or management who were intimately aware of the Clinton investigation which differed from your eventual decision to not recommend the case for prosecution?

    4) You mentioned that Top Secret Special Access Programs (SAPs) were included in emails sent and received by Secretary Clinton. SAP material is some of the most highly classified and controlled material of the U.S. Government. If an agency of the U.S. Government were to encounter similar information from a foreign adversary, it would be extremely valuable data for us to exploit. Did the FBI assess how SAP information, due to its controlled nature, ever made it onto unclassified systems that were not air-gapped or physically blocked from outside Internet access? Is it not "gross negligence" to permit such SAP data to leave the confines of the most protective and secure governmental enclaves? Or even "intentional" conduct that allowed that to happen?

    5) You mentioned that this investigation stemmed from a referral from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to determine whether classified information had been transmitted on an unclassified personal system. Following your investigation, it is clear that Secretary Clinton transmitted classified information on an unclassified system. Secretary Clinton on multiple occasions has said that she did not send or receive classified information or information marked as classified.3 In light of your decision to also not refer a false statements charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for prosecution, we can only presume that Secretary Clinton admitted during her interview with your agents that she, in fact, sent and received emails containing classified information. Please confirm.

    6) Are you aware of whether any deleted emails which the FBI was able to forensically recover from Secretary Clinton's servers pertained to the Clinton Foundation?

    7) You stated Tuesday, "Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account." Is the FBI's Counterintelligence Division still involved in determining the level of damage related to possible exploitation of Secretary Clinton's or her associates' email accounts and other communications?

    8) If the FBI performed a background check on an applicant for employment with the FBI or elsewhere in the U.S. Government, and that applicant engaged in conduct committed by Secretary Clinton, would a security clearance ever be granted to that person?

    [Jul 11, 2016] FBI Findings Damage Many of Hillary Clinton s Claims by STEVEN LEE MYERS

    Jul 05, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    Mr. Comey said the emails included eight chains of emails and replies, some written by her, that contained information classified as "top secret: special access programs." That classification is the highest level, reserved for the nation's most highly guarded intelligence operations or sources.

    Another 36 chains were "secret," which is defined as including information that "could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security"; eight others had information classified at the lowest level, "confidential."

    [Jul 08, 2016] 12 highlights of FBI Director Comey s testimony on Clinton email investigation WJLA

    Notable quotes:
    "... House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) formally requested Thursday that Clinton's security clearance be revoked because of the careless handling of classified material that the FBI investigation revealed. ..."
    "... Clinton's personal system did not have full-time security staff ensuring that its protection was up to date. ..."
    "... Comey said as many as ten people who did not have clearance had access to the system. ..."
    "... Unconfirmed media reports had indicated that the FBI investigation spread to look at the activities of the Clinton Foundation as well ..."
    wjla.com

    House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) formally requested Thursday that Clinton's security clearance be revoked because of the careless handling of classified material that the FBI investigation revealed.

    ... ... ...

    While Comey maintained that nobody else would face criminal prosecution for doing the same things Clinton did, he emphasized in his testimony that there would be consequences if a current government employee did it. This could include termination, administrative sanctions, or losing clearance.

    He refused to definitively assess a hypothetical situation where someone like Clinton was seeking security clearance for an FBI job, though.

    ... ... ...

    Gmail: One aspect of Clinton's actions that Comey said was particularly troubling was that he could not completely exclude the possibility that her email account was hacked. Unlike the State Department or even email providers like Gmail, Clinton's personal system did not have full-time security staff ensuring that its protection was up to date.

    ... ... ...

    Clearance: Clinton and her top aides had security clearance to view the classified material that was improperly being transmitted on the server, but Comey said as many as ten people who did not have clearance had access to the system.

    ... ... ...

    Clinton Foundation: Unconfirmed media reports had indicated that the FBI investigation spread to look at the activities of the Clinton Foundation as well

    [Jul 08, 2016] Trey Gowdy GRILLS James Comey On Hillary Clinton Emails

    That was very impressive... This is the first time question of signing of NDA by Hillary Clinton and her aides. See all hearing Full Congressional Hearing With FBI Director James Comey 7-7-2016 - YouTube
    In full transcript Ke Buck ask interesting question at 1:55. Lawyer did not have any security clearances 4:09 and 11:25
    Jul 07, 2016 | YouTube

    Trey Gowdy GRILLS James Comey On Hillary Clinton Emails. Hillary Clinton Email Investigation FBI Director James Comey testified at a hearing on the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of private email servers while serving as secretary of state, as well as the decision to not recommend criminal charges against her. Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department.

    At a congressional hearing Thursday, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) grilled FBI director James Comey about several of Hillary Clinton's statements to the public, which the FBI investigation revealed to be untrue. For instance, Clinton had previously claimed that she had never received or sent classified information to or from her private email server; Comey conceded to Rep. Gowdy that that was not true.

    Another claim of Clinton's, which the investigation revealed to be untrue, was that she had retained all work-related emails. Comey noted that they had uncovered "thousands" of work-related emails not returned to the State Department. "In the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon," Gowdy concluded after running through a catalogue of Clinton's claims, "I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements."

    But Gowdy determined that "false exculpatory statements" can be used to determine intention and consciousness of guilt.

    Wesley Eskildsen

    Is this guy a Starfish from Bikini Bottom!? If Hillary gave her Lawyer, or anyone without the proper Security Clearance AND the "Need to know", access to her Server containing classified information then she is in violation of Federal Law. If she were on active Duty she would be court-martialed. that is Chaffetz point exactly!

    John Doe

    As a democrat, I am disgusted that every member of my party, when givin the opportunity to ask some questions, not one of these cowards asked a real question and instead focussed on basically explaining about what a wonderful human being Hillary Clinton is, and what terrible people the republicans are....

    Wayne Paul

    This chick Maloney just throwing softballs I have no clue why she is even talking.

    aadrgtagtwe aaqerytwerhywerytqery

    Comey is a liar, look at his reaction when asked about what questions did FBI ask hillary during the 3 and a half hour interview. He said he couldn't remember at the moment. How is that possible? The only question to ask hillary during the fbi interview was: "Did you send and receive classified top secret emails through your servers?"

    Both answers Hillary could have given, would have been enough to indict her. If she said "Yes", then she would have been indicted for sending top secret info. If she said "No" , she would have lied, because the report that Comey presented said that "top secret emails were sent and received, and they were top secret at the time they were sent and received. Fbi didn't ask that question at all. That tells you that the whole interview was a sham, Hillary was never interviewed.

    The propaganda-media reported "hillary was grilled by fbi during 3 and a half hour interview". What unbelievable bullshit! WE WANT JUSTICE!!!!!!!!! For all those people who are now in jail for the rest of their lives for doing much less than the criminal-hillary!!!!!!!

    [Jul 08, 2016] FB. Director Testifies on Clinton Emails to Withering Criticism From GOP

    Notable quotes:
    "... At a contentious hearing of the House oversight committee, Mr. Comey acknowledged under questioning that a number of key assertions that Mrs. Clinton made for months in defending her email system were contradicted by the FBI's investigation. ..."
    "... Mr. Comey said that Mrs. Clinton had failed to return "thousands" of work-related emails to the State Department, despite her public insistence to the contrary, and that her lawyers may have destroyed classified material that the F.B.I. was unable to recover. He also described her handling of classified material as secretary of state as "negligent" - a legal term he avoided using when he announced on Tuesday that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    ... He also provided new details that could prove damaging to her just weeks before she is to be named the Democrats' presidential nominee.

    At a contentious hearing of the House oversight committee, Mr. Comey acknowledged under questioning that a number of key assertions that Mrs. Clinton made for months in defending her email system were contradicted by the FBI's investigation.

    Mr. Comey said that Mrs. Clinton had failed to return "thousands" of work-related emails to the State Department, despite her public insistence to the contrary, and that her lawyers may have destroyed classified material that the F.B.I. was unable to recover. He also described her handling of classified material as secretary of state as "negligent" - a legal term he avoided using when he announced on Tuesday that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her.

    [Jul 08, 2016] Clinton Email Hairball

    Notable quotes:
    "... I also made this comment during the morning links, but I think it bears repeating. Robinson considers this to be a great day for Clinton? By what standard? The FBI director went on national television and described her as "extremely careless," and then essentially called her a liar. Is a politician considered to be ethical if he or she is not indicted? ..."
    "... Called her a liar? Un-indicted liar or perjurer because the investigators are reasonable. ..."
    "... What an inversion – this must be the first time it was good for Hillary that her husband had a scandalous private meeting with a younger woman. ..."
    "... In Hillary's nomination victory speech a month ago she argued she has the moral high ground and Trump's response was to focus on the problems in the economy. If the recession starts to hit hard enough late this year, Trump will win, and he will tell Hillary and Bill, "Its the economy stupid!" ..."
    "... It is a SAD day when a President of the US cheers for an "extremely careless" leaker after being the most aggressive prosecutor of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act ever. Can I haz my money back? ..."
    "... When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't a likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance? ..."
    "... Can a president operate without having a security clearance? ..."
    "... "Mere mortals" get indicted. Here is the complaint filed in U.S.A v. Bryan Nishimura, July 24, 2015 ..."
    "... BRYAN H. NISHIMURA, defendant herein, from on or about January 2007 through April 2012, while deployed outside of the United States on active military duty with the United States Navy Reserve in Afghanistan and thereafter at his residence located in the County of Sacramento, State and Eastern District of California, being an officer and employee of the United States, specifically: a United States Navy Reserve Commander, and, by virtue of his office and employment as such, becoming possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, specifically: CLASSIFIED United States Army records, did knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at his residence in the County of Sacramento, an unauthorized location, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924(a), a Class A misdemeanor. ..."
    "... In a decision Tuesday in a case not involving Clinton directly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that messages contained in a personal email account can sometimes be considered government records subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. ..."
    "... Apparently Hillary's problems with the FOIA cases will worsen. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Comey and Lynch asked to testify before Congress on Clinton probe" [MarketWatch]. From my armchair at 30,000 feet: If the Republicans really want to make Lynch squirm, they just have to ask Lynch one question, which Comey - strong passive-aggressive move, there, Jim! - handed to them on a silver platter at his presser, yesterday. I've helpfully written it down (quoted phrases from Comey's press release, parsed here):

    Q: Attorney General Lynch, what "security or administrative sanctions" do you feel are appropriate for Secretary Clinton's "extremely careless" handling of her email communications at the State Department?

    No speeches instead of questions, no primping on camera for the folks back home, nothing about the endless lying, no Benghazi red meat, no sphincter-driven ranting about "security", tie gormless Trey Gowdy up in a canvas bag and stuff him under a desk. Just ask that one question. And when Lynch dodges, as she will, ask it again. I don't ever recall having written a sentence that includes "the American people want," but what the American people want is to see some member of the elite, some time, any time, held accountable for wrong-doing. If it's Clinton's "turn" for that, then so be it. She should look at the big picture and consider the larger benefit of continued legitimacy for the Republic and take one for the team. So let's see if the Republicans overplay their hand. They always have. UPDATE This is a good, that is, sane letter from Bob Goodlatte (pdf), chair of the House Judiciary Committee (via MsExPat). But don't get down in the goddamned weeds!! K.I.S.S.!!!

    "Comey's solo appearance Tuesday stood out for historical reasons, because it's highly unusual for the FBI to make public findings when investigators have decided no charges should be brought" [CNN]. This purports to be the inside story of how Comey "stood alone" to make the announcement. But there are some holes in the narrative:

    Matthew Miller, the former top Justice spokesman under Attorney General Eric Holder, called Comey's announcement "outrageous." "The FBI's job is to investigate cases and when it's appropriate to work with the Justice Department to bring charges," he said on CNN. House Republican sides with Comey over Trump on Clinton emails. Instead, Miller said: "Jim Comey is the final arbiter in determining the appropriateness of Hillary Clinton's conduct. That's not his job."

    When you've lost Eric Holder's spokesperson And then there's this. After Clinton's "long-awaited" Fourth-of-July weekend three hours of testimony:

    Officials said it was already clear that there wasn't enough evidence to bring criminal charges. The interview cemented that decision among FBI and Justice officials who were present.

    By Monday night, Comey and other FBI officials decided the public announcement should come at the earliest opportunity.

    The fact that Tuesday would also mark the first public campaign appearance by Obama alongside Hillary Clinton didn't enter in the calculation, officials said.

    But as Yves points out, there was no time to write an official report of Clinton's "interview" over the weekend. So for this narrative to work, you've got to form a mental picture of high FBI officials scanning the transcript of Clinton's "interview," throwing up their hands, and saying "We got nuthin'. You take it from here, Jim." That doesn't scan. I mean, the FBI is called a bureau for good reason. So to me, the obvious process violation means that political pressure was brought to bear on Comey, most likely by Obama, despite the denials (those being subject to the Rice-Davies Rule). But Comey did the bare minimum to comply, in essence carefully building a three-scoop Sundae of Accountability, and then handing it, with the cherry ("security or administrative sanctions"), to Lynch, so Lynch could have the pleasant task of making the decision about whether to put the cherry on top. Or not. Of course, if our elites were as dedicated to public service as they were in Nixon's day, there would have been a second Saturday Night Massacre (link for those who came in late), but these are different times. (Extending the sundae metaphor even further, it will be interesting to see if the ice cream shop staff knows what else is back in the freezer, the nuts and syrups that Comey decided not to add; Comey certainly made the ethical case for leaks.)

    "Hillary Clinton's email problems might be even worse than we thought " [Chris Cilizza, WaPo]. Cillizza, for whom I confess a sneaking affection, as for Nooners, isn't the most combative writer in WaPo's stable


    voteforno6, July 6, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    Re: "Hillary Clinton's great day"

    I also made this comment during the morning links, but I think it bears repeating. Robinson considers this to be a great day for Clinton? By what standard? The FBI director went on national television and described her as "extremely careless," and then essentially called her a liar. Is a politician considered to be ethical if he or she is not indicted?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef, July 6, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Called her a liar? Un-indicted liar or perjurer because the investigators are reasonable.

    Elizabeth Burton, July 6, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    The cultish nature of Clinton followers struck me months ago; it's quite plain to anyone who's done any amount of study of cults. The giddy insistence now that the Comey statement is total vindication is a case in point, and any attempt to point out how damning it actually was only brings an "innocent until proven guilty" reply.

    One can only surmise that a large number of people have been so inured to corruption they no longer consider it a negative unless the perpetrator goes to jail; and even then there would likely be more insistence that person was railroaded.

    Tertium Squid, July 6, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    What an inversion – this must be the first time it was good for Hillary that her husband had a scandalous private meeting with a younger woman.

    Tim, July 6, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    On election day hindsight will show the real inversion with the Clintons is:

    In 1990s Bob Dole ran on a platform of having the moral high ground, while Bill Clinton said "it's the economy stupid", and Bill won.

    In Hillary's nomination victory speech a month ago she argued she has the moral high ground and Trump's response was to focus on the problems in the economy. If the recession starts to hit hard enough late this year, Trump will win, and he will tell Hillary and Bill, "Its the economy stupid!"

    Isolato, July 6, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    It is a SAD day when a President of the US cheers for an "extremely careless" leaker after being the most aggressive prosecutor of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act ever. Can I haz my money back?

    Kokuanani, July 6, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't a likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance?

    Can we hope for that to happen to Clinton? [Why not?]

    Can a president operate without having a security clearance?

    3.14e-9, July 6, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't a likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance?

    "Mere mortals" get indicted. Here is the complaint filed in U.S.A v. Bryan Nishimura, July 24, 2015:

    The United States Attorney charges: THAT BRYAN H. NISHIMURA, defendant herein, from on or about January 2007 through April 2012, while deployed outside of the United States on active military duty with the United States Navy Reserve in Afghanistan and thereafter at his residence located in the County of Sacramento, State and Eastern District of California, being an officer and employee of the United States, specifically: a United States Navy Reserve Commander, and, by virtue of his office and employment as such, becoming possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, specifically: CLASSIFIED United States Army records, did knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at his residence in the County of Sacramento, an unauthorized location, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924(a), a Class A misdemeanor.

    voteforno6, July 6, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    Since the classification program falls under the President by law, it is impossible for a President to not have a security clearance.

    Pookah Harvey, July 6, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Clinton supporters seem to feel the fat lady has sung but it might be they are only hearing someone who is slightly chunky. From Politico:

    On the same day that the FBI announced that the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server is likely to conclude without any charges, a federal appeals court issued a ruling that could complicate and prolong a slew of ongoing civil lawsuits over access to the messages Clinton and her top aides traded on personal accounts.

    In a decision Tuesday in a case not involving Clinton directly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that messages contained in a personal email account can sometimes be considered government records subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.

    Apparently Hillary's problems with the FOIA cases will worsen.

    [Jul 08, 2016] Buck To Comey Did You Rewrite Federal Law

    Jul 07, 2016 | YouTube

    Rep. Ken Buck questions FBI Director James Comey about his insertion of the term "willfully" into 18 U.S. Code § 1924. Comey says he "imputes" the term in line with the Department of Justice's history/tradition of enforcing the statute.

    The above clip is taken from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's hearing regarding Hillary Clinton's criminal email conduct.

    Also see

    [Jul 08, 2016] The Clinton Email Probe and the Question of Gross Negligence

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...Mr. Comey also referenced a more obscure provision of the Espionage Act that has little to do with intent or state of mind, but rather makes it a crime to disclose classified information through "gross negligence." ..."
    "... But the crime of "gross negligence" in the Espionage Act doesn't appear to require proof of any intentional mishandling of documents, according to Stephen I. Vladeck , a national security scholar at the University of Texas. ..."
    "... Specifically, the law makes it a felony to permit classified information relating to national defense to be "removed from its proper place of custody" through gross negligence. ..."
    "... Why are you focusing on the gross negligence aspect? ..."
    "... Where is the removal from the proper place of custody? I've seen nothing in any legal analysis in this paper that talks about it. Is the presence of classified material on a private server of one who is authorized to have it equivalent to such a removal? ..."
    "... She was specifically not authorized to have a private server. ..."
    "... "From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained SECRET information at the time; and eight contained CONFIDENTIAL information at the time. That's the lowest level of classification." ..."
    "... "We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account." ..."
    "... Making an argument for the difference between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness" is the sort of semantic hair-splitting that Hillary Clinton ought to have been compelled to do in court - in the same way that her husband prevaricated over "what the meaning of the word 'is' is," shortly before he lost his law license. ..."
    Jul 05, 2016 | WSJ

    ...Mr. Comey also referenced a more obscure provision of the Espionage Act that has little to do with intent or state of mind, but rather makes it a crime to disclose classified information through "gross negligence."

    That provision of the Espionage Act, the primary law governing the handling of classified information, could require at least proof that the offender knew the classified information disclosed could harm the United States or benefit a foreign power if it got into the wrong hands.

    But the crime of "gross negligence" in the Espionage Act doesn't appear to require proof of any intentional mishandling of documents, according to Stephen I. Vladeck, a national security scholar at the University of Texas.

    Specifically, the law makes it a felony to permit classified information relating to national defense to be "removed from its proper place of custody" through gross negligence.

    What would constitute a degree of recklessness that rises to gross negligence? Mr. Vladeck offered an example of accidentally leaving a briefcase stuffed with classified national security secrets on a busy sidewalk in Washington, D.C.

    ... ... ...

    Charles Silva

    Why are you focusing on the gross negligence aspect?

    Where is the removal from the proper place of custody? I've seen nothing in any legal analysis in this paper that talks about it. Is the presence of classified material on a private server of one who is authorized to have it equivalent to such a removal?

    Lee Hartwig

    @Charles Silva She was specifically not authorized to have a private server.

    Clifford Crouch

    @Michael Piston

    "From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained SECRET information at the time; and eight contained CONFIDENTIAL information at the time. That's the lowest level of classification."

    -FBI Director James Comey, July 5, 2016

    "We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

    -James Comey, July 5, 2016

    Making an argument for the difference between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness" is the sort of semantic hair-splitting that Hillary Clinton ought to have been compelled to do in court - in the same way that her husband prevaricated over "what the meaning of the word 'is' is," shortly before he lost his law license.

    [Jul 07, 2016] Why the FBI concluded Hillary Clintons email practices did not rise to the level of criminal charges -

    Hillary coped her emails and gave all of the to her private lawyer, who has no security clearance, on the USB stick. That's alone qualifies for gross negligence.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton also used the department's secure email system for transmitting classified information, but the FBI found that some of the regular communications with her staff on the personal server involved facts and details that she should have known were classified. In a few cases, the emails bore markings to indicate they contained classified information. ..."
    "... Stewart Baker, a top national security lawyer in the Bush administration, called Comey's statement "pretty damning for Secretary Clinton, even if the facts don't make for an impressive criminal case. He suggests that she should have been, or arguably could still be, subjected to 'security or administrative sanctions.' What he doesn't say, but what we can infer, is that she ran those incredible risks with national security information because she was more worried about the GOP reading her mail than of Russian or Chinese spies reading it. That's appalling," he said. ..."
    "... HIllary lied about her servers, she lied about sending classified information, she lied about the re-classification of confidential, secret and SAP documents. Some two hours after Comey's announcement, she and Obama took off on Air Force One for a rally together. ..."
    "... But a new security regimen is dawning for those who hold security clearances. According to the FBI, they are now free to transfer data between secure and non-secure networks without punishment, as long as the INTENT is not to harm the United States. ..."
    "... A retired FBI agent on Fox said this : The Comey conference was to take the heat off of Lynch - because if the FBI had just been quiet with their results, and it would have been Lynch who came out and said...No charges - AFTER the Phoenix scandal, people would really be skeptical. end - ..."
    "... Of course this took AG-LL off the hook. NOW - for all of this to fall in place? Had to be some meetings beforehand - AG - FBI and Whitehouse general council - 3 US government lawyers colluding this event - to make SURE they have jobs the next 4 years and the GRATITUDE of Potus Hillary. ..."
    "... Corrupt? I would not go that far...let's just say DIRTY. ..."
    "... "Gross negligence" is the standard under 18 U.S.C., section 793-f. FBI Director Comey said Hillary Clinton was "extremely careless" in her handling of highly classified information. What's the difference, other than semantics, between "gross negligence" and "extremely careless?" ..."
    "... Hillary's emails may be great confirmation of Hillary's war role in the Mid-east and even Ukraine. However, more to the point they confirm for all Democrats that Hillary's agenda is the Neo-con one of Geo. W. Bush's handlers from PNAC, Chicago School of Economics, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland. (The Neo-con/Neo-liberal company includes Larry Summers, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) She is not a run of the mill hawk like John McCain, she is a New World Order marionette just as Geo W was. She needs to be dumped as she is beholden to anti-democratic values of elitism. ..."
    "... Bill Kristol is attacking Donald Trump because his candidate is Hillary. ..."
    "... This was historical. Law enforcement does not make decisions on prosecution. That is left to prosecutors. Law enforcement are fact finders who should have presented the case to a career professional prosecutor to make a decision. ..."
    "... The question is, why was well established policy and protocol violated and the case not presented to a prosecutor for a decision? Ask any local D.A. If they reject a case, they write a "reject" documenting their rationale. In a very public or complicated case, that reject is written in great detail regarding each and every potential charge. ..."
    "... The Obama Administration has prosecuted more people under the same WW I espionage act than all other administrations COMBINED. Comey has prosecuted a person under this act for a 21-word email .not 30,000 destroyed emails. ..."
    "... Everybody knows this was fixed. The examples of similar incidents, putting people in jail, are coming out of the shadows. It is time to vote the career politicians out of office and take our country back. ..."
    "... NSA has copies of every email sent to/from US, & likely most others, for last 10+ years. So they have all 30,000+ of the emails she deleted. ..."
    "... When in the Navy I saw a LT. career destroyed for leaving a top secret safe open over night. We did not know who maybe got in. The assumption by NCIS was that someone did enter and Top Secret information was taken. He was prosecuted for maybe forgetting and Clinton no prosecution for being dumb? ..."
    LA Times

    "It's just not a crime under current law to do nothing more than share sensitive information over unsecured networks," said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas. "Maybe it should be, but that's something for Congress to decide going forward."

    John M. Deutch, another former CIA director, narrowly avoided a misdemeanor charge for having taken hundreds of top secret files home on his laptop computer. He was pardoned by Clinton before charges were filed.

    ... ... ...

    Hillary Clinton also used the department's secure email system for transmitting classified information, but the FBI found that some of the regular communications with her staff on the personal server involved facts and details that she should have known were classified. In a few cases, the emails bore markings to indicate they contained classified information.

    However, investigators did not find evidence she knowingly or intentionally disclosed government secrets or that she exposed secrets through gross negligence. Clinton's apparent interest was in maintaining her privacy.

    ... ... ...

    Stewart Baker, a top national security lawyer in the Bush administration, called Comey's statement "pretty damning for Secretary Clinton, even if the facts don't make for an impressive criminal case. He suggests that she should have been, or arguably could still be, subjected to 'security or administrative sanctions.' What he doesn't say, but what we can infer, is that she ran those incredible risks with national security information because she was more worried about the GOP reading her mail than of Russian or Chinese spies reading it. That's appalling," he said.

    knox.bob.xpg

    No amount of facts, no amount of evidence, and no amount of lies will change the minds of supporters of Hillary Clinton. Her coronation was pre-determined. Ideology is more important to her supporters than the quality of the candidate. While brash, Trump nailed it yesterday. The fix was in and the optics played out.

    HIllary lied about her servers, she lied about sending classified information, she lied about the re-classification of confidential, secret and SAP documents. Some two hours after Comey's announcement, she and Obama took off on Air Force One for a rally together.

    Obama would have never done this if Comey's decision was to seek criminal charges. Presidential travel is not spur of the moment, it is carefully planned weeks in advance. So what happened here ? I believe Comey knew that DOJ would not seek criminal charges against her despite the overwhelming evidence of gross negligence.

    Comey "fried" her yesterday and now she will be tried in the court of public opinion. There are simply some people who believe that global warming, income inequality, and transgender bathrooms are more important than ISIS, our economy, terror, or national debt.

    unclesmrgol

    Hillary has been freed from any punishment, for some animals are more important than others.

    But a new security regimen is dawning for those who hold security clearances. According to the FBI, they are now free to transfer data between secure and non-secure networks without punishment, as long as the INTENT is not to harm the United States.

    That is the new standard, and a mighty fine one it is -- right?

    SandyDago

    A retired FBI agent on Fox said this : The Comey conference was to take the heat off of Lynch - because if the FBI had just been quiet with their results, and it would have been Lynch who came out and said...No charges - AFTER the Phoenix scandal, people would really be skeptical. end -

    That seems very obvious at this point...The FBI does not do - what James Comey did yesterday. No comment is how they roll - Yet we get a play by play yesterday.

    Of course this took AG-LL off the hook. NOW - for all of this to fall in place? Had to be some meetings beforehand - AG - FBI and Whitehouse general council - 3 US government lawyers colluding this event - to make SURE they have jobs the next 4 years and the GRATITUDE of Potus Hillary.

    Corrupt? I would not go that far...let's just say DIRTY.

    Chris Crusade

    "Gross negligence" is the standard under 18 U.S.C., section 793-f. FBI Director Comey said Hillary Clinton was "extremely careless" in her handling of highly classified information. What's the difference, other than semantics, between "gross negligence" and "extremely careless?"

    lon.ball

    Hillary's emails may be great confirmation of Hillary's war role in the Mid-east and even Ukraine. However, more to the point they confirm for all Democrats that Hillary's agenda is the Neo-con one of Geo. W. Bush's handlers from PNAC, Chicago School of Economics, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland. (The Neo-con/Neo-liberal company includes Larry Summers, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) She is not a run of the mill hawk like John McCain, she is a New World Order marionette just as Geo W was. She needs to be dumped as she is beholden to anti-democratic values of elitism.

    Bill Kristol is attacking Donald Trump because his candidate is Hillary. (See this article in this issue.) So, it is not about Democrat vs. Republican. The new political dichotomy is Centralization (corporatism, totalitarian, collectivism) vs. Personal Constitutional freedom. I am a lifelong Democrat and Sanders man who is "never Hillary" for good reason. I cannot sit by idly and watch as our national Democracy continues to devolve into world fascism with the Neo-cons. Hillary is a traitor to the Nation and to the late great Democratic Party.

    It is time for the old right and old progressive left to unite for preservation of the US Constitution and personal freedom. Never Hillary; never New World Order!" less

    tommy501

    This was historical. Law enforcement does not make decisions on prosecution. That is left to prosecutors. Law enforcement are fact finders who should have presented the case to a career professional prosecutor to make a decision.

    The question is, why was well established policy and protocol violated and the case not presented to a prosecutor for a decision? Ask any local D.A. If they reject a case, they write a "reject" documenting their rationale. In a very public or complicated case, that reject is written in great detail regarding each and every potential charge.

    Something's fishy.

    andytek2

    @tommy501 he didn't make a prosecutorial decision he only said that no reasonable prosecutor would file charges.

    DennisWV

    The Obama Administration has prosecuted more people under the same WW I espionage act than all other administrations COMBINED. Comey has prosecuted a person under this act for a 21-word email .not 30,000 destroyed emails.

    Everybody knows this was fixed. The examples of similar incidents, putting people in jail, are coming out of the shadows. It is time to vote the career politicians out of office and take our country back.

    Outside the Herd

    NSA has copies of every email sent to/from US, & likely most others, for last 10+ years. So they have all 30,000+ of the emails she deleted.

    FBI & O knew months ago what was in all of them, & delayed looking away until primaries were clinched. Which was also crooked, ask Bernie's peep's.

    Andre-Leonard

    "A second law makes it a crime to "remove" secret documents kept by the government or to allow them to be stolen through "gross negligence."

    Funny how they went after Edward Snowden for the very same thing. Yet no one in their 'right' mind expected a Justice Department led by Obama to allow for Billary to be indicted. It's all about favorites here and justice is 'not' really blind.

    kenwrite9

    When she was in foreign countries she should have known that those countries spy on American officials. I now that, why she did not is strange. When in the Navy I saw a LT. career destroyed for leaving a top secret safe open over night. We did not know who maybe got in. The assumption by NCIS was that someone did enter and Top Secret information was taken. He was prosecuted for maybe forgetting and Clinton no prosecution for being dumb?

    [Jul 06, 2016] FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook by Andrew C. McCarthy

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18) ..."
    "... The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. ..."
    "... It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. ..."
    "... Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we've decided she shouldn't be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. ..."
    "... To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case. ..."
    National Review

    Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was "extremely careless" and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

    In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

    ... ... ...

    It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged.

    Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States.

    Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we've decided she shouldn't be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey's claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI.

    To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

    [Jul 04, 2016] Twenty-first Century "Canadian" Corporate Capitalism is Quite the Racket by Yves Engler

    Notable quotes:
    "... Built with public subsidies, a Montréal firm can shift its 'head office' to a tax haven and workforce abroad, but Ottawa will continue to use its diplomatic, economic and military might to advance the company's reactionary international interests. ..."
    June 27, 2016 | dissidentvoice.org
    Built with public subsidies, a Montréal firm can shift its 'head office' to a tax haven and workforce abroad, but Ottawa will continue to use its diplomatic, economic and military might to advance the company's reactionary international interests.

    As part of its coverage of the Panama Papers, the Toronto Star recently reported that Gildan Activewear paid only a 2.8% tax rate on more than $1.3 billion US in declared income the last five years and it's unclear if any of the apparel company's measly $38 million in tax was paid in Canada.

    After benefiting …

    (Full article …)

    [Jul 04, 2016] Brexit Is a Mutiny Against the Cosmopolitan Elite

    www.huffingtonpost.com

    Brexit was a vote against London, globalization and multiculturalism as much as a vote against Europe.

    London is the world's single most important center of global finance - though that may be at risk now. With the surrounding southeast region, it dominates the United Kingdom's economic growth. It has some of the world's most expensive real estate and richest residents - and absentee property owners. It is one of the world's most cosmopolitan cities. It is home to about 1 million continental Europeans. And it voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. The rest of England did not.

    [Jul 04, 2016] Brexit, Seen from the Top of Europe

    Notable quotes:
    "... John Lukacs, the Hungarian-American historian, has spent a lifetime arguing that nationalism-not socialism, or even liberalism-is the core ideology of modernity, and that the lesson of history is that nationalism will assert itself, like an unquenchable microbe, anytime it has the least opportunity. ..."
    The New Yorker

    What was really at stake was a closed vision of the future against a cosmopolitan one. The divide was much less the prosperous versus the poor than it was city versus small towns, the well-educated versus those without advanced degrees, and, most of all, the young versus the old. Economic insecurity was, obviously, one of the things that drove the vote, but nostalgic nationalism drove it more, and what was really striking was that the struggling young took it for granted that the way toward a better future lay in ever-more European and planetary consciousness, not in closing it down. The vote was intolerably cruel in particular to the twentysomethings of Britain, many of whom did not hesitate to protest. They had gone to sleep on Thursday evening with all the world, or at least with all of Europe, before them, as citizens with possible futures in twenty-eight nations; they woke on Friday morning to be told that their future would contract to one nation, and that one possibly shrinking before their eyes, right to the Scottish border.

    ... ... ...

    At this moment, two irascible émigrés from the past century of European tragedies might come to mind. John Lukacs, the Hungarian-American historian, has spent a lifetime arguing that nationalism-not socialism, or even liberalism-is the core ideology of modernity, and that the lesson of history is that nationalism will assert itself, like an unquenchable microbe, anytime it has the least opportunity. (He also draws the distinction between patriotism-the love of place and tradition and a desire to see its particularities thrive-and true nationalism, which is a vengeful, irrational certainty that the alien outside or even within a country's borders is responsible for some humiliation to the true nation.) This pessimistic strain was matched by that of Karl Popper, the Austrian-Anglo philosopher, who saw that what he named the "open society," though essential to the transmission of humane values and the growth of knowledge, can impose great strains on its citizens-strains of lost identity, certainty, tribal wholeness. The reaction to this strain is inevitable, and sure. What keeps an open society from being overturned is only the balm of ever-increased prosperity; when prosperity ends or is endangered, all the bad demons come out of the forest. In this much broader sense, it may be prosperity that makes pluralism possible. Economics alone don't drive the ideology of nationalism, but without prosperity it has more room to bloom. Meanwhile, nationalism won't just go away, and open, liberal societies are far more fragile than their success can make them seem-and these two sad truths seem to need perpetual restating, or the lights really will go out across Europe.

    [Jul 04, 2016] Nationalism and the Brexit Vote

    The New York Times

    Whether it's having any effect will not be known until the vote on Thursday. What is known, what the debate over the referendum has demonstrated with great clarity, is that there is in Britain a populist strain of the sort that has brought nationalist governments to Hungary and Poland, helped right-wing parties make strong showings in France and some other European countries - and, in America, done much to promote the cause of Donald Trump. In the United States and Britain, a relatively normal electoral process became seized with populist nationalism and increasingly immune to normal political discourse.

    In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron announced back in 2013 that he would hold a referendum on E.U. membership largely to mollify euroskeptics in his Conservative Party, presuming that Britons would vote to stay in. Before long, a similar demographic gathered on the "Leave" side in Britain and the Trump side in America - workers who felt alienated by a globalizing and changing world, who felt politicians had ceased listening to them, who were convinced that tides of foreigners were threatening their livelihood and identity.

    And so the British referendum has become something of a battleground for all Western democracies where anti-immigrant hostilities are building.

    And even if the "Remain" side prevails on Thursday and Mr. Trump is decisively rejected in November, Western democracies will need to take a long, hard look at the social divide, the insecurities, the alienation, the nationalism and racism that have invaded so many political battlegrounds.

    [Jul 04, 2016] Brexit Vote Shows Rising Far-Right Nationalism, Singapore Says

    Notable quotes:
    "... Britain's vote to exit the European Union reflected a resurgence of far-right nationalism that was adding pressure on countries to shore up their borders, ..."
    "... countries facing an increased desire for national identity, and the growing anti-globalization sentiment that was driving them to be more assertive about protecting their markets. ..."
    Bloomberg

    Britain's vote to exit the European Union reflected a resurgence of far-right nationalism that was adding pressure on countries to shore up their borders, said Singapore's Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen.

    The challenge for Singapore in the face of the Brexit vote, Ng said, will be to stay neutral and not judge those countries facing an increased desire for national identity, and the growing anti-globalization sentiment that was driving them to be more assertive about protecting their markets.

    "There is a resurgence of what pundits and political analysts call far-right, a rising nationalism, which is a reaction hearkened to so-called 'good old days', not remembering that the good old days also have many, many bad points," Ng told reporters at a media conference ahead of Singapore Armed Forces day. "We want to be neutral, in terms of not being judgmental because this is as history goes. But nonetheless, it is a challenge," he said.

    As terrorism continues to represent a clear and present threat, Ng, 57, said no country was immune to the defects of home-grown terrorism, and emphasized the need for international cooperation to combat the heightened threat of global terrorism.

    "You can monitor closely your borders, you can even close off your borders but homegrown terrorism is something else. It is very hard to protect against lone wolves or wolf-pack attacks -- somebody who is radicalized, who has really not been contacted physically by somebody outside their own country," he said.

    [Jul 04, 2016] What Do the Brexit Movement and Donald Trump Have in Common

    www.newyorker.com

    When the Brexit referendum is done, tens of millions of Britons will likely have registered a vote against the liberal vision of European unity and assimilation. In this country, even after the disastrous past few weeks Donald Trump has had, a new opinion poll, from Quinnipiac University, indicates that in crucial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania he remains statistically tied with Hillary Clinton.

    Why is this happening? Trump and his counterpart in Britain, the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage, didn't emerge from nowhere. Both are wealthy men who affect an affinity with the common people, and who have skillfully exploited a deep well of resentment among working-class and middle-class voters, some of whom have traditionally supported left-of-center parties. Certainly, a parallel factor in both men's rise is racism, or, more specifically, nativism. Trump has presented a nightmarish vision of America overrun by Mexican felons and Muslim terrorists. UKIP printed up campaign posters that showed thousands of dark-colored refugees lining up to enter Slovenia, which is part of the E.U., next to the words "BREAKING POINT: The EU has failed us all." But racism and nationalism have both been around for a long time, as have demagogues who try to exploit them. In healthy democracies, these troublemakers are confined to the fringes.

    Historically, transforming radical parties of the right (or left) into mass movements has required some sort of disaster, such as a major war or an economic depression. Europe in the early twentieth century witnessed both, with cataclysmic results. After the First World War, the introduction of social democracy, the socioeconomic system that most Western countries settled on, delivered steadily rising living standards, which helped to keep the extremists at bay. If prosperity wasn't shared equally-and it wasn't-egalitarian social norms and redistributive tax systems blunted some of the inequities that go along with free-market capitalism.

    But in the past few decades Western countries have been subjected to a triad of forces that, while not as visible or dramatic as wars and depressions, have proved equally destabilizing: globalization, technical progress, and a political philosophy that embraces both. In the United States, it is no coincidence that Trump is doing well in the Rust Belt and other deindustrialized areas. A one-two punch of automation and offshoring has battered these regions, leaving many of their residents ill-equipped to prosper in today's economy. Trump is exploiting the same economic anxieties and resentments that helped Bernie Sanders, another critic of globalization and free trade, carry the Michigan Democratic primary.

    "There is no excuse for supporting a racist, sexist, xenophobic buffoon like Donald Trump," Dean Baker, an economist and blogger at the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, noted recently. "But we should be clear; the workers who turn to him do have real grievances. The system has been rigged against them."

    Similarly, it is not an accident that UKIP is popular in the former mill towns of northern England, in the engineering belt of the West Midlands, and in working-class exurbs of London. "Children emerging from the primary school next door, almost all from ethnic minorities, are just a visible reminder for anyone seeking easy answers to genuine grievance," the Guardian's Polly Toynbee wrote, last week, after a visit to Barking, in Essex, which is close to a big car factory owned by Ford. "As high-status Ford jobs are swapped for low-paid warehouse work, indignation is diverted daily against migrants by the Mail, Sun, Sunday Times and the rest. . . . This is the sound of Britain breaking."

    For the past half century, the major political parties, on both sides of the Atlantic, have promulgated the idea that free trade and globalization are the keys to prosperity. If you pressed the mainstream economists who advise these parties, they might concede that trade creates losers as well as winners, and that the argument for ever more global integration implicitly assumes that the winners will compensate the losers. But the fact that such a sharing of the gains has been sorely lacking was regarded as a relatively minor detail, and certainly not as a justification for calling a halt to the entire process.

    If you are reading this post, the likelihood is that you, like me, are one of the winners. Highly educated, professional people tend to work in sectors of the economy that have benefitted from the changes in the international division of labor (e.g., finance, consulting, media, tech) or have been largely spared the rigors of global competition (e.g., law, medicine, academia). From a secure perch on the economic ladder, it is easy to celebrate the gains that technology and globalization have brought, such as a cornucopia of cheap goods in rich countries and rising prosperity in poor ones. It's also tempting to dismiss the arguments of people who ignore the benefits of this process, or who can't see that it is irreversible.

    But, as Baker points out, "it is a bit hypocritical of those who have benefited" from this economic transformation to be "mocking the poor judgment of its victims"-especially now that the forces of global competition and technological progress are reaching into areas that were previously protected. In a world of self-driving cars and trucks, what is the future for truck drivers, cab and limo drivers, and delivery men? Not a very prosperous one, surely. And the creative destruction that the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter celebrated won't stop there. With software that can transfer money at zero cost, medical robots that can carry out the most delicate of operations, and smart algorithms that can diagnose diseases or dispense legal advice, what is the future for bankers, surgeons, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals?

    There is no straightforward answer to this question, just as there is no easy answer to the question of what can be done to help those who have already lost out. One option is to strengthen the social safety net and, perhaps, to move toward some sort of universal basic income, which would guarantee a minimum standard of living to everybody, regardless of employment prospects. The political enactment of such solutions, however, is contingent on the existence of social solidarity, which the very process of economic and technological change, by heightening inequalities and eroding communal institutions, undermines.

    Lacking grounds for optimism, and feeling remote from the levers of power, the disappointed nurse their grievances-until along come politicians who tell them that they are right to be angry, that their resentments are justified, and that they should be mad not just at the winners but at immigrants, too. Trump and Farage are the latest and most successful of these political opportunists. Sadly, they are unlikely to be the last.

    [Jul 04, 2016] After Brexit, Nationalism and Trump Rising

    Notable quotes:
    "... In Bernie Sanders's fulminations against corporate and financial elites one hears echoes of the radical-leftist rhetoric in Greece and Italy against EU banking elites. ..."
    "... And as "Brexit" swept the native-born English outside of multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual London, populist-nationalist Donald Trump and antiestablishment Ted Cruz swept the native-born white working and middle classes in the primaries. ..."
    "... In Britain, all the mainstream parties-Labor, Tory, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National-supported "Remain." All lost. ..."
    "... In the past six months, millions of Democrats voted for a 74-year-old socialist against the establishment choice, Hillary Clinton, as Bush-Romney-Ryan Republicanism was massively repudiated in the Republican primaries. ..."
    "... As Trump said last week, "We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism-focusing on what's good for America's middle class-to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy." ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com
    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    The American Conservative

    Some of us have long predicted the breakup of the European Union. The Cousins appear to have just delivered the coup de grace .

    While Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU, England voted for independence. These people, with their unique history, language, and culture, want to write their own laws and rule themselves.

    The English wish to remain who they are, and they do not want their country to become, in Theodore Roosevelt's phrase, "a polyglot boarding house" for the world.

    From patriots of all nations, congratulations are in order.

    It will all begin to unravel now, over there, and soon over here.

    Across Europe, tribalism, of all strains, is resurgent. Not only does the EU appear to be breaking up, countries appear about to break up.

    Scotland will seek a second referendum to leave the UK. The French National Front of Marine Le Pen and the Dutch Party for Freedom both want out of the EU. As Scots seek to secede from the UK, Catalonia seeks to secede from Spain, Veneto from Italy, and Flemish nationalists from Belgium.

    Ethnonationalism seems everywhere ascendant. Yet, looking back in history, is this not the way the world has been going for some centuries now?

    The disintegration of the EU into its component nations would follow, as Vladimir Putin helpfully points out, the dissolution of the USSR into 15 nations, and the breakup of Yugoslavia into seven.

    Czechoslovakia lately split in two. The Donbass seeks to secede from Ukraine. Is that so different from Transnistria splitting off from Romania, Abkhazia and South Ossetia seceding from Georgia, and Chechnya seeking separation from Russia?

    After World War II came the disintegration of the French and British empires and birth of dozens of new nations in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. America returned the Philippine islands to their people.

    The previous century saw the collapse of the Spanish Empire and birth of a score of new nations in our own hemisphere.

    In Xi Jinping's China and Putin's Russia, nationalism is rising, even as China seeks to repress Uighur and Tibetan separatists.

    People want to rule themselves, and be themselves, separate from all others. Palestinians want their own nation. Israelis want "a Jewish state."

    On Cyprus, Turks and Greeks seem happier apart.

    Kurds are fighting to secede from Turkey and Iraq, and perhaps soon from Syria and Iran. Afghanistan appears to be splintering into regions dominated by Pashtuns, Hazaras, Uzbeks, and Tajiks.

    Eritrea has left Ethiopia. South Sudan has seceded from Khartoum.

    Nor is America immune to the populist sentiments surging in Europe.

    In Bernie Sanders's fulminations against corporate and financial elites one hears echoes of the radical-leftist rhetoric in Greece and Italy against EU banking elites.

    And as "Brexit" swept the native-born English outside of multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual London, populist-nationalist Donald Trump and antiestablishment Ted Cruz swept the native-born white working and middle classes in the primaries.

    In Britain, all the mainstream parties-Labor, Tory, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National-supported "Remain." All lost.

    Nigel Farage's UK Independence Party alone won.

    In the past six months, millions of Democrats voted for a 74-year-old socialist against the establishment choice, Hillary Clinton, as Bush-Romney-Ryan Republicanism was massively repudiated in the Republican primaries.

    As Trump said last week, "We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism-focusing on what's good for America's middle class-to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy."

    Yesterday, news arrived that in May alone, the U.S. had run a trade deficit in goods of $60 billion. This translates into an annual deficit of $720 billion in goods, or near 4 percent of our GDP wiped out by purchases of foreign-made rather than U.S.-made goods.

    In 40 years, we have not run a trade surplus. The most self-sufficient republic in all of history now relies for its necessities upon other nations.

    What might a Trumpian policy of Americanism over globalism entail?

    A 10 to 20 percent tariff on manufactured goods to wipe out the trade deficit in goods, with the hundreds of billions in revenue used to slash or eliminate corporate taxes in the USA.

    Every U.S. business would benefit. Every global company would have an incentive not only to move production here, but its headquarters here.

    An "America first" immigration policy would secure the border, cut legal immigration to tighten U.S. labor markets, strictly enforce U.S. laws against those breaking into our country, and get tough with businesses that make a practice of hiring people here illegally.

    In Europe and America, corporate, financial, and political elites are increasingly disrespected and transnationalism is receding. An anti-establishment, nationalist, populist wave is surging across Europe and the USA.

    It is an anti-insider, anti-Clinton wave, and Trump could ride it to victory.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the new book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .

    [Jul 02, 2016] Guardian sinks into Gutter on Corbyn Again! Dissident Voice

    Notable quotes:
    "... Guardian ..."
    "... Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East ..."
    "... Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair ..."
    dissidentvoice.org

    Guardian sinks into Gutter on Corbyn: Again!

    by Jonathan Cook / June 30th, 2016

    This is way beyond a face-palm moment.

    Jeremy Corbyn today launched a review into the Labour party's supposed "anti-semitism crisis" – in fact, a crisis entirely confected by a toxic mix of the right, Israel supporters and the media. I have repeatedly pointed out that misleading claims of anti-semitism (along with much else) are being thrown at Corbyn to discredit him. You can read my criticisms of this campaign and Labour's response here , here and here .

    In his speech, Corbyn made an entirely fair point that Jews should not be blamed for the behaviour of Israel any more than Muslims should be for the behaviour of states that are Islamic. He said:

    Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations.

    But no matter what he said, the usual suspects are now accusing him of comparing Israel with Islamic State, even though that is clearly not what he said – not even close.

    First, even if he had said "Islamic State", which he didn't, that would not have meant he made a comparison with Israel. He was comparing the assumptions some people make that Jews and Muslims have tribal allegiances based on their religious or ethnic background. He was saying it was unfair to make such assumptions of either Jews or Muslims.

    In fact, such an assumption (which Corbyn does not share) would be more unfair to Muslims than to Jews. It would suggest that some Muslims easily feel an affinity with a terror organisation, while some Jews feel an affinity with a recognised state (which may or may not include their support for the occupation). That assumption is far uglier towards Muslims than it is towards Jews.

    But, of course, all of this is irrelevant because Corbyn did not make any such comparison. He clearly referred to "various self-styled Islamic states or organisations". A spokesman later clarified that he meant "Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran or Hamas in Gaza". In other words, "various self-styled Islamic states and organisations" – just as he said in the speech.

    Surprise, surprise, the supposedly liberal Guardian 's coverage of this incident is as appalling as that found in the right wing Telegraph . The Guardian has an article , quoting rabbis and others, pointing out the irony that Corbyn made an anti-semitic comment at the launch of an anti-semitism review – except, of course, that he didn't.

    In fact, contrary to all normal journalism, you have to read the Guardian story from bottom-up. The last paragraph states:

    This story was amended on 30 June to correct the quotation in the second paragraph. An earlier version quoted Corbyn as saying: "Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Islamic friends are responsible for Islamic State."

    Or in other words, the Guardian reporter did not even bother to listen to the video of the speech posted alongside her report on the Guardian 's own website. Instead she and her editors jumped on the same bandwagon as everyone else, spreading the same malicious rumours and misinformation.

    When it later emerged that the story was a complete fabrication – one they could have proved for themselves had they listened to what Corbyn really said – they simply appended at the bottom a one-par mea culpa that almost no one will read. The Guardian has continued to publish the same defamatory article, one based on a deception from start to finish.

    This is the very definition of gutter journalism. And it comes as the Guardian editor, Kath Viner, asks (begs?) readers to dig deep in their pockets to support the Guardian . She writes :

    The Guardian's role in producing fast, well-sourced, calm, accessible and intelligent journalism is more important than ever.

    Well, it would be if that is what they were doing. Instead, this story confirms that the paper is producing the same shop-soiled disinformation as everyone else.

    Save your money and invest it in supporting real independent journalism.

    Jonathan Cook , based in Nazareth, Israel is a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). Read other articles by Jonathan , or visit Jonathan's website .

    This article was posted on Thursday, June 30th, 2016 at 5:43pm and is filed under Media , Propaganda , United Kingdom , Zionism .

    [Jul 01, 2016] John Lukacs, the Hungarian-American historian, has spent a lifetime arguing that nationalism-not socialism, or even liberalism-is the core ideology of modernity, and that the lesson of history is that nationalism will assert itself, like an unquenchable microbe, anytime it has the least opportunity

    www.newyorker.com

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/brexit-seen-from-the-top-of-europe by Adam Gopnik

    At this moment, two irascible émigrés from the past century of European tragedies might come to mind. John Lukacs, the Hungarian-American historian, has spent a lifetime arguing that nationalism-not socialism, or even liberalism-is the core ideology of modernity, and that the lesson of history is that nationalism will assert itself, like an unquenchable microbe, anytime it has the least opportunity. (He also draws the distinction between patriotism-the love of place and tradition and a desire to see its particularities thrive-and true nationalism, which is a vengeful, irrational certainty that the alien outside or even within a country's borders is responsible for some humiliation to the true nation.) This pessimistic strain was matched by that of Karl Popper, the Austrian-Anglo philosopher, who saw that what he named the "open society," though essential to the transmission of humane values and the growth of knowledge, can impose great strains on its citizens-strains of lost identity, certainty, tribal wholeness. The reaction to this strain is inevitable, and sure. What keeps an open society from being overturned is only the balm of ever-increased prosperity; when prosperity ends or is endangered, all the bad demons come out of the forest. In this much broader sense, it may be prosperity that makes pluralism possible. Economics alone don't drive the ideology of nationalism, but without prosperity it has more room to bloom. Meanwhile, nationalism won't just go away, and open, liberal societies are far more fragile than their success can make them seem-and these two sad truths seem to need perpetual restating, or the lights really will go out across Europe.

    [Jun 29, 2016] Why the Sanders Revolution Must Take on the Permanent War State

    Notable quotes:
    "... The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life. As the old joke goes, the answer to the question, "Where does an 800-pound gorilla eat?" is, "Anywhere he likes." As long as the organs of "national security" continue to retain the extraordinary power to appropriate budgetary resources and to involve the United States in foreign conflicts without real accountability, US politics will be grotesquely distorted to the profound disadvantage of the movement for fundamental change. The Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency will continue to control most of the $1.1 trillion federal discretionary spending budget, crowding out programs that would benefit people. And beyond wielding that obvious financial power, by maintaining the premise that the United States must continue to make war indefinitely, they will also wield an ideological weapon that helps the economic elite maintain the status quo. ..."
    "... For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016." ..."
    "... But that fundamental obstacle to change was not even mentioned by any of the speakers who introduced the main themes of the conference on the first night. On the second day, US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) strongly denounced moves by powerful interests for a new war for regime change in Syria, but she did not address the underlying system of institutional interests and power that keeps the United States at permanent war. There was one breakout session entitled "Healthcare Not Warfare," which highlighted what people already know -- that spending for war and preparation for war robs the people of resources needed to build a more prosperous and equitable society. But it was evidently an afterthought for conference organizers, and did not interest many of the attendees, drawing perhaps 30 people. ..."
    "... The Sanders campaign never explicitly raised the issue of the permanent war state during the primary election contest, either. He did present a sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton when they debated foreign policy, effectively demolishing her position urging a more militarily aggressive policy in Syria. He called for a policy that "destroys ISIS" but "does not get us involved in perpetual warfare in the quagmire of the Middle East."But he never talked about ending the unprecedented power that national security institutions have seized over the resources and security of the American people. ..."
    "... The power of the military-industrial-congressional complex that has morphed into a permanent war state has long been the real "third rail" in US politics, which anyone aspiring to national office touches only at the risk of being branded "anti-American." News media coverage constantly reinforces the idea that US global military presence and aggressiveness are legitimate responses to foreign threats. So, for politicians, explaining why the power of that combination of institutions is a danger not only to people's economic interests, but also to their physical security is seen as extremely difficult and fraught with political risk. Sanders, who had no problem opposing specific wars, undoubtedly feared that an effort to deal with the interests and power behind the wars that most Americans oppose would force him to respond to attacks from the Clinton camp and the corporate media, and thus interfere with his populist message. ..."
    "... Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    The People's Summit in Chicago June 17-19 dramatically displayed both the strengths and the vulnerabilities of what has emerged in 2016 as one of the most potentially powerful movements for fundamental change in the United States in many decades. The event, which brought together 3,000 committed movement activists to rally in support of the "political revolution" given impetus by Bernie Sanders' campaign, was an opportunity to ensure that the movement will not dissipate in the wake of Hillary Clinton's clinching the Democratic nomination.

    The leaders of the movement sought to use the summit to reconcile conflicting activist views on the relationship between movement organizations and electoral politics. The summit may have succeeded in keeping the coalition of those who privilege electoral politics and those who see it as a distraction from their local struggles from splitting up. But despite the political sophistication and pragmatism of the organizers, the gathering failed to deal seriously with the problem of the "permanent war state" -- the central power bloc in the US government that looms menacingly over everything the movement hopes to accomplish.

    The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life. As the old joke goes, the answer to the question, "Where does an 800-pound gorilla eat?" is, "Anywhere he likes." As long as the organs of "national security" continue to retain the extraordinary power to appropriate budgetary resources and to involve the United States in foreign conflicts without real accountability, US politics will be grotesquely distorted to the profound disadvantage of the movement for fundamental change. The Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency will continue to control most of the $1.1 trillion federal discretionary spending budget, crowding out programs that would benefit people. And beyond wielding that obvious financial power, by maintaining the premise that the United States must continue to make war indefinitely, they will also wield an ideological weapon that helps the economic elite maintain the status quo.

    For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016."

    But that fundamental obstacle to change was not even mentioned by any of the speakers who introduced the main themes of the conference on the first night. On the second day, US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) strongly denounced moves by powerful interests for a new war for regime change in Syria, but she did not address the underlying system of institutional interests and power that keeps the United States at permanent war. There was one breakout session entitled "Healthcare Not Warfare," which highlighted what people already know -- that spending for war and preparation for war robs the people of resources needed to build a more prosperous and equitable society. But it was evidently an afterthought for conference organizers, and did not interest many of the attendees, drawing perhaps 30 people.

    The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life.

    The Sanders campaign never explicitly raised the issue of the permanent war state during the primary election contest, either. He did present a sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton when they debated foreign policy, effectively demolishing her position urging a more militarily aggressive policy in Syria. He called for a policy that "destroys ISIS" but "does not get us involved in perpetual warfare in the quagmire of the Middle East."But he never talked about ending the unprecedented power that national security institutions have seized over the resources and security of the American people.

    It is not difficult to see why Sanders did not take on that larger issue. The power of the military-industrial-congressional complex that has morphed into a permanent war state has long been the real "third rail" in US politics, which anyone aspiring to national office touches only at the risk of being branded "anti-American." News media coverage constantly reinforces the idea that US global military presence and aggressiveness are legitimate responses to foreign threats. So, for politicians, explaining why the power of that combination of institutions is a danger not only to people's economic interests, but also to their physical security is seen as extremely difficult and fraught with political risk. Sanders, who had no problem opposing specific wars, undoubtedly feared that an effort to deal with the interests and power behind the wars that most Americans oppose would force him to respond to attacks from the Clinton camp and the corporate media, and thus interfere with his populist message.

    The permanent war state also appears to be outside the political comfort zone of National Nurses United, the single most influential organization in planning and funding the People's Summit. As a senior official of National Nurses United explained, the organization is able to talk about corporate control of the health care system because nurses constantly see the consequences in their own work, but most have no such personal experiences enabling them to talk about the war system.

    But despite these understandable reasons for taking a pass on the issue, the leadership of the movement inspired by the Sanders campaign is making a big mistake by failing to take on the problem of the permanent war state. The popular organizations represented in Chicago understand this, but they have hesitated to go up against the most powerful combination bureaucratic interests the world has ever known, in part because they have not had any clear idea about how those interests could be defeated. What has been not been tried, however, is a strategy that attacks the war system where it is most vulnerable -- the fact that the war system bureaucrats have systematically pursued their own personal and institutional interests at the expense of the American people.

    The publicly available records of US intervention and war, especially since the beginning of the Cold War, reveal an endless succession of policies and programs that were utterly useless and provoked reactions from states and from non-state actors that threatened the safety of the American people. But the policy makers preferred those policies, because they gave them and their organizations more power, more budgetary resources, more people under their command, more new technology, more foreign bases and perquisites, and more lucrative jobs and contracts when they leave the government for private companies.

    All the services were looking for a boost in military appropriations when they pushed Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson to intervene militarily in Vietnam. The US Air Force sold its "shock and awe" strategy for regime change in Iraq to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in order to capture a larger share of the military budget. The CIA got control over a major new mission when it convinced President George W. Bush to launch a drone war in Pakistan.

    But the American people suffered the direct and indirect consequences of these wars in each case.

    The fundamental conflict between the national interest and the personal and bureaucratic interests of the policy makers of the permanent war state explains why the system has continued to produce uniformly disastrous policies decade after decade.

    So the strategy of the movement that the Sanders campaign has mobilized must include a broadly concerted campaign that explains to young people, disaffected working-class people and others how the permanent war state produces winners and losers. The winners are the national security organs themselves, as well as those who make careers and fortunes from the permanent state of war. The losers are those who must suffer the socioeconomic and other consequences of such reckless policies. Such a campaign should aim at nothing less than taking away the flow of money and the legal authority that the permanent war state has seized on the pretext of "threats" that are largely of its own making.

    Even though the permanent war state seems to be at the peak of its power, like all essentially hollow institutions, it has a serious political vulnerability. Millions of Americans know that the wars the war-state agencies have wrought over the past half century -- from the Vietnam War to the war in Afghanistan -- were worse than useless. So the legitimacy of the permanent war state is extremely tenuous. A determined campaign to challenge that legitimacy, carried out with sufficient resources over a few years with the participation of a broad coalition, could shake it to its roots. Such a campaign must be included in the work to open up new political spaces and propel the movement for change. Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission .

    Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and historian writing on US national security policy. His latest book, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , was published in February of 2014. Follow him on Twitter: @GarethPorter .

    [Jun 29, 2016] Why the Sanders Revolution Must Take on the Permanent War State

    Notable quotes:
    "... The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life. As the old joke goes, the answer to the question, "Where does an 800-pound gorilla eat?" is, "Anywhere he likes." As long as the organs of "national security" continue to retain the extraordinary power to appropriate budgetary resources and to involve the United States in foreign conflicts without real accountability, US politics will be grotesquely distorted to the profound disadvantage of the movement for fundamental change. The Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency will continue to control most of the $1.1 trillion federal discretionary spending budget, crowding out programs that would benefit people. And beyond wielding that obvious financial power, by maintaining the premise that the United States must continue to make war indefinitely, they will also wield an ideological weapon that helps the economic elite maintain the status quo. ..."
    "... For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016." ..."
    "... But that fundamental obstacle to change was not even mentioned by any of the speakers who introduced the main themes of the conference on the first night. On the second day, US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) strongly denounced moves by powerful interests for a new war for regime change in Syria, but she did not address the underlying system of institutional interests and power that keeps the United States at permanent war. There was one breakout session entitled "Healthcare Not Warfare," which highlighted what people already know -- that spending for war and preparation for war robs the people of resources needed to build a more prosperous and equitable society. But it was evidently an afterthought for conference organizers, and did not interest many of the attendees, drawing perhaps 30 people. ..."
    "... The Sanders campaign never explicitly raised the issue of the permanent war state during the primary election contest, either. He did present a sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton when they debated foreign policy, effectively demolishing her position urging a more militarily aggressive policy in Syria. He called for a policy that "destroys ISIS" but "does not get us involved in perpetual warfare in the quagmire of the Middle East."But he never talked about ending the unprecedented power that national security institutions have seized over the resources and security of the American people. ..."
    "... The power of the military-industrial-congressional complex that has morphed into a permanent war state has long been the real "third rail" in US politics, which anyone aspiring to national office touches only at the risk of being branded "anti-American." News media coverage constantly reinforces the idea that US global military presence and aggressiveness are legitimate responses to foreign threats. So, for politicians, explaining why the power of that combination of institutions is a danger not only to people's economic interests, but also to their physical security is seen as extremely difficult and fraught with political risk. Sanders, who had no problem opposing specific wars, undoubtedly feared that an effort to deal with the interests and power behind the wars that most Americans oppose would force him to respond to attacks from the Clinton camp and the corporate media, and thus interfere with his populist message. ..."
    "... Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    The People's Summit in Chicago June 17-19 dramatically displayed both the strengths and the vulnerabilities of what has emerged in 2016 as one of the most potentially powerful movements for fundamental change in the United States in many decades. The event, which brought together 3,000 committed movement activists to rally in support of the "political revolution" given impetus by Bernie Sanders' campaign, was an opportunity to ensure that the movement will not dissipate in the wake of Hillary Clinton's clinching the Democratic nomination.

    The leaders of the movement sought to use the summit to reconcile conflicting activist views on the relationship between movement organizations and electoral politics. The summit may have succeeded in keeping the coalition of those who privilege electoral politics and those who see it as a distraction from their local struggles from splitting up. But despite the political sophistication and pragmatism of the organizers, the gathering failed to deal seriously with the problem of the "permanent war state" -- the central power bloc in the US government that looms menacingly over everything the movement hopes to accomplish.

    The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life. As the old joke goes, the answer to the question, "Where does an 800-pound gorilla eat?" is, "Anywhere he likes." As long as the organs of "national security" continue to retain the extraordinary power to appropriate budgetary resources and to involve the United States in foreign conflicts without real accountability, US politics will be grotesquely distorted to the profound disadvantage of the movement for fundamental change. The Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency will continue to control most of the $1.1 trillion federal discretionary spending budget, crowding out programs that would benefit people. And beyond wielding that obvious financial power, by maintaining the premise that the United States must continue to make war indefinitely, they will also wield an ideological weapon that helps the economic elite maintain the status quo.

    For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016."

    But that fundamental obstacle to change was not even mentioned by any of the speakers who introduced the main themes of the conference on the first night. On the second day, US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) strongly denounced moves by powerful interests for a new war for regime change in Syria, but she did not address the underlying system of institutional interests and power that keeps the United States at permanent war. There was one breakout session entitled "Healthcare Not Warfare," which highlighted what people already know -- that spending for war and preparation for war robs the people of resources needed to build a more prosperous and equitable society. But it was evidently an afterthought for conference organizers, and did not interest many of the attendees, drawing perhaps 30 people.

    The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life.

    The Sanders campaign never explicitly raised the issue of the permanent war state during the primary election contest, either. He did present a sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton when they debated foreign policy, effectively demolishing her position urging a more militarily aggressive policy in Syria. He called for a policy that "destroys ISIS" but "does not get us involved in perpetual warfare in the quagmire of the Middle East."But he never talked about ending the unprecedented power that national security institutions have seized over the resources and security of the American people.

    It is not difficult to see why Sanders did not take on that larger issue. The power of the military-industrial-congressional complex that has morphed into a permanent war state has long been the real "third rail" in US politics, which anyone aspiring to national office touches only at the risk of being branded "anti-American." News media coverage constantly reinforces the idea that US global military presence and aggressiveness are legitimate responses to foreign threats. So, for politicians, explaining why the power of that combination of institutions is a danger not only to people's economic interests, but also to their physical security is seen as extremely difficult and fraught with political risk. Sanders, who had no problem opposing specific wars, undoubtedly feared that an effort to deal with the interests and power behind the wars that most Americans oppose would force him to respond to attacks from the Clinton camp and the corporate media, and thus interfere with his populist message.

    The permanent war state also appears to be outside the political comfort zone of National Nurses United, the single most influential organization in planning and funding the People's Summit. As a senior official of National Nurses United explained, the organization is able to talk about corporate control of the health care system because nurses constantly see the consequences in their own work, but most have no such personal experiences enabling them to talk about the war system.

    But despite these understandable reasons for taking a pass on the issue, the leadership of the movement inspired by the Sanders campaign is making a big mistake by failing to take on the problem of the permanent war state. The popular organizations represented in Chicago understand this, but they have hesitated to go up against the most powerful combination bureaucratic interests the world has ever known, in part because they have not had any clear idea about how those interests could be defeated. What has been not been tried, however, is a strategy that attacks the war system where it is most vulnerable -- the fact that the war system bureaucrats have systematically pursued their own personal and institutional interests at the expense of the American people.

    The publicly available records of US intervention and war, especially since the beginning of the Cold War, reveal an endless succession of policies and programs that were utterly useless and provoked reactions from states and from non-state actors that threatened the safety of the American people. But the policy makers preferred those policies, because they gave them and their organizations more power, more budgetary resources, more people under their command, more new technology, more foreign bases and perquisites, and more lucrative jobs and contracts when they leave the government for private companies.

    All the services were looking for a boost in military appropriations when they pushed Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson to intervene militarily in Vietnam. The US Air Force sold its "shock and awe" strategy for regime change in Iraq to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in order to capture a larger share of the military budget. The CIA got control over a major new mission when it convinced President George W. Bush to launch a drone war in Pakistan.

    But the American people suffered the direct and indirect consequences of these wars in each case.

    The fundamental conflict between the national interest and the personal and bureaucratic interests of the policy makers of the permanent war state explains why the system has continued to produce uniformly disastrous policies decade after decade.

    So the strategy of the movement that the Sanders campaign has mobilized must include a broadly concerted campaign that explains to young people, disaffected working-class people and others how the permanent war state produces winners and losers. The winners are the national security organs themselves, as well as those who make careers and fortunes from the permanent state of war. The losers are those who must suffer the socioeconomic and other consequences of such reckless policies. Such a campaign should aim at nothing less than taking away the flow of money and the legal authority that the permanent war state has seized on the pretext of "threats" that are largely of its own making.

    Even though the permanent war state seems to be at the peak of its power, like all essentially hollow institutions, it has a serious political vulnerability. Millions of Americans know that the wars the war-state agencies have wrought over the past half century -- from the Vietnam War to the war in Afghanistan -- were worse than useless. So the legitimacy of the permanent war state is extremely tenuous. A determined campaign to challenge that legitimacy, carried out with sufficient resources over a few years with the participation of a broad coalition, could shake it to its roots. Such a campaign must be included in the work to open up new political spaces and propel the movement for change. Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission .

    Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and historian writing on US national security policy. His latest book, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , was published in February of 2014. Follow him on Twitter: @GarethPorter .

    [Jun 29, 2016] Why the Sanders Revolution Must Take on the Permanent War State

    Notable quotes:
    "... The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life. As the old joke goes, the answer to the question, "Where does an 800-pound gorilla eat?" is, "Anywhere he likes." As long as the organs of "national security" continue to retain the extraordinary power to appropriate budgetary resources and to involve the United States in foreign conflicts without real accountability, US politics will be grotesquely distorted to the profound disadvantage of the movement for fundamental change. The Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency will continue to control most of the $1.1 trillion federal discretionary spending budget, crowding out programs that would benefit people. And beyond wielding that obvious financial power, by maintaining the premise that the United States must continue to make war indefinitely, they will also wield an ideological weapon that helps the economic elite maintain the status quo. ..."
    "... For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016." ..."
    "... But that fundamental obstacle to change was not even mentioned by any of the speakers who introduced the main themes of the conference on the first night. On the second day, US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) strongly denounced moves by powerful interests for a new war for regime change in Syria, but she did not address the underlying system of institutional interests and power that keeps the United States at permanent war. There was one breakout session entitled "Healthcare Not Warfare," which highlighted what people already know -- that spending for war and preparation for war robs the people of resources needed to build a more prosperous and equitable society. But it was evidently an afterthought for conference organizers, and did not interest many of the attendees, drawing perhaps 30 people. ..."
    "... The Sanders campaign never explicitly raised the issue of the permanent war state during the primary election contest, either. He did present a sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton when they debated foreign policy, effectively demolishing her position urging a more militarily aggressive policy in Syria. He called for a policy that "destroys ISIS" but "does not get us involved in perpetual warfare in the quagmire of the Middle East."But he never talked about ending the unprecedented power that national security institutions have seized over the resources and security of the American people. ..."
    "... The power of the military-industrial-congressional complex that has morphed into a permanent war state has long been the real "third rail" in US politics, which anyone aspiring to national office touches only at the risk of being branded "anti-American." News media coverage constantly reinforces the idea that US global military presence and aggressiveness are legitimate responses to foreign threats. So, for politicians, explaining why the power of that combination of institutions is a danger not only to people's economic interests, but also to their physical security is seen as extremely difficult and fraught with political risk. Sanders, who had no problem opposing specific wars, undoubtedly feared that an effort to deal with the interests and power behind the wars that most Americans oppose would force him to respond to attacks from the Clinton camp and the corporate media, and thus interfere with his populist message. ..."
    "... Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    The People's Summit in Chicago June 17-19 dramatically displayed both the strengths and the vulnerabilities of what has emerged in 2016 as one of the most potentially powerful movements for fundamental change in the United States in many decades. The event, which brought together 3,000 committed movement activists to rally in support of the "political revolution" given impetus by Bernie Sanders' campaign, was an opportunity to ensure that the movement will not dissipate in the wake of Hillary Clinton's clinching the Democratic nomination.

    The leaders of the movement sought to use the summit to reconcile conflicting activist views on the relationship between movement organizations and electoral politics. The summit may have succeeded in keeping the coalition of those who privilege electoral politics and those who see it as a distraction from their local struggles from splitting up. But despite the political sophistication and pragmatism of the organizers, the gathering failed to deal seriously with the problem of the "permanent war state" -- the central power bloc in the US government that looms menacingly over everything the movement hopes to accomplish.

    The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life. As the old joke goes, the answer to the question, "Where does an 800-pound gorilla eat?" is, "Anywhere he likes." As long as the organs of "national security" continue to retain the extraordinary power to appropriate budgetary resources and to involve the United States in foreign conflicts without real accountability, US politics will be grotesquely distorted to the profound disadvantage of the movement for fundamental change. The Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency will continue to control most of the $1.1 trillion federal discretionary spending budget, crowding out programs that would benefit people. And beyond wielding that obvious financial power, by maintaining the premise that the United States must continue to make war indefinitely, they will also wield an ideological weapon that helps the economic elite maintain the status quo.

    For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016."

    But that fundamental obstacle to change was not even mentioned by any of the speakers who introduced the main themes of the conference on the first night. On the second day, US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) strongly denounced moves by powerful interests for a new war for regime change in Syria, but she did not address the underlying system of institutional interests and power that keeps the United States at permanent war. There was one breakout session entitled "Healthcare Not Warfare," which highlighted what people already know -- that spending for war and preparation for war robs the people of resources needed to build a more prosperous and equitable society. But it was evidently an afterthought for conference organizers, and did not interest many of the attendees, drawing perhaps 30 people.

    The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life.

    The Sanders campaign never explicitly raised the issue of the permanent war state during the primary election contest, either. He did present a sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton when they debated foreign policy, effectively demolishing her position urging a more militarily aggressive policy in Syria. He called for a policy that "destroys ISIS" but "does not get us involved in perpetual warfare in the quagmire of the Middle East."But he never talked about ending the unprecedented power that national security institutions have seized over the resources and security of the American people.

    It is not difficult to see why Sanders did not take on that larger issue. The power of the military-industrial-congressional complex that has morphed into a permanent war state has long been the real "third rail" in US politics, which anyone aspiring to national office touches only at the risk of being branded "anti-American." News media coverage constantly reinforces the idea that US global military presence and aggressiveness are legitimate responses to foreign threats. So, for politicians, explaining why the power of that combination of institutions is a danger not only to people's economic interests, but also to their physical security is seen as extremely difficult and fraught with political risk. Sanders, who had no problem opposing specific wars, undoubtedly feared that an effort to deal with the interests and power behind the wars that most Americans oppose would force him to respond to attacks from the Clinton camp and the corporate media, and thus interfere with his populist message.

    The permanent war state also appears to be outside the political comfort zone of National Nurses United, the single most influential organization in planning and funding the People's Summit. As a senior official of National Nurses United explained, the organization is able to talk about corporate control of the health care system because nurses constantly see the consequences in their own work, but most have no such personal experiences enabling them to talk about the war system.

    But despite these understandable reasons for taking a pass on the issue, the leadership of the movement inspired by the Sanders campaign is making a big mistake by failing to take on the problem of the permanent war state. The popular organizations represented in Chicago understand this, but they have hesitated to go up against the most powerful combination bureaucratic interests the world has ever known, in part because they have not had any clear idea about how those interests could be defeated. What has been not been tried, however, is a strategy that attacks the war system where it is most vulnerable -- the fact that the war system bureaucrats have systematically pursued their own personal and institutional interests at the expense of the American people.

    The publicly available records of US intervention and war, especially since the beginning of the Cold War, reveal an endless succession of policies and programs that were utterly useless and provoked reactions from states and from non-state actors that threatened the safety of the American people. But the policy makers preferred those policies, because they gave them and their organizations more power, more budgetary resources, more people under their command, more new technology, more foreign bases and perquisites, and more lucrative jobs and contracts when they leave the government for private companies.

    All the services were looking for a boost in military appropriations when they pushed Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson to intervene militarily in Vietnam. The US Air Force sold its "shock and awe" strategy for regime change in Iraq to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in order to capture a larger share of the military budget. The CIA got control over a major new mission when it convinced President George W. Bush to launch a drone war in Pakistan.

    But the American people suffered the direct and indirect consequences of these wars in each case.

    The fundamental conflict between the national interest and the personal and bureaucratic interests of the policy makers of the permanent war state explains why the system has continued to produce uniformly disastrous policies decade after decade.

    So the strategy of the movement that the Sanders campaign has mobilized must include a broadly concerted campaign that explains to young people, disaffected working-class people and others how the permanent war state produces winners and losers. The winners are the national security organs themselves, as well as those who make careers and fortunes from the permanent state of war. The losers are those who must suffer the socioeconomic and other consequences of such reckless policies. Such a campaign should aim at nothing less than taking away the flow of money and the legal authority that the permanent war state has seized on the pretext of "threats" that are largely of its own making.

    Even though the permanent war state seems to be at the peak of its power, like all essentially hollow institutions, it has a serious political vulnerability. Millions of Americans know that the wars the war-state agencies have wrought over the past half century -- from the Vietnam War to the war in Afghanistan -- were worse than useless. So the legitimacy of the permanent war state is extremely tenuous. A determined campaign to challenge that legitimacy, carried out with sufficient resources over a few years with the participation of a broad coalition, could shake it to its roots. Such a campaign must be included in the work to open up new political spaces and propel the movement for change. Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission .

    Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and historian writing on US national security policy. His latest book, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , was published in February of 2014. Follow him on Twitter: @GarethPorter .

    [Jun 28, 2016] There is an interesting campaign going on in Washington right now pushing for a no-fly zone over Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is an interesting campaign going on in Washington right now pushing for a no-fly zone over Syria. As we saw in an earlier thread the petition by those 51 FSOs inside the State Dept calling for this. That was preceded by the main editorial in the WaPo calling for the same. ..."
    "... This is obviously orchestrated very likely involving the Hillary campaign and/or those who are trying to influence her. Hillary has after all called for such in recent months. Could Hillary really be that stupid or incompetent to set off a shooting war with Russia? ..."
    "... Hillary may be the fist president from the democratic party to be impeached. There is no WW3 scenario only nuke apocalypse that would be bad for business and even Putin isn't about to sacrifice his nation for Assad or the Iranians. ..."
    "... The US apparatchiks have measured the Russian ability to protect Assad and found them lacking and are moving to ratchet up the rhetoric hopefully forcing a deal without any real escalation but they appear ready to directly confront the Russians in Syria. ..."
    "... My fear is that if, say Russia, sunk say a destroyer with the loss of all hands the fools running the US would panic and then respond with a nuclear escalation. I think Russia and China really are preparing for conventional weapons confrontation with the US. And the battlefield will not be in Syria but on those nations borders. Russian forces in Syria are no more than a trip wire. ..."
    "... Thus, the humanitarian crisis (which has always existed) will now be touted as a newly-discovered reason for NATO/UN peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. As long as that intervention creates a well-guarded Sunni Corridor from north to south Syria with the appropriate UN buffer zones. Oh yeah - it should include nearly all of Syria's oil resources (for future U.S. use). Toss in a few bazillion blue helmets and NATO air support for the inevitable No-fly Zones and Operation Yinon: Block the Evil Shia Corridor will have been accomplished. ..."
    "... Russia still has its port and doesn't have to bomb anyone else. Assad still has a leftover chunk of partitioned Syria without any oil, gas or water - but Israel will sell them all they want for a slight premium. The Kurds get whatever bones they're thrown. And the U.S. and Israel have their coveted Sunnistan - even though the Sunnis will be impoverished and little more than oil well guards and human shields for any imaginary Iranian invasion of Syria. Oh, and foreign diplomats will have guaranteed jobs for a decade as they try to solve the unsolvable problem they created. ..."
    "... pretty sorry state of affairs when the world - americans in particular - think it is okay to play chicken over the possibility of nuclear war... basically sums up the level of stupidity in the usa today - reflected best in the idiots running for political office who haven't a clue about anything their there own political future with the military industrial complex/clinton.. ..."
    "... toivo - i really think americans need to be thinking the next war will be on their homeland... enough of the shit of making war in faraway lands on others... americans need to fucking wake up.. ..."
    "... Russia has been boxed into a corner by the Rep, Dem, Brit, NATO neocons. Russia has been exceedingly patient and diplomatic at every turn. Russia should be well prepared now to militarily defend the legitimate Syrian Government and it territory. ..."
    "... john helmers article from a few days ago - US STRATEGY FOR RUSSIA – WAGE WAR BUT NOT DECLARE IT ..."
    "... 'The current head of the US CIA, William Brennan, lived in Saudi Arabia for years' ..."
    Jun 22, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    There is an interesting campaign going on in Washington right now pushing for a no-fly zone over Syria. As we saw in an earlier thread the petition by those 51 FSOs inside the State Dept calling for this. That was preceded by the main editorial in the WaPo calling for the same.

    Then yesterday the Yazidi woman who was held as a "sex slave" by ISIS testified before Congress and called for Obama to set up no fly zones so refugees could find safety. Her testimony was horrific and only the most heartless could dismiss her story. But since ISIS does not have nor has ever had an airforce it is not clear how a no fly zone would have prevented the horror she experienced.

    This is obviously orchestrated very likely involving the Hillary campaign and/or those who are trying to influence her. Hillary has after all called for such in recent months. Could Hillary really be that stupid or incompetent to set off a shooting war with Russia?

    ToivoS | Jun 22, 2016 3:27:26 PM | 2 Northern Observer | Jun 22, 2016 3:35:04 PM | 3

    Hillary may be the fist president from the democratic party to be impeached. There is no WW3 scenario only nuke apocalypse that would be bad for business and even Putin isn't about to sacrifice his nation for Assad or the Iranians.

    The US apparatchiks have measured the Russian ability to protect Assad and found them lacking and are moving to ratchet up the rhetoric hopefully forcing a deal without any real escalation but they appear ready to directly confront the Russians in Syria.

    Wayoutwest | Jun 22, 2016 4:27:28 PM | 10

    #10 wow. For once I agree with you. Those forces working for the no fly zone over Syria do not want nuclear war. They happen to believe that in any game of chicken the Russians will blink first. However, I would hope that this would happen but there are other scenarios here short (it is hoped) of nuclear war. The Russians also do not want nuclear war. They like the Chinese have been preparing their military in conventional war tactics against the US. Not that these tactics will defeat the US but that they will cause so much damage that it would drain domestic support for future US aggression against those countries.

    Both China and Russia have concentrated their defenses on anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. Today, the Russians have the ability to sink any US warship in either the Black or Baltic seas. The Russians have made those weapons available to Iran and they may possibly be able to easily sink any destroyer or cruiser in the Persian Gulf.

    My fear is that if, say Russia, sunk say a destroyer with the loss of all hands the fools running the US would panic and then respond with a nuclear escalation. I think Russia and China really are preparing for conventional weapons confrontation with the US. And the battlefield will not be in Syria but on those nations borders. Russian forces in Syria are no more than a trip wire.

    ToivoS | Jun 22, 2016 5:07:51 PM | 13

    Wayoutwest@10 - "...but they appear ready to directly confront the Russians in Syria..."

    Whaa...? You're talking about Americans, right?

    The soft invasion of Syria is happening as we speak. What's the latest roll call: French, Belgian, German, UK special forces? Norway on deck? NATO has already invaded without confronting Russia. The U.S. will not permit Sunnistan to fall. If you don't believe the pipeline reason, then you have to recognize the NATO Sunni Corridor must exist to block the Shia Corridor from Iran.

    The U.S./Israeli plan to separate Syria and create the Sunni/Turkey corridor is going along as always planned - although they're rushing as of late. We're at the stage where Turkey and Jordan are shutting their borders. Useless in practice, but necessary to give western MSM the cover story of the threat of ISIS spreading to those countries. Laughable because that's where the head-choppers came from, but reason has nothing to do with propaganda. ZATO has to foment a massive, well-publicised humanitarian crisis to justify the next partitioning step.

    Thus, the humanitarian crisis (which has always existed) will now be touted as a newly-discovered reason for NATO/UN peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. As long as that intervention creates a well-guarded Sunni Corridor from north to south Syria with the appropriate UN buffer zones. Oh yeah - it should include nearly all of Syria's oil resources (for future U.S. use). Toss in a few bazillion blue helmets and NATO air support for the inevitable No-fly Zones and Operation Yinon: Block the Evil Shia Corridor will have been accomplished.

    Russia still has its port and doesn't have to bomb anyone else. Assad still has a leftover chunk of partitioned Syria without any oil, gas or water - but Israel will sell them all they want for a slight premium. The Kurds get whatever bones they're thrown. And the U.S. and Israel have their coveted Sunnistan - even though the Sunnis will be impoverished and little more than oil well guards and human shields for any imaginary Iranian invasion of Syria. Oh, and foreign diplomats will have guaranteed jobs for a decade as they try to solve the unsolvable problem they created.

    Halliburton and their little Cheney KBR buddy are already salivating over the reconstruction contracts. Let's get those damn blue helmets in there! The former KBR is loosing money every second this scheme is delayed.

    PavewayIV | Jun 22, 2016 5:16:45 PM | 14

    pretty sorry state of affairs when the world - americans in particular - think it is okay to play chicken over the possibility of nuclear war... basically sums up the level of stupidity in the usa today - reflected best in the idiots running for political office who haven't a clue about anything their there own political future with the military industrial complex/clinton..

    james | Jun 22, 2016 5:17:21 PM | 15

    toivo - i really think americans need to be thinking the next war will be on their homeland... enough of the shit of making war in faraway lands on others... americans need to fucking wake up..

    james | Jun 22, 2016 5:19:29 PM | 16

    System is fubar. People are fed up. Let the chips fall where they may. Smart play is to get out of EU.

    Russia has been boxed into a corner by the Rep, Dem, Brit, NATO neocons. Russia has been exceedingly patient and diplomatic at every turn. Russia should be well prepared now to militarily defend the legitimate Syrian Government and it territory.

    fast freddy | Jun 22, 2016 6:23:43 PM | 24

    and... john helmers article from a few days ago - US STRATEGY FOR RUSSIA – WAGE WAR BUT NOT DECLARE IT

    the parallels are disturbing..

    james | Jun 22, 2016 8:41:22 PM | 36

    @34 ghubar shabih 'The current head of the US CIA, William Brennan, lived in Saudi Arabia for years'

    I'm sure you meant John Brennan. Wikipedia has

    At one point in his career, he was a daily intelligence briefer for President Bill Clinton. In 1996 he was CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia when the Khobar Towers bombing killed 19 U.S. servicemen. In 1999 he was appointed chief of staff to George Tenet, then-Director of the CIA
    I hadn't realized he was in Saudi Arabia. I also hadn't realized that he was out and in the revolving door before working for Obama, before having Obama appoint him head of the CIA
    His last post within the Intelligence Community was as director of the National Counterterrorism Center in 2004 and 2005, which incorporated information on terrorist activities across U.S. agencies.

    Brennan then left government service for a few years, becoming Chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) and the CEO of The Analysis Corporation (TAC). He continued to lead TAC after its acquisition by Global Strategies Group in 2007 and its growth as the Global Intelligence Solutions division of Global's North American technology business GTEC, before returning to government service with the Obama administration as Homeland Security Advisor on January 20, 2009.

    Made good connections on the other side of the revolving door, I'm sure. No doubt the kickbacks will flow from the drone builders/operators and the electronic communications spies after his next trip through.

    jfl | Jun 22, 2016 8:56:13 PM | 37

    He may not be as good as the parrot with Arabic, but he had Obama parroting his lines very well throughout his eight long years. Obama will share those kickbacks as well, I'm sure. Polly wants a cracker.

    [Jun 28, 2016] What the American revolution can teach us about Brexit

    www.theguardian.com
    by James Nevius

    gettinggolder , 2016-06-28 16:40:56
    You know the American Revolution was not in any way I can see equivalent to machinations with the EU. Plenty is written belowon the history, and the fourth with all the fireworks is approaching.

    The idea that the colonies revolted to avoid immigration is nothing short of absurd. To this day one of the largest ethnic groups are Germans descended from mercenary solders who stayed and farmed on what they saw as widely available farmland.

    Obelisk1 , 2016-06-28 16:23:38
    The Brexit motivations have quite a lot in common with those that drove US independence.

    The most important thing for Americans to realize, when trying to understand the EU/UK relationship is that the citizens of the UK never gave the functionaries permission to make the citizens subject to law made overseas. The entire EU is built on a very shaky platform that has no democratic underpinnings.

    svann21 , 2016-06-28 16:16:01
    As was said in Dune, no matter who owns Arrakis "the spice must flow".

    Bob999 , 2016-06-28 16:08:04
    Another lesson to take from the UK-US relationship supports the view that the UK-EU economic relationship has a future.

    American independence did not sever economic ties between the two countries, at least after 1815, when the second US-UK war (the war of 1812) was concluded.

    For example, the Louisiana Purchase, which added more than half of what is now the contiguous US west of the Mississippi, was financed by London banks. The US bought the land from Napoleon, who was trying to finance his wars against Britain and others, and British bankers must have concluded that the US was going to get the money someone (it was the property deal of the century), so it might as well be them.

    Throughout the 19th century, much of the investment that turned the US into the world's largest economy came from London financial markets. The cowboy period of the Old West was about rounding up herds of feral cattle that roamed the Western plains. Great Britain was a primary market for that cattle (canned meat), and British financing was key. So when you see Hollywood cowboy movies, remember that those roundups were often financed by British firms. Britain was a dominant source of finance in the US throughout the 19th century. Wall Street didn't catch up to the City of London as a financial center until World War I.

    Just as the American revolution did not end the economic relationship between the US and the UK, there is no reason to believe Brexit will end the economic relationship between the UK and Europe. Economic ties rarely stay broken.

    Alfreda Weiss , 2016-06-28 15:55:31
    At the time of the US revolution Britain was a great colonial/pirate power controlling India where they took great wealth off the backs of the locals. Same for what became America where the British took wealth away from the natives and taxed the colonies to pay for their wars of choice. Now manufacturing has been off-shored to "Third World" cheap labor/slave places. In the empty areas of both the UK and US there is little ability to live beyond a backyard garden and small amounts of money for old people. Youth are ignored. Brexit was a beginning of the end for the West. The rest of the world will try to rise in what may be a dark time in history. The West needs to return to some respect for humanity and not giving total power to the 1%.
    inyermush , 2016-06-28 15:53:15
    What arrant nonsense. The Declaration of Independence specifically enumerates the reasons for leaving the empire and none of those reasons is xenophobia. For the benefit of the great Guardian uneducated, i share the exact text with you here:

    "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    Part II

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Scott Anderson , 2016-06-28 14:59:22
    The EU has lost respect by failing to address high unemployment and has only itself to blame for continual losses when real people vote. Germany's unilateral decision to allow for unfettered immigration made things worse. The British exit has nothing to do with the American Revolutionary War. Likewise, Donald Trump has nothing to do with it as well. Trump's negative poll numbers reflect that he is not going to be the next President of the United States despite running against a relatively weak Hillary Clinton.

    I think Cameron has been lame as the British PM. He should have insisted on all four regions having to vote yes to the British exit. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted no. So this vote has created divisions that may lead to the breakup of the UK.

    emphisTigerFan89 , 2016-06-28 14:31:01
    "Those in the UK who voted to leave the EU may think they've won a small victory in tightening Britain's borders, but if America's history is a model, there's little that can actually be done to slow immigration."

    That is absolutely not true! But the will to stem the tide of unlimited immigration has to be accepted by politicians of both parties. The borders can be enforced if there is the political will to do so.

    Americans have shown repeatedly that they accept immigrants who come here lawfully. We are a nation of LAWS, not of lawbreakers! Granted, there are issues with the new comers in every generation (see the treatment of the Irish in the early 1900's), but after those waves of immigration, they gradually assimilated into American culture.

    The biggest issue of the current wave of immigration is there has been no pause since 1965. Wave after wave of immigrants from all over the world without a pause for assimilation is a recipe for disaster, as shown by the rise in strong Anti-American sentiments within the borders of the US, from not only majority Hispanic communities, but also Syrian, Somali, Iraqi, and other countries around the world.

    Once upon a time, immigrants came to the US to be part of a greater nation. Today, immigrants come to the US, but want to recreate the country they left behind within the borders of the US.

    DylanJohn , 2016-06-28 14:25:22
    I don't know when it was first used, but Margaret Roberts used "make Great Britain great again" in the 1950 general election. Source: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/100858
    Sandya Narayanswami DylanJohn , 2016-06-28 14:32:23
    The term Great Britain originated as a means of differentiating it from Brittany, La Petite Bretagne v La Grande Bretagne. Both Britain and Brittany are "Bretagne", in French. The term has nothing to do with greatness per se.
    ConBrio , 2016-06-28 14:12:06
    The political spiel at the end of the article only highlights the rhetorical mendacity permeating the article.

    Couching the American Revolution in terms of racism or religion is dishonest. While there may have been elements of religious bias from person to person, the fact remains that the Constitution created a secular government which protects religious liberty, and in fact prohibits any "religious test" for holding office.

    Indeed, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention even attended a Mass en mass, one Sunday.

    While attitudes may change in response to immediate dangers, the millions of people who have been welcomed to this country since the Founding put the lie to the rhetorical deceit that ethnic or religious bias have played a significant role in our national agenda.

    [Jun 24, 2016] NPR is spreading bullshit

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Russians, like the USA, feel they have a strategic need to sustain a ship building industry with military and nuclear power capabilities. This means their budgets are set up to have continuous delivery of nuclear submarines. Adding nuclear powered ice breakers is a reasonable option. ..."
    "... I see USA elites very keen on delivering anti Russia propaganda which inflates a conflict started by the USA during the Clinton years. Their whole approach is incredibly stupid. ..."
    "... NPR sucks. Badly. Corporatist propaganda is propaganda even if it is sold under the "Public" label. There is nothing "Public" in NPR anymore. It probably should be renamed Neoliberal Corporatism Radio. In foreign news/events coverage the content is mostly annoying, despicable neoliberal propaganda 24 x 7. ..."
    "... And as for military spending, the USA is the world leader and I think still outspend all other nations combined. So this girl is performing the trick which is called "The pot calling the kettle black." ..."
    "... BTW if I were Russian, I would take some precautions in case some psychopathic warmonger is elected in the next Presidential elections. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    GoneFishing , 06/20/2016 at 12:54 pm

    Military presence and giant nuclear icebreakers increasing in Murmansk Russia. NPR news.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/06/20/482750870/arctic-circle-welcomes-summer-solstice-with-24-hours-of-daylight

    A new area of contention for the world, the Arctic Ocean.

    Fernando Leanme , 06/21/2016 at 5:39 am
    That NPR article is mostly bullshit. The Russian navy has limited access to ice free ports other than the Kola Peninsula, where Murmansk is located. The Russian northern fleet has always had a large set of bases and facilities all along the peninsula, plus the White Sea.

    The Russians, like the USA, feel they have a strategic need to sustain a ship building industry with military and nuclear power capabilities. This means their budgets are set up to have continuous delivery of nuclear submarines. Adding nuclear powered ice breakers is a reasonable option.

    As regards resources, the most viable resource oil targets are in the Kara sea and Yamal peninsula. Yamal has supergiant gas reserves, and there's a couple of supergiant fields in the Kara – already discovered in areas which freeze over in winter but are open water in summer time.

    I see USA elites very keen on delivering anti Russia propaganda which inflates a conflict started by the USA during the Clinton years. Their whole approach is incredibly stupid.

    likbez, 06/24/2016 at 12:47 am

    GoneFishing,

    No so fast. Your link contains transcript so you are misleading people here. And even if it does not would not this does not make NPR material any different. NPR sucks. Badly. Corporatist propaganda is propaganda even if it is sold under the "Public" label. There is nothing "Public" in NPR anymore. It probably should be renamed Neoliberal Corporatism Radio. In foreign news/events coverage the content is mostly annoying, despicable neoliberal propaganda 24 x 7.

    I just read the transcripts (which is in your link). And I can confirm that is a typical bullshit+ anti-Russian propaganda of the globalist part of the US elite (Killary friends from GS and like :-). If you think otherwise you probably should eat the transcript shredded into Borscht. That might help.

    This is something that's raising fears that the Arctic could become the next crisis zone between Russia and the West. Mary Louise is also there above the Arctic Circle on what is the longest day of the year.
    … … …
    GREENE: And is this where you're seeing this military buildup, in this port?

    KELLY: Well, this is what we came up here to investigate. And we've been able to see, for example, the military installation where they are building a new dock because the existing facilities are not big enough for these giant nuclear icebreakers that are coming off the production line. You can see Russia is building bases. They are refurbishing the submarine fleet. They are ordering helicopters that are specially designed to fly up here in the frozen air of the Arctic
    … … …
    And all of this, of course, speaks to Russia's ambitions in the Arctic. Russia is deeply interested in the mineral resources and the oil and gas beneath the sea here. And as global warming melts the waters heading north toward the North Pole – as this region opens up, Russia is keen to dominate it.

    There is such thing as county economic zone. For Russia north border is in Arctic. What a despicable presstitutes…

    And as for military spending, the USA is the world leader and I think still outspend all other nations combined. So this girl is performing the trick which is called "The pot calling the kettle black."

    BTW if I were Russian, I would take some precautions in case some psychopathic warmonger is elected in the next Presidential elections.

    That does not means that Russia does not have problems. It is also a neoliberal state. Much like the USA. But that's another story.

    GoneFishing, 06/24/2016 at 8:29 pm

    Yes, the Russians are such nice peaceful people who never go to war, never take over small countries, never look out for their own interests using military power and recently have destroyed their nuclear arsenal because it was so abhorrent to them.
    They should be named Sweeties instead of Russians, because they would never try and cause trouble or take more than their fair share.

    [Jun 23, 2016] Media hypocrites try to divert voters attantion from real issues using personality politics

    Notable quotes:
    "... He blamed Clinton for destabilizing the Middle East and spreading "death, destruction and terrorism" as secretary of state. He also accused her and Bill Clinton of helping strengthen the Chinese economy through their support of "disastrous" trade deals that he said helped triggered an exodus of America's "best jobs" abroad. ..."
    "... In return, Hillary Clinton got rich … She gets rich making you poor ..."
    "... He continued to hammer home the point that Clinton, if elected, would cater to special interests at the expense of the American people. ..."
    "... Clinton is very much so, a corrupted politician that should have been examined closer during her tenure as Secretary of State ..."
    "... In six states, primary exit polls had a discrepancy of 5 to 33 per cent from vote counts, and Clinton won all six. Hmmm. If any direct suppression orchestrated by the DNC and/or Clinton campaign is uncovered, all the worse. You'd think the Dem machine could foresee these kinds of ugly revelations bubbling up, but no. ..."
    "... Trumpster finally got one right. Hillary charges $225K for a 30 minute speech, demands to be flown in a private jet, a presidential suite with 3 adjoining rooms for her staff, 1st class flights for her pre-event planners and on and on. Hill & Bill have made over $180 million off of their holding of public office. Corruption at its finest. ..."
    "... The Guardian, which long ago lost itself in pro-Clinton zeal, has missed the point that despite all of Trump's blunders over the last month and Clinton's supposed bounce for winning the nomination he's only 4 -5 % points behind her in the latest CNN national poll. That's a serious problem for her. I saw David Gergen making that very point this a.m. on CNN. ..."
    "... For Mrs Clinton, any attack leveled against her, even a factual one, is a lie or a conspiracy theory. Unfortunately for her, that is another lie. Mr. Trump, as any entrepreneur, is not lilly-white, but he's not even comparable to Mrs Clinton in volumes and amounts. ..."
    "... Clinton is corrupt. Read this one account: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html ..."
    "... The problem is that him being a con man does not change the fact that Hillary is still, probably ( like he said ) the most corrupt person to ever seek the presidency. Him being bad in no way makes her good -- ..."
    "... "We're asking Bernie Sanders voters to join our movement so together we can fix the system for all Americans. It's not just the political system that's rigged. It's the whole economy." ..."
    "... Huh, this plea to Sanders supporters is better than any from Democratic Party or Hillary Clinton ..."
    "... Yep. Trump sure does employ a lot of people. He pays most of the the absolute minimum and provides no benefits in most cases. Yep. He's as good for American jobs as Walmart. ..."
    "... What are Hillary's policies that have been put forth. Stating that you are going to concentrate on Cyber Security when you had an unsecure server in a bathroom storing national classified information? Stating that she has done so much for women? what has she done? ..."
    "... It doesn't matter who wins the White House, The Donald or the sociopath Hillary, the American people lose. ..."
    "... Loved Albright's idiotic comment: There's a special place in hell for women who don't support Hillary. In actuality, the opposite is true. There is a special place in hell for those who vote for her because she is a woman. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    One day after Clinton delivered a blistering assault on her opponent's record as a businessman, Trump returned fire , leveling a litany of attacks against the former secretary of state.

    "The choice in this election is a choice between taking our government back from the special interests, or surrendering our last scrap of independence to their total and complete control," Trump said in a speech delivered from the chandelier ballroom of the Trump Soho hotel in New York.

    In his 45-minute address, Trump reprised many of the same concerns conservatives and other detractors have long expressed about Clinton, over her trustworthiness and personal ethics. He blamed Clinton for destabilizing the Middle East and spreading "death, destruction and terrorism" as secretary of state. He also accused her and Bill Clinton of helping strengthen the Chinese economy through their support of "disastrous" trade deals that he said helped triggered an exodus of America's "best jobs" abroad.

    "In return, Hillary Clinton got rich … She gets rich making you poor," Trump said, echoing an attack Clinton made against him on Tuesday. He continued to hammer home the point that Clinton, if elected, would cater to special interests at the expense of the American people.

    relgin

    Clinton is very much so, a corrupted politician that should have been examined closer during her tenure as Secretary of State:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

    funnynought

    The Democrats are running the first-ever major candidate to be under FBI investigation. You just know the Republicans will repeat that info over and over and over. Even if Clinton isn't indicted, the Republicans will spin the word "indictment" anyway. They're so good at doing that. You'd think the Dem machine would've learned this by now, but no.

    Wait till the investigative press pieces together enough evidence that millions of "provisional" ballots that voted for Sanders weren't counted... sometime by the middle of the campaign. The Republicans will eat that up.

    In six states, primary exit polls had a discrepancy of 5 to 33 per cent from vote counts, and Clinton won all six. Hmmm. If any direct suppression orchestrated by the DNC and/or Clinton campaign is uncovered, all the worse. You'd think the Dem machine could foresee these kinds of ugly revelations bubbling up, but no.

    MemphisTigerFan89

    Trumpster finally got one right. Hillary charges $225K for a 30 minute speech, demands to be flown in a private jet, a presidential suite with 3 adjoining rooms for her staff, 1st class flights for her pre-event planners and on and on. Hill & Bill have made over $180 million off of their holding of public office. Corruption at its finest.

    • Round-trip transportation on a chartered private jet "e.g., a Gulfstream 450 or larger jet," plus round-trip business class travel for two advance staffers who will arrive up to three days in advance
    • Hotel accommodations selected by Clinton's staff and including "a presidential suite for Secretary Clinton and up to three (3) adjoining or contiguous single rooms for her travel aides and up to two (2) additional single rooms for the advance staff"
    • She doesn't travel alone, relying on an entourage of a couple of "travel aides," and a couple of advance staffers who check out her speech site in the days leading up to her appearance
    • Hillary will remain at the event no longer than 90 minutes; will pose for no more than 50 photos with no more than 100 people
    • "It is agreed that Speaker will be the only person on the stage during her remarks"
    • There will be no press coverage or video- or audio-taping of her speech
    • The only record allowed will be made by a stenographer whose transcription will be given only to Clinton
    • The foundation, meanwhile, is prohibited from advertising the event on radio, TV or billboards
    • Clinton staffers must approve in writing any promotional material.

      http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168702-heres-just-partial-list-hillarys-contract-demands-addition-speaking-fees/

    Chirographer

    Trump has a talent for summarizing his opponent's weaknesses. It's not reported here, but he said Clinton's ideas were "old and tired". That's an impression she'll have a lot of difficulty shedding.

    The Guardian, which long ago lost itself in pro-Clinton zeal, has missed the point that despite all of Trump's blunders over the last month and Clinton's supposed bounce for winning the nomination he's only 4 -5 % points behind her in the latest CNN national poll. That's a serious problem for her. I saw David Gergen making that very point this a.m. on CNN.

    Clinton supporters : don't underestimate Trump's abilities. He is very capable of winning the election and is a very dangerous opponent.

    hipocampelofantocame

    For Mrs Clinton, any attack leveled against her, even a factual one, is a lie or a conspiracy theory. Unfortunately for her, that is another lie. Mr. Trump, as any entrepreneur, is not lilly-white, but he's not even comparable to Mrs Clinton in volumes and amounts.

    relgin -> hipocampelofantocame

    Clinton is corrupt. Read this one account: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

    MtnClimber

    The man that schemes to pay no taxes, has declared to have made no profit, but filed foralmost a million in tax write-offs, worked with the Philly Mob to build his casinos.

    Corrupt is right. Trump is a con man. He's great at it (taxes are for the little people), but he's still a con man.

    Oboy1963 -> MtnClimber

    Absolutely correct.

    The problem is that him being a con man does not change the fact that Hillary is still, probably ( like he said ) the most corrupt person to ever seek the presidency. Him being bad in no way makes her good !

    Darby Kathleen

    "We're asking Bernie Sanders voters to join our movement so together we can fix the system for all Americans. It's not just the political system that's rigged. It's the whole economy."

    Huh, this plea to Sanders supporters is better than any from Democratic Party or Hillary Clinton.

    Not saying it will work but its more effective than 'you'll be responsible for Trump', 'I'm Not-Trump', 'its time for us to unite to fight Trump', 'He lost, I'm the nominee, time to fall in line' (Paraphrasing of course).

    I hate to say it but he sounds more genuine & authentic than she ever has. The Democrats have made it clear they don't want Sanders policies only his votes. 22% are going to Trump vs 55% to Hillary. 23% undecided or to 3rd parties. She better hope today wasn't a turnpoint for him.

    GeorgiaTeacher -> Social36

    What Trump has done is worse than Hillary selling favors while in the Secretary of State position? Come on you can be serious? Maybe you have researched it?

    It is easy to find. Even the wash post knows it is fishy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

    Some govts were allowed to not pay debt to the USA and just so happen to give to the foundation. Name when something like that has ever occurred. Either party.

    Dan Willis

    As an American the comments posted by some below are not true. Trump has created many jobs in the United States. In NY and NJ alone he employs nearly 1400 general workers, many may in fact be imported workers under legal agreements. The Trump empire employs many people and pays wages to them supporting many families who contribute taxes to the government. You can easily travel the United States and see that Trump creates jobs. What can be said of Hillary Clinton? who employs very few and most of them are paid by the government, probably no more than 5-10 total. She has never created anything like a company unless selling access and shaping of policy to collect revenue within her foundation could be considered a company. Hillary has been disbarred, fired, removed from her position of shaping health care under her husbands presidency, the worst Secretary of State, and as stated by Trump probably the greatest liars ever.

    MtnClimber -> Dan Willis

    Yep. Trump sure does employ a lot of people. He pays most of the the absolute minimum and provides no benefits in most cases. Yep. He's as good for American jobs as Walmart.

    Dan Willis -> Mint51HenryJ

    What are Hillary's policies that have been put forth. Stating that you are going to concentrate on Cyber Security when you had an unsecure server in a bathroom storing national classified information? Stating that she has done so much for women? what has she done? Of the two, Trump may not be the greatest but she is a farce and a liar.

    66Degreesnorth

    Hillary campaigned against OBAMA saying she was capable of handling "The 3:00am Phone Call" when she got that call ,she did little but call Obama,,,Obama DID NOT ATTEND the Situation Room that night , his whereabouts has never really been explained as to why or why he didn't walkover to see real time drone footage of the destruction of the US Embassy in Benghazi. US Staff were quoted as saying "they were waiting for the Cavalry to arrive " ,,,they never came US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith; CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty ALL DIED ,,,, No Retaliation was taken . This coupled with Obama welcoming ARAB SPRING created in part ,,,the violence and terrorism in the mid east and now in Europe and beyond ,North America . PEASE go to YOUTUBE to view Brilliant British journalist Christopher Hitchens scathing critical attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton . I believe America are tired of the Clintons and will VOTE TRUMP , to make AMERICA STRONG & GREAT AGAIN !!

    prairie

    It doesn't matter who wins the White House, The Donald or the sociopath Hillary, the American people lose.

    Celt23 -> prairie

    I don't believe you understand the meaning of sociopath - but do feel free to bandy these words about - if she were a man you'd be praising her for her grit and strength.

    bcarey -> Celt23

    if she were a man you'd be praising her for her grit and strength.

    If she was a man, I would be criticizing her for her corruption, just as Jeb! was. She is very much like Jeb, you know.

    This isn't about the fact that she is a woman, except for those who want to pander to women for her vote.

    Loved Albright's idiotic comment: There's a special place in hell for women who don't support Hillary. In actuality, the opposite is true. There is a special place in hell for those who vote for her because she is a woman.

    Dan Willis -> Celt23

    Interesting. Obama is a man and I do not praise his grit and strength. I agree that the term sociopath may not totally apply but what term does? Hillary has no strength of her own. If you are honest to yourself look at her history. She has relied on Bill for everything, her first job, her positions within the government. You can say she ran for Senator but what of that? she moved from her real home state to NY to run for a "shoe in" position. She was a terrible Senator who lost jobs in her home district. Utilize google and research all of this as it is true. She was fired as an assistant DA in the justice department and her boss called her a "liar". One would have to be intellectually dishonest with themselves to believe that she has ever done anything on her own. She is propped up with money by very important people "Soros" who will utilize her for their gain.

    [Jun 22, 2016] Bill Kristol 'We Beat Back Ron Paul and Rand Paul'

    June 22, 2016 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

    Neoconservative by birth, Bill Kristol, apparently thinks the libertarian moment is over.

    Kristol was in San Francisco yesterday and appeared at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco for a "conversation with" event.

    He fielded questions from the audience and also the moderator neocon Kori Schake, mostly about Donald Trump.

    At one point, he named a list of non-mainstream Republican candidates that had their moment in the sun and then faded away.

    This included Ron and Rand Paul. "We beat back Ron Paul and Rand Paul," he said. Implying that they were nothing but a footnote in Republican history.

    Kristol said the current election resembled one coming out of a third world country. He also admitted that he underestimated "Trump's seeing what the people are upset about."

    He said the current move by some delegates to open up the upcoming Republican national convention by "voting conscience" to deny Trump the nomination has about a 15% chance of succeeding. He said only last week he would have said it only had a 5% chance.

    He said he could not rule out a Trump victory in November.

    He said he sent out this tweet to "energize" Reince Priebus:<

    [Jun 19, 2016] The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory by Peter Ferrara

    Apr 28, 2013 | Forbes

    Trofim Lysenko became the Director of the Soviet Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences in the 1930s under Josef Stalin. He was an advocate of the theory that characteristics acquired by plants during their lives could be inherited by later generations stemming from the changed plants, which sharply contradicted Mendelian genetics. As a result, Lysenko became a fierce critic of theories of the then rising modern genetics.

    Under Lysenko's view, for example, grafting branches of one plant species onto another could create new plant hybrids that would be perpetuated by the descendants of the grafted plant. Or modifications made to seeds would be inherited by later generations stemming from that seed. Or that plucking all the leaves off of a plant would cause descendants of the plant to be leafless.

    Lysenkoism was "politically correct" (a term invented by Lenin) because it was consistent with certain broader Marxist doctrines. Marxists wanted to believe that heredity had a limited role even among humans, and that human characteristics changed by living under socialism would be inherited by subsequent generations of humans. Thus would be created the selfless new Soviet man.

    Also Lysenko himself arose from a peasant background and developed his theories from practical applications rather than controlled scientific experiments. This fit the Marxist propaganda of the time holding that brilliant industrial innovations would arise from the working classes through practical applications. Lysenko's theories also seemed to address in a quick and timely manner the widespread Soviet famines of the time arising from the forced collectivization of agriculture, rather than the much slower changes from scientific experimentation and genetic heredity.

    Lysenko was consequently embraced and lionized by the Soviet media propaganda machine. Scientists who promoted Lysenkoism with faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding and official recognition and award. Lysenko and his followers and media acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting the advance of the new modern Marxism.

    The V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences announced on August 7, 1948 that thenceforth Lysenkoism would be taught as the only correct theory. All Soviet scientists were required to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenkoism. Ultimately, Soviet geneticists resisting Lysenkoism were imprisoned and even executed. Lysenkoism was abandoned for the correct modern science of Mendelian genetics only as late as 1964.

    The Theory of Man Caused Catastrophic Global Warming

    This same practice of Lysenkoism has long been under way in western science in regard to the politically correct theory of man caused, catastrophic, global warming. That theory serves the political fashions of the day in promoting vastly increased government powers and control over the private economy. Advocates of the theory are lionized in the dominant Democrat party controlled media in the U.S., and in leftist controlled media in other countries. Critics of the theory are denounced as "deniers," and even still bourgeois fascists, with their motives impugned.

    Those who promote the theory are favored with billions from government grants and neo-Marxist environmentalist largesse, and official recognition and award. Faked and tampered data and evidence has arisen in favor of the politically correct theory. Is not man-caused, catastrophic global warming now the only theory allowed to be taught in schools in the West?

    Those in positions of scientific authority in the West who have collaborated with this new Lysenkoism because they felt they must be politically correct, and/or because of the money, publicity, and recognition to be gained, have disgraced themselves and the integrity of their institutions, organizations and publications.

    The United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is supposed to represent the best science of the U.S. government on the issue of global warming. In January, the USGCRP released the draft of its Third National Climate Assessment Report. The first duty of the government scientists at the USGCRP is to produce a complete picture of the science of the issue of global warming, which is what the taxpayers are paying them for. But it didn't take long for the Cato Institute to do the job of the USGCRP with a devastating line by line rebuttal, The Missing Science from the Draft National Assessment on Climate Change, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2012, by Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Robert C. Balling, Mary J. Hutzler & Craig D. Idso.

    Check it out for yourself if you dare. Both publications are written to be accessible by intelligent laymen. See which one involves climate science and which one involves political science.

    All the climate alarmist organizations simply rubber stamp the irregular Assessment Reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). None of them do any original science on the theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming. But the United Nations is a proven, corrupt, power grabbing institution. The science of their Assessment Reports has been thoroughly rebutted by the hundreds of pages of science in Climate Change Reconsidered, and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, both written by dozens of scientists with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and published by the Heartland Institute, the international headquarters of the skeptics of the theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming.

    Again, check it out for yourself. You don't have to read every one of the well over a thousand pages of careful science in both volumes to see at least that there is a real scientific debate.

    The editors of the once respected journals of Science and Nature have abandoned science for Lysenkoism on this issue as well. They have become as political as the editorial pages of the New York Times. They claim their published papers are peer reviewed, but those reviews are conducted on the friends and family plan when it comes to the subject of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming. There can be no peer review at all when authors refuse to release their data and computer codes for public inspection and attempted reconstruction of reported results by other scientists. They have been forced to backtrack on recent publications relying on novel, dubious, statistical methodologies not in accordance with established methodologies of complex statistical analysis.

    Formerly respected scientific bodies in the U.S. and other western countries have been commandeered by political activist Lysenkoists seizing leadership positions. They then proceed with politically correct pronouncements on the issue of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming heedless of the views of the membership of actual scientists. Most of what you see and hear from alarmists regarding global warming can be most accurately described as play acting on the meme of settled science. The above noted publications demonstrate beyond the point where reasonable people can differ that no actual scientist can claim that the science of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming has been settled or that there is a settled "consensus" that rules out reasonable dissent.

    Indeed, 31,487 U.S. scientists (including 9,000 Ph.Ds) with degrees in atmospheric Earth sciences, physics, chemistry, biology and computer science have signed a statement that reads: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." See here. Some consensus.

    Real science, of course, is not a matter of "consensus," but of reason, with skepticism at its core.

    The Decline and Fall of the Theory of Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Warming

    The alarmist claims of the UN's IPCC are ultimately based not on scientific observations, but on unvalidated climate models and their projections of future global temperatures on assumptions of continued increases in carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the burning and use of fossil fuels. The alarmists are increasingly in panic because the past projections of the models are increasingly divergent from the accumulating actual temperature records. Those models are not real science, but made up science. And no way we are abandoning the industrial revolution as the Sierra Club is hoping based on model fantasies and fairy tales.

    The Economist magazine, formerly in lockstep with the Lysenkoists, shocked them with a skeptical article in March that began with this lede:

    "OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, 'the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade. . . .'"

    Reality is not complying with the alarmism of the UN's global warming models, just as it refused to do for Trofim Lysenko. Remember all that hysteria about melting polar ice caps and the disappearing ice floes for the cute polar bears? As of the end of March, the Antarctic ice cap was nearly one fourth larger than the average for the last 30 years. The Arctic ice cap had grown back to within 3% of its 30 year average. (The formerly declining Arctic ice was due to cyclically warm ocean currents). Global sea ice was greater than in March, 1980, more than 30 years ago, and also above the average since then.

    Remember the alarm about the rising sea level? Yeah, that has been rising, as it has been since the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago. Just exactly as it has been, at the same rate. And anyone you know that has been scared by this alarmist propaganda has been successfully played by whatever media the fool has been relying on.

    Murderous recent winters in Europe are killing as well belief in alarmist global warming on the continent. University of Oklahoma Professor and geophysicist David Deming reported in a recent column,

    "The United Kingdom had the coldest March weather in 50 years, and there were more than a thousand record low temperatures in the United States. The Irish meteorological office reported that March "temperatures were the lowest on record nearly everywhere." Spring snowfall in Europe was also high. In Moscow, the snow depth was the highest in 134 years of observation. In Kiev, authorities had to bring in military vehicles to clear snow from the streets."

    In the Northern Hemisphere, Deming adds, "Snow cover last December was the greatest since satellite monitoring began in 1966." That reflects similarly bitter cold winters in North America as well. Despite claims by global warming Lysenkoists that soon children "won't know what snow is," on February 6, 2010, a blizzard covered the northeastern U.S. with 20 to 35 inches of snow. Three days later another 10 to 20 inches were added.

    These developments should have been expected from known indisputable facts. Carbon dioxide is a natural substance essential to the survival of all life on the planet. It is effectively oxygen for plants, and without plants there would be no food for animals to survive. Because of the increased atmospheric CO2 agricultural output is already increasing.

    CO2 is also a trace gas in the atmosphere, representing only 0.038% of the total atmosphere, up only 0.008% since 1945. That tiny proportion of the atmosphere is supposed to produce catastrophic global warming that will end all life on the planet? The historical proxy record shows CO2 concentrations in the distant history of the earth much, much greater than today. Yet life survived, and flourished. Moreover, the basic science of global warming is that the temperature increasing effect of increased CO2 concentrations declines as those concentrations increase. So stop worrying and enjoy the agricultural abundance in your grocery store.

    A tip off regarding reality should have been apparent from the dodgy propaganda involved in changing the labeling of the problem from "global warming" to "climate change." Of course, Earth has been experiencing climate change since the first sunrise on the planet. We are not going to abandon the workers' paradise of capitalism because climate change will continue.

    Another tip off should have been the effective admission by global warming alarmists that they cannot defend their position in public debate. The day the theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming died can be dated from the time that one leading alarmist was foolish enough to debate James Taylor of the Heartland Institute, a video of which can be found on the Heartland website at Heartland.org.

    Still another tip off should have been the practice of the alarmist new Lysenkoists to respond to dissenting science with ad hominem attacks. That apparently reflects poor public schooling that never taught that an ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, as Aristotle taught more than 2,000 years ago. My how western science has fallen.

    The basic science shows that global temperatures are just not very sensitive to CO2 itself. Even alarmists will concede that. Where they get their alarm is with the modeling assumption that the CO2 induced temperature increases will produce positive feedbacks that will sharply increase the overall resulting warming. The better recent science indicates, however, that instead of positive feedbacks, the naturally stable Earth would enjoy negative feedbacks restoring long term equilibrium and stability to global temperatures.

    Then there is the man caused, global warming, fingerprint that the U.N.'s models all showed would result in a hot spot of particularly large temperature increases in the upper troposphere above the tropics. But the incorruptible, satellite monitored, atmospheric temperature record shows no hot spot. That is further confirmed by modern weather balloons measuring atmospheric temperatures above the tropics. No hotspot. No fingerprint. No catastrophic, man caused global warming. QED.

    The revival of western science requires that the new Lysenkoism be discredited. That is going to require quite some work, given the extent of the infestation.

    I am Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Advisor for Entitlement Reform and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. I served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush. I am a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and the author most recently of America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb (New York: Harper Collins, 2011). I write about new, cutting edge ideas regarding public policy, particularly concerning economics.

    The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

    [Jun 19, 2016] Lysenkoism and climate change

    Notable quotes:
    "... Science and scientists are now heavily politicized. A lot of them are just political charlatans spreading nonsense for money and abusing mathematics, using it as smoke screen to hide their disgraceful actions. Take for example neoclassical economists. ..."
    "... Many scientists now have connections and receive funding from military industrial complex or other industrial lobbies which also affects objectivity. ..."
    "... Scientists with integrity of Rutherford are extinct. Now this is "He who pays the piper calls the tune" all over the science. ..."
    "... That does not exclude objectivity, but it now can never be taken for granted. Scientific schools struggles can now well be the struggles of influence groups standing behind particular groups of scientists. The attitude should be like in the Russian proverb that Reagan used to love so much: "Trust but verify" ..."
    "... IMHO you can view neoclassical economics as a cancer or a modern version of Lysenkoism (and a very successful, dominant one), if you wish (with due apologies to "strict" supply-demand equilibrium believers; of course, in a long run everything comes to equilibrium, but in a long run we all are dead ;-). ..."
    "... How the existence and success of Lysenkoism ( let's say in the form of neoclassical economics ) correlates with your optimism about modern science and scientists ? That is the question to be answered. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    texas tea , 06/18/2016 at 5:30 pm

    Fred from way up thread.
    "Sorry Tea, this is the 21st century and while that might have been true even a century ago, we now have a very extensive and solid body of scientific knowledge to work with and therefore all scientists do not in any way shape or form get it wrong ALL THE TIME! That isn't how science works today."

    I will not shove words into you mouth and I will ask that you don't try it with me. No one said all scientist get it wrong all the time. What was said is that most scientists have ideas that will later be proven wrong. In the field of climate science the models developed and played up in the media that were used to promote all kinds of false assumptions and alarming predictions have been frequently and objectively proven to be wrong. Most intellectually honest scientists would agree that we do not have the information needed for the models to fully understand all the variables that influence earths climate. Which of course includes sun cycles and the natural earth processes such ocean cycles, tectonics (volcanoes) ect (not to ramble on). To take one possible influence, the increase or decrease of CO2 and make predictions as to what the climate will be in 50 years is not science, it is at best guess work, it is one part of a jigsaw puzzle and it is dishonest to present in any other way.
    It does not matter what field of science one works in, but to chose one for an example, medical science and drug development. Billions of $$$ are spent on drug development, more times than not the drugs and the research behind them are thrown into the trash because they do not work. The "science" relating to human diets and the epidemic of obesity and diabetes, another great example where they just flat got it wrong for over 30 years. I could ramble on but the point is made, good people often get it wrong, bad people do not care and evil people profit from it. :-)

    Nick G , 06/18/2016 at 5:50 pm
    most scientists have ideas that will later be proven wrong.

    And that's misleading to the point of just being wrong.

    Yes, almost all scientists are working with concepts that can be improved in some way. But are they just flat out wrong? No.

    Why is this important? Because your argument above uses this idea to frame climate science improperly: climate science can certainly be improved, in many, many ways. But it's good enough to identify serious risks in what we're doing now, and tell us that we need to take some action to mitigate those risks.

    Of course, climate science mostly tells us what we already know for other reasons: fossil fuels are expensive, risky and polluting, and we should move away from them as fast as we can.

    And, of course, that's why the Koch brothers and Exxon want to throw doubt on climate science: it's bad for their business.

    texas tea , 06/19/2016 at 5:57 am
    Nick,

    "But it's good enough to identify serious risks in what we're doing now, and tell us that we need to take some action to mitigate those risks."

    this is a statement i can agree with as it attempts to understand the limitations we are struggling with but also why further study and research is needed. Now include that idea with a cost benefit analysis of our current energy mix and all of a sudden we have someone who at least correctly frames the issues.

    Tell the Chinese and Indians I doubt that any of them have ever heard of the Koch brothers. It isn't about doubt created by Exxon or Koch brothers, those doubt exist on the merits of the science itself it is about maintaining civil order in their own countries.

    GoneFishing , 06/19/2016 at 6:28 am
    Yes, the layman looks on scientific results as indeterminate and without confidence, couched in error limits and probabilities, and subject to correction or change. Of course the reality is far different, just look around you.
    The very simple statements of the non-scientific populous seem so confident, so definite. Mostly they are wrong or misleading but they are not couched in terms of the reality of the situation and are generally one-sided and agenda based. We call that propaganda, I call it deceit.
    The scientist understands the limitations of his investigations and puts them honestly out front for public viewing, being heavily checked by his peers. Probably about as honest as you can get in this world.
    Again, if you think science is wrong and does not work, look around you, even as you type or read on the electronic inventions derived from all the "wrong" science. You sound like you have no idea how knowledge is gained or grows. Nor do you know how to interpret scientific results. Best to leave that to others.
    And if you are thinking about global warming, the physics are rock solid, the details of climate change are fuzzy, mostly because of lack of funding for enough research teams and sensors. But it is only fuzzy, not wrong. If some of those rich businessmen and their puppet governments would actually spend enough money and effort on the science effort, we might know with greater certainty the details of climate change.
    But they do not want to know, because it will force inconvenient action and change. Throughout history, the search for knowledge has been directed and throttled by the powers that be. We are still medieval in many ways.
    But I guess today's profit and power are far more important than the world or our future generations.
    likbez , 06/19/2016 at 11:50 am
    Nick,

    You are way too quick to dismiss TT concerns. He has some strong points.

    Moreover I think you never heard about Lysenkoism, right ?

    Science and scientists are now heavily politicized. A lot of them are just political charlatans spreading nonsense for money and abusing mathematics, using it as smoke screen to hide their disgraceful actions. Take for example neoclassical economists.

    Many scientists now have connections and receive funding from military industrial complex or other industrial lobbies which also affects objectivity.

    Scientists with integrity of Rutherford are extinct. Now this is "He who pays the piper calls the tune" all over the science.

    As such most of them (outside few fields yet not politicized enough, like pure mathematics ) became the same prostitutes for the elite as journalists.

    That does not exclude objectivity, but it now can never be taken for granted. Scientific schools struggles can now well be the struggles of influence groups standing behind particular groups of scientists. The attitude should be like in the Russian proverb that Reagan used to love so much: "Trust but verify"

    Fred Magyar , 06/18/2016 at 8:29 pm
    TT, I apologize for giving the impression that I was quoting you verbatim.

    However when you say this:
    What was said is that most scientists have ideas that will later be proven wrong.

    I have to agree with Nick below. That statement is flat out wrong! Science does not operate in a vacuum and most scientists today build on a very solid scientific foundation of accepted scientific theories. They don't just pull ideas out of their asses!

    It does not matter what field of science one works in, but to chose one for an example, medical science and drug development. Billions of $$$ are spent on drug development, more times than not the drugs and the research behind them are thrown into the trash because they do not work.

    Ok I'll run with that! While a particular drug may not work as expected the scientific research they engage in does not overturn germ theory or the theory of evolution!

    texas tea , 06/18/2016 at 5:46 pm
    Fred Magyar , 06/19/2016 at 9:28 am
    LOL! You really should read the rationalwiki link you posted! From that link:

    When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

    As for the Wired link, Meh! And for the Guardian link I suggest you watch this to at least dispel some common myths about Einstein.

    https://origins.asu.edu/panel-einsteins-legacy-100-years-general-relativity

    Warning it will take up about two hours of your time. Well worth it in my opinion

    likbez , 06/19/2016 at 12:03 pm
    How about such thing as Lysenkoism? Is not this a cancer for science, from which there is essentially cures are as difficult to obtain and are as destructive as for regular cancer.

    IMHO you can view neoclassical economics as a cancer or a modern version of Lysenkoism (and a very successful, dominant one), if you wish (with due apologies to "strict" supply-demand equilibrium believers; of course, in a long run everything comes to equilibrium, but in a long run we all are dead ;-).

    How the existence and success of Lysenkoism ( let's say in the form of neoclassical economics ) correlates with your optimism about modern science and scientists ? That is the question to be answered.

    See also the post above
    http://peakoilbarrel.com/north-dakota-down-over-70000-bpd-in-april/#comment-573372

    [Jun 18, 2016] 51 US Diplomats Urge Strikes Against Assad in Syria

    51 neocons warmongers, who need to be send to Afghanistan for some on site learning. Nuland's birds of feather try to get worm places in Hillary new administration, playing on her war hawk tendencies... Those "diplomats" forgot about the existence of Saudis and other theocracies which are much more brutal and less democratic, viewing woman as domestic animals. These are dark times for American foreign policy. the easy part is to depose Assad. But what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows?
    Notable quotes:
    "... These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster? ..."
    "... Are you a bit confused as to who these neocon dissenters at State support in the Syrian civil war? ..."
    "... This is simply a roll call of neocon diplomats making a case for another non-strategic war that would badly hurt US interests. It does not represent State Department policy. The neocons have been very persistent in securing career appointments at State for decades now. ..."
    "... You are pushing the world closer to war. ..."
    "... what is intolerable about the position of the 51 "diplomats" in the memo is that it is their (failed) efforts to dislodge Assad by proxy, facilitating and organizing the flow of arms that more often than ended up in the hands of hard-line jihadists, that has led to almost 400,000 deaths (not to mention wounded) and the flight of over a million refugees. ..."
    "... Wow, sounds like some housecleaning is needed at State. Whatever happened to jaw-jaw being better than war-war? If they are so keen on military action, they're in the wrong building. I'm sure some of the overworked troops and officers in the armed forces would be happy to let these guys take a few of the chances of getting shot or blown up that they deal with daily. ..."
    "... It is troubling that the State Department, long a bulwark of common sense against America's foreign adventurism, has become as hawkish as its former head, Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... The Middle East Institute is financed, primarily, by the petroleum and arms industries. The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy has HRC's close ally, Dennis Ross; who, with Martin Indyk, founded AIPAC in the mid-80's. ..."
    "... This group's contention that direct confrontation with Russia could be avoided echoes their 2002 claim that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a three month cake walk. ..."
    "... Since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in the projection and use of force (covert and overt) as the primary means to achieve whatever goals the executive office seeks. It placed the world on notice that the U.S. was ready and willing to use violence to back its foreign policy objectives. Just as in Vietnam and before the disastrous decision to escalate the use of ground forces, President Johnson's national security advisors (all holdovers from Kennedy's Presidency) pressed Johnson to use aerial bombardment against N. Vietnam to induce them to seek a negotiated peace that would allow the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict and save face while preserving the policy of projecting force as a means to maintain world order in accordance with U.S. designs. ..."
    "... My oldest son is now completing his sixth Afghan/Iraq tour.I don't want him in Syria. Let these 51 diplomats volunteer their sons/daughters for Syria.That'll demonstrate their commitment.I'll bet not one of these 51 "geniuses" has a child on active military duty in Iraq/Afghan. ..."
    "... These folks are, it appears, mid-level foreign service officers like I was. They are utterly unqualified to make these judgements as the Department of State is a failed organization culturally and functionally. Like HRC, who is still advocating for forced regime change if she wins, they have learned nothing from the past and again have no answer for what follows Asad being deposed. A majority Sunni regime in Syria will tear Iraq apart and there is no likelihood of it avoiding the trajectory of other "pluralistic" Arab state attempts. The fact that State has no culture of strategic analysis informing operational design and operational planning which, in turn, spawn series of tactical events, comes clear in situations like this. Doing nothing is the best case here. Tragic but still the best case. President Obama has seen this. Asad needs to regain control of Syria's territory, all of it. Feeding the hopes of the Ahmed Chalabi equivalents in Syria is perpetuating the violence. And, there is no room for an independent Kurdistan in the region, nor is it in the United States' interest for there to be one. ..."
    "... That's the same class of people who figured that invading in Iraq in 2003 would turn out all right. ..."
    "... Exhibit A being Samantha Power, the latest in a long line of militaristic, European-born white Americans (see Albright, Kissinger, Brzezinski) who believe that American firepower can bring order to the world. ..."
    "... Sorry hawkish diplomats, but you're living in a fantasyland where the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not permanently tarnish the image of the USA and wreck its credibility as an honest arbiter. That is the reality all US presidents will have to face in the post-Bush 43 era. ..."
    "... Are those 51 U.S. Diplomats responsible for advising the Obama Administration to bomb Libya back in 2011? Apparently they have not learned from their mistakes. Or maybe they should just go work for their true Employer, The Military Industrial Complex. ..."
    "... This is reckless and irresponsible. US backed "moderates" are fighting elbow to elbow with the Nusra Front and other radicals groups; that is why the cease-fire is collapsing. ..."
    "... If we weaken Assad, Islamists will take over Damascus and if Damascus falls, soon Beirut will follow. These folk at State are neo cons, as usual shooting from the hip. ..."
    "... Vietnam, 212,000 dead and countless north and south Vietnamese and citizens. Unjust and unwarranted war on Iraq with 4,491 and counting dead and countess Iraqi citizens. Now, Syria? Are you wanting the draft returned? You asking for boots on the ground? How about you 50 join up. I will willingly pay for taxes just arm you and send you in. Along with every other know it all who wants us 'TO DO MORE'!! Spare me. You have learned NOTHING in your past failures, have you? 1956, Iran. Cause the over throw of a duly elected government for the Shahs which led to 1980 revolution to fear of them acquiring nuclear weapons. Vietnam led to 'WHAT'? Now Iraq. ..."
    "... The worse destabilization in that area I can remember. Not even during their many attacks on Israel when Egypt got a clue. Fire Saddam Hussein's soldiers and they become ISIS by 2006, yet one bright senator lied and said Obama caused them when we left which was President Bush's treaty Maliki. They did not want us there. Leave per the Iraqi people, also. When ISIS showed up they ran and left the weaponry we gave them and the money in the banks for them to grab. Now, you want us steeped into Syria. It's been said, hindsight is 20/20, ..."
    "... In these so called diplomats cases, it is totally and legally blind. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles has a better perception and one of them is dead. ..."
    "... The war hawks, so comfortably away from the battle, are banging those drums of war again. Easy to do when your life and the lives of your fellow military are not at risk. ..."
    "... We all know now that the invasion of Iraq by Mr. Bush junior was a) a mistake, and b) a War Crime - there were no threatening WMDs nor did Saddam hold hads with Al Quaeda (he was, actually, their worst enemy - and our security!), so, Iraq was c) total stupidity. It was an aggressive war without any cause - for the USA! ..."
    "... This is much more about what Mark Landler thinks than about what those generic diplomats think. The Times's principal hawk, Landler has book and a series of articles pushing his neocon view. I guess we should assume the Times agrees. ..."
    "... Having spent substantial time as a private consultant at the US Embassy in Kabul I was shocked by the lack of feelings of midlevel officials there with regard to the dead and injuries of American Troops. The Embassy shared a wall with the ISAF/NATO Main Quarters and every single day the US Flag there was half-mast to acknowledge the dead of our troops on that day in that country. The Embassy never shared this sadness and all midlevel officials there were only concerned about their paycheck, quality of meals served, having a drink, going for a swim, and their frequent trips back to the US; for such people wanting to have a say in when to fight in Syria is a sad state of affair. ..."
    "... Perhaps we should figure out one take-down before we move on to the next. After 13 years, we still haven't figured out life in Iraq without Saddam. Any thoughts, neocons, on what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows? ..."
    "... Get Rid of Assad, make relations with Russia worse (they back Assad) and allow ISIS to effectively take over Syria. Sounds like a great plan. I guess our military-industrial complex is getting itchy for a new war. And, of course, doing what these diplomats want will also result in putting boots on the ground. This will be a great legacy for Ms. Clinton (under her watch ISIS came into being), Mr. Kerry (who continued Clinton's failed legacy) and Mr. Obama (the Nobel Peace Prize president; who wasn't). ..."
    "... The signers of the dissent letter are militarist neocons (of the Victoria Nuland ilk). More than any other, these people and their CIA collaborators are responsible for the death and destruction in Syria and the ensuing refugee crisis. They can't even give a cogent reason for deposing Assad other than point to the carnage of the civil war they fomented-as if Assad were solely responsible. Assad is acting no differently than the US did during it's own Civil War. ..."
    "... The value of the memo can be summed up in one sentence as described in the article itself "what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power - a scenario that the draft memo does not address." ..."
    "... I wonder about the arrogance of these mid-level State Department foreign service officers. ..."
    "... Sure -- a few well-placed cruise missiles will make it all good. Yeah, right. ..."
    "... Absolutely amazing. My first question is who released this memo? Having a back channel does not permit anyone to unilaterally decide to release information that could cost lives and ruin negotiations that the releasing person knows nothing about. If you do not like the chain of command, then leave. We cannot continue to be involved in sectarian conflicts that cannot be resolved except by the combatants. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Vietnam? No neocon insanity. We have lost enough lives and treasure in the ME. ..."
    "... Are these the same ingrates who urged Bush to attack Iraq - his legacy - ISIS! ..."
    "... As a 26 year Marine Corps combat veteran I have a hard time trying to figure out what is going on here, and a harder time not becoming totally disgusted with our State Department. ..."
    "... My suggestion would be that we arm these 51 individuals, given them a week's worth of ammunition and rations, and drop them into Syria, I am sure they can lead the way in showing us how to solve the mess in the ME. ..."
    "... It's the fact that these are not "widely known names" which scares me most. However, Western-instituted regime change in that region has proven disastrous in every single country it has been tried. If possible, I would investigate these diplomats' ties to defense contractors. ..."
    "... US intervention created the rubble and hell that is now Syria. When Assad had full control of Syria, the human rights of the people of Syria suffered under him but many if not most people led a civilised life. They had water and electricity. Past US interventions created Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. To puy it simply, life expectancy in all these countries dropped by 20 to 30 years after the US intervened, each time with the highest utopian ideals, and increased the power of Sunni supremacists after each act. ..."
    "... Let's not forget that Bush's hasty appointment of Paul Bremer as the hapless Governor of Iraq following the defeat of Hussein's military regime led immediately to the disbanding of the entire Iraqi military, an incredibly short-sighted and reckless move that essentially unleashed 400,000 young trained fighters (including a honed officers corps) absent support programs to assimilate back into Iraqi society, only to have them emerge as readily available fodder essential for ISIS's marshalling a strong military force almost overnight. A huge price is now being exacted for this astounding stupidity. ..."
    "... This is conveniently laying grounds for Hillary's grand comeback to the theatre of "humanitarian interventionism" in the Middle East. God help us all, as this is a prelude to the WW3. ..."
    "... Wow the neo-cons are beating the war drums yet again! They have already created a huge mess throughout the Middle East with wars and revolutions directly attributable to the United States in invading Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses, helping overthrow the government in Libya, and arming rebels in Syria and Yemen. ..."
    "... Unfortunately if Hillary Clinton wins, she is a neo-con puppet and we will be at war in Syria and/or Iran within a year or two. God help us! ..."
    "... First of all, if this was a channel for employees to share "candidly and privately" about policy concerns, why is it on the front page of the NY Times? Additionally, as usual, it seems the war hawks are hawking war without thought for what comes next. We've done this most recently in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, all of which are now failed states and havens for terrorists. Because this seems rather obvious, either we are pathologically incapable of learning from past mistakes, or there are people who have an agenda different from the publicly stated one. ..."
    "... The U.S. has a lengthy, very sordid history of leaping into the fray in areas such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central America and Afghanistan, among others - all with catastrophic results, for which we never seemed to have a credible, well- crafted plan, nor have we ever comprehended the millennia of internecine tribal hatred and sectarian warfare. ..."
    "... I am more scared of US diplomats and politicians than terrorists! Have they learned nothing from the US efforts to create western style democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (by supporting separatists att an early stage). The US diplomats proposal would ensure more chaos, death and prolonged wR. 38 % of the population are Alewits. They will be killed, Christians will be killed. ..."
    The New York Times

    ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 16 hours ago

    These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster?

    A few years ago, a diplomat who quit was complaining about Syria at a conference I attended. When I asked who would fill the void if Assad was deposed he said, "That is a difficult question to answer." What he really meant to say is, "I don't have a clue."

    We have already disrupted Syria by supporting rebels/terrorists. The region cannot tolerate another Iraq.

    Dan Stewart, NYC 16 hours ago

    Are you a bit confused as to who these neocon dissenters at State support in the Syrian civil war?

    Here's a helpful hint:

    If they have beards down to their belt buckles and seem to be hollering something about Allah, those are the guys the neocons support.

    If they're recently shaved and wearing Western attire, in other words, if they look like anyone you might bump into on a US city street, those are the people the neocons call the enemy.


    Retroatavist,
    DC 10 hours ago

    This is simply a roll call of neocon diplomats making a case for another non-strategic war that would badly hurt US interests. It does not represent State Department policy. The neocons have been very persistent in securing career appointments at State for decades now. It's as if we hadn't forgotten the endless horrible mess they got us and the rest of the world into by breaking Iraq and destroying all its institutions with the insane de-baathification policy. And it all started with a similar steady drumbeat for war throughout the mid and late '90s and up to the 2003 disastrous invasion. Did we not learn anything? Really: Whose interest would an open US war against Assad really serve, and what predictable outcome would be in the US's strategic favor?

    Robert Sawyer, New York, New York 14 hours ago

    How many among the 51 are members of "Hillary's Legions, " the same geniuses responsible for the unqualified success we achieved in Libya?

    Gennady, Rhinebeck 16 hours ago

    Stop this irresponsible reporting. You are pushing the world closer to war. Humanitarian support is all we should bring to the Syrian people, regardless of which side they are on.

    ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC

    These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster?

    A few years ago, a diplomat who quit was complaining about Syria at a conference I attended. When I asked who would fill the void if Assad was deposed he said, "That is a difficult question to answer." What he really meant to say is, "I don't have a clue."

    We have already disrupted Syria by supporting rebels/terrorists. The region cannot tolerate another Iraq.

    Alyoshak, Durant, OK

    Isn't Congress supposed to declare war, and the President command our armed forces when such declarations occur? But what is intolerable about the position of the 51 "diplomats" in the memo is that it is their (failed) efforts to dislodge Assad by proxy, facilitating and organizing the flow of arms that more often than ended up in the hands of hard-line jihadists, that has led to almost 400,000 deaths (not to mention wounded) and the flight of over a million refugees. But no, these casualties have nothing to do with our attempts at regime change, No!, the blame for them lies squarely upon Assad for not scooting out of town immediately and submissively when the U.S. decided it was time for him to go. So now we're supposed to double-down on a deeply immoral and flawed strategy? How many more Syrians' lives must be ruined to "save" them from Assad?

    Everyman, USA 16 hours ago

    Wow, sounds like some housecleaning is needed at State. Whatever happened to jaw-jaw being better than war-war? If they are so keen on military action, they're in the wrong building. I'm sure some of the overworked troops and officers in the armed forces would be happy to let these guys take a few of the chances of getting shot or blown up that they deal with daily.

    Dan, Alexandria 16 hours ago

    It is troubling that the State Department, long a bulwark of common sense against America's foreign adventurism, has become as hawkish as its former head, Hillary Clinton.

    I am grateful to President Obama for resisting this foolishness, but make no mistake, no matter who gets into office in January, the kind of farcical, counterproductive, unrealistic "limited engagement" advocated by these so-called diplomats will be our future. Clinton is champing at the bit for it, and Trump is too weak to do anything but go along with it.

    Clark M. Shanahan, Oak Park, Illinois 16 hours ago

    Sadly, they'll most likely have a more accommodating commander and chief with HRC.

    The Middle East Institute is financed, primarily, by the petroleum and arms industries. The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy has HRC's close ally, Dennis Ross; who, with Martin Indyk, founded AIPAC in the mid-80's.

    This group's contention that direct confrontation with Russia could be avoided echoes their 2002 claim that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a three month cake walk.

    Paul Cohen, is a trusted commenter Hartford CT 15 hours ago

    Since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in the projection and use of force (covert and overt) as the primary means to achieve whatever goals the executive office seeks. It placed the world on notice that the U.S. was ready and willing to use violence to back its foreign policy objectives. Just as in Vietnam and before the disastrous decision to escalate the use of ground forces, President Johnson's national security advisors (all holdovers from Kennedy's Presidency) pressed Johnson to use aerial bombardment against N. Vietnam to induce them to seek a negotiated peace that would allow the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict and save face while preserving the policy of projecting force as a means to maintain world order in accordance with U.S. designs.

    Nixon carried on this bombing for peace strategy to insane war crime level. This heavy reliance on military force over a diplomatic solution has never worked. It didn't work for our knee-jerk response to 9/11 by immediately resorting to military force without first thinking through the consequences. We are now into our 15th year of aggression against the Muslim World. The time is long past due to question our failed policy and seek an alternative solution.

    Bud, McKinney, Texas 16 hours ago

    My oldest son is now completing his sixth Afghan/Iraq tour.I don't want him in Syria. Let these 51 diplomats volunteer their sons/daughters for Syria.That'll demonstrate their commitment.I'll bet not one of these 51 "geniuses" has a child on active military duty in Iraq/Afghan.

    Abu Charlie, Toronto, Ontario 14 hours ago

    These folks are, it appears, mid-level foreign service officers like I was. They are utterly unqualified to make these judgements as the Department of State is a failed organization culturally and functionally. Like HRC, who is still advocating for forced regime change if she wins, they have learned nothing from the past and again have no answer for what follows Asad being deposed. A majority Sunni regime in Syria will tear Iraq apart and there is no likelihood of it avoiding the trajectory of other "pluralistic" Arab state attempts. The fact that State has no culture of strategic analysis informing operational design and operational planning which, in turn, spawn series of tactical events, comes clear in situations like this. Doing nothing is the best case here. Tragic but still the best case. President Obama has seen this. Asad needs to regain control of Syria's territory, all of it. Feeding the hopes of the Ahmed Chalabi equivalents in Syria is perpetuating the violence. And, there is no room for an independent Kurdistan in the region, nor is it in the United States' interest for there to be one.

    AR, is a trusted commenter Virginia 15 hours ago

    How undiplomatic. I don't care that these people are diplomats and that many of them probably have impeccable academic pedigrees with degrees from the usual suspects such as the Ivy League schools, SAIS, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and Kennedy. That's the same class of people who figured that invading in Iraq in 2003 would turn out all right. Obama is correct to ignore these people, who more often than not are possessed by the notion of American Exceptionalism. Exhibit A being Samantha Power, the latest in a long line of militaristic, European-born white Americans (see Albright, Kissinger, Brzezinski) who believe that American firepower can bring order to the world.

    Let this be made clear: Any escalation of American involvement in Syria will be interpreted as 1) an attempt to enhance the national security of Israel, 2) a means of benefiting the revenue stream of the American military industrial complex, or 3) both. Only the most naive and foolish people, since the absolutely disastrous events of 2003, would be inclined to believe that American military intervention in Syria is motivated mainly by humanitarian impulses.

    Sorry hawkish diplomats, but you're living in a fantasyland where the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not permanently tarnish the image of the USA and wreck its credibility as an honest arbiter. That is the reality all US presidents will have to face in the post-Bush 43 era.

    Robert Roth, NYC 14 hours ago

    Everyone closes their eyes and imagines all the bloodshed they will prevent by all the bloodshed they will cause.

    Samsara, The West 16 hours ago

    Have Iraq and Libya taught these State Department officials NOTHING??

    Simon, Tampa 15 hours ago

    The neo-cons who love regime change that never works. Let us examine their track record:

    Iraq - a mess and infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda.
    Libya - now an anarchist state infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda.
    Yemen - bombing and murdering thousands of innocents and Al Qaeda.

    Syria, the only secular Arab state, destroyed and infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda. The only reason Syria hasn't completely fallen apart is thanks to Assad and his Sunni dominated army, Iran, and the Russians. So of course, these neo-cons want to complete the job at the behest of the money they will be getting from the Saudis and the other Gulf States.

    Don't worry you warmongering greedy neocon, Hillary Clinton is one of you and will be president soon enough.

    Title Holder, Fl 15 hours ago

    Are those 51 U.S. Diplomats responsible for advising the Obama Administration to bomb Libya back in 2011? Apparently they have not learned from their mistakes. Or maybe they should just go work for their true Employer, The Military Industrial Complex.

    Andrea, New Jersey 15 hours ago

    This is reckless and irresponsible. US backed "moderates" are fighting elbow to elbow with the Nusra Front and other radicals groups; that is why the cease-fire is collapsing. Syrians and Russians can not split hairs on the battlefield.

    If we weaken Assad, Islamists will take over Damascus and if Damascus falls, soon Beirut will follow. These folk at State are neo cons, as usual shooting from the hip.

    Jett Rink, lafayette, la 15 hours ago

    Here's the thing most people don't get about ISIS. They thrive on us being involved in the Middle East. They are willing to kill other Muslims in order to keep us involved. As long as we are there, terrorism will persist, over there and here too. They are playing us like chumps. They use our tendency to knee-jerk reactions against us. They're out smarting us at every juncture.

    Of course it's human nature to want to help people in such dire straights. But that's exactly what ISIS wants, and correctly predict, that we'll do. So as long as they out-think us, they'll continue to win.

    If you want to help the innocent people caught in the cross-hairs of ISIS, the best thing we could possibly do is pack up and leave. There'll be some more carnage, but eventually the backlash from within will force them to stop the wrecking and killing. Many people will die, but in the end, the tally would be far fewer.

    Their goal is to keep us engaged. Ours should be to get out! As long as we stay, they win. And that's how they're able to convince long-wolf's to strike us here, even when here is home to them too.

    Joane Johnson, Cleveland, Ohio 15 hours ago

    Vietnam, 212,000 dead and countless north and south Vietnamese and citizens. Unjust and unwarranted war on Iraq with 4,491 and counting dead and countess Iraqi citizens. Now, Syria? Are you wanting the draft returned? You asking for boots on the ground? How about you 50 join up. I will willingly pay for taxes just arm you and send you in. Along with every other know it all who wants us 'TO DO MORE'!! Spare me. You have learned NOTHING in your past failures, have you? 1956, Iran. Cause the over throw of a duly elected government for the Shahs which led to 1980 revolution to fear of them acquiring nuclear weapons. Vietnam led to 'WHAT'? Now Iraq.

    The worse destabilization in that area I can remember. Not even during their many attacks on Israel when Egypt got a clue. Fire Saddam Hussein's soldiers and they become ISIS by 2006, yet one bright senator lied and said Obama caused them when we left which was President Bush's treaty Maliki. They did not want us there. Leave per the Iraqi people, also. When ISIS showed up they ran and left the weaponry we gave them and the money in the banks for them to grab. Now, you want us steeped into Syria. It's been said, hindsight is 20/20,

    In these so called diplomats cases, it is totally and legally blind. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles has a better perception and one of them is dead.

    Bev, New York 16 hours ago

    Yes the war machine wants more wars. Who will take the place of the evil Assad? We have removed a number of evil dictators in that area of the world and all it has done is sap our resources, killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, made millions hate us, and created vacuums of power which are then filled with Saudi-assisted ISIS - AND profited our war machine (that's the important part!) We need less involvement in the Mideast, not more. Bring them all home and start transitioning from a war economy to an economy that serves the American citizens here.

    ME, Toronto 13 hours ago

    Thank goodness Obama kept his head and didn't (and hopefully won't) listen to such crazy advice. To call the signers "diplomats" is a real stretch. It seems that somewhere back in time various U.S. "diplomats" decided that they have the right to decide who and what the government should be in various jurisdictions throughout the world. Of course this is motivated by purely humanitarian concerns and love of democracy and not the self-interest of the U.S., as in having a friendly government in place. As despicable as some governments are, the lessons over many years now should be that military strikes are just as (maybe more) likely to produce something bad as anything good. Better to talk and try to influence the development of nations through positive reinforcement (as Obama has done in Iran). Undoubtedly this is a slow and somewhat frustrating process but that is something real "diplomats" should be good at. If this process had been pursued in Syria we would all be better off today and especially the Syrian people.

    Mitchell, New York 16 hours ago

    I assume these people at State also believe in the Tooth Fairy. The fantasy of "moderate" rebels who will be grateful to us after they depose a tyrant and put in a fair democratic government that takes into account all of our Western ideals and freedoms is so unrealistic that these people at State need to find a job where their last words are, "Can I supersize that for you?" Our involvement in the Middle East displacing despots and replacing them with chaos has been the biggest disaster in foreign policy in many decades. Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and even Syria (remember the line in the sand?). We should join with Russia in destroying ISIS and use our leverage to push Assad to make some level of concessions.

    Dan, Sandy, UT 15 hours ago

    Here we go again. The war hawks, so comfortably away from the battle, are banging those drums of war again. Easy to do when your life and the lives of your fellow military are not at risk.

    Second thought, as stated by a political comedian/satirist, let the Middle East take its own trash out.
    I couldn't agree more.

    blackmamba, IL 16 hours ago

    Since 9/11/01 only 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on the military of any American armed force. They have been ground to emotional, mental and physical dust by repeated deployments. Getting rid of Arab dictators has unleashed foreign ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational civil wars that cannot be resolved by American military power.

    Assad is an Arab civil secular dictator. Just like many of Americas Arab allies and unlike those American Arab allies who are Islamic royal fossil fuel tyrants. But Assad is an Alawite Shia Muslim allied with Russia. The alternatives to Assad are al Qaeda, ISIL and al Nusra. Diplomats need to stick to diplomacy.

    Jo Boost, Midlands 16 hours ago

    This situation is not that simple.

    There is not -as people in Washington who know better have told for years now- one big bad wolf called Assad preying and devouring all poor little peaceful lambs (who, accidentally, have been armed to their teeth by a certain Ms. Clinton and her Saudi friends - even with poison gas which was, then, blamed on the said Assad).
    We have here a follow-up civil war to the (also US started) one in Libya.

    Let us just look at International Law, as understood since the Nuremberg Trials:

    We all know now that the invasion of Iraq by Mr. Bush junior was a) a mistake, and b) a War Crime - there were no threatening WMDs nor did Saddam hold hads with Al Quaeda (he was, actually, their worst enemy - and our security!), so, Iraq was c) total stupidity. It was an aggressive war without any cause - for the USA!
    But a great cause for Saudi "Royals" whose cousins had been thrown out of Iraq, which is good enough cause, in Arab customs, for a bloody feud and revenge.
    The same applies to Syria, and could one, therefore, still wonder why ISIL was so well equipped for the follow-up (envisaged) invasion?

    Libya was a danger for Saudi Autocrates, because a secular Arab country with such a living standard from fair distribution of oil wealth would be a dangerous advertisement for a Mother of All Arab Springs in the desert.

    So, we have one side with interest - and one without any - but the latter does the dirty work. Is there more than one tail that wags the US dog?

    Bonnie Rothman, NYC 13 hours ago

    How brilliant---not! And what do these 50 people expect to happen if and when Assad falls, chaos prevails and ISIS rushes in? Not to mention the immediate nasty confrontation with Putin. This isn't 1941 and big Armies and big bombs are useless, USELESS against ISIS which operates like cancer cells in the human body. And the last time we toppled a tyrant we midwived the ISIS group which is funded by the Saudis which is funded by our own use of oil. Don't you dopes ever read history and see the "whole" problem? Sheesh.

    Prof. Jai Prakash Sharma, is a trusted commenter Jaipur, India. 16 hours ago

    Given the complexity of the Syrian crisis and the multipower stakes involved in Syria, it would be foolish for the US to direct its unilateral military fury at toppling the Assad regime ignoring its fall out and the military financial cost to the US itself, specially when except for meeting the common challenge and threat of the ISIS no direct national interests are at stake for the US in Syria. The state department's dissenting memo to the President seems an attempt by the vested interests to further complicate President Obama's Middle East policy that's on the right track following the Iran deal.

    Dennis Sullivan, NYC 16 hours ago

    This is much more about what Mark Landler thinks than about what those generic diplomats think. The Times's principal hawk, Landler has book and a series of articles pushing his neocon view. I guess we should assume the Times agrees.


    Rudolf, New York 7 hours ago

    Having spent substantial time as a private consultant at the US Embassy in Kabul I was shocked by the lack of feelings of midlevel officials there with regard to the dead and injuries of American Troops. The Embassy shared a wall with the ISAF/NATO Main Quarters and every single day the US Flag there was half-mast to acknowledge the dead of our troops on that day in that country. The Embassy never shared this sadness and all midlevel officials there were only concerned about their paycheck, quality of meals served, having a drink, going for a swim, and their frequent trips back to the US; for such people wanting to have a say in when to fight in Syria is a sad state of affair.

    pat knapp, milwaukee 16 hours ago

    Perhaps we should figure out one take-down before we move on to the next. After 13 years, we still haven't figured out life in Iraq without Saddam. Any thoughts, neocons, on what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows?

    Mike Edwards, Providence, RI 16 hours ago

    In what way do the views of the State Department officials in ISIS differ from those in the US State Department who signed this memo?

    Recent terrorist attacks in France and the US have been inspired by ISIS, not Mr. Assad. ISIS is our enemy right now. Let Mr. Assad do what he can to eliminate them.

    And haven't we learnt that the removal of a head of State, be it in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya does not lead to an improvement; it actually causes an outright deterioration.

    Finally, please let's also do away with this twaddle about "moderate" forces being present in the Middle East, ready to enact our fantasy of what a peaceful Middle East should be like. They don't exist in the Middle East. Ask the Israelis. Those moderates that do exist seem to serve one purpose, which is to hand over the weapons supplied to them by the West to the terrorists.

    I wish the signatories would have had the guts to spell it out. The Middle East is home to a number of weal nations, a situation the stronger ones don't wish to correct. The only solution would be for the West to take over the running of those countries and provide for their policing and defense, as once the West leaves, a vacuum is created allowing terrorist groups to proliferate.

    I doubt there is any appetite in the West for such a cause.

    Donald, Yonkers 16 hours ago

    Interesting how these " moderate" Syrian rebels so often fight alongside al Nusra.

    The death toll in Syria is as high as it is because the rebels have outside help, Somehow no one in the American mainstream, including the NYT, ever points this out. Incidently, note how the NYT always uses the largest estimates for the death toll-- quite different from what they did in Iraq.

    Nick Metrowsky, is a trusted commenter Longmont, Colorado 17 hours ago

    Get Rid of Assad, make relations with Russia worse (they back Assad) and allow ISIS to effectively take over Syria. Sounds like a great plan. I guess our military-industrial complex is getting itchy for a new war. And, of course, doing what these diplomats want will also result in putting boots on the ground. This will be a great legacy for Ms. Clinton (under her watch ISIS came into being), Mr. Kerry (who continued Clinton's failed legacy) and Mr. Obama (the Nobel Peace Prize president; who wasn't).

    So, guess what? The US starts bombing Syria, Assad will use human shields. ISIS is already using human shields. So, the US will have more innocent blood on their hands. Of course, the US follows through with these diplomats idea, ISIS, and their allies, will increase the risk of terrorism attacks in the US. More mass shootings and bombings.

    Of course, in an election year, the political rhetoric will be pushed up a notch between the two wonderful people now running for president. Both who are more than willing to love the diplomat's idea to show they are "strong". Mr. Obama may or may not follow through, but he hand may be forced. Clinton or Trump will go after him, as both would pull the trigger first and ask questions later.

    But, rest assured,. if you feel that a terrorist is lurking around each corner now, just wait until the US decides that getting in the middle of the Syrian civil war is some warped good idea.

    Diplomacy can be messy, as can politics.

    Dan Stewart, NYC 16 hours ago

    The signers of the dissent letter are militarist neocons (of the Victoria Nuland ilk). More than any other, these people and their CIA collaborators are responsible for the death and destruction in Syria and the ensuing refugee crisis. They can't even give a cogent reason for deposing Assad other than point to the carnage of the civil war they fomented-as if Assad were solely responsible. Assad is acting no differently than the US did during it's own Civil War.

    For five years the US has been promoting Muslim extremists in Syria that move with fluidity between the ranks of ISIL, al Nusra, al Qeada, etc. There are no reliable "moderates" in Syria. The best hope for a stable Syria lies only with Bashar Assad, the secular Western-trained optometrist (and his J.P. Morgan investment banker wife, Asma), who has kept Syria stable and free of terrorists for decades.

    To end the killing in Syria, and to defeat ISIL, the US should immediately stop arming and funding the Islamic jihadists trying to overthrow the Assad government and join with Russia to support Assad's military in regaining control over all Syrian territory and borders.

    CT View, CT 17 hours ago

    The value of the memo can be summed up in one sentence as described in the article itself "what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power - a scenario that the draft memo does not address."

    Why on earth would we support deposing a secular dictator who has multi-ethnic multi-religious support in favor of a non-secular/ie religious leadership that has no moderates...remember we tried to train vetted moderates, we found about 2 dozen and gave up on the program after half were killed and the rest defected to the radicals WITH THE WEAPONS WE SUPPLIED. Perhaps, since the military is anti-intervention and these diplomats are pro-intervention, the diplomats can take the front line...would that change their opinion?

    Gimme Shelter, 123 Happy Street 17 hours ago

    I wonder about the arrogance of these mid-level State Department foreign service officers. Do they think the National Security Council hasn't considered all options with respect to the use of air power to affect the political situation in Syria? Do they think the President is unaware of the what is required to stem the humanitarian crisis? How certain are they that their recommendations will lead to their desired outcome? Do they not realize their actions undermine the commander in chief in effectively addressing these issues?

    Sure -- a few well-placed cruise missiles will make it all good. Yeah, right.

    Wayne, Lake Conroe, Tx 7 hours ago

    Absolutely amazing. My first question is who released this memo? Having a back channel does not permit anyone to unilaterally decide to release information that could cost lives and ruin negotiations that the releasing person knows nothing about. If you do not like the chain of command, then leave. We cannot continue to be involved in sectarian conflicts that cannot be resolved except by the combatants. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Vietnam? No neocon insanity. We have lost enough lives and treasure in the ME.

    Chagrined, La Jolla, CA 10 hours ago

    Are these the same ingrates who urged Bush to attack Iraq - his legacy - ISIS!

    Real Americans don't want any more squandered blood and treasure in wars in the Middle East!

    It is sad that our tax dollars pay the salaries for these insidious State Department war mongering fools. How many neocons are among them?

    The war in Syria is tragic as was the war in Iraq. Even more tragic would be more squandered American blood and treasure.

    Fifteen hundred American Jews joined the IDF terrorists to commit the "Gaza Genocide." Perhaps they will volunteer to go to Syria.??

    President Obama has the intellect, sophistication and morals not to repeat the mistakes of the Bush administration. These State Department rank and file are obviously attempting to undermine him just as many members of congress attempted to undermine him by supporting Netanyahu and Israel during the Iran Diplomacy debate. Betraying America has become sport for so many insidious ingrates. America deserves better!

    xtian, Tallahassee 11 hours ago

    As a 26 year Marine Corps combat veteran I have a hard time trying to figure out what is going on here, and a harder time not becoming totally disgusted with our State Department.

    So these 51 mid-level diplomates want to bomb a bit more, and that is going to do what????? And how will that bring peace to that region of the world? Oh, and by the way, the Department of Defense is not in agreement with that course of action. How wonderful.

    My suggestion would be that we arm these 51 individuals, given them a week's worth of ammunition and rations, and drop them into Syria, I am sure they can lead the way in showing us how to solve the mess in the ME.

    David Henry, Concord 17 hours ago

    War is easy to do. Ask "W."

    Lives matter! These "diplomats" should be fired.

    Yinka Martins, New York, NY 17 hours ago

    It's the fact that these are not "widely known names" which scares me most. However, Western-instituted regime change in that region has proven disastrous in every single country it has been tried. If possible, I would investigate these diplomats' ties to defense contractors.

    PKJharkhand, Australia 7 hours ago

    US intervention created the rubble and hell that is now Syria. When Assad had full control of Syria, the human rights of the people of Syria suffered under him but many if not most people led a civilised life. They had water and electricity. Past US interventions created Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. To puy it simply, life expectancy in all these countries dropped by 20 to 30 years after the US intervened, each time with the highest utopian ideals, and increased the power of Sunni supremacists after each act.

    Jai Goodman, SF Bay Area 7 hours ago

    These "diplomats" should instead be urging US to pressure Turkey and Saudi to stop supporting terrorists in the region. Both Al Nusra and ISIS. That'll be the right step.

    Thank you.

    cml, pittsburgh, pa 10 hours ago

    How many of these are the same (or same sort) of "wise" men that advised ignoring our weapon's inspectors and invading Iraq? They're living inside an echo chamber. In a world of imperfect choices I would prefer Assad to the Nusra Front or ISIL, as apparently our president does as well.

    Lawrence, Washington D.C. 15 hours ago

    How many of those 51 diplomats haves served in front line units and seen combat? How many have their children in uniform? They wouldn't allow it.
    Each bombing mission costs more than a million dollars, and we live in a nation of Chiraq and Orlando.
    We have more pressing needs at home, and you can't fix stupid mixed with superstition, topped with hatred.
    These diplomats want to continue to strap suicide vests on the rest of us, while they sip champagne.
    Out now, no more of our children wasted for corporate profits.

    John, San Francisco 15 hours ago

    50 employees? There are approximately 24,000 employees in the state department. That's 0.002833%. Not really a significant voice. Don't listen.


    Vanessa Hall, is a trusted commenter Millersburg MO 13 hours ago

    Reminds me of those 47 idiots in the House who signed on to the warmonger Tom Cotton's treasonous letter.

    John Townsend, Mexico 15 hours ago

    Let's not forget that Bush's hasty appointment of Paul Bremer as the hapless Governor of Iraq following the defeat of Hussein's military regime led immediately to the disbanding of the entire Iraqi military, an incredibly short-sighted and reckless move that essentially unleashed 400,000 young trained fighters (including a honed officers corps) absent support programs to assimilate back into Iraqi society, only to have them emerge as readily available fodder essential for ISIS's marshalling a strong military force almost overnight. A huge price is now being exacted for this astounding stupidity.

    Hobart, Los Angeles, CA 7 hours ago

    This is conveniently laying grounds for Hillary's grand comeback to the theatre of "humanitarian interventionism" in the Middle East. God help us all, as this is a prelude to the WW3.

    rice pritchard, nashville, tennessee 12 hours ago

    Wow the neo-cons are beating the war drums yet again! They have already created a huge mess throughout the Middle East with wars and revolutions directly attributable to the United States in invading Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses, helping overthrow the government in Libya, and arming rebels in Syria and Yemen. Apparently no regime that does not knuckle under to the U.S. war machine is "fair game". This turmoil is sending millions of refugees fleeing their homeland, many trying to swamp Europe, but the arm chair warriors in the diplomatic corps, Congress, Wall Street, and the military contractors still cry for more intervention, more bombing, more blockades, more invasions, etc.! Sheer madness! The more America meddle in the Middle East the worse things become and unrest and fighting spread. Unfortunately if Hillary Clinton wins, she is a neo-con puppet and we will be at war in Syria and/or Iran within a year or two. God help us!

    xmas, Delaware 13 hours ago

    HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST????? When people demand an invasion of a foreign country, can they please add the total cost of the bill to their request? Instead of saying "we need to invade," can they say, "I want your support to spend $1.7 trillion for invading this other country for humanitarian reasons. Oh, by the way, sorry, about all the cuts to domestic spending. We just don't have the money." We spent $1.7 TRILLION on Iraq. $1.7 TRILLION. I can think of several things I would have preferred to spend a fraction of that on. I'm sure you can too.

    Robert G. McKee, Lindenhurst, NY 12 hours ago

    This is a very interesting development within the walls of the State Department. There seems to be much enthusiasm for escalating war in the Middle East. My only question is does this enthusiasm extend to the deaths and maiming of these same State Department officials' children and grandchildren? Or do they propose that other people's children should die pursuing their high ideals in this endless and fruitless religious civil war in Syria?

    Kathy, Flemington, NJ 13 hours ago

    First of all, if this was a channel for employees to share "candidly and privately" about policy concerns, why is it on the front page of the NY Times? Additionally, as usual, it seems the war hawks are hawking war without thought for what comes next. We've done this most recently in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, all of which are now failed states and havens for terrorists. Because this seems rather obvious, either we are pathologically incapable of learning from past mistakes, or there are people who have an agenda different from the publicly stated one.

    Rebecca Rabinowitz, . 13 hours ago

    The U.S. has a lengthy, very sordid history of leaping into the fray in areas such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central America and Afghanistan, among others - all with catastrophic results, for which we never seemed to have a credible, well- crafted plan, nor have we ever comprehended the millennia of internecine tribal hatred and sectarian warfare. We have "been there, done that" countless times, at the cost of our precious military blood and treasure, and incurring the enmity of hundreds of millions of people. I empathize with the frustration of these State Department employees - but apparently, they do not recall our overthrow of the Shah of Iran when it suited our "cause du jour," or our fraudulent "domino theory" in Vietnam, or the hard reality that no one has ever successfully invaded or "governed" Afghanistan, not to mention being able to battle ideology with weapons. The President has already presided over significant mission creep in the Iraq cesspool left by the Cheney-Bush neo-con crowd. His judicious caution is to be lauded when it comes to Syria. Are these mid-level State Department employees advocating a war against Vladimir Putin?

    Yngve Frey, Sweden 12 hours ago

    I am more scared of US diplomats and politicians than terrorists! Have they learned nothing from the US efforts to create western style democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (by supporting separatists att an early stage). The US diplomats proposal would ensure more chaos, death and prolonged wR. 38 % of the population are Alewits. They will be killed, Christians will be killed.

    The only way will probably be to work with Russia and force other opposition groups to sign a peace agreement. Then we should arrange an intensive training course for US diplomats as well as Syrian leaders: "There is no final truth: we have to learn the art of tolerance and accept to live in a society where people you don't agree with also can live."

    [Jun 18, 2016] 51 US Diplomats Urge Strikes Against Assad in Syria

    51 neocons warmongers, who need to be send to Afghanistan for some on site learning. Nuland's birds of feather try to get worm places in Hillary new administration, playing on her war hawk tendencies... Those "diplomats" forgot about the existence of Saudis and other theocracies which are much more brutal and less democratic, viewing woman as domestic animals. These are dark times for American foreign policy. the easy part is to depose Assad. But what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows?
    Notable quotes:
    "... These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster? ..."
    "... Are you a bit confused as to who these neocon dissenters at State support in the Syrian civil war? ..."
    "... This is simply a roll call of neocon diplomats making a case for another non-strategic war that would badly hurt US interests. It does not represent State Department policy. The neocons have been very persistent in securing career appointments at State for decades now. ..."
    "... You are pushing the world closer to war. ..."
    "... what is intolerable about the position of the 51 "diplomats" in the memo is that it is their (failed) efforts to dislodge Assad by proxy, facilitating and organizing the flow of arms that more often than ended up in the hands of hard-line jihadists, that has led to almost 400,000 deaths (not to mention wounded) and the flight of over a million refugees. ..."
    "... Wow, sounds like some housecleaning is needed at State. Whatever happened to jaw-jaw being better than war-war? If they are so keen on military action, they're in the wrong building. I'm sure some of the overworked troops and officers in the armed forces would be happy to let these guys take a few of the chances of getting shot or blown up that they deal with daily. ..."
    "... It is troubling that the State Department, long a bulwark of common sense against America's foreign adventurism, has become as hawkish as its former head, Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... The Middle East Institute is financed, primarily, by the petroleum and arms industries. The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy has HRC's close ally, Dennis Ross; who, with Martin Indyk, founded AIPAC in the mid-80's. ..."
    "... This group's contention that direct confrontation with Russia could be avoided echoes their 2002 claim that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a three month cake walk. ..."
    "... Since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in the projection and use of force (covert and overt) as the primary means to achieve whatever goals the executive office seeks. It placed the world on notice that the U.S. was ready and willing to use violence to back its foreign policy objectives. Just as in Vietnam and before the disastrous decision to escalate the use of ground forces, President Johnson's national security advisors (all holdovers from Kennedy's Presidency) pressed Johnson to use aerial bombardment against N. Vietnam to induce them to seek a negotiated peace that would allow the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict and save face while preserving the policy of projecting force as a means to maintain world order in accordance with U.S. designs. ..."
    "... My oldest son is now completing his sixth Afghan/Iraq tour.I don't want him in Syria. Let these 51 diplomats volunteer their sons/daughters for Syria.That'll demonstrate their commitment.I'll bet not one of these 51 "geniuses" has a child on active military duty in Iraq/Afghan. ..."
    "... These folks are, it appears, mid-level foreign service officers like I was. They are utterly unqualified to make these judgements as the Department of State is a failed organization culturally and functionally. Like HRC, who is still advocating for forced regime change if she wins, they have learned nothing from the past and again have no answer for what follows Asad being deposed. A majority Sunni regime in Syria will tear Iraq apart and there is no likelihood of it avoiding the trajectory of other "pluralistic" Arab state attempts. The fact that State has no culture of strategic analysis informing operational design and operational planning which, in turn, spawn series of tactical events, comes clear in situations like this. Doing nothing is the best case here. Tragic but still the best case. President Obama has seen this. Asad needs to regain control of Syria's territory, all of it. Feeding the hopes of the Ahmed Chalabi equivalents in Syria is perpetuating the violence. And, there is no room for an independent Kurdistan in the region, nor is it in the United States' interest for there to be one. ..."
    "... That's the same class of people who figured that invading in Iraq in 2003 would turn out all right. ..."
    "... Exhibit A being Samantha Power, the latest in a long line of militaristic, European-born white Americans (see Albright, Kissinger, Brzezinski) who believe that American firepower can bring order to the world. ..."
    "... Sorry hawkish diplomats, but you're living in a fantasyland where the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not permanently tarnish the image of the USA and wreck its credibility as an honest arbiter. That is the reality all US presidents will have to face in the post-Bush 43 era. ..."
    "... Are those 51 U.S. Diplomats responsible for advising the Obama Administration to bomb Libya back in 2011? Apparently they have not learned from their mistakes. Or maybe they should just go work for their true Employer, The Military Industrial Complex. ..."
    "... This is reckless and irresponsible. US backed "moderates" are fighting elbow to elbow with the Nusra Front and other radicals groups; that is why the cease-fire is collapsing. ..."
    "... If we weaken Assad, Islamists will take over Damascus and if Damascus falls, soon Beirut will follow. These folk at State are neo cons, as usual shooting from the hip. ..."
    "... Vietnam, 212,000 dead and countless north and south Vietnamese and citizens. Unjust and unwarranted war on Iraq with 4,491 and counting dead and countess Iraqi citizens. Now, Syria? Are you wanting the draft returned? You asking for boots on the ground? How about you 50 join up. I will willingly pay for taxes just arm you and send you in. Along with every other know it all who wants us 'TO DO MORE'!! Spare me. You have learned NOTHING in your past failures, have you? 1956, Iran. Cause the over throw of a duly elected government for the Shahs which led to 1980 revolution to fear of them acquiring nuclear weapons. Vietnam led to 'WHAT'? Now Iraq. ..."
    "... The worse destabilization in that area I can remember. Not even during their many attacks on Israel when Egypt got a clue. Fire Saddam Hussein's soldiers and they become ISIS by 2006, yet one bright senator lied and said Obama caused them when we left which was President Bush's treaty Maliki. They did not want us there. Leave per the Iraqi people, also. When ISIS showed up they ran and left the weaponry we gave them and the money in the banks for them to grab. Now, you want us steeped into Syria. It's been said, hindsight is 20/20, ..."
    "... In these so called diplomats cases, it is totally and legally blind. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles has a better perception and one of them is dead. ..."
    "... The war hawks, so comfortably away from the battle, are banging those drums of war again. Easy to do when your life and the lives of your fellow military are not at risk. ..."
    "... We all know now that the invasion of Iraq by Mr. Bush junior was a) a mistake, and b) a War Crime - there were no threatening WMDs nor did Saddam hold hads with Al Quaeda (he was, actually, their worst enemy - and our security!), so, Iraq was c) total stupidity. It was an aggressive war without any cause - for the USA! ..."
    "... This is much more about what Mark Landler thinks than about what those generic diplomats think. The Times's principal hawk, Landler has book and a series of articles pushing his neocon view. I guess we should assume the Times agrees. ..."
    "... Having spent substantial time as a private consultant at the US Embassy in Kabul I was shocked by the lack of feelings of midlevel officials there with regard to the dead and injuries of American Troops. The Embassy shared a wall with the ISAF/NATO Main Quarters and every single day the US Flag there was half-mast to acknowledge the dead of our troops on that day in that country. The Embassy never shared this sadness and all midlevel officials there were only concerned about their paycheck, quality of meals served, having a drink, going for a swim, and their frequent trips back to the US; for such people wanting to have a say in when to fight in Syria is a sad state of affair. ..."
    "... Perhaps we should figure out one take-down before we move on to the next. After 13 years, we still haven't figured out life in Iraq without Saddam. Any thoughts, neocons, on what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows? ..."
    "... Get Rid of Assad, make relations with Russia worse (they back Assad) and allow ISIS to effectively take over Syria. Sounds like a great plan. I guess our military-industrial complex is getting itchy for a new war. And, of course, doing what these diplomats want will also result in putting boots on the ground. This will be a great legacy for Ms. Clinton (under her watch ISIS came into being), Mr. Kerry (who continued Clinton's failed legacy) and Mr. Obama (the Nobel Peace Prize president; who wasn't). ..."
    "... The signers of the dissent letter are militarist neocons (of the Victoria Nuland ilk). More than any other, these people and their CIA collaborators are responsible for the death and destruction in Syria and the ensuing refugee crisis. They can't even give a cogent reason for deposing Assad other than point to the carnage of the civil war they fomented-as if Assad were solely responsible. Assad is acting no differently than the US did during it's own Civil War. ..."
    "... The value of the memo can be summed up in one sentence as described in the article itself "what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power - a scenario that the draft memo does not address." ..."
    "... I wonder about the arrogance of these mid-level State Department foreign service officers. ..."
    "... Sure -- a few well-placed cruise missiles will make it all good. Yeah, right. ..."
    "... Absolutely amazing. My first question is who released this memo? Having a back channel does not permit anyone to unilaterally decide to release information that could cost lives and ruin negotiations that the releasing person knows nothing about. If you do not like the chain of command, then leave. We cannot continue to be involved in sectarian conflicts that cannot be resolved except by the combatants. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Vietnam? No neocon insanity. We have lost enough lives and treasure in the ME. ..."
    "... Are these the same ingrates who urged Bush to attack Iraq - his legacy - ISIS! ..."
    "... As a 26 year Marine Corps combat veteran I have a hard time trying to figure out what is going on here, and a harder time not becoming totally disgusted with our State Department. ..."
    "... My suggestion would be that we arm these 51 individuals, given them a week's worth of ammunition and rations, and drop them into Syria, I am sure they can lead the way in showing us how to solve the mess in the ME. ..."
    "... It's the fact that these are not "widely known names" which scares me most. However, Western-instituted regime change in that region has proven disastrous in every single country it has been tried. If possible, I would investigate these diplomats' ties to defense contractors. ..."
    "... US intervention created the rubble and hell that is now Syria. When Assad had full control of Syria, the human rights of the people of Syria suffered under him but many if not most people led a civilised life. They had water and electricity. Past US interventions created Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. To puy it simply, life expectancy in all these countries dropped by 20 to 30 years after the US intervened, each time with the highest utopian ideals, and increased the power of Sunni supremacists after each act. ..."
    "... Let's not forget that Bush's hasty appointment of Paul Bremer as the hapless Governor of Iraq following the defeat of Hussein's military regime led immediately to the disbanding of the entire Iraqi military, an incredibly short-sighted and reckless move that essentially unleashed 400,000 young trained fighters (including a honed officers corps) absent support programs to assimilate back into Iraqi society, only to have them emerge as readily available fodder essential for ISIS's marshalling a strong military force almost overnight. A huge price is now being exacted for this astounding stupidity. ..."
    "... This is conveniently laying grounds for Hillary's grand comeback to the theatre of "humanitarian interventionism" in the Middle East. God help us all, as this is a prelude to the WW3. ..."
    "... Wow the neo-cons are beating the war drums yet again! They have already created a huge mess throughout the Middle East with wars and revolutions directly attributable to the United States in invading Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses, helping overthrow the government in Libya, and arming rebels in Syria and Yemen. ..."
    "... Unfortunately if Hillary Clinton wins, she is a neo-con puppet and we will be at war in Syria and/or Iran within a year or two. God help us! ..."
    "... First of all, if this was a channel for employees to share "candidly and privately" about policy concerns, why is it on the front page of the NY Times? Additionally, as usual, it seems the war hawks are hawking war without thought for what comes next. We've done this most recently in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, all of which are now failed states and havens for terrorists. Because this seems rather obvious, either we are pathologically incapable of learning from past mistakes, or there are people who have an agenda different from the publicly stated one. ..."
    "... The U.S. has a lengthy, very sordid history of leaping into the fray in areas such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central America and Afghanistan, among others - all with catastrophic results, for which we never seemed to have a credible, well- crafted plan, nor have we ever comprehended the millennia of internecine tribal hatred and sectarian warfare. ..."
    "... I am more scared of US diplomats and politicians than terrorists! Have they learned nothing from the US efforts to create western style democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (by supporting separatists att an early stage). The US diplomats proposal would ensure more chaos, death and prolonged wR. 38 % of the population are Alewits. They will be killed, Christians will be killed. ..."
    The New York Times

    ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 16 hours ago

    These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster?

    A few years ago, a diplomat who quit was complaining about Syria at a conference I attended. When I asked who would fill the void if Assad was deposed he said, "That is a difficult question to answer." What he really meant to say is, "I don't have a clue."

    We have already disrupted Syria by supporting rebels/terrorists. The region cannot tolerate another Iraq.

    Dan Stewart, NYC 16 hours ago

    Are you a bit confused as to who these neocon dissenters at State support in the Syrian civil war?

    Here's a helpful hint:

    If they have beards down to their belt buckles and seem to be hollering something about Allah, those are the guys the neocons support.

    If they're recently shaved and wearing Western attire, in other words, if they look like anyone you might bump into on a US city street, those are the people the neocons call the enemy.


    Retroatavist,
    DC 10 hours ago

    This is simply a roll call of neocon diplomats making a case for another non-strategic war that would badly hurt US interests. It does not represent State Department policy. The neocons have been very persistent in securing career appointments at State for decades now. It's as if we hadn't forgotten the endless horrible mess they got us and the rest of the world into by breaking Iraq and destroying all its institutions with the insane de-baathification policy. And it all started with a similar steady drumbeat for war throughout the mid and late '90s and up to the 2003 disastrous invasion. Did we not learn anything? Really: Whose interest would an open US war against Assad really serve, and what predictable outcome would be in the US's strategic favor?

    Robert Sawyer, New York, New York 14 hours ago

    How many among the 51 are members of "Hillary's Legions, " the same geniuses responsible for the unqualified success we achieved in Libya?

    Gennady, Rhinebeck 16 hours ago

    Stop this irresponsible reporting. You are pushing the world closer to war. Humanitarian support is all we should bring to the Syrian people, regardless of which side they are on.

    ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC

    These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster?

    A few years ago, a diplomat who quit was complaining about Syria at a conference I attended. When I asked who would fill the void if Assad was deposed he said, "That is a difficult question to answer." What he really meant to say is, "I don't have a clue."

    We have already disrupted Syria by supporting rebels/terrorists. The region cannot tolerate another Iraq.

    Alyoshak, Durant, OK

    Isn't Congress supposed to declare war, and the President command our armed forces when such declarations occur? But what is intolerable about the position of the 51 "diplomats" in the memo is that it is their (failed) efforts to dislodge Assad by proxy, facilitating and organizing the flow of arms that more often than ended up in the hands of hard-line jihadists, that has led to almost 400,000 deaths (not to mention wounded) and the flight of over a million refugees. But no, these casualties have nothing to do with our attempts at regime change, No!, the blame for them lies squarely upon Assad for not scooting out of town immediately and submissively when the U.S. decided it was time for him to go. So now we're supposed to double-down on a deeply immoral and flawed strategy? How many more Syrians' lives must be ruined to "save" them from Assad?

    Everyman, USA 16 hours ago

    Wow, sounds like some housecleaning is needed at State. Whatever happened to jaw-jaw being better than war-war? If they are so keen on military action, they're in the wrong building. I'm sure some of the overworked troops and officers in the armed forces would be happy to let these guys take a few of the chances of getting shot or blown up that they deal with daily.

    Dan, Alexandria 16 hours ago

    It is troubling that the State Department, long a bulwark of common sense against America's foreign adventurism, has become as hawkish as its former head, Hillary Clinton.

    I am grateful to President Obama for resisting this foolishness, but make no mistake, no matter who gets into office in January, the kind of farcical, counterproductive, unrealistic "limited engagement" advocated by these so-called diplomats will be our future. Clinton is champing at the bit for it, and Trump is too weak to do anything but go along with it.

    Clark M. Shanahan, Oak Park, Illinois 16 hours ago

    Sadly, they'll most likely have a more accommodating commander and chief with HRC.

    The Middle East Institute is financed, primarily, by the petroleum and arms industries. The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy has HRC's close ally, Dennis Ross; who, with Martin Indyk, founded AIPAC in the mid-80's.

    This group's contention that direct confrontation with Russia could be avoided echoes their 2002 claim that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a three month cake walk.

    Paul Cohen, is a trusted commenter Hartford CT 15 hours ago

    Since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in the projection and use of force (covert and overt) as the primary means to achieve whatever goals the executive office seeks. It placed the world on notice that the U.S. was ready and willing to use violence to back its foreign policy objectives. Just as in Vietnam and before the disastrous decision to escalate the use of ground forces, President Johnson's national security advisors (all holdovers from Kennedy's Presidency) pressed Johnson to use aerial bombardment against N. Vietnam to induce them to seek a negotiated peace that would allow the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict and save face while preserving the policy of projecting force as a means to maintain world order in accordance with U.S. designs.

    Nixon carried on this bombing for peace strategy to insane war crime level. This heavy reliance on military force over a diplomatic solution has never worked. It didn't work for our knee-jerk response to 9/11 by immediately resorting to military force without first thinking through the consequences. We are now into our 15th year of aggression against the Muslim World. The time is long past due to question our failed policy and seek an alternative solution.

    Bud, McKinney, Texas 16 hours ago

    My oldest son is now completing his sixth Afghan/Iraq tour.I don't want him in Syria. Let these 51 diplomats volunteer their sons/daughters for Syria.That'll demonstrate their commitment.I'll bet not one of these 51 "geniuses" has a child on active military duty in Iraq/Afghan.

    Abu Charlie, Toronto, Ontario 14 hours ago

    These folks are, it appears, mid-level foreign service officers like I was. They are utterly unqualified to make these judgements as the Department of State is a failed organization culturally and functionally. Like HRC, who is still advocating for forced regime change if she wins, they have learned nothing from the past and again have no answer for what follows Asad being deposed. A majority Sunni regime in Syria will tear Iraq apart and there is no likelihood of it avoiding the trajectory of other "pluralistic" Arab state attempts. The fact that State has no culture of strategic analysis informing operational design and operational planning which, in turn, spawn series of tactical events, comes clear in situations like this. Doing nothing is the best case here. Tragic but still the best case. President Obama has seen this. Asad needs to regain control of Syria's territory, all of it. Feeding the hopes of the Ahmed Chalabi equivalents in Syria is perpetuating the violence. And, there is no room for an independent Kurdistan in the region, nor is it in the United States' interest for there to be one.

    AR, is a trusted commenter Virginia 15 hours ago

    How undiplomatic. I don't care that these people are diplomats and that many of them probably have impeccable academic pedigrees with degrees from the usual suspects such as the Ivy League schools, SAIS, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and Kennedy. That's the same class of people who figured that invading in Iraq in 2003 would turn out all right. Obama is correct to ignore these people, who more often than not are possessed by the notion of American Exceptionalism. Exhibit A being Samantha Power, the latest in a long line of militaristic, European-born white Americans (see Albright, Kissinger, Brzezinski) who believe that American firepower can bring order to the world.

    Let this be made clear: Any escalation of American involvement in Syria will be interpreted as 1) an attempt to enhance the national security of Israel, 2) a means of benefiting the revenue stream of the American military industrial complex, or 3) both. Only the most naive and foolish people, since the absolutely disastrous events of 2003, would be inclined to believe that American military intervention in Syria is motivated mainly by humanitarian impulses.

    Sorry hawkish diplomats, but you're living in a fantasyland where the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not permanently tarnish the image of the USA and wreck its credibility as an honest arbiter. That is the reality all US presidents will have to face in the post-Bush 43 era.

    Robert Roth, NYC 14 hours ago

    Everyone closes their eyes and imagines all the bloodshed they will prevent by all the bloodshed they will cause.

    Samsara, The West 16 hours ago

    Have Iraq and Libya taught these State Department officials NOTHING??

    Simon, Tampa 15 hours ago

    The neo-cons who love regime change that never works. Let us examine their track record:

    Iraq - a mess and infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda.
    Libya - now an anarchist state infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda.
    Yemen - bombing and murdering thousands of innocents and Al Qaeda.

    Syria, the only secular Arab state, destroyed and infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda. The only reason Syria hasn't completely fallen apart is thanks to Assad and his Sunni dominated army, Iran, and the Russians. So of course, these neo-cons want to complete the job at the behest of the money they will be getting from the Saudis and the other Gulf States.

    Don't worry you warmongering greedy neocon, Hillary Clinton is one of you and will be president soon enough.

    Title Holder, Fl 15 hours ago

    Are those 51 U.S. Diplomats responsible for advising the Obama Administration to bomb Libya back in 2011? Apparently they have not learned from their mistakes. Or maybe they should just go work for their true Employer, The Military Industrial Complex.

    Andrea, New Jersey 15 hours ago

    This is reckless and irresponsible. US backed "moderates" are fighting elbow to elbow with the Nusra Front and other radicals groups; that is why the cease-fire is collapsing. Syrians and Russians can not split hairs on the battlefield.

    If we weaken Assad, Islamists will take over Damascus and if Damascus falls, soon Beirut will follow. These folk at State are neo cons, as usual shooting from the hip.

    Jett Rink, lafayette, la 15 hours ago

    Here's the thing most people don't get about ISIS. They thrive on us being involved in the Middle East. They are willing to kill other Muslims in order to keep us involved. As long as we are there, terrorism will persist, over there and here too. They are playing us like chumps. They use our tendency to knee-jerk reactions against us. They're out smarting us at every juncture.

    Of course it's human nature to want to help people in such dire straights. But that's exactly what ISIS wants, and correctly predict, that we'll do. So as long as they out-think us, they'll continue to win.

    If you want to help the innocent people caught in the cross-hairs of ISIS, the best thing we could possibly do is pack up and leave. There'll be some more carnage, but eventually the backlash from within will force them to stop the wrecking and killing. Many people will die, but in the end, the tally would be far fewer.

    Their goal is to keep us engaged. Ours should be to get out! As long as we stay, they win. And that's how they're able to convince long-wolf's to strike us here, even when here is home to them too.

    Joane Johnson, Cleveland, Ohio 15 hours ago

    Vietnam, 212,000 dead and countless north and south Vietnamese and citizens. Unjust and unwarranted war on Iraq with 4,491 and counting dead and countess Iraqi citizens. Now, Syria? Are you wanting the draft returned? You asking for boots on the ground? How about you 50 join up. I will willingly pay for taxes just arm you and send you in. Along with every other know it all who wants us 'TO DO MORE'!! Spare me. You have learned NOTHING in your past failures, have you? 1956, Iran. Cause the over throw of a duly elected government for the Shahs which led to 1980 revolution to fear of them acquiring nuclear weapons. Vietnam led to 'WHAT'? Now Iraq.

    The worse destabilization in that area I can remember. Not even during their many attacks on Israel when Egypt got a clue. Fire Saddam Hussein's soldiers and they become ISIS by 2006, yet one bright senator lied and said Obama caused them when we left which was President Bush's treaty Maliki. They did not want us there. Leave per the Iraqi people, also. When ISIS showed up they ran and left the weaponry we gave them and the money in the banks for them to grab. Now, you want us steeped into Syria. It's been said, hindsight is 20/20,

    In these so called diplomats cases, it is totally and legally blind. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles has a better perception and one of them is dead.

    Bev, New York 16 hours ago

    Yes the war machine wants more wars. Who will take the place of the evil Assad? We have removed a number of evil dictators in that area of the world and all it has done is sap our resources, killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, made millions hate us, and created vacuums of power which are then filled with Saudi-assisted ISIS - AND profited our war machine (that's the important part!) We need less involvement in the Mideast, not more. Bring them all home and start transitioning from a war economy to an economy that serves the American citizens here.

    ME, Toronto 13 hours ago

    Thank goodness Obama kept his head and didn't (and hopefully won't) listen to such crazy advice. To call the signers "diplomats" is a real stretch. It seems that somewhere back in time various U.S. "diplomats" decided that they have the right to decide who and what the government should be in various jurisdictions throughout the world. Of course this is motivated by purely humanitarian concerns and love of democracy and not the self-interest of the U.S., as in having a friendly government in place. As despicable as some governments are, the lessons over many years now should be that military strikes are just as (maybe more) likely to produce something bad as anything good. Better to talk and try to influence the development of nations through positive reinforcement (as Obama has done in Iran). Undoubtedly this is a slow and somewhat frustrating process but that is something real "diplomats" should be good at. If this process had been pursued in Syria we would all be better off today and especially the Syrian people.

    Mitchell, New York 16 hours ago

    I assume these people at State also believe in the Tooth Fairy. The fantasy of "moderate" rebels who will be grateful to us after they depose a tyrant and put in a fair democratic government that takes into account all of our Western ideals and freedoms is so unrealistic that these people at State need to find a job where their last words are, "Can I supersize that for you?" Our involvement in the Middle East displacing despots and replacing them with chaos has been the biggest disaster in foreign policy in many decades. Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and even Syria (remember the line in the sand?). We should join with Russia in destroying ISIS and use our leverage to push Assad to make some level of concessions.

    Dan, Sandy, UT 15 hours ago

    Here we go again. The war hawks, so comfortably away from the battle, are banging those drums of war again. Easy to do when your life and the lives of your fellow military are not at risk.

    Second thought, as stated by a political comedian/satirist, let the Middle East take its own trash out.
    I couldn't agree more.

    blackmamba, IL 16 hours ago

    Since 9/11/01 only 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on the military of any American armed force. They have been ground to emotional, mental and physical dust by repeated deployments. Getting rid of Arab dictators has unleashed foreign ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational civil wars that cannot be resolved by American military power.

    Assad is an Arab civil secular dictator. Just like many of Americas Arab allies and unlike those American Arab allies who are Islamic royal fossil fuel tyrants. But Assad is an Alawite Shia Muslim allied with Russia. The alternatives to Assad are al Qaeda, ISIL and al Nusra. Diplomats need to stick to diplomacy.

    Jo Boost, Midlands 16 hours ago

    This situation is not that simple.

    There is not -as people in Washington who know better have told for years now- one big bad wolf called Assad preying and devouring all poor little peaceful lambs (who, accidentally, have been armed to their teeth by a certain Ms. Clinton and her Saudi friends - even with poison gas which was, then, blamed on the said Assad).
    We have here a follow-up civil war to the (also US started) one in Libya.

    Let us just look at International Law, as understood since the Nuremberg Trials:

    We all know now that the invasion of Iraq by Mr. Bush junior was a) a mistake, and b) a War Crime - there were no threatening WMDs nor did Saddam hold hads with Al Quaeda (he was, actually, their worst enemy - and our security!), so, Iraq was c) total stupidity. It was an aggressive war without any cause - for the USA!
    But a great cause for Saudi "Royals" whose cousins had been thrown out of Iraq, which is good enough cause, in Arab customs, for a bloody feud and revenge.
    The same applies to Syria, and could one, therefore, still wonder why ISIL was so well equipped for the follow-up (envisaged) invasion?

    Libya was a danger for Saudi Autocrates, because a secular Arab country with such a living standard from fair distribution of oil wealth would be a dangerous advertisement for a Mother of All Arab Springs in the desert.

    So, we have one side with interest - and one without any - but the latter does the dirty work. Is there more than one tail that wags the US dog?

    Bonnie Rothman, NYC 13 hours ago

    How brilliant---not! And what do these 50 people expect to happen if and when Assad falls, chaos prevails and ISIS rushes in? Not to mention the immediate nasty confrontation with Putin. This isn't 1941 and big Armies and big bombs are useless, USELESS against ISIS which operates like cancer cells in the human body. And the last time we toppled a tyrant we midwived the ISIS group which is funded by the Saudis which is funded by our own use of oil. Don't you dopes ever read history and see the "whole" problem? Sheesh.

    Prof. Jai Prakash Sharma, is a trusted commenter Jaipur, India. 16 hours ago

    Given the complexity of the Syrian crisis and the multipower stakes involved in Syria, it would be foolish for the US to direct its unilateral military fury at toppling the Assad regime ignoring its fall out and the military financial cost to the US itself, specially when except for meeting the common challenge and threat of the ISIS no direct national interests are at stake for the US in Syria. The state department's dissenting memo to the President seems an attempt by the vested interests to further complicate President Obama's Middle East policy that's on the right track following the Iran deal.

    Dennis Sullivan, NYC 16 hours ago

    This is much more about what Mark Landler thinks than about what those generic diplomats think. The Times's principal hawk, Landler has book and a series of articles pushing his neocon view. I guess we should assume the Times agrees.


    Rudolf, New York 7 hours ago

    Having spent substantial time as a private consultant at the US Embassy in Kabul I was shocked by the lack of feelings of midlevel officials there with regard to the dead and injuries of American Troops. The Embassy shared a wall with the ISAF/NATO Main Quarters and every single day the US Flag there was half-mast to acknowledge the dead of our troops on that day in that country. The Embassy never shared this sadness and all midlevel officials there were only concerned about their paycheck, quality of meals served, having a drink, going for a swim, and their frequent trips back to the US; for such people wanting to have a say in when to fight in Syria is a sad state of affair.

    pat knapp, milwaukee 16 hours ago

    Perhaps we should figure out one take-down before we move on to the next. After 13 years, we still haven't figured out life in Iraq without Saddam. Any thoughts, neocons, on what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows?

    Mike Edwards, Providence, RI 16 hours ago

    In what way do the views of the State Department officials in ISIS differ from those in the US State Department who signed this memo?

    Recent terrorist attacks in France and the US have been inspired by ISIS, not Mr. Assad. ISIS is our enemy right now. Let Mr. Assad do what he can to eliminate them.

    And haven't we learnt that the removal of a head of State, be it in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya does not lead to an improvement; it actually causes an outright deterioration.

    Finally, please let's also do away with this twaddle about "moderate" forces being present in the Middle East, ready to enact our fantasy of what a peaceful Middle East should be like. They don't exist in the Middle East. Ask the Israelis. Those moderates that do exist seem to serve one purpose, which is to hand over the weapons supplied to them by the West to the terrorists.

    I wish the signatories would have had the guts to spell it out. The Middle East is home to a number of weal nations, a situation the stronger ones don't wish to correct. The only solution would be for the West to take over the running of those countries and provide for their policing and defense, as once the West leaves, a vacuum is created allowing terrorist groups to proliferate.

    I doubt there is any appetite in the West for such a cause.

    Donald, Yonkers 16 hours ago

    Interesting how these " moderate" Syrian rebels so often fight alongside al Nusra.

    The death toll in Syria is as high as it is because the rebels have outside help, Somehow no one in the American mainstream, including the NYT, ever points this out. Incidently, note how the NYT always uses the largest estimates for the death toll-- quite different from what they did in Iraq.

    Nick Metrowsky, is a trusted commenter Longmont, Colorado 17 hours ago

    Get Rid of Assad, make relations with Russia worse (they back Assad) and allow ISIS to effectively take over Syria. Sounds like a great plan. I guess our military-industrial complex is getting itchy for a new war. And, of course, doing what these diplomats want will also result in putting boots on the ground. This will be a great legacy for Ms. Clinton (under her watch ISIS came into being), Mr. Kerry (who continued Clinton's failed legacy) and Mr. Obama (the Nobel Peace Prize president; who wasn't).

    So, guess what? The US starts bombing Syria, Assad will use human shields. ISIS is already using human shields. So, the US will have more innocent blood on their hands. Of course, the US follows through with these diplomats idea, ISIS, and their allies, will increase the risk of terrorism attacks in the US. More mass shootings and bombings.

    Of course, in an election year, the political rhetoric will be pushed up a notch between the two wonderful people now running for president. Both who are more than willing to love the diplomat's idea to show they are "strong". Mr. Obama may or may not follow through, but he hand may be forced. Clinton or Trump will go after him, as both would pull the trigger first and ask questions later.

    But, rest assured,. if you feel that a terrorist is lurking around each corner now, just wait until the US decides that getting in the middle of the Syrian civil war is some warped good idea.

    Diplomacy can be messy, as can politics.

    Dan Stewart, NYC 16 hours ago

    The signers of the dissent letter are militarist neocons (of the Victoria Nuland ilk). More than any other, these people and their CIA collaborators are responsible for the death and destruction in Syria and the ensuing refugee crisis. They can't even give a cogent reason for deposing Assad other than point to the carnage of the civil war they fomented-as if Assad were solely responsible. Assad is acting no differently than the US did during it's own Civil War.

    For five years the US has been promoting Muslim extremists in Syria that move with fluidity between the ranks of ISIL, al Nusra, al Qeada, etc. There are no reliable "moderates" in Syria. The best hope for a stable Syria lies only with Bashar Assad, the secular Western-trained optometrist (and his J.P. Morgan investment banker wife, Asma), who has kept Syria stable and free of terrorists for decades.

    To end the killing in Syria, and to defeat ISIL, the US should immediately stop arming and funding the Islamic jihadists trying to overthrow the Assad government and join with Russia to support Assad's military in regaining control over all Syrian territory and borders.

    CT View, CT 17 hours ago

    The value of the memo can be summed up in one sentence as described in the article itself "what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power - a scenario that the draft memo does not address."

    Why on earth would we support deposing a secular dictator who has multi-ethnic multi-religious support in favor of a non-secular/ie religious leadership that has no moderates...remember we tried to train vetted moderates, we found about 2 dozen and gave up on the program after half were killed and the rest defected to the radicals WITH THE WEAPONS WE SUPPLIED. Perhaps, since the military is anti-intervention and these diplomats are pro-intervention, the diplomats can take the front line...would that change their opinion?

    Gimme Shelter, 123 Happy Street 17 hours ago

    I wonder about the arrogance of these mid-level State Department foreign service officers. Do they think the National Security Council hasn't considered all options with respect to the use of air power to affect the political situation in Syria? Do they think the President is unaware of the what is required to stem the humanitarian crisis? How certain are they that their recommendations will lead to their desired outcome? Do they not realize their actions undermine the commander in chief in effectively addressing these issues?

    Sure -- a few well-placed cruise missiles will make it all good. Yeah, right.

    Wayne, Lake Conroe, Tx 7 hours ago

    Absolutely amazing. My first question is who released this memo? Having a back channel does not permit anyone to unilaterally decide to release information that could cost lives and ruin negotiations that the releasing person knows nothing about. If you do not like the chain of command, then leave. We cannot continue to be involved in sectarian conflicts that cannot be resolved except by the combatants. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Vietnam? No neocon insanity. We have lost enough lives and treasure in the ME.

    Chagrined, La Jolla, CA 10 hours ago

    Are these the same ingrates who urged Bush to attack Iraq - his legacy - ISIS!

    Real Americans don't want any more squandered blood and treasure in wars in the Middle East!

    It is sad that our tax dollars pay the salaries for these insidious State Department war mongering fools. How many neocons are among them?

    The war in Syria is tragic as was the war in Iraq. Even more tragic would be more squandered American blood and treasure.

    Fifteen hundred American Jews joined the IDF terrorists to commit the "Gaza Genocide." Perhaps they will volunteer to go to Syria.??

    President Obama has the intellect, sophistication and morals not to repeat the mistakes of the Bush administration. These State Department rank and file are obviously attempting to undermine him just as many members of congress attempted to undermine him by supporting Netanyahu and Israel during the Iran Diplomacy debate. Betraying America has become sport for so many insidious ingrates. America deserves better!

    xtian, Tallahassee 11 hours ago

    As a 26 year Marine Corps combat veteran I have a hard time trying to figure out what is going on here, and a harder time not becoming totally disgusted with our State Department.

    So these 51 mid-level diplomates want to bomb a bit more, and that is going to do what????? And how will that bring peace to that region of the world? Oh, and by the way, the Department of Defense is not in agreement with that course of action. How wonderful.

    My suggestion would be that we arm these 51 individuals, given them a week's worth of ammunition and rations, and drop them into Syria, I am sure they can lead the way in showing us how to solve the mess in the ME.

    David Henry, Concord 17 hours ago

    War is easy to do. Ask "W."

    Lives matter! These "diplomats" should be fired.

    Yinka Martins, New York, NY 17 hours ago

    It's the fact that these are not "widely known names" which scares me most. However, Western-instituted regime change in that region has proven disastrous in every single country it has been tried. If possible, I would investigate these diplomats' ties to defense contractors.

    PKJharkhand, Australia 7 hours ago

    US intervention created the rubble and hell that is now Syria. When Assad had full control of Syria, the human rights of the people of Syria suffered under him but many if not most people led a civilised life. They had water and electricity. Past US interventions created Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. To puy it simply, life expectancy in all these countries dropped by 20 to 30 years after the US intervened, each time with the highest utopian ideals, and increased the power of Sunni supremacists after each act.

    Jai Goodman, SF Bay Area 7 hours ago

    These "diplomats" should instead be urging US to pressure Turkey and Saudi to stop supporting terrorists in the region. Both Al Nusra and ISIS. That'll be the right step.

    Thank you.

    cml, pittsburgh, pa 10 hours ago

    How many of these are the same (or same sort) of "wise" men that advised ignoring our weapon's inspectors and invading Iraq? They're living inside an echo chamber. In a world of imperfect choices I would prefer Assad to the Nusra Front or ISIL, as apparently our president does as well.

    Lawrence, Washington D.C. 15 hours ago

    How many of those 51 diplomats haves served in front line units and seen combat? How many have their children in uniform? They wouldn't allow it.
    Each bombing mission costs more than a million dollars, and we live in a nation of Chiraq and Orlando.
    We have more pressing needs at home, and you can't fix stupid mixed with superstition, topped with hatred.
    These diplomats want to continue to strap suicide vests on the rest of us, while they sip champagne.
    Out now, no more of our children wasted for corporate profits.

    John, San Francisco 15 hours ago

    50 employees? There are approximately 24,000 employees in the state department. That's 0.002833%. Not really a significant voice. Don't listen.


    Vanessa Hall, is a trusted commenter Millersburg MO 13 hours ago

    Reminds me of those 47 idiots in the House who signed on to the warmonger Tom Cotton's treasonous letter.

    John Townsend, Mexico 15 hours ago

    Let's not forget that Bush's hasty appointment of Paul Bremer as the hapless Governor of Iraq following the defeat of Hussein's military regime led immediately to the disbanding of the entire Iraqi military, an incredibly short-sighted and reckless move that essentially unleashed 400,000 young trained fighters (including a honed officers corps) absent support programs to assimilate back into Iraqi society, only to have them emerge as readily available fodder essential for ISIS's marshalling a strong military force almost overnight. A huge price is now being exacted for this astounding stupidity.

    Hobart, Los Angeles, CA 7 hours ago

    This is conveniently laying grounds for Hillary's grand comeback to the theatre of "humanitarian interventionism" in the Middle East. God help us all, as this is a prelude to the WW3.

    rice pritchard, nashville, tennessee 12 hours ago

    Wow the neo-cons are beating the war drums yet again! They have already created a huge mess throughout the Middle East with wars and revolutions directly attributable to the United States in invading Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses, helping overthrow the government in Libya, and arming rebels in Syria and Yemen. Apparently no regime that does not knuckle under to the U.S. war machine is "fair game". This turmoil is sending millions of refugees fleeing their homeland, many trying to swamp Europe, but the arm chair warriors in the diplomatic corps, Congress, Wall Street, and the military contractors still cry for more intervention, more bombing, more blockades, more invasions, etc.! Sheer madness! The more America meddle in the Middle East the worse things become and unrest and fighting spread. Unfortunately if Hillary Clinton wins, she is a neo-con puppet and we will be at war in Syria and/or Iran within a year or two. God help us!

    xmas, Delaware 13 hours ago

    HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST????? When people demand an invasion of a foreign country, can they please add the total cost of the bill to their request? Instead of saying "we need to invade," can they say, "I want your support to spend $1.7 trillion for invading this other country for humanitarian reasons. Oh, by the way, sorry, about all the cuts to domestic spending. We just don't have the money." We spent $1.7 TRILLION on Iraq. $1.7 TRILLION. I can think of several things I would have preferred to spend a fraction of that on. I'm sure you can too.

    Robert G. McKee, Lindenhurst, NY 12 hours ago

    This is a very interesting development within the walls of the State Department. There seems to be much enthusiasm for escalating war in the Middle East. My only question is does this enthusiasm extend to the deaths and maiming of these same State Department officials' children and grandchildren? Or do they propose that other people's children should die pursuing their high ideals in this endless and fruitless religious civil war in Syria?

    Kathy, Flemington, NJ 13 hours ago

    First of all, if this was a channel for employees to share "candidly and privately" about policy concerns, why is it on the front page of the NY Times? Additionally, as usual, it seems the war hawks are hawking war without thought for what comes next. We've done this most recently in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, all of which are now failed states and havens for terrorists. Because this seems rather obvious, either we are pathologically incapable of learning from past mistakes, or there are people who have an agenda different from the publicly stated one.

    Rebecca Rabinowitz, . 13 hours ago

    The U.S. has a lengthy, very sordid history of leaping into the fray in areas such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central America and Afghanistan, among others - all with catastrophic results, for which we never seemed to have a credible, well- crafted plan, nor have we ever comprehended the millennia of internecine tribal hatred and sectarian warfare. We have "been there, done that" countless times, at the cost of our precious military blood and treasure, and incurring the enmity of hundreds of millions of people. I empathize with the frustration of these State Department employees - but apparently, they do not recall our overthrow of the Shah of Iran when it suited our "cause du jour," or our fraudulent "domino theory" in Vietnam, or the hard reality that no one has ever successfully invaded or "governed" Afghanistan, not to mention being able to battle ideology with weapons. The President has already presided over significant mission creep in the Iraq cesspool left by the Cheney-Bush neo-con crowd. His judicious caution is to be lauded when it comes to Syria. Are these mid-level State Department employees advocating a war against Vladimir Putin?

    Yngve Frey, Sweden 12 hours ago

    I am more scared of US diplomats and politicians than terrorists! Have they learned nothing from the US efforts to create western style democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (by supporting separatists att an early stage). The US diplomats proposal would ensure more chaos, death and prolonged wR. 38 % of the population are Alewits. They will be killed, Christians will be killed.

    The only way will probably be to work with Russia and force other opposition groups to sign a peace agreement. Then we should arrange an intensive training course for US diplomats as well as Syrian leaders: "There is no final truth: we have to learn the art of tolerance and accept to live in a society where people you don't agree with also can live."

    [Jun 18, 2016] Greenspan Shocked Disbelief by Robert Borosage

    Greenspan phony "Shocked disbelief" reminds classic "...I am shocked - shocked, there is gambling going on in this establishment...." "...here are your winnings..." exchange between Humphrey Bogart & Claude Rains in Casablanca. Compare with "... "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," he said. ..."
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," ..."
    "... Greenspan spurned the Republican acolytes trying desperately to defend the faith and blame the crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act and the powerful lobby of poor people who forced powerless banks to do reckless things. ..."
    "... Private greed, not public good, caused this catastrophe: "The evidence now suggests, but only in retrospect, that this market evolved in a manner which if there were no securitization, it would have been a much smaller problem and, indeed, very unlikely to have taken on the dimensions that it did. It wasn't until the securitization became a significant factor, which doesn't occur until 2005, that you got this huge increase in demand for subprime loans, because remember that without securitization, there would not have been a single subprime mortgage held outside of the United States, that it's the opening up of this market which created a huge demand from abroad for subprime mortgages as embodied in mortgage-backed securities. ..."
    "... But having admitted the failure of his faith, Greenspan could not abandon it. Credit default swaps had to be "restrained," he admitted. Those who create mortgages should be mandated to retain a piece of them to insure responsible lending. Otherwise, the old faith still applied. No new regulations were needed, because the markets "for the indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime." ..."
    "... The only Guantanamo that the United States has any business running is a concentration camp for the hundreds of wall street executives and their cronies in Bushland that conspired to defraud the American people from their hard earned dollar. ..."
    "... There are no free markets in America, any more than there is free lunch. ..."
    "... So it wasn't the military-industrial complex that did us in after all . . . ..."
    "... It's clear from comments on this contribution that few readers of Truthout believe Alan Greenspan's sorry testimony before Congress. What has faith in something to do with enforcing the policies of fiduciary responsibility already on the books? All these so-called "experts" on capitalism are now coming out to say "I'm sorry." Well, I won't be sorry for them until they are held monetarily and criminally responsible for their actions, inept or not. ..."
    "... If it looks like class warfare, as David Harvey, author of Neoliberalism, has stated, call it class warfare and act accordingly. ..."
    "... it doesn't take a genius to understand that when financial instruments are created based on crap (subprime mortgages), that eventually problems will occur with those instruments. In fact, Greenspan and his cronies knew that, which is why they resisted these instruments being regulated by the SEC or even the CFTC. ..."
    "... Sounds like the "maestro" hit a flat note in his orchestra of greed and deregulation. ..."
    "... Did anybody even bother to consult the Math PhDs who created these instruments to run possible scenarios -- just in case? why bother when you know you can scare congress, the president and the treasury and ultimately the people into bailing your ass out of worldwide collapse? ..."
    "... Shocked Disbelief is a ploy. When they were all riding high, they didn't give a crap. They were going to come out richer than hell anyway. ..."
    "... Where's Ayn Rand when you need her? Give me a break Mr Greenspan. Never let history and reality get in the way of the big unregulated celebration of greed like we have had since "Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan", and the other "Free Market" "government is the problem" ideologues ..."
    "... What about the 1994 Act of Congress that required the Fed to monitor and regulate derivatives? The Act Greenspan ignored? ..."
    "... "...I am shocked - shocked, there is gambling going on in this establishment...." "...here are your winnings..." exchange between Humphrey Bogart & Claude Rains in Casablanca ..."
    Oct 24, 2008 | truthout.org

    by: Robert Borosage, The Campaign for America's Future

    On October 23, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the role of federal regulators in the current financial crisis.

    It marks the end of an era. Alan Greenspan, the maestro, defender of the market fundamentalist faith, champion of deregulation, celebrator of exotic banking inventions, admitted Thursday in a hearing before Rep. Henry Waxman's House Committee and Oversight and Government Reform that he got it wrong.

    "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," he said.

    As to the fantasy that banks could regulate themselves, that markets self-correct, that modern risk management enforced prudence: "The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year."

    Greenspan spurned the Republican acolytes trying desperately to defend the faith and blame the crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act and the powerful lobby of poor people who forced powerless banks to do reckless things. Greenspan dismissed that goofiness in response to a question from one of its right-wing purveyors, Rep. Todd Platts, R-Pa., noting that subprime loans grew to a crisis only as the unregulated shadow financial system securitized mortgages, marketed them across the world, and pressured brokers to lower standards to generate a larger supply to meet the demand. Private greed, not public good, caused this catastrophe:

    "The evidence now suggests, but only in retrospect, that this market evolved in a manner which if there were no securitization, it would have been a much smaller problem and, indeed, very unlikely to have taken on the dimensions that it did. It wasn't until the securitization became a significant factor, which doesn't occur until 2005, that you got this huge increase in demand for subprime loans, because remember that without securitization, there would not have been a single subprime mortgage held outside of the United States, that it's the opening up of this market which created a huge demand from abroad for subprime mortgages as embodied in mortgage-backed securities.

    But having admitted the failure of his faith, Greenspan could not abandon it. Credit default swaps had to be "restrained," he admitted. Those who create mortgages should be mandated to retain a piece of them to insure responsible lending. Otherwise, the old faith still applied. No new regulations were needed, because the markets "for the indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime."

    Now hung over from their bender, the banks could be depended upon to remain sober "for the indefinite future." Or until taxpayers' money relieves their headaches, and they are free to party once more.


    IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

    "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

    Comments

    This is a moderated forum. It may take a little while for comments to go live.

    The only Guantanamo that the

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 23:37 - Captain America (not verified)

    The only Guantanamo that the United States has any business running is a concentration camp for the hundreds of wall street executives and their cronies in Bushland that conspired to defraud the American people from their hard earned dollar.

    What they did dwarfs the damage caused to this country by 911, (no disrespect for the many innocents who died). However, here, every single citizen is a victim of fraud and corruption on a scale that was heretofore inconceivable. Greenspan, Bush and now Paulson have done more than Bin Laden and his hordes could do in a 100 years.

    By the way, if you protest YOU wind up locked up for being un-American. What happened America ?

    There are no free markets in

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 19:27 - pink elephant (not verified)

    There are no free markets in America, any more than there is free lunch. The game was always fixed and Greenspan was the ultimate shill for the fixers. The past thirty years have been an orgy of greed with common sense shoved aside for the sake of uncommon expediency. Americans became infatuated by arcane formulas and dense incomprehensible mathematics to the point that they forget simple arithmetic. America wake up it was only a dream, and a bad one at that.

    So it wasn't the

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 19:07 - Anonymous (not verified)

    So it wasn't the military-industrial complex that did us in after all . . .

    It's clear from comments on

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 15:40 - afrothethics (not verified)

    It's clear from comments on this contribution that few readers of Truthout believe Alan Greenspan's sorry testimony before Congress. What has faith in something to do with enforcing the policies of fiduciary responsibility already on the books? All these so-called "experts" on capitalism are now coming out to say "I'm sorry." Well, I won't be sorry for them until they are held monetarily and criminally responsible for their actions, inept or not. The truth is as plain as the nose on your face: Greenspan, the Federal Reserve, the investment banks, the Bush administration and several members of Congress unobtrusively acted to consciously and knowingly to rob the national treasury for the sake of capitalism's sacred cow: capital accumulation on behalf of the nation's political and economic elite. If it looks like class warfare, as David Harvey, author of Neoliberalism, has stated, call it class warfare and act accordingly.

    We have heard statements

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 10:11 - DJK (not verified)

    We have heard statements like "the mathematical models used for knowing the behavior of derivatives based on subprime mortgages were too difficult to understand", etc. But it doesn't take a genius to understand that when financial instruments are created based on crap (subprime mortgages), that eventually problems will occur with those instruments. In fact, Greenspan and his cronies knew that, which is why they resisted these instruments being regulated by the SEC or even the CFTC. And this is why they turned a blind eye to many of the rating agencies giving many of these instruments AAA ratings. I am sure that a real investigation will reveal numerous instances of fraudulent activity in conjunction with this debacle. Those perpetrators must be identified and brought to justice. While this will not fix our current problem, it hopefully should serve as a deterrent to those who would in the future attempt to again engage in such activities.

    Well here you have it a

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 08:13 - Robert Iserbyt (not verified)

    Well here you have it a confessional lie from the biggest fraud perpetrator in the history of American finance Why the markets ever listened to this criminal in the first place is evidence that our entire nation should be required to take a full year of real unfettered economics just in case they don't understand what is going on now. All the pundits on MSNBC and all the talking heads should be removed from the airwaves. The Bailout what will that do? the answer lies before you.

    Sounds like the "maestro"

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 02:02 - Anonymous (not verified)

    Sounds like the "maestro" hit a flat note in his orchestra of greed and deregulation. Come on, do you really think we are all so stupid to buy into the story that you couldn't predict a melt down knowing that those writing the subprimes held no responsibility for their actions? That's like giving a "get out of jail card" to someone who just created a felony! Did anybody even bother to consult the Math PhDs who created these instruments to run possible scenarios -- just in case? why bother when you know you can scare congress, the president and the treasury and ultimately the people into bailing your ass out of worldwide collapse?

    I'm a former real estate

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 00:24 - two7five7one (not verified)

    I'm a former real estate broker and my son is a mortgage broker. From about 2004 through the beginning of this "greatest financial crisis since '29", we frequently talked on the phone about the disaster which would ensue when the real estate value appreciation stopped, and people were no longer fueling the economy with money borrowed against their equity, and the sub-prime loan fiasco would end. We knew it would be disastrous, and both of us were astonished that neither the FED nor congress was willing to say or do anything about it. Anyone who has witnessed over the years the cycle of boom/bust/boom/bust in the real estate market knew that after eleven years of unprecedented "boom" -- '96 through '2007 -- the "bust" would be like an earthquake. Paulson and Greenspan and their ilk now denying that they suspected this is just is just their lying to protect the GOP which was benefitting from the booming economy. They should both end up in prison, with all of the GOP members of congress who have had their hands in the cash register.

    Dance clown, dance. First

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 23:48 - mysterioso (not verified)

    Dance clown, dance. First you were against the FED until you became head of the FED. Then you were for trickle down economics and letting the "system" regulate itself until you saw the inevitable destruction it caused. Dance clown, dance. You should be the first one sent to prison under the "Un-American activities act". The arrogance of your testimony before the committee was appalling. You honestly couldn't believe you were wrong !!!

    Shocked disbelief, my foot.

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 23:35 - slw (not verified)

    Shocked disbelief, my foot. Many of us predicted EXACTLY this outcome.

    This is like telling the Fox

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 22:43 - topview (not verified)

    This is like telling the Fox to watch the Hens and then walking away and trusting him to do the right thing. Government has to return to regulation and see that there is no hanky, Banky going on anymore. Monopolies have to be busted up, like the Communication industry's, the Drug industries and any other Corporations that control to much of the way the Country operates. No more Outsourcing any Government duties.

    Shocked Disbelief is a ploy.

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 22:00 - radline9 (not verified)

    Shocked Disbelief is a ploy. When they were all riding high, they didn't give a crap. They were going to come out richer than hell anyway.

    Where's Ayn Rand when you

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 20:53 - anglohistorian (not verified)

    Where's Ayn Rand when you need her? Give me a break Mr Greenspan. Never let history and reality get in the way of the big unregulated celebration of greed like we have had since "Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan", and the other "Free Market" "government is the problem" ideologues. We can spend trillions on war and corporate bailouts, but we can't have a single payer health system? We can't rebuild our infrastructure? Say it again- give me a break!

    What about the 1994 Act of

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 20:41 - Jtmonrow (not verified)

    What about the 1994 Act of Congress that required the Fed to monitor and regulate derivatives? The Act Greenspan ignored?

    "...I am shocked - shocked,

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 20:29 - Anonymous (not verified)

    "...I am shocked - shocked, there is gambling going on in this establishment...." "...here are your winnings..." exchange between Humphrey Bogart & Claude Rains in Casablanca

    This would be the same

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 19:50 - dtroutma (not verified)

    This would be the same "shocked disbelief" expressed by Willie Sutton's mother?

    shouldn't Greenspan give his

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 18:06 - Anonymous (not verified)

    shouldn't Greenspan give his salary and bonus back to taxpayers?

    [Jun 18, 2016] Greenspan Shocked Disbelief by Robert Borosage

    Greenspan phony "Shocked disbelief" reminds classic "...I am shocked - shocked, there is gambling going on in this establishment...." "...here are your winnings..." exchange between Humphrey Bogart & Claude Rains in Casablanca. Compare with "... "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," he said. ..."
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," ..."
    "... Greenspan spurned the Republican acolytes trying desperately to defend the faith and blame the crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act and the powerful lobby of poor people who forced powerless banks to do reckless things. ..."
    "... Private greed, not public good, caused this catastrophe: "The evidence now suggests, but only in retrospect, that this market evolved in a manner which if there were no securitization, it would have been a much smaller problem and, indeed, very unlikely to have taken on the dimensions that it did. It wasn't until the securitization became a significant factor, which doesn't occur until 2005, that you got this huge increase in demand for subprime loans, because remember that without securitization, there would not have been a single subprime mortgage held outside of the United States, that it's the opening up of this market which created a huge demand from abroad for subprime mortgages as embodied in mortgage-backed securities. ..."
    "... But having admitted the failure of his faith, Greenspan could not abandon it. Credit default swaps had to be "restrained," he admitted. Those who create mortgages should be mandated to retain a piece of them to insure responsible lending. Otherwise, the old faith still applied. No new regulations were needed, because the markets "for the indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime." ..."
    "... The only Guantanamo that the United States has any business running is a concentration camp for the hundreds of wall street executives and their cronies in Bushland that conspired to defraud the American people from their hard earned dollar. ..."
    "... There are no free markets in America, any more than there is free lunch. ..."
    "... So it wasn't the military-industrial complex that did us in after all . . . ..."
    "... It's clear from comments on this contribution that few readers of Truthout believe Alan Greenspan's sorry testimony before Congress. What has faith in something to do with enforcing the policies of fiduciary responsibility already on the books? All these so-called "experts" on capitalism are now coming out to say "I'm sorry." Well, I won't be sorry for them until they are held monetarily and criminally responsible for their actions, inept or not. ..."
    "... If it looks like class warfare, as David Harvey, author of Neoliberalism, has stated, call it class warfare and act accordingly. ..."
    "... it doesn't take a genius to understand that when financial instruments are created based on crap (subprime mortgages), that eventually problems will occur with those instruments. In fact, Greenspan and his cronies knew that, which is why they resisted these instruments being regulated by the SEC or even the CFTC. ..."
    "... Sounds like the "maestro" hit a flat note in his orchestra of greed and deregulation. ..."
    "... Did anybody even bother to consult the Math PhDs who created these instruments to run possible scenarios -- just in case? why bother when you know you can scare congress, the president and the treasury and ultimately the people into bailing your ass out of worldwide collapse? ..."
    "... Shocked Disbelief is a ploy. When they were all riding high, they didn't give a crap. They were going to come out richer than hell anyway. ..."
    "... Where's Ayn Rand when you need her? Give me a break Mr Greenspan. Never let history and reality get in the way of the big unregulated celebration of greed like we have had since "Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan", and the other "Free Market" "government is the problem" ideologues ..."
    "... What about the 1994 Act of Congress that required the Fed to monitor and regulate derivatives? The Act Greenspan ignored? ..."
    "... "...I am shocked - shocked, there is gambling going on in this establishment...." "...here are your winnings..." exchange between Humphrey Bogart & Claude Rains in Casablanca ..."
    Oct 24, 2008 | truthout.org

    by: Robert Borosage, The Campaign for America's Future

    On October 23, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the role of federal regulators in the current financial crisis.

    It marks the end of an era. Alan Greenspan, the maestro, defender of the market fundamentalist faith, champion of deregulation, celebrator of exotic banking inventions, admitted Thursday in a hearing before Rep. Henry Waxman's House Committee and Oversight and Government Reform that he got it wrong.

    "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," he said.

    As to the fantasy that banks could regulate themselves, that markets self-correct, that modern risk management enforced prudence: "The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year."

    Greenspan spurned the Republican acolytes trying desperately to defend the faith and blame the crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act and the powerful lobby of poor people who forced powerless banks to do reckless things. Greenspan dismissed that goofiness in response to a question from one of its right-wing purveyors, Rep. Todd Platts, R-Pa., noting that subprime loans grew to a crisis only as the unregulated shadow financial system securitized mortgages, marketed them across the world, and pressured brokers to lower standards to generate a larger supply to meet the demand. Private greed, not public good, caused this catastrophe:

    "The evidence now suggests, but only in retrospect, that this market evolved in a manner which if there were no securitization, it would have been a much smaller problem and, indeed, very unlikely to have taken on the dimensions that it did. It wasn't until the securitization became a significant factor, which doesn't occur until 2005, that you got this huge increase in demand for subprime loans, because remember that without securitization, there would not have been a single subprime mortgage held outside of the United States, that it's the opening up of this market which created a huge demand from abroad for subprime mortgages as embodied in mortgage-backed securities.

    But having admitted the failure of his faith, Greenspan could not abandon it. Credit default swaps had to be "restrained," he admitted. Those who create mortgages should be mandated to retain a piece of them to insure responsible lending. Otherwise, the old faith still applied. No new regulations were needed, because the markets "for the indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime."

    Now hung over from their bender, the banks could be depended upon to remain sober "for the indefinite future." Or until taxpayers' money relieves their headaches, and they are free to party once more.


    IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

    "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

    Comments

    This is a moderated forum. It may take a little while for comments to go live.

    The only Guantanamo that the

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 23:37 - Captain America (not verified)

    The only Guantanamo that the United States has any business running is a concentration camp for the hundreds of wall street executives and their cronies in Bushland that conspired to defraud the American people from their hard earned dollar.

    What they did dwarfs the damage caused to this country by 911, (no disrespect for the many innocents who died). However, here, every single citizen is a victim of fraud and corruption on a scale that was heretofore inconceivable. Greenspan, Bush and now Paulson have done more than Bin Laden and his hordes could do in a 100 years.

    By the way, if you protest YOU wind up locked up for being un-American. What happened America ?

    There are no free markets in

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 19:27 - pink elephant (not verified)

    There are no free markets in America, any more than there is free lunch. The game was always fixed and Greenspan was the ultimate shill for the fixers. The past thirty years have been an orgy of greed with common sense shoved aside for the sake of uncommon expediency. Americans became infatuated by arcane formulas and dense incomprehensible mathematics to the point that they forget simple arithmetic. America wake up it was only a dream, and a bad one at that.

    So it wasn't the

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 19:07 - Anonymous (not verified)

    So it wasn't the military-industrial complex that did us in after all . . .

    It's clear from comments on

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 15:40 - afrothethics (not verified)

    It's clear from comments on this contribution that few readers of Truthout believe Alan Greenspan's sorry testimony before Congress. What has faith in something to do with enforcing the policies of fiduciary responsibility already on the books? All these so-called "experts" on capitalism are now coming out to say "I'm sorry." Well, I won't be sorry for them until they are held monetarily and criminally responsible for their actions, inept or not. The truth is as plain as the nose on your face: Greenspan, the Federal Reserve, the investment banks, the Bush administration and several members of Congress unobtrusively acted to consciously and knowingly to rob the national treasury for the sake of capitalism's sacred cow: capital accumulation on behalf of the nation's political and economic elite. If it looks like class warfare, as David Harvey, author of Neoliberalism, has stated, call it class warfare and act accordingly.

    We have heard statements

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 10:11 - DJK (not verified)

    We have heard statements like "the mathematical models used for knowing the behavior of derivatives based on subprime mortgages were too difficult to understand", etc. But it doesn't take a genius to understand that when financial instruments are created based on crap (subprime mortgages), that eventually problems will occur with those instruments. In fact, Greenspan and his cronies knew that, which is why they resisted these instruments being regulated by the SEC or even the CFTC. And this is why they turned a blind eye to many of the rating agencies giving many of these instruments AAA ratings. I am sure that a real investigation will reveal numerous instances of fraudulent activity in conjunction with this debacle. Those perpetrators must be identified and brought to justice. While this will not fix our current problem, it hopefully should serve as a deterrent to those who would in the future attempt to again engage in such activities.

    Well here you have it a

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 08:13 - Robert Iserbyt (not verified)

    Well here you have it a confessional lie from the biggest fraud perpetrator in the history of American finance Why the markets ever listened to this criminal in the first place is evidence that our entire nation should be required to take a full year of real unfettered economics just in case they don't understand what is going on now. All the pundits on MSNBC and all the talking heads should be removed from the airwaves. The Bailout what will that do? the answer lies before you.

    Sounds like the "maestro"

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 02:02 - Anonymous (not verified)

    Sounds like the "maestro" hit a flat note in his orchestra of greed and deregulation. Come on, do you really think we are all so stupid to buy into the story that you couldn't predict a melt down knowing that those writing the subprimes held no responsibility for their actions? That's like giving a "get out of jail card" to someone who just created a felony! Did anybody even bother to consult the Math PhDs who created these instruments to run possible scenarios -- just in case? why bother when you know you can scare congress, the president and the treasury and ultimately the people into bailing your ass out of worldwide collapse?

    I'm a former real estate

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 00:24 - two7five7one (not verified)

    I'm a former real estate broker and my son is a mortgage broker. From about 2004 through the beginning of this "greatest financial crisis since '29", we frequently talked on the phone about the disaster which would ensue when the real estate value appreciation stopped, and people were no longer fueling the economy with money borrowed against their equity, and the sub-prime loan fiasco would end. We knew it would be disastrous, and both of us were astonished that neither the FED nor congress was willing to say or do anything about it. Anyone who has witnessed over the years the cycle of boom/bust/boom/bust in the real estate market knew that after eleven years of unprecedented "boom" -- '96 through '2007 -- the "bust" would be like an earthquake. Paulson and Greenspan and their ilk now denying that they suspected this is just is just their lying to protect the GOP which was benefitting from the booming economy. They should both end up in prison, with all of the GOP members of congress who have had their hands in the cash register.

    Dance clown, dance. First

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 23:48 - mysterioso (not verified)

    Dance clown, dance. First you were against the FED until you became head of the FED. Then you were for trickle down economics and letting the "system" regulate itself until you saw the inevitable destruction it caused. Dance clown, dance. You should be the first one sent to prison under the "Un-American activities act". The arrogance of your testimony before the committee was appalling. You honestly couldn't believe you were wrong !!!

    Shocked disbelief, my foot.

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 23:35 - slw (not verified)

    Shocked disbelief, my foot. Many of us predicted EXACTLY this outcome.

    This is like telling the Fox

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 22:43 - topview (not verified)

    This is like telling the Fox to watch the Hens and then walking away and trusting him to do the right thing. Government has to return to regulation and see that there is no hanky, Banky going on anymore. Monopolies have to be busted up, like the Communication industry's, the Drug industries and any other Corporations that control to much of the way the Country operates. No more Outsourcing any Government duties.

    Shocked Disbelief is a ploy.

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 22:00 - radline9 (not verified)

    Shocked Disbelief is a ploy. When they were all riding high, they didn't give a crap. They were going to come out richer than hell anyway.

    Where's Ayn Rand when you

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 20:53 - anglohistorian (not verified)

    Where's Ayn Rand when you need her? Give me a break Mr Greenspan. Never let history and reality get in the way of the big unregulated celebration of greed like we have had since "Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan", and the other "Free Market" "government is the problem" ideologues. We can spend trillions on war and corporate bailouts, but we can't have a single payer health system? We can't rebuild our infrastructure? Say it again- give me a break!

    What about the 1994 Act of

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 20:41 - Jtmonrow (not verified)

    What about the 1994 Act of Congress that required the Fed to monitor and regulate derivatives? The Act Greenspan ignored?

    "...I am shocked - shocked,

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 20:29 - Anonymous (not verified)

    "...I am shocked - shocked, there is gambling going on in this establishment...." "...here are your winnings..." exchange between Humphrey Bogart & Claude Rains in Casablanca

    This would be the same

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 19:50 - dtroutma (not verified)

    This would be the same "shocked disbelief" expressed by Willie Sutton's mother?

    shouldn't Greenspan give his

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 18:06 - Anonymous (not verified)

    shouldn't Greenspan give his salary and bonus back to taxpayers?

    [Jun 17, 2016] Know-Nothing Diplomats Prepare For Hillarys War On Syria

    Looks like State Department became a paradise for neocons. Protest of diplomats is typical trick used by State Departement during color revolution. That actually means this "color revolution" trick came to the USA. Our presidents come and go, Republican or Democrat, but our Strangeloves remain permanent employees of State Department. .
    Notable quotes:
    "... The State Department and the CIA's 'Plan C' (or are they on 'Plan D' yet?) is an independent Syrian Kurdistan. ..."
    "... A desperate attempt to save the rebels, who now hate them and completely understand how they have been thrown under the bus by the State Department neocons. I really don't think the rebels will be the least bit impressed by the phony theatrics of a internal memo by mid-level bureaucrats. ..."
    "... The Pentagram is in a bit of a different pickle. They have to do something to stop the Wahhabi head-choppers, but its a bit like herding cats. The best they've come up with is ginning up the SDF to take/hold ISIS territory. But they can't arm the Kurds or Arab members with any REAL weapons because that would anger Turkey. So they give them a bunch of eastern European AKs and a few pickup trucks with anti-aircraft guns, promise air support and toss in a few SF guys ..."
    "... The MSM (as CIA lapdogs are paid to do) constantly try to reinforce the message that the independent YPG/YPJ militias are somehow 'the PYD's army'. Nothing is further from the truth - it's all MSM spin to create the impression that the Syrian Kurds uniformly desire the usurped PYD vision of an independent Kurdistan. In reality, the U.S. State Department neocons and the CIA are the ones that want an independent Syrian Kurdistan for their own scheming (and to deny Assad the land/water/oil). The MSM is constantly on message with this to set the narrative to the American public for Syrian partition - most people have no clue. ..."
    "... For what it's worth, Assad is keenly aware of his history with the Kurds. Even by Kurdish media reports , he is willing to work with the Syrian Kurds as part of a unified Syrian state. He does not object to Kurdish rights or autonomy, just the U.S. meddling to goad the PYD into creating a separate Kurdish state. ..."
    "... The whole Syria nightmare was planned from the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006 because Assad was so broadly popular in the country and "the region." Can't have that so a strategy was drummed up: http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596 ..."
    "... I'm sure the US will throw the Syrian Kurds "under the bus" when their usefulness is finished. I'm sure also that a lot of Syrian Kurds know this, and are hedging their bets. ..."
    "... http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-building-military-bases-in-syria-report/5531259 "The use of proxy forces to destroy the secular government of Syria is now starting to give way to stealth methods of direct ground deployment of Western Special Forces and ground troops under the guise of assistance and coordination with "moderate" terrorists. "With a wide variety of Western-backed terrorist groups ranging from "extremist" terrorists like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra to the "moderate" terrorists of the FSA and the loose collection of terrorists, Kurds, and Arabs like the SDF, the West has a kaleidoscope of proxy forces on the ground already. ..."
    "... So Russian peace talks with US evil empire in Syria were a disaster, which makes Putin look like an idiot, as well as the supporters of this idiocy. As well as Russian invitations for the US to join it in Syria makes it one of the most stupidest invitations ever. ..."
    "... A preview on America's future strategies? http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-EAP-FINAL.pdf ..."
    "... The Iranians have been warring with Kurds by the border with Turkey. Neither the Turks nor the Iranians - nor the Syrians, but they do need the Kurds now - want a Kurdistan. The Kurds must know by now - must have been betrayed enough by now - to know that the US will tell them anything, promise them anything, and deliver nothing but betrayal in the end. ..."
    "... As regards the State Department, the Pentagon, the US government ... what's required is a neo-con purge, top to bottom. They are all working against American interests and against the American people. and have been for the past two decades. The likelihood of such a purge is about zero. Neither Trump nor Hillary has the will or the backbone to stand up to anyone. Trump's all mouth and looking out for number one, and Hillary's plugged in to the money-mosaic as well. Obama's getting ready to cash in his chips. ..."
    "... I am amazed at your unflagging obsession with holding Putin responsible for the US/UK/EU/NATO/GCC destruction of Syria. You've set him up as your omnipotent god and he's failed you, somehow. Putin, Rusia, is not responsible for the death, devastation, and destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya or the rest of the middle east or north africa. You're throwing your stones at the wrong guy, at the only guy who's done anything at all to help the Syrians and to forestall the monstrous neo-con plan. ..."
    "... Israeli bombed military base in Homs province with impunity from S400 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.723701 ..."
    "... There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel: STRANGE DAYS: Did Israelis Pivoted to Russia? Or the other way around. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/ ..."
    "... On the bright side, maybe the 50 signatures are just trying to get noticed by the Clinton transition crew. ..."
    "... The document you posted is a typical wet dream written by utterly incompetent neocons (Kagan's and Zoellik names are a tell), people who can not and must not be allowed to operate with serious strategic and operational categories in any "advisory" role. ..."
    "... i read about 30 of 160 or so comments on this article at NYT. given who the audience of that shit rag is & that comments are vetted, overwhelmingly commenters stated increased military involvement is retarded. ..."
    "... How can Russia, which dwarfs Israel in every meaningful category -- from economy to military -- and who does remember her history well can "pivot" to largely regional player -- I don't know. Russian "neocons" are a dramatically different breed than US ones, for starters they are much more educated and, actually, support Assad. Israel's pivot to Russia in some sense is inevitable, albeit it could be fairly protracted, with Russia being observed as honest broker. They are not completely stupid in Israel and are very aware of real situation in American politics, economy and military. ..."
    "... I note that the 'moderate' Hillary Clinton is a blood-soaked queen of chaos, who if elected is certain to embroil us in pointless wars and spread death and devastation across even more of the world. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is admittedly a gamble, but depute his over-the-top stage persona, his track record is of actually getting along with people and brokering stable working relationships. ..."
    "... At this point I wish I could vote for Richard Nixon (!), but we have the choice that we have... ..."
    "... This piece out of the NYT is pure propaganda. Period. Here's the big clue - where's the memo? It's not embedded in the article. It can't be found anywhere on the web. It's b/c it doesn't exist. The reader is 'TOLD' by a third party journalist few follow who writes for a MIC/Political/Policy corporate mouthpiece. ..."
    "... We see the point of all the saber-rattling by NATO on Russia's borders: to get Putin tied up in a diversionary direct threat to Russia, thereby mitigating or eliminating his efforts in behalf of Assad. And you know what? Americans on the street couldn't care one way or the other what Obama or CIA or DoS does or says about Syria. 280,000 dead, millions displaced and Americans are more concerned by a factor of 1000 about 4 dozen gays in Orlando. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia rejoining Turkey: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950326000441 ..."
    "... These 51 useful idiots are IMO auditioning for the Clinton team while also providing cover for the neo-cons above them like Nuland, Powers, etc. And directionless Kerry says he'll rush home to confer with these idiots rather than dismissing them out of hand. Kerry could only be useful to anyone if Lavrov was in the room with him at all times to keep him in line -- otherwise he reverts to his normal mindless servant of US empire viewpoint, which is to follow whichever way the winds of power are blowing through Washington, DC. ..."
    "... Hillary is the neocon's neocon. Pravy Sektor's honorary storm trooper Vicky Nuland is a Hillary protege. NYT has been positioning its readers to embrace Kerry's Plan B for the last month-plus. ..."
    "... How many of these diplomats were bribed by Saudi Arabia? ..."
    "... This clown Kagan is also the husband of the infamous Victoria Nuland who somehow, defying all logic, still has her job post imbroglio that is the Ukraine today. Hell, she's probably being hailed for that and is an inspiration for lowly State employees. ..."
    "... Thank you Victoria, for giving Crimea back to the Russian Federation where it belongs. ..."
    "... There are almost exactly 7 months until either Trump or Clinton takes office (presuming that the elites manage to completely control any bad news prior to the Dem nominating convention in late July; if the email dam breaks after that I have no idea what the Dem elites will do, but I figure they won't choose the obviously best candidate against Trump, Bernie). ..."
    "... might the West actually directly take on Russia/Syrian government forces? Claiming, of course, some version of R2P ..."
    "... State Department Diplomats who have captained failure after failure? If these people were Russian or Chinese they would have been executed for their serial failures in the ME and Afghanistan. The main problem with being 'exceptional' is that the 'exceptional' ones never make a mistake. "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" ..."
    "... So I was kind of wondering what psychopathic qualities the U.S. War... er, State Department is looking for in potential parasitic career bureaucrats, and came across this self-promotion page on their site. ..."
    "... Counterpunch had a great article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/the-case-for-not-voting-in-defense-of-the-lazy-ungrateful-and-uniformed/ ..."
    "... And though the content of the review by Army Gen. John W. Nicholson is secret, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan received a major incentive this month when President Obama decided to expand America's involvement with more airstrikes against insurgents, giving the U.S. military wider latitude to support Afghan forces, both in the air and on the ground." ..."
    "... No respect for R2P warriors at the State Department, nor for HRC, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. ..."
    "... For Israel to bomb the Syrian military right under the nose of Russian s-400s? Russia, supposedly so dedicated to defending sovereignty, smiles and yawns benignly? A dirty deal has been made... ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-officials-fear-saudi-collapse-if-new-prince-fails-n593996 ..."
    "... "Earlier this week as America was trying to make sense of the deadliest case of Islamic terrorism on US soil since 9/11, I wrote a detailed article here at Breitbart News that laid out the clear factual case about Hillary Clinton's top assistant Huma Abedin. I showed how she has deep, clear, and inarguable connections to a Saudi Arabian official named Abdul Omar Naseef, a powerful Kingdom insider who has helped lead a group called the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League is the huge "charity" whose goal is to spread Islam throughout the world and which has been connected to terror groups like Al Qaeda. ..."
    "... What is Huma's relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef? ..."
    "... Was he the founder of a Saudi charity called the Rabita Trust? ..."
    "... Right after 9/11, was the Rabita Trust put on a list by the U.S. government of groups that were funding terrorism? ..."
    "... the State Department official obviously has an agenda by providing it to the NYT. The NYT has its own agenda filled as well by prominently posting the article on the top of the front page . ..."
    "... One senior official said that the test for whether these proposals for more aggressive action are given high-level consideration will be whether they "fall in line with our contention that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria." ..."
    "... It's important for Russia to ensure that the remains of the first "Israeli" jet it shoots down falls to earth inside Syria. If you've seen a story about the IAF doing something courageous it's bullshit. ..."
    "... Wonder how many of these 51 war mongers were appointed by Hillary. ..."
    "... The EU-Turkey deal's financial package includes one billion euros in humanitarian aid. There are undoubtedly needs in Turkey, a country which currently hosts close to three million Syrian refugees, but this aid has been negotiated as a reward for border control promises, rather than being based solely on needs. This instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid is unacceptable. ..."
    "... kreepy kerry is "running out of patience" since his most desired regime change isn't happening fast enough. ..."
    "... The difference between Hillary and ISIS: the latter "takes" the head of enemies, Hillary "gives" head to donors. Forgive the graphic. ..."
    "... 50 diplomats petition president for war. Was that written by Orwell? ..."
    "... Allow me to further my argument against American Exceptionalism. It is not merely the fact that the U.S. is far from exceptional. From education to infant mortality, the U.S. is woefully behind much of the world. ..."
    "... So Hillary, the bloodthirsty Goddess of War, is longing for a second Libya, i.e., a Syria smashed to smithereens, in ashes and ruins, ruled by a chaotic bunch of mad Takfiri extremists, at war all against all. ..."
    "... The FBI is stonewalling, keeping the contents of Mateen's 911 call unavailable - though it's part of the public record - presumably because it undermines the "ISIS did it" meme poured over the Orlando mass murder. Apparently Mateen may have mentioned ISIS not quite in the same light as has been portrayed. ..."
    "... Now the NYTimes/WSJ are doing the same thing with the 50 dancing diplomats. Releasing what they want us to know and redacting what we want to know : the names of those 50 dancing diplomats. ..."
    "... I suppose it comes under the CIA's blanket excuse for secrecy? "Methods and means", or whatever their boilerplate. ..."
    "... No doubt the State Department dwarves were ginned up by "Cookies" Nuland and Count Kagan by visions of "x memorandum" of 1946 immortality by attacking the resistance to an unipolar hegemony. Mixing it up in Syria with the Russian presence seems civilization limiting at the outer limits of challenge/ response in a military confrontation. ..."
    Moon of Alabama

    There are at least 51 stupid or dishonest "diplomats" working in the U.S. State Department. Also - Mark Lander is a stupid or dishonest NYT writer. The result is this piece: Dozens of U.S. Diplomats, in Memo, Urge Strikes Against Syria's Assad

    WASHINGTON - More than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo sharply critical of the Obama administration's policy in Syria, urging the United States to carry out military strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a cease-fire in the country's five-year-old civil war.

    Note that it was Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and other U.S. paid and supported "moderates" who on April 9 broke the ceasefire in Syria by attacking government troops south of Aleppo. They have since continuously bombarded the government held parts of Aleppo which house over 1.5 million civilians with improvised artillery.

    Back to the piece:

    The memo, a draft of which was provided to The New York Times by a State Department official , says American policy has been "overwhelmed" by the unrelenting violence in Syria. It calls for "a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process."
    ...
    The names on the memo are almost all midlevel officials - many of them career diplomats - who have been involved in the administration's Syria policy over the last five years, at home or abroad. They range from a Syria desk officer in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to a former deputy to the American ambassador in Damascus.

    While there are no widely recognized names, higher-level State Department officials are known to share their concerns. Mr. Kerry himself has pushed for stronger American action against Syria, in part to force a diplomatic solution on Mr. Assad.

    ...

    The State Department officials insisted in their memo that they were not "advocating for a slippery slope that ends in a military confrontation with Russia," but rather a credible threat of military action to keep Mr. Assad in line.

    These State Department loons have their ass covered by Secretary of State Kerry. Otherwise they would (and should) be fired for obvious ignorance. What "judicious" military threat against Russian S-400 air defense in Syria is credible? Nukes on Moscow (and New York)?

    In the memo, the State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Islamic State because it would bolster moderate Sunnis , who are necessary allies against the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

    Would these "diplomats" be able to name even one group of "moderate Sunnis" in Syria that is not on the side of the Syrian government? Are Ahrar al-Sahm and the other U.S. supported groups, who recently killed 50 civilians out of purely sectarian motives when they stormed the town of Zara, such "moderate Sunnis"?

    These 50 State Department non-diplomats, and the stinking fish head above them, have obviously failed in their duty:

    • "Diplomats" urging military action do nothing but confirm that they do not know their job which is diplomacy, not bombing. They failed.
    • These "diplomats" do not know or do not want to follow international law. On what legal basis would the U.S. bomb the Syrian government and its people? They do not name any. There is none.
    • To what purpose would the Syrian government and the millions of its followers be bombed? Who but al-Qaeda would follow if the Assad-led government falls? The "diplomats" ignore that obvious question.

    The NYT writer of the piece on the memo demonstrates that he is just as stupid or dishonest as the State Department dupes by adding this paragraph:

    [T]he memo mainly confirms what has been clear for some time: The State Department's rank and file have chafed at the White House's refusal to be drawn into the conflict in Syria .

    How is spending over $1 billion a year to hire, train, arm and support "moderate rebels" against the Syrian government consistent with the claim of a U.S. "refusal to be drawn into the conflict"?

    It is obvious and widely documented that the U.S. has been fueling the conflict from the very beginning throughout five years and continues up to today to deliver thousands of tons of weapons to the "moderate rebels".

    All the above, the "diplomats" letter and the NYT writer lying, is in preparation of an open U.S. war on Syria under a possible president Hillary Clinton. (Jo Cox, the "humanitarian" British MP who was murdered yesterday by some neo-nazi, spoke in support of such a crime.)

    The U.S. military continues to reject an escalation against the Syrian government. Its reasonable question "what follows after Assad" has never been seriously answered by the war supporters in the CIA and the State Department.

    Unexpected support of the U.S. military's position now seems to come from the Turkish side. The Erdogan regime finally acknowledges that a Syria under Assad is more convenient to it than a Kurdish state in north-Syria which the U.S. is currently helping to establish:

    "Assad is, at the end of the day, a killer. He is torturing his own people. We're not going to change our stance on that," a senior official from the ruling AK Party told Reuters, requesting anonymity so as to speak more freely.

    "But he does not support Kurdish autonomy. We may not like each other, but on that we're backing the same policy ," he said.

    Ankara fears that territorial gains by Kurdish YPG fighters in northern Syria will fuel an insurgency by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has waged an armed struggle in Turkey's southeast for three decades.

    The Turks have suddenly removed their support for their "Turkmen" proxies fighting the Syrian government in Latakia in north west Syria. Over the last few days the "Turkmen" retreated and the Syrian army advanced . It may soon reach the Turkish border. Should the Latakia front calm down the Syrian army will be able to move several thousand troops from Latakia towards other critical sectors. The Turkish government, under the new Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, is now also sending peace signals towards Russia.

    The situation in Syria could rapidly change in favor of the Syrian government should Turkey change its bifurcating policies and continue these moves. Without their Turkish bases and support the "moderate rebels" would soon be out of supplies and would lack the ability to continue their fighting. The Russians and their allies should further emphasize the "Kurdish threat" to advance this Turkish change of mind.

    The race to preempt a Hillary administration war on Syria, which the "diplomats" memo prepares for, is now on. May the not-warmongering side win.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 17, 2016 1:43:36 AM | 1
    This is the Yankees trying to pretend that they're still exceptionally invincible, in order to conceal the fact that they never were. One only need look at all the tentative tiptoeing around China & Russia to see that they're trying to convince themselves that Russia and China are run by people as loony and disconnected as the self-seducers in charge of AmeriKKKan Foreign Policy.

    SmoothieX got it 100% right in the previous thread..

    Roitan | Jun 17, 2016 2:22:17 AM | 2
    "The names on the memo are almost all medeival offiCIAls ..."

    There, fixed it for you. Enjoying the calm before the Goldman Sturm, the takeover of the US Executive in 2017 for the Final Solution on liberating the Fifth Quintile's Last Free Life Savings, and plunging the globe into a New Dark Ages: Trump or Clinton, allatime same-same.

    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 2:36:19 AM | 3
    The State Department and the CIA's 'Plan C' (or are they on 'Plan D' yet?) is an independent Syrian Kurdistan.

    The FSA Sunnistan plan has been going down the tubes for months. With the imminent fall of the last few FSA strongholds, the State Department has gone berserk with their latest standoff bombing memo 'leak' nonsense. A desperate attempt to save the rebels, who now hate them and completely understand how they have been thrown under the bus by the State Department neocons. I really don't think the rebels will be the least bit impressed by the phony theatrics of a internal memo by mid-level bureaucrats.

    The Pentagram is in a bit of a different pickle. They have to do something to stop the Wahhabi head-choppers, but its a bit like herding cats. The best they've come up with is ginning up the SDF to take/hold ISIS territory. But they can't arm the Kurds or Arab members with any REAL weapons because that would anger Turkey. So they give them a bunch of eastern European AKs and a few pickup trucks with anti-aircraft guns, promise air support and toss in a few SF guys. This almost works, but not completely. For what it's worth, I don't think the Pentagram cares at all about an independent Syrian Kurdistan, unifying the cantons or who gets what land/resources, as long as it's taken from ISIS. When ISIS is wiped out, the SDF will cease to exist and the SF guys will leave. The SDF and especially the YPG/YPJ will NOT ever be incented to provoke or go to war with Assad after ISIS is gone. That's a problem for the State Department and CIA

    The neocon State Department and CIA - normally at odds with the Pentagon's increasing reluctance to get involved at all - are taking this opportunity to agitate for an independent Kurdistan. This is done by funding the Kurdish PYD political party which purports to speak for all Kurds. The State Department and CIA also fund the PYD's growing Asayish thug secret police 'enforcers'. The PYD took control of Rojava by throwing out all the other political parties last year and crowning itself the King of all Syrian Kurds. But most Kurds don't trust the PYD, figuring that either Assad or the U.S. is really pulling the strings. The Kurds agree with the original PYD ideology, but not its current land/resource-grabbing frenzy NOR the kind of independent Kurdistan the PYD is suggesting. They want more rights and control of their affairs, but they do not want an actual or de facto independent Syrian Kurdistan.

    The MSM (as CIA lapdogs are paid to do) constantly try to reinforce the message that the independent YPG/YPJ militias are somehow 'the PYD's army'. Nothing is further from the truth - it's all MSM spin to create the impression that the Syrian Kurds uniformly desire the usurped PYD vision of an independent Kurdistan. In reality, the U.S. State Department neocons and the CIA are the ones that want an independent Syrian Kurdistan for their own scheming (and to deny Assad the land/water/oil). The MSM is constantly on message with this to set the narrative to the American public for Syrian partition - most people have no clue.

    For what it's worth, Assad is keenly aware of his history with the Kurds. Even by Kurdish media reports , he is willing to work with the Syrian Kurds as part of a unified Syrian state. He does not object to Kurdish rights or autonomy, just the U.S. meddling to goad the PYD into creating a separate Kurdish state. The U.S. State Department does NOT want Rojava to be part of Syria or the Syrian State and spins the Assad/Kurd relation as antagonistic in the MSM. This is the 'Plan C' Syrian partition scheme. Hopefully, the average Kurd can see through their scheming and will not follow the dictates of a usurped PYD to go to war with Syria for their independence. They would be better off dumping and outlawing the PYD completely and working with the new Syrian government on the future AFTER ISIS (and hopefully without any U.S. State Department and CIA).

    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 3:45:06 AM | 4

    Finally!
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-strike-idUSKCN0Z306L
    Russia strikes U.S.-backed rebels in Syria: U.S. official

    Felicity | Jun 17, 2016 3:55:04 AM | 5
    The whole Syria nightmare was planned from the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006 because Assad was so broadly popular in the country and "the region." Can't have that so a strategy was drummed up: http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596

    Your assessment above is a supremely eloquent assessment and a scream for sanity to return. Thank you so very much for your always illuminating writings.

    Laguerre | Jun 17, 2016 5:17:21 AM | 7
    re 3 Paveway.

    I think you're quite right. That corresponds with what I've thought for some time. I'm sure the US will throw the Syrian Kurds "under the bus" when their usefulness is finished. I'm sure also that a lot of Syrian Kurds know this, and are hedging their bets.

    Penelope | Jun 17, 2016 5:20:17 AM | 8
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-building-military-bases-in-syria-report/5531259 "The use of proxy forces to destroy the secular government of Syria is now starting to give way to stealth methods of direct ground deployment of Western Special Forces and ground troops under the guise of assistance and coordination with "moderate" terrorists. "With a wide variety of Western-backed terrorist groups ranging from "extremist" terrorists like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra to the "moderate" terrorists of the FSA and the loose collection of terrorists, Kurds, and Arabs like the SDF, the West has a kaleidoscope of proxy forces on the ground already.

    "Yet, even as Syria's military clashes with the West's proxies, the United States, Britain, and France have begun moving in Special Forces soldiers to assist in the mission of destroying the Syrian government, a mission that Israeli, Jordanian, and Turkish officers have joined in as well. That is, of course, despite the fact that Russian Special Forces are on the ground fighting on the side of the Syrian military.

    "Likewise, both the United States and Russia are busy building military bases in the northern regions of Syria to use as staging grounds for new operations."

    tom | Jun 17, 2016 5:31:31 AM | 9
    So Russian peace talks with US evil empire in Syria were a disaster, which makes Putin look like an idiot, as well as the supporters of this idiocy. As well as Russian invitations for the US to join it in Syria makes it one of the most stupidest invitations ever.

    Since B is not mentioning it, he might as well not mention that the French terrorist invaders along with the already US terrorists, and possibly German invaders will be occupying parts of Syria.

    Oh, but that's alright because Putin invited the evil minions of the Us empire into Syria, you know, because the bad PR opportunity is a much better outcome then world War three.

    Nicola | Jun 17, 2016 5:37:58 AM | 10
    A preview on America's future strategies? http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-EAP-FINAL.pdf
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 5:47:50 AM | 11
    The Iranians have been warring with Kurds by the border with Turkey. Neither the Turks nor the Iranians - nor the Syrians, but they do need the Kurds now - want a Kurdistan. The Kurds must know by now - must have been betrayed enough by now - to know that the US will tell them anything, promise them anything, and deliver nothing but betrayal in the end.

    As regards the State Department, the Pentagon, the US government ... what's required is a neo-con purge, top to bottom. They are all working against American interests and against the American people. and have been for the past two decades. The likelihood of such a purge is about zero. Neither Trump nor Hillary has the will or the backbone to stand up to anyone. Trump's all mouth and looking out for number one, and Hillary's plugged in to the money-mosaic as well. Obama's getting ready to cash in his chips.

    It looks to be more of the same, until they really do go after Russia, when it will be all over for all of us. I can't imagine that they really believe they can get away with this, but this bunch is all 'mid-level', 'just following orders', it won't be 'their fault' and that's the level they're working at. The people calling the tune think they can play the real world as they do their fake financial world, making up new rules as they go along, as they redefine success after each of their serial failures.

    Talk about boiled frogs. How in the hell have we let it get this far?

    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 6:00:26 AM | 12
    @9 Tom

    I am amazed at your unflagging obsession with holding Putin responsible for the US/UK/EU/NATO/GCC destruction of Syria. You've set him up as your omnipotent god and he's failed you, somehow. Putin, Rusia, is not responsible for the death, devastation, and destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya or the rest of the middle east or north africa. You're throwing your stones at the wrong guy, at the only guy who's done anything at all to help the Syrians and to forestall the monstrous neo-con plan. This letter may be, as b says, a measure of theneo-cons' fear that it will all be over for 'their guys' in Syria by 21 January. If that were to come to pass, Vladimir Putin will have had a big hand in it.

    harrylaw | Jun 17, 2016 7:40:46 AM | 13
    Nicola @10 from your link 'Extending American power' I had to laugh at this... 4. "All of which provides the basis for our strong belief
    that the United States still has the military, economic,
    and political power to play the leading role in pro
    -tecting a stable rules-based international order". 'Rules based',ha, the US is the leading regime change state, acting always contrary to International law to benefit its hegemonic ambitions. All five veto wielding powers and their friends are above International law for all time. Thankfully, Russia and China cannot be threatened militarily and will confront the monstrous US designs in Syria, once the head choppers are defeated the victors should move against the real source of terrorism in the region, Saudi Arabia and the various GCC satraps. b's article above is excellent and is echoed in this piece in Antiwar.com http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/06/16/something-going-worse-thought/
    Kalen | Jun 17, 2016 8:50:40 AM | 14
    There are other worrying development in Syroi a namely changing of Riusssian attitude to Assaad. First Lavrov said that Russia is not Syrian government ally, they just fight terrorists together. An obvious nonsense.

    And now this.

    Israel, following several similar air raids in previous months just bombed SAA installation in Homs province, in the middle of Syria just 45 second flight of S400 rockets located in latakia, while Netanyahu was smiling with Putin in Moscow.

    Israeli bombed military base in Homs province with impunity from S400 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.723701

    Can you explain WTF? All of that while IDF artillery provides cover for ANF commanded by formed ISIL commander in Golan Heights foothills,

    There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel: STRANGE DAYS: Did Israelis Pivoted to Russia? Or the other way around. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/

    Michael | Jun 17, 2016 9:14:54 AM | 15
    On the bright side, maybe the 50 signatures are just trying to get noticed by the Clinton transition crew.
    Yul | Jun 17, 2016 9:17:33 AM | 16
    @ b Come on, U.S. military have a role to play in helping to export American values . Even with threats, Assad told Powell to "get lost". This interview says a lot about the US of A: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/04/a-conversation-with-colin-powell/305873/
    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 9:52:11 AM | 18
    15,000 FSOs, 51 signed the doc.
    SmoothieX12 | Jun 17, 2016 10:09:54 AM | 20
    @10
    A preview on America's future strategies?

    This is not preview nor is it a strategy, since strategies are based on more or less professional and realistic, I may add, assessments of the outside world. I do not have any recollection of any serious US doctrinal (policy or military wise) document in the last 20 years written from the position of comprehensive situational awareness--this is a non existent condition among most of US current "power elites". The document you posted is a typical wet dream written by utterly incompetent neocons (Kagan's and Zoellik names are a tell), people who can not and must not be allowed to operate with serious strategic and operational categories in any "advisory" role. They simply have no qualifications for that and are nothing more than a bunch of ideologues and propagandists from Ivy League humanities degree mill. Back to "preview"--it is a dominant ideology of "exceptionalism" which afflicted US "elites" today, this document is just another iteration of this ideology.

    jason | Jun 17, 2016 10:11:33 AM | 21
    i read about 30 of 160 or so comments on this article at NYT. given who the audience of that shit rag is & that comments are vetted, overwhelmingly commenters stated increased military involvement is retarded. Of course, many of those speak from ignorance of what's really going on, but the knee-jerk suspicion of US Syria policy & these FSO dickheads seems a good sign.
    SmoothieX12 | Jun 17, 2016 10:25:16 AM | 22
    @Kalen
    There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel:

    It is exactly the other way around. How can Russia, which dwarfs Israel in every meaningful category -- from economy to military -- and who does remember her history well can "pivot" to largely regional player -- I don't know. Russian "neocons" are a dramatically different breed than US ones, for starters they are much more educated and, actually, support Assad. Israel's pivot to Russia in some sense is inevitable, albeit it could be fairly protracted, with Russia being observed as honest broker. They are not completely stupid in Israel and are very aware of real situation in American politics, economy and military. In other words -- they know how to count and see who pulls the strings. And then there is another "little tiny" factor--Israelis know damn well who won WW II in Europe. It matters, a great deal.

    dahoit | Jun 17, 2016 10:38:36 AM | 23
    12; I'm amazed at your unflagging obsession in stating Trump will be a pushover for the Ziomonsters.:)
    TG | Jun 17, 2016 10:49:55 AM | 24
    Interesting as always.

    I note that the 'moderate' Hillary Clinton is a blood-soaked queen of chaos, who if elected is certain to embroil us in pointless wars and spread death and devastation across even more of the world. I say this not because I am psychic, but because that is her unambiguous record.

    Donald Trump is admittedly a gamble, but depute his over-the-top stage persona, his track record is of actually getting along with people and brokering stable working relationships.

    This November I'm going for the wild-card who at least sounds rational (if you listen to what he actually proposes, and not his style) and has a track record of actually being pragmatic, over certain doom.

    At this point I wish I could vote for Richard Nixon (!), but we have the choice that we have...

    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 10:57:48 AM | 25
    Kalen is a bit of a troll.
    h | Jun 17, 2016 11:04:23 AM | 26
    This piece out of the NYT is pure propaganda. Period. Here's the big clue - where's the memo? It's not embedded in the article. It can't be found anywhere on the web. It's b/c it doesn't exist. The reader is 'TOLD' by a third party journalist few follow who writes for a MIC/Political/Policy corporate mouthpiece.

    If an article does not link to an original source OR quotes only 'anon sources' be skeptical. Journalism, especially alt news journalists, site original sources AND try like hell to get sources to go on the record.

    My apologies in advance if I'm being offensive to our generous host. That is not my intent. Rather, it's venting a long held frustration I've had with the division within corporate newsrooms who are there solely to sell the readers the news, even if it's made up out of thin air.

    Denis | Jun 17, 2016 11:17:36 AM | 27
    Yeah . . .agree 90%. Here are some minor details that need to be tidied up, and a couple thoughts.

    1.

    b: it was Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and other U.S. paid and supported "moderates" who on April 9 broke the ceasefire in Syria.

    This is not quite accurate. Resolution 2254 exempted al Nusra from the cease-fire, not sure about al Sham and whatever others you are referring to. If they were excluded from the cease-fire, then they couldn't break it.

    2.
    The NYT writer is Mark Landler, not Lander. If you're going to accuse him of being stupid or dishonest, you want to get the name right. Mark Lander, whoever he is, might have a pack of bulldog lawyers.

    3.
    I don't see in Landler's article a link to the memo or a list of the people who signed it. Someone needs to publish that list of signatories to preserve the record of who the DOS idiots are.

    4.
    We see the point of all the saber-rattling by NATO on Russia's borders: to get Putin tied up in a diversionary direct threat to Russia, thereby mitigating or eliminating his efforts in behalf of Assad. And you know what? Americans on the street couldn't care one way or the other what Obama or CIA or DoS does or says about Syria. 280,000 dead, millions displaced and Americans are more concerned by a factor of 1000 about 4 dozen gays in Orlando.

    Les | Jun 17, 2016 11:19:27 AM | 28
    Trump makes reference to this article in blaming Obama and Clinton for Orlando attack

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/14/hillary-clinton-received-secret-memo-stating-obama-admin-support-for-isis/

    SitoAurora | Jun 17, 2016 11:23:30 AM | 29

    Saudi Arabia rejoining Turkey: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950326000441

    WorldBLee | Jun 17, 2016 11:36:33 AM | 30
    Thanks for sharing your outrage, b. I completely agree. I have been ranting about this all morning and it's good to see someone else stating the case so the rest of us don't feel isolated in our anger at this vicious and dangerous stupidity. These 51 useful idiots are IMO auditioning for the Clinton team while also providing cover for the neo-cons above them like Nuland, Powers, etc. And directionless Kerry says he'll rush home to confer with these idiots rather than dismissing them out of hand. Kerry could only be useful to anyone if Lavrov was in the room with him at all times to keep him in line -- otherwise he reverts to his normal mindless servant of US empire viewpoint, which is to follow whichever way the winds of power are blowing through Washington, DC.
    M | Jun 17, 2016 11:45:35 AM | 31
    CIA .... YPG .... ALNUSRA.... FSL , all these acronyms are so confusing , how about considering the level of sanity and intelligence of these groups ( which is probably below that of a wounded flea .... ) why not call them Scoobidoos vs the Syrian Army

    so the article would go something like this :

    In the memo, the Scoobidoos State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Scoobidoos because it would bolster moderate Scoobidoos, who are necessary allies against the group, also known as Scoobidoos .

    :)

    shargash | Jun 17, 2016 11:54:36 AM | 32
    I thought it was a "cessation of hostilities" not a case fire. The difference is not trivial, and State Department employees should know the difference. The signers are either incompetent or evil (not mutually exclusive, of course).
    5 dancing shlomos | Jun 17, 2016 12:07:16 PM | 33
    dont think landler is stupid. dishonest and deceiving would be my say. he is a nyt's jew writing, maybe lying, regarding syria. NYT: only news acceptable to jews. sometimes, many times we have to make up stories and facts to (maybe) fit.

    cant find any of the dissenting names.

    like to know how many are jew if story not total fake

    then there is the political hatchet job on the russian track/field olym team.

    Mike Maloney | Jun 17, 2016 12:26:08 PM | 34
    I think the key takeaway is b's last two sentences: "The race to preempt a Hillary administration war on Syria, which the 'diplomats' memo prepares for, is now on. May the not-warmongering side win."

    Hillary is the neocon's neocon. Pravy Sektor's honorary storm trooper Vicky Nuland is a Hillary protege. NYT has been positioning its readers to embrace Kerry's Plan B for the last month-plus.

    Whether during or shortly after Hillary's first 100 days in office, U.S. military engagement with Libya and Syria will likely be significantly greater than it is now.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 12:26:55 PM | 35
    thanks b and thanks to some of the posters here too - paveway, smoothie and a few others..
    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 12:46:59 PM | 36
    This is the exact reason the Ministers of Defense of Syria, Russia and Iran held meeting in Teheran just recently. My assumption is they are planning on rolling up the acres, so to speak in Syria. All before the new POTUS comes to office. Also, Hezbollah just announced it's sending in reinforcements to the battlefield. All this while the Chinese continue to sleep. Sigh.
    Edward | Jun 17, 2016 1:10:22 PM | 37
    How many of these diplomats were bribed by Saudi Arabia?
    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:16:44 PM | 38
    @3, paveway.

    The Kurds are the last great hope for the oil and especially natural gas pipelines dream from the GCC to Europe, but still, Israel is not happy. They wanted a branch-off pipeline for themselves. Also Jordan was to get a small branch-off too. Israel is no more than a parasite, look up the definition. It's exact. Turkey would benefit economically due to transit fees. That's why the Turks are so heavily involved. Turkey, who's economy is done for due to Chinese cheap products swamping the M.E; is crashed. Jordan is broke (hence they allow the head choppers to be trained on their territory). The U.S is the overlord who wants this project to be implemented so as to deny Russia the European market (see Saudia too).

    Netanyahu has visited Russia 3-4 times (not sure)to dissuade Putin on his support for Bashar ( who said yes to the Friendship pipeline- Running from Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria..to the Mediterranean thru to Greece, Europe). No other World leader makes that many visits is such a short time to another capital. Netanyahu obviously failed in his endeavor, as the Russians are familiar with these Zionist snakes very well. All they have to look at is the genocide perpetrated by said Zionists in their very own 20th Century history. I even read that Putin irked Netanyahu when Putin offered him back the Pale of Settlement if they wanted to make the smart choice. Beautiful if true. Probably wishful thinking tho.

    Anyways, Israel runs the U.S State Department(see, the Crazies in the Basement). They don't call it Foggy Bottom for nothing. Must be foggy now due to too many employess smoking bongs in the downstairs cafeteria, hence the ridiculous memo. Also the writer of the memo is most certainly another member of the chosen tribe.

    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:24:16 PM | 39
    @11, jfl,

    Yes, a 'Night of the Broken Glass' or 'Night of the Long Knives' is much needed to save Humanity essentially. But don't hope for it. Congress, Capital Hill leaders , MSM heads and head anchors, most everybody in the Whit house(except the kitchen staff) would have to be rounded up.

    The only hope would have been the U.S Military Officer Corp. before the great purges post 9-11. Now it's I'm possible. God help the American people and the World.

    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:32:08 PM | 40
    @20, smoothie,

    This clown Kagan is also the husband of the infamous Victoria Nuland who somehow, defying all logic, still has her job post imbroglio that is the Ukraine today. Hell, she's probably being hailed for that and is an inspiration for lowly State employees.

    Thank you Victoria, for giving Crimea back to the Russian Federation where it belongs.

    jawbone | Jun 17, 2016 1:41:07 PM | 41
    Re: Mike M @ 24 --

    There are almost exactly 7 months until either Trump or Clinton takes office (presuming that the elites manage to completely control any bad news prior to the Dem nominating convention in late July; if the email dam breaks after that I have no idea what the Dem elites will do, but I figure they won't choose the obviously best candidate against Trump, Bernie).

    Seven months. If Russia lends more of its strength, is it possible to gain the territory and hold it to the point that, oh, the West's illegal bases will have to close down? Or might the West actually directly take on Russia/Syrian government forces? Claiming, of course, some version of R2P

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 1:49:25 PM | 44
    State Department Diplomats who have captained failure after failure? If these people were Russian or Chinese they would have been executed for their serial failures in the ME and Afghanistan. The main problem with being 'exceptional' is that the 'exceptional' ones never make a mistake. "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"
    sejmon | Jun 17, 2016 2:15:32 PM | 45
    #12 jfl - Thanks..VVP/LAVROV know what they doing
    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 2:56:22 PM | 46
    So I was kind of wondering what psychopathic qualities the U.S. War... er, State Department is looking for in potential parasitic career bureaucrats, and came across this self-promotion page on their site. They seem to feel that working for them immerses you in a 'Culture of Leadership'. I guess the 'Culture of Chaos and Death' theme, although more neocon-appropriate, was shot down in favor of tempting potential employees with the possibility of more power and control.

    Offered for your enjoyment and/or revulsion: Congratulations on taking the first step towards your new career!

    Picture Hillary watching streaming video of Stevens get whacked in Benghazi when you read through that list of Leadership and Management Principles.

    rg the lg | Jun 17, 2016 3:17:01 PM | 47
    There are times the depressing mood on MoA is mitigated by some of the rather classic spelling errors. I sometimes wonder if they might be intentional in order to lighten the mood?

    Or not ...

    Counterpunch had a great article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/the-case-for-not-voting-in-defense-of-the-lazy-ungrateful-and-uniformed/

    I think maybe (maybe, I think) this is also good advice regarding posting to blogs, or not?

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 3:39:15 PM | 49
    June 17, 2016 - You cannot make this stuff up ...

    In the inner halls of Pentagramagon nothing succeeds financially like serial designed failure ...

    KABUL, Afghanistan - "The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan has submitted his first three-month assessment of the situation in the war-torn country and what it's going to take to defeat the Taliban, a U.S. military official has told The Associated Press.

    And though the content of the review by Army Gen. John W. Nicholson is secret, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan received a major incentive this month when President Obama decided to expand America's involvement with more airstrikes against insurgents, giving the U.S. military wider latitude to support Afghan forces, both in the air and on the ground."

    source - http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2016/06/16/afghanistan-nicholson-commander-pentagon-report-war/85972056/

    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 3:59:47 PM | 52
    No respect for R2P warriors at the State Department, nor for HRC, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. Jo Cox as former Oxfam executive was moved by the same massacres of Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Darfur.

    Unwittingly (?) the R2P argument was used by the Obama White House to intervene in Libya and Syria. The US took R2P a step further to force regime change which is illegal by International law. See George Bush and Tony Blair to white-wash the cruelty of torture, rendition, Abu Ghraib, extrajudicial assassinations, etc, etc.

    Former US Ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford was an apprentice of John Negroponte in Baghdad, Iraq.

    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 4:00:47 PM | 53
    White Supremacist Hate Crime

    No political motive about the Brexit discussion ... a local incident waiting to happen for more than a decade.

    Thomas Mair a Long Time neo-Nazi of National Alliance

    paul | Jun 17, 2016 4:08:30 PM | 54
    If I were Assad, I would be shaking in my boots right now and having Gaddafi dreams. Russia has clearly allied itself closely to Israel and Nato in Syria. Some kind of sanctions relief deal must be in the works. Syria will be split up soon. Assad is a dead man.

    For Israel to bomb the Syrian military right under the nose of Russian s-400s? Russia, supposedly so dedicated to defending sovereignty, smiles and yawns benignly? A dirty deal has been made...

    Les | Jun 17, 2016 4:23:28 PM | 55
    Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-officials-fear-saudi-collapse-if-new-prince-fails-n593996
    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 4:41:44 PM | 56
    "Earlier this week as America was trying to make sense of the deadliest case of Islamic terrorism on US soil since 9/11, I wrote a detailed article here at Breitbart News that laid out the clear factual case about Hillary Clinton's top assistant Huma Abedin. I showed how she has deep, clear, and inarguable connections to a Saudi Arabian official named Abdul Omar Naseef, a powerful Kingdom insider who has helped lead a group called the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League is the huge "charity" whose goal is to spread Islam throughout the world and which has been connected to terror groups like Al Qaeda. If that sounds like a serious accusation, you're damn right it is."

    "The three questions are very simple, very straightforward, and, frankly, anybody can research the answers themselves. They are:

    1) What is Huma's relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef?

    2) Was he the founder of a Saudi charity called the Rabita Trust?

    3) Right after 9/11, was the Rabita Trust put on a list by the U.S. government of groups that were funding terrorism?"

    source - http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/15/roger-stone-three-questions-huma-abedin-hillary-wont-answer/

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 4:49:33 PM | 57
    paul @54

    "If I were Assad, I would be shaking in my boots right now and having Gaddafi dreams."

    Interesting opinion? If you made a list of democratically elected Presidents and National Leaders the US/GB/ISR axis have terminated you will fill a book. From Patrice Lumumba to Hugo Chavez the list goes on and on. Could you supply me with a list of National Leaders that Russia under Putin has terminated?

    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 4:54:52 PM | 58
    State Dept: 'No Plans' to Make Public Memo Urging Strikes on Syrian Gov't
    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - US Department of State has no plans to make public an internal memo calling for the United States to take military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad's government, US Department of State spokesperson John Kirby said in a briefing on Friday. "There's no plans to make it public," Kirby stated when asked when the State Department would release the dissent letter.

    Furthermore, Kirby said there will be no investigation as to how the letter ended up in the public domain.

    By 'public domain', Kirby means on some writer's desk at the NYT, never to be seen by the unwashed masses. To be fair, the State Department's "Dissent Memo" program is supposed to be confidential even within the State Department itself to encourage its use. Mark Landler said in his article that a draft of it was leaked by 'a State Department official' to the NYT. So some skepticism of the existence or eventual submission of the actual memo is warranted. Not that Landry is lying or hasn't verified it, but the State Department official obviously has an agenda by providing it to the NYT. The NYT has its own agenda filled as well by prominently posting the article on the top of the front page .

    Mina | Jun 17, 2016 5:08:46 PM | 60
    Nyt participating in these pressures is coordinated with medecins sans frontiere announcing today that they ll refuse eu money to protest on the treatment of refugees and with recent surge in french and uk msm of so called white helmets exclusive pictured
    Laguerre | Jun 17, 2016 5:24:14 PM | 61
    re 60 mina

    I've not fully understood the refusal of médecins sans frontieres of European funding. It's a major source, I think. They've gone American, I suppose.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 5:24:58 PM | 62
    @ why bother engaging people who change their handle and say the same thing over again?
    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 5:27:58 PM | 63
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-cable-idUSKCN0Z3087

    Obama, despite dissent on Syria, not shifting toward strikes on Assad

    The U.S. administration sought on Friday to contain fallout from a leaked internal memo critical of its Syria policy, but showed no sign it was willing to consider military strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces called for in the letter signed by dozens of U.S. diplomats.

    Several U.S. officials said that while the White House is prepared to hear the diplomats' dissenting viewpoint, it is not expected to spur any changes in President Barack Obama's approach to Syria in his final seven months in office.

    One senior official said that the test for whether these proposals for more aggressive action are given high-level consideration will be whether they "fall in line with our contention that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria."

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 17, 2016 5:32:25 PM | 64
    Posted by: paul | Jun 17, 2016 4:08:30 PM | 54

    It's important for Russia to ensure that the remains of the first "Israeli" jet it shoots down falls to earth inside Syria. If you've seen a story about the IAF doing something courageous it's bullshit.

    lysias | Jun 17, 2016 6:01:45 PM | 66
    Mid-level bureaucrats trying to establish a case for being promoted when and if Hillary becomes president.
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 6:27:23 PM | 67
    @55 Les, 'Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay'

    The Prince is in the Oval office. Looks like the Houthi currency has tanked , Obama is going to ( try to ) pay off in Assad 's?

    South Front's map is finally up to date? Eisenhower follows Truman into the Mediterranean.

    Vollin | Jun 17, 2016 6:37:47 PM | 68

    Wonder how many of these 51 war mongers were appointed by Hillary.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 7:08:01 PM | 69
    How about know-nothing state dept spokespeople preparing for assad to leave to be replaced by isis?
    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 7:10:10 PM | 70
    @Laguerre
    MSF: Nothing remotely humanitarian about EU policies

    The EU-Turkey deal's financial package includes one billion euros in humanitarian aid. There are undoubtedly needs in Turkey, a country which currently hosts close to three million Syrian refugees, but this aid has been negotiated as a reward for border control promises, rather than being based solely on needs. This instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid is unacceptable.

    Last week the European Commission unveiled a new proposal to replicate the EU-Turkey logic across more than 16 countries in Africa and the Middle East.

    These deals would impose trade and development aid sanctions on countries that do not stem migration to Europe or facilitate forcible returns, rewarding those that do. Among these potential partners are Somalia , Eritrea , Sudan and Afghanistan – four of the top ten* refugee generating countries.

    Barbara | Jun 17, 2016 7:35:09 PM | 71
    kreepy kerry is "running out of patience" since his most desired regime change isn't happening fast enough. How many others are in the works? I'm running-out-of-patience waiting for the regime change anyone with 1/2 a brain wants, right here in the U.S. Regime Change US. It's our turn. I just read Putin's speech at the St. Petersburg Int'l Forum. He must have used the word "cooperation" at least 20 times. We need such a great leader. Terroristic turds like kerry and co. belong in jail.
    metni | Jun 17, 2016 7:50:24 PM | 72
    The difference between Hillary and ISIS: the latter "takes" the head of enemies, Hillary "gives" head to donors. Forgive the graphic.
    steelhead23 | Jun 17, 2016 7:53:07 PM | 73
    50 diplomats petition president for war. Was that written by Orwell? Isn't it enough that this "peaceful" nation arms the world and places economic "pressure" on those nations that displease her to the point of causing millions to die - do we really have to "kill the village to save it?" Yes, I agree, each and every one of those "career diplomats" should be looking for other work. They have not merely lost their way, they have lost their minds. My contempt for them is manifest, as is my contempt for the entire MIC. That those trained in diplomacy should send such a despicable petition illuminates the deep corrupting influence of American Exceptionalism - a force for the kind of nationalism Germany endured 1933-45. Idiots.

    Allow me to further my argument against American Exceptionalism. It is not merely the fact that the U.S. is far from exceptional. From education to infant mortality, the U.S. is woefully behind much of the world. My objection is that belief in exceptionalism leads to moral decay. It is the functional equivalent of the 19th Century preachers who endorsed slavery, who preached that negroes carried the mark of Cain, etc. Whites were God's chosen. The pseudo-righteousness that preaching created in believers was largely responsible for America's Civil War. Americans will be better people, with a better society, if we dispel this myth immediately. We're OK, you're OK. Then we could have peace. Wouldn't that be nice?

    Enrique Ferro | Jun 17, 2016 7:58:26 PM | 74
    So Hillary, the bloodthirsty Goddess of War, is longing for a second Libya, i.e., a Syria smashed to smithereens, in ashes and ruins, ruled by a chaotic bunch of mad Takfiri extremists, at war all against all. The Queen of Chaos, indeed, loves these scenarios. Especially because her quick attack as first thing should she win the White House would shut the mouths of her critics wanting her prosecuted for her crooked political and business corruption. But she and her State Department surrogates would be in for a surprise: Russian and Syrian defences would not remain silent. And afterwards, what would be left? How would the Exceptionalist who "gets things done" proceed?
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 8:28:15 PM | 75
    The FBI is stonewalling, keeping the contents of Mateen's 911 call unavailable - though it's part of the public record - presumably because it undermines the "ISIS did it" meme poured over the Orlando mass murder. Apparently Mateen may have mentioned ISIS not quite in the same light as has been portrayed.

    Now the NYTimes/WSJ are doing the same thing with the 50 dancing diplomats. Releasing what they want us to know and redacting what we want to know : the names of those 50 dancing diplomats.

    I suppose it comes under the CIA's blanket excuse for secrecy? "Methods and means", or whatever their boilerplate.

    Releasing their names might give us the means to track the 5th column as it winds its way through 'our' government, and that must be prevented at all costs. Think it might lead through Hillary? Seems no doubt here.

    Jay M | Jun 17, 2016 8:30:36 PM | 77
    No doubt the State Department dwarves were ginned up by "Cookies" Nuland and Count Kagan by visions of "x memorandum" of 1946 immortality by attacking the resistance to an unipolar hegemony. Mixing it up in Syria with the Russian presence seems civilization limiting at the outer limits of challenge/ response in a military confrontation.

    [Jun 17, 2016] Know-Nothing Diplomats Prepare For Hillarys War On Syria

    Looks like State Department became a paradise for neocons. Protest of diplomats is typical trick used by State Departement during color revolution. That actually means this "color revolution" trick came to the USA. Our presidents come and go, Republican or Democrat, but our Strangeloves remain permanent employees of State Department. .
    Notable quotes:
    "... The State Department and the CIA's 'Plan C' (or are they on 'Plan D' yet?) is an independent Syrian Kurdistan. ..."
    "... A desperate attempt to save the rebels, who now hate them and completely understand how they have been thrown under the bus by the State Department neocons. I really don't think the rebels will be the least bit impressed by the phony theatrics of a internal memo by mid-level bureaucrats. ..."
    "... The Pentagram is in a bit of a different pickle. They have to do something to stop the Wahhabi head-choppers, but its a bit like herding cats. The best they've come up with is ginning up the SDF to take/hold ISIS territory. But they can't arm the Kurds or Arab members with any REAL weapons because that would anger Turkey. So they give them a bunch of eastern European AKs and a few pickup trucks with anti-aircraft guns, promise air support and toss in a few SF guys ..."
    "... The MSM (as CIA lapdogs are paid to do) constantly try to reinforce the message that the independent YPG/YPJ militias are somehow 'the PYD's army'. Nothing is further from the truth - it's all MSM spin to create the impression that the Syrian Kurds uniformly desire the usurped PYD vision of an independent Kurdistan. In reality, the U.S. State Department neocons and the CIA are the ones that want an independent Syrian Kurdistan for their own scheming (and to deny Assad the land/water/oil). The MSM is constantly on message with this to set the narrative to the American public for Syrian partition - most people have no clue. ..."
    "... For what it's worth, Assad is keenly aware of his history with the Kurds. Even by Kurdish media reports , he is willing to work with the Syrian Kurds as part of a unified Syrian state. He does not object to Kurdish rights or autonomy, just the U.S. meddling to goad the PYD into creating a separate Kurdish state. ..."
    "... The whole Syria nightmare was planned from the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006 because Assad was so broadly popular in the country and "the region." Can't have that so a strategy was drummed up: http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596 ..."
    "... I'm sure the US will throw the Syrian Kurds "under the bus" when their usefulness is finished. I'm sure also that a lot of Syrian Kurds know this, and are hedging their bets. ..."
    "... http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-building-military-bases-in-syria-report/5531259 "The use of proxy forces to destroy the secular government of Syria is now starting to give way to stealth methods of direct ground deployment of Western Special Forces and ground troops under the guise of assistance and coordination with "moderate" terrorists. "With a wide variety of Western-backed terrorist groups ranging from "extremist" terrorists like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra to the "moderate" terrorists of the FSA and the loose collection of terrorists, Kurds, and Arabs like the SDF, the West has a kaleidoscope of proxy forces on the ground already. ..."
    "... So Russian peace talks with US evil empire in Syria were a disaster, which makes Putin look like an idiot, as well as the supporters of this idiocy. As well as Russian invitations for the US to join it in Syria makes it one of the most stupidest invitations ever. ..."
    "... A preview on America's future strategies? http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-EAP-FINAL.pdf ..."
    "... The Iranians have been warring with Kurds by the border with Turkey. Neither the Turks nor the Iranians - nor the Syrians, but they do need the Kurds now - want a Kurdistan. The Kurds must know by now - must have been betrayed enough by now - to know that the US will tell them anything, promise them anything, and deliver nothing but betrayal in the end. ..."
    "... As regards the State Department, the Pentagon, the US government ... what's required is a neo-con purge, top to bottom. They are all working against American interests and against the American people. and have been for the past two decades. The likelihood of such a purge is about zero. Neither Trump nor Hillary has the will or the backbone to stand up to anyone. Trump's all mouth and looking out for number one, and Hillary's plugged in to the money-mosaic as well. Obama's getting ready to cash in his chips. ..."
    "... I am amazed at your unflagging obsession with holding Putin responsible for the US/UK/EU/NATO/GCC destruction of Syria. You've set him up as your omnipotent god and he's failed you, somehow. Putin, Rusia, is not responsible for the death, devastation, and destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya or the rest of the middle east or north africa. You're throwing your stones at the wrong guy, at the only guy who's done anything at all to help the Syrians and to forestall the monstrous neo-con plan. ..."
    "... Israeli bombed military base in Homs province with impunity from S400 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.723701 ..."
    "... There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel: STRANGE DAYS: Did Israelis Pivoted to Russia? Or the other way around. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/ ..."
    "... On the bright side, maybe the 50 signatures are just trying to get noticed by the Clinton transition crew. ..."
    "... The document you posted is a typical wet dream written by utterly incompetent neocons (Kagan's and Zoellik names are a tell), people who can not and must not be allowed to operate with serious strategic and operational categories in any "advisory" role. ..."
    "... i read about 30 of 160 or so comments on this article at NYT. given who the audience of that shit rag is & that comments are vetted, overwhelmingly commenters stated increased military involvement is retarded. ..."
    "... How can Russia, which dwarfs Israel in every meaningful category -- from economy to military -- and who does remember her history well can "pivot" to largely regional player -- I don't know. Russian "neocons" are a dramatically different breed than US ones, for starters they are much more educated and, actually, support Assad. Israel's pivot to Russia in some sense is inevitable, albeit it could be fairly protracted, with Russia being observed as honest broker. They are not completely stupid in Israel and are very aware of real situation in American politics, economy and military. ..."
    "... I note that the 'moderate' Hillary Clinton is a blood-soaked queen of chaos, who if elected is certain to embroil us in pointless wars and spread death and devastation across even more of the world. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is admittedly a gamble, but depute his over-the-top stage persona, his track record is of actually getting along with people and brokering stable working relationships. ..."
    "... At this point I wish I could vote for Richard Nixon (!), but we have the choice that we have... ..."
    "... This piece out of the NYT is pure propaganda. Period. Here's the big clue - where's the memo? It's not embedded in the article. It can't be found anywhere on the web. It's b/c it doesn't exist. The reader is 'TOLD' by a third party journalist few follow who writes for a MIC/Political/Policy corporate mouthpiece. ..."
    "... We see the point of all the saber-rattling by NATO on Russia's borders: to get Putin tied up in a diversionary direct threat to Russia, thereby mitigating or eliminating his efforts in behalf of Assad. And you know what? Americans on the street couldn't care one way or the other what Obama or CIA or DoS does or says about Syria. 280,000 dead, millions displaced and Americans are more concerned by a factor of 1000 about 4 dozen gays in Orlando. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia rejoining Turkey: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950326000441 ..."
    "... These 51 useful idiots are IMO auditioning for the Clinton team while also providing cover for the neo-cons above them like Nuland, Powers, etc. And directionless Kerry says he'll rush home to confer with these idiots rather than dismissing them out of hand. Kerry could only be useful to anyone if Lavrov was in the room with him at all times to keep him in line -- otherwise he reverts to his normal mindless servant of US empire viewpoint, which is to follow whichever way the winds of power are blowing through Washington, DC. ..."
    "... Hillary is the neocon's neocon. Pravy Sektor's honorary storm trooper Vicky Nuland is a Hillary protege. NYT has been positioning its readers to embrace Kerry's Plan B for the last month-plus. ..."
    "... How many of these diplomats were bribed by Saudi Arabia? ..."
    "... This clown Kagan is also the husband of the infamous Victoria Nuland who somehow, defying all logic, still has her job post imbroglio that is the Ukraine today. Hell, she's probably being hailed for that and is an inspiration for lowly State employees. ..."
    "... Thank you Victoria, for giving Crimea back to the Russian Federation where it belongs. ..."
    "... There are almost exactly 7 months until either Trump or Clinton takes office (presuming that the elites manage to completely control any bad news prior to the Dem nominating convention in late July; if the email dam breaks after that I have no idea what the Dem elites will do, but I figure they won't choose the obviously best candidate against Trump, Bernie). ..."
    "... might the West actually directly take on Russia/Syrian government forces? Claiming, of course, some version of R2P ..."
    "... State Department Diplomats who have captained failure after failure? If these people were Russian or Chinese they would have been executed for their serial failures in the ME and Afghanistan. The main problem with being 'exceptional' is that the 'exceptional' ones never make a mistake. "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" ..."
    "... So I was kind of wondering what psychopathic qualities the U.S. War... er, State Department is looking for in potential parasitic career bureaucrats, and came across this self-promotion page on their site. ..."
    "... Counterpunch had a great article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/the-case-for-not-voting-in-defense-of-the-lazy-ungrateful-and-uniformed/ ..."
    "... And though the content of the review by Army Gen. John W. Nicholson is secret, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan received a major incentive this month when President Obama decided to expand America's involvement with more airstrikes against insurgents, giving the U.S. military wider latitude to support Afghan forces, both in the air and on the ground." ..."
    "... No respect for R2P warriors at the State Department, nor for HRC, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. ..."
    "... For Israel to bomb the Syrian military right under the nose of Russian s-400s? Russia, supposedly so dedicated to defending sovereignty, smiles and yawns benignly? A dirty deal has been made... ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-officials-fear-saudi-collapse-if-new-prince-fails-n593996 ..."
    "... "Earlier this week as America was trying to make sense of the deadliest case of Islamic terrorism on US soil since 9/11, I wrote a detailed article here at Breitbart News that laid out the clear factual case about Hillary Clinton's top assistant Huma Abedin. I showed how she has deep, clear, and inarguable connections to a Saudi Arabian official named Abdul Omar Naseef, a powerful Kingdom insider who has helped lead a group called the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League is the huge "charity" whose goal is to spread Islam throughout the world and which has been connected to terror groups like Al Qaeda. ..."
    "... What is Huma's relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef? ..."
    "... Was he the founder of a Saudi charity called the Rabita Trust? ..."
    "... Right after 9/11, was the Rabita Trust put on a list by the U.S. government of groups that were funding terrorism? ..."
    "... the State Department official obviously has an agenda by providing it to the NYT. The NYT has its own agenda filled as well by prominently posting the article on the top of the front page . ..."
    "... One senior official said that the test for whether these proposals for more aggressive action are given high-level consideration will be whether they "fall in line with our contention that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria." ..."
    "... It's important for Russia to ensure that the remains of the first "Israeli" jet it shoots down falls to earth inside Syria. If you've seen a story about the IAF doing something courageous it's bullshit. ..."
    "... Wonder how many of these 51 war mongers were appointed by Hillary. ..."
    "... The EU-Turkey deal's financial package includes one billion euros in humanitarian aid. There are undoubtedly needs in Turkey, a country which currently hosts close to three million Syrian refugees, but this aid has been negotiated as a reward for border control promises, rather than being based solely on needs. This instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid is unacceptable. ..."
    "... kreepy kerry is "running out of patience" since his most desired regime change isn't happening fast enough. ..."
    "... The difference between Hillary and ISIS: the latter "takes" the head of enemies, Hillary "gives" head to donors. Forgive the graphic. ..."
    "... 50 diplomats petition president for war. Was that written by Orwell? ..."
    "... Allow me to further my argument against American Exceptionalism. It is not merely the fact that the U.S. is far from exceptional. From education to infant mortality, the U.S. is woefully behind much of the world. ..."
    "... So Hillary, the bloodthirsty Goddess of War, is longing for a second Libya, i.e., a Syria smashed to smithereens, in ashes and ruins, ruled by a chaotic bunch of mad Takfiri extremists, at war all against all. ..."
    "... The FBI is stonewalling, keeping the contents of Mateen's 911 call unavailable - though it's part of the public record - presumably because it undermines the "ISIS did it" meme poured over the Orlando mass murder. Apparently Mateen may have mentioned ISIS not quite in the same light as has been portrayed. ..."
    "... Now the NYTimes/WSJ are doing the same thing with the 50 dancing diplomats. Releasing what they want us to know and redacting what we want to know : the names of those 50 dancing diplomats. ..."
    "... I suppose it comes under the CIA's blanket excuse for secrecy? "Methods and means", or whatever their boilerplate. ..."
    "... No doubt the State Department dwarves were ginned up by "Cookies" Nuland and Count Kagan by visions of "x memorandum" of 1946 immortality by attacking the resistance to an unipolar hegemony. Mixing it up in Syria with the Russian presence seems civilization limiting at the outer limits of challenge/ response in a military confrontation. ..."
    Moon of Alabama

    There are at least 51 stupid or dishonest "diplomats" working in the U.S. State Department. Also - Mark Lander is a stupid or dishonest NYT writer. The result is this piece: Dozens of U.S. Diplomats, in Memo, Urge Strikes Against Syria's Assad

    WASHINGTON - More than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo sharply critical of the Obama administration's policy in Syria, urging the United States to carry out military strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a cease-fire in the country's five-year-old civil war.

    Note that it was Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and other U.S. paid and supported "moderates" who on April 9 broke the ceasefire in Syria by attacking government troops south of Aleppo. They have since continuously bombarded the government held parts of Aleppo which house over 1.5 million civilians with improvised artillery.

    Back to the piece:

    The memo, a draft of which was provided to The New York Times by a State Department official , says American policy has been "overwhelmed" by the unrelenting violence in Syria. It calls for "a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process."
    ...
    The names on the memo are almost all midlevel officials - many of them career diplomats - who have been involved in the administration's Syria policy over the last five years, at home or abroad. They range from a Syria desk officer in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to a former deputy to the American ambassador in Damascus.

    While there are no widely recognized names, higher-level State Department officials are known to share their concerns. Mr. Kerry himself has pushed for stronger American action against Syria, in part to force a diplomatic solution on Mr. Assad.

    ...

    The State Department officials insisted in their memo that they were not "advocating for a slippery slope that ends in a military confrontation with Russia," but rather a credible threat of military action to keep Mr. Assad in line.

    These State Department loons have their ass covered by Secretary of State Kerry. Otherwise they would (and should) be fired for obvious ignorance. What "judicious" military threat against Russian S-400 air defense in Syria is credible? Nukes on Moscow (and New York)?

    In the memo, the State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Islamic State because it would bolster moderate Sunnis , who are necessary allies against the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

    Would these "diplomats" be able to name even one group of "moderate Sunnis" in Syria that is not on the side of the Syrian government? Are Ahrar al-Sahm and the other U.S. supported groups, who recently killed 50 civilians out of purely sectarian motives when they stormed the town of Zara, such "moderate Sunnis"?

    These 50 State Department non-diplomats, and the stinking fish head above them, have obviously failed in their duty:

    • "Diplomats" urging military action do nothing but confirm that they do not know their job which is diplomacy, not bombing. They failed.
    • These "diplomats" do not know or do not want to follow international law. On what legal basis would the U.S. bomb the Syrian government and its people? They do not name any. There is none.
    • To what purpose would the Syrian government and the millions of its followers be bombed? Who but al-Qaeda would follow if the Assad-led government falls? The "diplomats" ignore that obvious question.

    The NYT writer of the piece on the memo demonstrates that he is just as stupid or dishonest as the State Department dupes by adding this paragraph:

    [T]he memo mainly confirms what has been clear for some time: The State Department's rank and file have chafed at the White House's refusal to be drawn into the conflict in Syria .

    How is spending over $1 billion a year to hire, train, arm and support "moderate rebels" against the Syrian government consistent with the claim of a U.S. "refusal to be drawn into the conflict"?

    It is obvious and widely documented that the U.S. has been fueling the conflict from the very beginning throughout five years and continues up to today to deliver thousands of tons of weapons to the "moderate rebels".

    All the above, the "diplomats" letter and the NYT writer lying, is in preparation of an open U.S. war on Syria under a possible president Hillary Clinton. (Jo Cox, the "humanitarian" British MP who was murdered yesterday by some neo-nazi, spoke in support of such a crime.)

    The U.S. military continues to reject an escalation against the Syrian government. Its reasonable question "what follows after Assad" has never been seriously answered by the war supporters in the CIA and the State Department.

    Unexpected support of the U.S. military's position now seems to come from the Turkish side. The Erdogan regime finally acknowledges that a Syria under Assad is more convenient to it than a Kurdish state in north-Syria which the U.S. is currently helping to establish:

    "Assad is, at the end of the day, a killer. He is torturing his own people. We're not going to change our stance on that," a senior official from the ruling AK Party told Reuters, requesting anonymity so as to speak more freely.

    "But he does not support Kurdish autonomy. We may not like each other, but on that we're backing the same policy ," he said.

    Ankara fears that territorial gains by Kurdish YPG fighters in northern Syria will fuel an insurgency by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has waged an armed struggle in Turkey's southeast for three decades.

    The Turks have suddenly removed their support for their "Turkmen" proxies fighting the Syrian government in Latakia in north west Syria. Over the last few days the "Turkmen" retreated and the Syrian army advanced . It may soon reach the Turkish border. Should the Latakia front calm down the Syrian army will be able to move several thousand troops from Latakia towards other critical sectors. The Turkish government, under the new Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, is now also sending peace signals towards Russia.

    The situation in Syria could rapidly change in favor of the Syrian government should Turkey change its bifurcating policies and continue these moves. Without their Turkish bases and support the "moderate rebels" would soon be out of supplies and would lack the ability to continue their fighting. The Russians and their allies should further emphasize the "Kurdish threat" to advance this Turkish change of mind.

    The race to preempt a Hillary administration war on Syria, which the "diplomats" memo prepares for, is now on. May the not-warmongering side win.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 17, 2016 1:43:36 AM | 1
    This is the Yankees trying to pretend that they're still exceptionally invincible, in order to conceal the fact that they never were. One only need look at all the tentative tiptoeing around China & Russia to see that they're trying to convince themselves that Russia and China are run by people as loony and disconnected as the self-seducers in charge of AmeriKKKan Foreign Policy.

    SmoothieX got it 100% right in the previous thread..

    Roitan | Jun 17, 2016 2:22:17 AM | 2
    "The names on the memo are almost all medeival offiCIAls ..."

    There, fixed it for you. Enjoying the calm before the Goldman Sturm, the takeover of the US Executive in 2017 for the Final Solution on liberating the Fifth Quintile's Last Free Life Savings, and plunging the globe into a New Dark Ages: Trump or Clinton, allatime same-same.

    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 2:36:19 AM | 3
    The State Department and the CIA's 'Plan C' (or are they on 'Plan D' yet?) is an independent Syrian Kurdistan.

    The FSA Sunnistan plan has been going down the tubes for months. With the imminent fall of the last few FSA strongholds, the State Department has gone berserk with their latest standoff bombing memo 'leak' nonsense. A desperate attempt to save the rebels, who now hate them and completely understand how they have been thrown under the bus by the State Department neocons. I really don't think the rebels will be the least bit impressed by the phony theatrics of a internal memo by mid-level bureaucrats.

    The Pentagram is in a bit of a different pickle. They have to do something to stop the Wahhabi head-choppers, but its a bit like herding cats. The best they've come up with is ginning up the SDF to take/hold ISIS territory. But they can't arm the Kurds or Arab members with any REAL weapons because that would anger Turkey. So they give them a bunch of eastern European AKs and a few pickup trucks with anti-aircraft guns, promise air support and toss in a few SF guys. This almost works, but not completely. For what it's worth, I don't think the Pentagram cares at all about an independent Syrian Kurdistan, unifying the cantons or who gets what land/resources, as long as it's taken from ISIS. When ISIS is wiped out, the SDF will cease to exist and the SF guys will leave. The SDF and especially the YPG/YPJ will NOT ever be incented to provoke or go to war with Assad after ISIS is gone. That's a problem for the State Department and CIA

    The neocon State Department and CIA - normally at odds with the Pentagon's increasing reluctance to get involved at all - are taking this opportunity to agitate for an independent Kurdistan. This is done by funding the Kurdish PYD political party which purports to speak for all Kurds. The State Department and CIA also fund the PYD's growing Asayish thug secret police 'enforcers'. The PYD took control of Rojava by throwing out all the other political parties last year and crowning itself the King of all Syrian Kurds. But most Kurds don't trust the PYD, figuring that either Assad or the U.S. is really pulling the strings. The Kurds agree with the original PYD ideology, but not its current land/resource-grabbing frenzy NOR the kind of independent Kurdistan the PYD is suggesting. They want more rights and control of their affairs, but they do not want an actual or de facto independent Syrian Kurdistan.

    The MSM (as CIA lapdogs are paid to do) constantly try to reinforce the message that the independent YPG/YPJ militias are somehow 'the PYD's army'. Nothing is further from the truth - it's all MSM spin to create the impression that the Syrian Kurds uniformly desire the usurped PYD vision of an independent Kurdistan. In reality, the U.S. State Department neocons and the CIA are the ones that want an independent Syrian Kurdistan for their own scheming (and to deny Assad the land/water/oil). The MSM is constantly on message with this to set the narrative to the American public for Syrian partition - most people have no clue.

    For what it's worth, Assad is keenly aware of his history with the Kurds. Even by Kurdish media reports , he is willing to work with the Syrian Kurds as part of a unified Syrian state. He does not object to Kurdish rights or autonomy, just the U.S. meddling to goad the PYD into creating a separate Kurdish state. The U.S. State Department does NOT want Rojava to be part of Syria or the Syrian State and spins the Assad/Kurd relation as antagonistic in the MSM. This is the 'Plan C' Syrian partition scheme. Hopefully, the average Kurd can see through their scheming and will not follow the dictates of a usurped PYD to go to war with Syria for their independence. They would be better off dumping and outlawing the PYD completely and working with the new Syrian government on the future AFTER ISIS (and hopefully without any U.S. State Department and CIA).

    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 3:45:06 AM | 4

    Finally!
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-strike-idUSKCN0Z306L
    Russia strikes U.S.-backed rebels in Syria: U.S. official

    Felicity | Jun 17, 2016 3:55:04 AM | 5
    The whole Syria nightmare was planned from the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006 because Assad was so broadly popular in the country and "the region." Can't have that so a strategy was drummed up: http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596

    Your assessment above is a supremely eloquent assessment and a scream for sanity to return. Thank you so very much for your always illuminating writings.

    Laguerre | Jun 17, 2016 5:17:21 AM | 7
    re 3 Paveway.

    I think you're quite right. That corresponds with what I've thought for some time. I'm sure the US will throw the Syrian Kurds "under the bus" when their usefulness is finished. I'm sure also that a lot of Syrian Kurds know this, and are hedging their bets.

    Penelope | Jun 17, 2016 5:20:17 AM | 8
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-building-military-bases-in-syria-report/5531259 "The use of proxy forces to destroy the secular government of Syria is now starting to give way to stealth methods of direct ground deployment of Western Special Forces and ground troops under the guise of assistance and coordination with "moderate" terrorists. "With a wide variety of Western-backed terrorist groups ranging from "extremist" terrorists like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra to the "moderate" terrorists of the FSA and the loose collection of terrorists, Kurds, and Arabs like the SDF, the West has a kaleidoscope of proxy forces on the ground already.

    "Yet, even as Syria's military clashes with the West's proxies, the United States, Britain, and France have begun moving in Special Forces soldiers to assist in the mission of destroying the Syrian government, a mission that Israeli, Jordanian, and Turkish officers have joined in as well. That is, of course, despite the fact that Russian Special Forces are on the ground fighting on the side of the Syrian military.

    "Likewise, both the United States and Russia are busy building military bases in the northern regions of Syria to use as staging grounds for new operations."

    tom | Jun 17, 2016 5:31:31 AM | 9
    So Russian peace talks with US evil empire in Syria were a disaster, which makes Putin look like an idiot, as well as the supporters of this idiocy. As well as Russian invitations for the US to join it in Syria makes it one of the most stupidest invitations ever.

    Since B is not mentioning it, he might as well not mention that the French terrorist invaders along with the already US terrorists, and possibly German invaders will be occupying parts of Syria.

    Oh, but that's alright because Putin invited the evil minions of the Us empire into Syria, you know, because the bad PR opportunity is a much better outcome then world War three.

    Nicola | Jun 17, 2016 5:37:58 AM | 10
    A preview on America's future strategies? http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-EAP-FINAL.pdf
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 5:47:50 AM | 11
    The Iranians have been warring with Kurds by the border with Turkey. Neither the Turks nor the Iranians - nor the Syrians, but they do need the Kurds now - want a Kurdistan. The Kurds must know by now - must have been betrayed enough by now - to know that the US will tell them anything, promise them anything, and deliver nothing but betrayal in the end.

    As regards the State Department, the Pentagon, the US government ... what's required is a neo-con purge, top to bottom. They are all working against American interests and against the American people. and have been for the past two decades. The likelihood of such a purge is about zero. Neither Trump nor Hillary has the will or the backbone to stand up to anyone. Trump's all mouth and looking out for number one, and Hillary's plugged in to the money-mosaic as well. Obama's getting ready to cash in his chips.

    It looks to be more of the same, until they really do go after Russia, when it will be all over for all of us. I can't imagine that they really believe they can get away with this, but this bunch is all 'mid-level', 'just following orders', it won't be 'their fault' and that's the level they're working at. The people calling the tune think they can play the real world as they do their fake financial world, making up new rules as they go along, as they redefine success after each of their serial failures.

    Talk about boiled frogs. How in the hell have we let it get this far?

    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 6:00:26 AM | 12
    @9 Tom

    I am amazed at your unflagging obsession with holding Putin responsible for the US/UK/EU/NATO/GCC destruction of Syria. You've set him up as your omnipotent god and he's failed you, somehow. Putin, Rusia, is not responsible for the death, devastation, and destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya or the rest of the middle east or north africa. You're throwing your stones at the wrong guy, at the only guy who's done anything at all to help the Syrians and to forestall the monstrous neo-con plan. This letter may be, as b says, a measure of theneo-cons' fear that it will all be over for 'their guys' in Syria by 21 January. If that were to come to pass, Vladimir Putin will have had a big hand in it.

    harrylaw | Jun 17, 2016 7:40:46 AM | 13
    Nicola @10 from your link 'Extending American power' I had to laugh at this... 4. "All of which provides the basis for our strong belief
    that the United States still has the military, economic,
    and political power to play the leading role in pro
    -tecting a stable rules-based international order". 'Rules based',ha, the US is the leading regime change state, acting always contrary to International law to benefit its hegemonic ambitions. All five veto wielding powers and their friends are above International law for all time. Thankfully, Russia and China cannot be threatened militarily and will confront the monstrous US designs in Syria, once the head choppers are defeated the victors should move against the real source of terrorism in the region, Saudi Arabia and the various GCC satraps. b's article above is excellent and is echoed in this piece in Antiwar.com http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/06/16/something-going-worse-thought/
    Kalen | Jun 17, 2016 8:50:40 AM | 14
    There are other worrying development in Syroi a namely changing of Riusssian attitude to Assaad. First Lavrov said that Russia is not Syrian government ally, they just fight terrorists together. An obvious nonsense.

    And now this.

    Israel, following several similar air raids in previous months just bombed SAA installation in Homs province, in the middle of Syria just 45 second flight of S400 rockets located in latakia, while Netanyahu was smiling with Putin in Moscow.

    Israeli bombed military base in Homs province with impunity from S400 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.723701

    Can you explain WTF? All of that while IDF artillery provides cover for ANF commanded by formed ISIL commander in Golan Heights foothills,

    There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel: STRANGE DAYS: Did Israelis Pivoted to Russia? Or the other way around. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/

    Michael | Jun 17, 2016 9:14:54 AM | 15
    On the bright side, maybe the 50 signatures are just trying to get noticed by the Clinton transition crew.
    Yul | Jun 17, 2016 9:17:33 AM | 16
    @ b Come on, U.S. military have a role to play in helping to export American values . Even with threats, Assad told Powell to "get lost". This interview says a lot about the US of A: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/04/a-conversation-with-colin-powell/305873/
    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 9:52:11 AM | 18
    15,000 FSOs, 51 signed the doc.
    SmoothieX12 | Jun 17, 2016 10:09:54 AM | 20
    @10
    A preview on America's future strategies?

    This is not preview nor is it a strategy, since strategies are based on more or less professional and realistic, I may add, assessments of the outside world. I do not have any recollection of any serious US doctrinal (policy or military wise) document in the last 20 years written from the position of comprehensive situational awareness--this is a non existent condition among most of US current "power elites". The document you posted is a typical wet dream written by utterly incompetent neocons (Kagan's and Zoellik names are a tell), people who can not and must not be allowed to operate with serious strategic and operational categories in any "advisory" role. They simply have no qualifications for that and are nothing more than a bunch of ideologues and propagandists from Ivy League humanities degree mill. Back to "preview"--it is a dominant ideology of "exceptionalism" which afflicted US "elites" today, this document is just another iteration of this ideology.

    jason | Jun 17, 2016 10:11:33 AM | 21
    i read about 30 of 160 or so comments on this article at NYT. given who the audience of that shit rag is & that comments are vetted, overwhelmingly commenters stated increased military involvement is retarded. Of course, many of those speak from ignorance of what's really going on, but the knee-jerk suspicion of US Syria policy & these FSO dickheads seems a good sign.
    SmoothieX12 | Jun 17, 2016 10:25:16 AM | 22
    @Kalen
    There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel:

    It is exactly the other way around. How can Russia, which dwarfs Israel in every meaningful category -- from economy to military -- and who does remember her history well can "pivot" to largely regional player -- I don't know. Russian "neocons" are a dramatically different breed than US ones, for starters they are much more educated and, actually, support Assad. Israel's pivot to Russia in some sense is inevitable, albeit it could be fairly protracted, with Russia being observed as honest broker. They are not completely stupid in Israel and are very aware of real situation in American politics, economy and military. In other words -- they know how to count and see who pulls the strings. And then there is another "little tiny" factor--Israelis know damn well who won WW II in Europe. It matters, a great deal.

    dahoit | Jun 17, 2016 10:38:36 AM | 23
    12; I'm amazed at your unflagging obsession in stating Trump will be a pushover for the Ziomonsters.:)
    TG | Jun 17, 2016 10:49:55 AM | 24
    Interesting as always.

    I note that the 'moderate' Hillary Clinton is a blood-soaked queen of chaos, who if elected is certain to embroil us in pointless wars and spread death and devastation across even more of the world. I say this not because I am psychic, but because that is her unambiguous record.

    Donald Trump is admittedly a gamble, but depute his over-the-top stage persona, his track record is of actually getting along with people and brokering stable working relationships.

    This November I'm going for the wild-card who at least sounds rational (if you listen to what he actually proposes, and not his style) and has a track record of actually being pragmatic, over certain doom.

    At this point I wish I could vote for Richard Nixon (!), but we have the choice that we have...

    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 10:57:48 AM | 25
    Kalen is a bit of a troll.
    h | Jun 17, 2016 11:04:23 AM | 26
    This piece out of the NYT is pure propaganda. Period. Here's the big clue - where's the memo? It's not embedded in the article. It can't be found anywhere on the web. It's b/c it doesn't exist. The reader is 'TOLD' by a third party journalist few follow who writes for a MIC/Political/Policy corporate mouthpiece.

    If an article does not link to an original source OR quotes only 'anon sources' be skeptical. Journalism, especially alt news journalists, site original sources AND try like hell to get sources to go on the record.

    My apologies in advance if I'm being offensive to our generous host. That is not my intent. Rather, it's venting a long held frustration I've had with the division within corporate newsrooms who are there solely to sell the readers the news, even if it's made up out of thin air.

    Denis | Jun 17, 2016 11:17:36 AM | 27
    Yeah . . .agree 90%. Here are some minor details that need to be tidied up, and a couple thoughts.

    1.

    b: it was Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and other U.S. paid and supported "moderates" who on April 9 broke the ceasefire in Syria.

    This is not quite accurate. Resolution 2254 exempted al Nusra from the cease-fire, not sure about al Sham and whatever others you are referring to. If they were excluded from the cease-fire, then they couldn't break it.

    2.
    The NYT writer is Mark Landler, not Lander. If you're going to accuse him of being stupid or dishonest, you want to get the name right. Mark Lander, whoever he is, might have a pack of bulldog lawyers.

    3.
    I don't see in Landler's article a link to the memo or a list of the people who signed it. Someone needs to publish that list of signatories to preserve the record of who the DOS idiots are.

    4.
    We see the point of all the saber-rattling by NATO on Russia's borders: to get Putin tied up in a diversionary direct threat to Russia, thereby mitigating or eliminating his efforts in behalf of Assad. And you know what? Americans on the street couldn't care one way or the other what Obama or CIA or DoS does or says about Syria. 280,000 dead, millions displaced and Americans are more concerned by a factor of 1000 about 4 dozen gays in Orlando.

    Les | Jun 17, 2016 11:19:27 AM | 28
    Trump makes reference to this article in blaming Obama and Clinton for Orlando attack

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/14/hillary-clinton-received-secret-memo-stating-obama-admin-support-for-isis/

    SitoAurora | Jun 17, 2016 11:23:30 AM | 29

    Saudi Arabia rejoining Turkey: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950326000441

    WorldBLee | Jun 17, 2016 11:36:33 AM | 30
    Thanks for sharing your outrage, b. I completely agree. I have been ranting about this all morning and it's good to see someone else stating the case so the rest of us don't feel isolated in our anger at this vicious and dangerous stupidity. These 51 useful idiots are IMO auditioning for the Clinton team while also providing cover for the neo-cons above them like Nuland, Powers, etc. And directionless Kerry says he'll rush home to confer with these idiots rather than dismissing them out of hand. Kerry could only be useful to anyone if Lavrov was in the room with him at all times to keep him in line -- otherwise he reverts to his normal mindless servant of US empire viewpoint, which is to follow whichever way the winds of power are blowing through Washington, DC.
    M | Jun 17, 2016 11:45:35 AM | 31
    CIA .... YPG .... ALNUSRA.... FSL , all these acronyms are so confusing , how about considering the level of sanity and intelligence of these groups ( which is probably below that of a wounded flea .... ) why not call them Scoobidoos vs the Syrian Army

    so the article would go something like this :

    In the memo, the Scoobidoos State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Scoobidoos because it would bolster moderate Scoobidoos, who are necessary allies against the group, also known as Scoobidoos .

    :)

    shargash | Jun 17, 2016 11:54:36 AM | 32
    I thought it was a "cessation of hostilities" not a case fire. The difference is not trivial, and State Department employees should know the difference. The signers are either incompetent or evil (not mutually exclusive, of course).
    5 dancing shlomos | Jun 17, 2016 12:07:16 PM | 33
    dont think landler is stupid. dishonest and deceiving would be my say. he is a nyt's jew writing, maybe lying, regarding syria. NYT: only news acceptable to jews. sometimes, many times we have to make up stories and facts to (maybe) fit.

    cant find any of the dissenting names.

    like to know how many are jew if story not total fake

    then there is the political hatchet job on the russian track/field olym team.

    Mike Maloney | Jun 17, 2016 12:26:08 PM | 34
    I think the key takeaway is b's last two sentences: "The race to preempt a Hillary administration war on Syria, which the 'diplomats' memo prepares for, is now on. May the not-warmongering side win."

    Hillary is the neocon's neocon. Pravy Sektor's honorary storm trooper Vicky Nuland is a Hillary protege. NYT has been positioning its readers to embrace Kerry's Plan B for the last month-plus.

    Whether during or shortly after Hillary's first 100 days in office, U.S. military engagement with Libya and Syria will likely be significantly greater than it is now.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 12:26:55 PM | 35
    thanks b and thanks to some of the posters here too - paveway, smoothie and a few others..
    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 12:46:59 PM | 36
    This is the exact reason the Ministers of Defense of Syria, Russia and Iran held meeting in Teheran just recently. My assumption is they are planning on rolling up the acres, so to speak in Syria. All before the new POTUS comes to office. Also, Hezbollah just announced it's sending in reinforcements to the battlefield. All this while the Chinese continue to sleep. Sigh.
    Edward | Jun 17, 2016 1:10:22 PM | 37
    How many of these diplomats were bribed by Saudi Arabia?
    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:16:44 PM | 38
    @3, paveway.

    The Kurds are the last great hope for the oil and especially natural gas pipelines dream from the GCC to Europe, but still, Israel is not happy. They wanted a branch-off pipeline for themselves. Also Jordan was to get a small branch-off too. Israel is no more than a parasite, look up the definition. It's exact. Turkey would benefit economically due to transit fees. That's why the Turks are so heavily involved. Turkey, who's economy is done for due to Chinese cheap products swamping the M.E; is crashed. Jordan is broke (hence they allow the head choppers to be trained on their territory). The U.S is the overlord who wants this project to be implemented so as to deny Russia the European market (see Saudia too).

    Netanyahu has visited Russia 3-4 times (not sure)to dissuade Putin on his support for Bashar ( who said yes to the Friendship pipeline- Running from Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria..to the Mediterranean thru to Greece, Europe). No other World leader makes that many visits is such a short time to another capital. Netanyahu obviously failed in his endeavor, as the Russians are familiar with these Zionist snakes very well. All they have to look at is the genocide perpetrated by said Zionists in their very own 20th Century history. I even read that Putin irked Netanyahu when Putin offered him back the Pale of Settlement if they wanted to make the smart choice. Beautiful if true. Probably wishful thinking tho.

    Anyways, Israel runs the U.S State Department(see, the Crazies in the Basement). They don't call it Foggy Bottom for nothing. Must be foggy now due to too many employess smoking bongs in the downstairs cafeteria, hence the ridiculous memo. Also the writer of the memo is most certainly another member of the chosen tribe.

    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:24:16 PM | 39
    @11, jfl,

    Yes, a 'Night of the Broken Glass' or 'Night of the Long Knives' is much needed to save Humanity essentially. But don't hope for it. Congress, Capital Hill leaders , MSM heads and head anchors, most everybody in the Whit house(except the kitchen staff) would have to be rounded up.

    The only hope would have been the U.S Military Officer Corp. before the great purges post 9-11. Now it's I'm possible. God help the American people and the World.

    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:32:08 PM | 40
    @20, smoothie,

    This clown Kagan is also the husband of the infamous Victoria Nuland who somehow, defying all logic, still has her job post imbroglio that is the Ukraine today. Hell, she's probably being hailed for that and is an inspiration for lowly State employees.

    Thank you Victoria, for giving Crimea back to the Russian Federation where it belongs.

    jawbone | Jun 17, 2016 1:41:07 PM | 41
    Re: Mike M @ 24 --

    There are almost exactly 7 months until either Trump or Clinton takes office (presuming that the elites manage to completely control any bad news prior to the Dem nominating convention in late July; if the email dam breaks after that I have no idea what the Dem elites will do, but I figure they won't choose the obviously best candidate against Trump, Bernie).

    Seven months. If Russia lends more of its strength, is it possible to gain the territory and hold it to the point that, oh, the West's illegal bases will have to close down? Or might the West actually directly take on Russia/Syrian government forces? Claiming, of course, some version of R2P

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 1:49:25 PM | 44
    State Department Diplomats who have captained failure after failure? If these people were Russian or Chinese they would have been executed for their serial failures in the ME and Afghanistan. The main problem with being 'exceptional' is that the 'exceptional' ones never make a mistake. "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"
    sejmon | Jun 17, 2016 2:15:32 PM | 45
    #12 jfl - Thanks..VVP/LAVROV know what they doing
    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 2:56:22 PM | 46
    So I was kind of wondering what psychopathic qualities the U.S. War... er, State Department is looking for in potential parasitic career bureaucrats, and came across this self-promotion page on their site. They seem to feel that working for them immerses you in a 'Culture of Leadership'. I guess the 'Culture of Chaos and Death' theme, although more neocon-appropriate, was shot down in favor of tempting potential employees with the possibility of more power and control.

    Offered for your enjoyment and/or revulsion: Congratulations on taking the first step towards your new career!

    Picture Hillary watching streaming video of Stevens get whacked in Benghazi when you read through that list of Leadership and Management Principles.

    rg the lg | Jun 17, 2016 3:17:01 PM | 47
    There are times the depressing mood on MoA is mitigated by some of the rather classic spelling errors. I sometimes wonder if they might be intentional in order to lighten the mood?

    Or not ...

    Counterpunch had a great article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/the-case-for-not-voting-in-defense-of-the-lazy-ungrateful-and-uniformed/

    I think maybe (maybe, I think) this is also good advice regarding posting to blogs, or not?

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 3:39:15 PM | 49
    June 17, 2016 - You cannot make this stuff up ...

    In the inner halls of Pentagramagon nothing succeeds financially like serial designed failure ...

    KABUL, Afghanistan - "The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan has submitted his first three-month assessment of the situation in the war-torn country and what it's going to take to defeat the Taliban, a U.S. military official has told The Associated Press.

    And though the content of the review by Army Gen. John W. Nicholson is secret, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan received a major incentive this month when President Obama decided to expand America's involvement with more airstrikes against insurgents, giving the U.S. military wider latitude to support Afghan forces, both in the air and on the ground."

    source - http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2016/06/16/afghanistan-nicholson-commander-pentagon-report-war/85972056/

    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 3:59:47 PM | 52
    No respect for R2P warriors at the State Department, nor for HRC, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. Jo Cox as former Oxfam executive was moved by the same massacres of Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Darfur.

    Unwittingly (?) the R2P argument was used by the Obama White House to intervene in Libya and Syria. The US took R2P a step further to force regime change which is illegal by International law. See George Bush and Tony Blair to white-wash the cruelty of torture, rendition, Abu Ghraib, extrajudicial assassinations, etc, etc.

    Former US Ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford was an apprentice of John Negroponte in Baghdad, Iraq.

    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 4:00:47 PM | 53
    White Supremacist Hate Crime

    No political motive about the Brexit discussion ... a local incident waiting to happen for more than a decade.

    Thomas Mair a Long Time neo-Nazi of National Alliance

    paul | Jun 17, 2016 4:08:30 PM | 54
    If I were Assad, I would be shaking in my boots right now and having Gaddafi dreams. Russia has clearly allied itself closely to Israel and Nato in Syria. Some kind of sanctions relief deal must be in the works. Syria will be split up soon. Assad is a dead man.

    For Israel to bomb the Syrian military right under the nose of Russian s-400s? Russia, supposedly so dedicated to defending sovereignty, smiles and yawns benignly? A dirty deal has been made...

    Les | Jun 17, 2016 4:23:28 PM | 55
    Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-officials-fear-saudi-collapse-if-new-prince-fails-n593996
    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 4:41:44 PM | 56
    "Earlier this week as America was trying to make sense of the deadliest case of Islamic terrorism on US soil since 9/11, I wrote a detailed article here at Breitbart News that laid out the clear factual case about Hillary Clinton's top assistant Huma Abedin. I showed how she has deep, clear, and inarguable connections to a Saudi Arabian official named Abdul Omar Naseef, a powerful Kingdom insider who has helped lead a group called the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League is the huge "charity" whose goal is to spread Islam throughout the world and which has been connected to terror groups like Al Qaeda. If that sounds like a serious accusation, you're damn right it is."

    "The three questions are very simple, very straightforward, and, frankly, anybody can research the answers themselves. They are:

    1) What is Huma's relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef?

    2) Was he the founder of a Saudi charity called the Rabita Trust?

    3) Right after 9/11, was the Rabita Trust put on a list by the U.S. government of groups that were funding terrorism?"

    source - http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/15/roger-stone-three-questions-huma-abedin-hillary-wont-answer/

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 4:49:33 PM | 57
    paul @54

    "If I were Assad, I would be shaking in my boots right now and having Gaddafi dreams."

    Interesting opinion? If you made a list of democratically elected Presidents and National Leaders the US/GB/ISR axis have terminated you will fill a book. From Patrice Lumumba to Hugo Chavez the list goes on and on. Could you supply me with a list of National Leaders that Russia under Putin has terminated?

    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 4:54:52 PM | 58
    State Dept: 'No Plans' to Make Public Memo Urging Strikes on Syrian Gov't
    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - US Department of State has no plans to make public an internal memo calling for the United States to take military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad's government, US Department of State spokesperson John Kirby said in a briefing on Friday. "There's no plans to make it public," Kirby stated when asked when the State Department would release the dissent letter.

    Furthermore, Kirby said there will be no investigation as to how the letter ended up in the public domain.

    By 'public domain', Kirby means on some writer's desk at the NYT, never to be seen by the unwashed masses. To be fair, the State Department's "Dissent Memo" program is supposed to be confidential even within the State Department itself to encourage its use. Mark Landler said in his article that a draft of it was leaked by 'a State Department official' to the NYT. So some skepticism of the existence or eventual submission of the actual memo is warranted. Not that Landry is lying or hasn't verified it, but the State Department official obviously has an agenda by providing it to the NYT. The NYT has its own agenda filled as well by prominently posting the article on the top of the front page .

    Mina | Jun 17, 2016 5:08:46 PM | 60
    Nyt participating in these pressures is coordinated with medecins sans frontiere announcing today that they ll refuse eu money to protest on the treatment of refugees and with recent surge in french and uk msm of so called white helmets exclusive pictured
    Laguerre | Jun 17, 2016 5:24:14 PM | 61
    re 60 mina

    I've not fully understood the refusal of médecins sans frontieres of European funding. It's a major source, I think. They've gone American, I suppose.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 5:24:58 PM | 62
    @ why bother engaging people who change their handle and say the same thing over again?
    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 5:27:58 PM | 63
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-cable-idUSKCN0Z3087

    Obama, despite dissent on Syria, not shifting toward strikes on Assad

    The U.S. administration sought on Friday to contain fallout from a leaked internal memo critical of its Syria policy, but showed no sign it was willing to consider military strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces called for in the letter signed by dozens of U.S. diplomats.

    Several U.S. officials said that while the White House is prepared to hear the diplomats' dissenting viewpoint, it is not expected to spur any changes in President Barack Obama's approach to Syria in his final seven months in office.

    One senior official said that the test for whether these proposals for more aggressive action are given high-level consideration will be whether they "fall in line with our contention that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria."

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 17, 2016 5:32:25 PM | 64
    Posted by: paul | Jun 17, 2016 4:08:30 PM | 54

    It's important for Russia to ensure that the remains of the first "Israeli" jet it shoots down falls to earth inside Syria. If you've seen a story about the IAF doing something courageous it's bullshit.

    lysias | Jun 17, 2016 6:01:45 PM | 66
    Mid-level bureaucrats trying to establish a case for being promoted when and if Hillary becomes president.
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 6:27:23 PM | 67
    @55 Les, 'Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay'

    The Prince is in the Oval office. Looks like the Houthi currency has tanked , Obama is going to ( try to ) pay off in Assad 's?

    South Front's map is finally up to date? Eisenhower follows Truman into the Mediterranean.

    Vollin | Jun 17, 2016 6:37:47 PM | 68

    Wonder how many of these 51 war mongers were appointed by Hillary.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 7:08:01 PM | 69
    How about know-nothing state dept spokespeople preparing for assad to leave to be replaced by isis?
    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 7:10:10 PM | 70
    @Laguerre
    MSF: Nothing remotely humanitarian about EU policies

    The EU-Turkey deal's financial package includes one billion euros in humanitarian aid. There are undoubtedly needs in Turkey, a country which currently hosts close to three million Syrian refugees, but this aid has been negotiated as a reward for border control promises, rather than being based solely on needs. This instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid is unacceptable.

    Last week the European Commission unveiled a new proposal to replicate the EU-Turkey logic across more than 16 countries in Africa and the Middle East.

    These deals would impose trade and development aid sanctions on countries that do not stem migration to Europe or facilitate forcible returns, rewarding those that do. Among these potential partners are Somalia , Eritrea , Sudan and Afghanistan – four of the top ten* refugee generating countries.

    Barbara | Jun 17, 2016 7:35:09 PM | 71
    kreepy kerry is "running out of patience" since his most desired regime change isn't happening fast enough. How many others are in the works? I'm running-out-of-patience waiting for the regime change anyone with 1/2 a brain wants, right here in the U.S. Regime Change US. It's our turn. I just read Putin's speech at the St. Petersburg Int'l Forum. He must have used the word "cooperation" at least 20 times. We need such a great leader. Terroristic turds like kerry and co. belong in jail.
    metni | Jun 17, 2016 7:50:24 PM | 72
    The difference between Hillary and ISIS: the latter "takes" the head of enemies, Hillary "gives" head to donors. Forgive the graphic.
    steelhead23 | Jun 17, 2016 7:53:07 PM | 73
    50 diplomats petition president for war. Was that written by Orwell? Isn't it enough that this "peaceful" nation arms the world and places economic "pressure" on those nations that displease her to the point of causing millions to die - do we really have to "kill the village to save it?" Yes, I agree, each and every one of those "career diplomats" should be looking for other work. They have not merely lost their way, they have lost their minds. My contempt for them is manifest, as is my contempt for the entire MIC. That those trained in diplomacy should send such a despicable petition illuminates the deep corrupting influence of American Exceptionalism - a force for the kind of nationalism Germany endured 1933-45. Idiots.

    Allow me to further my argument against American Exceptionalism. It is not merely the fact that the U.S. is far from exceptional. From education to infant mortality, the U.S. is woefully behind much of the world. My objection is that belief in exceptionalism leads to moral decay. It is the functional equivalent of the 19th Century preachers who endorsed slavery, who preached that negroes carried the mark of Cain, etc. Whites were God's chosen. The pseudo-righteousness that preaching created in believers was largely responsible for America's Civil War. Americans will be better people, with a better society, if we dispel this myth immediately. We're OK, you're OK. Then we could have peace. Wouldn't that be nice?

    Enrique Ferro | Jun 17, 2016 7:58:26 PM | 74
    So Hillary, the bloodthirsty Goddess of War, is longing for a second Libya, i.e., a Syria smashed to smithereens, in ashes and ruins, ruled by a chaotic bunch of mad Takfiri extremists, at war all against all. The Queen of Chaos, indeed, loves these scenarios. Especially because her quick attack as first thing should she win the White House would shut the mouths of her critics wanting her prosecuted for her crooked political and business corruption. But she and her State Department surrogates would be in for a surprise: Russian and Syrian defences would not remain silent. And afterwards, what would be left? How would the Exceptionalist who "gets things done" proceed?
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 8:28:15 PM | 75
    The FBI is stonewalling, keeping the contents of Mateen's 911 call unavailable - though it's part of the public record - presumably because it undermines the "ISIS did it" meme poured over the Orlando mass murder. Apparently Mateen may have mentioned ISIS not quite in the same light as has been portrayed.

    Now the NYTimes/WSJ are doing the same thing with the 50 dancing diplomats. Releasing what they want us to know and redacting what we want to know : the names of those 50 dancing diplomats.

    I suppose it comes under the CIA's blanket excuse for secrecy? "Methods and means", or whatever their boilerplate.

    Releasing their names might give us the means to track the 5th column as it winds its way through 'our' government, and that must be prevented at all costs. Think it might lead through Hillary? Seems no doubt here.

    Jay M | Jun 17, 2016 8:30:36 PM | 77
    No doubt the State Department dwarves were ginned up by "Cookies" Nuland and Count Kagan by visions of "x memorandum" of 1946 immortality by attacking the resistance to an unipolar hegemony. Mixing it up in Syria with the Russian presence seems civilization limiting at the outer limits of challenge/ response in a military confrontation.

    [Jun 13, 2016] Moving on to Her Im Not Trump Campaign by Elizabeth Schulte

    This Democratic Party Politburo is approaching in power to the Politburo of the CPSU making primaries redundant -- candidate supported by Politburo is the candidate that will be installed as the candidate from the Party in Presidential election independently of the level rank-and-file voters support. This is especially true is competition is close.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Even if Clinton were to lose California to Bernie Sanders, she would be well ahead in the number of delegates awarded based on the outcome of primaries, though still shy of the 2,383 threshold -- a majority at the party's nominating convention in July. ..."
    "... AP based its findings on a survey of the superdelegates -- the party's high-level officials, officeholders and operatives who get a vote at the convention just for being Very Important. Clinton has been piling up superdelegate support since long before the first primary. The 571st to promise to vote for Clinton at the convention put her over the top, according to AP. ..."
    "... In fact, the media were merely ratifying what Hillary Clinton's supporters have been preaching for months -- more and more frantically when their candidate kept losing to Sanders, who was harangued endlessly about the need to shut up so Democrats could "unify." ..."
    "... "It's time to stand behind our presumptive candidate," Michael Brown, a superdelegate from Washington, D.C., who came forward in the past week to back Clinton before the District's June 14 primary, told the AP . "We shouldn't be acting like we are undecided when the people of America have spoken." ..."
    "... Except that quite a few "people of America" didn't speak. As The Intercept commented , it was a fitting end to a race where party leaders and prominent liberals relied on their control of the party and media apparatus to steer the nomination to their choice: "Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media." ..."
    "... Suddenly, Clinton -- a fixture of the Democratic Party establishment since before her husband occupied the White House and the presumptive nominee in 2016 since just after Barack Obama won re-election in 2012 -- had a fight on her hands against a candidate who connected with the disgust with the status quo felt by millions. ..."
    "... As secretary of state , Clinton supported the coup-makers in Honduras who overthrew democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya; the deadly 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan; and the Obama administration's escalation of drone warfare. She used her position to travel the world convincing governments to start fracking for natural gas and oil, among other priorities of Corporate America. ..."
    "... The message to the Democratic Party's more liberal voting base is already clear: Sure, you may have some criticisms of Hillary Clinton, and you may have liked what Bernie Sanders had to say -- but it's time to get real and start helping ensure the victory of the "lesser evil" in order to stop the "greater evil." But everything about Clinton's political career is further evidence that voting for the "lesser evil" leads to of evils of both kinds. ..."
    "... Clinton will take the support of liberals and progressives for granted, and start concocting strategies to win over moderate and conservative "swing voters." So get ready for more speeches like her foreign policy address where it's hard to see what distinguishes her from a more mainstream Republican than Trump. ..."
    "... This exposes the gap between what the Democrats are offering and what the people who are expected to vote for them want. Supporting Hillary Clinton won't close that gap. We need to start organizing for an alternative -- in politics and in all the protest movements throughout society -- that can. ..."
    Jun 12, 2016 | truth-out.org

    Hillary Clinton did well in the final major day of the Democratic presidential primaries, winning all but one state, though the outcome in California, the biggest contest of the whole season, was still in doubt as this article was published.

    Even if Clinton were to lose California to Bernie Sanders, she would be well ahead in the number of delegates awarded based on the outcome of primaries, though still shy of the 2,383 threshold -- a majority at the party's nominating convention in July.

    Sanders, whose left-wing campaign surpassed all expectations and inspired huge numbers of people, has promised to continue his campaign, possibly through the convention. But on election night, there were signs -- including reports of a Thursday meeting between Sanders and Barack Obama, scheduled at Sanders' request -- that he might relent and concede.

    Either way, though, the Associated Press (AP) wasn't waiting around.

    On Monday night -- with hours to go before polling places opened on the day with the second-largest number of Democratic delegates at stake -- the news service announced that Clinton had enough pledged delegates plus "superdelegates" supporting her to have a lock on the nomination.

    AP based its findings on a survey of the superdelegates -- the party's high-level officials, officeholders and operatives who get a vote at the convention just for being Very Important. Clinton has been piling up superdelegate support since long before the first primary. The 571st to promise to vote for Clinton at the convention put her over the top, according to AP.

    So voters who took a look at the New York Times before they went to the polls were treated to a front-page banner headline broadcasting Clinton's "historic" achievement -- of winning the election they had yet to vote in.

    If they voted at all. On election night, analysts speculated, based on still-incomplete returns, that turnout in the Democratic contests may have fallen compared to other states, probably because of the AP projection.

    In California, Long Beach resident Arie Gonzalez told the Los Angeles Times, "It's like, why vote?...I can't believe Democrats have all these superdelegates and that we vote consistently always with Iowa first and California has no voice by the time it comes down to it. We're a tenth of the population. It's ridiculous."

    In fact, the media were merely ratifying what Hillary Clinton's supporters have been preaching for months -- more and more frantically when their candidate kept losing to Sanders, who was harangued endlessly about the need to shut up so Democrats could "unify."

    "It's time to stand behind our presumptive candidate," Michael Brown, a superdelegate from Washington, D.C., who came forward in the past week to back Clinton before the District's June 14 primary, told the AP. "We shouldn't be acting like we are undecided when the people of America have spoken."

    Except that quite a few "people of America" didn't speak. As The Intercept commented, it was a fitting end to a race where party leaders and prominent liberals relied on their control of the party and media apparatus to steer the nomination to their choice: "Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media."

    ***

    The preempting of the actual vote by superdelegate math overshadowed coverage of the wave of enthusiasm that Sanders rode going into the final big primaries. In California, a campaign event in Oakland drew 20,000 people, and another in LA turned out 13,500, despite being moved to a different venue at the last minute.

    This has been the story since the start of the campaign. From the moment he said he would run for the Democratic nomination, Sanders, the self-declared socialist, drew crowds eager to hear a candidate who talked about taking on corporate greed, challenging the corruption of the US political system and putting working people ahead of Wall Street profits.

    Suddenly, Clinton -- a fixture of the Democratic Party establishment since before her husband occupied the White House and the presumptive nominee in 2016 since just after Barack Obama won re-election in 2012 -- had a fight on her hands against a candidate who connected with the disgust with the status quo felt by millions.

    ... ... ...

    As secretary of state, Clinton supported the coup-makers in Honduras who overthrew democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya; the deadly 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan; and the Obama administration's escalation of drone warfare. She used her position to travel the world convincing governments to start fracking for natural gas and oil, among other priorities of Corporate America.

    Clinton says she's ready to stand up to Trump and his agenda, but when ordinary people do just that with actions, not just words, she's on the other side.

    ... ... ..

    ***

    The message to the Democratic Party's more liberal voting base is already clear: Sure, you may have some criticisms of Hillary Clinton, and you may have liked what Bernie Sanders had to say -- but it's time to get real and start helping ensure the victory of the "lesser evil" in order to stop the "greater evil." But everything about Clinton's political career is further evidence that voting for the "lesser evil" leads to of evils of both kinds.

    ... ... ...

    Clinton, meanwhile, will make the Democratic presidential nominee's time-honored "move to the center" -- though after a primary where she turned into the "No we can't" candidate on health care, college tuition and more, she doesn't have far to go.

    Clinton will take the support of liberals and progressives for granted, and start concocting strategies to win over moderate and conservative "swing voters." So get ready for more speeches like her foreign policy address where it's hard to see what distinguishes her from a more mainstream Republican than Trump.

    But this campaign strategy might not work out so smoothly. Clinton is sending her stick-with-me-America-is-already-great message to a population of working people whose lives are far from great, and getting even less so all the time.

    A recent poll by the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research illustrates growing dissatisfaction with the political process and the two political parties. The May study of registered voters, Republicans and Democrats, showed that 90 percent lack confidence in the US political system. Some 40 percent said it was "seriously broken."

    "The views of ordinary voters are not considered by either party, according to most Americans," the study stated. "Fourteen percent say the Democratic Party is responsive to the views of the rank-and-file; 8 percent report that about the Republican Party."

    But as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting pointed out, the corporate media didn't report on this poll. They were too busy conducting a survey of anonymous superdelegates so they could tell primary voters that Clinton was already the winner, so they don't need to bother.

    This exposes the gap between what the Democrats are offering and what the people who are expected to vote for them want. Supporting Hillary Clinton won't close that gap. We need to start organizing for an alternative -- in politics and in all the protest movements throughout society -- that can.

    This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

    Elizabeth Schulte is a journalist and reviews editor for the Socialist Worker, writing frequently on low-wage workers, the Democratic Party and women's liberation.

    [Jun 12, 2016] WikiLeaks to publish more Hillary Clinton emails - Julian Assange

    Notable quotes:
    "... He has attacked Clinton as a "liberal war hawk", claiming that WikiLeaks had published emails showing her to be the leading champion in office to push for the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, despite Pentagon reluctance. ..."
    Jun 12, 2016 | theguardian.com

    New release likely to fan controversy and provide further ammunition for Republican presidential rival Donald Trump

    Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said his organisation is preparing to publish more emails Hillary Clinton sent and received while US secretary of state.

    Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is under FBI investigation to determine whether she broke federal law by using her private email in sending classified information. A new WikiLeaks release of Clinton emails is likely to fan a controversy that has bedevilled her campaign and provide further ammunition for Donald Trump, her Republican presidential rival, who has used the issue to attack her.

    Assange's comments came in an interview on ITV's Peston on Sunday. "We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton … We have emails pending publication, that is correct," Assange said.He did not specify when or how many emails would be published.

    WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive in March of 30,322 emails and email attachments sent to and from Clinton's private email server while she was secretary of state. The 50,547 pages of documents are from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014, and 7,570 of the documents were sent by Clinton, who served as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

    Assange, a trenchant Clinton critic, said she was receiving constant personal updates on his situation. The WikiLeaks founder has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London since July 2012, when he sought asylum to avoid extradition. Assange is wanted in Sweden over allegations of rape dating from 2010, which he denies, but he has not been charged.

    A Stockholm district court upheld an arrest warrant against the Australian last month, saying there was still "probable cause for suspicion" against him.

    Assange said it was highly unlikely that the US attorney general, Loretta Lynch, would indict Clinton. "She's not going to indict Hillary Clinton, that's not possible. It's not going to happen. But the FBI can push for concessions from a Clinton government," he said.

    He has attacked Clinton as a "liberal war hawk", claiming that WikiLeaks had published emails showing her to be the leading champion in office to push for the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, despite Pentagon reluctance.

    "They predicted that the postwar outcome would be something like it is … she has a long history of being a liberal war hawk," he said.

    He also accused Google last week of helping Clinton in her presidential campaign, lumping together two of his bugbears.

    Google "is intensely aligned with US exceptionalism" and its employees will likely be rewarded if Clinton wins the presidential election come November, Assange told an international media forum in Moscow.

    His attacks on Clinton may be dismissed as highly partial, but the email controversy continues to dog her. An internal report last month found she had broken several government rules by using a private server rather than more secure official communication systems.

    The 78-page investigation by the inspector general of the state department singled out several previously unknown breaches while Clinton was secretary of state, including the use of mobile devices to conduct official business without checking whether they posed a security risk.

    [Jun 12, 2016] M of A - U.S. Election Thread 2016-03 - Yves Smith On Not Hillary!

    Notable quotes:
    "... Naked Capitalism ..."
    "... Trump isn't even far right, he's just a populist. He's nationalist, but not national socialist. He's for diplomacy, not for invading every country the MIC identifies as "terrorist" (the new, politically-correct n-word for people we can kill with impunity). ..."
    "... Trump just represents people who want their jobs and their country back, and for you to malign these followers as far right is nothing short of elitism. ..."
    "... Trump will do an 'Alexander' on the US's Gordian knot of a political system. At least that's the hope of the many frustrated and disillusioned. And like Obama, Day-2 in the White House will business-as-usual according to the MIC-Wall St script. ..."
    "... Unfortunately, lesser of evils at voting time has not resulted in lesser of evils Presidents. Every time I keep thinking that the new guy can't possibly be as bad as the last, he proves that he can be. ..."
    "... Trump appears to be an outsider until you meet his foreign policy team or his economic advisers or watch his virtual oath of fealty to AIPAC to etc. Loose cannons can backfire. The only Never-Hillary alternative beyond Trump is Sanders. ..."
    "... Unemployment & underemployment are destroying the lives of US Citizens. Life expectancy of US Citizens is going down. Trump's plan to decrease the number of non-citizens in the US is highly popular among US Citizen voters. ..."
    "... Today I read an example. Millions of Americans are scrapping by and rely on so-called payday loans. The Administration tightened regulations on those loans, Republicans oppose, Hillary promises to defend them. Bernie proposed a postal bank as exists in most countries which would eliminate most cases where such loans could start. Sanders plan is realistic, simple to understand and much more effective, and would hurt so called "pay day loan industry" much more, and this is too much for "bleeding liver liberals". ..."
    "... Although the legal issues are complicated, what we know for sure is that Clinton played fast and loose with National Security because she deemed that it was more important to secure HER OWN communications. This was NOT a 'judgment call' on a policy issue but a deliberate choice to ignore some of the most grave obligations of her office so as to advantage herself. ..."
    "... To any reasonable person, this simple fact is further evidence of Hillary's corrupt elitism and unquestionably disqualifies her for the Presidency. ..."
    "... This misconception is still alive and kicking. Killary wasnt the mastermind behind Libya's invasion, she was just a frontwoman for "color revolution" plans which were well under way before she come into power, and will continue when she fades into obscurity. ..."
    "... Another misconception is Obama's "peace-loving" nature, its just an illusion he and his PR people are pushing. "Obama is good, its these others who want war", and people still fall for that? :)) The only difference between Bush jr and Obama is that one likes to fight wars directly (US cant afford that anymore), and another through proxy terrorists and drones, its cheaper this way, and even more destructive. ..."
    "... As far as I can see, Trump's the only person calling for diplomacy & a de-escalation of tensions with the Chinese & the Russians. His obsession with capitalism, making money & deal-making may paradoxically prove to be his best feature; if you blow up the world, no more deals! ..."
    "... Taking formerly unified & regionally powerful countries resistant to USA domination & turning them into defenseless mini-statelets is "strategically pointless"? It amazes me how progressives can look the strategy straight in the eye... and then deny it. ..."
    "... Iraq was hostile to Iran before the invasion and Saddam was easy to deal with. Syria used to be stable and sell oil. Now Iraq is aligned with Iran and Syria is a disaster and has given Russia an opportunity to demonstrate loyalty to allies and the effectiveness of the Russian military and weapons. ..."
    "... About Obama being an organizer. He seems to have frontend for the FIRE sector: ..."
    "... Breaking States is essential and specifically mentioned in the Oded Yinon Plan for Greater Israel. The PNAC Plan for Full Spectrum Dominance with the Global War on Terror further reinforces and justifies the Yinon Plan. ..."
    "... Don't miss the event ... all signs are pointing towards the inevitable! ..."
    "... "Hillary's experience is one of failure." ..."
    "... HRC is a shill politician supporting Israel in the Middle East . Her vote for the Iraq war, her run as senator for NY with the backing of Rupert Murdoch and her abominable policy as Secretary of State versus Libya and Syria. She used the worst of advisors at State to run her affairs. The buck stop at Obama's desk, he is ultimately responsible for the decisions made. ..."
    "... Early take on Hillary's foreign policy speech: pot shots at Trump (easy), interspersed with scare-mongering, chest-thumping and neocon talking points like: "we never ever stop trying to make our country a better place" (how exceptional!). ..."
    "... Seems Neocons loved HRC's Trump bashing speech as this recap details, https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/hillary-clinton-anti-trump-speech/ ..."
    "... I have to agree with @1 that it is not at all clear that Trump is "far right". He's a populist, sure, he is. Maybe he even fits the definition of a demagogue. But that doesn't place him on the "far right", it just places him "outside the system". ..."
    "... Trump appears to be all in favour of replacing a foreign policy that relies upon a robust military with one that is based upon active diplomacy i.e. that jaw-jaw is better than war-war. ..."
    "... Actually, for Germany, Sanders is very much "middle". Hillary would be "right wing" minus the classism and racism. Trump is close to classical National Socialism with a very special US American "businessman" flavor (there is a traditional disdain for business in Germany) ..."
    "... So, I guess you could sum up the conclusion to all these comments that there is absolutely no one worth voting for because the electoral system is irrevocably broken due to psychopathic or ponerological "infection". You can thrash out the debate as to who is the greater or lesser of evils chosen for the parade this time around but it's a waste of energy since the foundations upon which elections are built have long been rotten to the core. ..."
    "... So, voting for such theatre is surely perpetuating the scenario. The president is already chosen. Period. ..."
    "... What must be understood and highlighted is who the political class works for- the savage capitalists. The US government is merely the front for the ruling class. It merely carries out the policies of the over-civilized, well-manicured capitalist thugs. ..."
    "... Voting is a ritual that reinforces obedience to state authority. It creates the illusion that "the people" control the state, thereby masking elite rule. That illusion makes rebellion against the state less likely because it is seen as a legitimate institution and as an instrument of popular rule rather than the oligarchy it really is. Embedded within all electoral campaigns is the myth that "the people" control the state through voting. ..."
    "... "Who wins the election in the capitalist system makes no difference because all politicians in this system must do what the ruling class want. Elections are a scam whose function is to neutralize resistance movements and dupe ordinary citizens into thinking they have a say in matters of the state." ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Not Hillary!

    Yves Smith of the Naked Capitalism explains why many of her progressive acquaintances will either not vote, or vote for Trump in the upcoming U.S. election. I recommend to read this in full.

    For starters two excerpts:

    Hillary's experience is one of failure. And she did not learn from it.

    Hillary has a résumé of glittering titles with disasters or at best thin accomplishments under each. Her vaunted co-presidency with Bill? After her first major project, health care reform, turned into such a debacle that it was impossible to broach the topic for a generation, she retreated into a more traditional first lady role. As New York senator, she accomplished less with a bigger name and from a more powerful state than Sanders did. As secretary of state, she participated and encouraged strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria. She bureaucratically outmaneuvered Obama, leading to U.S. intervention in Libya, which he has called the worst decision of his administration. And her plan to fob her domestic economic duties off on Bill comes off as an admission that she can't handle being president on her own.

    And the conclusion:

    The Sanders voters in Naked Capitalism 's active commentariat also explicitly reject lesser-evilism, the cudgel that has previously kept true lefties somewhat in line. They are willing to gamble, given that outsider presidents like Jimmy Carter and celebrity governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura didn't get much done, that a Trump presidency represents an acceptable cost of inflicting punishment on the Democratic Party for 20 years of selling out ordinary Americans.

    The Clintons, like the Bourbons before the French Revolution, have ensconced themselves in such a bubble of operative and media sycophancy that they've mistakenly viewed escalating distress and legitimate demands from citizens as mere noise.
    ...
    If my readers are representative, Clinton and the Democratic Party are about to have a long-overdue day of reckoning.

    To vote for the far right because the former center (left) has lost its bearing is a somewhat dangerous gamble. The U.S. has a relative stable, inertial system with lots of checks and balances that make this move less risky than similar moves underway in Poland, Germany or France. But unless the center left/right politicians recognize that they have lost their former majority there is no chance they will shun the neoliberal globalization nonsense they impose on their constituency.

    Voting for a stronger movement towards a genuine left is be a better strategy than voting for the far right. But notorious lack of unity within the left, center-right control over the media and the absence of a successful current archetype will keep a majority away from taking that step.

    I agree that the day of reckoning is a long-overdue day. But it may not bring the reckoning we want.

    Cahaba | Jun 2, 2016 6:36:54 AM | 2
    Trump isn't even far right, he's just a populist. He's nationalist, but not national socialist. He's for diplomacy, not for invading every country the MIC identifies as "terrorist" (the new, politically-correct n-word for people we can kill with impunity).

    Trump just represents people who want their jobs and their country back, and for you to malign these followers as far right is nothing short of elitism.

    x | Jun 2, 2016 7:33:38 AM | 4
    Trump will do an 'Alexander' on the US's Gordian knot of a political system. At least that's the hope of the many frustrated and disillusioned. And like Obama, Day-2 in the White House will business-as-usual according to the MIC-Wall St script.
    lysias | Jun 2, 2016 7:44:43 AM | 5
    The way to refute the argument that third party votes are wasted votes is for more and more people to vote third party. If Hillary is nominated, I intend to vote for Jill Stein (whom there seems to be a media conspiracy to ignore -- even when they're discussing what Sanders supporters might do, they never mention her).
    curtis | Jun 2, 2016 8:09:46 AM | 6
    "nation-breaking." I'll have to remember that. That is a very descriptive term for US middle-east policy in recent decades. Brzezinski and Kissinger may not admit as much but it's true; look at the results.

    Unfortunately, lesser of evils at voting time has not resulted in lesser of evils Presidents. Every time I keep thinking that the new guy can't possibly be as bad as the last, he proves that he can be.

    Trump appears to be an outsider until you meet his foreign policy team or his economic advisers or watch his virtual oath of fealty to AIPAC to etc. Loose cannons can backfire. The only Never-Hillary alternative beyond Trump is Sanders. Would Sanders truly reign in the mid-east wars or continue R2P destruction? Can he stand up to Wall Street? I don't know.

    Formerly T-Bear | Jun 2, 2016 8:13:44 AM | 7
    @ U.S. Election Thread 2016-03 - Yves Smith …

    Do you realise just what you're asking? To even click on that site I'd rather 'do' dishes; doing the "Black Plague" is preferable to doing dishes and root canal is just above that.

    The only way to regain control of this political system is: Never vote Republican AND Never vote incumBENT Democrat. Why no one realises 95+ % of the problem comes from having 95+ % incumBENTs returned election after election. Stop that and the problem soon becomes manageable. Throwing your vote after unelectables just throws your vote away - to no discernible effect and is downright foolishness.

    Anonymous 1 | Jun 2, 2016 8:56:55 AM | 8
    Unemployment & underemployment are destroying the lives of US Citizens. Life expectancy of US Citizens is going down. Trump's plan to decrease the number of non-citizens in the US is highly popular among US Citizen voters.

    Voting for Goldman Sachs' sock puppet Hillary Clinton is a vote for immediate self destruction.

    Piotr Berman | Jun 2, 2016 9:12:38 AM | 9
    I do not think that Clinton's chief problem is with people who would rather vote for Jill Stein. Her problem is in the "middle", who are often "culturally" sympathetic to GOP but responding to a concrete populist message.

    Today I read an example. Millions of Americans are scrapping by and rely on so-called payday loans. The Administration tightened regulations on those loans, Republicans oppose, Hillary promises to defend them. Bernie proposed a postal bank as exists in most countries which would eliminate most cases where such loans could start. Sanders plan is realistic, simple to understand and much more effective, and would hurt so called "pay day loan industry" much more, and this is too much for "bleeding liver liberals".

    Trump has a realistic chance of winning in Ohio and Florida against Hillary, and thus becoming a president, and this is not because of wide awareness of how wrong Hillary was on Libya (her failed work on health care reform is known more widely, I presume). Actually, both cases are an indictment not of Hillary but of the liberal establishment in general. On Libya, Hillary basically followed the herd (from liberal think tanks). On health care reform, the methodology was liberal: improve the lot of the consumer without affecting the "industries" too much and concocting a "child that only mother could love", plus the particular child mothered by Hillary was torned to pieces by fellow liberals (certain Moynihan comes to my mind). "Single payer", like it or not, is something that somewhat clueless "centrist voters" can understand, and again, it works even as close to USA as Canada.

    jeffroby | Jun 2, 2016 9:38:00 AM | 10
    As I have written, There Are No Safe Choices and arguing over greater or lesser evils is an exercise in futility at best. The question is, how do we build our own forces of resistance? To vote for Hillary is to commit an act of unilateral disarmament. A massive write-in for Sanders would not be wasted, although the votes would not even be counted until weeks after the election.

    A vote for Stein will immediately register. I am not a great fan of the Green Party, but a Stein vote gives us a tactic to organize our own resistance while we dig in and build something new.

    Jackrabbit | Jun 2, 2016 9:46:23 AM | 11
    Yves is lobbying Super-delegates on behalf of Sanders. That's why she doesn't mention Jill Stein or the Green Party.

    The problem with Sanders is that he choose Party over principle. That's why he doesn't attack Hillary on her emails or Obama wrt black issues (Hillary gets the black vote largely because Obama supports her) .

    Although the legal issues are complicated, what we know for sure is that Clinton played fast and loose with National Security because she deemed that it was more important to secure HER OWN communications. This was NOT a 'judgment call' on a policy issue but a deliberate choice to ignore some of the most grave obligations of her office so as to advantage herself.

    To any reasonable person, this simple fact is further evidence of Hillary's corrupt elitism and unquestionably disqualifies her for the Presidency.

    But Sanders remains quiet about the emails DESPITE THE STATE DEPT INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT which showed that she has been dishonest and deceptive about her email server.

    To better understand the legal issues, see: Do I really need to worry about Hillary's emails? Yes, she will be indicted .

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Is it sufficient for Bernie to sit back and let Trump attack Hillary on the emails? Does it help him to 'unify the party' later? On both counts I would argue: NO!!!

    1) The Democratic Party establishment is anti-Sanders. They like things the way they are. If Hillary is disqualified, they will find someone else to take her place. There are already serious rumors about Biden (Biden-Warren ticket?).

    What the establishment really cares about is that Hillary beats Sanders in delegates and votes cast so that Hillary can be a King-maker if she can't be a candidate.

    2) Bernie's silence:

    > contributes to the view that the email server is just a partisan football;

    > contributes to the view that it is just a question of judgement;

    > undermines his 'man of principle' positioning;

    > undermines his argument that Clinton is a flawed candidate;

    > undermines his claim to have better judgement than Hillary (as explained above - her decision to operate a private email server is disqualifying);

    Bernie's silence doesn't help him to win or to win over the Party. By pulling punches (once again!) Bernie is choosing Party over Principle. This seems to confirm that he is indeed just a sheepdog for the DNC as described by Black Agenda Report and Talking Points Memo .

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    One can only hope that this election season Progressives will finally WAKE UP and understand that the Democratic Party establishment is too corrupt and too entrenched for reform.

    Bernie supporters and left-leaning independents should join/vote GREEN PARTY.

    jo6pac | Jun 2, 2016 9:46:26 AM | 12
    I'll be voting Green Party and were there aren't any Greens I'll vote against incumbent Demodogs.
    JohnH | Jun 2, 2016 9:52:42 AM | 13
    I recommend voting third party...any third party. In most states, the outcome is already known, because most states are reliably either Democratic or Republican.

    In all but a handful of battleground states, voters are free to vote their conscience. Only in battleground states need they consider voting for the lesser of the evils.

    Voting third party is important--it conveys a message of disgust with the establishment duopoly. OTOH NOT voting only conveys complacence and apathy, which the duopoly is totally OK with.

    Harry | Jun 2, 2016 10:06:53 AM | 14
    She bureaucratically outmaneuvered Obama, leading to U.S. intervention in Libya, which he has called the worst decision of his administration.

    This misconception is still alive and kicking. Killary wasnt the mastermind behind Libya's invasion, she was just a frontwoman for "color revolution" plans which were well under way before she come into power, and will continue when she fades into obscurity.

    Another misconception is Obama's "peace-loving" nature, its just an illusion he and his PR people are pushing. "Obama is good, its these others who want war", and people still fall for that? :)) The only difference between Bush jr and Obama is that one likes to fight wars directly (US cant afford that anymore), and another through proxy terrorists and drones, its cheaper this way, and even more destructive.

    Jackrabbit | Jun 2, 2016 10:48:38 AM | 15
    Harry @13

    Thank you!

    The assumption of Obama's progressivism has been found to be misguided time and time again. It is a con. It is a lubricant.

    Black?

    He is ethnically half-white and culturally about 90% white.

    Community organizer?

    Wall Street bailouts and faux mortgage relief. 11-dimensional chess excuses for inaction (he had majorities in both houses of Congress when he was elected)

    Bush tax cuts made permanent - poor get austerity.

    Solution for inequality? More low-paying jobs.

    Constitutional lawyer?

    War on Whistle-blowers; assault on civil liberties; IRS scandal; etc.

    Constitution-shredding, anti-democracy trade deals.

    War without Congressional approval.

    Nobel peace-prize?

    Awarded for simply being NOT-Bush. Approved everything the neocons wanted and asserted the neocon mantra of American exceptionalism.

    The faux conflict between Netanyahu and Obama over Iran is just for show. Sanctions weren't working and the Syrian conflict has dragged out longer than expected (they are not yet ready to take on Iran).

    Note: The above list only scratches the surface of the deceitfulness.

    dahoit | Jun 2, 2016 11:10:22 AM | 16

    Trump far right? That's Obomba, Clinton, the shrub and HRC, the worst rightists in American history.

    Trump is left-right and in the middle, a non ideologue, who will bring back American prosperity, get US out of this wacko world domination idiocy and protect our borders,all nationalist endeavors ,and as right as rain. The moron bubblehead says Trumps foreign policy aims will upset the world order. My God,shes a retard. Never in the history of this planet has such an empty vessel ever sought such a high office.

    Mark | Jun 2, 2016 12:08:39 PM | 17
    Trump is far-right? It seems obvious that when it comes to foreign policy he's to the left of everyone; Clinton has already promised to "totally obliterate" Iran, lusts after confrontation with Russia & is clearly willing to hit the button. For his part, Sanders says "The Saudis (ISIS) should play a bigger role in the Middle East," and says the military option is on the table vis a vis Russia (which of course means nuclear weapons, since USA could obviously never win a conventional war with Russia - it can't even defeat a few thousand lightly armed Taliban). As far as I can see, Trump's the only person calling for diplomacy & a de-escalation of tensions with the Chinese & the Russians. His obsession with capitalism, making money & deal-making may paradoxically prove to be his best feature; if you blow up the world, no more deals!
    strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria

    Taking formerly unified & regionally powerful countries resistant to USA domination & turning them into defenseless mini-statelets is "strategically pointless"? It amazes me how progressives can look the strategy straight in the eye... and then deny it.

    Noirette | Jun 2, 2016 12:30:15 PM | 18
    Naked C. Article is 'factual' within the US landscape from a certain pov..

    Always said that:

    1) Killary cannot win. Already a one time loser, not enough 'base', her and hubby's past, corruption etc. etc.

    2) that the PTB (deep state, military ind. complex, big corps, Finance..) could accomodate to a Sanders presidency but not a Trump one.

    What Dem alternatives remain? If Killary is indicted for the homey-cellar-e-mail boondoggle, plus the fact she could not win (say, most likely, as article hints at) against Trump, the Dems need to put forward another candidate, Biden? Ensuring that the Dems lose the election but the overall system is maintained. (Keeping the lid on Sanders supporters, switching from Bernie to X (other candidate) will be a disaster.)

    On the Repub. side the picture is the same. They can't support Killary openly and to prevent Trump from triumphing they need to launch a candidate that splits Repubs. + conservatives votes, some X 'respectable' candidate getting some 6 better 9-10 or .. % of the vote, enough to throw the election to the Dem candidate. So that the Repubs. lose the election but the system is maintained (bis).

    The prez. race has turned into vaudeville where different parties are fighting to lose while conserving their advantages within the status quo.

    :) :)

    All wll be done to keep the 2-party system alive and put a lid on ALL opposition.

    Jackrabbit | Jun 2, 2016 12:56:44 PM | 19
    Mark @16

    Great comment, especially wrt:

    strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria
    I have found that the US "Left" is generally anti-Empire and simply see any discussion of foreign affairs as mere details. They easily fall for the 'chaos' simplification/cloaking.

    I have made the case that oligarchs and fundamentalism are global problems and that they reinforce each other across national and social divides. It's a complex dance that is destructive and anti-human. The details matter because opening people eyes requires examples.

    tony | Jun 2, 2016 1:05:38 PM | 20
    @Mark

    Iraq was hostile to Iran before the invasion and Saddam was easy to deal with. Syria used to be stable and sell oil. Now Iraq is aligned with Iran and Syria is a disaster and has given Russia an opportunity to demonstrate loyalty to allies and the effectiveness of the Russian military and weapons.

    About Obama being an organizer. He seems to have frontend for the FIRE sector:
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/05/exclusive-how-obamas-early-career-succes-was-built-on-fronting-for-chicago-real-estate-and-finance.html

    fastfreddy | Jun 2, 2016 1:27:45 PM | 23
    Mark 16 "strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria"

    Taking formerly unified & regionally powerful countries resistant to USA domination & turning them into defenseless mini-statelets is "strategically pointless"? It amazes me how progressives can look the strategy straight in the eye... and then deny it.

    Not strategically pointless by any measure! Complete Bullshit. Breaking States is essential and specifically mentioned in the Oded Yinon Plan for Greater Israel. The PNAC Plan for Full Spectrum Dominance with the Global War on Terror further reinforces and justifies the Yinon Plan.

    NATO and The US acting as Aggressor (pre-emptive war & war for regime change) is illegal and Criminal - War Crimes as spelled out clearly in NATO Manifesto.

    Oui | Jun 2, 2016 1:35:34 PM | 24
    Don't miss the event ... all signs are pointing towards the inevitable!

    The Next Revolution: War On Inequality

    Shh | Jun 2, 2016 2:13:24 PM | 27
    Part of the problem is that what you refer to as centrist is actually extreme conservatism bordering on fundamentalism in exactly the same vein as Wahhabism, only in the name of Christ.

    I'm one who would certainly vote for Trump over Clinton explicitly to punish the faux left for perpetrating and perpetuating Obama's treasonous betrayal of every last vestige of progressive idealism.

    As one of the many, many people who don't self identify with political terms like left, right, democrat and republican, it's not a matter of which camp wins, it's a matter of establishing a pattern of public policy that over the long term balances out the needs of varying constituencies in a manner that results in the greatest long-term benefit to the common weal.

    Sanders clearly represents a needed swing back to sound investment in infrastructure and establishing necessary limits on a global oligarchy with no nationalist interests.

    Unless a miracle happens and he gets past the concerted effort to defeat him, then Trump represents the best opportunity to diminish the effectiveness of the current cabal. There should be no illusions that Trump won't fall into line immediately though.

    The reaction against Clinton is purely punitive. We don't need more status quo. Either way, there will be massive amounts of pain for all as we go through the death of the current paradigm - and it's coming regardless of who desecrates democracy and the Office of the President.

    Oui | Jun 2, 2016 3:11:45 PM | 36
    @Yonathan

    "Hillary's experience is one of failure."

    This statement is very true ... HRC is a shill politician supporting Israel in the Middle East . Her vote for the Iraq war, her run as senator for NY with the backing of Rupert Murdoch and her abominable policy as Secretary of State versus Libya and Syria. She used the worst of advisors at State to run her affairs. The buck stop at Obama's desk, he is ultimately responsible for the decisions made.

    Secr. Clinton's Embrace of Erdogan, Muslim Brothers and Chaos

    Mark | Jun 2, 2016 3:17:45 PM | 38
    @tony

    Iraq was hostile to Iran before the invasion and Saddam was easy to deal with. Syria used to be stable and sell oil. Now Iraq is aligned with Iran and Syria is a disaster and has given Russia an opportunity to demonstrate loyalty to allies and the effectiveness of the Russian military and weapons.

    I agree with your first point - a strengthened Iran was certainly one of the few *truly* unintended consequences of the invasion/destruction of Iraq - which Bush recognized/sought to address in his 2006 "redirection" plan - but I don't know to what extent the current govt in Iraq is "aligned with Iran." My understanding (admittedly limited) is that al-Abadi is mostly powerless to resist US dictates; for instance, after Russia intervened in Syria, he made some fuss about potentially requesting RU assistance against ISIS, but then ultimately backed down. The destabilization of Syria has enabled NATO to simply steal the country's oil via ISIS - a major win for USA.

    Jack Smith | Jun 2, 2016 3:26:30 PM | 40
    @Oui | Jun 2, 2016 2:56:48 PM | 30

    My sincere apology learned fren, dun mean to sound mean. To me the endless killing must end, Israel continue to mass killing including Palestinians teenagers and if the US cannot, unable or unwilling to do it.

    It's the voters faults continue to votes for the Democratic party and Repug.

    Jackrabbit | Jun 2, 2016 3:32:27 PM | 41
    Early take on Hillary's foreign policy speech: pot shots at Trump (easy), interspersed with scare-mongering, chest-thumping and neocon talking points like: "we never ever stop trying to make our country a better place" (how exceptional!).

    Trump's response will be . . . entertaining.

    Jackrabbit | Jun 2, 2016 3:45:24 PM | 42
    Clinton just demonstrated that she has no clue why people are upset with the establishment.

    She seems to think all the fuss come from Trump's populist skills and his overblown ego.

    Penelope | Jun 2, 2016 5:39:03 PM | 50
    C'est posible that Bernie has been the intended candidate all along. Could all the vote-stealing from Bernie, balanced by the threat of a Clinton indictment have been a distraction? With no interference and an accurate vote-count Bernie would have long-since emerged as the candidate. In which case-- the microscope would have been on policy & the policies that we WANT. There might even have been a little attention left over to witness the continued subjugation of South America.

    As it is, the US presidential campaign has been greatly side-tracked towards personality, and the illusion of a horse race. I daresay Bernie's controllable and he's it.

    Hillary can go right on coveting Presidential power (of which there is precious little).

    Anonymous 1 | Jun 2, 2016 6:41:50 PM | 54
    Breaking down the 2 party system is tricky, but long term possible. States with initative processes need to enact preference voting (aka instant runoff) so that somewhat similar candidates do not wind up splitting the vote as they do with the first-past-the-post system.

    After 4-6 parties regularly elect officials at the state and local level, there be enough infrastructure to flow up to the national level.

    Top down pushes will collapse back to 2 parties. Hopefully, the TRUMP run will push all the 'gag' neocon/neolibs into the Democratic party of multicultural globalism. Lindsey Graham and John McCain would make wonderful Democrats. This would buy America some time, but is not a stable end state.

    jfl | Jun 2, 2016 7:12:02 PM | 55
    The Bigger Nuclear Risk: Trump or Clinton?

    I can't tell Tweedle-dum from Tweedle-dee

    ... The Tweedle brothers never contradict each other, even when one of them, according to the rhyme, "agrees to have a battle". Rather, they complement each other's words. ...

    Girl with Daisy and Atomic Bomb Explosion (1964) - Lyndon B. Johnson Campaign Ad

    Write-in the name of someone you'd actually want to be President/Senator/Congressional representative on November 8. The stakes are too high for you to stay home.

    Let 2016 be the beginning. First time, everytime, write-in your candidate, work with your neighbors toward convergence. 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028 ... if we'd set out in 2004 we'd be home by now.

    karlof1 | Jun 2, 2016 7:33:43 PM | 57

    Seems Neocons loved HRC's Trump bashing speech as this recap details, https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/hillary-clinton-anti-trump-speech/
    ProPeace | Jun 2, 2016 7:52:21 PM | 59
    Some Internet gossip that should not be readily dismissed, many facts do check out:
    ...an elite team of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assassins controlled by President Obama have gunned down the husband of a US prosecutor who was preparing to charge former President William (Bill) Clinton with crimes relating to his having had sex with an underage girl child kept as a sex slave by his close personal billionaire friend Jeffery Epstein...

    In the "exact/near similar" location this CIA "hit squad" had been operating in ... and shortly after their departure from the Atlanta region, local police officers were called and discovered the body of Shahriar Zolfaghari who was the husband of Georgia's statewide prosecutor for human trafficking Camila Wright-and whom Atlanta Police Major Adam Lee III reported had been shot twice in the chest at close range and said: "It's a mystery as to why someone would harm him"...

    the "possible/supposed" reason for Zolfaghari's killing was a "death message" to his wife Camila to stop her from charging former President Clinton with child sex crimes and to cease her sex trafficking investigation all together.

    As to Prosecutor Wright's exact criminal case against President Clinton, ... it involves the "contracting/deal making" with a number of underage female girls living in the Atlanta region by New York-British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen and Nada Marcinkova-all three of whom were tasked by convicted pedophile, and billionaire, Jeffery Epstein to procure underage sex slaves for his private Caribbean island compound known as "Pedophile Island" that catered to the world's rich and famous, including President Clinton and Prince Andrew.

    Ghislaine Maxwell, who has been labeled as "Epstein's pimp mama", ... was the main "dealmaker/contractor" for the underage Atlanta female sex slaves preferred by her close friend President Clinton during his visits to "Pedophile Island"-and which recently discovered flight log reports have shown him visiting numerous times, and many without his Secret Service detail.

    to whom President Putin ordered this single Hillary Clinton email released to, it doesn't appear to be that hard to figure out as one hour later the international, non-profit, journalistic organization Wikileaks, that publishes secret information, news leak and classified media from anonymous sources, sent out a Twitter message containing this email under the headline Is
    this email the FBI's star exhibit against Hillary Clinton ("H")?

    ?

    The grave implications to Hillary Clinton in regards to this email... is that it provides conclusive proof that she personally ordered top secret and other type classifications to be stripped from emails sent to her private unsecured computer server in violation of US law-and, also, directly contradicts what it says on her presidential campaign website: "Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them."

    ... another Hillary Clinton statement on her campaign website that says: "Was it allowed? Yes. The laws, regulations, and State Department policy in place during her tenure permitted her to use a non-government email for work", has, likewise, been exposed as being untrue by the US State Department's Inspector General who last week said that not only wasn't this allowed, he detailed how Jonathan Scott Gration, the former US Ambassador to Kenya, who ignored instructions in July 2011 not to use commercial email for government businesses, was forced to resign, in mid-2012, when then Secretary Clinton herself initiated disciplinary action against him, while at the same time she was doing the exact same thing, but keeping it secret.

    ...many US media news sites ... agreeing that the most serious US laws violated by her were Executive Order 13526-Classified National Security Information and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f)-Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information of the federal code that make it unlawful to send or store classified information on personal email.

    Also AangIrfan has been doing great reporting exposing the dirt on that sleaze-bag Trump:
    ISRAELI TERRORISM; NETANYAHU; 9 11; TRUMP; MAFIA

    Yet Trump, clearly a puppet of some powerful faction of the global deep state (most probably involving Rocefellers who are e.g. abandoning oil and want to legalize drug business, basically come out of this current war with clean hands on the victorious side), has been sending many confusing signals. Could it be that the goal of masters is too fool not the regular, 'good' people, but the enemies of the humanity (CIA, MI6, Rothshilde, Clinton, Bush, Petreaus, Romney, Koch, Adelson, Erdogan, Saudi, Netanyahoo, Kolomoiski cabal centered in the City of London living off the illegal drug trade since the opium wars)?

    Mind you that we've already seen the "bifurcation" in the USG action in the Me, most recently when the Pentagon/Obama rebels been fighting the CIA "rebels".

    Jack Smith | Jun 2, 2016 8:37:16 PM | 63
    @Inkan1969 | Jun 2, 2016 6:39:02 PM | 52

    Unfair hitting below the belt. What makes you think, getting rid of politicians shedding so much bloods here, Libya, Syria, Afghan... and blames others "so eager to spill other humans' blood on the street?"

    You believe protecting motherfuckers (excuse me Hmmmm..) Liars, murderers, warmongers so no more blood on the streets? Understands, Enuff, is Enuff, the killing, lying, fake videos must end. This is not my view, majority Americans feel the same both sides of the fences, Dem or Repug. We are not the minority but the majority. The differences how to get rid these motherfuckers!!

    To be clear, I'm a passive pacifist, believe in the rule of laws.

    Asked many Blacks, you know what going on in Ukraine, Crimea, Syria or Greece? Most were clueless. Never heard of Ukraine etc. Otherwise - Its Putin Faults, Assad the regime must go, Its Repug faults, Congress faults but Never Obomo! More than 80% voted for Obama twice base on racial line. Now don't call me a racist. A Cop almost shot me after questioning him in public.....

    Jack Smith | Jun 2, 2016 9:30:32 PM | 66
    @raga the logo | June 2, 2016 6:15:07 PM | 51

    " buy a pitchfork and hit the streets. Anything less is a cop-out and playing the game."

    Dunno if you followed Kazzura, Anna News, Liveleak before and after Feb 2014 Maiden uprising they awakened the Separatists. Igor Strelkov, the shooter was fighting Kiev Regime, forced to leave Sloviansk with a handful fighter moved to Donbass. Farmers, doctors, mother, lawyers, grandfather and children with pitchforks and antique weapons guarding building, road blocks and checkpoints with burning tires tried to stopped advancing Kiev troops in Donetsk and Lugansk Obasts.

    However, in Odessa, well-dress school children, women and men sitting calmly on the sidewalks, filling Molotov cocktails to massacre separatist holed up in the Union bldg.

    Ask Neoliberal, the lesser of evils and apologists who were the blood thirsty killers?

    dh | Jun 2, 2016 10:00:53 PM | 68
    @63 "BTW what happened to the Repubs wanting to STOP Trump from being nominated AT ALL COST theme?

    That was so last week. Ryan just endorsed Trump... "I feel confident he would help us turn the ideas in this agenda into laws to help improve people's lives. That's why I'll be voting for him this fall," Ryan wrote.

    Jackrabbit | Jun 2, 2016 11:24:24 PM | 70
    Reaction to Yves Politico article:

    At politico.com
    Pro-Hillary commenters have been harshly critical. Many say that potential Trump voters are NOT progressive and/or are comfortable elites that won't lose anything.

    At nakedcapitalism.com
    A large number of commenters have said that instead of Trump, they would support the GREEN PARTY!

    At MoA
    There has been concerns raised about 1) Sanders reluctance to attack Hillary and 2) the naivete of Yves': "strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria" .

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Note: Yves has explained that she initially tried to make the article into one that describes Sanders supporters anti-Hillary feelings. She says that editor(s) at politico guided the story to Sanders supporters that would vote Trump as it seemed to be a more dramatic story.

    Jack Smith | Jun 3, 2016 1:09:28 AM | 71
    Holy cow, no one will believe me - Bernie advertises in RT!! First time ever, sneaking pass Ghostly blocker - reaching out to RT viewers.

    The message... College should be free, tax Walls street pay for college education. Bernie you lying shit!! I'll never vote for you even if force to eat cat food.

    This what John Pliger wrote in SOTT, 27 May of Bernie...

    Stunning silence in America as it prepares to vote for one side of the same coin

    "Sanders, the hope of many young Americans, is not very different from Clinton in his proprietorial view of the world beyond the United States. He backed Bill Clinton's illegal bombing of Serbia. He supports Obama's terrorism by drone, the provocation of Russia and the return of special forces (death squads) to Iraq. He has nothing to say on the drumbeat of threats to China and the accelerating risk of nuclear war. He agrees that Edward Snowden should stand trial and he calls Hugo Chavez - like him, a social democrat - "a dead communist dictator". He promises to support Clinton if she is nominated...."

    Penelope | Jun 3, 2016 1:13:50 AM | 72
    Dahoit @ 15,

    Trump:

    ""I didn't come here tonight to pander to you about Israel. That's what politicians do: all talk, no action… My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran… We have rewarded the world's leading state sponsor of terror with $150 billion and we received absolutely nothing in return… Iran is a problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon, a problem in Yemen, and will be a very major problem for Saudi Arabia. Literally every day, Iran provides more and better weapons to their puppet states… We will totally dismantle Iran's global terror network. Iran has seeded terror groups all over the world. During the last five years, Iran has perpetrated terror attacks in 25 different countries on five continents. They've got terror cells everywhere, including in the western hemisphere very close to home. Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism around the world and we will work to dismantle that reach. . . . When I become President, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on Day One."

    Yeah, Right | Jun 3, 2016 1:22:52 AM | 73
    I have to agree with @1 that it is not at all clear that Trump is "far right". He's a populist, sure, he is. Maybe he even fits the definition of a demagogue. But that doesn't place him on the "far right", it just places him "outside the system".

    Trump appears to be all in favour of replacing a foreign policy that relies upon a robust military with one that is based upon active diplomacy i.e. that jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

    Which certainly places him way, way to the left of many Democrats (certainly to the left of Hillary) and almost all Republicans.

    He also appears to be all in favour of weighing up Trade Deals based upon what effect they have on the working and middle class of American society, rather than how much those deals enrich the 1%.

    Again, that places him way, way, way to the left of most mainstream politicians in either party.

    Sure, his "immigration" policies appear to be racist, and he doesn't appear to have thought thru many of his *ahem* policies.

    But it is very clear to me that the major reason why he blew away a far-right crowd that contained repulsive Neanderthals as Rubio and Cruz is because he made a deliberate decision to run to the left of them. And I have no doubt that he'll seek to win the Presidency by running to the left of Hillary.

    Not that it would be hard for anyone to run to the left of Hillary, but, still......

    Jack Smith | Jun 3, 2016 1:28:16 AM | 74
    Up Date - RT Live 7/24

    Chris Hedges will be on RT On Contact soon.

    Penelope | Jun 3, 2016 1:29:08 AM | 75
    ProPeace @ 64, You ask "Who are the oligarchs?"
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-federal-reserve-cartel-the-eight-families/25080?print=1
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-four-horsemen-behind-america-s-oil-wars/24507
    Penelope | Jun 3, 2016 1:54:34 AM | 76
    Oh, nuts! I just realized. I didn't follow the Egypt plane crash at all. Are they going to frame LIBYA & use it as a pretext to attack? I'm only just starting to look at it. Is this possible?
    MRW | Jun 3, 2016 2:10:36 AM | 77
    @56, so Commentary Magazine, the cooking magazine for the neocon set, think HRC's Trump bashing speech was the cat's meow.

    Colonel Lang asked this question on his site tonight:

    Am I correct in saying that HC's speech in San Diego was not made to some existing group but rather was an event arranged by her campaign staff in a hired venue with an audience created by them from her supporters in the area? pl
    Someone in the comments said it was closed to the public, and another said it was attended by 200 donors.
    Krollchem | Jun 3, 2016 2:52:02 AM | 78
    @Calathai

    What do you think of Gary Johnson as an alternative to the Repubicrat choices? He is antiwar and supports many of the same social issues that Jill Stein supports. He is also a proven manager, having served as a popular two time governor of New Mexico.

    I share your opinion of the Green Party after what they did to Ralph Nader. There is also the fact that Green Parties in Europe are filled warmongers, especially in Germany.

    somebody | Jun 3, 2016 3:43:11 AM | 79
    Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 2, 2016 9:12:38 AM | 9

    The "middle" has been decimated enonomically. That's why traditional politics don't work anymore.

    Actually, for Germany, Sanders is very much "middle". Hillary would be "right wing" minus the classism and racism. Trump is close to classical National Socialism with a very special US American "businessman" flavor (there is a traditional disdain for business in Germany).

    How he could prevail with US demography, economy/business interests, and mentality, apart from winning an election where everyone stays home out of disgust, I just can't see. But a large part of German Jews (and Social Democrats and Trade Unionists - they said let it blow over it will pass) did not see it coming in 1933.

    So if I was "left" in the US - or just a normal citizen - I would vote Hillary and organize for my interests to prevail in Congress, in the Senate and finally in 2020 plus refuse to be separated on lifestyle choice. My impression is that the Sandernistas will be doing just that.

    M.K. Styllinski | Jun 3, 2016 7:11:12 AM | 80
    So, I guess you could sum up the conclusion to all these comments that there is absolutely no one worth voting for because the electoral system is irrevocably broken due to psychopathic or ponerological "infection". You can thrash out the debate as to who is the greater or lesser of evils chosen for the parade this time around but it's a waste of energy since the foundations upon which elections are built have long been rotten to the core.

    So, voting for such theatre is surely perpetuating the scenario. The president is already chosen. Period. Maybe there's a bit of infighting between Establishment factions but I think it's a done deal. Similarly, any attempt to grow something truly creative and which actually lasts inside the toxicity of Western culture will inevitably fail for the same reason: psychopathy and lesser forms of pathology define our social systems at this stage and it's on an interminable loop that needs to be reset. (And I suspect Mother nature will have a hand in that fairly soon). Time to start building community outside of the state and realise just how much creative power we have away from authoritarian rule in all its guises.

    jfl | Jun 3, 2016 8:18:19 AM | 81
    @79 somebody.

    Some folks would make exactly your argument against the rise of Hillary.

    @80 MKS

    Agree completely. Culture is larger than the politics, politics is part of culture and, as you point out, culture is a sum over all its parts. It's from beneath the larger, cultural arch that we can simply takeover politics, from the outside. My suggestion is write-in voting, a de facto implementation of open elections . There's much too much harm being done now by the broken political machine, we need to get it under control.

    john | Jun 3, 2016 8:31:46 AM | 82
    M.K. Styllinski

    yes, presumably among our inalienable rights is the right not to vote, as the electoral process, in its present manifestation, can only impede our collective creativity.

    The Tale That Might Be Told

    Allen | Jun 3, 2016 8:41:59 AM | 83
    What must be understood and highlighted is who the political class works for- the savage capitalists. The US government is merely the front for the ruling class. It merely carries out the policies of the over-civilized, well-manicured capitalist thugs.

    Anyone who thinks that simply "voting the bums out" (no matter how much Bern they been feeling lately) is a viable action in such a profoundly corrupt system is in deep denial as to the scope of our problems.

    The system is not broken- it is working exactly as designed- by and for those who designed it.

    In a bourgeoisie democracy the power of the electorate is a legal fiction.

    Wasting energy on electoral kabuki Sanders-Style falls into that category belonging to all strategies based on "trying to push the Dems to the left." It can never happen. The Dems are officially sanctioned precisely because the business plutocracy is 100% confident that the Party can't be "pushed to the Left," even if the proverbial Apocalypse threatens. The Dem Party's essential political function is pretending to sound sympathetic to ordinary citizens, while actually doing the bidding of the financial elite.

    In America, the ovens will not be disguised as showers; they will be marked "Voting Booth".

    Guk Tahdar | Jun 3, 2016 8:53:39 AM | 84

    Reagan was a failed Governor and fake WW2 fighter pilot who embraced the early PNAC after his first term Super Recession, then got elected by a landslide. Same with Bush2. So policy failures or weak leadership has nothing whatsoever with electability, and you can vote red, blue or purple, the Clinton Cash Machine will still dominate the Selections in November.
    Jackrabbit | Jun 3, 2016 9:27:28 AM | 85
    @MKS, @Allen

    Wringing hands because there is "no democracy" or the duopoly candidates are so bad is a cop-out.

    You have choices.

    Personally, I would vote third-party instead of staying at home or write-in.

    Also consider:

    1) there are grass-roots organizations that are very effective - join one!

    2) Hillary was supposed to be coronated. Her downfall (via email scandal) shows that things are not as hopeless/inevitable as some claim - don't lose heart!

    3) A door has been opened. People see and talk about the 'rigged' political and economic system like never before.

    4) You have to be a smart voter. TPTB rely on voter apathy and ignorance. Educate those around you! (carefully! a 'know it all' attitude or partisanship is counterproductive)

    In USA only half of eligible voters actually vote. If everyone that gave up on voting were to vote third-party we would have a viable alternative.

    Notably, the only Party that supports preference voting (which makes third-parties viable and greatly diminishes 'lesser-evil' voting) is the GREEN PARTY.

    dahoit | Jun 3, 2016 9:58:48 AM | 87
    72;Ah Iran.Yes,Trump for some reason(Neocon votes?)has it in for Iran, but Iran is not central to American prosperity, far away and being a Muslim nation makes it a little inviting for American pol bashing, but hey, hopefully he'll stop this on election.

    And yeah, he is trying to get the monsters on his side, or at least to stop the daily demonization campaign against him, which anyone can see, if they are honest.

    He will win based on the economy(66,000 jobs in May,the worst in 6 years btw) and the feelings of patriotic Americans sick of being Zio boy toys,and sick of furriners coming here and rioting against American citizens.That got him a few more million votes.

    America first, a winning hand, but anathema to the Zionists, our mortal enemy.

    dumbass | Jun 3, 2016 10:05:27 AM | 88
    >> given that outsider presidents like Jimmy Carter
    >> and celebrity governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger
    >> and Jesse Ventura didn't get much done,

    Says who? They got us through 4+ years without heaping a ton of sh** on us. Reagan, Clinton, Obama, and Bush did a lot of damage, such that we wish they would've done less.

    dahoit | Jun 3, 2016 10:07:18 AM | 89
    77; I read that her speech was before the US Pacific Fleet, a bunch of military morons. She is going full bore dominatrix. She said Trump coddles dictators;Sheesh,you mean like Mubarak,Sissi,Saudis,Bahrain,Dubai and all points east and west thugs of Clinton favor? A moron, with hypocrisy enough to name a wing of a museum of political liars after her evil self.

    Penelope; Yes, if Trump turns out to be a liar re his plans, the pushback will be the next election cycle, with an actual clone of Hitler as candidate. We've had enough of these monsters, who use US and abuse US daily.

    Jack Smith | Jun 3, 2016 10:13:42 AM | 93
    @ M.K. Styllinski | Jun 3, 2016 7:11:12 AM | 80

    ....there is absolutely no one worth voting for because the electoral system is irrevocably broken due to psychopathic or ponerological "infection". You can thrash out the debate as to who is the greater or lesser of evils....

    Ahaaa, Not so, you have another choices. Votes for the MOST ABHORRENT CANDIDATE POSSIBLE, Erdogan or Avigdor Lieberman if they are in the running or Hillary or Thump.

    Allen | Jun 3, 2016 10:23:40 AM | 94
    @jackrabbit #85

    Better to place this action in an institutional context. The forces placed on the elected person by the state machinery and pressures from big business dictate the outcome. In the current system your vote is meaningless. You can argue all you want that "We need to keep up the pressure to demand Politician______ needs to listen to ordinary citizens, not to business" and you will rot on the vine as your words disappear into the indifferent air.

    There is a difference between the state and government. The state is the permanent collection of institutions that have entrenched power structures and interests. The government is made up of various politicians. It is the institutions that have power in the state due to their permanence, not the representatives who come and go. We cannot expect different politicians to act in different ways to the same pressures. However, this is all ignored by the voting political consumer who wishes Politician______ was more a socialist, green, populist etc. and could ignore the demands of the dominant class in society while in charge of one part of its protector and creature, the state.

    Who wins the election in the capitalist system makes no difference because all politicians in this system must do what the ruling class want. Elections are a scam whose function is to neutralize resistance movements and dupe ordinary citizens into thinking they have a say in matters of the state.

    Elections in the capitalist system do not secure popular control over the state, they do help secure state control over the populace. Voting is a ritual that reinforces obedience to state authority. It creates the illusion that "the people" control the state, thereby masking elite rule. That illusion makes rebellion against the state less likely because it is seen as a legitimate institution and as an instrument of popular rule rather than the oligarchy it really is. Embedded within all electoral campaigns is the myth that "the people" control the state through voting.

    dumbass | Jun 3, 2016 10:26:36 AM | 95
    >> Had Sanders run as an independent he would be getting literally no coverage and likely achieving very little success. ... If he ran as an independent this wouldn't be the case.

    Not crazy. But, I disagree.

    Implicit in your reasoning is this assumption: In an alternate timeline in which Clinton was *not* primaried, DNC primary voters would've been unaware of or overlooked her horrible record. But, that assumption is undermined by the record in the current timeline:

    • - We know Bernie has been pulling punches -- not making a big deal about her horrible record.
    • - Therefore, current-timeline Bernie supporters know about Clinton's record because they've been following it and been appalled by it independently of whatever Bernie has to say.
    • - These people would've abandoned the DNC as soon as "Clinton" became the presumptive nominee a year ago.
    ben | Jun 3, 2016 11:32:16 AM | 100
    Allen @ 94 said:

    "Who wins the election in the capitalist system makes no difference because all politicians in this system must do what the ruling class want. Elections are a scam whose function is to neutralize resistance movements and dupe ordinary citizens into thinking they have a say in matters of the state."

    Well said Allen, and, I believe, true. I will however, vote, because I've always voted. The therapy is beneficial. So, in closing, vote people vote. Keeping in mind the subtle reminder below.
    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14545

    [Jun 11, 2016] Bernie Sanders supporters vow the revolution will not be silenced

    Does sociopathic warmonger Hillary really have any chances? I doubt that many Sanders supporters will vote for her, although I know one. Many probably will vote for Jill Stein, which implisidly will be voting for Trump.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "You're not reporting, do your job!" yelled Chris Einfeldt, 54, an attorney in a baseball cap, jabbing his fingers toward the TV cameras. "You have a sacred duty to democracy to do your job – this is advocacy!" ..."
    "... Much has been written about those "Bernie or Bust" supporters who insist they cannot back Clinton in November. ..."
    "... "I'm not going to vote for a lesser of two evils, I'm still going to get an evil," said Wesley Stewart, a 19-year-old at Sanders rally in San Francisco. ..."
    "... When I worked in his 2008 campaign (definitely lesser of two evils), I was amazed that many thought he was a liberal and a not inconsiderable number a "progressive". ..."
    "... I may or may not vote for him, but I will never vote for Hillary. As stated above, we already know her penchant for killing, for accumulating wealth at ANY cost, and flagrant disregard for rules concerning our national interests. ..."
    "... My conscience tells me to vote Jill, but I will do anything with my vote to keep Hillary out of the White House. ..."
    "... She is arrogant, dismissive and insensitive and has a career record any sane person would be proud of. ..."
    "... The main reason that Sanders is losing (the FBI holds the key), is because the rich control the media and the politicians. The system is rigged in favor of the rich and that is why Clinton has their support. Sanders would have the rich pay a fairer share of taxes and that is not what they want to hear. Bezos, who owns The Washington Post is responsible for the scummiest "journalism" I've ever seen with his daily dumping on Sanders. ..."
    "... Please give more support to the alternative media and less to the mainstream media and its owners like Bezos. Support Jeff Cohen.org and Roots Action.org , who support alternative media. ..."
    "... Will HRC destroy the Democratic Party too? Stay tuned. ..."
    "... Clinton means perpetual war for perpetual dollars, more banking frauds, the worst legislation in u.s. history since her husband ushered in gatt, nafta and the 1996 telecommunications act--the TPP. ..."
    "... It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn't know that the emails she received, and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified information. Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad - or worse - of a legal situation than Petraeus faced. ..."
    "... She broke the law. She should face criminal prosecution for it. ..."
    "... No sane person will deny that she was selling arms for donations to the Clinton Foundation. ..."
    "... She formerly railed about closing "tax loophole" accounts, and then was found with tens of millions of dollars in one in Delaware. ..."
    "... She lies. She is self-serving and power hungry. She thinks nothing of taking human life (We came. we saw, he died..Cackle, cackle). No Progressive would act in that nature. She is unfit to be President. ..."
    "... Kennedy said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." I fear that things will only get worse from here. ..."
    "... What has become clear in this primary is that the Democratic Party has devolved into a cult of personality centered on Clinton, one devoted to neocon policies designed to usher in an era of rule by corporations. ..."
    "... The Clinton cultists are oblivious to her sociopathic inability to tell the truth, or even attempt to keep her lies straight, her repeated criminality in failing to abide by the laws that protect national security while at the same time calling for prosecutions of others whose violations were lesser than hers, her constant errors of judgment, the blatant rigging of the elections through voter suppression, purging of voter lists, switching of party registration and hacking of voting machines. ..."
    "... Besides reinforcing the campaign pillar of Hillary's single best trait -- not being Donald -- we have no idea what Donald will do in office. Hillary, we know, will support banks and corporations desires (i.e. disappearing middle-class opportunities and a downward spiraling global environment), and will continue our undeniably misdirected wars (i.e. mass destitution, migration, and terror). ..."
    "... If Obama had not been a fraud, they might have gone to the polls. ..."
    "... Yeah, Sanders was the most successful socialist, but Hillary was the even more successful neocon shill of Wall Street. ..."
    "... Progressives are the ones who show up, volunteer, commit to the issues. Push them away and all you have left is lobbyist funded politicians who put their donors first. ..."
    "... You do realise the AP released the news that superdelegates have been surveyed and according to the number who say they're voting for her, she's won! Let's imagine you have a poll about the Brexit referendum, and the results are 65% for Brexit, will you officially claim it's Brexit? And if you do, will you even dare call yourselves journalists afterwards? (though you did commit this article, so...) ..."
    "... And third, because the Democratic primaries, that I observe from France, are rife with election fraud like I never thought could exist in a so-called "Western democracy", let alone in the self-appointed "leader of the free world", mouhahaha, and that you have to get to alternative news, youtube documenting videos or social media to hear a word about it. ..."
    "... Hillary is on her own team that just so happens to be under the DNC just like Bernie. They are NOT on the same team. The difference being Bernie cares about more people than those that include "Me". ..."
    "... Everyone has been bashing Bernie and his honeymoon in the USSR, but why is no one talking about Bill's 500K speaker fees in Russia for a bank linked to the kremlin? ..."
    "... Debbie won't retain DNC Chairman, she admitted on national television the role of the DNC is to prevent establishment candidates from facing grass roots activists. Read: Corporate sponsored runners vs anyone else. ..."
    "... The Guardian as well as the rest of the mainstream media have been smearing Bernie from Day One. I, as well as many others, have noticed how this new site has changed in the last year. ..."
    "... What's insane is pretending that the primaries were fair, given that Bill, Hill and the DNC engaged in hacking voting machines, purging new voter rolls, closing polling places without notice, shortening poll hours, handing out ballots that aren't counted, abandoning exit polls to verify results. Oh, and Clinton colluding with the media to suppress last Tuesday's primaries by declaring her the nominee the night before. ..."
    "... Also, thanks president Obama for endorsing Hillary even though she could be indicted for treason, corruption, national security breeches, and constant lies. Heckuva job Barack! ..."
    "... You apparently are naďve enough to not fully understand the hell that a Clinton presidency will unleash?? You do know that her husband was responsible for destroying the party by selling out to corporate and banker interests and the military industrial complex, right? You do know that NAFTA was the beginning of the end of manufacturing in the US and solid jobs for middle and working class Americans? You do know that she wants to get all up in Putin in Syria? ..."
    "... People forget just how far the entire political spectrum has been dragged into the right-field weeds over the last 30 years by an orchestrated effort with its roots in the rubble of Barry Goldwater's campaign which enlisted religious whackos and assorted Ayn Rand fetishists to the cause. ..."
    "... We're at the point now where anyone advancing even Ronald Reagan's positions on taxation could not be nominated dogcatcher by today's GOP base. ..."
    "... Politicians who once were marginally sane (even John McCain signed on with Russ Feingold years ago to question the wisdom of unlimited money being sluiced into the electoral system) and referred to as "moderate republicans" are all but gone from the GOP, and politicians who would once have been called "moderate republicans" are now heavy hitters in the Democrat party establishment. Hillary Clinton being a notable example of one of them. ..."
    "... The new paperback version of her 2014 Hard Choices book (you won't find her server choice in it ... too easy) does not include the hardback's Trans-Pacific Partnership passages, because she firmly counts on you, the prospective American reader and voter, to be gullible and stupid (as has been readily evident since March of last year). ..."
    "... Voting for Hillary Clinton is not a concession, it is consent. ..."
    "... Disagree: Sanders simply brought the schisms within the DP to light, divisions that began with the DLC took over the DNC in 1985 and used that power to repudiate FDR and repeal the New Deal; while Sanders' campaign became a vehicle for organizing and activating the FDR/New-Deal wing(s) of the DP base. ..."
    "... Given that the new line from Team Clinton to Sanders supporters is "fuck off, we don't need you", it shouldn't surprise anyone that the sentiment is being returned in kind. ..."
    "... The Guardian poll is a bit of chicanery passing for science. An n-size of 1,046 seems reasonable until you read, they are not Sanders supporters, they are drawn from all voters. In fact it looks like only about 200 are genuine Sander supporters which drops your n-size to a little better than shit. ..."
    "... The problem for me lies in that I KNOW Hillary Clinton is deceitful, has been lying about many, many things, is very power-hungry, and, in my opinion, evil. Donald Trump is bombastic and says some unpleasant things, but he does not want to go to war, and he wants to bring jobs back to the U.S. As a Sanders supporter, I can only hope that the F.B.I. does their job soon or I will have to vote for Trump. He could not be more evil than Hillary. ..."
    "... It's hardly any surprise the MSM has tried to ignore and marginalize Bernie so much - it goes well with their efforts to bury or re-frame Hillary's history of deception, apparent impropriety, their evasion of reporting about the ridiculous exit poll discrepancies (even outside of AZ) and their efforts to switch the controversy of Roberta Lange in Nevada 180 degrees and try framing the outrage as being motivated by sexism. ..."
    "... The MSM have been deceitful, disseminated propaganda (both applicable across the board), censored their audiences (CNN), switched audience polls with market-betting-odds to hide their audience's views (CNN), sabotaged their own polls (NPR), harassed superdelegates into commitment before they can technically commit in order to call it for Hillary early (AP / MSNBC). ..."
    "... The slimy, manipulative, corporate-agenda-carrying propagandists are mostly with her. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    In scenes reminiscent of Donald Trump rallies, some turned on reporters, furious the media outlets, not voters, were declaring the outcome.

    "You're not reporting, do your job!" yelled Chris Einfeldt, 54, an attorney in a baseball cap, jabbing his fingers toward the TV cameras. "You have a sacred duty to democracy to do your job – this is advocacy!"

    ... ... ...

    Much has been written about those "Bernie or Bust" supporters who insist they cannot back Clinton in November. Many of them indeed appear unwilling to budge, even in the face of a Republican nominee like Trump.

    "I'm not going to vote for a lesser of two evils, I'm still going to get an evil," said Wesley Stewart, a 19-year-old at Sanders rally in San Francisco.

    Trump also believes his populist, outsider, campaign could lure some disaffected Sanders voters, although it is rare to find fans of the Vermont senator who countenance supporting the billionaire.

    WCM896 -> Ben Cantwell 11 Jun 2016 22:11

    Nope.

    The Incumbent was always with the establishment.

    When I worked in his 2008 campaign (definitely lesser of two evils), I was amazed that many thought he was a liberal and a not inconsiderable number a "progressive". I was even told by more than a few starry eyed voters that with his persuasive ways and superior intellect, he would persuade the GOP to enter into a new era of bipartisanship. I had to bite my lip really hard to keep from breaking out in a chortle at any of these delusions. But, heck, we were trying to win an election. So you go to the polls with the morons you have not with the intelligent voters you wish you had to paraphrase our greatest SecDef in 2003 (note that limitation).

    Some folks are just starting to awake to the fact that the current messiah is also part of the establishment. Revolution by the Tsar's nephew really ain't a revolution.

    Heathenlullaby -> nevermind84 11 Jun 2016 22:03

    He ants to "bomb the hell out of ISIS", target the families of terrorists for murder, and has a super secret plan to wipe out ISIS that he can't tell us about, which presumably involves boots on the ground.

    All of which is currently happening- Obama's Tuesday kill list has for years been targeting and murdering innocent family members (at weddings for example) - He has put more money into Nuclear technology than any president in history. Including tactical 'small' nuclear drone based weaponry, which could quickly escalate into full blown nuclear world war if used. Hillary/Obama have deliberately escalated tensions with Russia and China. This will continue under Hillary. I take some refuge in the fact that Both Putin and Xi Jiping find Trump their preferred diplomat. Trump has questioned American mass military presence in Asia (guns aimed at China) and also wants to restore relations with Russia. Yes - he is unpredictable, but these small gestures could save the world from a grave danger. It's no joke- we are extremely lucky that this War has not broken out already under current Obama Administration. They have done everything to prompt it.


    judyblue -> aeausa 11 Jun 2016 21:58

    I'm going to LOL if the Democratic Party has to take a secret vote of the super-delegates in Philadelphia. Democracy done in a corner is not democracy.


    Diniz Ramos De Deus Sunset Blue 11 Jun 2016 21:57

    It is pragmatic to support Jill Stein. She is a great candidate. There is no sense trying to convince people to support a dead horse like Hillary but Jill is great everyone can vote for her.


    Timothy Everton -> desertrat49 11 Jun 2016 21:49

    Hillary is a known disaster. Trump is a "pretend" one. You don't get to the multi-billion dollar category by being foolish. He's crazy like a fox.

    The real point is: Trump IS destroying the Republican Party!! They are doing everything they can to be rid of him, including trying to change the rules of party nomination!

    I may or may not vote for him, but I will never vote for Hillary. As stated above, we already know her penchant for killing, for accumulating wealth at ANY cost, and flagrant disregard for rules concerning our national interests. She would do FAR more damage to this country than Trump.

    My conscience tells me to vote Jill, but I will do anything with my vote to keep Hillary out of the White House.


    Sunset Blue -> FugitiveColors 11 Jun 2016 21:43

    What she really is, is a liberal who will do far more for progressives, being a pragmatist, than some head in the clouds loser like Sanders who has done NOTHING in 30 years in politics.

    She is arrogant, dismissive and insensitive and has a career record any sane person would be proud of.

    Georgine Henry 11 Jun 2016 21:36

    Watch Jill Stein, Green Party in an uplifting interview from Democracy Now! She points out that voting for the lesser evil has no upside/only a downside because it has given us exactly what we have now!

    She goes on, Trump says very scary things, deporting immigrants, massive militarism, and ignoring the climate, well Hillary has a track record for doing all of those things!!! We are rushing towards war with Hillary Clinton! The terrible things we might expect from Donald Trump we've already seen from Hillary Clinton! Don't be a victim of this propaganda campaign – which is being waged by people who have selective amnesia – very quick to tell you about the terrible things the Republicans did, but very quick to forget the equally terrible things that have happened under a Democratic White House with two Democratic houses of Congress. It's important to move ahead and take back the America and the world that works for all of us, based on putting people, planet and peace over profit.

    Isn't this often the case, someone (Stein) explains something and immediately you recognize it makes sense – why doing what you've always done, voting for the lesser evil, in this case Trump or Hillary depending on your perspective, will continue hurtling us down the same destructive path! As Stein urges us, stand up and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do! Finally I'm clear, no more dilemma, no voting for Trump or Hillary – I'm excited to watch and see what Stein and Bernie do!

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36373-jill-stein-to-bernie-sanders-run-on-the-green-party-ticket-and-continue-your-political-revolution?key=0


    John Azevedo 11 Jun 2016 21:09

    The main reason that Sanders is losing (the FBI holds the key), is because the rich control the media and the politicians. The system is rigged in favor of the rich and that is why Clinton has their support. Sanders would have the rich pay a fairer share of taxes and that is not what they want to hear. Bezos, who owns The Washington Post is responsible for the scummiest "journalism" I've ever seen with his daily dumping on Sanders.

    Please give more support to the alternative media and less to the mainstream media and its owners like Bezos. Support Jeff Cohen.org and Roots Action.org , who support alternative media.


    DracoFerret -> JimmySands 11 Jun 2016 21:00

    Will HRC destroy the Democratic Party too? Stay tuned.


    DanInTheDesert -> ExcaliburDefender 11 Jun 2016 20:46

    Obama dismantled the coalition he built as soon as he got in office.

    Single payer action was asked to not make trouble and their requests to meet with the president were refused. If you are getting your news from the Guardian you should also check out Black Agenda Report and DemocracyNow! -- both of which have covered the dismantling of the progressive coalition pretty well.


    QuetzalLove1 11 Jun 2016 20:45

    Bernie supporter here switched to Independent yesterday (less than 5 minutes online) -- to send signal to Dems that 42 to 48% of voters are Independents. We will likely decide by sheer numbers the outcome of the election. Most of us are Independents because we feel conned by both established parties who are owned by corporate interests. This is also true for many Trump supporters.

    So HC -- either move decisively NOW to re-regulating banks, breaking up largest banks and insurance companies, instituting an enormous jobs program in the areas of climate change to clean up our country &rebuild our polluted and decaying infrastructure (from lead pipes to leaking mines & so much more), enable our young people to receive free tuition for four years of college (instead of forcing so many into the killing and maiming fields we have accepted so blindly for well into two decades); and much more.

    It's too late to "go slow". Trump will self-destruct -- we see more evidence every day -- we need not worry about him. He has given us an exceptional opportunity to destroy the GOP.


    MeereeneseLiberation -> devanand54 11 Jun 2016 20:42

    Sanders is a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST. Not a "socialist."

    Well, a HISTORICAL MATERIALIST is still a "materialist", a MOUNTAIN BIKE is still a "bike," and a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST is -- by all laws of logic and linguistics -- still a "socialist." Socialism is a broad church, after all. And if it's such a horrific M$M insult to call Sanders a socialist, why does he insist on identifying as such? Why doesn't he just call himself, far more accurately, a social democrat? Or, maybe even more accurately, a populist?

    And, just out of curiosity: Is there a difference between democratic socialists and DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS? Not that I get it wrong again!


    The Sanders platform is what - sorry Donald - made America "great" in the 40's - 60's.

    I'm not altogether sure how much the people of Guatemala, Iran, or Vietnam would agree on America's greatness when it comes to the 1950's and -60's. (MtnClimber already pointed out you're not talking about "America," but about White America. More precisely: White Male America.)

    tiggerpup -> Bjornpolitics 11 Jun 2016 20:40

    The passion that Bernie has inspired by the younger generation won't go away because they grow up. Evetually the mature base of the vote will be filled with people who have evolved their political ideals based on such passion and energy that hasn't been seen in the younger generations in a long time, if not forever. Socialism will never be a bad word to this generation, they didn't grow up with the 'red scare' that so many of the older generation still cling to nowadays... proof that just because you grow up doesn't change your beliefs and political ideology.


    Timothy Everton 11 Jun 2016 20:31

    "Clinton and her campaign have reiterated that the information transmitted was not classified "at the time", but the inspectors general, as well as reporting by the New York Times and others, said that it, in fact, was classified at the time. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would likely harm national security, and government procedures and protocols require that such information be sent or stored only on government computer networks with government safeguards"
    And this is the person many people want to put in charge of national security?
    The candidate who railed about closing "tax loophole" accounts, and is found to have tens of millions of dollars in one in Delaware?
    The person who was trading arms for donations to the Clinton Foundation?
    Her "I misspokes" and many "It was a mistake" concerning issues such as support for the Keystone Pipeline, TPP, TIPP and more until she saw herself losing ground in the polls to Bernie Sanders??
    "We came, we saw, he died...Cackle, cackle"
    You actually want this person for your President?
    As Jill Stein has basically said: The things you worry about Trump doing, Hillary has already done.

    ChelseaPete -> desertrat49 11 Jun 2016 20:11

    Well, it requires organization and an electorate that is energized for every election. The Right has this figured out. They dominate local and state elections, and then use that power to redraw Congressional districts. It would be nice if the Bernie supporters would start organizing locally and stand for things like school board elections (which are frequently surrendered to the religious Right). I would love for them to go door to door in their communities and stand for state legislative elections.

    But it seems they're not willing to put in the actual work involved to do this. Much easier to poke the eyes of fellow Democrats and progressives and gnash their teeth at "the system." A revolution has to be a quiet revolution working within the system to change thing incrementally, step by step. But incremental is a dirty word for Bernie fans. They want immediate change -- but they're never going to get that. Change is hard work, something they're apparently not accustomed to.


    yinyanggrl ChelseaPete 11 Jun 2016 20:09

    You're just essentially saying he voted against the Brady Bill, which is correct. You have not listed a single specific piece of legislation that would have in any way impacted the occurrence or outcome of Sandy Hook. But I can list many other votes which would have made a difference:

    In 2013, he voted FOR Amendment 711, Prohibiting the Sale of Automatic Weapons (which failed to pass)

    Also in 2013, he voted FOR Amendment 174, Limiting Firearm Magazine capacity

    I could go on. I'm not here to distort the facts. Sanders is a moderate on gun control, more moderate than I am.

    Sanders comes from a hunting state -- a state where even the most left-wing people I know own and use guns (I don't live there, but I have friends who do). I don't dispute that he tries to represent those constituents.

    But there is zero argument for calling him "Sandershook." Really, it makes the skin crawl that you think you can leap to that conclusion. Good luck with that.


    Billy Wolf -> Ryan Lipshay 11 Jun 2016 20:08

    You speak for a whole lot of us..And We will see you at the convention.. All 40,000 of us...We will not fail....Its too important and Washington does NOTHING for the people..They all need to be removed ASAP...As a Dem I am so disappointed in this Corrupt Party...It is no longer the party of the People and has not been for a long time..DWS and HRC need to be gone ASAP.
    Sanders /Stein 2016

    Morris Davidson -> gettinggolder 11 Jun 2016 20:01

    It is unthinkable to me that anybody who supports sanders could vote for clinton. people are saying that this movement won't go away and it seems from minute to minute they keep falling into the myth that we actually have elections. the bernie movement will keep being suppressed. he would have been the rightful winner of the primary season but has been outflanked by the DNC and the demonic wasserman-schultz.

    Before voting for clinton consider this. she is directly responsible for the murder of over a million people by supporting every single military action in her tenure so far.

    She and her criminal cabal have stolen the election from the only candidate who has spoken honestly and passionately since eugene mccarthy.

    She is a shill for the banking industry.

    She committed treason and is a serial liar. she is the enemy.

    One could argue that things might be better under trump. the bottom line here is do you want to vote for the candidate who derailed the only candidate that could have possible affected some change where it will actually affect our lives for the better.

    Clinton means perpetual war for perpetual dollars, more banking frauds, the worst legislation in u.s. history since her husband ushered in gatt, nafta and the 1996 telecommunications act--the TPP.

    all of that will affect our lives for the worse, our tax dollars will continue to go to cold blooded murder, our health care costs and services will be even more expensive and confusing then they could have been, more jobs will go out of the country, the rich will NEVER be taxed and we will continue to finance the global takeover of everything.

    Hillary Clinton is the enemy.


    Timothy Everton -> GreatLizard 11 Jun 2016 19:57

    It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn't know that the emails she received, and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified information. Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad - or worse - of a legal situation than Petraeus faced.

    She broke the law. She should face criminal prosecution for it.

    No sane person will deny that she was selling arms for donations to the Clinton Foundation.

    She formerly railed about closing "tax loophole" accounts, and then was found with tens of millions of dollars in one in Delaware.

    She lies. She is self-serving and power hungry. She thinks nothing of taking human life (We came. we saw, he died..Cackle, cackle). No Progressive would act in that nature. She is unfit to be President.

    apacheman ExcaliburDefender 11 Jun 2016 19:48

    What happens is that the long, hard slog to restore the country begins.

    I would expect a lot of executive orders to create greater transparency, fewer drone strikes, more accountable intelligence agencies, more union-friendly environments.

    I would expect the appointment of strong leaders to the Justice Department with marching orders to shift resources from pursuing pot shops to bringing banksters before the courts.

    I would expect the appointment of a Treasury Secretary not beholden to Wall Street.

    In short, I would expect a strong effort to clean up the corruption pervading DC.

    I would also expect him to engage the people of this country, mobilizing them to fight for what is theirs and to breathe new life into the political process form the federal level down to county levels.

    I would expect Obama's failed and forgotten "Hope and Change" to actually reach fruition in a Sanders administration.

    gettinggolder 11 Jun 2016 19:47

    My family came from Ukraine and my husbands from Belorus. His father remembered the revolution. Our relatives remembered their losses with sorrow. But that was their experience, not mine and probably not yours. It is time to give this up and not wallow in resentment about experiences of previous generations. That way lies perpetual anger and war.


    Diniz Ramos -> De Deus Morris1798 11 Jun 2016 19:38

    The corporate media is clueless and so are most people I'm afraid. Even something basic like food goes way over their heads. They think that spraying poison on it and growing in dead soils is going to produce good food. It is the corporate education system you know these people are learning from text books written by monsanto. There will be those that know and are just lieing but some of them really believe all this nonsense and it is. Pretty much their whole reality is a fiction built out of corporate lies for profit.


    Ryan Lipshay 11 Jun 2016 19:08

    Kennedy said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." I fear that things will only get worse from here. We will not back down, we will not give in, and we will take our country back, through what ever means necessary. Maybe not everyone shares my sentiment, but perhaps more will with time. Bernie has inspired an entire generation and we will see to it that things change.


    Jared Hall -> Morris1798 11 Jun 2016 18:58

    Eugene Debs died 8 years before Stalin came to power. How could he have possibly "praised Stalin's USSR" ?

    It appears your version of events is based entirely on a history that you just made up.


    daveybaby -> Sappho53 11 Jun 2016 18:57

    Look at her foreign policy choices as senator & SoS for the real Hillary Clinton. Iraq invasion as important for liberation and to bring capitalism to their economy. She said that. Libya. We came we saw he died. She said that. Silence on Saudi Arabia. Silence on Egypt. Silence on Bharain. Ineptitude on so many levels as she visited 100 countries and still left the disaster of the Middle East to Kerry. She is a Cold War ideologue, and it will show how so soon.


    greven 11 Jun 2016 18:53

    Things have changed and will change more. This is a very different situation not experienced since the 1930's but this time people are becoming aware that it's only Americans who are being screwed in other modern nations people have none of the problems blighting their lives. In no other nation do you risk bankruptcy if you become ill, in no other nation do you have to go back to work a couple of weeks after giving birth, in no other nation do you need 2 jobs and still not getting ahead, in no other nation do so many people live from pay check to pay check with no safety net. When a majority realizes that some else decided they should live that way and it's not fate then they will realize someone can decide to change it.

    hillbillyzombie 11 Jun 2016 18:28

    I think Bernie has a good chance of seeing his agenda advanced, assuming the Democrats keep the Presidency and regain at least the Senate. For one thing, Bernie personally will have a larger role in the coming Senate.

    Bernie doesn't seem to want to be in the Senate leadership, but I bet he wouldn't turn down a committee chairmanship, like maybe Finance. I think Ron Wyden is the current ranking member, but I bet he'd step aside to let Bernie take on the Banks directly. Hillary would have to sign whatever legislation Bernie sent her. And in any event, he will be the de facto leader of the progressive wing of the party. That's not nothing.

    The Republicans, on the other hand, are boned. Trump publicly advocates a religious test for entry to the country. That's a pretty fundamental assault on a basic principle upon which our republic was founded.

    On the Democratic side, the criticisms of Hillary revolve around her personal corruption, or lack thereof. But Democrats as a whole agree on most basic principles, from the economic reforms needed in banking and campaign financing stressed by Bernie supporters to the issues of racism and sexism that Hillary supporters feel she best addresses. Both groups largely agree on a broad range of policies. That's not a bad place for a party to be, however awkward it may appear at the present.

    Contrast that with the state of the Republican party. Trump seems to accurately reflect the views and mood of the base - angry and looking for someone to blame. He's normalized language and behavior I haven't heard since my youth in the 60's, down in the South.

    So Republican elites are in a bind. Cross Trump and you run the risk of becoming electoral toast. The alternative is to join up, sell your soul, and buy a few brown suits.


    NottaBot -> Lissette Gomez 11 Jun 2016 18:25

    the urgency is now that a woman is nominated.

    The "urgency" is that the wife of a former president (and darling of Wall Street) is nominated. There, fixed it for you.

    When a REAL woman, a person who made it there all on her own, is nominated, us Berniebros will be the first to support her.

    Me, I'm keeping my eye on Kshama Sawant, city councilor of Seattle and a real Socialist. Maybe in 8 or 12 years she'll be ready for the national stage. She's a real fighter for working people and not the wife of some disgraced ex-politician.


    apacheman 11 Jun 2016 18:20

    What has become clear in this primary is that the Democratic Party has devolved into a cult of personality centered on Clinton, one devoted to neocon policies designed to usher in an era of rule by corporations.

    The Clinton cultists are oblivious to her sociopathic inability to tell the truth, or even attempt to keep her lies straight, her repeated criminality in failing to abide by the laws that protect national security while at the same time calling for prosecutions of others whose violations were lesser than hers, her constant errors of judgment, the blatant rigging of the elections through voter suppression, purging of voter lists, switching of party registration and hacking of voting machines.

    We are at a moment in history that defines the future of this country.

    Any student of history sees the symptoms of imminent collapse, the pattern has been repeated hundreds of times before: a nation falls under the control of a limited group of corrupt families whose members or carefully selected, controllable "outsiders" are appointed leaders through family connections and wealthy backers under whose control they are, and who are mostly incompetent sock puppets who give the elites whatever they want.

    The incompetence gives rise to demagogues like Trump and to patriotic restorative movements like Bernie's.

    What happens next depends on how well the populace understands what's at stake.

    Clinton will help cement the rule of the oligarchs gradually implementing policies, appointments, and fostering laws that degrade individual liberties in the name of corporate control masquerading as public safety. She will foment more wars to profit the oligarchs, creating more enemies. Under Clinton, you can expect a further reduction in the standard of living as more corporate-friendly judges are appointed, and trade deals like the TPP and TTIP surrender national sovereignty to corporate courts.

    She's a slow walk to an openly oligarchical system based on the idea that the Congress has proven to be dysfunctional and an impediment to good governance, that only the knowledgeable businessmen and politicians of select families are capable of managing a modern country.

    Trump is a fast walk to chaos, out of which anything might emerge, both good or bad, but the odds are on bad.

    Bernie represents the common sense of the country pushing back against the oligarchs. His phenomenon is one with the spirit that created Occupy Wall Street and MoveOn. What his opponents can't understand is that it isn't so much about him in particular, as about the ideas he brings to the table and the fact that he gives a focus to opposition to the oligarchs.

    They, being cultists themselves, can't separate the man from the ideas, and think that if the stop the man they stop the ideas.


    That ain't happening.


    Sure, they can prevent Bernie from getting the nomination, but they can't force his supporters to support them, and they can't make his ideas and proposals go away.

    The people have awakened to the danger the country is in, and the slimy plans of the oligarchs to do away with effective democracy through election rigging.

    What is occurring is in fact, a non-violent civil war.

    I just pray it doesn't devolve into a violently hot one, but the danger is clearly there.


    desertrat49 -> whotosupport 11 Jun 2016 18:19

    Just as the Civil War was an inevitable result of unresolved issues at the founding....and those issues of race and inequality still reverberate...it has long been my fear that another such conflict is not impossible....one that would result in the breakup of the nation into several regions. We are definitely in a period not unlike the 1840s/1850s....and the final implosion of the Republican Party appears to be at hand....with the Democratic Party to follow if it doesn't mend its Plutocratic ways.

    The Trump campaign ( representing a party that wants to see the end of a Federal government!), promises to further exacerbate the rifts and rents.....which will continue to divide the country no matter who wins ...with continued gridlock and dysfunction. History does not have a good take on what the final result of a trend like this tends to be: revolution, civil war and dictatorship ( of one kind or another) is what history offers up!


    makaio -> desertrat49 11 Jun 2016 18:17

    Besides reinforcing the campaign pillar of Hillary's single best trait -- not being Donald -- we have no idea what Donald will do in office. Hillary, we know, will support banks and corporations desires (i.e. disappearing middle-class opportunities and a downward spiraling global environment), and will continue our undeniably misdirected wars (i.e. mass destitution, migration, and terror).

    The Trump as dictator theory, besides being crucial to Hillary's as-long-as-it's-not-about-me campaign, and unless you're into Robert Kagan's comedy piece on facism, has no present logical basis whatsoever beyond his stupid statements.


    geot22 -> Morris1798 11 Jun 2016 18:09

    I sympathize. Well, it's not obvious, is it?

    Some Sanders supports, the ones that make movements, will disappoint the staid. They will vote Green, if Bernie ultimately drops his own bid.

    Greens will, of course, lose. The inured will sadly, mock-wisely, nod their heads. But I hope everyone takes note of the issue, the third party blockade; the duopoly that prevents third parties from forming by the all-or-nothing ballot, the object that gives people The Fear; the fear of splitting the vote. It can be quickly cured.

    Jill Green is the only candidate invested in Ranked Choice voting (I've always called it instant runoff voting). This enables multiparty democracy, whereas the all-or-nothing ballot we have, as you see, kills it.

    I understand why Rep.s are for this inhibition of democracy; democracy was never their cause, but only vague republic, the likes of which may as well be served by kings. But why Democrats? I understand why Libertarians are against it, for though their name sounds perfect for backing open democracy, they are in fact just Republican shills. Ditto, The Tea Party, though there, among the more naive adherents, I've found some traction for free elections.

    But why not Dem.s? Would they not have profited by a ballot that let's us progressives mark a '1' by Nader and a '2' by Gore? Why not?

    Because The Two Party system most emphatically requires that people be unable to form their own associations, their parties, freely, but all must sign up for the red or blue banners, the newest established during slavery.

    If you, as I do, believe that corporations are the problem, then you must eventually conclude the Duopoly is their device, and not your own, and that you vote for whatever Dem. the party picks, in spite of her lower odds against Trump, and not by either your own electoral wisdom, nor your conscience. Just fear. Deliberately created fear.

    For a quickly growing number of progressives, this singular wall, against free parties that might challenge corporatization seriously, as neither the red nor blue are much concerned to do, becomes very important.

    Thus, they drop out. Thus they may, hopefully, with hope, join Green Party's Jill Stein (see her on last Thursday's DemocracyNow.org:
    http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2016/6/9
    ).

    The Two must be broken. Until you see that, I'm afraid that you will suffer the sorrow of a declining love, a future that threatens to pass you by, and great wonderment that half your mind is with, and half without, a vision of a way out. All progressives will see this, starting now, and growing for the four year term. It will be their definition.

    The bandages of our bleeding country, and progressivism, to be mended, must be torn. And quickly, rather than excruciatingly lengthily.


    MajorRoadRage Ezajur 11 Jun 2016 17:57

    Grown ups support logical alternatives to problems, Hillary resorts to war first, diplomacy later.

    Grown ups support having a future, for ourselves and potential children, Hillary resorts to only telling deregulated banks "Knock it off" when the banks decide to cause a recession with no consequence and receive a free bail out courtesy of tax payers.

    Grown ups support a fair playing field, Hillary resorts to having 400 super delegates pledged before a single vote is cast to suppress opposition and a democratic function of american government.

    Grown ups support earning what they have in life, Hillary resorts to stuffing her Clinton Foundation coffer with Kremlin money for Bill's speaker fee of 500k in russia last year, and donations from known felons bill pardoned on his way out of office, as well as the banks responsible for the '08 housing crash

    Grown ups support a world where people aren't subject to nuclear radiation for the next century+, Hillary supports using cluster bombs, toxic agents, and nuclear weaponry as "keepers of the peace" in American war theaters.

    Grown ups support common sense of adhering to rule of law, Hillary has shown blatant disregard for federal policy, and partakes in obstruction of justice, illegal fund raising, and mishandling of classified information with previous experience and knowledge of such protocols during her tenure as a Congressional member prior to her office of Secretary of State.

    The list goes on, and on, and on, and Hillary has no one to blame but herself.


    NottaBot -> BWillow 11 Jun 2016 17:44

    Clinton's ceiling: the first ex-wife of a US president to be nominated as major party candidate for president.

    This is actually a fairly shameful event that says MUCH more about the power of oligarchy than it does about the state of women in our country.


    MajorRoadRage -> apoapsis 11 Jun 2016 17:44

    Counting rigged caucuses. Really? Some of the most prominent turnout for voting less than 3%, and you try to use caucuses? Well, let's discuss that then, let's discuss the DieBold machines that are ~15-20 years old, and easily tampered with. Let's look at the margin of error in the caucuses that "Hillary devastated Bernie". Compared with the minimum audit, those caucuses were rigged. You can argue all you want with rumors and heresay, but evidence you can't. There is evidence of election fraud within the democratic nominees, and it's going to state and federal courts under the RICO statute.

    Hillary will NOT win the democratic presidential nominee until July 25th


    marshwren marksupial 11 Jun 2016 17:39

    But the Clinton-Trump counter-revolution is on every channel, 24/7/365...


    NottaBot -> ChelseaPete 11 Jun 2016 17:38

    Hopefully my vote for Nader and disdain for the ticket of Gore/Lieberman* helped do in that ticket in 2000, and with any luck my vote for Trump this time, if it comes down to Trump v. Clinton, will do the same this time as well.

    *it's sometimes easy to forget that Lieberman was such a fucking Democratic party loyalist that he wound up running against the Democratic candidate for Senate in 2006 and wound up fucking endorsing John McCain and speaking at the GOP convention in 2008. But sure. We should have voted for that DREAMY ticket.

    marshwren -> apoapsis 11 Jun 2016 17:36

    Don't blame me if your Mommy Dearest Leader can't beat the GOP's Daddy Dearest Leader. Clinton as a habit of blowing huge leads and squandering allegedly insurmountable advantages: hundreds of millions in her campaign accounts, hundreds of millions more in a score of dark-money super pacs, A-list endorsements from the DNC/DSCC/DCCC, Wall Street, the foreign policy establishment (mostly Republican neo-cons), Hollywood, union leadership (but not rank-and-file, a 'weak' field to run against, the open support of the M$M--and she's still going to limp into the convention some 200 pledged (elected) delegates short of securing the nomination and will still need the intervention of her super-delegates to win. And despite being anointed the nominee by the M$M, hasn't gotten more than a 'dead cat bounce' in the polls.

    Sanders didn't create the split in the DP between its meritocracy-serving 'leaders' and it's increasingly anti-capitalist base; it's always been there, and is back again with renewed force. Only this time the FDR/New-Deal wing(s) of the Party aren't going to meekly surrender to the Clinton/DLC clique--they've been failing us, and the country, for 31 years, and it's time for them to join their RNC cousins on the ash-heap of history. We know the future we want, and the DNC is just as incapable as the GOP in providing it, and just as resistant to even trying.


    sharethewealth Ulricii 11 Jun 2016 17:14

    I can't help but ask questions about this. Whether the voter count was legit or not we need to be asking because there is evidence to suggest we should.

    From an earlier link posted to GiF:

    'It has been learned from poll workers that 50% to 90% of voters who were supposed to have been eligible to vote in the Democratic primary were told they would have to vote provisional ballots. There were two irregularities leading to the forced use of provisional ballots instead of regular ballots. The first was that previously registered voters' names had been removed from the rolls. The second was that someone (in most cases, not the voter) had marked them as vote by mail voters but they had received no ballot in the mail. Oddly, virtually all of those not allowed to vote and forced to vote provisional ballots were Bernie Sanders supporters.'


    NottaBot -> Claire Charles 11 Jun 2016 17:14

    It's suddenly in the news because of a Citizens United FOIA lawsuit. Yes, THAT Citizens United, the one we're all supposed to loathe and despise. Yet here there are, finding dirt on Madame Secretary Clinton.

    By the way, the ABC report that this CNN report is based on is far more comprehensive and detailed, and includes the emails in question. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624 And, quite significantly, the CNN report leaves out what I think is perhaps the most pertinent detail, which is that Raj Fernando is a fucking superdelegate, as a member of the DNC.

    When we're in the streets we like to chant This is what democracy looks like.

    Well, Raj Fernando is what CORRUPTION looks like. All he brings to the Democratic party is money. Buy your way into a position where you can have a hugely outsize role in electing the Democratic nominee.


    Shaharazade777 -> woopig 11 Jun 2016 17:12

    So does HRC aka The Mad Bomber. A candidate who kisses Kissenger and has the backing of Kagan a PNAC neocon and as SoS was a cackling war criminal is not only not anti-war but a huge proponent of endless bloody war for power and profit. We came, we saw, we killed is her idea of foreign policy. all those deaths including children killed by Big Dogs Iraq flyovers and sanctions, it was worth it.


    JCDavis -> ID4890750 11 Jun 2016 17:02

    If Obama had not been a fraud, they might have gone to the polls.


    Ulricii -> sharethewealth 11 Jun 2016 17:01

    58 percent of California voters are on the permanent Vote-By-Mail list. I'm one of them. Last-minute rallies are close to worthless in measuring candidate support. We'd already mailed in our ballots weeks ago.


    NottaBot -> macktan894 11 Jun 2016 17:01

    You're completely right. While the old farts contribute money (and being such an old fart I did my bit and contributed hundreds of dollars to Bernie's campaign) it's the younger people who are willing to do the scut work that's necessary to run campaigns, the door knocking, the phone calling, etc.

    One of the reasons that caucuses are ALSO an important measure of candidate support is because it's the activists who actually do the party's work that are important there. The activist base of the Democratic party is much more progressive than the turds who boss it around from the top. What Sanders campaign has done is separate the activists from the turds. While a lot of those activists will sigh and decide to vote for Clinton, it will be with weary resignation.

    This is likely to prove to be a watershed year, where the activist base melted away from the Democrats. All that will be left are the moneybags and their cronies and fixers at the top. They may be able to run television only campaigns, but going forward they are going to get increasingly weak "on the ground."

    Clinton lost the caucuses in 2008 too, because she lacked any connection and pull with the progressive activist base of the party -- they were inspired by Barack Obama, not her.

    MtnClimber is a typical "dead ender" Democrat. Something is happening here but he don't know what it is.

    JCDavis 11 Jun 2016 16:55

    Bernie Sanders, the most successful socialist in modern US politics...

    Yeah, Sanders was the most successful socialist, but Hillary was the even more successful neocon shill of Wall Street.

    NottaBot -> MooseMcNaulty 11 Jun 2016 16:53

    I'm voting for Trump to maximize pain for the corporate Dems. I honestly think Trump will be an utter failure while Clinton would be the more EFFECTIVE evil.


    marshwren -> sbabcock 11 Jun 2016 16:46

    I do wish the Hill shills would make up their minds: OOH, they gloat that they don't need us because we are so few and irrelevant; OTOH, they're always accusing us of throwing the election to Trump. And to imagine all this time we thought the belief in both sides of a mutually-exclusive proposition was unique to 'conservatives'.


    yinyanggrl -> macktan894 11 Jun 2016 16:44

    It's frustrating to see so many journalists right now -- in particular Rachel Maddow -- dismissively saying Bernie hasn't built an organization, even as I get constant e-mails from Sanders asking me to support Congressional candidates ... several of which I have! He is building an organization. He also happened to be running an extremely challenging, against-the-odds Presidential campaign so that was the bulk of his focus, but the two were never mutually exclusive.


    MooseMcNaulty -> Bitty31985 11 Jun 2016 16:30

    As a protest voting Sanders supporter, I have to say that a write-in vote for Sanders is a complete waste of time. If you want to challenge the two-party duopoly, you need to vote for an independent candidate or a third party. Sanders is going to be a failed Democratic candidate who isn't on the ballot. Voting for him is saying you're still with the Democrats as long as they nominate your preferred candidate, which is hardly a challenge to the two-party system. I'm going to vote for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green party, and I advise all the write-in Sanders voters to look her up and see if you might not want to vote for her instead.


    Claire Charles sbabcock 11 Jun 2016 16:29

    I think they missed that one too, but probably not for long, weirdly enough suddenly, among her numerous frauds and corruptions, this one makes it to the news.
    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donor-rajiv-fernando/


    macktan894 MtnClimber 11 Jun 2016 16:27

    I fail to understand this view of Bernie's voters, which constitute nearly half of the people who voted in these primaries, as mindless zombies. Progressives have been, always been, the heart and soul of the deteriorating Democratic Party. If they go away, the Party is toast, really. Progressives are the ones who show up, volunteer, commit to the issues. Push them away and all you have left is lobbyist funded politicians who put their donors first.

    As for the young people in this group--myself not included being that I'm black and 65 years old--they'll be here longer than you or I. And, yes, since they are the ones carrying the load of debt for college and facing poor pay in the job market, I believe they have good incentive to fight for their futures.

    As far as being "politically active," not a lot of people who vote are politically active. They don't volunteer, they don't go to rallies, they don't read or think. These young people did more than just vote--they worked hard, often for nothing, and gave a lot. They should be honored for that, not insulted.


    sbabcock 11 Jun 2016 16:26

    Hillaryous election parody video https://youtu.be/wmLBnYQUFcE

    (a la Journey)
    Don't stop deceiving
    Ya know we're gonna have them kneeling
    Sheep-like, people… whoa ohhhhhh


    Claire Charles 11 Jun 2016 16:23

    You know why they're angry at the press ? Because Sanders "was not convincingly defeated in California" since there remains around 2.5 MILLION BALLOTS to be counted, first. Because Clinton has not been anointed nominee, whatever the whole mainstream media galaxy may be claiming, second.

    You do realise the AP released the news that superdelegates have been surveyed and according to the number who say they're voting for her, she's won! Let's imagine you have a poll about the Brexit referendum, and the results are 65% for Brexit, will you officially claim it's Brexit? And if you do, will you even dare call yourselves journalists afterwards? (though you did commit this article, so...)

    And third, because the Democratic primaries, that I observe from France, are rife with election fraud like I never thought could exist in a so-called "Western democracy", let alone in the self-appointed "leader of the free world", mouhahaha, and that you have to get to alternative news, youtube documenting videos or social media to hear a word about it.

    But believe me, outside of the mainstream media and her rallies with "tens of dozens" of people, in the US the word is BUZZING.


    MooseMcNaulty 11 Jun 2016 16:22

    I certainly hope this becomes a movement that leads to grassroots organization and activism, which is what you need to make gains legislatively and electorally. It's obviously a bit too soon to say just what this is or might become, though.

    He's definitely sparked a serious desire to be informed and involved in the political process among some of the youth, and informed, evangelical leftist liberals could certainly have a positive impact in the future. That said, it's going to be quite difficult to turn the disparate folks who Feel the Bern into an organized and mobilized force that brings pressure to bear around one or another piece of legislation, rather than them just being a vague demographic group of American Socialists. There are so many different issues that motivate people that I think it'll be hard to get them focused on single pieces of legislation or issues.

    For some their biggest concern is the military-industrial complex, the surveillance state and perpetual war. For others it's gender and racial equality. Some people are most concerned about carbon emissions, pollution and climate change. The college kids are largely focused on tuition costs and student debt. Personally, I'm most passionate on the subjects of healthcare costs and availability, and corporate power in the political process as a result of campaign and Super PAC contributions, lobbying, and the revolving door that keeps giving us CEOs and corporate lobbyists as elected officials. Trying to get these people to coalesce around a particular piece of legislation is no going to be no mean feat, but that's the only way I can see that we can have any serious impact on the legislative process.


    MajorRoadRage MontyJohnston 11 Jun 2016 16:21

    Hillary is on her own team that just so happens to be under the DNC just like Bernie. They are NOT on the same team. The difference being Bernie cares about more people than those that include "Me". Which is why some of us Bernie supporters would choose Trump's presidency over Clinton's. Trump and Clinton both are about nothing more than "Me", at least Trump's too dumb to cause too much harm, unlike Clinton.
    She's already mishandled classified information, flip flopped on every talking point under the sun and then claimed to be consistent, lied repeatedly to the American people about her brazen disregard of federal policy. She wants war with Iran, if they
    attack (read:instigate) Israel during her presidency, even though she proclaimed Iraqi war was wasteful?

    Everyone has been bashing Bernie and his honeymoon in the USSR, but why is no one talking about Bill's 500K speaker fees in Russia for a bank linked to the kremlin?


    MajorRoadRage HopeWFaith 11 Jun 2016 16:15

    Debbie won't retain DNC Chairman, she admitted on national television the role of the DNC is to prevent establishment candidates from facing grass roots activists. Read: Corporate sponsored runners vs anyone else.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLTfWo6yh-8

    There's a racketeering lawsuit that should be filed today at the state and fed level to force this issue of voting fraud into public light. trustvote.org
    They have compiled issues present at all the of the past primaries for this presidential run, as well as going as far back as good ole Barry "Intercepted" Obama.

    No one can deny fraud has taken place in this election. There's a plethora of evidence.


    Mint51HenryJ 11 Jun 2016 16:11

    The real story:

    http://www.theonion.com/article/voters-glad-they-got-hope-politicians-out-system-n-53069


    macktan894 -> devanand54 11 Jun 2016 16:09

    The Guardian as well as the rest of the mainstream media have been smearing Bernie from Day One. I, as well as many others, have noticed how this new site has changed in the last year. It's not the same paper that brought us Ed Snowden or exposed the horrible number of police killings. They call Bernie a socialist; what do they call Clinton? Do they call her a suspect under criminal investigation by the FBI? No, she's a philanthropist and public servant, a govt employee, who's made millions in charity and a govt job. Who would have thought that charity and govt service could be so...lucrative?


    macktan894 11 Jun 2016 16:01

    Apart from the nomination, Sanders has built an army of supporters who are committed to pushing the issues he has brought to the fore. That doesn't just go away, and he'd be a fool to abandon his and our mission. He has built a contact list of supporters who'll give what they can to realize these goals...and who still respond to his emails that identify candidates who share these goals. I continue to contribute and support because I believe that people shouldn't be weighed down with lifetime debt incurred to treat an illness or to go to college or that a for- profit corporatocracy should replace democracy.

    I also believe that candidates must be challenged and pushed to represent the people. If you just roll over and capitulate and don't force these politicians to respond to your concerns, then they won't. And what you get is the same old shit. Double talk. Secret wars. Secret surveillance. $15000 hospital bills to treat snake bite.

    Sanders earned my vote. Any other candidate will have to do the same thing.


    dejinx -> devanand54 11 Jun 2016 15:57

    Possibly.

    Or have an economic or foreign policy view that has moved on since M*A*S*H
    was gathering source material.

    Genuinely the stuff Sanders was saying on trade or economics was absolutely retarded and would solve no problems. Trump is worse because he would actively fuck people on trade, cause wars and is ..hmm. ..possible in some ways on trade but fuck a lot of people .

    And I seriously hate Clinton on economics.

    Writerinres -> John Bata 11 Jun 2016 15:56

    What's insane is pretending that the primaries were fair, given that Bill, Hill and the DNC engaged in hacking voting machines, purging new voter rolls, closing polling places without notice, shortening poll hours, handing out ballots that aren't counted, abandoning exit polls to verify results. Oh, and Clinton colluding with the media to suppress last Tuesday's primaries by declaring her the nominee the night before. We never did learn who those "ten superdelegates who changed their votes" for Clinton are. Hell, they're not even going to vote until the convention.

    Also, thanks president Obama for endorsing Hillary even though she could be indicted for treason, corruption, national security breeches, and constant lies. Heckuva job Barack!


    devanand54 -> Lissette Gomez 11 Jun 2016 15:54

    You apparently are naďve enough to not fully understand the hell that a Clinton presidency will unleash?? You do know that her husband was responsible for destroying the party by selling out to corporate and banker interests and the military industrial complex, right? You do know that NAFTA was the beginning of the end of manufacturing in the US and solid jobs for middle and working class Americans? You do know that she wants to get all up in Putin in Syria?


    gunnison -> devanand54 11 Jun 2016 15:51

    Yes, well said.

    People forget just how far the entire political spectrum has been dragged into the right-field weeds over the last 30 years by an orchestrated effort with its roots in the rubble of Barry Goldwater's campaign which enlisted religious whackos and assorted Ayn Rand fetishists to the cause.

    We're at the point now where anyone advancing even Ronald Reagan's positions on taxation could not be nominated dogcatcher by today's GOP base.

    Politicians who once were marginally sane (even John McCain signed on with Russ Feingold years ago to question the wisdom of unlimited money being sluiced into the electoral system) and referred to as "moderate republicans" are all but gone from the GOP, and politicians who would once have been called "moderate republicans" are now heavy hitters in the Democrat party establishment. Hillary Clinton being a notable example of one of them.

    Nothing Sanders is espousing would have upset FDR or Bobby Kennedy, they would have been "feeling the Bern" along with the rest of sane America.


    MajorRoadRage -> GreatLizard 11 Jun 2016 15:47

    Amazingly enough, including the deceased. http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/24/l-a-county-board-of-supervisors-demand-answers-day-after-cbs2-investigation-uncovers-deceased-voters-casting-ballots/


    makaio 11 Jun 2016 15:46

    Hillary will be nuancing her "marked classified" position soon. Text marked confidential here with a "(C)", with related content thereafter redacted from the public...
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/06/10/banda-email/

    The new paperback version of her 2014 Hard Choices book (you won't find her server choice in it ... too easy) does not include the hardback's Trans-Pacific Partnership passages, because she firmly counts on you, the prospective American reader and voter, to be gullible and stupid (as has been readily evident since March of last year).

    Brought to you via Fox News of all outlets, because The Guardian doesn't give crap about government officials' accountability, despite Jonathan Freedland's (long read piece) and others' claims to the contrary.

    In 2014's Hard Choices btw, Hillary finally recognized the 2003 sure-fire Iraqi human catastrophe was bad. She found her soul. Or realized she was running for president and better goddamn fix her position once and for all, after much polling.

    Fact, fact, fact, and fact. If Hillary fans had tears, they'd weep.

    In the space below, Hillary fans can as usual dabble in whataboutery to avoid facing the above facts ... ... .... after all, such denial is what Hillary's campaign is all about.


    devanand54 11 Jun 2016 15:41

    Earth to Guardian: Sanders is a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST. Not a "socialist." His agenda is straight up FDR New Deal and totally in-line with the direction Bobby Kennedy would have taken the country if he hadn't been shot and won the presidency. Stop acting like Bernie is some far-left radical. The Sanders platform is what - sorry Donald - made America "great" in the 40's - 60's.


    TomTalay 11 Jun 2016 14:57

    The MSM is allowing a Shillary oligarchy based on Goldman Sachs money to go mainstream while voter suppression via the AP denies the power of $27 donations to the revolution to be heard.

    Did I miss anything?

    misterflam 11 Jun 2016 14:57

    Voting for Hillary Clinton is not a concession, it is consent.

    PotholeKid -> Michael Teigen 11 Jun 2016 14:32

    Problem is Americans have very short memories and that's what the establishment counts on for keeping it bottled up.. This time around might be different..the Clintons have a closet that has more skeletons in it than Imelda Marcos had shoes. Everyone of those will be ripped out of the memory hole by Trump.


    PotholeKid -> Kira Kinski 11 Jun 2016 14:14

    If Trump does become president it will at least inspire a real revolution against him and at the same time drive a stake into the democratic Party.. kills two birds with one stone..


    notndmushroom nevermind84 11 Jun 2016 14:14

    I'm surprised at your naivety. Do you really think "listening to Trump speak" actually says anything about what Trump will do? The guy says one thing and five minutes later pretends he never said anything in the first place. Btw, "bombing the hell out of ISIS" is what the US has been doing for quite some time now, and it's still not enough to satisfy Clinton.

    But if you want to talk seriously, I'd be willing to bet money on Trump not going to a new war, for a very simple reason: even if the GOP win the house majorities (which shouldn't be taken for granted. Even if Bernie or busters vote for Trump, they sure as hell ain't going to vote for a GOP Rep. as well), support for Trump will be lukeworm at home, and virtually non-existent abroad. Do you think the US under Trump will command the same gravitas that has, in the past, made other western countries more or less grudgingly participate in wars they didn't believe in? And do you think the US under Trump will have the economic, military and diplomatic might to say "well, if no one else wants to join, we're going at it alone"?


    Timothy Everton -> purplearth 11 Jun 2016 13:57

    Since your comment quoted me, I'll say that I respectfully disagree. Hillary is evil and nothing more than self-serving. Her "Fighting For Us" slogan means just that: Fighting for future Clinton wealth, not We, The People.


    marshwren -> TyroneBHorneigh 11 Jun 2016 13:34

    Disagree: Sanders simply brought the schisms within the DP to light, divisions that began with the DLC took over the DNC in 1985 and used that power to repudiate FDR and repeal the New Deal; while Sanders' campaign became a vehicle for organizing and activating the FDR/New-Deal wing(s) of the DP base.

    This split has been building over the course of Obama's terms, as the DNC, DSCC and DCCC ran away as far and as fast as they could from Occupy, Wisconsin and Ferguson, signalling the complete abandonment of the old New Deal constituencies, just as their support for TPP/TIPP, fracking/KXL and Israel alienated newer constituencies.

    It's also exposed the rift between "liberals" and the left that Phil Ochs sang about 50 years ago ("Love Me, I'm a Liberal") which is well worth listening to again these days.

    Given that the new line from Team Clinton to Sanders supporters is "fuck off, we don't need you", it shouldn't surprise anyone that the sentiment is being returned in kind.


    varyat 11 Jun 2016 13:34

    The Guardian poll is a bit of chicanery passing for science. An n-size of 1,046 seems reasonable until you read, they are not Sanders supporters, they are drawn from all voters. In fact it looks like only about 200 are genuine Sander supporters which drops your n-size to a little better than shit. From this shit, you determine that Sanders Supporters are 6 times more likely to break for HRC than Trump. The Guardian should know better than trying to create the news. Just do your effing jobs and report it.


    PotholeKid -> Pamela Valemont 11 Jun 2016 13:28

    "Yes, but note they did not tell us".. They won't tell you in MSM ..unless they have something to gain and regrettably Fox News is one of the go too's for updates..Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy is updated fairly regularly and there are also some excellent timelines if you search.

    Timothy Everton 11 Jun 2016 13:26

    The problem for me lies in that I KNOW Hillary Clinton is deceitful, has been lying about many, many things, is very power-hungry, and, in my opinion, evil.
    Donald Trump is bombastic and says some unpleasant things, but he does not want to go to war, and he wants to bring jobs back to the U.S.
    As a Sanders supporter, I can only hope that the F.B.I. does their job soon or I will have to vote for Trump. He could not be more evil than Hillary.


    Guy Freewood 11 Jun 2016 13:07

    The MSM press execs and parent media companies invest in Hillary for a reason. - They want strong IPR laws globally, strong to the point they want a candidate that is authoritarian, will try to break or outlaw encryption to mitigate privacy and will justify the censorship of - and the monitoring of private use by citizens use of - the Internet. Even to the point their industry lobby groups want them to have control of blacklists around the world.

    For them it means profits and profiteering through strong global copyright enforcement and control of information channels. - and for MSNBC's parent GE... they'll get the region-destabilizing hawk that's good for their line of business.

    It's hardly any surprise the MSM has tried to ignore and marginalize Bernie so much - it goes well with their efforts to bury or re-frame Hillary's history of deception, apparent impropriety, their evasion of reporting about the ridiculous exit poll discrepancies (even outside of AZ) and their efforts to switch the controversy of Roberta Lange in Nevada 180 degrees and try framing the outrage as being motivated by sexism.

    The MSM have been deceitful, disseminated propaganda (both applicable across the board), censored their audiences (CNN), switched audience polls with market-betting-odds to hide their audience's views (CNN), sabotaged their own polls (NPR), harassed superdelegates into commitment before they can technically commit in order to call it for Hillary early (AP / MSNBC).

    Hillary's campaign didn't cheat America out of democracy, the MSM press did - because for the largest media monopolies... The slimy, manipulative, corporate-agenda-carrying propagandists are mostly with her.


    PotholeKid -> Pamela Valemont 11 Jun 2016 13:02

    From the get go the DNC conspired with the corporate media in throwing Bernie under the bus and they couldn't keep him down. The last desperate act to declare Clinton the winner shows you how desperate they were..What it did was to completely expose the power of the corporate state and to what lengths they will go to in maintaining control..I'm just hoping the FBI who are known to lean towards the republicans will continue to leak..


    aeausa relgin 11 Jun 2016 13:01

    Yep, and UPI is owned by the Moonies:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Press_International

    My grandfather was a newspaper editor. Some things die hard: I pay attention to the sources, bylines notwithstanding. I cruise through Reuters, AFP, DW, buzzfeed, reddit, Vice, etc. Unless broad-specrum reading goes the way of broad-spectrum antibiotics, I may even get something approximating actual news.


    FeatherWood 11 Jun 2016 12:40

    I wonder how many Bernie supporters, like me, will simply not make a choice between our two Reality TV contestants. I hate reality TV, and I'm convinced that's all a Clinton-Trump race is -- a reality TV show that ends with Hillary in the White House.

    What we are seeing is Reality TV, directed by Bill Clinton, who talked with Donald Trump prior to Trump's entering the race and reportedly encouraged him to get into it. Bill and Donny are working together to elect Hillary.

    The more outrageous Trump is, the more he pushes people who 2 years ago would have said they would NEVER vote for Hillary, into voting for her in the fall. It's the only way she can plausibly win, so that's the theater show Bill and Donald are producing.

    I refuse to buy into TrumpFEAR. I won't be pushed into voting to validate the status quo, a status quo where half the people in the country couldn't handle an unexpected $400 expense, just because Trump is a blowhard clown. If Trump is the new Mussolini, what were the Clintons doing at his wedding? Why are the Trump and Clinton families buddy-buddy? Hillary didn't attend the wedding of tens of thousands of other New Yorkers who got married while she was a senator. Ruthless, greedy oligarchs hang out together, and I think it is ridiculous to be so afraid of Trump but to believe that one of his wedding guests is our savior.

    I'll vote for Jill Stein, the person on my ballot who reflects my values.


    aeausa -> Rosannedingdong 11 Jun 2016 12:36

    And that AP got "leaked" information from a couple of super-delegates.

    See this, from Glenn Greenwald. Remember him? He broke the Snowden story in the Guardian, so how come the Guardian didn't run anything on this?

    http://www.https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/

    AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.


    TyroneBHorneigh 11 Jun 2016 12:10

    The most important takeaway, perhaps, from the Sanders candidacy is that millions of Americans have discovered that "socialism" isn't the evil, or poison to democracy, the corporate/two party monopoly has been shining people on over for generations already. Instead of being the existential threat to democracy the establishment has been lying about for so long it may actually be the salvation of democracy, not its undertaker.

    While Hillary's campaign and achievement is a momentous moment in American political life, Bernie's accomplishment is perhaps even more tectonic because while being a woman has its peculiar problems in work and professional life, being a socialist is probably even more of a disadvantage. Everyone over a certain age and political sophistication can remember when, as it still is among many on the right and center, "socialist" is like n- or b-word of modern politics.

    Congratulations Bernie and his legions of supporters. He may have lost the nomination but he's won the future of the democratic party. Now is the time for that vast constituency to hit the local elections for school boards, utility commissions, road commissions, mayoralties and sundry grassroots offices to ENSURE that the Sanders momentum isn't squandered on petty, internecine party bickering and CONTINUE the hard work of transforming the party into the champions of workers it once was and still may be if this opportunity is seized upon now.


    Gearing -> marshwren 11 Jun 2016 11:58

    @marshwren


    "[P]rovisional and mail-in ballots left to count."


    The California Secretary of State reported there are an estimated 2,423,607 unprocessed ballots statewide from the 07Jun2016 California primary as of 10Jun2016 5:00p.

    Most counties have not provided an update since election night or early the next morning.

    Reference

    "Estimated Unprocessed Ballots for the June 7, 2016, Presidential Primary Election," California Secretary of State (08Jun2016, updated to 10Jun2016 5:00p).

    Pamela Valemont 11 Jun 2016 11:43

    First time the Guardian has reported what was actually happening, and it's too late, so take a large share of the blame, you apologies for reporters and a newspaper. You knew all along that the people would never vote for Hillary, it's Bernie they want. Hillary will lose and President Obama has lost a lot of the devotion and support that he previously enjoyed. If I as a Number One fan have lost respect for Obama, what does that say about the rest of his supporters? Progressives are gob-smacked to say the least. I can't believe he has endorsed and supported as future President ( like hell!) a cheat, a liar and a person still awaiting the outcome of a criminal FBI investigation. He has tarnished his political record. This amazingly stupid move lacking foresight, will go down in history as just that. Hillary cannot become President if the people don't like her and don't want her. And they don't, on both counts.

    DanInTheDesert 11 Jun 2016 11:38

    On Thursday, two days after Sanders was convincingly defeated in the California primary

    Paul Lewis,

    I have no idea if you are in the minority that reads comments but here goes. You need to look into the 2.5 million votes that haven't been counted yet. This isn't a conspiracy -- the election is still undetermined. 2.5 outstanding when the front runner has .5 million vote lead? This could be another Dewey beats Truman moment.

    It's not over yet. Really.

    PotholeKid -> marshwren 11 Jun 2016 11:34

    RootsAction petition to keep Bernie running here:
    http://www.rootsaction.org/featured-actions/1200-let-it-bern-continue-to-the-convention

    [Jun 06, 2016] Got privacy If you use Twitter or a smartphone, maybe not so much

    www.pcworld.com
    May 18, 2016

    PCWorld

    You're probably giving away more than you think

    The location stamps on just a handful of Twitter posts can help even low-tech stalkers find you, researchers found.

    The notion of online privacy has been greatly diminished in recent years, and just this week two new studies confirm what to many minds is already a dismal picture.

    First, a study reported on Monday by Stanford University found that smartphone metadata-information about calls and text messages, such as time and length-can reveal a surprising amount of personal detail.

    To investigate their topic, the researchers built an Android app and used it to retrieve the metadata about previous calls and text messages-the numbers, times, and lengths of communications-from more than 800 volunteers' smartphone logs. In total, participants provided records of more than 250,000 calls and 1.2 million texts.

    The researchers then used a combination of automated and manual processes to understand just what's being revealed. What they found was that it's possible to infer a lot more than you might think.

    A person who places multiple calls to a cardiologist, a local drug store, and a cardiac arrhythmia monitoring device hotline likely suffers from cardiac arrhythmia, for example. Based on frequent calls to a local firearms dealer that prominently advertises AR semiautomatic rifles and to the customer support hotline of a major manufacturer that produces them, it's logical to conclude that another likely owns such a weapon.

    The researchers set out to fill what they consider knowledge gaps within the National Security Agency's current phone metadata program. Currently, U.S. law gives more privacy protections to call content and makes it easier for government agencies to obtain metadata, in part because policymakers assume that it shouldn't be possible to infer specific sensitive details about people based on metadata alone.

    This study, reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests otherwise. Preliminary versions of the work have already played a role in federal surveillance policy debates and have been cited in litigation filings and letters to legislators in both the U.S. and abroad.

    It takes as few as eight tweets to locate someone

    Researchers at MIT and Oxford University, meanwhile, have shown that the location stamps on just a handful of Twitter posts can be enough to let even a low-tech snooper find out where you live and work.

    Though Twitter's location-reporting service is off by default, many Twitter users choose to activate it. Now, it looks like even as few as eight tweets over the course of a single day can give stalkers what they need to track you down.

    The researchers used real tweets from Twitter users in the Boston area; users consented to the use of their data and also confirmed their home and work addresses, their commuting routes, and the locations of various leisure destinations from which they had tweeted.

    The time and location data associated with the tweets were then presented to a group of 45 study participants, who were asked to try to deduce whether the tweets had originated at the Twitter users' homes, workplaces, leisure destinations or commute locations.

    Bottom line: They had little trouble figuring it out. Equipped with map-based representations, participants correctly identified Twitter users' homes roughly 65 percent of the time and their workplaces at closer to 70 percent.

    Part of a more general project at MIT's Internet Policy Research Initiative, the paper was presented last week at the Association for Computing Machinery's Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

    "Many people have this idea that only machine-learning techniques can discover interesting patterns in location data, and they feel secure that not everyone has the technical knowledge to do that," said Ilaria Liccardi, a research scientist at MIT's Internet Policy Research Initiative and first author on the paper. "What we wanted to show is that when you send location data as a secondary piece of information, it is extremely simple for people with very little technical knowledge to find out where you work or live."

    Twitter said it does not comment on third-party research, but directed users to online information about its optional location feature.

    [Jun 02, 2016] US stabs Saudi ally in the back – again – with terror scapegoating by Finian Cunningham

    Notable quotes:
    "... 'The World Reaps What the Saudis Sow' ..."
    "... "promoting Wahhabism, the radical form of Sunni Islam that inspired the 9/11 hijackers and that now inflames the Islamic State." ..."
    "... "Saudi Arabia has frustrated American policy makers for years," ..."
    "... In particular, the august US "newspaper of record", which can be taken as a barometer of official Washington thinking, accused Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf monarchies of turning the Balkan country of Kosovo into a failed state. This was because the Saudis have sponsored "extremist clerics" who are "fostering violent jihad", thereby making it a "fertile ground for recruitment to radical ideology". ..."
    "... "free riders" ..."
    "... As for claims that the Saudis and other Persian Gulf states are sponsoring Islamic extremism, this conveniently obscures US covert policy since the 1970s and 80s in Afghanistan, when American planners like Zbigniew Brzezinski conceived of al Qaeda terrorist proxies to fight against the Soviet Union. ..."
    "... The question is: how much can the strategic alliance between the US and its Saudi partner bear – before a straw breaks the camel's back? ..."
    RT Op-Edge
    For months now, US-Saudi relations have become increasingly strained. The latest American aggravation is blaming its Arab ally for turning Kosovo into an "extremist breeding ground". In an article by the New York Times' editorial board last week, entitled 'The World Reaps What the Saudis Sow' , the leading US publication castigated the Saudi rulers for "promoting Wahhabism, the radical form of Sunni Islam that inspired the 9/11 hijackers and that now inflames the Islamic State."

    It was an astounding broadside of condemnation, articulated with palpable contempt towards the Saudi rulers. "Saudi Arabia has frustrated American policy makers for years," the editorial bitterly lamented.

    In particular, the august US "newspaper of record", which can be taken as a barometer of official Washington thinking, accused Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf monarchies of turning the Balkan country of Kosovo into a failed state. This was because the Saudis have sponsored "extremist clerics" who are "fostering violent jihad", thereby making it a "fertile ground for recruitment to radical ideology".

    That Kosovo has become a hotbed of Islamic radicalism and a source of young militants going to Syria and Iraq to join the ranks of the Islamic State and other terrorist groups is not in dispute.

    Nor is it in dispute that the Saudis and other Gulf Arab states have pumped millions of dollars into the Balkan territory to promote their version of Islamic fundamentalism – Wahhabism – which is correlated with extremist groups.

    ... ... ...

    US President Barack Obama riled the already-irked Saudi rulers when he referred to them as "free riders" in a high-profile interview published in April, suggesting that the oil-rich kingdom was overly reliant on American military power. In the same interview, Obama also blamed Saudi Arabia for destabilizing Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

    The Saudis reacted furiously to Obama's claims. The White House then tried to back-pedal on the president's criticisms, but it was noticeable that when Obama flew to Saudi Arabia for a summit with Persian Gulf leaders later that month, he received a chilly reception.

    Since then, relations have only become even more frigid. The passage of a bill through Congress which would permit American citizens to sue the Saudi state over alleged terrorism damages from the 9/11 events has provoked the Saudi rulers to warn that they will retaliate by selling off US Treasury holdings.

    Then there are strident calls by US politicians and media pundits for the declassification of 28 pages in a 2002 congressional report into 9/11, which reputedly indicate Saudi state involvement in financially supporting the alleged hijackers of the civilian airliners that crashed into public buildings in September 2001.

    President Obama has said that he will veto the controversial legislation and publication of classified information. Nevertheless, the Saudi rulers are incensed by the moves, which they see as treacherous backstabbing by their American ally. An alliance that stretches back seven decades, stemming from FDR and the first Saudi king Ibn Saud.

    As American writer Paul Craig Roberts has pointed out, the latest twists in the 9/11 controversy appear to be efforts by the US "deep state" to make the Saudis a convenient fall guy.

    The same goes for Obama accusing Saudi Arabia for destabilizing Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Yes, sure, the Saudis are involved in fomenting violence and sectarianism in these countries and elsewhere. But, again, the bigger culprit is Washington for authoring the overarching agenda of regime change in the Middle East.

    As for claims that the Saudis and other Persian Gulf states are sponsoring Islamic extremism, this conveniently obscures US covert policy since the 1970s and 80s in Afghanistan, when American planners like Zbigniew Brzezinski conceived of al Qaeda terrorist proxies to fight against the Soviet Union.

    Blaming the Saudis over the failed state of Kosovo is but the latest in a long list of scapegoating by Washington. No wonder the Saudis are livid at this American maneuver to dish the dirt. Washington is setting the Saudi rulers up to take the rap for a myriad of evils that arguably it has much more responsibility for.

    The question is: how much can the strategic alliance between the US and its Saudi partner bear – before a straw breaks the camel's back?

    [May 30, 2016] Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict

    Wrapped in the flag neocon bottom feeders like Hillary (and quite possibly Trump, although this article is from Guardian which is a fiercely pro-Clinton rag) might eventually destroy this nice country.
    Notable quotes:
    "... the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing. ..."
    "... Maybe they get away with it because we the people who keep voting them into office don't know anything about war ourselves. ..."
    "... As long as we're cocooned in our comfortable homeland fantasy of war, one can safely predict a long and successful run for the Era of the Chickenhawk ..."
    "... The author, like most Americans, is in denial about America's role in the world. The reason the US spends more on defense than the next 12 countries has nothing to do with self-defense. America wants to maintain its global military dominance. Both parties agree on this. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the war's purpose was to demonstrate American military power. Bill Kristol takes this a stage further and wants America to play the role of global hegemon and be in a state of constant war. This is a stupid idea. ..."
    "... It is a simple an obvious fact that the people most eager to see the US go to war, in every generation, are not the people who will suffer and die in those wars. Today is our Memorial Day. This is an article suggesting we, as Americans, stop and think about the people who were wounded and those who died in service to our country. Set aside your partisan rage and consider those people and their deaths, before you listen to words from any politician calling for more of those deaths. ..."
    "... And the hypocrisy of all this is how Hillary Clinton doesn't have a problem with war. She participated in toppling Libya and she was doing the same to Syria. So how is it all about Trump and what a war monger he is? ..."
    "... The corporations that sell war materiel actively push their products, ensure the support of the government through political contributions, and engage in blackmail by spreading out manufacturing over many locations. In this manner, the only way to profit is by selling weapons, killing more people. What state or city will want to lose employment by letting a manufacturer close? It is incredibly difficult to close an un-needed military base for the same reason, whether here or abroad. War is a great racket, the US has it down pat. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has started more wars, caused more death than Donald Trump....and yet....you don't mention that do you "We came, He died, We Laughed" ..."
    "... Unfortunately we're in a position where the United States is a debtor nation, and the easiest way to keep the house of cards from falling is to maintain "full spectrum dominance" in the words of the Pentagon. There's no easy way to unwind this situation. It is, however, absolutely crucial to keep a known psychopath like Clinton out of the command chair. ..."
    "... When congress votes to fund wars then [they need to] add 75% more for after care. As a combat veteran it pisses me off that [instead] charities are used to care for us. Most are run by want a be military, Senease, types. No charities, it's up to American people to pay every penny for our care, they voted for the war mongers so, so pay up people. Citizens need to know true costs, tax raises, cuts in SS , welfare, cuts in schools. Biggest thing, all elected officials and families and those work for them must use VA hospitals, let's see how that works out. ..."
    "... we insulate ourselves in a nice, warm cocoon of "Support Our Veterans" slogans and flag waving. ..."
    "... "Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict " How about Hillary and the fantasy of war, PERIOD. There hasn't been a war she didn't like. Did you listen to her AIPAC speech? No 2 State solution there. ..."
    "... So easy to be the hero in your wet dreams, your shooter games, your securely located war rooms stocked with emergency rations and the external defibrillator. This sort of unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing. ..."
    "... It is actually NOT Donald Trump who is advocating the endless global conflict and confrontation with Russia, China, India, Iran, Europe and North Korea. The candidate secretly advocating a never-ending war with the rest of the world is -- Madame Secretary, Hillary Clinton, in person. Aided and abetted - publicly - by her right-hand woman, another Madame Secretary, Madeleine Albright and yet another Madame Undersecretary, Samantha Power. All chicken hawks, all neoconservatives, all pseudo-democrats, all on Wall Street payroll, all white, and all women who will never see a second of combat for the rest of their lives. ..."
    "... So, the very major premise of the article is flawed and unsustainable. Which, of course, then makes the entire article collapse as false and misleading. ..."
    "... John Mearsheimer who is a history professor at the University of Chicago wrote a great book about American foreign policy. Mearsheimer explains how American foreign policy has developed over the centuries. He argues that it firs objective was to dominate the Western Hemisphere before extending its reach to Asia and Europe. The War of 1812 and the Monroe Doctrine was part of a plan to dominate the Americas. The U.S. stopped Japan and Germany dominating Asia and Europe in the 20th century. The U.S. continued to view the British Empire as its greatest threat and Roosevelt set about dismantling it during WW2. Once WW2 was won, the Soviet Union became America's new adversary and it maintained forces in Europe to check Soviet expansion. ..."
    "... Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. is often in denial about its behavior and Americans are taught that the U.S. is altruistic and a force for good in the world. Measheimer states that "idealist rhetoric provided a proper mask for the brutal policies that underpinned the tremendous growth of American power." In 1991 the U.S. became the world's only super-power and according to Mearsheimer its main foreign policy objective was to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. ..."
    "... Mearsheimer claims that America's foreign policy elite is still largely made up of people who want to keep America on top, but these days they usually prefer to keep their views under wraps. ..."
    "... Trump is the only candidate I've ever heard question the cost of war, it's part of the reason he said we should flush NATO and we can't police the world for free any longer. ..."
    "... I have no problem with destroying ISIS. I have a problem with fighting Russia over every former Soviet state on their doorstep ala Madam Secretary. The best way to remember the war dead is to work to ensure that their ranks do not swell. ..."
    May 28, 2016 | theguardian.com

    As America marks Memorial Day, politicians should spare us the saber-rattling and reserve some space for silence

    ... ... ...

    The times are such that fantasy war-mongering is solidly mainstream. We've seen candidates call for a new campaign of "shock and awe" (Kasich), for carpet-bombing and making the desert glow (Cruz), for "bomb[ing] the shit out of them" (Trump), for waterboarding "and a hell of a lot worse" (Trump again), and for pre-emptive strikes and massive troop deployments (Jeb). One candidate purchased a handgun as "the last line of defense between Isis and my family" (Rubio), and the likely Democratic nominee includes "the nail-eaters – McChrystal, Petraeus, Keane" among her preferred military advisers, and supports "intensification and acceleration" of US military efforts in Iraq and Syria. Yes, America has many enemies who heartily hate our guts and would do us every harm they're able to inflict, but the failures of hard power over the past 15 years seem utterly lost on our political class. After the Paris attacks last December, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard suggested that a force of 50,000 US troops deployed to Syria, supported by air power, would crush Isis in short order, leading to the liberation of Fallujah, Mosul, and other Isis strongholds. "I don't think there's much in the way of unanticipated side-effects that are going to be bad there," opined Kristol – funny guy! – who back in 2002 said that removing Saddam Hussein "could start a chain reaction in the Arab world that would be very healthy".

    ... ... ...

    "A night of waking," as Bierce tersely described it years later. The sheer volume and accuracy of ordnance made this a new kind of war, a machine for pulping acres of human flesh. Regardless of who was winning or losing, shock-and-awe was the common experience of both sides; Confederate and Union soldiers alike could hardly believe the things they were doing and having done to them, and when Bierce turned to the writer's trade after the war, some fundamental rigor or just plain contrariness wouldn't let him portray his war in conventionally heroic terms. In his hands, sentimentality and melodrama became foils for twisted jokes. Glory was ambiguous at best, a stale notion that barely hinted at the suicidal nature of valor in this kind of war. A wicked gift for honesty served up the eternal clash between duty and the survival instinct, as when, early in the war, Bierce and his fellow rookies come across a group of Union dead:

    How repulsive they looked with their blood-smears, their blank, staring eyes, their teeth uncovered by contraction of the lips! The frost had begun already to whiten their deranged clothing. We were as patriotic as ever, but we did not wish to be that way.

    ... ... ...

    Black humor sits alongside mordantly cool accounts of battles, wounds, horrors, absurd and tragic turns of luck. There are lots of ghosts in Bierce's work, a menagerie of spirits and bugaboos as well as hauntings of the more prosaic sort, people detached in one way or another from themselves – amnesiacs, hallucinators, somnambulists, time trippers. People missing some part of their souls. Often Bierce writes of the fatal, or nearly so, shock, the twist that flips conventional wisdom on its back and shows reality to be much darker and crueler than we want to believe. It's hard not to read the war into much of Bierce's writing, even when the subject is ostensibly otherwise. He was the first American writer of note to experience modern warfare, war as mass-produced death, and the first to try for words that would be true to the experience. He charted this new terrain, and it's in Bierce that we find the original experience that all subsequent American war writers would grapple with. Hemingway and Dos Passos in the first world war; Mailer, Heller, Jones and Vonnegut in the second world war; O'Brien, Herr and Marlantes in Vietnam: they're all heritors of Bierce.

    It's not decorative, what these writers were going for. They weren't trying to write fancy, or entertain, or preach a sermon; they weren't writing to serve a political cause, at least not in any immediate sense. One suspects that on some level they didn't have a choice, as if they realized they would never know any peace in themselves unless they found a way of writing that, if it couldn't make sense of their war, at least respected it. Words that represented the experience for what it was, without illusion or fantasy. Words that would resist the eternal American genius for cheapening and dumbing down.

    .... ... ...

    ...unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing.

    Maybe they get away with it because we the people who keep voting them into office don't know anything about war ourselves. We know the fantasy version, the movie version, but only that 1% of the nation – and their families – who have fought the wars truly know the hardship involved. For the rest of us, no sacrifice has been called for: none. No draft. No war tax (but huge deficits), and here it bears noting that the top tax rate during the second world war was 90%. No rationing, the very mention of which is good for a laugh. Rationing? That was never part of the discussion. But those years when US soldiers were piling sandbags into their thin-skinned Humvees and welding scrap metal on to the sides also happened to coincide with the heyday of the Hummer here at home. Where I live in Dallas, you couldn't drive a couple of blocks without passing one of those beasts, 8,600 hulking pounds of chrome and steel. Or for a really good laugh, how about this: gas rationing. If it's really about the oil, we could support the troops by driving less, walking more. Or suppose it's not about the oil at all, but about our freedoms, our values, our very way of life – that it's truly "a clash of civilizations", in the words of Senator Rubio. If that's the case, if this is what we truly believe, then our politicians should call for, and we should accept no less than, full-scale mobilization: a draft, confiscatory tax rates, rationing.

    Some 3.5 million Americans fought in the civil war, out of a population of 31 million. For years the number killed in action was estimated at 620,000, though recent scholarship suggests a significantly higher figure, from a low of 650,000 to a high of 850,000. In any case, it's clear that the vast majority of American families had, as we say these days, skin in the game. The war was real; having loved ones at risk made it real. Many saw battles being fought in their literal backyards. Lincoln himself watched the fighting from the DC ramparts, saw men shot and killed. The lived reality of the thing was so brutally direct that it would be more than 50 years before the US embarked on another major war. To be sure, there was the brief Spanish-American war in 1898, and a three-year native insurgency in the Philippines, and various forays around the Caribbean and Central America, but the trauma of the civil war cut so deep and raw that the generation that fought it was largely cured of war. Our own generation's appetite seems steadily robust even as we approach the 15th anniversary of the AUMF, which, given the circumstances, makes sense. As long as we're cocooned in our comfortable homeland fantasy of war, one can safely predict a long and successful run for the Era of the Chickenhawk

    Bierce survived his own war, barely. Two weeks after writing to a friend "my turn will come", and one day before his 22nd birthday, he was shot in the head near Kennesaw Mountain, Georgia. The sniper's ball broke his skull "like a walnut", penetrating the left temple, fracturing the temporal lobe and doglegging down and around behind his left ear, where it stayed. Head shots in that era were almost always fatal, but Bierce survived not only the initial wound, but an awful two-day train ride on an open flatcar to an army hospital in Chattanooga.

    He recovered, more or less. Not the easiest personality to begin with, Bierce showed no appreciable mellowing from his war experience. His life is an ugly litany of feuds, ruptures, lawsuits, friends betrayed or abandoned, epic temper tantrums and equally epic funks. He was a lousy husband – cold, critical, philandering – and essentially abandoned his wife after 17 years of marriage. His older son shot himself dead at age 16, and the younger drank himself to death in his 20s; for his own part, Bierce maintained a lifelong obsession with suicide. In October 1913, after a distinguished, contentious 50-year career that had made him one of the most famous and hated men in America, Bierce left Washington DC and headed for Mexico, intending to join, or report on – it was never quite clear – Pancho Villa's revolutionary army. En route, dressing every day entirely in black, he paid final visits to the battlefields of his youth, hiking for miles in the Indian summer heat around Orchard Knob, Missionary Ridge, Hell's Half-Acre. For one whole day at Shiloh he sat by himself in the blazing sun. In November he crossed from Laredo into Mexico, and was never heard from again, an exit dramatic enough to inspire a bestselling novel by Carlos Fuentes, The Old Gringo, and a movie adaptation of the same name starring Gregory Peck.

    Late in life, Bierce described his military service in these terms:

    It was once my fortune to command a company of soldiers – real soldiers. Not professional life-long fighters, the product of European militarism – just plain, ordinary American volunteer soldiers, who loved their country and fought for it with never a thought of grabbing it for themselves; that is a trick which the survivors were taught later by gentlemen desiring their votes.

    About those gentlemen – and women – desiring votes: since when did it become not just acceptable but required for politicians to hold forth on Memorial Day? Who gave them permission to speak for the violently dead? Come Monday we'll be up to our ears in some of the emptiest, most self-serving dreck ever to ripple the atmosphere, the standard war-fantasy talk of American politics along with televangelist-style purlings about heroes, freedoms, the supreme sacrifice. Trump will tell us how much he loves the veterans, and how much they love him back. Down-ticket pols will re-terrorize and titillate voters with tough talk about Isis. Hemingway, for one, had no use for this kind of guff, as shown in a famous passage from A Farewell to Arms:

    There were many words that you could not stand to hear and finally only the names of the places had dignity. Certain numbers were the same way and certain dates and these with the names of the places were all you could say and have them mean anything. Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene beside the concrete names of villages, the numbers of roads, the names of rivers, the numbers of regiments and the dates.
    caravanserai , 2016-05-31 01:46:32
    The author, like most Americans, is in denial about America's role in the world. The reason the US spends more on defense than the next 12 countries has nothing to do with self-defense. America wants to maintain its global military dominance. Both parties agree on this. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the war's purpose was to demonstrate American military power. Bill Kristol takes this a stage further and wants America to play the role of global hegemon and be in a state of constant war. This is a stupid idea.

    Even if Saddam had WMDs, he still had nothing to do with 9/11. The politicians are very good at finding new scapegoats and switching the blame. A bunch of Saudis attacked the US on 9/11 so invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden moves to Pakistan so pretend you don't know where he is. Some European terrorists kill other Europeans so Hillary wants to invade Syria. The assumption seems to be that all Muslims are the same, it does not matter where you kill them.

    JohnManyjars , 2016-05-31 01:12:38
    Fantastic writing...shame Murika won't listen to any of it.

    charlieblue

    Reading the comments and conversations below, I found myself sickened and saddened by how many of my fellow Americans can read a considered and well written article like this and imagine it is a partisan screed.

    It is a simple an obvious fact that the people most eager to see the US go to war, in every generation, are not the people who will suffer and die in those wars. Today is our Memorial Day. This is an article suggesting we, as Americans, stop and think about the people who were wounded and those who died in service to our country. Set aside your partisan rage and consider those people and their deaths, before you listen to words from any politician calling for more of those deaths.

    lattimote, 2016-05-30T13:08:53Z
    "Endless war," but it's not only attacks against other nations, it's a war against civil liberties thus leading to a state in which, whistle blowers, folks who poke holes in the government's 911 theory or complain about military operations in the China Sea may be considered unpatriotic, maybe worse.
    Dubikau
    A friend recently asked, "What's the big deal about wars? I'v seen them on TV lots of times. They have nothing to do with me." Alas, a generation or two after a devastating conflict, it seems people forget. The lessons of history are unknown or irrelevant to the ignorant, the horror beyond imagination. That the clown, Trump, has made it this far is a living horror movie. As Emerson said about someone:

    "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."

    He's a liar and a joke. Neither friends nor enemies can take him seriously and he is unpredictable.

    Bellanova Nova
    Excellent article.

    We must start talking seriously about Trump's pathology guarantees conflict and chaos, and should he get elected, an escalation of an endless war. The ramifications of his incurable and uncontrollable character defect in a political leader are dire and people should be educated about them before it's too late: https://medium.com/@Elamika/the-unbearable-lightness-of-being-a-narcissist-251ec901dae7#.xywh6cceu

    Philip Lundt
    As a veteran I have to ask you Ben: who gave you "permission to speak for the violently dead?"

    A lot of people love Donald Trump. It's not because they are racists warmongers, ignorant, misinformed or stupid. Veterans overwhelmingly support Donald trump. Go ahead call us racists and warmongers too.

    And the hypocrisy of all this is how Hillary Clinton doesn't have a problem with war. She participated in toppling Libya and she was doing the same to Syria. So how is it all about Trump and what a war monger he is?

    villas1
    Bravo. War is a racket.
    olman132 -> villas1
    As practiced in the US, certainly. The corporations that sell war materiel actively push their products, ensure the support of the government through political contributions, and engage in blackmail by spreading out manufacturing over many locations. In this manner, the only way to profit is by selling weapons, killing more people. What state or city will want to lose employment by letting a manufacturer close? It is incredibly difficult to close an un-needed military base for the same reason, whether here or abroad. War is a great racket, the US has it down pat.
    Jim Given
    When your'e putting your life at risk in a war zone wondering if you're going to make it back home, there's damned little discussion about politics. Whatever your reasons might have been for signing on the dotted line, all that matters then is the sailor, soldier, marine or airman standing beside you. It's discouraging, although painfully predictable, to read so few comments about veterans and so many comments about divisive politics.
    Mshand
    Hillary Clinton has started more wars, caused more death than Donald Trump....and yet....you don't mention that do you "We came, He died, We Laughed"
    USApatriot12
    Unfortunately we're in a position where the United States is a debtor nation, and the easiest way to keep the house of cards from falling is to maintain "full spectrum dominance" in the words of the Pentagon. There's no easy way to unwind this situation. It is, however, absolutely crucial to keep a known psychopath like Clinton out of the command chair.

    talenttruth

    For over 30 years, Americans have been carefully "programmed" 24/7, by deliberate Fear / Fear / Fear propaganda, so we would believe that the entire world is full of evil, maniacal enemies out to "get us."

    Of course there always ARE insane haters out there, who are either jealous of America's wealth, or who (more sophisticated than that) resent America's attempt to colonize-by-marketing, the entire world for its unchecked capitalism. Two sides of the same American "coin." Those who are conscripting jobless, hopeless young men overseas to be part of an equally mad "fundamentalist" army against America ~ benefit hugely FROM our militarism, which "proves their point," from their warped perspective.

    Thus do the (tiny minority) of crazy America-haters out there (who we help create WITH our militarism), serve as ongoing Perfectly Plausible Proof for Paranoia ~ the fuel for 24/7 fear/fear/fear propaganda. And who benefits from that propaganda? Oh wait, let us all think on that. For five seconds.

    In 1959, Republican war hero and President Dwight David Eisenhower warned us against combining the incentives of capitalism with the un-audited profitability of wars: the "military industrial complex." But in we Americans' orgy of personal materialism since the 1960's, we all forgot his warning and have let that "complex" take over the nation, the world, all our pocketbooks (53% or more of our treasury now goes to "defense" ~ what a lying word THAT is).

    Answer? It it the 1-percent, crazily Wealth Hoarder super-rich who (a) profit insanely from Eternal War and who now own (b) America's so-called "free press" (ha ha), the latter of which now slants all news towards Threat, Fear, and War, again, 24/7. And now that "their" Nazi Supreme Court has ruled that "money" = free speech, that same of sociopathic criminal class ALSO is coming to own politics. Welcome to fully blooming Corporate Fascism, folks.

    bullypulpit

    In his book "1984" George Orwell wrote, "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." Have we fallen so far that we are living that nightmare without question? When we hear the voices of politicians, with those on the political right being the most egregious offenders, clamoring for war, we must not forget the cost. Not just in terms of treasure, but especially of the blood spilled by our men and women in uniform. Ask, "Are the causes they are being asked to fight...and die...for, worthy of the sacrifice?"

    Jim Given -> bullypulpit

    I'm afraid that yes, we actually have fallen that far. The Patriot Act is the quintessential example. Who could possibly oppose something called The Patriot Act?

    Jim Given -> bullypulpit

    The War on Terror, another fine example. What, you oppose fighting terrorists? The language stifles (reasoned) dissent. It's brilliant, really.

    Tom Farkas

    Every year I get an uncomfortable sensation around Memorial Day. I know why now thanks to this article. I didn't serve in the armed forces. Not for want. I was a post Vietnam teenager. The armed forces were a joke during the Carter years and the US was in the middle of detante with the USSR. Nothing to fight about and the word terrorist was still a few years away from being reinvented. My Dad was a decorated veteran of the police action in Korea. He lost his best friend there. He rarely talked about it. He and I sat on the couch watching the fall of Saigon on TV. He silently cried. It was all for not. All those lives, all that misery, all for nothing but power and glory. He knew it and I've known it since but just couldn't put a finger on it. Thanks for this article.

    talenttruth -> Tom Farkas

    Tom, what a beautiful post. My husband and I (recently married after we were finally "allowed" to, just like "real people"), are both Vietnam veterans (we had to "hide" in order to serve). And I had majored in college in "U.S. Constitutional History," then worked worked (ironically!) in the advertising "industry" (the Lie Factory) for enough years to see how America, business and our society actually works, INSTEAD of "constitutionally."

    My self-preoccupied generation sleepwalked from the 1960's until now, foolishly allowing the super-rich to gradually make nearly every giant corporation dependent on military contracts.

    Example? The European Union has openly subsidized its aircraft manufacturer, Airbus. But here, in the USA ~ that would be "socialism," and so Boeing was forced instead (in order to compete) to rely on military contracts ("military welfare.") They're both "government subsidization," but ours is crooked.

    So what do we get when all corporations "must have" ongoing Business, in order to keep their insatiable profits rolling in? Eternal War. And its "unfortunate side effects" - maimed veterans, dead soldiers, sailors and airmen, and the revolting hypocrisy of "Memorial Day."

    On that day, we pay "respect" to those who died serving the Military Marketing Department for America's totally out of control, unchecked capitalism, which only serves the overlords at the top.

    Sorry to sound so grim, but I did not serve my country, to have it thus stolen.

    Barclay Reynolds

    When congress votes to fund wars then [they need to] add 75% more for after care. As a combat veteran it pisses me off that [instead] charities are used to care for us. Most are run by want a be military, Senease, types. No charities, it's up to American people to pay every penny for our care, they voted for the war mongers so, so pay up people. Citizens need to know true costs, tax raises, cuts in SS , welfare, cuts in schools. Biggest thing, all elected officials and families and those work for them must use VA hospitals, let's see how that works out.

    Jim Given -> Barclay Reynolds

    Failure to care for our veterans is a national disgrace. Thanks for your service brother.

    SusanPrice58 -> Barclay Reynolds

    I agree. While I'm sure that most of these charities try to do well, it always makes me angry to think about why the need for charities to care for veterans exists. If we are determined to fight these wars - then every citizen should have to have deep involvement of some sort. Raise taxes, ration oil, watch footage of battles, restore the draft - whatever. Instead, we insulate ourselves in a nice, warm cocoon of "Support Our Veterans" slogans and flag waving.

    Tom Wessel

    "Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict "

    How about Hillary and the fantasy of war, PERIOD. There hasn't been a war she didn't like. Did you listen to her AIPAC speech? No 2 State solution there.

    gwpriester
    The obscene amount of money the US pays just on the interest on the trillions "borrowed" for the Afghanistan and Iraq adventures would fix most that is wrong with the world. Bush & Cheney discovered if you don't raise taxes, require financial sacrifices, and do not have a draft, that you can wage bogus wars of choice for over a decade without so much as a peep of protest from the public. It is sickening how much good that money could do instead of all the death and destruction it bought.
    AllenPitt
    "So easy to be the hero in your wet dreams, your shooter games, your securely located war rooms stocked with emergency rations and the external defibrillator. This sort of unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing."

    EXACTLY!

    OZGODRK

    It is actually NOT Donald Trump who is advocating the endless global conflict and confrontation with Russia, China, India, Iran, Europe and North Korea. The candidate secretly advocating a never-ending war with the rest of the world is -- Madame Secretary, Hillary Clinton, in person. Aided and abetted - publicly - by her right-hand woman, another Madame Secretary, Madeleine Albright and yet another Madame Undersecretary, Samantha Power. All chicken hawks, all neoconservatives, all pseudo-democrats, all on Wall Street payroll, all white, and all women who will never see a second of combat for the rest of their lives.

    So, the very major premise of the article is flawed and unsustainable. Which, of course, then makes the entire article collapse as false and misleading.

    MOZGODRK -> arrggh

    But you are missing the entire point. Trump is NOT advocating the conflict; he is advocating that we TALK to our enemies, so his lack of combat experience is a moot point.

    On the other hand, the Clintons, the Alzhe...er, Albright, and the Samantha Power-Tripp are all totally kosher with sending millions to die, knowing that they themselves will not experience a nanosecond of hot cognitive experience.

    caravanserai

    John Mearsheimer who is a history professor at the University of Chicago wrote a great book about American foreign policy. Mearsheimer explains how American foreign policy has developed over the centuries. He argues that it firs objective was to dominate the Western Hemisphere before extending its reach to Asia and Europe. The War of 1812 and the Monroe Doctrine was part of a plan to dominate the Americas. The U.S. stopped Japan and Germany dominating Asia and Europe in the 20th century. The U.S. continued to view the British Empire as its greatest threat and Roosevelt set about dismantling it during WW2. Once WW2 was won, the Soviet Union became America's new adversary and it maintained forces in Europe to check Soviet expansion.

    Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. is often in denial about its behavior and Americans are taught that the U.S. is altruistic and a force for good in the world. Measheimer states that "idealist rhetoric provided a proper mask for the brutal policies that underpinned the tremendous growth of American power." In 1991 the U.S. became the world's only super-power and according to Mearsheimer its main foreign policy objective was to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. Following the difficult wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S. is less certain of its global role. Mearsheimer claims that America's foreign policy elite is still largely made up of people who want to keep America on top, but these days they usually prefer to keep their views under wraps. Trump seems to be proposing something completely different.

    Rescue caravanserai
    Trump is not proposing anything different. His foreign policy is the same as the establishment. He is not anti-war, nor more hawkish than Obama or Clinton. Trumps FP is unilateral i.e. The US will go it alone without the UN or anyone else, attack any country he feels is threatning, without paying attention to intl. law, or "political correctness" as he calls it, i.e. the US will kill and torture as many ppl as it feels like to feel safe, and pay no attention to the Geneva Conventions. Other statements about his intended FP, that the msm calls shocking, has already been done, i.e. bomb the crap out of people, kill families of terrorists, waterboarding and much worse. These have been common policies since 9/11 & before. Another policy is to steal Iraq's oil. This has been de facto US FP in the Middle East since Eisenhower. The difference is that Trump says it outright. He makes subtext into the text.
    Falanx
    I agree with the overall point of this article... but focusing on the GOP and Trump, detracts from its otherwise valid points. What about Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Clinton, Obama and Hillary? Especially Hillary ("We came, We saw, He died") who evidently considers herself a latter day Caesar. The plain fact is that the US was conceived as a warmongering nation. Everyone else in the world understands this.
    DanInTheDesert
    Wow. What a fantastic article . This is what we need in the era of twitter journalism -- a long think piece. Thank you.[*]

    Having said that I have disagree with the conclusion -- we have just a little over a week to avoid a forced choice between two hawks. The chances are slim but not impossible -- be active this weekend. Phonebank for Sanders. Convince a Californian to show up and vote.

    PrinceVlad

    Trump is the only candidate I've ever heard question the cost of war, it's part of the reason he said we should flush NATO and we can't police the world for free any longer.

    Kenarmy -> PrinceVlad

    "Donald Trump would deploy up to 30,000 American soldiers in the Middle East to defeat the Islamic State, he said at Thursday night's debate."
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-iraq-syria-220608#ixzz49yJWQras

    30,000? More like 300,000! The 30,000 will be the dead and wounded. But hey, Trump went to a military academy high school, and thus he has a military background ("always felt that I was in the military" because he attended a military boarding school)- http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/donald-trump-military-service-213392#ixzz49yKU9awC

    PrinceVlad -> Kenarmy

    I have no problem with destroying ISIS. I have a problem with fighting Russia over every former Soviet state on their doorstep ala Madam Secretary. The best way to remember the war dead is to work to ensure that their ranks do not swell.

    [*] and if anyone is reading who deals with such things -- y'all need to accept paypal or bitcoin so I can subscribe. Who uses their credit card online anymore?

    [May 30, 2016] Secret Text in Senate Bill Would Give FBI Warrantless Access to Email Records

    Notable quotes:
    "... Actually, you can hide nothing, and anything you said, wrote, or plausibly thought can and will be held against you at a time convenient for the Security State to whip it out if they have their way. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    JerseyJeffersonian , May 27, 2016 at 11:28 am

    In related developments ( in the matters of legitimacy, and most especially, control ) here are two links:

    https://theintercept.com/2016/05/26/secret-text-in-senate-bill-would-give-fbi-warrantless-access-to-email-records/

    My comment on this in an email to others…

    Amendment IV [1791]

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Obviously, this paints our (overblown) liberties with an over-wide brush, and the Wise Solons of our Senate know just how to get around this superannuated and flawed conceptual framework. Just ignore this amendment. You've got nothing to hide, right , so what are you worried about? Actually, you can hide nothing, and anything you said, wrote, or plausibly thought can and will be held against you at a time convenient for the Security State to whip it out if they have their way.

    C'mon, it's an Empire now, and it plays by its own rules, and is not to be chained to some fossilized, starry-eyed claptrap from the Enlightenment. Sheesh.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/05/26/special-operations-troops-assaulted-downtown-tampa-all-to-thunderous-applause/

    And my comment in that email on this matter…

    Wait, military special forces from over a dozen countries are running an exercise in the supposedly sovereign territory of the United States? What, is this the transnational elite's super-special SWAT team taking off the wraps? And Idiot America loves it. The Founding Fathers weep, just as they do concerning that first item.

    Let those malcontents from Green Day whine about the Idiocracy…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1BS7XnEZqc

    [May 30, 2016] MH17 Coroner Michael Barnes, Australian Lawyers in Head-On Crash With the Rules of Evidence

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    Barnes also ignored the warning from the state lawyer, Catherine Follent. Read her statement in full here . In written testimony she told the coroner: "as to the manner of deaths then, in our submission it would be appropriate for your Honour to adopt the findings of the Dutch Safety Board as to the source and mechanics of the detonation, in addition to finding that the deaths of the New South Wales passengers were the result of the actions of another person or persons."

    Follent (right) also told the coroner, according to a SkyNews report: "It would be inappropriate for the coroner to declare the deaths were a result of 'the action of another person or persons', as criminal investigations are still under way."

    Coroner Barnes (below, left) was asked to explain why his claims lacked evidence and contradicted what his counsel had testifed he could judge. Follent (centre) was asked the same question. Barnes and Follent said through Angus Huntsdale (right), a press officer for the coroner: "Ms Follent did not make the remarks." Also, according to Huntsdale, "she didn't do an interview with Sky News or any other media."

    The SkyNews report of Follent's remarks was published on May 17, the day of the Barnes inquest. Days later, on May 23, when Barnes and Follent were asked to clarify what she had said, they and Huntsdale were provided with the story link . Huntsdale did not deny the media report; in guarded comments he left open the possibility that Follent had made her warning in open court, for which no transcript has been made available. But several hours after Barnes, Follent and Huntsdale had reviewed what Follent had been quoted as saying, her warning to the coroner was removed from the SkyNews version of the story.

    The coroner and his associates were unable to remove Follent's quote entirely. This is how it appeared originally, on May 17 .

    Barnes and Follent were asked to explain why they had imposed a secrecy order on the evidence, and to identify the sources of the documents they had classified. They replied through Huntsdale: "The documentary evidence included portions of the Dutch Safety Board's report, the reports of the deaths to the coroner by NSW Police, two statements of Australian Federal Police officers providing an update on the status of the investigations (including the Dutch Safety Board and criminal investigations) and forensic pathology reports."

    One of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) statements, dating from last November, had been tested in the Victorian Coroner's Court in December. Kept secret in Sydney last week, this statement was publicly accessible in Melbourne five months earlier. At that time AFP Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghoe (pictured above) said the evidence on what caused the downing of MH17 and the deaths of the passengers and crew was inconclusive.

    Donoghoe also said : "it was also necessary that other scenarios – such as the possibility that MH17 was shot down by another type of missile, or that it was shot down from the air – must be ruled out convincingly." Donoghoe repeated the point in an interview outside the courtroom, adding this "is a tougher standard than the DSB report."

    By gagging Donoghoe from testifying as a witness, and keeping his 2015 testimony secret, Barnes has claimed the DSB report warranted his conclusion there had been deliberate aiming of a missile at MH17 and intentional "mass murder". Barnes and Follent refuse to identify what parts of the DSB report they relied on for this conclusion.

    Instead, Barnes ordered a DSB videotape to be played in court. Watch it here .

    The original DSB videoclip runs for 19:58 minutes. But according to Huntsdale, the coroner's spokesman, "the first 15 minutes of the clip were played. It wasn't necessary to play the remainder of the video because it went beyond the scope of the coroner's inquiry."

    Did Coroner Barnes decide that the last 5 minutes of the tape were unnecessary, he was asked, and why. According to Huntsdale, "the NSW State Coroner made his findings on the basis of the documentary material tendered…coroners do not provide additional commentary on their cases outside of court."

    The missing five minutes of the DSB tape which Barnes suppressed contain two charges by the DSB chairman, Tjibbe Joustra.

    The Dutch official blames the Ukrainian government for failure to close the airspace and for putting MH17 at risk. "Ukraine had sufficient information to close the airspace to civil aviation prior to July 17, " Joustra said. He also criticized the operator of MH17, Malaysia Airlines, for ignoring the risks and flying through the conflict zone.

    On Saturday, as Skinner was advertising his claims against Russia in the Australian papers and stalling his claims against Malaysia Airlines in the Sydney court, the Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak announced his own agreement on MH17 with President Putin directly.

    "'I understand and feel the sadness and pain experienced by the families of the victims. I lost my step-grandmother, Puan Sri Siti Amirah Prawira Kusuma in the tragedy,' said Najib in a post on his website Saturday evening. 'I see that we have started on positive steps towards seeking justice for the family members and victims of MH17 when the Russian President and I reached an agreement that follow-up action will be determined after the results of the investigation are presented by the Joint Investigation Team in October. I pray that the families of all the victims remain patient in facing the challenges,' said Najib."

    According to a spokesman for the Dutch prosecutors, who are leading the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), there will be no JIT report in October. Alex morfesis , May 30, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    Oh thank goodness…I was worried they were going to tell the public the truth…

    and then where might that lead to…

    even more expectations…

    and you know where that might lead to…

    peace, prosperity, freedom and democracy…

    so none of that, thank you very much….

    Jagger , May 30, 2016 at 7:47 pm

    Anyone know what compensation was paid to the victims of that Iranian airliner the US Navy shot down back in 1988?

    Harry , May 30, 2016 at 8:21 pm

    US$75k each. But that was an accident ;)

    Jagger , May 30, 2016 at 8:32 pm

    I just skimmed Capt Rogers III, commander of the Vincennes, in the wiki article. He was not reprimanded or relieved of his command for the shoot down of the civilian airliner. However his next assignment was a shore position and he retired after those last 2 years in 1991. Punishment was going from fast track to earlier than expected, honorable retirement.

    polecat , May 30, 2016 at 7:48 pm

    Are the Ausralian public that clueless and /or crazy enough not to push for the truth…or do they love Murdoch so much they just don't care??

    [May 29, 2016] Goldman raised their price target (causing a rally in the stock) hours before underwriting a capital raise that cause a decline in Tesla's stock

    peakoilbarrel.com
    Brian Rose, 05/18/2016 at 6:34 pm
    Toolpush,

    I found it amusing that Goldman raised their price target (causing a rally in the stock) hours before underwriting a capital raise that cause a decline in Tesla's stock.

    Although, to be fair there are SEC rules that are very explicit, with severe consequences, if Goldman Sachs' underwriting dept talked or leaked anything to their analysts.

    Goldman Sachs does plenty of shady things to make a profit – like selling Mortgage Backed Securities as AAA investments, and simultaneously, knowing they're crap, betting on them going bad (covered in the critically acclaimed documentary "Inside Job"), or helping Greece hide their budget deficit with accounting magic… so they can sell them debt… that they know will go bad.

    However, as odd as it is, none of those actions were illegal. THIS would actually be illegal, and Goldman Sachs is smarter than that. I'd guess it is a genuine coincidence.

    On a separate note, I find it important to note that Tesla FIRST scouted out battery suppliers to supplement their battery supply 1 DAY before announcing the amount of their capital raise.

    My hypothesis, Tesla's accelerated Model 3 ramp-up meant that they will need a large supply of additional batteries as the Gigafactory will not be able to accelerate it's schedule enough to match the accelerated vehicle production ramp.

    This also tells me that Tesla is confident enough in their accelerated Model 3 production schedule that they needed to arrange a multi-million dollar contract with battery suppliers to supplement their capacity until the Gigafactory can meet demand.

    likbez, 05/18/2016 at 11:00 pm
    Although, to be fair there are SEC rules that are very explicit, with severe consequences, if Goldman Sachs' underwriting dept talked or leaked anything to their analysts.

    This is all about corruption of regulators and impunity of TBTF financial institutions under neoliberalism - which is an immanent feature of neoliberalism aka "casino capitalism"…

    Goldman's role in the growth of casino capitalism in the USA is similar to that of other players, except for one thing: Goldman didn't believe its own hype. The now famous Rolling Stone magazine article in 2009 by Matt Taibbi unforgettably referred to Goldman Sachs, the world's most powerful investment bank, as a "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/jakezamansky/2013/08/08/the-great-vampire-squid-keeps-on-sucking/ )

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/05/12/the-age-impunity/LHBxamqFENCs3W6lvWnCIJ/story.html

    Impunity is epidemic in America. The rich and powerful get away with their heists in broad daylight. When a politician like Bernie Sanders calls out the corruption, the New York Times and Wall Street Journal double down with their mockery over such a foolish "dreamer." The Journal recently opposed the corruption sentence of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell for taking large gifts and bestowing official favors - because everybody does it. And one of its columnists praised Panama for facilitating the ability of wealthy individuals to hide their income from "predatory governments" trying to collect taxes. No kidding.

    Our major institutions, the ones that should know better, are often gross enablers of impunity. Consider my alma mater, Harvard University, and its recent nuptial with hedge-fund manager John Paulson. Paulson was the co-conspirator with Goldman Sachs of one of the most notorious scams of the recent financial bubble.

    http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Financial_skeptic/Casino_capitalism/Systemic_instability_of_financial_sector/TBTF/Goldman_Sachs/index.shtml

    Professional financial hackers have a lot of common with the organized crime. And not only in respect to common addictions to cocaine and prostitutes. But there is a subtle difference: financial hackers make it daily (and very lucrative) business to figure out ways to abide by the letter of the law while violating its spirit. Although the claim that they do not break the law has very little credibility. They do break the law, but at the same time their political influence is big enough to keep them out of jail. In 2012 Lanny Breuer, then the head of the Justice Department's criminal division openly admitted that. In a speech at the New York City Bar Association he said that he felt that it was his duty to consider the health of the company, the industry, and the markets in deciding whether or not to file charges. Which in case of Goldman represents insurmountable obstacle to criminal prosecution.
    In any case GS converted itself into a special type of TBTF company, the company that specialized in hacking financial system. And in a large company internal politic can turn really destructive both to the firm and society at large. In fact, in large companies there are people with very high IQ at the top with personal traits that makes them more dangerous in comparison with bosses of Mexican gangs. It also makes internal political battles more vicious. BTW, a lot of psychopaths have above average IQ.

    In a way the USA never had a subprime crisis. What we had was systemic, neoliberalism-induced crisis that involves FED, government, congress, banking, ratings, insurance, investment and financial industries (the banks were at the center of this crime syndicate and they were the largest beneficiaries of the crimes committed), one manifestation of which was 2008 subprime crisis. Large banks became huge, dominant political force and based on their political weight, they hacked the financial system in the same way computer hackers hack computers systems to suit their short term needs and first of all for enrichment of the brass (appetite for "make money fast" schemes was greatly raised during dot-com crisis).
    As Simon Johnson wrote in May 2009 the USA had a The Quiet Coup with banks becoming the most favored and the most protected industry of the Congress. Financial system is essentially a system of rules. If a rich and powerful organization is directed toward hacking the rules: finding weaknesses and exploiting them it is undistinguishable from mafia in a very precise meaning of the term (organize crime syndicate with strong ethnic component), only more sophisticated. Again they are not gangsters in traditional meaning of this word, they are of a hackers, and as such they are much more difficult to prosecute. As a comment to blog post at EconomistView by "Eric" (Paul Krugman The Unwisdom of Elites) aptly stated:
    Villains….who exactly? The principle reason that there have been few prosecutions of high level bankers is that not so much that got done was illegal. Reckless, maybe. But even here is it really reckless behavior if you have a belief - which turns out to be true - that public finances will bear the downside risks on your behalf?
    In hindsight it feels like these things should have been illegal, but the available serious punishments, such as not bailing out AIG, not allowing various investment firms to become bank holding entites, not backstopping the GSEs (read their debt issues and you'll see that nowhere is a claim made for public backing), not taking first loss positions on Bear Stearn assets, etc., etc., were foregone by voluntary actions by public officials.
    Make peace with the truth that there will be no sweeping prosecutions, least of all by the federal government of the USA.

    [May 26, 2016] Nearly everyone concerned is trying to prevent the investigation from widening beyond the present hazy conclusions offered by the DSB, and suppress any mention of Ukrainian culpability

    Notable quotes:
    "... An Australian coroner and a firm of Sydney, Australia, lawyers have taken the global lead in fabricating criminal charges and billion-dollar compensation claims for the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 - without producing evidence. Michael Barnes (lead image), a former tabloid journalist and now coroner for the state of New South Wales, ruled last week that MH17 had been shot down in a "deliberate" act of "mass murder" by "firing a missile equipped with an exploding warhead at the jetliner". The coroner accepted testimony from the Crown Solicitor assisting the inquest who testified that "certain persons of interest have been identified" as the murderers…. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    et Al , May 24, 2016 at 9:42 am

    John Helmer.net (via Russia Insider): MH17 CORONER MICHAEL BARNES, AUSTRALIAN LAWYERS IN HEAD-ON CRASH WITH THE RULES OF EVIDENCE
    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=15710

    An Australian coroner and a firm of Sydney, Australia, lawyers have taken the global lead in fabricating criminal charges and billion-dollar compensation claims for the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 - without producing evidence. Michael Barnes (lead image), a former tabloid journalist and now coroner for the state of New South Wales, ruled last week that MH17 had been shot down in a "deliberate" act of "mass murder" by "firing a missile equipped with an exploding warhead at the jetliner". The coroner accepted testimony from the Crown Solicitor assisting the inquest who testified that "certain persons of interest have been identified" as the murderers….

    ####

    Much more at the link of course.

    marknesop , May 24, 2016 at 11:31 am
    That nearly everyone concerned is trying to

    (a) prevent the investigation from widening beyond the present hazy conclusions offered by the DSB, and

    (b) suppress any mention of Ukrainian culpability, is telling.

    What the west would like to arrive at is a situation in which it can continue to blame Russia, but does not have to prove it. It would be like gold for the Barnes charges to get in front of the ECHR, but there seems little hope of that as it appears to have been just a grandstanding stunt, and the ECHR has already warned that it will not hear it.

    [May 24, 2016] 'I'm not with her': why women are wary of Hillary Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... the question should not be why some don't trust Clinton, but why some still do? ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    FDiscussion , 2016-05-23 19:20:33
    how can it be 'on the whole' women support HRC when the next breath says '49%' do not? I smell bias in this article. People tend to forget that Margaret Thatcher was a woman whose vicious attacks on working people and trade unions and enthusiastic support of criminal right wing dictators inspired Reagan in their ruthlessness. And whose bellicose foreign adventures scared us all. HRC is in this class except her ideology seems to be greed rather than outright 1% class war on the poor but same difference?
    Lisa Glass Calvert , 2016-05-23 19:19:18
    Smear campaign? Billy boy has abused women sexually for decades and then smeared his victims. This isn't the Republicans' fault. Unless you think that James Carville (former chief of staff for Clinton) saying "drag a $20 through a trailer park & see what you'll get" is respectful to women. He basically called every one of Bill's victims trailer trash.

    Nope, Bill's abuse of women and Hillary's enabling of it IS NOT the fault of Republicans. Bill & Hillary WERE the war on women!

    MartiniShaken1 aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:19:14

    You know ... support your party's nominee, vote in midterms ... little things like that.

    You assume incorrectly that we "lefties" have a political party. The Democratic party is currently not one that even attempts to listen to our needs. Across the political spectrum Americans seem to have at long last discovered that not only does the government not meet the minimum needs of the populace, voters have started to figure out that neither political party will send to Washington leaders who have any intention of helping anyone but high-level campaign contributors.

    This is why the only voter enthusiasm is for two complete outsiders- Trump and Sanders.

    We could take your advice and hold our noses and carry the garbage to the curb every 4 years in hopes that something good will happen.

    But isn't there an old saw about the definition of insanity being the repetition of the same ineffectual routine while hoping for a different outcome?

    Alexander Nekrasov , 2016-05-23 19:17:37
    the question should not be why some don't trust Clinton, but why some still do?
    BlooEyedDevil casta1139diva , 2016-05-23 19:16:58
    Possession of ovaries does not equal qualified. Not saying they hurt, but if you want a woman president, why on earth would you take the first one offered simply because she is the first one offered, especially someone as venal, corrupt, morally bankrupt, uncaring, and mendacious as Hillary Clinton? It's myopic when you fail to see that if this gargoyle is elected, her record as POTUS will absolutely reflect poorly on women, giving all those who oppose women presidents plenty of ammo to suggest they were right all along. I don't mind a female POTUS, just don't make it Hillary Clinton. Nope.
    aguy777 Paul Little , 2016-05-23 19:16:33
    Do you mean besides securing healthcare coverage for 8 million of their children through SCHIP, advocating for women's rights & issues around the world as Secretary of State, and compiling an extraordinarily strong voting record on women's issues in the Senate that won her endorsements from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other women's organizations ... ?

    And what has TRUMP done for women besides insult them??

    FrederikII nevermind84 , 2016-05-23 19:13:41
    What neither of you two geniuses seem to realize is that Hillary Clinton cannot succeed in becoming president. No matter how the coronation has been fixed and promised, she simply is unelectable, and if she is the Democratic nominee then that idiot Trump will be sitting in the Oval Office.

    I used to admire the loyalty, albeit naivety, of Clinton fans, but things are getting far too serious. Do you guys really want President Trump? Because that seems to be where you are heading.

    Smells TheRat , 2016-05-23 19:13:33
    Her Thighness has certainly used her position as Secretary of State to enrich herself and Slick Willie...
    RecantedYank , 2016-05-23 19:11:28
    I am glad that Hillary is supporting abortion, even is she is beginning to quibble about terms. Of course, Bernie supports it unequivocally.

    The only difference between the two on this matter essentially is that one hell of a lot more women will have to consider abortion under a Clinton administration to get out of the low wage jobs, unaffordable health care for themselves or their children death spiral for the low and low middle incomers who are going to be caught AGAIN in a hell of Hillary's making. Hillary protects the mass profit taking of insurance, pharma, and medical industry...she also stutters over even a 12$ minimum wage (and that only in SOME states), has backed trade agreements that force ever more working people into those going nowhere jobs... so yeah...there are going to be a LOT more desperate women needing those abortions. Of course, as any fool knows...abortions are not illegal in many countries in middle and northern Europe...and guess what...they don't need as many of them because they do more for workers, and have a right to health care!

    Hillary for women...my aunt fanny's a**!

    Obelisk1 aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:09:17
    I am not a Trump supporter. But his awfulness does not make her any better.

    That Clinton was married to a president doesn't impress me in the slightest. That she became a senator was because she exploited her name-recognition after her husband's term of office. As Sec State she was not just a pathological liar, but also incompetent.

    If I was religious, I would pray for her indictment. Then the dems would be compelled to pick someone else.

    Paul Little somebody_stopme , 2016-05-23 19:09:22
    And she runs on Bills record, not her own
    FrederikII InnocenceAbroad , 2016-05-23 19:07:43
    Ironic that you don't realize how sexist your comment is. But it is an attitude not untypical of Clinton supporters.

    Hillary will not give us a third term of Obama, she will give us a third term for her husband. And this is all that Bill wants, to be back holding the reins of power again.

    DHBarr InnocenceAbroad , 2016-05-23 19:06:14
    How many "true feminists" hire private detectives to intimidate women accusing their husbands of sexual harassment or actual assault? Hillary is a hypocrite of the highest order - "All women must be believed" - except the ones accusing her husband. If Monica Lewinski hadn't had DNA evidence to back up her claims they would have had her committed to a mental institution.
    FrederikII aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:03:19
    Trump and Clinton deserve each other. That's why they are running neck and neck in the unpopularity stakes. Trouble is that Trump is starting to gain on her - and she has nothing to fight back with and stop her slide.
    FrederikII aguy777 , 2016-05-23 18:57:04
    You really haven't a clue, have you? Obama was a pretty poor president as far as the Democratic party was concerned. He made no effort whatever to build up the party, and spent wasteful years trying to compromise with the Republicans (when it was obvious to everyone he was getting nowhere.

    The first two years of his presidency could have been the golden years had he lived up to the hype he projected during the nomination process. He destroyed the Democratic party with his attempts to compromise with Republican rattle snakes when no compromise was possible. And, yes, Hillary wants to carry on his good work! And she is already well in with the republican elite like the Bushes and Romney. Friend, take your head out of your ...

    [May 24, 2016] The CEO of Goldman Sachs accidentally explained why everyone hates Wall Street

    Notable quotes:
    "... want to follow the rules ..."
    "... The only thing you can trust is that Goldman Sach's values don't include giving a damned about average Americans even if in Blankfein's delusional mind he is doing "Gods work. It would go a way toward restoring trust in the system if these rip off artists would consent to paying more taxes on their ill deserved gains in order to help bring down some of the nations debt and relieve the misery their unethical behavior created. But that will never happen voluntarily. Basically they are immoral creeps killing the golden goose that is our country. ..."
    "... Run corruption out of DC and there will be much more trust of big business. Do not buy the garbage that politicians are critical of the Wall Street crowd. Has Hillary released her speeches yet? NO. Don't expect she ever will. (aside: I do not find this article informative, and I'm dismayed by the comments I've read here.) ..."
    "... "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. …corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." ..."
    "... The mass of Americans are too powerless to fight back against the reign of the money powers. As Lincoln predicted, our Republic is destroyed. What awaits us now is dictatorship or even worse ... theocracy. ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    Brilliance is often accidental, and so it was at Goldman Sachs' annual meeting on Friday.

    In an attempt to pinpoint exactly what's wrong with the global economy - why demand is weak, why growth is anemic, why jitters on one side of the planet can turn into panic all over - CEO Lloyd Blankfein happened upon why Wall Street is so hated.

    It was, as I said, an accident.

    Blankfein said that what the world needs now is confidence. In investment banking, when people are confident t here are "more financings, more equity raises, because people invest more money in their own businesses when they're confident," he said, according to Business Insider's Portia Crowe , who was on the scene.

    This explanation sounds right. When people think they can make money they put their money to work.

    The problem is that "confidence" doesn't go far enough. More than confidence, for people to invest in the world they have to trust in it - in the systems and people that make it work.

    The fact that Blankfein missed that mark, though, explains exactly why people hate Wall Street.

    The financial crisis, the scandals and the fraud and the dark headlines, have all helped erode that trust. And that lack of trust is what is holding the world back right now.

    This is not a drill

    Think of a simple trust-building exercise, the fall game. When you're the fall guy, you can be confident that everyone is going to catch you. That, after all, is how the game is completed. You have to believe that everyone understands the rules.

    What's better than knowing that everyone understands the rules, though? Trusting that everyone around you is going to catch you - believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they want to follow the rules .

    That's the difference between trust and conviction. Trust is something you can rely on, beyond certainty.

    Now one can operate in markets without trust, with only conviction.

    Conviction doesn't demand that you, or anyone else, play by the rules, though. It just demands that you understand what's going on (and what motivates everyone around you) at all times. It's a daunting task that neither the common person nor Wall Street's all-seeing CEOs were able to accomplish before the financial crisis. It is, however, part of the latter's full-time job - mitigating risk, seeing the unforeseen.

    Of course, some of that burden would be lifted if we operated on more trust and less conviction.

    Your correspondent is hardly the only person thinking this way. This week, Andrew G. Haldane, chief economist of the Bank of England, gave an incredibly compelling speech on what's wrong with global economy. Unlike Blankfein, though, he got it right. The speech was called The Great Divide, and he argued that the only way to close that divide is with trust.

    "Evidence has emerged, both micro and macro, to suggest trust may play a crucial role in value creation. At the micro level, there is now ample evidence the degree of trust or social capital within a company contributes positively to its value creation capacity," said Haldane.

    "At the macro level, there is now a strong body of evidence, looking across a large range of countries and over long periods of time, that high levels of trust and co-operation are associated with higher economic growth. Put differently, a lack of trust jeopardizes one of finance's key societal functions - higher growth."

    Watchers on the wall

    Back in 2014, when the market was roaring and everyone thought we were on the road to recovery, Dylan Grice, a portfolio manager at Aeris Capital, put forth the same idea. He saw in declining relations between the US and China, between Russia and the world, and between citizens and corporations what could only be perceived as our descent into the trough of a cycle of trust.

    And, as he pointed out, credit - one of the main forces for moving money from place to place - comes from the Latin word for trust.

    Over at HSBC, economist Stephen King wrote a note called Unhappy Families: The Case for International Policy Coordination in which he argued that the global economy could actually be saved quite easily if we trusted each other. If the countries that could save us - the US, China, and Germany - acted unselfishly and in coordination and simply did.

    But they won't, because there is no trust.

    "Yet it would be easy, too easy, to point the finger at finance alone," Haldane said in his speech. "For this Great Divide exists not just between the financial elites, but between elites generally and wider society. It is not just bankers who have suffered a loss of public trust. In varying degrees, this is also true of big business, government and, yes, politicians and central banks."

    Man, see this mirror

    This brings us back to Goldman Sachs, which happened to have had a very embarrassing little incident last week when one of its analysts recommended buying Tesla just before the bank announced that it would be helping the automaker with an equity offering.

    Business Insider's Myles Udland described why that looks shady:

    The stock upgrade is a detailed argument for why you, the investors, should buy the shares. As a result, investors buy.

    This report is delivered just as Goldman's sales force is about to hit the phones to push $1.4 billion of those very shares for a nice fat fee for Goldman and a dilutive hit to the shareholders.

    So then there are investors who, based on Archambault's note, bought the shares in the morning only to learn by that afternoon that Goldman would have a hand in diluting their newly acquired ownership stake.

    And the popular view says Goldman knew this was going to happen the whole time.

    If you're thinking the worst, this snafu was a breach of Wall Street's famous Chinese Wall between research and investment banking. What's more, because of this trust deficit, most people were thinking the worst because that's what they do when they think of Goldman Sachs.

    View gallery

    . Goldman Vampire Squid
    Lloyd on a vampire squid. Sorry bro, too easy.

    And because of that some people don't trust, or put their money in, the market.

    And because of that the market doesn't move.

    Haldane sees this fear as a loss of social capital arising from the crisis.

    "Social capital is inextricably linked to trust," he said in his speech. "And banking is quintessentially a trust business. At root, it involves swapping promises to pay. These promises rely on trust."

    It's the belief that these promises will be kept that the market is lacking, not necessarily that they can be kept. This is the difference between trust and confidence. And with every scandal and fraud, every dark headline telling of financial ruin that comes from the financial sector, some of that trust is lost.

    Haldane thinks that recreating the local bank, a bank with the kind of accountability that comes from knowing someone by name and looking them in the eye, is part of the solution. But banking isn't moving that way. Every day we hear about how it's becoming more automated.

    He acknowledges this, recognizing that banking must "seek new ways to nurture generalized, or anonymous, trust on the part of the public. Technology may be a great enabler here."

    But in the end it doesn't matter how we fix this. We just have to fix it.

    "Whatever business model is adopted, success will hinge on whether the public have faith in banks pursuing a purpose aligned with their needs, that they are fulfilling their fiduciary function. There is a mountain to climb on this front, not just for banking but for business generally," he said.

    "If not at an all-time low, public trust in big business is plumbing the depths. And the chorus of criticism of business is not confined to the general public. It is shared by politicians, academics, investors and indeed sometimes by companies themselves."

    Everyone is holding on to their money. Everyone is trying to look someone the eye and finding their counterparties' gaze shifting to wherever self-interest guides them. The counterparties are confident they'll find money there, sure, but the trust that makes the market go around is being lost in the process.

    It takes so much more to build it up than to break it down.

    NOW WATCH: THE STORY OF GOLDMAN SACHS: From foot peddlers to a powerhouse

    rey Q 25 minutes ago
    GS, Chase ,BofA,Wells Fargo.....,and some others big banks created the crisis past 2008-09.

    Any one of the executives pass a day in prison, they pay cents on the dollars and happy cumballa until the next scam. Gov it's corrupt with a "revolving door" infiltrating the key position, every official working in White House or with the executive branch did work for a big bank first or going to work after!!!

    They want trust, trust they themselves self smash, hundreds of case in courts from US citizens right now vs Government Why?

    Because Gov. trying to steal ,expropriating private property without compensation and ignoring constitution. The rest of the population are worring about what wearing Kardashian!!! Our next election will be a show top level globally!!! Our founding fathers will be revolting in their tombs for now

    PhilOSophocle

    What the world needs now --- is love, sweet love. It's the only thing that there's just too little of, or so Burt Bacharach, Hal David & Jackie DeShannon said. But seriously folks . . . people hate Wall Street because of the unbridled greed everywhere. The Great Recession wasn't caused by real estate speculation --- it was caused by easy money from Wall Street when they packaged together risky mortgages & investment bankers sold them to banks as great investments, and then betting on them to fail on the side using Credit Default Swaps. It's very similar to what Joe Kennedy and his cronies did in the 1920's using market manipulation by cornering stocks & then doing a bear raid on it, which is illegal now. What the Wall Streeters did in 2000-2007 is still not illegal.

    ey02kdv98

    I agree. Trust needs to be restored. This requires Wall Street firms to be honest, and to weed out the greedy, psychopathic and sociopathic brokers, bankers, CEOs and chiefs, and assorted other criminals. By running firms honestly to a fault, investors would at first shy away because they'd think it was some kind of trick. Over a short period, good experiences will increase business to the point that it would exceed current sales many times over, even beyond your wildest imagination. There is a lot of $$$$$$$$$$$$ to be made in honestly run business. It's never to late to start.

    Mark14

    The only thing you can trust is that Goldman Sach's values don't include giving a damned about average Americans even if in Blankfein's delusional mind he is doing "Gods work. It would go a way toward restoring trust in the system if these rip off artists would consent to paying more taxes on their ill deserved gains in order to help bring down some of the nations debt and relieve the misery their unethical behavior created. But that will never happen voluntarily. Basically they are immoral creeps killing the golden goose that is our country.

    DavBG

    The repeal of Glass Stegal (which Roosevelt put in place after the last great depression) which prevented banks from investing depositors money in the stock market, is the root cause here. Banks were only allowed to make loans on real property, like businesses and mortgages. This put the money in savings back to work. Money placed in the house of cards, ponzi scheme, stock market, just sits there. Like a giant sponge sucking up the spare capital so that a 1% few can reap the benefit. Then insiders can cause booms and busts which slowly siphon the life out of a country and enslave it. The mortgage rate is now the lowest it has ever been in the US. Now with everyone's money in the stock market the next crash will bankrupt us since all the banks will have is worthless paper stock certificates.

    Rp

    Trust is not created through slick marketing and strategic press releases about speeches made by banking insiders, to other insiders, intended to convince those outside their cozy system, that they get it now, no more underhanded dealings, really this time, partners 50-50. We promise, no fingers crossed, everything above board from now on, you can trust us, really this time. That bs is played out, to ask for trust, is to confirm the fact that they should not, can not, be trusted. Trust, if it ever returns, to any degree, in any form, will be created by the numbers. The real numbers. The ones written under our names. The ones that stick. Trust is not a marketing concept, it can't be put where it doesn't belong, it can't grow where it isn't planted, protected, and nurtured.

    Pat

    Wall Street manipulators could not succeed without the complicity of Government. STOP REGULATING WALL STREET AND START DEMANDING THAT POLITICIANS CANNOT BE CONTROLLED BY LOBBYISTS. There should be a law that politicians bought by lobbyists WILL be prosecuted. It is Government that is guilty of capitulation. GOVERNMENT WRITES THE LAWS AND THE TAX CODES.

    Run corruption out of DC and there will be much more trust of big business. Do not buy the garbage that politicians are critical of the Wall Street crowd. Has Hillary released her speeches yet? NO. Don't expect she ever will. (aside: I do not find this article informative, and I'm dismayed by the comments I've read here.)

    Freethinker

    It's so simple: the bank robbers have been given (or have taken) the combination to the bank vault and looted it. Then they were given raises and bonuses for this heist.

    Doubt me? That canny corporate lawyer Abraham Lincoln anticipate our modern condition as far back as 1864, when he wrote:

    "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. …corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

    The mass of Americans are too powerless to fight back against the reign of the money powers. As Lincoln predicted, our Republic is destroyed. What awaits us now is dictatorship or even worse ... theocracy.


    [May 24, 2016] 'I'm not with her': why women are wary of Hillary Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... the question should not be why some don't trust Clinton, but why some still do? ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    FDiscussion , 2016-05-23 19:20:33
    how can it be 'on the whole' women support HRC when the next breath says '49%' do not? I smell bias in this article. People tend to forget that Margaret Thatcher was a woman whose vicious attacks on working people and trade unions and enthusiastic support of criminal right wing dictators inspired Reagan in their ruthlessness. And whose bellicose foreign adventures scared us all. HRC is in this class except her ideology seems to be greed rather than outright 1% class war on the poor but same difference?
    Lisa Glass Calvert , 2016-05-23 19:19:18
    Smear campaign? Billy boy has abused women sexually for decades and then smeared his victims. This isn't the Republicans' fault. Unless you think that James Carville (former chief of staff for Clinton) saying "drag a $20 through a trailer park & see what you'll get" is respectful to women. He basically called every one of Bill's victims trailer trash.

    Nope, Bill's abuse of women and Hillary's enabling of it IS NOT the fault of Republicans. Bill & Hillary WERE the war on women!

    MartiniShaken1 aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:19:14

    You know ... support your party's nominee, vote in midterms ... little things like that.

    You assume incorrectly that we "lefties" have a political party. The Democratic party is currently not one that even attempts to listen to our needs. Across the political spectrum Americans seem to have at long last discovered that not only does the government not meet the minimum needs of the populace, voters have started to figure out that neither political party will send to Washington leaders who have any intention of helping anyone but high-level campaign contributors.

    This is why the only voter enthusiasm is for two complete outsiders- Trump and Sanders.

    We could take your advice and hold our noses and carry the garbage to the curb every 4 years in hopes that something good will happen.

    But isn't there an old saw about the definition of insanity being the repetition of the same ineffectual routine while hoping for a different outcome?

    Alexander Nekrasov , 2016-05-23 19:17:37
    the question should not be why some don't trust Clinton, but why some still do?
    BlooEyedDevil casta1139diva , 2016-05-23 19:16:58
    Possession of ovaries does not equal qualified. Not saying they hurt, but if you want a woman president, why on earth would you take the first one offered simply because she is the first one offered, especially someone as venal, corrupt, morally bankrupt, uncaring, and mendacious as Hillary Clinton? It's myopic when you fail to see that if this gargoyle is elected, her record as POTUS will absolutely reflect poorly on women, giving all those who oppose women presidents plenty of ammo to suggest they were right all along. I don't mind a female POTUS, just don't make it Hillary Clinton. Nope.
    aguy777 Paul Little , 2016-05-23 19:16:33
    Do you mean besides securing healthcare coverage for 8 million of their children through SCHIP, advocating for women's rights & issues around the world as Secretary of State, and compiling an extraordinarily strong voting record on women's issues in the Senate that won her endorsements from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other women's organizations ... ?

    And what has TRUMP done for women besides insult them??

    FrederikII nevermind84 , 2016-05-23 19:13:41
    What neither of you two geniuses seem to realize is that Hillary Clinton cannot succeed in becoming president. No matter how the coronation has been fixed and promised, she simply is unelectable, and if she is the Democratic nominee then that idiot Trump will be sitting in the Oval Office.

    I used to admire the loyalty, albeit naivety, of Clinton fans, but things are getting far too serious. Do you guys really want President Trump? Because that seems to be where you are heading.

    Smells TheRat , 2016-05-23 19:13:33
    Her Thighness has certainly used her position as Secretary of State to enrich herself and Slick Willie...
    RecantedYank , 2016-05-23 19:11:28
    I am glad that Hillary is supporting abortion, even is she is beginning to quibble about terms. Of course, Bernie supports it unequivocally.

    The only difference between the two on this matter essentially is that one hell of a lot more women will have to consider abortion under a Clinton administration to get out of the low wage jobs, unaffordable health care for themselves or their children death spiral for the low and low middle incomers who are going to be caught AGAIN in a hell of Hillary's making. Hillary protects the mass profit taking of insurance, pharma, and medical industry...she also stutters over even a 12$ minimum wage (and that only in SOME states), has backed trade agreements that force ever more working people into those going nowhere jobs... so yeah...there are going to be a LOT more desperate women needing those abortions. Of course, as any fool knows...abortions are not illegal in many countries in middle and northern Europe...and guess what...they don't need as many of them because they do more for workers, and have a right to health care!

    Hillary for women...my aunt fanny's a**!

    Obelisk1 aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:09:17
    I am not a Trump supporter. But his awfulness does not make her any better.

    That Clinton was married to a president doesn't impress me in the slightest. That she became a senator was because she exploited her name-recognition after her husband's term of office. As Sec State she was not just a pathological liar, but also incompetent.

    If I was religious, I would pray for her indictment. Then the dems would be compelled to pick someone else.

    Paul Little somebody_stopme , 2016-05-23 19:09:22
    And she runs on Bills record, not her own
    FrederikII InnocenceAbroad , 2016-05-23 19:07:43
    Ironic that you don't realize how sexist your comment is. But it is an attitude not untypical of Clinton supporters.

    Hillary will not give us a third term of Obama, she will give us a third term for her husband. And this is all that Bill wants, to be back holding the reins of power again.

    DHBarr InnocenceAbroad , 2016-05-23 19:06:14
    How many "true feminists" hire private detectives to intimidate women accusing their husbands of sexual harassment or actual assault? Hillary is a hypocrite of the highest order - "All women must be believed" - except the ones accusing her husband. If Monica Lewinski hadn't had DNA evidence to back up her claims they would have had her committed to a mental institution.
    FrederikII aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:03:19
    Trump and Clinton deserve each other. That's why they are running neck and neck in the unpopularity stakes. Trouble is that Trump is starting to gain on her - and she has nothing to fight back with and stop her slide.
    FrederikII aguy777 , 2016-05-23 18:57:04
    You really haven't a clue, have you? Obama was a pretty poor president as far as the Democratic party was concerned. He made no effort whatever to build up the party, and spent wasteful years trying to compromise with the Republicans (when it was obvious to everyone he was getting nowhere.

    The first two years of his presidency could have been the golden years had he lived up to the hype he projected during the nomination process. He destroyed the Democratic party with his attempts to compromise with Republican rattle snakes when no compromise was possible. And, yes, Hillary wants to carry on his good work! And she is already well in with the republican elite like the Bushes and Romney. Friend, take your head out of your ...

    [May 23, 2016] Kerry Threatens War-Without-End on Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik. ..."
    sputniknews.com

    Alleged peace-maker John Kerry threatened to wage war-without-end on Syria - if the Middle East country does accept the US demand for regime change.

    That's hardly the language of a supposed bona fide diplomat who presents an image to the world as a politician concerned to bring about an end to the five-year Syrian conflict.

    The US Secretary of State repeatedly sounds anxious to alleviate the appalling suffering of the Syrian nation, where over the past five years some 400,000 people have been killed and millions displaced as refugees.

    Anyone who has not been brainwashed by Western media propaganda knows full well that the suffering of Syria has been caused by Washington and its allies sponsoring a covert war for regime change in that country.

    Kerry was speaking during another round of failed negotiations - this time in Vienna - along with other leaders from the 17-nation International Syria Support Group that includes Russia, as well as the United Nations.

    The "support group" is a disgustingly erroneous name, given that certain members of this entity - primarily the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - have done everything in their power to sponsor a proxy terrorist war on Syria. If the truth were not so abject, it would be laughable.

    In a Voice of America report headlined "US still has leverage in Syria," Kerry is quoted thus: "He said the greatest leverage [on Syria] was the fact that [President] Assad and his backers would never be able to end the war in Syria if they declined to negotiate a political settlement."

    In Kerry's Footsteps: What Saudi 'Plan B' Actually Means for Syria and Iran Consider the pernicious import of that for a moment. In other words, America's top "diplomat" is laying down a criminal ultimatum to the sovereign state of Syria and its elected government of President Bashar al-Assad. Kerry is saying in no uncertain terms that unless the Syrian authorities do not accept Washington's demand for regime change, then the country is facing never-ending war.

    Of course, being a weasel-worded diplomat, Kerry does not use the illegal term "regime change". He instead talks about "political transition". And he has set a date in August for this "transition" to take place. But what Kerry's euphemistic jargon boils down to is this: the Syrian president and his administration must vacate government - or else face more violence and destruction.

    This is the political objective that Washington and its allies in NATO, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have wanted all along. They want what is an independent, anti-imperialist Syrian government to give way to some composite regime that would be a puppet for Washington's geopolitical interests in the oil-rich, strategically vital Middle East region.

    Any replacement regime would spurn its erstwhile allies of Russia, Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah resistance movement to become an American vassal.

    In reality, the supposed pro-democracy change that Washington allegedly wants to install in Syria would be dominated by a repressive, fundamentalist regime that would betray the interests of the Syrian people. We can count on this outcome because the proxies who are waging Washington's covert war are dominated by extremists fully aligned with their despotic sponsors in Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

    Kerry's apparent confidence in predicting that Syria faces a war of attrition if it does capitulate is a tacit admission by Washington that it controls the illegally armed factions in Syria.

    The United States may officially proscribe terror groups like al Qaeda-linked Jabhat al Nusra and the so-called Islamic State (also known as Daesh). The US pays lip service to "defeating terrorism".

    But anyone with an informed understanding of what is really happening in Syria and other countries subjected to US-led regime change knows that Washington has orchestrated these same terror groups for its criminal political objectives.

    This is corroborated by the fact that Washington refuses to coordinate its (ineffectual) bombing campaign with Russia to eliminate the terror groups. It is corroborated by the fact that Washington and its allies point-blank refuse Russia's proposals at the UN Security Council to designate other known terror outfits - Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Shams - as terrorist.

    Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Shams are every bit as vile and barbaric as the other al Qaeda-affiliated franchises. They all espouse the same twisted death-cult ideology; fight alongside each others (when they are not feuding, that is, over war spoils); and ultimately they all share the same sponsors and American-supplied weaponry.

    'Fair Game'? What Kerry's 'Absolute Lines' in Syria Really Mean It is openly admitted that America's allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey, as well as Qatar, bankroll Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Shams and that this nexus serves as a conduit for American weapons from the Central Intelligence Agency.

    Why else would John Kerry begin his week of "diplomacy" in Vienna by first making an urgent visit to Saudi King Salman last weekend. Kerry was reportedly appealing to the 9/11-sponsoring Saudi regime to support his diplomatic push in Vienna. The Western media "reported" Kerry's Saudi visit as if it were a benign mission, as they usually do. Whenever it should be obvious that what he was really doing was trying to get the Saudis to ease off on the terror war in Syria.

    Washington is currently trying to wrangle regime change in Syria through a political track. That is a world of difference from gullible Western media projections of Kerry's pretensions of "negotiating peace".

    Yet all the while the US and the Saudis are reserving the right to use "Plan B" if the political track should not materialize in regime change.

    That is what Kerry really means when he said in Vienna that "Assad and his backers would never be able to end the war in Syria if they declined to negotiate a political settlement."

    Washington's "leverage" in Syria is due to the simple, diabolical fact that it and its despotic allies ultimately can turn on and off the violence when it is expedient for their interests. And that violence relies on the deployment of known terrorist organizations, including the ones that Washington's double-think refuses to recognize as "terrorist".

    So let's put this into stark perspective. Despite his Orwellian title of diplomat and peace-maker, US Secretary of State John Kerry is the public face of a terrorist enterprise.

    What other world power gives itself the right to threaten nations with "regime change or war"? And yet this same nation considers itself a paragon of democracy, human rights and law-abiding probity.

    The United States of America is a rogue regime on a criminal scale that exceeds the very worst in history.

    As a parting footnote, John Kerry is a decorated American "war hero". He served four months as a navy officer during the US genocidal war on Vietnam during the late 1960s. Kerry received a bunch of medals for his "actions", which according to reliable accounts from veterans on his river-boat patrols, involved shooting fleeing Vietnamese peasants in the back.

    This is the same Kerry who is now purporting to bring peace to Syria.

    Like everything that Washington says, it is full of lies and deception. The abiding lesson: don't turn your back on Washington and its terrorist-sponsoring, war-mongering "diplomats".

    The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

    [May 21, 2016] The 10 Most Disturbing Snowden Revelations

    February 11, 2014 | pcmag.com

    This time last year, no one knew Edward Snowden. But by the end of 2013, his name was on every top 10 list, and the revelations contained with the NSA documents he leaked have inspired today's "The Day We Fight Back" protests.

    For a while the information contained with the leaked documents took a backseat to the cultural impulse to dissect Snowden as a celebrity-his Reddit posts about sex and Cosmo asking "What the hell is Edward Snowden's girlfriend thinking right now?" Then Sunday talk shows debated whether Snowden was a was fink, traitor, whistleblower, or spy - as the elusive former contractor made an escape to Russia worthy of a spy-thriller chase scene.

    But the Snowden documents contained serious information. Since June, we have learned about a variety of NSA programs, including PRISM, a multilayered, multiagency program that mines the data of suspected terrorists, as well as that of anyone even marginally associated with them. And the information that has been released is reportedly just a fraction of what exists.

    Still, we have about eight months worth of data dumps, information that has prompted the promise of action from the White House, bills in the Congress, and today's "Day We Fight Back" protest, which is calling on people around the globe to protest NSA surveillance on the Web and in person. Below, we look back at some of the most alarming revelations from Edward Snowden thus far.

    1. The NSA intercepts deliveries According to documents published by German newspaper Der Spiegel, the NSA uses a tactic called "method interdiction," which intercepts packages that are en route to the recipient. Malware or backdoor-enabling hardware is installed in workshops by agents and the item then continues on its way to the customer.
    2. The NSA can spy on PCs not connected to the Internet Der Spiegel also published a document from an NSA division called ANT, which revealed technology the NSA uses to carry out operations, including a radio-frequency device that can monitor and even change data on computers that are not online.
    3. Phone companies must turn over bulk phone data In April, Verizon was ordered to hand over telephony metadata from calls made from the United States to other countries over the course of three months. The metadata included originating and terminating phone numbers, mobile subscriber identity numbers, calling card numbers, and the time and duration of calls. The secretive nature of the FISA court that made the request for data, however, meant that Verizon and other companies could not discuss the data requests.
    4. The NSA hacked Yahoo and Google data centers In October, The Washington Post accused the NSA of secretly monitoring transmissions between the data centers of Internet giants Yahoo and Google. Both companies denied giving the NSA permission to intercept such traffic. Google's Eric Schmidt called the move "outrageous," if true, while Yahoo moved to encrypt its data after the revelation.
    5. The NSA collects email and IM contact lists Hundreds of thousands of contact lists are collected by the NSA in a single day, The Washington Post also revealed. While the targets are outside of the United States, the scope of the collection means that info from U.S. citizens is inevitably included.
    6. RSA created a backdoor into its encryption software at the NSA's request In December, Reuters reported that the NSA paid RSA $10 million to create a "back door" in its encryption products, which gave the NSA access to data protected by RSA products like Bsafe. RSA denied the report, but the revelation prompted speakers to bow out of this month's RSA Conference.
    7. The NSA eavesdrops on the phone calls of world leaders. The U.S. government's friends and family calling plan reportedly extends to the content of calls, including tapping into German Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone calls from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Berlin. The news prompted German officials to consider creating their own Internet.
    8. The NSA knows how many pigs you've killed in Angry Birds. The Flappy Bird flap may be bigger, but last month, The New York Times reported that the NSA and British intelligence teamed up to collect and store user data generated by "dozens of smartphone apps," including popular games like Angry Birds. Rovio denied it, but anti-surveillance activists still defaced the developer's website.
    9. The NSA engages in industrial espionage. The U.S. government has framed the NSA's activities as necessary to keeping citizens safe, but Snowden said on German television, "If there's information at Siemens that's beneficial to U.S. national interests-even if it doesn't have anything to do with national security-then they'll take that information nevertheless."
    10. Tech companies cooperated with the NSA and then were asked not to talk about it. Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, and Apple were all named in the PRISM documents and struggled with how to talk to the public about it because of gag orders.

    wguerrero

    Big brother is watching us all.

    [May 20, 2016] Mathew D. Rose First German Politicians, Now German Media in Credibility Meltdown

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Mathew D. Rose, a freelance writer living in Berlin ..."
    "... The second study was published by the NGO Transparency International entitled "Corruption in Journalism. In a survey three years ago 53 percent of Germans considered their journalists to be corrupt or very corrupt. In its report Transparency asked German journalists their opinion on the issue. 63 percent of those journalists queried if corruption was a problem in journalism thought this was true (from a "wholehearted yes" to a "more or less"). Then there is the difficulty in defining corruption in journalism. In Germany, in politics and the media, the term is very loosely interpreted. Even Transparency had difficulty with this aspect of their study. ..."
    "... The propagandist, having sacrificed their brainwashing media of paper and tv, have turned their attention to taking over the last independent source of truth … the internet. Buyer beware, as you may be financing a dire future. ..."
    "... I'm wondering where German state media gets its funding. I wondering if they accept 'sponsorships' like PBS does. You can't watch PBS for 5 minutes without hearing about the Koch brothers. ..."
    "... I think a funded state media is a counter to a for profit media, but only if it is genuinely independent. In Japan, for example, the politicians have pretty much established full control over the mainstream news channels. In the UK, the once proudly independent BBC has, after years of outright assault by the oligarchy, become largely tamed, although it is still much better than the privately owned press. In Ireland, the state owned public broadcaster is still very much 'establishment', but a very important bulwark against private TV stations and newspapers which blatantly follow their owners business interests. I assume the same mixed situation is found in most countries. ..."
    "... I live in Sweden and it's even worse here. I just wish these studies would ask one simple follow up question: do you think there's an alternative, and if so, what is it? It seems that even if people get their news from online media, most of those outlets are still run by the same types of corporations that run the MSM. ..."
    "... People will not take to the streets to demand change until they feel they've no choice. Naturally the first step is they must want change. Remember citizens in the West care about convenience more than anything else. As long as things they want are handy and easy to get then they will not be motivated to want change. ..."
    "... In my experience the problem with the state media (in the Netherlands) is that most of them are striving very hard to get their point of view across. Which is of course, mostly politically correct. We've seen the same pro-Ukraine, anti-Putin reporting as in Germany. ..."
    "... It's just a variation on pay-to-play. They get their finances from the state, so the politicians have a significant influence on them. ..."
    naked capitalism
    Yves here. Germany appears to be a bit further along in same trajectory that America is on.

    By Mathew D. Rose, a freelance writer living in Berlin

    Germany's two major parties, Ms Merkel's Christian Democrats and the coalition Social Democrats, are plumbing new lows in popularity and credibility So too are the nation's media. The conflation is obvious: both are increasingly perceived as two sides of the same coin, acting in the interests of financial institutions and large corporations and their own economic advantage to the detriment of the public weal.

    While the Christian Democrats, despite Ms Merkel's purported popularity, is for the first time facing the possibility of winning less than 30 percent of the vote at the next Bundestag elections, the once powerful Social Democrats are already under 20 percent in some recent polls. At this rate they could well end up behind the populist, anti-immigrant party Alternative for Germany (AfD); something that occurred in two of three state elections last month.

    In the past ten years the number of members of both major parties has sunk round 20 percent. In the same period the circulation of newspapers and news magazines has fallen a similar amount. Television, including state television, has allegedly lost just ten percent in the same decade. But even here the numbers are deceptive. The average age of viewers of state television is currently well over 60. When I first arrived in Germany thirty-five years ago state media (television and radio) had a monopoly. Today my children do not even know that it exists and use other media via the internet. I am surprised how many friends, colleagues and acquaintances have given up watching the evening news on state television, once an event that most Germans partook of, frustrated by its tendentious reporting.

    German media's loss of credibility was recently underscored by two recent studies. Although one was carried out by state television, which is still battling to justify a recent hike in rates, and was very favourable towards its own programme, there were a couple of rather surprising results. 60 percent of those asked were of the opinion that German news media – including state media – was not independent from political and business interests. Only ten percent saw the the media as neutral. The rest were uncertain.

    The media coverage – better said propaganda campaigns – concerning austerity, the political upheaval in Ukraine and Greece bashing have become a watershed in the German public's perception of its media. Even the advisory board of the state media group ARD heavily criticised the reporting around the events in Ukraine during and after the Maidan protests, describing it as biased, undifferentiated and fragmentary. This description would well cover the whole of reporting in German mainstream media, also in the case of Greece and austerity. Much of the coverage concerning Russia and Greece has been underlined by inveterate German racism. Many Germans, probably not most, have however moved on and are no longer receptive to this sort of manipulation.

    Those who found their biases confirmed by the news media, many on the right of the German political spectrum, have been alienated by a further defamation campaign of mainstream media: against the anti-Islamic movement Pegida and the populist political party AfD. The reporting has not been critical; it has been visceral.

    How odd it has been to see the second state television channel, ZDF, attacking Pegida and the AfD as neo-Nazis, but on the other hand in a moment of Eastern Front nostalgia presenting Ukrainian troops with Nazi symbols on their helmets and uniforms fighting the rebels in the east of the country. There is a great deal to criticise concerning Pegida and the AfD, but what has occurred has been counter-productive, much as the American elite discovered in its early portrayal of Donald Trump.

    The second study was published by the NGO Transparency International entitled "Corruption in Journalism. In a survey three years ago 53 percent of Germans considered their journalists to be corrupt or very corrupt. In its report Transparency asked German journalists their opinion on the issue. 63 percent of those journalists queried if corruption was a problem in journalism thought this was true (from a "wholehearted yes" to a "more or less"). Then there is the difficulty in defining corruption in journalism. In Germany, in politics and the media, the term is very loosely interpreted. Even Transparency had difficulty with this aspect of their study.

    One does not know where to begin, but here are a few examples of what is not considered corruption in Germany:

    Many journalists work on the side as "consultants". A recent example came to light when one of the principle political journalists at Springer's broad sheet "Die Welt" offered to advise the AfD concerning media, of course at a very stiff fee. When the AfD declined the offer, the same journalist began writing vicious attacks against the party. He did lose his job.

    Then there are the business journalists specialised in a certain corporate sectors, who are then asked by one of the companies they cover to moderate their presentation, receiving a fee, often well over their monthly salary for two hours work. One can guess what the next article looks like.

    Many German political journalists' dream is to become a generously paid press spokesperson for a federal or state minister. The best way to achieve this is by publishing obsequious reports about the minister concerned. One never knows when reading an article in a German newspaper or a report in German television or radio, if it is a news report or a job application.

    German auto journalists are famous for their venality. A couple of years ago it came out that Mazda's public relations head, who had worked previously for a number of automobile companies, had calculated a budget for bribes of at least 15,000 Euros a year per journalist. This did not disturb Mazda in the least. They first pressed charges against their PR manager when it came out that he was skimming immense sums off the top for himself and an accomplice. Mazda had apparently assumed the full amount was being used to bribe journalists. There was no investigation of the journalists involved.

    There are the paid luxury travels, sumptuous gifts and meals. All of this is considered part of the job. Corruption of journalists might not be on the same financial scale as companies expend for politicians, but it is just as prevalent.

    There are those German journalists who may be corruption free, but most identify themselves with the powers that be or know that their jobs are at stake should they report otherwise. They no longer see themselves as a critical authority, but as one academic explained, as pedagogues, instructing Germans what and how to think, which is simply a polite way to describe a propagandist.

    The difficulties of mainstream media in Germany may solve themselves The circulation of most print media is plummeting and many will surely disappear in the next five years. It is just a question of time until someone raises the question if state media is truly worth the billions it receives. The traditional support that it enjoys at the moment is literally dying off.

    With a discredited political class and press, both in the service of big money, the political foundation of Germany is crumbling. How can politicians, who for most German citizens are not credible, communicate with voters, when the media, which is supposed to disseminate their disinformation, equally lacks credibility? The political and moneyed class in Germany assume that the political system has always functioned for them and therefore will continue to do so. This may be true in the short term, but it certainly is having its problems.

    The American journalist A. J. Liebling once claimed ""Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." In the case of Germany the political class owns state media and much of the rest belongs to a few conglomerates such as Springer and Bertelsmann. Their main concern is not a free press, but profit and forcing politicians to adopt policies in the interests of big business.

    In Germany, the wealthy and the political class are losing control of the political discourse because they have perverted it. News media is no longer a democratic flow of ideas and opinion, but a propaganda instrument for their particular interests. Thus German media has managed to alienate a good portion of the population. It is no wonder that the nation's post-war political system is in upheaval when the democratic consensus has been unilaterally terminated.

    ger , May 19, 2016 at 6:43 am

    The propagandist, having sacrificed their brainwashing media of paper and tv, have turned their attention to taking over the last independent source of truth … the internet. Buyer beware, as you may be financing a dire future.

    Larry , May 19, 2016 at 6:54 am

    This puts cold water on my notion that a disinterested state media would serve as a counter to for profit media that works more like propaganda than news. I had assumed that journalists with safe salaries and positions would stick to their better ideals, but I suppose there is no reason to count on the goodness of anybody when there is potentially more money to be had.

    While this article is certainly damning, I do wonder if German media produces worthwhile reports and documentaries. I think of something like PBS and Frontline, which does from time to time produce excellent series. That is probably the best that one can hope for for a publicly funded media enterprise.

    lyman alpha blob , May 19, 2016 at 8:03 am

    I'm wondering where German state media gets its funding. I wondering if they accept 'sponsorships' like PBS does. You can't watch PBS for 5 minutes without hearing about the Koch brothers.

    PlutoniumKun , May 19, 2016 at 9:24 am

    I think a funded state media is a counter to a for profit media, but only if it is genuinely independent. In Japan, for example, the politicians have pretty much established full control over the mainstream news channels. In the UK, the once proudly independent BBC has, after years of outright assault by the oligarchy, become largely tamed, although it is still much better than the privately owned press. In Ireland, the state owned public broadcaster is still very much 'establishment', but a very important bulwark against private TV stations and newspapers which blatantly follow their owners business interests. I assume the same mixed situation is found in most countries.

    Ignacio , May 19, 2016 at 10:41 am

    Do not forget ptivately owned media that recieve significant public subsidies…

    Nick , May 19, 2016 at 7:24 am

    I live in Sweden and it's even worse here. I just wish these studies would ask one simple follow up question: do you think there's an alternative, and if so, what is it? It seems that even if people get their news from online media, most of those outlets are still run by the same types of corporations that run the MSM.

    Another even bigger question that arises when reading these studies is: if more than half of the population thinks that both the political class and journalists are corrupt, then what exactly would it take for people to protest en masse and demand change?

    Convincing the population at large that there is no alternative is undoubtedly a very impressive feat by the PTB.

    EoinW , May 19, 2016 at 9:18 am

    People will not take to the streets to demand change until they feel they've no choice. Naturally the first step is they must want change. Remember citizens in the West care about convenience more than anything else. As long as things they want are handy and easy to get then they will not be motivated to want change.

    This is the divide in US politics now, as those who have slipped through the cracks or fear they are about to supporting the populous candidates. Meanwhile those whose lives are still what they want them to be either back the establishment or default to apathy. Apathy has been a major force in western democracies for decades because it's more convenient to ignore politics than to take an active interest in politics.

    Why are matters so different in Canada, when our establishment is just as criminal as America's? First our real estate market never crashed in 2008 and still hasn't. Thus the exercise of replacing middle class wealth with credit is still succeeding(for now). Second, we've a more solid social safety net, in particular universal health care. Debt covers the cost of this and the average citizen is not faced with added expenses – like Obamacare has created for Americans. Finally, because the social system has worked so well there's been generations of indoctrination, training Canadians to respect authority. Simply put, Canadians are not yet falling through the economic cracks like Americans are. Once their convenience becomes threatened – whether it is being able to afford the latest gadget or feeding ones family – they'll follow where Americans are leading.

    Perhaps in Europe the social safety net keeps people from feeling it's all falling apart personally. Certainly the EU is obviously as corrupt as Washington and even more undemocratic.

    On the bright side, our standard of living – the highest in human history – allows for much wiggle room. Relative to the past, things are still very good, even for those struggling. I don't think Trump/Sanders supporters are living in the gutter and starving to death. But they perceive some of their peers advancing while they fall back and that's very upsetting. Like someone yelled "fire" in the crowded theatre and all the Washington insiders rushed to the exits first while they got left behind. A European would have to be pretty dumb not to see they are being left behind while the Brussels elites live it up. Will they ever feel the need to take to the streets? That is the question.

    drexciya , May 19, 2016 at 7:26 am

    In my experience the problem with the state media (in the Netherlands) is that most of them are striving very hard to get their point of view across. Which is of course, mostly politically correct. We've seen the same pro-Ukraine, anti-Putin reporting as in Germany. A pro-"refugees" (the blatant lies are just insulting) stance and demonizing anyone who's even remotely critical of the way the "refugee" problem is handled, or what's going on with the EU. Also noteworthy is the anti-Trump sentiment, and the complete lack of any criticism concerning Obama or Hillary.

    It's just a variation on pay-to-play. They get their finances from the state, so the politicians have a significant influence on them. I prefer to support people outside these media institutes, who do deliver high quality reporting. Maybe that's the future for real journalism. If enough people support independent websites, blogs, podcasts and journalism in general, we can simply leave the old media behind.

    EoinW , May 19, 2016 at 9:28 am

    Political correctness is a slippery slope down. What began as the Left using political correctness to end all discussions on the Culture War(which they won in the 1990s) has been transformed. Today our elites use it to define any criticism of official government policy as politically incorrect. if they say refugees are good then we can't criticize them. If they say Russians are bad then we can't support them.

    The battle lines are changing. We no longer have the luxury to indulge in the Left/Right culture war. It was a symbolic war which had little to no impact on most people's lives. Does it really matter whether gays parade down main street annually? As scarcity of wealth impacts society the war will shift between the establishment who have it and the average citizens who are losing it. They'll still throw nonsense at us, like transvestite washroom issues, to try and keep us in the old narrative and fighting amongst ourselves. If we're dumb enough to fall for that then we deserve to finish second in this war.

    jerry hamrick , May 19, 2016 at 8:06 am

    If the AfD gain power what will they do?

    ke , May 19, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Funny, Hitler was a symptom, not a cause, and the last time the German regulars tried to cast off the financial hydra, their entire production was carpet bombed.

    The State knows where your assets are and hides its own, in the fog of constitutional mythology, prosecuting the victims of law, while exempting its authority, creating a competition to be the most ignorant judge, breeding sociopaths.

    Abundance must be destroyed, or the money has no perceived value. After electrical shock over millennia, few have any interest in the new(s), unless it's the same as the old, with a new dress.

    ke , May 19, 2016 at 9:54 am

    Your greatest assets are independent thought, hand skill, and anticipatory intelligence . When in Rome, the spirit is destroyed, leaving simulated intelligence to control idle hands, replaced by a machine.

    The State narrative is the weapon.

    Don't enter that fog of war expecting sentient human beings. If you are the exit, and you are if you think about it, the empire traps itself.

    Ignacio , May 19, 2016 at 10:34 am

    This is for me the most interesting part of the essay:

    In a recent poll 60 percent of those asked were of the opinion that German news media – including state media – was not independent from political and business interests. Only ten percent saw the the media as neutral. The rest were uncertain.

    The media are almost certainly less influential now that years ago. they may not have the same power to shape public opinion. Reporting and opinion in other channels is more diverse than in traditional TV or Press and might help to increase the gap between public and published opinion.

    Yet those corrupt media might try to compensate their loss with increasingly biased reporting and they might no longer bother to be seen as neutral. In this way, the credibility meltdown might just reinforce bad journalistic practices.

    [May 20, 2016] Goldman Responds To Goldman's Stock Offering of A Goldman-Upgraded Tesla Zero Hedge

    www.zerohedge.com

    Goldman Responds To Goldman's Stock Offering of A Goldman-Upgraded Tesla

    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/19/2016 09:59 -0400

  • Chinese Wall
  • Investor Sentiment
  • Restricted Stock
  • Twitter
  • Twitter
  • In what many considered to be a flagrantly criminal abuse of investment bank "restricted lists", yesterday Goldman underwrote a $2 billion equity offering for Tesla (to find its amusing expansion strategy) just hours after Goldman upgraded the stock to a Buy.

    We have done our best to alert the regulators...

    Hey @SEC_News here it is in terms even you can understand pic.twitter.com/Yprw3GZDMm

    - zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 18, 2016

    Hey @GoldmanSachs do you use restricted lists and was Tesla on it?

    - zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 18, 2016

    ... however we are confident the regulators are paid far better to remain unalerted.

    So for those curious what Goldman's research analyst who upgraded Tesla, Patrick Archambault, had to say about this "odd, very odd coincidence", here it is straight from the mouth of the horse which obviously remains stabled safely on the other side of the Chinese wall located at 200 West.

    Commentary: Tesla announces equity offering and provides further details on Model 3 reservations

    News

    After the close on May 18, Tesla announced a 6.8mn primary share offering. The offering includes a greenshoe option which, if exercised, would increase the number of shares sold to approximately 8.2mn. Based on the May 18 closing price of $211.17, this would result in a total value of $1.4bn for the offering, or $1.7bn if the greenshoe option is exercised. In addition, Elon Musk, CEO, will sell 2.8mn shares to satisfy tax implications from exercising 5.5mn in stock options that expire at year-end. The company noted that Mr. Musk also plans to donate 1.2mn shares to charity and that the net result of these actions will be to increase his holdings to 31.1mn shares from 29.6mn. All said, based on the latest closing share price and including the primary offering, greenshoe, and Mr. Musk's sale, the total size of the transactions would be $2.3bn.

    In the preliminary prospectus, the company also provided an update on Model 3 reservations and announced that it had 373k deposits as of May 15, 2016. This is net of 8k (approx. 2% of total) in customer cancelations and 4.2k (approx. 1% of total) reservations deemed to be duplicates.

    Implications

    Adjusting for the announced transaction and the supplemental stock options outstanding, and for restricted stock units (RSU) information, our EPS estimates would be unchanged for 2016-2017. Including the greenshoe, our 2016-2017 EPS estimates would decline by less than 1% on average.

    Our take

    We maintain our Buy rating and EPS estimates following the announcement . Additionally, our 6-month price target of $250 remains unchanged, derived from five probability-weighted automotive scenarios plus stationary storage optionality , all of which embed a 20% cost of capital. While the announced capital raise of $1.4bn (or $1.7bn with the greenshoe) is ultimately higher than our $1bn estimate, after factoring in the updated supplemental RSU and option information, dilution to our estimates would be immaterial. Consistent with our previously published research (see Putting in our reservation for the Model 3; upgrading TSLA to Buy, May 18) we believe the funding level is adequate for the Tesla Model 3 roll-out. The reservations of 373k are in line with the company's recent comments of "approaching 400k", though they imply slowing growth (even adding back the cancellation and duplicates) as reservations had already hit 325k one week after the Model 3 unveil.

    Risks: Decline in overall investor sentiment impacting the appetite for concept stocks, further delays in the Model X production ramp which could force a guidance reduction as well as exacerbate FCF burn, and higher-than-forecast operating expenses and/or capex investments.

    Actually the biggest risk factor, and what is most hilarious about this whole incident is that in the Goldman upgrade, which was clearly rushed, and in which Goldman itself admitted there is a two-thirds likelihood the stock will plunge to $125 or lower and the only upside is due to a "key man provision" and a ridiculous thesis that Musk alone is worth tens of billions in market cap (somehow excluding tens of billions in taxpayer grants)...

    ... is that all those who bought TSLA on the Goldman report (and/or Goldman stock offering) will actually read it.

    A Pimp's love i...

    God's Work

    greenskeeper carl , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:04

    Would it really be that surprising if it did hit 250? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. It makes no sense where it is now, another 20% up would be par for the course for this "market". It's probably just more muppet slaying by Goldman, but I could see them releasing those cars that will of course get stellar reviews and have a full retard price spike. Dumber shit has happened.

    ParkAveFlasher , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:04

    "It feels good, doesn't it Muppet? You want more, don't you?!"

    Stackers , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:11

    ZH is dead on. This is CFA Level 1 stuff.

    http://www.investopedia.com/exam-guide/cfa-level-1/ethics-standards/stan...

    How to Comply
    The Standards of Practice Handbook provides a number of operational suggestions that one should recommend for adoption by the compliance department.

    Establish a restricted list - This is to limit research on those firms that have a business relationship with that company. If an adverse opinion would hurt this business relationship, the company stock should be restricted from the research universe, and only factual information on the company should be disseminated.

    TradingIsLifeBrah , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:14

    I bet Goldman believes its valuation is "factual" lol

    OrangeJews , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 11:22

    The worst part in my opinion is that by keeping Musk going makes him look like a God to all of the sheeple when in reality he's just using other people's money and other people's ideas to become famous. Basically the definition of the current United States.

    JamaicaJim , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:23

    Ah yes...Pacino.....in one of his finest works....plus excellent writing....

    His God speech;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGR4SFOimlk

    asteroids , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:23

    Obviously something is broken. It's up to the SEC to act. If it doesn't then the SEC is broken. If the SEC is broken then it's up to .....

    ShorTed , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:24

    Yes something is broken... must be the porn filters at the SEC again. Don't expect people who's future (once they pass thru the revolving door) depends on them not finding any malfeasance, to do the right thing.

    JamaicaJim , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:10

    Goldman Sucks Ass should be Lehman-nized

    Shut Down

    Arrests made

    Convictions

    Lengthy prison senten.....

    ...wha.....huh.....I was having a dream?

    FUCK!

    quadraspleen , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 11:09

    Yeah. Dreaming. I actually spat water at "arrests made"

    Dream on

    nibiru , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:10

    Everything i in order guys, don't worry it's temporary technical glitches... carry on, nothing to see here. Oh and sell gold! Listen to Gartman!

    TradingIsLifeBrah , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:11

    They should have added in a 1% chance that TSLA goes to $1,000,000,000 per share to pull the target price up a little higher.

    Farmer Joe in B... , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:24

    Having worked in a mid-sized IB, I can tell you there is no such thing as a fucking Chinese wall. Cheesecloth at best.

    This cocksucker absolutely knew that a deal was cooking...

    ptoemmes , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:24

    Who are these "many" you speak of? Clearly does not include the financial and regualtory elite.

    Similar to politicians and one D Trump claiming they could shoot someone on the Senate floor - or Times Square - and not get arrested I think that CNBC should have a reality hour where finanial elites and regulators carry out obvious fraud on live TV. You know, just to see what happens...

    The Daily Fraud

    Fraudish

    Spungo , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:25

    Should I even care about this? The people who own Tesla shares are functionally retarded. If it wasn't Tesla stealing their money for the sake raising capital, some other questionablle enterprise would get their money just as quickly. I'm thinking horse racing and lottery tickets.

    bamawatson , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 11:03

    oh man, please don't equate seasoned pari-mutual investors with the "functionally retarded" tesla shareholders

    Dadburnitpa , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:28

    Anyone can be "brilliant" if they're festooned with enough free government money. But once the tit dries up, you're no better than the rest.

    rosiescenario , Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:33

    While Tesla's cars may be a rare sight for others in the U.S. if you drive around the SF Bay Area they are as common as anyother make of car. While the stock is at a nutty value, I'd bet you'd find that 80% of individual owners of it reside around Silicon Valley and are convinced this is the next Apple.

    Personally I see no appeal to a car which has such a limited driving range....you really cannot take a trip with it.

    [May 19, 2016] Our Famously Free Press

    naked capitalism
    Our Famously Free Press

    "'This has been an all-time low by mainstream corporate media,' says media scholar Robert McChesney, who joins us to discuss how the media is covering the race for the White House. 'What we've seen is the Sanders campaign has been largely neglected … And the coverage and the framing of it has been largely through the eyes of the establishment for the Hillary Clinton campaign' [Democracy Now].

    "Bernie backers get violent: Now it's the Democrats facing a civil war" [Howard Kurtz, Fox]. It's interesting, in a clinical sort of way, to see the Nevada airborne seating Big Lie propagate itself through our famously free press. Although it's handy to be able to cross off any pundit who retails it.

    "As the fallout from last weekend's Nevada Democratic convention spreads, sharply critical pieces about the White House hopeful and his campaign have appeared in progressive outlets such as Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos within the past 48 hours." [The Hill]. Read for some Ninja-grade concern trolling. My favorite includes the phrase "the full sense of moral leadership."

    [May 18, 2016] Two-thirds of the directors at the New York Fed are hand-picked by the same bankers that the Fed is in charge of regulating

    jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    "Two-thirds of the directors at the New York Fed are hand-picked by the same bankers that the Fed is in charge of regulating.

    Today, the United States is No. 1 in corporate profits, No. 1 in CEO salaries, No. 1 in childhood poverty, and No. 1 in income and wealth inequality in the industrialized world.

    Today, the top one-tenth of 1% owns nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90%. The economic game is rigged, and this level of inequality is unsustainable. We need an economy that works for all, not just the powerful.

    I think what the American people are saying is enough is enough. This country, this great country, belongs to all of us. It cannot continue to be controlled by a handful of billionaires who apparently want it all."

    Bernie Sanders

    The Banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, with balance restored to the economy, before there can be any sustainable recovery.

    [May 18, 2016] - Lenta.ru

    lenta.ru

    За последний месяц на Украине появилось новое правительство во главе с Владимиром Гройсманом, была переформатирована коалиция в Верховной Раде и назначен новый генпрокурор. Бывший депутат Рады, а потом спикер парламента Новороссии Олег Царев рассказал "Ленте.ру" о том, чего ждать от обновленной украинской власти.

    "Порошенко дожал американцев и олигархов"

    "Лента.ру": Что изменится на Украине с назначением нового правительства Владимира Гройсмана? Можно ли ожидать улучшения социально-экономической ситуации?

    Царев: Главным итогом последнего политического кризиса я считаю то, что Петру Порошенко удалось сосредоточить в своих руках всю полноту власти. На пути к этому он смог дожать американцев, олигархов, продавить оппонентов внутри страны. Финальным аккордом стало избрание 12 мая генпрокурором Украины кума президента Юрия Луценко. Порошенко получил полный карт-бланш, установил контроль и над кабинетом министров, и над Верховной Радой, и над силовыми структурами. Оппоненты Порошенко - [Игорь] Коломойский и [Арсений] Яценюк - пытались ему противостоять. В частности, с их противодействием я связываю активную раскрутку на Украине скандала с панамскими офшорами президента. Вся эта кампания неслучайно началась в тот момент, когда глава государства поехал на переговоры в США. Целью было его ослабление, чтобы он не смог договориться с американцами. Тем не менее он американцев дожал и своего добился. Основным аргументом для расширения его полномочий было устранение угрозы сползания страны к анархии. Да, это движение в сторону диктатуры, но американцы никогда не возражали против диктатуры, если она действует в их интересах.

    А что этот личный успех Порошенко значит для украинского народа?

    К интересам украинского народа вся эта политическая борьба не имеет никакого отношения. Речь идет о контроле финансовых потоков, в частности крупные игроки готовятся к намечающейся последней приватизации. Одно из последствий украинского переворота и, как следствие, гражданской войны в Донбассе и разрыва экономических связей с Россией - обесценивание активов у олигархов. На сегодняшний день их активы, заложенные под взятые в зарубежных банках кредиты, меньше самих кредитов. Фактически они банкроты. Спасти олигархов может только срочная покупка по заниженным ценам новых активов, чтобы получить за рубежом под них новые кредиты и за их счет перекрыть старые. В продажу должны пойти порты, железная дорога, АЭС, сельскохозяйственные угодья. Как вы понимаете, мировая банковская система устроена так, что в конечном итоге вся украинская собственность должна поменять владельцев с украинских на зарубежных.

    Этот процесс уже начался?

    Первоначально договоренности у олигархов имелись с уже бывшим премьером Яценюком. Активы были распределены. Например, Коломойский должен был забрать Одесский припортовый завод, еще ряд предприятий. Яценюк их устраивал, его аппетиты были поменьше, чем у президента, поэтому олигархи поддерживали главу правительства в борьбе против Порошенко. Все СМИ Коломойского активно раздували панамский скандал, работа велась по всему миру, оплачивалась международная пиар-кампания. Но Порошенко выдержал, договорился с американцами, а у тех есть рычаги давления на украинских олигархов, хранящих свои средства в странах Запада. Теперь все олигархи пришли договариваться к Порошенко. Коломойский и другие контролируют своих депутатов, дают им указания. Благодаря этому президенту удалось сделать премьер-министром лично преданного ему Гройсмана и назначить генпрокурором Луценко.

    "У каждого украинского политика есть куратор в США"

    Какие перспективы у такой конфигурации власти?

    На сегодняшний момент американцы против резких изменений. Такова логика президентских выборов в США - уходящий президент не должен оставлять проблемы следующему главе государства. Поэтому сейчас Россию будут похлопывать по плечу, говорить о возможной отмене санкций, может быть, даже откатится цена на нефть. Но это временная ситуация! У администрации нового американского президента будет свой план по Украине. Москва получила временную передышку, важно использовать это короткое время для решения внутренних проблем, наведения порядка в экономике.

    На Украине по-прежнему периодически заявляют о себе радикальные националисты, экстремисты. Почему Запад не выступает против этого?

    Тут ситуация двойственная. С одной стороны, Порошенко для того и дали возможность сосредоточить власть в своих руках, чтобы он укрепил государство. Он от нацистов потихоньку уже избавляется, но полностью убирать их со сцены не будет. Отморозков под рукой иметь удобно. Надо разобраться с "Оппозиционным блоком" или Васей Волгой (лидер партии "Союз левых сил" - "прим. "Ленты.ру" ), другими какими-то оппонентами? И типа возмущенная общественность делает это. Президент разводит руками: "Что я могу? Это не я, это другие люди". Радикалы полностью не исчезнут, но будут работать по команде, в строго очерченных границах выполняя ту роль, которую выполняли батальоны смерти в Латинской Америке.

    Отношение к России будет меняться?

    Никаких надежд на это питать не стоит - Украина останется русофобской по духу. Просто русофобия будет не самодеятельной, а санкционированной, управляемой государством. России и украинцам с отличной от официальной точкой зрения лучше не станет.

    Активно проявляет себя в украинском политическом пространстве Михаил Саакашвили. Понятно, что у него огромные амбиции, ограничиваться Одесской областью он не желает. Каковы его перспективы?

    У него хорошие шансы войти в высшие эшелоны украинской власти. У Саакашвили второй личный рейтинг после Юлии Тимошенко. Надо понимать, что у каждого более-менее серьезного украинского политика сейчас есть свой американский куратор. Кто-то работает с демократами, кто-то - с консерваторами, кто-то связан с Госдепартаментом, другие взаимодействуют с конкретным чиновником, у кого-то "крыша" ЦРУ, как, например, у Наливайченко (бывший глава СБУ - прим. "Ленты.ру" ). При этом между самими кураторами идет серьезная борьба. Из-за этого возникают различные казусы. Так, куратор бывшего министра финансов Украины Натальи Яресько сообщила ей, что ее кандидатура утверждена на должность главы правительства. Та стала уже делать какие-то высокомерные заявления, но в итоге в правительстве Гройсмана не сохранила даже должность главы Минфина. Проблема Саакашвили связана с тем, что его кураторы в США сегодня не на вершине власти. Вторая трудность - отсутствие у него своей политической силы. Ему надо свой рейтинг как-то конвертировать в движение, чтобы закрепиться внутри Украины.

    Юлия Тимошенко сможет вернуться во власть?

    У нее не только высокий рейтинг, но есть и собственная политическая сила - партия "Батькивщина". Да, в Раде это всего 25 депутатов, поэтому она и не претендует на какие-то серьезные посты. Я знаю, что ей при формировании правительства Гройсмана предлагали войти в кабмин. Но она посчитала, что ей лучше еще нарастить рейтинг, находясь в оппозиции.

    "Боевые действия в Донбассе продолжатся"

    Что в ближайшее время ждет Донбасс? И какова судьба минских соглашений?

    По сути, жители Донбасса - заложники неопределенности, вызванной минскими соглашениями. Меня совсем не удивило отсутствие результатов на последней встрече министров иностранных дел нормандской четверки. Для украинской власти вопросом жизни и смерти в полном смысле этого слова является непризнание вооруженного конфликта на востоке страны гражданской войной. Если война в Донбассе - не война с Россией, а внутренний гражданский конфликт, то начало АТО, привлечение армии, насильная мобилизация, обстрелы городов Донбасса - это не только грубое нарушение Конституции Украины, но и преступление, по которому нет сроков давности. Руководители страны - военные преступники. Все погибшие в результате конфликта, как военные так и мирные жители, на их совести. Представители киевской власти как попугаи будут говорить об агрессии России на востоке Украины. То, что они сами себе противоречат, их не сильно волнует. Если Россия агрессор, то надо разрывать дипломатические отношения и объявлять войну России. Причем логичнее всего начинать "освобождение от России" с Крыма. Ведь то, что в Крыму, в отличие от Донбасса, находится российская армия, ни для кого не секрет. Но дураков нет. Одно дело воевать в Донбассе с выдуманными российскими войсками, а совсем другое - столкнуться с настоящей кадровой российской армией в Крыму.

    С соглашениями тупиковая ситуация?

    То, что подписи под минскими соглашениями поставили представители самопровозглашенных народных республик, и так поставило Киев в сложное положение. Если договоренности будут выполнены, то дело Киеву придется иметь уже с легитимными представителями Донбасса. (Лично я считаю, что у глав ДНР Александра Захарченко и ЛНР Игоря Плотницкого легитимности больше, чем у Порошенко). Это значит, что в случае конфликта он попадает под определение "гражданская война", а действия киевского руководства можно трактовать как военное преступление. Таким образом, при выполнении минских соглашений Киев окажется в шпагате.

    Фашистские режимы держатся на страхе, они устойчивы, если существует только одна точка зрения. А не разделяющих ее государство или батальоны смерти устраняют. Неподконтрольный центральной власти анклав на востоке нельзя физически раздавить, и это делает режим очень неустойчивым. С другой стороны, минский комплекс мер продавливают европейцы и публично отказываться от него нельзя. Но и выполнить невозможно. Все это прекрасно понимают как в Киеве, так и в Вашингтоне. Если бы американцы действительно хотели выполнения соглашений, то Виктория Нуланд сегодня бы сидела в Киеве и разговаривала с депутатами, руководителями фракций и олигархами в жесткой форме. Аргументов много: угроза запрета въезда в ЕС, закрытие кредитования в зарубежных банках, конфискация собственности и арест счетов за границей Государственные СМИ и СМИ, подчиняющиеся олигархам, с утра и до вечера, в случае если бы действительно ставилась такая задача, говорили о том что, минские договоренности надо выполнять. Но мы этого не наблюдаем.

    Мое резюме такое: Украина и США как минимум до президентских выборов в Америке сохранят риторику о том, что минские соглашения следует выполнять. Но в то же время выполнять их, голосуя в Верховной Раде за амнистию, специальный статус отдельных районов, изменения в Конституцию, закон о выборах в Донбассе, не будут. Организовывать крупномасштабное наступление тоже не будут, дабы не нарваться на контрнаступление. Но боевые действия в ограниченном режиме на границе с Донбассом, очевидно, продолжатся по той причине, что первый пункт соглашений - прекращение огня. Невыполнение первого пункта дает возможность затягивать и с другими.

    Какие-то поводы для оптимизма вы все-таки видите?

    Медленно, шаг за шагом, но в Донбассе все-таки становится спокойнее, а уровень жизни немного растет. Я как один из тех, кто стоял в начале этого процесса, хотел бы большего. Поэтому я, возможно, слишком резко оцениваю ситуацию, хотя сделано, конечно, очень много.

    "Я не общаюсь с Януковичем"

    Есть регионы Украины, которые готовы пойти по пути ДНР и ЛНР?

    За время правления Порошенко украинские силовики провели точечную, но системную работу по выявлению недовольных киевской властью. Одни попали в тюрьму, другие покинули Украину. Движение сопротивления во многом подавлено. Общее недовольство теми, кто пришел к власти после госпереворота в 2014 году, есть, уровень жизни падает, тарифы растут, социально-экономическая ситуация ухудшается. Но отсутствуют лидеры, способные повести за собой людей.

    Вы общаетесь с кем-то из прежнего руководства Украины? Может быть, обсуждаете что-то с беглым президентом Виктором Януковичем?

    Я с глубоким уважением отношусь к бывшему главе правительства Николаю Азарову. С ним мы обсуждаем много вопросов. С Януковичем не общаюсь. Знаете, после госпереворота в Киеве погибло громадное количество людей, Донбасс стал зоной боевых действий. Через возглавляемый мной парламент Новороссии шла первая российская гуманитарная помощь, другой структуры для такой работы просто не было. Я по пять-шесть раз в день посещал пострадавшие семьи в Луганске, Донецке. Мне важно было показать людям, что их не бросили. Я приезжал в семьи, где погибли дети, старики, где разрушены дома. Я видел это горе, которое принесла, в том числе, политика Януковича. Это очень тяжело.

    Вы считаете, что лично Янукович виноват в происходящем на Украине сейчас?

    У него были все рычаги власти. Он мог бороться как Каддафи, как сирийский лидер Башар Асад, он мог погибнуть, как Альенде (Сальвадор Альенде, президент Чили, погиб в 1973 году в ходе военного переворота - прим. "Ленты.ру" ), и остаться символом сопротивления в веках, но он этого не сделал. Политик не имеет права думать о себе.

    И что же, не было тогда людей, близких к "телу", которые могли оказать на него какое-то влияние, чтобы он принял другое решение? Или он никого не слушал?

    Украина - олигархическая страна, причем классическая олигархическая страна. Можно много говорить про демократические выборы, но в итоге украинский народ выбирает того кандидата, которого выбрали олигархи. Ну, как минимум из перечня тех, на кого они сделали ставку. Поэтому его обязательства перед ними были важнее, чем перед простыми людьми.

    А олигархам, выходит, невыгодно было сохранить страну?

    В какой-то момент олигархов взяли за самое дорогое, что у них есть, - за деньги и за собственность. Вариантов не было.

    [May 11, 2016] Every defeat is just getting that bit more embarrassing for Clinton now

    Notable quotes:
    "... Everything is just getting that bit more embarrassing for Clinton now, as if it wasn't for her early jump on Sanders before people got to know who he was, she could well be behind. ..."
    "... Vote for Bernie is more like a protest vote: people just show their disgust with neocon Killary posing as a Democrat. That's why if Dems nominate Killary, many Bernie supporters won't vote at all, and some would even vote Trump. Trump and Bernie are opposites in many things, but they have one thing in common: Republicratic establishment is afraid of both. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    yinyanggrl Jason Ma 10 May 2016 22:26

    Trump will be 70 in less than a month, Sanders is 74. Not a huge difference. The main difference is hair dye and injections.

    ucic , 2016-05-11 03:32:02

    Maybe the 'mis-spoke' argument for Clinton's crushing in WV today (a state she won in 2008) is not the only a influence on today's vote? Perhaps the people of WV have also been reading or hearing about Clinton's appalling polling in a showdown with Trump compared to Sanders? Meanwhile, if the state does goes Repub in the general, it will just be like all those other southern states that Hillary won!
    Eugene Harvey johnjohn12 , 2016-05-11 03:28:39
    I do believe it may be yourself and your beloved Hillary that are hitting the bottle. The more Sanders wins the more he may be able to swing the Super Delegates who are free to pledge for who they want. Everything is just getting that bit more embarrassing for Clinton now, as if it wasn't for her early jump on Sanders before people got to know who he was, she could well be behind.
    It is something the Democrats can't ignore, just as they can't ignore Clintons popularity ratings along side Trump.
    Why pull out when you're winning? Sounds like something a loser would do.


    Eugene Harvey , 2016-05-11 03:16:38
    Got to love the Guardian, first they get a bit over excited and announce Clinton and Trump win after almost no votes counted, with their ridiculous little Clinton/Trump graphics waving their arms, then have to wakeup from their warm fuzzy dream and face reality, Sanders and done it again.

    The Fat Lady is starting to get nervous as the Orchestra start to leave the pit.

    RobertAussie danielnc , 2016-05-11 03:03:09
    Whereas cocaine capitalists are so good at maths that they sold sub-prime mortgage packages, created the GFC and destroyed the world economy... and then got bailed out by the people... (that is, they suddenly and briefly embraced socialism in their time of need, in case that's lost on you.)
    Informed17 danielnc , 2016-05-11 03:01:42
    Vote for Bernie is more like a protest vote: people just show their disgust with neocon Killary posing as a Democrat. That's why if Dems nominate Killary, many Bernie supporters won't vote at all, and some would even vote Trump. Trump and Bernie are opposites in many things, but they have one thing in common: Republicratic establishment is afraid of both.

    Siamesemama1 , 2016-05-11 02:50:15
    Guardian: I'm getting tired of waiting for a fair headline from you, for example, "Bernie Takes West Virginia in May 10th state primary" instead of "Trump this, Trump that/hillary_clinton. blah, blah, blah". It's as simple as Who, What, When, Where & Why-accurately reported. As taught in 9th grade journalism classes.
    Im waiting for an article without the negatives such as West Virginians only voted for Sanders because they are waiting to vote for Trump.
    It's bad enough to have Hillary, Bill, the Koch bros., the banksters, the Supreme Court et al subverting our democracy, must you join in as well?
    Bernie's formidable & we, his supporters are tenacious!
    GO BERNIE!!!!
    WarlockScott JimmySands , 2016-05-11 02:40:41
    Sociopath taps into public discontent amongst smaller demographic group by giving them someone to blame and displaying authoritarian strength in the face of hated establishment (who lets be honest with maybe one exception were hopeless candidates). Tbf I'd be less concerned with what Republicans think and more concerned with the Independent voting block who have massive concerns about Hillary for mostly different reasons
    relgin Severus1 , 2016-05-11 02:40:12
    Clinton's campaign has soaked up a goodly portion of this allegedly donated money. She believes that *she* is the Democratic Party heir. Clinton is for Clinton and will do anything to get what she wants.
    BaldwinP whyohwhy1 , 2016-05-11 02:31:59
    The point is that while Sanders gets support from people to the left of Clinton, he also gets a lot of support from people to the right of Clinton and who are backing him as an anti-establishment guy, not a left-wing guy.
    exdiplomat ArchieWahWah , 2016-05-11 02:27:04
    Why would Sanders, who has made his entire campaign about the corrupting influence of Wall Street and corporate interests in government, and has self funded his campaign as a result, team up with a person who is the living embodiment of all he disdains? Hillary Clinton's campaign is the nexus of Wall Street and corruption, with an FBI investigation thrown in for good measure.

    Do not trust her. Do not want her.

    PrinceVlad ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-05-11 02:26:56
    He says it was a disaster, is against regime change, questions our relationship with the Saudis, wants to be neutral with regard to Israel and Palestine, and questions why we need NATO decades after the Soviet Union collapsed. All sound positions in my book.
    PlayaGiron , 2016-05-11 02:24:43
    How is Sanders campaign "quixotic"?

    Just report the fucking news without the insults!!

    exdiplomat USfan , 2016-05-11 02:17:56
    Not me. I'm voting Sanders. And if its not Sanders, then I'm voting Trump.

    The problem is corruption in government, and how the government and economy are rigged.

    Only Sanders and Trump talk about this. Clinton... with her speech money and tens of millions from Wall Street donors and Pentagon supplier donors... she is part of the problem, and certainly not the solution.

    krnewman , 2016-05-11 02:11:34
    Once again we have uniformly lousy, almost criminally responsibly terrible political reporting from the Guardian concerning the Democratic Party's race. I come expecting you to be awful and you never disappoint. You know nothing, you understand nothing.
    WarlockScott Arsenaltribe , 2016-05-11 02:09:19
    Well Hillary's fucked in that case but I disagree that Americans only care about tax cuts especially when you consider certain studies...

    TPC found that the average tax burden would increase by about $9,000 in 2017 but the average amount of benefits would increase by more than $13,000. As a result, households would on average receive a net income gain of almost $4,300 under Sanders's proposals, TPC said.

    Households in the bottom fifth of income would on average receive a net gain of more than $10,000, and those in the middle fifth of income would have an average gain of about $8,500. Those in the top 5 percent of income would see a net loss of about $111,000, TPC said.

    Bernie has a very strong case to not only be the most progressive candidate but also the one lightest on the average American's pocket

    erik_ny Arsenaltribe , 2016-05-11 01:54:00
    She's a greedy warmongering horror with nothing to offer anyone. Sanders supports will simply not vote. At all. For anyone. A handful might vote for Trump but not in significant numbers.

    I would refrain from too many predictions six months out. (a) USA is a moody country with (b) a love of novelty and (c) there's no frame of reference for what's going to come next. Except that we're in for a wild ride.

    to the extent Trump generates buzz, clicks, excitement & controversy -- the press must secretly praying for him to win

    furrypuppet , 2016-05-11 01:45:10
    Welcome to our live wire coverage with our rock star interns. After another terrible night for Sanders, who was expected to gain 99.9% of the vote, this latest win in West Virginia is another devastating blow to the Sanders campaign, coming after a series of 17 incredibly lucky shock results by landslide margins which of course don't mean anything.

    Because of the large number of comments which disagree with the Guardian editorial line we will be closing this blog shortly.

    Sam3456 justdoug , 2016-05-11 01:42:48
    You can make the case that Hillary's 30,000 deleted personal emails are = to Nixons 18 minutes of missing tape. Also her use of "enemies list" and her use of the Super Pac "Correct the Record" cyber war against anyone who speaks out about her in a negative manner, as well as her hawkish foreign policy and her close relationship with Kissenger to me be very similar to Nixon.

    Except for your already disproved slander that Sanders is a "socialist" there is not much else he has in common with Lenin.

    Sam3456 USfan , 2016-05-11 01:37:33
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html


    495620 MtnClimber , 2016-05-11 01:33:56
    Well, the moderator is making it easier for Clinton's super Pac to work these comments now. You can't debate these people rationally, they are paid to distort and reflect back to you the opposite of everything.
    RonaldMcDonald666 Eugene Harvey , 2016-05-11 01:30:23
    Body language works on a different level. You can't fake it easily. It's almost impossible to fake micro expressions. And we all pick them up. This is probably the main reason why Clinton is deemed untrustworthy. It's because her body's expressions can't hide her lies
    whyohwhy1 , 2016-05-11 01:25:38
    Bernie Sanders got 72% in West Virginia among those who want more liberal policies than the Obama Administration. Or in a nutshell according to the Guardian, "Trump voters".

    SeenItAlready CurtBrown , 2016-05-11 01:19:19
    My view is that Hillary is bought and sold by a small group of ultra-wealthy 0.001%ers who have some form of personality disorder which means that they are only interested in unending self-enrichment beyond any from of rational limit, all at the expense of *everybody else* on the planet

    The article rather backs this up, and furthermore points out that at least some of these same people were also backing the frightful Cruz until he dropped out of the race

    Are you happy to be shilling for Hillary now you have this information?

    dutchcookie , 2016-05-11 01:13:16
    Guardian office alert !!! Guardian office alert !!!
    There are elections in the USA at the moment in some of the states and the Guardian editor in charge is worried. Why ?
    There are not enough anti Trump articles yet written for today and one (?new) staffer had the audacity to write an article on Hillary that had one line in it that was seen as a bit 'negative' for our former first lady.
    The editor in charge may have to write a negative article on Trump him/herself.... so what to do now.........the news staffer is walking down the road already

    If you need some help Guardian staff..ask me.. I have read so many of your anti Trump articles that I can memorize most of the lines.....................

    Vermouth Brilliantine suddenoakdeath , 2016-05-11 01:12:46
    True colours, alright. Bernie voters have principles- they're not willing to toss those aside in order to support NAFTA-loving, email-losing, regime-change-addict Clinton, the woman whose campaign platform changes entirely depending on which way the wind is blowing. It beats me why anyone voting for Bernie would want to vote for Clinton- expect more outsourcing, more 'free trade', more TPIP, and more Middle East interventions if she snakes her way into the Oval office.
    Sam3456 dopamineboy , 2016-05-11 01:07:11
    Clinton = Moderate Republican

    Sam3456 dopamineboy , 2016-05-11 01:07:11
    Clinton = Moderate Republican

    Psyren Michronics42 , 2016-05-11 01:03:50
    Yes Clinton is cleverly using a LEGAL way to bypass campaign financing laws thanks to her joint account with the DNC.
    Although, to be fair, she is not the first candidate to do that.
    The legality is not for debate here but I won't say that much about the morality...

    Sam3456 Michronics42 , 2016-05-11 00:59:16
    She consistently has shown that money and power is all she is interested in. She does not care where that money or power comes from as long as she gets it.

    That's why she took "the evil ones" campaign contribution.

    The lesser of two evils is still evil.

    Markmarkmark56 , 2016-05-11 00:51:55
    "But I believe that it is not enough to just reject Trump – this is an opportunity to define a progressive vision for America."

    Exactly! The Clinton campaign is basically stating "Vote Hillary, she's less worse than Trump!", there's nothing progressive or innovative about it, just plain sailing everything thing is fine stop thinking now and get back to work stuff. Shame really, the woulda shoulda coulda that's coming to the US in a few months after Trump wins...because he's going to, dour predictions by the media aside (they didn't see any of this coming) he's just the kind of guy Americans will vote for, I mean, we elected Bush II twice! Well...once, really.

    SeenItAlready suddenoakdeath , 2016-05-11 00:48:40
    Where did I say that? Bit of an 'Ad Hominem' from you there I'm afraid

    Here's another link showing where some of that money is going:
    Pro-Hillary PAC Spending $1 Million to Hire Online Trolls

    Are you benefiting directly from it or are you just doing this out of the goodness of your heart?

    SeenItAlready , 2016-05-11 00:37:10
    Today's article in The Guardian: Top 25 hedge fund managers earned $13bn in 2015 – more than some nations

    Quote:

    Simons, a string theory expert and former cold war codebreaker, has made an estimated $15.5bn from Renaissance Technologies the mathematics-driven "quant" hedge fund he set up 34 years ago.

    The fund, which is run from the tiny Long Island village of Setauket where Simons owns a huge beachfront compound, has donated $13m to Cruz's failed campaign. With Cruz out of the race, Renaissance has switched donations to Hillary Clinton, with more than $2m donated so far. Euclidean Capital, Simon's family office, has donated more than $7m to Clinton.

    Just saying...

    westoeden ucic , 2016-05-11 00:34:16
    The media and the parties conveniently forget that more than 40% of Americans are Independents and they can swing this election. Most of them would vote for Sanders in the general election in Nov., but they won't vote for Clinton. The DNC should be assessing who could best win the White House and back that candidate. I am at a lose as to why they aren't doing that.
    MOZGODRK , 2016-05-11 00:30:30
    Hillary, let's face it: you and the working class just don't go together. It is a very awkward , tense and schizo combination. You should be campaigning on Broadway, Sunset Strip or Rodeo Drive. West Virginia just isn't your natural habitat: It is like putting an anaerobic bacterium into an oxygen tank.

    Stick to the 1% quarters, and you'll do just fine (plus, they give good speech fees). And you don't even have to watch those unwashed coalminers' faces and pretend that you are one of them.

    Huples , 2016-05-11 00:17:58
    Hey Guardian fascinating to know what the Clinton Camp (Machine) thinks about tonight but what does Senator Sanders campaign think? Just curious you know. Helps to have reporting from both sides to help unbiased voters make up their minds.

    Don't get me wrong I think it was nice you mentioned Bernie's landslide in Nebraska but what is he saying? Sure he's holding 25,000 rallies but could you cover his actual words and policies with an equal amount of reporting as you are covering Clinton?

    Of note I read elsewhere he is 281 delegates behind and expected to win 8 out of 9 remaining states. Does that mean Clinton has no chance of becoming the presumptive nominee until the Convention? Also have you investigated her Goldman Sachs speeches? She said she'd release them when others have and I do not think Sanders or Trump are withholding their speeches.

    RonaldMcDonald666 ImaHack , 2016-05-11 00:10:02
    Because the mainstream media is just a propaganda machine for big money interests makes them a horrid place to look for facts
    Bonita Goodrich , 2016-05-11 00:09:49
    Key word.... Integrity. It's not about Bernie,it's about us. No more taxation without representation. Corporations aren't people.. I should know as I work for one and own one. Capitalism without regulation self cannibalises as it is left with no consumers. That's what the new deal was really about... Saving capitalism and I'm all for that.
    nomdinterweb judyblue , 2016-05-10 23:51:44
    My Graun headline predictions, if Sanders wins by any margin large or small today:

    "Clinton Narrowly Defeated in West Virginia But Wins Several Delegates"

    "Is This the Last Stop on the Road for the Sanders Campaign?"

    "Trump [insert any random story here]"

    Anyone else? Virtual Snickers as prize for the closest prediction...

    TEESMEE , 2016-05-10 23:31:50
    This liveblog is illustrative of the inane soma that the media, unfortunately this appears to include the guardian, will feed to its readers over the general election. Again you have forgotten that smart young people, who make up a large proportion of your readership, are extremely put off by the extent of Trump's coverage. I know he's the presumptive nominee, but that puts the onus on discussing his policies more, contrasting them with hillary's etc, but you do nothing of the sort. I know it's a liveblog and you're scraping through the day for tidbits but i really think more analysis instead of random useless coverage of events is in order. Oh Trump's a buffoon that says stupid things? Thanks, I needed more evidence of that. Oh he polls worse than Nickelback? Hilarious. No, no, no. Give us some real information and not this public interest nonsense - that's what social media is for.
    marshwren Pleasetickother3 , 2016-05-10 22:50:21
    Delegate math in the primaries is one thing; electoral college math in the general election is quite another. Clinton's margin in popular votes derives from red (mostly southern) state primaries that, with few exceptions (like NC), neither will win in the general. As others have noted, in swing states Sanders lost, he's polling better against Trump than Clinton does (FL, OH, PA). There's even an interesting poll from NH that has Sanders ahead of Trump by 21 points (the same as his primary win margin), but Clinton is only up +5--the difference between Clinton keeping Sen. Ayotte (R) in the Senate for another term, and Sanders dragging the Hill-shill Gov. Hassen (D) into the Senate.
    Given Clinton's poor showing against Trump, both nationally and state-by-state, i'm beginning to suspect that difference isn't Trump gaining supporters against Clinton, but Clinton losing supporters to those not voting, voting third party (mostly Green), or writing Sanders' in--aka, the Bernie or Bust movement.
    It's still very possible Clinton goes to the Convention well short of the 2,383 pledged delegates she needs to win the nomination without the help of super delegates. And if her polls keep tanking (and taking any chance of winning back the Senate, the House, governors and statehouses) with it, the SD's will have a very hard time justifying awarding her the nomination simply out of personal loyalty, and still face the prospect of losing the presidency anyway.
    rumirules , 2016-05-10 22:47:54
    Two things happened in New York in July 2015.

    1) The New York Board of Elections received whopping pay raises, for unexplained reasons.

    2) The NY BOE's own internal minutes of July 7, 2015 (available to the public) show that the full board were completely aware of purging ~160,000 NY voters, treated that as a routine vote, and moved onto other apparently more pressing business

    http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/board-elections-managers-huge-pay-raises-article-1.2270469
    http://www.kingscountypolitics.com/doe-chief-ryan-commissioners-knew-mass-purging-voters-records-show /

    DogsLivesMatter AppalledAmerican , 2016-05-10 22:15:23
    Nobody in Congress works anymore. They spend the majority of their time looking for donations. This was from 60 minutes a few weeks back: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-are-members-of-congress-becoming-telemarketers /

    [May 07, 2016] So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds

    Notable quotes:
    "... Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty ..."
    "... So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex. ..."
    "... Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!! ..."
    "... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
    "... In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston. ..."
    "... Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do. ..."
    "... Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there. ..."
    "... it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins. ..."
    "... Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life. ..."
    "... The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked". ..."
    "... The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada). ..."
    "... The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses. ..."
    "... This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats. ..."
    "... Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in. ..."
    "... This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down" ..."
    "... Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical. ..."
    "... Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her. ..."
    "... wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy. ..."
    "... Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him. ..."
    "... NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker. ..."
    "... Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman). ..."
    "... The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. ..."
    "... Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ... ..."
    "... Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative ..."
    "... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil . ..."
    "... Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters. ..."
    "... Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign. ..."
    "... On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    MOZGODRK , 2016-05-04 17:34:33
    There is nothing "shocking" about Bernie Sanders' victory in Indiana. Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty - than the rest of the man-made, prefabricated plastic stuff that Republican party has to offer. There is a perfectly good and legitimate reason why Jebb Bush and Carly Fiorina could not crawl out of their lower single-digit poll ratings: the general public found them insincere, dishonest and carrying hidden agendas -- and this was NOT merely a misperception on part of the paranoid nation: you CAN'T con 330 million people into perpetual dumbness simultaneously. It just isn't done.

    So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex.

    Bernie Sanders is America's last best hope and change , and the very first real one. Come November, America has only one choice: to vote for one of the neoliberal corporate pieces of toxic human waste , or to vote for a decent human being. Alternatives do not exist. This is it.

    Timothy Everton -> MAINEindependent , 2016-05-04 17:33:50
    I don't see how the DNC can support a candidate who is under F.B.I. investigation. It doesn't matter if she is indicted?
    I'm so glad Bernie is going the distance.
    Manami , 2016-05-04 17:33:14
    Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!

    The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it.

    RobertHickson2014 -> Margaret Telford , 2016-05-04 17:33:13
    In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston.

    Hillary can't win in a fair fight, so she resorts to dirty tricks that would shame Richard Nixon.

    UNOINO -> ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-05-04 17:31:26
    Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do.

    Election Fraud Special Report!

    kalpa108 -> OpineOpiner , 2016-05-04 17:30:36
    You beat me too it! Guardian-why is it a shock victory? Just report the news in an impartial manner, please.

    Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there.

    Its no shock at all.

    4hundred -> Genevieve K. Doyle , 2016-05-04 17:30:33
    I don't think anyone, anyone who has followed the primaries thus far. I thought it was 'likely' myself, only doubt that lingered was the supposed 'lost momentum' theories after Philly. Sanders is solid, I think most people now see through the mainstream bias against him. He'll fight till the convention, and it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins.
    MOPtimusP -> nevermind84 , 2016-05-04 17:29:48
    That's actually not strictly true.... Many states have laws that criminalize pledged delegates breaking their pledge... They can go to jail
    RobertHickson2014 -> talenttruth , 2016-05-04 17:28:39
    In all of 2015, Bernie received a total of 10 minutes of coverage from ABC network.
    lostinbago -> Julie Doering-Christiany , 2016-05-04 17:27:50
    Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life.
    Carmel Day -> ClareLondon , 2016-05-04 17:26:08
    The world gave up on the US years ago!!
    lostinbago -> Tamás Stiller , 2016-05-04 17:24:56
    I keep seeing that argument that Sander's supporters will vote for Trump. People aroused by his message of anti war; opposing the growing disparity of wealth; increasing the taxes for the rich to match the benefits they have been privileged to have such a greater share of the wealth; and other reforms: in what world would they easily switch to voting for an egomaniac, elitist, narcissist, misogynist, racist, xenophobe? I for one could consider skipping a vote, but NEVER could I see going from a Sanders to a Fascist.
    Matt062 , 2016-05-04 17:23:57
    Hear we go again with the gratuitous elitist spin. First it was how Trump was going to be stopped short of cinching the nomination "this time" - just you wait! Now the Guardian journalists have been instructed to feign "shock" that Sanders has once again shown what pull he has in this primary season.

    The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked".

    talenttruth , 2016-05-04 17:23:06
    The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada).

    The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses.

    Margaret Telford , 2016-05-04 17:22:03
    This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats.
    4hundred -> ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-05-04 17:18:46
    well we should just ditch the super delegates outright
    lostinbago -> Merle Le Blanc , 2016-05-04 17:14:44
    That shifting of funds from the National committees to the states and then back to the national to avoid scrutiny of funds is the similar trick that tom DeLay used in texas that he was charged with evading election laws. Clinton does the same and there is no coverage?
    RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-04 16:54:51
    When you think about it rationally, which Clintonistas are incapable of, how weak a candidate Hillary is that a little known Senator from a small North Eastern state can carry forth a campaign into May.

    After all she has repared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built a war chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet, Bernie's still hanging in there.

    "In Friday, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the Democratic National Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, senior campaign officials announced that Clinton had already received pledges of support from at least 440 of the party's estimated 713 super delegates. That total includes 130 superdelegates who have publicly endorsed Clinton, as well as an additional 310 who have made private commitments to support Hillary."

    http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/29/hillary-clinton-moves-lock-nomination-voting-starts-super-delegate-pledges.html

    Bernie had no name recognition, campaign staff and very little money to begin with, but his message of hope resonated enough to attract millions of supporters who were tired of the status quo. and they have raised over $200,000,000 in small donations without any SuperPacs.

    Keep going Bernie, you are a true Progressive and American Hero.

    Ladyhawke1 , 2016-05-04 16:52:18
    There is a God! You go Bernie. I am waiting for you here in California.

    When Bernie was speaking about healthcare for all .I started wondering how many people died at home .because there they are with a pain in their chests and then they grab their healthcare booklets and they start adding it all up and what it takes just to get them to the hospital and the hospital stay.

    There is the .. "Ambulance co-pay" ..$225.00 one way. ( God forbid you decide to go for a joy-ride.) Oh wait ..you have to add the "Emergency Room co-pay $75.00, then if you get admitted .it is a co-pay of $250.00 per day (PER DAY) for six days. If you stay longer whoopee it's for free. ( I could be staying at Four Seasons for that.)

    Who is fucking kidding who? What in the hell am I paying health insurance for and I am retired I have Medicare too? Who is making money on my and other people's misfortunes? We are all victims who have been convinced that ALL OF THIS shite is our own faults and individually we are on our own.

    Little do we realize that if we stand shoulder to shoulder and we get together and protest this travesty called healthcare, that we could get all of this changed to our benefit.

    It is time for Medicare for all. My taxes are to be used for the Common Good of everyone in this country. I do not want my taxes to go to war, war and more war.

    Bernie also addresses our shameful infrastructure in this country. The rich corporations and individuals take all of these illicit profits; my money, and yours and they just sit on it and do nothing to help this country or its people. When do we start getting smarter?

    amacd2 , 2016-05-04 16:38:59

    Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in.

    metropoled, and merely 'posing' as our former country ---- and which Bernie's only partially revealed and vague, "Political Revolution" is going to be expanding into his, and OUR, fully defined sentence (with an 'object') and is growing into a loud, courageous, but peaceful, "Political Revolution against EMPIRE" as the Second American Revolution against EMPIRE again before this the 240th year's anniversary of our First (and only successful) American Revolution against EMPIRE.

    Everyone, and every sector, of this EMPIRE is deaf, dumb, and blind about this Revolution against Empire:

    "There's something happening here
    But what it is ain't exactly clear ...

    Stop, children, what's that sound?
    Everybody look what's going down"

    This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down"

    Kevin P Brown -> nevermind84 , 2016-05-04 16:38:50
    Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical.
    MAINEindependent , 2016-05-04 16:25:19
    Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her.

    For the good of the country, the Democrat Party should consider having Clinton pull out, because Trump will beat her, but Sanders would be him. But they won't and she won't, because they serve their owners, and their arrogance, hubris and sense of entitlement is supreme to their concerns for the rest of the 99%. Hopefully this election year ill see the destruction of both corrupt major corporate parties, and a rebirth of actual democracy in the USA. One person, one vote, not bought and unsuppressed.

    Merle Le Blanc -> HammyFooter , 2016-05-04 16:24:30
    wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy.
    California is an open primary, means that the 40 independents can vote.
    Merle Le Blanc , 2016-05-04 16:18:52
    Here's what the Guardian refuses to report, the obvious reason for the private server, and the destruction of evidence, watergate-style.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/most-firms-that-gave-to-clinton-foundation-also-lobbied-state-department/article/2564553
    RobertHickson2014 -> Julie Doering-Christiany , 2016-05-04 16:18:10
    Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him.
    jgwilson55 , 2016-05-04 16:16:25
    Hmmm, looking at the math today things have gotten very interesting. Clinton has 1701 pledged delegates, Bernie has 1417. To win outright before the convention you need 2382 pledged delegates. That would mean 1) Bernie cannot do it. 2) Hillary would have to win 681 out of the final 933 delegates up for grabs. That's 73% she needs to win.

    That ain't going to happen so it pretty much a fact now that the super delegates will pick this years Democratic nominee.

    Let's start putting the pressure on them NOW to make the right choice. Call them, write to them.....

    Source for delegate counts: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats /

    Ussurisk -> Riverdale , 2016-05-04 16:10:32
    NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker.

    Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman).

    ID0248595 , 2016-05-04 16:08:04
    If Bernie, a socialist can win in a conservative Nazi state like Indiana, he can win any where.
    He even won in Indiana"s third largest city (Evansville) the most conservative large city in Indiana.
    Kevin P Brown -> AuntieMame , 2016-05-04 16:06:50
    Yeah cause Clinton has detailed policies on fixing this? Or does she play identity politics and hand wave?

    "In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000. Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."

    Ussurisk -> Tamás Stiller , 2016-05-04 16:03:52
    At this point, the only hope for world peace is Sanders. I'll write in Sanders before I would vote for Hillary "Failed State" Clinton. Hillary carries too high a load of baggage to prevail, even with historical trivia like Trevor 0691 above.

    Trump is safer bet because he will not be able to get Congressional support, the same problem Jimmy Carter, the Washington outsider had. Hillary's commitment to war, with her experience on Capital Hill is a most depressing specter.

    Martin Thompson -> andthensome , 2016-05-04 15:57:22
    Haha a sheep cheering for the farmer as he is dragged away for slaughter. Smacks of Stockholm syndrome.
    skells , 2016-05-04 15:56:11
    No comments allowed on the 'what is sander's route to the Democratic nomination' article but it is exceptionally poor journalism

    I quote: No numbers are available for the primaries that will be held in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Oregon and Kentucky, partly because pollsters know the voters there won't change the political calculus much – they're not "wasting" their time in places with few delegates available.

    This is factually incorrect as a 30 second look on wikipedia shows:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Oregon

    Polls are available for Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia.
    The most recent Oregon poll shows Sanders 1 point behind. The West Virginia poll shows him 5 points ahead, the most recent Kentucky poll (taken at start of March) has him 5 points behind.

    The latest New Jersey poll shows a 9 point deficit for him (compared with a 23 point deficit less than 2 months earlier).

    It's fair enough that journalists have their opinions in opinion pieces, but when factual inaccuracies are mixed up in such pieces, or so-called analytical pieces, it's just really shoddy, unprofessional journalism...

    Ussurisk , 2016-05-04 15:54:25
    The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
    How then are we to think that she will not import this treatment to the women of America?
    She supports human rights criminal Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC with undying expressions of apology for extreme Zionism and Orthodox suppression of women. She opposes Jewish Voice for Peace and the indigenous Israel peace movement.

    Remember Dixie Lee Ray who was elected disastrous Governor of WA State when ERA movement shooed her in? Women voters beware.

    Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ...

    Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative

    jgwilson55 , 2016-05-04 15:52:39
    Dan & Ben,

    Can you guys please make sure the Guardian reports on the Hillary Victory Fund hoarding 99% of the money it raises "for State races". It is of critical importance that voters be made aware of how the Clinton campaign is behaving (or mis-behaving).

    http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-bilking-state-democrats

    Jay Bennett , 2016-05-04 15:39:39
    Sorry media controlling elites, Bernie has not lost yet. After her canary died in Indiana... Hillary has 1700 or 71% of the 2383 pledged delegates needed. So HRC will need 60% of the remaining 1114 pledged delegates to clinch. Bernie is favored in most of the remaining states. Contested convention!!! And what a rowdy party in the streets it will be. Bernie will likely go in into Philly just slightly behind in pledged delegates but with majority of states - and many of these states the ones Dems most count on to win in the general. Considering Bernie's popularity with Independents(had they been allowed to vote in the primary he would have won big) he would be the best choice against Trump. But as we all know from exit poll discrepancies - this election is rigged. Pointing to evidence of the corrupted process he will announce his run as the Green Party candidate.
    Merle Le Blanc -> Jackblob , 2016-05-04 15:35:30
    actually, it was only during this campaign that I bothered to check out why HRC had a private server, and it's not pretty. Washington Examiner did an excellent researched piece, laying out how the Clintons amassed $3b through their private foundation and big speaking feeds, and that's where the private server was needed, to organize the millions in state department contracts in line with donations. Prime time, mainstream media including the Guardian has simply refused to check out the work that has been done in the emails released last year. This is no GOP conspiracy. In fact, the Examiner lays out how Bush family used similar methods to amass their $3b fortune. That is the amassing of private wealth through the use of public office that is endemic to Washington - pretty close to Oligarchy at the scale of operations by former presidents, and heads of state. It's a level of corruption that has reached proportions that led to the $700billion bailout and $6 trillion loan bailout - the Clintons use neo-liberal 'charity' to mask their real program, personal wealth and unlimited power.
    nanciel , 2016-05-04 15:30:39

    Sanders once again proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters

    Hah! What a joke!

    Disaffected? More like realistic, compassionate, ethical, intelligent, and fair to all...
    Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil .

    Dorothy2 , 2016-05-04 15:19:24
    Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters.
    Longleveler , 2016-05-04 14:59:00
    "Sanders led front-runner Hillary Clinton by 6 points, with 68 percent of precincts reporting, when networks declared him the winner. Exit polls had Sanders winning by 12 points, but they were based solely on interviews with voters on Election Day. "
    'Bernie Sanders Wins Indiana Democratic Primary' Huffington Post 3 May 2016
    More voting machine hijinks. The Democratic Primary winner should not be decided until all investigations are complete.
    Merle Le Blanc -> aguy777 , 2016-05-04 14:58:41
    who illegally gets millions from the DNC to pay young people to post comments for her ... He can beat Trump, 40 percent of all American registered voters are independent who'll vote for Sanders, not for the DNC candidate (Dems are split 50/50 since April 7, and that's with tricky campaign finance rules thanks to your 'qualified' candidate. She is very qualified to sell out the American people on every score, from Nafta to support for military coup in Hondurus. I mean, is she even a Democrat, or just a closeted GOP zombie Kissinger lover?
    Alan Herbertz -> JaneThomas , 2016-05-04 14:51:23
    This isn't a football game where you put on the colors and cheer on your team. People are not interested in business as usual, every four years, support the platform, my party right or wrong politics. I don't know you, and I don't know how tough or easy you have things. But here in Indy, about 90% of the people I know struggle to make ends meet. Those of us who voted for Bernie are not necessarily trying to destroy the democratic party, but there's more to life for us than electing Hillary Clinton the 1st female president.

    Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign.

    TurkBuddy -> JaneThomas , 2016-05-04 14:50:33
    At least be original. That article isn't a showstopping mic-drop, and trashing Bernie doesn't make HRC look any better. People aren't loyal to Bernie for his party affiliation, they're loyal to him for his consistent policy positions. Not just his consistency, but also the fact that he's been proven right again and again. That's an arena where HRC simply can't compete.

    On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. First and foremost, do no harm. Someone who compromises to insert slivers of good legislation into bad bills still, in the net, passes more bad laws than good ones. Maybe we're all traumatized by the incompetence of congress over the past several years, but seeing the gears of lawmaking in motion for the sake of motion is not the answer.

    [May 07, 2016] If Hillary ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds

    Notable quotes:
    "... Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty ..."
    "... So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex. ..."
    "... Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!! ..."
    "... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
    "... In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston. ..."
    "... Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do. ..."
    "... Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there. ..."
    "... it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins. ..."
    "... Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life. ..."
    "... The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked". ..."
    "... The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada). ..."
    "... The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses. ..."
    "... This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats. ..."
    "... After all she has prepared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built a war chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet, Bernie's still hanging in there. ..."
    "... Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in. ..."
    "... This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down" ..."
    "... Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical. ..."
    "... Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her. ..."
    "... wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy. ..."
    "... Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him. ..."
    "... NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker. ..."
    "... Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman). ..."
    "... The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. ..."
    "... Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ... ..."
    "... Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative ..."
    "... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil . ..."
    "... Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters. ..."
    "... Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign. ..."
    "... On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    MOZGODRK , 2016-05-04 17:34:33
    There is nothing "shocking" about Bernie Sanders' victory in Indiana. Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty - than the rest of the man-made, prefabricated plastic stuff that Republican party has to offer. There is a perfectly good and legitimate reason why Jebb Bush and Carly Fiorina could not crawl out of their lower single-digit poll ratings: the general public found them insincere, dishonest and carrying hidden agendas -- and this was NOT merely a misperception on part of the paranoid nation: you CAN'T con 330 million people into perpetual dumbness simultaneously. It just isn't done.

    So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex.

    Bernie Sanders is America's last best hope and change , and the very first real one. Come November, America has only one choice: to vote for one of the neoliberal corporate pieces of toxic human waste , or to vote for a decent human being. Alternatives do not exist. This is it.

    Timothy Everton -> MAINEindependent , 2016-05-04 17:33:50
    I don't see how the DNC can support a candidate who is under F.B.I. investigation. It doesn't matter if she is indicted?
    I'm so glad Bernie is going the distance.
    Manami , 2016-05-04 17:33:14
    Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!

    The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it.

    RobertHickson2014 -> Margaret Telford , 2016-05-04 17:33:13
    In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston.

    Hillary can't win in a fair fight, so she resorts to dirty tricks that would shame Richard Nixon.

    UNOINO -> ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-05-04 17:31:26
    Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do.

    Election Fraud Special Report!

    kalpa108 -> OpineOpiner , 2016-05-04 17:30:36
    You beat me too it! Guardian-why is it a shock victory? Just report the news in an impartial manner, please.

    Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there.

    Its no shock at all.

    4hundred -> Genevieve K. Doyle , 2016-05-04 17:30:33
    I don't think anyone, anyone who has followed the primaries thus far. I thought it was 'likely' myself, only doubt that lingered was the supposed 'lost momentum' theories after Philly. Sanders is solid, I think most people now see through the mainstream bias against him. He'll fight till the convention, and it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins.
    MOPtimusP -> nevermind84 , 2016-05-04 17:29:48
    That's actually not strictly true.... Many states have laws that criminalize pledged delegates breaking their pledge... They can go to jail
    RobertHickson2014 -> talenttruth , 2016-05-04 17:28:39
    In all of 2015, Bernie received a total of 10 minutes of coverage from ABC network.
    lostinbago -> Julie Doering-Christiany , 2016-05-04 17:27:50
    Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life.
    Carmel Day -> ClareLondon , 2016-05-04 17:26:08
    The world gave up on the US years ago!!
    lostinbago -> Tamás Stiller , 2016-05-04 17:24:56
    I keep seeing that argument that Sander's supporters will vote for Trump. People aroused by his message of anti war; opposing the growing disparity of wealth; increasing the taxes for the rich to match the benefits they have been privileged to have such a greater share of the wealth; and other reforms: in what world would they easily switch to voting for an egomaniac, elitist, narcissist, misogynist, racist, xenophobe? I for one could consider skipping a vote, but NEVER could I see going from a Sanders to a Fascist.
    Matt062 , 2016-05-04 17:23:57
    Hear we go again with the gratuitous elitist spin. First it was how Trump was going to be stopped short of cinching the nomination "this time" - just you wait! Now the Guardian journalists have been instructed to feign "shock" that Sanders has once again shown what pull he has in this primary season.

    The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked".

    talenttruth , 2016-05-04 17:23:06
    The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada).

    The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses.

    Margaret Telford , 2016-05-04 17:22:03
    This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats.
    4hundred -> ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-05-04 17:18:46
    well we should just ditch the super delegates outright
    lostinbago -> Merle Le Blanc , 2016-05-04 17:14:44
    That shifting of funds from the National committees to the states and then back to the national to avoid scrutiny of funds is the similar trick that tom DeLay used in texas that he was charged with evading election laws. Clinton does the same and there is no coverage?
    RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-04 16:54:51
    When you think about it rationally, which Clintonistas are incapable of, how weak a candidate Hillary is that a little known Senator from a small North Eastern state can carry forth a campaign into May.

    After all she has prepared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built a war chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet, Bernie's still hanging in there.

    "In Friday, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the Democratic National Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, senior campaign officials announced that Clinton had already received pledges of support from at least 440 of the party's estimated 713 super delegates. That total includes 130 superdelegates who have publicly endorsed Clinton, as well as an additional 310 who have made private commitments to support Hillary."

    http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/29/hillary-clinton-moves-lock-nomination-voting-starts-super-delegate-pledges.html

    Bernie had no name recognition, campaign staff and very little money to begin with, but his message of hope resonated enough to attract millions of supporters who were tired of the status quo. and they have raised over $200,000,000 in small donations without any SuperPacs.

    Keep going Bernie, you are a true Progressive and American Hero.

    Ladyhawke1 , 2016-05-04 16:52:18
    There is a God! You go Bernie. I am waiting for you here in California.

    When Bernie was speaking about healthcare for all .I started wondering how many people died at home .because there they are with a pain in their chests and then they grab their healthcare booklets and they start adding it all up and what it takes just to get them to the hospital and the hospital stay.

    There is the .. "Ambulance co-pay" ..$225.00 one way. ( God forbid you decide to go for a joy-ride.) Oh wait ..you have to add the "Emergency Room co-pay $75.00, then if you get admitted .it is a co-pay of $250.00 per day (PER DAY) for six days. If you stay longer whoopee it's for free. ( I could be staying at Four Seasons for that.)

    Who is fucking kidding who? What in the hell am I paying health insurance for and I am retired I have Medicare too? Who is making money on my and other people's misfortunes? We are all victims who have been convinced that ALL OF THIS shite is our own faults and individually we are on our own.

    Little do we realize that if we stand shoulder to shoulder and we get together and protest this travesty called healthcare, that we could get all of this changed to our benefit.

    It is time for Medicare for all. My taxes are to be used for the Common Good of everyone in this country. I do not want my taxes to go to war, war and more war.

    Bernie also addresses our shameful infrastructure in this country. The rich corporations and individuals take all of these illicit profits; my money, and yours and they just sit on it and do nothing to help this country or its people. When do we start getting smarter?

    amacd2 , 2016-05-04 16:38:59

    Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in.

    metropoled, and merely 'posing' as our former country ---- and which Bernie's only partially revealed and vague, "Political Revolution" is going to be expanding into his, and OUR, fully defined sentence (with an 'object') and is growing into a loud, courageous, but peaceful, "Political Revolution against EMPIRE" as the Second American Revolution against EMPIRE again before this the 240th year's anniversary of our First (and only successful) American Revolution against EMPIRE.

    Everyone, and every sector, of this EMPIRE is deaf, dumb, and blind about this Revolution against Empire:

    "There's something happening here
    But what it is ain't exactly clear ...

    Stop, children, what's that sound?
    Everybody look what's going down"

    This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down"

    Kevin P Brown -> nevermind84 , 2016-05-04 16:38:50
    Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical.
    MAINEindependent , 2016-05-04 16:25:19
    Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her.

    For the good of the country, the Democrat Party should consider having Clinton pull out, because Trump will beat her, but Sanders would be him. But they won't and she won't, because they serve their owners, and their arrogance, hubris and sense of entitlement is supreme to their concerns for the rest of the 99%. Hopefully this election year ill see the destruction of both corrupt major corporate parties, and a rebirth of actual democracy in the USA. One person, one vote, not bought and unsuppressed.

    Merle Le Blanc -> HammyFooter , 2016-05-04 16:24:30
    wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy.
    California is an open primary, means that the 40 independents can vote.
    Merle Le Blanc , 2016-05-04 16:18:52
    Here's what the Guardian refuses to report, the obvious reason for the private server, and the destruction of evidence, watergate-style.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/most-firms-that-gave-to-clinton-foundation-also-lobbied-state-department/article/2564553
    RobertHickson2014 -> Julie Doering-Christiany , 2016-05-04 16:18:10
    Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him.
    jgwilson55 , 2016-05-04 16:16:25
    Hmmm, looking at the math today things have gotten very interesting. Clinton has 1701 pledged delegates, Bernie has 1417. To win outright before the convention you need 2382 pledged delegates. That would mean 1) Bernie cannot do it. 2) Hillary would have to win 681 out of the final 933 delegates up for grabs. That's 73% she needs to win.

    That ain't going to happen so it pretty much a fact now that the super delegates will pick this years Democratic nominee.

    Let's start putting the pressure on them NOW to make the right choice. Call them, write to them.....

    Source for delegate counts: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats /

    Ussurisk -> Riverdale , 2016-05-04 16:10:32

    NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker.

    Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman).

    ID0248595 , 2016-05-04 16:08:04
    If Bernie, a socialist can win in a conservative Nazi state like Indiana, he can win any where.
    He even won in Indiana"s third largest city (Evansville) the most conservative large city in Indiana.
    Kevin P Brown -> AuntieMame , 2016-05-04 16:06:50
    Yeah cause Clinton has detailed policies on fixing this? Or does she play identity politics and hand wave?

    "In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000. Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."

    Ussurisk -> Tamás Stiller , 2016-05-04 16:03:52
    At this point, the only hope for world peace is Sanders. I'll write in Sanders before I would vote for Hillary "Failed State" Clinton. Hillary carries too high a load of baggage to prevail, even with historical trivia like Trevor 0691 above.

    Trump is safer bet because he will not be able to get Congressional support, the same problem Jimmy Carter, the Washington outsider had. Hillary's commitment to war, with her experience on Capital Hill is a most depressing specter.

    Martin Thompson -> andthensome , 2016-05-04 15:57:22
    Haha a sheep cheering for the farmer as he is dragged away for slaughter. Smacks of Stockholm syndrome.
    skells , 2016-05-04 15:56:11
    No comments allowed on the 'what is sander's route to the Democratic nomination' article but it is exceptionally poor journalism

    I quote: No numbers are available for the primaries that will be held in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Oregon and Kentucky, partly because pollsters know the voters there won't change the political calculus much – they're not "wasting" their time in places with few delegates available.

    This is factually incorrect as a 30 second look on wikipedia shows:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Oregon

    Polls are available for Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia.
    The most recent Oregon poll shows Sanders 1 point behind. The West Virginia poll shows him 5 points ahead, the most recent Kentucky poll (taken at start of March) has him 5 points behind.

    The latest New Jersey poll shows a 9 point deficit for him (compared with a 23 point deficit less than 2 months earlier).

    It's fair enough that journalists have their opinions in opinion pieces, but when factual inaccuracies are mixed up in such pieces, or so-called analytical pieces, it's just really shoddy, unprofessional journalism...

    Ussurisk , 2016-05-04 15:54:25
    The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
    How then are we to think that she will not import this treatment to the women of America?
    She supports human rights criminal Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC with undying expressions of apology for extreme Zionism and Orthodox suppression of women. She opposes Jewish Voice for Peace and the indigenous Israel peace movement.

    Remember Dixie Lee Ray who was elected disastrous Governor of WA State when ERA movement shooed her in? Women voters beware.

    Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ...

    Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative

    jgwilson55 , 2016-05-04 15:52:39
    Dan & Ben,

    Can you guys please make sure the Guardian reports on the Hillary Victory Fund hoarding 99% of the money it raises "for State races". It is of critical importance that voters be made aware of how the Clinton campaign is behaving (or mis-behaving).

    http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-bilking-state-democrats

    Jay Bennett , 2016-05-04 15:39:39
    Sorry media controlling elites, Bernie has not lost yet. After her canary died in Indiana... Hillary has 1700 or 71% of the 2383 pledged delegates needed. So HRC will need 60% of the remaining 1114 pledged delegates to clinch. Bernie is favored in most of the remaining states. Contested convention!!! And what a rowdy party in the streets it will be. Bernie will likely go in into Philly just slightly behind in pledged delegates but with majority of states - and many of these states the ones Dems most count on to win in the general. Considering Bernie's popularity with Independents(had they been allowed to vote in the primary he would have won big) he would be the best choice against Trump. But as we all know from exit poll discrepancies - this election is rigged. Pointing to evidence of the corrupted process he will announce his run as the Green Party candidate.
    Merle Le Blanc -> Jackblob , 2016-05-04 15:35:30
    actually, it was only during this campaign that I bothered to check out why HRC had a private server, and it's not pretty. Washington Examiner did an excellent researched piece, laying out how the Clintons amassed $3b through their private foundation and big speaking feeds, and that's where the private server was needed, to organize the millions in state department contracts in line with donations. Prime time, mainstream media including the Guardian has simply refused to check out the work that has been done in the emails released last year. This is no GOP conspiracy. In fact, the Examiner lays out how Bush family used similar methods to amass their $3b fortune. That is the amassing of private wealth through the use of public office that is endemic to Washington - pretty close to Oligarchy at the scale of operations by former presidents, and heads of state. It's a level of corruption that has reached proportions that led to the $700billion bailout and $6 trillion loan bailout - the Clintons use neo-liberal 'charity' to mask their real program, personal wealth and unlimited power.
    nanciel , 2016-05-04 15:30:39

    Sanders once again proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters

    Hah! What a joke!

    Disaffected? More like realistic, compassionate, ethical, intelligent, and fair to all...
    Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil .

    Dorothy2 , 2016-05-04 15:19:24
    Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters.
    Longleveler , 2016-05-04 14:59:00
    "Sanders led front-runner Hillary Clinton by 6 points, with 68 percent of precincts reporting, when networks declared him the winner. Exit polls had Sanders winning by 12 points, but they were based solely on interviews with voters on Election Day. "
    'Bernie Sanders Wins Indiana Democratic Primary' Huffington Post 3 May 2016
    More voting machine hijinks. The Democratic Primary winner should not be decided until all investigations are complete.
    Merle Le Blanc -> aguy777 , 2016-05-04 14:58:41
    who illegally gets millions from the DNC to pay young people to post comments for her ... He can beat Trump, 40 percent of all American registered voters are independent who'll vote for Sanders, not for the DNC candidate (Dems are split 50/50 since April 7, and that's with tricky campaign finance rules thanks to your 'qualified' candidate. She is very qualified to sell out the American people on every score, from Nafta to support for military coup in Hondurus. I mean, is she even a Democrat, or just a closeted GOP zombie Kissinger lover?
    Alan Herbertz -> JaneThomas , 2016-05-04 14:51:23
    This isn't a football game where you put on the colors and cheer on your team. People are not interested in business as usual, every four years, support the platform, my party right or wrong politics. I don't know you, and I don't know how tough or easy you have things. But here in Indy, about 90% of the people I know struggle to make ends meet. Those of us who voted for Bernie are not necessarily trying to destroy the democratic party, but there's more to life for us than electing Hillary Clinton the 1st female president.

    Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign.

    TurkBuddy -> JaneThomas , 2016-05-04 14:50:33
    At least be original. That article isn't a showstopping mic-drop, and trashing Bernie doesn't make HRC look any better. People aren't loyal to Bernie for his party affiliation, they're loyal to him for his consistent policy positions. Not just his consistency, but also the fact that he's been proven right again and again. That's an arena where HRC simply can't compete.

    On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. First and foremost, do no harm. Someone who compromises to insert slivers of good legislation into bad bills still, in the net, passes more bad laws than good ones. Maybe we're all traumatized by the incompetence of congress over the past several years, but seeing the gears of lawmaking in motion for the sake of motion is not the answer.

    [May 07, 2016] Bernie Sanders pulls off shock victory over Hillary Clinton in Indiana

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD ..."
    "... Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! ..."
    "... She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail. ..."
    "... "David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 . ..."
    "... "Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15 February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him. ..."
    "... Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene. ..."
    "... If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere. ..."
    "... What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office illustrates that. ..."
    "... the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. ..."
    "... It would be perhaps remotely Marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats, socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing Marxist about it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans. ..."
    "... I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. ..."
    "... Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance. ..."
    "... Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy Hilary is to these people. ..."
    "... Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro, called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama. Things changed real fast. ..."
    "... But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer: https://www.americarisingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/clinton-sheldon-silver-meme1.jpg ..."
    "... In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support ..."
    "... If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only is a distraction from their lack of policy. Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it). ..."
    "... If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters. ..."
    "... She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi, turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I go on? ..."
    "... Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt.... ..."
    "... Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    thevorlon -> newyorkred , 2016-05-06 17:59:00

    Most politicians these days don't care about the people and this ridiculous cycle is repeating every 4 years! Candidates who actually want to make progress get dumped by the corrupt system and the parties that are being controlled by their corporate masters and their money to do as they want to return the more money to them later when they have the office!

    At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD

    Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! Starts with the USA and the world will follow over time. I personally am done with following these corrupt political systems and their media and do as they tell me to (same goes for the financial system but there's no escaping this one in the near future with corps and banks being in total control of the society).

    John Kennedy -> Allan Burns , 2016-05-06 17:35:46
    She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail.
    Ilupi Ilupi -> EagleOMC , 2016-05-06 17:05:43
    Establishment baby.
    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:53:20
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/04/07/was-there-going-to-be-a-benghazi-massacre /

    "As Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune have now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even casual scrutiny. Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight. "

    "If humanitarian intervention is to remain a live possibility, there must be much more public scrutiny, debate and discussion of what triggers that intervention and what level of evidence we can reasonably require. Did administration officials have communications intercepts suggesting plans for large-scale killings of civilians? How exactly did they reach their conclusion that these reprisals were likely? It should be no more acceptable to simply accept government claims on this score than it was for previous administrations.

    As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun."

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:50:28
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure

    So no, we should have not intervened.

    "David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 .

    What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.

    Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.

    For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale".

    But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC.

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:40:10
    Libya:

    An interesting article. Note I trust Cockburn as a journalist.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-arab-spring-reported-and-misreported-foreign-intervention-in-libya-and-the-last-days-of-colonel-a6992726.html

    "Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15 February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.

    This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on."

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:34:01
    And then in another note, why do people like you condemn the Taliban but give a free pass to the Saudi's who have a lot to do with the state of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and essentially operate the same as the Taliban? Why are we not intervening in Saudi Arabia to free the people? Nah. Do people die from either side in Afghanistan? Yes. Excusively the Taliban? no. The western press prefers the narrative of Taliban extremism. The western press ignores and fails to report killings by US troops, one incident I know of personally in Kabul. Never reported in the press.

    So I suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of Afghanistan before you sound off with smugness. It is obvious you have no idea of what really goes on there.

    Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? Want a litany of the horrors there? No, you don't. You have a narrative which I suspect is ill informed.

    the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability.

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:33:31
    "was if ending Taliban rule had made things better"

    You try to simplify a very complex situation. In fact there was never absolute rule by the Taliban. You seem to forget there was a civil war in the country before 9/11. There was the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. There was Pakistan and the ISI ( Pakistan of course if often supported by the US, then we had Saudi Arabia, again supported by us). Before 9/11 The northern alliance was about to be defeated. On both sides was indiscriminate killings. You also had a complex mix if Pashtun Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. You had multiple political alliances which I will not bother to list. Kabul was destroyed by the fighting. Atrocities on both sides. You had Dostum with the Northern Alliance and Massod as well. Massod was reasonable, Dostum was an animal worse than the Taliban.

    What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable. Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected. The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia, and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them.

    So, you want to simplify the Taliban atrocities and ignore the rest. Afghans did not have the luxury of this. They had to choose the lesser evil. Had Massood not been entangled with Dostum, perhaps things would have been different.

    We came in and supported the Northern Alliance, which did NOT sit well with a lot of people. The majority? I don't have statistics exactly pointing this out. The Pashtun felt pushed out of affairs by the minority remnants of the Northern Alliance. Every ..... and I mean every government office had photos of Massood on the wall. Not Karzai. Karzai was seen as irrelevant by all sides, he was seen as the American imposed choice. ( I will not even discuss the "election" but I was on the ground dealing with Identity cards before the UN arrived, had meetings with the UN team about approaches to getting ID cards out to all voters, and there is a stink over aspects of the participation in the elections).

    "And seeing a self-described leftist explaining that life under the Taliban wasn't all that bad if you just grew a beard [!] and fell in line is really sort of pathetic."

    Your smug simplistic statement indicates you have no idea of the horrors enacted on both sides. I was told this time and time again as how people decided to survive by picking a side where there were rules and they could survive the rules.

    But lets put aside my anecdotal evidence and look at the people of Afghanistan:

    http://www.d3systems.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/AAPOR-2012-Taliban-Reconciliation-John-Richardson.pdf

    "Looking at Afghans' views on reconciling with the Taliban does not appear to bear out the concerns over ethnic divisions shared by Jones and Kilcullen. When asked whether the Afghan central government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban or continue fighting the Taliban and not negotiate, a recent national survey of Afghanistan found that roughly three- quarters (74%) of Afghans favor negotiating with the Taliban .74 This is in line with previous studies, such as a series of polls sponsored by ABC News which found that the number of Afghans favoring reconciliation had risen from 60% in 2007 to 73% in 2009."

    ""Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they stop fighting, or do you think the government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not negotiate a settlement?""

    77% of men and 70% of women agree with this.

    Here is the ultimate point. We intervened and we had no fucking idea what we were doing. The Afghans saw the money flowing to Beltway Bandits rather than flowing to real aid and needs. They saw this! They were not stupid. They saw that the Pashtuns were pushed out of Government, ( hence the Massod images in ALL government offices [My project of reform dealt with EVERY government offices and I visited a fair few personally and finally had to ask abut why each office had Masood an not Karzai)

    My opinion? I see indications that the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden. We refused. Is this disputed? Yes. Were we right to favour the Northern Alliance? No. They were as bad as the Taliban, but more ..... unpredictable.

    Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene.

    Kevin P Brown -> Carly435 , 2016-05-05 19:28:39
    Robin is relentless is arguing AGAINST, but he is quite light on arguing for anything. It is an interesting question as to what he stands for.

    His main argument is that zero information from "right wing" press is true. He seems unaware that at times, actual facts are presented or not presented or suppressed by either media outlet, depending on their corporate ownership and management slant of what should be reported. Me? I read everything and decide if something is a fact. It is strange that factual reporting about the actual many many FOIA lawsuits only gets printed in right wing press. They of course have an agenda, but does not negate the facts they report. Like Clinton being allowed to be deposed in a civil FOIA suit. That is a fact, with quotes from the Judge. CNN? I guess they couldn't afford to report this factual development.

    When you only read the press looking for a partisan set of narratives, you end up being partisan and ill informed. When you read all the flavours of press in an desire to inform yourself, when your goal is not a narrative but factual accounts of the truth, then you can be better informed. So we have partisans, who only view Fox and we also have partisans who only view CNN. Both are as bad as each other. One must be capable of decreeing the motives of each, and discarding the nonfactual narratives, and then one can be fully informed.

    Robin makes the assumption that facts only occur in his selected set of informational partisan sources. Why? Because he is partisan. This then enables him to argue against a narrative, rather than support his own narrative. He plays the neat trick of simply discarding any factual reporting from places like Breibart. One can see interesting lacks of coverage on google search.

    Kevin P Brown -> RobInTN , 2016-05-05 19:19:20
    "Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."

    So surely in America, Clinton with her wealth would take some legal action? I would if I had her money, and wealth. Interesting that she has not? Perhaps you could write to her and suggest she defend herself in a real and palpable way?

    dutchview -> lsbg_t , 2016-05-05 18:17:57
    Yes and a lot of the press are trying to bury the news about another Sanders success. When you look at how many voting districts he comes out top in, in is a large percentage. Clinton tends to get closer or take the district if their is a higher population density.

    The influence of the super delegates is a scandal in a "democratic process".

    Vladimir Makarenko -> digit , 2016-05-05 17:00:45
    First I would be very careful taking what G gives, it is nowadays "fixing" news like Fox. Most reliable, if speaking about polls the word can be used, is results of metastudies:
    http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
    Both give today's Clinton of 6% when Sanders is whopping 13+%
    So when Hillary's shills preaching how easily she "beats" Trump, they lie. Only Bernie can do this or or see Oval Office moved to Atlantic City.
    luminog -> simpledino , 2016-05-05 12:48:54
    If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere.

    Clinton won't cut it and she won't beat Trump. Trump will out her on every crooked deal she has been involved in.

    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 12:23:14
    You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what party is in office.

    Is this is a Fox News plant article? yeah yeah, let's vote Clinton who promises a continuation of Obama's policies. Will Trump make this much worse? Maybe. Trump or Clinton will in my opinion do little to improve these issues quoted below. You have a different opinion. Great.

    " http://www.blackpressusa.com/is-black-america-better-off-under-obama /

    "Like the rest of America, Black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when I came into office," said President Obama on December 19, in response to a question by Urban Radio Networks White House Correspondent April Ryan.

    What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office illustrates that.

    • Unemployment. The average Black unemployment under President Bush was 10 percent. The average under President Obama after six years is 14 percent. Black unemployment, "has always been double" [that of Whites] but it hasn't always been 14 percent. The administration was silent when Black unemployment hit 16 percent – a 27-year high – in late 2011 .
    • Poverty. The percentage of Blacks in poverty in 2009 was 25 percent; it is now 27 percent. The issue of poverty is rarely mentioned by the president or any members of his cabinet. Currently, more than 45 million people – 1 in 7 Americans – live below the poverty line.
    • The Black/White Wealth Gap. The wealth gap between Blacks and Whites in America is at a 24-year high. A December study by PEW Research Center revealed the average White household is worth $141,900, and the average Black household is worth $11,000. From 2010 to 2013, the median income for Black households plunged 9 percent.
    • Income inequality. "Between 2009 and 2012 the top one percent of Americans enjoyed 95 percent of all income gains, according to research from U.C. Berkeley," reported The Atlantic. It was the worst since 1928. As income inequality has widened during President Obama's time in office, the president has endorsed tax policy that has widened inequality, such as the Bush Tax cuts.
    • Education: The high school dropout rate has improved during the Obama administration. However, currently 42 percent of Black children attend high poverty schools, compared to only 6 percent of White students. The Department of Education's change to Parent PLUS loans requirements cost HBCU's more than $150 million and interrupted the educations of 28,000-plus HBCU students.
    • SBA Loans. In March 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that only 1.7 percent of $23 billion in SBA loans went to Black-owned businesses in 2013, the lowest loan of SBA lending to Black businesses on record. During the Bush presidency, the percentage of SBA loans to Black businesses was 8 percent – more than four times the Obama rate.
    Kevin P Brown -> Kevin P Brown , 2016-05-05 12:16:44
    "All the equations showed strikingly uni- form statistical results: racism as we have measured it was a significantly disequalizing force on the white income distribution, even when other factors were held constant. A 1 percent increase in the ratio of black to white median incomes (that is, a 1 percent decrease in racism) was associated with a .2 percent decrease in white inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient. The corresponding effect on top 1 percent share of white income was two and a half times as large, indicating that most of the inequality among whites generated by racism was associated with increased income for the richest 1 percent of white families. Further statistical investigation reveals that increases in the racism variable had an insignifi- cant effect on the. share received by the poorest whites and resulted in a decrease in the income share of the whites in the middle income brackets."
    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 12:16:13
    "What I said, and still maintain, is that the struggle against racism is as important as the struggle against other forms of oppression, including those with economic and financial causes."

    We can agree on this statement. However, do we need to recognise that legislation alone will not solve racism. A percentage of poor people turn against the "other" and apportion blame for their issues.

    http://tomweston.net/ReichRacism.pdf

    Try reading this.

    " that campaign finance and banking reform will fix everything"

    Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change and motives of votes become transparent.

    "The various forms of discrimination are not separable in real life. Employers' hiring and promotion practices; resource allocation in city schools; the structure of transportation sys- tems; residential segregation and housing quality; availability of decent health care; be- havior of policemen and judges; foremen's prejudices; images of blacks presented in the media and the schools; price gouging in ghetto stores-these and the other forms of social and economic discrimination interact strongly with each other in determining the occupational status and annual income, and welfare, of black people. The processes are not simply additive but are mutually reinforcing. Often, a decrease in one narrow form of discrimination is accompanied by an increase in another form. Since all aspects of racism interact, an analysis of racism should incorporate all its as- pects in a unified manner."

    My thesis is this: build economic equality and the the pressing toxins of racism diminish. But yeah dismiss Sanders as a one issue candidate. he is a politician, which I acknowledge. He has a different approach to clinton who will micro triangulate constantly depending on who she in front of. I find his approach ore honest. Your mileage may vary.

    " money spent on campaigns does not correlate very highly to winning"

    No but overall money gets to decide on a narrow set of compliance in the candidates. But it still correlates to winning. Look at the Greens with no cash. Without the cash, they will never win. Sanders has proved that 1. We do not need to depend on the rich power brokers to select narrowly who will be presented as a candidate. 2. He has proved that a voter can donate and compete with corporate donations. I would rather scads of voter cash financing rather than corporate cash buying influence. ABSCAM was a brief flash, never repeated to show us what really happens in back rooms when a wad of cash arrives with a politician. That we cannot PROVE what happens off the grid, we can and should rely on common sense about the influence of money. 85% of the American people believe cash buys influence. The only influence on a politician should be the will of the people. Sure, corporates can speak. Speech is free. Corporate cash as speech is a different matter. It is a moral corruption.

    "most contributions come after electoral success"

    Yes part of the implied contract of corporates and people like the Koch Brothers: Look after us and we will look after you. We will keep you in power, as long as you slant the legislation to favour us over the voters.

    You do realise the Clinton Foundation bought the assets of the DLC, a defunct organisation. Part of the assets are the documents and records that contain the information about the Koch Brothers donations and their executives joining the "management" of the DLC. Why would a Charity be interested in the DLC documents? Ah it is a Clinton Foundation. Yeah yeah, there is no proof of anything is there. No law was broken. Do I smell something ? Does human nature guide my interpretation absent a clear statement from the Foundation of this "investment"?? Yes.

    We have to start SOMEWHERE. Root causes are the best place to start.

    Democrat or Republican, Blacks and Whites at the bottom are thrown in a race for the bottom and this helps fuel the impoverishment of both. It is fuel to feed racism. My genuine belief.

    digit -> Vladimir Makarenko , 2016-05-05 12:07:33
    Sorry, I mean, here .
    buttonbasher81 -> o_lobo_solitario , 2016-05-05 12:06:44
    Why is it wrong for democrats to pick their own party leader? Also Obama beat Hilary last time so what's Bernies problem now? Also why moan about a system that's been in place for decades now, surely the onus was on Sanders to attract more middle of the road dem voters? Finally I'm sure republicans would also love to vote in Sanders, easy to demolish with attack ads before the election (you'll note they've studiously ignored him so far).
    Longasyourarm -> Genpet , 2016-05-05 11:47:49
    the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard.
    Longasyourarm -> nemesis7 , 2016-05-05 11:44:57
    explain to me why the blacks and Hispanics vote for her because it is a mystery to me. She stands for everything they have had to fight against. So you have a 1%er-Wall St.-invade Iraq-subprime-cheat the EU-Goldman Sachs-arms dealing-despot cuddling-fuck the environment coalition. And blacks and Hispanics too? Are they out of their minds?
    Eric L. Wattree , 2016-05-05 09:19:27
    BERNIE SANDERS - OR ZIG AGAINST ZAG
    .
    If the American people don't come to their senses and give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination, we're going to end up with a choice between Zig and Zag. Zig is Donald Trump, and Zag is Hillary Clinton. To paraphrase Mort Sahl back in the sixties, the only difference between the two is if Donald 'Zig' Trump sees a Black child lying in the street, he'd simply order his chauffeur to run over him. If Hillary 'Zag' Clinton saw the kid, she'd also order her chauffeur to run over him, but she'd weep, and go apologize to the NAACP, after she felt the bump.
    .
    WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE!!!
    IF YOU DON'T, YOU'LL BE SORRY - AGAIN.
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1057244620990215&set=a.136305753084111.28278.100001140610873&type=3&theater
    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 08:20:53
    Giving aid to the Republicans? If you honestly believe that any criticisms I have is worse than what I discuss, you need to give up politics and get a hobby. Trump will for example use her FOIA/email issues like a stick to beat her with. This is not Soviet Russia where we all adopt the party line. I'm not not ever have been a member of the Democratic Party. I COULD have been this year. Now? Never. The solution to the nations problems will come from outside this party.

    I prefer neither. You love fearmongering about how worse it will be under trump. Hmmm. I don't buy that tale. Take Black family incomes. In the toilet. Under either party it goes south. Abortion? Like slavery nothing ...... Nothing is going to change. It's too late to change that one. But it's a useful tool to make us believe ONLY Clinton can protect us. Economically the Democrats are essentially the same as the Republicans, more of the same corporate welfare. Would Clinton cut Social Security? Maybe. I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc.

    You believe a black family gays and women will sing Kumbaya under Clinton and all will be well.

    I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences .

    SavvasKara -> irishgaf , 2016-05-05 05:32:13
    It would be perhaps remotely Marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats, socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing Marxist about it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans.

    I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. Those groups believe in changing the society through struggle into a model that fits their idea of the world whatever that may be. He simply states his beliefs and suggests laws to adjust the society to human needs, to eat, to live, to prosper in an equal footing.

    Carly435 -> RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 05:28:00

    It is a rather sad commentary on how the bar of integrity and honesty has been so lowered that it doesn't even faze them

    One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Their stance on gun and abortion issues? Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance.

    Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well. Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and Independents is already under way. This is one of the forms it may take.

    Carly435 -> RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 05:06:51
    Recharging is always a good idea ... and never more so than in an election year as turbulent, crazy, uplifting, disillusioning, energizing, maddening and fascinating as this one. I'll also be away (for weeks) toward the end of this month.

    Before you go, here's Carl Bernstein's interview with Don Lemon, in case you missed it:

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/05/03/bernstein-there-will-be-very-damaging-leaks-from-hillary-email-investigation-her-actions-reckless-and-entitled /

    nemesis7 , 2016-05-05 03:24:50
    Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance.

    Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified relief by western representatives.

    Add to that the continual lies that are being aired in public and this is why the USA has lost its way.

    Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy Hilary is to these people.

    And since when does the USA have the ethical superiority to attack countries like Russia for cronyism etc? This is unbelievable - a presidential nominee candidate is being investigated by the FBI and she doesn't stand down?

    Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged and non powerful in todays' America.

    I recall David Bowie's beautiful song This Is Not America. The Bernie supporters understand that, all power to him, those who think like him, and his supporters.

    macktan894 -> RobInTN , 2016-05-05 02:29:31
    Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro, called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama. Things changed real fast.
    Allan Barr , 2016-05-05 02:21:15
    Like its not obvious? There is now no paper trail to enable ensuring computer votes are true. A man on the moon can now ensure who is going to be President, that was said by a premier computer security expert.

    Along with extensive disenfranchisement, numerous ways its pretty clear these outcomes are preordained. Guess I am not going to be voting for either of the two appointed runners, its pointless. I will vote for Bernie when its time in California.

    Carly435 -> RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 02:05:34
    And to branch out a bit, there are so many empty stock phrases to choose from in her 2016 campaign alone, including "I'm with her" and "Breaking down barriers" courtesy of her 2008 campaign manager, Mark Penn. Speaking of Penn, there's a hilarious little passage in "Clinton, Inc" (p. 65) which describes Penn running through possible campaign slogans for 2008. "Penn began to walk through all the iterations of Hillary slogans: Solutions for America, Ready for a change, Ready to lead, Big challenges, Real Solutions; Time to pick a President... but then he seem to get a little lost...Working for change, Working for you. There was silence, then snickers as Penn tried to remember all the bumper stickers which run together sounded absurd and indistinguishable. The Hillary I know."....

    Oy. ^__^

    But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer: https://www.americarisingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/clinton-sheldon-silver-meme1.jpg

    Some background:

    https://www.americarisingpac.org/sheldon-silver-critical-to-hillary-clinton-political-machine /

    In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support

    So I guess the former speaker of the NY assembly is just gonna have to vote for Hillary from behind bars, instead of at the DNC? How "super-inconvenient."

    John W , 2016-05-05 01:42:54
    Sanders is also leading in the West Virginia polls, which is the next primary. He just might be able to squeak out a victory.
    Robin Crawford -> Rouffian , 2016-05-05 01:07:15
    If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only is a distraction from their lack of policy. Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it).

    If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters.

    nomorebanksters -> Jonah92 , 2016-05-04 23:43:43
    You are obviously misinformed about Bernie Sanders:
    https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA
    Most effective senator for the last 35 years and as Mayor or Burlington stopped corporate real estate developers from turning Burlington into Aspen east coast version.

    She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi, turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I go on?

    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 23:10:01
    So please please explain how Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to wave a wand and fix racism? I already know she will not fix poverty, she will slap a few ersatz bandaids onto bills that won't pass and like the spoiled child will seek praise every time mommy gets him to shit on the potty. You might recall a guy called Martin Luther King. he had some words about economic fairness and poverty.

    "" In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white and Negro alike . "

    nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. The belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.

    You love that word but rejection of the dysfunctional state of DNC politics is NOT nihilism. Moral corruption around campaign finance is real. Moral corruption around money and lobbyists is real. The desire to fix this, this is real. Seeking real change is not nihilism. But yes, if it pleases you to continue in every other post with this word, do so. It's misuse says more about you than Sanders.

    nomorebanksters -> TehachapiCalifornia , 2016-05-04 23:04:08
    Please tell me exactly how much HRC has done for the U.S.? I'm from NYC and when she brought her carpet bagging ass here and as a 2 term senator she pushed 3 pieces of legislation thru. If you look at Bernie Sanders voting record:
    https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA

    He's been one of the most effective senators in Congress and has been able to get things done with cooperation from both sides of the aisle.
    So tell me again, what's she done that's so notable?

    nomorebanksters -> nolashea , 2016-05-04 22:57:13
    Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt....
    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 22:31:08
    "Are you really sure that money buys votes"

    Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures. But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive.

    [May 07, 2016] The smug Clinton acolytes blame the voters, always deflect blame

    Notable quotes:
    "... Wasserman is a great replacement for him as a stunningly inept strategist. "In the summer of 1994, Coelho was the principal Democratic political strategist during the run-up to the mid-term Congressional elections. Officially, he was Senior Advisor to the Democratic National Committee. ..."
    "... The Republican Party won a landslide victory in the fall congressional elections, capturing both the House and Senate by commanding margins." ..."
    "... I was trying to be "polite" to temper the rage I feel at these dishonest people who pretend they even comprehend the word progressive and neatly sidestep the role the Koch Brothers played. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    Kevin P Brown -> TeeJayzed Addy 4 May 2016 17:17

    Bill and Obama seem to follow the strategy to lose the house and senate. But the smug Clinton acolytes blame the voters. Always deflect blame eh?

    Wasserman is a great replacement for him as a stunningly inept strategist. "In the summer of 1994, Coelho was the principal Democratic political strategist during the run-up to the mid-term Congressional elections. Officially, he was Senior Advisor to the Democratic National Committee.

    The Republican Party won a landslide victory in the fall congressional elections, capturing both the House and Senate by commanding margins."

    Kevin P Brown -> TeeJayzed Addy , 2016-05-04 22:13:28

    I was trying to be "polite" to temper the rage I feel at these dishonest people who pretend they even comprehend the word progressive and neatly sidestep the role the Koch Brothers played.

    Now we get more of the same. I am part of the 1% financially but I was raised to understand it was all going to get better for the poor.

    But yeah must have been Fox news who MADE Bill get into bed with these creeps. I can't sit back smugly and proclaim I am alright jack I have 4 kids and I am horrified the world they will inherit.

    [May 07, 2016] I agree, Hillary is worse, and scarier than Trump. Hillary will justify her interventionist wars and terrible trade deals with slick, plastic, professional language which will fool some people into thinking she knows what she is doing.

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is a constant whining from the Clinton side about Fox news smears etc. One would believe that with all her supposed experience, she lacked the imagination to see the consequences of her actions with the email. Myself, this is just one indicator among many that she has learned nothing, her experience is flawed as her judgement is time and time again flawed. ..."
    "... The Kochs helped finance the Democratic Leadership Committee with Bill, Hill, McAuliffe, Tony Coelho (remember him?) and the rest of the "Third Way" Democrats who whored themselves to the first wave of christian-jihadist-wacko GOP congressmen swept into power in 1994, and it was all downhill from there, with the Republicans writing draconian legislation, the Dems rolling over, and Dirty Little Billy claiming it as a Great Leap Forward. ..."
    "... Much as I despise Drumpf it worked for him, he openly railed against the GOP establishment which fought him to the bitter end with their last champions pulling out of the race. The people had spoken (most of it crazy talk), but the Democrats can't ignore the anti-Clinton sentiment. Bernie was a nobody at the beginning because all the focus was on Clinton, but more coverage was given to Bernie and people got to know what he stood for things have changed. ..."
    "... For example, what about the deregulation of Wall Street by President Clinton and the economic crisis eight years later, that after the next eight years Hillary Clinton took over half a million dollars from Goldman Sachs for three speeches? - Unintended consequence! ..."
    "... What about voting for the Iraq war at a time when Hillary Clinton was the leader of the Democrats in the US Congress and the loss of people and money that followed after that, not to mention the rise of terrorism as a consequence? - Unintended consequences, too! ..."
    "... What about turning Libya into a failed state, and exclamation, "We came, we saw, he [Gaddafi] died!", after which four US embassy staff, including Ambassador Stevens died, and after which Clinton lied to the American public about events that led to their deaths? - Unintended consequences! ..."
    "... And, last but not least, what about NAFTA and other international trade agreements, all of them supported by Clinton to this day, although deprived and still depriving millions of American workers from their jobs? - Unintended consequence! ..."
    "... I agree, Hillary is worse, and scarier than Trump. Hillary will justify her interventionist wars and terrible trade deals with slick, plastic, professional language which will fool some people into thinking she knows what she is doing. ..."
    "... A Shillary in denial... Do you need the NYT or Guardian to report it to make it true? Many of the biggest companies in the US-the biggest polluters, the biggest pharmaceutical companies, the biggest insurance companies, the biggest financial companies-gave to the Clinton foundation while she was Secretary of State and then they lobbied Secretary Clinton and the state department for "favors." Even foreign governments have given to the foundation, including that stalwart of democratic principles Saudi Arabia, who gave at least $10 million… Then magically they had a $26 billion plane deal with Boeing. ..."
    "... Alleged pragmatist, but more likely Hillary will actually be a pushover on social and economic issues and a hawk on foreign policy. She is more of a Republican than Trump. ..."
    "... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
    theguardian.com
    Kevin P Brown , 2016-05-04 21:19:27

    Ammunition : considerations that can be used to support one's case in debate

    There is a constant whining from the Clinton side about Fox news smears etc. One would believe that with all her supposed experience, she lacked the imagination to see the consequences of her actions with the email. Myself, this is just one indicator among many that she has learned nothing, her experience is flawed as her judgement is time and time again flawed.

    She has handed the FBI and Trump AMMUNITION. Not me, not you. She created this mess. Her supporters have 100% certainty that this particular issue is not an issue. They hand wave away the FBI. They shut down any discussion as just another smear manufactured out of thin air.

    Probity : the quality of having strong moral principles; honesty and decency

    We all get to decide each candidates probity. That I find her lacking is based on her actions alone, not on some lens provided by Fox news. If she were honest, she would admit that there is a risk. She states there is no risk. If her chickens come home to roost, we get Trump. Can I get odds from a bookie on the outcome of the FBI investigation? A genuine question as so many here revel in quoting the odds quoted by bookies.

    So lets gamble. Let's get to the race track and study form and history and see if the bookies have fully transparent info on all the factors leading to a win or loss. How have we come to be here? That we are is a sign of the dysfunction we live in politically. Clinton is now immune to all present and future critical thinking because ...... because she was smeared in the pass. Free pass. Sometimes ..... sometimes the King is actually naked and no one cares to call attention to that reality.

    TeeJayzed Addy -> Kevin P Brown , 2016-05-04 21:16:18
    It was not simply an "entanglement".

    The Kochs helped finance the Democratic Leadership Committee with Bill, Hill, McAuliffe, Tony Coelho (remember him?) and the rest of the "Third Way" Democrats who whored themselves to the first wave of christian-jihadist-wacko GOP congressmen swept into power in 1994, and it was all downhill from there, with the Republicans writing draconian legislation, the Dems rolling over, and Dirty Little Billy claiming it as a Great Leap Forward.

    list12345 , 2016-05-04 21:14:04
    "Shock victory" is another example of lazy, factually incorrect mass media journalism. Bernie ran an on the ground campaign in Indiana for 2 moths prior to yesterday's primary win. I should know, as our family did volunteer door-to-door canvasing for the first time over a couple weekends. We also attended the rally on Monday and it was great!

    Don't give up Bernie supporters, as we have momentum! Bernie's an honest man with fair and just principles. Our country needs such a leader and not another paid-off crony or deranged man-child.

    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 21:01:18
    "Haven't you pissed off minority voters enough?"

    Again as always a deflection from the real point, documented over and over as to the long tanking DLC led strategy of leading with Southern States. Nothing to do with blacks, everything to do with Southern Conservatives. But yes, as always intellectually "honest". Innuendo. You choose to ignore the systems and structures put in place for reasons. I choose to see them.

    People like you choose to ignore the DLC history and the entanglement with the Koch Brothers who were so so happy Bill Clinton pushed the DNC into Republican territory, while we are all supposed to pretend that because the GOP is so bad bad bad, it gives a free pass to the DNC for the right wards ever rightwards shifting and the bandying of progressiveness on social issues that cost nothing, and the true position of the modern DLC as a money machine, with a purpose of existing to garner power.

    All you "progressives" love to talk about angry white man yet have zero answer to :

    ""In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000. Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."

    The fact that the above enrages me matters not to you, as you have your BernieBro Angry White man meme to deflect from real discussion about solutions. The real solution starts with getting the politicians beholden to the voters alone, not to corporate interests. That is Job One. Once that blockade is removed, then we can move on to poverty and violence as immutable links and solving them. 85% ...... 85% of the American people agree with this action. is it difficult? Yes. Wont happen however if we demand on smug entitled people throwing deflections and memes all over the place. "I am all right Jack, fuck you" should be the bumper-sticker of the Clinton supporters.

    Eugene Harvey -> Palomina , 2016-05-04 20:54:08
    Much as I despise Drumpf it worked for him, he openly railed against the GOP establishment which fought him to the bitter end with their last champions pulling out of the race. The people had spoken (most of it crazy talk), but the Democrats can't ignore the anti-Clinton sentiment. Bernie was a nobody at the beginning because all the focus was on Clinton, but more coverage was given to Bernie and people got to know what he stood for things have changed.

    The question for the Democrats is who is more likely to win the General against Drumpf? Who is more likely to win over the swing votes of those not affiliated to a party?

    The message is load and clear there is a lot of anti-establishment sentiment out there and Clinton is firmly seen as part of it.
    Drumpf having won his first leg of the race will no doubt moderate his rhetoric to appeal to a broader audience and look to grab a larger portion of the swing votes.

    In the bigger picture, Sanders is more likely to succeed against Drumof than the institutional Clinton.

    nnedjo , 2016-05-04 20:28:06
    If you ask, what is the purpose of the election, the answer is, elections should be used for two things:
    • First, that some politicians will be rewarded by the voters, who will entrust the government to them.
    • And second, but no less important, that some politicians will be punished by the voters for their past mistakes, in a way that will refuse to give them their votes. So, this second function of the elections is perhaps even more important because it ensures that politicians are held accountable for their previous actions.

    Now, if you look at these elections, you will notice that this is totally turned upside down in the case of Hillary Clinton.

    Her husband has created mass incarceration, and she, as the first lady, was the main promoter of it. And now she says, "Oops, that was an 'unintended consequence'! That is to say, over two million people in prison, many of which serve a sentence for minor offenses is an 'unintended consequence'''

    OK, fine, but what about the fact that she has got the money from the prison lobby?

    If the first was an 'unintended consequence', the latter is certainly not. So these are the things for which in every country on earth some politician would lose any chance to enter the next government. Provided that the politicians are held accountable for their previous actions, which is obviously not the case in the US.

    And, this is just one of the things for which Clinton can be held accountable.

    • For example, what about the deregulation of Wall Street by President Clinton and the economic crisis eight years later, that after the next eight years Hillary Clinton took over half a million dollars from Goldman Sachs for three speeches? - Unintended consequence!
    • What about voting for the Iraq war at a time when Hillary Clinton was the leader of the Democrats in the US Congress and the loss of people and money that followed after that, not to mention the rise of terrorism as a consequence? - Unintended consequences, too!
    • What about turning Libya into a failed state, and exclamation, "We came, we saw, he [Gaddafi] died!", after which four US embassy staff, including Ambassador Stevens died, and after which Clinton lied to the American public about events that led to their deaths? - Unintended consequences!
    • And, last but not least, what about NAFTA and other international trade agreements, all of them supported by Clinton to this day, although deprived and still depriving millions of American workers from their jobs? - Unintended consequence!

    So, as you can see, this is quite a long list, but probably there's more of it that is not listed here, yet. And it will be even more of such "unintended consequences" if Hillary Clinton will be elected for the US president.

    Sandypaws -> RobInTN , 2016-05-04 20:27:29
    Hence why I said 'some form of revolt' instead of 'burn the party down rawr'. The party establishment firmly put themselves behind Clinton early on. This is indisputable. 40+ percent of primary voters went against this in some form. Some will still welcome Clinton, some will tolerate her, some will walk, but the act of voting against establishment preference is already some form of revolt.
    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 20:05:19
    You: "self-righteous crap"

    You:"his acolytes will just come up with another dumb ass reason "
    You: "Why didn't you just give it directly to Trump? "
    You: "Bernie, when all's said and done, is a fraud."
    You: "I never did trust politicians who hold mass rallies." ( Nice Nazi smear)
    You: " are already starting to misquote Bernie, and talk about how it's all the fault of "Jewish bankers" Smearing Sanders for your relatives jewish Smears
    You: "She doesn't pretend she's a damn rock star" Smear
    You: " I take it you are a Trump supporter now" Personal smear to me.
    You: "nihilistic" over and over again
    You: deleted reference ot Pope as child molester
    You: "His trip to kiss the Pope's ass was disgusting pandering" So their shared stance on global warming is irrelevant?
    You: "the ass of the world's most powerful homophobe"
    You: "But Bernie has always been a fraud" ( multiple repetitions of this)


    On and on....How self righteous are you?

    "personal insults from you"

    Really? What insults? Intellectually lazy? That is my assessment of you. Not intended as an insult but an assessment of who you are and how you think. Based on reading all of your posts. I pay attention. I find it interesting to figure out motivations.

    " I've got a right to my views"

    Indeed you do. Never ever asked you to to post.

    DebraBrown -> Bronxite , 2016-05-04 19:59:33
    I agree, Hillary is worse, and scarier than Trump. Hillary will justify her interventionist wars and terrible trade deals with slick, plastic, professional language which will fool some people into thinking she knows what she is doing.

    Hillary would be 8 more years of the Corporate Oligarchy cementing its hold on our process. Trump might last 4 years... then we can elect a real progressive.

    Sandypaws -> newageblues , 2016-05-04 19:51:46
    SoS is more extrapolation, based off the weakness of her credentials heading into the position. It should be remembered that her lack of experience in foreign policy was one of Obama's attack points in 2008, so to have him suddenly turn around and name her SoS is a bit odd. Specifically:
    The choice of Mrs. Clinton pleased many in the Democratic establishment who admire her strength and skills, and they praised Mr. Obama for putting the rancor of the campaign behind him. "Senator Clinton is a naturally gifted diplomat and would be an inspired choice if she is chosen by President-elect Obama as secretary of state," said Warren Christopher, who held that job under her husband.

    But it could also disappoint many of Mr. Obama's supporters, who worked hard to have him elected instead of Mrs. Clinton and saw him as a vehicle for changing Washington. Mr. Obama argued during the primaries that it was time to move beyond the Clinton era and in particular belittled her claims to foreign policy experience as a first lady who circled the globe."

    Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22obama.html?_r=0

    So read into that what you will.

    What -is- clear is that she got $17.5 million in personal cash out of the deal (Obama agreed to cover campaign debts, she lent her campaign 17.5 million).

    Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/clinton-in-negotiations-f_n_104823.html

    Bob Zavoda , 2016-05-04 19:32:29
    Don't be lulled into a false "horse race" depiction of an especially HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT, planetary-civilization-survival moment. A predominantly, establishment, bankster-owned media, are pushing this epic election of "Main Street vrs wall street", as just another election. Wrong! A fictiion! Lies!

    Over 60% of us didn't vote last election, BECAUSE, only liars and apologists for "empire" oligarchs were running. Today, we see Bernie and perhaps Dr. Stein of the Greens. Only "The Bern" gets media minimal coverage, because he is running as an "Democrat". Indiana and other "open" primaries show, time and time again, the rigged nature of a duopoly electoral fraud. The establishment, wall street banksters and their allies DO NOT, WILL NOT let Bernie win. Do the math and ONLY BERNIE CAN BEAT TRUMP! SO QUIT THE HORSE RACE BS and see the BERN! And jut maybe we will have an inhabitable planet for our grandchildren that is fun to live upon.

    DebraBrown -> Kevin P Brown , 2016-05-04 19:31:40
    Putting it another way... Bernie has made them all look like chumps. They say they cannot get elected without big corporate dollars. Bernie did not sell out, and he raised money easily. He makes the rest of the lousy corrupt bunch look like fools.

    DebraBrown -> macktan894 , 2016-05-04 19:28:51
    Hillary did not concede in 2008 until after ALL the states had voted. Even then, she waited 4 days. What happened between the last primary and 4 days later, when she finally conceded? NEGOTIATIONS. She laid down the terms under which she would support Obama -- all goodies for Hillary, because Hillary Is For Hillary, period.

    Bernie will use the clout we give him to negotiate on behalf of THE PEOPLE at the Democratic Convention. That's the difference between him and self-serving Hillary.

    Looking forward to voting for Bernie in California on June 7. Meanwhile, praying for the FBI to indict Hillary.

    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 19:27:01
    Yet for all her long name recognition, her second national presidential campaign, the superdelegates lined up before Sanders announced, with the cunning long term strategy of the DNC "southern firewall" designed to favour conservative candidates, despite all the power players endorsements, despite all the Superpac's, she still is not going to arrive at the convention with the required delegate count for victory. What does that tell us? I know what it tells me. It tells me that there are a lot of people who want more of a continuation of Obama Change. They want real change.

    So sure, she is "winning" a battle in a longer running war of ideas. Let's see how this plays out over the next 8 years.

    Kicking his ass by the way would have been if she reached the required pledged delegates months ago. She could not. Complacency is not a great stance in these times.

    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 19:18:45
    "he'd spend it helping progressive candidates"

    Like Hillary has done since 2008? Helping the same old hack politicians, using her cash and her name and yet the people refused to come out and reverse the largest loss of Democratic seats in modern history? Yeah, blame the voters, you have them all pegged. it's never the fault of the politicians is it, it is the lazy voters. Well there is another theory that explains Trump and Sanders: They are sick of the same bullshit put out by the DNC and the GOP. Taking Ted Kennedys seat as an example the safest DNC seat in the nation, decades it sat with the DNC and as soon as he dies, the DNC selects one of your hack ersatz progressives, throws Bill Clinton and Hillary and bags of cash and STILL loses the seat. Was there a message there worth listening to? Not to you, you blame the voters. No no no never blame the DNC. Blame the voters.

    The voters perhaps is tired of what is presented to them as a voting solution. So in the end, your way of doing things has led to voter frustration and here we have Trump. There is a lesson there. Listen or dot listen, but the people are venting there frustration. Trump is a populist disaster, but he is a symptom of a dysfunctional system that needs revision and revision now. But nah! Lets just throw cash into a cesspit of dysfunction.

    Also you sit smugly ignoring the FACTS of Clinton laundering State contributions back into her campaign, leaving little or nothing for State DNC budgets. Ah, you say, this is a smear from Fox news. Um. No. Do you think we are idiots? You must. I assure you we are not idiots. Good luck in November. You will need it.

    Kiara Kiki Jenkins -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 19:16:30
    Bernie hasn't attacked Hillary directly since New York, and he had every right to go after her then, because she was on full offense against Bernie at that time, too, so enough with the innocent victim garbage.
    HJWatermelon , 2016-05-04 19:13:12
    Bernie always does better in open primaries because of the Independent voters. They are more likely to vote Trump in the general election in my opinion. He is going to start hammering Clinton now he is the nominee.
    Bernie should stay in right 'til the end in case anything ever happens with one of the two Clinton investigations. I don't see anything happening now though as the private server investigation appears to have stalled.
    Regarding the second (the Clinton Foundation) the Supreme Court is about to legalise political corruption with the McDonnell case. If that happens democracy is effectively suspended anyway and this is a pointless reality show farce. Policies will be decided by the highest bidder. How can she have broken any laws if there aren't any?

    Good news for women's rights under Clinton though - whilst her Syria no-fly-zone might start WW3, women will probably get to be drafted as well as men...

    RobInTN -> Martin Thompson , 2016-05-04 19:10:49
    Couple of things about this statement

    'Lawyer Hillary who is trained in well being a lawyer she even was a defense lawyer helping someone she believed was guilty of rapeing a 13 year old girl who has said Hillary "put her thru hell"."

    "someone she believed was guilty of rapeing a 13 year old girl"

    Interesting. Clinton discussed what she was thinking at the time with you?

    Or are you suggesting that some accused people should not get legal representation?

    I'm intrigued by the "put her through hell" portion of it. Especially as the case was plea bargained out and never went to trial.

    Freedom54 , 2016-05-04 19:06:41
    It is effortless to identify the ardent obtuse "Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Supporters". Their verbiage and responses are always predicated on emotion and fiction versus an intellectual discourse based on factual information – Quite Like the Superficial Candidates that they blindly support. The 1% Billionaire Oligarchy Ruling Classes Owned Mass Media Outlets is intentionally protecting the Outed Racists Donald Trump and his female Clone Hillary Clinton from Public Scrutiny. They are salivating Like Pavlov's Dog for their "Ultimate Political Reality Show – The Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Presidential Race" waiting to cash-in and profit as they stage and promote their "False Democracy".
    Knowledge = Power = Real Freedom..!
    1. This is why "Anonymous" Noble, Righteous, True American Heroes and Freedom Fighters are stepping in to fill the Fourth Estate void abdicated by America's Billionaire Owned Media to provide the 99% the Truth.
    Anonymous – Message to Hillary Clinton:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTMaIX_JPE4
    Anonymous – Message to Donald Trump:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ciavyc6bE7A
    2. CBS CEO and Chief Leslie Moonves: Comments he made at an investor conference last month when he said, "The money is rolling in, and this is fun." Added Moonves: "They're not even talking about issues; they're throwing bombs at each other, and I think the advertising (revenue $) reflects that. This is going to be a very good year for us (CBS). Sorry, it's a terrible thing to say, but bring it on, Donald."
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/daily-show-host-trevor-noah-877273
    3. Why isn't the Media asking Hillary Clinton about the Podesta group in the Panama papers working with the corrupt, Kremlin-run Sberbank, and the two shell companies setup by Bill Clinton (WJC, LLC) and Hillary Clinton (ZFS Holdings, LLC) at a Delaware address (1209 North Orange Street Wilmington, Delaware) that are the same address as 285,000 other companies, many of which were in the Panama papers and linked to laundering and tax avoidance schemes?.
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/25/delaware-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton?CMP=share_btn_fb
    4. Why isn't the Media asking Hillary Clinton to Release the Transcripts from her numerous $275,000.00 Speeches to Goldman Sachs and the Other Wall Street Banks?
    https://youtu.be/3UkfsEeHUcg
    5. Why don't they ask Hillary Clinton if she would Prosecute her and her husband Bill Clinton's former "Trusted Deputy" Rahm Emanuel the current Mayor of Chicago for establishing a "Gulag" on American soil which allowed the Chicago police to covertly detain and torture more than 7000 people at the Secret Interrogation Center that completely ignored the American "Constitution" and the Bill of Rights at Homan Square?
    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/02/behind-the-disappeared-of-chicagos-homan-square/385964 /
    6. Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight- Hillary, the inevitable liar:
    https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI
    7. Hillary Clinton: A Career Criminal:
    https://youtu.be/kypl1MYuKDY
    8. Secretary Clinton Comments on the Passing of Robert Byrd her friend and mentor who is a documented Racist and KKK member:
    https://youtu.be/ryweuBVJMEA
    9. Bill Clinton ATTEMPTS to Justify Robert Byrd's KKK Membership:
    https://youtu.be/8Fg3XNTMzNo
    10. Hillary Clinton & NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio Make Awkward RACIST Joke About CP TIME Colored People Time
    https://youtu.be/pP3syBu4ZDM
    11. Black Lives Matter protesters repeatedly interrupt Bill Clinton in Philadelphia: https://youtu.be/xRrVI5gHVyo
    Can You Say Hypocrisy?
    The only Authentic and Honest Candidate is Bernie Sanders who wants to return America back into a Transparent Citizen Accountable Democracy for the 100%. This is why the Bernie Sanders Army of Noble and Righteous Citizens-the 99% will never Vote or Support either of the Illegitimate 1% Billionaire Anointed Candidates Like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Who Represent the Retention of a False Oligarchy Democracy and Everything That the Decent Noble and Righteous Citizens Despise, Compulsive Pathological Lying, Narcissism, and Insatiable Greed.
    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 19:03:07
    "So your plan is for Bernie's opponent to get arrested? "

    Not my plan. Each citizen in this country has a set of was that rule what they can and cannot do. Even Clinton. I have spent a long time explaining my logic of why I believe she has broken various laws. I as a citizen appreciate the FOIA. If you cannot handle the facts of her actions, then what can I say? To me it does not bode well how Clinton comports herself. To you it is not an issue. You choose to ignore the reality of a real and extended FBI investigation. Obama rules the DoJ and the FBI. If it were indeed only a political smear, then he has the power to force Comey to resign. It is not a function of me, it is a function of laws. The investigation not some fevered Fox News plot as much as you with it to be. I understand completely what she has done. I understand why she did what she did.

    Regarding the bolstering the party, it seems it does not bother you the games her suprpac has done with bending the rules just up to the breaking point.

    Frankly, sanders on the back of this, and his supporters need to build an organisation that can put up true progressives. Your opinion is team based, you accept year after year the shift of the DNC orphaning in to centrist republicans. Your choice. I choose not to support this. So that he refused to fund more the same old hack politicians is fine by me. He has over his career supported the DNC with vote after vote after vote. He had the courage to offer "democrats" a real choice in the primaries.

    You again ignore with your blather about mid term motivations the fact that the people would not support the DNC in 2010, 2012, and 2014. People are not stupid, and they see that the change Obama promised is never coming. We can distill into a simple slogan then rich are getting richer even as the American worker gets more and more productive, yet their share of the capitalist pie shrinks and shrinks. The common man sees that Obama care still is not the solution for him and his family when the average deductions are over 5000 a year on top of his premiums and the average coverage is 60% of costs when he gets sat the deductible. He is told about Gold Standard trade agreement negotiated in absolute secrecy, and that cause him discomfort. Some black families see : ""In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000. Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."" and understand for all of Clinton's triangulation there is nothing palpable to change that. He sees she is great at trotting up mothers of dead people and Black people as props to gain votes, and he see that perhaps Sanders Class based solutions will help him more, as maybe he is tired of racial divides and knows intuitively Clinton has no real solution to gun crime, spurred on by poverty, nor solutions to poverty itself.

    So get all huffy about the FBI investigation. I lived though the turmoil of Nixon and before his reelection I predicted that he would suffer, as my gut feeling led me to believe he was involved, that he had dirty hands. Continue to believe that genuine logical conclusions and issues are only a rehash of Fix news when they are not. Cheap and nasty way to deflect any and all valid criticism. Is Sanders perfect? far from it, but I believe I know what he stands for and how he thinks.

    "Bernie, when all's said and done, is a fraud."

    Funny but I have concluded that Clinton is a fraud. But you are welcome to vote as you wish. In the end, your fear of Trump? The risk is real and palpable that she will cause disarray to the party if the FBI fins what I believe is obvious, and the risk is her handing the election to Trump. To you? You don't care. You cannot and will not see the risk, preferring to hide like a gormless child behind tortured smear theories rather than standing up as an adult and properly assessing the real risks to the Democratic.

    All the pieces of what she did are there if you care to look. But nah! You are lazy intellectually and it is easier to blame Fox news than to actually look and ponder and conclude the evidence. As are most of the vociferous Clinton fans here. Intellectually lazy.

    DebraBrown , 2016-05-04 18:28:32
    Hillary wins closed primaries, where only the tribalized party faithful participate (and voter suppression and other shenanigans run rampant). Bernie wins open primaries and brings in millions of new voters. Democrats like me, Independents, even Republicans vote for Bernie.

    Newsflash: November will not be a closed primary.

    shepdavis -> PATROKLUS00 , 2016-05-04 18:21:37
    Got that right...

    She loses on the Big 3 Issues, war, Trade & "corruption" to Trumps words and Bernie's life walk. Dems are falling into dreamlala math- Hillary will get women (50%), Blacks (10%) & Hispanics "another 10%). How can she lose.

    Start with GOP women at the end will not vote her way. That BLack and Hispanic percentages are already baked in, and Trump will cater to men, not just white, on the basis avg men have been getting shafted for 40 years now.

    If there is a terror attack, Trump wins big. If the economy goes down he wins too.

    The tea leaves and tarot readers have been all wrong this election.

    & Hill is likely to lose most of the last primaries. Embarassing

    "Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected, and nothing will change." Barack Obama, 2008

    Bronxite -> ID7731327 , 2016-05-04 18:14:50
    Is that HRC new slogan, "Hillary is shit, but at least she's not as shitty as Trump"
    Actually I think she's worse. The DNC turns a blind eye every time she breaks the law, and tries to change the rules for her, but both the RNC and DNC will keep Trump on a short lease.
    scrjim , 2016-05-04 18:14:20
    The Guardian's anti-Bernie agenda is really quite off-putting. Even the article summary is patronising :

    "Despite trailing behind Hillary Clinton in polls, Sanders once again proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters by pulling off his 18th victory of 2016"

    The translation is that the Bernie Sanders constituency is backwards and centred around white males who have lost blue collar jobs to globalisation; in other words he appeals to people who want to turn back time. The inference is that Clinton's group is far broader, more cultured and more progressive. This is patently false. Sanders is popular with young people and with people who are passionate about politics. Clinton's constituency tends to be older and more conservative. Clinton is the establishment candidate Sanders is the beacon of hope.

    talenttruth -> RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-04 18:11:03
    No surprise there. As is it no surprise that ABC is a "subsidiary" of The Walt Disney Company, which has been to the right of Attila-the-Hun since "sweet grandfatherly Walt" himself, who was practically a neo-Nazi politically. Need proof? Walt's cheerful cooperation with McCarthy's House Un American Activities persecution of anyone not sharing Adolph Hitler's political persuasion).

    Disney's movies have always exhibited that nauseating, fake, treacle "sweetness" which all fascists use as "cover" for their actual addiction to fear, hatred, tribalism and Orwellian manipulation.

    So we can hardly be "shocked, shocked, shocked" by ABC's gross "news" bias.

    How about NBC? It's been a corporate "investment football," recently boosted by Comcast from former owner General Electric. You KNOW they're both dedicated to impartial news reporting, right? HA HA HA

    How about CBS? Oh it's owned by Viacom, an "entertainment conglomerate," of course dedicated never to sensationalism or deliberate distraction of the public, but rather, to honest news reporting. Right.

    MSNBC? GE + Microsoft. That of course equals total devotion to unbiased and complete news reporting, even if the news WERE "bad for the Shareholders." Uh huh. (See the pigs flying by).

    CNN? Oh its "daddy" is Time Warner, another paragon of public-spirited democracy.

    Even PBS has fallen. Think that's a "radical statement?" The super right did a twofer on PBS: (1) cut its government funding so as to make it terrified and desperate and then (2) gradually brainwashed PBS into actually being another Corporate PR outlet.

    Non-commercial? PBS? IT LIVES ON CORPORATE ADS. And under those deliberately created survival pressures, even PBS news has collapsed into reporting all news like it's a trivial sports event - Never Delving Deeper, because its Corporate Overlords wouldn't like that.

    So, welcome to the reality of well-entrenched corporate fascism. For that, in part, we can thank Ronnie Puppet Reagan's reversal of a former 50-year policy which did not allow non-media corporations to "buy" the news. May that SOB continue to roast, whereever.

    Bernie Sanders would be all of these Corporate Overlord's worst nightmare. They would have to work "even harder" (yawn, pass the caviar), to blacklist, cover up, lie about the truth he would tell through his bully pulpit. Thus all of THEIR media outlets have worked like little beavers to Cancel the Cancer of Bernie, before he could cause real damage to The Entitled Domain. Ugh.

    PATROKLUS00 , 2016-05-04 18:10:21
    The Democrats, just as blind and foolish in their own way as the GOP, will make a tremendous mistake in nominating HRC. Anyone with an ounce of political insight can see the coming election is going to be about the revolt of the middle class against the Establishment and megacorporations that have been exploiting that class for at least two score years. The politically dimwitted and somnolent American middle class has finally come to realize how they have been used and abused and they aren't taking it anymore. They don't give a damn about foreign policy, single payer or anything else. They are furious at having been used and hoodwinked and they are in full revolt. The stupidity of the Democrats, in not seeing this and running an Avatar of the Establishment, HRC, will make the election very close with a good chance she will lose. Sanders can out Trump Trump on the anti-Establishment issue as polls clearly show, but the Dems are going to shoot themselves in the foot by coronating HRC. With Sanders they could probably sweep Congress also, but with HRC they will at best keep the White House and possibly a very narrow majority in the Senate. HRC is a poor campaigner with an unlikable personality, unlike Elizabeth Warren, and Trump will really mangle Hillary. With Sanders he will not be able to do that because Sanders easily can out anti-establishment Trump for, obviously, Trump too is of the 1% like HRC. There is the slim hope, forlorn as it may be, that the Democrat super-delegates, most of whom are political pros and thus focused on winning, will see the light and nominate Sanders. But the Democrats are usually reliably stupid so look forward to a cliff-hanger in November and very possibly a President Trump.
    DebraBrown , 2016-05-04 18:10:20
    Hillary did not concede in 2008 until after the last state finished voting. The counting was done, and Obama had more delegates. Even then, she waited 4 days before conceding. What went on during those 4 days? Negotiations. No way a super-predator politician like Hillary Clinton was just going to give in, without getting something for herself.

    Here's what Hillary got out of the deal: a cabinet post, Obama's promise of support for her next bid in 2016, and Obama's help paying off her 2008 campaign debt.

    The difference with Bernie is that he is not in this for himself. Bernie stepped up to the plate because America deserves better than another Corporate Tool Politician. When Bernie goes to the convention, he will not be negotiating for himself. He will be fighting for ALL OF US. Bernie fights for The People.

    This is why we need to give him as many delegates as possible. I look forward to voting for Bernie in California on June 7. Furthermore, speaking as a middle aged feminist who has been a registered Dem for 35 years -- I will NEVER vote for Hillary.

    sbabcock -> LanaCvi , 2016-05-04 18:04:13
    A Shillary in denial... Do you need the NYT or Guardian to report it to make it true? Many of the biggest companies in the US-the biggest polluters, the biggest pharmaceutical companies, the biggest insurance companies, the biggest financial companies-gave to the Clinton foundation while she was Secretary of State and then they lobbied Secretary Clinton and the state department for "favors." Even foreign governments have given to the foundation, including that stalwart of democratic principles Saudi Arabia, who gave at least $10 million… Then magically they had a $26 billion plane deal with Boeing.

    Is that what you're voting for? Does that sound like someone with integrity? hate to break it to you that this information isn't found only on right wing websites. Inform yourself. Can't you see why she'd play games with email? It's all right there, in your face.

    WhiteMale -> cliffstep , 2016-05-04 17:48:28
    Alleged pragmatist, but more likely Hillary will actually be a pushover on social and economic issues and a hawk on foreign policy. She is more of a Republican than Trump.
    Manami , 2016-05-04 17:33:14
    Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!

    The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it.

    [May 07, 2016] Diplomacy by Deception by John Coleman

    When you have read "Diplomacy by Deception " by John Coleman you might start to suspect that the British and United States Governments are actually the most corrupt in the world and third word dictators are just wannabes in comparison with those governments (and often are corrupted by them, storing the loot in Western banks and moving families to GB, France, Italy or Spain ). They completely betrayed interests of their own population carrying out the designs of global neoliberal elite (globalists), to which former President Bush I, one of its more able servants, referred to as "the New World Order." The first significant reaction against this level of corruption was spontaneous burst of support to Donald Trump during 2016 elections.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I really like Chapter VIII. "Panama: the naked truth." and the logic behind the invasion. ..."
    Amazon.com

    Amazon Customer, June 19, 2001

    Give me Documentation

    This book has much information helpful to those following government intrusion into world affairs. The history book MI6, can verify some, but I found this book lacking in documentation. The author has source notes, but most of his statements can't be used due to the poor documentation. I am hesitant to qoute statements he makes in the book. His Index is also poor. However, the book is good for general information of many illegal acts by the Council of foreign Relations. You'll just have to do a lot more reading to verify several comments he makes in the book.

    Paul LaCross Simonton, April 29, 2002

    Dr. John Coleman's best

    Every chapter in Diplomacy by Deception is a new subject. I am just guessing, but, it appears to me that Dr. Coleman took a selection of monographs he wrote, and, made them into a book.

    Oscar L. Vazquez, November 8, 1999

    Very, very good book

    As an avid history reader, the information that Dr. Coleman exposed in this book explained the unexplainable about historical facts, the manipulation of the situations and the secret purposes behind the reality. I really like Chapter VIII. "Panama: the naked truth." and the logic behind the invasion. It is a very hard book to understand for those who are not involved in policy or history. Congratulations once again Dr. Coleman for this great book.

    [May 06, 2016] Ted Cruz, the master strategist, was no match for Trumps cult of personality

    Looks like neoliberal Guardian presstitutes love neocons and religious nuts Cruz. Who would guess ? Interesting...
    Notable quotes:
    "... He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. ..."
    "... How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty' - of "bad things happening" is much more desirable... ..."
    "... The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite. ..."
    "... Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of the nation for those thirty pieces of silver. ..."
    "... What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem for her in the general. ..."
    "... I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'? Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates. Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing for them. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The Guardian

    bhyujn -> Bohemina1 5 May 2016 13:54

    No, I did not think that....however, I do think that there is enough awareness of this issue that it does not get dangerously into the main stream in Europe. In the US there much less awareness. Decades of the indoctrination that all bad things are either "communist" or "socialist" has left the door wide open for a return of the populist nationalist. Trump is just that.

    bluet00ns 5 May 2016 13:18

    "happy campaign"?...review the tapes, "happy" is nowhere in the oily, twisted, display of sly that was cruz's campaign, the numb, if not painful, looks on the faces of family as he trotted them out like props, is exhibit A.

    bcarey -> sour_mash 5 May 2016 13:08

    My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to collect money.

    Definitely true.

    However, we must also take into account the fact that the Cruz delegates are still active and maybe able to deliver Cruz.... or Romney if necessary. It is likely that Trump will get way more delegates than needed to stop a contested/open convention, however.

    The Cruz suspension is about 2 things. It accomplishes potentially 2 things. Money is just one of them. The other part is Romney, if he can.

    fallentower 5 May 2016 13:02

    I actually think the Republican Party made a good choice once it was down to "Cruz or Trump" by sitting on its hands and thereby letting Trump win. Of course, Trump is far more likely to do and say unorthodox (from a post-Reagan Republican Party standpoint) things, and will probably increase the tension and turmoil within the party. But he actually has a chance of winning the election; Cruz's smarmy personality and nauseating brand of religious conservatism would have gone down like a lead balloon outside the Bible belt, and he's too committed ideologically to change his policy positions.

    Trump will turn on a sixpence and happily disavow things he may have said in the primary if he considers them unhelpful baggage for the general, and because he's seen as a showman rather than a professional politician he'll have much more leeway to do so than your average flip-flopper.

    He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. Admittedly he is going to have to cut down on the clownishness and ill-disciplined outbursts, but if he gets the right campaign team together and they manage to keep him vaguely on-message I think he'll have good chances. Better than Cruz, anyway, who had zero chance.

    sour_mash bcarey 5 May 2016 12:58

    I take your point regarding Secret Agent Mormon and I was aware that he had filed with the FEC. My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to collect money.

    The exploratory PAC is the new retirement vehicle but that's a different issue.

    taxhaven wjousts 5 May 2016 12:58

    Trump most certainly is not change for the better.

    How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty' - of "bad things happening" is much more desirable...

    Harry Dresdon 5 May 2016 12:42

    Good riddance to Cruz. Boehner called him "the devil in the flesh". Cruz would have been way worse for the country than Trump will ever be. Sad but true.

    DillyDit2 5 May 2016 12:34

    Hey Stephanie Cutter: You think Bernie is responsible for what his supporters think, whether we'll support Hillary, and how we will decide to vote in the fall? Pappa Bernie should tell us what to do, and we should fall in line and salute?

    Could Cutter and Hillary's minions be any more clueless?! And could they reveal their top down authoritarian mindset any more clearer?

    The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite.

    I wish I could support Trump, because I second that fuck you. For now, along with what is likely the majority of American voters, all I can do is say- pox on BOTH your houses and may 2020 be the year an Independent runs and wins.

    danubemonster 5 May 2016 12:32

    I think it is worth comparing Cruz with Nixon. Both men are/were not particularly likable, yet Nixon was able to be a two-term president. Nixon was a conservative, but he was not an ideologue - and he lived in an age where the Republican Party was a relatively broad church. Nixon also have political instincts which were way beyond those of Cruz. He knew how to play high politics, and he knew what was required to get to the White House.

    PATROKLUS00 -> Tommy Cooper 5 May 2016 12:14

    Trump will beat her to death with being the Queen of the Establishment... the Dems will be idiots to nominate her.

    PATROKLUS00 -> voxusa 5 May 2016 12:12

    Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of the nation for those thirty pieces of silver.

    PATROKLUS00 -> 8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:09

    Yup, and the Democrat establishment is too stupid and out of touch to recognize that HRC is just the grist that Trump needs for his anti-establishment mill.

    PATROKLUS00 5 May 2016 12:07

    Cruz a master strategist???? BWWWWWwwwwwaaaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa! Ludicrous ... beyond ludicrous.

    Vintage59 David Perry 5 May 2016 12:07

    His religious beliefs and the political dogma that goes with them have been well documented. Have you not been paying attention? Do you insist your wife get you a beer from the fridge when you can get off your ass and get it yourself?

    8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:06

    What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem for her in the general.

    MalleusSacerdotum 5 May 2016 12:05

    I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'? Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates. Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing for them.

    The Donald has understood the dynamic better than the rest and has given the voters a coherent, albeit repugnant, analysis of their problems. An article like this that can shed no light on the phenomenon that is Trump is hardly worth publishing.

    [May 06, 2016] The claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even casual scrutiny

    Muammar al-Qaddafi was an easy target. Oil was the goal. Everything else is describable attempt to white wash the crime.
    Notable quotes:
    "... At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD ..."
    "... She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail. ..."
    "... Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight ..."
    "... As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun ..."
    "... on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 . ..."
    "... Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own. ..."
    "... For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale". ..."
    "... But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC. ..."
    "... This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on." ..."
    "... the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability. ..."
    "... What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable. Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected. The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia, and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them. ..."
    "... Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    thevorlon -> newyorkred , 2016-05-06 17:59:00

    Most politicians these days don't care about the people and this ridiculous cycle is repeating every 4 years! Candidates who actually want to make progress get dumped by the corrupt system and the parties that are being controlled by their corporate masters and their money to do as they want to return the more money to them later when they have the office!

    At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD

    Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! Starts with the USA and the world will follow over time. I personally am done with following these corrupt political systems and their media and do as they tell me to (same goes for the financial system but there's no escaping this one in the near future with corps and banks being in total control of the society).

    John Kennedy -> Allan Burns , 2016-05-06 17:35:46
    She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail.
    Ilupi Ilupi -> EagleOMC , 2016-05-06 17:05:43
    Establishment baby.
    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation, 2016-05-06 09:53:20
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/04/07/was-there-going-to-be-a-benghazi-massacre /

    "As Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune have now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even casual scrutiny.

    Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight. "

    "If humanitarian intervention is to remain a live possibility, there must be much more public scrutiny, debate and discussion of what triggers that intervention and what level of evidence we can reasonably require. Did administration officials have communications intercepts suggesting plans for large-scale killings of civilians? How exactly did they reach their conclusion that these reprisals were likely? It should be no more acceptable to simply accept government claims on this score than it was for previous administrations.

    As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun."

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:50:28
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure

    So no, we should have not intervened.

    "David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 .

    What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.

    Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.

    For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale".

    But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC.

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:40:10
    Libya:

    An interesting article. Note I trust Cockburn as a journalist.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-arab-spring-reported-and-misreported-foreign-intervention-in-libya-and-the-last-days-of-colonel-a6992726.html

    "Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15 February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.

    This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on."

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation, 2016-05-06 09:34:01
    And then in another note, why do people like you condemn the Taliban but give a free pass to the Saudi's who have a lot to do with the state of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and essentially operate the same as the Taliban? Why are we not intervening in Saudi Arabia to free the people? Nah. Do people die from either side in Afghanistan? Yes. Excusively the Taliban? no. The western press prefers the narrative of Taliban extremism. The western press ignores and fails to report killings by US troops, one incident I know of personally in Kabul. Never reported in the press.

    So I suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of Afghanistan before you sound off with smugness. It is obvious you have no idea of what really goes on there.

    Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? Want a litany of the horrors there? No, you don't. You have a narrative which I suspect is ill informed.

    the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability.

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation, 2016-05-06 09:33:31
    "was if ending Taliban rule had made things better"

    You try to simplify a very complex situation. In fact there was never absolute rule by the Taliban. You seem to forget there was a civil war in the country before 9/11. There was the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. There was Pakistan and the ISI ( Pakistan of course if often supported by the US, then we had Saudi Arabia, again supported by us). Before 9/11 The northern alliance was about to be defeated. On both sides was indiscriminate killings. You also had a complex mix if Pashtun Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. You had multiple political alliances which I will not bother to list. Kabul was destroyed by the fighting. Atrocities on both sides.

    You had Dostum with the Northern Alliance and Massod as well. Massod was reasonable, Dostum was an animal worse than the Taliban.

    What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable. Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected. The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia, and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them.

    So, you want to simplify the Taliban atrocities and ignore the rest. Afghans did not have the luxury of this. They had to choose the lesser evil. Had Massood not been entangled with Dostum, perhaps things would have been different.

    We came in and supported the Northern Alliance, which did NOT sit well with a lot of people. The majority? I don't have statistics exactly pointing this out. The Pashtun felt pushed out of affairs by the minority remnants of the Northern Alliance. Every ..... and I mean every government office had photos of Massood on the wall. Not Karzai. Karzai was seen as irrelevant by all sides, he was seen as the American imposed choice. ( I will not even discuss the "election" but I was on the ground dealing with Identity cards before the UN arrived, had meetings with the UN team about approaches to getting ID cards out to all voters, and there is a stink over aspects of the participation in the elections).

    "And seeing a self-described leftist explaining that life under the Taliban wasn't all that bad if you just grew a beard [!] and fell in line is really sort of pathetic."

    Your smug simplistic statement indicates you have no idea of the horrors enacted on both sides. I was told this time and time again as how people decided to survive by picking a side where there were rules and they could survive the rules.

    But lets put aside my anecdotal evidence and look at the people of Afghanistan:

    http://www.d3systems.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/AAPOR-2012-Taliban-Reconciliation-John-Richardson.pdf

    "Looking at Afghans' views on reconciling with the Taliban does not appear to bear out the concerns over ethnic divisions shared by Jones and Kilcullen. When asked whether the Afghan central government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban or continue fighting the Taliban and not negotiate, a recent national survey of Afghanistan found that roughly three- quarters (74%) of Afghans favor negotiating with the Taliban .74 This is in line with previous studies, such as a series of polls sponsored by ABC News which found that the number of Afghans favoring reconciliation had risen from 60% in 2007 to 73% in 2009."

    ""Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they stop fighting, or do you think the government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not negotiate a settlement?""

    77% of men and 70% of women agree with this.

    Here is the ultimate point. We intervened and we had no fucking idea what we were doing. The Afghans saw the money flowing to Beltway Bandits rather than flowing to real aid and needs. They saw this! They were not stupid. They saw that the Pashtuns were pushed out of Government, ( hence the Massod images in ALL government offices [My project of reform dealt with EVERY government offices and I visited a fair few personally and finally had to ask abut why each office had Masood an not Karzai)

    My opinion? I see indications that the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden. We refused. Is this disputed? Yes. Were we right to favour the Northern Alliance? No. They were as bad as the Taliban, but more ..... unpredictable.

    Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene.

    [May 05, 2016] How European Union Fiscal Rules Subverted Democracy and Institutionalized Neoliberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... By John Weeks, a member of the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) in London, one of the founders of the UK-based Economists for Rational Economic Policies, and part of the European Research Network on Social and Economic Policy. Receive podcasts of his weekly radio program by Twitter, @johnweeks41. Originally published at Triple Crisis ..."
    "... I have dear friends from H to VI, but sleep walking through life, while natural resources are needlessly strip mined for the sake of maintaining artificial scarcity, is a good way to put it. ..."
    "... The dual mandate is a fiction. There's nothing the Fed can do to lower unemployment (though it can raise it by mistake.) The unemployment rate is set by the fiscal policies of Congress and the Executive. The unemployment rate, should they desire, can even be set to zero. That it is not should be sufficient cause for the guillotines. ..."
    "... primum non nocere ..."
    "... I think the process of corporate control of the EU was so slow and gradual plenty of left wingers in Europe still haven't really grasped what has happened. From the beginning, there was always a tension within Europe between pressure from corporations for more business friendly policies and the generally social democrat lite views of the original founders. I think though to call it 'neoliberal' is not quite correct – for me 'neoliberal' implies a specific set of policies associated with the Anglosphere – I think in Germany what we've seen is the takeover by a more German flavoured right of centre view – it is similar, but is more generally corporatist and mercantilist in nature with a strong dash of Austrian economics. ..."
    "... Well of course the 'competition' is a myth. As anyone who has witnessed what has happened in electricity markets can see, it has, if anything, raised prices of electricity for consumers. But various powerful interests have done very well indeed. you can see the same process in water and waste services and pretty much anything that has been directly regulated and privatised. The only areas where I think it can be shown that consumers have benefited from competition are in telecommunications and in air travel. And in the former, I suspect the consolidation of the telecom industry will reverse those gains. ..."
    "... "To render the rule Kafkaesque, after the EC bureaucracy calculates that a government will not meet the hypothetical target, it then mandates contractionary policies that guarantee that the target cannot be achieved. The problem is imaginary and the solution contradictory." ..."
    "... "The "independent institutions" include the European Commission itself, which adds a distinctly Orwellian character to the already Kafkaesque Treaty." ..."
    "... "Thus, not restricting surpluses carries an implicit mercantilist message." EU guidelines fix trade surplus at 6%, Germany is, I believe, in its seventh year of violation and should be fined. That it doesn't happen maybe shows that the elite ruling the EU is German. ..."
    naked capitalism
    Yves here. Anyone who has paid attention to how the various sovereign debt crises have played out in Europe can't help noticing that a bureaucratic elite is calling the shots and riding roughshod over popular will. But what are the mechanisms which allow these perverse outcomes to come to pass? This post describes the major steps that enabled neoliberalism to become the ruling doctrine.

    By John Weeks, a member of the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) in London, one of the founders of the UK-based Economists for Rational Economic Policies, and part of the European Research Network on Social and Economic Policy. Receive podcasts of his weekly radio program by Twitter, @johnweeks41. Originally published at Triple Crisis

    The EU: Hold Your Nose and Vote "Stay"

    Most Americans and many U.S. progressives hold a favorable view the European Union. This positive assessment persists despite the crushing of the Greek challenge to austerity conditionalities set by the European Commission and European Central Bank aided and abetted by the International Monetary Fund.

    The primary basis for pro-EU sentiments may be that Americans consider the European Union a bastion of social democracy in contrast to the neoliberal ideology of the Republican and Democratic parties, which Bernie Sanders has so eloquently attacked. However, the institutions of the European Union, especially its executive the European Commission practice a neoliberal ideology and pro-business policies as aggressive as counterparts in the United States.

    This is not a recent change, but a long-maturing trend going back at least to when Helmut Kohl of the right-wing Christian Democratic Union replaced the Social Democrat Helmut, Schmidt, as chancellor of Germany. The misplaced belief that Jacques Delors , EC president for ten years, was committed to social democracy perpetuated the illusion of a progressive EU. While no reactionary like Kohl, the French socialist politician supported market oriented "reform" of the European Union's economic policies.

    By the 2000s neoliberals had taken firm control of the European Commission, manifested most obviously in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. The step-by-step legal codification of EU reactionary economic policies goes far beyond legislation enacted in the United States. As a result, it should surprise no one that in Britain and on the continent support for membership in the European Union splits progressives. In Britain the issues looms large, with a referendum on continued membership scheduled for 23 June.

    The progressive case of membership is a hard row to hoe.

    Loss of Democracy in the European Union

    History provides many examples of authoritarian rule achieved through formally democratic procedures. To these we should add the 2012 EU Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance ( TSCG ), adopted by 25 democratically elected EU governments (the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom took opt-outs ). On an EU website we find the overall purpose of the TSCG boldly highlighted :

    The European Union's economic governance framework aims to detect, prevent, and correct problematical economic trends such as excessive government deficits or public debt levels, which can stunt growth and put economies at risk.

    This bureaucratically bland sentence asserts the power of the unelected European Commission, as the executive of the European Union, to monitor ("detect") whether the public budget of an elected member government conforms to EU fiscal rules. If it does not, the Commission claims the power to prevent the implementation of that budget and to specify the changes ("corrections") required.

    No one can miss the ideological asymmetry of the "governance framework" – deficits can be excessive, but not surpluses. In practice a budget surplus usually goes along with a trade surplus, so that the contractionary effect of the former will be offset the expansionary impact of the latter. Thus, not restricting surpluses carries an implicit mercantilist message.

    The EU website goes on to explain "detection" or "monitoring" as follows ,
    Each year, the EU countries that share the euro as their currency submit draft budgetary plans to the European Commission. The Commission assesses the plans to ensure that economic policy among the countries sharing the euro is coordinated and that they all respect the EU's economic governance rules. The draft budgetary plans are graded as either compliant, partially compliant, or at risk of non-compliance.

    When the EC implements this paragraph literally as it did in Greece, the role national legislatures is to endorse what the Commission judges as "compliant." The TSCG de facto makes member governments formulate their budgets for the Commission not their legislatures, because there would be little point and considerable embarrassment by submitting to parliament a budget that the EC would reject. After the Commission judges the budget as satisfactory the national legislature goes through a pro forma approval process. It will be a small step to require, as in Greece , approval by the EC before revealing the budget to the public.

    The TSCG transfers sovereignty from democratic institutions to an unelected bureaucracy. Were it the case that the EU parliament possessed substantial control over the Commission (which it does not), the TSCG would still be profoundly authoritarian because of the power of the EC bureaucracy over what should be decided democratically.

    Treaty-Protected Mismanagement

    EU fiscal rules, from the Maastricht Treaty to the TSCG are anti-democratic, as well as inflexible to change. The Treaty specifically commits the adopting government to embed the fiscal rules in law in a manner ensuring their "permanent character, preferably constitutional." Embodied in treaties, they can only change through repeal or adoption of additional treaties. Both involve extremely cumbersome and time consuming processes.

    Were the fiscal rules theoretically and practically sound their anti-democratic and inflexible nature would still discredit them. Far from sound, they are technically flawed, mandating macroeconomic mismanagement. The Treaty mandates specific limits to fiscal policy.

    [The Treaty] requires contracting parties to respect/ensure convergence towards the country-specific medium-term…with a lower limit of a structural deficit (cyclical effects and one-off measures are not taken into account) of 0.5% of GDP; (1.0% of GDP for Member States with a debt ratio significantly below 60% of GDP).

    Before considering the wisdom of the 0.5% deficit target, two major technical mistakes standout, 1) the Treaty uses an unsound measure of the fiscal deficit; and 2) the key concept, "structural deficit," is theoretical nonsense.

    The TSCG adopts the Maastricht deficit specification, total revenue minus total expenditure, which is the overall deficit. As the IMF explains in its guidelines for fiscal management , the appropriate measure for sound fiscal management is the primary deficit, which excludes interest payments on the public debt (which if reduced would imply partial default).

    When the TSCG specifies the 0.5% as a "structural deficit" we go from the inappropriate to the absurd. The Commission as well as the usually competent OECD defines "structural deficit" as the deficit that would appear by eliminating cyclical effects; i.e., the deficit when an economy operates at normal capacity.

    Making this concept operational requires an analytically sound method of eliminating cyclical effects, then a clear and consistent measure of normal capacity. The EU structural deficit fails on both criteria. In practice the EC bean-counters make no attempt to eliminate cyclical effects. The method of calculation of normal capacity ignores the cycle altogether by defining normal capacity to the level of output at which the rate of unemployment implies stable inflation (the "non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment," NAIRU ). Again, the EC bureaucrats reveal their ideology by taking inflation not output or unemployment as measure of economic health.

    The NAIRU would be sufficiently problematical were attempt made to adapt it to the specific institutional characteristics of each country at specific time periods. For example, if the concept has operational validity, it is extremely unlikely that it would assume the same value before and after the 2008-10 global recession. An inspection of the eurostat tables for the actual and "structural" deficits shows no evidence of estimations with country specific adjustments.

    The decidedly dubious nature of the NAIRU is indicated by its nom de guerre , "the natural rate of unemployment." This phrase betrays an underlying ideology that 1) unemployment is a natural phenomenon to which all economies automatically adjust; and 2) inflation always results from excess demand. If the first were true the global recession would not have occurred. The second ignores price pressures arising from traded goods and services, petroleum being the most obvious and price-volatile.

    The possibility of calculating country and time specific normal capacity would not save the 0.5% rule the realm of ideological nonsense. First and foremost, it represents static analysis applied to a dynamic process. The formal statement of the 0.5% would be as follows:

    Economy A operates below normal capacity with a fiscal deficit of 2.5% (for example). Other things unchanged, were economy A at normal capacity the deficit would be 1.5% (for example), above the 0.5% requirement. Therefore, the government of country A must now take steps to reduce expenditure or raise taxes, so if the economy were at full capacity the hypothetical deficit would be 0.5%.

    The 0.5% rule is a hypothetical outcome based on analytically unsound calculations. This "what if" calculation by statisticians is used by an undemocratic bureaucracy to force elected governments to implement contractionary economic policies. The technically unsound, hypothetical 0.5% target mandates a pro-cyclical macroeconomic policy. To render the rule Kafkaesque, after the EC bureaucracy calculates that a government will not meet the hypothetical target, it then mandates contractionary policies that guarantee that the target cannot be achieved. The problem is imaginary and the solution contradictory.

    The wording of the TSCG makes it clear that deviant fiscal behavior by a member country will not be tolerated,
    Correction mechanisms should ensure automatic action to be undertaken in case of deviation from the [structural deficit target] or the adjustment path towards it, with escape clauses for exceptional circumstances. Compliance with the rule should be monitored by independent institutions.

    The "independent institutions" include the European Commission itself, which adds a distinctly Orwellian character to the already Kafkaesque Treaty.

    Painted into a Recessionary Corner

    Market economies pass through cycles of recession and expansion. They suffer from fiscal deficits in recessions, because falling or slow-growing output results in falling or slow-growing revenue. Such circumstances typically result from a drop in private investment or exports. Economies most effectively overcome recessions by the public sector using its spending powers to compensate for the inadequate private demand.

    The TSCG legally prohibits the implementation of this effective countercyclical fiscal policy. It forces member governments to apply policies analogous to the practice 200 years ago of bloodletting to restore health to the ill. It is a Treaty designed to maintain perpetual stagnation across the European continent.

    The term "Six-Pack", the secondary legislation linked to the treaty, is frequently used as synonymous with the TSCG. This is a singularly appropriate nickname for the enabling legislation. The Six-Pack contains the economic equivalent of a pernicious snake oil, a witch's brew to turn minor fiscal problems into recessionary downturns. For those dedicated to a prosperous and harmonious European Union, repeal or replacement of the TSCG stands out as an urgent priority. Fiscal integration on the basis of the TSCG would be disastrous.

    ke , April 20, 2016 at 11:03 am

    What most Americans know about Europe is on a postcard, or the propaganda they were taught in school. The vast majority on this planet is dependent on a MAD money laundering scheme built by Wall Street, copied globally, and automated by WS of the West, silly valley, now strip mining the planet, on auto pilot, with a belief in political discourse, among completely insulated, puppet politicians.

    Back in the day, before joining, Robert R actually said some intelligent things about labor. The crashing actuarial ponzi has been in operation so long it is an assumption. On the one hand money enslaves future generations to the present, and on the other we are all supposed to seek a feudal pension. The casino wins in both directions.

    I have dear friends from H to VI, but sleep walking through life, while natural resources are needlessly strip mined for the sake of maintaining artificial scarcity, is a good way to put it.

    We don't even need oil, but the economy is leveraged on that contract price, to maintain subservient populations. We are choking on excess oil, storing it all over the ocean, and preventing iran/iraq from putting its product on the market, all to confirm a psychology of dependence, like an ant farm, assuming that individual humans can only wander randomly without the benefit of the collective, serving the sociopathic psychologist writing the scripts.

    Funny, there is a shortage of private demand for more incompetent government.

    RabidGandhi , April 20, 2016 at 11:53 am

    Another fundamental difference between the US and EU is the difference in central bank mandates, with the Fed having its dual inflation/employment mandate in its bylaws, but under Maastricht the ECB only has a mandate for low inflation.

    That said, the Fed has a dual way for getting around the dual mandate: playing fast and loose with what is defined as unemployment, and just straight out ignoring it (eg, raising interest rates at the first whiff of possibility that there might be a rumour that someone's uncle's cousin's best-friend's roommate thinks there could eventually be a slight uptick in the CPI). This means, yes there are differences in the founding documents, but is there anywhere in US economic governance that NAIRU is not assumed either?

    Benedict@Large , April 20, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    The dual mandate is a fiction. There's nothing the Fed can do to lower unemployment (though it can raise it by mistake.) The unemployment rate is set by the fiscal policies of Congress and the Executive. The unemployment rate, should they desire, can even be set to zero. That it is not should be sufficient cause for the guillotines.

    RabidGandhi , April 20, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    I definitely agree w/r/t fiscal policy, but I think the point is that at least in the US there is a nominal (but ignored) primum non nocere written into the Fed's by-laws. It is supposed to take actions that will "promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates." What this means is that raising interest rates at the mere rumour of inflation is going against the Fed's mandate– not that anyone in power cares. Meanwhile in Europe they just dispense with the whole fiction of not having a monetary policy that kills employment.

    PlutoniumKun , April 20, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    I think the process of corporate control of the EU was so slow and gradual plenty of left wingers in Europe still haven't really grasped what has happened. From the beginning, there was always a tension within Europe between pressure from corporations for more business friendly policies and the generally social democrat lite views of the original founders. I think though to call it 'neoliberal' is not quite correct – for me 'neoliberal' implies a specific set of policies associated with the Anglosphere – I think in Germany what we've seen is the takeover by a more German flavoured right of centre view – it is similar, but is more generally corporatist and mercantilist in nature with a strong dash of Austrian economics.

    I see the results every day when I step outside my apartment in Dublin. Thats to a focus on privatisation and 'competition', what was once a fully functioning waste collection service in my city has now become a chaotic privatised service, with competing companies driving down the quality. No more proper wheelie bins collected on the same day, instead there are plastic bin bags everywhere, there to be torn apart by seagulls and foxes, scattering rubbish everywhere. All in the name of 'competition', driven by EU Directives. The focus on 'internal competition' is gradually eroding sensible regulation in energy, waste and telecommunications. Supposedly in the interest of the consumer, but we all know who really benefits.

    Fajensen , April 20, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    I don't think all this "competition" really benefits anyone, I believe it's just there for the principle.

    PlutoniumKun , April 21, 2016 at 5:55 am

    Well of course the 'competition' is a myth. As anyone who has witnessed what has happened in electricity markets can see, it has, if anything, raised prices of electricity for consumers. But various powerful interests have done very well indeed. you can see the same process in water and waste services and pretty much anything that has been directly regulated and privatised. The only areas where I think it can be shown that consumers have benefited from competition are in telecommunications and in air travel. And in the former, I suspect the consolidation of the telecom industry will reverse those gains.

    Barry Fay , April 21, 2016 at 10:15 am

    The airlines are a terrible example – in fact, there was a great article treating the airlines as a classic example of "crapification". The seating has become ridiculously cramped (as a way to then "sell" seats that someone can actually sit in!), the service has been basically reduced to the bare minimum, luggage charges are outrageous and ticket prices continue to climb even though one of the major expenses (i.e. fuel!) has become cheaper by 50 per cent. No, the airlines were a bad example.

    financial matters , April 20, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Nice to read such an excellent analysis. And with very appropriate metaphors.

    "To render the rule Kafkaesque, after the EC bureaucracy calculates that a government will not meet the hypothetical target, it then mandates contractionary policies that guarantee that the target cannot be achieved. The problem is imaginary and the solution contradictory."

    "The "independent institutions" include the European Commission itself, which adds a distinctly Orwellian character to the already Kafkaesque Treaty."

    JEHR , April 20, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    The World is really messed up!

    rfam , April 20, 2016 at 6:34 pm

    I would suggest that any country that doesn't like these rules failed to read the agreement and should exit the EU and start issuing worthless currency. In doing so they can feel free to devalue, run large deficits, borrow all they want and then leave the "neo-liberals" to it. When the banks and hedge funds that over-lend to fund these deficits fail or demand collateral ( http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/10/22/163384810/why-a-hedge-fund-seized-an-argentine-navy-ship-in-ghana ) you will discuss their predatory nature.

    Hansrudolf Suter , April 21, 2016 at 6:46 am

    "Thus, not restricting surpluses carries an implicit mercantilist message." EU guidelines fix trade surplus at 6%, Germany is, I believe, in its seventh year of violation and should be fined. That it doesn't happen maybe shows that the elite ruling the EU is German.

    Schofield , April 21, 2016 at 4:43 pm

    Given half a chance some human beings who never got much loving as a child will seek to correct the imbalance by "weaponizing" money and using it against the interests of the majority. For those who've read the psychoanalyst Alice Miller books they will recognize her argument that resentment builds up in the child and needs expression in the form of subconsciously motivated vengeance as an adult!

    [May 05, 2016] Robert Reich Why Is One of Sanders Most Important Proposals Being Ignored

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Robert Reich. Originally published at his website ..."
    "... "it would cost me $500-$1000 maybe more a year" ..."
    April 20, 2016 | naked capitalism
    Yves here. I want to clarify one key issue about a transaction tax. Its purpose is not to raise revenue. Its purpose is to discourage excessive trading, which is socially unproductive. Recently, many studies have found that an outsized financial sector is as drag on growth. The finer-grained ones have identified too many resources devoted to secondary market trading as the cause. "Secondary market trading" is all the buying and selling that happens after a company raises money, as in among investors, not sales of newly-issued securities from a company to investors to raise money. A certain level of secondary market trading is necessary and desirable so that an investor can sell if he wants to (as in he needs liquidity). But overly cheap liquidity makes it attractive to trade for purely speculative purposes, as the collapse in average holding times of NYSE stocks attests.

    Now a transaction tax may indeed raise a lot of revenue. But the intent is to discourage undesirable activity, and it's hard to estimate in advance how much trading volumes would fall with a well-designed transaction tax.

    By Robert Reich. Originally published at his website

    Why is there so little discussion about one of Bernie Sanders's most important proposals – to tax financial speculation?

    Buying and selling stocks and bonds in order to beat others who are buying and selling stocks and bonds is a giant zero-sum game that wastes countless resources, uses up the talents of some of the nation's best and brightest, and subjects financial market to unnecessary risk.

    High-speed traders who employ advanced technologies in order to get information a millisecond before other traders get it don't make financial markets more efficient. They make them more vulnerable to debacles like the "Flash Crash" of May 2010.

    Wall Street Insiders who trade on confidential information unavailable to small investors don't improve the productivity of financial markets. They just rig the game for themselves.

    Bankers who trade in ever more complex derivatives – making bets on bets – don't add real value. They only make the system more vulnerable to big losses, as occurred in the financial crisis of 2008.

    All of which makes Bernie Sanders's proposal for a speculation tax right on the mark.

    He wants to tax stock trades at a rate of 0.5 percent (a trade of $1,000 would cost of $5), and bond trades at 0.1 percent.

    The tax would reduce incentives for high-speed trading, insider deal-making, and short-term financial betting. (Hillary Clinton also favors a financial transactions tax but only on high-speed trading.)

    Another big plus: Given the gargantuan size of the financial market and the huge volume of trading occurring within it every day, this tiny tax would generate lots of revenue.

    Even a 0.01 percent transaction tax (a basis point is one-hundredth of a percentage point, or 0.01 percent) would raise $185 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

    Sanders's 0.5 percent tax could thereby finance public investments that enlarge the economic pie rather than merely rearrange its slices – like tuition-free public education.

    After all, Americans pay sales taxes on all sorts of goods and services yet Wall Street traders pay no sales taxes on the stocks and bonds they buy.

    Which helps explain why the financial industry generates about 30 percent of America's corporate profits but pays only about 18 percent of corporate taxes .

    Naysayers led by the financial industry's lobbyists (the Financial Services Roundtable and Financial Markets Association) warn that even a small tax on financial transactions would drive trading overseas, since financial trades can easily be done anywhere.

    Baloney. The U.K. has had a tax on stock trades for decades yet remains one of the world's financial powerhouses. Incidentally, that tax raises about 3 billion pounds yearly (the equivalent of $30 billion in an economy the size of the U.S.), which is pure gravy for Britain's budget.

    At least 28 other countries also have such a tax, and the European Union is well on the way to implementing one.

    Industry lobbyists also claim the costs of the tax will burden small investors such as retirees, business owners, and average savers.

    Wrong again. The tax wouldn't be a burden if it reduces the volume and frequency of trading – which is the whole point.

    In fact, the tax is highly progressive. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 75 percent of it would be paid by the richest fifth of taxpayers, and 40 percent by the top 1 percent.

    It's hardly a radical idea.

    Between 1914 and 1966, the United States itself taxed financial transactions. During the Great Depression, John Maynard Keynes urged wider use of such a tax to reduce excessive speculation by financial traders. After the Wall Street crash of October 1987, even the first President George Bush endorsed the idea.

    Americans are fed up with Wall Street's financial games. Excessive speculation contributed to the near meltdown of 2008 – which cost millions of people their jobs, savings, and homes.

    So why is it only Bernie Sanders who's calling for a financial transactions tax? Why aren't politicians of all stripes supporting it? And why isn't it a major issue in the 2016 election?

    Because a financial transactions tax directly threatens a major source of Wall Street's revenue. And, if you hadn't noticed, the Street uses a portion of its vast revenues to gain political clout.

    So even though it's an excellent idea championed by a major candidate, a financial transactions tax isn't being discussed this election year because Wall Street won't abide it.

    Which maybe one of the best reasons for enacting it.

    vlade , April 20, 2016 at 5:58 am

    important point – UK has FTT on stocks, it's called stamp duty. despite that, footsie is considered one of the most important non us markets worldwide… so cries of how it would kill the sector are a bit overdone..

    mind you, the rise of cfds and similar to bypass sd led to issues of its own

    Anonymous , April 20, 2016 at 6:06 am

    Need a tax on the derivatives market.

    Yves Smith Post author , April 20, 2016 at 6:36 am

    I would think that would be part of the plan, particularly given the volumes. Sanders tends to do himself a disservice by staying at the 30,000 foot level, which is where execs generally are anyhow. But he doesn't have enough surrogates going into the weeds on his behalf.

    JeffC , April 21, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Sanders' plan includes a smaller tax on bond trades-0.1%? unreliable memory here-and a smaller one yet on derivatives trades.

    Teddy , April 20, 2016 at 6:42 am

    I'm more of a right winger, but this is one Sanders proposal I can fully support. There's something seriously wrong with an economy that spends gigantic sums on building tunnels for optic cables so transactions can be processed two miliseconds faster. This automated flash trading is against everything financial markets are supposed to be about, it's even against everything that speculation is supposed to be about. I also agree with Yves's assessment that this isn't about revenue extraction, but about curtailing harmful activities. However, given high levels of corruption in US politics and huge profits this new industry enjoys, is such an idea even feasible?

    hemeantwell , April 20, 2016 at 10:49 am

    an idea even feasible?

    I believe I can appreciate why your statement took that discouraged turn. But the next move would be to say that, if such a good idea is made infeasible by a corrupt political order, doesn't that then contribute to its indictment? That's one reason why the current political situation is so changed from ten years ago.

    Paul Jurczak , April 20, 2016 at 7:25 am

    I would add underclocking the stock exchange to augment the effect of transaction tax. It is perfectly sufficient for healthy economic activity to settle the transactions only in equal discrete time intervals, say once every minute. This would starve all HFT parasites, reduce the size of financial sector and its rent extraction from productive economic activity.

    EndOfTheWorld , April 20, 2016 at 7:52 am

    Why is this important proposal being ignored? Bribery.

    RUKidding , April 20, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Possible.

    Sanders' campaign has been mostly kept dark by the M$M (which includes National Propaganda Radio). If one hears/reads much about Sanders in the usual sources, it's usually to patiently explain why he simply cannot win.

    It's exceedingly rare to hear/read much of what the substance of Sanders' campaign compromises, and mostly then, what you'll hear is fatuous twaddle about Sanders' proposal (which isn't fatuous but is presented that way) about free college.

    So one has to come to blogs, such as this one, to learn more. Too bad most citizens don't do that, but that's the way it is. And there's a reason for it. Clearly Sanders, at least, annoys the .01%. They don't want his message getting out. There's a reason for that, as well.

    HotFlash , April 20, 2016 at 8:07 am

    Hmm, I took this as another mark of Bernie's genius. I figure that the 'free public college education' was not only a demonstrable and desirable social good but also a nice carrot to sell the FTT.

    Agree w/Teddy and others about the unfairness of a market that permits nano-second trading for the suitably connected. Secondary market trading beyond basic liquidity does not benefit the real economy. The beneficiaries are speculators and managers whose remuneration is tied to share prices - that is, useless eaters.

    Melk39 , April 20, 2016 at 8:54 am

    The reason it is being ignored is because Bernie touted the tax as way to pay for college for all. The tax on financial transactions makes most people's eyes glaze over, but they are very interested in the idea of free college. So I get the hook, but this means the the tax debate never occurs, all the discussion is about free college. Now both ideas have merit, but each should have its own debate. It would be also a way to build a consensus around a broader policy of finally reigning in Wall Street, including bring back the best parts of Glass Stegall. That's how you get the discussion going. Decouple and debate.

    gadawson , April 20, 2016 at 9:09 am

    The benefits of free academic tuitions are so large they are inestimable due to the myriad of benefits that would cascade throughout the economy. Why would anyone oppose such and how is such a plan pushed aside? Only through the greatest imbalance of invisible intransigent power the world has ever known.

    Doctor Duck , April 20, 2016 at 9:33 am

    This is an important idea, but I don't think I've ever heard at what point such a tax would be imposed. If a large majority of high-speed automated trading results in cancelled trades, it would be of little use in curbing that if it were only applied to completed transactions.

    HotFlash , April 20, 2016 at 12:23 pm

    The point is not necessarily to raise revenue (please, MMT anyone?) but to control behaviour. Putting a drag on HST would in itself be a public good. As I have said before, free tuition is a way to sell a tax on financial transactions. Debate all you like, but decoupling will lose the tax.

    Doctor Duck , April 20, 2016 at 12:59 pm

    I concur that a drag on HFT would be a public good. But my question doesn't imply raising revenue, rather how such a tax would be a drag on HFT in particular. A tax on transactions would (by definition it seems) not apply to cancelled transactions. So how would it impact the behavior of HFT, which relies heavily on cancelled trades, any more than it would any trading?

    Probably "quantized" settling as proposed in another comment would have a greater effect.

    steelhead23 , April 20, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    You are right. If the purpose of the tax is to discourage HFT, the tax should be levied on each and every bid, not just completed transactions. According to Eric Hunsader HFT traders pay big bucks so they can have millisecond faster access to the market – which they use to place multiple bids they never intend to complete, thereby manipulating price, creating volume interest where little exists, etc. To end HFT you would have to tax each bid (at an very small rate, say .01%).

    JSR , April 20, 2016 at 9:52 am

    Are things like ETF's included in this? I understand the need to curb many of the dangerous games of all the value detracting speculation and trading etc,. What I'm struggling with is I may make a few trades a year simply to rebalance my portfolio (amount of trades depends on whether markets are volatile or steady) once certain levels of over/under are reached. My rough calculation of this .05% tax, is it would cost me $500-$1000 maybe more a year. Not outrageous but a sizable enough increase for an infrequent trader/investor and I'm pretty sure, not part of the problem that is trying to be solved here. Plus, as if I'm not angry enough at Wall Street (I used to work in the industry, left of my own volition) it makes me wonder if I'm not being financially penalized for their greed and criminality. I want to support this but I hope there will be a little nuance (not too much though to ruin the whole purpose) to not ensnare everyone who makes a trade once in awhile.

    FluffytheObeseCat , April 20, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    "it would cost me $500-$1000 maybe more a year"

    Unlikely. I suspect the 0.5% mark is an initial bargaining position. What everyone seems to be anxious to forget (or have forgotten) is that Sen. Bernie "amendment king" Sanders has been in Congress for a loonnng time. If he's floating 0.5% in position papers, policy proposals, etc., it's because he's aiming to get 0.1 – 0.2% enacted. 200 bucks a year won't injure anyone who can manage to maintain a brokerage account.

    If the guy were truly the absent-minded, flyaway-haired nutty old dodderer the MSM wants him to be, he'd never have made it this far in life.

    Pat , April 20, 2016 at 9:57 am

    I realize that probably most of the objection to this is being fueled by the large houses own high frequency trading. I mean when you finance your own algorithms to figure out how to micro trade at high volume…you are talking about a lot of money. But I would also bet that some of it is the mutual fund and individual trader sector of the market. It isn't really about hurting the small investor, it is about discouraging the small investor from trading as frequently. They are seeing their commissions get cut, because Mom and Pop don't like the tax and put the brakes on. The stability of our economy and of our markets be damned, not to mention customer service.

    Jim A. , April 20, 2016 at 10:23 am

    My worry is that the financial giants would put enough lawyers on this to try and try to create a way to avoid paying this financial tax in pretty much the same way that they figured out how to not pay title recording fees. They would create an exchange (no doubt called something different) that would own large numbers of shares and trade some sort of "future" or agreement to transfer amongst each other. Can you have a 1 second future contract? .01 second?

    RUKidding , April 20, 2016 at 11:19 am

    You echo a concern I have about this as well. These parasites and their shyster lawyers are very good at finding or creating loopholes that benefits them, alone.

    That said, it's worth investigating and attempting to implement. It's equally worth more wide-spread discussion about why it's needed and what's happening, but I won't hold my breath on that score.

    There have been one or two programs highlighting these high speed transactions on NPR, fwiw, albeit I don't believe – no surprise – that any solution was suggested.

    RN , April 20, 2016 at 10:24 am

    More practical solutions will be (1) to delink capital gains tax from income tax and (2) to collect capital gains tax at source.

    Benedict@Large , April 20, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Correct. No tax by the sovereign issuer of the currency has as it's purpose the raising of revenue, of which the sovereign issuer already has an infinite supply. Taxes by the sovereign issuer merely serve to regulate demand.

    Of course, try to explain to anyone inside the beltway how their currency actually works, and they'll think you are crazy. They've been told incorrectly for 40 years, and DAMMIT! That's enough to make it right.

    Beniaminio , April 20, 2016 at 11:21 am

    Forgive my ignorance, but I don't see why a blanket transaction tax of 0.5% or whatever would be preferable to a transaction tax of 5-10% applicable to the actual bad actors, i.e., the high-frequency traders. It seems like it would be easy enough to assess a genuinely punitive tax against the actual "speculators" who are flipping shares over the course of single trading session, i.e., to tax both HFT and day-trading out of existence. I also fail to see how a transaction tax of general application would significantly inhibit insider trading.

    I think Reich is being a bit tone-deaf here. In a ZIRP environment, conservative investors are effectively foisted into the stock market, and are then reviled as speculators. Is it no longer politically acceptable for the little people to invest accumulated capital? We can't all live off of political consulting and paid speeches like former Clinton-era cabinet ministers.

    FluffytheObeseCat , April 20, 2016 at 3:30 pm

    Oh, please. I've been "in the market" in mutual funds and lesser amounts of directly held stock for 20 years. If I traded enough to generate +$200 in transaction taxes, it would be a sign that I was getting bad advice, & was stupid enough to take it. If Bernie's transaction tax were enacted, it would eradicate most institutional HFT efforts in under a year. Over a decade, it's greatest benefit may be in slowing the erosion of middle class wealth by reducing excessive trading and associated fee skimming.

    The guys in dress shirts in your local MSSB office in flyover are not actually your friends, and their service fees are much, much larger than they need to be in this era of electronic trading.

    Beniamino , April 20, 2016 at 11:07 pm

    Guys in dress shirts in flyover country? Uh …. what? I'm not sure I'm following but you appear to be saying that you've conducted less than $40,000 in stock & mutual fund trades over the course of twenty years; in other words you don't care about the actual merits of this transaction-tax proposal because you don't have any money to invest anyway. Not a particularly compelling argument. At any rate, I thought the point of the proposal was to curb rank speculation, not to discourage old ladies from buying utility stocks. So why not target the actual speculators?

    Chauncey Gardiner , April 20, 2016 at 11:30 am

    Sanders' proposal of a securities transaction tax is being ignored for the same underlying reason proposals to tax accumulated wealth have been ignored.

    "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -Balzac

    Carly , April 20, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    The bottom line of why this tax is ignored is the majority of people who vote doesn't understand how the markets work. So they don't understand how this would work and help. They keep voting for people who won't make any significant changes to our society. Hillary won't be any different she is going to be the same old horse leading the way. Sheeple --

    F. Korning , April 20, 2016 at 2:31 pm

    Cancelled and no-op trades wielded with impunity are the root of the HFT problem. I'm not sure why many here are claiming a tax wouldn't affect cancellations. The tax should be punitive especially for order cancellations under a reasonable holding period. It should also be much higher for non-listed OTC derivatives, repos, and all manner of exotic structured products, special vehicles, and dark pool (un)liquidity. The point is to force skin in the game.

    The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit , April 20, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Our gentle host wrote, "I want to clarify one key issue about a transaction tax. Its purpose is not to raise revenue. Its purpose is to discourage excessive trading, which is socially unproductive."

    Makes perfect sense – it's the old adage, "If you tax something, you get less of it. The more you tax, the less you get."

    And if the revenue generated covers enforcement costs, that's weevils in the porridge!

    Angry Panda , April 20, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    The bond part puzzles me to some extent. At least as applied to below investment grade stuff, because obviously Treasuries and IG are different animals.

    First, the whole "high speed, high frequency" thing. Much of the time, it really isn't. I mean, these are instruments that still trade through humans (via the phone or Bloomberg chat), and many of even $500 million plus issues don't trade very often, period. In many bonds probably the most volume you see is immediately after issuance, and that's more a matter of people either flipping a small allocation or topping up to get to their target, with the dealer often pretty much setting up the trades with their allocation strategy. So that's a different animal than straight-up speculation (high frequency or otherwise).

    Second, ok, you're "taxing" bonds effectively 1/8 (0.1%, but I'm rounding as bonds are actually quoted in eighths, maybe sixteenths sometimes), presumably paid by one or both counterparties (split equally between buyer and seller?). I…don't see how that is going to alter much of the trading that goes on. The bid-ask is effectively a bit wider, your mark when you buy something is a little lower (if you use bid-side), people complain more than usual. But High Yield is generally not something where paying up 1/8 is going to make or break your trading strategy, unlike with equities (where the high frequency guys play on fractions of fractions). At most you're looking at trades in "on the margin" issues having a tougher time getting done in stable markets (because in a hot market everyone pays up anyway, while in a rout there is often no bid, period).

    All a long way of saying, bonds – fine. Define the word "bonds". Treasuries? IG? HY? Structured? And you want to realize how much in revenues from that?

    Equities, on the other hand – no brainer. Tax away. If anything, tax them more than is currently proposed, because the point – to me – is not to raise revenue, but to severely disincentivize speculation (of either the high frequency or the regular kinds). Imagine, for example, if the tax was at 10% of the pre-commission trade value (i.e. just shares times price), payable by both buyer and seller. "But Panda, you'll destroy secondary equity trading!" Precisely, children, because at the end of the day most of such contributes absolutely nothing productive to either the society or the economy. Now, maybe I'm much more extreme than the consensus, but my point is that what Sanders is currently proposing is well within what the industry can "eat" without changing its behaviour too much, in my opinion.

    Lyle , April 20, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    Of course before deregulation of commissions the US had a private version of the financial transaction tax in terms of the fixed commissions. One way to compare is to look at commissions compared to the modern commission+ ftt. If the commissions were greater than unless you believe the market 30 years ago was defective it won't make a lot of difference.

    [May 01, 2016] Why I (Belatedly) Blew the Whistle on the SECs Failure to Properly Investigate Goldman Sachs

    Notable quotes:
    "... By James A. Kidney, former SEC attorney. Originally published at Watch the Circus ..."
    "... Pro Publica ..."
    "... Pro Publica's ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... Dodd-Frank at best imposes generalized rules about bank size and other generic issues, rather than addressing the kinds of fraudulent actions that actually occurred. It is appropriate for the SEC or Federal Reserve to impose narrower changes in corporate practice to address specific kinds of fraud. They are called "undertakings" and are often imposed by civil settlements with the SEC or in litigated relief. It did not happen with the Big Bank frauds. ..."
    "... The only reason to keep the information secret is to prevent embarrassment to the SEC or to those people who made decisions for the agency. Most of them left the SEC years ago. For public consumption, I have tried to redact all names of the non-supervisory personnel in the Division of Enforcement who worked on Goldman. I also must add that, as the emails show, for a period of time those dedicated investigators were excited about the notion of bringing at least a slightly broader action than their supervisors wanted. As is the case with much of the Division of Enforcement, the worker bees try hard and usually are fearless. It is their bosses who frequently suppress their enthusiasm for policy, political, or personal reasons. ..."
    "... The author is trying very hard to be nice to the point of being delusional. This is criminality and corruption through and through, and it didn't end in '08. Don't be sad… get mad. ..."
    "... This man has risked a lot to do what he did. He's lost more than many of you will realize. If he can't just crap on the old life and the old profession, please, cut the man a little slack. You don't want to be him. ..."
    "... James A. Kidney, former trial attorney with the Securities and Exchange Commission, retired from the SEC in 2014 at the age of 66 after 24 years working there. Looks like he had a full career, although had to put up with a lot of bullshit, and possibly soured some relationships on his way out. ..."
    "... Very similar situation here. Going on 50, unemployed in my chosen field, etc. And yes, its hard to just walk away sometimes… I have to keep my mind focused ahead instead of looking back. ..."
    "... I know other whistleblowers and internal dissenters who wound up losing their jobs who initially blame themselves, than come to accept that the system in which they operated was fundamentally corrupt, that even if some people locally really were trying to do the right thing, it was bound to either 1. go nowhere, 2. be allowed to proceed to a more meaningful level if it was cosmetic or served some larger political purpose or 3. got elevated because the organization was suddenly in trouble and they needed to burnish their cred in a big way (a variant of 2, except with 3, you might have a something serious take place by happenstance of timing). ..."
    "... (other whistleblowers) ..."
    "... (other whistleblowers) ..."
    "... (other whistleblowers) ..."
    "... (other whistleblowers) ..."
    "... the system in which they operated ..."
    "... (some employees) ..."
    "... 'investigating fraud' ..."
    April 24, 2016

    Yves here. Two things struck me about Jim Kidney's article below. One is that he still wants to think well of his former SEC colleagues. I know other whistleblowers and internal dissenters who wound up losing their jobs who initially blame themselves, than come to accept that the system in which they operated was fundamentally corrupt, that even if some people locally really were trying to do the right thing, it was bound to either 1. go nowhere, 2. be allowed to proceed to a more meaningful level if it was cosmetic or served some larger political purpose or 3. got elevated because the organization was suddenly in trouble and they needed to burnish their cred in a big way (a variant of 2, except with 3, you might have a something serious take place by happenstance of timing). Kidney does criticize corrosive practices, particularly the SEC stopping developing its own lawyers and becoming dependent on the revolving door, but his criticisms seem muted relative to the severity of the problems.

    Number two, and related, are the class assumptions at work. The SEC does not want to see securities professionals at anything other than bucket shops as bad people. At SEC conferences, agency officials are virtually apologetic and regularly say, "We know you are honest people who want to do the right thing." Please tell me where else in law enforcement is that the underlying belief.

    By James A. Kidney, former SEC attorney. Originally published at Watch the Circus

    The New Yorker and Pro Publica websites today posted an article by Pro Publica's Jesse Eisinger about the de minimis investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into the conduct of Goldman Sachs in the sale of derivatives based on mortgage-backed securities during the run-up to the Great Recession of 2008. The details of the SEC's failure to aggressively pursue Goldman in the particular investigation, Abacus, and its refusal to investigate fully misconduct by Goldman and other "Too Big to Fail" banks, stands not only as a historic misstep by the SEC and its Division of Enforcement, but undermines the claim that the Obama Administration has been "tough on Wall Street." The Pro Publica version contains links to a few of the documents I provided.

    No one in authority who was involved in the Goldman investigation ever gave me an explanation for why the effort was so slight. Mr. Eisinger's article doesn't offer any explanation from the one investigation participant brave enough to comment. The details of the investigation into Abacus at my level as trial counsel, which I provided to Pro Publica earlier this year, compels the conclusion that the SEC, its chairman at the time, Mary Schapiro, and the leadership of the Division of Enforcement were more interested in a quick public relations hit than in pursuing a thorough investigation of Goldman, Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan and other large Wall Street firms.

    Although the emails and documents I produced to Pro Publica stemming from my role as the designated (later replaced) trial attorney for the Division of Enforcement are excruciatingly boring to all but the most dedicated securities lawyer, even a lay person can observe that the Division of Enforcement was more anxious to publicize a quick lawsuit than to follow the trail of clues as far up the chain-of-command at Goldman as the evidence warranted. Serious consideration also never was given to fraud theories in any of the Big Bank cases stemming from the Great Recession that would better tell the story of how investors were defrauded and who was responsible, due either to dereliction or design.

    Instead, the SEC restricted its investigation to the narrowest theory of liability, had to be pressed (by me) to go even one short rung above the lowest level Goldman supervisor in its investigation (which took months to push through, though investigative subpoenas are frequently issued on far less in far smaller cases) and finally dropped other investigations of Goldman in return for a $550 million settlement announced July 15, 2010. To my knowledge (I retired in March 2014), the SEC never again pursued Goldman for its mortgage securities fraud or other major fraud. There is no evidence on the SEC website that it did so.

    Nearly six years later, long after the statute of limitations for securities fraud expired and individuals, pension funds and corporate entities are no longer able to bring private actions against the Big Banks, the Department of Justice announced another settlement with Goldman for its deceptive conduct in the sale of mortgage-backed securities. In this one, Goldman agreed to pay more than $5 billion "in connection with its sale of residential mortgage-backed securities."

    At a minimum, it can be said that the SEC left 90 percent of the money on the table at a time when a more aggressive investigation of the company, as well as others, could have counted for something by disclosing, in a detailed court complaint, Wall Street wrongs that might have helped policy makers better address the subject and allow damaged individuals and entities to bring their own lawsuits.

    It is very important to emphasize emphatically several points. First, I have zero evidence, and would be very surprised, if any of the individuals at the Division of Enforcement, including senior supervisors or the SEC chairman or associate commissioners, acted unlawfully or were motivated principally to protect Goldman and other big banks. All of these people appeared well-intentioned from their point of view, even they never really explained, to me, or to many others at the Commission, their motives in limiting investigations. The most senior level supervisors left more lucrative jobs in the private sector to head the Division of Enforcement, taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice. (They then returned to even more lucrative employment or even more high-profile public positions.) All of them were gentlemen. These factors make it all the more surprising that I never got a clear answer as to why the investigation was so constipated, as it obviously was. Its range was clearly limited from the outset: we will sue the bank and not look hard for evidence of individual participation beyond the lowest levels.

    By the same token, it is unfair to assume as a fact that any of the individuals at Goldman not sued, or anyone at Paulson & Co., violated the securities laws, civilly or criminally. Like any citizen, they are entitled to a day in court. Absent such opportunity, they are innocent of any wrongdoing. Arguments in my internal correspondence that evidence was sufficient to sue should be viewed only as that - arguments.

    So my point in releasing these documents to Pro Publica is not to chastise or hold up to public criticism those involved at the SEC, Paulson & Co. or Goldman, though criticism of the process and of the underlying financial conduct certainly is inevitable. All of these institutions have substantial influence in the investment industry. Rather, it is to bring to light the actual conduct of one of several SEC investigations into Big Bank fraud leading up to the 2008 financial crisis.

    As I told Mr. Eisinger when I met him, I hoped he would go to the individuals in charge of the SEC investigation at the time and find out why the investigation was so limited. I have spent six years wondering what is the true answer to that question. Perhaps there were sound reasons, other than the urge to get out a quick press release, which led experienced criminal prosecutors with histories in Wall Street to smother a major investigation by limiting it to the lowest level employee possible, to express total resistance to even investigating further up the chain of command, and ignoring without serious explanation and analysis what I and others, including my own immediate supervisors, viewed as the more appropriate theory for civil prosecution. I hope there are such reasons. As a trial attorney at the SEC for over 20 years, I bled SEC blue. I believed that the agency usually tried to do the best it could, using analog era procedures and processes to combat fraud in a digital age. I am saddened to release this information. But the notion that "the Administration was tough on Wall Street" must be addressed by facts, not press releases and self-serving interviews, else the system's problems cannot be adequately addressed and repaired to deal with the next financial crisis.

    Not only is the issue of how the financial sector enforcement agencies handled the wrongs of the Great Recession an important political issue, but it is important to history. It is important that the facts not be shielded from the public so that we can all learn for the future. And it is a melancholy thought that, presented with the opportunity for a rigorous investigation and airing of facts in civil or criminal proceedings gone, history will be denied a fairer story of both the financial crisis itself and how the government responded.

    As many news organizations have noted , the taxpayer and Goldman shareholders will pay the combination of penalties and repayments in the DOJ settlement. No individual was named as liable in the civil settlement with Goldman nor in any of the other similar, and even larger, financial settlements entered into with the Department of Justice, all of which are vastly greater than what the SEC obtained in its "quick hit, one and done" enforcement actions. DOJ must be credited with what appears to have been a far more thorough investigation of wrongdoing than the SEC performed, but the public is properly mystified that no individuals were charged, criminally or civilly, although the DOJ press releases contains the usual caveat that "the investigation continues."

    The settlements with Goldman and other Big Banks were resolved under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), which allows the Feds to ignore the normal five-year statute of limitations for fraud, but does not permit suit by private party victims. As has been the practice with DOJ when dealing with Wall Street, no criminal charge was brought. In fact, no complaint was filed in any of these cases. Instead, DOJ entered into contractual arrangements with the banks. Failing to fulfill their obligations under the contract would subject them to civil enforcement as a breach of contract matter, not a contempt charge in federal District Court.

    Contrary to claims by politicians, it is clear that the Obama Administration has not been hard-hitting on Wall Street fraudsters. The large fines obtained by the Department of Justice, while a short-term pinch, are simply a cost of doing business. Relying on fines to penalize rich Wall Street banks, which, after all, specialize in making money and do it well, if not always honestly, is like fining Campbell Soup in chicken broth. It costs something, but doesn't change anything in the way of operations or personnel.

    Despite billions in fines representing many more billions in fraud, the enforcement agencies of the United States have been unable to find anyone responsible criminally or civilly for this huge business misconduct other than a janitor or two at the lowest rung of the companies. Nor have they sought to impose systemic changes to these banks to prevent similar frauds from happening again.

    Yessir, according to the Obama administration, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citibank and other institutions made their contributions to tearing down the economy, but no one was responsible. They are ghost companies. And nothing needs to be done to prevent such intent or dereliction in the future.

    Law enforcement by contract? Clearly, the banks made it a condition of settlement that no complaint, civil or criminal, be filed. That might gum up the works by requiring state regulators to take action under their own rules, or cause other collateral consequences.

    Ah, say the defenders of the status quo, don't forget about Dodd-Frank, the unwieldy legislation passed by feckless Democrats influenced by big money contributors and their own fear of appearing too aggressive (a particular Democratic Party contagion). Dodd-Frank was and is a virtual chum pool for Wall Street lawyers and lobbyists, leaving most of the substance to regulatory agencies such as the SEC and the Federal Reserve, who for years have been significantly captured by those they are supposed to regulate. The private sector lawyers and lobbyists have open doors to these places to "help" write the rules and add complexity, which they later complain about in court, challenging those same rules as too complex.

    Dear citizen, just remember this: complexity favors fraud, and certainly favors Wall Street and corporate America. You can't understand the rules and neither can Congress or all but the most dedicated experts. That's a lot of room to disguise misdeeds. To take a current example, which came to my attention just before completing this post, Congress is trying to use sentencing reform, generally thought of as intending to remove inequities from the criminal justice system, to also make it even tougher to prosecute and punish white-collar crime. Is this why the Koch Brothers suddenly show such public attention to the poor and needy by favoring such legislation? See this discussion of adding the "mens rea" requirement to such legislation. Burying an important but legalistic issue in otherwise liberal leaning legislation is a current example of disguising lax enforcement of white-collar crime in a complicated package. As one Democratic congressman suggested, how can a liberal vote against sentencing reform? The explanation of the badger buried in the woodpile is too complicated for the average voter.

    Not coincidentally, adding a requirement to the law that it is a defense to either the crime itself or to sentencing that "I didn't know my acts were against the law" is a get out of jail free card as the complexity of laws addressed to ever more sophisticated business misconduct grows. Wall Street clearly has shown no shame in using the defense that "no one knew". Can't blame them. It has worked so far. Maybe they don't even need new legislation.

    I was told repeatedly when I entered the Goldman investigation that synthetic CDOs were just too complex for me to understand. Of course, it appeared to be plain vanilla fraud selling a product designed to fail but nicely packaged for chumps to buy. Claims of complexity hide many easily understood sins.

    At least for the major sins, we don't need even more complex regulations. Instead, put leadership in place who will aggressively enforce the laws we have already. That would raise plenty of eyebrows and put some bums in prison, or at least make them pay civil and criminal penalties personally. As many have noted, prison or, at least, personal financial liability, beats corporate concessions every time and pays back in future reluctance to break the law. The country should try it sometime.

    So back to little me, a small and ineffective cog in the larger system. Why is this release of documents so long after the investigation?

    My friends know that I have been upset since 2010 about the way the SEC handled the Goldman case and, in my view (confirmed by other trial lawyers), that it became a template for other SEC civil suits against the Big Banks. In 2011 I wrote an anonymous letter to The New York Times complaining about the lack of investigative effort by the Division of Enforcement and the impact of the "revolving door" bringing Wall Street defense lawyers into the highest reaches of the SEC. This is a practice that Obama has continued at most departments and agencies having to do with the financial system, following in Bill Clinton's footsteps. The New York Times letter was based entirely on publicly available information.

    I was dismayed to not find any follow-up to my letter in The New York Times . I gave up trying to bring attention to the investigative lassitude of the agency. Interest appeared to be over.

    A year after I retired, I sent a copy of the letter to The Times , under a cover letter identifying myself. One of the addressees on the original letter called and told me the original letter never was received. The caller suggested that was because I misaddressed it to the old location of The New York Times . I felt foolish, of course, but I guess that in 2014, when the letter was finally received, The Times didn't see fit to follow-up the information even knowing its source. This was another indication to me that the time for debate over the law enforcement treatment of wrong doers on Wall Street had passed.

    Once, years earlier and only for a brief time, the SEC was an agency that was at least sometimes fearless of Wall Street institutions. In those days, the directors of the Division of Enforcement were home-grown, not imported from Wall Street law firms. After 1996, that ended. Every director since has been nurtured as a Wall Street defense lawyer. The decline in performance has followed an expected arc. No one has seemed bothered by this. It seems the phrase "lawyers represent client interests" is sufficient explanation to insulate this practice from critics. In this view (pushed by lawyers), lawyers are the only people in America who are not influenced by their work experience, including friendships and defense of client practices. They are SO exceptional! So give it up, Jim, I finally told myself. It's the nature of Washington to put foxes in hen houses and claim they are protecting the fowl.

    But in April 2015, Sen. Bernie Sanders announced his presidential candidacy, based principally on anger over how Wall Street has escaped being held seriously responsible for its misdeeds. If you credit Sanders with nothing else, praise him for not letting go of the notion of justice for those who suffered and those who caused pain and anger for millions. Yes, the banks are not solely responsible for the Great Recession, but they contributed more than their fair share and leveraged immensely the damage initially caused by others.

    Sanders was not treated seriously. The publications I read made it clear that Sanders was, like Donald Trump, a flash in the pan. Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton would be nominated. Anger against Wall Street and inequality were issues, but not worthy vehicles for a political campaign. Nothing here. Move on.

    It turns out that the ravages caused by Wall Street are the gift that keeps on giving. As Sanders campaigned with far more success than predicted, and Secretary of State Clinton defended President Obama as "tough on Wall Street," it was evident that my small contribution to correcting the record might be timely.

    So here it is.

    Do I think Obama is responsible for the ineffective and embarrassing lay downs at the SEC and DOJ? Yes, I do. I have no idea if the President communicated to his law enforcement appointees that they should "go easy on Wall Street." Rarely is such overt instruction necessary in Washington. But it is not hard to believe that in some fashion he did send such signals, since he came into office with a mantra of letting bygones be bygones, including in the far more important arena of the false narratives for invading Iraq.

    In any event, the chairman of the SEC and the attorney general are appointed by the President. At a minimum, we can say with certainty that Obama was satisfied with their performance. It is difficult to conceive that, as a Harvard educated lawyer who also taught law at the University of Chicago, it never crossed his mind how massive civil or criminal misconduct could go on without the supervision or knowledge of at least mid-level executives. Certainly, the public criticism was brought to his attention. His response was to create a joint task force on the subject of fraud in general. Its main visible public function is to collect all the press releases on fraud prosecutions, including small-time fraud, on one website . It also offers advice to "elders" on how to avoid fraudulent scams. The pro forma mention of the task force in DOJ's announcement of the Goldman settlement signals that the Task Force doesn't do much. Again, law enforcement by press release.

    The alternative possibility, never mentioned because it is preposterous, is that big Wall Street firms so lack supervision of their lower level employees that fraud on a huge scale can be conducted without the knowledge of even mid-level executives. At the SEC, at least, such a conclusion should call for application of its "regulatory" function to impose supervisory conditions on the banks. No such action was ever undertaken. Instead, it was "pay up some money and nevermind."

    Dodd-Frank at best imposes generalized rules about bank size and other generic issues, rather than addressing the kinds of fraudulent actions that actually occurred. It is appropriate for the SEC or Federal Reserve to impose narrower changes in corporate practice to address specific kinds of fraud. They are called "undertakings" and are often imposed by civil settlements with the SEC or in litigated relief. It did not happen with the Big Bank frauds.

    I believe that the American public is entitled to accurate information about how their government works, including the important regulatory agencies. One way to do this is to fully disclose how the sausage is made, especially when the process is defective. Self-promoting press releases swallowed by a fawning business press is not sufficient. I knew I would not disclose any non-public information about the Goldman investigation while the lawsuit against Fabrice Tourre was pending. He was the one guy at Goldman the SEC sued personally. In fact, I think he was the only guy employed by any of the big banks sued personally. (Another fellow who worked with the banks - not for the banks - was sued in another case. He was found not liable, with the jury asking how come higher-ups were not in the dock and urging the investigation to continue. It wasn't.) The Tourre case concluded a few years ago with a verdict against the defendant. All appeals are exhausted. The statute of limitations has expired for private actions. Disclosure of the information I had can do no harm to the public or to pending litigation.

    The only reason to keep the information secret is to prevent embarrassment to the SEC or to those people who made decisions for the agency. Most of them left the SEC years ago. For public consumption, I have tried to redact all names of the non-supervisory personnel in the Division of Enforcement who worked on Goldman. I also must add that, as the emails show, for a period of time those dedicated investigators were excited about the notion of bringing at least a slightly broader action than their supervisors wanted. As is the case with much of the Division of Enforcement, the worker bees try hard and usually are fearless. It is their bosses who frequently suppress their enthusiasm for policy, political, or personal reasons.

    As final egotistical end note, I must say that, despite all of my personal reservations about his dedication to effective law enforcement in the financial sector, I voted for the President twice. I will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee. But I ask myself: Is this the best that two political parties given de facto monopoly over selection of presidential candidates can do?

    Whoever is nominated and elected, Republican or Democrat, I hope that he or she will recognize the need to end the practice of hiring Wall Street personnel to run our financial enforcement agencies. They should begin by looking to home-trained personnel to lead the major departments and agencies, such as Treasury, the SEC and the Department of Justice, including the chief of the Antitrust Division. These are the people who are responsible for these institutions on a daily basis and also understand the nature and importance of their mission. They have a career stake in doing an effective job. Outsiders are, in general, more interested in resume polishing for the next private job. Additionally, much great talent leaves these agencies for their own more lucrative private careers when they see their own chances for advancement blocked by outsiders or their energies trying to fairly but aggressively enforce the law sapped by timid leadership.

    One party has chastised our government on every occasion for nearly 40 years and shows no intention of reining in Big Business or Wall Street. Directly or by implication, these attacks tarnish government employees in general, making a public service career less attractive to our most talented citizens. The other party has been indifferent or ineffective in its defense of civil service and has addressed financial sector wrongs by adding to the complexity of the system rather than cutting through it. As a result, some of our businesses are above the law.

    Something has got to change. It will. The question is, will it be for the better?

    Gaylord , April 24, 2016 at 4:40 am

    The author is trying very hard to be nice to the point of being delusional. This is criminality and corruption through and through, and it didn't end in '08. Don't be sad… get mad.

    James Levy , April 24, 2016 at 6:24 am

    When it's your career, you get sad.

    A little history: I was hired, first as an adjunct, then a tenure-track professor, by the interdisciplinary Freshman teaching unit at my old university. Two years before I would have come up for tenure (and gotten it) they axed the program and switched me, against its will, to the History Department. And they reset my tenure clock to zero. Long story short, they were never going to tenure me. So I slogged on and earned my pay and got my two kids through high school. By then, my wife wanted out of the suburbs and said she was leaving, preferably with me, but leaving. So we moved to the country. This cut me off from the academic life (and nice $72,000 a year paycheck) that I had struggled for years to enter and excel in.

    So what? So, It's gone. I'm cut off. My intended life's work is ruined. At 51 I'm an unemployed naval historian with two books and seven refereed journal articles and I can't get an interview for a full-time job at a community college. How painful is this? It's murder. Hurts all the time. No more exciting lectures to give. No more university library at my beck and call. No more access to journals. No more conferences. It's an occasional one-off course and driving a delivery van.

    This man has risked a lot to do what he did. He's lost more than many of you will realize. If he can't just crap on the old life and the old profession, please, cut the man a little slack. You don't want to be him.

    H. Alexander Ivey , April 24, 2016 at 6:58 am

    Mr Levy, I am very sympathetic to your situation – long story short, I was in the forefront of the late 70s to the present, layoffs in various industries where I found myself game-fully employed. I too, no longer believe I will ever be employed full time at any job.

    But I argue that it is not that the gods do not favour us; it is that we are the outcome of bad gov't policies and unregulated (regulated for the consumer) businesses practices. Hence, my lack of sympathy or willingness to tolerate breast beating (see my April 24, 2016 at 6:44 am posting) by those who put us here.

    ahimsa , April 24, 2016 at 7:48 am

    @James Leavy

    Not sure I follow you?

    James A. Kidney, former trial attorney with the Securities and Exchange Commission, retired from the SEC in 2014 at the age of 66 after 24 years working there. Looks like he had a full career, although had to put up with a lot of bullshit, and possibly soured some relationships on his way out.

    From Bloomberg: SEC Goldman Lawyer Says Agency Too Timid on Wall Street Misdeeds

    inode_buddha , April 24, 2016 at 7:57 am

    Very similar situation here. Going on 50, unemployed in my chosen field, etc. And yes, its hard to just walk away sometimes… I have to keep my mind focused ahead instead of looking back.

    Are there any yacht clubs nearby you? There is like 4 of them within 10 minutes of me (I'm on the Great Lakes) You could teach sailing and rigging no doubt. Bonus: Union crane operators are required to know their rigging – they may need teachers too.

    Norb , April 24, 2016 at 10:54 am

    More than ever, I am convinced the capitalist system needs to be rejected as the means determining how goods and services are delivered. The injustice and inequality generated are too great. Finding a positive expressive outlet for this dissatisfaction will require leadership- and a new vision for the future.

    The amount of social damage being inflicted by the elite is almost beyond comprehension. Since they have successfully insulated themselves form the consequences of their actions, they remain aloof and uncaring for the plight of ordinary people, not to mention the health of the planet. This system will continue to cut more and more people off from the benefits of collective social action and effort. The work of the many, supporting the desires of the few cannot stand.

    We all have to decide the level of inequality we are willing to live with. How people answer this question will naturally sort them into common communities. Leave the isolated gated communities to the elite. Careerism, like capitalism, is a dead end if your position cannot be guaranteed. The amount of talent and passion for work wasted under the current system is another undercounted fact. Sustainability and democracy are not compatible with capitalism.

    Getting mad is only the beginning. The anger must be directed in some productive fashion. Any resistance to the current order must have broad social support and that support only has strength if self-reliant. Building these self-reliant structures is what the future will hold. If the plutocrats can build a world for themselves, why can't the common man. It only takes work,discipline, and control over the means of production.

    Workers without power, influence, and the means to obtain life necessities are slaves. Is the best the human mind can conceive a life of benevolent serfdom?

    By the way, I believe I would enjoy sitting in on one of your lectures. I'm sure I would learn much- and be a better man for it.

    local to oakland , April 24, 2016 at 11:43 am

    @James Levy … sorry to hear. I know a few who have been chewed up by the academic meat grinder. I hope you can find a productive outlet for your scholarship. Exile is hard.

    I have been helped by the stoics, and Dante.

    Ben , April 24, 2016 at 10:01 am

    And now GS is caught in the middle of 1MDB bond issue scandal using fraudulent and information.

    H. Alexander Ivey , April 24, 2016 at 6:44 am

    "The explanation of the badger buried in the woodpile is too complicated for the average voter."

    That's it! Stop right there! I will not let you (speaking to the author) BS your guilty conscience over my internet link. The average voter clearly knows they are getting screwed, that Wall Street and the voter's own bank is ripping the voter off, and most clearly, that the justice department, from state and local to federal, is enabling this injustice.

    You sir, are swimming with sharks. Your morality is "is it legal?", your justification is "for the shareholder". Therefore, you refuse to see the mendacity and instead excuse it for ignorance.

    JACK SKWAT , April 24, 2016 at 7:39 am

    I know other whistleblowers and internal dissenters who wound up losing their jobs who initially blame themselves, than come to accept that the system in which they operated was fundamentally corrupt, that even if some people locally really were trying to do the right thing, it was bound to either 1. go nowhere, 2. be allowed to proceed to a more meaningful level if it was cosmetic or served some larger political purpose or 3. got elevated because the organization was suddenly in trouble and they needed to burnish their cred in a big way (a variant of 2, except with 3, you might have a something serious take place by happenstance of timing).

    Wow, that's a mouthful – and it's only one sentence. Whilst I love your pieces, I've noticed that many of the articles – at least the run up summation to the articles – tend to be written in a stream-of-consciousness style that, frankly, is hard to digest. This seems to be the case more now than in the past. I don't know if you're harried or on an impossible schedule, but could you please make your syntax easier to read? Thanks from a long-time reader and donator.

    readerOfTeaLeaves , April 24, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    Because it's a Sunday and I have time to goof off, one potential revision - b/c I believe what Mr Kidney has to say is important enough for me to spend a few minutes on one potential suggestion. I've amended and added what I hope are accurate meanings:

    ----
    Focusing on these as the key subject /verb pairs:
    I know (other whistleblowers)
    (other whistleblowers) [lost their jobs]
    (other whistleblowers) [blamed themselves – initially]

    (other whistleblowers) [finally… accept]
    the system in which they operated … [was corrupt]
    … even if… (some employees) tried to [be competent]

    (It - there's a problem with 'it' as the subject, because we are unclear what 'it' refers back to - I'll interpret 'it' as 'investigating fraud' ) was bound to…
    -------------–

    I know other whistleblowers and internal dissenters. They wound up losing their jobs.
    Initially, they blamed themselves, until they finally came to accept that the system in which they operated was so fundamentally corrupt that they could not retain a sense of their own integrity while working within the organization.

    Despite the fact that some people really were trying to do the right thing, for reasons that I will explain, investigating fraud was bound to go in one of only three directions:
    1. fraud would not be investigated at all,
    2. fraud investigation would serve the agency's need for better public relations - in other words, the appearance of fraud investigation would be allowed to proceed, but only if it was merely cosmetic (or served some larger political purpose), or else
    3. fraud investigation became temporarily elevated, but only because the organization* was suddenly in trouble – and consequently, needed to burnish its credibility by actually investigating fraud.

    (Although 3 is a variant of 2, in the third option, credible fraud investigation could occur if, and only if, political necessity enabled competent SEC employees to actually investigate fraud in order to maintain the reputation of the SEC).

    [NOTE: *It's not entirely clear here whether 'the organization' is the target business, or whether it is the SEC (which would need to burnish it's cred in the face of bad publicity)]
    ------------

    Not sure how close I came to the author's intended meanings, but I thought that I'd give it a shot.

    Yves Smith Post author , April 24, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    The sentence parses correctly even though it is long. Stream of consciousness often does not parse correctly, plus another characteristic is the jumbling of ideas or observations. The point is to try to recreate the internal state of the character.

    For instance, from David Lodge's novel "The British Museum Is Falling Down":

    It partook, he thought, shifting his weight in the saddle, of metempsychosis, the way his humble life fell into moulds prepared by literature. Or was it, he wondered, picking his nose, the result of closely studying the sentence structure of the English novelists? One had resigned oneself to having no private language any more, but one had clung wistfully to the illusion of a personal property of events. A find and fruitless illusion, it seemed, for here, inevitably came the limousine, with its Very Important Personage, or Personages, dimly visible in the interior. The policeman saluted, and the crowd pressed forward, murmuring 'Philip', 'Tony', 'Margaret', 'Prince Andrew'.

    More generally:

    The Stream of Consciousness style of writing is marked by the sudden rise of thoughts and lack of punctuations.

    The sentence may be longer than you like but this is not stream of consciousness. A clear logical structure ("first, second, third") is the antithesis of stream of consciousness.

    fiscalliberal , April 24, 2016 at 8:13 am

    I fail to see why fraud is not prosecuted. We can get cute with fancy words but fraud is clear and simple. Also – Enron results in SARBOX which seems to be clearly ignored. Yves – do we know of any SARBOX prosecutions? Clinton started deregulation, Bush implemented deregulation and Obama maintains it. No wonder the kids are mad. The financial industry makes the Koch brothers look like pikers.

    Yves Smith Post author , April 24, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    There is actually a high legal bar to prosecuting fraud.

    I have written at length re Sarbox and the answer is no. And under Sarbox, you don't need to prosecute, you can start with a civil case and flip it to criminal if you get strong enough evidence in discovery. There was only one case (IIRC, with Angelo Mozilo) where the SEC filed Sarbox claims, one in which it also filed securities law claims. The judge threw out the Sarbox claims with no explanation. I assume it was because the judge regarded that as doubling up: you can do Sarbox or securities law (the claims to have some similarity) but not both. But the SEC as it so often does seems to have lost its nerve after that one.

    afisher , April 24, 2016 at 9:22 am

    Interestingly, the SEC has been warned about more of the same type of fraud: https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-16-15/s71615-60.pdf

    I don't know if an election would have consequences and if a new administration headed by Sanders would make it the SEC more responsible to the taxpayers and not the investors / banks.

    It only took a decade for Markopolos to have his ponzi scheme information read by SEC.

    diptherio , April 24, 2016 at 9:48 am

    I want to like this guy, I really do. But then he goes and says stuff like this:

    The most senior level supervisors left more lucrative jobs in the private sector to head the Division of Enforcement, taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice. (They then returned to even more lucrative employment or even more high-profile public positions.) All of them were gentlemen. These factors make it all the more surprising that I never got a clear answer as to why the investigation was so constipated, as it obviously was.

    So he doesn't understand how the revolving door works…or he does but he's being purposefully obtuse about it. Sacrifice my ass! Gentleman my heiny! And claiming that there's no proof of criminality when, as is pointed out above, Sarbanes-Oxley was obviously violated isn't helping things either.

    Listen dude, pick a side. It's either the American people or Wall Street crooks and their abettors in government. You don't get to have it both ways. This kind of minimization and wishy-washyness is only helping the crooks. More disappointing than I exepected.

    diptherio , April 24, 2016 at 9:59 am

    I mean, at least he lays blame at Obama's feet, and calls the fraud what it is: fraud. Good on him!

    …But then he pulls out the "vote for Dems no matter what they do!" line and I just shake my head….

    polecat , April 24, 2016 at 1:37 pm

    diptherio……. excuse me for a momen--BARFFFF!!!!!!-- Whew ……… that felt better !! ……….

    yes …I agree….these kinds of articles are nothing more than defensive measures against a growing public rage !!!

    bu…bu…but Just Us !!

    diptherio , April 24, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    these kinds of articles are nothing more than defensive measures against a growing public rage !!!

    I don't actually agree. I think the guy feels a little guilty for not doing more, now he's trying to salve his conscience. Still, he can't quite bring himself to admit that the people he was working for may well have been criminals. They were just so nice!

    Self-reflection is not comfortable, and most people don't have much tolerance for it. I think this guy's legitimately trying to do the right thing (not cover up for criminality) it's just that it's really psychologically difficult to admit certain aspects of reality. It's not like he's the only one.

    polecat , April 24, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    I find it telling that suddenly now (within the last year or so) that all these people ( people in high finance, their underlings, traders, hedge funders, and other assorted enablers of massive fraud upon the general public, are suddenly having a 'come to hayzeus' epiphany! I'm not buying whatever faux sincerity they're trying to project…….

    They've screwed millions of trusting people with their fraudulent grifting!

    reslez , April 24, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    > I find it telling that suddenly now (within the last year or so) that all these people […], are suddenly having a 'come to hayzeus' epiphany!

    Especially when it comes after a fat retirement and a lengthy career of going along. I have much more respect for people who really did put their daily bread on the line, and there are plenty of those people, a lot of whom Obama sent to jail. So, yeah, great, you finally told the truth… but where were you when the country needed you to speak out?

    perpetualWAR , April 24, 2016 at 11:32 am

    How about where the guy said "until proven guilty, they are innocent." Hahahahahahaha

    Crooks, the lot of them.

    diptherio , April 24, 2016 at 12:59 pm

    Couldn't we use civil forfeiture to go after them regardless of whether we can prove any actual crime? What's good for the average citizen is surely good for the elite banker…

    polecat , April 24, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    …but you just might need some of those 'Yehadis' to back you up ;-)

    reslez , April 24, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    It's a good thing they're gentlemen. I don't know if I could handle all the looting and self-dealing if it came from common ruffians. Truly we are fortunate to be in such hands, my fellow countrymen!

    ChrisPacific , April 26, 2016 at 12:36 am

    Yes, I had trouble getting past that line as well. Either he is being ironic or he has a massive blind spot on that point.

    Lars Jorgensen , April 24, 2016 at 10:00 am

    According to Bill Black in a ted talk 2014. After the Savings and loans debacle, where the regulators went after the worst of the worst criminals, they made 30.000 criminal referrals and 1000 procecutions with a 90% succes rate.

    Now after the 2008 crisis, which was 70 times bigger causing 10 million job losses and costing 11 trillion dolllars, the Obama administration has not made one single criminal referral. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JBYPcgtnGE

    Today I fell over some information about the IMF, that the organization is exempt from legal prosecutions and taxes. Can this be true?

    From the article: "The employees who bare the IMF badge are pretty much exempt from all forms of government intervention. And, according to LisaHavenNews, the IMF "law book," the Articles of Agreement lists the reasons and requirements for exclusion from government mandate."

    http://www.truthandaction.org/revealed-imf-granted-complete-immunity-form-legal-prosecution-taxation/

    polecat , April 24, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    …..criminals are, as criminals do, as criminals take…..

    Steve in Dallas , April 24, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    Thank you, I was hoping someone would mention Bill Black.

    I'm a software/hardware product/business development engineer. In 2008, after 20 years of reading the WSJ and stunned by the sellout to Murdoch, I went to the internet independent media (IM) to follow the 'economic crisis'. Within a few months it was clear to me 1) I had learned nothing of substance reading the WSJ, 2) the U.S. MSM, education system, and government are thoroughly captured/corrupt.

    Being a 'reader' (note: I don't know anyone who reads non-fiction) for me this 'worldview transition' was quite natural, nothing really surprised me, and it was a big relief to discover such good information/analysis so easily available on the internet. However, eight years later, I have yet to meet a single person who has rejected the MSM or tuned in to what's happening, via the IM or otherwise. In fact, after leaving the university in 1990, I have yet to meet a single person with any basic understanding of (or the slightest interest in, or concern about) the extreme institutional criminality of the the Savings & Loan Crisis, Asian Economic Crisis, Technology Bubble, the 2008 crisis, or the many economic/military wars-of-aggression methodically destroying one government/economy/country after another.

    To me, nothing made the global/economic/organized/mafia criminality more clear than the 2008/2009 articles by Bill Black. Back then I again foolishly assumed people would rally behind Dr. Black to reestablish basic law enforcement against yet another obvious largest-ever "epidemic" of organized crime. Looking back, the highly organized (and very successful) criminality of the Paulson/Obama/Geithner/Bernanke/etc. cabal was truly an amazing operation to behold. Perhaps the most shocking news came in 2010 when numerous studies confirmed that the top 7% of Americans had already "profited" from the economic crisis, that the criminally organized upper class had not only increased their net wealth but, more importantly, had increased their rate of wealth accumulation relative to the bottom 93%. Still, to me, infinitely more amazing, the bottom 93% didn't, and still don't, seem to care, or if they do, they've done absolutely nothing to even start to fight back.

    Today, when reading these articles, I'm astounded how completely meek and 'unorganized' the bottom 93% are compared to the extremely vicious and organized top 7%. Year after year the wealthy elite, who's core organizing philosophy is "take or be taken, kill or be killed", increasingly wallow in dangerously high and unprecedented levels of wealth accumulated by blatant/purposeful/methodical/criminal/vicious looting while their victims, the bottom 93% 'working class', do absolutely nothing (what are they doing?…. other than playing with their phone-toys, facebook, video games, movies?). At this point, the main (only?) reason I continue to 'read' is to perhaps someday 'behold' the working class 93% attempting to educate themselves and consequently 'organize' to defend themselves.

    lightningclap , April 24, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    +1

    diptherio , April 24, 2016 at 5:21 pm

    Dude, you need to move to Austin, stat!

    lyman alpha blob , April 24, 2016 at 10:11 am

    I sympathize with Mr. Kidney and applaud him for doing what he can to try to rectify this abhorrent situation. I also applaud him for placing the blame squarely on Obama and his reasons for doing so are solid.

    What I find much harder to understand is why he would vote for Obama even in 2012 after it became apparent that Obama was ultimately responsible for stonewalling his investigation, and his complete willingness to vote for the corrupt Democrat party no matter what going forward.

    As long as enough people continue to have that attitude things will never change until the whole system comes crashing down. I'd much rather see an FDR-type overhaul of the system rather than a complete collapse as I'm rather fond of civilization. But I've come to expect the latter rather than the former so I'll be reading my weekly Archdruid report for the foreseeable future.

    Carolinian , April 24, 2016 at 10:25 am

    The most senior level supervisors left more lucrative jobs in the private sector to head the Division of Enforcement, taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice. (They then returned to even more lucrative employment or even more high-profile public positions.) All of them were gentlemen. These factors make it all the more surprising that I never got a clear answer as to why the investigation was so constipated, as it obviously was.

    Yes poor babies for that "significant personal sacrifice" that resulted in "even more lucrative" private employment. The author explains the problem then scratches his head over what it might be.

    In a rational world there would be a strict separation between the regulated and the regulators. The government would hire professional experts at decent salaries and they never ever would be allowed to then move on to jobs with the regulated. Clearly the assumption underlying our current–irrational–system is that these high status technocrats are "gentlemen" with a code of honor. Welcome to the 19th century. Those long ago plutocrats in their stately English mansions were all gentlemen and therefore entitled to their privileges by their superior breeding. They were the better sort.

    Meanwhile for lesser mortals it seems totally unsurprising when laws are ignored because you hire your police from the ranks of the criminal gangs. No head scratching needed.

    Alex morfesis , April 24, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    Reid Muoio (boss of kidney @ $EC) has a brother at a major tall bldg law firm whose job is to help fortune 500 companies deal with D & O insurance issues…so when in the article Muoio says "He" did not go thru the revolving door…it was fraud by omission…his brother sits on the opposite side of these private settlement agreements…

    so is Kidney unaware…leaving us to maybe accept he was never much of an investigator…or just forgot to point it out for us…

    The world is full of govt types who tell us TINA…

    The wealthy Elliott Spitzer told us he would have loved to help "the little people" but the OCC and then scotus with waters v wachovia…except scotus ruled only direct subsidiaries get protection and the OCC specifically said the trustee operations of OCC regulated entities are also not covered/protected…

    A really big shoe
    as Ed used to remind us….

    susan the other , April 24, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    Does anyone else think this was insider demolition – not just the failure to prosecute, but the whole financial implosion in the first place? Who writes up nothing but "shitty deals" – all the while saying to each other: IBGYBG and survives to slink away? They must have had a heads up that the financial system as we had known it in the 20th c. was done. They had a heads up and then they got free passes. My only question is, Wasn't there a better way to bring down the system, an honest way that protected us all? By the end of the cold war money itself had become an inconvenience because of diminishing returns. And now the stuff is just plain dangerous because everyone who got screwed (99%) wants their fair share still. It is paralyzing our thinking. Obama maintains he personally "prevented another depression". I honestly think he might be insane. What we need is a recognition that the old system was completely irrational and it isn't coming back. And most of us are SOL. Somebody is going to figure out how to maintain both the value and usefulness of money very soon, because we've got work to do.

    cnchal , April 24, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    The GFC was the first great financial crime of this millenium, and Goldman Sachs was at the epicenter. A heist of gargantuan proportions, they didn't even need a safecracker after Bernanke spun the dials and opened the door wide.

    Imagine if the FBI and the Mafia exchanged their top leaders every few months. That's what we have here with the SEC and Wall Street.

    Bernie Sanders: The business of Wall Street is fraud and greed.
    We can add to that. The business of the SEC is to provide cover.

    polecat , April 24, 2016 at 2:10 pm

    It's all about 'their protection'….not ours!

    and Obama………..

    He's a f#cking psychopathic peacock!

    KYrocky , April 24, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    In Yves intro she shares her views, first, that Kidney still wants to think well of his former SEC colleagues and his criticisms seem muted relative to the severity of the problems, and second, that there are class assumptions at work.

    The first is obvious, as the SEC is an utter failure in its responsibility to investigate and prosecute financial criminals. While Mr. Kidney devotes a fair amount of his passages pondering how it can be that no individuals within these financial institutions bear personal responsibility, Mr. Kidney fails to see the SEC through that same lens. To say Kidney's criticism of his coworkers is muted is an understatement. The individuals at the SEC are corrupt. The individuals at the Justice Department are corrupt. Probably all nice people: husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, friends, etc. Just like those folks at the financial institutions. Mr. Kidney cuts them slack because of his personal relationships with them. Mr. Kidney chooses to give them the benefit of doubt when the totality of their professional performance at the SEC make clear this cannot be true.

    With respect to class assumptions at work, Yves illustrates with the deference shown by SEC officials and investigators toward these financial criminals and their presumption that these individuals are honest. Mr. Kidney does share some of his disappointment in President Obama and Obama's administration but fails to properly connect the dots. In short, the lack of financial crime prosecutions is the result of a deliberate, planned and orchestrated effort.

    Mr. Kindney's investigations were prevented in going forward by his superiors. He was never given an explanation for this despite his asking. But Kidney believes his superiors are all good people.

    No, they are not. They are compromised people who have placed their career employment above their sworn duty. The fact that their bosses have done the same, as have those in the Justice Department as well as President Obama, should not diminish this fact. The phrase "class assumptions" is too euphemistic when describing a system where there is no justice for the victims of financial crimes, a system where the Justice Department and Administration coordinate to shield financial criminals based on where they work.

    This is America. In today's America the fact is certain individuals are above the law because our elected officials at all levels accept that this is okay. Victims of these individuals will be prevented access to their legal recourse, and that these criminals are protected from the highest level of our government down. This goes way, way beyond class assumptions.

    readerOfTeaLeaves , April 24, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    Yves has written extensively about how corporate interests have funded academic sinecures, as well as continuing legal education seminars attended by attorneys and judges. This is part of the fallout; if you want more, check out her section of ECONned where she explains how legal thinking was perverted by business interests.

    flora , April 24, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    Thanks for this post. Glad to see the SEC story is still alive. I'm sure the SEC and Obama would prefer it quietly go away.

    dk , April 24, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    As someone who has fallen on their sword more than once (and again recently), I just want to say that "placed their career employment above their sworn duty" is accurate but also oversimplifies the situation.

    People with families tell themselves that they balance performance of most (some?) of those duties, while shirking the balance in order to protect their families (a "good" (as in, expensive) college for the kids)… this actually comes down to sustaining their social status, in a culture (political as well as corporate) where loyalty is valued equal to and above performance, and honorable action is diminished, trivialized, even ridiculed; and not just within the context of the financial industry.

    This is not at all a defense of the choice, but the choice is made in a very class-stratified social context, and arises in that general context. People take out loans to buy cars and houses, they squirrel earnings away into investments (to avoid taxes) which they are reluctant to draw from… they feel less ready to abandon their addictive income streams for honor, and fudge their responsibilities. It's not isolated to regulators, or government, or even finance. It occurs so constantly and on so many fronts that addressing specific cases doesn't make a dent in the compromise of the entire culture. And that compromise is fueled and maintained by a very twisted set of ideas about money, and career, and social status (not to mention compromises in journalism, education, science, you name it).

    Synoia , April 24, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    I read Mr kidney as being very sarcastic. I could not write this with a serious sarcastic (Lawsuit Avoiding) view:

    The most senior level supervisors left more lucrative jobs in the private sector to head the Division of Enforcement, taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice. (They then returned to even more lucrative employment or even more high-profile public positions.)

    taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice

    Oh really? Must have hurt. And from a legal point of view does not appear libelous.

    polecat , April 24, 2016 at 6:12 pm

    Yeah…stubbed toes only…….

    [May 01, 2016] How the New York Times Helped Hillary Hide the Hawk

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Russ Baker, editor of WhoWhatWhy.com and author of "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years." Originally published at WhoWhatWhy ..."
    "... The Washington Post, Politico, CNN, ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... WhoWhatWhy' ..."
    "... Corrupt and "most" pro war – it's a two-fer. (When do we get to put "most" in front of corrupt?). ..."
    "... Fuck. DO we really want another fucking Neo-Con in the White House? ..."
    "... I think it's interesting to consider that Trump is ostensibly already to the left of Clinton on many issues. ..."
    "... I say it is time to leave the Democratic Party in droves. I know, I know. The Supreme Court nominees of a future president loom large. We have to force the hand. Rather than creep to fascism and the earth's destruction, we have to realize the destination is the same as long as we keep our eggs in the basket of the Democratic Party. Time to cut and run, time to build something new, time to vote the Green Party, purge it of its new agey image and begin building it into a democratically functioning party that holds its candidates to its platform. Sure, it will take time. But putting money, time, and energy into the other half of a duopoly that supports empire and neoliberalism is all wasted on the fool's game, which Sander's inadvertently, I think, has exposed as the endgame. Progressives have to realize it will not and cannot be changed. It's core supports those two branches of its world-view, and no matter how they manipulate its adherents by throwing table scraps to them in the form of "social" issues, it will never be something other than what it is. I know, I am done with it. ..."
    "... Clinton will not appoint a Supreme Court Justice that is beneficial to the planet. Her appointees will be pro-corporate whores that will play nice on identity issues. Trump will never get a judge through that will overturn Roe v Wade. The Republicans have shown that you can effectively limit the debate of a SCJ and have held appointments up while not in the majority. ..."
    "... The article by Mark Landler was brilliant and will keep me from voting for Clinton. I am tired of America being continually and fruitlessly at war. ..."
    "... Clinton is pushing for war with Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. How can anyone honestly discuss that Clinton is more sane (in foreign policy) than any person running for office? ..."
    "... Trump does not want war with Russia. Clinton wants to go to war with Russia. There is no other way to read her desire for a no fly zone. The only way to implement that policy is through a war with Russia. Clinton is not naive. She knows that any attempt to create a no fly zone will result in a conflict with Russia. ..."
    "... Yes, it is a topsy turvy system where the State Department, which one expects to be full of people seeking diplomatic solutions, is led by a warmonger, while many military leaders come off as more cautious. The later often have a better understanding of the futility of the situations they are thrown into and the true costs. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on April 29, 2016 by Yves Smith Yves here. It was hard not to notice the awfully convenient timing of the publication of the New York Times story, Top Gun: How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk . If you have not read it, you need to, ASAP. It makes painfully clear how much Hillary believes that the US should continue to act as if it were the worlds' sole superpower, when those days are past, is deeply enamored of aggressive military men, and is in synch with neocons. A sobering article.

    By Russ Baker, editor of WhoWhatWhy.com and author of "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years." Originally published at WhoWhatWhy

    Following a rough night in five East coast primaries, Bernie Sanders's path to the Democratic nomination is now more narrow and steep than it has ever been. But are these votes truly a referendum on who voters think the best candidate is - or are they merely a reflection of what the corporate media wants Democrats to think?

    In our critique of the media, we tend to focus on The New York Times , because it purports to be the gold standard for journalism, and because others look to the paper for coverage guidance. But the same critique could be applied to The Washington Post, Politico, CNN, and most other leading outfits.

    In prior articles, we noted how the Times helped Clinton walk away with most of the African-American vote - and therefore victory in many states - by essentially hiding Sanders' s comparably far more impressive record on civil rights .

    We also noted how it seemed that every little thing the Clinton camp did right was billboarded, while significant victories against great odds by Sanders were minimized .

    These are truly the kinds of decisions that determine the "conventional wisdom," which in turn so often determines outcomes.

    But there is more - and it is even more disturbing. Clinton's principal reason to claim she is so qualified to be president - aside from being First Lady and senator - is her four years as Secretary of State.

    What kind of a legacy did she leave? Perhaps her principal role was to push for military engagement - more soldiers in existing conflicts, and new wars altogether. WhoWhatWhy has written about these wars and their dubious basis .

    Wars are good business for Wall Street, for corporations in general, and for others who have been friendly to her and her campaign.

    Why was this never a bigger issue? Why was this not front and center with New York voters, a traditionally liberal group with a strong antipathy toward war and militarism? Certainly Sanders tried to bring up this issue, and doesn't seem to have succeeded. But mostly, this was a failure of the media, whose job it is to shine a strong spotlight.

    And why did The New York Times wait until two days after the New York primary to publish its biggest piece on this, when it could no longer influence that key contest? (It appeared first on its website and later in its Sunday magazine.)

    In fact, with the media declaring this probably now a Clinton-Trump race, highlighting her hawkishness turns it from a handicap to a strength. How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk was the digital equivalent of a huge front-page story.

    What the article makes clear - shockingly clear - is that Hillary Clinton is the most militaristic of any of the presidential candidates, even more than Ted Cruz.

    Was this delay in publication just a case of poor scheduling? Was it to ensure that the paper could not to be accused of influencing the primary outcome?

    The Times's editorials had already gotten behind her candidacy (without mentioning her refusal to release transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches, or her opposition to a paltry $15 an hour minimum wage). Would running Mark Landler's critical piece when it mattered have seemed like an implicit rebuke of the paper's own editorial board or interfered with its influence?

    How ironic it is that "liberal" Hillary Clinton has never met a war she did not like, and has never been held responsible for the chaos they caused and the policies she advocated - yet it is Bernie Sanders whose policies are being described as "unrealistic" by the same people who are shielding Clinton from criticism.

    What is the purpose of journalism if not to introduce material when it is relevant - and can have an impact? And one that is good for humanity - as opposed to the arms industry.

    The Times , Judith Miller et al, have certainly had an impact. Go here for one of WhoWhatWhy' s stories of some of the goriest details.

    timbers , April 29, 2016 at 6:26 am

    Corrupt and "most" pro war – it's a two-fer. (When do we get to put "most" in front of corrupt?). Yet I can visualize all my "enlightened" Boston "liberal" friends so fashionably and smugly rallying behind her w/o even one second thought of dissent because Republicans. Any criticism will be met with "delete" on FB friendship.

    divadab , April 29, 2016 at 7:02 am

    Fuck. DO we really want another fucking Neo-Con in the White House?

    RW Tucker , April 29, 2016 at 9:33 am

    With Trump using the word PEACE in his foreign policy speech, suddenly the world is upside down.

    RUKidding , April 29, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Yes, but at the end of the day, if you listen to Trump's garbled "message," he's really just about as NeoCon as Hillary. At least, that's what I'm getting from his very few "policy" speeches. He wants to "strengthen" our Military, which allegedly has been "weakened" by Obama. Of course, Trump conveniently ignores the fact the US Military budget is larger than ever, but what I take from that is that Trump wants to provide them with even more money.

    Trump talks about forcing our "allies" to pay us tributes to protect them, which will somehow enrich us back home. Good luck with that.

    Well I could go on, but Trump wants to blast ISIS into glass sand and all the rest of it. I don't see him as any much less NeoCon that Hillary or anyone else in the GOP. It's just that Trump dances around things

    Not a fan of Clinton. Never have been. Just saying re Trump…. not much different from what I can parse out.

    Ishmael , April 29, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    I have no problem asking other countries to pay for our cost of defense. Yes it is tribute but if they do not pay then we do not assist. Secondly, Trump in his latest speech basically through the Wolfowitz Doctrine under the bus. I say more power to that. Trump has said get out of NATO, I have no problem with that. Lastly, Trump has indicated that he would stop sticking the US's finger into Putin's eye. I am all for that. What has Hitlary said with regard to any of this.

    Trump seems far more pragmatic and he has to show strong defense because that is one of the key issues of the GOP. On the other hand all of the above issues would be good for the US and might start taking apart the military-industrial complex.

    OIFVet , April 29, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    Yes it is tribute but if they do not pay then we do not assist.

    And the hollowness of America's protection "guarantees" gets exposed there and then rather than a bit further down the road of imperial decline. I rather like your idea…

    Ishmael , April 29, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    I do not know where you get hollowness. Most of these countries are running a trade surplus with the US so why would we defend them for free. The US has never done this in the past (France and the UK were suppose to pay for their armaments and no one yelled that was hollow). I would rather we stayed out of the whole freaking thing but asking them to pay is a good start.

    OIFVet , April 29, 2016 at 4:43 pm

    These security guarantees are hollow because there is no wayin hell the US can actually defend a Baltic pipsqueak if Russia is truly determined to spank it for any multitude of transgressions. That's why these guarantees are hollow.

    Also too, the Euros are fast getting wise to the fact that US empire building is actually extracting high costs from them, your BS about the poor wittle used and abused US notwithstanding. When the US tries to actually extort cash as well the imperial jig will be well and truly up. Euro nationalism is on the rise, and in many places it does contain a fairly pronounced dislike for the trigger happy greedy vulgarians across the pond. And the migrant crisis is not helping US image at all.

    Ishmael , April 30, 2016 at 1:37 pm

    Vet – I believe under NATO the other NATO nations are also suppose to contribute to their defense and only 4 of the 28 countries are meeting their obligations. NATO was not set up for the US to do all of the heavy lifting.

    Personally, I say if Europe wants to go their own way more power to it. As far as Europeans having a dislike for Americans, maybe. It is my experience having lived on four continents (and several places in Europe) that many people disliked us before because we did things they could not. Now we have given then other reasons to dislike us because of our neo-con socialist leanings.

    But in total you miss my point which I find that Trump speaks a far more honest foreign affairs approach than Hitlary or any president since before Bill Clinton. If you disagree then make your point instead of just ranting.

    Don't get yourself all lathered up.

    oh , April 30, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    The MICC doesn't care as long the US taxpayer pays for the largesse in the name of defense!

    Anarcissie , April 29, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    I think it's interesting to consider that Trump is ostensibly already to the left of Clinton on many issues. Typically, Democrats trying for presidential nomination have pandered to the party's Left, and then run to the right for the general election. However, if Clinton wants to run to the right, she'll be deep in Republican territory, while the proggies are certain to wander off her home-front plantation. Except maybe for abortion, it appears that she has no home turf. It's a curious predicament for a Democrat to be in.

    divadab , April 29, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    Well it makes sense if you just consider that her husband was the best Republican President the Democrats ever elected. She's a DINO in all serious matters and a "liberal" in the kind of superficial stuff the MSM uses to differentiate and divide the people from themselves.

    ArkansasAngie , April 29, 2016 at 7:16 am

    No we don't … or, at least, I don't.

    I will vote for Trump before I vote for Clinton.

    This isn't a question of lesser of two evils. It is a question of who do you hate less?

    hreik , April 29, 2016 at 8:01 am

    Several weeks ago, there was a very pro-Birdie piece on the NYTime's front page. People saw it on line. Within several hours it was heavily edited and read more negative than positive. The part about John McCain praising Bernie was removed, ditto other parts.

    The paper has become something else altogether than it used to be. Like the DNC, TPTB would rather lose with Hillary than win w Bernie.
    http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/?_r=0

    NotTimothyGeithner , April 29, 2016 at 9:05 am

    Huh? Judith Miller and the post election 2004 warrantless wiretapping story beg to differ. They sat on a story in fear of influencing the election. They had the plagarist from Falwell U. The NYT has been trash for as long as the Patriots have run the AFC East.

    hreik , April 29, 2016 at 9:24 am

    true

    John Wright , April 29, 2016 at 9:51 am

    One can remember that Edward Snowden decided not to approach the Times with his story BECAUSE the Times sat on the warrantless wiretapping story.

    I still pay my $15 every 4 weeks for the NTTimes digital, but justify that partially because I can do archive searches.

    The Times Mea Culpa, spearheaded by Bill Keller, after the Judith Miller Iraq war reporting, was particularly good. The TImes had their Iraq war cake and then got to apologize for eating it.

    The digital edition frequently has thoughtful readers comments that effectively counter the latest Friedman, Kristof, Krugman, Brooks, Dowd, and Douthat received wisdom.

    There must be more than few print readers who yell at their copy of the print NY Times, "Tom/Nick/David/Paul, you are so #&*$% wrong".

    Sadly the print readers can't access the readers' comment section, AKA Times Editorial antidote, that accompanies the digital edition.

    Derwood Powell , April 30, 2016 at 8:16 pm

    Mr. Wright,
    Use and support the TOR network and you can read the NYT for free.

    Jim Haygood , April 29, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    NY Times : the 'sandwich coin' standard of journalism!

    Its price has been delinked from value.

    Michael C , April 29, 2016 at 8:02 am

    I say it is time to leave the Democratic Party in droves. I know, I know. The Supreme Court nominees of a future president loom large. We have to force the hand. Rather than creep to fascism and the earth's destruction, we have to realize the destination is the same as long as we keep our eggs in the basket of the Democratic Party. Time to cut and run, time to build something new, time to vote the Green Party, purge it of its new agey image and begin building it into a democratically functioning party that holds its candidates to its platform. Sure, it will take time. But putting money, time, and energy into the other half of a duopoly that supports empire and neoliberalism is all wasted on the fool's game, which Sander's inadvertently, I think, has exposed as the endgame. Progressives have to realize it will not and cannot be changed. It's core supports those two branches of its world-view, and no matter how they manipulate its adherents by throwing table scraps to them in the form of "social" issues, it will never be something other than what it is. I know, I am done with it.

    NotTimothyGeithner , April 29, 2016 at 9:10 am

    Doesn't the Supreme Court argument go out the window when the potential President is a lunatic? Of course, Maryanne Trump was appointed by Bill Clinton.

    RUKidding , April 29, 2016 at 10:32 am

    Well to be fair, Maryanne Trump isn't much like her brother. But yes, Clinton appointed her. Let the buyer beware.

    Strangely Enough , April 29, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    Which lunatic?

    And, when the nominee proposed by a Democratic president turns out to be a Republican, something has definitely gone out the window.

    AnEducatedFool , April 29, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    Clinton will not appoint a Supreme Court Justice that is beneficial to the planet. Her appointees will be pro-corporate whores that will play nice on identity issues.
    Trump will never get a judge through that will overturn Roe v Wade. The Republicans have shown that you can effectively limit the debate of a SCJ and have held appointments up while not in the majority.

    The abortion issue is a non issue. There is no way that justice would get on the court.

    The Republicans will use that issue to get an even more corporate judge onto the court. A similar deal is going on in NC today. The state will eventually cave and get ride of the bathroom provision but the anti-worker sections will remain.

    ltr , April 29, 2016 at 8:07 am

    The article by Mark Landler was brilliant and will keep me from voting for Clinton. I am tired of America being continually and fruitlessly at war.

    Montana , April 29, 2016 at 8:28 am

    I cancelled my subscription to the NYT because of its more than biased reporting of the Democratic primaries. I tried to make sure the editorial staff knew my reasons.

    Jack , April 29, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    I'm very interested in knowing which papers you continue to subscribe to.

    Northeaster , April 29, 2016 at 8:36 am

    As a Veteran who deployed to The Middle East the first time , and with children entering their teens, while I won't be able to control their decisions when they come of age, I have done everything I possibly can to dissuade them from joining the military.

    Sadly, I believe that whether it's Clinton or Trump, they will have zero reservations of sending my children of to die in a war that will not end.

    RUKidding , April 29, 2016 at 10:35 am

    I agree. I don't see much difference between Trump and Clinton in this regard. Both are itching to go to War. It's slightly possible – slightly! – that Clinton would be somewhat more sane (insofar as one can be sane about war) than Trump. That's about the best I can say in this YET AGAIN choice between the Evil of Two Lessers.

    OIFVet , April 29, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    Arguing about the relative sanity of the insane is futile. Lybia and Hillminator's cackle upon being informed of Khadafy's being sodomized with a knife is proof positive that having her as prez is a recipe for even more of the same.

    AnEducatedFool , April 29, 2016 at 7:58 pm

    Clinton is pushing for war with Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. How can anyone honestly discuss that Clinton is more sane (in foreign policy) than any person running for office?

    Trump does not want war with Russia. Clinton wants to go to war with Russia. There is no other way to read her desire for a no fly zone. The only way to implement that policy is through a war with Russia. Clinton is not naive. She knows that any attempt to create a no fly zone will result in a conflict with Russia.

    cyclist , April 29, 2016 at 11:45 am

    Yes, it is a topsy turvy system where the State Department, which one expects to be full of people seeking diplomatic solutions, is led by a warmonger, while many military leaders come off as more cautious. The later often have a better understanding of the futility of the situations they are thrown into and the true costs.

    Gio Bruno , April 29, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    The State Dept. is a front for the CIA/NSA project.

    ScottW , April 29, 2016 at 10:40 am

    The pro-Hillary Times' piece provides compelling, irrefutable evidence of Hillary's neocon credentials. The neocons adore her–Cheney commented Hillary was Obama's best cabinet appointment. Add to that the chilling mutual admiration between Hillary and Kissinger and we have a tangibly scary candidate.

    Her supporters reaction? They either dismiss the idea she is loved by the neocons, or refuse to understand the facts. Similar to rationalizing that money in politics is not a corrupting influence.

    If Hillary is elected, she will have bipartisan support for a neocon foreign policy, as well as money playing a major role in politics and one's personal life (speaking fees/foundation donations). Citizens United will become a quaint memory.

    It is getting impossible to argue the two parties are anything but the same side of the coin.

    John k , April 29, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Getting?
    Bill was first elected 24 years ago. Let's say a quarter century… I think Bernie made his tweedle dum tweedle Dee comment about 20 years ago. The rest of us have been slower to notice.

    Bernard , April 29, 2016 at 10:43 am

    well, Clinton is a woman and a Democrat. the more perfect evil. just Obama, the Vichy Democrats do more evil than the Republicans, far more efficiently/effectively than any Republican could or has. Hearing David/Charles Koch recently say Hillary "could" be better than any of the Republican candidates, is proof. we are so Fkked!

    yet my siblings will vote for Hillary cause of the Supreme Court due to the fact Hillary has a D by her name. and i gather so many women will vote for Hillary cause she is a "woman." lol Branding works. Stupidity, American style. if I vote, it will be for Trump, the lesser of two evils, lol.

    readerOfTeaLeaves , April 29, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Yes, women will vote Hill.

    But that fails to count all the younger voters, saddled with debt and facing an economy where business rules always favor capital over labor, who will find alternatives to Hillary that fit with their moral sensibilities.

    Meanwhile, the DNC is committing organizational suicide by becoming enforcers for Hillary, restricting voting, and failing to sue states like Arizona for election fraud.

    The GOP won't benefit from any of this.

    AnEducatedFool , April 29, 2016 at 8:03 pm

    Older women will vote for Hillary. The divide between race and gender is primarily age. Older black women are voting for her at 80% clips in nearly every election. Bernie can not win the 40 and under vote in every election while winning 30 and under at 80% with out winning across those demographics.
    Clinton kills him with older voters and has done so through out the cycle. It is why the DNC's efforts to suppress the vote have worked so well for Clinton.

    cr , April 29, 2016 at 10:45 am

    The NYT is simply a propaganda machine designed to fool people who can read at a slightly higher grade level. If the 'newspaper of record' is compromised, how many mainstream outlets have any real coverage of politics? After reading a large sampl;e,The number is close to zero. Occasionally, the masses are thrown a bone.

    Anyone who thinks there is a difference between the two nominal parties have to be kidding themselves. The two party system is a facade that lures you into believing you live in a democracy or republic. You are ruled. Your votes don't matter. Any real threat to power in the US is either co-opted or neutralized.

    We had a pedophile for speaker of the house. TPTB had to know it and used that info to keep him under control. He was probably selected based on his past. Along with Hillary, Paul Ryan is clearly a fascist. Look at their actions and their policies.

    ng , April 29, 2016 at 11:11 am

    even the times piece was puffery. all the generals impressed by her wonkish hard work. and it left out the most damning fact. hillary was the deciding voice in what obama called the worst decision of his presidency, the invasion of libya and killing of quadaffi. nearly a decade after iraq, in a nearly equivilant situation, with all the information she claimed not to have the first time around, she chose the same stupid, destructive approach and sent another nation and region reeling in choas.

    divadab , April 29, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    this. I had thought it was because as a gen 1 feminist, she feels she has to out-macho the boys, but it's both deeper and more pernicious with her. Fucking neocons. Bombing while the world is burning.

    hal , April 29, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    What about the big four?
    1 her emails anyone else would be gone for 99 years
    2. her speeches? Yea sure. She has the only copy in her (contract)
    3. her deals as SOState I'll get you arms (Saudi's) if you give me $1 million for foundation
    Plus many more of these.
    4. Her health passing out a few time, breaking an elbow, and others ailments.

    Not a word on any. As for the NYT. It is as bad a you can get.
    There is a great quote from Albert Camus a editor for "Combat" during the war.
    "We have a right to think that truth with a capital letter is relative. But facts are facts. And whoever says the sky is blue when it is grey is prostituting words and preparing the way for tyranny.

    I think about this every time I read the NYT.

    AnEducatedFool , April 29, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    Nice comment.
    #5 is the discrepancies in the exit poll data. Only the Democrats are having trouble with exit polls this cycle. Each Republican election has been with in the exit polls but many of the Democratic primaries are falling outside of the margin of error for exit polls and always siding with Clinton.

    David Mills , April 29, 2016 at 10:04 pm

    I pay $8 a month buying the weekend edition because I like the crossword (based in KL). The rest of the NYT is crap, been downhill for years. The IHT was okay until it was merged out of existence.

    Otherwise, people who can't see Hillary's vicious streak are blind or stupid. She is the candidate most likely to engage Russia. Lawrence Wilkerson had a great interview on her.

    Teejay , April 30, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    Any "where" and "when" on the Wilkerson interview or a link to it?

    Procopius , April 30, 2016 at 6:25 am

    "… this was a failure of the media, whose job it is to shine a strong spotlight." When are Americans going to learn that this is not true. The job of the media is to sell advertising to the people who have the money to buy it. It's easier to do that if they don't tell people too much about what's happening in the world. Tell them about the Kardashians or what people are saying about Beyonce's latest video. Baseball games are OK. Good looking blonde announcers help. The movie "Front Page" was fiction. Also, there's no Tooth Fairy.

    Emeritus Jr , April 30, 2016 at 6:36 am

    With unprecedented access to insiders and whisteblowers, the New York Times is set to publish a scathing indictment of the horse barn industry on the massive damage caused by closing the barn doors after the horses have left.

    Roy , April 30, 2016 at 10:38 am

    Have not seen any comment on Hillary's logo. Anyone notice how the arrow is pointing to the right?

    [May 01, 2016] Credentialism and Corruption Neoliberalism in The News Room

    Notable quotes:
    "... Las Vegas Review-Journa ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... at the same URL ..."
    "... Woman on the Edge of Time ..."
    "... One problem with reporters is that they aren't a separate profession with a standard code of ethics or standard form of credentials. And journalists should not be like lawyers, organized before the bar into a self-perpetuating and self-serving organization. That written, Frank Bruni is the great mysterious counterexample (what credentials? what qualifications? why?). ..."
    "... Yet the lack of an organization with "teeth" keeps reporters on the defensive against the accommodationist editors, the advertisers, and the board of directors larded with the usual knuckleheads. Would that the Newspaper Guild had more power. ..."
    "... The development of the M.B.A. and M.F.A. in the last thirty or so years attests to a degree as time served to get a better job. So the M.B.A. has given us endless talent-free bean counters trained in bad business practices and shoddy economics. The M.F.A. gives us endless first novels of a uniform middling quality and careers in burgeoning writing programs producing more of such snooze-filled novels. Among journalists, the masters in journalism has not proved to be protection or a stamp of quality, either. ..."
    May 1, 2016 | naked capitalism
    By Lambert Strether of Corrente .

    Readers liked our last post on life under neoliberalism and the salaried (or professional (or " 20%") ) classes, and the question we posed: "How do these people live with themselves?" So here's another one! This time, I'm going to compare and contrast life in the newsroom at the Las Vegas Review-Journa and The New York Times .

    Looking at these classes, credentials matter. (Again, I should caveat that these are my people; I was raised the child of professors in America's Golden Age of higher education and shaped for that sort of career myself; back in the day, when tenure was a realistic possibility for many, and academics didn't have to hold outside fundraisers for their projects. And when there were careers.) For example, attaining an M.D. is different from learning a skill; as a doctor, one takes the Hippocratic Oath. CPAs have a required ethics exam. Even lawyers!

    If economists ask themselves "What good is a degree?" the answer is "to signal a requirement for a higher salary!" (because it's not easy to rank the professions by the quality of what they deliver). We as citizens might answer that professionals are in some ways amphibians: They serve both private ends and preserve public goods, and the education for which they are granted their credentials forms them for this service. For example, a doctor who prescribes medications for his patients because Big Pharma takes him golfing is no doctor but corrupt; he's mixed up public and private. He didn't follow his oath. Similarly, a reporter (see Terry Pratchett's wonderful The Truth ) who only serves the interests of his publication's owner is no reporter but corrupt; a public relations specialist, say. Or a servant.

    The Las Vegas Review-Journal

    First, let's look at an episode at the Las Vegas Review-Journal. As readers may remember, the LVJR was purchased by Sheldon Adelson, international gambling squillionaire, publisher , and campaign contributor ( Israel ). I won't use the word "corrupt," but feel free to think it . Hilariously, Adelson did not disclose his purchase - no problems with optics there! - and it was left to the LVJR reporting staff to treat the matter as a story, and reveal their new owner. Here's the story the LVJR broke:

    After six days of uncertainty surrounding News + Media Capital Group LLC - a newly formed Delaware-domiciled company backed by "undisclosed financial backers with expertise in the media industry" - the Review-Journal on Wednesday confirmed that Adelson's son-in-law, Patrick Dumont, arranged the company's $140 million purchase of the newspaper on behalf of the chairman and CEO of Las Vegas Sands. …

    Last week's sale saw News + Media pay around $38 million more than New Media Investment Group paid in March for all of Stephens Media LLC, a national chain of eight daily newspapers that included the Review-Journal.

    It remains unclear if that inflated purchase price came with strings attached to the Adelsons.

    "The way the Adelson family began its ownership of the Review-Journal - with secrecy, deception, and one opaque announcement after another - does not inspire confidence," said media critic and New York University professor Jay Rosen. "Possibly this rocky start could be overcome, but the place to begin would have been with the public announcement of the purchase. In that announcement there is nothing about preserving the independence of the Review-Journal newsroom from undue influence by Sheldon Adelson, who as everyone knows is one of the most powerful people in the state and in Republican politics nationwide.

    "What creative measures were announced to insulate news coverage from the enormous wealth and power of the Adelson family? None that I can see. And that does not inspire confidence," Rosen said.

    (This post only scratches the surface of the carnage . What you're going to read is bad enough.) To nobody's surprise, Rosen's concerns for the independence of the newsroom were all too prescient. From the New York Times :

    Whether Mr. Adelson will ultimately try to shape the paper's coverage remains to be seen. But in the weeks since he has owned the paper, reporters said, several articles about the paper have been heavily reviewed and edited to remove quotes that could be viewed as unfavorable to the new owners.

    An article about Mr. Hengel's resignation was trimmed before it was published from about 20 paragraphs to three and stripped of nearly all of Mr. Hengel's comments, according to people familiar with the article. The article ran on Wednesday inside the paper. Similarly, an initial article on the paper's website about the sale was edited after it was published to remove references to the buyer's unknown identity.

    It got worse. From Politico :

    Within five hours, the immediate inherent conflicts of Adelson ownership made themselves highly apparent. The Review-Journal reported that Adelson had met with the ownership of Oakland Raiders football team, hoping to lure them to Las Vegas and into a new "public/private"-funded $1 billion domed stadium.

    The new publisher has reviewed each stadium story since, and the stories have seen numerous Moon-directed edits, several sources confirm. Those edits include removing key points of fact on what may turn out to become a $600 million-plus public investment in a football stadium. At least one stadium story was killed, as well, my sources confirm.

    It is near impossible to overestimate the depth of the conflict involved in the Adelson ownership. As a major player in the gaming industry in Las Vegas, Macau and Singapore, top donor to Republican Party candidates and now the booster of a "public-private" funded football stadium, Adelson-related stories have appeared in the R-J for years. For years, the paper has "lawyered" each Adelson-related story, given the magnate's history of litigiousness. Now that review is being done in house, with very different results.

    And now the latest, from NPR :

    Las Vegas Columnist Quits After Ban On Writing About Adelson

    "If I can't do my job, if I can't hold the heavyweights in the community to account, then I'm just treading water," the columnist, John L. Smith, told NPR in an interview. "It wasn't an easy decision to make, but there was no other decision to make - at least in my mind."

    Smith had written columns for the Review-Journal for nearly three decades, with a frequent focus on Adelson, one of the most powerful figures in Nevada gambling and national Republican politics. The billionaire sued Smith for libel over a passage in a 2005 book about power players of Las Vegas.

    Smith prevailed in court, but paying the fees helped bankrupt him. (NPR told that remarkable story, including a rabbi's offer of a secret $200,000 payoff from Adelson for Smith to admit libel, earlier this year.) Years later, the case has helped trigger the end of Smith's career at the Review-Journal, as his new bosses cited it as a conflict of interest [!!!].

    Now, all of the above is prelude to John L. Smith's resignation letter, of which he left a copy on every desk in the LVJR news-room:

    smith_letter

    Clearly, John L. Smith is somebody who can live with himself.[1] And now we turn to the New York Times.

    The New York Times

    Here, I'm simply going to quote a great slab of Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan's column (who ought to be missed by Times executives, but probably will not be[2]).

    Were Changes to Sanders Article 'Stealth Editing'?

    An article by Jennifer Steinhauer, published online, carried the headline "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years via Legislative Side Doors." It described the way the Vermont senator had managed a significant number of legislative victories in Congress despite the political independence that might have hindered him.

    The article stayed in essentially that form for several hours online – with some very minor tweaks - but in the late afternoon, Times editors made significant changes to its tone and content, turning it from almost glowing to somewhat disparaging. The later headline read : "Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories."

    And these two paragraphs were added:

    But in his presidential campaign Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball legislative approach to suggest that he could succeed.

    Mr. Sanders is suddenly promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and a good part of the sun, from free college tuition paid for with giant tax hikes to a huge increase in government health care, which has made even liberal Democrats skeptical.

    (Readers will recognize that both paragraphs are heavily larded with Clinton campaign talking points.) Here I'll skip Sullivan's summary of the obvious problems with these changes; in addition to several readers, she links to Medium , Matt Taibbi , and Robert Reich , too. So, to the institutional issues:

    I asked top editors at The Times, along with Ms. Steinhauer and her immediate editor, for response. (The executive editor, Dean Baquet, also responded to Erik Wemple of The Washington Post on Tuesday night, and Ms. Steinhauer responded to the Rolling Stone piece. Both said, in essence, that the changes were routine efforts to add context to an evolving story.)

    [The reporter, Jennifer] Steinhauer, in a response to my email, suggested that I speak to editors because "it was an editing decision."…

    So, what happened here? Matt Purdy, a deputy executive editor, said that when senior editors read the piece after it was published online, they thought it needed more perspective about whether Mr. Sanders would be able to carry out his campaign agenda if he was elected president.

    "I thought it should say more about his realistic chances" of doing that, Mr. Purdy told me. As first published, he said, editors believed that the article "didn't approach that question."

    "There was a feeling that the story wasn't written into this moment," Mr. Purdy said. After the editing changes, he said, "it got to be a deeper story," with greater context.

    Three editors told me in no uncertain terms that the editing changes had not been made in response to complaints from the Clinton camp. Did the Clinton people even reach out?

    "Not that I know of," Mr. Baquet told me in an email. The article's immediate editor, Michael Tackett, agreed: "There's zero evidence of that."

    ("Not that I know of" and "There's zero evidence of that" are both what somebody with a sufficiently cynical cast of mind might call non-denial denials.)

    My take: The changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Mr. Sanders's legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later. (The Sanders campaign shared the initial story on social media; it's hard to imagine it would have done that if the edited version had appeared first.)

    (Note that the Sanders campaign had distributed the URL to original Times article. So, when the Times editors made their unannounced changes at the same URL , they pulled the rug out from the Sanders campaign, who would hardly have distributed a link to an article that supported major Clinton campaign talking points.

    Comparing and Contrasting

    From the reader's perspective, is there any substantive difference between what the Adelson-owned LVJR did to its stories on Adelson, and what the Times did to its story on Sanders? Is there a substantive difference between removing material unfavorable to the owner or suppressing stories unfavorable to his business interests, and gratuitously inserting material egregiously favorable to a newspaper's endorsed candidate? Especially when, in each case, the paper makes no mention of the change? I don't think so.

    However, from the newsroom's perspective, there's a very great difference indeed. The LVJR is a small paper; John L. Smith is two or three degrees of separation at most from Adelson himself, so its very clear who's giving direction and why. The New York Times is a very large paper; the reporter, Jennifer] Steinhauer, was able to say "Talk to the editors," and Sullivan, the Public Editor, talked to three of them. In other words, the social relations - we might even say the realities - at the Journal-Review and the Times are very different; the Journal-Review's are so simple and clean that "How can you live with yourself?" questions come to the fore under stress. Not so at the Times; the institutional complexities make it possible for such questions to be masked or muffled. Corruption is clear at the LVJR; but corruption scuttles away into the masthead at the Times.

    However, if we ask ourselves what the future of the average newsroom - modulo algos - is likely to be, I would imagine life will be a lot more like the LVJR than the NYT. I mean, who wants a masthead cluttered with supernumeraries? It's going to be interesting to see what John L. Smith will do. Maybe he'll start a blog?

    NOTES

    [1] Let me add my standard disclaimer: I don't want to come off as priggish. I don't have dependents, and so my choices are simpler. If I had to support a family, especially in today's new normal, I might put my head down and save ethics for the home. "Person must not do what person cannot do." - Marge Piercy, Woman on the Edge of Time .

    [2] Sullivan actually reads the Comments, and sometimes integrated them into her column.

    About Lambert Strether

    Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration 24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com

    John k , May 1, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    Subscribed for years, then just on line, but becoming so slanted, cut the cord last year.
    Worth exploring the various links between times and Clintons…
    Probably web like Corp structure. Must be a new culture there, Think op K etc.
    Wonder why circulation in decline… Maybe they'll turn into a blog… Or frog… Frogs are kind of slimy…

    DJG , May 1, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    One problem with reporters is that they aren't a separate profession with a standard code of ethics or standard form of credentials. And journalists should not be like lawyers, organized before the bar into a self-perpetuating and self-serving organization. That written, Frank Bruni is the great mysterious counterexample (what credentials? what qualifications? why?).

    Yet the lack of an organization with "teeth" keeps reporters on the defensive against the accommodationist editors, the advertisers, and the board of directors larded with the usual knuckleheads. Would that the Newspaper Guild had more power.

    Further, the credentials in the U S of A are now distinctly murky. Your quote:

    If economists ask themselves "What good is a degree?" the answer is "to signal a requirement for a higher salary!"

    The development of the M.B.A. and M.F.A. in the last thirty or so years attests to a degree as time served to get a better job. So the M.B.A. has given us endless talent-free bean counters trained in bad business practices and shoddy economics. The M.F.A. gives us endless first novels of a uniform middling quality and careers in burgeoning writing programs producing more of such snooze-filled novels. Among journalists, the masters in journalism has not proved to be protection or a stamp of quality, either.

    jrs , May 1, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    Yea lawyers so self-serving at protecting their own profession that the laws are deliberately undecipherable.

    I suppose what the journalists need is just what anyone who works for a living needs: a good union to protect them and fight for them. Every worker should have one.

    I have my doubts anyone gets an M.F.A. to signal a higher salary though. Are they like "I wanted a higher salary so I figured I'd get the most economically worthless degree conceivable …" (even a bachelors in liberal arts indicates you at least got a bachelors which is seen to one's credit – but an M.F.A. – really does anyone care you have an advance degree in something with no economic value?). I think people do the M.F.A. for love (or else pretentiousness). But love may be no guarantee of talent.

    diptherio , May 1, 2016 at 1:19 pm

    Allow me to translate for the Times' editors:

    The story, as originally written, was based exclusively on verifiable facts. This is a great weakness in a modern news story and so we decided to add in some speculation and thinly veiled insults in order to bring it into line with contemporary journalistic standards. The job of a modern journalist is not simply to report the facts, but also to help people decide what to think about those facts…also we predict the future. Our critics have an outdated view of what a responsible journalism looks like in today's hyper-competitive media environment.

    jrs, May 1, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    How are the people without a family to support supposed to be courageous and do the right thing, if most of the people around them don't because "they have a family to support". Or are they not supposed to pick up anything at all from their social context? I don't think it usually works this way. I'm all for heroes, I just don't think expecting ethical heroes to be the norm, if most people are selling their souls to survive, and we even make excuses for them, is likely to produce all that many.

    And by the way from whom besides their coworkers etc., did they learn to compromise their principles even if they don't have a family to support? Why maybe from their parents! Who afterall had to do it "because they had family to support"! And round and round it goes. Yes I do believe we need a social solution (ie don't let people and their families fall into poverty and/or unemployment so easily and they won't be so eager to do anything to keep a job. Although some people seem attached to their jobs for irrational reasons like prestige rather than just the nuts and bolts of needing a means to pay their bills).

    Guaranteed survival is a radical proposal though when the ENTIRE economic system is premised on relying on the threat of starvation and homelessness to get people to do what it wants (and that includes ethically indifferent as well as entirely unethical things). I just don't think the "get out of ethics free" cards (because you have a family etc.) help anything though.

    What was added to the Sander's story is mostly notable for it's complete absence of ANY actual content. And that really makes one wonder why they added it. The added part is like: but but .. Sanders success doesn't guarantee he will be good at achieving things as President. Yes and it doesn't guarantee he won't either! But either Hillary or Sanders will face congress and anyone who took high school civics knows that. That additions are like: NEWSFLASH: FUTURE IS UNPREDICTABLE!!! Uh that's not adding any news to the world at all. Might as well just add a tiny disclaimer: past performance is no guarantee of future results like the investments have.

    [Apr 24, 2016] Theres a new parliamentary group in UK on Limits to Growth that had its first meeting this week

    Notable quotes:
    "... 'There's an interesting theory – called the 'green paradox' – that low oil prices are in part the reaction of an industry fearful of the impacts of climate change policy on its future revenues. ..."
    "... The German economist Hans-Werner Sinn has argued that "if suppliers feel threatened by a gradual greening of economic policies.. they will extract their stocks more rapidly" thus pushing their prices down' ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    George Kaplan , 04/22/2016 at 2:14 am
    There's a new parliamentary group in UK on Limits to Growth that had it's first meeting this week.

    'A 2015 analysis of the remaining fossil fuel resources in China, USA, Canada and Australia, which includes unconventional resources, suggests that overall oil production is in fact peaking already'

    I hadn't heard this before:

    'There's an interesting theory – called the 'green paradox' – that low oil prices are in part the reaction of an industry fearful of the impacts of climate change policy on its future revenues.

    The German economist Hans-Werner Sinn has argued that "if suppliers feel threatened by a gradual greening of economic policies.. they will extract their stocks more rapidly" thus pushing their prices down'

    http://limits2growth.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Jackson-and-Webster-2016-Limits-Revisited.pdf

    [Apr 24, 2016] Hillary Clinton's Support Base as Bogus as US Democracy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Perhaps nothing illustrates this point more clearly than the results of multiple studies on Hillary Clinton's online following which reveal that the majority of her Twitter fans, and indeed her social media following in general, are completely fake. Consider the implications of these findings from StatusPeople.com, and well-respected analytical tool TwitterAudit, which both found that no more than 44 percent of Clinton's followers were actually real, active users of Twitter. ..."
    "... "I will absolutely admit that Secretary Clinton… has the entire establishment or almost the entire establishment behind her. That's a fact. I don't deny it. I'm pretty proud that we have over a million people who have contributed to our campaign averaging 27 bucks a piece." ..."
    "... So too did the State Department under Hillary Clinton, which spent at least $630,000 to buy Facebook likes, essentially manufacturing a public following for itself. ..."
    "... "… the U.S. government contracted HBGary Federal for the development of software which could create multiple fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion on controversial issues by promoting propaganda. It could also be used as surveillance to find public opinions with points of view the powers-that-be didn't like. It could then potentially have their "fake" people run smear campaigns against those "real" people." ..."
    "... In this election season alone there have been massive failures in multiple states that have left countless thousands of Americans without the right to vote for their candidates of choice, or victims of outright fraud. Even Arizona's Secretary of State recently admitted that fraud had taken place on a large scale in her state. The hacktivist collective Anonymous has provided detailed analysis pointing to the fact that state databases were likely hacked and manipulated . ..."
    "... This finding only further substantiates the claims made by many experts that the hacking of voting machines and election databases is all but assured, not just in the US but internationally. ..."
    "... "Any desired algorithm can be used to determine which votes to steal and to which candidate or candidates to transfer the stolen votes." ..."
    "... "There is no way to verify the official tally on the electronic machines on which the majority of Americans will vote this fall. Nearly all the machines are a decade old, most are controlled by a single company (ES&S, owned by Warren Buffett) and the courts have ruled that the software is proprietary, making the vote counts beyond public scrutiny." ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    As New Yorkers go to the polls in Democratic and Republican primaries this week, it is critical to once again highlight the myriad ways that democracy in the United States is, like most other things, a commodity to be bought and sold. From corporate control of the infrastructure of elections, to the creation of mass bases of support out of whole cloth, the candidates, as well as the system itself, cannot be trusted to be genuine.

    Perhaps nothing illustrates this point more clearly than the results of multiple studies on Hillary Clinton's online following which reveal that the majority of her Twitter fans, and indeed her social media following in general, are completely fake. Consider the implications of these findings from StatusPeople.com, and well-respected analytical tool TwitterAudit, which both found that no more than 44 percent of Clinton's followers were actually real, active users of Twitter.

    This may seem something trivial, but in fact it cuts to the very heart of the notion of democracy, and the legitimacy of a candidate who is perhaps the most obvious embodiment of the political and financial establishment in the US. Indeed, Bernie Sanders, among many others, has correctly noted that Clinton is in many ways the epitome of the ruling elite.

    In a blistering commentary on Clinton during a nationally televised debate, Sanders proclaimed, "I will absolutely admit that Secretary Clinton… has the entire establishment or almost the entire establishment behind her. That's a fact. I don't deny it. I'm pretty proud that we have over a million people who have contributed to our campaign averaging 27 bucks a piece." Sanders highlighted the fact that the political and financial elites back Hillary, and in so doing noted that his campaign is backed by millions of ordinary Americans.

    But Sanders was equally, though perhaps inadvertently, illustrating the fact that the Clinton campaign is, in effect, being manufactured; that she has no real support except for a near consensus of establishment policy-makers and powerful individuals. And yet, here's Hillary marching into yet another major primary with a double-digit lead. How much of that is based on a perception shaped – at least in part – by social media?

    This phenomenon is not relegated only to Clinton's campaign, however; this is true of most of America's leading political figures. In 2013, it was revealed President Obama's Twitter following was made up of a majority (53 percent) fake accounts. The Daily Mail at the time noted that Vice President Joe Biden, First Lady Michelle Obama, and the White House communications shop all had online followings consisting of mainly non-existent people. So too did the State Department under Hillary Clinton, which spent at least $630,000 to buy Facebook likes, essentially manufacturing a public following for itself.

    But who cares, right? What does it matter if Twitter accounts and Facebook likes are fraudulent? How does that impact anything other than social media image?

    How social media manipulation serves the Establishment agenda

    Twitter, Facebook, and other social media have become very potent tools in the arsenal of the US Government as it wages a relentless information war in the service of the military-industrial complex and the agenda of the elite. In fact, social media goes far beyond just an image. Today, it has been made into an effective tool for the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation that conveniently buttresses whatever narrative the establishment wants.

    Take for example the lead-up to the criminal war on Libya. In early 2011, with the narrative of the 'Arab Spring' ubiquitous in western social media, the US-NATO machine set its sights on regime change in Libya, with social media as one of the critical tools used to achieve it. Close followers of that conflict will recall that dozens of Twitter accounts, purportedly from anti-Gaddafi Libyans, mysteriously emerged in the lead-up to the war that toppled the Libyan government, providing much of the "intelligence" relayed on western media including CNN, NBC, the New York Times, et al.

    At that time (February 2011), PC World published a little publicized article entitled "Army of Fake Social Media Friends to Promote Propaganda" which noted that: "… the U.S. government contracted HBGary Federal for the development of software which could create multiple fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion on controversial issues by promoting propaganda. It could also be used as surveillance to find public opinions with points of view the powers-that-be didn't like. It could then potentially have their "fake" people run smear campaigns against those "real" people."

    Clearly the US Government and intelligence community have known from the beginning the power of social media, and its ability to influence public opinion and lay the groundwork for policies, as well as its potential as a weapon.

    In fact, the CIA has taken its social media arsenal much further in recent years. There are literally dozens of companies that have received seed money from the CIA's investment arm, known as In-Q-Tel, in order to provide the intelligence and security establishment the ability to do everything – from real-time surveillance of social media users to data mining and more. In effect then, social media has become the playground of the elite, the terrain upon which their manipulation and social engineering takes root.

    Is This Democracy?

    OK, so social media followings are meaningless as they can be manufactured, as we see currently with Hillary Clinton. But surely the actual mechanisms of voting in the US are clean? Well, not exactly.

    In this election season alone there have been massive failures in multiple states that have left countless thousands of Americans without the right to vote for their candidates of choice, or victims of outright fraud. Even Arizona's Secretary of State recently admitted that fraud had taken place on a large scale in her state. The hacktivist collective Anonymous has provided detailed analysis pointing to the fact that state databases were likely hacked and manipulated.

    And then of course there's the issue of the voting machines themselves. Recently the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law issued a comprehensive report entitled America's Voting Machines at Risk which found that the voting machines currently in use are outdated, running the risk of catastrophic failures. The report highlighted many shocking examples that should give anyone pause when considering the validity of election results. The authors of the report noted that "Virginia recently decertified a voting system used in 24 percent of precincts after finding that an external party could access the machine's wireless features to record voting data or inject malicious data."

    This finding only further substantiates the claims made by many experts that the hacking of voting machines and election databases is all but assured, not just in the US but internationally.

    A case in point is Andrés Sepulveda, a Colombian hacker who literally stole the Mexican presidential election for the current president Enrique Peńa Nieto. Sepulveda, who is linked with Miami-based political power broker Juan José Rendón (the right wing king-maker widely seen as the engineer of numerous fraudulent elections in Latin America), has laid bare the utterly fraudulent machinations just behind the artifice of so-called democracy. Does anyone really believe that US elections are not equally suspect?

    Finally, were the problem just the age of the voting machines and the ability of outside hackers to manipulate them, the machines could simply be replaced with more advanced, high-security equipment, and the elections could be deemed legitimate, right? Not so fast.

    The fact is that nearly all electronic voting machines are designed and manufactured by companies such as ES&S (owned by Warren Buffett), Dominion (previously Diebold), Smartmatic, and Hart Intercivic, all of which are connected to very powerful interests within the ruling elite circles. In fact, researchers at the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University demonstrated that in under 60 seconds, anyone could bypass the lock and replace the memory card with another. As the researchers in the video explain, "Any desired algorithm can be used to determine which votes to steal and to which candidate or candidates to transfer the stolen votes."

    Put simply, there is little reason to trust the results of any election in the US. As Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis succinctly wrote: "There is no way to verify the official tally on the electronic machines on which the majority of Americans will vote this fall. Nearly all the machines are a decade old, most are controlled by a single company (ES&S, owned by Warren Buffett) and the courts have ruled that the software is proprietary, making the vote counts beyond public scrutiny."

    Given these inescapable facts, there is little reason to wonder why Hillary Clinton, the darling of the establishment, is always smiling. She knows the game is rigged in her favor.

    Despite the momentum Sanders has generated with his grassroots support, the Clinton machine is alive and well thanks to a fake support base, dodgy election infrastructure, and elite-controlled nomination process; in other words, corporate control of the election circus.

    Think of these things the next time you hear President Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or anyone else spouting off about America's democracy and its "exceptional" place in the world.

    This piece first appeared at RT.

    [Apr 24, 2016] Today is Krauthammer Day #13 by Henry

    Notable quotes:
    "... Rather than dispute Eric with tedious "facts" and "not finding WMD", I'll agree with him. Insofar as law is at all meaningful in this case, law was followed - since law in this case is pretty much whatever the Security Council decides that it is. This only goes to show that the UN is a dysfunctional institution that is incapable of preventing aggressive war and other war crimes when they are carried out by the U.S. and do not directly affect other Security Council members. That the UN then went on to green light the Libya "humanitarian intervention" on its R2P principles only confirms that the UN now justifies wars, it doesn't prevent them. ..."
    "... And the fact that the invasion of Iraq and the deaths of something like a million people and the associated tortures and murders were all legal under U.S. law only shows that U.S. law protects killers in authority, as we all knew. ..."
    "... Given enough time, I would not be surprised to see the Erics of the world successful in relitigating the Iraq War. We already have Clinton as the nominee of the party whose members were supposedly so upset by Bush's war and Clinton's regret over her vote was obviously for political reasons. Eric does a good job with the bureaucratic gobbledygook that impresses DC types so much when it gives them permission to bomb people. Polls permitting, I'm sure Clinton would leap at the opportunity to reassert American global leadership in the delivery of high explosives. ..."
    "... Give it another few years or maybe a decade and Eric will be mainstream. We will kick the Iraq syndrome just like the Gulf War kicked the Vietnam syndrome. We just need to find a crappy little country whose bombing can be portrayed as a success. Clinton might think Libya should qualify if we just went back in. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    April 22, 2016

    Again, it's Krauthammer Day. Today is the unlucky thirteenth anniversary of the day when the prominent pundit announced:

    Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We've had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven't found any, we will have a credibility problem.

    As of today, we've had five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months, and another month on top of that of Charles Krauthammer's credibility problem. He's still opining.

    BruceJ 04.22.16 at 7:23 pm

    In general, Of course Krauthammer is still punditing away. Being a conservative means never having say you're sorry to be held to account.

    @1: In large part, they were lied to, just like the rest of us. They SHOULD have demanded more details, and they should have listened to the people on the ground, but they were stampeded just like most of the country was.

    @2: The NYT is to Hillary as Gamergate is to Brianna Wu.

    Yes Hillary is a DLC hawk, but if the NYT said she was wearing a white dress, I'd presume she was wearing a black one.

    @3: It's not as if any of those recommendations would fail under a GOP president.

    3 SCOTUS Appointments.

    THAT is what the next president is likely to have. As much as I love and cherish the Notorious RBG, she's in her 80's. Kennedy will be in his 80's. Presidente Francisco Scalia is still dead and needs replacing.

    Who do you want appointing their replacements: Hillary, Ted or Donald?

    Always, always remember, the lesser of two evils is the LESSER one, and we already went through that nonsense about "Maybe getting a terrible president in will wake up the sheeple" crap. That's why we're discussing the goddamn Iraq war right now.

    Anyone who thinks that a President Gore would have invaded Iraq shout out.

    [crickets]

    Thought so.


    Sandwichman 04.22.16 at 10:52 pm

    A Krauthammer unit is five months. A Friedman unit is six months. Is there a pundit unit for any other numbers of months?

    kidneystones 04.23.16 at 2:06 am

    Thanks for the reminder, Henry. I see a very different future. Trump wins the WH with Reagan-like numbers. HRC retires or returns to the Senate. Dems support Trump, their natural ally, making deals on security and trade. The Dems may well take back the Senate, but not the House, I suspect.

    America First is rampant. Patriotism is in, as is Buy America. Cash is repatriated as income taxes on the richest rise, and corporate taxes fall. Ted Cruz paints himself into a pink corner raving about trans-gender toilets while Americans concentrate on the busy tasks of rebuilding public infrastructure on time and under budget. (dream on). Krauthammer joins the National Review to grumble and Bill Kristol shrieks about the need to do more regime-changing and nation building.

    All manner of regional mayhem erupts as America compels allies to re-arm. Putin solidifies his already considerable power and a number of European nations elect openly fascist governments, France, Holland, and Norway possibly among them.

    If you're old enough to remember Reagan, Kirkpatrick, Baker et al, you know what's coming. The sole silver lining being that Trump is almost certain to offer non-documented workers both a path to citizenship and jobs building the wall that all Republicans and many Democrats want to see built asap.

    Plarry 04.23.16 at 3:42 am 23

    @2: Agree. The Times coverage of Hillary is shameful – their many excuses to the public editor over their coverage didn't even rise to being risible.

    @3: "weapons manufacturers": Of the possible Democratic or GOP nominees on the horizon at present, the one the NRA likes least is Hillary.

    @12: To say that Hillary was a "supporter of the Iraq war and the Bush policy behind it" is simply wrong.

    Waiting for Godot 04.23.16 at 5:27 am 24

    BruceJ @4

    Please read the interview with Sy Hersh on Salon then come and talk about how clever a foreign policy wonk she is. If you liked Kissinger's Nixon then you'll love his President Hillary.

    Ben Alpers 04.23.16 at 5:55 pm
    To state the obvious: many common criticisms of Hillary Clinton are unfair; many others are fair. The criticism that she is a hawk who voted for and supported the Iraq War is abundantly fair. While we have now come to the thirteenth anniversary of Krauthammer's idiocy quoted above, we're still about a couple months away from the second anniversary of Hillary Clinton finally admitting that she got Iraq wrong in her memoir Hard Choices, which came out in June 2014. And her recent AIPAC speech is a good place to see how her hawkish tendencies might affect her foreign policy choices going forward.

    That said, if she gets the nomination, I'll firmly be in the "hold my nose and vote for Clinton" camp. The alternative offered by the GOP will be much worse. And although Trump got Iraq right, I have even less confidence in his foreign policy decisions that I do in Hillary Clinton's.

    ifthethunderdontgetya™ł˛®© 04.23.16 at 8:24 pm

    That said, if she gets the nomination, I'll firmly be in the "hold my nose and vote for Clinton" camp. The alternative offered by the GOP will be much worse.

    That's our good cop. bad cop political setup. Brought to us by rich fucks who don't give a shit about any of us.

    And the best part? When we win, all we win is that it gets worse more slowly.


    Rich Puchalsky 04.24.16 at 2:26 am

    Rather than dispute Eric with tedious "facts" and "not finding WMD", I'll agree with him. Insofar as law is at all meaningful in this case, law was followed - since law in this case is pretty much whatever the Security Council decides that it is. This only goes to show that the UN is a dysfunctional institution that is incapable of preventing aggressive war and other war crimes when they are carried out by the U.S. and do not directly affect other Security Council members. That the UN then went on to green light the Libya "humanitarian intervention" on its R2P principles only confirms that the UN now justifies wars, it doesn't prevent them.

    And the fact that the invasion of Iraq and the deaths of something like a million people and the associated tortures and murders were all legal under U.S. law only shows that U.S. law protects killers in authority, as we all knew.


    Asteele 04.24.16 at 4:10 am

    Oh great a crank with a web-site, check this out:

    "President Bush handed OIF to President Obama having resolved the festering problem of Saddam's noncompliant, threatening, tyrannical, radicalized sectarian, terrorist regime (not a moment too soon based on what we now know), revitalized international enforcement in the defining international enforcement of the post-Cold War, and proved the mettle of American leadership and devastated the terrorists with the Counterinsurgency "Surge". The emerging pluralistic, liberalizing, compliant post-Saddam Iraq provided the US with a keystone "strategic partner" in the region."

    LOL as they say.


    derrida derider 04.24.16 at 12:18 pm

    Way OT, but Rich is wrong. As a matter of law, the Iraq war was clearly illegal. At the very least all the other countries that voted for UN1441 believe it is, because the US envoy – Bolton – explicitly and publicly assured them that UN1441 did NOT authorise war, that they could safely vote for it in the knowledge that before any war began the matter would come back to the UNSC.

    Just another in the long trail of lies from the Bushistas that got absolutely no coverage in the US media (though rest assured it did in the French and British ones!). Iraq made me realise Chomsky is absolutely right – the "free" US media's role is to manufacture consent for the elite's wishes.


    Rich Puchalsky 04.24.16 at 5:36 pm

    derrida derider: "Way OT, but Rich is wrong."

    (Parenthetically, there's someone else commenting in this thread as "Rich" who isn't me. But I assume that you meant me.)

    "As a matter of law, the Iraq war was clearly illegal. At the very least all the other countries that voted for UN1441 believe it is, because the US envoy – Bolton – explicitly and publicly assured them that UN1441 did NOT authorise war,"

    I am not at all sympathetic to this. Laws have meaning only when they are interpreted and carried out. The interpretation and execution was pretty much put into the hands of the U.S. with no ability to take it back if Bolton turned out to be lying or merely incorrect. If the U.S. Senators and Congresspeople pass a law which then gets interpreted by the Supreme Court in a different way and executed by the President differently than they expected, they can't say that the ensuing actions were illegal, really.

    Of course the ensuing actions were illegal by Nuremberg standards, but the other countries had sort of successfully smokescreened that by voting for the UN resolution in the first place. It was a way for other countries' elites to give the U.S. the war it wanted while denying to domestic populations that they'd done so.


    engels 04.24.16 at 8:50 pm

    Links to contemporaneous legal opinions on the legality of the Iraq war:

    For the position that the war was illegal:

    "Iraq Invasion Violated UN Charter" (news.com.au, August 7, 2003) ("With unusual candour, the former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix today denounced the US-led war on Iraq as a violation of international law, and questioned Washington's motives for the invasion.")
    Law Professors for the Rule of Law
    "War on Iraq Was Illegal, Say Top Lawyers" (Severin Carrell and Robert Verkaik, The Independent, May 25, 2003)
    "International Legal Experts Regard Iraq War as Illegal" (Peter Schwarz, World Socialist Web Site, March 26, 2003)
    "Tearing up the Rules: The Illegality of Invading Iraq," Center for Economic and Social Rights, March 2003 Superb
    "Canadian Law Professors Declare US-Led War Illegal" (Henry Michaels, World Socialist Web Site, 22 March 2003)
    Robin Miller, "This War Is Illegal," March 21, 2003
    "Chirac: Iraq War Breaches International Law" (Middle East Online, March 21, 2003)
    "Is the War on Iraq illegal?" (Irwin Cotler, The Globe and Mail, March 21, 2003)
    Jim Lobe, "Law Groups Say U.S. Invasion Illegal," OneWorld.net, March 21, 2003 (an open letter signed by 31 Canadian international law professors calls a U.S. attack against Iraq "a fundamental breach of international law [that] would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War.")
    Joan Russow, "U.S. Enagaged in an Illegal Act," March 20, 2003
    International Appeal by Lawyers and Jurists against the "Preventive" Use of Force
    Michael C. Dorf, "Is the War on Iraq Lawful?" Findlaw, March 19, 2003
    Emma Thomasson, "Iraq War Illegal but Trial Unlikely, Lawyers Say," Reuters, March 19, 2003 ("President Bush and his allies are unlikely to face trial for war crimes although many nations and legal experts say a strike on Iraq without an explicit U.N. mandate breaches international law.")
    Hilary Charlesworth and Andrew Byrnes, "No, This War Is Illegal, The Age [Melbourne, Australia], March 19, 2003
    Matthew Happold, "A Talented Lawyer Arguing a Weak Case," The Guardian, March 17, 2003 ("The [British] attorney-general's assertion that the use of force against Iraq is legal without a second UN resolution does not stand scrutiny")
    Keir Starmer, "Sorry, Mr Blair, But 1441 Does Not Authorise Force," The Guardian, March 17, 2003
    "Analysis of the US Legal Position on the Use of Force Against Iraq" (Greenpeace, March 16, 2003)
    Richard Norton-Taylor, "Law Unto Themselves, The Guardian, March 14, 2003 ("A large majority of international lawyers reject the government's claim that UN resolution 1441 gives legal authority for an attack on Iraq.")
    Robert Verkaik, "'Illegal War' Could Mean Soldiers Face Prosecution," The Independent, March 12, 2003
    Anthony Howard, "War Against Iraq–The Legal Dilemma, The Times [London], March 11, 2003
    Mark Littman, "A Supreme International Crime," The Guardian, March 10, 2003 ("Any member of a government backing an aggressive war will be open to prosecution.")
    "The UN Must Take Mr Blix's Report Seriously–by Voting Against Military Action," The Independent (editorial), March 8, 2003
    "War Would Be Illegal," The Guardian, March 7, 2003 ("The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law. Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances.").
    Michael White and Patrick Wintour, "No Case for Iraq Attack Say Lawyers," The Guardian, March 7, 2003 (commenting on letter, just above, by 16 professors of international law).
    "War With Iraq 'Could Be Illegal,'" BBC, March 6, 2003 (British Professor Nicholas Grief says that Bush and Blair could face prosecution for war crimes, specifically waging an illegal war).
    Alan Elsner, "US War Without UN Approval Would Be Seen as Illegal," Reuters, March 6, 2003 ("Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, said eight out of 10 international lawyers would consider a U.S. attack without a new resolution as a violation of international law.").
    "Australian Legal Experts Declare an Invasion of Iraq a War Crime" (James Conachy, World Socialist Web Site, February 27, 2003)
    Bill Bowring, "Bush and Blair Must See Law Has a Life of Its Own," AlertNet, February 21, 2003.
    Julie Mertus, "The Law(?) of Regime Change," JURIST, February 20, 2003.
    Thalif Deen, "Of Man and God and Law," Asia Times, February 14, 2003.
    Nathaniel Hurd, "UN SCR 1141 and Potential Use of Force Against Iraq," December 6, 2002.
    "IN THE MATTER OF THE POTENTIAL USE OF ARMED FORCE BY THE UK AGAINST IRAQ AND IN THE MATTER OF RELIANCE FOR THAT USE OF FORCE ON UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1441," Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, November 2002.
    "Lawyers Statement on UN Resolution 1441 on Iraq," November 27, 2002.
    Mary Ellen O'Connell, "UN Resolution 1441: Compelling Saddam, Restraining Bush," JURIST, November 21, 2002.
    Marjorie Cohn, "UN Resolution 1441: Blackmailing the Security Council," JURIST, November 21, 2002.
    George P. Fletcher, "Did the UN Security Council Violate Its Own Rules in Passing the Iraq Resolution?," CounterPunch, November 16, 2002.
    "Legality of Use of Force against Iraq" (Public Interest Lawyers on behalf of Peacerights, September 10, 2002)
    Mary Ellen O'Connell, The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense," August 2002.

    For the position that the war was legal:

    Greg Hunt, "Yes, This War Is Legal, The Age [Melbourne, Australian], March 19, 2003
    "Attorney General: War Is Legal," The Guardian, March 17, 2003
    .67

    Donald 04.24.16 at 8:53 pm

    Given enough time, I would not be surprised to see the Erics of the world successful in relitigating the Iraq War. We already have Clinton as the nominee of the party whose members were supposedly so upset by Bush's war and Clinton's regret over her vote was obviously for political reasons. Eric does a good job with the bureaucratic gobbledygook that impresses DC types so much when it gives them permission to bomb people. Polls permitting, I'm sure Clinton would leap at the opportunity to reassert American global leadership in the delivery of high explosives.

    Give it another few years or maybe a decade and Eric will be mainstream. We will kick the Iraq syndrome just like the Gulf War kicked the Vietnam syndrome. We just need to find a crappy little country whose bombing can be portrayed as a success. Clinton might think Libya should qualify if we just went back in.

    [Apr 23, 2016] Neoliberal Globalization Is There an Alternative to Plundering the Earth Global Research - Centre for Research on Globaliza

    Notable quotes:
    "... The following is a preview of a chapter by Claudia von Werlhof in "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century." (2009) ..."
    "... To read more, order the book online. Help us spread the word: "like" the book on Facebook and share with your friends -- ..."
    www.globalresearch.ca

    Excerpt from "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century"

    By Prof. Claudia von Werlhof Global Research, May 25, 2015 Global Research 19 April 2011 Theme: Global Economy , Poverty & Social Inequality

    Neoliberal Globalization: Is There an Alternative to Plundering the Earth?

    The following is a preview of a chapter by Claudia von Werlhof in "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century." (2009)

    To read more, order the book online. Help us spread the word: "like" the book on Facebook and share with your friends --

    Is there an alternative to plundering the earth?

    Is there an alternative to making war?

    Is there an alternative to destroying the planet?

    No one asks these questions because they seem absurd. Yet, no one can escape them either. Until the onslaught of the global economic crisis, the motto of so-called "neoliberalism" was TINA: "There Is No Alternative!"

    No alternative to "neoliberal globalization"?

    No alternative to the unfettered "free market" economy?

    What Is "Neoliberal Globalization"?

    Let us first clarify what globalization and neoliberalism are, where they come from, who they are directed by, what they claim, what they do, why their effects are so fatal, why they will fail and why people nonetheless cling to them. Then, let us look at the responses of those who are not – or will not – be able to live with the consequences they cause.

    This is where the difficulties begin. For a good twenty years now we have been told that there is no alternative to neoliberal globalization, and that, in fact, no such alternative is needed either. Over and over again, we have been confronted with the TINA-concept: "There Is No Alternative!" The "iron lady", Margaret Thatcher, was one of those who reiterated this belief without end.

    The TINA-concept prohibits all thought. It follows the rationale that there is no point in analyzing and discussing neoliberalism and so-called globalization because they are inevitable. Whether we condone what is happening or not does not matter, it is happening anyway. There is no point in trying to understand. Hence: Go with it! Kill or be killed!

    Some go as far as suggesting that globalization – meaning, an economic system which developed under specific social and historical conditions – is nothing less but a law of nature. In turn, "human nature" is supposedly reflected by the character of the system's economic subjects: egotistical, ruthless, greedy and cold. This, we are told, works towards everyone's benefit.

    The question remains: why has Adam Smith's "invisible hand" become a "visible fist"? While a tiny minority reaps enormous benefits from today's neoliberalism (none of which will remain, of course), the vast majority of the earth's population suffers hardship to the extent that their very survival is at stake. The damage done seems irreversible.

    All over the world media outlets – especially television stations – avoid addressing the problem. A common excuse is that it cannot be explained.[1] The true reason is, of course, the media's corporate control.

    What Is Neoliberalism?

    Neoliberalism as an economic policy agenda which began in Chile in 1973. Its inauguration consisted of a U.S.-organized coup against a democratically elected socialist president and the installment of a bloody military dictatorship notorious for systematic torture. This was the only way to turn the neoliberal model of the so-called "Chicago Boys" under the leadership of Milton Friedman – a student of Friedrich von Hayek – into reality.

    The predecessor of the neoliberal model is the economic liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries and its notion of "free trade". Goethe's assessment at the time was: "Free trade, piracy, war – an inseparable three!"[2]

    At the center of both old and new economic liberalism lies:

    Self-interest and individualism; segregation of ethical principles and economic affairs, in other words: a process of 'de-bedding' economy from society; economic rationality as a mere cost-benefit calculation and profit maximization; competition as the essential driving force for growth and progress; specialization and the replacement of a subsistence economy with profit-oriented foreign trade ('comparative cost advantage'); and the proscription of public (state) interference with market forces.[3]

    Where the new economic liberalism outdoes the old is in its global claim. Today's economic liberalism functions as a model for each and everyone: all parts of the economy, all sectors of society, of life/nature itself. As a consequence, the once "de-bedded" economy now claims to "im-bed" everything, including political power. Furthermore, a new twisted "economic ethics" (and with it a certain idea of "human nature") emerges that mocks everything from so-called do-gooders to altruism to selfless help to care for others to a notion of responsibility.[4]

    This goes as far as claiming that the common good depends entirely on the uncontrolled egoism of the individual and, especially, on the prosperity of transnational corporations. The allegedly necessary "freedom" of the economy – which, paradoxically, only means the freedom of corporations – hence consists of a freedom from responsibility and commitment to society.

    The maximization of profit itself must occur within the shortest possible time; this means, preferably, through speculation and "shareholder value". It must meet as few obstacles as possible. Today, global economic interests outweigh not only extra-economic concerns but also national economic considerations since corporations today see themselves beyond both community and nation.[5] A "level playing field" is created that offers the global players the best possible conditions. This playing field knows of no legal, social, ecological, cultural or national "barriers".[6] As a result, economic competition plays out on a market that is free of all non-market, extra-economic or protectionist influences – unless they serve the interests of the big players (the corporations), of course. The corporations' interests – their maximal growth and progress – take on complete priority. This is rationalized by alleging that their well-being means the well-being of small enterprises and workshops as well.

    The difference between the new and the old economic liberalism can first be articulated in quantitative terms: after capitalism went through a series of ruptures and challenges – caused by the "competing economic system", the crisis of capitalism, post-war "Keynesianism" with its social and welfare state tendencies, internal mass consumer demand (so-called Fordism), and the objective of full employment in the North. The liberal economic goals of the past are now not only euphorically resurrected but they are also "globalized". The main reason is indeed that the competition between alternative economic systems is gone. However, to conclude that this confirms the victory of capitalism and the "golden West" over "dark socialism" is only one possible interpretation. Another – opposing – interpretation is to see the "modern world system" (which contains both capitalism and socialism) as having hit a general crisis which causes total and merciless competition over global resources while leveling the way for investment opportunities, i.e. the valorization of capital.[7]

    The ongoing globalization of neoliberalism demonstrates which interpretation is right. Not least, because the differences between the old and the new economic liberalism can not only be articulated in quantitative terms but in qualitative ones too. What we are witnessing are completely new phenomena: instead of a democratic "complete competition" between many small enterprises enjoying the freedom of the market, only the big corporations win. In turn, they create new market oligopolies and monopolies of previously unknown dimensions. The market hence only remains free for them, while it is rendered unfree for all others who are condemned to an existence of dependency (as enforced producers, workers and consumers) or excluded from the market altogether (if they have neither anything to sell or buy). About fifty percent of the world's population fall into this group today, and the percentage is rising.[8]

    Anti-trust laws have lost all power since the transnational corporations set the norms. It is the corporations – not "the market" as an anonymous mechanism or "invisible hand" – that determine today's rules of trade, for example prices and legal regulations. This happens outside any political control. Speculation with an average twenty percent profit margin edges out honest producers who become "unprofitable".[9] Money becomes too precious for comparatively non-profitable, long-term projects,

    or projects that only – how audacious! – serve a good life. Money instead "travels upwards" and disappears. Financial capital determines more and more what the markets are and do.[10] By delinking the dollar from the price of gold, money creation no longer bears a direct relationship to production".[11] Moreover, these days most of us are – exactly like all governments – in debt. It is financial capital that has all the money – we have none.[12]

    Small, medium, even some bigger enterprises are pushed out of the market, forced to fold or swallowed by transnational corporations because their performances are below average in comparison to speculation – rather: spookulation – wins. The public sector, which has historically been defined as a sector of not-for-profit economy and administration, is "slimmed" and its "profitable" parts ("gems") handed to corporations (privatized). As a consequence, social services that are necessary for our existence disappear. Small and medium private businesses – which, until recently, employed eighty percent of the workforce and provided normal working conditions – are affected by these developments as well. The alleged correlation between economic growth and secure employment is false. When economic growth is accompanied by the mergers of businesses, jobs are lost.[13]

    If there are any new jobs, most are precarious, meaning that they are only available temporarily and badly paid. One job is usually not enough to make a living.[14] This means that the working conditions in the North become akin to those in the South, and the working conditions of men akin to those of women – a trend diametrically opposed to what we have always been told. Corporations now leave for the South (or East) to use cheap – and particularly female – labor without union affiliation. This has already been happening since the 1970s in the "Export Processing Zones" (EPZs, "world market factories" or "maquiladoras"), where most of the world's computer chips, sneakers, clothes and electronic goods are produced.[15] The EPZs lie in areas where century-old colonial-capitalist and authoritarian-patriarchal conditions guarantee the availability of cheap labor.[16] The recent shift of business opportunities from consumer goods to armaments is a particularly troubling development.[17]

    It is not only commodity production that is "outsourced" and located in the EPZs, but service industries as well. This is a result of the so-called Third Industrial Revolution, meaning the development of new information and communication technologies. Many jobs have disappeared entirely due to computerization, also in administrative fields.[18] The combination of the principles of "high tech" and "low wage"/"no wage" (always denied by "progress" enthusiasts) guarantees a "comparative cost advantage" in foreign trade. This will eventually lead to "Chinese wages" in the West. A potential loss of Western consumers is not seen as a threat. A corporate economy does not care whether consumers are European, Chinese or Indian.

    The means of production become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, especially since finance capital – rendered precarious itself – controls asset values ever more aggressively. New forms of private property are created, not least through the "clearance" of public property and the transformation of formerly public and small-scale private services and industries to a corporate business sector. This concerns primarily fields that have long been (at least partly) excluded from the logic of profit – e.g. education, health, energy or water supply/disposal. New forms of so-called enclosures emerge from today's total commercialization of formerly small-scale private or public industries and services, of the "commons", and of natural resources like oceans, rain forests, regions of genetic diversity or geopolitical interest (e.g. potential pipeline routes), etc.[19] As far as the new virtual spaces and communication networks go, we are witnessing frantic efforts to bring these under private control as well.[20]

    All these new forms of private property are essentially created by (more or less) predatory forms of appropriation. In this sense, they are a continuation of the history of so-called original accumulation which has expanded globally, in accordance with to the motto: "Growth through expropriation!"[21]

    Most people have less and less access to the means of production, and so the dependence on scarce and underpaid work increases. The destruction of the welfare state also destroys the notion that individuals can rely on the community to provide for them in times of need. Our existence relies exclusively on private, i.e. expensive, services that are often of much worse quality and much less reliable than public services. (It is a myth that the private always outdoes the public.) What we are experiencing is undersupply formerly only known by the colonial South. The old claim that the South will eventually develop into the North is proven wrong. It is the North that increasingly develops into the South. We are witnessing the latest form of "development", namely, a world system of underdevelopment.[22] Development and underdevelopment go hand in hand.[23] This might even dawn on "development aid" workers soon.

    It is usually women who are called upon to counterbalance underdevelopment through increased work ("service provisions") in the household. As a result, the workload and underpay of women takes on horrendous dimensions: they do unpaid work inside their homes and poorly paid "housewifized" work outside.[24] Yet, commercialization does not stop in front of the home's doors either. Even housework becomes commercially co-opted ("new maid question"), with hardly any financial benefits for the women who do the work.[25]

    Not least because of this, women are increasingly coerced into prostitution, one of today's biggest global industries.[26] This illustrates two things: a) how little the "emancipation" of women actually leads to "equal terms" with men; and b) that "capitalist development" does not imply increased "freedom" in wage labor relations, as the Left has claimed for a long time.[27] If the latter were the case, then neoliberalism would mean the voluntary end of capitalism once it reaches its furthest extension. This, however, does not appear likely.

    Today, hundreds of millions of quasi-slaves, more than ever before, exist in the "world system."[28] The authoritarian model of the "Export Processing Zones" is conquering the East and threatening the North. The redistribution of wealth runs ever more – and with ever accelerated speed – from the bottom to the top. The gap between the rich and the poor has never been wider. The middle classes disappear. This is the situation we are facing.

    It becomes obvious that neoliberalism marks not the end of colonialism but, to the contrary, the colonization of the North. This new "colonization of the world"[29] points back to the beginnings of the "modern world system" in the "long 16th century", when the conquering of the Americas, their exploitation and colonial transformation allowed for the rise and "development" of Europe.[30] The so-called "children's diseases" of modernity keep on haunting it, even in old age. They are, in fact, the main feature of modernity's latest stage. They are expanding instead of disappearing.

    Where there is no South, there is no North; where there is no periphery, there is no center; where there is no colony, there is no – in any case no "Western" – civilization.[31]

    Austria is part of the world system too. It is increasingly becoming a corporate colony (particularly of German corporations). This, however, does not keep it from being an active colonizer itself, especially in the East.[32]

    Social, cultural, traditional and ecological considerations are abandoned and give way to a mentality of plundering. All global resources that we still have – natural resources, forests, water, genetic pools – have turned into objects of utilization. Rapid ecological destruction through depletion is the consequence. If one makes more profit by cutting down trees than by planting them, then there is no reason not to cut them.[33] Neither the public nor the state interferes, despite global warming and the obvious fact that the clearing of the few remaining rain forests will irreversibly destroy the earth's climate – not to mention the many other negative effects of such actions.[34] Climate, animal, plants, human and general ecological rights are worth nothing compared to the interests of the corporations – no matter that the rain forest is not a renewable resource and that the entire earth's ecosystem depends on it. If greed, and the rationalism with which it is economically enforced, really was an inherent anthropological trait, we would have never even reached this day.

    The commander of the Space Shuttle that circled the earth in 2005 remarked that "the center of Africa was burning". She meant the Congo, in which the last great rain forest of the continent is located. Without it there will be no more rain clouds above the sources of the Nile. However, it needs to disappear in order for corporations to gain free access to the Congo's natural resources that are the reason for the wars that plague the region today. After all, one needs diamonds and coltan for mobile phones.

    Today, everything on earth is turned into commodities, i.e. everything becomes an object of "trade" and commercialization (which truly means liquidation, the transformation of all into liquid money). In its neoliberal stage it is not enough for capitalism to globally pursue less cost-intensive and preferably "wageless" commodity production. The objective is to transform everyone and everything into commodities, including life itself.[35] We are racing blindly towards the violent and absolute conclusion of this "mode of production", namely total capitalization/liquidation by "monetarization".[36]

    We are not only witnessing perpetual praise of the market – we are witnessing what can be described as "market fundamentalism". People believe in the market as if it was a god. There seems to be a sense that nothing could ever happen without it. Total global maximized accumulation of money/capital as abstract wealth becomes the sole purpose of economic activity. A "free" world market for everything has to be established – a world market that functions according to the interests of the corporations and capitalist money. The installment of such a market proceeds with dazzling speed. It creates new profit possibilities where they have not existed before, e.g. in Iraq, Eastern Europe or China.

    One thing remains generally overlooked: the abstract wealth created for accumulation implies the destruction of nature as concrete wealth. The result is a "hole in the ground" and next to it a garbage dump with used commodities, outdated machinery and money without value.[37] However, once all concrete wealth (which today consists mainly of the last natural resources) will be gone, abstract wealth will disappear as well. It will, in Marx's words, "evaporate". The fact that abstract wealth is not real wealth will become obvious, and so will the answer to the question of which wealth modern economic activity has really created. In the end it is nothing but monetary wealth (and even this mainly exists virtually or on accounts) that constitutes a monoculture controlled by a tiny minority. Diversity is suffocated and millions of people are left wondering how to survive. And really: how do you survive with neither resources nor means of production nor money?

    The nihilism of our economic system is evident. The whole world will be transformed into money – and then it will disappear. After all, money cannot be eaten. What no one seems to consider is the fact that it is impossible to re-transform commodities, money, capital and machinery into nature or concrete wealth. It seems that underlying all "economic development" is the assumption that "resources", the "sources of wealth",[38] are renewable and everlasting – just like the "growth" they create.[39]

    The notion that capitalism and democracy are one is proven a myth by neoliberalism and its "monetary totalitarianism".[40]

    The primacy of politics over economy has been lost. Politicians of all parties have abandoned it. It is the corporations that dictate politics. Where corporate interests are concerned, there is no place for democratic convention or community control. Public space disappears. The res publica turns into a res privata, or – as we could say today – a res privata transnationale (in its original Latin meaning, privare means "to deprive"). Only those in power still have rights. They give themselves the licenses they need, from the "license to plunder" to the "license to kill".[41] Those who get in their way or challenge their "rights" are vilified, criminalized and to an increasing degree defined as "terrorists" or, in the case of defiant governments, as "rogue states" – a label that usually implies threatened or actual military attack, as we can see in the cases of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and maybe Syria and Iran in the near future. U.S. President Bush had even spoken of the possibility of "preemptive" nuclear strikes should the U.S. feel endangered by weapons of mass destruction.[42] The European Union did not object.[43]

    Neoliberalism and war are two sides of the same coin.[44] Free trade, piracy and war are still "an inseparable three" – today maybe more so than ever. War is not only "good for the economy" but is indeed its driving force and can be understood as the "continuation of economy with other means".[45] War and economy have become almost indistinguishable.[46] Wars about resources – especially oil and water – have already begun.[47] The Gulf Wars are the most obvious examples. Militarism once again appears as the "executor of capital accumulation" – potentially everywhere and enduringly.[48]

    Human rights and rights of sovereignty have been transferred from people, communities and governments to corporations.[49] The notion of the people as a sovereign body has practically been abolished. We have witnessed a coup of sorts. The political systems of the West and the nation state as guarantees for and expression of the international division of labor in the modern world system are increasingly dissolving.[50] Nation states are developing into "periphery states" according to the inferior role they play in the proto-despotic "New World Order".[51] Democracy appears outdated. After all, it "hinders business".[52]

    The "New World Order" implies a new division of labor that does no longer distinguish between North and South, East and West – today, everywhere is South. An according International Law is established which effectively functions from top to bottom ("top-down") and eliminates all local and regional communal rights. And not only that: many such rights are rendered invalid both retroactively and for the future.[53]

    The logic of neoliberalism as a sort of totalitarian neo-mercantilism is that all resources, all markets, all money, all profits, all means of production, all "investment opportunities", all rights and all power belong to the corporations only. To paraphrase Richard Sennett: "Everything to the Corporations!"[54] One might add: "Now!"

    The corporations are free to do whatever they please with what they get. Nobody is allowed to interfere. Ironically, we are expected to rely on them to find a way out of the crisis we are in. This puts the entire globe at risk since responsibility is something the corporations do not have or know. The times of social contracts are gone.[55] In fact, pointing out the crisis alone has become a crime and all critique will soon be defined as "terror" and persecuted as such.[56]

    IMF Economic Medicine

    Since the 1980s, it is mainly the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the World Bank and the IMF that act as the enforcers of neoliberalism. These programs are levied against the countries of the South which can be extorted due to their debts. Meanwhile, numerous military interventions and wars help to take possession of the assets that still remain, secure resources, install neoliberalism as the global economic politics, crush resistance movements (which are cynically labeled as "IMF uprisings"), and facilitate the lucrative business of reconstruction.[57]

    In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher introduced neoliberalism in Anglo-America. In 1989, the so-called "Washington Consensus" was formulated. It claimed to lead to global freedom, prosperity and economic growth through "deregulation, liberalization and privatization". This has become the credo and promise of all neoliberals. Today we know that the promise has come true for the corporations only – not for anybody else.

    In the Middle East, the Western support for Saddam Hussein in the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, and the Gulf War of the early 1990s, announced the permanent U.S. presence in the world's most contested oil region.

    In continental Europe, neoliberalism began with the crisis in Yugoslavia caused by the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the World Bank and the IMF. The country was heavily exploited, fell apart and finally beset by a civil war over its last remaining resources.[58] Since the NATO war in 1999, the Balkans are fragmented, occupied and geopolitically under neoliberal control.[59] The region is of main strategic interest for future oil and gas transport from the Caucasus to the West (for example the "Nabucco" gas pipeline that is supposed to start operating from the Caspian Sea through Turkey and the Balkans by 2011.[60] The reconstruction of the Balkans is exclusively in the hands of Western corporations.

    All governments, whether left, right, liberal or green, accept this. There is no analysis of the connection between the politics of neoliberalism, its history, its background and its effects on Europe and other parts of the world. Likewise, there is no analysis of its connection to the new militarism.

    NOTES

    [1] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 23, 36.

    [2] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust: Part Two, New York, Oxford University Press, 1999.

    [3] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen. Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005, p. 34.

    [4] Arno Gruen, Der Verlust des Mitgefühls. Über die Politik der Gleichgültigkeit, München, 1997, dtv.

    [5] Sassen Saskia, "Wohin führt die Globalisierung?," Machtbeben, 2000, Stuttgart-München, DVA.

    [6] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 24.

    [7] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, 1979, Suhrkamp; Immanuel Wallerstein (Hg), The Modern World-System in the Longue Durée, Boulder/ London; Paradigm Publishers, 2004.

    [8] Susan George, im Vortrag, Treffen von Gegnern und Befürwortern der Globalisierung im Rahmen der Tagung des WEF (World Economic Forum), Salzburg, 2001.

    [9] Elmar Altvater, Das Ende des Kapitalismus, wie wir ihn kennen, Münster, Westfälisches Dampfboot, 2005.

    [10] Elmar Altvater and Birgit Mahnkopf, Grenzen der Globalisierung. Ökonomie, Ökologie und Politik in der Weltgesellschaft, Münster, Westfälisches Dampfboot, 1996.

    [11] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview mit Sarah van Gelder, 2006, www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer 0497.html; Margrit Kennedy, Geld ohne Zinsen und Inflation, Steyerberg, Permakultur, 1990.

    [12] Helmut Creutz, Das Geldsyndrom. Wege zur krisenfreien Marktwirtschaft, Frankfurt, Ullstein, 1995.

    [13] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7.

    [14] Barbara Ehrenreich, Arbeit poor. Unterwegs in der Dienstleistungsgesellschaft, München, Kunstmann, 2001.

    [15] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.

    [16] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women, The Last Colony, London/ New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.

    [17] Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization. The Truth Behind September 11th, Oro, Ontario, Global Outlook, 2003.

    [18] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.

    [19] Ana Isla, The Tragedy of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology Dpt., St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada, 2005.

    [20] John Hepburn, Die Rückeroberung von Allmenden – von alten und von neuen, übers. Vortrag bei, Other Worlds Conference; Univ. of Pennsylvania; 28./29.4, 2005.

    [21] Claudia von Werlhof, Was haben die Hühner mit dem Dollar zu tun? Frauen und Ökonomie, München, Frauenoffensive, 1991; Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly: Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 148-192.

    [22] Andre Gunder Frank, Die Entwicklung der Unterentwicklung, in ders. u.a., Kritik des bürgerlichen Antiimperialismus, Berlin, Wagenbach, 1969.

    [23] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.

    [24] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women, the Last Colony, London/New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.

    [25] Claudia von Werlhof, Frauen und Ökonomie. Reden, Vorträge 2002-2004, Themen GATS, Globalisierung, Mechernich, Gerda-Weiler-Stiftung, 2004.

    [26] Ana Isla, "Women and Biodiversity as Capital Accumulation: An Eco-Feminist View," Socialist Bulletin, Vol. 69, Winter, 2003, p. 21-34; Ana Isla, The Tragedy of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology Department, St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada, 2005.

    [27] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.

    [28] Kevin Bales, Die neue Sklaverei, München, Kunstmann, 2001.

    [29] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.

    [30] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979; Andre Gunder Frank, Orientierung im Weltsystem, Von der Neuen Welt zum Reich der Mitte, Wien, Promedia, 2005; Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale, Women in the International Division of Labour, London, Zed Books, 1986.

    [31] Claudia von Werlhof, "Questions to Ramona," in Corinne Kumar (Ed.), Asking, We Walk. The South as New Political Imaginary, Vol. 2, Bangalore, Streelekha, 2007, p. 214-268

    [32] Hannes Hofbauer, Osterweiterung. Vom Drang nach Osten zur peripheren EU-Integration, Wien, Promedia, 2003; Andrea Salzburger, Zurück in die Zukunft des Kapitalismus, Kommerz und Verelendung in Polen, Frankfurt – New York, Peter Lang Verlag, 2006.

    [33] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview mit Sarah van Gelder, 2006, www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer 0497.html.

    [34] August Raggam, Klimawandel, Biomasse als Chance gegen Klimakollaps und globale Erwärmung, Graz, Gerhard Erker, 2004.

    [35] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.

    [36] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.

    [37] Johan Galtung, Eurotopia, Die Zukunft eines Kontinents, Wien, Promedia, 1993.

    [38] Karl Marx, Capital, New York, Vintage, 1976.

    [39] Claudia von Werlhof, Loosing Faith in Progress: Capitalist Patriarchy as an "Alchemical System," in Bennholdt-Thomsen et.al.(Eds.), There is an Alternative, 2001, p. 15-40.

    [40] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.

    [41] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.

    [42] Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global Research, 2005.

    [43] Michel Chossudovsky, "Nuclear War Against Iran," Global Research, Center for Research on Globalization, Ottawa 13.1, 2006.

    [44] Altvater, Chossudovsky, Roy, Serfati, Globalisierung und Krieg, Sand im Getriebe 17, Internationaler deutschsprachiger Rundbrief der ATTAC – Bewegung, Sonderausgabe zu den Anti-Kriegs-Demonstrationen am 15.2., 2003; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.

    [45] Hazel Hendersen, Building a Win-Win World. Life Beyond Global Economic Warfare, San Francisco, 1996.

    [46] Claudia von Werlhof, Vom Wirtschaftskrieg zur Kriegswirtschaft. Die Waffen der, Neuen-Welt-Ordnung, in Mies 2005, p. 40-48.

    [47] Michael T. Klare, Resource Wars. The New Landscape of Global Conflict, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 2001.

    [48] Rosa Luxemburg, Die Akkumulation des Kapitals, Frankfurt, 1970.

    [49] Tony Clarke, Der Angriff auf demokratische Rechte und Freiheiten, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 80-94.

    [50] Sassen Saskia, Machtbeben. Wohin führt die Globalisierung?, Stuttgart-München, DVA, 2000.

    [51] Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, 2001; Noam Chomsky, Hybris. Die endgültige Sicherstellung der globalen –Vormachtstellung der USA, Hamburg-Wien, Europaverlag, 2003.

    [52] Claudia von Werlhof, Speed Kills!, in Dimmel/Schmee, 2005, p. 284-292

    [53] See the "roll back" and "stand still" clauses in the WTO agreements in Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003.

    [54] Richard Sennett, zit. "In Einladung zu den Wiener Vorlesungen," 21.11.2005: Alternativen zur neoliberalen Globalisierung, 2005.

    [55] Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly: Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 148-192.

    [56] Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global Research, 2005.

    [57] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen. Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005; Bennholdt-Thomsen/Faraclas/Werlhof 2001.

    [58] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002.

    [59] Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die Wahrheit über den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer Buchverlag, 2000; Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die deutsche Verantwortung für den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer Buchverlag, 2000.

    [60] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview with Sarah van Gelder, 2006, www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer 0497.html .

    The original source of this article is Global Research Copyright © Prof. Claudia von Werlhof , Global Research, 2015

    [Apr 23, 2016] Recolonisation Timor, Kosovo, Iraq, ... by Paul Treanor

    Notable quotes:
    "... A large number of organisations have contributed to the current trend to recolonisation. It is possible to speak of a recolonisation lobby, although there is no central organisation. The most important are the interventionist support groups, promoting western intervention in a specific territory - East Timor, Tibet, Kurdistan. Ironically, many of them began as 'anti-imperialist' groups - some more than a generation ago. The right-wing neoconservatives in the United States are therefore not the only advocates of wars of conquest. They played no role in, for instance, the British recolonisation of Sierra Leone. ..."
    "... Aid organisations, including the International Red Cross, have formed a consistent lobby against sovereignty and independence. Almost without exception, they are western in origin, and committed to western liberal values. That background applies also to human rights organisations. They differ from the aid organisations, in their commitment to a specific political philosophy: rights-based liberalism. There are some similar organisations promoting more specialised political philosophies, such as press freedom. The organisations of the billionaire George Soros deserve a a category of their own: not just because they are very large, well-organised, and well-funded, but because they promote the political philosophy of one man, the liberal theorist Karl Popper. ..."
    "... The elite foreign-policy organisations in western countries had shifted to an interventionist consensus, even before 11 September 2001. Some of these are private foundations, others are quasi-academic (although access to them is tightly controlled). These are organisations such as the US Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), or the Instituut Clingendael in the Netherlands. The trend to recolonisation is also dependent on the western media: especially the large commercial and national broadcasters, and the commercial press. Although there are some genuine independent media in western countries, they lack the resources to provide an alternative to the mainstream media. Inside organisations like CNN or the BBC, the politics are clear: everyone shares a consensus, that liberal market democracies are superior to all other forms of society. Elements of liberal philosophy, such as human rights, are treated as self-evident and absolute truths. Together with the paternalistic and openly colonial attitudes, often visible in their coverage, this is a background for pro-intervention campaigns. ..."
    January 16, 2007 | inter.nl.net

    The UN protectorate in Timor was the first full recolonisation of former colonial territory by western powers. 25 years ago that would have been unthinkable. Ironically, the UN in 1990 declared the 'International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism' - yet the decade ended with 'white rule' restored in Timor. In 2002 it became nominally independent, although still 100% dependent on international aid, and in 2006 Australian troops again took control of security. Kosovo is still a protectorate, although now with an elected parliament, and a new protectorate has been created in western Macedonia. All these recolonisations were UN-sponsored, and that might yet happen in Iraq. Haďti also got a new American-appointed and UN-sanctioned government in 2004. With much less media attention, and without UN authorisation, Australia imposed a mandate on the Solomon Islands in 2003. Last changes 16 January 2007.


    The global context

    Why is there now a trend to recolonisation, after a historically unique decolonisation in the 1950's and 1960's? Developments in the last 15 years have reversed western attitudes to colonisation, well before the September 11 attacks in 2001. The most important is the strong feeling of cultural superiority in the west, and the belief that liberal values are universal. Universality was always inherent in liberalism, and to a lesser extent in 'democracy' as an ideology. The long-term global expansion of liberal democracy was inevitable, in the sense that any universal ideology will expand spatially, so long as there is no specific opposition to it. In long-term historical perspective, recolonisation is one form that this expansion can take. However, it remains ideologically driven - 'crusade' is a more accurate term than 'imperialism'. Tony Blair's July 2003 speech to the US Congress was a good example of the attitude of universal superiority:

    Members of Congress, ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. And anywhere... (APPLAUSE)... Anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.
    The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack. And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify it around an idea. And that idea is liberty....(APPLAUSE)... We must find the strength to fight for this idea and the compassion to make it universal.
    Address by Tony Blair to a joint meeting of Congress, 17 July 2003.

    In a negative sense, the reversal of the de-colonisation of the 1950's and 1960's is facilitated by the renewed western image of non-western countries as 'barbarian', a sea of atrocities. In turn that has facilitated the abandonment of sovereignty doctrines - states can be written off as 'failed states' or rogue states' and invasion is then considered acceptable. In international law and geopolitics, this led to the acceptance of interventionist doctrines by the UN, which previously emphasised the doctrine of sovereignty. Interventionist international military strategy and tactics have been created, to replace the traditional ceasefire-line presence of UN troops.

    Inside the western countries (the potential and actual recolonisers) intervention lobbies have emerged, typically NGO's with good access to the media. Their have origins in the peace movement and Third-World movements, which have sometimes turned full circle from the 'anti-imperialism' of 30 years ago. As a political force for intervention, these lobbies have converged with the traditional foreign-policy elites in western countries. This convergence was symbolised by the appointment of Médecins sans Frontičres founder Bernard Kouchner as UN governor of Kosovo. Within the target states, the potential colonies, a western-funded and usually English-speaking NGO elite has emerged, the so-called 'democratic forces'. These are the kind of people who appear on CNN after a western intervention, to express their gratitude, in excellent English.

    In contrast to earlier colonial practice, recolonisation is nominally international or multi-state - traditional colonies had one colonial power only. In practice a tendency already apparent in the League of Nations mandates is repeated: the nearest western power plays a dominant role (in Timor, that was Australia).

    The definition of colonialism

    There is a strong visual image of colonialism (often from historical films), but it is surprisingly difficult to define it. In Europe secessionist movements often claim that their country was "colonised". But is Scotland really a 'colony' of England? Was Slovakia really 'colonised' by the Czech-dominated government of Czechoslovakia?

    I think a colonial relationship is defined by two things:

    • first, there is an inequality of power and administration,
    • secondly this inequality is along ethnic lines.

    Colonial territories are sharply distinct from the nation state, because they reject the classic nationalist principle that ethnic group, citizenship, state power, and state boundaries, should all coincide.

    It is this fundamental colonial relationship which was so clearly visible in Timor during the Australian occupation. White Australian troops patrolled the streets of Dili, but the inhabitants of Timor were not allowed to send troops to patrol the streets of Canberra, and search white Australians for weapons. Timorese can not vote in Australian elections, or sit in the Australian parliament, or even permanently reside in Australia - but Australian electors took decisions affecting Timor, and will do that again after the re-intervention in 2006. There is an asymmetric exercise of power in such protectorates, and the asymmetry is ethnic.

    On this definition of colonialism, the French overseas departments (DOM) are no longer colonies. Their inhabitants now have French passports and full citizenship: they vote in French national elections, receive the same social security payments as in France, and are free to travel to France at any time. When the territories were true colonies, only Europeans and a tiny 'native elite' had such rights. No DOM status, or anything like it, is planned for Iraq. (Think of how Tony Blair would react, to the idea of paying British benefits to the Iraqi unemployed).

    The most comprehensive definition of colonialism I could find is from the Office of Tibet site: ironically this Tibetan government-in-exile implicitly promotes western intervention in Tibet. This is the summary from the Introduction, there is more detail in Chapter II: Doctrines on Colonialism

    Criteria of colonialism

    Establishment of Colonial Rule
    Colonial rule is established in one or more of the following three ways: military conquest and subsequent annexation; the conclusion of a treaty or contract; the creation of merchant enclaves followed by settlement.

    Colonialism always involves the migration of people from a metropolitan state to a satellite region, but the magnitude of settlement differs from case to case.

    Characteristics of Colonial Administration
    The original population of the colonised territory is not, or poorly, represented in the colonial government. The interests of the original inhabitants are largely determined by the metropolitan, colonial power.

    Colonial rule superimposes national borders. In most cases these borders do not correspond to the local community structure(s) or to the political history of the colonised territory. Often the territory in question had not been organized as a nation state before the advent of the colonial power.

    Economic development is planned and imposed by the colonial power and often benefits the metropolitan state at the expense of the satellite region. Resources located in the colony are transferred to or used for the benefit of the metropolitan state and for further processing and marketing by that state.

    Civilising mission: the colonial power undertakes to 'civilise' the original inhabitants of a colony. The underlying presumption is that the colonial power possesses a culture/civilisation which is superior in relation to the culture/civilisation of the colonised population(s). In addition, the colonial power often claims that the original population of the colonised territory is unable to rule itself for reasons of political immaturity or economic backwardness.

    Cultural exchange between settlers/representatives from the metropolitan state and the original inhabitants of the colony is asymmetrical. The latter adopt more aspects of the culture of the former than vice versa.

    Maintenance of Colonial Authority
    The reactions of colonial powers to colonial resistance of colonised peoples are based on strategies to eliminate dissent.

    The maintenance of colonial authority involves a permanent military presence, consisting of soldiers from the metropolitan state or local soldiers under the command of officers from the metropolitan state.

    The maintenance of authority is often strengthened by a policy of population transfer.

    Perceptions
    Colonised people(s) experience colonial rule as alien. Similarly, citizens from the metropolitan state continue to make a distinction between themselves and the original inhabitants of the colony.

    Outcome of the Colonisation Process
    Colonisation may result in one or more of the following situations: 1) decolonisation, 2) complete take-over of the colony by the metropolitan settlement community, 3) the continuation of colonial rule over a territory which retains most of its pre-colonial identity or 4) integration into the metropolitan state.

    None of the aforementioned criteria is essential in establishing that a certain situation can be described in terms of colonialism . A combination of a number of these criteria is sufficient for determining that a situation is at least de-facto colonial.

    The Tibet site has an obvious bias: it is trying to avoid the 'salt-water doctrine', which says colonies are separated from the coloniser, usually by sea. (Since Tibet borders on China, it can not be a Chinese colony under the 'salt-water' definition). This is also an issue in defining recolonisation: is Kosovo a 'colony' of Germany and Britain because they station troops there? I use the term recolonisation to apply to territories in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but not to interventions by European powers in Central and Eastern Europe. In historical perspective, European wars among European states are not unusual, but the high tide of European colonialism lasted at most 200 years.

    The recolonisation of Iraq

    The listed features of colonialism accurately described the American-led protectorate in Iraq. The implied scenario has however fallen victim to the insurgency, civil war, and disintegration - the unexpected outcome of the recolonisation attempt. The 'protectorate formerly ruled by Saddam' was established by a military conquest - in retrospect only a partial conquest. The first post-invasion public administration was provided by the 'Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance' (OHRA) - despite the name, a military organisation. An elite of 'internationals' was ready to descend on Iraq - as in Kosovo - but deteriorating security made that impossible. Like so-called 'neutral' aid workers, such 'internationals' are usually indirectly funded by western governments. Attacks on the UN and Red Cross offices were undoubtedly related to their true geopolitical status - administrators of an American-led occupation. Many aid organisations subsequently left.

    The original population of Iraq had no political representation in the interim administration. All real power rested with the US military, who command the other troop contingents. As their control eroded, no clear and/or legitimate government took its place. They are the nearest thing to 'rulers of Iraq', until they withdraw. The assemblies which drafted the Iraqi constitution were US-appointed, and all election candidates were US-approved. Decisions were indeed made in the interests of the western powers, until they lost control: 'economic development' meant that the single exportable resource of Iraq - oil - was indeed be transferred to the western states.

    'Civilising' the country, or 'democratising' it, as they now say, is no longer on the agenda in Iraq. Population transfers are: under US occupation, Sunni-Arab migrants to Kurdish northern Iraq fled south - several hundred thousand, on some estimates. Now, the rest of the population has started to flee the country. Some people in the US foreign policy establishment want Iraq restructured as an ethnic federation: an all-out civil war would suit their purposes. Like Yugoslavia, Iraq was assembled from the components of former empires, and could face the same 'dismemberment by bloodbath'. Whatever the developments, most people in Iraq (Kurd, Sunni and Shia) experience the occupation administration as alien - and the citizens of the US and Britain will continue to see the entire Iraqi population as different, and generally inferior, to themselves.

    It is the differential exercise of power which makes the recolonisation immoral. As in Timor, there is no question of the Iraqi population being allowed any participation in the political life of their new rulers. Although their city might be occupied by British troops, and governed by a British administrator, they will get no vote in British elections. They will have no right to demonstrate in London, even if they could afford to travel there. The fate of Iraq was decided by a remote and contemptuous population, the western electorates. This is clearly unjust, and 'government with contempt' tends to create abuses and atrocities. Iraq proved to be no exception. Now it has ended with a civil war.

    The recolonisation certainly can not be justified on the grounds of 'democracy', Tony Blair was elected in Britain, and George Bush was elected (fairly or not) in the United States. Neither of them ever had any democratic mandate to govern Iraq, and no political process of any kind conferred their power there. They ruled Iraq purely by the exercise of military force, and where that force weakened, their authority disappeared. With respect to the Iraqi population, they are just as much a dictator as Saddam Hussein.

    The recolonisation ideology

    At its simplest, a protectorate in Iraq is simply 'white rule'. The whites have the military power, they rule the natives, the natives have nothing to say - it's as simple as that. Predictably, the natives rebelled. The worse the insurgency becomes, the more brutal the exercise of foreign power. Things will only get worse in Iraq. Unfortunately, this ethnic inequality is likely to be repeated in the coming years, as more countries are subjected to recolonisation. The core beliefs of the recolonisers include a belief in the absolute truth of their own values: they reject scepticism and relativism. They believe in the universality of these values, without geographic or ethnic limits. They have a crusader attitude, believing that there is a moral duty to bring these values to the whole world, by force if necessary. They see themselves as part of a morally superior movement (sometimes called 'global civil society' and they have a contempt for other values (cultural and moral). At heart, however, the recolonisation movement is a repeat of the racism, jingoism, and imperialism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. When it is challenged, it is likely to produce a repeat of the decolonisation wars of the 1950's and 1960's.

    British ministers' claim to be defending civilisation against barbarity in Iraq finds a powerful echo in 1950s Kenya, when Britain sought to smash an uprising against colonial rule. Yet, while the British media and political class expressed horror at the tactics of the Mau Mau, the worst abuses were committed by the occupiers. The colonial police used methods like slicing off ears, flogging until death and pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight.
    The colonial precedent, Mark Curtis, The Guardian, October 26, 2004.

    A media stereotype of western intervention paved the way for the invasions of recent years. It too is a reworked version of colonial racist attitudes: the world outside the western democracies is presented as barbarian, and the 'native' population as either violent and oppressive (warlords, militiamen, torturers), or as victims (refugees, children, corpses at mass graves). The victims are depicted as passive, powerless, and incapable of independent action: a typical image is of 'native' women weeping at a grave. In contrast, 'white' soldiers and aid-workers are presented as forceful and active, capable of responding to the situation, as helpers (for instance bringing food). The 'native' population is not shown in active or helping roles, but as passive and grateful, usually in a childlike way (clapping, singing, dancing). A typical image is the native population cheering as 'white' troops enter a town. Western post-intervention reactions are in the form of measured statements (from leaders and spokesmen).

    I put the words "white" and "native" in quotation marks: many of these TV stereotypes emerged during Balkan intervention, where all the war parties were white Europeans. All these stereotypes were visible in western media reports from Iraq, although they were overshadowed by the battle reports - the intensity of fighting was much greater in Iraq.

    A large number of organisations have contributed to the current trend to recolonisation. It is possible to speak of a recolonisation lobby, although there is no central organisation. The most important are the interventionist support groups, promoting western intervention in a specific territory - East Timor, Tibet, Kurdistan. Ironically, many of them began as 'anti-imperialist' groups - some more than a generation ago. The right-wing neoconservatives in the United States are therefore not the only advocates of wars of conquest. They played no role in, for instance, the British recolonisation of Sierra Leone.

    Closely related to these political campaign groups, are the thousands of NGO's concerned with the South, the possible targets of recolonisation. It is difficult to draw a clear line between the political action groups and the NGO's - membership and activities often overlap. Collectively they see themselves as a form of global movement, with some shared values: for this perception, terms like 'global civil society' are used. However, the reality is that most NGO's are from OECD member states. In fact, many of these 'non-governmental' organisations are indirectly funded by western governments.

    Intellectuals, especially academics, are also important in the recolonisation trend. Some are only concerned with a specific territory, some campaign occasionally for specific interventions. However the most influential are those intellectuals, who have directly attacked the concept of sovereignty. Some of these theorists, such as Richard Falk, have being doing that for decades: they now see their ideas adopted by the academic establishment.

    Aid organisations, including the International Red Cross, have formed a consistent lobby against sovereignty and independence. Almost without exception, they are western in origin, and committed to western liberal values. That background applies also to human rights organisations. They differ from the aid organisations, in their commitment to a specific political philosophy: rights-based liberalism. There are some similar organisations promoting more specialised political philosophies, such as press freedom. The organisations of the billionaire George Soros deserve a a category of their own: not just because they are very large, well-organised, and well-funded, but because they promote the political philosophy of one man, the liberal theorist Karl Popper.

    The elite foreign-policy organisations in western countries had shifted to an interventionist consensus, even before 11 September 2001. Some of these are private foundations, others are quasi-academic (although access to them is tightly controlled). These are organisations such as the US Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), or the Instituut Clingendael in the Netherlands. The trend to recolonisation is also dependent on the western media: especially the large commercial and national broadcasters, and the commercial press. Although there are some genuine independent media in western countries, they lack the resources to provide an alternative to the mainstream media. Inside organisations like CNN or the BBC, the politics are clear: everyone shares a consensus, that liberal market democracies are superior to all other forms of society. Elements of liberal philosophy, such as human rights, are treated as self-evident and absolute truths. Together with the paternalistic and openly colonial attitudes, often visible in their coverage, this is a background for pro-intervention campaigns.

    It is too early to conclude that these groups have learned their lesson from the events in Iraq. They may be politically embarrassed, but their underlying conviction of superiority will probably drive them to new intervention campaigns in the coming years, and ultimately that will result in new attempts at recolonisation.

    [Apr 23, 2016] Treanor Structures of Nationalism

    socresonline.org.uk


    Sociological Research Online, vol. 2, no. 1, < http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/1/8.html>

    To cite from articles published in Sociological Research Online, please reference the above information and include paragraph numbers if necessary

    Received: 10/12/96 Accepted: 15/1/97 Published: 31/3/97

    Abstract

    The article reviews briefly the theory of nationalism, and introduces (yet another) definition of nations and nationalism. Starting from this definition of nationalism as a world order with specific characteristics, oppositions such as core and periphery, globalism/nationalism, and realism/idealism are formally rejected. Nationalism is considered as a purely global structure. Within this, it is suggested, the number of states tends to fall to an equilibrium number which is itself falling, this number of states being the current best approximation to a single world state. Within nationalism variants are associated with different equilibrium numbers: these variants compete. Together, as the nationalist structure, they formally exclude other world orders. Such a structure appears to have the function of blocking change, and it is tentatively suggested that it derives directly from an innate human conservatism. The article attempts to show how characteristics of classic nationalism, and more recent identity politics, are part of nationalist structures. They involve either the exclusion of other forms of state, or of other orders of states, or the intensification of identity as it exists.

    javpo


    Keywords:
    Culture; Globalism; Identity; Innovation; Multiculturalism; Nation State; Nationalism; Structuralism

    Introduction

    1.1
    If a world order of states is so arranged that similarity within each state is maximized, and the number of states is minimized, then that world order is a nationalist world order, and its components are nation states. This definition does not start from the characteristics of a nation, as many definitions of nationalism do. It starts instead from the world order, considering the nation only in a very abstract sense. Implicitly this definition is also a functionalist theory of nationalism, and this is expanded later in this article. The article closes with a more speculative section on how identity politics could replace nationalism, but continue its function.

    1.2
    That nations have a function, and what it is, is nowhere more clearly expressed than in President Clinton's First Inaugural speech:
    When our founders boldly declared America's independence to the world and our purposes to the Almighty, they knew that America, to endure, would have to change. Not change for change's sake, but change to preserve America's ideals - life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Though we march to the music of our time, our mission is timeless.
    1.3
    A world of nation states is a world of states built to maintain past ideals, where change is limited to that necessary for their survival, a world structured against 'change for the sake of change'. Structuralism, functionalism, and voluntarism are currently taboo in the social sciences. Yet, I think it strange to reject the clear explanations of the purpose of nationalism, so often given by nationalists and national leaders. In practice it is often an abdication of moral judgment on the actions of nationalists.

    1.4
    Before considering the relation of structure and function of nations, a brief indication of the range of theories of nationalism. Any comprehensive review of theories of nationalism could only be of book length (for instance Smith, 1983). The Oxford Reader on Nationalism (Hutchinson and Smith, 1994) collects examples of the main theories.

    1.5
    At least nine academic disciplines develop theories of nationalism and nation states:
    • political geography
    • international relations
    • political science
    • cultural anthropology
    • social psychology
    • political philosophy (normative theory)
    • international law and Staatsrecht
    • sociology
    • history

    1.6
    It is not surprising that authors in one discipline are unfamiliar with theory in another, or that there is overlap and duplication. Peter Alter (1985: p. 169) remarks that the literature can scarcely be overseen. In this fragmentation among disciplines, a plurality of theories is at least possible. In turn, plurality of theories should give more space for innovative theories - more than in a single recent paradigmatic discipline. (This reverses the standard assumption, that periods of revolution in science are the periods of innovation in science. Given fragmentation of disciplines, there might be more innovation in 'normal science' than through paradigm change.) However, in this respect nationalism theory is a disappointment. Plurality of disciplines has not produced an equivalent plurality of theory. Some common approaches recur across disciplines. Examples of such common features are the tendency, to approach nationalism on a country-by-country basis, and to date it as a phenomenon of modernity.

    1.7
    In any case, it is possible to give some simple (non-inclusive) categorization of theories of nationalism:
    • normative theory of nationalism in political philosophy, for instance in Walzer (1983).
    • theories of nationalism as political extremism. These use a definition of nationalism common in the media: as equivalent to jingoism, ethnic hatred, expansionism, militarism, or aggressive separatism, contrasted with constitutionalism, liberalism or patriotism (see Connor, 1994: pp. 196 - 209). This approach is related to 'shopping list' definitions of the extreme right (Mudde, 1996: pp. 228 - 9).
    • modernization theories of nationalism: these form the bulk of social science theory of nationalism
    • primordialist theories, disputing the modern origin of nations
    • civilization theories of nationalism, often implying an ultimate global community. Freud's (1932) comparison of peoples with primitive organisms is a core version of such a theory of nations.
    • historicist theories, which take the existence of nations as given, and consider their development (or obstacles to that development).
    • social-integrative theories, especially 'substitute religion' theories
    • state formation theories, residually explaining nationalism, usually as a product of centralizing policy to uniformity
    • global system or global order theories, which do not usually consider internal characteristics of nation states. Theory of state formation through war combines this with the last category (for instance, Rasler and Thompson, 1989).

    1.8
    This is only one categorization, and indicative only. James Goodman (1996), for instance, categorizes theories of nationalism into five approaches: ethno-national, modernization, state-centred, class-centred, and 'uneven development' theories.

    Little material is available online but a collection of further resources has been collected by the author and can be accessed from here. Links are ordered on the basis of scale, not of categories of theory, and the list is mainly illustrative.

    1.9
    Four authors have dominated academic consideration of nationalism in the last 10 years:

    1.10
    The first three are in the category modernization theories, A. D. Smith is the main 'primordialist'. Gellner's academic field was the philosophy of sociology, Anderson taught international relations, Hobsbawm is a social historian, and Smith a sociologist (notes in Hutchinson and Smith, 1994).

    1.11
    Gellner's work is the most consistently theoretical: it proposes a model of the transformation to nation states derived from economic factors:
    So the economy needs both the new type of central culture and the central state; the culture needs the state; and the state probably needs the homogeneous branding of its flock ... (Gellner, 1983: p. 140)
    1.12
    Anderson does not propose a derivation of this kind, but his central thesis is that communication and media did facilitate the emergence of nations as imagined communities. For Anderson, only face- to-face contact can sustain community: nations are in some sense an illusion. Both of these views date nationalism as definitively modern. A. D. Smith's central thesis is that pre-modern equivalents of nations existed - indirectly invalidating the modernization theories. Hobsbawm's article on invented tradition appeared earlier, but can be read as a refutation of the pre-modern origin of national tradition. Hobsbawm gives examples of how such tradition, even the sustaining myth of nations, can be borrowed, added to, or simply invented. (A similar work by Bernard Lewis (1977), did not apparently have the same impact.)

    1.13
    The so-called resurgence of nationalism in Eastern Europe after 1989 brought these works to media attention, as well as academic status. (At one time I could chose between six different courses on them, at one university.) All of them are also very readable, with much interesting illustration from the history of nations. No more recent work has made the same impact, and the fixation on the themes of these authors may have limited theoretical perspectives.

    1.14
    Any attempt to compress these works into one paragraph is inadequate. However, one thing is clear: the authors have not engaged in any wide speculation about hypothetical worlds of entirely non-national states. Nations are explained in these theories, not the absence of non-nations. Insofar as possible alternatives are considered, these are possible continuations of the mediaeval European order.

    Universalist Particularism

    2.1
    Most nationalism theory pays little attention to nationalism as a world order. This is surprising, since nationalists themselves so often treat it as such. Some definitions of nationalism are entirely particularistic: Elwert (1989: p. 37) says that nationalists only want a nation for themselves, not others. This is untrue: nationalists have often wanted other nations. The classic example is Mazzini, who founded or inspired not only Young Italy, but Young Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Bohemia and Argentina among others (Mack Smith, 1994: pp. 11-12). Mazzini's vision was global: he saw the peoples as nothing less then the units of humanity's army:
    L'Umanitŕ č un grande esercito che move alla conquista di terre incognite, contro nemici potenti e avveduti. I Popoli sono i diversi corpi, le divisioni di quello esercito. (Mazzini (1860) [1953]: p. 89)
    2.2
    This is a metaphor, but it should emphasize the extreme universalism of nationalism. Armies are not known for maximizing autonomy or individual will. Any listing of the ethical claims of nationalism (the subject of a separate article) will show that nationalism can not de derived, from Enlightenment ideas of self-determination. That was the basic thesis of Elie Kedourie's influential Nationalism (1960, revised 1992).

    2.3
    Peter Taylor (1989: p. 175) summarizes the world as seen by nationalists, at three levels (approximately the global, national and individual).
    • The world is, for them, a mosaic of nations which find harmony when all are free nation states.
    • Nations themselves are natural units with a cultural homogeneity based on common ancestry or history, each requiring its own sovereign state on its own inalienable territory.
    • Individuals all belong to a nation, which requires their first loyalty, and in which they find freedom.

    2.4
    This standard nationalist thought says more about nationalism than the immediate goals of any one nationalist group. For both of these things - world view and activism - the word 'nationalism' is used. This may be confusing, but it is also misleading to split nationalism into 'international relations' and 'internal politics', and then include secessionism in the second category. Basque separatists in Northern Spain and South-western France want a nation state, and are labelled nationalists: the governments of France and Spain, who have already got a nation state, are not. There is undeniably a secessionist nationalism, with claims against a larger state, such as those of the ETA. However, the definition at the start of this article is intended to emphasize the global effect of such movements, and their historical equivalence to the founders of the states they oppose. The term nationalism is used here, deliberately, to describe both aspects of the phenomenon.

    2.5
    Nationalism is not a particularism. It is a universalism, a consistent vision or ideology. Autonomy, secession, war and conquest can be compatible with a universal shared goal. Apparently amending his earlier view of nationalism, Peter Taylor (1995: p. 10) described one world as 'the nemesis of interterritoriality'. However, a world of nations can still be one world, if it is one nationalist world. The definition of nationalism used here is intended to emphasize this universal, 'world order', aspect of nationalism. Since nations, united nations.

    2.6
    The definition implies that nationalism is a substitute for a world state. If cultural homogeneity cannot be achieved, because co-ordination over distance is not perfect, then a strategy of co-operating local similarities is the best option. The number of cultures on earth will be the outcome of this strategy. Later, as states form on the basis of pre-existing ethnic or cultural groups, the number of states will also derive from this strategy. If there are too few states, and each too large, they may become internally diverse. If there are too many, they will differ too much among themselves. It is therefore not possible to project the long term fall in the number of states to the point at which only one is left, as Robert Carneiro did (1976; see Chase- Dunn, 1990). The trend to fewer political units seemed clear enough to Carneiro, to project a date for world government: 2300 AD. If however, the nationalist world order is considered as a global structure, and not seen as competing states, then there is no certainty of reaching a single world state. If there is already such a global order, globalization does not imply the reduction of its components to one. Instead, there is an optimum number of nation states at any one time, within such a nationalist world order. That optimum is determined by limits of communications, transport, and the degree of political and social organization. This number is falling, but constraints of distance may never be eroded enough to reduce it to one. The optimum number may in fact exceed the number of states that now exist. The many separatist movements, the success of small states, and the fact that there are many more languages than states, all indicate a world with many more than 185 states: perhaps closer to 1000.

    2.7
    That implies a change in the nature of the component states. The classic 19th century European nation state, the basis of most definitions of nationalism, would best fit a world of between 200 and 500 states. It is a universalism: but there are competing universalisms, variants within nationalism. This is very clear in Europe, where these variants are used as programmes for the whole continent. Most are serious, some are what might be called geopolitical kitsch (Heineken, 1992; Pedersen, 1992). Classic nationalists speak of Europe des patries, ethno-nationalists of Europe des ethnies (Heraud, 1993), regionalists of Europe of the regions (Borrп╠s-Alomar, 1994). Only in Europe are the alternatives formulated so explicitly, but these universalist structures are implicitly global. They are ways of dividing the world: alternatives to classic nationalism. In other words, use of similar terms at a global scale can be expected: a world of the regions, a world of the peoples, and so on.

    2.8
    There is what might be called world- nationalism, associated with a single global state. Its explicit form is world federalism, and plans to the UN into a sort of world government. This centuries-old tradition (see ter Meulen, 1917; van der Linden, 1987) is represented by the work of Richard Falk (1987; 1992) and many others (Marien, 1995: pp. 297 - 301). It is paralleled by the philosophical tradition of cosmopolitanism (see Toulmin, 1990), and by a belief in globalization. (Marien's 1995 article covers a very wide range of global visions, from New Age to neo-liberal.) Then there is inter-culturalism - the division of the world into 5 to 50 cultures or civilizations, once used in organicist versions by historians (Demandt, 1978: pp. 96 - 101), and recently revived by Samuel Huntington (1993). At the same scale are the pan- nationalist movements, all of them failures until now (Snyder, 1984: p. 254). Then there is classic (inter-) nationalism, the basis of the existing world order. Next to that is ethno-nationalism (Connor, 1994; Heraud, 1993; Tiryakian, 1985; Watson, 1990). Although there is no clear distinction between some 'nations' and 'peoples', the scale of the inter-ethnic world is very different, with up to 10,000 'peoples'. It is this variant which has the clearest demands at present, classically stated in the International Covenant on the Rights of Indigenous Nations (CWIS, 1994). At a similar scale is a historic-cultural-linguistic regionalism, well organized in Europe (see Kohr, 1986; Labasse, 1991). These regions are often seen as units of a future federal Europe, combining regionalism with a weak pan-nationalism. Finally although it rarely generates separatism, there is an inter-localism: it sees the small community, the village or neighbourhood, as the only authentic unit of social organization.

    2.9
    In all these variants, the possible states share four functional characteristics (described later), and there is a global order of such states. I would emphasize that this article is not intended to explain all aspects of nationalism, but to consider why states do not deviate from this model.

    Core, Periphery, Hegemony

    3.1
    In universal structures (functional or not) there is logically no core or periphery - at least, not in the sense of most world system models. However, competition between universalisms can create this appearance. Some separatist movements, for instance, defy the expected logic of core and periphery: the Lega Nord, or Catalonian separatism. Mansvelt Beck (1991) explains this as an 'inverted core- periphery relationship'. This kind of explanation can be avoided on the assumption that there is no real separatism at all. Catalonian regionalism is regionalism, a model for the whole world, not just Spain: Basque nationalism is a manifestation of global ethno- nationalism, and so on. The variants of nationalism are superimposed universalisms. An ETA attack on a Spanish army barracks is, seen in this way, a clash of universalisms.

    3.2
    To this extent, nationalist movements cannot logically be analyzed in terms of social movement theories. (This is an example of the formal consequences of adopting the universalist definition used in this article). Nor can electoral support for 'nationalist parties' be analyzed. In Britain, the Scottish National Party supports a nation state, but then so do the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. Support for nationalism in UK elections is consistently around 99 percent. Again, separatist sentiment is labelled nationalist, but unionist sentiment is not. In this way, SNP support enters a different category for electoral analysis: but this is a purely taxonomic effect.

    3.3
    In a similar way, a rise in the number of states may generate the illusion of power, struggle and resistance. This may be the case, even if there is no difference of scale. All units (potential states) might be comparable, as with Czechoslovakia, Czechia, and Slovakia. These are all classic European nation states. However, seen from Slovakia, Czechoslovakia stands for hegemonic culture, an imposed universalism, oppression and 'power'. Earlier, the Slavic nationalists who inspired the Czechoslovak state, had opposed the dominance of German-language culture in Central Europe. Earlier still, German romantic nationalists had opposed the dominance of French Enlightenment rationalist culture. All secessionist movements are anti-hegemonic and anti-universalist, until independence day. After that they become another's hegemonic universalism, another's 'state'. And, indeed, Slovakia has been criticized, for its treatment of the Hungarian minority.

    3.4
    Logically, in a perfect order of nations, there is no dominance or 'power': everyone co-operates a nationalist in sustaining the structure. This may however involve changing the number of states, creating the illusion of conflict. People volunteer for military service: that is said to prove they are willing to die for their country. It is equally logical to say they die for the functioning of the world order. That, emphasized, in a perfect order of nations.

    3.5
    This is an abstraction, true. Nevertheless, it is not such an abstraction that is has no real effect. Conflicts do involve common reinforcement, including reinforcement of national structure. Secession, especially, forces both sides further into their own identity. Identity makes counter- identity (see Barth, 1969), as with Slovak and Czech. It is probably true that Czecho-Slovakia is more nationalist since it split: it is certainly true of Yugoslavia. In this way the action of individuals in one nation can intensify global identity, affecting the number of nations in the process. So it is logically possible that there is no national oppression, nor national liberation. The 'struggle' is to intensify nationalism, the world order. Inside it, to oppress or be oppressed as a nation serves the same function. In practice, an oppressed group will say it is a nation fighting a state: the state will say it is a nation fighting terrorists.

    Global/National, Order/Chaos

    4.1
    Another opposition recurrent in theory on nations is that between the national and the global (see Arnason, 1990). The nation state and national culture are being eroded by global communication - it is often said. It is said that Internet will dissolve nations. Much the same thing was said about satellite television, air travel, radio, the telegraph, and railways. Nation states are still here. Yet few people are sceptical about 'globalization' (Cox, 1992; Smith, 1990), and in a sense there is no reason to be. There is no erosion of the national by the global, but only because there is nothing to erode. Nationalism is 100% global: a world order cannot logically be further globalized.

    4.2
    The components of an order do not stand in opposition to it: certainly not in the sense implied by the term 'globalization'. The implicit assumption is that nations are particular entities, necessarily at a sub-global level. In other worlds, the whole idea starts from the assumption that there is no universal nationalism. If I claim the people on the pitch at a football match walked there by chance, and I see them playing football, then I could say they are being 'football- ized'. In fact they went there as a group, for that purpose.

    4.3
    The question is why there is such enthusiasm for the concept of globalization. First, it is in the nature of nationalism itself. The world of nations is an imperfect substitute for a homogenous world state: it is logical for nationalists to hope it is approaching. Secondly, the enthusiasm is in any case matched by the anti-universalist ideas mentioned above. There are books and conferences on the coming global state, but equally on the rise of regions. It seems possible to combine two scales of thought, for instance in cultural pan-syncretism (see Nederveen Pieterse, 1993) or sub-state federation (Bengoetxea, 1993). Thirdly, this is only one example of a pattern: for each of the level of scale of nationalism, there are possible upward and downward transitions. Shifts from the ethno-regional to the global, for instance, or from pan-nationalism to linguistic regionalism.
    4.4
    Only three of these possibilities are active at present:
    • globalism, more normative than descriptive
    • anti-hegemonic criticism of existing national states and their cultures, without any territorial effect as yet. In reaction there is some new defence of the nation state, especially in response to multiculturalism and identity politics. This applies most in high-immigration western industrialized countries, where it is a major issue. (The U.S.A. especially: see Schlesinger, 1992.) In any case, more recent interest in fusion, hybridity, and 'crossing boundaries' favours pan- nationalism. Separatist identity politics seems on the way out.
    • ethno-nationalism, and in Europe regionalism at the same subnational scale - which enjoys some support within the EU (van der Knaap, 1994).

    This last is by far the most active shift. The next ten years are unlikely to see a world government, and the US is unlikely to break up (and does not need Arthur Schlesinger to save it): but it might see an independent Vlaanderen or Catalunya, or the definitive break-up of Afghanistan.

    4.5
    The world order of nations is therefore characterized by both secession and fusion, but it is not being 'torn apart'. It is a structure being rebuilt to function better. All these shifts in scale merely substitute one universalism for another, all variants of one world order. There is no dramatic fragmentation, and no paradigmatic shift to one world community. No shift is needed.

    4.6
    It also follows, from the definitions used here, that a world of nation states cannot be chaotic or anarchic. The academic discipline of international relations is influenced by the idea of a slow progress toward the imposition of some kind of order on warring, aggressive states, the tradition of, for instance, Hedley Bull (1977, 1984). This tradition concedes some 'order in the system'. However, logically there cannot be anything else but order. A world order is by definition not disorder: international relations are by definition 'idealist' in International Relations terms, and a national state cannot be a Machtsstaat. So called realism models a world of aggressively competitive states - sometimes identified with mediaeval Europe. From this a recognition of commonalities may emerge, and states may co-operate, bringing order and peace. Those who consider this inherent or inevitable are usually classified as idealist.

    4.7
    But war is not disorder: Carneiro's model, the simplest possible, demonstrates that states disappear through 'competitive exclusion' until there is one left: there are many wars, but it is an ordered, linear process (see Cioffi-Revilla, 1991). The realist/idealist dispute ignores the type of state involved. The question is not why there are so many wars between nations, but why there are so few wars between non-nations. Not why there is ethnic cleansing, but why there is so little non-ethnic cleansing. Not what is international relations, but why there are only inter-national relations. Any attempt to imagine a fundamentally non-national world, should make clear how stable the world of nations is. Nation states can apparently fight each other, without risk of emergence of new state forms in the alleged 'chaos'.

    Other Worlds

    5.1
    It may seem that all this imposes a simplistic order on a complex world. However it is nationalists who want to impose a simple structure, and they have been remarkably successful. Of course the world order is not perfect, and states do have autonomous interests. These may be of the kind graphically attributed to them in pre-war Geopolitik (Schmidt, 1929), or less obsessively in recent geopolitical atlases. Nations do sometimes act as entities 'seeking access to the sea', or 'control of river basins', or resources, or historical territories. The Schmidt-Haack Atlas maps tens of different types of claim, and some were later used by Germany. However, if all nation states consistently acted like this, there would be constant all-state war.
    5.2
    There is also the possibility that a state will turn against the world order, a real renegade state. Usually this term merely indicates a state disliked by western policy makers: see Dror (1971) on 'crazy states'. A real renegade state would have to stop being a nation state: no-one speaks of 'crazy nations'. More probable is that nationalism as a universal order conflicts with other universalisms; other world orders of one or more states, or perhaps a stateless world. The definition of nationalism used here, defines it as a monolith with great historical continuity. It should then react to competing monoliths, as a unit. The Greek polis is often cited as the prototype of nations, indeed of all political community. It was also a unit within an order of similar states. That Hellenic order may have had a proto-national identity itself. However, as an order of city states, it was in intermittent conflict with Asian empires. The present order of nation states covers the globe, however, so that any competing world will be found within it.
    5.3
    There is at present one clear example of a competing world order: theocratic religious universalism, of the kind promoted (in Britain) by the Muslim Unity Organization. It advocates a world caliphate, khilafa. It is not accidental that this group operates from Britain: the existing Islamic nation states would be the first to disappear on the road to the caliphate. However small such groups are, they have a coherent and radical alternative not just to 'the West', but to the whole existing world:
    ...there is a long and still vibrant tradition of Muslim agitation against nationalism and the nation state. The most recent manifestation of this agitation has had Shi'i inspiration, but there are no significant differences between Sunni and Shi'a on this question, or between Arab and non-Arab Muslims. Feeling that Islam's decline is due chiefly to the adoption of Western ideas and culture, all express pessimism and suggest a radical restructuring of the world order. (Piscatori, 1986: p. 145)
    5.4
    A complete alternative world order is unlikely to control any territory within the world order it rejects. It is however not adequate to consider such universalist Islamic movements as 'social movements' within existing nation states. They cannot be accommodated within the 'public domain' of these states, as suggested by John Rex (1996) in a previous article in Sociological Research Online. This has nothing to do with their immigrant or ethnic status: a Catholic theocracy would not fit into a liberal democratic nation state either.

    Blocking

    6.1
    As long as there are nations, there will be no caliphate; it is neither a people, nor a region, nor a nation, nor a culture. Structurally, nationalism excludes other entities from state status. Nationalism is a blocking world order: it excludes other worlds. It is difficult to imagine all these possible worlds from inside the world of nations, and that is part of its success. Any attempt to imagine them will lead to apparent absurdity.

    6.2
    What nationalism blocks, above all, is change. The definition of nationalism as tending to total homogeneity implies stability also. The order blocks, but not without direction. It may well be, in itself, empty: it does not define, for instance, what language will be spoken in the third nation east of the Rhine. That does not stop it having a purpose. If the world order of nations (as defined here) is superimposed on a world, it will block change in time, and exclude the alternative worlds that are possible at any point in time. That is an ethical choice, and the ethics of nations are outside the scope of this article, as noted.

    6.3
    If nationalism is chosen, someone chose it. No one person invented nationalism: the most logical 'someone' is, exactly as Mazzini suggested, humanity. There is some theory which links the nation to the psyche: the most obvious areas of interest are self-determination (Ronen, 1979) and personal identity, sense of self (Bloom, 1990). I suggest the structure of nationalism derives from an innate human conservatism. This is no more absurd than saying that structures of reservoirs and water supply derive from an innate human need for water. It does not imply that all persons at all times are absolutely conservative. (Nor does it contradict biology: change causes stress.)

    6.4
    How can the world order of nations answer such an innate aversion to change? First, in that it gives a monopoly of state formation - and so of sovereignty - to nations. Not that all states correspond exactly to one nation: again, the point is how few states correspond to non-national entities. They do exist as historical curiosities: the Vatican, and the autonomous Agio Oros (Athos) in Greece. Some nationalists have a horror of a state without a nation: see Heraud's comment on the Vatican as a product of History, 'qui est violence' (1993: p. 11). If national divisions were not dominant, there should be more of these counter-examples. Secondly, the nation itself is past-based. Trans-generationality is a key characteristic of nations, and found in many definitions of nation. Writing on the subjective experience of cultural identity, A. D. Smith (1990: p. 179) names three components of shared experience: a sense of transgenerational continuity, shared memories, and a sense of common destiny. Collapsing the three into one gives the purpose of a nation: it exists to project the past (as collectively remembered) into the future, as little changed as possible. Nationalists almost do not ignore the future:

    Nations are thus projects for the future and have the right to self-determination in order to organise their future. (Bengoetxea, 1993: p.95)
    6.5
    However in a national world order, nations are the only entities with self-determination and territory, and they are past- constituted. Just as with the world order, the nation is empty but not directionless: superimpose a nation on a heritage, and it will preserve it. In fact it will make the past into a 'heritage', one of the metaphors of possession common in nationalism. It is logical in nations, that the past should increase its share of economy, society and culture (see Horne, 1984; Lowenthal, 1985), that territory undergoes 'heritage-ization' (Walsh, 1992: pp. 138 - 147), that memory is cultural (see Assman, 1988) and that its preservation is a task of the state. Despite Lowenthal's title, the past is not treated as an apart entity, but rather divided up to correspond to existing nations. The world is thus occupied by states projecting parallel pasts into the future: there is no non-memory space, no space which is not of the past.

    6.6
    Thirdly, the nations are in principle eternal, and so the nation state, and so the world order. (Dependent territories and mandates can have a formal time limit, but this relates to a transfer of power. Mandate territories become independent nation states, or join an existing neighbour.) The idea of setting up a state for a limited time for a specific purpose is alien to nationalism. The exceptions which show it is possible - for example extraterritorial mining concessions - are curiosities in a world of nations. The projection of the past will continue.

    6.7
    Fourth, and most specifically, no state has ever been established for the primary purpose of change. This logical possibility is not limited by available technology or culture - it could have been done 1000 years ago.

    6.8
    Returning to the definition: there logically exists a general class of orders of states where the boundaries are not drawn so as to maximise change. In other words, a class of change-limiting orders, in effect change-minimizing orders. The order of nations is probably the most effective of these. Formally, it is an order of coterminous states covering the entire land surface, formed by transgenerational identity communities, claiming a monopoly of state formation, and eternal legitimacy. All the scale variants of nationalism conform to this definition.

    6.9
    These four functional characteristics of the nationalist world order emphasize how different it is from other possible orders, and how it has excluded them for a long time. In effect it has become superimposed on the world, by choice. It would be inaccurate to say it arrived at one instant. No-one can give a definitive date for when nationalism began: Marcu (1976: pp. 3 - 15) quotes 41 different views on the issue. Instead, a structure has been elaborated and intensified, and the beginnings of other structures have been abandoned. Compare the five possible futures of thirteenth century Europe suggested by Tilly (1975: p. 26), or the different routes to the national identity suggested by Armstrong (1982: pp. 283 - 300). The intensification has increased in the last 200 years, as nations become more national.

    6.10
    It is a property of nationalism that intensifying the national identity intensifies the world order. Most theory of nationalism attributes this process to the state, at most to the interaction of state and civil society:
    Aprčs avoir ajusté ŕ leur échelle propre l'armée, la justice, la religion et l'administration, ils en viennent ŕ nationaliser le marché (impôts, douanes, lois et rčglements, poids et mesures, etc.) ŕ nationaliser l'école (langue officielle, programmes, examens, etc.) et, de proche en proche, ŕ nationaliser encore la conscription, les services publics, certaines entreprieses au moins (chemins de fer, postes, ports etc.) ... l'Etat tend ŕ façonner toute la societé civile, laquelle tend, en retour, a soumettre l'Etat ŕ ses finalités propres... (Fossaert, 1994: p. 195)

    After having adjusted the army, the courts, religion and administration to national scale, they start to national-ise the market (taxes, customs, laws and regulations, weights and measures), to national-ise the schools (official language, educational programmes, exams), and then to nationalise in turn, conscription, public service, some business enterprises (railways, post, ports) ... The State forms civil society, which in turn begins to use the State for its own goals... (Fossaert, 1994: p. 195)

    6.11
    The logic of nationalism however, is that this is a process of convergence driven from below, that the national identity is exactly what A. D. Smith (1990: p. 179) says it is not: an average. The state is merely an instrument. Too large a state and the convergence will be ineffective, too small and the averages will differ too much - and so back to the starting definition. Neither secession nor conquest disturb this process in the long run: the new nations will have their own 'nationalization', their own convergence. In other words, even at the level of the individual state, attitudes to change can determine the degree of national uniformity. Secession, in effect, punishes the state for allowing too much difference in the population. This is not an abstraction: many nationalists explicitly value homogeneous communities.

    6.12
    In any case, daily reality in most nations is not secession, but less spectacular processes of emancipation. Nations are not perfect: they include minorities (or majorities) which do not conform to the national ideal, but have no other national identity. Repeatedly, such groups chose to integrate into the nation, rather than allow non-national secession. They pressure the state for inclusion, and often try to adjust the national identity, through cultural politics. Once again, there is no political-geographic inevitability in this: if people can secede as a nation they can secede as something else. They chose not to, with some historical exceptions. Again, the remarkable feature of the world order of nations is not the number of secessionist movements, but the fact that all of them represent a people, or a nation.

    6.13
    A good example of the intensity of this choice is the campaign of gay and lesbian groups - especially in the U.S.A. - against the military ban on service, for 'the right to die for my country'. It seems absurd to demand to be killed in an army which discriminates against you. The emotions here can only be nationalist, U.S.A. nationalist: a sort of desperate desire to be part of an identity, to conform, to belong, not to be different. This is an example of genuine anger directed against the state, for failing to homogenize the nation. The logically possible alternatives do not occur. Despite the influence of religion in the U.S.A., there is no comparable demand for the 'right to die for my church', let alone any other organization. There is also no serious secessionist movement of gays and/or lesbians despite decades of social organization. When Cardinal Archbishop Quarracino of Buenos Aires proposed (in August 1994) a 'separate country for homosexuals', he had to publicly apologise, saying it was a joke. He did not know, probably, of Queer Nation (Bérubé, 1991; Chee, 1991), nor that it makes no territorial demands, despite its name.

    6.14
    Many processes, then, which may seem separate or contradictory, can be described in a structure of nationalism, starting from its formal definition as a specific world order. Integration through formalism is a characteristic of conspiracy theories: does all this imply a vast conspiracy involving almost all humans over centuries? Not necessarily: it is possible to generate complex structures from simple rules. The most general rule for a nationalist world as a blocking world order would be approximately: 'if there is change, intensify identity'. A second rule might be to intensify identity preferably by fusion or accretion, and only if that failed, by secession. However, it is not necessary to imply a hidden formal grammar of nationalism. People do not need one: they can reflect on what is happening, and produce open doctrines of complex action - as did Mazzini, and other nationalist ideologists.

    Identity Politics and Territory

    7.1
    National identity links the individual to the world order. It has also been a central theme in universities over the last 15 - 20 years. Especially so, in English-speaking countries where a liberal political tradition is confronted by ethnic diversity (Rex, 1996). Some of that academic activity has an obvious link to nationalism, ethnic studies for example. More generally, there is an interest in what might be called structures of cultural identity, which may have a spatial or territorial counterpart.

    7.2
    In the US the work of bell hooks, for instance, shows a transition from marginality as a 'site of deprivation' to a 'site of resistance' to a 'site one stays in' (hooks, 1990: p. 341), which is almost a summary of secessionist nationalism. In this way nationalist models, even of classic Mazzinian nationalism, may be adopted for identity politics. (That is, without necessarily breaking up existing nation states.) This continuity from 19th century nationalism to recent identity politics has yet to be researched. Even before the First World War, the Austro-Marxist Bauer (1907) anticipated the model of a multicultural state, now common in political speech in western Europe. Already in 1944, Louis Adamic described the United States as 'A Nation of Nations', and President Kennedy echoed the idea in the sixties (Kennedy, 1964). In contrast to Benedict Anderson's view (1992) that multiculturalism is transitional, there is no reason why a nation state can not be a Vielvölkerstaat, with diversity as a national value. The ultimate logic would be to make each nation itself a microcosm of the world order: united nations of united nations.

    7.3
    It seems possible that use of identity can be further intensified, possibly to the point that a non-territorial structure of transgenerational identity replaces classic nationalism. For an example of the new politics, see the post-structuralist critique of Transgender Nation by Newitz (1993), and other texts at the same site. The new world order could be 'syncretic', a term from the study of religion (see Colpe, 1987). It could be a world order of gender pluralism, trans- diaspora cultures, trans-trans hybrids, and other new combinations of the existing - suppressing change by the volume of diversity.

    7.4
    More probable is, that the parallels between the new politics and the old, will reinforce classic nationalism. Take this (random) example: a comment on bell hooks from a recent paper on spaces of citizenship:
    In hooks's case these 'homes' entailed her grandparent's house and then the black neighbourhoods containing this house and also her own, and the implication is that these houses and neighbourhoods were rather more to her than 'just' sites of belonging, they were also sites where black people could escape from the antagonism, anger and attacks which arose when they trespassed on white space (however legitimate in legal terms their presence in this white space would actually be). In other words, hooks indicates something of how black people can never be citizens confidently occupying the spaces of white society, but hints too at how they may find ways of trying to foster alternative locales in which some sense of being a citizen - this time of a distinctively black world - is made possible. (Painter & Philo, 1995: pp. 116 - 7)
    7.5
    Change some names and this becomes much less friendly:
    In Tudjman's case these 'homes' entailed his grandparent's house and then the Croat neighbourhoods containing this house and also his own, and the implication is that these houses and neighbourhoods were rather more to him than 'just' sites of belonging, they were also sites where Croat people could escape from the antagonism, anger and attacks which arose when they trespassed on Yugoslav space (however legitimate in legal terms their presence in this Yugoslav space would actually be). In other words, Tudjman indicates something of how Croat people can never be citizens confidently occupying the spaces of Yugoslav society, but hints too at how they may find ways of trying to foster alternative locales in which some sense of being a citizen - this time of a distinctively Croat world - is made possible.
    7.6
    And of course it was made possible.

    7.7
    There is no need to reinvent nationalism, for nations have not disappeared, but some people seem determined to reinvent it anyway. The structure of nationalism is being altered, but its singularity and purpose are not. It remains one structure, one world order excluding other worlds. The man who more than anyone, was the founding father of modern nationalism, Johann Gottlieb Herder, wrote in 1774:
    Ist nicht das Gute auf der Erde ausgestreut? Weil eine Gestalt der Menschheit und ein Erdstrich es nicht fassen konnte, wards geteilt in tausend Gestalten, wandelt - ein ewiger Proteus! - durch alle Weltteile und Jahrhunderte hin...(Herder, 1990/1774: p. 36)
    7.8
    Nationalism is a Proteus, but it changes only to prevent change. Rewriting Herder in the negative gives the judgment of nationalism: Only that which is already strewn about the Earth, is good.

    References

    ADAMIC, L. (1944) A Nation of Nations. New York: Harper.

    ALTER, P. (1985) Nationalismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (Translation: Nationalism (1989) London: Edward Arnold.)

    ANDERSON, B. (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

    ANDERSON, B. (1992) Long Distance Nationalism: World Capitalism and the Rise of Identity Politics. Amsterdam: Centre for Asian Studies Amsterdam.

    ARMSTRONG, J. A. (1982) Nations Before Nationalism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    ARNASON, J. (1990) 'Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity', Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 7, pp. 207 - 236.

    ASSMANN, J (1988) 'Kollektives Geduchtnis und kulturelle Identitut' in J. Assmann & T. Hilscher (editors) Kultur und Geduchtnis. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    BARTH, F. (1969) Introduction to Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

    BAUER, O. (1907) Die Nationalitutenfrage und die Sozialdemokratie. Wien: Verlag der Wiener Volksbuchhandlung Ignaz Brand

    BENGOETXEA, J. (1993) 'L'etat c'est Fini?' in Mikael M. Karlsson, Olafur Pall Jonsson, Eyja Margret & Brynjarsdottir Recht (editors) Recht, Gerechtigkeit und der Staat. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    BERUBE, A. & ESCOFFIER, J. (1991) 'Queer/Nation', Out/look, Winter, pp. 12 - 14.

    BLOOM, W. (1990) Personal Identity, National Identity and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    BORRп╠s-ALOMAR, S. (1994) 'Towards a "Europe of the regions"? Visions and Reality from a Critical Perspective', Regional Politics and Policy, vol. 2, pp. 1 - 27.

    BULL, H. & WATSON, A. (1984) The Expansion of International Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    BULL, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Macmillan.

    CARNEIRO, R. (1976) 'Political Expansion as an Expression of the principle of competitive Exclusion' in R. Cohen & E. Service (editors) Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.

    CHASE-DUNN, C. (1990) World State Formation: Historical Processes and Emergent Necessity', Political Geography Quarterly, vol. 9, pp. 108 - 130.

    CHEE, A. (1991) 'Queer Nationalism', Out/look, Winter, pp. 15-19.

    CIOFFI-REVILLA, C. (1991) 'The Long-Range Analysis of War', Journal of Interdisciplinary History, vol. 21, pp. 603 - 629.

    COLPE, C. (1987) 'Syncretism' in M. Eliade (editor) Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: Macmillan.

    CONNOR, W. (1994) Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    COX, K. (1992) 'The Politics of Globalization: A Sceptic's View', Political Geography, vol. 11, pp. 427 - 429.

    CWIS (CENTER FOR WORLD INDIGENOUS STUDIES) (1994) International Covenant on the Rights of Indigenous Nations. Geneva. ftp://ftp.halcyon.com/pub/FWDP/International/icrin-94.txt

    DEMANDT, A. (1978) Metaphern fur Geschichte: Sprachbilder und Gleichnisse in historisch-politischen Denken. Munchen: Beck.

    DROR, Y. (1971) Crazy States: A Counterconventional Strategic Problem. Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington.

    ELWERT, G. (1989) 'Nationalismus, Ethnizitet und Nativismus - ober die Bildung von Wir-Gruppen' in P. Waldmann & G. Elwert (editors) Ethnizitet im Wandel. Saarbrucken: Breitenbach.

    FALK, R. (1987) The Promise of world Order: Essays in normative International Relations. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.

    FALK, R. (1992) Explorations at the Edge of Time: The Prospects for World Order. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    FOSSAERT, R. (1994) 'La Question Nationale, et Apres?', Herodote, nos. 72 - 73, pp. 193 - 200.

    FREUD, S. (1932) [1972]Warum Krieg? Gesammelte Werke XVI. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.

    GELLNER, E. (1983) Nations and Nationalism. Blackwell: Oxford.

    GOODMAN, J. (1996) Nationalism and Transnationalism: The National Conflict in Ireland and European Union Integration. Aldershot: Avebury.

    HEINEKEN, A. H. (1992) The United States of Europe: A Eurotopia? Amsterdam: Amsterdamsche Stichting voor de Historische Wetenschap.

    HERAUD, G. (1993) L'Europe des Ethnies (3rd edition). Bruxelles: Bruylant.

    HERDER, J. G. (1990) [1774] Auch eine Philosophie der Geschichte zur Bildung der Menschheit. Stuttgart: Reclam.

    HOBSBAWM, E & RANGER, T. (editors) (1983) The invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    HOBSBAWM, E. J. (1992) Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    HOOKS, bell (1990) 'Marginality as a Site of Resistance' in Russell Ferguson, Martha Gever, Trinh Minh-ha & Cornel West (editors) Out There: Marginalization and Contemporary Cultures. New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art.

    HORNE, D. (1984) The Great Museum: The Re- Presentation of History. London: Pluto.

    HUNTINGTON, S. (1993) 'The Clash of Civilizations', Foreign Affairs, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 22 - 49.

    HUTCHINSON, J. & SMITH, A. D. (editors) (1994) Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    KEDOURIE, E. (1994) (Fourth, revised edition) Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.

    KENNEDY, J. F. (1964) [1958] A Nation of Immigrants. New York: Harper.

    KNAAP, P. van der (1994) 'The Committee of the Regions: The Onset of a "Europe of the Regions"?', Regional Politics and Policy, vol. 4, no. 20, pp. 86 - 100.

    KOHR, L. (1957) [1986] The Breakdown of Nations. London: Routledge.

    LABASSE, J. (1991) 'Geopolitique et Regions d'Europe', L'information Geographique, vol. 1, pp. 89 - 98.

    LEWIS, B. (1977) History: Remembered, Recovered, Invented (2nd printing, with corrections). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    LINDEN, W. H. van der (1987) The International Peace Movement 1815-1874. Amsterdam: Tilleul.

    LOWENTHAL, D. (1985) The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    MACK SMITH, D. (1994) Mazzini. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    MANSVELT BECK, J. (1991) 'Catalaanse zelfbeschikking versus Madrileens centralisme: een "omgekeerde centrum-periferie benadering" nader belicht', Geografisch Tijdschrift, vol. 23, pp. 135 - 147.

    MARCU, E. D. (1976) Sixteenth Century Nationalism. New York: Abaris.

    MARIEN, M. (1995) 'World Futures and the United Nations: A Guide to recent Literature', Futures, vol. 27, pp. 287 - 310.

    MAZZINI, G. (1860) [1953] I Doveri dell'Uomo. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

    MEULEN, J. ter. (1917) Der Gedanke der internationalen Organization in seiner Entwicklung 1300-1800. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.

    MUDDE, C. (1996) 'Defining the Extreme Right Party Family', West European Politics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 225 - 248.

    NEDERVEEN PIETERSE, J. (1992) Globalization as Hybridization. The Hague: Institute of Social Studies. ISS working papers, no. 152.

    NEWITZ, A. (1993) 'Gender Slumming', paper indexed at < http://english- www.hss.cmu.edu/Gender.html>.

    PAINTER, J. & PHILO, C. (1995) 'Spaces of Citizenship: An Introduction', Political Geography, vol. 14, pp. 107 - 120.

    PEDERSEN, R. N. (1992) One Europe - 100 Nations. Clevedon: Channel View.

    PISCATORI, J. P. (1986) Islam in a World of Nation- States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    RASLER, K. A. & THOMPSON, W. R. (1989) War and State Making: The Shaping of the Global Powers (Studies in International Conflict, Volume II). Boston: Unwin Hyman.

    REX, J. (1996) 'National Identity in the Democratic Multi- Cultural State', Sociological Research Online, vol. 1, no. 2, <http://www.socresonli ne.org.uk/socresonline/1/2/1.html>.

    RONEN, D. (1979) The Quest for Self-Determination. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    SCHLESINGER, A. (1992) The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. New York: Norton.

    SCHMIDT, M. (1929) Schmidt-Haack geopolitischer Typen-Atlas zur Einfuhring in die Grundbegriffe der Geopolitik: 176 Kartenskizze zur Veranschaulichung geopolitischer Erscheinungsformen. Gotha: Justus Perthes.

    SMITH, A. D. (1983) (2nd edition) Theories of Nationalism. New York: Holmes and Meier.

    SMITH, A. D. (1986) The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    SMITH, A. D. (1990) 'Towards a Global Culture?', Theory, Culture, and Society, vol. 7, pp. 171 - 191.

    SNYDER, L. (1984) Macronationalisms: A History of the Pan-Movements. Westport: Greenwood.

    TAYLOR, P. (1989) Political Geography: World Economy, Nation State and Locality. Harlow: Longman.

    TAYLOR, P. (1995) 'Beyond Containers: Internationality, Interstateness, Interterritoriality', Progress in Human Geography, vol. 19, pp. 1-15.

    TILLY, C. (1975) The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    TIRYAKIAN, E. & ROGOWSKI, R. (editors) (1985) New Nationalisms of the Developed West. London: Allen & Unwin.

    TOULMIN, S. (1990) Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. New York: Free Press.

    WALSH, K. (1992) The Representation of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-Modern World. London: Routledge.

    WALZER, M. (1983) Spheres of justice. New York: Basic Books.

    [Apr 13, 2016] The dead end of neoliberal transformation of the USA society

    economistsview.typepad.com

    Economist's View

    New Deal democrat : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:07 PM
    "consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity "

    "The Great Illusion" ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion )
    That increased trade is a bulwark against war rears its ugly head again.

    The above book which so ironically delivered the message was published in 1910.

    Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either increased global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick which to believe.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> New Deal democrat... , Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 03:06 AM
    Awesome, Dude!
    George H. Blackford : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:20 PM
    Our problems began back in the 1970s when we abandoned the Bretton Woods international capital controls and then broke the unions, cut taxes on corporations and upper income groups, and deregulated the financial system. This eventually led a stagnation of wages in the US and an increase in the concentration of income at the top of the income distribution throughout the world: http://www.rwEconomics.com/Ch_1.htm

    The export-led growth model that began in the 1990s seriously exacerbated this problem as it proved to be unsustainable: http://www.rwEconomics.com/htm/WDCh_2.htm

    When combined with tax cuts and financial deregulation it led to increasing debt relative to income in the importing countries that caused the financial catastrophe we went through in 2008, the economic stagnation that followed, and the social unrest we see throughout the world today. This, in turn, created a situation in which the full utilization of our economic resources can only be maintained through an unsustainable increase in debt relative to income: http://www.rwEconomics.com/htm/WDCh3e.htm

    This is what has to be overcome if we are to get out of the mess the world is in today, and it's not going to be overcome by pretending that it's just going to go away if people can just become educated about the benefits of trade. At least that's not the way it worked out in the 1930s: http://www.rwEconomics.com/LTLGAD.htm

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> George H. Blackford ... , Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 03:13 AM
    Totally excellent, Dude!
    Dan Kervick : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 06:26 PM
    Global integration and the liberalization of capital flows outside of national boundaries, and outside of the constraints of national solidarity, has pushed Americans further into a ruthless capitalist struggle for strictly individual measures of "success", and intensified economic insecurity and the gaps between winners and losers. Economists find the resistance to these trends mysterious; others not so much.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Dan Kervick... , Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 03:14 AM
    Priceless!
    Adamski : , Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 07:10 AM
    The prospect of an international recession has me feeling down but then I read this sniping timewasting comments section and it doesn't seem so bad
    Ashok Hegde : , Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 02:07 PM
    Economic leaders after WW2 had a Colonialist attitude entrenched within. They made a plan for global economic integration, which only considered the economic needs and realities of developed western nations. China/India/Indonesia/etc...were never at the conceptual table.

    Now, the tides have turned. The China-India nexus historically accounted for roughly 40% of the global economy. That 'normal' state was eclipsed for 1.5 centuries, and we may regress to that norm. If so, a ton of jobs, and economic activity, may shift from the West, to Asia. If so, the western middle classes are screwed.

    BILL ELLIS -> Ashok Hegde ... , Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 03:02 PM
    It's not a zero sum problem
    BILL ELLIS : , Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 02:56 PM
    Up till now globalism has mostly been conducted by laissez faire neo liberal elite...for the needs of the elite.
    That's not entirely a bad thing. Wars are started over the needs and desires of our elites. Common folks left to their own, won't find reason to go off and kill their counterparts... it only after "the other" has been dehumanized and demonized by the elite that common people will allow themselves to be organized to kill one another.

    By allowing and encouraging the world's elite to operate within a system of mutual dependence, we decrease the incentive for the elite to marshal and deploy their captive populations against one another.

    But once that international system has been solidified...as it has now... The objective should be to tear it down...it should be to make it democratized, unionised, and transparent .

    We need to move from laissez faire neo liberalism to social democratic neo liberalism.

    BILL ELLIS -> BILL ELLIS... , -1
    Should " not" be torn down...

    [Apr 11, 2016] Paul Krugman: Snoopy the Destroyer

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Judge Collyer repeatedly complained that the regulators had failed to do a cost-benefit analysis." What Professor Krugman omits here is that so-called "cost-benefit analysis" has been corrupted by the fallacious Kaldor-Hicks compensation principle. The house cleaning has a lot further to go than "Republicans." ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    Systemically important presidential elections:
    Snoopy the Destroyer, by Paul Krugman, NY Times : Has Snoopy just doomed us to another severe financial crisis? Unfortunately, that's a real possibility, thanks to a bad judicial ruling that threatens a key part of financial reform. ...
    At the end of 2014 the regulators designated MetLife , whose business extends far beyond individual life insurance, a systemically important financial institution. Other firms faced with this designation have tried to get out by changing their business models. For example, General Electric ... sold off much of its finance business. But MetLife went to court. And it has won a favorable ruling from Rosemary Collyer , a Federal District Court judge.
    It was a peculiar ruling. Judge Collyer repeatedly complained that the regulators had failed to do a cost-benefit analysis, which the law doesn't say they should do, and for good reason. Financial crises are, after all, rare but drastic events; it's unreasonable to expect regulators to game out in advance just how likely the next crisis is, or how it might play out, before imposing prudential standards. To demand that officials quantify the unquantifiable would, in effect, establish a strong presumption against any kind of protective measures.
    Of course, that's what financial firms want. Conservatives like to pretend that the "systemically important" designation is actually a privilege, a guarantee that firms will be bailed out. Back in 2012 Mitt Romney described this part of reform as "a kiss that's been given to New York banks"..., an "enormous boon for them." Strange to say, however, firms are doing all they can to dodge this "boon" - and MetLife's stock rose sharply when the ruling came down.
    The federal government will appeal..., but even if it wins the ruling may open the floodgates to a wave of challenges to financial reform. And that's the sense in which Snoopy may be setting us up for future disaster.
    It doesn't have to happen. As with so much else, this year's election is crucial. A Democrat in the White House would enforce the spirit as well as the letter of reform - and would also appoint judges sympathetic to that endeavor. A Republican, any Republican, would make every effort to undermine reform, even if he didn't manage an explicit repeal.
    Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the 2010 financial reform was enough. The next crisis might come even if it remains intact. But the odds of crisis will be a lot higher if it falls apart.

    jonny bakho : Monday, April 11, 2016 at 06:54 AM

    The free market needs government intervention to save the market from itself.
    pgl said in reply to jonny bakho... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:25 AM
    Yes - and we need to get the corporate lawyers out of the way.
    Sandwichman -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:47 AM
    10,000 at the bottom of the ocean would be a good start.
    DrDick -> jonny bakho... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:36 AM
    Markets cannot even exist without government regulation.
    anne : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:02 AM
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/a-victory-against-the-shadows/

    April 11, 2015

    A Victory Against the Shadows
    By Paul Krugman

    There are two big lessons from GE's announcement * that it is planning to get out of the finance business. First, the much maligned Dodd-Frank financial reform is doing some real good. Second, Republicans have been talking nonsense on the subject. OK, maybe point #2 isn't really news, but it's important to understand just what kind of nonsense they've been talking.

    GE Capital was a quintessential example of the rise of shadow banking. In most important respects it acted like a bank; it created systemic risks very much like a bank; but it was effectively unregulated, and had to be bailed out through ad hoc arrangements that understandably had many people furious about putting taxpayers on the hook for private irresponsibility.

    Most economists, I think, believe that the rise of shadow banking had less to do with real advantages of such nonbank banks than it did with regulatory arbitrage - that is, institutions like GE Capital were all about exploiting the lack of adequate oversight. And the general view is that the 2008 crisis came about largely because regulatory evasion had reached the point where an old-fashioned wave of bank runs, albeit wearing somewhat different clothes, was once again possible.

    So Dodd-Frank tries to fix the bad incentives by subjecting systemically important financial institutions - SIFIs - to greater oversight, higher capital and liquidity requirements, etc. And sure enough, what GE is in effect saying is that if we have to compete on a level playing field, if we can't play the moral hazard game, it's not worth being in this business. That's a clear demonstration that reform is having a real effect.

    Now, the more or less official GOP line is that the crisis had nothing to do with runaway banks - it was all about Barney Frank somehow forcing poor innocent bankers to make loans to Those People. And the line on the right also asserts that the SIFI designation is actually an invitation to behave badly, that institutions so designated know that they are too big to fail and can start living high on the moral hazard hog.

    But as Mike Konczal notes, ** GE - following in the footsteps of others, notably MetLife *** - is clearly desperate to get out from under the SIFI designation. It sure looks as if being named a SIFI is indeed what it's supposed to be, a burden rather than a bonus.

    A good day for the reformers.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/business/dealbook/the-lessons-for-finance-in-the-ge-capital-retreat.html

    ** http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/how-end-ge-capital-also-kills-core-conservative-talking-point-about-dodd-frank

    *** http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/metlife-to-fight-too-big-to-fail-status-in-court/

    Sandwichman : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:14 AM
    "Judge Collyer repeatedly complained that the regulators had failed to do a cost-benefit analysis." What Professor Krugman omits here is that so-called "cost-benefit analysis" has been corrupted by the fallacious Kaldor-Hicks compensation principle. The house cleaning has a lot further to go than "Republicans."
    anne said in reply to Sandwichman ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:23 AM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaldor%E2%80%93Hicks_efficiency

    A Kaldor–Hicks improvement, named for Nicholas Kaldor and John Hicks, also known as the Kaldor–Hicks criterion, is a way of judging economic re-allocations of resources among people that captures some of the intuitive appeal of Pareto improvements, but has less stringent criteria and is hence applicable to more circumstances.

    A re-allocation is a Kaldor–Hicks improvement if those that are made better off could hypothetically compensate those that are made worse off and lead to a Pareto-improving outcome. The compensation does not actually have to occur (there is no presumption in favor of status-quo) and thus, a Kaldor–Hicks improvement can in fact leave some people worse off.

    Sandwichman -> anne... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:31 AM
    There are no stable "units" in which compensation could be paid.

    http://econospeak.blogspot.ca/2014/11/numeraire-shmoo-meraire-nature-doesnt.html

    David Ellerman:

    "Consider a transfer of an apple from Mary to John and a transfer of $0.75 from John to Mary. Use Kaldor-Hicks to evaluate each part as a "project" with the other part as the "compensation". Using money as the numeraire and the apple transfer as the "project", we see under the assumptions that the transfer of the apple increases social wealth measured in dollars so that is the recommendation based on "efficiency", and the payment of the "compensation" of $0.75 is a matter of "equity" of concern to politician, theologians, and philosophers but not to the professional economist. Now reverse the numeraire taking apples as the numeraire and the transfer of the $0.75 as the "project". Then the transfer of the apple (= "compensation") does not change social wealth = size of the apple pie, but the transfer of the $0.75 increases the size of the social apple pie by 3/4 of an apple so it is the transfer of the $0.75 that is recommended on efficiency grounds by hard-nosed economists while the transfer of the apple is left to politicians, theologians, and the like as a matter of "equity." Thus the outcome of the KH analysis is reversed by a change in the numeraire used to describe the exact same pair of transfers."

    anne said in reply to Sandwichman ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:50 AM
    November 22, 2014

    #NUM!éraire, Shmoo-méraire: Nature doesn't truck and barter

    The commodity in terms of which the prices of all the others are expressed is the numéraire. -- Leon Walras, Elements of Pure Economics.

    But the numéraire is a purely technical device, introduced simply for the purpose of making exchange values explicit. In no way does the introduction of a standard of value alter the fundamental nature of the economy in question. It remains a barter economy, since goods are exchanged solely for other goods. -- André Orléan, The Empire of Value.

    -- Sandwichman

    anne said in reply to Sandwichman ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:26 AM
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Catch-22

    1961

    Yossarian looked at him soberly and tried another approach. 'Is Orr crazy?'

    'He sure is,' Doc Daneeka said.

    'Can you ground him?'

    'I sure can. But first he has to ask me to. That's part of the rule.'

    'Then why doesn't he ask you to?'

    'Because he's crazy,' Doc Daneeka said. 'He has to be crazy to keep flying combat missions after all the close calls he's had. Sure, I can ground Orr. But first he has to ask me to.'

    'That's all he has to do to be grounded?'

    'That's all. Let him ask me.'

    'And then you can ground him?' Yossarian asked.

    'No. Then I can't ground him.'

    'You mean there's a catch?'

    'Sure there's a catch,' Doc Daneeka replied. 'Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy.'

    There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

    'That's some catch, that Catch-22,' he observed.

    'It's the best there is,' Doc Daneeka agreed.

    -- Joseph Heller

    Sandwichman -> anne... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:42 AM
    Also known as the double-bind in Gregory Bateson's analysis.

    And why the big fuss about the Panama Papers? Doesn't the Laffer Curve tell us that if the 1% evade taxes by hiding their money in off-shore accounts, it will cause so much economic growth that government tax revenues will actually increase?

    Laffer curves, Kaldor-Hicks cost-benefit swindles and lump-of-labor fantasies are not "incidentals" of an otherwise sound economic discipline. They are symptoms of an ideology that is rotten to the core.

    William said in reply to Sandwichman ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:54 AM
    Yes, those supply-siders must love it when companies hide their income offshores. Just think how many more jobs they must be creating with their lower tax rate!
    ilsm said in reply to Sandwichman ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 09:59 AM
    BCA's or CBA's start with assumptions and ground rules.

    Neither do anything but give "foundation" to preferences.

    pgl : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:24 AM
    "The federal government will appeal the MetLife ruling, but even if it wins the ruling may open the floodgates to a wave of challenges to financial reform. And that's the sense in which Snoopy may be setting us up for future disaster."

    As soon as Dodd-Frank was passed the large financial institutions got their legal teams busy trying to undermine it. One would think all progressives would rally behind enforcing Dodd-Frank. Of course Rusty wants us to believe enforcing Dodd-Frank is just too complicated. It is complicated only because the lawyers for the financial sector get paid big bucks to obscure what is sensible regulation.

    DrDick -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:39 AM
    Rusty is well paid not to understand that it is people like him and his employers who are responsible for the complexity of federal regulations.
    pgl said in reply to DrDick ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 09:02 AM
    I bet Rusty will protest this by saying he is not being paid that much. Which would be cool but the notion that we should just trash Dodd-Frank strikes me as bad financial economics. Now if we can improve on Dodd-Frank, that would be awesome if it makes Jamie Dimon really mad.
    Peter said in reply to pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:36 AM
    "One would think all progressives would rally behind enforcing Dodd-Frank."

    What is that supposed to mean?

    JohnH : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:05 AM
    LOL!!! "A Democrat in the White House would enforce the spirit as well as the letter of reform"...just like the incumbent Democrat sent bankers to jail for rampant mortgage fraud.

    Oh, right! Obama and Holder actually made the investigation of mortgage fraud JOD's lowest priority and brought no criminal indictments...undermining the rule of law, giving bankers a 'get out of jail free' card, and encouraging them to commit yet more fraud.

    Krugman is becoming just ridiculous, a partisan hack on steroids.

    Peter said in reply to JohnH... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:51 AM
    "The episode showed that traditional financial regulation, which focuses on deposit-taking banks, is inadequate in the modern world."

    What Krugman fails to inform his reader - one can only say so much in a column is that Bill Clinton repeatedly reappointed Alan Greenspan as regulator in chief.

    The shadow-banking system was created during Greenspan's tenure and he saw no need to regulate it b/c free markets are awesome! And so the shadow-banking system promptly had a bank run.

    Eric Blair -> Peter... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 09:02 AM
    Not "promptly"--it took fifteen years. That was Clinton's biggest weakness--he was good at dealing with urgent obvious problems, but he would sometimes let longer-term issues fester. This is why Obama will be remembered as a better president than Clinton--he plays the long game.
    Peter said in reply to Eric Blair ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 09:10 AM
    15 years? No. Clinton ended in 2000 with a tech stock bubble. Less than a decade later we had the mother of all bank runs.

    "he was good at dealing with urgent obvious problems, "

    Like what? Balancing the budget?

    Eric Blair -> Peter... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 09:29 AM
    Notable examples of urgent problems that Clinton addressed effectively included the Mexico crisis of 1994, the East Asian crisis of 1997, and the collapse of Long Term Capital Management in 1998. Any one of these crises could have turned into a broader meltdown and spawned a depression similar to the 2008 one, but Clinton and his appointees (including Greenspan) did a good job of containing the damage. Unfortunately they did nothing to address the underlying problems that had made it necessary for them to act in the first place.
    ilsm said in reply to Eric Blair ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:11 AM
    Clinton pandered to the Sunnis sending USAF to do their work sundering Serbia. Bombing the Chinese embassy was par for the military industry complex.

    Permanently stationed US funded mechanized brigade to keep the Sunnis happy with NATO over Serbia.

    Peter said in reply to Eric Blair ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:13 AM
    Dean Baker has a good critique of their handling of the East Asian Crisis, if you aren't familiar with it.
    Peter said in reply to JohnH... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:52 AM
    "Oh, and yes, the episode also showed that making the breakup of big banks the be-all and end-all of reform misses the point."

    *sends more money to Sanders campaign*

    Peter said in reply to Peter... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 09:12 AM
    http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36222-focus-why-the-banks-should-be-broken-up

    Why the Banks Should Be Broken Up

    By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

    09 April 16

    Bernie or no Bernie, 'Times' columnist Paul Krugman is wrong about the banks

    Paul Krugman wrote an op-ed in the New York Times today called "Sanders Over the Edge." He's been doing a lot of shovel work for the Hillary Clinton campaign lately, which is his right of course. The piece eventually devolves into a criticism of the character of Bernie Sanders, but it's his take on the causes of the '08 crash that really raises an eyebrow.

    ...

    Peter said in reply to JohnH... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:56 AM
    "It doesn't have to happen. As with so much else, this year's election is crucial. A Democrat in the White House would enforce the spirit as well as the letter of reform - and would also appoint judges sympathetic to that endeavor. A Republican, any Republican, would make every effort to undermine reform, even if he didn't manage an explicit repeal.

    Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the 2010 financial reform was enough."

    The Republicans are going to lose so Krugman's lesser evil argument doesn't really work.

    Does Krugman discuss Hillary's reforms? No of course not.

    Eric Blair -> JohnH... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:59 AM
    Your comment only makes sense if you believe that either
    (1) designating a financial institution "systemically important" is trivial or totally meaningless compared to criminal indictments for previous actions, or (2) a Republican would enforce this designation just as much as Obama has. Which is it?
    pgl said in reply to Eric Blair ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 09:04 AM
    Uh oh - a tough question for JohnH. Careful as he might say you are "not qualified" or something like that.

    Republicans want a laissez faire financial system. After all - 2008 was such a great year (not).

    Peter said in reply to pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 09:11 AM
    Hey buddy! Getting feisty again?
    JohnH said in reply to Eric Blair ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 09:20 AM
    LOL!!! Eric Blair asserts that it is "totally meaningless" to sending bankers to prison for fraud that threatened systemically threatened the economy!

    And he assumes that Obama would behave less deferentially to Wall Street banks when it comes to enforcing any regulation that bankers don't approve of.
    Republicans have no monopoly on servility to the interests of Wall Street and their wealthy clientele, but Krugman obviously prefers Democratic corruption to its Republican cousin...

    Eric Blair -> JohnH... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 09:36 AM
    No, I did not say what you claim that I said. And whether Obama is being deferential to someone is at most a side issue. The important questions are first, does the rule help make the financial system more stable, and second, would it be enforced less by Republicans. I believe the answer to both questions is yes.
    pgl said in reply to Eric Blair ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:43 AM
    JohnH does this a lot. Cross his serial nonsense and you become Jamie Dimon's enabler.
    JohnH said in reply to Eric Blair ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:21 PM
    "would it be enforced less by Republicans?"

    LOL!!! How can it get less than zero...which is the number of bank fraud indictments Obama issued against prominent Wall Street bankers?

    It's hilarious how Wall Street Democrats try to claim that the Democratic Party is less corrupt than Republicans, when both parties feed from the same trough.

    MIB said in reply to JohnH... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:43 AM
    Sandwichman says:

    "The house cleaning has a lot further to go than "Republicans."

    How about the leader of the Democrats, President Obama?

    Real Democrats can hardly wait for good ol authentic, honest Bernie Sanders to start attacking President Obama – he's certainly not qualified to be president, taking all that Wall Street cash and letting the big banks off scot-free, like he and Holder did back 2009 -- unqualified.

    But good ol straight shootin Bernie aint gona do that, is he? Nope, because even Bernie understands that Democrats actually like, maybe even love President Obama.

    Bernie probably even understands that most Democrats like their democratic representatives, senators, governors, mayors, city councilors, etc as well. So railing against the establishment is not nearly as effective for Bernie as it is for Trump, Cruz and the tea party railing against the Republican establishment. You see this in most Sanders surrogates carefully leaving "democratic" off when criticizing the establishment, heck they might be confused with Republicans or Independents. Even the more excitable online Berniacs rarely use the term democratic establishment, instead invoking the generically ominous and evil "establishment."

    It would have been much better (and honest) if Bernie had not turned his back on 28 years as a proud Independent and run for president as a proud Independent instead of his gimmick to garner more media attention by running as a Democrat.

    His ego trip would have been much shorter, and Bernie certainly wouldn't be able to raise as much cash running as an independent, he'd likely struggle to exceed Nader's 3% general election vote in 2000, but he could have honestly taken on the real leader of the (democratic) establishment, President Obama.

    JohnH said in reply to MIB... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:25 PM
    Nonetheless, Bernie is bringing critical economic issues into public discourse, issues that Wall Street Democrats have long tried to suppress or occasionally pay lip service to...issue such as minimum wages, trade policy, etc.

    Even better, Bernie is showing socialist Democrats how to campaign and win against corrupt, incumbent Wall Street Democrats.

    Antoni Jaume : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:36 AM
    That looks suspiciously just what Charles Murray proposed in his book "By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission", to litigate against norms that regulate corporations.

    http://americablog.com/2015/05/by-the-ruling-class-charles-murrays-anti-democratic-revolution.html

    dd : , -1
    Well not all SI's are equal. The drubbing AIG took even as it was used to launder cash to more favored institutions is no doubt seen as the template. There's that nowhere to be found independent insurance guy with no clout on FSOC that's another message. Woodall,a former insurance regulator from Kentucky is the definition of outsider.
    Last there's Jack Lew lecturing everyone on financial stability,truly a nice irony given Citi's illegal Traveler's deal and the horrific consequences.
    No doubt the lawsuit is about positioning and they'll be more by other players who worry about being sacrificed to save the clout-heavy.
    This is totally predictable given the power structure of FSOC.

    [Apr 11, 2016] #panamapapers Offshore Funds: On the Run With (Almost) Nowhere to Go?

    Notable quotes:
    "... NY banking rules ..."
    "... Nicholas Shaxson's Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on April 11, 2016 by Yves Smith As strange as it may seem, a confluence of developments in the banking industry means the Panama Papers revelations looks likely make it a lot more difficult for offshore money, as tax evasions and tax secrecy are often politely called, to stay hidden. This would serve as a marked contrast to the last international-headlines-gripping leaks, the Snowden revelations. Even though Snowden gave a big window into the reach of the surveillance state, not all that much has changed, save the Chinese making more active efforts to avoid cloud computing and US technology vendors, and the Europeans bashing US concerns over violations of their privacy laws.

    By contrast, the massive Mossack Fonseca records haul feeds into trends in banking that mean that a lot of these funds are going to find it hard remain secret. We'll summarize them below.

    Tax base expansion initiatives . The US and European Union have been working on a program to expand the base of income that is subject to tax. Budget-starved European member states have been moving the plan forward ahead of schedule. This is one of the few positive developments to come of of governments failing to understand the implications of having a fiat currency (you can and typically need to run deficits, since the private sector sets unduly high return targets and chronically underinvests; the constraint on deficit spending is creating too much inflation).

    Increasingly tough "know your customer" rules . The US going aggressively after foreign banks that have falsified records as a part of money-laundering has led to increased compliance. Even Standard Chartered, which thought the US had no business telling it not to do business with Iran, was brought to heel and its CEO forced to resign for his continued intransigence.

    Now the US can throw its weight around only as far as dollar-based transactions are concerned, since those ultimately clear through US facilities. But the UK has also adopted stringent "know your customer" rules. It now takes weeks to open a new account that is not a personal account, say for your rugby club.

    As John Dizard in the Financial Times reports :

    There is a new urgency in the tone of the lawyers and advisers for offshore asset holders. The essential message is that you are the Shah of Iran, this is 1979, and you and your money will find yourselves hopscotching from one unwelcoming landing place to another…

    If you or your clients think this is about tax cheats or the merely middle rich, they should think again…

    As this column and others have noted, by next year Switzerland, along with Luxembourg, the Channel Islands and other European offshore investment management centres, will start exchanging tax information with their counterparts.

    There are a very large number of beneficiaries, ie globalised rich people, who have until the end of this year to get their money safely onshore. The one Western country that does not have a deadline for complying with the Common Reporting Standard is the US.

    Almost everyone who has non-criminally sourced capital would like to have at least some of it accessible within the dollar-based clearing system. But the clerical and legal checklists to set up accounts for legitimate money have become so long that it will take months to accomplish this even for those willing to pay the transaction costs.

    And before you think the US banks are therefore the answer…. US banks are shunning money from the rich these days. . Dizard again:

    The largest US banks do not really want to take more deposits, or even do the cursory know-your-customer due diligence work to open new special purpose accounts for old customers. Americans I know with legitimately acquired nine- or ten-figure investment portfolios now have to scrounge around to open accounts in midsize US banks.

    Those rich Americans do not have the logistical or legal problems that Panama Papers-related flight capital will have in "onshoring" their money.

    Moreover, US legislators are calling for the US tax havens like Delaware corporations and Wyoming limited liability companies, to report on who their ultimate beneficiaries are. Given the tone of his Guardian op-ed, Carl Levin sound like he is warming up for hearings:

    Global revulsion against shell company abuses, offshore tax havens, and the lawyers that promote them has generated new public pressure to tackle these problems. Here are three steps to consider.

    Outlaw corporations with hidden owners

    ….G20 world leaders have made a start with a joint commitment to increase corporate transparency. The United Kingdom is leading the way, mandating public disclosure of the true owners – the "beneficial owners" – of UK companies. The European Union has followed…

    The United States is far behind. We now require more information to get a library card than to form a US corporation. ….The biggest impediment is opposition from the secretaries of state of our 50 states, who financially benefit from forming new corporations and don't want to ask questions that might jeopardize their revenue. Our states need to wake up to the damage they are doing and stop forming corporations with hidden owners.

    Get tough on offshore tax abuse

    Tax authorities should use existing tax information exchange agreements, including the US-Panama agreement, to go after tax cheats and determine whether Mossack Fonseca facilitated illegal conduct.

    Offshore tax abuse goes beyond individuals. Some multinational corporations use tax havens to arrange secret tax deals or declare earnings offshore. The international community is finally demanding that large multinationals file reports disclosing the profits they make and the taxes they pay on a country-by-country basis. The United States has proposed regulations requiring those reports; the next step is to finalize them. A bigger issue: making those reports public.

    Get tough on lawyers promoting misconduct

    ….Lawyers should be subject to the "know your client" requirements of anti-money laundering laws. In addition, banks should scrutinize suspicious accounts of law firms and require them to certify that they will not use those accounts to help clients circumvent the bank's own anti-money laundering controls.

    Note that Levin doesn't seem to have a good answer about what to do about states that find it attractive to act as secrecy jurisdictions, but in the past, the Feds have used cutting off various Federal funds as a stick to force cooperation, Moreover, if Congress were to pass laws with "know your client" requirements with criminal sanctions and tough fines, that in and of itself would choke off a lot of domestic activity.

    Information technology risk . Mossack Fonseca exposed in a very dramatic way that secrecy isn't just a function of the design of legal arrangements and the choice of jurisdiction and bank, but also of the integrity of the registered agent's IT security. There's no way to do due diligence on that. Those with offshore accounts must already be nervous that they could be exposed by a similar hack. Dizard's fallback remedy for the rich who want to keep their money hidden, "…you and your money will find yourselves hopscotching from one unwelcoming landing place to another," might work for the relatively small and fleet of foot to stay ahead of the taxman and the bank transparency moves, but it won't reduce IT risk.

    Dizard's article, despite being informative, weirdly rails against crackdown on large-scale international capital transactions" as populist and ill-informed, due to limiting the mobility of international capital. Someone needs to clue him on the research by Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reihart, who are hardly of the pinko persuasion, who found that high levels of international capital movements are powerfully correlated with more severe and frequent financial crises. Dizard also tries to depict reducing capital movements as being Smoot-Hawley revisited. First, the notion that Smoot-Hawley caused the Depression had been well debunked. Second and more important, international capital flows these days are at such high levels (over 60 times trade flows) that the Bank of International Settlement has said that large international transactions are not about facilitating trade, and that excessive financial "elasticity" was the cause of the crisis.

    He also depicts banks as winding up being beneficiaries, which contradicts his message that they regard onshored money as more hassle (which means cost) that its worth:

    This will, within the next two years or so, lead to a one-time transfer from the global rich to the staff and owners of US financial institutions. But that will be followed by a long drought for new business, as the global wealth that did not move quickly enough gets slotted into endless holding patterns in the mid-Atlantic or mid-Pacific.

    It's hard to see what good it will do someone to have money moving around the few finessable locations and banks that remain. Pray tell, how does it spent? Money you can't readily touch, or get into a jurisdiction where you'd like to spend it, does not seem terribly useful.

    And the big point that Dizard misses is that onshoring these funds will make the future investment income on them subject to tax. Hidden untaxed wealth has contributed to rising inequality; Gabriel Zucman of UC Berkeley has estimated that 6% to 8% of global wealth is offshore, and most of that not reported to tax authorities. So the more the rich are discomfited by their overly-clever machinations, the better.

    Northeaster , April 11, 2016 at 7:34 am

    Well, if you live in a state where you can name an LLC for your nominee trust, it doesn't get any better. File the off shore LLC in Nevada where they don't ask any questions, and use it for your real estate vehicle to launder your monies. Any question to why high end real estate is on fire? The opaqueness in some states is intentional, as it took me about 10 minutes of random searching of properties (over $2 million) to find the off shore LLC owner, with people and entities that did not exists in the SoS filings. The activity index for RE sales over $750K is almost equal to the index under $400K and below combined. If you add the $500K and above sales, it crushes the entire index below $500K.

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=47×5

    Alex morfesis , April 11, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Owning an entity does not open a bank account…a party almost always has to be vetted for a new enterprise…wired in funds for the benefit of an entity helps break the corporate veil…govt officials rambling to the public that this corporate charade is just "impossible" to deal with or stop are just laughing at the public (or need to hand back their law license to the bar)…money can Always be traced…a real estate closing will have closing instructions and in those instructions will be to whom to send back the funds and to what name if the transaction is not concluded….since title companies are state regulated enterprises….and there are basically only four major title insurance umbrella companies….this myth that a state title insurance investigator could not walk in and obtain the beneficiary of the source of funds is one big second city improv skit

    Northeaster , April 11, 2016 at 11:33 am

    All they have to do is have real estate fall under FinCen Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) requirements, but the NAR is simply too powerful and well funded with a more than accepting sold out CONgress,

    Alex morfesis , April 11, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    Not defending nar but state title insurance investigators have the absolute right to walk in unannounced and spot audit files…a new corp will not have all these closing funds in hand and for a proper corp veil to stand and hold, the funds had to be in a bank account in the name of corp…might I suggest that the funds do not arrive from a source matching the corporate name…thus revealing the actual party in interest….

    susan the other , April 11, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    After this amazing seminar from Yves MERS is making much more sense… and as always Utah stands squarely behind the banks by ruling in appeals court that you can make a ham sandwich your agent.

    JTMcPhee , April 11, 2016 at 8:36 am

    Another piece of the problem is the difficulty of "piercing the corporate veil" in so many legal domains (almost said "states and nations," but those are mostly convenient fictions themselves). There's been a long tail of effort by the Few and the Corrupt and the Criminal to make it very difficult, ever increasingly difficult, to hang liability for what little remains of proscriptions and penalties for vicious and renter-driven personal (from "behind the veil") actions that offend what are supposed to be police-powers (health, safety, welfare, nuisance and environmental destruction, etc.), hang it where it belongs, with penalties that actually matter to the sociopath, if behaviors are going to change - around the necks of the individual rotten humans that plot and plan and operate all the stuff that is killing ordinary people and the planet.

    Corporate "beneficial owners" get to hide behind the screen of opacity and deflection that comes from the perversion of the notion that "business" needs require immunity of individuals from the consequences of "corporate" behavior. "Piercing the veil" requires meeting an extreme burden of proof that the corporation is a fraudulent shell, or merely an alter ego of the individual officer/owner. And if course the Wealthy and their advisers and facilitators and wholly owned political actors are still in the game, with huge resources even if currently under some increasing and likely temporary constraints, and they will be doing their damndest to preserve existing moats and walls and veils and find new ways to pervert the legitimacy-granting functions of law-making to protect their pleasure palaces and "specialness."

    Eat the Rich, reads the old bumper sticker from Hippier days… With a plate of fava beans, and a nice sauce of Retribution and a side of Restitution…

    inode_buddha , April 11, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    I have seen one case in particular, where the CEO made one set of sworn statements to the SEC in the 10k, and said the exact opposite in Federal court in the same month. Neither legal team picked up on this or mentioned it, and neither did the judge. It was incredibly aggravating to watch. In this case he rode the company into the ground while pumping and dumping like mad, and got away with it. The lawsuit was simply another vehicle to pump the stock, it didn't matter if it even had any merit - which it didn't. Years later, the company imploded ithe only a few employees left, the execs walked away with millions, etc. and they made a lot of enemies along the way.

    divadab , April 11, 2016 at 8:36 am

    Hopefully greater regulation and international cooperation will surface the tax evaders and capture their previously unpaid taxes. But it will also drive many of them deeper into organized crime-style hiding schemes. For example, using squeaky-clean nominees acting as beards: here's how it works in many communities – one guy "owns" many rental properties for which there are long-term tenants, and the rent equals exactly the carrying cost of the property. The tenants happen to be businessmen and their families who run pretty close to the wind and whose assets are thereby continually at risk – effectively, they protect their houses from creditors by holding them in a trustworthy nominee name – the "legal owner" is a hidden agent for the actual owners. Totally undetectable. But enforcement of this type of contract is extra-legal – organized crime-style – and communal.

    This type of setup is also a classic money-laundering vehicle – involving property flips between ostensibly unrelated parties but in reality coordinated. Hence distorted real estate markets as noted by Northeaster above. First $500,000 of profit on a principle residence sale is non taxable. I'd suggest the IRS focus on auditing house sales for which the principle residence exemption has been claimed, especially when people make close to the limit several times over (say) a ten-year period.

    Synoia , April 11, 2016 at 10:26 am

    $250,000 exemption for each individual on title every 2 years.

    weinerdog43 , April 11, 2016 at 9:01 am

    Way back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, and I was taking Income Tax in law school, I couldn't shake the feeling that the whole point of the class was to assist people (corporations are people, my friend) to scam the government. While no one likes to pay taxes, these taxes provide services that people do, in fact like. It's all I can do to resist slapping folks who complain about the condition of the roads, and then in the next breath, whine about their tax burden.

    Anyway, cheating the government out of one's fair share of the tax burden means 2 things:
    1.) The remaining burden falls more heavily on those who DO pay; and
    2.) Unpunished cheating encourages more people (and corporations) to cheat. "If they're not paying, why should I pay?"

    After that class, I couldn't run fast enough away from tax law as it seemed to attract classmates I rather loathed. I couldn't agree more that tax lawyers who encourage cheating should face disbarment and fines. Apologies to my tax law brethren who try to do the right thing. I know some fine CPAs and tax guys. It just wasn't my calling.

    Whine Country , April 11, 2016 at 10:03 am

    I began my career as a CPA in the early '70s in the SF Bay area and virtually all of the lawyers I came in contact with had the same thoughts about taxes as you did. One of my accounting professors used to go on about how it was incredible that an attorney could pass the bar and practice law without ever having taken one tax course.

    Particularly when you consider that there is very little that a lawyer does that does not in some way involve taxes. So for us CPAs this was just an opening for us to specialize in an area where lawyers had little or no interest.

    In those days I recall that when you actually needed a tax attorney he was usually – I won't say loathsome – but kind of an odd sort. Recently I spoke to my ex-partner who took over our practice and the subject of tax attorneys came up. He reported to me that in the Bay Area tax attorneys are now billing $900 to $1,000 per hour. I guess you can call this supply side economics at work. As the number of mega zillionaires grows in the SF/Silicon Valley area, demand has apparently been created for a new category of super lawyer. The Free Market really can do some wonderful things when manipulated properly.

    Yves Smith Post author , April 11, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    You have to have your brain turned inside out to understand tax well enough to be a tax lawyer. Most regular lawyers have some antipathy for tax lawyers (I've sensed this and confirmed it). The logic of tax is extremely arcane, non-intuitive, and pedantic. Plus it does not have commercial value added.

    perpetualWAR , April 11, 2016 at 10:46 am

    Too bad the bar associations protect the scheming, lying cheats. Most bar associations have been infiltrated and are run by the bank lawyer scum.

    polecat , April 11, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    this is thing…..nearly every establishment related profession seems, in my mind at least, to be corrupted by fraud and graft……be it Pharma, Financials, Medical, MIC, Education, Agriculture, Law & Judicature, Transportation & Energy, National social policy, Foreign & National & Security policy……..

    ….hence… all phony & all illegitimate !!!

    Alex V , April 11, 2016 at 9:04 am

    I'm an American citizen living overseas. For me an "offshore account" is not an option, it's a fact of life. Creating fair laws to control tax evasion are therefore of interest to me.

    One example of the opposite of fair law is FATCA. This is quite a terrifying bit of poorly conceived legislation; intended to go after blatant tax evaders and sanction evaders, but instead creating penalties that can be life ruining for a middle class expat that makes an honest mistake in their reporting. The penalties on banks (and by extension foreign countries) that did not want to subject themselves to US law are also overly aggressive. So aggressive that many financial institutions refused to deal with any Americans, even for things as simple as a savings account. "Knowing your customer" became discrimination based on citizenship.

    I'm just hoping that any changes to enforcement or regulation that come about from the PPs take this into account.

    Regarding Standard Chartered, I'm not quite sure it's absolutely clear cut that they were in the wrong:

    http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/4584
    http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/4266

    They may have settled just to make the problem go away, and to maintain access to the US financial system. The US has a habit of imposing it's laws on the rest of the world, or ignoring international law it doesn't like. In my opinion, the sanctions on Iran were in many ways outright bullying, very much like with those on Cuba.

    Yves Smith Post author , April 11, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    Buh? Standard Chartered defied the advice of its US outside counsel and falsified wire transfer documents in a systematic manner after having been previously sanctioned for handling the transfer of funds to Iran for its oil sales, and to Sudan and other prohibited jurisdictions. You clearly have not read Benjamin Lawsky's order against the bank. Standard Chartered had a branch in New York to do dollar operations, and all dollar transactions ultimately clear (have to clear) through that branch.

    These were clear-cut violations of NY banking rules and Lawsky could have yanked Standard Chartered's NY banking license, which would have been a cataclysmic event for the bank. And after Federal regulators initially acting offended that Lawsky had end run and embarrassed them, they stepped up and issued big fines against Standard Chartered of their own.

    You also omit that Standard Chartered got yet another round of fines for failing to comply with the changes required! That led to the ouster of CEO Peter Sands, who had been defiant all along. From the New York Times in 2014, Caught Backsliding, Standard Chartered Is Fined $300 Million :

    It took $667 million in fines and a promise to behave for the British bank Standard Chartered to emerge from the regulatory spotlight. All it took to return there was its failure to fully keep that promise.

    In a settlement announced on Tuesday by New York State's financial regulator, Standard Chartered will pay a $300 million fine and suspend an important business activity because of its failure to weed out transactions prone to money-laundering, a punishing reminder of settlements in 2012. Those settlements with state and federal authorities resolved accusations that Standard Chartered, in part through its New York branch, processed transactions for Iran and other countries blacklisted by the United States.

    The New York regulator, Benjamin M. Lawsky, has now penalized Standard Chartered for running afoul of the 2012 settlement, which he said required the bank to "remediate anti-money-laundering compliance problems."

    An independent monitor, hired as part of Mr. Lawsky's 2012 settlement, recently detected that the bank's computer systems failed to flag wire transfers flowing from areas of the world considered vulnerable to money-laundering, according to Mr. Lawsky's order. The order did not specify the number of transactions that the bank's filters failed to identify, but a person briefed on the matter said that it was "in the millions."

    Please stop defending crooked bank behavior. Plus this is agnotology, which is against our house rules.

    DJG , April 11, 2016 at 9:08 am

    Thanks for this. The problem with the Panama Papers for those of us outside economics and finance is that we don't understand the mechanisms and regulations that ease all of this movement of money. Even though I have stocks in my IRA, it isn't as if the companies report their financial messes in the proxy statements. Au contraire, it's all the glory of Jeffrey Immelt all the time.

    "Finessable": I kind-a like it. Your coinage?

    readerOfTeaLeaves , April 11, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    You may want to check McClatchy's website as they have some explanatory videos and terrific reporting.
    I got started on all the tax haven skullduggery by reading Yves, so it's wonderful to see this getting a far wider, fully documented exposition.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com

    Also, Nicholas Shaxson's Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World is one of the best books that I've ever read. His blog is here: http://treasureislands.org

    Earlier this week, a friend said, "Is it a good day?" I said, "It's an AWESOME day! All the sleaze is finally coming out into the sunlight."

    Yves Smith Post author , April 11, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    Yes, Treasure Islands is a terrific book. Highly readable but still covers many of the important technical issues.

    Jim Haygood , April 11, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    'It now takes weeks to open a new account that is not a personal account, say for your rugby club.'

    … which is why workarounds, both old school (gold) and new (anonymous digital currencies), will be found to sidestep the politicization of government currencies, which now come bundled with odious surveillance that makes their use increasingly unattractive.

    Yves Smith Post author , April 11, 2016 at 8:04 pm

    These are both property, not money, and not at all workable for anyone who needs them for transactions. Both are volatile and bitcoin with its blockchain makes its entire history of past holders accessible. That's not a desirable feature for someone hiding from the taxman.

    Micky9finger , April 11, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    the constraint on deficit spending is creating too much inflation).

    Huh?

    Yves Smith Post author , April 11, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    That is correct for fiat currency issuers. This is not any secret if you've been reading about how monetary operations work.

    RBHoughton , April 11, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    Good grief. What's the world coming to? Are we now expected to visit our offshore paradise and suitcase money home? The gentlemen in Customs will be checking every flight from the Caymans.

    "The one Western country that does not have a deadline for complying with the Common Reporting Standard is the US." – Ahh ha – is this part of the solution to falling inwards investment?

    [Apr 10, 2016] Follow the money

    Notable quotes:
    "... Perhaps that's the problem with economics: the economists are so wrapped up in politics they can't tell where one starts and the other ends. Economics becomes nothing more than politics with math thrown in to lend authority to "very serious" agendas. ..."
    "... Much like theology, it's a matter of culture and clique. Fitting they break up the field into Orthodox and Heterodox. Perhaps they should have economic cardinals that elect an economic pope. ..."
    "... "When economic power became concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny." John Adams ..."
    "... Politics and economic matters cannot be separated. Most politics are an expression of economic interests; in fact almost all - things that appear to be about "power", social dominance, and social mores are also mostly motivated by arranging or sustaining an environment where certain groups get to decide matters of the economy at the expense of others. ..."
    "... Have you heard the phrase "follow the money", and even older "cui bono"? It's the same principle. Most motivations are based in economic affairs and conflicts. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    Ron Waller -> Alain Sherter...

    ...Krugman may be an economist, but this politicking op-ed has nothing to do with economics.

    Perhaps that's the problem with economics: the economists are so wrapped up in politics they can't tell where one starts and the other ends. Economics becomes nothing more than politics with math thrown in to lend authority to "very serious" agendas.

    BTW, how are economic ideas established, in any case? We know with science, falsifiable hypotheses are put forward and put to the test. Economists know enough about statistics to hide behind the ethics problem of running economic experiments. Even though they ARE running economic experiments with their Aristotelian notions that almost always get it wrong: from "efficient" taxation nonsense that gives the rich big tax breaks, to investor-protecting inflation targeting that ran the economy into the ground -- which they call the Great Moderation; etc.

    Much like theology, it's a matter of culture and clique. Fitting they break up the field into Orthodox and Heterodox. Perhaps they should have economic cardinals that elect an economic pope.

    likbez -> Ron Waller ...
    Politics is deeply connected to economics. Especially under neoliberalism. It is actually difficult to distinguish two and many economic issues are highly political ("role of the market in the society").

    Moreover:

    "When economic power became concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny." John Adams

    cm -> Ron Waller ...
    Politics and economic matters cannot be separated. Most politics are an expression of economic interests; in fact almost all - things that appear to be about "power", social dominance, and social mores are also mostly motivated by arranging or sustaining an environment where certain groups get to decide matters of the economy at the expense of others.

    Have you heard the phrase "follow the money", and even older "cui bono"? It's the same principle. Most motivations are based in economic affairs and conflicts.

    [Apr 10, 2016] The Repercussions of Financial Booms and Crises by Joseph Joyce

    March 29, 2016 | Angry Bear

    Financial booms have become a chronic feature of the global financial system. When these booms end in crises, the impact on economic conditions can be severe. Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff of Harvard pointed out that banking crises have been associated with deep downturns in output and employment, which is certainly consistent with the experience of the advanced economies in the aftermath of the global crisis. But the after effects of the booms may be even deeper and more long-lasting than thought.

    Gary Gorton of Yale and Guillermo Ordońez of the University of Pennsylvania have released a study of "good booms" and "bad booms," where the latter end in a crisis and the former do not. In their model, all credit booms start with an increase in productivity that allows firms to finance projects using collateralized debt. During this initial period, lenders can assess the quality of the collateral, but are not likely to do so as the projects are productive. Over time, however, as more and more projects are financed, productivity falls as does the quality of the investment projects. Once the incentive to acquire information about the projects rises, lenders begin to examine the collateral that has been posted. Firms with inadequate collateral can no longer obtain financing, and the result is a crisis. But if new technology continues to improve, then there need not be a cutoff of credit, and the boom will end without a crisis. Their empirical analysis shows that credit booms are not uncommon, last ten years on average, and are less likely to end in a crisis when there is larger productivity growth during the boom.

    Claudio Borio, Enisse Kharroubi, Christian Upper and Fabrizio Zampolli of the Bank for International Settlements also look at the dynamics of credit booms and productivity, with data from advanced economies over the period of 1979-2009. They find that credit booms induce a reallocation of labor towards sectors with lower productivity growth, particularly the construction sector. A financial crisis amplifies the negative impact of the previous misallocation on productivity. They conclude that the slow recovery from the global crisis may be due to the misallocation of resources that occurred before the crisis.

    How do international capital flows fit into these accounts? Gianluca Benigno of the London School of Economics, Nathan Converse of the Federal Reserve Board and Luca Forno of Universitat Pompeu Fabra write about capital inflows and economic performance. They identify 155 episodes of exceptionally large capital inflows in middle- and high-income countries over the last 35 years. They report that larger inflows are associated with economic booms. The expansions are accompanied by rises in total factor productivity (TFP) and an increase in employment, which end when the inflows cease.

    Moreover, during the boom there is also a reallocation of resources. The sectoral share of tradable goods in advanced economies, particularly manufacturing, falls during the periods of capital inflows. A reallocation of investment out of manufacturing occurs, including a reallocation of employment if a government refrains from accumulating foreign assets during the episodes of large capital inflows, as well as during periods of abundant international liquidity. The capital inflows also raise the probability of a sudden stop. Economic performance after the crisis is adversely affected by the pre-crisis capital inflows, as well as the reallocation of employment away from manufacturing that took place in the earlier period.

    Alessandra Bonfiglioli of Universitat Pompeu Fabra looked at the issue of financial integration and productivity (working paper here). In a sample of 70 countries between 1975 and 1999, she found that de jure measures of financial integration, such as that provided by the IMF, have a positive relationship with total factor productivity (TFP). This occurred despite the post-financial liberalization increase in the probability of banking crises in developed countries that adversely affects productivity. De facto liberalization, as measured by the sum of external assets and liabilities scaled by GDP, was productivity enhancing in developed countries but not in developing countries.

    Ayhan Kose of the World Bank, Eswar S. Prasad of Cornell and Marco E. Terrones of the IMF also investigated this issue (working paper here) using data from the period of 1966-2005 for 67industrial and developing countries. Like Bonfiglioli, they reported that de jure capital openness has a positive effect on growth in total factor productivity (TFP). But when they looked at the composition of the actual flows and stocks, they found that while equity liabilities (foreign direct investment and portfolio equity) boost TFP growth, debt liabilities have the opposite impact.

    The relationship of capital flows on economic activity, therefore, is complex. Capital inflows contribute to economic booms and may increase TFP, but can end in crises that include "sudden stops" and banking failures. They can also distort the allocation of resources, which affects performance after the crisis. These effects can depend on the types of external liabilities that countries incur. Debt, which exacerbates a crisis, may also adversely divert resources away from sectors with high productivity. Policymakers in emerging markets who think about the long-term consequences of current activities need to look carefully at the debt that private firms in their countries have been incurring.

    cross posted with Capital Ebbs and Flows<

    Warren March 31, 2016 11:14 am
    And therein lies the half of Keynesian Economics that is ignored - running surpluses during the booms to tamp them down, and to have a reserve to pump into the economy during the busts.

    [Apr 10, 2016] Government Hackers, Inc.

    April 6, 2016 | The American Conservative
    The revelation that an Israeli firm cracked the iPhone raises questions about state-corporate espionage.

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) court battle with Apple over the security system in place on iPhones appears to be over. But some experts in the communications security community are expressing concern because of the

    Bureau's unwillingness to reveal what exactly occurred to end the standoff.

    According to government sources speaking both on and off the record, the FBI succeeded in breaking through the Apple security measures with the assistance of an unidentified third party. The technique used was apparently not a one-off and is transferable as the Bureau has now indicated that it will be accessing data on a second phone involved in a murder investigation in Arkansas and is even considering allowing local police forces to share the technology. That means that the FBI and whatever other security and police agencies both in the U.S. and abroad it provides the information to will have the same capability, potentially compromising the security of all iPhones worldwide.

    The breakthrough in the case leads inevitably to questions about the identity of the company or individual that assisted the Bureau. It means that someone outside government circles would also have the ability to unlock the phones, information that could eventually wind up in the hands of criminals or those seeking to disrupt or sabotage existing telecommunications systems.

    No security system is unbreakable if a sophisticated hacker is willing to put enough time, money and resources into the effort. If the hacker is a government with virtually unlimited resources the task is somewhat simpler as vast computer power will permit millions of attempts to compromise a phone's operating system.

    In this case, the problem consisted of defeating an "Erase Data" feature linked to a passcode that had been placed on the target phone by Syed Farook, one of the shooters in December's San Bernardino terrorist attack. Apple had designed the system so that 10 failures to enter the correct passcode would lock the phone and erase all the data on it. This frustrated FBI efforts to come up with the passcode by what is referred to as a "brute force" attack where every possible combination of numbers and letters is entered until the right code is revealed. Apple's security software also was able to detect multiple attempts after entry of an incorrect passcode and slow down the process, meaning that in theory it would take five and a half years for a computer to try all possible combinations of a six-character alphanumeric passcode using numbers and lowercase letters even if it could disable the "Erase Data" feature.

    Speculation is that the FBI and its third party associate were able to break the security by circumventing the measure that monitors the number of unsuccessful passcode entries, possibly to include generating new copies of the phone's NAND storage chip to negate the 10-try limit. The computer generated passcodes could then be entered again and again until the correct code was discovered. And, of course, once the method of corrupting the Erase Data security feature is determined it can be used on any iPhone by anyone with the necessary computer capability, precisely the danger that Apple had warned about when it refused to cooperate with the FBI in the first place.

    Most of the U.S. mainstream media has been reluctant to speculate on who the third party that aided the FBI might be but the Israeli press has not been so reticent. They have identified a company called Cellebrite, a digital forensics company located in Israel. It is reported that the company's executive vice president for mobile forensics Leeor Ben-Peretz was recently in Washington consulting with clients. Ben-Peretz is Cellebrite's marketing chief, fully capable of demonstrating the company's forensics capabilities. Cellebrite reportedly has worked with the FBI before, having had a contract arrangement entered into in 2013 to provide decryption services.

    Cellebrite was purchased by Japanese cellular telephone giant Suncorporation in 2007 but it is still headquartered and managed from Petah Tikva, Israel with a North American office in Parsippany, New Jersey and branches in Germany, Singapore and Brazil. It works closely with the Israeli police and intelligence services and is reported to have ties to both Mossad and Shin Bet. Many of its employees are former Israeli government employees who had worked in cybersecurity and telecommunications.

    If Cellebrite is indeed the "third party" responsible for the breakthrough on the Apple problem, it must lead to speculation that the key to circumventing iPhone security is already out there in the small world of top level telecommunications forensic experts. It might reasonably be assumed that the Israeli government has access to the necessary technology, as well as Cellebrite's Japanese owners. From there, the possibilities inevitably multiply.

    Most countries obtain much of their high grade intelligence from communications intercepts. Countries like Israel, China, and France conduct much of their high-tech spying through exploitation of their corporate presence in the United States. Israel, in particular, is heavily embedded in the telecommunications industry, which permits direct access to confidential exchanges of information.

    Israel has in fact a somewhat shady reputation in the United States when it comes to telecommunications spying. Two companies in particular-Amdocs and Comverse Infosys-have at times dominated their market niches in America. Amdocs, which has contracts with many of the largest telephone companies in the U.S. that together handle 90 percent of all calls made, logs all calls that go out and come in on the system. It does not retain the conversations themselves, but the records provide patterns, referred to as "traffic analysis," that can provide intelligence leads. In 1999, the National Security Agency warned that records of calls made in the United States were winding up in Israel.

    Comverse Infosys, which dissolved in 2013 after charges of conspiracy, fraud, money laundering and making false filings, provided wiretapping equipment to law enforcement throughout the United States. Because equipment used to tap phones for law enforcement is integrated into the networks that phone companies operate, it cannot be detected. Phone calls were intercepted, recorded, stored, and transmitted to investigators by Comverse, which claimed that it had to be "hands on" with its equipment to maintain the system. Many experts believe that it is relatively easy to create an internal cross switch that permits the recording to be sent to a second party, unknown to the authorized law-enforcement recipient. Comverse was also believed to be involved with NSA on a program of illegal spying directed against American citizens.

    Comverse equipment was never inspected by FBI or NSA experts to determine whether the information it collected could be leaked, reportedly because senior government managers blocked such inquiries. According to a Fox News investigative report, which was later deleted from Fox's website under pressure from various pro-Israel groups, DEA and FBI sources said post-9/11 that even to suggest that Israel might have been spying using Comverse was "considered career suicide."

    Some might argue that collecting intelligence is a function of government and that espionage, even between friends, will always take place. When it comes to smartphones, technical advances in phone security will provide a silver bullet for a time but the hackers, and governments, will inevitably catch up. One might assume that the recent revelations about the FBI's capabilities vis-ŕ-vis the iPhone indicate that the horse is already out of the stable. If Israel was party to the breaking of the security and has the technology it will use it. If the FBI has it, it will share it with other government agencies and even with foreign intelligence and security services.

    Absent from the discussion regarding Apple are the more than 80 percent of smartphones used worldwide that employ the Google developed Android operating system that has its own distinct security features designed to block government intrusion. The FBI is clearly driven by the assumption that all smartphones should be accessible to law enforcement. The next big telecommunications security court case might well be directed against Google.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Apr 07, 2016] Panama Tax Haven Scandal The Bigger Picture Zero Hedge

    www.zerohedge.com
    A Huge Leak

    The "Panama Papers" tax haven leak is big …

    After all, the Prime Minister of Iceland resigned over the leak, and investigations are taking place worldwide over the leak.

    But Why Is It Mainly Focusing On Enemies of the West?

    But the Panama Papers reporting mainly focuses on friends of Russia's Putin, Assad's Syria and others disfavored by the West.

    Former British Ambassador Craig Murray notes :

    Whoever leaked the Mossack Fonseca papers appears motivated by a genuine desire to expose the system that enables the ultra wealthy to hide their massive stashes, often corruptly obtained and all involved in tax avoidance. These Panamanian lawyers hide the wealth of a significant proportion of the 1%, and the massive leak of their documents ought to be a wonderful thing.

    Unfortunately the leaker has made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media to publicise the results. In consequence the first major story, published today by the Guardian, is all about Vladimir Putin and a cellist on the fiddle. As it happens I believe the story and have no doubt Putin is bent.

    But why focus on Russia? Russian wealth is only a tiny minority of the money hidden away with the aid of Mossack Fonseca. In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the selective reporting is going to stink.

    The Suddeutsche Zeitung, which received the leak, gives a detailed explanation of the methodology the corporate media used to search the files. The main search they have done is for names associated with breaking UN sanctions regimes. The Guardian reports this too and helpfully lists those countries as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Russia and Syria. The filtering of this Mossack Fonseca information by the corporate media follows a direct western governmental agenda. There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca by massive western corporations or western billionaires – the main customers. And the Guardian is quick to reassure that "much of the leaked material will remain private."

    What do you expect? The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists", which is funded and organised entirely by the USA's Center for Public Integrity. Their funders include

    Ford Foundation
    Carnegie Endowment
    Rockefeller Family Fund
    W K Kellogg Foundation
    Open Society Foundation (Soros)

    among many others. Do not expect a genuine expose of western capitalism. The dirty secrets of western corporations will remain unpublished.

    Expect hits at Russia, Iran and Syria and some tiny "balancing" western country like Iceland. A superannuated UK peer or two will be sacrificed – someone already with dementia.

    The corporate media – the Guardian and BBC in the UK – have exclusive access to the database which you and I cannot see.

    They are protecting themselves from even seeing western corporations' sensitive information by only looking at those documents which are brought up by specific searches such as UN sanctions busters. Never forget the Guardian smashed its copies of the Snowden files on the instruction of MI6.

    What if they did Mossack Fonseca database searches on the owners of all the corporate media and their companies, and all the editors and senior corporate media journalists? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on all the most senior people at the BBC? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every donor to the Center for Public Integrity and their companies?

    What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every listed company in the western stock exchanges, and on every western millionaire they could trace?

    That would be much more interesting. I know Russia and China are corrupt, you don't have to tell me that. What if you look at things that we might, here in the west, be able to rise up and do something about?

    And what if you corporate lapdogs let the people see the actual data?

    Indeed, Wikileaks comments :

    Washington DC based Ford, Soros funded soft-power tax-dodge "ICIJ" has a WikiLeaks problem # PanamaPapers https:// twitter.com/ChMadar/status /717395684207550467 …

    And :

    Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros.

    U.S. Companies Use Foreign Tax Evasion

    American companies are big users of foreign tax havens. For example, we pointed out in 2014:

    American multinationals pay much less in taxes than they should because they use a widespread variety of tax-avoidance scams and schemes, including … Pretending they are headquartered in tax havens like Bermuda, the Cayman Islands or Panama , so that they can enjoy all of the benefits of actually being based in America (including the use of American law and the court system, listing on the Dow, etc.), with the tax benefits associated with having a principal address in a sunny tax haven.

    ***

    U.S. Public Interest Research Group notes :

    Tax haven abusers benefit from America's markets, public infrastructure, educated workforce, security and rule of law – all supported in one way or another by tax dollars – but they avoid paying for these benefits. Instead, ordinary taxpayers end up picking up the tab, either in the form of higher taxes, cuts to public spending priorities, or increases to the federal debt.

    USPIRG continues:

    The United States loses approximately $184 billion in federal and state revenue each year due to corporations and individuals using tax havens to dodge taxes. On average, every filer who fills out a 1040 individual income tax form would need to pay an additional $1,259 in taxes to make up for the revenue lost.

  • Pfizer , the world's largest drug maker, paid no U.S. income taxes between 2010 and 2012 despite earning $43 billion worldwide. In fact, the corporation received more than $2 billion in federal tax refunds. In 2013, Pfizer operated 128 subsidiaries in tax haven countries and had $69 billion offshore and out of the reach of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
  • Microsoft maintains five tax haven subsidiaries and stashed $76.4 billion overseas in 2013. If Microsoft had not booked these profits offshore, they would have owed an additional $24.4 billion in taxes.
  • Citigroup, bailed out by taxpayers in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008 , maintained 21 subsidiaries in tax haven countries in 2013, and kept $43.8 billion in offshore jurisdictions. If that money had not been booked offshore, Citigroup would have owed an additional $11.7 billion in taxes.
  • Al Jazeera reports :

    Rich individuals and their families have as much as $32 trillion of hidden financial assets in offshore tax havens, representing up to $280bn in lost income tax revenues, according to research published on Sunday.

    ***

    "We're talking about very big, well-known brands – HSBC, Citigroup, Bank of America , UBS, Credit Suisse – some of the world's biggest banks are involved… and they do it knowing fully well that their clients, more often than not, are evading and avoiding taxes."

    Much of this activity , Christensen added, was illegal .

    So the Panama Papers stories haven't focused on it, but U.S. corporations are hiding huge sums of money in foreign tax havens.

    Obama and Clinton Enabled Panamanian Tax Evasion Havens

    Of course, Obama and Hillary Clinton enabled and supported Panama's ability to act as a tax evasion haven.

    So it's a little disingenuous for them now to say we should "crack down" on tax havens.

    US and UK – Not Panama – Biggest Tax Havens for Money Laundering Criminals and Tax Cheats

    But the bigger story is that America is the world's largest tax haven … with the UK in a close second-place position.

    The Guardian noted last year:

    The US has overtaken Singapore, Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands as an attractive haven for super-rich individuals and businesses looking to shelter assets behind a veil of secrecy, according to a study by the Tax Justice Network (TJN).

    Bloomberg headlined in January, The World's Favorite New Tax Haven Is the United States :

    After years of lambasting other countries for helping rich Americans hide their money offshore, the U.S. is emerging as a leading tax and secrecy haven for rich foreigners. By resisting new global disclosure standards, the U.S. is creating a hot new market, becoming the go-to place to stash foreign wealth. Everyone from London lawyers to Swiss trust companies is getting in on the act, helping the world's rich move accounts from places like the Bahamas and the British Virgin Islands to Nevada, Wyoming, and South Dakota.

    "How ironic-no, how perverse-that the USA, which has been so sanctimonious in its condemnation of Swiss banks, has become the banking secrecy jurisdiction du jour," wrote Peter A. Cotorceanu , a lawyer at Anaford AG, a Zurich law firm, in a recent legal journal. "That 'giant sucking sound' you hear? It is the sound of money rushing to the USA."

    Rothschild, the centuries-old European financial institution, has opened a trust company in Reno, Nev., a few blocks from the Harrah's and Eldorado casinos. It is now moving the fortunes of wealthy foreign clients out of offshore havens such as Bermuda, subject to the new international disclosure requirements, and into Rothschild-run trusts in Nevada, which are exempt.

    The U.S. "is effectively the biggest tax haven in the world" -Andrew Penney, Rothschild & Co.

    ***

    Others are also jumping in: Geneva-based Cisa Trust Co. SA, which advises wealthy Latin Americans, is applying to open in Pierre, S.D., to "serve the needs of our foreign clients," said John J. Ryan Jr., Cisa's president.

    Trident Trust Co. , one of the world's biggest providers of offshore trusts, moved dozens of accounts out of Switzerland, Grand Cayman, and other locales and into Sioux Falls, S.D., in December, ahead of a Jan. 1 disclosure deadline.

    "Cayman was slammed in December, closing things that people were withdrawing," said Alice Rokahr, the president of Trident in South Dakota, one of several states promoting low taxes and confidentiality in their trust laws. "I was surprised at how many were coming across that were formerly Swiss bank accounts, but they want out of Switzerland."

    ***

    One wealthy Turkish family is using Rothschild's trust company to move assets from the Bahamas into the U.S., he said. Another Rothschild client, a family from Asia, is moving assets from Bermuda into Nevada. He said customers are often international families with offspring in the U.S.

    Forbes points out that the U.S. is not practicing what it is preaching:

    A report by the Tax Justice Network says that the U.S. doesn't even practice what it preaches. Indeed, the report ranks America as one of the worst. How bad? Worse than the Cayman Islands. The report claims that America has refused to participate in the OECD's global automatic information exchange for bank data. The OECD has been designing and implementing the system to target tax evasion. Given the IRS fixation on that topic, you might think that the U.S. would join in.

    However, it turns out that the United States jealously guards its information. The Tax Justice Network says the IRS is stingy with data. Of course, with FATCA, America has more data than anyone else. FATCA , the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act is up and running. The IRS says it is now swapping taxpayer data reciprocally with other countries. The IRS says it will only engage in reciprocal exchanges with foreign jurisdictions meeting the IRS's stringent safeguard, privacy, and technical standards.

    The Tax Justice Network report blasts the U.S. for being a one-way street:

    The United States, which has for decades hosted vast stocks of financial and other wealth under conditions of considerable secrecy, has moved up from sixth to third place in our index. It is more of a cause for concern than any other individual country – because of both the size of its offshore sector, and also its rather recalcitrant attitude to international co-operation and reform. Though the U.S. has been a pioneer in defending itself from foreign secrecy jurisdictions, aggressively taking on the Swiss banking establishment and setting up its technically quite strong Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) – it provides little information in return to other countries, making it a formidable, harmful and irresponsible secrecy jurisdiction at both the Federal and state levels. (Click here for a short explainer; See our special report on the USA for more)."

    The Washington Post writes :

    One of the least recognized facts about the global offshore industry is that much of it, in fact, is not offshore. Indeed, some critics of the offshore industry say the U.S. is now becoming one of the world's largest "offshore" financial destinations.

    ***

    A 2012 study in which researchers sent more than 7,400 email solicitations to more than 3,700 corporate service providers - the kind of companies that typically register shell companies, such as the Corporation Trust Company at 1209 North Orange St. - found that the U.S. had the laxest regulations for setting up a shell company anywhere in the world outside of Kenya. The researchers impersonated both low- and high-risk customers, including potential money launderers, terrorist financiers and corrupt officials.

    Contrary to popular belief, notorious tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, Jersey and the Bahamas were far less permissive in offering the researchers shell companies than states such as Nevada, Delaware, Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming and New York , the researchers found.

    ***

    "In some places [in the U.S.], it's easier to incorporate a company than it is to get a library card," Joseph Spanjers of Global Financial Integrity, a research and advocacy organization that wants to curtail illicit financial flows, said in an interview earlier this year.

    ***

    Too often, however, shell companies are used as a vehicle for criminal activity - disguising wealth from tax authorities, financing terrorism, concealing fraudulent schemes, or laundering funds from corruption or the trafficking in drugs, people and arms.

    ***

    The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, a group of 34 advanced countries, drew up its own tough tax disclosure requirements, called Common Reporting Standards, and asked roughly 100 countries and jurisdictions around the world to approve them. Only a handful of countries have refused, including Bahrain, Vanuatu and the United States .

    Bloomberg reports :

    Advisers around the world are increasingly using the U.S. resistance to the OECD's standards as a marketing tool - attracting overseas money to U.S. state-level tax and secrecy havens like Nevada and South Dakota, potentially keeping it hidden from their home governments.

    Salon notes :

    Several states – Delaware, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming – specialize in incorporating anonymous shell corporations. Delaware earns between one-quarter and one-third of their budget from incorporation fees, according to Clark Gascoigne of the FACT Coalition. The appeal of this revenue has emboldened small states, and now Wyoming bank accounts are the new Swiss bank accounts. America has become a lure, not only for foreign elites looking to seal money away from their own governments, but to launder their money through the purchase of U.S. real estate .

    And the UK is a giant swamp of tax evasion and laundering as well …

    The Independent reported last year:

    The City of London is the money-laundering centre of the world's drug trade, according to an internationally acclaimed crime expert.

    ***

    His warning follows a National Crime Agency (NCA) threat assessment which stated: "We assess that hundreds of billions of US dollars of criminal money almost certainly continue to be laundered through UK banks, including their subsidiaries, each year."

    Last month, the NCA warned that despite the UK's role in developing international standards to tackle money laundering, the continued extent of it amounts to a "strategic threat to the UK's economy and reputation". It added that the same money-laundering networks used by organised crime were being used by terrorists as well.

    ***

    Interviewed by The Independent on Sunday, Mr Saviano said of the international drugs trade that "Mexico is its heart and London is its head". He said the cheapness and the ease of laundering dirty money through UK-based banks gave London a key role in drugs trade. "Antonio Maria Costa of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime found that drug trafficking organisations were blatantly recycling dirty money through European and American banks, but no one takes any notice," he said. "He found that banks were welcoming dirty money because they need cash, liquidity during the financial crisis. The figures are too big to be rejected …. Yet there was no reaction."

    ( Background .)

    In a separate article, the Independent wrote :

    Billions of pounds of corruptly gained money has been laundered by criminals and foreign officials buying upmarket London properties through anonymous offshore front companies – making the city arguably the world capital of money laundering.

    The flow of corrupt cash has driven up average prices with a "widespread ripple effect down the property price chain and beyond London", according to property experts cited in the most comprehensive study ever carried out into the long-suspected money laundering route through central London real estate, by the respected anti-corruption organisation Transparency International.

    ***

    Any anonymous company in a secret location, such as the British Virgin Islands, can buy and sell houses in the UK with no disclosure of who the actual purchaser is. Meanwhile, TI said, estate agents only have to carry out anti-money-laundering checks on the person selling the property, leaving the buyers bringing their money into the country facing little, if any scrutiny.

    ***

    Detective Chief Inspector Jon Benton, director of operations at the Proceeds of Corruption Unit, said: "Properties that are purchased with illicit money, which is often stolen from some of the poorest people in the world, are nearly always layered through offshore structures.

    ***

    Companies set up in the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories such as Jersey, British Virgin Islands and Gibraltar are the preferred option for concealment of corrupt property purchases.

    More than a third of company-owned London houses are held by effectively anonymous firms ….

    TruePublica notes :

    The consequence of its operations is that money laundering is now at such levels and so widespread that the authorities have recently admitted defeat in its battle of attrition by stating openly it has been completely overwhelmed and lost control. Keith Bristow Director-General of the UK's National Crime Agency said just six months ago that the sheer scale of crime and its subsequent money laundering operations was "a strategic threat" to the country's economy and reputation and that "high-end money laundering is a major risk".

    Indeed :

    TJN [the Tax Justice Network] says the UK would be ranked as the worst offender in the world if considered along with the three Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man) and the 14 Overseas Territories (including notorious tax havens such as Bermuda, the Cayman and Virgin islands).

    In their 2015 Index, TJN state: "Overall, the City of London and these offshore satellites constitute by far the most important part of the global offshore world of secrecy jurisdictions."

    For background on the Isle of Jersey, see this Newsweek article .

    Agence France-Press points out :

    "London is the epicentre of so much of the sleaze that happens in the world," Nicholas Shaxson, author of the book "Treasure Islands", which examines the role of offshore banks and tax havens, told AFP.

    ***

    "Tax evasion and stuff like that will be done in the external parts of the network. Usually there will be links to the City of London, UK law firms, UK accountancy firms and to UK banks," he said, calling London the centre of a "spider's web" .

    "They're all agents of the City of London -- that is where the whole exercise is controlled from," Richard Murphy, professor at London's City University, said of the offshore havens.

    ***

    "When the British empire collapsed, London swapped being the governor of the imperial engine to being an offshore island and allowing money to come with no questions asked," he added.

    With public pressure mounting, Murphy said Britain had the power to legislate directly on its overseas territories, but the lobbying power of the financial sector and worries about upsetting the jewel in Britain's economic crown were holding back efforts.

    "The City of London seems to believe that without these conduits, then it would not have the competitive edge that it needs," he said.

    "The financial institutions have become like wild animals," added Shaxson.

    Snípéir_Ag_Obair

    as is often the case [wikileaks, snowden] - it is perhaps more important to discern who and what is not covered or divulged in a leak.

    This seems to largely be as GW describes.

    What's amazing is reading, say, the NYT coverage. They have such contempt for the American people they really don't even try to hide the fact that they are the voice of the Deep State.

    dumb_funded

    OT - WTC7 evidence of demolition. Not a demolition? This is one of the best videos that show numerous charges set off just before the implosion

    https://twitter.com/RichieAllenShow

    scroll down to the video clip. I did a quick youtube search and didn't find this particular footage. It's the best i have seen yet.

    You'd think it's only a matter of time before the door's blown open on the complicity of Cheney, Rumsfeld and company but they've got everybody's hands tied and mouth taped shut with threats if they speak.

    These bastards need to be help accountable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Maybe Putin will release the info he has on 911. Mr. Churchhill tells me Putin hangs out here at ZH

    johnofRandI

    Once the propaganda clips on youtubish settings started to come out on the Panama Papers it became clear... the propaganda was to be aimed at western enemies..

    "look, look, Putin and Assad used these Nazis to hide ill-gottten money and kill innocent Syrian revolutionaries ( and well meaning Isils,) so we should "arm up" surround Russia and invade Syria with boots on the ground.

    We must get Cheney's Sunni pipeline built and end the Russia Shia threat

    CheapBastard

    Murder by poison is only one clue to offshore dealings by top Chinese

    For months, Gu Kailai worried about a secret that threatened to upend her comfortable life and stop her husband's climb to the top rungs of China's political leadership. So she took action. In a hotel room in the southwestern Chinese megacity of Chongqing, she mixed tea and rat poison in a small container as Neil Heywood, a British business associate, lay drunken and dazed on the hotel bed. Then she dripped the mixture into Heywood's mouth.

    Full [fascinating] article: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article70303717.html

    Hannibal , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 08:55

    Land of plenty: Duma committee approves bill for free handover of Russian territory to foreigners

    A plot of land in Russia's Far East could be yours, after a Russian lower house committee approved a bill that, if passed, will introduce the free handover of land to Russians and foreigners who want to build homes or start businesses in agriculture or tourism in the region.

    https://www.rt.com/politics/338775-duma-committee-approves-bill-introduc ...

    Paul Kersey , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 08:55

    To the best of my knowledge, none of our Presidential candidates have had anything to say about the Panama Papers, and only two of our Presidential candidates have had anything to say about Panama, itself. Their statements clash.

    ""Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade US taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens. The Panama free trade agreement will make this bad situation much worse. Each and every year, the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations evade about $100 billion in taxes through abusive and illegal offshore tax havens in Panama and in other countries." Bernie Sanders

    As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was on the complete opposite side of the issue. In an official statement issued by the US Department of State on October 13, 2011 (one day after Sanders' floor address), Clinton congratulated President Obama for passing the trade pact, citing the very same job creation arguments Sen. Sanders shot down a day earlier. Clinton made no mention of Panama's reputation as a tax haven, and even invoked "working families" in her statement:

    "These initiatives are the leading edge of a job-creating trade agenda that will open markets, level the playing field for our businesses and workers, and champion America's working families in an age of tough global competition. They deserve the historic and widespread support they received in Congress tonight. We will continue our work to rebuild an American consensus on trade."

    rex-lacrymarum , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 08:55

    It is perfectly legitimate to set up foreign accounts and to do whatever one can legally do to ensure their safety and privacy. The ONLY reason one actually needs is "I feel like it". It should be obvious that these leaks are not at all about unmasking corruption - that is just the pretext. In reality it is all about smearing perceived enemies, distracting from recent scandals like the IMF's secret Greece agenda, expanding State control, and cutting off all avenues for escape for citizens who want to defend their legitimately accumulated wealth from the depredations of the State. The fact that criminals are using these structures as well is a big "so what"? Drugs shouldn't be prohibited anyway - repeal prohibition, and 90% of the criminal cartels disappear. Moroever, this argument is on the same level as saying "criminals use guns" or "criminals use iPhones" - therefore, so the statist logic goes, guns should be made illegal and the government should have a "backdoor" into every citizen's smart phone. If you join the faux "outrage" over these leaks, you are simply being played.

    hedgiex , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 08:55

    It just stirs moral indignations among the 99% with no actions. Salivating at treasures that you can see but not touch. The sheep are impotent because of mindsets. So what if these vaults are dismantled with the full display of their movements to fully transparent virtual websites. Are you looking the distractions of nip slips or at the faces of the Predators ? Where is the focus of the 99% ?

    jeff montanye , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 03:09

    the 99% are focused on how skinny Angelina Jolie is, the opening of baseball season, whose looking good on idol and the voice, how to keep the mortgage paid . . . .

    break the 9-11 story wide open and no one will see the elite that runs this country and the world the same way. the crime is too great and too black. the perps don't even need to be tried and convicted although i strongly recommend trials if only for the truth uncovering (like south africa).

    it is the best and gravest chink in their armor. they went too far and killed too many of "their own".

    Kayman , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 09:55

    Jeff

    "vatican city??? where are the papists in the u.s./u.k. government?"

    Look up Tony Blair. The $10 million payoff for bleating about Saddam's purported yellow cake in Africa went to the Vatican Bank. Tony outed himself within 6 months of leaving office.

    But naming Putin in these Panama Papers makes me wonder when he will name the European and U.S. criminals in their tax havens.

    After all, it was Putin that outed Erdogan's dirty ISIS oil deal.

    K

    Snípéir_Ag_Obair , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 11:47

    look up richard perle, douglas feith, scooter libby, and dozens of prominent jewish neocons who advocated for that war because they felt it would benefit Israel .

    even if true - 10 million is couch cushion money as to Zionist involvement. This isn't to say that the Vatican has no power, or engages in evil fuckery, it surely does, but it has nowhere near the power over us and british policy, or banking, as does the Jewish/Israeli lobbies in each country. I mean it isn;t even a serious question. Those who constantly bring up the vatican like karen hude are curiously silent about the role of Israel and its global network of advocates.

    And I don't mean to just pick on them. The fucking Saudis are also more complicit, more insidious, more powerful - So probably is Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai... This isn't the 15th century - if anything the Vatican is dependent on the whims of the US/UK and those who control it... as for who fabricated the evidence - it wasnt the Vatican.

    Rusty Shorts , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 09:19

    The 9/11 Script in 'War of Terror' Ballbuster Premiere Episode

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO8HjUTULeo

    nmewn , Wed, 04/06/2016 - 21:32

    Why do people think it extremely important and a world wide government concern/function to know & regulate where people have their money?

    If it is SO IMPORTANT (and they think it somehow criminal) why not stop the wealth accumulation at its source, which is those governments themselves?

    jeff montanye , Thu, 04/07/2016 - 02:58

    i think it's tax avoidance that's the violation not "where people have their money" that's the issue.

    but gw's real point is the constant, unrelenting control of news by the, essentially, zionist/bankster cabal/cartel and their ownership of the traditional media (and much of the internet).

    apparently trump and sanders scare them and their plans for hillary clinton to assume the presidency.

    i swear 9-11 is still the litmus test under all the obfuscation. they so don't want to be found out.

    [Apr 02, 2016] Google builds a permanent profile on you and stores it at their end. 

    www.zerohedge.com

    PoasterToaster Thu, 03/31/2016 - 23:43 | 7389203

    You can't just clear a cookie. Google builds a permanent profile on you and stores it at their end. They use a variety of means to do this, such as taking your MAC address and every other bit transmitted on the internet and linking it to a database they have built that records your popular searches and clicks.

    This is how people get filter bubbled and steered; dirty internet searches. A clean search would see actual societal interests and trends instead of the contrived ones pushed by the State narrative. It's also part of the meta- and direct data that goes into secret profiles in the "intelligence community".

    They think they can use this trendy (yet largely mythical) Big Data to create a precrime division. It's also nice to have dirt on the whole country in case anyone gets out of line and challenges the aristocracy.

    wee-weed up

    Yep, war has always been the best automatic "go to" solution to deflect attention away from elite politician's gross malfeasance.

    [Mar 25, 2016] Tony Blair is right: without the Iraq war there would be no Islamic State

    www.theguardian.com

    16/3/2013
    Iraq war and its aftermath failed to stop the beginning of peak oil in 2005

    http://crudeoilpeak.info/iraq-war-and-its-aftermath-failed-to-stop-the-beginning-of-peak-oil-in-2005

    Uploaded 5/7/2007

    Government admits oil is the reason for war in Iraq

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7t_u641NyM

    [Mar 23, 2016] Cruz Seeks Economic Wisdom in the Wrong Place

    Notable quotes:
    "... Gramm seems pretty firmly in free market ideologue territory. Cruz deciding to bring him in as an economic advisor is certainly noteworthy. ..."
    "... The short version: the Glass Steagall repeal allowed the banks to become "Too Big To Fail" and gave them enormous political leverage. It's the political leverage - the ability to count on Uncle Sam to come to the rescue, and provide easy terms for rent-seeking - that GLB provided. If they were separated, and only the investment banks could make risky investments, we would let the investment banks fail while protecting the boring old payments system. You won't get an argument on CFMA, however: it was worse. And that has Gramm's fingerprints all over it. And it might not have passed if the SIFIs were smaller. ..."
    "... When I think of the villains of the Great Recession, Phil Gramm is always Public Enemy #1. ..."
    "... The Glass Steagall repeal was not my biggest problem with Phil Gramm. My big problem is he wanted to have a completely deregulated financial sector. Sort of like when Newt Gingrich talked about "rational regulation" which was code for no regulation. But anyone who understands financial economics and our financial system knows that no regulations whatsoever is a recipe for a complete melt down. Which is what happened. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    Barry Ritholtz:

    Cruz Seeks Economic Wisdom in the Wrong Place :

    Some people look at subprime lending and see evil. I look at subprime lending and I see the American dream in action. -- former U.S. Senator Phil Gramm, Nov. 16, 2008

    ...Gramm has been brought on as a senior economic adviser to Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz. This isn't a promising development for Cruz... Not to put too fine a point on it, but I believe -- as do many others -- that Gramm was one of the major figures who helped set the stage for the crisis. ...

    Gramm was a key sponsor of the ... Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act , which effectively repealed the piece of the Glass-Steagall Act... The damage caused by rolling back Glass-Steagall pales compared with ... the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 . Gramm was a co-sponsor of the legislation, which exempted many derivatives and swaps from regulation. Not only was the law problematic, but it veered into potential conflict-of-interest territory. ...

    We got a chance to see those consequences a few years later when American International Group failed, thanks in part to swaps ... on $441 billion of securities that turned out to be junk. AIG wasn't required to put up much in the way of collateral, set aside capital or hedge its risk on the swaps. Why would it, when the law said it didn't have to? The taxpayers were then called upon to bailout AIG to the tune of more than $180 billion.

    Maybe it isn't too surprising that Cruz would seek advice from Gramm. Cruz, after all, seems to want to hobble modern economic policy by returning to the gold standard. ... We have seen these movies before, and they end in tragedy and tears.

    He also talks about Gramm's sad performance in his brief appearance as one of McCain's advisors in 2008.

    pgl :

    Phil Gramm says he got his economic degree from the University of Georgia. Well - it was from the Terry College of Business which is a business school. Not the graduate program of economics of the University of Georgia. I guess this makes Gramm one notch above Stephen Moore, Donald Luskin, and Lawrence Kudlow (aka the three stooges).

    pgl :

    The LA Times on Gramm's record on economics:

    http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-cruz-gramm-20160321-snap-htmlstory.html

    "Gramm's most notable moment in that position came on July 10, 2008, when he dismissed the developing economic crisis as "a mental recession" in an interview -- and video -- released by the conservative Washington Times. "We've never been more dominant," he said. "We've never had more natural advantages than we have today. We've sort of become a nation of whiners." McCain immediately disavowed the remarks, and a few days later Gramm stepped down as his campaign co-chairman."

    OK that was July. Menzie Chinn always notes that Luskin was saying the same thing as late as September 2008.

    sanjait :
    Gramm seems pretty firmly in free market ideologue territory. Cruz deciding to bring him in as an economic advisor is certainly noteworthy.

    Though I'm still struck by how determined some people seem to lump Graham Leach Bliley in as a cause/major contributor to the crisis.

    The CFMA very plausibly serves that purpose. If we want to mark Gramm as a villain, his sponsorship of that bill should be sufficient, as well as his abject refusal to acknowledge the crisis in real time.

    But for whatever reason people have picked up Glass Steagall as a Very Important rule, and seem to be pushing to rationalize that by claiming it is a big part of the crisis story.

    Ritholtz, to his credit, is qualified and nuanced about this. He notes that CFMA is the big story, and says GLB wasn't didn't "cause" the crisis.

    But following through the links to his WaPo piece, he still looks like he is reaching for a reason to label it a major contributor to the crisis.

    He claims that removing G-S restrictions caused the major banks to in turn cause the shadow banking entities like AIG, Bear, etc. to "bulk up" their holdings of subprime, based on ... nothing that I can see.

    Sure, the major banks were customers and counterparties for those shadow banks, but Ritholtz seems to assume that if G-S weren't in place that demand would somehow have been less. Why?

    Take a major bank with mixed commercial and investment banking activity and split the parts. Would that have changed their activities? Not much. The commercial banking side still would have held MBS (and purchase insurance on them) and the I-banks would still make speculative investments of various types.

    No one, as far as I've seen, ever bothers to tell a complete story where the structural incentives in the financial sector changed as a result of Glass Steagall in a way that materially impacted the depth or serverity of the housing crisis. How would splitting megabanks into separate big C- and I-banks have changed anything? Bueller?

    Instead I see a great many people, including well credentialed economists, just assume or hand waive the claim that it made a big impact without bothering to model or specify it. I'm not saying such an explanation couldn't exist that I'm not aware of ... but at this point I do see the absence of explanation as evidence of absence.

    pgl -> sanjait...
    Gramm dismissing the concern over a recession in the summer of 2008 is the kicker for me!
    Charlie Baker -> sanjait...
    sanjait:

    "But for whatever reason people have picked up Glass Steagall..."

    No need to speculate: Simon Johnson and James Kwak wrote a whole book about it. It's called 13 Bankers:

    https://13bankers.com/

    The short version: the Glass Steagall repeal allowed the banks to become "Too Big To Fail" and gave them enormous political leverage. It's the political leverage - the ability to count on Uncle Sam to come to the rescue, and provide easy terms for rent-seeking - that GLB provided. If they were separated, and only the investment banks could make risky investments, we would let the investment banks fail while protecting the boring old payments system. You won't get an argument on CFMA, however: it was worse. And that has Gramm's fingerprints all over it. And it might not have passed if the SIFIs were smaller.

    When I think of the villains of the Great Recession, Phil Gramm is always Public Enemy #1.

    pgl -> Charlie Baker ...
    The Glass Steagall repeal was not my biggest problem with Phil Gramm. My big problem is he wanted to have a completely deregulated financial sector. Sort of like when Newt Gingrich talked about "rational regulation" which was code for no regulation. But anyone who understands financial economics and our financial system knows that no regulations whatsoever is a recipe for a complete melt down. Which is what happened.
    The Rage :
    Cruz just wants to make money for his buddies while waving the bible. JDR was there 100+ years before that "Ted".

    [Mar 23, 2016] It's not a bull or a bear market, it's a bunny

    finance.yahoo.com

    "Unlike an enthusiastic bull or a scary bear, a bunny market hops about a bit but really doesn't go anywhere, and bunnies have often dominated the stock market during the latter stages of past economic recoveries," Paulsen said in a report this week for clients.

    [Mar 21, 2016] Alarmists are very big on character assassination based on fact-less opinions

    Notable quotes:
    "... "How do you explain a person seemingly legitimately trained in science drifting off and becoming more and more of a science denier? ..."
    "... In the case of Judith Curry I was unwilling to think of her as a full on science denier for a long time because her transition into denierhood seemed to be going very slowly, methodologically she just kept providing more and more evidence that she does not accept climate science's consensus that global warming is real, caused by human greenhouse gas pollution, involves actual warming of the Earth's surface, and is important. And lately she has added to this slippery sliding jello-like set of magic goal posts yet another denier meme she is either doing something here that is morally wrong (lying to slow down action on climate change) or stupid (she is not smart enough to understand what she is looking at) ..."
    "... it is my children's future that is at risk here " ~ Greg Laden ..."
    "... Your tactics speak volumes about you. Instead of discussing the evidence you engage in ad-hominem attacks against those that do not share your beliefs. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Caelan MacIntyre On Dancing With Defection, 03/13/2016 at 8:18 pm

    "I am pointing out that current hypothesis is faulty and we need a new one. There are plenty of climatologists working on that. For example Judith Curry " ~ Javier

    "Curry is a lightweight that barely has a grasp on physics." ~ WebHubbleTelescope

    "How do you explain a person seemingly legitimately trained in science drifting off and becoming more and more of a science denier?

    In the case of Judith Curry I was unwilling to think of her as a full on science denier for a long time because her transition into denierhood seemed to be going very slowly, methodologically she just kept providing more and more evidence that she does not accept climate science's consensus that global warming is real, caused by human greenhouse gas pollution, involves actual warming of the Earth's surface, and is important.

    And lately she has added to this slippery sliding jello-like set of magic goal posts yet another denier meme

    she is either doing something here that is morally wrong (lying to slow down action on climate change) or stupid (she is not smart enough to understand what she is looking at)

    it is my children's future that is at risk here " ~ Greg Laden

    And Moore, well, he seems to have ' gone over to the dark side of the force ' from Greenpeace to 'promo' for Monsanto and various other 'Greenwar' industries.

    "Wow, one really has to admire the ostensibly high-calibre-traitorousness of this guy, and not just with Greenpeace." ~ Caelan MacIntyre

    "I used to be a Greenpeace member many years ago "

    I don't like herbicides and would not go as far as saying that glyphosate (roundup) is harmless. But the guy [ Patrick Moore ] has a point " ~ Javier

    "I was tossed out of the tribe." ~ Judith Curry

    Javier , 03/13/2016 at 8:45 pm
    Alarmists are very big on character assassination based on fact-less opinions. They also refuse to engage skeptics in debate. Both tactics speak of a self-perceived weakness in their position.

    Judith Curry publication list is available to anybody so there is no need to defend her scientifically. I really object to your tactic of saying that any scientist that supports consensus deserves respect but any scientist that doesn't support consensus does not deserve respect. That has never been the way scientific disputes have been settled.

    Your tactics speak volumes about you. Instead of discussing the evidence you engage in ad-hominem attacks against those that do not share your beliefs.

    Javier, 03/14/2016 at 8:30 am
    Nice. You want to have a go at me also. It isn't going to work either. A scientists is judged by the value of his/her research and not by his/her opinions. The publication record of Judith Curry speaks for herself.

    There's a lot of climate activists going after scientists that don't share the consensus. Nothing really new about it, but science doesn't care about those things.

    You just demonstrate your inability to discuss about what science knows or doesn't about climate and about what the evidence really supports or doesn't. Hence you embark on a travel to attack the credibility of those that sponsor a different view, as if that was going to change anything about the science of climate.

    That is a losing proposition. Science will eventually sort out this debate and your efforts will be in any case meaningless, misguided, and petty.

    [Mar 20, 2016] Republican plan to stop Donald Trump election

    www.theguardian.com

    Over the last six months, GOP leaders have watched helpless as the Republican presidential race has transformed from the usual loveable farce into a terrifying prequel to Mad Max: Fury Road as tangerine reality show host Donald Trump gained, attained and retained frontrunner status. With only a few months left before the Republican National Convention, party luminaries, bigwigs and eminences grises have come up with a secret blueprint for how to stop the New York business mogul from becoming their candidate. Exclusive to the Guardian, here is their 10-point plan:

    1. Change the Republican party rules so that all presidential candidates must disclose the length of their fingers prior to receiving the nomination. Trump will drop out of the race by the end of the day.
    2. Leave a trail of spray tan canisters and ground beef leading from the door of his penthouse to a barge about to set off for the Far East.
    3. Lure him into a space shuttle by telling him there's a photograph of his daughter Ivanka in a bikini onboard and then blast him into orbit.
    4. Attach a $5 bill to a greased pig's back and set it loose backstage before his next campaign stop. He'll chase that thing until he's out of breath, and miss the speech, which, due to his inhumanly hectic campaign schedule will have the cumulative knock-on effect of making him miss the next day's speech, then the next morning's chummy appearance by telephone with his pals on Morning Joe, then the next four primaries, and before you know it he's missed the convention and is safely back to being an appalling but harmless reality TV star.
    5. Force Trump to spend as much as five minutes with one of his own supporters.
    6. Remind him that the White House executive residence is a paltry 55,000 square feet and that presidents are constitutionally prohibited from painting it gold.
    7. Invite Trump to a pool party and before he arrives glue a bunch of nickels to the bottom of the deep end.
    8. Invent time travel, go back to 2008, and stop ourselves from attacking the Obama administration with the exact same vitriolic, divisive rhetoric that Trump picked up on and has now ridden to his present position.
    9. Stop sheepishly acquiescing to Trump's bluster and acting like he isn't a despicable racist monster in hopes that it's not too late to prevent the complete collapse of society.
    10. Change election procedure so that the remaining delegates must pledge their support to whichever nominee scores highest on a seventh grade vocabulary test. Unfortunately this will probably give the edge to college debate champ Ted Cruz, an opportunistic, bigoted liar whose vision for America is a theocracy engaged in an apocalyptic war against Islam run by a man who looks like Dracula's fat cousin smugly eating a sour candy he received as a prize for tattling. But you can't have everything.

    [Mar 15, 2016] Coal probably has peake

    Notable quotes:
    "... Just last year electric generation by coal was reduced by 4.6%. ..."
    "... We know that China, one of the biggest producers and consumers is reigning in coal consumption for environmental issues and closing down thousands of mines, while at many developed nations like UK coal energy plants are being phased out and closed down. ..."
    "... We do know that CO2 emissions have stabilized and are starting to go down. It might be the looming economical crisis or it could be a change in coal use that starts a downward trend. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    03/13/2016 at 7:22 am
    200 of the 534 US coal fired generation plants are now gone, retired as they say. Expect more in April as the EPA extensions run out. " Nearly 18 gigawatts (GW) of electric generating capacity was retired in 2015, a relatively high amount compared with recent years. More than 80% of the retired capacity was conventional steam coal. " EIA

    Coal may be leaving us faster than we think. The combination of aging, pollution laws and competition is steadily reducing coal use. Just last year electric generation by coal was reduced by 4.6%.

    Javier , 03/13/2016 at 9:16 am
    So Dennis,

    What about the possibility that Peak Coal is taking place right now? We know that China, one of the biggest producers and consumers is reigning in coal consumption for environmental issues and closing down thousands of mines, while at many developed nations like UK coal energy plants are being phased out and closed down.

    We do know that CO2 emissions have stabilized and are starting to go down. It might be the looming economical crisis or it could be a change in coal use that starts a downward trend.

    Dennis Coyne , 03/13/2016 at 4:01 pm
    Hi Javier,

    I am hopeful that coal has peaked, but even I am not that much of an optimist.

    [Mar 15, 2016] How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions

    www.skepticalscience.com

    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    "The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons ( GT ) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT . The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air

    ... ... ...

    But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

    Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet.

    While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

    The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up

    [Mar 13, 2016] Carson's Trump endorsement: have Republicans lost their soul?

    Notable quotes:
    "... I really don't buy into this anti Trump hysteria, he is far better an option than slime bag Rubio or nut case Cruz. Hes a conservative nationalist who actually says some sensible things that resonate with a lot of working Americans. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The Guardian

    macmarco , 2016-03-12 22:48:46
    Clinton has recently endorsed, Nancy Reagan on HIV/Aides, and Kissinger and Albright on foreign policy. The Huffington Post has recently endorsed, Rubio, and is preparing to endorse Ted Cruz. Their political pundits have written new favorable histories on Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ronald Reagan.

    Washington DC both politicians and pundits are a sea of whores, and despised by a majority of the population.

    kriss669 , 2016-03-12 21:51:54
    Let's not forget that Reagan ruined the American financial system with "voodoo economics," cutting taxes for the rich and impoverishing our nation's ability to balance its budget and meet its obligations, let alone do anything good for its people. He was also responsible for the substitution of the 401k for what had been the almost universal provision of employer-financed pensions for American workers. Plus, he brought in HMOs, which resulted in the vastly expensive and ineffective system of health care that has been causing Americans to pay the most for the least of any advanced nation.

    Not the greatest President, imho, despite his popularity.

    LauraFlorin , 2016-03-12 21:43:08
    Guardian can't stand that Trump is actually not racist, and that a black candidate (whom the Guardian liked a few months ago) now endorses Trump. Oooo the lefties are in a spin
    Zev Love , 2016-03-12 20:47:01
    The Guardian bias is getting toi much. When Carson and Christie endorse Trump its because they are failed has beens. But you were gushing when the failed has been Romney and Lindsay Graham attacked Trump...am sure if Jeb endorsed Rubio or Kasich you wud be falling over yourselves to praise that! Why dont u just throw ur hat in the ring and declare urselves to be a liberal party political mouth piece rather than try to disguise ur partisan attacks as journalism.
    Aria Price mbidding , 2016-03-12 17:05:50
    He actually said he wants to end the H1B abuse multiple times. I have no idea what Trump is going to do in office, but the current Republican party is basically just pushing the disgusting Koch Brother agenda, I trust them even less than I trust Donald Trump. I'm not sure if you can post links on here but look up "What The Koch Brothers Want." by Bernie Sanders, then listen to what every Republican running says & then tell me that you could actually vote for one of them. I truly love this country, I cannot vote for someone I know will push this agenda by a bunch of people who have no trouble poisoning an entire city, want to screw over the elderly, & want to let people die on the streets. One of the reasons the Kochs don't like Trump is because he DOESN'T want to kick people off SS & allow Americans who can't afford healthcare to just be left to die. Unfortunately, what many people don't seem to understand is that our other choices besides Bernie Sanders are just as vile even if they are "politically correct."
    mbidding Aria Price , 2016-03-12 16:44:37
    Further, we're becoming a third world country because 35+ years of rhetoric that taxes are bad and government is evil means we have failed to invest in, let alone maintain, those public goods that keeps a country vibrant and economically competitive - you know, things like transportation infrastructure, basic pre-K-16 education (public support for higher education was gutted in the '80's leading to the high debt load you rightly identify as an issue), cutting edge research, affordable housing, food security, healthcare and the like that helps to release the productive potential of all citizens.

    As an immigrant yourself (and my spouse is a naturalized citizen so I am well familiar with immigration processes), you well know that we're not letting in folks willy nilly as you state in your post. Further, as you also know, Obama has deported more folks than any other president, including Eisenhower's efforts , while at the same time immigration from Mexico is decreasing.

    Trump is merely paying lip service to the issues... He had put forward no realistic plans to address such.

    Aria Price cheesymoon , 2016-03-12 14:46:34
    I have yet to understand what exactly Donald Trump has said that is "bigoted" or "racist". Our politicians have decided unilaterally to allow EVERYONE into this country despite the fact that people literally cannot afford it. People's incomes have been stagnant, taxes have gone up, student loans are out of control & more people than ever are homeless. I live in NYC & despite the insane taxes that we pay here our government has cut a bunch of federally funded programs like mental health hospitals, so now these people with mental health issues are homeless and they mostly hang out in the subway, where they sometimes attack & try to kill people. Thanks to our PC politicians, the police can barely do their jobs anymore. America has been a very welcoming country, I myself am first generation American, and I've grown up here but Donald Trump is not exaggerating when he says this country is turning into a third world country. I barely recognize it anymore & the changes haven't been for the better. American taxpayers CANNOT be responsible for everyone in this world.
    curiouswes Barmaidfromhell , 2016-03-12 12:08:44
    right and wrong is subjective - most people (and most religions) think that the golden rule is an accurate measuring device, but beyond that, its pretty difficult for one to impose one's morals on another. The golden rule implies that if you don't want people trying to kill you and yours, it is a good idea not to kill them and theirs. Fighting terrorism sounds like a good thing to do, but killing innocent people in the process thereof causes otherwise neutral people to become combative. Therefore, what some would call fighting terrorism, others would call causing terrorism... subjective
    Barmaidfromhell , 2016-03-12 09:00:55
    Rascism from the guardian - well in pursuit of a Hillary victory why not?
    Only pasty white liberals have souls.
    What a lost ship you are.
    Beckow deavonlea , 2016-03-12 03:26:51

    "Trump starting a trade war would be disastrous, and he is not going to be able to bring back corporations that have moved their jobs out of the country"

    A trade war would devastate China and Asian economies, US would be just fine. Corporations make 90% of their profits in US and EU, they are completely dependent on those markets, they would cease to exist if barred from US. So they will bring the jobs back if that is required.

    danubemonster , 2016-03-12 02:57:52
    The party of Reagan? The worst postwar president whose achievements include the creation of Islam militancy, the Iran-contra affair, and the appointment of Scalia to the Supreme Court.
    OldRINO , 2016-03-12 02:03:08
    This title is misleading. It implies that the party has just lost its soul when in fact it was lost years ago. And I would submit that things haven*t devolved quickly. To me it seems to have started during the Reagan years, (yes I did vote for him), and accelerated quickly to becoming the party on ONLY the wealthy. Look at the policy changes that occurred under Reagan that still affect us today. The Saving & Loan debacle started the current financial crap that we still have by siphoning off money from the middle to the top and has only gotten worse. I will say, in my defense, he was the last Republican I voted for and while I don't think he foresaw what he was unleashing, he will most likely be the last ever.
    Budovski Ximples , 2016-03-12 00:36:21
    I really don't buy into this anti Trump hysteria, he is far better an option than slime bag Rubio or nut case Cruz. Hes a conservative nationalist who actually says some sensible things that resonate with a lot of working Americans.
    srgraham , 2016-03-12 00:21:36
    The Republican Party did not give us Trump. He is not a Republican. He is exposing the hypocrisy of the last 40 years of conservatism. He is horrible. But he is not one of them. That's why the GOP is scared.
    And can we quit calling the GOP the party of Lincoln please. Lincoln won the Civil War, saved the Union, and freed the slaves. Modern Republicans used to be Democrats and switched in the late 50's early 60's during the civil rights era. Have them read THAT history and stop erroneously attaching themselves to Lincoln. The GOP is an odorous lot.
    Rowlocks talenttruth , 2016-03-12 00:03:20

    Ben Carson never met a rich white man's ass he wouldn't kiss. "Bad at so MANY levels."

    I imagine if a non Guardianista had made a remark anything like this, he or she would have been screamed down and permanently banned for racism. But the left is given a free pass in the Guardian.

    Bob Hitchen brianboru1014 , 2016-03-11 22:56:33
    The lack of good jobs means that the masses no longer have the 'American Dream'. Education is irrelevant the poorer classes never had phd's but they had jobs and that gave them purpose. Notice Trump's message it's about work being undermined by globalisation and immigration.
    Hmeckardt , 2016-03-11 21:01:12
    A manipulative, win-at-all costs organization that targets people's basest instincts in the interest of mere commerce has no soul. The Republican Party lost its soul long ago if it ever had one. The Democratic Party is not far behind. (The devil does not wear Prada; she wears pant suits.) Come to think of it, in what sense can ANY organization be said to have a soul?
    Alan_Johnson , 2016-03-11 20:33:20
    This article is simply incredible. The journalist attacks Trump for probably never having read a book since college - this is a claim with no basis in fact. This article has multiple suppositions, such as Trump paying people to endorse him, that are pure speculation. It is really a scandal. Trump's views on the media gain credibility thanks to such articles thus I conclude the author is pro Trump!
    Beckow Brian Gilmer , 2016-03-11 20:30:00
    Most of your list are things that are either too vague or too common to take too seriously ("working for the benefit", are you kidding? have you met Bushes and Clintons?).

    But these two deserve a response:

    "He promised to round up and deport US Citizens"
    "He suggested suppressing religious liberty"

    People in US illegally are not citizens and asking them to leave is not wrong. All countries do it. If you come illegally or over-stay a visa, you can be deported. Period. If you object to that, your criticism is bordering on saying that law should not be enforced.

    I am assuming the religious liberty refers to Trump saying that "until we figure out what is going on", US shouldn't issue new visas to people from Moslem countries. This is perfectly legal - visa is a privilege and not a right and there are large categories of people banned from getting visas to US today and in all countries in the world. The religious test might be trickier, but it is all in implementation - what qualifies as religion, what would be asked, for how long, what would be the appeal process.

    My point is that Trump is really, really good on trade and immigration control. That would result in a significantly higher incomes and a better economy. The other stuff is more vague and often border-line unimplementable. But you list has nothing on it. The real question about Trump is his sincerity, and we simply don't know. We do know 100% that Clinton is dishonest and will never carry out any of her promises. After 30 years of the same lying how could anyone fall for it again?

    geot22 , 2016-03-11 20:29:20
    When the Dem.s dropped the Segregationists at the curb with the trash, they likely imagined, not only the glory of a righteous deed well done, unique in my lifetime, but foresaw the considerable cost and turmoil that would follow. And sure they did accept losses to Rep.s, with their Southern strategy.

    But who forecast that the Rep.s, who picked up, embraced, and swallowed, whole, that trash, would be so poisoned by it, would become it, through and through, an evil parody reflecting, in photo negative, the virtue Dem.s bore that day?

    RINO's, save your soul; today is the last. No one who goes this way now deserves sound sleep, ascension.

    PirrhoOfElis , 2016-03-11 20:10:05
    Carson and Trump combine to form a powerful synergy, Trump's gusto and zeal complimented and tempered by Carson's mellower, more cerebral person. This is a winning foundation going forward. My condolences to the masses of uber trendy, 'liberal', ultra-'enlightened' intelligentsia out there who can only spout cynical, ironic musings in observation of Trump's developing preeminence.

    [Mar 13, 2016] Theres no such thing as imperialism-lite, Obama. Libya has shown that once again

    Notable quotes:
    "... Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture. ..."
    "... There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint... ..."
    "... After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence. ..."
    "... To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen. ..."
    "... Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion .. ..."
    "... Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control.. ..."
    "... "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there? ..."
    "... "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it." ..."
    "... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
    "... The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar? ..."
    "... The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. ..."
    "... The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history. ..."
    "... No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well. ..."
    "... You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2 ..."
    "... Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East. ..."
    "... It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart. ..."
    "... Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria. ..."
    "... However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change. ..."
    "... No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West. ..."
    "... Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS. ..."
    "... Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. ..."
    "... There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. ..."
    "... The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism. ..."
    "... The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers. ..."
    "... Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. ..."
    "... I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it. ..."
    "... The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest. ..."
    "... Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government. ..."
    "... Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined. ..."
    "... Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe. ..."
    "... The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction? ..."
    "... The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.' ..."
    "... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
    "... We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils. ..."
    "... We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population. ..."
    "... Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. ..."
    "... NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine. ..."
    "... Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order. ..."
    "... Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf ..."
    "... In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya. ..."
    "... Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies. ..."
    "... Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate ..."
    "... Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS ..."
    "... Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers. ..."
    "... The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it ..."
    "... The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    So Barack Obama thinks Britain in 2011 left Libya in chaos – and besides it does not pull its weight in the world. Britain thinks that a bit rich, given the shambles America left in Iraq. Then both sides say sorry. They did not mean to be rude.

    Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention. We blame and we name-call. We turn deaf ears to the cries of those whose lives we have destroyed. Then we kiss and make up – to each other.

    Related: David Cameron was distracted during Libya crisis, says Barack Obama

    Obama was right first time round about Libya's civil war. He wanted to keep out. As he recalls to the Atlantic magazine , Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime". He cooperated with Britain and France, but on the assumption that David Cameron would clear up the resulting mess. That did not happen because Cameron had won his Falklands war and could go home crowing.

    Obama is here describing all the recent "wars of choice".

    America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq, any more than Britain had in Libya . When a state attacks another state and destroys its law and order, morally it owns the mess. There is no such thing as imperialism-lite. Remove one fount of authority and you must replace and sustain another, as Europe has done at vast expense in Bosnia and Kosovo.

    America and Britain both attacked countries in the Middle East largely to satisfy the machismo and domestic standing of two men, George Bush and Tony Blair. The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war. In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate. It is his Iraq.

    Related: The Guardian view on Libya: yet another messy frontier in the war on Isis | Editorial

    As for Obama's charge that Britain and other countries are not pulling their weight and are "free riders" on American defence spending, that too deserves short shrift. British and French military expenditure is proportionately among the highest in the world, mostly blown on archaic weapons and archaic forms of war. Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.

    Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing to do with politicians.

    Manveer95 , 2016-03-13 11:04:35

    I'm stunned that Obama has been able to get away with his absolutely abysmal record with foreign policy. Libya was a complete disaster and there is evidence to suggest that Libya was a much better place under Gaddafi. And the fact that once they were in Iraq (something started by his predecessor) he wasn't committed to bringing about serious change, thus leaving a giant vacuum which, coincided with the Syrian Civil War, has now been filled by ISIS.

    That's not even talking about the Iran deal, Benghazi and the disastrous "Bring Back our Girls" campaign.

    JaneThomas -> grauniadreader101 , 2016-03-13 10:59:42
    I take it that you do not think that the Guardian is making up such stories as these in dated order:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/01/libyan-revolution-battle-torn-families

    "People find it very hard," said Iman Fannoush, with her two children in tow and a husband she knows not where. "They are up all night shooting because of good news. We hear the UN is coming to help us or our fighters have taken Brega or the air strikes have destroyed Gaddafi's tanks. Then everyone is afraid again when they hear Gaddafi's army is coming and they all want to know where is France, where are the air strikes, why is the west abandoning us?

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/27/revolution-belongs-to-all-libyans
    We are grateful for the role played by the international community in protecting the Libyan people; Libyans will never forget those who were our friends at this critical stage and will endeavour to build closer relations with those states on the basis of our mutual respect and common interests. However, the future of Libya is for the Libyans alone to decide. We cannot compromise on sovereignty or allow others to interfere in our internal affairs, position themselves as guardians of our revolution or impose leaders who do not represent a national consensus.
    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/apr/27/sandstorm-libya-revolution-lindsey-hilsum-review
    Hilsum gives a riveting account of the battle for Tripoli, with activists risking their lives to pass intelligence to Nato, whose targeting – contrary to regime propaganda – was largely accurate, and too cautious for many Libyans.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/08/libyan-revolution-casualties-lower-expected-government
    The UN security council authorised action to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime but Russia, China and other critics believe that the western alliance exceeded that mandate and moved to implement regime change.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/libyas-arab-spring-the-revolution-that-ate-its-children
    Libya's Arab spring was a bloody affair, ending with the killing of Gaddafi, one of the world's most ruthless dictators. His death saw the rebel militias turn on each other in a mosaic of turf wars. Full-scale civil war came last summer, when Islamist parties saw sharp defeats in elections the United Nations had supervised, in the hope of bringing peace to the country. Islamists and their allies rebelled against the elected parliament and formed the Libya Dawn coalition, which seized Tripoli. The new government fled to the eastern city of Tobruk and fighting has since raged across the country.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/libyas-arab-spring-the-revolution-that-ate-its-children
    With thousands dead, towns smashed and 400,000 homeless, the big winner is Isis, which has expanded fast amid the chaos. Egypt, already the chief backer of government forces, has now joined a three-way war between government, Libya Dawn and Isis.

    It is all a long way from the hopes of the original revolutionaries. With Africa's largest oil reserves and just six million people to share the bounty, Libya in 2011 appeared set for a bright future. "We thought we would be the new Dubai, we had everything," says a young activist who, like the student, prefers not to give her name. "Now we are more realistic."
    Anthony J Petroff -> fairviewplz , 2016-03-13 00:46:41
    Perpetually engineered destabilization is highly lucrative and has been for 200 years, but I don't know what's Central or Intelligent about it......except for a tiny handful at the top globally.
    Ziontrain -> Monrover , 2016-03-13 00:25:45

    On balance, is Libya worse off now than it would have been, had Gaddaffi been allowed free rein in Benghazi?

    No-one can possibly know the answer to that, certainly not Mr Jenkins.

    Clearly it was a dictatorship like say Burma is today.....but....from an economic point of view, it was like the Switzerland of Africa. And actually tons of European companies had flocked over there to set up shop. In contrast to now where its like the Iraquistan of Africa. No contest in the comparison there...

    Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture.

    There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint...

    Ziontrain , 2016-03-13 00:16:06
    I wonder what the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is thinking. "Oh god - we made the mother of all #$%ups"? Surely...
    fairviewplz , 2016-03-13 00:04:24
    After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence.

    To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen.

    SUNLITE -> lestina , 2016-03-12 22:59:05
    Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion ..
    SUNLITE -> buticomillas , 2016-03-12 22:39:23
    Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control..
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 22:36:33
    Yep, many pictures, as there always are with media confections. Remember the footage of Saddam's statue being torn down in front of a huge crowd? It was only months later we saw the wide angle shot that showed just how few people there really were there.
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 22:34:20
    These US and UK involvement in the ME are matters of official record; are you really denying the CIA trained the Mujahideen, or that both the UK and US propped up Saddam? Even Robert Fisk acknowledges that! And please, don't patronise me. You have no idea what I've read or haven't.
    Anthony J Petroff , 2016-03-12 22:32:36
    ......c'mon, the powers behind the powers intentionally engineer mid-East destabilization to keep the perpetual war pumping billions to the ATM's in their living rooms; then, on top of it, they send the bill to average joe's globally; when is this farce going to be called out ?

    It is completely illogical, can't stand even eye tests, yet continues like an emperor with new clothes in our face.

    pierotg -> pierotg , 2016-03-12 22:23:48
    "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there?

    Syria has the misfortune to be somehow in the middle of a proposed natural gas pipeline ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline ) too ...

    Just add a couple of paragraphs Mr. Jenkins in order to complete your article which, I'm sorry to say, told me nothing I didn't know already .

    pierotg , 2016-03-12 22:00:04
    "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."

    "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war."

    Clear and concise.
    Thank you Mr. Jenkins

    jdanforth -> coombsm , 2016-03-12 21:45:36
    The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar?
    skepticaleye -> ID9108400 , 2016-03-12 20:49:36
    The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq.
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 19:35:02

    Get your facts right. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were all states that crumbled after the demise of the USSR.

    Bullshit. The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history.

    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 19:32:20
    No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well.
    coombsm -> buticomillas , 2016-03-12 19:09:34
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline

    this might answer your question. Syria has suffered for its geography since it was artificially created by the Sykes Picot agreement at the end of the Ottoman Empire.

    IamBaal -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-12 18:36:40
    Don't forget the French "Philosopher" Bernard Henri-Levy

    Levy on the Libyan insurgents

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2011/0326/Bernard-Henri-Levy-War-in-Iraq-was-detestable.-War-in-Libya-was-inevitable

    "Libyan rebels are secularists, want unified country

    Gardels: If the French aim is successful and Qaddafi falls, who are the rebels the West is allying with? Secularists? Islamists? And what do they want?

    Levy: Secularists. They want a unified Libya whose capital will remain Tripoli and whose government will be elected as a result of free and transparent elections. I am not saying that this will happen from one day to the next, and starting on the first day. But I have seen these men enough, I have spoken with them enough, to know that this is undeniably the dream, the goal, the principle of legitimacy.

    IamBaal -> FelixMyIcecream , 2016-03-12 18:13:17
    You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
    IamBaal -> TonyBlunt , 2016-03-12 18:11:45
    Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East.
    IamBaal -> Bilingual , 2016-03-12 18:09:37
    It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart.
    IamBaal -> JohnHawkwood , 2016-03-12 18:07:15
    The French led the way, with the French "Philosopher" Bernard-Henri Levy doing all the behind the scenes manipulation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2

    IamBaal , 2016-03-12 18:01:58
    Britain started the mess in the Middle-East with the Balfour declaration and the theft of Palestinian land to create an illegal Jewish state. Europe should pay massive reparations of money and equivalent land in Europe for the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps. Neo-con Jews who lobbied for the Iraq, Syria and Libyan wars should have their wealth confiscated to pay for the mess they created.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
    ID4352889 , 2016-03-12 15:31:41
    Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria.

    Presumably he's going down the Blair/Clinton route of cosying up to Middle Eastern Supremacist Cults in the hope that he can increase his income by tens of millions within the next 10 years. There can be no other explanation for his actions, that have never had anything whatsoever to do with the interests of either Britain or the wider European community.

    ID9108400 , 2016-03-12 15:07:56
    For me, the bottom line is that, however much might like to believe it, military intervention does not create nice, liberal, secular democracies. These can only be fostered from within.

    However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change.

    The military, under the instruction of politicians, of the West should be pro-defence but anti-regime change or "nation building".

    I'm not suggesting a completely isolationist position, but offensive military action should be seen as a last resort.

    SomlanderBrit -> JustARefugee , 2016-03-12 15:05:53
    Mr Jenkins is a knowledgeable man but should've thought through this a bit more before so casually associating death and destruction and misery with Africa.

    China's cultural revolution and the Great Leap Forward alone killed and displaced more people after the second world war than all the conflicts in Africa put together. How about the break up of India in 1947? Korean War?

    But no when he thought about misery Africa popped into his mind..

    totemic , 2016-03-12 10:58:16

    Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing to do with politicians.

    One culture?
    One outlook?
    Sounds all very Soviet.
    So, all Enlightened souls are reduced to a monoculture, within the Anglo American Empire.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-12 10:45:56
    Obama is a bill of goods. The Voters that choose him thought that they were getting a progressive, Obama used the reverend Wright to make himself seem like a man committed to radical change, but behind Obama was Chicago investment banker Louis Susman (appointed ambassador to Britain).

    Obama, a Harvard law professor, is the choice of the bankers, he does not play a straight bat, all the wars and killing are someone else's fault. Banking wanted rid of Gaddafi since he threatened the dollar as the reserve currency (as did Dominique Strauss-Kahn) as does the Euro, Obama let Cameron think he was calling the shots but he was just Obama's beard. Obama is nothing if not cunning, when he says stay in Europe but the Elites of the Tory party are pushing for out guess what, they got the nod from Obama and the Banks.

    titorelli -> Histfel , 2016-03-12 10:25:33
    So? All the numbers in the world can't undo Jenkins' thesis: there is no imperialism-lite. Imperialist wars are imperialist wars no matter how many die, and whether chaos, or neo-colonial rule follow. In his interview, Obama claims a more deliberate, opaque, and efficient war machine. To him, and his conscience, John Brennan, these metrics add up to significant moral milestones. To us innumerates, it's just more imperialist b.s.
    chaumont , 2016-03-12 08:21:52
    Gadaffy had since long planned to free his country and other African states from the yoke of being forced to trade within the American dollar sphere. He was about to lance his thoroughy well prepared alternative welcomed not the least by the Chinese when Libya was attacked. Obama is not truthful when suggesting the attack was not a "core" interest to the US. It was of supreme interest for the US to appear with its allies, Gadaffy´s independence of mind being no small challenge.
    backtothepoint , 2016-03-12 07:00:41
    Gadafy may have been particularly nasty with dissidents, but the UK has plenty of allies in the Muslim world that are far worse: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... The Gulf States work their imported slaves to death and the UK kowtows to them. The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and sent military advisors to advise them how to use them to bomb Yemeni schools and hospitals.

    No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West.

    Kosovo is also mentioned. There was a relatively low-level conflict (much like the Northern Ireland 'troubles') there until NATO started bombing and then oversaw the massive ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Serbs from their homeland (Serbs are the most ethnically-cleansed group in the former Yugoslavia: around 500,000 refugees).

    Yugoslavia's real crime? It was the last country in Europe to refuse the market economy and the hegemony of Western banks and corporates.

    The message is, 'Accept capitalism red in tooth or claw, or we'll bomb the crap out of you.'

    backtothepoint -> Nola Alan , 2016-03-12 06:44:38
    Did the attack on Afghanistan improve the situation? Perhaps temporarily in the cities, some things got a little better as long as you weren't shot or blown up. Over the country as a whole, it made the situation much worse.

    I remember John Simpson crowing that the Western invaders had freed Afghanistan when they entered Kabul. My reaction at the time was, 'Well, the Soviets had no problem holding the cities. Wait until you step outside them.' There followed many years of war achieving pretty much nothing except to kill a lot of people and get recruits flocking to the Taliban.

    It seemed we had learned absolutely nothing from the British and Soviet experiences.

    And you seem to have forgotten the multitude of US terror attacks on Muslims before the Afghan invasion, repackaged for our media as 'targeted attacks with collateral damage'. Bombing aspirin factories and such. And the First Gulf War. And US bases occupying the region. And the fact that the situation in Afghanistan was due to the Americans and Saudis having showered weapons and cash on anyone who was fighting the Soviets, not giving a damn about their aims. Bin Laden, for instance.

    And one aspect of law and order under the Taliban was that they virtually stopped opium production. After the invasion, it rose again to dizzying heights.

    The only way to deal with countries such as Afghanistan as it returns to its default system, along with other, more aggressive rogue states such as Saudi Arabia, is to starve them of all weapons and then let their peoples sort it out. It may take a long time but it's the sole possibility.

    As long as we keep pouring weapons into the Middle East for our own shameful purposes, the apocalypse will continue.

    Bosula , 2016-03-12 00:43:38
    Reading this excellent article one wonders how the war criminal Blair can be offered any peace-keeping role in the world or continue to get any air or press time.
    wmekins , 2016-03-12 00:08:02
    This is what Cameron's promises are worth, after boasting how he helped to topple Gadaffi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_OFaE19myg
    enocharden -> honeytree , 2016-03-11 23:50:37
    Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS.

    MissSarajevo , 2d ago

    Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. Tear gas in Parliament for the third time in as many months. While the squares full of unemployed young and old are adorned with statues of those that gave them this opportunity Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were popular but I think their halos are tarnished somewhat. The situation is so serious that the US is beefing up its presence in camp Bondsteel but you won't read about it in the Guardian.
    AssameseGuy87 , previous , 2016-03-11 22:34:48

    when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations

    So true . "Oh, oh, but the Spanish/Mongols/Romans etc etc", "Oh, like they were all so peaceful before Empire came along", "Oh, but but" (ad infinitum).

    Mick James -> Andrew Nichols , 2016-03-11 22:25:02
    End of Roman empire 476 AD
    End of Byzantine Empire 1453 AD

    Happy days.

    JacobJonker , 2016-03-11 21:31:10
    The bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen? Here's hoping. The neo-con cum neo-ultra liberal dream keeps on giving. Even after Brexit, Britain remains America's poodle at its peril. The rest of the article is right, but by now accepted wisdom amongst those capable of independent and rational thought.
    redleader -> Rudeboy1 , 2016-03-11 21:01:53
    The usual ways are carpet bombing (perhaps with incendiaries) or artillery bombardment (perhaps with phosphorus "shake and bake" shells).
    Bilingual -> ohhaiimark , 2016-03-11 19:52:11
    Here we go again, off course next phase is the "enlightment" in Al-Andalus...

    1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the Saudis).

    Wahabism grew because of the oil export from Saudi Arabia which started way before World war II.

    Bollocks, there was a short period of calm while Europe defeated the Ottoman empire , but the Mughal empire took great pleasure in slaughtering shiites, and the Ottoman empire had huge conflicts with the Safavid empire.

    2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?

    He-he, the fabulous golden age which is always mentioned, no doubt they were golden at that time compared to Europe, but to compare it today, it would be like living in Nazi Germany as a Jew before the Nürnberg laws were implemented.

    Would you like to pay a special non-muslim tax, step aside when a Muslim passed the street, be unable to claim any high positions in society to due to your heritage?

    3. Didnt forget. the USSR didnt hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West. And it wasnt Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.

    The Iran-Iraq war made the millions of dead possible primarily due to Soviet equipment, Halabja killed 5000. No, Russia prefered Chechnya and directly killed 300.000 civilians with the Grad bombings of cities and villages, whereas the casualties in Iraq primarily can be contributed to sectional violence.

    4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well thanks to our lust for control over the region.

    None of the mentioned were prime examples of democracy, Nasser for example had no problems in eliminating the Muslim brotherhood or killing 10s of thousands of rebels and civilians in Yemen with mustard gas.
    Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 18:55:47
    Obama's remark that the Europeans and Gulf States "detested" Gaddafi and wanted to get rid of him while others had "humanitarian concerns" is of interest. It's unlikely the Arabs had humanitarian concerns in all the circumstances; they just wanted Regime Change. It is the lethal combination of Gulf Arabs and Neo-colonial France and Britain that has driven the Syrian war too- and continues to do so. No wonder America claims these countries enthuse about war until it comes and then expect them to fight it. France currently demands the surrender of Assad and for Russia to "leave the country immediately". Britain says there can be no peace while he remains and that Russia's "interference" is helping IS.
    Mary Yilma , 2016-03-11 18:55:22
    It's your prerogative whether or not you believe that the US and NATO intervene in countries based on moral grounds. But if you do want to delude yourself, remember that they only intervene in countries where they can make money off resources, like Libya and Iraq's oil revenues. If it were about morality, don't you think NATO and the West would have rushed to help Rwanda during the genocide?
    smush772 -> SomlanderBrit , 2016-03-11 18:45:30
    There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. You do not win when your situation is worse than it was before Saddam. You can't be a winner when you life in generally worse off than it was before. basically there is no rule of law now in these nations. Saddam was no monster like you want to portray him.
    Serv_On -> Monrover , 2016-03-11 18:47:01
    Gaddafi wanted a United Africa
    and was pushing for oil trading for gold not dollars

    World would have been better

    zolotoy -> PVG2012 , 2016-03-11 18:05:53
    Actually, some of those Latin American governments we overthrew were indeed liberal democracies.

    As for Canada, there are several reasons we haven't invaded. Too big, too sparse too white...and economically already a client state. Of course, we did try once: the War of 1812.

    dragonpiwo -> pinarello , 2016-03-11 17:37:03
    Libya is sitting on a lake of oil also. I worked for an oil company there for a decade.
    Scratcher99 -> thenewcat , 2016-03-11 17:36:32
    "When the same leaders did initially stand aside (as in Syria) "

    They didn't stand aside though, they helped create the trouble in the first place, as too with Libya; gather intelligence to find out who will take up arms, fund, train and give them promises, get them to organize and attack, then when the dictator strikes back the press swing into action to tell us all how much of a horrible bastard he is(even though we've been supporting and trading with him for eons), ergo, we have to bomb him! It's HUMANITARIAN! Not. It would be conquest though. Frightening.

    patricksteen -> JohnHawkwood , 2016-03-11 17:15:07
    Wrong. American fighters flew 27% of the sorties - the rest were conducted by other NATO members and primarily by the British and the French.
    midnightschild10 , 2016-03-11 17:09:42
    Obama has done everything in his power to morph into Bush including hiring a flaming chicken hawk in Ash Carter to play the role of Dick Cheyney. Bush left us with Iraq and Afghanistan, to which Obama added Egypt with the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also restarted the Cold War with Russia. He is now going after China for building islands in the South China Sea, a disputed area, something he as well as other Presidents before him has allowed Israel to build settlements on disputed land for the past fifty years and throughthrough $ 3.5 billion in gifts annually, has provided for enough concrete to cover all the land the Palestinians live on.

    The 3.5 billion annually will increase by $40 billion over ten years, unless Netanyahu gets the increase he wants to 15 billion per year. So Obama must settle on a legacy which makes him both a warmonger and one of the very best arms dealer in the world. His family must be so proud.

    Serv_On -> SomlanderBrit , 2016-03-11 17:08:19
    Iraq was an illegal war
    journeyinthewest -> kippers , 2016-03-11 17:06:14

    To be a humanitarian intervention, a military intervention has to avoid causing regime collapse, because people will die because of regime collapse. This is an elementary point that the political class appears not to want to learn.

    I agree with your analysis except the last paragraph. Pretty much in all interventions that we have witnessed, the political class deliberately caused the regimes to collapse. That was always the primary goal. Humanitarian intervention were never the primary, secondary or even tertiary objective.

    If the political class want to do some humanitarian interventions, they can always start with Boko Haram in Nigeria.

    EamonnStircock , 2016-03-11 16:37:40

    America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq

    The USA was enforcing the UN blockade of Iraq, and had massive forces in place to do it. It was costing a fortune and there were regular border skirmishes taking place. It has been suggested that Bush and his advisors thought that they could take out Saddam and then pull all their forces back to the US. They won't admit it now because of the disaster that unfolded afterwards.
    JanePeryer , 2016-03-11 16:36:32
    Another good piece. What about all the weapons we sold Israel after they started their recent slaughter in Gaza and the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (one of the poorest country's in the world) says everything you need to know about the tory party. They are sub humans and as such should be treated like dirt. I don't believe in the concept of evil...all a bit religious for me but if I did, it's what they are.
    B5610661066 -> WankSalad , 2016-03-11 16:23:10

    Describing the intervention in Libya as imperialism - 'lite' or otherwise - is ridiculous.

    The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism.

    Donald Mintz , 2016-03-11 16:21:59
    It astonishes me that these great men and women-I include Sec'y Clinton here-give no indication that their calculations were made without the slightest knowledge of the countries they were preparing to attack in one way or another. From what one read in the long NYTimes report on preparations for the Libyan intervention, the participants in the planning knew a great deal about military matters and less about Libya than they could have found out in a few minutes with Wikipedia. Tribal societies are different from western societies, dear people, and you damn well should have known that.
    willpodmore -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 16:21:31
    Honduras. The USA backed the coup there. Honduras is now run by generals and is the world's murder capital. I could go on, jezzam. Please read William Blum's books on US foreign policy. They provide evidence that the US record is not good.
    B5610661066 , 2016-03-11 16:20:50
    Without the US the UK and France couldn't have overthrown Gaddafi. The jihadis would have been killed or fled Libya. I don't believe any post-Gaddafi plan existed. Why would there have been one? Killing Gaddafi was the war's aim. A western puppet strong man leader grabbing power would have been icing on the cake of course but why would the US care about Libya once Gaddafi was gone?
    fanUS , 2016-03-11 16:20:16
    Well, Cameron just followed Obama's 'regime change' bad ideas.
    Obama is a failed leader of the World who made our lives so much worse.
    Obama likes to entertain recently, so after his presidency the best job for him is a clown in a circus.
    NYbill13 -> NezPerce , 2016-03-11 16:19:43
    We will never know why Stevens and the others were killed.

    Absent reliable information, everyone is free to blame whomever they dislike most.

    Based on zero non-partisan information, Hillary is the media's top choice for Big Villain. She may in fact be more responsible than most for this horror, but she may not be too.

    Who ya gonna ask: the CIA, the Pentagon, Ted Cruz?

    It seems everyone who's ever even visited Washington,D.C., has some anonymous inside source that proves Hillary did it.

    To hear the GOP tell it, she flew to Libya secretly and shot Stevens herself just because she damn well felt it, o kay -- (female troubles)

    My question is: Where has US/Euro invasion resulted in a better government for all those Middle Eastern people we blasted to bits of blood and bone? How's Yemen doin' these days?

    Hope Europe enjoys assimilating a few million people who share none of Europe's customs, values or languages.

    I'm sure euro-businesses would never hire the new immigrants instead of union-backed locals.

    Why, that would almost be taking advantage of a vast reservoir of ultra-cheap labor!

    Nor will the sudden ocean of euro-a-day workers undercut unions or wages in the EU. No siree, not possible.

    Just like unions have not been decimated, and wages have not stagnated in the US since 1980 or so. No siree. Not in Europe .

    willpodmore -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 16:18:31
    jezzam writes, "the dictator starts massacring hundreds of thousands of his own civilians." But he didn't. Cameron lied.

    The rebellion against Gaddafi began in February 2011. The British, French and US governments intervened on their usual pretext of protecting civilians. The UN said that 1,000-2,000 people had been killed before the NATO powers attacked.

    Eight months later, after the NATO attack, 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded (National Transitional Council figures).

    Cameron made the mess; Cameron caused the vast refugee crisis. The NATO powers are getting what they want – the destruction of any states and societies that oppose their rule, control over Africa's rich resources. Libya is now plagued by "relentless warfare where competing militias compete for power while external accumulators of capital such as oil companies can extract resources under the protection of private military contractors."

    sarkany -> xyz123xyz321 , 2016-03-11 15:59:16
    any state that wishes to be taken seriously as a player on the world stage

    The classic phrase of imperialism - an attitude that seems to believe any nation has the right to interfere in, or invade, other countries'.
    Usually done under some pretence of moral superiority - it used to be to 'bring the pagans to God', these days more 'they're not part of our belief system'. In fact, it only really happens when the imperial nations see the economic interests of their ruling class come under threat.

    The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers.

    The two that they are most scared of are Russia and China, who combined can offer the capital and expertise to replace the old US / European axis across Africa, for instance. The war is already being fought on many fronts, as this article makes clear.

    Corrections -> xyz123xyz321 , 2016-03-11 15:44:02
    When Dubya was POTUS, the EU wanted to create its own military force. The US insisted Nato be the only regional force. Just sayin'....
    Lafcadio1944 , 2016-03-11 15:33:46
    Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. Clinton had it right when the going gets tough Obama gives a speech (see Cairo).

    I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it.

    The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest.

    zkiwi , 2016-03-11 15:27:56
    The odd thing is, Obama didn't seem to think getting rid of Gaddafi a bad thing at all at the time. Clinton was all, "We came, we saw, he died." And this bit about "no core interest" in Afghanistan and Iraq is just bizarre. Given the mess both countries are in, and the resurgence of the Taliban and zero clue about Iraq it was clearly a master stroke for Obama to decide the US exit both with no effective governments in place, ones that could deal with the Taliban et al. Never mind, he can tootle off and play golf.
    fragglerokk -> fragglerokk , 2016-03-11 15:25:04
    here's a decent summing up of the state of play in Libya and Hilarys role in it

    http://chinamatters.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/libya-worse-than-iraq-sorry-hillary.html

    Anonymot , 2016-03-11 15:24:49
    Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government.

    America has a historic crisis of leadership and being the sole model left in that field, the world has followed, the UK and all of Europe included.

    fragglerokk , 2016-03-11 15:21:07
    Libya is all Hilarys work so expect to return with boots on the ground once Wall Sts finest is parked in the Oval office. She has the midas touch in reverse and Libya has turned (and will continue) to turn out worse than Iraq and Syria (believe me its possible) There is absolutely no one on the ground that the west can work with so the old chestnut of arming and training al qaeda or 'moderate' opposition is not an option. ISIL are solidifying a base there and other than drones there is zip we can do.

    Critising Cameron just shows how insecure Obama is, lets be honest the middle east and afghanistan are in the state they are because Obama had zero interest in foreign policy when his first term started, thus allowing the neocons to move into the vacuum and create the utter disaster that is Syraq and Ukraine. We in europe are now dealing with the aftermath of this via the refugee crisis which will top 2 million people this year. Obamas a failure and he knows it, hence the criticism of other leaders. Cameron is no different, foreign policy being almost totally abandoned to the US, there is no such thing as independent defence policy in the UK, everything is carried out at the behest of the US. Don't kid yourself we have any autonomy, we don't and there are plenty of high level armed forces personnel who feel the same way. Europe is leaderless in general and with the economy flatlining they too have abandoned defence and foreign affairs to the pentagon.

    Right now we're in the quiet before the storm, once HRC gets elected expect the situation to deteriorate rapidly, our only hope is that someone has got the dirt to throw her out of the race.

    previous -> thenewcat , 2016-03-11 15:03:43
    "Not Syria"

    ISIS established itself in Iraq before moving into Syria. Would ISIS exist is Britain had not totally destabilized Iraq? Going back even further, it is the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot agreement, that great exercise in British Imperialism that created the artificial nations in the Middle East that are collapsing today.

    Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined.

    Transparent hypocrisy. Accept responsibility and stop offloading it to Calais.

    NezPerce -> nemesis7 , 2016-03-11 15:00:09
    Ambassador Stevens was killed in a cover up over the arms dealing from Libya to Syria, (weapons and fighters to ISIS). It seems more likely that he was killed because he was investigating the covert operation given that he was left to fend for himself by all US military forces but in a classic defamation strategy he has been accused of being behind the operation. Had he been he would have been well defended.
    nofatebutwhatyoumake , 2016-03-11 14:50:24

    "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.

    Couldn't put it better myself. Yes, America is a full blown Empire now. Evil to it's very core. Bent on world domination and any cost. All we lack is a military dictatorship. Of course, with the nation populated by brainwashed sheep, a "Dear Leader" is inevitable,

    nemesis7 , 2016-03-11 14:48:17
    President Obama was correct in keeping US boots off the ground in Syria. An active US troop presence would have resulted in an even greater level of confusion and destruction on all sides. However, it was precisely the US' meddling in Libya that helped pave the way for its current dysfunctional, failed state status, riven by sectarian conflicts and home to a very active Al Quaida presence.

    US interference in Libya saw Gadaffi backstabbed by the US before literally being stabbed to death although he had been given assurances that the US would respect his rule particularly as he had sought to become part of the alliance against the likes of Al Quaida.

    Obama was behind the disgraceful lie that the mob that attacked the US' Benghazi Embassy and murdered Ambassador Smith y was 'inflamed' by an obscure video on youtube that attacked extremist elements of the Islamic faith. Smith deserved better than this blatant lie and the grovelling, snivelling faux apologies Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the Muslim world for something that had nothing to do with 99.9 percent of non Muslims.

    Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe.

    Disappointingly, President Obama forgets the Biblical saying about pointing out a speck in somebody's eye while ignoring the plank in his own.

    markdowe , 2016-03-11 14:46:54
    Mr President doesn't privately refer to the Libyan upheaval as the "shit show" for no good reason. The chaos and anarchy that have ensued since, including the migrant crisis in Europe and the rise of Islamic State, is directly attributable to the shoddy interventionist approach used by both Britain and France.
    FelixMyIcecream -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:42:30

    it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory.

    He wanted his Falklands moment .

    Taku2 , 2016-03-11 14:37:45
    Good article, with justified moral indignation. Only thing I would have changed, is "imperialism-lite" to 'lesser and greater imperialism.

    Would it not have been a great contribution towards peace and justice, had the US decided not to invade Iraq and Libya, on account that other western countries were "free-riders" and would not have pulled their weight?

    So, what does the world needs now? More 'free-riding countries' to dissuade so-called responsible countries - Britain, France, America, Italy - from conspiring to invade other countries, after consulting in the equivalent of a 'diplomatic toilet and drawing up their war plans on the back of the proverbial cigarette packet.'

    For all Obama's niceties, it would now appear that he has been seething and mad as hell about his perception of Britain and France 'abandoning' Libya and watching it perceptible destabilizing the region and the flames fanning farther afield.

    The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction?

    The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.'

    Is the Americans now telling the world that they went into Libya without planning for the aftermath, because it was 'an emergency to save lives' and they had to go in immediately?

    Well, if so, that is now how nations behave responsibly, and it is now clear that more lives have probably been lost and continue to be sacrificed, than those which might have been saved as a result of the West invading and attacking Libya.

    FelixMyIcecream -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:35:04

    the Europeans expected America to pick up the tab for reconstruction

    I don't think there would be many complaints from Halliburton or other American companies to help with the reconstruction, if the place wasn't such a shit-storm right now.

    previous , 2016-03-11 14:32:31
    "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war."

    Judging from the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of comments posted on multiple threads on this forum, the British people don't want to accept responsibility for "migration on a scale not seen... since the second world war". The almost universal resistance to accepting refugees and migrants that fled their homes due to unprovoked British aggression is disgusting and pathetic. It highlights the hypocrisy of those who see themselves morally fit to judge almost everyone else.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 14:25:27
    Mitchell says that we had a plan to stabilise Libya but that it could not be implement the plan because there was no peace?#*^..... Der

    We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils.

    Well there you have it- its the fault of the Libyans.

    Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:05:15
    Hilary Clinton recently blamed Sarkozy for Libya describing him as so "very excited" about the need to start bombing that he persuaded her and she, Nuland and Power persuaded a reluctant Obama. Three civilian females argued down the military opinion that it was unnecessary and likely to cause more trouble than it was worth.

    As this was clearly to support French interests the Americans insisted the Europeans do it themselves if they were that keen. Old Anglo-French rivalry has never been far from the surface in the ME and it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory. Neither of them appear to have given any thought about reconstruction. The blame is mostly Cameron's as Sorkozy was chucked out of office just months later. Did Cameron have a plan at all? If so it was his biggest mistake and one we'll be paying for over the coming years.

    SHappens -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 14:03:29

    Without Putin's mischief making though, this would have been sorted out long ago.

    Putin intervened in September 2015. What have the West been doing since 2011 to stop the conflict, one wonders.

    Russia vetoes any UN attempt to sort out the mess

    Looking bad you'd realize that it at least prompted Obama to retract in 2013. Since then though support to Saudi and proxies destabilizing Syria has only increased.

    Russia is clearing the mess of the West, and they should be grateful. Obama might be from what I read today from his "confessions".

    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-11 14:03:19
    Yes. I don't think that is a pro-imperialist stance. He's arguing that there is no middle ground; getting rid of dictators you don't like is imperialism, and whether you follow through or not, there are serious consequences, but to not follow through is an abnegation of moral responsibility to the people you are at attemting to "free". It seems to me he is arguing against any foreign intervention, hence his castigation of Obama and Cameron for the "ethical wasteland of their wars of intervention."
    ohhaiimark -> PVG2012 , 2016-03-11 13:53:27
    Please do me a favour and study 20th century history a little more. The US overthrow countless democracies in Latin America and the Middle East and installed fascist dictatorships.

    Liberal Democracy haha come on now. They dont care about Democracy. They care about money. They will install and support any dictatorship (look at Saudi Arabia for example) as long as they do as they are told economically.

    I love western values, dont get me wrong. It is the best place to live freely. However, if you werent lucky enough to be born in the west and the west wants something your country has (eg. oil).....you are in for a lot of bad times.

    I just wish western leaders/governments actually followed the western values that we all love and hold dear.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 13:49:00
    We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population.

    The solution as Corbyn pointed out is to stop funding the Terrorists.

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

    By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s0qy9

    Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.

    He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?

    This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.

    pfbulmer , 2016-03-11 13:46:44
    What is good that this is finally coming out ,the denial by both Obama and a very left wing media has failed to confront this issue in what is an incredibly low point for Obama and Hilary Clinton and their naive ideas about the Arab Spring.

    As it is equally so for David Cameron and William Hague. Sarkozy is different he was not naive he knew exactly what he was doing thais was about saving french influence in North Africa,he was thinking about Tunisa, Algeria which he was keen to drag others into -- He was the most savvy of all those politicians at least he was not a fool,but France priorities are not the same as the UK --

    Obama's comments once again as usual do not really confront the real problems of Libya and gloss over the key issues and ending up passing the buck, he can do no wrong ? It was not the aftermath of Libya but the whole idea of changing the controlling demographics of the country which he played a major part in destabilising through the UN AND Nato which was the problem --

    It was thought the lessons of Iraq was all about not putting boots on the ground ,or getting your feet dirty ,as this antagonises the locals and that a nice clinical arms length bombardment creating havoc ,is the best way to go .

    This was not the lesson of Iraq , which was actually not to destabilise the controlling demographics of the country which will never recover if you do ..It is one thing to depose a leader or ask a leader to step down but do not disturb 100 of years controlling demographics, sectarian or not in these countries is not wise . To do so is a misstep or misjudgement --

    Demographics are like sand dunes they have taken many years to evolve and rest uneasy, in the highly religious and sectarian landscape but can be unsettled over night, grain by grain even by a small shift in the evening night breeze , a small beetle can zig zag across and the whole dune will crumble

    Once again the US pushed the UK who vied with France at how high they could jump, using the UN blank cheque as cover ,for melting down the country and has left UN credibilty in taters has now no credibility and Nato is now not trusted .

    They took disgracefully no less the UN 1973 Peace Resolution , point one, Cease fire and point two No Fly Zone .They bent it , twisted it , contorted it into blatant out right support of the eastern shiite sympathisers sectarian group, against the more secular Sunni Tripoli groups .

    (Gaddafi was not one man Mr apologist Rifkind he was the tribal leaders of a quite a large tribe !)

    Which has been part of a historic rivalry going back hundreds of years . They killed more civilians that Gaddafi ever had or could have done . They even attacked in a no fly zone government troops retreating and fired on government planes on the ground in a non fly zone .

    Then they refused to negotiate with the government or allow the Organisation of African states to mediate who had agreed general elections .They went on bombing until there was no infrastructure no institutions or sand dunes ,or beetles left --

    It was done after Iraq and that is why it is so shameful and why Obama , Cameron, Sarkozy , the UN , Nato must face up to what they have done , and after the Chilcot enquiry there needs to be a Cameron enquiry . Presumably it will have the backing of Obama --

    What is worse is the knock on effect on this massive arm caches and fighters from Libya then went on to Syria, reek havoc and destabilised the country . Because Russia and China could never trust again the UN , the UN has been ineffective in Syria for that very reason .The deaths of British tourist in next door Tunisia has to laid firmly at David Cameron's and the foreign office door --

    No wonder Libya is keeping Obama awake at night , no wonder he is indulging in damage limitation , no wonder he is trying to re write history ? How can I get this out of my legacy . If only I had not met Mr Cameron a yes man -- If only I had been told by some with an once of common sense , not to touch this country with a barge pole ?

    The poor Libyan people will agree with him --

    The lesson for the UK is do want you think is right not what the US thinks as right , a lesson that David Cameron has failed to learn , and has shown he is not a safe pari of hands and lacks judgement --

    ohhaiimark -> Bilingual , 2016-03-11 13:45:40
    1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the Saudis).

    2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?

    3. Didnt forget. the USSR didn't hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West. And it wasn't Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.

    4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well thanks to our lust for control over the region.

    mothersuperior5 , 2016-03-11 13:45:06
    Obama? Censored? You forgot Hillary. she even said the other day at the townhall before Miss/MI to the effect 'if Assad had been taken out early like Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. laughable really. i presume you aren't criticising Hillary Clinton?
    upthecreek -> Colossian , 2016-03-11 13:41:18

    Gaddafi who was openly threatening to massacre all rebels in Benghazi.

    Yes that was the narrative that Western media wanted to portray but in reality was not the reason Libya was attacked --

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 13:37:15
    Kosovo is now basket case that we are paying for but it is small. Now we have also backed NeoCon regime change in Ukraine which we are going to be paying for. Libya will soon have enough Jihadist training camps to be a direct threat.

    What we see is a Strategy of Chaos from the US NeoCons but what we have failed to notice is that the NeoCons see us as the target, as the enemy.

    david119 , 2016-03-11 13:35:56
    Totally agree that there is no such thing as Imperialism Lite, just as there is no such thing as Wahabi Lite or Zionism Lite. So I wonder why Hilary Benn thinks Britain has anything to feel proud about our foreign policy. It seems to me Britain's Foreign Policy is a combination of incompetence, jingoism and pure evil.
    What is the point of employing the brightest brains in the land at the Foreign Office when we get it wrong almost all the time ?
    James Barker , 2016-03-11 13:29:27
    "Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."
    Attacking Al qaeda in Afghanistan had nothing to do with defending territory?
    John Smith -> AddisLig , 2016-03-11 13:26:33
    Libyan 'rebels' were armed and trained by 'the West' in a first place. The plan was the same for Syria but Russians stopped it with not allowing 'no fly zone' or to call it properly 'bomb them into the stone age'.

    You probably don't know how 'bloody' Gaddafi was to the Libyans.

    * GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
    * For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants per year.
    * Unemployment - $ 730.
    * Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
    * For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
    * The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
    * At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
    * Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
    * Education and medicine are free.
    * Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
    * Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
    * For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention.
    * Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
    * For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
    * Rents - no.
    * No Fees for electricity for households!
    * Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
    * Real estate services are prohibited.
    * Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, for militia fighters - 65%.
    * Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $.
    * If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
    * Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country

    antipodes -> Jeshan , 2016-03-11 13:19:04
    The Gadaffi regime had upset the USA because Gadaffi was setting up an oil currency system based on gold rather than US dollars. While this was not the sole reason the West turned against him it was an important factor. The largest factor for the wars so far, and the planned war against Iran was to cut out the growing Russian domination of the oil supply to Europe, China and India.
    Potyka Kalman , 2016-03-11 13:18:58
    A decent article as we could expect from the author.

    However personally I doubt there was no ulterior motive in the case of Lybia. Lybia was one of the countries who tried the change the status quo on the oil market and it has huge reserves too (as we know Europe is running out of oil, at least Great Britain is).

    It is very likely that the European countries retreated because Libya started to look like another Iraq.

    TatianaAD -> David Ellis , 2016-03-11 13:16:32
    When you are talking about "democratic forces of the revolution.." i imagine you being an enthusiastic teenager girl who hardly knows anything about the world but goes somewhere far for a gap year as a volunteer to make locals aware of something that will help them forever. It is instead of demanding responsible policies and accountability from her own government.
    antipodes -> MarkB35 , 2016-03-11 13:12:18
    Sorry!!!
    What planet have you been living on. What do you read apart from lifestyle magazines full of shots of celebrity boobs and bums.
    The United states is the most interventionist country in history. Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years.
    NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine.
    If the West stopped intervening there would be very few wars and if the West used its influence for peace rather than control there would rarely be any was at all.
    Nothingness -> ohhaiimark , 2016-03-11 13:04:10
    Well put. People forget the importance of oil in maintaining the standard of living in our western democracies. Controlling it's supply trumps all other issues.
    antipodes -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-11 12:57:20
    Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order.

    Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below.
    http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf

    If you get your facts right it ruins your argument doesn't it.

    SHappens , 2016-03-11 12:56:32
    In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya.

    These Middle East countries should have been left alone by the West. Due to their nature, these countries have strong divisions and battle for their beliefs and a strong man, a dictator is what prevented them to fall into the chaos they are today. Without the Western meddling, arming and financing various rebel groups, Isis would not exist today.

    BlackBlue1984 -> CABHTS , 2016-03-11 12:49:40
    Neither is putting political opponents in acid baths and burning tyres, as Tony Blair's friends in the central Asian Republics have been doing, neither is beheading gays, raped women and civil rights protesters, as Cameron's Saudi friends have been enjoying, the latter whilst we sell them shit loads of munitions to obliterate Yemeni villagers. I wonder how the Egyptian president is getting on with all that tear gas and bullets we sold him? And are the Bahrani's, fresh from killing their own people for daring to ask for civil rights, enjoying the cash we gave them for that new Royal Navy base? Our foreign policy is complacent and inconsistent, we talk about morality but the bottom line is that that doesn't come into it when BAE systems and G4S have contracts to win. Don't get me wrong, Britain has played a positive role internationally in many different areas, but there is always a neo-liberal arsehole waiting to pop up and ruin the lives of millions, a turd with a school tie that just wont be flushed away.
    tonall -> TidelyPom , 2016-03-11 12:46:45
    Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies.
    Newmacfan , 2016-03-11 12:25:21
    It is high time that Europe reviewed and evaluated its relationship with the United States, with NATO, Russia and China. The world needs to be a peaceable place and there needs to be more legislation imposed upon the Financial Markets to stop them being a place where economic destabilisation and warfare can and do take place. The United States would not contemplate these reviews taking place as they are integral to their continuing position in the world but also integral to the problems we are all experiencing? It will take a brave Europe to do this but it is a step that has to be taken if the world is to move forward! Britain should be a huge part of this, outside a weakend EU this would benefit the United States from Britains lack of input, another reason we should vote to stay and be positive to our European position. The most vulnerable herring is the one that breaks out of the shoal?
    SalfordLass , 2016-03-11 12:24:58
    Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate
    Scahill , 2016-03-11 11:52:53
    Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS

    Cameron's Libya policy from start to finish is a foreign policy catastrophe and in a just world would have seen him thrown out of office on his ear

    Newsel -> IntoTheSilence , 2016-03-11 11:50:06
    Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers.

    Then there is this gem: "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has called for a United Nations resolution allowing international forces to intervene in Libya.
    There was no other choice, he told French radio. "We will not allow them to cut off the heads of our children."

    "We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias," Mr Sisi told Europe 1 radio. He was referring to the aftermath of the 2011 war in which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was toppled with the help of an international coalition.
    That intervention was "an unfinished mission", he said."

    The US, France and the UK own this ongoing mess but do not have the moral fortitude to clean it up. As with the "Arab Spring", this will not end well.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31500382?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AMorning%20Brief&utm_campaign=2015_MorningBrief_New_America_PROMO

    SilkverBlogger , 2016-03-11 11:49:56
    The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it
    ohhaiimark -> Bilingual , 2016-03-11 11:43:08
    The west who propped up the Saudis, who's crazy wahhabi brand of Islam helped radicalise the Islamic world with 100 billion dollars spent on promoting it.

    The west who created israel and then has done nothing to stop israels ever growing land theft and occupation over decades (not even a single sanction)...leading the Muslim world to hate us more for our hypocrisy and double standards.

    The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists.

    The west who arms brutal dictators to wage proxy wars and then invades and bombs these same dictators countries over claims they have WMDs (that we sold to them).

    The west has been intervening in the middle east alot longer than post 9/11. We are very very culpable for the disasters engulfing the region.

    Jeshan , 2016-03-11 11:42:44
    Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime"

    Let's examine what Obama is saying here: when it is perceived to be at the core of US interests, the USA reserves the right to attack any country, at any time.

    The world inhabits a moral vacuum, and in that state, any country can justifiably choose to do anything, against anyone, for any reason. And this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize.

    FelixMyIcecream , 2016-03-11 11:42:29

    In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate.

    You forgot to mention Cameron was only following Sarkozy .

    Don't forget the French role .

    25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."

    28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone

    11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.

    14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention in Libya

    .

    19 March 2011: French[72] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined by coalition forces


    2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Chronology
    Sal2011 , 2016-03-11 11:41:36
    Well said in the headline. Imperialism-lite/heavy, colonialism, and neo-colonialism don't work, should be a thing of the past. Intervening in the politics of another country is a mug's game.

    Don't understand why Obama is blaming Cameron for it, perhaps playing to his domestic gallery. Blair's love fest with the deluded Gaddafi family, followed by the volte-face of pushing for his violent overthrow by the next government, were both severely misguided policies. Need to diplomatically encourage change, in foreign policy, and the desired type of political movements to take hold. Military interventions have the opposite effect, so does propping up dictators, religiously fanatical regimes, proven time and time again.

    WarrenDruggs -> KinoLurtz , 2016-03-11 11:41:07

    Gadaffi was on the verge of massacring an entire city of people

    Who needs well paid journalists when you can get this level of propaganda for free?

    DavidGW -> TruffleWednesday , 2016-03-11 11:40:31

    So the choices are to do nothing, or invade and create a colony?

    Pretty much. As Jenkins rightly says, if you want to launch an aggressive war you either do it or you don't. If you do it then it is your responsibility to clear up the mess, however many of your own lives are lost and however much it costs. Trashing a country and then buggering off is not an option.

    Of course, using force for defensive reasons is fine. That's why modern warmongering politicians always call it "defence" when they drop bombs on innocent people in faraway countries. It is no such thing.

    David Hart -> AmandaLothian , 2016-03-11 11:22:15
    There was no massacre, not even a hint of one. Total obfuscation to give Hillary Clinton a foreign policy "success" so that she could use it as a springboard to the presidency. "Hillary Clinton was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors initially planned to use it as basis of a "Clinton doctrine", meaning a "smart power" regime change strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.

    War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary's vaunted "foreign policy experience".

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii /

    [Mar 13, 2016] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/12/five-foreign-policy-questions-us-election-candidates

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yeah. Painting the Syria/Libya crisis as Hillary vs the Repubs however is dishonest. not lacking insight or clarity. dishonest. On the Repubs: all the candidates except Trump said at the debate a few days ago that peace was not in the interests of Israel and therefore a US President would betray Israel by SEEKING peace. ..."
    "... Hillary said at the townhall before Miss/MI that 'if we'd taken out Assad earlier like we did Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. Your Hillary vs the Repubs routine is dishonest. This is the neocon oligrachy fighting for its life election. do not fake it in the name of Hillary. ..."
    "... The Obama administration has redefined the word "militant " to be a "male of military age within the strike zone" and here's the killer ..."unless POSTHUMOUSLY proven to be innocent" ..."
    "... Ramos ought to have asked Hilary exactly why Gadaffi was deposed, and came back at her fiercely with statistics and independent reports if she dared to even muse the suggestion that it was another "humanitarian intervention". ..."
    "... If Hillary's two decade history of war mongering was exposed for what it really represents by "journalists" in the corporate media, she would no longer be insulated from the scrutiny her deeply flawed decision making warrants. ..."
    "... Unfortunately, the American public have only independent news sites like the Intercept, Truthdig, the Jacobin, Harpers Magazine, Mondoweiss, and a few others from which to evaluate the real damage Hillary has caused. ..."
    "... What gives Amerika the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations in the first place? Are they unaware that the rest of the world fears American terrorism more that anything else, or more likely, do they care? No wonder Hillary and the Republican hawks are worrying the planet. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    jparmetler , 2016-03-13 08:44:03
    You are absolutely right as far as these five questions are concerned. Yet you forgot an important one: TTIP as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These so-called free trade agreements are a fatal threat to democracy as they invest more power in corporations than in parliaments and additionally they are detrimental to labour and the environment in the concerned countries.
    Robert Maxwell , 2016-03-13 02:59:28
    It's a good article and reflects some of the questions I've been having.

    My curiosity was aroused when the first CIA-directed drone killed its first victims, a terrorist leader and some comrades in Yemen years ago. I'd thought that the CIA's assassination of anyone in a foreign country was illegal. Evidently the rules have changed but I don't recall hearing about it.

    The media are always an easy target but lately I think their responsibility for our collective ignorance has increased. The moderators in the TV debates seem deliberately provocative. I can remember the first televised debate -- Kennedy vs. Nixon -- when both men soberly addressed the camera when answering questions of substance.

    The first interaction BETWEEN debators was a brief remark in 1980 by Reagan aimed at Jimmy Carter. "There you go again." Before then, the debates were sober and dignified, as in a courtroom. After that, the debates slowly slid into the cage fights they've become.

    I'm afraid I see the media as not setting the proper ground rules. Fox News is the absolute worst. The result is a continuous positive feedback loop in which we are gradually and unwittingly turned into those people who buy gossip tabloids at the supermarket checkout counter.

    BREAKING NEWS! HILLARY WETS BED UNTIL TWELVE YEARS OLD!

    If we wind up with one of these egomaniacal clowns in the White House, we'll deserve what we get.

    mothersuperior5 , 2016-03-13 01:34:11
    here it is again Cruz: right now in Fox: Iran wants to kill us; 'Donald' wants to negotiate deals with Iran and Cuba. We don't negotiate with terrorists. By failing to note what Trump actually says and by pretending that Hillary is not a neocon - a subtle one to be sure - you are revising the facts. actually as the facts appear. think about it and be clear. the moderate Islam routine BY Cruz Rubio Kasich is not about islam. its about the supposed sunni supposed allies. like please. add some insight. at least a bit.
    mothersuperior5 , 2016-03-13 01:20:33
    Yeah. Painting the Syria/Libya crisis as Hillary vs the Repubs however is dishonest. not lacking insight or clarity. dishonest. On the Repubs: all the candidates except Trump said at the debate a few days ago that peace was not in the interests of Israel and therefore a US President would betray Israel by SEEKING peace.

    Trump said he'd be even-handed for the purpose of negotitating a peace deal. the other candidates say - reading from a script, certainly not thinking - that the trick was to get Saudi Arabia and Turkey to fight ISIS. sure, except they wont. Their agenda is anti-Assad in the name of conservative sunni-ism. the moderate arab sheikdom theocracy routines IS part of the problem. frankly the other Repub candidates would flirt with nuking Iran. Iran must be part of the solution like it or not. Hillary said at the townhall before Miss/MI that 'if we'd taken out Assad earlier like we did Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. Your Hillary vs the Repubs routine is dishonest. This is the neocon oligrachy fighting for its life election. do not fake it in the name of Hillary.

    michtom , 2016-03-12 20:10:53
    Isn't the reason for most foreign policy decisions that they will make money for the Military Industrial Complex?

    "Modernizing" nuclear weapons? Helping Saudi Arabia slaughter citizens of Yemen? Destabilizing multiple countries so that MORE weapons become "necessary" to deal with the instability?

    All the question should be framed on that basis: "Is there any reason to 'modernize' our nuclear weapons other than to enhance the bottom line of the companies involved, especially when we are supposed to be working against nuclear proliferation?"

    Powerspike michtom , 2016-03-12 22:29:01
    An excellent statement of reality - sometimes it needs saying.
    http://fff.org/2016/03/11/the-u-s-middle-east-killing-racket /
    normankirk , 2016-03-12 19:06:03
    Fantastic article, absolutely spot on. Its been a long wait , thank you.

    The Obama administration has redefined the word "militant " to be a "male of military age within the strike zone" and here's the killer ..."unless POSTHUMOUSLY proven to be innocent"

    Democrats or Republicans alike, foreign policy is predicated on the American drive to maintain global dominance, whatever illegal murderous callous action it takes.

    Powerspike lorimerhotshot , 2016-03-12 21:56:21
    Try this website
    http://www.antiwar.com /
    Featherstone1 , 2016-03-12 17:41:16
    Ramos ought to have asked Hilary exactly why Gadaffi was deposed, and came back at her fiercely with statistics and independent reports if she dared to even muse the suggestion that it was another "humanitarian intervention".

    Sanders should be pressed on Israel, and whether he can formally condemn the state for repeatedly breaking promises re: settlement on the West Bank and for committing war crimes during the Gaza strip conflict.

    Michronics42 , 2016-03-12 17:34:44
    If Hillary's two decade history of war mongering was exposed for what it really represents by "journalists" in the corporate media, she would no longer be insulated from the scrutiny her deeply flawed decision making warrants. If democracy and transparency actually functioned in the media, Hillary would be exposed as a neocon, whose terrible policy decisions have led to one global disaster after another, fomenting terrorism. (Even the New York Times-which endorsed Hillary-detailed her disastrous decisions in Libya).

    Unfortunately, the American public have only independent news sites like the Intercept, Truthdig, the Jacobin, Harpers Magazine, Mondoweiss, and a few others from which to evaluate the real damage Hillary has caused.

    But, like her domestic policies-historically: from Clintonomics to mass incarceration; welfare reform; the war on drugs; education (especially in Arkansas); disastrous "free" trade agreements; rampant fascism in the form of corporatism; plus, the millions donated to her campaign from dark money super pacs; and her sham "foundation; Hillary continues to represent the worst that politics offers, both globally and domestically.

    And the list above also includes the devolution of the Democratic Party from FDR-like socialism to Clinton dominated corporate hacks, since Bill's election in 1992.

    Until Clinton, Inc is stopped from commanding allegiance from "democratic" politicians on everything from the macro to micro levels of Democratic Party matters, voters will continue to be denied a true forum for change.

    FraidyMan , 2016-03-12 16:46:27
    What gives Amerika the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations in the first place? Are they unaware that the rest of the world fears American terrorism more that anything else, or more likely, do they care? No wonder Hillary and the Republican hawks are worrying the planet.
    jokaz , 2016-03-12 16:34:27
    "Currently Saudi Arabia is engaged in an indiscriminate bombing campaign in one of the world's poorest.."
    Saudi Arabia is bombing with logistical help from US and UK, we're not only silent on the crimes of KSA, we help them
    jokaz , 2016-03-12 16:34:27
    "Currently Saudi Arabia is engaged in an indiscriminate bombing campaign in one of the world's poorest.."
    Saudi Arabia is bombing with logistical help from US and UK, we're not only silent on the crimes of KSA, we help them
    Bogdanich , 2016-03-12 16:01:59
    Hillary was the push behind the U.S. Participation in Ukraine, Syria and Libya. Just a pathological warlord. She appointed VIc Nuland as undersecretary of state for Gods sake. A neo-con. The people that brought us the Iraq war. If she's elected you will get more of the same in a big way as she will increase the force structure and the involvement.
    no1ban , 2016-03-12 15:55:05
    This is the kind of informative and vital article I am buying the Guardian to read and which these days is all too rarely printed.
    Hanwell123 no1ban , 2016-03-12 16:49:52
    Try the Independent, it is much more forthcoming about foreign affairs and doesn't just parrot the stock Neo conservative stance.
    alberto grieve , 2016-03-12 15:20:07
    It is futile to expect reason from people whose foreign policy education comes primarily from Hollywood. It used to be that 96 % of people in congress had never left the country, even less lived abroad with other people and learned a foreign language. The ignorance is truly amazing and it would be funny if these people were not those that decide what happens in the world.
    If the US keeps meddling in world affairs then the whole world should vote in their elections.
    MrConservative2016 David Ellis , 2016-03-12 14:45:33
    Don't exactly celebrate the US 'wag my tail' relationship with Wahhabi Arabia but on Syria, the only good option is to ally with President Assad and bomb out the Wahhabi infestation.
    knightpestle , 2016-03-12 14:26:03
    Libya is the dog that doesn't bark in the night in UK politics too.

    During the debate on bombing Syria, speaker after speaker alluded to the disastrous intervention in Iraq, for which the guilty parties are no longer in the house.

    But not one brought up the disastrous intervention in Libya, for which the guilty party was currently urging us into another intervention.

    Having an amateurish, inward-looking Labour party doesn't help, of course.

    The only people who have called Cameron out on Libya in the past year are Nigel Farage and Barack Obama. Ye gods.

    Kevin P Brown MrConservative2016 , 2016-03-12 14:35:03
    "According to the 24 February 2010 policy analysis "The Year of the Drone", released by the New America Foundation, the civilian fatality rate since 2004 is approximately 32%. The study reports that 114 reported UAV-based missile strikes in northwest Pakistan from 2004 to present killed between 830 and 1,210 individuals, around 550 to 850 of whom were militants."

    You can quibble about the exact number of civilians killed, but the moment you approve of your local police bagging bad guys even if your family gets killed then you can maybe make a comment.

    nnedjo , 2016-03-12 14:18:49

    Many human rights organizations have called them illegal, and retired military leaders have said they backfire, creating more terrorists than they kill.

    After reading " The Dron Papers " Edward Snowden came to the conclusion that drones do not really chase the terrorists, but they chase their mobile phones. Hence so many innocent victims, because who can guarantee that the mobile phone which was earlier in the possessions of some terrorist, is not now in the hands of entirely innocent people.
    So, in addition to many ethical questions about the use of drones, this raised another question on how much "high-tech killing" is indeed reliable.
    mothercourage , 2016-03-12 14:13:56
    Excellent article.
    Informative and quite rightly challenging.
    America is really running away with itself on who, where, how and why they attack.
    Britains 'special' relations with the US, should be curtailed, forthwith, because they have the audacity to now start pressuring us about the EU refferendum, too.
    Obama had the nerve to say that we were free loading on the back of "US might" and their attempts at "global order", his words. While neatly avoiding the questions you ask here, about their role in Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, drones etc., etc, etc.
    Britain should fight back with these facts and distance ourselves from this aggression.
    SergeantPave , 2016-03-12 14:10:37
    Hardly amazing. There's not one American in a thousand for whom these issues will determine their vote.
    jez37med SergeantPave , 2016-03-12 14:24:56
    quite right
    nnedjo , 2016-03-12 13:55:54

    While an enormous amount of time during this campaign has focused around the Iran nuclear deal, almost no attention has been given to any country that actually has nuclear weapons and what they plan to do with them over the coming years and decades.

    This is also a proof of the "schizophrenic" Obama-Clinton foreign policy. US administration is doing everything to solve the problem of the Iranian nuclear program, and at the same time doing everything to spoil relations with the other nuclear power in the world, Russia.
    The curiosity of its kind is that Russia, which is also affected by the US sanctions, helps US to resolve its dispute with Iran and suspend sanctions against this country. And not only that, but Russia agrees to relocate enriched uranium from Iran to its territory and thus provide a practical implementation of the agreement on the Iranian nuclear program.
    nnedjo , 2016-03-12 13:43:40

    yet the presidential candidates are almost never asked about why congress has not authorized the military action like the constitution requires.

    Yes, Trevor Timm also criticized this in some of his previous articles, as well as Ron Paul, who also often criticized Obama for this fact. It's completely unclear why Obama continues to rely on the two authorizations that George W. Bush has got from Congress "to punish the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks", and for "the destruction of Saddam Hussein's [non-existent] WMD". This is particularly unclear given that Obama himself came to power mainly due to his criticism of Bush's war adventures.

    It is possible that Obama does not have enough confidence that he can get authorization from the GOP dominant Congress to combat Isis in Syria and Iraq. However, by using authorizations for the old wars for something that has nothing to do with the new wars, Obama is not only acting illegally, but also provides an opportunity for the conclusion that he now supports Bush for the same thing for which he criticized him earlier, that is, for the Afghan and Iraq war.

    kattw Kevin P Brown , 2016-03-12 14:57:33
    'course I wouldn't approve. And I doubt most countries approve of being invaded (except for the folks who DO approve anyways).

    "The US must stop acting as the world police.' Great phrase. You hear it a lot. Totally insupportable. Here's the fundamental problem: the globe is a small place these days. Countries really are no longer isolated entities than can act with little to no impact on anybody else. What one does, others feel. And leadership is a thing - somebody will always lead. Right now, there are very few candidates for that. With the fall of imperial England, the US became the only real superpower left (other than Russia, which has since collapsed, and is busy trying to come back). Thus, whether it likes it or not, the US has a leadership role to play. If it abdicates that position, and does as you and so many other less-than-brilliant folks demand? Power abhors a vacuum. Most likely is that either Russia or China will take over the role currently played by the US. And if you think either of THOSE countries will do a better job than the US, well... enjoy your personal delusion.

    As for 'scratching heads and bleating' about intervention... we did not have to intervene. Said that before, saying it again, get it through your skull - we did not have to intervene. We could, in fact, totally disarm and just sit back and do nothing, anywhere. But. THIS WOULD HAVE CONSEQUENCES TOO. Seriously. Understand that. Doing nothing is doing something. Sitting out is still an action one can take. And it is INCREDIBLY likely that things would be WORSE in Libya right now had we not intervened. Not guaranteed, but likely.

    The situation sucks. It would have been great if it had all turned out better. It didn't. But it probably would have been worse had we made a substantially different choice. Yeah, sure, you could then pat yourself on the back, and pretend that at least the US wasn't responsible, but, well, as a certain red-and-blue clad superhero says, with great power comes great responsibility. The US has great power - if we didn't intervene, and horrible things happened, it'd be just as much our fault as it is now that we DID intervene, and bad things happened. Because it would have been in our power to stop it, and we didn't.

    [Mar 13, 2016] There's no such thing as imperialism-lite, Obama. Libya has shown that once again

    Notable quotes:
    "... Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture. ..."
    "... There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint... ..."
    "... After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence. ..."
    "... To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen. ..."
    "... Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion .. ..."
    "... Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control.. ..."
    "... "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there? ..."
    "... "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it." ..."
    "... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
    "... The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar? ..."
    "... The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. ..."
    "... The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history. ..."
    "... No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well. ..."
    "... You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2 ..."
    "... Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East. ..."
    "... It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart. ..."
    "... Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria. ..."
    "... However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change. ..."
    "... No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West. ..."
    "... Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS. ..."
    "... Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. ..."
    "... There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. ..."
    "... The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism. ..."
    "... The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers. ..."
    "... Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. ..."
    "... I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it. ..."
    "... The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest. ..."
    "... Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government. ..."
    "... Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined. ..."
    "... Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe. ..."
    "... The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction? ..."
    "... The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.' ..."
    "... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
    "... We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils. ..."
    "... We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population. ..."
    "... Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. ..."
    "... NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine. ..."
    "... Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order. ..."
    "... Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf ..."
    "... In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya. ..."
    "... Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies. ..."
    "... Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate ..."
    "... Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS ..."
    "... Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers. ..."
    "... The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it ..."
    "... The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    So Barack Obama thinks Britain in 2011 left Libya in chaos – and besides it does not pull its weight in the world. Britain thinks that a bit rich, given the shambles America left in Iraq. Then both sides say sorry. They did not mean to be rude.

    Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention. We blame and we name-call. We turn deaf ears to the cries of those whose lives we have destroyed. Then we kiss and make up – to each other.

    Related: David Cameron was distracted during Libya crisis, says Barack Obama

    Obama was right first time round about Libya's civil war. He wanted to keep out. As he recalls to the Atlantic magazine , Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime". He cooperated with Britain and France, but on the assumption that David Cameron would clear up the resulting mess. That did not happen because Cameron had won his Falklands war and could go home crowing.

    Obama is here describing all the recent "wars of choice".

    America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq, any more than Britain had in Libya . When a state attacks another state and destroys its law and order, morally it owns the mess. There is no such thing as imperialism-lite. Remove one fount of authority and you must replace and sustain another, as Europe has done at vast expense in Bosnia and Kosovo.

    America and Britain both attacked countries in the Middle East largely to satisfy the machismo and domestic standing of two men, George Bush and Tony Blair. The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war. In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate. It is his Iraq.

    Related: The Guardian view on Libya: yet another messy frontier in the war on Isis | Editorial

    As for Obama's charge that Britain and other countries are not pulling their weight and are "free riders" on American defence spending, that too deserves short shrift. British and French military expenditure is proportionately among the highest in the world, mostly blown on archaic weapons and archaic forms of war. Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.

    Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing to do with politicians.

    Manveer95 , 2016-03-13 11:04:35

    I'm stunned that Obama has been able to get away with his absolutely abysmal record with foreign policy. Libya was a complete disaster and there is evidence to suggest that Libya was a much better place under Gaddafi. And the fact that once they were in Iraq (something started by his predecessor) he wasn't committed to bringing about serious change, thus leaving a giant vacuum which, coincided with the Syrian Civil War, has now been filled by ISIS.

    That's not even talking about the Iran deal, Benghazi and the disastrous "Bring Back our Girls" campaign.

    JaneThomas -> grauniadreader101 , 2016-03-13 10:59:42
    I take it that you do not think that the Guardian is making up such stories as these in dated order:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/01/libyan-revolution-battle-torn-families

    "People find it very hard," said Iman Fannoush, with her two children in tow and a husband she knows not where. "They are up all night shooting because of good news. We hear the UN is coming to help us or our fighters have taken Brega or the air strikes have destroyed Gaddafi's tanks. Then everyone is afraid again when they hear Gaddafi's army is coming and they all want to know where is France, where are the air strikes, why is the west abandoning us?

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/27/revolution-belongs-to-all-libyans
    We are grateful for the role played by the international community in protecting the Libyan people; Libyans will never forget those who were our friends at this critical stage and will endeavour to build closer relations with those states on the basis of our mutual respect and common interests. However, the future of Libya is for the Libyans alone to decide. We cannot compromise on sovereignty or allow others to interfere in our internal affairs, position themselves as guardians of our revolution or impose leaders who do not represent a national consensus.
    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/apr/27/sandstorm-libya-revolution-lindsey-hilsum-review
    Hilsum gives a riveting account of the battle for Tripoli, with activists risking their lives to pass intelligence to Nato, whose targeting – contrary to regime propaganda – was largely accurate, and too cautious for many Libyans.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/08/libyan-revolution-casualties-lower-expected-government
    The UN security council authorised action to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime but Russia, China and other critics believe that the western alliance exceeded that mandate and moved to implement regime change.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/libyas-arab-spring-the-revolution-that-ate-its-children
    Libya's Arab spring was a bloody affair, ending with the killing of Gaddafi, one of the world's most ruthless dictators. His death saw the rebel militias turn on each other in a mosaic of turf wars. Full-scale civil war came last summer, when Islamist parties saw sharp defeats in elections the United Nations had supervised, in the hope of bringing peace to the country. Islamists and their allies rebelled against the elected parliament and formed the Libya Dawn coalition, which seized Tripoli. The new government fled to the eastern city of Tobruk and fighting has since raged across the country.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/libyas-arab-spring-the-revolution-that-ate-its-children
    With thousands dead, towns smashed and 400,000 homeless, the big winner is Isis, which has expanded fast amid the chaos. Egypt, already the chief backer of government forces, has now joined a three-way war between government, Libya Dawn and Isis.

    It is all a long way from the hopes of the original revolutionaries. With Africa's largest oil reserves and just six million people to share the bounty, Libya in 2011 appeared set for a bright future. "We thought we would be the new Dubai, we had everything," says a young activist who, like the student, prefers not to give her name. "Now we are more realistic."
    Anthony J Petroff -> fairviewplz , 2016-03-13 00:46:41
    Perpetually engineered destabilization is highly lucrative and has been for 200 years, but I don't know what's Central or Intelligent about it......except for a tiny handful at the top globally.
    Ziontrain -> Monrover , 2016-03-13 00:25:45

    On balance, is Libya worse off now than it would have been, had Gaddaffi been allowed free rein in Benghazi?

    No-one can possibly know the answer to that, certainly not Mr Jenkins.

    Clearly it was a dictatorship like say Burma is today.....but....from an economic point of view, it was like the Switzerland of Africa. And actually tons of European companies had flocked over there to set up shop. In contrast to now where its like the Iraquistan of Africa. No contest in the comparison there...

    Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture.

    There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint...

    Ziontrain , 2016-03-13 00:16:06
    I wonder what the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is thinking. "Oh god - we made the mother of all #$%ups"? Surely...
    fairviewplz , 2016-03-13 00:04:24
    After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence.

    To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen.

    SUNLITE -> lestina , 2016-03-12 22:59:05
    Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion ..
    SUNLITE -> buticomillas , 2016-03-12 22:39:23
    Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control..
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 22:36:33
    Yep, many pictures, as there always are with media confections. Remember the footage of Saddam's statue being torn down in front of a huge crowd? It was only months later we saw the wide angle shot that showed just how few people there really were there.
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 22:34:20
    These US and UK involvement in the ME are matters of official record; are you really denying the CIA trained the Mujahideen, or that both the UK and US propped up Saddam? Even Robert Fisk acknowledges that! And please, don't patronise me. You have no idea what I've read or haven't.
    Anthony J Petroff , 2016-03-12 22:32:36
    ......c'mon, the powers behind the powers intentionally engineer mid-East destabilization to keep the perpetual war pumping billions to the ATM's in their living rooms; then, on top of it, they send the bill to average joe's globally; when is this farce going to be called out ?

    It is completely illogical, can't stand even eye tests, yet continues like an emperor with new clothes in our face.

    pierotg -> pierotg , 2016-03-12 22:23:48
    "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there?

    Syria has the misfortune to be somehow in the middle of a proposed natural gas pipeline ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline ) too ...

    Just add a couple of paragraphs Mr. Jenkins in order to complete your article which, I'm sorry to say, told me nothing I didn't know already .

    pierotg , 2016-03-12 22:00:04
    "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."

    "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war."

    Clear and concise.
    Thank you Mr. Jenkins

    jdanforth -> coombsm , 2016-03-12 21:45:36
    The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar?
    skepticaleye -> ID9108400 , 2016-03-12 20:49:36
    The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq.
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 19:35:02

    Get your facts right. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were all states that crumbled after the demise of the USSR.

    Bullshit. The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history.

    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 19:32:20
    No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well.
    coombsm -> buticomillas , 2016-03-12 19:09:34
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline

    this might answer your question. Syria has suffered for its geography since it was artificially created by the Sykes Picot agreement at the end of the Ottoman Empire.

    IamBaal -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-12 18:36:40
    Don't forget the French "Philosopher" Bernard Henri-Levy

    Levy on the Libyan insurgents

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2011/0326/Bernard-Henri-Levy-War-in-Iraq-was-detestable.-War-in-Libya-was-inevitable

    "Libyan rebels are secularists, want unified country

    Gardels: If the French aim is successful and Qaddafi falls, who are the rebels the West is allying with? Secularists? Islamists? And what do they want?

    Levy: Secularists. They want a unified Libya whose capital will remain Tripoli and whose government will be elected as a result of free and transparent elections. I am not saying that this will happen from one day to the next, and starting on the first day. But I have seen these men enough, I have spoken with them enough, to know that this is undeniably the dream, the goal, the principle of legitimacy.

    IamBaal -> FelixMyIcecream , 2016-03-12 18:13:17
    You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
    IamBaal -> TonyBlunt , 2016-03-12 18:11:45
    Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East.
    IamBaal -> Bilingual , 2016-03-12 18:09:37
    It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart.
    IamBaal -> JohnHawkwood , 2016-03-12 18:07:15
    The French led the way, with the French "Philosopher" Bernard-Henri Levy doing all the behind the scenes manipulation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2

    IamBaal , 2016-03-12 18:01:58
    Britain started the mess in the Middle-East with the Balfour declaration and the theft of Palestinian land to create an illegal Jewish state. Europe should pay massive reparations of money and equivalent land in Europe for the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps. Neo-con Jews who lobbied for the Iraq, Syria and Libyan wars should have their wealth confiscated to pay for the mess they created.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
    ID4352889 , 2016-03-12 15:31:41
    Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria.

    Presumably he's going down the Blair/Clinton route of cosying up to Middle Eastern Supremacist Cults in the hope that he can increase his income by tens of millions within the next 10 years. There can be no other explanation for his actions, that have never had anything whatsoever to do with the interests of either Britain or the wider European community.

    ID9108400 , 2016-03-12 15:07:56
    For me, the bottom line is that, however much might like to believe it, military intervention does not create nice, liberal, secular democracies. These can only be fostered from within.

    However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change.

    The military, under the instruction of politicians, of the West should be pro-defence but anti-regime change or "nation building".

    I'm not suggesting a completely isolationist position, but offensive military action should be seen as a last resort.

    SomlanderBrit -> JustARefugee , 2016-03-12 15:05:53
    Mr Jenkins is a knowledgeable man but should've thought through this a bit more before so casually associating death and destruction and misery with Africa.

    China's cultural revolution and the Great Leap Forward alone killed and displaced more people after the second world war than all the conflicts in Africa put together. How about the break up of India in 1947? Korean War?

    But no when he thought about misery Africa popped into his mind..

    totemic , 2016-03-12 10:58:16

    Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing to do with politicians.

    One culture?
    One outlook?
    Sounds all very Soviet.
    So, all Enlightened souls are reduced to a monoculture, within the Anglo American Empire.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-12 10:45:56
    Obama is a bill of goods. The Voters that choose him thought that they were getting a progressive, Obama used the reverend Wright to make himself seem like a man committed to radical change, but behind Obama was Chicago investment banker Louis Susman (appointed ambassador to Britain).

    Obama, a Harvard law professor, is the choice of the bankers, he does not play a straight bat, all the wars and killing are someone else's fault. Banking wanted rid of Gaddafi since he threatened the dollar as the reserve currency (as did Dominique Strauss-Kahn) as does the Euro, Obama let Cameron think he was calling the shots but he was just Obama's beard. Obama is nothing if not cunning, when he says stay in Europe but the Elites of the Tory party are pushing for out guess what, they got the nod from Obama and the Banks.

    titorelli -> Histfel , 2016-03-12 10:25:33
    So? All the numbers in the world can't undo Jenkins' thesis: there is no imperialism-lite. Imperialist wars are imperialist wars no matter how many die, and whether chaos, or neo-colonial rule follow. In his interview, Obama claims a more deliberate, opaque, and efficient war machine. To him, and his conscience, John Brennan, these metrics add up to significant moral milestones. To us innumerates, it's just more imperialist b.s.
    chaumont , 2016-03-12 08:21:52
    Gadaffy had since long planned to free his country and other African states from the yoke of being forced to trade within the American dollar sphere. He was about to lance his thoroughy well prepared alternative welcomed not the least by the Chinese when Libya was attacked. Obama is not truthful when suggesting the attack was not a "core" interest to the US. It was of supreme interest for the US to appear with its allies, Gadaffy´s independence of mind being no small challenge.
    backtothepoint , 2016-03-12 07:00:41
    Gadafy may have been particularly nasty with dissidents, but the UK has plenty of allies in the Muslim world that are far worse: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... The Gulf States work their imported slaves to death and the UK kowtows to them. The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and sent military advisors to advise them how to use them to bomb Yemeni schools and hospitals.

    No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West.

    Kosovo is also mentioned. There was a relatively low-level conflict (much like the Northern Ireland 'troubles') there until NATO started bombing and then oversaw the massive ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Serbs from their homeland (Serbs are the most ethnically-cleansed group in the former Yugoslavia: around 500,000 refugees).

    Yugoslavia's real crime? It was the last country in Europe to refuse the market economy and the hegemony of Western banks and corporates.

    The message is, 'Accept capitalism red in tooth or claw, or we'll bomb the crap out of you.'

    backtothepoint -> Nola Alan , 2016-03-12 06:44:38
    Did the attack on Afghanistan improve the situation? Perhaps temporarily in the cities, some things got a little better as long as you weren't shot or blown up. Over the country as a whole, it made the situation much worse.

    I remember John Simpson crowing that the Western invaders had freed Afghanistan when they entered Kabul. My reaction at the time was, 'Well, the Soviets had no problem holding the cities. Wait until you step outside them.' There followed many years of war achieving pretty much nothing except to kill a lot of people and get recruits flocking to the Taliban.

    It seemed we had learned absolutely nothing from the British and Soviet experiences.

    And you seem to have forgotten the multitude of US terror attacks on Muslims before the Afghan invasion, repackaged for our media as 'targeted attacks with collateral damage'. Bombing aspirin factories and such. And the First Gulf War. And US bases occupying the region. And the fact that the situation in Afghanistan was due to the Americans and Saudis having showered weapons and cash on anyone who was fighting the Soviets, not giving a damn about their aims. Bin Laden, for instance.

    And one aspect of law and order under the Taliban was that they virtually stopped opium production. After the invasion, it rose again to dizzying heights.

    The only way to deal with countries such as Afghanistan as it returns to its default system, along with other, more aggressive rogue states such as Saudi Arabia, is to starve them of all weapons and then let their peoples sort it out. It may take a long time but it's the sole possibility.

    As long as we keep pouring weapons into the Middle East for our own shameful purposes, the apocalypse will continue.

    Bosula , 2016-03-12 00:43:38
    Reading this excellent article one wonders how the war criminal Blair can be offered any peace-keeping role in the world or continue to get any air or press time.
    wmekins , 2016-03-12 00:08:02
    This is what Cameron's promises are worth, after boasting how he helped to topple Gadaffi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_OFaE19myg
    enocharden -> honeytree , 2016-03-11 23:50:37
    Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS.

    MissSarajevo , 2d ago

    Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. Tear gas in Parliament for the third time in as many months. While the squares full of unemployed young and old are adorned with statues of those that gave them this opportunity Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were popular but I think their halos are tarnished somewhat. The situation is so serious that the US is beefing up its presence in camp Bondsteel but you won't read about it in the Guardian.
    AssameseGuy87 , previous , 2016-03-11 22:34:48

    when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations

    So true . "Oh, oh, but the Spanish/Mongols/Romans etc etc", "Oh, like they were all so peaceful before Empire came along", "Oh, but but" (ad infinitum).

    Mick James -> Andrew Nichols , 2016-03-11 22:25:02
    End of Roman empire 476 AD
    End of Byzantine Empire 1453 AD

    Happy days.

    JacobJonker , 2016-03-11 21:31:10
    The bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen? Here's hoping. The neo-con cum neo-ultra liberal dream keeps on giving. Even after Brexit, Britain remains America's poodle at its peril. The rest of the article is right, but by now accepted wisdom amongst those capable of independent and rational thought.
    redleader -> Rudeboy1 , 2016-03-11 21:01:53
    The usual ways are carpet bombing (perhaps with incendiaries) or artillery bombardment (perhaps with phosphorus "shake and bake" shells).
    Bilingual -> ohhaiimark , 2016-03-11 19:52:11
    Here we go again, off course next phase is the "enlightment" in Al-Andalus...

    1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the Saudis).

    Wahabism grew because of the oil export from Saudi Arabia which started way before World war II.

    Bollocks, there was a short period of calm while Europe defeated the Ottoman empire , but the Mughal empire took great pleasure in slaughtering shiites, and the Ottoman empire had huge conflicts with the Safavid empire.

    2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?

    He-he, the fabulous golden age which is always mentioned, no doubt they were golden at that time compared to Europe, but to compare it today, it would be like living in Nazi Germany as a Jew before the Nürnberg laws were implemented.

    Would you like to pay a special non-muslim tax, step aside when a Muslim passed the street, be unable to claim any high positions in society to due to your heritage?

    3. Didnt forget. the USSR didnt hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West. And it wasnt Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.

    The Iran-Iraq war made the millions of dead possible primarily due to Soviet equipment, Halabja killed 5000. No, Russia prefered Chechnya and directly killed 300.000 civilians with the Grad bombings of cities and villages, whereas the casualties in Iraq primarily can be contributed to sectional violence.

    4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well thanks to our lust for control over the region.

    None of the mentioned were prime examples of democracy, Nasser for example had no problems in eliminating the Muslim brotherhood or killing 10s of thousands of rebels and civilians in Yemen with mustard gas.
    Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 18:55:47
    Obama's remark that the Europeans and Gulf States "detested" Gaddafi and wanted to get rid of him while others had "humanitarian concerns" is of interest. It's unlikely the Arabs had humanitarian concerns in all the circumstances; they just wanted Regime Change. It is the lethal combination of Gulf Arabs and Neo-colonial France and Britain that has driven the Syrian war too- and continues to do so. No wonder America claims these countries enthuse about war until it comes and then expect them to fight it. France currently demands the surrender of Assad and for Russia to "leave the country immediately". Britain says there can be no peace while he remains and that Russia's "interference" is helping IS.
    Mary Yilma , 2016-03-11 18:55:22
    It's your prerogative whether or not you believe that the US and NATO intervene in countries based on moral grounds. But if you do want to delude yourself, remember that they only intervene in countries where they can make money off resources, like Libya and Iraq's oil revenues. If it were about morality, don't you think NATO and the West would have rushed to help Rwanda during the genocide?
    smush772 -> SomlanderBrit , 2016-03-11 18:45:30
    There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. You do not win when your situation is worse than it was before Saddam. You can't be a winner when you life in generally worse off than it was before. basically there is no rule of law now in these nations. Saddam was no monster like you want to portray him.
    Serv_On -> Monrover , 2016-03-11 18:47:01
    Gaddafi wanted a United Africa
    and was pushing for oil trading for gold not dollars

    World would have been better

    zolotoy -> PVG2012 , 2016-03-11 18:05:53
    Actually, some of those Latin American governments we overthrew were indeed liberal democracies.

    As for Canada, there are several reasons we haven't invaded. Too big, too sparse too white...and economically already a client state. Of course, we did try once: the War of 1812.

    dragonpiwo -> pinarello , 2016-03-11 17:37:03
    Libya is sitting on a lake of oil also. I worked for an oil company there for a decade.
    Scratcher99 -> thenewcat , 2016-03-11 17:36:32
    "When the same leaders did initially stand aside (as in Syria) "

    They didn't stand aside though, they helped create the trouble in the first place, as too with Libya; gather intelligence to find out who will take up arms, fund, train and give them promises, get them to organize and attack, then when the dictator strikes back the press swing into action to tell us all how much of a horrible bastard he is(even though we've been supporting and trading with him for eons), ergo, we have to bomb him! It's HUMANITARIAN! Not. It would be conquest though. Frightening.

    patricksteen -> JohnHawkwood , 2016-03-11 17:15:07
    Wrong. American fighters flew 27% of the sorties - the rest were conducted by other NATO members and primarily by the British and the French.
    midnightschild10 , 2016-03-11 17:09:42
    Obama has done everything in his power to morph into Bush including hiring a flaming chicken hawk in Ash Carter to play the role of Dick Cheyney. Bush left us with Iraq and Afghanistan, to which Obama added Egypt with the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also restarted the Cold War with Russia. He is now going after China for building islands in the South China Sea, a disputed area, something he as well as other Presidents before him has allowed Israel to build settlements on disputed land for the past fifty years and throughthrough $ 3.5 billion in gifts annually, has provided for enough concrete to cover all the land the Palestinians live on.

    The 3.5 billion annually will increase by $40 billion over ten years, unless Netanyahu gets the increase he wants to 15 billion per year. So Obama must settle on a legacy which makes him both a warmonger and one of the very best arms dealer in the world. His family must be so proud.

    Serv_On -> SomlanderBrit , 2016-03-11 17:08:19
    Iraq was an illegal war
    journeyinthewest -> kippers , 2016-03-11 17:06:14

    To be a humanitarian intervention, a military intervention has to avoid causing regime collapse, because people will die because of regime collapse. This is an elementary point that the political class appears not to want to learn.

    I agree with your analysis except the last paragraph. Pretty much in all interventions that we have witnessed, the political class deliberately caused the regimes to collapse. That was always the primary goal. Humanitarian intervention were never the primary, secondary or even tertiary objective.

    If the political class want to do some humanitarian interventions, they can always start with Boko Haram in Nigeria.

    EamonnStircock , 2016-03-11 16:37:40

    America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq

    The USA was enforcing the UN blockade of Iraq, and had massive forces in place to do it. It was costing a fortune and there were regular border skirmishes taking place. It has been suggested that Bush and his advisors thought that they could take out Saddam and then pull all their forces back to the US. They won't admit it now because of the disaster that unfolded afterwards.
    JanePeryer , 2016-03-11 16:36:32
    Another good piece. What about all the weapons we sold Israel after they started their recent slaughter in Gaza and the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (one of the poorest country's in the world) says everything you need to know about the tory party. They are sub humans and as such should be treated like dirt. I don't believe in the concept of evil...all a bit religious for me but if I did, it's what they are.
    B5610661066 -> WankSalad , 2016-03-11 16:23:10

    Describing the intervention in Libya as imperialism - 'lite' or otherwise - is ridiculous.

    The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism.

    Donald Mintz , 2016-03-11 16:21:59
    It astonishes me that these great men and women-I include Sec'y Clinton here-give no indication that their calculations were made without the slightest knowledge of the countries they were preparing to attack in one way or another. From what one read in the long NYTimes report on preparations for the Libyan intervention, the participants in the planning knew a great deal about military matters and less about Libya than they could have found out in a few minutes with Wikipedia. Tribal societies are different from western societies, dear people, and you damn well should have known that.
    willpodmore -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 16:21:31
    Honduras. The USA backed the coup there. Honduras is now run by generals and is the world's murder capital. I could go on, jezzam. Please read William Blum's books on US foreign policy. They provide evidence that the US record is not good.
    B5610661066 , 2016-03-11 16:20:50
    Without the US the UK and France couldn't have overthrown Gaddafi. The jihadis would have been killed or fled Libya. I don't believe any post-Gaddafi plan existed. Why would there have been one? Killing Gaddafi was the war's aim. A western puppet strong man leader grabbing power would have been icing on the cake of course but why would the US care about Libya once Gaddafi was gone?
    fanUS , 2016-03-11 16:20:16
    Well, Cameron just followed Obama's 'regime change' bad ideas.
    Obama is a failed leader of the World who made our lives so much worse.
    Obama likes to entertain recently, so after his presidency the best job for him is a clown in a circus.
    NYbill13 -> NezPerce , 2016-03-11 16:19:43
    We will never know why Stevens and the others were killed.

    Absent reliable information, everyone is free to blame whomever they dislike most.

    Based on zero non-partisan information, Hillary is the media's top choice for Big Villain. She may in fact be more responsible than most for this horror, but she may not be too.

    Who ya gonna ask: the CIA, the Pentagon, Ted Cruz?

    It seems everyone who's ever even visited Washington,D.C., has some anonymous inside source that proves Hillary did it.

    To hear the GOP tell it, she flew to Libya secretly and shot Stevens herself just because she damn well felt it, o kay -- (female troubles)

    My question is: Where has US/Euro invasion resulted in a better government for all those Middle Eastern people we blasted to bits of blood and bone? How's Yemen doin' these days?

    Hope Europe enjoys assimilating a few million people who share none of Europe's customs, values or languages.

    I'm sure euro-businesses would never hire the new immigrants instead of union-backed locals.

    Why, that would almost be taking advantage of a vast reservoir of ultra-cheap labor!

    Nor will the sudden ocean of euro-a-day workers undercut unions or wages in the EU. No siree, not possible.

    Just like unions have not been decimated, and wages have not stagnated in the US since 1980 or so. No siree. Not in Europe .

    willpodmore -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 16:18:31
    jezzam writes, "the dictator starts massacring hundreds of thousands of his own civilians." But he didn't. Cameron lied.

    The rebellion against Gaddafi began in February 2011. The British, French and US governments intervened on their usual pretext of protecting civilians. The UN said that 1,000-2,000 people had been killed before the NATO powers attacked.

    Eight months later, after the NATO attack, 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded (National Transitional Council figures).

    Cameron made the mess; Cameron caused the vast refugee crisis. The NATO powers are getting what they want – the destruction of any states and societies that oppose their rule, control over Africa's rich resources. Libya is now plagued by "relentless warfare where competing militias compete for power while external accumulators of capital such as oil companies can extract resources under the protection of private military contractors."

    sarkany -> xyz123xyz321 , 2016-03-11 15:59:16
    any state that wishes to be taken seriously as a player on the world stage

    The classic phrase of imperialism - an attitude that seems to believe any nation has the right to interfere in, or invade, other countries'.
    Usually done under some pretence of moral superiority - it used to be to 'bring the pagans to God', these days more 'they're not part of our belief system'. In fact, it only really happens when the imperial nations see the economic interests of their ruling class come under threat.

    The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers.

    The two that they are most scared of are Russia and China, who combined can offer the capital and expertise to replace the old US / European axis across Africa, for instance. The war is already being fought on many fronts, as this article makes clear.

    Corrections -> xyz123xyz321 , 2016-03-11 15:44:02
    When Dubya was POTUS, the EU wanted to create its own military force. The US insisted Nato be the only regional force. Just sayin'....
    Lafcadio1944 , 2016-03-11 15:33:46
    Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. Clinton had it right when the going gets tough Obama gives a speech (see Cairo).

    I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it.

    The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest.

    zkiwi , 2016-03-11 15:27:56
    The odd thing is, Obama didn't seem to think getting rid of Gaddafi a bad thing at all at the time. Clinton was all, "We came, we saw, he died." And this bit about "no core interest" in Afghanistan and Iraq is just bizarre. Given the mess both countries are in, and the resurgence of the Taliban and zero clue about Iraq it was clearly a master stroke for Obama to decide the US exit both with no effective governments in place, ones that could deal with the Taliban et al. Never mind, he can tootle off and play golf.
    fragglerokk -> fragglerokk , 2016-03-11 15:25:04
    here's a decent summing up of the state of play in Libya and Hilarys role in it

    http://chinamatters.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/libya-worse-than-iraq-sorry-hillary.html

    Anonymot , 2016-03-11 15:24:49
    Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government.

    America has a historic crisis of leadership and being the sole model left in that field, the world has followed, the UK and all of Europe included.

    fragglerokk , 2016-03-11 15:21:07
    Libya is all Hilarys work so expect to return with boots on the ground once Wall Sts finest is parked in the Oval office. She has the midas touch in reverse and Libya has turned (and will continue) to turn out worse than Iraq and Syria (believe me its possible) There is absolutely no one on the ground that the west can work with so the old chestnut of arming and training al qaeda or 'moderate' opposition is not an option. ISIL are solidifying a base there and other than drones there is zip we can do.

    Critising Cameron just shows how insecure Obama is, lets be honest the middle east and afghanistan are in the state they are because Obama had zero interest in foreign policy when his first term started, thus allowing the neocons to move into the vacuum and create the utter disaster that is Syraq and Ukraine. We in europe are now dealing with the aftermath of this via the refugee crisis which will top 2 million people this year. Obamas a failure and he knows it, hence the criticism of other leaders. Cameron is no different, foreign policy being almost totally abandoned to the US, there is no such thing as independent defence policy in the UK, everything is carried out at the behest of the US. Don't kid yourself we have any autonomy, we don't and there are plenty of high level armed forces personnel who feel the same way. Europe is leaderless in general and with the economy flatlining they too have abandoned defence and foreign affairs to the pentagon.

    Right now we're in the quiet before the storm, once HRC gets elected expect the situation to deteriorate rapidly, our only hope is that someone has got the dirt to throw her out of the race.

    previous -> thenewcat , 2016-03-11 15:03:43
    "Not Syria"

    ISIS established itself in Iraq before moving into Syria. Would ISIS exist is Britain had not totally destabilized Iraq? Going back even further, it is the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot agreement, that great exercise in British Imperialism that created the artificial nations in the Middle East that are collapsing today.

    Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined.

    Transparent hypocrisy. Accept responsibility and stop offloading it to Calais.

    NezPerce -> nemesis7 , 2016-03-11 15:00:09
    Ambassador Stevens was killed in a cover up over the arms dealing from Libya to Syria, (weapons and fighters to ISIS). It seems more likely that he was killed because he was investigating the covert operation given that he was left to fend for himself by all US military forces but in a classic defamation strategy he has been accused of being behind the operation. Had he been he would have been well defended.
    nofatebutwhatyoumake , 2016-03-11 14:50:24

    "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.

    Couldn't put it better myself. Yes, America is a full blown Empire now. Evil to it's very core. Bent on world domination and any cost. All we lack is a military dictatorship. Of course, with the nation populated by brainwashed sheep, a "Dear Leader" is inevitable,

    nemesis7 , 2016-03-11 14:48:17
    President Obama was correct in keeping US boots off the ground in Syria. An active US troop presence would have resulted in an even greater level of confusion and destruction on all sides. However, it was precisely the US' meddling in Libya that helped pave the way for its current dysfunctional, failed state status, riven by sectarian conflicts and home to a very active Al Quaida presence.

    US interference in Libya saw Gadaffi backstabbed by the US before literally being stabbed to death although he had been given assurances that the US would respect his rule particularly as he had sought to become part of the alliance against the likes of Al Quaida.

    Obama was behind the disgraceful lie that the mob that attacked the US' Benghazi Embassy and murdered Ambassador Smith y was 'inflamed' by an obscure video on youtube that attacked extremist elements of the Islamic faith. Smith deserved better than this blatant lie and the grovelling, snivelling faux apologies Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the Muslim world for something that had nothing to do with 99.9 percent of non Muslims.

    Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe.

    Disappointingly, President Obama forgets the Biblical saying about pointing out a speck in somebody's eye while ignoring the plank in his own.

    markdowe , 2016-03-11 14:46:54
    Mr President doesn't privately refer to the Libyan upheaval as the "shit show" for no good reason. The chaos and anarchy that have ensued since, including the migrant crisis in Europe and the rise of Islamic State, is directly attributable to the shoddy interventionist approach used by both Britain and France.
    FelixMyIcecream -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:42:30

    it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory.

    He wanted his Falklands moment .

    Taku2 , 2016-03-11 14:37:45
    Good article, with justified moral indignation. Only thing I would have changed, is "imperialism-lite" to 'lesser and greater imperialism.

    Would it not have been a great contribution towards peace and justice, had the US decided not to invade Iraq and Libya, on account that other western countries were "free-riders" and would not have pulled their weight?

    So, what does the world needs now? More 'free-riding countries' to dissuade so-called responsible countries - Britain, France, America, Italy - from conspiring to invade other countries, after consulting in the equivalent of a 'diplomatic toilet and drawing up their war plans on the back of the proverbial cigarette packet.'

    For all Obama's niceties, it would now appear that he has been seething and mad as hell about his perception of Britain and France 'abandoning' Libya and watching it perceptible destabilizing the region and the flames fanning farther afield.

    The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction?

    The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.'

    Is the Americans now telling the world that they went into Libya without planning for the aftermath, because it was 'an emergency to save lives' and they had to go in immediately?

    Well, if so, that is now how nations behave responsibly, and it is now clear that more lives have probably been lost and continue to be sacrificed, than those which might have been saved as a result of the West invading and attacking Libya.

    FelixMyIcecream -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:35:04

    the Europeans expected America to pick up the tab for reconstruction

    I don't think there would be many complaints from Halliburton or other American companies to help with the reconstruction, if the place wasn't such a shit-storm right now.

    previous , 2016-03-11 14:32:31
    "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war."

    Judging from the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of comments posted on multiple threads on this forum, the British people don't want to accept responsibility for "migration on a scale not seen... since the second world war". The almost universal resistance to accepting refugees and migrants that fled their homes due to unprovoked British aggression is disgusting and pathetic. It highlights the hypocrisy of those who see themselves morally fit to judge almost everyone else.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 14:25:27
    Mitchell says that we had a plan to stabilise Libya but that it could not be implement the plan because there was no peace?#*^..... Der

    We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils.

    Well there you have it- its the fault of the Libyans.

    Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:05:15
    Hilary Clinton recently blamed Sarkozy for Libya describing him as so "very excited" about the need to start bombing that he persuaded her and she, Nuland and Power persuaded a reluctant Obama. Three civilian females argued down the military opinion that it was unnecessary and likely to cause more trouble than it was worth.

    As this was clearly to support French interests the Americans insisted the Europeans do it themselves if they were that keen. Old Anglo-French rivalry has never been far from the surface in the ME and it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory. Neither of them appear to have given any thought about reconstruction. The blame is mostly Cameron's as Sorkozy was chucked out of office just months later. Did Cameron have a plan at all? If so it was his biggest mistake and one we'll be paying for over the coming years.

    SHappens -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 14:03:29

    Without Putin's mischief making though, this would have been sorted out long ago.

    Putin intervened in September 2015. What have the West been doing since 2011 to stop the conflict, one wonders.

    Russia vetoes any UN attempt to sort out the mess

    Looking bad you'd realize that it at least prompted Obama to retract in 2013. Since then though support to Saudi and proxies destabilizing Syria has only increased.

    Russia is clearing the mess of the West, and they should be grateful. Obama might be from what I read today from his "confessions".

    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-11 14:03:19
    Yes. I don't think that is a pro-imperialist stance. He's arguing that there is no middle ground; getting rid of dictators you don't like is imperialism, and whether you follow through or not, there are serious consequences, but to not follow through is an abnegation of moral responsibility to the people you are at attemting to "free". It seems to me he is arguing against any foreign intervention, hence his castigation of Obama and Cameron for the "ethical wasteland of their wars of intervention."
    ohhaiimark -> PVG2012 , 2016-03-11 13:53:27
    Please do me a favour and study 20th century history a little more. The US overthrow countless democracies in Latin America and the Middle East and installed fascist dictatorships.

    Liberal Democracy haha come on now. They dont care about Democracy. They care about money. They will install and support any dictatorship (look at Saudi Arabia for example) as long as they do as they are told economically.

    I love western values, dont get me wrong. It is the best place to live freely. However, if you werent lucky enough to be born in the west and the west wants something your country has (eg. oil).....you are in for a lot of bad times.

    I just wish western leaders/governments actually followed the western values that we all love and hold dear.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 13:49:00
    We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population.

    The solution as Corbyn pointed out is to stop funding the Terrorists.

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

    By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s0qy9

    Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.

    He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?

    This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.

    pfbulmer , 2016-03-11 13:46:44
    What is good that this is finally coming out ,the denial by both Obama and a very left wing media has failed to confront this issue in what is an incredibly low point for Obama and Hilary Clinton and their naive ideas about the Arab Spring.

    As it is equally so for David Cameron and William Hague. Sarkozy is different he was not naive he knew exactly what he was doing thais was about saving french influence in North Africa,he was thinking about Tunisa, Algeria which he was keen to drag others into -- He was the most savvy of all those politicians at least he was not a fool,but France priorities are not the same as the UK --

    Obama's comments once again as usual do not really confront the real problems of Libya and gloss over the key issues and ending up passing the buck, he can do no wrong ? It was not the aftermath of Libya but the whole idea of changing the controlling demographics of the country which he played a major part in destabilising through the UN AND Nato which was the problem --

    It was thought the lessons of Iraq was all about not putting boots on the ground ,or getting your feet dirty ,as this antagonises the locals and that a nice clinical arms length bombardment creating havoc ,is the best way to go .

    This was not the lesson of Iraq , which was actually not to destabilise the controlling demographics of the country which will never recover if you do ..It is one thing to depose a leader or ask a leader to step down but do not disturb 100 of years controlling demographics, sectarian or not in these countries is not wise . To do so is a misstep or misjudgement --

    Demographics are like sand dunes they have taken many years to evolve and rest uneasy, in the highly religious and sectarian landscape but can be unsettled over night, grain by grain even by a small shift in the evening night breeze , a small beetle can zig zag across and the whole dune will crumble

    Once again the US pushed the UK who vied with France at how high they could jump, using the UN blank cheque as cover ,for melting down the country and has left UN credibilty in taters has now no credibility and Nato is now not trusted .

    They took disgracefully no less the UN 1973 Peace Resolution , point one, Cease fire and point two No Fly Zone .They bent it , twisted it , contorted it into blatant out right support of the eastern shiite sympathisers sectarian group, against the more secular Sunni Tripoli groups .

    (Gaddafi was not one man Mr apologist Rifkind he was the tribal leaders of a quite a large tribe !)

    Which has been part of a historic rivalry going back hundreds of years . They killed more civilians that Gaddafi ever had or could have done . They even attacked in a no fly zone government troops retreating and fired on government planes on the ground in a non fly zone .

    Then they refused to negotiate with the government or allow the Organisation of African states to mediate who had agreed general elections .They went on bombing until there was no infrastructure no institutions or sand dunes ,or beetles left --

    It was done after Iraq and that is why it is so shameful and why Obama , Cameron, Sarkozy , the UN , Nato must face up to what they have done , and after the Chilcot enquiry there needs to be a Cameron enquiry . Presumably it will have the backing of Obama --

    What is worse is the knock on effect on this massive arm caches and fighters from Libya then went on to Syria, reek havoc and destabilised the country . Because Russia and China could never trust again the UN , the UN has been ineffective in Syria for that very reason .The deaths of British tourist in next door Tunisia has to laid firmly at David Cameron's and the foreign office door --

    No wonder Libya is keeping Obama awake at night , no wonder he is indulging in damage limitation , no wonder he is trying to re write history ? How can I get this out of my legacy . If only I had not met Mr Cameron a yes man -- If only I had been told by some with an once of common sense , not to touch this country with a barge pole ?

    The poor Libyan people will agree with him --

    The lesson for the UK is do want you think is right not what the US thinks as right , a lesson that David Cameron has failed to learn , and has shown he is not a safe pari of hands and lacks judgement --

    ohhaiimark -> Bilingual , 2016-03-11 13:45:40
    1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the Saudis).

    2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?

    3. Didnt forget. the USSR didn't hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West. And it wasn't Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.

    4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well thanks to our lust for control over the region.

    mothersuperior5 , 2016-03-11 13:45:06
    Obama? Censored? You forgot Hillary. she even said the other day at the townhall before Miss/MI to the effect 'if Assad had been taken out early like Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. laughable really. i presume you aren't criticising Hillary Clinton?
    upthecreek -> Colossian , 2016-03-11 13:41:18

    Gaddafi who was openly threatening to massacre all rebels in Benghazi.

    Yes that was the narrative that Western media wanted to portray but in reality was not the reason Libya was attacked --

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 13:37:15
    Kosovo is now basket case that we are paying for but it is small. Now we have also backed NeoCon regime change in Ukraine which we are going to be paying for. Libya will soon have enough Jihadist training camps to be a direct threat.

    What we see is a Strategy of Chaos from the US NeoCons but what we have failed to notice is that the NeoCons see us as the target, as the enemy.

    david119 , 2016-03-11 13:35:56
    Totally agree that there is no such thing as Imperialism Lite, just as there is no such thing as Wahabi Lite or Zionism Lite. So I wonder why Hilary Benn thinks Britain has anything to feel proud about our foreign policy. It seems to me Britain's Foreign Policy is a combination of incompetence, jingoism and pure evil.
    What is the point of employing the brightest brains in the land at the Foreign Office when we get it wrong almost all the time ?
    James Barker , 2016-03-11 13:29:27
    "Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."
    Attacking Al qaeda in Afghanistan had nothing to do with defending territory?
    John Smith -> AddisLig , 2016-03-11 13:26:33
    Libyan 'rebels' were armed and trained by 'the West' in a first place. The plan was the same for Syria but Russians stopped it with not allowing 'no fly zone' or to call it properly 'bomb them into the stone age'.

    You probably don't know how 'bloody' Gaddafi was to the Libyans.

    * GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
    * For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants per year.
    * Unemployment - $ 730.
    * Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
    * For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
    * The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
    * At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
    * Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
    * Education and medicine are free.
    * Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
    * Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
    * For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention.
    * Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
    * For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
    * Rents - no.
    * No Fees for electricity for households!
    * Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
    * Real estate services are prohibited.
    * Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, for militia fighters - 65%.
    * Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $.
    * If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
    * Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country

    antipodes -> Jeshan , 2016-03-11 13:19:04
    The Gadaffi regime had upset the USA because Gadaffi was setting up an oil currency system based on gold rather than US dollars. While this was not the sole reason the West turned against him it was an important factor. The largest factor for the wars so far, and the planned war against Iran was to cut out the growing Russian domination of the oil supply to Europe, China and India.
    Potyka Kalman , 2016-03-11 13:18:58
    A decent article as we could expect from the author.

    However personally I doubt there was no ulterior motive in the case of Lybia. Lybia was one of the countries who tried the change the status quo on the oil market and it has huge reserves too (as we know Europe is running out of oil, at least Great Britain is).

    It is very likely that the European countries retreated because Libya started to look like another Iraq.

    TatianaAD -> David Ellis , 2016-03-11 13:16:32
    When you are talking about "democratic forces of the revolution.." i imagine you being an enthusiastic teenager girl who hardly knows anything about the world but goes somewhere far for a gap year as a volunteer to make locals aware of something that will help them forever. It is instead of demanding responsible policies and accountability from her own government.
    antipodes -> MarkB35 , 2016-03-11 13:12:18
    Sorry!!!
    What planet have you been living on. What do you read apart from lifestyle magazines full of shots of celebrity boobs and bums.
    The United states is the most interventionist country in history. Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years.
    NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine.
    If the West stopped intervening there would be very few wars and if the West used its influence for peace rather than control there would rarely be any was at all.
    Nothingness -> ohhaiimark , 2016-03-11 13:04:10
    Well put. People forget the importance of oil in maintaining the standard of living in our western democracies. Controlling it's supply trumps all other issues.
    antipodes -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-11 12:57:20
    Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order.

    Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below.
    http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf

    If you get your facts right it ruins your argument doesn't it.

    SHappens , 2016-03-11 12:56:32
    In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya.

    These Middle East countries should have been left alone by the West. Due to their nature, these countries have strong divisions and battle for their beliefs and a strong man, a dictator is what prevented them to fall into the chaos they are today. Without the Western meddling, arming and financing various rebel groups, Isis would not exist today.

    BlackBlue1984 -> CABHTS , 2016-03-11 12:49:40
    Neither is putting political opponents in acid baths and burning tyres, as Tony Blair's friends in the central Asian Republics have been doing, neither is beheading gays, raped women and civil rights protesters, as Cameron's Saudi friends have been enjoying, the latter whilst we sell them shit loads of munitions to obliterate Yemeni villagers. I wonder how the Egyptian president is getting on with all that tear gas and bullets we sold him? And are the Bahrani's, fresh from killing their own people for daring to ask for civil rights, enjoying the cash we gave them for that new Royal Navy base? Our foreign policy is complacent and inconsistent, we talk about morality but the bottom line is that that doesn't come into it when BAE systems and G4S have contracts to win. Don't get me wrong, Britain has played a positive role internationally in many different areas, but there is always a neo-liberal arsehole waiting to pop up and ruin the lives of millions, a turd with a school tie that just wont be flushed away.
    tonall -> TidelyPom , 2016-03-11 12:46:45
    Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies.
    Newmacfan , 2016-03-11 12:25:21
    It is high time that Europe reviewed and evaluated its relationship with the United States, with NATO, Russia and China. The world needs to be a peaceable place and there needs to be more legislation imposed upon the Financial Markets to stop them being a place where economic destabilisation and warfare can and do take place. The United States would not contemplate these reviews taking place as they are integral to their continuing position in the world but also integral to the problems we are all experiencing? It will take a brave Europe to do this but it is a step that has to be taken if the world is to move forward! Britain should be a huge part of this, outside a weakend EU this would benefit the United States from Britains lack of input, another reason we should vote to stay and be positive to our European position. The most vulnerable herring is the one that breaks out of the shoal?
    SalfordLass , 2016-03-11 12:24:58
    Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate
    Scahill , 2016-03-11 11:52:53
    Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS

    Cameron's Libya policy from start to finish is a foreign policy catastrophe and in a just world would have seen him thrown out of office on his ear

    Newsel -> IntoTheSilence , 2016-03-11 11:50:06
    Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers.

    Then there is this gem: "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has called for a United Nations resolution allowing international forces to intervene in Libya.
    There was no other choice, he told French radio. "We will not allow them to cut off the heads of our children."

    "We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias," Mr Sisi told Europe 1 radio. He was referring to the aftermath of the 2011 war in which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was toppled with the help of an international coalition.
    That intervention was "an unfinished mission", he said."

    The US, France and the UK own this ongoing mess but do not have the moral fortitude to clean it up. As with the "Arab Spring", this will not end well.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31500382?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AMorning%20Brief&utm_campaign=2015_MorningBrief_New_America_PROMO

    SilkverBlogger , 2016-03-11 11:49:56
    The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it
    ohhaiimark -> Bilingual , 2016-03-11 11:43:08
    The west who propped up the Saudis, who's crazy wahhabi brand of Islam helped radicalise the Islamic world with 100 billion dollars spent on promoting it.

    The west who created israel and then has done nothing to stop israels ever growing land theft and occupation over decades (not even a single sanction)...leading the Muslim world to hate us more for our hypocrisy and double standards.

    The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists.

    The west who arms brutal dictators to wage proxy wars and then invades and bombs these same dictators countries over claims they have WMDs (that we sold to them).

    The west has been intervening in the middle east alot longer than post 9/11. We are very very culpable for the disasters engulfing the region.

    Jeshan , 2016-03-11 11:42:44
    Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime"

    Let's examine what Obama is saying here: when it is perceived to be at the core of US interests, the USA reserves the right to attack any country, at any time.

    The world inhabits a moral vacuum, and in that state, any country can justifiably choose to do anything, against anyone, for any reason. And this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize.

    FelixMyIcecream , 2016-03-11 11:42:29

    In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate.

    You forgot to mention Cameron was only following Sarkozy .

    Don't forget the French role .

    25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."

    28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone

    11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.

    14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention in Libya

    .

    19 March 2011: French[72] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined by coalition forces


    2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Chronology
    Sal2011 , 2016-03-11 11:41:36
    Well said in the headline. Imperialism-lite/heavy, colonialism, and neo-colonialism don't work, should be a thing of the past. Intervening in the politics of another country is a mug's game.

    Don't understand why Obama is blaming Cameron for it, perhaps playing to his domestic gallery. Blair's love fest with the deluded Gaddafi family, followed by the volte-face of pushing for his violent overthrow by the next government, were both severely misguided policies. Need to diplomatically encourage change, in foreign policy, and the desired type of political movements to take hold. Military interventions have the opposite effect, so does propping up dictators, religiously fanatical regimes, proven time and time again.

    WarrenDruggs -> KinoLurtz , 2016-03-11 11:41:07

    Gadaffi was on the verge of massacring an entire city of people

    Who needs well paid journalists when you can get this level of propaganda for free?

    DavidGW -> TruffleWednesday , 2016-03-11 11:40:31

    So the choices are to do nothing, or invade and create a colony?

    Pretty much. As Jenkins rightly says, if you want to launch an aggressive war you either do it or you don't. If you do it then it is your responsibility to clear up the mess, however many of your own lives are lost and however much it costs. Trashing a country and then buggering off is not an option.

    Of course, using force for defensive reasons is fine. That's why modern warmongering politicians always call it "defence" when they drop bombs on innocent people in faraway countries. It is no such thing.

    David Hart -> AmandaLothian , 2016-03-11 11:22:15
    There was no massacre, not even a hint of one. Total obfuscation to give Hillary Clinton a foreign policy "success" so that she could use it as a springboard to the presidency. "Hillary Clinton was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors initially planned to use it as basis of a "Clinton doctrine", meaning a "smart power" regime change strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.

    War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary's vaunted "foreign policy experience".

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii /

    [Mar 12, 2016] Death of former Putin aide: conspiracy theories abound back home in Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's on the front page of the Washington Post website today. I happened almost 4 months ago FFS. The Guardian is getting worse and worse. An entire group of comments were just vanished for having some fun speculating about Russian and American agencies and pimps in DC. This paper is getting untrustworthy and PC beyond belief. I suppose some executive decision has been made that the only way to survive is to cater exclusively to their political base. Might as well be Fox News. Just sell it to Murdock. ..."
    The Guardian
    anders otterland toryrebel , 2016-03-12 04:48:31
    Putin ain't no saint, however, the clearly orchestrated demonizing of Putin in western news media alerts my sceptisism.
    GrazieMiele , 2016-03-12 02:23:18

    Some bloggers suggest Mikhail Lesin could be in US witness protection and faked his own death while others say it could have happened as a result of a fight

    Reporting social media rumour = journalism

    GrazieMiele MacFhlannchaidh , 2016-03-12 02:17:28
    RT is the only serious media outlet. BBC, ABC, CNN all report government press releases with no investigative journalism involved.

    RT's coverage of the masscare of a few hundred Kurdish civilians by Turkey last month is something you would never see reported by Western media, despite it being a war crime.

    TheLongMarcher Talgen , 2016-03-12 02:08:27
    That's REALLY NOTHING in comparison with BUSH FAMILY/BIN LADEN TERRORIST CLAN victims: African Embassies, 9-11, and way TOO MANY to name...
    banthem Extracrispy , 2016-03-12 02:05:55
    "Putin, Lesin". To hell with them.

    You'll better say, what do you think about Hrivna and Ruble, my Kyivan friend.

    MacFhlannchaidh Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 2016-03-12 01:52:48
    Much prefer RT to the to dreary BBC with it's tired predictable spin, not to mention Jimmy Saville related excesses. RT covers stories and angles you can't find in western mainstream corporate media.
    banthem Extracrispy , 2016-03-12 01:29:55
    No! It's Putin in your head, Bro.! Hey, Putler, get out!
    Are you still insisting that You are "A Western Folk" but not from the Kyiv Region?
    Aion30 Vadim Dmitriev , 2016-03-12 01:24:45
    Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Berezovsky, Sergei Magnitsky.. are surely connected with trying to grab Russia [wealth] with help of America and Britain security services:
    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/so-who-really-tried-to-blackmail-yeltsin-takeover-russia-nsa-cia-or-investment-bankers /
    For such a blatant unbelievable crime, every country would done the same.
    ytrewq BatigolStatue , 2016-03-12 00:40:23
    Russian (small time) oligarch gets beaten to death in nice DC hotel near embassy.
    Suspects: Some bigger oligarchs, secretive but clumsy operatives from USA, Russia, Opec, simple robbery or angry whore he tried to cheat. Neither the US nor Russia wants to actually know the truth which could be embarrassing, so schtum. Forgeddaboudit.
    Talgen Extracrispy , 2016-03-12 00:39:15
    22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee, died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Again, tampering with the plane. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton's advisory council personally treated Clinton's mother, stepfather and brother.
    23 - Barry Seal - Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas, death was no accident.
    24 - Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole. Apparently he was dead before the car hit the pole.
    25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.
    26 - Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded. This happen two days after an argument with Clinton.
    27 - Kevin Ives and Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the two boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.

    THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
    28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle apparently slammed into the back of a truck, July 1988. No one saw the accident and the bike was not damaged.
    29 - Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988
    30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
    31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
    33 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to "natural causes."
    34 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.
    35 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.

    THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD:
    36 - Major William S. Barkley Jr.
    37 - Captain Scott J. Reynolds
    38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
    39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
    40 - Major General William Robertson
    41 - Col. William Densberger
    42 - Col. Robert Kelly
    43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
    44 - Steve Willis
    45 - Robert Williams
    46 - Conway LeBleu
    47 - Todd McKeehan
    All had said to friends that they had seen too much.

    Jai R. Emmett Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 2016-03-12 00:38:53
    Because everyone knows that American practice is to brutally kill its former favourites with a blunt instrument to the back of the head. God knows Putin couldn't be associated with "justice" of this kind.
    Talgen Extracrispy , 2016-03-12 00:38:17
    That's nothing compared to the Clinton associates, do you care to explain?

    1 - James McDougal - Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.
    2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.
    3 - Vince Foster - Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
    4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman who had a serious disagreement with Clinton. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.
    5 - C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
    6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992...after a serious disagreement with Clinton. Described by Clinton as a "Dear friend and trusted advisor." 7- Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day after his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.
    8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park's son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.
    9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas. Although the book was seen by several persons, it disappeared.
    10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He had ties to Whitewater.
    11- Kathy Ferguson, ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a corroborating witness for Paula Jones.
    12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancČe of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancČe, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancee. There were no powder burns.
    13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
    14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal Mena Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
    15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.
    16 - Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident. She told a friend that Clinton made advances.
    17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation. Before his death, he claimed to have found a shattering story involving Clinton.
    18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a shocking report to Janet Reno three weeks before his death.
    19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guarantee scandal.
    20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.
    21- Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash. The plane had been tampered with.

    Extracrispy Luther Rhein , 2016-03-12 00:36:14
    If Russians did it it means they are the only super power in the world and you all can get stuffed.

    Ahhh yes... another shinning example of Russian mental masturbation.

    Talgen , 2016-03-12 00:31:48

    On Friday, Russian officials said they had been asking the Americans for information about the investigation with no results.

    This is very strange indeed, why arent they sharing info with the Russians? Can anyone imagine the uproar, if a former high ranking american official died like this in Moscow? Im sure they would already be talking about adding more sanctions to say the least..

    Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 2016-03-12 00:25:17
    So... Lesin died in Sept 2015.. and since then it has escaped the U.S. coroner that the deceased had blunt force trauma to the head, neck, torso and limbs.. His family were told that he'd had a heart attack... I've attended a few post mortems myself, and I can say quite safely that blunt force trauma and heart attacks cannot be confused with one another...

    There is something rotten in the state of Denmark..
    and by Denmark I mean DC.

    ytrewq Hank Rodgers , 2016-03-12 00:06:27
    It's on the front page of the Washington Post website today. I happened almost 4 months ago FFS. The Guardian is getting worse and worse. An entire group of comments were just vanished for having some fun speculating about Russian and American agencies and pimps in DC. This paper is getting untrustworthy and PC beyond belief. I suppose some executive decision has been made that the only way to survive is to cater exclusively to their political base. Might as well be Fox News. Just sell it to Murdock.
    alexis2016 , 2016-03-12 00:05:32
    Several Western media reports speculating on the cause of Lesin's death, including one by the DailyMail tabloid, immediately surfaced.
    ytrewq , 2016-03-11 23:54:49
    Jacqueline von Hettlingen
    2:29 PM MST

    The Russian embassy in Washington confirmed Mikhail Lesin's Last November and State-owned RIA Novosti reported that he died of a heart attack, citing a spokesman for his family. Russian officials must have known that he died under suspicious circumstances. This was in DC near all the embassies not out in the sticks.

    Last year the Mississippi senator Roger Wicker called for an investigation into Lesin's wealth on suspicion of money laundering and corruption. He allegedly amassed millions of dollars in assets in Europe and the US, including $28m in Los Angeles real estate.

    pacificed , 2016-03-11 23:47:39
    What amazes me most about the thread below is not so much the insane conspiracies stupid americans and their equally facile englander 'cousins' have posted, it is that absolutely none of them are provided with a scintilla of evidence implicating the Russian prez in any of it.

    Yet the drongos & dipshits continue to spout their total bullshit in the belief that if enough of these propagandists and their willing jackasses paper the media with fantasy, that fools will lap it up.

    It is looking increasingly like that isn't the case.

    Ever since Russia has sorted Syria inside 6 months after 'western' corruption/incompetence failed to do so after 4 years and many billions of dollars were used up, ordinary humans about the world and increasingly in 'the west' are realising they have been fed a total crock by worthless outlets such as this one for far too long.

    As for the actual case it appears that Mr Lesin isn't only a victim of US' violent society he is also a victim of the incompetence of the US 'justice' system. Once again people are beginning to wake up to the serial incompetence & corruption of the multi-headed hydra that is US 'law enforcement' thanks to organisations such as Black Lives Matter & documentaries like "Making a Murderer".

    Anyone who hasn't watched that program should- afterwards you will wonder how it is the US finds the gall to criticise Russian law enforcement when even small town US police and prosecution entities are riven with bias, perjury, torture and evidence planting.

    Not only is US law enforcement totally corrupt, the justice system has been perverted into a Kafkaesque machine to conceal that corruption and actively prevent injustice from being corrected.

    Sort out your own shit america - once you have done that, then maybe you will earn the right to push your self righteous exceptionalism onto the rest of us.

    Of course if you did sort yourself out, then you wouldn't need to be pointing to other nations and telling them what to do - you would be secure in the knowledge that you were doing OK.

    But that won't happen - what will happen is that US functionaries will get louder and more hysterical in their critiques of everyone else, meanwhile ordinary decent humans about the planet will recognise the howls for what they are - the death throes of an empire in terminal decline.

    Luther Rhein airman23 , 2016-03-11 23:41:47
    because he deserved it and back then they kept quite about it until Ukraine and Syria crisis appeared. The guardian, BBC, the boys in Riga who write here are all part of anti-Russian propaganda machine. believe or not but it is a fact. Ffs, they even use Sharapova to attack Russia. the west is so desperate.
    Scipio1 HumanistLove , 2016-03-11 23:31:19
    This is a common story and a common end to people who fall out with Putin.

    And those hapless souls who earn the mainstream oligarch American disapprobation. Where to Start:

    Mossadegh in Iran
    Arbenz in Guatelema
    Allende in Chile
    Lamumba in the Congo
    Multiple attempts on Castro
    Noriega in Panama
    Saddam in Iraq (a public lynching)
    Gaddafi in Libya what was it Hilary said, 'we came, we saw, he died,'

    All felt the wrath of American justice usually dished out by CIA-trained and funded proxies.

    Then of course were those deaths of leading Americans, the Kennedy bros, and the assassination of dissidents Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. All very murky. And you have the temerity to call Russia a mafia state.

    Luther Rhein TwoFingeredSalute , 2016-03-11 23:27:43
    the golden rule: kill first and then blame Russians, since there are plenty of idiots in the western world to believe anything their pig-fucking leaders say.
    Jeff1000 , 2016-03-11 23:25:39
    What kind of medical examiner takes four months to decide whether a man had a heart attack or was beaten to death?

    Or, if they had this information months ago, why is it only now being released?

    With Russia/Assad/Iran completing a very embarrassing destruction of NATO plans for Syria, as well as establishing just how false the Western media's narrative had become, you can expect a lot more anti-Putin, anti-Russia gossip and nonsense. Snide, bitter insinuation and propaganda is all they have left.

    Luther Rhein MMGALIAS , 2016-03-11 23:22:38
    the guy died in Washington ffs, and fucking 4 months ago. wasn't it obvious to police he was killed by beating? is it the Russian coroners and police in charge of his death? no! it is the job of either CIA or Mossad as he was Jewish.
    Hank Rodgers , 2016-03-11 23:12:32
    This story is much delayed, and is apparently being intentionally "back burnered" by our major U.S. media orgs. The story should be kept on the first page, regardless of what the U.S. government has asked the media to do and not do. It is potentially instructive to we U.S. citizens, likely more as to our own government activities than those of Russia.
    Malkatrinho wightangler , 2016-03-11 23:04:43
    $28m is peanuts to Erdogan. He's no Putin, but he's more than likely got hundreds of millions stashed away, if not more.

    Estimates of Blair's wealth range from Ł20m to Ł60m. Who knows with that slippery bastard. Osborne's supposedly worth Ł5m, but I suspect the real figure is much higher.

    What seems to be most apparent in the majority of modern neo-liberal politicians is their evident desire to use public office as merely a stepping stone to vast wealth.

    BatigolStatue , 2016-03-11 22:59:55
    Western powers will view the reaction to this story as a very encouraging sign that the propaganda is most definitely working.

    - Major Russian figure murdered.
    - Happens in the US, home of the CIA
    - US coroner rules the what looks like a clearly violent death as inconclusive
    - Everyone thinks Putin is responsible
    - Slow handclap

    [Mar 12, 2016] Edward Snowden Interview on Apple vs. FBI, Privacy, the NSA, and More

    Video... Go here for full transcript http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/02/25...
    Notable quotes:
    "... And he reminds us that governments also have unprecedented potential to surveil their populations at a moment's notice, without anyone ever realizing what's happening. ..."
    www.youtube.com

    "There's a very real difference between allegiance to country–allegiance to people–than allegiance to state, which is what nationalism today is really more about," says Edward Snowden. On February 20, the whistleblowing cybersecurity expert addressed a wide range of questions during an in-depth interview with Reason's Nick Gillespie at Liberty Forum, a gathering of the Free State Project (FSP) in Manchester, New Hampshire.

    FSP seeks to move 20,000 people over the next five years to New Hampshire, where they will secure "liberty in our lifetime" by affecting the political, economic, and cultural climate of the state. Over 1,900 members have already migrated to the state and their impact is already being felt. Among their achievements to date:

    getting 15 of their brethren in the state House, challenging anti-ridehail laws, fighting in court for outre religious liberty, winning legal battles over taping cops, being mocked by Colbert for heroically paying off people's parking meters, hosting cool anything goes festivals for libertarians, nullifying pot juries, and inducing occasional pants-wetting absurd paranoia in local statists.

    Snowden's cautionary tale about the the dangers of state surveillance wasn't lost on his audience of libertarians and anarchists who reside in the "Live Free or Die" state. He believes that technology has given rise to unprecedented freedom for individuals around the world-but he says so from an undisclosed location in authoritarian Russia.

    And he reminds us that governments also have unprecedented potential to surveil their populations at a moment's notice, without anyone ever realizing what's happening.

    "They know more about us than they ever have in the history of the United States," Snowden warns. "They're excusing themselves from accountability to us at the same time they're trying to exert greater power over us."

    In the midst of a fiercely contested presidential race, Snowden remains steadfast in his distrust of partisan politics and declined to endorse any particular candidate or party, or even to label his beliefs. "I do see sort of a clear distinction between people who have a larger faith in liberties and rights than they do in states and institutions," he grants. "And this would be sort of the authoritarian/libertarian axis in the traditional sense. And I do think it's clear that if you believe in the progressive liberal tradition, which is that people should have greater capability to act freely, to make their own choices, to enjoy a better and freer life over the progression of sort of human life, you're going to be pushing away from that authoritarian axis at all times."

    Snowden drews laughs when asked if he was eligible to vote via absentee ballot. "This is still a topic of...active research," he deadpans.

    But he stresses that the U.S. government can win back trust and confidence through rigorous accountability to citizens and by living up to the ideals on which the country was founded. "We don't want Russia or China or North Korea or Iran or France or Germany or Brazil or any other country in the world to hold us up as an example for why we should be narrowing the boundaries of liberty around the world instead of expanding them," says Snowden.

    Runs about 50 minutes.

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    0:00 - Edward Snowden, welcome to New Hampshire. Meet the Free State Project.

    0:53 - Apple vs. the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Why should strong encryption be legal?

    5:02 - Is privacy dead? Should we just get over it?

    10:48 - What would a legal and effective government surveillance program look like?

    14:53 - Could we have stopped the slide into mass surveillance? Shouldn't we have seen it coming?

    19:04 - How can government earn back the trust and confidence of the American people?

    21:40 - What's wrong with our political parties?

    24:27 - What are Snowden's political beliefs? Is he a libertarian?

    26:27 - How did Snowden educate himself? Is he helped or hurt by his lack of formal education?

    28:48 - Why did Snowden see bulk surveillance differently than his NSA co-workers?

    33:03 - Was the NSA involved in gathering evidence against Ross Ulbricht?

    35:39 - Will the government eventually give up fighting internet commerce? Or will they just change tactics?

    37:32 - How can Snowden advocate freedom from a place like Russia?

    41:00 - How should we teach children about the Internet?

    43:43 - Under what conditions would Snowden return to the United States?

    Go here for full transcript, downloadable versions, and more links and videos: http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/02/25...

    Produced by Todd Krainin and Nick Gillespie. Cameras by Meredith Bragg and Krainin.

    Visit http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/02/22... for full text, links, and downloadable versions. And subscribe to Reason TV to be notified when new videos are released.

    jabbermocky
    As an analytical thinker, communicator and recovering professional journalist, I can thoroughly appreciate Ed Snowden's take on the benefits of using pseudonyms when releasing potentially incendiary ideas to the greater population. Fairly sure we both know that no critical thinking goes unpunished in America these days. Mission 1: Stay safe!

    Michael O'Rourke

    Being a former Army Ranger I find it difficult to understand how Americans support the Right to bear Arms but not the Right of Free speech and Privacy of communication. all three amendments have equal rights. While I don't agree with how Snowden leaked the 1984 Surveillance Corporations, I'm glad he did. Sua sponte, Uncle Mike

    Robert Van Tuinen2

    I am. the government intentionally hid this information and discredited and fire previous whistleblowers. What he did was right and necessary.

    Q Queuenstein

    "We want a government that is...small...and legitimate". SPEAK FOR YOURSELF! GOVERNMENT IS THE OPPOSITE OF LEGITIMATE. Government is a monopoly on violent coercive force, no matter how small. "Representing the people" is impossible without perpetrating evil on a large percentage. Demand 100% voluntary interaction now. No government=no rulers. We are not a government of law when The Constitution is up for "interpretation". The government is the biggest breach of contract and coersive force ever perpetrated on people. It's historical existance does not argue for its continued existance. Think: zero coersion. Pessimistic? Me too, but look at the social change enabled by digital communication. Look at the Free State Project, Look at cryptography; We may at least find a piece of freedom in this world of coersion and distrust. Things are bad but we are bound to hit bottom. Please applause.j/k.

    robinbuster

    amazing! This person's value system, sense of morality, loyalty to humanity and liberty is admirable. The people are starving for politicians with that kind of ethos. I wish Ron Paul run for president. I kinda like Bernie Sanders most out of the options offered in this election.

    Vlad Ratzen2

    snowden said "im an engineer not a politican". when you listen to Ed Snowden, you must recognize that he is in fact a great philosopher.

    when i listen to his answers when he was asked about the apple case. the things he said are exactly right without a single flaw in his descriptions. he described every single aspect and he showed us by doing that, what the apple case is really all about.

    he points out: it is important to make sure that a goverment does not allow backdors in encryption, but we have also to accept the reality that we are simply unable to protect us against the NSA surveillance apparatus. again snowden talks about NSAs (in my opinion) the very dangerous ability to store all communication data in advance. by the way: Russ Tice said more then once "they store everything indefinitely".

    what Snowden said about the apple case destroys the sophisticated narrative the media has created on purpose to suggest that surveillance can be avoided somehow. there is a nice article on reason.com talking in detail about the Apple case, and how it was planned well in advance.

    if i had a single chance to ask mr snowden one question i would ask him "Mr Snowden, do you believe what the goverment has told us about 9/11"? i am sure there was enough time for mr snowden to listen to a guy named David Chandler, or to take a look at the movie "HYPOTHESIS" for example.

    it might be interesting to watch his reaction.

    Fork Unsa1

    If EVERY gubermant agency had ONE person with BALLS like Snowden and told the truth about tyranny the American people (not to be confused with it's slimeball government) would be on the good path to taking our Republic back. Those who perform unconstitutional tasks, or enforce unconstitutional laws against their fellow Americans are TRAITORS and the modern day equivalent to Hitlers SS.

    dman john2

    Edward Snowden is a gifted outlier, born with genius brain. How I wish to be born with such mind.

    [Mar 12, 2016] Edward Snowden Speaks Out: I will not be able to return form exile

    Video... on 12.30 some assessment of Hilary email scandals. he think that she should face criminal procecution for mishanding emails while being Secretery State...
    www.youtube.com

    UPDATE 9/05/2015: In a rare exclusive interview from Russia, Edward Snowden states he would come back to the United States if he was guaranteed a fair trial. A fair trial is unlikely says ex-whistle-blower, Daniel Ellsberg. He would not be allowed to confront his accusers. He would not be allowed to testify in front of a jury. It would be like a closed military tribunal, and he would be locked up with no detailed press coverage.

    tags: update, edward snowden, hillary clinton, whistle blower, NSA, barack obama

    [Mar 11, 2016] The question is not to generate doubt about AGW, it is to show that science has not decided about the CO2 hypothesis despite claims to the contrary, and to tell people that they have nothing to fear from the climate so they can have one worry less.

    peakoilbarrel.com
    George Kaplan , 02/23/2016 at 3:09 pm
    Whether it is weather, climate change, El Nino or something new the state of Arctic Sea ice looks to be a major outlier at the moment (i.e. the winter maximum area/extent is well below anything seen recently and temperatures there are far above average, meaning ice volume is about to start falling when it should be still growing for a few more weeks).

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    The Arctic appears to act as a sort of overflow tank for northern hemisphere heat – i.e. excess heat gets dumped there by melting the ice without raising temperatures and in colder years the ice builds up ready for use next time. But if everything melts then this function goes away and the effects will be seen all over as more severe weather extremes.

    Javier , 02/23/2016 at 3:40 pm
    It is more complex than that. During winter sea ice acts as an insulator preventing the loss of heat from a warmer ocean to a colder atmosphere. Right now the Arctic ocean is cooling more and that heat is being mostly radiated to space, since it is dark most of the time.

    We cannot predict if this lower maximum will develop into a lower minimum or not.

    George Kaplan , 02/23/2016 at 5:00 pm
    Yes indeed very complex. That's why we have trained climate scientists and specialized institutions and places of learning where they understand these things in detail.
    chilyb , 02/23/2016 at 5:12 pm
    Javier, I would like to know more about your credentials as well.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/22/fossil-fuel-funded-report-denies-the-expert-global-warming-consensus

    Javier , 02/23/2016 at 5:37 pm
    Sorry chilyb,

    I do not provide any personal data over the internet. No exceptions.

    Ron has my full name since I published a guess article sometime ago in his blog, and can check my publication record anytime. I am sure he would call my bluff if I wasn't a real scientist. I would also provide it to him if he requested it. By email.

    Jef , 02/23/2016 at 5:40 pm
    Jav – Please tell me why it is so important for you to generate doubt about AGW. You have said that you care not one bit about the politics of the thing which is where it ALL plays out.

    By far the science is pretty clear and if even half of it is accurate humanity is in for one hell of a ride and there is even a possibility that it is a one way ride but you are making it your mission, going way beyond the pale, to refute all of it WHY?

    Javier , 02/23/2016 at 6:21 pm
    Jef, it is not important to me personally. I believe it is a non issue because there is no indication that global warming is going to proceed to the point of becoming dangerous. Peak oil is going to make it irrelevant.

    There are two reasons for me to care about climate change.

    The first is scientific curiosity. Climate change is one of the most interesting complex problems and is a very popular one. You can talk and discuss it with a lot of people, and new information is discussed widely.

    The second is that it makes me mad that all the people in the world are being scared by an unproven hypothesis that looks wrong on many issues and that is trying to invert the burden of proof.

    The question is not to generate doubt about AGW, it is to show that science has not decided about the CO2 hypothesis despite claims to the contrary, and to tell people that they have nothing to fear from the climate so they can have one worry less.

    GoneFishing , 02/23/2016 at 5:46 pm
    Interesting, since the thermal conductivity of water is 0.6 W/(m-K) and the thermal conductivity of ice is 2.2 W/(m-K). Just the opposite.

    Also cloud cover keeps much of the heat from going into space.
    "The multidecadal trends from surface observations over the Arctic Ocean
    show increasing cloud cover, which may promote ice loss by the longwave
    effect. The trends are positive in all seasons, "
    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~rmeast/ThesisSub.pdf

    [Mar 11, 2016] An impartial observer would acknowledge that global warming has been very beneficial to humanity, as the LIA was a terrible time and millions died because of pre-industrial climate

    peakoilbarrel.com
    . Javier , 02/23/2016 at 2:32 pm
    Not that I care for your candidates and nor do I sympathize with your somehow extremist (from an European pov) republican candidates, but the proposition that climate change is going to become dangerous is an unproven hypothesis not supported so far by any evidence.

    An impartial observer would acknowledge that global warming has been very beneficial to humanity, as the LIA was a terrible time and millions died because of pre-industrial climate.

    Robert , 02/23/2016 at 2:58 pm
    Javier,

    You should go stand in front of a large speeding truck on the highway because it's an unproven hypothesis that it will hit you.

    Please

    likbez , 02/23/2016 at 7:58 pm
    Robert,

    You should go stand in front of a large speeding truck on the highway because it's an unproven hypothesis that it will hit you.

    Really ? Are you claiming that standing in front of speeding truck is equal to doubts about global warning ? Unless this is not a well though out hyperbola you are sick, my friend.

    Classic mechanics is undisputable. So results of standing of an object with mass M in front of the truck with mass T and speed S are predictable to a high degree.

    Let's assume that global warning currently is happening as measured by average Earth temperature. But the assumption that it is happening due to human activity not some periodic cycle after which global cooling will re-emerge, is much less proven. Here we also need to include in the model the activity of Sun (big unknown which could have century long cycles), variations of Earth orbit, angle as well as possible speed of rotation variations, activity of volcanos, ocean currents and their long term dynamics, the level of transparency of the atmosphere (did you hear about such notion as "Nuclear winter") etc. Earth with its atmosphere is a very complex system and to predict how Earth climate will change with certain anthropogenic inputs is a very challenging task. Because there are not the only one you need to include in the model.

    The key problem is that for such a short period as one century it is unclear if we deal with human induced trend or some other trend correlated in time with a rise (and coming fall) of oil based human civilization which caused additional CO2 emissions (which still can be a contributing factor). And BTW what is the optimum temperature for the life on Earth ? May be it is higher then current. May be it is lower. But why it is assumed that temperature at the beginning of XX century was optimal for the life on Earth and should be preserved by all means?

    See for example http://euanmearns.com/global-warming-and-the-irrelevance-of-science/#more-12591

    Currently, there really is quite a lot of basic agreement within the climate science world: climate change exists; there has been warming since the Little Ice Age ended around the beginning of the 19th Century (well before emissions are regarded as contributing significantly); human emissions can contribute to climate change; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been increasing.

    None of this is controversial and none of this actually implies alarm. However, in the policy world, as emerges from virtually any reading of the current political discourse and its attendant media coverage, the innocuous agreement is taken to be equivalent (with essentially no support from observations, theory or even models) to rampant catastrophism. There are numerous examples of the issuance of unalarming claims (regardless of their validity or lack thereof) that are interpreted as demanding immediate action.

    Perhaps the most striking example involves the iconic statement of the IPCC: Most of the warming over the past 50 years is due to man. Is this statement actually alarming? First, we are speaking of small changes. 0.25C would be about 51% of the recent warming. Given the uncertainties in both the data and its analysis, this is barely distinguishable from zero. Evidence of this uncertainty is shown by the common adjustments of this magnitude that are made to the record.

    Why such an uncompromising attitude. Are you a religious zealot ?

    Did you study at school such notions as accuracy of measurements and error margins? What about statistical theory ? You remind me brave souls from EIA which provide four digits for measurements which at best has 1% error margin with some that has error margin closer to 10%.

    While I personally think the humans might be the reason. I at the same time consider it to be an unproved, albeit plausible hypothesis. The one that has the right to exist along with many others. For example, a model that explains this phenomenon by century long (or so) variations of activity of Sun would be OK in my book.

    Why this alternative hypothesis should be disregarded? Nobody measured activity of Sun for a century with any accuracy so this is just one unknown variable.

    See also

    http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf

    https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/7-theories-climate-change

    http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=6143

    http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/62168414/global-warming-critique-anthropogenic-model-consequences

    Javier , 02/23/2016 at 1:56 pm
    That's strange, Ron.

    Somebody should tell NOAA, because their Laboratory for satellite altimetry has not detected any increase in the rate of sea level rise for the last 24 years.

    Another case of different instruments saying different things?

    chilyb , 02/23/2016 at 2:47 pm
    from the article:

    "An international team of scientists dug into two dozen locations across the globe to chart gently rising and falling seas over centuries and millennia. Until the 1880s and the world's industrialization, the fastest seas rose was about 1 to 1.5 inches (3 to 4 centimeters) a century, plus or minus a bit. During that time global sea level really didn't get much higher or lower than 3 inches above or below the 2,000-year average."

    So before 1880, the fastest measured global sea level rise was only ~0.3-0.4 mm/year. The current rate of change, according to the NOAA altimetry chart above (1993-2016), is nearly 10x that.

    Javier , 02/23/2016 at 3:08 pm
    And why is that surprising?

    The LIA that ended around 1825-1850 was the coldest period of the Holocene, with the largest glaciers and lowest sea levels in thousands of years.

    Since then sea levels have been on the rise, but there is no discernible anthropogenic signature in that. It started long before our emissions and it would most probably proceed even if we reduce our emissions.

    This graph is from EPA using CSIRO and NOAA data.

    Dennis Coyne , 02/23/2016 at 3:38 pm
    Note the data ends in 2011 in the chart above.
    Javier , 02/23/2016 at 5:52 pm
    I have posted above the altimetry data between 1995 and 2015. No change in rate.
    Dennis Coyne , 02/23/2016 at 3:35 pm
    Looks like a statistically significant change in trend from 2012 to 2016. Perhaps you should have your eyes checked. :)
    Jimmy , 02/23/2016 at 4:15 pm
    Perhaps he should take a stats course. PhD!? I call bullshit.
    Javier , 02/23/2016 at 4:55 pm
    Hmm, you just said that 18 years is not enough, but now it appears that 4 is plenty. You are trying to have it both ways.

    That's the graph that I had, but as I showed above satellite altimetry does not show any acceleration in sea level rise, including data from 2015.

    Javier , 02/23/2016 at 5:26 pm
    Anyway your beloved IPCC does not believe sea level rise has shown any acceleration during the 20th century.

    Figure 3.14 from Chapter 3, AR5 WG1

    You can read it there, at section:
    3.7.4 Assessment of Evidence for Accelerations in Sea Level Rise

    There is no excuse to defend that sea level rise is accelerating, as the information is there for all to see.

    George Kaplan , 02/23/2016 at 3:09 pm
    Whether it is weather, climate change, El Nino or something new the state of Arctic Sea ice looks to be a major outlier at the moment (i.e. the winter maximum area/extent is well below anything seen recently and temperatures there are far above average, meaning ice volume is about to start falling when it should be still growing for a few more weeks).

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    The Arctic appears to act as a sort of overflow tank for northern hemisphere heat – i.e. excess heat gets dumped there by melting the ice without raising temperatures and in colder years the ice builds up ready for use next time. But if everything melts then this function goes away and the effects will be seen all over as more severe weather extremes.

    [Mar 11, 2016] IPCC does not believe sea level rise has shown any acceleration during the 20th century.

    peakoilbarrel.com

    Javier , 02/23/2016 at 5:26 pm

    Anyway your beloved IPCC does not believe sea level rise has shown any acceleration during the 20th century.

    Figure 3.14 from Chapter 3, AR5 WG1

    You can read it there, at section:
    3.7.4 Assessment of Evidence for Accelerations in Sea Level Rise

    There is no excuse to defend that sea level rise is accelerating, as the information is there for all to see.

    Reply

    [Mar 11, 2016] WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Cuban Bay of Pigs, Libya, Syria, Yemen, that is what the Democrats have done

    Notable quotes:
    "... What wars are you citing? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Cuban Bay of Pigs, Libya, Syria, Yemen,....that is what the Democrats have done. ..."
    "... The Reps are no peackeniks but somehow Democrats are better able to initiate and conduct war because people like you build myths that Democrats are more peace loving. Sorry, history does not support your view. ..."
    "... Hillary is by far the most dangerous because she has both Administration and Senatorial experience and knows how to muster support for her war mongering ways with the likes of Neo-cons and AIPAC'ers. ..."
    "... The RTP doctrine was born with the Balkan war, driven by Clinton and Blair, the latter advocating a ground assault, and Blair's military intervention in Sierra Leone, rebirthing the whole idea of British expeditionary forces ..."
    "... The proportion of superdelegates has actually increased from 14% to 20% of the total delegate count over the years since this was introduced (in 1982). So the Democratic Party have been adding more slots for party cronies and making the results less and less democratic. ..."
    "... Slick Willy/Obama moderate centrists running Dem establishment, same sleaze bags that did the welfare and justice reforms of 90s and deregulated WS in the first place ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com

    Ussurisk chrisbrown, 10 Mar 2016 08:48

    What wars are you citing? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Cuban Bay of Pigs, Libya, Syria, Yemen,....that is what the Democrats have done.

    The Reps are no peackeniks but somehow Democrats are better able to initiate and conduct war because people like you build myths that Democrats are more peace loving. Sorry, history does not support your view.

    Trump is impetuous and dangerous but he would be a lame duck president like Jimmy Carter; unable to muster Congressional support to do much of anything.

    Hillary is by far the most dangerous because she has both Administration and Senatorial experience and knows how to muster support for her war mongering ways with the likes of Neo-cons and AIPAC'ers.

    FrankBnov14 -> ID8020624 ,

    Since the Oligarchy supposedly control the media, the corporations, the money, the congress, the bureaucracy, the states, the armed forces, etc, why on earth would one alleged Lefty in the White House be 'very dangerous' for them? Even assuming he really wanted to be a real threat to them (as distinct from merely saying the things that get him votes), he simply wouldn't have the power to do any more than a few minor things that marginally protect the interests of the 99.9% of us who are not so-called Oligarchs.
    ID8020624 -> twistsmom ,
    Did you watch the debate tonight? He brought up all the coups. He is a Social Democrat, so was Allende and Albeniz.
    Cruz is a political whore, I am a simple Dem Socialist Bernie supporter.
    Cruz is a phony Jesus freak (was Catholic), I am an Atheist, like all Dem Socialists.
    Cruz is a Canadian, I am an American.
    Cruz is a transgender, I am straight.
    Cruz is a racist teabagger, who made fame by opposing even the most conservative Obama policies. I have Dr. King's portrait in my office and a fierce enemy of social injustice.
    Cruz is a demagogue, I simply pointed some historical facts (bloody Coups) and some of our historical atrocities around the globe.

    Super delegates are almost completely with HRC, the WS call girl. Why...do you think it is so?

    Again, Bernie is very dangerous for the ruling few that run this Oligarchy. He used the term Oligarchy again in this debate. And he stated again that this is not a democracy.

    PearsonGooner -> Christopher3175 ,
    All US presidents are owned by corporations and bankers, not just Hillary, her and Bill have their own criminal enterprise.

    All US presidents are war criminals at worst and blatant liars at best.

    Bernie will get lead poisoning from as assassins bullet if, in the unlikely event he becomes POTUS

    PearsonGooner -> Mei P ,
    Hillary and Bill are murderers, rapists, thieves, fraudsters and drug dealers. A long history of criminal violence. Google "Mena Airport" and take it from there, you will be busy for days.

    The elite don't care about you, they only care about their own access to your tax dollar.

    Do not vote for Hillary, the world will be a better place when she and rapist Bill swing from the end of a rope

    subgeometer -> john7appleyard ,
    Pally with Clinton , then with Bush.

    The RTP doctrine was born with the Balkan war, driven by Clinton and Blair, the latter advocating a ground assault, and Blair's military intervention in Sierra Leone, rebirthing the whole idea of British expeditionary forces

    Kira Kinski ,
    This is a cause worth fighting for. America is crumbling under our feet, yet the Uniparty continues to point us towards a downward spiral. But, the People have awakened. They realize the game is rigged. Nothing illustrates this better than Big Media and the DNC that marginalize Sanders and his message every chance it gets. Why? They obviously support the official Uniparty pick, Clinton. America is fortunate that Sanders has stepped up to face the Clinton campaign machine. Sanders wants to do what is best for America. Not the elite. But the People. Sanders has fought for civil rights and equality his entire political career. Name anyone else who has done this over decades. We can use them on the good ship Reclaim America.

    Join the political revolution of the People, for the People, by the People. Vote for Bernie. He is the only candidate running who is for all of us, because he cares...

    >>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpm4rjejFgQ

    If nothing else, America, please stop voting for the same crowd, the Uniparty; they are literally sucking the life out of the People and have been for decades (going back to Bill Clinton and beyond)...

    >>> www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html

    Let's fix America together. Now is a once in a lifetime chance for a reboot.

    Jerome Fryer -> DracoFerret ,
    The proportion of superdelegates has actually increased from 14% to 20% of the total delegate count over the years since this was introduced (in 1982). So the Democratic Party have been adding more slots for party cronies and making the results less and less democratic.
    ID8020624 ,
    Corporate media and Dem establishment campaign against Bernie's chances have completely backlashed. And the more he stays in the race, the more likely he will get the max number of pledged delegates or nomination.

    And the longer the race for nomination is, the more likely that the WS speeches, Sec of State emails, and bribes by foreign sleazy regimes to the Foundation will be exposed before nomination.

    Slick Willy/Obama moderate centrists running Dem establishment, same sleaze bags that did the welfare and justice reforms of 90s and deregulated WS in the first place, wanted Bernie out by last night;...thanks to Michigan...we will see them all in Philadelphia!

    The WS(Ruben, Summers, Geithner,...)/Clinton/Obama wing of the party will be buried by Uncle Bernie when all this is said and done, and with it the D-establishment media: msnbc athews, the executive Wolffe and te corporate-feminist Maddows!

    I am toasting over here,...Feeling the Bern!

    MaxBoson ,
    The truth is that before Tuesday's elections, Clinton was ahead of Sanders by 673 to 477 pledged delegates, and her lead is now 745 to 540-by no means insurmountable, as a recent NBC-Washington Post poll shows (the numbers don't sum to 100% because 'Other' and 'No opinion' replies were included): In December Clinton led Sanders 59% to 28%; in January 55% to 36%; in March 49% to 42%. These figures show that Hillary's lead is slowly but steadily evaporating.

    Anyone who believes that superdelegates can hand Clinton the nomination even if she loses the primary fight is betting the Democratic Party is willing to commit suicide: Sanders supporters already loathe Hillary Clinton, and if she is carried to the coronation throne on the backs of superdelegates, that loathing will multiply, and many of them will stay home or participate in a write-in campaign for Bernie, enough to cause Hillary to lose the general election. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her friends in the DNC will have achieved their goal: a woman will have been nominated, but at the price of making Donald Trump President, and having to find another name for their party-"Democratic Party" would hardly be fitting after such a betrayal.

    Martin Thompson -> smudge10 ,
    free trade is unfair trade it is like these subsidies on food where people pay tax and then farmers get money from govt to grow what they are told. Then there is free trade deal such as with europe where the american subsidised food too compete with the european subsidised food but there are differences in regulations so too compete fairly the europeans would have to reduce the regulations in a race to the bottom with the Americans who are already suffering from obesity.
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2015/12/ttip-disaster-left-brexit-would-be-worse

    amacd2 ,
    Here's my comment finally allowed to be published in the NYT today 3/8 after Michigan

    Bernie is on the Bern across America --- and he hasn't even fired a 'shout heard round the world' yet.

    When Bernie fires a non-violent 'shout heard round the world' to further ignite his & our "Political Revolution against Empire" the Bern will burn through the rest of the primary states.

    Understand that Bernie will increase both the enthusiasm and the education of Americans in evolutionary ways of understanding the essential need for the "Political Revolution against Empire".

    Initially, Bernie can point to the flaws and failures of a 'foreign policy' that does not serve the interests of Americans nor peace in our world, any better than domestic economic tyranny at home, because our country is being pushed by the same corrupted politics to "act like a global Empire abroad".

    Even the most trusted elder anchorman and author of "Greatest Generation", Tom Brokaw, on "Meet the Press" shocked Chuck Toad and other young pundits at the 'Round Table' when he explained, "When Trump and Cruz are talking about three year old orphans and refugees [from Syria to Europe], what we're really talking about is three year old orphans and refugees, caused by
    American policy".

    Such truth telling by older and politically experienced people like Bernie, Tom, and the late Walter Cronkite is what has radically changed, even Revolutionized the political landscape as it did half a century ago when such truthful shocks caused LBJ not to run and admit, "If I've lost Cronkite, we've lost the war"

    Quartz001 ,
    Looks like the corporate media attempts to keep Bernie Sanders coverage down, and making any attention they do give him negative isn't totally working... what will they try next?

    Corporate Media to Begin Adding Fangs to Images of Bernie Sanders
    http://www.theniladmirari.com/2016/03/corporate-media-to-begin-adding-fangs-to-all-images-of-bernie-sanders-and-push-narrative-storyline-fantasy-secretary-hillary-clinton-inevitable-democratic-presidential-candidate.html

    antipodes -> jambin ,
    I just don't like the slaughter of half a million Syrians and Libyans and 10 million refugees facing devastation of their lives just so the USA and NATO can control oil supplies out of the Middle East. Its not a good look Hillary.
    I'm not all that happy about the splitting up of Syria just to isolate Iran and destroy the Russian economy while risking a nuclear war.
    illary needs to explain why we can't have world peace because the insecurity and armaments industry makes so much money for the 1%. In fact Hilary needs to prove she cares about the worlds ordinary people like the Palestinians living under the yoke of the cruel oppresive Israeli Gogernment. And she would need to demonstrate her concern with policies to help the people living on the streets of America before I would support her.
    Junnie Quorra Lee -> Junnie Quorra Lee ,
    (Can Hillary be trusted? Also See:)

    Reich Risked getting fired from Clinton Admin by slamming Corporate Welfare
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffmvPuGxmzA&feature=youtu.be

    (RECENT!) Hillary Clinton's Email About Gay Parents Should Seriously Trouble Her LGBT Supporters
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/01/hillary_clinton_on_gay_rights_a_new_email_is_troubling.html
    Looks like she hasn't really "evolved" on LGBT acceptance, but is simply taking on positions that she thinks is politically beneficial to her, as usual. Much of her campaign platform (specifically her sudden focus on social and civil issues) is pretty much copied over from Sander's after all.

    Bernie Sanders Was For Transgender Rights Before It Was A Thing
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0kCDFxODx4

    Hillary Paid Herself $250000 From Campaign Funds
    http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-paid-herself-250000-from-campaign-funds /

    Hillary Clinton says outsourcing jobs is good for America (top 1%)
    http://realprogress.online/2016/03/05/hillary-clinton-told-crowd-outsourcing-good-america /

    Her shock when he says he supports Bernie Sanders (the "socialist", rather than Hillary, on Fox News) is priceless!
    https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/1080899312003122/?pnref=story

    Why I Switched My Support From Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders
    https://www.thewrap.com/carole-mallory-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-swtich-support-president-guest-blog /

    Hillary Calls for Michigan Gov's Resignation an Hour After Her Spox Slammed Bernie for Same (This pretty much sums up her dis-ingenious campaign)
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hillary-calls-for-michigan-govs-resignation-an-hour-after-her-spox-slammed-bernie-for-same /

    ---

    Racism is still alive. Black lives DO matter, and the things BLM activists are doing may look excessive, but I find it necessary if they are EVER to be heard by the government. Things are desperate now, and the Clintons has a hand in the current sad sate of things for African Americans due to the policies that they have pushed. Bernie have repeatedly highlighted how Black people in America is oppressed. Just look at the % of black vs white jobless rate, and % of black vs white people being jailed for weed possession. Something needs to be done. "Enough is Enough" as Bernie says.

    Clinton confronted for calling black kids 'super predators'
    http://nypost.com/2016/03/01/clinton-confronted-for-calling-black-kids-super-predators /
    Activist Ashley Williams Confronts Hillary Clinton On Calling Black People Super Predators
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwFii9IYTIw&feature=youtu.be
    Prominent Black Activists Want to Set The Record Straight On Hillary Clinton!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pACLnwDe7Ms

    [Mar 10, 2016] The Brazilian Earthquake The Empire Of Chaos

    Notable quotes:
    "... Brazil is corrupt to the core - from the comprador elites down to a great deal of the crass "new" elites, which include the PT. The greed and incompetence displayed by an array of PT stalwarts is appalling - a reflection of the lack of quality cadres. Corruption and traffic of influence involving Petrobras, construction companies and politicians is undeniable, even if it pales compared to Goldman Sachs shenanigans or Big Oil and/or Koch Brothers/Sheldon Adelson-style buying/bribing of US politicians. ..."
    "... The Central Bank still keeps its benchmark interest rate at a whopping 14.25%. A disastrous Rousseff neoliberal "fiscal adjustment" actually increased the economic crisis. Today Rousseff "governs" - that's a figure of speech - for the banking cartel and the rentiers of Brazilian public debt. Over $120 billion of the government's budget evaporates to pay interest on the public debt. ..."
    "... It's no coincidence that three major BRICS nations are simultaneously under attack - on myriad levels: Russia, China and Brazil. The concerted strategy by the Masters of the Universe who dictate the rules in the Wall Street/Beltway axis is to undermine by all means the BRICS's collective effort to produce a viable alternative to the global economic/financial system, which for the moment is subjected to casino capitalism. It's unlikely Lula, by himself, will be able to stop them. ..."
    "... These oligarchs,.. GOOD. Those oligarchs.... BAD. ..."
    "... The Oligarchs of the BRICS have been duped and co-opted by TPTB in the US. Their foot-dragging and lack or decisive and timely action means that their Window Of Opportunity is probably gone. The various Trans-Oceanic Trade Deals that the US has cooking is front-running their indecisiveness and lack of action. ..."
    "... They are 'toast', because these Trade Deals have the USD baked into them, and the combined GDPs of each Pact is far bigger than that of the BRICS. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Pepe Escobar, originally posted at SputnikNews.com,

    Imagine one of the most admired global political leaders in modern history taken from his apartment at 6 am by armed Brazilian Federal Police agents and forced into an unmarked car to the Sao Paulo airport to be interrogated for almost four hours in connection with a billion dollar corruption scandal involving the giant state oil company Petrobras.

    This is the stuff Hollywood is made of. And that was exactly the logic behind the elaborate production.

    The public prosecutors of the two-year-old Car Wash investigation maintain there are " elements of proof " implicating Lula in receiving funds - at least 1.1 million euros - from the dodgy kickback scheme involving major Brazilian construction companies connected to Petrobras. Lula might - and the operative word is "might" - have personally profited from it mostly in the form of a ranch (which he does not own), a relatively modest seaside apartment, speaking fees in the global lecture circuit, and donations to his charity.

    Lula is the ultimate political animal - on a Bill Clinton level. He had already telegraphed he was waiting for such a gambit, as the Car Wash machine had already arrested dozens of people suspected of embezzling contracts between their companies and Petrobras - to the tune of over $2 billion - to pay for politicians of the Workers' Party (PT), of which Lula was leader.

    Lula's name surfaced via the proverbial rascal turned informer, eager to strike a plea bargain. The working hypothesis - there is no smoking gun - is that Lula, when he led Brazil between 2003 and 2010, personally benefited from the corruption scheme with Petrobras at the center, obtaining favors for himself, the PT and the government. Meanwhile, inefficient President Dilma Rousseff is herself under attack engineered via a plea bargain by the former government leader in the Senate.

    Lula was questioned in connection to money laundering, corruption and suspected dissimulation of assets. The Hollywood blitz was cleared by federal judge Sergio Moro - who always insists he's been inspired by the Italian judge Antonio di Pietro and the notorious 1990s Mani Pulite ("Clean Hands") investigation.

    And here, inevitably, the plot thickens.

    Round up the usual media suspects

    Moro and the Car Wash prosecutors justified the Hollywood blitz insisting Lula refused to be interrogated. Lula and the PT vehemently insist otherwise.

    And yet Car Wash investigators had consistently leaked to mainstream media words to the effect, "We can't just bite Lula. When we get to him, we will swallow him." This would imply, at a minimum, a politicization of justice, the Federal Police and the Public Ministry. And would also imply that the Hollywood blitz may have been supported by a smoking gun. As perception is reality in the frenetic non-stop news cycle, the "news" - instantly global - was that Lula was arrested because he's corrupt.

    Yet it gets curioser and curioser when we learn that judge Moro wrote an article in an obscure magazine way back in 2004 (in Portuguese only, titled Considerations about Mani Pulite , CEJ magazine, issue number 26, July/September 2004), where he clearly extols "authoritarian subversion of juridical order to reach specific targets " and using the media to intoxicate the political atmosphere.

    All of this serving a very specific agenda, of course. In Italy, right-wingers saw the whole Mani Pulite saga as a nasty judicial over-reach; the left, on the other hand, was ecstatic. The Italian Communist Party (PCI) emerged with clean hands. In Brazil, the target is the left - while the right, at least for the moment, seems to be composed of hymn-singing angels.

    The pampered, cocaine-snorting loser candidate of the 2014 Brazilian presidential election, Aecio Neves, for instance, was singled out for corruption by three different accusers - and it all went nowhere, without further investigation. Same with another dodgy scheme involving former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso - the notoriously vainglorious former developmentalist turned neoliberal enforcer.

    What Car Wash has already forcefully imprinted across Brazil is the perception that corruption only pays when the accused is a progressive nationalist. As for Washington consensus vassals, they are always angels - mercifully immune from prosecution.

    That's happening because Moro and his team are masterfully playing to the hilt Moro's self-described use of the media to intoxicate the political atmosphere - with public opinion serially manipulated even before someone is formally charged with any crime. And yet Moro and his prosecutors' sources are largely farcical, artful dodgers cum serial liars. Why trust their word? Because there are no smoking guns, something even Moro admits.

    And that leads us towards the nasty scenario of a made in Brazil media-judicial-police complex possibly hijacking one of the healthiest democracies in the world. And that is supported by a stark fact: the right-wing Brazilian opposition's entire "project" boils down to ruining the economy of the 7 th largest global economic power to justify the destruction of Lula as a presidential candidate in 2018.

    Elite Plundering Rules

    None of the above can be understood by a global audience without some acquaintance with classic Braziliana. Local legend rules that Brazil is not for beginners. Indeed; this is an astonishingly complex society - which essentially descended from a Garden of Eden (before the Portuguese "discovered" it in 1500) to slavery (which still permeates all social relations) to a crucial event in 1808: the arrival of Dom John VI of Portugal (and Emperor of Brazil for life), fleeing Napoleon's invasion, and carrying with him 20,000 people who masterminded the "modern" Brazilian state. "Modern" is an euphemism; history shows the descendants of these 20,000 actually have been raping the country blind for the past 208 years. And few have ever been held accountable.

    Traditional Brazilian elites compose one of the most noxious arrogant-ignorant-prejudiced mixes on the planet. "Justice" - and police enforcement - are only used as a weapon when the polls do not favor their agenda.

    Brazilian mainstream media owners are an intrinsic part of these elites. Much like the US concentration model, only four families control the media landscape, foremost among them the Marinho family's Globo media empire. I have experienced, from the inside, in detail, how they operate.

    Brazil is corrupt to the core - from the comprador elites down to a great deal of the crass "new" elites, which include the PT. The greed and incompetence displayed by an array of PT stalwarts is appalling - a reflection of the lack of quality cadres. Corruption and traffic of influence involving Petrobras, construction companies and politicians is undeniable, even if it pales compared to Goldman Sachs shenanigans or Big Oil and/or Koch Brothers/Sheldon Adelson-style buying/bribing of US politicians.

    If this was a no-holds-barred crusade against corruption - which the Car Wash prosecutors insist it is - the right-wing opposition/vassals of the old elites should have been equally exposed in mainstream media. But then the elite-controlled media would simply ignore the prosecutors. And there would be nothing remotely on the scale of the Hollywood blitz, with Lula - pictured as a lowly delinquent - humiliated in front of the whole planet.

    Car Wash prosecutors are right; perception is reality. But what if it backfires?

    No consumption, no investment, no credit

    Brazil couldn't be in a gloomier situation. GDP was down 3.8% last year; probably will be down 3.5% this year. The industrial sector was down 6.2% last year, and the mining sector down 6.6% in the last quarter. The nation is on the way to its worst recession since…1901.

    There was no Plan B by the - incompetent - Rousseff administration for the Chinese slowdown in buying Brazil's mineral/agricultural wealth and the overall global slump in commodity prices.

    The Central Bank still keeps its benchmark interest rate at a whopping 14.25%. A disastrous Rousseff neoliberal "fiscal adjustment" actually increased the economic crisis. Today Rousseff "governs" - that's a figure of speech - for the banking cartel and the rentiers of Brazilian public debt. Over $120 billion of the government's budget evaporates to pay interest on the public debt.

    Inflation is up - now in double-digit territory. Unemployment is at 7.6% - still not bad as many a player across the EU - but rising.

    The usual suspects of course are gloating, spinning non-stop how Brazil has become "toxic" for global investors.

    Yes, it's bleak. There's no consumption. No investment. No credit. The only way out would be to unlock the political crisis. Maggots in the opposition racket though have a one-track obsession; the impeachment of President Rousseff. Shades of good ol' regime change; for these Wall Street/Empire of Chaos vassals, an economic crisis, fueled by a political crisis, must by all means bring down the elected government of a key BRICS player.

    And then, suddenly, out of left field, surges…Lula. The move against him by the Car Wash investigation may yet backfire - badly. He's already on campaign mode for 2018 - although he's not an official candidate, yet. Never underestimate a political animal of his stature.

    Brazil is not on the ropes. If reelected, and assuming he could purge the PT from a legion of crooks, Lula could push for a new dynamic. Before the crisis, Brazilian capital was going global - via Petrobras, Embraer, the BNDES (the bank model that inspired the BRICS bank), the construction companies. At the same time, there might be benefits in breaking, at least partially, this oligarchic cartel that control all infrastructure construction in Brazil; think of Chinese companies building the high-speed rail, dams and ports the country badly lacks.

    Judge Moro himself has theorized that corruption festers because the Brazilian economy is too closed to the outside world, as India's was until recently. But there's a stark difference between opening up some sectors of the Brazilian economy and let foreign interests tied to the comprador elites plunder the nation's wealth.

    So once again, we must go back to the recurrent theme in all major global conflicts.

    It's the oil, stupid

    For the Empire of Chaos, Brazil has been a major headache since Lula was first elected, in 2002 (for an appraisal of complex US-Brazil relations, check the indispensable work of Moniz Bandeira).

    A top priority of the Empire of Chaos is to prevent the emergence of regional powers fueled by abundant natural resources, from oil to strategic minerals. Brazil amply fits the bill. Washington of course feels entitled to "defend" these resources. Thus the need to quash not only regional integration associations such as Mercosur and Unasur but most of all the global reach of the BRICS.

    Petrobras used to be a very efficient state company that then doubled as the single operator of the largest oil reserves discovered in the 21 st century so far; the pre-salt deposits. Before it became the target of a massive speculative, judicial and media attack, Petrobras used to account for 10% of investment and 18% of Brazilian GDP.

    Petrobras found the pre-salt deposits based on its own research and technological innovation applied to exploring oil in deep waters - with no foreign input whatsoever. The beauty is there's no risk; if you drill in this pre-salt layer, you're bound to find oil. No company on the planet would hand this over to the competition.

    And yet a notorious right-wing opposition maggot promised Chevron in 2014 to hand over the exploitation of pre-salt mostly to Big Oil. The right-wing opposition is busy altering the juridical regime of pre-salt; it's already been approved in the Senate. And Rousseff is meekly going for it. Couple it to the fact that Rousseff's government did absolutely nothing to buy back Petrobras stock - whose vertiginous fall was deftly engineered by the usual suspects.

    The meticulous dismantling of Petrobras, Big Oil eventually profiting from the pre-salt deposits, keeping in check Brazil's global power projection, all this plays beautifully to the interests of the Empire of Chaos. Geopolitically, this goes way beyond the Hollywood blitz and the Car Wash investigation.

    It's no coincidence that three major BRICS nations are simultaneously under attack - on myriad levels: Russia, China and Brazil. The concerted strategy by the Masters of the Universe who dictate the rules in the Wall Street/Beltway axis is to undermine by all means the BRICS's collective effort to produce a viable alternative to the global economic/financial system, which for the moment is subjected to casino capitalism. It's unlikely Lula, by himself, will be able to stop them.

    Alok , Thu, 03/10/2016 - 21:04

    Pepe precise! Very good analysis...

    Kirk2NCC1701, Thu, 03/10/2016 - 21:04

    I warned you about this last year, when neither Russia nor China had their version of BIS/SWIFT online.

    Newsboy, Thu, 03/10/2016 - 21:04

    The Ides of March approaches. Ceaser's health is good.

    Relax!

    tarabel, Thu, 03/10/2016 - 21:04

    I see Pepe the Unrequited Leninist is still banging his drum. These oligarchs,.. GOOD. Those oligarchs.... BAD.

    As if Brazil needs ANYBODY else to show it how to play the corruption game.

    Kirk2NCC1701, Thu, 03/10/2016 - 21:12

    The Oligarchs of the BRICS have been duped and co-opted by TPTB in the US. Their foot-dragging and lack or decisive and timely action means that their Window Of Opportunity is probably gone. The various Trans-Oceanic Trade Deals that the US has cooking is front-running their indecisiveness and lack of action.

    They are 'toast', because these Trade Deals have the USD baked into them, and the combined GDPs of each Pact is far bigger than that of the BRICS.

    Math + Action beats Hope + Hype every time, kiddies. (Those of you who can't handle the Truth or the Cognitive Dissonance, had best go to their "Safe Space".)

    [Mar 10, 2016] Using a decent VPN for everything is rapidly becoming a must.

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jason , March 7, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    Using a decent VPN for everything is rapidly becoming a must. It probably won't protect you from the NSA, but it will do the job of protecting you from your own ISP.

    That you have to protect yourself from your ISP is becoming just one more part of the sad reality that is the modern United States.

    Reply

    NeqNeq , March 7, 2016 at 6:09 pm

    +1 to the VPNs.

    I would say Tor is about as good except that Google, Akami, and Cloudflare sites (cough NC cough) regularly block Tor exit nodes. Still, you get a little more hardening using Tor browser than other browsers (using defaults).

    bob , March 7, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    "Verizon Wireless" Even if it were possible to use a VPN with a phone, it would still be affected. It's a MITM (man in the middle) attack.

    The story talks about verizon wireless, not what would be called an ISP by most people- home internet. Fios, time warner, Comcast…etc

    Tor? Hahahahahahaha

    Jump right into that military intel briar patch, for security®.

    NeqNeq , March 7, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    Umm… I am not sure if you confusing VPN with something else, but yes. Its trivially easy to use VPN with almost any smartphone.

    As for Tor: i agree that State sponsor surveillance is still a risk, but as noted above, the topic was ISPs (and i mentioned websites). When you use a phone, your carrier acts as the ISP.

    Reply

    NeqNeq , March 7, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    Oh and for those who might care…

    The header with your unique identifier can be scrubbed out when your using a VPN. Verizon only sees that you "went" to the VPN address…all sites you visit see you as coming from the VPN address. Neither the two shall meet without further snooping (which is not covered by the injection Verizon does…that we know of).

    Pat , March 7, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Damn, I knew I should have gone through the process to remove the drm from my e books. I might have to look into doing that immediately. But first I should check how my couple of nook newstand subscriptions will be handled.

    Whew, I have time. That is in the UK. Still a good warning shot over the bow…

    Benedict@Large , March 7, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    "… But U.S. critics say that could allow foreign companies to use the agreement to invalidate U.S. safety rules and regulations."

    One thing no one much mentions is that the TPP allows foreign corporations the ability to sue to invalidate regulations, but does not all local corporations the same. In this, TPP privileges foreign over local production, and ensures a race to the bottom on product place of origin.

    hunkerdown , March 7, 2016 at 7:40 pm

    "A Party may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their
    territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public
    or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid
    serious prejudice to nature or the environment, provided that such exclusion is not
    made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by its law."

    I thought I saw the word morality some place else in the TPP, but apparently, the IP chapter was the only place. Bad research on my part! In any case, beware the ratchet clauses and the enemies within, lest your health system become just "Canadian™" enough for the world market.

    [Mar 09, 2016] The people of Michigan have spoken. They are not buying what Clinton, her corporate donors and media backers are selling

    Notable quotes:
    "... The comment that Clinton had seemed to have locked up the Democratic race last Tuesday is laughable now, but it was also way out of line last week. The idea that superdelegates will stay with Clinton if she falls measurably behind in the popular vote is very questionable. ..."
    "... Adding them now to her delegate total makes sense if you're trying to create a perception of inevitability for the candidate you've endorsed. Wake up, Times analysts. She's not inevitable any more than she was in 2008. ..."
    "... The recent polling average at Real Clear Politics placed Clinton ahead of Sanders in Michigan by 21.4%. Zero polls put Sanders ahead of Clinton. Polling organizations projected a Clinton victory chance at 99%. And Sanders just won the state. The victory is stunning. I strongly urge the pundits to revise their inevitability narrative and let the voters decide. ..."
    "... HRC is part of establishment that led to this demise. Thank you to the people of Michigan for choosing Sanders and Trump. You have a beautiful state! ..."
    "... When polls this morning showed Hillary 13% ahead of Bernie, NYTimes called Michigan a state whose diversity was almost perfectly representative of the nation. Now the goal post has shifted and Michigan is suddenly super-white. ..."
    "... Sanders has won in almost all of the states that Obama carried in 2008 and 2012; Clinton has won mainly in the Southern states which the GOP has won in every election since 1968. The DNC should wake up: Sanders is the better candidate. ..."
    "... It's going to be interesting how the super-delegates throw their support to. Right now Hillary is leading the delegate count and that lead is increased with a majority of the super-delegates. However, if this upset is followed by more in the future, those super-delegates may have a change of heart and we could have a very interesting summer in this election. ..."
    "... The rustbelt does not trust Hillary Clinton - and for a very good reason - NAFTA. ..."
    "... The Sanders Clinton divide is almost right on the Mason-Dixon Line thus far. These maps are quite remarkable. They also point to Sanders relative strength in contrast to the queen in a general election. He will carry Hillary's supporters much more so than her ability to expect the support of the Bernie people. ..."
    "... Dearborn, Michigan is about 30% Arab Americans. Early returns show a majority voted overwhelmingly for our first Jewish American presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders. What a wonderful thing that says about Democratic Party values and the people of Dearborn. ..."
    "... Breaking Bad - Michigan is the point the system went tilt. Bernie has the overwhelming white vote and now blacks are beginning going as well to Bernie. The Clinton Machine is running out of propaganda. People sees Bernie's Integrity ..."
    "... It seems that the newspaper of record will have to take a more careful look at its slanted election reporting. The degree of poor and irresponsible journalism from the New York Times regarding the Democratic primaries is astounding! I'm surprised that the Times was able to print the breaking news of a "significant upset over Hillary Clinton." All power to the 99%! ..."
    "... Bottom line: Take away the African American vote in the old South and Hillary is a non-candidate. ..."
    "... Hillary was going to shift to Trump and the General Election. NOT. SO. QUICK. Ms Clinton. You have just about run out of Old Confederacy States and the shine is off of your inevitability argument. Bernie warned the press not to underestimate him. He just won an industrial state with a significant minority population. ..."
    www.nytimes.com
    steve in nc, North Carolina 3 minutes ago

    Don't you think it worth mentioning that most of the states Clinton has won are almost certain to stay red in November? And that Sanders is winning the states Dems need to win in November, and outpolling her dramatically among independents everywhere? Still think she's most "electable"?

    The comment that Clinton had seemed to have locked up the Democratic race last Tuesday is laughable now, but it was also way out of line last week. The idea that superdelegates will stay with Clinton if she falls measurably behind in the popular vote is very questionable.

    Adding them now to her delegate total makes sense if you're trying to create a perception of inevitability for the candidate you've endorsed. Wake up, Times analysts. She's not inevitable any more than she was in 2008.

    Eric, Chicago 10 minutes ago
    The recent polling average at Real Clear Politics placed Clinton ahead of Sanders in Michigan by 21.4%. Zero polls put Sanders ahead of Clinton. Polling organizations projected a Clinton victory chance at 99%. And Sanders just won the state. The victory is stunning. I strongly urge the pundits to revise their inevitability narrative and let the voters decide.
    Just Me, Planet Earth 10 minutes ago
    Michigan serves as an example of the US as a whole- considering the fact that they are part of the rust belt. The manufacturing sector of the US that has been DECIMATED by NAFTA, NATO, TPP and other trade agreements that have ROBBED the middle class of hard working labor with DECENT pay, now we are forced to compete with cheap labor. HRC is part of establishment that led to this demise. Thank you to the people of Michigan for choosing Sanders and Trump. You have a beautiful state!
    Al, CA 10 minutes ago
    When polls this morning showed Hillary 13% ahead of Bernie, NYTimes called Michigan a state whose diversity was almost perfectly representative of the nation. Now the goal post has shifted and Michigan is suddenly super-white.

    In June we'll be hearing about how minority-majority California is grossly unrepresentative. Why not just admit that some people would rather vote for the man who went to jail

    Kevin Cahill, Albuquerque 10 minutes ago
    Sanders has won in almost all of the states that Obama carried in 2008 and 2012; Clinton has won mainly in the Southern states which the GOP has won in every election since 1968. The DNC should wake up: Sanders is the better candidate.
    Cassowary, Earthling 13 minutes ago
    Behold the revolution! The people of Michigan have spoken. They are not buying what Clinton, her corporate donors and media backers are selling.

    Listen up, Democrats. Don't try to fight the will of the voters and usurp Sanders if he wins nationally. Why destroy the party by undemocratically supporting Clinton through superdelegates and risk the meltdown the GOP is going through? Clinton is now the unelectable candidate. Adjust. Accept. Get ready for President Sanders, a true Democrat.

    Martha Shelley, Portland, OR 13 minutes ago
    Just yesterday the NY Times was telling us that Clinton would win a landslide victory in Michigan, and Sanders was history. Um, is this on the same level as the 1948 headline in the Chicago Tribune, "Dewey Defeats Truman?"
    Andrew L, Toronto 13 minutes ago
    "Mr Sanders, who won white voters in Michigan and is targeting them in coming Rust Belt primaries...."

    Wow. Just wow. And Sanders supporters say they are progressive. Has your country come to a point where candidates and their campaigns barely conceal their implicitly racist aims? This is utterly astounding and shameful.

    RCT 13 minutes ago

    Bernie won Michigan and, I believe, will win Ohio. It's not an "upset," NYT: it's momentum. Were it not for the African-American vote, the Clinton campaign would be in the tank. Maybe it's time to reconsider the received wisdom that "Bernie can't win"?

    Liberty Apples, Providence 13 minutes ago
    • Sanders - AND THE TRUTH - win in Michigan.
    • Clinton - AND LIES ABOUT AUTO BAILOUT - lose in Michigan.

    When will the Clintons ever learn? Bernie, congratulations!!

    Will Hicks , South Carolina 13 minutes ago

    It's going to be interesting how the super-delegates throw their support to. Right now Hillary is leading the delegate count and that lead is increased with a majority of the super-delegates. However, if this upset is followed by more in the future, those super-delegates may have a change of heart and we could have a very interesting summer in this election.
    This is purely opinion, but I feel confident saying that the next president of this country is going to come from the winner of this close Democratic Nomination. The Republican Party is very divided with Trump leading the way, and I cannot see the typical support from losing candidates thrown Trump's way should he win the nomination.

    mike , manhattan 16 minutes ago

    Bernie received almost 40% in Wayne County --Detroit, so let's end the fiction that Bernie can't win the African American vote. His message is spreading in urban America, which is where Democrats win elections.

    The Times unfairly uses the term "prolong" to describe this race. Let's see hoee Bernie does in Philly and Cleveland. Hillary is in big trouble.

    alchemistoxford, oxford, uk 47 minutes ago

    Very poor coverage of the big story of the night - Bernie Sanders beating Hillary Clinton in the rustbelt state Michigan. The rustbelt does not trust Hillary Clinton - and for a very good reason - NAFTA. The dynamics of the Democratic race have just been transformed. Michigan is a gamechanger.

    Billy , up in the woods down by the river 2 hours ago

    The Sanders Clinton divide is almost right on the Mason-Dixon Line thus far. These maps are quite remarkable. They also point to Sanders relative strength in contrast to the queen in a general election. He will carry Hillary's supporters much more so than her ability to expect the support of the Bernie people.

    This Michigan upset by Sanders over Clinton may prove to be historic.

    Mary Scott, is a trusted commenter NY 44 minutes ago

    Dearborn, Michigan is about 30% Arab Americans. Early returns show a majority voted overwhelmingly for our first Jewish American presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders. What a wonderful thing that says about Democratic Party values and the people of Dearborn.

    This is a beautiful night for Bernie Sanders and those of us who believe in him. I think he'll win but even if he doesn't, he proved his candidacyy is very much alive.

    Get ready to feel the Bern, Ohio!

    Janice Badger Nelson , is a trusted commenter Park City, Utah, from Boston 43 minutes ago

    If Hillary and Bernie were switched, you would have called it for her already in Michigan. CNN is doing the same. Sorry, the big story, even if Hillary squeaks out a narrow win, the BIG story is how well Bernie Sanders is doing. Of course by reading the NYTimes, you would never know. Sad state of honest journalism.

    arrot , NYC 41 minutes ago

    Breaking Bad - Michigan is the point the system went tilt. Bernie has the overwhelming white vote and now blacks are beginning going as well to Bernie. The Clinton Machine is running out of propaganda. People sees Bernie's Integrity

    Eddy90 , New York, NY 51 minutes ago

    What an amazing upset by Mr. Sanders. Huge upset and will probably define this race when it's all said and done. This is exactly what Bernie Sanders needed. The polls have been going against him in pretty much every state, but this one was over 10% for Hillary today as per the latest poll. We can't trust the media and the pundits. On to Ohio!!

    Howie Lisnoff , is a trusted commenter Massachusetts 32 minutes ago

    It seems that the newspaper of record will have to take a more careful look at its slanted election reporting. The degree of poor and irresponsible journalism from the New York Times regarding the Democratic primaries is astounding! I'm surprised that the Times was able to print the breaking news of a "significant upset over Hillary Clinton." All power to the 99%!

    mef , nj 1 hour ago

    Kudos to Hillary Clinton, favorite of the Republican South!

    Justicia, NY, NY 33 minutes ago

    Winning the Democratic primary in MS, LA or other deep south states is a far cry from carrying those states in the general election. Hillary is in trouble.

    David Gregory , Deep Red South 37 minutes ago

    Bottom line: Take away the African American vote in the old South and Hillary is a non-candidate. She is strong in states the Democrats will not carry come November. This despite having a huge advantage in name recognition, endorsements - including the NYT and WaPo, money and all the rest.

    If the goal is to win in November, Democrats had better wake up. As of this writing, NBC just called Michigan for Bernie where Hillary was supposedly up by 10+ Points.
    (10:35 PM CST)

    #FeelTheBern #NotReadyForHIllary

    The clown car on the Republican side is of no consequence. Bernie will wipe the floor with Trump.

    David Gregory , Deep Red South 36 minutes ago

    Hillary was going to shift to Trump and the General Election. NOT. SO. QUICK. Ms Clinton. You have just about run out of Old Confederacy States and the shine is off of your inevitability argument. Bernie warned the press not to underestimate him. He just won an industrial state with a significant minority population.

    [Mar 07, 2016] The Danger Of Media Blackout Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Of particular importance here is the term, "legitimate interests." With this term, the doctrine reveals that its goal is the suppression of other nations, regardless of whether their ambitions are reasonable or not. All that matters is US hegemony over the world. ..."
    "... Second, the sociopathic goals of those in power are a clear and present danger to the peace and well-being of the population. ..."
    "... "to combat and prevent Russian aggression." is merely NATO double-speak for... "To combat a Russian Counter-Attack to our First Strike to a National Coup. Bellarus is next. The boa-like encirclement of the USSR, er, I mean Russia , will continue." ..."
    "... Unfortunately for the war-makers, the game is up. More and more people have woken up to the lies. NATO has overplayed its hand, and its propaganda is just not believed any more. ..."
    "... WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. ..."
    "... The imperialism of the United States began well before Paul Wolfowitz. He's simply turned the tradition into one of perpetual warfare. When I think of Dantes nine circles of hell, I can't help but imagine him & Dick Cheney in the center. ..."
    "... We've been in a media blackout since November 22, 1963. ..."
    "... We had some dinner guests over, and the topic of the situation in Ukraine came up. I took the position that the US/EU helped stage the coup that tossed the elected government of Yanukovych, and that the current government is illegitimate, not to mention Nazi thugs. And that the trigger was Yanukovych intending to accept the Russian bail-out, turning his back on the punitive EU austerity program. I didn't even get into the US being pissed at Russia for blocking their Syrian/Assad regime change operation at the UN security council, and were intent on making Russia pay for their insolence. ..."
    "... Our guests were incredulous that I took that position, accusing me of falling for Russian propaganda. Their view is that it was a popular rebellion against a corrupt government, that Russia illegally and forcibly annexed Crimea, and that Russia continues to kill Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil. Any US involvement is/was for the good of the Ukrainian people. ..."
    "... Mission accomplished. And I don't see it changing. MSM blankets North America with western propaganda so thoroughly that otherwise intelligent people don't recognize it as such. Espousing an alternative worldview, and one gets labelled a conspiracy nut or a Putin sympathizer. Sooo Orwellian. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

    Recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held a press conference with about 150 journalists from around the world, including representatives of the western media.

    Mister Lavrov was brief and concise; however, the question period lasted for some two hours. A breadth of topics was discussed, including the re-convening of the Syrian peace talks in Geneva, diplomatic relations in Georgia and, tellingly, the increasingly fragile relations with the US. This has not been reported on in Western media.

    This followed close on the heels of reports (again, not to be found in Western media) that the US has quadrupled its budget for the re-armament of NATO in Europe (from $750 million to $3 billion), most of which is to be applied along the Russian border. The decision was explained as being necessary "to combat and prevent Russian aggression."

    It should be mentioned that this decision, no matter how rash it may be, is not a random incident. It's a component of the US' decidedly imperialist Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1992. This doctrine, never intended for public release, outlined a policy of military aggression to assure that the US would reign as the world's sole superpower and, in so-doing, establish the US as the leader within a new world order. In part, its stated goal is,

    "[That] the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests."

    Of particular importance here is the term, "legitimate interests." With this term, the doctrine reveals that its goal is the suppression of other nations, regardless of whether their ambitions are reasonable or not. All that matters is US hegemony over the world.

    Clearly, relations are reaching a dangerous level. The Russian message has repeatedly been, "Stop, before it's too late," yet Washington has reacted by stepping up its threat of hegemony. If the major powers do not call "time out", world war could easily be on the horizon . Yet, incredibly, it appears that the Russian press conference has received zero coverage in the West. No British, French, German, or US television network has made a single comment. As eager as the Russians have been to get the word out as to their concerns, there has been a complete blackout of reporting it in the West.

    Russia Insider has published an article on the internet, but little else appears to be available.

    Today, the internet allows us to tap into information from every country in the world. Both official and non-official versions of the reports are available, if we know where to find them. And for those who have the time to do so, and take the time to do so, it's possible to stay abreast of The Big Picture, although, admittedly, it's a major undertaking to do so.

    Separating the wheat from the chaff is the greatest difficulty in this pursuit; however, as events unfold, a trend is being revealed – that the world is becoming divided with regard to information. In most of the world, there's an expanse of available information, but, increasingly, the US, EU, and their allies are revealing a pattern of information removal . Whatever does not fit the US/EU position on events never reaches the public.

    A half-century ago, this was the case in the USSR, China, and several smaller countries where tyranny had so taken hold that all news was filtered. The people of these countries had a limited understanding as to what was truly occurring in the world, particularly with regard to their own leaders' actions on the world stage.

    However, in recent decades, that tyranny has dissipated to a great degree and those countries that had been isolationist with regard to public information are now opening up more and more. Certainly, their governments still prefer that their press provide reporting that's favourable to the government, but the general direction has been toward greater openness.

    Conversely, the West – that group of countries that was formerly called "the Free World" – has increasingly been going in the opposite direction. The media have been fed an ever-narrower version of what their governments have been up to internationally.

    The overall message that's received by the Western public is essentially that there are good countries (the US, EU, and allies) and bad countries whose governments and peoples seek to destroy democracy. Western propaganda has it that these bad countries will not stop until they've reached your home and robbed you of all your freedoms.

    The view from outside this cabal is a very different one. The remainder of the world view the attacks by US-led forces (Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Syria, etc.) as a bid for world dominance. In examining the Wolfowitz Doctrine, this would seem to be exactly correct.

    This is not to say, however, that the people of the NATO countries are entirely on-board with this aggression. In fact, if they were allowed to know the ultimate objective of the NATO aggression, it's entirely likely that they would oppose it.

    And, of course, that's exactly the point of the blackout. A country, or group of countries, that seeks peace and fair competition, with equal opportunity for all, need not resort to a media blackout. The average citizen, wherever he may live, generally seeks only to be allowed to live in freedom and to get on with his life. Whilst every country has its Generals Patton, its Napoleons, its Wolfowitzes, who are sociopathically obsessive over world domination, the average individual does not share this pathology.

    Therefore, whenever we observe a nation (or nations) creating a media blackout, we can be assured of two things.

    First, the nation has, at some point, been taken over (either through election, appointment, or a combination of the two) by leaders who are a danger to the citizenry and are now so entrenched that they have little opposition from those remaining few higher-ups who would prefer sanity.

    Second, the sociopathic goals of those in power are a clear and present danger to the peace and well-being of the population.

    In almost all such cases, the blackout causes the population to go willingly along each time their leaders make another advance toward warfare. They may understand that they will be directly impacted and worry about the possible outcome but, historically, they tend to put on the uniform and pick up the weapon when the time comes to "serve the country."

    Trouble is, this by no means "serves the country." It serves leaders who have become a danger to the country. The people themselves are the country. It is they, not their leaders, who will go off to battle and it is they who will pay the price of their leaders' zeal for domination.

    Kirk2NCC1701

    "to combat and prevent Russian aggression." is merely NATO double-speak for... "To combat a Russian Counter-Attack to our First Strike to a National Coup. Bellarus is next. The boa-like encirclement of the USSR, er, I mean Russia , will continue."

    FIFY

    BarnacleBill ,

    Unfortunately for the war-makers, the game is up. More and more people have woken up to the lies. NATO has overplayed its hand, and its propaganda is just not believed any more.

    http://barlowscayman.blogspot.com/2016/01/nato-overplays-its-hand.html

    hedgeless_horseman ,

    WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

    A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of
    the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
    of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge
    fortunes.

    In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new
    millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That
    many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war
    millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

    How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench?
    How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of
    them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun
    bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were
    wounded or killed in battle?

    https://archive.org/stream/WarIsARacket/WarIsARacket_djvu.txt

    Proctologist ,

    The imperialism of the United States began well before Paul Wolfowitz. He's simply turned the tradition into one of perpetual warfare. When I think of Dantes nine circles of hell, I can't help but imagine him & Dick Cheney in the center.

    SillySalesmanQu... ,

    We've been in a media blackout since November 22, 1963.

    MedicalQuack ,

    It's called News Rigging, 60% of what you read is written by bots, so just spin one up and off you go and works good to create knock off news too, technology is smarter than most realize. One guy wrote 10k books with a bot and put them on sale at Amazon..

    http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2015/04/news-rigging-has-arrived-astroturf-and.html

    swmnguy,

    Wolfowitz is just an apologist for what's already been going on. So is Zbigniew Brzezinski. It's the same insane megalomania Kubrick skewered in "Dr. Strangelove." By this time it's gone on long enough the host is being drained dangerously low. But it's not anything new.

    VWAndy ,

    Banker wars and fiat games in a never ending cycle.

    rainingFrogs,

    Well this information removal strategy seems to be working quite well.

    We had some dinner guests over, and the topic of the situation in Ukraine came up. I took the position that the US/EU helped stage the coup that tossed the elected government of Yanukovych, and that the current government is illegitimate, not to mention Nazi thugs. And that the trigger was Yanukovych intending to accept the Russian bail-out, turning his back on the punitive EU austerity program. I didn't even get into the US being pissed at Russia for blocking their Syrian/Assad regime change operation at the UN security council, and were intent on making Russia pay for their insolence.

    Our guests were incredulous that I took that position, accusing me of falling for Russian propaganda. Their view is that it was a popular rebellion against a corrupt government, that Russia illegally and forcibly annexed Crimea, and that Russia continues to kill Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil. Any US involvement is/was for the good of the Ukrainian people.

    Mission accomplished. And I don't see it changing. MSM blankets North America with western propaganda so thoroughly that otherwise intelligent people don't recognize it as such. Espousing an alternative worldview, and one gets labelled a conspiracy nut or a Putin sympathizer. Sooo Orwellian.

    [Mar 07, 2016] Do We Need To Rebuild The Military by Ron Paul

    Notable quotes:
    "... What does "rebuild the military" mean? Has the budget been gutted? Have the useless weapons programs like the F-35 finally been shut down? No, the United States still spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. And the official military budget is only part of the story. The total spending on the US empire is well over one trillion dollars per year. Under the Obama Administration the military budget is still 41 percent more than it was in 2001, and seven percent higher than at the peak of the Cold War. ..."
    "... Russia, which the neocons claim is the greatest threat to the United States, spends about one-tenth what we do on its military. China, the other "greatest threat," has a military budget less than 25 percent of ours. ..."
    "... I would rebuild it in a very different way, however. I would not rebuild it according to the demands of the military-industrial complex, which cares far more about getting rich than about protecting our country. I would not rebuild the military so that it can overthrow more foreign governments who refuse to do the bidding of Washington's neocons. I would not rebuild the military so that it can better protect our wealthy allies in Europe, NATO, Japan, and South Korea. I would not rebuild the military so that it can better occupy countries overseas and help create conditions for blowback here at home. ..."
    "... No. The best way to really "rebuild" the US military would be to stop abusing the military in the first place. The purpose of the US military is to defend the United States. It is not to make the world safe for oil pipelines, or corrupt Gulf monarchies, or NATO, or Israel. Unlike the neocons who are so eager to send our troops to war, I have actually served in the US military. I understand that to keep our military strong we must constrain our foreign policy. We must adopt a policy of non-intervention and a strong defense of this country. The neocons will weaken our country and our military by promoting more war. We need to "rebuild" the military by restoring as its mission the defense of the United States, not of Washington's overseas empire. ..."
    "... Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute ..."
    March 6, 2016 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
    The Republican presidential debates have become so heated and filled with insults, it almost seems we are watching a pro wrestling match. There is no civility, and I wonder whether the candidates are about to come to blows. But despite what appears to be total disagreement among them, there is one area where they all agree. They all promise that if elected they will "rebuild the military."

    What does "rebuild the military" mean? Has the budget been gutted? Have the useless weapons programs like the F-35 finally been shut down? No, the United States still spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. And the official military budget is only part of the story. The total spending on the US empire is well over one trillion dollars per year. Under the Obama Administration the military budget is still 41 percent more than it was in 2001, and seven percent higher than at the peak of the Cold War.

    Russia, which the neocons claim is the greatest threat to the United States, spends about one-tenth what we do on its military. China, the other "greatest threat," has a military budget less than 25 percent of ours.

    Last week the Pentagon announced it is sending a small naval force of US warships to the South China Sea because, as Commander of the US Pacific Command Adm. Harry Harris told the House Armed Services Committee, China is militarizing the area. Yes, China is supposedly militarizing the area around China, so the US is justified in sending its own military to the area. Is that a wise use of the US military?

    The US military maintains over 900 bases in 130 countries. It is actively involved in at least seven wars right now, including in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and elsewhere. US Special Forces are deployed in 134 countries across the globe. Does that sound like a military that has been gutted?

    I do not agree with the presidential candidates, but I do agree that the military needs to be rebuilt. I would rebuild it in a very different way, however. I would not rebuild it according to the demands of the military-industrial complex, which cares far more about getting rich than about protecting our country. I would not rebuild the military so that it can overthrow more foreign governments who refuse to do the bidding of Washington's neocons. I would not rebuild the military so that it can better protect our wealthy allies in Europe, NATO, Japan, and South Korea. I would not rebuild the military so that it can better occupy countries overseas and help create conditions for blowback here at home.

    No. The best way to really "rebuild" the US military would be to stop abusing the military in the first place. The purpose of the US military is to defend the United States. It is not to make the world safe for oil pipelines, or corrupt Gulf monarchies, or NATO, or Israel. Unlike the neocons who are so eager to send our troops to war, I have actually served in the US military. I understand that to keep our military strong we must constrain our foreign policy. We must adopt a policy of non-intervention and a strong defense of this country. The neocons will weaken our country and our military by promoting more war. We need to "rebuild" the military by restoring as its mission the defense of the United States, not of Washington's overseas empire.


    Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    [Mar 07, 2016] Vijay Prashad The Foreign Policy of the 1%

    Notable quotes:
    "... This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation process of global capitalism & its "1%" class. ..."
    "... One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating, is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination economic empire is the goal. ..."
    "... The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see the whole electoral mirage for what it is. ..."
    "... Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing, especially the race war against the Arab people. ..."
    "... Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump? ..."
    "... Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept. It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show. What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing. ..."
    "... Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more acute. ..."
    "... why do American politicians become incontinent when they mention Saudi Arabia ..."
    "... recycling mechanism for capitalism ..."
    "... there is a suicidal death pact between the West and Saudi Arabia ..."
    "... Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. ..."
    "... For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism) has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru history 'The 99%'...). ..."
    "... So long as he rises to militarily protect "National Interests" abroad - read: imperial billionaire class interests - he's really one of them. ..."
    "... He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor. ..."
    "... Excellent discussion and lecture. A very important part of the 'due diligence' of democratic participation and research by the people. ..."
    therealnews.com
    SettingTheNarrative, link
    Be nice to have a book called "The Foreign Policy of the 1%". Maybe include references to GATT, TPP, oil wars as mentioned in the presentation.

    Other questions:

    1) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to Economic Hitman, John Perkins?
    2) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to conservative founders like Jeane Kirkpatrick?
    3) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to rise to Regan Revolution? Trump?

    ForDemocracy, link
    This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation process of global capitalism & its "1%" class.

    Deepest thanks to Vijay Prashad...and to others like professor Bennis (present in the audience)... whose in-depth analysis of the system can, if studied, contribute to putting the nascent 'political revolution' Bernie calls for...into a real democratic movement in this country. We are so woefully ignorant as 'members of the 99%'- it seems worst of all in America-- intentionally kept isolated from knowing anything about this country/corporation's 'foreign policy' (aka as Capitalist system policy or 'the 1% policy) that Bernie cannot even broach what Vijay has given here. But he at least opens up some of our can of worms, the interrconnectdedness of class-interests and the devastation this country's (and the global cabal of ) capitalist voracious economic interests rains upon the planet.

    The Mid-East is a product of Capitalism that will, if we don't recognize the process & change course & priorties, will soon overtake all of Africa and all 'undeveloped' (pre-Capitalist) countries around the globe--The destruction and never-ending blur of war and annihilation of peoples, cultures and even the possibility of 'political evolution' is a product of the profit-at-any-and-all-costs that is the hidden underbelly of a system of economics that counts humanity as nothing. It is a sick system. It is a system whose sickness brings death to all it touches... and we are seeing now it is bringing ITS OWN DEATH as well.

    The '99% policy' (again a phrase Prashad should be congratulated for bringing into the language) is indeed one that understands that our needs --the people's needs, not 'national interests' AKA capitalist corporate/financial interests --- are global, that peace projects are essentially anti-capitalist projects.... and our needs-to build a new society here in the U.S. must begin to be linked to seeing Capitalism as the root cause of so much suffering that must be replaced by true democratic awakening a- r/evolutionary process that combines economic and civic/political -- that we must support in every way possible. Step One: support the movement for changed priorities & values by voting class-consciously.

    Trainee Christian, link
    The 1% or the oligarchy have completely won the world, our only way to fight against such power is to abandon buying their products, take great care on who you vote for in any election, only people who have a long record of social thinking should be considers. They can be diminished but not beaten.
    Sillyputta, link
    One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating, is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination economic empire is the goal.

    The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see the whole electoral mirage for what it is.

    denden11, link
    All of what's been said about the elites, the one percent, has already been said many years ago. The conversation about the wealthy elites destroying our world has changed only in the area of how much of our world has and is being destroyed. Absolutely nothing else has changed, nothing else.

    Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing, especially the race war against the Arab people. Meanwhile, as we continue to speak the ocean is licking at our doorstep, the average mean temperature has ticked up a few notches and we are all completely distracted by which power hungry corporate zealot is going to occupy the office which is responsible for making our human condition even more dire. The circus that is this election is merely a ploy by the elites to make us believe that we actually do have a choice. Uh-huh; yet if I were to suggest what REALLY needs to be done to save the human race I would be in a court which functions only to impoverish those of us who try to speak the truth of our situation objectively. The 'Justice' system's only function is to render us powerless. Whether one is guilty or innocent is completely irrelevant anymore. All they have to do is file charges and they have your wealth. Good luck to all of us as we all talk ourselves to death.

    Vivienne Perkins -> denden11, link
    Dear denden11: You get gold stars in heaven as far as I'm concerned for telling the exact truth
    in the plainest possible terms. Bravissimo. "Talk/ing/ ourselves to death" is, I'm sorry to say, what we are doing. I've been working on these issues for forty years, looking for an exit from this completely interlocked system. I'm sorry to say I haven't seen the exit. I do understand how we have painted ourselves into this corner over the past 250 years (since the so-called Enlightenment), but without repentance on our part and grace on God's part, we're doomed because we all believe the Big Lies pumped into us moment by moment by Big Brother. And it's the Big Lies that keep us terminally confused and fragmented.
    Trainee Christian ->Vivienne Perkins link
    Well-done, you know the truth.
    dreamjoehill -> Vivienne Perkins link
    Don't Believe the Hype was an NWA rap anthem over twenty year ago. I always liked the shouted line, "And I don't take Ritalin!"

    Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump?

    In defeat, will Sander's campaign supporters radicalize or demoralize into apathy or tepid support for Hillary - on the grounds that she's less of an evil than Trumpty Dumbty?

    If not defeated, will Sanders and his campaign mobilize the People to fight the powers that be? Otherwise, he has no real power base, short of selling out on his domestic spending promises and becoming another social democratic lapdog for Capital- like Tony Blair.

    Vivienne Perkins -> dreamjoehill link
    Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept. It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show. What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing.
    dreamjoehill -> Vivienne Perkins link
    As material conditions change drastically for tens of millions of USAns, the old propaganda loses effect. New propaganda is required to channel the new class tensions. Still an opening may be created. People can't heat their homes with propaganda, the kids are living in the basement and grandpa can't afford a nursing home and he's drinking himself to death. That's the new normal, or variations on it for a lot of people who don't believe the hype anymore.

    Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more acute.

    Interesting times.

    WaveRunnerMN , link
    Great work Vijay...got my "filters" back on. Cut and pasted original comment below despite TRNN labeling of "time of posting" which is irrelevant at this point.

    Wow...now that I got my rational filters back on this was a great piece by Vijay and succinctly states what many of us who "attempt" to not only follow ME events but to understand not only the modern history by the motives of the major players in the region. Thanks for this piece and others...looking forward to the others.

    WaveRunnerMN -> WaveRunnerMN link
    Posted earlier while my mind was on 2016 election cycle watching MSM in "panic mode"

    Thought this was going to be a rational discussion on US foreign policy until the part on ? "Trumps Red Book". I had hoped to rather hear, "The Red Book of the American Templars" ...taking from the Knights Templar in Europe prior the collapse of the feudal system. I will say that Vijay's comment on Cruz was quite appropriate though it would also have been better to not only put it into context but also illustrate that Cruz's father Rafael Cruz believes in a system contrary to the founding ideals of the US Constitution: He states in an interview with mainstream media during his son's primary campaign that [to paraphrase] "secularism is evil and corrupt". Here is an excerpt of his bio from Wiki:

    "During an interview conducted by the Christian Post in 2014, Rafael Cruz stated, "I think we cannot separate politics and religion; they are interrelated. They've always been interrelated."[29] Salon described Cruz as a "Dominionist, devoted to a movement that finds in Genesis a mandate that 'men of faith' seize control of public institutions and govern by biblical principle."[30] However, The Public Eye states that Dominionists believe that the U.S. Constitution should be the vehicle for remaking America as a Christian nation.[31]"

    Fareed Zakaria interviewed a columnist from the Wall Street Journal today on Fareed's GPS program and flatly asked him [paraphrased], "Is not the Wall Street Journal responsible for creating the racist paradigm that Trump took advantage of "? Let us begin with rational dialogue and not demagogy. Quite frankly with regard to both Cruz and Trump [in context of the 2016 elections cycle] a more insightful comment would have been...Change cannot come from within the current electoral processes here in the US with Citizen's United as its "masthead" and "Corporations are people as its rallying cry"!

    Alice X link
    Thank you, a valuable piece. There are a number of takeaway quotes, but the ringer for me was from Ray McGovern (rhetorically):
    why do American politicians become incontinent when they mention Saudi Arabia

    Shortly thereafter Vijay Prashad in what he calls the Saudi post 1970s recycling mechanism for capitalism says:

    there is a suicidal death pact between the West and Saudi Arabia
    WaveRunnerMN ->Alice X link
    Not the West....just the F.I.R.E industries...driving the housing bubble; shopping malls; office buildings; buying municipal bonds [as they the municipalities bought and built prisons; jails; SWAT vehicles and security equipment (developed by the Israelis); and keeping the insurance companies afloat while AllState had time after Katrina to pitch their subsidiaries allowing these subsidiaries to file for bankruptcy]...now all the maintenance expense is coming due and cities and counties are going broke... along with the Saudi investments here in US.
    itsthethird link
    Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. What about the 99 percent? While populations simply need and want also income and investment security globally.

    What about populations in massive consumer debt for education, housing, etc. to fund one percent Growth. Laborers across globe are all in same boat simply labor for food without anything else to pass along to progeny but what is most important ethics. A world government established by corporatism advantage by authority of law and advantage all directed toward endless returns to oligarchy family cartels is not an acceptable world organization of division of resources because it is tranny, exclusive, extraction and fraudulent. Such madness does NOT float all boats.

    All this while oligarchs control Taxation of government authority and hidden excessive investment and fraud return taxation. While Governments in west don't even jail corporate criminals while west claims law is just while skewed in favor of protecting one percent, their returns on investment and investments. Billionaires we find in some parts of so called Unjust regions of world not yet on board with cartel game are calling out fraud that harms individuals and society aggressively.

    TEHRAN, Iran - An Iranian court has sentenced a well-known tycoon to death for corruption linked to oil sales during the rule of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the judiciary spokesman said Sunday.

    Babak Zanjani and two of his associates were sentenced to death for "money laundering," among other charges, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejehi said in brief remarks broadcast on state TV. He did not identify the two associates. Previous state media reports have said the three were charged with forgery and fraud.

    "The court has recognized the three defendants as 'corruptors on earth' and sentenced them to death," said Ejehi. "Corruptors on earth" is an Islamic term referring to crimes that are punishable by death because they have a major impact on society. The verdict, which came after a nearly five-month trial, can be appealed.

    sisterlauren link
    Looking forward to a transcript. I really enjoyed listening to this live yesterday.
    aprescoup link
    So when Bernie winds up on the regime change band wagon (of mostly leftist governments) and stays silent in the face of US aided and approved of coups (Honduras/Zelaya being the next most recent before Ukraine) while railing against the billionaire class on Wall Street and the neoliberal trade agreements, he's not only missing the elephant in the room; he's part of this elephant.
    ForDemocracy -> aprescoup link
    For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism) has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru history 'The 99%'...).

    And as all past power-elites have done, our '1%' has misread the age-old evolution of culture when an old system NO LONGER WORKS that makes freedom, imagination & rebellion more acceptable more attractive, more exciting and NECESSARY. Then, once energized BY NEED, DESIRE, and yes HOPE....change begins and can't be stopped like a slow-moving rain that keeps moving. As with past eras & past changes, in our own day this 'millennial plus 60's' powerful generational tide is JUST BEGINNING to feel our strength & ability. Turning what was supposed to be a globalist-coronation into what right now certainly seems like a step towards real change, towards building a recognition of the power, we 'the 99%' can --IF WE ACT WISELY & WITH COMMITTMENT begin the work of creating a new world.

    Criticising Bernie is criticizing the real way progress works...We need to get out of an ego-centric adolescent approach to human problem-solving, understand we need to keep our movement growing even if it doesn't look the WAY WE EXPECTED IT TO LOOK...keep clear on GOALS that Bernie's campaign is just a part of. The 'left' needs to recognize its our historic moment: to either move ahead or SELF-destruct.. Impatience needs to be replaced by a serious look down the road for our children's future. If we don't, the power elite of the System wins again (vote Hillary?? don't vote??). We need to take a breath & rethink how change really happens because this lost opportunity Is a loss we can no longer afford. The movement must be 'bigger than Bernie'.

    WaveRunnerMN -> aprescoup link
    I just hope he does not get forced to resign which the L-MSM is now beginning to parrot so Hillary can win given the huge turnouts the Repugs are getting in the primaries. I want to see four candidates at the National Convention...in addition to Third parties.
    itsthethird -> aprescoup, link
    No one can be elected Commander and Chief by stating they will not defend oligarchs interests as well as populations interests. We agree populations interests are negated and subverted all over earth . That cannot be changed by armed rebellion but it can be changed by electing electable voices of reason such as Sanders. Sanders will fight to protect populations and resist oligarchy war mongering while holding oligarchs accountable. Sanders will address corrupted law and injustice. Vote Sanders.
    Trainee Christian -> itsthethird, link
    You are probably correct in your thinking, but the real power will never allow any potential effective changes to the system that is. People who try usually end up dead.
    itsthethird -> Trainee Christian , link
    This is why we must as citizens become active players in government far greater then we are today, we must do far more then voting. We must have time from drudgery of earning a substandard wage that forces most to have little time for advancing democracy. Without such time oligarchs and one percent end-up controlling everything.

    We can BEGIN the march toward mountain top toward socializations which will promote aware individualizations. We don't expect we will advance anything without oppositions in fact we expect increased attacks. Those increased attacks can become our energy that unites masses as we all observe the insanity they promote as our direction. We merely must highlight insanity and path forward toward sanity. Nothing can make lasting change this generation the march will take generations. The speed advance only will depend on how foolish oligarchs are at attempts to subvert public awareness seeking change. As they become more desperate our movements become stronger. We must refrain from violence for that is only thing that can subvert our movement.

    aprescoup -> itsthethird link
    So long as he rises to militarily protect "National Interests" abroad - read: imperial billionaire class interests - he's really one of them.

    Maybe this will help:

    Vijay Prashad: The Foreign Policy of the 1% - http://therealnews.com/t2/inde...

    Johnny Prescott -> itsthethird link
    What exactly leads you to contend that Sanders is going to "resist oligarchy war mongering"?
    aprescoup -> sisterlauren link
    He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor.

    Instead he does the LOTE thing for the neoliberal-neocon party "D". That's just dishonest bullshit opportunism.

    Rob M -> aprescoup link
    Opportunism with good intent...I'll take that.
    jo ellis , link
    Do not receives daily email for a long time without clue why? so haven't in contact with TRN's daily report until subject video appears on youtube website. and impressed by the panelists's congregated pivotal works done thru all these years.
    Serenity NOW , link
    important lecture for those who want to better understand the crises of capitalism and globalization.
    William W Haywood , link
    Excellent discussion and lecture. A very important part of the 'due diligence' of democratic participation and research by the people.

    [Mar 07, 2016] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Murder Is Washington's Foreign Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington has a long history of massacring people, for example, the destruction of the Plains Indians by the Union war criminals Sherman and Sheridan and the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese civilian populations, but Washington has progressed from periodic massacres to fulltime massacring. From the Clinton regime forward, massacre of civilians has become a defining characteristic of the United States of America. ..."
    "... Washington is responsible for the destruction of Yugoslavia and Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and part of Syria. Washington has enabled Saudi Arabia's attack on Yemen, Ukraine's attack on its former Russian provinces, and Israel's destruction of Palestine and the Palestinian people. ..."
    "... In a recent article , Mattea Kramer points out that Washington has added to its crimes the mass murder of civilians with drones and missile strikes on weddings, funerals, children's soccer games, medical centers and people's homes. Nothing can better illustrate the absence of moral integrity and moral conscience of the American state and the population that tolerates it than the cavalier disregard of the thousands of murdered innocents as "collateral damage." ..."
    "... violence creates terrorists ..."
    "... The only possible conclusion is that under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama the US government has become an unaccountable, lawless, criminal organization and is a danger to the entire world and its own citizens. ..."
    ronpaulinstitute.org

    Washington has a long history of massacring people, for example, the destruction of the Plains Indians by the Union war criminals Sherman and Sheridan and the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese civilian populations, but Washington has progressed from periodic massacres to fulltime massacring. From the Clinton regime forward, massacre of civilians has become a defining characteristic of the United States of America.

    Washington is responsible for the destruction of Yugoslavia and Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and part of Syria. Washington has enabled Saudi Arabia's attack on Yemen, Ukraine's attack on its former Russian provinces, and Israel's destruction of Palestine and the Palestinian people.

    The American state's murderous rampage through the Middle East and North Africa was enabled by the Europeans who provided diplomatic and military cover for Washington's crimes. Today the Europeans are suffering the consequences as they are over-run by millions of refugees from Washington's wars. The German women who are raped by the refugees can blame their chancellor, a Washington puppet, for enabling the carnage from which refugees flee to Europe.

    In a recent article, Mattea Kramer points out that Washington has added to its crimes the mass murder of civilians with drones and missile strikes on weddings, funerals, children's soccer games, medical centers and people's homes. Nothing can better illustrate the absence of moral integrity and moral conscience of the American state and the population that tolerates it than the cavalier disregard of the thousands of murdered innocents as "collateral damage."

    If there is any outcry from Washington's European, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassals, it is too muted to be heard in the US.

    As Kramer points out, American presidential hopefuls are competing on the basis of who will commit the worst war crimes. A leading candidate has endorsed torture, despite its prohibition under US and international law. The candidate proclaims that "torture works" - as if that is a justification - despite the fact that experts know that it does not work. Almost everyone being tortured will say anything in order to stop the torture. Most of those tortured in the "war on terror" have proven to have been innocents. They don't know the answers to the questions even if they were prepared to give truthful answers. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn relates that Soviet dissidents likely to be picked up and tortured by the Soviet secret police would memorize names on gravestones in order to comply with demands for the names of their accomplices. In this way, torture victims could comply with demands without endangering innocents.

    Washington's use of invasion, bombings, and murder by drone as its principle weapon against terrorists is mindless. It shows a government devoid of all intelligence, focused on killing alone. Even a fool understands that violence creates terrorists. Washington hasn't even the intelligence of fools.

    The American state now subjects US citizens to execution without due process of law despite the strict prohibition by the US Constitution. Washington's lawlessness toward others now extends to the American people themselves.

    The only possible conclusion is that under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama the US government has become an unaccountable, lawless, criminal organization and is a danger to the entire world and its own citizens.

    Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org.

    [Mar 07, 2016] Who gassed Kurd

    therealnews.com

    Michael Wilk , link

    Iran did use cyanide-based chemicals during the war with Iraq. Evidence suggests that Kurdish rebels alleged to have been gassed by Saddam Hussein were in fact killed by chemicals Iran was known to have at the time but which Iraq did not possess. This is the battle of Halabja. So Mr. Prashad should do his homework a little more.
    gustave courbet -> Michael Wilk, link
    While mainstream treatments of history are sometimes biased, half-truths, or out-right fabrications, the general consensus in this case is that the Iraqi military used chemical weapons at the battle of Halabja:

    "The Iraqis launched the deadliest chemical weapons attacks of the war.
    The Republican Guard launched 700 chemical shells, while the other
    artillery divisions launched 200–300 chemical shells each, unleashing a
    chemical cloud over the Iranians, killing or wounding 60% of them, the
    blow was felt particurarly by the Iranian 84th infantry division and
    55th paratrooper division.[98] The Iraqi special forces then stopped the remains of the Iranian force.[98] In retaliation for Kurdish collaboration with the Iranians, Iraq launched a massive poison gas attack against Kurdish civilians in Halabja, recently taken by the Iranians, killing thousands of civilians.[145]
    Iran airlifted foreign journalists to the ruined city, and the images
    of the dead were shown throughout the world. However, Western mistrust
    of Iran and collaboration with Iraq led them to also blame Iran for the
    attack. At one point, the United States claimed that Iran had launched
    the attack and then tried to blame Iraq for it." [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]

    I'd be curious as to the sources of your alternative reading of this infamous event, particularly considering the well-known persecution of the Iraqi Kurdish population by Hussein's regime.

    Michael Wilk -> gustave courbet link
    While it is true that Iraq used mustard gas at Halabja, it is also true that Iran also used chemical weapons and that the conditions of the corpses of Kurdish guerillas indicated the use of cyanide-based agents Iraq was known not to have in its possession, but which the Iranians were known to employ. The lie of omission here is the downplaying of the use of chemical weapons by Iran in the battle of Halabja, a major water irrigation center crucial to the region. Using chemical weapons in battle is indeed bad, but it's not on the same level as Saddam Hussein waking up one day and deciding he wanted to gas several thousand Kurds, which was the charge made against him in the run-up to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.
    Sillyputta -> Michael Wilk link
    Why would Iran drop poison gas on Kurds? Kurds would be their natural ally, so just from a strategic point of view it makes no sense that the Iranians were responsible. Of course, Hussein was against the Kurds and well as the Shia, so his doing it makes perfect sense.
    Michael Wilk -> Sillyputta link
    It was probably unintentional. It was a battle and both sides were using chemical weapons. People got caught in the crossfire most likely.
    gustave courbet -> Michael Wilk link
    I gathered your position from your original remark, and appreciate the elaboration but was curious as to your sources. I'm also curious as to who would be motivated to downplay Iran's possible usage of chemical weapons, as the US initially blamed them instead of America's tentative ally Iraq at the time.
    Michael Wilk -> gustave courbet link
    See my comment in reply to Brotha Ray. Links are embedded. Pelletiere was the senior CIA analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and has access to previously classified documents pertaining to that war. The spin coming out of the White House in the run up to the invasion of Iraq sought to downplay or even ignore Iran's role in the gassing of Kurds, unintentional though it probably was, because they were looking for excuses to justify deposing Saddam Hussein.
    Michael Wilk ->Brotha Ray link
    Tell that to Stephen C. Pelletiere , the senior analyst on the Iran-Iraq war .
    Tabun is a crude agent; however the Iraqis are believed to have developed sarin, a more sophisticated variety that acts like tabun. This was supposedly employed during the 1988 attack on the Al Faw peninsula, and in several of the other operations which made up the Tawakalna Ala Allah campaign. However, we doubt this was the case. Similarly, we find no evidence whatsoever that the Iraqis have ever employed blood gasses such as cyanogen chloride or hydrogen cyanide.

    Blood agents were allegedly responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in the war-the killing of Kurds at Halabjah. Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two agents -- and the Iranians do -- we conclude that the Iranians perpetrated this attack. It is also worth noting that lethal concentrations of cyanogen are difficult to obtain over an area target, thus the reports of 5,000 Kurds dead in Halabjah are suspect.

    Kind of destroys a chief rationalization for invading and occupying Iraq in 2003, doesn't it? Yes, Hussein's use of chemical weapons was bad, but it too place during battle between Iraqi and Iranian forces and Iranian-used chemicals appear to be what caused the deaths of Kurdish guerillas who, by the way, were fighting alongside Iranian forces. They appear to have taken friendly fire. That is not remotely the same as Hussein deciding to gas Kurds, which was the accusation made against him.

    [Mar 06, 2016] Saudis Awarded Frances Highest National Honor For Fight Against Terrorism Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... the ISIS that made it ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    There is perhaps no more perverse relationship in the world than that which exists between the West and Saudi Arabia - or, "the ISIS that made it," as Kamel Daoud, a columnist for Quotidien d'Oran, and the author of "The Meursault Investigation" calls the kingdom.

    We've been over and over the glaring absurdity inherent in the fact that the US and its partners consider the kingdom to be an "ally" in the fight against terrorism and you can read more in the article linked above, but the problem is quite simply this: the Saudis promote and export an ultra orthodox, ultra puritanical brand of Sunni Islam that is virtually indistinguishable from that espoused by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and many of the other militant groups the world generally identifies with "terrorism."

    Wahhabism - championed by the Saudis - is poisonous, backward, and fuels sectarian strife as well as international terrorism. That's not our opinion. It's a fact.

    But hey, Riyadh has all of the oil, so no harm, no foul right?

    Even as the very same ideals exported by Riyadh inspire the ISIS jihad, the kingdom is so sure it has the political world in its pocket that it sought a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, even as the country continues to carry out record numbers of executions.

    They even had the nerve to establish what they called a 34-state Islamic military alliance against terrorism in December. Of course the members don't include Shiite Iran (the Saudis' mortal enemy) or Shiite Iraq, both of which are actually fighting terror rather than bombing civilians in Yemen and engaging in Wahhabist proselytizing.

    But while everyone in the world is well aware of just how silly the "alliance" is, the farce will apparently continue as French President Francois Hollande on Friday awarded Crown Prince Mohammed bin Naif France's highest national honor, the Legion of Honor for "for his efforts in the region and around the world to combat extremism and terrorism."

    [Mar 04, 2016] After southern setbacks can Bernie Sanders revolution just be white?

    Notable quotes:
    "... you mean like superpredators? Hillary has gone from working for Goldwater to stop the civil rights movement in its tracks, to working for Goldman sachs. ..."
    "... Stop scapegoating blacks. Why don't you blame Hispanics? They voted for her over Sanders 2 to 1 in Texas. ..."
    "... To the race issue: Black voters didn't reject Sanders' platform, this is a bunch of nonsense. They rejected, in part, the unknown. Black people in the South are SOUTHERNERS. Yes, they are also Black, a demographic in which there exists substantial diversity that many overlook, but Southerners tend to be conservative, and this has to do with the issue of Southern identity more generally, which isn't irrelevant to black folks. ..."
    "... Another point: Blacks in the South may not feel they have the luxury to risk their vote on an idealistic candidate they don't really know, even if they like his ideas. ..."
    "... Hispanic voters voted strongly for Bernie in Colorado. Perhaps African-Americans living in the South need to find out Sanders positions prior to voting for Hillary. Some of his positions might have been more in line with their thinking now that it is 2016. ..."
    "... the Clintons have vacationed there for many years; they raise a lot of money there and are extremely well-connected with the MA Dem Machine, which is one of the most highly organized in the country. The Boston Globe and the rest of the MSM were for her. There is a long history. In 2008, Hillary beat Obama in MA by 15.4%, and that's with Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama. ..."
    "... So, for Bernie to get within 2 points of her is an amazingly strong showing. Knock it off with the "liberal state Sanders should have won" - this is just a MSM line trying to make Bernie's strong showing look weak. Not the case. ..."
    "... Hey, guess what? There are all different kinds of black people. I suppose that might be a little difficult for MSM to understand. Black people have regional differences, just like white people do. Yes, really. ..."
    "... Last I checked, African Americans and self-identifying "black" people constituted about 13 percent of U.S. population and, thanks to mandatory sentencing policies adopted or enacted under the [Bill] Clinton administration, actually make up an even smaller percentage of Americans eligible to vote. ..."
    "... How, then, did the Democratic Party decide to make its nominating process so skewed toward minority voters in Southern states the eventual Democratic nominee might be less likely to carry? But let's ignore, for the moment, the structural 'rigging' of a primary schedule ..."
    "... Goldman Sachs ran the Clinton White House and has paid Hillary hundreds of thousands in "speaker's fees". Goldman owns her. ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders did lead the civil rights movement and joined CORE,at the expense of his studies at the University of Chicago! He was arrested in a demonstration against discrimination in housing! Why do you mock this? And why do African Americans not recognize the good will of Sanders? What about anti-semitism? ..."
    "... It really has not been demonstrated that Goldman Sachs and HRC connection are all that bad. An excellent article about it all... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/is-goldman-sachs-the-root-of-all-evil/20210 / ..."
    "... Clinton was nearly mocking Sanders' positions until she saw how many people they resonate with, and then she simply adopted them for herself. But the problem with that is she every few days runs back to Wall Street ( or Wall Street comes to her ) to have her meetings with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimin at Chase and a few 'BFF' hedge fund managers to get her marching orders and some money and then she heads back out on the trail talking tough about breaking up the big banks, "if they need to be broken up". ..."
    "... The majority of blacks, 55%, live in the South, yet the DNC has seen fit to upload those Red/Black states in the nomination process, knowing full well that they are Republican states. Where is the logic in that? ..."
    "... African Americans could have closed this deal. I think they have made a "huge" mistake, Hillary will do nothing for the poor in general. But we will see I guess ..."
    "... It is rather remarkable how the Bush/Obama regime candidate - Clinton - specifically chose to play the black race card. That won't go over well with the white majority. ..."
    "... Clinton promised to break down all the barriers, barriers of race, sexism, class.....is that possible? or is there a certain level of rhetoric being used in political campaigns? and are you biased in your assesment? ..."
    "... Right on with regard to old FDR! That man had courage and a big heart. But you and I are a bit older than most voters, I presume, so we get the whole FDR thing easily -- in my case, the connection is through my parents, both of whom were tough-as-nails Depression-Era people. My point is that Bernie's a well-read, very bright guy, an intellectual -- it isn't that people "gasp with fear," it's more like they're looking for something not so directly based on economics, and Bernie doesn't seem to give them that. ..."
    "... Trump does better with low educational voters...as Does Clinton - take a moment to think about your bias here, you automatically state "Well trump voters are idiots cause they obviously haven't all the information I have about trump but clinton voters are smart because they agree with me" ..."
    "... Sanders is not going to win 500 delegates from California-- nobody is, since the delegate count is proportional. To keep to your example, a best case scenario for Sanders would be just to *win* California, since he's behind in all the polls. But that isn't good enough at this point. He has to rack up huge margins in California (and other big states) to close the lopsided 80/20 results across the south. That is not going to happen. ..."
    "... Exactly. The US has a far right party and a center right party. Bernie, who's basically a Social Democrat, chose to run as part of the center right party. And bizzarely, he and his supporters wonder why he doesn't get more traction and why the party insiders are against him. ..."
    "... Well out of touch black southern voters may keep it mainstream with Hillary on this one but Bernie has caused enough of a disruption that she has had to rewrite many of her strategies. At least it exposes just how bad at being consistent she is to those who pay attention. I never thought I would have to but Trump it is. Thanks for your votes/ voices being heard. "Duh, votins fun. I wish we could do this more than once every 4 years." ..."
    "... He won Colorado, why? The Latino vote!!! "The entire Democratic congressional delegation in Colorado supports Hillary Clinton-the Democratic governor, John W. Hickenlooper, here supports Hillary Clinton; former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and U.S. Senator Ken Salazar supports Hillary Clinton; the mayor of Denver; the former mayor of Denver. And yet Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders here in Colorado by what looks like about 20 points." -- The Nation. ..."
    "... It's way off topic, but my favorite Mencken quote was, "We have to respect the other man's religion, but only in the same way, and to the same extent, that we have to respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his kids are smart." ..."
    "... Not really a better America for all, just a better America for the 99%. As it turns out, the vast majority don't matter. History has always shown that the vast majority don't matter. 1% moneyed people with a lot of influence, can easily sway a huge swathe of the great unwashed to simply do their bidding. ..."
    "... If you want to take a break from yet another Shillary article see here where it says Hillary finds common ground with disgraced Tom Delay http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/politex-blog/article53787095.html ..."
    "... Identity politics is overshadowing class politics. This is a sad turn of events at a time when class inequality is larger than it has ever been - and at a time when poverty corresponds overwhelmingly with race. ..."
    "... That and the fact that the Guardian has been repeating Clintons talking points that "He wan'ts to demolish Obamacare" - No he doesn't, the implication is that he will repeal Obamacare and then try for new healthcare that may or may not be succesful - it's not true but southern blacks have bought it, hook, line and sinker ..."
    "... Not to mention that in 2008, Hillary won Massachusetts by a large margin over Barack Obama, demonstrating both her strength in that state and how amazingly well-run the Sanders campaign was this year. At the time, people also said it was the the death knell of Obama's campaign. Of course, he then went on to do extremely well in the west and north, which Bernie may or may not do. But to say his very close 2nd in Massachusetts means he's done is not accurate or historical. ..."
    "... The statement ... "the former secretary of state is now well on the road to reaching the 2,383 total needed to win the nomination, leading Sanders by 1,001 to 371" is disingenuous. The actual totals are HRC 596, Bernie 399. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats / The Guardian has added superdelegates in their numbers. These superdelegates can change their mind at any time before the convention and historically will honor the candidate who get the most delegates through primaries and caucus'. ..."
    "... For anyone who needs a non-Guardian perspective on same: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.html ..."
    "... Bernie does not do poisonous identity politics. That's a Clinton specialty. my real news from The Young Turks even though I'm over 50. ..."
    "... Sad thing is that it isn't a lie. In 2008 the superdelegates could switch from one Establishment candidate (Hillary) to another Establishment candidate (Obama). But Bernie isn't establishment. Superdelegates know that if they switch to him, their careers as Party hacks are over. ..."
    "... remember warren used to be republican. she is pretty militaristic, coming from a military family ..."
    "... Grauniad playing the race card on behalf of its darling corporatist warmonger. How utterly predictable. ..."
    "... I agree that Elizabeth Warren has shown herself to be a coward. ..."
    "... The Guardian needs to find a new Bureau Chief or start paying him more than the Clinton Machine. Or is MSNBC trying to buy the Guardian, and just has you trying out the Company standard line? ..."
    "... Can someone actually explain to me the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush's Sr. presidency? Outside of actually balancing the budget, I don't see that much difference between both presidencies... . ..."
    "... With Clinton, though? There is SO much baggage going in that the level of discourse will never go beyond Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, the Iraq war, President Clinton's affairs and impeachment hearings, tax problems, etc. ..."
    "... Additionally, if the Republicans actually wanted to go up against Sanders and not Clinton, their rhetoric would reflect that. They, like many members of the establishment, are treating Clinton as the presumptive winner and licking their chops waiting to get to her. If they wanted Sanders instead, they would be propping him up as "the" candidate, thus galvanizing his legitimacy in the race. ..."
    "... I used to be able to read articles in The Guardian and glean what was really happening by reading between the lines. Now they just insult our intelligence, and though a few decent writers remain in their employ, there really isn't much of substance. Just asinine puffery. ..."
    "... It seems that on number of issues, healthcare, foreign intervention, Wall St, Trump is actually on the LEFT of Clinton. ..."
    "... on the whole, he is actually a good deal more liberal than Clinton. ..."
    "... The media seem to be willing a Clinton win and are desperate to have us believe her nomination is a given. What they don't realise is that this is 2016 and this sort of spinning only strengthens peoples resolve to stick behind the only truly progressive candidate and probably dig another few dollars in donation. ..."
    "... Said it before and I'll say it again, MLK is rolling in his grave. ..."
    "... Black leadership has let us down. Clearly, they're on the payroll. ..."
    "... I know many of them don't think he does. That's because the American people are pretty dumb, by and large. The fact remains that Bill Clinton sold out leftist, liberal views and values. From three strikes and mandatory minimums, expanding the death penalty, deregulating Wall Street, shipping American industry out of the country, slashing capital gains tax rates, demonizing and slashing the welfare safety net, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, it's quite demonstrably true that the man owes American liberals an apology. ..."
    "... The establishment grief of the Guardian is just so obvious. I'm literally disgusted by the relentless shilling of this newspaper rag for a deeply corrupt Wall Street owned candidate like Shillary. ..."
    "... Clinton is winning the black vote without having ever really done a thing to deserve it. Sanders has much more of an actual participatory record in the Civil Rights movement. ..."
    "... Make that NEO-liberal not liberal that seems to be happy keeping people like you in power. ..."
    "... She very obviously did not win the youth vote ..."
    "... The establishment are TERRIFIED of Sanders - because with Hillary they know they can control her with money! Just listen to her speech last night, and it literally was a compilation of platitudes! In terms of speaking without actually saying anything she is as bad as Trump! ..."
    "... She has e-mails PROVING she has been actively campaigning FOR nafta and TTIP! ..."
    "... Fast running out of patience with the Guardian and its bias for Clinton. This article is biased, it is rooted in hunches. ..."
    The Guardian
    freepedestrian R. Ben Madison link

    Horse feathers. Sanders has supported civil rights since before Clinton was a GOLDWATER GIRL! He put his life on the line for civil rights and got arrested for his trouble.

    pretzelattack R. Ben Madison , 2016-03-03 05:40:40

    you mean like superpredators? Hillary has gone from working for Goldwater to stop the civil rights movement in its tracks, to working for Goldman sachs.
    freepedestrian , 2016-03-03 05:39:50
    What a nasty smear. The support for Senator Sanders comes from all races. He has also been embraces by many black civil rights leaders and others. I'm sick of the media and its attacks on Bernie.
    arbmahla lodger16 , 2016-03-03 05:22:17
    Stop scapegoating blacks. Why don't you blame Hispanics? They voted for her over Sanders 2 to 1 in Texas.
    lodger16 , 2016-03-03 05:01:22
    Yes, he can and must win without blacks, because they have opted out of a role in a progressive movement. At least for now in the South. They chose staus quo and Madame Secretary Establishment.
    The Southern states Hillary won Tuesday are Deep Red Republican states she cannot possibly win in NOV. So writers pushing the idea it's over are exagerrating, or worse.
    Turnout has been very low in America for decades, if Sanders can turn out just a few first time voters he can overcome Hillary's Big Money advantages.
    I have never seen before now liberals insist that The Word of The South is final, demanding Sanders' immediate surrender at Appamattox Courthouse. They're scared of a new coalition Madame Secretary Establishment can't control.
    IanB52 MonotonousLanguor , 2016-03-03 04:53:49
    All this, even after Warren let Massachusetts go to Clinton by a hair while standing on the sideline.
    HowardFineHoward JackGC , 2016-03-03 04:46:20

    White liberals would NEVER vote for a Republican.

    For Hillary? Sure.

    AllyDavies , 2016-03-03 04:41:34
    This article is trying to be clever, but comes off as snarky. Never mind that, though. The bigger problem is that it lacks any context, historical or otherwise, about the United States and its politics, demographics, and culture. It seems that the writer doesn't have a very deep understanding of such things, which The Guardian may want to consider when it hires journalists to cover the U.S..

    Of course the "revolution" that Sanders is touting can't be all white, and his supporters would be the first to tell you that (I am one of them, and white, grew up in South Carolina, and have worked for racial justice for some time now). It's just simply ridiculous to state that African Americans' voting preferences on Super Tuesday was a "withering refutation of the central premise of [Sanders'] campaign: that an overthrow of the billionaire class is possible if ordinary Americans come together as one." Where do I start? First, the premise of Sanders' campaign is that the system is rigged - that even when ordinary people play by the rules, they get screwed economically. It's not that different from what Obama has said many times, it's just that his solutions are different.

    Sanders never said his campaign alone would "overthrow" the billionaire class. His campaign must be seen in a larger historical context - which is not provided in this article - that includes Occupy Wall Street, the strong and growing labor movement in the U.S. focused on the abysmal situation of fast food and Wal-Mart-type workers, and yes, even racial justice movements such as Black Lives Matter. The point this article misses - egregiously - is that movements are not built in an election cycle, and that again, Sanders' campaign is part of a much greater trajectory that involves much more than electoral politics.

    That's why Sanders is so persistent, I believe, because he knows that what he is doing is helping to build that sense of belief in something more just. Over sometimes very long periods of time, enough ordinary people eventually CAN come together and, as you say, "overthrow the billionaire class." It's just that it's going to take much more than one election to do that. What's amazing is that so many people are willing to work for a better country even though they know -- and Sanders knows this full well since he is 74 -- that they won't be around to see the fruits of those efforts.

    To the race issue: Black voters didn't reject Sanders' platform, this is a bunch of nonsense. They rejected, in part, the unknown. Black people in the South are SOUTHERNERS. Yes, they are also Black, a demographic in which there exists substantial diversity that many overlook, but Southerners tend to be conservative, and this has to do with the issue of Southern identity more generally, which isn't irrelevant to black folks. You have to understand that Blacks in the South are not politicized in the same way that Blacks in other parts of the country, such as New York City or Boston or Oakland are.

    The South has a totally different labor history (very anti-union), for example, which has been the context in which the working-class has developed its expectations of what is politically possible. Somebody like Bernie Sanders, who is a classic Northeastern (Jewish) Leftist, is very culturally alien (and don't even get me started on the long history of animosity between the Northeast and the South - which also plays into this). So to expect Blacks to vote for Sanders just because of his ideas, without really knowing him (and eight visits is not a lot compared to Clinton's history with South Carolina) is unfair.

    Another point: Blacks in the South may not feel they have the luxury to risk their vote on an idealistic candidate they don't really know, even if they like his ideas. They haven't exactly been in a social position to vie for such dreams as free education, a decent social safety net, etc., whereas whites are more accustomed to demanding things and having those demands met. This may also explain some of the racial divide. I am not trying to say that white Liberals/Leftists don't have a lot of work to do on race; nor am I saying that Sanders didn't make big mistakes in his campaign with regard to his message in the South (Spike Lee, for instance, may not be the best person to move Southern Blacks). But to trash his whole campaign as just an all-white "protest" movement is just a gross oversimplification, and missing the point entirely.

    999Jasper OneRedBottle , 2016-03-03 04:21:30

    Bernie needs to win 53% of the remaining delegates to take a non 'superdelegate' lead to the convention. Not unfeasible by any stretch

    Impossible? No. Feasible? Not really. Sanders has won about 38% of the pledged delegates so far. What makes you think he's going to go from 38 to 53 points from here on out? No doubt he'll win a few remaining states by large margins, but that's not going to be enough to boost his aggregate numbers up enough, given the fact that the remaining large states -- NY, California, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey -- all look at least as Hillary friendly as Massachusetts (where Clinton won). There are also a number of states with high black populations left, including Louisiana, Arkansas, Michigan and Missouri.

    Sure, a black swan event could get Bernie back in it. But that's what it'll take.

    Jane Marie Law Giacamo , 2016-03-03 04:06:52
    Yes. Here. Here. The Guardian is now a fox news llite on this. Wonder what the Clintons paid for this.
    lavala Zorroremade , 2016-03-03 04:02:01
    Hispanic voters voted strongly for Bernie in Colorado. Perhaps African-Americans living in the South need to find out Sanders positions prior to voting for Hillary. Some of his positions might have been more in line with their thinking now that it is 2016.
    Othnocerus peter nelson , 2016-03-03 03:50:03
    This is a canard. There are many reasons why Hillary did well in MA: the Clintons have vacationed there for many years; they raise a lot of money there and are extremely well-connected with the MA Dem Machine, which is one of the most highly organized in the country. The Boston Globe and the rest of the MSM were for her. There is a long history. In 2008, Hillary beat Obama in MA by 15.4%, and that's with Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama.

    So, for Bernie to get within 2 points of her is an amazingly strong showing. Knock it off with the "liberal state Sanders should have won" - this is just a MSM line trying to make Bernie's strong showing look weak. Not the case.

    RobertHickson2014 JackGC , 2016-03-03 03:49:41
    There are not enough minority votes to compensate for losing 80% of the white voters.

    The DNC has totally miscalculate the political climate of the electorate. Those white voters that are angry at the rigged economy and income inequality are going to Trump.

    Bernie Sanders has the right message, but is being stifled by the party elite who want a return to the 1990s.

    bloggod , 2016-03-03 03:41:11
    the author of the article, Dan Roberts, has been slanting for Clinton for many months.

    Senator Sanders did as well or better in 5 states, winning progressive enclaves, rural areas, and Oklahoma.

    What this article purports is more of the same undercutting dishonesty.

    RobertHickson2014 R. Ben Madison , 2016-03-03 03:31:00
    States vie for earlier primaries to claim greater influence in the nomination process, as the early primaries can act as a signal to the nation, showing which candidates are popular and giving those who perform well early on the advantage of the bandwagon effect.

    In such a primary season, however, many primaries will fall on the same day, forcing candidates to choose where to spend their time and resources.

    Indeed, Super Tuesday was created deliberately to increase the influence of the South. Moreover, a compressed calendar limits the ability of lesser-known candidates to corral resources and raise their visibility among voters, especially when a better-known candidate enjoys the financial and institutional backing of the party establishment.

    So if, the northern or western states would now want to change there primary dates, and have their own 'Super Monday', the penalties would be harsh.

    For Democrats, states violating these rules will be penalized half of their pledged delegates and all of their Super Delegates.

    So, in effect, the non representative nature of the southern Super Tuesday is locked in place. I rest my case.

    funnynought , 2016-03-03 03:25:01
    Hey, guess what? There are all different kinds of black people. I suppose that might be a little difficult for MSM to understand. Black people have regional differences, just like white people do. Yes, really.
    europeangrayling o_lobo_solitario , 2016-03-03 03:13:59
    He will likely not win, but that's just wrong what you are saying. He is losing big with African-Americans, between 80-90% depending on the state voted for Hillary so far, that's true, and that's his biggest hurdle and why Hillary was able run up the score on him in the south.

    But he won with Latinos in Nevada and Colorado, probably not in Texas, but still not bad, and he is actually beating Hillary with working class whites and independents big time, and that includes moderate and conservative whites.
    While Hillary is beating him with middle aged white women and women over 65, and people over 65 in general, that's also true. But the fact that it's just 'white liberals' and young people who are for Bernie is not true.

    In fact, the 2008 and 2016 primary voter groups have completely switched this year, and Bernie is getting most of the white working class voters who voted for Hillary over Obama in 2008, while Hillary is getting the African-American vote overwhelmingly, and is probably still slightly up with the Latino vote overall, and Hillary is also getting white people making over $200,000 a year, but not by huge margins like with African-Americans.

    CraigieBob , 2016-03-03 03:08:22
    Last I checked, African Americans and self-identifying "black" people constituted about 13 percent of U.S. population and, thanks to mandatory sentencing policies adopted or enacted under the [Bill] Clinton administration, actually make up an even smaller percentage of Americans eligible to vote.

    How, then, did the Democratic Party decide to make its nominating process so skewed toward minority voters in Southern states the eventual Democratic nominee might be less likely to carry? But let's ignore, for the moment, the structural 'rigging' of a primary schedule that allows such small percentages of voters to choose the nominee and ask why African Americans, who got very little beyond lip service and pleasing optícs from Barack Obama, would now believe that they can expect any better from Hillary Clinton (who promises to do little else than continue the Obama program, or whatever remains of it, at this point). I'm suspecting that Afrcan American voters don't know enough about either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton -- neither what he could do FOR them nor what she has sad and done TO them.

    MKB1234 , 2016-03-03 02:41:02
    The tactics that Hillary and her husband are employing show they are still very much worried about Bernie.

    Go Bernie go!!

    RandomMusings Haynonnynonny , 2016-03-03 02:22:22
    Goldman Sachs ran the Clinton White House and has paid Hillary hundreds of thousands in "speaker's fees". Goldman owns her.
    Giacamo , 2016-03-03 02:17:15
    I am really astounded at the cynical and unsympathetic Guardian stance on Sanders! I thought you might deal with the substance of the Sanders message about the need to destroy the strangle hold that the U. S. Oligarchy has on politics and how they have damaged the country by pursuing their own economic interests at the expense of the general public. Instead, you parrot the U. S. media by treating it all as a spectator sport--concentrating on tactics and strategies rather than substance and mocking his losses in southern republican states?

    You might ask why African American voters have supported Hillary Clinton when her husband's trade policies, welfare policies, and crime sentencing policies so harmed them?

    What does that say about the political consciousness, or the lack thereof, of the U. S. electorate?

    Bernie Sanders did lead the civil rights movement and joined CORE,at the expense of his studies at the University of Chicago! He was arrested in a demonstration against discrimination in housing! Why do you mock this? And why do African Americans not recognize the good will of Sanders? What about anti-semitism?

    You might deal with some deeper analysis of U. S. society and politics rather than this cynical and superficial journalism that is slanted in support of the existed rotten social and economic order?

    Haynonnynonny sbabcock , 2016-03-03 02:15:50
    It really has not been demonstrated that Goldman Sachs and HRC connection are all that bad. An excellent article about it all... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/is-goldman-sachs-the-root-of-all-evil/20210 /
    sbabcock , 2016-03-03 02:01:33
    Clinton was nearly mocking Sanders' positions until she saw how many people they resonate with, and then she simply adopted them for herself. But the problem with that is she every few days runs back to Wall Street ( or Wall Street comes to her ) to have her meetings with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimin at Chase and a few 'BFF' hedge fund managers to get her marching orders and some money and then she heads back out on the trail talking tough about breaking up the big banks, "if they need to be broken up".
    RobertHickson2014 , 2016-03-03 02:00:53
    One really has to start questioning the over influence of Blacks in the Democratic Party.

    The majority of blacks, 55%, live in the South, yet the DNC has seen fit to upload those Red/Black states in the nomination process, knowing full well that they are Republican states. Where is the logic in that?

    It makes as much sense as if the Republicans upload all the New England states and California in their process.

    Logic would dictate that a hard right conservative wouldn't make it and it's being shown that a true progressive can't win in the Democratic Party rigged system.

    atkurebeach , 2016-03-03 01:59:44
    African Americans could have closed this deal. I think they have made a "huge" mistake, Hillary will do nothing for the poor in general. But we will see I guess
    taxhaven , 2016-03-03 01:56:58
    It is rather remarkable how the Bush/Obama regime candidate - Clinton - specifically chose to play the black race card. That won't go over well with the white majority.

    President Trump!

    Mshand peter nelson , 2016-03-03 01:05:51
    Independents love Bernie over Hillary, and thats what the general is about, who do independents and libertarians hate less - clinton or bernie? you think the right are not going to bring up FBI, emails, benghazi? not saying it's fair, but neither is it fair of them to hate leftists for being leftists

    The point is Hillary is not a favourable general election candidate

    Mshand peter nelson , 2016-03-03 01:02:19
    Clinton promised to break down all the barriers, barriers of race, sexism, class.....is that possible? or is there a certain level of rhetoric being used in political campaigns? and are you biased in your assesment?
    impledino Will Morgan , 2016-03-03 00:54:28
    Right on with regard to old FDR! That man had courage and a big heart. But you and I are a bit older than most voters, I presume, so we get the whole FDR thing easily -- in my case, the connection is through my parents, both of whom were tough-as-nails Depression-Era people. My point is that Bernie's a well-read, very bright guy, an intellectual -- it isn't that people "gasp with fear," it's more like they're looking for something not so directly based on economics, and Bernie doesn't seem to give them that.

    American social life and politics are labyrinthine, so one "master discourse" isn't capable of dealing with it all. All the same, I admire Bernie Sanders' courage and convictions. I mentioned in another post (about Ben Carson) that running for president diminishes most people who dare attempt it. That hasn't been the case with Bernie. If anything and no matter what the outcome, his campaign is showing us what a wise and wonderful man he is.

    Mshand justdoug , 2016-03-03 00:47:06
    Trump does better with low educational voters...as Does Clinton - take a moment to think about your bias here, you automatically state "Well trump voters are idiots cause they obviously haven't all the information I have about trump but clinton voters are smart because they agree with me"

    The demos tell us, the dumber you are, the more likely you will vote for clinton and trump

    Herr_Settembrini MooseMcNaulty , 2016-03-03 00:45:40
    Sanders is not going to win 500 delegates from California-- nobody is, since the delegate count is proportional. To keep to your example, a best case scenario for Sanders would be just to *win* California, since he's behind in all the polls. But that isn't good enough at this point. He has to rack up huge margins in California (and other big states) to close the lopsided 80/20 results across the south. That is not going to happen.

    If the Democratic primary were more like the Republican one (with lots of winner take all contests), it would still be anyone's game. However, that is simply not the case. The Democratic primary is set up to reward the candidate with the broadest coalition of supporters, and this year that person is Clinton.

    peter nelson jmonty , 2016-03-03 00:33:31
    Exactly. The US has a far right party and a center right party. Bernie, who's basically a Social Democrat, chose to run as part of the center right party. And bizzarely, he and his supporters wonder why he doesn't get more traction and why the party insiders are against him.

    If Jeremy Corbyn tried to run as a Tory what kind of welcome do you think he would get?

    IanB52 Herr_Settembrini , 2016-03-03 00:29:27
    What she is doing here is stifling Democracy, and denying the public meaningful say in who runs the country and how. Using the party establishment in absolute lockstep to keep the electorate out in the cold is staunchly anti-democratic. She really thinks she has the right to control the entire party and the nomination process in her favor.

    We already know she is an authoritarian. She is a staunch imperialist, supports NSA spying, the national security state, protects torture, executive power, endless wars, the war on drugs, mass incarceration, and we know that she stands for the richest and most powerful factions in society.

    This sounds autocratic to me.

    TIM Anderson , 2016-03-03 00:29:03
    Well out of touch black southern voters may keep it mainstream with Hillary on this one but Bernie has caused enough of a disruption that she has had to rewrite many of her strategies. At least it exposes just how bad at being consistent she is to those who pay attention. I never thought I would have to but Trump it is. Thanks for your votes/ voices being heard. "Duh, votins fun. I wish we could do this more than once every 4 years."
    Z8r00k1yN , 2016-03-03 00:27:16
    He won Colorado, why? The Latino vote!!! "The entire Democratic congressional delegation in Colorado supports Hillary Clinton-the Democratic governor, John W. Hickenlooper, here supports Hillary Clinton; former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and U.S. Senator Ken Salazar supports Hillary Clinton; the mayor of Denver; the former mayor of Denver. And yet Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders here in Colorado by what looks like about 20 points." -- The Nation.
    Nate Dogg , 2016-03-03 00:24:54
    More than likely the smart Sanders strategists know that winning or losing these early primaries doesn't really matter, not in the long run, just do enough to keep Sanders in the running, but keep your powder dry.

    In a month, maybe 6 weeks, charges should be laid against Clinton, and that will be her campaign done. Sanders needs to simply hold on till then, at which point he'll default to being the Democratic candidate.

    My 2 cents.

    MooseMcNaulty MonotonousLanguor , 2016-03-03 00:16:17
    It's way off topic, but my favorite Mencken quote was, "We have to respect the other man's religion, but only in the same way, and to the same extent, that we have to respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his kids are smart."
    sbabcock Barry Smith , 2016-03-03 00:12:14
    Yeah, that's funny, incarcerations of black men went up during Bill Clinton. Hmm, interesting...
    Nate Dogg MonotonousLanguor , 2016-03-03 00:12:12
    Not really a better America for all, just a better America for the 99%. As it turns out, the vast majority don't matter. History has always shown that the vast majority don't matter. 1% moneyed people with a lot of influence, can easily sway a huge swathe of the great unwashed to simply do their bidding.

    Hence, so many uneducated imbeciles are happy to vote against their own interests. Please, heap on the vitriolic nonsense, calling me bigoted, etc, but it doesn't change anything. The majority of voters have happily voted against their own interests, and not even bothered realising that they're done it.

    Mary Titus pretzelattack , 2016-03-03 00:10:32
    Because Americans are so distrustful of our media sources at this point, that we've started reading foreign media sources. I think someone took notice.
    sbabcock , 2016-03-03 00:02:12
    If you want to take a break from yet another Shillary article see here where it says Hillary finds common ground with disgraced Tom Delay http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/politex-blog/article53787095.html
    DrKropotkin , 2016-03-02 23:51:29
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-29/super-tuesday-predictions-point-to-trump-clinton-rout

    Here is a Bloomberg article from a few days ago, just before Super tuesday. It predicts Clinton will win every state except Vermont. I.e., 10 out of 11. Now that Sanders actually won 4, Bloomberg just whistles past, pretends it didn't happen and gets it's next set of lies ready.

    It's not just Bloomberg of course, it's every establishment rag that has been banging on about of Clinton's inevitability, without any evidence other than - well, it's Clinton.

    A lot of savvy pundits, that I have learned to trust over the years are saying Sanders has a better than 50-50 chance of being the nominee. Every time you see the Guardian or it's ilk tell you why Clinton is a certainty, remember they don't even believe this, It's editorial policy.

    We don't know why the Guardian has chosen Clinton as their candidate but we have discovered the motives for other outlets. The Daily Beast for example upset a lot of it's readers by gunning for Hillary. The Daily Beast is a part of the IAC group, which boasts owning over 150 websites. The following page lists their board of directors, one name stands out - Chelsea Clinton. http://iac.com/about/leadership

    Barry Smith , 2016-03-02 23:46:29
    The reason Sanders is getting no cut through with black voters is nothing to do with his failure to communicate or his offer, which would actually help the black community far more than Hillary - from education to minimum wage and health insurance. It also has little to do with Hillary. It's to do with Bill. He was and is incredibly popular with black voters across the whole of the USA and did a lot of good work for true equality, so much so that he was even known as 'the first black president'. He's also seen as a true Democrat hero and it's no surprise that he spent his last day of Super Tuesday canvassing in Massachusetts, home of Democrat royalty, which could well have swung that state. How Jeb must regret his family legacy.
    MonotonousLanguor , 2016-03-02 23:43:39
    Bernie has been criticized for running with the Class Struggle Idea, i.e., the 99% vs 1%. The Media Pundits said he would have to sharpen up the message to include African-American Democrats. He did that and still lost the African-American Vote.

    Everyone would benefit from a higher minimum wage, Medicare for all, reining in Wall Street and a free College Education. The message is clear Bernie has the promise of a better America for all. If people cannot take the time or effort to educate themselves then perhaps H. L. Mencken was right, - Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.

    Another quote from Mencken came true when GWB was elected President - On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

    Tim MacNeill , 2016-03-02 23:39:49
    Identity politics is overshadowing class politics. This is a sad turn of events at a time when class inequality is larger than it has ever been - and at a time when poverty corresponds overwhelmingly with race.
    Mshand kaltnadel , 2016-03-02 23:37:35
    Nah, Liz is playing it smart, she doesn't want the progressive faction in washington to live and die by Bernies campaign. She wants to remain neutral so that she and all other progressives are not written off, discredited by the establishment if Bernie doesn't win.

    Malcom X and MLK didn't agree on tactics, that doesn't make one of them a coward, nor does it make one of them right and the other wrong, it takes all kinds

    MooseMcNaulty IanB52 , 2016-03-02 23:37:17
    Elizabeth Warren isn't endorsing because she wants to have sway with Clinton if she wins. She already knows she would with Bernie. That woman is the power broker for Senate Democrats, and she, and everyone else, knows it. She's going to go along with Clinton, and not actively oppose her in the primary, so she can call in a favor or two during a Clinton administration, if that's the way it pans out. She'll be the one who tries to hold Clinton to her new-found liberalism if she's elected. She's also the only one who might be able to muster the Democratic troops to put a stop to the TPP, TTIP and TISA, which is where I hope she uses her influence. Staying on speaking terms with Clinton is the smart move for her, as much as we'd like to see her on the stump for Bernie.
    jmonty , 2016-03-02 23:36:37
    So perhaps it is not just southern whites who are more conservative. Perhaps that is true also of southern blacks too. Talking class politics is a novelty for most Americans. British readers need to remember that unlike Europe, there is no mass socialist or social democratic party in the U.S. We have two conservative parties basically, one really of the right, the other more moderate.
    Mshand peter nelson , 2016-03-02 23:35:05
    I predicted arrogant Clinton supporters would write a bunch of trash in order to try manifest the reality they want
    Mshand Zaarth , 2016-03-02 23:32:54
    That and the fact that the Guardian has been repeating Clintons talking points that "He wan'ts to demolish Obamacare" - No he doesn't, the implication is that he will repeal Obamacare and then try for new healthcare that may or may not be succesful - it's not true but southern blacks have bought it, hook, line and sinker
    yinyanggrl DesertPear , 2016-03-02 23:30:22
    Not to mention that in 2008, Hillary won Massachusetts by a large margin over Barack Obama, demonstrating both her strength in that state and how amazingly well-run the Sanders campaign was this year. At the time, people also said it was the the death knell of Obama's campaign. Of course, he then went on to do extremely well in the west and north, which Bernie may or may not do. But to say his very close 2nd in Massachusetts means he's done is not accurate or historical.
    rgrabman , 2016-03-02 23:30:08
    What does a primary win in a state whose general election electoral college votes will be going to the other party mean, anyway? OK, so Clinton does well among African-Americans in states that are solidly Republican. I don't think the pundit class has dealt with the demographic fact that Latinos are the larger minority, and that in the so called "swing states" (like Colorado) Sanders is winning and in very large states like California... where Latino support is going to be crucial, there hasn't been any action, yet. As it is, the whole point of "Super Tuesday" has been to knock insurgents out of the running, and it just didn't work this time.
    jgwilson55 , 2016-03-02 23:29:32
    The statement ... "the former secretary of state is now well on the road to reaching the 2,383 total needed to win the nomination, leading Sanders by 1,001 to 371" is disingenuous. The actual totals are HRC 596, Bernie 399. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats / The Guardian has added superdelegates in their numbers. These superdelegates can change their mind at any time before the convention and historically will honor the candidate who get the most delegates through primaries and caucus'.

    Do your homework writers!!! :)

    kerfuffler , 2016-03-02 23:28:51
    For anyone who needs a non-Guardian perspective on same: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.html
    Thijs Buelens kerfuffler , 2016-03-02 23:28:07
    Yup in Colorado: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/2/latino_vote_helps_bernie_sanders_surge
    DesertPear ID0191623 , 2016-03-02 23:26:49
    The Young Turks have had fabulous unbiased reporting, also entertaining, but full of intelligent analysis. It's no coincidence that they are funded largely by their viewers rather than corporations. Also, they have fantastic LIVE coverage during and after primaries and debates. Check it out here https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks/featured
    Tomas Ocampo , 2016-03-02 23:26:40
    First, I definitely encourage all of you to read how the political establishment and the elite-controlled media address people like Bernie Sanders: http://portside.org/2016-01-27/seven-stages-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition
    Second, percentages mean nothing (Clinton winning 86% of African-American vote over Bernie's 14%) when we look at just how many people ACTUALLY voted; only 367,000 votes for the Democrats- 30% LESS than in 2008: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-do-the-voting-turnout-numbers-say-about-the-2016-presidential-race /
    The voting population in South Carolina alone is roughly 3 million people (with about 700,000 votes cast on the Republican side). This means only ONE THIRD of people ACTUALLY voted in the primary; to conclude that Sanders lost this one because Blacks voted more for Hillary grossly undermines the real problem: LESS African-Americans actually voted period.
    This can be for many reasons, but I am willing to bet that scheduling less Democratic Party debates, at odd times, and constant scrutiny by the media to sow doubt against Bernie by Hillary and the Democratic Party establishment IS largely what is determining these results. They say that he can't win and support Hillary (without disclosing their own financial interests in her campaign: https://theintercept.com/2016/02/25/tv-pundits-praise-hillary-clinton-on-air-fail-to-disclose-financial-ties-to-her-campaign /), they schedule less coverage on TV for him, they scrutinize his policies, ideas (but not Hillary's), and supposed lack of minority support, and when they see 86-14% they conclude "See, we told you- You should have listened to us."
    There's more to this charade of an election and political system than merely "Sanders lost the Black vote". The Democratic Party will do nothing to mobilize its base if it means Sanders becomes the nominee, and minorities will continue to loose under this status quo enforced by the political establishment because free college for their kids, healthcare for their families, a protected environment, and a US government that works for them is too lofty a goal for us to be striving for. #Feelthatbern
    BaconButty7 , 2016-03-02 23:25:51
    Really, Mr. Roberts, even by your standards this is an appallingly biased article. Have you no shame?
    MooseMcNaulty pretzelattack , 2016-03-02 23:25:13
    Everyone needs to be protected by financial regulation. The history of banking is quite clear. Every ten to fifteen years they overleverage themselves, or invest too heavily in a bubble, and they sink themselves. We removed the Glass-Steagall Act and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, and 8 years later they bankrupted themselves, after more than 60 years of largely sound and stable banking. If we've decided that the financial institutions are too important and too interconnected to allow them to fail, then we need regulation to protect these greedy bastards from themselves. The alternative is more than a trillion dollars in taxpayer money every 10 or 15 years to bail them out when they've gone and stuck their feet in it again.
    kerfuffler , 2016-03-02 23:23:09
    Sanders won the Latino vote in both Nevada and Colorado. 20 points win in swing state Colorado? You call this a protest movement? Who wrote this crap?
    There's all the western progressive states and northern to come. I'm glad he has the money to keep going without sucking up to Wall Street, so we can vote for him in California. To keep up with his fundraising Hillz is having to stage a fundraiser where one of the hosts is an NRA lobbyist. Really. And she's going to "take on the NRA"
    The fact that Bernie has the money to do this is the REAL story that no-one is covering. It's historic.
    https://theintercept.com/2016/03/01/nra-lobbyist-will-co-host-clinton-fundraiser /
    Herr_Settembrini pretzelattack , 2016-03-02 23:23:04
    What are you talking about? Shrum didn't consult for Clinton. Dukakis, yes, Gore, yes, Kerry, yes, but not Clinton.
    Anjeska , 2016-03-02 23:18:00
    Bernie does not do poisonous identity politics. That's a Clinton specialty. my real news from The Young Turks even though I'm over 50.
    Mary Titus peter nelson , 2016-03-02 23:14:15
    To quote an analysis of Rushkoff's work:

    "He argues that young people who have used computers and other microchipped devices since infancy will have effortless advantages over their elders in processing information and coping with change when they reach adulthood. Their short attention spans, now disparaged by educators and parents, may be an advantage in coping with the huge mass of disparate bits of information that will bombard the wired person of the 21st century."

    We've been force fed this bullshit our whole lives, and we're just really good at seeing through it now.

    peter nelson MrRico1 , 2016-03-02 23:03:39
    So why couldn't Sanders win Masachusetts, one of the most progressive states in the US, and home to more colleges and universities per-capita (and thus lots of young people - his big supporters) than anywhere else? It's easier to blame the media than to take a good hard look at your campaign.
    Herr_Settembrini IanB52 , 2016-03-02 22:59:03
    "Why would she sit this one out and help hand her home state over the pro-bank and payday lender faction of the Democratic party? The answer is that she doesn't think Bernie will win and is afraid of the consequences of supporting him, just like all the other liberals in Congress. They know there is a steep price to pay to go against a Clinton, and to not fall in line with DNC, and they don't want to be punished."

    1) The evidence for your conspiracy theory is silly. Elizabeth Warren is not afraid to speak out if she wishes. 2) The second part of your post is a classic slippery slope fallacy. Somehow you're moved from Warren not endorsing a candidate to Clinton will be an absolute dictator if elected (even more hilarious since you grant Trump is a fascist and somehow see Clinton as worse than that).

    MrRico1 , 2016-03-02 22:54:49
    To me this looks bad for the Democrats. This block of southern black democrats seem to control the nomination the way white evangelicals control the Republican nomination, but are likewise a minor factor in the actual election. For a start most or all of these states aren't going to go to the democrats anyway. It sounds like a pyrrhic for either party to have a nominee who owes it all to a demographic that won't have such a big say in the actual election.
    zolotoy notmurdoch , 2016-03-02 22:51:02
    Donald Trump is somewhat less likely to start new Middle Eastern wars. Hillary has a proven track record of doing just that, which is one of many reasons this newspaper is in love with her.
    zolotoy pappa john , 2016-03-02 22:44:03
    Sad thing is that it isn't a lie. In 2008 the superdelegates could switch from one Establishment candidate (Hillary) to another Establishment candidate (Obama). But Bernie isn't establishment. Superdelegates know that if they switch to him, their careers as Party hacks are over.
    DesertPear , 2016-03-02 22:43:27
    More capitalist propaganda for Clinton. Remember, it is mainstream media that stands to lose most from a Sanders win. Any effort to get money out of politics must be opposed by media outlets--political campaigns are their CASH COW.
    peter nelson IanB52 , 2016-03-02 22:41:26
    But that's politics and always has been. She's no more ruthless and calculating in that respect than any major, successful politician in either party. Personally I can't stand her and would never vote for her, but I think your complaint about her cutthroat politics is a bit naive. Did you ever see 'House of Cards' ? (I haven't see the recent American remake, but I saw the original on the BBC), and that is exactly how politics works.
    aprestonlane , 2016-03-02 22:41:10
    Another mainstream media hack celebrating the success of the mainstream media's unique ability to to simultaneously ignore Sanders' achievements and Clinton's disastrous racist record.
    pretzelattack IanB52 , 2016-03-02 22:34:53
    remember warren used to be republican. she is pretty militaristic, coming from a military family. she's good on financial reform, may not favor bernie's foreign policy or being a democratic socialist--just because she wants the laws enforced doesn't mean she wants an fdr level change (which is what we need at this point).
    zolotoy , 2016-03-02 22:39:23
    Grauniad playing the race card on behalf of its darling corporatist warmonger. How utterly predictable.
    kaltnadel , 2016-03-02 22:37:06
    There was a significant Hispanic vote in CO.

    I agree that Elizabeth Warren has shown herself to be a coward.

    steveky , 2016-03-02 22:34:41
    First Wolffe, an MSNBC Shill bought and paid for by Corporations, now the Guardians own Bureau Chief regurgitating Wolfie's article, even to using the same graphics.
    And you believe the public stupid enough to believe they are unbiased.

    The Guardian needs to find a new Bureau Chief or start paying him more than the Clinton Machine. Or is MSNBC trying to buy the Guardian, and just has you trying out the Company standard line?

    yinyanggrl Giancarlo , 2016-03-02 22:33:46
    Hear, hear. There has been a massive drop-off in quality since Alan Rusbridger left. A slant is one thing; blatantly superficial, badly researched, regurgitative journalism such has been the level of late is just a shame for this paper that once did far better. But now it has joined the ranks of LCD internet rags that are all about the clicks. I almost hate to give them the satisfaction by clicking on this piece, but it's too important that errors in it be pointed out.
    Baldobilly , 2016-03-02 22:32:13
    Can someone actually explain to me the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush's Sr. presidency? Outside of actually balancing the budget, I don't see that much difference between both presidencies... .
    Chris Woyton arbmahla , 2016-03-02 22:29:07
    I'm going to have to invoke Occam's Razor here.

    Is it possible that the donations and polling in favor of Sanders is the result of right-wing scheming? I suppose it's possible.

    But is it likely? No, not even close to likely. To the best of my knowledge there has been 1 right-wing sponsored ad criticizing Clinton ( http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/anti-sanders-attack-ad-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-be ). As for mass small donation fund raising by Republicans on the behalf of Sanders - the level of complexity (and money) necessary to execute that is just too large to keep under wraps.

    As for how Sanders will stand up under scrutiny - here's the "trump" card (pun intended). The right wing will dub him a "Socialist" and Bernie will reply "Yup. Socialist. Next question?". He's never shied away from that. In the Republican mind (and I worked for the Libertarian party for a while so I have a little first-hand experience in how the right views the term) that's the kiss of death right there.

    They are myopic in their views and don't understand (or vastly underestimate) how *anyone* could possibly have left-leaning views, let alone be a Progressive.

    Beyond that, they'll have the same talking points on policy they would have with anyone from the Democratic Party, and that's that.

    With Clinton, though? There is SO much baggage going in that the level of discourse will never go beyond Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, the Iraq war, President Clinton's affairs and impeachment hearings, tax problems, etc.

    Additionally, if the Republicans actually wanted to go up against Sanders and not Clinton, their rhetoric would reflect that. They, like many members of the establishment, are treating Clinton as the presumptive winner and licking their chops waiting to get to her. If they wanted Sanders instead, they would be propping him up as "the" candidate, thus galvanizing his legitimacy in the race.

    Honestly, assuming that Trump wins the nomination, Sanders will be their worst nightmare. There are no "gotchas" with the man. His record as a public servant is pretty transparent. They could go after age, or perhaps his previous careers before public servant (he's just an aging hippy that couldn't get a job until he got into politics, etc. etc.) but..well...that's about it.

    Here's a nice amalgamation of polls (that were almost certainly not all sponsored by Fox News) that runs the numbers that you might be interested in; http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

    If Sanders tells his supporters at the convention to vote for Clinton then will you vote for Hillary?

    Against any of the viable Republican candidates, yes. Though I live in a Red state so I am considering a write-in for Sanders out of conscience. But, should the polling numbers suggest the Democratic nominee stands even a snowball's chance, I will vote for Secretary Clinton if she is the nominee.

    pretzelattack raffine , 2016-03-02 22:28:35
    did he once sing about superpredators?
    Giancarlo Michael Parsons , 2016-03-02 22:20:35
    I agree, it isn't really a new development. What upsets me is that despite its bias, it used to be more sophisticated and subtly propagandistic. Their coverage of the Labour leadership election and the US presidential election so far has been abysmal. The vast majority of the articles they publish bashing Corbyn and Sanders or boosting Hillary Clinton and Yvette Cooper haven't just been hopelessly slanted, they have also been puerile and light on serious probing of the issues at hand.

    I used to be able to read articles in The Guardian and glean what was really happening by reading between the lines. Now they just insult our intelligence, and though a few decent writers remain in their employ, there really isn't much of substance. Just asinine puffery.

    sqeptiq , 2016-03-02 22:19:20
    Sanders leads with Asians, and may do better with black, and for that matter, other Christian voters outside the South, where you pretty much have to be a Protestant to win statewide.
    IanB52 GringoReader , 2016-03-02 22:18:50
    It seems that on number of issues, healthcare, foreign intervention, Wall St, Trump is actually on the LEFT of Clinton. People support him mainly because of racism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, a reaction against PC culture, and the breakdown of immigration policy, and he plays the demagogue card well. But on the whole, he is actually a good deal more liberal than Clinton.
    IanB52 , 2016-03-02 22:14:08
    What I am beginning to realize, and which is making me more adamantly against Clinton, is how she is wielding power in this election. Elizabeth Warren, the only other liberal in the Senate, Sander's natural ally, refused to endorse him before the Massachusetts primary likely allowing a narrow Clinton victory. This at a time when Clinton's main supporters, and the head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz are pushing a bill to protect payday lenders, one of Warren's fiercest enemies. Why would she do this? Why would she sit this one out and help hand her home state over the pro-bank and payday lender faction of the Democratic party? The answer is that she doesn't think Bernie will win and is afraid of the consequences of supporting him, just like all the other liberals in Congress. They know there is a steep price to pay to go against a Clinton, and to not fall in line with DNC, and they don't want to be punished.

    I infer from this that Clinton will run the country with an iron fist, exercising gangster like political control on behalf of her interests. Even Trump, though an unstable xenophobe authoritarian, doesn't have the same capacity for authoritarianism as Clinton. He might blow everything up and move in fascist direction, but a Clinton presidency will be about total and absolute power and control, and she knows how to accomplish it. Pander here, lie there, take that bribe, intimidate, muckrake, exploit identity politics and prestige networks. She's practically out of Game of Thrones and she may be the more dangerous of two incredibly dangerous candidates.

    arbmahla Baldobilly , 2016-03-02 22:10:35
    "Hillary bought off the entire Southern black religious establishment, and their local pastors duped their 'flocks' into voting for her."

    Bought them off with what? ... "walkin' around money"? This is slimy racism.
    She bought them off by promising to help rebuild their crumbling communities, education, and healthcare resources. She promised more jobs and equal pay and they believed her. The real Sanders supporters here must feel queasy about having to share a forum with all these neo- Jim Crow unreconstructed racists!

    Baldobilly Desiree Washington , 2016-03-02 22:08:05
    Hmm, let's see... . Hillary has:

    -the full support of the DNC
    -25 years of media celebrity
    - a popular ex-president campaigning for her
    -a swooning corporate media
    -cabinet experience
    -endorsements from: all the major unions, famous celebrities, civil rights leaders, prominent congressmen, secretaries of state and president Obama himself
    -a bottomless campaign war chest

    And yet she's facing a stiff challenge from an obscure elderly socialist from Vermont... .

    joey88 , 2016-03-02 21:59:06
    The common tone being spouted by mass media is almost defeatist of Sanders' viability. I wouldn't be surprised if this was already orchestrated long before Super Tuesday as it was apparent Clinton would sweep the majority of southern states. The media seem to be willing a Clinton win and are desperate to have us believe her nomination is a given. What they don't realise is that this is 2016 and this sort of spinning only strengthens peoples resolve to stick behind the only truly progressive candidate and probably dig another few dollars in donation.
    GringoReader , 2016-03-02 21:54:08
    If you ever want a solid look at how well-managed you are by the establishment and its media teams, compare Trump and Clinton on the issues. The dominant narrative constantly "reminds" you that Trump is scary because noone knows what he truly believes. Yet look how differently this is constructed when assessing Clinton. If you are going to be honest, you have to admit that either we don't know what SHE believes either, or she has changed her mind on virtually everything. If you are a Hillary supporter, prove this wrong by listing, in your reply, a list of ten things Hillary believes, that she has publicly believed her whole life. Seriously. Go for it Hilaristas.
    onevote , 2016-03-02 21:53:51
    Said it before and I'll say it again, MLK is rolling in his grave.

    John Lewis did a great disservice to 'his people' in downplaying Bernie's importance, focussing on fame rather than the core of his message in step with MLK's plan of economic justice, tying it all together.

    Black leadership has let us down. Clearly, they're on the payroll. Just more exploitation for the disenfranchised Southern populace. But it's hardly time to lay down.
    Great job on Super T, Bernie and friends. Onward!...

    joey88 , 2016-03-02 21:51:23
    Why was such scrutiny not put on Hillary who it seems predominantly depends on votes from ethnic communities mainly in the south. I wonder what the media mantra will be if Sanders starts sweeping the Northern and Western states as projected. Will they then ask can Clinton sustain a path to the nomination without the support of traditionally Democrat states and white folks?
    yelzohy ionee101 , 2016-03-02 21:49:21
    This could help explain the African American vote.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/27/us/elections/south-carolina-democrat-poll.html?_r=1

    African Americans under 30 are voting for Sanders. They tend to get their news from the internet. Older Americans rely more on the mainstream media which has been providing little if no coverage of Sanders.

    Michael Parsons Sean Ryan , 2016-03-02 21:48:14
    I'm not for Trump but do not underestimate him, he has consistently outperformed expectations.

    Bernie used very little ammo against Hilary. He doesn't run negative campaigns

    Trump would be like an unwaivering battering ram. Polls already show he can beat her. Yet when polled against Bernie he gets crushed

    Marcedward p_promet , 2016-03-02 21:41:36
    " to **pragmatically**navigate the entire [read, "Republican and Democratic"] Washington Establishment"

    Uh huh - except she already had her chance with Health Care Reform. She had the President behind her, she had a Democrat House and Senate, back when the Republicans were nice, when Newt Gingrich was an impotent back bencher - and Hillary fell flat on her face.

    Shanajackson Prehistorian , 2016-03-02 21:41:02
    You should look more carefully at the poll Sanders beats all the GOP candidates Hillary can only beat Trump and that is not by as much as Sanders does. Trump has not even started on Clinton. Can you remember the sexist comments by Clinton and Trumps reply, Clinton and her husband hid under a rock and never said anything else against Trump. Well expect this times 100 in the general if it is Clinton. she has to much baggage and bad history, plus she is under FBI investigation people, come on wake up. Only Sanders can beat Trump.
    BigGaloot , 2016-03-02 21:40:14
    Can the media kindly write about the things Bernie Sanders is actually bringing up? The tightening grip of the oligarchy? The corrupt pols? The Wall Street malfeasance? Instead all we get is; "Bernie's on the ropes!" Every day.
    GringoReader , 2016-03-02 21:39:03
    It is beyond disgusting the way the mainstream media has played along with the Clinton campaign narrative that Sanders is somehow ignoring racial minorities or preaching a message that ignores them. Sanders and Clinton are lightyears apart on racial relations and politics, when one gets past the Clinton-paid pundits spin doctoring. Bernie marched with Doctor King. He got arrested fighting for civil rights, and has the documentation to prove it. When BLM took over the stage at a rally, he let them talk as long as they wanted to, leaving the microphone with them as he waded through the crowd. He didn't boot the activists out of a $500/head fundraiser at a mansion, the way Clinton did. Clinton has spent a lifetime supporting all types of legislation that threw black people under a bus to impress her rich, white donor base and her husband's rightwing supporters. It wasn't Sanders who referred to black teens as "superpredators", or made dozens of speeches for NAFTA, or the crime bills of the 90's, or the elimination of welfare programs. And lets look at actual facts, for once. Just last week Glenn Greenwald reported on a study showing that the longer people know who Sanders is, the higher his popularity, while the longer people know who Clinton is, the lower her popularity is. This extends to all racial groups. So in Nevada, for example, we've already seen where Latinos clearly demonstrated a preference for Sanders over Clinton, as they got to know both candidates. The advantage Clinton has "racially" evaporates when you account for class distinctions too. Look at her "black vote" in large, wealthier northern cities like Boston, Minneapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, and you'll notice that the massive advantages she enjoys in the South disappear. That is because her advantage comes from time and southern disinvestment in public education, not any sort of racial bias in Sanders. Wherever people have any serious amount of time to study both candidates, her leads disappear. If the media paid attention to this, instead of declaring the race over with only 30% of the states wrapped up, we'd TRULY give racial minorities around the country the voice they deserve in this election. Just think how screwy and irrational the narrative is, when you look for precedents. Where else in history have you seen racial minorities, Wall Street, and retirement-age baby boomers voting as a bloc? This has more to do with ignorance and clear media bias for the establishment, more than some sort of inherent flaw in Sanders message. Honestly, point out exactly where his platform is somehow unfriendly or less open to racial minorities than Clinton is. Her advantage is fleeting, and not something she can wield against Republicans. Failure to acknowledge this "strength" as the weakness it truly is, is going to be expensive for Democrats during the general election. The South is NOT going to be some sort of bastion for Hillary in November. In fact, nominating her instead of Sanders is going to COST the Dems southern states this autumn, if polling is at all accurate over the last few months.
    heinrichz , 2016-03-02 21:37:47
    More nonsense spin from the Guardian. Barbara Boxer claims to be a progressive ? Gimme a break!
    MooseMcNaulty notmurdoch , 2016-03-02 21:35:51
    I know many of them don't think he does. That's because the American people are pretty dumb, by and large. The fact remains that Bill Clinton sold out leftist, liberal views and values. From three strikes and mandatory minimums, expanding the death penalty, deregulating Wall Street, shipping American industry out of the country, slashing capital gains tax rates, demonizing and slashing the welfare safety net, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, it's quite demonstrably true that the man owes American liberals an apology.
    Baldobilly circuit , 2016-03-02 21:33:05
    Genuine question, what do Blacks or Latinos see in Clinton?

    Most Latino's live on the gulf coast, not exactly the most progressive part of the U.S. to begin with. Then you've got the Miami Cubans, who're naturally hostile to a candidate who describes himself as a 'socialist'. And to be honest, Sanders has been ambivalent at best about immigration.

    lanchrobster Porl D , 2016-03-02 21:32:57
    "lack of mainstream media coverage"

    But what do you mean no coverage? I've read a dozen mainstream media articles today about how Sanders is irrelevant and doesn't stand a chance!

    pretzelattack Bruce Hill , 2016-03-02 21:29:34
    as a hilary supporter, how many young black males would you call super predators? how would you "rein them in"? tasers? shotguns? bull conor's boys used cattle prods--don't forget the conservative democrats back then were the southern racists. of course hilary wasn't one of those; she was one of the conservative republican types, working in the goldwater campaign so he could fight the civil rights movement.
    ionee101 sdwoodruff , 2016-03-02 21:27:35
    Yeah! Because of course black people cannot possibly vote for Clinton for any reason other than that they're being duped by her. Funny how republicans say blacks vote for democrats because of all the "free stuff" and "obamaphones". Different sides of the same coin. Patronizing condescension much?
    Marcedward , 2016-03-02 21:22:29
    When you see the media pushing and pushing and pushing the narrative that "Hillary cannot be defeated", you know it's because they are scared to death that Hillary will be defeated.

    As for Barbara Boxer, used to admire her, but YEP she joined the inside-the-beltway establishment years ago. She wouldn't know a liberal if she ran over a liberal in her hemp-powered SUV

    TangoAlphaDelta arbmahla , 2016-03-02 21:20:25
    Don't buy into the game of dividing people up by race and putting them in this or that camp. That's the media narrative trying to tell you it's game over for Bernie when all that's happened is he has lost in overwhelmingly conservative states. No race thinks with one mind, black, white or hispanic and the blatant racism of the media and how they treat racial groups as homogenous entities is tiresome. Sanders may not win, but he is very much in the race and we don't need to get down on the black community because many of them actually support Sanders.
    Juanita Withrow Tom Wessel , 2016-03-02 21:19:48
    Barbara Boxer said this morning that Hilary winning the White House will be the crowning glory of the women's right to vote 100 years ago. For these people, it's another party & they want to shop for a new dress.

    Barbara Boxer has never returned my emails over the years. Wish we could take away her retirement package.

    TangoAlphaDelta , 2016-03-02 21:16:17
    35 states still to vote. Sanders needs about 53% to gain a majority of the popular vote. And the media is calling the whole thing for Clinton because she won strongly in southern conservative states that are never going to go Democratic.
    Baldobilly , 2016-03-02 21:15:58
    But that argument risks looking dismissive, suggesting that voters in the south and in African American communities were just too ignorant to understand what was in their best interests.

    So we can't say the truth now? Hillary bought off the entire Southern black religious establishment, and their local pastors duped their 'flocks' into voting for her. Typical Clinton sleaze if you ask me. The establishment grief of the Guardian is just so obvious. I'm literally disgusted by the relentless shilling of this newspaper rag for a deeply corrupt Wall Street owned candidate like Shillary.

    Mary Titus ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-03-02 21:15:12
    Whether Hillary wins or the GOP wins the country will be hijacked, although I'm sure there are others in power who are feeling like they're being hijacked (what goes around comes around). And yes they are trying to paint a narrative, that the only people who support him must be white people. This is totally a divisive tactic.
    Will Morgan simpledino , 2016-03-02 21:14:01
    I wasn't around in 1933 when FDR decried Wall Street, Big banks and pedatory Capital run amok but I was around for a part of the fifty or sixty years that followed on the changes he brought about that created a level playing field in society and which helped gaurantee that we would deafat Facism around the world. So I don't gasp with fear if Bernie, or anyone else, rails against milliobaires and billonaires. Bully for him!
    Prehistorian Zepp , 2016-03-02 21:13:44
    You're right to some extent, but if Sanders was to look like a potential winner he really needed to do better in Nevada and Massachusetts to counteract Clinton's strength elsewhere.
    Chris Woyton arbmahla , 2016-03-02 21:12:19

    By turning your back on Clinton you are, in effect, acting as a Trump shill

    This is a rather cynical position to take, don't you think? Especially considering that Sanders leads most Republican candidates by larger margins than does Clinton.

    I mean, that's the only context I can think of where your statement actually makes sense - that by pushing for Sanders one is somehow guaranteeing a Republican win which is, to put it delicately, factually inaccurate based on actual polling.

    nd BTW, you're a fake Sanders supporter too.

    Damn, now ya tell me! All those donations, working the phone banks, both local marches, and canvassing were wasted. If I had known I was just a poseur for Sanders I would have stayed home and saved a few bucks.

    Sarcasm aside, you have no standing or knowledge sufficient to make such a claim either factually or ethically so I would recommend you stop using it as your standard reply. Setting up a false dichotomy does not make you correct (See GW Bush, circa 2002).

    So, just in case it isn't evident, I am an actual supporter of Sanders and want to see him be our next president.

    Sanders would never condone your statements and actions.

    Would you care to share the special relationship you have to the Senator that actually backs up your claim? I'm pretty certain he doesn't have the time to comment on the Guardian right now so safe to say you're not him. So, I'll be charitable here...maybe you're a distant cousin or something.

    Zepp Prehistorian , 2016-03-02 21:06:58
    Now you're just kitchen-synching it. Sanders has overwhelming support amongst the party's rank-and-file. And in case you haven't notice, votes for both parties are staging a full on revolt against the enscronced and bought-out political operatives who govern the parties. They main difference is their guy is a monster.
    MooseMcNaulty heavenairport , 2016-03-02 21:05:45
    I don't follow this argument. What concerns of the black community hasn't he engaged with? He's addressed mandatory minimum sentencing, the drug war, for-profit prisons, community policing, police homicide, poverty, and criminal justice reform. What else does he need to address?
    sdwoodruff , 2016-03-02 20:59:50
    Clinton is winning the black vote without having ever really done a thing to deserve it. Sanders has much more of an actual participatory record in the Civil Rights movement. Will Clinton finally make the banking establishment pay attention to the financial needs of black voters. Yeah, right.
    Tom Wessel , 2016-03-02 20:58:26
    " I'm Barbara Boxer: a Jewish, liberal feminist from California,..."Whereas Bernie Sanders calls me 'the establishment'. Have you seen Bernie Sanders rallies? I haven't seen that many white voters since the Oscars ."

    Make that NEO-liberal not liberal that seems to be happy keeping people like you in power. It's hard for Bernie to get his message across to people that want change but vote the same old, same old people in. Please tell us how much better the black situation improved with that attitude the last 7 years? It will only get worse under Hillary. Of course she is an expert at pandering so she'll get the older black and older feminist votes. Bernie has great appeal to both of that sector's younger voters that want real change.

    Dan Henry notmurdoch , 2016-03-02 20:57:04
    She very obviously did not win the youth vote:

    "Even in the states where Clinton won handily, like Texas, Virginia, and Georgia, Sanders still won handily with his core constituencies - voters aged 18 to 29, first-time primary voters, and independents. According to NBC News' exit polls, Sanders won young voters by a 30-point margin in Texas, 39 points in Virginia, 13 points in Georgia, and even captured the youth vote in Clinton's home state of Arkansas, where Bill Clinton served as governor, by 24 points. Among first-time primary voters, Sanders won by, again, 30 points in Texas and 8 points in Virginia. And Sanders captured independent voters by 16 points in both Texas and Virginia, 3 points in Georgia, 13 points in Tennessee, and 17 points in Arkansas."

    http://usuncut.com/news/sanders-wins-4-super-tuesday-states/

    macktan894 , 2016-03-02 20:56:47
    I'm black and I and many black people I know voted for Sanders, so to represent him as a for whites only candidate is really an unfair angle for covering him. But unfair media coverage is hardly a new complaint. If the media had spent even half of the time it spent on Trump or Clinton, Bernie and his issues might be better known by more people.

    In any case, I have voted for Bernie and he's the only candidate I'm voting for this year. I'll write his name in for the general election if I have to, but I'm not voting for that other person, the fake Bernie.

    Janette Dean , 2016-03-02 20:55:07
    I trust Robert Reich's perspective far more than this columnist Dan Robert's perspective. Robert Reich's post from yesterday on SuperTuesday at https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1163809603631634:0 says:

    "Regardless of how well Bernie does today, the media will say Hillary is now the Democratic candidate. Baloney. The "momentum" theory of politics is based on momentum stories the media itself generates. Don't succumb to the "momentum" game. Regardless of what happens today, this race is still very much alive, for at least 3 reasons:
    1. In the next few months the primary map starts tilting in Bernie's favor: In later March: Maine, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Arizona, Washington state, and Hawaii. In April: Wisconsin, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island. In May: Indiana and Oregon. In June, California, New Jersey, and New Mexico.
    2, Small-donor contributions continue to flow in to Bernie's campaign. In February, the campaign raised a whopping $42 million. South Carolina's loss didn't stop the flow: The campaign received $6 million on Monday alone.
    3. Bernie's campaign is a movement. Americans know we must get big money out of politics and take back our economy from an incipient oligarchy. That's why Bernie will take this movement all the way to the Democratic convention in, July 25-28 in Philadelphia (you might make plans to be there, too)."

    Mary Titus simpledino , 2016-03-02 20:54:19
    And they shouldn't be doing that. I think part of that frustration comes from people that HAVE been supportive of solving problems black commumities face, and feeling like there's no mutual cohesion and solidarity in return (I've cared about this stuff long before Sanders came onto the national scene). At least that was how I initially felt when I saw the election results. I know that there are tons of different opinions out there, and I can't speak for everyone.
    MooseMcNaulty , 2016-03-02 20:54:09
    A shame that the black community doesn't seem to want to get behind Bernie. It's too bad Martin Luther King isn't still around to give an endorsement. I don't think there's much doubt who it'd go to. People tend to forget he'd become a bit of a radical leftist by the end.
    Forward123 , 2016-03-02 20:52:13
    If you want to see politically organized racism at work , look no farther than Clinton surrogate Debra Wasserman- Schultz recent activities to encourage abusive payday lending in Fla.

    This coming from the leader of the DNC and Clinton's hand-picked former campaign manager....

    And yes Black minorites have been deceived by their own leaders who are in the Clinton machine pockets to the detriment of their constituents. When black community leaders are promised big donations from the Clinton Foundation , is it any surprise that they exhort their followers to vote the Clinton line? "legalized bribery"Jimmy Carter calls it....

    And Clinton has the chutzpah to claim the Obama mantle... and raising minority anger at Trump and paint Sanders black at the same time. Her spin doctors like Barbara Boxer are working overtime.

    Quite incredible that such mis-direction has been so successfull until now.

    The only hope we have that this creature will not reach the WH is that she is her own worst enemy and may yet fall at the gate.

    Regardless , the only course is to press on.

    HoldenC , 2016-03-02 20:50:19
    Now it's abundantly obvious why Glenn Greenwald left The Guardian....it's run by the Washington establishment.
    pappa john , 2016-03-02 20:49:02
    The establishment are TERRIFIED of Sanders - because with Hillary they know they can control her with money! Just listen to her speech last night, and it literally was a compilation of platitudes! In terms of speaking without actually saying anything she is as bad as Trump!

    Does ANYONE actually know what she stands for ? Is she FOR or AGAINST gun control? Is she the '08 Annie Oakley Clinton, or 16 Anti-gun Clinton? The '10 anti-gay marriage or the '16 Pro gay marriage?

    She has e-mails PROVING she has been actively campaigning FOR nafta and TTIP! And let's not forget the time bomb of the corruption scandal in the Clinton foundation! She "forgot" to include $1 million dollars in foreign contributions - and this was what has been found so far!

    She is a liability - an empty suit. She wants power for power's sake! She simply is UNFIT for purpose

    ID0191623 , 2016-03-02 20:43:23
    Fast running out of patience with the Guardian and its bias for Clinton. This article is biased, it is rooted in hunches. This article follows Richard Wollfe's biased opinion piece. Where is the pro Sanders opinion piece? How about looking at some numbers: The author is basing a lot on South Carolina. It is not very important since it will go for the GOP in the general. If you look at the total number of votes cast for Sanders and Clinton and compare them to any one of the 3 GOP leaders, then it is clear that the democrats have no hope in the state. Then look at New Hampshire which will be a battleground state and look at Bernie's win there. Most of these southern states came together early and bias the number of wins toward Clinton. There are 35 primaries to go. Barack Obama for example lost Boston by a bigger margin than Sanders in 2008. Now in the next few weeks we have a lot of states Bernie will do well in. Look at the donations pouring into Bernie, look at the marches for him that are not covered. Look at the statement of the author here that it is unfair to call African Americans in SC uninformed and blame the media for not covering Sanders enough there. Well, what was to blame, there were a significant number of voters interviewed leaving the polls in SC who had never heard of Sanders. Is there not some onus on a voter to watch a debate before voting to at least get some impression of the candidates?
    I am a loyal Guardian reader but this is complete bias. I recommend Democracy Now! and The Young Turks for unbiased and detailed news.
    midnightschild10 , 2016-03-02 20:43:03
    Well, the elites of the NAACP are trying their best to turn Hillary into the nations third black President after Bill and Obama. Maybe they can get her to promise she won't sign another draconian Welfare Reform Bill like her husband did, causing an explosion of children and families living below the poverty line. Or maybe she will promise not to sign another Omnibus federal crime bill like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, giving us the three strikes law and setting mandatory sentences that impacted the black community more so then the whites who were incarcerated. But then again she was Bills strongest advisor. Its too late for them to ask her not to support another awful trade bill like NAFTA, that destroyed manufacturing, because she has given her full throsted support to TPP which will impact negatively on all segments of the population and takes us back to the good old days of deregulating banks and insurance companies ,extending patents to pharmaceutical companies to limit access to affordable generic drugs,send high paying jobs overseas to low wage countries, attack labor and consumer safety, just for starters. This is what the NAACP is now supporting. All minority groups will be effected. Following the elites of groups desperate to hold on to power at the expense of their members is now considered just politics. Sanders policies are not just for whites, but are for everyone. They are the same as he has fought for forty years. That is why he is fighting not only Hillary, but the Super delegates, and the rich and powerful. A novel idea, government of the people, for the people and by the people is what Sanders stands for. But its all the people.
    pretzelattack Pepe Abola , 2016-03-02 20:41:25
    and the article completely ignores that lewis backtracked, instead describing him as "pointing out" as if there were no factual dispute. it's as dishonest as the wolfe article this morning.
    Forward123 , 2016-03-02 20:30:38
    Barbara Boxer is just stirring up the black vote in favor of her pal.

    Meanwhile, the reality is that Sanders is the most electable Democrat due to electoral dynamics :

    From Real Clear Politics :

    Ms. Clinton won 4 Southern states that have not voted for a Democrat in the presidential elections since before Nixon. Mr. Sanders won 4 states that are reliable Democratic in the general election. In the general election, almost all states are winner take all for electoral delegates, so winning southerns states in the primary is meaningless for a Democrat in the grand scheme of things, which is the November general election. They essentially tied in Mass. She kicked his ass in Virginia. Objectively, he is still the best bet for taking the White House.

    "
    So yes , she won the Alabama vote big . and Texas ... but neither Texas nor Alabama nor many Southern states will vote Democrat in the general and she has no hope of this.

    [Mar 04, 2016] Paul Krugman: Clash of Republican Con Artists

    If Krugman is so concerned with con men, why he is supporting Hillary? Just because she is a con women? Or he wants to become one by securing a position in her administration?
    Notable quotes:
    "... First, there's the con Republicans usually manage to pull off in national elections ... where they pose as a serious, grown-up party honestly trying to grapple with America's problems. The truth is that that party died a long time ago, that these days it's voodoo economics and neocon fantasies all the way down. But the establishment wants to preserve the facade, which will be hard if the nominee is someone who refuses to play his part. ... ..."
    "... Equally important, the Trump phenomenon threatens the con the G.O.P. establishment has been playing on its own base..., the bait and switch in which white voters are induced to hate big government by dog whistles about Those People, but actual policies are all about rewarding the donor class. ..."
    "... What Donald Trump has done is tell the base that it doesn't have to accept the whole package. He promises to make America white again - surely everyone knows that's the real slogan, right? - while simultaneously promising to protect Social Security and Medicare, and hinting at (though not actually proposing) higher taxes on the rich. Outraged establishment Republicans splutter that he's not a real conservative, but neither, it turns out, are many of their own voters. ..."
    "... As I see it, then, we should actually welcome Mr. Trump's ascent. Yes, he's a con man, but he is also effectively acting as a whistle-blower on other people's cons. That is, believe it or not, a step forward in these weird, troubled times. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    "Why, exactly, the Republican establishment is really so horrified by Mr. Trump?":
    Clash of Republican Con Artists, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times : So Republicans are going to nominate a candidate who talks complete nonsense on domestic policy; who believes that foreign policy can be conducted via bullying and belligerence; who cynically exploits racial and ethnic hatred for political gain.
    But that was always going to happen, however the primary season turned out. The only news is that the candidate in question is probably going to be Donald Trump.
    Establishment Republicans denounce Mr. Trump as a fraud... In fact, you have to wonder why, exactly, the Republican establishment is really so horrified by Mr. Trump. Yes, he's a con man, but they all are. ...
    The answer, I'd suggest, is that the establishment's problem with Mr. Trump isn't the con he brings; it's the cons he disrupts.
    First, there's the con Republicans usually manage to pull off in national elections ... where they pose as a serious, grown-up party honestly trying to grapple with America's problems. The truth is that that party died a long time ago, that these days it's voodoo economics and neocon fantasies all the way down. But the establishment wants to preserve the facade, which will be hard if the nominee is someone who refuses to play his part. ...
    Equally important, the Trump phenomenon threatens the con the G.O.P. establishment has been playing on its own base..., the bait and switch in which white voters are induced to hate big government by dog whistles about Those People, but actual policies are all about rewarding the donor class.
    What Donald Trump has done is tell the base that it doesn't have to accept the whole package. He promises to make America white again - surely everyone knows that's the real slogan, right? - while simultaneously promising to protect Social Security and Medicare, and hinting at (though not actually proposing) higher taxes on the rich. Outraged establishment Republicans splutter that he's not a real conservative, but neither, it turns out, are many of their own voters.
    Just to be clear, I find the prospect of a Trump administration terrifying... But you should also be terrified by the prospect of a President Rubio, sitting in the White House with his circle of warmongers, or a President Cruz, whom one suspects would love to bring back the Spanish Inquisition.
    As I see it, then, we should actually welcome Mr. Trump's ascent. Yes, he's a con man, but he is also effectively acting as a whistle-blower on other people's cons. That is, believe it or not, a step forward in these weird, troubled times.

    Posted by Mark Thoma on Friday, March 4, 2016 at 08:51 AM in Economics , Politics | Permalink Comments (18)

    [Mar 04, 2016] BREAKING News As Propaganda

    Notable quotes:
    "... BREAKING!: Millions may have contracted "MUMI" virus. "MUMI" = Made Up Mass Information ..."
    "... Are all the so-called "news" published in the USA just right-wing zionist neo-con propaganda? ..."
    "... I call this a vicious manipulation of the information. The trouble is that there is no international legal body that could sanction that sort of deviancy. The MSM take advantage of their immunity ( 'Freedom of expression") to spread lies and throw people against each other's throats. They get away with it ( remember the infamous Judith Miller of the NY times about false scoops on Iraq nuclear weapons.. she should have been jailed) ..."
    "... I'd like to see the weasel meme which makes the appearance of the US Ambassador to Russia "among" a crowd of anti-Putin demonstrators seem pro-Russian, or even diplomatically wise. ..."
    "... Poor man's word play for the ignorant. Twitter is a perfect platform for this type of shite. Shameful to be fair. ..."
    "... #BREAKING Saudi bombs bring peace and stability. ..."
    "... Mr Cameron said he was proud of the "brilliant things" BAE had sold to the Middle Eastern country such as the Eurofighter Typhoon. The Saudi government has bought Ł3 billion of UK aircraft, arms and other defence products in 2015. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    For your daily media competence training:

    The hint that the above AFP #BREAKING tweet was nonsense is the use of the word may. Like in "#BREAKING Sky may have fallen". There is also the rhetoric redundancy in "have starved to death".

    But notice the 217 retweets which likely will have caused many secondary retweets and many, many more viewer impressions.

    Three hours later ...

    Cont. reading: #BREAKING News As Propaganda

    Maxcrat | Feb 29, 2016 12:59:36 PM | 1
    BREAKING!: Millions may have contracted "MUMI" virus. "MUMI" = Made Up Mass Information
    tom | Feb 29, 2016 2:25:16 PM | 5
    So ( mostly in the West ) the Russians won nothing with the BS recent " peace" deal, except to being propagandised and lied against as being starvationists and peace destroyers. With O chance of peace
    james k. sayre | Feb 29, 2016 2:56:57 PM | 8
    Are all the so-called "news" published in the USA just right-wing zionist neo-con propaganda? I have given watching news on TV here in the USA. I trust RT.com, Moon of Alabama, xymphora, cannonfire, cluborlov and a few other web sites. Local TV news is just depressing overload of crime, sports and weather. If anyone knows of a daily newspaper published in English that tells the truth, please let me know... Thanks. J.
    virgile | Feb 29, 2016 2:59:50 PM | 9
    I call this a vicious manipulation of the information. The trouble is that there is no international legal body that could sanction that sort of deviancy. The MSM take advantage of their immunity ( 'Freedom of expression") to spread lies and throw people against each other's throats. They get away with it ( remember the infamous Judith Miller of the NY times about false scoops on Iraq nuclear weapons.. she should have been jailed)
    Oui | Feb 29, 2016 3:09:01 PM | 10
    ISIS infighting in Raqqa: Dutch battalion of Moroccan fighters in Raqqa: 8 executed and dozens incarcerated
    Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 29, 2016 3:35:04 PM | 11
    One COULD construct a meme that the tweet was incomplete and omitted the words "...but for UN aid" from the end. However, I'd like to see the weasel meme which makes the appearance of the US Ambassador to Russia "among" a crowd of anti-Putin demonstrators seem pro-Russian, or even diplomatically wise.
    Petri Krohn | Feb 29, 2016 6:05:38 PM | 12
    #BREAKING Erdogan may have gone mad! Turkish president Erdogan tweets on the official Twitter account of the Turkish Presidency:
    Turkish Presidency ‏@trpresidency Feb 28

    "I Neither Obey Nor Respect Constitutional Court's Ruling" tccb.gov.tr/en/news/542/39…

    This did not go well with the public. Even his own supporters are critical. Like @eczferas ‏who tweets : @trpresidency my dear president - i respect you more than i respect my self but wished if you didn't say because they will use it against us

    The issue is the two Turkish journalists who were jailed in November and now released (awaiting trial) by Turkey's Constitutional Court. The journalist had revealed something about how Turkey works hand in glove with the Islamic State. The Western media was careful not to reveal to their readers what the journalist had found out. Something about "alleging that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government tried to ship arms to Islamists in Syria. This can hardly be news. The US does it openly all the time!

    P.S. - In case Erdogan decides to remove the tweet, I saved a screenshot here.

    MadMax2 | Feb 29, 2016 7:48:48 PM | 14
    Poor man's word play for the ignorant. Twitter is a perfect platform for this type of shite. Shameful to be fair.
    Petri Krohn | Feb 29, 2016 10:09:40 PM | 15
    #BREAKING Turkey switches sides, joins fight against ISIS. The Turkish daily newspaper Daily Sabah writes today quoting Reuters:
    Turkish military pounds Daesh positions in Syria with artillery fire

    The Turkish military targeted Daesh positions north of Syria's Aleppo province with artillery fire as part anti-Daesh coalition efforts on Monday afternoon.

    Turkish broadcaster NTV reported that approximately 50 to 60 rounds of howitzer shells were fired into Syrian territory.

    The cease-fire in Syria does not include Daesh, Nusra Front and other al-Qaida affiliates.

    The Turkish military had earlier targeted Daesh positions with F-16 jets.

    The operation took place while there was an ongoing Cabinet meeting in Ankara in which ministers discussed anti-terror measures.

    Daesh militants had attacked the Syrian town of Tel Abyad controlled by the YPG militia at the Turkish border as well as the nearby town of Suluk on Saturday.

    While a U.S. and Russian sponsored "cessation of hostilities" came into effect in Syria over the weekend, the U.S.-led coalition and Russia reserve the right to continue attacks against Daesh or the al Qaeda affiliate the Nusra Front.

    Funny! Kurdish sources and even Western mainstream sources are telling , that the Turkish artillery was targeting YGP positions in support of an ISIS attack that had been launched across the border from the Turkish side.

    Petri Krohn | Feb 29, 2016 10:37:48 PM | 16
    #BREAKING Saudi bombs bring peace and stability.

    The Telegraph writes today:

    Saudi Arabia is bombing in Yemen to bring peace and stability

    Contrary to misinformation, the Saudi intervention in Yemen is intended to help the country and protect civilians there.

    (Never mind the typo in the lede. I corrected it for you. Saudi Arabia is not yet attacking Syria .)

    jfl | Mar 1, 2016 2:41:05 AM | 18
    @16 Petri Krohn

    David Cameron backs 'brilliant' arms deals with Saudi Arabia... hours after Europe says we should ban them

    Mr Cameron said he was proud of the "brilliant things" BAE had sold to the Middle Eastern country such as the Eurofighter Typhoon. The Saudi government has bought Ł3 billion of UK aircraft, arms and other defence products in 2015.

    "I can see the planes being built right behind me here. We've got more work to do in Saudi Arabia," Mr Cameron told the assembled BAE employees.

    Oliver Sprague from Amnesty International told the Guardian: "The 'brilliant things' that David Cameron says BAE sells include massive amounts of weaponry for the Saudi Arabia military, despite Saudi Arabia's dreadful record in Yemen.

    "Thousands of Yemeni civilians have been killed and injured in devastating and indiscriminate Saudi coalition air strikes, and there's strong evidence that further weapons sales to Saudi Arabia are not just ill-advised but actually illegal."

    The Cameroon just can't get enough of that peace and stability, can he? Death, devastation, destruction ... and deceit, are all the Anglo-Americans - the 5 eyes of Oceania - have left for sale, and they're gonna sell same till they drop!

    You bet Le Monde made an article from the AFP cable yesterday
    And there was no word there about Yemen or the Saudis as head of the HR council

    Mina | Mar 1, 2016 4:56:50 AM | 19
    Good riddance
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/189899/World/Region/Dutch-probe-report--nationals-executed-after-joini.aspx

    [Mar 03, 2016] Romney speech shows why Trump is winning

    Looks like neocons will attack Trump, fearing that he might expose their role in 9/11 and become an obstacle for their interventionalist foreign policy
    A civil war within Republican party officially stated. The party elite opens fight against the choice of rank-and-file members. Marco Rubio and Kasich are no longer running for president. They are running to keep Trump from being president.
    Notable quotes:
    Notable quotes:
    "... And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the chance. ..."
    "... In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power. ..."
    "... Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later. But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign." ..."
    "... Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement. ..."
    "... Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight." ..."
    "... Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee. ..."
    www.politico.com

    It was a stirring call to arms for a strategic-voting retreat.

    And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the chance.

    Along the way, Trump has skated. In one remarkable statistic, Trump suffered less in attack ads through Super Tuesday than Romney's team hurled at Newt Gingrich in the final days in Florida alone in 2012. The Republican Party's top financiers are mobilizing now, with millions in anti-Trump ads expected in the next two weeks, but it may be too late to slow Trump after he has carried 10 of the first 15 contests, many of them by wide margins.

    In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power. (Also, by not picking a single anti-Trump standard-bearer, Romney, who briefly considered running for president again in 2016, left slightly more open the door that might allow a contested convention to select him.)

    "He's playing the members of the American public for suckers," Romney said of Trump. "He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat."

    Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later. But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign."

    Romney ripped about Trump's business background, ticking off bankruptcies and abandoned efforts. "What ever happened to Trump Airlines?" he said. "How about Trump University? And then there's Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage?" "A business genius he is not," Romney said. Of Trump's varied stances on issues, Romney added, "Dishonesty is Donald Trump's hallmark."

    Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement.

    "Well said," tweeted Kasich.

    Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight."

    On Thursday, Trump hammered back on NBC's "Today" show: "Mitt Romney is a stiff."

    Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee.

    Said Justin Barasky, a spokesman for the super PAC dedicated to electing Hillary Clinton, understatedly, "Certainly, having a former Republican nominee go after him is not unhelpful."

    [Mar 03, 2016] Barriers to Productivity Growth

    economistsview.typepad.com
    Chris Dillow:
    Barriers to productivity growth : "The limits to productivity growth are set only by the limits to human inventiveness" says John Kay. This understates the problem. There are other limits. I'd mention two which I think are under-rated.
    One is competition. Of course, this tends to increase productivity in many ways. But it has a downside. The fear of competition from future new technologies can inhibit investment today: no firm will spend Ł10m on robots if they fear a rival will buy better ones for Ł5m soon afterwards. ...
    The second is that, as Brynjolfsson and MacAfee say , "significant organizational innovation is required to capture the full benefit of…technologies."
    For example, Paul David has described (pdf) how the introduction of electricity into American factories did not immediately raise productivity much, simply because it merely replaced steam engines. It was only when bosses realized that electric motors allowed factories to be reorganized – dispensing with the need for machines to be close to a central power source – that productivity soared, as workflow improved and new cheaper buildings could be used. This took many years.
    It's not just organizational change that's needed, though..., I suspect that if IT is to have (further?) productivity-enhancing effects, they require socio-organizational change. ...
    However, there are always obstacles to the social and organizational change necessary for technical change to lead to productivity gains. These might be cognitive – such as the Frankenstein syndrome or "not invented here " mentality. Or they can be material. Socio-technical change is a process of creative destruction, the losers from which kick up a stink; think of taxi-drivers protesting against Uber.
    Worse still, these losers aren't always politically weak Ludditites. They can be well-connected bosses of incumbent firms, or managers seeking to maintain their power base. ...
    The big question facing us is, therefore: do we have the right set of institutions to foster the socio-organizational change that beget productivity growth? These require a mix of healthy markets, to maximize ecological diversity; a financial system which backs risky new-comers; property rights which incentivise innovation; and state intervention that facilitates all these whilst not being captured by Luddites. If our politics weren't so imbecilic, this question would be getting a lot more attention than it is.

    Related: How concerned should we be about business investment and productivity growth? - Nick Bunker .

    Posted by Mark Thoma on Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 10:51 AM in Economics , Productivity | Permalink Comments (97)

    [Mar 03, 2016] Romney speech shows why Trump is winning

    Looks like neocons will attack Trump, fearing that he might expose their role in 9/11 and become an obstacle for their interventionalist foreign policy
    A civil war within Republican party officially stated. The party elite opens fight against the choice of rank-and-file members. Marco Rubio and Kasich are no longer running for president. They are running to keep Trump from being president.
    Notable quotes:
    Notable quotes:
    "... And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the chance. ..."
    "... In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power. ..."
    "... Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later. But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign." ..."
    "... Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement. ..."
    "... Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight." ..."
    "... Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee. ..."
    www.politico.com

    It was a stirring call to arms for a strategic-voting retreat.

    And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the chance.

    Along the way, Trump has skated. In one remarkable statistic, Trump suffered less in attack ads through Super Tuesday than Romney's team hurled at Newt Gingrich in the final days in Florida alone in 2012. The Republican Party's top financiers are mobilizing now, with millions in anti-Trump ads expected in the next two weeks, but it may be too late to slow Trump after he has carried 10 of the first 15 contests, many of them by wide margins.

    In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power. (Also, by not picking a single anti-Trump standard-bearer, Romney, who briefly considered running for president again in 2016, left slightly more open the door that might allow a contested convention to select him.)

    "He's playing the members of the American public for suckers," Romney said of Trump. "He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat."

    Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later. But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign."

    Romney ripped about Trump's business background, ticking off bankruptcies and abandoned efforts. "What ever happened to Trump Airlines?" he said. "How about Trump University? And then there's Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage?" "A business genius he is not," Romney said. Of Trump's varied stances on issues, Romney added, "Dishonesty is Donald Trump's hallmark."

    Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement.

    "Well said," tweeted Kasich.

    Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight."

    On Thursday, Trump hammered back on NBC's "Today" show: "Mitt Romney is a stiff."

    Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee.

    Said Justin Barasky, a spokesman for the super PAC dedicated to electing Hillary Clinton, understatedly, "Certainly, having a former Republican nominee go after him is not unhelpful."

    [Mar 03, 2016] M of A - Russia Is Weaponizing ... Everything

    Notable quotes:
    "... weaponized bullsh!t, so we're safe for now. ..."
    "... The weaponized Western propaganda. ..."
    "... AmeriKan elites showing they are ever desperate for an eternal enemy...or as a distraction from their own corruption. Delay that "off with their heads" moment forever if possible. ..."
    "... What a dangerous country. Thank God the world has America to protect it. And thank heavens it weaponized depleted uranium for the benefit of all the countries it has liberated. ..."
    "... I think that take is confined to the Zionists and their whores, as Trump says he can get along with Russia and the American people seem to agree. The West caused this whole disaster of refugees, not Russia. Wake up world, and give Frau Merkle a nudge in the right direction. ..."
    "... When the only tool you (the U.S.) have is a hammer (war), everything looks like a nail (a weapon). ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Jackrabbit | Mar 3, 2016 8:43:31 AM | 4

    Apparently the West still maintains the lead in weaponized actors (ht Penelope), weaponized extremists (ht Sy Hersh), and weaponized bullsh!t, so we're safe for now.
    nmb | Mar 3, 2016 8:00:06 AM | 1
    The weaponized Western propaganda.
    farflungstar | Mar 3, 2016 8:06:58 AM | 2
    AmeriKan elites showing they are ever desperate for an eternal enemy...or as a distraction from their own corruption. Delay that "off with their heads" moment forever if possible.
    metni | Mar 3, 2016 8:46:57 AM | 6
    The mass production of faux news demonizing Russians invokes depictions of Orwell's nefarious Eurasians from whom the populace needed Big Brother for protection.
    Lysander | Mar 3, 2016 9:07:28 AM | 8
    What a dangerous country. Thank God the world has America to protect it. And thank heavens it weaponized depleted uranium for the benefit of all the countries it has liberated.
    dahoit | Mar 3, 2016 9:58:47 AM | 13
    9; Serious free people take this seriously.

    I think that take is confined to the Zionists and their whores, as Trump says he can get along with Russia and the American people seem to agree. The West caused this whole disaster of refugees, not Russia. Wake up world, and give Frau Merkle a nudge in the right direction. Another lost human in the maze of Zion.

    Vietnam Vet | Mar 3, 2016 10:53:03 AM | 17
    When the only tool you (the U.S.) have is a hammer (war), everything looks like a nail (a weapon).

    [Feb 26, 2016] A Unified Theory of Trump by Timothy Egan

    NYT is pro-Hillary neocon establishment influenced rag. One apt observation from NYT comments: "Trump's assertions about sleep should be taken with the grain of salt that all his other grandiose proclamations deserve. I suspect he makes those claims just to prove what an exceptional human he is. He doesn't even need to sleep much!" Trumps come and go, but the deluded, totally brainwashed electorate will stay. That's the real problem. Degradation of democracy into oligarchy (the iron law of oligarchy) is an objective process. Currently what we see is some kind revolt against status quo. that's why Trump and Sanders get so many supporters.
    Another one from comments: "Over the years, Pew surveys show that at least 60% of those polled can't name two branches of the government. Current campaigns, including that of Sanders, imply that the POTUS has a wide range of powers that are to be found nowhere in the Constitution." So none of Repug candidates understand this document. And still I must admit that "Trump is the best in breed when it comes to this GOP dog show." I agree that "Trump punches above his weight in debates "
    NYT will never tell you why Hillary will be even more dangerous president.
    Only a sleep disorder physician following a full-night study could tell us whether the diagnosis is clinically sound. This guy from NYT is a regular uneducated journo, not a certified physician. Why insult people who truly suffer from sleep deprivation? So all of them are obnoxious maniacs? To me a large part of his behavior is a typical alpha-male behavior. There are, in fact, a number of brilliant, driven alpha-males who function well with a bare amount of sleep. That may be an evolutionary trait that help them to achieve dominance. For example, Napoleon rarely slept more than 2-3 hours per 24-hour period, according to several historians. Churchill stayed up several nights in a row reading Hansard in his formative years and he was a gifted orator, one of the sharpest wits. He also was an alcoholic. Several famous famous mathematicians were among sleep deprived people. Like photographic memory this is a unique idiosyncrasy that is more frequent in alpha-males, not necessary a disease. BTW Angela Merkel is noted for her ability not to sleep for several nights, wearing her opponents into shreds via sleep deprivation and enforcing her decisions over the rest. That was last demonstrated in Minsk were she managed even to get Putin to agree on her terms.
    He mentions this term "alpha male" despite the fact that it provides an alternative explanation. Also as one reader commented "So please explain the positions (and behaviors ) of Ayatollah Cruz and rubber man Rubio." Those two backstabbing pseudo-religious demagog got implicit support from the article.
    How about this from sleep deprived person vs one definitely non-sleep deprive person (Jeb!): "Donald Trump joins the fight to release the secret 28 Pages of the 9/11 Report."
    Notable quotes:
    "... This is Time's contribution to the growing movement to discredit Trump. Every candidate can be similarly eviscerated for their weaknesses, including character flaws. The problem is that our American system of electing leadership is deeply flawed and easily manipulated by advertising. The humiliating process of campaigning drives away our best prospects, leaving the country with weak, inconsistent leadership. ..."
    "... gemli, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton pursued a regime change in Libya, Syria and Ukraine. They got away with their foolish adventure by saying that Gaddafi was a bad guy, Assad is a bad guy and Putin is a bad guy. ..."
    "... Mr. Trump is the sole American politician who is willing to say that we should cooperate with Putin. He is the only Republican to be open to single payer health care, the only Republican to say something good about Planned Parenthood and the only Republican to say that Bush should have been impeached for the Iraq war. ..."
    "... Hillary Rodham and Marco Rubio are so awful that we would be better off with a nasty, sleep-deprived Trump. Besides, there is still a much better alternative: the irascible Bernie Sanders. He may be angry, but you would have to be crazy to not be angry with the mess we now have to live with: a rigged economy, free trade , politics corrupted by money, and an insatiable Military Industrial Complex. ..."
    "... A lot of people are angry and Trump is channeling that anger. Sanders is channeling a different anger but he is too nice, and will lose to Mrs. Clinton who is supported by the establishment. ..."
    "... He, I believe is also the first American politician to say openly that we have to cooperate with Russia if we are really serious about taking on ISIS. Mr. Obama, with his Harvard education, has NO idea what to do about the ME and is floundering around. Meanwhile Russia and Assad and the Kurds are taking the lead, and our allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actually undermining the war against ISIS. ..."
    "... I would not vote for Trump but if he does become president, we might actually have peace in the Middle East and we might actually have single payer health care. On the second, almost all the Democrats will support him and so will at least some Republicans. ..."
    "... Trump is not a nice man but he might not be a disaster as president. ..."
    "... Trump is right about one thing, He does make your head spin. ..."
    "... I just finished reading 4 opinion columns by Bruni, Brooks, Krugman and lastly Tim Egans, all published on Feb 26th. (May the last be first and the first last.) I hope Kasich wins to invoke a civil exchange of ideas in American politics, but I will vote for Bernie ..."
    "... I imagine the Asians and/or Europe all laughing at us now, but at least there not shouting and acting like children. Help me, Im drowning. Give me a leader who can compromise in that great noble tradition which benefits everyone. Its called compassion for the global family. ..."
    "... Ambler in Background to Danger has a small meditation about politics being not much of anything other than a face behind which the true story goes on, one of big business interests--or in general, economic interests. ..."
    "... With Donald Trump the Republican party in the U.S. seems to have dropped the politics mask -- you have a combination of business and fascistic impulses. The question however, is why. Could it be because now all nations in the world find themselves hemmed, with a landlocked feeling like Germany had prior to outbreak of WW2? These business/authoritarian impulses today are not confined to the U.S. alone. ..."
    "... how to satisfy in simple basics the restless masses of millions upon millions of people, everything else, not to mention culture, just collapsing in a crowd discussion of who gets what, when, where, why, and how. ..."
    "... Whats defective about Trump? He is obviously doing very well for himself - he is the likely Republican nominee and is not exactly starving despite multiple bankruptcies. ..."
    "... There are real problems with politics in the US and Trump is getting support partly because he at least shows some signs, however delusionary, of addressing the concerns of the 99%. ..."
    "... Why are Democrats so concerned that Donald Trump might be the Republican Partys nominee for President that the NY Times trots out editorials psychobabbling about his sleep deprivation? ..."
    "... Trump may be all that the intellectual elite deride him for. Guess what? The people who support him dont care. They are tired of being told how to think by people who suppose themselves to be their betters. They will cast their votes and throw their support behind whomever they please, thank-you very much. ..."
    "... And really, does Timothy Egan really believe Donald Trump doesnt know what hes doing or saying? Because of sleep deprivation? Note to Mr. Egan: Whatever is Trumps sleep schedule, it seems to be working well for him. Hes winning. ..."
    "... Trump functions well enough to understand this: (1) The media is deceptive with an agenda of its own. (2) Big donors and big money control the career politicians. 93) Politicians can talk talk talk and make plans and policy and get nothing done. ..."
    "... Trump and his supporters are on to all this now. The corrupt media, the corrupt big money and the all talk no action politicians. That is functioning well enough. Trump does not need to function beyond that. His supporters know it and he knows it. ..."
    "... So far the best and the brightest highly educated intellectuals have let the USA down . Trump has a certain kind of intelligence that might be just what we need. He effectively cut through a crowded Republican field packed with ideological purists like a knife through butter. He is a very talented New Yorker who grew up in the 60s and went to Fordham before he went to Wharton. If you want to stick your finger in the collective eye of the elite . vote for Trump. ..."
    "... The republican party is the reactionary party. They are a little like the Sicilians described in the novel The Leopard where it is said that In Sicily it doesnt matter whether things are done well or done badly; the sin which we Sicilians never forgive is simply that of doing at all. ..."
    "... The Taibbi piece can be found here at this link: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-... ..."
    "... Better a sleep deprived bully than a well rested one, which what the rest of the bunch are. They clearly know exactly how to ruin the country and antagonize our allies. ..."
    "... As you are reading this, recall how a stressful event in your own life interfered with your sleep. Well, given the frantic nature of the current Republican primary season, the travel, the debates, the probing press, the TV interviews, the speeches, the insults and whats at stake, all of the candidates must be sleep deprived. If they were not they wouldnt be human. Donald will do just fine once he becomes president and gets use to the job (or not). ..."
    "... But what about those who hold those same obnoxious ideas arguably sans sleep deprivation? Palin, Cruz, Carson? Please do a series of columns linking the apparent absence of reason in many of the GOP candidates with the current DSM. ..."
    "... I used to ridicule President Reagans legendary afternoon naps. Now I am the age Reagan was as president, and I dont think I could function without napping when I dont get enough sleep at night. ..."
    "... What is happening now is not about Trump. Its about what he represents. I dont normally read Peggy Noonan but she nails it today. There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully. ..."
    Feb 26, 2016 | The New York Times
    michael kittle
    vaison la romaine, france 17 hours ago

    This is Tim's contribution to the growing movement to discredit Trump. Every candidate can be similarly eviscerated for their weaknesses, including character flaws. The problem is that our American system of electing leadership is deeply flawed and easily manipulated by advertising. The humiliating process of campaigning drives away our best prospects, leaving the country with weak, inconsistent leadership.

    The founding fathers rejected a parliamentary system because it was like England's, but history indicates America could have avoided many political debacles if it had been easier to remove incompetent presidents when their decisions threatened the country. Modernizing our electoral system, shortening the campaign time, and raising the level of debate could improve the choices Americans are given.

    Rohit
    New York 8 hours ago

    gemli, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton pursued a regime change in Libya, Syria and Ukraine. They got away with their foolish adventure by saying that Gaddafi was a bad guy, Assad is a bad guy and Putin is a bad guy.

    And maybe they are right about these people being bad guys. But the regime change policy has been a disaster. WE did not spend a trillion dollars and no AMERICAN troops died. But hundreds of thousands of Syrians are dead, millions knocking at Germany's door and Greece is overwhelmed with refugees. This was all the doing of the "Obama team".

    Mr. Trump is the sole American politician who is willing to say that we should cooperate with Putin. He is the only Republican to be open to single payer health care, the only Republican to say something good about Planned Parenthood and the only Republican to say that Bush should have been impeached for the Iraq war.

    YOU just see a nasty man in the Republican debates who talks nonsense and has no trouble lying. And that nasty mean does seem to be there, although given Trump, the nasty man might well be a façade who will vanish as soon as he faces the general election.

    And you need to be aware of the fact that some of his positions are actually sensible and he is the only politician who has all these positions.

    Unfortunately you guys hate Republicans so much that you see red any time you see one and that red in your eyes prevents you from seeing clearly.

    Timothy Bal

    Central Jersey 16 hours ago
    A sleep-deprived Trump is still much better than a fully rested tool of the elites from either political party.

    Hillary Rodham and Marco Rubio are so awful that we would be better off with a nasty, sleep-deprived Trump. Besides, there is still a much better alternative: the irascible Bernie Sanders. He may be angry, but you would have to be crazy to not be angry with the mess we now have to live with: a rigged economy, "free trade", politics corrupted by money, and an insatiable Military Industrial Complex.

    Rohit, New York 9 hours ago
    A lot of people are angry and Trump is channeling that anger. Sanders is channeling a different anger but he is too nice, and will lose to Mrs. Clinton who is supported by the establishment.

    Trump is mean enough to take on the establishment, and win. And he is the first Republican brave enough to say that Planned Parenthood DOES do some good work. Like him, I do NOT think they should receive federal funding but that some or most of their work is actually health related is a fact.

    He, I believe is also the first American politician to say openly that we have to cooperate with Russia if we are really serious about taking on ISIS. Mr. Obama, with his Harvard education, has NO idea what to do about the ME and is floundering around. Meanwhile Russia and Assad and the Kurds are taking the lead, and our "allies" Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actually undermining the war against ISIS.

    I would not vote for Trump but if he does become president, we might actually have peace in the Middle East and we might actually have single payer health care. On the second, almost all the Democrats will support him and so will at least some Republicans.

    Trump is not a nice man but he might not be a disaster as president.

    Bob SE PA 6 hours ago

    Mr. Egan, Donald Trump may or may not suffer from sleep deprivation. He definitely suffers from something called NPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He has the classic symptoms which are described as follows, according to the Mayo Clinic http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-d... :

    "DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:

    1. Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
    2. Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
    3. Exaggerating your achievements and talents
    4. Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
    5. Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people
    6. Requiring constant admiration
    7. Having a sense of entitlement
    8. Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
    9. Taking advantage of others to get what you want
    10. Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
    11. Being envious of others and believing others envy you
    12. Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner"

    bill b new york 16 hours ago

    Trump is right about one thing, He does make your head spin.

    Paul Greensboro, NC 11 hours ago

    I just finished reading 4 opinion columns by Bruni, Brooks, Krugman and lastly Tim Egan's, all published on Feb 26th. (May the last be first and the first last.) I hope Kasich wins to invoke a civil exchange of ideas in American politics, but I will vote for Bernie or Hilary assuming an asteroid does not hit the earth before then.

    I imagine the Asians and/or Europe all laughing at us now, but at least the're not shouting and acting like children. Help me, I'm drowning. Give me a leader who can compromise in that great noble tradition which benefits everyone. It's called compassion for the global family.

    Daniel12 Wash. D.C. 14 hours ago

    Donald Trump?

    I'm on a project to read four (the four I could find so far) of the six Eric Ambler novels written prior to WW2. I'm on the second, "Background to Danger", now. Ambler in "Background to Danger" has a small meditation about politics being not much of anything other than a face behind which the true story goes on, one of big business interests--or in general, economic interests.

    With Donald Trump the Republican party in the U.S. seems to have dropped the politics mask -- you have a combination of business and fascistic impulses. The question however, is why. Could it be because now all nations in the world find themselves hemmed, with a landlocked feeling like Germany had prior to outbreak of WW2? These business/authoritarian impulses today are not confined to the U.S. alone.

    Worse, the opposition to big business, the other big economic theory of past decades, the socialistic/communistic trend, has been seen in practice whether we speak of Cuba or the Soviet Union or Venezuela or China. It seems all the masks of politics are coming off, all the ideals such as democracy, rights, communism, what have you and instead the argument is turning to actual and naked discussion of interests pure and simple, right and left wing economics, how to satisfy in simple basics the restless masses of millions upon millions of people, everything else, not to mention culture, just collapsing in a crowd discussion of who gets what, when, where, why, and how.

    The open boat.

    skeptonomist is a trusted commenter Tennessee 11 hours ago

    What's defective about Trump? He is obviously doing very well for himself - he is the likely Republican nominee and is not exactly starving despite multiple bankruptcies.

    What needs analysis is why so many people support Trump - what's up with them? And what defects in the establishments of both parties cause so many people to reject their selected dynastic picks.

    There are real problems with politics in the US and Trump is getting support partly because he at least shows some signs, however delusionary, of addressing the concerns of the 99%.

    Beachbum Paris 14 hours ago

    This is all thanks to Rupert Murdoch

    S.D.Keith Birmigham, AL 7 hours ago

    Why are Democrats so concerned that Donald Trump might be the Republican Party's nominee for President that the NY Times trots out editorials psychobabbling about his sleep deprivation?

    This is hilarious stuff. Trump may be all that the intellectual elite deride him for. Guess what? The people who support him don't care. They are tired of being told how to think by people who suppose themselves to be their betters. They will cast their votes and throw their support behind whomever they please, thank-you very much. That, much to the chagrin of the Progressive idealists who always believe they know better what people should need and want, is democracy in action. It may be ugly at times, but it is much preferred over every other form of governance.

    In fact, articles like this, while red meat for establishmentarian dogs, serve only to strengthen Trump's bona fides among his supporters.

    And really, does Timothy Egan really believe Donald Trump doesn't know what he's doing or saying? Because of sleep deprivation? Note to Mr. Egan: Whatever is Trump's sleep schedule, it seems to be working well for him. He's winning.

    J. San Ramon 9 hours ago

    Trump functions well enough to understand this: (1) The media is deceptive with an agenda of its own. (2) Big donors and big money control the career politicians. 93) Politicians can talk talk talk and make plans and policy and get nothing done.

    Trump and his supporters are on to all this now. The corrupt media, the corrupt big money and the all talk no action politicians. That is functioning well enough. Trump does not need to function beyond that. His supporters know it and he knows it.

    Scott, NYC 7 hours ago

    Another cheap hit piece by the Times. Just to fact check Mr. Egan. Trump just did very, very well with Hispanics in Nevada. So who's delusional?

    AVT, Glen Cove, NY 7 hours ago

    So far the best and the brightest highly educated intellectuals have let the USA down . Trump has a certain kind of intelligence that might be just what we need. He effectively cut through a crowded Republican field packed with ideological purists like a knife through butter. He is a very talented New Yorker who grew up in the 60s and went to Fordham before he went to Wharton. If you want to stick your finger in the collective eye of the "elite". vote for Trump. This message brought to you by a hugely "bigly" educated Queens lawyer. go Redmen

    Excellency, is a trusted commenter Florida 9 hours ago

    The republican party is the reactionary party. They are a little like the Sicilians described in the novel "The Leopard" where it is said that" In Sicily it doesn't matter whether things are done well or done badly; the sin which we Sicilians never forgive is simply that of 'doing' at all."

    Imagine a man of action like Trump navigating that population, from which great jurists like Scalia emerge, and you have Trump behaving much as Egan describes and succeeding. Indeed, in that same novel it is said that "to rage and mock is gentlemanly, to grumble and whine is not."

    S.R. Simon, Bala Cynwyd, Pa. 9 hours ago

    Matt Taibbi's pitch-perfect HOW AMERICA MADE DONALD TRUMP UNSTOPPABLE (Rolling Stone, Feb. 24) says it all, and to perfection. The Taibbi piece can be found here at this link: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-...

    Nora01, New England 9 hours ago

    Better a sleep deprived bully than a well rested one, which what the rest of the bunch are. They clearly know exactly how to ruin the country and antagonize our allies.

    nzierler, New Hartford 9 hours ago

    Ever wonder why Trump invokes the name of Carl Ihkan every chance he gets? Both engage in hostile takeovers. That's the predatory side of business. But how does that qualify Trump to be the Commander-In-Chief? I would not be surprised if a frustrated President Trump threatened to punch Vladimir Putin in the face. The very thought of President Trump is a nightmare, but no less a nightmare than President Cruz or President Rubio.

    Dan Weber, Anchorage, Alaska 9 hours ago

    John Kenneth Galbraith, who was in parts of his career intimate with government (including being American ambassador to India during the 1962 China-India War) said in his autobiography that sleep deprivation was the least-appreciated weakness of high-level decision makers in times of crisis.

    Somewhere I've read of an experiment that concluded that someone who hasn't slept for 36 hours is as dysfunctional as if he were legally intoxicated. And I recall Colin Powell praising Ambien as the only thing that allowed him to travel as he had to. That's interesting, given Ambien's well-known potential amnesic side-effects.

    Mike, San Diego 9 hours ago

    As you are reading this, recall how a stressful event in your own life interfered with your sleep. Well, given the frantic nature of the current Republican primary season, the travel, the debates, the probing press, the TV interviews, the speeches, the insults and what's at stake, all of the candidates must be sleep deprived. If they were not they wouldn't be human. Donald will do just fine once he becomes president and gets use to the job (or not).

    Carrollian, NY 9 hours ago

    But what about those who hold those same obnoxious ideas arguably sans sleep deprivation? Palin, Cruz, Carson? Please do a series of columns linking the apparent absence of reason in many of the GOP candidates with the current DSM.

    Richard Grayson, Brooklyn, NY 11 hours ago

    Good call, though I suspect most presidential candidates need a lot more sleep. A friend of mine who lived near Michael Dukakis saw him a few weeks after the 1988 election, and he recounted that the Democratic presidential candidate said he was now sleeping so much better, that in the hectic pace of a campaign, he wasn't able to take the time to learn "what was really going on" and to process everything.

    I used to ridicule President Reagan's legendary afternoon naps. Now I am the age Reagan was as president, and I don't think I could function without napping when I don't get enough sleep at night.

    There's a campaign trope about who you want to be in the White House when an emergency call about a serious world crisis comes in at 3 a.m. I want him or her to be someone who didn't just go to sleep at 2 a.m.

    CNNNNC, CT 11 hours ago

    What is happening now is not about Trump. It's about what he represents. I don't normally read Peggy Noonan but she nails it today. "There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.

    The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful-those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created."

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-rise-of-the-unprotected-145644...

    Making the election about Trump personally conveniently ignores this new reality.

    [Feb 25, 2016] A Letter to Tony Blair

    Notable quotes:
    "... But if the alternative is to try and elect leaders from the centre who will do nothing to confront these great issues, and will instead cut spending, accept stagnation and wait for the next financial crisis, is it any wonder that many people would rather take their chance with someone different? ... ..."
    "... Rather than celebrating the enthusiasm and interest of the many young people that have recently joined (even if they regard some of their aspirations as naive), and who will be vital in future election campaigns, this overtly anti-Corbyn group seem to regard them as a threat. ... ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    From Simon Wren-Lewis:
    A letter to Tony Blair : Dear Mr. Blair

    We have not met, but I have talked to your former colleague Gordon a few times and I did some academic work on his 5 tests for Euro entry. I saw a report that you were mystified by the popularity of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders. I have an article today in The Independent that might help you understand your puzzle.

    I know you find it strange that people that appear to you like those your predecessor Neil Kinnock did battle with over the future of the Labour Party in the 1980s are now running the party. It must also seem strange that in the US where socialism once seemed to be regarded as a perversion, large numbers should be supporting a socialist candidate. You suggest some explanations, but you do not mention the power of finance, inequality and the senselessness of austerity. You say that these new leaders will not be electable. But if the alternative is to try and elect leaders from the centre who will do nothing to confront these great issues, and will instead cut spending, accept stagnation and wait for the next financial crisis, is it any wonder that many people would rather take their chance with someone different? ...

    There are many Labour MPs and left leaning journalists who seem to share your puzzlement, and have decided that they have to fight again the battles of the 1980s by doing everything to undermine their new Labour leadership. ...

    Rather than celebrating the enthusiasm and interest of the many young people that have recently joined (even if they regard some of their aspirations as naive), and who will be vital in future election campaigns, this overtly anti-Corbyn group seem to regard them as a threat. ...

    Please tell them to stop. I fear they need someone they respect like you to point out the foolishness of their actions.

    Yours

    Simon Wren-Lewis

    [Feb 23, 2016] Bill Black: Krugman Triples Down on His Smear of Friedman and Bernie

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Originally published at New Economic Perspectives ..."
    "... a professor with decades of rebellious students in his classrooms ..."
    "... This is beginning to remind me of the New York Times-Dick Cheney-Iraq War fiasco, where Cheneys minions would feed information to the NYT, the Times would write a supportive story, and then Cheney would appear on the Sunday talk shows using publication of information in the NYT as verification for his points. ..."
    "... Sorry mate, but Ive been watching Krugman for decades, his last stop down under was like watching Greenspan spin reality. This is compounded by a track record of intransigence and pettifoggery highlighted here on NC going back to 2012. ..."
    "... Skippy…. what if Krugman is just another neoliberal albeit with pangs of guilt…. ..."
    "... Who cares? The NYT and Paul Krugman are their own worst enemies. Let them shill for Hilary, its blatantly obvious and they arent fooling anyone; they only damage their already damaged brands. ..."
    "... He is a neoliberal moron like that other neoliberal moron who writes a column for them also named Tom. And then there is the neocon named David. And they wonder why they are failing financially? ..."
    "... One current Times staffer told The Observer, Tom Friedman is an embarrassment. I mean there are multiple blogs and Tumblrs and Twitter feeds that exist solely to make fun of his sort of blowhardy bullshit. ..."
    "... the current episode is a clear demonstration that hes a political hack as opposed to a serious economist. ..."
    "... He has the bully pulpit and hes using it to screw the working man. Hopefully theres a special place in Hell for sell-outs like Krugman. ..."
    "... Krugman evidently has no idea how money and banking works which says it all. Later last year he wrote in one of his columns that banks take in deposits from savers and lend them out to borrowers, thereby acting as intermediaries . He evidently has no idea of the truth, namely, that banks create money out of thin air when they agree to make loans. The fact that he doesnt understand our monetary system is bizarre and bit scary. So yes he is a phony . ..."
    "... Me thinks Serious Establishment Professor Krugman is doing a yeomans job of carrying Clinton water with hopes of a courtiers appointment in the preordained Clinton Administration. ..."
    "... Krugman jumped the shark some time ago with his shilling for the Obamacrats. I stopped reading him and subscribing to the Times shortly into Obamas first term. The MSM is little more than the propaganda wing for the elite scumbags who feel entitled to run the country. Goebbels and Pravda would be proud. ..."
    "... Same here. I hadnt subscribed to the Times in ages and ages (issues with home delivery), but I used to buy it routinely on business vacation trip flights. Since the early days of Obama, I stopped. The NYT was always biased to the corporatocracy, but it used to have some redeeming features. Not no more. Havent bothered to read it at all over the past 7+ years. Thanks, Obama! ..."
    "... The beautiful–or perverse–thing about American Exceptionalism (TM) is that it allows you to pretend the rest of the world simply doesnt exist or is irrelevant. In other words, we cant have nice things because were just too damn special and Free (TM). ..."
    "... you see problems, they see opportunities to extract rents. ..."
    "... I havent seen Michael Moores latest documentary, Where to Invade Next , but I believe he discusses similar issues by illustrating how other countries are managing to provide their citizens with needed services without going into deep debt (or whatever). ..."
    "... To me, that one ended when Obama suspended his campaign in 08 to rush back to Washington to vote for Dot Com Immunity. You kind of knew right there. ..."
    "... One can remember Austan Goolsbees 2008 reassurance of Canadian officials that candidate Obamas criticism of NAFTA was political maneuvering ..."
    "... The conscience of a neoliberal . Or lack of… ..."
    "... Couldnt the NYT get the same results for less money with the non-union Mexican equivalent of Krugman, senor Krugmano? ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    February 23, 2016 by Yves Smith

    Yves here. Krugman's behavior is utterly disgraceful and he deserves to be called out on it. Again, I urge readers to contact the Times' Public Editor about this shameful lapse . A classic management error is the "firm within a firm," where an individual or tem gets to write their own rules and ignore management. AIG and Drexel are case studies of the sorry results. Does the Times regard Krugman as Too Big to Discipline?

    By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Originally published at New Economic Perspectives

    Paul Krugman is plumbing new depths of moral obtuseness, arrogance, and intellectual dishonesty in what is now his third smear of the well-respected economist Gerald Friedman in two days. My prior column discussed Krugman's two columns on February 17, 2016. Here is Krugman's lead in his column dated February 19.

    On Wednesday four former Democratic chairmen and chairwomen of the president's Council of Economic Advisers - three who served under Barack Obama, one who served under Bill Clinton - released a stinging open letter to Bernie Sanders and Gerald Friedman , a University of Massachusetts professor who has been a major source of the Sanders campaign's numbers. The economists called out the campaign for citing "extreme claims" by Mr. Friedman that "exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans" and could "undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda."

    That's harsh. But it's harsh for a reason.

    But why did they send a "harsh" and "stinging" letter in a manner calculated to try to destroy the career of an economist? If they found a grievous error in Friedman's work, why didn't they email him and point it out? Why did they personalize the attack and suggest that he must be doing it for Bernie? Why did they personalize their attack on Bernie, who did not commission Friedman's study? Why has Krugman tripled-down on the personal attacks on Friedman and Bernie?

    Here are a few things that a reader would want to know, but would never learn from the Gang of 4 or any of Krugman's three efforts to smear Friedman. First, Friedman is a political supporter of Hillary Clinton. He did not gin up an economic study to benefit his favored candidate. He looked at the economic impact of Bernie's proposals because that is what macroeconomists do. It is not clear whether the Gang of 4 did the minimal due diligence to discover this fact before they decided to smear Friedman by implying that he was a political hack shilling for Bernie. It is certain that they know now and should immediately correct their open letter, formally withdraw it, and apologize to everyone they smeared.

    It is certain that Paul Krugman has known since, at the latest, his second post smearing Friedman and Bernie that Friedman, like Krugman, is a Hillary support. Krugman has not bothered to tell his readers that critical fact, and continues to smear Friedman in a manner designed to convey the opposite to his readers. This is unworthy of him.

    It is clear that Krugman realized almost immediately after his morning post on February 17, 2016 that the Gang of 4 and he had been caught red-handed in a smear of Friedman and Sanders. His second post, two hours later, admitted that the Gang of 4's smear was devoid of any logical criticism of Friedman. As Krugman phrased it, the open letter "didn't get into specifics." Yes, that's part of what makes it a smear. You call an economist's work garbage ginned up to support his favorite candidate – and you never provide a logical explanation with a single specific of what the economist supposedly did so wrong that he should be, not corrected, but publicly humiliated. And no, they did not leave the specifics out of their open letter in order to avoid humiliating Friedman while sending him a detailed private email detailing his grievous specific errors.

    The truth is that the Gang of 4 and Krugman launched their smear of Friedman without pointing out a single error in his work. Indeed, that only begins to reveal the truth, for Krugman plainly did not evaluate the accuracy of Friedman's modelling before he chose to smear Friedman. Two of the economists, Austan Goolsbee,and Laura D'Andrea Tyson do not do macro modelling and Alan Krueger is overwhelmingly a labor economist. Christina Romer is the only true macroeconomist. Goolsbee and Tyson would not have been able to critique Friedman's modeling and even with Alan Krueger's econometric skills he would have had to invest a great deal of time to be able to do so. I would love to take the deposition of each member of the Gang of 4 and Krugman. Journalists need to ask just how long each spent reading Friedman's studies and obtain the contemporaneous notes they made during their reading an analysis of the studies before they wrote the letter. I guarantee that the answers will shock readers.

    Did even one of you consider the ethics of trying to destroy Friedman's career as a cynical means to your desired end of harming Bernie's election prospects? What you have done is an unethical abuse of power and status for the most unseemly of goals – political advantage.

    One of the reasons we can be so confident that any deposition and document discovery request revealing the Gang of 4 and Krugman's contemporaneous notes would be so shocking is that a journalist has gotten into the fray and tried to bail out the Gang of 4 and Krugman. She did not understand that she was actually damning both by checking with the Gang of 4 on what work they actually did before launching their public smear campaign. She reported on the sole basis for the Gang of 4's smear: "This was not because they reran the numbers, to be fair, but because they seem far-fetched."

    I will take this slowly for the benefits of journalists who wish to write about this subject. That sentence condemns the Gang of 4 and Krugman. Note that her effort at "fair[ness]" lasted exactly one clause. You can condemn a study without having rerun the numbers if (a) the researcher gimmicked the inputs or (b) used a bogus model. As I noted in my first column on this subject many of us would agree that the standard macro models are grossly unreliable. But that is not what the Gang of 4 and Krugman are asserting, for Friedman used the same models that the five smearers embrace.

    That leaves us with two sources of criticism. Data entry and computational errors are one source, but there is no suggestion that the Gang of 4 and Krugman have done the analysis necessary to discover such errors. They do not assert any such error.

    The remaining source of criticism would be that Friedman gamed his inputs. He could, for example, have put in a fiscal multiplier vastly larger than economists such as the Gang of 4 and Krugman believe exists. That is not, however, their criticism. It isn't for two reasons. First, several of the economists involved are not expert in the debate about proper multipliers. Second, the economists involved that are most expert on multipliers have been arguing for years that the multipliers are substantial, and arguably larger than those that Friedman used in his study.

    What an economist cannot do is what the Gang of 4 and Krugman have done: I have no problem with your inputs, your model, or your math – but I hate your results so I'm going to abuse my status to smear and try to destroy you and the candidate I oppose. Reread the journalist's sentence that unintentionally condemns the Gang of 4 and Krugman: "This was not because they reran the numbers, to be fair, but because they seem far-fetched." Focus on the second (vague) misuse of the word "they." You can complain about inputs on the basis that they "are" (not "seem") "far-fetched" – i.e., contrary to the known facts about multipliers. There is a critical difference between inputs to and outputs from a model. You cannot dismiss a study just because the outputs "seem far-fetched" – and you certainly can't smear the economist on the basis of your "priors" about what those outputs would be. Your contrary priors, after all, have just been falsified by the model. The phrase "seems far-fetched" is a statement of the Gang of 4 and Krugman's "priors" – priors that were implicitly falsified by Friedman's study.

    The Gang of 4, Krugman, and the journalist love the meme that Friedman is so bad that he is like a Republican. The journalist assumes that Friedman must have done something bizarre in his model, just like Republicans who game their models. She contrasts Republicans with their honorable "New Democrat" opposites.

    [Republicans] have insisted on " dynamic scoring ," measuring the budget impact of various pieces of legislation according to how much magic sparkling pixie dust they believe such pieces of legislation will bestow on the economy. They have put forward tax plans that do not - cannot - add up, and kept on insisting that they would. They have promised everyone no taxes, awesome jobs, and a pony - all for free.

    Democrats, say what you will, have avoided doing this to anything like the same degree. They have admitted that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. They have recognized that government spending needs to be financed with budget cuts, revenue increases, or a jump in the deficit.

    The journalist, in her effort to come to the Gang of 4 and Krugman's aid, again ends up condemning them and revealing her ideological views and lack of understanding of economics. First, the economy is in fact "dynamic" and changes in demand do have critical impacts on the economy. The problem with "dynamic scoring" as practiced by Republicans is two-fold. First it is asymmetric in ways that make no economic sense. Tax reductions are modeled as increasing growth, but increased spending is not though both operate by increasing demand. Second, they assume that tax reductions lead to large increases in hours worked that are far in excess of what the data show. Note that both of these failures are deliberate modeling errors designed to support Republican ideological priors.

    Here's the problem – Friedman didn't do any of these things or anything similar. If he had, Romer would have spotted it and based the open letter on the "pixie dust."

    Second, the virtuous Democrats that the journalist described are also a major part of the problem. "Democrats" have not "admitted" that increasing government spending must lead to "a jump in the deficit." That is the economically illiterate (according to both Krugman and Christine Romer) admission of the pro-austerity wing of the Democratic Party associated with the Clintons. The reality, as Krugman and Romer (a member of the Gang of 4) have stressed, is that "government spending" increases, in many circumstances, will lead to an eventual reduction in deficits by spurring employment and growth, which increases government revenue and reduces many government expenditures. Indeed, that is largely why the standard model that the Gang of 4 and Krugman embrace, without any "pixie dust," produces the results that Friedman found. The standard model shows that both the pro-austerity "New Democrats" that the journalist praises and the Republicans with their gamed "dynamic scoring" models that she scorns are wrong. Bolder turns out to be much better. The standard macro model, therefore, finds that Bernie's plan will "have huge beneficial impacts" (to quote the Gang of 4). (Also, the journalist and the New Democrats do not understand money, so the entire "needs to be financed" theory is wrong.)

    The journalist and Krugman, of course, do not bother to reveal that many economists have reacted with horror to the Gang of 4 and Krugman's efforts to smear Friedman (as a convenient way to smear Bernie). I noted in my first column that Jamie Galbraith destroyed Krugman and the Gang of 4 in his column.

    You can tell how desperate Krugman is by the rhetorical gambit he has chosen to rely on. Recall that all of this began with a scathing, personalized and public attack on an economist by for the high crime of running competently and carefully a standard macro model and finding evidence that supported the economic plans of a candidate (Bernie) that he did not support. The smear is bizarre and insanely over the top. The assumption of journalists is – surely economists of this status would not perform a public lynching of this nature unless Friedman used "pixie dust." If he had done so the Gang of 4 and Krugman would have pointed that out in their open letter and Krugman's three columns attacking Friedman.

    Krugman's rhetoric reveals that he has nothing beyond ever-escalating Trumpian insults – labeling Friedman's use of the standard macro models (that Krugman endorses) "voodoo," "horrifying," "fuzzy math," "embarrassing," "outlandish," and requiring a "miracle." None of the ad hominem remarks would have been required if Paul had found that Friedman actually committed "voodoo" by using the equivalent of a "magic asterisk." The Gang of 4's effort would still obviously be political (a chance to bash Bernie) but at least it would have a clear economic basis.

    Krugman exemplifies the old law joke. "When I'm strong on the facts I pound the facts, when I'm strong on the law I pound the law, and when I'm weak on both I pound the table." He has decreed two revealing edicts complete with impassioned pounding. First, no one is allowed to critique the Gang of 4 and Krugman's smears of Friedman. Prominent economists that do, such as Jamie Galbraith, simply do not exist in Krugmania. This is understandable, of course, given Jamie's evisceration of Paul and the Gang of 4, but it is still unprincipled.

    But Krugman reaches a depth he has not publicly plumbed before in his second edict. He tries to cast the people who launched the smear, the Gang of 4, as the victims of a smear because economists have had the temerity to point out their errors. Krugman is enraged that people believe that the Gang of 4 wrote the letter as a means to attack a candidate they oppose – Bernie. Given that the Gang of 4 openly did so and attacked Bernie for the work of an economist (Friedman) who supports Hillary, the entire world has figured out that the Gang of 4 and Krugman are seeking to defeat Bernie.

    The curves of Krugman's intellectual dishonesty, arrogance, and moral blindness, however, intersect at their respective maxima in this sentence.

    Mr. Sanders really needs to crack down on his campaign's instinct to lash out.

    When you are the midst of your third writing in two days lashing out in an effort to smear an economist and a candidate you oppose, it takes a special form of hypocrisy and chutzpah to smear Sanders on the grounds that it is illegitimate for economists like Jamie Galbraith to successfully refute the Gang of 4 and Krugman's smears of Friedman and Bernie. Paul, we know you love your "pecking order" of economists, but no one is entitled to a free pass based on status. The same rules apply to the Gang of 4 and you. You have to bring logic and facts rather than a rolling barrage of ad hominem smears at those who use your own models and find that they predict the completely unsurprising result that bold plans like Bernie's "have huge beneficial impacts."

    You, after all, made precisely this point about why the 2008 stimulus program should have been far larger. Recall how the "freshwater" modelers responded to your point – they abused the results of your model's predictions in rhetoric every bit as frenzied as you now hurl at Friedman and Bernie. They at least believed your models were wrong. Friedman's unpardonable sin in your book is that he has emulated your work using your model and found as you did that much bolder is much better. Paul, please complete the irony by predicting that Bernie's plan will produce hyper-inflation – any day now.

    Skippy , February 23, 2016 at 7:07 am

    Serious question – is he on drugs – taking life style tips from Ayn Rand when crafting the narrative… really…

    Skippy… not being flippant here, I would not sign a contract with him without a full medical and psychological report… full stop…

    Benedict@Large , February 23, 2016 at 9:53 am

    I've seen this with Krugman several times before, most especially during the MMT Wars that took place several years back. Paul does not like to be questioned by those he consider his inferiors (a large group to him), and he responds by going overboard, not knowing when to stop. Sure, some commenters (then and now) have not treated him kindly, but this guy is a professor with decades of rebellious students in his classrooms, and it should be well within his skillset to be able to handle such discomforts, of at least not completely melt down with what is obviously a deep inner rage. Yet he does so, and once you've see it a few times, it's even predictable.

    washunate , February 23, 2016 at 10:31 am

    Wherein you can substitute Paul for 'most anybody with an econ PhD'.

    fresno dan , February 23, 2016 at 10:53 am

    I think Krugman is performing an invaluable service – in showing that he, and a great deal of the "lamestream" media (the one thing Palin nailed) just isn't all that concerned about FACTS. Nor are they concerned about fair dealing. Nor are they concerned about the details that can clarify controversies – now, why is that:
    1. Too stupid to determine ANYTHING???
    2. Resolution might make stories less entertaining, and reduce reduce revenues???
    3. Resolution might take too many man hours, and reduce profitability???
    4. The media has never been objective, is not objective, and will never be objective. Stories are consciously slanted, generally by omission.
    5. Defend the brand – until you reach the "Cosby" event horizon, you diminish your brand by undermining your "stars."
    6. maybe something else – I don't know

    If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times – the most difficult thing for most humans is to admin they are wrong. I have had a tendency toward it myself. But once you can do it, it is soooo liberating.

    I really don't know what is going on here. What I really suspect is that most economic modeling is gibberish, and is nothing but OPINION, and you can make plausibly any results you want.

    I suspect the next "phase" of the controversy is that Krugman and the Gang of Four will PRODUCE some "error" in Friedman's work, and Friedman and his supporters will say it is totally ridiculous, and Krugman will say it is GINORMOUS….than someone will find where Krugman did the very same thing, and Krugman will say it was not the very same thing…..ad infinitum.

    As I have said over and over, it is a big McGuffin. I don't care if NAFTA or TPP raises GDP – because what is clear to me, for fifty years rising GDP has been going more, and more, and more to the wealthiest. That is not a natural law of nature, that is how POLITICALLY things are set up. We can change that IF WE WANT!

    Left in Wisconsin , February 23, 2016 at 10:58 am

    a professor with decades of rebellious students in his classrooms

    Not so sure about this. My Ivy days were a long time ago but even then it was very unusual for a student to take on a big name professor. I would guess things are worse now, not better.

    Left in Wisconsin , February 23, 2016 at 11:01 am

    BTW, according to a commenter yesterday on a different post, the journalist Black is referring to happens to be Ezra Klein's wife. Small world!

    grayslady , February 23, 2016 at 11:29 am

    Thank you for that piece of information. It explains a lot.

    This is beginning to remind me of the New York Times-Dick Cheney-Iraq War fiasco, where Cheney's minions would feed information to the NYT, the Times would write a supportive story, and then Cheney would appear on the Sunday talk shows using publication of information in the NYT as verification for his points.

    Krugman and Lowrey have just taken that dirty tricks routine and freshened it up a bit.

    Donald , February 23, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    This is all mild in comparison to how he behaved in the 90's towards those who questioned the benefits of free trade. The ugly Krugman you see in the past few weeks was much worse in the late 90's.

    Skippy , February 23, 2016 at 4:51 pm

    @Benedict@Large…

    Sorry mate, but I've been watching Krugman for decades, his last stop down under was like watching Greenspan spin reality. This is compounded by a track record of intransigence and pettifoggery highlighted here on NC going back to 2012.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/krugman-and-his-gangs-libeling-of-economist-gerald-friedman-for-finding-that-conventional-models-show-that-sanders-plan-could-work.html#comment-2552760

    Are some holding out for an epiphany to bring back the persona that never was… for the fear that if they took off the rose colored glasses… how it might emotively pain them… or is a case of fear of losing a possible perception management tool with magnetism…. which might find a spine and lean into the cart against the headwinds…

    Skippy…. what if Krugman is just another neoliberal albeit with pangs of guilt….

    Tyler , February 23, 2016 at 7:07 am

    I thought Christina Romer was better than this. I hope she'll write an apology letter.

    voteforno6 , February 23, 2016 at 7:18 am

    Good luck getting the Times to publicly admonish Krugman. If they haven't cracked down on Maureen Dowd after all these years, there's no reason to think that they'll do anything to Krugman.

    Yves Smith Post author , February 23, 2016 at 8:56 am

    Yes, but you need to make them squirm. The Times isn't doing all that well financially these days, and Kruggie and the paper's over the top HIllary boosterism is alienating readers, which is going to cost then in a tangible way.

    RW Tucker , February 23, 2016 at 9:51 am

    I mean, this is the same paper who allows another Friedman, one Tom, to write for them. They are often shameless in their editorial section.

    annie , February 23, 2016 at 11:34 am

    i cancelled my (very longtime) nyt subscription just yesterday.

    Helmholtz Watson , February 23, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    Who cares? The NYT and Paul Krugman are their own worst enemies. Let them shill for Hilary, it's blatantly obvious and they aren't fooling anyone; they only damage their already damaged brands.

    Krugman has become a joke to a lot of people. I would like to think he means well but he intensely ideological and anyone who is intensely ideological is ignorant.

    He is a neoliberal moron like that other neoliberal moron who writes a column for them also named Tom. And then there is the neocon named David. And they wonder why they are failing financially?

    John Wright , February 23, 2016 at 11:18 pm

    This is probably old news to most NC readers, but here a link to an article ABOUT the New York Times editorial page in a different New York City publication.

    I may have gotten the link from NC…

    http://observer.com/2014/02/the-tyranny-and-lethargy-of-the-times-editorial-page/

    Here is one quote pulled from the article:

    "One current Times staffer told The Observer, "Tom Friedman is an embarrassment. I mean there are multiple blogs and Tumblrs and Twitter feeds that exist solely to make fun of his sort of blowhardy bullshit."

    Blowhardy bullshit…seems an apt description of Tom Friedman.

    I believe many commenters write as if Friedman/Dowd/Kristof/Douhat will read and learn from their thoughtful comments.

    I asked the Times public editor if it is known if the editorial writers ever read the readers' comments, but this went unanswered.

    In Krugman's defense, I believe he reads at least some of the readers' comments.

    I believe each editorial writer has a style and brand (see below) to maintain and wants to avoid damage by "straying off the reservation".

    The observer piece referenced has: "But I will say, regarding Friedman, there's the sense that he's on cruise control now that he's his own brand"

    There is frequently some value in the New York Times online editorial page, but it is in the readers' comments that are prompted by the Times editorial writers.

    Accordingly, I believe the best writers published in the Times are some of the thoughtful readers.

    And they are working for free.

    salvo , February 23, 2016 at 7:27 am

    thanks! Unfortunately, there is a great reverence for Krugman in the german left. I've started posting links to both of your articles in some german left-leaning blogs which usually positively reference to Krugman

    Detroit Dan , February 23, 2016 at 1:43 pm

    Good. Please keep up the good work.

    I've documented one instance of Krugman being completely wrong, then flipping to the MMT position while never bothering to acknowledge his error: Is Paul Krugman Ever Wrong .

    Krugman's a phony, in my opinion. I love it when he describes something as "wonkish" and then descends into unintelligible gibberish, as when using the ISLM diagram to explain something. It's all just patently absurd, and the current episode is a clear demonstration that he's a political hack as opposed to a serious economist.

    paulmeli , February 23, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    "Krugman's a phony…"

    +1.

    This needs to be said, over and over and over again. He has the bully pulpit and he's using it to screw the working man. Hopefully there's a special place in Hell for sell-outs like Krugman.

    On the other hand, Bill Black and Michael Hudson are National Treasures™.

    Helmholtz Watson , February 23, 2016 at 9:19 pm

    Krugman evidently has no idea how money and banking works which says it all. Later last year he wrote in one of his columns that banks take in deposits from savers and lend them out to borrowers, thereby acting as "intermediaries". He evidently has no idea of the truth, namely, that banks create money out of thin air when they agree to make loans. The fact that he doesn't understand our monetary system is bizarre and bit scary. So yes he is a "phony".

    ifthethunderdontgetya™ł˛®© , February 23, 2016 at 7:30 am

    Note that all of the Gang of Four supported Fast Track and are pushing the TPP.

    They have no business accusing anyone else of "extreme claims" and "undermining the progressive agenda."
    ~

    Rhondda , February 23, 2016 at 9:56 am

    +100

    susan the other , February 23, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    and Hillary has most recently been pretending that she does not support TPP, and she failed to gain the support of the unions… oh well…

    RP , February 23, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    But they're "very serious people."

    Know your place, plebian!

    der , February 23, 2016 at 7:32 am

    Me thinks Serious Establishment Professor Krugman is doing a yeoman's job of carrying Clinton water with hopes of a courtiers appointment in the preordained Clinton Administration.

    RUKidding , February 23, 2016 at 11:06 am

    Quite likely and/or at least a lot of love tossed in his general direction by the Clinton Admin. A complete lickspittle, imo. No respect for Krug the Thug.

    roadrider , February 23, 2016 at 7:45 am

    Krugman jumped the shark some time ago with his shilling for the Obamacrats. I stopped reading him and subscribing to the Times shortly into Obama's first term. The MSM is little more than the propaganda wing for the elite scumbags who feel entitled to run the country. Goebbels and Pravda would be proud.

    RUKidding , February 23, 2016 at 11:09 am

    Same here. I hadn't subscribed to the Times in ages and ages (issues with home delivery), but I used to buy it routinely on business & vacation trip flights. Since the early days of Obama, I stopped. The NYT was always biased to the corporatocracy, but it used to have some redeeming features. Not no more. Haven't bothered to read it at all over the past 7+ years. Thanks, Obama!

    Andrew Foland , February 23, 2016 at 8:00 am

    I'm honestly puzzled by all the economic criticism of single payer and state-funded higher education, as if there aren't at least a factor of ten more successful examples of those models in the world than of the funding models we currently have in the US.

    "At least a factor of ten" is a very generous and diplomatic way of putting it.

    Uahsenaa , February 23, 2016 at 9:33 am

    The beautiful–or perverse–thing about American Exceptionalism (TM) is that it allows you to pretend the rest of the world simply doesn't exist or is irrelevant. In other words, we can't have nice things because we're just too damn special and Free (TM).

    fresno dan , February 23, 2016 at 11:01 am

    +1000
    or
    solving problems for the masses, if it diminishes profits to the few, simply cannot be discussed…

    RP , February 23, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    you see problems, they see opportunities to extract rents.

    Bug for you/feature for them

    Helmholtz Watson , February 23, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    LOL! so true!

    RUKidding , February 23, 2016 at 11:16 am

    I haven't seen Michael Moore's latest documentary, Where to Invade Next , but I believe he discusses similar issues by illustrating how other countries are managing to provide their citizens with needed services without going into deep debt (or whatever).

    I haven't seen any reactions to Moore's film, but typically the Very Important People condescend to Moore, mock him and similar. Moore's imperfect like the rest of us, but I give him props for highlighting these issues, usually with some humor thrown in. I plan to see the film.

    But you know, in this libertarian fundamentalist country, you simply have to pull yourself up by your g*dd*mned bootstraps, or you're a nothing burger and don't deserve ANY help whatsoever, under any circumstances, blah de blah…

    Left in Wisconsin , February 23, 2016 at 11:23 am

    I saw it this weekend and highly recommend. Even for someone who pays attention, it was eye-opening. Also, the (mostly) Europeans that Moore interviews are horrified by what he tells them about us. And many point out that their humanistic social policies had American roots.

    A few tidbits:

    • Italy: 35-ish vacation days and 10-12 public holidays per year
    • France: public elementary schools with chef and team preparing lunch. Lunch lasts one hour, 4 courses, real china and glassware, lunch seen as time for learning about food and how to eat.
    • Finland: best schools in world, no standardized testing, virtually no homework, much shorter school day than in US.
    • Norway: prisons where rehab is the object
    • Slovenia: free college even for non-natives

    etc.etc.

    Uahsenaa , February 23, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    Not to mention Cuba, a country that has been subject to a US trade embargo for more than a half-century now, somehow manages to find the resources to provide free, universal healthcare and education through university, a feat the richest country in the world somehow cannot pull off.

    annie , February 23, 2016 at 11:43 am

    you better see it soon; it bombed at boxoffice and will probably disappear soon. well worth anyone's time. could be a sanders commercial.

    trinity river , February 23, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    I have been surprised that it is getting a two-week run here in my southern city. That's much more than most excellent documentaries get. Wish the seats were packed.

    Pat , February 23, 2016 at 8:24 am

    Haven't checked out the claim, but the latest defense of the Krugman/Gang of Four is that Galbraith's letter can clearly be dismissed because he lied about his own work in it.

    Oh, and I've been told I would understand how this all came about and the real facts if I had followed Goolsbee and Krugman's twitter exchange. (I know I look to twitter for serious economic discussions that actually examine a full study in detail and find its flaws).

    Benedict@Large , February 23, 2016 at 10:04 am

    Galbraith is meticulous in everything he does. Camp Hillary is playing with dynamite if they think they can take him on. And they are simply brain dead if they think they can get away with calling him a liar.

    Joe Firestone , February 23, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    I've never known Jamie Galbraith to speak or write with anything but the utmost integrity. I also have had a few personal contacts with him, and my impression is that he is quiet, kind, considerate, patient, shows the utmost in courtesy in his interactions with questioners, and is an old-fashioned person who cares greatly about honor. I cannot imagine him telling other than the truth about his own work, as he sees it.

    Krugman, on the other hand, not so much.

    Steve H. , February 23, 2016 at 8:56 am

    "The Nobel Prize-winning Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman"

    In a previous post, Yves said Friedman might have a case for libel. Krugman's byline makes it clear he is expressing opinions, and could say the moon is camembert if he wanted.

    If there is a case for libel, make it now. Trading opinion pieces reduces the level of discourse. Legal action actually stings.

    Yves Smith Post author , February 23, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Calling it an opinion does not necessarily make it one under the eye of the law:

    Can my opinion be defamatory?

    No-but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

    https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

    As one reader said yesterday, Krugman routinely takes the posture of objectivity about his views.

    He's also, by repeating presenting defamatory remarks about Friedman as factual, making it easier to meet the generally not so hard to demonstrate standard of malice.

    The reality is that Krugman can get away with being a bully because he has a much bigger net worth that Friedman and pretty much no academic save maybe the very feisty Steve Keen, once he gets tenure, would get into that kind of row. And suits are emotionally draining. But Krugman is getting really reckless. I hope one day he stomps on someone who has a tough litigator in the family who decides it would be a career-enhancing move to go after Krugman and winds up winning.

    sd , February 23, 2016 at 9:30 am

    "Reckless." That really does describe his behavior. He's downright frothing at the mouth.

    ScottW , February 23, 2016 at 9:32 am

    Having represented newspapers for decades, dealing with the folks in the editorial department is the worst. Most of them believe slapping the label "opinion" on their column exempts them from suit. As you point out, false facts are false facts and can be the subject of libel. But most believe if they just quote someone else they cannot be held responsible. Libel law is not their strong suit.

    I almost fell victim to Krugman's slam of Friedman. Thank you for providing context to his attacks. I am going to write the public editor with a link to this article and tell her just read it–every word. They limit complaints to 300 words, so the link is best.

    In the end, the public editor will at best forward on complaints about Krugman to the Editorial Department who will do nothing with them. They are getting exactly what they want from Krugman. Lots of people who support Clinton having yet another rationale why Sanders' policies are doomed, and lots of Sanders' supporters weighing in on Krugman's fawning over Hillary. What could be better.

    templar555510 , February 23, 2016 at 9:08 am

    Sterling effort Bill once again . So just where does this animus towards Sanders / Friedman spring from ? I have a feeling it is because of the ' S ' word – Socialism . It's the love that dare not speak its name . Trotsky put it most succinctly ' Who whom ' either we tilt towards capitalism or we tilt towards socialism . I use the word ' tilt ' advisedly . This is the death of the liberal class that Chris Hedges has analysed so carefully and now – with the possibility of a socialist leaning candidate in the frame is clearly on show with Krugman and co. all feeling threatened by an agenda that they pay lip service to, but in reality has the potential to diminish their status with the elites. Shameful, but we can at least take comfort from the fact we know them now for what they are.

    PlutoniumKun , February 23, 2016 at 9:30 am

    Yes, I really do wonder about source of the animus – I haven't read Krugman in a while (no particular reason except the paywall), but the stuff he was writing 5 or 6 years ago seemed closer to Sanders than Clinton. Its perfectly reasonable for him (or anyone) to decide to prefer Clinton on the basis that 'she can get more done', or whatever the current excuse is, but its beyond me why he (and many others) have burned all boats with regard to Sanders. It makes no real sense whatever.

    NotTimothyGeithner , February 23, 2016 at 9:44 am

    I don't think Krugman is upset about policy. This is about an elderly man with no platform connecting with young people who are implicitly rejecting Krugthullu en masse because he belongs to the past. Krugman is old. Sanders became an elder. People have never really changed. Krugman is demanding respect and for the kids to get off his lawn. Even if Hillary wins, she and her ilk will be gone in 2020. The lack of youth support for the status quo is far too large.

    MikeNY , February 23, 2016 at 10:17 am

    Yup. If you wait long enough, even some Nobel laureates smell like mothballs.

    washunate , February 23, 2016 at 10:44 am

    This. It is going to be one of our biggest social challenges. The established order has gone so against the wishes of younger Americans, both in length of time and intensity of the oppression, that it is going to be a difficult task to reconcile once enough younger Americans form a critical mass as adults that they're in charge.

    The arrogance and lack of awareness amongst educated pundits in particular makes reconciliation that much harder.

    DJG , February 23, 2016 at 9:11 am

    I'm beginning to wonder about the strong streak of condescension among the Hillary-o-crats and her campaign condottieri. I have people on my Facebook feed trying to lecture the world (but especially those under 40) about McGovern and other supposed catastrophes. I'm also detecting a strong streak of Eternal U.S. High School, in which the economics club and the pep club now join to tell the rest of us how to vote for student government. Yet Americans seem to lap up the condescension (in spite of endless testimonials to being "bad-ass") and remain mired in our high-school cultural and political model.

    Thanks for this post: It is one more symptom of how stagnant we as a nation are that we are already seeing the "big guns" out touting eight more years of economic and political stagnation. Because, as we all know, voting for Bernie Sanders is a huge risk and the very definition of folly. And Ted Cruz is the Face of God.

    diptherio , February 23, 2016 at 9:36 am

    "Eternal U.S. High School" is a very apt way to describe the state of American politics today, especially as it is actually practiced by those who make their living at it. Which is why it's so frustrating for anyone with an ounce of maturity to really dive into it – you have to interact with a bunch of overgrown teenagers on a regular basis. Logic and facts mean nothing – personal aggrandizement and an obsession with current trends prevail. It's pretty pathetic.

    ScottW , February 23, 2016 at 9:21 am

    Add to the above the fact Krugman is giving intellectual cover to the idea single payer, paid family leave, a $15 minimum wage, tuition free public higher education, etc., are just "happy dreams." Along the way he has thrown out insults against people who have the audacity of believing Democrats might actually support such policies.

    Of course many of those policies were supported by the intellectuals until their fearless leader was pushed into a corner by Bernie. Exposed, they now have to say we get more by asking for less. Seriously? Like Hillary, they just keep inventing rationales and policies as they go along.

    Unless it is equal pay for equal work. That is a policy we can all get behind.

    Lambert Strether , February 23, 2016 at 9:32 am

    Boy howdy, remember "Hope and change"? Where did that go, anyhow?

    diptherio , February 23, 2016 at 9:39 am

    What he really meant was "Hope or change" but an error at the printers gave everybody the wrong impression, that they could have both simultaneously.

    flora , February 23, 2016 at 9:45 am

    error at the printers. yes, a typo. it was supposed to read:

    Hope and ˘hange.

    tegnost , February 23, 2016 at 7:26 pm

    hope and ka-change?

    jo6pac , February 23, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    You're all very evil but right on

    Greg , February 23, 2016 at 11:01 am

    To me, that one ended when Obama suspended his campaign in '08 to rush back to Washington to vote for Dot Com Immunity. You kind of knew right there.

    ScottW , February 23, 2016 at 9:44 am

    We have come to learn it is "Hopeless Change."

    vidimi , February 23, 2016 at 9:25 am

    i'm going to call a spade a spade and say this: krugman is scum.

    Unorthodoxmarxist , February 23, 2016 at 9:32 am

    There's a reason Lenin and the Bolsheviks exiled Russian intellectuals of Krugman's ilk after the Revolution. Many have cried crocodile tears over the ship that took them out of the USSR but what use would we have for Krugman-types after our own radical change? I would submit very little.

    RP , February 23, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    send Krugman to the salt mines

    Greg , February 23, 2016 at 10:01 am

    Just curious. Why the repost?

    Greg , February 23, 2016 at 10:11 am

    My mistake.

    John Wright , February 23, 2016 at 10:06 am

    One can remember Austan Goolsbee's 2008 reassurance of Canadian officials that candidate Obama's criticism of NAFTA was "political maneuvering"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/politics/04nafta.html

    "According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama's protectionist stand on the trail was "more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.""

    So Goolsbee is quite comfortable with leaving a completely wrong impression with the voters, in this case, that Obama was going to reform NAFTA,if the politics behind it are good.

    A good guy to have on your team.

    craazyman , February 23, 2016 at 10:12 am

    You guys shouldn't waste all your mental energy now arguing with nutjobs cause when Professor Kelton gets her hands on the budget all hell is gonna break loose.

    This is nothing compared to what your gonna read then. Man oh man. Don't waste too much energy trying to hold serve when you're up 5-3 and your one game away from the match. So what if it's 5-4. You'll be serving and 6-4 wins.

    All these guys and ladies are heading for the Newtonian Delusion wing of the insane asylum anyway. Why argue on the internet with crazy people? It's like arguing with a poodle barking ferociously at you with bloodshot eyes from 8 inches off the ground.

    When Professor Kelton starts teaching the nation about MMT it will be a while before it sinks in, that's for sure. There will certainly be some confusion, perhaps even some contention, maybe even some invective! It could get messy, let's be honest. We need to hold back some fiscal multiplier firepower for that day, or that year, frankly. We can't shoot the wad now. We need to build up the wad so it lasts over a series of rhetorical thrusts. Hopefully we're up for it. I know I am! The peanut gallery will have a whole new album of fake songs once Professor Kelton takes over the budget.

    I don't care what these economists say, good or bad. I gave Bernie $100 Sunday and I may give him some more money. I like a man who stands for principles I believe in in a real authentic way - a man who's not just faking it like an actor to get elected for vainglory and ambition. How many more of those can we take? I can't take one more. I will never vote again (and not just due to laziness), except I'd vote for Bernie. I'm just being honest. I couldn't care less about somebody's econometric model or what Paul Krugman says. Why would anybody care? I guess if they like arguing that's fine. I like making up fake songs. Maybe those are two things that are similar enough to be elements of a set. I'm not judging or being critical, so nobody take it that way. I'm on Team Bernie and I want Bernie to win.

    craazyboy , February 23, 2016 at 11:25 am

    I know we all look forward to 4 and maybe even 8 years of rhetorical dueling with MMT as our trusty rapier of keen edged economic wit, leading us to win debate after debate until the public cries out, "I get it already." If we can make Krugman look like the gold studded, shredded and deflated pin cushion he truly is, that makes a Bernie presidency all worth it in my view.

    But I do have this nagging thought occasionally. I generally trust Bernie, as far as that goes with politicians. Then again I'm not sure he will let Steph be White House Economic Advisor with full control over the budget. (That's sounds like something Trump would do?) He might just give her the job because he's really a dirty old man and Steph is waaay cuter than Larry Summers. Not that I have anything against dirty old men – I've always wanted to be one someday – but I can't help thinking that's what might be going on there.

    craazyman , February 23, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    It would be pretty cool to have a hot Treasury Secretary. When she hands out all the money it'll almost be glamorous. What can the republicans say to that? What can old white guys who can't even jog, let alone lift weights in the gym like a stud (OK, maybe Paul Ryan can do that, but most of them can't), say about a hot woman handing out money other than "Whoa! Thanks!". Anything they say that's critical will backfire.

    I'm a Believer

    I thought social justice was a fairy tale
    Pork for the rich, but not for me
    DC was out to get me
    That's the way it seemed
    Disappointment haunted all of my dreams

    But she found budget space, now I'm a believer
    Not a trace of doubt in my mind
    I've got a job, and I'm a believer
    I'm not watchin' Leave it to Beaver, gettin' fried. (that line is pretty bad, but I have to work)

    craazyboy , February 23, 2016 at 1:37 pm

    I dunno know about Treasury Secretary. I think Steph would be better off playing the Feminist Card and ward off that job. Firstly, the title should be Treasury Executive Facilitator. But even after fixing that obvious slight the republicans would say, "This is better than a strip club. I don't need to bring any money and I leave rich!"

    Then there are all those Goldman staffers there. Steph would be getting pinched in the butt all the time because that's where Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner kept their wallets. That would be bad.

    I think I saw somewhere that Davy Jones is considering going on tour again. It is the year of the monkey.

    IdahoSpud , February 23, 2016 at 10:30 am

    "The conscience of a neoliberal". Or lack of…

    readerOfTeaLeaves , February 23, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    There's actually a good book called "Adam's Fallacy", which unpacks what I'd call 'give upism', a new term.

    As in, "I have to have a social conscience? Be accountable to others? I give up."
    As in, "I have to account for money accurately, not by bullish!t like 'mark to market'? I give up."

    The way that Adam Smith dodged personal responsibility was to end up saying, "Whoa, all those hands all moving together become Invisible, and every man for himself will just inevitability end up creating The Greatest Good for The Greatest Number. Ergo, no one needs to have a social conscience or worry about morality, because as this sucker scales, it'll all work out."

    IOW, Adam Smith suffered a severe case of 'give upism'.

    washunate , February 23, 2016 at 10:41 am

    I'm all for pressuring particularly embarrassing acts in the corporate media.

    But I think the context is important. The NYT isn't some great example of journalism dealing with a rogue economist. It is at the heart of what is wrong with our corporate media, a state of affairs that has been developing over the course of decades now. We are approaching the two decade mark now of when all public comments opposed media consolidation yet the bipartisan effort in DC and NY pushed for it anyway. The problem isn't Krugman. The problem is that the whole system is rotten.

    sd , February 23, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    Which really does explain the appeal of Sanders and Trump, both candidates were under estimated – inferior, doncha know. Outside Krugmans pecking order so to speak.

    The question I have is this: what happens to Hillary Clinton if she loses the nomination? I don't see her showing up in either a Sanders or a Trump White House.

    readerOfTeaLeaves , February 23, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    I'm actually a digital subscriber to the NYTimes, as well as the Seattle Times.
    I could make a pretty strong argument that, at least on the civic level in a large metro area, having a family-owned paper is incredibly important – particularly now.

    But rather than simply bashing the MSM, a la that heartless cur Sarah Palin, we just need to hold them to higher standards.

    One of my kids works in what used to be the newspaper industry.
    She works her ass off, as does every person in her group, as near as I can tell.
    So I've seen this thing from a different angle than many around here.

    The NYT is a special case, and shall bear the shame of Judy Miller's help getting us into Iraq, to say nothing of the outing of a CIA agent, to their everlasting shame. Trust me when I say that I fully understand the frustration and hostility that I think your comment represents.

    But that does not automatically make every employee of the NYT guilty.
    And with the NYT totally discredited, doesn't that leave us with too few outlets? After all, Murdock has bought up so much 'media property' that if we don't have some other large entity to pay people to research, then we are basically leaving ourselves defenseless.

    I believe that a key part of the problem is the shifting economics of digitization.
    According to my daughter, the newspapers make about 1/20th off digital ads that they used to make off print ads, including the personals. Try supporting family-wage jobs, and keeping people who know a city's history, cops, politicos, businesses, etc employed when your major cash income has dropped to 1/20th of what you used to generate - AND at the same time, you have to buy all new equipment, try to find web developers (which puts you in vicious competition with the tech companies that pay verrrry well), and you have a lot of aging people in the Murdock demo (65+) who still want print, while you are madly trying to grab the 'iPhone/Android' generation, which you can pretty much only reach on mobiles - and you have to compete with Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and the web for their attention.

    For heaven's sake, I understand the anger behind how badly the NYT screwed up, and the WaPo editorial board is a hopeless pack of neocon shills. I get it. It's why I personally spend the bulk of my time on blogs, and have for about a decade.

    But I would argue that what we really need is to have the NYT allow Friedman to have a counter OpEd to Krugman's. We should ask, politely but clearly, that they allow Kellman to have an OpEd, or Jamie Galbreith, or other 'non-neolib' economists have some space in their OpEds in large part to build their credibility, but also b/c the whole topic of new economic thinking is fizzing, bubbling over, and effervescent at this historical moment.

    As a digital subscriber, I feel that I'm in a much better position to politely say that I expect a wider range of views, and I expect Friedman to have some space - at least online, where it won't cost them much to publish his rebuttal, or Bill Black's. Otherwise, I'm just one more whiner harassing a publication that did fire that heartless bitch Judy Miller, and often has some interesting coverage. I don't want the baby thrown out with the bathwater - I want the baby to be healthy!

    The NYT has put a ton of effort into info graphics and data-base driven analytics, (as had the Economist and FT), and frankly I believe those things provide one hell of a value! (I know something about this from a technical end, and it is no simple cakewalk to create the stuff they are providing even to non-subscribers.)

    We need good sources of information, and bashing the sh!t out of people who have been through 20 years of layoffs, despite working their asses off, does not solve problems and does not push back at the Murdocks or Palin's of the world.

    Earlier, I mentioned the Seattle Times: it is owned by the Blethen Family (sp?).

    IIRC, they sold off over $100,000,000 in assets in order to hang on to the Seattle Times. They've had to expand their personnel to include developers, and now mobile developers and in a town with a lot of big tech companies, that is no simple task. Do I always agree with them? Nope.

    Do I always have time to read them? Nope.

    But I admire the hell out of anyone trying to keep a media business afloat in the communications shifts that we are undergoing. Anyone with enough guts to sell off other assets so that they can try to really, really improve the information to the public should be given some benefit of doubt IMHO.
    I think they're gutsy as hell, and it's worth 10 bucks a month to me to watch what they can do.
    Because of what they are doing, the Seattle area is one of the last regions left with an independent newspaper, and that in this day and age has the potential to be a tremendous Public Good.

    The problem in the US is that the cretans in Congress and the Reagan administration let too much media be consolidated, and that was just before the economics of digitization upended *everything*. My daughter could tell you stories from the ad agency side of things, about newspaper reporters having to go home to check out their new web pages, because their employers could not afford to upgrade their computers and software so that people could sit at the workplace and see the new updates. Newspapers that were told by huge ad agencies just how much Verizon or AT&T would pay for **full page** ads - basically, Verizon, AT&T, and other advertisers screwed former newspaper reporters out of their jobs, because the ad agencies had scale, they had power, and the newspapers were in 'take it or leave it' territory with absolutely no economic power. So they might run the full page ad, but that meant laying off the reporter who covered city hall.

    So yes, it is easy to bash the NYT and I share some of the frustration,
    I have to double-check my NC contribution to try and give as much to NC as I give to the NYT, because I spend about 8 minutes here for every minute that I spend at NYT.

    But in my case, bashing them just makes me feel like I'm in the gutter with Sarah Palin, and that's no solution.
    The solution is to get them to publish Friedman's response.
    The solution is to get them to publish more economics, and explain that we are undergoing shifts that have not happened for 300 years in terms of economic thinking - so it needs more focus now.

    BTW: McClatchy (which is the old Knight-Ridder network) sometimes has very good economic reporting. (Personally, I like their iPhone app and I use it most days.) They own a lot of the smaller metro newspapers: Boise, Sacramento… so they have a nation-wide perspective and 'eyes on the ground' in lots of places. You may want to check them out.

    tegnost , February 23, 2016 at 7:46 pm

    Talton at the seattle times is really good

    tegnost , February 23, 2016 at 7:42 pm

    excellent comment washunate

    Fool , February 23, 2016 at 10:42 am

    This is so ugly. It also says much about our political economy; in the feudalistic cottage industry that is people who work for or want to work for or want something from Hillary, you get the feeling that this type of mean-spiritedness is incentivized. I hope Bernie's revolution means Krugman's legacy gets swept into the same dustbin that people toss Thomas Friedman columns in.

    NotTimothyGeithner , February 23, 2016 at 11:12 am

    I wouldn't be surprised if a Bernie win or even strong showing causes the bean counters at organizations such as the NYT to question the salaries of certain pundits. Couldn't the NYT get the same results for less money with the non-union Mexican equivalent of Krugman, senor Krugmano?

    Daryl , February 23, 2016 at 7:08 pm

    I'm thinking a Markov Chain. Just feed it some Rand, Hayek, etc.

    different clue , February 23, 2016 at 11:05 am

    Could Friedman's University sue Krugman and the Gang of Four on Friedman's behalf?
    Could Friedman's Department and University advance a plausible theory whereby libeling and slandering Friedman is libeling and slandering his department and his University by extension . . . and thereby allowing them to sue on their own behalf?

    nobody , February 23, 2016 at 11:57 am

    Ian Welsh's latest post is ŕ propos:

    "One of the most striking things about much culture in America is the simple meanness of it… There is also a culture of punching down… America has a high violence, high bullying society… Kick down, kiss up, because failure to pucker up can have you thrown out of the charmed circle, and obviously higher-ups want to see you acting like them, imitation being the most sincere form of flattery."

    http://www.ianwelsh.net/the-culture-of-meanness/

    knowbuddhau , February 23, 2016 at 11:58 am

    Thanks much for the attention to this. I'm always curious when the ever so rational throw rationality out the window. At such times, what's really going on? Why the sudden switch from studious Vulcan to Klingon in heat?

    For those writing to the public editor, the headlines of the 2/17 blog posts are "Worried Wonks" (10:44) and What has the Wonks Worried" (12:44). The headline of the 2/19 op-ed is "Varieties of Voodoo."

    MaroonBulldog , February 23, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    Pecking orders are products of bird brains.

    RP , February 23, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    When the revolution comes Paul will not be spared.

    We can always use another set of hands to pick beets in flyover country though.

    ewmayer , February 23, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    Re. Krugman, "This is unworthy of him." - Not at all. While it is indeed unworthy of a reasonable person seeking to engage in fact-based – which includes the critical 'recognizing what the assumptions and limitations of the analyses are' components – discourse about critical policy issues facing the nation and the world, it is par for the course for an insufferably smug establishment insider who is enjoying a cushy sinecure making full use of what is perhaps the world's greatest economic media bully pulpit via his lofty perch as the NYT's pet in-house economic-policy wonk. After all, back in the day Krugman (in)famously was a paid shill for the 'fabulous new-economic business model' (do a web search for 'paul krugman enron may 24 1999 fortune.com"' and ye shall find the original) of none other than Enron.

    Here is the deliciously-savorable money snip from the aforementioned corporate-mouthpiecing:

    The retreat of business bureaucracy in the face of the market was brought home to me recently when I joined the advisory board at Enron–a company formed in the '80s by the merger of two pipeline operators. In the old days energy companies tried to be as vertically integrated as possible: to own the hydrocarbons in the ground, the gas pump, and everything in between. And Enron does own gas fields, pipelines, and utilities. But it is not, and does not try to be, vertically integrated: It buys and sells gas both at the wellhead and the destination, leases pipeline (and electrical-transmission) capacity both to and from other companies, buys and sells electricity, and in general acts more like a broker and market maker than a traditional corporation. It's sort of like the difference between your father's bank, which took money from its regular depositors and lent it out to its regular customers, and Goldman Sachs. Sure enough, the company's pride and joy is a room filled with hundreds of casually dressed men and women staring at computer screens and barking into telephones, where cubic feet and megawatts are traded and packaged as if they were financial derivatives. (Instead of CNBC, though, the television screens on the floor show the Weather Channel.) The whole scene looks as if it had been constructed to illustrate the end of the corporation as we knew it.

    What happened to the man in the gray flannel suit? No doubt he was partly a victim of sex (er, I mean gender) and drugs and rock & roll–that is, of social change. He was also a victim of information technology, which ended up deconstructing instead of reinforcing the corporation. But probably the biggest force has been a change in ideology, the shift to pro-market policies. It's not that government has vanished from the marketplace. It's still a good guess that in a completely unregulated phone market, long-distance companies would buy up local-access companies and deny their customers the right to connect to rivals, and that the evil empire–or at least monopoly capitalism–would rise again. However, what we have instead in a growing number of markets–phones, gas, electricity today, probably computer operating systems and high-speed Net access tomorrow–is a combination of deregulation that lets new competitors enter and "common carrier" regulation that prevents middlemen from playing favorites, making freewheeling markets possible.

    Who would have thunk it? The millennial economy turns out to look more like Adam Smith's vision–or better yet, that of the Victorian economist Alfred Marshall–than the corporatist future predicted by generations of corporate pundits. Get those old textbooks out of the attic: they're more relevant than ever.

    *That* sure as hell wasn't unworthy of him … why would a ruthless attempt to argue from authority and shout down a dissenting voice from a mere lesser non-faux-bel-prized mortal be?

    Anyone who has had the misfortune to spend any time at Krugman's NYT blog knows that any dissent is ruthlessly excised, leaving it a pristine echo chamber for the singing of its owner's praises. NC is doing exactly the right thing in forcefully attempting to drag this pampered economic royal out of his gilded carriage and into the sunlight.

    [Feb 20, 2016] Dutch investigators think it might take ten years to prosecute the guilty parties

    Notable quotes:
    "... Dutch investigators think it might take ten years to prosecute the guilty parties. Also, there are no satellite images , [note the wording], because it was cloudy on the day of the disaster. Apparently the procedure is this: The Dutch secret services MIVD can get a briefing from their American counterparts. If the Dutch MIVD then makes a report of these briefings it can be used as evidence. ..."
    "... The West claims that there are no satellite images. Is this a weasel-worded statement? No pictures = no optical satellite pictures. Word by word true, but they conveniently dont mention the radar-based or SIGNINT satellite recordings? ..."
    "... But there were also many radar-based satellites. ..."
    "... The US military has two systems for high resolution radar IMINT: the Lacrosse (ONYX) system of which currently only one satellite, Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A) is left on-orbit, and the radar component of the Future Imagery Architecture (known as TOPAZ), consisting of three satellites: FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A). These systems should be capable of providing imagery with sub-meter resolutions, and like optical imagery, they can be used to look for the presence of missile systems in the area. They have the added bonus that they are not hampered by cloud cover, unlike optical imagery. ..."
    "... Given what was happening in the area around this time, and the strong concern of NATO and the EU about this, it is almost certain that imagery of the area was collected by these US, German and French satellite systems. ..."
    "... Just when you think that Yahoo is a shit-river of lies, they run this story… and from the Boston Globe! ..."
    "... Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. – quote from the above referenced article. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Terje M, February 19, 2016 at 1:47 am

    3 Stories about MH17:

    An eyewitness account from someone who was part of the team of OSCE inspectors and observers :

    http://slavyangrad.org/2014/10/28/they-are-playing-tennis-three-sets-every-match-to-try-and-kill-us/

    Dutch investigators think it might take ten years to prosecute the guilty parties. Also, there are no satellite images , [note the wording], because it was cloudy on the day of the disaster. Apparently the procedure is this: The Dutch secret services MIVD can get a briefing from their American counterparts. If the Dutch MIVD then makes a report of these briefings it can be used as evidence. They also have 5 billion webpages to cherry pick from.

    https://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rtlnieuws.nl%2Fnieuws%2Fbinnenland%2Fom-zomer-bewijs-over-raket-mh17

    Which brings me to the third story, what types of Western satellites were over SE Ukraine at the time.
    http://sattrackcam.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/sigint-imint-and-mh17.html

    The West claims that there are no satellite images. Is this a weasel-worded statement? No pictures = no optical satellite pictures. Word by word true, but they conveniently don't mention the radar-based or SIGNINT satellite recordings?

    But there were also many radar-based satellites. From the article:

    2. Radar IMINT

    The US military has two systems for high resolution radar IMINT: the Lacrosse (ONYX) system of which currently only one satellite, Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A) is left on-orbit, and the radar component of the Future Imagery Architecture (known as TOPAZ), consisting of three satellites: FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A). These systems should be capable of providing imagery with sub-meter resolutions, and like optical imagery, they can be used to look for the presence of missile systems in the area. They have the added bonus that they are not hampered by cloud cover, unlike optical imagery.

    Apart from the USA, the German military also operates a radar satellite system, the SAR-Lupe satellites. The French military likewise operates its own radar satellite system, the Hélios system. Japan operates the IGS system (which includes both optical and radar satellite versions).

    All of these satellites made passes over the Ukraine at one time or another on July 17 2014, so all of them might have provided useful imagery. FIA Radar 3 made a pass right over the area in question near 11:43 UT for example, some 1.5 hours before the tragedy. FIA Radar 2 made a pass over the area at 18:00 UT, 4.5 hours after the shootdown. These are just a few examples.

    Given what was happening in the area around this time, and the strong concern of NATO and the EU about this, it is almost certain that imagery of the area was collected by these US, German and French satellite systems.

    The article has more interesting information about these satellites.

    Cortes , February 19, 2016 at 4:09 am
    MH17 is likely to become just a minor curiosity like the affair of the Libyan pilot, dead for 12 days, allegedly responsible for the Ustica Massacre:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerolinee_Itavia_Flight_870

    Jeremn , February 19, 2016 at 2:31 am
    Very interesting. I also think the Germans said that they had picked up some Target Acquisition Radar of the launch unit)?

    http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/flug-mh17-regierung-hat-keine-sicheren-erkenntnisse-ueber-abschuss-a-990288.html

    Patient Observer , February 19, 2016 at 4:54 am
    Astounding!
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are-misleading-public-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html
    Just when you think that Yahoo is a shit-river of lies, they run this story… and from the Boston Globe!
    Patient Observer , February 19, 2016 at 5:12 am
    'Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. " – quote from the above referenced article.

    [Feb 18, 2016] Lynn Nottage: Nostalgia is a disease many white Americans have

    Notable quotes:
    "... Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago. ..."
    "... You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity. Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages they have stuck to for the last generation? ..."
    "... median household incomes in America peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity. ..."
    "... Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them. ..."
    "... The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional, creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than is the select group of playwrights listed in the article. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    AmyInNH seastar

    6m ago 0 1 Well thank you for clearing that up. All this time I thought Washington was getting intensely corrupt and now I know it's all in my head.
    Nostalgia is for stability, not "white culture".
    As for immigrant labor, I'm sure this chart, one of the many means of robber baron tactics, flooding the labor market, is mere coincidence.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_of_foreign_born_in_the_US_labor_force_1900_to_2007.png Reply | Report Maritz , 2016-02-18 01:18:17
    It took how many years to come up with the appalling misconception that blue collar steel workers benefited from any type of "supremacy" unless you believe that having a job that pays enough to put a roof over your family's heads and food on the table should be beyond the reach of all but a selected few....Blue collar workers have only ever aspired to keeping their kids in school as long as possible and neither they nor their kids ever had any designs on a college education. Word hard, pay the bills, retire, and die within five years. I don't know in what world that translates to white privelege or advantage, especially when they worked with African Americans and Latinos.

    Now politicians promise every child a college education. If you can't understand the difference between this generation that has been told the world is their oyster and the ones who worked in the Steel mills for generations and knew what their kids could look forward, knew that college was beyond the modest aspirations of their kids and their grandkids you didn't ask the right questions or the right people and the result is an ideologically driven mess of race baiting, sexist claptrap. Get used to being called on your bullsh*t. We all need to check our privilege when we write about race. Talk about entitlement.

    EpaminondasUSA , 2016-02-18 01:16:26
    Lynn Nottage never saw Spike Lee's "Crooklyn." One would call that nostalgic.
    elcantwell , 2016-02-18 00:20:29
    The tough part for me is constantly hearing about what the President did or didn't do. The US government is structured specifically to limit the actions of the executive branch. The conditions of the economic disaster were exacerbated by the unparalleled obstructionism of the opposition party and the lack of support from the president's own party. If Democrats had been willing to oppose a sitting president back in '03 we might have avoided a bankrupting war that still has not ended.
    Thatingles GoatyGoY , 2016-02-18 00:12:40
    Not really. Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago. For sure it was better to be white then black but since you can never really measure the extent of white privilege on your own life, how can you have nostalgia for it?
    The writer claims that current political events are being shaped by a chimaera she can provide no evidence for and ignoring the very real changes that could be driving the political shifts toward more radical candidates.
    Thatingles seastar , 2016-02-18 00:06:27
    You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity. Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages they have stuck to for the last generation?

    Trump is insane, of course, but voting for Hillary or Cruz is equally insane for most of middle America. They would effectively be voting to see their incomes go down and to fall further behind the wealthiest. Why is that a good decision?

    Thatingles , 2016-02-18 00:01:27
    For sure there is nostalgia: nostalgia for the time when middle class incomes were enough to provide a decent lifestyle, were expected to rise and provide enough to pay for your kids to get a decent education. The writer then frames this as nostalgia for white privilege, but I have to question that. Surely the expectation was that as discrimination was rolled back, ethnic minorities would start to come up and equalise their incomes with the white population. After all, that is what every mainstream politician promised would happen. But median household incomes in America peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity.

    And *every* US president and political party has dissembled on this point. Every time, the promise is the same - we can get back to the rising incomes and increasing equality of the last century. And every time, nothing of the sort is delivered.

    So if there is nostalgia, it not only has a very real basis in fact, but is a nostalgia for a time when economic gains were distributed more equally, not a nostalgia for a time when white privilege (whatever that means) was a greater force.

    Sanders and Trump both represent a break from politicians and messages that have palpably failed to deliver. The voters put up with being lied to for some time but their patience has run out.

    Of course Trump can be portrayed as an out and out racist, so its easy to say - well his support is based on race politics. I have no doubt that many do support him for that reason. But the wider picture is this:

    The American voters feel they have been lied to by established politicians and are now looking for alternatives. If they have nostalgia for times past, that is founded not on a dream of white supremacy, but founded on a recollection of times when the economy did work better for the majority.

    Marc Smith , 2016-02-17 22:37:43
    Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them.
    GeoffP ThaddeusTheBold , 2016-02-17 21:37:18

    They now realize their automatic entitlement to being consequential is gone

    What the hell are you talking about? My father didn't have any damn " entitlement to being consequential". He worked his heart out for it, day in and out, and I was proud to do it alongside him.

    Maybe instead of just applying a racist take on perspective, why not think about what you write first? And why is it that every time - every. single. time - this topic comes up that someone widens the gap of guilt to the entirety of white people generally? Where's the border for you? Canada? The UK? Latvia? What is enough of a geographic guilt complex for your needs? Let us know.

    pintoks , 2016-02-17 21:25:37
    The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional, creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than is the select group of playwrights listed in the article.
    strobi Cannylad1919 , 2016-02-17 21:22:47
    the fact that the more academically qualified white female has less chance of getting a place in harvard than a wealthy African-American, is hardly the fault of African Americans or any form of reverse racism, it s the fault of first Harvard being a private university that caters to economic elites, the lack of funding in education and that education is handled at the local level, so funding and quality depend greatly on the education level of the local community and how wealthy they are. This perpetuates inequalities. Still, if you put this hypothetical white female from Harlan County in nice clothes and send her to a fancy mall, together with an equally well dressed young black woman, who do you think security will follow?

    There are also studies where equal CV were sent to potential employers, with the only difference being white, latino, asian or African American sounding names, and the white sounding names were picked more often, everything else being equal.

    It is time that you realize that racism is a real thing and no, working class whites 't doing poorly because of minorities, they are doing poorly (together with minorities) because of the economic system. Unless of course, you think that whites should do better, because, well, they are whites. The later is what I think the nostalgia is all about, 50 years ago white would have had an edge over minorities that today no longer have in most places.

    Surf Murf , 2016-02-17 21:15:27
    This woman is so so wise and enlightened that that her extreme intellect has crossed the line on insanity. Liberals like her will do their best to herd the rest of us into believing that only white working class men are attracted to people like trump and it's only because they are racists. No no lady bone head.

    First of all, you and your elitists, pompous and supposed educated comrades need to stop using the race card overtime you find someone you disagree with. Secondly, Trump has attracted the attention on a multitude of people across all facets of our society and it's not because we are racists, it't because he at least vocalizes, inspire of all of your absurd PC proclamations, facts that the majority of us Americans know and see each day.

    By the way, I am an American with brown skin who's ancestry is African and I appreciate most of what Trump espouses. So please stop trying to make the rest of us fear and hate white working class men just because you've fantasized about their hatred toward you. You and your kind (elitists liberals) will no longer lead me down the path of destruction.

    Individualist RollTide16 , 2016-02-17 20:38:25
    Exactly, all the places that hit rock bottom during the crack epidemic are on their way up now just in time to start attracting people back from the suburban and peri-urban sprawl with its body and soul weakening car dependent isolation.

    Cities like New York and DC are way ahead of surrounding areas in providing public services and creating sustainable buildings plus car-less ways of getting around.

    [Feb 17, 2016] Bigger Than Watergate - Hillary Clinton And The Syrian Bloodbath

    While we would be the first to admit that Jeffrey Sachs was the godfather of "shock therapy" (aka "the economic rape of Russia" and several other xUSSR republics), he is right as for the ongoing Syria bloodbath which has come to define the geopolitical situation for the past 3 years. And how this is an event that would "surely rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment" if the truth were fully known, we agree 100 percent.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead. ..."
    "... As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria. ..."
    "... And Israeli right-wingers are naďve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists. ..."
    "... Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad. ..."
    "... When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime change. ..."
    "... Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called "Friends of Syria" to back the CIA-led insurgency. ..."
    "... This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup d'état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably, a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to be manipulated by U.S. covert operations. ..."
    "... And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a bit of this story last month in describing the CIA-Saudi connection , in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped. Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people). ..."
    "... Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today. ..."
    "... Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster in Syria. ..."
    "... She is totally unqualified, a disaster of a secretary of state, has incredibly poor judgement is a terrible candidate and should never be allowed to serve in any government capacity - EVER. ..."
    "... Well said. Hillary is a warmonger neocon just like Bush/McCain/Graham/Cheney. Trump and Bernie are not. ..."
    "... Pundits do not realize when they heap praises at Hillary Clinton's debate performances that ordinary people watching cannot get past her lack of trustworthiness and her dishonesty; and that whatever she says is viewed in that context and is therefore worthless. ..."
    "... It's dismaying that the blowback from the 1953 CIA-assisted overthrow of Mossadegh is still behind the instability of the Middle East, and that we have continued to commit the same mistakes over and over. Can't we just get rid of this agency? ..."
    "... The CIA repeated this stunt in Vietnam 10 years after the Mossadegh mess and have been doing it at least once every decade since then. In every case, it has been a failure. How supporting that nonsense is seen as foreign policy experience, I'll never know. ..."
    "... Hillary helped facilitate the arming of terrorists in Syria in 2010 and 2011. She as far as I al concerned, Hillary supported the deaths of Syrians and terrorism. So why on earth would I want her to be president? Hello? ..."
    "... More like a continuance of a disaster deferred. Thanks to John Kerry cleaning up the mess of her disastrous term as SoS. Syria is still a mess, but he has been working his butt off to be every bit of diplomat that Hillary was not. ..."
    "... she was for an all out invasion by the USA into Syria to remove Assad. She, John McCain, and Linsey Graham had to settle for just arming the Al Queda and IS for the time being. ..."
    "... Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc DC corruption used to bring down regimes that have continually destabilized America & the world. ..."
    "... Where & Why was Obama & Holder not as directly held accountable in this discussion. Trump rightfully points that Americans have died for nothing yet the villains who are the catalysts of these atrocities still have jobs & stature in US. America needs to be rebooted once again & bring in leadership not buoyed by greed. power & indifference of those before him. ..."
    "... The problem here really is the fact that Americans bitch and don't vote every election and this has let money just walk in and buy more influence, you want a real revolution, ..."
    "... That is about it, Clinton is a repub in dem clothing and the US is the biggest threat to world peace when it can not get its way in another countries politics or to get them to follow the US master plan that mainly supports the US's goal. ..."
    "... what makes her so maddeningly hawkish? what credentials she has that her peace-loving supporters believe that she can lead the US/world for peace? wake-up, and let's get united behind bernie. ..."
    "... They believe the mythology that if women ruled the world it would be a better place...I beg to differ....Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I were not exactly peace lovers... ..."
    "... years ago I was shocked to see that there were women members of the KKK. So much for women by their gender alone saving the world. ..."
    "... But let us not forget Hillary Clinton's "regime change" record in Ukraine with Victoria "Fuc# the E.U.!" Nuland, wife of Neocon Robert Kagan and an Under Secretary of Hillary Clinton's at The State Department. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over Ukraine: ..."
    "... Yes, Somehow the so-called MSM refuses to expose the continuing debacle of our worldwide acts of Terrorism! The failure after failure of "our" military establishment such as targeted assassinations ..."
    "... Further it is American war industry in partnership with our military that is arming the world with military grade weapon systems, tons and tons of munitions, and training to use them for such terror weapons as IEDs. It is MSM control by the establishment that enables the failures of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton to treat horrendous failures as successes! ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton supporters don't care, they don't care that she could be a felon nor do they care she is owned by Wall Street and many other corporate special interest, they just don't care. ..."
    "... Up here in New Hampshire, we soundly rejected untrustworthy, dishonest, disingenuous and corrupt Hillary, we just wish the rest of the nation had as much time to get to know the candidates as we had up here! ..."
    www.huffingtonpost.com

    In the Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution on a Syrian ceasefire:

    But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution. At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake in Syria together.

    This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton's role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.

    In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton's intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan's peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton's insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead.

    As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason.

    Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria.

    This idea is incredibly naďve. Iran has been around as a regional power for a long time--in fact, for about 2,700 years. And Shia Islam is not going away. There is no way, and no reason, to "defeat" Iran. The regional powers need to forge a geopolitical equilibrium that recognizes the mutual and balancing roles of the Gulf Arabs, Turkey, and Iran. And Israeli right-wingers are naďve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists.

    Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad.

    When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime change.

    In early 2011, Turkey and Saudi Arabia leveraged local protests against Assad to try to foment conditions for his ouster. By the spring of 2011, the CIA and the US allies were organizing an armed insurrection against the regime. On August 18, 2011, the US Government made public its position: "Assad must go."

    Since then and until the recent fragile UN Security Council accord, the US has refused to agree to any ceasefire unless Assad is first deposed. The US policy--under Clinton and until recently--has been: regime change first, ceasefire after. After all, it's only Syrians who are dying. Annan's peace efforts were sunk by the United States' unbending insistence that U.S.-led regime change must precede or at least accompany a ceasefire. As the Nation editors put it in August 2012:

    The US demand that Assad be removed and sanctions be imposed before negotiations could seriously begin, along with the refusal to include Iran in the process, doomed [Annan's] mission.

    Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called "Friends of Syria" to back the CIA-led insurgency.

    The U.S. policy was a massive, horrific failure. Assad did not go, and was not defeated. Russia came to his support. Iran came to his support. The mercenaries sent in to overthrow him were themselves radical jihadists with their own agendas. The chaos opened the way for the Islamic State, building on disaffected Iraqi Army leaders (deposed by the US in 2003), on captured U.S. weaponry, and on the considerable backing by Saudi funds. If the truth were fully known, the multiple scandals involved would surely rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment.

    The hubris of the United States in this approach seems to know no bounds. The tactic of CIA-led regime change is so deeply enmeshed as a "normal" instrument of U.S. foreign policy that it is hardly noticed by the U.S. public or media. Overthrowing another government is against the U.N. charter and international law. But what are such niceties among friends?

    This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup d'état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably, a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to be manipulated by U.S. covert operations.

    Removing a leader, even if done "successfully," doesn't solve any underlying geopolitical problems, much less ecological, social, or economic ones. A coup d'etat invites a civil war, the kind that now wracks Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It invites a hostile international response, such as Russia's backing of its Syrian ally in the face of the CIA-led operations. The record of misery caused by covert CIA operations literally fills volumes at this point. What surprise, then, the Clinton acknowledges Henry Kissinger as a mentor and guide?

    And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a bit of this story last month in describing the CIA-Saudi connection, in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped. Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people).

    Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today.

    It takes great presidential leadership to resist CIA misadventures. Presidents get along by going along with arms contractors, generals, and CIA operatives. They thereby also protect themselves from political attack by hardline right-wingers. They succeed by exulting in U.S. military might, not restraining it. Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government.

    Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster in Syria.


    Steven Beliveau, Northeastern University
    The people of the United States do not want that woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton to have relations with the people of the United States. She is totally unqualified, a disaster of a secretary of state, has incredibly poor judgement is a terrible candidate and should never be allowed to serve in any government capacity - EVER.
    Matt Hemingway
    Simple equation....war=money=power. Perpetual warfare is the post 911 gold rush and every establishment politician in every country is the snake oil salesman pushing this through. The people on the top make money and the rest of us get killed and go broke.
    Max South
    Not only the root cause, but also to-ols are important: now Western media/StateDep try depict what happens in Syria as sectarian, all while majority of both Syrian army and government are Sunni (even Assad's wife is Sunni) -- secular ones.

    Syrian government is only hope for them, as well as for Christians, Kurds and all other ethnic and religious minorities that fight against Wahhabi/Salafist jihadists.

    Ram Samudrala, Professor and Chief, Division of Bioinformatics at SUNY Buffalo
    Sanders' platform is expansive and IMO he has provided the most detail on how he will get things done, which anyone can find out with a bit of investigation (http://berniesanders.com/issues/). But all of it doesn't matter since you can't predict how events will unfold. In this regard, I trust Sanders more than anyone else to decide what is best for all people in the the country (and even the world). I personally will do well with anyone but I think Sanders is looking out for the average person more than anyone else.
    Charles Hill, Works at Seif employed
    Well said. Hillary is a warmonger neocon just like Bush/McCain/Graham/Cheney. Trump and Bernie are not.
    Masha Manning, Houston, Texas
    Pundits do not realize when they heap praises at Hillary Clinton's debate performances that ordinary people watching cannot get past her lack of trustworthiness and her dishonesty; and that whatever she says is viewed in that context and is therefore worthless.
    Eric Smith, Burlington, Vermont
    It's dismaying that the blowback from the 1953 CIA-assisted overthrow of Mossadegh is still behind the instability of the Middle East, and that we have continued to commit the same mistakes over and over. Can't we just get rid of this agency?
    Bijan Sharifi
    as an iranian-american (and veteran), i appreciate sen sanders bringing this up in the debate.
    Eric Smith, Burlington, Vermont
    Bijan Sharifi Indeed. The CIA repeated this stunt in Vietnam 10 years after the Mossadegh mess and have been doing it at least once every decade since then. In every case, it has been a failure. How supporting that nonsense is seen as foreign policy experience, I'll never know.
    Timothy Francis, Project Manager at CHC Consulting
    Hillary helped facilitate the arming of terrorists in Syria in 2010 and 2011. She as far as I al concerned, Hillary supported the deaths of Syrians and terrorism. So why on earth would I want her to be president? Hello?
    Dianne Primmer, Houston, Texas
    This is the much vaunted foreign policy that Hillary's supporters think qualify her for the presidency. That's a disaster waiting to happen.

    Christopher Head, Lighting Designer at Freelance Lighting Designer

    More like a continuance of a disaster deferred. Thanks to John Kerry cleaning up the mess of her disastrous term as SoS. Syria is still a mess, but he has been working his butt off to be every bit of diplomat that Hillary was not. As soon as she returns to office expect more of her warfare first and diplomacy 'meh'.
    Gary Pack
    Ignacio, she was for an all out invasion by the USA into Syria to remove Assad. She, John McCain, and Linsey Graham had to settle for just arming the Al Queda and IS for the time being.
    Sheia Mahone
    This is what Trump has been alluding to in re Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc DC corruption used to bring down regimes that have continually destabilized America & the world.

    Where & Why was Obama & Holder not as directly held accountable in this discussion. Trump rightfully points that Americans have died for nothing yet the villains who are the catalysts of these atrocities still have jobs & stature in US. America needs to be rebooted once again & bring in leadership not buoyed by greed. power & indifference of those before him.

    Ronald Burker, Boonsboro Senior High
    James Elliott cheerleading will not get anything done, I don't think Bernie understands how to get things done in our system, reality is 40 years of bad will not be fixed in even 4 years.

    The problem here really is the fact that Americans bitch and don't vote every election and this has let money just walk in and buy more influence, you want a real revolution, vote every election you are alive and you will let your children and their children a better life.

    Harvey Riggs
    That is about it, Clinton is a repub in dem clothing and the US is the biggest threat to world peace when it can not get its way in another countries politics or to get them to follow the US master plan that mainly supports the US's goal.

    More messes in this world has been started with covert means in order to get what we want and millions upon milllions are suffering and the rest of the world countries 1'%ers who run those countries are scared to stand up aguinst the US and lose that under the table support.

    Robert Chan
    what makes her so maddeningly hawkish? what credentials she has that her peace-loving supporters believe that she can lead the US/world for peace? wake-up, and let's get united behind bernie.
    Kathleen Lowy, MSW: Rutgers
    They believe the mythology that if women ruled the world it would be a better place...I beg to differ....Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I were not exactly peace lovers...

    Additionally, years ago I was shocked to see that there were women members of the KKK. So much for women by their gender alone saving the world.

    Sheila Rajan
    Looking at the various misguided US excursions over the past 2 decades from outside of America, this comes as no surprise. Clinton's deep involvement in these venal adventures comes as no surprise either. Bill Clinton may have been adored in liberal America, but he was NOT, outside of your borders. To us he appeared as just another one in a long line of Presidents under the sway of the arms manufacturers, CIA, banks and financiers. Hillary Clinton is just an offshoot.
    Charlene Avis Richards, Works at Self-Employed
    Excellent article.

    But let us not forget Hillary Clinton's "regime change" record in Ukraine with Victoria "Fuc# the E.U.!" Nuland, wife of Neocon Robert Kagan and an Under Secretary of Hillary Clinton's at The State Department.

    Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over Ukraine:

    See More

    Leo Myers, Univ. of Minnesota
    Yes, Somehow the so-called MSM refuses to expose the continuing debacle of our worldwide acts of Terrorism! The failure after failure of "our" military establishment such as targeted assassinations as an official policy using drones, black ops, spec ops, military "contractors", hired mercenaries, war lord militias and the like; the illegal and immoral acts of war cloaked in the Israeli framed rubric of "national defense".

    Further it is American war industry in partnership with our military that is arming the world with military grade weapon systems, tons and tons of munitions, and training to use them for such terror weapons as IEDs. It is MSM control by the establishment that enables the failures of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton to treat horrendous failures as successes!

    James Aliberti, Wentworth Institute of Technology
    Hillary Clinton supporters don't care, they don't care that she could be a felon nor do they care she is owned by Wall Street and many other corporate special interest, they just don't care.

    Up here in New Hampshire, we soundly rejected untrustworthy, dishonest, disingenuous and corrupt Hillary, we just wish the rest of the nation had as much time to get to know the candidates as we had up here!

    [Feb 17, 2016] The US is the dominant force in international banking. It is this position from which sanctions are derived.

    peakoilbarrel.com

    Watcher , 02/16/2016 at 11:51 am

    The US is the dominant force in international banking. It is this position from which sanctions are derived. Iran had to (and often did) find other ways to get paid for shipping oil than money flow through international banking, which US and EU sanctions prohibited.

    If you seek to oppose the US, you must not fight in a money arena. It's a disadvantageous battlefield.

    The price of oil is determined by what? NYMEX traders? Or agreement between a refinery and an oil exporter?

    I would suggest it is the latter, which need not depend on NYMEX numbers at all.

    If your goal is to destroy US shale, the last thing you would do is allow your weapon (price) to be defined by your target (the US in general, which is where the NYMEX is). Nor would you allow it to be defined by something as variable as free market forces. If you specify price to your buyer, perhaps lower than his bid, you remove the marketplace from involvement in the battle.

    The goal is victory. Not profit. How could you allow yourself to define victory in pieces of paper printed by your enemy?

    Ron Patterson , 02/16/2016 at 12:13 pm
    If your goal is to destroy US shale, the last thing you would do is allow your weapon (price) to be defined by your target (the US in general, which is where the NYMEX is). Nor would you allow it to be defined by something as variable as free market forces.

    If your goal is to destroy US shale then the only way you can do that is to produce every barrel of oil you possibly can. It would not be within your power to allow the price to be defined by anyone or anything other than market forces. Of course every exporter negotiates a price with his buyer. But that price must be within a reasonable amount of what the world oil price is at the moment.

    The price of oil is determined by supply and demand just like every commodity on the market.

    Every day, there are thousands of oil buyers around the world. There are dozens of sellers, many of them exporters. All the buyers are in competition with other buyers to get the lowest possible price. All the sellers are in competition with other sellers to get the highest price possible. And the price moves up and down with each trade, hourly or sometimes minute by minute.

    To believe that even one of those dozens of exporters has the power to set the price oil, much higher than everyone else is getting, is just silly. And likewise, to believe that a buyer can get a much lower price than everyone else is getting, is just as silly.

    They say that depletion never sleeps. Well, market forces never sleep either.

    Watcher , 02/16/2016 at 3:01 pm
    But that price must be within a reasonable amount of what the world oil price is at the moment.

    Which is why it took the predator 18 mos to get it down to lethal levels. Just repeatedly be willing to sell for a bit less than the bid and down it will go, because others will protect their marketshare by matching your price (sound familiar?). Then you're no longer the only one offering a low price.

    All the sellers are in competition with other sellers to get the highest price possible.

    Were this so there would exist no wiki for predatory pricing.

    You aren't thinking about victory. If you seek victory, you don't fight in an arena where you are disadvantaged. If you're the low cost producer of the lifeblood of civilization, you assert that advantage and kill the enemy.

    Dennis Coyne , 02/16/2016 at 3:58 pm
    Hi Watcher,

    By your reasoning the price of oil should be close to zero, say $1/b.

    Explain why that isn't the case, if "victory" is the sole objective.

    Also predatory pricing is not an effective strategy especially in commodity markets where the barriers to entry are low.

    OPEC does not set the price of oil on World Markets, they simply influence it by their level of output. In the case of the oil industry attempts at predatory pricing are not rational, it is simply a strategy for losing money.

    Ron Patterson , 02/16/2016 at 4:08 pm
    Which is why it took the predator 18 mos to get it down to lethal levels. Just repeatedly be willing to sell for a bit less than the bid and down it will go, because others will protect their market share by matching your price (sound familiar?). Then you're no longer the only one offering a low price.

    Oh good grief. I give up. You are a hopeless case.

    Watcher , 02/16/2016 at 8:40 pm
    Tell that to the Soviets.
    likbez , 02/17/2016 at 12:00 am
    "Tell that to the Soviets."

    Perfect --

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11220027/Cheap-oil-will-win-new-Cold-War-with-Putin-just-ask-Reagan.html

    http://www.susmitkumar.net/index.php/reason-for-ussr-collapse-oil-a-german-banks-not-reagan

    http://www.hubbertpeak.com/reynolds/sovietdecline.htm

    Jimmy , 02/17/2016 at 12:00 am
    I don't think Watcher expresses the situation very clearly, especially with words like 'predator'. I don't see it as an apt analogy. I do however feel that the current price war/production war/phantom production war is clearly an act of economic warfare by Saudi Arabia against their competitors. It seems odd to me that a world oil production system that can't very accurately tell me how much oil was produced today until months after the fact is going to start the day tomorrow by saying 'we are over supplied by 1.8 million barrels a day today' and then proceed to talk the price into the gutter.
    Watcher , 02/17/2016 at 11:59 am
    The predator is not KSA.

    [Feb 16, 2016] Ukraines Poroshenko asks embattled PM to resign

    news.yahoo.com

    Recent opinion polls show 70 percent of Ukrainians supporting Yatsenyuk's ouster and only one percent backing his People's Front parliamentary bloc.

    IMF chief Christine Lagarde warned last week that it was "hard to see" how the bailout could continue without Ukraine pushing through the economic restructuring and anti-corruption measures it had signed on to when the package was agreed.

    Ukraine's economy shrank by about 10 percent last year while annual inflation soared to more than 43 percent even with the Western assistance in place.

    [Feb 13, 2016] US intelligence chief: we might use the internet of things to spy on you

    Notable quotes:
    "... The American public has been living under collective Stockholm syndrome. The have secretly been deceived and betrayed while our freedoms, rights and national security has been compromised. The surveillance state was never for our protection. ..."
    "... Various rogue agencies have intentionally and illegally subverted our constitution, rights and freedoms while secretly targeting Americans committing various crimes, including murder. ..."
    "... When Clapper says "they might" then they are already doing so. ..."
    "... Tea party never was. It always was promoted by the media and big business. Financed by the same. Look at the coverage: Occupy was ridiculed by big Media into no existence. Not the same at all. ..."
    "... USSR has won! Now we treat our people the same way they did. Soon we can blackmail everyone into compliance. And we can easily plant evidence should we not find any - if they're in they can do anything they want. ..."
    "... She is an opportunist, not a feminist. ..."
    "... Ban Ki Moon and the Pope saying capitalism is destroying the life AND economy of the entire fricken globe, may be an opportunity for a popular movement, and this Bernie thing has the potential to be part of a wake up moment. ..."
    "... I said I wouldn't ever do that again after O'bummer, but as Woodie Guthrie said, Hope is what makes us human and is the driver of evolution. Or something like that. ..."
    "... You lost me on "equality is women having all the same opportunities as men". Actually many of us want entirely different "opportunities" and these women who play the patriarch, like Thatcher and Rice, and Shillary, do not represent the diverse and rich culture of "feminism" that is enmeshed in people's real lives. ..."
    "... I'm an aussie and I can tell you America Bernie Sanders is what you need to keep you guys from becoming a laughing stock. Hillary, trump is on the same brush as the elitist of your country. Bernie may or not be able to do what he wants to as he will get stonewalled but if everyone is united and keeps fighting with him they will have no choice to implement some of them. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    Fgt 4URIGHTS, 2016-02-09 22:59:16
    The American public has been living under collective Stockholm syndrome. The have secretly been deceived and betrayed while our freedoms, rights and national security has been compromised. The surveillance state was never for our protection.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg1-vao5Ta8

    Various rogue agencies have intentionally and illegally subverted our constitution, rights and freedoms while secretly targeting Americans committing various crimes, including murder.

    YeeofLittleFaith -> Individualist , 2016-02-09 22:37:44
    I'll say this, if this inevitable surveillance can prevent actual criminals from committing actual crimes, it might be useful.

    And I'll say this: if that is the intention of these devices - and if your bog-standard criminal is ever caught using them - I'll eat your smart fridge.

    neiman1 -> JinTexas , 2016-02-09 22:29:54
    When Clapper says "they might" then they are already doing so.
    Hillary Assad , 2016-02-09 22:26:15
    Surveillance video of San Bernardino released on 01/05/16 Enjoy!!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHH7gvHXLzQ
    mirandawest -> Dan B , 2016-02-09 22:20:40
    Tea party never was. It always was promoted by the media and big business. Financed by the same. Look at the coverage: Occupy was ridiculed by big Media into no existence. Not the same at all.
    mirandawest -> John Leehane , 2016-02-09 22:15:38
    USSR has won! Now we treat our people the same way they did. Soon we can blackmail everyone into compliance. And we can easily plant evidence should we not find any - if they're in they can do anything they want.
    bcarey -> harrywarren , 2016-02-09 20:53:30

    She is an opportunist, not a feminist.

    Absolutely correct.
    (And a panderer.)

    Lisa Wood -> kirili, 2016-02-10 07:17:32
    Hear ya, I plan to hold him to the fire. I'm a realist, and married to an uber realist, so not gonna argue with ya here, but, as this article actually says really well, is that the holistic embrace of all inequity opens the landscape to the big conversations we do Need to have right now.

    I know i know, the UN is at one hand a weak tool and on the other a NWO franchise, but Ban Ki Moon and the Pope saying capitalism is destroying the life AND economy of the entire fricken globe, may be an opportunity for a popular movement, and this Bernie thing has the potential to be part of a wake up moment.

    I have let my Hope thing vibrate a bit, and I said I wouldn't ever do that again after O'bummer, but as Woodie Guthrie said, Hope is what makes us human and is the driver of evolution. Or something like that.

    Lisa Wood -> MajorMalaise , 2016-02-10 07:08:42
    You lost me on "equality is women having all the same opportunities as men". Actually many of us want entirely different "opportunities" and these women who play the patriarch, like Thatcher and Rice, and Shillary, do not represent the diverse and rich culture of "feminism" that is enmeshed in people's real lives.
    keepinitreal2000, 2016-02-10 06:12:18
    I'm an aussie and I can tell you America Bernie Sanders is what you need to keep you guys from becoming a laughing stock. Hillary, trump is on the same brush as the elitist of your country. Bernie may or not be able to do what he wants to as he will get stonewalled but if everyone is united and keeps fighting with him they will have no choice to implement some of them.

    As an Aussie it is important that his message is heard and implemented as America can then show the world there is good in the world and that we all can live in a fair, just and equal world. Something America has stopped showing for a very longtime. This hopefully will filter down to other countries as America rightly or wrongly leads the world and many countries do follow suit.

    [Feb 13, 2016] Democratic debate: the five biggest moments

    Notable quotes:
    "... Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS Frontline . It specifically states that during the 2007 Surge to stabilize an Iraq that had been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor of ISIS, the Sunni Sons of Iraq . ..."
    "... The unintended consequences of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those consequences ; Clinton, the old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them. ..."
    "... Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger? Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either ..."
    "... I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running, for people to know what she said. ..."
    "... Sanders catches Clinton on her advice from Henry Kissinger , Hillary doubles down on her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get advice from Josef Mengele about Health care shed do that too? ..."
    "... Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a majority of women on stage . Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you said majority of straight people on stage . You come across like some gender supremacist. ..."
    "... Im sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton one of the most accomplished women in the world ? ..."
    "... She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions and persona to become the political wife so the man she married could have the career he wanted, then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal) U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens) in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she distinguished herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for the rest of her life, and no, I dont mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)... ..."
    "... Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow a good thing. ..."
    "... Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones. ..."
    "... Faux-identity politics has run its course. ..."
    "... Really believe Republicans havent changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is help the rich . ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades. ..."
    "... And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obamas Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal - all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.) ..."
    "... The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves. ..."
    "... Ill take Sanders proven judgment over Clintons shoot first; ask questions later approach. ..."
    "... Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldmans workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis. ..."
    "... For some reason I have a feeling that the big banks wouldnt be asking Mr . Sanders to speak at their events. ..."
    "... So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders or to Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... she voted for gw bushs disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, thats just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam. ..."
    "... This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words Commander in Chief, it made me feel she couldnt wait to get her fingers on the button. ..."
    "... Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    smkngman, 2016-02-13 00:55:28
    Please!

    The biggest moment was when Bernie responded to,
    "Journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is."

    Aside from the "Journalists have asked" bull, his reply was most certainly the biggest moment of the entire debate!

    "Well it ain't Henry Kissinger,"

    According to Google, this moment created the BIGGEST spike of internet searches during the debate.

    RobertHickson2014, 2016-02-12 22:57:04
    Hypothetically, if Hillary is 500 delegates short of winning the nomination, while Bernie is only short 200, and 600 of the 700 Supers break her way....

    A scenario like that could very well happen; the DNC needs to abolish the Super Delegates once and for all to remove the prospect of a rigged nomination process.

    EDVDGN -> imipak, 2016-02-12 18:45:58
    Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS' "Frontline". It specifically states that during the 2007 "Surge" to stabilize an Iraq that had been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor of ISIS, the Sunni "Sons of Iraq".

    The "unintended consequences" of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those "consequences"; Clinton, the old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them.

    Of course, daughter Chelsea, didn't have to get all dirty and bloody herself by going to fight her mother's war, but your sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers did. Vote for more of that with Clinton.

    "Losing Iraq", PBS, "Frontline", 7/29/14, 1 ˝ hours
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/losing-iraq /

    uples, 2016-02-12 18:20:20
    Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger? Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either
    kattw -> dochi1958, 2016-02-12 17:00:19
    I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running, for people to know what she said.

    ... ... ...

    Marcedward, 2016-02-12 16:18:17
    Big Moments:

    1) Hillary tries to mention a local African American killed by police, forgets the name mid sentence and struggles to get it out of her mouth. Came across as very rehearsed, especially when it turns out the victims mom was in the audience, being used by the Clinton Campaign for an obvious photo opportunity. Clinton wins the HAM HANDED Award.

    2) Hillary tries to go after Sanders for disagreeing with Obama and comes across like an inside the beltway clueless blithering idiot. She claims progressive creds, but she's totally unaware of how disappointing Obama has been to the Left. Hillary exposed as another Washington Insider, again.

    3) Sanders command of the agenda while all Clinton could do is follow his lead quipping "me too!" Clearly Sanders is in control of this race, Clinton is not, one is a leader, one is not. Hillary should just step down for the good of the country and the party

    4) Sanders catches Clinton on her "advice from Henry Kissinger", Hillary doubles down on her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get advice from Josef Mengele about Health care she'd do that too?

    5) Hillary wearing what looked to be a Star Trek (the original series) Admiral's uniform - was that a nod to trekkies? I couldn't tell if it was a Star Fleet or a Romulan top. Anyway, cred for Hillary for shouting out to Trekkies.

    6) Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a "majority of women on stage". Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you said "majority of straight people on stage". You come across like some gender supremacist.

    SocalAlex -> kattw, 2016-02-12 15:13:11

    of one of the most accomplished women in the world

    I'm sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton "one of the most accomplished women in the world"?

    She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions and persona to become the "political wife" so the man she married could have the career he wanted, then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal) U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens) in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she "distinguished" herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for the rest of her life, and no, I don't mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)...

    Sorry, Clinton may well be an intelligent and competent woman, but by what stretch of the imagination is she "one of the most accomplished women in the world"? The U.S. perhaps - through arguably not even - but the world? Seriously? And then you have the gall to claim Sanders supporters are delusional?

    Women like Angela Merkel or Christine Lagarde (like them or loathe them) could and would eat the likes of Clinton for breakfast, and they accomplished what they have without any husband's help!

    om Voloshen, 2016-02-12 15:12:45
    1. Killary plays the sex card.
    2. Killaty says little about her famaly's policy toward jailing nearly a third of all black men and foreclosing on so many of their homes due to Bill's passing GlassSteagall.
    3. Killary conveniently leaves out the fact that all key Latino and minority interest groups supported Bernie's no vote.
    4. Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow a good thing.
    5. Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones.
    ocalAlex -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 14:55:18
    Both Cruz and Rubio are as white as Clinton and Sanders. And having parents who were part of the upper-class who fled Cuba after the Revolution doesn't remotely reflect the personal histories of the vast majority of Hispanic-Americans. (Nor, for that matter, does being the son of a wealthy Kenyan student and middle-class white mother reflect the reality of 99% of African-Americans.)

    Faux-identity politics has run its course. It was never as instrumental in Obama's election(s) as was made out in the first place, and many of the minority for whom it was have learned their lesson.

    As the Republicans are painfully aware and Clinton is learning, blacks and Latinos and women and young people aren't stupid - they will ultimately rather vote for the "old white man" who represents their interests than the person they have slightly more of a genetic or cultural link to who doesn't!

    RobertHickson2014, 2016-02-12 14:33:36
    Hillary learned her lessons well from that douche bag, Henry Kissinger. Here are some of his 'foreign policy' quotes.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/here-are-the-top-10-most-callous-and-inhumane-henry-kissinger-quotes /

    SocalAlex -> Adrian, 2016-02-12 14:30:17
    Well, Sanders was the first Senator to announce he was boycotting Netanyahu's speech to Congress last year, and while he's certainly adopted a more mainstream line towards Israel in recent years, he's still never spoken at or accepted support from AIPAC and makes it quite clear in his policy brief that he believes Israel needs to end the siege of Gaza and withdraw from the West Bank .

    Clinton, on the other hand, is an AIPAC darling who doesn't even "believe" Gaza is under siege and merely has some mealy-mouthed platitudes to offer about how settlement expansion in the West Bank is not "helpful". (And one of her largest individual campaign donors is an Israeli-American billionaire who she has assured she will, if elected, do everything in her power to crack down on the BDS movement!)

    At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly how they deserved.

    You mean even more $100s of billions in U.S. "aid" than they were already getting and complete diplomatic cover for their assault on Gaza and other assorted war crimes? If you think that's tough love, I'd hate to see how your children turn out!

    *For more background see thisAl-Jazeera English piece or the Electronic Intifada's exhaustive coverage.

    Sanders is far from perfect on this issue, but he's about as "progressive" as it is possible for any high-profile U.S. politician to be. (And I really hope you weren't implying the fact that he is Jewish makes him more likely to be pro-Israel - that is precisely the kind of crap which helps those opposed to Palestinian rights paint all of us campaigning for them in a bad light...)

    nnedjo -> kattw, 2016-02-12 14:26:01

    Of course, Clinton distances herself from her supporters by running a tight campaign

    Of course, that's the way how it works, Clinton left to her supporters to do the dirty work, and then she distances herself from them, and continue to play an angel.
    newellalan -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 14:21:17
    Really believe Republicans haven't changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is "help the rich".
    mouchefisher -> kattw, 2016-02-12 14:12:57
    You either misunderstood my comment, or you're being disingenuous.

    What I find strange is The Guardian's evident pro-Clinton bias, even though it pretends to be a progressive paper. Sanders is obviously the true progressive, not Clinton. So yes, it does make me (and many, many other readers of The Guardian) wonder.

    ajreddish, 2016-02-12 14:12:07
    Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades.

    At least when Bernie Sanders opens his mouth on any issue, there's no puppet strings moving furiously up and down in the background.

    SocalAlex -> DennisLaw , 2016-02-12 14:10:16
    What foreign policy credentials/experience did Obama have? (Or W. Bush or Bill Clinton for that matter?)

    And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obama's Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal - all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.)

    Agi Tater -> imipak , 2016-02-12 14:03:26
    The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves.

    Sanders' one weakness is he does not articulate a clear foreign policy. On the other hand, these are complex issues that can't be reduced to talking points. Further, Sanders' voting record on these issues is solid. Unlike Clinton he did vote against the war in Iraq. And he predicted the unintended consequence of instability and thus ISIS. Clinton has far more experience but she pretends her vote for a disastrous war in Iraq has no connection to ISIS. That's a serious lack of judgment and/or honesty on her part.

    I'll take Sanders' proven judgment over Clinton's "shoot first; ask questions later" approach.

    Agi Tater, 2016-02-12 13:38:25
    This article is not balanced and thus disappointing. Same with Graves' opinion piece stating that Sanders "squandered" his lead. Absurd.

    Everything that comes out of Clinton's mouth is a strategic ploy for votes. She will say whatever she and her advisors think she must say to get elected. If she is elected, she will maintain the status quo, at least when it comes to the economy and campaign financing. Those are the two areas that must be reformed before we can see any real progress.

    Anyone who believes that Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street criminals are funding Clinton's campaign because she's going to follow through with the real economic reforms that she's now promising (copying Sanders) and that will eliminate their fraudulent business models is a fucking idiot. What Wall Street type is going to donate to a candidate who's going to level the playing field and thus destroy their business model? Are people really that stupid? (rhetorical question) Let's see those transcripts from her speeches that she clearly does not want voters to see.

    The truth is, Clinton's talking points have shifted and evolved to match Sanders' positions that voters find attractive. This is a matter of record. She's an Establishment politician and will be to the end. Sander is the real deal.

    Murphy1983, 2016-02-12 13:36:57
    From Politico Feb. 9, 2016:

    NEW YORK - "When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.

    "Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman's workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

    "'It was pretty glowing about us," one person who watched the event said. "It's so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.' "

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969#ixzz3ztCCKaHe

    sharethewealth -> kattw, 2016-02-12 13:34:37
    It's a tough question to ask, given the American track record on foreign policy. Who would you listen to? American interests overseas have never been, shall we say, altruistic; more self serving and clandestine. It's no wonder Bernie is focusing his attention on the national socio/political climate. It seems ironic to think that any government can influence foreign policy in a positive way while issues such a racism and a living wage are so rampantly out of balance in their own nation.
    Elfeesh, 2016-02-12 13:29:10
    So your "5 things we learned" is actually "A positive spin on 4 things about Clinton and one thing Sanders said", whilst totally failing to mention the fact that Clinton outright lied about things that Bernie had said in an attempt to make it seem like he actively opposes Obama, or that she said, verbatim, that she wouldn't allow child refugees to settle in the US and to send them back AS A MESSAGE.

    This paper's coverage is getting more and more biased by the minute as its journalists realise that "kooky old Sanders" is actually getting some traction with the American people. That article by Lucia Gravesis a disgrace and cherry picks the one liners Sanders came back to Hillary's attacks with, as though its somehow terrible for someone to defend themselves with witty and quick comebacks.

    Just FYI Guardian, your readership is actually half intelligent and can see through your biased BS, just as the general electorate can see through the crappy CNN and PBS coverage given to Sanders. You say that Clinton "won" the debate, yet it seems that most people disagree(Note the person saying this is an Associated Press journalist) and there is more than one source to suggest that, in Nevada a focus group say Sanders' won by a 25-9 margin and even Chris Matthews, who for the longest time has been struggling to say "Bernie Sanders" without the "Democratic Socialist" prefix, says that Bernie beat Hillary at her own game. Finally, and I'm afraid I don't have a link for this one, CNN and PBS' own coverage of the debate cut to a room in South Carolina filled with a focus group of women of mixed age and race. (Please note SC is supposed to be Clinton's version of New Hampshire where she'll stomp all over Sanders) Almost all people in the group said Bernie had done the best in the debate, and the one black woman they interviewed (again, black women is supposedly Clinton's demographic) said that Sanders was the most convincing out of the two, though she remained undecided.

    People would start taking this paper seriously again if you guys actually paid attention to whats going on, instead of just closing your eyes to all the evidence and continuing to hammer out ridiculous articles bigging up your chosen candidate. There's a reason people aren't even bothering to read your coverage anymore, and instead go straight to the comments to see what people are actually thinking.

    DrKropotkin -> Serv_On , 2016-02-12 13:19:41
    "Bernie should give a pledge that he will never take a red cent for a speech ever ever ever"

    It's not about cents - it's hundreds of thousands per hour and behind closed doors, which is an unsubtle way to bribe a future president. Sanders did give a speech recently to a University that paid him $1,800. Transcripts are available and he donated all of the money to charity.

    Anatoliy Asanov -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 13:13:08
    For some reason I have a feeling that the big banks wouldn't be asking Mr . Sanders to speak at their events.
    Zendjan -> elterrifico, 2016-02-12 13:12:17
    She makes Lucrezia Borgia look like Mother Teresa.
    DrKropotkin -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 13:08:57
    In both primaries Sanders beat the polls by 5-8%. Nationally he is now just 2 points off Clinton according to the latest poll.

    The MSMBS has created a reality bubble around Clinton, but nobody takes print media or TV news seriously anymore, everybody knows they have to use multiple sources online to get a real balanced picture. So everyday more and more people are learning about Sanders and liking what they see - a consistent advocate for progressive policies even when it was neither profitable nor popular to be one.

    In particular voters are learning about his anti segregation campaigning in the 1960's and his pro gay rights positions in the 1980's. When they look at Clinton's past they see a calculating fair weather supporter on these issues, possibly based on the latest polling.

    Also, her pockets full of Wall Street money is really damaging her and when she tries to defend it she comes across as disingenuous (at best).

    ouKnightedStates -> EbenezerSeattle, 2016-02-12 13:04:38
    It's amazing. Three articles in the Guardian praising her "vote in 2002 not a plan for ISIS 2016" line as a winner. Vote in 2002 caused ISIS in 2016!
    Stetson Meyers, 2016-02-12 12:58:36
    She is hiding behind Obama. Defending him while bringing up the fact that he took Wall Street money does nothing to endear me to you. It makes me angry at Obama.
    elterrifico, 2016-02-12 12:55:25
    If Hillary wants low blow then let's talk about

    The rose law firm and the missing subpoenaed files that a cleaning crew found in the living quarters while slick Willie Clinton was president.

    Cattlegate and how Hillary claims she made millions on cattle futures from a wall street article that the wall street journal said didn't exist.

    Lets talk about all the people how suspiciously died who were connected to the Clinton's and who had information to Clinton wrong doings.

    I bet that would shut Hillary's sleazy mouth

    DrKropotkin, 2016-02-12 12:49:52
    From ATL:

    "Clinton dropped this critique on the senator from Vermont: "Journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is." "

    Let me finish the Guardian's reporting for them:

    Sanders quickly responds "Well it ain't Henry Kissinger" - the audience applauds and laughs.

    Janosik53 -> UNOINO, 2016-02-12 12:27:30
    Exactly. ISIS is part of the unintended consequences that were created by the West's Middle East adventure. "Blowback" as the security services have it. The same thing could be said about the U.S. backing of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the better to scupper the Soviets. Elements of the mujahadeen morphed into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden was a CIA asset at one time.

    Bernie remembers what happened, Hillary dismisses it with the "2002 vote" quip. Hillary is a tactician, Bernie is a strategist. I think a moral strategist makes a better C-in-C than a bought and paid for tactician.

    pretzelattack -> Yunnaan, 2016-02-12 12:08:39
    the point is electing a republican lite to deal with republican intransigence makes no sense whatever. she will work with them to advance the neoliberal austerity agenda, which hurts the middle class, and everybody else but the kind of people who pay her so much money to give a canned speech.
    nnedjo, 2016-02-12 12:03:37
    Let me get this straight. You have politicians who all his life was not afraid to swim against the mainstream, neither he worried that it could jeopardize his political career.

    And on the other hand, you have a careerist politician, which the whole of her life was "turning with the wind", climbed the ladder of political power, both in its Democratic Party and in the state too, and finally ended up with hundreds of millions of dollars on her private account, gained thanks to its political influence.

    So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders or to Hillary Clinton.

    Anatoliy Asanov -> SenseCir, 2016-02-12 12:01:54
    The same plan she and the establiment was shoving down our throats and digging in in our pockets... And Putin wouldn't be Putin if US weren't prowling around the world. Why is Saudi Arabia is our ally?
    mouchefisher, 2016-02-12 11:45:30
    I think I'll soon just start skipping The Guardian's articles completely, and head straight to the comments.
    The articles read like pro-Clinton adverts, which seems strange coming from a self-proclaimed progressive news source...
    Fortunately, we do have The Nation, The Atlantic, Salon, Alternet, etc.
    Adrian, 2016-02-12 10:29:34
    Am I the only one who's wondering why Bernie Sanders is not being asked a single question about his position on the Palestinian problem, on the recent events involving Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby in the USA trying to derails the Iran nuclear deal and so on?

    I don't think we need now at the White House someone willing to follow Netanyahu's lead in the Middle East... At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly how they deserved.

    devin42 -> Marcedward, 2016-02-12 09:50:47
    Hey, Guardian writers. I don't know if you ever come into the comments - but realise this. We aren't morons. This isn't the Mail. We can see through it. A great many of us watched the debates, follow the campaigns, know the facts from other sources. The internet is great like that, as corporate media no longer has an exclusive stranglehold on framing and spin.

    The constituents of your 'paper' are not easily hoodwinked and most, as you can see, find the spin disgusting. You're going to keep haemorrhaging readers unless you either refocus on integrity in journalism (unlikely, considering who's on the board), or fully commit to being a pseudo-intellectual Buzzfeed. Best of luck.

    pretzelattack -> Philman, 2016-02-12 09:43:42
    she voted for gw bush's disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, that's just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam.
    EDVDGN, 2016-02-12 09:23:32
    The American Public Broadcasting System's (PBS) "NewsHour" reports:*
    • --The cost of US health care is more than 2 1/2 times the average of 33 other countries,
    • --There are fewer doctors per person in the US than in 33 other countries. In 2010, the U.S. had 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people; international average, 3.1.
    • --Hospital beds in the U.S. were 2.6 per 1,000 people in 2009; international average, 3.4.
    • --US life expectancy increased 9 years between 1960 and 2010, but 15 years in Japan, over 11 years on average in 33 other countries.

    In other news, some of Clinton's speaker fees from Wall Street, 2013-15**:

    • Goldman Sachs $675,000
    • Deutsche Bank $485,000
    • Golden Tree Asset Management $275,000
    • Ameriprise $225,000
    • Apollo Management Holdings $225,000
    • Bank of America $225,000
    • Fidelity Investments $225,000
    • Morgan Stanley $225,000
    • UBS $225,000
    • Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce $150,000

    TOTAL: $2,935,000

    Thus, our health care system is expensive and sub-par, but a resounding and understandable "No, we can't" from Clinton on universal health care, and many other issues.
    _____________________________________
    *"Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries", PBS
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries /
    **"Hillary Clinton Got Paid More for 12 Speeches to Wall Street Banks than Most Americans Make in a Lifetime",
    http://humansarefree.com/2016/01/hillary-clinton-got-paid-more-for-12.html

    FeatherWood, 2016-02-12 09:19:32
    This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words "Commander in Chief," it made me feel she couldn't wait to get her fingers on the button.

    When Hillary praised President Obama and criticized Bernie for some mild critiques he'd made of the president, it was an utterly transparent ploy for the votes of African-Americans in South Carolina. So obvious that I was a bit disgusted. Hillary and President Obama have a rocky history. Any comments Bernie has made are tame compared to the stuff Hillary said about him during the 2008 campaign. I really wonder if people will buy Hillary trying to wrap herself so closely with Obama.

    Sandra Bowen -> CDKBM180715, 2016-02-12 09:03:56
    Hillary wears a new outfit every campaign day. Sanders' has 2 suits, 1 blazer. Looks say a lot about a person
    SirWillis -> CDKBM180715, 2016-02-12 08:30:10
    At least try to understand what he is saying. He's saying her smile is false, he's not commenting on her looks. Her smile is false, it's not natural, and I have no doubt she was coached to smile in the way focus groups decided was the most electable. Trouble is a genuine smile is hard to fake.

    Please try to understand these things, context is everything.

    CanadianAtheist, 2016-02-12 08:19:57

    Clinton drops a well-tuned response to Sanders' criticism of her vote in support of the Iraq war: "I don't believe that a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat Isis in 2016."


    But it is a reflection of her judgement. We condemn Republicans, journalists, academics, etc. who supported the Iraq War, but we are supposed to give Clinton a pass? Let's also not forget that she supported the troop increase in Afghanistan and pushed for military action in Libya.
    CanadianAtheist -> crap_in, 2016-02-12 08:14:00
    According to congress.gov Sanders has sponsored 780 pieces of legislation and cosponsored 5428.
    noraak15 -> noraak15, 2016-02-12 06:50:20
    To be clear this is in relation to this being Obama's fault.

    As for the Dems doing their best to lose a winnable election you may be right but Sanders really has hit the nail on the head. It doesn't matter who wins no change will occur until the big money and special interests are reined in and that won't happen unless and until there is a president backed by a movement of ordinary people demanding change that is so large and undeniable that politicians in Washington realize that unless they accede to the people's demands (as presented by the President) and get behind the President in respect of such change they will actually lose their seats... only incumbents fearful of losing their seats will vote for anything other than what the lobbyists tell them to. Only then will change happen. I'd bet there is more certainty that won't happen then Villa making a surprising comeback and not being relegated.

    noraak15 -> EssoBlue, 2016-02-12 06:38:54
    For the same reason they voted for Blair and Bush Dubya and Clinton and Bush Sr... Poor people, the same people I honestly want to help as a responsible socialist democrat, are essentially stupid and generally vote against their own interests hence the number of blue collar workers in the US flocking to Donald Trump rallies. It defies belief but there it is, that and the fact that smart people who aren't only out for themselves have better things to do like discover gravitational waves, perform your surgery, teach and other less snazzy things then simply make money.
    Peter Kinnaird -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 06:35:45
    On the contrary. The economy crashed because the unfettered free markets failed. You don't need someone who "understands" or in other words supports the free market status quo, you need someone who understands the flaws of the markets and the need for regulation.
    noraak15 -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 06:31:26
    Uh? You do realize it was the deregulation of Wall Street that led to the collapse right? You do realize Wall Street aready leads the government by the nose don't you (the very reason Sanders quite rightly states that any reform will be impossible no matter who is elected President unless they have a groundswell of popular support beneath them)? You are aware that laws and trade agreements are written by Wall Street lawyers and that Wall Street is regulated by Wall Street lawyers due to the continuous rotating door between government agencies and Wall Street? You do understand that QE and bailouts were at the behest of and in the interest of Wall Street bound to create asset bubbles they can make a lot of money insider trading on then exit and leave pension funds on the hook and not designed to save the economy don't you?

    Oh why do I bother you believe in "continuous growth" generated by perfect rationale markets and of course unicorns and leprechauns waiting with your pot of gold.

    EssoBlue, 2016-02-12 05:30:29
    Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton.

    Lest we forget, in 2008 Hillary Clinton ran as a gun-loving churchgoer against Barack Obama.

    PlayaGiron, 2016-02-12 05:20:01
    Only the graun can make the exposure of Clinton's ties to the butcher Kissinger into a win for Team Hillary.

    Watch the video and you will the crowd totally backs Sanders during the exchange

    Nice to see the Guardian still has war criminal Kissinger's back.

    Too bad we are seeing through your corporatist propaganda.

    joeblow9999, 2016-02-12 05:09:13
    Hillary appeared desperate and her attacks came off as unimaginative and sleazy. More and more she is appearing to be a liability to the nomination.

    [Feb 12, 2016] Central Banks Are Trojan Horses, Looting Their Host Nations

    Notable quotes:
    "... less than 20% ..."
    "... corrupt and riddled with conflicts of interest ..."
    Zero Hedge

    A Nobel prize winning economist, former chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank, and chairman of the President's council of economic advisers (Joseph Stiglitz) says that the International Monetary Fund and World Bank loan money to third world countries as a way to force them to open up their markets and resources for looting by the West.

    Do central banks do something similar?

    Economics professor Richard Werner – who created the concept of quantitative easing – has documented that central banks intentionally impoverish their host countries to justify economic and legal changes which allow looting by foreign interests.

    He focuses mainly on the Bank of Japan, which induced a huge bubble and then deflated it – crushing Japan's economy in the process – as a way to promote and justify structural "reforms".

    The Bank of Japan has used a heavy hand on Japanese economy for many decades, but Japan is stuck in a horrible slump.

    But Werner says the same thing about the European Central Bank (ECB). The ECB has used loans and liquidity as a weapon to loot European nations.

    Indeed, Greece (more), Italy, Ireland (and here) and other European countries have all lost their national sovereignty to the ECB and the other members of the Troika.

    ECB head Mario Draghi said in 2012:

    The EU should have the power to police and interfere in member states' national budgets.

    ***

    "I am certain, if we want to restore confidence in the eurozone, countries will have to transfer part of their sovereignty to the European level."

    ***

    "Several governments have not yet understood that they lost their national sovereignty long ago. Because they ran up huge debts in the past, they are now dependent on the goodwill of the financial markets."

    And yet Europe has been stuck in a depression worse than the Great Depression, largely due to the ECB's actions.

    What about America's central bank … the Federal Reserve?

    Initially – contrary to what many Americans believe – the Federal Reserve had admitted that it is not really federal (more).

    But – even if it's not part of the government – hasn't the Fed acted in America's interest?

    Let's have a look …

    The Fed:

    • Threw money at "several billionaires and tens of multi-millionaires", including billionaire businessman H. Wayne Huizenga, billionaire Michael Dell of Dell computer, billionaire hedge fund manager John Paulson, billionaire private equity honcho J. Christopher Flowers, and the wife of Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack
    • Artificially "front-loaded an enormous [stock] market rally". Professor G. William Domhoff demonstrated that the richest 10% own 81% of all stocks and mutual funds (the top 1% own 35%). The great majority of Americans – the bottom 90% – own less than 20% of all stocks and mutual funds. So the Fed's effort overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest Americans … and wealthy foreign investors
    • Acted as cheerleader in chief for unregulated use of derivatives at least as far back as 1999 (see this and this), and is now backstopping derivatives loss
    • Allowed the giant banks to grow into mega-banks, even though most independent economists and financial experts say that the economy will not recover until the giant banks are broken up. For example, Citigroup's former chief executive says that when Citigroup was formed in 1998 out of the merger of banking and insurance giants, Greenspan told him, "I have nothing against size. It doesn't bother me at all"
    • Preached that a new bubble be blown every time the last one bursts
    • Had a hand in Watergate and arming Saddam Hussein, according to an economist with the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee for eleven years, assisting with oversight of the Federal Reserve, and subsequently Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. See this and this

    Moreover, the Fed's main program for dealing with the financial crisis – quantitative easing – benefits the rich and hurts the little guy, as confirmed by former high-level Fed officials, the architect of Japan's quantitative easing program and several academic economists. Indeed, a high-level Federal Reserve official says quantitative easing is "the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time". And see this.

    Some economists called the bank bailouts which the Fed helped engineer the greatest redistribution of wealth in history.

    Tim Geithner – as head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York – was complicit in Lehman's accounting fraud, (and see this), and pushed to pay AIG's CDS counterparties at full value, and then to keep the deal secret. And as Robert Reich notes, Geithner was "very much in the center of the action" regarding the secret bail out of Bear Stearns without Congressional approval. William Black points out: "Mr. Geithner, as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York since October 2003, was one of those senior regulators who failed to take any effective regulatory action to prevent the crisis, but instead covered up its depth"

    Indeed, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office calls the Fed corrupt and riddled with conflicts of interest. Nobel prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz says the World Bank would view any country which had a banking structure like the Fed as being corrupt and untrustworthy. The former vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas said said he worried that the failure of the government to provide more information about its rescue spending could signal corruption. "Nontransparency in government programs is always associated with corruption in other countries, so I don't see why it wouldn't be here," he said.

    But aren't the Fed and other central banks crucial to stabilize the economy?

    Not necessarily … the Fed caused the Great Depression and the current economic crisis, and many economists – including several Nobel prize winning economists – say that we should end the Fed in its current form.

    They also say that the Fed does not help stabilize the economy. For example:

    Thomas Sargent, the New York University professor who was announced Monday as a winner of the Nobel in economics … cites Walter Bagehot, who "said that what he called a 'natural' competitive banking system without a 'central' bank would be better…. 'nothing can be more surely established by a larger experience than that a Government which interferes with any trade injures that trade. The best thing undeniably that a Government can do with the Money Market is to let it take care of itself.'"

    Earlier U.S. central banks caused mischief, as well. For example, Austrian economist Murray Rothbard wrote:

    The panics of 1837 and 1839 … were the consequence of a massive inflationary boom fueled by the Whig-run Second Bank of the United States.

    Indeed, the Revolutionary War was largely due to the actions of the world's first central bank, the Bank of England. Specifically, when Benjamin Franklin went to London in 1764, this is what he observed:

    When he arrived, he was surprised to find rampant unemployment and poverty among the British working classes… Franklin was then asked how the American colonies managed to collect enough money to support their poor houses. He reportedly replied:

    "We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps."

    In 1764, the Bank of England used its influence on Parliament to get a Currency Act passed that made it illegal for any of the colonies to print their own money. The colonists were forced to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold. Anyone lacking in those precious metals had to borrow them at interest from the banks.

    Only a year later, Franklin said, the streets of the colonies were filled with unemployed beggars, just as they were in England. The money supply had suddenly been reduced by half, leaving insufficient funds to pay for the goods and services these workers could have provided. He maintained that it was "the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament which has caused in the colonies hatred of the English and . . . the Revolutionary War." This, he said, was the real reason for the Revolution: "the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction."

    (for more on the Currency Act, see this.)

    And things are getting worse ... rather than better. As Professor Werner tells Washington's Blog:

    Central banks have legally become more and more powerful in the past 30 years across the globe, yet they have become de facto less and less accountable. In fact, as I warned in my book New Paradigm in Macroeconomics in 2005, after each of the 'recurring banking crises', central banks are usually handed even more powers. This also happened after the 2008 crisis. [Background here and here.] So it is clear we have a regulatory moral hazard problem: central banks seem to benefit from crises. No wonder the rise of central banks to ever larger legal powers has been accompanied not by fewer and smaller business cycles and crises, but more crises and of larger amplitude.

    Georgetown University historian Professor Carroll Quigley argued that the aim of the powers-that-be is "nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole." This system is to be controlled "in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements," central banks that "were themselves private corporations."

    Given the facts set forth above, this may be yet another conspiracy theory confirmed as conspiracy fact.

    [Feb 11, 2016] Clinton is a warmonger. Most of the candidates are. I wouldnt vote for anyone who was, no matter what their politics. So, the field is greatly reduced for me.

    Notable quotes:
    "... In my view, Clinton wants to be President only because it is there and it is a powerful role. For her, I think it affirms her egotistical belief that she is the best person for the job. She is a by the numbers politician; lacking passion and a cause and is beholden to Wall St. ..."
    "... Clinton is a warmonger. Most of the candidates are. I wouldnt vote for anyone who was, no matter what their politics. So, the field is greatly reduced for me. ..."
    "... The media likes a simplistic narrative, and the media wants Clinton win, no matter what the Democratic base wants. Its annoying, but not surprising, that they are trying to cast the Democratic primary as they have. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    MajorMalaise , 2016-02-10 01:44:26
    This disgraceful episode shows the dark side of the sexism arguments. Equality is about every women having the same opportunities as men. But what gets lost in the debate, or conveniently ignored, is that an incompetent woman has no place taking or claiming precedence over a competent man. Margaret Thatcher wrought a trail of destruction in the UK - her Reagan-esque and neo-liberal policies led to many more Britons living in poverty and being left with no prospect of any dignity; instead being trapped in a life-long welfare-cycle. How is it plausible that she should not be judged on her performance, rather on some esoteric and exaggerated feminist ideal. She was a female PM, sure, but she was an awful PM. Her political salvation was the Argentine conflict over the Falklands. Without that, she would have deservedly been confined to the political scrap-heap much sooner.

    In my view, Clinton wants to be President only because it is there and it is a powerful role. For her, I think it affirms her egotistical belief that she is the best person for the job. She is a "by the numbers" politician; lacking passion and a cause and is beholden to Wall St. That surely makes her sound more like a conservative rather than a liberal (the equivalent of Tony Blair). Sanders might be a silly old fool, but he has a passion for the American ideal - that all men (and women) were indeed created equal and his policies support that ideal. Clinton has no policies - she is essentially asking the American people to trust her, when in reality, they don't - not because she is a woman, but because she has a history of duplicity.

    catmahal , 2016-02-10 01:27:28
    Clinton is a warmonger. Most of the candidates are. I wouldn't vote for anyone who was, no matter what their politics. So, the field is greatly reduced for me.
    Marcedward antaeaventura , 2016-02-10 00:09:29
    "I am increasingly dismayed that 'older, wiser, more mature' voters are portrayed as solidly in Hillary's corner"

    The media likes a simplistic narrative, and the media wants Clinton win, no matter what the Democratic base wants. It's annoying, but not surprising, that they are trying to cast the Democratic primary as they have.

    [Feb 09, 2016] Stability breeds instability

    Economist's View

    New Deal democrat :

    On the specific point of the artilce, this strikes me as a similar theory to Minsky's "stability breeds instability" theory. Also I seem to recall Prof. Thoma posted an article showing that the tightness or looseness of credit conditions were a good long leading indicator of conditions about 2 years later.

    As an expansion goes on, both businesses and consumers take increasing risks, having been previously rewarded for risks taken. Thus they leave less and less of a margin of safety. This makes it easier for any given shock to overcome that margin, causing both businesses and consumers to retrench. Thus a recession begins.

    I'm not sure about businesses, but consumers have been playing it safe throughout most of this recovery, with the personal savings rate increasing over the last few years. So, relatively speaking, for now consumers have a decent margin of safety.

    Ben Groves -> New Deal democrat...
    Right, but the personal savings rate fell well out of line in the 00's and actually contracted in 2007-8. More like restocking than playing it safe.
    likbez -> New Deal democrat...
    In addition gas prices are still low.
    likbez -> New Deal democrat...
    On the specific point of the article, this strikes me as a similar theory to Minsky's "stability breeds instability" theory.


    And that is deeply true. Minsky (actually this is Hegel) was and still is right.

    Hyman Minsky simply stressed that people's response to stability in financial markets always engenders instability as it encourages more risky behavior. Such behavior is not necessarily irrational, as there are profits to be earned and bonuses to collect as long as the good times last.

    In fact, the cycle may extend as long as credit flows and people are hungry for risk. Yet according to Minsky's casino capitalism credit cycle always heads inexorably toward a bust.

    At some point risk and reward became out of whack and people start reposition their portfolios defensively, increasing cash allocations. At this point house of cards folds.

    [Feb 09, 2016] All this obsession with miniscule rate changes has obscured the need for the Fed and politicians to make significant changes

    February 08, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    JohnH said...

    It is certainly appropriate to question the condition and longevity of this 'recovery,' which was never experienced by most Americans, whose incomes are mired back where they were two decades ago.

    Can we infer by all this that liberal economists are finally becoming reflective about the Fed's failure to ignite growth? Old nostrums die hard.

    Unfortunately, all this obsession with miniscule rate changes has obscured the need for the Fed and politicians to make significant changes, so that the benefits of low rates are felt throughout society, not just by Wall Street, the wealthy, and affluent homeowners with mortgages.

    And, instead of constantly arguing against austerity, why not aggressively tout high taxes on the wealthy to pay for stimulus, which would generate economic growth and address inequality in one fell swoop!

    JohnH said in reply to djb...

    djb is obsessed with "the rate."

    Why not get obsessed with the fact that the Fed could not stimulate new rental housing, despite historically low mortgage rates? As a result of the housing shortage, rents are skyrocketing, sucking up incomes, already hit hard by the unending recession. Result: less money available for consumption, more money into the pockets of real estate moguls.

    Why not obsess about real credit card rates, which are higher than they were in 2007? Result: less money available for consumption, more money to VISA and its share holders.

    But no, 'liberal' economists obsess only about "the rate," which affects almost nobody but Wall Street banks, their wealthy clientele, and affluent mortgagees.

    Let's face it, the Fed has failed in part because low rates and their effects failed to trickle down much. But 'liberal' economists could care less about this. All they care about is "the rate!"

    If 'liberal' economists cared half as much about why low rates are not diffusing throughout the economy as they care about "the rate" for Wall Street, then we could believe that they care about the general welfare, not the interests of the 1%.

    [Feb 08, 2016] Tech stock collapse sure looks like bubble popping

    finance.yahoo.com

    Almost all technology stocks are getting hammered yet again on Monday. Salesforce.com (CRM) was down 6% while Facebook (FB) and Microsoft (MSFT) had lost 3%, for example, in morning trading.

    And while many see it as a continuation of Friday's rout sparked by LinkedIn's (LNKD) weak outlook for the rest of the year, the damage has been piling up for weeks. Investors are fleeing almost all tech names over concerns about the slowing global economy in general and a reassessment of the potential growth of online and "cloud" markets more specifically.

    LinkedIn, pummeled by an unprecedented 44% one-day loss Friday, was one of the few tech stocks rising on Monday, as bargain hunters pushed its shares up 3% in early trading. Still, the shares have lost more than half of their value since the end of 2015.

    The widespread tech crash is all the more surprising because almost everyone thought there was no bubble in the tech sector. Last year's market for initial public offerings of tech companies was the slowest since 2009 (and performed poorly throughout the year), slightly more seasoned public tech companies appeared to have already crashed last spring and most of the big tech companies, such as Apple (AAPL), IBM (IBM) and Cisco Systems (CSCO), trailed the market and appeared undervalued by historical measures. Only the so-called FANG stocks -- Facebook, Amazon (AMZN), Netflix (NFLX) and Google's Alphabet (GOOGL) -- did well, with an average return of 83% each in 2015.

    But, it turns out, there was still plenty more downside risk to go around. LinkedIn is still off by more than 40% since it reported earnings after the market closed on Feb 4. Although fourth quarter adjusted earnings per share of 94 cents and revenue of $862 million beat the average Wall Street analyst estimate, the professional social networking company said it would earn only 55 cents on revenue of $820 million in the next quarter. And for the full year of 2016, revenue of $3.6 billion to $3.65 billion was less than the $3.9 billion Wall Street had been expecting.

    Such a modest disappointment has sparked a massive reassessment of the potential for many Internet stocks. With investors in a panicky mood, the carnage has spread across much of the tech sector but stocks with online business strategies similar to LinkedIn's have been hit especially hard. Workday (WDAY), which provides online software for human resources, was down 7% midmorning on Monday and 37% for the year. Twitter (TWTR) lost 4% and was down 35% for the year. And Adobe Systems (ADBE) was off 5% on Monday and 20% for the year. A daily index compiled by venture capital firm Bessemer Venture Partners of 47 publicly traded cloud software stocks lost 17% just on Friday.

    And those famous FANG stocks? They're all down in 2016, as well. After its 3% Monday drop, Facebook was still best of the bunch, showing a modest 4% loss for the year. Amazon was also down 3% on Monday but carries a crushing 28% loss for the year. Netflix was a rare gainer, up 1%, but still off 27% for the year. And Google was down 1% on Monday and 11% for the year.

    [Feb 08, 2016] Momo Bad News JPMs Quant Guru Kolanovic Confirms Tech Bubble Has Burst... Again

    Zero Hedge
    Just over two weeks ago, JPM's Marko Kolanovic, whose unprecedented ability to predict short-term market moves is starting to seem a little bizarre, warned that the next "significant risk for the S&P500" was the bursting of the "macro momentum bubble." Specifically, he said that there is an emerging negative feedback loop that is "becoming a significant risk for the S&P 500" adding that "as some assets are near the top and others near the bottom of their historical ranges, we are obviously not experiencing an asset bubble of all risky assets, but rather a bubble in relative performance: we call it a Macro-Momentum bubble ."

    In retrospect, following tremendous valuation repricings of several tech stocks, last week's LinkedIn devastation being the most notable, he was once again right. And over the weekend, he did what he has every right to do: take another well-deserved victory lap.

    This is what he said in his February Market Commentary: " Tech Bubble Burst ?"

    In our 2016 outlook and recent reports, we identified a macro momentum bubble that developed over the past years. We explained its drivers (central banks, passive assets/momentum strategies, etc.) and called for value to outperform momentum assets. We also highlighted the risk of a bear market and recommended increasing exposure to gold and cash as well as increasing exposure to nondollar assets relative to the S&P 500 (EM Equities, Commodities, Value Stocks, etc.). Our view was that a likely catalyst would be the Fed converging toward ECB/BOJ (rather than proceed with planned ~12 rate hikes by end of 2018). In line with these published forecasts, the best performing assets YTD have been Gold (+9%) and VIX (+20%) while S&P 500 and DXY are down (-7%, and -2%, respectively). Momentum stocks are down more than 10% with an acceleration of the selloff in last days. Emerging Market and Energy stocks are starting to outperform the S&P 500 (MSCI Latin America by +5% and Energy by +1% vs. S&P 500 YTD). This specific pattern of asset moves is consistent with a Value-Momentum convergence. We think the outperformance of value assets over momentum assets is likely to continue .

    Investors often ask us how significant are distortions and risks in equity sectors that are related to a "macro momentum bubble." Specifically, the question is that of valuations in the Technology sector, i.e., "is there a Tech bubble"? Before we share our views, let's first review how passive investing and momentum strategies may have impacted performance of various equity sectors.

    Imagine a world in which most of the assets are passively managed and investors are focused on liquidity and short-term risk/reward. Companies that increased in size recently would keep on increasing, and those that got smaller would see further outflows. Past winners would also be considered low-risk holdings compared to past losers. The most successful managers would be those that replace fundamental valuation with a simple rule: buy what went up yesterday and sell what went down. Passive funds would do the same. It is hard to imagine this makes economic sense long term, but it is close to what equity markets experienced over the past several years. In 2013, the Sharpe ratio of the S&P 500 was ~2.7. Assuming a normal distribution of active asset returns, one could (incorrectly) conclude that being just an average (passive) investor one will outperform ~95% of all active investors. In 2014 and 2015, various momentum strategies delivered Sharpe ratios >2. The winning strategy was not just to go with the crowd, but to do what the crowd did yesterday. This type of trend following does not only apply to extrapolating price trends, but also extrapolating trends in fundamental stock data such as growth and earnings. Beyond a certain point, passive investing and trend following are bound to result in distorted equity valuations and misallocation of capital.

    While some parts of the Technology sector certainly have reasonable and even low valuations (see our US equity strategy outlook), segments of the Tech sector disproportionally benefited from momentum investing as well as investing based on extrapolation of past growth rates . For instance, a popular group of stocks held by investors is known by the abbreviation "FANG" (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google). We use these stocks as an illustration for a broader group of similar stocks that have the highest rankings according to momentum and growth metrics (and surprisingly in some cases even low volatility metrics). Given that traditional value metrics look expensive when applied to this group, one can compare these momentum/growth companies on a new set of metrics. For instance, one can look at the ratio of current price to earnings that the company delivered over all of its lifetime (instead of just the past year). Another metric could be a ratio of CEO or founder's net worth to total company earnings delivered during its lifetime (see below):

    Aggregating all FANG earnings since these companies were listed, one arrives at a ratio of current price to all earnings since inception of ~16x. This can be contrasted to a ratio of price to last years' earnings for all other S&P 500 companies also at ~16x. We think this is extraordinary given that FANGs are neither small nor new companies. In fact, these are some of the largest companies in the S&P 500 and among the largest holdings of US retirees. Given that the three largest FANG stocks are now twice more valuable than the entire US S&P small-cap universe (600 companies), a legitimate question to ask would be " is such a high allocation by long-term investors to these stocks prudent?" Statistically, over a long period of time smaller companies outperform mega-caps ~75% of times. Note also that the current size ratio of mega-cap stocks to small-cap stocks is at highest level since the tech bubble of 2000. Furthermore, such allocation is also questionable from a risk angle . For example, the idiosyncratic risk of holding three stocks in one sector is certainly much higher than the risk of owning, e.g., ~1,000 medium- or small-cap companies diversified across all sectors and industries.

    Investors in high-growth stocks expect innovations to drive growth and sustain high valuation. They may even put their hopes in moonshot projects such as cars built by electronics makers, car makers building spaceships, or internet companies building drones. While many of these could result in important technological breakthroughs, they may also be signs of excess and destruction of shareholders' capital in the future. Recent examples of capital impairment in the tech sector are illustrated here and here, and more peculiar examples of past excess can be found here and here. In addition to extrapolated and often optimistic growth forecasts, some of the tech sub-industries have high idiosyncratic risks that are likely underappreciated by the market. Standard valuations models incorporate revenue, growth, and profit forecasts but often do not discount for the lifecycle risk of a business. To illustrate: while we are still traveling in aircraft designed over 40 years ago, social network users' preferences have changed drastically over the past decade (e.g., Friendster and Myspace). A shorter lifecycle is related to low barriers to entry and rapid changes in what is deemed fashionable by young generations (e.g., one cannot build a jetliner in a dorm room, and they don't go out of fashion as apps do).

    In summary, we think that the biases of momentum investing and passive indexation have resulted in valuation distortions across assets as well as equity segments including Technology . Over the past years this trend has picked winning assets, sectors, and stocks often with less regard to fundamental valuation and more regard to momentum and extrapolated growth. We believe that 2016 may result in a reversion of this trend that will give an opportunity to active and value investors to outperform passive indices and momentum investors . Even if this rebalancing comes as a result of market volatility and broader equity declines, long term it will benefit capital markets and the efficient allocation of capital .

    * * *

    Only problem is that this capital reallocation will means countless momentum chasers 'smart money managers' will be out of a job in very short notice.

    Then again, judging by some initial reactions, even formerly steadfast believers in the FANGs are starting to bail: moments ago CNBC reported that Mark Cuban announced that he purchased options to sell against his entire stake in Netflix, to wit: "For those of following my stock moves, I just bought puts against my entire Netflix position. "

    Cuban posted comments on Cyber Dust social media platform on Friday. Result: NFLX already down -4%, with FB and other tech momos hot on its heels.

    [Feb 06, 2016] The Truth About Hillary Clintons Email Controversy

    Stefan Molyneux make a wonderful presentation on Youtube. Highly recommended.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I'm just waiting to see Hillary look into the camera and say: "I never had textual relations with that server." ..."
    "... What's really interesting here is that with Bernie Sanders saying that people are sick of hearing about her "damn emails", he demonstrates just as much of a security risk as she does ..."
    "... he'd probably get a lot more votes if he at least pretended to be concerned about the nation's security. ..."
    "... Benghazi, fast and furious Waco, uranium one, private eyes intimidation contracts, Bill Clinton rape cover ups, voter fraud, purgatory, and it's the emails that they got her on!? Who would of guessed. ..."
    "... people in the BO administration knew what she was doing and didn't tell the proper people they were supposed to. Thus they are now liable and BO won't allow his people to be possibly prosecuted as well. Thus he buries it, which starts another scandal. ..."
    "... Steve Linick the inspector general for the State Department , said in a memo dated Wednesday that two emails sent to Powell and 10 emails sent to Rice's staff contained classified national security information. Powell and Rice were top diplomats under Republican President George W. Bush . "if we're to believe Republicans , we would have to criminally charge Secretary Rice , Secretary Powell, the senior staff and everyone else who received these emails," Reid said. ..."
    "... If the Justice Department doesn't prosecute Clinton we will know Obama is protecting her and she will most likely lose the election. We know if they do prosecute Clinton she will lose the election. ..."
    "... Unlike web traffic, email connections cannot be securely encrypted. This is because the messages can be stored on intermediate servers not owned by the sender or the receiver. To secure email, the message itself must be encrypted. Any unencrypted email sent or received could be read by ISPs and any other email servers along the way. ..."
    "... Mr. Molyneux, what you have done is positively prove that the media in its' entirety is covering and protecting Miss Hillary! You are a Canadian citizen -- and were able to obtain all of this information- time lines- and missteps by Hillary! YET- literally all of this information remains missing from the mainstream media! ..."
    "... The damage is done, intelligence experts have to go over every page of it with a fine toothed comb and treat every classified document as compromised, to do less would be negligent. Clinton should be unemployable in government in any capacity, by any reasonable standards. ..."
    "... Her e-incompetence must stem from her sniper-infused PTSD back when she landed under fire in Kosovo. What a brave, strong woman! ..."
    "... Another very good presentation. My brother handled secret information at Boeing. (He's now retired). He told me that if he did 1/10th of what Hillary did with classified information, my brother would be in jail for a long time. ..."
    "... As an IT professional of over 20 years for a company that works with. gov level email I usually end typing too much trying to point out all of the factual information tied to this matter. ..."
    "... Having worked in military counter intelligence and holding various clearances throughout my career I can find no fault or innacurracies with anything presented here. Sorry Hilbots: She should be prosecuted. ..."
    "... Great job on covering the matter in full. As an IT security professional that support the use of government data classified or not it is a massive issue. My company endures attacks from foreign governments all day long. Her setup would have been the easiest to access in the business. ..."
    "... The server was wide open, no secondary authentication required and a clear text password is used to manage it remotely. I would assume that all the data was compromised. ..."
    "... I'm not an IT pro, and I immediately thought the same. Hubby was a Sgt. it Army Natl Guard, and all of his Army emails were strictly kept on official military servers, & he had to jump through hoops to authenticate himself. Wouldn't SHE be expected to have at least the same security established, if not exponentially more? Common sense! ..."
    "... A chilling ending to a brilliant uncovering of the traitor competing for the highest position in the land. ..."
    "... Dick Cheney already proved there was no standard. Your selective outrage isn't going to change that. ..."
    "... I don't understand. If Hillary Clinton exchanged mail between her server and ".gov" servers the messages (sent or received) should be stored on the ".gov" servers. So, one could be able to lookup for Hillary's messages on all ".gov" servers (received from or sent to) and have a picture of the Hillary's communications with the government officials. The ones exchanged with other servers then the ".gov" are, of course, forever lost. ..."
    "... That's horror from an IT security point of view. I'm a programmer and know one or two things about this things. ..."
    www.youtube.com
    wire8web, 3 days ago (edited)
    I'm just waiting to see Hillary look into the camera and say: "I never had textual relations with that server."
    Eric Culver, 3 days ago
    This whole thing was rigged from the beginning for a Clinton victory. If you spend enough time following politics you'll realize that your vote does NOT count. At least in presidential elections. More over, even if it did. These are people vying to RULE you. These are sociopaths hell bent on grasping the ring of power. You DON'T NEED Rulers! If you don't understand these things yet, you can start by going back and watching some of Stefans older vids.
    Recon.777, 2 days ago
    What's really interesting here is that with Bernie Sanders saying that people are sick of hearing about her "damn emails", he demonstrates just as much of a security risk as she does, since he doesn't seem to think it's a big deal and all. If he really wanted to win the nomination, he ought to be going full-on regarding this issue. It ought to be in the bag, and he'd probably get a lot more votes if he at least pretended to be concerned about the nation's security.
    2 creation stories, 2 days ago
    Benghazi, fast and furious Waco, uranium one, private eyes intimidation contracts, Bill Clinton rape cover ups, voter fraud, purgatory, and it's the emails that they got her on!? Who would of guessed.
    GamingRanger, 2 days ago
    Rand Paul dropped out of the race. We're fucked.
    Cody Wendt, 16 hours ago
    +BIackOp

    Rand has performed free eye surgery on Americans for decades; he founded a local Lions Club specifically for that purpose. He has hemmed in his libertarianism on many fronts strategically, but has overwhelmingly used his office to fight federal power and (see his filibusters, opposition to Obama's foreign adventurism, 94% Freedom Index rating, etc.). He endorsed and supported his father for president, then (strategically) endorsed Romney once his father was mathematically out of range to win the nomination and was openly acknowledging said fact.

    He is right to ridicule Trump, who is a horrible candidate and an authoritarian.

    Walter Strong, 2 days ago
    The bitch will skate. I can flat out guarantee you that fuck'n bitch will skate.
    woodworks1423, 54 minutes ago
    +Walter Strong probably because people in the BO administration knew what she was doing and didn't tell the proper people they were supposed to. Thus they are now liable and BO won't allow his people to be possibly prosecuted as well. Thus he buries it, which starts another scandal.
    paisleyyama, 1 day ago
    Stefan is an interesting person. I think he was born in England(?) but is now a Canadian citizen, yet his videos are primarily focused on America. I like his videos because they are balanced and factual. To be a Canadian, he really knows and understands a lot about America.

    I find a lot of Canadians think they know about America, but their understanding is often way off the mark. Anyway, Stefan does not make videos to bash America or Americans. He just sticks to the facts. I like that. I just wonder why he chooses American topics when he is a British/Canadian.

    Also, I think it would be interesting if he did some videos on "the truth about the British monarchy" or even "the truth about the Queen`s influence and power in Canada and other commonwealth territories".

    Tye W, 21 hours ago
    As lowly government employee, I can tell that everyone that works for our government should now this. How to handle classified, unclassified, etc... data is briefed to us every year as a part of our annual training. She definitely did violate regulations that tell us how to handle official data, who can see it, need-to-know, etc...
    Chris Hamilton, 2 days ago
    Doesn't the NSA have all the emails? · 2
    paisleyyama, 1 day ago
    +Chris Hamilton I thought the same thing.
    CDON Knows , 10 hours ago
    WASHINGTON (AP) Former Secretary of State Colin Powell & the immediate staff of former Secretary of State Condoledezza Rice also received classified national security information on their personal email accounts , according to a memo written by the State Department watchdog that was released Thursday .

    Steve Linick the inspector general for the State Department , said in a memo dated Wednesday that two emails sent to Powell and 10 emails sent to Rice's staff contained classified national security information. Powell and Rice were top diplomats under Republican President George W. Bush . "if we're to believe Republicans , we would have to criminally charge Secretary Rice , Secretary Powell, the senior staff and everyone else who received these emails," Reid said.

    My Puritanical Opinion , 1 day ago
    While the information brought together here is available elsewhere, this condensed treatment serves to magnify the seriousness and consequences of what Clinton is guilty of. Lives and nations are at risk because she thought the increase of her nest egg and her political fortunes were more important than nuclear-level intelligence. I hesitate to contribute one penny to an atheist no matter what line of work he's in. Example of why: reducing that verse in Mark to mere earthly implications. But Molyneux's work is so meritorious that I am now considering a contribution.
    rentefald , 22 hours ago
    Hillary is screwed up exactly the same way as Angela Merkel is, they will destroy our world. Those women are so psychopathic and ignorant that it is a wonder how they ever got to be where they are now.
    Rick Egli , 4 hours ago
    +Stefan Molyneux

    I hope that you and everyone who presents this information keeps this in front of the people. It needs to be repeated, and repeated. There is too much risk of the ordinary people becoming distracted by other "shiny" topics, baubles, and misdirection that will pull their interest away to these other issues either real or fabricated, just sensational enough to up stage Hillary's malfeasance.

    As the information you present becomes dated, and not acted upon, Clinton can just repeat what she has said before,"What difference does it make?" People of her ilk should have their feet held to the fire, held to a higher standard, and not to a higher level of privilege.

    chamboyette853 , 2 days ago (edited)
    The mere fact that the FBI, after a thorough investigation with a team of experts, want to indict her give more credibility than what this one guy says.
    pcheard , 1 day ago (edited)
    BERNIE SANDERS SAID "THERE IS AN ONGOING FBI INVESTIGATION INTO HILLARY CLINTON'S EMAILS. LET THE INVESTIGATION TAKE IT'S COURSE, UNOBSTRUCTED. I WILL NOT POLITICIZE THIS ISSUE. WE HAVE BIGGER FISH TO FRY THAN EMAILS e.g. THE AMERICAN ECONOMY. IF THE FEDS FIND SOMETHING THEN WE WILL TALK ABOUT IT. ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN EMAILS. he never said drop the FBI investigation. he knows they will find something. If the Justice Department doesn't prosecute Clinton we will know Obama is protecting her and she will most likely lose the election. We know if they do prosecute Clinton she will lose the election. CLINTON LOOKS GUILTIER THAN SIN RIGHT NOW.
    modelmark , 1 day ago
    The anarchist worried about the leaking of 'state secrets' ??? No problem for Clinton. Head of FBI is Andrew Cuomo. He is republican, but he use to be on the board of HSBC. A linon appointed judge already demanded information about HSBC involvement in money laundering at the time he was on the board. Thursday's order by U.S. District Judge John Gleeson in Brooklyn is a defeat for HSBC and the U.S. Department of Justice, which complained the release could make it easier to launder money, including for terrorism, and discourage cooperation with law enforcement. So that goes away and Cuomo makes the Hillary charges go away.
    Jim Belton , 1 day ago
    Unlike web traffic, email connections cannot be securely encrypted. This is because the messages can be stored on intermediate servers not owned by the sender or the receiver. To secure email, the message itself must be encrypted. Any unencrypted email sent or received could be read by ISPs and any other email servers along the way.

    If Clinton's emails weren't encrypted, they could likely have been read unless her email server always directly connected to or was connected to by the other party's secure email server.

    Encrypted email is actually much more secure than an encrypted web connection, where the strongest encryption is used to establish the connection, then weaker symmetric key encryption is used for the data transfer. If all of Clinton's emails were encrypted, they could not be read even if they were stored on an ISP's server. Ashley Madison's servers were hacked into, allowing the hackers to access unencrypted information, so the strength of their encryption wasn't relevant to the breach. If Clinton's emails were encrypted, then if they were hacked, this was most likely how it was done. No need to build a super computer to hack her communications; just break in and log her keystrokes to see what password she uses to decrypt her messages, then scoop her private key, slurp out the encrypted mail, and decrypt it later at leisure.


    Reg mason232 1 day ago (edited)

    Mr. Molyneux, what you have done is positively prove that the media in its' entirety is covering and protecting Miss Hillary! You are a Canadian citizen -- and were able to obtain all of this information- time lines- and missteps by Hillary! YET- literally all of this information remains missing from the mainstream media!

    Since most citizens depend on the mass media for info- it literally explains why she still remains "above the fray" and continues on with her presidential aspirations. Now I ask you- if lets say George Bush's (pick one) Secretary Of State had done this do you think 60 Minutes would have been "on the case"! Oh- by the way- she will not be indicted, regardless of her guilt.

    Mark McCormack 2 days ago (edited)

    On the question of what exactly was leaked and what foreign gov'ts received it, to quote Clinton, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

    The damage is done, intelligence experts have to go over every page of it with a fine toothed comb and treat every classified document as compromised, to do less would be negligent. Clinton should be unemployable in government in any capacity, by any reasonable standards.

    Curt Franks 2 days ago (edited)

    EXCELLENT WORK STEFAN!!!!!! Informative, logical, well documented in a linear articulate timeline. Very clever and entertaining as well! I am an IT professional, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, that saying you have your own email SMTP server for convenience and NOT employing a 3rd party service, is like saying, "I rebuilt my own car engine because it was much more convenient than having an automotive professional do it, and by the way, I know nothing about engines". There is ONLY ONE REASON why she had that server; full control over the existence of its content.

    AlphaHotel0311

    Her e-incompetence must stem from her sniper-infused PTSD back when she landed under fire in Kosovo. What a brave, strong woman!

    Clyde Cornwell 2 days ago

    I can humbly say that I can ride around and fix stuff. For understanding the most intricate issues of the day I am now checking out Stefan's videos. When you need something fixed or explained you call on the guy who can fix or you call on someone who can explain. Stefan Molyneux amazes me with how he outlines and breaks down some of the most complex scandals like this whopper that Hillary is cleverly slithering out of while campaigning for her presidential election.

    Tim Mcgraw 3 days ago

    Another very good presentation. My brother handled secret information at Boeing. (He's now retired). He told me that if he did 1/10th of what Hillary did with classified information, my brother would be in jail for a long time.

    Robert Scott 3 days ago

    Nice work on the video. As an IT professional of over 20 years for a company that works with. gov level email I usually end typing too much trying to point out all of the factual information tied to this matter.

    I think that there are so many instances where Team Clinton has been involved with corruption type activities and dishonesty that it impossible to go over it all. It shows the hypocrisy of the administration and government as a whole.

    Lone Ranger 3 days ago

    What do you expect from a person who as member of the defense legal council at the time, she was expelled from the watergate court room by the presiding judge for her "incessant lying". Those were the judges words.

    Had she been not been protected by the law and charged with perjury... she would probably have a federal criminal record and would mot have ever made it into any government position... certainly not Secretary of State or President.
    Proof of the Insanity that prevails under the massive level of corruption.

    paisleyyama 1 day ago

    I also wonder why she did this and why Obama clearly let her do this. I have no doubt that security told her how to send information. I remember when Obama first took office and he was addicted to his Blackberry, so before he was sworn in, security fixed his blackberry so he could use it securely. I heard Michele Obama and other previous 1st ladies talk about how "they" (whoever that is) controls their lives and "they" do. "They" don`t let them open the windows in the White House, "they" don`t let them drive, "they" don`t even let the Pres. and 1st lady sleep in the same bedroom together, so if "they" control this much, you know "they" would have instructed Hiliary on how to securely handle information. She had enough experience as a 1st lady to know and understand about security so why did she seemingly purposely do this? Stefan seems to think it was to protect her personal business, but maybe it was more and maybe Obama was in on it too. Maybe they wanted America`s security to be at risk. Maybe they wanted the information to get into these hands. And maybe "they", whoever that is, was in on it too. I can`t believe Hiliary was doing this all this time and people were sending her secure information and no one knew what she was doing. I don`t think she will be prosecuted because she will threaten to take too many people down with her so people in high positions will let it slide.

    46ace

    One down vote: Huma ?Izzat you?

    Having worked in military counter intelligence and holding various clearances throughout my career I can find no fault or innacurracies with anything presented here. Sorry Hilbots: She should be prosecuted.

    Sammy Papaki 3 days ago

    Great job on covering the matter in full. As an IT security professional that support the use of government data classified or not it is a massive issue. My company endures attacks from foreign governments all day long. Her setup would have been the easiest to access in the business.

    The server was wide open, no secondary authentication required and a clear text password is used to manage it remotely. I would assume that all the data was compromised.

    Katatawnic 2 days ago

    I'm not an IT pro, and I immediately thought the same. Hubby was a Sgt. it Army Natl Guard, and all of his Army emails were strictly kept on official military servers, & he had to jump through hoops to authenticate himself. Wouldn't SHE be expected to have at least the same security established, if not exponentially more? Common sense!

    S7one_47 3 days ago

    A chilling ending to a brilliant uncovering of the traitor competing for the highest position in the land.

    John Mastroligulano 3 days ago

    How could it be that the NSA did not know about this? I don't believe that is even technically plausible considering the architecture involved.

    bloodsoldierZ 2 days ago

    Dick Cheney already proved there was no standard. Your selective outrage isn't going to change that.

    Raul Chirea 2 days ago

    I don't understand. If Hillary Clinton exchanged mail between her server and ".gov" servers the messages (sent or received) should be stored on the ".gov" servers. So, one could be able to lookup for Hillary's messages on all ".gov" servers (received from or sent to) and have a picture of the Hillary's communications with the government officials. The ones exchanged with other servers then the ".gov" are, of course, forever lost.

    Raul Chirea 2 days ago

    That's horror from an IT security point of view. I'm a programmer and know one or two things about this things.

    [Feb 06, 2016] Sheldon Adelson-owned Las Vegas Review-Journal endorses Marco Rubio

    www.theguardian.com

    Endorsement comes after months of speculation surrounding secretive purchase of state's largest newspaper by the GOP donor and casino mogul

    Selected Skeptical Comments

    MKB1234

    Rubio's pimp Addelson .........and there was I thinking prostitution was illegal in Las Vegas.

    MtnClimber

    The headline should read: "Mogul and GOP donor Sheldon Adelson, has endorsed senator Marco Rubio in the presidential race".

    This is similar as to when Fox "News" endorses candidates. It's Ruppert Murdoch endorsing the candidates, not some non-partisan news agency

    BlueCollar

    Sheldon Adelson is patron saint , financier of Bibi Netanyahu , in Marco Rubio, Sheldon found another Netanyhu - Rubio is voice of Jewish state of Israel.

    midnightschild10

    If Rubio is elected, the true Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, running the country will be Netanyahu. Adelson will make sure of it. One thing is sure, Adelson knows an empty suit when he sees one. Rubio is a man without convictions and will say and do whatever he is told. Hopefully he will be crushed in the national elections. He isn't capable of doing his job ad Senator, why would anyone believe he could do the job of the Presidency.

    MtnClimber -> midnightschild10

    If Cruz is elected, he will be an empty suit for the Koch Brothers.

    The only candidates that aren't controlled by the uber-rich are Sanders and Trump.

    The rest of them, on both sides, are completely controlled by big money interests.

    R Voigt

    Sheldon Adelson-owned Las Vegas Review-Journal endorses Sheldon Adelson-owned Marco Rubio. There. Fixed.

    curiouswes

    no surprises here. The Oligarch owns all of the media in the USA. This rag endorsing his boy is nothing different than the media endorsing Clinton other than the controlled media doesn't exactly come out a say it is endorsing Clinton. Instead, it says she is leading in all the polls and that her nomination is inevitable. Just like in the movie Inception, they put an idea in your head while you are sleeping and let it grow.

    Wake up America!

    waldoff

    I've always despised sucks. Rubio has been planting little butterfly kisses all over Adelson's nether parts, and hopping on his hind legs like a poodle asking for treats, for months, trying to get Adelson's endorsement. This will please the end-timers, eager for the world's end commencing with another war in the Middle East. Among those who prefer a president with some backbone, the thought of a credulous boy panderer in elevator shoes moving into the White House will be that much more disgusting.

    Rubio, on the other hand surely already has in mind whose good little Cuban boy he hopes to become next. Rubio will change his views and crawl through knotholes to ingratiate himself to those whose real purpose in finding a useful idiiot to put in the White House, is beyond Marco's comprehension.

    MtnClimber -> waldoff

    And Cruz has been planting big wet ones on the Koch Brothers asses. Until we get rid of that horror, Citizens United, our government will be owned by 128 people. If you vote GOP, you are responsible for that abortion of a law.

    snakeatzoes

    " Adelson donated more than $92m to conservative Super Pacs in an effort to help elect a Republican in the 2012 race."

    So the man is a winner?


    Good grief our Tories are snivelling, greedy chancers.. but why do Americans allow such obvious bribery ?

    [Feb 05, 2016] Oil as a strategic weapon of the US empire

    Notable quotes:
    "... the global oil market is not a market like those for smartphones, automobiles or ladies purses. The global oil ( gas) market is a STRATEGIC one. Which goes on to say that the core states, such as first of all, North America, then NW Europe get to have the first and final say. ..."
    "... This problem is compounded by the fact that high oil prices enable geo-strategic rivals such as Russia/Iran/Iraq/Venezuela to be more defiant than they would otherwise be. ..."
    "... The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US co (the US Empire) also known as GCC, follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves, depending on the situation and their ability to affect the global market. ..."
    "... As North America was a massive oil importer circa 2009 (Canada cannot be seen in isolation, but as appendix to the US) this increased oil production went a lot way in: a)boosting economic growth (North America has easily outpaced other advanced economies since the Lehman crisis) b) Minimize the US trade deficit and therefore: c) Boosting the value of the US dollar. ..."
    "... Countries outside of the US, Canada (to a lesser extent UK, Norway ) that are major oil producers, need to accrue massive profits from their oil sales, since they universally divert most of those funds into financing the government, the military and social spending, while they must also keep some for re-investments into their oil sectors. US Canada are uber-happy if they can more or less break-even. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    yiedyie, 02/04/2016 at 5:51 pm
    Could this have been due to the special place US has in the hierarchy.

    When camels are thirsty they are chewing thistle to relieve their thirst, but the thistle is dry, so in fact their own blood relieve their thirst.

    Dogs chew old bones but there is nothing in them, but pieces of splited bone pierce their mouth ceiling and fresh blood makes them think there is food in there.

    This is what US has done f.ed the little economic moment it still had because is the forefront of the empire, he is going for the fresh blood of shale.

    Stavros H, 02/05/2016 at 12:16 am
    As I have repeatedly stated on this blog, the global oil market is not a market like those for smartphones, automobiles or ladies purses. The global oil (& gas) market is a STRATEGIC one. Which goes on to say that the core states, such as first of all, North America, then NW Europe get to have the first and final say.

    The problem for the US, Canada, Norway and the UK (the only wealthy countries producing large quantities of oil) is that their oil reserves are extremely marginal and can only be accessed with high oil prices (in the long-run) This problem is compounded by the fact that high oil prices enable geo-strategic rivals such as Russia/Iran/Iraq/Venezuela to be more defiant than they would otherwise be.

    The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire) also known as GCC, follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves, depending on the situation and their ability to affect the global market.

    In my view, this is what preceded the recent oil market collapse:

    • NATO-GCC to Russia in 2011/12: "Give up Assad, or we'll fill our media with BS stories about you. We will also 'encourage' our corporations to not invest in your country"
    • Russia to NATO-GCC: "You have been doing that for ages, who cares for even more propaganda. Assad stays"
    • NATO-GCC to Russia in 2013/14: "Give up Assad, or we will turn Ukraine against you, there will be serious trouble for you, as now we will make our economic warfare against you, official. Moreover, our 'regime-change' efforts will intensify"
    • Russia replies to NATO-GCC: "Bring it on, Assad stays"
    • NATO-GCC to Russia in 2014: "We will pummel the oil price into oblivion*, we promise that you will feel the strain, just give up on Assad or we will destroy you"
    • Russia replies to NATO-GCC: "I have seen worse. Assad stays"

    *Notice that NATO-GCC did not use the oil-price weapon until one of two things happened:

    a) Time-pressure on regime-changing-Syria became serious.

    b) The shale and tar sands infrastructure had been already put in place under high oil prices.

    But back to Ron's core (and largely correct) claim that the global oil production gains of recent years have been a North American phenomenon (I would also add Iraq)

    North America has been able to ramp-up production spectacularly in recent years because of the following reasons:

    a) It's capital rich. Instead of diverting all of that QE-enabled loans to the parasitic "housing market" and lots of inane Silicon Valley start-ups (that fail 99 times of 100) it was wiser to have some dough flow into the "shale oil & gas miracle" as well as Alberta's vast tar sands deposits. Which made both economic as well as strategic sense.

    b) As North America was a massive oil importer circa 2009 (Canada cannot be seen in isolation, but as appendix to the US) this increased oil production went a lot way in: a)boosting economic growth (North America has easily outpaced other advanced economies since the Lehman crisis) b) Minimize the US trade deficit and therefore: c) Boosting the value of the US dollar.

    As I have noted many times before on this blog, some (maybe several) countries around the world have massive oil reserves that are far more prolific than those currently being exploited in North America. But these countries, do not enjoy neither the political/military clout over the GCC, nor remotely the financial capital to engage in such massive (and risky) investments.

    Countries outside of the US, Canada (to a lesser extent UK, Norway ) that are major oil producers, need to accrue massive profits from their oil sales, since they universally divert most of those funds into financing the government, the military and social spending, while they must also keep some for re-investments into their oil sectors. US & Canada are uber-happy if they can more or less break-even.

    But the peak-oil-environmental bias of many, does not allow them to see this.

    Javier, 02/05/2016 at 4:14 am
    Your strategic analyses are very interesting Stavros, and fit many of the things we all know are true. However I have a problem with the "We will pummel the oil price into oblivion" part.

    The available evidence is that the price of oil followed very closely the supply/demand ratio. The chart below is from Dr. Ed's blog.

    I am always skeptical of interpretations that are not supported by evidence. There are multiple theories about who caused the oil price to go down and why. I rather stick with the data, it is not a PO bias but quite the opposite. A supply/demand mismatch caused it and nobody wanted to cut production unilaterally.

    Ron Patterson, 02/05/2016 at 8:51 am
    The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire) also known as GCC, The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire) also known as GCC, follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves, depending on the situation and their ability to affect the global market.

    That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Just who is/are "US & Co"? Would that be Obama? Or perhaps the US Congress? Or perhaps the US Oil Companies? Then in the second half of that long sentence, you completely contradict the first half of the sentence. You say: follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves," Now which is it? Are they controlled by US & co, or are do they pay no attention to whomever in the US that is doing the controlling and follow a policy that simply suits themselves?

    I would definitely agree with the second half of your sentence, the GCC states do exactly what they damn well please. And I would definitely disagree with the first half of your sentence. They would pay no attention to any US politician or businessman that might call them up and try to tell them what to do.

    But back to Ron's core (and largely correct) claim that the global oil production gains of recent years have been a North American phenomenon (I would also add Iraq).

    Well no, that's not what I said. Yes, recent oil production gains have been from US, Canada, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. But what I said was:

    The recent surge in world production that was brought about by high prices…

    The recent gains in Iraq and Saudi Arabia were after the price already started to fall. Those gains were not brought about by high prices. They were despite a steep decline in prices.

    likbez , 02/05/2016 at 10:22 am
    Ron,

    That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Just who is/are "US & Co"?

    "US and Co" is essentially a codename for NATO. It is ruled by international financial elite (Davos crowd) which BTW consider the USA (and, by extension, NATO) as an enforcer, a tool for getting what they want, much like Bolsheviks considered Soviet Russia to be such a tool.

    The last thing they are concerned is the well-being of American people.

    [Feb 05, 2016] The Untruth About Donald Trump

    Stefan is amazingly talented guy, no question about ti. This post about this video "Stefan, this is the most comprehensive, fact based, detailed examination exposing the misinformation & lies perpetuated by the media. Bravo to you for disclosing the TRUTH! It's too bad the already misinformed & misguided souls that repeat all the media's negative false rhetoric about Mr. Trump will most likely never take the time to watch this video to become enlightened." is not an exaggeration.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The media, establishment Republicans and Democrats hate him. That makes me like him in that regard. He must be doing something right. ..."
    "... I am surprised--this was actually fairly informative. I was curious after I saw a article that showed Trump did at least denounce the Boston attack on the homeless Latino man contrary to what I was told by others. Made me wonder what else was being falsely said about Trump. That in mind, there are things I do not agree with Trump policy wise, so I wont be voting for him. ..."
    "... I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. -Evelyn Beatrice Hall ..."
    "... Thank you for posting this. You have reshaped my world and views of the press. Freedom of Press is not The Freedom to Lie. ..."
    "... Ive been following Trump for years and watched the documentaries and smears, basically theres nothing there truly dirty or criminal. He is an egomaniac obviously. He may be unethical at times and an overly zealous marketer, a ruthless businessman, he has crushed those who opposed him, but he never murdered them or stole money or intentionally defrauded people. What I have seen is he has made his best efforts to live up to his word, although sometimes failing to do so. Yes he is where he is bc of his father, no question. But nothing even remotely close to the pure demonic evil that is the Clinton or Bush clan; full of assassinations, narcotics/gun running, absolute financial corruption bribes payoffs... ..."
    "... Excellent deposition of facts and events related to D. Trump...as I have been reading press articles, listening to Mr. Trumps interviews by various journalist, alternative and main stream news media. I really enjoyed confirming these issues. I had a few laughs about how bias and incompetent some of these individuals and organizations are...nevertheless Trump keeps scoring points...it seems people are waking up to the reality of corrupt leaders and their political agenda. ..."
    "... here in the UK i have been watching our government react to Trumps statements. It would be interesting if he was elected to see our politicians having to backtrack and do some serious bum buffing. ..."
    "... This is an excellent video. Alot of effort put into it and I appreciate it. Thank you for this insightful video full of actual facts. Remember whenever you hear something outrageous in the media, always ALWAYS see the source of the actual event to see if it was actually true. ..."
    "... All these so called journalists ( if you want to call them that) that write for MSM, and of course all the Rags that Stefan has quoted, are, for the most part mouth pieces, in that they write what they are told to write, they will bash anything that might be out of the norm like a Trump, and they do this not because they actually believe the garbage they write, but because they are told what and how to write, by their editors who have a direct line to their handlers which of course are the Uber elite Statists, ..."
    "... Stefan, this is the most comprehensive, fact based, detailed examination exposing the misinformation lies perpetuated by the media. Bravo to you for disclosing the TRUTH! Its too bad the already misinformed misguided souls that repeat all the medias negative false rhetoric about Mr. Trump will most likely never take the time to watch this video to become enlightened. ..."
    www.youtube.com

    MagicianCamille 2 weeks ago

    I dislike most of what Trump says and stands for, but none of it is what the media talks/lies about, which makes me strangely sympathetic towards him.

    Brian Connell 5 days ago

    +Susan Burns Think yourself intelligent when your comment does not maintain fallacies please. If your rich you need money less. #2 Says itself. If something is bad replace it. We need less idiots who think they're clever spreading misinformation. Any presidential candidate is qualified to be president. Please stop saying we when I know you're representing only yourself not America. The Establishment controls us and the presidents through special interests. Ted Cruz will always have someone underneath his desk. Every single one of your numbered statements is wrong. My pity and condolences confused one.

    Edward B 2 weeks ago

    great video, argued with my manager about Hillary yesterday. they refuse to listen to facts, it absurd how deep the rabbit hole goes...

    maggoli67 2 weeks ago

    I almost hate it, but my respect for Trump is growing too much. as an Anarchist, I hate them all, but he's the most honest of them all.

    AvyScottandFlower 2 weeks ago (edited)

    Trump portrays the role of a dumb guy who thinks he's really smart when in reality he's much more intelligent than he lets morons know, while those very stupid people think they are being smart by totally falling for his mockery of them, and calling him 'stupid'.

    Gotta love how Trump plays them all like a fiddle, and shames them by doing so (unbeknownst to many, unbelievably so!)

    Chris C 2 weeks ago (edited)

    I like Trump because he's not Hillary. But he is by no means a liberty candidate. My reason for supporting him is simply the idea that if the economy really is going to collapse, I'd much rather have a republican in the Whitehouse than a socialist. There is also the issue of the supreme court justices set to retire and the second amendment issues there.

    In no way do I believe that Trump has any chance of reversing the economic course that we have been set on for the last several decades. The absolute last chance we had of that was in 08, and the only candidate that represented real change was Ron Paul. But Americans spoke back then, and what they said was that by no means would they accept freedom as a substitute for free stuff from government and endless wars. There's absolutely no turning back now and all the Trumps in the world can't change that.

    John Belt 1 week ago

    The MSM still acts as if they were they the only source of information available to the American people. That is, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons the MSM is falling from the high podium they believe they still deserve to be upon.

    OrdoMallius 2 weeks ago

    You want to hear the truth? You cant handle the truth!

    Donald Trump is the reincarnation of Donald Patton. They are pretty similar in looks and especially in the profanity-laced speeches, Trump always mentions him on his rallies, Patton believed himself to be a reincarnation of a great warrior and Trump was born one year after Patton died giving soul enough time to reincarnate. Modern wars are purely economic. Patton cultivated his flashy persona and so does Trump, Patton realized Germany was going to be ruined by the commies, Trump realizes Germany is going to be ruined by commies. Patton believed PTSD was "an invention of the jews" and Trump believes autism is an invention of the vaccinations.

    John Barleycorn 2 weeks ago (edited)

    Good video. One often overlooked fact, is that the media makes it's money from selling advertising. No advertisers, no media. Ratings get advertisers and so on. I would guess that 95% of what the publishes is related to ratings and getting advertisers. The other 5% might be in the public interest.

    The media, establishment Republicans and Democrats hate him. That makes me like him in that regard. He must be doing something right.

    bitbucketcynic 1 week ago

    The media presstitutes never apologize for lying, they just double down with even bigger lies.

    a3roflow90 1 week ago

    This is what I dislike most about your video. You seem to glorify his use of exaggeration to his supporters or even anyone that is remotely interested in politics. His technique might be good for business, but he's igniting hatred and bias against other people. You seem pretty intelligent in the fact that you actually made this presentation to show the fallacies in the mainstream media, so I'll give you that. However, ignorant, right winged republicans hear even a mere inkling of supposed racism and bigotry and they jump at the chance to support someone they think will put white people back on top.

    Look at the Grandmaster off the KKK that supported him or the hundreds of endorsements from preachers all around the country. This isn't a business opportunity, His exaggerations have already gotten people hurt at his speeches. Look at the countless attacks and hateful comments at his rallies so far. He might be a shrewd businessman, but in no way should ever be set anywhere near the top of the country in power. You also really want a person that declines to be in the same room as Megyn Kelly? What will be his policy towards trying to set peaceful negotiations with other countries? How about that awful endorsement from Sarah Palin? Her garbage she spouted out was completely ridiculed for good reason. She spouts Christian values when she raises her kids to become terrible people, then blames Obama for it? Are you freaking kidding me? How about his last speech he gave? Since you love quoting him directly, I'll hit you with this.

    "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay," Trump said while speaking at Dordt College, a Christian school. "It's like incredible." So you have the grand poobah of the KKK, tons of elitist Evangelical Christians, A crazy Alaskan nut job, and the troves of racist bigots who back his campaign. I'm sure I have the majority of people that support him, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

    This campaign is garbage. His values are garbage.
    Show less

    yourenotinthecircle 2 weeks ago

    I agree with most of this video, as it is basically the truth, but I am still allowed to disagree with Trump, there is never one correct way to deal with big issues, and i simply think a few of his base ideas are not fully formed and still some of the things he says are on average, an impassioned popular counter-opinion, which is damn smart ill give him that, but its not nearly enough for me, come to think about it, not one world leader we have right now is good enough, the world is run by weaklings who pray to the god of money.

    Eduardo Romero 2 weeks ago

    Okey, that media is bad on Trump but his actual plans are just to make Latinos go away and continue to the war on the Middle East. He still doesn't have talked about actual any actual plans. He is a populist, he just wants to win because he is a megalomaniac. And to be fair, he attracts and ridicules other candidates too.

    Jordan Shackelford 2 weeks ago (edited)

    I went to a Trump rally in my town today and he was an hour and a half late. No problem, things happen. But both he and Sarah Pailin just repeated the same speeches they keep repeating. I've seen some Trump rallies online, I saw the video where Pailin endorsed him. The speeches they gave today were word-for-word exactly what they've been saying at every rally everywhere.

    Apparently it's called a "stump speech". According to wikipedia "A political stump speech is a standard speech used by a politician running for office." So I guess you could say Trump stumped himself.

    untapishtim 1 week ago

    Donald Trump is a genius. Sociopath, yes, but only a sociopath has the guts to go against this corrupt system. And he has the money. (Nobody can buy me!).
    America needs a leader like Trump. He has no fear, knows when to back off or change strategy.

    America needs to change its policy with China, and start treating Russia with respect. And somebody really needs to tell the EU to "f**k off"! Especially Merkel. Not Germany. Merkel!!!

    The troops must come back home!!!

    Jimmy Holzman 2 weeks ago

    Hey Stefan, I've been listening to your show and your videos for a while now and I have to say that you have changed my perspective on a lot of subjects and made me realize how important philosophy really is. I don't consider your content valuable, I think it's priceless and essential, thanks to you I've been reading some awesome books on economics and libertarianism. The sad part is that I can't donate money to support you. I live in Venezuela (a socialist shithole), a country that has an index of economic freedom of 34.4 at the moment of writing this post. In this country the government has absolute control of the currency so the population can't have access to U.S dollars. Even if I could change my currency into dollars, inflation in Venezuela is so high that something as little as 5 dollars is a week worth of transportation (that I spend to go to college). I'm not kidding you, here we fight to find toilet paper, FUCKING TOILET PAPER! I can't even spread the message on my social networks because my friends don't care about philosophy and don't speak English (Taking a look at our current situation I don't even know how the fuck did I manage to find time to learn the language). The only thing that I can say to you is thanks for all the hard work you put into your show and your videos. When I leave this gigantic cesspool you will have a new monthly donation (if the extremely high crime rate don't kill me first).

    Keep up the good work man

    PS: I'm sorry for any grammatical mistakes, keep in mind that English is not my first language.

    ImprovedTruth 2 weeks ago (edited)

    I was hoping to find a balanced appraisal of Trumps claims, but your own political bias shines through too much. Dispelling myths is great, but the parts that should be an honest deconstruction of some of the more stupid ideas Trump puts forward, just turns into adoration.

    A lot of this is good, but truth is far more important than personality politics and you have failed to present the truth unadulterated by your own feelings.

    Sean Don 4 days ago

    Is all of this because the media takes him out of context? Or is it also partly because some of what he says is ambiguous and people respond to his non-verbal language as well? I can buy the idea that the media does their thing and that Trump may not really be so racist/sexist at heart. I also believe that Xenophobia is not a bad thing; though it's made out to be a "dirty word", border protection is a valid issue.

    I can buy that he meant "their racists" instead of "they're racists", but it is an ambiguity, one has to admit. But some of it I don't quite get. For example, when the media talked about his McCain comment, I couldn't believe it, so I looked it up online at the time (it's easy to do) and watched him say it, and read the transcript word for word... and it still sounds bad. Yes technically he says "he's a hero" four times, but it could be interpreted that he was being interrupted in saying "he's [only] a hero because he got captured", which is an insult to those who believe that any kind of military service, automatically makes someone a kind of hero in a way. I think perhaps Trump was trying to say that McCain is not a hero in other ways, which could be. But it's too bad his supporters have to try so hard.

    One Up 2 weeks ago

    Trump does leave a little ambiguity initially when he makes a new statement, then when the media storm starts, he clarifies and wins. Ex. Mexico is not sending their best= Media storm- Calls for Apology= Clarification: I said illegal immigrants , criminals pushed by the Mexican government into the US.

    Charles Fry 2 weeks ago (edited)

    It was not Muslims, on rooftops, in New Jersey, celebrating and videotaping the destruction of the towers. It was Israeli intelligence officers. They were arrested with multiple passports, $5000 cash, and their van tested positive for explosives. It was widely reported on the day, then the story vanished- much like the WTC 7 story. They were detained for 71 days, then released back to Israel on passport violations. After, they went on Israeli television and admitted they were there to document the event. LOOK IT UP! Nothing suspicious here.

    David Ziegelheim 1 week ago

    Your quote at about 51 minutes is incorrect. He didn't say 'negotiate' deals at the RJC conference, he said 'renegotiate' deals. In Trump speak that amounts to breaking contracts and settling in court. He boasts about always being ready to sue are part of his 'renegotiation' strategy. He is defending multiple suits from his 'renegotiation' of condo sales at his Chicago tower. It is basically a technique to take advantage of customers, investors, partners, and suppliers. It is not considered a reputable business practice and saying all Jews in the room did that was an insult and a stereotype.

    I did hear that entire speech and it was laced with stereotypes. At one point I thought he was going to say the audience could tell if he took a shower because of their long noses (he didn't, but it felt in line with his other comments).

    He also took a very anti-Israel policy position-effectively saying Israel is the reason there is no peace. A policy that flies among Democrats but not Republicans. It is also not true...as anyone familiar with Hamas would know.

    You make several points that are different from what Trump said. For example, he said didn't say illegal immigrants or immigrants at all. He said "when Mexico sends its people"...a pretty generic term.

    But then, my challenge to you is find two coherent sentences in row that Trump said. I haven't found it. He wonders off in disjoint directions after a few sentence fragments.

    Informative Misinformation 2 weeks ago (edited)

    Trump: "The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular."Propose a ban on Muslim immigrants. Say you witnessed Muslims celebrating 9/11.

    Propose to build a giant wall across the border. Mention that Mexico is not sending their best, but rather Mexico is sending drugs, rapists, and assume some illegal immigrants are good people. Share a meme with false statistics on black US citizens that fit the stereotype of black gangsters.

    I live in a predominately conservative Texas town, so I am aware of whose fantasies (or rather, confirmation bias, ingroup bias, representativeness heuristic, etc.) Trump is catering to. I see it on my Facebook feed nearly every day. For the record, I absolutely agree with Trump: His hyperbole is effective in gaining support. Apparently, support from you and your subscribers.

    Lightdescent 1 hour ago

    I definitely think that Trump was cheated with the Iowa Elections. I have done a mathematical analysis of the results and they are highly suspicious. This goes beyond just mere speculation. See my 5 minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAQ0DFZbHiY 

    hoohm, 2 weeks ago (edited)
    Hey Stefan. One question. Where did Trump speak about illegal immigrants in his quote? "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting." He doesn't say illegal immigrants (I've listened to the speech again). I guess you assume this because he spoke to border guards, but then again, it's not clear. And so, technically, most of the quotes or titles in the "media" were correct, I'm sorry. I also hate when people misquote, but this time, you cannot argue that they are manipulating the quote. Let me break down what I find poorly described in this quote/partial speech. 1): "Mexico sends its people" Like the country "sends" people. This is incorrect, or at least, I don't see any proof of that. I admit I haven't looked for any proof either myself, but since he is making this proposition, it's my opinion he should provide proof. I'm pretty sure people who want to immigrate in the US want to come and are not sent... 2) "some, I assume, are good people" This means that not only a subset, but according to Trump, the majority of immigrants are drug dealers and rapists. If he would have said something like: "Some of them are good people and some of them are bad people" it would have been different. He says: I know most of them are rapists and drug dealers/consumers and maybe, only maybe, some are ok. So he also says he is not sure that some are good people, but he sure knows that most of them are bad. 3) "I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting" Again, I want proof, numbers. How many guards did he talk to. What are the statistics of the people trying to cross the borders, etc... I really hate speeches like this. It's not because it's offensive, I couldn't care less about that. But I hate it when people speak without facts, hard paper facts and statistics. This guy has good ideas. For example, he is the only one who proposed we should understand why djihadist do what they do. If you understand it, you can solve it. But "we" still believe that we can kill off ideas and movements by bombing them harder. I'm pretty sure we can't do it because you would have to kill off everyone having this "idea" and then find a way to prevent people from having this "idea"...
    Canudigit 533, 22 hours ago
    A letter to Mr Bill Whittle. Bill, I submit that Trump is the only candidate that can beat Hillary. I share your principals. However, the conservatives have shown abject cowardliness for decades. I find their sudden wave of patriotism phony and hypocritical. Where were they when we needed them. I could go on for hours listing the endless opportunities these bullshit conservatives have had to show some backbone. Now they want to destroy the only man courageous enough to actually go out on that limb alone, risk his life, and use his own money. I am appalled that you and others bitch about Trump being rude, crude, and bombastic but would never in a million years take the shot. You do not make me proud to be an American. Donald does. You proclaim to love and support the Constitution. I assume that would include the men who made it happen. You proclaim disdain for the "appalling and destructive vitriol" emanating from Trump. That he's rude and crude. Your claim is that "he's not presidential". OK, let's talk about "rude and crude" and "appalling and destructive". Our first President, General George Washington, killed ten's of thousands of men. Including his own men when he deemed it necessary. Who made those decisions? He did. How's that for "rude and crude"? ' He killed Indians on what they believed to be their own land. I suppose you think he felt guilty about that pesky Eminent Domain thing. How's that for "appalling and destructive"? Our second President, Thomas Jefferson, was a slave owner, a womanizer, and could be most vindictive on numerous occasions. He tried to have his own vice-president (Aaron Burr) convicted of treason three times so he could have him shot. Did you get that Mr. Whittle? He wanted to kill him. How's that for "rude and crude"? Burr himself actually killed Hamilton. Gee, that was a little "rude and crude" wasn't it Mr. Whittle? Maybe even "appalling and destructive". John Adams? Give me a fucking break. Most notable. He believed in a strong and powerful centralized government. He wanted to be addressed as "his highness". You might want to read that last sentence again Mr. Whittle. Modern-day mudslinging? Trump's got nothing on the dirt thrown in the 1800 presidential election between Adams and the sitting vice president, Thomas Jefferson. While the Federalist Adams believed in a strong centralized government and the Republican Jefferson favored states' rights, the debate went beyond policy differences to personal attacks. Campaign propaganda paid for by Jefferson charged that Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical character" who smuggled prostitutes into the country from England and planned to marry one of his sons to a daughter of King George III to establish a royal bloodline in his family. The president's supporters called Jefferson a coward, French radical and infidel who would seize the country's bibles and allow "the refuse of Europe" to flood American shores. Abigail Adams lamented that the campaign had produced enough venom to "ruin and corrupt the minds and morals of the best people in the world.". In addition, Adams had numerous illicit affairs and defended the British soldiers in Boston. He was, no doubt, considered to be, shall we say, a bit "rude and crude". Who knows. maybe even a little "appalling and disgusting". Don't even get me started on Lincoln. He shredded the Constitution at will. Make no mistake, I am now and will always be proud and grateful for these "appalling and disgusting" giants. They gave the world the greatest, most productive, most benevolent, and most just country the world has ever known. They did so at great personal risk and I love them for it. I can't find the words to express the depth of my respect and admiration for these "rude and crude" immortals. They represent all things that matter most to me. They had the courage of their convictions unlike you and Thomas Sowell (ad nauseam) and the rest of the self-righteous bullshit neo-cons. Consider this Mr. Whittle. Of all the current candidates, which one has the most in common with the very men who molded the Constitution that you "claim" to revere? Which one is risking his life, the lives of his family, and his fortune to stand up to the greatest deluge of contempt, disdain, humiliation, slander, lies and abject hatred you and I have ever seen or will ever see in our lifetime. He has been called Hitler, fascist, racist, bigot, and the most unimaginable slurs and derogatives. He is constantly ridiculed in ways you couldn't stand for a five seconds. This "appalling and disgusting" onslaught comes not only from his competitors but also from his own party. Is all this really much different than the same sentiments afforded our framers by the Tory's and the Loyalists? Why do you suppose that is Mr. Whittle? Why did you fail to address any of this in your Trump hit piece? You claim to be big on facts. Maybe, But I say your very selective when addressing "the facts". Here's the real issue. Conservatism will not saves us at this juncture. All your self aggrandizing lectures about the Constitution is lost on the majority. We are circling the drain. It's too late for the prosaic speeches about electing a "true conservative". They have "dropped the ball" and like you, are now in denial. Maybe that comes from a sense of guilt and cowardice. That's a different discussion. What I do know is that 47% of Iowans are proud Socialist and support the Socialist front runner on the Dem side. We have no borders. Our national debt is unimaginable and incomprehensible. Our woes are many. This dire state of affairs did not happen over night and a true conservative will not fix it in one presidential cycle. What is most disturbing is that you and yours have not realized that we are already a Socialist country. Donald Trump had nothing to do with that. In fact, he has been wildly successful as a capitalist and, by his own admission, a reluctant crony capitalist This alone should command respect and awe. Still, you condemn. I believe that if Trump ran on the platform you would approve of he would stand no better chance than Ron or Rand Paul. The most staunch Constitutional proponents. I believe he knows that if he attacks the Socialists "sacred cows" he will not get elected. Let me give one of a great many examples of Trumps dilemmas. I have seen his plan for dealing with illegal immigrants. It's all about destroying the incentive for them to come and stay. Consider this. What would happen if he started talking about stopping their welfare checks or bringing the hammer down on their employers. Do you understand that Murdoch, who owns Fox, and guys like Soro's are open borders proponents. Do you understand that Microsoft is our largest holder of H1B visas? They are supporting Rubio. What do you think the headlines would say if Trump actually were more specific as you seem to yearn for? Game over! Are you really so naive? Can't you see that they would like nothing more than for Trump to show his cards. Looked what happened when he wisely stated that we should halt immigration (temporally). Grow up Mr. Whittle. I also believe that Cruz and Rubio are not genuine and won't beat Hillary. In, fact the best chance would be a Trump/Cruz ticket. Trump is in the middle enough to get elected and start the healing process. Trump would learn form Cruz and Cruz would learn from Trump. In eight years Cruz could then run, with Donald's support, and they could hold office together for 16 years. I believe that Trump had this in mind which is why he courted Cruz. Given their age difference it's a win/win for both. Unfortunately Cruz will have no part of it. That's putting the countries interest first now isn't it. Another example of the so called "conservative principals". I submit, Mr. Whittle, that the Trump supporters you condescend to have figured out something you have not. That Mr. Donald J. Trump is more than you and your fellow so called "conservatives" deserve. He is stepping in to fill the void left by you blowhards. Is he flawed? Yes. Is he childish and sophomoric? Sometimes. Will he say and do things that we find disturbing? I think so. But will he intentionally harm us? Not a chance. You may find this hard to believe but we adolescent Trump supporters will never allow him to do it. He is not the man his distracters want you to believe he is. Take some time and really look deeper. Look at his kids. Look at the way his 22,000+ employees respect him. Out of that many wouldn't the press have found negative testimonials? Your in business. How long does a scoundrel last in that world. What would be the likelihood of that level of success without good long term honorable relationships. So please spare us the patriotic bullshit. A few insincere compliments to start your negative diatribe fools now one. We know a Cruz supporter when we hear one. Wake up Mr. Whittle. Before it's too late. We Trump supporters are the only thing between you and collapse. P.S. You can go back to the latest edition of National Review now.

    911LookuptheLavonAffair 4 days ago

    Stefan Molyneux talks about how middle class Republicans are all eager to support Donald Trump because they feel like the other politicians have sold out the middle class for cheap illegal immigrant labor, campaign contributions from companies that profit off of this labor, and how these politicians sold out the national interests of the country in various ways to do this.

    Although... didn't the voters vote for these open-borders Republicans like George Bush, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain? The Republican voters had the option of voting for Republicans who were more committed to securing the border like Pat Buchanan, but they opted for the more moderate open-borders candidates like George Bush and John McCain instead... so didn't the voters get what they asked for? Why should they be mad if this is the case?

    Regardless... it's good to see people waking up to the problems open-borders policies are causing our nation. As Stefan said, without these policies Obama would never have been elected.

    thor2070+9 5 days ago (edited)

    This video basically proves how deceptive the Media is. They love to twist people comments, and create bullshit! I went to listen to some of the uploaded, past speeches of Donald Trump, which his comments were totally different from what the Mainstream Media reports in their discriminatory propaganda, to sway the thinking of the Public. Those who have dis-invested in Trumps enterprises, will eventually comeback, because they need money. That also includes cry-baby politicians. Give it 5 to 10 years after the fact. I had to give the "thumbs up" to Stefan Molyneux's dissecting of the Donald.

    z8machine 5 days ago (edited)

    You have completely missed the dynamic driving Trump's wild popularity, as you don't seem to be from here. You also misquoted and misunderstood Schopenhauer's three stages of truth, please read up as they are more favorable to Trump and fully explain the self-evident truth of his campaign to all thinking people, world-wide.

    The elite aristocracy want slave labor to overrun higher wage, better educated Americans while they outsource for cheaper manufacturing. They need America to be a third world country. It's just that simple. Trumps hates the inbred international losers driving international economics in direct conflict with American internests. Trump is America's new Andrew Jackson. And By God, he will rout you out like Jackson did.

    reavertor 1 week ago (edited)

    The most interesting thing about this to me is the contrast between Trump's written content vs his spoken content during interviews/speeches/debates - he comes off as a working class joe in his speeches but I realize that this is his genius. He speaks in the language of the common man, this explains his huge appeal across middle america. yet his written works betray a much more sophisticated and adroit communication style. I suspect behind closed doors Trump is probably much more articulate. He is in fact highly educated and attended prestigious private academies growing up but he has dealt with blue collar men his whole life in the construction/real estate business so this is his "trump" card so to speak. He doesn't come off as elitist and thus his massive appeal.

    J.P. Cloonan 1 week ago

    BRILLIANT, ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT STEFAN ;)

    Wesly Stanton 1 week ago

    Read Ann Coulters book, Adios America, it explains EVERYTHING.

    David K 1 week ago

    I loved the accents during the quotes!

    Nobbybuttons 1 week ago

    watch you on Alex J. you were very good, keep up the good work!

    jakesprake 1 week ago (edited)

    There's nothing wrong with being a 'draft dodger' if you're opposed to war. It's those warmongering chicken hawks who are the hypocrites. Draft 'dodger' is a derogatory term, it suggests that it's your duty to go out and fight for big business and banks. And when you are 'drafted' they get you to sign a form agreeing to it when you don't have to.

    They need your consent and trick you into giving it to them.

    Richard Macias, 1 week ago
    I love the fact that people think that Donald Trump is a business man. He didn't make his own money his grandfather did and the people whom have made him money are the people he has hired that know business. Oh wait he doesn't even hire them he uses a head hunting company to do the hiring so basically his grandfathers money has made him more money and he's made it off the hard work of intelligent people his money can afford buy. He is not good under pressure, he's vindictive, he makes up facts (yes he is a liar), ill tempered, is not a good public speaker, makes decisions based upon assumptions or hearsay, and when he realizes he has no idea what he's talking about he takes it out on other public figures. He is a bully that does not like to be questioned and by missing this debate it proves he has no concept of democracy he cares not for anyone else's views only his own and that is a dictator not the president of the United States. Trump expects us to vote for him when he takes his personal battles out against the american public. Regardless of his reasoning if he can't handle fox news how do we expect him to run America. He is not good under pressure he is vindictive, ill tempered, is not a good public speaker, makes decisions based upon assumptions or hearsay, and when he realizes he has no idea what he's talking about he takes it out on other public figures. He is a bully that does not like to be questioned and by missing this debate it proves he has no concept of democracy he cares not for anyone else's views only his own and that is a dictator not the president of the United States. Jokes should be kept on youtube or comedy central not in a presidential debate. You have to understand that lots of people don't actually think he will win but he has a chance and could you picture this man with the nuclear codes or weapons of war. He would devastate our foreign policies and has already begun damaging the country just by running. People are interesting they will vote for him because he is "keeping it real and damns political correctness." I'm sorry but someone that is keeping it real doesn't make up the facts as they go along or attack someone to differ a question they can't answer. He want to lower minimum wage and decrease the taxes on the top 1% https://www.youtube.com/watch?

    Donald P. Baty 1 week ago

    Oh, and by the way, I'm so glad Donald stood his ground on the FOX, Megyn Kelly issue. FOX News are such liars and manipulators. I am so finished with them.

    MASSA GRABBER, 1 week ago
    The Dancing Israelis in New Jersey also bragged of their mission as Mossad agents, to record this great new impetus for American hegemony in the Middle East. 911 was a complicated mix of the worlds evil and it didn't include a plane hitting Building number 7 which fell at free fall (pull it) said Silverstein its owner oh yes and the owner the 'Twin Towers". 9/11 - The Truth In 5 Minutes - James Corbett https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q

    Salty Admiral 6 days ago (edited)

    Trump is not stupid, his voters are stupid, and he prays on it like no politician ever has!

    The problem is that Trump voters (most, not all) are incredibly ignorant. No, I don't mean that as an insult, it's just a fact. No, having low income and little to no education does not mean you must be ignorant, but it is a damn good indicator.

    And even Trump himself acknowledges this, this is Donald Trump quote:

    "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue, shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters,"

    He is openly insulting the intelligence of his own voters, and he still doesn't lose them. LMAO :)

    caraclaudel 1 week ago

    The mainstream media is as corrupt and dishonest as the dirty politicians it supports. Trump is taking a common sense wrecking ball to both just by stating the obvious. He brings up things we're not allowed to publicly talk about due to the straitjacket of political correct speech codes, which have been implemented to subdue and control us.

    TIXE RIGHT 1 week ago (edited)

    The press doesnt' know Trump is joking when he tells a kid he's batman? And his IQ IS LOW? REALLY?

    Also, how can a man who took a million dollars (or whatever) and turn it into a few billion, and repeatedly game bankruptcy laws for his own advantage, have a low IQ? You know how many people in the world would just loose that fucking million dollars? I know lots of stupid people, and I can definitely tell you they would loose that money, because I see what they do with their money! So, at the very least, TRUMP is good at picking the people that do good work for him and ensuring they don't screw him over! (And considering that's exactly what a president does, that's actually SKILL he brings to the table.)

    It would be much easier for them to convince me he's not a decent person, or that he'll be a crony-capitalist, but, lately, I've been thinking I'll take that over Hillary's treachery, incompetence, and the obvious Clinton corruption machine none of the press ever really talks about, (Someone gave Chelsea Clinton tons of money for a talk on diarea? And my first thought was, did she become a doctor? And when I found out she hadn't, I thought to myself, how is that NOT A KICKBACK!?) Couple that with Obama's horribly failed politically driven foreign policy, and Sanders apparent blindside to the radicals and extremists on his side which may produce very bad executive appointments, and his willingness to double down on some of the left's worst economic and education policies, and the "liberal" left's recent and noticeably felt shift towards "authoritarianism." Basically, all of these things have given this particular independent a lot of pause in leaning left this election cycle. Meanwhile, the fact the Jeb and Huckabee are doing horribly in the polls, give me hope the GOP is self-correcting on some of the issues they need to rethink in this rapidally changing world. I think this could very well be a swing-vote year.

    WormholeJim 1 week ago

    Trump is going to redefine democracy. I watched him on Bill O'Reilly, how he would love it, if he could challenge Obama to a game of golf for the presidency.

    He was joking at first, but later during the interview, he returned to the topic, now musing how he might - should he become president - would do away with the system of running in favor of an open golf-tournament where anyone could challenge the sitting president for the office. I don't actually think he'll get away with that, not unless he appoints himself tyrant-king or something, but I'm sure that if he wins, nothing is ever going to quite be the same again.

    PatroniMeiSancti 1 week ago

    "The whole world has become The Onion" - Thank you, Stefan, I'll borrow that one for later.

    Justin Crowe 1 week ago

    I'm voting for Ted Cruz. However, should Trump prevail and win the GOP nomination, I am voting for Trump against any Democrat piece of shit.

    BigTArmada 1 week ago

    Great media analysis, thanks for the video

    neptronix 1 week ago

    Thanks, i'll be voting for trump

    sepiasiren 1 week ago (edited)

    I am surprised--this was actually fairly informative. I was curious after I saw a article that showed Trump did at least denounce the Boston attack on the homeless Latino man contrary to what I was told by others. Made me wonder what else was being falsely said about Trump. That in mind, there are things I do not agree with Trump policy wise, so I won't be voting for him.

    Also, regardless of the fact that he may not be as big a monster as the MSM touts, I just can't stomach someone who doesn't denounce violence done in their name in all cases ( recent attacks) against protestors and in some case encourages it, as he has done in some interviews. Sets a bad precedent for the future. Leaders shouldn't be encouraging citizens to hurt one another over political views.

    DAVID LAKE (DLAKE 4 PREZ) 1 week ago (edited)

    I've been following Trump's campaign since the beginning, thought he was a good idea in 2012 when he flirted with the idea. My dad, RIP, really liked Trump in the old days. Grew up with The Art of the Deal in the house library. My sister was on The Apprentice, Season 5. (before celeb apprentice) I'm about half way through your timeline of events and it is SO EPIC! Great coverage, Stefan. I like your quote voices too. haha "Pearl Clutching and Couch Fainting" is hilarious.

    vonsuthoff 1 week ago

    So, Trump thinks it's ok to speak with what he calls... "truthful hyperbole." Ha. Isn't that like saying "truthful bullshit?" To some degree, yes, it is. And those who use this factually hyperbolic speech can always say, "I told you that!" And if "that" ends up being wrong, they can say, "Well, I was speaking in hyperbole and surly you didn't take what I said literally!" In essence, it is a cheesy way to cover your ass no matter what side of an issue you are on.

    William Austin Smith 1 week ago

    I like most of what Stefan covers here, but I wish he would have made a personal comment during the section about "closing the internet". Do I disagree with Trump on this issue? I am not sure. But I do feel that it is better to err on the side of freedom of speech, meaning that even ISIS Americans should enjoy that freedom of speech. One of the classic examples for the universal application of freedom of speech is the KKK. They have and should have the right to post whatever they want on the internet. Calls for violence? Perhaps not. But perhaps so. We allow jingoists to call for military violence on a regular basis. Short of actually committing violence, American citizens have the right to say pretty much any nasty and horrible thing. Thank God!

    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall

    To conclude, I simply wish Stefan had made an aside, saying that on this particular point he did not entirely agree with Trump, or that such calls for internet control should be under extreme scrutiny. This would not be a rejection of Trump, but merely a critique of one policy.

    Junk Mail 1 week ago

    So, what percent of Trump supporters have read "Art of the Deal"? I haven't read it, but it seems like anyone who has read it would roll over laughing at what's going on without even needing to look up facts.

    faithahora 1 week ago

    Do not listen to the lying rich elitists-globalists owned LIBERAL media. They are not for the average American working and paying bills.

    This is a GREAT VIDEO. Unless you hear an actual clip of Trump speaking (every word he's said is somewhere on YouTube video and Right Side Broadcasting Channel on youtube posts EVERY speech Trump gives) do not believe it. And the clip needs to show at least 10 minutes before to make certain what they're saying Trump said is in context.

    As this video clearly shows the media CONSTANTLY and incessantly lie about Donald Trump and have for decades -- now it's stepped up warp speed.

    Trump is the only candidate who can bring back American jobs and save America from financial ruin. Vote Trump 2016 along with the millions of other Tea Party, Democrats, Independents, Evangelicals, Latino Americans, Irish Americans AMERICAN AMERICANS are going to do at the primaries and the general election!!!!

    Mike Scully 1 week ago

    Excellent dissertation, Dear Mr. Stefan Molyneux. A most exhaustive and detailed presentation. One revelation I sensed as a result of all the reports of media you challenged is, for media that seeks readership. it may be that anything "Trump" will get a read, no matter what, as long as his good Brand is in the headling. A possible way for the ownership, or editing staff of any media might be not to rush to print or airing. Push the reporters to show validation of their reporting before approving for publication, or broadcast.

    Thanks to you, Stefan, there is a way to work to get the truth all across the spectrum. Like you mentioned, even searching the YT videos is one way, among. no doubt other ways.
    Again, a very good work. Thank you for your effort to pull so much together in one place. Keep up the good info in full reporting. Thank you. Mike : )

    CriticalHitzGaming 1 week ago

    It fascinates me to no end how Donald Trump reveals the political right for what it is. At the end of the day they really don't care about the issues at all. They are more than willing to support the most liberal Republican candidate ever to run for office in a generation if he's sufficiently xenophobic and racist.

    Sean Bearly 1 week ago (edited)

    Overall a good review of media and political bias and the misinformation campaign against Mr. Trump although I think Stefen is too willing to defend him. If we are going to excuse Mr. Trump for using hyperbole and being intentionally controversial and politically incorrect simply because he says up front that he does it because he knows it works in his favor when dealing with the media, we might as well excuse all politicians for what they say and do since they are only doing it because they know it works in their favor. To me it shows that Mr. Trump is just another politician. You don't have to work in DC or a state capital to be a politician.

    Politicians are among us everywhere, especially in the larger corporations. What they have in common is a willingness to do or say anything, compromise principles, etc. in order to get their way or get something done. Make a deal with the devil if necessary. I enjoy listening to Mr. Trump because he says some of the things I think and he really can be funny. However, I do not trust him any more than I trust any other politician. I don't want to be excited by a politician; I want to be impressed by a person of principles. But that would be a person that not only the media and the Republican and Democratic establishment, but also the majority of voters could never support. So, as usual, I will 'waste' my vote on a third party candidate.

    2 Real MaFiA 1 week ago

    in what way are you ANY different from the mainstream media? You are NOT being unbiased by any stretch. Citing these sources and then adding your own comments in between mocking the people who spoke against Trump is completely biased. And all of those people are right....he SHOULDN'T be taken seriously. Unfortunately, people are supporting him based SOLELY on ANGER and when was the last time ANYONE made a CLEAR, WELL THOUGHT OUT, RATIONAL decision when they were ANGRY?!!? People aren't thinking before they are reacting. If you look back over the past 15 years, Trump has changed his views on EVERY major issue that he is using as his platforms in this election and he can't cite a single point in the past 2-3 years that caused him to change those views! Being a businessman DOES NOT qualify you to be PRESIDENT....we have a CONSTITUTION that is "supposed" to be followed. We DONT need another president that is going to make deal after deal with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi!! People are falling in the EXACT SAME trap they fell into when Obama ran....voting based on a man's WORDS and not his ACTIONS and what he's done to PROVE that he can be trusted!

    Larry DeWein 1 week ago

    Excellent presentation! Unfortunately, most Americans will not nor know not how to do research and check things out as you have done. The media has been doing things like this for years. I can remember several times of giving info to be put in a newspaper all typed out and it was put in incorrectly, either done through stupidity (I doubt) or on purpose (I believe)!!!

    Michael Mattammal 1 week ago

    So here's the thing Stefan. If Donald Trump is constantly out there manipulating the media into covering him because of the sensational things he says when it comes to the issues, how do we ever know what he ACTUALLY thinks!!??

    He's a manipulator, a con artist, and a half-truth teller by his own admission. Hardly the resume of someone I want as Commander-in-chief and leader of the free world. It's depressing how easily the right falls for this stuff, and the left is just as bad when it comes to Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Both sides will get what's coming to them eventually. All of us outside this crony two sided system will be left to pick up the broken pieces. I enjoy your shows though, so keep fighting the good fight sir!

    Evan Snow 1 week ago

    I'm not a fan of Stefan Molyneux or Donald Trump, but this is a really interesting video.

    A lot of research and thought went into this presentation. I found it very engaging.

    Just a note: I spend a lot of time watching people (pundits, etc) that I don't agree with. I find it boring to listen to people who just say what I want to hear or say what I already know or think I know. I can't learn anything from those people. But I definitely learned something from this video. That's not to say that it turned me into a Trump supporter, but it did give me some perspective on the Trump subject.
    Thank you.

    seekortry 1 week ago

    I absolutely hate these lying shits in the MSM.

    Carol Laughlin 1 week ago

    Awesome video Stephen. Very informative! Your narration was so very entertaining and made me laugh several times. I will share this video on facebook and Twitter as many times as possible so people may be well informed about Donald J Trump. Thank you is never enough for your dedication in helping to "Make America Great Again".

    Venz Lucero 1 week ago

    At least he has strategies and turns out successful.. What have been successful you have made last year? This is what critics are lacking for, the credentials, success and greater impact on your community for the good and better things to the masses. So what you did greater than this? Or your just like others a leach or a fly on top of the elephant?

    Kris Driver 1 week ago

    Yeah, Trump's human, but that doesn't mean someone who can't speak is a good candidate to speak for a world super power. Stefan, your defense arguments neglect the post that he's running for entirely. It IS of paramount importance that the head of state communicate effectively and not be misunderstood so easily. His deal making abilities may work to some degree in America but it's preposterous to presume that his experience translates to good policy management. He doesn't understand what's going on in the world, and that's a big problem for a president.

    Anstria Greenwood 1 week ago

    I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop and he is accused of paedophilia, that most dreaded of slurs. They just did it to Putin, yet the Westminster paedophiles are still getting away with it and Parliament itself is rife with them.

    They are afraid of the new respect Putin has earned in eyes of the world and that he does what he says he will do - eradicate ISIS while the US fiddles. They see him walking the razor's edge in an attempt to prevent war with the West so he must be discredited- nay, reviled or the people will oppose war with Russia - which is coming, make no mistake. Trump is feared for the same thing, a high approval rating and saying what he thinks, delivered as is without sugar. In the debate, Jeb Bush looked Trump right in the eye with a knowing smugness and absolute certainty and told Trump there was no way he would be be president. So, will he have an accident? Or will they produce 'evidence' that Trump kisses the abdomens of little boys? Just so they know how transparent they are, do they really believe that people will buy it in the days of the internet with alternative and widespread social media?

    YAH21 2 weeks ago (edited)

    EXCELLENT VIDEO, Mr. Molyneux. Now I truly understand why Donald Trump regularly denigrates and mocks the media and press at and most or all of his rallies and on twitter, calling them "dishonest" regularly. They've carpet bombed this man at every turn and regularly conflate, misinterpret and blow his words and mannerisms out of proportion and sold it to the world, and unfortunately many people have fell for the collective media's slanderous tactics and agenda.

    Despite all this, he's grown stronger and I indeed agree with you that this election cycle will be remembered and the media will have lost all respect in the eyes of the average person whether Trump is elected or not, and he indeed will leave a big impact or legacy. Every single ONE of their attacks has backfired in the long-term and Trump has no known skeletons in his closet, unlike Hillary.

    I just wished you would've tackled the common "nuclear triad" thing people use to denigrate him. But I do believe Trump didn't really know what the nuclear triad was, but the average person doesn't know. He's a real estate mogul for goodness sake.

    Asato 2 weeks ago

    I'm a paleo conservative, a rand paul supporter. But damn I have a guilty pleasure watching trump making the neocons and libtards shit their pants, and for that reason, he'll have my vote if he gets the nomination.

    This video should be shared and spread by all Trump supporters to get the FACTS out and to counter the DISGUSTING media's agenda.


    Mostly Accurate Reviews 2 weeks ago

    Donald Trump "I don't like rainy days."
    HEADLINE! Donald Trump hates water!
    HEADLINE! Donald Trump wants to destroy the oceans!

    ShieldWife 2 weeks ago

    I'm so glad that Stefan is defending Trump and that he realizes the problems that unlimited immigration poses to freedom. I'm so sick of libertarians parroting leftist race mongering or advocating open borders. Open borders as leftists and far too many libertarians want would end any possibility for creating truly free nations. I wish other libertarians could follow Stefan's lead.

    Dr Martha Castro Noriega 2 weeks ago

    I absolutely agree with your analyzes about the Donald Trump comments, and the comparison with the misquoting of the many times retarded MSM. Donald Trump is a very smart person, and so are the ones that direct and tell MSM bubbleheads what to say. Both ends know exactly what they are doing. I doubt very much that Donald Trump and Kelly (forgot her last name-I don´t care about her) from Fox are enemies or dislikes each other in "real life" backstage, and I doubt that Jeb Bush really really dislike Donald Trump, when it was Trump who gave the Bush family millions of dollars for their several presidential campaigns in the past.

    Everything is about business, and Trump is very good at it. Do not forget, all these Republican and Democrat debates are simply an audition, and of course, they all try to perform the best to their capabilities: mental, political and financial. However, they audition NOT to the public, but to the puppeteers most people in the world do not know who they are.

    HEADLINE! Donald Trump wants to take water from thirsty children!

    Dougal83 2 weeks ago

    Media mistreatment of information is obvious now when you've seen it before. I've been watching the media misrepresent UKIP's Nigel Farage over the past years and as a result I now distrust most "journalism". Personally I'll stick with just reading Reuters news with a pinch of salt.

    Valkyrie Sardo 2 weeks ago (edited)

    42:32 Hillary's comment on the need to tighten security to keep our people safe would be quite a laugh if it were not so hideously hypocritical The Obama White House saying that Trump's moratorium policy on muslim immigration "disqualifies him" from the presidency is also a bitter joke. Trump's policy is clearly defined in the constitution as a presidential prerogative. Despite Obama's protestations of knowing constitutional law, he has exceeded his authority and violated the constitution both in principle and in practice. Both Hillary and Obama support criminalizing blasphemy which is a clear violation of the First Amendment and separation of church and state. Government shalll make no law preferential to religion. Defeat the Dec 2015 proposed bill in the House of Representatives. H.RES.569, a bill to restrict freedom of expression toward Muslims (and only Muslims) Effectively, it criminalizes hurting their feelings because their rights as citizens are already protected under existing law. Muslims are not a special caste of American. Americans have equal rights before the law regardless of age, gender, race or religion. Religious beleif in the supernatural is voluntary and cannot be imposed as if it were a tangible. Human emotions cannot be legislated as though America was North Korea.

    JC Archer 2 weeks ago

    Good Job on bringing up facts that paint Trump more like a human being. I had several (and I mean several) good laugh. I'm all about his campaign against the horrible Politician (career politician) we have. Our leader have to be our best people, those who have succeded fairly and genuinly to lead our country. I'm canadian and Pissed off about Trudeau being a spoiled brat Rafting coach as our premier. what does it say about our people here... ouch

    JUST 2 weeks ago

    The media calling Trump the next Hitler, coupled with claims of antisemitism I found hilarious, considering his wife and daughter are jewish.

    mickavellian 2 weeks ago

    It only takes ONE view of Katrina Pierson (Trump's head of media relation ) going against the whole anti Trump contingent in the media and other various organizations: pro Islam, liberals, pundits etc to see how solid Trump record is. If Ms. Pierson, a TRULY self-made woman who comes from the most humble background) can destroy any of the usual media constructs with an amazing gift to spar with anyone and win the bout even if by exposing ONE lie in the contenders repertoire, we can imagine what these "media" buffoons can expect when facing Trump.

    I never read "The art of a deal", but NO candidate for the precidency has ever writen an HONEST book about themselves . Trump gives you a curse in debating him , what to expect from him but these idiots continue the old and acepted tradition of spinning ANY story (even those not worth of comment) into what they may perceive as a MAJOR attack. CNN has received such a pummeling From Ms. Pierson it is embarrassing. They drag sound bites and posts from Trump in 2008 and TRY to throw a sucker punch and it is gracefully dodged and the counter punch is lethal.

    Clearly the "media" in the USA is made up of pseudo intellectuals with a dismal education and even worse common sense. Every time Ms. Pierson knocks down one of these twits ( and they even come out from FOX) I wonder how anyone is going to debate Trump. I have read that it is EASY winning a game of "chicken" all you do is remove your steering wheel before you begin... THAT shows commitment and cojones.

    In seems in "The Art of the Deal" Trump not only threw the steering wheel out.. but wrapped himself in the seat. These hardly capable idiots on the media are in for a massive crash. All of the commentators shown in this video SHOULD have committed suicide by now. The ones who have turned the Mexican narrative into a Anti-Hispanic statement .. SHOULD apologize since there are PLENTY of Mexicans who enter the USA everyday to tackle jobs Americans do not want and return to Mexico at the end of the day. As far as "Hispanics" . Hispanics represent 17.1 %
    of the USA population

    Out of 34 Million Mexicans in the USA 75% are either USA born or naturalized Citizens so CLEARLY Trump reference was about Illegal Mexicans. No other nationality was mentioned so the statement was NOT a sweeping Hispanic condemnation since 14 other Latin American countries are represented in the last census. Clearly , if anytone at CNN did the math they would had found there was NO story so Mexicans became "Hispanics" or it is an abominable lack of education to consider Hispanic ans Mexican as synonymous . I am going to go for the last cause. The illiterate trolls graduating from liberal schools is inverosimil and those with a Media major are absolutely in an IQ range of room temperature. My 18 year Cuban son (born in the USA) can draw circles around the best of today's media mavens.

    and he is not even politically inclined . If nothing else Trump will weed out the sectarian press and their agenda driven staff. Of course this group is not qualified to work at McDonalds so we can expect a surge in unemployment claims from these idiots.

    Ah .. the days of Woodward & Bernstein !

    jem paul 2 weeks ago

    shame that the American people can't get a critical thinking candidate like Mr Molyneaux... but whoever wins will take the baton and carry on where the last one finished, seamless

    Schijt Dileahs 2 weeks ago

    I love your effort and work you put in your video's. This should get more views, especially by young people claiming Trump is a flaw of the system, though the harsh bashing of the media shows he has no foothold in the current corrupt system.

    katie stevens 2 weeks ago

    Brilliant detailed info. Thank-you.

    ptake patrol 2 weeks ago

    the main stream media are the real clowns

    Terry Brown 2 weeks ago (edited)

    Stefan - Excellent facts about Donald Trump. I'm not a Donald Trump fan, but would vote for him over Bernie Sander (or Hillary, if she makes it). Just a minor issue, but there is one misleading statement that you made. I don't believe that the text quoted at 40:06 under "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President" is in the Constitution per se. It is language from U.S. Code 1182, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II (Inadmissible Aliens). When you stated it was in the Constitution and read it, I was amazed that I had missed it, so I searched the U.S. Constitution and could not find it. Still, it is U.S. Law - one of the hundreds of thousands of U.S. Law currently on the books.

    The facts you have presented are very useful in rebutting the anti-Trump crowd - and there seem to be plenty of them. Thanks.

    James Wilson (Jimmy) 2 weeks ago

    Thank you for posting this. You have reshaped my world and views of the press. Freedom of Press is not The Freedom to Lie. I hope Mr. Trump Sues every one of them for slander and defamation of character. We have to hold them accountable! He would own every mainstream news outlet in america after the law suits were over or at least be a majority share holder. At least we know how he is going to get his campaign funds back. He had my vote already as he is the only person that has claimed that he will take action against the many threats we face but now he has my respect and admiration as well.

    BDMOutdoors 2 weeks ago

    What a great vid and a truly objective look at how democrat and republican establishments aided by the MSM work in conjunction to construct our thoughts in order to control our lives in a manner that they see fit. I am and have always been a conservative republican. I jumped ship for Perot because GHWB did act like he wanted a second term and this year I'm 100% for Trump. After this year, with all the efforts by the GOP establishment to derail the legitimate process of electing our nominee, I will be changing my registration to independent as I hope many others will do the same. Both parties are the same, they don't want change, they don't want America to be great, they just want control! They don't want Trump because they know they can't control him. America is screaming for someone neither party can control.

    divinenutrition 2 weeks ago

    Ive been following Trump for years and watched the 'documentaries' and smears, basically theres nothing there truly dirty or criminal. He is an egomaniac obviously. He may be unethical at times and an overly zealous marketer, a ruthless businessman, he has crushed those who opposed him, but he never murdered them or stole money or intentionally defrauded people. What I have seen is he has made his best efforts to live up to his word, although sometimes failing to do so. Yes he is where he is bc of his father, no question. But nothing even remotely close to the pure demonic evil that is the Clinton or Bush clan; full of assassinations, narcotics/gun running, absolute financial corruption bribes payoffs...

    Ezra The King 2 weeks ago

    Okay we should be clear, Mr. Trump has an IQ over 150, he is quite intelligent, I assume he does things for a reason. Just because you don't have the same views, doesn't make him any less intelligent. I mean the dude has incredible stamina he doesn't have strings, you can tell his fervor for his country, he's a patriot, some of his views are brash, but he is the only candidate on both sides that you can tell he loves our country and her people. I'm proud to be a Trump supporter.

    hbpower 2 weeks ago

    Stefan from a guy in Venezuela I really enjoy all your videos, and strongly support Trump, I believe building a wall would drastically help with the war on drugs, and this would hurt most of the corrupts goverments in south America bringing real change. And also kicking the illegals out of the USA would benefit all of Latin America because they would have to find jobs and help the economy grow here. I always laugh when the MSM says Trump is alienating the hispanic vote.

    Jenna Sharpe 2 weeks ago

    Really eye opening video. Here in the UK some idiots signed a petition to ban Trump from the country....so yesterday parliament spent the whole day debating something that most of us didnt condone or even care about... All because some self loathing lefty liberals were offended by his Muslim comments, which appear to have be misquoted. Meanwhile channel 4 were airing The Jihadis Next-door, a disturbing documentary following a group of radical muslims in London, at least one of whom has been confirmed as having joined ISIS and appears in a video threatening the UK and all who won't accept Islam. In the documentary two of them watch ISIS execution videos on their laptop while having a meal and find it hilarious when one "spy" is burned alive in a cage. Do we ban these vile individuals or even deport them? No. Apparently Trump is more dangerous! Do we debate the sex attacks and rapes happening across Europe? Do we debate the creeping Sharia Law courts and Muslim no go areas? Do we debate child sexual exploitation, honour crimes, arranged marriages, FGM? No, we debate a presidential candidate and his Scottish golf courses. WTF. I WISH we could have a PM like Trump!

    Iris Faith 2 weeks ago

    Excellent deposition of facts and events related to D. Trump...as I have been reading press articles, listening to Mr. Trump's interviews by various journalist, alternative and main stream news media. I really enjoyed confirming these issues. I had a few laughs about how bias and incompetent some of these individuals and organizations are...nevertheless Trump keeps scoring points...it seems people are waking up to the reality of corrupt leaders and their political agenda. I am still puzzle and question how Hillary and Sanders are still getting high ratings...these are the individuals who are pushing to continue the welfare state agenda! Hillary indicated she supports Obama's actions and will continue exercise the same policies, although will strongly enforce them and expand on it...Do they know what's happening in Europe? Do they know that is US and its allies who financially support ISIS? Have you consider doing a report on Hillary and Sanders? Well, thank you very much for such valuable information!

    hazybee68 2 weeks ago

    here in the UK i have been watching our government react to Trumps statements. It would be interesting if he was elected to see our politicians having to backtrack and do some serious bum buffing. I loved this video and am still laughing at the USA and UK media's ineptness at reporting facts or lack there of. Fantastic video still laughing , you have out done your self keep up the god work

    Richard Egli, Sr 2 weeks ago

    I thank you for this presentation. I am aware, and now really aware of how much the main street media has pulled the wool over my eyes. I have been completely disheartened by politics, and have become apolitical because of feeling that my vote means nothing, and that candidates views change direction with the wind. I really gave up after being "burned" by Obama's lies, and his subsequent presidency . I hope that we will not, "all be fooled again".

    Sephiroth 2 weeks ago

    Stephen Molyneux, some information you are missing: If you look up "Howard Stern 9/11 muslims celebrating" you will you find a video the day after in which a handful of people call into the show and talk about pockets of people celebrating the attacks.

    Greg Summers 2 weeks ago

    Thank you again for another informative presentation- great research by the way.. It is interesting watching this from the other side of the world. The point clearly made here about media BS is so very important for those who love freedom and the ability to think for ourselves. Who can save the USA after Obama. Obama has sacked 170-180 30+-year career general ranking officers in the US military not because they did something wrong or were incompetent: these generals just did not agree with Obama view of the world. So the USA has lost 5,400 years of military command experience. America needs saving from itself. So if Trump using his own money to back himself and believes that he is up to the job; just maybe he can save the USA. If Trump does win the US Presidency, just maybe Europe may be saved also from itself.

    MLE BoardofDirectors 2 weeks ago

    Well done! I enjoyed your video. Laying everything out shows how the MSM, GOPe and the left are determined to prevent Trump from being our next President. For those of you who are not watching the campaign closely, take the time to watch this video. You will see how you are being manipulated by the press.

    Raj J 2 weeks ago

    This is an excellent video. Alot of effort put into it and I appreciate it. Thank you for this insightful video full of actual facts. Remember whenever you hear something outrageous in the media, always ALWAYS see the source of the actual event to see if it was actually true.

    Traffic xxx 2 weeks ago

    Fantastic. I laughed, clapped, and face palmed all the way through. I can't vote for trump because I have many illegal friends in the U.S. but I have never respected a politician more. I hope he wins.

    ThisJustIn 2 weeks ago (edited)

    Stefan, I just got halfway into this video and I'm shocked at the left. They're not just insanely wrong, they're intentionally wrong.

    If I was trump, I would wait till this election is over and sue every damn one of them for libel and slander. They couldn't prove they didn't and in case he can put a huge financial dent in every damn one of them for intentionally trashing him. Now some would say this is "Statism" and an attempt to quash dissent. It would be just a reminder that they're not untouchable, make them all have to issue an apology and a statement on their front page of all the ways they were wrong and their writers. Or buy them out and fire everyone.

    Correction, I would only sue ONE.... and as all the others report on it with trash talk it will prove they were fully aware of the fact they didn't issue corrections in reasonable time.

    Max "Fatlossguy" Lake 2 weeks ago

    Treason. Prison for all newspaper owners with more than 50% fact check discrepancy.

    Miguel A 2 weeks ago

    This is a cute piece http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533

    marsh phoenix 2 weeks ago

    Thank you so much for this. It always helps me when you do these kind of videos because I don't have the time to review every speech or accusation from the left, I'm usually too busy running around putting out "brush fires" about Trump and another 8 or 10 subjects. And it takes a surprising amount of time, which I need to be studying other things, processing what I learn, and then applying it to the outside world.
    I'm going to post this over to FB........I really hope my Conservative friends can get this one out to any "progressives", if they have any of them left still talking to them anyway. Hahaha.............Again, thanks dude. You and your team do excellent work.

    Philip Marcus 2 weeks ago

    All these so called journalist's ( if you want to call them that) that write for MSM, and of course all the Rags that Stefan has quoted, are, for the most part mouth pieces, in that they write what they are told to write, they will bash anything that might be out of the norm like a Trump, and they do this not because they actually believe the garbage they write, but because they are told what and how to write, by their editors who have a direct line to their handlers which of course are the Uber elite Statist's, who despise The Donald, because he represents independence from the Status Quo, he represents possible positive change, he represents a billionaire who cannot be swayed by bribery because he makes as much money, if not more then a lot of the Oligarch that he is a part of. He plays the 1% er's game and obviously a hell of a lot better at it then the owners of a lot of the MSM.

    Now the only thing that I have a problem with is...Is the Donald the real thing or is he a part of a much larger clandestine plan to FOOL AMERICA AND THE WORLD....AGAIN,, Im not sure ...My gut tells me something isn't right here, my spider sense tells me that if Trump gets the nomination of his party ,and does become president ,and he sticks to his campaign guns, I have a nasty feeling the that Trump will be dealt with in the same manner as JFK, or an Andrew Breitbart,an Aaron Russo or even a John Kennedy Jr.. However I would be surprised if Trump gets that nomination because Trump will NOT TOW the party line, and the GOP can not have a candidate they cant control, they stand to lose the corrupt influence the Republican party wields in Washington, and they can ill afford to have an upstart like the Donald upsetting the apple cart. and neither can the Democrat's who are just as corrupt. So The Donald IMO is a wild card ,and a possible tragedy in the works, the jury is still out on the Donald.

    moniquemonicat 2 weeks ago

    Stefan, excellent work, darn near PERFECT. Such detail and clarity, sifting through such an avalanche of media lies and statements, a daunting task, and a pleasant watch for so much information. Thank you.

    michael fralick 2 weeks ago

    Awesome video! I must admit some personal embarrassment though; I've watched a lot of episodes of the Daily Show and some of Stephen Colbert's late night show, and they hate Donald Trump. I used to laugh at their bias jokes and just assumed, uncritically, that Trump was some sort of silly racist that would be disastrous for America (if elected). Mr. Molyneux wasn't kidding at the end of this video when he reminded us to think for ourselves and not be pulled into someone else's desire for influence.

    GuitarZan 2 weeks ago

    You put a lot of work into this video. Thank you, Stefan, for exposing the truth. Too bad most people don't seem to care about truth enough to dig it up. The MSM Zombies still believe the media's lies about Trump and never bother to watch entire interviews or speeches for themselves. There is hope because Trump's poll numbers seem to rise as more and more people wake up and realize they are being lied to and that the media is covering up the American Jihad described at Awake.Tips

    theQiwiMan 2 weeks ago

    Thanks, Stefan. I was one of those morons who immediately jumped on the Trump hate-wagon without thinking (the moment I saw he donated millions to the Clintons' campaigns over the years) This video was very enlightening. You are the man.

    G H O S T Y 2 weeks ago

    1:04:11 I believe it was Al-Shabbab that created a recruitment video on Trump, not ISIS. But besides that, you're my hero for saying exactly everything on my mind. I really lost hope in humanity and our society that I was one of the only people that could see all of this. Hopefully the whole world sees this video. (Wait 1 hour video? Who am I kidding, they choose to watch 5 second sound bytes on mainstream media to teach them politics)

    Bryan Thomson 2 weeks ago

    absolutely fantastic job Stefan. great work exposing mainstream media and there bias. never let truth and freedom of speech and expression ever die. may donald trump reignite the fires of liberty in America. and hopefully my home of canada subsequently. Canada has become a politically correct, social justice warrior playground. a land of neo liberal/socialist cultural marxism. we need a donald trump type politician here.


    KIDWITDEGUN 2 weeks ago

    I do not consume mainstream anymore. I remember during a flight from Germany to Denmark and the person next to me reading a danish newspaper with a huge picture of donald trump during a debate:

    Megan Kelly: "You have called women pigs!"
    Trump: "Only Rosy O'Donnell."

    Current mainstream media is painting a picture of Trump that is so bizarre, no wonder that nobody is accusing them or realism.

    Oblivious Adobo 2 weeks ago (edited)

    Something I just wanted to add on to about Trump's statement when he says he's talked to the border guards and they say that many are rapists and drug dealers. Some idiots will pull this rebuttal out of their ass and say oh border patrol are just a bunch of racist white-trash redneck (something like from this hilarious scene https://youtu.be/touwNjQgTvo ), however that is just so far from the truth. Over 50% of border guards are hispanics and might as well also throw in the fact that it is a requirement that border patrol learn Spanish.

    Reg mason232 2 weeks ago

    Stephan- you are the absolute best at telling the actual truth! Nobody- NOT ANYONE- even comes close to presenting the facts as you do. Trump will get my vote- he simply tells the truth- and he actually answers questions! He is not a politician- good! The question is- are there other people running IN EITHER PARTY who would make a better President? IS there anyone better qualified to run the worlds most powerful corporation? Hillary (assuming she is not indicted) Sanders (living in the past) Cruz (another Bush!) Jeb (listen to your mother) Carly (rejected in her own state) the rest- who cares! He will be the Republican Candidate and he will win the election.

    Raymond Cobblepot 2 weeks ago

    Stefan, this is the most comprehensive, fact based, detailed examination exposing the misinformation & lies perpetuated by the media. Bravo to you for disclosing the TRUTH! It's too bad the already misinformed & misguided souls that repeat all the media's negative false rhetoric about Mr. Trump will most likely never take the time to watch this video to become enlightened.

    The best parts were when you imitated the French accents. Oui Oui!

    [Feb 04, 2016] Pitchfork Time Elites Have Lost Their Healthy Fear Of The Masses

    An interesting, but not a deep, discussion about the possibility of uprising against the neoliberal elite in the current circumstances...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet? ..."
    "... With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spread of global capitalism, today's elites have lost the sense of fear that inspired a healthy respect for the masses among their predecessors . Now they can despise them as losers, as the aristocracy of ancien régime France despised the peasants who would soon be burning their châteaux. Surely today's elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of wealth and power. ..."
    "... will goldman sucks n shitty bank loan me money to purchase a pitchfork? http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/03/update-fec-informs-ted-cr... ..."
    "... It really doesn't matter what *ism society embraces. What matters more is is the power elite greedy enough to sell out their own kind? ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    The following reader comment, posted originally in the FT is a must read, both for the world's lower and endangered middle classes but especially the members of the 1% elite because what may be coming next could be very unpleasant for them.

    Elites have lost their healthy fear of the masses

    Sir, Martin Wolf (" The losers are in revolt against the elite ", Comment, January 27) and Andrew Cichocki ("Elites are listening to the wrong people ", Letters, January 29) skirt the key issue: global elites have lost a healthy sense of fear.

    From the time of the French Revolution until the collapse of communism, what successive generations of elites had in common was a sense of fear of what the aggrieved masses might do . In the first half of the 19th century they worried about a new Jacobin Terror, then they worried about socialist revolution on the model of the Paris Commune of 1871. One reason for the first world war was a growing sense of complacency among European elites. Afterwards they had plenty to worry about in the form of international communism, which remained a bogey until the 1980s.

    With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spread of global capitalism, today's elites have lost the sense of fear that inspired a healthy respect for the masses among their predecessors . Now they can despise them as losers, as the aristocracy of ancien régime France despised the peasants who would soon be burning their châteaux. Surely today's elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of wealth and power.

    Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet?

    h/t @ WallStCynic

    Looney

    Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet?

    Oh, honey, I thought you'd never ask… ;-)

    Goliath Slayer

    How they turned us into Pavlov Dogs >> http://wp.me/p4OZ4v-1zD

    Stuck on Zero

    It's hard to get rid of most of the elites because they have tenure.

    tarabel

    And most people wouldn't have the faintest idea of where to buy, or more probably rent, a pitchfork anyhow. As for torches? What, are you crazy? Those things are dangerous and would void our insurance policy.

    bamawatson

    will goldman sucks n shitty bank loan me money to purchase a pitchfork? http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/03/update-fec-informs-ted-cr...

    AldousHuxley

    It really doesn't matter what *ism society embraces. What matters more is is the power elite greedy enough to sell out their own kind?

    Future Jim

    If you think that freedom is just another ism, then you have been played.

    It is not about greed. It is about power and control. Money is just a means to that end.

    Their own kind? You mean their own race ... their own nation ... their own religion ... ?

    Cadavre

    And a roasting spit and rope to tie em by the ankle to the cherry trees lining the national mall, Musollini style. Urinals hanging from cherry trees. Only in America.

    One does wonder how inbreds surrounded by expensive advisors so easily lost any shred of fight-o-flight survival skills. Guess the extra bling allows them to dream false dreams.

    eforc

    The ones who think they are 'top dog' are about to find out the hard way, there is something much bigger at work...

    "6. The people, under our guidance, have annihilated the aristocracy, who were their one and only defense and foster-mother for the sake of their own advantage which is inseparably bound up with the well-being of the people. Nowadays, with the destruction of the aristocracy, the people have fallen into the grips of merciless money-grinding scoundrels who have laid a pitiless and cruel yoke upon the necks of the workers.

    7. We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces - socialists, anarchists, communists - to whom we always give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule (of the solidarity of all humanity) of our social masonry. The aristocracy, which enjoyed by law the labor of the workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy, and strong. We are interested in just the opposite - in the diminution, the killing out of the goyim. Our power is in the chronic shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker because by all that this implies he is made the slave of our will, and he will not find in his own authorities either strength or energy to set against our will. Hunger creates the right of capital to rule the worker more surely than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal authority of kings.

    8. By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way."

    --The Protocols

    freak of nature

    Fear might be masked, but it's still there.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/30/angela-merkel-caught-on-...

    Memedada

    http://www.rense.com/general45/proto.htm - they're fake.

    Mr. Universe

    The thing is that there are going to be a LOT of folks who thought they were elites. Instead they will be thrown under the bus of the approaching hoards to slow them down while the real elites make sure no one escapes that shouldn't be.

    They no longer fear the masses as they control the cops and the narrative. What will really work and is almost unstoppable is the ghost in the machine. Seemingly random acts of sabotage, just think if the internet went down for even 2 or 3 days. Who would it hurt most, average folk or ? I have a dream...

    wildbad

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USk-ECjYEhI

    Lorca's Novena

    Lol those guys are so blackwater.... It is illegal to have a standing "army" on 'murrican soil. Private for hire jagoffs arent. And no, it wasnt the national guard.

    Chris Dakota

    60% of the people who live in Burns work for the BLM.

    Looney

    Oops! ;-)

    alexcojones

    I think Pitchforks are way too tame. If this patriot lived today he would be decalared a TERRORIST

    The First Hero of the American Revolution

    Mark Mywords

    " Surely today's elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of wealth and power."

    Surely, you jest. The proles won't attack the elites. They won't be able to find them, or get to where they live.

    Tyler(s), you need to stop posting such meaningless tripe. When the serfs rise up, they will attack what is around them. As always.

    bbq on whitehou...

    The internet doesnt forget or forgive transgressions. Sins of the father shall be paid for by their sons.
    "Where are you going to run, where are you going to hide; no where because there is no where left to run to." - Body snatchers

    tarabel

    I think you are correct so far as you take your argument. Yes, they will START on their own neighborhoods. The depth of the fall can be graphed against how far they will go afterwards.

    El Vaquero

    Then we just cut their supply lines.

    knotjammin2

    It is our son's and daughter's who protect the elitist assholes. We know where they built their bugouts and landing strips. We built them. We know where the air vents are for their underground bunkers. We built them. We know where the diesel tanks are to power their generators and you can't hide solar panels. No, we know where there going and how to get to them. Soon!!

    Mr. Universe

    Now you know why the hawaiian's, when they sent a worker down the side of a cliff to bury the chiefs bones in that space reserved for the Ali'i, they "accidently" let go of the rope while he was climbing back up...oopppps, sorry bout 'dat brah.

    indygo55

    "The proles won't attack the elites. They won't be able to find them, or get to where they live."

    Oh you mean like the French Revolution or the Chinese Revolution? Like that?

    HardAssets

    No, the proles do little of substance. But, the time is reached when even their paid off guard dogs will be tired of the insanity that destroys their own extended families. (The psychopaths can't help but push it to the extremes. That is their egotistical nature. Theyve been indulged since they were infants.) When that day of reckoning comes, the criminals will be very afraid.

    The EU 'leadership' bringing in massive outside foreign populations to destroy the existing culture and nation-state is a potential match for the fuse of anger. We see police carrying out orders, but what do they really think ? How bad will they let it get ? Even the Red Army troops refused to go along with it all when the grandmas scolded them for taking part in rolling the tanks toward their own people. And those troops said "Nyet, no more of this." And the USSR was no more.

    conraddobler

    Maybe they haven't played a lot of sims?

    I used to love the old sims of feudal japan where you could set your tax rate at whatever you wanted but the higher you set it the more likely you would get a peasant revolt.

    What's going on is precisely this:.....

    They have learned how to set the tax rate at whatever percentage won't cause utter chaos and then absolve themselves from said taxes through loopholes AND THEN add on top stealth taxes in the form of currency debasement AND THEN on top of all this they've built a ponzi scheme debt based fiasco that is entirely unsustainable.

    I gotta hand it to them they have managed so far to avoid the ire of the peasant class, however methinks that once this shit show rolls into town and starts playing nightly as in reality comes a callin then these same folks are going to need to hide off planet.

    Seriously I'd advise them to look into space travel.

    DipshitMiddleCl...

    The elites today were related to the elites of yesterdays revolutions. They have learned and are keeping track of everything and with the advent of big data and lots of computing power, they know how much time they have before SHTF. They have quants assessing risk daily, and not just market risk..geopolitical and other stuff.

    They dont fear us because they know they can keep ramping up poisoning of our food and other stupid social media gimmicks.

    If all else fails, the jackboots will come out in full force.

    They've been testing and training these detention methods for close to 100 years. From the gulags of Russia to the West Bank / Gaza strip today of Israel.....its being tried and trued.

    And we're next!

    ~DipshitMiddleClassWhiteKId

    carlnpa

    The past nine months have set record monthly background checks. I believe we as a "group" know and feel our existence is in danger, and are responding accordingly.

    alexcojones

    Certainly a patriot CANNOT do it through the ballot box,

    Iowa: Days before the Iowa caucuses in 2012, Ron Paul held a commanding lead in the polls and all the momentum, with every other candidate having peaked from favorable media coverage and then collapsed under the ensuing scrutiny. Establishment Republicans, like Iowa's Representative Steve King (R), attempted to sabotage Paul's campaign by spreading rumors he would lose to Obama if nominated. . . Iowa Governor Terry Barnstad told Politico , "[If Paul wins] people are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire". The message from the Iowa Governor to voters of his state was: a vote for Ron Paul was a wasted vote.

    How t he Republican Party Stole the Nomination from Ron

    August

    The RNC and their minions would have prevented a Ron Paul presidential nomination, by any means necessary - up to and including a terrible, just terrible, plane crash. All those lives lost....

    pipes

    They DID prevent the nomination by any means necessary...and did so, short of crashing a plane. The underhanded shit they pulled in '12 sealed their fate.

    Kirk2NCC1701

    In that case, the Libertarian Party needs to go "full Zio-mode": Take no BS and no prisoners.

    Problem is, they are too "individualistic" (divided, heterogenous), and too 'Christian' (raised in "Religion of Serfs") to create another American or French Revolution, or bring about real change.

    Note that in the American Revolution, its Founders realized that the influence of Clerics needed to be curtailed, and so they invented the "Seperation of Church and State". The French, OTOH, called a spade a spade, and got rid of the Church completely.

    Amerika: Where kids are taught by their parents to believe in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa Claus -- all the while they believe in "Santa for Grownups", i.e. Winged Nordic Humans (Angels) and a Sky God.

    I have ZERO faith that Libertarians will do anyting, other than talk, blog, hold meetings, conventions, have weekend warrior games, or buy any number of Doomsday Products and Services. IOW.. they'll do anything and everything, but March or Protest en mass. They won't even do TV program, much less do a leveraged buyout of a TV channel.

    Like I said: "Too individualistic, to truly matter to TPTB". I WISH it were not to, but I'm just calling it as I see it. Alas. If I'm wrong, I'll jump for joy and click my heels.

    alexcojones

    BTW - Fuck Iowa

    And thank you Stanford for Stomping them in the Rose Bowl

    Pitchfork Voting Machines

    all-priced-in

    Do they have to get off the sofa or can they just send it in on Instagram?

    [Jan 31, 2016] Pepe Escobar: You have now landed in Geneva, Syria

    Jan 29, 2016 | www.rt.com

    KashNCarry

    Here's what 'the deciders' can't get their brains around come Jan 31, 2016

    Pepe Escobar: You have now landed in Geneva, Syria Pepe Escobar
    RT

    The alleged Syrian peace process now enters its Geneva charade stage. This could last months; get ready for lavish doses of posturing and bluster capable of stunning even Donald Trump.

    The notion that Geneva may be able to impersonate Damascus in a suit-and-tie pantomime is ludicrous to begin with. Even the UN envoy, the sartorially superb Staffan de Mistura, admits the Sisyphean task ahead - even if all relevant players were at the table.

    Then we have Syrian "opposition figure" George Sabra announcing that no delegation from the Riyadh-based High Negotiations Committee will be at the table in Geneva. As if Syrians needed an "opposition" instrumentalized by Saudi Arabia.

    So in the interest of providing context, here's an extremely concise recap of recent, crucial facts on the Syrian ground which the "new capital" Geneva may ignore at its own peril.

    Let's start with last summer, when Iranian Quds Force superstar commander Qasem Soleimani laid down the law, in person, in Moscow, establishing without a doubt the grim situation across the Syrian theater of war.

    Essentially Soleimani told the Kremlin and Russian intelligence that Aleppo might be about to fall; that Jabhat al-Nusra was at the doors of southern Damascus; that Idlib had fallen; and Latakia - home to Russia's naval base at Tartus - would be next.

    One can imagine the effect of this jolt of realpolitik on President Putin's mind. That clinched his resolution to stop the fall of Syria, and prevent it from becoming a Libyan remix.

    The Russian Air Force campaign turned out to be the ultimate game-changer. It is in the process of securing the Damascus-Homs-Latakia-Hama-Aleppo network - the urban, developed Western Syria that holds 70 percent of the country's population. ISIS/ISIL/Daesh and/or Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria, have zero chances of taking over this territory. The rest is mostly desert.

    Jaysh al-Islam - a motley crew weaponized by Saudi Arabia - still holds a few positions north of Damascus. That's containable. The country bumpkins in Daraa province, south of Damascus, could only make a push towards the capital in an impossible 1991 Desert Storm context.

    "Moderate rebels" - that Beltway concoction - did try to hold Homs and Al-Qusayr, cutting off the resupply of Damascus. They were repelled. As for the gaggle of "moderate rebels" who took all of Idlib province, they are being pounded mercilessly for four months now by the Russian Air Force. Aleppo's southern front is also being secured.

    Don't bomb "our" rebels

    It's easy to pinpoint who's livid with all the Russian action: Saudi Arabia, Turkey and - last but not least - the 'Empire of Chaos', all at the table in Geneva.

    Jabhat al-Nusra - remote-controlled by Ayman al-Zawahiri - is intimately linked to a gaggle of Salafi-jihadists in the Saudi-sponsored Army of Conquest, as well as tactically allied with myriad outfits nominally grouped in the nearly extinct Free Syrian Army (FSA).

    The CIA, using the Saudis for plausible deniability, fully weaponized "vetted" FSA outfits, which received, among other things, TOW anti-tank missiles. Guess who "intercepted" virtually all the weapons: Jabhat al-Nusra.

    The follow-up was nothing short of hilarious: Washington, Ankara and Riyadh furiously denouncing Moscow for bombing their "moderate rebels" and not ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

    Slowly but surely, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), parallel to the Russian offensive, retook the initiative. The "4+1" - Russia, Syria, Iran (Special Forces, many of them from Afghanistan), Iraq, plus Hezbollah - started coordinating their efforts. Latakia Province - which hosts not only Tartus but the Khmeimim Russian airbase - is now under total control by Damascus.

    And that brings us to Ankara's nightmares. Russian Air Force smashed most of Ankara's Turkmen proxies - heavily infiltrated by Turkish fascists - in northwest Syria. That was the key reason for Sultan Erdogan's desperate move of shooting down the Su-24.

    It's by now clear that the winners, as it stands, on the ground, are the "4+1", and the losers are Saudi Arabia and Turkey. So no wonder the Saudis want at least some of their proxies at the negotiating table in Geneva, while Turkey tries to change the subject by barring the Syrian Kurds: these are accused of being terrorists, much more than ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

    Exit Geneva, enter Jarabulus

    As if this was not messy enough, US 'Think Tankland' is now spinning there is an "understanding" between Washington and Ankara for what will be, for all practical purposes, a Turkish invasion of northern Syria, under the pretext of Ankara smashing ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in northern Aleppo.

    This is utter nonsense. Ankara's game is three-pronged; prop up their heavily battered Turkmen proxies; keep very much alive the corridor to Aleppo - a corridor that crucially includes the Jihadi Highway between Turkey and Syria; and most of all prevent by all means necessary that YPG Kurds bridge the gap from Afrin to Kobani and unite all three Syrian Kurd cantons near the Turkish border.

    None of this has anything to do with fighting ISISL/ISIL/Daesh. And the nuttiest part is that Washington is actually assisting the Syrian Kurds with air support. Either the Pentagon supports the Syrian Kurds or Erdogan's invasion of northern Syria; schizophrenia does not apply here.

    A desperate Erdogan may be foolish enough to confront the Russian Air Force during his purported "invasion". Putin is on the record saying response to any provocation will be immediate, and lethal. To top it off, the Russians and Americans are actually coordinating airspace action in northern Syria.

    This is bound to be the next big thing, fully eclipsing the Geneva pantomime. The YPG and its allies are planning a major attack to finally seize the 100-kilometer stretch of the Syria-Turkey border still controlled by ISIS/ISIL/Daesh - thus reuniting their three cantons.

    Erdogan was blunt; if the YPG pushes west of the Euphrates, it's war. Well, looks like war then. The YPG is getting ready to attack the crucial towns of Jarabulus and Manbij. Russia most certainly will aid the YPG to reconquer Jarabulus. And that will directly pit - once again - Turkey against Russia on the ground.

    Geneva? That's for tourists; the capital of the Syrian horror show is now Jarabulus.

    [Jan 31, 2016] Jesses Café Américain Deep State Inside Washingtons Shadowy Power Elite

    Notable quotes:
    "... But, like virtually every employed person, I became, to some extent, assimilated into the culture of the institution I worked for, and only by slow degrees, starting before the invasion of Iraq, did I begin fundamentally to question the reasons of state that motivate the people who are, to quote George W. Bush, the deciders. ..."
    "... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called groupthink , the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the towns cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. ..."
    "... As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. ..."
    jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    "Our plutocracy, whether the hedge fund managers in Greenwich, Connecticut, or the Internet moguls in Palo Alto, now lives like the British did in colonial India: ruling the place but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; to the person fortunate enough to own a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension, and viable public transportation doesn't even compute. With private doctors on call and a chartered plane to get to the Mayo Clinic, why worry about Medicare?"

    ― Mike Lofgren, The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government

    "Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise.

    But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

    Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, Princeton 2014

    "As a congressional staff member for 28 years specializing in national security and possessing a top secret security clearance, I was at least on the fringes of the world I am describing, if neither totally in it by virtue of full membership nor of it by psychological disposition.

    But, like virtually every employed person, I became, to some extent, assimilated into the culture of the institution I worked for, and only by slow degrees, starting before the invasion of Iraq, did I begin fundamentally to question the reasons of state that motivate the people who are, to quote George W. Bush, 'the deciders.'

    Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called groupthink, the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive.

    As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.'"

    Mike Lofgren

    [Jan 31, 2016] Deep State Inside Washingtons Shadowy Power Elite Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... how is it that partisan gridlock has seemingly jammed up the gears (and funding sources) in Washington, yet the government has been unhindered in its ability to wage endless wars abroad, in the process turning America into a battlefield and its citizens into enemy combatants? ..."
    "... The Washington Post ..."
    "... Congressional Record ..."
    "... Federal Register ..."
    "... The Deep State runs everything in America since at least Nov 22, 1963. Kennedy promised to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. Instead, the CIA shattered his brains into a thousand pieces. ..."
    "... The Deep State is a troika of the Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street and the Spooks who spy on everyone. The NSA spies on the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House and you. ..."
    "... The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state. ..."
    "... Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State ..."
    "... There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power. ..."
    "... Who rules America? ..."
    "... Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called Fourth Estate -the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika. ..."
    "... The Deep State controls Wall Street? No, indeed. Wall Street controls the Deep State and makes its very existence possible. The Deep States job is to do Wall Streets dirty work, so Wall Street can continue to live off their tax and debt-peons from Arlington to Athens. ..."
    "... it is kind of a chicken and egg thing, the way it could be posed either way. i go with the theory that any collection of people in the pursuit of similar goals will conspire (make deals) to collaborate, ah hem. ..."
    "... Weve been taken over. Weve been co-opted. In place of the organic leadership has been placed these people who I call the servitors of empire. ..."
    "... Thats a midpoint between servants and … the wielders of true power–the great Anglo-American families. ..."
    "... Oligarchy , government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes. Aristotle used the term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when it was exercised not by the best but by bad men unjustly. ..."
    "... the Deep State is no different than the Praetorian Guard in Rome, who basically ran the show for the last 200 years of the Roman Empire ..."
    "... Eventually, the Praetorian Guard basically sold the Emperor position to the highest bidder. They became nothing but common thieves. The same thing is happening in the USA ..."
    "... The Washington Post ..."
    "... You must realize that most of these contract personnel are former military or civilian employees who have gone private in order to escape federal salary limits. They are still permanent, long-term employees of their departments, only outside the federal personnel system and paid a great deal more. They are the entrenched experts who cannot be replaced because there arent a whole lot of them in any particular area. ..."
    "... Once such a person becomes entrenched, competitors are not welcome and alternative points of view are squashed. As a result, the U.S. Deep State perpetuates one of the most expensive and incompetent intelligence services in the world. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    As we previously concluded , for all intents and purposes, the nation is one national "emergency" away from having a full-fledged, unelected, authoritarian state emerge from the shadows. All it will take is the right event-another terrorist attack, perhaps, or a natural disaster-for such a regime to emerge from the shadows.

    As unnerving as that prospect may be, however, it is the second shadow government, what former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren refers to as " the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power ," that poses the greater threat right now.

    Consider this: how is it that partisan gridlock has seemingly jammed up the gears (and funding sources) in Washington, yet the government has been unhindered in its ability to wage endless wars abroad, in the process turning America into a battlefield and its citizens into enemy combatants?

    The credit for such relentless, entrenched, profit-driven governance, according to Lofgren, goes to " another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue , a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose."

    This " state within a state " hides "mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day," says Lofgren, and yet the "Deep State does not consist of the entire government."

    Rather, Lofgren continues:

    It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies : the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street.

    All these agencies are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council. Certain key areas of the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress. Also included are a handful of vital federal trial courts, such as the Eastern District of Virginia and the Southern District of Manhattan, where sensitive proceedings in national security cases are conducted.

    The final government component (and possibly last in precedence among the formal branches of government established by the Constitution) is a kind of rump Congress consisting of the congressional leadership and some (but not all) of the members of the defense and intelligence committees. The rest of Congress, normally so fractious and partisan, is mostly only intermittently aware of the Deep State and when required usually submits to a few well-chosen words from the State's emissaries.

    In an expose titled " Top Secret America ," The Washington Post revealed the private side of this shadow government, made up of 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, "a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government."

    Reporting on the Post's findings, Lofgren points out :

    These contractors now set the political and social tone of Washington, just as they are increasingly setting the direction of the country, but they are doing it quietly, their doings unrecorded in the Congressional Record or the Federal Register , and are rarely subject to congressional hearings…

    The Deep State not only holds the nation's capital in thrall, but it also controls Wall Street ("which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater") and Silicon Valley.

    As Lofgren concludes:

    [T]he Deep State is so heavily entrenched, so well protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it is almost impervious to change … If there is anything the Deep State requires it is silent, uninterrupted cash flow and the confidence that things will go on as they have in the past. It is even willing to tolerate a degree of gridlock: Partisan mud wrestling over cultural issues may be a useful distraction from its agenda.

    Remember this the next time you find yourselves mesmerized by the antics of the 2016 presidential candidates or drawn into a politicized debate over the machinations of Congress, the president or the judiciary: it's all intended to distract you from the fact that you have no authority and no rights in the face of the shadow governments.

    seek

    25+ years ago (fuck I'm getting old), there was a database on CD that did just that, put out by by what would be considered a conspiracy theory researcher, Daniel Brandt. It was called namebase, and you could pretty much look up any name mentioned in the news and play 7 degrees with it. Most of the times I played that game, the roads led back to the CIA, usually in just one hop. Even for seemingly petty local things, like utility commissioners or board members of local electric utilities.

    There's similar research today on the commercial side -- google "interlocking directorates" and you'll quickly find there's a core corporate power elite.

    I don't think I've ever seen someone combine the two. I suspect that's something that will get your Mercedes wrapped around a tree. Safe to say today, compared to 25 years ago, even though the internet is more pervasive and more information is available, there's actually less consolidation and research in this area than there was long ago, which in and of itself is kind of suspect.

    The actual list, if someone compiled it, would be shockingly short. I doubt the key individuals would amount to more than a couple thousand.

    SHRAGS Sun, 01/31/2016 - 02:07

    Namebase is still there: http://www.namebase.org/n2search.html

    Here's the interlocking directorship shortlist: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power_elite/interlocks_and_interact...

    JustObserving

    The Deep State runs everything in America since at least Nov 22, 1963. Kennedy promised to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. Instead, the CIA shattered his brains into a thousand pieces.

    The Deep State is a troika of the Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street and the Spooks who spy on everyone. The NSA spies on the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House and you.

    The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks "destroy upon recognition" any communication provided by the NSA "that is either to or from an official of the US government." It goes on to spell out that this includes "officials of the Executive Branch (including the White House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives and Senate (members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to, the Supreme Court)."

    The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/09/13/surv-s13.html

    Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State

    There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.

    http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

    Who rules America?

    The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies, and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T, Verizon and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide the military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these state agencies have no legal right to possess.

    Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called "Fourth Estate"-the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/10/pers-j10.html

    Niall Of The Ni...

    The Deep State controls Wall Street? No, indeed. Wall Street controls the Deep State and makes its very existence possible. The Deep State's job is to do Wall Street's dirty work, so Wall Street can continue to live off their tax and debt-peons from Arlington to Athens.

    besnook

    it is kind of a chicken and egg thing, the way it could be posed either way. i go with the theory that any collection of people in the pursuit of similar goals will conspire (make deals) to collaborate, ah hem.

    bunnyswanson

    UC Davis Professor Hamamoto Exposes the NWO

    "The very fields that I helped to pioneer have been visited by the Rockefeller Foundation boys and the Gates Foundation," Hamamoto remarks concerning the subversion of genuine activist-oriented and propelled scholarship. "This is what happens. You do pioneering work, and then you get the knock on the door and the invitation to be brought in to the fold. Ethnic Studies and Asian American Studies in particular have had those visits. We've been taken over. We've been co-opted. In place of the organic leadership has been placed these people who I call the 'servitors of empire.'

    "That's a midpoint between servants and … the wielders of true power–the great Anglo-American families."

    "Now here is some meat:

    ""Concerning deep agendas involving modern eugenics, Hamamoto observes, "Just like I got to see more [students] coming in on psychotropic drugs, I've been able to see the greater feminization of the male population over the years. I wanted to ask questions why. It didn't take too long to figure out that the male species in the Western world and places like Japan and South Korea, and definitely Southeast Asia, are being purposely re-engineered into a new type of gender orientation. The university," Hamamoto continues, "has purposely come up with this whole LGBT intellectual, scholarly, and student services agenda to act as a smokescreen for a more fundamental and nefarious attempt to engage in a massive eugenics exercise in effecting human reproduction."

    http://www.evilyoshida.com/thread-7197.html

    MASTER OF UNIVERSE

    UC Davis is the back door of the Central Intelligence Agency. And the CIA is, and always will be, my bitch. Frankly, the Deep State is bankrupt just like Wall Street, and the USA, and UC DAVIS, plus Professor homophobe Hamamoto, and the MIC.

    wankers all.

    James TraffiCan't

    Walk Quietly and Carry a Big Stck! Theodore Roosevelt

    Oligarchy , government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes. Aristotle used the term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when it was exercised not by the best but by bad men unjustly. Britannica.com
    Father Thyme

    A History of Bad Men.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=oolwsWexSzQ

    flyonmywall

    So the "Deep State" is no different than the Praetorian Guard in Rome, who basically ran the show for the last 200 years of the Roman Empire.

    Notice how well that one worked out. Eventually, the Praetorian Guard basically sold the Emperor position to the highest bidder. They became nothing but common thieves. The same thing is happening in the USA.

    The government makes "rules" which are enforced by the "enforcers", but the rules and the enforcers are nothing but common thieves. Look what happened to various Central and Latin American countries. 41 out of the top 50 most violent cities in the world are in Latin America. 4 are in the USA. More to come for sure.

    Faeriedust

    " The Washington Post revealed the private side of this shadow government, made up of 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, "a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government."

    You must realize that most of these "contract personnel" are former military or civilian employees who have gone private in order to escape federal salary limits. They are still permanent, long-term employees of their departments, only outside the federal personnel system and paid a great deal more. They are the entrenched "experts" who cannot be replaced because there aren't a whole lot of them in any particular area.

    Of course, because there are so few of them in any field, there is very limited control on their personal biases and self-interests, which are often highly skewed.

    Once such a person becomes entrenched, competitors are not welcome and alternative points of view are squashed. As a result, the U.S. Deep State perpetuates one of the most expensive and incompetent intelligence services in the world.

    [Jan 29, 2016] US government finds top secret information in Clinton emails

    Notable quotes:
    "... Oh, but it is serious. The material is/was classified. It just wasn't marked as such. Which means someone removed the classified material from a separate secure network and sent it to Hilary. We know from her other emails that, on more than one occasion, she requested that that be done. ..."
    "... fellow diplomats and other specialists said on Thursday that if any emails were blatantly of a sensitive nature, she could have been expected to flag it. "She might have had some responsibility to blow the whistle," said former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, "The recipient may have an induced kind of responsibility," Pickering added, "if they see something that appears to be a serious breach of security." ..."
    "... Finally whether they were marked or not the fact that an electronic copy resided on a server in an insecure location was basically like her making a copy and bringing it home and plunking it in a file cabinet... ..."
    "... In Section 7 of her NDA, Clinton agreed to return any classified information she gained access to, and further agreed that failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924 of the US Criminal Code. ..."
    "... The agreement considers information classified whether it is "marked or unmarked." ..."
    "... According to a State Department regulation in effect during Clinton's tenure (12 FAM 531), "classified material should not be stored at a facility outside the chancery, consulate, etc., merely for convenience." ..."
    "... Additionally, a regulation established in 2012 (12 FAM 533.2) requires that "each employee, irrespective of rank must certify" that classified information "is not in their household or personal effects." ..."
    "... As of December 2, 2009, the Foreign Affairs Manual has explicitly stated that "classified processing and/or classified conversation on a PDA is prohibited." ..."
    "... Look, Hillary is sloppy about her affairs of state. She voted with Cheney for the Iraq disaster and jumped in supporting it. It is the greatest foreign affair disaster since Viet Nam and probably the greatest, period! She was a big proponent of getting rid of Khadaffi in Libya and now we have radical Islamic anarchy ravaging the failed state. She was all for the Arab Spring until the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt....which was replaced by yet another military dictatorship we support. And she had to have her own private e-mail server and it got used for questionable handling of state secrets. This is just Hillary being Hillary........ ..."
    "... Its no secret that this hysterically ambitious Clinton woman is a warmonger and a hooker for Wall Street . No need to read her e-mails, just check her record. ..."
    "... What was exemplary about an unnecessary war, a dumbass victory speech three or so months into it, the President's absence of support for his CIA agent outed by his staff, the President's German Chancellor shoulder massage, the use of RNC servers and subsequently "lost" gazillion emails, doing nothing in response to Twin Towers news, ditto for Katrina news, the withheld information from the Tillman family, and sanctioned torture? ..."
    "... Another point that has perhaps not been covered sufficiently is the constant use of the phrase "unsecured email server" - which is intentionally vague and misleading and was almost certainly a phrase coined by someone who knows nothing about email servers or IT security and has been parroted mindlessly by people who know even less and journalists who should know better. ..."
    "... Yet the term "unsecured" has many different meanings and implications - in the context of an email server it could mean that mail accounts are accessible without authentication, but in terms of network security it could mean that the server somehow existed outside a firewall or Virtual Private Network or some other form of physical or logical security. ..."
    "... It is also extremely improbable that an email server would be the only device sharing that network segment - of necessity there would at least be a file server and some means of communicating with the outside world, most likely a router or a switch, which would by default have a built-in hardware firewall (way more secure than a software firewall). ..."
    "... Anything generated related to a SAP is, by it's mere existence, classified at the most extreme level, and everyone who works on a SAP knows this intimately and you sign your life away to acknowledge this. ..."
    "... yeah appointed by Obama...John Kerry. His state department. John is credited on both sides of the aisle of actually coming in and making the necessary changes to clean up the administrative mess either created or not addressed by his predecessor. ..."
    "... Its not hard to understand, she was supposed to only use her official email account maintained on secure Federal government servers when conducting official business during her tenure as Secretary of State. This was for three reasons, the first being security the second being transparency and the third for accountability. ..."
    "... You need to share that one with Petraeus, whos career was ruined and had to pay 100k in fines, for letting some info slip to his mistress.. ..."
    "... If every corrupt liar was sent to prison there'd be no one left in Washington, or Westminster and we'd have to have elections with ordinary people standing, instead of the usual suspects from the political class. Which, on reflection, sounds quite good -- ..."
    "... It's a reckless arrogance combined with the belief that no-one can touch her. If she does become the nominee Hillary will be an easy target for Trump. It'll be like "shooting fish in a barrel". ..."
    "... It is obvious that the Secretary of State and the President should be communicating on a secure network controlled by the federal government. It is obvious that virtually none of these communications were done in a secure manner. Consider whether someone who contends this is irrelevant has enough sense to come in out of the rain. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The Obama administration confirmed for the first time on Friday that Hillary Clinton's unsecured home server contained some of the US government's most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification. The revelation comes just three days before the Iowa presidential nominating caucuses in which Clinton is a candidate.


    jrhaddock -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 23:04

    Oh, but it is serious. The material is/was classified. It just wasn't marked as such. Which means someone removed the classified material from a separate secure network and sent it to Hilary. We know from her other emails that, on more than one occasion, she requested that that be done.

    And she's not just some low level clerk who doesn't understand what classified material is or how it is handled. She had been the wife of the president so is certainly well aware of the security surrounding classified material. And then she was Sec of State and obviously knew what kind of information was classified. So to claim that the material wasn't marked, and therefore she didn't know it was classified, is simply not credulous.

    Berkeley2013 29 Jan 2016 22:46

    And Clinton had a considerable number of unvetted people maintain and administer her communication system. The potential for wrong doing in general and blackmail from many angles is great.

    There's also the cost of this whole investigation. Why should US taxpayers have to pick up the bill?

    And the waste of good personnel time---a total waste...

    Skip Breitmeyer -> simpledino 29 Jan 2016 22:29

    In one sense you're absolutely right- read carefully this article (and the announcement leading to it) raises at least as many questions as it answers, period. On the other hand, those ambiguities are certain not to be resolved 'over-the-weekend' (nor before the first votes are cast in Iowa) and thus the timing of the thing could not be more misfortunate for Ms. Clinton, nor more perfect for maximum effect than if the timing had been deliberately planned. In fact I'm surprised there aren't a raft of comments on this point. "Confirmed by the Obama administration..."? Who in the administration? What wing of the administration? Some jack-off in the justice dept. who got 50,000 g's for the scoop? The fact is, I'm actually with Bernie over Hilary any day, but I admit to a certain respect for her remarkable expertise and debate performances that have really shown the GOP boys to be a bunch of second-benchers... And there's something a little dirty and dodgy that's gone on here...

    Adamnoggi dusablon 29 Jan 2016 22:23

    SAP does not relate to To the level of classification. A special access program could be at the confidential level or higher dependent upon content. Special access means just that, access is granted on a case by case basis, regardless of classification level .


    Gigi Trala La 29 Jan 2016 22:17

    She is treated with remarkable indulgence. Anywhere with a sense of accountability she will be facing prosecution, and yet here she is running for even higher office. In the middle of demonstrating her unfitness.


    eldudeabides 29 Jan 2016 22:15

    Independent experts say it is highly unlikely that Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing, based on the limited details that have surfaced up to now and the lack of indications that she intended to break any laws.

    since when has ignorance been a defence?


    nataliesutler UzzDontSay 29 Jan 2016 22:05

    Yes Petraeus did get this kind of scrutiny even though what he did was much less serious that what Clinton did. this isn't about a rule change. And pretending it is isn't going to fool anyone.


    Sam3456 kattw 29 Jan 2016 21:18

    Thats a misunderstanding on your part First lets look at Hillary's statement in March:

    "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I'm certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."

    She later adjusted her language to note that she never sent anything "marked" classified. So already some Clinton-esque word parsing

    And then what people said who used to do her job:

    fellow diplomats and other specialists said on Thursday that if any emails were blatantly of a sensitive nature, she could have been expected to flag it.
    "She might have had some responsibility to blow the whistle," said former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, "The recipient may have an induced kind of responsibility," Pickering added, "if they see something that appears to be a serious breach of security."

    It is a view shared by J. William Leonard, who between 2002 and 2008 was director of the Information Security Oversight Office, which oversees the government classification system. He pointed out that all government officials given a security clearance are required to sign a nondisclosure agreement, which states they are responsible if secrets leak – whether the information was "marked or not."

    Finally whether they were marked or not the fact that an electronic copy resided on a server in an insecure location was basically like her making a copy and bringing it home and plunking it in a file cabinet...

    beanierose -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 21:08

    Yeah - I just don't understand what Hillary is actually accused of doing / or not doing in Benghazi. Was it that they didn't provide support to Stevens - (I think that was debunked) - was it that they claimed on the Sunday talk shows that the video was responsible for the attack (who cares). Now - I can think of an outrage - President Bush attacking Iraq on the specious claim that they had WMD - that was a lie/incorrec/incompetence and it cost ~7000 US and 200K to 700K Iraqi lives. Now - there's a scandal.

    Stephen_Sean -> elexpatrioto 29 Jan 2016 21:07

    The Secretary of State is an "original classifier" of information. The individual holding that office is responsible to recognize whether information is classified and to what level regardless if it is marked or not. She should have known. She has no true shelter of ignorance here.

    Stephen_Sean 29 Jan 2016 21:00

    The Guardian is whistling through the graveyard. The FBI is very close to a decision to recommend an indictment to the DOJ. At that point is up to POTUS whether he thinks Hillary is worth tainting his entire Presidency to protect by blocking a DOJ indictment. His responsibility as an outgoing President is to do what is best for his party and to provide his best attempt to get a Democrat elected. I smell Biden warming up in the bullpen as an emergency.

    The last thing the DNC wants is a delay if their is going to be an indictment. For an indictment to come after she is nominated would be an unrecoverable blow for the Democrats. If their is to be an indictment its best for it to come now while they can still get Biden in and maintain their chances.

    Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 20:57

    In Section 7 of her NDA, Clinton agreed to return any classified information she gained access to, and further agreed that failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924 of the US Criminal Code.

    According To § 793 Of Title 18 Of The US Code, anyone who willfully retains, transmits or causes to be transmitted, national security information, can face up to ten years in prison.

    According To § 1924 Of Title 18 Of The US Code, anyone who removes classified information " with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location," can face up to a year in prison.

    The agreement considers information classified whether it is "marked or unmarked."

    According to a State Department regulation in effect during Clinton's tenure (12 FAM 531), "classified material should not be stored at a facility outside the chancery, consulate, etc., merely for convenience."

    Additionally, a regulation established in 2012 (12 FAM 533.2) requires that "each employee, irrespective of rank must certify" that classified information "is not in their household or personal effects."

    As of December 2, 2009, the Foreign Affairs Manual has explicitly stated that "classified processing and/or classified conversation on a PDA is prohibited."

    kus art 29 Jan 2016 20:54

    I'm assuming that the censored emails reveal activities that the US government is into are Way more corrupt, insidious and venal as the the emails already exposed, which says a lot already...

    Profhambone -> Bruce Hill 29 Jan 2016 20:53

    Look, Hillary is sloppy about her affairs of state. She voted with Cheney for the Iraq disaster and jumped in supporting it. It is the greatest foreign affair disaster since Viet Nam and probably the greatest, period! She was a big proponent of getting rid of Khadaffi in Libya and now we have radical Islamic anarchy ravaging the failed state. She was all for the Arab Spring until the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt....which was replaced by yet another military dictatorship we support. And she had to have her own private e-mail server and it got used for questionable handling of state secrets. This is just Hillary being Hillary........


    PsygonnUSA 29 Jan 2016 20:44

    Its no secret that this hysterically ambitious Clinton woman is a warmonger and a hooker for Wall Street . No need to read her e-mails, just check her record.


    USfan 29 Jan 2016 20:41

    Sorry to be ranting but what does it say about a country - in theory, a democracy - that is implicated in so much questionable business around the world that we have to classify mountains of communication as off-limits to the people, who are theoretically sovereign in this country?

    We've all gotten quite used to this. In reality, it should freak us out much more than it does. I'm not naive about what national security requires, but my sense is the government habitually and routinely classifies all sorts of things the people of this country have every right to know.

    Assuming this is still a democracy, which is perhaps a big assumption.


    Raleighchopper Bruce Hill 29 Jan 2016 20:40

    far Left sites like the Guardian:

    LMAOROFL
    Scott Trust Ltd board
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited

    • Neil Berkitt – a former banker (Lloyds, St George Bank) who then helped vulture capitalist Richard Branson with Virgin Media.
    • David Pemsel – Former head of marketing at ITV.
    • Nick Backhouse – On the board of the bank of Queensland, formerly with Barings Bank.
    • Ronan Dunne – On the Telefónica Europe plc board, Chairman of Tesco Mobile. He has also worked at Banque Nationale de Paris plc.
    • Judy Gibbons – Judy is currently a non-executive director of retail property kings Hammerson, previously with O2, Microsoft, Accel Partners (venture capital), Apple and Hewlett Packard.
    • Jennifer Duvalier – Previously in management consultancy and banking.
    • Brent Hoberman – Old Etonian with fingers in various venture capital pies including car rental firm EasyCar.
    • Nigel Morris – chairman of network digital marketing giants Aegis Media.
    • John Paton – CEO of Digital First Media – a very large media conglomerate which was sued successfully in the U.S. for rigging advertising rates.
    • Katherine Viner – Startlingly not a banker, in marketing or venture capital. She is I gather (gulp) a journalist.
    • Darren Singer – formerly with BSkyB, the BBC and Price Waterhouse Coopers

    FirthyB 29 Jan 2016 20:36

    Hillary is in that class, along with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bush, Cheney etc.. who believe the rule of law only pertains to the little guys.


    MooseMcNaulty -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 20:28

    The spying was illegal on a Constitutional basis. The Fourth Amendment protects our privacy and prevents unlawful search and seizure. The government getting free access to the contents of our emails seems the same as opening our mail, which is illegal without a court order.

    The drone program is illegal based on the Geneva accords. We are carrying out targeted killings within sovereign nations, usually without their knowledge or consent, based on secret evidence that they pose a vaguely defined 'imminent threat'. It isn't in line with any international law, though we set that precedent long ago.


    makaio USfan 29 Jan 2016 20:08

    What was exemplary about an unnecessary war, a dumbass victory speech three or so months into it, the President's absence of support for his CIA agent outed by his staff, the President's German Chancellor shoulder massage, the use of RNC servers and subsequently "lost" gazillion emails, doing nothing in response to Twin Towers news, ditto for Katrina news, the withheld information from the Tillman family, and sanctioned torture?

    Those were just starter questions. I'm sure I missed things.


    Raleighchopper -> Popeia 29 Jan 2016 20:05

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-clinton-idUSN2540811420080326


    Rowan Walters 29 Jan 2016 19:51

    Another point that has perhaps not been covered sufficiently is the constant use of the phrase "unsecured email server" - which is intentionally vague and misleading and was almost certainly a phrase coined by someone who knows nothing about email servers or IT security and has been parroted mindlessly by people who know even less and journalists who should know better.

    As an IT professional the repeated use of a phrase like that is a red flag - it's like when people who don't know what they're talking about latch on to a phrase which sounds technical because it contains jargon or technical concepts and they use it to make it sound like they know what they're talking about but it doesn't actually mean anything unless the context is clear and unambiguous.

    The phrase is obviously being repeated to convey the impression of supreme negligence - that sensitive state secrets were left defenceless and (gasp!) potentially accessible by anyone.

    Yet the term "unsecured" has many different meanings and implications - in the context of an email server it could mean that mail accounts are accessible without authentication, but in terms of network security it could mean that the server somehow existed outside a firewall or Virtual Private Network or some other form of physical or logical security.

    Does this term "unsecured" mean the data on the server was not password-protected, does it mean it was unencrypted, does it mean that it was totally unprotected (which is extremely unlikely even if it was installed by an ignorant Luddite given that any modern broadband modem is also a hardware firewall), and as for the "server" was it a physical box or a virtual server?

    It is also extremely improbable that an email server would be the only device sharing that network segment - of necessity there would at least be a file server and some means of communicating with the outside world, most likely a router or a switch, which would by default have a built-in hardware firewall (way more secure than a software firewall).

    And regarding the "unsecured" part, how was the network accessed?
    There are a huge number of possibilities as to the actual meaning and on its own there is not enough information to deduce which - if any - is correct.

    I suspect that someone who knows little to nothing about technology has invented this concept based on ignorance a desire to imply malfeasance because on its own it really is a nonsense term.


    seanet1310 -> Wallabyfan 29 Jan 2016 19:37

    Nope. Like it or not Manning deliberately took classified information, smuggled it out and gave it to foreign nationals.
    Clinton it would appear mishandled classified material, at best she failed to realise the sensitive nature and at worst actively took material from controlled and classified networks onto an unsecured private network.


    dusablon 29 Jan 2016 19:28

    Classified material in the US is classified at three levels: confidential, secret, and top secret. Those labels are not applied in a cavalier fashion. The release of TS information is considered a grave threat to the security of the United States.

    Above these classification levels is what is as known as Special Access Program information, the release of which has extremely grave ramifications for the US. Access to SAP material is extremely limited and only granted after an extensive personal background investigation and only on a 'need to know' basis. You don't simply get a SAP program clearance because your employer thinks it would be nice to have, etc. In fact, you can have a Top Secret clearance and never get a special access program clearance to go with it.

    For those of you playing at home, the Top Secret SAP material Hillary had on her server - the most critical material the US can have - was not simply 'upgraded' to classified in a routine bureaucratic exercise because it was previously unclassified.

    Anything generated related to a SAP is, by it's mere existence, classified at the most extreme level, and everyone who works on a SAP knows this intimately and you sign your life away to acknowledge this.

    What the Feds did in Hillary's case in making the material on her home-based server Top Secret SAP was to bring those materials into what is known as 'accountability .'

    That is, the material was always SAP material but it was just discovered outside a SAP lock-down area or secure system and now it must become 'accountable' at the high classification level to ensure it's protected from further disclosure.

    Hillary and her minions have no excuse whatsoever for this intentional mishandling of this critical material and are in severe legal jeopardy no matter what disinformation her campaign puts out. Someone will or should go to prison. Period.

    (Sorry for the length of the post)


    Sam3456 -> Mark Forrester 29 Jan 2016 19:22

    yeah appointed by Obama...John Kerry. His state department. John is credited on both sides of the aisle of actually coming in and making the necessary changes to clean up the administrative mess either created or not addressed by his predecessor.

    Within weeks of taking the position JK implemented the OIG task forces recommendations to streamline the process and make State run more in line with other government organizations. I think John saw the "Sorry it snowed can't have you this info for a month" for what it was and acted out of decency and fairness to the American people. I still think he looks like a hound and is a political opportunist but you can't blame him for shenanigans here


    chiefwiley -> DoktahZ 29 Jan 2016 19:18

    The messages were "de-papered" by the staff, stripping them from their forms and headings and then scanning and including the content in accumulations to be sent and stored in an unclassified system. Taking the markings off of a classified document does not render it unclassified. Adding the markings back onto the documents does not "declare" them classified. Their classified nature was constant.

    If you only have an unsecured system, it should never be used for official traffic, let alone classified or special access traffic.

    dusablon -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 19:05

    Give it up.

    She used a private server deliberately to avoid FOIA requests, she deleted thousands of emails after they were requested, and the emails that remained contained Top Secret Special Access Program information, and it does not matter one iota whether or not that material was marked or whether or not it has been recently classified appropriately.


    chiefwiley -> Exceptionalism
    29 Jan 2016 19:04

    18USC Section793(f)

    $250,000 and ten years.

    dusablon -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 19:00

    False.

    Anything related to a special access program is classified whether marked as such or not.

    dalisnewcar 29 Jan 2016 18:58

    You would figure that after all the lies of O'bomber that democrats might wake up some. Apparently, they are too stupid to realize they have been duped even after the entire Middle Class has been decimated and the wealth of the 1% has grown 3 fold under the man who has now bombed 7 countries. And you folks think Clinton, who personally destroyed Libya, is going to be honest with you and not do the same things he's done? Wake up folks. Your banging your head against the same old wall.

    fanUS -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 18:46

    She is evil, because she helped Islamic State to rise.


    Paul Christenson -> Barry_Seal 29 Jan 2016 18:45

    20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.

    21 - Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.

    22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton 's advisory council personally treated Clinton 's mother, stepfather and Brother.

    23 - Barry Seal - Drug running TWA pilot out of Mean Arkansas , death was no accident.

    24 - John ny Lawhorn, Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.

    25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guaranty. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.

    26 - Hershel Friday - Attorney and Clinton fundraiser died March 1, 1994, when his plane exploded.

    27 - Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the two boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. The initial report of death said their deaths were due to falling asleep on railroad tracks and being run over. Later autopsy reports stated that the 2 boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.

    THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:

    28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, 7/88.

    29 - Keith McMaskle - Died, stabbed 113 times, Nov 1988

    30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.

    31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989. (Coroner ruled death due to suicide)

    32 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to natural causes"?

    33 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.

    34 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives/Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.

    THE FOLLOWING CLINTON PERSONAL BODYGUARDS ALL DIED OF MYSTERIOUS CAUSES OR SUICIDE
    36 - Major William S. Barkley, Jr.
    37 - Captain Scott J . Reynolds
    38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
    39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
    40 - Major General William Robertson
    41 - Col. William Densberger
    42 - Col. Robert Kelly
    43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
    44 - Steve Willis
    45 - Robert Williams
    46 - Conway LeBleu
    47 - Todd McKeehan

    And this list does not include the four dead Americans in Benghazi that Hillary abandoned!


    Paul Christenson Barry_Seal 29 Jan 2016 18:42

    THE MANY CLINTON BODY BAGS . . .

    Someone recently reminded me of this list. I had forgotten how long it is. Therefore, this is a quick refresher course, lest we forget what has happened to many "friends" and associates of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    1- James McDougal - Convicted Whitewater partner of the Clintons who died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.

    2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown (Washington, D. C.). The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment by Clinton in the White House.

    3 - Vince Foster - Former White House Councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock 's Rose Law Firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide. (He was about to testify against Hillary related to the records she refused to turn over to congress.) Was reported to have been having an affair with Hillary.

    4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on the plane also died. A few days later the Air Traffic controller committed suicide.

    5 - C. Victor Raiser, II - Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.

    6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock on September 1992. Described by Clinton as a "dear friend and trusted advisor".

    7 - Ed Willey - Clinton fundraiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day His wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.

    8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock .. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock . Park's son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton . He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.

    9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people which contained names of influential people who visited Prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas

    10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to the Clintons ' Whitewater deals.

    11 - Kathy Ferguson - Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson , was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones Lawsuit, and Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.

    12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancée of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancée, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancée.

    13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton 's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client, Dan Lassater, was a convicted drug distributor.

    14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal, Mena , Arkansas Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot Wounds.

    15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died Of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a Suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.

    16 - Paula Grober - Clinton 's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.

    17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter who was Investigating the Mean Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.

    18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mean Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993, in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death. (May have died of poison)

    19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington , Virginia apartment balcony August 15,1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guaranty scandal.

    Thijs Buelens -> honey1969 29 Jan 2016 18:41

    Did the actors from Orange is the New Black already endorsed Hillary? Just wondering.

    Sam3456 -> Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 18:35

    Remember as soon as Snowden walked out the door with his USB drive full of secrets his was in violation. Wether he knew the severity and classification or not.

    Think of Hillary's email server as her home USB drive.

    RedPillCeryx 29 Jan 2016 18:33

    Government civil and military employees working with material at the Top Secret level are required to undergo incredibly protracted and intrusive vetting procedures (including polygraph testing) in order to obtain and keep current their security clearances to access such matter. Was Hillary Clinton required to obtain a Top Secret clearance in the same way, or was she just waved through because of Who She Is?

    Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 18:32

    Just to be clear, Colin Powell used a private email ACCOUNT which was hosted in the cloud and used it only for personal use. He was audited (never deleted anything) and it was found to contain no government records.

    Hillary used a server, which means in electronic form the documents existed outside the State Department unsecured. Its as if she took a Top Secret file home with her. That is a VERY BIG mistake and as the Sec of State she signed a document saying she understood the rules and agreed to play by them. She did not and removing state secrets from their secure location is a very serious matter. Wether you put the actual file in your briefcase or have them sitting in electronic version on your server.

    Second, she signed a document saying she would return any and ALL documents and copies of documents pertaining to the State Department with 30 (or 60 I can't remember) of leaving. The documents on her server, again electronic copies of the top secret files, where not returned for 2 years. Thats a huge violation.

    Finally, there is a clause in classification that deals with the information that is top secret by nature. Meaning regardless of wether its MARKED classified or not the very nature of the material would be apparent to a senior official that it was classified and appropriate action would have to be taken. She she either knew and ignored or did not know...and both of those scenarios don't give me a lot of confidence.

    Finally the information that was classified at the highest levels means exposure of that material would put human operatives lives at risk. Something she accused Snowden of doing when she called him a traitor. By putting that information outside the State Department firewall she basically put peoples lives at risk so she could have the convenience of using one mobile device.


    Wallabyfan -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 18:10

    Sorry you can delude yourself all you like but Powell and Cheney used private emails while at work on secure servers for personal communications not highly classified communications and did so before the 2009 ban on this practice came into place . Clinton has used a private unsecured server at her home while Sec of State and even worse provided access to people in her team who had no security clearance. She has also deleted more than 30,000 emails from the server in full knowledge of the FBI probe. You do realise that she is going to end up in jail don't you?

    MtnClimber -> boscovee 29 Jan 2016 18:07

    Are you as interested in all of the emails that Cheney destroyed? He was asked to provide them and never allowed ANY to be seen.

    Typical GOP

    Dozens die at embassies under Bush. Zero investigations. Zero hearings.
    4 die at an embassy under Clinton. Dozens of hearings.

    OurNigel -> Robert Greene 29 Jan 2016 17:53

    Its not hard to understand, she was supposed to only use her official email account maintained on secure Federal government servers when conducting official business during her tenure as Secretary of State. This was for three reasons, the first being security the second being transparency and the third for accountability.

    Serious breach of protocol I'm afraid.

    Talgen -> Exceptionalism 29 Jan 2016 17:50

    Department responses for classification infractions could include counseling, warnings or other action, officials said. They wouldn't say if Clinton or senior aides who've since left government could face penalties. The officials weren't authorized to speak on the matter and demanded anonymity."

    You need to share that one with Petraeus, whos career was ruined and had to pay 100k in fines, for letting some info slip to his mistress..

    Wallabyfan 29 Jan 2016 17:50

    No one here seems to be able to accept how serious this is. You cant downplay it. This is the most serious scandal we have seen in American politics for decades.

    Any other US official handling even 1 classified piece of material on his or her own unsecured home server would have been arrested and jailed by now for about 50 years perhaps longer. The fact that we are talking about 20 + (at least) indicates at the very least Clinton's hubris, incompetence and very poor judgement as well as being a very serious breach of US law. Her campaign is doomed.

    This is only the beginning of the scandal and I predict we will be rocked when we learn the truth. Clinton will be indicted and probably jailed along with Huma Abedin who the FBI are also investigating.


    HiramsMaxim -> Exceptionalism 29 Jan 2016 17:50

    http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf


    OurNigel 29 Jan 2016 17:42

    This is supposed to be the lady who (in her own words) has a huge experience of government yet she willingly broke not just State Department protocols and procedures, by using a privately maintained none secure server for her email service she also broke Federal laws and regulations governing recordkeeping requirements.

    At the very least this was a massive breach of security and a total disregard for established rules whilst she was in office. Its not as if she was just some local government officer in a backwater town she was Secretary of State for the United States government.

    If the NSA is to be believed you should presume her emails could have been read by any foreign state.

    This is actually a huge story.


    TassieNigel 29 Jan 2016 17:41

    This god awful Clinton family had to be stopped somehow I suppose. Now if I'd done it, I'd be behind bars long ago, so when will Hillary be charged is my question ?

    Hillary made much of slinging off about the "traitor" Julian Assange, so let's see how Mrs Clinton looks like behind bars. A woman simply incapable of telling the truth --

    Celebrations for Bernie Sanders of course.


    HiramsMaxim 29 Jan 2016 17:41

    They also wouldn't disclose whether any of the documents reflected information that was classified at the time of transmission,

    Has nothing to do with anything. Maybe the author should read the actual NDA signed by Mrs. Clinton.

    http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf


    beneboy303 -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 17:18

    If every corrupt liar was sent to prison there'd be no one left in Washington, or Westminster and we'd have to have elections with ordinary people standing, instead of the usual suspects from the political class. Which, on reflection, sounds quite good !


    In_for_the_kill 29 Jan 2016 17:15

    Come on Guardian, this should be your lead story, the executive branch of the United States just confirmed that a candidate for the Presidency pretty much broke the law, knowingly. If that ain't headline material, then I don't know what is.


    dusablon -> SenseCir 29 Jan 2016 17:09

    Irrelevant?

    Knowingly committing a felony by a candidate for POTUS is anything but irrelevant.

    And forget her oh-so-clever excuses about not sending or receiving anything marked top secret or any other level of classification including SAP. If you work programs like those you know that anything generated related to that program is automatically classified, whether or not it's marked as such. And such material is only shared on a need to know basis.

    She's putting out a smokescreen to fool the majority of voters who have never or will never have special access. She is a criminal and needs to be arrested. Period.

    Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 17:00

    It's a reckless arrogance combined with the belief that no-one can touch her. If she does become the nominee Hillary will be an easy target for Trump. It'll be like "shooting fish in a barrel".

    DismayedPerplexed -> OnlyOneView 29 Jan 2016 16:40

    Are you forgetting W and his administration's 5 million deleted emails?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the_george_w_bush_email_scandal_the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner/

    Bob Sheerin 29 Jan 2016 16:40

    Consider that email is an indispensable tool in doing one's job. Consider that in order to effectively do her job, candidate Clinton -- as the Secretary of State -- had to be sending and receiving Top Secret documents. Consider that all of her email was routed through a personal server. Consider whether she released all of the relevant emails. Well, she claimed she did but the evidence contradicts such a claim. Consider that this latest news release has -- like so many others -- been released late on a Friday.

    It is obvious that the Secretary of State and the President should be communicating on a secure network controlled by the federal government. It is obvious that virtually none of these communications were done in a secure manner. Consider whether someone who contends this is irrelevant has enough sense to come in out of the rain.

    [Jan 26, 2016] Saving the Banks and Fabulously Enriching a Few On the Back of the Real Economy

    Notable quotes:
    "... It has become a machine for transferring income, wealth, ownership, and power to the very top. This is not the new normal. This is financial corruption and the erosion of systemic integrity. Are there any markets that have not been shown to have been systematically manipulated, for years? This is just institutionalized looting. ..."
    Jesse's Café Américain
    "Give a small number of people the power to enrich themselves beyond everyone's wildest dreams, a philosophical rationale to explain all the damage they're causing, and they will not stop until they've run the world economy off a cliff."

    Philipp Meyer

    "Wall Street is not being made a scapegoat for this crisis: they really did this."

    Michael Lewis

    "My daughter asked me when she came home from school, "What's the financial crisis?" and I said, it's something that happens every five to seven years."

    Jamie Dimon

    "The greatest tragedy would be to accept the refrain that no one could have seen this coming, and thus nothing could have been done. If we accept this notion, it will happen again."

    Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (2009–2011)

    The US has been in a cycle of bubbles, busts, and crashes since at least 1995, and more likely since Alan Greenspan became the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in August, 1987.

    The cycle is the same, only the depth and duration seems to change in a continuing 'wash and rinse' of the public money and the real economy.

    It has become a machine for transferring income, wealth, ownership, and power to the very top. This is not 'the new normal.' This is financial corruption and the erosion of systemic integrity. Are there any markets that have not been shown to have been systematically manipulated, for years? This is just institutionalized looting.

    [Jan 24, 2016] I Ramped Up My Internet Security, and You Should Too by Julia Angwin

    Actually you should use separate PC for you banking transaction and taxes. this can be older PC or a cheap laptop bought specifically for this purpose, or at least a VM. But it should be a separate operating system from OS that you use to browse internet. Doing such things on Pc you use for regular internet browsing is playing with fire.
    Notable quotes:
    "... mmmm missed the best security resolution of all: go to 2-Factor Authentication (2FA) for all email financial services accounts: gmail, schwab, paypal, etc, etc - makes 30 character passwords much less important ..."
    "... if a financial service provider does not have 2FA, then drop them for incompetence ..."
    "... one of the best advise i received is; when doing banking on your PC make sure that is the only page open ..."
    "... The main issue with a full Linux system is you need a technical support person to back you up if you're not doing it yourself. Linux had the most CVE vulnerabilities after OS X ..."
    "... We really don't need more kooks thinking their messages to Aunt Tillie need strong encryption. ..."
    Jan. 20, 2016 | ProPublica

    Next up is ditching old, unused or poorly maintained software. Using software is a commitment. If you don't update it, you are wearing a "hack me" sign on your forehead. So if there are programs or apps that you don't use, delete them.

    This year, I decided to ditch my instant messaging client Adium. I was using it to enable encrypted chats. But like many cash-strapped open source projects, it is rarely updated and has been linked to many security vulnerabilities.

    m krosse, 4 days ago
    mmmm missed the best security resolution of all: go to 2-Factor Authentication (2FA) for all email & financial services accounts: gmail, schwab, paypal, etc, etc - makes 30 character passwords much less important

    if a financial service provider does not have 2FA, then drop them for incompetence

    Fred Garven

    one of the best advise i received is; when doing banking on your PC make sure that is the only page open (actually you should have a separate Pc for such transactions, or at least a VM -- NNB) the only item running on your PC at the time no other software or open web page should be running, because those other open software can possible view your account info.
    gilbert satchell , 4 days ago
    The greatest thing I did to upgrade my security was to dump anything and everything related to apple. Moved on over to open source Linux Mint and yes, I still use Tor.
    JV -> gilbert satchell, 4 days ago
    The main issue with a full Linux system is you need a technical support person to back you up if you're not doing it yourself. Linux had the most CVE vulnerabilities after OS X: http://www.cvedetails.com/top-...

    Jonathan

    So for Mr & Ms Average Internet user you are going to suggest they switch to Tor and the dark web? Before they worry about password security? Perhaps for a journalist anonymity is paramount but most folks are only going to expose themselves to even more malware down that path. Better to suggest that users switch to a browser that autoupdates itself and install the HTTPS Everywhere plugin. We really don't need more kooks thinking their messages to Aunt Tillie need strong encryption.

    Gordon Bartlett

    Sorry, but it's not clear what you mean by "updating your software." Try giving specific examples of, say, what a person running Windows on their PC or Android on their mobile phone would do on their own to upgrade, assuming, as you do, that the patches we periodically receive from MSFT, etc. are inadequate.

    JSF

    I am a retired IT professional from a federal government agency. Most of our users who needed secure communication were rather techno phobic. Try Explaining public/private keys. I have tried some programs like signal, PGP etc. They all require the recipient to use the same software. Signal said "invite your contacts" I am pretty sure any one getting this invite would consider it spam, pfishing or a virus.

    The sender might not know where the recipient is located. If the Corp locks their users machines it requires IT intervention to install anything which could be days or longer not really conducive to time sensitive information. We need to develop better technical solutions for people who are not tech savvy


    [Jan 23, 2016] U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels

    Notable quotes:
    "... And yet the alliance persists, kept afloat on a sea of Saudi money and a recognition of mutual self-interest. In addition to Saudi Arabia's vast oil reserves and role as the spiritual anchor of the Sunni Muslim world, the long intelligence relationship helps explain why the United States has been reluctant to openly criticize Saudi Arabia for its human rights abuses ..."
    "... Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program. ..."
    "... Months later, Mr. Obama gave his approval for the CIA to begin directly arming and training the rebels from a base in Jordan, amending the Timber Sycamore program to allow lethal assistance. Under the new arrangement, the CIA took the lead in training, while Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency, the General Intelligence Directorate, provided money and weapons, including TOW anti-tank missiles. ..."
    "... The Qataris have also helped finance the training and allowed a Qatari base to be used as an additional training location. But American officials said Saudi Arabia was by far the largest contributor to the operation. While the Obama administration saw this coalition as a selling point in Congress, some, including Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, raised questions about why the CIA needed Saudi money for the operation, according to one former American official. Mr. Wyden declined to be interviewed, but his office released a statement calling for more transparency. "Senior officials have said publicly that the U.S. is trying to build up the battlefield capabilities of the anti-Assad opposition, but they haven't provided the public with details about how this is being done, which U.S. agencies are involved, or which foreign partners those agencies are working with," the statement said. ..."
    "... While the Saudis have financed previous CIA missions with no strings attached, the money for Syria comes with expectations, current and former officials said. "They want a seat at the table, and a say in what the agenda of the table is going to be," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution . ..."
    "... "The more that the argument becomes, 'We need them as a counterterrorism partner,' the less persuasive it is," said William McCants, a former State Department counterterrorism adviser and the author of a book on the Islamic State . "If this is purely a conversation about counterterrorism cooperation, and if the Saudis are a big part of the problem in creating terrorism in the first place, then how persuasive of an argument is it?" ..."
    "... Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi interior minister who took over the effort to arm the Syrian rebels from Prince Bandar, has known the CIA director, John O. Brennan, from the time Mr. Brennan was the agency's Riyadh station chief in the 1990s. Former colleagues say the two men remain close, and Prince Mohammed has won friends in Washington with his aggressive moves to dismantle terrorist groups like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. ..."
    "... The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was known as the "Safari Club" - a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France - that ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings over years of abuses. ..."
    "... In the 1980s, the Saudis helped finance CIA operations in Angola, where the United States backed rebels against the Soviet-allied government. While the Saudis were staunchly anticommunist, Riyadh's primary incentive seemed to be to solidify its CIA ties. "They were buying good will," recalled one former senior intelligence officer who was involved in the operation. ..."
    "... In perhaps the most consequential episode, the Saudis helped arm the mujahedeen rebels to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The United States committed hundreds of millions of dollars each year to the mission, and the Saudis matched it, dollar for dollar. ..."
    "... Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through a Cayman Islands bank account. ..."
    Jan 23, 2016 | The New York Times

    WASHINGTON - When President Obama secretly authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to begin arming Syria 's embattled rebels in 2013, the spy agency knew it would have a willing partner to help pay for the covert operation. It was the same partner the CIA has relied on for decades for money and discretion in far-off conflicts: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia .

    Since then, the CIA and its Saudi counterpart have maintained an unusual arrangement for the rebel-training mission, which the Americans have code-named Timber Sycamore. Under the deal, current and former administration officials said, the Saudis contribute both weapons and large sums of money, and the CIA takes the lead in training the rebels on AK-47 assault rifles and tank-destroying missiles.

    The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decadeslong relationship between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria , the two countries have worked in concert. In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities.

    Decades of Discreet Cooperation

    The joint arming and training program, which other Middle East nations contribute money to, continues as America's relations with Saudi Arabia - and the kingdom's place in the region - are in flux. The old ties of cheap oil and geopolitics that have long bound the countries together have loosened as America's dependence on foreign oil declines and the Obama administration tiptoes toward a diplomatic rapprochement with Iran.

    And yet the alliance persists, kept afloat on a sea of Saudi money and a recognition of mutual self-interest. In addition to Saudi Arabia's vast oil reserves and role as the spiritual anchor of the Sunni Muslim world, the long intelligence relationship helps explain why the United States has been reluctant to openly criticize Saudi Arabia for its human rights abuses, its treatment of women and its support for the extreme strain of Islam, Wahhabism , that has inspired many of the very terrorist groups the United States is fighting. The Obama administration did not publicly condemn Saudi Arabia's public beheading this month of a dissident Shiite cleric, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, who had challenged the royal family.

    Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.

    From the moment the CIA operation was started, Saudi money supported it.

    "They understand that they have to have us, and we understand that we have to have them," said Mike Rogers, the former Republican congressman from Michigan who was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee when the CIA operation began. Mr. Rogers declined to discuss details of the classified program.

    American officials have not disclosed the amount of the Saudi contribution, which is by far the largest from another nation to the program to arm the rebels against President Bashar al-Assad's military. But estimates have put the total cost of the arming and training effort at several billion dollars.

    The White House has embraced the covert financing from Saudi Arabia - and from Qatar, Jordan and Turkey - at a time when Mr. Obama has pushed gulf nations to take a greater security role in the region.

    Spokesmen for both the CIA and the Saudi Embassy in Washington declined to comment.

    When Mr. Obama signed off on arming the rebels in the spring of 2013, it was partly to try to gain control of the apparent free-for-all in the region. The Qataris and the Saudis had been funneling weapons into Syria for more than a year. The Qataris had even smuggled in shipments of Chinese-made FN-6 shoulder-fired missiles over the border from Turkey.

    The Saudi efforts were led by the flamboyant Prince Bandar bin Sultan, at the time the intelligence chief, who directed Saudi spies to buy thousands of AK-47s and millions of rounds of ammunition in Eastern Europe for the Syrian rebels. The CIA helped arrange some of the arms purchases for the Saudis, including a large deal in Croatia in 2012.

    By the summer of 2012, a freewheeling feel had taken hold along Turkey's border with Syria as the gulf nations funneled cash and weapons to rebel groups - even some that American officials were concerned had ties to radical groups like Al Qaeda.

    The CIA was mostly on the sidelines during this period, authorized by the White House under the Timber Sycamore training program to deliver nonlethal aid to the rebels but not weapons. In late 2012, according to two former senior American officials, David H. Petraeus, then the CIA director, delivered a stern lecture to intelligence officials of several gulf nations at a meeting near the Dead Sea in Jordan. He chastised them for sending arms into Syria without coordinating with one another or with CIA officers in Jordan and Turkey.

    Months later, Mr. Obama gave his approval for the CIA to begin directly arming and training the rebels from a base in Jordan, amending the Timber Sycamore program to allow lethal assistance. Under the new arrangement, the CIA took the lead in training, while Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency, the General Intelligence Directorate, provided money and weapons, including TOW anti-tank missiles.

    The Qataris have also helped finance the training and allowed a Qatari base to be used as an additional training location. But American officials said Saudi Arabia was by far the largest contributor to the operation. While the Obama administration saw this coalition as a selling point in Congress, some, including Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, raised questions about why the CIA needed Saudi money for the operation, according to one former American official. Mr. Wyden declined to be interviewed, but his office released a statement calling for more transparency. "Senior officials have said publicly that the U.S. is trying to build up the battlefield capabilities of the anti-Assad opposition, but they haven't provided the public with details about how this is being done, which U.S. agencies are involved, or which foreign partners those agencies are working with," the statement said.

    When relations among the countries involved in the training program are strained, it often falls to the United States to broker solutions. As the host, Jordan expects regular payments from the Saudis and the Americans. When the Saudis pay late, according to a former senior intelligence official, the Jordanians complain to CIA officials.

    While the Saudis have financed previous CIA missions with no strings attached, the money for Syria comes with expectations, current and former officials said. "They want a seat at the table, and a say in what the agenda of the table is going to be," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution .

    The CIA training program is separate from another program to arm Syrian rebels, one the Pentagon ran that has since ended. That program was designed to train rebels to combat Islamic State fighters in Syria, unlike the CIA's program, which focuses on rebel groups fighting the Syrian military.

    While the intelligence alliance is central to the Syria fight and has been important in the war against Al Qaeda, a constant irritant in American-Saudi relations is just how much Saudi citizens continue to support terrorist groups, analysts said.

    "The more that the argument becomes, 'We need them as a counterterrorism partner,' the less persuasive it is," said William McCants, a former State Department counterterrorism adviser and the author of a book on the Islamic State . "If this is purely a conversation about counterterrorism cooperation, and if the Saudis are a big part of the problem in creating terrorism in the first place, then how persuasive of an argument is it?"

    In the near term, the alliance remains solid, strengthened by a bond between spy masters. Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi interior minister who took over the effort to arm the Syrian rebels from Prince Bandar, has known the CIA director, John O. Brennan, from the time Mr. Brennan was the agency's Riyadh station chief in the 1990s. Former colleagues say the two men remain close, and Prince Mohammed has won friends in Washington with his aggressive moves to dismantle terrorist groups like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

    The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief.

    Current and former intelligence officials say there is a benefit to this communication channel: The Saudis are far more responsive to American criticism when it is done in private, and this secret channel has done more to steer Saudi behavior toward America's interests than any public chastising could have.

    The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was known as the "Safari Club" - a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France - that ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings over years of abuses.

    "And so the kingdom, with these countries, helped in some way, I believe, to keep the world safe at a time when the United States was not able to do that," Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former head of Saudi intelligence, recalled in a speech at Georgetown University in 2002.

    In the 1980s, the Saudis helped finance CIA operations in Angola, where the United States backed rebels against the Soviet-allied government. While the Saudis were staunchly anticommunist, Riyadh's primary incentive seemed to be to solidify its CIA ties. "They were buying good will," recalled one former senior intelligence officer who was involved in the operation.

    In perhaps the most consequential episode, the Saudis helped arm the mujahedeen rebels to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The United States committed hundreds of millions of dollars each year to the mission, and the Saudis matched it, dollar for dollar.

    The money flowed through a CIA-run Swiss bank account. In the book " Charlie Wilson's War ," the journalist George Crile III describes how the CIA arranged for the account to earn no interest, in keeping with the Islamic ban on usury.

    In 1984, when the Reagan administration sought help with its secret plan to sell arms to Iran to finance the contra rebels in Nicaragua, Robert C. McFarlane, the national security adviser, met with Prince Bandar, who was the Saudi ambassador to Washington at the time. The White House made it clear that the Saudis would "gain a considerable amount of favor" by cooperating, Mr. McFarlane later recalled.

    Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through a Cayman Islands bank account.

    When the Iran-contra scandal broke, and questions arose about the Saudi role, the kingdom kept its secrets. Prince Bandar refused to cooperate with the investigation led by Lawrence E. Walsh , the independent counsel.

    In a letter, the prince declined to testify, explaining that his country's "confidences and commitments, like our friendship, are given not just for the moment but the long run."

    C .J. Chivers contributed reporting. Follow The New York Times's politics and Washington coverage on Facebook and Twitter , and sign up for the First Draft politics newsletter .

    [Jan 23, 2016] Russian bombs take toll in Syria as Islamic State under pressure Reuters

    Notable quotes:
    "... While playing down the importance of government gains, Saleh said military aid from the rebels' foreign backers - including Saudi Arabia and Turkey - was not enough to confront offensives that are also backed on the ground by Iran. ..."
    "... These are among the difficulties facing the FSA on the ground especially since the aerial bombing is affecting some headquarters, equipment, cars and personnel ..."
    Jan 20, 2016 | reuters.com

    ... The government last week made one of its most significant gains since the start of the Russian intervention, capturing the town of Salma in Latakia province.

    While recent gains do not appear to mark a tipping point in the conflict, with rebels fighting back and regaining positions in some places, insurgents describe high levels of attrition on the front lines of western Syria.

    Officials close to Damascus say sealing the northwestern border with Turkey is the priority. A Syrian military source said rebel supply lines from Turkey, which backs the insurgents, were under pressure from Russian and Syrian air strikes.

    ... ... ...

    "Most opposition-held areas turned to defense because of the huge mobilization by Russians troops and the use of a large number of planes with unlimited munitions," said Jamil al-Saleh, commander of a rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA) group.

    While playing down the importance of government gains, Saleh said military aid from the rebels' foreign backers - including Saudi Arabia and Turkey - was not enough to confront offensives that are also backed on the ground by Iran.

    "These are among the difficulties facing the FSA on the ground especially since the aerial bombing is affecting some headquarters, equipment, cars and personnel and the aid given is little compared to the ferocious attack," he told Reuters.

    Saudi Arabia's support for the opposition has yet to be translated into the kind of heavier weapons the rebels are seeking, notably anti-aircraft missiles.

    The military source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said rebels were suffering from the destruction of their weapons depots, made possible by good intelligence. Their appeals for more support showed they had "lost a lot of field capacities", the source said.

    [Jan 20, 2016] Facebook the new social control paradigm

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Filter Bubble ..."
    "... Facebook and Your Marriage ..."
    "... In a presentation titled Poke Me: How Social Networks Can Both Help and Harm Our Kids at the 119th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Rosen presented his findings based on a number of computer-based surveys distributed to 1,000 urban adolescents and his 15-minute observations of 300 teens in the act of studying. ..."
    "... Some of the negative side effects of Facebook use for teens that Rosen cited include: ..."
    "... Development of narcissism in teens who often use Facebook; ..."
    "... Presence of other psychological disorders, including antisocial behaviors, mania and aggressive tendencies, in teens who have a strong Facebook presence; ..."
    "... Increased absence from school and likelihood of developing stomach aches, sleeping problems, anxiety and depression, in teens who overdose in technology on a daily basis, including Facebook and video games; ..."
    "... Lower grades for middle school, high school and college students who checked Facebook at least once during a 15-minute study period; ..."
    "... Lower reading retention rates for students who most frequently had Facebook open on their computers during the 15-minute study period. ..."
    Zero Hedge

    We ARE what we THINK - not what we look at, or what we look like, or what we think we look like. In fact, the visual cortex can be highly deceptive when it comes to the functioning of the brain. Optical illusions exploit this brain trick.

    Most practically, overloading of the visual cortex reduces higher brain function to nearly zero. It's a very subtle process, not understood by many TV watchers. TV makes you stupid by overloading your visual cortex, at a certain Hz frequency, which affects your reptilian brain. This is why you get the munchies when you watch TV, or laugh without reason. Facebook is a lot more effective at this because the associations are stronger (i.e. your friends) and it's interactive - making the users feel as if they are controlling their reality.

    The fact is that users are not controlling Facebook - Facebook is controlling you. They have set the stage which is limited, and allow users few useful tools to manage this barrage on your mind. The only way to really stop this invasive virus from spreading: turn it off!

    Reasons to delete your Facebook:

    • Stop sharing personal details with the US government and a host of other interested groups
    • Enjoy more time in your life, which can be used to pursue a hobby, write a book, or learn a foreign language
    • Fill your brain with something wholesome! Plant a tree!
    • Lose weight
    • Increase your IQ
    • Increase the speed of your computer
    • Increase the speed of your internet
    • Discover the thousands of other more interesting sites on the internet - such as Wikipedia! Learn about Quantum Physics! Did you know that major universities now publish their complete course videos online? Users can literally get a full college education by attending Stanford (but without the degree of course) compeltely for free, online. A good start - the Khan Academy www.khanacademy.org

    No one can argue that Facebook has provided families with means of keeping in touch at long distances. Many grandparents wouldn't otherwise see photos of their growing grandchildren. But there are hundreds of other social networks, private networks, and other methods, of doing the same thing - without all the 'crap' that comes with Facebook. Remember the days when we would email photos to each other? We'd spend time even cropping photos and choosing the best one. Now, users on Facebook will even snap away photos of their daily dinner, or inform the world that they forgot to wash their socks. Facebook users who engage in the practice of 'wall scanning' have little room in their brains for anything else.

    Children are also a consideration with Facebook. Web Filters actually block facebook the same way they block other illicit sites. Parents can probably relate to this article more than the average user. Average users have accepted spam crap as part of life. It's in our mailboxes, it's on billboards on our highways, it's everywhere. But really - it's not!

    Facebook has been banned in corporate networks, government offices, schools, universities, and other institutions. Workers at times would literally spend all day posting and reading Facebook. It's as useless as TV - but much more addicting. From Psychology Today:

    Below we review some research suggesting 7 ways that Facebook may be hurting you.

    1. It can make you feel like your life isn't as cool as everyone else's. Social psychologist Leon Festinger observed that people are naturally inclined to engage in social comparison. To answer a question like "Am I doing better or worse than average?" you need to check out other people like you. Facebook is a quick, effortless way to engage in social comparison, but with even one glance through your News Feed you might see pictures of your friends enjoying a mouth-watering dinner at Chez Panisse, or perhaps winning the Professor of the Year award at Yale University. Indeed, a study by Chou and Edge (2012) found that chronic Facebook users tend to think that other people lead happier lives than their own, leading them to feel that life is less fair.
    2. It can lead you to envy your friends' successes. Did cousin Annabelle announce a nice new promotion last month, a new car last week, and send a photo from her cruise vacation to Aruba this morning? Not only can Facebook make you feel like you aren't sharing in your friends' happiness, but it can also make you feel envious of their happy lives. Buxmann and Krasnova (2013) have found that seeing others' highlights on your News Feed can make you envious of friends' travels, successes, and appearances. Additional findings suggest that the negative psychological impact of passively following others on Facebook is driven by the feelings of envy that stem from passively skimming your News Feed.
    3. It can lead to a sense of false consensus. Sit next to a friend while you each search for the same thing on Google. Eli Pariser, author of The Filter Bubble (2012), can promise you won't see the same search results. Not only have your Internet searches grown more personalized, so have social networking sites. Facebook's sorting function places posts higher in your News Feed if they're from like-minded friends-which may distort your view of the world (Constine, 2012). This can lead you to believe that your favorite political candidate is a shoe-in for the upcoming election, even though many of your friends are saying otherwise…you just won't hear them.
    4. It can keep you in touch with people you'd really rather forget. Want to know what your ex is up to? You can…and that might not be a good thing.Facebook stalking has made it harder to let go of past relationships. Does she seem as miserable as I am? Is that ambiguous post directed at me? Has she started datingthat guy from trivia night? These questions might better remain unanswered; indeed, Marshall (2012) found that Facebook users who reported visiting their former partner's page experienced disrupted post-breakup emotional recovery and higher levels of distress. Even if you still run into your ex in daily life, the effects of online surveillance were significantly worse than those of offline contact.
    5. It can make you jealous of your current partner. Facebook stalking doesn't only apply to your ex. Who is this Stacy LaRue, and why is she constantly "liking" my husband's Facebook posts? Krafsky and Krafsky, authors of Facebook and YourMarriage (2010), address many common concerns in relationships that stem from Facebook use. "Checking up on" your partner's page can often lead to jealousy and even unwarranted suspicion, particularly if your husband's exes frequently come into the picture. Krafsky and Krafsky recommend talking with your partner about behaviors that you both consider safe and trustworthy on Facebook, and setting boundaries where you don't feel comfortable.
    6. It can reveal information you might not want to share with potential employers. Do you really want a potential employer to know about how drunk you got at last week's kegger…or the interesting wild night that followed with the girl in the blue bikini? Peluchette and Karl (2010) found that 40% of users mention alcoholuse on their Facebook page, and 20% mention sexual activities. We often think these posts are safe from prying eyes, but that might not be the case. While 89% of jobseekers use social networking sites, 37% of potential employers do, as well-and are actively looking into their potential hires (Smith, 2013). If you're on the job market, make sure to check your privacy settings and restrict any risqué content to "Friends Only", if you don't wish to delete it entirely.
    7. It can become addictive. Think society's most common addictive substances are coffee, cigarettes, and alcohol? Think again. The DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) includes a new diagnosis that has stirred controversy: a series of items gauging Internet Addiction. Since then, Facebook addiction has gathered attention from both popular media and empirical journals, leading to the creation of a Facebook addiction scale (Paddock, 2012; see below for items). To explore the seriousness of this addiction, Hofmann and colleagues (2012) randomly texted participants over the course of a week to ask what they most desired at that particular moment. They found that among their participants, social media use was craved even more than tobacco and alcohol.

    Poke Me: How Social Networks Can Both Help and Harm Our Kids

    The highlights of a Facebook study via endgadget article:

    In a presentation titled "Poke Me: How Social Networks Can Both Help and Harm Our Kids" at the 119th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Rosen presented his findings based on a number of computer-based surveys distributed to 1,000 urban adolescents and his 15-minute observations of 300 teens in the act of studying.

    Some of the negative side effects of Facebook use for teens that Rosen cited include:

    • Development of narcissism in teens who often use Facebook;
    • Presence of other psychological disorders, including antisocial behaviors, mania and aggressive tendencies, in teens who have a strong Facebook presence;
    • Increased absence from school and likelihood of developing stomach aches, sleeping problems, anxiety and depression, in teens who "overdose" in technology on a daily basis, including Facebook and video games;
    • Lower grades for middle school, high school and college students who checked Facebook at least once during a 15-minute study period;
    • Lower reading retention rates for students who most frequently had Facebook open on their computers during the 15-minute study period.

    Facebook will cause lower grades for students, but it's OK for adults? hmm...

    Facebook (FB) Investment Advice

    It's just a matter of time when this will result in a major scandal, FB stock will crash, and class action investigations will pile up. Lawyers will have to hire companies that automate workflow just to deal with the huge amount of securities class action settlements for this case. The Facebook (FB) IPO disaster was a telling sign about this issue. Sell it, block it, delete it, disgard it. Facebook is a bunch of trash. There's no technology behind it. There are a huge amount of struggling companies that have developed really ground breaking technology that will change the life of humans on this planet earth. Facebook (FB) is not one of those companies. Facebook (FB) is a disaster waiting to happen. It's a liability. And it's unsolveable.

    Delete your Facebook account, sell your Facebook stock if you have it - it's guaranteed that by doing so, you can grow your portfolio, increase your IQ and overall well being. Save your business, save your family, save your life - and delete this virus!

    [Jan 17, 2016] Oil and US share prices tumble over fears for global economy

    www.theguardian.com
    Sowatree -> Ibmekon, 2016-01-14 00:24:57
    I did hear on the radio last week that there appears an economic war is being played out between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Truth of this I don't know.

    But, what does concern the world at these prices are major trading companies may go bust. On derivatives and oil futures somewhere someone is carrying huge losses.

    And, concerning the world economy derivatives are a markets of 70 or more trillions dollars , enormous markets, as Warren Buffet once said derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction.

    Somewhere in the world financial system huge losses on derivatives are sitting.

    World Politicians shied away from the tough decisions under the guise of quantitative easing. QE appears to have caused greater missallocation of resources.

    2008 financial crisis is reemerging from its dormant position. 2008 was just push further down the road.

    Social Cohesion in Britain needs this time to really all be in this together.

    Ibmekon -> Sowatree, 2016-01-14 09:01:38
    " On derivatives and oil futures somewhere someone is carrying huge losses. "

    The Big Lie - "zero sum game".
    If that is true - play Monopoly in your own time with your own money.
    That "zero sum game" pays billions in profits - so where does the money come from ?

    "Financial institutions held OTC swaps with a notional value of $505 trillion at the end of 2014, "
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-06/europe-moves-to-reduce-risk-in-505-trillion-derivatives-market

    Ibmekon -> Ruth Williams, 2016-01-13 21:42:54
    Would love to know that myself.
    This is a much too specific question for an economist - like asking for the winner of the 2-30 at Kempton.
    Perspective is always a good thing -

    Debt per Citizen Ł24,560
    Interest per Year Ł39,648,610,427
    UK Debt Ł 1,590,708,970,219
    Debt as % of GDP 80.81%
    http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedkingdom

    BantosaurusRex , 2016-01-13 21:14:21
    This is what happens when central banks across the world inflate the biggest bubbles the world has ever seen by keeping interest rates at near zero percent for 7 years. Let's make one thing clear - China is not the only culprit for the latest fears over the global economy, to say that many western economies such as the US or the UK have recovered or are on the road to recovery would be disingenuous to say the least.

    We have been scraping along at the lowest rate of so-called "recovery" (debt-fueled with ZIRP) after a recession despite these interest rates - what would it have been like if rates were increased a couple of years ago? One can only guess, but it would be fair to estimate that we would be back in a recession.

    So, here we are again, back at the latter stages of the next cycle in the boom-bust oscillations of our global economy - and "is this time different"? Yes, but only by the measure that this time there is little that central banks can do to mitigate or even slow the financial crisis. The 2008 crisis never really ended, this year we will undoubtedly see that the real part of that crisis is about to unfold - capitalism should be allowed to take place this time, and if that means huge corporations filing then so be it.

    Ibmekon -> BantosaurusRex, 2016-01-13 21:24:02
    "if that means huge corporations filing then so be it."

    I agree - but they are Ok, in fact loaded with cash.

    "May 8, 2015 At the end of last year, U.S. non-financial companies held a staggering $1.73 trillion in cash, up 4% from the $1.67 trillion on hand at the end of 2013, found Moody's."
    http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome /

    So much of the debt has been loaded on sovereigns - what will they do - file for bankruptcy ?

    John Olesen , 2016-01-13 21:17:29
    OPEC should not allow members to sell oil at a financial loss. Oil is trading below its intrinsic value and there are serious imbalances in the market. Member countries that sell oil below market value lose money in two ways. They add supply to a depressed market and they lose money on the transaction itself. It would make much more sense for OPEC to target minimum profitability as their primary goal for all members rather than trying to use their market position to eliminate producers in the United States.

    Since most of the large energy companies in the United States are publicly traded, it would be better for OPEC members to use their profits to purchase equity in these companies rather than trying to make them unprofitable. I propose that OPEC target a specific and stable price long term and then to adjust that price for inflation. For instance, if it is determined that all members can profit at 70 dollar oil, then they should lower production when the price is below that and increase it when it is above that. Member countries then use a percentage of their profits to increase their reserves with share purchases of other non-opec producers, thus increasing reserves long term.

    ID7586903 , 2016-01-13 21:33:29
    Saudi Arabia has again badly miscalculated. By pumping vast amount of Oil, KSA thought it could sink America, Russia and Iran oil companies and Economies
    Well it seems KSA is going broke! I am celebrating...
    Ibmekon -> ID7586903, 2016-01-13 21:58:05
    Make of this what you will. There is talk of Aramco being floated - biggest IPO ever.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-could-list-crude-reserves-in-aramco-ipo-1452509304

    Current Saudi finance minster is Ibrahim Abdulaziz Al-Assaf

    "After leaving academia, Ibrahim moved to Washington, DC where he represented Saudi Arabia at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank
    ...
    In addition to being finance minister, Ibrahim is a member of the board of directors of Saudi Aramco (since 1996), the state-owned national oil company,
    ...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Abdulaziz_Al-Assaf

    makesnoadasense -> ID7586903, 2016-01-13 22:03:02
    I wouldn't celebrate too soon, it would appear that there is a looming $200bn debt over American oil and gas...

    https://www.rt.com/business/220619-shale-debt-us-companies /

    coplani , 2016-01-13 22:25:44
    Is this history repeating itself?...but in China.
    1998 Russian financial crisis.....Their stock market collapsed followed by a run on the ruble which was devalued.
    Most Russians suffered as their pensions, wages etc were severely devalued.
    Same could be happening today in both China and Russia...

    Financial war....Dinosaurs versus dinosaurs.
    How to wreck a country....Trash it's markets and currency.
    It's the law of the jungle.....The strongest survive.
    However Russia and China will not take it lying down....Scary times indeed.

    It seems that the Chinese market is under the greatest pressure...only to be propped up by the government pumping money into it. (printing money)...result will be their currency devalues and everybody in China suffers.

    It has happened many times to many countries before...e.g. Germany, Argentina, Brazil, Russia etc....

    Ciarán Here -> coplani , 2016-01-13 23:21:25
    It's not Russian or China that is "printing" money have you not heard of quantitative easing in the USA $85billion dollars a month.
    Penfisher , 2016-01-13 22:28:30
    Two quick points.
    First, OPEC has increased flow to destabilise Russian & Iranian profits. However, this situation demonstrates that the price of oil should never have been much higher.
    Second, China has a better approach to wealth re-distribution than OPEC nations and all advanced economies. If a genuine desire to increase economic activity were expressed then wealth sitting in secret accounts and held by the top 10% would be taxed & spread to the true wheel of economy: ordinary people with poor purchasing power.
    bonkthebonk , 2016-01-13 22:50:54
    Finally time to unwind?

    When the debt merchants, the money alchemists and voracious volatility vultures start panicking (Hey, it's all relative. Don't worry, THEY'LL be fine) and looking for 'safe havens' (anything deemed to have an intrinsic value, but still not gold as, 'we're not bloody savages, y'know...yet'), when prices, particularly the golden goose commodities that kept them in (debt fertilised) speculative clover in their (hopefully fitful) sleep, start to reflect genuine economic reality, then you know it's probably squeaky bum time for the hapless cannon fodder that didn't cause this train wreck, reaped little of its rewards, but nevertheless will bear the brunt of its consequences yet again.

    ronnewmexico -> bonkthebonk , 2016-01-13 22:58:38
    High rate temporary debt junk bonds are already failing. Those issued on the small oil drillers. But it is a relatively small part of the junk bond market itself nevertheless financial institutions overall.
    Small companies are due to fail and will. the larger ones will pick up the pieces at rock bottom prices and things will go on.
    ronnewmexico , 2016-01-13 22:55:07
    The numbers anywhere in developed economies don't support recession. China by the worst guesses is still par on GDP. By most takes between 4 and 7 increasing GDP. With the looming effects of el nino on India I would not say it could enter a recession in the next 6 months but that would be a isolated event. The US no where close. People are taking the low oil prices as a read on the economy. It is not this time global consumption is going up not down. It is a supply glut.
    SirWillis -> ronnewmexico , 2016-01-14 00:39:56
    I live near KSA, and I see first-hand how corrupt and morally bankrupt the whole thing is. I also see how incredibly subsidised EVERYTHING is. The people of these countries are little more than spoiled children, with no incentive to work properly or even understand the businesses they are in. Russia has a much more diverse economy, in KSA it is almost entirely oil. The rest of it is industries that rely on oil money - such as the construction sector.

    Offering an IPO on KSA's oil will expose the total incompetence and corruption behind the company, I don't know how they hope to hide it all. So, you're right, all is far from well. I will be packing my bags at the first sign of revolution, which I predict will be in 3-5 years. I don't think people yet realise how bad things are going to get once KSA implodes and Iran and ISIS seek to take advantage. It's going to be ugly, and I must admit, I'm a little scared.

    PhilPharLap , 2016-01-13 23:21:51
    the reason you have a collapsing global economy is because the idiots created one through a battery of Free Trade Agreements that were aimed at over -riding local sovereignty and democracy and accessing scab labour on an international scale

    It didn't work did it - by dismantling local industry and exporting manufacture to countries like China the middle class in the West made itself redundant

    Welcome to the great unwashed guys - you are one of us now and with less skills to survive - I don't think your economic and managerial skills will impress anyone

    You did it all to yourselves ...Get in the queue for the welfare you denied others - and reflect:

    "So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."

    Or alternatively put - "and wait your turn!"

    ronnewmexico -> ronnewmexico , 2016-01-13 23:52:05
    People are confusing the stock market with the economy. The economy is ho humming along. The market is artificially inflated in value by above stated factors. Not by a whole bunch but enough to make a sell off of minor sort a probable.
    Earnings will once again be real and not a thing of less stock per earning share., Report
    AshleyPomeroy -> ronnewmexico , 2016-01-13 23:59:03
    I wish I could upvote this twice. It's not like e.g the dot.com crash, where a bunch of hopeless money-losing pipe dreams fell apart. Facebook, Apple et al actually make a profit and have a niche, it's just that with so many other investments offering desultory returns, the stock market has been pumped up by desperate speculators.
    Blackbag1999 , 2016-01-14 00:21:18
    I am not sure why people think the Saudis are in trouble.

    Most of the shale is becoming uneconomical to recover if you believe the forward curve. $50 oil for 5+ years, they will need closer to $100 to go back to the capped wells. The frackers are just taking the first 30% of the cheapest oil to produce (1st 18 months), capping and moving on. They are churning through oil reserves at 3 times the rate to do it.

    They can still do it until they get to debt repayment. Anyone thinking the industry got ultra efficient over night is optimistic feller.

    The reality is shale gas is not the primary concern. They want rid of artic, deep water and tar sands. My guess is the Saudis would be more than happy to let the US be the swing producer as shale is far more flexible. Shale was the trigger not the problem.

    mrfunbro , 2016-01-14 01:43:18
    I'd be quite happy to see the whole stock market free fall. The current inequity and greed deserves it's reward. Money for nothing investors and free loader corporations that don't pay their share of taxation will be the ones who go down. A new system is required to break away from the old established power and energy companies that have led us to the brink of devastating our planet.
    backatchya , 2016-01-14 02:00:21
    The capitalists are the victims of themselves. Fortunately for them, they own the wealthiest states on the planet. And therefore, can always expect welfare, social assistance and
    bail-outs whenever they burst another bubble. Socialism for the rich.

    We are a stupid species to put up with this casino scam. If you disagree with the ponzy scheme, start by supporting Sanders in the U.S. and Corbyn in the U.K. At least it's a modest beginning to opposing these criminals.

    If_Not_Why_Not , 2016-01-14 02:50:01
    China stock piling oil is a good idea, may help explain recent capital outflows , of which the article does not explain the opaque /nebulous financial details of these movements. It maybe China shuffling pieces on a board.

    "The country's global trade surplus widened by 21% to $60bn in December. Over the whole year it was $594bn. The country's trade surplus in December with the European Union, its biggest trading partner, increased 36.8% to $15.6bn. The surplus with the US contracted 6% to $19.4bn."

    No doubt the figures need to treated like all PRC figures.
    That said it is undeniable that China had another huge trade surplus.
    Yet despite this they manage to cheat on their exchange rate and devalue the Yuan.
    The Currency/Trade Wars are in full swing..

    HollyOldDog -> litesp33d1 , 2016-01-14 14:32:01
    By then then most of the oil residues, waste and plastic products will reside in the Worlds Seas and Oceans. I've not seen much movement to remove the plastic gyres floating around the Southern Pacific Ocean. Land waste management has serious flaws as well. The only 'waste management ' in the UK that is booming is all the junk that motorists chuck out of their cars when mobile - they must think that plastic bags hanging from tree branches 'adds' to natures wonders. In a resturant car park the other day were 2 used babies nappies left in a parking bay - some people are scum and these couldn't have been poor.
    Peter Sembol , 2016-01-14 03:35:11
    Incredible how low the West in cahoots with Saudi Arabia will stoop, and all in an attempt to crush Russia economically and politically. And the media continues the deceptive narrative about troubles everywhere, brought on by 'competition' among oil producers, except pointing to the true and only reason behind the low oil price. The public in general swallows the 'explanations' forgetting that the ball started rolling downhill immediately after the USA twisted Germany's and other western European countries to impose sanctions on Russia in retaliation for it's welcoming Crimea back to the Motherland. In the name of this geopolitical game, the good people of USA, Canada and other countries whose significant part of income derives from natural resources and related products, are loosing their jobs by the thousands. All is well and according to the plan, as long as Russia suffers more than the West, and will be the first to bite the dust. The world economy will then be turned around to everyone's relief.
    MattSpanner , 2016-01-14 04:43:08
    Seems the FED's recent interest rate rise was premature. If another 2008 does happen calls to abolish it will grow ever louder, especially since economic chaos will smooth Trump's path to the White House, and Trump has made FED abolition one of his campaign pledges. After repeated failures catastrophes under Greenspan, Bernanke and now Yellen it seems the FED is surplus to requirements., Report
    NWObserver -> MattSpanner , 2016-01-14 05:35:59
    What will they do after abolishing the Fed? Will they have a single national currency or allow each bank (or any other entity) to issue its own currency and let these different currencies compete with each other?

    If they continue to have a single national currency, who will issue it and set the monetary policy? Another Central Bank or the government? If it is going to be another Central Bank what exactly is the point of abolishing the Fed? Why not change the law to allow the government to remove the Fed's board of governors and appoint those they think are more competent than Janet Yellen and other governors, since abolishing the Fed will anyway require the repeal of the law establishing it i.e. it too needs Congressional approval. If the government is going to be issuing the currency and set the monetary policy, in what way would it be superior to the Fed doing the same?

    If they allow any entity to issue its own currency, what currency will the taxes be denominated in?

    ronnewmexico -> MattSpanner , 2016-01-14 05:42:12
    Well the predictions were for four rate hikes in the year. Now perhaps we see two. The one already and another. Things get better and it is up to four. The dow only dropped three hundred or so and the S and P is above its support level, which is about 1857 to my dim recollection.

    So till we exceed that support to the downside, really things are not bad. A wash out was probably a necessary thing.

    I think people are overdoing this thing. The media seems to be hyping the decline which may account for all the sell side prognostications.
    Earning are just beginning. If I see indications that earming are the mover behind the sell off I would have concern. Alcoa all things considered was not that bad. Certainly not as bad as the tape today. OIl by my guess is the real mover as the new lows have people spooked.
    I am not to worried it can flip up or down but it really is only a small part of the market nowadays not what it was in yesteryear.

    So I repeat this is overdone, that is my opinion. Those calling gloom and doom on this action, no offense but this little resembles any major sell off of a lasting duration spiral down. What is the mover….low oil prices? The rest of the market benefits from low oil prices.

    Sentiment can drive things lower but really only for so long. Chinas last numbers reported were better than expected. Me being cynical and seeing the talking heads talking things down anticipate it is the big money movers trying to create some action on the short side. How long they keep this up is a guess. But it requires someone to keep pressure on to move it down. Without new bad news on China, what is the precipitive factor….nothing new here.

    ekaai Kaewaniti , 2016-01-14 05:52:46
    Unfair market system, Complete waste of time, energy and resources. Destroy all the stock markets along with corporations and Banks. It is time we stop playing this ridiculous economic game and start concentrating on the real issues that we are facing. Poverty, Conflicts in the middle east, environmental degradation, climate change, and many more. What is the root cause of all of these problems? Yes it the socioeconomic system capitalism with its flawed monetary system owned by the corporations and the Banks that does not care about the well being of planet or nature and the well being of all human beings but only care about their own wealth, power, fame, egos. Such idiots!!!!! stop playing their game and move to a new fair game called RBE and other similar systems.
    werdzwerth , 2016-01-14 07:17:28
    It is very stupid of us to base our economy on something as unstable and selfish as the Stock Market, as well as something as unstable as governments, democratic and otherwise. It is about time we became as intelligent and clever as all these whizz kids who invent amazing technology and make amazing discoveries. It is about time we became whizz kids at organising an intelligent and reliable economy. For us.

    Why do banks charge an interest on loans? If the function of money is to get the economy started and running, then the work done and the profits made should be a sufficient reward. Banks could actually give money away on a non-return basis, so long as the money goes to people who will spend it, this spending lending to more spending.

    Perhaps the private owners of the current private currencies want more than a sound economy, perhaps they want power, and want to exercise this power just to know for real that they have it? Perhaps they are not fully-fledged human being animals but suffer some form of genetic or social affliction that makes them behave in dangerous anti-social ways? Perhaps they don´t give a fig about other human being animals - other than those who serve their biological wants and needs? Perhaps shareholders are afflicted in the same way?

    Perhaps we could form our bank to issue our non-returnable money, and even decide what work is worthwhile and is done and what work is not worthwhile and so will not be done?

    Millions of years ago, so we are told, some fish came out of the sea and survived. What I am suggesting is a work and economy evolution of a similar scale. Current economic theory has us all drowning in the quagmire of self-interest-driven chaos, self-styled as a "social science". Perhaps we could come out into fresh air and create a diversity of human activity on a par with the diversity of living things on land and in the air that came from those first brave fish that ventured beyond known limits?

    Columbus did not go over the edge of the world but discovered a whole New World.

    Perhaps we need to go beyond even the "thinking outside the box" box?

    Thank you.

    criminalswelcome , 2016-01-14 07:35:29
    Who funds international terrorism try the oil rich countries in the Middle East so let's assume the Yanks have got smart for once and are flooding oil market to bring down these economys .
    The end game is destabilise them then pick up their oil industries for a song and influence just who makes Middle Eastern policys by economic means .
    Bit of a dream but hey nothing falls down in price to this extent without a hidden reason given its a fossil fuel that should be rising to maintain supplies for the long term .
    litesp33d1 , 2016-01-14 08:09:40
    The economy is like a super tanker and these results are still the effect of the ripples of the economic crash almost a decade ago. The result of lower oil prices will be that ordinary people will start to realise they have more disposable income than they did a year ago and start spending that money on more shit they don't need and the economy will swing back with a vengeance.
    paddyryan , 2016-01-14 08:24:08
    Well surely all those neoliberal economists can't be wrong....it must be the fault of that evil Mr corbyn and his army of trotskyists.....HA HA we are on the slippery slide to another global crash folks ...
    SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 2016-01-14 08:45:19
    Sigh....the stock market....virtual money and speculation...Worst thing ever created causing insane chain effects in economies. Although....why were economies booming before when Oil price was low? Cause sure oil companies profits go down, but every other business that uses the oil increases their profit. Isn't this also a good reason to start doing something about being so oil dependant?
    humbleandpoor , 2016-01-14 09:50:16
    Once in a lifetime chance for the USA to escape from the strangle whole of the Saudi oil grip.
    Fracking gives them a chance to break with the Saudi s or even break them for good.
    Failure doesn't t bear thinking about, and we all know where Obama s sympathies lie - but in modern America who cares.. the battle is between the giant bureaucracies, not the democratic froth on top of the cake.
    Always remember America in you hour of destiny there were Americans long before there was the USA . And will be long after it is gone. And for the love of God .. COLUMBUS did not discover America. Which ironically is named after a Welch sheep farmer.?
    Americo FrontHoovesintheWellies was his full name. Knew a thing or two about sex and sheep., Report
    Eugenios -> humbleandpoor , 2016-01-14 15:28:25
    Most US oil comes from Canada and Mexico, a very small percentage from Saudi Arabia. But they have enormous financial influence through bonds, obviously, and buying media and politicians. Also Israel and Saudi Arabia have been working together under the table for some time, as was obvious during the Gulf War, and now in their efforts to begin a war against Iran. Fracking has never been any threat to the Saudis--the cost is too high. Their present lowering of oil prices is directed against Russia, surely in cahoots with the US.
    HeadInSand2013 , 2016-01-14 17:54:25

    Oil and US share prices tumble over fears for global economy.

    The economists have been telling us that there is little danger for the US economy to be pushed into recession by a slow-down in the Chinese economy - referred to here as "global economy". More importantly, in election years the US Markets have never been good indicators of the US economy, anyway.

    The real reasons for the US market plunge are the trades conducted on behalf of the Wall Street tycoons and the Saudi Royal Family. Both are doing their best to push the markets down, because they are deeply worried of having another Democrat in the White House, come January 2017.

    The Wall Street tycoons are apprehensive about getting dragged into courts for their financial mischiefs during the last decade. The Saudis are concerned that the US leaning further toward Iran, which will encourage their internal oppositions to demand reforms, which could include getting rid of the Royal Family. So, both the Saudis and the Wall Street tycoons have a common cause. They will "keep at it", until they can be sure that the next US president will be a Republican.

    Eugenios , 2016-01-14 18:45:56
    "National debts, i.e., the alienation of the state – whether despotic, constitutional or republican – marked with its stamp the capitalistic era. The only part of the so-called national wealth that actually enters into the collective possessions of modern peoples is their national debt. Hence, as a necessary consequence, the modern doctrine that a nation becomes the richer the more deeply it is in debt. Public credit becomes the credo of capital. And with the rise of national debt-making, want of faith in the national debt takes the place of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which may not be forgiven.

    The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers of primitive accumulation. As with the stroke of an enchanter's wand, it endows barren money with the power of breeding and thus turns it into capital, without the necessity of its exposing itself to the troubles and risks inseparable from its employment in industry or even in usury. The state creditors actually give nothing away, for the sum lent is transformed into public bonds, easily negotiable, which go on functioning in their hands just as so much hard cash would. But further, apart from the class of lazy annuitants thus created, and from the improvised wealth of the financiers, middlemen between the government and the nation – as also apart from the tax-farmers, merchants, private manufacturers, to whom a good part of every national loan renders the service of a capital fallen from heaven – the national debt has given rise to joint-stock companies, to dealings in negotiable effects of all kinds, and to agiotage, in a word to stock-exchange gambling and the modern bankocracy."

    Karl Marx

    [Jan 17, 2016] Oil price woes deepen as Iran vows to add 500,000 barrels a day

    Notable quotes:
    "... America threatened Russia some time ago about meddling in the affairs of Syria ..."
    "... The US is really going for broke on crashing the oil price ..."
    "... All of this to try to contain Russias military rearmament made possible by sky high oil prices ..."
    "... Has the west finally gotten wise to the Saudi money that flows into extremist groups? Would seem so. West seems to be doing everything it can to contain the Saudis. eems to be doing everything it can to contain the Saudis. ..."
    "... Yes because of millions of refuges that Arab countries caused by supporting ISIS it is completely natural for west to go after Saudi Arabia and its allies sponsor of ISIS. So they got what they deserved. Today I also read that the markets in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Emirates collapsed and I think this a beginning of an end for them. ..."
    "... The Iranians deciding that their revolution has matured sufficiently for them to plainly state we dont wish death on anybody, our religion is about peace, and to demonstrate our sincerity well urge our people to stop such rhetoric would contribute to Irans rehabilitation as a more or less normal member of the global community of nations. ..."
    "... This has to be the beginning of the end for the Saudis and Qataris and their utter crapulence, all at the expense of the rest of the World. OPEC has no answer for this and is completely impotent to do anything about it. The cartel is busted. ..."
    "... And so it seems with oil. There has to be a base production cost which doesnt vary and I doubt that the Saudis or Iranians are selling it at under that cost - they both need a modest profit - so, one wonders, if they can make that modest profit at $30 a barrel, think how much they were making at $100 ..."
    "... The U.S and Iranians are using each other against their own allies. U.S is using Iran to put pressure on Saudi so that they keep producing more oil to bankrupt Russia, despite it destroying Saudi economy. Iran is using USA as a counterbalance to Russia because as much as they want Russias help, they dont want Russia to become too strong in the region. ..."
    "... In my view Iran was never quite the bad guy that the western governments portrayed it to be. We certainly have differences. But if you compare Iran and Saudi Arabia there is no contest - Iran is far less a bogeyman. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The Guardian

    Sean Mcmahon , 2016-01-17 19:10:22
    The funny thing is that the sanctions have probably helped Iran as it had to survive with less. Iran now gets access to it's foreign banking about 50billion net and can start exporting again.

    Saudi is burning through its reserve cash and it's populace are used to getting things for free, will they survive low oil revenues like Iran or is the House of Said on the brink of annihilation? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

    It's amazing how detrimental oil has been to the middle east. If only they could have gone down a similar path to Norway....

    Jahanzeb Ahsan , 2016-01-17 18:56:59
    Seeing Iran to go into economical slow down was a depressing sight. OPEC definitely took a huge share of IRAN'S oil fortune and that time can not come back. PART of it was Iran's fault agreed, but since Iran's sanctions are lifted you cant blame it.

    It's just taking a share of what it has lost in years. This will indeed afftect gulf region and other oil exporting countries but HEY BACK TO REALITY!!! Indeed its bad time since oil is already record low thanks to Fracking. This time is like dubstep for environmentalists who are dancing on oil price beats. No one is actually explaining the actual picture behind the scene as hundred of thousands of jobs are being slashed. Its like a death sentence for oil workers like me. 1 year since graduation as a petroleum engineer still no job worried to pay debts and there are countles like me. In short low oil prices won't make things better but worse.

    Xavier Cournet , 2016-01-17 16:21:17
    "The French-listed aircraft maker Airbus also looks set for a significant boost from the sanctions ending"
    It is the first time, a British newspaper says "French aircraft maker Airbus". Yes Airbus is principaly a French company and not a European one contrary to what British newspaper often say.
    ID241823 -> lifeintheusa , 2016-01-17 17:24:40
    Indeed...the magic answer is interesting to say the least. America threatened Russia some time ago about meddling in the affairs of Syria and other cooperative business tactics. This manipulation is more about the benefits beneath mainstream media...plus, it is an election year...of course, oil is welcome and plentiful...somehow...it always is election time...though the added incentive does make Russia cringe a bit...these United States knew the only way to allow Russia to feel pinched was this way...so her and her cohorts have combined efforts to achieve their goals. Hmmm...
    MerlinUK , 2016-01-17 14:41:56
    Hammond is such a prostitute with his comments. They have been sucking up to Saudi/Qatar and UAE for decades, but now they are all on the slippery slope, he says 'dump them all and start courting Iran'. The man has no shame whatsoever.
    opyniated -> MerlinUK , 2016-01-17 15:15:12

    dump them all and start courting Iran

    Best thing he has said in his career. Dump the wahhabi sheikhs while your heads are still standing on your shoulders.

    sokolnik100 , 2016-01-17 14:28:57
    The US is really going for broke on crashing the oil price:-
    1 Deal with Iran (to increase supply)
    2 Saudis pumping as much as they can (favour to US who turn a blind eye or help their regional aspirations by financing ISIS and AQ)(note the price was going nowhere until Ukraine/Crimea appeared then suddenly it started going down whilst Saudi currency actually appreciated)
    3 Letting the US export oil (more supply)
    4 Letting Turkey take oil from ISIS (more supply)

    All of this to try to contain Russia's military rearmament made possible by sky high oil prices.

    DDDFFF -> sokolnik100, 2016-01-17 14:38:39
    that's correct as well as containing the Saudi, Qatari sponsored terrorist groups
    ElfenLied2 -> DDDFFF, 2016-01-17 14:50:05
    I thought that the Saudis see the terrorism as their own failure as well?

    It's not controversial that it is oil money that has caused the situation, but the Saudis seem as powerless as anyone else to stop it.

    Glenn Middleton -> sokolnik100 , 2016-01-17 14:50:16
    Remind us why so many shale producers in america are going bust because of oil prices.
    DDFFF , 2016-01-17 14:19:04
    May the terrorist funding by Saudi and Qatar comes to halt by cheap oil prices. They had made the decision to make it cheap but it is not Iran's decision to make it expensive again. Which believe me Iran doesn't like to do so especially that through the sanction years Saudis, Qatar, Emirates played a nasty role in OPEC by getting rid of production sluts(it was to do by limiting each member to a certain production level but as Iran was sanctioned they thought it is the best way to hurt Iran's share of OPEC by getting rid of it) now this is the only reason they cannot increase the oil price as well as they cannot control Iran's production . Iran will produce even more and has a fresh supply of Cash and its economy is more robust to be only based on Oil so what I want to tell the Saudis, Qatari, Emirates and their allies is to fuck off . Because through these years you were sponsors of ISIS, Cause hundreds of thousands of death tolls and millions of refuges in the world that you have not taken a single refugee and the whole EU and North Americas must pay for it now. YOU GOT WHAT YOU DESERVED ARABS. Hope Iran become friend with Israel too and teach Arabs another lesson.
    MerlinUK -> DDDFFF , 2016-01-17 14:39:49
    Recent events with Saudi princes assaulting maids in the US (then claiming 'diplomatic immunity' and skipping the country before charges could be laid against them) could also be a factor, as it has woken people up as to what the Saudis are really like.

    The highway between Bahrain and Saudi/UAE is like the M25 at weekends, with Wahhabi hypocrites rushing to Bahrain to get pissed and laid. It's been like that for decades. They claim to be pious and expect their subjects, contractors and ex-pats working out there to do as they say, not as they do.

    Tresidentevil , 2016-01-17 14:18:48
    Saudi Arabia is therefore finished as a regional power. Economy crippled by low oil prices. Iran meanwhile has had to endure an embargo for a decade, resulting in a tougher economy that is far more diverse.

    Has the west finally gotten wise to the Saudi money that flows into extremist groups? Would seem so. West seems to be doing everything it can to contain the Saudi's. eems to be doing everything it can to contain the Saudi's.

    DDDFFF -> Tresidentevil, 2016-01-17 14:26:32
    Yes because of millions of refuges that Arab countries caused by supporting ISIS it is completely natural for west to go after Saudi Arabia and its allies sponsor of ISIS. So they got what they deserved. Today I also read that the markets in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Emirates collapsed and I think this a beginning of an end for them.
    MerlinUK -> Tresidentevil, 2016-01-17 14:35:26
    It really brings David Cameron and the Tories' sucking up to the Saudis into clear perspective, doesn't it, as their credit rating for buying arms will be taking a nosedive. Watch BAE Systems shares start to wobble this coming week.

    It also leaves the Royal family in somewhat of a quandry, as who is Price Charles going to sword dance with now?

    FunctionalAtheist , 2016-01-17 14:02:50
    Iran adding to the current supply glut in oil was an inevitable consequence of the deal. Still, the timing is particularly bad, with the crash in commodities feeding a gloomy mood in stock markets around the world.

    A deflationary spiral for the global economy is now a little more likely, with excess capacity in a range of manufactured goods, from steel to I-Phones, in addition to the glut in oil and other commodities.

    But, that glut is not Iran's fault. The prisoner exchange was good to see.

    Next I'd like to see a symbolic move by Iran: move on from the "Death to America" (and Britain, and Israel) rhetoric. Islam needs some public relations help. The Iranians deciding that their revolution has "matured" sufficiently for them to plainly state "we don't wish death on anybody, our religion is about peace, and to demonstrate our sincerity we'll urge our people to stop such rhetoric" would contribute to Iran's rehabilitation as a more or less "normal" member of the global community of nations.

    MerlinUK , 2016-01-17 13:53:33
    This has to be the beginning of the end for the Saudis and Qataris and their utter crapulence, all at the expense of the rest of the World. OPEC has no answer for this and is completely impotent to do anything about it. The cartel is busted.

    I guess that nobody likes the Wahhabi hypocrites any more.

    StuartHX , 2016-01-17 13:39:21
    I suppose it all depends on how much Iranian oil is pumped into the system as a proportion of the total, but then what is the 'right' price for oil anyway?

    It reminds me of a supermarket conundrum - 'What's the price of a packet of Pringles?'. This comes from the notion that in one supermarket they're Ł1 each or two for Ł1.50, in another they're Ł1.25 but one a 'buy one get one free' deal, in another they're Ł1 each but buy two and get one free... and so on. But not only this - all of these deals change weekly.

    So you begin to wonder, given that a packet of Pringles costs the same to make whatever price they're sold at - and the manufacturer wants to make a modest profit - why can you never determine the true price?

    And so it seems with oil. There has to be a base production cost which doesn't vary and I doubt that the Saudis or Iranians are selling it at under that cost - they both need a modest profit - so, one wonders, if they can make that modest profit at $30 a barrel, think how much they were making at $100

    copyniated , 2016-01-17 13:32:13
    Apparently, according to reuters, Saudi Arabia paid Somalia a $50 million bribe to break diplomatic relations with Iran. Iranians, themselves, would have paid the Somalian government more to beak off diplomatic relations.

    But hey, why complain? It's free! Cheers 'Salman the Barbarian'!

    copyniated -> Katrin3, 2016-01-17 17:06:42
    Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain, Sudan, Somalia, United States, The Comoros and Djibouti all do not have diplomatic relations with Iran. UAE recalled its embassador in sympathy with Sheikh Salman the Barbarian. Iran needed UAE before as it was used as a port for importing into Iran(a sanction busting avenue) but since sanctions are lifted, middlemen are no longer required which means UAE will lose an annual income of $11 billion and Iran will gain. Very sad!

    I hope that The Comoros and Djibouti will soon reestablish relations because it is hurting Iran's economy.

    Vizier , 2016-01-17 12:57:10
    'The UK has played a central role, and I hope British businesses seize the opportunities available to them through the phased lifting of sanctions on Iran. ' said Philip Hammond.

    His department was instrumental in sanctions against Iran while other countries, particularly Germany and France, were lukewarm. Which countries will now benefit? Answers on a postcode, marked 'Clue', to Philip Hammond.

    Phil_Paris , 2016-01-17 12:45:31
    Iran is closer to a development [nations] like Turkey than to Saudi Arabia. Saudis have always been unable to do anything else than watch oil go out of pipelines into tankers, they have no agriculture, no industry.

    Iranians want to industrialize like Turkey, but that doesn't mean democracy and personal freedom. Development gives more means of control and repression to autocrats too, like we have seen in Russia, Turkey, continental China. Not all countries are able to move to democracy like Taiwan and South Korea

    TomBakerIsGod , 2016-01-17 12:23:25
    It is hard to understand why the Guardian labels low oil as an actual woe for the World. It mainly hurts countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia, while in the West we all benefit from cheap fuel.
    copyniated , 2016-01-17 12:18:08
    Doubt it. The news was already in the market and has been for some time. No surprize.

    Even if does go further south, it would be temporary and besides the wahhabi regimes of Arabia are the ones who will suffer the most. Either way, good news for Iran.

    SchraderBrau -> copyniated, 2016-01-17 14:34:34
    The U.S and Iranians are using each other against their own allies. U.S is using Iran to put pressure on Saudi so that they keep producing more oil to bankrupt Russia, despite it destroying Saudi 'economy'. Iran is using USA as a counterbalance to Russia because as much as they want Russia's help, they don't want Russia to become too strong in the region.

    The (seemingly) more likely scenario is to make the excuse for war against Iran this year.... "We really tried with these guys but now we have to 'regime-change' them". That will result in a MASSIVE war.

    A less likely scenario is that USA (at a shot to nothing) thinking they might actually replace saudi oil-fields propping up the $ with IRanian ones. And Iran (at a shot to nothing) thinking they might take the U.S out of Israel's pocket. As unlikely as either of these scenarios are, all bets are off this year. Both those latter plays could push Israel and Russia closer together, resulting in a MASSIVE war which the U.S would lose.

    Either way, a MASSIVE war is coming and this development is more significant than people think.

    Vizier -> MrPeevley, 2016-01-17 13:05:51
    In my view Iran was never quite the bad guy that the western governments portrayed it to be. We certainly have differences. But if you compare Iran and Saudi Arabia there is no contest - Iran is far less a bogeyman.

    It is always worth remembering that nearly all the September 11 hijackers were Saudis, none were Iranian. ISIS was funded and armed by Saudi Arabia, not by Iran. You can draw a direct line from Saudi Arabia through the carnage in Iraq and Syria directly to the terrorist attacks in Paris.

    Whenever the west talks about 'Iran being a state sponsor of terrorism' they mean one thing and one thing only: Hezbollah.

    Disclosure: I have a low opinion of Saudi Arabia so my comments are biased.

    [Jan 16, 2016] Graun is difficult to navigate and very slow to load with the weight of all the spam

    Notable quotes:
    "... Graun is difficult to navigate and very slow to load with the weight of all the spam. Ad blockers make it actually usable. You just have to get used to deleting the notice banners on every page. ..."
    "... Use "https everywhere" to avoid the sticky at the top if it annoys you as it does me - tends to mess up the btl however.. ..."
    "... Well, Guardian, I am using an ad blocker because your adware fucks up my browser. ..."
    "... I cannot get even one word typed and my browser gets all fucked up. The screen does flips and all sorts of things as if someone else is controlling my mouse. I try to type a word and it takes a full minute for one letter to appear after I have typed it, and sometimes everything disappears. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    puppetlife -> ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 10:01:00

    Agree with your post if a little off topic, but where else can we post about this. Graun is difficult to navigate and very slow to load with the weight of all the spam. Ad blockers make it actually usable. You just have to get used to deleting the notice banners on every page.

    Use "https everywhere" to avoid the sticky at the top if it annoys you as it does me - tends to mess up the btl however..

    ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 08:38:06

    We notice you're using an ad-blocker. Perhaps you'll support us another way? Become a supporter for just 50 pounds per year.

    WTF? How do they know I am using an ad blocker? I am Using Ublock by the way. Well, Guardian, I am using an ad blocker because your adware fucks up my browser.

    I cannot get even one word typed and my browser gets all fucked up. The screen does flips and all sorts of things as if someone else is controlling my mouse. I try to type a word and it takes a full minute for one letter to appear after I have typed it, and sometimes everything disappears.

    THIS is WHY I use an ad-blocker, Guardian. Since I have been using an ad-blocker, I don't have those problems anymore when I visit your site, and it only happens on your site. Your incessant use of automatic videos and other tactics is not advertising.

    It is ADWARE! Get it?! Adware! And why would I want to support a paper that is just as biased as any other paper? Wow, you really pissed me off just now when I saw that little banner at the bottom of my screen, Guardian. Of all the nerve.

    Leeblue -> ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 09:05:47
    Spot on CP, I actually switched my adblocker off to accommodate the graun, I thought fair enough they need to generate income. But as you said the browser goes haywire.

    Another thing is the ridiculous moderation I receive for expressing a viewpoint, without foul language, without racist overtones, in fact just normal comments and like yesterday I commented on the fact that I do not believe in religion in any form, I think it is fantasist nonsense, put their by the ruling class elitist's in order to keep the plebs in place with angst, that gets moderated.

    It is absolutely shameful how the graun operates these days.

    [Jan 16, 2016] Ellen Meiksins Wood, 1942-2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... For Wood the key to making sense of capitalism was the nature of the vertical relations of competition, i.e. competition among capitals leading to investment and productivity growth. ..."
    "... Wood was heavily indebted to Robert Brenner who is indeed one darn brilliant historian. I do have considerable skepticism about Brenners theory of the origins of capitalism in light of the historic researches of Robert C. Allen, Kenneth Pomeranz and others. ..."
    "... Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy). ..."
    "... But coercion is central to the entire system. In any event, heres what she has to say about the economic coercion that underlies capitalism: surplus extraction is purely economic, achieved through the medium of commodity exchange as propertyless workers, responding to purely economic COERCIONS, sell their labour power for a wage in order to gain access to the means of production. ..."
    "... Corey, lets define terms so we can understand each other. We have the terms: force, coercion, and economic coercions. You say that for Wood the system depends on economic COERCIONS . Yes, agreed. To be clear, I am saying that this kind of coercion is different from force , defined as the use of violence to compel labor. Force is different from economic coercion which acts without an agent compelling another agent to act in a determinate way. ..."
    "... So we see here that for Wood capitalism is characterized by an absence of force in the direct appropriation of the surplus. This is what is crucial to Wood, so it is misleading for you to characterize Wood as one who put force at the center of her understanding of capitalism. ..."
    "... coerced in an economic sense to sell their labor power; they are not coerced at this stage by brute, physical force. Physical force mostly comes in earlier, with e.g. the enclosures or (other means of) primitive accumulation. ..."
    "... found The Politics of Capitalism (Monthly Review, September, 1999 - http://monthlyreview.org/1999/09/01/the-politics-of-capitalism/ ) which seems to represent her view that the nature of capitalism arises not from class war but competition. ..."
    January 14, 2016 | Crooked Timber

    I came to Ellen Meiksins Wood's work late in life. I had known about her for years; she was a good friend of my friend Karen Orren, the UCLA political scientist, who was constantly urging me to read Wood's work. But I only finally did that two years ago, at the suggestion of, I think it was, Paul Heideman​. I read her The Origins of Capitalism . It was one of those Aha! moments. Wood was an extraordinarily rigorous and imaginative thinker, someone who breathed life into Marxist political theory and made it speak-not to just to me but to many others-at multiple levels: historical, theoretical, political. She ranged fearlessly across the canon, from the ancient Greeks to contemporary social theory, undaunted by specialist claims or turf-conscious fussiness. She insisted that we look to all sorts of social and economic contexts, thereby broadening our sense of what a context is. She actually had a theory of capitalism and what distinguished it from other social forms: that it was not merely commercial exchange, that it did not evolve out of a natural penchant for barter and trade, that it was not a creation of urban markets. Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy). She was also a remarkably clear writer: unpretentious, jargon-free, straightforward. Just last week, I had started reading Citizens to Lords , and I'd been slowly accumulating a list of questions that I hoped to ask her one day on the off-chance that we might meet in person. Now she's gone . The work continues. 1

    Chris Bertram, 01.14.16 at 7:54 pm 2

    I had no idea. I knew Ellen (and at the time also her late husband Neal) as fellow members of of the NLR editorial committee. We resigned together in February 1993 in response to an internal coup. I disagreed quite strongly with Ellen's somewhat Lukacksian brand of Marxism and indeed with her political judgements at the time (re Yugoslavia). But we did agree that people collaborating together on a socialist journal should respect some basic ethical (she'd probably have said "political") constraints in their dealings with one another and that formed the basis of an at least temporary alliance between people of very different theoretical and political views. Later, trying to justify the coup, the people who prevailed sometimes said that they were rescuing NLR from "paleo-Marxism" (by which they meant Ellen) or from "Croatian nationalism" (by which they meant Branka Magas and Quintin Hoare. Neither charge was true and the two charges together were contradictory. The only thing that united us was a distaste for sharp dealing by unprincipled semi-aristocrats. Ellen basically wrote the statement here:

    http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=17413

    I last saw her at an Oxford Political Thought conference a few years back and we had a friendly chat.

    Paul 01.14.16 at 9:06 pm 4

    " I read her The Origins of Capitalism. It was one of those Aha! moments "

    Same here, amazing book. Everyone should read it. What a loss…

    Gary Othic 01.14.16 at 9:38 pm 5

    Christ! It seems like anytime I go anywhere on the internet another person whose work I like dies. Boy is it going to be a long, cold and miserable year…

    'The Origins of Capitalism' was a great book; really clear, succinct explanations that really made sense. I particularly remember its usefulness in explaining Robert Brenner's work, and the debates around that, in an engaging manner. Her critique of rational choice Marxism was another piece that I really liked.

    Rakesh Bhandari 01.14.16 at 9:47 pm

    @1. There may have been some drama regarding the Monthly Review Editorial Board as well. Wood was ousted as Editor there, I think. Sometimes Paul Krugman reads to me as if he were channeling Monthly Review founder Paul Sweezy when he talks about the political obstacles to Keynesian management, the role of monopoly in boosting profits and thwarting investment, the bailing out of the economy via bubbles, and the limits of monetary economy in a period of stagnation.

    Of course Krugman does not have Sweezy's Cold War commitments. Sweezy was a student at Harvard in the days of Alvin Hansen (and Schumpeter). At any rate, Monthly Review under John Bellamy Foster's leadership decided to return to Sweezy's economics rather than Robert Brenner's, which Wood had been defending during her time at the helm.

    For Wood the key to making sense of capitalism was the nature of the vertical relations of competition, i.e. competition among capitals leading to investment and productivity growth. This applied both to the origins of capitalism in the new competitive system of agricultural leasing and to the present conjuncture, defined above all else by destructive forms of international price competition that have led not to an orderly restructuring of an efficient international division of labor but rather mercantilist attempts to preserve extant industry via competitive devaluations and wage repression.

    For both her sense of history and contemporary economics, Wood was heavily indebted to Robert Brenner who is indeed one darn brilliant historian. I do have considerable skepticism about Brenner's theory of the origins of capitalism in light of the historic researches of Robert C. Allen, Kenneth Pomeranz and others. And I tend to understand sharpening international competition more as the consequence than the cause of stagnation, but still the present debate has been incredibly enriched by Brenner's work and Wood's critical defense of it.

    Rakesh Bhandari 01.14.16 at 10:02 pm 6

    Robin: "She actually had a theory of capitalism and what distinguished it from other social forms: that it was not merely commercial exchange, that it did not evolve out of a natural penchant for barter and trade, that it was not a creation of urban markets. Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy)."

    This is a bit misleading. Wood was quite critical of the role force in the form of slavery and colonialism played in the origins of capitalism; after all, Spain had a colonial empire based in slavery and did not industrialize. This is why, she reasoned, that changes internal to England must have been the most important causes. But I think this led her to exaggerate how productive English agriculture was and how many of those displaced in English agriculture really went to work in the new industries and how important English agriculture was as a market for the new industries. Her work on the origins of capitalism is incompatible with the work of Sven Beckert, Walter Johnson, Edward Baptist and the new historians of slavery (and before them Joseph Inikori); they also try to show how crucial colonial and slave violence was to the development of capitalism. Of course it is incompatible with the work of Amiya Bagchi and Utsa Patnaik.

    Rakesh Bhandari 01.14.16 at 10:06 pm 7

    I do not remember Wood emphasizing force within England as well–the kind of force used against vagabonds or to uphold maximum wage laws…all described by Marx. For Wood, the origins of capitalism were in the forms of economic competition and the new incentives for accumulation created by the new agricultural property system in England. So the force she was interested in was not primarily the force or violent repression used against the newly landless but the "force" of economic competition in encouraging productivity-enhancing investment on the new tenant farmers. This is not force as meant in the OP but force in a metaphoric way.

    Corey Robin 01.15.16 at 2:17 am 10

    Rakesh: As is often the case with your interventions here, I'm not sure I really understand your comments, but to the extent that I do, you're wrong that Wood didn't think force, both political and economic, and not merely in the metaphoric sense, were central to capitalism. Her point about capitalism is not there is no force, political or economic; it's that unlike feudalism, the moment of appropriation of the workers' surplus is separate from the moment of coercion, and the agent of the appropriation is not the agent or source of the coercion. But coercion is central to the entire system. In any event, here's what she has to say about the economic coercion that underlies capitalism: "surplus extraction is purely 'economic', achieved through the medium of commodity exchange as propertyless workers, responding to purely 'economic' COERCIONS, sell their labour power for a wage in order to gain access to the means of production." (Origins of Capitalism, 56)

    Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 3:43 am 11

    Corey, let's define terms so we can understand each other. We have the terms: force, coercion, and economic coercions. You say that for Wood the system depends on "'economic' COERCIONS". Yes, agreed. To be clear, I am saying that this kind of coercion is different from "force", defined as the use of violence to compel labor. Force is different from economic coercion which acts without an agent compelling another agent to act in a determinate way.

    You then say that Wood thinks capitalism depends on "the appropriation of surplus" being "separate from the moment of coercion."

    One would think that you just said that capitalism does not depend on force, though the system depends on "'economic' COERCIONS".

    What you seem to have said is that the system depends not on force but on economic coercion though you insist that the system depends on force. If by force you mean the protection of private property rights, then yes capitalism depends on force. But this was not Wood's focus; her differentia specifica of capitalism is exactly the absence of force in the appropriation of surplus labor.

    Think of it this way: since labor is, according to this theory, not under direct control but has to be paid for in the open market, the capitalist has to recover those costs and make a profit, and that means the capitalist has to produce competitively which requires productivity-enhancing investment (this implies that American plantation slavery could not have been a truly capitalist enterprise, an implication Wood herself draws).

    Now Wood would have to admit that with servants-in-husbandry labor was not actually free in early modern England, so she focused her attention on how the competition to secure leases economically coerced tenant farmers to increase productivity. Still the point is that the landlord appropriates the surplus without violently forcing a tributary payment from the tenant farmer.

    So we see here that for Wood capitalism is characterized by an absence of force in the direct appropriation of the surplus. This is what is crucial to Wood, so it is misleading for you to characterize Wood as one who put force at the center of her understanding of capitalism.

    Now here is how force works in her understanding of the origins of capitalism. Her theory of force is a Goldilocks one. English landlords had the requisite force to enclose land (unlike France) but not the requisite force to re-enserf the peasantry (unlike what happened East of the Elbe). Her theory of capitalism is an attempt to understand cross-national variation in productivity growth and capital accumulation.

    This Goldilocks situation led to economic competition among tenant farmers. This is what sets England apart, and puts it on the course for capitalism.

    But this theory has problems: 1. it underestimates how important the surpluses appropriated by force under slavery and colonialism were, and 2. it exaggerates the importance of the English agricultural revolution to the industrial take off (workers released from agriculture were not the main source of industrial workers and the English agricultural market may not have been crucial as a market for the new industries; moreover, improvements in English agriculture may have themselves been more the consequence of urban growth than its cause).

    Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 4:01 am 12

    Robin writes: "Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy)."
    Perhaps you could clarify what you are saying.

    1. What do you mean by force?
    2. How was capitalism created through acts of force?
    3. Do these acts of force include mercantilist warfare and slavery? For Wood? For you? For me, yes.
    4. Does "force" include for you "'Economic' coercions"? For me, no.
    5. If so, what are economic coercions and how are they different from other coercions?
    6. How does Wood define capitalism? Do you agree with her? I do not not.
    7. Do you agree with Wood's explanation for the rise of capitalism? I do not.

    Chris Bertram 01.15.16 at 7:45 am 13

    @RHB Yes, probably just my private shorthand for how to divide up versions of historical materialism. Her emphasis on the primacy of the class struggle was at variance with the interpretation of Marx on history that we find in Plekhanov, Bukharin, Cohen etc. I think she was wrong about Marx, but that doesn't necessarily make her wrong about history.

    jake the antisoshul soshulist 01.15.16 at 2:52 pm 16

    Perhaps Corey was being sloppy with his terminology, but it seems to me that separating "force" and "coercion" is splitting hairs. Work or starve seems to me to be at least as much "force" as it is "coercion". Or, you may look at them as levels in a hierarchy (request, coerce, force. Plus, if a tenant withheld his production from the landholder, he would recieve some type of retribution. Which would result in either imprisonment or eviction.

    LFC 01.15.16 at 3:41 pm 17

    The basic 'model' or picture of capitalism presented by Marx in Capital vol.1 (if I recall rightly) is one in which workers/proletarians own nothing but their labor power, which they are 'forced' to sell to capitalists for a wage in order to survive. The quote from Wood given by Corey @10 thus follows Marx. Proletarians (displaced from the land or otherwise separated from their own means of production) are 'coerced' in an economic sense to sell their labor power; they are not coerced at this stage by brute, physical force. Physical force mostly comes in earlier, with e.g. the enclosures or (other means of) 'primitive accumulation'. The historical accuracy of this is a separate question; but it's what Marx basically says, I think, and seems to be what Wood says in the quote @10. (n.b. Have not read her books.)

    Anarcissie 01.15.16 at 4:12 pm 18

    Not having read Wood's works before, I subjected myself of course to Google/NSA, and immediately found 'The Politics of Capitalism' (Monthly Review, September, 1999 - http://monthlyreview.org/1999/09/01/the-politics-of-capitalism/ ) which seems to represent her view that the nature of capitalism arises not from class war but competition. While all of you know history better than I, I found it very interesting from the point of view of the utopian activism in which I periodically indulge, since it suggests a more logical turn away from such fixes as Keynesian and Welfare-state capitalism and 'market socialism' than my previously untutored intuition that those are con games. And so on….

    Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 4:16 pm 19

    In fact Wood is not primarily concerned with workers due to their dispossession being "forced" to sell their labor-power; though a famous exponent of class struggle from below, Wood is more concerned about the how English tenant famers' dependence on the market for agricultural leases and inputs (including labor power) "forces" them to recover their costs through the market and thus specialize and make productivity-enhancing investments.

    Force here is reduced to the same role that God has in the Newtonian world view; it sets the dynamics in motion but then plays no further role. The right level of violence was needed for landlords to enclose the land while not being able to pin down agricultural serfs or slaves; this forces the lords to lease out land, and the tenant farmers having paid the leases must now begin to produce capitalistically which means a degree of specialization that would not have made rational economic sense for past peasantries. Henceforth, the surplus is appropriated without force or extra-economic coercion; the production and appropriation of surplus result from activities coordinated via market activity.

    And in fact it is exactly because the surplus can only be appropriated through market activity that we get capitalism: specialization and productivity-increasing investment and the capitalization of profits, that is, the use of the surplus on better capital equipment rather than just the building of Churches and weapons. If the tenant famers had forcible access to an enslaved workforce and forcible access to land they would not have to produce capitalistically to continue to appropriate a surplus.

    For Wood, it is the absence of force that is the differentia specifica of capitalism, but [Corey Robin] reads her as if she had been some kind of left-libertarian most interested in showing how capitalism really does depend on force.

    In fact what Wood is doing is displacing the role of force as a form of violence from the origins and operation of capitalism, and she is making its origins quite insular.

    Here are some problems with the story.

    On a per acre basis English agricultural productivity did not soar; the workers it released were not the source of workers for new industries; it was not a singularly important market for the new industries.

    It can be shown that while not sufficient for revolutionary capitalist development, mercantilist warfare and slavery played necessary direct and indirect roles (indirect in the sense that the success of empire created higher wages which yielded factor prices favorable to industrialization, and the incredible success of English merchants gave them the power to challenge sovereign power to create capitalist property relations). One can not focus just on developments internal to England as Wood did.

    Finally force in the form of severe physical punishments of workers for vagabondage and "exorbitant" wage demands played an important role in early capitalism. So far from emphasizing how central force was to early capitalism, Wood displaced it.

    Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 7:16 pm 23

    Here is Robin again: "Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy)."

    Now the problem with this formulation is that it overplays force, and it is based on a confusing usage of terms. What Robin should have said is that we have "coercion" and then the two forms of coercion: "economic coercion" and "extra-economic coercion" or "force". Coercion that operates through the market or economic coercion is not force as commonly understood, so Robin is twisting terms while accusing me of a confusing use of terms.

    To understand Wood you have to see what little role she gave to force in her understanding of early capitalism. It is there, like God for a moment; and then gone. To understand capitalism, Wood insisted that we see it primarily as not based on force, the very opposite of how Robin is summarizing her.

    The role of force is minimized to include only its role in the resolution of the class struggle in the English countryside in Wood's account which is basically Brenner's simplified; after that, force is said to be excluded from the process of surplus appropriation, and this is exactly what distinguishes capitalism and gives its revolutionary dynamic, according to Brenner and Wood.

    The force involved in slavery and mercantilist warfare is not included in this account of the origins of capitalism; and the role of force in the suppression of the wage demands of the early landless proletariat is basically also ignored.

    It's highly misleading to read Wood as a left-libertarian wanting to show that capitalism is based on force.

    Plume 01.15.16 at 10:01 pm 27

    Very sad news. I read her Origin last year and loved it. Direct, concise, extremely clear, and provoked seemingly hundreds of eureka moments for me. Just a brilliant book.

    Pair it with Michael Perelman's The Invention of Capitalism , and you've got a highly accurate, deeply researched, far-reaching and layered picture of capitalism - what it does, where it came from - and a needed corrective to the usual mindless cheerleading.

    Again, sad news.

    phenomenal cat 01.16.16 at 7:31 pm 34

    "Key question still tends to be how far classical world can/should be seen as comparable to modern, and how far modern soc sci methods are appropriate. Rome has been largely though not entirely taken over by the modernisers, with very optimistic views about its sophistication and level of development; Greece is much more up for grabs, with significant group of scholars still pushing for class-based and/or cultural-anthropological interpretations." Neville Morley @ 30

    Fascinating. Care to expand on this debate Neville? What exactly is at stake? What are the axes you're grinding?

    [Jan 16, 2016] Lifting of Iran sanctions is a good day for the world Discussion

    Notable quotes:
    "... Its great news for the people of Iran, business in Europe, not so great for Israel and my country, Canada. Oil is going to be $30 a barrel forever now. Our previous very stupid government put all our eggs in one basket, oil at $100 a barrel. ..."
    "... Dear Moshe, You are not giving billions to Iran, It is Iranians money that was for frozen by US banks . ..."
    "... Most of the middle eastern countries such as Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Libya and lebanon are tribes with flags. The exception is Iran which has a long and establised sense of nationhood. It will never be a failed state. ..."
    "... Iran is about to get their frozen assets back as part of the deal... lets hope they put that $100 billion to some good use... Welfare, housing, hospitals and education should all benefit... Unfortunately with so much trouble on their doorstep, theyll probably but new fighter planes and lots of guns from the new American buddies... ..."
    "... Why do you think that US, UK, Israel, Saudi wants stability in Mid East region ? All evidence suggests otherwise from regime change in Syria to Libya .from emergence of Isis to Saudi demanding that US bombs Iran to state of oblivion. I am very happy about the agreement, however, i am very cynical about tricky Americans to uphold their part of bargain. ..."
    "... If you dislike Iran maybe you must hate Saudi Arabia, a dubious country we gave been allies with for years. Personally, I find Iran to be far more reasonable than Saudi Arabia.. Perhaps you should open your eyes. ..."
    "... They cant delay this. What they will do, is introduce different kinds of US only sanctions, for other reasons (to appease their AIPAC donors). ..."
    "... In addition to that, i should say that there is a perception fueled by conservatives that all the bad stuff has been done by Iranians, but if I were an Iranian citizen, it would be pretty hard to forget that the US supported Saddam Hussein financially and militarily (with aid) during an eight-year, very bloody Iran-Iraq war that left hundreds of thousand Iranians dead or wounded (and, incidentally, thats when the US downed an Iranian airliner). ..."
    "... Very true. How many Saudi terrorists are there, and how many Iranian ones? Islamic terror is exported is large quantities by our friends in Saudi-Arabia, just second to oil. ..."
    "... Already Iran is looking at using barter with Europe exchanging oil for various goods. ..."
    "... Anyway, not to engage in moral relativism but my country, the USA, has some human rights blemishes we need to recognize as well. Having President Obama say we tortured some folks doesnt help.. The dismissive tone is not conducive to addressing the situation. ..."
    "... Germany had a great military, a modern industrialized society, and a history of invading other countries. Iran, not. ..."
    "... Note to Republicans: Peacemaking is a good thing. Carpet bombing is a bad thing. ..."
    "... Sounds like the Iranians are gradually emerging from xenophobic theocracy. ..."
    "... Hopefully Iranians can build on this and continue to demand better relations with the west. Surly, they have had their differences with the west but they shouldnt let religious fundamentalists use Irans past history to create hate and pessimistic attitude towards west ..."
    "... And would you also observe that most of these people would likely still be alive today if it werent for civilized Western nations bombing thier country, disbanding their army and institutions and throwing their country into chaos? ..."
    "... But a country that goes to war for nothing more than greed sending hundreds of thousands to their deaths including their own sons and daughters ... would you visit there ... oops you live in the UK? ..."
    "... There were no sanctions against Israel, which has nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia is an Islamic fundamentalist state which sponsors terrorism. It is all hypocrisy. ..."
    "... Vinculture: A disaster in the making thanks to 0bamas incompetence and naivety. A disaster for Israels aggressive foreign policy, maybe. And a disaster for the House of Saud. ..."
    "... If the deal sticks on the US side, expect to see Iran make a number of subtle shifts in a pro-US direction over the next few years. It will be a reflection of the outcome of internal struggles within the Iranian clergy. The Supreme Leader gave Rouhani the chance to prove that negotiations and concessions could get acceptable results. The success of the negotiations will give Rouhanis faction greater clout for similar actions until such time as either they stuff it up good and proper, or somone crazy gets elected as US President. ..."
    "... The USA has modified its attitude to Syria from Assad must go! to OK, he can hang around for a while , simply because Syria, with Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah assistance, is gaining the upper hand. Hence the willingness for the USA to negotiate. We rarely hear the words regime change in Syria from our politicians any more. So it is with Iran. Apart from Iranian involvement in Syria, Iran has managed to outlast the sanctions regimes and has had to ratchet up its own development of medicines, weaponry etc in anticipation of a possible Israeli or US attack. As a country of some 80 million people, they wouldnt be a pushover in the military sense. And at what cost? It doesnt bear thinking about. ..."
    "... I dont believe for one second Iran will be able to bring that much oil online so quickly. The issues which have come about through years of barely no maintenance, cant just be reversed in a matter of months. Time will tell. But the mainstream media has been pushing this for a long time to further suppress oil prices. ..."
    "... Meanwhile the US and Britain are directing and supplying the bombs killing innocent people in Yemen, none of which gets coverage in the press. It is a sad bad world we live in these days. Iran is probably less of a threat than Saudi Arabia which funds extremists who are so close to Isis and the likes yet do we care. It seems not. ..."
    "... If only we had strong leadership like W Bush neh? Hed have strongly Decidered his way to victory just like the gleaming success next-door. Pass the bong. ..."
    "... If we put aside sheer hypocrisy (always an important feature of foreign policy!) then I think the usual argument is that, unlike we rational Westerners, the Iranians are crazy religious maniacs who cant be trusted with a bomb. In reality, though obviously the Iranian regime is a religiously-based one, they have shown themselves to be quite pragmatic and cautious over the past 2 decades at least. Which isnt to say the regime is benign, by any means, just that their foreign policy is based on rational self-interest (or their perception thereof) - just like any other country. ..."
    "... Another reason given is Irans supposed support for terror organisaitons. Putting aside the fact that defining what is a terror organisaiton is largely a matter of ones political views, its hard to see what this has to do with the nuclear issue specifically. Unless we buy the notion - straight from a 5th rate James Bond knock-off - that Iran could give its (non-existent) nukes to a terrorist, as though a nuclear bomb was equivalent to an AK-47. ..."
    "... I dont back any country with Nukes, but I do back the balance off power, if Iran is overthrown with Syria, it would be dangerous times for the rest off us. It would be safer for Israel too disarm, followed by Pakistan, North Korea then East + West Bilaterally, simutaniously. ..."
    "... Iran isnt Nazi Germany, if you want to pursue that analogy then its closer to Francos Spain and we got on well if occasionally frostily with them for 39 years without having a war with them ..."
    "... After a progressive Persian govt renationalized and booted British Petroleum out of the country suffered a coup détat instigated with US aid in 1953. ..."
    "... After the revolution we armed Saddam Hussein to start a war and killed millions of Iranians. ..."
    "... If I were Iranian Id be double wary now of USs intentions. It seems that the working method of the West nowadays is to feign a warming of relations to draw yourself closer before a fatal stab. Remember Libya? And I recall Syria having a nice warm up period before the gates of hell opened. Take care, Iran. ..."
    "... It looks to me that the west has to either start Armageddon to take Iran out or start to build bridges. ..."
    "... Iran has always denied seeking an atomic weapon, saying its activities are only for peaceful purposes, such as power generation and medical research. The annual reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported this fact consistently since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli geopolitics enabled by their propaganda arm the mainstream media that maintained the charade of a clandestine nuclear weapon programme. ..."
    "... there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US. - as ever you never know what the US is going to do, and I suspect the US itself does not know given it dysfunctional political system. ..."
    "... The far right in Israel, not for everyone. Saudi and far right wing Israel have a symbiotic relationship. Saudi can push its agenda of Wahhabism that secures its brutal regime and far right Israel profits from the bitter fruits of Saudi, as it means that Israel is seen as the anti-muslim anchor of the West in the region. Sadly, the political intervention of the US has been based around protecting and supporting this symbiotic relationship with money, troops and bombs. ..."
    "... Obama has already issued an order(today) lifting sanctions on the sale of passenger airliners to Iran. Boeing Airbus are in intense competition as Iran plans to purchase 500 airliners in the next 10 years worth billions of dollars. ..."
    "... given that the Iranian government is still highly suspicious of the Brits (for very good reason) I very much doubt theyll want to spend this much-needed cash on overpriced pads in Blighty. ..."
    "... George W Bush said he got his orders from God, and they were amazingly similar to the ones he got from Big Oil. We know the results. ..."
    "... It i amazing how western oriented news organization by default report the talking point of the western regimes reflexively. Unlike the news bureaus in the soviet era, they dont need minders and censors, those are just built in or plugged in by interviews. ..."
    "... He can do what he likes, the US have given Israel a free pass, human rights abuses, extrajudicial killings, threats to Israeli Arabs, hidden nuclear weapons, all have to be ignored while their neighbours are subjected to endless scrutiny. While this continues the Middle East will never be at peace. Palestinians are humans too. ..."
    "... Lifting of Iran sanctions is a good day for the world Yet these gangsters who control the finance industry(US/UK), and who can and do, impose sanctions at will, are free, without sanction, to wage war against whoever they so choose with impunity. Something is not quite right here, or are we too stupid, too compliant to see it? ..."
    "... Ok - so you're anti nuclear weapons. Fair enough, you're free view. For me, much more importantly is the opportunity for trade. The Iranians are well educated and still have a historical connection with our country. ..."
    "... The sanctions are another kind of war. The tradesmen will win at the end ..."
    "... When sanctions started, they were nowhere near as harsh. European countries - as well as China and India - had long been growing tired of the extremely strict sanctions imposed mostly by the Americans. ..."
    "... All the nuclear nations should have banded together with Iran to help Iran with their desire for peaceful nuclear power by helping Iran with expertise and funding to develop Thorium reactors. ..."
    "... British foreign policy is a selective and hypocrital joke. ..."
    "... Yes, unfortunately neither the UK or the US think long-term, when selling advanced weapons to the Saudis (or giving them to Israel). That may well come back to bite them, when the House of Saud falls, as it must. ..."
    "... Amazed this has gone through. The worlds biggest and most dangerous children, Israel and Saudi Arabia, will NOT be pleased. These two are behind so much of the worlds problems, far moreso than their parent the USA. ..."
    "... where are Israels nukes pointing, out of interest? ..."
    "... Welcome to the world community Iran. Not a perfect nation but which is. No point demonizing people nations, it does more harm than good. ..."
    "... Remind me, which country is currently levelling Yemen one building at a time? Oh yes, a Sunni nation Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... Anything that stops the Saudis playing the big I am is fine by me. Theyve already cut off their own nose over oil prices to stop US fracking and their economy is suffering, lets hope Iran can keep it low when it doesnt suit Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... Good, let the US who started all this nonsense feel themselves for a while what it is like to be outside trade with Iran. I bet it will not last long if companies realize they are still not allowed to do business because of their own extortion over the many years while the EU does commence trading. ..."
    "... I really do hope you have an insurance policy Iran, I wouldnt trust these liars as far as .. and Id advise using some of whats rightly coming your way to insulate against future western blackmail. ..."
    "... The US specializes in lack of clarity. Remember the two boats that Iran detained the other day? The US initially said that they had a mechanical failure and drifted into Iranian territorial waters. That version of events has become non-operative, and now the US is saying that the boats were fully operational, but one of the sailors accidentally punched the wrong GPS coordinates in. And then, of course, they failed to notice that they were getting awfully close to that island where Iran maintained a base. ..."
    Jan 16, 2016 | The Guardian
    chovil, 2016-01-16 16:33:47
    It's great news for the people of Iran, business in Europe, not so great for Israel and my country, Canada. Oil is going to be $30 a barrel forever now. Our previous very stupid government put all our eggs in one basket, oil at $100 a barrel.

    Israel was on the verge of nuking Iran. Ironically they stand to benefit from this, doing business with Iran. Reports from Iran were mostly that they were very western. They are Persian, not Arab, and if you look at historical maps, that line in the sand has existed for thousands of years. It's a good day. Iran is not North Korea, and it was the US supporting the Shah and his solid gold toilet that caused this problem in the first place. Back in 1978, it was obvious what was going to happen.

    Afshin Peyman -> MicheNorman , 2016-01-16 16:33:47
    Dear Moshe, You are not giving billions to Iran, It is Iranians money that was for frozen by US banks . Your religion says, Thy shall not lie and I believe it is in ten commandment, so why are you doing it ?
    fatcontrol -> Themediaspoonfedlad, 2016-01-16 16:33:47
    Most of the middle eastern countries such as Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Libya and lebanon are tribes with flags. The exception is Iran which has a long and establised sense of nationhood. It will never be a failed state.

    LiviaDrusilla -> okonomiyaki, 2016-01-16 16:33:47

    A fatwa cannot be 'lifted' because it is the personal opinion of a cleric, and the cleric involved - Ayatollah Khomeini - has been dead for 25 years. However, 17 years ago the Iranian government said it was no longer pursuing the fatwa and would not reward anyone for killing Rushdie. Which kind of amounts to the same thing.
    optimist99 -> Mervyn Sullivan, 2016-01-16 14:50:59
    "There is no doubt that if today's weak western leaders had been the ones having to deal with Hitler, in place of Winston Churchill, the Third Reich would be ruling the world today."

    For heaven's sake.... If the UK had remained neutral - how would that have prevented the Red Army from defeating the Nazis? It would have made the process slightly slower - that's all

    Stalin had started to turn the tide against the Nazis even before the US was involved in WW2 (Battle for Moscow) - and the Brits did little up to then to help
    him. The US did in fact help Stalin before it entered the war - by helping with war materiel (Lend Lease included the Russians).

    The Brits helped too, with the Murmansk convoys - but these only began in August 1941. British strategic bombing of Germany had also hardy started by then.
    No wonder Stalin pressed for "a second front now"...

    With a neutral Britain, the Russians would have got to Cuxhaven and Bremen. As it was, the Russians got to Wismar (and only stopped due to British artillery being in position to oppose them - Rossokovski's orders were to advance to Lübeck..).

    Patrick Ryan, 2016-01-16 14:49:19
    Well when it comes to the Iran v Saudi battle of religious fascist dogma then I'm leaning towards Iran as the lesser of the evils... Iran is about to get their frozen assets back as part of the deal... let's hope they put that $100 billion to some good use... Welfare, housing, hospitals and education should all benefit... Unfortunately with so much trouble on their doorstep, they'll probably but new fighter planes and lots of guns from the new American buddies...
    LiviaDrusilla, 2016-01-16 14:37:08
    Former British ambassador to Tehran on Sky News. Amazingly enough, he's talking a lot of sense.
    Afshin Peyman -> mattijoon, 2016-01-16 14:36:42
    Why do you think that US, UK, Israel, Saudi wants stability in Mid East region ? All evidence suggests otherwise from regime change in Syria to Libya .from emergence of Isis to Saudi demanding that US bombs Iran to state of oblivion. I am very happy about the agreement, however, i am very cynical about tricky Americans to uphold their part of bargain.

    Hope for the best but i see Saudi and Israeli are heavily engaged in sabotaging the agreement.

    Pete Salmond -> AntonDeque, 2016-01-16 14:35:27
    If you dislike Iran maybe you must hate Saudi Arabia, a dubious country we gave been allies with for years. Personally, I find Iran to be far more reasonable than Saudi Arabia.. Perhaps you should open your eyes.
    SundarIsaacs, 2016-01-16 14:34:21
    Cuba & Iran. Next Russia please. And then if possible impose sanctions on Israel, Turkey and KSA.
    pretzelattack -> AntonDeque, 2016-01-16 14:32:51
    i saw female protestors get beaten at occupy. i see fleeing unarmed guys shot by cops. maybe the west isn't too pure either? in any case, going to war over faked wmds doesn't work out well.
    Katrin3 -> Iconoclastick, 2016-01-16 14:28:05
    They can't delay this. What they will do, is introduce different kinds of US only sanctions, for other reasons (to appease their AIPAC donors). The terms of the nuclear deal are such, that they can't punish other countries for trading with Iran, when the UN and EU lift their sanctions, probably later today.

    Iran can simply refrain from doing any business with the US.

    LiviaDrusilla -> copyniated, 2016-01-16 14:26:50
    Yes. It was on BBC. Apparently Kerry and Zarif had been locked in a room together - presumably discussing this.

    BTW Yankee propagandist on BBC right now, getting the soft soap treatment as always.

    Giulio Ongaro -> Phil Atkinson, 2016-01-16 14:21:43
    In addition to that, i should say that there is a perception fueled by conservatives that all the bad stuff has been done by Iranians, but if I were an Iranian citizen, it would be pretty hard to forget that the US supported Saddam Hussein financially and militarily (with aid) during an eight-year, very bloody Iran-Iraq war that left hundreds of thousand Iranians dead or wounded (and, incidentally, that's when the US downed an Iranian airliner).

    And the years of useless sanctions that only alienated Iranians. Let's not forget that the Soviet Union, for example, did not fall at the peak of the Cold War. It fell when the contacts with the West increased. It won't be that we open the contacts today and tomorrow Iran is a nice Western democracy, but judging from the splendid success of the 50+ years of US embargo of Cuba, I would rather engage Iran than isolate it.

    robinaldlowrise, 2016-01-16 14:20:18

    "It proved that we can solve important problems through diplomacy, not threats and pressure, and thus today is definitely an important day," [Zarif] said.

    Is this guy Zarif in receipt of a backhander from Seamus Milne?

    mattijoon -> moreblingplease, 2016-01-16 14:19:23
    Very true. How many Saudi terrorists are there, and how many Iranian ones? Islamic terror is exported is large quantities by our "friends" in Saudi-Arabia, just second to oil.
    Katrin3 -> dothemaths, 2016-01-16 14:19:17
    No it won't. When Iran comes in from the cold, even the conservatives won't want to go back there. They also want a prosperous future for their people.
    LiviaDrusilla, 2016-01-16 14:18:32
    BBC reporting that there has been a delay in the announcement of the end of the sanctions - apparently they were expecting a statement 4 hours ago. However, it's just been announced that 4 American-Iranian prisoners held in Iran are to be released. Hopefully, that has resolved the 'hitch' that has been holding up the announcement.
    Stephen_Sean, 2016-01-16 14:18:17
    Unfortunately for Iran she is getting her freedom to sell oil on the open markets right at a time when the oil market is in complete free fall. Already Iran is looking at using barter with Europe exchanging oil for various goods.
    mattijoon -> Papaplone, 2016-01-16 14:17:10

    There will never be true freedom and prosperity for Iran until they rid themselves from the awful theocracy that has ruined their society and lives for the past 40 years.

    So you think isolation, crippling sanctions and threat of war is better for achieving peace in the Middle East? Do you have anything constructive to say at all?

    Katrin3 -> copyniated, 2016-01-16 14:17:01
    They were already there months ago, together with French politicians and other businessmen, including the owners of a large chain of hotels. This is about their 3rd or 4th visit. All embassies, apart from those of the US and Canada, have reopened (most never closed in spite of sanctions).
    Stephen_Sean -> subtilesubversion, 2016-01-16 14:15:34
    The only way we can improve human rights is to first increase our ties between nations. Gone are the days when you can isolate a country and demand they improve human rights and expect it to work.

    Anyway, not to engage in moral relativism but my country, the USA, has some human rights blemishes we need to recognize as well. Having President Obama say "we tortured some folks" doesn't help.. The dismissive tone is not conducive to addressing the situation.

    pretzelattack -> Iveneverexisted, 2016-01-16 14:13:49
    what appeasement? did they invade somebody?
    mattijoon, 2016-01-16 14:13:35
    Iran is a major player in the region, and an unstable Iran means an unstable Middle East. The sanctions relief will stabilize Iran's economy. An Iran that is no longer threatened by war and regime change can start to play a positive role in solving the region's many conflicts. At least that's the theory, I hope Iran and the West seize this unique moment.
    pretzelattack -> JulianHBurchill, 2016-01-16 14:13:09
    Germany had a great military, a modern industrialized society, and a history of invading other countries. Iran, not.
    Katrin3 -> Mervyn Sullivan, 2016-01-16 14:10:48
    Sure, stick with your close ally and Daesh/IS supporter Saudi Arabia, who the IMF think will probably become insolvent within 5-years. When that happens, they'll no longer be able to afford all those advanced weapons and other toys you keep selling them, which they then use to kill civilians in Yemen.
    TheDepotCat -> AgeingAlbion, 2016-01-16 14:08:05
    "But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan either" --- Which part about Iran trying to make things difficult in Iraq for the illegal US occupation forces in those countries, because Iran may have been a possible target for a future US invasion don't you understand...?? The idea was to make a US occupation fail in Iraq to save their own country...And it worked.
    Stephen_Sean, 2016-01-16 14:06:48
    Fantastic news for the good citizens of Iran. Perhaps the day will come when Iranians, Europeans, and Americans are flying freely back and forth visiting each others countries without the horrendous bureaucracy, no fly lists and such.....

    Yes, I know, not the world we live in. Not yet.

    Iaorana -> Katrin3, 2016-01-16 14:05:19
    Even if there is one, why to go to Tehran while our MSM will not fail to provide us with a " Best of ", especially if Charlie Hebdo enters the festival
    LiviaDrusilla -> AgeingAlbion, 2016-01-16 14:02:23

    But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan either.

    Actually, they weren't in either country. But in any case, surely you'll agree that Iran, which share borders and has a lot of cultural links with the above mentioned countries, had a hell of a lot mroe right to be there than countries on the other side of the world?Particularly as they could be seen as defensive actions by Iran.

    And I agree - let the worthless dump of a region stew in its own squalor.

    That's some hatred for hundreds of millions of people. It was really terrible of them to force the civilsed west to bomb and invade them, and create untenable nation states.

    whose problems you blame entirely on the west -

    No I don't. But I also don't adopt the idiotic stance of wailing over British occupation soldiers rather than asking what the hell Britain was doing invading a coutnry on the other side of the world.

    ether than Gulf states or indeed Iran.

    I guess your hatred prevents you from becoming informed. If you had, you'd be aware that Iran has taken in huge numbers of Iraqi and Afghani refugees.

    As for the borders, don't they do multiculturalism in the Middle East then?

    You really haven't got a clue, have you? Maybe Iran should re-arrange Europe's borders to suit itself? You'd be happy with that, no?

    petermhogan -> vinculture, 2016-01-16 13:56:42
    The fact that the Israelis and Republicans are keeping quiet is pretty strong evidence that they have a tiny spark of realization that Obama and Kerry were in the right. Not that they will ever ever admit it. Note to Republicans: Peacemaking is a good thing. Carpet bombing is a bad thing.
    timeforchange13 -> TheSageofStockwell, 2016-01-16 13:55:22
    There are many aspects of the British regime that are even more disturbing
    petermhogan -> Papaplone, 2016-01-16 13:53:25
    Sounds like the Iranians are gradually emerging from xenophobic theocracy. Hopefully other countries can also seek the path of moderation and wisdom. Israel is among those with plenty of room for improvement. The USA has the task of avoiding a lurch in the wrong direction in the next election. It is hard to find much good news around the world these days.
    AgeingAlbion -> LiviaDrusilla, 2016-01-16 13:53:22
    But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan either. And I agree - let the worthless dump of a region stew in its own squalor. Strange isn't it how people from that region - whose problems you blame entirely on the west - still choose to come to the west en mass, rather than Gulf states or indeed Iran.

    As for the borders, don't they do multiculturalism in the Middle East then?

    timeforchange13, 2016-01-16 13:51:49
    A great day. hopefully Iran's influence will finally break out from under the malign shadow of Saudi Arabia which has held the western world in thrall for so long
    CTG2016, 2016-01-16 13:40:11
    Hopefully Iranians can build on this and continue to demand better relations with the west. Surly, they have had their differences with the west but they shouldn't let religious fundamentalists use Iran's past history to create hate and pessimistic attitude towards west.

    As Iranians say: "There is much hope in hopelessness; for at the end of the dark night, there is light."

    LiviaDrusilla -> AgeingAlbion, 2016-01-16 13:36:11

    I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, for the simple reason that that region is a failure and a dead loss and should be left to its own devices.

    Yeah, but it never is left to its own devices, is it? The 'troops' you weep over were part of an illegal occupation force, and therefore their deaths were legitimate. The west has been bombing, invading and propping up despots in the Middle EAst (often in countries whose borders were drawn in London or Paris) for decades. So maybe think for a minute what Western 'civilisation' looks like to people in the Middle East.

    I would observe though that far more Iraqi Muslims were killed by other Iraqi Muslims than by western troops, over the usual ridiculous sectarian nonsense.

    And would you also observe that most of these people would likely still be alive today if it weren't for civilized Western nations bombing thier country, disbanding their army and institutions and throwing their country into chaos?

    AlatarielN, 2016-01-16 13:33:06
    Good! And may I say finally. This can only be a good thing in the long run, regardless of any bumps that await them because there will be bumps, considering certain parties are not too happy about this. But this can only be beneficial to the country, its people and the world. That there're so many educated people there is going to be so helpful in the future. Slowly removing the fear will slowly remove the most important tool in the arsenal used by the theocracy to govern and changes will occur. It won't be quick, a year or two but it will happen while the stability should remain.
    Javafromjava -> SoxmisUK, 2016-01-16 13:31:02
    But a country that goes to war for nothing more than greed sending hundreds of thousands to their deaths including their own sons and daughters ... would you visit there ... oops you live in the UK?
    LiviaDrusilla -> Iveneverexisted, 2016-01-16 13:31:02

    Between the PRC and Pakistan, NK has the bomb. It's not clear exactly how to apportion credit.

    Not clear, when you just invent 'facts'. China was against the NK bomb, and I doubt Pakistan - which btw also borders Iran - had anything to do with it. Really daft argument.

    I can't think why anyone with full grasp of the facts

    Says the person who hasn't produced a single fact.

    other than those heavily invested in Obama and for his legacy to not be seen as a lame duck president who's accomplished sfa.

    Please. I couldn't give a toss about Obama. I'm not a fan of his at all (though likely for very differnet reasons than you) but credit where it's due. Why do Yanks think everyone cares about their infantile politics? In any case, this deal goes well beyond Yankistan. Enjoy it.

    DuneMessiah , 2016-01-16 13:10:39
    There were no sanctions against Israel, which has nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia is an Islamic fundamentalist state which sponsors terrorism. It is all hypocrisy.
    GregPlatt -> vinculture, 2016-01-16 13:06:32
    Vinculture: "A disaster in the making thanks to 0bama's incompetence and naivety." A disaster for Israel's aggressive foreign policy, maybe. And a disaster for the House of Saud.

    If the deal sticks on the US side, expect to see Iran make a number of subtle shifts in a pro-US direction over the next few years. It will be a reflection of the outcome of internal struggles within the Iranian clergy. The Supreme Leader gave Rouhani the chance to prove that negotiations and concessions could get acceptable results. The success of the negotiations will give Rouhani's faction greater clout for similar actions until such time as either they stuff it up good and proper, or somone crazy gets elected as US President.

    Phil Atkinson -> Mervyn Sullivan, 2016-01-16 13:03:46
    This is more of an example of realpolitik coming from the USA (for a change), despite whatever the nutters in Congress or the military may say about it.

    The USA has modified its attitude to Syria from "Assad must go!" to "OK, he can hang around for a while", simply because Syria, with Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah assistance, is gaining the upper hand. Hence the willingness for the USA to negotiate. We rarely hear the words "regime change in Syria" from our politicians any more. So it is with Iran. Apart from Iranian involvement in Syria, Iran has managed to outlast the sanctions regimes and has had to ratchet up its own development of medicines, weaponry etc in anticipation of a possible Israeli or US attack. As a country of some 80 million people, they wouldn't be a pushover in the military sense. And at what cost? It doesn't bear thinking about.

    On the other side of the coin, the US and others are now seeing the Saudi regime for what it is and given a choice between the KSA and Iran, they've now decided to plump with the latter - at least for the time being.

    ID5955768, 2016-01-16 13:01:15
    I don't believe for one second Iran will be able to bring that much oil online so quickly. The issues which have come about through years of barely no maintenance, can't just be reversed in a matter of months. Time will tell. But the mainstream media has been pushing this for a long time to further suppress oil prices.
    moreblingplease, 2016-01-16 12:57:45
    Meanwhile the US and Britain are directing and supplying the bombs killing innocent people in Yemen, none of which gets coverage in the press. It is a sad bad world we live in these days. Iran is probably less of a threat than Saudi Arabia which funds extremists who are so close to Isis and the likes yet do we care. It seems not.
    ham zed -> MrHumbug, 2016-01-16 12:53:05
    That is why Iran never trusts the US.
    TheSageofStockwell -> vinculture, 2016-01-16 12:50:26
    I can just imagine the skill, tact and diplomacy with which Trump or Cruz would approach this task...
    FatuousFeminist -> Mervyn Sullivan, 2016-01-16 12:45:49
    If only we had strong leadership like W Bush neh? He'd have strongly Decidered his way to victory just like the gleaming success next-door. Pass the bong.
    bcnteacher -> Michael House-Party Fleming, 2016-01-16 12:44:02
    I may have the state wrong but please don't tell me you think the USA is a bastion of tolerance! Gays are beaten up, blacks are shot, muslims are attacked. America is home to some of the world's best fed bigots.
    Mike_UK -> TheDepotCat, 2016-01-16 12:38:23
    Go read the IAEA reports over the years, they are the worlds experts that know exactly what is required for civilian nuclear energy and what is used for nuclear weapons = they know. What has been agreed is for Iran to curtail their weapon development and export certain products to Russia and possibly USA as part of the deal. Of course if you do not want to dig into the technical details of years of IEAE reports you can chack out what is said on Facebook and blogsville!
    LiviaDrusilla -> Iveneverexisted, 2016-01-16 12:35:45
    Honestly, I'm starting to almost feel sorry for the failed sanctioneers, so pathetic are their arguments.

    If North Korea, the world's most isolated country - which struggles to feed its own people - could build a bomb, do you seriously think Iran couldn't? And if they were determined to do so, why did they join the NPT in the first place? And why didn't they later leave, something they were free to do at any time? Then there's the fact that the world's foremost experts have said that Iran is not pursuing a bomb, and has not done so for many years (if it ever did).

    But... what am I doing trying to discuss facts with you? You're obviously way more comfortable with some bizarre scenario straight from Bibi's cartoon. Best we leave you to it, and the rest of the world can get on with business.

    TheSageofStockwell, 2016-01-16 12:33:13
    Please let's try and be positive about this. Iran has been a pariah state for far too long and I applaud Obama for extending the arm of friendship to them during his presidency.

    Obviously there are many aspects of the current Iranian regime that we in the West don't like, but I would rather be taking small steps with them diplomatically to try and improve the situation than have a hostile stand off.

    LiviaDrusilla -> Mike_UK, 2016-01-16 12:27:16

    Also Iran is not more moderate or understanding with respect to some American dingys going near a beach in the middle of the Persian Golf!

    That sounds nasty. I hope Rory McIlroy wasn't hurt.

    Joking aside, it's been established that the Americans did indeed enter Iranian waters, probably intentionally. And what you cutely describe as a 'beach' was actually home to an important Iranian military facility. And the 'dinghys' were well-equipped military vessels (shame the GPS was faulty though.....) How do you think the Yanks would have reacted had Iranian vessels 'drifted' just off the shore of a US military facility? By treating them well and releasing them, complete with 'dingys', the next day? I doubt it, but we'll never know, as unlike the US, Iran doesn't tend to send its 'dingys' 11,500km away from their own territory.

    But you seem to have missed the wider point here. Which is that Iran is not on trial. There are considerable grievances on both sides (objectively, the Iranian case against the US and 'west' is much more substantial than the reverse), but these matters were deliberately left off the table in these negotiations, which were aimed at solving the (non) issue of Iran's nuclear programme. The other grievances can hopefully be worked out at a later stage.

    For now, however, let's celebrate what is without doubt the greatest triumph of diplomacy in recent years.

    Iveneverexisted, 2016-01-16 12:26:24
    A red letter day for Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's Revolutionary Guard, and their mission to achieve a nuclear weapons capacity, where what's holding them back most is lack of access to Western technology, currently blocked under sanctions. They have already demonstrated to their own satisfaction, and everyone else's, they can withdraw from the NPT, and run down to a fissile mass of U235 in a matter of months. What they're missing is a bomb design.
    Mervyn Sullivan, 2016-01-16 12:25:03
    There is no doubt that if today's weak western leaders had been the ones having to deal with Hitler, in place of Winston Churchill, the Third Reich would be ruling the world today.

    The day will come when people will look back and ask what on earth were people like Obama and John kerry thinking when they did this terrible deal with Iran.

    Vizzeh -> LiviaDrusilla, 2016-01-16 12:20:43
    If only people were "informed" on the inner workings off it all politically/economically. I am 100% For the American constitution and see the political corruption, the US is being used, like many other nations, against each other.
    Vizzeh -> MrHumbug, 2016-01-16 12:18:14
    The Saudi's are being played too... (although they are corrupt as hell so who cares) Likely against each other.
    LiviaDrusilla -> AgeingAlbion, 2016-01-16 12:16:16
    "Your" troops were an illegal occupation force, and therefore legitimate targets.

    Besides, given that the thinking at the time was along the lines of ''Real men go to Tehran'' and that coupled with Shrub's idiotic 'axis' speech, then who could blame the Iranians for wanting to slow down the 'progress' of an invading army who might well have had them in their sights too?

    Oh, and what do you have to say on the West's support for Iraq in a war which killed hundreds of thoussands of Iranians, many of them civilians? Or the shooting down of an Iranian civilian jet, killing all 280 passengers on board?

    MGBrit -> hobot, 2016-01-16 12:11:53
    USA. They've been there for years with drones and bombings, I know.
    Babak Taurus ૐ, 2016-01-16 12:11:37
    Good news indeed. For along time western trust in Saudis oil and money cost the Middle East a massive fortune. I hope the world see how peaceful Iranians are an those extremist in Iran are literally the minority. Today I feel proud because diplomacy solved a very complicated issue which I wouldn't see it coming. Thank you mr Zarif...
    Win-Win
    LiviaDrusilla -> andytyrrell, 2016-01-16 12:10:39
    Oh, OK, I getcha!

    I just wanted to explore this idea of why any argument against Iran, or anyone for that matter, having such weapons, irrespective of whether they plan to or not, isn't applied to the debate about whether or not we should get rid of our (UK) own.

    If we put aside sheer hypocrisy (always an important feature of foreign policy!) then I think the usual argument is that, unlike we rational Westerners, the Iranians are crazy religious maniacs who can't be trusted with a bomb. In reality, though obviously the Iranian regime is a religiously-based one, they have shown themselves to be quite pragmatic and cautious over the past 2 decades at least. Which isn't to say the regime is benign, by any means, just that their foreign policy is based on rational self-interest (or their perception thereof) - just like any other country.

    Another reason given is Iran's supposed 'support for terror organisaitons'. Putting aside the fact that defining what is a 'terror organisaiton' is largely a matter of one's political views, it's hard to see what this has to do with the nuclear issue specifically. Unless we buy the notion - straight from a 5th rate James Bond knock-off - that Iran could 'give' its (non-existent) nukes to a 'terrorist', as though a nuclear bomb was equivalent to an AK-47.

    So, having disposed of those 'arguments', I think we're back to hypocrisy as the motivator.

    Vizzeh -> Themediaspoonfedlad, 2016-01-16 12:03:49
    If these coups continue, there will be no-one left to overthrow politically/economically, once the political safety-net is gone and there is no more political buffer zones, potentially those on the outskirts left opposing this, would backed into a war.

    I don't back any country with Nukes, but I do back the balance off power, if Iran is overthrown with Syria, it would be dangerous times for the rest off us. It would be "safer" for Israel too disarm, followed by Pakistan, North Korea then East + West Bilaterally, simutaniously.

    All under the helm off a Strong-Moral UN. A Free, Regional agreement.

    AgeingAlbion -> nearfieldpro, 2016-01-16 12:03:26
    Iran spent years supplying IEDs to kill our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
    OldSnort, 2016-01-16 11:58:51
    Better to jaw, jaw than to war, war.
    spotthelemon -> Zod Buster, 2016-01-16 11:56:51
    Iran isn't Nazi Germany, if you want to pursue that analogy then its closer to Franco's Spain and we got on well if occasionally frostily with them for 39 years without having a war with them
    Themediaspoonfedlad -> Andrew Nichols, 2016-01-16 11:55:48
    Can anyone take the risk of allowing Iran to even play around with this stuff in anyway shape or form ? The west started this fight years ago and has
    1. Up to 1953 robbed Iran of its oil.
    2. After a progressive Persian govt renationalized and booted British Petroleum out of the country suffered a coup d'état instigated with US aid in 1953.
    3. 1953 to 1979 Suffered a tyrannical US/UK regime under the Shah of Iran which led to the Islamic Revolution , ie we radicalized them.
    4. After the revolution we armed Saddam Hussein to start a war and killed millions of Iranians.
    5. Sanctions for the last 10 years.

    What on earth do we do now?

    MrHumbug, 2016-01-16 11:54:47
    If I were Iranian I'd be double wary now of US's intentions. It seems that the working method of the "West" nowadays is to feign a warming of relations to draw yourself closer before a fatal stab. Remember Libya? And I recall Syria having a nice "warm up period" before the gates of hell opened. Take care, Iran.
    Iconoclastick, 2016-01-16 11:54:14
    4th or 5th largest proven/unproven reserves on the planet. I'm delighted sanctions are freeing up in Iran, but I can't be alone in thinking that the USA were going to find some devil in the detail for it not to go ahead, to be delayed. Still highly suspicious of USA motives here, but for now rejoice Iranian people. :-)
    Vizzeh -> Andrew Nichols, 2016-01-16 11:52:21

    The annula reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported this fact consitently since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli geopolitics enabled by their propaganda arm the mainstream media

    I have always wondered on the conflicts off interest in this, doesn't the Security services support the political agenda for the most part? Have seen it over the last 100 years, on reading about it, maybe not entirely but compartmentalized they seemingly do.

    I know in Syria, the Pentagon is apparently completely split, some feeding information around to Assad, while another faction supports the overthrow. Difficult to discern what is true/false but much of it does play-out/check-out logically.

    However, what is with the conflict of interest in this case? I guess one is suppressing religion on 1 side, yet supporting the end of times theme on the other. Perhaps that is where the Military end this support on a Nuclear scale.

    Themediaspoonfedlad -> Philip Bissonnette, 2016-01-16 11:42:45
    I agree but China and Russia are a thorn in its side. The Russians are doing arms deals with Iran. Also a CIA led coup 1953 style is unlikely to work against a non liberal progressive govt. Iraq is in no position to be used to attack it.

    Before the deal all the sabre rattling was hollow. No amount of bombing was going to stop an underground nuclear programme. Sanctions weren't working, Iran diversified its economy.

    It looks to me that the west has to either start Armageddon to take Iran out or start to build bridges.

    I don't think it is capable of succeeding now with either policy. This is very bad news for the future security of Israel. All thought it should be safe for 50 or so more years.

    Andrew Nichols, 2016-01-16 11:39:05
    Iran has always denied seeking an atomic weapon, saying its activities are only for peaceful purposes, such as power generation and medical research. The annual reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported this fact consistently since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli geopolitics enabled by their propaganda arm the mainstream media that maintained the charade of a clandestine nuclear weapon programme.
    MrHumbug -> marovich11, 2016-01-16 11:33:27
    Maybe it is that the US cold warriors are finally dying out. When the wall came down USSR dismantled its cold war power structure because they were the losers. US cold war professionals were the winners and saw no reason to fade themselves out - hence the often baffling aggressive and enemy-seeking US foreign policy in the post cold war period.

    The problem is that times have changed now and the US has managed to rile others far enough to start their own mini-cold wars against US, particularly Russia which does have its valid reasons to feel it's been cheated and played for patsy.

    Streatham -> ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 11:26:28

    President Obama did irritate me in his State of the Union Address when he started bragging about how big and powerful the U.S. military was and how much tax payer money was spent on it. In fact it pissed me off when he said those things. It was the last thing I expected to hear coming out of his mouth.

    So you weren't watching what he was actually doing over the past seven years?

    According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the George W. Bush administration ordered 50 drone attacks while the government of current US President Barack Obama has already launched around 500 such strikes. Obama primarily ordered assassination strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan.

    The United States says the CIA-run drone strikes essentially kill militants, although casualty figures show that civilians are often the victims of the non-UN-sanctioned attacks.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-ordered-ten-times-more-drone-strikes-than-bush/5475415

    kevinusma -> Ernekid, 2016-01-16 11:21:14
    I'm an American who just got back from a 10 day visit to Iran. Iranians are among the nicest people on Earth. It is safe to visit. I had no issues when I was there. The only thing you should be worried about is safely crossing the busy streets, not terrorism or kidnapping. Don't believe the media fear machine.

    http://www.thetravelsofkevin.com/american-travel-to-iran/

    Streatham -> kaper39, 2016-01-16 11:19:38

    Israel are a clever country to arm, the entire middle east hates them yet Israel clearly dominate their neighbours in any conflict. An ally we Europeans need with how the middle east is going

    Ah, the West's colony in the Middle East.

    LiviaDrusilla -> John Smith, 2016-01-16 11:17:55
    Well, a low price is better than no price.

    And Iran, unlike the Gulf sheikhdoms, is a real country with educated people. With sufficient investment and freedom to trade, Iran should easily be able to develop an economy which is not entirely dependent on oil - or gas, of which Iran has some of the largest deposits in the world. I'm not sure the same could be said for the petrostates on the other side of the Gulf.

    BigJim1, 2016-01-16 11:16:50
    " there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US." - as ever you never know what the US is going to do, and I suspect the US itself does not know given it dysfunctional political system. Any system that could even contemplate the likes of Donald Trump for the office of President cannot be fit for purpose.
    Alice38, 2016-01-16 11:15:41
    Except that Iran will secretly make a nuclear bomb anyway.
    USA and the rest of the world have been duped.
    In the end ordinary Iranians who just wanted peace will not get it . Will not get it while they live under a mediaeval dictatorship that is
    John Smith, 2016-01-16 11:14:12
    "Lifting of Iran sanctions is 'a good day for the world'"

    Unless you are Venezuela, Russia, etc and dependent on oil prices.
    In many ways, not much has improved for Iran either, they can sell oil but at a very low price.

    Vizzeh, 2016-01-16 11:12:48
    This is a good day as it allows freedom off the Market... Next moves shows the world-stage who is motivated by Orwellian-double-speak (crying wolf) or those who indeed are the aggressors....

    It would be interesting if it wasn't morally evil and destructive. It is a chess board.

    Themediaspoonfedlad, 2016-01-16 11:07:52
    Ho ho ho. This is a ceasefire. The whole project for the Middle East revolves around it's Palestiniasation , ie leave it in tatters with no state or economic infrastructure, eg Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq , Syria , Libya . All have suffered through foreign intervention largely US sanctioned. For the last 40 years since the west financed and armed Saddam Hussein to fight and destroy the state of Iran after it deposed the Shah this has been policy. This ideal I s like an unfinished course of anti-biotics , ultimately if you leave Iran standing it will always be a power base which can fill the vacuum in all these failed states.
    There is no going back from the damage done...Iran has to be the West's next horizon if there is never going to be a nuclear Islamic state this century.

    May a dead man say a few words to you, general, for your enlightenment? You will never rule the world... because you are doomed. All of you who demoralized and corrupted a nation are doomed. Tonight you will take the first step along a dark road from which there is no turning back. You will have to go on and on, from one madness to another, leaving behind you a wilderness of misery and hatred. And still, you will have to go on... because you will find no horizon... see no dawn... until at last you are lost and destroyed. You are doomed, captain of murderers. And one day, sooner or later, you will remember my words...

    budigunawan -> MediaWatchDog, 2016-01-16 11:06:48

    The far right in Israel, not for everyone. Saudi and far right wing Israel have a symbiotic relationship. Saudi can push it's agenda of Wahhabism that secures it's brutal regime and far right Israel profits from the bitter fruits of Saudi, as it means that Israel is seen as the anti-muslim anchor of the West in the region. Sadly, the political intervention of the US has been based around protecting and supporting this symbiotic relationship with money, troops and bombs.
    Vizzeh -> JohannesL, 2016-01-16 10:50:53
    Depends on the use off the word terrorist, if you mean fabricated terrorism for aggression, to forward political goals/Land/Economic reasons, or if you mean terrorism in defence of a Nation or a civilisation being oppressed....

    It is based on perception, or rather delibrate ignorance. It is terrorism if it is at the expense off another mans freedom.

    It boils down to morality aswell, but since the various factions, possibly even media are doing a good job too blur those lines, it makes it easier for people who do not think for themselves, to be either delibrately obtuse/Ignorant.

    One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist

    - Ghandi
    copyniated, 2016-01-16 10:49:43
    Obama has already issued an order(today) lifting sanctions on the sale of passenger airliners to Iran. Boeing & Airbus are in intense competition as Iran plans to purchase 500 airliners in the next 10 years worth billions of dollars.
    PigeonBomb -> LeftOrRightSameShite, 2016-01-16 10:48:35

    I'll take it with a pinch of salt given the lack of corroboration. There are many confirmed stories of injustice from inside Iran but I can see why you picked this one. True or not, it certainly makes a sensational headline.

    errr ... OK ... how about these them apples:

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/07/19/vigil-marks-10th-anniversary-of-iran-hanging-two-gay-teens/

    sensational and sour enough for you?

    LiviaDrusilla -> mj50, 2016-01-16 10:48:27
    I suspect they were hoping that once Iran had 'complied', sanctions would be dropped and everyone could get back to business.

    They then, rather belatedly realised that for the Yanks, Bibi and the Gulf sheikhdoms, sanctions weren't a means to an end. They were the end. Happily, only one of the above three players really counts, and they finally saw sense.

    usini, 2016-01-16 10:47:41
    Th key point is that it is not only about the US and the EU. India, China and Russia will also see both great opportunities both to export and in general to develop trade. India has already talked about building a pipeline to Chah Bahar.
    LiviaDrusilla -> wilding45, 2016-01-16 10:45:59

    100billion of unfrozen assets - how much is going to find its way into London property making prices even more ridiculous.

    Almost none, I expect. Iran is a country of about 80 million people, with an economy which has been severely held back through years - even decades - of sanctions. In that context, 100 billion isn't actually that much, and I expect the Iranians will find no shortage of ways to use it at home. And given that the Iranian government is still highly suspicious of the Brits (for very good reason) I very much doubt they'll want to spend this much-needed cash on overpriced pads in Blighty.

    London's a kip anyway.

    JohannesL -> kaper39, 2016-01-16 10:42:42
    George W Bush said he got his orders from God, and they were amazingly similar to the ones he got from Big Oil. We know the results.
    andyoldlabour -> fanazipan, 2016-01-16 10:41:33
    They have killed Iranian scientists in Iran. They have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians.
    JohannesL -> Vizzeh, 2016-01-16 10:41:03
    Surely Iran is much less a terrorist supporter than the US and the UK?
    chalkandcheese -> Ben Latimore, 2016-01-16 10:36:53
    Apologies, I thought you were talking about Iran's extra income financing its armed forces, or its fuller influence now sanctions will be soon lifted. The 'now' in your comment lead me to believe you were commenting on the recent events discussed in the article, how mistaken I surely am to think you were being relevant.
    1ClearSense, 2016-01-16 10:36:08
    It i amazing how western oriented news organization by default report the talking point of the western regimes reflexively. Unlike the news bureaus in the soviet era, they don't need minders and censors, those are just built in or plugged in by interviews.
    wilding45, 2016-01-16 10:34:20
    100billion of unfrozen assets - how much is going to find its way into London property making prices even more ridiculous.

    Unless we look at channel islands type restrictions for property market in se england our youth will only own property with inheritance and even then when the IHT threshold is well over a million if you project forward six years. (price doubles every six years).

    Panda Bear -> andyoldlabour, 2016-01-16 10:33:56
    Yes, there are a string of US presidents claiming God told them to do... or God wants them to be...
    mj50 -> LiviaDrusilla, 2016-01-16 10:33:24
    Good point, EU countries UK aside, very never comfortable with the position the west took with regard to Iran. How as the big boss in Washington decided what the policy was they had little choice.
    Panda Bear -> andyoldlabour, 2016-01-16 10:31:21
    Ha, ha, ha! US allies are never sanctioned, no matter how many International Laws they break, they ignore UN resolutions against them no matter how cruel and inhuman their actions. Where are the sanctions against US? Oh, can't be sanctioned can it...
    frankoman -> bcnteacher, 2016-01-16 10:30:57
    He can do what he likes, the US have given Israel a free pass, human rights abuses, extrajudicial killings, threats to Israeli Arabs, 'hidden' nuclear weapons, all have to be ignored while their neighbours are subjected to endless scrutiny. While this continues the Middle East will never be at peace. Palestinians are humans too.
    Vizzeh -> Blenheim, 2016-01-16 10:30:09
    Or those that funded the creation of Israel? in 1917 - Balflour declaration, and what is currently going on today in Israel, still by dictionary definition, genocide.
    copyniated, 2016-01-16 10:30:01
    The hardliners in Iran "Delvapassan", most of whom work for hostile foreign intelligence services, are also in trouble. In fact the arch spy, Naghdi of Basij whose members stormed the Saudi embassy in return for petrodollars, now says it was the monarchists who stormed the Saudi embassy. A ridiculous claim as most people in Iran know that monarchists could not even organize a birthday party.
    stevenfieldfare , 2016-01-16 10:28:39
    ....only a good day if Iran holds to its side of the deal... if not, downstream confrontation will move from possible to probable...
    LiviaDrusilla -> bcnteacher, 2016-01-16 10:28:32
    I think Bibi's play-acting just blew up in his face.
    ConventionPrevention -> Powerspike, 2016-01-16 10:28:28
    It's scary to say the least and one wonders if it can even be brought back from the brink if someone like Bernie Sanders was to be elected. President Obama did irritate me in his State of the Union Address when he started bragging about how big and powerful the U.S. military was and how much tax payer money was spent on it. In fact it pissed me off when he said those things. It was the last thing I expected to hear coming out of his mouth. He sounded like a republican braggart. It really annoyed me. I do believe, to his discredit, that he was trying to appease the Repulicans.
    LordWotWot, 2016-01-16 10:25:53
    "Whoever though it was a good idea to become closely allied to the barbaric sheikhs of Arabia whose petrodollars are fueling wahhabi barbarism, is a complete idiot."......President Roosevelt
    LiviaDrusilla -> Powerspike, 2016-01-16 10:25:35
    Really interesting article. Thanks for linking - I love Glenn Greenwald's site.

    I also loved this quote:

    "A sailor may have punched the wrong coordinates into the GPS and they wound up off course."

    So what could be interpreted as an act of war is down to some dunderhead 'punching the wrong coordinates'? 4realz? And of course the fact that the Yanks basically lied and did indeed intentionally violate Iranian territory will not be covered by the media. And like I said before, where are all those posters who accused several of us of being 'bots' because GPS imagery would of course show the Yanks were in international waters and the Iranians were fibbing, as always?

    Vizzeh, 2016-01-16 10:20:25
    Surely this is the end of Saudi Arabia if they continue to keep the oil prices low, bringing the rest of the market down with it, at the expense of their own economy (& Nation) & ours. With this Iran will likely be able to sustain an economical war with less reliance on oil as the Saudis.

    No sympathy for them or their terrorist support. Still waiting on economic/weapon sanctions and condemnation off them (and anyone else involved) by the UN etc

    Hottentot, 2016-01-16 10:10:37
    This is good news, and it has to be hoped that the Iranian economy can now start to grow. No doubt, the Saudi and Israel won't like it, but that's though, if either of these two countries had professional leaders, then their childish, spiteful and lying screams against Iran, would never exist.

    Forrest also said ongoing human rights and terrorism related sanctions in the US would have an effect. "Whilst the EU piece of the puzzle is clear, as it has already published relevant legislation amending existing sanctions measures to pave the way for early EU termination, there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US."

    Arr .... the reason possibly is that the US knows it has already pissed off Saudi and Israel, so won't push the boat out to far, thereby exasperating an unnecessary situation further.

    Blenheim, 2016-01-16 10:04:47
    Lifting of Iran sanctions is 'a good day for the world' Yet these gangsters who control the finance industry(US/UK), and who can and do, impose sanctions at will, are free, without sanction, to wage war against whoever they so choose with impunity. Something is not quite right here, or are we too stupid, too compliant to see it?
    Dennis Pachernegg -> dolly63, 2016-01-16 09:55:22
    If the US, Russia, Germany, France, Britain, Japan, and the EU say this agreement is watertight, you can safely believe that it is. Except of course, if you are smarter and better informed than all their diplomats and technical experts. Are you?
    acornstooaks -> supercool, 2016-01-16 09:55:12
    Ok - so you're anti nuclear weapons. Fair enough, you're free view. For me, much more importantly is the opportunity for trade. The Iranians are well educated and still have a historical connection with our country.

    I am a manufacturer of made in UK retail product and will see this as a great opportunity to help build relationships and support the growth of our sustainable employment in the UK.

    LiviaDrusilla -> 12inchPianist, 2016-01-16 09:54:12
    If this technology is so promising, why didn't any the other nuclear nations offer themselves "a testing bed for the much safer Thorium reactor solution"? Iran isn't the world's guinea pig.
    karabasbarabas , 2016-01-16 09:47:26
    The sanctions are another kind of war. The tradesmen will win at the end
    LiviaDrusilla -> Dennis Pachernegg, 2016-01-16 09:47:16
    When sanctions started, they were nowhere near as harsh. European countries - as well as China and India - had long been growing tired of the extremely strict sanctions imposed mostly by the Americans. Though Kerry gets a lot of the credit for the deal going through, according to some reports, his European allies told him that they were going to stop abiding by the sanctions whether he and Bibi liked it or not. So he could either accept that reality or keep fighting the cartoon fight. Thankfully, he and his boss chose the sensible option.
    12inchPianist, 2016-01-16 09:45:59
    All the nuclear nations should have banded together with Iran to help Iran with their desire for peaceful nuclear power by helping Iran with expertise and funding to develop Thorium reactors. That would put the kibosh on Iran's nuclear weapons program and work as a testing bed for the much safer Thorium reactor solution .
    Katrin3 -> marovich11, 2016-01-16 09:45:58
    Unfortunately, those cooler heads, will be leaving the administration at the end of this year, when there are elections in the US. After that anything can happen.

    It's been a rare pleasure to have diplomatic adults, not warmongers, in both the White House and the State Department, for the past 8 years.

    Dennis Pachernegg -> oddbubble, 2016-01-16 09:43:43
    Europeans already had business interests at the time the sanctions started, ten years ago. And yet they supported the sanctions. I don't see why it should be different now.
    chalkandcheese -> Ben Latimore, 2016-01-16 09:41:10
    You're joking, aren't you? Iran's output before the embargo was 2.6 mbpd, it has since been 1.4 mbpd.
    jimbobsmells -> aberinkula, 2016-01-16 09:37:45

    British foreign policy is a selective and hypocrital joke.

    The quotes from Hammond today certainly prove that.
    LiviaDrusilla -> Ernekid, 2016-01-16 09:37:07
    Actually, it's never been that difficult for most European tourists to visit Iran. Getting the visa can be a bit of a pain, but most people who apply succeed in getting it quickly enough. And once you're in the country, you can travel pretty much whereever you like. There has been a requirement for British travellers to travel with an official guide, but I expect that will be dropped very quickly.
    Katrin3 -> hoboh2o, 2016-01-16 09:31:03
    Yes, unfortunately neither the UK or the US think long-term, when selling advanced weapons to the Saudis (or giving them to Israel). That may well come back to bite them, when the House of Saud falls, as it must.
    damienbridges, 2016-01-16 09:29:42
    Amazed this has gone through. The world's biggest and most dangerous children, Israel and Saudi Arabia, will NOT be pleased. These two are behind so much of the world's problems, far moreso than their parent the USA.
    DeadDingo -> dolly63, 2016-01-16 09:28:00
    where are Israels nukes pointing, out of interest?
    andytyrrell -> laguerre, 2016-01-16 09:23:15
    Yes I get that Laguerre, I don't think that's what they are doing either, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. Considering that, there are plenty of people around the world that think Iran does want nuclear weapons, in spite of Iran's protestations to the contrary, I'm guessing that there must be a ready argument for them not having such weapons. I'd be interested to know what that argument is and why it doesn't apply to us.
    supercool, 2016-01-16 09:18:59
    Welcome to the world community Iran. Not a perfect nation but which is. No point demonizing people & nations, it does more harm than good.

    They have said their Nuclear use for Civilian purposes and so it has proved. Now how about those nations with Nuclear weapons and armed to the teeth with getting rid some of them. Hypocrisy of nuclear issue like most things around the world is stunning.

    Powerspike -> hobot, 2016-01-16 09:08:17
    The Saudis are having to use Columbian mercenaries to supplement their usual Pakistani rank and file "soldiers" in Yemen. No Saudis are ready to sacrifice their lives to further their own royal families ambitions. This is an incredible weakness but typical of a petrodollar state where all loyalties are based on money. If Saudi Arabia were attacked by even a small but determined force (such as ISIS) it would collapse like a house of cards.
    Powerspike -> Zepp, 2016-01-16 09:03:33
    The US has the largest prison population in the world. It also practices torture at home and abroad. It carries out executions at home and extra judicial (terror) killings abroad often using drones to do so. Compared to any of this, Iran is just a beginner.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

    Powerspike -> ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 08:56:19
    America is the best defended slum in the western world. A few facts: Huge disparities of wealth and poverty, a rigid class system, massive unsustainable military spending around the world, a weak education system that depends on educated migrants to take skilled jobs, a declining manufacturing sector due to dumb free trade deals that built up Chinese economic power. I could go on indefinitely......but if America falls it will collapse from within through its own internal contradictions - probably in typical American style involving hubris, narcissism, blame shifting and of course lots of violence.
    HowSicklySeemAll, 2016-01-16 08:51:48
    Real change must come from below and not from the Americans or Europeans or Israeli lobby or sheikhdoms, or MEK or any other Iranian exile group, but the Iranian masses themselves. History has shown this to be true time and time again. Reforms were introduced in Germany, England, France, the United States, etc. only because of pressure from below, from the organized sections of the working classes and their trade union representatives and not from 'enlightened governments' or 'generous employers'. The road to reform is paved with struggle and defeats and victories.
    • German Chancellor Bismarck, the first statesman to introduce reforms as a way to put down socialist agitation and mass disgruntlement, wrote in 1889: "we must vigorously intervene for the betterment of the low of the workmen. "
    • German Emperor William II cautioned in 1890: "For the maintenance of peace between employers and workers…Such an institution will facilitate the free and peaceful expression of their wishes and their grievances, and furnish officials a regular means for keeping informed of the labor situation and of continuing in contact with the workers"
    • In 1906, a French cabinet member cautioned: "we believe that it is time to study seriously the means of preventing the return of conflicts between capital and labor"

    If you want to support the Iranians in their struggle, support the labour movement there. Everything that is good about North America and Europe, or rather, the things that make life tolerable there including a decent standard of living, paid holidays, adequate working conditions, unemployment insurance, pensions, etc. was struggled for and won by workers and trade unions.

    ConventionPrevention -> xredsx, 2016-01-16 08:47:16
    It's all true. The U.S. Military program is over bloated and needs a severe diet. Billions of dollars wasted. Criticize the U.S. military all you like. I do all the time. ;)

    Did you know that the U.S. military is second in federal expenditures only to social security? It is the second most expensive program in the United States! This is wrong.

    So when some apologist says "well the military only makes up 17 percent of the budget," (which has been said to me on many occasions) tell them they are full of it.

    William Livingstone -> hobot, 2016-01-16 08:39:34
    Remind me, which country is currently levelling Yemen one building at a time? Oh yes, a Sunni nation Saudi Arabia.
    Blenheim -> Nivedita, 2016-01-16 08:39:07
    When will the civilized world see sanctions on US, UK and Saudi Arabia for dropping bombs on the Yemenis?

    After the UK(Cameron) gifted a seat on the Human rights council to the Saudis?..
    Anyone would think it was a thoroughly corrupt rigged game .. wouldn't they.
    The west makes it up as they go along .. and you argue the toss at your peril.

    Saltyandthepretz -> marovich11, 2016-01-16 08:38:44
    It could also be the case that conservative voices have been muted, taking away the paranoid suspicion that has hobbled both Iran and the US.
    Blenheim -> andytyrrell, 2016-01-16 08:27:02
    Ha, ha, ha. Priceless. Yes, no one has ever(as far as I'm aware) put forward a reason why anyone would want to invade the UK. Why would they .. it certainly wouldn't be for the benefits many here would have us believe.

    Iran however?. yes, what a tasty treat, they have significantly more to nick in terms of raw materials and other good stuff than we do .. Iran would make a far better(and now easier) target. Oh.. Bibi, despite his protestations to the contrary, must be rubbing his hands with glee, and now with the revelation that US and UK personnel are ensconced(secretly) with the Saudi's .. If I were an Iranian, I'd see myself surrounded by enemies. Would I give up the potential to make a bomb?..
    Hmm. Whatever the inducements were, they're certainly not enough to see off a willful new US president with a finger on the trigger, especially as almost all have voiced the desire to bomb.

    Nivedita, 2016-01-16 08:20:06

    But he said while all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be lifted, other sanctions such as those related to human rights and terrorism will remain in place

    Sanctions on Iran were illegal and the people of Iran were punished for the nukes they never wanted to build. When will the civilized world see sanctions on US, UK and Saudi Arabia for dropping bombs on the Yemenis?

    xredsx -> ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 08:08:09
    I hear you on this. I heard that the American cost of the new F35 fighter jet program is enough to buy every homeless American a $600,000 house. I'm not criticizing the USA military program or anything just highlighting the simple cost for America to help it's own poor. Especially in today world were money created out of thin air. Even now that i have wrote this how much QE did the Fed do but couldn't house the homeless.
    quorkquork, 2016-01-16 07:59:22

    But he said while all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be lifted, other sanctions such as those related to human rights and terrorism will remain in place, most notably in the US, meaning that companies would still have to comply with those restrictions.

    Meanwhile the Telegraph is calling for an alliance with al Qaeda in Syria, saying:

    The reality that comes with the prolonging war might now mean that it is time to think of widening who we support – and by working with groups who would fight IS first over Assad, or indeed al-Qaida's Syrian branch Al Nusra, but who might not necessarily have the moderate qualities we would ideally like to support militarily in Syria, lest they too enact the depravity of beheadings, torture and rape which the conflict has seen too much of already.

    That's before we get to Yemen, where the areas the UK has helped 'liberate' from AQ's fiercest foe, has been taken over by ISIS.

    Stunning hypocrisy and outright criminality.

    It's time to abandon our obsession with Syrian 'moderates'

    ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 07:56:20
    What's that Netanyahu? I can't hear you. I still can't hear you. Yeah, maybe you should set your dumb ass down and take a break for the rest of your miserable life from your anti-Obama/anti-Iran rhetoric. You are already soaking the American taxpayer for 3 billion a year, and now you are asking for 4.2 to 4.5 billion a year for the next ten years. It disgusts me how American tax payer money gets thrown around the world while people here at home are in the streets starving. How does that work, Netanyahu? You tell me, how does that work, you miserable fool.
    Blenheim -> VoodyAlen, 2016-01-16 07:41:26
    Yes, but as we've seen previously under Bush Jnr, how long does it take to start an illegal war and who will stop the US in an illegal war? .. it certainly won't be us in the UK .. inexplicably we seem to love whatever the US does be it legal or absolutely illegal.

    I'm pleased sanctions are being lifted, but until we discuss as adults the Palestinian/Israeli issue plus Israels nuclear arsenal - which quite ludicrously seems immune even from being acknowledged, then tensions will remain. We can't keep ignoring this issue and the injustices in Palestine in the blaise fashion with which we apply sanctions to others. The west's current hypocrisy stinks.

    ConventionPrevention -> Powerspike, 2016-01-16 07:30:19
    This is what I heard on the news earlier in the night. I heard that the two navy boats did indeed purposely take a short cut through Iranian waters. Then the Iranian guard took pursuit. Then, the Harry Truman aircraft carrier group launched search helicopters into the area which did not help things at all and only escalated things. Finally, the Iranians took the crew.

    The U.S. lies all the time. They constantly lie and then the U.S. politicians come calling for nothing short of a nuclear strike! They are insane. I can say this much. Any country has the right to board and take a vessel if it enters their waters, and that includes the stupid, arrogant U.S. This country really needs to back their shit down and take a look at what they are doing in the world. They have become very full of themselves and it stinks to high heaven. It smells like shit.

    VoodyAlen, 2016-01-16 07:25:05
    A great privilege to witness such a rare occasion when common sense and rationality prevail! Well done all the parties involved! Thanks for "giving peace a chance"

    PS. Wondering how Republicans (especially Tom Cotton), Bibi, king Salman, n the rest of premium members of warmonger club are feeling now! .

    hoboh2o, 2016-01-16 07:24:58
    Anything that stops the Saudi's playing the big I am is fine by me. They've already cut off their own nose over oil prices to stop US fracking and their economy is suffering, lets hope Iran can keep it low when it doesn't suit Saudi Arabia.

    The one worry is ISIS getting a foothold if the Saudi government goes tits up and getting their hands on some real shiny weapons.

    André De Koning , 2016-01-16 07:22:31
    "Whilst the EU piece of the puzzle is clear, as it has already published relevant legislation amending existing sanctions measures to pave the way for early EU termination, there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US."

    Good, let the US who started all this nonsense feel themselves for a while what it is like to be outside trade with Iran. I bet it will not last long if companies realize they are still not allowed to do business because of their own extortion over the many years while the EU does commence trading.

    Blenheim -> aberinkula, 2016-01-16 07:21:45
    That British troops are involved in Saudi's dirty war - and it seems very dirty indeed, is nothing short of scandalous. Questions should be being asked surely?..
    Blenheim, 2016-01-16 07:19:20
    But it's somewhat academic isn't it?.. Whichever sweetheart with the exception of Bernie Sanders, who happens to con their way into the US hot seat, they've all taken against Tehran in a big way haven't they. Almost all of them have promised at some stage in their self-serving careers to bomb Iran back to the stone age, even the occasionally economical with the truth Hilary Clinton who tries so very hard to convince she's actually a human being has an issue in that regard.

    I really do hope you have an insurance policy Iran, I wouldn't trust these liars as far as .. and I'd advise using some of what's rightly coming your way to insulate against future western blackmail.

    I'd buy a bloody big bomb .. but keep it quiet, you never know who's listening .. Ha, yes we do!

    aberinkula, 2016-01-16 07:01:42
    Sanctions should never have been imposed. They are a form of collective punishment that has stopped medicines coming into Iran and punished small businesses. I know from experience. I had salmonella in Iran when I was two, and medicines that would have been free under the NHS were so expensive in Iran due to sanctions that my father had to sell his Mercedes Benz (not sure he's ever quite forgiven me for that). Meanwhile, Israel's nuclear arsenal goes unmentioned and unpunished, and we have British troops sitting in the Saudi war rooms. British foreign policy is a selective and hypocrital joke.

    Well played to all those on both sides responsible for the recent progress, though I am more than slightly concerned that the next US president will see things rather differently. Let me also say that Louise Mensch's recent tweets have been nothing short of disgusting and wholly inflammatory, exactly the kind of rhetoric that the world community should be shunning.

    Powerspike, 2016-01-16 06:58:40
    I'm pleased that whoever it was in the US military command who tried to use the sailors to provoke a clash with Iran and scupper the end of sanctions did not succeed. There should be a full enquiry and the traitor exposed and charged. Let's hope Seymour Hersh gets on the case as soon as possible!

    https://theintercept.com/2016/01/15/the-u-s-radically-changes-its-story-of-the-boats-in-iranian-waters-to-an-even-more-suspicious-version /

    Zepp, 2016-01-16 06:51:45
    The US specializes in lack of clarity. Remember the two boats that Iran detained the other day? The US initially said that they had a mechanical failure and drifted into Iranian territorial waters. That version of events has become non-operative, and now the US is saying that the boats were fully operational, but one of the sailors accidentally punched the wrong GPS coordinates in. And then, of course, they failed to notice that they were getting awfully close to that island where Iran maintained a base.

    Fortunately, we didn't have Cruz in the White House, threatening to nuke Iran for detaining American sailors for trespassing, even though it's clear they were question, fed, fueled up and sent on their way. The Iranians, at least, were civilized, albeit involuntary hosts.

    MediaWatchDog, 2016-01-16 06:43:23
    Excellent news, progression towards a peaceful resolution. Heart breaking news for Israel and Saudi Arabia!

    [Jan 16, 2016] Iran oil exports: where do they go? by Ami Sedghi

    This is Guardian article written just before imposition of sanctions in 2012.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Pure colonial greed - Neo Cons get back in your boxes and stop lusting after Iranian oil. Morally and financially bankrupt Western countries need to keep out of other peoples affairs. ..."
    Feb 6, 2012 | www.theguardian.com

    The top destination for Iran's crude oil exports in the six months between January and June 2011 was China, totaling 22% of Iran's crude oil exports. Japan and India also make up a big proportion, taking 14% and 13% respectively of the total exports of Iran. The European Union imports 18% of Iran's total exports with Italy and Spain taking the largest amounts.

    Sri Lanka and Turkey are the most dependent on Iran's crude exports with it accounting for 100% and 51% of total crude imported, respectively. South Africa also takes 25% of its total crude from Iran.

    Bobmex , 22 Feb 2012 9:48

    It's all about keeping Israel top dog in the area. Wipe out the competition one by one.

    borderboy , 22 Feb 2012 2:50
    'The top destination for Iran's crude oil exports in the six months between January and June 2011 was China, totalling 22% of Iran's crude oil exports. Japan and India also make up a big proportion, taking 14% and 13% respectively'

    - I think even any common or garden moron can see the game plan here.. Time to plant the seeds of democracy...again

    FatBobby -> firstnamejames , 21 Feb 2012 10:16
    firstnamejames - The world should give thanks that you aren't in a position of power!

    Diplomacy and sanctions are time consuming? Not half as time consuming as 'kicking ass' George Bush style. The Wikipedia entry for the War in Afghanistan is dated (2001-Present)….. that's what you call quick, decisive action!

    What was required post-911 was for the US to have a long, hard think about its foreign policy, but instead they lived gloriously to stereotype and played right into Bin Laden's hands.

    Bali 02... Madrid 04... London 05... that's the price you pay for 'quick, resolute' action.

    We nuke Iran and the consequences will be life altering - not just for the Iranian people either.

    harrylaw , 21 Feb 2012 6:03
    This report is wrong, like most of the scaremongering on this issue, Iran did not threaten to close the strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the oil embargo, they threatened it in retaliation for a strike on their entirely legal nuclear facilities, the Western medias attempt to gin up a war with Iran are both foolish and pathetic...
    RedRush , 20 Feb 2012 17:11

    Pure colonial greed - Neo Cons get back in your boxes and stop lusting after Iranian oil. Morally and financially bankrupt Western countries need to keep out of other people's affairs.

    The hypocrisy of the West is breath taking - attack Iraq over war crimes vs the Iranians, non-existent WMD in Iraq just as in Iran now, swap sides in Libya by funding militias led by so-called Al Qaeda men and the bleat on about UN resolutions when the elephant in the room (Israel) continues to abuse Palestine people and then continue to sell arms to other dictators around the world.

    malcom, 20 Feb 2012 13:28
    Well I suppose anyday now there will be a nuclear test in Iran and that will be that. Iran will be welcomed to the nuclear club with India and Pakistan and North Korea.

    I guess Russia or China would probably lend Iran a small nuke for the undergrond test.....

    That will be adios to the Israeli aggression in the region.

    icurahuman2, 20 Feb 2012 8:37
    I might note that proven reserves are NOT the same as recoverable reserves, the distinction is a quite huge difference. Also Saudi Arabian numbers are only guesses as the true numbers are a closely guarded state secret. It should also be noted that the north of Iran is on the Caspian Sea and any regional conflict would impact those nations and their gas and oil development too. Of course the Kurdish oil in Northern Iraq would also be at risk and I doubt the Iraq government would care one jot if it came under fire. The Strait of Hormuz isn't the only oil that would be effected should this all blow up.

    [Jan 13, 2016] Interview of President Putin to German newspaper Bild. Part 1

    January 11, 2016 | en.kremlin.ru

    You have mentioned sanctions. In my view, this was a foolish decision and a harmful one. I have said that our turnover with Germany amounted to $83–85 billion, and thousands of jobs were created in Germany as a result of this cooperation. And what are the restrictions that we are facing? This is not the worst thing we are going through, but it is harmful for our economy anyway, since it affects our access to international financial markets.

    As to the worst harm inflicted by today's situation, first of all on our economy, it is the harm caused by the falling prices on our traditional export goods. However, both the former and the latter have their positive aspects. When oil prices are high, it is very difficult for us to resist spending oil revenues to cover current expenses. I believe that our non-oil and gas deficit had risen to a very dangerous level. So now we are forced to lower it. And this is healthy…

    Question: For the budget deficit?

    Vladimir Putin: We divide it. There is the total deficit and then there are non-oil and gas revenues. There are revenues from oil and gas, and we divide all the rest as well.

    The total deficit is quite small. But when you subtract the non-oil and gas deficit, then you see that the oil and gas deficit is too large. In order to reduce it, such countries as Norway, for example, put a significant proportion of non-oil and gas revenues into the reserve. It is very difficult, I repeat, to resist spending oil and gas revenues to cover current expenses. It is the reduction of these expenses that improves the economy. That is the first point.

    Second point. You can buy anything with petrodollars. High oil revenues discourage development, especially in the high technology sectors. We are witnessing a decrease in GDP by 3.8 percent, in industrial production by 3.3 percent and an increase in inflation, which has reached 12.7 percent. This is a lot, but we still have a surplus in foreign trade, and the total exports of goods with high added value have grown significantly for the first time in years. That is an expressly positive trend in the economy.

    The reserves are still at a high level, and the Central Bank has about 340 billion in gold and foreign currency reserves. If I am not mistaken, they amount to over 300. There are also two reserve funds of the Government of the Russian Federation, each of which amounts to $70 to $80 billion. One of them holds $70 billion, the other – $80 billion. We believe that we will be steadily moving towards stabilisation and economic growth. We have adopted a whole range of programmes, including those aimed at import replacement, which means investing in high technologies.

    [Jan 12, 2016] Deep State controls that county. Voting Is for Chumps

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny. ..."
    "... In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." ..."
    "... There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy. ..."
    "... "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey. ..."
    "... And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power. ..."
    "... The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. ..."
    "... It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide. ..."
    "... US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad. ..."
    "... @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus. ..."
    "... The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington). ..."
    "... The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump). ..."
    "... Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan. ..."
    "... "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen. ..."
    "... Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ..."
    "... Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest. ..."
    "... The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says. ..."
    "... You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign. ..."
    "... This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas. ..."
    "... Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle. ..."
    "... The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state. ..."
    "... Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Lone Wolf | Jan 11, 2016 3:56:12 PM | 9

    For all of those who keep on arguing about the benefits of one US candidate over the other, they could save their energy for more constructive efforts.

    Voting Is for Chumps: Veteran Congressional Staffer Says 'Deep State' Already Controls America

    You still have to pay your taxes, though

    One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny.

    In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."

    Then in October of the same year, a Tufts University professor published a devastating critique of the current state of American democracy, "National Security and Double Government," which catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term "double government": There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.

    The Boston Globe's write-up of the book was accompanied by the brutal headline, "Vote all you want. The secret government won't change." Imagine a headline like that during the Hope and Change craze of 2008. Yeah, you can't. Because nobody's that imaginative.

    Yes, people are beginning to smell the rot - even people who watch television in hopes of not having to confront the miserable reality that awaits them once they turn off their 36-inch flatscreens. In September, Jimmy Carter warned Oprah Winfrey:

    "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey.

    The live audience were probably hoping for free Oprah cars. Instead, an ex-president told them that their democracy is in the gutter. What a bummer.

    The latest canary in the coal mine is none other than ex-longtime GOP staffer turned best-selling author Mike Lofgren, whose new book, "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government," confirms what is already painfully apparent:

    The deep state has created so many contradictions in this country. You have this enormous disparity of rich and poor; and you have this perpetual war, even though we're braying about freedom. We have a surveillance state, and we talk about freedom. We have internal contradictions. Who knows what this will fly into? It may collapse like the Soviet Union; or it might go into fascism with a populist camouflage.

    Some excerpts from Salon's recent interview with Lofgren:

    On how the deep state operates:

    Well, first of all, it is not a conspiracy. It is something that operates in broad daylight. It is not a conspiratorial cabal. These are simply people who have evolved [into] a kind of position. It is in their best interest to act in this way.

    And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power.

    On who (and what) is part of the deep state:

    The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. And you got this kind of rump Congress that consists of certain people in the leadership, defense and intelligence committees who kind of know what's going on. The rest of Congress doesn't really know or care; they're too busy looking about the next election.

    Lofgren goes on to explain that the private sector works hand-in-hand with the deep state, regardless of which "party" is in power. According to Lofgren, "There are definable differences between Bush and Obama. However, the differences are so constrained. They're not between the 40-yard lines; they are between the 48-yard lines."

    Of course, millions of Americans will still enjoy rooting for the candidate whom they would most enjoy drinking Bud Lite Lime with, but probably deep in their hearts they all know they're doomed.

    The End.

    lysias | Jan 11, 2016 4:05:02 PM | 10

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?

    john | Jan 11, 2016 4:31:03 PM | 12

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?

    well, there's always this

    Zapruder Film Slow Motion (HIGHER QUALITY) - YouTube

    lysias | Jan 11, 2016 4:41:29 PM | 14

    @12, Only a coward would submit to such a threat, instead of regarding it as a challenge to be defied. If the worst came to the worst, one would at least have died heroically. And such a president, if he did die, could have taken steps before he died to make sure the public would learn how and why he died. So it would not be a death without purpose.

    How does the deep state ensure that only cowards become president?

    Lozion | Jan 11, 2016 4:58:21 PM | 15

    @10 Blackmail?
    Don't know if true but I remember reading something to the effect that after Obama was sworn in, he met with Bush sr. and co who told him that he now worked for them with threats to his family if he wouldn't submit..

    Lone Wolf | Jan 11, 2016 5:22:54 PM | 17

    @lysias@10

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?

    It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide.

    US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad.

    That, in a nutshell, is how the Deep State works.

    Bluemot5 | Jan 11, 2016 5:23:42 PM | 18

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?
    ...and then there is this... https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1024-tjeerd-andringa-exposes-the-kakistocracy/

    NotTimothyGeithner | Jan 11, 2016 5:45:15 PM | 23

    @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus.

    People hate being conned more than con men, and they concoct rationalizations for being duped that often defy logic.

    jo6pac | Jan 11, 2016 6:22:07 PM | 25

    For everyone on deep state there is this.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/guest-post-obama-team-feared-revolt-if-he-prosecuted-war-crimes.html

    #21 yep maybe the next pm for England. The candidate like obomber from the cia/m16.

    #11 I Agree

    jfl | Jan 11, 2016 7:00:06 PM | 28

    @10 'What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?'

    1. DS vets prospective candidates beforehand, only allowing candidates aligned with deep state authorities to begin with.
    2. DS doesn't make the payoff until successful applicants have left office with an 'acceptable' record.
    3. Assassination is always an option in extreme cases, real or imagined.

    ....

    fast freddy | Jan 11, 2016 7:46:05 PM | 33

    The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington).

    Now, if you want to be President, you've got to have "experience" in Congress or in state gubmint.

    The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump).

    juliania | Jan 11, 2016 8:50:00 PM | 37

    Lone Wolf @ 9

    That is a very good explanation of 'Deep State'. My only caveat is that it doesn't completely describe the oligarchy because it leaves out the corporate component. When money became speech a huge mountain of power devolved to the rich. They'd always had clout as the graphs describing the separation of the rich from the not-so-well off and the rest of us have made clear - but now the ugly truth is unavoidable and it all goes together to produce what President Carter described.

    It's just plain awful.

    ben | Jan 11, 2016 10:04:10 PM | 42

    An excellent site with a deep look at the deep state: http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/UNWELCOME_GUESTS

    V. Arnold | Jan 11, 2016 9:57:24 PM | 41

    Lone Wolf @ 9 & 17: Yep, that about covers it. Thanks.

    Stir this into the mix, and basically, America's system of governance is a fraud.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14545

    fast freddy | Jan 11, 2016 10:05:02 PM | 43

    Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan.

    "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0

    Susan Sunflowe r | Jan 11, 2016 10:54:55 PM | 49

    Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ... It looks to be another corker ...

    Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest.

    The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says.

    Many of the families owned businesses that clashed with environmental or workplace regulators, come under federal or state investigation, or waged battles over their tax bills with the Internal Revenue Service, Ms. Mayer reports. The Kochs' vast political network, a major force in Republican politics today, was "originally designed as a means of off-loading the costs of the Koch Industries environmental and regulatory fights onto others" by persuading other rich business owners to contribute to Koch-controlled political groups, Ms. Mayer writes, citing an associate of the two brothers.

    NYT: Father of Koch Brothers Helped Build Nazi Oil Refinery, Book Says .

    ... ... ...

    Yeah, Right | Jan 12, 2016 3:13:58 AM | 63

    @10 "What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?"

    Money.

    You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign.

    Without that largess you are not going to get elected, and people who have $billions are the going to be the very same people who make up the Deep State.

    So you either get with the program or you get.... nothing. Not a cent. Not a hope.

    This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas.

    Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle.

    Which, basically, is this: why are you bothering with any of these chattering monkeys? Their votes will end up belonging to people like me anyway, so you may as well just cut out the middle-man.

    jfl | Jan 12, 2016 3:30:05 AM | 64

    Great story chipnik ... you should continue in that vein more often.

    lysias @10 ... from guest77s recommended read ... @55 in the previous open thread ...

    The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government , chapter 10

    Eisenhower's innate midwestern sense of decency initially made him recoil from backing Britain's colonial siege of Iran. He rebuffed the Dulles brothers' advice, suggesting that it might be a better idea to stabilize Mossadegh's government with a $100 million loan than to topple it. If Eisenhower had followed through on his original instincts, the bedeviled history of U.S.-Iran relations would undoubtedly have taken a far different course.

    Realizing that Eisenhower was not inclined to defend British imperial interests, the Dulles brothers reframed their argument for intervention in Cold War terms. On March 4, 1953, Allen appeared at a National Security Council meeting in the White House armed with seven pages of alarming talking points. Iran was confronted with "a maturing revolutionary set-up," he warned, and if the country fell into Communist hands, 60 percent of the free world's oil would be controlled by Moscow. Oil and gasoline would have to be rationed at home, and U.S. military operations would have to be curtailed.

    In truth, the global crisis over Iran was not a Cold War conflict but a struggle "between imperialism and nationalism, between First and Third Worlds, between North and South, between developed industrial economies and underdeveloped countries dependent on exporting raw materials," in the words of Ervand Abrahamian.

    The author pours it on thick with zero references but, overall ...

    1. The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state.

    2. Ike came cheap. He felt it was his duty to help out if the people he looked up to thought he was the right man at the right time.

    3. Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike.

    The DS uses the same M.O. ... O tempora, o mores ... mutatis mutandis.

    [Jan 12, 2016] Deep State controls that county. Voting Is for Chumps

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny. ..."
    "... In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." ..."
    "... There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy. ..."
    "... "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey. ..."
    "... And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power. ..."
    "... The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. ..."
    "... It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide. ..."
    "... US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad. ..."
    "... @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus. ..."
    "... The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington). ..."
    "... The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump). ..."
    "... Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan. ..."
    "... "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen. ..."
    "... Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ..."
    "... Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest. ..."
    "... The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says. ..."
    "... You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign. ..."
    "... This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas. ..."
    "... Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle. ..."
    "... The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state. ..."
    "... Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Lone Wolf | Jan 11, 2016 3:56:12 PM | 9

    For all of those who keep on arguing about the benefits of one US candidate over the other, they could save their energy for more constructive efforts.

    Voting Is for Chumps: Veteran Congressional Staffer Says 'Deep State' Already Controls America

    You still have to pay your taxes, though

    One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny.

    In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."

    Then in October of the same year, a Tufts University professor published a devastating critique of the current state of American democracy, "National Security and Double Government," which catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term "double government": There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.

    The Boston Globe's write-up of the book was accompanied by the brutal headline, "Vote all you want. The secret government won't change." Imagine a headline like that during the Hope and Change craze of 2008. Yeah, you can't. Because nobody's that imaginative.

    Yes, people are beginning to smell the rot - even people who watch television in hopes of not having to confront the miserable reality that awaits them once they turn off their 36-inch flatscreens. In September, Jimmy Carter warned Oprah Winfrey:

    "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey.

    The live audience were probably hoping for free Oprah cars. Instead, an ex-president told them that their democracy is in the gutter. What a bummer.

    The latest canary in the coal mine is none other than ex-longtime GOP staffer turned best-selling author Mike Lofgren, whose new book, "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government," confirms what is already painfully apparent:

    The deep state has created so many contradictions in this country. You have this enormous disparity of rich and poor; and you have this perpetual war, even though we're braying about freedom. We have a surveillance state, and we talk about freedom. We have internal contradictions. Who knows what this will fly into? It may collapse like the Soviet Union; or it might go into fascism with a populist camouflage.

    Some excerpts from Salon's recent interview with Lofgren:

    On how the deep state operates:

    Well, first of all, it is not a conspiracy. It is something that operates in broad daylight. It is not a conspiratorial cabal. These are simply people who have evolved [into] a kind of position. It is in their best interest to act in this way.

    And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power.

    On who (and what) is part of the deep state:

    The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. And you got this kind of rump Congress that consists of certain people in the leadership, defense and intelligence committees who kind of know what's going on. The rest of Congress doesn't really know or care; they're too busy looking about the next election.

    Lofgren goes on to explain that the private sector works hand-in-hand with the deep state, regardless of which "party" is in power. According to Lofgren, "There are definable differences between Bush and Obama. However, the differences are so constrained. They're not between the 40-yard lines; they are between the 48-yard lines."

    Of course, millions of Americans will still enjoy rooting for the candidate whom they would most enjoy drinking Bud Lite Lime with, but probably deep in their hearts they all know they're doomed.

    The End.

    lysias | Jan 11, 2016 4:05:02 PM | 10

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?

    john | Jan 11, 2016 4:31:03 PM | 12

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?

    well, there's always this

    Zapruder Film Slow Motion (HIGHER QUALITY) - YouTube

    lysias | Jan 11, 2016 4:41:29 PM | 14

    @12, Only a coward would submit to such a threat, instead of regarding it as a challenge to be defied. If the worst came to the worst, one would at least have died heroically. And such a president, if he did die, could have taken steps before he died to make sure the public would learn how and why he died. So it would not be a death without purpose.

    How does the deep state ensure that only cowards become president?

    Lozion | Jan 11, 2016 4:58:21 PM | 15

    @10 Blackmail?
    Don't know if true but I remember reading something to the effect that after Obama was sworn in, he met with Bush sr. and co who told him that he now worked for them with threats to his family if he wouldn't submit..

    Lone Wolf | Jan 11, 2016 5:22:54 PM | 17

    @lysias@10

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?

    It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide.

    US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad.

    That, in a nutshell, is how the Deep State works.

    Bluemot5 | Jan 11, 2016 5:23:42 PM | 18

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?
    ...and then there is this... https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1024-tjeerd-andringa-exposes-the-kakistocracy/

    NotTimothyGeithner | Jan 11, 2016 5:45:15 PM | 23

    @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus.

    People hate being conned more than con men, and they concoct rationalizations for being duped that often defy logic.

    jo6pac | Jan 11, 2016 6:22:07 PM | 25

    For everyone on deep state there is this.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/guest-post-obama-team-feared-revolt-if-he-prosecuted-war-crimes.html

    #21 yep maybe the next pm for England. The candidate like obomber from the cia/m16.

    #11 I Agree

    jfl | Jan 11, 2016 7:00:06 PM | 28

    @10 'What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?'

    1. DS vets prospective candidates beforehand, only allowing candidates aligned with deep state authorities to begin with.
    2. DS doesn't make the payoff until successful applicants have left office with an 'acceptable' record.
    3. Assassination is always an option in extreme cases, real or imagined.

    ....

    fast freddy | Jan 11, 2016 7:46:05 PM | 33

    The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington).

    Now, if you want to be President, you've got to have "experience" in Congress or in state gubmint.

    The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump).

    juliania | Jan 11, 2016 8:50:00 PM | 37

    Lone Wolf @ 9

    That is a very good explanation of 'Deep State'. My only caveat is that it doesn't completely describe the oligarchy because it leaves out the corporate component. When money became speech a huge mountain of power devolved to the rich. They'd always had clout as the graphs describing the separation of the rich from the not-so-well off and the rest of us have made clear - but now the ugly truth is unavoidable and it all goes together to produce what President Carter described.

    It's just plain awful.

    ben | Jan 11, 2016 10:04:10 PM | 42

    An excellent site with a deep look at the deep state: http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/UNWELCOME_GUESTS

    V. Arnold | Jan 11, 2016 9:57:24 PM | 41

    Lone Wolf @ 9 & 17: Yep, that about covers it. Thanks.

    Stir this into the mix, and basically, America's system of governance is a fraud.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14545

    fast freddy | Jan 11, 2016 10:05:02 PM | 43

    Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan.

    "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0

    Susan Sunflowe r | Jan 11, 2016 10:54:55 PM | 49

    Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ... It looks to be another corker ...

    Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest.

    The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says.

    Many of the families owned businesses that clashed with environmental or workplace regulators, come under federal or state investigation, or waged battles over their tax bills with the Internal Revenue Service, Ms. Mayer reports. The Kochs' vast political network, a major force in Republican politics today, was "originally designed as a means of off-loading the costs of the Koch Industries environmental and regulatory fights onto others" by persuading other rich business owners to contribute to Koch-controlled political groups, Ms. Mayer writes, citing an associate of the two brothers.

    NYT: Father of Koch Brothers Helped Build Nazi Oil Refinery, Book Says .

    ... ... ...

    Yeah, Right | Jan 12, 2016 3:13:58 AM | 63

    @10 "What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?"

    Money.

    You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign.

    Without that largess you are not going to get elected, and people who have $billions are the going to be the very same people who make up the Deep State.

    So you either get with the program or you get.... nothing. Not a cent. Not a hope.

    This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas.

    Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle.

    Which, basically, is this: why are you bothering with any of these chattering monkeys? Their votes will end up belonging to people like me anyway, so you may as well just cut out the middle-man.

    jfl | Jan 12, 2016 3:30:05 AM | 64

    Great story chipnik ... you should continue in that vein more often.

    lysias @10 ... from guest77s recommended read ... @55 in the previous open thread ...

    The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government , chapter 10

    Eisenhower's innate midwestern sense of decency initially made him recoil from backing Britain's colonial siege of Iran. He rebuffed the Dulles brothers' advice, suggesting that it might be a better idea to stabilize Mossadegh's government with a $100 million loan than to topple it. If Eisenhower had followed through on his original instincts, the bedeviled history of U.S.-Iran relations would undoubtedly have taken a far different course.

    Realizing that Eisenhower was not inclined to defend British imperial interests, the Dulles brothers reframed their argument for intervention in Cold War terms. On March 4, 1953, Allen appeared at a National Security Council meeting in the White House armed with seven pages of alarming talking points. Iran was confronted with "a maturing revolutionary set-up," he warned, and if the country fell into Communist hands, 60 percent of the free world's oil would be controlled by Moscow. Oil and gasoline would have to be rationed at home, and U.S. military operations would have to be curtailed.

    In truth, the global crisis over Iran was not a Cold War conflict but a struggle "between imperialism and nationalism, between First and Third Worlds, between North and South, between developed industrial economies and underdeveloped countries dependent on exporting raw materials," in the words of Ervand Abrahamian.

    The author pours it on thick with zero references but, overall ...

    1. The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state.

    2. Ike came cheap. He felt it was his duty to help out if the people he looked up to thought he was the right man at the right time.

    3. Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike.

    The DS uses the same M.O. ... O tempora, o mores ... mutatis mutandis.

    [Jan 11, 2016] Obama seeks Silicon Valley aid to spy on social media

    Notable quotes:
    "... New spy programs launched by the administration will seek to collect and analyze data from social media networks and develop covert operations that allow the government to use the networks for its own counter-radicalization schemes, the US officials said. ..."
    "... The events of the past decade-and-a-half have made clear that the entire corporate and political establishment favors an agenda of police-state spying on the American population. ..."
    "... The NSA has been privatized. All American institutions are now dedicated to our destruction. ..."
    www.wsws.org
    During the tech summit, the White House delegation circulated proposals calling for tech firms to develop tools to "measure radicalization" levels among different populations ... the White House announced new programs against "violent extremism" in the United States, including the establishment of a new Countering Violent Extremism task force

    ... [which] ... will seek to "integrate and harmonize" the operations of "dozens of federal and local agencies," ... [which] ... will "coordinate all of the government's domestic counter-radicalization efforts,"

    ... The State Department will also create a new Global Engagement Center to coordinate US government social media work internationally, a White House statement said.

    New spy programs launched by the administration will seek to collect and analyze data from social media networks and develop covert operations that allow the government to use the networks for its own counter-radicalization schemes, the US officials said.

    Media reports this week highlighted one recent contribution, ludicrously titled "ISIS in America: From Retweets to Raqqa," published in December 2015 by George Washington University's "Program on Extremism."

    The events of the past decade-and-a-half have made clear that the entire corporate and political establishment favors an agenda of police-state spying on the American population.

    jfl | Jan 9, 2016 7:25:14 AM | 66

    He'll get it, too. Google, Facebook, the whole parasitic silicon valley culture is on board since the passage of the omnibus budget act in the last dark days of December 2015, bearing DIVISION N-CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2015 within. The NSA has been privatized. All American institutions are now dedicated to our destruction.

    I have an email account at posteo.de . How much longer can it be before a similar effort is mounted outside the USA to take over the search function and social media on the internet? If it's 'free' - you're the product.

    This should write the end to American technical dominance of the internet. I hope it will. American based TNCs, operating under American 'law', now working hand-in-glove with the American government simply cannot be trusted.

    And they wrote the law that granted them immunity for betraying their 'customers and supported it. They're on board for our betrayal and destruction. Always have been.

    [Jan 10, 2016] The Wall Street Casino so far handed out losses well.

    This might be not an end of S&P500 rally but this might well be the beginning of the end.
    Notable quotes:
    "... It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats! ..."
    "... Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope. ..."
    "... Be careful what you wish for. ..."
    "... The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year." ..."
    "... With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger. ..."
    "... This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported. ..."
    "... I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing. ..."
    "... Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do? ..."
    "... they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up. ..."
    "... The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. ..."
    "... If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    John Pacella , 9 Jan 2016 06:45
    What a shock...the Wall Street Casino handed out losses...imagine my surprise.
    PlatonKuzin -> John Pacella , 9 Jan 2016 06:56

    It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats!

    anyoneanytime , 9 Jan 2016 05:24
    Looks like its going to be a great year. Eat the rich.
    peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 05:08
    Things have a long way to fall before they're low. I hope it's 2008 all over again. I was laid off in January 2009 with a generous severance packet. I invested it all in the US stock market in Q1 09, when everyone was wailing and moaning. That was the bottom of the market. Over the next few years it soared and I made a fortune. I sold most of it last year so I'm hoping for another crash.

    Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope.

    ID470129 -> peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 05:16
    Be careful what you wish for.
    giveusaclue -> peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 09:52
    That's ok unless you are about to retire and draw your private pension.

    benbache -> greven , 9 Jan 2016 07:02

    "In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again." Chance the Gardener, mistakenly known as Chauncey Gardiner.

    Economic gurus come in all forms.

    goatrider , 9 Jan 2016 04:28
    The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year."
    benbache -> goatrider , 9 Jan 2016 07:02
    Except on food.
    BlackAbbott , 9 Jan 2016 04:12
    With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger.

    These people are utterly stupid. All a load of chooks with missing heads running round causing chaos and more stupidity.
    But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world to gamble away the lives of others?

    FreddySteadyGO -> BlackAbbott , 9 Jan 2016 05:30

    But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world to gamble away the lives of others?

    Not stupid but captivated perhaps?

    We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.

    BlackAbbott -> FreddySteadyGO , 9 Jan 2016 06:00

    We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.

    Markets get closed. Also during the Bush GFC we had futures, derivatives or whatever banned for a while. The problem was letting them start up again.
    So its just a case of finding some real honest politicians...........maybe your right.
    Zhubajie , 9 Jan 2016 02:41
    The US has been de-industrialized. Most Americans are too poor to buy new gadgets. Many are homeless. We have a 3d world economy. Of course the stock market etc is bad!
    420atmosphere -> Zhubajie , 9 Jan 2016 03:50
    We do not have a third world economy. Get real...
    BlackAbbott -> 420atmosphere , 9 Jan 2016 04:14

    We do not have a third world economy. Get real

    It will be if the stock market fools carry on the way they are.
    Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 01:53
    This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported.

    The governments have learned in the last 30-40 years how to "manage" the reported metrics by changing definitions, adjustments and outright lying. You can only do it for so long before real world catches up with you.

    ID2463357 -> Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 02:09
    Well, it's complicated :-)

    I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing.

    Yes, things could be better there and in many other places. (In Canada, we are truly screwed for at least several years, fwiw.)

    prematureoptimsim -> Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 02:24
    Sounds absolutely dismal.
    But accurate.
    boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 01:29
    Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do?
    ID NO. 1984 -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 01:46
    they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up.
    Alex Newman -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 04:01
    What has QE got to do with Chinese stock market volatility?
    greven -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 04:46
    The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. \

    If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now.

    [Jan 10, 2016] US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba

    Notable quotes:
    "... A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking . ..."
    "... Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door. ..."
    "... Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this. ..."
    "... Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization. ..."
    "... You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change. ..."
    "... TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions. ..."
    "... Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor. ..."
    "... It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline! ..."
    "... i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians. ..."
    "... Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back. ..."
    "... Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese. ..."
    "... The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now. ..."
    "... What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training). ..."
    "... Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done. ..."
    "... Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops. ..."
    "... US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia. ..."
    The Guardian


    Kosala Kodikara 9 Jan 2016 12:28

    A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking .


    newpilgrim 9 Jan 2016 09:23

    Just another example of collateral damage? These missiles seem to keep landing in the wrong places, wedding parties etc. Are the military of any nation capable of managing dangerous hi-tech military hardware responsibly?


    Kevin Brent 9 Jan 2016 02:24

    Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door.


    beermad -> CheaterA 8 Jan 2016 16:27

    Ah, but without a large enemy bogeyman there would be no excuse for spending billions upon billions on "defence". The government's paymasters in the weapons industry would never stand for that.

    BG Davis 8 Jan 2016 10:51

    Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this.

    lostinbago -> JoeP 8 Jan 2016 10:09

    Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization.


    lostinbago -> Al Lewis 8 Jan 2016 10:04

    You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change.

    TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions.

    CheaterA 8 Jan 2016 09:59

    What is wrong with our leadership (and often the press) for this persistence re retaining Russia as a "potential" enemy?! NATO needs to be renamed, Turkey dumped, and Russia invited to join. Russia would be the best ally the west will ever have against terrorism. Tons of money would be saved (yes, tons) plus the ensuing safety and cultural exchange would be, well, priceless.


    Smallworld5 8 Jan 2016 09:11

    Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor.

    Basically it's a shell with the laser receiver part of the seeker package which tells the weapons operator on the aircraft that the missile has acquired the laser designator (locked on). No ground breaking technology there as just about everyone else has similar weapons.


    trazer985 -> pretzelattack 8 Jan 2016 09:01

    It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline!

    Next time they ask me if my bag has "any of the following" in it, I'll try not to think of this story...


    TommyGuardianReader 8 Jan 2016 08:34

    "The official said the US did not want any defense technology to remain in a proscribed country, whether that country can use it or not."

    Lockheed Martin may have had their own commercial motives for allowing the equipment to be accidentally sent to Havana, or they may have been acting under instruction.

    However, if it was a simple fuck-up:

    1. The easy short-term answer is to take Cuba off the list of proscribed countries.

    2. The more difficult, long-term answer is to remove all the other unauthorised US defence equipment that is currently in Cuba. Especially in and around the south-eastern area known as Guantanamo Bay.

    There can be no doubt that the continued existence of the unlawful, anachronistic foreign naval facility makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve genuine consensus at the United Nations.

    While that may suit the interests of the shareholders in Lockheed Martin very nicely, it does not suit the interests of most of humanity and the other living beings on the planet.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base


    pretzelattack -> Ziontrain 8 Jan 2016 08:33

    i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians.


    mikedow -> toggy12 8 Jan 2016 07:50

    They're used to losing weaponry. They even have a special name(Broken Arrow) for when they lose a nuclear device. In 1950 the USAF jettisoned a nuclear bomb off the coast of BC, before crashing a B-36 "Peacemaker".


    Julie Lamin 8 Jan 2016 07:49

    Another of the United States efforts to poison international opinion against Cuba? Perhaps once the United States has returned Guatanamo to Cuba and paid for the fifty years of damage they have caused to Cuban people through their acts of aggression, the US might get their little bit of kit back.

    TonyBistol 8 Jan 2016 05:39

    Perhaps I'm wrong, but I wouldn't imagine that this drone would be able to teach the Russians an awful lot, especially seeing as they have recently demonstrated that they have the capability of being able to launch seaborne cruise missiles which can pinpoint targets 1800 Km away.


    jgbg Tradingman66 8 Jan 2016 05:24

    They don't need to hand them to a freight forwarder to screw up. Whilst the Soviets had some accidents with nuclear weapons and reactors, the US has had quite a few accidents involving nuclear weapons, reactors and materials, including the permanent loss of some nuclear weapons. One nuclear weapon that was lost over Georgia (the US state, not the country) was armed and almost detonated.


    tellyheads 8 Jan 2016 05:24

    LOL, the US DoD is less competent than Amazon.

    Lucky it wasn't a nuke.


    jgbg Freddienerk 8 Jan 2016 05:11

    I am sure the Russians and Chinese already have the know how to build a similar weapon.

    Yes - but they might be interested in the specifics of this missile e.g. sensors and guidance systems, so as to facilitate the development of effective countermeasures.


    JaitcH 8 Jan 2016 05:06

    What's to hide?

    The target is painted with an infra-red signal, or infra-red markers, similar to torches, are placed on or near a target. Whichever is used is encoded with a 4-digit code.

    The pilot of the aircraft carrying the Hellfire weapon loads this 4-digit code into the Hellfire before releasing it and it's ready to go hunting.

    The Freedom Fighters know about this and use infra-red detectors to either locate the hand-dropped markers or to sense infra-red markers projected in a site - then they move, hopefully in time yo watch the explosion from a distance!

    The information was published in a book devoted to modern warfare technology.

    Doug_Niedermeyer 8 Jan 2016 04:52

    Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back.

    hogsback -> ID0728468 8 Jan 2016 04:47

    I'm sure all munitions are shipped via the US Military themselves via the USAAF

    So when Lockheed sells Hellfires to say Pakistan, or Egypt, or Saudi, you think they are delivered in person by the USAAF with a little bow and ribbons? You realise that Hellfire has been sold to over 25 countries, not all of them friendly to the US?

    They're sent by air cargo or in a container on a ship like anything else.

    SenseCir 8 Jan 2016 04:36

    This is a tragedy. What if technical details reach poor farmers in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria who are then able to avoid being killed by one of those missiles? Unthinkable. Cuba must return the missile at once.


    juster 8 Jan 2016 04:35

    Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese.

    The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now.


    hogsback -> trazer985 8 Jan 2016 04:30

    Probably in the cargo hold on a passenger flight. You would be surprised as to what is sitting under you when you are off on your hols.

    What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training).


    DThompson5 -> martinusher 8 Jan 2016 04:30

    The link to that survey...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/07/the-less-americans-know-about-ukraines-location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/


    Polly Parrot 8 Jan 2016 04:26

    What the hell are they doing using ordinary freight services to send missiles around the world, do they send live ones the same way. They should only be carried by military transport regardless of cost because what is the cost of loosing it and it falling into the wrong hands


    EpaminondasUSA 8 Jan 2016 04:25

    Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done.


    DThompson5 martinusher 8 Jan 2016 04:14

    Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops.

    2bveryFrank 8 Jan 2016 03:57

    A Hellfire missile does the rounds in Europe, visiting Spain, Germany and France before being sent to Havana, Cuba by mistake! And our security is supposed to be in these people's hands! Idiots the lot of them!

    Epivore 8 Jan 2016 03:57

    "instead, it was loaded onto an Air France flight to Havana."

    And it's not just dummy missiles that end up on civilian flights...

    UncertainTrumpet 8 Jan 2016 03:26

    US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia.

    Dubhgaill -> Wendy Stolz 8 Jan 2016 03:15

    The US military is virtually entirely run by private companies. Every single member of GW Bush's cabinet, to a man or woman, were boardmembers and shareholders in either an oil company or arms producer or a military logistics firm. Every single one of them. This is a minor symtom of a far more insidious malaise.


    siansim -> bemusedbyitall 8 Jan 2016 03:02


    bemusedbyitall said:

    No chance, from experience even if it was used against a hospital with numerous medical staff and civilian deaths and casualties it would just be put down to a minor clerical or communications error...

    ...And then you drive a tank into the hospital wards to destroy any evidence.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/us-tank-enters-ruined-afghan-hospital-putting-war-evidence-at-risk

    US Military: putting the FUBAR into high military spending

    poplartree1 8 Jan 2016 02:58

    Great! How wonderful they work like a charm...Yesterday I placed in comments how the US government (who is totally inthe hands of contractors such a Lockheed Martin and other yahoos, how they are corrupt. Today here is one more example of total ineptitude;

    Here is the link of yesterday:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/how-corrupt-american-government and today Zero hedge has some very interesting articles
    like this oneL Has anyone noticed how the guardian covers Libya?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/pray-us-libya-issues-cry-help-isis-advances-oil-fields
    and
    Qadafi warned Tony Blair (the bozo): Jihadists will attack Europe!
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-07/jihadists-will-attack-europe-leaked-phone-call-shows-gaddafi-warned-tony-blair-terro
    and Hillaryton's motive for invading Lybia:

    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
    "The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy's reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi's influence in what is considered "Francophone Africa."

    Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi's gold and silver reserves, estimated at "143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver," posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this "confidential" explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:

    This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
    (Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)

    Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France's (and by implication NATO's) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.

    Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.
    French intelligence "discovered" a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression."

    Loosing a missile is not important...important is to increase hell on earth...and to make people suffer like in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Ukraine.


    Havingalavrov 8 Jan 2016 02:50

    Look who uses the Hellfire missile and they are making a fuss about Cuba having the technology ???

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire#Operators


    Mohanraj Cp 8 Jan 2016 01:56

    The US stripped down a MIG27 Foxbat jet brought in by a defecting Soviet pilot and is now complaining! Sauce for Soviet goose is sauce for American gander!


    Long6fellow 8 Jan 2016 01:52

    The Yanks are losing their grip on their delivery service, firstly, there was a drone brought down by the Iranians, "can we have our drone back please", then the wrong delivery of 1Billion$ of war equipment to SISI, the latter being set up by the Pentagon, now the Hellfire Missile sent to Cuba, and after all these years of dirty tricks on Cuba, it proves the Yanks cannot be trust at all.


    BudGreen -> Freddienerk 8 Jan 2016 00:47

    Specific knowledge of the guidance systems could be valuable to someone interested in developing electronic countermeasures. This much should be obvious. Personally, I would be surprised that with the number of these used in combat (they've been in use since the early 80's) that there would not have been at least several unexploded units recovered by our enemies. Having one that was never fired and probably undamaged might be a real prize, though.


    synchronicfusion 8 Jan 2016 00:05

    As an American, I am truly embarrassed and ashamed that my own government had a habit of shipping weapons and technology into the wrong hands. I might be more forgiving if it only happened once, but how many times now? This is the same government that insists on spying on we innocent citizens as though we are in the wrong. Please! Dumb....., Da Dumb, Dumb, DUMB! It's been said that every empire comes to an end, eventually.

    [Jan 10, 2016] Neoliberalism Raises Its Ugly Head in South America: Washington Targets Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina by Jack Rasmus

    Notable quotes:
    "... The USA used to complain about Japan Inc. Of course now it's USA as Neolibraconia Inc. and it's business is war along all lines : military, economic, environmental, social ... ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    After 9-11, the United States focused its most aggressive foreign policy on the Middle East – from Afghanistan to North Africa. But the deal recently worked out with Iran, the current back-door negotiations over Syria between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, and Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and the decision to subsidize, and now export, U.S. shale oil and gas production in a direct reversal of U.S. past policy toward Saudi Arabia – together signal a relative shift of U.S. policy away from the Middle East.

    With a Middle East consolidation phase underway, U.S. policy has been shifting since 2013-14 to the more traditional focus that it had for decades: first, to check and contain China; second, to prevent Russia from economically integrating more deeply with Europe; and, third, to reassert more direct U.S. influence once again, as in previous decades, over the economies and governments in Latin America.

    ... ... ...

    Argentina & Brazil: Harbinger of Neoliberal Things to Come

    Should the new pro-U.S., pro-Business Venezuela National Assembly ever prevail over the Maduro government, the outcome economically would something like that now unfolding with the Mauricio Macri government in Argentina. Argentina's Macri has already, within days of assuming the presidency, slashed taxes for big farmers and manufacturers, lifted currency controls and devalued the peso by 30 percent, allowed inflation to rise overnight by 25 percent, provided US$2 billion in dollar denominated bonds for Argentine exporters and speculators, re-opened discussions with U.S. hedge funds as a prelude to paying them excess interest the de Kirchner government previously denied, put thousands of government workers on notice of imminent layoffs, declared the new government's intent to stack the supreme court in order to rubber stamp its new Neoliberal programs, and took steps to reverse Argentine's recent media law. And that's just the beginning.

    Politically, the neoliberal vision will mean an overturning and restructuring of the current Supreme Court, possible changes to the existing Constitution, and attempts to remove the duly-elected president from office before his term by various means. Apart from plans to stack the judiciary, as in Argentina, Venezuela's new business controlled National Assembly will likely follow their reactionary class compatriots in Brazil, and move to impeach Venezuela president, Maduro, and dismantle his popular government – just as they are attempting the same in Brazil with that country's also recently re-elected president, Rousseff.

    What happens in Venezuela, Argentina, and Brazil in the weeks ahead, in 2016, is a harbinger of the intense economic and political class war in South America that is about to escalate to a higher stage in 2016.

    jfl | Jan 8, 2016 6:08:12 PM | 10

    The USA used to complain about Japan Inc. Of course now it's USA as Neolibraconia Inc. and it's business is war along all lines : military, economic, environmental, social ... Jack Rasmus has an excellent survey at Neoliberalism Raises Its Ugly Head in South America: Washington Targets Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina .

    The war on the homefront seems won as far as Neolibraconia is concerned, at least the lock-up, see A Minimal Demand: Roll Back Incarceration to 1970 Levels , and here are pictures: animated and still .

    That report from FARS seems worrisome indeed.

    Our man b called Merkel's move for what it was before it was : After Creating Migration Flood Merkel Throws Up Emergency Dikes .

    I'm still unconvinced that 1,000 rapists ran rampant in Cologne on New Years Eve. Where's Penelope and her fraud analysis when it seems most needed?

    2016 will be the year when all this comes to a head. Perhaps Russia and the BRICS should preemptively repudiate their dollar denominated debts? It all seems to be going south at this particular point in time anyway.

    jfl | Jan 8, 2016 6:45:14 PM | 11

    Trying to follow nmb's link @1 without actually being shortened and sold myself led me to Pepe Escobar of 29 Dec

    The lame duck Obama administration – whatever rhetorical and/or legalistic contortions – still sticks to the Cold War 2.0 script on Russia, duly prescribed by Obama mentor Dr. Zbigniew "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski.

    That follows a "tradition" Bill Blum , for instance, has extensively documented, as since the end of WWII Washington attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments – the absolute majority full democracies; dropped bombs on the civilian population of over 30 nations ; attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders ; attempted to suppress nationalist movements in 20 nations ; interfered on countless democratic elections; taught torture through manuals and "advisers"; and the list goes on.

    The key front though is the Russian economy; sooner or later there's got to be a purge of the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry, but Putin will only act when he has surefire internal support, and that's far from given.

    The fight to the death in Moscow's inner circles is really between the Eurasianists and the so-called Atlantic integrationists, a.k.a. the Western fifth column. The crux of the battle is arguably the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry – where some key liberalcon monetarist players are remote-controlled by the usual suspects, the Masters of the Universe.

    The same mechanism applies, geopolitically, to any side, in any latitude, which has linked its own fiat money to Western central banks. The Masters of the Universe always seek to exercise hegemony by manipulating usury and fiat money control.

    So why President Putin does not fire the head of the Russian Central Bank, Elvira Nabiulina, and a great deal of his financial team - as they keep buying U.S. bonds and propping up the U.S. dollar instead of the ruble? What's really being aggressed here if not Russian interests?

    [Jan 10, 2016] Neoconned

    Notable quotes:
    "... The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks "destroy upon recognition" any communication provided by the NSA "that is either to or from an official of the US government." It goes on to spell out that this includes "officials of the Executive Branch (including the White House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives and Senate (members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to, the Supreme Court)." ..."
    "... The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state. ..."
    "... The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies, and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT T, Verizon and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide the military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these state agencies have no legal right to possess. ..."
    "... Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called "Fourth Estate"-the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika. ..."
    "... Did CIA Director Allen Dulles Order the Hit on JFK? ..."
    "... In a blistering but painstaking profile of the Cold War CIA chief, David Talbot's damning accusations include the allegation that Dulles was behind the Kennedy assassination. ..."
    "... "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." ..."
    "... "The CIA's campaign to popularize the term 'conspiracy theory' and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time." ..."
    "... "Dangerous Machinery: 'Conspiracy Theorist' as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion," ..."
    "... "If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid … By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur." ..."
    Jan 10, 2016 | Zero Hedge
    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    The Proof Is In: The US Government Is The Most Complete Criminal Organization In Human History

    Unique among the countries on earth, the US government insists that its laws and dictates take precedence over the sovereignty of nations . Washington asserts the power of US courts over foreign nationals and claims extra-territorial jurisdiction of US courts over foreign activities of which Washington or American interest groups disapprove. Perhaps the worst results of Washington's disregard for the sovereignty of countries is the power Washington has exercised over foreign nationals solely on the basis of terrorism charges devoid of any evidence.

    Consider a few examples...

    Washington first forced the Swiss government to violate its own banking laws. Then Washington forced Switzerland to repeal its bank secrecy laws. Allegedly, Switzerland is a democracy, but the country's laws are determined in Washington by people not elected by the Swiss to represent them.

    Consider the "soccer scandal" that Washington concocted, apparently for the purpose of embarrassing Russia. The soccer organization's home is Switzerland, but this did not stop Washington from sending FBI agents into Switzerland to arrest Swiss citizens. Try to imagine Switzerland sending Swiss federal agents into the US to arrest Americans.

    Consider the $9 billion fine that Washington imposed on a French bank for failure to fully comply with Washington's sanctions against Iran. This assertion of Washington's control over a foreign financial institution is even more audaciously illegal in view of the fact that the sanctions Washington imposed on Iran and requires other sovereign countries to obey are themselves strictly illegal. Indeed, in this case we have a case of triple illegality as the sanctions were imposed on the basis of concocted and fabricated charges that were lies.

    Or consider that Washington asserted its authority over the contract between a French shipbuilder and the Russian government and forced the French company to violate a contract at the expense of billions of dollars to the French company and a large number of jobs to the French economy. This was a part of Washington teaching the Russians a lesson for not following Washington's orders in Crimea.

    Try to imagine a world in which every country asserted the extra-territoriality of its law. The planet would be in permanent chaos with world GDP expended in legal and military battles.

    Neoconned Washington claims that as History chose America to exercise its hegemony over the world, no other law is relevant. Only Washington's will counts. Law itself is not even needed as Washington often substitutes orders for laws as when Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State (an unelected position) told the President of Pakistan to do as he is told or "we will bomb you into the stone age."

    ... ... ...

    Do not expect the Western prostitute media to report these facts to you. To find out, you must go to RT or to Stephen Lendman .

    The presstitute Western media are part of Washington's criminal operation.

    JustObserving

    The Deep State runs everything in America since at least Nov 22, 1963. Kennedy promised to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. Instead, the CIA shattered his brains into a thousand pieces.

    The NSA spies on the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House and you.

    The Neocons control the foreign policy of the Deep State. All American wars since 1990 have been Neocon wars.

    The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks "destroy upon recognition" any communication provided by the NSA "that is either to or from an official of the US government." It goes on to spell out that this includes "officials of the Executive Branch (including the White House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives and Senate (members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to, the Supreme Court)."

    The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/09/13/surv-s13.html

    Who rules America?

    The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies, and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T, Verizon and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide the military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these state agencies have no legal right to possess.

    Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called "Fourth Estate"-the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/10/pers-j10.html

    Did CIA Director Allen Dulles Order the Hit on JFK?

    In a blistering but painstaking profile of the Cold War CIA chief, David Talbot's damning accusations include the allegation that Dulles was behind the Kennedy assassination.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/13/did-allen-dulles-order-...

    Escrava Isaura

    JustObserving :

    The Deep State runs everything since Nov 22, 1963.

    Kennedy promised

    Ohh boy. You're drowning on Kool-Aid.

    US has been a deep state from creation. James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution, "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."

    Now Kennedy, by Professor Chomsky:

    The core issue in the current Kennedy revival is the claim that JFK intended to withdraw from Vietnam. Some allege further that Kennedy was intent on destroying the CIA, dismantling the military-industrial complex, ending the Cold War, and opening an era of development and freedom for Latin America.

    There are several sources of evidence that bear on the withdrawal thesis: (1) The historical facts; (2) the record of public statements; (3) the internal planning record; (4) the memoirs and other reports of Kennedy insiders. In each category, the material is substantial. The record of internal deliberations, in particular, has been available far beyond the norm since the release of two editions of the Pentagon Papers ( PP ). The recent publication of thousands of pages of documents in the official State Department history provides a wealth of additional material on the years of the presidential transition, 1963-4, which are of crucial significance for evaluating the thesis that many have found so compelling.

    While history never permits anything like definitive conclusions, in this case, the richness of the record, and its consistency, permit some unusually confident judgments. In my opinion, the record is inconsistent with the thesis throughout, and supports a different conclusion.

    https://chomsky.info/199209__/

    Ignatius

    Chomsky has made some intellectual and humanitarian contributions, but his blind spots are epic and I don't trust him.

    bid the soldier...

    This is an established fact:

    In autumn 1961, following the Bay of Pigs incident and Algiers putsch , Dulles and his entourage, including Deputy Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell, Jr. and Deputy Director Charles Cabell , were forced to resign.

    (emphasis mine)

    a bevy of CIA agents.

    Kennedy did not want Diem assassinated. The CIA had him assassinated.

    Bottom line the CIA took us into the Vietnamese War.

    Kirk2NCC1701

    I've told you 'Mericans many times, that which is blatantly obvious to non-Americans, who actually know something about 19th century Am. history...

    THIS IS MANIFEST DESTINY. Rev. 4.0

    Rev 2 was over Latin America, Rev 3 was over Europe. Rev 4 is over TROTW.

    CTG_Sweden

    Article (Paul Craig Roberts):

    "Try to imagine the Presidents of Russia or China giving such an order to a sovereign nation."

    My comments:

    The problem is that neither Russia nor China has a ruling élite (with a political agenda) that stretches across all fields in the society that generate power, such as media, big business, lobbyists, think tanks and politicians. Big business in Russia seems to be about the same as under the Yeltsin era. Big business in China has no political agenda (except perhaps good relations with the current party bosses). There is no Russian or Chinese strategy for gaining influence in other strategy. If that had been the case we would already have seen new investors in Western media. Some new technical devices would also have been launched.

    I think that that both Russia and China eventually will pay for their reluctance to interfere in Western politics. And for not trying to build a sustainable structure in media, big business and politics in their own countries. I don´t see why Russia shouldn´t get neocon rule again when Putin disappears.

    They seem to think that "if we mind our own business they will leave us alone" or at least not act more aggressively. That is probably a mistake.

    Russian or Chinese influence in Western politics would in some respects be very similar to the current "neoconservative" influence over Europe and North America. It would mean that an unelected élite would try to rule our societies. But if the Russians and Chinese also would try to grab power in our societies the electorate would have a choice: Do we want to be ruled by the neocons (and similar people), the Russians or the Chinese? Now there is only one realistic choice: The neocons. The only country within the EU which perhaps doesn´t have neocon rule, or something very similar to that, is Hungary.

    skippy9

    Mr. Roberts your lead in to the article is spot on. But when you bring in the scum that resides at my expense in a posh Guantanimo Camp I part company. These are the same animals that maimed our fighting men and women in the name of some ALLAH. We are at war with Muslims and their barbaric way of life. Pisoners of war are governed by Geneva Convention rules not a Muslim sitting in Washington.

    Demdere

    1993 WTC bombing was an FBI and CIA false flag.

    OKC ditto

    9/11 ditto, with Mossad assist, in spades

    Ditto Charlie Hedbo, Praris, the London subway bombings, ...

    Muslims had zip to do with any of them except for providing the patsies, just like the Chechans, were US patsies in the Russian's war in Afghanistand and throughout the ME, including the Chechan's attacks on Russia.

    Arabs are just 'other' enough to be really good demons, perfect for divide and rule for Europe and America, tho the divide and conquer in the ME isn't going as well as expected, tho the chaos is expanding nicely.

    If peace arrives, Israeli-Neocons hang. Peace cannot be allowed, and you cannot be allowed to think rationally about Muslims or Russians or Chinese or El Chapo or ... Freedom, ultimately, you can't be allowed to think rationally about Freedom.

    And don't.

    RopeADope

    I think you meant to say 'You can't be allowed to think rationally about power.'

    "Freedom is participation in power."

    - Marcus Tullius Cicero

    Misanthropus

    You conspiracy theorists have been breathing mixed gas, and mostly helium, for far too long. Come up for air once in awhile.

    Omen IV

    A "conspiracy theory" no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy. Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact, that is out of step with the government's explanation and that of its Media Pimps.

    Anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong "confirmation bias" - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the "conspiracy theory" label) to avoid conflicting information.

    "If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid … By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur."

    But now, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation.

    The CIA's 44-year-old campaign (originating in 1967 to discredit anti-Vietnam Protesters) to stifle debate using the "conspiracy theory" smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous - and more rational - than anti-conspiracy ones. No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks. ...

    Radical Marijuana

    Misanthropus:

    Assuming that you are not just robotic???

    I REPEAT some previous posts:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-18/conspiracy-theories

    On Conspiracy Theories

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-28/cyber-attacks-are-new-cold-war

    Cyber-Attacks Are The New Cold War

    "The warfare ideology today is 'Multilateral Unconstrained Disruption' ( MUD ). This unrestrictive warfare is meant to disrupt societal functioning; to 'poison' information to elevate distrust of all computer information."

    Backing up lies with violence with technologies trillions of times more powerful and capable is the manifestation of the oxymoronic "scientific dictatorship," which is actually as profoundly unscientific about itself as it can possibly be. Thousands of years of the history of warfare whose successes were based on deceits and treacheries have driven those kinds of successes to become runaway criminal insanities, which automatically become more psychotic the more socially successful those systems of being able to back up lies with violence become.

    Generation after generation, the social successfulness of operating systems of organized lies and robberies have driven too many of the people doing that to be extreme manifestations of professional liars and immaculate hypocrites. The ruling classes are increasingly psychotic psychopaths, while those they rule over tend to more and more act like Zombie Sheeple. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ENTIRE POLITICAL ECONOMY IS BASED ON PUBLIC GOVERNMENTS ENFORCING FRAUDS BY PRIVATE BANKS. (To confirm that beyond any reasonable doubt, watch enough of these Excellent Videos on Money Systems .

    However THAT central social FACT is deliberately ignored and/or misunderstood by the public schools and mass media, as well as by about 99% of the successful politicians who are puppets of those systems based upon POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS, which included paying for the assassinations of those politicians who otherwise could not be bribed or intimidated. Therefore, practically speaking, the government of the USA mainly acts as the muscle for the international bankers . Everything that Roberts' article outlined traces back to that source. What is WORSE is that there are no feasible ways to stop the vicious spirals of POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS continuing to automatically get worse faster ...

    Meanwhile, for those with a sufficiently macabre sense of humour, the IRONIES ARE AMUSING that it has been demonstrated by declassified CIA documents that they used their mass media assets in order to popularize the pejorative use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in order to deliberately discredit those who did not believe the official story regarding the assassination of President Kennedy.

    E.g., see:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

    In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy Theorists" ... to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the "Official" Narrative

    Similarly:

    http://www.thrivemovement.com/news-flash-cia-invents-conspiracy-theory.blog

    And:

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/

    "Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled "conspiracy theorists" appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events. ... the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority. ... In short, a study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it."

    The book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published by the University of Texas Press, explains why people don't like being called "conspiracy theorists": "The CIA's campaign to popularize the term 'conspiracy theory' and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time."

    That forerunner of the current MUD campaigns, OF COURSE, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA was barred from all domestic activities, yet some factions of the CIA routinely break the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations. That makes more historical sense, after one looks into the history of the CIA being created by various Wall Street lawyers, after the Second World War, since almost EVERYTHING happening in American politics can traced back to the ways that the international bankers captured control over the public government of the USA, through their Deep State Shadow Government persistently applying every possible method of organized crime through the political processes, both legally and illegally, to result in the runaway vicious spirals of POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS.

    Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed "conspiracy theory" label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief. University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong "confirmation bias" - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the "conspiracy theory" label) to avoid conflicting information.

    Professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University, in a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled "Dangerous Machinery: 'Conspiracy Theorist' as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion," wrote: "If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid … By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur."

    THOSE PUBLIC SPACES DOMINATED BY THE MASS MEDIA, (AS WELL AS THE CURRENTLY DOMINATE POLITICIANS THAT OPERATE WITHIN THOSE PUBLIC SPACES), ARE MORE AND MORE SPLITTING APART FROM THE ALTERNATIVE NEWS ... THAT IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE PATTERNS OF COMMENTS AND VOTES UPON THOSE COMMENTS WHICH ONE CAN OBSERVE ON THE ZERO HEDGE WEB SITE!

    ableman28

    The belief in "American Exceptionalism" inevitably leads to the modern equivalent of "Deutscheland Uber Alles".

    Might does not make right. But, unfortunately, after awhile, its hard to tell them apart.

    [Jan 10, 2016] The Wall Street Casino so far handed out losses well.

    This might be not an end of S&P500 rally but this might well be the beginning of the end.
    Notable quotes:
    "... It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats! ..."
    "... Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope. ..."
    "... Be careful what you wish for. ..."
    "... The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year." ..."
    "... With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger. ..."
    "... This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported. ..."
    "... I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing. ..."
    "... Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do? ..."
    "... they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up. ..."
    "... The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. ..."
    "... If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    John Pacella , 9 Jan 2016 06:45
    What a shock...the Wall Street Casino handed out losses...imagine my surprise.
    PlatonKuzin -> John Pacella , 9 Jan 2016 06:56

    It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats!

    anyoneanytime , 9 Jan 2016 05:24
    Looks like its going to be a great year. Eat the rich.
    peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 05:08
    Things have a long way to fall before they're low. I hope it's 2008 all over again. I was laid off in January 2009 with a generous severance packet. I invested it all in the US stock market in Q1 09, when everyone was wailing and moaning. That was the bottom of the market. Over the next few years it soared and I made a fortune. I sold most of it last year so I'm hoping for another crash.

    Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope.

    ID470129 -> peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 05:16
    Be careful what you wish for.
    giveusaclue -> peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 09:52
    That's ok unless you are about to retire and draw your private pension.

    benbache -> greven , 9 Jan 2016 07:02

    "In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again." Chance the Gardener, mistakenly known as Chauncey Gardiner.

    Economic gurus come in all forms.

    goatrider , 9 Jan 2016 04:28
    The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year."
    benbache -> goatrider , 9 Jan 2016 07:02
    Except on food.
    BlackAbbott , 9 Jan 2016 04:12
    With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger.

    These people are utterly stupid. All a load of chooks with missing heads running round causing chaos and more stupidity.
    But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world to gamble away the lives of others?

    FreddySteadyGO -> BlackAbbott , 9 Jan 2016 05:30

    But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world to gamble away the lives of others?

    Not stupid but captivated perhaps?

    We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.

    BlackAbbott -> FreddySteadyGO , 9 Jan 2016 06:00

    We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.

    Markets get closed. Also during the Bush GFC we had futures, derivatives or whatever banned for a while. The problem was letting them start up again.
    So its just a case of finding some real honest politicians...........maybe your right.
    Zhubajie , 9 Jan 2016 02:41
    The US has been de-industrialized. Most Americans are too poor to buy new gadgets. Many are homeless. We have a 3d world economy. Of course the stock market etc is bad!
    420atmosphere -> Zhubajie , 9 Jan 2016 03:50
    We do not have a third world economy. Get real...
    BlackAbbott -> 420atmosphere , 9 Jan 2016 04:14

    We do not have a third world economy. Get real

    It will be if the stock market fools carry on the way they are.
    Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 01:53
    This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported.

    The governments have learned in the last 30-40 years how to "manage" the reported metrics by changing definitions, adjustments and outright lying. You can only do it for so long before real world catches up with you.

    ID2463357 -> Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 02:09
    Well, it's complicated :-)

    I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing.

    Yes, things could be better there and in many other places. (In Canada, we are truly screwed for at least several years, fwiw.)

    prematureoptimsim -> Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 02:24
    Sounds absolutely dismal.
    But accurate.
    boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 01:29
    Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do?
    ID NO. 1984 -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 01:46
    they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up.
    Alex Newman -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 04:01
    What has QE got to do with Chinese stock market volatility?
    greven -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 04:46
    The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. \

    If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now.

    [Jan 10, 2016] US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba

    Notable quotes:
    "... A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking . ..."
    "... Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door. ..."
    "... Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this. ..."
    "... Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization. ..."
    "... You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change. ..."
    "... TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions. ..."
    "... Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor. ..."
    "... It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline! ..."
    "... i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians. ..."
    "... Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back. ..."
    "... Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese. ..."
    "... The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now. ..."
    "... What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training). ..."
    "... Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done. ..."
    "... Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops. ..."
    "... US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia. ..."
    The Guardian


    Kosala Kodikara 9 Jan 2016 12:28

    A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking .


    newpilgrim 9 Jan 2016 09:23

    Just another example of collateral damage? These missiles seem to keep landing in the wrong places, wedding parties etc. Are the military of any nation capable of managing dangerous hi-tech military hardware responsibly?


    Kevin Brent 9 Jan 2016 02:24

    Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door.


    beermad -> CheaterA 8 Jan 2016 16:27

    Ah, but without a large enemy bogeyman there would be no excuse for spending billions upon billions on "defence". The government's paymasters in the weapons industry would never stand for that.

    BG Davis 8 Jan 2016 10:51

    Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this.

    lostinbago -> JoeP 8 Jan 2016 10:09

    Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization.


    lostinbago -> Al Lewis 8 Jan 2016 10:04

    You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change.

    TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions.

    CheaterA 8 Jan 2016 09:59

    What is wrong with our leadership (and often the press) for this persistence re retaining Russia as a "potential" enemy?! NATO needs to be renamed, Turkey dumped, and Russia invited to join. Russia would be the best ally the west will ever have against terrorism. Tons of money would be saved (yes, tons) plus the ensuing safety and cultural exchange would be, well, priceless.


    Smallworld5 8 Jan 2016 09:11

    Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor.

    Basically it's a shell with the laser receiver part of the seeker package which tells the weapons operator on the aircraft that the missile has acquired the laser designator (locked on). No ground breaking technology there as just about everyone else has similar weapons.


    trazer985 -> pretzelattack 8 Jan 2016 09:01

    It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline!

    Next time they ask me if my bag has "any of the following" in it, I'll try not to think of this story...


    TommyGuardianReader 8 Jan 2016 08:34

    "The official said the US did not want any defense technology to remain in a proscribed country, whether that country can use it or not."

    Lockheed Martin may have had their own commercial motives for allowing the equipment to be accidentally sent to Havana, or they may have been acting under instruction.

    However, if it was a simple fuck-up:

    1. The easy short-term answer is to take Cuba off the list of proscribed countries.

    2. The more difficult, long-term answer is to remove all the other unauthorised US defence equipment that is currently in Cuba. Especially in and around the south-eastern area known as Guantanamo Bay.

    There can be no doubt that the continued existence of the unlawful, anachronistic foreign naval facility makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve genuine consensus at the United Nations.

    While that may suit the interests of the shareholders in Lockheed Martin very nicely, it does not suit the interests of most of humanity and the other living beings on the planet.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base


    pretzelattack -> Ziontrain 8 Jan 2016 08:33

    i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians.


    mikedow -> toggy12 8 Jan 2016 07:50

    They're used to losing weaponry. They even have a special name(Broken Arrow) for when they lose a nuclear device. In 1950 the USAF jettisoned a nuclear bomb off the coast of BC, before crashing a B-36 "Peacemaker".


    Julie Lamin 8 Jan 2016 07:49

    Another of the United States efforts to poison international opinion against Cuba? Perhaps once the United States has returned Guatanamo to Cuba and paid for the fifty years of damage they have caused to Cuban people through their acts of aggression, the US might get their little bit of kit back.

    TonyBistol 8 Jan 2016 05:39

    Perhaps I'm wrong, but I wouldn't imagine that this drone would be able to teach the Russians an awful lot, especially seeing as they have recently demonstrated that they have the capability of being able to launch seaborne cruise missiles which can pinpoint targets 1800 Km away.


    jgbg Tradingman66 8 Jan 2016 05:24

    They don't need to hand them to a freight forwarder to screw up. Whilst the Soviets had some accidents with nuclear weapons and reactors, the US has had quite a few accidents involving nuclear weapons, reactors and materials, including the permanent loss of some nuclear weapons. One nuclear weapon that was lost over Georgia (the US state, not the country) was armed and almost detonated.


    tellyheads 8 Jan 2016 05:24

    LOL, the US DoD is less competent than Amazon.

    Lucky it wasn't a nuke.


    jgbg Freddienerk 8 Jan 2016 05:11

    I am sure the Russians and Chinese already have the know how to build a similar weapon.

    Yes - but they might be interested in the specifics of this missile e.g. sensors and guidance systems, so as to facilitate the development of effective countermeasures.


    JaitcH 8 Jan 2016 05:06

    What's to hide?

    The target is painted with an infra-red signal, or infra-red markers, similar to torches, are placed on or near a target. Whichever is used is encoded with a 4-digit code.

    The pilot of the aircraft carrying the Hellfire weapon loads this 4-digit code into the Hellfire before releasing it and it's ready to go hunting.

    The Freedom Fighters know about this and use infra-red detectors to either locate the hand-dropped markers or to sense infra-red markers projected in a site - then they move, hopefully in time yo watch the explosion from a distance!

    The information was published in a book devoted to modern warfare technology.

    Doug_Niedermeyer 8 Jan 2016 04:52

    Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back.

    hogsback -> ID0728468 8 Jan 2016 04:47

    I'm sure all munitions are shipped via the US Military themselves via the USAAF

    So when Lockheed sells Hellfires to say Pakistan, or Egypt, or Saudi, you think they are delivered in person by the USAAF with a little bow and ribbons? You realise that Hellfire has been sold to over 25 countries, not all of them friendly to the US?

    They're sent by air cargo or in a container on a ship like anything else.

    SenseCir 8 Jan 2016 04:36

    This is a tragedy. What if technical details reach poor farmers in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria who are then able to avoid being killed by one of those missiles? Unthinkable. Cuba must return the missile at once.


    juster 8 Jan 2016 04:35

    Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese.

    The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now.


    hogsback -> trazer985 8 Jan 2016 04:30

    Probably in the cargo hold on a passenger flight. You would be surprised as to what is sitting under you when you are off on your hols.

    What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training).


    DThompson5 -> martinusher 8 Jan 2016 04:30

    The link to that survey...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/07/the-less-americans-know-about-ukraines-location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/


    Polly Parrot 8 Jan 2016 04:26

    What the hell are they doing using ordinary freight services to send missiles around the world, do they send live ones the same way. They should only be carried by military transport regardless of cost because what is the cost of loosing it and it falling into the wrong hands


    EpaminondasUSA 8 Jan 2016 04:25

    Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done.


    DThompson5 martinusher 8 Jan 2016 04:14

    Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops.

    2bveryFrank 8 Jan 2016 03:57

    A Hellfire missile does the rounds in Europe, visiting Spain, Germany and France before being sent to Havana, Cuba by mistake! And our security is supposed to be in these people's hands! Idiots the lot of them!

    Epivore 8 Jan 2016 03:57

    "instead, it was loaded onto an Air France flight to Havana."

    And it's not just dummy missiles that end up on civilian flights...

    UncertainTrumpet 8 Jan 2016 03:26

    US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia.

    Dubhgaill -> Wendy Stolz 8 Jan 2016 03:15

    The US military is virtually entirely run by private companies. Every single member of GW Bush's cabinet, to a man or woman, were boardmembers and shareholders in either an oil company or arms producer or a military logistics firm. Every single one of them. This is a minor symtom of a far more insidious malaise.


    siansim -> bemusedbyitall 8 Jan 2016 03:02


    bemusedbyitall said:

    No chance, from experience even if it was used against a hospital with numerous medical staff and civilian deaths and casualties it would just be put down to a minor clerical or communications error...

    ...And then you drive a tank into the hospital wards to destroy any evidence.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/us-tank-enters-ruined-afghan-hospital-putting-war-evidence-at-risk

    US Military: putting the FUBAR into high military spending

    poplartree1 8 Jan 2016 02:58

    Great! How wonderful they work like a charm...Yesterday I placed in comments how the US government (who is totally inthe hands of contractors such a Lockheed Martin and other yahoos, how they are corrupt. Today here is one more example of total ineptitude;

    Here is the link of yesterday:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/how-corrupt-american-government and today Zero hedge has some very interesting articles
    like this oneL Has anyone noticed how the guardian covers Libya?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/pray-us-libya-issues-cry-help-isis-advances-oil-fields
    and
    Qadafi warned Tony Blair (the bozo): Jihadists will attack Europe!
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-07/jihadists-will-attack-europe-leaked-phone-call-shows-gaddafi-warned-tony-blair-terro
    and Hillaryton's motive for invading Lybia:

    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
    "The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy's reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi's influence in what is considered "Francophone Africa."

    Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi's gold and silver reserves, estimated at "143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver," posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this "confidential" explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:

    This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
    (Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)

    Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France's (and by implication NATO's) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.

    Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.
    French intelligence "discovered" a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression."

    Loosing a missile is not important...important is to increase hell on earth...and to make people suffer like in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Ukraine.


    Havingalavrov 8 Jan 2016 02:50

    Look who uses the Hellfire missile and they are making a fuss about Cuba having the technology ???

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire#Operators


    Mohanraj Cp 8 Jan 2016 01:56

    The US stripped down a MIG27 Foxbat jet brought in by a defecting Soviet pilot and is now complaining! Sauce for Soviet goose is sauce for American gander!


    Long6fellow 8 Jan 2016 01:52

    The Yanks are losing their grip on their delivery service, firstly, there was a drone brought down by the Iranians, "can we have our drone back please", then the wrong delivery of 1Billion$ of war equipment to SISI, the latter being set up by the Pentagon, now the Hellfire Missile sent to Cuba, and after all these years of dirty tricks on Cuba, it proves the Yanks cannot be trust at all.


    BudGreen -> Freddienerk 8 Jan 2016 00:47

    Specific knowledge of the guidance systems could be valuable to someone interested in developing electronic countermeasures. This much should be obvious. Personally, I would be surprised that with the number of these used in combat (they've been in use since the early 80's) that there would not have been at least several unexploded units recovered by our enemies. Having one that was never fired and probably undamaged might be a real prize, though.


    synchronicfusion 8 Jan 2016 00:05

    As an American, I am truly embarrassed and ashamed that my own government had a habit of shipping weapons and technology into the wrong hands. I might be more forgiving if it only happened once, but how many times now? This is the same government that insists on spying on we innocent citizens as though we are in the wrong. Please! Dumb....., Da Dumb, Dumb, DUMB! It's been said that every empire comes to an end, eventually.

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons

    This is the review of the book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government by one of Moon of Alabama readers.
    Looks like the course on making The USA imperial power (which was related later in Washington consensus and Wolfowitz doctrine) was taken directly after WWII. Cold War was just a smoke screen under which the USA tried to establish hegemony over the world. Both documents could well be written by Alan Dulles himself.
    Any president who dare to deviate from this is ostracized , impeached or killed. So the political role of intelligence agencies since their establishment by Truman was to serve as the brain center if USA imperial beuracracy (as well as the tools for projecting it abroad)
    The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for wars and for expanding the US influence abroad for multinationals, and that is what they have done for 70 years (Dulles came from Wall Street). Among other things it deliberately creates small wars just to demonstrate the US military might. Neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."
    Another book deserves to mentioned here too here too. Prouty book The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World (which was suppressed in 1973 when irt was published and did not see shelves before republishing in 2011) is described like the the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy conducted by CIA has finally provoked a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans
    U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve our goals. ..."
    "... Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969. ..."
    "... the ruling elite of the US was deeply split. ..."
    "... A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!). ..."
    "... And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. ..."
    "... Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    guest77 | Jan 9, 2016 3:28:12 AM | 55

    I just finished listening to the audio book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government . It was very good I think.

    I'll spare you a full review, but the Dulles era has some very important and interesting similarities with our own (in fact, the ties are most certainly those first formed during the Dulles brothers tenure at State and CIA). Talbot doesn't delve deeply into these more recent aspects, but he does acknowledge them. And the similarities are quite clear. We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve our goals.

    Initially I had heard that it was a Allen Dulles biography, and though there is a lot of detail about his personal life, his marriage, and even his kids, I would say it strays from what one might consider a "standard" biography and is more about Dulles and his times. For instance, there are a couple of chapters devoted just to the Kennedy Assassination, another on Oswald, and one on the "Generals' putsch" in France in '61. Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969.

    Talbot uses Dulles life as the base to build up the important (and to my mind misunderstood and misconstrued) stories in recent US history. That story is, of course, the following: despite the impression most Americans have of our country fighting the ultimate "good war" against universally despised enemies - that fact is that the ruling elite of the US was deeply split.

    A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!).

    And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. And Talbot tracks this key figure's fascist ties as he rises in the US power structure from his early years as an OSS man wheeling and dealing with Nazi generals in Bern, Switzerland and on through Dulles' creation and/or support of fascist governments in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa during the Cold War. Talbot covers the events surrounding Dulles life excellently. Especially moving was his chapter on Guatemala - the tragedy of the Arbenz family as a mirror of the tragedy of Guatemala is covered through the eyes of the grandson of Arbez.

    Talbot covers the horror stories of the results of America working closely with dictators like Trujillo, the Shah, Mobutu Sese Seko, and Batista (he misses Indonesia though, an operation that caused the death of 1,000,000 Indonesians). But of course, as an American, the most important question to Talbot is that of Dulles role in the Kennedy assassination. Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia.

    guest77 | Jan 9, 2016 4:08:48 AM | 59

    https://blogs.princeton.edu/mudd/2008/01/allen-dulles-papers-released-by-cia-to-princeton-are-now-online/
    Allen Dulles papers released by CIA to Princeton are now online
    Posted on January 23, 2008 by Dan Linke

    The Central Intelligence Agency has released to Princeton University some 7,800 documents covering the career of Allen W. Dulles, the agency's longest-serving director, which now can be viewed online at http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/st74cq497

    Dulles (1893-1969), a Princeton alumnus who headed the CIA from 1953 to 1961, was renowned for his role in shaping U.S. intelligence operations during the Cold War. Last March, the CIA released to Princeton a collection of letters, memoranda, reports and other papers - some still redacted - that the agency had removed from Dulles' papers after his death and before their transfer to the University in 1974.

    [Jan 08, 2016] Sweden's feminist foreign minister has dared to tell the truth about Saudi Arabia. What happens now concerns us all by Nick Cohen" rel="author" href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/author/nick-cohen/"> Nick Cohen

    Jan 08, 2016 | spectator.co.uk

    Margot Wallström's principled stand deserves wide support. Betrayal seems more likely

    A few weeks ago Margot Wallström, the Swedish foreign minister, denounced the subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia. As the theocratic kingdom prevents women from travelling, conducting official business or marrying without the permission of male guardians, and as girls can be forced into child marriages where they are effectively raped by old men, she was telling no more than the truth. Wallström went on to condemn the Saudi courts for ordering that Raif Badawi receive ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes for setting up a website that championed secularism and free speech. These were 'mediaeval methods', she said, and a 'cruel attempt to silence modern forms of expression'. And once again, who can argue with that?

    The backlash followed the pattern set by Rushdie, the Danish cartoons and Hebdo. Saudi Arabia withdrew its ambassador and stopped issuing visas to Swedish businessmen. The United Arab Emirates joined it. The Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, which represents 56 Muslim-majority states, accused Sweden of failing to respect the world's 'rich and varied ethical standards' - standards so rich and varied, apparently, they include the flogging of bloggers and encouragement of paedophiles. Meanwhile, the Gulf Co-operation Council condemned her 'unaccept-able interference in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia', and I wouldn't bet against anti-Swedish riots following soon.

    Yet there is no 'Wallström affair'. Outside Sweden, the western media has barely covered the story, and Sweden's EU allies have shown no inclination whatsoever to support her. A small Scandinavian nation faces sanctions, accusations of Islamophobia and maybe worse to come, and everyone stays silent. As so often, the scandal is that there isn't a scandal.

    It is a sign of how upside-down modern politics has become that one assumes that a politician who defends freedom of speech and women's rights in the Arab world must be some kind of muscular liberal, or neocon, or perhaps a supporter of one of Scandinavia's new populist right-wing parties whose commitment to human rights is merely a cover for anti-Muslim hatred. But Margot Wallström is that modern rarity: a left-wing politician who goes where her principles take her.

    She is foreign minister in Sweden's weak coalition of Social Democrats and Greens, and took office promising a feminist foreign policy. She recognised Palestine in October last year - and, no, the Arab League and Organisation of Islamic Co-operation and Gulf Co-operation Council did not condemn her 'unacceptable interference in the internal affairs of Israel'. I confess that her gesture struck me as counterproductive at the time. But after Benjamin Netanyahu ruled out a Palestinian state as he used every dirty trick he could think of to secure his re-election, she can claim with justice that history has vindicated her.

    She moved on to the Saudi version of sharia law. Her criticism was not just rhetorical. She said that it was unethical for Sweden to continue with its military co-operation agreement with Saudi Arabia. In other words, she threatened Swedish arms companies' ability to make money. Saudi Arabia's denial of business visas to Swedes threatened to hurt other companies' profits too. You might think of Swedes as upright social democrats, who have never let worries of appearing tedious stand in the way of their righteousness. But that has never been wholly true, and is certainly not true when there is money at stake.

    Sweden is the world's 12th largest arms exporter - quite an achievement for a country of just nine million people. Its exports to Saudi Arabia total $1.3 billion. Business leaders and civil servants are also aware that other Muslim-majority countries may follow Saudi Arabia's lead. During the 'cartoon crisis' - a phrase I still can't write without snorting with incredulity - Danish companies faced global attacks and the French supermarket chain Carrefour took Danish goods off the shelves to appease Muslim customers. A co-ordinated campaign by Muslim nations against Sweden is not a fanciful notion. There is talk that Sweden may lose its chance to gain a seat on the UN Security Council in 2017 because of Wallström.

    To put it as mildly as I can, the Swedish establishment has gone wild. Thirty chief executives signed a letter saying that breaking the arms trade agreement 'would jeopardise Sweden's reputation as a trade and co-operation partner'. No less a figure than His Majesty King Carl XVI Gustaf himself hauled Wallström in at the weekend to tell her that he wanted a compromise. Saudi Arabia has successfully turned criticism of its brutal version of Islam into an attack on all Muslims, regardless of whether they are Wahhabis or not, and Wallström and her colleagues are clearly unnerved by accusations of Islamophobia. The signs are that she will fold under the pressure, particularly when the rest of liberal Europe shows no interest in supporting her.

    Sins of omission are as telling as sins of commission. The Wallström non-affair tells us three things. It is easier to instruct small countries such as Sweden and Israel on what they can and cannot do than America, China or a Saudi Arabia that can call on global Muslim support when criticised. Second, a Europe that is getting older and poorer is starting to find that moral stands in foreign policy are luxuries it can no longer afford. Saudi Arabia has been confident throughout that Sweden needs its money more than it needs Swedish imports.

    Finally, and most revealingly in my opinion, the non-affair shows us that the rights of women always come last. To be sure, there are Twitter storms about sexist men and media feeding frenzies whenever a public figure uses 'inappropriate language'. But when a politician tries to campaign for the rights of women suffering under a brutally misogynistic clerical culture she isn't cheered on but met with an embarrassed and hugely revealing silence.

    [Jan 08, 2016] Why are feminists refusing to discuss the Cologne sex attacks by Lara Prendergast

    Notable quotes:
    "... So far this year, the main 'feminist' topic covered by Guardian comment writers is Chris Gayle's cricket sexism row, which involves the sportsman chatting up a female journalist. There is not one mention of the Cologne attacks, aside from in news reports. Why is that? ..."
    Jan 08, 2016 | Spectator Blogs

    Regardless of the background of the men who carried out the attacks in Cologne on New Year's Eve, it is a pretty horrific story. A series of sexual attacks took place in the city centre by a group of around 1,000 men. More than 150 women have filed criminal complaints, three-quarters of them for sexual assault. Two cases of rape have been reported. It is the kind of story that should make headlines – and should provide ample fodder for writers who like to tackle feminist topics head on. After all, surely this is the very definition of 'rape culture'? And if the actual attacks aren't enough to merit a reaction, then how about the suggestion by Cologne's female mayor that women should adopt a 'code of conduct' to prevent future assault. Is that not the very definition of 'victim blaming'?

    But the headlines have been conspicuous by their absence. So far this year, the main 'feminist' topic covered by Guardian comment writers is Chris Gayle's cricket sexism row, which involves the sportsman chatting up a female journalist. There is not one mention of the Cologne attacks, aside from in news reports. Why is that? Is it because they are not deemed important? Perhaps we don't care about vicious attacks against German frauen? Or is it because the details of the story – that the men appear to have been of 'Arab or North African origin' who did not seem to speak German or English, and that there is a possibility they are some of the 1.1 million migrants to have entered Germany last year – make it too controversial to touch? Feminist writers are not famed for holding their tongues – as individuals who have been hanged, drawn and quartered by them can attest. But in an article for Prospect, Jessica Abrahams offers this measly explanation for the silence:

    [Jan 06, 2016] Pray For Us Libya Issues Cry For Help As ISIS Advances On Oil Fields

    Notable quotes:
    "... "We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late." ..."
    "... ''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot' ..."
    "... You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed. ..."
    "... What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you know better, but choose dishonesty ..."
    "... I mean shit the Bush family tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist. Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler. ..."
    "... Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important resources. ..."
    "... ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities can be pilfered safely. ..."
    "... In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War". (Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well). ..."
    "... Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls. ..."
    Zero Hedge

    "We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late."

    That's from Libya's National Oil Corp and as you might have guessed, it references the seizure of state oil assets by Islamic State, whose influence in the country has grown over the past year amid the power vacuum the West created by engineering the demise of Moammar Qaddafi.

    The latest attacks occurred in Es Sider, a large oil port that's been closed for at least a year.

    Seven guards were killed on Monday in suicide bombings while two more lost their lives on Tuesday as ISIS attacked checkpoints some 20 miles from the port. "Es Sider and Ras Lanuf, Libya's biggest oil ports, have been closed since December 2014," Reuters notes . "They are located between the city of Sirte, which is controlled by Islamic State, and the eastern city of Benghazi."

    ISIS also set fire to oil tanks holding hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude. "Four tanks in Es Sider caught fire on Tuesday, and a fifth one in Ras Lanuf the day before," Ali al-Hassi, a spokesman for the the Petroleum Facilities Guard told Bloomberg over the phone.

    Ludovico Carlino, senior analyst at IHS Country Risk says the attacks are "likely diversionary operations" during Islamic State's takeover of the town of Bin Jawad, a seizure that may enable the group to expand and connect "its controlled territory around Sirte to the 'oil crescent.'"

    Islamic State is pushing east from Sirte in an effort to seize control of the country's oil infrastructure, much as the group has done in Syria and Iraq. As Middle East Eye wrote last summer, "the desert region to the south of the oil ports has been strategically cleared in a series of attacks by IS militants on security personnel and oil fields, where employees have been killed and kidnapped, and vehicles and equipment seized."

    "I expect they will try and take Sidra and Ras Lanuf and the oil fields on the west side of the oil crescent," one oil worker said. "There are few people left to protect the oil fields apart from local security from isolated towns."

    macholatte

    CHANGE YOU BETTER BEIEVE IN

    Flashback 2011: Hillary Clinton Laughs About Killing Moammar Gaddafi: "We Came, We Saw, He Died!"

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/19/flashback_2011_hillary...

    KnuckleDragger-X

    Libya was Hillary's special project.

    SmedleyButlersGhost

    This is good a place as any for a tale of Yale's very own John Kerry. Want to know the true measure of Kerry - Google his Cookie franchise at Faneuil Hall (David's Cookies is the guy he ripped off) before he married ketchup money. Further, way back when, an Aunt of mine had a Summer job at the airport cafe that serves Martha's Vinyard - also before Kerry got Heinz' dough.

    The fuk Congressman Kerry would be there sucking up to MA money. On the return flight he would hit the cafe - without fail he would have an order that came out to about a nickel short of an even dollar amount - say $3.95. The fuk would always throw $4 on the table when she was out of sight and slink off. Not like he couldn't afford it - the guy was a Congressman. What a cheap slime ball

    fleur de lis

    Someone once said, money doesn't make you a better or worse person. It only magnifies the personality you already have.

    John Kerry has no class an never did. He went to big schools but so what. Has anyone seen his transcript? Does he strike anyone as smart? He just got hooked into the connected circles.

    Soros is a billionaire. Does he strike anyone as refined or classy? Of course not. He was grimy riff raff all his life and today he's just riff raff with too much money and using it to drag entire societies down to his gutter level. He's what they called years ago, a beggar on horseback.

    They're all the same. Nuland/Nudelman/Neudelmann or whatever her name is brings wreck and ruin to everything she touches. For all her money she doesn't even look groomed and sometimes she looks dirty.

    No amount of money can ever polish them up. You can take them out of the slums but generations later you can't take the slums out of them. They use money and power to drag us all down to their mental levels. They were born philistines and they will die philistines.

    Lumberjack

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-water-wars-and-gaddafis-great-man-ma...

    I do not endorse anyone but...

    https://sites.tufts.edu/reinventingpeace/2012/12/19/the-african-union-an...

    __Usury__

    Darwin..

    ''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot' '....

    Blankone

    You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed.

    It should be no surprise that now the ISIS army or the US/Israel wants to take control or the resources.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, did Russia vote FOR the no fly zone or just abstain and thus give consent for the destruction.

    Volkodav

    What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you know better, but choose dishonesty

    froze25

    Adolf was a person with no business experience, a socialist, a bad artist, but the man had charisma. Trump has charisma but that is where the similarities stop. Not letting in Muslim Refugees with out proper vetting is reasonable, being politically correct is self enforced mind control bullshit, the boarder with Mexico needs to be controlled and immigration law needs to be enforced is also reasonable. The "he" is the next Hitler line needs to stop, I mean shit the Bush family tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist. Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler.

    kita27

    Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important resources.

    ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities can be pilfered safely.

    Bastiat

    And central banking -- remember when in the very early days of the "revolution," the mercenaries formed a central bank? Who ever heard of such a thing? I don't supposed that central bank immediately removed all of Libya's gold? Naaaaahh.

    Hohum

    Who is responsible for this? (Hillary Clinton, in part)

    Sanity Bear

    In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War". (Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well).

    Jack Burton

    First comes NATO bombers. Then Comes ISIS. Where? Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya. The West runs ISIS's Air Force for them, opening the invasion routes by destroying local resistance or army forces. Russia stepped in and cut short the NATO/ISIS alliance in Syria.

    Jack Burton

    Hillary Clinton's Greatest success? Clearing the way for ISIS to invade and conquer Libya, and using Libya arms to arm the ISIS in Syria. Where today, Bulgaria has stated an emergency air lift of Soviet era weapons to ISIS in Turkey and Syria. These Soviet weapons may be old, but function in perfect order, just as they were designed to. Especially the Anti Tan Guided Missiles. Bulgaria is launching an emergency airlift of 7,000 ATGM to ISIS, at the request of NATO.

    falak pema

    well played Pax Americana : you promised them Disneyland after Q-Daffy's demise.

    And they get : ISIS --

    Wow, just wow -- From Charybdis to Scylla! The Pax Americana way.

    trader1

    we came, we saw, ...

    TeaClipper

    So that is what Obama meant when he commended the Libyans on their three years of independence

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/28/obama-boasts-libya...

    replaceme

    We came, we saw, he died. Hillary C

    She was secretary of state, which makes her ever so qualified to be commander in chief. Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls.

    RevIdahoSpud3

    I don't see the problem here. It was none other than a former Secretary of State who recited, "We came, we saw, he DIED"! (cackle, cackle, cankles cackeling)That was the solution then and now, as has been shown over and over ISIS, IS, ISIL...ISOUR (US) asset! We trained, we funded, we unleashed! Our very own CIA has the plug and if they don't pull it all must be well? The new complication will be getting the oil to Turkey which would no doubt ship in Burak Erdogan's tankers. After refining in Turkey move it to Israel and blend with world supplies. Everyone gets rich! Erdogan's get rich, ISIS gets funded, Clinton Foundations get funded, Israel get rich, and special interests in the US, London, France, Germany, Switzerland...they all get rich as well. Stolen oil has higher octane!

    Duc888

    Good thing Hillary "fixed" Libya

    "We came, we saw , we killed" Yup, just the kinds of ASSHOLE we need for President.

    jldpc

    What a joke. If the US wanted to stop ISIS making money on selling oil which goes by tanker or pipeline, all they have to do is threaten destruction of same, and the insurers will shut it down overnight. No oil money = no more ISIS on the warpath. Simple. And best of all no American soldier's lives lost. Can you say CinC is a stupid shit? Or how about the oil brokers and end buyers? Even I could threaten their asses with serious shit and get them to stop. So could any of you. Guess what the USA is not serious about stopping them. Gee who could have figured that out on their own?

    BarkingCat

    Lets see if I understand the plan.

    Step 1) Secretly ferment dissent against the local government.

    Step 2) Push the dissent into armed rebellion.

    Step 3) Use governments reaction to get involve own military to protect civilians.

    Step 4) Protection of civilians as cover, the military attacks government's armed forces tipping the scales of conflict in favor of the rebellion.

    Step 5) Watch the rebells kill the leaders of the nation and take control.

    Step 6) Watch the nation fall into complete turmoil and become home to groups of terrorists and other barbarians.

    When steps above are completed and enough time has passed:

    Step 7) Use own military to bring peace to a troubled nation. Also take over anything that has value ....oil production for example.

    [Jan 06, 2016] Our Famously Free Press

    While "free press" is an illusion (or may be not, depending of the semantic of the word "free" ;-), you still can choose what do you want to read and use other countries MSM for comparison. different countries have different biases and that allow better approximate the truth in foreign events coverage. Acrutally British press is better in coverage of the USA internal events that the US press. Not everything is bad.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The data also shows companies linked to News were significantly less profitable than most other media rivals, with interest payments on loans from associated companies helping to reduce profit margins and taxable income. ..."
    "... He will be attractive! He'll be nice and helpful. He'll get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation. He'll never do an evil thing! He'll never deliberately hurt a living thing… he will just bit by little bit lower our standards where they are important. Just a tiny little bit. Just coax along flash over substance. Just a tiny little bit. And he'll talk about all of us really being salesmen. And he'll get all the great women. ..."
    "... Obama is the political version of Hurt's newscaster. ..."
    "... Totally! Life imitates art there (Obama/Hurt). ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Media companies linked to the Murdochs pay the least tax" [ Australian Financial Review ]. " The data also shows companies linked to News were significantly less profitable than most other media rivals, with interest payments on loans from associated companies helping to reduce profit margins and taxable income. " Hmm…

    ... ... ...

    "Facebook has taken over from Google as a traffic source for news" [ Fortune ].

    "Who Controls Your Facebook Feed" [ Slate ]. The news feed isn't entirely algorithmic; the Facebook process includes a panel of live humans.

    Synoia January 6, 2016 at 4:32 pm

    Our Famously Free Press

    "Media companies linked to the Murdochs pay the least tax" [Australian Financial Review]. "The data also shows companies linked to News were significantly less profitable than most other media rivals, with interest payments on loans from associated companies helping to reduce profit margins and taxable income."

    It is, after all, a free press.

    hunkerdown, January 6, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    It is, after all, a free press.

    Ah, ah, only for those who can afford one.

    Pavel January 6, 2016 at 4:03 pm

    I haven't seen (and won't go out of my way to watch) the Obama speech on guns with the now famous "tearing up" moment, but it immediately reminded me of the seminal scene in "Broadcast News" where William Hurt's character fakes tears during the filming of a documentary.

    And that recalls the famous lines uttered by the Albert Brooks character Aaron about the devil:

    Aaron Altman: I know you care about him. I've never seen you like this about anyone, so please don't get me wrong when I tell you that Tom, while being a very nice guy, is the Devil.
    Jane Craig: This isn't friendship. You're crazy, you know that?
    Aaron Altman: What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he's around?
    Jane Craig: God!
    Aaron Altman: Come on! Nobody is going to be taken in by a guy with a long, red, pointy tail! What's he gonna sound like?
    [hisses]
    Aaron Altman: No. I'm semi-serious here.
    Jane Craig: You're seriously…
    Aaron Altman: He will be attractive! He'll be nice and helpful. He'll get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation. He'll never do an evil thing! He'll never deliberately hurt a living thing… he will just bit by little bit lower our standards where they are important. Just a tiny little bit. Just coax along flash over substance. Just a tiny little bit. And he'll talk about all of us really being salesmen. And he'll get all the great women.

    - Broadcast News (IMDB)

    Obama is the political version of Hurt's newscaster.

    nycTerrierist, January 6, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    Totally! Life imitates art there (Obama/Hurt).

    Great flick, just saw it again the other night. Brian Williams' fibbing also came to mind.

    [Jan 05, 2016] Ukrainians say farewell to Soviet champagne as decommunisation law takes hold

    Was Shaun Walket "under influence" when he wrote this article. Renaming Soviet Champaign is necessary due to EU laws that prohibit infringement on French brand name, so "decommunization" is only part of the story.
    Of course history is written by winners and so far Galician nationalists are the winners, so they rewrite history according to their own ideology and preferences. But money for that will be paid by impoverished Ukrainians. In reality Ukraine is victim of US neoliberal push against Russia. Of course US neocons does not want to pay for the damage it inflicted. Now they own the country. Might makes right.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The achievements in a relatively short space of time once all the wars related to 1917 had ended, then in the 25 year period after the catastrophic loss following WW2 were incredible. ..."
    "... ....and it is impossible to answer if Britain would have recovered as quickly from WW2 as the Soviets if they had suffered the equivalent (10 million) or the US (25 million ) deaths during this time. ..."
    "... I'm beginning to recognise a familiar "Guardian euphmenism" touch there. Just like Syrian "moderate rebels" cause "controversy", as "some" of them call for jihad and eat people's hearts, and may have involved a massacre or two. ..."
    "... The East Ukrainians were disenfranchised with the Regime change in their country but instead of sending in negotiators, the Kiev government sent in tanks and armored personnel carriers. What a way to run a country, they must have been inspired ( or instructed) by the best Regime changers in the business, the USA. ..."
    "... Seeing as the Ukrainians hate the Communists and Lenin, I trust we can expect them to reverse measures enacted by the Communists e.g. return to Russia the regions moved into the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Lenin in the 1920s. By the same token, they should probably give Galicia back to Poland. ..."
    "... And denounce the Communists gifting of Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950s... ..."
    "... Ukraine is a bit of the loosers aren't they.. borrow money from the EU to pay some relative or friend of those in Kyiv.. who just happens to own a sign, monument or statue company.. to bring about this ridiculously stupid change.. of 108 towns? They haven't got better things to do with whatever money they have?.. like take care of the needs of the people? ..."
    "... The old adage "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" comes readily to mind. Although perhaps "scoundrel" is too mild a word in this instance. ..."
    "... The subtle irony is that without suitable Stalinist role models, the mafia power-brokers running Ukraine in cahoots with their morally bankrupt western puppeteers haven't an ideological leg to stand on. Instead, Walker blathers on about how Dnipropetrovsk has, ahem, been re-branded as Dnipropetrovsk. Thanks Shaun. ..."
    "... Irrespective of whether or not its a good idea, there must be an EU grant somewhere that would compensate for the damage caused ..."
    "... ......EU does NOT want Ukraine, we can NOT afford yet another poverty stricken ex soviet country !! If our utterly useless leaders would ever consider this insanity because USA tells us to, and if EU pretends to be a democracy, there should at least be a European referendum on this matter; ..."
    "... obliterate the past and ideas by erasing the visible remnants will have the opposite effect to that desired particulary with the inquisitive youth and is so Talibanesque it's ludicrous. ..."
    "... What exactly is "the Soviet worldview"? If it means not accepting Fackelzug (torch parade) in your cities Nazi-style, then most people Russia definitely have it, and a good proportion of people in Ukraine, too. ..."
    "... If having the Soviet worldview means not accepting erasing history and collective memory and replacing it with some glorious but, unfortunately, fictitious history of the Ukrainian nation - yes, we certainly do have it. There are real achievements Ukrainians could be proud of - oh, Gosh, I forgot, they all involve Russian in one way or another, and that is, of course, unacceptable - otherwise that would be another manifestation of the Soviet worldview. Like we did it together, Russians and Ukrainians - can't get more Soviet than that. ..."
    "... The USSR and Soviet history and the Russian language no more belong to the post soviet Russian Federation than they do to Ukraine. Each country can keep or reject what it likes. ..."
    "... You want to claim the achievements - then you also claim the responsibilities as well. Ones don't go without the others. Either Ukraine, like Belorussia, is a part of the Russian/Soviet empires and is entitles to all their achievements as well as to all the faults or it is a long suffered colony of both and then it is entitled to none. Can't have it both ways. ..."
    "... In the entrance lobby to the Kiev RADA there was a portrait of Stephen Bandera - that was covered with a black silk shroud when Americans visited. Bandera was not a hero as he actively aided the NAZI in Auschwitz , Poles, Jews and Russians were his favourites. The Ukraine Government hasn't left its past behind, it's only trying to camouflage it, trying to appear civilized. ..."
    "... Ukrainian say farewall to Soviet things, but welcome Nazi stuff. Lovely. ..."
    "... Dishonest? In my visits to Ukraine after the US-instigated Nazi putsch I saw more and more Nazi symbolism sprayed all over the city. There was even a shrine to the fascist Bandera on Independence Square. ..."
    "... There is always a heavy paramilitary presence around main administrative buildings in Kiev - surprising that a regime that claims it came to power through a popular revolution should be scared of that same population. ..."
    "... It is totally bizarre that Ukrainian vandals would deface a statue of Lenin with with the motto, "I am the butcher of Ukraine" since he was the one who had made the Ukraine an independent political entity. ..."
    "... Allright democracy on the march. Overthrow elected governments with foreign backing (remember McCain at Maidan). Now you ban one of the largest opposition parties (in 2012 they got 6 percennt of the vote or 2.7 million votes) because they are traitors (that's the language they use) to the revolutionary Maidan government. While banning symbols and names they don't agree with by order of thought police and proclaiming Nazi collaborators as heroes. Just wait for the statues of Stepan Bandera to replace Lenin. The e.u and the rest of the west says nothing cause this is the kind of "democracy" they are fine with get bent hypocrites ..."
    "... In that poor retched shrinking country local street names is all the Coup Crowd in Kyiv can actually control. So they have campaigns, led by fascists, for changing the names of things. Meanwhile it has become impossible to find out if the nitwits still claim to be at war with Russia or not. ..."
    "... The author of this article neglects to mention that the Ukrainian laws are targeted both at Soviet and Nazi symbols. ..."
    "... As for the ww2 Ukrainian nationalists, most Ukrainians think of these groups poorly. The vast majority of Ukrainians fought on the Soviet side, and indeed made up more than one third of the Soviet army in ww2. Until recently, this was the source of pride and sorrow, just as in Russia. ..."
    "... I don't see anyone is stopping this, that guy on that transparent there is a nazi collaborator. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weg-QnsTPs0 ..."
    "... The WWII history of the Ukraine is full of eye witness accounts of how the German armed forces had to step in to save Jews from Ukrainian savagery because they preferred to eliminate Jews systematically rather than by anarchistic savagery. And incidentally in Western Ukraine a greater proportion of people volunteered for Hitler's armed forces than in Germany proper. ..."
    "... You are wrong. There are numerous monuments dedicated to Stepan Bandera in Western Ukraine (at least in 20 towns). There are also numerous streets named after him. ..."
    "... Ukraine has bigger problems than street name changes! The IMF own the country it has lost it's sovereignty and has outsiders in its government as well as debts it cannot pay. ..."
    "... Ukraine wants to get rid of the Soviet past - well, then it has to be happy that Crimea is gone, for Crimea is the clearest vestige of the Soviet past having been "gifted" to Ukraine by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev over the objections of Crimea itself. Another vestige is as good as gone - Donbass, which agrees well with the removal of Lenin statutes, for it was Lenin himself who added Donbass to Ukraine in 1919. Stalin's legacy is next, which includes Western Ukraine and Transcarpathia. ..."
    "... Western media needs to address the economic mess in Ukraine. The name changing, marching and fist fights in Rada are a distraction. What happened in two years is an economic collapse. When is Guardian going to notice? ..."
    "... Who cares what they call their champagne----the Ukraine is dead, economically---- ..."
    "... The real issue with Ukrainian champagne is that as of Jan 1 it cannot be called "champagne". With EU Association Agreement, the word "champagne" is reserved for the French stuff. That is by far more important than some "soviet" name games. ..."
    "... Unfortunately there are many Ukrainians who think that 'restitution' will make them better off. They think that if Western people get rich (even Poles) that will be somehow good for Ukrainians as workers. It is low self-esteem combined with what can only be called servant mentality. The shouting and marching is there just to amuse, deep inside they all can't wait to serve. ..."
    Jan 04, 2016 | theguardian.com
    Benladan , 4 Jan 2016 19:12
    The Guardian is politely silent about of hundreds productions, level of education, population (52 millions in 1991, 42 in 2015), infrastructure and other "products from glorifying communism" which have heard "farewell" too...
    abecedadeda -> Benladan , 4 Jan 2016 19:42
    Like if there wasn't for communism then there wouldn't be productions, educated population or infrastructure? How did they manage do build all of that in Western Europe even without communism i am wondering...

    Communism f*cked up all natural relations and development and consequences are felt until these days.

    Also, Ukraine was Russian vassal until two years ago, so almost everything that happened after 1991 in Ukraine is in the responsibility of the same bolshevik-KGB cronies that were in power during official communism.

    Maybe it is a time to try to be a normal country like e.g. Czech republic or Slovenia are now (also ex-Bolshevik Moscow´s vassals) finally, even 25 years later, but better later than never.

    Benladan -> abecedadeda , 4 Jan 2016 20:09
    There is only little problem. Ukraine is not a Czech republic or Slovenia and even is not a Poland... Did you ever wondered why some countries live good as Germany, France, Poland, for example but some countries live bad? As South Africa when Europeans left it, Nigeria, Sudan... Why part of Ukraine was a captured by Poland but part of Poland never was captured by Ukraine? And why a you thinking that communism worse than capitalism, you even don't know how many was build in that time of communism.
    ruudvan -> abecedadeda , 4 Jan 2016 20:18
    Most of western Europe had about a 1000 year head start....so that is a nonsense comparison.

    The achievements in a relatively short space of time once all the wars related to 1917 had ended, then in the 25 year period after the catastrophic loss following WW2 were incredible.

    ....and it is impossible to answer if Britain would have recovered as quickly from WW2 as the Soviets if they had suffered the equivalent (10 million) or the US (25 million ) deaths during this time.

    abecedadeda -> Benladan , 4 Jan 2016 22:54
    Years from the end of ww2 to early 70s were golden ages of world economy and development. Almost all countries heavily affected by ww2 recovered very quickly (Northern France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Poland, Soviet union, Japan, South Korea (not North Korea though), because those were simply very good times (economically and technologically). That has nothing to do with ruling ideology.

    However, it was still much more done in capitalist countries (Japan, Germany, South Korea, Netherlands, Italy) than in communist. Just look at economically and culturally similar countries - look how much more developed was (and still is) Western Germany than Eastern Germany, Austria than Hungary, Finland than Estonia, South Korea than North Korea, Capitalist China (Taiwan) than Communist China...

    I think from just these comparisations you can conclude all. Communism (or rather bolshevik cronyism) was the break on general development. The fact that under bolshevism there were some dams constructed in Ukraine doesn't change anything.

    John Smith , 5 Jan 2016 01:10
    I'll give a simple explanation. Ukraine defaulted on Russian loan. No one would invest any monies there except IMF and they are also reluctant because they stopped their investments because of corruption
    Good luck.

    Shad O , 4 Jan 2016 23:51

    law has caused controversy, with many criticising an addendum which states that Ukrainian independence movements during the second world war some of which collaborated with the Nazis and were involved in massacres of Jews and Poles should be respected as "fighters for Ukrainian independence".

    I'm beginning to recognise a familiar "Guardian euphmenism" touch there. Just like Syrian "moderate rebels" cause "controversy", as "some" of them call for jihad and eat people's hearts, and may have involved a massacre or two.

    CommieWealth , 4 Jan 2016 23:50
    This rejection of the cultural and political heritage of the Soviet Union (and its flavour of communism) is understandable, many former soviet states have gone through a similar process. However both the timing (amidst a civil war) and the extent (banning peaceful political movements and expression) are questionable. However, I assume some nuances have been lost in translation. What is the Russian word they use for "decommunisation"? Do they say this or "desovietisation"? As for the temptation to compare with post WW2 denazification in Germany, didn't the Soviet Union undergo an equivalent process in rejection of Stalin's heritage (trial and execution of Beria for example) in the late 50s and early 60s?
    CommieWealth -> luckyjohn , 5 Jan 2016 01:20
    A civil war does not preclude Russian interference. Apologies if you are offended at my ignorance of the subtle differences between Ukrainian and Russian.

    Instead you follow events through dubious sources!!

    I only have the Guardian as my source, dubious indeed.
    HollyOldDog -> luckyjohn , 5 Jan 2016 01:20
    Ukraine = a border, no real identity at all.

    How Poroshenko wished that Russia had invaded but it never happened.

    The East Ukrainians were disenfranchised with the Regime change in their country but instead of sending in negotiators, the Kiev government sent in tanks and armored personnel carriers. What a way to run a country, they must have been inspired ( or instructed) by the best Regime changers in the business, the USA.

    gbg , 4 Jan 2016 23:35
    Seeing as the Ukrainians hate the Communists and Lenin, I trust we can expect them to reverse measures enacted by the Communists e.g. return to Russia the regions moved into the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Lenin in the 1920s. By the same token, they should probably give Galicia back to Poland.
    Bosula -> jgbg 5 , Jan 2016 00:42
    And denounce the Communists gifting of Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950s...
    AGuenther , 4 Jan 2016 22:47
    Ukraine is a bit of the loosers aren't they.. borrow money from the EU to pay some relative or friend of those in Kyiv.. who just happens to own a sign, monument or statue company.. to bring about this ridiculously stupid change.. of 108 towns? They haven't got better things to do with whatever money they have?.. like take care of the needs of the people?
    ID125064 -> AGuenther , 4 Jan 2016 23:01

    And the longer this goes on the stronger Ukrainian identity becomes - symbolism is important.

    Bosula -> ID125064 , 5 Jan 2016 00:43
    Partially based on fascist support for Hitler in WW2 and the murder of Jews and Poles?
    hcm1975 , 4 Jan 2016 22:41
    The old adage "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" comes readily to mind. Although perhaps "scoundrel" is too mild a word in this instance.
    Mark Court , 4 Jan 2016 22:39
    An incredibly weak article by one of the usual suspects. Walker confuses capitalist re-branding and renaming with de-communisation, a bizarre term he has dreamt up, just like de-nazification.

    Presumably, when the Marathon brand of chocolate bars were re-baptised Snickers, they were "de-communised" in the process. The subtle irony is that without suitable Stalinist role models, the mafia power-brokers running Ukraine in cahoots with their morally bankrupt western puppeteers haven't an ideological leg to stand on. Instead, Walker blathers on about how Dnipropetrovsk has, ahem, been re-branded as Dnipropetrovsk. Thanks Shaun.

    La urence Johnson , 4 Jan 2016 22:39
    Irrespective of whether or not its a good idea, there must be an EU grant somewhere that would compensate for the damage caused . The Kiev government simply do not understand that in becoming members of the EU it is no good holding out the begging bowl. They need to become far more creative and hire in some experts to advise on the trillions of Euro's Ukraine could receive in grant aid. New railways, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, are all simply a few forms away from becoming a reality.
    frombrussels -> Laurence Johnson , 4 Jan 2016 23:24
    ......EU does NOT want Ukraine, we can NOT afford yet another poverty stricken ex soviet country !! If our utterly useless leaders would ever consider this insanity because USA tells us to, and if EU pretends to be a democracy, there should at least be a European referendum on this matter; the answer would be clear : NO WAY jose --
    John Smith -> Laurence Johnson , 5 Jan 2016 01:14
    The latest answer from the EU was: " We aren't ready, they aren't ready"
    Optimistic one for sure ))
    DiplomaticImmunity , 4 Jan 2016 22:06
    The same coat Baroness Ashton wore in February 2014 contains the same belt that now chokes the Kiev puppet government to death. "Glory to Ukraine", yeah ? Oki Doki. No problem. Good luck --
    CapeBill , 4 Jan 2016 21:35
    I can only imagine the destruction and/or defacement of many beautiful buildings and structures that will be occurring throughout Ukraine. Many of the metro stations in Kiev will be butchered.
    Valencia1984 , 4 Jan 2016 21:32
    obliterate the past and ideas by erasing the visible remnants will have the opposite effect to that desired particulary with the inquisitive youth and is so Talibanesque it's ludicrous.

    In Spain, Italy, etc, taking down the dictators' statues, renaming streets, etc has not got rid of fascists and their thinking at all. Besides, the Ukies can't afford it and have they never heard of the sex pistols et al?

    MichaelA12 -> Valencia1984 , 4 Jan 2016 21:41
    They are just using the same methods to get rid of the Soviet names as were used to impose them in the first place, except without the shootings, torture, deportations and mass-starvation.
    EugeneGur , 4 Jan 2016 21:31

    Ersatz champagne with the "Soviet" brand name has been produced since 1937 . . . It is a popular drink on New Year's Eve and at other celebrations, and comes in sweet, semi-sweet and dry versions – and at a fraction of the price of real champagne.

    It is not ersatz at all - it is perfectly real and is made in the real methode champenoise . The best champaign is made, of course, in Crimea. There is place there, Novyi Svet (New World) where the Champaign factory makes collection Bruts that can compete with the best of them and are still inexpensive by comparison with the French stuff.

    the younger generation who were born after the Soviet Union collapsed, but they are absolutely Soviet and have a totally Soviet world view."

    What exactly is "the Soviet worldview"? If it means not accepting Fackelzug (torch parade) in your cities Nazi-style, then most people Russia definitely have it, and a good proportion of people in Ukraine, too.

    If having the Soviet worldview means not accepting erasing history and collective memory and replacing it with some glorious but, unfortunately, fictitious history of the Ukrainian nation - yes, we certainly do have it. There are real achievements Ukrainians could be proud of - oh, Gosh, I forgot, they all involve Russian in one way or another, and that is, of course, unacceptable - otherwise that would be another manifestation of the Soviet worldview. Like we did it together, Russians and Ukrainians - can't get more Soviet than that.

    Putzik -> EugeneGur , 4 Jan 2016 21:51
    The USSR and Soviet history and the Russian language no more belong to the post soviet Russian Federation than they do to Ukraine. Each country can keep or reject what it likes.

    But to claim all tsarist and Soviet achievements as somehow the property of today's Russian Federation, is nothing more than lies and theft.

    The Russian Federation is, like Ukraine, Belarus and Tajikistan, only25 years old, and just another splinter of the tsarist and Soviet empires.

    EugeneGur -> Putzik , 4 Jan 2016 22:18

    Each country can keep or reject what it likes.

    The history is the history - it's not for anybody to chose it. What happened happened, and there is nothing anybody can do about it.

    Like Germany, for example, can say that the Nazi past never happened - just reject it like that, and that it? Say, Holocaust never happened because we don't like it? It doesn't work that way, my dear.

    But to claim all tsarist and Soviet achievements as somehow the property of today's Russian Federation, is nothing more than lies and theft

    You want to claim the achievements - then you also claim the responsibilities as well. Ones don't go without the others. Either Ukraine, like Belorussia, is a part of the Russian/Soviet empires and is entitles to all their achievements as well as to all the faults or it is a long suffered colony of both and then it is entitled to none. Can't have it both ways.
    HollyOldDog -> Putzik , 5 Jan 2016 01:56
    In the entrance lobby to the Kiev RADA there was a portrait of Stephen Bandera - that was covered with a black silk shroud when Americans visited. Bandera was not a hero as he actively aided the NAZI in Auschwitz , Poles, Jews and Russians were his favourites. The Ukraine Government hasn't left its past behind, it's only trying to camouflage it, trying to appear civilized.
    Putzik -> HollyOldDog , 5 Jan 2016 02:25
    You are rehashing the contemporary Russian propaganda line. The political parties supporting Bandera erc are less popular in Ukraine than UKIP in the UK and the National Front in France.

    There may well have been, for a narrow period of time a photo of Bandera during the Maidan. So what? People have been carting around portraits of Stalin for the last 25 years.

    Are you seriously suggesting Bandera is worse than Stalin, or that the current Ukrainian govt is run by Nazis? If you are, then I respectfully suggest you are doing so in a conscious effort to discredit Ukraine in Western media.

    laticsfanfromeurope, 4 Jan 2016 21:30
    Ukrainian say farewall to Soviet things, but welcome Nazi stuff. Lovely.
    rasquera -> laticsfanfromeurope , 4 Jan 2016 22:03
    What a vile, dishonest remark. But, of course, you think the Soviets were not as bad as the Na*is.
    TomFullery -> rasquera , 4 Jan 2016 22:23
    Dishonest? In my visits to Ukraine after the US-instigated Nazi putsch I saw more and more Nazi symbolism sprayed all over the city. There was even a shrine to the fascist Bandera on Independence Square.

    There is always a heavy paramilitary presence around main administrative buildings in Kiev - surprising that a regime that claims it came to power through a popular revolution should be scared of that same population.

    Gary Robinson , 4 Jan 2016 21:16
    Probably passed the laws after "a good old book burning", nothing like the rewriting of history. Next they will be rehabilitating the Ukrainians who fought for the Nazis and staffed the concentration camps.
    Luschnig , 4 Jan 2016 20:52
    It is totally bizarre that Ukrainian vandals would deface a statue of Lenin with with the motto, "I am the butcher of Ukraine" since he was the one who had made the Ukraine an independent political entity.
    Gtardkgb , 4 Jan 2016 20:22
    Allright democracy on the march. Overthrow elected governments with foreign backing (remember McCain at Maidan). Now you ban one of the largest opposition parties (in 2012 they got 6 percennt of the vote or 2.7 million votes) because they are traitors (that's the language they use) to the revolutionary Maidan government. While banning symbols and names they don't agree with by order of thought police and proclaiming Nazi collaborators as heroes. Just wait for the statues of Stepan Bandera to replace Lenin. The e.u and the rest of the west says nothing cause this is the kind of "democracy" they are fine with get bent hypocrites
    Babeouf , 4 Jan 2016 20:20
    In that poor retched shrinking country local street names is all the Coup Crowd in Kyiv can actually control. So they have campaigns, led by fascists, for changing the names of things. Meanwhile it has become impossible to find out if the nitwits still claim to be at war with Russia or not.
    Putzik , 4 Jan 2016 20:20
    The author of this article neglects to mention that the Ukrainian laws are targeted both at Soviet and Nazi symbols.

    See: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/06/ukraine-anti-communist-laws-stir-controversy-150601054437645.html

    As for the ww2 Ukrainian nationalists, most Ukrainians think of these groups poorly. The vast majority of Ukrainians fought on the Soviet side, and indeed made up more than one third of the Soviet army in ww2. Until recently, this was the source of pride and sorrow, just as in Russia.

    So, It is wrong to think of Soviet past as being somehow foreign to Ukraine. But that is now all ancient history. And the Soviet past is also Ukraine's to reject.

    There is a military invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Communist symbols are actively used to mobilise Russian fighters and domestic terrorists on Ukrainian territory. with the aim of destroying the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

    I note in this regard that ISIS symbols are similarly banned in many high income liberal democracies.

    http://m.christianpost.com/news/germany-bans-islamic-state-propaganda-symbols-and-activities-126450 /

    John Smith -> Putzik , 4 Jan 2016 20:44
    I don't see anyone is stopping this, that guy on that transparent there is a nazi collaborator. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weg-QnsTPs0
    Luschnig -> Putzik , 4 Jan 2016 21:02
    The WWII history of the Ukraine is full of eye witness accounts of how the German armed forces had to step in to save Jews from Ukrainian savagery because they preferred to eliminate Jews systematically rather than by anarchistic savagery. And incidentally in Western Ukraine a greater proportion of people volunteered for Hitler's armed forces than in Germany proper.
    mmmhhh888 -> Putzik , 4 Jan 2016 21:09
    You are wrong. There are numerous monuments dedicated to Stepan Bandera in Western Ukraine (at least in 20 towns). There are also numerous streets named after him.

    Quite a different situation is in Eastern Ukraine which hates Bandera and which has always weighed toward Russia - that's why that country cannot exist as one entity.

    slorter , 4 Jan 2016 20:19
    Ukraine has bigger problems than street name changes! The IMF own the country it has lost it's sovereignty and has outsiders in its government as well as debts it cannot pay.
    lkongo , 4 Jan 2016 19:52
    Dnipropetrovsk was Ekaterinoslav before Communist rule. Off course, Ukraine would not revert to original name, as it points to Katherine the Great.
    1917bolche , 4 Jan 2016 19:48
    Nothing about the expiration of the deadline to fulfill the Minsk agreement compromises? The Ukranian government has failed to implement two very important ones: dialogue with the rebel leaders and giving some degree of autonomy to Donetsk and Lugansk. I think that's rather more serious than the champagne news but I have hardly seen any reflection on that subject in the Press.
    wellmyword , 4 Jan 2016 19:44
    Flip, I just spent ages writing something and my computer crashed. Bloody computers.

    Haven't they got anything better to do?

    The Ukranian Communists are meant to be a small and marginalised grouping of pensioners. Why pick on them?

    Anti-Stalinism. Now, that would be much better. Anti right wing militias, that would be just as good. Saying goodbye to existing despots, that gets my vote.

    Free social health care, now that would be even better still.

    If Holly Old Dog is online, not that I've actually checked, I'm not American.

    Don't like UKIP don't like Le Penn but do like the EU.

    How controversial. No, not really.

    EugeneGur , 4 Jan 2016 19:40
    Ukraine wants to get rid of the Soviet past - well, then it has to be happy that Crimea is gone, for Crimea is the clearest vestige of the Soviet past having been "gifted" to Ukraine by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev over the objections of Crimea itself. Another vestige is as good as gone - Donbass, which agrees well with the removal of Lenin statutes, for it was Lenin himself who added Donbass to Ukraine in 1919. Stalin's legacy is next, which includes Western Ukraine and Transcarpathia.

    Many of those in eastern cities who are pro-Kiev are uneasy about Ukrainian nationalist heroes

    Trust the Guardian to find a very delicate turn of phrase - uneasy . Come on, those in Easter Ukraine hate their guts. Easter Ukraine hates Bandera and "banderovtsi" much more than Russia does. And for a good reason: they did not operate much in Russia but a lot in Ukraine, Belorussia and eastern Europe, where they killed thousands.

    This past New Year's Eve marked the last time Ukrainians could pop open "Soviet champagne"

    Poor Ukrainians. Now they are told what to drink, what language to speak, what songs to sing, what movies to watch, what holidays to celebrate, what fairy tales to tell their children. True European freedom finally has arrived as opposed to the Soviet totalitarian regime that somehow in Ukraine alone lasted 25 years past the existence of the Soviet Union.

    BTW Artemovsk they want to rename so much is the site of a Champaign factory that used to make famous "Artemovsky" Champaign. I am not sure it's still operational but if it is, what would it be called now? The factory is yet another soviet "vestige" and did not exist in the "Bakhmut" times.

    John Smith -> caliento , 4 Jan 2016 20:28
    Putin is busy with his Turkish friends now anyway, his current mission is to deprive Russians of all their traditional holiday destinations:

    Georgia - complete
    Ukrainian Black sea - complete
    Egypt - Done
    Turkey - In progress

    Benladan , 4 Jan 2016 19:12
    The Guardian is politely silent about of hundreds productions, level of education, population (52 millions in 1991, 42 in 2015), infrastructure and other "products from glorifying communism" which have heard "farewell" too
    Beckow , 4 Jan 2016 18:47
    Western media needs to address the economic mess in Ukraine. The name changing, marching and fist fights in Rada are a distraction. What happened in two years is an economic collapse. When is Guardian going to notice?
    vr13vr , 4 Jan 2016 18:39

    Are they removing the monuments to the same Lenin who created the first state of Ukraine? Whey are weird bunch, those Ukrainians.

    Canigou , 4 Jan 2016 18:30
    Who cares what they call their champagne----the Ukraine is dead, economically----

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ukraine-economic-collapse /

    eckow , 4 Jan 2016 18:26
    The real issue with Ukrainian champagne is that as of Jan 1 it cannot be called "champagne". With EU Association Agreement, the word "champagne" is reserved for the French stuff. That is by far more important than some "soviet" name games.

    In the same way Ukrainian "cognac" cannot use the term cognac. There are hundreds of others. EU AA means following the EU rules. It also means that EU can export to Ukraine at will. Given that Ukraine doesn't have much to sell to EU this will mean additional collapse in Ukr economy. The current markets in Russia are now closed.

    Who is running Kiev? Do these people know math and have map? Or is there knowledge limited to knowing where to find a ticket to get out?

    BMWAlbert -> Beckow , 4 Jan 2016 19:32
    Just wait for the PL restitution proceedings in Lviv-Lwow-Lemberg....that will be interesting.
    Beckow -> BMWAlbert , 4 Jan 2016 20:45
    Unfortunately there are many Ukrainians who think that 'restitution' will make them better off. They think that if Western people get rich (even Poles) that will be somehow good for Ukrainians as workers. It is low self-esteem combined with what can only be called servant mentality. The shouting and marching is there just to amuse, deep inside they all can't wait to serve.
    DiplomaticImmunity -> Beckow , 4 Jan 2016 22:28
    Brilliant and insightful.

    Thank you.

    Hanwell123 , 4 Jan 2016 18:11
    How does a one party state get so close to the EU? It relies on massive loans from the IMF and EU but by all accounts is regarded, not least by its own citizens, to be getting more corrupt not less. A million are seeking Nationality in Poland to escape inflation set to be 44% this year as wages and jobs crash. Visa free travel to the EU in October might ease the internal pressure. The trade agreement with the EU is another blow to European agriculture, this time in grain, as surplus products flood the market along with even cheaper Turkish fruit and vegetables following their exclusion from the Russian market. One wonders whether the EU ever regrets putting this government in power?
    Jonathan Stromberg -> Kata L , 4 Jan 2016 19:56
    Ukraine's De-communization laws were made by people with their own agenda and they are arguably a dark spot on Ukraine's striving towards some form of functional democracy. Saying that, when it comes to phony parties like the "Communist Party" of Ukraine, it is pretty hard to give a crap.

    On the plus side, this anti-Communist law will put an end to corrupt, phony parties using the Communist name and symbols for their own benefit. Any Communist-style party that exists in Ukraine now will have to be genuine.

    [Jan 05, 2016] http://www.unz.com/akarlin/new-year-predictions-for-2016/

    www.unz.com
    And make no doubt about it – a collapse is exactly what it is, and it afflicts way more of the country than just the war-wracked Donbass. Ukraine now vies with Moldova for the country with the lowest average wages in Europe.

    Gabon with snow ? Saakashvili is hopelessly optimistic. That would actually be a big improvement!

    GDP is at 60% of its 1990 Level

    ukraine-gdp-1990-2015

    As of this year, the country with the most pro-Western revolutions is also the poorest performing post-Soviet economy bar none. This is a not unimpressive achievement considering outcomes here have tended to disappoint rather than elate. Russia itself, current GDP at about 110% of its 1990 level, has nothing to write home about (though "statist" Belarus, defying neoliberal conventional wisdom, at a very respectable 200% does have something to boast about).

    Back in 2010 , although by far the worst performing heavily industrialized Soviet economy, Ukraine was still performing better relative to its position in 1990 than Moldova, Tajikistan, and Georgia. In the intervening 5 years – with a 7% GDP decline in 2014 which has widened to a projected 9% in 2015 – Ukraine has managed to slip to rock bottom .

    How does this look like on a more human level?

    Housing Construction is Similar to That of 5 Million Population Russian Provinces

    housing-construction-russia-ukraine-in-2014

    With a quarter of its population, Belarus is constructing as much new accomodation as is Ukraine. 16 million strong Kazakhstan is building more. Russia – more than ten times as much, even though it has less than four times as many people.

    The seaside Russian province of Krasnodar Krai, which hosted the Sochi Winter Olympics, with its 5 million inhabitants, is still constructing more than half as much housing as all of Ukraine. No wonder the Crimeans were so eager to leave.

    New Vehicle Sales Collapse to 1960s Levels

    ukraine-automobile-sales

    The USSR might have famously concentrated on guns over butter, yet even so, even in terms of an item as infamously difficult to acquire as cars under socialism, Ukrainian consumers were better off during the 1970-1990 period than today. Now Ukrainians are buying as few new cars as they were doing in the catastrophic 1990s, and fewer even than during the depth of the 2009 recession.

    And even so many Maidanists continue to giggle at "sovoks" and "vatniks." Well, at least they now make up for having even less butter than before with the Azovets "innovative tank." Armatas are quaking in fear looking at that thing.

    Debt to GDP Ratio at Critical Levels

    ukraine-debt-to-gdp-ratio

    And this figure would have risen further to around 100% this year.

    Note that 60% is usually considered to be the critical danger zone for emerging market economies. This is the approximate level at which both Russia and Argentina fell into their respective sovereign debt crises.

    To be fair, the IMF has indicated it will be partial to flouting its own rules to keep Ukraine afloat, which is not too surprising since it is ultimately a tool of Western geopolitical influence. And if as projected the Ukrainian economy begins to recover this year, then there is a fair chance that crisis will ultimately be averted.

    But it will be a close shave, and so long as the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" oligarchs who rule Ukraine continue siphoning off money by the billions to their offshore accounts with impunity, nothing can be ruled out.

    Resumption of Demographic Collapse

    ukraine-crude-birth-rate-1988-2015

    Much like the rest of the post-Soviet Slavic world, Russia had a disastrous 1990s in demographic terms, when mortality rates soared and birth rates plummeted. But like Russia – if to a lesser extent – it has since staged a modest recovery, incidentally with the help of a Russian-style "maternal capital" program. In 2008, it reached a plateau in birth rates, which was not significantly uninterrupted by the 2009 recession.

    Since then, however, they have plummeted – exactly nine months after the February 2014 coup. The discreteness with which this happened together with the fact that the revolt in the Donbass took a further couple of months to get going after the coup proper implies that this fertility decline was likely a direct reaction to the Maidan and what it portended for the future.

    This collapse is very noticeable even after you completely remove all traces of Crimea, Donetsk, and Lugansk oblasts which might otherwise muddy the waters (naturally, the demographic crisis in all its aspects has been much worse in the region that bore the brunt of Maidanist chiliastic fervor). Here are the Ukrstat figures for births and deaths in the first ten months of 2013, 2014, and 2015:

    Births Deaths
    2013 350658 441331
    2014 354622 445236
    2015 329308 450763

    Furthermore, this period has seen a huge wave of emigration. Figures can only be guesstimated, but it is safe to say they are well over a million to both Russia and the EU.

    The effects of this will continue to be felt long after any semblance of normalcy returns to Ukraine.

    [Jan 04, 2016] MH17 crash: Dutch investigators to assess new study implicating Russian soldiers

    Agence-France Press an article of which that Guardian dutifully reproduced really lost their heads in anti-Russian hysteria if they cite Bellingcat as a source of information for investigators. Bellingcat is a propaganda outlet and would be discarded as a source of information by anybody with at least high school education. It would be funny if it is not so tragic. By propagating this propagna outlet nonsense they just reveal their real position and aversion to truth. Welcome to Ministry of Truth, this type in NATO incarnation.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Bellendcrap more like, a bunch of nutjobs with prejudice aforethought decide to trawl the web for claptrap that support their daft notions. The Dutch authorities should not pander to groups such as these and keep in mind that history can be a cruel judge. ..."
    "... Yep, Belling cat seems to be the Langley paper boy on this one. All their sat info and high res pics just turned out to be no match for a Google search! Uncle Sam just took their target audience to be truly dumb and dumbed down... ..."
    "... Yes US relying on Bellingcat and other social media. The US have not submitted their reports. The Kiev regime either; they sit on the records in the control tower. ..."
    "... NATO ships and aircraft had the Donetsk and Luhansk regions under total radar and electronic surveillance whilst they had a 10-day exercise code named BREEZE 2014 in Black Sea. The exercise, which included the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), coincided with the shoot down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine, some 40 miles from the Russian border. The U.S. Army has revealed that the 10-day exercise involved commercial traffic monitoring . It can be assumed that commercial traffic monitoring included monitoring the track of MH-17. ..."
    "... The essential problem is that people say when you look at the media this is an investigation led by the Dutch. Well in fact its not led by the Dutch. Its led by Ukrainian investigation together with the Dutch people. Its delegated from Kiev to the Netherlands for a period of a year. Why is it taking so long? It is taking so long because they are not finding what they were looking for. And that must be a BUK, a rocket installation from the separatist side. And they are not finding anything truthful about it . (Joost Niemoller, Dutch journalist) ..."
    Jan 04, 2016 | theguardian.com

    jbrewster911 , 4 Jan 2016 22:20

    Clear evidence of Ukrainian compliance in this murder - however expect Ukrainian failure to admit responsibility to continue endlessly. Stare organised terrorism, sabotage, default on debts, murder of political opponents & COVER-UP is a clear part of Ukrainian strategy. Concoction of outrageous stories to cover-up the murder is a part of Bellingcat strategy as well. Not only Ukraine didn't block the war zone airspace, its air traffic control directed the liner there to be shot down by a fighter waiting in in ambush. All that to simply point the finger at Russia.

    All those "investigations" are mere window dressing, and all the involved know it. That won't be the first time Ukraine shot down a civilian airliner either. They won't get away with 15 million compensation this time though.

    TonyBlunt 4 Jan 2016 18:36 6 7 At last the Kiev Government has, reluctantly, told us why it could not provide any radar data in the MH17 investigation. Because the Ukraine's two primary radar stations were down for repairs on the day MH17 came down. So why did they not tell us that a year and a half ago? Perhaps the LangleyBots can enlighten us.

    Still no excuse forthcoming on why Ukraine cannot provide their full air traffic control recordings. The ones the Ukrainian FSB siezed. Ah well. Maybe in a year or two.

    Manolo Torres , 4 Jan 2016 18:17

    This things can hardly be named citizen journalism. From wikipedia:

    In 2015, Higgins partnered with the Atlantic Council to co-author the report Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine which examined direct Russian military involvement in Ukraine.

    . In June 2015 on the invitation of former Belgium Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, Higgins together with his report co-author Atlantic Council's Maks Czupersk i presented Hiding in Plain Sight at the European Parliament alongside Russian opposition figure Ilya Yashin and former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov. [11]

    From wikipedia as well:

    In February 2009, James L. Jones, then-chairman of the Atlantic Council, stepped down in order to serve as President Obama's new National Security Advisor and was succeeded by Senator Chuck Hagel.[3] In addition, other Council members also left to serve the administration: Susan Rice as ambassador to the UN ,

    and Anne-Marie Slaughter as Director of Policy Planning at the State Department.

    Four years later, Hagel stepped down to serve as US Secretary of Defense.
    The Atlantic Council has influential supporters, with former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen calling the Council a "pre-eminent think tank" with a "longstanding reputation", [5] .

    Surely a Russian "citizen journalist working with the Eurasian Integration council whose members have worked for the Russian minister of defense and the FSB would not be referred as a citizen journalism anywhere.

    TonyBlunt -> psygone , 4 Jan 2016 18:27
    "The investigation is complete"

    No so Psygone. The criminal investigation in Australia - that will affect compensation payments - thinks the Dutch crash investigation inadequate. See below.

    TonyBlunt 4 Jan 2016 16:48
    The Australian and Dutch government now are accusing the Ukrainian FSB of hiding the radar data. Link to article in the Dutch media proving such:

    http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/12/24/mh17-investigators-ukraine-russia-refuse-to-provide-radar-images /

    According to the Dutch Safety Board, Russia and the Ukraine refuse to provide vital images of the MH17 disaster stating that they were "erased" or that are no images due to "maintenance", the Telegraaf reports.

    Safety Board spokesperson Wim van der Weegen told the newspaper that the Ukrainian authorities informed them that the primary radar stations were not working on the day of the crash, July 14th last year, due to routine maintenance.

    Refusing to hand over these images may well hamper the criminal investigation into who is responsible for the downing of the Malaysia Airlines flight.

    According to the newspaper, defense and criminal law experts call the countries actions unbelievable and suspicious.

    The headline is intentionally misleading. It is Ukraine that now says the radar data was erased due to maintenance, not Russia. Russia has complied fully already and released a fully radar data presentation on July 21st, 2014. The real story here is that Safety Board spokesperson Wim van der Weegen told the newspaper that the Ukrainian authorities informed them that the primary radar stations were not working on the day of the crash, July 14th last year, due to routine maintenance. Ukraine is hiding the truth. Link to Russian radar presentation from 4 days after MH-17 was shot down. To watch the full Russian radar presentation simply Google the phrase " Russian Ministry of Defence Briefing on MH-17 Boeing 777"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKCaEmvhr6w

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/mh17-australia-say-russia-not-to-blame-evidence-tampered-with

    The official Australian investigation into the cause of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 have accused the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) of failing to provide "conclusive evidence" of what exactly destroyed the aircraft, and say that Russia did not shoot down the plane despite accusations to the contrary from DSB.

    The senior Australian policeman investigating the MH17 crash, Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghue, testified in an international court recently saying that a "tougher standard than the DSB report" is required before the criminal investigation can identify the weapon that caused the crash. Donoghue also testified that ten months after the crash, only half of the planes fuselage fragments were handed over for inspection and that "some fragments were not consistent with debris of the aircraft".

    technotherapy -> Alderbaran, 4 Jan 2016 16:33

    Having found a link to the heights of aircraft shot down over Eastern Ukraine prior to the downing of MH17,

    You haven't. You've found a graphic that show the service ceiling for the aircraft, not the height they were at when they were shot down. For example it shows MH17 at 43000 feet - it was shot down at FL330 (33000 ft).

    I had not realized until now that in month prior to the downing of MH17, a transport plane was shot down at nearly 40,000 feet.

    Thats because its not true. See above.

    With that sort of critical analysis and attention to detail, maybe you should consider working for bellingcat?

    John Smith -> Alderbaran , 4 Jan 2016 16:42
    You're looking at the wrong sources Alderbaran. That Ilyushin was shot down on a landing approach at the Lugansk airport. That AN-26 was also in a range of MANPADS and there is a video of that shot down and there is no characteristic BUK ( or other powerful missile) trail on it. There is also a video available with an interview with one of the survived crew members. They were delivering supplies to encircled troops at the border and you can hardly drop those from higher than 3000-4000 ft.

    You have misjudged that graphic that is showing the service ceiling of those aircraft and not an altitude where they were hit (which is also wrong, Su-25 has a ceiling of 10.000 m or 33.000 ft).

    Ian Rutherford -> truk10 , 4 Jan 2016 14:31

    "Everyone, apart from a few lost souls, now accept that a Russian BUK missile system brought down MH17 and we are at the stage of identifying the crew members."

    Everyone who had time to look into it properly now accepts that it was an old model of Buk which was manufactured in Ukraine and was no longer in possession of the Russian Army.

    It is also a common knowledge that the original "evidence" provided by "Bellingcat" amounts to nothing more than a baseless speculation.

    Nice try anyway, "truk" ..

    By the way, what is your real name ..

    LordMurphy , 4 Jan 2016 13:17

    Bellendcrap more like, a bunch of nutjobs with prejudice aforethought decide to trawl the web for claptrap that support their daft notions. The Dutch authorities should not pander to groups such as these and keep in mind that history can be a cruel judge.

    madeiranlotuseater, 4 Jan 2016 12:33

    I am still surprised that Uncle Sam has not produced some sharp, detailed images of the border. When they want to, they can but this time no. Bellingcat seems to enjoy doing this research but it all comes out like some Robert Ludlum novel.

    ID075732 -> madeiranlotuseater, 4 Jan 2016 12:45

    Yep, Belling cat seems to be the Langley paper boy on this one. All their sat info and high res pics just turned out to be no match for a Google search! Uncle Sam just took their target audience to be truly dumb and dumbed down...

    SHappens -> madeiranlotuseater, 4 Jan 2016 12:46

    Yes US relying on Bellingcat and other social media. The US have not submitted their reports. The Kiev regime either; they sit on the records in the control tower.

    Consider this:

    NATO ships and aircraft had the Donetsk and Luhansk regions under total radar and electronic surveillance whilst they had a 10-day exercise code named BREEZE 2014 in Black Sea. The exercise, which included the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), coincided with the shoot down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine, some 40 miles from the Russian border. The U.S. Army has revealed that the 10-day exercise involved "commercial traffic monitoring". It can be assumed that commercial traffic monitoring included monitoring the track of MH-17.

    Since March 2014, NATO Boeing Awacs were over Ukraine checking every aerial and ground movements and intercepting all the communications and electronic signals. Thanks to these abilities three Boeing Awacs are enough for controlling the whole Central Europe.
    Yet they have not individualized the missile responsible for the downing of MH17. And it has not sensed the electronic wake of the radar which has hooked the flight either. As blind and deaf were the CIA satellites. Yet the same satellites had previously photographed a column of three tanks T64 and other weapons at the border between Russia and Ukraine.

    It is thus legitimate to wonder how come the Americans, so prompt to photograph and to follow the movements of three antiquated tank T64 at the time, had let escaped or had not documented the passage, strategically more remarkable, of a missile system.

    The Dutch reports says:

    "The crash of flight MH17 on 17 July 2014 was caused by the detonation of a 9N314M-type warhead launched from the eastern part of Ukraine using a Buk missile system. So says the investigation report published by the Dutch Safety Board today. Moreover, it is clear that Ukraine already had sufficient reason to close the airspace over the eastern part of Ukraine as a precaution before 17 July 2014. None of the parties involved recognised the risk posed to overflying civil aircraft by the armed conflict in the eastern part of Ukraine."

    "The essential problem is that people say when you look at the media this is an investigation led by the Dutch. Well in fact it's not led by the Dutch. It's led by Ukrainian investigation together with the Dutch people. It's delegated from Kiev to the Netherlands for a period of a year. Why is it taking so long? It is taking so long because they are not finding what they were looking for. And that must be a BUK, a rocket installation from the separatist side. And they are not finding anything truthful about it". (Joost Niemoller, Dutch journalist)

    Moreover when two countries, either part of the investigation primary panel, or of the advisory panel, both shot a civilian plane and never apologized for it, both actively participate in killing civilians in the Donbass, concerns can arise as to their reliability and impartiality in such an inquiry. And there is the infamous non disclosure deal, that is that these countries are not obliged to communicate all of their findings, and on top they neglected most Russian's material provided to them.

    The Commission demonstrated its incompetence by the fact of not having sent experts on, not having secured the area immediately to the investigation, it had not brought any of all the pieces of the plane to reconstruct and visualize how the carcass was touched. And the Ukrainian army was bombing the area.

    How can you then believe this inquiry is not biased ? You cant. The US satellite were active over the Donbass the day the flight was hit, yet the US refuse to show the images proving their claim that Russia is guilty, like the Ukrainians dont relaese their ATC.

    prayle , 4 Jan 2016 10:53

    Spiegel was bitten quoting Bellingcat - surprised TheGuardian would follow their footsteps:

    http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/spiegelblog/bellingcat-bericht-zu-mh17-was-wir-lernen-a-1037135.html

    oddballs 4 Jan 2016 10:47

    Sometimes readers comments give information that offer insight into the many questions still left unanswered into the circumstances surrounding the downing of the aircraft MA 17' The points raised by Davie Macdonald is a good example of this.

    "Some points worth noting 26 February 2014 Russian Forces in Western Military Distract put on Alert That would have triggered NATO observation and comment > Confirmed

    US Spy satellites would have been more focused on the area >obvious

    Moving forward when MH17 was shot down claims were made through audio intercepts the Separatists ( Alexander Khodakovsky of the Vostok Battalion) had done the downing and boasted.

    Then later is was claimed Strelkov admitted it. later and it was an error. . Some three days later as these transcripts was proved fake.

    Higgins and the Ukraine Government immediately claimed it was the 18 infantry Brigade. This didn't exist in the Russian Western Military District . In desperation a picture was then posted of a Russian selfie with BUK 312 by Higgins proving Russian involvement It very soon proved to be a Ukrainian soldier and Ukrainian Buk.

    By September 2014 the claims were being made that it was 53rd Brigade which is also interesting because that is not (for the forensically accurate Higgins claims he is) Is actually 53rd Anti-Aircraft Rocket Brigade.

    Now the only heresay we are given is by Higgins. It has already been clearly established that the BUK unit as claimed was 312 and in Ukraine army possession Can you really imagine this vehicle would have been driven to and from a site that was a battlefield in broad daylight ? Afterall the Ukraine has its airforce.

    As for the first claimed launch field where it was supposedly fired from on July 17 you will

    1) find no evidence of burnt grass Higgins faked a Google Earth map

    2) It was as pointed out in one of my other responses an battler field ebbing and flowing

    3) Higgins claims it was a bright sunny day to show a Buk plume when it was in fact overcast see initial and final DSB report

    4) BUK M1 cannot fire accurately at a target sight unseen and seen It still requires in simple terms the acquisition target Radar unit to guide missile....which when reaching target is designed not to hit but explode above the target.

    The DSB report does not show this and only one BUK Bowtie missile shard (there are 8,000 in missile) was found in the wreckage along with a stabilizer fin, engine exhaust manifold. Only one person found this material a Dutch Journalist Julian Borger

    None were found by site investigators and the origin of another 2 allegedly found at the site is deemed classified. Even the Malaysians have not been given this information Why keep,it secret"
    Many people are convinced that the Russians were responsible, if they could 'answer Macdonalds questions it would go a long way in convincing me that they actually 'know' the truth

    ID075732 4 Jan 2016 10:35

    Investigative journalism old and new here's what Robert Parry winner of the J.f. Stone award for independent journalism has to say on the subject. https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/20/mh-17-case-old-journalism-vs-new/

    [Expect some catcalling, wailing and nashing of teath from the bellingcat babes]

    John Smith 4 Jan 2016 10:08

    Oh please, no Bellingcat again.

    That Atlantic Council minion doesn't even know how the Russians and Ukrainians are marking their military hardware.

    sokolnik100 4 Jan 2016 09:57

    The sources for this include photos posted on the Internet and army data about personnel deployment that was available online, NOS said.

    Of course it must be true as it was "on the internet".

    Considering the the fact that each side to this saga routinely denounces contrary internet information as complete bollocks, how can the Guardian ascribe any credibility to this "study". Clearly, whilst all information is equal, some is more equal than other!

    SeeNOevilHearNOevil 4 Jan 2016 09:34

    BUK is a complex piece of weaponry, more so than your average T60/T72 tanks requiring a lot of lengthy training. They're not the sort of equipment provided to insurgent/rebels because of the threat they pose. If they did obtain one then it was more than likely crewed by actual trained Russian troops. In either case this was a genuine mistake and a tragedy as it happens in all warzones. The US shot down the Iranian Passenger plane in the 70s in far more dubious circumstanced and refused to even apologise for the ''mistake'' (leading many to believe it wasn't a mistake). Now if you think you'll find, trial and convict anyone for this mistake...good luck with it. You'll get about the same results as those Iranian families

    John Smith , SeeNOevilHearNOevil 4 Jan 2016 10:26

    If someone uses some logic, why would they (The Russians) give that BUK to the militia? There wasn't any need for that because they're doing pretty well with MANPADS, they didn't have any needs to hit high flying aeroplanes.

    The second thing, if some aeroplane is hit at an altitude higher than MANPADS can reach it would be pretty obvious that Russia have supplied them with those advanced weapon systems.
    The third thing is, a BUK single TELAR (if they had an operational one) without an observation radar 'Kupol' (or any other) cannot find such a high and fast flying target, a radar beam on that TELAR is simply too narrow for that. A BUK is a system ( complex) with an observation radar and a command vehicle and all data that is comming to a TELAR have to come through that command vehicle and an observation radar is easy to detect

    Dimmus , John Smith 4 Jan 2016 10:46
    "if some aeroplane is hit at an altitude higher than MANPADS can reach it would be pretty obvious that Russia have supplied them"
    - obvious by feelings, but not logically obvious. As there are other possibilities, just few for example:
    1) not a BUK, but something else; 2) not separatists/Russia, but Ukrainian military/batallions; 3) if separatists, they were able to take BUK from some base there, for example, the air defense base A-1402 near Donetsk... etc.

    [Jan 03, 2016] Irving Berlin on Taxes

    Notable quotes:
    "... I am always struck by the difference between the oligarchs of today and those (a very small group) who ran the uk in the late 17 and 18 century. Proud, brutal but they taxed themselves as necessary to build effective institutions and instruments in the service of common goals ..."
    "... in this culture we recognize the Midas touch as a positive good, rather than the curse the Greeks knew it to be. ..."
    "... My feeling has always been that taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society. Conservatives are obviously opposed to that. ..."
    "... An even more commercially successful writer, J. K. Rowling, has expressed similar enlightened views. There ought to be a hall of fame for such folks. ..."
    "... To become a hedge fund billionaire you can have no heart and you can have no soul. You must be a ruthless predatory bastard with no concern for morality or justice. So it is not surprising that the question of whether you owe something to others doesnt really register with hedge fund billionaires. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    Chris Dillow on our " narcisstocracy ":
    Irving Berlin on taxes : The New York Times reports on how some of the US's richest men are dodging taxes. Compare this to the response of Irving Berlin when his lawyer offered him a tax shelter:
    I want to pay taxes. I love this country.
    He even wrote a song expressing this sentiment. He said: "I owe all my success to my adopted country." ...
    He embodied -- knowingly so -- a point made by Herbert Simon, that we westerners owe our fortunes not so much to our own efforts but to the good luck of living in societies which enable us to prosper - which have peace, the rule of law and material and intellectual resources ...
    Now, songwriting is pretty much as individualistic an activity as one can find; But even songwriters require a conducive environment such as musical traditions on which to draw and a marketplace for their work. Berlin knew this: 1930s Siberia had no equivalent of Tin Pan Alley or Hollywood.
    If even songwriters owe their wealth to social capital, how much more true is this of hedge fund managers. They would be nothing without wealthy investors or large liquid financial markets: how many billionaire fund managers are there in Burkina Faso?
    Which poses the question: why, then, don't hedge fund managers have the same attitude to paying tax as Irving Berlin? It could be that they are more motivated ... by personal greed. But there might be another reason..., they believe their wealth is the product of their own "talent" and so they are entitled to it... Others of us prefer to call it an example of one of the disfiguring diseases of our time - narcissism.
    Perhaps there's another explanation, though. Maybe hedge fund billionaires are greater geniuses than Irving Berlin who have contributed more to human happiness. But how likely is this?

    ilsm:

    More of Berlin:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_Down_Here_Where_You_Belong

    Groucho Marx did that one on Dick Cavitt.

    pgl:

    "The New York Times reports on how some of the US's richest men are dodging taxes."

    But Jay Bird just today declared corporations ARE paying their taxes. Really? There is no such thing as Base Erosion and Profit Shifting?

    pgl -> Jay...

    You need to get a life. Start with laying off the booze.

    Roland:

    I am always struck by the difference between the oligarchs of today and those (a very small group) who ran the uk in the late 17 and 18 century. Proud, brutal but they taxed themselves as necessary to build effective institutions and instruments in the service of common goals

    EMichael:

    Berlin realized that he did not build that.

    Robert Marshall:

    What is more likely is that songwriting and billionairing require very different character traits to reach the top. I wish I knew what it took to be a songwriter, but to be a billionaire, you have to think the right way to go about life is to try to get as much as you can for as little as you have to give up, and not even that if you can get out of it. And yet in this culture we recognize "the Midas touch" as a positive good, rather than the curse the Greeks knew it to be.

    SomeCallMeTim:

    Is it unseemly to infer that maybe these MOTUs hear the same dogwhistle symphony they fund? Or are they above that sort of thing, and just 'have a business to run'?

    DrDick:

    My feeling has always been that taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society. Conservatives are obviously opposed to that.

    Jay -> DrDick...

    You take the mortgage interest deduction?

    Tax dodger!

    DrDick -> Jay...

    I rent.

    DrDick -> DrDick...

    And I take essentially nothing except the personal deduction.

    Ken D :

    An even more commercially successful writer, J. K. Rowling, has expressed similar enlightened views. There ought to be a hall of fame for such folks.

    Benedict@Large -> Ken D ...

    Why is everyone so concerned with diagnosis? We know that great piles of money in few hands leads to no good, and that is enough. Tax it away. Then let the formerly rich use their newly-freed time writing poems describing the beauty of skimming from other people's cash flows.

    DeDude:

    To become a hedge fund billionaire you can have no heart and you can have no soul. You must be a ruthless predatory bastard with no concern for morality or justice. So it is not surprising that the question of whether you "owe" something to others doesn't really register with hedge fund billionaires.

    [Jan 03, 2016] Maduro is not a communist. He isn't even a socialist.

    Notable quotes:
    "... While dangerous and corrupt (I have friends recently back from Venezuela), I would say a observation with much equanimity. Venezuela will not return to it's US Client State status of the past, and learned the lesson of the lockout during the coup attempt. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Fernando Leanme , 01/01/2016 at 4:15 pm
    Thing is, the Supreme Court Justices who made the decision were sworn in illegally one week ago. Furthermore, the deputies were already certified as properly elected by an Chavista controlled commission, the CNE, a separate power under the Venezuelan constitution. In addition, the constitution states the National Assembly is the one which decides whether its certified members should be unseated. Thus the move by Maduro, which he took one day after visiting his boss in Cuba, is illegal. It amounts to a coup against the National Assembly.

    As I wrote before, the National Assembly response is simply to ignore the Supreme Court. This is heading towards a serious clash on and after January 5th. Lesson learned: communists are indeed a serious threat to democracy. They use the system to get power, and will do anything to hold it once they are at the top. They are also corrupt, venal evil doers. And this is why I despise them.

    Ablokeimet , 01/02/2016 at 6:11 am
    Fernando Leanme: "Lesson learned: communists are indeed a serious threat to democracy. They use the system to get power, and will do anything to hold it once they are at the top. They are also corrupt, venal evil doers. And this is why I despise them."

    1. Maduro is not a communist. He isn't even a socialist. He's a Left populist with authoritarian tendencies, albeit a lot less authoritarian than most Latin American caudillos of the last century. If the Chavistas were really socialists, they would have nationalised at least the commanding heights of the economy. They didn't. They even allowed the private sector media to keep operating, with full freedom of the press!

    2. Far from "do anything to hold [power] once they are at the top", the Chavistas held democratic elections on schedule, and under credible conditions, for over a decade. Even when they knew they were going to lose this year, they didn't call them off or falsify them. Their attempts to stack the Supreme Court are reprehensible, but don't go anywhere near justifying Fernando Leanme's characterisation. For that, you'd have to look at Chile under General Pinochet, at Argentina's Dirty War, or at the Death Squad Democracies of Central America in the 80s & 90s.

    3. In evaluating the situation in Venezuela, the context must be remembered. Not only have the Right wing opposition staged several attempts at overthrowing the government by means of popular movements combined with economic action, but at one stage even mounted an actual military coup. All their attempts failed, due to the fact that the Chavistas had strong support from the population. PSUV support fell because of a range of reasons (primarily the consequences of the low price of oil and the growing corruption of the bolibourgeoisie), but that didn't change the nature of the Right wing opposition, which has never accepted the legitimacy of any of the Chavista governments since 1998. My guess is that Maduro's attempt to stack the Supreme Court is a panic reaction due to fear that, with its super-majority in the Parliament, the new government will change the rules to ensure that the PSUV can never again be elected. And I'm far from convinced that those fears are unjustified.

    Duncan Idaho , 01/02/2016 at 9:59 am
    While dangerous and corrupt (I have friends recently back from Venezuela), I would say a observation with much equanimity.
    Venezuela will not return to it's US Client State status of the past, and learned the lesson of the lockout during the coup attempt.

    For much of the period (not the case now), 80% of the citizens benefited from the reforms, economically and politically.

    Let them have their revolution– it may take a while to get it right. South America is the political bright spot on the planet (IMHO) at the moment, with only Colombia still under the thumb of US interests on a major level.

    We shall see what the mess in Venezuela turns into-

    [Jan 03, 2016] Since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote a Nobel for him. ..."
    "... The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon. ..."
    Jan 01, 2016 | naked capitalism

    RBHoughton , January 1, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote a Nobel for him.

    Larry Coffield , January 2, 2016 at 6:53 am

    In spirit I've been voting Michael Hudson Nobels for decades. He's too great for a Nobel. I consider Michael to be our Thorstein Veblen, and such free-thinking radicals are not welcome in a club that allows criticism but not repudiation of neoliberalism.

    Lambert Strether January 2, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    Killing the Host is very good; I wish I could have reviewed it before the holiday shopping season…

    different clue , January 2, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon.

    [Jan 03, 2016] AMERICAN EMPIRE by Andrew J. BACEVICH

    Notable quotes:
    "... The author provides a persuasive argument that America is indeed an empire, albeit not of the traditional colonial type. Bacevich demontrates rather convincingly that the U.S., since roughly the Spanish-American War, has pursued a grand strategy of reshaping the world in its image, through free trade, military dominance, and globalization. ..."
    "... Americas imperial quest is meant to overcome problems at home. Although Beard and Williams are polemic in their view that Americas foreign adventures prologue the inevitable reckoning with domestic troubles, Mr. Bacevich adopts a more dispassionate view and offers merely a possible explanation: With Americas national cohesiveness eroding, Mr. Bacevich writes, an ever-expanding pie satisfying ever more expansive appetites was the only `crusade' likely to command widespread and durable popular enthusiasm. ..."
    "... A book whose aim is to show that America's chief purpose is promoting globalization would have done well to pay heed to dollar diplomacy as much as it has to gunboat diplomacy. Yet this minor objection could not abate the appeal of an otherwise outstanding book. ..."
    www.amazon.com
    S. J. S. Esq on November 9, 2002
    Superb analysis of U.S. Foreign Policy

    The author provides a persuasive argument that America is indeed an empire, albeit not of the traditional colonial type. Bacevich demontrates rather convincingly that the U.S., since roughly the Spanish-American War, has pursued a grand strategy of reshaping the world in its image, through free trade, military dominance, and globalization.

    Particularly remarkable is the extent to which succeeding U.S. administrations have maintained continuity of purpose in achieving these goals. If you think Bill Clinton and GW Bush are radically different in their approaches to U.S. foreign policy, this book will open your eyes. In fact, Bacevich amply demonstrates that even presidents subscribing to the realist school of international relations have been greatly influenced by the idealism espoused by Woodrow Wilson before the First World War. In sum, if you are a student of U.S. foreign policy, political science, modern history, or just a concerned citizen of the "global community," this book can only serve to increase your understanding of how the United States achieved its current status of world dominance and what the implications of that are.

    N. Tsafos on January 21, 2004

    Open doors and the militarization of American foreign policy

    To many cynics, a book like the "American Empire" might seem like an exercise in futility. Who could have trouble believing, after all, that America's primary strategic objective is to create a global marketplace without barriers to the movement of goods, capital, ideas and people? But what starts as an exposition of this argument soon branches into various themes of diverse interest yet equal importance.
    Andrew Bacevich, a professor at Boston University, takes on conventional wisdom. For those who are baffled by the complexity of the post Cold War world and are dismayed by America's lack of a coherent strategy, Mr. Bacevich is reassuring: America's objective, now and in the past, has been to promote global openness; "this books finds continuity where others see discontinuity," he writes, parting ways with those who believe that globalization fundamentally reshaped American foreign policy priorities.

    While this theme is ever-present, Mr. Bacevich covers a lot more ground. Perhaps his most telling contribution is the resurrection of Charles Beard and William Appleman Williams as trenchant observers of American foreign policy. Both Beard and Williams offer their own hypotheses about why America is driven to this ever increasing need for markets abroad. And, after this voyage into intellectual history comes Mr. Bacevich's own argument about why America is compelled to this strategy of openness.

    All three reach the same conclusion: America's imperial quest is meant to overcome problems at home. Although Beard and Williams are polemic in their view that America's foreign adventures prologue the inevitable reckoning with domestic troubles, Mr. Bacevich adopts a more dispassionate view and offers merely a possible explanation: With America's national cohesiveness eroding, Mr. Bacevich writes, "an ever-expanding pie satisfying ever more expansive appetites was the only `crusade' likely to command widespread and durable popular enthusiasm."

    With this in place, Mr. Bacevich moves on to a different point: American military assets, he contends, are increasingly used to promote global openness. This heightened willingness to use coercion has elevated the role of the military in American politics, perhaps even more so than ever before. And, this increased militarization of American politics is playing a central, if underappreciated, role in formulating as well as executing foreign policy.

    For sure, all this is food for thought. Surprisingly enough, Mr. Bacevich has refrained as much as possible from judgments; in fact, writing a book on such a topic whilst remaining neutral is a feat in itself. All the same, Mr. Bacevich's military mind is evident throughout. A book whose aim is to show that America's chief purpose is promoting globalization would have done well to pay heed to dollar diplomacy as much as it has to gunboat diplomacy. Yet this minor objection could not abate the appeal of an otherwise outstanding book.

    bjcefola on April 21, 2007

    Continuity is not Permanent

    This work started out strong, beginning with an excellent chapter on 20th century American intellectual history covering Beard, Williams, and the myth of the Accidental Empire. Beard and Williams questioned the meaning and motive behind the open door policy, proclaiming it sheep's clothing over an imperialist agenda. Both historians were stigmatized and largely ignored by later historians for their trouble.

    Bacevich then connects the open door to the post cold war world, showing how globalization as conceived in American foreign policy was 'new bottles for old wine'.

    The majority of the book is an extended review of the Clinton years, looking at how Bosnia, Iraq, and Kosovo reflect continuities with the Open Door.

    Some bits I didn't know: The use of private military contractors started back in Bosnia because Americans wouldn't support a boots on the ground strategy and we weren't supposed to take sides.

    Also, the weak State Departments under Bush reflect a structural problem. The theater CINC's have much greater budgetary power and discretion of action, to a foreign power their words matter more then any ambassador (or Secretary of State?)

    I would avoid the last chapter on George W. Bush, it appears to have been written prior to the invasion of Iraq and is therefore useless as analysis.

    I think Bacevich is too quick to look for continuity between administrations and spends too little time on constraints. Reagan, Bush I and Clinton all had adversarial relationships with Congress, and their policies were tailored around what congress would allow. As Bush II demonstrates, removing that constraint allowed wildly discontinuous policies. If it was so easy for Bush to push an overtly imperial agenda why can't the next President push an overtly anti-imperial agenda with equally revolutionary changes?

    A Customer on November 17, 2003

    An Excellent Analysis of American Foreign Policy

    In American Empire, Andrew Bacevich provides a fine and historically cogent analysis of American foreign policy. Bacevich writes with clarity, skill, and historical understanding as he argues that a new Pax American - an American Empire - is at hand. While the definition of empire and whether United States is in fact an imperial power is debatable, the real value of Bacevich's analysis is its identification of continuity in American foreign policy and grand strategy throughout the Twentieth-Century.

    American Empire does this by identifying U.S. attempts to promote and preserve "openness" around the world. While this sometimes leads Bacevich to overemphasize continuity (such as ignoring George W. Bush's willingness to ignore and alienate allies not just through policy but through diplomatic tone), it nevertheless reveals a coherent grand strategy organizing U.S. foreign policy.

    Bacevich is also sometimes too inclined to describe "globalization" as tantamount to "Americanization," but these minor flaws do not mar his overall analysis, which is excellent. Some have argued that this book is anti-American, but any serious reader will find that it is hardly that. It is, however, a subtle yet hard nosed analysis of the underlying assumptions and strategy of American foreign policy.

    likbez , 01/03/2016 at 8:14 pm
    Comparing even with the British coverage the statement "Bloomberg, (like most US MSM), just wants to report the f**king news." is very weak.

    In foreign events coverage they want to propagate a certain agenda and are very disciplined in pursuing this goal. That does not exclude that sometimes they report important news with minor distortions. But to assume that they "just wants to report the f**king news" is extremely naďve if we are taking about foreign events.

    Remember all those fancy dances pretending to be news about Iran sanctions. Truth is the first victim of war. Unfortunately this war for world dominance now became a permanent business for the USA. And Iran is considered by US establishment as an enemy.

    I would recommend to read AMERICAN EMPIRE by Andrew J. BACEVICH

    Harvard University Press, 2002 – 302 pages

    In a challenging, provocative book, Andrew Bacevich reconsiders the assumptions and purposes governing the exercise of American global power. Examining the presidencies of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton–as well as George W. Bush's first year in office–he demolishes the view that the United States has failed to devise a replacement for containment as a basis for foreign policy. He finds instead that successive post-Cold War administrations have adhered to a well-defined "strategy of openness." Motivated by the imperative of economic expansionism, that strategy aims to foster an open and integrated international order, thereby perpetuating the undisputed primacy of the world's sole remaining superpower. Moreover, openness is not a new strategy, but has been an abiding preoccupation of policymakers as far back as Woodrow Wilson.

    Although based on expectations that eliminating barriers to the movement of trade, capital, and ideas nurtures not only affluence but also democracy, the aggressive pursuit of openness has met considerable resistance. To overcome that resistance, U.S. policymakers have with increasing frequency resorted to force, and military power has emerged as never before as the preferred instrument of American statecraft, resulting in the progressive militarization of U.S. foreign policy.

    Neither indictment nor celebration, American Empire sees the drive for openness for what it is–a breathtakingly ambitious project aimed at erecting a global imperium. Large questions remain about that project's feasibility and about the human, financial, and moral costs that it will entail. By penetrating the illusions obscuring the reality of U.S. policy, this book marks an essential first step toward finding the answers.

    [Jan 03, 2016] Michael Hudson The Top Three Economic Stories of 2015

    Notable quotes:
    "... In all fairness they sorta do in essence by consistently reporting on a weekly basis that we are about to enter a new recession. What kind of economy is perpetually entering a recession? ..."
    "... One where the Fed is doing everything it can to prevent it entering a recession :-). But that isnt enough to produce a recovery. ..."
    "... The young people, who have the energy to go out in the streets…. most of them are so thoroughly brainwashed that they regard unions as their enemies. ..."
    "... the west is no longer a society. it is a collection of nuclear individuals. i doubt they can form a positive, beneficial political force anymore. except in the Marcus Olson sense, tight groups linked by ethnic or financial interest which conspire to extract from the outsiders . These groups are predatory and will do anything to protect their privileges. ..."
    "... I would also have mentioned the Greece fiasco. What the ECB and EU did to Greece I think is a turning point which will eventually lead to the dissolution of the EU. ..."
    "... The collapse in commodities prices is a symptom of the fact that China has started to export deflation. ..."
    "... Is the Austerity program a part of the attack on China? Or a coincidence? Or part of the plan after the brilliant leadership which gave China its manufacturer-to-the-world leadership though the export of jobs from, the US and Europe? ..."
    "... Ive been curious about this as well. The driving force seems to rest with Hudsons observation that The product of Wall Street (WS) is debt. ..."
    "... Chinas problem isn't all export demand. For the last 15 years, half their economy was internal investment spending (infrastructure, too many factories, and ghost cities) There are trying to increase consumption and reduce internal investment. Except workers in china dont have that much money. Oopsie. ..."
    "... The US simply cannot afford peace. It would destroy the raison detre of the military industrial security [MIS] complex. ..."
    "... No longer benign military Keynesianism , if it ever was is debatable, but now simply aggressive economic expansionism backed by military force coupled with increasing austerity in the homeland. Guns with butter are no longer affordable. So it will be guns! ..."
    "... I couldn't help thinking while I watched the last Republican debate that for two hours the American people were terrorized, but NOT by ISIS. The terrorists were the stooges up on stage posing as candidates for President. If not radical Islam, then China or Putin dominated the discussion. Rand Paul perhaps offered a different take but it had little impact. ..."
    "... I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote a Nobel for him. ..."
    "... The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon. ..."
    Jan 01, 2016 | naked capitalism
    kokuanani , January 1, 2016 at 7:24 am

    I'm surprised that Hudson didn't identify as a "big story" the fact that no MSM are reporting that the economy has not recovered. I'm appalled every time I read that the Great Recession "ended" in 2009, or whatever date they choose. The MSM seem to motor along quoting from the press releases of whomever about how everything's on the upswing.

    Jef , January 1, 2016 at 11:23 am

    koku – In all fairness they sorta do in essence by consistently reporting on a weekly basis that we are about to enter a new recession. What kind of economy is perpetually entering a recession?

    Yves Smith Post author January 1, 2016 at 11:44 am

    One where the Fed is doing everything it can to prevent it entering a recession :-). But that isn't enough to produce a recovery. As Hudson pointed out, all it does is help the capital-owing classes and those who are beneficiaries (as in they working in parts of finance and other sectors that benefit from super-low rates or provide services to the capital-owing classes) with spotty trickle-down to the rest.

    MaroonBulldog , January 1, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    Who are the "capital-owing classes"?

    Sounds like an apt description of the residual owners of claims against the assets of highly-leveraged business associations–like the shareholders of big banks.

    Tyler , January 1, 2016 at 8:47 am

    "And there is no sign of recovery, or even any sign that the presidential candidates running in next year's election are trying to do anything."

    Creating Jobs Rebuilding America via Bernie Sanders.

    JTMcPhee , January 1, 2016 at 9:37 am

    At what point are voters going to see through all this?

    In the existent political economy, who is "we," as in "we must do this or that policy thingie," and of what import are "voters"?

    Almost all the agency (and "agencies" too) belong to "them…"

    To have even a Hope of Change, what should "we" be thinking, and more important, doing?

    Tyler , January 1, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    It's time for mass civil disobedience of the sort that happened in the 60s. I think we, the people, should do something like this .

    Mark Anderlik , January 1, 2016 at 11:46 pm

    Thanks for this post. The article you shared the link for, emphasizes the transformative power of principled action that risks arrest, changing first and foremost the participants. In my long experience as an organizer I have seen the same. This kind of action helps free the person for further action. And it can inspire others to action. Whether in resistance to a particular evil or in constructing an alternative to the existing institutions. This is how the revolutionary project looks today, in my view.

    David , January 2, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    The young people, who have the energy to go out in the streets…. most of them are so thoroughly brainwashed that they regard unions as their enemies.

    They are pacified, and do not have the courage to face the police terror. Today everyone knows that the police shoot to kill. It was a little different in the 60's. Now the police have military weaponry from the federal government and are organized in military SWAT teams. It would take real courage to go against that. But above all, it would take the belief that taking from the rich is okay. And no "true American" believes that. Most of us believe that getting rich is a god-given right, and those who cannot do it are losers.

    susan the other , January 1, 2016 at 9:51 am

    I think the IMF backtracked a tiny bit on Ukraine by saying that they (IMF) expect Ukraine to pay its debt to Russia but it is not a requirement for the new bailout. To which Ukraine replied that they were never paying Russia a dime because they consider it to be an odious debt. They are going to have a hard time making the case that all that heating oil they burned was an odious act by Russia and their own former government hacks… we know they can't repay it and we are determined to bail them out anyway. It's nice that Hudson is going off to the U. of Beijing; we'll get some interesting stories.

    Jim Haygood , January 1, 2016 at 12:58 pm

    It's nice that Hudson is going off to the U. of Beijing; we'll get some interesting stories.'

    Michael Hudson and Michael Pettis, hangin' out in the Beijing U. rathskeller, spinning economic tall tales.

    I'd buy them a beer.

    susan the other , January 1, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Yes, me too. I hope he can give us straight talk from China/Chinese viewpoint. And no censorship here or there.

    craazyboy , January 1, 2016 at 9:51 am

    I wish the USG would tell American citizens where the economic bomb shelters are when it declares these wars on our former friends. Tim Geithner repeatedly told us China is not a currency manipulator and as far as I know, Jack Lew still agrees with the assessment. So I guess we decided to fight fair by taking a cheap nock off of a samurai sword in the chest while waving our arms around with our heavy artillery, IMF loans and running a destroyer past fake Chinese Islands on the other side of the world.

    Then we are still friends with Europe. Friends don't let Europeans buy oil and gas from Russians. Qatar is one option for gas, presently by LNG tanker, but the big volume is coming someday when we get Syria all straightened out. Furthermore, we've lifted export bans on US energy product, so more help for Europe on the way. Tho to get our fracking gas to Europe we need the LNG terminal in Nawlings operational and it's majority funded by China. So we may need another destroyer escort there to get the product pointed properly at Europe… but Europe must have their 11 dimensional chess players who can figure out the brilliance in all this. But no Canadian Keystone oil for Europe, anyway, unless Warren Buffet figures out a way to get it there.

    No good news to report on citizen investment opportunities in Ukraine. My formerly favorite international bond fund *, Templeton Global, thought it wise to accumulate half the Ukraine debt. They just took a 20% haircut, and it may not be the last haircut. So if anyone was trying to be an amateur bond vulture and bet that the IMF will bail out your investment, you lost that bet.

    * Disclosure – I haven't owned any since the GFC.

    edmondo , January 1, 2016 at 10:28 am

    Which party do you want to actually administer this move to the right? A friendly Democratic face, or a sort of frowning Republican face,

    See! Ralph Nader was wrong.There is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

    Jim Haygood , January 1, 2016 at 11:51 am

    That's "friendly" with ironic quotes around it. Check out her crocodile smile (jpg image):

    http://tinyurl.com/qz9kj63

    cnchal , January 1, 2016 at 10:29 am

    . . . There is a trade war and a financial war against Russia, China. . .

    What trade war against China? Last I looked, every TV, stereo, and phone or any electronic device in any store in the US was made in China. It isn't even possible to buy a new car without Chinese made components in it.

    Yves' comment

    I would also add growing deflation risk as a big story. The collapse in commodities prices is a symptom of the fact that China has started to "export" deflation.

    China has been exporting deflation for decades. The collapse in commodities prices, now, is the result of massive speculation and huge increases in prices due to ZIRP.

    fajensen , January 1, 2016 at 1:22 pm

    We haven't seen anything yet. I just bought a big pile of "vanilla" HV-transistors for some audio amplifiers I want to make directly from AliExpress – about $3 for 200 off, including shipping. "Here", I would pay 50 times that at the official distributor – unless I buy 5000 and up, then it's the same price.

    China is beginning to cut out the middle-man and going straight for making 3'rd world prices available in the 1'st world. The Chinese shops even have customer service too, I have always managed to get refunds / replacements when something went wrong with an order.

    craazyboy , January 1, 2016 at 1:55 pm

    E-Bay and Ali is definitely the way to go for electronics parts, if they got what you want. It's your Karmic reward for ever shopping at Radio Shack. China Post is subsidizing shipments under 2 lbs as well. It comes all the way to your mailbox for $3 max. I have bought stuff for a buck, freight included, tho I'm really not sure who ate it there.

    Now for my Radio Shack karma experience. I needed 4 common ceramic caps for a project. They probably sell for 3 cents each in volume. Radio Shack price, $1.25 EACH. Ebay price, 20 for $1.50, shipping included. It felt so good.

    optimader , January 1, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    And they have only two of the three cap values you need… ;o/

    That is my perpetual experience w/ RS as well in general, Home Despot w/ any hardware related widgets –before I swore off that joint entirely.

    I refuse to shop HD anymore for ANYTHING. A perpetually unfulfilled experience that takes your life away in 1 hour increments, actually more because I would then go on scavenger hunts to find missing bits.

    RBHoughton , January 1, 2016 at 6:40 pm

    There is a street in Shenzhen called Wak Keung North Road with high-rise buildings end to end. One is for computer parts, another for telephone stuff, another generaL electronics, video, audio, etc., etc.

    Inside each building the floor space is divided into 60 square foot booths, each rented by a factory. They display their wares, you agree prices and delivery goes to wherever you want to go.

    I'd say that's cutting out the middleman.

    cnchal , January 2, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    This is an interesting series of responses.

    @ fajensen
    China is beginning to cut out the middle-man and going straight for making 3'rd world prices available in the 1'st world. . .

    @ craazyboy
    China Post is subsidizing shipments under 2 lbs as well. It comes all the way to your mailbox for $3 max. I have bought stuff for a buck, freight included, tho I'm really not sure who ate it there.

    @ optimander
    I refuse to shop HD anymore for ANYTHING. A perpetually unfulfilled experience that takes your life away in 1 hour increments . . .

    @ RB Houghton
    They display their wares, you agree prices and delivery goes to wherever you want to go.
    I'd say that's cutting out the middleman.

    Please consider what the middleman does. They import and warehouse the items, and display those items on a retail shelf. The counting and inventory control cost multiples of what these electronic parts cost.

    Retail and warehouse businesses are mercilessly taxed by the municipality they reside in, whether they have a good or bad year, and they employ some of our neighbors.

    As one business after another is wiped out, what profitable enterprise will be left?

    craazyboy , January 2, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    Hopefully some that don't involve charging me $1.25 for a 3 cent part that's smaller than your little pinky's fingernail and can sit on a shelf indefinitely without spoiling or going bad..

    different clue , January 2, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    In the absence of Mutual Protectionism for Everybody, this approach offers the only hope of short term survival to those who are the first to take it. Because if you don't do it, someone else will. Of course in the long run, every middleman will be cut out, will go out of bussiness and/or jobless, and will be unable to buy anything much anywhere. That will help bankrupt even more domestic bussinesses and de-job even more domestic workers. (And of course every American electronic-parts-maker and everyone they employed is already out of bussiness and/or unemployed and subsisting at the WalMart level or the Dollar Tree level below that now already.) In the longest run, it will make the American 99% as poor as the Chinese 99%, which is the long range goal of the Global OverClass.

    The only way any of us can get off this hamsterwheel-race to the bottom is if everybody gets off it together. And the only way for us to do that is for those of us who WANT to do that to be able to force those of us who DON'T want to do that . . . to do that anyway. And the only way to apply that force is with the impermeable economic borders we could give ourself by abolishing Free Trade and restoring Militant Belligerent Protectionism.

    Valerie , January 3, 2016 at 1:43 am

    I agree that "free" trade is a big problem. If we are to have an economy that will sustain us all, we have to be willing to pay more and have less. I actually don't think this will be all that terrible. I am in my mid fifties and all my friends and I talk about is getting rid of all the crap we have managed to acquire over the last twenty years. Most of it is not of a good quality, bought cheap thanks to exploited labor in factories in the Undeveloped World. Everyone wants first world wages for themselves, yet we all want to pay cheap prices. Something has to give – and right now it is the wages of the working class.

    nothing but the truth , January 1, 2016 at 10:40 am

    the west is no longer a society. it is a collection of nuclear individuals. i doubt they can form a positive, beneficial political force anymore. except in the Marcus Olson sense, tight groups linked by ethnic or financial interest which conspire to extract from the "outsiders". These groups are predatory and will do anything to protect their privileges.

    I think the party has ended for the west ("the white people"). Its economies are mostly based on high brow money laundering, no future for the kids, and ever more frustrated population.

    Dave , January 1, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    Mr. Hudson,

    You are the best economic writer I have ever seen. Have been following others' blogs, books and lectures for years. Bought most of your books and truly appreciate your ability to take the hideously complex and explain in several different ways so that amateurs can understand. (Sorry Yves, you presuppose a graduate degree in economics, but we still love you.) Love the footnotes instead of having to flip back and forth to the back of the book. But, why, oh why, is there not an index in "Killing The Host"? Please create one for the second edition.

    Thank you!

    Jack Heape , January 1, 2016 at 11:26 am

    I would also have mentioned the Greece fiasco. What the ECB and EU did to Greece I think is a turning point which will eventually lead to the dissolution of the EU. I can't help but believe that behind the scenes various governments are working on plans to return to their own central banks and currencies if need be. The drum beats of nationalism are just starting and as economic conditions worsen they will only get louder.

    Michaell Hudson , January 1, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Yves and the rest of you are absolutely right about what I left out.

    I was phoned and asked to go on Skype in 10 minutes. I thought I'd have the usual 20 minutes or so to talk. Just as I was getting started, the interview was over. So I didn't have a chance to say what you commentators are rightly bringing up.

    The economy is in a mess. It's not recovering. And instead of blaming debt deflation and the tax shift off the FIRE sector onto labor and industry, China is blamed for not growing fast enough to provide enough of a market to compensate for Western austerity and financialization.

    There is no thought that maybe the West should emulate China and return to the idea of social democratic industrial capitalism of a century ago, as it seemed to be evolving into socialism.

    I wasn't sent a link (and still can't find the interview on TRNN's site), so i couldn't change Haitian to Asian. But I love these machine-translators. Maybe robotization of life and culture can only go so far …

    JEHR , January 1, 2016 at 11:53 am

    On Canadian TV I heard someone (maybe a comedian) describe the relationship of Canada and the US. This article brings it to mind. Basically she said (and I'm paraphrasing here),

    When the US thinks of Canada at all, it thinks of it as its hat; when Canada thinks of the US, they should think of the US as Canada's pants–and those pants are dirty.

    I just think that is very funny and better than the elephant and mouse analogy. It's my joke for the New Year.

    Synoia , January 1, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    The collapse in commodities prices is a symptom of the fact that China has started to "export" deflation.

    Yes, but…as manufacture-r to-the-world, China is dependent on demand. There appears to be a demand gap in the US and Europe, driven by austerity.

    Is the Austerity program a part of the attack on China? Or a coincidence? Or part of the plan after the brilliant leadership which gave China its manufacturer-to-the-world leadership though the export of jobs from, the US and Europe?

    Steven , January 1, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    Is the Austerity program a part of the attack on China? Or a coincidence?

    I've been curious about this as well. The driving force seems to rest with Hudson's observation that "The product of Wall Street (WS) is debt." To WS – and Washington – it doesn't really seem to matter who holds that debt – only that they continue to be allowed to create ever more of it. To that end, of course, the debt so created has to at least seem to be able to produce an income stream seemingly capable of paying the economic rent, the claims on society's future wealth its purchasers are led to believe they are buying – that or produce immediate 'capital gains' as a substitute.

    But Hudson also suggests that 'austerity' is just a prelude to seizing what remains of what once were called 'the commons', i.e. the last remaining publicly owned assets. A variation on this theme would be that the 0.01% at least understand what they own these days is DEBT – not wealth. And they are anxious to exchange it for something real before the fraudulent social order they have foisted on an anesthetized public stands revealed. See Hudson's Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy

    Of course, it may not be that complicated – just Davos group-think along the lines of "the 99.99% must use less so we the 0.01% can have more".

    Michael Hudson , January 1, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    The political choice for 2016 (It's singular)

    Here's what I MEANT to post (I copied the wrong text above; apologies). The choice for 2016 in Europe as well as America will be between "Yes" (independents), "Yes, please" (Democrats), and "Yes, thank you!" (Republicans). All yes to further tax cuts for the wealthy, bank bailouts to "save the system," downsized social security and other social spending, and a smaller non-military budget as "balanced budgets" mean cutbacks for what is left for the civilian economy after Wall Street and the FIRE sector siphon off their subsidies.

    NC remains the best summary of how this scenario is unfolding day to day (AM and PM installments). The gap between its and other internet reporting and mainstream media seems to be widening.

    craazyboy , January 1, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    There is a mysterious region over the Pacific where an exporters deflation transforms into margin improvement for importers.

    China's problem isn't all export demand. For the last 15 years, half their economy was internal investment spending (infrastructure, too many factories, and ghost cities) There are trying to increase consumption and reduce internal investment. Except workers in china don't have that much money. Oopsie.

    Exports have dropped too, implying world demand is down somewhat. But commodity prices are probably impacted as much by ramping down internal investment consumption as by export weakness. Of course industrial commodity producers have ramped up capacity these last 15 years to meet China's demand. The party only goes so long.

    I checked some data on Cu recently. China was importing 25% of world copper production. Half of that was used internally, the other half got made into electrical/electronic exports. You could probably find similar data on oil, aluminum, steel, etc…They are also a big importer of semiconductors – and the electronic boxes get filled and shipped back out again. No iPhone deflation apparent in the US.

    ***This was supposed to be a response to Synoia above.

    Mickey Marzick in Akron, Ohio , January 1, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    How does the failure of the domestic economy to recover in any meaningful sense for the vast majority of Americans contribute to an explanation of why the Russian bear, Chinese dragon, and the Islamic caliphate now pose existential threats to the United States? Fear and economic insecurity at home are externalized outwards beyond the homeland and justify increased military expenditures in conjunction with the erosion of civil liberties, the increasing militarization of society, especially within and among law enforcement, and the expansion of the national security state – all in the name of these existential threats.

    The US simply cannot afford peace. It would destroy the raison d'etre of the military industrial security [MIS] complex. The latter now must be fed to protect economic lebensraum – global trade routes and capital mobility. This is what makes the US Navy a force for good, right? But it has to be on our terms. Otherwise, resistance morphs readily into terrorism or espionage in its various forms, electronic, industrial. No longer benign "military Keynesianism", if it ever was is debatable, but now simply aggressive economic expansionism backed by military force coupled with increasing austerity in the homeland. Guns with butter are no longer affordable. So it will be guns!

    I couldn't help thinking while I watched the last Republican debate that for two hours the American people were terrorized, but NOT by ISIS. The terrorists were the stooges up on stage posing as candidates for President. If not radical Islam, then China or Putin dominated the discussion. Rand Paul perhaps offered a different take but it had little impact.

    No, it just seems to me that the failure of domestic policy across the board in this country is now held hostage by the MIS complex, and its needs – economic, political, and ideological – are driving foreign policy. Indeed, to what extent are the needs of the MIS complex responsible for the failure of domestic policy – especially economic recovery?

    Happy New Year!

    tegnost , January 1, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    I have a couple of questions, one, is austerity in the u.s and europe of a similar variety. In europe currently it seems to me austerity is enforced as a policy choice whereas in the usa it enforced through class warfare, play the game or live in a tent under the freeway, then after you're in the tent under the freeway you're a "free spirit" who's chosen this way of life so your own damn fault, live with your choices because in usa anyone succeeds who wants to. Next, I wonder whether tpp is really a war against china, or if our genius financial engineers want china to be the engine of growth, allow wages in china to go up but using the trade deal to isolate chinas increased consumption and create comparative advantage by selling vietnamese goods to the chinese through u.s. corporations thus enriching the u.s. elite? Basically extra-national globalism of elite power. Do either of these thoughts make sense?

    craazyboy , January 1, 2016 at 8:12 pm

    Close. Except another valuable trade route is US corporations (and Japan and Europe) will sell Vietnam products (and products from other places in Asia with even worse poverty than China) back to the US..(and their home corporate domiciles) It's also easier to put your own factories in these places. In China, I think the Chinese guv still wants to own 51%, with some exceptions. They don't kick in any money tho. Not that that's a terribly big problem for us because they are overbuilt in so many industries so you just have a bidding war between Chinese companies instead. Then in downturns, you don't have the associated debt with factory and capital equipment, and debt deflation is now someone else's problem!

    The only thing is the industrial capabilities of these other places are limited at this point. They do clothing, Barbie dolls and disk drives. It's still Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China (coming on) for things more sophisticated.

    RBHoughton , January 1, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote a Nobel for him.

    Larry Coffield , January 2, 2016 at 6:53 am

    In spirit I've been voting Michael Hudson Nobels for decades. He's too great for a Nobel. I consider Michael to be our Thorstein Veblen, and such free-thinking radicals are not welcome in a club that allows criticism but not repudiation of neoliberalism.

    Lambert Strether January 2, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    Killing the Host is very good; I wish I could have reviewed it before the holiday shopping season…

    different clue , January 2, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon.

    [Jan 02, 2016] Turkey faces big losses as Russia sanctions bite

    Notable quotes:
    "... According to the Westminster-controlled BBC, a Russian pilot "died when his SU-24 aircraft was shot down". If that is a time appreciation, it is a fairly accurate one, but he actually died after his aircraft hit the ground, and that fact was not the cause of his death. He died because he was shot full of holes from the ground while he was hanging helpless in his parachute straps and was not armed. As has been demonstrated to what should be the complete satisfaction of all, this is a war crime, illegal under international law regardless who does it. ..."
    "... But the Washington-and-Westminster-controlled western media skates adroitly around that fact, and consistently normalizes his death as just one of those unfortunate things that happens in war. ..."
    "... I can promise you that the murder of a western pilot under the same circumstances would not be soft-pedaled in the same manner, and the fact that criminal circumstances were attached to his dying would have been shouted to the skies. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile, January 1, 2016 at 11:58 pm
    From the Westminster Controlled BBC:

    Turkey faces big losses as Russia sanctions bite

    marknesop, January 2, 2016 at 10:19 am
    According to the Westminster-controlled BBC, a Russian pilot "died when his SU-24 aircraft was shot down". If that is a time appreciation, it is a fairly accurate one, but he actually died after his aircraft hit the ground, and that fact was not the cause of his death. He died because he was shot full of holes from the ground while he was hanging helpless in his parachute straps and was not armed. As has been demonstrated to what should be the complete satisfaction of all, this is a war crime, illegal under international law regardless who does it.

    But the Washington-and-Westminster-controlled western media skates adroitly around that fact, and consistently normalizes his death as just one of those unfortunate things that happens in war.

    I can promise you that the murder of a western pilot under the same circumstances would not be soft-pedaled in the same manner, and the fact that criminal circumstances were attached to his dying would have been shouted to the skies.

    [Jan 02, 2016] John Helmer Putins Supper for the Oligarchs – Whos in the Family, Whos Out

    Notable quotes:
    "... Who today are Americas oligarchs? I am wondering who are their American counterparts. ..."
    "... If I remember correctly 600 companies had access to and were allowed to help with crafting TPP. Id start with the CEOs of those companies when crafting a list. ..."
    "... My sense is that the US oligarchs are people instead of corporations and are closer in number to 40 than to 600 and that they are constant in normal times for a generation with about the same turnover you see visibly in Putins dinner. ..."
    "... In Russia Putin talks and the oligarchs take notes. In the United States the oligarchs talk and Obama takes notes. As for Congress, when the oligarchs talk Congress asks How high? ..."
    "... Putin is no saint, but surely still deserves credit for stopping the Neoliberal looting of the Russian economy. Without Putin Russia today might be a lot more like Libya or Kosovo… ..."
    naked capitalism
    sd January 1, 2016 at 5:13 am

    Who today are America's oligarchs? I am wondering who are their American counterparts. Do the oligarchs change as the White House passes from one party to the next, or is there continuity and they more or less remain the same?

    cwaltz January 1, 2016 at 7:24 am

    If I remember correctly 600 companies had access to and were allowed to help with crafting TPP. I'd start with the CEOs of those companies when crafting a list.

    TarheelDem January 1, 2016 at 9:03 am

    My sense is that the US oligarchs are people instead of corporations and are closer in number to 40 than to 600 and that they are constant in normal times for a generation with about the same turnover you see visibly in Putin's dinner.

    These are not normal times, however. My guess is that there is severe partisan polarization to the point that there is effectively two semi-disjoint oligarchies contending for power with a common bipartisan intersection that is the most visible. Buffett, Gates, Petersen (note the industries) are the most visible members of that bipartisan intersection. Kochs, Edelman, Trump (note the industries) are the most visible in one of the disjoint groups; Dimon (again note the industry) one of the most visible in the other disjoint group.

    The difference between Russia and the US is in who talks and who takes notes.

    TG January 1, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    Well said!

    In Russia Putin talks and the oligarchs take notes. In the United States the oligarchs talk and Obama takes notes. As for Congress, when the oligarchs talk Congress asks "How high?"

    Putin is no saint, but surely still deserves credit for stopping the Neoliberal looting of the Russian economy. Without Putin Russia today might be a lot more like Libya or Kosovo…

    Lysistrata -> TG January 1, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    You hit the bulls eye,

    digi_owl January 1, 2016 at 4:12 pm

    "In the United States the oligarchs talk and Obama takes notes."

    Under Yeltsin the same situation was present in Russia as well, and why Putin seems to have such a strong support from the people.

    Note btw that while Yeltsin was in control, western corporations and their buddy oligarchs ran roughshod over the nation. But now that the tables have turned, the guy in charge is an evil autocrat as best.

    Vatch January 1, 2016 at 11:34 am

    Most of the U.S. oligarchs are near the top of this list:

    http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/

    The CEOs of the companies at the top of this list are either oligarchs or members of the Power Elite:

    http://fortune.com/fortune500/

    The CEOs of the top banks on this list are also either oligarchs or members of the Power Elite. As I write, this particular web site is down, so I'll also provide a Wikipedia list.

    http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/top50form.aspx

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks_in_the_United_States

    It's harder to determine who are the top members of the governmental Power Elite. Some of those people are not elected, and are hidden in the hierarchy of the Defense, State, or Treasury Departments.

    meeps January 1, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    It's likely that a small core of the the same 'players' would be found to exercise control across borders via TNCs under their control. James B. Glattfelder's TED in 2012 may be old hat to NC readers; in case you missed it:

    If a small number of simple rules can facilitate the emergence of a systemically risky and unevenly distributed complex system, wouldn't a few simple rule changes cause something different to emerge? Anyone willing to use Vatch's list of oligarchs to run the equation again? (;

    Thanks and a Happy New Year to Yves, Lambert, and all the bright people who delight on NC each day.

    Vatch January 2, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    There's a typo in the TED link. This should work:

    https://www.ted.com/talks/james_b_glattfelder_who_controls_the_world

    meeps January 2, 2016 at 2:14 pm

    Thanks for the catch.

    Paul Tioxon January 1, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/

    meeps January 1, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    That was quick, Paul. Good resource. Thanks.

    susan the other January 1, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    Putin was using a western law (putting assets in trust?) in order to repatriate the naughty oligarchs and their money in order to help mama Russia. Looks like it worked. Gotta love the "family" think; its Cosa Nostra all over again. Since they skillfully took klelptocracy as far as it could go and then crashed, give them a new bone to chew – the environment and its preservation. Afterall, that's a very patriotic cosa.

    Chauncey Gardiner January 1, 2016 at 7:53 pm

    Thanks for the informative post. Not a fan, but I found Putin's linked introductory remarks to his "near-family" of particular interest.:

    "I have already mentioned our plans to begin consultations between the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation member states and ASEAN regarding the possibility of an economic partnership. This is a huge market."

    I believe Russia's success in this endeavor will be pivotal as to whether they will succeed in developing economic alternatives that could make geopolitically driven Western economic and financial sanctions irrelevant. But the fact that this Russian-Chinese joint development effort h/b out there for some time now and is evidently stalling out h/b informative in identifying who still lays the turf regarding export demand, commodities and energy pricing.

    However, it also appears that the myopic thinkers in the latter group don't care a lot about either domestic U.S. or international collateral damage, although they should. The massive fail of U.S. domestic consumption due to private sector debt overload, wage suppression, and wealth transfer and concentration policies will be a major contributing factor underlying potential U.S. international economic and geopolitical policy failure IMO. After all, who wants to enter into a "Trans-Pacific Partnership" with someone who lacks the capacity and desire to purchase your exports?

    [Sep 27, 2015] US On The Ropes China To Join Russian Military In Syria While Iraq Strikes Intel Deal With Moscow, Tehran

    Sep 27, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    What appears to have happened here is this: Vladimir Putin has exploited both the fight against ISIS and Iran's need to preserve the regional balance of power on the way to enhancing Russia's influence over Mid-East affairs which in turn helps to ensure that Gazprom's interests are protected going forward.

    Thanks to the awkward position the US has gotten itself in by covertly allying itself with various Sunni extremist groups, Washington is for all intents and purposes powerless to stop Putin lest the public should suddenly get wise to the fact that combating Russia's resurgence and preventing Iran from expanding its interests are more important than fighting terror.

    In short, Washington gambled on a dangerous game of geopolitical chess, lost, and now faces two rather terrifyingly disastrous outcomes: 1) China establishing a presence in the Mid-East in concert with Russia and Iran, and 2) seeing Iraq effectively ceded to the Quds Force and ultimately, to the Russian army.

    Softpanorama Media Skeptic Bulletin, 2015

    Continued

    Recommended Links

    Google matched content

    Softpanorama Recommended

    Top articles

    [Dec 10, 2016] Why the US elite loves so much to demonise Russia Published on Dec 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    [Sep 19, 2017] Neoliberalism: the deep story that lies beneath Donald Trumps triumph: How a ruthless network of super-rich ideologues killed choice and destroyed people s faith in politics by George Monbiot Published on Nov 16, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    [Oct 12, 2016] NSA whistleblower says DNC hack was not done by Russia, but by US intelligence Published on Oct 12, 2016 | theduran.com

    [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity Published on Sep 24, 2016 | www.antiwar.com

    [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity Published on Sep 24, 2016 | www.antiwar.com

    [Jul 11, 2016] 5 Reasons The Comey Hearing Was The Worst Education In Criminal Justice The American Public Has Ever Had by Seth Abramson Published on www.huffingtonpost.com

    [Jul 06, 2016] FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook by Andrew C. McCarthy Published on National Review

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons Published on www.moonofalabama.org

    Oldies But Goodies

    [Dec 10, 2016] Why the US elite loves so much to demonise Russia

    [Oct 12, 2016] NSA whistleblower says DNC hack was not done by Russia, but by US intelligence

    [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity

    [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity

    [Jul 11, 2016] 5 Reasons The Comey Hearing Was The Worst Education In Criminal Justice The American Public Has Ever Had by Seth Abramson

    [Jul 06, 2016] FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook by Andrew C. McCarthy

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons

    [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan

    [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater

    [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

    [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan

    [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou

    [Dec 28, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIA s Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras

    [Dec 28, 2017] From Snowden To Russia-gate - The CIA And The Media

    [Dec 28, 2017] On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.

    [Dec 27, 2017] Mueller investigation can be viewed as an attempt to avoid going after Clinton and hide the fact that a corrupted intelligence service worked to derail Sanders

    [Dec 27, 2017] Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt

    [Dec 23, 2017] Russiagate as bait and switch maneuver

    [Sep 17, 2017] The So-called Russian Hack of the DNC Does Not Make Sense by Publius Tacitus

    [Aug 30, 2017] The President of Belgian Magistrates - Neoliberalism is a form of Fascism by Manuela Cadelli

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce

    [Dec 22, 2017] Beyond Cynicism America Fumbles Towards Kafka s Castle by James Howard Kunstler

    [Dec 22, 2017] When Sanity Fails - The Mindset of the Ideological Drone by The Saker

    [Dec 21, 2017] The RussiaGate Witch-Hunt Stockman Names Names In The Deep State's Insurance Policy by David Stockman

    [Dec 19, 2017] Do not Underestimate the Power of Microfoundations

    [Dec 18, 2017] The Scary Void Inside Russia-gate by Stephen F. Cohen

    [Dec 16, 2017] The U.S. Is Not A Democracy, It Never Was by Gabriel Rockhill

    [Dec 15, 2017] Rise and Decline of the Welfare State, by James Petras

    [Dec 14, 2017] With the 2018 midterms on the horizon, Moscow proposed a sweeping noninterference agreement with the United States. The Trump administration said no

    [Dec 14, 2017] Was Peter Strzok the principal FBI liaison to CIA Director John Brennan?

    [Dec 14, 2017] The Foundering Russia-gate 'Scandal' Consortiumnews

    [Dec 14, 2017] The 1970's was in many ways the watershed decade for the neoliberal transformation of the American economy and society

    [Dec 13, 2017] All the signs in the Russia probe point to Jared Kushner. Who next?

    [Dec 12, 2017] When a weaker neoliberal state fights the dominant neoliberal state, the center of neoliberal empire, it faces economic sanctions and can t retaliate using principle eye for eye

    [Dec 12, 2017] Bad Moon Rising, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz Review

    [Dec 12, 2017] We are all just hapless passengers on the Neocon Titanic, unable to influence what is playing out on the bridge

    [Dec 11, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry

    [Dec 10, 2017] blamePutin continues to be the media s dominant hashtag. Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time

    [Dec 10, 2017] When Washington Cheered the Jihadists Consortiumnews

    [Dec 10, 2017] Russia-gate s Reach into Journalism by Dennis J Bernstein

    [Dec 09, 2017] Hyping the Russian Threat to Undermine Free Speech by Max Blumenthal

    [Dec 05, 2017] Controlling speculation in world financial markets Progressive Christians Uniting by Gordon K Douglass

    [Dec 03, 2017] Stephen Kotkin How Vladimir Putin Rules

    [Dec 03, 2017] Another Democratic party betrayal of their former voters. but what you can expect from the party of Bill Clinton?

    [Dec 03, 2017] Islamic Mindset Akin to Bolshevism by Srdja Trifkovic

    [Nov 29, 2017] The Russian Question by Niall Ferguson

    [Dec 02, 2017] The New Cold War and the Death of the Discourse by Justin Raimondo

    [Dec 01, 2017] Neocon Chaos Promotion in the Mideast

    [Dec 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura

    [Nov 30, 2017] Heritage Foundation + the War Industry What a Pair by Paul Gottfried

    [Nov 30, 2017] Money Imperialism by Michael Hudson

    [Nov 29, 2017] Secular Stagnation: The Time for One-Armed Policy is Over

    [Nov 29, 2017] Michael Hudson: The Wall Street Economy is Draining the Real Economy

    [Nov 29, 2017] Positive Feedback Loops, Financial Instability, The Blind Spot Of Policymakers

    [Nov 29, 2017] Attack on Sanders Economic Plan By Former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors Irresponsible

    [Nov 28, 2017] The Duplicitous Superpower by Ted Galen Carpenter

    [Nov 30, 2017] Heritage Foundation + the War Industry What a Pair by Paul Gottfried

    [Nov 08, 2017] Learning to Love McCarthyism by Robert Parry

    [Dec 03, 2017] Stephen Kotkin How Vladimir Putin Rules

    [Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik

    [Dec 03, 2017] Stephen Kotkin How Vladimir Putin Rules

    [Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik

    [Nov 05, 2017] China and the US Rational Planning and Lumpen Capitalism by James Petras

    [Nov 04, 2017] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Leads US President Trump to War with Iran by Prof. James Petras

    [Nov 04, 2017] Who's Afraid of Corporate COINTELPRO by C. J. Hopkins

    [Oct 31, 2017] Above All - The Junta Expands Its Claim To Power

    [Oct 29, 2017] Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Oct 29, 2017] In Shocking, Viral Interview, Qatar Confesses Secrets Behind Syrian War

    [Oct 31, 2017] Here is What I Saw at the Valdai Club Conference by Anatol Lieven

    [Oct 31, 2017] Here is What I Saw at the Valdai Club Conference by Anatol Lieven

    [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

    [Oct 28, 2017] Former CIA Officer 'Russiagate' Was Manufactured By The Clinton Campaign by Philip Giraldi

    [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan

    [Oct 25, 2017] Mutual Assured Destruction by Philip M. Giraldi

    [Oct 25, 2017] Tomorrow Belongs to the Corporatocracy by C.J. Hopkins

    [Oct 17, 2017] The Victory of Perception Management by Robert Parry

    [Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA

    [Oct 16, 2017] Governing is complicated as laws and policies affect a diverse spectrum of people and situations. The average person, in my experience, is not inclined to spend the time necessary to understand good laws/policy in a complex society. The one safety check on mob rule is that most people don't become politically active until their situation is relatively dire

    [Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins

    [Oct 11, 2017] Russia witch hunt is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working class

    [Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins

    [Oct 10, 2017] The US Economy: Explaining Stagnation and Why It Will Persist by Thomas I. Palley

    [Oct 09, 2017] Dennis Kucinich We Must Challenge the Two-Party Duopoly Committed to War by Adam Dick

    [Oct 09, 2017] US Missile Defense Not as Effective As We Think by Scott Ritter

    [Oct 09, 2017] After Nine Months, Only Stale Crumbs in Russia Inquiry by Scott Ritter

    [Oct 09, 2017] Autopilot Wars by Andrew J. Bacevich

    [Oct 08, 2017] Financialization: theoretical analysis and historical perspectives by Costas Lapavitsas

    [Oct 07, 2017] Finances hold on our everyday life must be broken by Costas Lapavitsas

    [Oct 06, 2017] Prof. Philip Mirowski keynote for Life and Debt conference

    [Oct 04, 2017] Trump, Syriza Brexit prove voting is only small part of the battle by Neil Clark

    [Oct 03, 2017] The Vietnam Nightmare -- Again by Eric Margolis

    [Oct 03, 2017] Russian Ads On Facebook A Click-Bait Campaign

    [Oct 09, 2017] Dennis Kucinich We Must Challenge the Two-Party Duopoly Committed to War by Adam Dick

    [Feb 26, 2019] THE CRISIS OF NEOLIBERALISM by Julie A. Wilson

    [Oct 04, 2017] Trump, Syriza Brexit prove voting is only small part of the battle by Neil Clark

    [Oct 01, 2017] Neoliberal economic policies in the United States The impact of globalisation on a `Northern country by Kim Scipes

    [Sep 30, 2017] Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet by Glenn Greenwald

    [Sep 27, 2017] Come You Masters of War by Matthew Harwood

    [Sep 26, 2017] US-Saudi Alliance Fragments the Middle East (2-2) by RANIA KHALEK

    [Sep 26, 2017] Is Foreign Propaganda Even Effective by Leon Hadar

    [Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed

    [Sep 25, 2017] Free market as a neoliberal myth, the cornerstone of neoliberalism as a secular religion

    [Sep 24, 2017] How Sony, Obama, Seth Rogen and the CIA Secretly Planned to Force Regime Change in North Korea by Tim Shorrock

    [Sep 24, 2017] Mark Ames When Mother Jones Was Investigated for Spreading Kremlin Disinformation by Mark Ames

    [Sep 23, 2017] The Exit Strategy of Empire by Wendy McElro

    [Sep 23, 2017] Welcome to 1984 Big Brother Google Now Watching Your Every Political Move

    [Sep 20, 2017] The Politics of Military Ascendancy by James Petras

    [Sep 23, 2017] The Exit Strategy of Empire by Wendy McElro

    [May 23, 2017] CIA, the cornerstone of the deep state has agenda that is different from the US national interest and reflect agenda of the special interest groups such as Wall Street bankers and MIC

    [Sep 19, 2017] Trump behaviour at UN and Nixon's "madman gambit" against Soviets

    [Sep 18, 2017] Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish partnerships with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

    [Sep 18, 2017] How The Military Defeated Trumps Insurgency

    [Sep 18, 2017] Looks like Trump initially has a four point platform that was anti-neoliberal in its essence: non-interventionism, no to neoliberal globalization, no to outsourcing of jobs, and no to multiculturism. All were betrayed very soon

    [Sep 18, 2017] Its always bizarre who easily neoliberals turn into hawkish and warmongering jerks

    [Sep 18, 2017] The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia by Rober Parry

    [Sep 17, 2017] Fear of deviation from political correctness is a powerful thing and such zeitgeist pervades America to an extent that people fear independent thought for concern that they will be deterred from upward employment mobility

    [Sep 17, 2017] Empire Idiots by Linh Dinh

    [Sep 16, 2017] Empire of Capital by George Monbiot

    [Sep 13, 2017] A despot in disguise: one mans mission to rip up democracy by George Monbiot

    [Sep 11, 2017] Neo-classical economics as a new flat earth cult

    [Sep 11, 2017] The only countervailing force, unions, were deliberately destroyed. Neoliberalism needs to atomize work force to function properly and destroys any solidarity among workers. Unions are anathema for neoliberalism, because they prevent isolation and suppression of workers.

    [Sep 11, 2017] Around 1970 corporate managers and professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and interests with capital owners and realigned themselves, abandoning working class and a large part of lower middle class (small business owners)

    [Sep 05, 2017] Is the World Slouching Toward a Grave Systemic Crisis by Philip Zelikow

    [Sep 19, 2017] The Glaring Omissions in Trumps U.N. Speech by Daniel Larison

    [Sep 11, 2017] Around 1970 corporate managers and professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and interests with capital owners and realigned themselves, abandoning working class and a large part of lower middle class (small business owners)

    [Aug 27, 2017] Manipulated minorities represent a major danger for democratic states>

    [Aug 25, 2017] Some analogies of current events in the USA and Mao cultural revolution: In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined

    [Aug 30, 2017] Weather Underground Members Speak Out on the Media, Imperialism and Solidarity in the Age of Trump

    [Aug 30, 2017] Weather Underground Members Speak Out on the Media, Imperialism and Solidarity in the Age of Trump

    [Dec 21, 2019] The Pentagon s New Map War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century

    [Dec 21, 2019] We are all Palestinians: possible connection between neocons and Pentagon

    [Feb 04, 2019] Trump s Revised and Rereleased Foreign Policy: The World Policeman is Back

    [Aug 09, 2017] Force Multipliers and 21st Century Imperial Warfare Practice and Propaganda by Maximilian C. Forte

    [Aug 08, 2017] The Tale of the Brothers Awan by Philip Giraldi

    [Jul 30, 2017] the Ukrainingate emerging from the evidence on Hillary campaign sounds like a criminal conspiracy of foreign state against Trump

    [Jul 30, 2017] Fascism Is Possible Not in Spite of [neo]Liberal Capitalism, but Because of It by Earchiel Johnson

    [Jul 29, 2017] Ray McGovern The Deep State Assault on Elected Government Must Be Stopped

    [Jul 28, 2017] Perhaps Trump asked Sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions refused?

    [Jul 26, 2017] US Provocation and North Korea Pretext for War with China by James Petras

    [Jul 25, 2017] Oligarchs Succeed! Only the People Suffer! by James Petras

    [Jul 25, 2017] The Coup against Trump and His Military – Wall Street Defense by James Petras

    [Dec 31, 2017] Anti-Populism Ideology of the Ruling Class by James Petras

    [Jul 25, 2017] The Coup against Trump and His Military – Wall Street Defense by James Petras

    [Dec 31, 2017] Anti-Populism Ideology of the Ruling Class by James Petras

    [Jul 25, 2017] Oligarchs Succeed! Only the People Suffer! by James Petras

    [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills

    [Jul 13, 2017] Progressive Democrats Resist and Submit, Retreat and Surrender by James Petras

    [Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary

    [Jul 06, 2017] The Great Power Shift A Russia-China Alliance by Ray McGovern

    [Jul 06, 2017] The Great Power Shift A Russia-China Alliance by Ray McGovern

    [Jul 01, 2017] MUST SEE video explains the entire 17 Intelligence Agencies Russian hacking lie

    [Jun 30, 2017] Elections Absenteeism, Boycotts and the Class Struggle by James Petras

    [Jun 30, 2017] Elections Absenteeism, Boycotts and the Class Struggle by James Petras

    [Jun 26, 2017] The Soft Coup Under Way In Washington by David Stockman

    [Jun 24, 2017] The United States and Iran Two Tracks to Establish Hegemony by James Petras

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Saudi-Qatar spat - the reconciliation offer to be refused>. Qater will move closer to Turkey

    [Jun 17, 2017] The Collapsing Social Contract by Gaius Publius

    [Jun 15, 2017] Comeys Lies of Omission by Mike Whitney

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce

    [Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik

    [Apr 02, 2018] Russophobia Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by A. Tsygankov

    [May 23, 2017] Trumped-up claims against Trump by Ray McGovern

    [May 23, 2017] Are they really out to get Trump by Philip Girald

    [May 21, 2017] What Obsessing About Trump Causes Us To Miss by Andrew Bacevich

    [May 21, 2017] WhateverGate -- The Crazed Quest To Find Some Reason (Any Reason!) To Dump Trump by John Derbyshire

    [May 21, 2017] Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

    [May 20, 2017] Invasion of the Putin-Nazis by C.J. Hopkins

    [Dec 10, 2016] Why the US elite loves so much to demonise Russia

    [May 08, 2017] Karl Polanyi for President by Patrick Iber and Mike Konczal

    [Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue

    [Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue

    [May 03, 2017] Has Pope Francis just cast the first vote in the US presidential race?

    [May 01, 2017] Trump: A Resisters Guide by Wesley Yang

    [Jan 11, 2020] Atomization of workforce as a part of atomization of society under neoliberalism

    [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared!

    [Jan 16, 2017] Gaius Publius Who is Blackmailing the President Why Arent Democrats Upset About It by Gaius Publius,

    [Feb 12, 2018] I am wondering why it is that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing

    [Dec 30, 2018] RussiaGate In Review with Aaron Mate - Unreasoned Fear is Neoliberalism's Response to the Credibility Gap

    [Dec 21, 2019] Trump comes clean from world s policeman to thug running a global protection racket by Finian Cunningham

    [Dec 29, 2018] NATO Partisans Started a New Cold War With Russia -

    [Dec 29, 2018] -Election Meddling- Enters Bizarro World As MSM Ignores Democrat-Linked -Russian Bot- Scheme -

    [Dec 24, 2018] Income inequality happens by design. We cant fix it by tweaking capitalism

    [Dec 22, 2018] We can be actually confident not just that the journalists in the MSM are on the payroll but that the invoices and accounts for their bribes are carefully preserved.

    [Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray

    [Dec 22, 2018] If Truth Cannot Prevail Over Material Agendas We Are Doomed by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Dec 21, 2018] Virtually no one in neoliberal MSM is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this matter

    [Nov 24, 2018] MI6 Scrambling To Stop Trump From Releasing Classified Docs In Russia Probe

    [Dec 16, 2018] The 'Integrity Initiative' - A Military Intelligence Operation, Disguised As Charity, To Create The Russian Threat

    [Dec 16, 2018] Neoliberalism has had its day. So what happens next (The death of neoliberalism and the crisis in western politics) by Martin Jacques

    [Dec 14, 2018] MI6, along with elements of the CIA, was behind the Steele Dossier. Representatives of John Brennan met in London to discus before the go ahead was given

    [Dec 14, 2018] Vetting NYT materials by CIA reflects full-scale cooperation – a virtual merger – between our the government and the neoliberal MSM

    [Dec 14, 2018] The dirty propaganda games NYT play

    [Dec 14, 2018] Neoliberalism has spawned a financial elite who hold governments to ransom by Deborah Orr

    [Dec 10, 2018] One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did

    [Dec 09, 2018] Neoliberalism is more like modern feudalism - an authoritarian system where the lords (bankers, energy companies and their large and inefficient attendant bureaucracies), keep us peasants in thrall through life long debt-slavery simply to buy a house or exploit us as a captured market in the case of the energy sector.

    [Feb 10, 2019] Neoliberalism is dead. Now let's repair our democratic institutions by Richard Denniss

    [Dec 09, 2018] Die Weltwoche Weltwoche Online – www.weltwoche.ch Tucker Carlson Trump is not capable Die Weltwoche, Ausgabe 49-2018

    [Dec 08, 2018] Neocons Sabotage Trump s Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail China

    [Dec 08, 2018] Internet as a perfect tool of inverted totalitarism: it stimulates atomizatin of individuals, creates authomatic 24x7 surveillance over population, suppresses solidarity by exceggerating non-essential differences and allow more insidious brainwashing of the population

    [Dec 08, 2018] Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games

    [Dec 07, 2018] Brexit Theresa May Goes Greek! by Brett Redmayne

    [Dec 05, 2018] Beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May is wailing loudly against a Trump threat to reveal classified documents relating to Russiagate by Philip Giraldi

    [Dec 03, 2018] Neoliberalism is a modern curse. Everything about it is bad and until we're free of it, it will only ever keep trying to turn us into indentured labourers. It's acolytes are required to blind themselves to logic and reason to such a degree they resemble Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses more than people with any sort of coherent political ideology, because that's what neoliberalism actually is... a cult of the rich, for the rich, by the rich... and it's followers in the general population are nothing but moron familiars hoping one day to be made a fully fledged bastard.

    [Dec 02, 2018] Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski Wins 2018 Sam Adams Award by Ray McGovern

    [Dec 02, 2018] Muller investigation has all the appearance of an investigation looking for a crime

    [Dec 01, 2018] Whataboutism charge is a change of a thought crime, a dirty US propaganda trick. In reality truth can be understood only in the historica context

    [Dec 01, 2018] Congress' Screwed-Up Foreign Policy Priorities by Daniel Larison

    [Nov 30, 2018] US Warlords now and at the tome Miill's Poer Elite was published

    [Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders

    [Nov 27, 2018] The political fraud of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal"

    [Nov 27, 2018] American capitalism could afford to make concessions assiciated with The New Deal because of its economic dominance. The past forty years have been characterized by the continued decline of American capitalism on a world stage relative to its major rivals. The ruling class has responded to this crisis with a neoliberal counterrevolution to claw back all gains won by workers. This policy has been carried out under both Democratic and Republican administrations and with the assistance of the trade unions.

    [Nov 27, 2018] US Foreign Policy Has No Policy by Philip Giraldi

    [Nov 27, 2018] terms that carry with them implicit moral connotations. Investment implies an action, even a sacrifice, undertaken for a better future. It evokes a future positive outcome. Another words that reinforces neoliberal rationality is "growth", Modernization and

    [Nov 27, 2018] The Argentinian military coup, like those in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Nicaragua, was sponsored by the US to protect and further its interests during the Cold War. By the 1970s neoliberalism was very much part of the menu; paramilitary governments were actively encouraged to practice neoliberal politics; neoliberalism was at this stage, what communism was to the Soviet Union

    [Nov 25, 2018] Let s recap what Obama s coup in Ukraine has led to shall we?

    [Nov 24, 2018] Anonymous Exposes UK-Led Psyop To Battle Russian Propaganda

    [Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns

    [Nov 24, 2018] When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots psyops, you tend to come up with plots for psyops . The word entrapment comes to mind. Probably self-serving also.

    [Nov 10, 2018] US Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Killed 500,000 by Jason Ditz

    [Nov 23, 2018] Sitting on corruption hill

    [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power

    [Nov 10, 2018] US Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Killed 500,000 by Jason Ditz

    [Nov 07, 2018] America's Vote of No Confidence in Trump by Daniel Larison

    [Nov 14, 2018] Is Orwell overrated and Huxley undertated?

    [Nov 14, 2018] Nationalism vs partiotism

    [Nov 12, 2018] The Democratic Party long ago earned the designation graveyard of social protest movements, and for good reason

    [Nov 12, 2018] The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Nov 12, 2018] Obama s CIA Secretly Intercepted Congressional Communications About Whistleblowers

    [Nov 12, 2018] Protecting Americans from foreign influence, smells with COINTELPRO. Structural witch-hunt effect like during the McCarthy era is designed to supress decent to neoliberal oligarcy by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore

    [Nov 09, 2018] Khashoggi Was No Critic of Saudi Regime

    [Nov 09, 2018] Globalism Vs Nationalism in Trump's America by Joe Quinn

    [Nov 07, 2018] There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard.

    [Sep 09, 2018] DNC Papadopoulos s UK contact may be dead

    [Nov 05, 2018] Bertram Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer

    [Nov 03, 2018] Kunstler The Midterm Endgame Democrats' Perpetual Hysteria

    [Oct 25, 2018] DNC Emails--A Seth Attack Not a Russian Hack by Publius Tacitus

    [Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives

    [Oct 23, 2018] Leaving aside what President Obama knew about Russiagate allegations against Donald Trump and when he knew it, the question arises as to whether these operations were ordered by President Putin and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) or were rogue operations unknown in advance by the leaders and perhaps even directed against them

    [Oct 22, 2018] Cherchez la femme

    [Oct 08, 2018] British intelligence now officially is a by-word for organized crime by John Wight

    [Oct 20, 2018] I am most encouraged by the apparent Putin's realisation that the First Strike is possible now if not even likely. If the Russians expect an attack they are much less likely to be totally surprised, as usual. In fact, never in history was such attack by the West more likely than now, for various reasons which would take a while to explain.

    [Oct 20, 2018] Cloak and Dagger by Israel Shamir

    [Oct 18, 2018] Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Goes Neocon by Robert W. Merry

    [Oct 16, 2018] Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Goes Neocon

    [Oct 09, 2018] NYT Claims Trump Campaign (Almost) Colluded With Israeli Spies

    [Oct 08, 2018] Hacking and Propaganda by Marcus Ranum

    [Oct 04, 2018] Brett Kavanaugh's 'revenge' theory spotlights past with Clintons by Lisa Mascaro

    [Oct 02, 2018] I m puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh?

    [Sep 29, 2018] The Schizophrenic Deep State is a Symptom, Not the Disease by Charles Hugh Smith

    [Sep 29, 2018] Trump Surrenders to the Iron Law of Oligarchy by Dan Sanchez

    [Sep 27, 2018] The power elites goal is to change its appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their expense.

    [Sep 27, 2018] Hiding in Plain Sight Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us

    [Sep 25, 2018] The entire documentary "The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire" by Michael Oswald is worth watching as an introduction to the corruption in the global finance industry.

    [Sep 24, 2018] Given Trumps kneeling to the British Skripal poisoning 'hate russia' hoax I suspect there is no chance he will go after Christopher Steele or any of the senior demoncrat conspirers no matter how much he would love to sucker punch Theresa May and her nasty colleagues.

    [Sep 23, 2018] UK Begged Trump Not To Declassify Russia Docs; Cited Grave Concerns Over Steele Involvement

    [Sep 21, 2018] One party state: Trump's 'Opposition' Supports All His Evil Agendas While Attacking Fake Nonsence by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Sep 16, 2018] Looks like the key players in Steele dossier were CIA assets

    [Sep 16, 2018] Perils of Ineptitude by Andrew Levin

    [Sep 16, 2018] I m delighted we can see the true face of American exceptionalism on display everyday. The last thing I want to see is back to normal.

    [Sep 15, 2018] Why the US Seeks to Hem in Russia, China and Iran by Patrick Lawrence

    [Sep 15, 2018] BBC is skanky state propaganda

    [Sep 14, 2018] European media writing pro-US stories under CIA pressure - German journo

    [Sep 14, 2018] English Translation of Udo Ulfkotte s Bought Journalists Suppressed

    [Sep 14, 2018] The book Journalists for Hire How the CIA Buys the News Dr. Udo Ulfkotte was "privished"

    [Sep 11, 2018] Is Donald Trump Going to Do the Syria Backflip by Publius Tacitus

    [Sep 11, 2018] If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government, explain Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed

    [Sep 07, 2018] New York Times Undermining Peace Efforts by Sowing Suspicion by Diana Johnstone

    [Sep 07, 2018] Sarah Huckabee Sanders has a legitimate request to neoliberal MSM - Stop Bugging Me About The New York Times' Trump Op-Ed

    [Sep 02, 2018] Open letter to President Trump concerning the consequences of 11 September 2001 by Thierry Meyssan

    [Sep 02, 2018] Bill Browder (of Magnitsky fame) broke all these rules while pillaging Russia.

    [Aug 18, 2018] Pentagon Whistleblower Demoted After Exposing Millions Paid To FBI Spy Halper, Clinton Crony

    [May 11, 2019] Christopher Steele, FBI s Confidential Human Source by Publius Tacitus

    [Aug 17, 2018] What if Russiagate is the New WMDs

    [Aug 24, 2018] The priorities of the deep state and its public face the MSM

    [Aug 22, 2018] The US financial sector has manifestly failed at allocating capital properly and is filled with rent seeking by Anatoly Karlin

    [Aug 22, 2018] The CIA Owns the US and European Media by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Aug 22, 2018] Facebook Kills "Inauthentic" Foreign News Accounts - US Propaganda Stays Alive

    [Aug 19, 2018] End of "classic neoliberalism": to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare.

    [Aug 18, 2018] Corporate Media the Enemy of the People by Paul Street

    [Aug 18, 2018] I blame Brennan for MH 17 crash in Ukraine.

    [Aug 17, 2018] What if Russiagate is the New WMDs

    [Aug 14, 2018] I think one of Mueller s deeply embedded character flaw is that once he decides on burying someone he becomes possessed

    [Aug 14, 2018] US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the Inside by Dmitry Orlov

    [Aug 13, 2018] Imperialism Is Alive and Kicking A Marxist Analysis of Neoliberal Capitalism by C.J. Polychroniou

    [Aug 11, 2018] President Trump the most important achivement

    [Aug 10, 2018] On Contact: Casino Capitalism with Natasha Dow Schull

    [Aug 08, 2018] Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography

    [Aug 08, 2018] Neoliberal Newspeak: Notes on the new planetary vulgate by Bourdieu and Wacquant

    [Jul 20, 2018] So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don t question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven t been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax

    [Aug 05, 2018] Cooper was equally as unhinged as Boot: Neoliberal MSM is a real 1984 remake.

    [Aug 05, 2018] How identity politics makes the Left lose its collective identity by Tomasz Pierscionek

    [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer

    [Jul 31, 2018] Is not the Awan affair a grave insult to the US "Intelligence Community?

    [Jul 28, 2018] American Society Would Collapse If It Were not For These 8 Myths by Lee Camp

    [May 24, 2018] Most probably Veselnitskaya was a false flag operation to entrap Trump campaign played by British intelligence

    [Mar 18, 2019] Doublethink and Newspeak Do We Have a Choice by Greg Guma

    [Jul 23, 2018] The Prophecy of Orwell's 1984. Totalitarian Control and the Entertainment Culture that Takes Over by Edward Curtin

    [Jul 23, 2018] Chickens with Their Heads Cut Off, Coming Home to Roost. The "Treason Narrative" by Helen Buyniski

    [Jul 22, 2018] Tucker Carlson SLAMS Intelligence Community On Russia

    [Jul 20, 2018] What exactly is fake news caucus99percent

    [May 29, 2018] Guccifer 2.0's American Fingerprints Reveal An Operation Made In The USA by Elizabeth Lea Vos

    [Mar 08, 2018] Given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence

    [Feb 04, 2018] DNC collusion with Ukrainian IT Security company Crowdstrike tied to the Atlantic Council to push false narrative of DNC hack and malware to influence US election

    [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou

    [Sep 17, 2017] The So-called Russian Hack of the DNC Does Not Make Sense by Publius Tacitus

    [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer

    [Jul 20, 2018] Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace With Russia by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Jul 17, 2018] I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn t hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked.

    [Jul 16, 2018] Putin Claims U.S. Intelligence Agents Funneled $400K To Clinton Campaign Zero Hedge

    [Jul 13, 2018] False flag operation covering DNC leaks now involves Mueller and his team

    [Jul 15, 2018] What Mueller won t find by Bob In Portland

    [Jul 16, 2018] Five Things That Would Make The CIA-CNN Russia Narrative More Believable

    [Jul 16, 2018] Why the Media is Desperate to Reclaim its Gatekeeper Status for News Zero Hedge Zero Hedge

    [Jul 15, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis HILLARY CLINTON S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evide

    [Jul 15, 2018] Peter Strzok Ignored Evidence Of Clinton Server Breach

    [Jul 15, 2018] Something Rotten About the DOJ Indictment of the GRU by Publius Tacitus

    [Jul 15, 2018] As if the Donald did not sanctioned to death the Russians on every possible level. How is this different from Mueller's and comp witch hunt against the Russians?

    [Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions

    [Jul 05, 2018] Britain's Most Censored Stories (Non-Military)

    [Jul 03, 2018] Russia has a lot of information about Lybia that could dig a political grave for Hillary. They did not release it

    [Jul 03, 2018] Musings II The "Intelligence Community," "Russian Interference," and Due Diligence

    [Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions

    [Jun 25, 2018] The review of A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey by Michael J. Thompson

    [Jun 21, 2018] The neoliberal agenda is agreed and enacted by BOTH parties:

    [Jun 19, 2018] How The Last Superpower Was Unchained by Tom Engelhardt

    [Jun 17, 2018] Mattis Putin Is Trying To Undermine America s Moral Authority by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Jun 17, 2018] the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia

    [Jun 17, 2018] The Necessity of a Trump-Putin Summit by Stephen F. Cohen

    [Jun 14, 2018] Problem with US and British MSM control of narrative

    [Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern

    [Jun 06, 2018] Neoliberal language allows to cut wages by packaging neoliberal oligarchy preferences as national interests

    [Jun 13, 2018] Sanction Trump not Bourbon

    [Jun 13, 2018] How False Flag Operations Are Carried Out Today by Philip M. GIRALDI

    [Jun 12, 2018] The real reason for which 'information apocalypse' terrifies the mainstream media

    [Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare

    [Jun 06, 2018] Why Foreign Policy Realism Isn't Enough by William S. Smith

    [May 31, 2018] Journalists and academics expose UK's criminal actions in the Middle East by Julie Hyland

    [May 30, 2018] How Media Amnesia Has Trapped Us in a Neoliberal Groundhog Day

    [May 27, 2018] America's Fifth Column Will Destroy Russia by Paul Craig Roberts

    [May 27, 2018] Northwestern University roundtable discusses regime change in Russia Defend Democracy Press

    [May 24, 2018] The diversion of Russia Gate is a continuation of former diversions such as the Tea Party which was invented by the banksters to turn public anger over the big banking collapse and the resulting recession into a movement to gain more deregulation for tax breaks for the wealthy

    [May 23, 2018] Mueller role as a hatchet man is now firmly established. Rosenstein key role in applointing Mueller without any evidence became also more clear with time. Was he coerced or did it voluntarily is unclear by Lambert Strether

    [May 23, 2018] If the Trump-Russia set up began in spring 2016 or earlier, presumably it was undertaken on the assumption that HRC would win the election. (I say "presumably" because you never can tell..) If so, then the operation would have been an MI6 / Ukrainian / CIA coordinated op intended to frame Putin, not Trump

    [May 22, 2018] Cat fight within the US elite getting more intense

    [May 04, 2018] Media Use Disinformation To Accuse Russia Of Spreading Such by b

    [May 09, 2018] Trotskyist Delusions, by Diana Johnstone

    [May 03, 2018] Mueller's questions to Trump more those of a prosecuting attorney than of an impartial investigator by Alexander Mercouris

    [May 03, 2018] Skripal case British confirm they have no suspect; Yulia Skripal vanishes, no word of Sergey Skripal by Alexander Mercouris

    [May 03, 2018] Despite all the propaganda, all the hysterical headlines, all the blatantly biased coverage, the British haven't bought it

    [May 03, 2018] The 'Libya model' Trump's top bloodthirsty neocon indirectly admits that N. Korea will be invaded and destroyed as soon as it gives up its nukes by system failure

    [Apr 30, 2018] Neoliberalization of the US Democratic Party is irreversible: It is still controlled by Clinton gang even after Hillary debacle

    [Apr 24, 2018] The Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice

    [Apr 27, 2018] A Most Sordid Profession by Fred Reed

    [Apr 24, 2018] Class and how they use words to hide reality

    [Apr 24, 2018] America's Men Without Chests by Paul Grenier

    [Apr 23, 2018] Neoliberals are statists, much like Trotskyites are

    [Apr 21, 2018] Amazingly BBC newsnight just started preparing viewers for the possibility that there was no sarin attack, and the missile strikes might just have been for show

    [Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.

    [Apr 23, 2018] The Tony Blair Rule: The Truth Takes 15 Years to Come Out, Skripal Countdown Starts Now - Simonyan

    [Apr 22, 2018] The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite

    [Apr 21, 2018] On the Criminal Referral of Comey, Clinton et al by Ray McGovern

    [Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.

    [Apr 20, 2018] Stench of hypocrisy British 'war on terror' strategic ties with radical Islam by John Wight

    [Apr 15, 2018] The Trump Regime Is Insane by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Apr 16, 2018] British Propaganda and Disinformation An Imperial and Colonial Tradition by Wayne MADSEN

    [Apr 11, 2018] Female neocon warmongers from Fox look like plastered brick walls – heartless and brainless.

    [Mar 27, 2018] Perfidious Albion The Fatally Wounded British Beast Lashes Out by Barbara Boyd

    [Mar 23, 2018] Skripal Poisoning a Desperate British Attempt To Resurrect Their American Coup by Barbara Boyd

    [Apr 09, 2018] When Military Leaders Have Reckless Disregard for the Truth by Bruce Fein

    [Apr 03, 2018] This Washington Post Headline Is Fake News

    [Apr 02, 2018] Russophobia Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by A. Tsygankov

    [Apr 01, 2018] Big American Money, Not Russia, Put Trump in the White House: Reflections on a Recent Report by Paul Street

    [Apr 01, 2018] Does the average user care if s/he is micro-targetted by political advertisements based on what they already believe?

    [Mar 24, 2018] Assange Suggests British Government Was Involved In Plot To Bring Down Trump by Steve Watson

    [Mar 31, 2018] FBI Director Mueller testified to Congress that Saddam Hussein was responsible for anthrax attack! That was Mueller's role in selling the "intelligence" to invade Iraq.

    [Mar 31, 2018] RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past

    [Mar 31, 2018] RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past

    [Mar 30, 2018] The Death Of The Liberal World Order by Leonid Savin

    [Mar 29, 2018] Giving Up the Ghost of Objective Journalism by Telly Davidson

    [Mar 27, 2018] The Stormy Daniels scandal Political warfare in Washington hits a new low by Patrick Martin

    [Mar 28, 2018] Deep State and False Flag Attacks

    [Mar 27, 2018] Indian Punchline - Reflections on foreign affairs by M K Bhadrakumar

    [Mar 27, 2018] Let's Investigate John Brennan, by Philip Giraldi

    [Mar 25, 2018] A truly historical month for the future of our planet by The Saker

    [Mar 25, 2018] Cambridge Analytica Scandal Rockets to Watergate Proportions and Beyond by Adam Garrie

    [Mar 24, 2018] Why the UK, the EU and the US Gang-Up on Russia by James Petras

    [Mar 24, 2018] Did Trump cut a deal on the collusion charge by Mike Whitney

    [Mar 23, 2018] Inglorious end of career of neocon McMaster

    [Mar 22, 2018] If it's correct, the Brits made a very nasty error that shows the true nature of their establishment.

    [Mar 22, 2018] Military at CNN

    [Mar 22, 2018] Vladimir Putin: nonsense to think Russia would poison spy in UK

    [Mar 21, 2018] Former CIA Chief Brennan Running Scared by Ray McGovern

    [Mar 13, 2018] The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party by Patrick Martin

    [Mar 21, 2018] Washington's Invasion of Iraq at Fifteen

    [Mar 21, 2018] Whataboutism Is A Nonsensical Propaganda Term Used To Defend The Failed Status Quo by Mike Krieger

    [Feb 07, 2020] How They Sold the Iraq War by Jeffrey St. Clair

    [Mar 18, 2018] Powerful intelligence agencies are incompatible with any forms of democracy including the democracy for top one precent. The only possible form of government in this situation is inverted totalitarism

    [Mar 16, 2018] Corbyn Calls for Evidence in Escalating Poison Row

    [Mar 16, 2018] NATO to display common front in Skripal case

    [Mar 16, 2018] The French philosopher Alain Soral is quite right when he says that modern "journalists are either unemployed or prostitutes"

    [Mar 16, 2018] Are We Living Under a Military Coup ?

    [Mar 16, 2018] Will the State Department Become a Subsidiary of the CIA

    [Mar 15, 2018] The UK will promptly expel 23 Russian diplomats without waiting for the end of the investigation

    [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus

    [Mar 14, 2018] Russian UN anvoy> alleged the Salisbury attack was a false-flag attack, possibly by the UK itself, intended to harm Russia s reputation by Julian Borger

    [Mar 14, 2018] UNSC holds urgent meeting over Salisbury attack

    [Mar 14, 2018] Jefferson Morley on the CIA and Mossad Tradeoffs in the Formation of the US-Israel Strategic Relationship

    [Mar 12, 2018] There is no democracy without economic democracy by Jason Hirthler

    [Mar 12, 2018] Colonizing the Western Mind using think tanks

    [Mar 12, 2018] State Department's War on Political Dissent

    [Mar 10, 2018] Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko s death.

    [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this

    [Mar 11, 2018] Washington s Century-long War on Russia by Mike Whitney

    [Mar 11, 2018] Reality Check: The Guardian Restarts Push for Regime Change in Russia by Kit

    [Mar 11, 2018] I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian

    [Mar 10, 2018] Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in Obama policy and HRC campaign long before any Steele s Dossier. This was a program ofunleashing cold War II

    [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this

    [Mar 08, 2018] We don t have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn t found it yet! is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there s that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found

    [Mar 08, 2018] In recent years, there has been ample evidence that US policy-makers and, equally important, mainstream media commentators do not bother to read what Putin says, or at least not more than snatches from click-bait wire-service reports.

    [Mar 08, 2018] A key piece of evidence pointing to 'Guccifer 2.0' being a fake personality created by the conspirators in their attempt to disguise the fact that the materials from the DNC published by 'WikiLeaks' were obtained by a leak rather than a hack had to do with the involvement of the former GCHQ person Matt Tait.

    [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus

    [Mar 06, 2018] Is MSNBC Now the Most Dangerous Warmonger Network by Norman Solomon

    [Mar 06, 2018] The U.S. Returns to 'Great Power Competition,' With a Dangerous New Edge

    [Mar 06, 2018] The current anti-Russian sentiment in the West as hysterical. But this hysteria is concentrated at the top level of media elite and neocons. Behind it is no deep sense of unity or national resolve. In fact we see the reverse - most Western countries are deeply divided within themselves due to the crisis of neolineralism.

    [Mar 04, 2018] Generals who now are running the USA foreign policy represents a great danger. These men seem incapable of rising above the Russophobia that grew in the atmosphere of the Cold War. They yearn for world hegemony for the US and to see Russia and to a lesser extent China and Iran as obstacles to that dominion for the "city on a hill

    [Mar 03, 2018] Top NYT Editor 'We NYT supports and follows the "national security" line (whatever that means)

    [Mar 02, 2018] The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united against Trump might be that they're terrified that -- unlike Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for the US led neoliberal empire. This threatens the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train

    [Mar 02, 2018] Fatal Delusions of Western Man by Pat Buchanan

    [Mar 02, 2018] Contradictions In Seth Rich Murder Continue To Challenge Hacking Narrative

    [Feb 28, 2018] Perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others is a new tool of justice in a surveillance state

    [Feb 26, 2018] Democrat Memo Lays Egg by Publius Tacitus

    [Feb 26, 2018] Why one war when we can heve two! by Eric Margolis

    [Feb 25, 2018] Democracies are political systems in which the real ruling elites hide behind an utterly fake appearance of people power

    [Feb 25, 2018] Russia would not do anything nearing the level of self-harm inflicted by the US elites.

    [Apr 17, 2019] Deep State and the FBI Federal Blackmail Investigation

    [Feb 23, 2018] NSA Genius Debunks Russiagate Once For All

    [Feb 22, 2018] Bill Binney explodes the rile of 17 agances security assessment memo in launching the Russia witch-hunt

    [Feb 20, 2018] For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia

    [Feb 20, 2018] Russophobia is a futile bid to conceal US, European demise by Finian Cunningham

    [Feb 19, 2018] Nunes FBI and DOJ Perps Could Be Put on Trial by Ray McGovern

    [Feb 19, 2018] The Russiagate Intelligence Wars What We Do and Don't Know

    [Feb 19, 2018] Russian Meddling Was a Drop in an Ocean of American-made Discord by AMANDA TAUB and MAX FISHER

    [Feb 18, 2018] This dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia is extremely lucrative for the war profiteers, the retired generals intelligence members who prostitute themselves as media pundits, the members of Congress who get $$$ from the war profiteers, and the corporate media which thrives on links to the war profiteers as well as on war reporting

    [Feb 16, 2018] A Dangerous Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy

    [Feb 16, 2018] The Deep Staters care first and foremost about themselves.

    [Feb 15, 2018] Trump's War on the Deep State by Conrad Black

    [Feb 14, 2018] Recused Judge in Flynn Prosecution Served on FISA Court

    [Feb 14, 2018] The Anti-Trump Coup by Michael S. Rozeff

    [Feb 14, 2018] A Russian Trump by Israel Shamir

    [Feb 12, 2018] The Age of Lunacy: The Doomsday Machine

    [Feb 12, 2018] Too many sport disciplines, too much cheating, too much money and too many politics involved in the Olympic

    [Feb 12, 2018] Ike's Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex Is Alive and Very Well by William J. Astore

    [Feb 11, 2018] How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war

    [Feb 10, 2018] The generals are not Borgists. They are something worse ...

    [Feb 10, 2018] More on neoliberal newspeak of US propaganda machine

    [Feb 09, 2018] Professor Stephen F. Cohen Rethinking Putin – A critical reading, by The Saker - The Unz Review

    [Feb 08, 2018] Control of narrative means that creation of the simplistic picture in which the complexities of the world are elided in favor of 'good guys' vs. 'bad guys' dichotomy

    [Jan 22, 2018] The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear compromised

    [Jan 30, 2018] Washington Reaches New Heights of Insanity with the "Kremlin Report" by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Jan 30, 2018] The Unseen Wars of America the Empire The American Conservative

    [Jan 28, 2018] Russiagate Isn t About Trump, And It Isn t Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone

    [Jan 28, 2018] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Russiagate Isn't About Trump, And It Isn't Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone

    [Jan 27, 2018] The Rich Also Cry by Israel Shamir

    [Jan 27, 2018] As of January 2018 Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, is starting to look like something Trump should have done sooner.

    [Jan 27, 2018] In a Trump Hunt, Beware the Perjury Trap by Pat Buchanan

    [Jan 27, 2018] Mainstream Media and Imperial Power

    [Jan 26, 2018] Warns The Russiagate Stakes Are Extreme by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Jan 25, 2018] Russiagate as Kafka 2.0

    [Jan 24, 2018] Whistleblower Confirms Secret Society Meetings Between FBI And DOJ To Undermine Trump

    [Jan 24, 2018] Brazen Plot To Exonerate Hillary Clinton And Frame Trump Unraveling, Says Former Fed Prosecutor

    [Jan 22, 2018] Pentagon Unveils Strategy for Military Confrontation With Russia and China by Bill Van Auken

    [Jan 22, 2018] Clapper may have been the one behind using British intelligence to spy on Trump.

    [Jan 22, 2018] The Associated Press is reporting that the Department of Justice has given congressional investigators additional text messages between FBI investigator Peter Strzok and his girlfriend Lisa Page. The FBI also told investigators that five months worth of text messages, between December 2016 and May 2017, are unavailable because of a technical glitch

    [Jan 22, 2018] How Michael Wolff duped the White House into giving him access to Trump's aides by Allahpundit

    [Jan 22, 2018] EPIC: CNN Host GOES OFF On Anti-Trump Michael Wolff for what he did on Live Tv

    [Jan 20, 2018] What Is The Democratic Party ? by Lambert Strether

    [Jan 19, 2018] #ReleaseTheMemo Extensive FISA abuse memo could destroy the entire Mueller Russia investigation by Alex Christoforou

    [Jan 19, 2018] No Foreign Bases Challenging the Footprint of US Empire by Kevin B. Zeese and Margaret Flowers

    [Jan 17, 2018] Neoconning the Trump White House by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

    [Jan 16, 2018] The Russia Explainer

    [Jan 15, 2018] CIA had an agent at a newspaper in every world capital at least since 1977

    [Jan 14, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis The Trump Dossier Timeline, A Democrat Disaster Looming by Publius Tacitus

    [May 11, 2019] Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart -- Say Hello to Fancy Bear

    [Jan 13, 2018] The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate by Ray McGovern

    [Jan 08, 2018] Someone Spoofed Michael Wolff s Book About Trump And It s Comedy Gold

    [Jan 06, 2018] Russia-gate Breeds Establishment McCarthyism by Robert Parry

    [May 11, 2019] Doug Ross @ Journal A TIMELINE OF TREASON How the DNC and FBI Leadership Tried to Fix a Presidential Election [Updated]

    [Jan 01, 2018] British Intervention into 2016 U.S. Election

    [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater

    [Nov 29, 2019] Where s the Collusion

    [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

    [Jan 02, 2018] The Still-Missing Evidence of Russia-gate by Dennis J. Bernstein

    [Jan 02, 2018] Some investigators ask a sensible question: "It is likely that all the Russians involved in the attempt to influence the 2016 election were lying, scheming, Kremlin-linked, Putin-backed enemies of America except the Russians who talked to Christopher Steele?"

    [Jan 02, 2018] Neocon warmongers should be treated as rapists by Andrew J. Bacevich

    [Jan 02, 2018] What We Don t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking by Jackson Lears

    [Jan 02, 2018] Jill Stein in the Cross-hairs by Mike Whitney

    [Jan 02, 2018] Who Is the Real Enemy by Philip Giraldi

    [Jan 02, 2018] American exceptionalism extracts a price from common citizens

    [Jan 02, 2018] The Idolatry of the Donald

    [Dec 31, 2017] Brainwashing as a key component of the US social system by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Dec 28, 2019] Senior OPCW Official Busted Leaked Email Exposes Orders To Delete All Traces Of Dissent On Douma

    [Dec 22, 2019] So US intelligence tipped off the DNC that their emails were about to be leaked to Wikileaks. That's when the stratagem of attributing the impending Wikileaks release to a Russian hack was born -- distracting from the incriminating content of the emails, while vilifying the Deep State's favorite enemies, Assange and Russia, all in one neat scam

    [Dec 21, 2019] Trump administration sanction companies involved in laying the remaining pipe, and also companies involved in the infrastructure around the arrival point.

    [Dec 21, 2019] Lessons of the past: all changed in 1999 with the war in Kosovo. For the first time I witnessed shocking images of civilian targets being bombed, TV stations, trains, bridges. The NATO spokesman boasted of hundreds of Serbian tanks being destroyed. There was something new and disturbing about his manner, language and tone, something I'd not encountered from coverage of previous conflicts. For the first time I found myself not believing one word of the narrative

    [Dec 21, 2019] Trump comes clean from world s policeman to thug running a global protection racket by Finian Cunningham

    [Dec 21, 2019] Time to Terminate Washington's Defense Welfare

    [Dec 21, 2019] The Pentagon s New Map War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century

    [Dec 21, 2019] We are all Palestinians: possible connection between neocons and Pentagon

    [Dec 21, 2019] The ruthless neo-colonialists of 21st century

    [Dec 21, 2019] The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives

    [Dec 20, 2019] Did John Brennan's CIA Create Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks by Larry C Johnson

    [Dec 20, 2019] Singer became notorious for what he did to Argentina after he bought their debt, and he is pretty upfront about not caring who objects by Andrew Joyce

    [Dec 20, 2019] NSA Whistleblower: "Mueller Report based on fabricated evidence" Former NSA technical chief, Bill Binney, says it looked like the CIA did this, and made it look like the Russians were doing the hack to implicate Russians by Eric Zuesse

    [Dec 20, 2019] Intelligence community has become a self licking ice cream cone

    [Dec 20, 2019] The purpose of manufactured hysteria in the US is to obfuscate the issues important to the Deep State like destroying the first amendment, renewing the 'Patriot' act, extremely increasing the war/hegemony budget, etc

    [Dec 19, 2019] MIC lobbyism (which often is presented as patriotism) is the last refuge of scoundrels

    [Dec 19, 2019] A the core of color revolution against Trump is Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine

    [Dec 19, 2019] Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials, often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and incipient tyranny.

    [Dec 17, 2019] Neocons like car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking credibility because ther profession is to lie in order to sell weapons to the publin, much like used car saleme lie to sell cars

    [Dec 17, 2019] Judge Denies Flynn's Requests For Exculpatory Information, Case Dismissal by Peter Svab

    [Dec 17, 2019] History Doesn t Repeat, But It Often Rhymes: Wilson in UK was subjected to the similar attack by rogue elements in MI5 as Trump in the USA

    [Dec 15, 2019] The infinity war - The Washington Post by Samuel Moyn, Stephen Wertheim

    [Dec 14, 2019] Full Interview: Barr Criticizes Inspector General Report On The Russia Investigation

    [Dec 10, 2019] The level of Neo-McCarthyism and the number of lunitics this NYT forums is just astonishing: When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected.

    [Dec 07, 2019] Why the foreign policy establishment consensus is neocon by default.

    [Dec 07, 2019] Impeachment does not require a crime.

    [Dec 06, 2019] Who Is Making US Foreign Policy by Stephen F. Cohen

    [Dec 04, 2019] The central question of Ukrainegate is whether CrowdStrike actions on DNC leak were a false flag operation designed to open Russiagate and what was the level of participation of Poroshenko government and Ukrainian Security services in this false flag operation by Factotum

    [Dec 04, 2019] Common Funding Themes Link 'Whistleblower' Complaint and CrowdStrike Firm Certifying DNC Russia 'Hack' by Aaron Klein

    [Dec 04, 2019] DNC Russian Hackers Found! You Won't Believe Who They Really Work For by the Anonymous Patriots

    [Dec 04, 2019] June 4th, 2017 Crowdstrike Was at the DNC Six Weeks by George Webb

    [Dec 04, 2019] Cyberanalyst George Eliason Claims that the "Fancy Bear" Who Hacked the DNC Server is Ukrainian Intelligence – In League with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike

    [Dec 04, 2019] Fancy Bear - Conservapedia

    [Dec 04, 2019] June 2nd, 2018 Alperovich's DNC Cover Stories Soon To Match With His Hacking Teams by George Webb

    [Dec 04, 2019] America's War Exceptionalism Is Killing the Planet by William Astore

    [Dec 02, 2019] A Think Tank Dedicated to Peace and Restraint

    [Dec 02, 2019] The Fake Myth of American Meritocracy by Barbara Boland

    [Dec 01, 2019] Academic Conformism is the road to 1984. - Sic Semper Tyrannis

    [Dec 01, 2019] Neoliberalism Tells Us We're Selfish Souls How Can We Promote Other Identities by Christine Berry,

    [Nov 30, 2019] CrowdStrike: a Conspiracy Wrapped in a Conspiracy Inside a Conspiracy by Oleg Atbashian

    [Nov 29, 2019] Where s the Collusion

    [Nov 28, 2019] WSJ story reopens the claim Comey had a report there was an email exchange between Loretta Lynch and Clinton claiming Lynch promised her the DOJ would go easy on Clinton.

    [Nov 27, 2019] Could your county use some extra money?

    [Nov 24, 2019] Mark Blyth - Global Trumpism and the Future of the Global Economy

    [Nov 24, 2019] Despair is a very powerful factor in the resurgence of far right forces. Far right populism probably will be the decisive factor in 2020 elections.

    [Nov 24, 2019] Chris Hedges on Death of the Liberal Class - YouTube

    [Nov 21, 2019] How Neoliberal Thinkers Spawned Monsters They Never Imagined

    [Nov 21, 2019] The deep state is individuals INSIDE the government that do the bidding of the banksters, the military-industrial complex, the globalists and other nefarious interests

    [Nov 13, 2019] Understanding What Sidney Powell is Doing to Kill the Case Against Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson

    [Nov 08, 2019] Charlie Kirk and Kochsucker Conservatism E. Michael Jones

    [Nov 07, 2019] Rigged Again Dems, Russia, The Delegitimization Of America s Democratic Process by Elizabeth Vos

    [Nov 03, 2019] How Controlling Syria s Oil Serves Washington s Strategic Objectives by Nauman Sadiq

    [Nov 03, 2019] Growing Indicators of Brennan's CIA Trump Task Force by Larry C Johnson - Sic Semper Tyrannis

    [Nov 02, 2019] WATCH Udo Ulfkotte – Bought Journalists by Terje Maloy

    [Nov 01, 2019] Viable Opposition The Legal Connection Between Washington and Kiev

    [Nov 01, 2019] Color revolution is a method of using a minority to render the country ungovernble, waving a simplistic banner against corruption and for (undefined) democracy, which leaves the masses unorganized and eschews even a platform, in favor of a secret coterie run by intelligence againces

    [Oct 28, 2019] National Neolibralism destroyed the World Trade Organisation by John Quiggin

    [Oct 26, 2019] The Plundering of Ukraine by Corrupt American Democrats by Israel Shamir

    [Oct 25, 2019] Trump-Haters, Not Trump, Are The Ones Wrecking America s Institutions, WSJ s Strassel Says

    [Oct 24, 2019] Joltin' Jack Keane wants your kids to fight Russia and Syria over Syrian oil by Colonel Patrick Lang

    [Oct 23, 2019] The treason of the intellectuals The Undoing of Thought by Roger Kimball

    [Oct 23, 2019] Neoconservatism Is An Omnicidal Death Cult, And It Must Be Stopped by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Oct 23, 2019] The Pathocracy Of The Deep State Tyranny At The Hands Of A Psychopathic Government

    [Oct 20, 2019] How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt politics? The short answer is NATO expansion

    [Oct 20, 2019] Adam Schiff now the face of the neoliberal Dems for 2020.

    [Oct 20, 2019] Putin sarcastic remark on Western neoliberal multiculturalism

    [Oct 19, 2019] Russian agents under every bed

    [Oct 19, 2019] Kunstler One Big Reason Why America Is Driving Itself Bat$hit Crazy

    [Oct 10, 2019] There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect: he is a war criminal, who escaped justice

    [Oct 09, 2019] Ukrainegate as the textbook example of how the neoliberal elite manipulates the MSM and the narrative for purposes of misdirecting attention and perception of their true intentions and objectives -- distracting the electorate from real issues

    [Oct 09, 2019] George Orwell assumes that if such societies as he describes in Nineteen Eighty-Four come into being there will be several super states. These super states will naturally be in opposition to each other or (a novel point) will pretend to be much more in opposition than in fact they are

    [Oct 05, 2019] Everything is fake in the current neoliberal discourse, be it political or economic, and it is not that easy to understand how they are deceiving us. Lies that are so sophisticated that often it is impossible to tell they are actually lies, not facts

    [Sep 30, 2019] Stephen Miller calls whistleblower a 'partisan hit job' in fiery interview

    [Sep 29, 2019] This Man Stopped a Runaway Impeachment by Barbara Boland

    [Sep 23, 2019] Apparently now that the notion Russia interfered in the US presidential election to tip the vote to Trump has become an article of faith that much of the world regards as established fact

    [Sep 22, 2019] More Americans Questioning Official 9-11 Story As New Evidence Contradicts Official Narrative by Whitney Webb

    [Sep 22, 2019] US reconnaissance plane operated drones that attacked Hmeymim

    [Sep 22, 2019] Shoigu calls US belief in its superiority the major threat to Russia and other states

    [Sep 22, 2019] It was neoliberalism that won the cold war

    [Sep 20, 2019] Trump Whistleblower Drama Puts Biden In The Hot Seat Over Ukraine

    [Sep 19, 2019] The progressive movement, in its political manifestations, was essentially a revolt of the middle classes

    [Sep 18, 2019] To End Endless Wars, We Must Give Up Hegemony by Daniel Larison

    [Sep 17, 2019] The Devolution of US-Russia Relations by Tony Kevin

    [Sep 17, 2019] The reincarnation of the idea of Soviet Nomenklatura on a new level in a different social system

    [Sep 15, 2019] How the UK Security Services neutralised the country s leading liberal newspaper by Matt Kennard and Mark Curtis

    [Sep 15, 2019] Neoliberal version of oligarchy of priests and monks whose task it was to propitiate heaven

    [Sep 15, 2019] Demythologizing the Roots of the New Cold War by Ted Snider

    [Sep 12, 2019] The Brain-Dead Maximalism of [neocon] Hard-liners by Daniel Larison

    [Sep 11, 2019] John Brennan's and Jim Clappers' Last Gasp by Larry C Johnson

    [Sep 11, 2019] Video Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 The Bamboozle Has Captured Us

    [Sep 10, 2019] Being called a narcissist by Jim Comey is akin to being accused of having sex with underage girls by the late Jeffrey Epstein by Larry C Johnsons

    [Sep 10, 2019] The idea tha the USA won the Cold War is questionable

    [Sep 10, 2019] It s all about Gene Sharp and seeping neoliberal regime change using Western logistical support, money, NGO and intelligence agencies and MSM as the leverage

    [Sep 03, 2019] Russiagate as crocodile tears of western propaganda

    [Sep 02, 2019] Where is Margaret Thatcher now?

    [Sep 02, 2019] Questions Nobody Is Asking About Jeffrey Epstein by Eric Rasmusen

    [Sep 02, 2019] Is it Cynical to Believe the System is Corrupt by Bill Black

    [Aug 27, 2019] House Niggers Mutiny by Israel Shamir

    [Aug 24, 2019] Peace plan for eastern Ukraine As divisive as the causes of the war by Fred Weir

    [Aug 24, 2019] George Kennan on Russia Insights and Recommendations

    [Aug 23, 2019] Spygate The Inside Story Behind the Alleged Plot to Take Down Trump by Jeff Carlson

    [Aug 21, 2019] Solomon If Trump Declassifies These 10 Documents, Democrats Are Doomed

    [Aug 20, 2019] Propagandists Freak Out Over Gabbard s Destruction of Harris by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Aug 20, 2019] Trump is about the agony. The agony of the US centered global neoliberal empire.

    [Aug 18, 2019] IV- MICHELS: THE IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY by Dr. Mustafa Delican

    [Aug 17, 2019] Debunking the Putin Panic by Stephen F. Cohen

    [Aug 17, 2019] Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome (PTDS)

    [Aug 16, 2019] Ministry of truth materialized in XXI century in a neoliberal way by Kit Knightly

    [Aug 16, 2019] Lapdogs for the Government and intelligence agencies by Greg Maybury

    [Aug 14, 2019] Charge of anti-Semitism as a sign of a bitter factional struggle in UK Labor Party between neoliberal and alternatives to neoliberalism wings

    [Aug 14, 2019] The Citadels of America s Elites Fractured and At Odds with Each Other by Alastair Crooke

    [Aug 14, 2019] There is little chance that Western elites will behave any differently than a street corner drug dealer

    [Aug 12, 2019] New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has called Epstein's death "way too convenient."

    [Aug 12, 2019] Russiagate is the idea around which varied interests can be organized

    [Aug 11, 2019] One weak spot of the conspiracy theory that Epstein was killed: Why not terminate him overseas before his return? No mess, no fuss

    [Aug 04, 2019] Neoliberalism Political Success, Economic Failure

    [Aug 03, 2019] And this is a world superpower: There are an estimated 26.5 million adults at level 1 according to PIAAC -- those who can read and write at the most basic level but couldn t read a newspaper or would have trouble filling out forms at a doctor s office.

    [Jul 30, 2019] The main task of Democratic Party is preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left and killing such social movements

    [Jul 29, 2019] Peace in Ukraine by Stephen F. Cohen

    [Jul 29, 2019] Looks like Epstein turned informant for Mueller s FBI in 2008. Likely earlier

    [Jul 29, 2019] American Ron Unz on Pizzagate

    [Jul 29, 2019] The hidden control mechanism of what the late Paul A. Samuelson called our "democratic oligarchy".

    [Jul 29, 2019] The Real Reason The Propagandists Have Been Promoting Russia Hysteria by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Jul 28, 2019] Mueller Crumbles Under Questioning by Barbara Boland

    [Jul 28, 2019] Antisemitism prejudices projection on Russians

    [Jul 27, 2019] Russia interfered on a massive scale ($3,684 was spends on ads on which $1932 on promoting Trump) and is doing it again as we sit here! Just how massive? They spent $100,000 on clickbait ads from a company owned by a man who was in a photo with the evil mastermind!

    [Jul 27, 2019] Understanding the Roots of the Obama Coup Against Trump by Larry C Johnson

    [Jul 26, 2019] Tucker What should happen to those who lied about Russian collusion

    [Jul 26, 2019] Tucker: Democrats believed Mueller would save America

    [Jul 25, 2019] The destiny of the USA is now tied to the destiny of neoliberalism (much like the USSR and Bolshevism)

    [Jul 25, 2019] Dems ratpack of reparations freaks, weird sexual curiosities, and race hustlers is actually a fifth column for Trump re-election by Fred Reed

    [Jul 25, 2019] The Epstein Case Is A Rare Opportunity To Focus On The Depraved Nature Of America s Elite

    [Jul 23, 2019] John Helmer MH17 Evidence Tampering Revealed by Malaysia – FBI Attempt To Seize Black Boxes; Dutch Cover-Up of Forged Telephon

    [Jul 23, 2019] Not The Onion: NY Times Urges Trump To Establish Closer Ties With Moscow

    [Jul 23, 2019] Ukraine Election - Voters Defeat Second Color Revolution

    [Jul 21, 2019] Breaking: Clinton Just Got Devastating News

    [Jul 14, 2019] MODELS OF POWER STRUCTURE IN THE UNITED STATES Political Issues We Concern

    [Jul 13, 2019] Mueller Does Not Have Evidence That The IRA Was Part of Russian Government Meddling by Larry C Johnson

    [Jul 12, 2019] Nine Consequences of the Upcoming US-China Trade War by Renaud Anjoran

    [Feb 07, 2020] The corporate mass media excels at manufacturing "real fear or anguish".

    [Jul 09, 2019] Spying for Israel is Consequence Free by Philip Giraldi

    [Jul 09, 2019] Ex-FBI, CIA Officials Draw Withering Fire on Russiagate by Ray McGovern

    [Jul 06, 2019] Why is Iran such a high priority for US elite? Because Iran successfully booted out the CIA and CIA-imposed regime out of their country and successfully remained independent since then

    [Jul 06, 2019] Mueller Report Gets the Trump Tower Meeting Wrong; Promotes Browder Hoax by Lucy Komisar

    [Jul 05, 2019] Who Won the Debate? Tulsi Gabbard let the anti-war genie out of the bottle by Philip Giraldi

    [Jul 05, 2019] Globalisation- the rise and fall of an idea that swept the world - World news by Nikil Saval

    [Jul 05, 2019] The UK public finally realized that the Globalist/Open Frontiers/ Neoliberal crowd are not their friends

    [Jul 05, 2019] The World Bank and IMF 2019 by Michael Hudson and Bonnie Faulkner

    [Jun 30, 2019] Orwell s 1984 No Longer Reads Like Fiction It s The Reality Of Our Times by Robert Bridge

    [Jun 30, 2019] USG's Bizarre Change of Position in the Roger Stone Case by Larry C Johnson

    [Jun 29, 2019] Latest Weapon Of US Imperialism Liquified Natural Gas

    [May 11, 2019] Just worth noting that in the hand-written notes taken by Bruce Ohr after meetings with Chris Steele, there is the comment that the majority of the Steele Dossier was obtained from an expat Russian living in the US, and not from actual Russian sources in Russia

    [May 11, 2019] Crowdstrike planted the malware on DNC systems, which they discovered later discovered and attributed to Russians later

    [May 11, 2019] Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart -- Say Hello to Fancy Bear

    [May 10, 2019] Mueller Report - Expensive Estimations And Elusive Evidence by Adam Carter

    [May 02, 2019] Neoliberalism and the Globalization of War. America s Hegemonic Project by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

    [Apr 20, 2019] Trump has certainly made the world safer

    [Apr 15, 2019] War is the force that gives America its meaning.

    [Apr 15, 2019] I wonder if the Middle East is nothing more than a live-fire laboratory for the military

    [Mar 29, 2019] Trumps billionaire coup détat: Donald Trump is about to break the record of withdrawing his promises faster than any other US president in history

    [Jun 28, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard vs Bolton

    [Jun 27, 2019] Western News Agencies Mistranslate Iran's President Speech - It Is Not The First Time Such 'Error' Happens

    [Jun 27, 2019] The Ongoing Restructuring of the Greater Middle East by C.J. Hopkins

    [Jun 26, 2019] Pompeo is a MIC lobbyist, not a diplomat

    [Jun 26, 2019] Opinion - NY Times admits it sends stories to US government for approval before publication

    [Jun 26, 2019] The first rule of political hypocrisy: Justify your actions by the need to protect the weak and vulnerable

    [Jun 25, 2019] Tucker US came within minutes of war with Iran

    [Jun 23, 2019] It never stops to amaze me how the US neoliberals especially of Republican variety claims to be Christian

    [Jun 23, 2019] These submerged policies obscure the role of government and exaggerate that of the market. As a result, citizens are unaware not only of the benefits they receive, but of the massive advantages given to powerful interests, such as insurance companies and the financial industry.

    [Jun 23, 2019] The return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a radicalized form of neoliberalism

    [Jun 22, 2019] A new policy issued by the United States Department of Defense, in conjunction with online platforms like Twitter and Facebook, will automatically enlist you to New Departement of Defence rule: Internet Users Who Call For Attacking Other Countries Will Now Be Enlisted In The Military Automatically

    [Jun 22, 2019] Chuck Schumer 'The American People Deserve A President Who Can More Credibly Justify War With Iran'

    [Jun 22, 2019] Bolton Calls For Forceful Iranian Response To Continuing US Aggression

    [Jun 22, 2019] Use of science by the US politicians

    [Jun 22, 2019] Fake news are the only news worth reading and that's why Bolton in Onion sounds more realistic then in real life

    [Jun 22, 2019] Why The Empire Is Failing The Horrid Hubris Of The Albright Doctrine by Doug Bandow

    [Jun 21, 2019] America's Confrontation With Iran Goes Deeper Than Trump by Trita Parsi

    [Jun 21, 2019] Russia accuses U.S. of pushing Iran situation to brink of war RIA - Reuters

    [Jun 20, 2019] The difference between old and new schools of jounalism: old-school journalism was like being assigned the task of finding out what "1+1 =?" and the task was to report the answer was "1." Now the task would be to report that "Some say it is 1, some say it is 2, some say it is 3."

    [Jun 19, 2019] Investigation Nation Mueller, Russiagate, and Fake Politics by Jim Kavanagh

    [Jun 19, 2019] Bias bias the inclination to accuse people of bias by James Thompson

    [Jun 16, 2019] Rule of law in Murrika is kaput

    [Jun 14, 2019] Comments on Yasha Levin article: With Russiagate, we Soviet immigrants were finally forced to reckon with the bigotry of America's elite

    [Jun 11, 2019] The Omnipresent Surveillance State: Orwell s 1984 Is No Longer Fiction by John W. Whitehead

    [Jun 11, 2019] A Word From Joe the Angry Hawaiian

    [Jun 09, 2019] The looming 100-year US-China conflict by Martin Wolf

    [Jun 05, 2019] Do Spies Run the World by Israel Shamir

    [Jun 05, 2019] Taking a long view it was very astute and cleverly conceived plan to to present counter-revolution as revolution; progress as regress; the new order 1980- (i.e., neoliberalism) was cool, and the old order 1945-1975 (welfare-capitalism) was fuddy-duddy.

    [Jun 02, 2019] Somer highlights of Snowden spreach at Dalhousie University

    [Jun 01, 2019] How Did Russiagate Begin by Stephen F. Cohen

    [May 31, 2019] US energy department rebrands fossil fuels as 'molecules of freedom'...and this is in The Guardian and not The Onion

    [May 31, 2019] Mahathir bin Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia, in an interview with FCCJ (Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan) stated that he did not believe in Russia's involvement in the crash of the Boeing MH17

    [May 30, 2019] Whatever you may think of Trump, the people who set out to 'get him' are the scum of the Earth

    [May 29, 2019] With Russiagate, we Soviet immigrants were finally forced to reckon with the bigotry of America's elite by Yasha Levine

    [May 28, 2019] Any time you read an article (or a comment) on Russia, substitute the word Jew for Russian and International Jewry for Russia and re-read.

    [May 27, 2019] The Campaign to Paint Trump as a Russian Stooge Started on May 4, 2016 by Larry C Johnson

    [May 22, 2019] NATO has pushed eastward right up to its borders and threatened to incorporate regions that have been part of Russia's sphere of influence -- and its defense perimeter -- for centuries

    [May 20, 2019] "Us" Versus "Them"

    [May 20, 2019] The dirty art of politicians entrapment: Blackmail, smear campaigns, various traps via honey or corruption, hookers, gay sex, pedophilia, or what-have-you, all or in combination

    [May 19, 2019] Some Shocking Facts on the Concentration of Ownership of the US Economy

    [May 19, 2019] How Russiagate replaced Analysis of the 2016 Election by Rick Sterling

    [May 19, 2019] Intel agencies of the UK and US are guilty of fabricating evidence, breaking the laws (certainly of the targeted countries, but also of the UK and US), providing fake analysis and operating as evil actors on the dark side of humanity

    [May 16, 2019] The Disinformationists by C.J. Hopkins

    [May 15, 2019] Russia-gate s Monstrous Offspring

    [May 15, 2019] Barr s Investigator John Durham Once Probed Mueller In A Shocking Case

    [May 15, 2019] The Australien Government has made an ad about Preferential Voting, and it s surprisingly honest and informative.

    [May 14, 2019] Trump desperately needs a trade deal with China as he gears up for his re-election bid in 2020.

    [May 14, 2019] The Propaganda Multiplier How Global News Agencies and Western Media Report on Geopolitics

    [May 13, 2019] Not Just Ukraine; Biden May Have A Serious China Problem As Schweizer Exposes Hunter s $1bn Deal

    [May 13, 2019] Angry Bear Senate Democratic Jackasses and Elmer Fudd

    [May 13, 2019] US Foreign Policy as Bellicose as Ever by Serge Halimi

    [May 12, 2019] Is rabid warmonger, neocon chickenhawk Bolton a swinger? That s a mental picture that s deeply disturbing yet funny at the same time

    [May 12, 2019] Charting a Progressive Foreign Policy for the Trump Era and Beyond

    [May 11, 2019] Whitney Judgment Day Looms For John Brennan

    [May 11, 2019] Leaked USA s Feb 2018 Plan For A Coup In Venezuela

    [May 11, 2019] Intel and Law Enforcement Tried to Entrap Trump by Larry C Johnson

    [May 11, 2019] Doug Ross @ Journal A TIMELINE OF TREASON How the DNC and FBI Leadership Tried to Fix a Presidential Election [Updated]

    [May 11, 2019] Christopher Steele, FBI s Confidential Human Source by Publius Tacitus

    [May 11, 2019] Nunes Memo Details Weaponization of FISA Court for Political Advantage by Elizabeth Lea Vos

    [May 11, 2019] CIA Paid $100,000 To Shadowy Russian For Dirt on Trump, Including Sex Video by Chuck Ross

    [May 10, 2019] Biden is up to neck in Spygate dirt by Jeff Carlson

    [May 10, 2019] Obama administration raced to obtain FICA warrant on Carter Page before Rogers investigation closes on them and that was definitely an obstruction of justice and interference with the ongoing investigation

    [May 10, 2019] What was the meaning of the term "insurance policy" in Stzok messages to Lisa Page

    [May 10, 2019] The Battle Between Rosenstein and McCabe

    [May 09, 2019] Trump DID commit obstruction of justice... he refused to force HIS Dept of Justice to indict Hillary, Comey, Brennan and Clapper

    [May 09, 2019] Another face of austerity, or Trump and his mistreses

    [May 08, 2019] Obama Spied on Other Republicans and Democrats As Well by Larry C Johnson

    [May 07, 2019] Look! A whale!

    [May 07, 2019] Chris Hedges: The Demonization of Russia is Driven by Defense Contractors

    [May 06, 2019] Trump's top three donors

    [May 05, 2019] The Left Needs to Stop Crushing on the Generals by Danny Sjursen

    [May 05, 2019] Did Mueller substituted Russia for Israel in his report

    [May 03, 2019] Former high-ranking FBI officials on Andrew McCabe's alarming admissions

    [May 03, 2019] Andrew McCabe played the key role in the appointment of the special prosecutor

    [May 03, 2019] The Wheels Of Real Justice Are In Motion Now Kunstler Fears The Desperate Resistance Next Move...

    [May 02, 2019] Neoliberalism and the Globalization of War. America s Hegemonic Project by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

    [May 02, 2019] Checkmate - How President Trump s Legal Team Outfoxed Mueller by Will Chamberlain

    [Apr 29, 2019] The Mueller Report Indicts the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory by Aaron Maté

    [Apr 28, 2019] The British Role in Russiagate Is About to Be Fully Exposed

    [Apr 28, 2019] Tit For Tat: Why Did Mueller Let Trump Off the Hook by Mike Whitney

    [Apr 28, 2019] Biden has huge, exploitable weakness in relation Ukraine

    [Apr 28, 2019] Breath of fresh air--real journalism again! Have so much respect for Chris Hedges and Aaron Mate, great work!

    [Apr 28, 2019] On Contact Russiagate Mueller Report w- Aaron Mate

    [Apr 26, 2019] Mueller investigation was launched in order to investigate the obstruction of his investigation

    [Apr 26, 2019] Jared Kushner, Not Maria Butina, Is America's Real Foreign Agent by Philip Giraldi

    [Apr 26, 2019] Intelligence agencies meddling in elections

    [Apr 22, 2019] FBI top brass have been colluding with top brass of CIA and MI6 to pursue ambitious anti-Russian agenda

    [Apr 22, 2019] Current Neo-McCarthyism hysteria as a smoke screen of the UK and the USA intent to dominate European geopolitics and weaken Russia and Germany

    [Apr 21, 2019] George Papodopoulus was entrapped by individuals linked to British MI-6 and the CIA with offers to provide meetings with Russians and Putin. The Mueller account is a lie

    [Apr 21, 2019] Even if we got a candidate against the War Party the Party of Davos, would it matter? Trump betayal his voters, surrounded himself with neocons, continues to do Bibi's bidding, and ratcheting up tensions in Latin America, Middle East and with Russia. What's changed even with a candidate that the Swamp disliked and attempted to take down?

    [Apr 21, 2019] Muller report implicates Obama administration in total and utter incompetence, if not pandering to the foreign intervention into the USA elections. The latter is called criminal negligence in legal speak.

    [Apr 21, 2019] Psywar: Propaganda during Iraq war and beyond

    [Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA

    [Apr 21, 2019] Deciphering Trumps Foreign Policy by Oscar Silva-Valladares

    [Apr 21, 2019] Special Counsel Mueller -- Disingenuous and Dishonest by Larry C Johnson

    [Apr 21, 2019] Whenever someone inconveniences the neoliberal oligarchy, the entire neoliberal MSM mafia tells us 24 x7 how evil and disgusting that person is. It's true of the leader of every nation which rejects neoliberal globalization as well as for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

    [Apr 20, 2019] Sure, blame those guys over there for Hillary fiasco and hire Mueller to get the goods . That s the ultimate the dog ate my homework excuse.

    [Apr 20, 2019] Trump has certainly made the world safer

    [Apr 19, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard: People get into a lot of conversations about political strategies I might get in trouble for saying this, but what does it matter if we beat Donald Trump, if we end up with someone who will perpetuate the very same crony capitalist policies, corporate policies, and waging more of these costly wars?

    [Apr 17, 2019] Haspel is not the "underling". Trump is the underling. Sure, being that he is also an oligarch makes Trump's role in the show complicated, but Presidents are installed in order to serve the oligarchy, and the CIA are top level strategists/enforcers for the oligarchy.

    [Apr 17, 2019] The media's interest in the well-being of a foreign population is directly proportional to the West's interest in toppling its government, while editorial standards are inversely proportional to its enemy status

    [Apr 17, 2019] Six US Agencies Conspired ...

    [Apr 17, 2019] Deep State and the FBI Federal Blackmail Investigation

    [Apr 17, 2019] Did CIA Director William Casey really say, We ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false

    [Apr 16, 2019] The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and flourishing careers. Now they re angling for war with Iran.

    [Apr 16, 2019] CIA Director Used Fake Skripal Incident Photos To Manipulate Trump

    [Apr 15, 2019] Do you need to be stupid to support Trump in 2020, even if you voted for him as lesser evil in 2016

    [Apr 15, 2019] War is the force that gives America its meaning.

    [Apr 15, 2019] I wonder if the Middle East is nothing more than a live-fire laboratory for the military

    [Apr 13, 2019] America as a Myth of good life is a powerful tool of color revolutions

    [Apr 13, 2019] Justice under neoliberalism

    [Apr 13, 2019] Russophobia, A WMD (Weapon Of Mass Deception) by Jean Ranc

    [Apr 12, 2019] Putin was KGB agent crowd forgets that Bush Sr was long time senior CIA operative and the director of CIA

    [Mar 24, 2019] The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken, did not follow the typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian.

    [Aug 14, 2019] There is little chance that Western elites will behave any differently than a street corner drug dealer

    [Apr 10, 2019] Habakkuk on cockroaches and the New York Times

    [Apr 09, 2019] NYT: It Is, in Fact, All About the Benjamins by Philip Weiss

    [Dec 21, 2019] The ruthless neo-colonialists of 21st century

    [Apr 08, 2019] Aaron Maté Was Also Right About Russiagate

    [Apr 07, 2019] Nunes The Russian Collusion Hoax Meets An Unbelievbable End

    [Apr 06, 2019] The Magnitsky Act-Behind the Scenes ASEEES

    [Apr 04, 2019] How Brzezinski's Chessboard degenerated into Brennan's Russophobia by Mike Whitney

    [Apr 04, 2019] Was John Brennan The Russia Lie Ringleader

    [Apr 04, 2019] TEST IT YOURSELF, THE 2-SECOND-ROUNDING FACT PATTERN IN THE DNC EMAILS By William Binney and Larry Johnson

    [Apr 04, 2019] Nine Reasons Why You Should Support Joe Biden For President by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Apr 03, 2019] Jewish Power Rolls Over Washington by Philip Giraldi

    [Apr 02, 2019] Requiem to Russiagate by CJ Hopkins

    [Apr 02, 2019] 'Yats' Is No Longer the Guy by Robert Parry

    [Apr 01, 2019] Amazon.com War with Russia From Putin Ukraine to Trump Russiagate (9781510745810) Stephen F. Cohen Books

    [Mar 31, 2019] Because of the immediate arrival of the Russia collusion theory, neither MSM honchos nor any US politician ever had to look into the camera and say, I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump

    [Mar 31, 2019] A Reprise of the Iraq-WMD Fiasco by James W Carden

    [Mar 31, 2019] What is the purpose of Russiagate hysteria?

    [Mar 30, 2019] The US desperately needs Venezuelan oil

    [Mar 30, 2019] The Real Costs of Russiagate

    [Mar 30, 2019] You don't like Trump? Bolton? Clinton? All of these people who are in or have passed through leadership positions in America are entirely valid representatives of Americans in general. You may imagine they are faking cluelessness to avoid acknowledging responsibility for their crimes, but the cluelessness is quite real and extends to the entire population.

    [Mar 30, 2019] My suggestion is that Cambridge Analytica and others backing Trump and the Yankee imperial machine have been taking measurements of USA citizens opinions and are staggered by the results. They are panicked!

    [Mar 26, 2019] Chris Christie rips Kushner's dad- 'One of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes that I prosecuted'

    [Mar 25, 2019] Russiagate was never about substance, it was about who gets to image-manage the decline of a turbo-charged, self-harming neoliberal capitalism by Jonathan Cook

    [Mar 25, 2019] Meet The Kushners First Couple In-Waiting by Ilana Mercer

    [Mar 25, 2019] Spygate The True Story of Collusion (plus Infographic) by Jeff Carlson

    [Mar 25, 2019] Nuland role in Russiagate

    [Mar 25, 2019] Another SIGINT compromise ...

    [Mar 24, 2019] The accountability that must follow Mueller's report

    [Mar 24, 2019] "Russia Gate" investigation was a color revolution agaist Trump. But a strnge side effect was that Clintons have managed to raise a vicious, loud mouthed thug to the status of some kind of martyr.

    [Mar 24, 2019] With RussiaGate Over Where's Hillary

    [Mar 24, 2019] One could wish that DOJ IG Horowitz could investigate and sanction British Intelligence for its use of official and non-official officials in starting this debacle.

    [Mar 24, 2019] One thing left out is the ability of readers to call BS on a story i.e. a robust comment section for debates.

    [Mar 23, 2019] Brennan pipe dream obliterated. The color revolution against Trump failed

    [Mar 23, 2019] Mueller stopped following the money the moment he realized it was all leading back to Israel.

    [Mar 22, 2019] Glenn Greenwald on Twitter The Mueller investigation is complete and this is a simple fact that will never go away

    [Mar 20, 2019] In a remarkable report by British Channel 4, former CIA officials and a Reuters correspondent spoke candidly about the systematic dissemination of propaganda and misinformation in reporting on geopolitical conflicts

    [Mar 18, 2019] Journalists who are spies

    [Mar 18, 2019] FULL CNN TOWN HALL WITH TULSI GABBARD 3-10-19

    [Mar 18, 2019] Doublethink and Newspeak Do We Have a Choice by Greg Guma

    [Mar 18, 2019] The Why are the media playing lapdog and not watchdog – again – on war in Iraq?

    [Mar 17, 2019] Mueller uses the same old false flag scams, just different packaging of his forensics-free findings

    [Mar 17, 2019] VIPS- Mueller's Forensics-Free Findings

    [Mar 15, 2019] Will Democrats Go Full Hawk by Jack Hunter

    [Mar 14, 2019] Manafort's Ukrainians were actually pro-West? - Habakkuk

    [Mar 11, 2019] The university professors, who teach but do not learn: neoliberal shill DeJong tries to prolong the life of neoliberalism in the USA

    [Mar 11, 2019] Bruce Ohr, Liar or Moron by Larry C Johnson

    [Mar 07, 2019] Are you ready? Here is all the data Facebook and Google have on you by Dylan Curran

    [Mar 06, 2019] Disinformation destroys reality

    [Mar 05, 2019] The Shadow Governments Destruction Of Democracy

    [Feb 27, 2019] Their votes mean absolutely nothing, and that the entire American electoral system is just a simulation of democracy

    [Feb 26, 2019] Neoliberalism by Julie Wilson

    [Feb 22, 2019] Neo-McCarthyism is used to defend the US imperial policies. Branding dissidents as Russian stooges is a loophole that allow to suppress dissident opinions

    [Feb 21, 2019] The Empire Now or Never by Fred Reed

    [Feb 19, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard kills New World Order bloodbath in thirty seconds

    [Feb 19, 2019] Warmongers in their ivory towers - YouTube

    [Feb 19, 2019] Charles Schumer and questioning the foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class

    [Feb 18, 2019] Do You Believe in the Deep State Now by Robert W. Merry

    [Feb 17, 2019] Was Trump was a deep state man from day one, just like Obama, Bush, Clinton and all the rest?

    [Feb 17, 2019] Trump is Russian asset memo is really neocon propaganda overkill

    [Feb 17, 2019] The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives

    [Feb 16, 2019] MSM Begs For Trust After Buzzfeed Debacle by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Feb 16, 2019] Death Of Russiagate: Mueller Team Tied To Mifsud s Network

    [Feb 13, 2019] MoA - Russiagate Is Finished

    [Feb 13, 2019] Making Globalism Great Again by C.J. Hopkins

    [Feb 13, 2019] Stephen Cohen on War with Russia and Soviet-style Censorship in the US by Russell Mokhiber

    [Feb 10, 2019] Pussy John Bolton and His Codpiece Mustache by Fred Reed

    [Feb 10, 2019] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Exposes the Problem of Dark Money in Politics NowThis - YouTube

    [Feb 09, 2019] Did The Department Of Justice Protect Brenda Snipes From Prosecution For Ballot Destruction by Elizabeth Lea Vos

    [Feb 08, 2019] To understand Steele and the five eyes involvement in the Russia hoax you need to go to the library

    [Feb 04, 2019] Trump s Revised and Rereleased Foreign Policy: The World Policeman is Back

    [Jul 29, 2019] Michael Hudson Trump s Brilliant Strategy to Dismember US Dollar Hegemony by Michael Hudson

    [Feb 02, 2019] According to the recipes devised by Reagan: why the methods which successfully destroyed the USSR do not work with modern Russia? by Alexey Makurin

    [Jan 29, 2019] After hiring Abrams the next logical step would be hiring Hillary or Wolfowitz. WTF Is Trump Thinking

    [Jan 29, 2019] These 2020 hopefuls are courting Wall Street. Don t be fooled by their progressive veneer by Bhaskar Sunkara

    [Jan 29, 2019] The Language of Neoliberal Education by Henry Giroux

    [Jan 29, 2019] Guardian became Deep State Guardian

    [Jan 29, 2019] The Religious Fanaticism of Silicon Valley Elites by Paul Ingrassia

    [Jan 26, 2019] Can the current US neoliberal/neoconservative elite be considered suicidal?

    [Jan 24, 2019] No One Said Rich People Were Very Sharp Davos Tries to Combat Populism by Dean Baker

    [Jan 22, 2019] War with Russia From Putin Ukraine to Trump Russiagate

    [Jan 22, 2019] The French Anti-Neoliberal Revolution. On the conditions for its success by Dimitris Konstantakopoulos

    [Jan 21, 2019] Beyond BuzzFeed The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing US Media Failures On The Trump-Russia Story by Glenn Greenwald

    [Jan 20, 2019] Doctor, nurse, Chief Nursing Officer of the Army, whatever.

    [Jan 19, 2019] According to Wolin, domestic and foreign affairs goals are each important and on parallel tracks

    [Jan 15, 2019] Apparently, the FBI, and not the CIA, are the real government.

    [Jan 14, 2019] Nanci Pelosi and company at the helm of the the ship the Imperial USA

    [Jan 13, 2019] As FBI Ramped Up Witch Hunt When Trump Fired Comey, Strzok Admitted Collusion Investigation A Joke

    [Jan 13, 2019] Tucker Carlson Routs Conservatism Inc. On Unrestrained Capitalism -- And Immigration by Washington Watcher

    [Jan 13, 2019] There is no free market! It's all crooked by financial oligarchy!

    [Jan 12, 2019] Tucker Carlson Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it's infuriating Fox News

    [Jan 12, 2019] Tucker Carlson has sparked the most interesting debate in conservative politics by Jane Coaston

    [Jan 11, 2019] New Documents Reveal a Covert British Military-Intelligence Smear Machine Meddling In American Politics by Mark Ames

    [Jan 11, 2019] Facts does not matter in the current propoganda environment, the narrative is everything

    [Jan 11, 2019] Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming

    [Jan 08, 2019] Shock Files- What Role Did Integrity Initiative Play in Sergei Skripal Affair- - Sputnik International

    [Jan 08, 2019] Skripal spin doctors- Documents link UK govt-funded Integrity Initiative to anti-Russia narrative

    [Jan 08, 2019] Rewriting Economic Thought - Michael Hudson

    [Jan 08, 2019] The Financial Sector Is the Greatest Parasite in Human History by Ben Strubel

    [Jan 08, 2019] No, wealth isn t created at the top. It is merely devoured there by Rutger Bregman

    [Jan 07, 2019] The 1920's were marked by a credit expansion, a significant growth in consumer debt, the creation of asset bubbles, and the proliferation of financial instruments and leveraged investments. Now we have exactly the same trends

    [Jan 06, 2019] British elite fantasy of again ruling the world (with American and Zionist aid) has led to a series of catastrophic blunders and overreaches in both foreign and domestic policies.

    [Jan 04, 2019] Veteran NBC-MSNBC Journalist Blasts Network in Resignation

    [Jan 02, 2019] Russian bots - How An Anti-Russian Lobby Creates Fake News

    [Jan 02, 2019] The Only Meddling "Russian Bots" Were Actually Democrat-Led "Experts" by Mac Slavo

    [Jan 02, 2019] Did Mueller Patched Together Much of His Indictment from 2015 Radio Free Europe Article ?

    [Jan 02, 2019] That madness of the US neocons comes from having no behavioural limits, no references outside of groupthink, and manipulating the language. Simply put, you don't know anymore what's what outside of the narrative your group pushes. The manipulators ends up caught in their lies.

    [Jan 02, 2019] That madness of the US neocons comes from having no behavioural limits, no references outside of groupthink, and manipulating the language. Simply put, you don't know anymore what's what outside of the narrative your group pushes. The manipulators ends up caught in their lies.

    [Feb 29, 2020] Maternity Leave Where s the #MomsToo Movement by James Jeffrey

    [Feb 29, 2020] Secret Wars, Forgotten Betrayals, Global Tyranny. Who s Really In Charge Of The US Military by Cynthia Chung

    [Feb 29, 2020] A very interesting and though provoking presentation by Ambassador Chas Freeman "America in Distress: The Challenges of Disadvantageous Change"

    [Feb 28, 2020] Media s Deafening Silence On Latest WikiLeaks Drops Is Its Own Scandal by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Feb 28, 2020] Chas Freeman America in Distress The Challenges of Disadvantageous Change

    [Feb 28, 2020] Russia s Relationship With China Is Growing Despite Setbacks by Lyle J. Goldstein ,

    [Feb 28, 2020] The impact of coronavirus on Trump reelection chances

    [Feb 27, 2020] An interesting view on Russian "intelligencia" by the scientist and writer Zinoviev expressed during "perestroika" in 1991

    [Feb 26, 2020] Elections as a form of class war

    [Feb 26, 2020] A serious US politician has to demonstrate a large capacity for betrayal.

    [Feb 25, 2020] Coronavirus Hysteria reaches tipping point by Catte Black

    [Feb 24, 2020] Seven signs of the neoliberal apocalypse by Van Badham

    [Feb 23, 2020] Neoliberalism: the deep story that lies beneath Donald Trump triumph by George Monbiot

    [Feb 23, 2020] Previously oppressed group, given a lucky chance, most often strive for dominance and oppression of other groups including and especially former dominant group. This is an eternal damnation of ethno/cultural nationalism

    [Feb 23, 2020] Looks like the USA intelligence (or, more correctly semi-intelligence) agencies work directly from KGB playbook or Bloomberg as Putin's Trojan Horse in 2020 elections

    [Feb 23, 2020] Welcome to the American Regime

    [Feb 23, 2020] Where Have You Gone, Smedley Butler The Last General To Criticize US Imperialism by Danny Sjursen

    [Feb 22, 2020] The Red Thread A Search for Ideological Drivers Inside the Anti-Trump Conspiracy by Diana West

    [Feb 21, 2020] Why Both Republicans And Democrats Want Russia To Become The Enemy Of Choice by Philip Giraldi

    [Feb 19, 2020] During the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" was staged in the USA by "managerial elite" which like Soviet nomenklatura (which also staged a neoliberal coup d' tat) changed sides and betrayed the working class

    [Feb 19, 2020] On Michael Lind's "The New Class War" by Gregor Baszak

    [Feb 15, 2020] How does one say Adam Schiff without laughing? by title="View user profile." href="https://caucus99percent.com/users/alligator-ed">Alligator Ed

    [Feb 15, 2020] One face of the US voters desprations with establishment candidates

    [Feb 14, 2020] Is Apartheid the Inevitable Outcome of Zionism? by Henry Siegman

    [Feb 09, 2020] Trump demand for 50% of Iraq oil revenue sound exactly like a criminal mob boss

    [Feb 08, 2020] Is Iraq About To Switch From US to Russia

    [Feb 07, 2020] How They Sold the Iraq War by Jeffrey St. Clair

    [Feb 04, 2020] The FBI is the secret police force of the authoritarian (aching to be totalitarian) govt hidden behind "Truth, Justice the American Way"

    [Feb 02, 2020] The most interesting issue is the role of NSC in this impeachment story

    [Jan 31, 2020] Hovering in Cyberspace by Edward Curtin

    [Jan 31, 2020] What's going on right now with Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton is the beginning of sticking the knife back into Bernie's back by Bill Martin What follows originates in some notes I made in response to one such woman who supports Bernie. There are two main points.

    [Jan 29, 2020] For the last three years, all the "resistance oxygen" was sucked up by the warmongering against Russia

    [Jan 27, 2020] The end of Trump? Trump betrayed all major promises of his 2016 election campaign. Trump needs to go...

    [Jan 24, 2020] Peter Hitchen to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat: You're not in the ladies' lingerie trade now, sweetie

    [Jan 24, 2020] Crimes of the century truth, perception and punishment

    [Jan 24, 2020] Lawrence Wilkerson Lambasts 'the Beast of the National Security State' by Adam Dick

    [Jan 23, 2020] An incredible level of naivety of people who still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?

    [Jan 21, 2020] WaPo columnist endorses all twelve candidates

    [Jan 20, 2020] Fake Investigations... Designed To Fool by Bryce Buchanan

    [Jan 19, 2020] Not Just Hunter Widespread Biden Family Profiteering Exposed

    [Jan 18, 2020] The inability of the USA elite to tell the truth about the genuine aim of policy despite is connected with the fact that the real goal is to attain Full Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people such that neoliberal bankers can rule the world

    [Jan 18, 2020] The US China Phase 1 Deal Interpeted: Break Thing, Claim to Fix Thing, Repeat

    [Jan 18, 2020] The joke is on us: Without the USSR the USA oligarchy resorted to cannibalism and devour the American people

    [Jan 18, 2020] Putin plants to prohibit dual citizens to serve in government

    [Jan 12, 2020] MIC along with Wall Street controls the government and the country

    [Jan 12, 2020] US has been preaching human rights while mounting wars and lying.

    [Jan 11, 2020] What About "Whataboutism." by Vladimir Golstein

    [Jan 10, 2020] The Saker interviews Michael Hudson

    [Jan 09, 2020] It looks like UK and the USA intelligences agencies run the contest to see who can come up with the most surreal anti-Russian propaganda psy-ops

    [Jan 08, 2020] Iraqi Journalist: Killing Soleimani "Ended An Era In Which Iran And The United States Coexisted In Iraq" by Tim Hains

    [Jan 06, 2020] How To Avoid Swallowing War Propaganda by Nathan J. Robinson

    [Jan 06, 2020] Neocon Pompeo pushed Trump to kill Soleimani; Looks like West Point educated military contactor mafia to which Pompeo and Esper belongs controls the President, although Trump malleability and recklessness are inexcusable

    [Jan 06, 2020] The Soleimani Assassination by Philip Giraldi

    [Jan 06, 2020] The threat of General Soleimani - TTG

    [Jan 06, 2020] Diplomacy Trump-style. Al Capone probably would be allow himself to fall that low

    [Jan 05, 2020] The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure, with BOTH Iraq and Iran (UPDATED 6X) The Vineyard of the Saker

    [Jan 05, 2020] Trump is wholly responsible for his own actions, but he -- just like the Ayatollah -- is being pushed in a direction where it's impossible to back down and still "save face". Neither men can afford to do so by Andrew Korybko

    [Jan 04, 2020] American Meddling in the Ukraine by Publius Tacitus

    [Jan 04, 2020] Critical thinking is anathema to the neoliberal establishment. That s why they need to corrupt the language, to make the resistance more difficult and requiring higher level of IQ

    [Jan 04, 2020] Will Trump welcome the ejection of the US from Iraq - He should by Colonel Lang

    [Dec 28, 2019] Identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") to counter the defection of trade union members from the party

    [Dec 28, 2019] Senior OPCW Official Busted Leaked Email Exposes Orders To Delete All Traces Of Dissent On Douma

    [Dec 22, 2019] So US intelligence tipped off the DNC that their emails were about to be leaked to Wikileaks. That's when the stratagem of attributing the impending Wikileaks release to a Russian hack was born -- distracting from the incriminating content of the emails, while vilifying the Deep State's favorite enemies, Assange and Russia, all in one neat scam

    Sites



    Etc

    Society

    Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

    Quotes

    War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

    Bulletin:

    Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

    History:

    Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

    Classic books:

    The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

    Most popular humor pages:

    Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

    The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


    Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

    FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

    This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

    You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

    Disclaimer:

    The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

    Last modified: May, 14, 2020